Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Canon or Nikon?
- Thread starter microsurfer
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I use a canon for my personal use and a Nikon at work. THey both take good pictures. As far as build i have always found that Canon's camera feel more solid in your hand but have at least one part that the instant i get the camera i know will be the first thing to break (in my most recent case the CF door). I think the Nikon is fine although the menu system is a bit confusing. THe thing i absolutely hate about hte Nikon (Coolpix5400 BTW) is that the zoom is located on the back of the camera. I still use the oldfashioned view finder when taking pics and if i want ot zoom while setting up the shot I am forced to poke out my right eye. This seriously pisses me off everythime I use it. What ads salt to the wound is that the Canon zoom is located as a jog type switch surrounding the choot button. That is the erfect pace for it. On the Nikon that the on/off switch. I can't tell you the number of times i turn off hte Nikon before poking out my right eye.
Moral of this story. Try both out. I have found the image quality of both brands to be very good. In ergonomics however I have found Canon to be superior. That said I will be interested to hear your feed back on which ever you choose.
Moral of this story. Try both out. I have found the image quality of both brands to be very good. In ergonomics however I have found Canon to be superior. That said I will be interested to hear your feed back on which ever you choose.
princealfie said:
True, too bad that the lens system is not as comprehensive as Nikon's. A camera is only as good as the lenses that are available for it. That is, in my modest opinion, why Nikon's are better then Canon's. Now, if they would only come up with a native 24x36 mm CCD that has the same dynamic range as film I might consider changing my F3....
Well I started out using a Nikon P&S then went to Canon for another P&S. As of now I just got a Nikon D50 and I'm happy. My whole thought is use whatever works good for you since everyone is different and uses different things/ways to get the end result.
For a snappy retort, I reckon it was close enough.ksz said:
It's not like I meant any of my earlier comments in this thread particularly seriously. 
ScubaDuc said:True, too bad that the lens system is not as comprehensive as Nikon's. A camera is only as good as the lenses that are available for it. That is, in my modest opinion, why Nikon's are better then Canon's. Now, if they would only come up with a native 24x36 mm CCD that has the same dynamic range as film I might consider changing my F3....
Depends on how deep a lens system you really need or want.
Yes, it is nice to have something like the Nikon 18-200VR, or the Canon 17-55IS EF-S; but photographers have made some pretty amazing images over the years without image stabilization.
In fact today about work we were remarking on how 15 to 30 years ago photographers were proud to have a 300mm focal length in their gear. And many wonder why there would be a need except for very special occasions - would there be a need for more. Now we have the likes of the Nikon 80-400VR, and in DSLR FOV factor, that is equal to a 120 to 600. And people are feeling that is snot enough on their DSLRs.
So far I find the three lens trilogy for my Nikon D50 to be perfect; a 10.5 fish-eye (that can be corrected to a 14mm FOV, a Tokina 12-24 (18-36mm FOV), and the Nikon 18-200VR (27-300mm FOV) to be all that I need for my digital shooting. But when I do go out with my RF with a 15, 21, 28-35-50, and 90mm lenses, it it amazing to me how I adapt.
But on my Canon XT I find/found the 17-40L, Tamron 28-75, and 75-300IS a great combo too. Sure the newer 70-300IS lenses (both DO and non-DO) from Canon are better; but for my limited use of that lens - it met my needs.
One has to remember the 80/20 rule. IMO in the case of lenses; 80% of the users will be more than happy with the "cheap" and/or "consumer" grade lenses. For many these lenses are not "cheap" and/or "consumer" grade. 80% will be happy with these lenses, whether from Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina. If the grow beyond them, that is a different matter.
Talk about lens lust, some of the offerings from Olympus are truly awesome. A 35-100 f2.0, sure it is around $2,200US; but it is a full stop faster than anything that Canon or Nikon is offering. I hear the groaning that there are 70-200 f2.8's offered, but they have a FOV of 105-300 on Canon or Nikon. And for some the 2.0 aperture is worth the price. For those with true lens lust, there is no price too deep to pay.
$6,000US for a 180-500 f2.8 (Olympus's 90-250 f2.8). While many Canon and Nikon users would love a 100-400 f2.8-3.5 lens. Olympus has it for just $999US! And with the 1.4x tele-convertor you end up with a 140-560mm FOV with an aperture of f3.9-4.9. Of course I was looking at the digital market. With your F3, there are many Leica R and M users that would question you faith in Nikon lenses. In fact in the EOS world, there are many that look to mount Leica R lenses on their 35mm EOS bodies for the quality, but "limited" range of lenses.
I have sold a couple of images taken with my Panasonic LX-1, both that I have posted here from Reykjavik. By "most" accounts these should not have sold, because they were first made with a "point and shot" camera. But even at 13x19, the people shown these images were impressed (yes, by composition first), but also they were very happy with the "quality" (meaning sharpness, and the such) of the image. And that camera has a "limited" range of just 28-112mm FOV.
It is about choosing the right tools. In most cases there are enough "tools" in any camera manufactures lineup, or a third party to make everyone happy.
Check out Sinar
He says "best". I think the reason you can never answer this is because we don't agree and the definition of "best".
By some definitions I could argue for Sinar as having the "best" line.
http://www.sinar.ch/sinar/default.htm I just got some mail from them. Turns out they are selling more then just studio view cameras now and even have an AF DSLR. Its called the "Sinar m" But check out the price list: they have their own line of AF lens but at prices arounf $10,000 each. For those with less cash the camera can be adapted to use Nikon F-mount. The CCD sensors are interchangeable in this camera and go from 35mm 21MP "full frame" and larger
microsurfer said:
He says "best". I think the reason you can never answer this is because we don't agree and the definition of "best".
By some definitions I could argue for Sinar as having the "best" line.
http://www.sinar.ch/sinar/default.htm I just got some mail from them. Turns out they are selling more then just studio view cameras now and even have an AF DSLR. Its called the "Sinar m" But check out the price list: they have their own line of AF lens but at prices arounf $10,000 each. For those with less cash the camera can be adapted to use Nikon F-mount. The CCD sensors are interchangeable in this camera and go from 35mm 21MP "full frame" and larger
microsurfer said:
First, I am glad that you came back. I did not think your were a "troll".
Second, I chose to only compare the Nikon 18-200VR shown on the front page of the UK website when I visited. Your price if you could get one in the US is 388GBP. The shop I work at in the Washington, DC area sees a good number of those that go on Holiday to purchase their goods, from many countries, including the UK. I can't say how they make it work. For we just provide a standard sales receipt. Whatever they do with customs is their own business IOP. From what I have been told a long weekend in the US can be paid by the differences in US and UK pricing and the US dollar being in the tank - depending on the size of your purchase.
You will have to look at how the distributers of Nikon and Canon handle warranty repairs if purchased in the US. Here in the US Nikon will only repair if shown that you purchased it on a trip overseas from what I have been told, otherwise you have to show US purchase. I am told that Canon USA is more accepting. But policies do change with no notice.
You have to know how Nikon and Canon behave in the UK.
In the end you need to look at the features and overall price points that you are looking at and/or need. Both are great systems. I have both, a 10D and XT, as well as the D50. I like the B&W feature of the XT, but am growing more fond of the menu system in Nikon. And with the recent price drops on the D70s, I would love the wireless flash mode if I were to do it all again.
In my previous post I mentioned my "trinity" of lenses; the Tokina 12-24, and the Nikon 10.5 and 18-200VR. Even at 13x19, I am very happy with the results of these three lenses. But the lenses that I have for Canon have not disappointed (yes, the 75-300IS could have been better).
My Canon 10D was a disappointment in terms of AF performance for me. The XT was much better. The D50 and XT are equal performers in performance. I will say that the D50 images requires less work to get a good print out of it. IMO true to the marketing from Nikon.
Maybe over the next three weeks I will need to take both systems out for a shoot out.
The Leica has a poor dynamic range compared to high-quality print film.princealfie said:
But then, so does everything else
Counterfit said:The Leica has a poor dynamic range compared to high-quality print film.
But then, so does everything else
That is true, unless one looks at the expanded dynamic range of the Fuji S3pro.
In some ways one has to look at the market they are trying to reach. The "proof is in the pudding".
It is all about the "tools". Even scanned I feel that my 35mm negatives runs rings around digital in B&W. In color it is an even draw.
As I mentioned, I sold a couple different images at 13x19 from a Panasonic LX-1/Leica D-Lux 2 at 13x19. In the end it was the "composition" and "quality" that sold them.
Maybe buyers of art have new exceptions. Not much different as the photographic community moved from 11x14 and 8x10 negatives, to the 5x7 and 4x5 negatives, to the 6x9 to the 35mm formats.