Are you a Canon or a Nikon? And why?

[burnws6]

I shoot both Canon and Nikon bodies and lenses. Each brand has some advantages and disadvantages. I've been shooting d-slr bodies since the Nikon D1, and have owned 10 different models,and have shot two others,and the thing is--EACH company has strengths that the other company lacks. Some of the strengths are not very obvious, and would be missed by newbies who have been shooting only for a year or two, or who are unfamiliar with exactly what products the big two have made over the years.

Nikon has a much wider in-camera TTL flash commander system, and arguably, better, more-consistent TTL flash exposure control, and arguably, Nikon has better light metering due to the 420, and 1,005-area color-aware light metering they have in multiple bodies; Canon has just invented its own color-aware light metering system which is in only their new 7D body.

Canon has made some very good cameras over the years, and for several generations of cameras, Canon had better sensors and better high-ISO performance cameras than Nikon did. One of the nice things about Canon bodies is their long flange to film distance, which allows Canon to use lenses from multiple systems, including the Nikon F mount and the Pentax or M42 thread mount, with adapters---which makes a Canon body an amazingly versatile camera. I've been involved with photography for over 35 years now, and have bought a lens or two each year for quite some time. For me the lenses are a big,big,big deal and I have much more money tied up in lenses than in camera bodies. It's nice to have the ability to use lenses on multiple brands of camera bodies. Today, Canon and Nikon each have good offerings, but they do not compete in the same "spaces", or on the same exact feature sets/capabilities. They kind of co-exist in the marketplace, much like Toyota and Honda, or Burger King and McDonalds.

The one brand I think more people ought to look at is Pentax. Especially if they are looking for a low-cost but still high-featured camera body. Their new K-X model I think shows that they're going to offer better and better cameras as things move onward.

The late nikon and canon models, the nikon has a better ISO performance. Canon gets really grainy quick. But besides that, yes. Correct. Ferrari or Lambo....which one you want?

 

[inTempus]

The late nikon and canon models, the nikon has a better ISO performance. Canon gets really grainy quick. But besides that, yes. Correct. Ferrari or Lambo....which one you want?

Not really.

The D300S is beaten by the 7D in high ISO tests. The D700 and 5D2 are pretty evenly matched. The D3S is the new super high ISO king and nothing Canon has can trump it - yet. The 1Ds4 has yet to be announced, but I suspect Canon will once again focus on uber high megapixels and trade them for high ISO performance. But we won't know for sure until it's released.

 

[Montana]

I shoot Canon because of their lenses and I prefer the layout of their bodies. I found Nikon's to be backwards and counter-intuitive. Even their lenses mount backwards. The menuing system of the Canon is more simple and easier to navigate for me.

With that being said, I think Nikon makes a better product over all, but only marginally so. The D3S really is a killer body and Nikon's resistance to endlessly increasing their megapixel count as much as they possibly can really is more to my liking.

If I had it to do over again, given the bodies on the market today, I would likely be shooting a couple of D3S's.

3 years from now, Canon might pull their head out and field a pro body that puts Nikon behind them once again. They did a great job in the consumer space with the 7D which, IMHO trounces the D300S.

There was a time, not too many years ago, when Canon really had no competitor that played at their level. Nikon changed that with the introduction of the D700 and D3... and I think they still have the lead, ever so slightly, in terms of desirable features and image quality. Canon still holds the lead with AF performance it seems, but most people that own the AF kings (D3S and 1D4) don't use them to their potential - I certainly don't. I would likely be just as well served by the D3S as I would be with my 1D4.

I own both, and don't use either to their full potential. LOL I know which one will be the first to go if I were to lose my job.......

Which one? I guessing the D3S. I have a D3S on order from Adorama (I have had it for 3 weeks now.) and I'm thinking of just canceling it.

Tell me, which would you dump and why?

I would keep the Canon gear for sure. The D3s is a fine camera, damn fine. I have used it with Nikons best zoom lenses.

The obvious reasons I would keep the Canon bodies......megapixels for one. The ability to crop both the mkIV and 5dII images like a crazy kid with his first pair of scissors. Sometime the 600 f/4 and teleconverter still isn't enough. The D3s (in my opinion) barely edges out the mkIV in noise, and smears too much detail in high ISO files. Canon gives nearly full user control of noise reduction in post. Nikon appears to apply it (noise reduction) whether I want it or not. Personally, I'd rather have some noise than detail loss. Call it personal preference if you will.

The autofocus systems both perform flawless for my needs. The Nikon aquires focus faster in very low light than my mkIV or 5DII. I rarely shoot in really low light levels, but I did just for the sake of comparing.

Both produce wonderful files, but I haven't had the Nikon long enough to extract its full potential in post processing....at least I don't think I have. At first I thought the D3 was better in regards to auto-white balance. It is better than the 5DII, but it is no better/nor worse than the markIV. The mkIV is very accurate and improved over any of my previous Canon bodies. The Nikon zooms I borrow are great, no complaints for sure.......but they just aren't L primes. So if I were a 100% zoom lens shooter, I could likely be swayed to a Nikon.

So, if I had to ditch one or the other of the two pro bodies, it would be the Nikon........but only because I have so much invested in Canon. I would honestly call it a wash. Although I always felt like the D3s user input controls were built for someone with 3 hands and 20 fingers. Way too many buttons on that thing. LOL But thats likely because I am used to shooting Canon gear.

Tim, I really think you should let the D3s order go through if you have the funds available. Its been a fun time trying to play both sides of the fence. Its a great body, just don't expect it to blow your mkIV out of the water.

 

[burnws6]

The late nikon and canon models, the nikon has a better ISO performance. Canon gets really grainy quick. But besides that, yes. Correct. Ferrari or Lambo....which one you want?

Not really.

The D300S is beaten by the 7D in high ISO tests. The D700 and 5D2 are pretty evenly matched. The D3S is the new super high ISO king and nothing Canon has can trump it - yet. The 1Ds4 has yet to be announced, but I suspect Canon will once again focus on uber high megapixels and trade them for high ISO performance. But we won't know for sure until it's released.

That's what I was referring to....just the latest. I think it was you that posted the video from youtube? I'm not sure.

 

[Montana]

I shoot both Canon and Nikon bodies and lenses. Each brand has some advantages and disadvantages. I've been shooting d-slr bodies since the Nikon D1, and have owned 10 different models,and have shot two others,and the thing is--EACH company has strengths that the other company lacks. Some of the strengths are not very obvious, and would be missed by newbies who have been shooting only for a year or two, or who are unfamiliar with exactly what products the big two have made over the years.

Nikon has a much wider in-camera TTL flash commander system, and arguably, better, more-consistent TTL flash exposure control, and arguably, Nikon has better light metering due to the 420, and 1,005-area color-aware light metering they have in multiple bodies; Canon has just invented its own color-aware light metering system which is in only their new 7D body.

Canon has made some very good cameras over the years, and for several generations of cameras, Canon had better sensors and better high-ISO performance cameras than Nikon did. One of the nice things about Canon bodies is their long flange to film distance, which allows Canon to use lenses from multiple systems, including the Nikon F mount and the Pentax or M42 thread mount, with adapters---which makes a Canon body an amazingly versatile camera. I've been involved with photography for over 35 years now, and have bought a lens or two each year for quite some time. For me the lenses are a big,big,big deal and I have much more money tied up in lenses than in camera bodies. It's nice to have the ability to use lenses on multiple brands of camera bodies. Today, Canon and Nikon each have good offerings, but they do not compete in the same "spaces", or on the same exact feature sets/capabilities. They kind of co-exist in the marketplace, much like Toyota and Honda, or Burger King and McDonalds.

The one brand I think more people ought to look at is Pentax. Especially if they are looking for a low-cost but still high-featured camera body. Their new K-X model I think shows that they're going to offer better and better cameras as things move onward.

The late nikon and canon models, the nikon has a better ISO performance. Canon gets really grainy quick. But besides that, yes. Correct. Ferrari or Lambo....which one you want?

Utter bull****.......

 

[burnws6]

I shoot both Canon and Nikon bodies and lenses. Each brand has some advantages and disadvantages. I've been shooting d-slr bodies since the Nikon D1, and have owned 10 different models,and have shot two others,and the thing is--EACH company has strengths that the other company lacks. Some of the strengths are not very obvious, and would be missed by newbies who have been shooting only for a year or two, or who are unfamiliar with exactly what products the big two have made over the years.

Nikon has a much wider in-camera TTL flash commander system, and arguably, better, more-consistent TTL flash exposure control, and arguably, Nikon has better light metering due to the 420, and 1,005-area color-aware light metering they have in multiple bodies; Canon has just invented its own color-aware light metering system which is in only their new 7D body.

Canon has made some very good cameras over the years, and for several generations of cameras, Canon had better sensors and better high-ISO performance cameras than Nikon did. One of the nice things about Canon bodies is their long flange to film distance, which allows Canon to use lenses from multiple systems, including the Nikon F mount and the Pentax or M42 thread mount, with adapters---which makes a Canon body an amazingly versatile camera. I've been involved with photography for over 35 years now, and have bought a lens or two each year for quite some time. For me the lenses are a big,big,big deal and I have much more money tied up in lenses than in camera bodies. It's nice to have the ability to use lenses on multiple brands of camera bodies. Today, Canon and Nikon each have good offerings, but they do not compete in the same "spaces", or on the same exact feature sets/capabilities. They kind of co-exist in the marketplace, much like Toyota and Honda, or Burger King and McDonalds.

The one brand I think more people ought to look at is Pentax. Especially if they are looking for a low-cost but still high-featured camera body. Their new K-X model I think shows that they're going to offer better and better cameras as things move onward.

The late nikon and canon models, the nikon has a better ISO performance. Canon gets really grainy quick. But besides that, yes. Correct. Ferrari or Lambo....which one you want?

Utter bull****.......

Thank You. I take pride in being the biggest bull****ter here.

 

[Cosmo Canyon]

I don't really have an opinion of either one being superior, but since I was a kid, I've always wanted a Canon. The only justification for the want was the "Wildlife as Canon sees it" ads in National Geographic. My first non point and click camera was a used Pentax K1000 that I picked up for a hundred bucks at a local photography store. I had no idea what I was doing, but I still had loads of fun, but when I saved up enough money to actually get a DSLR, I went back to my childhood wish and bought a Canon Rebel XS.

If I used a Nikon and liked it, I would be open to switching, or even carrying both cameras. I mean, if it's good enough for Simon and Garfunkle, right?

 

[flea77]

Either one is capable of taking far better pictures than I ever will, but here is my story...

Back in the early 80s I was exposed to my first 35mm camera in photography class, a Pentax K1000. I could not afford to buy a new camera but the local camera store had a great deal on a used Canon AE-1 Program which while just as expensive as the K1000 new, was a much better deal.

Almost a year went by and after the new was gone, I found that I really never grabbed the Canon to go shoot, I had pretty much lost interest. One of my friends was going to Houston with his parents to buy a new Pentax ME Super for his birthday and I jumped at the chance to tag along just to go to Houston.

We played with what seemed like hundreds of cameras that day as they were driving around looking for the best deals and having fun. At one stop I saw a brand new camera that had just come out, the Nikon FG which I looked at because it was similar to the ME my friend wanted so I thought he should try it. As soon as that camera hit my hand I was in love. Every 35mm or DSLR since then has been a Nikon, and I have loved each one in their own way. But alas, I still own a FG (not the same one mind you) which I have lovingly restored and sometimes use.

Allan

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Frankly, it makes no difference and the fact that you mention only two brands makes me want to laugh. There are a few others if you haven't noticed.

99% of reasons mentioned in such threads make very little difference overall. That includes yours by the way. If your father and your grandfather had both shot Brownies, would you be shooting a Brownie?

 

[Vinny]

I own 2 Nikons - a 30 year old FE (really wanted a F2AS but couldn't justify it) and a new D90.

I bought the FE because it was a Nikon and was supposed to be the best brand of 35 mm film cameras back then. They had the name, lenses and reputation to be great cameras. Olympus, Minolta and Pentax were there but they weren't Nikons. My dream was to own some very good lenses.

I bought the D90 for a couple of reasons. In my research on-line Nikon got the nod in more than one instance for being a little better at whatever vs the competion (not trying to start anything here). The fact that it can use almost any Nikon lens and there are a ton out there it seems, just in case I ever want to upgrade. It seems that you can buy a good quality lens for a Nikon cheaper than any other manufacturer. Something that made me think about the future ... in this age of disappearing manufacturers (what happened to Minolta?) Nikon has the name so it may not disappear. And after all it is a Nikon!

It actually may be a product of when I was growing up as to why I picked Nikon over any other manufacturer. I did like the Pentax K20 but the dealer wanted too much for a used camera and that dealer was the only dealer around selling Pentax. I've never been a fan of Canon consumer products although I do own a Canon flatbed scanner that seems OK. Never been a fan of Sony products as well, my brother in law owns one of their DSLRs and it seems to take nice photos.

 

[den9]

i went from nikon to canon, i still have my nikon but i never use it.

i went with nikon because i always looked at them as a better camera, seen more people using them than canon also.. their entry level cameras felt sturdier.

went to canon because of cheaper priced lenses and more selection of lenses. i also think white lenses and red rings are cool, i like the shutter sound of canon too.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

i went from nikon to canon, i still have my nikon but i never use it.

i went with nikon because i always looked at them as a better camera, seen more people using them than canon also.. their entry level cameras felt sturdier.

went to canon because of cheaper priced lenses and more selection of lenses. i also think white lenses and red rings are cool, i like the shutter sound of canon too.

Fooking good answer :lmao:

 

[den9]

i went from nikon to canon, i still have my nikon but i never use it.

i went with nikon because i always looked at them as a better camera, seen more people using them than canon also.. their entry level cameras felt sturdier.

went to canon because of cheaper priced lenses and more selection of lenses. i also think white lenses and red rings are cool, i like the shutter sound of canon too.

Fooking good answer :lmao:

its the troof

 

[manaheim]

Kodak disc cameras rule all.

 

[usayit]

Pancakes and Eggs this morning...