Canon or Nikon?

[benjikan]

Canon or Nikon. Which Camera is More "Pro?"

This was a Poll from another Forum. It was a Poll given by someone who in my opinion has been profoundly and inexorably brainwashed and as a result I felt compelled to leave the following message:

My Heading: Neither...All Of and Anything that Can...

This is a false premise...Most of the present day DSLR's can be used professionally. Whether it is Sony, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Sigma, Leica or Samsung. Ten million pixels is more than enough o be published in all types of magazines as well as most poster formats. I have been published using the Canon 350D, just to prove to myself that it doesn't really matter. I once used a Canon G5 circa 2002-3 5megapixel camera with hot-shoe and RAW capability and was also published with it.

I am fed up with pixel peeping incompetents that spend most of their time scrutinizing the screen on the computer rather than enjoying the act of expression. If what you find joy in is the technical aspects of the anatomy of a camera, perhaps that may be the subject of your post. I can guarantee that if I gave you a 'Blad with a 39 mega pixel back it wouldn't improve on your capacity to express what you are expressing presently and until you understand the need to have "X-Zillion" Pixels, I suggest you spend more time perfecting your art. By doing so you may then ask yourself. Is the tool I am using limiting my capacity to express that which I need to express by being technically substandard? Is it therefore impeding my capacity to express myself? Give me a Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Sony, Leica, Olympus, Sigma or what ever and I will take images that will work because I know the support it will be utilized in.

It is the photographer and not the camera that captures the image. It is through those eyes that we can see a part of the "ID" and what is important to the artist. It is the capturing of that moment that makes the individual unique. The decision as to when one captures the moment is crucial to his/her expression and not with which camera it was taken with.

Ben

 

[Kingpatzer]

While it is very true that any camera, in the hands of a good photographer can make a great picture, and that it is the photographer's skill that determines the outcome, the question of what camera system to invest in still has merit.

The reason it has merit is that this equipment represents a significant monetary investment.

Top end cameras today are differentiated as much by their electronics as by the lenses.

The reality of the market today, in my view, is that Nikon, lacking chip production facilities to rival Canon and Sony, is going to find itself in a situation of diminishing market share.

So, if someone is starting out today buying a new system, where should they put their dollars for long term investment?

It's hard to argue that Nikon would be a better investment than Canon. Sure, Canon might change their mounts in the future (it's happened before) but the sound money on which lenses will have a longer life -- be it for hobby use or professional -- has to go to Canon.

That doesn't mean I think Canon gear is "better" than Nikon's. But I think Nikon is in a very dangerous place relative to the market today, and Canon is not.

 

[DSLR noob]

I agree with Benjikan. Any Camera system can do a good job with a good photographer. All the systems when boiling down to it, have support from high quality optics with a range of max aperture settings, focal lengths, and qualities such as image stability, low dispersion glass etc. The in camera qualities all seem to level out as they're invented as well. Most of these features would'nt effect the 'wow' factor of a final photograph anyway.

 

[neea]

Can anyone honestly look at a magazine cover and say 'Wow. That's a great picture. Look at the composition... he must've used a Nikon' or 'Wow. Look at the way the trees are positioned... he must've used a Canon'

 

[Alex_B]

Can anyone honestly look at a magazine cover and say 'Wow. That's a great picture. Look at the composition... he must've used a Nikon' or 'Wow. Look at the way the trees are positioned... he must've used a Canon'

I think no one serious about photography will say so.

But I think more often we say, whoaa, now he has got such a hyperexpensive camera and still produces the worst kind of snapshots .. what a waste

As for Megapixels, limited megapixels do not limit the "quality" of an image, but only its useability for certain purposes. If I want to print on 1x3 metres to be used in indoor decoration, then I need lots of MPs (and overall resolution, including the lens), for publishing in magazines, I need not. And now lets be honest, how many of us plan to print on really large scale? Anything you can still hold with two hands is not large

just the humble opinion of someone who ran into the MP-limits with some of his shots

 

[neea]

Could you print on 1x3 metres from film?

 

[Jeff Canes]

Could you print on 1x3 metres from film?

yes, remember you view bigger prints stanting farther away that small one, your eyes blend out imperfection

 

[Alex_B]

Could you print on 1x3 metres from film?

Well you could if you wanted, but 35mm film would not be the medium of choice then.

 

[Alex_B]

yes, remember you view bigger prints stanting farther away that small one, your eyes blend out imperfection

true for outdoor displays or displays in large rooms.

in a narrow corridor (or my living room) with lots of wall space but no chance to step back however, you might want higher resolution.

But as I said, this is not the standard situation and it probably affects less than 10% of all large format printing.

 

[benjikan]

My Brother a Studio Musician, Touring Artist and Architect had this to say regarding my original post:

Very true and a universal truth that can apply to pretty much any endeavor. A great, good or competent artist, entrepreneur, grand prix racer, truck driver,carpenter,athlete,or, you fill in the space, relies on their talent, abilities ,judgement and sixth sense. They can "perform" on any equipment. The difference between the quality of their "performance" on mediocre versus excellent equipment is minimal. The difference between the quality of the "performance" of a mediocre talent on mediocre versus excellent equipment is also minimal. Only a mediocre talent blames their equipment. A great, good or competent talent capitalizes on what they have.......

 

[RMThompson]

I agree with you, in spirit. Also being a writer, we are fortunate enough not to have this problem. Whether a manuscript was written longhand on yellow legal pads, or a typewriter or a high end computer has no effect on the final product. (Although I wouldn't senf legal pads to a publisher!)

Yet in the world of photography, where the equipment is costlier, it seems more important, but it's easy to say "Any DSLR can be good in the hands of talent"!

I will say that usually when people ask the inevitable Canon v Nikon question they aren't really asking which equipment is better, but which equipment provides the most bang for their buck.

I am a perfect example. I really don't care, Canon or Nikon, honestly. However since I had a limited supply of money, I chose Nikon. I looked at Pentax and Canon, but chose Nikon because I could get a D50 body for 400, and spend the rest of my money on lenses.... was it a better choice than Nikon or Pentax, who knows, but it's all worked out. (Well except the fact that the lens is broke. ha ha)

 

[Don Simon]

This again!? It's like groundhog day