# Canon vs Nikon - Stereotypes



## mikoh4792 (Jan 23, 2015)

These stereotypes of each brand are just those I gathered through internet research. I'm not saying I take these seriously, but I think it'd be interesting to see what your thoughts are regarding these points.

*Canon*
- Better lenses than Nikon
- Better customer service than Nikon
- More consistent than Nikon(in terms of quality control)

*Nikon*
- Better sensors than Canon
- More flexible shooting (accessories, flash systems..etc)


If Nikon has better sensors and worse lenses, and Canon has worse sensors and better lenses, would this mean that they produce the same quality of images? I've heard canon is really bad at dynamic range, shadows, and high iso(aps-c lineup).


----------



## Scatterbrained (Jan 23, 2015)

In actuality, Nikon and Canon lenses are pretty close to each other.  Enough so that it shouldn't be a deciding factor.   Personally, I can't stand the ergos and menu system in a Nikon, but that Sony Exmor sensor is awesome.   I would think that Canon would be "more flexible" what with the larger range of aftermarket support from accessories to software and firmware, including a native radio controlled flash system.   The better DR and higher resolution of the Exmor sensor are nice, but it's something you may not ever notice or need depending on what and how you shoot.      Take some time to handle cameras from each maker and see which feels better to you.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 23, 2015)

Don't believe everything you read there is nothing between them most of it is negated unkess you have years of experience


----------



## mikoh4792 (Jan 23, 2015)

Scatterbrained said:
			
		

> The better DR and higher resolution of the Exmor sensor are nice, but it's something you may not ever notice or need depending on what and how you shoot.



Could you elaborate on this?


----------



## gsgary (Jan 23, 2015)

mikoh4792 said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Only time you will ever notice it is if you shoot at ridiculously high iso which for good photography is pointless, Nikon shooter need the high dinamic range because they don't know how to exoose properly


----------



## snerd (Jan 23, 2015)

gsgary said:


> Nikon shooter need the high dinamic range because they don't know how to exoose properly


And here we go...............................


----------



## gsgary (Jan 23, 2015)

snerd said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon shooter need the high dinamic range because they don't know how to exoose properly
> ...


Nikon shooter ? I only put a small worm on the hook


----------



## snerd (Jan 23, 2015)

gsgary said:


> snerd said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


Oh no, Canon.    

I just know what's coming lol!!


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 23, 2015)

NIKON FTMFW!!!


----------



## snerd (Jan 23, 2015)

Vtec44 said:


> NIKON FTMFW!!!


----------



## snerd (Jan 23, 2015)

There's a Nikon shill here that will be along shortly to set us all straight.


----------



## waday (Jan 23, 2015)

I chose Canon explicitly because of the option to shoot cannonballs. Nikon does not have this function.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Jan 23, 2015)

mikoh4792 said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


At base ISO the Sony Exmor sensors have more DR than Canons sensors.   This will allow you to recover more shadow detail.  It's useful for landscapes or high contrast midday scenes where you need to retain highlight detail: think of shooting a sunset and being able to retain clean detail in the foreground, or shooting someone under the shade of an umbrella or tree and being able to expose for the sky, or shooting an interior space and being able to expose for the scene in the window.     It's quite handy, but once the iso levels rise (low light/sports/birding/etc) the DR difference goes away.

   Resolution will be a personal preference.   Canon has been sticking right around the 20mp mark, while Nikon offers a range from 24-36mp.


----------



## mikoh4792 (Jan 23, 2015)

waday said:


> I chose Canon explicitly because of the option to shoot cannonballs. Nikon does not have this function.



I'm going to sell all my Nikon gear starting today and move to canon then.


----------



## waday (Jan 23, 2015)

mikoh4792 said:


> waday said:
> 
> 
> > I chose Canon explicitly because of the option to shoot cannonballs. Nikon does not have this function.
> ...


You should. It's hidden way in the menu. You have to enable it first. Otherwise, you can just make the sound effects yourself and pretend.


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 23, 2015)

snerd said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > NIKON FTMFW!!!


There 'ya go shooting your mouth off like a Cannon !!


----------



## Overread (Jan 23, 2015)

Few thoughts:

Lenses are really best compared lens by lens. Canon, for example, offers the MPE 65mm macro which is a unique macro lens on the market - Nikon doesn't make one (but its not the only way to get high magnification shots of course - nor is it impossible to beat it). However Nikon offers some of the best wide angle lenses including one or two outstanding wide angle zooms (there's a few canon shooters using adaptors or a nikon camera just for that). 

Things like the sensor tech are also short term - 5 years or so ago Canon was totally ruling the roost sensor wise - now its Sony (Nikon uses sony sensors and Sony have sunk something like 5 times the R&D money into sensors than the others just because they wanted in on the market so had to come to the table with something outstanding to get a foot in) in a few years it could be Pentax! 


Most differences are not going to appear in standard shooting in good light. It's when the light is poor - when the situation isn't normal - when the little differences come out. Certainly any DSLR on todays market and any brand is capable of outstanding photography.


----------



## runnah (Jan 23, 2015)

All Canon users are ruggedly handsome, incredibly talented and hung like a horse.


----------



## Forkie (Jan 23, 2015)

Nikons have a red bit on the grip.  Which is awesome.


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 23, 2015)

runnah said:


> All Canon users are ruggedly handsome, incredibly talented and hung like a horse.


just, a dead horse ...


----------



## runnah (Jan 23, 2015)

mikoh4792 said:


> *Nikon*
> - More flexible shooting (accessories, flash systems..etc)



Disagree. The Canon 600ex-rt is amazing and the best speedlight on the market. I was shooting 4 of them at once fully ETTL and didn't need to use any other triggers.


----------



## BananaRepublic (Jan 23, 2015)

Comparing Nikon to Canon is like comparing Toyota to Honda.


----------



## runnah (Jan 23, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > All Canon users are ruggedly handsome, incredibly talented and hung like a horse.
> ...



Nikon users are also terrible at comebacks.


----------



## snerd (Jan 23, 2015)

waday said:


> mikoh4792 said:
> 
> 
> > waday said:
> ...


pew pew pew!!!!


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 23, 2015)

Hmmmm,  shouldn't we all (Nikon & Canon users) get together and have a Tug of War contest or something?  Softball game, Bowling, Darts?   Oh oh oh, boxing matches using these
Socker Boppers, Inflatable Boxing Gloves, Play Boxing - Toys"R"Us


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 23, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> Hmmmm,  shouldn't we all (Nikon & Canon users) get together and have a Tug of War contest or something?  Softball game, Bowling, Darts?   Oh oh oh, boxing matches using these
> Socker Boppers, Inflatable Boxing Gloves, Play Boxing - Toys"R"Us


----------



## Braineack (Jan 23, 2015)

I bought a 7Dii to shoot sports but the focus was inconsistent so I bought a D3300 which was cheaper by 1/3, focused properly, had better cropping power and better IQ/DR...


----------



## runnah (Jan 23, 2015)

runnah said:


> Nikon users are also terrible at comebacks.





Braineack said:


> I bought a 7Dii to shoot sports but the focus was inconsistent so I bought a D3300 that was cheaper, focused properly, and had better IQ/DR...



I rest my case.


----------



## snerd (Jan 23, 2015)

Braineack said:


> I bought a 7Dii to shoot sports but the focus was inconsistent so I bought a D3300 which was cheaper by 1/3, focused properly, had better cropping power and better IQ/DR...


And we're all happy for you. Really, we are!


----------



## Nettles (Jan 23, 2015)

Surely Canon and Nikon aren't "really bad" at anything. 

If we're able, both brands have the potential to take us as far as we can go photographically.


----------



## runnah (Jan 23, 2015)

Nettles said:


> Surely Canon and Nikon aren't "really bad" at anything.
> 
> If we're able, both brands have the potential to take us as far as we can go photographically.



Such insightful and serious comments are not allowed in this thread!


----------



## snerd (Jan 23, 2015)

Nettles said:


> Surely Canon and Nikon aren't "really bad" at anything.
> 
> If we're able, both brands have the potential to take us as far as we can go photographically.


You dare to bring in reason and fact to this thread?! Be gone, instigator!!


----------



## runnah (Jan 23, 2015)




----------



## Nettles (Jan 23, 2015)

Now that I think about it, you're absolutely right.


----------



## snerd (Jan 23, 2015)

runnah said:


> View attachment 93875


Dude, stop! My sides are hurting!!!


----------



## snerd (Jan 23, 2015)

I heard some really funny jokes about the D-610............ using it and getting hair oil at the same time! LOL!!


----------



## snerd (Jan 23, 2015)

snerd said:


> I heard some really funny jokes about the D-610............ using it and getting hair oil at the same time! LOL!!


Adding oil every 200 shots, and an oil rag for your face!   LOL!!


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 23, 2015)

runnah said:


> View attachment 93875


 
Now that is just toooooo funny!


----------



## snerd (Jan 23, 2015)

Brainy.............. I'm just yanking your chain, dude. You're all right!


----------



## bribrius (Jan 23, 2015)

i found out all the serious and good photographers shot canon so i went with the nikon line.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 23, 2015)

Braineack said:


> I bought a 7Dii to shoot sports but the focus was inconsistent so I bought a D3300 which was cheaper by 1/3, focused properly, had better cropping power and better IQ/DR...


well yeah, we need that extra cropping power and better focus because otherwise all our shots are oof and look like distorted film grain.


----------



## KenC (Jan 23, 2015)

I've been sick for a couple of days and am now trying to catch up.  It's good to see nothing's changed on here.


----------



## snerd (Jan 23, 2015)

KenC said:


> I've been sick for a couple of days and am now trying to catch up.  It's good to see nothing's changed on here.


Change? We don't need no steenking change!


----------



## KenC (Jan 23, 2015)

snerd said:


> KenC said:
> 
> 
> > I've been sick for a couple of days and am now trying to catch up.  It's good to see nothing's changed on here.
> ...



I guess for there to really be no change the thread would have to get nastier and end up being closed.  It's still early, though ...


----------



## snerd (Jan 23, 2015)

KenC said:


> snerd said:
> 
> 
> > KenC said:
> ...


Oh! Well in that case.............. change is good!!


----------



## goodguy (Jan 23, 2015)

runnah said:


> All Canon users are ruggedly handsome, incredibly talented and hung like a horse.


Ohhhh, thats good to know, especially the hung part!


----------



## goodguy (Jan 23, 2015)

Forkie said:


> Nikons have a red bit on the grip.  Which is awesome.


Thats the missile launching function, while Canon is still stuck with old sensor technology Arrrrr........I mean old Cannon technology We Nikon users have the new and modern fire and forget Sony missile technology, yep its all the range now!!!


----------



## goodguy (Jan 23, 2015)

BananaRepublic said:


> Comparing Nikon to Canon is like comparing Toyota to Honda.


Had both, Meh they ok but I'll take Mercedes if you dont mind


----------



## goodguy (Jan 23, 2015)

runnah said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...


No we're not, and you got poo in your panties! Nah


----------



## goodguy (Jan 23, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> Hmmmm,  shouldn't we all (Nikon & Canon users) get together and have a Tug of War contest or something?  Softball game, Bowling, Darts?   Oh oh oh, boxing matches using these
> Socker Boppers, Inflatable Boxing Gloves, Play Boxing - Toys"R"Us


Nah, we should all stand in line drop our pants and see who's has the biggest 


OMG I think I wrote too many posts in one go.......Eeeeek


----------



## Braineack (Jan 23, 2015)

snerd said:


> Brainy.............. I'm just yanking your chain, dude. You're all right!


What about lecia shooters that don't care about features but only if the body is "sexy" or not.

using tapatalk.


----------



## snerd (Jan 23, 2015)

Braineack said:


> snerd said:
> 
> 
> > Brainy.............. I'm just yanking your chain, dude. You're all right!
> ...


That does not compute.


----------



## goodguy (Jan 23, 2015)

snerd said:


> I heard some really funny jokes about the D-610............ using it and getting hair oil at the same time! LOL!!


 Ooohhh and I heard if you think you are seeing pictures out of fucus its not your eye sight its your 7D II


----------



## qleak (Jan 23, 2015)

Forkie said:


> Nikons have a red bit on the grip.  Which is awesome.



I personally have found that little red swoosh a difficult to debrand.

Electrical tape won't stick to it because of its proximity to the front control dial and my marker runs right off it 

Then i realized any real photographer would recognize the brand just from the control layout, time for me to lighten up!


----------



## BananaRepublic (Jan 24, 2015)

goodguy said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > astroNikon said:
> ...



In all films were George Clooney needs a DSLR he uses a Nikon, ex, The American " a stylish thriller" nuff said.


----------



## snowbear (Jan 24, 2015)

EVERYBODY knows that Cannon makes the best towels.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 24, 2015)

snerd said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > snerd said:
> ...



see ggary's posts.


----------



## greybeard (Jan 24, 2015)

I like Nikon more than Canon because I like the way Nikon sounds when I say it.  NiiiiiiiiiKon.   Canon sounds like, well CANON.....BOOOOOOM...lol


----------



## snowbear (Jan 24, 2015)

greybeard said:


> I like Nikon more than Canon because I like the way Nikon sounds when I say it.  NiiiiiiiiiKon.   Canon sounds like, well CANON.....BOOOOOOM...lol



Or, if you are in some other parts of the world, "NeeeeeeeeKon."


----------



## greybeard (Jan 24, 2015)

snowbear said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > I like Nikon more than Canon because I like the way Nikon sounds when I say it.  NiiiiiiiiiKon.   Canon sounds like, well CANON.....BOOOOOOM...lol
> ...


lol................I thought of that after I posted.


----------



## snowbear (Jan 24, 2015)

My faculty adviser at UMD was Chinese.  My first meeting with him, I had my film body with me (N90s).  He took one look, got a big smile and pointed saying in a heavy accent "Neekon! I have one!"


----------



## snerd (Jan 24, 2015)

BananaRepublic said:


> In all films were George Clooney needs a DSLR he uses a Nikon, ex, The American " a stylish thriller" nuff said.


George Clooney?! Really?! You're gonna claim some sort of class and camera knowledge with THAT guy?! Well................. allrighty then lol!!!


----------



## snerd (Jan 24, 2015)




----------



## Braineack (Jan 24, 2015)

I heard people with either a Canon or Nikon can take pretty bad pictures.


----------



## DoctorDino (Jan 26, 2015)

It's not the camera, it's the photographer.

If you buy a DSLR made within the past 3 years, you're usually getting a fine camera. That doesn't mean that you'll take good pictures.


----------



## snerd (Jan 26, 2015)

DoctorDino said:


> If you buy a DSLR made within the past 3 years, you're usually getting a fine camera. That doesn't mean that you'll take good pictures.


Ain't that the truth!!!


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## goodguy (Jan 26, 2015)

DoctorDino said:


> It's not the camera, it's the photographer.
> 
> If you buy a DSLR made within the past 3 years, you're usually getting a fine camera. That doesn't mean that you'll take good pictures.


Totally agreed, its always the photographers skills that will be the most determining factor in producing good pictures.
Still those who own Nikon cameras have the slight edge due to those AWESOME Sony sensors that give amazing DR and Sharpness!!!

Nikon Wins...................Yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssss


----------



## runnah (Jan 26, 2015)

Nikon users worry about numbers, Canon users worry about light, composition and beauty.


----------



## syaudi (Jan 26, 2015)

runnah said:


> Nikon users worry about numbers, Canon users worry about light, composition and beauty.



oooh #shotsfired #theCanonway #BringIt


----------



## mikoh4792 (Jan 26, 2015)

runnah said:


> Nikon users worry about numbers, Canon users worry about light, composition and beauty.



I know a guy who owns a nikon and he worries about light, composition and beauty.


----------



## baturn (Jan 26, 2015)

runnah said:


> Nikon users worry about numbers, Canon users worry about light, composition and beauty.


Nikon users have no need to worry about anything. That's what scene modes are for.


----------



## goodguy (Jan 26, 2015)

baturn said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon users worry about numbers, Canon users worry about light, composition and beauty.
> ...


You mean that's what Sony sensors are for......yeap that keeps me warm at night and grain free in low light conditions


----------



## gsgary (Jan 27, 2015)

goodguy said:


> baturn said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...


You use film in your Nikon dslr ?


----------



## Buckster (Jan 27, 2015)

When people can look at the finished photos and identify the brand of camera they were shot with, WITHOUT that brand information being given to them or otherwise discerned via EXIF or any other means, then it will be a question worth asking.


----------



## petrochemist (Jan 27, 2015)

Overread said:


> Things like the sensor tech are also short term - 5 years or so ago Canon was totally ruling the roost sensor wise - now its Sony (Nikon uses sony sensors and Sony have sunk something like 5 times the R&D money into sensors than the others just because they wanted in on the market so had to come to the table with something outstanding to get a foot in) in a few years it could be Pentax!


 
Pentax also use Sony sensors, and from reports I've heard their agreement with Sony restricts them to sensors 2 years old or more. They have on occasion managed to eeke a little bit more out of the sensors than Sony or Nikon did.


----------



## goodguy (Jan 27, 2015)

petrochemist said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > Things like the sensor tech are also short term - 5 years or so ago Canon was totally ruling the roost sensor wise - now its Sony (Nikon uses sony sensors and Sony have sunk something like 5 times the R&D money into sensors than the others just because they wanted in on the market so had to come to the table with something outstanding to get a foot in) in a few years it could be Pentax!
> ...


Dont know about that 2 year thing but Pentax makes excellent cameras, I do wish they will start making FF cameras!
It will be nice to have a fourth option and not just Nikon, Canon and Sony.
The more competition the better it is for us users/customers.


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Jan 28, 2015)

Buckster said:


> When people can look at the finished photos and identify the brand of camera they were shot with, WITHOUT that brand information being given to them or otherwise discerned via EXIF or any other means, then it will be a question worth asking.



You actually can, greens appear very differently between Nikon and Canon. It's not hard to spot on unedited images between the higher end models.


----------



## runnah (Jan 28, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > When people can look at the finished photos and identify the brand of camera they were shot with, WITHOUT that brand information being given to them or otherwise discerned via EXIF or any other means, then it will be a question worth asking.
> ...



Poppycock.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 28, 2015)

yeah, you just look for the one lacking any DR/recovery, or noise at low ISO.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 28, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > When people can look at the finished photos and identify the brand of camera they were shot with, WITHOUT that brand information being given to them or otherwise discerned via EXIF or any other means, then it will be a question worth asking.
> ...


Smells like a giant load of BS to me.

1st, who would be showing unedited "FINISHED" images, especially if they're using a higher end model?  

2nd, how would you know what hue and luminosity the real-life green was to begin with, in order to discern what the camera may have done to it, let alone what post processing may have done to it?

Back to reality: Show me the people who look at random images printed or online who can pick out the Nikons from the Canons just by viewing the photos.


----------



## waday (Jan 28, 2015)




----------



## W.Y.Photo (Jan 28, 2015)

Buckster said:


> W.Y.Photo said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...




1st off I'm in no way saying that the difference is important or even very noticable.. Just that it is discernible.

1. Well, noone in their right mind, and that's why it doesn't really matter.

2. For anyone who wants to know, all that matters to discern the difference is that the tone of the green in two identical images from a Nikon and a Canon tends to appear darker and more subdued from the Canon (I could have this mixed up it may be the other way around) This is a very slight variation but will appear time and time again if you reproduce the experiment.

So, it is nearly impossible to tell once the image has been processed, but the difference is still a fairly important factor as it is comparable to the differences of color reproduction on film.. The aesthetic of each camera may work better for different sorts of shots, and the RAW data from the greens can slightly affect the way you can process the image. (But in a negligable amount)

So you're right, post processing basically makes that whole variation of color a mute point.

I'd also like to correct myself.. I said they appear very differently, I was being dramatic, they only look slightly different.

I just wanted to throw one technical difference between the two cameras in here.


----------



## runnah (Jan 28, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > W.Y.Photo said:
> ...



Balderdash!

I've heard Canon does reds "better" but that is such a subjective, non-quantifiable statement that it holds no water with me.


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Jan 28, 2015)

Well, It's just what I was taught about the difference back in school. I think some technician ran a bunch of experiments on it after hearing that the camera's sensors interpret greens differently. I remember seeing color charts and whatnot showing that the green of grass was aesthetically different depending on which camera you use.

I agree. The statement that one or the other makes "better" color based of of slight variations is subjective and quite honestly ridiculous due to the camera's ranges of colors that they portray being virtually identical. I do think it's good to consider the differences if you are, say, shooting green objects against a green backdrop or working heavily with the color that shows variation from camera to camera.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 28, 2015)

Braineack said:


> yeah, you just look for the one lacking any DR/recovery, or noise at low ISO.


And you can tell it's the plastic look of Nikon shots


----------



## gsgary (Jan 28, 2015)

Years ago when I shot my 1Dmk1 and then 1Dmk2 you could tell which sports shot were Nikon especially with grass sports


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Jan 28, 2015)

I can tell the Nikon look in my images because pffft... who'd wanna shoot with Canon?


----------



## goodguy (Jan 28, 2015)

Braineack said:


> yeah, you just look for the one lacking any DR/recovery, or noise at low ISO.



What ?
You want to tell me Nikon cameras has sensors which can produce photos with much better Dynamic Range/Recovery and are much cleaner in high ISO?
Wow, I didnt know that, YAY to Nikon  LOL


----------



## gsgary (Jan 28, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> I can tell the Nikon look in my images because pffft... who'd wanna shoot with Canon?


Not me I shoot with Leica and Sony


----------



## runnah (Jan 28, 2015)

gsgary said:


> W.Y.Photo said:
> 
> 
> > I can tell the Nikon look in my images because pffft... who'd wanna shoot with Canon?
> ...



Never heard of them, any good?


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Jan 28, 2015)

runnah said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > W.Y.Photo said:
> ...



I heard they were made with the Canon and Nikon parts that got discarded at the factory.. Probably no good. Plus Sony almost got us Nuked by that Korean rap star Kimmy-Jong-ILL.


----------



## snerd (Jan 28, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> (I could have this mixed up it may be the other way around)


So, basically, you're not sure what you're even talking about?! Lol!!!


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## gsgary (Jan 28, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


How come they are beautiful and Canon and Nikon cameras are ugly


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Jan 28, 2015)

snerd said:


> W.Y.Photo said:
> 
> 
> > (I could have this mixed up it may be the other way around)
> ...



No. Just that I don't recall whether Canon or Nikon had the darker more subdued looking green.




gsgary said:


> W.Y.Photo said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



Because, They have better makeup artists.


----------



## snerd (Jan 28, 2015)

I couldn't resist the jab, sorry. Nothing personal.


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Jan 28, 2015)

snerd said:


> I couldn't resist the jab, sorry. Nothing personal.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk Pro



Is okay. I still loves you.  hahah


----------



## Designer (Jan 28, 2015)

goodguy said:


> BananaRepublic said:
> 
> 
> > Comparing Nikon to Canon is like comparing Toyota to Honda.
> ...


Then your camera should be a Leica.
A diesel-powered Leica.
With one lens.
That you can drop off a 30-story building and then take a picture of the crack it made in the sidewalk.


----------



## runnah (Jan 28, 2015)

gsgary said:


> How come they are beautiful and Canon and Nikon cameras are ugly



Because they know that Canon/Nikon users are fickle camera fondlers who will trade up as some as the next camera with one more FPS comes out. Leica owners buy a camera to last many years, so build quality and aesthetics matter.

Sony is just in their own little world.


----------



## Designer (Jan 28, 2015)

baturn said:


> Nikon users have no need to worry about anything. That's what scene modes are for.


Ooooo....  Score!
Are we keeping track of who's ahead here?


----------



## snerd (Jan 28, 2015)

Designer said:


> baturn said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon users have no need to worry about anything. That's what scene modes are for.
> ...


Canon 100  -  Nikon 0

I have that right?!



Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## goodguy (Jan 28, 2015)

snerd said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > baturn said:
> ...


Ahhh well lets see
Canon 70D has AF issues
Canon 7D II has AF issues
Canon has poor DR and not very impressive low light performance.

Nikon had D600 issues- Resolved
Nikon has D750 flare issue - Resolved

Canon 100 ?
Yep keep telling yourself that


----------



## snerd (Jan 28, 2015)

The 70D? Haven't heard about that one. Sigh......


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## goodguy (Jan 28, 2015)

snerd said:


> The 70D? Haven't heard about that one. Sigh......
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## snerd (Jan 28, 2015)

Will watch later, not very good reception out here. BUT.................. I see that internal hard drive in a dock!!! I've been reading a lot about this being a good backup solution because they're so fast! I'm leaning towards this I think. 


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Jan 28, 2015)

Nikons have shutter speed AND aperture dials. Win.


----------



## Life (Jan 29, 2015)

mikoh4792 said:


> These stereotypes of each brand are just those I gathered through internet research. I'm not saying I take these seriously, but I think it'd be interesting to see what your thoughts are regarding these points.
> 
> *Canon*
> - Better lenses than Nikon
> ...


That's funny because i've heard the exact same thing BACKWARDS.  Nikon has better lenses, better quality, best service. not saying it's true, but that's what i've heard lol. Honestly I think it's kind of sad " Nikon is better, Canon is better " blabla it's all nonesense. It depends what you're doing what you want to pay and what you like. As for me, I shut down canon when I bought my first DSLR. Canon Rebel T3 or Nikon D3100. You hold the T3, it feels cheap, and like itll break easy if you bump it. Looks bad, no texture or anything, just plain simple cheap plastic. Nikon D3100, Solid feel, looks great, very tough, textured just as well as all the other Nikons. All around probably the best cheapo DSLR you can get. Based on that experience I took Nikon have always preferred the Nikons over Canon. I've read that Nikon has never used plastic in their lenses, Canon has. My conclusion is that Canon doesn't give a rats on the Cheap low end products they have but rather dump everything on the high end. Nikon treats all their products like no matter the price you get the quality that comes with Nikon. I don't know, to me Nikon is Superior IN MY OPINION, it's just what I like and the same goes for every Nikon or Canon shooter. We all shoot what works best for us and what we want to be. The Nikon D7100 is pretty much the best DSLR you can get now under $1000. It's been rated and reviewed the money you pay for that camera no one is touching it. My 2 cents. 

Oh and i've found some Canons are made in China. Find a Nikon made in China


----------



## Buckster (Jan 29, 2015)

Oh, the fun of jokingly bashing other people through their camera choices, eh?!  LOL!  What a knee-slapper that is, every time, time after time...  

But, those who actually think one brand is better than the others should prove it with their PHOTOS, put up against the best photos made by those who shoot with other brands, because THAT'S where it really counts.

Here's a clue: The very best photos out there are being made with every camera brand that exists.  Give the "best" camera made by the "best" company to someone who can't shoot worth a crap, and that camera brand ain't worth spit on a sidewalk.

Rubber, meet road.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 29, 2015)

thats not as fun.


----------



## Overread (Jan 29, 2015)

Darn it Buck don't take it serious!! Cause I think  we got a rule against that in this kinda thread that means I have to lock it


----------



## goodguy (Jan 29, 2015)

Overread said:


> Darn it Buck don't take it serious!! Cause I think  we got a rule against that in this kinda thread that means I have to lock it


So before you lock it lets just sun it all up.......................

Ok children what did we learn here

1.Canon has lots of QC issues (but its all under the radar and Canon fanboys refuse to acknowledge it)
2.Nikon has very few QC issues and its very quick to fix them
3.Nikon has superior sensors
4.Canon users are good looking
5.Nikon users are the better skilled photographers (ok I made that one up)

Did I miss anything ?


----------



## Buckster (Jan 29, 2015)

Overread said:


> Darn it Buck don't take it serious!! Cause I think  we got a rule against that in this kinda thread that means I have to lock it


Good thing you pulled me out for a warning!  I was about to start making posts that look serious, like new member Life did!

Time for me to get back in line and shut up!


----------



## Buckster (Jan 29, 2015)

goodguy said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > Darn it Buck don't take it serious!! Cause I think  we got a rule against that in this kinda thread that means I have to lock it
> ...


Please stop, or a staff member will feel it necessary to slap me around again!


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 29, 2015)

goodguy said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > Darn it Buck don't take it serious!! Cause I think  we got a rule against that in this kinda thread that means I have to lock it
> ...


Pentax RULES !!

oh, nevermind. It's Canon v Nikon in this thread.
But if you look at the charts Samsung is gaining market share where everyone else (except Apple) is losing market share.  I've been contently searching the web but I cannot find an Apple dSLR to upgrade to.


----------



## goodguy (Jan 29, 2015)

Samsung cameras ?

Nah, if I would go mirrorless route I would get a Sony, if they would have a good comprehensive lens collection they just might be showing Samsung who rules the mirrorless market.


----------



## Overread (Jan 29, 2015)

Buckster said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > Darn it Buck don't take it serious!! Cause I think  we got a rule against that in this kinda thread that means I have to lock it
> ...



Now now now now now now now that wasn't a warning - warnings come with big flashy banners and red text and lots of paperwork!


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 29, 2015)

Buckster said:


> But, those who actually think one brand is better than the others should prove it with their PHOTOS, put up against the best photos made by those who shoot with other brands, because THAT'S where it really counts.


  This bit ALWAYS gets ignored.

I know a few disliked Steve5d, but I remember him saying something like 'Show me your award winning picture from your superb dynamic range camera'.  I still have not seen it - yet.

Every non Sony sensored photo created prior to 2014 must really suck; right?


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 29, 2015)

This is so interesting to skim.

Any two sensor configurations are going to render colors slightly differently, sometimes substantially differently.

Building the Bayer array is a balancing act. The less color discrimination you build in, the more light you're letting through. Different engineers are going to make different tradeoffs. Colors one sensor can discriminate will render identically on another.

Is it subtle? Not really. Can you "correct" away all the differences? No, but you can get awful close, in general.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 29, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > But, those who actually think one brand is better than the others should prove it with their PHOTOS, put up against the best photos made by those who shoot with other brands, because THAT'S where it really counts.
> ...


I loved Steve5D! 
Every time there was a thread with some gear elitist ranting and raving about how you can't be a professional without a D800 or 5dIII, steve would roll in, his sole income being from photography, with his 5d classic.

Ah, good times.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 29, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...


 
Hope he is doing well.  May have to start a where's Steve5d thread


----------



## runnah (Jan 29, 2015)

I couldn't tell you what camera was used in any of my favorite photos. frankly it wouldn't make me like the photo any more or less.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 29, 2015)

runnah said:


> I couldn't tell you what camera was used in any of my favorite photos. frankly it wouldn't make me like the photo any more or less.


 
 The truth will set you free, or drive you nuts.


----------



## LifeORiley (Jan 29, 2015)

How can Canon or Nikon claim superiority when third party's are make the senors. It would be nice if one or the other would do so (if financially possible). As it stands, both are selling plastic boxes with _____________ (fill in the blank) sensors it it. 

As a Nikon owner - I own a Sony sensor with some Nikon plastic around it and a white stamp that says "Nikon". Nikon lenses are nice I guess.

Exclusivity has a certain amount cache to a customer base and as long as chips aren't made in-house ....then....

Just one opinion.....


----------



## runnah (Jan 29, 2015)

LifeORiley said:


> How can Canon or Nikon claim superiority when third party's are make the senors. It would be nice if one or the other would do so (if financially possible). As it stands, both are selling plastic boxes with _____________ (fill in the blank) sensors it it.
> 
> As a Nikon owner - I own a Sony sensor with some Nikon plastic around it and a white stamp that says "Nikon". Nikon lenses are nice I guess.
> 
> ...



Canon makes their own sensors fyi.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 29, 2015)

runnah said:


> LifeORiley said:
> 
> 
> > How can Canon or Nikon claim superiority when third party's are make the senors. It would be nice if one or the other would do so (if financially possible). As it stands, both are selling plastic boxes with _____________ (fill in the blank) sensors it it.
> ...


Maybe they should start letting Sony make them...you know,  get caught up with the rest of the class.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 29, 2015)

I just noticed something irrelevant, and now I can't stop thinking about it. What IS critical care?

"You call that a heartbeat? Get out of here and come back when you've got a proper heart!"
"Your electrolyte balance is wayyyy off here, pal. Totally unprofessional looking."
"The GSW is totally unbalanced on your torso, and the whole effect would be much stronger with a second up around.. here."


----------



## runnah (Jan 29, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> I just noticed something irrelevant, and now I can't stop thinking about it. What IS critical care?
> 
> "You call that a heartbeat? Get out of here and come back when you've got a proper heart!"
> "Your electrolyte balance is wayyyy off here, pal. Totally unprofessional looking."
> "The GSW is totally unbalanced on your torso, and the whole effect would be much stronger with a second up around.. here."



He shows up to scenes where the best tool for the job is a squeegee and a bucket.

Being how it's Florida most often there is method and alligators involved.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 29, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> I just noticed something irrelevant, and now I can't stop thinking about it. What IS critical care?
> 
> "You call that a heartbeat? Get out of here and come back when you've got a proper heart!"
> "Your electrolyte balance is wayyyy off here, pal. Totally unprofessional looking."
> "The GSW is totally unbalanced on your torso, and the whole effect would be much stronger with a second up around.. here."


For the company I work for,  a small group of Medics are sent to University of Maryland at BC's 125 hour critical care course for RN's  and Paramedics.
Aside from a more in depth review of cardiac and pulmonary  systems, it teaches respiratory theory for ventilator transports, sedation and pump management, balloon pump management, and a bunch of other ICU type protocols. After we are cleared by our preceptor, we carry an additional dozen drugs on our trucks as well as a ventilator.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 29, 2015)

runnah said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > I just noticed something irrelevant, and now I can't stop thinking about it. What IS critical care?
> ...


I get a LOT of cool narcotics to play with


----------



## mikoh4792 (Jan 30, 2015)

Wow I come back and there's already 9 pages! Just to make it clear, I am not being naive in asking whether the cameras of one company is better than the other. Just wondering if the pros/cons mentioned in the OP are true. Reading the comments, it seems to be a mish mash.


----------



## snerd (Jan 30, 2015)

mikoh4792 said:


> Wow I come back and there's already 9 pages! Just to make it clear, I am not being naive in asking whether the cameras of one company is better than the other. Just wondering if the pros/cons mentioned in the OP are true. Reading the comments, it seems to be a mish mash.


The Solution..................... go out and shoot photos! Don't get caught up in silly discussions of which is better or worse. There are a great many fantastic images from BOTH major brand leaders, but they were taken by "Active" shooters who are out in the field, not on an Internet forum swinging their bats.


----------



## 407370 (Jan 30, 2015)

mikoh4792 said:


> * I am not being naive in asking whether the cameras of one company is better than the other. *


Ah so you are a FUJI owner as well and make the reasonable assumption that at some point this Canon / Nikon thing will pass.


----------



## mikoh4792 (Jan 30, 2015)

407370 said:


> mikoh4792 said:
> 
> 
> > * I am not being naive in asking whether the cameras of one company is better than the other. *
> ...



I only own a nikon d7100. Don't know much about fuji.


----------



## greybeard (Jan 30, 2015)

snerd said:


> mikoh4792 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow I come back and there's already 9 pages! Just to make it clear, I am not being naive in asking whether the cameras of one company is better than the other. Just wondering if the pros/cons mentioned in the OP are true. Reading the comments, it seems to be a mish mash.
> ...


This thread is NOT to be taken seriously


----------



## KenC (Jan 30, 2015)

greybeard said:


> This thread is NOT to be taken seriously



Oh, say it ain't so!


----------



## Life (Jan 30, 2015)

I just like Nikons. That was my only point lol. Literal people...


----------



## mikoh4792 (Jan 30, 2015)

greybeard said:


> snerd said:
> 
> 
> > mikoh4792 said:
> ...


how come?


----------



## goodguy (Jan 30, 2015)

mikoh4792 said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > snerd said:
> ...


Because we are all silly here acting like 3 years olds 

Like a bunch of children in a sand box sitting in a circle taking our wee-wee out and comparing who's is bigger


----------



## Braineack (Jan 30, 2015)

mikoh4792 said:


> how come?



what benefit is there if this were to be a serious thread?

every stereotype can be proved and disproved.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 30, 2015)

goodguy said:


> mikoh4792 said:
> 
> 
> > greybeard said:
> ...



well, mine is obviously bigger....but that's besides the point. 

actually...what WAS the point?
was there one?


----------



## JTPhotography (Jan 30, 2015)

I have shot both, switched from Canon to Nikon, I'll sum this up so that no more posts need to be made. 

Lenses are equal in quality and selection except for....... Nikon has the 14-24 legend, Canon is coming out with a competitor but from what I've seen it is ridiculously expensive and no word on whether it can match the legend. Canon has better tilt shift options.

Ergonomics, very close, a matter of personal preference.

Some claim one AF system is better than the other, I have found that both are good and it has more to do with experience and how you use them.

Canon live view is way better.

Nikon sensors destroy canon sensors at this time. Period.

Sony has good sensors, but the lens selection is weak, and you will often find that sony users have a pathological hatred for Nikon. This is caused by extreme bitterness and jealousy.


----------



## JTPhotography (Jan 30, 2015)

Braineack said:


> mikoh4792 said:
> 
> 
> > how come?
> ...



Not true, can you show where canon sensors are proven to be better than Nikons?


----------



## goodguy (Jan 30, 2015)

JTPhotography said:


> Sony has good sensors, but the lens selection is weak, and you will often find that Sony users have a pathological hatred for Nikon. This is caused by extreme bitterness and jealousy.


Most Sony users are not Nikon haters but there are very few who hate Nikon with passion but that's ok, I love Sony and LOVE their sensors.

Thank you Sony for making such an awesome sensor for my D750


----------



## gsgary (Jan 30, 2015)

JTPhotography said:


> I have shot both, switched from Canon to Nikon, I'll sum this up so that no more posts need to be made.
> 
> Lenses are equal in quality and selection except for....... Nikon has the 14-24 legend, Canon is coming out with a competitor but from what I've seen it is ridiculously expensive and no word on whether it can match the legend. Canon has better tilt shift options.
> 
> ...


Not me I feel sorry for Nikon users always thinking their cameras are superior,  do a search and see how many ask for a holiday camera because they can't carry it round all day [emoji3]


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 30, 2015)

gsgary said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > I have shot both, switched from Canon to Nikon, I'll sum this up so that no more posts need to be made.
> ...




i feel sorry for people that buy horrendously expensive film cameras that take pretty  much the same quality photos as cameras a quarter of the price, or could go medium format for far less and get better quality... but hey, someone has to buy the nikons and leicas right?


----------



## Life (Jan 30, 2015)

gsgary said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > I have shot both, switched from Canon to Nikon, I'll sum this up so that no more posts need to be made.
> ...


What? The. Hell? This thread is still at the UN serious stage right??


----------



## gsgary (Jan 30, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > JTPhotography said:
> ...


I also shoot MF


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 30, 2015)

gsgary said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


In my opinion, it's the only film worth shooting.  That's just me tho.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 30, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...


35mm is great, I can shoot on the streets faster with my Leica than any digital


----------



## Life (Jan 30, 2015)

gsgary said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


Yes, how many times? 20 Pictures then you're DONE lol! Hmmm Film roll or 64GB SD...?


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 30, 2015)

gsgary said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


I only do portraits so....
Speed isn't really my thing.
I'm more about finesse.
As for street,  I don't know why you need a fast camera....my street doesn't move so I can pretty much photograph it at my leasure.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Jan 30, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...


The only film worth shooting is 8x10.         Unfortunately I"m not worthy.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 30, 2015)

Life said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...


What sort of rolls have you used ? Mine have 36 and as Garry Winnogrand said there are no photos when I change films


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 30, 2015)

It's more like 36 or 38 before Gary's suffering ends. Or at least takes a break.


----------



## Overread (Jan 30, 2015)

gsgary said:


> there are no photos when I change films



That sounds exactly like a Ken Rockwell quote!


----------



## snerd (Jan 30, 2015)

Here's a post without all the quotes! Nikon sucks, Canon sucks, Leica sucks, Sony sucks. We live in terrible times for photographers.  :-(


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Life (Jan 30, 2015)

Not Ken Rockwell...


----------



## Life (Jan 30, 2015)

Yeah 36 Pictures... 20 Of which will be thrown away for bad composition or lighting or out of focus. WIth those  20 pictures goes another $5 in film... How much does a roll cost you? How much money are you throwing away by taking pictures for the joy of it? It's not about " needing " a digital camera, it's about the only thing happening when you take a picture is you reduce the life of that camera per picture. The camera will last 1 picture less each time you take a new one. Makes sense..?


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 30, 2015)

Gary doesn't even put film in the camera. He just uses the Leica to get chicks.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 30, 2015)

Life said:


> Yeah 36 Pictures... 20 Of which will be thrown away for bad composition or lighting or out of focus. WIth those  20 pictures goes another $5 in film... How much does a roll cost you? How much money are you throwing away by taking pictures for the joy of it? It's not about " needing " a digital camera, it's about the only thing happening when you take a picture is you reduce the life of that camera per picture. The camera will last 1 picture less each time you take a new one. Makes sense..?


20 are not thrown away I don't shoot like digital shooters, my last 300 feet of film cost £65 so that is about £1.50 a roll, I never have to upgrade my cameras so it is probably cheaper and I know it is more satisfying especially when I go in my darkroom and make a print


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 30, 2015)

gsgary said:


> Life said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah 36 Pictures... 20 Of which will be thrown away for bad composition or lighting or out of focus. WIth those  20 pictures goes another $5 in film... How much does a roll cost you? How much money are you throwing away by taking pictures for the joy of it? It's not about " needing " a digital camera, it's about the only thing happening when you take a picture is you reduce the life of that camera per picture. The camera will last 1 picture less each time you take a new one. Makes sense..?
> ...



I think its the fumes that are satisfying.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 30, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> Gary doesn't even put film in the camera. He just uses the Leica to get chicks.


I get a lot more people asking me about my cameras when I'm out, the funniest thing I get asked is "can you still get film"


----------



## Life (Jan 30, 2015)

gsgary said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > Gary doesn't even put film in the camera. He just uses the Leica to get chicks.
> ...


Yeah, because it's the same shock/response as seeing a dinosaur that died 10 thousand years ago. " That still exsists?!"


----------



## gsgary (Jan 30, 2015)

Life said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > photoguy99 said:
> ...


Rubbish film is getting very popular, there are still 10 in our club


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 30, 2015)

gsgary said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > Gary doesn't even put film in the camera. He just uses the Leica to get chicks.
> ...



you should totally tell them no. 
nope. they haven't made film in years. 
i just do this out of muscle memory.


----------



## Life (Jan 30, 2015)

gsgary said:


> Life said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


Getting popular? Lol! Sorry mate didn't notice you were from the UK, it's understandable why you wouldn't want to walk around with a Neeekon...   10 Film in your club. 90 Digital?  Nothing wrong with shooting Film, don't get me wrong. But to say it would be better than digital ( Any new decent DSLR really.. ) is quite insane...


----------



## gsgary (Jan 30, 2015)

Life said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Life said:
> ...


No 30 something


----------



## gsgary (Jan 30, 2015)

Life said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Life said:
> ...



I like the look of it better, is this film or digital (without looking)


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 30, 2015)

It's digital NOW.


----------



## Life (Jan 30, 2015)

That looks like a cell phone picture lol.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 30, 2015)

Life said:


> That looks like a cell phone picture lol.


like most here https://500px.com/benjamin-holt:allteeth:


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 30, 2015)

If it was digital initially, the highlights are very well handled for digital.


----------



## Life (Jan 30, 2015)

gsgary said:


> Life said:
> 
> 
> > That looks like a cell phone picture lol.
> ...


Ha sure. I always knew brits were assholes but damn


----------



## gsgary (Jan 30, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> If it was digital initially, the highlights are very well handled for digital.


Slide film


----------



## gsgary (Jan 30, 2015)

Life said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Life said:
> ...


None bigger than me, i'll take a photo of it later we i'm drunk


----------



## runnah (Jan 30, 2015)

Sony is the only one that makes stereo types.


----------



## snerd (Jan 30, 2015)

runnah said:


> Sony is the only one that makes stereo types.


Oh! Boo on the bad pun I say boo. 


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Jan 30, 2015)

Life said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Life said:
> ...



I'm pretty freaking Insane then..
Medium format still outperforms any digital camera.
A good 4x5 film sheet can be considered the equivalent of a 150-250 megapixel sensor with a higher dynamic range than any digital sensor is yet capable of.


And I don't even shoot film anymore..


----------



## limr (Jan 30, 2015)

Twelve pages of this, eh?

Relax, fellas, I'm sure all of your penises look pretty much the same.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 30, 2015)

limr said:


> Twelve pages of this, eh?
> 
> Relax, fellas, I'm sure all of your penises look pretty much the same.


Wouldn't you like to know...

using tapatalk.


----------



## limr (Jan 30, 2015)

Braineack said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Twelve pages of this, eh?
> ...



Penis envy is a myth.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 30, 2015)

Mine is 12 inches but I don't use it as a rule


----------



## Life (Jan 30, 2015)

Lmao.


----------



## that1guy (Jan 30, 2015)

Personally I shot without both. They're both good cameras. I started with Nikon and then bought a canon. Ultimately I ended up going with canon.

Reasons

Nikon menu systems to me was so confusing I felt there were menus inside menus (menuception) the display menu was as easy to control. These are all technic issues I'm sure if I stood with Nikon it would have gotten easier.

Canon menus easy to navigate simple and straight forward 

Canon lenses when I looked up where slightly cheaper.

Both image quality were great nothing bad about them. But small little things I like swayed me over to canon.

I wonder if this was an on going debate back in the film days...


----------



## goodguy (Jan 30, 2015)

that1guy said:


> I wonder if this was an on going debate back in the film days...


Hmmmm film days, I think this is when Canon designed their current Canon sensors, yep back then they were "all the rage" but today they are just behind!


----------



## JTPhotography (Jan 30, 2015)

that1guy said:


> Both image quality were great nothing bad about them. But small little things I like swayed me over to canon....



Explain please.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 30, 2015)

JTPhotography said:


> that1guy said:
> 
> 
> > Both image quality were great nothing bad about them. But small little things I like swayed me over to canon....
> ...


He don't care what you want. You should nikon. You don't count.


----------



## limr (Jan 30, 2015)

Aww, someone doth protest too much.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 30, 2015)

limr said:


> Twelve pages of this, eh?
> 
> Relax, fellas, I'm sure all of your penises look pretty much the same.




yea...pretty much after the first dozen or so.


----------



## runnah (Jan 30, 2015)

limr said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



Just like the female orgasm?


----------



## bribrius (Jan 30, 2015)

WELL ........this thread seems to have been hijacked to a new low......


geez. Good thing we have mods...


----------



## limr (Jan 30, 2015)

bribrius said:


> WELL ........this thread seems to have been hijacked to a new low......
> 
> 
> geez. Good thing we have mods...



Because it was so lofty before?


----------



## limr (Jan 30, 2015)

runnah said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...



Like I would let you know!


----------



## runnah (Jan 30, 2015)

limr said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



Dammit! I can't even find anything on the Internet either.


----------



## snerd (Jan 30, 2015)

Lol @ lofty thread!!


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## runnah (Jan 30, 2015)

bribrius said:


> WELL ........this thread seems to have been hijacked to a new low......
> 
> 
> geez. Good thing we have mods...



I am off on Friday nights.


----------



## mikoh4792 (Jan 30, 2015)

snerd said:


> Here's a post without all the quotes! Nikon sucks, Canon sucks, Leica sucks, Sony sucks. We live in terrible times for photographers.  :-(
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk Pro



Best comment yet! We'll need to wait at least a decade until digital cameras become good.


----------



## Overread (Jan 31, 2015)

The out-takes at the very end - very very funny!


----------



## Seventen (Jan 31, 2015)

Scatterbrained said:


> Personally, I can't stand the ergos and menu system in a Nikon,



I am the other way round here, when I went on the search for my dSLR I already had some Nikon cameras in mind but once in the shop I was open minded to go with Canon and Nikon until I was looking through the menus I felt so lost with Canon and really hated the menu system I had to go with Nikon. Every one else I know has Canon would have been a better move as for borrowing lenses but even now when I am asked to help a friend out with taking some pictures with there Canon I go mad with how unclear it is.


----------



## goodguy (Jan 31, 2015)

Seventen said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I can't stand the ergos and menu system in a Nikon,
> ...


And you get the vastly superior sensor with Nikon so its a double whammy


----------



## chuasam (Jan 31, 2015)

In my city, nikon shooter knows that there is a service centre nearby and hence faster repairs. Nikon also offers better warranty in Canada. Canon shooters probably just like canon.


----------



## Fudd (Jan 31, 2015)

Both offer excellent equipment to work with.
I'm currently using Nikon because of the reviews I've read.


----------



## snerd (Jan 31, 2015)

goodguy said:


> And you get the vastly superior sensor with Nikon so its a double whammy


I was under the impression that a double-whammy was a very bad thing?!


----------



## goodguy (Jan 31, 2015)

snerd said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > And you get the vastly superior sensor with Nikon so its a double whammy
> ...


Maybe, English is my second language, I though that means double good


----------



## snerd (Jan 31, 2015)

goodguy said:


> snerd said:
> 
> 
> > goodguy said:
> ...


No, no one wants the whammy!!









It was a game show on years ago.


----------



## goodguy (Jan 31, 2015)

snerd said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > snerd said:
> ...


Oh didn't know that, my childhood wasn't spent in North America.
There was a character in the movie The Anchorman, I think he used to say "Whammy" all the time.
Funny as hell


----------



## limr (Jan 31, 2015)

Oh my goodness, I remember the Whammy! Blast from the past.


----------



## CanonFob (Feb 3, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > LifeORiley said:
> ...


I just read somewhere tonight.......Canon is working on using Sony sensors.


----------



## goodguy (Feb 3, 2015)

CanonFob said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...


From what I know it is already using Sony sensor on the G7X, same sensor they have on the Sony RX100 III


----------

