Canon or Nikon?

[JasonLambert]

I'm not even going to read this thread.




I'm NOT getting sucked into another Canon v. Nikon thread!





NOT GOING TO DO IT!!!!





DAMNIT! I have a lot of reading to do... 17 Pages just to get caught up... I hate myself!



Hmph

 

[Petraio Prime]

Petraio,
You're clearly in the dark about Nikon lens designs and what constitutes obsolete,etc,etc. Really simple: the "Baby Nikons" is a term I coined to help people remember what works with them: the Baby Nikons will mount and shoot ANY LENS EVER MADE in Nikon F-mount (except for a couple of rare 1960's fisheye lenses that cost more than a small car). Baby Nikons will mount and shoot photos with ANY autofocus Nikon lens ever made. The diaphragm will be fully automatic. The Baby Nikons are ideal for use with bellows, microscopes, slide duplicators, old telephotos, old wideangles, old exotic,rare zooms, and basically ANY ACCESSORY EVER MADE in F-mount. With the exception of the 21mm f/4 of 1960-62, and a couple of the ultra-rare Niikor fisheyes like the 6mm and 8mm,which are extremely rare.

F-mount is a lot like the Leica M-mount...old....very strong, very capable, and easy to find lenses for. The Baby Nikons are very affordable. They work with ANY F-mount accessory, because they use NO mechanical coupling for metering. They work with ANY AF lens--but will not provide automatic focusing with the 1986-2004 lens designs that use "screwdriver" focusing.

So, it's pretty simple: the people who bought $500 bodies like the D40,D40x,D60,D3000,and D5000 (there are FIVE baby Nikons) can use ANY LENS and ANY F-mount accessory made since 1959. To take photos. There are no connections "needed"--all connections are optional. Buyers of the Baby Nikons can barely afford the pro-level primes that use screwdriver focusing...they buy 18-55 and 55-200 and 70-300 VR and are "done",basically. Nikon caters to higher-end,long-term users more so than newcomers. Nikon has always been that way...they have a huge commitment to "serious" users,and to compatibility and continuity.

You really,really do not understand much about the Nikon system PeePee...you really have no idea...maybe we ought to get into the 2-cam and 3-cam nuances of your discontinued Leicaflex R mount cameras and lenses (laughs). Nikon is what sent Leica into the crapper--is that why you despise Nikon so much? Because in the 1950's their lenses were used on Canon and COntax and Nikon bodies, and sent Leica irreversibly toward its death spiral in professional circles?

Next week, we'll see Canon design its new car, and it will be designed so the gas and brake systems alternate their functions between the two pedals, based on four different transmission gears! Ought to be great fun! (Laughs). 1st gear-brake is brake, 2nd gear brake is gas, 3rd gear brake is brake, 4th gear brake is gas....Air conditioner button also runs the emergency flashers; gear shift also opens the trunk latch; seat adjustment button also runs the windshield wipers; door locks also turn the car on and off. Gotta love 4 controls that run 8 different functions! Great engineering! (not!)

Yes I do understand about the Nikon system. I just don't bother to keep track of all the lens coupling and autofocus variations. I have a life to live and Nietzsche to translate. I do know that for a while non-AI lenses could be converted to AI. Does anyone care about that any more? Does the D3 accept non-AI lenses? If not, who cares? Why worry about lenses that are technologically obsolete?

Here's a chart:

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

You can see that pre-AI lenses are not usable on some newer Nikon cameras. G lenses cannot be used on many older film cameras.

As you can see the 'compatibility' is not as extensive as you believe.

 

[JodieO]

Wow, really? Why are we so worried about lenses from the 1950s?

If you are in this as a pro, you shouldn't be worried - you will want to upgrade once a year or once every other year with the latest and greatest in technology - to provide for your customers, and that should be factored into your pricing anyway, so it shouldn't matter.

If you are not a pro, you probably aren't investing in $1,000 to $2,000 lenses so it probably won't be a huge issue to you.

I buy lenses every year. I'm refraining from purchasing the 200-400 Nikkor right now as I'm having a hard time justifying it, but I am sure it will be sitting on the right of my lineup here below in the future...

Funny thing is, of these lenses (which all work on all of my Nikon cameras, although there is the DX issue with the full frame D3, which doesn't matter to me, because I don't have many DX lenses - and in this lineup, I didn't include three kit lenses and the 28 prime I shot with), I probably only use 3 of them weekly because you only need so many ranges.

Am I worried about mounts and 1950s lenses? No way. So it really amazes me how stuck on that subject some people tend to be - I don't understand why.

 

[rpm]

i dont think anyone is worried about 1950s lenses per-se. i just think that people are arguing that Nikon should change their mount system as a means of innovating their future lens design - which is false.

btw JodieO. very nice line up. nice picture too...you do product-promotion photography?

 

[Petraio Prime]

Wow, really? Why are we so worried about lenses from the 1950s?

If you are in this as a pro, you shouldn't be worried - you will want to upgrade once a year or once every other year with the latest and greatest in technology - to provide for your customers, and that should be factored into your pricing anyway, so it shouldn't matter.

If you are not a pro, you probably aren't investing in $1,000 to $2,000 lenses so it probably won't be a huge issue to you.

I buy lenses every year. I'm refraining from purchasing the 200-400 Nikkor right now as I'm having a hard time justifying it, but I am sure it will be sitting on the right of my lineup here below in the future...

Funny thing is, of these lenses (which all work on all of my Nikon cameras, although there is the DX issue with the full frame D3, which doesn't matter to me, because I don't have many DX lenses - and in this lineup, I didn't include three kit lenses and the 28 prime I shot with), I probably only use 3 of them weekly because you only need so many ranges.

Am I worried about mounts and 1950s lenses? No way. So it really amazes me how stuck on that subject some people tend to be - I don't understand why.

Precisely. And Canon's completely new mount didn't seem to bother the thousands of Nikon owners who dumped their Nikon stuff to buy into the new Canon system. Why the hell should Nikon have this fetish about keeping their sacred mount when there are numerous advantages to starting over, as Canon did?

Technically, Canon is far ahead of Nikon in their overall approach. (Emphasis added and qualification important!)

Why would Nikon owners be pissed if Nikon came out with a new mount? Many of them switched to Canon when Canon did it. Why would owners of Brand A be pissed when Brand A switches mounts, but not be pissed when Brand B does it? It's the same thing. Either you stay or switch to take advantage of the new system's capabilities.

There is fundamentally no difference between switching to an EF system from an FD system and switching from a Nikon system.

As Jodie points out above, the stuff becomes obsolescent fairly quickly anyway...

 

[shaunly]

Please explain how canon is technically far ahead of nikon. I seriously think you have NO clue on the performance and specs of the current nikon line up.

 

[shaunly]

The FACT that Nikon is still using their f-mount till this day and is still one of the top dslr company tell people how great their design is. Not only their lens is neck to neck if not better than canon but now their body (d3 series) has surpasses canon. Yes Canon mounts are wider but so what? How does that make the complete system any better?

 

[mooseluver24]

When it comes to the tech aspects of things, I can't offer much.
However, I currently work with a Nikon D90 and I adore it. When upgrading from a D40 my other photography partner let me borrow her Canon EOS. It was a good camera but I love the picture quality of Nikon. To me, nothing can compare. I'm biased though as I am HEAVILY invested in Nikon Lenses.
Good luck!

 

[Neil S.]

Almost 2500 views and 18 pages....

 

[JodieO]

Not only their lens is neck to neck if not better than canon but now their body (d3 series) has surpasses canon.

Yes, unless you have worked with the D3 series, please don't speculate. The D3 series have surpassed all my friends' canon pro lineup.

 

[Neil S.]

Schwetty....

You should make a cool Canon vs. Nikon image to post in this thread.

Like 2 cameras and lenses in a boxing ring or something lol.

 

[supraman215]

I'm not even going to read this thread.




I'm NOT getting sucked into another Canon v. Nikon thread!





NOT GOING TO DO IT!!!!





DAMNIT! I have a lot of reading to do... 17 Pages just to get caught up... I hate myself!



Hmph

OH NO IT'S TOO late! He's for sure read it all by now!

 

[sovietdoc]

Yes, unless you have worked with the D3 series, please don't speculate. The D3 series have surpassed all my friends' canon pro lineup.

d3x maybe, but a friend of mine who used nikon for 25 years now, is wishing he had 1d mk4 rather than his d3s. From what I can see, there is no clear win for the d3s over 1d mkiv

 

[Petraio Prime]

The FACT that Nikon is still using their f-mount till this day and is still one of the top dslr company tell people how great their design is. Not only their lens is neck to neck if not better than canon but now their body (d3 series) has surpasses canon. Yes Canon mounts are wider but so what? How does that make the complete system any better?

No, it isn't. The Canon mount is designed from the ground up to be a better connection. It has electronic contacts for one, and a larger bayonet aperture for another. Both of these allow greater capabilities. The F mount has had various primitive mechanical linkages.

And since Nikon was so perfect, why did thousands of press photographers switch?

The Columbus Dispatch dumped all their Nikon gear and went to Canon some time in the 90s. I was there when they were doing the transaction. I am sure they were not alone.

If Nikon had come out with a new mount and autofocus camera line, what difference would it have made?

Nikon would have made the sale instead of Canon.

 

[Derrel]

A better connection??? Hilarious!

Do a Google search on this search string: Canon Error 99

What comes up? 1,390,000 hits! Yeah, just shy of one point four million hits.

Sports Illustrated took 26 Nikon D3 and D300 bodies to the 2008 Bejing Olympics.

NASA and the Russian Space Station have both purchased off-the-shelf Nikon bodies and lenses for use in their space programs. PROVEN reliability in space on missions that cost hundreds of millions of dollars is somewthing Nikon has demonstrated since the 1960's. Nikon is synonymous with reliable equipment...stuff that will nor flash Err99 and freeze up at the slightest provocation.

Nikon cameras and lenses have been aboard each and every single NASA space launch and manned and unmanned mission since the 1960's...one would think Canon's "better" system ought to at least stand a chance...and yet, it does not get selected by either NASA or the RUssian space programs...

Again, look up Canon Error 99, and see how many ways Canon bodies tend to shut down despite their "better connection"; it has proven to be a theoretical advantage, not an actual advantage.