Flashlight
Veteran Member
One reason to choose Canon is that they don't have an ad on their forum trying to sell a camera plagued with banding by showing an annoying yellow band increasing to 200%.
--
Philip
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why Nikon?
- Thread starter Bmark
- Start date
--
Philip
fuzzytalz
Senior Member
Even when robots are eventually devised to perform basic image capture tasks, a person - effectively, the photographer - will have programmed that photo-bot. And when machines become truly artificially intelligent, their photographic "style" will be nothing more than an amalgam of techniques and aesthetics learned from its original programmer and/or the individuals (human or mechanical) with whom it interacts (not unlike the way we learn photography - what are the implications of that?). So, in the end, photography - even reduced to rotely executed algorithms - remains inexorably dependent upon an imaging device's operator, programmer or engineer: the photographer.Your being disingenuous about this one. You could do intervalwith digital you can do time interval shooting. so literally you
can capture images with out a photographer
--
Disagree with me all you like, but remember I have a right to an
opinion and a right to state it.
http://www.thekmiecs.com
http://www.adamkmiec.com
shooting with film too. And you still need a photographer to set it
up to begin with. Before you tell me that you coudn't take many
shots with film. My brother has a 750 shot back for his F3 or F2, I
can never remember which.
--
Garland Cary
My first DSLR was a D100. It is also the only one I have, and it is still working wonderfully after several years trekking the globe in all sorts of conditions with the camera slung around my neck. This in itself would be enough to make me a Nikon fan, but what really made me happy with my Nikon was the year I spent with a friend, trading cameras and using his 20D every week or so for a few frames. The images are virtually identical. Yes, there are differences, but PP can make either look like the other imo, at least in prints. And beyond prints there is only pixel peeping, which I dont care for.
I buy my clothes mainly for 3 reasons. 1. Feel. 2. Look. 3. Functionality. I know, I know, a guy should put 3 first, but I am being honest here and trying to make a point -- if it isnt comfortable, I wont wear it. What I love about my D100 (and every Nikon I have held) is the fact that it feels right in my hand. The 20D feels like it was made by blind chimpanzees, no offense to the handicapped or the chimps, or the blind chimps, but that camera just never felt right to me. Maybe it was my bias and maybe if I started off with Canon it would be the other way around, but I doubt it. And after reading so many "Nikon Noise" threads here I really wanted the Canon to feel good. But the controls are backwards, the shooting modes restricted me more than they enabled me (or was it the controls again?) locks on the wheel and locks on the locks or who cares it was confusing to me, the body is lopsided (maybe I just like symetery), and it cramped my hand if I held it too long.
But then my D100 feels like it was made for my hand. And thats why I love it. And thats why the next camera I buy will be Nikon -- hopefully sometime during 2007 (the year of the sensor?). I wanted to buy a D200, and I have held one in my hands several times. Each time it makes me smile, unlike the 5D or 1DSII, which I have also used several times. As tools the Canons might be superior depending on your needs, but to me, they feel like plain old tools -- and the Nikons feel like custom crafted marvels of ergonomic engineering (ever held a D2X??). And really, they better. Because almost any other arguement for the "prosumer" crowd is probably going to land you in the middle of Canon land the way things stack up right now. I suppose I like the looks of the Nikons as well, but thats not the reason. Pick them both up and tell me I am wrong. You might not even have to take test shots to know which one you want to buy. Even my friend who shoots the 1DSII and 5D agrees with me when he says they dont feel as good as his old Nikon bodies -- "they just take some getting used to" he says.
Both companies make cameras that are capable of taking good pictures, but only the Nikons feel (and work) they way I expect. Thats my reason.
--
I buy my clothes mainly for 3 reasons. 1. Feel. 2. Look. 3. Functionality. I know, I know, a guy should put 3 first, but I am being honest here and trying to make a point -- if it isnt comfortable, I wont wear it. What I love about my D100 (and every Nikon I have held) is the fact that it feels right in my hand. The 20D feels like it was made by blind chimpanzees, no offense to the handicapped or the chimps, or the blind chimps, but that camera just never felt right to me. Maybe it was my bias and maybe if I started off with Canon it would be the other way around, but I doubt it. And after reading so many "Nikon Noise" threads here I really wanted the Canon to feel good. But the controls are backwards, the shooting modes restricted me more than they enabled me (or was it the controls again?) locks on the wheel and locks on the locks or who cares it was confusing to me, the body is lopsided (maybe I just like symetery), and it cramped my hand if I held it too long.
But then my D100 feels like it was made for my hand. And thats why I love it. And thats why the next camera I buy will be Nikon -- hopefully sometime during 2007 (the year of the sensor?). I wanted to buy a D200, and I have held one in my hands several times. Each time it makes me smile, unlike the 5D or 1DSII, which I have also used several times. As tools the Canons might be superior depending on your needs, but to me, they feel like plain old tools -- and the Nikons feel like custom crafted marvels of ergonomic engineering (ever held a D2X??). And really, they better. Because almost any other arguement for the "prosumer" crowd is probably going to land you in the middle of Canon land the way things stack up right now. I suppose I like the looks of the Nikons as well, but thats not the reason. Pick them both up and tell me I am wrong. You might not even have to take test shots to know which one you want to buy. Even my friend who shoots the 1DSII and 5D agrees with me when he says they dont feel as good as his old Nikon bodies -- "they just take some getting used to" he says.
Both companies make cameras that are capable of taking good pictures, but only the Nikons feel (and work) they way I expect. Thats my reason.
--
Phil Flash
Senior Member
These cameras were made 20-30 years ago, of course and still work great.
None of those lenses meter on my D100, of course.
I bought the D100 because I thought I would use my manual focus lenses and just "guess" exposure. But the viewfinder is not really suited to fast manual focusing.
Until Canon made the 5D, there was no doubt I had made the right decision.
I may still have made the right decision.
Now Nikon seems to be the value leader in DSLRs. Can't beat the D200 for value. And the 17-55, 70-200 VR combo is probably the best in the business.
--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA
'Trust the 'kon!'
Stuff I own in my profile.
None of those lenses meter on my D100, of course.
I bought the D100 because I thought I would use my manual focus lenses and just "guess" exposure. But the viewfinder is not really suited to fast manual focusing.
Until Canon made the 5D, there was no doubt I had made the right decision.
I may still have made the right decision.
Now Nikon seems to be the value leader in DSLRs. Can't beat the D200 for value. And the 17-55, 70-200 VR combo is probably the best in the business.
--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA
'Trust the 'kon!'
Stuff I own in my profile.
StillLearning
Senior Member
Adding AFS would be great but might change the lens formula. That would probably increase it's price then cut into the 200-400's sales. In the meantime I'll just have to limp along with it. This was shot at sunset in a dark tree. D2H 80-400@300 F11 1/60
Conway Yee
Active member
I went Nikon for multiple reasons. For years, I used an Olympus OM-2.
I was orphaned when Olympus elected abandon the SLR market.
Nikon is still using the f-mount from the 60's and has a history of bending over backward maintaining maximal compatibility (although I am a bit
agrieved about the G-series lenses). Canon abandoned its A-1/AE-1 users
when they went from the traditional Canon mount to the current EOS
mount.
As another point, my entire family was or went Nikon so the path of least resistance was Nikon.
I was orphaned when Olympus elected abandon the SLR market.
Nikon is still using the f-mount from the 60's and has a history of bending over backward maintaining maximal compatibility (although I am a bit
agrieved about the G-series lenses). Canon abandoned its A-1/AE-1 users
when they went from the traditional Canon mount to the current EOS
mount.
As another point, my entire family was or went Nikon so the path of least resistance was Nikon.
fuzzytalz
Senior Member
Canon's 17-40/4L on a FF DSLR is as sharp if not sharper than Nikon's 12-24/4 DX, corner to corner, at normal focusing distances. What I have noticed is that, when the focus plane is not parallel to the subject (shooting upwards from relatively close at a building), the extreme bottom corners get soft wider than f/8-or-so, but this is more a function of their being beyond the DOF than any inherent FF corner softness issues. Shoot a flat subject with the focus plan parallel to it, and you will find the 17-40/4L quite sharp, even at 17mm. The statement that the 17-40/4L is best at its wider focal lengths also is fallacious: in fact, corner-to-corner sharpness is higher with longer focal lengths, where it also trends toward less CA and less geometric distortion.
Canon's fast primes are, generally, soft except in the center at larger apertures, but that would be one of my reasons for purchasing such a lens, so do not consider this a problem. Stopped down to f/8–f/16, they are as sharp as could be desired.
Can't speak for the Tokina and Sigma, but the 17-40/4L + 5D outperforms the 10-22/3.5-4.5 EF-S + 30D, yielding appreciably higher resolution and less CA in the corners at f/11. At f/4, both lenses show corner softening, with the 17-40/4L showing more of it somewhat farther from the corners. However, the 17-40/4L + 5D shows usefully greater resolution elsewhere in the frame compared to the EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 + 20D.
http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Reviews/090_5D_vs_20D_Wide_Angle/a_5D_vs_20D_Wide_Angle_Shootout.html
Considering the greater sheer number of wide angle options with FF (assuming you can afford the cost differential between the two bodies), one can easily make a compelling case that FF is the better platform for wide angle enthusiasts.
--
Garland Cary
redwoodroadie
Veteran Member
Not useful to me. I use a tripod and motion blur becomes a real problem even at 1/400s for many subjects (if you're really looking closely).
That's why I have a Tokina 12-24/4 lens for; it costs a lot less than a FF camera.
The WB on my D200 works fine with ACR. Relying on the AWB is not as reliable as using an Expodisk or grey card anyway.
That's a problem, but I have seen them available (a couple of weeks ago) for around $55 shipped.
Waiting for a firmware update for this, but it's not a problem for me for two reasons. First, I mostly shoot uncompressed RAW and the counter is very accurate for that; and second, if I shoot compressed RAW I simply multiply the number by two.
The only one that is impossible to get is the 18-200VR, a very hot consumer lens. Put yourself on a waiting list or look around and spend a little more and you'll have what your looking for in short order.
I never shoot that high; but if you do, then sell your gear and buy Canon instead.
I have all the lens choices I could ask for, great zooms and primes and specialty lenses for macro. How many lenses are you planning on having and which one do you need that Nikon doesn't have?
--
http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/myfavorites
fuzzytalz
Senior Member
--
Garland Cary
Garland Cary
where_am_i
Forum Enthusiast
Jonathan F/2
Senior Member
Buy Canon. That way I get to keep the Nikon secret all to myself!
Yesssssssss my preciousssssss Nikonnnnnn!
Seriously, I will never switch to Canon for these reasons...
--
http://www.inhousephoto.com
Yesssssssss my preciousssssss Nikonnnnnn!
Seriously, I will never switch to Canon for these reasons...
- Canon's $uck @rse for handling. People who say otherwise don't know j@ck.
- Nikon's flash performance is bar none better than Canon by a huge margin.
- Nikon colors are Natural and true to life.
- When you shoot Nikon, you shoot with cameras that are made for photographers.
--
http://www.inhousephoto.com
where_am_i
Forum Enthusiast
..unless you're the kind of person that always wants to own the latest gear.. i.e. a gear head.
Well, you have a choice unlike with nikon. You could get the 5D and spend a few pennies more on a 350D to use with your telephotos. Whats the big deal?
greg77
Senior Member
because Nikon lenses fit on Fuji bodies. No kidding, that's the reason I stay with Nikon... otherwise I would switch to Canon's IS'd telephoto primes. I may do that anyway in a few years. -Greg-
--
Greg
http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&user_id=301372
http://www.pbase.com/coraltown/root
--
Greg
http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&user_id=301372
http://www.pbase.com/coraltown/root
Troye413
Senior Member
Flashlight
Veteran Member
It's just that the ad irritates me tremendously. I do know ads should do that nowadays, so maybe it's a good ad.
Anyway they chose a strange place for almost every post on this forum is already about a D200. Seems to me they're trying to sell central heating systems to nomads in the sahara.
--
Philip
Anyway they chose a strange place for almost every post on this forum is already about a D200. Seems to me they're trying to sell central heating systems to nomads in the sahara.
--
Philip
fuzzytalz
Senior Member
...at how great the reliance is on automation, even though the results are very often technically correct but unremarkable. Culturally, we're so addicted to mediocrity that it's not too much of a stretch to imagine the day when you load your photo-bot with imagery you're fond of, program it with the location of a subject you're interested in, then send it off on its merry way to capture a bevy of images that correspond in some technical way to your favorites. From there, you simply either choose your favorite, or set about cobbling together something from the many stills. That'd be good enough...
...until they come up with the VR-bot that you can dispatch to construct a 3D model of your subject and its environment, to which you can then apply an infinite set of attributes to create any rendition you want, ad nauseum.
I imagine the vast majority of folks would call that progress, so long as it can be made affordable.
--
Garland Cary
fuzzytalz
Senior Member
are you in the UK? Is advertising regionally unique on DPReview?
--
Garland Cary
--
Garland Cary
PismoBeach
Senior Member
Go with what is most comfortable for you and the way you shoot. Both systems are very similar with canon having FF on the high end being the main difference. Flash system is similar despite what people say. I own and shoot both systems and know I can make a laving off either one. Any advantages in features are slight either way you go and before long one company copies the other anyway.
Anyone that uses the phrase "blows away" or "Vastly better" or "unequaled" for either company is most likely a non objective zealot.
Anyone that uses the phrase "blows away" or "Vastly better" or "unequaled" for either company is most likely a non objective zealot.
PismoBeach
Senior Member
He sees what he wants to see I guess. Looks like both companies to big and small upgrades.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum