Reuters Best Pictures of 2011 - Canon or Nikon?

[rpcrowe]

Reuters news agency published what they consider to be the 100 best news pictures of 2011.

http://blogs.reuters.com/fullfocus/2...-year-2011#a=1

Some really great photos here.

In case anyone is keeping score, the tally was:

Canon = 87
Nikon = 7
Other or unidentified = 6

Note one of the Canon pictures was the often disputed image of a RPG Grenade Launcher shot from behind. Still, the fact that it was a Canon image is not disputed...

[tbob]

Very impressive. Just goes to show that a great photographer is capable of producing a fantastic image even when they have to use inferior equipment. Just imagine the stuff they could produce with a Nikon

[PhotoRob]

Amazing photos!
I can't distinguish between the ones that were taken with Canon, Nikon, or other...

[Glenn NK]

Amazing photos!
I can't distinguish between the ones that were taken with Canon, Nikon, or other...

And the whole point is that it doesn't matter which is used.

Glenn

[Donald]

I can't distinguish between the ones that were taken with Canon, .......

They're the best ones !!!!!!!

Thanks for putting this up Richard. A thread to bookmark and come to to to browse.

[Geoff F]

We seem to keep getting statistics like this, which I mention to a friend who is a confirmed Nikon user. However he continues to insist that his elderly 3 MP Nikon will still outperform anything that Canon will ever produce.

It must be better because it is a Nikon.

[Donald]

And the whole point is that it doesn't matter which is used.

Exactly. What marks the great ones out is the person behind the camera, not what make of box he/she was using to capture the light.

[PhotoRob]

And the whole point is that it doesn't matter which is used.

Glenn

Glenn, we're saying the same thing...

[Harpo]

I found looking at these images interesting and a few things I noticed:

1) Many of the comments from the photographer say it was a quick snap, they didnt know something was coming and put up their camera and click… Im guessing photojournalists usually have to leave their camera on Program mode alot of the times?

2) The 16-35mm lens pops up more than any others. I dont hear much about it on this fourm. Any reason why? From what I read, the Nikkor 14-24mm is better quality and the 16-35, not so much. Why are there so many being used if thats the case?

3) Yeah, Nikkon or Cannon. Doesnt matter. all great images. Guess its the lenses!… but considering #2 above, Im confused!

[Colin Southern]

Very impressive. Just goes to show that a great photographer is capable of producing a fantastic image even when they have to use inferior equipment. Just imagine the stuff they could produce with a Nikon

Looks like Nikon are in for a hard year with all the flooding. I think Canon should just buy them and put them out of their misery

[Colin Southern]

2) The 16-35mm lens pops up more than any others. I dont hear much about it on this fourm. Any reason why? From what I read, the Nikkor 14-24mm is better quality and the 16-35, not so much. Why are there so many being used if thats the case?

Perhaps because we shouldn't believe everything we read

I use the EF16-35mm F2.8L USM II and it's a great lens.

[Harpo]

Perhaps because we shouldn't believe everything we read

I use the EF16-35mm F2.8L USM II and it's a great lens.

Ummm… I agree Colin… Makes it hard to do research to determine equipment purchases...

[rpcrowe]

I really enjoy it when photographers talk about their pictures. It gives me an idea of their mindset when they shoot and the things that are happening around them.

I just did a quick survey of the camera brands because canon appeared like it was popping up more than other brands, not to make this a Canon vs. Nikon debate.

I wanted to do a survey about the subject matter of the images and was going to classify them in four categories:

War, Civil Unrest, Disasters and Other...

However, war and civil unrest pretty well overlapped in many cases...

A good indicator that the subject of the picture is really more important than the technical quality is the second image of the set. The shot of the panicked passengers in the Indonesian airliner. IMO, it was a great shot. I seriously doubt that I would be shooting if I thought I was going to die. I don't really enjoy shooting after I have wet my pants...

[Colin Southern]

Ummm… I agree Colin… Makes it hard to do research to determine equipment purchases...

I think a big part of the problem is that many who like to do these "tests" seem to forget that we don't all go around photographing test charts and looking at them at 100% all of the time -- we like to take photos of real things!

I've seen the results of the Nikon 14-24 and there's no doubt about it - it's sharper than the Canon "equivalent" when viewed at 100% in Photoshop. And I'm sure too that if one ever prints comparitive images - full resolution - 5 feet wide - and then looks at them with a magnifying glass - then the Nikon lens may well look a little sharper. BUT - again - that's not how it is in the real world. If one were to compare the two lenses using images that were down-sampled to, say, 1000 pixels wide (typical for internet display) then any differences would be well and truely sampled out. Same goes for a modest size print (say, 8 x 12").

I've often said that there's a little "excessive / compulsive disorder" in every photographer (know that there is in me) - and with photography being where "art meets science" there's always that constant "fear of imperfection". As my photography improved over the years though I learned to be less obcessed about the science, and more accepting of the art -- and feel a lot more comfortable because of it. There are a lot of "in theories" in photography, but the "in practice" is often quite different (which is - in all seriousness - how I invest quite a lot of my time here in trying to communicate that to people). In most cases what limits a photographer isn't "the superiority of a Nikon 14-24 over a Canon 16-35" - it's knowing how to identify conditions that make a good photo - how to light it - how to prepare and pose your subject - how to process the shot afterwards (including sharpening, which has a HUGE impact on the quality of an image -- and yet is often grossly mis-understood). In all honestly, the difference between two high-quality lenses is a bit like one chap arguing that his camera is superior because it's 50 grams lighter and thus easier to hold all day when they both have great big beer guts! With things like this, it's easy to miss the entire forrest whilst looking for a particular tree.

[herbert]

Canon 16-35 is 640 grams, accepts filters, is 111mm long and has 35mm covered (classic street photography range).

Nikon 14-24 is 975 grams, no filters, is 131mm long and is wider.

I think the canon is a better walk around.

Still a big discrepancy in the numbers compared to the market share of Nikon verses canon. I noticed most of these cameras were 5d mark ii. That is a better statement of quality than many review sites will give you.

Maybe Reuters mainly employ shooters who have good taste in camera gear?

Alex

[Harpo]

Thanks Colin for your sensible explanation. Reading other photo forums or review sites- i know there are those who are more on the over-analytical side that enjoy exploring the nitty gritty details and make bold and strongly opinionated statements on certain gear, but like you said- in practical applications- it does not matter as much.

I know Ive gotten caught up in that a bit sometimes, even though Im more of a practical kind of guy. I have to keep reminding myself of something I think someone on this site said before… the "low end" or kit bodies and lenses that are often mentioned and we say are "poor" that we want to upgrade from are superior to some of the equipment that some great photographers used 20 or 30 years ago. In good hands, the better quality stuff shows its colors more, but for a not-as-experienced enthusiast, you may not see as much difference between the equipment and the cost of the items come into play more.

[PhotoRob]

Still a big discrepancy in the numbers compared to the market share of Nikon verses canon. I noticed most of these cameras were 5d mark ii. That is a better statement of quality than many review sites will give you.

Maybe Reuters mainly employ shooters who have good taste in camera gear?

Alex

Can you get a less expensive full frame Canon than the Mark II? Great camera no doubt, curious really how much you think cost is pushing up their numbers - plenty of examples out there where the smaller market has the quality advatange. Is the Mark ii the best value / bang for the buck perhaps?

[Dons]

Note one of the Canon pictures was the often disputed image of a RPG Grenade Launcher shot from behind. Still, the fact that it was a Canon image is not disputed...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...martphone.html

This guy takes good pictures only with phone camera..
So?????

[tbob]

I am pretty sure you could give a great photographer a cardboard box with a hole in it and they could produce a great image. Truly a case of mind (or eye) over matter.

[tbob]

Looks like Nikon are in for a hard year with all the flooding. I think Canon should just buy them and put them out of their misery

This would be my nightmare; not because I have anything against Canon, but because one big camera company could dictate absolutely what is available to consumers.

"You don't like this two megapixel camera made from cardboard? Tough; buy it anyway"