Limburger
Veteran Member
Don't make it more than it is.
A question with yet no answer, if he wants to play ball he got to play ball.
--
Cheers Mike
Last edited:
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Camera System?
- Thread starter NC_grouch
- Start date
A question with yet no answer, if he wants to play ball he got to play ball.
--
Cheers Mike
Only for the employed.
Limburger
Veteran Member
Guidenet
Forum Pro
Limburger
Veteran Member
Guidenet
Forum Pro
Limburger
Veteran Member
six34sigma
Senior Member
Nikon at the moment has better sensor and technology to take still pictures. Nikon 800E for example. Canon provides a better video feature. 5DIII for example. My opinion is that Canon provides a wider selection of inexpensive (relatively) quality lenses, example is f4L lenses. People say Nikons metering and flash systems are better. Canons customer service at least in the US is better than Nikons.
First one has to realize that people will offer different opinions on this, disagreeing with what I have written. That does not matter, nor does the camera system. Do not believe that A is better than B. Pick one of Nikon or Canon with the features and ergonomics you need, love the system and take passionate pictures.
Enjoy.
First one has to realize that people will offer different opinions on this, disagreeing with what I have written. That does not matter, nor does the camera system. Do not believe that A is better than B. Pick one of Nikon or Canon with the features and ergonomics you need, love the system and take passionate pictures.
Enjoy.
ragmanjin
Leading Member
Pentax (no FF, only pro APS-C) or Phase One (no FF, only pro medium-format). There are no better companies out there. The owner of Phase One even breathes fire at demos...every other CEO of every other camera company should be ashamed of themselves for being so much less awesome than this guy.
http://photography-thedarkart.blogspot.ca/2012/10/hands-on-and-samples-from-phase-one.html
If you're willing to google those, it might open you up to all the other companies and formats that are doing things much better than Canon or Nikon, depending on your shooting style. But if you're new to it, I'd suggest either Pentax or Canon. Both have very easy-to-navigate interfaces that make the switch from film an easy one. Most important, though, is to try them all before you buy anything. Make a day of it, it'll be good times.
Good luck, eh.
-Raj
http://photography-thedarkart.blogspot.ca/2012/10/hands-on-and-samples-from-phase-one.html
If you're willing to google those, it might open you up to all the other companies and formats that are doing things much better than Canon or Nikon, depending on your shooting style. But if you're new to it, I'd suggest either Pentax or Canon. Both have very easy-to-navigate interfaces that make the switch from film an easy one. Most important, though, is to try them all before you buy anything. Make a day of it, it'll be good times.
Good luck, eh.
-Raj
Bjorn_L
Veteran Member
Mike don't worry about argueing/debating with Craig. I've done both that and also solicited his advice later. So long as the converstation is relatively professional and topical Craig's nose won't get bent out of shape.Guidenet wrote:
Hey pal, you can argue with me all you want. I'd never take it amiss coming from you or other polite people on these forums.
Cheers, Craig
Same goes for most people on here I think.
The list of people that you can't have a rational dialogue on here with in my experiance is around 1%. For example, my ignore list is just 1 person. Of course that one person is the only one I have ever put on an ignore list ever on any site.
Leandros S
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,165
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 925
Just wondering.
alpha90290
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 255
- Reaction score
- 76
[No message]
Limburger
Veteran Member
Hank3152
Forum Pro
I've also read from more than one owner on these forums where the keeper rate when shooting at 10fps is not very good because of the AF system not being able keep up with the frame rate and 3 or 4 of those shots are out of focus.........ya get what ya pay for......
--
Regards,
Hank
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/638311471/photos/17792/night-launch
Last edited:
Bjorn_L
Veteran Member
Just to toss my 2 cents in. I think there are some advantagtes to as close to a vertical monopoly as they can. But like you said only if they make it work and only if doing so gives you a economic/competitive advantage.
There is no arugueing with most of Canon's efforts. Lens selection is superb. New lenses are introduced at a reasonable interval. New technology is included (multi-axis stabilization for example). But recently they had the chance to really stick to their arch rival. Nikon's assembly plants were badly damaged in that massive flood. Canon's were not. Canon picked up only a trivial amount of market share because many were willing to wait months for Nikon products. There were shortages across the entire product line. Not just the entry level stuff. Marketshare barely changed. I think that Canon is keeping the sensors in-house so that they can inovate more as well as their goal of reducing costs and earning on every price of the camea. An example would be what they tried with the 650d where they added some phase-dection to the sensor. But did it really work? Not so much. As far as I can tell it still sucks as bad as comparible Nikons for video AF. So the next gen in sensor performance was deferred without benifit.
If I were the King of Canon, I'd look at leveraging what they do well but not to the degree where it excludes the possiblities of other possibilities. For the moment they look like they have fallen far behind in sensor tech. Including tech from other sources would not mean that Canon could not continue to inovate inhouse. Nikon, for example, uses sensors and sensor technology from at least 4 other companies plus they still develop and fab their own, design new ones which they have others fab, and collaborate on some. I'm not saying Nikon is better. I am saying they seem to be willing to use the best technology avialable without consideration to where it came from and it seems that being able to source some of it does not stop them from their own independent efforts.
It's hard to critize Canon since they are the market leader. But I think they should consider their options before their marketshare begins to erode. And of course both Canon and Nikon best get off their butts and give us working video AF!
-- See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.
Last edited:
Bjorn_L
Veteran Member
"the possiblities of other possibilities"
doh!
doh!
Limburger
Veteran Member
Canon still sells massive amounts of camera's so there isn't really an urge to come up with a new sensor (made by whatever company).
From a business point of view they are doing really well.
And when sales drop due to old sensor technology, there will be a new one.
Maybe their policy is to skip a generation regarding reasearch and development costs.
Compare it to old Volvo's the 200 series was produced for 20 years or so, nice car but in the end not as modern as the competition.
Now Volvo comes up with a new model every 7 years or so, now they are owned by Geely.
From a business point of view they are doing really well.
And when sales drop due to old sensor technology, there will be a new one.
Maybe their policy is to skip a generation regarding reasearch and development costs.
Compare it to old Volvo's the 200 series was produced for 20 years or so, nice car but in the end not as modern as the competition.
Now Volvo comes up with a new model every 7 years or so, now they are owned by Geely.
joejack951
Senior Member
Canon's f/4 line up (17-40, 24-105 IS, and 70-200 IS) are all a few hundred dollars cheaper than Nikon's f/4 lenses (16-35 VR, 24-120 VR, 70-200 VR) but Nikon's are all newer lenses. Any new Canon lens seems to come with a decent price increase too so I wouldn't expect a new Canon 17-40 IS to be less than $1000 still.
Also, if I wanted to nitpick (and I do
), Nikon's 16-35 is stabilized; Canon's 17-40 is not.Nikon's 24-120 has more range than Canon's 24-105.
Nikon's 70-200/4 VR has 5-stop stabilization vs. Canon's 4-stop IS.
And Nikon's lenses mount on my DSLR's which is the #1 reason they are better...for me, of course!
Guidenet
Forum Pro
joejack951 wrote:
Canon's f/4 line up (17-40, 24-105 IS, and 70-200 IS) are all a few hundred dollars cheaper than Nikon's f/4 lenses (16-35 VR, 24-120 VR, 70-200 VR) but Nikon's are all newer lenses. Any new Canon lens seems to come with a decent price increase too so I wouldn't expect a new Canon 17-40 IS to be less than $1000 still.
Also, if I wanted to nitpick (and I do
Nikon's 24-120 has more range than Canon's 24-105.
Nikon's 70-200/4 VR has 5-stop stabilization vs. Canon's 4-stop IS.
And Nikon's lenses mount on my DSLR's which is the #1 reason they are better...for me, of course!
I agree. That's a poor comparison just on the grounds the Nikons are fairly new state of the art desiigns while the Canon f/4 teir is aging pretty much. When Canon updates these, the price will skyrocket.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum