Canon or Nikon?

[JodieO]

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

They must be awfully close because all my friends that have the 1d are looking to jump ship to the D3 because they like it better, and love what I create with mine... I think so many people think the grass is greener... when all they need to do is figure out how to use their tools properly and be a great photographer.


And by the way, you may not know this and it's likely you don't because of how you said it, but the D3 is better than the D3X is low light. So if low light situations are what you have, the D3 is the answer. If you are only doing studio, the D3X is better.

 

[sovietdoc]

but the D3 is better than the D3X is low light. So if low light situations are what you have, the D3 is the answer. If you are only doing studio, the D3X is better.

Yeah, that's a fact. So I agree with that statement.

 

[Petraio Prime]

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. Reliability in space on missions that cost hundreds of millions of dollars demand 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.

That sounds like a programming problem, of course, not a connection problem. And yes, I am talking about the engineering principles involved...

I believe modified Leicas, Leicaflexes, and Hasselblads were sent on space missions, too.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b31/dawgdawg/leica-nasa.jpg

http://www.dlr.de/en/Portaldata/1/Resources/veranstaltungen/sternstunden/hasselblad_nasa.jpg

Yup!

I wonder where you look up the Nikon error of not being able to use the Nikon Photomic meter at a play, when you're seated in the dark with no overhead light. You can't see the meter needle. At all. You're totally screwed.

Tell me about that, will ya?

I was furious...to say the least..

 

[white]

You all need help getting over your camera-penis envy.

 

[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?

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.

Through out history, both company have been going back and forward. You said it yourself, before canon came out with their EOS system, Nikon was dominating. The 90s and early 2000s were Canon dominate. But for the last few years, since the released of Nikon current line, the table is starting to turn again. But the fact still remains, that Nikon didn't dump all their lens to turn the table around again. Their F-mount is still capable! If this is false, tell me how can Nikon still be the company they are today?

You keep saying Canon autofocus system is so much better, tell me how is it better? How is the connection on the Canon lens better than the Nikon? I've never heard/seen/read about any issue regarding the connection on the F-mount. What does the Canon AF do that's better than the Nikon? EVEN if what you claim is all true, there's always the rest of the camera (ie sensor/meter/processing/lens/design...the list goes on and on) that makes up the system NOT just the mount.

Honestly you are being COMPLETELY unreasonable. I'm not even trying to claim, Nikon is better than Canon. Both of these company are dead on, and the only winner is the consumer. It's just your claim about Nikon is so obscene it's ridiculous. Think about it, if in FACT what you think, say and claim about Nikon is true, how could they be still one of the top camera company. Think about it hard....

 

[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.

Through out history, both company have been going back and forward. You said it yourself, before canon came out with their EOS system, Nikon was dominating. The 90s and early 2000s were Canon dominate. But for the last few years, since the released of Nikon current line, the table is starting to turn again. But the fact still remains, that Nikon didn't dump all their lens to turn the table around again. Their F-mount is still capable! If this is false, tell me how can Nikon still be the company they are today?

You keep saying Canon autofocus system is so much better, tell me how is it better? How is the connection on the Canon lens better than the Nikon? I've never heard/seen/read about any issue regarding the connection on the F-mount. What does the Canon AF do that's better than the Nikon? EVEN if what you claim is all true, there's always the rest of the camera (ie sensor/meter/processing/lens/design...the list goes on and on) that makes up the system NOT just the mount.

Honestly you are being COMPLETELY unreasonable. I'm not even trying to claim, Nikon is better than Canon. Both of these company are dead on, and the only winner is the consumer. It's just your claim about Nikon is so obscene it's ridiculous. Think about it, if in FACT what you think, say and claim about Nikon is true, how could they be still one of the top camera company. Think about it hard....

Well why did so many jump ship when Canon came out with the EOS-1? I'll tell you why...

Nikon had come out with the F4 the year before. It was a monstrosity...people looked at it, Nikon's best effort at an autofocus pro model...played with it...then looked at the slick EOS-1 and all the great AF lenses....and it was no contest...the press guys dumped Nikons right and left...you saw nothing but white lenses at sporting events...Canon designed the EOS autofocus system for sports and press work, primarily, which is where they believed the biggest need for autofocus was. You don't need it as much for portraits or stationary subject matter...so Canon designed their system around the needs of sports and press photographers.

It has taken Nikon 20 years to make up lost ground...

Why? WHY? Just so they didn't have to change mounts? That's just plain idiotic! Look at all the sales they have lost!

Disclaimer: I own manual focus Leicaflex cameras and lenses and have no bias between Nikon and Canon.

 

[Derrel]

"Nikon Photomic meter at a play, when you're seated in the dark with no overhead light. You can't see the meter needle. At all. You're totally screwed."

Press the button on the right hand side of the prism, which lights up the grain of wheat bulb inside the Photomic head. Or, use your brain...theatrical lighting using B&W or color negative film is fairly predictable...did you need a light meter to help you out under flood lighting?

 

[Petraio Prime]

"Nikon Photomic meter at a play, when you're seated in the dark with no overhead light. You can't see the meter needle. At all. You're totally screwed."

Press the button on the right hand side of the prism, which lights up the grain of wheat bulb inside the Photomic head. Or, use your brain...theatrical lighting using B&W or color negative film is fairly predictable...did you need a light meter to help you out under flood lighting?

I was shooting Tri-X. We always shot dress rehearsals and lighting intensity varied from scene to scene.

There was no light on the model I was using. Or else the battery was dead, I don't remember now. It was 1970 or so.

All I remember was hating that stupid camera and the idiot who designed that meter.



When I got my Leicaflex SL and 90mm Elmarit-R, doing such work became a snap, because the selective circle of the meter allowed me to meter just the actors and actresses, and ignore the dark background.

 

[vtf]

Go Canon!

I have nothing:meh:

 

[shaunly]

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.

Through out history, both company have been going back and forward. You said it yourself, before canon came out with their EOS system, Nikon was dominating. The 90s and early 2000s were Canon dominate. But for the last few years, since the released of Nikon current line, the table is starting to turn again. But the fact still remains, that Nikon didn't dump all their lens to turn the table around again. Their F-mount is still capable! If this is false, tell me how can Nikon still be the company they are today?

You keep saying Canon autofocus system is so much better, tell me how is it better? How is the connection on the Canon lens better than the Nikon? I've never heard/seen/read about any issue regarding the connection on the F-mount. What does the Canon AF do that's better than the Nikon? EVEN if what you claim is all true, there's always the rest of the camera (ie sensor/meter/processing/lens/design...the list goes on and on) that makes up the system NOT just the mount.

Honestly you are being COMPLETELY unreasonable. I'm not even trying to claim, Nikon is better than Canon. Both of these company are dead on, and the only winner is the consumer. It's just your claim about Nikon is so obscene it's ridiculous. Think about it, if in FACT what you think, say and claim about Nikon is true, how could they be still one of the top camera company. Think about it hard....

Well why did so many jump ship when Canon came out with the EOS-1? I'll tell you why...

Nikon had come out with the F4 the year before. It was a monstrosity...people looked at it, played with it...then looked at the slick EOS-1 and all the great AF lenses....and it was no contest...the press guys dumped Nikons right and left...you saw nothing but white lenses at sporting events...

It has taken Nikon 20 years to make up lost ground...

Why? WHY? Just so they didn't have to change mounts? That's just plain idiotic! Look at all the sales they have lost!

Disclaimer: I own manual focus Leicaflex cameras and lenses and have no bias between Nikon and Canon.

One product does not represent 50+ years of great engineering. Yes it took Nikon 20 years, how long did Canon take to finally come out with their EOS system?...1987? So what about 30 years before that? Regardless with all these history lesson, we are talking about product TODAY. And just like the 90s where Nikon user switched, Canon user are starting to switch back to Nikon.

For the record, maybe NASA did you Leica and Hasselblads, but definitely NOT Canon! And this discussion is about Nikon and Canon here, remember? So I wonder why NASA has been using Nikon off the shelf cameras for all these years??Ummm.... All I know is that if it's good enough for NASA, it's plenty good enough for me!

 

[shaunly]

Hey Derrel, where's that picture of the 2008 Beijing Olympics of all those photographer dominated with Nikon. What a bunch of idiots... those damn pro photographer shooting at the world biggest sporting event! What do they know using Nikon :er:

 

[Petraio Prime]

Through out history, both company have been going back and forward. You said it yourself, before canon came out with their EOS system, Nikon was dominating. The 90s and early 2000s were Canon dominate. But for the last few years, since the released of Nikon current line, the table is starting to turn again. But the fact still remains, that Nikon didn't dump all their lens to turn the table around again. Their F-mount is still capable! If this is false, tell me how can Nikon still be the company they are today?

You keep saying Canon autofocus system is so much better, tell me how is it better? How is the connection on the Canon lens better than the Nikon? I've never heard/seen/read about any issue regarding the connection on the F-mount. What does the Canon AF do that's better than the Nikon? EVEN if what you claim is all true, there's always the rest of the camera (ie sensor/meter/processing/lens/design...the list goes on and on) that makes up the system NOT just the mount.

Honestly you are being COMPLETELY unreasonable. I'm not even trying to claim, Nikon is better than Canon. Both of these company are dead on, and the only winner is the consumer. It's just your claim about Nikon is so obscene it's ridiculous. Think about it, if in FACT what you think, say and claim about Nikon is true, how could they be still one of the top camera company. Think about it hard....

Well why did so many jump ship when Canon came out with the EOS-1? I'll tell you why...

Nikon had come out with the F4 the year before. It was a monstrosity...people looked at it, played with it...then looked at the slick EOS-1 and all the great AF lenses....and it was no contest...the press guys dumped Nikons right and left...you saw nothing but white lenses at sporting events...

It has taken Nikon 20 years to make up lost ground...

Why? WHY? Just so they didn't have to change mounts? That's just plain idiotic! Look at all the sales they have lost!

Disclaimer: I own manual focus Leicaflex cameras and lenses and have no bias between Nikon and Canon.

One product does not represent 50+ years of great engineering. Yes it took Nikon 20 years, how long did Canon take to finally come out with their EOS system?...1987? So what about 30 years before that? Regardless with all these history lesson, we are talking about product TODAY. And just like the 90s where Nikon user switched, Canon user are starting to switch back to Nikon.

For the record, maybe NASA did you Leica and Hasselblads, but definitely NOT Canon! And this discussion is about Nikon and Canon here, remember? So I wonder why NASA has been using Nikon off the shelf cameras for all these years??Ummm.... All I know is that if it's good enough for NASA, it's plenty good enough for me!

Reliability was never an issue with Nikon. Handling, image quality, etc., were. Ever use the 43-86 zoom? The 50-300? They were dogs! But Nikon was far from unique in having good reliability; other companies produced equipment that was considered highly reliable. The US Navy used Topcons at one point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topcon

"About 1965 the US Navy tested cameras from several Japanese and German manufacturers (including the Nikon F). The Topcon Super D was the winner of this competition and served in the Navy until the very end of Topcon production in 1977."

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3559/3664108523_97a7d8ab56.jpg

There are other cameras with high reliability (none exceeds Leica, though) and better handling (my Leicaflex is far easier to handle than Nikon F). Remember Nikon Fs...you had to take the back off to load them? Do you remember that?

Nikon and Canon came out with autofocus pro cameras within a year of one another. The Canon was vastly superior in every way.

Disclaimer: I own manual focus Leicaflex cameras and lenses and have no bias between Nikon and Canon.

But I would not be caught dead using anything made by Nikon.

 

[shaunly]

Well why did so many jump ship when Canon came out with the EOS-1? I'll tell you why...

Nikon had come out with the F4 the year before. It was a monstrosity...people looked at it, played with it...then looked at the slick EOS-1 and all the great AF lenses....and it was no contest...the press guys dumped Nikons right and left...you saw nothing but white lenses at sporting events...

It has taken Nikon 20 years to make up lost ground...

Why? WHY? Just so they didn't have to change mounts? That's just plain idiotic! Look at all the sales they have lost!

Disclaimer: I own manual focus Leicaflex cameras and lenses and have no bias between Nikon and Canon.

One product does not represent 50+ years of great engineering. Yes it took Nikon 20 years, how long did Canon take to finally come out with their EOS system?...1987? So what about 30 years before that? Regardless with all these history lesson, we are talking about product TODAY. And just like the 90s where Nikon user switched, Canon user are starting to switch back to Nikon.

For the record, maybe NASA did you Leica and Hasselblads, but definitely NOT Canon! And this discussion is about Nikon and Canon here, remember? So I wonder why NASA has been using Nikon off the shelf cameras for all these years??Ummm.... All I know is that if it's good enough for NASA, it's plenty good enough for me!

Reliability was never an issue with Nikon. Handling, image quality, etc., were. Ever use the 43-86 zoom? The 50-300? They were dogs!

There are other cameras with high reliability (none exceeds Leica, though) and better handling (my Leicaflex is far easier to handle than Nikon F). Remember Nikon Fs...you had to take the back off to load them? Do you remember that?

Nikon and Canon came out with autofocus pro cameras within a year of one another. The Canon was vastly superior in every way.

Disclaimer: I own manual focus Leicaflex cameras and lenses and have no bias between Nikon and Canon.

But I would not be caught dead using anything made by Nikon.

So you are saying NASA don't care about image quality/focusing/ handling?

There is a direct connection between reliability and f-mounts. You said Nikon connection sucks and Canon's are better but now just you claim reliability is never an issue with Nikon. Umm.... I think you just lost all credibility man.

FYI: Only the Nikon D3 were available at the time of the 2008 Olympics. That's just ONE model out!

I can't wait till the next Olympics.

 

[Petraio Prime]

One product does not represent 50+ years of great engineering. Yes it took Nikon 20 years, how long did Canon take to finally come out with their EOS system?...1987? So what about 30 years before that? Regardless with all these history lesson, we are talking about product TODAY. And just like the 90s where Nikon user switched, Canon user are starting to switch back to Nikon.

For the record, maybe NASA did you Leica and Hasselblads, but definitely NOT Canon! And this discussion is about Nikon and Canon here, remember? So I wonder why NASA has been using Nikon off the shelf cameras for all these years??Ummm.... All I know is that if it's good enough for NASA, it's plenty good enough for me!

Reliability was never an issue with Nikon. Handling, image quality, etc., were. Ever use the 43-86 zoom? The 50-300? They were dogs!

There are other cameras with high reliability (none exceeds Leica, though) and better handling (my Leicaflex is far easier to handle than Nikon F). Remember Nikon Fs...you had to take the back off to load them? Do you remember that?

Nikon and Canon came out with autofocus pro cameras within a year of one another. The Canon was vastly superior in every way.

Disclaimer: I own manual focus Leicaflex cameras and lenses and have no bias between Nikon and Canon.

But I would not be caught dead using anything made by Nikon.

So you are saying NASA don't care about image quality/focusing/ handling?

There is a direct connection between reliability and f-mounts. You said Nikon connection sucks and Canon's are better but now just you claim reliability is never an issue with Nikon. Umm.... I think you just lost all credibility man.

FYI: Only the Nikon D3 were available at the time of the 2008 Olympics. That's just ONE model out!

I can't wait till the next Olympics.

Not what I said. I said Nikon made some dog lenses, and all my Leicaflex lenses trounced them in head-to-head comparisons. I know, I ran tests in the 70s.

I have no idea what you mean by "There is a direct connection between reliability and f-mounts." The shutter? How is it connected to the F-mount?

Do you remember the dog Nikkorexes Nikon sold?

http://www.nicovandijk.net/Nikrex_B_1.jpg

Good for paperweights at best.

Nikon's whole history is one of compromise simply so they don't have to change mounts.

Disclaimer: I own manual focus Leicaflex cameras and lenses and have no bias between Nikon and Canon.

 

[shaunly]

I noticed you are very selective when answering question. You only answer the one that you can argue and bring up random history over and over again. You still haven't been able to answer one of my question. You just ignore it and start linking me so old vintage gears..

So tell me, are all those photographer in that picture wrong? Is NASA an idiot for choosing Nikon? They don't care about image quality/ handling right?