Why not a Nikon? (pics)

Francesco · Mar 27, 2004

Let me briefly introduce my main question by saying that I am a student, I don't work for Nikon and I have spent all my savings last summer on a Canon 10D and I love it.

But since then I have met with many photographers and noticed that each of them was using a Nikon, both digital and film.

The reason I bought the 10D about 8 months ago was because I had the idea that Canon was the best in the SLR/DSLR business. This forum showed me pictures that amazed me and comments about the 10D that eventually convinced me to buy it.

Does any of you have a rational explanation. Please don't take this message as a great start point for a feudal war between Canon fans and Nikon "aficionados". I would appreciate if any of you would give me his point of view of the quality of Nikon and Canon compared. Being new to photography I might not be aware of certain details and differences that might be very obvious to most of you, given your experience.

Let me finish this message with some pictures taken with the 10D last Christmas, during a visit to my home town in Italy.

--
Francesco Gallarotti
-----------------------------
http://www.gallarotti.net

Robert D. McGee1 · Mar 27, 2004

Francesco;

I truly believe that you can get professional class pictures with either Nikon OR Canon. However, I also believe that you just can't beat Canon image quality. There is just a "certain something" about the Canon digital camera images. I saw the same things in my Leica M3 many, many years ago, and just before my 10D, the Canon G3.

However, I have a good friend who takes professional quality pictures with his D100 Nikon.

After all, it is the Photographer that makes the difference.

Dale53
http://www.pbase.com/dale53

Francesco · Mar 27, 2004

I agree... but was that just a coincidence or are there more Nikon professionals than Canon? And if yes, why?

--
Francesco Gallarotti
-----------------------------
http://www.gallarotti.net

aevoegels · Mar 27, 2004

Canon is truly ahead in the game: lower noise, better CMOS image, higher frame rate, etc...plus the Canon lens line up is better IMO and costs less. Most people sticking with Nikon have many nikon lenses, but in the professional 1D forum there are many former Nikon users who switched to canon in the last few years.

Alfred

trulyheartless · Mar 27, 2004

Either system will take great photos-if the person holding the camera does his/her job! Canon makes some great lenses. Nikon does too. Each makes great cameras. It all boils down to your personal choice. Which one feels best in your hand? Which inspires more confidence? Quality-wise? There's no difference. Canon folks will say Canon's the best. Nikon owners will say the same about their Nikons. that's called brand loyalty. Nothing more. I've owned both Canon and Nikon film cameras, and now a Nikon digital. I'd like to have a Canon digital, simply because my Canon film camera felt so darned good in my hand! But either one will allow you to make great photographs, provided you do YOUR part!

weirdrob · Mar 27, 2004

If I had more cash, then...
Nikon F5 for film...
Canon 1D Mk II for digital.

In the real world I shoot a 10D and EOS 3...and only need one set of lenses.

Or, just my trusty 46 year old rangefinder...!!

--
Rob Wierman
http://www.pbase.com/weirdrob/root

Jamie H. · Mar 27, 2004

You are the artist, the camera gear are your tools. Odds are 999 out of 1000 you, as the artist, are going to be the limiting factor in your pictures - as opposed to the brand of camera gear you own.

There are many thousands of very talented pros who use both Canon and Nikon. Flip through sports illlustrated. Can you tell which was taken with a Nikon and which was taken with a Canon camera?

Quality wise there really isnt much difference between the two companies. If there was a significant difference, I very seriously doubt many pros would risk their career shooting with "inferior" equipment. As is, many pros use one brand or the other and are perfectly happy.

I'll say it again - I think fretting over brands and nitpicking over technical specs is just silly. Unless the difference is very significant, its not likely to effect the photographer enough to make a difference where it matters most - in the pictures.

--
GA Tech Sports action:
http://d33pblue.net/gallery/index.php?cat=10

Francesco · Mar 27, 2004

Thank you guys for your inputs. I do agree that is the eye that makes the picture. Lomography is a great example of how a pitiful camera can produce marvellous shots.

Francesco

William Karoly · Mar 27, 2004

But the bottomline is the 10D makes better images with less noise than a Nikon D100.

But in the long run does it really matter? No.

Bill

--
Bill
http://www.williamkaroly.com

Godfrey · Mar 27, 2004

Nikon makes good gear, Canon makes good gear. Each has details that might be better or worse for particular individuals' needs. But there's no single statement that can encapsulate why one over the other. ...

I used Nikon SLRs for 30 years with outstanding results. When I started looking forward to the digital era in 1999/2000, I realized that all of my equipment was stuck in the late 1970s/early 1980s generation design: manual focus lenses, Nikon FM/FE2/F3 series cameras. To get the most out of modern bodies I wanted new lenses that could take advantage of AF capabilities too.

I went looking at current series Nikon bodies and lenses, didn't like the ergonomics and feel very much. I looked at new Canon gear and it fit my hands much better. So I sold off the Nikon gear and bought a Canon EOS IX and a couple of lenses ... Figured that would get me used to the smaller format sensors and let me know if I liked the lenses and controls. I did. So when the 10D came out, I knew it was the right body ergonomically, waited 6-8 months to see pictures, and then went for it.

I made a good choice. Other choices might be good too. It's what eye is behind the camera that most important once you get to gear and lenses of the quality that the 10D represents.

Godfrey

Daniel Clune · Mar 27, 2004

They both make good low end and middle priced camera but were nikon loses out in my opinion is in the upper priced cameras. Nikons top of the line is a D1X which was good in its day but compared to a Canon 1DS it just doesnt compete. Then for the PJ shooters if you go Nikon its a D2H which is a fast camera but lacks high resolution and lower noise than Canons new 1D Mark 2.

Now Nikons new D70 is actually a better buy than the Canon Digital Rebel, has many more features and about same image quality (debateable by lets not). Nikons d100 is about the same as the 10D. So like i said in the pro arena Canon kicks Nikons butt, but in the middle end and low end they do fine.

NOW IF MONEY WERE NO CONCERN what would you buy a d1x OR A Canon 1ds, easy choice dont you think. Then if you needed a speed demon camera would you buy a Nikon D2H or the new 1D Mark 2, another easy choice. Will Nikon ever have a high resolution camera, sure but when. And since it took them several years to just catch Canons old 1D it will probably be several more before they catch the 1D Mark 2.

--
http://www.pbase.com/dc9mm

Code Monkey · Mar 27, 2004

yea, you met up with a lot of photographers that uses Nikon system, but that's just their preference... they're only cameras with some name on it... pick what works for you...

T3 · Mar 27, 2004

"Best" is a relative term. But Canon does have the edge in DSLR technology. For example:

Canon's flagship DSLR is the 11MP, full-frame 1Ds.
Nikon's flagship DSLR is the 5.4MP, APS-sensor D1X.

Canon's top high-speed DSLR is the 8MP, 8.5 frames/second 1D MKII.
Nikon's top high-speed DSLR is the 4MP, 8 frames/second D2H.

In 2002, Canon's top-speed DSLR was the 4MP, 8 frames/second 1D.
In 2002, Nikon's top-speed DSLR was the 2.7MP, 5 frames/second D1H.

Canon has been making their own CMOS sensors since the introdution of the 3.3MP D30 in 2000. Today, they make 6MP, 8MP, and 11MP DSLR sensors. Nikon buys their sensors from Sony, and their first self-produced DSLR sensor is the 4MP sensor used in the recently introduced D2H.

Canon offers three DSLR sensor formats: 1.6x, 1.3x, and 1.0x, which allows them to put various sensor sizes at various price points and with various pixel counts, depending on the application. Nikon only has one sensor format: 1.5x.

Many prefer the low noise and high quality of Canon's CMOS sensors, which are now found in the 300D, 10D, 1D MKII, and 1Ds.

Other factors outside digital give Canon the edge, too:

Canon has 40+ Ultrasonic Motor lenses and was first with USM for SLR lenses.
Nikon has about a dozen Silent Wave Motor lenses.

Canon has 12 Image Stabilizer lenses, and was first with IS for SLR lenses.
Nikon has 4 Vibration Reduction lenses.

Canon has 3 tilt-shift lenses (24mm, 45mm, 90mm tilt-shift).
Nikon has 1 tilt-shift len (90mm tilt-shift.

Historically, Nikon was the dominant brand amongst pros. But today, it appears that Canon is the dominant brand, probably because of their rapid pace of development and extensive depth of offerings. However, Canon is a much larger company, so they probably have more resources and money to do it. But in the end, it's just a matter of personal taste, and using the brand that offers the products to best fit your needs. I chose Canon because they offered the lenses and technologies I wanted, at a time when Nikon did not. I have two tilt-shift lenses (the 24mm and 45mm) that Nikon doesn't offer. I have various USM lenses that Nikon did not offer. I have various IS lenses that Nikon did not offer until fairly recently. My choice of Canon had nothing to do with what I thought the pros were using. And the 10D was a much better choice for me than the D100, thanks to its CMOS sensor, larger buffer capacity, and other features that I didn't find in the Nikon. But it is nice to know that most pros seem to be using Canon (see pics below), and that Canon captured 70% of the DSLR market last year, with Nikon coming in second place with 30% (see article here: http://www.bizreport.com/article.php?art_id=6487 ). In the end, does it really matter to your photography? For me, as long as Canon continues to provide products that I like and want, I'm happy.

By the way, everywhere I look, I see Canon.

Mark Gillett · Mar 27, 2004

...make. All the dslrs' perform with faily similar ability. Some have features that others do not and some feel or are made differently, but all are just a tool that a good photographer could use and get good results from.

ISO seems to be an overiding difference between Canon and Nikon but that's about it. You buy what you feel comfortable with not what you think you should have because its suppose to be the "best"

Mark
--
http://www.pbase.com/markgillett

T3 · Mar 27, 2004

You can imagine the thought on this photographer's mind when he looked out the window and saw this scene below him (ie, "I noticed almost all of them were using Canon"):

By the way, of the 21 photographers in this photo, 17 are using Canon. Maybe in your little corner of the world, there just happens to be more Nikon users. Does it really matter? No. Just go out and take great pictures. Show them what beautiful images you can produce with your equipment. Let your pictures speak for themselves.

Holden · Mar 28, 2004

I have worked in and around the camera wholesale and retail arena for many years. At one time Nikon had the edge in rugged 35mm bodies and lenses. Most travelling Pros used Nikon and most camera rental facilities stocked many, if not all available Nikon lenses. A person could go on location in most major cities and rent specialized lenses for the task at hand. This led to a certain perception that Nikon had higher quality. It helped their consumer business greatly. Nikon owned the professional market, and if you were a working Pro, you were crazy if you didnt have Nikon when you traveled. They are great cameras, no question.

Enter the digital era. Canon leapfrogged Nikon and still has the edge a bit in their CMOS technology IMHO. The market seems to agree with me. I havent checked lately but I would guess the rental shops have about as many Canon EF lenses as they do Nikon these days. Especially teles. Keep in mind though there are still hundreds of pros out there with substantial investment in the Nikon system and they arent going away any time soon

I know just about every major camera line pretty well and I bought Canon when it came time to buy a DSLR. I think the D100 is a good camera and matches up pretty well compared to my 10D, yet I like the images I get from the Canon better. They have slightly less noise to my eye.

A friend shoots a D100 and D1x and gets wonderful results. So much depends on subject and technique when you get down to it. They are both fine imaging instruments in the hands of a careful worker. The shots of the sports photogs above says a lot. When I was close to my decision I called a guy I worked with for many years who manages a digital dept. in a major US camera store( and whos opinion I respect). He suggested I look at the sidelines at a Sunday football game, he says anything white is probably Canon. I observed exactly the situation the pics above so clearly point out... it sold me..

gregg

Bust212349 · Mar 28, 2004

I am continuously amazed at the brand obsession shown by so many members of these forums.

"T3" is a prime example. Take a look at his(?) profile. Almost every message is in some way praising Canon and/or critisizing Nikon. How can someone be so obsessed with one brand of camera?

It surely must be a disorder of some kind. I mean, who can be so obsessed as to keep shots of photographers in their pbase account just to show what brand of gear they are using?

The bottom line is that both Nikon, Canon, Oly, Kodak etc etc have pros and cons in their systems and cameras.

Sure Nikon and Canon are by far the most popular and comprehensive systems. I shoot Canon at present, but I could just as easilty be using Nikon, and with the advances Oly are making at present I could almost get by with an Oly system.

To say that Canon is better in every way is just plain wrong. Sorry if I have just burst your bubble "T3", but the truth sometimes hurts. As a pro shooting Canon every day I am more that aware of it's system's shortcomings.....Cr@ppy fast/wide lenses, no ultra-wides for my 10D, poor QC, haphazard flash exposure (on the 10D at least)....the list goes on. No brand is perfect, all have their weaknesses > eg Nikon's lack of 300mm+ VR primes

As for the original poster, my advice is keep your 10D, you seem to be happy with it, and don't worry about what others are shooting. Certainly don't base your decision on photos of sports-shooters' cameras of choice (a small part of the professional market). There are a huge number of pros shooting Canon, Nikon, Kodak, Mamiya, Hassy, Bronica and Leica all in different segments. There is no one "market leader".

Code Monkey · Mar 28, 2004

i don't really think there's anything wrong with being brand loyal... i do have certain brand loyalties... right now i'm big on Canon, Honda, and AMD... but i know that these brands are not "the best" out there... i'm also not so quick at dissin' other brands since when i think about it, i don't really know anything about those other makers' stuff... yes, i could have easily been a Nikon user, but it just so happened the 10D came out when i wanted to buy an SLR and i've been pretty happy with Canon...

ps. i don't really think that's what obsessive compulsive means...

Ger Bee · Mar 28, 2004

....

boy oh boy, do you realise that this exact post is and was posted on the Nikon forum a few MILLION times?

Except naturally it was the other ay around that one bought a Nikon and yet everywhere they went they saw Canon, sale figures support this BTW too.

IMO the 10D should and could be better, when it is a choice between me and a 10D or the D100 I take the D100 almost all the time. The 10D should be as good as the D100 in overall performance because it absolutely trounces it in image quality and ease of use ~ but it is so slow as to be almost useless so I put up with inferior image qualities for the vastly superior performance of the D100.

However, when it comes to me and the D1x or the 1D then Canon run away with all the honours except for critical low light AF, critical neutral sensitivity phase detection and ease of use of which go to the Nikon.

When it comes to technology deployment than Canon are years, literally years ahead of Nikon with vastly superior flash, high speed, wireless and remote with more in the box for instant usage than the Nikon equivalents. Nikon in fact have gone for the cheapest solution package possible and with the introduction of the D2h have not actually even matched the now retired 1D but the new 1DmkII runs even further away again so as a business competitor I have a professional edge over Nikon shooters and believe me when the push comes to shove and picture editors sees the giant MKII images caressing their monitors, the Nikon had better be a really, really striking image to get picked ahead of a MKII shot.

So to recap, on screen the 10D is better, however, actually capturing the imagery is better on a D100. Move up a notch to the professional level and there really is only Canon.

--
Canon MKII, the waiting ends ...

http://www.bonuspix.com

Bust212349 · Mar 28, 2004

LOL. Youre probably right, but:

OBSESSED with Canon and COMPELLED tt tell everyone about it!

If the shoe fits......

Why not a Nikon? (pics)

Francesco

Guest

Senior Member

Francesco

Guest

Senior Member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Francesco

Guest

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Member

Keyboard shortcuts