Nikon ... Canon ...

Following Greg's thread I'd like to add that I'm the first one to admit Canon has the edge over Nikon, certainly when it comes to high ISO noise, but - and this maybe a bit off topic - I came across these two DVD boxes, one on Willy Ronis' life and one on Henri Cartier-Bresson's. What wonderful pictures these people have made, and though they've made their pictures mainly with a Rolleiflex, a Pentax and a Leica M, technically speaking (mainly because of film emulsion limits, especially at that time) their photographs are way inferior to what we can get out of modern DSLR's and PP.

Technical excellence is only a part of the image. If I had made the number of superb photographs these men have made I couldn't have cared less if they had been made with a Canon or a Nikon.

The grass indeed always seems greener at the other side of the fence.

I cannot give up my Nikon equipment, mainly because it has offered me so much pleasure and reliability for so many years and I am emotionally attached to it.

I have even bought the Tokina 12-24 (my first non-Nikon ever) recently, instead of the Nikkor 12-24 and I am quite sure it will do just fine in my hands.

If you ever come accross the DVD's I was talking about, buy them, they are worth every penny:

"Willy Ronis, Autoportrait d'un photographe" (in French and English);
"Heni Cartier-Bresson" - box with two DVD's and one book.

Guy

Execellent point!

I have no idea what the majority of folks want in a camera. Leica would "upgrade" it's line what maybe once every 10 years!? Now we analyze brands and models and hardly have the new one in hand before we start a wish list for the D600s! We're left with the impression our $1500 digital camera will have a useful life of about 2 years!

FACT!

ALL camera have limitations! NONE will give perfect results IF perfect results are "as I envision (not see) the scence right out of the box.

You want better quality out of your Nikon? Go pratice your craft and un plug from the internet! Canon will not get your lazy rear end off the couch and in the field any better than Nikon and therein lies the problem!

Bro.Luke

Excellent post Guy! i'm right there with ya.

What cracks me up is the arrogant types that feel they must convert people like me from using brand n. Well, that is not going to work. I personally don't care if the new widgets on brand c is better than brand n.

I grew up with brand n and have lots of accessories for brand n, not to mention my education, time and money invested. To think I would just jump to the next new thing because it is new and the competitor is absolutely ludicrous.

Besides I don't have the 20k+ it would take to replace everything I have taken years to afford to build.

I can't agree more that the way to better pictures is practice. It is not only how you interact with your camera though -- its also how you see the subject matter and I see so many photos where the photographer sees a view of the subject that I would not have thought of. Go out and experiment thats how you get to know both camera and what works when taking pics in different situations.

--
Z-Man

Photography rules.......

Run what ya brung.....and get out there.

It's all good.

Some friendly harrassment is ok...but for those who get their pantys in a wad over this all really have to take a pill. : )...and remember that were all here for the same purrpose...to take amazing pictures....and with the level of technology afforded by ALL the brands.....the photograper matters more then the gear for the most part.

Roman
--
Recording a world that is worth saving.

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

guyatdepreview said:

Following Greg's thread I'd like to add that I'm the first one to
admit Canon has the edge over Nikon, certainly when it comes to
high ISO noise, but - and this maybe a bit off topic - I came
across these two DVD boxes, one on Willy Ronis' life and one on
Henri Cartier-Bresson's. What wonderful pictures these people have
made, and though they've made their pictures mainly with a
Rolleiflex, a Pentax and a Leica M, technically speaking (mainly
because of film emulsion limits, especially at that time) their
photographs are way inferior to what we can get out of modern
DSLR's and PP.

Click to expand...

May be, but who knows?
Rather not, let things be as they are (Emulating Robert Capa):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=4825936
Regards.
--
Best of luck, wish, light...

I hope a similar thread is going at the Canon forum.

I've not spent more than about 2 minutes over there and never post but I betcha they get there share of honks with nothing better to do that post provocative threads with titles like "Nikon Invades..."

If anyone here ever took a photography class you quickly notice that the guy with the best equipment doesn't always get the best results.

Look through an antique store at some found photographs and you'll be amazed of the wonderful images you can find made with Brownies! Beautiful, anonymous work!

Photography is a craft/art that needs to be learned as-if the camera doesn't exist. The camera is a conduit for the light from scene to print. The original post here perfectly illustrates this.

Bro.Luke

Yes, but the fact is that Canon has better IQ. The pictures from that new mkIII look amazing. Anyone who says different is simply in denial.

Personally, I would rather capture great images that are also of the best quality straight out of the cam. Right now, Canon is very much in the lead.

Nothing wrong with people wanting the best equipment to practice their craft. Life is short, why wait for Nikon?
However, I don't agree with people getting all argumentative about it.
--
Scott A.

TrekSF6 said:

Yes, but the fact is that Canon has better IQ.

Click to expand...

Define "better."

S.A. said:

Yes, but the fact is that Canon has better IQ. The pictures from
that new mkIII look amazing. Anyone who says different is simply in
denial.
Personally, I would rather capture great images that are also of
the best quality straight out of the cam. Right now, Canon is very
much in the lead.
Nothing wrong with people wanting the best equipment to practice
their craft. Life is short, why wait for Nikon?
However, I don't agree with people getting all argumentative about it.
--
Scott A.

Click to expand...

Please note:

The mkIII will be retailing for @ $4600 USA. With tax $5k. No lenses......A Canon set up similar to my D200 would cost me well over $6500. Roughly 4 D200's with a kit lens...

Life just aint that short....

Bro.Luke

BTW I'm sure your aware that state of the art dslr's are 39mp. Sure they cost over $30k but life is short right

BroLuke said:

Please note:

The mkIII will be retailing for @ $4600 USA. With tax $5k. No
lenses......A Canon set up similar to my D200 would cost me well
over $6500. Roughly 4 D200's with a kit lens...

Click to expand...

Yes, but that sensor tech will no doubt trickle down into the lower cost Canon bodies. And you forget that many a person on here own one more more D2X's, which cost about the same or more.

BroLuke said:

Bro.Luke

BTW I'm sure your aware that state of the art dslr's are 39mp. Sure
they cost over $30k but life is short right

Click to expand...

Indeed. But, I don't think Canon or Nikon makes one of those.
--
Scott A.

guyatdepreview said:

The grass indeed always seems greener at the other side of the fence.
I cannot give up my Nikon equipment, mainly because it has offered
me so much pleasure and reliability for so many years and I am
emotionally attached to it.

Click to expand...

Hello Guy,

Reading your post made me realize that, no, I don't feel any emotional
attachment to Nikon DSLR cameras. That's funny, because I do miss the
Nikon film cameras I have owned over the years.

Anyway, I have come to the conclusion that my next camera will be an
affordable FF one. I would like it to be a Nikon camera for several reasons,
the most important ones being:

• no big investment in new lenses
• grid lines are very useful for my panoramas
• familiarity (focus/zoom direction, lens change)

However, if Nikon does not see the use of producing such a camera, I will be
happy to look elsewhere.

For all I care, if it's a Zenith, a Practica or a Miranda (remember them??), as long
as it has the right IQ and build quality, fine! >

As for the great photographers of the past, Ansel Adams gets my vote!

Regards,

André

I thing this debate has and will continue for some time and its because camera ownership falls into to distinct camps the first is the fanatical amatuer "fanboy" who thinks every other make is rubbish and owned by idiots and only takes pictures in optimum conditions, the second is the professional who has to take pictures where ever and what ever the client requires regardless of conditions and produce usable images and although uses a specific make will add cameras from other manufacturers if his own does not offer the equivalent specification.
Regards,
Bruce.

"There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept", Ansel Adams

Photography as an art is about what all visual arts are about. What the images of HCB or W. Eugen Smith lacked in the "technical" they more than made up for becaue they said something that moved us.

At the end of the day no one will remember the super sharp, perfectly exposed image that says nothing. They will remember Dorothea Lang's "Migrant Mother" http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/list/128_migm.html or Gene Smith's images from WWII or his images of the KKK that sent goose bumps up the collective backbone of a civilized nation. http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/smith/smith.html .

The will remember HCB capturing the "decisive moment." http://www.afterimagegallery.com/bresson.htm

Most new photographers get hung up on "sharp focus," "image quality," etc. While the technical aspects of photography are important - that are millions of perfectly exposed images of a poor concept - they are forgotten before the print dries. There are very few images of a sharp concept and they will stand the test of time - independent of their technical merit.

Edward Weston could have made a better image out of emulsion painted on paper towel using a shoebox camera than 99.99% of the photographers today using the latest $10,000 camera by any maker.

guyatdepreview said:

Technical excellence is only a part of the image. If I had made the
number of superb photographs these men have made I couldn't have
cared less if they had been made with a Canon or a Nikon.

Click to expand...

--
Truman
http://www.pbase.com/tprevatt

Hummm...better IQ....you try to bring yourself off as wondering why people argue...yet you make blanket statments like that.

I have better IQ than the average user....no matter what I hold in my hands because of my dilligent persuit of my skillsets......which can be applied to the most basic P&S...to the top of the line from ANY manufacturer.

And there are a lot of folks out there that can blow my doors off as well....and with any camera you hand them...

Why? That because the IQ f all the manufacturers are SO close...that the person behind the camera....and behind the computer make the diffrence....not the name on the camera.

Roman

S.A. said:

Yes, but the fact is that Canon has better IQ. The pictures from
that new mkIII look amazing. Anyone who says different is simply in
denial.
Personally, I would rather capture great images that are also of
the best quality straight out of the cam. Right now, Canon is very
much in the lead.
Nothing wrong with people wanting the best equipment to practice
their craft. Life is short, why wait for Nikon?
However, I don't agree with people getting all argumentative about it.
--
Scott A.

Click to expand...

--
Recording a world that is worth saving.

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

S.A. said:

Yes, but the fact is that Canon has better IQ. The pictures from
that new mkIII look amazing. Anyone who says different is simply in
denial.

Click to expand...

There's no denying that's a great thing. By and large the two companies have been playing a nice game of leap frog since their first digital bodies were released. It keeps things competetive and insures the improvement of products as the technologies improve. It's true, Nikon has traditionally stayed away from the $8000.00 body end of the market, preferring to hold off until the technology reaches a point where the price/value ratio becomes more sensible but down outside of the stratosphere, either Nikon has had the edge, or Canon has, pretty much depending on the what year it was. Now that the so called "full frame" sensors have begun to show some real improvement and at significantly lower price points it's a pretty safe bet that Nikon will move in to that area as well, opening up the game of leap frog to all segments of the market.

One option might be to invest heavily in both systems which would be a lot easier for most people if these were bodies only. Otherwise, there are two choices. One being to freak out and sell everything each time company A seems to be gaining some edge over company B. The other is to stick with what you have with the understanding that the technology will continue to improve and new products will arrive to take advantage of it, as sure as the sun will rise.

As it stands, while the development cycles might always seem slower than what some people would want them to be, speeding them up by much only amounts to a considerable waste of money, both for the companies and the consumers with only incremental improvements in overall quality accompanying each new release. The D1 series was getting pretty long in the tooth by the time the D2 series arrived. Somehow the business of photography managed to continue functioning in the meantime. It will probably continue to function just as well between now and the arrival of a D3 or D4 system for that matter.

Those who can't wait that long are more than free to switch to Canon or some other system at any time. We'll probably see them back here before too much longer anyways, and Nikon and Canon users alike will always welcome their continued contributions to the used equipment market.

--
'Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey!'

Tom Young
http://www.pbase.com/tyoung/

bravo! well said. I love the photographs and the emotions and messages they bring with them. Thats trully a visual art worth appreciation

Oh gawd, one of these threads.

Here's an analogy...

Give a guy who can't drive a Porsche.
Give a guy who can drive a cheapy car (pick one).

Give them a 5km course to drive through with obstacles and traffic.
Let me know who ends up at the finish line...

duh!

Define "better."