Nikon vs. Canon

[Tiberius]

Re: Point 6 - I'm a Nikon Guy myself but last I checked the Canon 10-22 was about the best wide angle out there.

 

[bitteraspects]

If I may add:
1) abovementioned cost. Bodies are a bit more expensive, the glass is IMO just as expensive.
2) The glass doesn't have good manual focus scale.
3) The viewfinders are CRAP across the whole lineup all the way into the pro 1Ds MkII. They're just small
4) I dunno what nikon is like, but canon has plastic moving parts even in their touted L lineup. Not the optical part, but the gears and such are made of plastic.
5) Canon's "slow primes" are crap. 28/2.8... 35/2... 50/1.8... are just sub par. If you like schooting with primes - nikon is the way to go.
6) Their wide angles suck. Nikon is clearly better.
7) I don't like the bokeh of many lenses


Pentax and nikon are much better in that department. IMO nikon and pentax are better value for money unless you have money for a 1 series body.

Also - their large telephotos are great. 200/1.8... the 300/2.8 and up are all stellar. So if you're doing birding - it's the way to go.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH


that was hilareous. thank you for that.

 

[DocFrankenstein]

Re: Point 6 - I'm a Nikon Guy myself but last I checked the Canon 10-22 was about the best wide angle out there.

That might be true. I didn't read any APS-c UWA comparisons. I was referring in terms of the FF wide angle primes. 35mm and less... Generally nikon is better IMO

Over the years, I've printed from both Nikon and Canon optics and found them to be comparable... both with nice contrast (as opposed to Asahi, which I thought was just as sharp)

Are you saying Asahi was worse or better? Could you elaborate a bit?

Thanks

Bitteraspects - why do you find it funny?

 

[bitteraspects]

That might be true. I didn't read any APS-c UWA comparisons. I was referring in terms of the FF wide angle primes. 35mm and less... Generally nikon is better IMO

Bitteraspects - why do you find it funny?

that is why

you dont have facts, just opinions. mhich is exactly what reviews are as well. your bold statements made with no bearing on the facts is hilareous to me. the fact remains that coke, mcdonalds, and t-mobile/vodafone are better

 

[JIP]

Pardon to the Ritz employee here...but I think that may be your problem...everytime I've ever gone to a Ritz shop, they always try to sell me what I don't want. Honestly, you'd be better off ordering it from a respectable online retailor (B&H, Adorama, Cameta) than Ritz...

That being said... D200

I have to tell you and this is coming from a diehard Nikon user if you go into a Ritz camera and someone tries to push a Canon on you over a Nikon the last thing on that persons mind is commission. Just a little trade secret I guess not really a secret but Canon of all camera brands in my experience was the company that gave little or no sales incentives (i.e. a little extra from the camera compay to sell a particular product) of all the camera companies.

 

[DocFrankenstein]

that is why

you dont have facts, just opinions. mhich is exactly what reviews are as well. your bold statements made with no bearing on the facts is hilareous to me. the fact remains that coke, mcdonalds, and t-mobile/vodafone are better

I'm not getting into an argument, unless you show me your kickass gallery.

Look up viewfinder magnification data for the current canon SLRs. Bigger = better

How many canon wide angle primes have u used? What did you compare them with?

 

[bitteraspects]

[quote5) Canon's "slow primes" are crap. 28/2.8... 35/2... 50/1.8... are just sub par. If you like schooting with primes - nikon is the way to go.
6) Their wide angles suck. Nikon is clearly better.
7) I don't like the bokeh of many lenses[/quote]

i have had the pleasure of trying quite a few lenses, including the 14mm f/2.8, 24mm f/1.4, 28mm f1.8/2.8, 10-22mmf3.5-4.5, ect.
all of them preform amazingly. i have also had the displeasure of using some of nikons similar glass. canons lenses speak for themselves.

and by the way the 50mm isnt a wide angle lense.

blah blah blah blah blah..........


that is all

 

[thebeginning]

wow, i'm actually agreeing with bitteraspects on this one :shock:.

If I may add:
1) abovementioned cost. Bodies are a bit more expensive, the glass is IMO just as expensive.
2) The glass doesn't have good manual focus scale.
3) The viewfinders are CRAP across the whole lineup all the way into the pro 1Ds MkII. They're just small
4) I dunno what nikon is like, but canon has plastic moving parts even in their touted L lineup. Not the optical part, but the gears and such are made of plastic.
5) Canon's "slow primes" are crap. 28/2.8... 35/2... 50/1.8... are just sub par. If you like schooting with primes - nikon is the way to go.
6) Their wide angles suck. Nikon is clearly better.
7) I don't like the bokeh of many lenses


Pentax and nikon are much better in that department. IMO nikon and pentax are better value for money unless you have money for a 1 series body.

Also - their large telephotos are great. 200/1.8... the 300/2.8 and up are all stellar. So if you're doing birding - it's the way to go.

i see what you're getting at doc, and while some of these may be true points (like some parts of the lens even in the L's being made out of plastic), it's hardly even worth mentioning.

here's my 'point of view':

1) yes, true
2) ummm maybe not, but they are autofocus lenses (?). if you want a good manual focus scale get MF lenses. it's kind of a no duh type thing. we aren't complaining about our MF lenses having super slow focus, are we?
3) also relative. the viewfinders on the 1.6x crop cameras are indeed smaller than 35mm viewfinders. but the majority of people using cams like the 350d are people coming from point and shoots. it's huge to them. IMO there's no reason to complain about the 5d and 1ds viewfinders because they are quite big and bright, almost identical to 35mm cams. or are you comparing these to medium format viewfinders? that is certainly not the argument we're in at the moment.
4) yes, lenses and some L lenses have a few plastic (even though it's very strong high-quality plastics or reinforced plastics) moving parts in them...but...so what? They are some of the most well built autofocus lenses today and you're never going to know the difference. besides, if they were that bad, would so many professional sports and event photographers be choosing them over all the other competition if they broke all the time? or are you comparing them to standard focal length rangefinder primes? again, not the current issue.
5) some of canon's slow primes are crap (but so are other brands options, so what's the big deal?), yes the 50mm 1.8 is 'crap'. the 35mm f2 is 'crap' as well. or is just the photographer that is crappy? have you tried the same shots with a 50mm 1.2 or a 35mm 1.4 and achieved better composition? or are you relying on the equipment to make good photographs? the point is, that doesnt matter. there are very succesful fashion photographers that use the 50mm 1.8 as one of their main lenses. besides, you're looking at their 'slow' primes, which were specifically made to be cheaper. take a look at the 35 1.4, the 50 1.2, the 85 1.2, the 135 f2....honestly, some of their primes are absolutely fantastic.
6) yes, nikons wide angles are slightly better (canon's 16-35 and 17-40 have some edge issues sometimes...but they are still very good). keep in mind though that fifteen years ago canon's current wide angles would be the best out there. this is another 'does it really matter?' issues. if the slightly better edge detail is THAT important to you, why aren't you shooting large format or mf digital?
7) 'i dont like the bokeh of many lenses'. what the heck is that supposed to mean...and what is 'many'? again, have you even seen shots taken by their fast primes? the bokeh is some of the best i've ever seen, and i've compared them to leica, zeiss, nikorr, and a few more miniscule ones as well. if you're comparing the bokeh of the 50mm 1.8 (5 aperture blades) against some nikon offering that has 8 or 9, well duh you're not going to like the bokeh is much. that's common sense. not all nikons have perfect bokeh either.


IMO i think you just overanalyze...like WAY too much. and you use the word 'suck' way too often...especially when referring to a company that is commonly known to be the leader in digital photography - right alongside the company you support in lens quality.

 

[DocFrankenstein]

Yes, I'm realying on my equipment to make good photographs.

Yes, the L glass improves composition.

Common knowledge or popularity is not an indicator of quality.

 

[SonicME64]

Yes, I'm realying on my equipment to make good photographs.

1.) Take this quote as you may.

I understand a good photographer will take good pics with a crap camera while equipment won't make a bad photographer any better - I don't expect a new lens to suddenly make 'better' pictures

Good equipment will not necessarily make good photographs.

Yes, the L glass improves composition.

2.) Composition has nothing to do with the lens, you compose the photograph, not your lens... there would be no point to even being a photographer if your camera did all the work for you.

Common knowledge or popularity is not an indicator of quality.

3.) The only part of your post I agree with.

 

[Alex_B]

OK, my advice for this thread :

- don't use any swearwords or words which could be mistaken for them, this is in part about religion, so we should all show some respect for brand names .

- don't use sarkasm or humor, people who read your posts and are prepared to fight will not realise it and take everything literally .

- most importantly ... calm down and go shooting nice images .. I do not care at all if for this you use primes or zooms, canon or nikon, L glass or Nikkor or if you use your mobile phone camera!

 

[rmh159]

- don't use sarkasm or humor, people who read your posts and are prepared to fight will not realise it and take everything literally .

Isn't that the point of using sarcasm and humor??? Besides if someone is reading this looking for an argument sometimes it's too tempting to push the buttons.

Along with the L glass improving composition the name on the side of the camera also improves image quality.

 

[Alex_B]

Isn't that the point of using sarcasm and humor???

Hmm, maybe I am just bein naive, but I always thought sarcams was meant to make me smile and humor was meant to make me laugh

Along with the L glass improving composition the name on the side of the camera also improves image quality.

Hmm, the one currently in my hand reads ... Coronet ... is that good or bad?

 

[DocFrankenstein]

Good equipment will not necessarily make good photographs.

What do you know? Your camera doesn't even have a zoom! :lmao:

Kidding! Kidding!

Let's hug and make up. Canon makes fine products, but they're not perfect. I've used... 9 photo systems in total.

There's no perfect one. All of them expose... and all of them will make a great photo if the light is right.

Oh, and I forgot. Canon ETTL flashes are a level below nikon. Even metz flashes work better on the canon bodies. And they don't have a PC cord

 

[SonicME64]

What do you know? Your camera doesn't even have a zoom! :lmao:

Kidding! Kidding!

Let's hug and make up. Canon makes fine products, but they're not perfect. I've used... 9 photo systems in total.

There's no perfect one. All of them expose... and all of them will make a great photo if the light is right.

When I throw the 300mm telephoto and 2x converter on there... that's a zoom... albiet a hell of a lot slower.

:hug:: Agreed, I can't really say any camera system I've used is perfect. I've used Pentax and Nikon as well, and found Canon to be a good fit for me. I guess what it boils down to, is what you prefer, and what feels good for you. Exactly, even a disposable will make excellent photos if the light is right.

But I do stand by my point that composition has nothing to do with the lens and camera body, and everything to do with the photographers eye.

We may have gotten off on the wrong foot here... friends?

Edit: I don't use a flash. I'm more for the existing light style.