Nikon or Canon who makes the better camera

[xpatUSA]

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/

Interesting article indeed.

I was a bit put off by the bland assumption that moiré caused by the lack of an AA (blur) filter could be removed in post.

The statement that a touch-screen LCD was much better was certainly good news - for those of us who always stand in the shade for our shots.

I stopped reading when "stepper motor" got shortened down to STM . . .

[rpcrowe]

I have a touch screen on my Panasonic dedicated video camera and never use the damn thing. I purchased that camera (at a premium price) so I would not be tied into using the LCD as my only viewfinder. In addition to hating touch screen controls, I detest using an LCD viewfinder except very (really extremely) rarely, when it is in my interest to do so (such as in some macro shooting) I add an eye level Hoodman loupe.

When I need to shoot at an awkward angle for my eye-level viewfinder, I will use a right angle finder...

[NorthernFocus]

Interesting article indeed...The statement that a touch-screen LCD was much better was certainly good news - for those of us who always stand in the shade for our shots....

When we're on vacation and someone asks me to take their photo then hands me a camera with no viewfinder I just cringe. Half the time I have no idea what I've captured for them. I point it till I see vague silhouettes, push the button, hand it back to them and walk away... fast.

[Manfred M]

When we're on vacation and someone asks me to take their photo then hands me a camera with no viewfinder I just cringe. Half the time I have no idea what I've captured for them. I point it till I see vague silhouettes, push the button, hand it back to them and walk away... fast.

So it's not just me that has this issue. I tend to be lucky this way, as other travelers seem to approach my wife more often than they ask me, so any issues can be blamed on her . I guess I look more intimidating and unapproachable than she does and I only get asked when she is not around. That wild eyed look, my muttering to myself and generally looking slightly insane seems to work...

[darkslide]

To me easier, all had the basic same specs, you wound on, checked the exposure then from experience manually set the ap and shutter, all cameras were about 1s to 1/1000, all had about the same asa ratings

And to you that was 'easier' ? I somehow think, as OP, you simply don't agree with anyone elses opinion but your own - as can be seen from other posts you've originated.

I disagree with you - so slag me off if you want, but it won't change my opinion.

PS. The ASA changed with the film used, so I can't really see how this had anything to do with the camera itself... oh of course, I don't "make my living" with photography, so I wouldn't be able to understand would I...

[JR1]

And to you that was 'easier' ? I somehow think, as OP, you simply don't agree with anyone elses opinion but your own - as can be seen from other posts you've originated.

I disagree with you - so slag me off if you want, but it won't change my opinion.

Ha Ha Ha

[DanK]

Maybe it's time for someone to close this thread.

It started with a friendly enough discussion of what I at least considered a largely pointless article purportedly claiming to compare two brands, but it has degenerated into an acrimonious argument about whether things were 'simpler' with old film SLRs.

I should but won't resist the temptation to chime in. Ian, you are right of course that ASA was a property of films, but cameras with internal meters had to have some way to 'know' what film was being used, in order to calibrate the meter. In my second film SLR, a Canon FTb, this was handled by an ASA setting embedded in the shutter speed knob.

Whether things were simpler then depends on what things you are referring to. Was it simpler to choose among cameras? Yes. I chose Canon over Nikon primarily because I preferred a microprism focusing screen to a split-image screen, but the difference in practice wasn't much. Was it simpler to learn how to operate the camera? Of course. Was it simpler to use, in the sense of having fewer things you had to do with the camera? Yes. Was it simpler to get the output you wanted? No. If it were, we would all set our camera for a fixed ISO for any shooting session--or at least for 36 shots in a row--set it for a single metering mode, always keep it in manual mode, and swap out the screen so that we could easily use manual focus and skip AF. Then we would have cameras that behave like the ones in Jeremy's post. We use all of the new features that complicate the camera--at least, I do--because once we have learned them, it makes it simpler to get the output we want.

[Mark von Kanel]

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?

Dont you mean Nikcan???

[mark4583]

I used Canon when I was in the service in the 70's and 80's, I use Nikon now, mainly because I can can use most any Nikon lenses, Lenses from my 35mm fits my digitals.

[tao2]

None of the above...Minolta were (and through their their grandchild - Sony) still are THE camera engineering company who dragged the others in their wake when it came tae technological and electronic innovation. Not forgetting Maitani's genius Olympus cameras. So CanNikCan can whistle Dixie as far as "better" cameras go...

[Dave Humphries]

Maybe it's time for someone to close this thread.

It started with a friendly enough discussion of what I at least considered a largely pointless article purportedly claiming to compare two brands, but it has degenerated into an acrimonious argument about whether things were 'simpler' with old film SLRs.

Good idea