# Canon or Nikon?



## mrshaleyberg

So I would really appreciate some input on this. I currently use a Nikon d60. This was my starter camera. I was looking into getting a D300, but then I started looking at canons. 

  I love my Nikon, but the D300 is a 12.3 MP when a Canon 7D is 18 MP. The price for a body is around the same. With Nikon are you basically paying this much for the name? Why are they the same price, when one has WAY higher MP? I don't get it. It's almost making me want to switch to Canon. Especially before I start buying a bunch of lenses to use with my Nikon.

  What would some of you suggest?


----------



## o hey tyler

Mega pixels aren't everything. And neither is brand name. Both Canon and Nikon's are good. Although, I feel that Nikon's have a lot of AF issues, as not all of their bodies have internal motors. That's the main reason I stayed away from them. Because in the event that I want to use auto focus, I want it to work with all of my lenses.


----------



## invisible

If you're planning on making giant prints of your photos, then having 18 MP would be of real help. Otherwise, 12 MP (be it the D300 or any other camera) would be more than enough. In addition, working with 18 MP files means the need for extra memory cards and hard drive space, and also slower Photoshop performance (depending on your computer, of course).

That being said, I don't think you can go wrong with either camera. I had a D300 and loved it (and would recommend it any day of the week), and I understand that the 7D is a hell of a camera as well.


----------



## subscuck

mrshaleyberg said:


> What would some of you suggest?


  That you stop paying attention to MPixels. MP's are more about max print size than anything. You actually run into the law of diminishing returns when you cram too many MP's on a sensor. You will start loosing resolution when your pixels get smaller and smaller. If you're happy with Nikon, stick with it. I shoot Canon and I'm heavily invested in Canon glass, so for me, a change would be expensive. Try handling both, and make the decision on how they feel in your hands. If you've invested some money in Nikon glass already, maybe best to stay where you are. Either are great cameras.


----------



## CharlieGarrison

I am not familiar with the Nikon cameras. I own a 7D and went from a 20D to a 7D because I had already invested in the lenses and accesories. I wouldn't worry about the MP numbers. I think this is kind of a brainwash developed by the marketing people. I would worry more about the quality of the sensor and the noise levels at the higher iso settings. 

You are basically buying into a system. So if you have a bunch of Nikon gear, I would stick with Nikon if you don't have any gear except the body and kit lens then now might be a good time to make a switch if that's what you decide to do. 

I have heard that the 7D does a better job with the video than the d300. Again I don't have any experience with the Nikon stuff this is just what I have heard from the reviews. 

I don't know if that helps but that is what I have come to learn over that last couple of months of research.


----------



## invisible

o hey tyler said:


> Although, I feel that Nikon's have a lot of AF issues, as not all of their bodies have internal motors. That's the main reason I stayed away from them. Because in the event that I want to use auto focus, I want it to work with all of my lenses.


The above would only apply to a handful of entry-level Nikon cameras. The D300 is a semi-professional camera that can autofocus (and meter) with virtually every Nikon lens ever made (except those ancient ones with "ears"), and also every third-party lens including those that don't have a built-in motor.


----------



## oldmacman

I've found that once you get into one boat, it's not really worth switching. As you upgrade bodies, you still have a ton of lenses and accessories that go along as you upgrade. If you jump ship, you have to try and unload all your gear. How much do you have invested in the Nikon side?

It has been said many times in the threads, it is not so much the camera, but the photographer. As for big prints, I posted a couple of weeks ago that my wife still uses a 6 year old Panasonic P&S. She has taken some amazing pictures and even though it is only a 6 MP camera, we have printed 16x20s and 20x30s with her captures.

(canon guy, btw).


----------



## Restomage

It's a marketing strategy Canon uses to noobs because most consumers look at megapixels when shopping for a camera and automatically think the higher the megapixels, the better deal they are getting and the quality is going to be way better. 

You would be much better off with Nikon, there's a reason Nikon has proven itself to be a better system than Canon over the past 3 years.


----------



## Petraio Prime

mrshaleyberg said:


> So I would really appreciate some input on this. I currently use a Nikon d60. This was my starter camera. I was looking into getting a D300, but then I started looking at canons.
> 
> I love my Nikon, but the D300 is a 12.3 MP when a Canon 7D is 18 MP. The price for a body is around the same. With Nikon are you basically paying this much for the name? Why are they the same price, when one has WAY higher MP? I don't get it. It's almost making me want to switch to Canon. Especially before I start buying a bunch of lenses to use with my Nikon.
> 
> What would some of you suggest?



The only thing I can say is that Canon started from scratch with autofocus cameras and lenses in the late 80s, whereas Nikon chose to maintain backward compatibility. Both approaches have consequences. Overall, though I own _neither_, (I use manual Leicaflex cameras, lenses, and film) I would lean toward Canon *if I were starting from scratch *for the reason that the whole system is more coherent, though both are currently rapidly evolving.


----------



## oldmacman

Restomage said:


> You would be much better off with Nikon, there's a reason Nikon has proven itself to be a better system than Canon over the past 3 years.



What's the reason? Excuse my ignorance.


----------



## Neil S.

Restomage said:


> It's a marketing strategy Canon uses to noobs because most consumers look at megapixels when shopping for a camera and automatically think the higher the megapixels, the better deal they are getting and the quality is going to be way better.


 
This is not true, and your reasoning is flawed. :thumbdown:

I own the 7D, and I assure you the megapixels that it has are very real. Its not some gimmick or "a marketing strategy for noobs" as you put it.

I noticed a massive increase in resolution from my 30D. I can now crop way tighter and still maintain good resolution. This is all very real, trust me.

Its like saying that a Corvette has a big high horsepower V8 so "noobs will just look at the horsepower numbers" when shopping for a car.

Does a 7D not have the full 18 megapixels of resolution?

Does a Corvette not have a high performance V8?

Is the Nikon D3x 24 megapixels just "a marketing strategy for noobs" as well?

I like Nikon also, not only Canon.

I am not going to try to downplay what their cameras are, and what the company has accomplished like your doing with Canon.


----------



## o hey tyler

Restomage said:


> It's a marketing strategy Canon uses to noobs because most consumers look at megapixels when shopping for a camera and automatically think the higher the megapixels, the better deal they are getting and the quality is going to be way better.
> 
> You would be much better off with Nikon, there's a reason Nikon has proven itself to be a better system than Canon over the past 3 years.



Get over yourself. 

Nikon has it's share of flaws whether you choose to recognize them or not. Want autofocus? Better have a Nikon body with an integrated motor.


----------



## mrshaleyberg

I guess I could go test out a canon and see what it's like. I really do like nikon, but I talked to this photographer that uses a canon 7D and she said canon handles noise better? I don't know..I may just stick with getting my D300 and call it a deal. I have already invested some money in "glass" and like some of you have mentioned, it would get a little expensive switching everything to canon. Either way, both brands crank out some nice looking photos.


----------



## KmH

Generally speaking, better dynamic range, color sensitivity, high ISO performance.

All Nikon dSLRs (including the entry-level bodies) have color-aware metering while the only Canon dSLR's that do are the 7D and the 1D MKIV.

For the OP: DxOMark - Compare sensors

It's pretty much a toss-up, *but* you'll need to use Canon's pro glass to realize all the 7D has to offer, since it's one of the few dSLR's that have an image sensor that out generally resolves the glass available for it.


----------



## mrshaleyberg

Oh and yes..I don't really like how nikon has the motor thing going on. If I would have known that the next step up from the D60 had a built in motor, I would have spent the extra money to get a D90..Instead I had to buy a 50mm lens for almost 500 dollars!


----------



## Petraio Prime

mrshaleyberg said:


> Oh and yes..I don't really like how nikon has the motor thing going on. If I would have known that the next step up from the D60 had a built in motor, I would have spent the extra money to get a D90..Instead I had to buy a 50mm lens for almost 500 dollars!



This was what I was referring to, about the Canon system being designed from the ground-up as an autofocus system. The Nikon system has a sort of Jerry-rigged approach.


----------



## Neil S.

mrshaleyberg said:


> I guess I could go test out a canon and see what it's like. I really do like nikon, but I talked to this photographer that uses a canon 7D and she said canon handles noise better? I don't know..I may just stick with getting my D300 and call it a deal. I have already invested some money in "glass" and like some of you have mentioned, it would get a little expensive switching everything to canon. Either way, both brands crank out some nice looking photos.


 
If you have much money invested in Nikon glass I wouldn't switch.

The two companies are very close overall, that is a fact.

The proof is the endless "Nikon vs. Canon" threads like this one here. If it wasn't close it wouldnt be much of a debate.


----------



## Neil S.

KmH said:


> Generally speaking, better dynamic range, color sensitivity, high ISO performance.
> 
> All Nikon dSLRs (including the entry-level bodies) have color-aware metering while the only Canon dSLR's that do are the 7D and the 1D MKIV.
> 
> For the OP: DxOMark - Compare sensors
> 
> It's pretty much a toss-up, *but* you'll need to use Canon's pro glass to realize all the 7D has to offer, since it's one of the few dSLR's that have an image sensor that out generally resolves the glass available for it.


 
I have to agree with this last part.

My 7d is very hungry for good glass, and so far I am feeding it pretty well. :mrgreen:


----------



## Derrel

Don't buy beginner Nikon cameras like the D3000 or D5000 and expect to use dedicated, professional, prime lenses like the 85,105,135,180mm primes or the old-school wide-angle primes...if you want a NIKON, buy a NIKON, like a D90, D300s, D700, or D3s. Problem solved.

If you want more megapixels, Canon will deliver higher MP counts as long as consumers want higher MP counts. Even if it means that most of their consumer lenses are not up to the task of imaging to a smaller, higher-density sensor. The higher MP count of say the 7D verus the D300s doesn't really show up much,since the higher MP count sensor pushes the lens's recording farther down on the MTF curve of every lens you mount, so the 7D ends up with lower color saturation and lower contrast that lower-density sensor camera from Canon,Sony,and Nikon...

The full-frame sensor cameras are till going to out-perform the crop-body cameras at elevated ISO settings...Currently Cano has no mid-line action/sports camera that's Full Frame that can compete with the D700 or D3s for sports/PJ/low-light work...with Canon the 5D series is crappy AF and average light metering,no flash,no flash commander, and 3.9 FPS, but good video...Nikon has the D700 with pro AF, fast speed, and pro features like flash commander and built-in flash for triggering slaves...

Nikon has better ergonomics in terms of AF point navigation, better AUTO ISO (Canon STILL will not create an AUTO ISO system that allows people to use it like Nikon or Pentax) setup, and Nikon has on balance, better light metering in more cameras, as well as the same,dedicated shutter and aperture controls in different camera modes--Canon;s yo-yo back and forth,back and forth, so the aperture and shutter controls shift back and forth between the front wheel and the back wheel, willy-nilly. The cameras are very different,ergonomically.


----------



## KmH

o hey tyler said:


> Nikon has it's share of flaws whether you choose to recognize them or not. Want autofocus? Better have a Nikon body with an integrated motor.


 So! None of Canon's cameras have a focus motor in them.
Canon screwed *all their customers* back in 1986 when they killed the FD mount in one fell swoop, and started only selling EOS (Electro Optical System) cameras without focus motors, and the EF-S lenses that have focus motors in them so Canon shooters can have AF.

The reason Nikon's least expensive cameras don't have focus motors is to make them small and compact, so they appeal to more women buyers.

Plus, the majority of Nikon lenses have focus motors in them (AF-S) and few entry level Nikon users aspire to the much more expensive mid-range AF lenses that require a focus motor in the body.

Here is the short list of lenses to choose from if you get a Nikon dSLR that doesn't have a focus motor in it:

*NIKON*


*Wide-Angle*

AF-S DX 10-24mm 1:3.5-4.5G ED 
AF-S DX 12-24mm 1:4G IF-ED
AF-S 14-24mm 1:2.8G IF-ED 
AF-S 17-35mm 1:2.8D IF-ED
*Mid-Range*

AF-S DX 16-85mm VR 1:3.5-5.6G IF-ED
AF-S DX 17-55mm 1:2.8G IF-ED 
AF-S DX 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6G ED
AF-S DX 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6G ED II
AF-S DX 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6G VR
AF-S DX 18-70mm 1:3.5-4.5G IF-ED
AF-S 24-70mm 1:2.8G IF-ED 
AF-S 24-85mm 1:3.5-4.5G IF-ED 
AF-S 24-120mm 1:3.5-5.6G VR IF-ED
AF-S 28-70mm 1:2.8D IF-ED 
AF-S DX 35mm 1:1.8G
AF-S 50mm 1:1.4G 
*Super-Zoom*

AF-S DX 18-105mm 1:3.5-5.6G ED VR
AF-S DX 18-135mm 1:3.5-5.6G IF-ED 
AF-S 18-200mm 1:3.5-5.6G DX VR IF-ED
AF-S 18-200mm 1:3.5-5.6G ED-IF VR DX II
*Telephoto*

AF-S DX 55-200mm 1:4-5.6G ED
AF-S DX 55-200mm 1:4-5.6G VR IF-ED
AF-S 70-200mm 1:2.8G VR IF-ED
AF-S 70-200 mm 1:2.8G ED VR II
AF-S 80-200mm 1:2.8D ED
AF-S 70-300mm 1:4.5-5.6G VR IF-ED
AF-S 200mm 1:2G VR IF-ED
AF-I 300mm 1:2.8D IF-ED 
AF-S 300mm 1:2.8D IF-ED II 
AF-S 300mm 1:2.8G VR IF-ED
AF-S 300mm 1:2,8G ED VR II
AF-S 300mm 1:4D IF-ED 
*Super-Telephoto*

AF-S 200-400mm 1:4G VR IF-ED
AF-I 400mm 1:2.8D IF-ED 
AF-S 400mm 1:2.8D IF-ED 
AF-S 400mm 1:2.8D IF-ED II 
AF-S 400mm 1:2.8G VR IF-ED
AF-I 500mm 1:4D IF-ED 
AF-S 500mm 1:4D IF-ED 
AF-S 500mm 1:4D IF-ED II 
AF-S 500mm 1:4G VR IF-ED
AF-I 600mm 1:4D IF-ED 
AF-S 600mm 1:4D IF-ED 
AF-S 600mm 1:4D IF-ED II 
AF-S 600mm 1:4G VR IF-ED
*Macro*

AF-S Micro 60mm 1:2.8G IF-ED 
AF-S Micro 105mm 1:2.8G VR IF-ED
AF-S DX Micro 85mm 1:3.5G ED VR
*Teleconverter*

AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III 
AF-S Teleconverter TC-14E II 
AF-S Teleconverter TC-17E II 
AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E II 
AF-I Teleconverter TC-14E 
AF-I Teleconverter TC-20E 
Nikon notes:
^ *a**b**c**d**e**f*  Will only mount original Nikon Nikkor AF-S and AF-I lenses (without modification). Not recommended for use with Nikkor DX lenses. 
*Sigma: 46 lenses*


*Fisheye*

4.5mm f/2.8 EX DC Circular Fisheye HSM
10mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM Diagonal fisheye
*Wide-Angle*

10-20mm 1:3.5 EX DC HSM 
10-20mm 1:4-5.6 EX DC HSM
12-24mm 1:4.5-5.6 EX DG ASPHERICAL HSM
14mm 1:2.8 EX HSM RF APO 
17-35mm 1:2.8-4 EX DG ASPHERICAL HSM 
*Mid-Range*

17-70mm 1:2.8-4.5 DC Macro HSM 
17-70mm 1:2.8-4.5 DC HSM "for Nikon Only" 
17-70mm 1:2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM
18-50mm 1:2.8 EX DC HSM MACRO
18-50mm 1:2.8 EX DC HSM "for Nikon only" 
18-50mm 1:2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM
18-50mm 1:3.5-5.6 DC HSM 
24-70mm 1:2.8 EX DG HSM 
30mm 1:1.4 EX DC HSM
50mm 1:1.4 EX DG HSM
*Super-Zoom*

18-125mm 1:3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM
18-200mm 1:3.5-6.3 DC 
18-200mm 1:3.5-6.3 DC OS
18-200mm 1:3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM
18-250mm 1:3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM
*Telephoto*

50-150mm 1:2.8 APO EX DC HSM 
50-150mm 1:2.8 APO II EX DC HSM 
50-200mm 1:4-5.6 DC OS HSM
55-200mm 1:4-5.6 DC HSM 
70-200mm 1:2.8 APO EX DG HSM MACRO 
70-300mm 1:4.0-5.6 DG 
70-300mm 1:4-5.6 DG MACRO "With Built-in Motor" 
70-300mm 1:4.0-5.6 DG APO Macro
70-300mm 1:4-5.6 DG OS
100-300mm 1:4 APO EX DG HSM 
120-300mm 1:2.8 APO EX DG HSM 
300mm 1:2.8 EX DG APO HSM 
*Super-Telephoto*

50-500mm 1:4-6.3 APO EX DG HSM 
80-400mm 1:4-5.6 EX OS
80-400mm 1:4.5-5.6 EX DG APO OS
120-400mm 1:4.5-5.6 DG OS APO HSM
150-500mm 1:5-6.3 DG OS APO HSM
300-800 1:5.6 APO EX DG HSM 
500mm 1:4.5 EX DG HSM APO 
800mm 1:5.6 EX DG APO 
*Macro*

150mm 1:2.8 APO EX DG HSM MACRO
*Teleconverter*

TELE CONVERTER APO EX DG 1.4x 
TELE CONVERTER APO EX DG 2.0x 
*Tamron: 14 lenses*


*Wide-Angle*

10-24mm 1:3.5-4.5 AF Di-II LD 
.


*Mid-Range*

17-50mm 1:2.8 SP AF XR Di-II LD Aspherical [IF] (A16NII) 
17-50mm 1:2.8 SP AF XR Di II VC LD Aspherical [IF]
28-75mm 1:2.8 SP AF XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)(A09NII) 
*Super-Zoom*

18-200mm AF XR Di-II (A14NII) 
18-250mm 1:3.5-6.3 AF Di-II LD Aspherical Macro NII 
18-270mm 1:3.5-6.3 AF Di-II VC LD Aspherical [IF] Macro
28-300mm 1:3.5-6.3 AF XR Di VC
*Telephoto*

70-200mm 1:2.8 AF Di LD MACRO 
70-300mm 1:4-5.6 AF Di LD Macro (A17NII, with built-in motor) 
*Macro*

60mm 1:2 SP AF DiII LD (IF) Macro 
90mm 1:2.8 SP AF Di MACRO Model 272E 
*Teleconverter*

Tamron SP Pro 1.4x 
Tamron SP Pro 2x 
*Tokina: 1 lens*


*Wide Angle*

12-24 1:4 AT-X 124 PRO DX II 
*] Kenko: 9 lenses + 3 lens extension tubes*


*Teleconverter*

Teleplus Pro 300 1.4x 
Teleplus Pro 300 DG 1.4x 
Teleplus Pro 300 2x 
Teleplus Pro 300 DG 2x 
Teleplus Pro 300 3x 
Teleplus Pro 300 DG 3x 
Teleplus MC4 AF DG 2x 
Teleplus MC7 AF DG 2x 
Teleplus K1.5 AF DG 1.5x 
*Lens extension tube*

AUTO EXTENSION TUBE SET DG 12, 20 and 36mm 
EXTENSION RING UNIPLUS TUBE DG 12 
EXTENSION RING UNIPLUS TUBE DG 25


----------



## benlonghair

I don't know if anybody's pointed this out, I haven't read the thread, but if you're into sticking within the brand name, and are looking to shoot wildlife or anything requiring big glass, go with Canon. AFAIK, they have an 800 f/5.6, Nikon's biggest is a 600 f/4. Canon's long glass is also cheaper


----------



## o hey tyler

So Keith, I guess what I am getting from your post is that:

1. You can copy from wikipedia (a worthwhile skill to have I suppose)
2. You can paste it in a thread (another fairly useful skill)

But what I've extracted from your post, is that you need a list to determine what lenses will autofocus on a Nikon... But any EF lens after 1987 will autofocus on a Canon. 

Okay, got it. Thank you.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Derrel said:


> Don't buy beginner Nikon cameras like the D3000 or D5000 and expect to use dedicated, professional, prime lenses like the 85,105,135,180mm primes or the old-school wide-angle primes...if you want a NIKON, buy a NIKON, like a D90, D300s, D700, or D3s. Problem solved.
> 
> If you want more megapixels, Canon will deliver higher MP counts as long as consumers want higher MP counts. Even if it means that most of their consumer lenses are not up to the task of imaging to a smaller, higher-density sensor. The higher MP count of say the 7D verus the D300s doesn't really show up much,since the higher MP count sensor pushes the lens's recording farther down on the MTF curve of every lens you mount, so the 7D ends up with lower color saturation and lower contrast that lower-density sensor camera from Canon,Sony,and Nikon...
> 
> The full-frame sensor cameras are till going to out-perform the crop-body cameras at elevated ISO settings...Currently Cano has no mid-line action/sports camera that's Full Frame that can compete with the D700 or D3s for sports/PJ/low-light work...with Canon the 5D series is crappy AF and average light metering,no flash,no flash commander, and 3.9 FPS, but good video...Nikon has the D700 with pro AF, fast speed, and pro features like flash commander and built-in flash for triggering slaves...
> 
> Nikon has better ergonomics in terms of AF point navigation, better AUTO ISO (Canon STILL will not create an AUTO ISO system that allows people to use it like Nikon or Pentax) setup, and Nikon has on balance, better light metering in more cameras, as well as the same,dedicated shutter and aperture controls in different camera modes--Canon;s yo-yo back and forth,back and forth, so the aperture and shutter controls shift back and forth between the front wheel and the back wheel, willy-nilly. The cameras are very different,ergonomically.



That may be, but (and I am impartial here, since I use film and Leicaflex) the Canon system was designed from the ground up as autofocus. Digital may not have been even in their minds in 1988 or so, but the system is more coherent overall, at least for the upper end of the range. The problem is always going to be making pro gear and amateur gear...how much compatibility is needed? Overall, I'd say the Canon approach (throwing FD lens mount overboard) was a smart move for _them_. Nikon may have found it impossible to do, because at that time they were the top dogs among 35mm pro shooters such as PJ and sports workers. But, Canon's decision meant they ended up with a better system that soon dominated pro PJ and sports shooters. Look at any sporting event and you'll see predominantly Canon stuff. Nikon's decision cost them dearly. They were so afraid to dump the mounts and lenses and start from scratch....but it didn't matter in the long run, because Canon dumped them over in the marketplace.


----------



## Overread

Ok I think we are getting a bit sidetracked in this thread and putting far too much attention on camera bodies as well as historical changes. 



mrshaleyberg said:


> Especially before I start buying a bunch of lenses to use with my Nikon.


 My advice is to put the camera bodies to one side - you have a good camera body already; what you need is some glass - lenses. Good quality lenses will give you sharper far more improved technical qualities than upgrading your camera body will - no matter if its canon or nikon.

So my advice is to first sit down and work out your interest areas - the photographic areas and subjects that interest you = do you want to shoot horses - sports - wildlife - landscapes - portrait - street etc....
Once you have an idea of what interests you its time to start working around that starting point - to work out what lenses and other gear can best support those interest areas for yourself. 

So my advice is to build upon your setup around your camera body - upgrade your glass to good grade and that can stick with you as you upgrade your camera body. Of course consider the canon line - its now that you can change if you want without too much cost.


----------



## marmots

here we go


----------



## invisible

o hey tyler said:


> So Keith, I guess what I am getting from your post is that:
> 
> 1. You can copy from wikipedia (a worthwhile skill to have I suppose)
> 2. You can paste it in a thread (another fairly useful skill)
> 
> But what I've extracted from your post, is that you need a list to determine what lenses will autofocus on a Nikon... But any EF lens after 1987 will autofocus on a Canon.
> 
> Okay, got it. Thank you.


I wonder if you even read the original post. The original poster is deciding between a 7D and a D300. What does the issue of autofocusing with entry-level cameras have to do with any of this? How are you helping the OP?


----------



## Petraio Prime

Overread said:


> Ok I think we are getting a bit sidetracked in this thread and putting far too much attention on camera bodies as well as historical changes.
> 
> 
> 
> mrshaleyberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Especially before I start buying a bunch of lenses to use with my Nikon.
> 
> 
> 
> My advice is to put the camera bodies to one side - you have a good camera body already; what you need is some glass - lenses. Good quality lenses will give you sharper far more improved technical qualities than upgrading your camera body will - no matter if its canon or nikon.
> 
> So my advice is to first sit down and work out your interest areas - the photographic areas and subjects that interest you = do you want to shoot horses - sports - wildlife - landscapes - portrait - street etc....
> Once you have an idea of what interests you its time to start working around that starting point - to work out what lenses and other gear can best support those interest areas for yourself.
> 
> So my advice is to build upon your setup around your camera body - upgrade your glass to good grade and that can stick with you as you upgrade your camera body. Of course consider the canon line - its now that you can change if you want without too much cost.
Click to expand...


If you're going to switch, the sooner the better.


----------



## Overread

Exactly but first the OP has to work out their needs based on their interests - otherwise dividing between lenses even within the same brand *let alone between two or more brands* is simply comparing random data.
Context is needed first - then research and then choice.


----------



## o hey tyler

invisible said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Keith, I guess what I am getting from your post is that:
> 
> 1. You can copy from wikipedia (a worthwhile skill to have I suppose)
> 2. You can paste it in a thread (another fairly useful skill)
> 
> But what I've extracted from your post, is that you need a list to determine what lenses will autofocus on a Nikon... But any EF lens after 1987 will autofocus on a Canon.
> 
> Okay, got it. Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if you even read the original post. The original poster is deciding between a 7D and a D300. What does the issue of autofocusing with entry-level cameras have to do with any of this? How are you helping the OP?
Click to expand...


Post #2. My post. I said "hey guess what, brand names aren't everything and neither is MP count" (paraphrased). That was pretty straightforward and helpful. It's true too, brand name and megapixels are not really that big of a deal. Unless you're buying one of those new Holga digital backs for a hassy... I hear they just can't keep the light out!

I then looked at your post, and realized: You know what, you don't even need a high MP count to produce large high quality prints. Products like Photozoom use the S-Spline algorithm can enlarge small MP count images to poster size very easily.

So in short,  bite me.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Overread said:


> Exactly but first the OP has to work out their needs based on their interests - otherwise dividing between lenses even within the same brand *let alone between two or more brands* is simply comparing random data.
> Context is needed first - then research and then choice.




I did use Nikon back in the early 70s, for a while, before I could afford to get any Leicaflex stuff...never cared for Nikon's ergonomics.

*As I said, I'm impartial here*...but I would go with Canon (the bigger ones, though). Nikon has too many idiosyncrasies because of their reluctance to change mounts.


----------



## Derrel

More coherent? Hardly. Canon has 1.6x, 1.3x, and 1.0x cameras. They have color-blind cameras for the most part that get very confused under a lot of everyday situations, and Canon has had horrible problems figuring out how to do TTL flash control, for years. Canon might have been designed to be digital in 1986, BUT at the time, ONLY NIKON,and I mean ONLY NIKON had matrix metering; Nikon invented matrix metering with its FA camera, and has refined it since. Nikon then invented color-matrix metering, and has been refining that, so that the cameras KNOW the color and the reflectance value of objects, so that metering is very successful--Nikon called that RGB Color Matrix metering, and it has taken Canon 15 years to get around the Nikon patent. Nikon invented 3-D metering or Distance-Aware metering for both flash and ambient...Canon has taken 10 years to almost catch up. Nikon invented multi-flash remote flash triggering and control--Canon is STILL trying to figure out how to implement. Nikon invented the Auto ISO setup....Canon is still trying to figure out how to do that.

The what lens fits what body argument is amusing to newbies who are perplexed by what fits what: bottom line is the baby Nikons have only been on the market for three years,and they are the cheapest cameras Nikon makes. Unlike Canon,however, Nikon has NEVER ABANDONED or ('effed over) their user base: the oldest Nikon lenses, dating from 1959 to 2010, in manual focusing and autofocusing will mount and will SHOOT with over 50 million lenses. Read it again--the baby Nikons, D40,40x,D60,D300,and D5000 will mount any Nikon F-mount lens made since 1959 and will shoot photos with ANY of 50 million Nikkors. And maybe 200 million F_mount 3rd party lenses. But these 2007 to 2010 Baby Nikons will not autofocus with AF-D lenses made from 1986 to 2010. But they will accept basically ANY F-mount accessory with no modifications to the lens or body, so the Baby Nikons have 50 years; worth of backward compatibility. BUT NO AUTOFOCUS with screw-driven AF lenses introduced in 1986.

So, on either score, Nikon wins on the lens compatibility issue...Canon lenses made prior to 1986 are FD mount, and are basically worthless orphans...Nikon manual focus lenses made since 1959,all the way to 2010 are usable,and many are available sued, quite affordably, allowing beginners to buy a lot of nice glass,cheaply.

The idea that Canon designed the EOS system to be autodfocus from the ground up makes a nice sound bite, but unfortunately, Canon layed the groundwork for their system back in an era when they were woefully behind Nikon in terms of light metering, TTL flash metering, and a few other technologies... Canon has struggled with a lot of issues, for decades...their "ground up" EOS system was, unfortunately creted with color-0blind light metering, no matrix implementation, and 1980's ideas on how to implement cheap button and wheel controls over exposure and camera controls...they kind of got started with their first-ever approach, and have payed the price ever since...they started the race first, and were handicapped later,as better engineering solutions were developed.

I own both Canon ($10,000 worth) and Nikon (embarrassingly much gear) systems...the thing about Nikon is what Thom Hogan says: Nikon will often offer their product after Canon does, but in a better implementation....that's Nikon's MO, and that's the way Samsung went from electronics wannabe to market-leading in so many categories: allow the others to proceed, see what they do,where they fail, and then beat them with better engineering and a better thought-out product.

Nikon's top end cameras are all full-frame....Canon is limping along with the 1.6x,1.3x,and 1.0 x bodies, and struggling top get their flash control system to meter right,and fighting interference battles on their new EX 580-II flash units...and now having to re-design its lenses which cannot perform well enough on high-density sensors. Canon behind more coherent is laughable...


----------



## Derrel

For beginners who like high-tech gadgetry, I think Canon's low-end cameras are the better choice...for those who want to use a low-end d-slr as a point and shoot, Nikon's color-aware metering makes Nikon the better choice.

For more experienced shooters or professionals, Nikon has much to recommend it...

Canon has some good lenses, Nikon has some good lenses...Canon lenses in the USA sell with a 1-year warranty, Nikon lenses come with a 5-year USA warranty. That's it for me in this thread. THere are other threrads just like this if people wanna' read the same stuff at greater length.

Which is better? Virginia style BBQ sauce, or Texas-style BBQ sauce? Discuss among yourselves.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Derrel said:


> More coherent? Hardly. Canon has 1.6x, 1.3x, and 1.0x cameras. They have color-blind cameras for the most part that get very confused under a lot of everyday situations, and Canon has had horrible problems figuring out how to do TTL flash control, for years. Canon might have been designed to be digital in 1986, BUT at the time, ONLY NIKON,and I mean ONLY NIKON had matrix metering; Nikon invented matrix metering with its FA camera, and has refined it since. Nikon then invented color-matrix metering, and has been refining that, so that the cameras KNOW the color and the reflectance value of objects, so that metering is very successful--Nikon called that RGB Color Matrix metering, and it has taken Canon 15 years to get around the Nikon patent. Nikon invented 3-D metering or Distance-Aware metering for both flash and ambient...Canon has taken 10 years to almost catch up. Nikon invented multi-flash remote flash triggering and control--Canon is STILL trying to figure out how to implement. Nikon invented the Auto ISO setup....Canon is still trying to figure out how to do that.
> 
> The what lens fits what body argument is amusing to newbies who are perplexed by what fits what: bottom line is the baby Nikons have only been on the market for three years,and they are the cheapest cameras Nikon makes. Unlike Canon,however, Nikon has NEVER ABANDONED or ('effed over) their user base: the oldest Nikon lenses, dating from 1959 to 2010, in manual focusing and autofocusing will mount and will SHOOT with over 50 million lenses. Read it again--the baby Nikons, D40,40x,D60,D300,and D5000 will mount any Nikon F-mount lens made since 1959 and will shoot photos with ANY of 50 million Nikkors. And maybe 200 million F_mount 3rd party lenses. But these 2007 to 2010 Baby Nikons will not autofocus with AF-D lenses made from 1986 to 2010. But they will accept basically ANY F-mount accessory with no modifications to the lens or body, so the Baby Nikons have 50 years; worth of backward compatibility. BUT NO AUTOFOCUS with screw-driven AF lenses introduced in 1986.
> 
> So, on either score, Nikon wins on the lens compatibility issue...Canon lenses made prior to 1986 are FD mount, and are basically worthless orphans...Nikon manual focus lenses made since 1959,all the way to 2010 are usable,and many are available sued, quite affordably, allowing beginners to buy a lot of nice glass,cheaply.
> 
> The idea that Canon designed the EOS system to be autodfocus from the ground up makes a nice sound bite, but unfortunately, Canon layed the groundwork for their system back in an era when they were woefully behind Nikon in terms of light metering, TTL flash metering, and a few other technologies... Canon has struggled with a lot of issues, for decades...their "ground up" EOS system was, unfortunately creted with color-0blind light metering, no matrix implementation, and 1980's ideas on how to implement cheap button and wheel controls over exposure and camera controls...they kind of got started with their first-ever approach, and have payed the price ever since...they started the race first, and were handicapped later,as better engineering solutions were developed.
> 
> I own both Canon ($10,000 worth) and Nikon (embarrassingly much gear) systems...the thing about Nikon is what Thom Hogan says: Nikon will often offer their product after Canon does, but in a better implementation....that's Nikon's MO, and that's the way Samsung went from electronics wannabe to market-leading in so many categories: allow the others to proceed, see what they do,where they fail, and then beat them with better engineering and a better thought-out product.
> 
> Nikon's top end cameras are all full-frame....Canon is limping along with the 1.6x,1.3x,and 1.0 x bodies, and struggling top get their flash control system to meter right,and fighting interference battles on their new EX 580-II flash units...and now having to re-design its lenses which cannot perform well enough on high-density sensors. Canon behind more coherent is laughable...



Yeah, but Canon, by starting over with the new mount, freed their designers to do more things that Nikon was not able to do. We discussed that in the high-speed lens thread. Nikon was very late to get to a full-frame DSLR in part because of this. 

Canon's thinking was probably like this "who cares if you can fit a 1959 lens on your camera, if it isn't autofocus, and is woefully weak in performance compared to newer designs?"

When I use the term 'coherent', I am referring to the autofocus lens-body system that Canon has. All the lenses are motorized, whereas some of Nikon's are, some are not.

I believe Canon also pioneered anti-shake technology, for which you did not give them credit, as well as the USM motors.... 

Not that I care about any of this...I use film and Leicaflex and am *not *going to switch...to Canon or Nikon, ever.

As far as metering is concerened, I was never impressed by Nikon. I shot with an F3 and flash a lot of times (I worked in AV production for a while, and used their equipment), and the Nikon metering left a lot to be desired.


----------



## dimwit

> Which is better? Virginia style BBQ sauce, or Texas-style BBQ sauce? Discuss among yourselves.


South Carolina.  Duh.


----------



## Idahophoto

I have used both systems and I was fond of the Nikon overall a bit better. I think Nikon is much better at higher ISO and unlike one reviewer I find the AF to be better. When it comes to handling it's easily Nikon. Plus I miss image overlay on my Nikons.  Canon just drives me nuts with some of its button placements. I do enjoy my Canon they have some real nice lenses they are built tough and functions work fast. 

Both systems are real good and it really boils down to what kind of shooting you plan on doing. MP means very little anymore. You will really be hard pressed to spot the difference short of a real major large image. 

Yeah I would stick with the Nikon system as you have already put money into it there is no real reason to change.


----------



## meccalli

umm, so a D5000 isn't a NIKON? I wanna get one but the radical view I saw here indicates that its not a good camera worthy of the name NIKON :/ ...I just need to know.


----------



## Neil S.

Derrel said:


> More coherent? Hardly. Canon has 1.6x, 1.3x, and 1.0x cameras. They have color-blind cameras for the most part that get very confused under a lot of everyday situations, and Canon has had horrible problems figuring out how to do TTL flash control, for years. Canon might have been designed to be digital in 1986, BUT at the time, ONLY NIKON,and I mean ONLY NIKON had matrix metering; Nikon invented matrix metering with its FA camera, and has refined it since. Nikon then invented color-matrix metering, and has been refining that, so that the cameras KNOW the color and the reflectance value of objects, so that metering is very successful--Nikon called that RGB Color Matrix metering, and it has taken Canon 15 years to get around the Nikon patent. Nikon invented 3-D metering or Distance-Aware metering for both flash and ambient...Canon has taken 10 years to almost catch up. Nikon invented multi-flash remote flash triggering and control--Canon is STILL trying to figure out how to implement. Nikon invented the Auto ISO setup....Canon is still trying to figure out how to do that.
> 
> The what lens fits what body argument is amusing to newbies who are perplexed by what fits what: bottom line is the baby Nikons have only been on the market for three years,and they are the cheapest cameras Nikon makes. Unlike Canon,however, Nikon has NEVER ABANDONED or ('effed over) their user base: the oldest Nikon lenses, dating from 1959 to 2010, in manual focusing and autofocusing will mount and will SHOOT with over 50 million lenses. Read it again--the baby Nikons, D40,40x,D60,D300,and D5000 will mount any Nikon F-mount lens made since 1959 and will shoot photos with ANY of 50 million Nikkors. And maybe 200 million F_mount 3rd party lenses. But these 2007 to 2010 Baby Nikons will not autofocus with AF-D lenses made from 1986 to 2010. But they will accept basically ANY F-mount accessory with no modifications to the lens or body, so the Baby Nikons have 50 years; worth of backward compatibility. BUT NO AUTOFOCUS with screw-driven AF lenses introduced in 1986.
> 
> So, on either score, Nikon wins on the lens compatibility issue...Canon lenses made prior to 1986 are FD mount, and are basically worthless orphans...Nikon manual focus lenses made since 1959,all the way to 2010 are usable,and many are available sued, quite affordably, allowing beginners to buy a lot of nice glass,cheaply.
> 
> The idea that Canon designed the EOS system to be autodfocus from the ground up makes a nice sound bite, but unfortunately, Canon layed the groundwork for their system back in an era when they were woefully behind Nikon in terms of light metering, TTL flash metering, and a few other technologies... Canon has struggled with a lot of issues, for decades...their "ground up" EOS system was, unfortunately creted with color-0blind light metering, no matrix implementation, and 1980's ideas on how to implement cheap button and wheel controls over exposure and camera controls...they kind of got started with their first-ever approach, and have payed the price ever since...they started the race first, and were handicapped later,as better engineering solutions were developed.
> 
> I own both Canon ($10,000 worth) and Nikon (embarrassingly much gear) systems...the thing about Nikon is what Thom Hogan says: Nikon will often offer their product after Canon does, but in a better implementation....that's Nikon's MO, and that's the way Samsung went from electronics wannabe to market-leading in so many categories: allow the others to proceed, see what they do,where they fail, and then beat them with better engineering and a better thought-out product.
> 
> Nikon's top end cameras are all full-frame....Canon is limping along with the 1.6x,1.3x,and 1.0 x bodies, and struggling top get their flash control system to meter right,and fighting interference battles on their new EX 580-II flash units...and now having to re-design its lenses which cannot perform well enough on high-density sensors. Canon behind more coherent is laughable...


 
Derrel as always you make some good points here.

-I would say that Nikon has a beter metering system, hands down.

-Nikon is also "re-designing it's lenses", this will always be the case for both companies.

-On dpreview.com they gave the crown for the best 70-200mm 2.8 to Canon (IS MK 2) "by a whisker". It would seem theres a horse race going on for lens design here....and Nikon is far from having it won.

-Resolution does matter, and for the crop market at least (7D) Canon wins here.

-Full frame Nikon wins resolution hands down, but most people cant afford a $7000 body.

-Canon has also developed a better video system for their DSLRs. This is a very uesful feature, and I hear professional filmakers have already used the 7D for segments of major films.

-AF I am not really sure, I thought that Canon had the best AF though....

Just some points for the discussion.


----------



## cailinp

I love my d5000...... but thats just me.


----------



## Neil S.

I would have to say that if money was no object I would probably switch to Nikon.

The prospect of a D3x and some of Nikon's latest lens offerings is quite tasty.

This is a pipe dream though, and I am very happy with what my Canon system currently provides.

I love the 7D, and the only major thing I would like to see on it is better metering. I am quite pleased with the metering improvement over my 30D though.


----------



## shaunly

I was on the same boat before I bought my D700. I was seriously considering switching over to canon but after months of research and playing with both camera (my buddy's 1D MK3/ 5DMK2/ D700), I went with the D700 and couldn't be happier.

All of the Canon body besides their pro line (1D) felt cheapy! Even their 7D/5D with magnesium body. Nikon D300/700 just feels so solid, and natural. Even the lighter/smaller D90 felt good. I did not like Canon button layout what so ever. But the main thing that made me choose the D700 over the 5D2 was... better ISO/AF/metering system/ higher FPS/ flash system. For what I do, I needed a camera that works fast! I don't need video and 21mp.

I made my decision strictly on both body and did not care about lens investment. I didn't mind dumping all my Nikon lens and switch over because my all my lenses (except for one) were DX anyways. 

In the end, my decision worked out great for me and this is my personal opinion.


----------



## bentcountershaft

No matter which system you own there's an excellent chance that you'll occasionally look across the fence to see if the other side has greened up any.  When I do that I try to tell myself to quit checking out my neighbor's yard and put my eye to the viewfinder to snap some shots.


----------



## Gaerek

I guarantee whatever you choose, you will love. The grass is NOT greener on the other side in the photography world. Both Canon and Nikon have their benefits and drawbacks, but in the end, most users won't see a difference. I sometimes wish I had gone Nikon, but in the end, no one is looking at my images saying, "Oh, that must have been taken with a Canon...next time, try a Nikon!" It's a shame that people have been using this thread as an e-peen measuring contest, nit-picking about absolutely non-consequential issues.


----------



## kundalini

Derrel said:


> Which is better? Virginia style BBQ sauce, or Texas-style BBQ sauce? Discuss among yourselves.


 Hands-down, it is vinegar based Eastern North Carolia style.


----------



## Neil S.

Gaerek said:


> I guarantee whatever you choose, you will love. The grass is NOT greener on the other side in the photography world. Both Canon and Nikon have their benefits and drawbacks, but in the end, most users won't see a difference. I sometimes wish I had gone Nikon, but in the end, no one is looking at my images saying, "Oh, that must have been taken with a Canon...next time, try a Nikon!" It's a shame that people have been using this thread as an e-peen measuring contest, nit-picking about absolutely non-consequential issues.


 
These are wise words.

Can someone please post that dead horse picture thingy. I think its about time for it.


----------



## Rekd

Canon.










































Anything else for sports or wildlife photography is settling for WAY less. Professionals AND Amateurs alike recognize the superiority of Canon.

NOW you can bring out the dead horse. :mrgreen:

All in jest, of course.


----------



## Neil S.

I guess the dead horse thing is MIA.....anyone?


----------



## rusty9

Rekd, I think you are too biased. You are also manipulating the the advertising. Though I shoot Nikon, I do acknowledge that Canon is better for sports, but where are all the pics of people at those events with Nikons?? Trust me there ARE plenty of them. And ALL your pics were of Canons at sporting events. So is that the only thing Canons are good  for? What if the OP doesn't have any interest in sports photography?

Back on topic: Nikon or Canon?? Well you answer me this: Mercedes or BMW? Lamborghini or Ferrari? They're both great. But if I had to choose, I would say Nikon because you already have a really nice, and expensive Nikon lens to go with it.


----------



## Rekd

Rekd said:


> All in jest, of course.



:coffee:


----------



## Petraio Prime

Rekd said:


> Canon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anything else for sports or wildlife photography is settling for WAY less. Professionals AND Amateurs alike recognize the superiority of Canon.
> 
> NOW you can bring out the dead horse. :mrgreen:
> 
> All in jest, of course.



I have no doubt Canon has the better set up for this kind of work. In other fields, however, Nikon may have the edge.


----------



## Derrel

Petraio Prime said:


> I have no doubt Canon has the better set up for this kind of work. In other fields, however, Nikon may have the edge.



Canon *used to have* the better setup for sports...until 2007, when their 1D Mark III had its 18-month-long autofocusing failure problem, and the Nikon D3 hit the streets...MANY of the top level sports and news shooters and larger, more well-financed operations, switched to Nikon cameras for sports and PJ uses.

Look at newer pictures, not 4- and 5-year-old shots before the Canon 1D Mk III disaster sent pros fleeing from Canon in search of a camera that could autofocus reliably enough to complete professional level jobs...

http://www.canonrumors.com/images/canikon.jpg

Does that look like Canon dominates? NO, not at the world level; Canon has lost its lead.


----------



## Neil S.

Derrel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no doubt Canon has the better set up for this kind of work. In other fields, however, Nikon may have the edge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon *used to have* the better setup for sports...until 2007, when their 1D Mark III had its 18-month-long autofocusing failure problem, and the Nikon D3 hit the streets...MANY of the top level sports and news shooters and larger, more well-financed operations, switched to Nikon cameras for sports and PJ uses.
> 
> Look at newer pictures, not 4- and 5-year-old shots before the Canon 1D Mk III disaster sent pros fleeing from Canon in search of a camera that could autofocus reliably enough to complete professional level jobs...
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/images/canikon.jpg
> 
> Does that look like Canon dominates? NO, not at the world level; Canon has lost its lead.
Click to expand...

 
I got to agree with Derrel here, that the full-frame Nikon bodies are pretty sexy.

Now to go strike it rich.....


----------



## Rekd

Derrel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no doubt Canon has the better set up for this kind of work. In other fields, however, Nikon may have the edge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon *used to have* the better setup for sports...until 2007, when their 1D Mark III had its 18-month-long autofocusing failure problem, and the Nikon D3 hit the streets...MANY of the top level sports and news shooters and larger, more well-financed operations, switched to Nikon cameras for sports and PJ uses.
> 
> Look at newer pictures, not 4- and 5-year-old shots before the Canon 1D Mk III disaster sent pros fleeing from Canon in search of a camera that could autofocus reliably enough to complete professional level jobs...
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/images/canikon.jpg
> 
> Does that look like Canon dominates? NO, not at the world level; Canon has lost its lead.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I don't think so. 

"Dammit! Canon released a POS! Lets ditch all our Canon gear and go Nikon!" :lmao:

More like when Jeep came out with the Liberty. It didn't make Jeep fans go buy a Toyota FJ. They just didn't buy the Liberty. :mrgreen:


----------



## mostly sunny

Don't listen to anyone but me.. The 7D is a fun camera-- I am still learning to use it.. 

Go with that one!!!  =)~


----------



## tdz16

To the OP, just see what you like the best.  Feel each camera, review the specs and what applies to you.  That's all that matters, literally, that's all.

The only person I know, personally, that shoots sports photography, does so for Topps trading cards and shoots with a D3.  So much for anyone who's anyone using Canon for sports stuff.

Good luck,
~Tom


----------



## Neil S.

mostly sunny said:


> Don't listen to anyone but me.. The 7D is a fun camera-- I am still learning to use it..
> 
> Go with that one!!! =)~


 
These Nikon vs. Canon threads can shoot to like 4 pages and hundreds of views in just one day. I think thats telling us something.

I think this is an indication of how strongly people feel about "their system".

It is clear at this point that they are both good in their own ways. You can't really go wrong with either.

If you had to start out with a system today, I would say go Nikon for full frame, and go Canon for a crop body.

Really just go whichever you like. It is that damn close imo.

**Back off die-hard Nikon fans, I'm warning you** :mrgreen:


----------



## Rekd

Almost forgot...



> MANY of the top level sports and news shooters and larger, more well-financed operations, switched to Nikon cameras for sports and PJ uses



"Many" ?? 

Really?

I'd like to know which one(s) you're referring to.


----------



## Neil S.

Rekd said:


> Almost forgot...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MANY of the top level sports and news shooters and larger, more well-financed operations, switched to Nikon cameras for sports and PJ uses
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Many" ??
> 
> Really?
> 
> I'd like to know which one(s) you're referring to.
Click to expand...

 
I think that this is actually true.

Someone posted a pic of the photographers at the Beijing Olympics, and it was a majority of "black lenses".

There does seem to be a change in the wind.

Don't get me wrong, I love me some Canon glass.

I just think that its true that more pros are switching to Nikon.

<----------------Just being honest


----------



## Rekd

Neil S. said:


> Rekd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost forgot...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MANY of the top level sports and news shooters and larger, more well-financed operations, switched to Nikon cameras for sports and PJ uses
> 
> 
> 
> "Many" ??
> 
> Really?
> 
> I'd like to know which one(s) you're referring to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that this is actually true.
> 
> Someone posted a pic of the photographers at the Beijing Olympics, and it was a majority of "black lenses".
> 
> There does seem to be a change in the wind.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I love me some Canon glass.
> 
> I just think that its true that more pros are switching to Nikon.
> 
> <----------------Just being honest
Click to expand...


Cool! Like, which ones are switching? (Just curious...)


----------



## Neil S.

I don't know lol.

I wish I had connections like that....

Canon has held the crown in sports photograpghy for a long time.

All I am saying is that Nikon is now challenging their status as the king of the hill.

Look up the Nikon reviews if you don't believe me. The D3x is such a good body, its unreal. Best full-frame body atm by miles.

The Nikon 200mm f/2 is also an extremely fine lens, and I would love to own one (thats for you Derrel) lol.

In my opinion competition is a good thing, it gives birth to innovation.

Just sit back and enjoy the show....


----------



## Neil S.

To put it more bluntly....I would sell my soul to the devil for a D3x....get the picture lol?

It costs about the same as my car did, thats the problem.


----------



## Rekd

Neil S. said:


> I don't know lol.
> 
> I wish I had connections like that....
> 
> Canon has held the crown in sports photograpghy for a long time.
> 
> All I am saying is that Nikon is now challenging their status as the king of the hill.
> 
> Look up the Nikon reviews if you don't believe me. The D3x is such a good body, its unreal. Best full-frame body atm by miles.
> 
> The Nikon 200mm f/2 is also an extremely fine lens, and I would love to own one (thats for you Derrel) lol.
> 
> In my opinion competition is a good thing, it gives birth to innovation.
> 
> Just sit back and enjoy the show....



Nikon has been challenging their superiority for decades. I think they're both more than capable. 

I'm just curious if the talk about "many" pro's switching tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment because of one bad body release is just rhetoric or if it's real. I'm betting those that are boldly making that claim here really have no clue. (At least you admit it.)

Personally, I could care less. The only reason I went with Canon is that my wife had several Canon lenses. That's it.


----------



## Neil S.

This is the summary from the dpreview.com D3x review:

"The D3X takes the crown as the king of the high resolution DSLRs, leapfrogging the Canon EOS-1D Mk III and offering breathtaking image quality when shot under optimal conditions. Putting aside the eye-watering price it's hard to find much to complain about, though you wouldn't choose it for sports or low light work. For studio and landscape work, however, it's pretty much peerless." :thumbup:

These are very true words.

The downside is that its a terrible value. 

Nikon is at the bleeding edge of DSLR technology atm.

What Derrel said about Nikon's metering is true too, they got Canon beat by a long shot.

Canon has the best crop body at the moment though.

Also Canon is peerless for DSLR video. This is actually a massive thing for some people. DSLR video is more capable in some ways than insanely expensive pro video gear. :thumbup:


----------



## Neil S.

Rekd said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know lol.
> 
> I wish I had connections like that....
> 
> Canon has held the crown in sports photograpghy for a long time.
> 
> All I am saying is that Nikon is now challenging their status as the king of the hill.
> 
> Look up the Nikon reviews if you don't believe me. The D3x is such a good body, its unreal. Best full-frame body atm by miles.
> 
> The Nikon 200mm f/2 is also an extremely fine lens, and I would love to own one (thats for you Derrel) lol.
> 
> In my opinion competition is a good thing, it gives birth to innovation.
> 
> Just sit back and enjoy the show....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nikon has been challenging their superiority for decades. I think they're both more than capable.
> 
> I'm just curious if the talk about "many" pro's switching tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment because of one bad body release is just rhetoric or if it's real. I'm betting those that are boldly making that claim here really have no clue. (At least you admit it.)
> 
> Personally, I could care less. The only reason I went with Canon is that my wife had several Canon lenses. That's it.
Click to expand...

 
No I agree with you that this is blown out of proportion, although there is some truth to it.

All you need to do is take an evening to read through the EF Lens Work III book to understand that Canon is a juggernaut in the field of telephoto lenses. 

No use arguing this, because you WILL lose.

Sorry Nikon fans, you lose here. Better luck next time lol.

Nikon is turning out some impressive glass lately though.....


----------



## dak1b

CANON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Neil S.

dak1b said:


> CANON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 
You tell em dak!


----------



## shaunly

These conversation always get rowdy... I guess I'll join too =D




NIKON!!!


----------



## Neil S.

shaunly said:


> These conversation always get rowdy... I guess I'll join too =D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NIKON!!!


 
Hey I tried to squash this before.

Look at my earlier posts, you will see.

Some people just couldn't let it go though.....

Canon for life....Flex

Just kidding lol.


----------



## shaunly

This rivalry will never end... It's like the Lakers Celtics, been around generations


----------



## Derrel

Rolleiflex Digital!!! FOR THE WIN! One lens option, the 9mm f/2.8 normal. 1.2 MegaPixel resolution at largest capture size. NO flash. No autofocus--fixed focus!! ALL YOU WILL EVER NEED!!! The Mini Digi-Rollei is tiny, light, and chicks dig it, guys want it, and other cameras want to be "it". It uses a small memory card that loads with a swing-up back, just like a real Rolleiflex. Picture quality is crappy, but what the hey, it's all about brand wars right??? ROLLEIFLEX KICKS A$$ !!


----------



## Neil S.

OMG...what the hell is that thing?

I bow to your ability to pull out old legendary stuff.

Bravo!


----------



## Neil S.

That's a replica isn't it?


----------



## Derrel

Neil S. said:


> That's a replica isn't it?




It's an actual,working digital camera called the Rollei Mini-Digi. My wife gave it to me as a gift a few years ago, in 2006 I think it was. It actually shoots square digital photos. It's a very small camera. Just like a big Rollei, you need to turn the crank handle to cock the shutter for each and every shot!  Some are still for sale
[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Rolleiflex-24611-Mini-Camera-Black/dp/B0014UC52Q/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1280302585&sr=8-2[/ame]


----------



## FemFugler

Derrel said:


> Rolleiflex Digital!!! FOR THE WIN! One lens option, the 9mm f/2.8 normal. 1.2 MegaPixel resolution at largest capture size. NO flash. No autofocus--fixed focus!! ALL YOU WILL EVER NEED!!! The Mini Digi-Rollei is tiny, light, and chicks dig it, guys want it, and other cameras want to be "it". It uses a small memory card that loads with a swing-up back, just like a real Rolleiflex. Picture quality is crappy, but what the hey, it's all about brand wars right??? ROLLEIFLEX KICKS A$$ !!




mmm my parents used to have one of the original film ones but sadly back when they were renting their landlord snatched it(according to them anyway). 

I showed my dad the new digital ones in a magazine and he was shocked they still maintained the same design and everything. 

Sorry i got a little off topic.... 


To get back on topic...

I am personally a Nikon person. I agree with the rest that if you have already have a bit invested into nikon stuff then i would stick with Nikon, however if you do decide to switch Canon then definitatly do it now. 

Is there a camera rental place or anywhere where you can try out a canon to see if you like it? 

I personally find these debates quite pointless. It's like Mac vs PC. There will always be people supporting each side it really comes down to the buyer them self and what their personal preference is and not which is better than the other or which is used by the 'pros' more.


----------



## FemFugler

Derrel said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a replica isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's an actual,working digital camera called the Rollei Mini-Digi. My wife gave it to me as a gift a few years ago, in 2006 I think it was. It actually shoots square digital photos. It's a very small camera. Just like a big Rollei, you need to turn the crank handle to cock the shutter for each and every shot!  Some are still for sale
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Rolleiflex-24611-Mini-Camera-Black/dp/B0014UC52Q/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1280302585&sr=8-2]Amazon.com: Rolleiflex 24611 Mini Digi AF 5.0 Camera (Black): Electronics[/ame]
Click to expand...


Ohh you actually own one?! 

What do the pictures turn out like? Or is it more of a novelty item?


Edit i just noticed they had a mini Leica there on the link you posted there too.. haha

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/MINOX-DCC-Leica-Digital-Camera/dp/B000LRIU54/ref=pd_bxgy_p_img_b[/ame]

how cute


----------



## Derrel

It shoots pretty poor images actually...quite disappointing to me,actually.


----------



## canonguy12

FemFugler said:


> I personally find these debates quite pointless. It's like Mac vs PC.



Uh oh, now you've opened a whole new can of beans


----------



## Petraio Prime

rusty9 said:


> Rekd, I think you are too biased. You are also manipulating the the advertising. Though I shoot Nikon, I do acknowledge that Canon is better for sports, but where are all the pics of people at those events with Nikons?? Trust me there ARE plenty of them. And ALL your pics were of Canons at sporting events. So is that the only thing Canons are good  for? What if the OP doesn't have any interest in sports photography?
> 
> Back on topic: Nikon or Canon?? Well you answer me this: Mercedes or BMW? Lamborghini or Ferrari? They're both great. But if I had to choose, I would say Nikon because you already have a really nice, and expensive Nikon lens to go with it.



*Note: For the record I own neither Canon nor Nikon. I own and use Leicaflex.*

For the longest time (let's say from 1965-1989), Nikon dominated press and PJ work, which had before that had been dominated by Leica rangefinders. Topcon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, Leicaflex and others were also-rans. When Canon came out with fluorite lenses,  the F-1 

http://hifishack.com/images/canonf1_5.jpg

and then the New F-1,

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1077/608897943_3ebd6c9e14.jpg

they were clearly showing their intention to do something serious. Though Pentax and Minolta showed some initiatives toward 'pro' models, they were largely ignored. Nikon was clearly the leader in press work. 

When Minolta finally introduced auto-focusing in 1985, they dropped their old mount altogether and started from scratch. When Canon introduced their first auto-focusing line in 1989, they followed suit, thinking (I suppose) that the advantages of starting afresh far outweighed the disadvantages. The new lens system offered far more potential, which owners of the old system would surely see. 

Nikon made some tentative steps toward autofocus in 1986 or so, but the F4 was not introduced until 1988. It was a monstrosity by any measure. 

http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00S/00SMKC-108487684.jpg

When Canon introduced the EOS-1 in 1989, they seemed to have made a authoritative statement about what an autofocus pro camera should be. It was designed from the ground up as an autofocus system.

Canon EOS-1 - Main Index Page

The press market clearly and immediately embraced the Canon, as everyone has mentioned. Nikon, by retaining its lens mount from 1959, was afraid of offending its customer base. But when you don't have much of a customer base to offend (Canon) you are not constrained by them. Sure, it would have pissed off some Nikon owners if Nikon had changed mounts completely...but in the long run everyone would have been better off.

This short-term thinking that affects Nikon had effects that persist to this day.

Sure, you can use a 1959 Nikon lens on some of the current Nikon pro models, but *so what*? Any lens that old is going to be outdated. _Nothing lasts forever.
_ 
If you compare the F5 or F6 to the EOS-1V, there is in my mind no comparison.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images/EOS-1V.jpg

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/f5.jpg

http://www.apertura.cl/store/images/f6body%20nikon.jpg

The F5 and F6 are clearly a retreat from the monstrosity that characterized the F4.

Now when digital came out, things didn't change a whole lot. Canon made a full-frame DSLR body based on the ESO-1 fairly early on. It took Nikon a decade or so after that to have one.


----------



## MohaimenK

Why go for second best when you can have the best? Go for Canon!


----------



## Petraio Prime

MohaimenK said:


> Why go for second best when you can have the best? Go for Canon!



For the record I own neither. I own and use Leicaflex.


----------



## MohaimenK

Petraio Prime said:


> For the record I own neither. I own and use Leicaflex.


 
Oh it was a joke. This debate can go forerver you know? People that use Canon will say Canon where Nikon users will say Nikon. Coke vs Pepsi. 

It all comes down which one you like more. I have always used Canon and got used to it. Although, I do like the custom WB feature on a Nikon a lot more than Canon, takes 2 sec where in Canon you have to go to menu and change it. 

The OP could always rent both cameras and try them out for 1 week each. That should give an idea of which to go with.

That's just this poor man's 2 cents


----------



## Petraio Prime

MohaimenK said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the record I own neither. I own and use Leicaflex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh it was a joke. This debate can go forerver you know? People that use Canon will say Canon where Nikon users will say Nikon. Coke vs Pepsi.
> 
> It all comes down which one you like more. I have always used Canon and got used to it. Although, I do like the custom WB feature on a Nikon a lot more than Canon, takes 2 sec where in Canon you have to go to menu and change it.
> 
> The OP could always rent both cameras and try them out for 1 week each. That should give an idea of which to go with.
> 
> That's just this poor man's 2 cents
Click to expand...


I just don't understand Nikon's thinking at all. They have a fetish about maintaining compatibility with their old lenses. Many old lenses (no matter who made them) are not worth the trouble. I recently acquired a second-generation Leitz 180mm Elmarit-R (f/2.8) introduced around 1980. 

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QomDizboK...Qp-beilAWRw/s400/26-ELMARIT-R-180-MM-F2.8.jpg

I had been using the older one, introduced around 1967.

http://www.greiner-photo.de/catalog/images/LCRelm180k.jpg

There is a newer one than this, a third generation (an APO version), but it is far more costly. 

http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/blog-images/2007/11/19/180ElmaritR.jpg

There is a noticeable difference between the 1980 and 1967 Elmarits. The newer lens has much nicer color and contrast. It is to die for.

The main reason I bought the second-generation Elmarit was that it weighs 810 grammes, whereas the first generation is a beast that weighs 1325 grammes; I was tired of lugging it around. I was more than pleasantly surprised to see the marked optical improvements. I had heard that the 2nd generation was only slightly better than the first. 

The third generation APO lens, though, is heavier by a small margin than the second generation (970 grammes vs 810 grammes). 

The point is that lenses have a life-span before they either wear out or are superseded. Nikon, by acting as if this isn't true, has shortchanged the future potential of their cameras.


----------



## Browncoat

Canon vs. Nikon, Coke vs. Pepsi, Ford vs. Chevy, PC vs. Mac....the saga continues.

Most purists will defend their chosen brand to the death.  Really it comes down to personal preference.  Each has their own perks and quirks, so it really boils down to what works best for you.  Go to a camera store, pick up the two models you're interested in, and make a choice.  Better yet, rent each one for a day and go out shooting.

On a personal note:


Nikon rules!
Coke sucks!
Chevy 4 eva!
Macs are for hippies!


----------



## Neil S.

Petraio Prime said:


> MohaimenK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why go for second best when you can have the best? Go for Canon!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the record I own neither. I own and use Leicaflex.
Click to expand...

 
I think PP secretly owns a bunch of Canon gear lol.

Just kidding. :mrgreen:


----------



## Neil S.

Browncoat said:


> Canon vs. Nikon, Coke vs. Pepsi, Ford vs. Chevy, PC vs. Mac....the saga continues.
> 
> Most purists will defend their chosen brand to the death. Really it comes down to personal preference. Each has their own perks and quirks, so it really boils down to what works best for you. Go to a camera store, pick up the two models you're interested in, and make a choice. Better yet, rent each one for a day and go out shooting.
> 
> On a personal note:
> 
> 
> Nikon rules!
> Coke sucks!
> Chevy 4 eva!
> Macs are for hippies!


 
For me its:

Polaroid
RC Cola
Daihatsu
Atari

So there!


----------



## Neil S.

I'm still waiting for the dead horse thing....

Anyone?


----------



## Petraio Prime

Neil S. said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MohaimenK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why go for second best when you can have the best? Go for Canon!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the record I own neither. I own and use Leicaflex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think PP secretly owns a bunch of Canon gear lol.
> 
> Just kidding. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...


Not at all. I just admire their thinking that sometimes you need to start over, to face the future rather than the past. Leica has adopted both strategies. The S2 is a completely new no holds barred system unrelated to the R system, whereas the M9 is a camera that allows you to stay with M lenses. They will introduce at a later time an R digital body to accept R lenses, they told me. Right now they are concentrating on the S2 and M9. The S2 is stunning.

The Leica S2 Camera Review | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS


----------



## Idahophoto

Bah, maybe I switch again and grab me a  Pentax lol. At least then I could add something new to threads like this.

PETAX BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_____________________
Pentax K7, Pentax 50 F/1.4 Pentax 12-24 F/4, Pentax 100 F/2.8 Pentax 200 F/2.8










Ok, maybe not. But the idea is entertaining never the less and Pentax has some damn nice stuff to.


----------



## Neil S.

Olympus all the way!!


----------



## Petraio Prime

Idahophoto said:


> Bah, maybe I switch again and grab me a  Pentax lol. At least then I could add something new to threads like this.
> 
> PETAX BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> _____________________
> Pentax K7, Pentax 50 F/1.4 Pentax 12-24 F/4, Pentax 100 F/2.8 Pentax 200 F/2.8
> 
> Ok, maybe not. But the idea is entertaining never the less and Pentax has some damn nice stuff to.



My thinking is that if you really want to do digital, get a full-frame model, and don't screw around with these crop cameras. If you can't afford it then get a film camera. If you can't afford this, well use your memories.


----------



## kundalini

Petraio Prime said:


> I just don't understand Nikon's thinking at all.


 I don't understand why you're in this discussion.  You've clearly stated.......



Petraio Prime said:


> *Note: For the record I own neither Canon nor Nikon. I own and use Leicaflex.*


----------



## Petraio Prime

kundalini said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't understand Nikon's thinking at all.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand why you're in this discussion.  You've clearly stated.......
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Note: For the record I own neither Canon nor Nikon. I own and use Leicaflex.*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Well I can bring some objectivity and knowledge to the discussion, that's why.


----------



## Idahophoto

Petraio Prime said:


> My thinking is that if you really want to do digital, get a full-frame model, and don't screw around with these crop cameras. If you can't afford it then get a film camera. If you can't afford this, well use your memories.



Personally I like cropped sensor cameras over full frame much of the time. I think both should be available. I would love a full frame camera and have been thinking of getting one when I can, but would not drop the cropped ones when I do for sports, nature and what not I love em! Though it sucks on the wide angle side of things. Again it depends on what you shoot. I want to hit fashion and fine art here full frames are the favored mainly for shallow depth of field compared to the cropped but hey, I make the 50D work and it does great. Overall I'm happy with the results I get and will put them up against any full frame shot any day. Sure, some of those might beat mine, but in the end, I think it will come down to skill  and personal style preference over what camera I or someone else went with.


----------



## Dao

Neil S. said:


> For me its:
> 
> Polaroid
> RC Cola
> Daihatsu
> Atari
> 
> So there!




Daihatsu ... wow  have not heard this name for a long time ..  although the only one I know is Daihatsu Charade.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Idahophoto said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> My thinking is that if you really want to do digital, get a full-frame model, and don't screw around with these crop cameras. If you can't afford it then get a film camera. If you can't afford this, well use your memories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I like cropped sensor cameras over full frame much of the time. I think both should be available. I would love a full frame camera and have been thinking of getting one when I can, but would not drop the cropped ones when I do for sports, nature and what not I love em! Though it sucks on the wide angle side of things. Again it depends on what you shoot. I want to hit fashion and fine art here full frames are the favored mainly for shallow depth of field compared to the cropped but hey, I make the 50D work and it does great. Overall I'm happy with the results I get and will put them up against any full frame shot any day. Sure, some of those might beat mine, but in the end, I think it will come down to skill  and personal style preference over what camera I or someone else went with.
Click to expand...


I don't see it, personally. It seems to be too much of a compromise.


----------



## Dao

Oh  ....  for the OP question.  It is easy ...

Since 
AB* C *DEFGHIJKLM* N *OPQRSTUVWXYZ


and 

C is way ahead of N

therefore

Canon is better.

Case closed.

:er:


----------



## Neil S.

Petraio Prime said:


> Idahophoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bah, maybe I switch again and grab me a Pentax lol. At least then I could add something new to threads like this.
> 
> PETAX BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> _____________________
> Pentax K7, Pentax 50 F/1.4 Pentax 12-24 F/4, Pentax 100 F/2.8 Pentax 200 F/2.8
> 
> Ok, maybe not. But the idea is entertaining never the less and Pentax has some damn nice stuff to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My thinking is that if you really want to do digital, get a full-frame model, and don't screw around with these crop cameras. If you can't afford it then get a film camera. If you can't afford this, well use your memories.
Click to expand...

 
While I somewhat agree with you here, I think you need to give crop bodies a little more credit.

In some ways I wish that I had just bought a 5D mk II, instead of my 7D.

I was pretty invested in EF-S lenses though, and I would have also had to replace at least 1-2 lenses on the wide end.

This would have been many thousands of dollars more between the body and new lenses, and I just don't have it really.

My 7D has probably the best video of any DSLR on the market, and I am glad to have this.

My next body will definately be full frame, probably the 5d mk III whenever it finally comes out, as long as I can afford it.

The 7D is an excellent camera to transition from crop to full-frame in my opinion.

I can take shots with it that can rival at least some of the current full frame bodies.

Mostly it is lacking in the noise department vs. full-frame. That and resolution would be the major reasons for me to go full-frame.

It is also much lighter than the top end full frame bodies, which I like. :thumbup:


----------



## Neil S.

Idahophoto said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> My thinking is that if you really want to do digital, get a full-frame model, and don't screw around with these crop cameras. If you can't afford it then get a film camera. If you can't afford this, well use your memories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I like cropped sensor cameras over full frame much of the time. I think both should be available. I would love a full frame camera and have been thinking of getting one when I can, but would not drop the cropped ones when I do for sports, nature and what not I love em! Though it sucks on the wide angle side of things. Again it depends on what you shoot. I want to hit fashion and fine art here full frames are the favored mainly for shallow depth of field compared to the cropped but hey, I make the 50D work and it does great. Overall I'm happy with the results I get and will put them up against any full frame shot any day. Sure, some of those might beat mine, but in the end, I think it will come down to skill and personal style preference over what camera I or someone else went with.
Click to expand...

 
Oh you make a good point here.

The 7D is better than the 5D mk II for sports by a log shot.


----------



## Dao

Also, some people like to use the cropped body because...

The "extra" reach or relatively deeper Dof (esp macro work)


----------



## Petraio Prime

Neil S. said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idahophoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bah, maybe I switch again and grab me a Pentax lol. At least then I could add something new to threads like this.
> 
> PETAX BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> _____________________
> Pentax K7, Pentax 50 F/1.4 Pentax 12-24 F/4, Pentax 100 F/2.8 Pentax 200 F/2.8
> 
> Ok, maybe not. But the idea is entertaining never the less and Pentax has some damn nice stuff to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My thinking is that if you really want to do digital, get a full-frame model, and don't screw around with these crop cameras. If you can't afford it then get a film camera. If you can't afford this, well use your memories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I somewhat agree with you here, I think you need to give crop bodies a little more credit.
> 
> In some ways I wish that I had just bought a 5D mk II, instead of my 7D.
> 
> I was pretty invested in EF-S lenses though, and I would have also had to replace at least 1-2 lenses on the wide end.
> 
> This would have been many thousands of dollars more between the body and new lenses, and I just don't have it really.
> 
> My 7D has probably the best video of any DSLR on the market, and I am glad to have this.
> 
> My next body will definately be full frame, probably the 5d mk III whenever it finally comes out, as long as I can afford it.
> 
> The 7D is an excellent camera to transition from crop to full-frame in my opinion.
> 
> I can take shots with it that can rival at least some of the current full frame bodies.
> 
> Mostly it is lacking in the noise department vs. full-frame. That and resolution would be the major reasons for me to go full-frame.
> 
> It is also much lighter than the top end full frame bodies, which I like. :thumbup:
Click to expand...


Well I use film and have a Leicaflex with 6 lenses from 28mm to 560mm. I won't be going digital anytime soon. I just have my film scanned and it looks good enough for friends.


----------



## Neil S.

Dao said:


> Also, some people like to use the cropped body because...
> 
> The "extra" reach or relatively deeper Dof (esp macro work)


 
This is a very good point which I forgot to mention.

If I had unlimited money I would probably shoot with a Nikon D3x.

If this was the case, I would most likely also carry a D300s for the extra reach on my telephotos when needed.

Slapping on a crop body is far better than using a TC in my opinion. There is almost zero quality degradation, and you don't take the f-stop hit like you do with TCs.

Edit: In this specific case you would take a major resolution hit, I do realize that.


----------



## Overread

*STOP!*

Right sorry about that but we do need to stop - 7 pages and thus far I think the OP might possibly be totally lost within a sea of suggestions, irrelevant tech data, personal debates, dead horses and long technical lines that try to draw fine dividing lines between the two product lines. 

The OP needs to input their own requirements and uses before all this nitpicking between the brands can really help them at all. And at 7 pages it will take anyone a while to read through - can we at least give them a chance (if they've not run 5 miles away from the thread already ) to read and respond


----------



## Neil S.

Well when you name the thread Canon or Nikon.......


----------



## Dieselboy

Dao said:


> Oh  ....  for the OP question.  It is easy ...
> 
> Since
> AB* C *DEFGHIJKLM* N *OPQRSTUVWXYZ
> 
> 
> and
> 
> C is way ahead of N
> 
> therefore
> 
> Canon is better.
> 
> Case closed.
> 
> :er:



Actually reading left to right, *N* has advanced farther than *C*.


----------



## Derrel

Neil S. said:


> I'm still waiting for the dead horse thing....
> 
> Anyone?




Here you go,Neil. I hope this helps: beating a dead horse








[/URL]


----------



## Neil S.

Damn I am at work again, and can't see it....

I will be able to when I go home though.

Hey man, check out my thread in the equipment section on whats the best Nikon/Canon lens.

I know you will have some good input for it. :thumbup:


----------



## rusty9

Browncoat said:


> On a personal note:
> 
> 
> Nikon rules!
> Coke sucks!
> Chevy 4 eva!
> Macs are for hippies!



for me it's:
Nikon
Coke
Chevy ('08 Silverado Crew Cab FTMFW)
PC


----------



## shaunly

Petraio Prime said:


> rusty9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rekd, I think you are too biased. You are also manipulating the the advertising. Though I shoot Nikon, I do acknowledge that Canon is better for sports, but where are all the pics of people at those events with Nikons?? Trust me there ARE plenty of them. And ALL your pics were of Canons at sporting events. So is that the only thing Canons are good  for? What if the OP doesn't have any interest in sports photography?
> 
> Back on topic: Nikon or Canon?? Well you answer me this: Mercedes or BMW? Lamborghini or Ferrari? They're both great. But if I had to choose, I would say Nikon because you already have a really nice, and expensive Nikon lens to go with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Note: For the record I own neither Canon nor Nikon. I own and use Leicaflex.*
> 
> For the longest time (let's say from 1965-1989), Nikon dominated press and PJ work, which had before that had been dominated by Leica rangefinders. Topcon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, Leicaflex and others were also-rans. When Canon came out with fluorite lenses,  the F-1
> 
> http://hifishack.com/images/canonf1_5.jpg
> 
> and then the New F-1,
> 
> http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1077/608897943_3ebd6c9e14.jpg
> 
> they were clearly showing their intention to do something serious. Though Pentax and Minolta showed some initiatives toward 'pro' models, they were largely ignored. Nikon was clearly the leader in press work.
> 
> When Minolta finally introduced auto-focusing in 1985, they dropped their old mount altogether and started from scratch. When Canon introduced their first auto-focusing line in 1989, they followed suit, thinking (I suppose) that the advantages of starting afresh far outweighed the disadvantages. The new lens system offered far more potential, which owners of the old system would surely see.
> 
> Nikon made some tentative steps toward autofocus in 1986 or so, but the F4 was not introduced until 1988. It was a monstrosity by any measure.
> 
> http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00S/00SMKC-108487684.jpg
> 
> When Canon introduced the EOS-1 in 1989, they seemed to have made a authoritative statement about what an autofocus pro camera should be. It was designed from the ground up as an autofocus system.
> 
> Canon EOS-1 - Main Index Page
> 
> The press market clearly and immediately embraced the Canon, as everyone has mentioned. Nikon, by retaining its lens mount from 1959, was afraid of offending its customer base. But when you don't have much of a customer base to offend (Canon) you are not constrained by them. Sure, it would have pissed off some Nikon owners if Nikon had changed mounts completely...but in the long run everyone would have been better off.
> 
> This short-term thinking that affects Nikon had effects that persist to this day.
> 
> Sure, you can use a 1959 Nikon lens on some of the current Nikon pro models, but *so what*? Any lens that old is going to be outdated. _Nothing lasts forever.
> _
> If you compare the F5 or F6 to the EOS-1V, there is in my mind no comparison.
> 
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images/EOS-1V.jpg
> 
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/f5.jpg
> 
> http://www.apertura.cl/store/images/f6body%20nikon.jpg
> 
> The F5 and F6 are clearly a retreat from the monstrosity that characterized the F4.
> 
> Now when digital came out, things didn't change a whole lot. Canon made a full-frame DSLR body based on the ESO-1 fairly early on. It took Nikon a decade or so after that to have one.
Click to expand...


You seem to base your decision that canon is better because of their mounts. But that's only one thing! Did you forget about all the other hundreds of feature and technology that goes into the lens and body? I agree that the canon wider mount will make it easier to make ultra fast lens, but serious who needs a 50 f1? So yea I'll give it to canon for having a 85f1.2 but you swear like that is a MUST have for all photographer. The nikon 85f1.4 is only f1.4 but that's still f1.4! That lens is legendary itself. 

Look, I'm not here saying Nikon is better, and from reading your post, you seem very knowledgeable about the technical side, so im not saying I know more than you. Like I said, from what I've been ready from you, the only argument you have is canon having a wider mount, thus making them more advance, which I just don't agree on. 

... just my 2cent


----------



## JamesMason

Noooo anything but the canon v nikon thread again. 

Nikon cuz the cannon stuff is plastic tacky crap  (plus cannon shutters sound funny)


----------



## Neil S.

I need a 50mm f/1!

You got a problem with that lol??

Someone get Canon on the phone ASAP....we need to straighten this out.


----------



## Neil S.

shaunly said:


> You seem to base your decision that canon is better because of their mounts. But that's only one thing! Did you forget about all the other hundreds of feature and technology that goes into the lens and body? I agree that the canon wider mount will make it easier to make ultra fast lens, but serious who needs a 50 f1? So yea I'll give it to canon for having a 85f1.2 but you swear like that is a MUST have for all photographer. The nikon 85f1.4 is only f1.4 but that's still f1.4! That lens is legendary itself.
> 
> Look, I'm not here saying Nikon is better, and from reading your post, you seem very knowledgeable about the technical side, so im not saying I know more than you. Like I said, from what I've been ready from you, the only argument you have is canon having a wider mount, thus making them more advance, which I just don't agree on.
> 
> ... just my 2cent


 
No the 85mm 1.2 is far from a "must have", in fact its totally the opposite.

The lens has many flaws, but it also is unique and has many great qualities as well.

Its very specialized, and you have to really want a lens this fast to overlook its flaws/drawbacks.

If you haven't seen it and are interested, I put up a thread on it in the equipment section (including pics).

About the difference between 1.2 and 1.4, I cant say 100% for sure at this focal length because I dont own a 85mm 1.4. 

I would guess that the difference in DOF would be quite noticeable, now as to if this really matters to you, that depends on the person.

To a wedding photographer a 0.2 difference is probably a pretty big deal.


----------



## mostly sunny

Neil S. said:


> I need a 50mm f/1!
> 
> You got a problem with that lol??
> 
> Someone get Canon on the phone ASAP....we need to straighten this out.




I got a direct line to Canon Customer Service..


----------



## JamesMason

mostly sunny said:


> I got a direct line to Canon Customer Service..



But have you ever phoned canon customer service ?

I phoned them up once, told them there was a fault with the firewire port on a canon xl1. The guy went and got the manual for the camera and then asked me if i had tried turning it off and on again. After about 30 minutes of bizarre questions he finally came to the conclusion it was a fault with the firewire port. The thing i phoned him and told him it was.


----------



## mostly sunny

Ummm, YES, I call them all the time..

I don't have a clue how to use my camera-- But I <3 it!!!  I call for help often.. They are most helpful to me..


----------



## JodieO

If you need low light, get a Nikon D700.  Don't even think about a D300. 

By the way, I would like to see a canon image at 5,000 ISO with a 70-200 lens that even comes close to this...








or this...







But if you don't need to shoot in very low light situations with no flash, go for either.

and this should be ISO 2,000 - not a lick of digital noise.  I shoot ISO 2,000 all the time outside at my studio, and have blown images up to 40x60 with no digital noise.  Nikon D3/D700 have been wonderful for that.  I haven't seen the low light situation matched in Canon yet, although I suspect it will eventually come.


----------



## mostly sunny

To the OP-- Oh, just dive in.. Get a Canon.. = ) He he.. I have NO clue how to operate mine, but I love it.


----------



## JodieO

shaunly said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to base your decision that canon is better because of their mounts. But that's only one thing! Did you forget about all the other hundreds of feature and technology that goes into the lens and body? I agree that the canon wider mount will make it easier to make ultra fast lens, but serious who needs a 50 f1? So yea I'll give it to canon for having a 85f1.2 but you swear like that is a MUST have for all photographer. The nikon 85f1.4 is only f1.4 but that's still f1.4! That lens is legendary itself.
> 
> Look, I'm not here saying Nikon is better, and from reading your post, you seem very knowledgeable about the technical side, so im not saying I know more than you. Like I said, from what I've been ready from you, the only argument you have is canon having a wider mount, thus making them more advance, which I just don't agree on.
> 
> ... just my 2cent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, really, who cares about the mount - it all depends on if that DOES matter to you.  What matters to me is shooting high ISO with very little digital noise/no flash.  Canon hasn't matched Nikon's D3 or D700 yet for that specifically capability, so that for ME matters more than mounts.  So this is truly an individual decision.
Click to expand...


----------



## JodieO

o hey tyler said:


> Nikon has it's share of flaws whether you choose to recognize them or not. Want autofocus? Better have a Nikon body with an integrated motor.



I've been using Nikon for 16 years and never had problems with auto focusing.  

Still not saying one is better than the other (as I have mantained above, it all depends on what you want), but I can't stand to hear all the rumors about certain things that personally, I have never had happen, and it surprises me that anyone thinks that has to be an issue.


----------



## Mike_E

Do none of you have lives?  

Here you go Neil, as you couldn't find your copy.  (unless I missed your post)


----------



## Neil S.

Mike_E said:


> Do none of you have lives?
> 
> Here you go Neil, as you couldn't find your copy. (unless I missed your post)


 
YES!!!

NOW THIS IS WHAT IM TALKIN ABOUT PEOPLES!!!

/ENDTHREAD


----------



## JamesMason

mostly sunny said:


> Ummm, YES, I call them all the time..
> 
> I don't have a clue how to use my camera-- But I <3 it!!!  I call for help often.. They are most helpful to me..



They must sense the love for nikon flowing through my veins


----------



## TiCoyote

I always had the understanding that Nikon makes better sensors and AF systems, but Canon makes sharper lenses.  Then a friend of mine who knows way more about photography than I told me quite the opposite.  

I shoot with a Canon because I think they perform a bit better.  Faster startup time, more FPS.  I also like the feel of the body in my hands.  Also, I think you get more bang for the buck.  Every comparable body and lens for a Nikon costs a few bucks more than then its Canon doppelganger.  However, I have heard many people say that IQ is slightly better in Nikon, and DPReview's test shots often evidence this.


----------



## Neil S.

Mike_E said:


> Do none of you have lives?
> 
> Here you go Neil, as you couldn't find your copy. (unless I missed your post)


 
This


----------



## JamesMason

Neil S. said:


> Mike_E said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do none of you have lives?
> 
> Here you go Neil, as you couldn't find your copy. (unless I missed your post)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This
Click to expand...


Noooz iz stil movez. Flog Morz


----------



## Petraio Prime

shaunly said:


> You seem to base your decision that canon is better because of their mounts. But that's only one thing! Did you forget about all the other hundreds of feature and technology that goes into the lens and body? I agree that the canon wider mount will make it easier to make ultra fast lens, but serious who needs a 50 f1? So yea I'll give it to canon for having a 85f1.2 but you swear like that is a MUST have for all photographer. The nikon 85f1.4 is only f1.4 but that's still f1.4! That lens is legendary itself.
> 
> Look, I'm not here saying Nikon is better, and from reading your post, you seem very knowledgeable about the technical side, so im not saying I know more than you. Like I said, from what I've been ready from you, the only argument you have is canon having a wider mount, thus making them more advance, which I just don't agree on.
> 
> ... just my 2cent



No, shaunly, if you read my post carefully you'll see what I'm saying is that Canon in 1989 introduced an autofocus camera system that was redesigned from scratch, from the ground up, to be an autofocus system. It's only partly the lens mount, and it had nothing to do with digital.


----------



## Neil S.

...........


----------



## fokker

This thread actually makes me want to ditch my canon gears and get a D700


----------



## shaunly

Petraio Prime said:


> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to base your decision that canon is better because of their mounts. But that's only one thing! Did you forget about all the other hundreds of feature and technology that goes into the lens and body? I agree that the canon wider mount will make it easier to make ultra fast lens, but serious who needs a 50 f1? So yea I'll give it to canon for having a 85f1.2 but you swear like that is a MUST have for all photographer. The nikon 85f1.4 is only f1.4 but that's still f1.4! That lens is legendary itself.
> 
> Look, I'm not here saying Nikon is better, and from reading your post, you seem very knowledgeable about the technical side, so im not saying I know more than you. Like I said, from what I've been ready from you, the only argument you have is canon having a wider mount, thus making them more advance, which I just don't agree on.
> 
> ... just my 2cent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, shaunly, if you read my post carefully you'll see what I'm saying is that Canon in 1989 introduced an autofocus camera system that was redesigned from scratch, from the ground up, to be an autofocus system. It's only partly the lens mount, and it had nothing to do with digital.
Click to expand...


I read it alright, but isn't canon AF system inferior to Nikon? Every pro nikon telephoto lens for the pass years is AFS. those afs pro lens focuses amazingly fast and accurate! I'm no pro level and I could easily tell you that.

If your talking about pre D3 era then yes, I totally agree with you but since the release of the d3/s/x/700 nikon has made a huge come back. Since I know your very tech savvy... Look at the specs and all the tons of review and measurement on the nikon D series and tell me they're wrong.


----------



## oldmacman

JodieO said:


> By the way, I would like to see a canon image at 5,000 ISO with a 70-200 lens that even comes close to this...
> 
> 
> and this should be ISO 2,000 - not a lick of digital noise.  I shoot ISO 2,000 all the time outside at my studio, and have blown images up to 40x60 with no digital noise.  Nikon D3/D700 have been wonderful for that.  I haven't seen the low light situation matched in Canon yet, although I suspect it will eventually come.



Your shots are terrific. I offer these for comparison only and by no way indicate they are in league with you horse shots.
These ducks were shot hand-held with a 70-200 4L at ISO 6400:





This Alligator was shot hand-held (SOOC), indoors with a 300mm 4L + 1.4x extender at ISO 3200:





This night time shot of Sacre Coeur was shot hand-held with the 24-105 4L at ISO 4000:





I don't even blink setting my ISO as high as 3200. The only time I hesitate is going 6400 or above.

As I stated in a very early post, I think you should stick with Nikon because you already have Nikon gear. As others have pointed out, and as I hope these pics illustrate, Canon or Nikon will provide great pics.


----------



## Gaerek

mrshaleyberg said:


> So I would really appreciate some input on this. I currently use a Nikon d60. This was my starter camera. I was looking into getting a D300, but then I started looking at canons.
> 
> I love my Nikon, but the D300 is a 12.3 MP when a Canon 7D is 18 MP. The price for a body is around the same. With Nikon are you basically paying this much for the name? Why are they the same price, when one has WAY higher MP? I don't get it. It's almost making me want to switch to Canon. Especially before I start buying a bunch of lenses to use with my Nikon.
> 
> What would some of you suggest?



/end derail

So, to answer the OPs actual question, and get out of this ridiculous "MINE IZ BIGGAR THN URSZ!!@!!111" fight, stick with what you have. 

I own Canon, and I'm telling you to stick with what you have. The grass isn't greener on the other side of the fence. Pick up a D300, or even a D700 if you can manage it. You will not be disappointed. If you've invested in even just one extra lens, or piece of equipment that won't work with the other brand, it's not worth changing. Your photos won't magically become better, and your photos won't magically be easier to take.

Megapixels really don't matter anymore. For 95% of the user base, 12MP is way more than enough. I would still say that for 75% of the user base, 8MP would be enough. There's more to a camera than pixels, and that should be the last reason to switch brands, unless for some reason you need that extra resolution (which quite honestly, isn't very likely).


----------



## canonguy12

Gaerek said:


> mrshaleyberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I would really appreciate some input on this. I currently use a Nikon d60. This was my starter camera. I was looking into getting a D300, but then I started looking at canons.
> 
> I love my Nikon, but the D300 is a 12.3 MP when a Canon 7D is 18 MP. The price for a body is around the same. With Nikon are you basically paying this much for the name? Why are they the same price, when one has WAY higher MP? I don't get it. It's almost making me want to switch to Canon. Especially before I start buying a bunch of lenses to use with my Nikon.
> 
> What would some of you suggest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /end derail
> 
> So, to answer the OPs actual question, and get out of this ridiculous "MINE IZ BIGGAR THN URSZ!!@!!111" fight, stick with what you have.
> 
> I own Canon, and I'm telling you to stick with what you have. The grass isn't greener on the other side of the fence. Pick up a D300, or even a D700 if you can manage it. You will not be disappointed. If you've invested in even just one extra lens, or piece of equipment that won't work with the other brand, it's not worth changing. Your photos won't magically become better, and your photos won't magically be easier to take.
> 
> Megapixels really don't matter anymore. For 95% of the user base, 12MP is way more than enough. I would still say that for 75% of the user base, 8MP would be enough. There's more to a camera than pixels, and that should be the last reason to switch brands, unless for some reason you need that extra resolution (which quite honestly, isn't very likely).
Click to expand...


+1 :thumbup:


----------



## Idahophoto

canonguy12 said:


> Gaerek said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mrshaleyberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I would really appreciate some input on this. I currently use a Nikon d60. This was my starter camera. I was looking into getting a D300, but then I started looking at canons.
> 
> I love my Nikon, but the D300 is a 12.3 MP when a Canon 7D is 18 MP. The price for a body is around the same. With Nikon are you basically paying this much for the name? Why are they the same price, when one has WAY higher MP? I don't get it. It's almost making me want to switch to Canon. Especially before I start buying a bunch of lenses to use with my Nikon.
> 
> What would some of you suggest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /end derail
> 
> So, to answer the OPs actual question, and get out of this ridiculous "MINE IZ BIGGAR THN URSZ!!@!!111" fight, stick with what you have.
> 
> I own Canon, and I'm telling you to stick with what you have. The grass isn't greener on the other side of the fence. Pick up a D300, or even a D700 if you can manage it. You will not be disappointed. If you've invested in even just one extra lens, or piece of equipment that won't work with the other brand, it's not worth changing. Your photos won't magically become better, and your photos won't magically be easier to take.
> 
> Megapixels really don't matter anymore. For 95% of the user base, 12MP is way more than enough. I would still say that for 75% of the user base, 8MP would be enough. There's more to a camera than pixels, and that should be the last reason to switch brands, unless for some reason you need that extra resolution (which quite honestly, isn't very likely).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> +1 :thumbup:
Click to expand...


 I also said earlier. I switched to Canon partly for the more MP and have yet to see it. The 50D is a awesome camera and it does amazing images but are not better than what I had with the Nikon even though it was short 3MP. I know it is 6MP with the &D and I have used it again no real difference in 90% of the shots. If I crop the hell out of a image those extra MP will help a bit more, but I don't do that to much and when I do I only usually crop a small portion. One exception can be see in my Gallery. Not my best work and a bit old, but put them up till I can get more recent stuff together. Have not tried the shot with the 50D yet, I really need to but I don't see it doing any better judging from past shots with it.

  It was said by Gaerek, now I'm going to say it. I'm a Canon user and I;m telling you to stick with Nikon. They have awesome cameras that can match or even out do Canon in every area. These two giants have been going at it for years. Yeah one maker might have a better version out for a month or so but then the other brings out a model to top it, then its rinse and repeat. There is no reason to change.


----------



## white

My dick is bigger.


----------



## Idahophoto

white said:


> My dick is bigger.


Um, WTF is that about and unless your paying attention to other guys how would you know? On second thought, I really don't want to know


----------



## Neil S.

Mike_E said:


> Do none of you have lives?
> 
> Here you go Neil, as you couldn't find your copy. (unless I missed your post)


 
^^^


----------



## Polyphony

For the OP's purposes, this thread is so useless it's not even funny.
OP: Get whatever you are comfortable with! IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE!


----------



## Petraio Prime

Polyphony said:


> For the OP's purposes, this thread is so useless it's not even funny.
> OP: Get whatever you are comfortable with! IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE!



Yes it does.


----------



## Browncoat




----------



## Petraio Prime

Psycho Shower Scene


----------



## Village Idiot

Petraio Prime said:


> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to base your decision that canon is better because of their mounts. But that's only one thing! Did you forget about all the other hundreds of feature and technology that goes into the lens and body? I agree that the canon wider mount will make it easier to make ultra fast lens, but serious who needs a 50 f1? So yea I'll give it to canon for having a 85f1.2 but you swear like that is a MUST have for all photographer. The nikon 85f1.4 is only f1.4 but that's still f1.4! That lens is legendary itself.
> 
> Look, I'm not here saying Nikon is better, and from reading your post, you seem very knowledgeable about the technical side, so im not saying I know more than you. Like I said, from what I've been ready from you, the only argument you have is canon having a wider mount, thus making them more advance, which I just don't agree on.
> 
> ... just my 2cent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, shaunly, if you read my post carefully you'll see what I'm saying is that Canon in 1989 introduced an autofocus camera system that was redesigned from scratch, from the ground up, to be an autofocus system. It's only partly the lens mount, and it had nothing to do with digital.
Click to expand...

 
So when did they clone Darrel and brainwash him to be a Canon fanatic?


----------



## Neil S.

Oh noes....

The horse is coming back to life!!!


----------



## Polyphony

Petraio Prime said:


> Polyphony said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the OP's purposes, this thread is so useless it's not even funny.
> OP: Get whatever you are comfortable with! IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. He's going to buy "a bunch of lenses" for his Nikon. Get the Nikon, he won't notice a difference at all.

Here's a short anecdote that may illustrate my point. (This was taken from an article by Jerry Walch called "Nikon Cameras Take Nice Pictures")



> Wilfredo Garcia, the Dominican photographer known around the world for his collection of expensive cameras and camera equipment always brought back the best pictures when he went on a filed trip with one of the many photography clubs that he belonged to. Wilfredo always brought back the best pictures when he took a group of his photography students out on a photo expedition. His fellow club members and photography students always attributed this to the fact that he always had the very best of equipment, he had the best that money could buy. On one of those trips, one of his more brazen students voiced what all the others felt, that none of them stood a chance of bringing back a prize winning photo because they could only afford entry level equipment. After not even a moments hesitation he replied with, &#8220;So why don&#8217;t you choose a camera for me, for the next trip?&#8221; on their next photo expedition he went with a 35mm disposable film camera that his students supplied him. Can you guess what I&#8217;m going to tell you next? You&#8217;ve got it. Wilfredo still came back with the best pictures. So how did he manage to do that when his students now had the superior equipment? He could do it because he had the skills to make the best possible use of the equipment that he had to work with.




http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=canon+mark+3

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=nikon+d3

As you can see, there is no difference. Actually there is a difference: YOU, not the camera.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Polyphony said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polyphony said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the OP's purposes, this thread is so useless it's not even funny.
> OP: Get whatever you are comfortable with! IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't. He's going to buy "a bunch of lenses" for his Nikon. Get the Nikon, he won't notice a difference at all.
> 
> Here's a short anecdote that may illustrate my point. (This was taken from an article by Jerry Walch called "Nikon Cameras Take Nice Pictures")
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wilfredo Garcia, the Dominican photographer known around the world for his collection of expensive cameras and camera equipment always brought back the best pictures when he went on a filed trip with one of the many photography clubs that he belonged to. Wilfredo always brought back the best pictures when he took a group of his photography students out on a photo expedition. His fellow club members and photography students always attributed this to the fact that he always had the very best of equipment, he had the best that money could buy. On one of those trips, one of his more brazen students voiced what all the others felt, that none of them stood a chance of bringing back a prize winning photo because they could only afford entry level equipment. After not even a moments hesitation he replied with, &#8220;So why don&#8217;t you choose a camera for me, for the next trip?&#8221; on their next photo expedition he went with a 35mm disposable film camera that his students supplied him. Can you guess what I&#8217;m going to tell you next? You&#8217;ve got it. Wilfredo still came back with the best pictures. So how did he manage to do that when his students now had the superior equipment? He could do it because he had the skills to make the best possible use of the equipment that he had to work with.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You miss my point. Nikon was not designed as an autofocus system. (It came out in 1959, that's 51 years ago!)

The EF Canon system _was _designed as an autofocus system. Look at an F4 vs an EOS-1. It's no contest. The F4 was a monstrosity. 

http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00S/00SMKC-108487684.jpg

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/eos/EOS-1n/images/CanonEOS1Nbooster50mm.jpg

You'll note the current top Canon digital model looks almost identical:

http://photocrati.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/canon-eos-1d-mark-ii-n.jpg

http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS1DSMarkIII/images/frontpage1.jpg

So well designed was the EOS-1 that making it into a digital camera was fairly straightforward. The Nikon F4 body was quickly abandoned and their current top digital camera looks more like a Canon.

http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/35/nikon-d3-dslr.jpg

Nikon has had numerous lens-aperture to body couplings over the years. Older ones have to be modified to use on later cameras, and some cannot be used at all. What good is it to retain the lens mount from 1959 if you can't use the lens anyway?

Nikon is nuts...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm


----------



## Polyphony

Petraio Prime said:


> Polyphony said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. He's going to buy "a bunch of lenses" for his Nikon. Get the Nikon, he won't notice a difference at all.
> 
> Here's a short anecdote that may illustrate my point. (This was taken from an article by Jerry Walch called "Nikon Cameras Take Nice Pictures")
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wilfredo Garcia, the Dominican photographer known around the world for his collection of expensive cameras and camera equipment always brought back the best pictures when he went on a filed trip with one of the many photography clubs that he belonged to. Wilfredo always brought back the best pictures when he took a group of his photography students out on a photo expedition. His fellow club members and photography students always attributed this to the fact that he always had the very best of equipment, he had the best that money could buy. On one of those trips, one of his more brazen students voiced what all the others felt, that none of them stood a chance of bringing back a prize winning photo because they could only afford entry level equipment. After not even a moments hesitation he replied with, So why dont you choose a camera for me, for the next trip? on their next photo expedition he went with a 35mm disposable film camera that his students supplied him. Can you guess what Im going to tell you next? Youve got it. Wilfredo still came back with the best pictures. So how did he manage to do that when his students now had the superior equipment? He could do it because he had the skills to make the best possible use of the equipment that he had to work with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You miss my point. Nikon was not designed as an autofocus system. The EF Canon system was. Look at an F4 vs an EOS-1. It's no contest. The F4 was a monstrosity.
> 
> http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00S/00SMKC-108487684.jpg
> 
> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/eos/EOS-1n/images/CanonEOS1Nbooster50mm.jpg
> 
> You'll note the current top Canon digital model looks almost identical:
> 
> http://photocrati.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/canon-eos-1d-mark-ii-n.jpg
> 
> http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS1DSMarkIII/images/frontpage1.jpg
> 
> So well designed was the EOS-1 that making it into a digital camera was fairly straightforward. The Nikon F4 body was quickly abandoned and their current top digital camera looks more like a Canon.
> 
> http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/35/nikon-d3-dslr.jpg
Click to expand...


You're talking about ergonomics and design. I'm talking about image quality. My point is that a Nikon or Canon will produce high quality images with little to no noticeable difference (as long as the photographer does his/her part).  

Talking ergos and design doesn't help the OP.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Polyphony said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polyphony said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. He's going to buy "a bunch of lenses" for his Nikon. Get the Nikon, he won't notice a difference at all.
> 
> Here's a short anecdote that may illustrate my point. (This was taken from an article by Jerry Walch called "Nikon Cameras Take Nice Pictures")
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You miss my point. Nikon was not designed as an autofocus system. The EF Canon system was. Look at an F4 vs an EOS-1. It's no contest. The F4 was a monstrosity.
> 
> http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00S/00SMKC-108487684.jpg
> 
> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/eos/EOS-1n/images/CanonEOS1Nbooster50mm.jpg
> 
> You'll note the current top Canon digital model looks almost identical:
> 
> http://photocrati.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/canon-eos-1d-mark-ii-n.jpg
> 
> http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS1DSMarkIII/images/frontpage1.jpg
> 
> So well designed was the EOS-1 that making it into a digital camera was fairly straightforward. The Nikon F4 body was quickly abandoned and their current top digital camera looks more like a Canon.
> 
> http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/35/nikon-d3-dslr.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're talking about ergonomics and design. I'm talking about image quality. My point is that a Nikon or Canon will produce high quality images with little to no noticeable difference (as long as the photographer does his/her part).
> 
> Talking ergos and design doesn't help the OP.
Click to expand...


I think it's very relevant. It's why I think Canon makes more sense.

*I repeat, I own Leicaflex and have no bias here.*


----------



## Gaerek

Village Idiot said:


> So when did they clone Darrel and brainwash him to be a Canon fanatic?


 
Just when we get this thread back on track, VI has to come by and mess everything up again! Thanks a lot! 



Petraio Prime said:


> You miss my point. Nikon was not designed as an autofocus system. (It came out in 1959, that's 51 years ago!)
> 
> So well designed was the EOS-1 that making it into a digital camera was fairly straightforward. The Nikon F4 body was quickly abandoned and their current top digital camera looks more like a Canon.
> 
> Nikon has had numerous lens-aperture to body couplings over the years. Older ones have to be modified to use on later cameras, and some cannot be used at all. What good is it to retain the lens mount from 1959 if you can't use the lens anyway?
> 
> Nikon is nuts...


 
What happened in 1989 (or 1959, or whatever) has no relevance whatsoever on this discussion. Who cares that the EOS-1 was a better camera than the F4? By a show of hands, who here shoots an EOS-1 or F4? Anyone looking to buy one or get their hands on one?

The OP wanted to know whether he should get a D300 or a 7D. The D300 is NOTHING like the F4 (aside from the lens mount). The 7D is NOTHING like the EOS-1 (aside from the lens mount). If you can provide a discussion on the merits of the D300 vs. the 7D, then go for it. If you can't, let's stop living life 20 years ago, and focus on what's going on right now, and what is relevant to the original poster's question.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Gaerek said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when did they clone Darrel and brainwash him to be a Canon fanatic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just when we get this thread back on track, VI has to come by and mess everything up again! Thanks a lot!
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> You miss my point. Nikon was not designed as an autofocus system. (It came out in 1959, that's 51 years ago!)
> 
> So well designed was the EOS-1 that making it into a digital camera was fairly straightforward. The Nikon F4 body was quickly abandoned and their current top digital camera looks more like a Canon.
> 
> Nikon has had numerous lens-aperture to body couplings over the years. Older ones have to be modified to use on later cameras, and some cannot be used at all. What good is it to retain the lens mount from 1959 if you can't use the lens anyway?
> 
> Nikon is nuts...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What happened in 1989 (or 1959, or whatever) has no relevance whatsoever on this discussion. Who cares that the EOS-1 was a better camera than the F4? By a show of hands, who here shoots an EOS-1 or F4? Anyone looking to buy one or get their hands on one?
> 
> The OP wanted to know whether he should get a D300 or a 7D. The D300 is NOTHING like the F4 (aside from the lens mount). The 7D is NOTHING like the EOS-1 (aside from the lens mount). If you can provide a discussion on the merits of the D300 vs. the 7D, then go for it. If you can't, let's stop living life 20 years ago, and focus on what's going on right now, and what is relevant to the original poster's question.
Click to expand...


But it _is _relevant. Why? Because you're buying into a _system_. Suppose the OP want to get a film body at some point. (Maybe to shoot film and digital together.) EOS-1's (of various versions) are available at very moderate prices. On the other hand, you couldn't _give _me an F4. It's a monstrosity.

http://cgi.ebay.com/CANON-EOS-1V-W-...=ViewItem&pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item35ab1872d6

http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EOS-1-N-3...=ViewItem&pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item43a0a36884


----------



## Dao

Please lock this thread ......  :hail:


----------



## Neil S.

Guys seriously....

This is getting out of control.

If you want I can create a "Nikon vs. Canon Deathmatch" thread for you.

The OP is probably very overwhelmed by this thread at this point, and possibly quite confused.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Neil S. said:


> Guys seriously....
> 
> This is getting out of control.
> 
> If you want I can create a "Nikon vs. Canon Deathmatch" thread for you.
> 
> The OP is probably very overwhelmed by this thread at this point, and possibly quite confused.



Well he should just give up and buy an Alpa:

Now *that *was a camera! Alpa had all these great Swiss, German, and French lenses available for it. I have wanted to get one and _use _it just to confuse everybody...LOL

Alpa 11si body with Kern Macro-Switar 50mm F1.8 Mint- - eBay (item 140423089334 end time Jul-31-10 23:49:08 PDT)

Alpa 11e SLR Camera - eBay (item 140416230775 end time Aug-10-10 22:25:56 PDT)

ALPA REFLEX 9D BLACK CAMERA OUTFIT CLEAN NICE RARE - eBay (item 290456768771 end time Jul-29-10 19:00:22 PDT)

http://cgi.ebay.com/Alpa-10D-2-8-35...=ViewItem&pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item563dbd2074

Check out this French 100mm f/3 APO lens for Alpa:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Kinoptik-Apochr...=ViewItem&pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item255c11c0bb


----------



## Idahophoto

OK, that's it! Everyone of you go grab a magazine. No I don't care what magazine be it playboy or favorite family recipes, or anything else. Only requirement it must have pictures. Go get one. Im waiting,  go on!

Waiting....


waiting...


Waiting...


K, you got one now? Awesome! Open it up and find a picture. There ya go good choice! Words are useless don't look at em. Fills your brain up with to much junk. Let it have a break. Okay, now back to the picture. Intersting shot, what camera did it? what lens? What do you mean you don't know noobs? Why you asking me if I do? Of course I don't. That's why I asked. If we can't tell,what difference does it make? I know it was a tough project so I'll be nice and just tell you this answer, and it's a simple one. It doesn't!

Point made! Please come back on next thread when i will be discussing.... lol you will just have to wait to find out


----------



## Browncoat

Neil S. said:


> The OP is probably very overwhelmed by this thread at this point, and possibly quite confused.



If he's smart, he ran out screaming and took up competitive kite flying instead.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Idahophoto said:


> OK, that's it! Everyone of you go grab a magazine. No I don't care what magazine be it playboy or favorite family recipes, or anything else. Only requirement it must have pictures. Go get one. Im waiting,  go on!
> 
> Waiting....
> 
> 
> waiting...
> 
> 
> Waiting...
> 
> 
> K, you got one now? Awesome! Open it up and find a picture. There ya go good choice! Words are useless don't look at em. Fills your brain up with to much junk. Let it have a break. Okay, now back to the picture. Intersting shot, what camera did it? what lens? What do you mean you don't know noobs? Why you asking me if I do? Of course I don't. That's why I asked. If we can't tell,what difference does it make? I know it was a tough project so I'll be nice and just tell you this answer, and it's a simple one. It doesn't!
> 
> Point made! Please come back on next thread when i will be discussing.... lol you will just have to wait to find out



It's not any one photo itself, it's the _making _of it that is relevant. To make a wide variety of photos under different conditions requires various lenses and ancillary equipment. You buy a _system_. From a _system _standpoint, I like the Canon.

There are environments where it may not be best to take a digital camera; in such cases a film camera is nice to have.


----------



## Polyphony

Browncoat said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is probably very overwhelmed by this thread at this point, and possibly quite confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he's smart, he ran out screaming and took up competitive kite flying instead.
Click to expand...

You mean like this? [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H999LqFQNWs[/ame]


----------



## Idahophoto

Oh yeah, I still love film in many ways. I hope it stays around and i really am enjoying the Canon system and ye some models are better suited for different things. But that a model design not a companey one really. Both Canon have cameras that can do really anything you need and they both offer cameras in a wide range of prices and have great lens choices. All I'm saying it either brand is fine and there is no bad choice. I judge photo's here and anyplace else for that matter on the photo themselves not on what system the photographer used. Sure I like to know especially if they used Canon and even more so it it was the 50D. But a great shot is a great shot, and a bad one is a bad one and it the person who does it not the camera.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Idahophoto said:


> Oh yeah, I still love film in many ways. I hope it stays around and i really am enjoying the Canon system and ye some models are better suited for different things. But that a model design not a companey one really. Both Canon have cameras that can do really anything you need and they both offer cameras in a wide range of prices and have great lens choices. All I'm saying it either brand is fine and there is no bad choice. I judge photo's here and anyplace else for that matter on the photo themselves not on what system the photographer used. Sure I like to know especially if they used Canon and even more so it it was the 50D. But a great shot is a great shot, and a bad one is a bad one and it the person who does it not the camera.



What irks me about Nikon is that they have Jerry-rigged everything from 1959:

Want a meter? Stick it on top:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/images/FphotomicBig.jpg

Not through the lens, but so what...

Oh, and when you mounted the lens you had to turn the aperture back and forth so the meter knew what the maximum aperture was. What a PIA!

Want TTL?

Ok, here ya go:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/images/FphotomicTBig.jpg

When you mounted the lens you _still _had to turn the aperture back and forth so the meter knew what the maximum aperture was.

All this was so that the Nikon could have interchangeable prisms and screens. Why? Nobody ever used them. They were held on with clips and springs, easily got damaged and could even fall off.

Interchangeable screens? Why? Leica decided that a fixed screen could be positioned with tighter tolerances. 

First reflex from Leica:

http://photo.net/general-comments/attachment/5715111/598px-Leicaflex_IMG_0307.jpg

None of the crap and nonsense Nikon had. Elegant, simple, reliable. 

Want TTL metering?

OK, Leicaflex SL:

http://www.mediajoy.com/en/cla_came/leicaflex_sl/leicaflex_sl.jpg

Who the hell would prefer the Nikon Photomic to that? Only insane people! I used these Nikons for a short time in the early 70s (before I got my own Leicaflex equipment) and grew to hate Nikon with a deep passion. I worked at the OSU yearbook and the yearbook equipment was Nikon.  It has always impressed me as Jerry-rigged and stupid beyond belief. 

I went to a to shoot a play. The Nikon Photomic's meter could not be seen in the dark. It depended on light coming from above to illuminate the needle. What if you're shooting in the dark? Duh! You call that engineering? I don't!

My Leicaflex SL2 has a battery-operated light inside the viewfinder that you can push to illuminate the needle under poor light conditions.

With the F2, Nikon persisted with the interchangeable finders that no-one used:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/images/F2photomicBig.jpg

Metering was _still _not part of the body!

Better, but still not as elegant as the Leicaflex SL2, introduced shortly thereafter (and my current camera):

http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/SL2C.jpg

Everything you _don't_ need is a hindrance.

Nikon has persisted with the Jerry-rigged approach to this day. Autofocussing was treated the same way, as is digital now.

I can't believe anyone buys Nikon today. Or ever did.

My stance is not so much pro-Canon as it is _anti-Nikon_. I _loathe _Nikon. Their engineering and product development is horrid.

This is not just about this or that model...I have watched their products for many many years. I know how they approach things and how they think. When I see a D3 or whatever it's called, all I can think about is that stupid Photomic system and the time I couldn't meter in the theatre at a play.

*If you buy Nikon, you're voting for inferior engineering and thinking.

*


----------



## AlexL

CHOOSE NIKON BECAUSE CANON IS BETTER.

TYPING IN CAPS MEANS I'M RIGHT EVEN THOUGH IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.


----------



## Neil S.

This post is going to start some $#!%....watch

PP I love you man, but this is the wrong thread for this lol.


----------



## Derrel

Petraio--Nikon--still making SLR cameras....  Leicaflex--discontinued due to lack of sales

The Leica R-mount is dead...the Nikon F-mount is still going strong...Nikon just overtook Canon as the top selling SLR brand in Japan...Leica discontinued the Leicaflex R-series, perhaps because they never could figure out how to build an autofocus camera in 20 years...

Your post is kind of funny, since Leica is so technologically behind the times that its R-system never could generate even a tiny user base,and in March of 2009 Leica announced that it was finally just ceasing production of the R-series manual focus 35mm SLR film camera. 10 years after Nikon premiered the D1, the first affordable digital SLR camera, Leica discontinued a manual focus, 35mm FILM SLR. Snicker...

Again, though, I want to make the case for the Rolleiflex brand of digital!!! Rolleiflex digital rules! Canon sucks, Nikon drools, Rollei RULES!


----------



## shaunly

Petraio Prime said:


> Gaerek said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when did they clone Darrel and brainwash him to be a Canon fanatic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just when we get this thread back on track, VI has to come by and mess everything up again! Thanks a lot!
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> You miss my point. Nikon was not designed as an autofocus system. (It came out in 1959, that's 51 years ago!)
> 
> So well designed was the EOS-1 that making it into a digital camera was fairly straightforward. The Nikon F4 body was quickly abandoned and their current top digital camera looks more like a Canon.
> 
> Nikon has had numerous lens-aperture to body couplings over the years. Older ones have to be modified to use on later cameras, and some cannot be used at all. What good is it to retain the lens mount from 1959 if you can't use the lens anyway?
> 
> Nikon is nuts...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What happened in 1989 (or 1959, or whatever) has no relevance whatsoever on this discussion. Who cares that the EOS-1 was a better camera than the F4? By a show of hands, who here shoots an EOS-1 or F4? Anyone looking to buy one or get their hands on one?
> 
> The OP wanted to know whether he should get a D300 or a 7D. The D300 is NOTHING like the F4 (aside from the lens mount). The 7D is NOTHING like the EOS-1 (aside from the lens mount). If you can provide a discussion on the merits of the D300 vs. the 7D, then go for it. If you can't, let's stop living life 20 years ago, and focus on what's going on right now, and what is relevant to the original poster's question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it _is _relevant. Why? Because you're buying into a _system_. Suppose the OP want to get a film body at some point. (Maybe to shoot film and digital together.) EOS-1's (of various versions) are available at very moderate prices. On the other hand, you couldn't _give _me an F4. It's a monstrosity.
> 
> CANON EOS 1V W/ E1 BOOSTER GRIP EXCELLENT CONDITION - eBay (item 230503772886 end time Aug-01-10 20:13:02 PDT)
> 
> Canon EOS 1-N 35mm SLR Film Camera - NO RESERVE!!! - eBay (item 290457872516 end time Aug-01-10 18:30:25 PDT)
Click to expand...


Please explain to me how the Canon AF is superior to Nikon. And please don't talk about 20 year old history, I'm talking about today's technology.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Derrel said:


> Petraio--Nikon--still making SLR cameras....  Leicaflex--discontinued due to lack of sales
> 
> The Leica R-mount is dead...the Nikon F-mount is still going strong...Nikon just overtook Canon as the top selling SLR brand in Japan...Leica discontinued the Leicaflex R-series, perhaps because they never could figure out how to build an autofocus camera in 20 years...
> 
> Your post is kind of funny, since Leica is so technologically behind the times that its R-system never could generate even a tiny user base,and in March of 2009 Leica announced that it was finally just ceasing production of the R-series manual focus 35mm SLR film camera. 10 years after Nikon premiered the D1, the first affordable digital SLR camera, Leica discontinued a manual focus, 35mm FILM SLR. Snicker...
> 
> Again, though I want to make the case for the Rolleiflex brand of digital!!! Rolleiflex digital rules!



It was not that they "never could figure out how to build an autofocus camera in 20 years". Leica did not think that auto-focusing was technically compatible with the demands for ultimate optical quality that their customer base demands, with the lenses in the R system. You'll note that all those Leica reflex lenses still fetch good prices; many are being adopted to use on digital boxes (though Leica told me they are going to make one).  Leica realized that the market for 35mm and digital SLRs was changing in a way in which they could not compete. I don't need autofocussing or all that stuff.

There is some 'play' in any autofocus system that limits the ultimate quality you can get.

You neglected to mention the S2 by the way. The S2 is a killer camera system that outclasses anything Nikon or Canon makes. Again, by starting over from scratch they can leap-frog the competition. I lose nothing by staying with my SL2. I shoot film and have it scanned. If I have something worth printing I print it.

There was no easy way to make the R system autofocus so they didn't try. I agree with that decision. The M9 is still a manual focus system, I may note.

A manual-focusing film camera is not easy to sell in today's market, no matter how good the lenses are. And they are superb. It is a market-driven field.


----------



## Browncoat

I win.


----------



## Shaneuk

This argument will never end.


----------



## Neil S.

Neil S. said:


> This post is going to start some $#!%....watch
> 
> PP I love you man, but this is the wrong thread for this lol.


 
OMG I can see into the future!!!


----------



## Derrel

Browncoat said:


> I win.



Awesome contribution browncoat!!! THAT is one funny sign!

Oh, and Rollei Digital Rules!!!


----------



## Neil S.

Mike_E said:


> Do none of you have lives?
> 
> Here you go Neil, as you couldn't find your copy. (unless I missed your post)


 
DIE!!! HORSE THAT IS ALREADY DEAD!!!


----------



## shaunly

Petraio Prime said:


> Idahophoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, I still love film in many ways. I hope it stays around and i really am enjoying the Canon system and ye some models are better suited for different things. But that a model design not a companey one really. Both Canon have cameras that can do really anything you need and they both offer cameras in a wide range of prices and have great lens choices. All I'm saying it either brand is fine and there is no bad choice. I judge photo's here and anyplace else for that matter on the photo themselves not on what system the photographer used. Sure I like to know especially if they used Canon and even more so it it was the 50D. But a great shot is a great shot, and a bad one is a bad one and it the person who does it not the camera.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What irks me about Nikon is that they have Jerry-rigged everything from 1959:
> 
> Want a meter? Stick it on top:
> 
> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/images/FphotomicBig.jpg
> 
> Not through the lens, but so what...
> 
> Oh, and when you mounted the lens you had to turn the aperture back and forth so the meter knew what the maximum aperture was. What a PIA!
> 
> Want TTL?
> 
> Ok, here ya go:
> 
> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/images/FphotomicTBig.jpg
> 
> When you mounted the lens you _still _had to turn the aperture back and forth so the meter knew what the maximum aperture was.
> 
> All this was so that the Nikon could have interchangeable prisms and screens. Why? Nobody ever used them. They were held on with clips and springs, easily got damaged and could even fall off.
> 
> Interchangeable screens? Why? Leica decided that a fixed screen could be positioned with tighter tolerances.
> 
> First reflex from Leica:
> 
> http://photo.net/general-comments/attachment/5715111/598px-Leicaflex_IMG_0307.jpg
> 
> None of the crap and nonsense Nikon had. Elegant, simple, reliable.
> 
> Want TTL metering?
> 
> OK, Leicaflex SL:
> 
> http://www.mediajoy.com/en/cla_came/leicaflex_sl/leicaflex_sl.jpg
> 
> Who the hell would prefer the Nikon Photomic to that? Only insane people! I used these Nikons for a short time in the early 70s (before I got my own Leicaflex equipment) and grew to hate Nikon with a deep passion. I worked at the OSU yearbook and the yearbook equipment was Nikon.  It has always impressed me as Jerry-rigged and stupid beyond belief.
> 
> I went to a to shoot a play. The Nikon Photomic's meter could not be seen in the dark. It depended on light coming from above to illuminate the needle. What if you're shooting in the dark? Duh! You call that engineering? I don't!
> 
> My Leicaflex SL2 has a battery-operated light inside the viewfinder that you can push to illuminate the needle under poor light conditions.
> 
> With the F2, Nikon persisted with the interchangeable finders that no-one used:
> 
> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/images/F2photomicBig.jpg
> 
> Metering was _still _not part of the body!
> 
> Better, but still not as elegant as the Leicaflex SL2, introduced shortly thereafter (and my current camera):
> 
> http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/SL2C.jpg
> 
> Everything you _don't_ need is a hindrance.
> 
> Nikon has persisted with the Jerry-rigged approach to this day. Autofocussing was treated the same way, as is digital now.
> 
> I can't believe anyone buys Nikon today. Or ever did.
> 
> My stance is not so much pro-Canon as it is _anti-Nikon_. I _loathe _Nikon. Their engineering and product development is horrid.
> 
> This is not just about this or that model...I have watched their products for many many years. I know how they approach things and how they think. When I see a D3 or whatever it's called, all I can think about is that stupid Photomic system and the time I couldn't meter in the theatre at a play.
> 
> *If you buy Nikon, you're voting for inferior engineering and thinking.
> 
> *
Click to expand...


seriously bro, you need to let grudges go. You seem to have this hatred against nikon based on your experience in the 70s!!! Not sure how old you are, but when people get old, it's hard for them to catch up to modern technology. My father has been a photographer since the Vietnam War! It hard for him to take in all these modern DSLR. He still loves his films. So seriously.... let it go and open your eyes. =)


----------



## Petraio Prime

shaunly said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idahophoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, I still love film in many ways. I hope it stays around and i really am enjoying the Canon system and ye some models are better suited for different things. But that a model design not a companey one really. Both Canon have cameras that can do really anything you need and they both offer cameras in a wide range of prices and have great lens choices. All I'm saying it either brand is fine and there is no bad choice. I judge photo's here and anyplace else for that matter on the photo themselves not on what system the photographer used. Sure I like to know especially if they used Canon and even more so it it was the 50D. But a great shot is a great shot, and a bad one is a bad one and it the person who does it not the camera.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What irks me about Nikon is that they have Jerry-rigged everything from 1959:
> 
> Want a meter? Stick it on top:
> 
> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/images/FphotomicBig.jpg
> 
> Not through the lens, but so what...
> 
> Oh, and when you mounted the lens you had to turn the aperture back and forth so the meter knew what the maximum aperture was. What a PIA!
> 
> Want TTL?
> 
> Ok, here ya go:
> 
> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/images/FphotomicTBig.jpg
> 
> When you mounted the lens you _still _had to turn the aperture back and forth so the meter knew what the maximum aperture was.
> 
> All this was so that the Nikon could have interchangeable prisms and screens. Why? Nobody ever used them. They were held on with clips and springs, easily got damaged and could even fall off.
> 
> Interchangeable screens? Why? Leica decided that a fixed screen could be positioned with tighter tolerances.
> 
> First reflex from Leica:
> 
> http://photo.net/general-comments/attachment/5715111/598px-Leicaflex_IMG_0307.jpg
> 
> None of the crap and nonsense Nikon had. Elegant, simple, reliable.
> 
> Want TTL metering?
> 
> OK, Leicaflex SL:
> 
> http://www.mediajoy.com/en/cla_came/leicaflex_sl/leicaflex_sl.jpg
> 
> Who the hell would prefer the Nikon Photomic to that? Only insane people! I used these Nikons for a short time in the early 70s (before I got my own Leicaflex equipment) and grew to hate Nikon with a deep passion. I worked at the OSU yearbook and the yearbook equipment was Nikon.  It has always impressed me as Jerry-rigged and stupid beyond belief.
> 
> I went to a to shoot a play. The Nikon Photomic's meter could not be seen in the dark. It depended on light coming from above to illuminate the needle. What if you're shooting in the dark? Duh! You call that engineering? I don't!
> 
> My Leicaflex SL2 has a battery-operated light inside the viewfinder that you can push to illuminate the needle under poor light conditions.
> 
> With the F2, Nikon persisted with the interchangeable finders that no-one used:
> 
> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/images/F2photomicBig.jpg
> 
> Metering was _still _not part of the body!
> 
> Better, but still not as elegant as the Leicaflex SL2, introduced shortly thereafter (and my current camera):
> 
> http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/SL2C.jpg
> 
> Everything you _don't_ need is a hindrance.
> 
> Nikon has persisted with the Jerry-rigged approach to this day. Autofocussing was treated the same way, as is digital now.
> 
> I can't believe anyone buys Nikon today. Or ever did.
> 
> My stance is not so much pro-Canon as it is _anti-Nikon_. I _loathe _Nikon. Their engineering and product development is horrid.
> 
> This is not just about this or that model...I have watched their products for many many years. I know how they approach things and how they think. When I see a D3 or whatever it's called, all I can think about is that stupid Photomic system and the time I couldn't meter in the theatre at a play.
> 
> *If you buy Nikon, you're voting for inferior engineering and thinking.
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> seriously bro, you need to let grudges go. You seem to have this hatred against nikon based on your experience in the 70s!!! Not sure how old you are, but when people get old, it's hard for them to catch up to modern technology. My father has been a photographer since the Vietnam War! It hard for him to take in all these modern DSLR. He still loves his films. So seriously.... let it go and open your eyes. =)
Click to expand...


The point is, it hasn't changed. I have been following the developments in cameras, and I see the same pattern. I think Canon was smart to start over from scratch. It left them in a stronger position technically.

If Leica did not exist I would choose Canon, is all I'm saying. Nikon just always seems to have to "make do". Everything seems an afterthought.


----------



## Neil S.

Although I want this thread to die, I will say this.

PP, I don't think you are giving Nikon the credit they deserve.

I recommend you look up the D3x, and read some reviews. It is such a nice camera, and without a doubt the best full-frame DSLR (Canon and Nikon at least) in the world at the moment.

I would probably trade my 7D and all my Canon lenses for just the D3x and one really good Nikon zoom right now.

Maybe in the future this won't be the case though, Canon can always make a comeback in the full-frame market.

Canon holds the crown for best crop camera atm, and they have the best DSLR video.

Canon also has their own strengths vs. Nikon. They have the fastest lenses between the two companies, and they also have the best value and selection for telephoto lenses.

As Derrel said before, Canon doesn't have as good of a metering system compared to Nikon. I agree with him on this.

Nikon is not without their own share of weaknesses as well.

All I am saying is that they both make great cameras, and lenses. You can't go wrong with either right now.

Can we please all just leave it at that?

/ENDTHREAD


----------



## Idahophoto

Petraio Prime said:


> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> What irks me about Nikon is that they have Jerry-rigged everything from 1959:
> 
> Want a meter? Stick it on top:
> 
> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/images/FphotomicBig.jpg
> 
> Not through the lens, but so what...
> 
> Oh, and when you mounted the lens you had to turn the aperture back and forth so the meter knew what the maximum aperture was. What a PIA!
> 
> Want TTL?
> 
> Ok, here ya go:
> 
> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/images/FphotomicTBig.jpg
> 
> When you mounted the lens you _still _had to turn the aperture back and forth so the meter knew what the maximum aperture was.
> 
> All this was so that the Nikon could have interchangeable prisms and screens. Why? Nobody ever used them. They were held on with clips and springs, easily got damaged and could even fall off.
> 
> Interchangeable screens? Why? Leica decided that a fixed screen could be positioned with tighter tolerances.
> 
> First reflex from Leica:
> 
> http://photo.net/general-comments/attachment/5715111/598px-Leicaflex_IMG_0307.jpg
> 
> None of the crap and nonsense Nikon had. Elegant, simple, reliable.
> 
> Want TTL metering?
> 
> OK, Leicaflex SL:
> 
> http://www.mediajoy.com/en/cla_came/leicaflex_sl/leicaflex_sl.jpg
> 
> Who the hell would prefer the Nikon Photomic to that? Only insane people! I used these Nikons for a short time in the early 70s (before I got my own Leicaflex equipment) and grew to hate Nikon with a deep passion. I worked at the OSU yearbook and the yearbook equipment was Nikon.  It has always impressed me as Jerry-rigged and stupid beyond belief.
> 
> I went to a to shoot a play. The Nikon Photomic's meter could not be seen in the dark. It depended on light coming from above to illuminate the needle. What if you're shooting in the dark? Duh! You call that engineering? I don't!
> 
> My Leicaflex SL2 has a battery-operated light inside the viewfinder that you can push to illuminate the needle under poor light conditions.
> 
> With the F2, Nikon persisted with the interchangeable finders that no-one used:
> 
> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/images/F2photomicBig.jpg
> 
> Metering was _still _not part of the body!
> 
> Better, but still not as elegant as the Leicaflex SL2, introduced shortly thereafter (and my current camera):
> 
> http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/SL2C.jpg
> 
> Everything you _don't_ need is a hindrance.
> 
> Nikon has persisted with the Jerry-rigged approach to this day. Autofocussing was treated the same way, as is digital now.
> 
> I can't believe anyone buys Nikon today. Or ever did.
> 
> My stance is not so much pro-Canon as it is _anti-Nikon_. I _loathe _Nikon. Their engineering and product development is horrid.
> 
> This is not just about this or that model...I have watched their products for many many years. I know how they approach things and how they think. When I see a D3 or whatever it's called, all I can think about is that stupid Photomic system and the time I couldn't meter in the theatre at a play.
> 
> *If you buy Nikon, you're voting for inferior engineering and thinking.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seriously bro, you need to let grudges go. You seem to have this hatred against nikon based on your experience in the 70s!!! Not sure how old you are, but when people get old, it's hard for them to catch up to modern technology. My father has been a photographer since the Vietnam War! It hard for him to take in all these modern DSLR. He still loves his films. So seriously.... let it go and open your eyes. =)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is, it hasn't changed. I have been following the developments in cameras, and I see the same pattern. I think Canon was smart to start over from scratch. It left them in a stronger position technically.
Click to expand...


Ah man 3rd time i said i would rot comment on anything here and yet once again I find myself doing just that.

I personally like how Nikon has done things. You say jerry rigged yet it has worked extrememly well and make getting to things so much easier than with Canon that I have to stop what I'm doing and look for the right button, then get to the right menu to finally find what I want. Its a crazy set up! I have yet to see Canon match Nikon on metering you look hands down and most people will agree. Your obviously extremely biased and should not be taken seriously! Both Nikon and Canons have there faults and both have there way of doing things I may personally hate a set up but another might like it. If you don't like Nikon dont buy em, but don't think other people will feel the same way. I hate Sony's SLR's why a person would think of getting one is a mystery to me, but some do. It might fit there needs. Not everyone wants and needs will fit with yours. It does not make one better than the other per say. Canon has done some very good things that I like I could list them, but damn, die thread die! or at least make a section just for needless rants with no value.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Idahophoto said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> seriously bro, you need to let grudges go. You seem to have this hatred against nikon based on your experience in the 70s!!! Not sure how old you are, but when people get old, it's hard for them to catch up to modern technology. My father has been a photographer since the Vietnam War! It hard for him to take in all these modern DSLR. He still loves his films. So seriously.... let it go and open your eyes. =)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, it hasn't changed. I have been following the developments in cameras, and I see the same pattern. I think Canon was smart to start over from scratch. It left them in a stronger position technically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah man 3rd time i said i would rot comment on anything here and yet once again I find myself doing just that.
> 
> I personally like how Nikon has done things. You say jerry rigged yet it has worked extrememly well and make getting to things so much easier than with Canon that I have to stop what I'm doing and look for the right button, then get to the right menu to finally find what I want. Its a crazy set up! I have yet to see Canon match Nikon on metering you look hands down and most people will agree. Your obviously extremely biased and should not be taken seriously! Both Nikon and Canons have there faults and both have there way of doing things I may personally hate a set up but another might like it. If you don't like Nikon dont buy em, but don't think other people will feel the same way. I hate Sony's SLR's why a person would think of getting one is a mystery to me, but some do. It might fit there needs. Not everyone wants and needs will fit with yours. It does not make one better than the other per say. Canon has done some very good things that I like I could list them, but damn, die thread die! or at least make a section just for needless rants with no value.
Click to expand...


Well I'm not sure what you mean by the difficult menu buttons. I thought you could program them.

If you look through the brief history of Nikon cameras that I put up, you'll see what I am talking about, and what I mean by "Jerry-rigged". Again, I am not biased. I don't use either Canon or Nikon. I use Leicaflex SL2.


----------



## kundalini

I poop rainbows!









​​


----------



## shaunly

Petraio Prime said:


> Idahophoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, it hasn't changed. I have been following the developments in cameras, and I see the same pattern. I think Canon was smart to start over from scratch. It left them in a stronger position technically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah man 3rd time i said i would rot comment on anything here and yet once again I find myself doing just that.
> 
> I personally like how Nikon has done things. You say jerry rigged yet it has worked extrememly well and make getting to things so much easier than with Canon that I have to stop what I'm doing and look for the right button, then get to the right menu to finally find what I want. Its a crazy set up! I have yet to see Canon match Nikon on metering you look hands down and most people will agree. Your obviously extremely biased and should not be taken seriously! Both Nikon and Canons have there faults and both have there way of doing things I may personally hate a set up but another might like it. If you don't like Nikon dont buy em, but don't think other people will feel the same way. I hate Sony's SLR's why a person would think of getting one is a mystery to me, but some do. It might fit there needs. Not everyone wants and needs will fit with yours. It does not make one better than the other per say. Canon has done some very good things that I like I could list them, but damn, die thread die! or at least make a section just for needless rants with no value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I'm not sure what you mean by the difficult menu buttons. I thought you could program them.
> 
> If you look through the brief history of Nikon cameras that I put up, you'll see what I am talking about, and what I mean by "Jerry-rigged". Again, I am not biased. I don't use either Canon or Nikon. I use Leicaflex SL2.
Click to expand...


That's what I'm talking about right there! Let me ask you something, do you have any experience with the current Canon and Nikon camera line up? You don't even know what he's talking about when he mentioned the buttons layout! Canon's button layout are a pain in the ass! I have yet to seen you explain anything that's up to date. Everything you've talk about has been a trip to memory lane. So let me ask you AGAIN, can you please explain to me how Canon AF is superior to Nikon in their CURRENT lineup of cameras.


----------



## shaunly

kundalini said:


> I poop rainbows!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​​



:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## Petraio Prime

shaunly said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idahophoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah man 3rd time i said i would rot comment on anything here and yet once again I find myself doing just that.
> 
> I personally like how Nikon has done things. You say jerry rigged yet it has worked extrememly well and make getting to things so much easier than with Canon that I have to stop what I'm doing and look for the right button, then get to the right menu to finally find what I want. Its a crazy set up! I have yet to see Canon match Nikon on metering you look hands down and most people will agree. Your obviously extremely biased and should not be taken seriously! Both Nikon and Canons have there faults and both have there way of doing things I may personally hate a set up but another might like it. If you don't like Nikon dont buy em, but don't think other people will feel the same way. I hate Sony's SLR's why a person would think of getting one is a mystery to me, but some do. It might fit there needs. Not everyone wants and needs will fit with yours. It does not make one better than the other per say. Canon has done some very good things that I like I could list them, but damn, die thread die! or at least make a section just for needless rants with no value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not sure what you mean by the difficult menu buttons. I thought you could program them.
> 
> If you look through the brief history of Nikon cameras that I put up, you'll see what I am talking about, and what I mean by "Jerry-rigged". Again, I am not biased. I don't use either Canon or Nikon. I use Leicaflex SL2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I'm talking about right there! Let me ask you something, do you have any experience with the current Canon and Nikon camera line up? You don't even know what he's talking about when he mentioned the buttons layout! Canon's button layout are a pain in the ass! I have yet to seen you explain anything that's up to date. Everything you've talk about has been a trip to memory lane. So let me ask you AGAIN, can you please explain to me how Canon AF is superior to Nikon in their CURRENT lineup of cameras.
Click to expand...


Who needs autofocus?

To answer your question, I would defer to this article:

Nikon D3 / D300 Vs. Canon

All I'm saying is that Nikon has a history of jerry-rigging...and they can't escape from it.


----------



## bigboi3

EPIC thread in my book.:thumbup:


----------



## Neil S.

That article is praising Nikon....

It is also over 2 years old.


----------



## OrionsByte

bigboi3 said:


> EPIC thread in my book.:thumbup:



Your book must be a horror novel.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Neil S. said:


> That article is praising Nikon....
> 
> It is also over 2 years old.



I didn't read it all the way through, but I don't think it's 'praising' either line. It seems to be an objective assessment.

My personal opinion is that I was always amazed when people bought a Nikon Ftn, instead of Alpa or Leica, when they could afford anything they wanted (you could see their Mercedes in the parking lot, and the Rolexes on their wrists) and the Nikon was harder to deal with (the back slid completely off, it was not hinged). People wanted to be like the 'pros'.


----------



## bigboi3

OrionsByte said:


> bigboi3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> EPIC thread in my book.:thumbup:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your book must be a horror novel.
Click to expand...


:lmao:


----------



## Neil S.

I did read most of it.

Its basically saying that although the reviewer was a long time Canon user, he was surprised by these 2 Nikon offerings. 

He also said that if Nikon was to produce a D3 body around 24 megapixels and good ISO performance, it would probably beat out the Canon 1 series.

Thats exactly what happened too lol.

Maybe he can see the future....


----------



## Petraio Prime

Neil S. said:


> I did read most of it.
> 
> Its basically saying that although the reviewer was a long time Canon user, he was surprised by these 2 Nikon offerings.
> 
> He also said that if Nikon was to produce a D3 body around 24 megapixels and good ISO performance, it would probably beat out the Canon 1 series.
> 
> Thats exactly what happened too lol.
> 
> Maybe he can see the future....



Yes, but to point out the obvious:

1) Canon can strike back with improved sensor technology (it's not a _system _thing)

2) It doesn't make the Nikon _system _better


----------



## Neil S.

To be honest I think the fact that they are so damn close, is the very same reason these are such hot discussions.

Think about it...

If I was to post a "Sony vs. Canon", or "Sony vs. Nikon" thread, do you really think it would be such a contested topic. I think not. 

It would take me like 2-3 posts at most to prove without a doubt that either Canon or Nikon is better than Sony. They are just getting started though remember...


----------



## Petraio Prime

Neil S. said:


> To be honest I think the fact that they are so damn close, is the very same reason these are such hot discussions.
> 
> Think about it...
> 
> If I was to post a "Sony vs. Canon", or "Sony vs. Nikon" thread, do you really think it would be such a contested topic. I think not.
> 
> It would take me like 2-3 posts at most to prove without a doubt that either Canon or Nikon is better than Sony. They are just getting started though remember...



Sony absorbed Minolta.


----------



## Neil S.

Thats not even the point lol.

We need someone to lock this thread, for the love of god.

Here I am keeping this thread alive, when I tried so hard before to kill it.

Damn you Canon vs. Nikon threads....


----------



## mopar

Hi 

I just got my first camera a Canon 7D.  I know this is off topic but I entered in a contest one of my pictures and was wondering if you don't mind voting on it. I am hoping to win at least 3rd place so that I can get a flash for my camera. Here are the details

Go to this link http://www.opcontests.com/myOakville/micro/index.php?page=1

Then enter *2575* in the search field and search by Entry # then click the search button.
Click on the vote button and enter your Name and Email address and click on send.

For the vote to count you have to verify your email address.
Open your email inbox, for some reason the verification is sent to the junk file sometimes. Open the Oakville Place email and click on the link to verify your vote. A confirmation window will pop up.  

You can vote every 6 hours.

Thank You For Your Vote

Dano


----------



## supraman215

I figured with a sn like mopar you would be a canon fan lol


----------



## Petraio Prime

Neil S. said:


> Thats not even the point lol.
> 
> We need someone to lock this thread, for the love of god.
> 
> Here I am keeping this thread alive, when I tried so hard before to kill it.
> 
> Damn you Canon vs. Nikon threads....



I think anyone contemplating getting married should look at the extended family of their beloved, don't you?


----------



## Rekd

Idahophoto said:


> OK, that's it! Everyone of you go grab a magazine. No I don't care what magazine be it playboy or favorite family recipes, or anything else. Only requirement it must have pictures. Go get one. Im waiting,  go on!
> 
> Waiting....
> 
> 
> waiting...
> 
> 
> Waiting...
> 
> 
> K, you got one now? Awesome! Open it up and find a picture. There ya go good choice! Words are useless don't look at em. Fills your brain up with to much junk. Let it have a break. Okay, now back to the picture. Intersting shot, what camera did it? what lens? What do you mean you don't know noobs? Why you asking me if I do? Of course I don't. That's why I asked. If we can't tell,what difference does it make? I know it was a tough project so I'll be nice and just tell you this answer, and it's a simple one. It doesn't!
> 
> Point made! Please come back on next thread when i will be discussing.... lol you will just have to wait to find out



Um, so the mag I picked up had picts that were, in fact, shot with a Canon.


----------



## FemFugler




----------



## Neil S.

supraman215 said:


> I figured with a sn like mopar you would be a canon fan lol


 
What does this even mean?

Please explain....


----------



## supraman215

Neil S. said:


> supraman215 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I figured with a sn like mopar you would be a canon fan lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does this even mean?
> 
> Please explain....
Click to expand...


Mopar is Chrysler's performance brand of products. It gets into the  whole Chevy, Ford, Chrysler thing. Usually Mopar guys are usually very particular about the brand. Just trying to get a rise.


----------



## sovietdoc

Both brands such as Nikon and Canon have their advantages and disadvantages at the moment.  But as with any monopolized economy, I am sure that the price for which they sell their higher end bodies isn't exactly what it actually costs them from the "supply vs demand" graph.  

One can argue that there are significant differences between things like t2i and 7D, but in reality, they're very similar.  But then, why does one cost 600-700 bucks and the other one is almost 2 grand?  Better components?  It doesn't cost that much.  It's been known for a while that with digital cameras, everything that relates to AF, WB, and all other electronic stuff is the same on these cams.  The firmware that controls it is different.  It's easier to produce the same sensor, and write up all of the programs that will control the camera, and then just use certain parameters to make the firmware better or worse to control which one will go on which camera in the price range.

I honestly do not believe that what we are seeing now from canon and nikon is "bleeding edge" of technology.  More like they're both playing a game of very slowly upping their stuff and selling it for big bucks.  I asked a canon representative one why they're moving their camera ranges up so slowly with no significant differences, especially in low end, he said :"We have the technology to make something that will be considered "the best" for a while, but it's more profitable to expose people to this technology slowly, rather than just all at once.  And the low end segment is cheaper, so people get different cameras more often, so someone who paid 700 dollars for a camera will be able to change it for a new one more easily than the one who paid 5 thousand."

If you read reviews, you can even tell that the performance of their cameras that sit within one range is very similar for both companies. Accident? More like price/performance fixing if you ask me.

If you look at almost any kind of big industry now, you'll see that there are 2-10+ companies that control it.  They are playing their own game, fixing the prices of things, and not letting any new companies (who might wanna sell by the laws of supply and demand, rather than corporate policies) into their game.  

Monopolization of the market is a natural process in any capitalist economy.


----------



## Neil S.

supraman215 said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supraman215 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I figured with a sn like mopar you would be a canon fan lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does this even mean?
> 
> Please explain....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mopar is Chrysler's performance brand of products. It gets into the whole Chevy, Ford, Chrysler thing. Usually Mopar guys are usually very particular about the brand. Just trying to get a rise.
Click to expand...

 
I know what Mopar is lol.

I still don't understand why Mopar fans would be more likely to like Canon over Nikon (or any other brand).

Maybe I am missing something here....


----------



## supraman215

Neil S. said:


> supraman215 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does this even mean?
> 
> Please explain....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mopar is Chrysler's performance brand of products. It gets into the whole Chevy, Ford, Chrysler thing. Usually Mopar guys are usually very particular about the brand. Just trying to get a rise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what Mopar is lol.
> 
> I still don't understand why Mopar fans would be more likely to like Canon over Nikon (or any other brand).
> 
> Maybe I am missing something here....
Click to expand...


Because Mopar sucks and Canon sucks.


----------



## Neil S.

sovietdoc said:


> One can argue that there are significant differences between things like t2i and 7D, but in reality, they're very similar. But then, why does one cost 600-700 bucks and the other one is almost 2 grand? Better components? It doesn't cost that much.


 
Advantages of the 7D

-Weather sealing

-Magnesium construction

-Better viewfinder(and different type)

-More than 2x the burst speed

-Dual image processors

I am sure I missed some stuff as well here.

Trust me its far from the same camera, and that includes the production cost of materials.


----------



## Petraio Prime

supraman215 said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supraman215 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mopar is Chrysler's performance brand of products. It gets into the whole Chevy, Ford, Chrysler thing. Usually Mopar guys are usually very particular about the brand. Just trying to get a rise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what Mopar is lol.
> 
> I still don't understand why Mopar fans would be more likely to like Canon over Nikon (or any other brand).
> 
> Maybe I am missing something here....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Mopar sucks and Canon sucks.
Click to expand...


What is Mopar?


----------



## ConcretePicture

My dad is a Nikon man and will be for life.  I love my Canons and will buy them again when the time comes for replacement.  I agree with Subscuck about the megapixels.  Great quality is largely about image stabilization and equally yoked features.  Massive photo size is not always the answer.


----------



## Neil S.

supraman215 said:


> Because Mopar sucks and Canon sucks.


 
This has got to be the most win post so far in this mess of a thread. :thumbup:

We are lucky to have someone with your grace and wisdom in these forums.

At least someone like Derrel can actually describe in great detail why he feels Nikon is better. He also has the gear, knowledge, and experience to back up his argument.

What do you have?

You said "Canon sucks" so it must be the truth. I yield to your intelligent and well thought out statement.

Bravo!

/ENDTHREAD


----------



## OrionsByte

Petraio Prime said:


> supraman215 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supraman215 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Mopar is Chrysler's performance brand of products.* It gets into the whole Chevy, Ford, Chrysler thing. Usually Mopar guys are usually very particular about the brand. Just trying to get a rise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what Mopar is lol.
> 
> I still don't understand why Mopar fans would be more likely to like Canon over Nikon (or any other brand).
> 
> Maybe I am missing something here....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Mopar sucks and Canon sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What is Mopar?*
Click to expand...


Seriously?  Suddenly a lot of your posts make more sense.


----------



## shaunly

Petraio Prime said:


> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not sure what you mean by the difficult menu buttons. I thought you could program them.
> 
> If you look through the brief history of Nikon cameras that I put up, you'll see what I am talking about, and what I mean by "Jerry-rigged". Again, I am not biased. I don't use either Canon or Nikon. I use Leicaflex SL2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I'm talking about right there! Let me ask you something, do you have any experience with the current Canon and Nikon camera line up? You don't even know what he's talking about when he mentioned the buttons layout! Canon's button layout are a pain in the ass! I have yet to seen you explain anything that's up to date. Everything you've talk about has been a trip to memory lane. So let me ask you AGAIN, can you please explain to me how Canon AF is superior to Nikon in their CURRENT lineup of cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who needs autofocus?
> 
> To answer your question, I would defer to this article:
> 
> Nikon D3 / D300 Vs. Canon
> 
> All I'm saying is that Nikon has a history of jerry-rigging...and they can't escape from it.
Click to expand...


YES, that does answer my question. Which is Nikon current line up has surpassed canon. Thank you!

And how are you going to give me a link without reading the whole thing? What were you trying to prove there?

Here's a few quote from the article since you didn't read the whole thing.

"...current Nikon       cameras offer feature and function advantages over Canon"

"The 1D MKIII is right in the D3's bore sight, and the D3 matches       it or surpasses it in IQ, sensitivity, and resolution"


----------



## supraman215

Neil S. said:


> supraman215 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because Mopar sucks and Canon sucks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has got to be the most win post so far in this mess of a thread. :thumbup:
> 
> We are lucky to have someone with your grace and wisdom in these forums.
> 
> At lease someone like Derrel can actually describe in great detail why he feels Nikon is better. He also has the gear, knowledge, and experience to back up his argument.
> 
> What do you have?
> 
> You said "Canon sucks" so it must be the truth. I yield to your intelligent and well thought out statement.
> 
> Bravo!
> 
> /ENDTHREAD
Click to expand...


Please don't internalize this. It was just a joke I really don't care. :hugs:


----------



## Petraio Prime

Neil S. said:


> supraman215 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because Mopar sucks and Canon sucks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has got to be the most win post so far in this mess of a thread. :thumbup:
> 
> We are lucky to have someone with your grace and wisdom in these forums.
> 
> At lease someone like Derrel can actually describe in great detail why he feels Nikon is better. He also has the gear, knowledge, and experience to back up his argument.
> 
> What do you have?
> 
> You said "Canon sucks" so it must be the truth. I yield to your intelligent and well thought out statement.
> 
> Bravo!
> 
> /ENDTHREAD
Click to expand...


When Canon introduced the EOS system in 1989 it was already very well thought out, with price points for various users, from the EOS-1 to the Rebel. Same with the lenses. There was the 'L' line for advanced photographers and pros, and standard lenses for the masses.

Nikon seemed to have egg on their face when this happened.

I don't get it. Why would anyone consider Nikon?


----------



## shaunly

Petraio Prime said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did read most of it.
> 
> Its basically saying that although the reviewer was a long time Canon user, he was surprised by these 2 Nikon offerings.
> 
> He also said that if Nikon was to produce a D3 body around 24 megapixels and good ISO performance, it would probably beat out the Canon 1 series.
> 
> Thats exactly what happened too lol.
> 
> Maybe he can see the future....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but to point out the obvious:
> 
> 1) Canon can strike back with improved sensor technology (it's not a _system _thing)
> 
> 2) It doesn't make the Nikon _system _better
Click to expand...


uhhh.... it DOES make the system better. The sensor is the heart of the system! I'm certain that Canon WILL come back with an improve camera and basically these two company will go back and forward. But to say that choosing Nikon is choosing a inferior thinking and developing is just obscene!


----------



## Neil S.

supraman215 said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supraman215 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because Mopar sucks and Canon sucks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has got to be the most win post so far in this mess of a thread. :thumbup:
> 
> We are lucky to have someone with your grace and wisdom in these forums.
> 
> At lease someone like Derrel can actually describe in great detail why he feels Nikon is better. He also has the gear, knowledge, and experience to back up his argument.
> 
> What do you have?
> 
> You said "Canon sucks" so it must be the truth. I yield to your intelligent and well thought out statement.
> 
> Bravo!
> 
> /ENDTHREAD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please don't internalize this. It was just a joke I really don't care. :hugs:
Click to expand...

 
Well if it was just a joke then I apologize for getting the wrong idea.

Thats not how it sounded though.

In a thread like this, all you are doing saying something like that is throwing gasoline on the fire.


----------



## shaunly

Petraio Prime said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supraman215 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because Mopar sucks and Canon sucks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has got to be the most win post so far in this mess of a thread. :thumbup:
> 
> We are lucky to have someone with your grace and wisdom in these forums.
> 
> At lease someone like Derrel can actually describe in great detail why he feels Nikon is better. He also has the gear, knowledge, and experience to back up his argument.
> 
> What do you have?
> 
> You said "Canon sucks" so it must be the truth. I yield to your intelligent and well thought out statement.
> 
> Bravo!
> 
> /ENDTHREAD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Canon introduced the EOS system in 1989 it was already very well thought out, with price points for various users, from the EOS-1 to the Rebel. Same with the lenses. There was the 'L' line for advanced photographers and pros, and standard lenses for the masses.
> 
> Nikon seemed to have egg on their face when this happened.
> 
> I don't get it. Why would anyone consider Nikon?
Click to expand...


your right.... you DONT get it.


----------



## Petraio Prime

shaunly said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did read most of it.
> 
> Its basically saying that although the reviewer was a long time Canon user, he was surprised by these 2 Nikon offerings.
> 
> He also said that if Nikon was to produce a D3 body around 24 megapixels and good ISO performance, it would probably beat out the Canon 1 series.
> 
> Thats exactly what happened too lol.
> 
> Maybe he can see the future....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but to point out the obvious:
> 
> 1) Canon can strike back with improved sensor technology (it's not a _system _thing)
> 
> 2) It doesn't make the Nikon _system _better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> uhhh.... it DOES make the system better. The sensor is the heart of the system! I'm certain that Canon WILL come back with an improve camera and basically these two company will go back and forward. But to say that choosing Nikon is choosing a inferior thinking and developing is just obscene!
Click to expand...


Not what I meant by 'system'. I mean the lenses. lens technology, mount system, stuff not directly related to the sensor. I mean more the mechanical stuff.


----------



## Petraio Prime

shaunly said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has got to be the most win post so far in this mess of a thread. :thumbup:
> 
> We are lucky to have someone with your grace and wisdom in these forums.
> 
> At lease someone like Derrel can actually describe in great detail why he feels Nikon is better. He also has the gear, knowledge, and experience to back up his argument.
> 
> What do you have?
> 
> You said "Canon sucks" so it must be the truth. I yield to your intelligent and well thought out statement.
> 
> Bravo!
> 
> /ENDTHREAD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Canon introduced the EOS system in 1989 it was already very well thought out, with price points for various users, from the EOS-1 to the Rebel. Same with the lenses. There was the 'L' line for advanced photographers and pros, and standard lenses for the masses.
> 
> Nikon seemed to have egg on their face when this happened.
> 
> I don't get it. Why would anyone consider Nikon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your right.... you DONT get it.
Click to expand...


I have been watching Nikon for 50 years and would never own a Nikon product. _They _don't get it.


----------



## shaunly

Petraio Prime said:


> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Canon introduced the EOS system in 1989 it was already very well thought out, with price points for various users, from the EOS-1 to the Rebel. Same with the lenses. There was the 'L' line for advanced photographers and pros, and standard lenses for the masses.
> 
> Nikon seemed to have egg on their face when this happened.
> 
> I don't get it. Why would anyone consider Nikon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your right.... you DONT get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been watching Nikon for 50 years and would never own a Nikon product. _They _don't get it.
Click to expand...


you're living in the past. I can't argue with you how things where in the 50s... I can only point out the obvious, which is how things are these days.


----------



## Petraio Prime

shaunly said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> your right.... you DONT get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been watching Nikon for 50 years and would never own a Nikon product. _They _don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're living in the past. I can't argue with you how things where in the 50s... I can only point out the obvious, which is how things are these days.
Click to expand...


Yes but as we all know the present is based on the past.


----------



## shaunly

Petraio Prime said:


> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been watching Nikon for 50 years and would never own a Nikon product. _They _don't get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're living in the past. I can't argue with you how things where in the 50s... I can only point out the obvious, which is how things are these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes but as we all know the present is based on the past.
Click to expand...


so does that mean Canon might screw all of their loyal customer again and switch to a completely new system?


----------



## Petraio Prime

shaunly said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're living in the past. I can't argue with you how things where in the 50s... I can only point out the obvious, which is how things are these days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but as we all know the present is based on the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so does that mean Canon might screw all of their loyal customer again and switch to a completely new system?
Click to expand...


Are you using any Nikon lenses from 1964? If not, why not? Why do you consider what Canon did was 'screwing' their loyal customers? Sometimes you have to abandon what you have and start over. Nikon's reluctance to do this was reflected in the cameras such as the F4, a monstrosity by any measure. Nikon always seems to be playing catch-up.

Look, here's the point: even if you want to maintain compatibility, eventually the old stuff becomes obsolete or is superseded anyway. So, it becomes a pointless endeavour. Even if Nikon's mount is the same since 1959, everything around the mount has changed so much it might as well not be.


----------



## Idahophoto

Petraio Prime said:


> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Canon introduced the EOS system in 1989 it was already very well thought out, with price points for various users, from the EOS-1 to the Rebel. Same with the lenses. There was the 'L' line for advanced photographers and pros, and standard lenses for the masses.
> 
> Nikon seemed to have egg on their face when this happened.
> 
> I don't get it. Why would anyone consider Nikon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your right.... you DONT get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been watching Nikon for 50 years and would never own a Nikon product. _They _don't get it.
Click to expand...


Maybe they do there are some real die hard Nikon users in case you have not been following a recent thread I will not name lol. So what don't they get? Its enough to keep them and in a constant battle for number 1 spot in the market so they must get something. Even if you don't


----------



## Petraio Prime

Idahophoto said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> your right.... you DONT get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been watching Nikon for 50 years and would never own a Nikon product. _They _don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe they do there are some real die hard Nikon users in case you have not been following a recent thread I will not name lol. So what don't they get? Its enough to keep them and in a constant battle for number 1 spot in the market so they must get something. Even if you don't
Click to expand...


See my last post for the explanation. See earlier for my post about the transition from F to F2 etc.


----------



## shaunly

Petraio Prime said:


> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but as we all know the present is based on the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so does that mean Canon might screw all of their loyal customer again and switch to a completely new system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you using any Nikon lenses from 1964? If not, why not? Why do you consider what Canon did was 'screwing' their loyal customers? Sometimes you have to abandon what you have and start over. Nikon's reluctance to do this was reflected in the cameras such as the F4, a monstrosity by any measure. Nikon always seems to be playing catch-up.
> 
> Look, here's the point: even if you want to maintain compatibility, eventually the old stuff becomes obsolete or is superseded anyway. So, it becomes a pointless endeavour.
Click to expand...


How are they playing catch-up? From the link you provide earlier, it clearly stated that the D3 has surpassed Canon 1D. Every since the released of the D3.. D3s/x, Canon is the one playing catch-up.

the old stuff become obsolete if your R&D isn't well though out and future proof. The fact that Nikon is still using the same F-mount and design since forever shows how great their engineering is.


----------



## Neil S.

I have a few questions.

Why does someone else having a different opinion from yours bother you so much?

Does it really matter that much what other people think?


----------



## shaunly

Neil S. said:


> I have a few questions.
> 
> Why does someone else having a different opinion from yours bother you so much?
> 
> Does it really matter that much what other people think?



are you referring to me?


----------



## Petraio Prime

shaunly said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> so does that mean Canon might screw all of their loyal customer again and switch to a completely new system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you using any Nikon lenses from 1964? If not, why not? Why do you consider what Canon did was 'screwing' their loyal customers? Sometimes you have to abandon what you have and start over. Nikon's reluctance to do this was reflected in the cameras such as the F4, a monstrosity by any measure. Nikon always seems to be playing catch-up.
> 
> Look, here's the point: even if you want to maintain compatibility, eventually the old stuff becomes obsolete or is superseded anyway. So, it becomes a pointless endeavour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are they playing catch-up? From the link you provide earlier, it clearly stated that the D3 has surpassed Canon 1D. Every since the released of the D3.. D3s/x, Canon is the one playing catch-up.
> 
> the old stuff become obsolete if your R&D isn't well though out and future proof. The fact that Nikon is still using the same F-mount and design since forever shows how great their engineering is.
Click to expand...


The main reason Nikon became established is that they were first on the market. The Topcon Super-D was a better-designed camera with the meter integrated into the body, not into the finder and stuck on the top with spring-loaded levers, as the Photomic was.

http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Topcon%20Super%20D.jpg

But the Topcon came later, after Nikon has established themselves among the press pros.


----------



## Neil S.

shaunly said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a few questions.
> 
> Why does someone else having a different opinion from yours bother you so much?
> 
> Does it really matter that much what other people think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you referring to me?
Click to expand...

 
I am referring to anyone who won't let this go....

Would that be you by any chance lol?


----------



## shaunly

Neil S. said:


> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a few questions.
> 
> Why does someone else having a different opinion from yours bother you so much?
> 
> Does it really matter that much what other people think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you referring to me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am referring to anyone who won't let this go....
> 
> Would that be you by any chance lol?
Click to expand...


It's nothing personal, just a friendly debate that's all :mrgreen:


----------



## OrionsByte

Petraio Prime said:


> I don't get it. Why would anyone consider Nikon?



When someone walks in to a camera shop, or reads reviews, or uses any other method of researching cameras in order to make a purchase, the reasons that you have been extolling in this thread as points against Nikon probably don't come up for consideration all that often.

What someone is interested in when buying a camera today is how the camera, and the system, performs today.  What happened a decade or two ago is pretty irrelevant when shopping for current-generation cameras.  If someone can get the performance they want for whatever price they are willing to pay, they're probably not going to care whether or not the mount was invented decades ago.  It simply doesn't have enough of a bearing on the quality of the pictures.

A second reason people might prefer one over the other is just the way it feels.  I have a Nikon D70 that I was lucky enough to get as kind of a hand-me-down from a friend (for a modest price).  He told me he would have no hard feelings if I wanted to trade it in for a Canon, and I considered it (mostly because Canons are easier to come by near where I live).  However, after going to a camera shop and handling the Canons in my price range, I decided I liked the Nikon a lot better.  It feels better in my hands.  Sturdier.  The settings are easier to manage on the D70 than on either of the Canons I played with (the T1i and T2i).  I ended up deciding that those things were important enough for me to stick with the Nikon, invest in some lenses and a flash over the next few months, and eventually replace the body with something more current.

But that's just my opinion.  I am not presenting any facts here, nor am I pretending to.  I'm just saying that I had some reasons for sticking with Nikon - reasons that were good for me, and may not be good for other people.  If someone had told me that I should switch to Canon because their AF mount was redesigned from scratch, I really doubt it would have swayed my opinion even a little.


----------



## shaunly

Petraio Prime said:


> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you using any Nikon lenses from 1964? If not, why not? Why do you consider what Canon did was 'screwing' their loyal customers? Sometimes you have to abandon what you have and start over. Nikon's reluctance to do this was reflected in the cameras such as the F4, a monstrosity by any measure. Nikon always seems to be playing catch-up.
> 
> Look, here's the point: even if you want to maintain compatibility, eventually the old stuff becomes obsolete or is superseded anyway. So, it becomes a pointless endeavour.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are they playing catch-up? From the link you provide earlier, it clearly stated that the D3 has surpassed Canon 1D. Every since the released of the D3.. D3s/x, Canon is the one playing catch-up.
> 
> the old stuff become obsolete if your R&D isn't well though out and future proof. The fact that Nikon is still using the same F-mount and design since forever shows how great their engineering is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The main reason Nikon became established is that they were first on the market. The Topcon Super-D was a better-designed camera with the meter integrated into the body, not into the finder and stuck on the top with spring-loaded levers, as the Photomic was.
> 
> http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Topcon Super D.jpg
> 
> But the Topcon came later, after Nikon has established themselves among the press pros.
Click to expand...


why do you always refer back to the 30 year old history? We're talking about both company in their current state.


----------



## Petraio Prime

OrionsByte said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get it. Why would anyone consider Nikon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When someone walks in to a camera shop, or reads reviews, or uses any other method of researching cameras in order to make a purchase, the reasons that you have been extolling in this thread as points against Nikon probably don't come up for consideration all that often.
> 
> What someone is interested in when buying a camera today is how the camera, and the system, performs today.  What happened a decade or two ago is pretty irrelevant when shopping for current-generation cameras.  If someone can get the performance they want for whatever price they are willing to pay, they're probably not going to care whether or not the mount was invented decades ago.  It simply doesn't have enough of a bearing on the quality of the pictures.
> 
> A second reason people might prefer one over the other is just the way it feels.  I have a Nikon D70 that I was lucky enough to get as kind of a hand-me-down from a friend (for a modest price).  He told me he would have no hard feelings if I wanted to trade it in for a Canon, and I considered it (mostly because Canons are easier to come by near where I live).  However, after going to a camera shop and handling the Canons in my price range, I decided I liked the Nikon a lot better.  It feels better in my hands.  Sturdier.  The settings are easier to manage on the D70 than on either of the Canons I played with (the T1i and T2i).  I ended up deciding that those things were important enough for me to stick with the Nikon, invest in some lenses and a flash over the next few months, and eventually replace the body with something more current.
> 
> But that's just my opinion.  I am not presenting any facts here, nor am I pretending to.  I'm just saying that I had some reasons for sticking with Nikon - reasons that were good for me, and may not be good for other people.  If someone had told me that I should switch to Canon because their AF mount was redesigned from scratch, I really doubt it would have swayed my opinion even a little.
Click to expand...


It might if you knew what the implications it has on the design. Nikon seems to have a fetish about their lens mount and have refused to change it, even though lenses from 1959 to 1978 or so won't work on the latest cameras anyway, and are manual focus. 

Don't get me wrong...I don't own either line. It's more of an anti-Nikon thing for me.


----------



## Neil S.

mrshaleyberg said:


> So I would really appreciate some input on this. I currently use a Nikon d60. This was my starter camera. I was looking into getting a D300, but then I started looking at canons.
> 
> I love my Nikon, but the D300 is a 12.3 MP when a Canon 7D is 18 MP. The price for a body is around the same. With Nikon are you basically paying this much for the name? Why are they the same price, when one has WAY higher MP? I don't get it. It's almost making me want to switch to Canon. Especially before I start buying a bunch of lenses to use with my Nikon.
> 
> What would some of you suggest?


 
This is the OP.

I am sure everyone has long forgotten by now.

He was asking for advice on if he should switch from Nikon to Canon or not.

The best thing we can do is tell him the strengths and weaknesses of both, and that they are both good companies and he can't go wrong with either.

These things have already been said many times in this thread, it is time that it dies.

From the direction this thread has gone he is probably much more confused and unsure of what to do than he was before. This is not good.

To the OP: No megapixels aren't everything. Nikon and Canon are both good companies, the 7D and the D300s are both fine cameras. You would be happy with either. Read some reviews on both, go to the store and hold both, play with controls, etc. and buy the one you like best. 

There is no right and wrong here, its about what you like best.

Hope this helps.


----------



## shaunly

Petraio Prime said:


> OrionsByte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get it. Why would anyone consider Nikon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When someone walks in to a camera shop, or reads reviews, or uses any other method of researching cameras in order to make a purchase, the reasons that you have been extolling in this thread as points against Nikon probably don't come up for consideration all that often.
> 
> What someone is interested in when buying a camera today is how the camera, and the system, performs today.  What happened a decade or two ago is pretty irrelevant when shopping for current-generation cameras.  If someone can get the performance they want for whatever price they are willing to pay, they're probably not going to care whether or not the mount was invented decades ago.  It simply doesn't have enough of a bearing on the quality of the pictures.
> 
> A second reason people might prefer one over the other is just the way it feels.  I have a Nikon D70 that I was lucky enough to get as kind of a hand-me-down from a friend (for a modest price).  He told me he would have no hard feelings if I wanted to trade it in for a Canon, and I considered it (mostly because Canons are easier to come by near where I live).  However, after going to a camera shop and handling the Canons in my price range, I decided I liked the Nikon a lot better.  It feels better in my hands.  Sturdier.  The settings are easier to manage on the D70 than on either of the Canons I played with (the T1i and T2i).  I ended up deciding that those things were important enough for me to stick with the Nikon, invest in some lenses and a flash over the next few months, and eventually replace the body with something more current.
> 
> But that's just my opinion.  I am not presenting any facts here, nor am I pretending to.  I'm just saying that I had some reasons for sticking with Nikon - reasons that were good for me, and may not be good for other people.  If someone had told me that I should switch to Canon because their AF mount was redesigned from scratch, I really doubt it would have swayed my opinion even a little.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It might if you knew what the implications it has on the design. Nikon seems to have a fetish about their lens mount and have refused to change it, even though lenses from 1959 to 1978 or so won't work on the latest cameras anyway, and are manual focus.
> 
> Don't get me wrong...I don't own either line. It's more of an anti-Nikon thing for me.
Click to expand...


I've come to conclusion that you are set to your way of thinking and will never see what great advances Nikon has to offer. All of your debates has been Nikon in the 50s/60s/70s... and not one time have you mention anything relevant to today's photographers.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Neil S. said:


> mrshaleyberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I would really appreciate some input on this. I currently use a Nikon d60. This was my starter camera. I was looking into getting a D300, but then I started looking at canons.
> 
> I love my Nikon, but the D300 is a 12.3 MP when a Canon 7D is 18 MP. The price for a body is around the same. With Nikon are you basically paying this much for the name? Why are they the same price, when one has WAY higher MP? I don't get it. It's almost making me want to switch to Canon. Especially before I start buying a bunch of lenses to use with my Nikon.
> 
> What would some of you suggest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the OP.
> 
> I am sure everyone has long forgotten it by now.
> 
> He was asking for advice on if he should switch from Nikon to Canon or not.
> 
> The best thing we can do is tell him the strengths and weaknesses of both, and that they are both good companies and he can't go wrong with either.
> 
> These things have already been said many times in this thread, it is time that it dies.
> 
> From the direction this thread has gone he is probably much more confused and unsure of what to do than he was before. This is not good.
> 
> To the OP: No megapixels aren't everything. Nikon and Canon are both good companies, the 7D and the D300s are both fine cameras. You would be happy with either. Read some reviews on both, go to the store and hold both, play with controls, etc. and buy the one you like best.
> 
> There is not right and wrong here, its about what you like best.
> 
> Hope this helps.
Click to expand...


What does a used 1Ds go for?

Canon EOS 1Ds Body Only 11.1 Megapixel - Get great deals on items on eBay.com!

That's what I would do.


----------



## Neil S.

See now your actually helping lol.

That is the point of these kinds of threads remember.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Neil S. said:


> See now your actually helping lol.
> 
> That is the point of these kinds of threads remember.



Yeah, a used 1Ds or 1Ds-II would make a lot of sense.


----------



## shaunly

let me try....

If your looking to buy a new D300s/7d, I'd say find a good used 5Dmk2 or D700, it'll be just about the same price. Plus you get FF sensor and all the up to date features.


----------



## Derrel

Nikon D3 / D300 Vs. Canon

A good start on system vs. system comparisons, but a few strengths of both systems were overlooked by Mr. Reichmann. He failed to contrast the two systems' basic concept of modal display and multi-function controls that Canon invented with the EOS system, and the single-use, single function button and control systems that Nikon has developed. One might liken Canon to the digital watch, Nikon to the analog hands-and-face watch approaches. (According to Herb Keppler, almost all older Japanese camera designers invariably liked and wore analog watches, which show one's place in time within a 12-hour cycle. A digital readout watch tells you what time it is, with no other surrounding information, in what one might describe as a context-free environment.)

Also, and it's rather funny, but Reichmann's complaint about pressing the Nikon autofocus switch on the body "several times a day" is simply hilarious! I have NEVER, not even ONCE, accidentally moved that switch. Why? Well, he's a long-term Canon user and a landscape photographer, and the Canon system's depth of field preview button is located in the same exact location as the Nikon AF-Manual focus switch!! The Nikon DOF preview button has been located on the right hand side of the body front since 1959,with the original F body. That means one can manually adjust the lens focus with the left hand on the lens, and then, as one is focusing, press the DOF plunger in with the middle finger of the left hand. On a Canon, one cannot perform even this very simple operation of focusing, stopping down the lens diaphragm,and adjusting the focus. What's funny is that a long-time Canon shooter hits the wrong button,multiple times a day, fumbling for that awkward, afterthought location Canon came up with when they slapped together the EOS system back in the mid 1980's. For those who learned photography many years ago, focusing with the lens stopped down is second nature,and Nikon's have allowed photographers to continue working pretty much the same way as they always have been, but requiring one to use the LEFT hand to press the DOF button means that a Canon user has to remove his or her hand from the focusing ring on almost all lenses, which is an ergonomic nightmare.

THe other differnce between Canon and Nikon is the 4-button, dual-function controls Canon invented when EOS was new...four buttons, each with dual functions....and a shutter adjiustment and an f/stop adjustment button that swap functions, depending on the exposure mode the camera is set to...one mode,the front wheel adjust the shutter, then the next mode it's adjusting the f/stop, and in the next mode it's back to adjusting the shutter speed...the SHUTTER and f/STOP CONTROLS SWAP FUNCTIONS!!! That means that if one forgets which mode one is in, a simple movement of the controls, either one, will adjust ghe WRONG parameter.

Nikons do not work that way: the rear dial adjusts the SHUTTER speed, the front wheel adjusts the f/stop--in ALL exposure modes. There is no "guessing" or "remembering" with a Nikon camera...no accidentally adjusting the camera the absolute wrong way.
I liken Canon's system to a car that has gas, and brake (two controls) that are absolutely critical with an automatic transmission,multi-gear car. With a Canon car, the function of the brake and the gas would flip-flop or yo-yo, as the car were shifting through the gears of 1,2,3,4....just like it does in A-M-S-P modes on a Canon camera.
If you suddenly need BRAKES, you never,ever want to stomp on the brakes and find out that it's actually the GAS, because you're in T, for Top Gear.

The four buttons on a consumer Canon controlling two functions EACH...same thing...Nikon goes with more single-function control dials and buttons...it's easier and simpler to ALWAYS have the SAME function paired with a control button or dial, no matter what exposure mode the camera happens to be in.

There are a few other system differences as well. But Reichmann's article is a good start,and a good basic primer of a long-time Canon EOS user picking up and owning his first Nikon camera in 15 to 20 years...but I am still amused that he hits the AF-M switch on the body multiple times a day. That's a cute example showing his long-time Canon muscle memory habit. I did the same thing when I bought my first automatic transmission car after having driven a sports car with a 4-speed for 5-6 years: the first morning with the new automatic transmission car,I was kind of running late for work, so I jumped into the car, and I hurriedly moved my leg to press a non-existent clutch pedal to the floor...but there was no clutch pedal!! I hurt my knee as my foot and leg slammed into the floorboard! Hilarious!

I dunno...I still shot my 5D as my main camera, since it's full-frame and I own a decent do-everything 24-105-L zoom, plus their 135mm f/2-L,135 Soft Focus, 85/1.8, 50/1.4, 70-200/2.8 IS-USM,and a Sigma 18-125 and 18-55 Canon and 20D and SIgma 80-400 OS for Canon mount, and that fulfills my current needs pretty well. But I own more Nikon stuff, and my two-year trial to see if I could go Canon "all the way" was a resounding NO...I still am unwilling to commit to the Canon way of doing most things...to me, it's just not the way I want MY cameras and gear to function...but then again, I have many years of doing things differently, and I prefer the ergonomics of the Nikon system more. For *me* there are a zillion little differences where the Nikon approach is the one I prefer. I spent around $10,000 to give Canon a legitimate, well-rounded trial, but it failed the test for ME. For other people, like Reichmann, finding an often used control in the opposite place, or having the same location do the "wrong thing" can be a big deal.

Both companies are engaged in battle, but neither is willing to take one another on head-to-head, as of late....they did that for decades with the F and F1, then the F1(n) and F2, FE-2 versus AE-1 Program, etc.etc. Today, both companies are pressing their own,unique advantages and their own marketing ideas about what their products represent. I find it amusing, all the people who will denigrate one syetm over another, and have not spent a DIME of their own money, or assembled an 8- to 10-lens, two-body system to at least just try out "the competition" for a couple of years. ALl they do is it around and defend their own brand with bsically no idea whatsoever of how the other company's stuff is engineered, or how it might be better or better-engineered or just more convenient.

Case in point: AUTO ISO. Canon cannot seem to figure out how to implement it the way people actually want to use it. Pentax and Nikon are both streets ahead of Canon. Canon canot seem to figure out that that stupid Direct Print Button (hilarious!) is not what people want--they'd rather have AUTO ISO that actually is useful! Or, as MR point out--why does a $7,500 pro Canon 1Ds-III have voice recording, but no $3 speaker built-in to the camera for playback of voice recording the camera can make? All the Nikon's with voice annotation have both a microphone AND a speaker, for playback.

The list could go on...Canon has a big following, no doubt. Most of their users have never used anything else, or are too young to remember when they were kind of second-rate. I remember a college newspaper photo friend of mine who had about $18,000 mid-1980's dollars invested in the Canon system, with L-glass from 17mm to 300/2.8,and two brand-new T-90's and two F1-N bodies...about two months after he bought the T90's to start his professional, after-college career, Canon dropped the FD mount and went all EOS...the poor guy was crushed...his "investment" had just been made obsolete, right as he was graduating from college. That kind of company philosophy is exemplified in the Direct Print Button and the Canon printer division's existence today, 25 odd years later. I might feel the same if I were a Leica R-system user with multiple $4,000 lenses, when my company told me they were abandoning my camera brand and lens mount, thus rendering my gear outmoded, and obsolete, just like that. Olympus did that to its users. Minolta did that to its users. Konica did that to its users. Miranda and Petri did that to their users. Canon did that to its users. Bronica did that to its users. Nikon has never done that to its users...

Anyway...this discussion is always good for lots of heat and sparks!


----------



## Petraio Prime

Derrel said:


> Nikon D3 / D300 Vs. Canon
> 
> A good start on system vs. system comparisons, but a few strengths of both systems were overlooked by Mr. Reichmann. He failed to contrast the two systems' basic concept of modal display and multi-function controls that Canon invented with the EOS system, and the single-use, single function button and control systems that Nikon has developed. One might liken Canon to the digital watch, Nikon to the analog hands-and-face watch approaches. (According to Herb Keppler, almost all older Japanese camera designers invariably liked and wore analog watches, which show one's place in time within a 12-hour cycle. A digital readout watch tells you what time it is, with no other surrounding information, in what one might describe as a context-free environment.)
> 
> Also, and it's rather funny, but Reichmann's complaint about pressing the Nikon autofocus switch on the body "several times a day" is simply hilarious! I have NEVER, not even ONCE, accidentally moved that switch. Why? Well, he's a long-term Canon user and a landscape photographer, and the Canon system's depth of field preview button is located in the same exact location as the Nikon AF-Manual focus switch!! The Nikon DOF preview button has been located on the right hand side of the body front since 1959,with the original F body. That means one can manually adjust the lens focus with the left hand on the lens, and then, as one is focusing, press the DOF plunger in with the middle finger of the left hand. On a Canon, one cannot perform even this very simple operation of focusing, stopping down the lens diaphragm,and adjusting the focus. What's funny is that a long-time Canon shooter hits the wrong button,multiple times a day, fumbling for that awkward, afterthought location Canon came up with when they slapped together the EOS system back in the mid 1980's. For those who learned photography many years ago, focusing with the lens stopped down is second nature,and Nikon's have allowed photographers to continue working pretty much the same way as they always have been, but requiring one to use the LEFT hand to press the DOF button means that a Canon user has to remove his or her hand from the focusing ring on almost all lenses, which is an ergonomic nightmare.
> 
> THe other differnce between Canon and Nikon is the 4-button, dual-function controls Canon invented when EOS was new...four buttons, each with dual functions....and a shutter adjiustment and an f/stop adjustment button that swap functions, depending on the exposure mode the camera is set to...one mode,the front wheel adjust the shutter, then the next mode it's adjusting the f/stop, and in the next mode it's back to adjusting the shutter speed...the SHUTTER and f/STOP CONTROLS SWAP FUNCTIONS!!! That means that if one forgets which mode one is in, a simple movement of the controls, either one, will adjust ghe WRONG parameter.
> 
> Nikons do not work that way: the rear dial adjusts the SHUTTER speed, the front wheel adjusts the f/stop--in ALL exposure modes. There is no "guessing" or "remembering" with a Nikon camera...no accidentally adjusting the camera the absolute wrong way.
> I liken Canon's system to a car that has gas, and brake (two controls) that are absolutely critical with an automatic transmission,multi-gear car. With a Canon car, the function of the brake and the gas would flip-flop or yo-yo, as the car were shifting through the gears of 1,2,3,4....just like it does in A-M-S-P modes on a Canon camera.
> If you suddenly need BRAKES, you never,ever want to stomp on the brakes and find out that it's actually the GAS, because you're in T, for Top Gear.
> 
> The four buttons on a consumer Canon controlling two functions EACH...same thing...Nikon goes with more single-function control dials and buttons...it's easier and simpler to ALWAYS have the SAME function paired with a control button or dial, no matter what exposure mode the camera happens to be in.
> 
> There are a few other system differences as well. But Reichmann's article is a good start,and a good basic primer of a long-time Canon EOS user picking up and owning his first Nikon camera in 15 to 20 years...but I am still amused that he hits the AF-M switch on the body multiple times a day. That's a cute example showing his long-time Canon muscle memory habit. I did the same thing when I bought my first automatic transmission car after having driven a sports car with a 4-speed for 5-6 years: the first morning with the new automatic transmission car,I was kind of running late for work, so I jumped into the car, and I hurriedly moved my leg to press a non-existent clutch pedal to the floor...but there was no clutch pedal!! I hurt my knee as my foot and leg slammed into the floorboard! Hilarious!
> 
> I dunno...I still shot my 5D as my main camera, since it's full-frame and I own a decent do-everything 24-105-L zoom, plus their 135mm f/2-L,135 Soft Focus, 85/1.8, 50/1.4, 70-200/2.8 IS-USM,and a Sigma 18-125 and 18-55 Canon and 20D and SIgma 80-400 OS for Canon mount, and that fulfills my current needs pretty well. But I own more Nikon stuff, and my two-year trial to see if I could go Canon "all the way" was a resounding NO...I still am unwilling to commit to the Canon way of doing most things...to me, it's just not the way I want MY cameras and gear to function...but then again, I have many years of doing things differently, and I prefer the ergonomics of the Nikon system more. For *me* there are a zillion little differences where the Nikon approach is the one I prefer. I spent around $10,000 to give Canon a legitimate, well-rounded trial, but it failed the test for ME. For other people, like Reichmann, finding an often used control in the opposite place, or having the same location do the "wrong thing" can be a big deal.
> 
> Both companies are engaged in battle, but neither is willing to take one another on head-to-head, as of late....they did that for decades with the F and F1, then the F1(n) and F2, FE-2 versus AE-1 Program, etc.etc. Today, both companies are pressing their own,unique advantages and their own marketing ideas about what their products represent. I find it amusing, all the people who will denigrate one syetm over another, and have not spent a DIME of their own money, or assembled an 8- to 10-lens, two-body system to at least just try out "the competition" for a couple of years. ALl they do is it around and defend their own brand with bsically no idea whatsoever of how the other company's stuff is engineered, or how it might be better or better-engineered or just more convenient.
> 
> Case in point: AUTO ISO. Canon cannot seem to figure out how to implement it the way people actually want to use it. Pentax and Nikon are both streets ahead of Canon. Canon canot seem to figure out that that stupid Direct Print Button (hilarious!) is not what people want--they'd rather have AUTO ISO that actually is useful! Or, as MR point out--why does a $7,500 pro Canon 1Ds-III have voice recording, but no $3 speaker built-in to the camera for playback of voice recording the camera can make? All the Nikon's with voice annotation have both a microphone AND a speaker, for playback.
> 
> The list could go on...Canon has a big following, no doubt. Most of their users have never used anything else, or are too young to remember when they were kind of second-rate. I remember a college newspaper photo friend of mine who had about $18,000 mid-1980's dollars invested in the Canon system, with L-glass from 17mm to 300/2.8,and two brand-new T-90's and two F1-N bodies...about two months after he bought the T90's to start his professional, after-college career, Canon dropped the FD mount and went all EOS...the poor guy was crushed...his "investment" had just been made obsolete, right as he was graduating from college. That kind of company philosophy is exemplified in the Direct Print Button and the Canon printer division's existence today, 25 odd years later. I might feel the same if I were a Leica R-system user with multiple $4,000 lenses, when my company told me they were abandoning my camera brand and lens mount, thus rendering my gear outmoded, and obsolete, just like that. Olympus did that to its users. Minolta did that to its users. Konica did that to its users. Miranda and Petri did that to their users. Canon did that to its users. Bronica did that to its users. Nikon has never done that to its users...
> 
> Anyway...this discussion is always good for lots of heat and sparks!



So, how many people were like your friend? Very few.

And how many of those early 1960s lenses are still being used by Nikon owners? You can pull the bandage off slowly and it will hurt less, or you can rip it off all at once, but either way, it's got to go...eventually.


----------



## shaunly

Derrel said:


> Nikon D3 / D300 Vs. Canon
> 
> A good start on system vs. system comparisons, but a few strengths of both systems were overlooked by Mr. Reichmann. He failed to contrast the two systems' basic concept of modal display and multi-function controls that Canon invented with the EOS system, and the single-use, single function button and control systems that Nikon has developed. One might liken Canon to the digital watch, Nikon to the analog hands-and-face watch approaches. (According to Herb Keppler, almost all older Japanese camera designers invariably liked and wore analog watches, which show one's place in time within a 12-hour cycle. A digital readout watch tells you what time it is, with no other surrounding information, in what one might describe as a context-free environment.)
> 
> Also, and it's rather funny, but Reichmann's complaint about pressing the Nikon autofocus switch on the body "several times a day" is simply hilarious! I have NEVER, not even ONCE, accidentally moved that switch. Why? Well, he's a long-term Canon user and a landscape photographer, and the Canon system's depth of field preview button is located in the same exact location as the Nikon AF-Manual focus switch!! The Nikon DOF preview button has been located on the right hand side of the body front since 1959,with the original F body. That means one can manually adjust the lens focus with the left hand on the lens, and then, as one is focusing, press the DOF plunger in with the middle finger of the left hand. On a Canon, one cannot perform even this very simple operation of focusing, stopping down the lens diaphragm,and adjusting the focus. What's funny is that a long-time Canon shooter hits the wrong button,multiple times a day, fumbling for that awkward, afterthought location Canon came up with when they slapped together the EOS system back in the mid 1980's. For those who learned photography many years ago, focusing with the lens stopped down is second nature,and Nikon's have allowed photographers to continue working pretty much the same way as they always have been, but requiring one to use the LEFT hand to press the DOF button means that a Canon user has to remove his or her hand from the focusing ring on almost all lenses, which is an ergonomic nightmare.
> 
> THe other differnce between Canon and Nikon is the 4-button, dual-function controls Canon invented when EOS was new...four buttons, each with dual functions....and a shutter adjiustment and an f/stop adjustment button that swap functions, depending on the exposure mode the camera is set to...one mode,the front wheel adjust the shutter, then the next mode it's adjusting the f/stop, and in the next mode it's back to adjusting the shutter speed...the SHUTTER and f/STOP CONTROLS SWAP FUNCTIONS!!! That means that if one forgets which mode one is in, a simple movement of the controls, either one, will adjust ghe WRONG parameter.
> 
> Nikons do not work that way: the rear dial adjusts the SHUTTER speed, the front wheel adjusts the f/stop--in ALL exposure modes. There is no "guessing" or "remembering" with a Nikon camera...no accidentally adjusting the camera the absolute wrong way.
> I liken Canon's system to a car that has gas, and brake (two controls) that are absolutely critical with an automatic transmission,multi-gear car. With a Canon car, the function of the brake and the gas would flip-flop or yo-yo, as the car were shifting through the gears of 1,2,3,4....just like it does in A-M-S-P modes on a Canon camera.
> If you suddenly need BRAKES, you never,ever want to stomp on the brakes and find out that it's actually the GAS, because you're in T, for Top Gear.
> 
> The four buttons on a consumer Canon controlling two functions EACH...same thing...Nikon goes with more single-function control dials and buttons...it's easier and simpler to ALWAYS have the SAME function paired with a control button or dial, no matter what exposure mode the camera happens to be in.
> 
> There are a few other system differences as well. But Reichmann's article is a good start,and a good basic primer of a long-time Canon EOS user picking up and owning his first Nikon camera in 15 to 20 years...but I am still amused that he hits the AF-M switch on the body multiple times a day. That's a cute example showing his long-time Canon muscle memory habit. I did the same thing when I bought my first automatic transmission car after having driven a sports car with a 4-speed for 5-6 years: the first morning with the new automatic transmission car,I was kind of running late for work, so I jumped into the car, and I hurriedly moved my leg to press a non-existent clutch pedal to the floor...but there was no clutch pedal!! I hurt my knee as my foot and leg slammed into the floorboard! Hilarious!
> 
> I dunno...I still shot my 5D as my main camera, since it's full-frame and I own a decent do-everything 24-105-L zoom, plus their 135mm f/2-L,135 Soft Focus, 85/1.8, 50/1.4, 70-200/2.8 IS-USM,and a Sigma 18-125 and 18-55 Canon and 20D and SIgma 80-400 OS for Canon mount, and that fulfills my current needs pretty well. But I own more Nikon stuff, and my two-year trial to see if I could go Canon "all the way" was a resounding NO...I still am unwilling to commit to the Canon way of doing most things...to me, it's just not the way I want MY cameras and gear to function...but then again, I have many years of doing things differently, and I prefer the ergonomics of the Nikon system more. For *me* there are a zillion little differences where the Nikon approach is the one I prefer. I spent around $10,000 to give Canon a legitimate, well-rounded trial, but it failed the test for ME. For other people, like Reichmann, finding an often used control in the opposite place, or having the same location do the "wrong thing" can be a big deal.
> 
> Both companies are engaged in battle, but neither is willing to take one another on head-to-head, as of late....they did that for decades with the F and F1, then the F1(n) and F2, FE-2 versus AE-1 Program, etc.etc. Today, both companies are pressing their own,unique advantages and their own marketing ideas about what their products represent. I find it amusing, all the people who will denigrate one syetm over another, and have not spent a DIME of their own money, or assembled an 8- to 10-lens, two-body system to at least just try out "the competition" for a couple of years. ALl they do is it around and defend their own brand with bsically no idea whatsoever of how the other company's stuff is engineered, or how it might be better or better-engineered or just more convenient.
> 
> Case in point: AUTO ISO. Canon cannot seem to figure out how to implement it the way people actually want to use it. Pentax and Nikon are both streets ahead of Canon. Canon canot seem to figure out that that stupid Direct Print Button (hilarious!) is not what people want--they'd rather have AUTO ISO that actually is useful! Or, as MR point out--why does a $7,500 pro Canon 1Ds-III have voice recording, but no $3 speaker built-in to the camera for playback of voice recording the camera can make? All the Nikon's with voice annotation have both a microphone AND a speaker, for playback.
> 
> The list could go on...Canon has a big following, no doubt. Most of their users have never used anything else, or are too young to remember when they were kind of second-rate. I remember a college newspaper photo friend of mine who had about $18,000 mid-1980's dollars invested in the Canon system, with L-glass from 17mm to 300/2.8,and two brand-new T-90's and two F1-N bodies...about two months after he bought the T90's to start his professional, after-college career, Canon dropped the FD mount and went all EOS...the poor guy was crushed...his "investment" had just been made obsolete, right as he was graduating from college. That kind of company philosophy is exemplified in the Direct Print Button and the Canon printer division's existence today, 25 odd years later. I might feel the same if I were a Leica R-system user with multiple $4,000 lenses, when my company told me they were abandoning my camera brand and lens mount, thus rendering my gear outmoded, and obsolete, just like that. Olympus did that to its users. Minolta did that to its users. Konica did that to its users. Miranda and Petri did that to their users. Canon did that to its users. Bronica did that to its users. Nikon has never done that to its users...
> 
> Anyway...this discussion is always good for lots of heat and sparks!



You can be sure your tens of thousand of dollars invested in Nikon equipment is going to last! How do we know Canon wont pull the plug again and decide they found another new design.


----------



## Petraio Prime

shaunly said:


> You can be sure your tens of thousand of dollars invested in Nikon equipment is going to last! How do we know Canon wont pull the plug again and decide they found another new design.



It's not something that needs to be done frequently. In any event, those who had lots of pre-1975 Nikon equipment can't use it effectively on today's models. Just because the mount hasn't changed that doesn't mean the lenses aren't obsolete.

Pentax did it, too late, of course, when they went from screw thread to bayonet.


----------



## Polyphony

Derrel said:


> THe other differnce between Canon and Nikon is the 4-button, dual-function controls Canon invented when EOS was new...four buttons, each with dual functions....and a shutter adjiustment and an f/stop adjustment button that swap functions, depending on the exposure mode the camera is set to...one mode,the front wheel adjust the shutter, then the next mode it's adjusting the f/stop, and in the next mode it's back to adjusting the shutter speed...the SHUTTER and f/STOP CONTROLS SWAP FUNCTIONS!!! That means that if one forgets which mode one is in, a simple movement of the controls, either one, will adjust ghe WRONG parameter.
> 
> Nikons do not work that way: the rear dial adjusts the SHUTTER speed, the front wheel adjusts the f/stop--in ALL exposure modes. There is no "guessing" or "remembering" with a Nikon camera...no accidentally adjusting the camera the absolute wrong way.
> I liken Canon's system to a car that has gas, and brake (two controls) that are absolutely critical with an automatic transmission,multi-gear car. With a Canon car, the function of the brake and the gas would flip-flop or yo-yo, as the car were shifting through the gears of 1,2,3,4....just like it does in A-M-S-P modes on a Canon camera.
> If you suddenly need BRAKES, you never,ever want to stomp on the brakes and find out that it's actually the GAS, because you're in T, for Top Gear.
> 
> The four buttons on a consumer Canon controlling two functions EACH...same thing...Nikon goes with more single-function control dials and buttons...it's easier and simpler to ALWAYS have the SAME function paired with a control button or dial, no matter what exposure mode the camera happens to be in.



You should be a lawyer.  You provide great arguments with many supporting facts but from only ONE POINT OF VIEW!!

Try this: The wheel on the Canon makes adjustments based on which mode you are in. If you are in Tv, it adjusts shutter speed. If you are in Av, it adjusts aperture. I don't know about you, but remembering which mode I am in is not a big deal. Also if you forget, there's a large dial on top of the camera that will quickly remind you which mode you are in.

It couldn't be any easier in my opinion.  With the Nikon you have to worry about two different wheels? What if I forget which wheel does what? There are no indications on the wheels are there?

A Canon is like a guitar. You can play frets on the E or A string (Tv or Av). Playing the first fret on the E string (wheel) plays an F note (specific shutter speed). Playing the first fret on the A string (wheel) plays an A# (specific aperture). You just have to remember which string you are on.

The bottom line is that these minor differences are so insignificant (read: subjective) that you can't base a Brand vs. Brand argument on them. Human beings are extremely adaptable creatures. It takes a VERY short time for us to get used to different conditions or adapt to small changes.  If you like the Nikon layout, good for you. If you like the Canon layout, good for you.

P.S. I don't think this thread should be locked. Nothing wrong with a good argument.


----------



## shaunly

I have a buddy that has the money and likes high end equipments. So when he wanted a professional camera gears, he went out to buy a Canon 1dmk3. He has no background what so ever in photography, but he's a professional artist and has great eyes for things. Anyways... after a few months of using his Canon, he is still fiddling with all the control operations. Still get's a little frustrated and wonder why they design these button the way they do. Still can't remember certain control when I ask him. I had the pleasure of shooting with his camera myself and although it's a great great camera, the controls can be frustrating.

So one day, I showed him my new D700 =D and told him to go shoot with it and give it a try. Right off the bat, he figured out most of the basic control and was adjusting my camera like it's been his. This is coming from Canon user. So point being said is that, yea you can eventually learn those canon button, but it's surely a pain in the butt.


----------



## rpm

i wont add a lot to this as many people like Derrel provides the more technical info that defines these debates.

but one qn, for those that keep saying that the old Nikon lenses dont work on current Nikon cameras, which lenses are you referring to? also which camera models are you referring to? as far as i know apart from the low end models D3000/D5000 (current gen) all the other models carry an auto focus motor. so apart from AI-S (i could be mistaken) lenses which are MF on the current line, they will all auto focus. or am i wrong? further more, why is it that if a lens can only be used in MF does it mean, its not worth it? its not functioning properly? its pointless? the fact that i can get cheaper yet good quality glass within the AF-D range lenses, AI-S lenses over the AF-S lenses regardless of being MF only, is a great option and alternative at a marginal loss of quality.

as someone already said. the fact that they can keep the same mount is a testament to their engineering ability. while their new lenses incorporating internal focusing motors without a mount change. did Canon REALLY have to change mounts? or was it just easier for them? it surely wasnt easier for the customer back during the transition stage to the new mount. if some people insist in looking purely in the past. put yourself in a position where all your lenses and years of investment can no longer be transferred onto a new body cause of a mount change - that wont go down well. dont even lie to yourself. also the chances of someone wanting to buy your gear second-hand at a reasonable price diminishes even further if they do a minimal amount of research of the ramifications of a mount change....lets face it...if Canon chose to do it again. these forums would be plagued by disgruntled Canon owners...


----------



## ababysean

I will give you my very technical decision as to why I choose Nikon.
Are you ready for it?

Here it comes!


I used to work at Gateway (the computer company) and the people I worked with, over half of them had just been laid off from Canon. These people were not the pick of the litter, they were not the best society has to offer, come down to it they were rude and obnoxious and entitled, and just loser of people.

Every time I hear/see the word Canon, I also see images in my head of these not so good people.

I'm sure the Nikon factory is filled with the same people.  But at least I do not have an actual image in my head, like I do with the word Canon.

So there you have it.


----------



## Petraio Prime

rpm said:


> i wont add a lot to this as many people like Derrel provides the more technical info that defines these debates.
> 
> but one qn, for those that keep saying that the old Nikon lenses dont work on current Nikon cameras, which lenses are you referring to? \



You don't know? Gosh, neither do I. There have been so many I can't keep  track. That's the point!



> as someone already said. the fact that they can keep the same mount is a testament to their engineering ability.


Quite the reverse. The _mount_ is the same, but all of the connections are now different.

Canon greatly expanded their technical capabilities by changing their mount and starting over. Nikon was unwise not to do so as well.


----------



## Derrel

Petraio,
    You're clearly in the dark about Nikon lens designs and what constitutes obsolete,etc,etc. Really simple: the "Baby Nikons" is a term I coined to help people remember what works with them: the Baby Nikons will mount and shoot ANY LENS EVER MADE in Nikon F-mount (except for a couple of rare 1960's fisheye lenses that cost more than a small car). Baby Nikons will mount and shoot photos with ANY autofocus Nikon lens ever made. The diaphragm will be fully automatic. The Baby Nikons are ideal for use with bellows, microscopes, slide duplicators, old telephotos, old wideangles, old exotic,rare zooms, and basically ANY ACCESSORY EVER MADE in F-mount. With the exception of the 21mm f/4 of 1960-62, and a couple of the ultra-rare Niikor fisheyes like the 6mm and 8mm,which are extremely rare.

F-mount is a lot like the Leica M-mount...old....very strong, very capable, and easy to find lenses for. The Baby Nikons are very affordable. They work with ANY F-mount accessory, because they use NO mechanical coupling for metering. They work with ANY AF lens--but will not provide automatic focusing with the 1986-2004 lens designs that use "screwdriver" focusing.

So, it's pretty simple: the people who bought $500 bodies like the D40,D40x,D60,D3000,and D5000 (there are FIVE baby Nikons) can use ANY LENS and ANY F-mount accessory made since 1959. To take photos. There are no connections "needed"--all connections are optional. Buyers of the Baby Nikons can barely afford the pro-level primes that use screwdriver  focusing...they buy 18-55 and 55-200 and 70-300 VR and are "done",basically. Nikon caters to higher-end,long-term users more so than newcomers. Nikon has always been that way...they have a huge commitment to "serious" users,and to compatibility and continuity.

You really,really do not understand much about the Nikon system PeePee...you really have no idea...maybe we ought to get into the 2-cam and 3-cam nuances of your discontinued Leicaflex R mount cameras and lenses (laughs). Nikon is what sent Leica into the crapper--is that why you despise Nikon so much? Because in the 1950's their lenses were used on Canon and COntax and Nikon bodies, and sent Leica irreversibly toward its death spiral in professional circles?

Next week, we'll see Canon design its new car, and it will be designed so the gas and brake systems alternate their functions between the two pedals, based on four different transmission gears! Ought to be great fun! (Laughs). 1st gear-brake is brake, 2nd gear brake is gas, 3rd gear brake is brake, 4th gear brake is gas....Air conditioner button also runs the emergency flashers; gear shift also opens the trunk latch; seat adjustment button also runs the windshield wipers; door locks also turn the car on and off. Gotta love 4 controls that run 8 different functions! Great engineering! (not!)


----------



## sovietdoc

Despite the backward compatibility in which Nikon has never "screwed its users", the reason to use Canon for me is the lens prices.  Even the L glass isn't that expensive compared to some of the Nikon lens.  Nikkor lens cost a lot.

Oh and FF 5dmk2 is 21mp.  The only one from nikon to beat that is d3x which cost a lot more.

Both companies have pros and cons, it just a matter of what you want to do and which one of the two is offering better solutions for what you want to do and how you want to do it.


----------



## JamesMason

So how does manual work with only one wheel ?


----------



## JasonLambert

I'm not even going to read this thread. 




I'm NOT getting sucked into another Canon v. Nikon thread!





NOT GOING TO DO IT!!!!





DAMNIT! I have a lot of reading to do... 17 Pages just to get caught up... I hate myself!



Hmph


----------



## Petraio Prime

Derrel said:


> Petraio,
> You're clearly in the dark about Nikon lens designs and what constitutes obsolete,etc,etc. Really simple: the "Baby Nikons" is a term I coined to help people remember what works with them: the Baby Nikons will mount and shoot ANY LENS EVER MADE in Nikon F-mount (except for a couple of rare 1960's fisheye lenses that cost more than a small car). Baby Nikons will mount and shoot photos with ANY autofocus Nikon lens ever made. The diaphragm will be fully automatic. The Baby Nikons are ideal for use with bellows, microscopes, slide duplicators, old telephotos, old wideangles, old exotic,rare zooms, and basically ANY ACCESSORY EVER MADE in F-mount. With the exception of the 21mm f/4 of 1960-62, and a couple of the ultra-rare Niikor fisheyes like the 6mm and 8mm,which are extremely rare.
> 
> F-mount is a lot like the Leica M-mount...old....very strong, very capable, and easy to find lenses for. The Baby Nikons are very affordable. They work with ANY F-mount accessory, because they use NO mechanical coupling for metering. They work with ANY AF lens--but will not provide automatic focusing with the 1986-2004 lens designs that use "screwdriver" focusing.
> 
> So, it's pretty simple: the people who bought $500 bodies like the D40,D40x,D60,D3000,and D5000 (there are FIVE baby Nikons) can use ANY LENS and ANY F-mount accessory made since 1959. To take photos. There are no connections "needed"--all connections are optional. Buyers of the Baby Nikons can barely afford the pro-level primes that use screwdriver  focusing...they buy 18-55 and 55-200 and 70-300 VR and are "done",basically. Nikon caters to higher-end,long-term users more so than newcomers. Nikon has always been that way...they have a huge commitment to "serious" users,and to compatibility and continuity.
> 
> You really,really do not understand much about the Nikon system PeePee...you really have no idea...maybe we ought to get into the 2-cam and 3-cam nuances of your discontinued Leicaflex R mount cameras and lenses (laughs). Nikon is what sent Leica into the crapper--is that why you despise Nikon so much? Because in the 1950's their lenses were used on Canon and COntax and Nikon bodies, and sent Leica irreversibly toward its death spiral in professional circles?
> 
> Next week, we'll see Canon design its new car, and it will be designed so the gas and brake systems alternate their functions between the two pedals, based on four different transmission gears! Ought to be great fun! (Laughs). 1st gear-brake is brake, 2nd gear brake is gas, 3rd gear brake is brake, 4th gear brake is gas....Air conditioner button also runs the emergency flashers; gear shift also opens the trunk latch; seat adjustment button also runs the windshield wipers; door locks also turn the car on and off. Gotta love 4 controls that run 8 different functions! Great engineering! (not!)



Yes I do understand about the Nikon system. I just don't bother to keep track of all the lens coupling  and autofocus variations. I have a life to live and Nietzsche to translate. I do know that for a while non-AI lenses could be converted to AI. Does anyone care about that any more? Does the D3 accept non-AI lenses? If not, who cares? Why worry about lenses that are technologically obsolete?

Here's a chart:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm

You can see that pre-AI lenses are not usable on some newer Nikon cameras. G lenses cannot be used on many older film cameras.

As you can see the 'compatibility' is not as extensive as you believe.


----------



## JodieO

Wow, really?  Why are we so worried about lenses from the 1950s?

If you are in this as a pro, you shouldn't be worried - you will want to upgrade once a year or once every other year with the latest and greatest in technology - to provide for your customers, and that should be factored into your pricing anyway, so it shouldn't matter.

If you are not a pro, you probably aren't investing in $1,000 to $2,000 lenses so it probably won't be a huge issue to you.

I buy lenses every year.  I'm refraining from purchasing the 200-400 Nikkor right now as I'm  having a hard time justifying it, but I am sure it will be sitting on the right of my lineup here below in the future...

Funny thing is, of these lenses (which all work on all of my Nikon cameras, although there is the DX issue with the full frame D3, which doesn't matter to me, because I don't have many DX lenses - and in this lineup, I didn't include three kit lenses and the 28 prime I shot with), I probably only use 3 of them weekly because you only need so many ranges.

Am I worried about mounts and 1950s lenses?  No way.  So it really amazes me how stuck on that subject some people tend to be - I don't understand why.


----------



## rpm

i dont think anyone is worried about 1950s lenses per-se. i just think that people are arguing that Nikon should change their mount system as a means of innovating their future lens design - which is false.

btw JodieO. very nice line up. nice picture too...you do product-promotion photography?


----------



## Petraio Prime

JodieO said:


> Wow, really?  Why are we so worried about lenses from the 1950s?
> 
> If you are in this as a pro, you shouldn't be worried - you will want to upgrade once a year or once every other year with the latest and greatest in technology - to provide for your customers, and that should be factored into your pricing anyway, so it shouldn't matter.
> 
> If you are not a pro, you probably aren't investing in $1,000 to $2,000 lenses so it probably won't be a huge issue to you.
> 
> I buy lenses every year.  I'm refraining from purchasing the 200-400 Nikkor right now as I'm  having a hard time justifying it, but I am sure it will be sitting on the right of my lineup here below in the future...
> 
> Funny thing is, of these lenses (which all work on all of my Nikon cameras, although there is the DX issue with the full frame D3, which doesn't matter to me, because I don't have many DX lenses - and in this lineup, I didn't include three kit lenses and the 28 prime I shot with), I probably only use 3 of them weekly because you only need so many ranges.
> 
> Am I worried about mounts and 1950s lenses?  No way.  So it really amazes me how stuck on that subject some people tend to be - I don't understand why.



Precisely. And Canon's completely new mount didn't seem to bother the thousands of _Nikon _owners who dumped their Nikon stuff to buy into the new Canon system. Why the hell should Nikon have this fetish about keeping their sacred mount when there are numerous advantages to starting over, as Canon did?

Technically, Canon is far ahead of Nikon in their _overall approach_. (Emphasis added and qualification important!)

Why would Nikon owners be pissed if _Nikon _came out with a new mount? Many of them switched to Canon when _Canon _did it. Why would owners of Brand A be pissed when Brand A switches mounts, but not be pissed when Brand B does it? It's the same thing. Either you stay or switch to take advantage of the new system's capabilities.

There is fundamentally no difference between switching to an EF system from an FD system and switching from a Nikon system.

As Jodie points out above, the stuff becomes obsolescent fairly quickly anyway...


----------



## shaunly

Please explain how canon is technically far ahead of nikon. I seriously think you have NO clue on the performance and specs of the current nikon line up.


----------



## shaunly

The FACT that Nikon is still using their f-mount till this day and is still one of the top dslr company tell people how great their design is. Not only their lens is neck to neck if not better than canon but now their body (d3 series) has surpasses canon. Yes Canon mounts are wider but so what? How does that make the complete system any better?


----------



## mooseluver24

When it comes to the tech aspects of things, I can't offer much. 
However, I currently work with a Nikon D90 and I adore it. When upgrading from a D40 my other photography partner let me borrow her Canon EOS. It was a good camera but I love the picture quality of Nikon. To me, nothing can compare. I'm biased though as I am HEAVILY invested in Nikon Lenses.  
Good luck!


----------



## Neil S.

Almost 2500 views and 18 pages....


----------



## JodieO

shaunly said:


> Not only their lens is neck to neck if not better than canon but now their body (d3 series) has surpasses canon.



Yes, unless you have worked with the D3 series, please don't speculate.  The D3 series have surpassed all my friends' canon pro lineup.


----------



## Neil S.

Schwetty....

You should make a cool Canon vs. Nikon image to post in this thread.

Like 2 cameras and lenses in a boxing ring or something lol.


----------



## supraman215

JasonLambert said:


> I'm not even going to read this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm NOT getting sucked into another Canon v. Nikon thread!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOT GOING TO DO IT!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DAMNIT! I have a lot of reading to do... 17 Pages just to get caught up... I hate myself!
> 
> 
> 
> Hmph




OH NO IT'S TOO late! He's for sure read it all by now!


----------



## sovietdoc

> Yes, unless you have worked with the D3 series, please don't speculate.   The D3 series have surpassed all my friends' canon pro lineup.



d3x maybe, but a friend of mine who used nikon for 25 years now, is wishing he had 1d mk4 rather than his d3s.  From what I can see, there is no clear win for the d3s over 1d mkiv


----------



## Petraio Prime

shaunly said:


> The FACT that Nikon is still using their f-mount till this day and is still one of the top dslr company tell people how great their design is. Not only their lens is neck to neck if not better than canon but now their body (d3 series) has surpasses canon. Yes Canon mounts are wider but so what? How does that make the complete system any better?



No, it isn't. The Canon mount is designed from the ground up to be a better connection. It has electronic contacts for one, and a larger bayonet aperture for another. Both of these allow greater capabilities. The F mount has had various primitive mechanical linkages.

And since Nikon was so perfect, why did thousands of press photographers switch?

The _Columbus Dispatch _dumped all their Nikon gear and went to Canon some time in the 90s. I was there when they were doing the transaction. I am sure they were not alone. 

If Nikon had come out with a new mount and autofocus camera line, what difference would it have made? 

Nikon would have made the sale instead of Canon.


----------



## Derrel

A better connection??? Hilarious!

Do a Google search on this search string:  Canon Error 99

What comes up? 1,390,000 hits! Yeah, just shy of one point four million hits.

Sports Illustrated  took 26 Nikon D3 and D300 bodies to the 2008 Bejing Olympics.

NASA and the Russian Space Station have both purchased off-the-shelf Nikon bodies and lenses for use in their space programs. PROVEN reliability in space on missions that cost hundreds of millions of dollars is somewthing Nikon has demonstrated since the 1960's. Nikon is synonymous with reliable equipment...stuff that will nor flash Err99 and freeze up at the slightest provocation.

Nikon cameras and lenses have been aboard each and every single NASA space launch and manned and unmanned mission since the 1960's...one would think Canon's "better" system ought to at least stand a chance...and yet, it does not get selected by either NASA or the RUssian space programs...

Again, look up Canon Error 99, and see how many ways Canon bodies tend to shut down despite their "better connection"; it has proven to be a theoretical advantage, not an actual advantage.


----------



## JodieO

sovietdoc said:


> Yes, unless you have worked with the D3 series, please don't speculate.   The D3 series have surpassed all my friends' canon pro lineup.
> 
> 
> 
> d3x maybe, but a friend of mine who used nikon for 25 years now, is wishing he had 1d mk4 rather than his d3s.  From what I can see, there is no clear win for the d3s over 1d mkiv
Click to expand...



They must be awfully close because all my friends that have the 1d are looking to jump ship to the D3 because they like it better, and love what I create with mine...  I think so many people think the grass is greener... when all they need to do is figure out how to use their tools properly and be a great photographer.


And by the way, you may not know this and it's likely you don't because of how you said it, but the D3 is better than the D3X is low light.   So if low light situations are what you have, the D3 is the answer.  If you are only doing studio, the D3X is better.


----------



## sovietdoc

> but the D3 is better than the D3X is low light.   So if low light  situations are what you have, the D3 is the answer.  If you are only  doing studio, the D3X is better.



Yeah, that's a fact.  So I agree with that statement.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Derrel said:


> A better connection??? Hilarious!
> 
> Do a Google search on this search string:  Canon Error 99
> 
> What comes up? 1,390,000 hits! Yeah, just shy of one point four million hits.
> 
> Sports Illustrated  took 26 Nikon D3 and D300 bodies to the 2008 Bejing Olympics.
> 
> NASA and the Russian Space Station have both purchased off-the-shelf Nikon bodies and lenses for use in their space programs. Reliability in space on missions that cost hundreds of millions of dollars demand reliable equipment...stuff that will nor flash Err99 and freeze up at the slightest provocation.
> 
> Nikon cameras and lenses have been aboard each and every single NASA space launch and manned and unmanned mission since the 1960's...one would think Canon's "better" system ought to at least stand a chance...and yet, it does not get selected by either NASA or the Russian space programs...
> 
> Again, look up Canon Error 99, and see how many ways Canon bodies tend to shut down despite their "better connection"; it has proven to be a theoretical advantage, not an actual advantage.



That sounds like a programming problem, of course, not a connection problem. And yes, I am talking about the engineering principles involved...

I believe modified Leicas, Leicaflexes, and Hasselblads were sent on space missions, too.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b31/dawgdawg/leica-nasa.jpg

http://www.dlr.de/en/Portaldata/1/Resources/veranstaltungen/sternstunden/hasselblad_nasa.jpg

Yup!

I wonder where you look up the Nikon error of not being able to use the Nikon Photomic meter at a play, when you're seated in the dark with no overhead light. You can't see the meter needle. At all. You're totally screwed.

Tell me about that, will ya?

I was furious...to say the least..


----------



## white

You all need help getting over your camera-penis envy.


----------



## shaunly

Petraio Prime said:


> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The FACT that Nikon is still using their f-mount till this day and is still one of the top dslr company tell people how great their design is. Not only their lens is neck to neck if not better than canon but now their body (d3 series) has surpasses canon. Yes Canon mounts are wider but so what? How does that make the complete system any better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. The Canon mount is designed from the ground up to be a better connection. It has electronic contacts for one, and a larger bayonet aperture for another. Both of these allow greater capabilities. The F mount has had various primitive mechanical linkages.
> 
> And since Nikon was so perfect, why did thousands of press photographers switch?
> 
> The _Columbus Dispatch _dumped all their Nikon gear and went to Canon some time in the 90s. I was there when they were doing the transaction. I am sure they were not alone.
> 
> If Nikon had come out with a new mount and autofocus camera line, what difference would it have made?
> 
> Nikon would have made the sale instead of Canon.
Click to expand...


Through out history, both company have been going back and forward. You said it yourself, before canon came out with their EOS system, Nikon was dominating. The 90s and early 2000s were Canon dominate. But for the last few years, since the released of Nikon current line, the table is starting to turn again. But the fact still remains, that Nikon didn't dump all their lens to turn the table around again. Their  F-mount is still capable! If this is false, tell me how can Nikon still be the company they are today? 

You keep saying Canon autofocus system is so much better, tell me how is it better? How is the connection on the Canon lens better than the Nikon? I've never heard/seen/read about any issue regarding the connection on the F-mount. What does the Canon AF do that's better than the Nikon? EVEN if what you claim is all true, there's always the rest of the camera (ie sensor/meter/processing/lens/design...the list goes on and on) that makes up the system NOT just the mount. 

Honestly you are being COMPLETELY unreasonable. I'm not even trying to claim, Nikon is better than Canon. Both of these company are dead on, and the only winner is the consumer. It's just your claim about Nikon is so obscene it's ridiculous. Think about it, if in FACT what you think, say and claim about Nikon is true, how could they be still one of the top camera company.  Think about it hard....


----------



## Petraio Prime

shaunly said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The FACT that Nikon is still using their f-mount till this day and is still one of the top dslr company tell people how great their design is. Not only their lens is neck to neck if not better than canon but now their body (d3 series) has surpasses canon. Yes Canon mounts are wider but so what? How does that make the complete system any better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. The Canon mount is designed from the ground up to be a better connection. It has electronic contacts for one, and a larger bayonet aperture for another. Both of these allow greater capabilities. The F mount has had various primitive mechanical linkages.
> 
> And since Nikon was so perfect, why did thousands of press photographers switch?
> 
> The _Columbus Dispatch _dumped all their Nikon gear and went to Canon some time in the 90s. I was there when they were doing the transaction. I am sure they were not alone.
> 
> If Nikon had come out with a new mount and autofocus camera line, what difference would it have made?
> 
> Nikon would have made the sale instead of Canon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Through out history, both company have been going back and forward. You said it yourself, before canon came out with their EOS system, Nikon was dominating. The 90s and early 2000s were Canon dominate. But for the last few years, since the released of Nikon current line, the table is starting to turn again. But the fact still remains, that Nikon didn't dump all their lens to turn the table around again. Their  F-mount is still capable! If this is false, tell me how can Nikon still be the company they are today?
> 
> You keep saying Canon autofocus system is so much better, tell me how is it better? How is the connection on the Canon lens better than the Nikon? I've never heard/seen/read about any issue regarding the connection on the F-mount. What does the Canon AF do that's better than the Nikon? EVEN if what you claim is all true, there's always the rest of the camera (ie sensor/meter/processing/lens/design...the list goes on and on) that makes up the system NOT just the mount.
> 
> Honestly you are being COMPLETELY unreasonable. I'm not even trying to claim, Nikon is better than Canon. Both of these company are dead on, and the only winner is the consumer. It's just your claim about Nikon is so obscene it's ridiculous. Think about it, if in FACT what you think, say and claim about Nikon is true, how could they be still one of the top camera company.  Think about it hard....
Click to expand...


Well why did so many jump ship when Canon came out with the EOS-1? I'll tell you why...

Nikon had come out with the F4 the year before. It was a monstrosity...people looked at it, Nikon's best effort at an autofocus pro model...played with it...then looked at the slick EOS-1 and all the great AF lenses....and it was no contest...the press guys dumped Nikons right and left...you saw nothing but white lenses at sporting events...Canon designed the EOS autofocus system for sports and press work, primarily, which is where they believed the biggest need for autofocus was. You don't need it as much for portraits or stationary subject matter...so Canon designed their system around the needs of sports and press photographers.

It has taken Nikon *20 years* to make up lost ground...

Why? WHY? Just so they didn't have to change mounts? That's just plain idiotic! Look at all the sales they have lost!

*Disclaimer: I own manual focus Leicaflex cameras and lenses and have no bias between Nikon and Canon.*


----------



## Derrel

"Nikon Photomic meter at a play, when you're seated in the dark with no overhead light. You can't see the meter needle. At all. You're totally screwed."

Press the button on the right hand side of the prism, which lights up the grain of wheat bulb inside the Photomic head. Or, use your brain...theatrical lighting using B&W or color negative film is fairly predictable...did you need a light meter to help you out under flood lighting?


----------



## Petraio Prime

Derrel said:


> "Nikon Photomic meter at a play, when you're seated in the dark with no overhead light. You can't see the meter needle. At all. You're totally screwed."
> 
> Press the button on the right hand side of the prism, which lights up the grain of wheat bulb inside the Photomic head. Or, use your brain...theatrical lighting using B&W or color negative film is fairly predictable...did you need a light meter to help you out under flood lighting?



I was shooting Tri-X. We always shot dress rehearsals and lighting intensity varied from scene to scene.

There was no light on the model I was using. Or else the battery was dead, I don't remember now. It was 1970 or so.

All I remember was hating that stupid camera and the idiot who designed that meter.



When I got my Leicaflex SL and 90mm Elmarit-R, doing such work became a snap, because the selective circle of the meter allowed me to meter just the actors and actresses, and ignore the dark background.


----------



## vtf

Go Canon!

I have nothing:meh:


----------



## shaunly

Petraio Prime said:


> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. The Canon mount is designed from the ground up to be a better connection. It has electronic contacts for one, and a larger bayonet aperture for another. Both of these allow greater capabilities. The F mount has had various primitive mechanical linkages.
> 
> And since Nikon was so perfect, why did thousands of press photographers switch?
> 
> The _Columbus Dispatch _dumped all their Nikon gear and went to Canon some time in the 90s. I was there when they were doing the transaction. I am sure they were not alone.
> 
> If Nikon had come out with a new mount and autofocus camera line, what difference would it have made?
> 
> Nikon would have made the sale instead of Canon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Through out history, both company have been going back and forward. You said it yourself, before canon came out with their EOS system, Nikon was dominating. The 90s and early 2000s were Canon dominate. But for the last few years, since the released of Nikon current line, the table is starting to turn again. But the fact still remains, that Nikon didn't dump all their lens to turn the table around again. Their  F-mount is still capable! If this is false, tell me how can Nikon still be the company they are today?
> 
> You keep saying Canon autofocus system is so much better, tell me how is it better? How is the connection on the Canon lens better than the Nikon? I've never heard/seen/read about any issue regarding the connection on the F-mount. What does the Canon AF do that's better than the Nikon? EVEN if what you claim is all true, there's always the rest of the camera (ie sensor/meter/processing/lens/design...the list goes on and on) that makes up the system NOT just the mount.
> 
> Honestly you are being COMPLETELY unreasonable. I'm not even trying to claim, Nikon is better than Canon. Both of these company are dead on, and the only winner is the consumer. It's just your claim about Nikon is so obscene it's ridiculous. Think about it, if in FACT what you think, say and claim about Nikon is true, how could they be still one of the top camera company.  Think about it hard....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well why did so many jump ship when Canon came out with the EOS-1? I'll tell you why...
> 
> Nikon had come out with the F4 the year before. It was a monstrosity...people looked at it, played with it...then looked at the slick EOS-1 and all the great AF lenses....and it was no contest...the press guys dumped Nikons right and left...you saw nothing but white lenses at sporting events...
> 
> It has taken Nikon *20 years* to make up lost ground...
> 
> Why? WHY? Just so they didn't have to change mounts? That's just plain idiotic! Look at all the sales they have lost!
> 
> *Disclaimer: I own manual focus Leicaflex cameras and lenses and have no bias between Nikon and Canon.*
Click to expand...


One product does not represent 50+ years of great engineering. Yes it took Nikon 20 years, how long did Canon take to finally come out with their EOS system?...1987? So what about 30 years before that? Regardless with all these history lesson, we are talking about product TODAY. And just like the 90s where Nikon user switched, Canon user are starting to switch back to Nikon. 

For the record, maybe NASA did you Leica and Hasselblads, but definitely NOT Canon! And this discussion is about Nikon and Canon here, remember? So I wonder why NASA has been using Nikon off the shelf cameras for all these years??Ummm.... All I know is that if it's good enough for NASA, it's plenty good enough for me!


----------



## shaunly

Hey Derrel, where's that picture of the 2008 Beijing Olympics of all those photographer dominated with Nikon. What a bunch of idiots... those damn pro photographer shooting at the world biggest sporting event! What do they know using Nikon :er:


----------



## Petraio Prime

shaunly said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Through out history, both company have been going back and forward. You said it yourself, before canon came out with their EOS system, Nikon was dominating. The 90s and early 2000s were Canon dominate. But for the last few years, since the released of Nikon current line, the table is starting to turn again. But the fact still remains, that Nikon didn't dump all their lens to turn the table around again. Their  F-mount is still capable! If this is false, tell me how can Nikon still be the company they are today?
> 
> You keep saying Canon autofocus system is so much better, tell me how is it better? How is the connection on the Canon lens better than the Nikon? I've never heard/seen/read about any issue regarding the connection on the F-mount. What does the Canon AF do that's better than the Nikon? EVEN if what you claim is all true, there's always the rest of the camera (ie sensor/meter/processing/lens/design...the list goes on and on) that makes up the system NOT just the mount.
> 
> Honestly you are being COMPLETELY unreasonable. I'm not even trying to claim, Nikon is better than Canon. Both of these company are dead on, and the only winner is the consumer. It's just your claim about Nikon is so obscene it's ridiculous. Think about it, if in FACT what you think, say and claim about Nikon is true, how could they be still one of the top camera company.  Think about it hard....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well why did so many jump ship when Canon came out with the EOS-1? I'll tell you why...
> 
> Nikon had come out with the F4 the year before. It was a monstrosity...people looked at it, played with it...then looked at the slick EOS-1 and all the great AF lenses....and it was no contest...the press guys dumped Nikons right and left...you saw nothing but white lenses at sporting events...
> 
> It has taken Nikon *20 years* to make up lost ground...
> 
> Why? WHY? Just so they didn't have to change mounts? That's just plain idiotic! Look at all the sales they have lost!
> 
> *Disclaimer: I own manual focus Leicaflex cameras and lenses and have no bias between Nikon and Canon.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One product does not represent 50+ years of great engineering. Yes it took Nikon 20 years, how long did Canon take to finally come out with their EOS system?...1987? So what about 30 years before that? Regardless with all these history lesson, we are talking about product TODAY. And just like the 90s where Nikon user switched, Canon user are starting to switch back to Nikon.
> 
> For the record, maybe NASA did you Leica and Hasselblads, but definitely NOT Canon! And this discussion is about Nikon and Canon here, remember? So I wonder why NASA has been using Nikon off the shelf cameras for all these years??Ummm.... All I know is that if it's good enough for NASA, it's plenty good enough for me!
Click to expand...


Reliability was never an issue with Nikon. Handling, image quality, etc., were. Ever use the 43-86 zoom? The 50-300? They were dogs! But Nikon was far from unique in having good reliability; other companies produced equipment that was considered highly reliable. The US Navy used Topcons at one point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topcon

"About 1965 the US Navy tested cameras from several Japanese and German manufacturers (including the Nikon F). The Topcon Super D was the winner of this competition and served in the Navy until the very end of Topcon production in 1977."

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3559/3664108523_97a7d8ab56.jpg

There are other cameras with high reliability (none exceeds Leica, though) and better handling (my Leicaflex is far easier to handle than Nikon F). Remember Nikon Fs...you had to take the back off to load them? Do you remember that?

Nikon and Canon came out with autofocus pro cameras within a year of one another. The Canon was vastly superior in every way.

*Disclaimer: I own manual focus Leicaflex cameras and lenses and have no bias between Nikon and Canon.

*But I would not be caught dead using anything made by Nikon.


----------



## shaunly

Petraio Prime said:


> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well why did so many jump ship when Canon came out with the EOS-1? I'll tell you why...
> 
> Nikon had come out with the F4 the year before. It was a monstrosity...people looked at it, played with it...then looked at the slick EOS-1 and all the great AF lenses....and it was no contest...the press guys dumped Nikons right and left...you saw nothing but white lenses at sporting events...
> 
> It has taken Nikon *20 years* to make up lost ground...
> 
> Why? WHY? Just so they didn't have to change mounts? That's just plain idiotic! Look at all the sales they have lost!
> 
> *Disclaimer: I own manual focus Leicaflex cameras and lenses and have no bias between Nikon and Canon.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One product does not represent 50+ years of great engineering. Yes it took Nikon 20 years, how long did Canon take to finally come out with their EOS system?...1987? So what about 30 years before that? Regardless with all these history lesson, we are talking about product TODAY. And just like the 90s where Nikon user switched, Canon user are starting to switch back to Nikon.
> 
> For the record, maybe NASA did you Leica and Hasselblads, but definitely NOT Canon! And this discussion is about Nikon and Canon here, remember? So I wonder why NASA has been using Nikon off the shelf cameras for all these years??Ummm.... All I know is that if it's good enough for NASA, it's plenty good enough for me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reliability was never an issue with Nikon. Handling, image quality, etc., were. Ever use the 43-86 zoom? The 50-300? They were dogs!
> 
> There are other cameras with high reliability (none exceeds Leica, though) and better handling (my Leicaflex is far easier to handle than Nikon F). Remember Nikon Fs...you had to take the back off to load them? Do you remember that?
> 
> Nikon and Canon came out with autofocus pro cameras within a year of one another. The Canon was vastly superior in every way.
> 
> *Disclaimer: I own manual focus Leicaflex cameras and lenses and have no bias between Nikon and Canon.
> 
> *But I would not be caught dead using anything made by Nikon.
Click to expand...


So you are saying NASA don't care about image quality/focusing/ handling? 

There is a direct connection between reliability and f-mounts. You said Nikon connection sucks and Canon's are better but now just you claim reliability is never an issue with Nikon. Umm.... I think you just lost all credibility man. 

FYI: Only the Nikon D3 were available at the time of the 2008 Olympics. That's just ONE model out!






I can't wait till the next Olympics.


----------



## Petraio Prime

shaunly said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> One product does not represent 50+ years of great engineering. Yes it took Nikon 20 years, how long did Canon take to finally come out with their EOS system?...1987? So what about 30 years before that? Regardless with all these history lesson, we are talking about product TODAY. And just like the 90s where Nikon user switched, Canon user are starting to switch back to Nikon.
> 
> For the record, maybe NASA did you Leica and Hasselblads, but definitely NOT Canon! And this discussion is about Nikon and Canon here, remember? So I wonder why NASA has been using Nikon off the shelf cameras for all these years??Ummm.... All I know is that if it's good enough for NASA, it's plenty good enough for me!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reliability was never an issue with Nikon. Handling, image quality, etc., were. Ever use the 43-86 zoom? The 50-300? They were dogs!
> 
> There are other cameras with high reliability (none exceeds Leica, though) and better handling (my Leicaflex is far easier to handle than Nikon F). Remember Nikon Fs...you had to take the back off to load them? Do you remember that?
> 
> Nikon and Canon came out with autofocus pro cameras within a year of one another. The Canon was vastly superior in every way.
> 
> *Disclaimer: I own manual focus Leicaflex cameras and lenses and have no bias between Nikon and Canon.
> 
> *But I would not be caught dead using anything made by Nikon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying NASA don't care about image quality/focusing/ handling?
> 
> There is a direct connection between reliability and f-mounts. You said Nikon connection sucks and Canon's are better but now just you claim reliability is never an issue with Nikon. Umm.... I think you just lost all credibility man.
> 
> FYI: Only the Nikon D3 were available at the time of the 2008 Olympics. That's just ONE model out!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't wait till the next Olympics.
Click to expand...


Not what I said. I said Nikon made some dog lenses, and all my Leicaflex lenses trounced them in head-to-head comparisons. I know, I ran tests in the 70s.

I have no idea what you mean by "There is a direct connection between reliability and f-mounts." The shutter? How is it connected to the F-mount?

Do you remember the dog Nikkorexes Nikon sold?

http://www.nicovandijk.net/Nikrex_B_1.jpg

Good for paperweights at best.

*Nikon's whole history is one of compromise simply so they don't have to change mounts.

* *Disclaimer: I own manual focus Leicaflex cameras and lenses and have no bias between Nikon and Canon.*


----------



## shaunly

I noticed you are very selective when answering question. You only answer the one that you can argue and bring up random history over and over again. You still haven't been able to answer one of my question. You just ignore it and start linking me so old vintage gears..

So tell me, are all those photographer in that picture wrong? Is NASA an idiot for choosing Nikon? They don't care about image quality/ handling right?


----------



## Polyphony

Derrel said:


> A better connection??? Hilarious!
> 
> Do a Google search on this search string:  Canon Error 99
> 
> What comes up? 1,390,000 hits! Yeah, just shy of one point four million hits.
> 
> Sports Illustrated  took 26 Nikon D3 and D300 bodies to the 2008 Bejing Olympics.
> 
> NASA and the Russian Space Station have both purchased off-the-shelf Nikon bodies and lenses for use in their space programs. PROVEN reliability in space on missions that cost hundreds of millions of dollars is somewthing Nikon has demonstrated since the 1960's. Nikon is synonymous with reliable equipment...stuff that will nor flash Err99 and freeze up at the slightest provocation.
> 
> Nikon cameras and lenses have been aboard each and every single NASA space launch and manned and unmanned mission since the 1960's...one would think Canon's "better" system ought to at least stand a chance...and yet, it does not get selected by either NASA or the RUssian space programs...
> 
> Again, look up Canon Error 99, and see how many ways Canon bodies tend to shut down despite their "better connection"; it has proven to be a theoretical advantage, not an actual advantage.



You sir, are full of a lot of crap.  You probably *ARE* a lawyer.  

Pianist Oscar Peterson played on Bosendorfer pianos. I guess all other pianos are terrible and don't compare.

The Ford Crown Victoria is the number one car used by police agencies. I guess all other vehicles are terrible and don't compare.  We should all own Crown Vics.

The United States Marines use an AR-15 platform.  I guess all other rifles/platforms are terrible and don't compare. 

Yeah, that makes sense. It really is a shame because people will read your posts and actually believe them.

I actually laughed out loud at your suggestion to search for a specific string in google involving a Canon error.
Just to play your ridiculous game, maybe this is something you should take a look at:

Google

Google

In case you are too lazy to click on the links, the first one is a google search for "nikon camera error". Yields 2.1 million results

The second link is a google search for "canon camera error". Yields 310,000 results.

There goes your already-useless-to-begin-with argument.

My search string is much more broad and encompassing than yours. Also, mine is unbiased since I searched for both companies.  

I also rebut your Sports Illustrated article with this: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0711/gallery.canon.biever/content.1.html 
Sports Illustrated using Canon EOS 1d.

As you can see, one can "find" anything that "appears" to prove one's point. 

Just give up.  90% of your arguments have been filled with red herring and are non sequitur. Please just stop feeding people false logic.

In this type of discussion (camera brand vs. camera brand) you can only discuss opinions. There is no answer to "which brand is better?".  It would be like saying this: "My favorite color is blue because it's calm" "No, you're wrong, the best color is red because it stands out" "No, you're wrong, red sucks because it hurts my eyes when I look at it, blue is the best color"

See? You can only say "I like Nikon's design BECAUSE...." and then give reasons.  You could also say "Nikon takes better images BECAUSE...." and show samples or explain why you THINK their technology is better.

(Keep in mind those are just examples; there are many more statements you can make while supporting them with reasons.)

There is no clear-cut winner. If Nikon actually had "better" technology, everyone would use Nikon.  The reason why everyone doesn't (even though you might think they have better technology) is because it comes down to your PERSONAL PREFERENCE.  Which is DIFFERENT from PERSON to PERSON.  This is why there will NEVER be an answer to the question, "What is the best Camera brand?"

There are very few things in life that have clear cut answers.  Math and science, that's about it.  (Cameras are science but they produce images, which people interpret differently; not science. You can say that this sensor is more advanced but that does not prove anything because again, it comes down to preference. The question is not "Which sensor is better?" it is "Which camera do you LIKE better?")


----------



## vtf

NASA and the Russian Space Station have both purchased off-the-shelf Nikon bodies and lenses for use in their space programs. PROVEN reliability in space on missions that cost hundreds of millions of dollars is somewthing Nikon has demonstrated since the 1960's. Nikon is synonymous with reliable equipment...stuff that will nor flash Err99 and freeze up at the slightest provocation
Derrel,
Why would NASA purchase Nikons off the shelf when at the very least get them free for the publicity. Its either a let down of marketing at Nikon or another wonderful screwup of a government agency.


----------



## Rekd

Petraio Prime said:


> *Nikon's whole history is one of compromise simply so they don't have to change mounts.*



^^^^ Bookworthy. 



shaunly said:


> I noticed you are very selective when answering question. You only answer the one that you can argue and bring up random history over and over again.


 
Why would someone want to speak of that which they do not understand? Are you hoping he will talk about something he's unfamiliar with just so you can jump in and rail him for not knowing what he's talking about? 

Really? :twak:



shaunly said:


> So tell me, are all those photographer in that picture wrong? Is NASA an idiot for choosing Nikon? They don't care about image quality/ handling right?



Um, "all" those photographers in that picture are not using Nikon. I didn't count, but looks close to half are *L* and the rest are black. Of the black ones, how many can you identify as Nikon, because Canon and other mfgs make black lenses, too. :lmao:

And I can tell you for a fact that NASA is more concerned that the things they send to space will work properly, even if they don't work as well. 

It's like comparing an AR15 to an AK47. The AK47 will shoot all day in any conditions even you stuff the muzzle full of mud. The AR15 is more 'delicate' and will jam and misfire if you don't keep it in excellent condition. But when both are shooting at the same time, and everything else is equal, I'd take the AR over the AK any day.

Also compare it like this: A Formula 1 car vs a NASCAR. You can bang up a NASCAR all race long and still finish, but if you race against an F1 car and you don't bump him into the wall he's going to clean your clock! Lucky for us Canon does a great job at protecting their camera body and internals.


----------



## shaunly

Rekd said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Nikon's whole history is one of compromise simply so they don't have to change mounts.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^ Bookworthy.
> 
> 
> 
> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed you are very selective when answering question. You only answer the one that you can argue and bring up random history over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would someone want to speak of that which they do not understand? Are you hoping he will talk about something he's unfamiliar with just so you can jump in and rail him for not knowing what he's talking about?
> 
> Really? :twak:
> 
> 
> 
> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me, are all those photographer in that picture wrong? Is NASA an idiot for choosing Nikon? They don't care about image quality/ handling right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, "all" those photographers in that picture are not using Nikon. I didn't count, but looks close to half are *L* and the rest are black. Of the black ones, how many can you identify as Nikon, because Canon and other mfgs make black lenses, too. :lmao:
> 
> And I can tell you for a fact that NASA is more concerned that the things they send to space will work properly, even if they don't work as well.
> 
> It's like comparing an AR15 to an AK47. The AK47 will shoot all day in any conditions even you stuff the muzzle full of mud. The AR15 is more 'delicate' and will jam and misfire if you don't keep it in excellent condition. But when both are shooting at the same time, and everything else is equal, I'd take the AR over the AK any day.
> 
> Also compare it like this: A Formula 1 car vs a NASCAR. You can bang up a NASCAR all race long and still finish, but if you race against an F1 car and you don't bump him into the wall he's going to clean your clock! Lucky for us Canon does a great job at protecting their camera body and internals.
Click to expand...


My intention was not to say Nikon is better than Canon. If it came out that way then I apologized. I was simply trying to proof the statement that he made about Nikon. I've said it before, both company are neck to neck. The only winner here is us, the consumer. It does come down to preference. I have a great deal of respect for Canon. I was on the verge of switching over myself. I'm just saying, if you read these claims and statement by petraio, whether your a canon, nikon, pentax, or whoever, it's pretty outrageous.


----------



## Petraio Prime

shaunly said:


> Rekd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Nikon's whole history is one of compromise simply so they don't have to change mounts.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^ Bookworthy.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would someone want to speak of that which they do not understand? Are you hoping he will talk about something he's unfamiliar with just so you can jump in and rail him for not knowing what he's talking about?
> 
> Really? :twak:
> 
> 
> 
> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me, are all those photographer in that picture wrong? Is NASA an idiot for choosing Nikon? They don't care about image quality/ handling right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, "all" those photographers in that picture are not using Nikon. I didn't count, but looks close to half are *L* and the rest are black. Of the black ones, how many can you identify as Nikon, because Canon and other mfgs make black lenses, too. :lmao:
> 
> And I can tell you for a fact that NASA is more concerned that the things they send to space will work properly, even if they don't work as well.
> 
> It's like comparing an AR15 to an AK47. The AK47 will shoot all day in any conditions even you stuff the muzzle full of mud. The AR15 is more 'delicate' and will jam and misfire if you don't keep it in excellent condition. But when both are shooting at the same time, and everything else is equal, I'd take the AR over the AK any day.
> 
> Also compare it like this: A Formula 1 car vs a NASCAR. You can bang up a NASCAR all race long and still finish, but if you race against an F1 car and you don't bump him into the wall he's going to clean your clock! Lucky for us Canon does a great job at protecting their camera body and internals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My intention was not to say Nikon is better than Canon. If it came out that way then I apologized. I was simply trying to proof the statement that he made about Nikon. I've said it before, both company are neck to neck. The only winner here is us, the consumer. It does come down to preference. I have a great deal of respect for Canon. I was on the verge of switching over myself. I'm just saying, if you read these claims and statement by petraio, whether your a canon, nikon, pentax, or whoever, it's pretty outrageous.
Click to expand...


That accusation is false. I have used and sold photo equipment for quite some time. I know the ins and outs and histories of these companies.


----------



## Rekd

shaunly said:


> My intention was not to say Nikon is better than Canon.



What I responded to had zero to do with whether you said Nikon was better than Canon. It had everything to do with your statements which I clearly defined by quoting them. 

If you'd care to respond to my actual statements instead of injecting your own concerns I'd be much obliged. :meh:


----------



## Adam Faulkner

I have worked with both systems. And also sold both systems. We get a lot more Canon cameras back for repair than Nikon. And there is more pros going from Canon to Nikon. In the time I have been selling cameras I have only had one customer go from Nikon to Canon (that was because of the video side).

At the end of the day its down to the photographer to capture a great image and both camera will do  that. Once an image is printed its hard to tell which camera was used. 
If you show jo public a a3 print they can not tell the difference between an 10mp DSLR and a 45mp Hasselblad.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Adam Faulkner said:


> I have worked with both systems. And also sold both systems. We get a lot more Canon cameras back for repair than Nikon. And there is more pros going from Canon to Nikon. In the time I have been selling cameras I have only had one customer go from Nikon to Canon (that was because of the video side).
> 
> At the end of the day its down to the photographer to capture a great image and both camera will do  that. Once an image is printed its hard to tell which camera was used.
> If you show jo public a a3 print they can not tell the difference between an 10mp DSLR and a 45mp Hasselblad.



Do you sell more of Canon? What price point?
That statement is useless.


----------



## shaunly

Rekd said:


> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> My intention was not to say Nikon is better than Canon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I responded to had zero to do with whether you said Nikon was better than Canon. It had everything to do with your statements which I clearly defined by quoting them.
> 
> If you'd care to respond to my actual statements instead of injecting your own concerns I'd be much obliged. :meh:
Click to expand...


The in world of photography, there are only two obvious choices for NASA to choose (considering the lenses they've picked). You're saying that you know for a fact that NASA most important thing is reliability? So does this mean that Nikon are more reliable than Canon? Also when it comes to IQ, dpreview stated: 
" if you can  afford the D3X, you will buy yourself the best image detail  that's currently on the market and a very versatile photographic tools.  We've  used it in the studio and on location, for portraits and for  sports, in daylight and in dim  clubs and  and on every occasion we were  amazed how easy it was to achieve good results with the camera.  Therefore, despite its eye-watering price tag, the Nikon D3X without a  shadow of doubt earns itself our highest award"
Nikon D3x Review: 33. Conclusion: Digital Photography Review


----------



## Rekd

shaunly said:


> You're saying that you know for a fact that NASA most important thing is reliability?



That's exactly what I'm saying. I used to make stuff for them and I know their requirements. 

Now, I'm not saying that specifically about cameras because my work was in a mechanical component environment, but their SOP is that it simply has. to. work. If it's a bit buggy but performs better when it's working, they won't want it. They'll take something they know will work when their guys/gals are away from help.

If that's why they chose Nikon, then the shoe fits. I can't say for sure.


----------



## shaunly

Rekd said:


> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying that you know for a fact that NASA most important thing is reliability?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what I'm saying. I used to make stuff for them and I know their requirements.
> 
> Now, I'm not saying that specifically about cameras because my work was in a mechanical component environment, but their SOP is that it simply has. to. work. If it's a bit buggy but performs better when it's working, they won't want it. They'll take something they know will work when their guys/gals are away from help.
> 
> If that's why they chose Nikon, then the shoe fits. I can't say for sure.
Click to expand...


Ok cool, thanks for confirming this. Since you actually have experience working with NASA, we now know whatever they use simply has to work. And they choose Nikon. :thumbup:


----------



## Petraio Prime

shaunly said:


> Rekd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying that you know for a fact that NASA most important thing is reliability?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what I'm saying. I used to make stuff for them and I know their requirements.
> 
> Now, I'm not saying that specifically about cameras because my work was in a mechanical component environment, but their SOP is that it simply has. to. work. If it's a bit buggy but performs better when it's working, they won't want it. They'll take something they know will work when their guys/gals are away from help.
> 
> If that's why they chose Nikon, then the shoe fits. I can't say for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok cool, thanks for confirming this. Since you actually have experience working with NASA, we now know whatever they use simply has to work. And they choose Nikon. :thumbup:
Click to expand...


And Leica.

And Hasselblad.


----------



## Rekd

Petraio Prime said:


> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok cool, thanks for confirming this. Since you actually have experience working with NASA, we now know whatever they use simply has to work. And they choose Nikon. :thumbup:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Leica.
> 
> And Hasselblad.
Click to expand...


^^^ Troof!

But see, NASA takes this whole 'reliability' thing much MUCH further than even the most professional photog we have here at TPF. So if you're ok with playing the part of Tom Foolery by insinuating everyone needs the exacting standards that NASA requires and chose in Nikon, which may only be ever so slightly better than Canon, then you go, girl!

Point is, the difference isn't as much as you're making it out to be by jumping on the 'if it's good enough for NASA it's good enough for you' bandwagon. 

And even so, especially with NASA, old habits are hard to break. Even it they're better alternatives than what the original standards were based upon.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Rekd said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok cool, thanks for confirming this. Since you actually have experience working with NASA, we now know whatever they use simply has to work. And they choose Nikon. :thumbup:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Leica.
> 
> And Hasselblad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^^^ Troof!
> 
> But see, NASA takes this whole 'reliability' thing much MUCH further than even the most professional photog we have here at TPF. So if you're ok with playing the part of Tom Foolery by insinuating everyone needs the exacting standards that NASA requires and chose in Nikon, which may only be ever so slightly better than Canon, then you go, girl!
> 
> Point is, the difference isn't as much as you're making it out to be by jumping on the 'if it's good enough for NASA it's good enough for you' bandwagon.
> 
> And even so, especially with NASA, old habits are hard to break. Even it they're better alternatives than what the original standards were based upon.
Click to expand...


And the Navy chose Topcon.


----------



## sovietdoc

What I wanna know is how do you people figure out that there are more people with nikon's at the olympic games based on that shot.  Do you just assume that every single white one is a canon because you can tell it's Canon EF L, and all the black ones are nikkors?  What about sigma super telephoto's on canon bodies? Or something similar?  I just don't see that "every black lens is automatically a nikon"...


----------



## rpm

well assuming people dont use Sony as a pro alternative, rule of thumb is, white = canon. ss for the blacks, you make a good point but at that level where most items are sponsored or company owned, it would surprise me if they aren't Nikon but you make a valid point nonetheless.


----------



## Rekd

:crickets:



Rekd said:


> Um, "all" those photographers in that picture are not using Nikon. I didn't count, but looks close to half are *L* and the rest are black. Of the black ones, *how many can you identify as Nikon*, because Canon and other mfgs make black lenses, too. :lmao:



Anyone? 

I can't tell. rpm can't tell.

Bueller? Bueller?


----------



## Petraio Prime

Rekd said:


> :crickets:
> 
> 
> 
> Rekd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, "all" those photographers in that picture are not using Nikon. I didn't count, but looks close to half are *L* and the rest are black. Of the black ones, *how many can you identify as Nikon*, because Canon and other mfgs make black lenses, too. :lmao:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> I can't tell. rpm can't tell.
> 
> Bueller? Bueller?
Click to expand...


In the late 90s the _Columbus Dispatch_ dumped their Nikon gear and bought $100K worth of Canon stuff.

*Disclaimer: I own manual focus Leicaflex cameras and lenses and have  no bias between Nikon and Canon.*


----------



## shaunly

Rekd said:


> :crickets:
> 
> 
> 
> Rekd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, "all" those photographers in that picture are not using Nikon. I didn't count, but looks close to half are *L* and the rest are black. Of the black ones, *how many can you identify as Nikon*, because Canon and other mfgs make black lenses, too. :lmao:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> I can't tell. rpm can't tell.
> 
> Bueller? Bueller?
Click to expand...


Are u guys serious? We going to start this again.


----------



## Rekd

shaunly said:


> Are u guys serious? We going to start this again.



These kinds of posts, when the right buttons are pushed, are some of the best in their class. :lmao:


----------



## shaunly

Note that during the olympics the d3 had only been release for about 6month. You guys can bring up history all you want. I already said that pre D3 era, Canon was dominating. But we are talking about now here. Which quite frankly, you know nothing about. Do some research of what's going on today and stop holding on to the past.


----------



## sovietdoc

To sum this thread up:  

Poster 1: Canon is better!
Poster 2: No, Nikon all the way!
Poster 1: That's not what your mom said last night!
Poster 3: What did you say about my mom? No, YOU!
Poster 4: Do any of you have proof to support your conclusions?
Poster 1 and 2: Get outta here, nobody likes Pentax anyway!
Poster 3: Your mom is ugly.

This thread still goes on.


----------



## Neil S.

Neil S. said:


> Mike_E said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do none of you have lives?
> 
> Here you go Neil, as you couldn't find your copy. (unless I missed your post)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This
Click to expand...

 
^^^


----------



## Adam Faulkner

Nikon also make white lenses. Only on the big stuff and you have to ask for it. 





------------------
Wedding Photographer Newcastle


----------



## kundalini

Adam Faulkner said:


> Nikon also make white lenses. Only on the big stuff and you have to ask for it.


 I think you'll find that they are actually a light grey rather than white.


----------



## rpm

Adam Faulkner said:


> Nikon also make white lenses. Only on the big stuff and you have to ask for it.
> 
> ---------------
> Wedding Photographer Newcastle



i personally have never seen this or even heard of this..

and wast the light grey more due to the film cameras having a grey body and the lens were made to match? otherwise any recent Nikon lenses have been black and only back from what ive seen.


----------



## Aye-non Oh-non Imus

rpm said:


> otherwise any recent Nikon lenses have been black and only back from what ive seen.


 Just an example.  

NIKON AF-S NIKKOR ED 80-200mm f/2.8D Light grey Exc+ - eBay (item 160452328979 end time Aug-03-10 22:00:48 PDT)


----------



## JamesMason

nikon make L lenses too. ken rockwell has one


----------



## rpm

Aye-non Oh-non Imus said:


> rpm said:
> 
> 
> 
> otherwise any recent Nikon lenses have been black and only back from what ive seen.
> 
> 
> 
> Just an example.
> 
> NIKON AF-S NIKKOR ED 80-200mm f/2.8D Light grey Exc+ - eBay (item 160452328979 end time Aug-03-10 22:00:48 PDT)
Click to expand...


i retract my comment. but imo i feel that it looks really odd to see a nikon lens in anything but black. i understand in many aspects for canon its a good marketing scheme to have them in white but it just feels alien to see a nikon in anything other than black. maybe a very dark grey would be ok but anything bordering on white feels iffy...


----------



## Browncoat

Petraio Prime said:


> And since Nikon was so perfect, why did thousands of press photographers switch?
> 
> The _Columbus Dispatch _dumped all their Nikon gear and went to Canon some time in the 90s. I was there when they were doing the transaction. I am sure they were not alone.



I happen to work for the Columbus Dispatch.  If they endorse Canon, that's just all the more reason to use Nikon.  This company can't get anything right.


----------



## shaunly

Petraio Prime said:


> Rekd said:
> 
> 
> 
> :crickets:
> 
> 
> 
> Rekd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, "all" those photographers in that picture are not using Nikon. I didn't count, but looks close to half are *L* and the rest are black. Of the black ones, *how many can you identify as Nikon*, because Canon and other mfgs make black lenses, too. :lmao:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> I can't tell. rpm can't tell.
> 
> Bueller? Bueller?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the late 90s the _Columbus Dispatch_ dumped their Nikon gear and bought $100K worth of Canon stuff.
> 
> *Disclaimer: I own manual focus Leicaflex cameras and lenses and have  no bias between Nikon and Canon.*
Click to expand...


I never said Nikon was perfect. Every brand has their ups and down, but we're looking at the whole picture here, not off one product. The way you describe the brand make it seem like a pile of junk, and I totally disagree. Whether you agree with it or not, the fact remains that Nikon is one of the top company out there.  



Browncoat said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> And since Nikon was so perfect, why did thousands of press photographers switch?
> 
> The _Columbus Dispatch _dumped all their Nikon gear and went to Canon some time in the 90s. I was there when they were doing the transaction. I am sure they were not alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I happen to work for the Columbus Dispatch.  If they endorse Canon, that's just all the more reason to use Nikon.  This company can't get anything right.
Click to expand...


:lmao:



rpm said:


> Aye-non Oh-non Imus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rpm said:
> 
> 
> 
> otherwise any recent Nikon lenses have been black and only back from what ive seen.
> 
> 
> 
> Just an example.
> 
> NIKON AF-S NIKKOR ED 80-200mm f/2.8D Light grey Exc+ - eBay (item 160452328979 end time Aug-03-10 22:00:48 PDT)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i retract my comment. but imo i feel that it looks really odd to see a nikon lens in anything but black. i understand in many aspects for canon its a good marketing scheme to have them in white but it just feels alien to see a nikon in anything other than black. maybe a very dark grey would be ok but anything bordering on white feels iffy...
Click to expand...


I believe one of the reason they choose white is to repel heat.

Here's some more Nikon's in white/light gray:
http://ylovephoto.com/fr/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/white_nikon_d3.jpg

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photograph...kkor/AF2870mm/NikonAFZM2870mmf28DIFEDGray.jpg

http://www.jafaphotography.com/images/eq/n300w_resize.jpg

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/i...telephoto/af-s_600mmf_4d_if_2/img/pic_001.jpg


----------



## Petraio Prime

Browncoat said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> And since Nikon was so perfect, why did thousands of press photographers switch?
> 
> The _Columbus Dispatch _dumped all their Nikon gear and went to Canon some time in the 90s. I was there when they were doing the transaction. I am sure they were not alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I happen to work for the Columbus Dispatch.  If they endorse Canon, that's just all the more reason to use Nikon.  This company can't get anything right.
Click to expand...



I wasn't saying anything about the Dispatch. Just pointing out they were probably typical of press.


----------



## shaunly

Rekd said:


> :crickets:
> 
> 
> 
> Rekd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, "all" those photographers in that picture are not using Nikon. I didn't count, but looks close to half are *L* and the rest are black. Of the black ones, *how many can you identify as Nikon*, because Canon and other mfgs make black lenses, too. :lmao:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> I can't tell. rpm can't tell.
> 
> Bueller? Bueller?
Click to expand...


Don't assume all white lenses are Canon. Just because they're not available in the US doesn't mean the rest of the world don't use them.

SEAG: Football Match (Day 1) on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kieron/65077765/sizes/l/in/photostream/


----------



## Aye-non Oh-non Imus

Petraio Prime said:


> I wasn't saying anything about the Dispatch. Just pointing out they were probably typical of press.


Anecdotal information is less than worthless.

This breeds contempt to most of your previous indulgencies. Go on....... tell me about the 1950's Nikon lens mount again. Oh wait a minute.....................................................................................................................................................................................


----------



## Rekd

shaunly said:


> Don't assume all white lenses are Canon.



LoL. So now there's no way to know what lenses are being used in that picture. Point mooted.


----------



## rpm

> I believe one of the reason they choose white is to repel heat.
> 
> Here's some more Nikon's in white/light gray:
> http://ylovephoto.com/fr/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/white_nikon_d3.jpg
> 
> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photograph...kkor/AF2870mm/NikonAFZM2870mmf28DIFEDGray.jpg
> 
> http://www.jafaphotography.com/images/eq/n300w_resize.jpg
> 
> http://imaging.nikon.com/products/i...telephoto/af-s_600mmf_4d_if_2/img/pic_001.jpg



omw the white D3 looks ugly!....not to mention i can imagine it starting have grey-black blotches from dust and sweat....


----------



## usayit

kundalini said:


> Adam Faulkner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nikon also make white lenses. Only on the big stuff and you have to ask for it.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you'll find that they are actually a light grey rather than white.
Click to expand...


and Canon's lenses aren't really white either.. more "putty" color.  I think Sony makes a truly white lens.  Leica made a white M8 and Pentax made a white combo that looks like it was intended to be standard issue to Storm Troopers.

OMG... I can't freakin believe we are talking about the color of equipment now!  



I think the best "color" I've seen is Titanium.... like my M6.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Aye-non Oh-non Imus said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't saying anything about the Dispatch. Just pointing out they were probably typical of press.
> 
> 
> 
> Anecdotal information is less than worthless.
Click to expand...



How so? Do you think they were the only ones?


----------



## Rekd

usayit said:


> I think the best "color" I've seen is Titanium.... like my M6.



:addpics:


----------



## Gaerek

Petraio Prime said:


> Aye-non Oh-non Imus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't saying anything about the Dispatch. Just pointing out they were probably typical of press.
> 
> 
> 
> Anecdotal information is less than worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How so? Do you think they were the only ones?
Click to expand...


The top local professional shooter where I'm from shoots Nikon, therefore Nikon is the best.

That is why anecdotal information is worthless. It's the Proof by Example Fallacy. You're trying to claim that because one newspaper dropped Nikon for Canon, that Nikon must not make good products. The photographer for my newspaper just switched from Canon to Nikon. Does that mean Canon is bad? I mean, according to your logic it does.

I'm a Canon shooter. I have nothing against Nikon. I think they are a great company. I have an investment with Canon, so I won't be switching, at least anytime soon. But you simply cannot dismiss what Nikon has accomplished, especially recently.

And whether the Columbus Dispatch was the only paper to switch or not is ENTIRELY irrelevant to the argument.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Gaerek said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aye-non Oh-non Imus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anecdotal information is less than worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so? Do you think they were the only ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The top local professional shooter where I'm from shoots Nikon, therefore Nikon is the best.
> 
> That is why anecdotal information is worthless. It's the Proof by Example Fallacy. You're trying to claim that because one newspaper dropped Nikon for Canon, that Nikon must not make good products. The photographer for my newspaper just switched from Canon to Nikon. Does that mean Canon is bad? I mean, according to your logic it does.
> 
> I'm a Canon shooter. I have nothing against Nikon. I think they are a great company. I have an investment with Canon, so I won't be switching, at least anytime soon. But you simply cannot dismiss what Nikon has accomplished, especially recently.
> 
> And whether the Columbus Dispatch was the only paper to switch or not is ENTIRELY irrelevant to the argument.
Click to expand...


No, not 'better', just better adapted to the needs of the _press_.

Looking at the photographers at sporting events over the last 20 years you see overwhelmingly big Canon lenses. This is uncontrovertable.


----------



## Gaerek

Petraio Prime said:


> Gaerek said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so? Do you think they were the only ones?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top local professional shooter where I'm from shoots Nikon, therefore Nikon is the best.
> 
> That is why anecdotal information is worthless. It's the Proof by Example Fallacy. You're trying to claim that because one newspaper dropped Nikon for Canon, that Nikon must not make good products. The photographer for my newspaper just switched from Canon to Nikon. Does that mean Canon is bad? I mean, according to your logic it does.
> 
> I'm a Canon shooter. I have nothing against Nikon. I think they are a great company. I have an investment with Canon, so I won't be switching, at least anytime soon. But you simply cannot dismiss what Nikon has accomplished, especially recently.
> 
> And whether the Columbus Dispatch was the only paper to switch or not is ENTIRELY irrelevant to the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not 'better', just better adapted to the needs of the _press_.
> 
> Looking at the photographers at sporting events over the last 20 years you see overwhelmingly big Canon lenses. This is uncontrovertable.
Click to expand...


Proof? A newspaper switching isn't proof.

Joe McNally has shot several cover stories for SPORTS Illustrated. He shoots Nikon. There! Proof! Oh wait...just using PP's logic here, sorry...


----------



## vtf

Too much of this :chatty:
Leads to this uke:


----------



## Petraio Prime

Gaerek said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gaerek said:
> 
> 
> 
> The top local professional shooter where I'm from shoots Nikon, therefore Nikon is the best.
> 
> That is why anecdotal information is worthless. It's the Proof by Example Fallacy. You're trying to claim that because one newspaper dropped Nikon for Canon, that Nikon must not make good products. The photographer for my newspaper just switched from Canon to Nikon. Does that mean Canon is bad? I mean, according to your logic it does.
> 
> I'm a Canon shooter. I have nothing against Nikon. I think they are a great company. I have an investment with Canon, so I won't be switching, at least anytime soon. But you simply cannot dismiss what Nikon has accomplished, especially recently.
> 
> And whether the Columbus Dispatch was the only paper to switch or not is ENTIRELY irrelevant to the argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not 'better', just better adapted to the needs of the _press_.
> 
> Looking at the photographers at sporting events over the last 20 years you see overwhelmingly big Canon lenses. This is uncontrovertable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof? A newspaper switching isn't proof.
> 
> Joe McNally has shot several cover stories for SPORTS Illustrated. He shoots Nikon. There! Proof! Oh wait...just using PP's logic here, sorry...
Click to expand...


What has he been using for the last 20 years?


----------



## shaunly

Gaerek said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gaerek said:
> 
> 
> 
> The top local professional shooter where I'm from shoots Nikon, therefore Nikon is the best.
> 
> That is why anecdotal information is worthless. It's the Proof by Example Fallacy. You're trying to claim that because one newspaper dropped Nikon for Canon, that Nikon must not make good products. The photographer for my newspaper just switched from Canon to Nikon. Does that mean Canon is bad? I mean, according to your logic it does.
> 
> I'm a Canon shooter. I have nothing against Nikon. I think they are a great company. I have an investment with Canon, so I won't be switching, at least anytime soon. But you simply cannot dismiss what Nikon has accomplished, especially recently.
> 
> And whether the Columbus Dispatch was the only paper to switch or not is ENTIRELY irrelevant to the argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not 'better', just better adapted to the needs of the _press_.
> 
> Looking at the photographers at sporting events over the last 20 years you see overwhelmingly big Canon lenses. This is uncontrovertable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof? A newspaper switching isn't proof.
> 
> Joe McNally has shot several cover stories for SPORTS Illustrated. He shoots Nikon. There! Proof! Oh wait...just using PP's logic here, sorry...
Click to expand...


There's no point of reasoning with him. I gave up pages ago. lol


----------



## Petraio Prime

shaunly said:


> Gaerek said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not 'better', just better adapted to the needs of the _press_.
> 
> Looking at the photographers at sporting events over the last 20 years you see overwhelmingly big Canon lenses. This is uncontrovertable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof? A newspaper switching isn't proof.
> 
> Joe McNally has shot several cover stories for SPORTS Illustrated. He shoots Nikon. There! Proof! Oh wait...just using PP's logic here, sorry...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no point of reasoning with him. I gave up pages ago. lol
Click to expand...


You're not reasoning. Look, I don't use Canon. I don't care about Canon. I use Leicaflex.  Neither is as good as Leicaflex in absolute quality but that's not the  issue. But the point is that the Canon's autofocus system cameras are better than Nikon's.

Period.


----------



## Mbnmac

Petraio Prime said:


> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gaerek said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof? A newspaper switching isn't proof.
> 
> Joe McNally has shot several cover stories for SPORTS Illustrated. He shoots Nikon. There! Proof! Oh wait...just using PP's logic here, sorry...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no point of reasoning with him. I gave up pages ago. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not reasoning. Look, I don't use Canon. I don't care about Canon. I use Leicaflex.  *Neither is as good as Leicaflex in absolute quality* but that's not the  issue. But the point is that the Canon's autofocus system cameras are better than Nikon's.
> 
> Period.
Click to expand...


:lmao:


----------



## Petraio Prime

Mbnmac said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no point of reasoning with him. I gave up pages ago. lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not reasoning. Look, I don't use Canon. I don't care about Canon. I use Leicaflex.  *Neither is as good as Leicaflex in absolute quality* but that's not the  issue. But the point is that the Canon's autofocus system cameras are better than Nikon's.
> 
> Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> :lmao:
Click to expand...


Wow, what an impressive argument.


----------



## rpm

Petraio Prime said:


> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gaerek said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof? A newspaper switching isn't proof.
> 
> Joe McNally has shot several cover stories for SPORTS Illustrated. He shoots Nikon. There! Proof! Oh wait...just using PP's logic here, sorry...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no point of reasoning with him. I gave up pages ago. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not reasoning. Look, I don't use Canon. I don't care about Canon. I use Leicaflex.  Neither is as good as Leicaflex in absolute quality but that's not the  issue. But the point is that the Canon's autofocus system cameras are better than Nikon's.
> 
> Period.
Click to expand...


best argumentative response ever? :lmao:

question though are you basing that statement on the SWM from Nikon or their focusing motor?


----------



## Gaerek

Petraio Prime said:


> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gaerek said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof? A newspaper switching isn't proof.
> 
> Joe McNally has shot several cover stories for SPORTS Illustrated. He shoots Nikon. There! Proof! Oh wait...just using PP's logic here, sorry...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no point of reasoning with him. I gave up pages ago. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not reasoning. *Look, I don't use Canon. I don't care about Canon.* I use Leicaflex. Neither is as good as Leicaflex in absolute quality but that's not the issue. But the point is that the Canon's autofocus system cameras are better than Nikon's.
> 
> Period.
Click to expand...

 
I highlighted the important parts. If that's the case, then why are you here? I think someone hit the nail on the head in a previous thread when they called you a contrarian. That's the only logical case I can make here.

One only needs to look as far back as the 1d mkIII to show that Canon's AF isn't always better than Nikon. Period.

I'm just curious why you believe this? Is it because Canon designed a system specifically for AF, while Nikon modified an existing system? Because, that's hardly a good argument. The proof is in the pudding, not the engineering. From everything I've read, and seen, Nikon camera's are at least as good, if not better than Canon in the AF department, especially recently (which, as far as time period is concerned, recently is ALL that matters). Scott Bourne switched from Canon (after something like 17 years shooting Canon) to Nikon SPECIFICALLY because of Canon's AF. There is no "...Canon's autofocus system cameras are better than Nikon's. Period." because it's simply not true.

Please do me a favor and actually make an argument. I feel like a broken record from the last thread I argued with you in. Just because Petraio Prime says something, doesn't make it so.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Gaerek said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no point of reasoning with him. I gave up pages ago. lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not reasoning. *Look, I don't use Canon. I don't care about Canon.* I use Leicaflex. Neither is as good as Leicaflex in absolute quality but that's not the issue. But the point is that the Canon's autofocus system cameras are better than Nikon's.
> 
> Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I highlighted the important parts. If that's the case, then why are you here?
Click to expand...


To provide an informed, but unbiased point of view.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Gaerek said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no point of reasoning with him. I gave up pages ago. lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not reasoning. *Look, I don't use Canon. I don't care about Canon.* I use Leicaflex. Neither is as good as Leicaflex in absolute quality but that's not the issue. But the point is that the Canon's autofocus system cameras are better than Nikon's.
> 
> Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I highlighted the important parts. If that's the case, then why are you here? I think someone hit the nail on the head in a previous thread when they called you a contrarian. That's the only logical case I can make here.
> 
> One only needs to look as far back as the 1d mkIII to show that Canon's AF isn't always better than Nikon. Period.
> 
> I'm just curious why you believe this? Is it because Canon designed a system specifically for AF, while Nikon modified an existing system? Because, that's hardly a good argument. The proof is in the pudding, not the engineering. From everything I've read, and seen, Nikon camera's are at least as good, if not better than Canon in the AF department, especially recently (which, as far as time period is concerned, recently is ALL that matters). Scott Bourne switched from Canon (after something like 17 years shooting Canon) to Nikon SPECIFICALLY because of Canon's AF. There is no "...Canon's autofocus system cameras are better than Nikon's. Period." because it's simply not true.
> 
> Please do me a favor and actually make an argument. I feel like a broken record from the last thread I argued with you in. Just because Petraio Prime says something, doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...









Can either of them focus through a net?

I doubt it.

:lmao:


----------



## Derrel

Petraio Prime said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can either of them focus through a net?
> 
> I doubt it.
> 
> :lmao:




Set the focus limiter on a long lens or zoom lens and yes, it's quite easy to prevent an AF d-slr from focusing on a foreground target. Buuuuuut then Pee Pee, you don't use,or own an autofocus Canon or Nikon. So, go ahead and laugh your ass off...since those of us with *ACTUAL EXPERIENCE* with modern, not outdated 30-year-old Leicaflex SL-2 experience, understand that yes, a foreground obstacle is quite easy to deal with by using the
*focus limiter*. LMAO at your, "informed but unbiased point of view."

Your example photo is anything but "informed". And your bias against AF camera and lens systems is showing.

Nice try P-P, but you just look like a fool who does not own,or use, either Canon or Nikon autofocus cameras and lenses...you're coming into this discussion as the owner of a 30-plus year old, discontinued Leica R system. Your opinions are neither informed, nor are they unbiased.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Derrel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can either of them focus through a net?
> 
> I doubt it.
> 
> :lmao:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Set the focus limiter on a long lens or zoom lens and yes, it's quite easy to prevent an AF d-slr from focusing on a foreground target. Buuuuuut then Pee Pee, you don't use,or own an autofocus Canon or Nikon. So, go ahead and laugh your ass off...since those of us with *ACTUAL EXPERIENCE* with modern, not outdated 30-year-old Leicaflex SL-2 experience, understand that yes, a foreground obstacle is quite easy to deal with by using the
> *focus limiter*. LMAO at your, "informed but unbiased point of view."
> 
> Your example photo is anything but "informed". And your bias against AF camera and lens systems is showing.
> 
> Nice try P-P, but you just look like a fool who does not own, or use, either Canon or Nikon autofocus cameras and lenses...you're coming into this discussion as the owner of a 30-plus year old, discontinued Leica R system. Your opinions are neither informed, nor are they unbiased.
Click to expand...


You forgot that I sold photo equipment in the 90s and have been visiting stores and handing the equipment on a regular basis since.

The focus limiter works by distance, of course, but what about when the net isn't that far away from the subject? What do you do then? What about when he dribbles close to the net? What about when he shoots and you want a shot of the goalie diving for the ball? You're hosed, dude.

I was rather far away from this lad and the net, using a 350mm Telyt-R.


----------



## usayit

Pee-wee: There's a lotta things about me you don't know anything about, Dottie. Things you wouldn't understand. Things you couldn't understand. Things you shouldn't understand. 
Dottie: I don't understand. 
Pee-wee: You don't wanna get mixed up with a guy like me. I'm a loner, Dottie. A rebel. So long, Dott.


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> Pee-wee: There's a lotta things about me you don't know anything about, Dottie. Things you wouldn't understand. Things you couldn't understand. Things you shouldn't understand.
> Dottie: I don't understand.
> Pee-wee: You don't wanna get mixed up with a guy like me. I'm a loner, Dottie. A rebel. So long, Dott.



I don't need no stinkin' autofocus, meester....

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaxURLFn6jU[/ame]


----------



## Mbnmac

Petraio Prime said:


> Mbnmac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not reasoning. Look, I don't use Canon. I don't care about Canon. I use Leicaflex.  *Neither is as good as Leicaflex in absolute quality* but that's not the  issue. But the point is that the Canon's autofocus system cameras are better than Nikon's.
> 
> Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lmao:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, what an impressive argument.
Click to expand...

It's about as useful and conducive to the discussion as anything you've said yet
But this is always the case with trolls


----------



## Petraio Prime

Mbnmac said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mbnmac said:
> 
> 
> 
> :lmao:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, what an impressive argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's about as useful and conducive to the discussion as anything you've said yet
> But this is always the case with trolls
Click to expand...


A troll, I have learned, is a name applied on discussion groups to anyone who knows more than _you_.

If you don't understand, study. If you never heard it before, well no-one knows everything.

Just because you or none of your friends is acquainted with the truth does not make anything false. It just means you don't know.


----------



## Gaerek

Petraio Prime said:


> You forgot that I sold photo equipment in the 90s and have been visiting stores and handing the equipment on a regular basis since.



You sold phot equipment in the 90's? Wow, I guess PP must be the all knowing, all seeing photographe...wait, no you're not a photographer, I almost forgot. Hey, can you get me a good deal on a new EOS-1N? Oh wait...that camera hasn't been relevant in over 10 years...



> Can either of them focus through a net?
> 
> I doubt it.
> 
> :lmao:


Ok...why didn't I get the memo that modern cameras don't have Manual Focus? I mean, I've been doing it on mine for several years now. I guess I need to stop, because modern camera must mean automatic only!

Go play with your 30 year old equipment and have fun. Leave the talk about modern cameras (read: less than 10 years old) to people with actual experience with them. Mmmkay?


----------



## Browncoat

Really?  This thread is still going?


----------



## Gaerek

Browncoat said:


> Really?  This thread is still going?



Shush you! Petraio Prime is amusing me! :lmao:


----------



## DerekSalem

Restomage said:


> It's a marketing strategy Canon uses to noobs because most consumers look at megapixels when shopping for a camera and automatically think the higher the megapixels, the better deal they are getting and the quality is going to be way better.
> 
> You would be much better off with Nikon, there's a reason Nikon has proven itself to be a better system than Canon over the past 3 years.



And that reason is "Ignorance is bliss".

The D300 and 7D are virtually the same in terms of performance. They're both exceptional bodies and both can church out incredible pictures, if used by the right person. Take both in your hands and feel the way they operate. Then decide on what type of glass you'd like to get (get specifics in mind) and decide from there. Look at pricing of glass, quality of the glass (reviews), and other things. Don't limit yourself to just "Nikon V Canon" because nobody will win.

Both of these bodies pretty much have the best their respective companies have to offer (with a few exceptions, but very few).


----------



## Derrel

Video of a team Leicaflex SL-2 driver demonstrating the absolute technical superiority of Euro-designed equipment, which as we all know, is much higher quality than Japanese-designed gear.


petitporsche Video by TERMINAL CONNECTION - MySpace Video


----------



## Petraio Prime

Gaerek said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot that I sold photo equipment in the 90s and have been visiting stores and handing the equipment on a regular basis since.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sold phot equipment in the 90's? Wow, I guess PP must be the all knowing, all seeing photographe...wait, no you're not a photographer, I almost forgot. Hey, can you get me a good deal on a new EOS-1N? Oh wait...that camera hasn't been relevant in over 10 years...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can either of them focus through a net?
> 
> I doubt it.
> 
> :lmao:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok...why didn't I get the memo that modern cameras don't have Manual Focus? I mean, I've been doing it on mine for several years now. I guess I need to stop, because modern camera must mean automatic only!
> 
> Go play with your 30 year old equipment and have fun. Leave the talk about modern cameras (read: less than 10 years old) to people with actual experience with them. Mmmkay?
Click to expand...


So you need to use the camera just like my 35 year old Leicaflex? LOL

But you can't focus manually as easily or as quickly because those cameras aren't as smooth. And your skills are not as sharp because you've been relying on autofocus for years.

You say you've been using manual focus for "several years"? I've been doing it for 45 years.

Laugh's on me.


----------



## Mbnmac

Petraio Prime said:


> Gaerek said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot that I sold photo equipment in the 90s and have been visiting stores and handing the equipment on a regular basis since.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sold phot equipment in the 90's? Wow, I guess PP must be the all knowing, all seeing photographe...wait, no you're not a photographer, I almost forgot. Hey, can you get me a good deal on a new EOS-1N? Oh wait...that camera hasn't been relevant in over 10 years...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can either of them focus through a net?
> 
> I doubt it.
> 
> :lmao:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok...why didn't I get the memo that modern cameras don't have Manual Focus? I mean, I've been doing it on mine for several years now. I guess I need to stop, because modern camera must mean automatic only!
> 
> Go play with your 30 year old equipment and have fun. Leave the talk about modern cameras (read: less than 10 years old) to people with actual experience with them. Mmmkay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you need to use the camera just like my 35 year old Leicaflex? LOL
> 
> But you can't focus manually as easily or as quickly because those cameras aren't as smooth. And your skills are not as sharp because you've been relying on autofocus for years.
> 
> You say you've been using manual focus for "several years"? *I've been doing it for 45 years*.
> 
> Laugh's on me.
Click to expand...

Listen grandpa, we can't help that we have better equipment than you, I know it's hard to learn new things.

Tell you what, tomorrow, I'll show this amazing new thing they're calling moving pictures, it's like the radio, but with pictures! I know the radio has amazing audio quality these days but I tell ya, this T-E-L-E-V-I-S-I-O-N thing will be the way of the future!


----------



## outreachideas

I'd go for Canon!


----------



## OrionsByte

Petraio Prime said:


> So you need to use the camera just like my 35 year old Leicaflex? LOL
> 
> But you can't focus manually as easily or as quickly because those cameras aren't as smooth. And your skills are not as sharp because you've been relying on autofocus for years.
> 
> You say you've been using manual focus for "several years"? I've been doing it for 45 years.
> 
> Laugh's on me.



There are always going to be situations when you have to take control back away from the camera, because the camera can be fooled.  Technologies like auto-focus and matrix metering weren't invented so that we'd never have to think for ourselves; they were invented as tools that photographers could use to make things easier most of the time.  A good photographer knows how to use _all_ the tools available to them, including AF _and_ MF.

Besides the fact that it's completely off topic for this thread, I get really tired of seeing, "I'm a better photographer because I only use manual controls."  It's your choice to use those cameras and those controls, and I respect that, if it works for you, but it doesn't mean that everyone has to see it your way.  It also doesn't give you the perfect impartial vantage point from which to comment on Nikon vs. Canon in terms of AF, even if you think it does, because you don't _use_ AF.  Without practical, relevant experience behind your words, they're empty.  And frustrating.

Petraio, I understand where you're coming from, I really do.  Could you take a moment and respect where we're coming from as well?  Can you try to understand that everyone has a right to their own opinion, even when you think they're wrong?  You can rattle off as many "facts" as you want, but you're completely destroying any chance you have of getting your point across when you don't respect the opinions of others, because it just makes you come across as pompous and arrogant.

I'm asking you, please, if you truly have amassed this great wealth of knowledge and experience, find a way to contribute that doesn't involve insulting everyone you try and "help."



Mbnmac said:


> Listen grandpa, we can't help that we have better equipment than you, I know it's hard to learn new things.
> 
> Tell you what, tomorrow, I'll show this amazing new thing they're calling moving pictures, it's like the radio, but with pictures! I know the radio has amazing audio quality these days but I tell ya, this T-E-L-E-V-I-S-I-O-N thing will be the way of the future!



That was pretty uncalled for, even for this thread.


----------



## Dao

> Petraio, I understand where you're coming from, I really do.  Could you  take a moment and respect where we're coming from as well?  Can you try  to understand that everyone has a right to their own opinion, even when  you think they're wrong?  You can rattle off as many "facts" as you  want, but you're completely destroying any chance you have of getting  your point across when you don't respect the opinions of others, because  it just makes you come across as pompous and arrogant.




If you read all (almost) the posts that Petraio had post in this forum (or others), I do not think you will waste your time to offer the above comment. 


Please raise your hand if anyone would like the mod to close this thread!


----------



## Petraio Prime

OrionsByte said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you need to use the camera just like my 35 year old Leicaflex? LOL
> 
> But you can't focus manually as easily or as quickly because those cameras aren't as smooth. And your skills are not as sharp because you've been relying on autofocus for years.
> 
> You say you've been using manual focus for "several years"? I've been doing it for 45 years.
> 
> Laugh's on me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are always going to be situations when you have to take control back away from the camera, because the camera can be fooled.  Technologies like auto-focus and matrix metering weren't invented so that we'd never have to think for ourselves; they were invented as tools that photographers could use to make things easier most of the time.  A good photographer knows how to use _all_ the tools available to them, including AF _and_ MF.
> 
> Besides the fact that it's completely off topic for this thread, I get really tired of seeing, "I'm a better photographer because I only use manual controls."  It's your choice to use those cameras and those controls, and I respect that, if it works for you, but it doesn't mean that everyone has to see it your way.  It also doesn't give you the perfect impartial vantage point from which to comment on Nikon vs. Canon in terms of AF, even if you think it does, because you don't _use_ AF.  Without practical, relevant experience behind your words, they're empty.  And frustrating.
> 
> Petraio, I understand where you're coming from, I really do.  Could you take a moment and respect where we're coming from as well?  Can you try to understand that everyone has a right to their own opinion, even when you think they're wrong?  You can rattle off as many "facts" as you want, but you're completely destroying any chance you have of getting your point across when you don't respect the opinions of others, because it just makes you come across as pompous and arrogant.
> 
> I'm asking you, please, if you truly have amassed this great wealth of knowledge and experience, find a way to contribute that doesn't involve insulting everyone you try and "help."
> 
> 
> 
> Mbnmac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen grandpa, we can't help that we have better equipment than you, I know it's hard to learn new things.
> 
> Tell you what, tomorrow, I'll show this amazing new thing they're calling moving pictures, it's like the radio, but with pictures! I know the radio has amazing audio quality these days but I tell ya, this T-E-L-E-V-I-S-I-O-N thing will be the way of the future!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was pretty uncalled for, even for this thread.
Click to expand...


I have been around photography in one form or another for 45+ years.

I have worked in the retail end (twice) and as a commercial/industrial photographer/assistant, multi-media photographer, yearbook/magazine photographer, etc. I have also sold Alpa, Zeiss, Leica, Minolta, Olympus, Pentax, Canon, Nikon, etc.

When you work in a camera shop you get to play with the stuff. Customers expect you to know the equipment.

Several of the organizations I worked for used Nikons (old Ftns, F2s, F3s, etc.)

I was in the retail business for the second time in the early-mid 90s, and have first-hand experience with F4s and EOS-1s and their lenses. I have also continued to visit stores and play with newer equipment. I doubt any of you have experience with handling everything from a Contarex and Contaflex to an EOS-1V.

I have worked with Nikon and don't like them. I don't own either Nikon or Canon, but if I had to choose a new 35mm system it would never be Nikon. Never.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

So why are you here? You never seem to really, genuinely help anyone.


----------



## o hey tyler




----------



## Petraio Prime

Bitter Jeweler said:


> So why are you here? You never seem to really, genuinely help anyone.



I do. You just never accept anything I say. I can't help you with that.


----------



## inTempus

Gaerek said:


> One only needs to look as far back as the 1d mkIII to show that Canon's AF isn't always better than Nikon. Period.


Even with the issues Canon had with the 1D3, I've never found even one published test where the D3 beat the 1D3 in AF performance in a side-by-side shootout.

Here's a couple of examples.

Canon 1D MKIII vs. Nikon D3 Sports Autofocus Showdown - Pro Photo HOME

AF-C comparison test plus K20D and K200D test in german "fotoMAGAZIN": Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

The same tests were conducted against the D3s vs. the 1D4 and here's the results:

Autofocus Torture Test Updated (Canon 1D MKIV & Nikon D3S added) | Pro Photo Home

Did Canon have issues with the 1D3?   Yup, they did.  It happens, even to Nikon (the D5000 was recalled twice in recent history).  The best advice one can take is to never buy from the first run of a totally new system unless you're ready to accept dealing with unforeseen problems and are willing to wait for the fix.

I'm not saying that Canon's AF system is superior to Nikon's, I honestly can't say which is technically better nor do I really care.  You'll find pretty much equal numbers in either camp that claim they have the best system.  Both are very capable systems and will yield world class results if you take the time to learn the system you're using.  They both have their quirks, yes even Nikon.  I shoot with a 1D4 and it has plenty of quirks too... believe me.

I wouldn't be so concerned with who has the better AF system as 99.99% of us will never use the cameras to their fullest potential.  It's all mental gymnastics to sit around saying who has the best gear at the level these to titans play at.  Neither is perfect and neither offer the ideal solution for all photographers.  Pick one that works for you, go with it and be happy.


----------



## Gaerek

Petraio Prime said:


> Gaerek said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot that I sold photo equipment in the 90s and have been visiting stores and handing the equipment on a regular basis since.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sold phot equipment in the 90's? Wow, I guess PP must be the all knowing, all seeing photographe...wait, no you're not a photographer, I almost forgot. Hey, can you get me a good deal on a new EOS-1N? Oh wait...that camera hasn't been relevant in over 10 years...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can either of them focus through a net?
> 
> I doubt it.
> 
> :lmao:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok...why didn't I get the memo that modern cameras don't have Manual Focus? I mean, I've been doing it on mine for several years now. I guess I need to stop, because modern camera must mean automatic only!
> 
> Go play with your 30 year old equipment and have fun. Leave the talk about modern cameras (read: less than 10 years old) to people with actual experience with them. Mmmkay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you need to use the camera just like my 35 year old Leicaflex? LOL
> 
> But you can't focus manually as easily or as quickly because those cameras aren't as smooth. And your skills are not as sharp because you've been relying on autofocus for years.
> 
> You say you've been using manual focus for "several years"? I've been doing it for 45 years.
> 
> Laugh's on me.
Click to expand...


Wow, PP knows me personally now! His omniscience transcends photography! I suppose you might find it hard to believe the next few things:

1) I learned on a manual focus camera. I know how to do it, and I know how to do it well. Maybe I've been only shooting for 12 years, but the first 7 were on a nearly completely manual camera (mainly because I couldn't afford something newer...such is the life of a high school/college student). It's very nice to know that in such rare instances (like the one you posted) I can manually focus still. Luckily, for the 95 out of 100 other instances, where AF is FAR superior to MF, I have that capability as well.

2) I guess smoothness now has something to do with how well you can manually focus something? I mean, it might make it a bit easier, but if you know what you're doing, it's not something that will really make a difference, especially in those extremely rare circumstances where MF is better than AF.

3) Luckily, I don't need to use my newer camera like yours in most instances. However, your statement was "Can either of them [modern Nikon/Canon dSLR's] focus through a net?" And I proved they can. You just moved the goal posts now to say that these cameras can't do it as well as your GROSSLY outdated hardware.

Once again, your lack of knowledge about anything related to photography in the past 15ish years is showing. I have nothing against people who shoot film, use old cameras, or whatever. I have a lot against pretentious know-it-all's, who really, don't know anything close to it all. You fit that bill nicely PP.



> Several of the organizations I worked for used Nikons (old Ftns, F2s, F3s, etc.)
> 
> I was in the retail business for the second time in the early-mid 90s,  and have first-hand experience with F4s and EOS-1s and their lenses. I  have also continued to visit stores and play with newer equipment. I  doubt any of you have experience with handling everything from a  Contarex and Contaflex to an EOS-1V.


You do understand that the cameras that these companies are producing today, are about 100 times more sophisticated, and are nothing like those that you mentioned, right? You did know that? I assume the all knowing PP would. Once again, you're showing your lack of knowledge of modern cameras. Go to a camera shop today, and rent a high end dSLR with a good lens. You might actually be surprised at how superior that camera is to what you use. Who knows, you might actually like it. If you don't, that's cool too. But understand that when people are discussing modern dSLR's, you're knowledge of 60's era SLRs and mid 90's era film cameras is IRRELEVANT.

P.S. Years of experience means next to nothing, honestly. You've been shooting longer than I've been alive. But it's obvious to me, and most everyone here that people who shoot 60's era cameras really can't talk about modern dSLR's. I have more experience than you in that respect.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

Petraio Prime said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why are you here? You never seem to really, genuinely help anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do. You just never accept anything I say. I can't help you with that.
Click to expand...

 
Funny, I don't recall ever entering any debates with you, for you to say that. Now you are making assumptions.


----------



## Gaerek

inTempus said:


> Gaerek said:
> 
> 
> 
> One only needs to look as far back as the 1d mkIII to show that Canon's AF isn't always better than Nikon. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> Even with the issues Canon had with the 1D3, I've never found even one published test where the D3 beat the 1D3 in AF performance in a side-by-side shootout.
> 
> Here's a couple of examples.
> 
> Canon 1D MKIII vs. Nikon D3 Sports Autofocus Showdown - Pro Photo HOME
> 
> AF-C comparison test plus K20D and K200D test in german "fotoMAGAZIN": Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
> 
> The same tests were conducted against the D3s vs. the 1D4 and here's the results:
> 
> Autofocus Torture Test Updated (Canon 1D MKIV & Nikon D3S added) | Pro Photo Home
> 
> Did Canon have issues with the 1D3? Yup, they did. It happens, even to Nikon (the D5000 was recalled twice in recent history). The best advice one can take is to never buy from the first run of a totally new system unless you're ready to accept dealing with unforeseen problems and are willing to wait for the fix.
> 
> I'm not saying that Canon's AF system is superior to Nikon's, I honestly can't say which is technically better nor do I really care. You'll find pretty much equal numbers in either camp that claim they have the best system. Both are very capable systems and will yield world class results if you take the time to learn the system you're using. They both have their quirks, yes even Nikon. I shoot with a 1D4 and it has plenty of quirks too... believe me.
> 
> I wouldn't be so concerned with who has the better AF system as 99.99% of us will never use the cameras to their fullest potential. It's all mental gymnastics to sit around saying who has the best gear at the level these to titans play at. Neither is perfect and neither offer the ideal solution for all photographers. Pick one that works for you, go with it and be happy.
Click to expand...

 
I just want you to know that I largely agree with you. My point was that it's never wise to make a blanket statement. When Petraio had said that Canon has the best AF system, he was wrong by the fact that it isn't always the case. Personally I don't care. I shot my friends mkiii, a few months after it was released and I didn't notice anything wrong with the AF. Of course, I'm no pro, and the AF on the mkiii was still superior to what I was using.

If I were to use Canon and Nikon's flagship camera's side by side, I probably wouldn't notice any real dicernable difference between them. Most people wouldn't. Professionals who require their equipment to work as it should, 100% of the time, however, will. I'm not one of those, I will never be one of those. I was simply using the mkiii as a proof of why PP's statement was false, that's all.


----------



## hallowdmachine

...personally, I prefer Coke to Pepsi. But that's just me.


----------



## Derrel

I just had to LAUGH when I saw InTempus pop back into this forum and reference Canon 1D MKIII vs. Nikon D3 Sports Autofocus Showdown - Pro Photo HOME

The Pro Photo Home site is ANYTHING but a "pro" site, and the owner of the site, "Drew", is the guy who bought Rob Galbraith's forums. After Drew bought the forums from Rob, things went south with the forums, and Drew developed a personal vendetta against Rob after the forum site was abandoned in droves by real,working professional sports shooters and photojournalists. After Galbraith brought the 1D Mark III AF problems to public attention,  Drew went on a "campaign" against Galbraith, and set out to refute basically anything Rob said. Drew was later forced to apologize after a large part of what he was alleging about Galbraith's findings was un-supportable by evidence. The public apology Drew made is still on line as far as I know.

I have to laugh my ass off when I read "Pro Photo Home" and its test of the D3 versus the Canon...shooting a guy in a white T-shirt as being representative of "an athlete" is hilarious....no number on the shirt, camera held horizontally, only 1 out of 52 autofocus points used to try and "prove" a point. Nikon's AF system is smart, and color-aware,and anybody who has used the D12 or D2 series bodies knows that enabling more than one AF point is the way the Nikon AF system is supposed to be used for sports photography.

Canon has had terrible problems with multi-point AF,and many Canon users have found that they can rely only on center AF point AF for sports use--Nikon users have a different system, entirely, and using multiple AF points greatly helps a 51-AF point camera that uses sophisticated analysis from MULTIPLE point to track rapid motion. So, by selecting a flat, white T-shirt as being representative of a "uniform", and switching off 50 out of 51 AF points, Rob Galbraith's enemy "Drew" deliberately set out to create a "test" that would directly refute Rob Galbraith's findings because Drew had a personal vendetta against Rob Galbraith, and spent quite a bit of time trying to prove that Galbraith's Canon 1D Mark III AF tests were just anti-Canon bias.

Of course, InTempus was not involved in photography at the time this happened...he's new to photography,and has not been around long enough to even have been aware that Rob Galbraith's forums were bought by Drew. I don't directly blame InTempus for repeatedly citing Drew Strickland's "Pro Photo Home" and his alleged AF test, but I do happen to have been a member of Galbraith's forums many years ago, back in the Nikon D1 days about a decade ago, so my insight into the situation is one of somebody who actually knows that Drew has a major "beef" with Rob Galbraith. Drew being a Canon user (a Canon fanboy, actually) played and still plays a large factor in the way Pro Photo Home's owner continues to try and discredit Rob Galbraith's web site. The fact that robgalbraith.com forced Canon to admit that the 1D Mark III had serious ,serious problems with its autofocus and the collapse of the forum base under Drew's ownership have both been huge factors in bad blood between the new owner, Drew, and the professional journalist and educator from whom the forum was purchased. "Pro Photo Home" had a pro shooter as its anchor, and that was Rob Galbraith. After the forums were sold, well, Drew was left holding the "remains"...


----------



## Mbnmac

OrionsByte said:


> Mbnmac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen grandpa, we can't help that we have better equipment than you, I know it's hard to learn new things.
> 
> Tell you what, tomorrow, I'll show this amazing new thing they're calling moving pictures, it's like the radio, but with pictures! I know the radio has amazing audio quality these days but I tell ya, this T-E-L-E-V-I-S-I-O-N thing will be the way of the future!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was pretty uncalled for, even for this thread.
Click to expand...


I don't see how, this thread is a joke and trying to actually argue/debate with him is pretty pointless


----------



## inTempus

Coming from the guy that still hasn't figured out that if you're in Av mode on a Canon the index finger wheel controls the aperture, and if you're in Tv mode the same wheel controls the shutter speed... it's all some magical and uber-confusing "willy-nilly" behavior.  Talk about autistic behavior... you repeat this non-sense in every Canon vs. Nikon thread as if everyone shares your inability to figure out simple controls.

Where's your rip on fotoMAGAZIN, Derrel?  Did you miss that link?

Leave it to Derrel to get all tweaked when someone posts something that doesn't jive with his myopic view of the world.  :lmao:

What was that Derrel said way back on page 3 of this thread?



> That's it for me in this thread. THere are other threrads just like this if people wanna' read the same stuff at greater length.



I guess he couldn't resist after all... kind of like saying I was back on his ignore list.  :meh:


----------



## Derrel

inTempus said:


> Coming from the guy that still hasn't figured out that if you're in Av mode on a Canon the index finger wheel controls the aperture, and if you're in Tv mode the same wheel controls the shutter speed... it's all some magical and uber-confusing "willy-nilly" behavior.  Talk about autistic behavior... you repeat this non-sense in every Canon vs. Nikon thread as if everyone shares your inability to figure out simple controls.
> 
> Where's your rip on fotoMAGAZIN, Derrel?  Did you miss that link?
> 
> Leave it to Derrel to get all tweaked when someone posts something that doesn't jive with his myopic view of the world.  :lmao:
> 
> What was that Derrel said way back on page 3 of this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's it for me in this thread. THere are other threrads just like this if people wanna' read the same stuff at greater length.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess he couldn't resist after all... kind of like saying I was back on his ignore list.  :meh:
Click to expand...



Tim, you're kind of funny. But the fact remains, you're new to photography and have been shooting photos only for a little over two years now. You're a middle-aged advertising guy who had the money to get into photography and buy higher-end L-glass lenses and professional bodies, but the fact remains, you act like you're a seasoned shooter, but you actually have no basis from which to judge older Canon or older Nikon equipment,or current Nikon gear. My "myopic view" of the world is an amusing effort at a put-down, but I have over 35 years' experience in photography...you have what? Two and a half years now? Or is it three years?

I own a three-body, ten-lens Canon system, and a multi-body, over 50-lens Nikon system...I have vastly more experience with Nikon that you do, and this is the funny part, I have been a Canon owner longer than you too Tim!
InTempus is Tim, for those who do not recognize the name. Your inability to grasp the issues and the intricacies of Nikon versus Canon is in large part due to your inexperience level...you simply do NOT have the background in d-slr photography, or pre-digital photography to understand that, basically, you're a one-brand guy who ACTS like he's a seasoned shooter, but your experience does not go back far enough to give you any perspective in this issue. A few of us, guys who have been shooting 3-4 decades, have enough perspective and seasoning to be able to make arguments based on actual ownership and experience with *multiple* systems. You sadly, do not. And yet...you run your mouth as if you do...

You're a rookie at the Nikon-Canon arguments man. I appreciate that you're currently interested in photography, but please do not pretend that you have a real grasp of the issue based on actual ownership or use of Nikon cameras and lenses....I own two systems, Canon AND Nikon. You OTOH, are a Canon fanboy...look at your avatar image InTempus...there you are, with your pants down and your ego in your hand, pissing on a NIKON logo! How obvious is that! You identify so strongly with Canon that you have to piss on the competition that threatens your very identity! Sad.


----------



## inTempus

Derrel said:


> Tim, you're kind of funny. But the fact remains, you're new to photography and have been shooting photos only for a little over two years now. You're a middle-aged advertising guy who had the money to get into photography and buy higher-end L-glass lenses and professional bodies, but the fact remains, you act like you're a seasoned shooter, but you actually have no basis from which to judge older Canon or older Nikon equipment,or current Nikon gear. My "myopic view" of the world is an amusing effort at a put-down, but I have over 35 years' experience in photography...you have what? Two and a half years now? Or is it three years?


What's funny is that you constantly feel the need to berate anyone that you dislike.  You can't even disagree with me because I said nothing in my post with which you could disagree... :lmao:

This is in essence what I said, please point out where you disagree with my inexperienced opinion.



> *Originally posted by inTempus:*
> I wouldn't be so concerned with who has the better AF system as 99.99%  of us will never use the cameras to their fullest potential. It's all  mental gymnastics to sit around saying who has the best gear at the  level these to titans play at. Neither is perfect and neither offer the  ideal solution for all photographers. Pick one that works for you, go  with it and be happy.



What, you don't like the links I posted showing that I've never found a single side-by-side shootout showing the D3 besting the 1D?  As I said, that doesn't mean the 1D beats the D3.  Here's my quote in case it eludes you.



> *Originally posted by inTempus:*
> I'm not saying that Canon's AF system is superior to Nikon's, I honestly  can't say which is technically better nor do I really care. You'll find  pretty much equal numbers in either camp that claim they have the best  system. Both are very capable systems and will yield world class results  if you take the time to learn the system you're using. They both have  their quirks, yes even Nikon. I shoot with a 1D4 and it has plenty of quirks too... believe me.



Yeah, there I am pretending to be a 35 year pro saying one is vastly better than the other.  Oh wait, I said nothing of the sort.  Oops.  That must mean you have some sort of ax to grind with me since you endlessly single me out for your little tirades.  



> I own a three-body, ten-lens Canon system, and a multi-body, over 50-lens Nikon system...I have vastly more experience with Nikon that you do, and this is the funny part, I have been a Canon owner longer than you too Tim!


What does this have to do with anything?  Oh, that's right - nothing.  We got it, you're an old man with a collection of cameras you like to take snap shots with and boast about.  I would put my skills up against yours any day of the week, Derrel.  So don't play your "I'm more experienced than you so shut up" routine.  It carries no weight with me, or anyone else I would bet.



> InTempus is Tim, for those who do not recognize the name.


More of your silly taunts.  I've never posted as "Tim" here.  So your feeble attempt to play some game to try and paint me as some kind of troll is just that, feeble.  I'm sure this goes back to my alias change from "tharmsen" to "inTempus" (name change to company name - how sinister!).  All of my old posts were updated with my new user name, so there's nothing hidden.  But then you know that and it's just another cheap shot taken by you.

Some things never change.



> Your inability to grasp the issues and the intricacies of Nikon versus Canon is in large part due to your inexperience level...you simply do NOT have the background in d-slr photography, or pre-digital photography to understand that, basically, you're a one-brand guy who ACTS like he's a seasoned shooter, but your experience does not go back far enough to give you any perspective in this issue.


Oh really, like what Derrel?  What did I post in this thread which shows my inability to grasp intricacies?  Humm?  Let me help you, nothing.  What all this boils down to is that I had the audacity to post in this thread and your ego couldn't handle it.  This is all about you trying to be the alpha male.  

But I did catch you, once again, saying how confused the Canon system makes you... it's all "willy-nilly" according to you.  No fanboyism in that comment of yours.  :lmao:



> A few of us, guys who have been shooting 3-4 decades, have enough perspective and seasoning to be able to make arguments based on actual ownership and experience with *multiple* systems. You sadly, do not. And yet...you run your mouth as if you do...


Oh really, and what did I run my mouth about that you disagree with Derrel?  Oh, that's right again - nothing.  Your experience is sitting around reading endless web articles and regurgitating that "knowledge" here.  If you spent half the time actually taking pictures vs. polishing your internet manhood on the forums you might actually accomplish something useful besides starting endless flame wars.



> You're a rookie at the Nikon-Canon arguments man. I appreciate that you're currently interested in photography, but please do not pretend that you have a real grasp of the issue based on actual ownership or use of Nikon cameras and lenses....I own two systems, Canon AND Nikon. You OTOH, are a Canon fanboy...look at your avatar image InTempus...there you are, with your pants down and your ego in your hand, pissing on a NIKON logo! How obvious is that! You identify so strongly with Canon that you have to piss on the competition that threatens your very identity! Sad.


I am nothing like you, I'm not a fanboy.  The avatar goes back to a thread that was a joke mocking threads exactly like this one, and you know it.  But here you are, once again, playing your infantile games.  

Point out EXACTLY what it is you disagree with in my original post.  Show me where I'm being a fanboy, please.  Show me where I say anything resembling one brand is better than the other.

This should be entertaining.


----------



## Neil S.

-The Nikon D3 line is currently better than Canon's 1 series overall. It is not as much of a difference as some try and make it out to be though.

-Nikon has a better metering system, this is a fact. Canon's metering system is however not all that far behind. Canon is no doubt working on this, as they would know they need to improve it far better than any of us here. 

-Canon has the best crop body with the 7D. Even if you don't feel that these types of bodies are important, many people do.

- Yes megapixels matter, but not as much as some try and act like. Canon has the most for a crop body, and Nikon has the most for full-frame body.

-Canon currently has the best DSLR video by far. Again this is very important to some people, and some people could care less.

-The Nikon AF thing makes very little difference in the grand scheme of things. Both Canon and Nikon have very good AF systems.

-Canon has the largest selection and the best value in their telephoto lens line.

-The smaller Nikon mount seems to have proved itself 99.99% as capable as the larger (and re-designed) Canon mount. Canon only has two lenses that are faster than what Nikon offers, and they both have numerous problems. I own one of them and can honestly tell you that its not the holy grail of lenses, far from it in fact.

-The above being said, Canon has the fastest lenses currently available between the two companies. If this matters to you or not is a very subjective thing, and it does matter to me for example. Many people could care less about it though.

-Nikon has the best ISO performance across the board. Yes ISO performance is important, but no it&#8217;s not everything.

-Both of the companies latest 70-200mm 2.8 offerings are out of this world outstanding lenses. Most reviews put them so close that it&#8217;s not even really worth debating which is the best. Basically it doesn&#8217;t even matter.

- Are you starting to see my point?

This is my best attempt at showing everyone that both of these companies make outstanding bodies and lenses.

From my point of view Canon has long held the crown in the DSLR market, but they have recently fallen from glory (for the time being at least).

Nikon has shown the world with their D3 line that they mean business, and are taking no prisoners.

I have no doubt that this is going to motivate Canon to do better, and I expect that the competition will result in further innovation (a good thing). 

The 7D has already shown us that Canon isn&#8217;t going to just roll over and die.

It's really not worth arguing this thing anymore. :mrgreen:


----------



## Taylor510ce

Cmon guys cant we all just get along. Who gives a sh*t just pic one and learn to use it. Or say eff it and shoot with an iphone. After all you are only cool nowadays if you like taking it from Steve Jobs without so much as a reach around.....too far? Personally I shoot canon and instead of a dual memory card slot, I have an extra slot where I keep all of my "awesomeness".....................true story.


----------



## Derrel

Tim Harmsen (aka InTempus) is my personal internet stalker. Apparently my opinions are so influential that he has been writing a one-man poison pen blog about me for months now!

Derrel the Douche

Derrel The Douche blog URL, written by by InTempus. The Canon lover.

Everybody, please be sure to visit InTempus's blog where he runs me down. I'm pretty sure he need the hits to the page...

Again, just so you don't miss it:

Derrel the Douche

Derrel The Douche blog URL by InTempus

Also, please visit Tim's website and message forum, wwwdotKwanoniansdotcom, an homage to all things Canon,which Tim began himself. He loves his Canon stuff....


----------



## rpm

Derrel said:


> Tim Harmsen (aka InTempus) is my personal internet stalker. Apparently my opinions are so influential that he has been writing a one-man poison pen blog about me for months now!
> 
> Derrel the Douche
> 
> Derrel The Douche blog URL, written by by InTempus. The Canon lover.
> 
> Everybody, please be sure to visit InTempus's blog where he runs me down. I'm pretty sure he need the hits to the page...
> 
> Again, just so you don't miss it:
> 
> Derrel the Douche
> 
> Derrel The Douche blog URL by InTempus
> 
> Also, please visit Tim's website and message forum, wwwdotKwanoniansdotcom, an homage to all things Canon,which Tim began himself. He loves his Canon stuff....



OMW! Derrel i remember you from our debate over DSLR video in regards to the fake Nikon concept model, but wow, i never knew you could push someone so far....

but in all seriousness. i went through the blog. internet gives too much of a voice to the voiceless it seems....


----------



## Petraio Prime

Derrel said:


> Tim Harmsen (aka InTempus) is my personal internet stalker. Apparently my opinions are so influential that he has been writing a one-man poison pen blog about me for months now!
> 
> Derrel the Douche
> 
> Derrel The Douche blog URL, written by by InTempus. The Canon lover.
> 
> Everybody, please be sure to visit InTempus's blog where he runs me down. I'm pretty sure he need the hits to the page...
> 
> Again, just so you don't miss it:
> 
> Derrel the Douche
> 
> Derrel The Douche blog URL by InTempus
> 
> Also, please visit Tim's website and message forum, wwwdotKwanoniansdotcom, an homage to all things Canon,which Tim began himself. He loves his Canon stuff....



You're so vain, you probably think that thread is about you...

LOL

I'm content just to say I have a very low opinion of Nikon's thinking.


----------



## Taylor510ce

Derrel said:


> Tim Harmsen (aka InTempus) is my personal internet stalker. Apparently my opinions are so influential that he has been writing a one-man poison pen blog about me for months now!
> 
> Derrel the Douche
> 
> Derrel The Douche blog URL, written by by InTempus. The Canon lover.
> 
> Everybody, please be sure to visit InTempus's blog where he runs me down. I'm pretty sure he need the hits to the page...
> 
> Again, just so you don't miss it:
> 
> Derrel the Douche
> 
> Derrel The Douche blog URL by InTempus
> 
> Also, please visit Tim's website and message forum, wwwdotKwanoniansdotcom, an homage to all things Canon,which Tim began himself. He loves his Canon stuff....


 
In all fairness though...you do have a pornstar 'stache....or a cop......or a cop in a porn movie.....:mrgreen:..Anyway...is this blog for real or a gag?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

Heh, that's a pretty interesting read. :lmao:


----------



## Gaerek

Derrel said:


> Tim Harmsen (aka InTempus) is my personal internet stalker. Apparently my opinions are so influential that he has been writing a one-man poison pen blog about me for months now!
> 
> Derrel the Douche
> 
> Derrel The Douche blog URL, written by by InTempus. The Canon lover.
> 
> Everybody, please be sure to visit InTempus's blog where he runs me down. I'm pretty sure he need the hits to the page...
> 
> Again, just so you don't miss it:
> 
> Derrel the Douche
> 
> Derrel The Douche blog URL by InTempus
> 
> Also, please visit Tim's website and message forum, wwwdotKwanoniansdotcom, an homage to all things Canon,which Tim began himself. He loves his Canon stuff....



Bookmarked...


----------



## Petraio Prime

Taylor510ce said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tim Harmsen (aka InTempus) is my personal internet stalker. Apparently my opinions are so influential that he has been writing a one-man poison pen blog about me for months now!
> 
> Derrel the Douche
> 
> Derrel The Douche blog URL, written by by InTempus. The Canon lover.
> 
> Everybody, please be sure to visit InTempus's blog where he runs me down. I'm pretty sure he need the hits to the page...
> 
> Again, just so you don't miss it:
> 
> Derrel the Douche
> 
> Derrel The Douche blog URL by InTempus
> 
> Also, please visit Tim's website and message forum, wwwdotKwanoniansdotcom, an homage to all things Canon,which Tim began himself. He loves his Canon stuff....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all fairness though...you do have a pornstar 'stache....or a cop......or a cop in a porn movie.....:mrgreen:..Anyway...is this blog for real or a gag?
Click to expand...


LOL

I looked at it briefly.

There is more than a little truth there.


----------



## Derrel

Taylor510ce said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tim Harmsen (aka InTempus) is my personal internet stalker. Apparently my opinions are so influential that he has been writing a one-man poison pen blog about me for months now!
> 
> Derrel the Douche
> 
> Derrel The Douche blog URL, written by by InTempus. The Canon lover.
> 
> Everybody, please be sure to visit InTempus's blog where he runs me down. I'm pretty sure he need the hits to the page...
> 
> Again, just so you don't miss it:
> 
> Derrel the Douche
> 
> Derrel The Douche blog URL by InTempus
> 
> Also, please visit Tim's website and message forum, wwwdotKwanoniansdotcom, an homage to all things Canon,which Tim began himself. He loves his Canon stuff....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all fairness though...you do have a pornstar 'stache....or a cop......or a cop in a porn movie.....:mrgreen:..Anyway...is this blog for real or a gag?
Click to expand...



No, the blog is real....Tim has been writing it since the spring of this year. It's filled with misspellings and false statements and twisted logic, but it gives a pretty good idea of how strongly InTempus feels when anything negative is said about Canon. It's basically just character assassination against me, but no, its very real...it's published by Tim Harmsen,aka InTempus.. He stalks me on the web, then writes his blog posts. Note, he wrote a negative post about this very thread on AUgust 1st, before he even stopped in to visit this thread.


----------



## Onemarshboy

...Erm....to the OP of this thread. I moved from a D60 to a 7d a couple of months ago. I absolutely love it.
The low light performance is great, 8fps is useful at times and the video (not that I wud really use It much) is excellent.

I had a few NIKON lenses but just sold them. I personally preferred the weight and feel of the Canon over the D300s. 

But when I got the D60 that was why I chose it ahead of Canon. 

You cant make a wrong decision imo. Just see how they both feel to you.

P.s....the blog! Seriously? How the Hell do people have time to do this stuff! Lol


----------



## inTempus

My blog was started in direct response to Derrel using his own blog to take cheap shots at me and others.  I gave him a dose of his own medicine, and apparently he doesn't like it.


----------



## shaunly

wow, this thread has gotten way out of hand and off topic!


----------



## sleist

I've read through this entire thread and the only conclusion I've made is that if you're interested in intelligent conversation about photography, you've come to the wrong place.


----------



## Petraio Prime

shaunly said:


> wow, this thread has gotten way out of hand and off topic!



It has? Really?

Well, if you ever need to take pictures of a soccer game through the net...call me. Don't expect your autofocus to do it.


----------



## Petraio Prime

inTempus said:


> My blog was started in direct response to Derrel using his own blog to take cheap shots at me and others.  I gave him a dose of his own medicine, and apparently he doesn't like it.



yeah, and it's people like him what cause unrest....


----------



## Onemarshboy

...blog wars. I like it.


----------



## inTempus

It would seem Derrel decided to burn this thread.  I'm sure the mods will be along shortly to clean up his mess.


----------



## usayit

<cue in Janice voice>

OH MY GOD....


----------



## shaunly

Petraio Prime said:


> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow, this thread has gotten way out of hand and off topic!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you ever need to take pictures of a soccer game through the net...call me. Don't expect your autofocus to do it.
Click to expand...


LOL... how is that a respond to my post??

And yea ill call you since your the only person in the world that knows how to use manual focus right?:er:


----------



## Gaerek

Petraio Prime said:


> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow, this thread has gotten way out of hand and off topic!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has? Really?
> 
> Well, if you ever need to take pictures of a soccer game through the net...call me. Don't expect your autofocus to do it.
Click to expand...


Heh, I say it again for you.

When did they remove auto-focus capability again? Seriously, try again.


----------



## rpm

i think someone should close down this thread for the sake of the community...


----------



## Petraio Prime

Gaerek said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shaunly said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow, this thread has gotten way out of hand and off topic!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has? Really?
> 
> Well, if you ever need to take pictures of a soccer game through the net...call me. Don't expect your autofocus to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh, I say it again for you.
> 
> When did they remove auto-focus capability again? Seriously, try again.
Click to expand...


Who needs it?


----------



## Gaerek

Petraio Prime said:


> Gaerek said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has? Really?
> 
> Well, if you ever need to take pictures of a soccer game through the net...call me. Don't expect your autofocus to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh, I say it again for you.
> 
> When did they remove auto-focus capability again? Seriously, try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who needs it?
Click to expand...


Nice photo (save for the blown highlights taken in direct sun).

Please, enough with the "I'm better than you because I use a manual camera!" bit. We get it. You've pounded it into our brains, at least 100 times, literally. Why are you so scared of AF? Scared it will make you less of a photographer? Oh, there I go again, you aren't a photographer...I need to quit making that mistake. I'd say you're a Luddite, but you are online, so that can't be it. I guess technological advances past 1965 in the photographic world are bad.

As for me, I will admit that it sure is nice, and helps a lot to have a mechanical assist in focusing. I could do it myself, but what's the point when the machine can do it basically as well as a human being, except in a few rare circumstances (like you pointed out)?

I should have learned from the first time. I'm going to just stop replying to you. You're an old crotchety man, set in his ways, and the new fangled whosits and whatsits are just too darned complicated for you! I guess they really can't teach an old dog (or a not-a-photographer) new tricks.


----------



## usayit

Real Leica shooters use rangefinders...   

I am the master!  You must obey.


----------



## Derrel

Autofocus works quite well if one understands how to actually USE the particular camera. But Petraio is out of luck as far as autofocus, since his Leicaflex SL-2 is part of a now-dead system, the Leica R-mount,which was discontinued by Leica in the spring of 2009. Leica never did offer an autofocus camera or lens in the R- system, and the Leica R-system SLR cameras never were very popular among Leica users. The lens system was not very broad or deep,and just never could catch on. THe Leica rangefinder system by contrast, was always well-received, and still continues to this day in both 35mm film and digital body offerings. But still, no autofocusing lenses or bodies, except in the brand new Leica S-2 medium format digital system.

One thing is for sure though: manual focusing lenses have focusing throws that are well-designed and well-suited for focusing by hand and eye, and that is not true of the vast majority of autofocus zooms made these days. "Some" autofocusing lenses, those that are oriented to people work, like those in the 85,105,135mm ranges do have reasonably good manual focusing action, but on many of today's lower-priced zoom lenses, the focusing is absolutely hair-trigger when it is done by a human; most modern AF lenses have very light, plastic-y type feel, and the emphasis in designing them is to make them autofocus very well. Which is unfortunately, kind of the opposite of the way a lens designed to be focused by hand and eye should be designed.


----------



## Dao

You know, I think if I can take a photo of Tim and Derrel happily shake their hands, that photo should worth a million.  Of course it will be nice if that happen (not about the money)


----------



## cfusionpm

inTempus said:


> It would seem Derrel decided to burn this thread. I'm sure the mods will be along shortly to clean up his mess.


He also seemed to decide to blatantly ignore your breakdown of his more or less unfounded ranting. Much like he ignored mine from a few days ago.

It's ok to have opinions, Derrel, and I don't doubt your knowledge of optics or mechanical film cameras. But seriously, cut the triumphant rhetoric and empty logic. And if you're going to argue so ferociously about these new fangled willy nilly digital cameras, at least get some actual hands-on time from ones that aren't 5 or 6 years old. Maybe if you actually used some of these cameras instead of reading about people who hate them, you could be more productive and less misleading. Opinions are opinions, but spitting them out and passing it as hard fact is usually a trait reserved for the likes of Fox News.


----------



## Derrel

Sorry Matt, but Canons still operate the SAME way as they did four or five years ago. Your detailed breakdown the other day was responded to by me as much as it warranted it. I do not need to go back and forth with you on your opinion ion what the Canon 60D will be like...I gave you the last word about it...and now you want me to go back and re-parse your opinions? 

Sorry Matt, but I was shooting a 35mm SLR about a decade before you were even born...

Sorry dudes...there is nothing in this thread that I am ashamed of or embarassed about...InTempus's blog was begun this winter and is dedicated ONLY to badmouthing *ME*. My blog has been in existence for many years, and I did  not name names until Tim (InTempus) began stalking me. I have a preference for Nikon equipment, but unlike you Matt, and unlike InTempus, and unlike Petraio Prime, I own a complete Nikon system AND I own a pretty decent 10-lens, three-body Canon system. My opinions are based on a total of 37 years as an amatueur photographer, full-time professional portrait shooter in the 1990's, a part-time newspaper sports shooter, and a freelance photographer. Petraio owns neither Canon nor Nikon, and yet he's her in this thread all the time,opining based on ZERO experience.

Sorry to bust any bubbles, but the Canon fanboy mentality is very strong. Matt, InTempus, anybody here: If you would like to compare experience with the Canon 70-200/2.8 L-IS versus the Nikon 70-200 f/23.8 VR, based on PERSONAL OWNERSHIP over YEARS, or compare the Canon 135mm f/2-L verus the Nikon 135mm f/2 Ai-S versus the Nikon 135mm f/2 AF Defocus Control Lens, based on personal experience, or compare Nikon and Canon 50mm 1.8 AF lenses, or compare Nikon 1.4 50's versus Canon's 50/1.4 EF, or compare the Nikon 80-400 VR versus the SIgma 80-400 OS in Canon mount, or compare the Nikon system's macro lens designs versus the Canon system's macro abilities with reverse-mounted lenses, based on personal experience and ownership, then hey--- I am all ears. Got any real ownership or experience to back up your opinions? I thought not...

How about you Matt, or InTempus, write us up give us an essay on why the Nikon 135 f/2 Defocus Control lens is so superior to the Canon 135 f/2.8 Soft Focus lens? I own them both, so I'd be interested to hear your opinions. I would also love to hear your take on the Canon 50/1.8 versus the Nikkor 50/1.8. And of course, the 135 f/2-L versus 135 f/2 D.C. lenses, head-to-head BOTH shot on the Canon 5D body, like I have done for years now. I would dearly love to hear the points of view and actual experiences of people here who happen to own BOTH brands of equipment and who have more than a couple of years of experience in photography.

Unfortunately, the Canon vs Nikon threads always pretty quickly get filled with mostly fanboys who have zero experience outside of their own brand, and who have been involced in photography for two or three years and somehow seem to think that their own choice is the best one. Funny thing--my avatar photo is one of me, holding a CANON 5D and grip and a Canon prime lens on it!!! InTempus has the avatar of him pissing on the Nikon brand name. Kind of amusing, I think. Many here put their bona fides in their signature file, as if listing out their camera gear gives them some kind of credibility. Amusing.

I'd welcome some actual, informed debate on a number of Canon vs Nikon topics, but there simply are not too many people who can debate the issue without resorting to name-calling and character assassination. People who have avatars defaming another brand, who have started brand-specific fan forums, and who have begun a one-man poison open blog are some examples of people who really are a bit too wrapped up in the whole Canon vs Nikon debate.

Sorry Matt, but I addressed your "breakdown" quite thoroughly, in multiple posts. I gave you he last word. Isn't that enough for you? Why don;t you add something of actual *value* to this thread, liike I have done: I have listed specific system vs system characterisitics, some GOOD quaklities in favor of Canon, and even a reference to the Michael Reichmann comparison of Canon and Nikon cameras....but you have provided nothing of value,except trying to disparage me. Sorry Matt...but your argument is not much more than character disparagement.

Have you got snything to say about how Canon's depth of field preview system works,as compared with the Nikon system? How about flash metering and remote flash control, system vs system? Can you address Canon's inability to catch Nikon or Pentax in their AUTO-ISO implementation? Can you address why Canon has had so many flash exposure consistency problems for over a decade? Can you address the comparison of the Canon 16-35/2.8 L-II's persistent weakness in the wide-angle zooms versus both the Nikkor 17-35/2.8 and the newer the Nikkor 14-24? Can you address why the Canon 50/1.2-L and 85-1.2-L lenses are so plagued with longitudinal chromatic aberration at wide apertures and why their focusing is so dog-slow?

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

...and in the end nothing really matters. Does it.


----------



## Dao

Bitter Jeweler said:


> ...and in the end nothing really matters. Does it.






At the end, my photos suck is not because of my Canon camera.  And if my photo win any award, it is not because I use Nikon.


----------



## inTempus

Derrel said:


> Sorry dudes...there is nothing in this thread that I am ashamed of or embarassed about...InTempus's blog was begun this winter and id dedicated ONLY to badmouthing *ME*. My blog has been in existence for many years, and I do not name names.


You name names endlessly.  Look at this thread Derrel, you name me by first and last name in some failed effort to scare me like a high school bully.  You've been doing that since day one.  If anyone has an opinion that you disagree with, you go out of your way to insult them, berate them, and belittle them.

This thread is no different.  You jump right in on me when I didn't say a word to you.  The mere fact I dared to post in this thread set you off.  You can't even backup your nonsensical claims that I was being a fanboy in this thread.  But like a broken record you start in with the insults about my user name, my website, my choice of camera gear, etc.  It's never ending and the tactics never vary.  Then, without fail, you try to play victim... and when that doesn't work, you just disappear.



> I have a preference for Nikon equipment, but unlike you Matt, and unlike InTempus, and unlike Petraio Prime, I own a complete Nikon system AND I own a pretty decent 10-lens, three-body Canon system. My opinions are based on a total of 37 years as an amatueur photographerm, full-time professional portrait shooter, part-time newspaper sports shooter, and freelance photographer.


How many times in this thread do you have to repeat how old you are, when you started with your first camera as if that has ANY relevance to the insulting and derogatory posts you make?

I don't care what you claim to have done in the last few decades, what I do know from following your posts is that you do nothing more than take snap shots with antique equipment and surf the internet day in and day out pretending to be the worlds greatest photographer.  All you have is your endless collection of bookmarks and web articles from which you recite to try and impress new posters.   You certainly haven't been able to do it with any actual photography.



> Sorry to bust any bubbles, but the Canon fanboy mentality is very strong.


Give me ONE quote, just one, where I say anything even remotely fanboyish in my posts in this thread.  You can't do it.  Instead, you take this thread to amazing new lows in an effort to mask the fact you've been caught making stuff up... again.



> Matt,InTempus, anybody here: If you woulod like to compare experience with the Canon 70-200/2.8 L-IS versus the Nikon 70-200 f/23.8 VR, based on PEROSNAL OWNERSHIP over YEARS, or compare the Canon 135mm f/2-L verus the Nikon 135mm f/2 Ai-S versus the Nikon 135mm f/2 AF Defocus Control Lens, based on personal experience, or compare Nikon and Canon 50mm 1.8 AF lenses, or compare Nikon 1.4 50's versus Canon's 50/1.4 EF, or compare the Nikon 80-400 VR versus the SIgma 80-400 OS in Canon mount, or compare the Nikon system's macro lens designs versus the Canon system's macro abilities with reverse-mounted lenses, based on personal experience and ownership, then hey, I am all ears.


What on earth does this have to do with anything in this thread?  Seriously, you need to get a grip.



> Unfortunately, the Canon vs Nikon thread pretty quickly gets filled with mostly fanboys


Oh, the irony!    I'm waiting Derrel, surely you can quote me on my fanboyish post(s).



> InTempus has the avatar of him pissing on the NIkon brand name. Kind of amusing, I think. Many here pout their bona fides in their signature file, as if listing out their camera gear gives them some kind of credibility. Amusing.


Yup, the avatar is there to highlight the fanboyism of people like yourself.  It's nice to see how you're taking a cheap shot at everyone else on here who lists their gear in their sig line. Nothing like a good old fashioned Derrel drive-by.



> I'd welcome some actual, informed debate on a number of Canon vs Nikon topics, but there simply are not too many people who can debate the issue without resorting to name-calling and character assassination.


OMG, this is classic.  All anyone has to do is scroll back a couple of pages to see you're describing yourself to a T.  :lmao:  I can't even come in here and say "both are good cameras, find the one that works for you and go with it" without you attacking me out of the blue.



> Have you got *snything* to say about how Canon's depth of field preview system *works,a scompared* with the Nikon system? Can you address *Canon;s* inability to catch Nikon or pentax in the AUTO-ISO implementation? Can you address why *anon* has had so many flash exposure problems for over a decade?


...and you accuse me of misspellings?  :lmao:  Obviously you've started drinking early tonight.


----------



## Overread

It's threads like this that make me want to drop everything and change to Pentax!


----------



## Dao

Overread said:


> It's threads like this that make me want to drop everything and change to Pentax!




But ...   what about your mpe-65??   You need a Canon to use it.


----------



## Overread

I'm sure some chap in HongKong has made a neat little adaptor to mount it  
Might have to get used to shooting wide open though!


----------



## I X L R 8

I'm new here, but it appears the fat guy with the mustache is getting his butt whipped.


----------



## camz

Overread said:


> It's threads like this that make me want to drop everything and change to Pentax!


 
Dude Pentax?  Sony is much more superior with it's image stabilization equivalent built in to their camera bodies; unlike the crappy nikon and canon brand that have their system independently built on their lenses instead! 

It's the Indian not the arrow Op.  When I was thinking of switching from Canon, I rented a bunch of Nikon gear and shot with it for an entire gig. Offcourse in the beginning I was confused with the controls even with the practice beforehand.  However In the final product, I got the exact same style of photos with around the exact same success rate with around the exact same rejection rate.....wonder why that is..

But for me, my shooting style is not techinically driven....I feel the subjects, I feel the ambience, I feel the lighting, I feel the mood and then I shoot.  I'm not a real a technical shooter. Just as long as I know the basic camera settings enough to be in manual I'm good to go I think that's why maybe brand doesn't matter for me.  When I figured this out, that's when a decided to stay with Canon(and offcourse I was already deeply invested into the brand). 

Go Sony!!


----------



## SBShots

Is either brand better than the other on the entry DSLR models?


----------



## OrionsByte

This is the thread that never ends
Yes it goes on and on my friends
Some people started posting without knowing what it was
and they'll just keep on posting here forever just because
This is the thread that never ends
Yes it goes on and on my friends...

:gah:


----------



## SBShots

OrionsByte said:


> This is the thread that never ends
> Yes it goes on and on my friends
> Some people started posting without knowing what it was
> and they'll just keep on posting here forever just because
> This is the thread that never ends
> Yes it goes on and on my friends...
> 
> :gah:




So you're saying that Canon makes the better camera?


----------



## Markw

Rekd said:


> Canon.


Nikon.





:mrgreen:

Mark


----------



## Petraio Prime

Gaerek said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gaerek said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heh, I say it again for you.
> 
> When did they remove auto-focus capability again? Seriously, try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who needs it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice photo (save for the blown highlights taken in direct sun).
> 
> Please, enough with the &quot;I'm better than you because I use a manual camera!&quot; bit. We get it. You've pounded it into our brains, at least 100 times, literally. Why are you so scared of AF? Scared it will make you less of a photographer? Oh, there I go again, you aren't a photographer...I need to quit making that mistake. I'd say you're a Luddite, but you are online, so that can't be it. I guess technological advances past 1965 in the photographic world are bad.
> 
> As for me, I will admit that it sure is nice, and helps a lot to have a mechanical assist in focusing. I could do it myself, but what's the point when the machine can do it basically as well as a human being, except in a few rare circumstances (like you pointed out)?
> 
> I should have learned from the first time. I'm going to just stop replying to you. You're an old crotchety man, set in his ways, and the new fangled whosits and whatsits are just too darned complicated for you! I guess they really can't teach an old dog (or a not-a-photographer) new tricks.
Click to expand...


 Don't need new tricks. The photo was taken on Kodachrome 25, hand held, at the Toronto zoo, with the 560mm Telyt-R. The sun was intense, as is necessary with such a slow film. The highlights weren't 'blown'. There is extreme contrast in such a scene.


----------



## cfusionpm

Derrel said:


> Sorry Matt, but I addressed your "breakdown" quite thoroughly, in multiple posts. I gave you he last word. Isn't that enough for you? Why don;t you add something of actual *value* to this thread, liike I have done: I have listed specific system vs system characterisitics, some GOOD quaklities in favor of Canon, and even a reference to the Michael Reichmann comparison of Canon and Nikon cameras....but you have provided nothing of value,except trying to disparage me. Sorry Matt...but your argument is not much more than character disparagement.


You posted blatant inaccuracies and misinformation and I corrected you. If you somehow believe anything I said was untrue, I'll gladly sit here and be proven wrong. But usually you retort back with some long-winded, off-topic, thousand-word essay (kinda like you did here) which generally has little to do with whatever was being talked about, and will often boil down to more personal attacks. (Remember, I am attacking points and ideas, not any individual person. If you are somehow offended by this, that's not my problem). Now, I just assumed that your omission of a reply meant you conceded that you were wrong. I was content in knowing this, but it doesn't make forum life interesting that way. 

If your "character" is described as one who manipulates information to mislead people into believing your opinion is fact, then yes, I suppose you could call it a mockery of such. All I was attempting to do was set some things straight. In case you haven't noticed, besides regular contradictions and poor argument structure, the only thing I really dog on you about is when you talk about high MP sensors; specifically regarding Canon and the 7D (and sometimes the 50D or 5DII).

You still haven't told me the last time you actually _used_ a 7D. Have you ever? How can you possibly be taken seriously as some kind of authority on high MP sensors when you've never used them? I mean, feel free to chime in and say otherwise (or scoff about how you're too good to buy new bodies). Your however-many-years in businesses and film cameras you may have has absolutely no translation to the technical aspects of super-modern DSLRs. That's like saying an expert on vinyl or cassette tape recording is a also an expert in multi-channel HDR ProTools session recording. 

Now I don't claim to be any kind of all-knowing expert. I just try and post things about the cameras I know; either correcting misinformation, or informing those who are asking questions (probably why you see me post in a lot of 50D and 7D threads... go figure, huh?). While I may not have been shooting for 37 years, I have been shooting quite a bit for the last five and my degree from UCSD*** is in computer media. So I would like to think that I kind of know what I'm talking about... most of the time. :thumbup:

*Shameless name drop. Doesn't really add anything to the thread, just thought I'd show that I may actually know something about high end graphics work.


----------



## o hey tyler




----------



## shaunly

o hey tyler said:


>



off topic here, but DAMN, that guy looks like he's gonna beat some ass!! LOL. I wonder if it's the photographer


----------



## Overread

Markw said:


> Rekd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nikon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :mrgreen:
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


SIGMA!!




Juza Nature Photography

And whilst we are at it that is the wrong canon
This is Canon!!


----------



## Gaerek

Petraio Prime said:


> Don't need new tricks. The photo was taken on Kodachrome 25, hand held, at the Toronto zoo, with the 560mm Telyt-R. The sun was intense, as is necessary with such a slow film. The highlights weren't 'blown'. There is extreme contrast in such a scene.


 
And there it is, proof that PP really doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. You see kids, when the luminance of a pixel registers as 255, it is blown. It's ok in some circumstances for this to be the case. Specular highlights are one example. However, in this case, there are entire areas that are completely at 255 luminance, that shouldn't be, like on the top of the rhino's head. If he were wet, or it were a smooth texture, it might be forgivable. However, this wasn't the case. It was purely because you took a photo in bright, direct sunlight, and it looks like tripe.

Now, let's critique another area of the photo. You see, then I see animal shots, I love to see their eyes. Something is interesting about this shot, because the rhino's eye is completely in shadow. The luminance of most of that area is 0 (meaning no data) and detail is completely lost on the entirety of the eye. Nice job exposing for middle gray, but you missed the most important part of the animal. Of course, increasing exposure to get detail in the eye would only make the highlight problem worse.

If you weren't such a seasoned photographer (I'm going to call you what you are now, since you are a person who makes photographs), I'd tell you to go back to the zoo in better lighting. But I'm sure you knew that anyway. Instead of a nice shot of a rhino, we end up with a snapshot taken in a scene with WAY too much contrast, that looks like something my mother (not a photographer, never has been, and never will be, and doesn't really like cameras to begin with) would have taken.

But, I'm sure PP will reply, and do what he always does. Not really try to refute my argument, and try to lay down that red herring for me to follow, or maybe shift the goal posts a bit. But I won't bite. Have fun with your "photography."


----------



## Overread

Gaerek said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need new tricks. The photo was taken on Kodachrome 25, hand held, at the Toronto zoo, with the 560mm Telyt-R. The sun was intense, as is necessary with such a slow film. The highlights weren't 'blown'. There is extreme contrast in such a scene.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is, proof that PP really doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. You see kids, when the luminance of a pixel registers as 255, it is blown. It's ok in some circumstances for this to be the case. Specular highlights are one example. However, in this case, there are entire areas that are completely at 255 luminance, that shouldn't be, like on the top of the rhino's head. If he were wet, or it were a smooth texture, it might be forgivable. However, this wasn't the case. It was purely because you took a photo in bright, direct sunlight, and it looks like tripe.
> 
> Now, let's critique another area of the photo. You see, then I see animal shots, I love to see their eyes. Something is interesting about this shot, because the rhino's eye is completely in shadow. The luminance of most of that area is 0 (meaning no data) and detail is completely lost on the entirety of the eye. Nice job exposing for middle gray, but you missed the most important part of the animal. Of course, increasing exposure to get detail in the eye would only make the highlight problem worse.
> 
> If you weren't such a seasoned photographer (I'm going to call you what you are now, since you are a person who makes photographs), I'd tell you to go back to the zoo in better lighting. But I'm sure you knew that anyway. Instead of a nice shot of a rhino, we end up with a snapshot taken in a scene with WAY too much contrast, that looks like something my mother (not a photographer, never has been, and never will be, and doesn't really like cameras to begin with) would have taken.
> 
> But, I'm sure PP will reply, and do what he always does. Not really try to refute my argument, and try to lay down that red herring for me to follow, or maybe shift the goal posts a bit. But I won't bite. Have fun with your "photography."
Click to expand...


just a small - little point here - but err Kodachrome 25 is erm that film stuff not digital - so whilst those highlights and darks would be pure white and pure black on digital there might be a slight bit more lattitude to claw back from a film capture (heck even looking at the photo fullsize its clear its a film scan not a digital shot).

Of course that adjustment would have to be made to the negative and strange darkroom rites performed to dodge and burn some of the details back into the shot and I've no idea how much real detail could still be pulled back from such a shot (baring in mind that such processes might already have been performed before this shot was scanned)


----------



## Petraio Prime

Gaerek said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need new tricks. The photo was taken on Kodachrome 25, hand held, at the Toronto zoo, with the 560mm Telyt-R. The sun was intense, as is necessary with such a slow film. The highlights weren't 'blown'. There is extreme contrast in such a scene.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is, proof that PP really doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. You see kids, when the luminance of a pixel registers as 255, it is blown. It's ok in some circumstances for this to be the case. Specular highlights are one example. However, in this case, there are entire areas that are completely at 255 luminance, that shouldn't be, like on the top of the rhino's head. If he were wet, or it were a smooth texture, it might be forgivable. However, this wasn't the case. It was purely because you took a photo in bright, direct sunlight, and it looks like tripe.
> 
> Now, let's critique another area of the photo. You see, then I see animal shots, I love to see their eyes. Something is interesting about this shot, because the rhino's eye is completely in shadow. The luminance of most of that area is 0 (meaning no data) and detail is completely lost on the entirety of the eye. Nice job exposing for middle gray, but you missed the most important part of the animal. Of course, increasing exposure to get detail in the eye would only make the highlight problem worse.
> 
> If you weren't such a seasoned photographer (I'm going to call you what you are now, since you are a person who makes photographs), I'd tell you to go back to the zoo in better lighting. But I'm sure you knew that anyway. Instead of a nice shot of a rhino, we end up with a snapshot taken in a scene with WAY too much contrast, that looks like something my mother (not a photographer, never has been, and never will be, and doesn't really like cameras to begin with) would have taken.
> 
> But, I'm sure PP will reply, and do what he always does. Not really try to refute my argument, and try to lay down that red herring for me to follow, or maybe shift the goal posts a bit. But I won't bite. Have fun with your "photography."
Click to expand...


It was shot on Kodachrome 25 and scanned. The scan can't hold as much detail as the slide. There *is *detail in the eye in the Kodachrome...but in a scan there no way to hold detail in everything in a scan under such circumstances. The slide is fantastic, with detail in the eye and lovely detail in the skin.

Are you always so rude and ignorant?

The *Kodachrome *is great. You could never do anything this good.

Digital sucks.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

Do they still make Kodachrome?


----------



## rpm

PP we have our mediums, you have yours, we can all move on...hell this whole debate was about Canon vs Nikon and you brought up a whole third party that wasn't asked to the table. im not criticizing when i say this but not many people even use the medium you refer to, im too young to even have dabbled in it and probably never will but this thread was about Canon and Nikon and you side tracked it a bit. lets all just move on...

seriously can this thread either go back to topic (intelligently) or please be closed? lol


----------



## rpm

Bitter, according to wiki, its been discontinued and the last set of slides were manufactured and sold. maybe there remains a few unsold but otherwise whatever is out there and unused, are simply the only stock available with no future.........forever...


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

What will he ever do?


----------



## rpm

not much really...

unless he finally upgrades to shooting film only or *gasp* go digital...


----------



## Derrel

P-P,
Of course Kodachrome scans suck...Kodachrome is probably the single most-difficult color slide film for modern scanners...Kodachromes scan like crap...just like Tri-X scans like crap...virtually any E-6 films will scan better than Kodachrome....I used to shoot Kodachrome 64 and Kodachrome 64 Professional by the brick back in the 1980's...it projects beautifully and has almost unmatched DARK storage life, but it fades rather rapidly when actually projected, making E-6 slide films a better choice for projecting frequently, or for long-term continuous slide shows that run on a loop setup. I have scanned quite a few Kodachromes,and most scanners do a very horrible job with it, but last week there appeared a review for the Plustek 7600 film scanner on the Luminous Landscape web site; that scanner is apparently,one of the absolute best scanners for handling Kodachrome originals and converting them to excellent scans, so it would be very worth checking into that model of scanner.

By the bye, Steve McCurry, of National Geographic and "Afghan Girl" fame was given the very last roll of Kodachome that Kodak made, and McCurry recently shot it. National Geographic is going to do a special on "the Last Roll" next spring. Read more about the end of Kodachrome here.

The Online Photographer: The Last Roll


----------



## Petraio Prime

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Do they still make Kodachrome?



This is the last year.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Bitter Jeweler said:


> What will he ever do?



Well Kodachrome is better than anything else, including digital.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Derrel said:


> P-P,
> Of course Kodachrome scans suck...Kodachrome is probably the single most-difficult color slide film for modern scanners...Kodachromes scan like crap...just like Tri-X scans like crap...virtually any E-6 films will scan better than Kodachrome....I used to shoot Kodachrome 64 and Kodachrome 64 Professional by the brick back in the 1980's...it projects beautifully and has almost unmatched DARK storage life, but it fades rather rapidly when actually projected, making E-6 slide films a better choice for projecting frequently, or for long-term continuous slide shows that run on a loop setup. I have scanned quite a few Kodachromes,and most scanners do a very horrible job with it, but last week there appeared a review for the Plustek 7600 film scanner on the Luminous Landscape web site; that scanner is apparently,one of the absolute best scanners for handling Kodachrome originals and converting them to excellent scans, so it would be very worth checking into that model of scanner.
> 
> By the bye, Steve McCurry, of National Geographic and "Afghan Girl" fame was given the very last roll of Kodachome that Kodak made, and McCurry recently shot it. National Geographic is going to do a special on "the Last Roll" next spring. Read more about the end of Kodachrome here.
> 
> The Online Photographer: The Last Roll



There is no "of course" about it. The trouble is that  Kodachrome (as well as some other recent E-6 films) has a huge density range. Scanners are set up for color negatives which have lower density range.


----------



## Derrel

Back to the original topic, vis a vis the most-recent post by Petraio Prime.

When I think back
On all the crap I learned in high school
It's a wonder
I can think at all
And though my lack of edu---cation
Hasn't hurt me none
I can read the writing on the wall

Kodachrome
They give us those nice bright colors
They give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, Oh yeah
I got a Nikon camera
I love to take a photograph
So mama don't take my Kodachrome away

If you took all the girls I knew
When I was single
And brought them all together for one night
I know they'd never match
my sweet imagination
everything looks WORSE in black and white

Kodachrome
They give us those nice bright colors
They give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, Oh yeah
I got a Nikon camera
I love to take a photograph
So mama don't take my Kodachrome away

Mama don't take my Kodachrome away
Mama don't take my Kodachrome away
Mama don't take my Kodachrome away

Mama don't take my Kodachrome 
Mama don't take my Kodachrome 
Mama don't take my Kodachrome away

Mama don't take my Kodachrome
Leave your boy so far from home
Mama don't take my Kodachrome away
Mama don't take my Kodachrome

Mama don't take my Kodachrome away


----------



## Petraio Prime

Derrel said:


> Back to the original topic, vis a vis the most-recent post by Petraio Prime.
> 
> When I think back
> On all the crap I learned in high school
> It's a wonder
> I can think at all
> And though my lack of edu---cation
> Hasn't hurt me none
> I can read the writing on the wall
> 
> Kodachrome
> They give us those nice bright colors
> They give us the greens of summers
> Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, Oh yeah
> I got a Nikon camera
> I love to take a photograph
> So mama don't take my Kodachrome away
> 
> If you took all the girls I knew
> When I was single
> And brought them all together for one night
> I know they'd never match
> my sweet imagination
> everything looks WORSE in black and white
> 
> Kodachrome
> They give us those nice bright colors
> They give us the greens of summers
> Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, Oh yeah
> I got a Nikon camera
> I love to take a photograph
> So mama don't take my Kodachrome away
> 
> Mama don't take my Kodachrome away
> Mama don't take my Kodachrome away
> Mama don't take my Kodachrome away
> 
> Mama don't take my Kodachrome
> Mama don't take my Kodachrome
> Mama don't take my Kodachrome away
> 
> Mama don't take my Kodachrome
> Leave your boy so far from home
> Mama don't take my Kodachrome away
> Mama don't take my Kodachrome
> 
> Mama don't take my Kodachrome away



Paul Simon and I look a lot alike.


----------



## mrshaleyberg

I LOVE THIS SONG!


----------



## supraman215

Derrel said:


> By the bye, Steve McCurry, of National Geographic and "Afghan Girl" fame was given the very last roll of Kodachome that Kodak made, and McCurry recently shot it. National Geographic is going to do a special on "the Last Roll" next spring. Read more about the end of Kodachrome here.
> 
> The Online Photographer: The Last Roll



And the Genesse River breathed a sigh of relief! I went to school in Rochester and the rumor is that you could develop film in it, it was so polluted.

(of course we replaced that with circuit board manufacturing in China, another environmentally damaging practice.)


----------



## Petraio Prime

supraman215 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the bye, Steve McCurry, of National Geographic and "Afghan Girl" fame was given the very last roll of Kodachome that Kodak made, and McCurry recently shot it. National Geographic is going to do a special on "the Last Roll" next spring. Read more about the end of Kodachrome here.
> 
> The Online Photographer: The Last Roll
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the Genesse River breathed a sigh of relief! I went to school in Rochester and the rumor is that you could develop film in it, it was so polluted.
> 
> (of course we replaced that with circuit board manufacturing in China, another environmentally damaging practice.)
Click to expand...


Believe it or not, lots of substances can develop film. It isn't that big of a deal that 'x' can develop film. Tea can, I believe.


----------



## Derrel

Coffee can develop B&W film...there was a thread on that here on TPF not too long ago...there are some Do It Yourself guides on the web as to how to develop film using coffee!!! Here is one of several URL's a 10-second search turned up.
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/03/develop-film-in/


----------

