Canon or Nikon?

[rusty9]

On a personal note:

• Nikon rules!
• Coke sucks!
• Chevy 4 eva!
• Macs are for hippies!

for me it's:
Nikon
Coke
Chevy ('08 Silverado Crew Cab FTMFW)
PC

 

[shaunly]

Rekd, I think you are too biased. You are also manipulating the the advertising. Though I shoot Nikon, I do acknowledge that Canon is better for sports, but where are all the pics of people at those events with Nikons?? Trust me there ARE plenty of them. And ALL your pics were of Canons at sporting events. So is that the only thing Canons are good for? What if the OP doesn't have any interest in sports photography?

Back on topic: Nikon or Canon?? Well you answer me this: Mercedes or BMW? Lamborghini or Ferrari? They're both great. But if I had to choose, I would say Nikon because you already have a really nice, and expensive Nikon lens to go with it.

Note: For the record I own neither Canon nor Nikon. I own and use Leicaflex.

For the longest time (let's say from 1965-1989), Nikon dominated press and PJ work, which had before that had been dominated by Leica rangefinders. Topcon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, Leicaflex and others were also-rans. When Canon came out with fluorite lenses, the F-1

http://hifishack.com/images/canonf1_5.jpg

and then the New F-1,

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1077/608897943_3ebd6c9e14.jpg

they were clearly showing their intention to do something serious. Though Pentax and Minolta showed some initiatives toward 'pro' models, they were largely ignored. Nikon was clearly the leader in press work.

When Minolta finally introduced auto-focusing in 1985, they dropped their old mount altogether and started from scratch. When Canon introduced their first auto-focusing line in 1989, they followed suit, thinking (I suppose) that the advantages of starting afresh far outweighed the disadvantages. The new lens system offered far more potential, which owners of the old system would surely see.

Nikon made some tentative steps toward autofocus in 1986 or so, but the F4 was not introduced until 1988. It was a monstrosity by any measure.

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

When Canon introduced the EOS-1 in 1989, they seemed to have made a authoritative statement about what an autofocus pro camera should be. It was designed from the ground up as an autofocus system.

Canon EOS-1 - Main Index Page

The press market clearly and immediately embraced the Canon, as everyone has mentioned. Nikon, by retaining its lens mount from 1959, was afraid of offending its customer base. But when you don't have much of a customer base to offend (Canon) you are not constrained by them. Sure, it would have pissed off some Nikon owners if Nikon had changed mounts completely...but in the long run everyone would have been better off.

This short-term thinking that affects Nikon had effects that persist to this day.

Sure, you can use a 1959 Nikon lens on some of the current Nikon pro models, but so what? Any lens that old is going to be outdated. Nothing lasts forever.

If you compare the F5 or F6 to the EOS-1V, there is in my mind no comparison.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images/EOS-1V.jpg

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/f5.jpg

http://www.apertura.cl/store/images/f6body%20nikon.jpg

The F5 and F6 are clearly a retreat from the monstrosity that characterized the F4.

Now when digital came out, things didn't change a whole lot. Canon made a full-frame DSLR body based on the ESO-1 fairly early on. It took Nikon a decade or so after that to have one.

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

 

[JamesMason]

Noooo anything but the canon v nikon thread again.

Nikon cuz the cannon stuff is plastic tacky crap (plus cannon shutters sound funny)

 

[Neil S.]

I need a 50mm f/1!

You got a problem with that lol??

Someone get Canon on the phone ASAP....we need to straighten this out.

 

[Neil S.]

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 the 85mm 1.2 is far from a "must have", in fact it’s totally the opposite.

The lens has many flaws, but it also is unique and has many great qualities as well.

It’s very specialized, and you have to really want a lens this fast to overlook its flaws/drawbacks.

If you haven't seen it and are interested, I put up a thread on it in the equipment section (including pics).

About the difference between 1.2 and 1.4, I can’t say 100% for sure at this focal length because I don’t own a 85mm 1.4.

I would guess that the difference in DOF would be quite noticeable, now as to if this really matters to you, that depends on the person.

To a wedding photographer a 0.2 difference is probably a pretty big deal.

 

[mostly sunny]

I need a 50mm f/1!

You got a problem with that lol??

Someone get Canon on the phone ASAP....we need to straighten this out.

I got a direct line to Canon Customer Service..

 

[JamesMason]

I got a direct line to Canon Customer Service..

But have you ever phoned canon customer service ?

I phoned them up once, told them there was a fault with the firewire port on a canon xl1. The guy went and got the manual for the camera and then asked me if i had tried turning it off and on again. After about 30 minutes of bizarre questions he finally came to the conclusion it was a fault with the firewire port. The thing i phoned him and told him it was.

 

[mostly sunny]

Ummm, YES, I call them all the time..

I don't have a clue how to use my camera-- But I <3 it!!! I call for help often.. They are most helpful to me..

 

[JodieO]

If you need low light, get a Nikon D700. Don't even think about a D300.

By the way, I would like to see a canon image at 5,000 ISO with a 70-200 lens that even comes close to this...

or this...

But if you don't need to shoot in very low light situations with no flash, go for either.

and this should be ISO 2,000 - not a lick of digital noise. I shoot ISO 2,000 all the time outside at my studio, and have blown images up to 40x60 with no digital noise. Nikon D3/D700 have been wonderful for that. I haven't seen the low light situation matched in Canon yet, although I suspect it will eventually come.

 

[mostly sunny]

To the OP-- Oh, just dive in.. Get a Canon.. = ) He he.. I have NO clue how to operate mine, but I love it.

 

[JodieO]

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

Yeah, really, who cares about the mount - it all depends on if that DOES matter to you. What matters to me is shooting high ISO with very little digital noise/no flash. Canon hasn't matched Nikon's D3 or D700 yet for that specifically capability, so that for ME matters more than mounts. So this is truly an individual decision.

 

[JodieO]

Nikon has it's share of flaws whether you choose to recognize them or not. Want autofocus? Better have a Nikon body with an integrated motor.

I've been using Nikon for 16 years and never had problems with auto focusing.

Still not saying one is better than the other (as I have mantained above, it all depends on what you want), but I can't stand to hear all the rumors about certain things that personally, I have never had happen, and it surprises me that anyone thinks that has to be an issue.

 

[Mike_E]

Do none of you have lives?

Here you go Neil, as you couldn't find your copy. (unless I missed your post)

 

[Neil S.]

Do none of you have lives?

Here you go Neil, as you couldn't find your copy. (unless I missed your post)

YES!!!

NOW THIS IS WHAT IM TALKIN ABOUT PEOPLES!!!

/ENDTHREAD

 

[JamesMason]

Ummm, YES, I call them all the time..

I don't have a clue how to use my camera-- But I <3 it!!! I call for help often.. They are most helpful to me..

They must sense the love for nikon flowing through my veins