Canon or Nikon?

[Polyphony]

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.

You sir, are full of a lot of crap. You probably ARE a lawyer.

Pianist Oscar Peterson played on Bosendorfer pianos. I guess all other pianos are terrible and don't compare.

The Ford Crown Victoria is the number one car used by police agencies. I guess all other vehicles are terrible and don't compare. We should all own Crown Vics.

The United States Marines use an AR-15 platform. I guess all other rifles/platforms are terrible and don't compare.

Yeah, that makes sense. It really is a shame because people will read your posts and actually believe them.

I actually laughed out loud at your suggestion to search for a specific string in google involving a Canon error.
Just to play your ridiculous game, maybe this is something you should take a look at:

Google

Google

In case you are too lazy to click on the links, the first one is a google search for "nikon camera error". Yields 2.1 million results

The second link is a google search for "canon camera error". Yields 310,000 results.

There goes your already-useless-to-begin-with argument.

My search string is much more broad and encompassing than yours. Also, mine is unbiased since I searched for both companies.

I also rebut your Sports Illustrated article with this: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0711/gallery.canon.biever/content.1.html
Sports Illustrated using Canon EOS 1d.

As you can see, one can "find" anything that "appears" to prove one's point.

Just give up. 90% of your arguments have been filled with red herring and are non sequitur. Please just stop feeding people false logic.

In this type of discussion (camera brand vs. camera brand) you can only discuss opinions. There is no answer to "which brand is better?". It would be like saying this: "My favorite color is blue because it's calm" "No, you're wrong, the best color is red because it stands out" "No, you're wrong, red sucks because it hurts my eyes when I look at it, blue is the best color"

See? You can only say "I like Nikon's design BECAUSE...." and then give reasons. You could also say "Nikon takes better images BECAUSE...." and show samples or explain why you THINK their technology is better.

(Keep in mind those are just examples; there are many more statements you can make while supporting them with reasons.)

There is no clear-cut winner. If Nikon actually had "better" technology, everyone would use Nikon. The reason why everyone doesn't (even though you might think they have better technology) is because it comes down to your PERSONAL PREFERENCE. Which is DIFFERENT from PERSON to PERSON. This is why there will NEVER be an answer to the question, "What is the best Camera brand?"

There are very few things in life that have clear cut answers. Math and science, that's about it. (Cameras are science but they produce images, which people interpret differently; not science. You can say that this sensor is more advanced but that does not prove anything because again, it comes down to preference. The question is not "Which sensor is better?" it is "Which camera do you LIKE better?")

 

[vtf]

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
Derrel,
Why would NASA purchase Nikons off the shelf when at the very least get them free for the publicity. Its either a let down of marketing at Nikon or another wonderful screwup of a government agency.

 

[Rekd]

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

^^^^ Bookworthy.

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.

Why would someone want to speak of that which they do not understand? Are you hoping he will talk about something he's unfamiliar with just so you can jump in and rail him for not knowing what he's talking about?

Really? :twak:

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?

Um, "all" those photographers in that picture are not using Nikon. I didn't count, but looks close to half are L and the rest are black. Of the black ones, how many can you identify as Nikon, because Canon and other mfgs make black lenses, too. :lmao:

And I can tell you for a fact that NASA is more concerned that the things they send to space will work properly, even if they don't work as well.

It's like comparing an AR15 to an AK47. The AK47 will shoot all day in any conditions even you stuff the muzzle full of mud. The AR15 is more 'delicate' and will jam and misfire if you don't keep it in excellent condition. But when both are shooting at the same time, and everything else is equal, I'd take the AR over the AK any day.

Also compare it like this: A Formula 1 car vs a NASCAR. You can bang up a NASCAR all race long and still finish, but if you race against an F1 car and you don't bump him into the wall he's going to clean your clock! Lucky for us Canon does a great job at protecting their camera body and internals.

 

[shaunly]

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

^^^^ Bookworthy.

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.

Why would someone want to speak of that which they do not understand? Are you hoping he will talk about something he's unfamiliar with just so you can jump in and rail him for not knowing what he's talking about?

Really? :twak:

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?

Um, "all" those photographers in that picture are not using Nikon. I didn't count, but looks close to half are L and the rest are black. Of the black ones, how many can you identify as Nikon, because Canon and other mfgs make black lenses, too. :lmao:

And I can tell you for a fact that NASA is more concerned that the things they send to space will work properly, even if they don't work as well.

It's like comparing an AR15 to an AK47. The AK47 will shoot all day in any conditions even you stuff the muzzle full of mud. The AR15 is more 'delicate' and will jam and misfire if you don't keep it in excellent condition. But when both are shooting at the same time, and everything else is equal, I'd take the AR over the AK any day.

Also compare it like this: A Formula 1 car vs a NASCAR. You can bang up a NASCAR all race long and still finish, but if you race against an F1 car and you don't bump him into the wall he's going to clean your clock! Lucky for us Canon does a great job at protecting their camera body and internals.

My intention was not to say Nikon is better than Canon. If it came out that way then I apologized. I was simply trying to proof the statement that he made about Nikon. I've said it before, both company are neck to neck. The only winner here is us, the consumer. It does come down to preference. I have a great deal of respect for Canon. I was on the verge of switching over myself. I'm just saying, if you read these claims and statement by petraio, whether your a canon, nikon, pentax, or whoever, it's pretty outrageous.

 

[Petraio Prime]

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

^^^^ Bookworthy.



Why would someone want to speak of that which they do not understand? Are you hoping he will talk about something he's unfamiliar with just so you can jump in and rail him for not knowing what he's talking about?

Really? :twak:

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?

Um, "all" those photographers in that picture are not using Nikon. I didn't count, but looks close to half are L and the rest are black. Of the black ones, how many can you identify as Nikon, because Canon and other mfgs make black lenses, too. :lmao:

And I can tell you for a fact that NASA is more concerned that the things they send to space will work properly, even if they don't work as well.

It's like comparing an AR15 to an AK47. The AK47 will shoot all day in any conditions even you stuff the muzzle full of mud. The AR15 is more 'delicate' and will jam and misfire if you don't keep it in excellent condition. But when both are shooting at the same time, and everything else is equal, I'd take the AR over the AK any day.

Also compare it like this: A Formula 1 car vs a NASCAR. You can bang up a NASCAR all race long and still finish, but if you race against an F1 car and you don't bump him into the wall he's going to clean your clock! Lucky for us Canon does a great job at protecting their camera body and internals.

My intention was not to say Nikon is better than Canon. If it came out that way then I apologized. I was simply trying to proof the statement that he made about Nikon. I've said it before, both company are neck to neck. The only winner here is us, the consumer. It does come down to preference. I have a great deal of respect for Canon. I was on the verge of switching over myself. I'm just saying, if you read these claims and statement by petraio, whether your a canon, nikon, pentax, or whoever, it's pretty outrageous.

That accusation is false. I have used and sold photo equipment for quite some time. I know the ins and outs and histories of these companies.

 

[Rekd]

My intention was not to say Nikon is better than Canon.

What I responded to had zero to do with whether you said Nikon was better than Canon. It had everything to do with your statements which I clearly defined by quoting them.

If you'd care to respond to my actual statements instead of injecting your own concerns I'd be much obliged. :meh:

 

[Adam Faulkner]

I have worked with both systems. And also sold both systems. We get a lot more Canon cameras back for repair than Nikon. And there is more pros going from Canon to Nikon. In the time I have been selling cameras I have only had one customer go from Nikon to Canon (that was because of the video side).

At the end of the day its down to the photographer to capture a great image and both camera will do that. Once an image is printed its hard to tell which camera was used.
If you show jo public a a3 print they can not tell the difference between an 10mp DSLR and a 45mp Hasselblad.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I have worked with both systems. And also sold both systems. We get a lot more Canon cameras back for repair than Nikon. And there is more pros going from Canon to Nikon. In the time I have been selling cameras I have only had one customer go from Nikon to Canon (that was because of the video side).

At the end of the day its down to the photographer to capture a great image and both camera will do that. Once an image is printed its hard to tell which camera was used.
If you show jo public a a3 print they can not tell the difference between an 10mp DSLR and a 45mp Hasselblad.

Do you sell more of Canon? What price point?
That statement is useless.

 

[shaunly]

My intention was not to say Nikon is better than Canon.

What I responded to had zero to do with whether you said Nikon was better than Canon. It had everything to do with your statements which I clearly defined by quoting them.

If you'd care to respond to my actual statements instead of injecting your own concerns I'd be much obliged. :meh:

The in world of photography, there are only two obvious choices for NASA to choose (considering the lenses they've picked). You're saying that you know for a fact that NASA most important thing is reliability? So does this mean that Nikon are more reliable than Canon? Also when it comes to IQ, dpreview stated:
" if you can afford the D3X, you will buy yourself the best image detail that's currently on the market and a very versatile photographic tools. We've used it in the studio and on location, for portraits and for sports, in daylight and in dim clubs and and on every occasion we were amazed how easy it was to achieve good results with the camera. Therefore, despite its eye-watering price tag, the Nikon D3X without a shadow of doubt earns itself our highest award"
Nikon D3x Review: 33. Conclusion: Digital Photography Review

 

[Rekd]

You're saying that you know for a fact that NASA most important thing is reliability?

That's exactly what I'm saying. I used to make stuff for them and I know their requirements.

Now, I'm not saying that specifically about cameras because my work was in a mechanical component environment, but their SOP is that it simply has. to. work. If it's a bit buggy but performs better when it's working, they won't want it. They'll take something they know will work when their guys/gals are away from help.

If that's why they chose Nikon, then the shoe fits. I can't say for sure.

 

[shaunly]

You're saying that you know for a fact that NASA most important thing is reliability?

That's exactly what I'm saying. I used to make stuff for them and I know their requirements.

Now, I'm not saying that specifically about cameras because my work was in a mechanical component environment, but their SOP is that it simply has. to. work. If it's a bit buggy but performs better when it's working, they won't want it. They'll take something they know will work when their guys/gals are away from help.

If that's why they chose Nikon, then the shoe fits. I can't say for sure.

Ok cool, thanks for confirming this. Since you actually have experience working with NASA, we now know whatever they use simply has to work. And they choose Nikon. :thumbup:

 

[Petraio Prime]

You're saying that you know for a fact that NASA most important thing is reliability?

That's exactly what I'm saying. I used to make stuff for them and I know their requirements.

Now, I'm not saying that specifically about cameras because my work was in a mechanical component environment, but their SOP is that it simply has. to. work. If it's a bit buggy but performs better when it's working, they won't want it. They'll take something they know will work when their guys/gals are away from help.

If that's why they chose Nikon, then the shoe fits. I can't say for sure.

Ok cool, thanks for confirming this. Since you actually have experience working with NASA, we now know whatever they use simply has to work. And they choose Nikon. :thumbup:

And Leica.

And Hasselblad.

 

[Rekd]

Ok cool, thanks for confirming this. Since you actually have experience working with NASA, we now know whatever they use simply has to work. And they choose Nikon. :thumbup:

And Leica.

And Hasselblad.

^^^ Troof!

But see, NASA takes this whole 'reliability' thing much MUCH further than even the most professional photog we have here at TPF. So if you're ok with playing the part of Tom Foolery by insinuating everyone needs the exacting standards that NASA requires and chose in Nikon, which may only be ever so slightly better than Canon, then you go, girl!

Point is, the difference isn't as much as you're making it out to be by jumping on the 'if it's good enough for NASA it's good enough for you' bandwagon.

And even so, especially with NASA, old habits are hard to break. Even it they're better alternatives than what the original standards were based upon.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Ok cool, thanks for confirming this. Since you actually have experience working with NASA, we now know whatever they use simply has to work. And they choose Nikon. :thumbup:

And Leica.

And Hasselblad.

^^^ Troof!

But see, NASA takes this whole 'reliability' thing much MUCH further than even the most professional photog we have here at TPF. So if you're ok with playing the part of Tom Foolery by insinuating everyone needs the exacting standards that NASA requires and chose in Nikon, which may only be ever so slightly better than Canon, then you go, girl!

Point is, the difference isn't as much as you're making it out to be by jumping on the 'if it's good enough for NASA it's good enough for you' bandwagon.

And even so, especially with NASA, old habits are hard to break. Even it they're better alternatives than what the original standards were based upon.

And the Navy chose Topcon.

 

[sovietdoc]

What I wanna know is how do you people figure out that there are more people with nikon's at the olympic games based on that shot. Do you just assume that every single white one is a canon because you can tell it's Canon EF L, and all the black ones are nikkors? What about sigma super telephoto's on canon bodies? Or something similar? I just don't see that "every black lens is automatically a nikon"...