Canon Vs. Nikon?

ScottS · Apr 16, 2008

gamerz said:
Hehe... glad that there are so many replies so quick... In terms of nikon lenses... how are the mid range zoom lenses that were produced before 2000/2001? I believe I have some in a box...

Depends on the lens. What do you think you have?

Battou · Apr 16, 2008

Antithesis said:
Yeah, until Canon goes out of business for being the SUCK! Just kidding, <3

Yup, then Knoica Minolta is going to come out of retirement and pown you all, then it will be Minolta VS Kodak :lmao:

Antithesis · Apr 16, 2008

Battou said:
Yup, then Knoica Minolta is going to come out of retirement and pown you all, then it will be Minolta VS Kodak :lmao:

That will be the day...

keith204 · Apr 16, 2008

Battou said:
Yup, then Knoica Minolta is going to come out of retirement and pown you all, then it will be Minolta VS Kodak :lmao:

Not under the name SONY.

Mystwalker · Apr 17, 2008

Doubt D80 was designed to compete against XTi.
D80 competes against 30D/40D.
XT/XTi vs D40/D40x

D80 is an excellent camera - there must be word of new one (D90?) coming because it is priced very low today (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...lSearch=yes&O=RootPage.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t).

Wish Canon would get off their butts and announce something exciting - like a 17-55 f/2.8L IS.

Battou · Apr 17, 2008

keith204 said:
Not under the name SONY.

No not under the name Sony. Sony will screw up every thing they bought from Konica Minolta....and as you know....If you want it done right, you got to do it your self.

keith204 · Apr 17, 2008

Mystwalker said:
Doubt D80 was designed to compete against XTi.
D80 competes against 30D/40D.
XT/XTi vs D40/D40x

D80 is an excellent camera - there must be word of new one (D90?) coming because it is priced very low today (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...lSearch=yes&O=RootPage.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t).

Wish Canon would get off their butts and announce something exciting - like a 17-55 f/2.8L IS.

Canon DOES have a 17-55 f/2.8 IS! It's not an L, but made with L series glass apparently. I am stoked, because I just ordered it and I can't wait for it to arrive. A reviewer who owns a 24-70 f/2.8L said that the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is even sharper than the 24-70!

keith204 · Apr 17, 2008

Battou said:
No not under the name Sony. Sony will screw up every thing they bought from Konica Minolta....and as you know....If you want it done right, you got to do it your self.

Exactly! IMO Sony will come out with some innovative new features, most of which will not affect IQ or shooting whatsoever, but will appeal to consumers and jack up the prices.

Battou · Apr 17, 2008

keith204 said:
Exactly! IMO Sony will come out with some innovative new features, most of which will not affect IQ or shooting whatsoever, but will appeal to consumers and jack up the prices.

Yeah, they do that with just about every thing they get their fingers on....it's a case of keeping up with the Jonses....or should I say the Gateses.

Mav · Apr 17, 2008

To the OP, if you search for some other threads on this topic I've given a much more complete description elsewhere. Both systems are as good as each other, but different. Nikon is better in some areas, and Canon is better in others. It's pretty difficult to know which system would suit you better unless you already have an established shooting style and know what you like to shoot for the most part. Canon does have a much more complete and less expensive telephoto lineup if you think you'll be doing a lot of sports. Nikon seems to have a better and more complete consumer lens lineup. Their bodies are more automated and suit photojournalist style photography better. Their wide angle lenses are quite nice too. Canon lenses tend to be cheaper, but there's more used vintage Nikon glass floating around out there that you can use with Nikon that's dirt cheap. Canon lenses on the EF mount don't go back as far since they changed their mount design with the advent of AF.

I have and like Nikon. I've seriously considered switching to Canon twice, but stuck with Nikon only because I felt what I'd gain with Canon wouldn't significantly outweight what I'd lose from Nikon enough to bother switching. I like both systems.

BradUF · Apr 17, 2008

Mav said:
To the OP, if you search for some other threads on this topic I've given a much more complete description elsewhere. Both systems are as good as each other, but different. Nikon is better in some areas, and Canon is better in others. It's pretty difficult to know which system would suit you better unless you already have an established shooting style and know what you like to shoot for the most part. Canon does have a much more complete and less expensive telephoto lineup if you think you'll be doing a lot of sports. Nikon seems to have a better and more complete consumer lens lineup. Their bodies are more automated and suit photojournalist style photography better. Their wide angle lenses are quite nice too. Canon lenses tend to be cheaper, but there's more used vintage Nikon glass floating around out there that you can use with Nikon that's dirt cheap. Canon lenses on the EF mount don't go back as far since they changed their mount design with the advent of AF.

I have and like Nikon. I've seriously considered switching to Canon twice, but stuck with Nikon only because I felt what I'd gain with Canon wouldn't significantly outweight what I'd lose from Nikon enough to bother switching. I like both systems.

:thumbup:

Village Idiot · Apr 17, 2008

Canon has definitely been more popular with the pros, but then again, until recently, they were the only company to offer a 35mm sensor in their DSLR lineup.

Just look at the sport shooter segment as well, all those white Canon lenses on the sideline.

Plus they've almost always used CMOS sensors, which create less noise at higher ISO's in comparison to CCD's used in most Nikons until just recently.

But Nikon now has a FF camera and they're putting CMOS sensors in some of their cameras.

Dutchboy · Apr 17, 2008

I prefer Canon because of their ability to accept older manual focus lenses from many other manufacturers (including Nikon!) when you use adapters. Nikon is much more limited in this regard. You can build a collection of nice older lenses very cheaply.

Of course, using MF lenses is not for everyone...

:thumbup:

BoblyBill · Apr 17, 2008

I shoot Panasonic.

BoblyBill · Apr 17, 2008

Mav said:
To the OP, if you search for some other threads on this topic I've given a much more complete description elsewhere. Both systems are as good as each other, but different. Nikon is better in some areas, and Canon is better in others. It's pretty difficult to know which system would suit you better unless you already have an established shooting style and know what you like to shoot for the most part. Canon does have a much more complete and less expensive telephoto lineup if you think you'll be doing a lot of sports. Nikon seems to have a better and more complete consumer lens lineup. Their bodies are more automated and suit photojournalist style photography better. Their wide angle lenses are quite nice too. Canon lenses tend to be cheaper, but there's more used vintage Nikon glass floating around out there that you can use with Nikon that's dirt cheap. Canon lenses on the EF mount don't go back as far since they changed their mount design with the advent of AF.

I have and like Nikon. I've seriously considered switching to Canon twice, but stuck with Nikon only because I felt what I'd gain with Canon wouldn't significantly outweight what I'd lose from Nikon enough to bother switching. I like both systems.

Perfectly said