Canon or Nikon?

[canonguy12]

I personally find these debates quite pointless. It's like Mac vs PC.

Uh oh, now you've opened a whole new can of beans

 

[Petraio Prime]

Rekd, I think you are too biased. You are also manipulating the the advertising. Though I shoot Nikon, I do acknowledge that Canon is better for sports, but where are all the pics of people at those events with Nikons?? Trust me there ARE plenty of them. And ALL your pics were of Canons at sporting events. So is that the only thing Canons are good for? What if the OP doesn't have any interest in sports photography?

Back on topic: Nikon or Canon?? Well you answer me this: Mercedes or BMW? Lamborghini or Ferrari? They're both great. But if I had to choose, I would say Nikon because you already have a really nice, and expensive Nikon lens to go with it.

Note: For the record I own neither Canon nor Nikon. I own and use Leicaflex.

For the longest time (let's say from 1965-1989), Nikon dominated press and PJ work, which had before that had been dominated by Leica rangefinders. Topcon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, Leicaflex and others were also-rans. When Canon came out with fluorite lenses, the F-1

http://hifishack.com/images/canonf1_5.jpg

and then the New F-1,

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1077/608897943_3ebd6c9e14.jpg

they were clearly showing their intention to do something serious. Though Pentax and Minolta showed some initiatives toward 'pro' models, they were largely ignored. Nikon was clearly the leader in press work.

When Minolta finally introduced auto-focusing in 1985, they dropped their old mount altogether and started from scratch. When Canon introduced their first auto-focusing line in 1989, they followed suit, thinking (I suppose) that the advantages of starting afresh far outweighed the disadvantages. The new lens system offered far more potential, which owners of the old system would surely see.

Nikon made some tentative steps toward autofocus in 1986 or so, but the F4 was not introduced until 1988. It was a monstrosity by any measure.

http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00S/00SMKC-108487684.jpg

When Canon introduced the EOS-1 in 1989, they seemed to have made a authoritative statement about what an autofocus pro camera should be. It was designed from the ground up as an autofocus system.

Canon EOS-1 - Main Index Page

The press market clearly and immediately embraced the Canon, as everyone has mentioned. Nikon, by retaining its lens mount from 1959, was afraid of offending its customer base. But when you don't have much of a customer base to offend (Canon) you are not constrained by them. Sure, it would have pissed off some Nikon owners if Nikon had changed mounts completely...but in the long run everyone would have been better off.

This short-term thinking that affects Nikon had effects that persist to this day.

Sure, you can use a 1959 Nikon lens on some of the current Nikon pro models, but so what? Any lens that old is going to be outdated. Nothing lasts forever.

If you compare the F5 or F6 to the EOS-1V, there is in my mind no comparison.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images/EOS-1V.jpg

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/f5.jpg

http://www.apertura.cl/store/images/f6body%20nikon.jpg

The F5 and F6 are clearly a retreat from the monstrosity that characterized the F4.

Now when digital came out, things didn't change a whole lot. Canon made a full-frame DSLR body based on the ESO-1 fairly early on. It took Nikon a decade or so after that to have one.

 

[MohaimenK]

Why go for second best when you can have the best? Go for Canon!

 

[Petraio Prime]

Why go for second best when you can have the best? Go for Canon!

For the record I own neither. I own and use Leicaflex.

 

[MohaimenK]

For the record I own neither. I own and use Leicaflex.

Oh it was a joke. This debate can go forerver you know? People that use Canon will say Canon where Nikon users will say Nikon. Coke vs Pepsi.

It all comes down which one you like more. I have always used Canon and got used to it. Although, I do like the custom WB feature on a Nikon a lot more than Canon, takes 2 sec where in Canon you have to go to menu and change it.

The OP could always rent both cameras and try them out for 1 week each. That should give an idea of which to go with.

That's just this poor man's 2 cents

 

[Petraio Prime]

For the record I own neither. I own and use Leicaflex.

Oh it was a joke. This debate can go forerver you know? People that use Canon will say Canon where Nikon users will say Nikon. Coke vs Pepsi.

It all comes down which one you like more. I have always used Canon and got used to it. Although, I do like the custom WB feature on a Nikon a lot more than Canon, takes 2 sec where in Canon you have to go to menu and change it.

The OP could always rent both cameras and try them out for 1 week each. That should give an idea of which to go with.

That's just this poor man's 2 cents

I just don't understand Nikon's thinking at all. They have a fetish about maintaining compatibility with their old lenses. Many old lenses (no matter who made them) are not worth the trouble. I recently acquired a second-generation Leitz 180mm Elmarit-R (f/2.8) introduced around 1980.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QomDizboK...Qp-beilAWRw/s400/26-ELMARIT-R-180-MM-F2.8.jpg

I had been using the older one, introduced around 1967.

http://www.greiner-photo.de/catalog/images/LCRelm180k.jpg

There is a newer one than this, a third generation (an APO version), but it is far more costly.

http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/blog-images/2007/11/19/180ElmaritR.jpg

There is a noticeable difference between the 1980 and 1967 Elmarits. The newer lens has much nicer color and contrast. It is to die for.

The main reason I bought the second-generation Elmarit was that it weighs 810 grammes, whereas the first generation is a beast that weighs 1325 grammes; I was tired of lugging it around. I was more than pleasantly surprised to see the marked optical improvements. I had heard that the 2nd generation was only slightly better than the first.

The third generation APO lens, though, is heavier by a small margin than the second generation (970 grammes vs 810 grammes).

The point is that lenses have a life-span before they either wear out or are superseded. Nikon, by acting as if this isn't true, has shortchanged the future potential of their cameras.

 

[Browncoat]

Canon vs. Nikon, Coke vs. Pepsi, Ford vs. Chevy, PC vs. Mac....the saga continues.

Most purists will defend their chosen brand to the death. Really it comes down to personal preference. Each has their own perks and quirks, so it really boils down to what works best for you. Go to a camera store, pick up the two models you're interested in, and make a choice. Better yet, rent each one for a day and go out shooting.

On a personal note:

• Nikon rules!
• Coke sucks!
• Chevy 4 eva!
• Macs are for hippies!

 

[Neil S.]

Why go for second best when you can have the best? Go for Canon!

For the record I own neither. I own and use Leicaflex.

I think PP secretly owns a bunch of Canon gear lol.

Just kidding. :mrgreen:

 

[Neil S.]

Canon vs. Nikon, Coke vs. Pepsi, Ford vs. Chevy, PC vs. Mac....the saga continues.

Most purists will defend their chosen brand to the death. Really it comes down to personal preference. Each has their own perks and quirks, so it really boils down to what works best for you. Go to a camera store, pick up the two models you're interested in, and make a choice. Better yet, rent each one for a day and go out shooting.

On a personal note:

• Nikon rules!
• Coke sucks!
• Chevy 4 eva!
• Macs are for hippies!

For me its:

Polaroid
RC Cola
Daihatsu
Atari

So there!

 

[Neil S.]

I'm still waiting for the dead horse thing....

Anyone?

 

[Petraio Prime]

Why go for second best when you can have the best? Go for Canon!

For the record I own neither. I own and use Leicaflex.

I think PP secretly owns a bunch of Canon gear lol.

Just kidding. :mrgreen:

Not at all. I just admire their thinking that sometimes you need to start over, to face the future rather than the past. Leica has adopted both strategies. The S2 is a completely new no holds barred system unrelated to the R system, whereas the M9 is a camera that allows you to stay with M lenses. They will introduce at a later time an R digital body to accept R lenses, they told me. Right now they are concentrating on the S2 and M9. The S2 is stunning.

The Leica S2 Camera Review | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

 

[Idahophoto]

Bah, maybe I switch again and grab me a Pentax lol. At least then I could add something new to threads like this.

PETAX BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_____________________
Pentax K7, Pentax 50 F/1.4 Pentax 12-24 F/4, Pentax 100 F/2.8 Pentax 200 F/2.8










Ok, maybe not. But the idea is entertaining never the less and Pentax has some damn nice stuff to.

 

[Neil S.]

Olympus all the way!!

 

[Petraio Prime]

Bah, maybe I switch again and grab me a Pentax lol. At least then I could add something new to threads like this.

PETAX BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_____________________
Pentax K7, Pentax 50 F/1.4 Pentax 12-24 F/4, Pentax 100 F/2.8 Pentax 200 F/2.8

Ok, maybe not. But the idea is entertaining never the less and Pentax has some damn nice stuff to.

My thinking is that if you really want to do digital, get a full-frame model, and don't screw around with these crop cameras. If you can't afford it then get a film camera. If you can't afford this, well use your memories.

 

[kundalini]

I just don't understand Nikon's thinking at all.

I don't understand why you're in this discussion. You've clearly stated.......

Note: For the record I own neither Canon nor Nikon. I own and use Leicaflex.