Canon or Nikon?

[Petraio Prime]

you're living in the past. I can't argue with you how things where in the 50s... I can only point out the obvious, which is how things are these days.

Yes but as we all know the present is based on the past.

so does that mean Canon might screw all of their loyal customer again and switch to a completely new system?

Are you using any Nikon lenses from 1964? If not, why not? Why do you consider what Canon did was 'screwing' their loyal customers? Sometimes you have to abandon what you have and start over. Nikon's reluctance to do this was reflected in the cameras such as the F4, a monstrosity by any measure. Nikon always seems to be playing catch-up.

Look, here's the point: even if you want to maintain compatibility, eventually the old stuff becomes obsolete or is superseded anyway. So, it becomes a pointless endeavour. Even if Nikon's mount is the same since 1959, everything around the mount has changed so much it might as well not be.

 

[Idahophoto]

When Canon introduced the EOS system in 1989 it was already very well thought out, with price points for various users, from the EOS-1 to the Rebel. Same with the lenses. There was the 'L' line for advanced photographers and pros, and standard lenses for the masses.

Nikon seemed to have egg on their face when this happened.

I don't get it. Why would anyone consider Nikon?

your right.... you DONT get it.

I have been watching Nikon for 50 years and would never own a Nikon product. They don't get it.

Maybe they do there are some real die hard Nikon users in case you have not been following a recent thread I will not name lol. So what don't they get? Its enough to keep them and in a constant battle for number 1 spot in the market so they must get something. Even if you don't

 

[Petraio Prime]

your right.... you DONT get it.

I have been watching Nikon for 50 years and would never own a Nikon product. They don't get it.

Maybe they do there are some real die hard Nikon users in case you have not been following a recent thread I will not name lol. So what don't they get? Its enough to keep them and in a constant battle for number 1 spot in the market so they must get something. Even if you don't

See my last post for the explanation. See earlier for my post about the transition from F to F2 etc.

 

[shaunly]

Yes but as we all know the present is based on the past.

so does that mean Canon might screw all of their loyal customer again and switch to a completely new system?

Are you using any Nikon lenses from 1964? If not, why not? Why do you consider what Canon did was 'screwing' their loyal customers? Sometimes you have to abandon what you have and start over. Nikon's reluctance to do this was reflected in the cameras such as the F4, a monstrosity by any measure. Nikon always seems to be playing catch-up.

Look, here's the point: even if you want to maintain compatibility, eventually the old stuff becomes obsolete or is superseded anyway. So, it becomes a pointless endeavour.

How are they playing catch-up? From the link you provide earlier, it clearly stated that the D3 has surpassed Canon 1D. Every since the released of the D3.. D3s/x, Canon is the one playing catch-up.

the old stuff become obsolete if your R&D isn't well though out and future proof. The fact that Nikon is still using the same F-mount and design since forever shows how great their engineering is.

 

[Neil S.]

I have a few questions.

Why does someone else having a different opinion from yours bother you so much?

Does it really matter that much what other people think?

 

[shaunly]

I have a few questions.

Why does someone else having a different opinion from yours bother you so much?

Does it really matter that much what other people think?

are you referring to me?

 

[Petraio Prime]

so does that mean Canon might screw all of their loyal customer again and switch to a completely new system?

Are you using any Nikon lenses from 1964? If not, why not? Why do you consider what Canon did was 'screwing' their loyal customers? Sometimes you have to abandon what you have and start over. Nikon's reluctance to do this was reflected in the cameras such as the F4, a monstrosity by any measure. Nikon always seems to be playing catch-up.

Look, here's the point: even if you want to maintain compatibility, eventually the old stuff becomes obsolete or is superseded anyway. So, it becomes a pointless endeavour.

How are they playing catch-up? From the link you provide earlier, it clearly stated that the D3 has surpassed Canon 1D. Every since the released of the D3.. D3s/x, Canon is the one playing catch-up.

the old stuff become obsolete if your R&D isn't well though out and future proof. The fact that Nikon is still using the same F-mount and design since forever shows how great their engineering is.

The main reason Nikon became established is that they were first on the market. The Topcon Super-D was a better-designed camera with the meter integrated into the body, not into the finder and stuck on the top with spring-loaded levers, as the Photomic was.

http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Topcon%20Super%20D.jpg

But the Topcon came later, after Nikon has established themselves among the press pros.

 

[Neil S.]

I have a few questions.

Why does someone else having a different opinion from yours bother you so much?

Does it really matter that much what other people think?

are you referring to me?

I am referring to anyone who won't let this go....

Would that be you by any chance lol?

 

[shaunly]

I have a few questions.

Why does someone else having a different opinion from yours bother you so much?

Does it really matter that much what other people think?

are you referring to me?

I am referring to anyone who won't let this go....

Would that be you by any chance lol?

It's nothing personal, just a friendly debate that's all :mrgreen:

 

[OrionsByte]

I don't get it. Why would anyone consider Nikon?

When someone walks in to a camera shop, or reads reviews, or uses any other method of researching cameras in order to make a purchase, the reasons that you have been extolling in this thread as points against Nikon probably don't come up for consideration all that often.

What someone is interested in when buying a camera today is how the camera, and the system, performs today. What happened a decade or two ago is pretty irrelevant when shopping for current-generation cameras. If someone can get the performance they want for whatever price they are willing to pay, they're probably not going to care whether or not the mount was invented decades ago. It simply doesn't have enough of a bearing on the quality of the pictures.

A second reason people might prefer one over the other is just the way it feels. I have a Nikon D70 that I was lucky enough to get as kind of a hand-me-down from a friend (for a modest price). He told me he would have no hard feelings if I wanted to trade it in for a Canon, and I considered it (mostly because Canons are easier to come by near where I live). However, after going to a camera shop and handling the Canons in my price range, I decided I liked the Nikon a lot better. It feels better in my hands. Sturdier. The settings are easier to manage on the D70 than on either of the Canons I played with (the T1i and T2i). I ended up deciding that those things were important enough for me to stick with the Nikon, invest in some lenses and a flash over the next few months, and eventually replace the body with something more current.

But that's just my opinion. I am not presenting any facts here, nor am I pretending to. I'm just saying that I had some reasons for sticking with Nikon - reasons that were good for me, and may not be good for other people. If someone had told me that I should switch to Canon because their AF mount was redesigned from scratch, I really doubt it would have swayed my opinion even a little.

 

[shaunly]

Are you using any Nikon lenses from 1964? If not, why not? Why do you consider what Canon did was 'screwing' their loyal customers? Sometimes you have to abandon what you have and start over. Nikon's reluctance to do this was reflected in the cameras such as the F4, a monstrosity by any measure. Nikon always seems to be playing catch-up.

Look, here's the point: even if you want to maintain compatibility, eventually the old stuff becomes obsolete or is superseded anyway. So, it becomes a pointless endeavour.

How are they playing catch-up? From the link you provide earlier, it clearly stated that the D3 has surpassed Canon 1D. Every since the released of the D3.. D3s/x, Canon is the one playing catch-up.

the old stuff become obsolete if your R&D isn't well though out and future proof. The fact that Nikon is still using the same F-mount and design since forever shows how great their engineering is.

The main reason Nikon became established is that they were first on the market. The Topcon Super-D was a better-designed camera with the meter integrated into the body, not into the finder and stuck on the top with spring-loaded levers, as the Photomic was.

http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Topcon Super D.jpg

But the Topcon came later, after Nikon has established themselves among the press pros.

why do you always refer back to the 30 year old history? We're talking about both company in their current state.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I don't get it. Why would anyone consider Nikon?

When someone walks in to a camera shop, or reads reviews, or uses any other method of researching cameras in order to make a purchase, the reasons that you have been extolling in this thread as points against Nikon probably don't come up for consideration all that often.

What someone is interested in when buying a camera today is how the camera, and the system, performs today. What happened a decade or two ago is pretty irrelevant when shopping for current-generation cameras. If someone can get the performance they want for whatever price they are willing to pay, they're probably not going to care whether or not the mount was invented decades ago. It simply doesn't have enough of a bearing on the quality of the pictures.

A second reason people might prefer one over the other is just the way it feels. I have a Nikon D70 that I was lucky enough to get as kind of a hand-me-down from a friend (for a modest price). He told me he would have no hard feelings if I wanted to trade it in for a Canon, and I considered it (mostly because Canons are easier to come by near where I live). However, after going to a camera shop and handling the Canons in my price range, I decided I liked the Nikon a lot better. It feels better in my hands. Sturdier. The settings are easier to manage on the D70 than on either of the Canons I played with (the T1i and T2i). I ended up deciding that those things were important enough for me to stick with the Nikon, invest in some lenses and a flash over the next few months, and eventually replace the body with something more current.

But that's just my opinion. I am not presenting any facts here, nor am I pretending to. I'm just saying that I had some reasons for sticking with Nikon - reasons that were good for me, and may not be good for other people. If someone had told me that I should switch to Canon because their AF mount was redesigned from scratch, I really doubt it would have swayed my opinion even a little.

It might if you knew what the implications it has on the design. Nikon seems to have a fetish about their lens mount and have refused to change it, even though lenses from 1959 to 1978 or so won't work on the latest cameras anyway, and are manual focus.

Don't get me wrong...I don't own either line. It's more of an anti-Nikon thing for me.

 

[Neil S.]

So I would really appreciate some input on this. I currently use a Nikon d60. This was my starter camera. I was looking into getting a D300, but then I started looking at canons.

I love my Nikon, but the D300 is a 12.3 MP when a Canon 7D is 18 MP. The price for a body is around the same. With Nikon are you basically paying this much for the name? Why are they the same price, when one has WAY higher MP? I don't get it. It's almost making me want to switch to Canon. Especially before I start buying a bunch of lenses to use with my Nikon.

What would some of you suggest?

This is the OP.

I am sure everyone has long forgotten by now.

He was asking for advice on if he should switch from Nikon to Canon or not.

The best thing we can do is tell him the strengths and weaknesses of both, and that they are both good companies and he can't go wrong with either.

These things have already been said many times in this thread, it is time that it dies.

From the direction this thread has gone he is probably much more confused and unsure of what to do than he was before. This is not good.

To the OP: No megapixels aren't everything. Nikon and Canon are both good companies, the 7D and the D300s are both fine cameras. You would be happy with either. Read some reviews on both, go to the store and hold both, play with controls, etc. and buy the one you like best.

There is no right and wrong here, its about what you like best.

Hope this helps.

 

[shaunly]

I don't get it. Why would anyone consider Nikon?

When someone walks in to a camera shop, or reads reviews, or uses any other method of researching cameras in order to make a purchase, the reasons that you have been extolling in this thread as points against Nikon probably don't come up for consideration all that often.

What someone is interested in when buying a camera today is how the camera, and the system, performs today. What happened a decade or two ago is pretty irrelevant when shopping for current-generation cameras. If someone can get the performance they want for whatever price they are willing to pay, they're probably not going to care whether or not the mount was invented decades ago. It simply doesn't have enough of a bearing on the quality of the pictures.

A second reason people might prefer one over the other is just the way it feels. I have a Nikon D70 that I was lucky enough to get as kind of a hand-me-down from a friend (for a modest price). He told me he would have no hard feelings if I wanted to trade it in for a Canon, and I considered it (mostly because Canons are easier to come by near where I live). However, after going to a camera shop and handling the Canons in my price range, I decided I liked the Nikon a lot better. It feels better in my hands. Sturdier. The settings are easier to manage on the D70 than on either of the Canons I played with (the T1i and T2i). I ended up deciding that those things were important enough for me to stick with the Nikon, invest in some lenses and a flash over the next few months, and eventually replace the body with something more current.

But that's just my opinion. I am not presenting any facts here, nor am I pretending to. I'm just saying that I had some reasons for sticking with Nikon - reasons that were good for me, and may not be good for other people. If someone had told me that I should switch to Canon because their AF mount was redesigned from scratch, I really doubt it would have swayed my opinion even a little.

It might if you knew what the implications it has on the design. Nikon seems to have a fetish about their lens mount and have refused to change it, even though lenses from 1959 to 1978 or so won't work on the latest cameras anyway, and are manual focus.

Don't get me wrong...I don't own either line. It's more of an anti-Nikon thing for me.

I've come to conclusion that you are set to your way of thinking and will never see what great advances Nikon has to offer. All of your debates has been Nikon in the 50s/60s/70s... and not one time have you mention anything relevant to today's photographers.

 

[Petraio Prime]

So I would really appreciate some input on this. I currently use a Nikon d60. This was my starter camera. I was looking into getting a D300, but then I started looking at canons.

I love my Nikon, but the D300 is a 12.3 MP when a Canon 7D is 18 MP. The price for a body is around the same. With Nikon are you basically paying this much for the name? Why are they the same price, when one has WAY higher MP? I don't get it. It's almost making me want to switch to Canon. Especially before I start buying a bunch of lenses to use with my Nikon.

What would some of you suggest?

This is the OP.

I am sure everyone has long forgotten it by now.

He was asking for advice on if he should switch from Nikon to Canon or not.

The best thing we can do is tell him the strengths and weaknesses of both, and that they are both good companies and he can't go wrong with either.

These things have already been said many times in this thread, it is time that it dies.

From the direction this thread has gone he is probably much more confused and unsure of what to do than he was before. This is not good.

To the OP: No megapixels aren't everything. Nikon and Canon are both good companies, the 7D and the D300s are both fine cameras. You would be happy with either. Read some reviews on both, go to the store and hold both, play with controls, etc. and buy the one you like best.

There is not right and wrong here, its about what you like best.

Hope this helps.

What does a used 1Ds go for?

Canon EOS 1Ds Body Only 11.1 Megapixel - Get great deals on items on eBay.com!

That's what I would do.