Nikon vs Canon

[ScottS]

Well four strokes hate you.
And so does Canon..
AND SONY.


BTW, Canon is wayyy more awesome than Nikon will ever be! NIKONS SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK.

Now were were having an intelligent conversation about Canon and Nikon and you had to turn it into this.... Why?
for shame!


( oh and if your going to say why Nikon sucks, at least give some solid reasoning why... )

 

[usayit]

Early in the Vietnam war the N.Y. wire services and print media favored B&W shot with Leica's. A couple war PJ's were in Tokyo on R&R and picked up a couple Nikon "F" models with 50mm lenses. These guys started to shoot in Vietnam with there new SLR's instead of the Leica's. The resulting images were comparable to the film shot in the Leicas. Nikon became the favored system during the war. Second trivia lesson for the day.

What I find interesting was that not to much farther back in history, most photographers saw the 35mm format as a mearly a toy. The Japanese made cameras also had a difficult time getting serious recognition.... now the two big kings are japanese.

One of my all time fav's in my collection is an Asahiflex IIB.

 

[Mav]

Is Canon more popular for sports because the bodies are faster? Or were before the D3? I mean, I'm not sure Canon's lenses are better. I'd say the two companies are very even on all fronts.

Back in the day when AF was new, Canon's stuff was quick enough to track sports and Nikon's wasn't, and Nikon hasn't really given any sports shooters a reason to switch back until recently (the D3). I think it's a safe bet that all of Nikon's pro level super telephotos are as fast focusing as Canon's now, but they're often a lot more expensive which still doesn't make sense. And then Canon has had their pro level 1.0x/1.3x crop factor DSLR bodies whereas Nikon has only been doing their 1.5x. That gives you some extra reach, but the Canons have given you far more resolution and also high ISO performance. The Nikon D2H is a pretty well regarded camera with decent high ISO performance, but it's only 4MP, and last year a lot of the agencies out there would no longer accept the small 4MP images which forced a lot of pro Nikon shooters to switch over to Canon. The D2X is 12MP which has the resolution, but it maxes out at iso800 and most don't like pushing it past 400, which isn't enough for a lot of sports photography unless you go all out with lighting equipment which can be a pain.

Canon's consumer level lenses today from what I've tried are still a lot faster focusing than Nikon's consumer level lenses, so even if you're first starting out and specifically mentioning a lot of sports or action type photos I'd still recommend going with Canon, despite being a Nikon fan for my own needs. The Canon EF 18-55 focuses much quicker than the Nikon 18-55 which is pretty pokey. The Canon 28-135 is much zippier than the Nikon 18-135. The Canon 75-300 is much quicker focusing than the equivalent Nikon 70-300's. Canon also has zippy EF primes for their whole range, whereas all of Nikon's primes in the normal to short tele range are still using their original screw-driven AF system which tends to be on the slow side unless you have a pro body with a torquey motor drive. My Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D couldn't even track my 6 month old on a swing from about 10 feet away about 20-degrees off the axis of the swing which I thought was pretty pathetic. I haven't personally handled the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 but from what I've heard and read it's just as quick focusing as a lot of the other Canon lenses so I'm sure it'd work fine.

 

[RyanLilly]

Canon is widely used in Sports because of their lenses. Canon is also widely used in wedding photography, although I'm not really sure why.

Wedding photogs watch a lot of sports?

 

[skieur]

not necessarily those cameras, but those lenses, wich work nicely on nikon and canon

of course i am just being patriotic here

Yes, but it comes down to the basic question, are you using Leica and Zeiss lenses on either a Nikon or Canon?

By the way, I remember a magazine/panel of experts/lab study of trying to find the best digital camera/lens combination.

Their final judgement was that the top Canon with a Leica lens was the absolute best for nature and scenic work and with a canon lens was best for architecture and scenes with precise mathematical shapes.

skieur

 

[Alex_B]

Yes, but it comes down to the basic question, are you using Leica and Zeiss lenses on either a Nikon or Canon?

No, I do not call such a combination my own. But I have seen that it can be a very good combination.

My provocative statements were more meant to wake some people up, that there is more quality equipment around, than just two brands.

 

[RKW3]

Well four strokes hate you.
And so does Canon..
AND SONY.


BTW, Canon is wayyy more awesome than Nikon will ever be! NIKONS SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK.

I officially dislike canon's now.. lol

 

[peterbj7]

In the old days Nikon cameras could be knocked around and still be relied on to work. Canon were more fragile. But Olympus made the most rugged cameras of them all! I remember a professional mountain photographer dropping his OM1 down a rock face, perhaps 30 feet. He went down for it and it still worked, so he finished his shoot.

Don't know whether any of today's cameras are as rugged, but although I have no intention of dropping my Canon 5D I suspect it'd fare pretty well.

A semi-professional underwater photographer friend of mine decided after many years to change from Canon to Nikon, only a couple of years ago. He gave as his reason that Canon charged silly money for some of their more exotic lenses, whereas Nikon were far more reasonable.

He must have been convinced, as the change cost him an enormous amount of money - at least $60k.

I still have some old German rangefinder cameras - Zeiss, Voigtlander and Leica. I recall a public statement issued by Zeiss (West Germany) many years ago, maybe 25 but I may be way out, that "their traditional way of hand-making lenses had at last been overtaken by a Japanese manufacturer, who had perfected machinery capable of making lenses not just much more cheaply, but also of better quality".

I seem to remember the Japanese manufacturer was Nikon, but it may have been Hoya or someone else. I'm pretty sure it wasn't Canon.

 

[usayit]

I still have some old German rangefinder cameras - Zeiss, Voigtlander and Leica. I recall a public statement issued by Zeiss (West Germany) many years ago, maybe 25 but I may be way out, that "their traditional way of hand-making lenses had at last been overtaken by a Japanese manufacturer, who had perfected machinery capable of making lenses not just much more cheaply, but also of better quality".

Voigtlander has licensed Cosina to market products under their name. The M-mounts from Voigtlander Cosina are wonderful and priced at a fraction of equivalent Leica branded lenses. I've acquired a couple in the last year or two and simply amazed by their quality per dollar.

My guess is that Zeiss lenses are now also made by Cosina although manufacturer backing the name has changed several times (usually staying within Japan).

 

[Alpha]

Canon has traditionally always won out among photojournalists for higher fps and more sophisticated AF. Simple as that.

 

[Phazan]

Now were were having an intelligent conversation about Canon and Nikon and you had to turn it into this.... Why?
for shame!


( oh and if your going to say why Nikon sucks, at least give some solid reasoning why... )

Jahh, I was just kidding!
I love both Canons and Nikons...I prefer Canon though, because they had the body I wanted, and they're lenses seem overall cheaper than Nikons', with the same quality.

 

[usayit]

<< Slaps Phazan on the head..... smiles... then mutters...

I'm just kidding....

 

[Antithesis]

I got into Nikon gear because I know a couple wedding photog's and they shoot nikon. Not to mention a lot of other people I know shoot Nikon and I didn't want to be the odd-man-out I guess. It sucks though because I feel like there is gear I'm missing because I don't want to drop a huge amount of money for the higher quality stuff. I like how Canon has some affordable lenses that have good build quality, whereas anything affordable from Nikon that isn't 10 years old and probably has compatibility issues is a poor compromise. In my opinion, Canon suits both low level consumers like myself as well as professionals with great gear, where with Nikon you have to either buy crap or spend a fortune (18-70 and 50mm f1.8 excluded). I find myself wishing that Nikon had lenses like the 70-200 f4 L which can be had for around $500 used, or the 18-55 f2.8 IS which can be had for like $300.

I think the strongest thing that Nikon has going for it is their ergonomics. From the d80 up, everything feels in the right place and the build quality is phenomenal. I've considered making the switch to Canon for some of their mid range gear, but by that time I might be able to afford the 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 VR, and I'll be a happy man.