-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Canon System or Nikon System , how and why did you choose?
- Thread starter loupgarou
- Start date
I love Canon and only 'like' Nikon, but this is the Ford vs. Chevy, BMW vs. Audi, paper vs. pastic debate. There is no right and wrong.
All I know is our future depends on Nikon and Canon having a bloody, long fight and always working hard to make their products better and cheaper. If one dominated, we would have nothing. We need both Nikon and Canon to be VERY strong, and BOTH of them to outdo each other back and forth so they fight to make a better and better product.
That is why I always cringe when a grocery store, airline, etc. fold - less competition is BAD NEWS for the end user.
In the perfect world, Nikon and Canon would loose sleep every night and buy Alkiseltzer (sp?) by the gross
All I know is our future depends on Nikon and Canon having a bloody, long fight and always working hard to make their products better and cheaper. If one dominated, we would have nothing. We need both Nikon and Canon to be VERY strong, and BOTH of them to outdo each other back and forth so they fight to make a better and better product.
That is why I always cringe when a grocery store, airline, etc. fold - less competition is BAD NEWS for the end user.
In the perfect world, Nikon and Canon would loose sleep every night and buy Alkiseltzer (sp?) by the gross
People like to emphasize Canon's FF, but I think the real ace in Canon's pocket is 1.3x. And even better, their 1.3x sensor is CMOS now. IMHO, 1.3x provides the sweet spot in sensor area, pixel density, lens multiplier, crop factor, and cost. It will be interesting to see how Nikon's LBCAST sensor will cope with higher pixel densities, given that Nikon's current 1.5x LBCAST already suffers from a fair amount of noise. The other advantage of 1.3x is that with existing lenses, you can still get good wide-angle. With a 1D MKII and a 16-35/2.8L, you get a 21-45.5/2.8 zoom. And at 8mp. (Add Canon's, Sigma's, or Tamron's rectilinear ultra-wide 14/2.8 lenses, and you get an 18/2.8.) With a Nikon D1X and a 12-24/4 DX, you get a 18-36/4 zoom, at 5.4mp. With Nikon, you can go wider on the zoom, but with a slower aperture. But I would expect Canon to probably do the same thing if they came out with their own 12-to-whatever lens.
If you leave the camera on autoselect, you have "focus point roulette" on both Nikon and Canon cameras. There's no difference, except that Canon has two extra points to cover a wider area. As for me, I make use of all 7 focus points, but I always manually select them. Just like you can with a Nikon. Except that I have two extra points to cover a wider area. So you're really grabbing at straws on this point.
I think "feel" is over-rated, and probably the most superficial and ephemeral standard on which you are making such a critical and long-standing decision. When I was choosing between Nikon and Canon many, many years ago, it was between a Nikon N70 and a Canon Elan IIe. Both Nikon and Canon bodies have evolved considerably since then. Making a system decision based on "feel" of those particular bodies would have been deadly, because bodies change and evolve. And you're probably not going to stay with that body forever. Thankfully, I based my decision on Canon's Ultrasonic lens technology. (I don't think Canon IS lenses had been introduced yet.) Frankly, with a week's usage, you can get comfortable with the "feel" and operation of any camera. So what was once foreign becomes second nature.
wayne58604
Veteran Member
Some history: In the old days (35mm), the Nikon system was known for it's great wide angles, specialty lenses, and was the main stay of studio photographers. The Canon system was known for superior telephotos, and was the favorite of many outdoor photographers. Back then, you had only one chance - no instant review unless you had a polariod back. Oh, Minolta was in that arena for awhile with the XK, but soon moved to the more popular consumer market (with a brief appearance later with the excellent CL rangefinder). Rollei, with the very old SL35 was able to compete on an image basis (excellent Zeiss lenses), but never had a true system. Leica had just entered the SLR market, but was still known more for the M series rangefinders. Contax, Pentax, Olympus, and others were also in this market.
Back to Nikon vs Canon - the differences started to change when Canon introduced the EOS system. They first 'pro' level 35mm AF camera was released, and the EOS line grew to replace the F (manual) series of cameras. Unlike Nikon, the EOS lenses were a completely new and the older lenses were at best, a poor substitute when mounted with an adapter. Today, Canon seems to have assembled a consumer level line and a pro level line with the EOS system. Nikon on the other hand, is more limited in this respect (the distinction is less). Which is better? That is something you will have to answer - I picked Canon because I own Canon film cameras, including the EOS RT (the only modern slr camera to have a fixed mirror). Is it better? No, I think the D70 has more features than the DR (the 10D feels more solid though).
To further complicate matters, the Sigma SD10 (and SD9) are both excellent cameras as well, and the new Sigma DC lenses are at least as good as the consumer Canon and Nikon glass. As for flash and other accessories, I think the Canon units are less expensive, and for most people, the third party flash units are a better buy (I like the Sigma flashes - in particular, the 500 Super).
So, pick your system and enjoy.
Wayne
--
Canon Digital Rebel, Nikon 5700, Nikon 8700, Panasonic LC5
Back to Nikon vs Canon - the differences started to change when Canon introduced the EOS system. They first 'pro' level 35mm AF camera was released, and the EOS line grew to replace the F (manual) series of cameras. Unlike Nikon, the EOS lenses were a completely new and the older lenses were at best, a poor substitute when mounted with an adapter. Today, Canon seems to have assembled a consumer level line and a pro level line with the EOS system. Nikon on the other hand, is more limited in this respect (the distinction is less). Which is better? That is something you will have to answer - I picked Canon because I own Canon film cameras, including the EOS RT (the only modern slr camera to have a fixed mirror). Is it better? No, I think the D70 has more features than the DR (the 10D feels more solid though).
To further complicate matters, the Sigma SD10 (and SD9) are both excellent cameras as well, and the new Sigma DC lenses are at least as good as the consumer Canon and Nikon glass. As for flash and other accessories, I think the Canon units are less expensive, and for most people, the third party flash units are a better buy (I like the Sigma flashes - in particular, the 500 Super).
So, pick your system and enjoy.
Wayne
--
Canon Digital Rebel, Nikon 5700, Nikon 8700, Panasonic LC5
Max Fun
Veteran Member
Many people have moved from 35mm to DSLR and they don't seem to have a problem, except maybe that their wide angles become not so wide. How is this painful?
As for the body, we know from 35mm SLRs that having a FF sensor does not mean that the body has to be very large. Sure, there are lots more electronics in a DSLR, but electronics is the one thing that shrinks the fastest in today's technology; I don't think that it will become a limiting factor. No doubt, a FF camera will be larger than a 4/3 or a DX camera, but will it be that much bigger? I guess nobody can tell at the moment, but I doubt that it will be a problem.
I reall don't mind not having a FF sensor; a 1.3x sensor would be good enough
I mean just looking at the dynamic range of the 1D is enough to make me drool... I'm not surprised that FF hasn't made it down to the next level, since the 1Ds had only been introduced like a year ago, and that is not enough time for a sensor that size to drop in price significantly. But what do you mean that Canon has to wait for a widespread adoption of FF? Since Canon seems to have a habit of passing on older sensor into lower level cameras, it is totally feasible that the future 1D mkII replacement will have the sensor from the 1Ds, and then maybe even in the 10D replacement replacement. This might take a many years, but I don't really see a need to keep upgrading and it is still a few steps ahead of Nikon in adopting FF format anyway. Don't forget that Canon is also rumoured to be developing a sensor that is similar to Forveon's approach, and I think that will really be something!Anyway, my comment was not to say that Canon's system is the best or anything like that. What I wanted to express is that now that the companies are diverging away from the standard, it becomes more important to see which system you're more comfortable with, be it the smaller and handier 4/3 format, or the giant FF cameras. Also, because of this splitting of ways, you'll also start to see differences in image quality, just as the E-1 is showing.
Nikon has put its stakes on the DX format and (correct me if I'm wrong) the president (or some senior executive) has even commented that Nikon deems FF sensor unnecessary, so I think it will be sometime before you'll see something that would resemble have a 1.3x or FF format, unless Canon forces Nikon to eat its words. I believe that since Canon does not seem to be pursuing the EF-S standard in any major way, this indicates that the future for Canon is larger than APS sized sensors, for high end, and eventually the low end.
No tool or item will be fitted perfectly for everyone; people are just too varied. If you have Shaq's hands, both the D70 and 300D grips will be too small for you and you'll do better with a vertical grip as well. As I said earlier, if it's such a problem that it will prevent you from enjoying photography, then you need to look elsewhere. But you'll have to bear in mind that no camera will be perfectly suited for you, and as the more adaptable one of the two, you'll probably have to be the one to fit around the camera. However, once you're comfortable with it, what's stopping it from being an extension of yourself, as you so aptly put? I can twidle most of the buttons and knobs on the 300D without much thought, despite supposedly lacking in ergonomics. Heck, maybe I'm just lucky that the 300D suits me...
Also, practice is not oversimplifying things, it's the one thing that don't want to do! People would rather complain and blame the camera instead of learning how to use it properly.
I think you're being unduely concerned about ergonomics... I think with the current breed of cameras, it's not difficult to learn how to operate them and I doubt anyone will have their 'vision' curtailed by the camera.
--
The Secret to Life is... Calcium!!
http://max-fun.fotopic.net
http://www.pbase.com/supperman
Tom K.182709
Veteran Member
Today, right now, for my shooting style, Nikon's got the better lens-FOV-body combination with all the dSLR lenses. Long term, Canon's plan is better [1.3 & FF], particularly if you've got a bag of L glass.
There's a lot of Nikon shooters [I'll be one of 'em] if, in about 3 years, Nikon says, "that APS thing was a transition...we're all FF now...and your dSLR lenses won't work with all our new bodies." That would be just like the camera industry, would'nt it?
Right now, a D70 shooter can use the decent included kit lens on any other Nikon dSLR. Upgrade to a D2...you can still use the kit lens. Not so with the D300...what a great plastic lens to use in certain situations on a D10 or other. Nope. Ironically, the changeable lens was [for me] the heel of the D300. Great that it had it, but not 100% [both ways] compatible with other Canon product. And, for the moment, Canon doesn't seem interested in chasing the APS pickup with new lenses. It's tourture...like an incomplete painting. For the moment, at this distance, I chose to pass [I'm a wide angle shooter]. Of course, this is all for not as soon as they release affordable FF bodies (I think within 2 years). All this talk will be a waste of typing, and then the Canon system will seem brilliant and the faithful will be rewarded.
Last time I spent big money on cameras was 10 years ago [the 18mo old Coolpix doesn't count], and I'm looking at this year's spree as another 10 year thing. D70, few lenses, couple of SB800s, and [if financial fortunes hold] a D2x when it comes out. That will last me 10 more years...then, who knows...Canon?...Olympus again [I loved the OM's]...Minolta?...that cool Epson rangefinder? After all, they ALL make great images
There's a lot of Nikon shooters [I'll be one of 'em] if, in about 3 years, Nikon says, "that APS thing was a transition...we're all FF now...and your dSLR lenses won't work with all our new bodies." That would be just like the camera industry, would'nt it?
Right now, a D70 shooter can use the decent included kit lens on any other Nikon dSLR. Upgrade to a D2...you can still use the kit lens. Not so with the D300...what a great plastic lens to use in certain situations on a D10 or other. Nope. Ironically, the changeable lens was [for me] the heel of the D300. Great that it had it, but not 100% [both ways] compatible with other Canon product. And, for the moment, Canon doesn't seem interested in chasing the APS pickup with new lenses. It's tourture...like an incomplete painting. For the moment, at this distance, I chose to pass [I'm a wide angle shooter]. Of course, this is all for not as soon as they release affordable FF bodies (I think within 2 years). All this talk will be a waste of typing, and then the Canon system will seem brilliant and the faithful will be rewarded.
Last time I spent big money on cameras was 10 years ago [the 18mo old Coolpix doesn't count], and I'm looking at this year's spree as another 10 year thing. D70, few lenses, couple of SB800s, and [if financial fortunes hold] a D2x when it comes out. That will last me 10 more years...then, who knows...Canon?...Olympus again [I loved the OM's]...Minolta?...that cool Epson rangefinder? After all, they ALL make great images
Tom K.182709
Veteran Member
In the old days, I loved Olympus. The OM-2 was easy to backpack with, the lenses were great [and small], and they were the first with TTL flash.
I agree. Canon's were usually marketed for sports/action [Jimmy Conners showing on TV how to stop the action with an AE-1] and Nikon was for pictorial [Natl Geo never hid that the marjority of their staff carried Nikon...except Allard].
Wasn't the Minolta Maxxum the first AF camera? No?
I agree. Canon's were usually marketed for sports/action [Jimmy Conners showing on TV how to stop the action with an AE-1] and Nikon was for pictorial [Natl Geo never hid that the marjority of their staff carried Nikon...except Allard].
Wasn't the Minolta Maxxum the first AF camera? No?
Max Fun
Veteran Member
Yup, wide angles for APS sensor is a bit of an achilles heel for Canon, but thankfully it's not crippling, especially with the excellent 17-40mm and a little help from Sigma's 12-24mm and 15-30mm. Truly, there isn't a 18-70mm, but from what I've seen, the lens is not really anything to get overly excited about, except maybe the zoom range.
My idea about the EF-S mount is that it was developed to fill a special niche for the 300D: cheap, small, light and with a very useful zoom range. They probably didn't think of this need when the 10D was developed since it was a different market they were after, so that's why the mirror problem with the lens makes it unusable in the 10D. However, since it's fairly useful and for an absolute bargain, I won't be surprised that the 10D replacement comes with a EF-S mount as well.
I'm just curious what have you been using before the 18-70mm and 12-24mm? These lenses are relatively new so what were your WA solutions before that?
--
The Secret to Life is... Calcium!!
http://max-fun.fotopic.net
http://www.pbase.com/supperman
Way too early to draw the conclusions that you're making. Canon's line on EF-S has been that if people like EF-S and want more EF-S, they'll certainly consider making more of them. EF-S just came out last October with the 300D. Obviously, they need a little time to gauge the success of EF-S and to consider further EF-S lenses. At any rate, EF-S lenses are an inexpensive investment, unlike Nikon's DX lenses which cost many, many times more.
One indicator of where Canon plans on going with EF-S is whether the 10D MKII will be EF-S compatible. Plus, I would not rule out the possibility of future EF-S lenses, particularly to fullfill wide-angle needs. And certainly, if Sigma can make a full-frame 12-24 lens, it seems plausible that Canon could do the same.
Tom K.182709
Veteran Member
20 & 24 primes on F4 and 8008. Scanned on Coolscan. Only digital is a CP5000 [with the 28 lens].
None of the prior solutions were enough for me to part with money. I can wrap my head around the 12-24 - love the images I've seen from it.
Tom K.182709
Veteran Member
It would hard to believe a high speed pro camera would have an articulated mirror. Sounds like a reliability nightmare. I haven't read that the MkII [a seductive camera btw] will be able to accept S.
Canon is taking it's time with S. By the time they make it up, they'll be able cheaply do FF or 1.3x bodies and S will be a footnote.
I still think the D300 + the two S lenses is a killer set up and recommend it frequently - just not for me, right now.
Tom K.182709
Veteran Member
Max Fun
Veteran Member
I think he means whether the 10D MkII will have an EF-S mount, not 1D Mk II, which has a 1.3x crop, so can't use the EF-S lens which is for 1.6x sensors.
Also, there is only 1 EF-S lens currently. The 55-200 Mk II lens, which is often touted as a companion to the 18-55mm, is actually a normal EF lens. Personally, I won't invest too much in EF-S lenses even if more becomes available because I forsee Canon going towards 1.3x or FF, so I'd rather have lenses ready for that instead.
Finally, I know it's a stretch, but would you mind getting the names of the cameras right? It's the 300D/Digital Rebel and 10D, not D300 and D10. When you first mentioned D300 a few lines after talking about the D100, I thought you meant a possible future camera that would come after the D200. It's all rather confusing...
The Secret to Life is... Calcium!!
http://max-fun.fotopic.net
http://www.pbase.com/supperman
Also, there is only 1 EF-S lens currently. The 55-200 Mk II lens, which is often touted as a companion to the 18-55mm, is actually a normal EF lens. Personally, I won't invest too much in EF-S lenses even if more becomes available because I forsee Canon going towards 1.3x or FF, so I'd rather have lenses ready for that instead.
Finally, I know it's a stretch, but would you mind getting the names of the cameras right? It's the 300D/Digital Rebel and 10D, not D300 and D10. When you first mentioned D300 a few lines after talking about the D100, I thought you meant a possible future camera that would come after the D200. It's all rather confusing...
--
The Secret to Life is... Calcium!!
http://max-fun.fotopic.net
http://www.pbase.com/supperman
imho though, the EF-S mount appears to be a marketing decision to produce a cheap lens to SELL the 300D at a lower price.
what I'm putting my guess on is that the next incarnation of the 300D mk2, may also have a new EF-S lens, but not the 10D mk2...
so you're all right, it remains to be seen, we can but wait.
what I'm putting my guess on is that the next incarnation of the 300D mk2, may also have a new EF-S lens, but not the 10D mk2...
so you're all right, it remains to be seen, we can but wait.
Tom K.182709
Veteran Member
EF-S won't appear on 1-series bodies. EF-S is for 1.6x sensors, so I was talking about the 10D MKII.
Taking it's time? EF-S was introduced only 4 months ago! A bit impatient, are we? As for your comment, "By the time they make it up, they'll be able [to] cheaply do FF or 1.3x bodies and S will be a footnote," ---LOL, really? Cheap FF and 1.3x bodies that will make EF-S a footnote? The 1Ds is $7000, and the 1D MKII is $4500. I don't see any "cheap" FF and 1.3x bodies for quite some time. Don't worry, it really doesn't take all that long to put out another EF-S lens (if they decide to). And the price of FF and 1.3x bodies aren't going to be dropping that quickly.
There is only one EF-S lens. The 18-55 is EF-S. The 55-200 (introduced at the same time) is not EF-S. It is full frame. EF-S is only really useful for wide-angle lenses.
Tom K.182709
Veteran Member
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum