LOOKS LIKE BALANCE OF POWER TO NIKON

Personally, if I had the money, I'd have both lines, Canon has great features and Nikon has great features. Both do certain things well and both have areas where the other excels.

Jerry
 
LOL, I love it when a plan comes together. I figured Big Mike was having a go at me. That's why I mentioned the cheaper pro gear again. All fun aside though, Nikon clearly is superior.
 
All these threads in all these forums and so few devoted to printers and printing, ink and paper. :/

Thats because the latest photographers are more than happy to consider a digital file is a final print.

Me... I prefer to have a real print in my hands in a collection of albums/portfolios or framed on my wall. That's just me.... stuck in the pre-digital time.
 
Thats because the latest photographers are more than happy to consider a digital file is a final print.

Me... I prefer to have a real print in my hands in a collection of albums/portfolios or framed on my wall. That's just me.... stuck in the pre-digital time.

that and printers (or printing labs) and screen calibraters (which are really needed) are not free - and I go by the concept of getting the shot first and printing later - one cannot print a shot one does not have. So at the moment lenses, flashes, diffusers, remotes and all the rest are my aim - things that let or help me get the shot - once I have it I can print it when I wish to/find a budget gap for a calibrater.
 
I always find the Canon vs Nikon vs Fuji vs Olympus vs Sony vs whatever threads kind of funny and sad. I selected Canon years ago as my system of choice but shot all of those professionally. I have yet to really find a camera that can convince me the poor image quality is a result of equipment vs my ineptness as a photographer. ;)
 
from what I have seen Nikon has Canon beaten in 2 areas of sports photography.

1.) Low light-- a Nikon D3 can shoot at 5600 iso at 1/4000th with virtually no digital noise. The 1D Mark III is awesome but it's noise level is a bit higher than the acceptable range at these settings.

2.) the fps of the Nikon d3 is 11 vs Canon's best being 9 and Nikon can save over 90 jpeg images consecutively shot.

That being said Nikon can't touch Canon's glass so all it will take to shift back is a few changes in the 1D Mark III body and Nikon is playing second fiddle again.

overall though this is a moot point to me considering both models are out of my budget currently

(BTW, I own all Canon gear)
 
Last edited:
All fun aside though, Nikon clearly is superior.

... at least for this week. Next week Nikon gets a kick in the nards from Canon, and the week after, Nikon politely returns the favor. It's called competition and playing the buyer's market against each other. This is the oldest sales tactic since Noah went to the used ARC dealer to make his choice... to change the buyer's decision process from whether to get a camera or not in the first place... to WHICH camera.

I could NOT care less who is in the lead. What I do care about is how fast the new technology is ooozing out, how much it has improved and how I can afford/enjoy it at a reasonable pace and time duration.

That D700 sure looks good to me. :D
 
What I do care about is how fast the new technology is ooozing out, how much it has improved and how I can afford/enjoy it at a reasonable pace and time duration.

We have a winner :D I for one am glad that Canon announced the 5D MkII because it means that Nikon will work harder and faster on the D800 I will buy late next year.

I mean if you want to see all the technological advancements that happen if one company has the entire market cornered just look at how much windows has changed in the last 7 years.
 
... at least for this week. Next week Nikon gets a kick in the nards from Canon, and the week after, Nikon politely returns the favor. It's called competition and playing the buyer's market against each other.
Exactly. The photography industry is a rare one where market forces and competition are actually happening.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top