In response to 'switching to Canon from Nikon', I would like to add a few things.
I consider myself a semi- pro (excuse me, I do have a lot of problems with these kind of classification- some amateurs have better understanding of photography than some pros) and my income is primarily from photography. The first camera I have used was Pentax K 1000 and when I got into serious photography I switched to Nikon (news Photography). At that time most pros I knew were using Nikon and hardly anyone used to complain about Nikon. Basically Nikon was considered `THE' camera for pros.
The first time I started suffering from this so called "it's greener on the other side syndrome" was when I joined a photography magazine as an assistant to the technical writer. While shooting with both cameras ( Nikon and Canon) st a number of occasions, I found Canon photo quality superior to Nikon. Here I am not talking about features and technicality. I am talking about the over all photo quality in terms of sharpness, color saturation, balance between correctly exposed and under exposed areas etc. Even then I never thought of switching to Canon because I was so used to my Nikon cameras and lenses. It is like ending a relationship/marriage, it's not so easy to shift to another system. After all most photographers are not that rich to change their equipment each time someone introduces a new technology.
Also, from my experience of working with a photography magazine, what I found extremely disturbing with Nikon was; Nikon has the worst reputation for being attentive to its customers queries and complaints. If you write to Nikon, you hardly get any replies whereas Canon gets back to you in few days. In this regard I must admit that Minolta and Tamaron are the best- they do care A LOT!!!
let me get back to the point- I am seriously thinking of switching to Canon for few reasons- at the same time I do have second thoughts too. Yes, I am in an perpetual dilemma
Advantages bad disadvantages of canon and Nikon (correct me if you think I am wrong)
Canon: Great photo quality- sometimes it is a bit scary that the picture looks too unreal
Nikon: durability, resale value, wide range of accessories.
Canon: IS (image stabilization- Nikonians, ought to use this to know the difference!)
Nikon: AF illuminator on certain bodies like N 80/ D 70
Canon: AF illuminator is a pop-up flash which is highly irritating and idiotic ( Elan/Eos series )
Nikon: worst customer service
Canon: good customer service
Canon: A way too rebellious or stupid enough to change camera mounts overnight
Nikon: Old lenses are compatible with new "technically advanced¡¨ cameras (although u have to use a handheld light meter)
Nikon: price and availability. In the states Canon is cheaper but in Europe/Asia/Africa canon is more expensive.
Canon: You find more and more pros switching to Canon whereas you hardly find anyone going back to Nikon 0�º
Nikon: Nikonians are outspoken (experimental) enough to talk bad or complain about their equipment whereas you find Canon users always live in this illusion that my gear and pictures are better than yours. This is actually very disturbing.
Anyway, the bottom line is the photo quality of Canon. Any suggestions or comments? Please don't tell me it is because of the film and processing No way- I use Fuji ( velvia)while shooting landscapes, Kodak for portraits and for architecture I use Kodak VS.
Switching to Canon from Nikon?
in Nature
Posted
In response to 'switching to Canon from Nikon', I would like to add a few things.
I consider myself a semi- pro (excuse me, I do have a lot of problems with these kind of classification- some amateurs have better understanding of photography than some pros) and my income is primarily from photography. The first camera I have used was Pentax K 1000 and when I got into serious photography I switched to Nikon (news Photography). At that time most pros I knew were using Nikon and hardly anyone used to complain about Nikon. Basically Nikon was considered `THE' camera for pros.
The first time I started suffering from this so called "it's greener on the other side syndrome" was when I joined a photography magazine as an assistant to the technical writer. While shooting with both cameras ( Nikon and Canon) st a number of occasions, I found Canon photo quality superior to Nikon. Here I am not talking about features and technicality. I am talking about the over all photo quality in terms of sharpness, color saturation, balance between correctly exposed and under exposed areas etc. Even then I never thought of switching to Canon because I was so used to my Nikon cameras and lenses. It is like ending a relationship/marriage, it's not so easy to shift to another system. After all most photographers are not that rich to change their equipment each time someone introduces a new technology.
Also, from my experience of working with a photography magazine, what I found extremely disturbing with Nikon was; Nikon has the worst reputation for being attentive to its customers queries and complaints. If you write to Nikon, you hardly get any replies whereas Canon gets back to you in few days. In this regard I must admit that Minolta and Tamaron are the best- they do care A LOT!!!
let me get back to the point- I am seriously thinking of switching to Canon for few reasons- at the same time I do have second thoughts too. Yes, I am in an perpetual dilemma
Advantages bad disadvantages of canon and Nikon (correct me if you think I am wrong)
Canon: Great photo quality- sometimes it is a bit scary that the picture looks too unreal
Nikon: durability, resale value, wide range of accessories.
Canon: IS (image stabilization- Nikonians, ought to use this to know the difference!)
Nikon: AF illuminator on certain bodies like N 80/ D 70
Canon: AF illuminator is a pop-up flash which is highly irritating and idiotic ( Elan/Eos series )
Nikon: worst customer service
Canon: good customer service
Canon: A way too rebellious or stupid enough to change camera mounts overnight
Nikon: Old lenses are compatible with new "technically advanced¡¨ cameras (although u have to use a handheld light meter)
Nikon: price and availability. In the states Canon is cheaper but in Europe/Asia/Africa canon is more expensive.
Canon: You find more and more pros switching to Canon whereas you hardly find anyone going back to Nikon 0�º
Nikon: Nikonians are outspoken (experimental) enough to talk bad or complain about their equipment whereas you find Canon users always live in this illusion that my gear and pictures are better than yours. This is actually very disturbing.
Anyway, the bottom line is the photo quality of Canon. Any suggestions or comments? Please don't tell me it is because of the film and processing No way- I use Fuji ( velvia)while shooting landscapes, Kodak for portraits and for architecture I use Kodak VS.
Thanks for reading.