Canon or Nikon?

[Petraio Prime]

For the OP's purposes, this thread is so useless it's not even funny.
OP: Get whatever you are comfortable with! IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE!

Yes it does.

 

[Browncoat]

 

[Petraio Prime]

Psycho Shower Scene

 

[Village Idiot]

You seem to base your decision that canon is better because of their mounts. But that's only one thing! Did you forget about all the other hundreds of feature and technology that goes into the lens and body? I agree that the canon wider mount will make it easier to make ultra fast lens, but serious who needs a 50 f1? So yea I'll give it to canon for having a 85f1.2 but you swear like that is a MUST have for all photographer. The nikon 85f1.4 is only f1.4 but that's still f1.4! That lens is legendary itself.

Look, I'm not here saying Nikon is better, and from reading your post, you seem very knowledgeable about the technical side, so im not saying I know more than you. Like I said, from what I've been ready from you, the only argument you have is canon having a wider mount, thus making them more advance, which I just don't agree on.

... just my 2cent

No, shaunly, if you read my post carefully you'll see what I'm saying is that Canon in 1989 introduced an autofocus camera system that was redesigned from scratch, from the ground up, to be an autofocus system. It's only partly the lens mount, and it had nothing to do with digital.

So when did they clone Darrel and brainwash him to be a Canon fanatic?

 

[Neil S.]

Oh noes....

The horse is coming back to life!!!

 

[Polyphony]

For the OP's purposes, this thread is so useless it's not even funny.
OP: Get whatever you are comfortable with! IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE!

Yes it does.

No, it doesn't. He's going to buy "a bunch of lenses" for his Nikon. Get the Nikon, he won't notice a difference at all.

Here's a short anecdote that may illustrate my point. (This was taken from an article by Jerry Walch called "Nikon Cameras Take Nice Pictures")

Wilfredo Garcia, the Dominican photographer known around the world for his collection of expensive cameras and camera equipment always brought back the best pictures when he went on a filed trip with one of the many photography clubs that he belonged to. Wilfredo always brought back the best pictures when he took a group of his photography students out on a photo expedition. His fellow club members and photography students always attributed this to the fact that he always had the very best of equipment, he had the best that money could buy. On one of those trips, one of his more brazen students voiced what all the others felt, that none of them stood a chance of bringing back a prize winning photo because they could only afford entry level equipment. After not even a moments hesitation he replied with, “So why don’t you choose a camera for me, for the next trip?” on their next photo expedition he went with a 35mm disposable film camera that his students supplied him. Can you guess what I’m going to tell you next? You’ve got it. Wilfredo still came back with the best pictures. So how did he manage to do that when his students now had the superior equipment? He could do it because he had the skills to make the best possible use of the equipment that he had to work with.

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=canon+mark+3

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=nikon+d3

As you can see, there is no difference. Actually there is a difference: YOU, not the camera.

 

[Petraio Prime]

For the OP's purposes, this thread is so useless it's not even funny.
OP: Get whatever you are comfortable with! IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE!

Yes it does.

No, it doesn't. He's going to buy "a bunch of lenses" for his Nikon. Get the Nikon, he won't notice a difference at all.

Here's a short anecdote that may illustrate my point. (This was taken from an article by Jerry Walch called "Nikon Cameras Take Nice Pictures")

Wilfredo Garcia, the Dominican photographer known around the world for his collection of expensive cameras and camera equipment always brought back the best pictures when he went on a filed trip with one of the many photography clubs that he belonged to. Wilfredo always brought back the best pictures when he took a group of his photography students out on a photo expedition. His fellow club members and photography students always attributed this to the fact that he always had the very best of equipment, he had the best that money could buy. On one of those trips, one of his more brazen students voiced what all the others felt, that none of them stood a chance of bringing back a prize winning photo because they could only afford entry level equipment. After not even a moments hesitation he replied with, “So why don’t you choose a camera for me, for the next trip?” on their next photo expedition he went with a 35mm disposable film camera that his students supplied him. Can you guess what I’m going to tell you next? You’ve got it. Wilfredo still came back with the best pictures. So how did he manage to do that when his students now had the superior equipment? He could do it because he had the skills to make the best possible use of the equipment that he had to work with.

You miss my point. Nikon was not designed as an autofocus system. (It came out in 1959, that's 51 years ago!)

The EF Canon system was designed as an autofocus system. Look at an F4 vs an EOS-1. It's no contest. The F4 was a monstrosity.

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

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/eos/EOS-1n/images/CanonEOS1Nbooster50mm.jpg

You'll note the current top Canon digital model looks almost identical:

http://photocrati.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/canon-eos-1d-mark-ii-n.jpg

http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS1DSMarkIII/images/frontpage1.jpg

So well designed was the EOS-1 that making it into a digital camera was fairly straightforward. The Nikon F4 body was quickly abandoned and their current top digital camera looks more like a Canon.

http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/35/nikon-d3-dslr.jpg

Nikon has had numerous lens-aperture to body couplings over the years. Older ones have to be modified to use on later cameras, and some cannot be used at all. What good is it to retain the lens mount from 1959 if you can't use the lens anyway?

Nikon is nuts...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm

 

[Polyphony]

Yes it does.

No, it doesn't. He's going to buy "a bunch of lenses" for his Nikon. Get the Nikon, he won't notice a difference at all.

Here's a short anecdote that may illustrate my point. (This was taken from an article by Jerry Walch called "Nikon Cameras Take Nice Pictures")

Wilfredo Garcia, the Dominican photographer known around the world for his collection of expensive cameras and camera equipment always brought back the best pictures when he went on a filed trip with one of the many photography clubs that he belonged to. Wilfredo always brought back the best pictures when he took a group of his photography students out on a photo expedition. His fellow club members and photography students always attributed this to the fact that he always had the very best of equipment, he had the best that money could buy. On one of those trips, one of his more brazen students voiced what all the others felt, that none of them stood a chance of bringing back a prize winning photo because they could only afford entry level equipment. After not even a moments hesitation he replied with, “So why don’t you choose a camera for me, for the next trip?” on their next photo expedition he went with a 35mm disposable film camera that his students supplied him. Can you guess what I’m going to tell you next? You’ve got it. Wilfredo still came back with the best pictures. So how did he manage to do that when his students now had the superior equipment? He could do it because he had the skills to make the best possible use of the equipment that he had to work with.

You miss my point. Nikon was not designed as an autofocus system. The EF Canon system was. Look at an F4 vs an EOS-1. It's no contest. The F4 was a monstrosity.

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

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/eos/EOS-1n/images/CanonEOS1Nbooster50mm.jpg

You'll note the current top Canon digital model looks almost identical:

http://photocrati.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/canon-eos-1d-mark-ii-n.jpg

http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS1DSMarkIII/images/frontpage1.jpg

So well designed was the EOS-1 that making it into a digital camera was fairly straightforward. The Nikon F4 body was quickly abandoned and their current top digital camera looks more like a Canon.

http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/35/nikon-d3-dslr.jpg

You're talking about ergonomics and design. I'm talking about image quality. My point is that a Nikon or Canon will produce high quality images with little to no noticeable difference (as long as the photographer does his/her part).

Talking ergos and design doesn't help the OP.

 

[Petraio Prime]

No, it doesn't. He's going to buy "a bunch of lenses" for his Nikon. Get the Nikon, he won't notice a difference at all.

Here's a short anecdote that may illustrate my point. (This was taken from an article by Jerry Walch called "Nikon Cameras Take Nice Pictures")

You miss my point. Nikon was not designed as an autofocus system. The EF Canon system was. Look at an F4 vs an EOS-1. It's no contest. The F4 was a monstrosity.

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

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/eos/EOS-1n/images/CanonEOS1Nbooster50mm.jpg

You'll note the current top Canon digital model looks almost identical:

http://photocrati.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/canon-eos-1d-mark-ii-n.jpg

http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS1DSMarkIII/images/frontpage1.jpg

So well designed was the EOS-1 that making it into a digital camera was fairly straightforward. The Nikon F4 body was quickly abandoned and their current top digital camera looks more like a Canon.

http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/35/nikon-d3-dslr.jpg

You're talking about ergonomics and design. I'm talking about image quality. My point is that a Nikon or Canon will produce high quality images with little to no noticeable difference (as long as the photographer does his/her part).

Talking ergos and design doesn't help the OP.

I think it's very relevant. It's why I think Canon makes more sense.

I repeat, I own Leicaflex and have no bias here.

 

[Gaerek]

So when did they clone Darrel and brainwash him to be a Canon fanatic?

Just when we get this thread back on track, VI has to come by and mess everything up again! Thanks a lot!

You miss my point. Nikon was not designed as an autofocus system. (It came out in 1959, that's 51 years ago!)

So well designed was the EOS-1 that making it into a digital camera was fairly straightforward. The Nikon F4 body was quickly abandoned and their current top digital camera looks more like a Canon.

Nikon has had numerous lens-aperture to body couplings over the years. Older ones have to be modified to use on later cameras, and some cannot be used at all. What good is it to retain the lens mount from 1959 if you can't use the lens anyway?

Nikon is nuts...

What happened in 1989 (or 1959, or whatever) has no relevance whatsoever on this discussion. Who cares that the EOS-1 was a better camera than the F4? By a show of hands, who here shoots an EOS-1 or F4? Anyone looking to buy one or get their hands on one?

The OP wanted to know whether he should get a D300 or a 7D. The D300 is NOTHING like the F4 (aside from the lens mount). The 7D is NOTHING like the EOS-1 (aside from the lens mount). If you can provide a discussion on the merits of the D300 vs. the 7D, then go for it. If you can't, let's stop living life 20 years ago, and focus on what's going on right now, and what is relevant to the original poster's question.

 

[Petraio Prime]

So when did they clone Darrel and brainwash him to be a Canon fanatic?

Just when we get this thread back on track, VI has to come by and mess everything up again! Thanks a lot!

You miss my point. Nikon was not designed as an autofocus system. (It came out in 1959, that's 51 years ago!)

So well designed was the EOS-1 that making it into a digital camera was fairly straightforward. The Nikon F4 body was quickly abandoned and their current top digital camera looks more like a Canon.

Nikon has had numerous lens-aperture to body couplings over the years. Older ones have to be modified to use on later cameras, and some cannot be used at all. What good is it to retain the lens mount from 1959 if you can't use the lens anyway?

Nikon is nuts...

What happened in 1989 (or 1959, or whatever) has no relevance whatsoever on this discussion. Who cares that the EOS-1 was a better camera than the F4? By a show of hands, who here shoots an EOS-1 or F4? Anyone looking to buy one or get their hands on one?

The OP wanted to know whether he should get a D300 or a 7D. The D300 is NOTHING like the F4 (aside from the lens mount). The 7D is NOTHING like the EOS-1 (aside from the lens mount). If you can provide a discussion on the merits of the D300 vs. the 7D, then go for it. If you can't, let's stop living life 20 years ago, and focus on what's going on right now, and what is relevant to the original poster's question.

But it is relevant. Why? Because you're buying into a system. Suppose the OP want to get a film body at some point. (Maybe to shoot film and digital together.) EOS-1's (of various versions) are available at very moderate prices. On the other hand, you couldn't give me an F4. It's a monstrosity.

http://cgi.ebay.com/CANON-EOS-1V-W-...=ViewItem&pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item35ab1872d6

http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EOS-1-N-3...=ViewItem&pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item43a0a36884

 

[Dao]

Please lock this thread ...... :hail:

 

[Neil S.]

Guys seriously....

This is getting out of control.

If you want I can create a "Nikon vs. Canon Deathmatch" thread for you.

The OP is probably very overwhelmed by this thread at this point, and possibly quite confused.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Guys seriously....

This is getting out of control.

If you want I can create a "Nikon vs. Canon Deathmatch" thread for you.

The OP is probably very overwhelmed by this thread at this point, and possibly quite confused.

Well he should just give up and buy an Alpa:

Now that was a camera! Alpa had all these great Swiss, German, and French lenses available for it. I have wanted to get one and use it just to confuse everybody...LOL

Alpa 11si body with Kern Macro-Switar 50mm F1.8 Mint- - eBay (item 140423089334 end time Jul-31-10 23:49:08 PDT)

Alpa 11e SLR Camera - eBay (item 140416230775 end time Aug-10-10 22:25:56 PDT)

ALPA REFLEX 9D BLACK CAMERA OUTFIT CLEAN NICE RARE - eBay (item 290456768771 end time Jul-29-10 19:00:22 PDT)

http://cgi.ebay.com/Alpa-10D-2-8-35...=ViewItem&pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item563dbd2074

Check out this French 100mm f/3 APO lens for Alpa:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Kinoptik-Apochr...=ViewItem&pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item255c11c0bb

 

[Idahophoto]

OK, that's it! Everyone of you go grab a magazine. No I don't care what magazine be it playboy or favorite family recipes, or anything else. Only requirement it must have pictures. Go get one. Im waiting, go on!

Waiting....


waiting...


Waiting...


K, you got one now? Awesome! Open it up and find a picture. There ya go good choice! Words are useless don't look at em. Fills your brain up with to much junk. Let it have a break. Okay, now back to the picture. Intersting shot, what camera did it? what lens? What do you mean you don't know noobs? Why you asking me if I do? Of course I don't. That's why I asked. If we can't tell,what difference does it make? I know it was a tough project so I'll be nice and just tell you this answer, and it's a simple one. It doesn't!

Point made! Please come back on next thread when i will be discussing.... lol you will just have to wait to find out