Canon or Nikon in DSLR?

[PhotomanJohn]

I know this is off-topic but I have a question for JD about cameras being designed for right-handed people. I am left-handed and have been thinking about your comment. Nothing in the operation of a camera requires any significant dexterity where it could be done better with one's dominant hand. I just can't envision what a "left-handed" camera would look like and how it would be easier for us to operate.

John

[inkista]

1 Make sure you want to cary a DSLR system about. Larger lenses are heavy. If you find the system cumbersome consider a 4/3 system where excellent quality is also available...

Um. Very slight nomenclature nitpick. "Micro 4/3", not "4/3". The four-thirds system is Olympus's dSLR system, which is pretty much defunct. They haven't made a new body in the lineup since 2010, and they announced then that they were going to throw all their lens development work at micro four-thirds instead.

Your meaning was obvious, but it's so easy to confuse the two systems because of the similar naming that I thought I should point this out, because a search on four-thirds will pull up gear for both systems. You also need to be careful with the lens names, as the same two brands (Olympus and Panasonic) are involved, and some of the lens names are very similar. E.g.,

Four-thirds lenses:
Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6
Panasonic Leica D Summilux 25mm F1.4 ASPH

and

Micro four-thirds lenses:
Olympus m.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6
Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 25mm F1.4 ASPH

Look for that "m." and that "DG". While you can use four-thirds lenses on micro four-thirds cameras with adapters, the autofocus function will probably take a hit, so it's best to use native lenses if you can.

[Colin Southern]

After a long research to decide which brand to get, I chose Nikon because I like the look of it! I didn't care much of the feel as whatever it is I know I will get used to it. I'm left handed, unless someone is making one for left handed people, I will definitely go for that.

You're in luck - Nikon make one. Pop along to www.kenrockwell.com to see him using it (first photo on his site).

[PhotomanJohn]

Colin - That is hilarious. I have seen that picture a hundred times and never noticed. I guess I have failed the test for being able to "see the picture".

John

[xpatUSA]

You're in luck - Nikon make one. Pop along to www.kenrockwell.com to see him using it (first photo on his site).

Excellent!

[Colin Southern]

Colin - That is hilarious. I have seen that picture a hundred times and never noticed. I guess I have failed the test for being able to "see the picture".

John

Now, if only we could teach him how to dress properly (he's got his cap on backwards!).

[jcuknz]

I think you are unduely limiting yourself by only considering Canikon, there are other good fish in the sea. Without knowing your experience I would suggest that you should buy a relatively cheap bridge camera, or perhaps a Canon G secondhand, or Panasonic LX and use it intensively for a few months and then you will have a better idea of what you need in the way of a camera rather than asking questions here becuase we are all different with our personal likes and dislikes .... mine for instance was to effectively give Canikon away for Panasonic nearly a decade ago though I still keep them and they get used occasionally when they suit the nature of the exercise.
The cost could be two or three hundred dollars and be a good investment in knowledge to when you start splurging as you appear to be able to.
A final pertinent comment ... to properly use digital one needs to develop ones skills with an editor, a good one, not a simple and easy to use one.

[Sega62]

I think you are unduely limiting yourself by only considering Canikon, there are other good fish in the sea. Without knowing your experience I would suggest that you should buy a relatively cheap bridge camera, or perhaps a Canon G secondhand, or Panasonic LX and use it intensively for a few months and then you will have a better idea of what you need in the way of a camera rather than asking questions here becuase we are all different with our personal likes and dislikes .... mine for instance was to effectively give Canikon away for Panasonic nearly a decade ago though I still keep them and they get used occasionally when they suit the nature of the exercise.
The cost could be two or three hundred dollars and be a good investment in knowledge to when you start splurging as you appear to be able to.
A final pertinent comment ... to properly use digital one needs to develop ones skills with an editor, a good one, not a simple and easy to use one.

Very true.
Pentax, Fuji, Leica, Panasonic, Sony, Olympus are ALL GREAT.
You don't need 255 lenses, maybe a few, I usually use a 18-55, good enough.
I just purchased a Fuji Xe2 and love it, it is small, light specially when you got the camera around your neck for hours on..
I love my 5dmkII, love the Nikon D7100
But in the end, they all make lovely pictures.
Composition, style, art is the clue with good software!

Get what you feel, you can't go wrong nowadays!

[Old Veteran]

Hello Kathy; I read your answer about which brand to go with, Canon or Nikon. You made the point about how rapidly technology grows. By the time I finished reading I began to think that maybe going digital isn't for me after all. I was a film photographer, using only slide film. I really enjoyed my hobby, using the different brands of film to get different results when I would take nature / Landscape photos. Kodak doesn't make the slide film I like to use, Agfa is gone, but Fuji is still around. Their film is great but with Kodak I would get different results. I was all settled to get a Nikon DSLR with two zooms and now I don't know........
Bob Speicher

[inkista]

Sorry, Bob! Didn't mean to scare you off. Trust us. Go digital. It rocks.

You can use a different ISO setting for every shot.
Instant feedback (no waiting on the lab!)
EXIF data. (no setting or date/time notes needed!)
Tons more control over processing with a digital workflow
No additional cost to shooting more images [it's just bits!]

You want to make it look like Kodachrome? You can make it look like Kodachrome. You want it to look like Tri-X? Or Velvia? you can do that, too. Digital post-processing gives you a lot more control than you have with film.

And shooting digital is shooting a color positive--a lot like shooting slide film.

Jump on in. The water's fine. You'll love it once you get through the learning curve. Also, chances are that as an experienced film shooter, you're less likely to be a hypercritical gear-churner, like a digital-only shooter might be. If the high cost of the gear is turning you off, consider getting used or refurbished gear or renting before you purchase to see if you like it.

[Colin Southern]

Hello Kathy; I read your answer about which brand to go with, Canon or Nikon. You made the point about how rapidly technology grows. By the time I finished reading I began to think that maybe going digital isn't for me after all. I was a film photographer, using only slide film. I really enjoyed my hobby, using the different brands of film to get different results when I would take nature / Landscape photos. Kodak doesn't make the slide film I like to use, Agfa is gone, but Fuji is still around. Their film is great but with Kodak I would get different results. I was all settled to get a Nikon DSLR with two zooms and now I don't know........
Bob Speicher

Hi Bob,

+1 to what Kathy wrote. Digital isn't necessarily any HARDER than film, just a bit different (eg with film you'd "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" whereas with digital its "expose for the highlights and develop for the shadows").

Yes it's a learning curve, and yes, it can be challenging at times, but "so what" - film certainly wasn't without it's challenges either.

Some people still prefer film for a variety of reasons (even if just for nostalgia) - and that's fine of course, but as Kathy mentioned, digital offers a lot of potential advantages. Do you still listen to 78 LPs for music? or a valve radio? Connect via a dial-up modem? Change is good

[Stagecoach]

Hi Bob,

Agree with your comment about the speed that technology grows but this does not mean that we all have to keep up with it.

I would call myself an enthusiastic amateur, purchased my present DSLR 5 years ago and still would not be able to come up with a valid reason to upgrade it. More pixels may be an advantage but what I have now does not limit what I presently do.

Grahame

[inkista]

... Digital isn't necessarily any HARDER than film, just a bit different (eg with film you'd "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" whereas with digital its "expose for the highlights and develop for the shadows")...

Colin. Bob shoots slide film and is probably already in "Expose for the highlights and pray for the shadows" mode by default. This is the one thing that won't be different!

I had to argue like hell on dpreview back in the early days of digital against the "expose for the shadows" advice oldbies were giving newbies because of the film=negative think.

Bob: one more advantage to digital: no reciprocity failure!

[shreds]

"I really enjoyed my hobby, using the different brands of film to get different results when I would take nature / Landscape photos. Kodak doesn't make the slide film I like to use, Agfa is gone, but Fuji is still around. Their film is great but with Kodak I would get different results. I was all settled to get a Nikon DSLR with two zooms and now I don't know........
Bob Speicher

Bob, I am not sure how genuine or tongue in cheek you are being, but if you hanker after the old film effects take a look at some of the bolt-on digital filter effects that are available. DxO Film pack is an easy win, although there are many other plug ins available for Photoshop or standalone programmes. Although they are certainly not for every shot, some interesting retro effects can be easily created.

[Colin Southern]

Colin. Bob shoots slide film and is probably already in "Expose for the highlights and pray for the shadows" mode by default.

OOps, missed that!

Well there you go - he'll fit right in with digital then!

[Nickding]

This is a no correct answer topic if there are two photographers. The different manufacture really doesn't as important as you think. To myself, I love Canon's design slightly.

[jcuknz]

I see digital as the great liberation ... with film you are tied to what a laboratory will do for you , a neccessary evil after the darkroom of earlier B&W ... digital has freed us from that restriction ... I sometimes feel that it was only when I went digital after fifty years of film that I started to learn about photography with the camera and editing programme. It may sound daunting for an older person so I will mention I started digital in my early seventies.
I have found it exciting and fascinating

[rpcrowe]

I am certainly not in the camp of many folks who tout that the full-frame DSLR is the only way to produce shallow DOF, neither am I in the camp of many folks who seem to think that the only way to use selective focus is to shoot with a fast lens like a f/1.4, wide open.

I have posted this image several times as an example of selective DOF done with a crop camera and a slower, but longer focal length lens.

This was shot with a Canon 40D 1.6x DSLR using a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens at 165mm using f/5.6...


The 70-200mm f/4L IS lens has rounded aperture blades that produce a very smooth bokeh...

For less dramatic (but, IMO, equally effective) selective focus, this was shot with a Canon 40D 1.6x DSLR using a 300mm f/4L IS lens at f/5.6...


I am also not in the camp of those folks who recommend that a newbie start with a very expensive camera such as the 5D Mkiii which presently runs $2,900 USD from B&H in New York City; unless money is no object and unless the newbie knows exactly what he/she wants and why it is wanted.

The 5D iii is a great camera, however I like my 7D so much that I purchased a second 7D to shoot in tandem. I am not worried that the 7D Mk ii will come out and blow away the present 7D for still imagery. If the bells and whistles of a Mk ii can be extrapolated from the recent camera offerings from Canon, most of their effort is going to be aimed at video, not still photography...

Except for the photographer's talent in shooting and post processing, glass is one of the main criteria in achieving top-line results.

The sum of $2,900 USD would set a photographer up with a Canon 7D AND a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens as well as a 70-200mm f/4L IS. If you purchased as Canon factory refurbs, you could probably sneak in a 430EX ii within that budget...

[Colin Southern]

The OP hasn't signed in since the day he joined and posted this (1 month ago today), so I suspect he's long gone folks.

[inkista]

But does that honestly matter? The nature of the internet and Google being what they are, it's not like the information might not still be useful a year or two later when someone else goes on the hunt to find out which camera brand/format they should buy. Not all conversations have to be in real time.

And if we're having fun pontificating, I think that's a decent enough reason to post.