Why so many people use Canon???

[Solarflare]

For the record, not even one of these values is any relevant.

The 1D X is better than the D4s, but not because of these academic differences.

One big difference is that the AF algorithms of Canon are currently better than the ones of Nikon (which affects all their DSLRs).

 

[CAP]

For the record, not even one of these values is any relevant.

The 1D X is better than the D4s, but not because of these academic differences.

One big difference is that the AF algorithms of Canon are currently better than the ones of Nikon (which affects all their DSLRs).

 

[robbins.photo]

Ok, a couple of things "for the record", there are a ton of lens choices available from both canon and nikon that will work fine on their crop sensor bodies. This is not an advantage or disadvantage to either, both companies realize that lenses that work on both crop sensor and full frame sell better.

Huge iso's like 25600 are completely useless if the sensors high iso to noise profile sucks. There is zero advantage to having an iso setting you would most likely never want to use because the noise level would be horrific.

Lets face it, all cameras have their strengths and weaknesses and some are better suited for certain things than others are, and frankly whatever choice someone makes in cameras is fine as long as it meets their needs.

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

 

[Solarflare]

Ok, a couple of things "for the record", there are a ton of lens choices available from both canon and nikon that will work fine on their crop sensor bodies.

Which is a valid point for a 400mm f2.8 which wont be much smaller and cheaper for DX body, then for a FX body (aperture = f/D, with f being focal length and D diameter of the pupil, thus a 400mm f2.8 is at least 400mm / 2.8 ~ 143mm wide - which is ALWAYS the minimum diameter for this lens).

However, shorter focal lengths can be made substantly smaller and cheaper on APS-C bodies. Plus of course the 400mm is a 600mm equivalent on the APS-C body - you have to mulitply everything by the crop factor 1.5 to get the equivalent focal length for APS-C. Which means for *wide* lenses you're at a disadvantage with APS-C, because you really need extra lenses for this either way - there just isnt a 10mm for full frame in the first place, unless we talk about extremely exotic lenses. And in general, all wide options are not only oversized for APS-C, they are also prohibitively expensive on top.

 

[minicoop1985]

I will say this. If having a useless ISO 25,600 means less noise at 6400, then there's a bit of a point to that. Like my 7D-6400 is useless, but I can actually USE 1600 (or hell, 3200), unlike my Olympus.

 

[Village Idiot]

Canon is like Apple. They have to give away their products and do expensive sponsorships in order to stay in business.

That's not what their stock prices say.

 

[ongpeitong]

Canon is a well-known brand in digital camera field nt only bcm of the quality bt also d cost effective price.
It is affordable by ameatuer as well as professional to produce great masterpiece. I do like Canon too bcz
easy to use. I also produce many masterpiece by canon EOS REBEL t3i.

Canon EOS Rebel T3i

 

[Civchic]

I use Canon because I got my T3 for "free" (cashed in a bunch of airmiles I'd been collecting for years). They didn't have a Nikon. I love my T3, but I'm starting to struggle with some of the limitations (no spot metering, lots of noise at over ISO800) and will likely upgrade within a year or two. To a Canon.

 

[lambertpix]

You know, I can't tell you why anyone else shoots Canon, but I'll tell you why *I* shoot Canon.

When I looked at both lines a number of years ago, I found the controls and settings a ton more intuitive to use, and for equivalent models, Canon had buttons for the stuff I wanted to change, vs. burying stuff in menus. This was important enough for me, in fact, that I picked up a used 30D vs. a new Rebel because the ergonomics & performance were better a notch above entry-level. At the time, I would have considered Nikon if I'd seen a killer deal, and I probably would have done the same thing there (with a used D200, or something like that).

Since buying my first Canon, I've had occasion to witness a number of bewildered Nikon shooters who seem to have the hardest time making the simplest possible changes to camera settings -- including more than one person frantically muttering, "why are you *doing* that??" (or words to that effect -- expletives deleted). Now, I'm sure that in all of those cases, there's a simple fix, and I'm sure there's a section of the manual dedicated to solving exactly the problem these poor souls were experiencing, but I was pretty happy just not having those problems in the first place.

I've owned three Canon DSLRs (and a P&S before that), and all they ever did was work every damned time I pulled them out of the bag. Hot, cold, humid, dry, inside, outside, you name it -- I pick 'em up and they work. I can see my settings instantly (mostly on my top LCD) and I can change them -- in most cases without going into a menu. Oh, and when I *do* make changes, I just love to store them in my user settings slots so I can switch everything from ISO to AEB to flash control to you name it just by hitting the mode dial. To the best of my knowledge, that's a feature not found on *any* Nikon (and yes, I know you can save & load settings to a file. It's not the same).

I don't dispute the fact that Nikon has done a fine job of using Sony's sensors (do you think they could outsource their shutters, too?), but my actual productivity usually winds up being every bit as much about the ergonomics and ease-of-use of the whole system than it is about the sensor itself. I'd love to see Canon catch up on sensor tech, because they really are lagging Nikon-Sony right now in that area, but whenever I'm shooting anything that isn't sitting still waiting for me to get my settings right, it's pretty nice to have a tool that helps me get the exposure I want on my inferior sensor *right now*.

Incidentally, here's a guy who switched to Canon for its ergonomics -- skip to about 4:20 to see his specific observations.



I fully expect that ergonomics are a personal choice, and I'd expect a large number of Nikon shooters to be just as passionate about how great the ergonomics are on their Nikons, but for me, the Canon fits me, it does what I want it to do, and the overwhelming majority of the time, I'm able to use it as a tool to accomplish what I'm trying to do, vs. trying to chase the camera because it's not doing what I want.

Anyway, that's why *I* shoot Canon.

 

[limr32 1]

Coke, Pepsi=Canon,Nikon. RC Cola is Sony. Dr. Pepper is Pentax.

Dr.Pepper and Pentax, all day long. :mrgreen:

 

[Derrel]

Pentax and Nikon and Leica...they went the same way on lens mounting, focusing direction, shutter speed changing, well over 50 years ago. Pentax in actual operation is a lot like Nikon. Pentax has always made really great cameras in the hand...the ergonomics and the "feel" on Pentax cameras has been very much targeted at actual "shooters". Decades ago, with the Spotmatic, Pentax utterly NAILED the kind of ergonomic simplicity and minimalist design that took decades to become common. For example, when Pentax was taking the European professional market by storm, Nikon was offering up the hugely clunky, bulky, and anti-ergonomic F with the Photomic FT and then FTn and finally the FTN metering prisms....OMG...and Canon had the clunkiest, ugliest POS junker camera designs you can imagine...meanwhile, Pentax had elegant, simple designs that would not be seen until Apple started making things like the Mac Mini and the iPhone.

Later, the Pentax LX versus the Nikon F3 and Canon F1-N...no contest as to which was the BEST design by farrrrrr, with an electronically timed shutter AND a redundant mechanically-timed system as well, water sealing gaskets, and so on....the Pentax LX was an amazing system camera...but it went nowhere. A few years later, the Pentax Super Program versus the Canon A-1, the first 5-mode 35mm SLR. The Canon A-1 was an **amazing** camera breakthrough, and a hugely, hugely disappointing sales flop. The Super Program was hailed as the best enthusiast camera from any maker, and the economy sibling, the Program PLus was nice too, but nowhere near the tour de force that the Super Program was. The Super Program/Program Plus era was the high water mark for Pentax, sales-wise.

It's weird...Leica was once the undisputed KING of 35mm, from 1930 until 1959, when the Nikon F came out. But the thing was, in the EARLY 1950's Nikon invented the electric motor drive, when Leica still used KNOB-wind advance; Korean war journalists who came back with Nikon cameras and lenses established the "Nikkor" lens as the new standard for "wiry-sharp" images; the F in 1959 started the fast decline of the 35mm rangefinder. Canon hired Nippon Kogaku to build the lenses fore ALL of the new Canon rangefinders; Canon hewed to the rangefinder model for too long after Nikon's F SLR hit; by the time Canon had a "system" SLR, they just copied Nikon and called theirs the Canon F-1...copying Nikon's F...Nikon went F-2....Canon countered with the F1-n. Nikon 25 years later invented the first affordable D-SLR, the Nikon D1....canon needed about four, five years to counter with a pro d-slr, the Canon 1D....see the name-game at work?

In the overall scheme of things, a LOT of camera brands died out...or were sold and re-sold, and so on. Ricoh, Minolta, Konica,Petri, Exakta, Yashica/Contax, basically, all DEAD brands. Pentax has been sold twice within the last decade, and is barely clinging to life, but apparently has loyalty in Japan as a venerable brand. It's weird, but the majority of 1960's to 1980's camera brands could NOT SURVIVE, even with fabulous offerings and really nice cameras and lenses. When autofocus hit around 1987, Canon and Minolta both had excellent initial offerings, but by the time digital cameras were emerging, Minolta spent zillions on the failed APS-C film endeavor AND lost a huge patent infringement case, and those were mortal wounds; Minolta's first d-slr was stillborn; Pentax waited YEARS to make a d-slr, and by then, it was too late. Nikon had been partnering with FujiFilm and Kodak to make early d-slr cameras, but the prices were in the $25,000-$30,000 range; the 1998 Nikon D1 at $5,998 KILLED Kodak's hybrid DCS 460 business. Canon had...NOTHING, nothing at all for a few years, then they hit with the Canon D30, a 3-MP consumer d-slr for $3,000, up against the Nikon D1 and D1h at basically twice the cost. At that point, everybody but Canon and Nikon was walking dead in the d-slr market. When Canon got the first sub-$1,000 d-slr on the market with the original Digital Rebel, the entire d-slr market exploded with new sales. Nikon introduced their sub-$1,000 offering, the D70. So, within about a six year span, ALL the competitors that used to be in the biz were reduced to....near ashes. Kodak AND Contax made Full-Frame d-slr's well before Canon ever did, and way before Nikon did, but those things died out very early. Contax made one model, Kodak made the DCS 760 6-MP on the Nikon F5 body, then the Kodak 14n, the 13.8 megapixel built on the N-80 body. FujiFilm made the S1,S2,S3, and S5 Pro d-slr models, allll on Nikon bodies. And yet, the only two companies to emerge winners were Coke and Pepsi...

Coke, Pepsi. RC Cola (under new management). Dr. Pepper.

Kodak=Tab. Contax/Yashica = Jolt Cola. Alllll gone!

 

[limr32 1]

Derrel, you're a friggin' encyclopedia! :hail:

Now can you read that out loud and post an audio file?

 

[robbins.photo]

Derrel, you're a friggin' encyclopedia! :hail:

Now can you read that out loud and post an audio file?

Tell him to use his "sultry" voice. You won't be disappointed . lol

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

 

[JacaRanda]

I shoot Canon because Ron Howard's hairline is about the same as mine; if I did not shave. I would have gone Nikon, but I was pissed at Ashton Kookner for taking my G.I. Jane.

 

[Derrel]

I shoot Canon because Ron Howard's hairline is about the same as mine; if I did not shave. I would have gone Nikon, but I was pissed at Ashton Kookner for taking my G.I. Jane.

We coulda' made beautiful music together in the band JacaNikon...but you joined up with those rejects from Cheap Trick...or was it the guys from Nelson or Hansen??? I forget...been sooo long ago!