# Canon Vs. Nikon?



## gamerz (Apr 16, 2008)

I just had to ask this, in terms of build quality, lens compatibility, lenses, and cameras, which company is more "popular" per say... I know this is an open ended question, but I am just curious to know what opinions users have. Before buying my first DSLR, I need to decide between the Canon XTi, or the Nikon D80. This decision is very important, I do not see myself wanting to spend extra money in the future to switch systems. I want to buy a camera that will last me 2 or 3 years, and then if I do get into photography, that I have alot of lens choices available.

Also, any news on the D90? release date?

Thanks.


----------



## Do'Urden's Eyes (Apr 16, 2008)

Im not sure about Nikon, but because i own a canon i know for sure that they have a huge selection of lenses that you can basically use for all of their cameras. thats definately a perk to going with canon. 

Again im not sure if this is also the case with nikons.


----------



## keith204 (Apr 16, 2008)

gamerz said:


> Canon Vs. Nikon



This is very, very bad.


----------



## ScottS (Apr 16, 2008)

keith204 said:


> This is very, very bad.


 
They should just lock it now....:lmao:


----------



## gamerz (Apr 16, 2008)

Yeah, I kind of thought that a big debate would be started...


----------



## MX962 (Apr 16, 2008)

:lmao: NO ONE WANTS TO START A WAR ,You know there all great and i understand where you stand,I think it really depends on what fits you the best imo 





keith204 said:


> This is very, very bad.


----------



## bla (Apr 16, 2008)

> This is very, very bad.





Nikon and Canon both have great lenses, great choices, and great systems. Nikon has a few lenses that Canon users don't get, but the same is true the other way around. In the end though, there isn't much of a difference.

Canon used to have an edge, but Nikon's been making some fantastic cameras lately that are slightly better than similar Canon alternatives, but at a price. The D80 is a better camera, feature-wise, than the XTi. But then, the D80 is also more expensive. You'll find this kind of stuff often between the two companies: one camera is better, but also more expensive... logical.

In the end though, it doesn't really matter, you can make great pictures with either system, either camera. You'll be spoiled for choice with either company.

D80 replacement may be announced in September, 08?


----------



## gamerz (Apr 16, 2008)

Thank you *bla*... Any other opinions? Right now, I do have enough money for a D80 with the 18-55 lens, maybe the 18-135... but just barely enough (I am a poor student ). It would be great to have a newer nikon camera like a D80, or another (cheaper) one with built in auto focus motor. I have considered the D50 and D70, but to me it seems like I will be having to replace them in a year because the technology will be obsolete.


----------



## keith204 (Apr 16, 2008)

I am a Canon shooter.  However, between the XTi and D80, I would choose the D80.


----------



## Battou (Apr 16, 2008)

MX962 said:


> :lmao: NO ONE WANTS TO START A WAR ,You know there all great and i understand where you stand,I think it really depends on what fits you the best imo



The war has alredy started, it's been going on for decades. It continues because Canon and Nikon are equals, the edge ofer the other swaps back and fourth between the two. Neither one is superior to the other, and at this rate it will remain that way for years to come.


----------



## Antithesis (Apr 16, 2008)

Nikon is better. 

Just kidding, they are both great companies. Canon held the lead for a while with better noise handling in their mid to upper level bodies. With the release of the d300 though, the playing field is pretty level. 

Both companies have great lenses as well, they just have different focal lengths and features. For example, the 18-200 from Nikon is a great lens that Canon doesn't really have, and Canon has the 70-200 f4L, which is an awesome lens that Nikon doesn't have. Just pick a side and start argueing that yours is better


----------



## MarcusM (Apr 16, 2008)

Canon RULEZ...

Nikon SUCKZ...

Just kidding. The differences are really in the features of each camera I guess - you gotta figure out which features are more important to you, and also which lenses you think you might be happier with. Either choice I'm sure you will be pleased with the quality of shots, and either choice you will adapt to. The differences in quality for comparable model cameras are usually pretty negligible.


----------



## Yahoozy (Apr 16, 2008)

as for me im a proud third party member =P


----------



## Antithesis (Apr 16, 2008)

Battou said:


> Neither one is superior to the other, and at this rate it will remain that way for years to come.



Yeah, until Canon goes out of business for being the SUCK! Just kidding, <3


----------



## gamerz (Apr 16, 2008)

Hehe... glad that there are so many replies so quick... In terms of nikon lenses... how are the mid range zoom lenses that were produced before 2000/2001? I believe I have some in a box...


----------



## ScottS (Apr 16, 2008)

gamerz said:


> Hehe... glad that there are so many replies so quick... In terms of nikon lenses... how are the mid range zoom lenses that were produced before 2000/2001? I believe I have some in a box...


 
Depends on the lens. What do you think you have?


----------



## Battou (Apr 16, 2008)

Antithesis said:


> Yeah, until Canon goes out of business for being the SUCK! Just kidding, <3



Yup, then Knoica Minolta is going to come out of retirement and pown you all, then it will be Minolta VS Kodak :lmao:


----------



## Antithesis (Apr 16, 2008)

Battou said:


> Yup, then Knoica Minolta is going to come out of retirement and pown you all, then it will be Minolta VS Kodak :lmao:



_That_ will be the day...


----------



## keith204 (Apr 16, 2008)

Battou said:


> Yup, then Knoica Minolta is going to come out of retirement and pown you all, then it will be Minolta VS Kodak :lmao:



Not under the name SONY.


----------



## Mystwalker (Apr 17, 2008)

Doubt D80 was designed to compete against XTi.
D80 competes against 30D/40D.
XT/XTi vs D40/D40x

D80 is an excellent camera - there must be word of new one (D90?) coming because it is priced very low today (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...lSearch=yes&O=RootPage.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t).

Wish Canon would get off their butts and announce something exciting - like a 17-55 f/2.8L IS.


----------



## Battou (Apr 17, 2008)

keith204 said:


> Not under the name SONY.



No not under the name Sony. Sony will screw up every thing they bought from Konica Minolta....and as you know....If you want it done right, you got to do it your self.


----------



## keith204 (Apr 17, 2008)

Mystwalker said:


> Doubt D80 was designed to compete against XTi.
> D80 competes against 30D/40D.
> XT/XTi vs D40/D40x
> 
> ...



Canon DOES have a 17-55 f/2.8 IS!  It's not an L, but made with L series glass apparently.  I am stoked, because I just ordered it and I can't wait for it to arrive.  A reviewer who owns a 24-70 f/2.8L said that the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is even sharper than the 24-70!


----------



## keith204 (Apr 17, 2008)

Battou said:


> No not under the name Sony. Sony will screw up every thing they bought from Konica Minolta....and as you know....If you want it done right, you got to do it your self.



Exactly!  IMO Sony will come out with some innovative new features, most of which will not affect IQ or shooting whatsoever, but will appeal to consumers and jack up the prices.


----------



## Battou (Apr 17, 2008)

keith204 said:


> Exactly!  IMO Sony will come out with some innovative new features, most of which will not affect IQ or shooting whatsoever, but will appeal to consumers and jack up the prices.



Yeah, they do that with just about every thing they get their fingers on....it's a case of keeping up with the Jonses....or should I say the Gateses.


----------



## Mav (Apr 17, 2008)

To the OP, if you search for some other threads on this topic I've given a much more complete description elsewhere.  Both systems are as good as each other, but different.  Nikon is better in some areas, and Canon is better in others.  It's pretty difficult to know which system would suit you better unless you already have an established shooting style and know what you like to shoot for the most part.  Canon does have a much more complete and less expensive telephoto lineup if you think you'll be doing a lot of sports.  Nikon seems to have a better and more complete consumer lens lineup.  Their bodies are more automated and suit photojournalist style photography better.  Their wide angle lenses are quite nice too.  Canon lenses tend to be cheaper, but there's more used vintage Nikon glass floating around out there that you can use with Nikon that's dirt cheap.  Canon lenses on the EF mount don't go back as far since they changed their mount design with the advent of AF.  

I have and like Nikon.  I've seriously considered switching to Canon twice, but stuck with Nikon only because I felt what I'd gain with Canon wouldn't significantly outweight what I'd lose from Nikon enough to bother switching.  I like both systems.


----------



## BradUF (Apr 17, 2008)

Mav said:


> To the OP, if you search for some other threads on this topic I've given a much more complete description elsewhere.  Both systems are as good as each other, but different.  Nikon is better in some areas, and Canon is better in others.  It's pretty difficult to know which system would suit you better unless you already have an established shooting style and know what you like to shoot for the most part.  Canon does have a much more complete and less expensive telephoto lineup if you think you'll be doing a lot of sports.  Nikon seems to have a better and more complete consumer lens lineup.  Their bodies are more automated and suit photojournalist style photography better.  Their wide angle lenses are quite nice too.  Canon lenses tend to be cheaper, but there's more used vintage Nikon glass floating around out there that you can use with Nikon that's dirt cheap.  Canon lenses on the EF mount don't go back as far since they changed their mount design with the advent of AF.
> 
> I have and like Nikon.  I've seriously considered switching to Canon twice, but stuck with Nikon only because I felt what I'd gain with Canon wouldn't significantly outweight what I'd lose from Nikon enough to bother switching.  I like both systems.



:thumbup:


----------



## Village Idiot (Apr 17, 2008)

Canon has definitely been more popular with the pros, but then again, until recently, they were the only company to offer a 35mm sensor in their DSLR lineup.

Just look at the sport shooter segment as well, all those white Canon lenses on the sideline.

Plus they've almost always used CMOS sensors, which create less noise at higher ISO's in comparison to CCD's used in most Nikons until just recently.

But Nikon now has a FF camera and they're putting CMOS sensors in some of their cameras.


----------



## Dutchboy (Apr 17, 2008)

I prefer Canon because of their ability to accept older manual focus lenses from many other manufacturers (including Nikon!) when you use adapters. Nikon is much more limited in this regard. You can build a collection of nice older lenses very cheaply.

Of course, using MF lenses is not for everyone...

:thumbup:


----------



## BoblyBill (Apr 17, 2008)

I shoot Panasonic.


----------



## BoblyBill (Apr 17, 2008)

Mav said:


> To the OP, if you search for some other threads on this topic I've given a much more complete description elsewhere. Both systems are as good as each other, but different. Nikon is better in some areas, and Canon is better in others. It's pretty difficult to know which system would suit you better unless you already have an established shooting style and know what you like to shoot for the most part. Canon does have a much more complete and less expensive telephoto lineup if you think you'll be doing a lot of sports. Nikon seems to have a better and more complete consumer lens lineup. Their bodies are more automated and suit photojournalist style photography better. Their wide angle lenses are quite nice too. Canon lenses tend to be cheaper, but there's more used vintage Nikon glass floating around out there that you can use with Nikon that's dirt cheap. Canon lenses on the EF mount don't go back as far since they changed their mount design with the advent of AF.
> 
> I have and like Nikon. I've seriously considered switching to Canon twice, but stuck with Nikon only because I felt what I'd gain with Canon wouldn't significantly outweight what I'd lose from Nikon enough to bother switching. I like both systems.


 
Perfectly said


----------



## gamerz (Apr 17, 2008)

Ok, found what old lenses I have:

Nikkor 70-300mm AF F/4-5.6G

Nikkor AF 28-80mm F/3.5-5.6D

Vivitar 28-200mm F/3.5-5.3

I'm not sure how these are.


----------



## Mav (Apr 17, 2008)

No idea on the Vivitar, but both of the Nikkors are covered here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm

For autofocus support on those, you'll need to avoid the D40, D40x, or D60.  The cheapest current camera that'll AF with those is the D80, but a used D50 or D70 will work also.


----------



## gamerz (Apr 17, 2008)

Yeah, I try to stay away from the D50, and D70... If i did buy them, I could see myself having to replace them in a year for various reasons.


----------



## photogincollege (Apr 17, 2008)

Out of those two choices, definatly d80.  If you do decide to go with a d80, I suggest skipping the 18-55 and get a used 18-70. Can be had for pretty cheap these days and is a great lens.


----------



## Tiberius47 (Apr 17, 2008)

Canon v Nikon?

I won't tell you which one is best, but it has two Ns in it, and ends in "ON".


----------



## JerryPH (Apr 17, 2008)

Dutchboy said:


> I prefer Canon because of their ability to accept older manual focus lenses from many other manufacturers (including Nikon!) when you use adapters. Nikon is much more limited in this regard. You can build a collection of nice older lenses very cheaply.


 
I can use lenses dating back to the *1960s* on my D200... and *WITHOUT an adapter*. A definate "nice try but sorry, thats just wrong" to you. 

To the OP, Instead of asking which brand WE prefer, why not find out what brand YOU prefer. 
Go to a local camera store and hold/play with both Nikon and Canon. Making up your own mind is a closer step to you being satisfied rather than leaving it to a forum on the internet.   You can get excellent results with either.


----------



## JerryPH (Apr 17, 2008)

Tiberius47 said:


> Canon v Nikon?
> 
> I won't tell you which one is best, but it has two Ns in it, and ends in "ON".


 
nn...can*ON* ?


----------



## flipsy (Apr 17, 2008)

Nikon and Canon are both way too expensive!


----------



## abraxas (Apr 17, 2008)

nikon


----------



## BoblyBill (Apr 17, 2008)

Tiberius47 said:


> Canon v Nikon?
> 
> I won't tell you which one is best, but it has two Ns in it, and ends in "ON".


 
LOL


----------



## Dutchboy (Apr 17, 2008)

Hi Jerry,

You can definitely use Nikon lenses and a few others on Nikon bodies,  from way back in the 60s, but many makes you cannot use on Nikons, like Olumpus OM, M42 screwmount, Canon, etc. without losing infinity focus. You can use these on Canons however. But Nikon lenses are some of the best, so that is not a great loss to you...





JerryPH said:


> I can use lenses dating back to the *1960s* on my D200... and *WITHOUT an adapter*. A definate "nice try but sorry, thats just wrong" to you.


----------



## Buszaj (Apr 17, 2008)

flipsy said:


> Nikon and Canon are both way too expensive!



Just wondering, what company are you talking about? Because Canon and Nikon are not a lot more expensive than other companies. Most products have a similar prices to other companies'.


----------



## logan9967 (Apr 17, 2008)

Didn't even read what anyway else said. Simply go to your nearest camera shop. Pick up a canon that you like, and a nikon. Play with each one and choose what feels good.


----------



## flipsy (Apr 17, 2008)

Buszaj said:


> Just wondering, what company are you talking about? Because Canon and Nikon are not a lot more expensive than other companies. Most products have a similar prices to other companies'.



I have a Relisys Dimera 150P, it takes very nice pictures and is much cheaper than Canon or Nikon cameras!


----------



## JerryPH (Apr 17, 2008)

flipsy said:


> I have a Relisys Dimera 150P, it takes very nice pictures and is much cheaper than Canon or Nikon cameras!


 

"My Yugo costs less than your Ferrari" ... I am sure it does.


----------



## usayit (Apr 17, 2008)

Yahoozy said:


> as for me im a proud third party member =P



Me 2... ignore my sig..

On a budget... consider Pentax offerings.  More fun for the buck.


----------



## gamerz (Apr 17, 2008)

I went to the store today for a brief visit... Held both the Nikon D40, and the Canon XTi... They didn't have a D80 unfortunately... Anyways, the D40 felt very comfortable and solid in my hands, I defiantly liked the build quality. The XTi felt comfortable, just a little to big for my hands(I have very small hands). It wouldn't drive me crazy to use it for hours on end, but it might be a little uncomfortable after a while.

Just gotta go test a D80


----------



## usayit (Apr 17, 2008)

You might as well hold the 40D as well.


----------



## gamerz (Apr 17, 2008)

Thats a little out of my budget.


----------



## kundalini (Apr 17, 2008)




----------



## gamerz (Apr 17, 2008)

Popcorn?


----------



## alexkerhead (Apr 17, 2008)

It means lurk, he anticipates a flame war between the brands mentioned.

Me, I like Miranda SLRs.


----------



## RKW3 (Apr 17, 2008)

Definitely Nikon.


----------



## Harmony (Apr 17, 2008)

I've been WAITING and WAITING for something exciting to happen, but people have been surprisingly civil in this thread...

*sigh* Oh well.


----------



## gamerz (Apr 17, 2008)

Yes, I am quite surprised. Thanks for the help so far!

Based on my posts, and other users posts, what would be my best option at the moment? XTi, or D80. Or does anybody have any other DSLR to recommend?

EDIT: Been reading up on some reviews on my lenses... (see past posts)... Many of them are quite negative...


----------



## KhronoS (Apr 18, 2008)

My opinion, there's no difference. There are both two good companies, which make great cameras, and great lenses and have tens of years of experience i doing that.

Between XTI and D80 (depending on which xti) but i think you should choose D80 

P.S. You should think more of lenses then cameras. The lenses are an important part, maybe more important than the camera itself


----------



## Iron Flatline (Apr 18, 2008)

I like my Canon, because I have Leica SLR lenses that fit on it with an adapter. There is no Leica -> Nikon adapter, to my knowledge.


----------



## usayit (Apr 18, 2008)

gamerz said:


> Y. Or does anybody have any other DSLR to recommend?



I hinted prior.  Choose.. Pentax K200D or K20D (if you can afford - pentaprism viewfinder!).  You'll be loosing out big time if you didn't even consider them....

* Weather resistant (yes even the lower end K200D)
* In body Image stabilization - so even the old 60s lenses are stabilized.
* Compact body
* Compatibility all the way back to the M42 screwmounts (with adapter) from the early 60s.
* Compatibility with all the wonderful Takumar K-mounts.
* Generally priced lower than Nikon and/or Canon

just a few "features" that make them good bang for buck.   (I missed out on a Takumar M42 500mm f5.6 on Ebay for $500...... dang)


Even a tighter budget?  There are still new K10D's laying around too....


----------



## JeromeMorrow (Apr 18, 2008)

I just went through a very similar process as I also just got into the dlsr game and felt daunted by the decision of choosing a company. People are fanatically loyal about whatever brand they use, and you can't really blame them as they end up investing thousands of dollars into that brand, and spend a lot of time with it. You'll find people recommending Canon the most, and Nikon coming in with a close second.
Learn about the features and terms so you understand what each camera offers and what the reviews mean. Then go and check out what you like. You may actually find yourself surprised like I was when I went to buy an XTi and ended up falling in love with the Sony A200. Of course I didn't buy the camera then and their but within two days I had done enough research to confirm my lust. The best advice I got from anyone was that in the end you have to go with what feels right to you.
And definitely consider all you're options or you may feel like you missed out later on. And yeah, don't forget about lenses, you'll end up doing far more research and investing far more money into lenses than you will the body itself.
This is just how I feel, but then again I am noob, so maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## Village Idiot (Apr 18, 2008)

gamerz said:


> I went to the store today for a brief visit... Held both the Nikon D40, and the Canon XTi... They didn't have a D80 unfortunately... Anyways, the D40 felt very comfortable and solid in my hands, I defiantly liked the build quality. The XTi felt comfortable, just a little to big for my hands(I have very small hands). It wouldn't drive me crazy to use it for hours on end, but it might be a little uncomfortable after a while.
> 
> Just gotta go test a D80


 
New 30d = $700ish.

Anyways, all the entry level cameras are toys. If you want to feel what a real camera is like, pick up a DXXX line or an XXD like and above.

Everytime I go to the store to get a print made, I wonder how anyone can use those things because they're almost as small as P&S's. 

I use a 30D with a grip on it though and I'm going to be picking up a 5D if business picks up.


----------



## Arch (Apr 18, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> New 30d = $700ish.
> 
> Anyways, all the entry level cameras are toys. If you want to feel what a real camera is like....



I still use a D50 most of the time...it feels like a real camera to me... besides its what you do with it that counts.


----------



## Village Idiot (Apr 18, 2008)

Arch said:


> I still use a D50 most of the time...it feels like a real camera to me... besides its what you do with it that counts.


 
Have you ever held an Olympus e410 or an Pentax k100d? Those things are miniscule. They make Nikon's and Canon's entry level cameras look huge. I have an XTI that I rarely ever touch since opening my 30D.


----------



## memento (Apr 18, 2008)

JeromeMorrow said:


> The best advice I got from anyone was that in the end you have to go with what *feels right*.


 

just yesterday i was at Circuit City, playing with a D80 (i shoot Canon).
and i still don't like it. it just doesn't *feel right*.. IMO.
i guess i have larger hands and i feel like i'm gona break something on the Nikon's.
the Canon's (non-xt's) just *feel right*.. IMO.



so clearly, if you don't shoot Canon... you're not a real photog.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Apr 18, 2008)

I am a big guy, and I have huge hands, and I wish my cameras were even smaller than my current gear. It depends on what you shoot, it's why I use Rangefinders normally. They're the size of a big P&S. I like shooting people, and if you point one of those mega-SLRs with some kind of monster lens with many bells and whistles at them, you'll never get the shot. 

Not every car needs to be an Escalade or Excursion, not every camera needs to be a Canon 1D. The notion that your hands are SOOO huge that you need a battery grip is kinda unlikely. 

Think about what you really want to shoot.

Personally, I really want to get back to using SLRs for some work, but I just can't get myself to buy a 1D - it's humongous.  I hope the 5D follow-up will be  as small as the current model, maybe even smaller. I really am interested in weather-sealing. I am waiting for the new Leica SLR as well, but I just don't think it will be what I need....

Anyway, to get back to my point: think about what you need. All the big brands make something that fits many needs - don't worry about the brand first, worry about what you're shooting.


----------



## rmh159 (Apr 18, 2008)

I have nothing to add to this one that hasn't already been said but I always feel the "feels right" arguement is probably the weakest one I could imagine up.

That is all... carry on.

Seriously... no one flamed yet?  That's the whole reason I read these posts.  :er:


----------



## luis_relampago (Apr 18, 2008)

It's not only about the body it's mainly about the lens, invest in a good piece of glass and that will put you in any side(Nikon or Canon) Camera bodies come and go but nice glass stays with you forever.


----------



## Seefutlung (Apr 18, 2008)

Image Quality wise, under ISO 400, you won't see a dif between the Canon or the Nikon.

If you like to shoot in available light at elevated ISOs (800+) then the D80's CCD sensor will kill you. CMOS sensors will deliver significantly better noise control at high ISOs. So the XTi CMOS sensor will give you better Image Quality (IQ) than the D80 CCD.

If you like using multiple flashs ... then the Nikon is better with its Commander mode over Canon.

As to how a camera feels ... I think this is pretty much poppycock ... when you purchase a SLR camera you are actually buying into a camera system. Buy the camera which addresses what you intend to shoot. (As Nikon and Canon offers similar lenses and similar cameras with similar features ... this isn't much help). You will adapt easily and quickly to whatever camera you buy. All else being equal ... say you don't have any lenses, or you don't plan to shoot higher than ISO 400 or with multiple flashes ... then use feel as a qualifier ... but I strongly recommed using feel as the least important qualifier.

Gary


----------



## Village Idiot (Apr 18, 2008)

Seefutlung said:


> If you like using multiple flashs ... then the Nikon is better with its Commander mode over Canon.


 
Depends really. Neither have an advantage if you go with sync cables or radio triggers...for the most part.


----------



## JeromeMorrow (Apr 18, 2008)

Just to get this clear, I didn't quite mean feel as in the holding the camera. I mean, if you're really bent up over Canon and Nikon based on what everyone else is saying, just go for what you want. People love both, and they both seem to have their pluses and minuses.


----------



## Alex_B (Apr 18, 2008)

rmh159 said:


> I always feel the "feels right" arguement is probably the weakest one I could imagine up.



Depends on how you define "feels right" .. I am with Canon, since the wheels and buttons are just in the right place _for my fingers_, and the menus have the right structure for _my brain_. This is what I call "feels right", and it is very important for me, in particular when I have to be fast, or when being drunk (don't laugh, this has happened, and the images came out well .... after I finally took off the lens cap and inserted a CF card  ).


Anyway, the XTi does not really feel right for me though. I really need that big wheel on the back. Already have it on my film camera, so I do not want to miss it here.


----------



## greatestfix (Apr 18, 2008)

MX962 said:


> :lmao: NO ONE WANTS TO START A WAR ,You know there all great and i understand where you stand,I think it really depends on what fits you the best imo


 

this is funny, I think only people who can answer this question and, or should answer this question is ones with both canon and nikon. But then its not their opinion that matters because you still will buy what your pockets can afford.  maybe go out and rent both then make your mind up!  makes you wonder how you decide what type of ride you are going to buy.  You go to dealerships and you test drive the car that best fits you


----------



## JerryPH (Apr 18, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> I like my Canon, because I have Leica SLR lenses that fit on it with an adapter. There is no Leica -> Nikon adapter, to my knowledge.


 
Ok, I didn't see it with my own eyes, but my dad insists that he had an adapter and a leica lens on his Nikon F2a in the '80's.  It's not digital, but it is a SLR.

I'll ask him fo more details tonight.


----------



## Rand0m411 (Apr 18, 2008)

Reminds me of the Pepsi - Coke wars of the 80's. 

Best thing to do, go to the store and touch the camera's. Get online and read reviews. Buy what you feel will work best for you. 

Oh, and I prefer Pepsi.


----------



## asfixiate (Apr 18, 2008)

What's the most amount of pages a thread has gone before?

Gamerz have you decided yet?

Just to keep this one going Canon users rule and Nikon users drool!


----------



## Alex_B (Apr 18, 2008)

pepsi or coke? All just sugar and colour anyway!

oh, and as for the diet versions ... not even sugar ... only colour


----------



## Iron Flatline (Apr 18, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> Ok, I didn't see it with my own eyes, but my dad insists that he had an adapter and a leica lens on his Nikon F2a in the '80's.  It's not digital, but it is a SLR.
> 
> I'll ask him fo more details tonight.


LOL, Leica doesn't even currently sell a digital SLR, so that shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## f-Stop (Apr 18, 2008)

gamerz said:


> Thank you *bla*... Any other opinions? Right now, I do have enough money for a D80 with the 18-55 lens, maybe the 18-135... but just barely enough (I am a poor student ). It would be great to have a newer nikon camera like a D80, or another (cheaper) one with built in auto focus motor. I have considered the D50 and D70, but to me it seems like I will be having to replace them in a year because the technology will be obsolete.


 
Hey.. save you money, buy  a used D70s, and a couple of basic lenses..and LEARN how to shoot digital and you will be fine!

It is not so much which high end camera you buy, as soon as you do, it is outdated!

Each of us here have our loves and not so loved cameras...like Mac vs PC!!

Buy a good used one, get to know the camera and hang out here and improve your own style of shooting.

And then when you have the big bucks to spend..go get what you really need..not what you think you want.

Hope this helps!!!!


----------



## Tiberius47 (Apr 18, 2008)

Rand0m411 said:


> Reminds me of the Pepsi - Coke wars of the 80's.
> 
> Best thing to do, go to the store and touch the camera's. Get online and read reviews. Buy what you feel will work best for you.
> 
> Oh, and I prefer Pepsi.



I hear they're bring out "New Canon"...

When everyone hates it, they're going to bring back old Canon, and everyone will say how much better it is, and Canon will claim it's all a marketting ploy, although we know better...


----------



## Mystwalker (Apr 18, 2008)

memento said:


> just yesterday i was at Circuit City, playing with a D80 (i shoot Canon).
> and i still don't like it. it just doesn't *feel right*.. IMO.
> i guess i have larger hands and i feel like i'm gona break something on the Nikon's.
> the Canon's (non-xt's) just *feel right*.. IMO.
> ...


 
I am the opposite.  
D80 feels awesome (size, weight, grip, etc ...) and shutter clicky just sounds smoother then Canon.

I am not about to change to Nikon though - I may change mind when Nikon paint red stripe around their lens and come out with ugly giant white lens - HOT!!!


----------



## JerryPH (Apr 18, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> LOL, Leica doesn't even currently sell a digital SLR, so that shouldn't be a problem.


 
Huh?

Didn't you say:


Iron Flatline said:


> There is no Leica -> Nikon adapter, to my knowledge.


 
I said that I was just talking with my father and he mentioned that he used to have a Nikon camera adapter that accepts Leica lenses becuase he used a Leica lens on his Nikon F2a.  Why would anyone with an older Leica camera want a Nikon lens?  (lol)

I think I am confused now. :lmao:


----------



## gamerz (Apr 18, 2008)

> Mac Vs. PC!



Everybody knows that Macs are better 

Lots of people in this thread say that I need to go out and hold the cameras for myself. I did that-----see my previous posts... I held the D40, and the XTi, but not the D80, I hope to go to the store this next week.

Also, lots of people are saying that both Canon, and Nikon have their strengths and weaknesses, and to know what your style is is important. I mostly shoot macro mostly because it is easy to do (for me). If I did get a DSLR, I could see myself trying to shoot some landscapes, and maybe moving into a little bit of sport photography.


----------



## Antithesis (Apr 18, 2008)

gamerz said:


> Everybody knows that Macs are better
> 
> Lots of people in this thread say that I need to go out and hold the cameras for myself. I did that-----see my previous posts... I held the D40, and the XTi, but not the D80, I hope to go to the store this next week.
> 
> Also, lots of people are saying that both Canon, and Nikon have their strengths and weaknesses, and to know what your style is is important. I mostly shoot macro mostly because it is easy to do (for me). If I did get a DSLR, I could see myself trying to shoot some landscapes, and maybe moving into a little bit of sport photography.



I got a d80 coming from a d40, and the d80 feels a lot more solid than a d40. The d40 actually feels like a toy in comparison. 

Before the d300 came out, I considered switching to Canon for a number of reasons. Nikon has finally pulled into the lead, atleast until Canon releases it's new crop of amazing cameras. I'll probably stick with Nikon unless the 50D is a full frame camera. Then I'll make the switch.


----------



## Antithesis (Apr 18, 2008)

f-Stop said:


> ...like Mac vs PC!!



Everyone knows Mac is better than PC, the people using PC's are just afraid to admit it. I will never buy a PC ever again, after my 10 years of frustration and reformatting. I'm over it.


----------



## gamerz (Apr 18, 2008)

Agreed


----------



## Rand0m411 (Apr 18, 2008)

Antithesis said:


> Everyone knows Mac is better than PC, the people using PC's are just afraid to admit it. I will never buy a PC ever again, after my 10 years of frustration and reformatting. I'm over it.



LOL! A Mac is a PC with PC hardware, with Mac OS installed... So what your really saying is "I prefer Mac OS to Windows".


----------



## Mike_E (Apr 18, 2008)

Rolleiflex  f/2.8!  You will take wonderful photos and be the coolest kid on the block.


----------



## usayit (Apr 18, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> Huh?
> 
> Didn't you say:
> 
> ...



Iron has a Canon 5D DSLR and has an adapter to allow Leica R lenses to be mounted.  Of course, all manual....



Rand... I think we all know what he is referring to...  One company I worked for still refers to the Windows group as the "NT" group (Win NT is long gone) and the Network group as "TP" group  (telephony person?).  On some occasions, connectivity is still referred to as "Dial tone".  Other times the server farm that is predominately windows servers are referred as part of the PC/Lan group (hybrid of hardware and networking).  "PC"s even though they are really servers.  The term PC has just become synonymous with Windows Operating systems.  A popular storage technology DDS is still referred to by "DAT", the digital audio technology from which it spawned.  Hell..  even old network guys in storage administration mistakenly say MAC address instead of WWN (don't dare laugh at those guys...lol  I can't survive without disks) Not just computers but this happens everywhere....  Kleenix vs Tissue.  Coke vs Soda etc.   It goes on and on.  No need to strut brain power and laugh at someone else.. there is always someone more knowledgeable.. somewhere...

Heck.. I still get people referring my Leica as a P&S because it isn't an SLR.  Thats fine.. I know what they are talking about.  Kinda reminds me of "that" thread started because of the spelling of "lense" versus "lens".

Oh while we are nit pickin... it is Canon EFS 18-55mm in your signature... you have 15m unless you have lens capable of a 15 meter focal length.


----------



## usayit (Apr 18, 2008)

Oh yeh.. MAC OS X rocks!! (Unix too... oh yeh.. Linux is pretty darn good)


----------



## Rand0m411 (Apr 18, 2008)

usayit said:


> Oh while we are nit pickin... it is Canon EFS 18-55mm in your signature... you have 15m unless you have lens capable of a 15 meter focal length.



Wasnt really nit picking as people still believe that "Mac" and "PC's" really are 2 completely different things, instead of realizing the only difference is software. As far as Mac's being that much better, they tend to crash just as much, been fixing them for 16 years. The OS is great and there is alot of thought into it. Windows can be a monster but can in the end do anything a Mac can do. Its all apples and oranges really. The point I was *trying* to make is its all about preference. So when someone points out that one is better I like to point out that there really isnt so much difference. One really isnt better than the other. I recommend all the time that people whom dont know much about computers get a Mac. Why? Because its easier to use, has alot of cool stuff right at your finger tips. I prefer Windows myself because I can get into the internal working and completely change how everything functions and works. I like the control and I like the fact I dont pay x4 as much for parts and upgrades. As far as Linux... Id go nothing but linux if it had the support that Mac and Windows OS had. /shrug

But thanks for pointing out the typo in my signature. I'll fix it after dinner.


----------



## Antithesis (Apr 18, 2008)

Rand0m411 said:


> LOL! A Mac is a PC with PC hardware, with Mac OS installed... So what your really saying is "I prefer Mac OS to Windows".



There is a lot more to a computer than their CPU. The operating system is the main difference between the computers, much of the hardware has been the same for a very long time. I do prefer Mac OS because there aren't pimply kids in their basements manufacturing random virii to make my day miserable like they do for Windows. It just runs smoother, looks a hell of a lot nicer and runs everything I need it to run (i.e. Photoshop and pr0n... well, maybe not photoshop).

Edit: read your next post. My main reason for not liking windows is the reason stated above, and long-term software degradation. I was reformatting every 6-9 months or so, which was getting on my nerves. I've had my mac for 2 years and it runs like the day I bought it, minus some hard drive space of course. It's not as fast as my old PC (because it's a laptop), but it's reliable.


----------



## asfixiate (Apr 18, 2008)

As far as Linux... Id go nothing but linux if it had the support that Mac and Windows OS had. /shrug


Random
YOu hit the nail right on the head as far as I'm concerned. IN college I tutored Graphic art students who used MAC. I had never used macs before but was able to show them what to do.

This was me though and I had 11+ years professionally at the time with computers/programming/analyst.

Mac are supposed to be easier than windows as well as linux is more stable. Get any of the mass public using them and if their only exposure was windows before they'd be like Owen Wilson and Ben Stiller in Zoolander.

At this point anything is better than Vista!!!  I'm thinking of switching to Mac since XP is the last windows product I'd ever buy.


----------



## Nacho (Apr 18, 2008)

All this talking about shooting, I couldn't help but think of the "other" kind of shooting. Rifle scopes.
Nikon makes them, and every guy I know that has them thinks they are great, looked through a few myself and was impressed.
Canon does not make rifle scopes.
This can be taken several ways.
A scope on a rifle sucking up the jolt from shooting a 3000 ft-lbf muzzle blast of energy out of a 300 WinMag rifle HAS to be tough. They have to maintain their zero's, and stay completely rigid shot after shot, so that attests to the durability of Nikon, and how strong they can make optics.
HOWEVER...
Maybe since Canon isn't into rifle scopes and other hunting optics (other than binocs,) they can focus more on the camera side. They can focus more funds to camera development instead of rifle scopes, which is a world different than photography. Rifle scopes absolutely need to be rugged and durable, take a beating, be dropped, etc etc. But then, how much of Nikon's R&D and knowledge of rifle scopes goes into their cameras?? Unknown!

I personally will be buying a Nikon soon, just due to what they produce. No brand loyalty, just thinking a Nikon might hold up better to what I want to do out here in the mountains of Nevada. To me Canon has always just been cameras, nobody I know has a set of Canon binoc's. Always Leupold, Nikon, Swarovski, and Zeiss on all the rifles I see that are worthy of shooting any bullet at anything. A scoped rifle is only as good as its scope.
I am sticking with the Leupold on my 300 WinMag since it is beautiful no matter how I look at it, I just wish Leupold made cameras!
If you get a chance, look through a Leupold spotting scope and you will totally agree with me. :mrgreen:


----------



## Dutchboy (Apr 18, 2008)

Come on guys, the computer talk is defusing the Canon vs. Nikon debate...still hoping a brawl will break out...!


----------



## Antithesis (Apr 18, 2008)

If I were a sports photographer, I'd use Canon. If I were a Photojournalist, I'd shoot Nikon. Actually, if I were anything _but_ a sports photographer, I'd shoot Nikon. I think I just have a fixation with it, because a lot of my favorite National Geographic photographers shoot Nikon, my dad shot Nikon, my Grandpa shot Nikon, my friends shoot Nikon, etc.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Apr 19, 2008)

Any photographer worth his salt shoots Leica, everything else is for kiddies.

Leica makes the best binoculars in the world.

Hunting is not a sport, it's murdering animals by boys with masculinity issues.

Macs are the Information Super-Highway equivalent of a Toyota Corolla with automatic transmission.

Nikon will become irrelevant when Sony decides to stop selling them sensors.

Canon is a copier company.

dSLRs are over-sized, over-featured, and over-marketed. Real photographers use Rangefinders.

Digital is the only true way to shoot at this point, film is for people who lack the skill to move forward in life. 

Right.... did I leave anything out?


----------



## uplander (Apr 19, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> I am a big guy, and I have huge hands, and I wish my cameras were even smaller than my current gear. It depends on what you shoot, it's why I use Rangefinders normally. They're the size of a big P&S. *I like shooting people, and if you point one of those mega-SLRs with some kind of monster lens with many bells and whistles at them, you'll never get the shot. *
> 
> Not every car needs to be an Escalade or Excursion, not every camera needs to be a Canon 1D. The notion that your hands are SOOO huge that you need a battery grip is kinda unlikely.
> 
> ...


 

Actually I find the opposite, I get my best candid shots with my Canon 100- 400 L. That ability to be way off in the distance and zoom in on head shots while the subject doesn't even realize he is having his pictaken is a big plus for me.
Here are a few examples


----------



## uplander (Apr 19, 2008)

Nacho said:


> All this talking about shooting, I couldn't help but think of the "other" kind of shooting. Rifle scopes.
> Nikon makes them, and every guy I know that has them thinks they are great, looked through a few myself and was impressed.
> Canon does not make rifle scopes.
> This can be taken several ways.
> ...


 
Put a Nikon rifle scope or a Zeiss or a Leupold on a spring piston air gun and I guarranty they all will fail in less than 150 shots because air guns recoil reverse of firearms and cant take the backwards stress. So once again your comparing apples to oranges.

BTW when compareing Nikon rifle scpoes to Zeiss , Swarovski and a half a dozen others, the Nikon is the bottom feeder. Trust me on this , you don't want to get into a pissing match on this


----------



## uplander (Apr 19, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> Any photographer worth his salt shoots Leica, everything else is for kiddies.
> 
> Leica makes the best binoculars in the world.
> 
> ...


 

There we go.....Flame on!!


----------



## Antithesis (Apr 19, 2008)

uplander said:


> There we go.....Flame on!!



Yeah, holy smokes. Iron knows how to stir up a mess, lol. 

Leicas are for dentists that like to take pictures of homeless people! Just kidding, I just can't afford one. Although, I almost inherited one from my dead grandfather, but apparently his Leica and Hassy got sold in a garage sale :cringe:


----------



## usayit (Apr 19, 2008)

Rand0m411 said:


> Wasnt really nit picking as people still believe that "Mac" and "PC's" really are 2 completely different things, instead of realizing the only difference is software.



So much of the content of your post is just plain wrong..... but to continue would be off-topic of this forum and thread.  I've been in both software and hardware (two jobs) for about as long as you have.....  Hardware does matter thus different... (The entire design of both Mac hardware and the OS itself is closer to unix servers than PC hardware.)  Software does matter thus different.  Mac is BSD and can be just a stable as BSD which is a hell of a lot than you can say for our Windows servers.


----------



## usayit (Apr 19, 2008)

Iron,  you forgot one...

Windows is the McDonalds of Information Super-Highway.  Their users don't know any better and they are everywhere.


----------



## usayit (Apr 19, 2008)

uplander said:


> Actually I find the opposite, I get my best candid shots with my Canon 100- 400 L. That ability to be way off in the distance and zoom in on head shots while the subject doesn't even realize he is having his pictaken is a big plus for me.



Thats the problem...  that is exactly how all the photos come out... distant..  the lack of intimacy.. they tend to be flat....  Try using the same focal length for "story-telling" rather than just "subject".  There are times for a large Escalade and there are times that it just doesn't work.

Focal length isn't just to bring things closer... it is the photographer's paint brush.


----------



## usayit (Apr 19, 2008)

wooahh... more fuel for the Nikonians...  

The local camera shop I visit often has reported to me quite a few Canon Professional photographers trading in for Nikon.. more specifically the D3.  Many of those same photographers went the opposite direction several years ago when Canon was pushing the front lines of photo-technology.

Why?

The flagship Canon has the 21mp sensor as their selling point
The flagship Nikon has high ISO performance as their selling point.

Many wedding photographers have now reached the point that megapixel count is no longer an issue for their work... thus the high megapixel sensor is no longer the strong seller as it used to be.  Not as strong as high ISO performance.

Honestly.. its about time they start focusing on something else.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Apr 19, 2008)

Antithesis said:


> Leicas are for dentists that like to take pictures of homeless people!


Brilliant! *THAT* will be my new sig file at the Leica Owners Forum



usayit said:


> Windows is the McDonalds of Information Super-Highway.  Their users don't know any better and they are everywhere.


Yes, point well taken, I stand corrected. 

Also, over lunch my supportive wife pointed out that I could have ratcheted up the vitriol a little by comparing the Mac to a Prius - a slow automatic for nervous drivers, but with self-righteousness pre-installed.


----------



## Nacho (Apr 19, 2008)

uplander said:


> Put a Nikon rifle scope or a Zeiss or a Leupold on a spring piston air gun and I guarranty they all will fail in less than 150 shots because air guns recoil reverse of firearms and cant take the backwards stress. So once again your comparing apples to oranges.


I already know that about the reverse recoil. But hey, apples and oranges are both fruit. I like oranges better myself, even the peel as long as ya don't chew on it too long, then it tastes nasty.


----------



## JerryPH (Apr 19, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> Prius - a slow automatic for nervous drivers, but with self-righteousness pre-installed.


 
A hefty amount of self-righteousness for sure!


----------



## Early (Apr 19, 2008)

As for build quality, I'd have to let the pros fight it out about the pro cameras.  But for mid range cameras, I'd take the Nikons any day.

Not kidding!


----------



## table1349 (Apr 19, 2008)

Frankly, every time this particular conversation comes up it is about as useful as a turd in a punchbowl.


----------



## JerryPH (Apr 19, 2008)

I've seen someone drop a D3 from 10 feet high and have it work, and also pour milk, chocolate milk, oats and a nice container of water all over it to wash it off... then do a quick wipe down and go take pics.

A D3 is definately tough, though if it is tougher than anything else out there, I cannot tell you. No one with a new top of the line Canon has shown the insanity level required to duplicate this test.  :lmao:

Matter of fact, those videos of the D3 being molested are on youtube!


----------



## ScottS (Apr 19, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> I've seen someone drop a D3 from 10 feet high and have it work, and also pour milk, chocolate milk, oats and a nice container of water all over it to wash it off... then do a quick wipe down and go take pics.
> 
> A D3 is definately tough, though if it is tougher than anything else out there, I cannot tell you. No one with a new top of the line Canon has shown the insanity level required to duplicate this test.  :lmao:
> 
> Matter of fact, those videos of the D3 being molested are on youtube!


 
I saw that too!!!! It was insane!!!!


----------



## Antithesis (Apr 19, 2008)

http://www.ubergeek.tv/article.php?pid=55

The best switch-to-mac commercial ever. Move to Iceland.

And something for the linux ppl:

http://www.ubergeek.tv/article.php?pid=54


----------



## KOrmechea (Apr 20, 2008)

I shoot Canon.  However, I'd really like to try Nikon to see how it feels.  I've never really had a chance to.

Also, if you're a gamer, Windows tends to win.  Can someone tell me why games aren't developed for Macs as much?


----------



## Iron Flatline (Apr 20, 2008)

Game companies are small, and Macs are still a comparatively small market segment, so it is difficult for them to make the resources available for a Mac port. Nowadays its becoming easier since Apple changed the underlying architecture of the Mac.


----------



## thirrouard (May 16, 2008)

Battou said:


> Yup, then Knoica Minolta is going to come out of retirement and pown you all, then it will be Minolta VS Kodak :lmao:


I wish... if they were to realase such a good camera as the 7D back then.. damn... it would be 14Mpixels CMOS stabilized, good noise control at ISO 1600 and acceptable shots at 3200... and would be around 1000...
But well, people said that the reason for the ridiculous low price of the 7D compared to its performances were due to Minolta knowing they will sell their DSLR division...


----------



## ADay73 (May 27, 2008)

Just bought a new Canon 40D 28-135mm kit...looking forward to it!


----------



## Bluesman (May 27, 2008)

I am of course a noobie here. From what I've seen are the SLR's from both companies pretty much equal. Equally awesome. 

From the compact camera's though, especially the more cheap-ish ones, I think Canon is a bit better. 

Don't ban me please, lol.


----------

