Nikon vs. Canon

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

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

gstroupe

Guest
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
Location
Rhode Island
# of dives
200 - 499
Ok, I'll probably get killed for posting this but here goes.

I'm looking for advise on a Digital SLR for underwater photography. I've narrowed it down to Nikon and Cannon. What are the pros and cons for each manufacterer and which models are better for entry level?

thanks!
 
If you don't have $$,$$$ already invested in lenses, than there is no difference. The body is the cheap part.
 
dave is correct, if your not invested in one brand or another the body is the cheap part.

also asking that type of question is also likely to start a heated discussion as some on both sides have very distinct opinons on the brand they use

Tooth
 
While that is true, it is also important to consider the lenses you are going to buy. I consider Canon optics superior to Nikon.

Did you ever notice at sporting events, all those white lenses? They are Canon.

Jeff
 
lenses are not the only issus.

what type of housing would you like?

how much would you like to spend on a housing.

the type of photography you want to do dicatates the type of lens.

lens availability dictates the body.

lens type/size can limit the port used which dictates the housing used.

so you have to figure out what type of photo's you want to take first.
 
Oddly enough, I consider Nikkor lenses superior to Canon.

<back to subject at hand> gstroupe, you can flip a coin here, the differences are that close. Best of luck!

All the best, James
 
jtoorish:
Did you ever notice at sporting events, all those white lenses? They are Canon.

Well...not really. Nikon makes many light gray Nikoor telephoto and zoom lenses. You're also seeing those.

I was actually under the impression that most experts though of Nikon as having a slight edge in terms of lens optics and Cannon with a slight edge in terms of body technology.
 
This question reminds me of the MAC vs PC question. You will find zealots on all sides of this issue, but both manufactures make good equipment. That doesn’t mean that you don’t develop preferences. I own a Nikon 5700, a Canon Film SLR and a Canon A75. I also own a Canon Z90 DV Camcorder. Although the Nikon 5700 takes wonderful pictures, I like the consistency and feel of the Canon user interface and will probably upgrade to a Canon Digital SLR soon.

Does this mean that Canon is better? The answer is yes for me, but maybe no for you!

If you can borrow units to compare, do it. Or, see if you can look at the manuals. This is the power of a reputable camera shop, they will let you tryout a piece of equipment in-store in almost all cases so you can get a “feel” for the product.
 
gstroupe:
Ok, I'll probably get killed for posting this but here goes.

I'm looking for advise on a Digital SLR for underwater photography. I've narrowed it down to Nikon and Cannon. What are the pros and cons for each manufacterer and which models are better for entry level?

thanks!

I use Nikon, and always have... except I've owned Contax, Hassy, Mamiya, Bronica, Cambron, and a few misc collectables over the years, so I'm not really much of a Brand Bigot like so many Nikon or Canon devotees.

Nikon, traditionally has focused on a complete system that is backward compatable. They generally produce less new bodies, and less techno stuff. Canon came out with a new mount when they went AF, and basically lost a LOT of their pro market. They also tend to push technology, and announce new pro bodies a LOT more often the Nikon. This has served Canon well in the age of digital.

Historically Nikon has remained on top, and that was true until Canon had three things... More IS lenses in the pro lineup, more mpix in the 1D with better low noise charasteristics due to CMOS, and in camera firmware noise reduction. These are benifits that pro sports shooters really can use, which is why one see's more Canon lenses in the pro sports catagories.

With the release of the D2x (CMOS based) and the release over the past few years of Nikons VR lenses, they have basically closed the gap in the sports arena. All that said, I'm not sure if any of that means much to an UW shooter.

As for lens qualilty, Nikon has historically had the optic quality edge. However one can NOT just say Nikon is better than Canon, one must evaluate EACH lens by the manufacture. Nikon wide lenses continue to outperform Canon. Some of the Canon lenses outperform Nikon. In low budget glass, neither is GREAT, but Canon cheap lenses have VERY poor build quality. One must evaluate THEIR lens requirements. It matters very little if Nikon offers a 300mm F2 EDIF VR lens (which they do, and Canon does not) if one is not going to shell out 4K for that chunk of glass.

Another big consideration is the camera layout. Nikon tends to take a more traditional approach. My D1x resembles my F4s in terms of where stuff is, and handles more like a traditional SLR. Canon long ago lost the aperture rings on the lenses, and has been using menu's and wheels even before digital came onto the market. Nikon did as well on some models, but lagged behind Canon. I personally don't like Canon's feel, but I'm sure that if I purchased a 1Ds MarkII, I'd quickly overcome the presentation of controls and features. I never thought I'd like using a dial over the aperture ring on the lens, but now, that is the only way I shoot with the D1x.

As far as MPIX, Canon continues to have bigger counts, but the real question is, does it matter? There has been enough head to head comparisons between the D2x, and 1DsMarkII to choke whale. And the end results are that it's next to impossible to tell much difference between the two. Mpix comes at a price, and the D2x is a much faster camera vs. the Canon in several area's, and becomes a speed deamon if one uses the 8mpix mode.

So even with the Canon having 4mpix more between the D2x and 1DsMarkII AND a bigger sensor, in the final image the results are both exceptional. There is less of a difference when comparing an 8mpix camera to a 6mpix camera.

There is SOOO much more to a digital camera then just mpix which is why the 4mpix Nikon D2H outperforms ANY PnS digital out there.

IMO the D70 or new Digital Rebel would both make great choices for UW. Now the big question becomes, can you afford the glass, ports, flash systems and housing. IMO putting junk glass on these bodies is like putting a Porsche engine in a Yugo.... at the end of the day you have a car that won't perform well dispite one component being top notch.

Another BIG mistake people make is they put 5K into a camera system, and don't bother to even read the manual much less actually get out there and take some classes, and purchase learning materials. Certainly good equipment is important in photography, however understanding a LOT about basic things like Aperture, Shutter, ISO, Exposure is just the tip of the iceburg!

Good Luck,
 
You really can't go wrong with either. Just pick one and go for it. My OPINION is Nikon is playing catch-up with bodies and Canon is playing catch-up with lenses (I am limiting this to lenses for u/w use....I personally don't care about topside :) )

Both the Canon 20D and Nikon D70 are very capable cameras u/w and there is a good selection of housings for both.

Once you decide on a camera, then you can ask which housing is best and start another war :) !!

Dave
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/teric/

Back
Top Bottom