Why Nikon?

[seaducer]

I am an experienced diver who feel in love with UW photography about 2 years ago. I think I found a home so to speak, and wish to become a bit more serious about it. I am slowly saving my pennies to buy a mid range DSLR and a housing to go with it, hoping that by the time I have the scratch the limiter to my photos will no longer be my talent but the rig I currently use (Sealife DC500).

At any rate, what brings me here is that I notice far and away more pros and serious amatures seem to favor Nikon over any other brand of camera. What is the reason for this? I have a couple of SLR now, one film and one digital, both Cannon, and they seem ok. I do not have the knowledge base to look at technical specs and see a decided advantage.

But I see more mentions of Nikon in photo credits than other brands. Even on this board. So, from Nikon users, why should I switch? Is there really an advantage to Nikon, or is it more of thing where Nikon owners just love their cameras a little louder than other people?

Like most people I am interested in the most bang for my buck, and 3rd party accessories are a plus.

Thanks...

 

[Mariozi]

Hi Drew,

I am a Nikon user. Since I went SLR in 2000 with an F80.
The development of the Nikonos series (from the CalipsoPhot) is what most people regards as the great popularization of uwphotography. Later on the support for Nikon TTL became "standard" underwater. If you couple this with the greatest sturdiness of Nikon cameras since the 50s (while Canon focused on speed), you get a pretty good idea why Nikon is still the most used SLR body underwater (see DSLR UW Survey)

The digital era can be regarded as the second boom in uw photo, and we see a great deal of Canons and Olys DSLR going underwater (Sony is beginning to dive as well).
Along with the fabled Nikon resistance, we usually brag about lens compatibility (something Cannon lacks really bad)and ease of use (Nikons are more "direct" cameras), among other stuff.
Canons used to be one step ahead in DSLR technology up to the last generation of DSLRs, but with the latest releases of the D90, D700, D3x and the disastrous 50D from Canon, I think Nikon got right up to it. Anyway, even before that people would go with Nikon based on the reliability and compatibility issues...

If you want to take a good look at one thing that resumes Nikon (a company that started doing lenses!!! Which is what matters photographically wise!!!)for me, look at this movie.
And anyway, why would you want a camera from a company that makes copiers?

 

[rjsimp]

I used to have Canon DSLR cameras before I started using DSLR underwater. My first DSLR I set up for underwater was the Nikon D200 and the reason was ergonomics of the controls, extensive feature settings and adjustability, and finally just the quality of the camera.

After buying the Nikon D200, I sold my Canon cameras and lenses because I was so impressed with the Nikon and decided to use it on land as well.

 

[tedtim]

I spent some time reading about both the Nikon and Canon DSLR before heading to my local photo shop with credit card in hand. I was a bit biased because I had a Nikon SLR a long time ago, but sold it because I found that I was not using it.

I am not savy enough to know which lenses are better than others, except by reading reviews, so the selection of lenses was not much of a consideration. At the photo shop I asked to see both a Nikon and Canon. What struck me about the Canon was the size; it was notably smaller than the Nikon. I have fairly big hands and the Canon was too small for my liking. The Nikon fit more comfortably.

I had an opportunity to shoot the Canadian University basketball championships last year. The majority of the pro photographers were using Canon. It may be the lenses that they use for sports photography.

The more I use my Nikon, the more I do like it. With the feature rich DSLRs available for a reasonable price now it sure takes some time to work through all of the capabilities.

 

[AussieByron]

I choose Nikon on the bang for buck idea. Features offered at the time Nikon offered more and also had an extensive range of great lenses both new and old at excellent prices.

Talking to a pro sports photographer once (Soccer world cup, international tenis etc etc), he basically said in his field it was all Canon. Canon even had techinicans at the big events to service gear and replace parts etc etc. But the setups were high end and basically unaffordable to most people.
I asked what did he think of Nikon. His reply was that he preferred Nikon for semi-pro and below. Unfortunately in His line of work he needed the best and the top of the range which Canon offered.

But one has to also think about their own personal shooting. Professional sports photographers require features which say an underwater photographer doesnt really need and vice verser. Look at what you need in a camera and more so what lenses are on offer which suit your individual needs.

I am happy with my current collection of Nikons and lenses.

Regards Mark

 

[mjh]

I am packing a D200 have half a dozen lenses so I will always be a Nikon shooter. BUT at this stage in the game I don't think you can go wrong with either brand. If you have high end, special requirements you might find a model that fits you better but otherwise IMHO it's a toss up.

The old thinking was Canon had a little better camera tech and Nikon had better lenses (Under 600mm).

 

[victor]

Seaducer
There are just as many Cannon users on this board as there are Nikon.
Me I am a Nikon user from years back so I am going with that. Cannon's used to have better autofocus so I nearly went with that.
The bodies are mostly the same, its lenses where your money ends up.
If you have cannon lenses then the cost of replacing them will outweigh any other advantage.

Just ny 2c

 

[Mariozi]

Talking to a pro sports photographer once (Soccer world cup, international tenis etc etc), he basically said in his field it was all Canon. Canon even had techinicans at the big events to service gear and replace parts etc etc.

Right on the mark, you still find a lot more sports photographers that use Canon. It was the fastest camera in the film era and these guys need speed... Funny thing about the technicians. It is something a Nikon user is definitely not used to, I mean the need to be close to a technician.

It was very rare for a nature photographer a few years ago (even today I believe!!!) to find technicians in places like Himalaya, Amazon, Kenya... and most of the places we go diving, maybe that's why you see more Nikons (or you don't because they are at those far away places where the images are!).

 

[Mariozi]

I am packing a D200 have half a dozen lenses so I will always be a Nikon shooter. BUT at this stage in the game I don't think you can go wrong with either brand. If you have high end, special requirements you might find a model that fits you better but otherwise IMHO it's a toss up.

The old thinking was Canon had a little better camera tech and Nikon had better lenses (Under 600mm).

I tend to think Nikon has better lenses for UW. For instance, just the fact that there are no true fisheye for the many small sized sensors Canon applies on it's bodies, and no single lens that go to 1:1 on it's own while Nikon has some, would make Nikon a better choice for the starting UW photographer wouldn't you think?

 

[AUTiger]

I ended up choosing Nikon because my father-in-law had a Nikon and he owns some of the more expensive lenses that I can't afford - but can borrow!

Since choosing Nikon, I've been comparing the features of the new Nikons and Canons as they come out and have still been happy with my choice of a Nikon. When the D80 came out, I thought it was the best at its price point and I preferred the medium size, compared to the smaller rebels.

Now I have half a dozen lenses, so I guess I'll always shoot Nikon.

David
D80