full censor vs a crop sensor is their a $1500.00 difference

[Gaerek]

Canon design is driven by what works for their marketing department. Nikon design is driven by what works for photographers.

Have you looked at Canon's DSLR market share compared to Nikon?

I think that might have been part of the point he was trying to make. Marketing sells products. Just because a company sells a lot of camera's doesn't necessarily mean they make a better product. It could simply mean they market much better. How come people buy that cheap crap on infomercials? Not because the product is good, only because they are great at marketing a piece of s**t.

 

[camz]

If it's possible, why don't you rent one and find out. There's no replacement for hands on experience when making a decision when buying equipment.

 

[o hey tyler]

Canon design is driven by what works for their marketing department. Nikon design is driven by what works for photographers.

Have you looked at Canon's DSLR market share compared to Nikon?

I think that might have been part of the point he was trying to make. Marketing sells products. Just because a company sells a lot of camera's doesn't necessarily mean they make a better product. It could simply mean they market much better. How come people buy that cheap crap on infomercials? Not because the product is good, only because they are great at marketing a piece of s**t.

I don't buy anything from infomercials.

 

[Gaerek]

Have you looked at Canon's DSLR market share compared to Nikon?

I think that might have been part of the point he was trying to make. Marketing sells products. Just because a company sells a lot of camera's doesn't necessarily mean they make a better product. It could simply mean they market much better. How come people buy that cheap crap on infomercials? Not because the product is good, only because they are great at marketing a piece of s**t.

I don't buy anything from infomercials.

Most conscientious consumers don't. I shoot Canon, so don't think I'm in agreement that Canon's marketing department is solely responsible for their success. They are, however, great at marketing. Nikon isn't as great at marketing. If I have to watch another commercial with Ashton Kutcher (or whatever his name is) trying to sell me a Coolpix or D5000, I think I might shoot myself. Those commercials are terrible...

 

[Overread36]

Lets face it only Canon has the L lens and the 1D series as well as the Rebel. Almost anyone gets that -
L = top range lens
1D series = top range body
Rebel = entry level body

however Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Oly - almost all the others lack a really clear market cut like that. Granted I'm a canon shooter so slightly bias, but I've never understood all the labels Nikon has for stuff - and they don't have their Nikkor range limited to top range glass (it seems to be everything unless I've got that part wrong).

 

[manaheim]

Lets face it only Canon has the L lens and the 1D series as well as the Rebel. Almost anyone gets that -
L = top range lens
1D series = top range body
Rebel = entry level body

however Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Oly - almost all the others lack a really clear market cut like that. Granted I'm a canon shooter so slightly bias, but I've never understood all the labels Nikon has for stuff - and they don't have their Nikkor range limited to top range glass (it seems to be everything unless I've got that part wrong).

Over, that almost sounds like you're suggesting that because Nikon doesn't have an obvious marketing/branding campaign around their top gear that their top of the line stuff isn't as good as Canon's... I know you can't really mean that, right?

BTW, Nikon DOES put gold rings around their top-end glass. It's not NEARLY as obvious as the white lens thing Canon does, but it is there.

 

[usayit]

Over, that almost sounds like you're suggesting that because Nikon doesn't have an obvious marketing/branding campaign around their top gear

Yes that's what he is saying.

that their top of the line stuff isn't as good as Canon's... I know you can't really mean that, right?

No that's not what I read from his response.

BTW, Nikon DOES put gold rings around their top-end glass. It's not NEARLY as obvious as the white lens thing Canon does, but it is there.

So does Tamron

So does Sigma

So does Tokina

So does Pentax ... well not only gold.. (other colors too)


I happen to agree with Overread. To a person not familiar with Nikon line of equipment, the target market for any particular piece is not obvious. To a person who is not familiar with Canon, its a bit more obvious. And yes... I used to sell equipment and spent gobs more time explaining this and that when it comes to Nikon. Heck.. when someone talks about the highest tier of Canon bodies, they simply say "1-series". Can't get any more simple. IMO, the only mistake in the Canon line is that its become too crowded.


Look at Leica's lenses: Summarit > Summicron > Summilux (yeh.. they usually refer to design/max aperture but everyone knows the order)

 

[Trever1t]

I bought some of those "Space Bags" off an infomercial once....they actually work great

 

[JClishe]

:LOL: Wait... explain to me how "what kind of images he shoots" has any bearing on whether he should buy the best camera and lenses available vs. just going for whatever manages to expose light to "film"?

So a full frame body is always the best camera to buy, regardless of what kind of photography a person does?

 

[camz]

Well also many of us here picked up on Canon when it was light years ahead of the dslr market and have remained consumers ever since. I've been wanting to switch to Nikon but I just couldn't get myself to change my Avatar .

In all seriousness though I am biased and have grown accustomed with Canon's functions since the 10D and I was actually shooting portraiture prior to that with the Olympus E10. I've rented Nikon gear but I couldn't get my head around it. What attracted me to Canon was it's clear cut functions and well layed out product distinction. I couldn't find that comfort in any of the other products almost 10 years ago. To me honestly, today I find the same distinction and clicking with Sony's praticals. Will I switch...probably not.

 

[Dao]

I know this is off topic, sorry about that.

If money is not an issue and you like to have a better camera for portrait type shots, I will say ..... go for a FF camera and better lenses .. and lighting equipemnts too, PERIOD.

Thank you. Now back to the topic. Canon vs Nikon.

 

[camz]

Sorry for the side bust OP

 

[Overread36]

To a person not familiar with Nikon line of equipment, the target market for any particular piece is not obvious. To a person who is not familiar with Canon, its a bit more obvious.

Exactly, and note I put the rebels in there as well, its not just the top line, canon's entry level rebel series is well known as such. Marketing with respect to informing the uninformed as to their products order and intended market is one thing we can't say canon does poorly - I will agree that I don't much like Canons approach to market saturation (2 entry level and now 2 mid level series of cameras) and that I really don't like the way marketing hobbles features in their cameras - esp at the mid range where you've the 5DM2 which really could do with a better AF system. I'd also like to see them expand on their Firmwire updates for bodies - just look at what was unlocked from the 300D and the 5DM2 with minor firemwire releases and heck even the rebels (with russian hacks) can get features such as spot metering.
Nikon in this respect likes to give more to their customers (from what I can tell) or at least make it appear as such.

 

[o hey tyler]

Lets face it only Canon has the L lens and the 1D series as well as the Rebel. Almost anyone gets that -
L = top range lens
1D series = top range body
Rebel = entry level body

however Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Oly - almost all the others lack a really clear market cut like that. Granted I'm a canon shooter so slightly bias, but I've never understood all the labels Nikon has for stuff - and they don't have their Nikkor range limited to top range glass (it seems to be everything unless I've got that part wrong).

Over, that almost sounds like you're suggesting that because Nikon doesn't have an obvious marketing/branding campaign around their top gear that their top of the line stuff isn't as good as Canon's... I know you can't really mean that, right?

He's saying it's less obvious to establish the entry level, the pro-sumer and the professional tiers in the Nikon lineup. I don't know how you derived that he was talking about product quality, but you did a great job suggesting that his post was pertaining to such.

 

[manaheim]

Over, that almost sounds like you're suggesting that because Nikon doesn't have an obvious marketing/branding campaign around their top gear

Yes that's what he is saying.

that their top of the line stuff isn't as good as Canon's... I know you can't really mean that, right?

No that's not what I read from his response.

BTW, Nikon DOES put gold rings around their top-end glass. It's not NEARLY as obvious as the white lens thing Canon does, but it is there.

So does Tamron

So does Sigma

So does Tokina

So does Pentax ... well not only gold.. (other colors too)


I happen to agree with Overread. To a person not familiar with Nikon line of equipment, the target market for any particular piece is not obvious. To a person who is not familiar with Canon, its a bit more obvious. And yes... I used to sell equipment and spent gobs more time explaining this and that when it comes to Nikon. Heck.. when someone talks about the highest tier of Canon bodies, they simply say "1-series". Can't get any more simple. IMO, the only mistake in the Canon line is that its become too crowded.


Look at Leica's lenses: Summarit > Summicron > Summilux (yeh.. they usually refer to design/max aperture but everyone knows the order)

Well also many of us here picked up on Canon when it was light years ahead of the dslr market and have remained consumers ever since. I've been wanting to switch to Nikon but I just couldn't get myself to change my Avatar .

In all seriousness though I am biased and have grown accustomed with Canon's functions since the 10D and I was actually shooting portraiture prior to that with the Olympus E10. I've rented Nikon gear but I couldn't get my head around it. What attracted me to Canon was it's clear cut functions and well layed out product distinction. I couldn't find that comfort in any of the other products almost 10 years ago. To me honestly, today I find the same distinction and clicking with Sony's praticals. Will I switch...probably not.

Wow... this is just weird. Maybe this explains Canon users in a way that has never been clearly documented before. You need a company to tell you whether or not you are their target market, rather than figuring it out based upon price and features. (note, I have great respect for you two- Camz and Overread, so please take this as me using a bit of sarcasm to chide you in a friendly way)

It seems pretty clear to me... 70-300 4/5.6... $135... 70-200 2.8 VR2... $2500. I'm pretty sure I can figure out without too much research which lens is right for me. Hell, I'm pretty sure I could just guess. I don't need them to splash white paint on it or come up with some name brand specifically for that second lens for me to understand which I'm going to be wanting or needing.

:LOL: Wait... explain to me how "what kind of images he shoots" has any bearing on whether he should buy the best camera and lenses available vs. just going for whatever manages to expose light to "film"?

So a full frame body is always the best camera to buy, regardless of what kind of photography a person does?

I can actually think of ONE scenario where you could argue crop-sensor would be better. Can you? I'm pretty sure you're just blustering without any goddamned clue what the hell you're talking about. Prove me wrong.