# Why did you buy Nikon?



## EDL (Apr 28, 2012)

What swayed you to Nikon over a Canon, or Sony or...?


----------



## KmH (Apr 28, 2012)

I wanted a Nikon ever since I saw the movie GOTCHA.

I switched from Minolta, when Sony became involved with them. Sony took over Minolta's camera/film business in 2006. Sony has only recently started selling DSLR like cameras that Sony has designed.

When auto focus came to SLR cameras, Nikon was one of only 2 companies that didn't abandon their lens mount and obsolete all their older lenses.


----------



## MTVision (Apr 28, 2012)

EDL said:
			
		

> What swayed you to Nikon over a Canon, or Sony or...?



I was familiar with Nikon. I didn't even look at any other brands to be honest. Even though I have an entry level Nikon I'm happy with it. It handles high ISO's pretty well and it's a decent camera


----------



## Audible_Chocolate (Apr 28, 2012)

Functionality. I liked the layout better


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 28, 2012)

The _glass,_ man.  It's all about *the glass.*


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Apr 28, 2012)

1. I prefer Nikon the same reason why Overread prefer Canon, Nikon has better DX sensors when I was buying my first DSLR.
2. I don't like serifs, so to me, Nikon's logo looks nicer and more elegant.
3. Many from this forum recommend a Nikon D7000.
4. Nikon has sharper (slightly) lenses (thought not all, just the major ones), while some Canon have almost Sigma image quality, though more choices.
5. I thought Nikon looked nicer than the fully black Canon.
6. There are more sites defending Nikon than Canon, stating why is it better.
7. Since there are more sites (and books) regarding Nikon than Canon, I also read more about Nikon and therefore is more used to Nikon stuff.
8. The info screen looks much better on Nikon, much simpler and less cluttered (though that applies to only the latest cameras, the older Nikons are complicated too).
9. I like the button/dial placement on Nikon.
10. Nikon lenses looks more stylish, compared to those almost fully cylindrical Canon lenses. 

If you ask me, that a transition to Canon is free, would I do jump ship to Canon? I would do that, because I have more friends shooting Canon than Nikon, but then I'm not sure I would like to give up that almost 2/3 of a stop.


----------



## DorkSterr (Apr 28, 2012)

14-24mm f2.8. The first thing I did when this lens came out was turned to Nikon.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 28, 2012)

I bought my first Nikon, an FM, back in the early 1980's. Growing up as a child of the 1970's, Nikon was the undisputed leader in 35mm professional cameras. For young people today who have grown up with Canon as a very serious, formidable presence in the professional arena, it is hard to understand just how much of a significant lead Nikon had over all other 35mm SLR systems in the 1970's and 1980's. At the time I bought my first Nikon, the cameras and lenses from Nikon were regarded as the clear leaders. Canon was, to put it mildly, a second-rate player in the "serious" 35mm "system" camera arena.

One thing that many people are unaware of is that Nikon is the only Japanese maker of cameras that is, primarily, a *camera company*. Canon, Sony,Panasonic, Olympus,FujiFilm,Samsung,Pentax,and so on all have many other side businesses or even large divisions. Like Canon's photocopier division. Or Ricoh's photocopier division. Nikon makes great cameras, and fine lenses. Nikon is first and foremost, a camera company. Nikon is the company that Canon turned to to manufacture all of the lenses for the first near-decade of Canon's existence as a camera brand. Nikon had the optical expertise and the manufacturing know-how to make good lenses, so Canon contracted Nikon to make the lenses that shipped on Canon cameras! To put it plainly--even Canon itself recognized the excellence of Nikon optics,as early as the 1940's.

Right now, the Nikon D800 is becoming recognized as the single-best new camera design in years. Nikon has more to lose than Canon does by producing crappy products. Nikon is not being diverted by the photocopier division. They did not spend four years to add just one extra megapixel and jack the price up $800 over the previous entry in the mid-price full-frame arena. Nikon kicked Canon's ass, with a better camera, and at a significantly lower price.


----------



## DorkSterr (Apr 28, 2012)

^Amen


----------



## orb9220 (Apr 28, 2012)

For Me it just plainly came down to holding and fiddling with each camera. On Canon vs. Nikon the Nikon not only felt better I preferred the button layout and menu structure better. The Nikon felf better built and less cheezy plastic of the canon. Barring that both systems take outstanding images.

Tho with my past knowledge of Nikon glass was the deal sealer for me. As knew I could use the older Ai or Ais manual glass and some cheaper outstanding glass out there.
.


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 28, 2012)

I shot Olympus back in the film days (pair of OM4's) and loved them. When I decided to get into Digital years later... Olympus was not putting out the number of accessories that they had for the OM4's... and the cameras they had were definitely lacking in features (IMO) compared to Canon and Nikon. Olympus also had nothing of PRO quality if I later wanted to upgrade to that.

Between Canon and Nikon:

Nikon lenses are famous for their image quality!
Nikon is known to have the most accurate TTL flash system.
Nikon has phenomenal High ISO capability... very low noise.
I much prefer the control layout on Nikons.. Canon's feel awkward to me.
Nikon specializes in cameras and optics! Canon's cameras are just one more thing they make... I prefer a dedicated manufacturer.
Canons really seem to be popular with the lower end of the photography enthusiasts... and the vast majority of the Wanna-Be Pros seem to use low-end Canon's. Not all but most! Didn't want anything to do with that at all!


----------



## EDL (Apr 28, 2012)

My goal is macro and from all my reading that MP-E65mm lens is the bomb, especially when you compare it to what has to be done with other brands to get similar results...then again, that may be due to my extreme lack of knowledge.

My camera will most definitely have to be entry level.  I just don't have the $$$, and can't justify a $3,000+ camera body.  That Canon macro lens alone makes me cringe, but there is no question it will do what I'm hoping to do as long as I spend the time to learn how to use it.

Too bad Nikon doesn't have a similar lens, I really like that new D3200.

I'm sure practically any entry level DSLR will be just fine for me, I just haven't learned enough yet to get over the "mega-pixel" envy....


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 28, 2012)

If you start out trying to learn macro with the MP-E65... you will get very frustrated. That lens requires good technique.. and lighting for it requires a knowledgable touch. You would do much better to learn with a standard macro lens!

I have often considered getting a Canon body just for that one lens.... but probably wont.


----------



## sm4him (Apr 28, 2012)

Two major reasons:

1) As Derrell mentioned, back in the 70's when I first got into photography, Nikon was THE 35mm camera to aspire to.  I didn't actually HAVE one, but I wanted one. I shot with an OM-10 (because that's what I was given as a high school graduation present).
Canon and the rest of the competitors just really can't compete with the "nostalgia" and "emotive" value for me of a Nikon.

2) The even bigger reason I bought a Nikon DSLR: My sister shoots with one. She has the D90, and I have the D5100. I'd already been practicing with her camera every chance I got, so it only made sense to go with what was by then reasonably familiar.
Despite the fact that when I bought my DSLR, I was coming from having owned Canon Powershots for 10+ years, and LOVED them. Really can't say enough good things about the quality of my little Powershots.

But they're not Nikon.


----------



## thebasedsloth (Apr 28, 2012)

The first DSLR i picked up was a Nikon, So that pretty much set in my mind what a dslr feels like. When I picked up a Canon after I always felt uncomfortable. 
U was gonna go Sony when I decided I wanted to own my own DSLR, But my aunt had some old Nikon mount lenses she didn't want so I picked Nikon instead.


----------



## Mrgiggls (Apr 28, 2012)

<straps flame-retardand suit on>

Fuggit I'll say it:  When I looked into my first DSLR, I read dozens of articles and reviews.  Technically, it seemed the question of "N or C" was more or less a wash, so since this guy Ken Rockwell had used both extensively and praised Nikon for it's superior ergonomics that's who I went with.

If anyone cares to give me an extensive disertation on why Mr. Rockwells opinions should be discarded as dissinformation of the most heinous and vile nature, let me say this.  Not interested.  I understand that his opninions are just that and take them as such and have never regreted making my camera system decision based on them.  Am I a KR fan?  No, but I do recognize he knows more about Photography and the engineering behind it than I do.


----------



## nmoody (Apr 28, 2012)

The D3100 was the best bang for the buck new. I would assume most people pick a brand based on one of two things:

1. It was the best value for them
2. Someone they know uses one


----------



## Mach0 (Apr 28, 2012)

I went from a Fuji  bridge to a d40 I got for a good deal. I'm comfortable with Nikon's system and all of my stuff is Nikon. It's all I know and I am fairly satisfied.


----------



## murklemark (Apr 28, 2012)

Use a Canon at work, thought it was OK, but the D3100 offered a great entry level camera a great price so I look a slight leap of faith.


----------



## Mrgiggls (Apr 28, 2012)

murklemark said:


> Use a Canon at work, thought it was OK, but the D3100 offered a great entry level camera a great price so I look a slight leap of faith.



You'll here a lot of folks, including myself, say that there is no bad choice between Nikon and Canon, so please forgive me if I chuckled at the "leap of faith". Right now the D800 has stirred the pot and given Nikon an edge. Just wait, Canon will rebound with it's own champ before long.  

Throwing your entire camera rig budget in with Sony...now that would be a leap of faith!!    :bigangel:


----------



## Aloicious (Apr 28, 2012)

I shot Nikon Film bodies back in the day and always liked their build quality, glass quality, and the fact that they never changed the lens mount which gives a wide range of good used glass to use for someone on a budget. when I finally switched to DSLRs a couple years ago, the nikon bodies just felt SO much better in my hands than other brands, and since I already had positive experiences with Nikon, and the fact that their DSLR sensors were top of the line, it was an easy choice to continue with nikon....and since then I've been glad that I did with their leaps and bounds in sensor technology and advancements in quality glass, and all the other reasons people have mentioned.


----------



## Mrgiggls (Apr 28, 2012)

Aloicious said:


> I shot Nikon Film bodies back in the day and always liked their build quality, glass quality, and the fact that they never changed the lens mount which gives a wide range of good used glass to use for someone on a budget. when I finally switched to DSLRs a couple years ago, the nikon bodies just felt SO much better in my hands than other brands, and since I already had positive experiences with Nikon, and the* fact that their DSLR sensors were top of the line*, it was an easy choice to continue with nikon....and since then I've been glad that I did with their leaps and bounds in sensor technology and advancements in quality glass, and all the other reasons people have mentioned.




When was this?  I may be way wrong here but I always thought (until just recently) that Canon held the best sensors and Nikon got the nod on its glass and ergonomics.


----------



## DScience (Apr 28, 2012)

Mrgiggls said:
			
		

> <straps flame-retardand suit on>
> 
> Fuggit I'll say it:  When I looked into my first DSLR, I read dozens of articles and reviews.  Technically, it seemed the question of "N or C" was more or less a wash, so since this guy Ken Rockwell had used both extensively and praised Nikon for it's superior ergonomics that's who I went with.
> 
> If anyone cares to give me an extensive disertation on why Mr. Rockwells opinions should be discarded as dissinformation of the most heinous and vile nature, let me say this.  Not interested.  I understand that his opninions are just that and take them as such and have never regreted making my camera system decision based on them.  Am I a KR fan?  No, but I do recognize he knows more about Photography and the engineering behind it than I do.



Me too!


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Apr 28, 2012)

As I have said many times before, I was all set to get a Canon when I started looking. Canon were the brand to buy in my opinion, that was until I handled a entry level Canon camera which to be quite honest felt like a complete piece of S***, cheap, flimsy and a dreadful grip. If it wasn't for that small factor, I would be a Canon user right now. The Nikon entry levels just felt better! I haven't lived to regret my choice yet, I considered switching to a 7D on a few occasions when upgrading from my D40 but am incredibly happy I chose the D90 and am now Nikon for life! The camera just gives me what I want and need in a camera, great ergonomics and great images! Thanks Nikon!


----------



## Aloicious (Apr 28, 2012)

Mrgiggls said:


> Aloicious said:
> 
> 
> > I shot Nikon Film bodies back in the day and always liked their build quality, glass quality, and the fact that they never changed the lens mount which gives a wide range of good used glass to use for someone on a budget. when I finally switched to DSLRs a couple years ago, the nikon bodies just felt SO much better in my hands than other brands, and since I already had positive experiences with Nikon, and the* fact that their DSLR sensors were top of the line*, it was an easy choice to continue with nikon....and since then I've been glad that I did with their leaps and bounds in sensor technology and advancements in quality glass, and all the other reasons people have mentioned.
> ...



depends on in what aspect of sensor performance, and what sensors you are looking at, but I was refering to ISO performance which Nikon has been ahead of the game since ~2007 when the D3 came out, and has consistantly been the leader in that aspect ever since....but even when you look at other areas of sensor performance too, they are still excellent and near the best ones since about the same time period...Canon does have excellent sensors, I never meant that canon's were bad or anything, just that Nikon's were excellent, and held the lead in the ISO performance which is a big factor for me.

BTW, when you look at sensor ratings from places like DxOmark or others for example, canon did have an edge in sensors until around 2007 when the D3 line came out and nikon took a strong lead in ISO performance, and were about equal dynamic range and color depth until 2008 when the D3X came out and the had quite an improvement in color and DR, and they've just been getting better since...but again, it just depends on what sensors are being compared, and canon's sensors are also excellent, and have been doing excellent for a while, but there were more factors than just sensors that pushed me to Nikon over canon.


----------



## greybeard (Apr 28, 2012)

[FONT=&quot]I chose Nikon because I feel they make the best photo equipment.  I also own Sony, Canon, and some early Kodak digital.  I think Sony is the cutting edge when it comes to sensor technology but they still have a way to go when it comes to putting it all together.  I like Canon and I could have just as easily gone with Canon but, Nikon was the brand that was available when I first bought my N80 35mm and I now use a d5100 and I have no reason to change brands.[/FONT]


----------



## zamanakhan (Apr 28, 2012)

I got a d5000 as a present, I had canon envy for a while. It seemed all the cool kids had white lenses on their cameras and no flash on their 5d mark whatevers. I also couldn't believe the price comparisons on lenses, How much cheaper canon lenses were. Now I know all the smart ones buy Nikon, and you get what u pay for with lenses, although lately it seems to be a lot of supply and demand as well, even older lenses are going up in price my 80-200 2.8 afs has been seen in keh for 14-1500.


----------



## IgsEMT (Apr 28, 2012)

When I was coming from med. format into digital, the only thing I knew about Nikon was that their glass was superior to Canon's, this goes back about 10yrs now. So I went w/ Nikon digital and no regrets. Whether Nikon's glass is superior to Canon or not - I don't know; after seeing large prints from both brands, its hard to tell which one was shot. However today, what keeps me w/ Nikon (despite several thousands of dollars of investment of it) is the consistency that they've been keeping with their bodies - I can take d70 to D3s (haven't held d4 or d800 yet) and w/ in few minutes modify menus as well as adjust exposure and get results I need. However, with Canon, b/n 20d, 30d, 40d, 5d, 5dm2 and 1dm2 (the ones I worked with) - they seems all different to me.

Joe


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Apr 28, 2012)

Aloicious said:


> Mrgiggls said:
> 
> 
> > Aloicious said:
> ...



To me, until this year only had Canon lost their lead (D3x is a different price point, so a comparison isn't fair). Their 5D2 sensor is as good at D3/D700/D3s but with 10 more megapixels. Canon made a big mistake by keeping the same sensor in 5D3. For APS-C, Nikon took the lead ever since they had the Sony 16MP sensor, Canon knew the lower end of the consumers wouldn't notice the difference, that's why they didn't bother developing newer sensors. I predict Canon will have a newer sensor in 7D2, if they still want to have a pro APS-C camera.


----------



## Aloicious (Apr 28, 2012)

we weren't comparing prices, just sensor performance. the 5d2 may put out similar level of color/DR quality as the D3/D700/D3s at a higher MP, but the Nikon sensors dominate the ISO performance, especially with the D3s. But to each their own, like I said, it depends on what sensors are being compared and what the end user's needs are as to what could be considered 'Better'...and just to re-iterate, my original statement was simply that one of the reasons I stayed with nikon when I switched to digital was that their sensors were some of the top of the line, I didn't make any specific comparison, or disregard any other brand's sensor quality. I didn't really mean, or expect for it to become a canon vs nikon sensor history debate.


----------



## elizabethysmom (Apr 29, 2012)

I started with a canon rebel and when I was ready to upgrade I figured I needed to really think hard about the old 'N' vs 'C'. 
I always felt weird about buying canon because my dad (who was a photographer for the army during the Vietnam war) always says 'you can't go wrong with Nikon, canons are pieces of Sh**' I know that isn't true - my rebel was great but I'm now in love with my d90.
Also maybe I'm wrong but I thought the d90 sensor is larger than canon crop sensors?


----------



## poker_jake (Apr 29, 2012)

elizabethysmom said:
			
		

> I started with a canon rebel and when I was ready to upgrade I figured I needed to really think hard about the old 'N' vs 'C'.
> I always felt weird about buying canon because my dad (who was a photographer for the army during the Vietnam war) always says 'you can't go wrong with Nikon, canons are pieces of Sh**' I know that isn't true - my rebel was great but I'm now in love with my d90.
> Also maybe I'm wrong but I thought the d90 sensor is larger than canon crop sensors?



Nikons aps c is slightly larger than Canon, 1.5 multiplier to get full frame vs 1.6. I started with Canon also but Nikon offers more for the price, and the lenses can't be beat.


----------



## StandingBear1983 (Apr 29, 2012)

I was a noob in photography though i took photos all my life but didn't move from auto mode on the bridge canon s5is i bought for a trip to New Zealand. 

5 years have passed since i bought it and i felt i need to upgrade and started to investigate about DSLR's. after about 3 months of learning (i'm a total pschyo when it comes to buying things, i HAVE to buy the BEST bang for my buck, its a sickness really, its a good thing to have, but one can drive oneself mad from confusion and decision making), the choices and options were so VAST, so many terms i didn't know, so much technical stuff, i learned everything from SCRATCH because i always took picture like a noob (auto mode on P&S).

I came from Canon's world of P&S cameras so first i thought "ok i know canon, and i have had canon p&s all my life, i will go canon", but once i learned about all the aspects of photography and i understood what i'm paying for, The D5100 gave me the most for my money, it did everything the rebel t3i did and was known to be better in low light, so i went for it and never looked back.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Apr 29, 2012)

Aloicious said:


> we weren't comparing prices, just sensor performance. the 5d2 may put out similar level of color/DR quality as the D3/D700/D3s at a higher MP, but the Nikon sensors dominate the ISO performance, especially with the D3s. But to each their own, like I said, it depends on what sensors are being compared and what the end user's needs are as to what could be considered 'Better'...and just to re-iterate, my original statement was simply that one of the reasons I stayed with nikon when I switched to digital was that their sensors were some of the top of the line, I didn't make any specific comparison, or disregard any other brand's sensor quality. I didn't really mean, or expect for it to become a canon vs nikon sensor history debate.



D3s only have 2/3 advantage and D700 only 1/3, but D3s had lower read noise, that's why it had better dynamic range at high ISO. But still, the advantage is very subtle, so the sensor shouldn't be the main reason you chose Nikon.


----------



## Tee (Apr 29, 2012)

I bought my Nikon at a Ritz. That store only had Nikon or Sony. I got hands on with both equivalent bodies and honestly, the Sony felt like a kids toy from a Happy Meal.  I'm very glad I made the choice to go with Nikon as I have been very happy with my upgraded bodies, lenses and the ergonomics of the camera.  Ultimately, I think now days its about what store you buy from and who's pimping the brands. Best Buy seems to be a lapdog to Canon so it's natural to see so many Rebels out and about these days. Personally, as long as people love what they're doing, I say rock on.


KmH- funny you mention Gotcha. That was just on a few days ago.


----------



## BlairWright (Apr 29, 2012)

My family used Nikon before I was born, it's a family thing I guess..


----------



## StandingBear1983 (Apr 29, 2012)

Tee said:


> I bought my Nikon at a Ritz. That store only had Nikon or Sony. I got hands on with both equivalent bodies and honestly, the Sony felt like a kids toy from a Happy Meal.  I'm very glad I made the choice to go with Nikon as I have been very happy with my upgraded bodies, lenses and the ergonomics of the camera.  Ultimately, I think now days its about what store you buy from and who's pimping the brands. Best Buy seems to be a lapdog to Canon so it's natural to see so many Rebels out and about these days. Personally, as long as people love what they're doing, I say rock on.
> 
> 
> KmH- funny you mention Gotcha. That was just on a few days ago.



Well...don't let the salesman pimp you. check very well on the internet a few weeks before you buy. and when you know that your "sure" about buying a certain camera, wait another week, just in case you missed something you didn't know - then the salesman CAN'T pimp you, and i love it when they notice that you know more about gear then they do hehehehe  - actually if were being honest, they don't know jack ****...there just "good" salesmen  - "good" only for folks that are totally clueless...


----------



## Infinite_Day (Apr 29, 2012)

I've only owned two DSLR's and was smitten with my first, the D50, the first time I used it. I've held my boss' 7D and it honestly feels cheaper in the hand than my D7000. For the price point vs. performance the D7000 is hard to beat right now in my opinion. I wish that Nikon had a wider lens lineup like Canon's but their glass is still top notch and I aspire to an 800mm prime.


----------



## Bukitimah (Apr 29, 2012)

For the mass market, it is either Nikon or Canon. At least this is the situation here in Singapore. When you are looking for lenses and parts or sale, you are more likely to find them. Between the 2 there is actually not much different in my opinion. However, once you decide on one brand, it is likely you will stay with them brand. I don't believe there is a single brand that is cheaper and better. All manufacturer are able to produce the stuff if you are will to pay.  That also explain the various models too.


----------



## Aloicious (Apr 30, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> D3s only have 2/3 advantage and D700 only 1/3, but D3s had lower read noise, that's why it had better dynamic range at high ISO. But still, the advantage is very subtle, so the sensor shouldn't be the main reason you chose Nikon.



:scratch: I never said that sensors were the main reason I chose nikon...I clearly stated various other reasons in post #21...


----------



## bhop (Apr 30, 2012)

Back in the day, I used to see ads for pro Nikons in magazines and stuff all the time.  I used to see pros using them.  I never really thought that kinda stuff mattered to me as I can make up my own mind.. (advertising), but maybe it works...  I always wanted an F4s.. one of the most beautiful pro cameras ever IMO (eventually got one a couple years ago).

When it came time to buy a dslr, my thoughts were on those Nikons, and that beautiful F4...so that's what I looked at first.  I messed around with Canons in the store, but they just didn't feel 'right' to me, like in my hand, the controls and stuff... years down the road and I'm glad I went with Nikon... although, I do love my Leica too... and my Canonets...and my Yashicas...and my Pentax K1000...and my Olympuses... *sigh..


----------



## PapaMatt (May 3, 2012)

Bought my first Nikon back in the early 60's and never looked back


----------



## PapaMatt (May 3, 2012)

elizabethysmom said:


> I started with a canon rebel and when I was ready to upgrade I figured I needed to really think hard about the old 'N' vs 'C'.
> I always felt weird about buying canon because my dad (who was a photographer for the army during the Vietnam war) always says 'you can't go wrong with Nikon, canons are pieces of Sh**' I know that isn't true - my rebel was great but I'm now in love with my d90.
> Also maybe I'm wrong but I thought the d90 sensor is larger than canon crop sensors?




Yes, Canon people like the name Canon, sounds big and bad but have a little pistol :lmao::lmao:


----------



## jetpilotx (May 3, 2012)

StandingBear1983 said:


> I was a noob in photography though i took photos all my life but didn't move from auto mode on the bridge canon s5is i bought for a trip to New Zealand.
> 
> 5 years have passed since i bought it and i felt i need to upgrade and started to investigate about DSLR's. after about 3 months of learning (i'm a total pschyo when it comes to buying things, i HAVE to buy the BEST bang for my buck, its a sickness really, its a good thing to have, but one can drive oneself mad from confusion and decision making), the choices and options were so VAST, so many terms i didn't know, so much technical stuff, i learned everything from SCRATCH because i always took picture like a noob (auto mode on P&S).
> 
> I came from Canon's world of P&S cameras so first i thought "ok i know canon, and i have had canon p&s all my life, i will go canon", but once i learned about all the aspects of photography and i understood what i'm paying for, The D5100 gave me the most for my money, it did everything the rebel t3i did and was known to be better in low light, so i went for it and never looked back.




I also came from Canon P&S and got my Nikon D5100 yesterday. 

Reasons I bought Nikon:
1. There are a lot of good reviews.
2. Easy on the buck.
3. Big community that may help each other out.


----------



## Derrel (May 3, 2012)

The old Nikon F "Photomic" series of viewfinder/metering prisms became iconic as the 1960's wore on and the 1970's saw a similar elevation of the Nikon F2' series to the same position as "the best" 35mm SLR camera to have. That big, squarish prism on top of the camera body really did become an instantly-recognizable trait of Nikon's flagship cameras. it was possible to spot an F or an F2 in a crowd, on TV, or in a movie or TV show. Even casual viewers recognized the "NIKON" camera. Paul Simon's song Kodachrome, mentioned the Nikon camera by name, repeatedly. Nikon, the brand, and the tool, were pretty well-imprinted on the collective popular consciousness in the 1970's. When Canon finally was able to develop a camera that could compete against the then over 10-year old Nikon F, Canon named their camera the F-1. Kind of trying to ride the coattails of the leader. And when Nikon developed the world's first "affordable" d-slr, the Nikon D1 in late 1998, it took Canon several years to come up with their own pro  d-slr camera, which they named the Canon 1D. Talk about lame follow-the-leader games...


----------



## StandingBear1983 (May 3, 2012)

jetpilotx said:


> StandingBear1983 said:
> 
> 
> > I was a noob in photography though i took photos all my life but didn't move from auto mode on the bridge canon s5is i bought for a trip to New Zealand.
> ...



Its a great camera you will enjoy it


----------



## spicyTuna (May 3, 2012)

Derrel said:


> The old Nikon F "Photomic" series of viewfinder/metering prisms became iconic as the 1960's wore on and the 1970's saw a similar elevation of the Nikon F2' series to the same position as "the best" 35mm SLR camera to have. That big, squarish prism on top of the camera body really did become an instantly-recognizable trait of Nikon's flagship cameras. it was possible to spot an F or an F2 in a crowd, on TV, or in a movie or TV show. Even casual viewers recognized the "NIKON" camera. Paul Simon's song Kodachrome, mentioned the Nikon camera by name, repeatedly. Nikon, the brand, and the tool, were pretty well-imprinted on the collective popular consciousness in the 1970's. When Canon finally was able to develop a camera that could compete against the then over 10-year old Nikon F, Canon named their camera the F-1. Kind of trying to ride the coattails of the leader. And when Nikon developed the world's first "affordable" d-slr, the Nikon D1 in late 1998, it took Canon several years to come up with their own pro  d-slr camera, which they named the Canon 1D. Talk about lame follow-the-leader games...



Ya interesting you brought up the Canon naming; I never thought of it that way. Although, I figured they called it the 1D simply because D=digital and their pro-series all began with "1" like the 1N and 1V from the film days.


----------

