View Full Version : Canon vs Nikon
Ok not unlike Mac vs PC, there's usually a strong Canon vs Nikon thing goin on... Just curious what everyone uses.
Policar
07-19-2005, 08:05 AM
This one's going nowhere good. I use a digital rebel xt (which I love!), but despite the fact that the images it produces are consistantly stunning, I have to admit that the d70 (with its superior lens and larger size) feels much more professional and substantial. I like the rebel's lack of noise and wide dynamic range, though (which--oddly--sucks in automatic mode, unless you mess heavily with contrast settings.)
Barry_S
07-19-2005, 08:22 AM
Oh great. Just giving notice, I'll squash this thread flat if I see *any* sniping start. The PC/Mac stuff is bad enough.:undecided I have a load of Nikon gear because when I got into photography as a kid, I bought a Nikon F, which was *the* pro camera at the time. So I've sort of stuck with the system and settled in with my two favorites--the F3 and F100. I'm in holding mode with the Nikon digital bodies, but I'll probably pick up the successor to the D70.
Nikon merely because the mount has stayed practically the same forever. You can use just about any lens on a Nikon body. Canon seems to like changing mounts so you have to buy more lenses.
Policar
07-19-2005, 08:48 AM
True, but (oddly enough) with a 35 dollar adapter, you can use Nikon AI and AIS lenses with EOS mount cameras, and metering actually works (although not as well as it could.) On a d70, metering doesn't work at all. But the lack of compatibility with the FD mount is annoying and is obviously a plan on Canon's part to make some extra money.
Barry_S
07-19-2005, 08:59 AM
Canon had three mounts, right? The original breech mount, the FD bayonet, and finally the EOS. I think they made a wise choice to start fresh with the EOS mount, so they didn't have to deal with any technical limitations. But they did piss off a lot of people at the time.
<-- Canon Kid right here.
thisiswells
07-19-2005, 09:24 AM
I have two Canon's. Film and Digicam. While my 'vote' is going for Canon, I'll say I admire Nikon's innovation of the SPX800 flash system. It's incredibly useful, but only works with Nikon bodies.
Graeme_Nattress
07-19-2005, 11:06 AM
Got a Canon 20D with the 17-85 IS USM lens. It's rather nice. The Nikon D70 is nice, but seemed rather more pricey for what you got. That said, both make excellent pictures. It's a long time since I've used an SLR, so I'd slowly getting back into it and starting to get some nice results.
http://homepage.mac.com/gnattress/PhotoAlbum10.html
http://homepage.mac.com/gnattress/PhotoAlbum11.html
Graeme
J.R. Hudson
07-19-2005, 12:10 PM
I have a Canon.
It's really my wifes; it is not digital but real SLR 35mm. What I want however is the
Canon 20D
Bottomline as always? It's the man/woman behind the camera. Doesnt matter if its Canon, Nikon, Pentax or Minolta.
I would like to get my hands on the Russian Lomo.
Lomos are great... very signature look... however you can mimic it easily in Photoshop.
Sirius_Doggy
07-19-2005, 12:25 PM
Canon had three mounts, right? The original breech mount, the FD bayonet, and finally the EOS. I think they made a wise choice to start fresh with the EOS mount, so they didn't have to deal with any technical limitations. But they did piss off a lot of people at the time.
4 - if you count the new mount that Canon has put on a couple of it's new digitals, the Rebel (not sure bout the new Rebel XT) and the 20D.
You can still use the EOS mount lenses with no problems or adapters but they are making a few select lenses that will ONLY fit the Rebel and 20D. Something about a short backfocus or something..
From Canon's website: "The EOS 20D is compatible with all Canon lenses in the EF lineup, ranging from ultra-wide-angle to super-telephoto lenses, and including Canon's new EF-S series lenses, manufactured specifically for the 20D and Digital Rebel. (http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelFeaturesAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=10464&pageno=6)"
THIS LENS only fits the Rebel & 20D (http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=10511)
Graeme_Nattress
07-19-2005, 12:34 PM
Yes, they have new lenses designed for the 1.6 crop factor in the Digital Rebel, 20D etc., the EF-S lenses. But you can still use all the normal EF lenses.
Graeme
thisiswells
07-19-2005, 12:43 PM
4 - if you count the new mount that Canon has put on a couple of it's new digitals, the Rebel (not sure bout the new Rebel XT) and the 20D.
Umm, so does Nikon have DX lenses only for D-SLR. (not that even matters. okay.)
esmat
07-19-2005, 06:47 PM
Nikon all the way. My FM2 would kick a canon 1ds mark II butt
Barry_S
07-19-2005, 08:46 PM
Right, Nikon sells a similar line of lenses for their digital SLRs. The mounts are the same but the lenses have less coverage, so they're smaller and lighter. With less than full frame size imaging chips, you can design a lens with a smaller image circle. Of course they won't cover a full frame of film or a full sized 24x36mm sensor.
Umm, so does Nikon have DX lenses only for D-SLR. (not that even matters. okay.)
Sirius_Doggy
07-19-2005, 08:50 PM
With the Canon EF-s lenses you can NOT mount them on other Canon cameras. The back end of the lens will hit the mirror when it flips up, therefore they have designed a unique mount that allows both EF and EF-s lenses to fit only the Rebel & 20D and any future model camera they make that is NOT full 24 x 36mm frame sized.
Canon full frame bodies for me...
I had a Nikon F4 film body for awhile back in the day and loved it though
manny_gas
07-20-2005, 01:27 PM
Canon rules here in the Philippines!
Ralph Oshiro
08-04-2005, 04:55 AM
Nikon all the way. My FM2 would kick a canon 1ds mark II buttWow! I STILL have a Nikon FM2 also! That thing must 20 years old! My very first SLR was a Canon FTBn (in "professional" black, of course). I loved that thing--parents got it for me for my birthday or something for a journalism class. Switched to Nikon in my junior year and got FM and FE bodies and shot for my high school's paper. But ever since I got my Nikon D70 last Xmas, I've been buying Nikkors like crazy! Here's a list of my fixed-focal length lenses:
14mm f/2.8 Nikkor AF-ED
20mm f/2.8 Nikkor AF-D
24mm f/2.8 Nikkor AF-D
35mm f/2.0 Nikkor AF
50mm f/1.4 Nikkor AF-D
60mm micro f/2.8 Nikkor AF-D
85mm f/1.8 Nikkor AF
180mm f/2.8 Nikkor AF-ED IF
. . . and a PILE of zooms!
Actually, I think Canon's DSLRs were a bit better than Nikon's when Canon leapfrogged Nikon with their superior ergonomics and usability a couple years ago, and Nikon has been playing catch-up ever since. Wondering when Nikon will introduce a full-frame model . . .
MattC
08-04-2005, 09:51 AM
My film camera is a Nikon F4. Because of my lenses and workflow I'm going to stay with that system for digital - which I'm actually planning to get shortly. My partner made a hell of a find and I think I'm going the same route as he did.
The Fuji S3. It is based on a Nikon camera, takes Nikon lenses and produces a superb image. The camera is very pro looking, but it is not bullet proof like the top of the line Nikon (I could club a man to death with my F4 and then take his picture - the thing is a tank). But for studio work, or non-warzone field work, I think the Fuji is more than capable. It is a bit slower than the Nikon though, so if you want to do action work, go with the Nikon. Of course the Nikon will set you back $5,000 and the equivalent Fuji costs half that, so for me I think the Fuji is it.
Matt
XCheck
08-04-2005, 10:55 AM
I would like to get my hands on the Russian Lomo.Whaaa? Buy AMERICAN (or Japanese)!
My first four cameras were Russian (should I say Soviet?). Smena I, Smena II, Zenit, and Lubitel. I loved them all dearly. I got the Smena I for my tenth birthday... probably the most coveted b-day present ever. Lubitel was a 6x6 - awesome picture, if you didn't mind slight vignetting. It was a copy of a Rolleiflex, with less durable body - need I say more?
Then I had a bunch of East German cams - Practicas - those were really great for what you could get in Eastern Europe back in 80s. I still own a Pentacon 6, a 6x6 SLR. I don't use though - now I use a Canon 10D. I have my eye on a 1Ds (full frame, baby! I love extreme-wide landscapes, which you can't really do with 10D's 1.5 conversion factor), but that will probably have to wait...
Canon is probably the brand I'll stick with until the grave...
I have my eye on a 1Ds (full frame, baby!Canon is probably the brand I'll stick with until the grave...
Get it. You won't regret it a bit. I use mine nonstop and it's a tank.
MattC
08-04-2005, 06:22 PM
Ok I lied...
Just came back from the camera store with a mint condition, used, Nikon D1X....
So sue me.
Matty
DaTeaser
09-16-2005, 03:52 AM
When I take really good pro shots,there is nothing like Cannon!
MattinSTL
09-19-2005, 09:09 PM
I've had several Canons and I may stick with Canon... but I've always wanted a Nikon.
At this point it's a game of selling everything I've accumulated for Canon before I can make the switch... like 550ex flash and other stuff. I've dumped a total Canon kit before... but then just replaced it with another Canon!
Let me know if you want to dump any of your Canon gear MattinSTL. I'm game :)
Antoine_Fabi
09-20-2005, 12:44 PM
excuse my ignorance in digital photography (i'm old school) but what do you mean by "full frame" digital camera ?
thanks
Graeme_Nattress
09-20-2005, 12:53 PM
Full frame is a full 35mm sized frame. Most digital cameras have smaller chips, the Canon 20D is a 1.5 crop factor, so it's 1.5 times smaller than a 35mm frame. The new D5 is full frame though.
Graeme
Antoine_Fabi
09-20-2005, 12:55 PM
Hi Graeme,
does it work like in video ? for lattitude, noise etc... bigger CCDs are better ?
Graeme_Nattress
09-20-2005, 01:43 PM
Yes indeed.
Graeme
I use a Fuji S2. Takes Nikon lenses, has Fuji electronics. Amazing color rendition, good resolution. As mentioned above, the S3 is amazing as well, but I picked up my S2 used for about $850 all told. Without spending upwards of two grand, it's the best camera I can buy. If I had 5000 bucks to spend, I'd love to have a Nikon D2X. I don't have anything against Canon, but Nikon always felt better in my hand (I know it sounds cheesy, but it's like choosing a gun...ergonomics count for a lot).
That said, it's less the camera than the person behind it. People would come into the photo store where I worked and ask for a pro camera so they could take pro pictures. I always tried to tell them that a pro would get at least an interesting result with a pinhole camera, and a decent result with even the cheapest film SLR. People get lost in the megapixel wars and forget that it's all about the image and the concept behind it...
lukehumphrey
10-27-2005, 11:53 AM
I personally would opt for a full frame camera if you can afford it. That's the way the technology is going, and in a couple years there will be full frames for around 1k or less. Reason is that if you stock up on lenses with your 20Ds and D70s you'll be buying them for how they look with the non-full frame 1.5 convergance factor. Once you switch to the full frame you'll have to rethink your lenses (and probably need to buy new ones). The Canon 5D is taking a step in this direciton, offering a full frame 13 MP camera for 3k. Still kind of pricey but getting there! Canon I think has lead this space as well with their 5d, 1ds and 1ds Mark 2. Nikon is behind, but now has a 5k D2X.
I have a 10D and have been holding off on buying lenses while I rethink how they will look when I finally upgrade to say a 5D.
Graeme_Nattress
10-27-2005, 12:24 PM
It certainly makes sense to take "upgrade to full frame" into account when buying lenses for a current non-full frame camera. I don't think you need to re-think and ditch old lenses though, if you've been careful in your choices and avoided the "designed for small frame" lenses.
Graeme
Petrus
11-13-2005, 08:59 AM
My (digital) still gear:
Canon EOS-1D mII
EOS-1Ds
Canon G-5
20 mm 2.8 fixed ("prime"...)
28 mm 1.8 prime
50 mm 1.4 prime
85 mm 1.8 prime
300 mm 4 prime
400 mm 4 prime
1.4x and 2x extenders
(16-35 2.8 I threw away, p.o.s.)
24-70 2.8
70-200 2.8
100 mm macro
24 mm T&S
90 mm T&S
newest models all...
somebody else pays for this, by the way...
analog leftovers: Voigtlander Bessa L and R with 15, 35 and 90 mm lenses, Hasselbland SWC, couple of Contax G1 and G2:s, a spare EOS-1n.
Matt Grunau
11-17-2005, 01:44 PM
I have two Canon's. Film and Digicam. While my 'vote' is going for Canon, I'll say I admire Nikon's innovation of the SPX800 flash system. It's incredibly useful, but only works with Nikon bodies.
The SPX600 is just as usefull. Got one on order now.
I am a Nikon D70 fan, I like it for its colors. They seem deeper to me. I have used a Canon Rebel, and I liked it almost as much. I seem to get better pictures with more depth of field with Nikon.
Michael Summers
11-17-2005, 07:19 PM
been a nikon user since my grandpa passed down his professional studio system to me after he retired. mainly i still shoot nikon because of the mount.
Petrus
11-18-2005, 01:37 AM
By the way: canon eos-1 MkII shoots 8 fps for over 5 seconds. Some fellas have done simulated higspeed videos with this feature, where actors move a 1/3 speed (or try to) in public places etc. Easy to animate back to 24 fps in post. New canon e-5 can shoot 60 continuous frames at 3 fps.
I work as a staff photographer in a news magazine, and Canon has been gaining ground on the professional sector as their EOS-1 and EOS-1s bodies have been both faster and so much better quality imagevise than top Nikons. In our company (18 photographers) it used to be 50/50 N/C, now only 2 guys use Nikons anymore. All photoagencies I know have switched 100% to Canon. Better ergonomics, too.
I think the reason for Canon's lead is their office system branch (copiers etc). They were far ahead of everybody else in electronics when this digital camera thing appeared. Nikon, Olympus, Leica and many other top brands were only in cameras and optics.
My (digital)
(16-35 2.8 I trew away, p.o.s.)
you THREW AWAY a 16-35?!!? They're $1400 new!
I'm in the market for one right now. Have any other lenses you're looking to sell or throw away? :)
Petrus
11-18-2005, 10:58 AM
Thanks for pointing out a spelling mistake...
Threw away, figurativelly speaking. It now rests somewhere on a storage room shelf, to be given to poor unsuspecting summer trainees while I shoot away with my PRIME 20mm...
In a recent review they found out that the new Canon 5D at 13Mpix is as sharp as EOS-1Ds MkII at 16 Mpix. Why? Normally used (zoom) lenses are the bottleneck, they are not sharp enough for the best sensors. So, if you get a EOS-Ds MkII, you should use only medium speed fixed lenses, no zooms...
A word of advise, Kai: do not buy the F2.8 16-35, get the f4 17-40 (or whatever). Cheaper, lighter, SHARPER!
yeah but that extra stop can come in handy indoors. I was considering between those two though.
translumination
11-21-2005, 06:43 PM
I got sick of the poor lattitude and poor highlight handling of my canon 300d so I got rid of it. I'm going back to film and trying to get my hands on a used mamiya 7. Cant understand why people split hairs over a format that is essentially the same quality across different makes whether it be film or digital. If you go from 35mm or smaller to medium format- now theres a real difference in quality.
I got sick of the poor lattitude and poor highlight handling of my canon 300d so I got rid of it. I'm going back to film and trying to get my hands on a used mamiya 7. Cant understand why people split hairs over a format that is essentially the same quality across different makes whether it be film or digital. If you go from 35mm or smaller to medium format- now theres a real difference in quality.
I completely agree, but it really depends on the intended use. It doesn't matter if you shoot medium format if it's going to end up on the internet, a 4x6 print, a newspaper ad...all I'm saying is there's places where the higher quality of film doesn't matter a bit. But for maximum quality large prints, you can't beat a medium format or 4x5 camera. The Mamiya 7 is nice, but you might look at the 645AFD, if only because you can put a digital back on it. Yeah, they're over 10 grand right now (the digital backs, not the camera), but they'll drop in price. And talk about a flexible system...just swap backs to choose between film and digital. Plus it uses the same lenses as the new 22 megapixel Mamiya SLR.
translumination
11-22-2005, 01:38 AM
I was actually planning on buying a quality film scanner for the medium format. I hope such a thing exists as I havent researched it yet. Its cheaper than a digital back and medium format film must have a phenomenal amount of information on it. Also film negative is good for archiving as well.
I agree it depends on what you do with the final output but like telecine film for tv, a higher quality format always gives you a nicer downconversion. Also for landscapes and wide shots you need all the resolution and highlight handling you can muster. The one thing with digital for landscapes is that you can stitch them together to give a huge image. I also love those silky smooth tonal transitions that medium format makes so much easier.
Damn it now i think about it I really need both!
Petrus
11-24-2005, 12:53 AM
If you look only at the resolution a Canon EOS-1Ds MkII with 16Mpix sensor equals a 645 film. The problem are the lenses, 35mm format lenses are not sharp enough to "feed" the sensor. For that reason medium format film cameras (or image backs with larger sensors, at a price) still have a place in photography. But really the end use should dictate the optimum means; to shoot 6x7 or bigger is a waste if it is not published really big, bigger than a glossy magazine spread, that is.
Naturally there are also some subtle differences in color, gradiations, dynamic range etc, were sometimes digital, sometimes film reigns.
MattinSTL
11-24-2005, 09:33 AM
I have two different friends who never met each other and on Monday they both got TWO Mamiya cams each... one guy from his mother in FL who is going digital and the other guy from his father who passed away. Is that crazy or what? They both emailed me to tell me about it and once again I'm suspicious that this is really the Truman Show. Either way I should finally get to play with the cams I grew up wanting.
Even though I've shot Canon my entire life (and a manual Yashika) I see what others see in Nikon... there is some difference that I can never put my finger on but I like it when I see it. Once you get into the higher end glass I think those differences go away... but in the "affordable" range I think it's like Ford/Chevy... and the reason the F150 sells more is because it's comparable, but more then anything else (at the affordable level) it's cheaper.
I could never afford the nikons that I wanted, but if you show me a 70-200L glass from Canon then all bets are off... I'll have a Canon with that glass on it when I can afford a full-frame rig.
Petrus
11-24-2005, 12:26 PM
The latest 70-200 F2.8 Canon Zoom is the best high speed zoom there is. Period.
But if the maximum resolution is what you are after, medium speed fixed lenses are the only option.
GenJerDan
11-24-2005, 12:27 PM
I've always been a Minolta guy....but I bought a 300D last week. (No, not the one Pookie was selling...mine came with a lens... It was a return at the store, so they took 25% off. What? I should have said No? :grin: )
Just needed something for behind-the-scenes shots, and tourist snaps.
But $50 bucks for a freaking battery?! Hey, Jarred! Something to consider. ;-)
The latest 70-200 F2.8 Canon Zoom is the best high speed zoom there is. Period.
But if the maximum resolution is what you are after, medium speed fixed lenses are the only option.
It is an amazing lens. If you don't need the image stabilizer, you can buy the non-IS 70-200 2.8 for hundreds less.
Petrus
11-25-2005, 12:52 AM
Yeah, if you already have a Stedicam, then you can save on the stabilizer...
MattinSTL
11-25-2005, 06:45 AM
Well it's good to know I'm not the only one who's always been in love with that particular Canon lens... and I've also wanted the 50mm F1.0. (even though it's not that sharp at F1.0)
I think Genjerdan is the first person I've seen mention Minolta and that surprises me. I've got a friend who shoots magazine spreads using a 7D and he says it's the best digital in that price range right now.
GenJerDan
11-25-2005, 05:03 PM
I think Genjerdan is the first person I've seen mention Minolta and that surprises me. I've got a friend who shoots magazine spreads using a 7D and he says it's the best digital in that price range right now.
Wasn't NASA using Minolta optics way back when? I think that's why I started with Minolta when I jumped into photography in my younger days. (My XD-11 is upstairs somewhere...it didn't do all that well when I dropped it off the pier in Asbury Park, though...can't focus worth a damn anymore...)
And Oh MY Goodness. Quoting Anaïs! Always wanted to make a film from some of her short stories. Probably from A Spy In The House Of Love, but probably mixing in some from other works.