PerroneFord
Contributor
Man,
Move to "L" glass or "ED" glass then holla back.
Move to "L" glass or "ED" glass then holla back.
Nikon v. Canon (Trying to Understand the Differences)
- Thread starter King Kong Matt
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
RonFrank
Contributor
I'm will do my best as a Nikon user of 30+ years not to allow that to influence my comments... so I'll get it out of the way.. Nikon rules! :lol:
Some interesting points have been made, but I would not agree with all. Generally in high end glass, the difference between the two is so slight that it's rather pointless to argue about. Focus systems however are different between the two, but one will find top level pro's in all area's use both even if Canon has become more popular with sports shooters in the last 5 years.
White lenes don't necessarily mean Canon so the adds are somewhat misleading. Nikon has been making white lenses for a long time as has Pentax, Minolta, and others. Having the motor in the lens is also not always an advantage depending upon the lens and motor. Most High end Nikon big glass has been using AFS (sonic) motors for a decade.
Both make great products, and both make some products that I certainly would not consider, even in the SLR lineup. So don't compare Nikon to Canon, compare the lenses and body's you are interested in against one another.
Some sites that can help with this are:
www.photodo.com
www.dpreview.com
There are plenty of others.
Maybe when you have a better question than which manufacture Nikon or Canon, than you can start a new thread on specific models you are interested in and get feedback from those using those models.
Serisouly my opinion on Nikon is based on using mainly Pro level bodies and expensive glass. I've used similar Canon equipment, so my opinions are not a valid if you are interested in a D50 with a kit lens for example.
Some interesting points have been made, but I would not agree with all. Generally in high end glass, the difference between the two is so slight that it's rather pointless to argue about. Focus systems however are different between the two, but one will find top level pro's in all area's use both even if Canon has become more popular with sports shooters in the last 5 years.
White lenes don't necessarily mean Canon so the adds are somewhat misleading. Nikon has been making white lenses for a long time as has Pentax, Minolta, and others. Having the motor in the lens is also not always an advantage depending upon the lens and motor. Most High end Nikon big glass has been using AFS (sonic) motors for a decade.
Both make great products, and both make some products that I certainly would not consider, even in the SLR lineup. So don't compare Nikon to Canon, compare the lenses and body's you are interested in against one another.
Some sites that can help with this are:
www.photodo.com
www.dpreview.com
There are plenty of others.
Maybe when you have a better question than which manufacture Nikon or Canon, than you can start a new thread on specific models you are interested in and get feedback from those using those models.
Serisouly my opinion on Nikon is based on using mainly Pro level bodies and expensive glass. I've used similar Canon equipment, so my opinions are not a valid if you are interested in a D50 with a kit lens for example.
RonFrank
Contributor
Scubatooth:really then why is it when watching professional sports i see so many all white body lenses on the side?
What, you mean like this?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...s&Q=&sku=220378&is=USA&addedTroughType=search
White don't mean Canon.. and that has been true for a long time....
RonFrank
Contributor
PerroneFord:
But was it a true post? Good comments by Blade, but I know a lot of people who use both that say exactly the opposite especially about the lens choices.
Some of this is a matter of personal experience, but I don't know many people who would argue that the Canon 16-35mm f2.8 is favored over the 17-35mm f2.8 Nikon. I've not heard anyone going back to the 80-200 over the 70-200 either, maybe a bad lens?
I've read as many bad things about Canon's service as Nikons, but what photographer can't glue a chunk of rubber back on a body? :mooner: If THAT is what they are sending the camera's in for repair for, well then...
Choosing a system is a personal choice, and I'd suggest anyone who was seriously making a long term decision make that decision based on trying out the camera's they are considering.
Either way you go, it's not a bad decision, but both camera's have been around long enough to have quality issues at some points over time, so neither is defect free 100% of the time.
OP
King Kong Matt
Contributor
This has been a great discussion so far and I want to thank everyone who has added something. This has all been very helpful.
A couple folks have made this request and, again, this is something that probably should have been mentioned by me earlier.
In general, I have been looking at the D200 or the 30D. Again, I am starting from scratch so I have nothing invested (and no legacy equipment to worry about) with either system. Cost is an issue...but not a significant issue. In other words, I would rather make the right investment at this point as opposed to worrying about saving a few bucks here or there that I would eventually have to spend to get what I should have gotten in the first place.
Again, folks, thanks for everything that has been contributed so far. Keep it up.
-M
RonFrank:
A couple folks have made this request and, again, this is something that probably should have been mentioned by me earlier.
In general, I have been looking at the D200 or the 30D. Again, I am starting from scratch so I have nothing invested (and no legacy equipment to worry about) with either system. Cost is an issue...but not a significant issue. In other words, I would rather make the right investment at this point as opposed to worrying about saving a few bucks here or there that I would eventually have to spend to get what I should have gotten in the first place.
Again, folks, thanks for everything that has been contributed so far. Keep it up.
-M
bladephotog
Contributor
"But was it a true post? Good comments by Blade, but I know a lot of people who use both that say exactly the opposite especially about the lens choices."
These aren't the opinions of people I know. These are my experiences, and of course, opinons. I did say I like the Nikon 300 over the Canon version. I've shot both systems professionally for the past 15 years. I don't have a brand bias. The bottom line is I shoot what I'm given so I have to make do if I don't like something.
"Some of this is a matter of personal experience, but I don't know many people who would argue that the Canon 16-35mm f2.8 is favored over the 17-35mm f2.8 Nikon. I've not heard anyone going back to the 80-200 over the 70-200 either, maybe a bad lens?"
We had three photogs switch back to the 80-200 so call it three bad lenses out of a batch of 12. As for the wide zoom lenses, I just think my Canon is a bit sharper. My experience. They are both great lenses and I've made great pictures with both.
"I've read as many bad things about Canon's service as Nikons, but what photographer can't glue a chunk of rubber back on a body? :mooner: If THAT is what they are sending the camera's in for repair for, well then..."
Let me clarify since you think this is such a minor thing. I can and have glued back on countless pieces of NIKON rubber. But it gets a little old after awhile. I guess I just think if you pay over $3 K for a camera you shouldn't have to. Maybe I'm weird that way. And at $800 per repair, Nikon's flat rate regardless of the problem, we didn't send them in just for this. We'd wait until the camera had at least two problems. Mostly we had back focusing problems, but many others. This is not what I've read but experienced.
"Choosing a system is a personal choice, and I'd suggest anyone who was seriously making a long term decision make that decision based on trying out the camera's they are considering."
Picking up a camera and shooting a few frames isn't the only thing you have to do to make a "long term decision." It's a good idea to ask opinons. And yes, these are my opinons but also experiences.
"Either way you go, it's not a bad decision, but both camera's have been around long enough to have quality issues at some points over time, so neither is defect free 100% of the time."
I never said Canon was perfect. in fact I think I pointed out some things I don't like. My Nikon F5's are still the best film cameras I've ever owned. When Nikon first came out with the D1 all of us in photojournalism rejoiced that we could finally shoot a digital camera that handled like our old film cameras. And it was affordable. But times change. And our staff collectively made the decision to switch to Canon after having been a Nikon paper since the 50's and 60's. And about 200 years of collective professional experience went into making this decision. And at the moment, I wouldn't switch back unless my director of photography made me.
As for the white lenses, sure Pentax and Minolta make white lenses. And in all my years shooting NCAA and pro level sports I've seen them a couple times. Which is a couple times more than I've seen the gray Nikon lenses. S don't let anyone tell you that all those white lenses on the sidelines are anything other than Canon. Besides, why do you think Nikon put out a white, er, I mean gray, lens? To look like Canon.
These aren't the opinions of people I know. These are my experiences, and of course, opinons. I did say I like the Nikon 300 over the Canon version. I've shot both systems professionally for the past 15 years. I don't have a brand bias. The bottom line is I shoot what I'm given so I have to make do if I don't like something.
"Some of this is a matter of personal experience, but I don't know many people who would argue that the Canon 16-35mm f2.8 is favored over the 17-35mm f2.8 Nikon. I've not heard anyone going back to the 80-200 over the 70-200 either, maybe a bad lens?"
We had three photogs switch back to the 80-200 so call it three bad lenses out of a batch of 12. As for the wide zoom lenses, I just think my Canon is a bit sharper. My experience. They are both great lenses and I've made great pictures with both.
"I've read as many bad things about Canon's service as Nikons, but what photographer can't glue a chunk of rubber back on a body? :mooner: If THAT is what they are sending the camera's in for repair for, well then..."
Let me clarify since you think this is such a minor thing. I can and have glued back on countless pieces of NIKON rubber. But it gets a little old after awhile. I guess I just think if you pay over $3 K for a camera you shouldn't have to. Maybe I'm weird that way. And at $800 per repair, Nikon's flat rate regardless of the problem, we didn't send them in just for this. We'd wait until the camera had at least two problems. Mostly we had back focusing problems, but many others. This is not what I've read but experienced.
"Choosing a system is a personal choice, and I'd suggest anyone who was seriously making a long term decision make that decision based on trying out the camera's they are considering."
Picking up a camera and shooting a few frames isn't the only thing you have to do to make a "long term decision." It's a good idea to ask opinons. And yes, these are my opinons but also experiences.
"Either way you go, it's not a bad decision, but both camera's have been around long enough to have quality issues at some points over time, so neither is defect free 100% of the time."
I never said Canon was perfect. in fact I think I pointed out some things I don't like. My Nikon F5's are still the best film cameras I've ever owned. When Nikon first came out with the D1 all of us in photojournalism rejoiced that we could finally shoot a digital camera that handled like our old film cameras. And it was affordable. But times change. And our staff collectively made the decision to switch to Canon after having been a Nikon paper since the 50's and 60's. And about 200 years of collective professional experience went into making this decision. And at the moment, I wouldn't switch back unless my director of photography made me.
As for the white lenses, sure Pentax and Minolta make white lenses. And in all my years shooting NCAA and pro level sports I've seen them a couple times. Which is a couple times more than I've seen the gray Nikon lenses. S don't let anyone tell you that all those white lenses on the sidelines are anything other than Canon. Besides, why do you think Nikon put out a white, er, I mean gray, lens? To look like Canon.
Similar threads
