Convince me to switch to Canon

[Derrel]

Canon has a long, rich history in imaging; when Canon was started as a brand, they had zero lens making expertise, so for roughly their first decade, they payed Nippon Kogaku to make all their lenses for their new Canon cameras. Nippon Kogaku...you know, Nikon. The early Canon cameras shipped with Nikon lenses. Kind of weird, but that was a long, long time ago, before Canon acquired lens-making technology and know-how, and before Canon diversified into other areas, like office automation equipment.


[sign on a Portland building that I snapped back in 2004]

I would say, switch to Canon for their rich tradition in electronic typewriters, word processors, and calculators. The people at Canon have always been smart; after all, they hired Nikon to make their first decade's worth of lenses for them, which was a pretty smart move, since Canon rangefinders had to compete in a marketplace that had the leading brands in 35mm rnagefinder cameras, which were the Leitz-made Leica III-series cameras, and Zeiss-Ikon's Contax-branded cameras and lenses. Without Nikon's lens-making and lens-designing expertise, Canon might have flopped and never made it as a camera company.

 

[runnah]

Canon has a long, rich history in imaging; when Canon was started as a brand, they had zero lens making expertise, so for roughly their first decade, they payed Nippon Kogaku to make all their lenses for their new Canon cameras. Nippon Kogaku...you know, Nikon. The early Canon cameras shipped with Nikon lenses. Kind of weird, but that was a long, long time ago, before Canon acquired lens-making technology and know-how, and before Canon diversified into other areas, like office automation equipment. <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=75718"/> [sign on a Portland building that I snapped back in 2004] I would say, switch to Canon for their rich tradition in electronic typewriters, word processors, and calculators. The people at Canon have always been smart; after all, they hired Nikon to make their first decade's worth of lenses for them, which was a pretty smart move, since Canon rangefinders had to compete in a marketplace that had the leading brands in 35mm rnagefinder cameras, which were the Leitz-made Leica III-series cameras, and Zeiss-Ikon's Contax-branded cameras and lenses. Without Nikon's lens-making and lens-designing expertise, Canon might have flopped and never made it as a camera company.

I reiterate my point. ^this is a nikon user.

Now don't you want to switch?

 

[Derrel]

Canon has a long, rich history in imaging; when Canon was started as a brand, they had zero lens making expertise, so for roughly their first decade, they payed Nippon Kogaku to make all their lenses for their new Canon cameras. Nippon Kogaku...you know, Nikon. The early Canon cameras shipped with Nikon lenses. Kind of weird, but that was a long, long time ago, before Canon acquired lens-making technology and know-how, and before Canon diversified into other areas, like office automation equipment. <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachments/canon/75718-convince-me-switch-canon-canon-sign-i-shot-2004.jpg"/> [sign on a Portland building that I snapped back in 2004] I would say, switch to Canon for their rich tradition in electronic typewriters, word processors, and calculators. The people at Canon have always been smart; after all, they hired Nikon to make their first decade's worth of lenses for them, which was a pretty smart move, since Canon rangefinders had to compete in a marketplace that had the leading brands in 35mm rnagefinder cameras, which were the Leitz-made Leica III-series cameras, and Zeiss-Ikon's Contax-branded cameras and lenses. Without Nikon's lens-making and lens-designing expertise, Canon might have flopped and never made it as a camera company.

I reiterate my point. ^this is a nikon user.

Now don't you want to switch?

THIS^^ [runnah] is a recent convert to Canon, and he's a former Nikon user...

You know how they say,"There's nobody more insufferable than an ex- cigarette smoker?"

I was for six years, a dual-system owner, with $10,000 worth of Canon gear in addition to three decades' worth of Nikon gear...two Canon d-slr bodies with grips, three Canon L-lenses, some regular Canon primes, and two Sigma zooms....so...I actually KNOW what Canon is like from having spent over $10,000 of my own money, just to see if it could replace Nikon for my uses. It could not, really.

Yeah...Canon... They had a lead in digital imaging at one time, but they lost it when Nikon came out with the D3 generation of bodies. They might some day gain their lead back, but probably not until they can upgrade their sensor fabrication to something newer than the 50-micron process they are saddled with today, and have been for about a decade. That old-fashioned sensor technology is why Canon can't hit the 36-megpaixel threshold, and is stuck below 24 MP on every sensor size...old sensor technology...and ALL sensors fabricated by Canon...not the best producer, whoever that might be, but in-house... see the article linked to a few posts up, about Sony sensors...

 

[runnah]

I am a convert because I am not a dogged brand loyalist who can look past the petty squabbling and pick the best camera for my needs.

If nikon had what I needed I would have stayed with them. If sony, Pentax, Fuji or whomever had what I wanted I would have switched. Brand doesn't matter.

Honestly the sony a7s (I think) looks pretty damn good and might be my next platform.

 

[centauro74]

Ask Scott Kelby, why he switched to canon.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

[TCampbell]

Canon has a long, rich history in imaging; when Canon was started as a brand, they had zero lens making expertise, so for roughly their first decade, they payed Nippon Kogaku to make all their lenses for their new Canon cameras. Nippon Kogaku...you know, Nikon. The early Canon cameras shipped with Nikon lenses. Kind of weird, but that was a long, long time ago, before Canon acquired lens-making technology and know-how, and before Canon diversified into other areas, like office automation equipment. <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachments/canon/75718-convince-me-switch-canon-canon-sign-i-shot-2004.jpg"/> [sign on a Portland building that I snapped back in 2004] I would say, switch to Canon for their rich tradition in electronic typewriters, word processors, and calculators. The people at Canon have always been smart; after all, they hired Nikon to make their first decade's worth of lenses for them, which was a pretty smart move, since Canon rangefinders had to compete in a marketplace that had the leading brands in 35mm rnagefinder cameras, which were the Leitz-made Leica III-series cameras, and Zeiss-Ikon's Contax-branded cameras and lenses. Without Nikon's lens-making and lens-designing expertise, Canon might have flopped and never made it as a camera company.

I reiterate my point. ^this is a nikon user.

Now don't you want to switch?

THIS^^ [runnah] is a recent convert to Canon, and he's a former Nikon user...

You know how they say,"There's nobody more insufferable than an ex- cigarette smoker?"

I was for six years, a dual-system owner, with $10,000 worth of Canon gear in addition to three decades' worth of Nikon gear...two Canon d-slr bodies with grips, three Canon L-lenses, some regular Canon primes, and two Sigma zooms....so...I actually KNOW what Canon is like from having spent over $10,000 of my own money, just to see if it could replace Nikon for my uses. It could not, really.

Yeah...Canon... They had a lead in digital imaging at one time, but they lost it when Nikon came out with the D3 generation of bodies. They might some day gain their lead back, but probably not until they can upgrade their sensor fabrication to something newer than the 50-micron process they are saddled with today, and have been for about a decade. That old-fashioned sensor technology is why Canon can't hit the 36-megpaixel threshold, and is stuck below 24 MP on every sensor size...old sensor technology...and ALL sensors fabricated by Canon...not the best producer, whoever that might be, but in-house... see the article linked to a few posts up, about Sony sensors...

Except that 36mp is not an advantage on a 24mm x 36mm sensor. The camera is diffraction limited by f/8 and I don't care what glass you put on. That's physics... not opinion.

 

[jayindhawan]

There is no other made till yet which has image quality compare to Canon. Canon is the best camera in respect of all models.

 

[TreeofLifeStairs]

There is no other made till yet which has image quality compare to Nikon. Nikon is the best camera in respect of all models.

 

[table1349]

I've used both for 40 + years, along with almost every other brand. In today's market the true differences between the the major players for most shooters are irrelevant. The idea that any one brand of camera is pure hokum. Every photographer has his or her needs. If the system meets those needs then IT is the best system for that photographer. Plain and simple.

 

[tecboy]

Yep, Nikon is #1!

 

[DeWestelinck]

I'm a Canon user and know both photographers on Canon & Nikon sides...
But all parties agree, it's Sony you'll need to keep your eye on!
Especially for the pro market. Rumours are they are going full on for this.

 

[Overread]

Sony has a long way to go. A very long way before they can touch Nikon or Canon - and with Nikon using Sony sensors that's a further shot in the foot for Sony in direct sales since it means that many will just go "well sony has a great sensor - I'll get a Nikon".

 

[gsgary]

Sony has a long way to go. A very long way before they can touch Nikon or Canon - and with Nikon using Sony sensors that's a further shot in the foot for Sony in direct sales since it means that many will just go "well sony has a great sensor - I'll get a Nikon".

I have not touched my Canon gear since buying the Sony A7 I'm probably going to sell it all it much nicer to use than the Canon cameras I have

 

[sashbar]

No one spends more on advertising and marketing their cameras than Canon. So you must buy it. But, they are right, keep your eye on Sony. They can easily overtake Canon in this department.

 

[Overread]

Sony has a long way to go. A very long way before they can touch Nikon or Canon - and with Nikon using Sony sensors that's a further shot in the foot for Sony in direct sales since it means that many will just go "well sony has a great sensor - I'll get a Nikon".

I have not touched my Canon gear since buying the Sony A7 I'm probably going to sell it all it much nicer to use than the Canon cameras I have

Yes but you're crazy after the film took your mind - all those developing chemicals!