NOT trying to cover old ground, I just thought this was a good site and an interesting read.
http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/20...n-waiting-for/
NOT trying to cover old ground, I just thought this was a good site and an interesting read.
http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/20...n-waiting-for/
Last edited by JR1; 21st February 2015 at 07:46 AM.
I've read dozens of these comparisons and they all seem to come to the same conclusion, it depends on what you do and need.
Who knows, who cares, just get whichever suits your specific needs.
If one believes in efficient capitalistic markets, apparently about 1/3 of photographers favor Nikon, 1/3 Canon, and 1/3 like neither one
Being rather self-critical and of a generally grumpy nature, Canon are far and away the better cameras(and lenses) since all I own are Nikon
When I first got into photography, I simply picked the camera that felt best in hand.
I figured the differences between the two systems were marginal at best that comfort trumped all. The placement of the buttons on the Nikon D700 seemed "better" placed. That's how I decided on my first camera.
I think this is a silly article, for two reasons. First, you can't compare entire brands on the criteria they use. E.g., they credit Canon for hybrid autofocus, but most Canon cameras don't have it. It only makes sense to compare a specific pair. Also, for most people, unless you need a specific feature, it just doesn't much matter which brand you buy, in terms of the impact on the final product.
Went from the Speed Graphic 4X5 to the Nikon "F" and never thought to go a different way. Canon makes a nice camera as do a few other companies. Worked for CoStar for a time and they had me using a Sony SLR and that took nice pictures. It's more the photographer than the camera in my estimation....
I think the bigger issue is; who has the better camera strap or, whose packaging is better, prettier, more eco-friendly or, whose camera body is blacker.
These discussions are nonsense, both from the article perspective as well as here. Might as well debate political leanings, religious beliefs (or the lack thereof), nationalism or any other binary system where it's us-against-them.
Why not just have fun taking happy snappies, offer up constructive criticisms and wow everyone with great photos, rather than stir up the natives with whose product is better and how much one spends to get there. Sheesh, taking all the phun out of photos with whose gear bag is bigger, fuller or costlier. Can't wait til I'm a grumpy old man and can get away with comments like these. Ladies and gentlemen, stones at the ready....
Yet another article produced to attract readership and hence make profit. The magazine shelves and web are stacked with them and as always some can be more useful to some than others.
I remember when Canikon were simply cheaper Japanese imitations of Leica and Contax
And I believe that it took Pentax to spur them along the road to where they are today? or do we blame Contax who spurred Pentax?
Too few of us consider this...Nikon, no way to run a business...
I didn't know whether to ask for "Nikon" or "Ny-kon", so I bought a Canon.
I always want what someone else has,cause the grass is truly greener on the other side.O.k. i really want it all.My first camera was a rebel Canon, then an Olympus E-620 and soon to arrive this week a Nikon D7100. So all in all I don't know!!
Indeed, Canon was a copy of the Leica and Nikon was a copy of the Contax... IMO, Nikon produced tha absolute best rangefinder camera ever made, the Nikon SP while the Nikon F series SLR cameras were (at least in one way) superior to the Canon. The Nikon could survive in a more hostile environment. I had Canon FP and FT SLR cameras crap out in dusty/dirty environments (Dong Ha, Vietnam, as one example) while other photographers shooting the Nikon F series kept on merrily shooting...
Why did I buy the Canons instead of the Nikons at that time. Easy, the Japanese camera store I was shopping at had sold out of Nikons...
Then, Canon came out with some great manual focus SLR cameras (A-1 and F-1). I used an A-1 well into the digital age and skipped the entire generation of EOS auto-focus film cameras. I backed up the A-1 with an AE-1P which was a very decent mid price range camera.
I started with Canon DSLR cameras with the 10D and have used several generations. I still like my two Canon 7D cameras and think I will keep shooting with them since they fit my needs perfectly.
Canon had an advantage in the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens which was less expensive than anything equivalent Nikon produced until they offered a 70-200mm f/4 lens. I love my 400mm f/5.6L and don't believe that Nikon has anything in the price range to match it. For a long while, Nikon did not have a lens in the 300mm f/4L IS price range. My primary medium focal length lens is the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens which for a long while was unique to Canon. Nikon may have some better lenses than Canon but, I am happy with my Canon gear!
Yep, there are some very nice things about the Nikon family of cameras but, starting a camera set is like marrying a fiance who has a very large family. The family is very important but, there may very well be some members you like better than others. Still, it is always expensive (and often quite painful) to divorce your spouse. There should be a very good set of reasons for the divorce, not just a couple of items you like better in the competitor...
To paraphrase a Nikon representative... If you are shooting with any modern DSLR camera and top-line lens and you are not getting excellent images, it is your technique not the camera that is at fault.
Last edited by rpcrowe; 21st February 2015 at 02:40 AM.