Reading mode: Light Dark

Why do people say ...

Go to last post
T

Terribilino

Leading Member
Messages
609
Reaction score
19
Location
CA
... Nikon is for portrait shooters and Canon is for landscape shooters? Is it a camera thing or a lens thing? Or is it just rubbish anyway...?
 
Actually... Canon's portrait lens line up is actually better. Go figure.

The photographer is the one thing that really makes the difference.
 
... I wish I could remember which - I'd have asked the poster. I don't think it was that subject of the post, it was towards the end, sort of an... 'Oh well, Nikon remains a portrait camera and Canon a landscape camera'. It's just one of the many things I've read in dpreview forums that have left me baffled.

But okay, if it's not one of those things people say, let it ride. Just curious.
 
Terribilino said:
... I wish I could remember which - I'd have asked the poster. I
don't think it was that subject of the post, it was towards the end,
sort of an... 'Oh well, Nikon remains a portrait camera and Canon a
landscape camera'.
Click to expand...
The only possible reason I can think of is colours - I have seen it claimed that Nikon's flesh tones are better. But I'd take that with a pinch of salt if I were you. Film has specific colour characteristics and it is certainly true that certain films are better suited to certain types of work. But with digital, and especially with the level of control we have now, there is no difference.
 
I think a distinction is between still subjects and fast action. Within each brand there are models that are more suited to portraits and landscapes (e.g., Canon 1DS series, 5D), and others that are more suited to action (e.g., Canon 1D series). The main distinctions are AF speed, AF tracking, and framing rate.

I can't imagine why a camera might be good for portraits, but not landscapes, or vice versa.
--
Gary
http://garyjean.zenfolio.com/
 
Terribilino said:
... Nikon is for portrait shooters and Canon is for landscape
shooters? Is it a camera thing or a lens thing? Or is it just
rubbish anyway...?
Click to expand...
But a few years back I'd hear people say Nikon was for portrait shooters and Canon was for sports shooters because for years Canon had a superior autofocus system. (though I never heard any reason's why Nikon was better for portraits.)

But with all of the advances lately, Nikon has definitely caught up with Canon, maybe even pulled ahead a bit. And that's a good thing because now Canon has to try harder.
 
...is often said and may have some credibility, but it's mostly all just a bunch of pother.
Terribilino said:
... Nikon is for portrait shooters and Canon is for landscape
shooters? Is it a camera thing or a lens thing? Or is it just
rubbish anyway...?
Click to expand...
--

There is simply too much beauty in the world to photograph it all, but I'm trying.
 
I'm just guessing.

But seriously, I'm quite glad there are more players stepping into the fray. Keeps things interesting.
 
Terribilino said:
... I wish I could remember which - I'd have asked the poster. I
don't think it was that subject of the post, it was towards the end,
sort of an... 'Oh well, Nikon remains a portrait camera and Canon a
landscape camera'. It's just one of the many things I've read in
dpreview forums that have left me baffled.

But okay, if it's not one of those things people say, let it ride.
Just curious.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the other way round, because of the lenses.

There are a number of people complaining about the lack of good Canon wide-angle lenses, e.g. that even the Canon 14mm prime is not as good as the excellent Nikon 14- 24 zoom (it weights a hefty 1 kg)
So, for those who want to shoot wide landscapes with FF, Nikon would be better.

Life is short, time to zoom in ©
 
taking pictures of your male children or anything like them.

Olympuss is for shooting wimps and losers at the Olympics.

Pentax is specially designed camera for the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the IRS.

Sigma started by designing macro lenses for reproducing you mother's signatures for sick notes or sex ed permission.

Samsung made cameras for shooting narcs named Samuel.

Panasonic should have stuck with surround sound audio gear.

After that, I'd have to get creative.
tkbslc said:
So what are Sony, Olympus and Pentax for? :)
Click to expand...
--

There is simply too much beauty in the world to photograph it all, but I'm trying.
 
I would say just the other way around: Canon for portraits and Nikon for landscape

There is some logic in it:

The bokeh of Canon portrait lenses is much nicer
No USM on Nikon 50 (until a short while ago), 85 or 135mm

Portrait shooters often need high iso's , before D700 and D3, Nikon was not the first choice for that
Canon does not have any ultra sharp wides such as the 14-24

Makes sense?
 
Almost makes sense.

Until you realize that Canon has PLENTY of wide lenses that are sharp closed down, and closed down is what one uses (usually) with landscapes. And that the Nikon does not allow to use filters (and one does use filters for landscape photography at times). And that the Nikon has quite high barrel distortion (not always acceptable with landscape photography). And the Canon EOS 5D is a bit sharper on its own, apparently, compared to the Nikon D3 and D700. And one does not NEED the sharpness of the Nikon 14-24, as the pixel density is not high at all with 12mp FF...

So all in all, I can see more downsides to that lens than up sides. A Canon EOS 5D (compared to a D3/D700) makes a lil bit better a landscape camera according to some people, due to its color and sharpness. The EOS 5D mk II and 1Ds mk III obviously make better landscape cameras due to their higher resolving power.

All in all... one can make nice landscape photos with a Nikon, and with a Canon. And for portraits, what matters there is the photographer's talent, foremost.
 
Sorry I meant ultra wide zooms,

But to be honest I haven't seen a lens yet from Canon below 24mm (other than 15mmFE) that has some serious edge sharpness on the 5D, let alone 5D mkII or DsIII

Well maybe at F11, please....

And sure one can make excellent portraits with Nikons, but we are talking equipment right?
brightcolours said:
Almost makes sense.

Until you realize that Canon has PLENTY of wide lenses that are sharp
closed down, and closed down is what one uses (usually) with
landscapes. And that the Nikon does not allow to use filters (and one
does use filters for landscape photography at times). And that the
Nikon has quite high barrel distortion (not always acceptable with
landscape photography). And the Canon EOS 5D is a bit sharper on its
own, apparently, compared to the Nikon D3 and D700. And one does not
NEED the sharpness of the Nikon 14-24, as the pixel density is not
high at all with 12mp FF...

So all in all, I can see more downsides to that lens than up sides. A
Canon EOS 5D (compared to a D3/D700) makes a lil bit better a
landscape camera according to some people, due to its color and
sharpness. The EOS 5D mk II and 1Ds mk III obviously make better
landscape cameras due to their higher resolving power.

All in all... one can make nice landscape photos with a Nikon, and
with a Canon. And for portraits, what matters there is the
photographer's talent, foremost.
Click to expand...
 
You are talking about LANDSCAPE. You do not shoot landscape wide angle wide open.
Well... maybe YOU do, but most don't.
 
right I am not a landscape photographer...

I am just imagening a landscape photographer not having to drag a tripod on his 5 mile hike in the mountains and be able to get some nice and very sharp shots @ F4 or F5.6 when the light is getting low

I don't think that is too much to ask from a 17-40 or 16-35 L-lens...
brightcolours said:
You are talking about LANDSCAPE. You do not shoot landscape wide
angle wide open.
Well... maybe YOU do, but most don't.
Click to expand...
 
Nikon has the AF DC-NIKKOR 135 mm 1:2D lens. This is a particularly useful portrait lens because it allows to apply extra blur to the out of focus areas in an image.
 
JEMD said:
right I am not a landscape photographer...

I am just imagening a landscape photographer not having to drag a
tripod on his 5 mile hike in the mountains and be able to get some
nice and very sharp shots @ F4 or F5.6 when the light is getting low
Click to expand...
Serious landscape photographers (I am not one either) do carry tripods up mountains - and a lot more besides. I know one who backpacks a panoramic film camera as well as his DSLR(s). With the long exposures demanded by the even smaller apertures demanded by medium format, and ISO 50 film, you need a decent tripod regardless of where you happen to be working.

http://www.davidnoton.com/technical.htm

Note the Canon equipment for landscape by the way. This is a guy who used Nikons for years before switching lock stock and barrel to Canon when he 'went digital'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top