So when I left the photo world 6 yrs ago... (Nikon, Canon)

[testingname]

Question:

What happened in the last 6 years with Nikon vs. Canon for the hearts and minds of pro's? From reading here I get the impression Canon has made huge inroads to sports, travel, news, and wildlife etc., professional markets in that time. When I left the world of high-end photo equipment and talk, Nikon still led (from the feeling I got talking to pros) and by a large margin. Is Canon now the majority? Why?

 

Background:

So when I left the photo world 6 yrs ago... I was using an N90, 80-200 AFD 2.8, a 35-80 4.5-5.6 Nikkor and a SB 25 as an amature. I had lots of fun with that setup, and got loads of super images. I worked at a camera store from 1994 to 1996 and got the great store employee discount on the gear from Nikon North America.

 

Now, I'm going to get back into some nice gear, so I've been reading anything and everything on Photo.net for 10 days, and need a new setup (the above gear got STOLEN in 1997 or so) so I'm looking at this N90s and maybe the 28mm too:

 

http://www.photo.net/gc/view-one?classified_ad_id=516816

 

Anyway, Sorry this is book of a post. Your thoughts appreciated on catching me up in the pro 35mm world of equipment. I'm not trying to start a N vs C war. Just wanting to catch up. And if you have any thoughts on the above N90s, those would be appreciated too.

 

Matt

[david_kelly1]

Since you stepped out six years ago, the world of press photography

(newspapers, wire services, and free lancers covering breaking news of

any sort) has converted almost entirely to digital cameras, digital

editing often in the field using powerbooks running photoshop, and

digital feeds via satellite phones. There is a death struggle going

on for this relatively small but prestigeous market. At the moment

Nikon leads among institutional shooters who aren't paying for their

own equipment with the D1H while Canon's D30 and D60 got the early

jump among self-funded freelancers.

 

I recently switched from being a magazine editor to editing books but

still have many friends in the editorial and advertising photographic

community here in the Pacific Northwest and many of these folks are

still shooting film. As you may remember Canon's faster AF had made

them number one by quite a margin among sports shooters before the F5

and 300 AFS Nikkor appeared to even the playing field. Now that

market is about evenly divided. Among all other editorial film

shooters the F100(AKA"F5 Lite") rules, outselling the Canon Eos3, I am

told, by about ten to one. It's the dominant film camera among people

who have to pay for their own gear and one of Nikon's most successful

pro cameras ever. This is why when you go shopping you'll find lots

and lots of N90s's for about$400 a pop

[lex_jenkins]

As a former photojournalist myself (Nikon was the undisputed pro choice back then) and user of Canon FD and Nikon manual focus gear, my impression is that pros who choose between Canon or Nikon do so on the basis of lenses, preference for feel or ease of use and service/suport. Each has certain advantages.

 

With the earlier Nikon pro AF bodies there were two lenses that helped make Nikon the clear choice for some pros: the 35-70/2.8 and the 80-200/2.8.

 

Canon didn't offer anything comparable then, altho' the 28-70/2.8 L zoom, very expensive, came out a little later. Still no L glass equivalent to the 80-200/2.8 at that time tho'. But Canon had those fast L tele primes. And some folks preferred the size and AF speed of the EOS 1 over the F4.

 

I know that decades ago Nikon had the edge in sevice and support at major newsworthy events, such as automobile racing, rocket launches, stuff like that. There'd be a tech truck around. Not always so for Canon.

 

Now both seem to be represented about equally at such events.

 

The gap stays pretty close these days, especially with the digital SLRs about which I remain cheerfully and willfully ignorant.

[john_holcomb]

<<Among all other editorial film shooters the F100(AKA"F5 Lite") rules, outselling the Canon Eos3, I am told, by about ten to one.>>

 

 

Why? Reviews of these cameras seem to conclude that they are very comparable, do they not?

[will_perlis]

<<Among all other editorial film shooters the F100(AKA"F5 Lite") rules, outselling the Canon Eos3, I am told, by about ten to one.>>

 

<<<<Why? Reviews of these cameras seem to conclude that they are very comparable, do they not?>>>>

 

They seemed to be to me when I went shopping for a whole new system. I finally made the choice based on having my left eye dominant and the introduction of the IS lenses. My nose kept hitting the Nikon's touch pad and my experience with a pair of 15x binoculars sold me on IS.

 

If it's true, I would say it's because of the very early EOS-3 under-exposure issue that Canon fumbled. That probably scared off lots of buyers given the play it got on the net. People still ask questions about it five years later.

 

And:

 

The Canon 1v was introduced. The EOS-3 is a great camera but the 1v appeals more to those of us who get off on the feel of superb tech in a way the -3 can't. I can't justify my 1v in any way that makes numerical or economic sense. I can based on the way it feels in my hands and mind. Further, for those looking for or actually needing "rugged", the 1v will appeal more too.

[neil_lupin]

If you were a Nikon fan 6 years ago, you'll be so now for all the sme reasons. I guess the main argument is digital versus film and that's a totally personal choice based on what you actually want to do with your images. I would personally chose the F100 body and a range of zoom lenses from 17mm to 400mm (which I currently have with the superb F80). Its still an expensive game, but that's life!! Have fun chosing your new gear...

[carl smith]

I'd say that yes there was a time where Nikon was no doubt king. People still hold on to that now possibly out of fear, tradition, or love for the system they use. Nikon still makes fine equipment, but they've lost their edge and Canon has honed their own. Once the Canon EOS 1 came out it definately started to turn and its been growing steadily ever since.

 

The EOS 3 did take a hit from the early screw up with metering, but that was fixed quickly however we still see questions about it every now and then because people just won't pay attention.

 

The F100 and EOS 3 are very much equals in many ways, however I prefer having the faster motor drive as it feels more responsive, with the EOS 3. The F100 has the best overall focusing performance I've seen yet from a Nikon. Yes of course it has the same sensor as the F5, but in my experience it tests faster. Basically the same as the EOS 3 in most situations, and maybe a little more sure footed in others. They flipflop.

 

Canon has blown Nikon away in some aspects with lenses, with IS and USM all over, and the DO technology forming on the horizon (two new lenses maybe? who knows) they are certainly pushing the envelope. Nikon however still has the large battery of manual lenses at your disposal if you use the higher end cameras. On the other hand Canon has more AF lenses. Woopdeedoo. We can push specs and stats back and forth.

 

To me what matters is what my experience tells me, and that is indeed that Canon currently has the edge overall. Even with that, I use both systems. In some ways I liken this to the age old Mac/PC arguement. Both are fine, but Macs simply aren't any faster anymore for photoshop work. Tradition and a large group of already experienced mac users keep them in the limelight. Tradition and a whole lot of manual lenses ready for the picking keep Nikon going strongly in a similar manner.

 

I get a fun view of all this at a school for photography. Many gnashing teeth and evil stares prove that this is still a hot topic for many, even the current generation. I don't much care though, as I use what I like and that happens to include both Canon and Nikon.

[david_kelly1]

I should have added above that Nikon is about to lose the

institutional market to Canon, and probanly for some time. For why see

here:http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0302/cameracorner.html.........

[umd]

<i>(Nikon)...but they've lost their edge and Canon has honed their own.</i><br><br>

This is an illusion Canonistas like talking about, and put evidence with white lenses around sporting events. Big glass has always been Canon's niche even in FD days, but their domination in early AF days is not there anymore; and it is not a big market as you think. I see equal number of black lenses on events probably due to the D1H factor.<br><br>

 

Other professional segments (weddings, pj) favor Nikon because of the superior and simpler flash metering, more rugged bodies in middle class cameras (yes, the F100) and ameteur market is at least equal but I predict Nikon domination which is verified by Pop Photo's Picture of the Year Contest every year (Nikon is almost always more than other brands combined)<br><br>

 

<i>Canon has blown Nikon away in some aspects with lenses, with IS and USM all over..</i><br><br>

 

IS is a significant advantage for handheld shooting and Nikon has it where it will be useful (long focal length but hand holdable glasss, like 80-400 and coming 70-200) not on a 600/4 which is an advantage for the one who can hand hold it or uses one on a monopod.<br><br>

 

USM was an advantage in primitive days of AF because of the full time manual focus, not any more; it is just some kinda fancy motor for most and a slight advantage for the PJ guy; and Nikon again has it in the right place, expensive PJ lenses.<br><br>

 

Time will show what DO will bring, they can be the big glass breakthrough or the 'mirror lenses' of the age. Only example so far is an overpriced beast with unfavorable user reports as far as I've seen on this site.<br><br>

 

EOS-3 is a nice camera but 45 point af was a wrong decision in terms of ergonomics, may be it is not for marketing (wow 45 points, Nikon has only 5) just like the frames per secon thing. All the pros I know using this camera decrease the # of focusing points with custom functions and they are still not pleased. Also build quality is not up to F100. It is logical that F100 outsells this camera and Canon's continually lowering of EOS-3 prices is an evidence for this imo.

[carl smith]

Unfortunately Umit, you could be characterized as being the Nikonista verion of the Canon freak you are describing me as. On the contrary however, I enjoy using and do use both systems quite frequently, but because of the costs, I don't keep my own full system for both. One of the many advantages of a large university like RIT is the wealth of equipment that you can take out and play with at will. From that resource I use Nikon alongside my Canon gear quite a bit, maybe 60%/40% favoring Canon because it's what I own, not because it's better.

 

And after using both the F100 and EOS 3 for several years, and beating the hell out of each of them, I'd say that they're equally durable. To me the biggest advantage of the 45point system is the spot metering linking ability among 11 of them. 11 spot metering points comes quite in handy at times, it just takes time getting used to the 45 point system and how it handles. Since we're going to talk about "pros we know" all the pros I know who shoot canon and all the pros I know who shoot nikon are perfectly happy with what they use. In fact, of all the pros I know, more shoot Canon.

 

Why do I feel that whenever someone needs to try to make a point, they talk about "pros I know," what ever happened to having your own opinion and experience with each system?

[lex_jenkins]

BTW, Umit, the correct terms are Canonite and Nikonista. I coined them years ago on Compuserve and hold the copyright, tho' any and all are welcome to use these terms freely and without attribution. ;>

 

I'm a former Canonite (FD system) and relatively new Nikonista (manual focus line). No particular squabble between 'em for me. Only reason I switched was because I needed a shift lens. The Canon T/S lens was too expensive, I didn't need the tilt feature, and I ran across an unbeatable deal for a 28/3.5 PC-Nikkor on eboo. My Canon bodies were ailing anyway so the time seemed right to switch. I miss the AE modes and quick load features of my Canons. Otherwise, I thoroughly enjoy my F3HP and FM2N.

 

Before switching, tho', I thoroughly investigated the AF options for each. The EOS-1 seemed less than intuitive to operate, tho' the ergonomics and size were terrific. The F5 seemed more intuitive to operate, I liked the idea of having a manual rewind knob even if it's superfluous, but it's so damned expensive. The size and weight weren't really an issue - my F3HP and FM2N almost always wear motor drives anyway.

 

I couldn't find much to distinguish the EOS-3 and N90s either. Both had great features but the early problems that plagued the EOS-3 concerned me a bit. Same with the otherwise outstanding F100. I was *this* close, tho', to getting the F100. But since my primary use for the system would be with the PC-Nikkor for architecture, the F3 just made more sense because of the mirror lockup, gridscreen and 100% finder. Everything is a compromise.

 

Lenses. I dunno. If I was still a photojournalist I'd be sorely tempted to force myself to like the EOS-1 just to have access to the IS lenses. But if I could still hold steadily enough not to need IS - which I could before a serious back and neck injury - I probably wouldn't have needed anything more than the 35-70/2.8 and 80-200/2.8 Nikkors, and maybe a 20mm as well. For too long Canon didn't offer a fast zoom like the 80-200/2.8 Nikkor and that kinda baffled me.

 

Again, everything's a compromise.

 

I don't think it's an either/or debate. I recall reading a Shutterbug article about the team photographer for the SF Giants who used both. She preferred the Canon EOS for the games and her 8008 for the then-superior flash. But that was then.

 

The neck-in-neck race is a good thing. Keeps both companies on their toes and from neglecting the needs of photographers.

[umd]

<i>Unfortunately Umit, you could be characterized as being the Nikonista verion of the Canon freak you are describing me as.</i><br><br>

 

I didn't call you or anyone a 'freak' Carl. If Canonista means something like that where you live I am unaware of that.<br><br>

 

<i>Why do I feel that whenever someone needs to try to make a point, they talk about "pros I know," what ever happened to having your own opinion and experience with each system?</i><br><br>

 

1) Because I am not fortunate enough (there is better subtitude words for 'fortunate' but lets take it easy) to have multiple systems. Actually I do but in larger format.<br><br>

 

2) And I am not a camerashop salesboy either.<br><br>

 

3) In 20+ years of my photographing as hobby, I have met many pros, whose thoughts I value, unlike, err, camerashop boys.

[umd]

<i>To me the biggest advantage of the 45point system is the spot metering linking ability among 11 of them. 11 spot metering points comes quite in handy at times</i><br><br>

 

Carl Smith, above, this very thread<br><br>

 

<i>Most of the time I would rather have a metering system I know and understand than a spot metering system i've never used before. You can extrapolate the needed exposure from a matrix metering system and choose how you want the camera to expose by adjusting manually. Spot is useful in many situations but not the be all end all some people would make it out to be.</i><br><br>

 

Carl Smith, from a recent Elan vs N80 thread; note the obvious thing, N80 has spotmetering and the Elan doesn't.<br><br>

 

So Carl, is spot metering 'biggest advantage' or what? I am confused.

[tim_power]

I recently (a few weeks ago) bought on-line an F3 with a waist-finder, a 35mm 3.5 PC and a 28mm 4.0 PC lens. I shot a few days ago and I get my first rolls back tomorrow.

I basically will be using this setup for architecture.

I do have to say that the metering system of the F3 is not as handy as the pentax...maybe it is these lenses? Are these lenses AI'd?

The extra aperture ring on these PC lenses makes them hard to use, or is it something that will take a few weeks to get used too?

Do you have an E screen for your F3 or another non nikon screen?

 

Tim

[tim_power]

Lex,

I, like you, recently left another system for Nikon. In my case, I abandoned Pentax.

 

I recently (a few weeks ago) bought on-line an F3 with a waist-finder, a 35mm

3.5 PC and a 28mm 4.0 PC lens. I shot a few days ago and I get my first rolls

back tomorrow.

I basically will be using this setup for architecture.

I do have to say that the metering system of the F3 is not as handy as the

pentax...maybe it is these lenses? Are these lenses AI'd?

The extra aperture ring on these PC lenses makes them hard to use, or is it

something that will take a few weeks to get used too?

Do you have an E screen for your F3 or another non nikon screen?

 

Tim

Tim

[leif_goodwin8]

(This is a bit off thread.)

 

Until a few years ago Canon thrashed Nikon when it came to low end bodies. Nikon's offerings (F50, F70) were well built, and capable, but had the user interfaces from hell. Now with cameras like the F80 and F65, they can compete.

 

I think I would be happy with either system, though I do like the wealth of excellent cheap used Nikon lenses available such as the 200mm F4 AIS micro lens.

[carl smith]

Canonite= Canon freak, Nikonista= nikon freak. they're not derogatory, just different ways of saying it.

 

Umit, the big difference between that thread and this one is that we're talking completely different levels of photography. 99% of the people I know who own only an N80 or Elan 7e are afraid of spot metering and MLU thinking that they are complicated. Two different worlds. :)

[chuck]

"Umit, the big difference between that thread and this one is that we're talking completely different levels of photography. 99% of the people I know who own only an N80 or Elan 7e are afraid of spot metering and MLU thinking that they are complicated. Two different worlds. :)"<p>

 

Don't quit your dayjob as a sophmore. You won't make it as a lawyer.

[carl smith]

Ok Chuck, I'll keep that in mind. Whatever that has to do with this.

[lex_jenkins]

Ouch! I'm starting to appreciate Chuck's biting wit more as I read his posts, even when I'm the target.

 

Tim, with the PC-Nikkors there's no AI, AIs, rabbit ear linkage or anything else to be concerned with. They're preset lenses, which is a type of lens lacking an automatic diaphragm and designed for stop-down metering. One ring actually opens and closes the diaphragm. The other is used to provide a preset stop at the desired minimum aperture of choice. For example, if you prefer to use f/8 for a series of photos you set the preset ring to f/8. Then you can turn the aperture control ring to maximum aperture for composing and focusing and spin the ring back to the desired f/stop without having to look at the lens again. Hence the term preset.

 

Not all lenses lacking an auto-diaphragm are technically preset lenses because some older lenses lack the preset ring and have only the single diaphragm control ring. But presets are far more common. I have two preset telephotos in T-mounts.

 

I'm not familiar with all of the PC-Nikkors but mine, the current version 28/3.5, works with either my F3HP or FM2N. The rear of the lens is milled to clear the non-toggling aperture control tab on the FM2N so there's no risk of damage. And there's no need to flip up the toggling tab on the F3. Nor is there any need to depress the stop-down buttons or levers. Simply turning the aperture ring is enough for correct metering with these cameras (including with the F3's AE mode).

 

If your PC-Nikkors are like mine the preset rings have spring-loaded detents and the entire ring must be pulled back toward you to free it for rotating to the next f/stop. Few other presets were designed this way - most use either simple spring detents for each f/stop or design the preset ring with more resistance to rotation than the aperture control ring. If it seems a hassle just set the preset ring to the minimum aperture and leave it that way. The preset detents are just for convenience but have no effect on metering or function.

 

These are outstanding lenses for the money, especially on the current used market.

 

Get the E gridded focus screen - you'll love it for all kinds of photography, whether architecture, macro or with a telephoto, and especially in dim light. Much brighter overall, no split-image or microprism focus "aids" to black out when the lens is stopped down, and the gridlines are essential for alignment, especially with the 28mm. You'll really be impressed with the build quality of the F3 focus screens - solid, heavy, thick glass. After handling Olympus OM screens that cost as much for thin, fragile plastic, the F3 screens are like little works of art in themselves.

 

As for the F3 meter, well...it takes getting used to. The heavily centerweighted averaging meter is unlike anything I'd used before and I got some screwy exposures with Provia before I figured out how to use the meter most effectively. What helped was to set up a white paper plate against a sheet of black poster board and watch the effect on metering as I moved around the paper. It helped me identify where the meter was most sensitive. On my F3HP the center pattern is actually a vertical oval, about the width of the center focus aid on the standard focus screen, and a little larger vertically.

 

And the AE mode is, well, adequate. I really miss the AE modes on my Canon T70's and the quick load feature on all my Canons. The F3 AE mode is a bit aggravating because shutter speeds are read out only in full increments even tho' the shutter speed may actually fire in an increment of a full stop. So you just have to trust the damned thing. And exposure compensation settings are most useful with the camera in AE mode. But AE mode can't be used accurately with mirror lockup. So using exposure compensation and autoexposure are less convenient than with other cameras I've owned.

 

And I wish the exposure lock button wasn't a momentary switch - a press on/press off button would be far better. The lock button is very difficult to reach with the MD-4 mounted.

[cd thacker]

Matt,<P>

 

As David Kelly points out, if it's PJ-newspaper or PJ-wire service work you're interested in, digital appears to be it, these days. I'm presently finding this out myself, as I break (or try to) into the field. And Nikon is definitely the preference (maybe that varies by region?). <P>

 

This whole move to digital in the PJ world seems to have begun some time ago, but really taken off, wholesale, only in the last, say, eighteen months. My guess is that, in a lot of smaller markets, film still rules - but not for long. When some editor hands me a D1X (or D-whatever), I'll start using it - mit pleasure. (Meanwhile, though, I have learned the rudiments of Photoshop.) Until then, I'll stick to film (while watching everyone else chase the digital carrot).<P>

 

I think the FM3A, that you mention in another thread, could be a sound choice, for film use. Ditto the F100 - if you're particularly keen on automation (I'm not).

[tim_power]

Lex,

 

Thanks for your clear answer regarding the PC lenses - These lenses alone, if I can figure out how to properly use them, make Nikon a clear winner over all other 35mm cameras.

So, the question remains, how to properly use them?

If I understand your comments correctly, just by turning the diaphram ring of one of these lenses mounted on my F3HP, I am getting a proper reading. I tried this and all of my shots are massivley underexposed.

I will retry, but somethign tells me there is more to it than that.... like stoppign down, as i have to do with my 20mm UD lens.

Could also be that the meter is malfunctioning.

I bought an E screen online today and do hope it is brighter than the K.

 

Thanks again.

Tim

[lex_jenkins]

Hey, Tim. I can think of a few reasons why your photos with the PC-Nikkor might be underdeveloped, but these will be pure guesswork.

 

First, the obvious - are you sure you haven't accidentally reset the exposure compensation when you intended to reset the ISO? I've done this more than once.

 

Second, are you metering before shifting? Very important. If you meter after shifting exposure error will occur; the more extreme the shift the more severe the exposure error. For example, if you shift upward, as is typical when photographing buildings from ground level, you're taking in more "sky" - that, plus the light falloff that occurs with extreme shifts, drives the meter batty.

 

However the main reason for exposure error I've encountered using any shift lens (including the OM system Zuiko) is allowing the sky or reflected light from pavement to influence metering. This usually causes severe underexposure with slide film. I just checked outside today, very overcast conditions, and compared meter readings using my F3HP with 28/3.5 PC-Nikkor and Minolta Autometer IIIf. The incident meter reading at ISO 25 (which happens to be what's already in the camera) was f/8 @ 1/8. The F3's TTL metering with the lens preset at f/8 ranged from 1/4 second if I tipped the camera slightly downward, to 1/8 when centered on the horizon to 1/30 if tipped slightly upward. Get too much sky in that meter reading and a two stop underexposure error would result - that would be a serious problem with Velvia or, my preference, Provia. Make the same error on a sunny day and we're looking at a three or four stop exposure error - been there, done that, got the crappy slides to show for it.

 

If you don't have an incident meter plan on carrying a small 18% gray card for use with your shift lenses, or use a normal or telephoto lens to help predetermine your exposure, then transfer that reading to your shift lenses.

[tim_power]

Lex

 

Thanks for the advice. I did in fact use Velvia as well as F5 and Provia, so maybe that threw in an extra level of sensitivity and complexity.

i have to say. Making this big change from pentax is beginning to fill me with doubts.

I sold ALL my old equipment, and bought about 6 or 7 nice pieces of nikon glass alogn with my F3HP.

In over 20 years of pentax i don't think Iever got a bad exposure.

In 3 rolls with my Nikon, i got 3 usable shots from 96. And once i scanned those, they were just about as good as my digital shots with my Leica Digilux.

 

 

Maybe got a bad camera.

 

Tim

[cd thacker]

Maybe you just need to have the meter looked at.