# Convince me to switch to Canon



## tevo

I've had this conversation with some photographer friends recently, and I'm interested to hear you all weigh in on it. I shoot Nikon because I find the build quality to be superb, I love the feel of the cameras in my hand, and I love Nikon optics. However, there are drawbacks as there are on any system, and I have had Canonites point out things like color reproduction/skin tones that are different among the two. So, set aside the fact that I am already heavily invested in Nikon, and set aside the fact that it is the photographer not the camera that makes good photos, why should I switch to Canon? Convince me.


----------



## sm4him

It's simple, really.

Because then there will be more used Nikon gear for ME to buy.


----------



## Overread

If this doesn't draw you to the world of Canon and the mighty MPE then - well - you're a lost cause already!


----------



## tevo

Overread said:


> If this doesn't draw you to the world of Canon and the mighty MPE then - well - you're a lost cause already!




MPE?


----------



## Overread

MPE 65mm f2.8 macro - the only lens of its kind. It shoots from 1:1 (the maximum most other macro lenses get to) to 5:1 magnification. It's probably the hardest lens you'll ever use, but sooooo rewarding!


----------



## CdTSnap

I will do no such thing!


----------



## Trever1t

I really don't know Canon specifics but today's technology is so good I think it's really pulling hairs. Yes, Nikon favors greens, Canons yellow. Big whoopie! Nikon's AF system is unmatched except at the top. Trust me, I have seconds shooting Mk II's missing focus a lot.


----------



## tevo

Trever1t said:


> I really don't know Canon specifics but today's technology is so good I think it's really pulling hairs. Yes, Nikon favors greens, Canons yellow. Big whoopie! Nikon's AF system is unmatched except at the top. Trust me, I have seconds shooting Mk II's missing focus a lot.



I've shot a 5D3 more than a few times and the AF was garbage in low light; my 6 year old D700 focuses far better in less light.

The principal reason I shoot Nikon is because I NEVER have to worry about my AF. It hits and it tracks perfectly, I never have to second guess. I'd say I miss one in five hundred shots because of AF error. If that.


----------



## lambertpix

I love my Canon stuff, but if you're shooting Nikon and you like it, stick with it.  Chalk it up to "the grass is always greener".


----------



## astroNikon

Because then you can have Nikon envy !!

Can't you change your base colors using the Picture Control to be Canonish ?


----------



## rexbobcat

This is just personal taste but I like the ergonomics/layout of Canon cameras better. I've played with a friends D800 and it's buttons on dials on more dials.


----------



## astroNikon

rexbobcat said:


> This is just personal taste but I like the ergonomics/layout of Canon cameras better. I've played with a friends D800 and it's buttons on dials on more dials.


Yeah, well, I don't like the buttons and dial location of the Canons .. really .. the button row at the LCD ??  and weird dial placement.  lol .. well, we each like our own ergonomics


----------



## Scatterbrained

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, video?   Radio flash system? The Magic Lantern? Because shooting a Canon is always fun?  Because red rings are sexy?  Because.... f/1.2?   Other than that, I'd say if you're happy on the dark side, by all means stay there.


----------



## Scatterbrained

Just remember, when people see the white lens, they _know_ you're pro, even if you're shooting a pre school dance recital in a shopping mall.


----------



## tevo

rexbobcat said:


> This is just personal taste but I like the ergonomics/layout of Canon cameras better. I've played with a friends D800 and it's buttons on dials on more dials.



Another reason I love Nikon is because of the ergonomics and how the camera feels in my hand. I'm starting to see that a lot of this is just personal preference. I'm interested in technical advantages on either side... if any exist.


----------



## tevo

Scatterbrained said:


> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, video?   Radio flash system? The Magic Lantern? Because shooting a Canon is always fun?  Because red rings are sexy?  Because.... f/1.2?   Other than that, I'd say if you're happy on the dark side, by all means stay there.



I prefer gold rings to red ones 

What is the Magic Lantern? What is video?

Canon does have the AF 1.2 glass which I am jealous of... but I forsee Nikon making some in the future. Or Zeiss glass.


----------



## rexbobcat

tevo said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is just personal taste but I like the ergonomics/layout of Canon cameras better. I've played with a friends D800 and it's buttons on dials on more dials.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason I love Nikon is because of the ergonomics and how the camera feels in my hand. I'm starting to see that a lot of this is just personal preference. I'm interested in technical advantages on either side... if any exist.
Click to expand...


Well Canon has more/better options for video.....yaaaayy


----------



## tevo

rexbobcat said:


> tevo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is just personal taste but I like the ergonomics/layout of Canon cameras better. I've played with a friends D800 and it's buttons on dials on more dials.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason I love Nikon is because of the ergonomics and how the camera feels in my hand. I'm starting to see that a lot of this is just personal preference. I'm interested in technical advantages on either side... if any exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well Canon has more/better options for video.....yaaaayy
Click to expand...


Thankfully I am not a videographer


----------



## kc4sox

Canon rules and Nikon drools............... Did that help ?


----------



## Steve5D

If you're heavily invested in Nikon, I don't think I would try to convince you to switch.

It's Coke/Pepsi, Ford/Chevy, Taylor/Martin, Fender/Gibson.

Both are fine systems capable of helping you produce outstanding results...


----------



## tevo

Steve5D said:


> If you're heavily invested in Nikon, I don't think I would try to convince you to switch.
> 
> It's Coke/Pepsi, Ford/Chevy, Taylor/Martin, Fender/Gibson.
> 
> Both are fine systems capable of helping you produce outstanding results...



Right, and I don't plan on switching. I made this thread because I want people to TRY to convince me, simply because I want to hear the argument for one versus the other.


----------



## Steve5D

tevo said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're heavily invested in Nikon, I don't think I would try to convince you to switch.
> 
> It's Coke/Pepsi, Ford/Chevy, Taylor/Martin, Fender/Gibson.
> 
> Both are fine systems capable of helping you produce outstanding results...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, and I don't plan on switching. I made this thread because I want people to TRY to convince me, simply because I want to hear the argument for one versus the other.
Click to expand...


Oh, okay.

I was addressing the question "Why should I switch?"

The answer is simple: You shouldn't...


----------



## leeroix

Too much work, time, and money to switch. You should have made that decision in the beginning.


----------



## runnah

Canon glass blows nikon out of the water.


----------



## leeroix

^referring to the "L's"?


----------



## tevo

leeroix said:


> Too much work, time, and money to switch. You should have made that decision in the beginning.




>





tevo said:


> Right, and I don't plan on switching. I made this thread because I want people to TRY to convince me, simply because I want to hear the argument for one versus the other.


----------



## tevo

runnah said:


> Canon glass blows nikon out of the water.



In what way? I find Nikon images to be sharper and contrastier (if that isn't a word, it is now) SOOC than Canon with equivalent glass. Do you have any good comparisons bookmarked / saved?


----------



## runnah

leeroix said:


> ^referring to the "L's"?



Some and some non L.


----------



## leeroix

I think they both have good glass. Each has their own un-equaled products. Have to disagree about blowing out of water.


----------



## bribrius

for a change. should the same brand long enough, maybe you just want a change.


----------



## Dao

Canon starts with a letter "C" while Nikon starts with letter "N".   So C is always ahead of N.   And there is a reason why Apple products are so popular.  It is simply Apple starts with letter "A".


----------



## table1349

tevo said:


> I've had this conversation with some photographer friends recently, and I'm interested to hear you all weigh in on it. I shoot Nikon because I find the build quality to be superb, I love the feel of the cameras in my hand, and I love Nikon optics. However, there are drawbacks as there are on any system, and I have had Canonites point out things like color reproduction/skin tones that are different among the two. So, set aside the fact that I am already heavily invested in Nikon, and set aside the fact that it is the photographer not the camera that makes good photos, why should I switch to Canon? Convince me.


If you have to ask....... We don't want you.


----------



## Derrel

Canon saves on card storage space by shooting at lower megapixels in several categories. Instead of 36 megapixels, you can shoot 22 megapixel images. Or 20 megapixels. Or 18 megapixels. Using fewer megapixels helps save Earth's resources! Shoot Canon, the lower-megapixel-picker-upper.


----------



## runnah

Derrel said:


> Canon saves on card storage space by shooting at lower megapixels in several categories. Instead of 36 megapixels, you can shoot 22 megapixel images. Or 20 megapixels. Or 18 megapixels. Using fewer megapixels helps save Earth's resources! Shoot Canon, the lower-megapixel-picker-upper.



Best reason so far: Derrel uses Nikon.


----------



## tevo

runnah said:


> Best reason so far: Derrel uses Nikon.



/thread

So far I've seen no compelling reason to shoot Canon over Nikon...

Nikon Master Race it is.


----------



## jaomul

I went from canon to Nikon. They are both the same but different.


----------



## astroNikon

If you are catholic/eastern orthodox, then Canon is a better camera because you can say that you have been Canonized.


Oh drat, I have the wrong camera  lol


----------



## TCampbell

tevo said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't know Canon specifics but today's technology is so good I think it's really pulling hairs. Yes, Nikon favors greens, Canons yellow. Big whoopie! Nikon's AF system is unmatched except at the top. Trust me, I have seconds shooting Mk II's missing focus a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've shot a 5D3 more than a few times and the AF was garbage in low light; my 6 year old D700 focuses far better in less light.
> 
> The principal reason I shoot Nikon is because I NEVER have to worry about my AF. It hits and it tracks perfectly, I never have to second guess. I'd say I miss one in five hundred shots because of AF error. If that.
Click to expand...


I get this from time to time... my guess is you probably don't know the 5D III focus system.  I would hazard a guess that many and possibly even *most* 5D III owners don't know the 5D III focus system.  Canon has a 47 page document on the focus system of the camera (which is amazing, btw) and yet the manual not only does not come with the camera, they don't even make reference to where someone should go download it.  The manual's explanation of the focus modes is fairly weak.  The 47 page document is pretty good.  Canon also has some video tutorials which are great at explaining all the differences and why you'd pick one mode over another.

If you're focusing on a tight area with strong contrast and fine detail and want to make sure the camera SPECIFICALLY locks on to that really tight area... there's a mode for that.  If you're trying to to shoot something in lower light and/or with weak contrast and want to expand the AF zone... there's a mode for that too.  If you're willing to let the camera pick any focus point it wants and surrender all control, there's a mode for that -- but if you only semi-want to surrender control are willing to let the camera pick the AF point but only if it falls within a region of the image that you picked... there's a mode for THAT.

And that's just how it handles the AF points... it also has an intelligent tracking and recognition system which is both configurable and tunable as to how it tracks subjects around the image.


----------



## DaninMD

TCampbell said:


> tevo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't know Canon specifics but today's technology is so good I think it's really pulling hairs. Yes, Nikon favors greens, Canons yellow. Big whoopie! Nikon's AF system is unmatched except at the top. Trust me, I have seconds shooting Mk II's missing focus a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've shot a 5D3 more than a few times and the AF was garbage in low light; my 6 year old D700 focuses far better in less light.
> 
> The principal reason I shoot Nikon is because I NEVER have to worry about my AF. It hits and it tracks perfectly, I never have to second guess. I'd say I miss one in five hundred shots because of AF error. If that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get this from time to time... my guess is you probably don't know the 5D III focus system. I would hazard a guess that many and possibly even *most* 5D III owners don't know the 5D III focus system. Canon has a 47 page document on the focus system of the camera (which is amazing, btw) and yet the manual not only does not come with the camera, they don't even make reference to where someone should go download it. The manual's explanation of the focus modes is fairly weak. The 47 page document is pretty good. Canon also has some video tutorials which are great at explaining all the differences and why you'd pick one mode over another.
> 
> If you're focusing on a tight area with strong contrast and fine detail and want to make sure the camera SPECIFICALLY locks on to that really tight area... there's a mode for that. If you're trying to to shoot something in lower light and/or with weak contrast and want to expand the AF zone... there's a mode for that too. If you're willing to let the camera pick any focus point it wants and surrender all control, there's a mode for that -- but if you only semi-want to surrender control are willing to let the camera pick the AF point but only if it falls within a region of the image that you picked... there's a mode for THAT.
> 
> And that's just how it handles the AF points... it also has an intelligent tracking and recognition system which is both configurable and tunable as to how it tracks subjects around the image.
Click to expand...

link to that document?


----------



## wickie44

I think it's 6 of one half a dozen of the other  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## robbins.photo

Umm.. because the Canon jackets don't make you look like your wearing one of those killer bee getups from the old saturday night live?


----------



## snerd

DaninMD said:


> link to that document?



http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2012/1dx_guidebook.shtml

Link straight to pdf for phone http://downloads.canon.com/CDLC/EOS-1D_X_AF_Guide_for_Smartphones.pdf

For larger version pdf http://downloads.canon.com/CDLC/AF-guide-EOS-1DX-firmware-v.2.0_CUSA.pdf

The 5D3 has the same AF system as the 1Dx


----------



## Derrel

TCampbell said:
			
		

> Canon has a 47 page document on the focus system of the camera (which is amazing, btw) and yet the manual not only does not come with the camera, they don't even make reference to where someone should go download it.  The manual's explanation of the focus modes is fairly weak.  The 47 page document is pretty good.  Canon also has some video tutorials which are great at explaining all the differences and why you'd pick one mode over another.



That's because when Canon introduced the 1D Mark III, there was a two-year window in which tens of thousands of professional sports and news shooters suffered through repeated 1D Mark III autofocus failures...after Canon had hyped the sh*+_ out of the 1D III's AF system as, "The world's most advanced ever," but it could NOT FOCUS properly...even with experts using the camera...the 1D Mark III autofocus issue was a debacle of thge highest order for Canon and its users. Many switched to Nikon to get a camera that could actually FOCUS properly on STILL targets.

It took Canon an entire failed professional model to figure out how to do multi-point AF right...remember, at THAT time, Canon's 5D was using the 9-point diamond array that had been borrowed from the 30D, the APS-C camera. Most Canon users just lock it on center-AF-ONLY and never use anything else.

Rob Galbraith DPI: An analysis of EOS-1D Mark III autofocus performance

So...Canon now maintains a 47-page "*double secret probabtion*" document available to assuage the fears of those who got burned so badly in their last focus fiasco. On the flip side...used Canon 1D Mark III cameras are DIRT CHEAP...saw one yesterday in Pro Photo Supply for $995...same-generation Nikon D3 is $1,850. LOTS of cheap, used Canon 1D Mark III bodies available at 1/8 of their new price!!!


----------



## Derrel

Now THIS, this was some funny ****!!! SOme of the introduction to the web site's lonmg,2-year article series on the 1D III AF debacle. Canon--the company that invented AF that grew WORSE under bright, sunny,warm weather!!!!!!! HILARIOUS!!! The 1D Mark III was the reason so many people left Canon and went to Nikon...to be able to buy a Nikon D3...to get a camera that could actually FOCUS properly. 

*Q. What are the camera's autofocus problems?*

It has four, all of which are related to the camera's autofocus performance:


Under certain conditions, the EOS-1D Mark III has difficulty acquiring focus initially. In a multi-frame burst, the camera will sometimes shoot three to five frames before a moving subject comes into focus, and occasionally a moving subject will not actually snap into focus before the burst is completed.
Under certain conditions, the camera is unable to properly track a moving subject. We've shot numerous sequences of 20+ frames where no more than five or six frames are in focus, even when the AF point has been on the subject throughout.
Focus can shift slightly but constantly at times when the subject isn't moving. Under certain conditions, the subject may not actually come into focus through a sequence of frames, even though the point of focus can be seen to be shifting throughout the sequence. This is true whether the camera is set to AI Servo and focus is active throughout the sequence, or when it's set to One Shot and focus is activated between each frame.
When tracking a subject that's moving somewhat erratically, the camera is far too quick to shift focus elsewhere - to the background or, with a field sport like soccer, to a player passing through in the foreground. With the first three problems, autofocus settings changes don't make things better or worse. With this problem, Custom Function III-2, AI Servo Tracking Sensitivity, does have an impact. But regardless of how this Custom Function is set, it's not possible to make the camera's tracking sensitivity be right. There's more on this ahead in the article.
*Q. You say the camera's autofocus difficulties occur or are worse "under certain conditions" - what does that mean?*

It means that when the light is especially bright and the temperature is warm, the camera's autofocus performance drops like a stone. Yes, you read that correctly. On sunny, warm, beautiful days - the sort of conditions in which autofocus usually thrives - the EOS-1D Mark III's ability to make in-focus pictures of still or moving subjects is greatly reduced.


----------



## snerd

Well, that's what I get for getting involved LOL!!


----------



## Jad

Why would you want to switch brands now? I have been a Canon user since 1970 and have seen all the changes in equipment upgrades.  As a Canon user I sometimes wish I had a Nikon D800 because Canon has fallen asleep with the release of any new technology.  I don't think the profit is there anymore in the high end gear with cellphones being the most used camera today. I think there will less innovations with the high end equipment in the future. Do you remember the name Kodak, or maybe that was before your time.


----------



## W.Fovall

buy a canon bc I have a 70-200 f/4 to sell you...


----------



## Bamps

It's up to you, you know what you want, what you expect out of a camera. I use canon because that's what I got and am used to. I just went through everything, computers, laptops etc., went from PC to apple Mac, not to be cool, not cause someone convinced me but because I was dissatisfied with my last few PCs, my truck stayed the same brand but a newer model with 4wd and more options, and my CANON was updated with a newer CANON.  If the one you are replacing hasn't worked, quit it and try canon.


----------



## manaheim

There is only one reason to switch to Canon.

You can blend into the crowd and be like eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeveryone else.



BTW, I shoot Nikons. I've used both extensively and I HATE HATE HATE Canon ergonomics. Plus the flash setup is just bonkers. But that's just me, and I fully accept that people who are used to them probably think they are great.


----------



## BGeise

There is plenty of brands. Sony comes to mind


----------



## manaheim

Sony is the root of all evil and must be scorched from the surface of the earth.


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs

manaheim said:


> Sony is the root of all evil and must be scorched from the surface of the earth.



What makes you say that?


----------



## Derrel

Manaheim, did you perhaps mean to write that, "Sony is *the rootkit of all evil," ?

*http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/business/media/19online.html?_r=0


----------



## manaheim

TreeofLifeStairs said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sony is the root of all evil and must be scorched from the surface of the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you say that?
Click to expand...




Derrel said:


> Manaheim, did you perhaps mean to write that, "Sony is *the rootkit of all evil," ?
> 
> *http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/business/media/19online.html?_r=0



^ THAT... is only ONE of the many reasons why Sony absolutely sucks.

Here's another:
PlayStation Network outage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The handling of this network disaster of theirs was an absolute train wreck, and that's not even getting into the fact that it should never have happened in the first place.

Also, spend any amount of time playing with their consumer devices.  There was once a time when I would buy everything Sony.  I'd pretty much walk into the shop, point to the Sony one, and walk home happy. Then their quality started to drop... drastically. Their products are cheap, poorly built, crap.

There was also an article about 10 years or so ago where the CEO of Sony was pretty much like "We're unbelievably broken and I'm not sure how to fix it." I wish I could dig that gem up.


----------



## Derrel

YES, I read that article you speak of. I know whatcha mean: I had a Made in Japan Sony Discman for eight years. Bought it when CD tech was still 'spensive....wanna say I payed $169.95 for it. It worked and worked and worked, and then a near car accident (panic stop from 70 MPH to basically 5 MPH, tires locked, skidding on the interstate) sent it from the back seat of the van and it flew through the air and smashed into the dash...and it broke. Bought another Sony Discman to replace it, which was in 2002 I think it was, for $49.95. Made in Malaysia. Lasted 10 DAYS, and stopped working. Went back to Fry's, got another SOny Discman, and  in three months...it broke down. Bought another one...lasted until summer, then conked out...so $150 on three successive POS Sony CD players...so, I went and bought an iPod...lasted for yeaaaaaaaars. I have owned three iPods since they were invented. My newest one was made in 2005. STILL WORKS.


----------



## manaheim

Yup. That's totally the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Their PHONES, btw, are the WORST.  I had one from them that would randomly off-hook the line. I had another that would freak out and start screeching at you. Total garbage.


----------



## lambertpix

manaheim said:


> Sony is the root of all evil and must be scorched from the surface of the earth.



But you're cool with Sony's sensors, right?

A Look at the Use of Sony CMOS Sensors in Nikon DSLRs


----------



## manaheim

No, actually, I'm not. I mean, yeah, sure, they're pretty much the cornerstone of the digital camera industry, but I have SUCH a problem with Sony I'd prefer them just drop off the face of the earth and leave room for someone else to come along.

I also, by the way, have purchased a Sony digital clock and a Sony BluRay player in the past 5 years... because they were the best options to fit my requirements... I also have several Apple devices in the house even though I HATE Apple. I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face, but I will look for every possible alternative possible before giving up... and buying a Sony.


----------



## syaudi

Let's get this straight, I have yet to memorize any specific technicals about my camera (5D mkIII) or any others simply because I don't need to. Now, assuming you know your basic Canon-Nikon history, AF systems is a strong topic in considering either brand. I'm going to avoid that simply because too many people talk about it already. Same goes with ergonomics, its all up to personal preferences, and as such so is color preferences. I have a strong personal connection with the Canon brand, it and Sony having featured prominently in my childhood and are one of two logos that still blaze strong in my memories. And while I have been pampered by some serious glass from Canon (85mm f/1.2L II) that my father lets me borrow from time to time, honestly any glass will work with any brand (brand glass works best with brand bodies, obviously) through conversion kits or whatever you fancy.
A camera is an extension of your eye. It is meant to capture what you see, to preserve what you want to remember, exactly how you want to remember it. Whatever brand you use is what does this the most fluidly. I caught photos on my old EOS 20D just as good as the ones I'm getting from my 5D mkIII, the only reasons I upgraded were focus points, megapixels, and full-frame sensor. It really honestly doesn't matter. Like I said earlier, Canon was a prominent figure in my life growing up, and the fact that I'm using a Canon product to capture my own memories helps tie so strong a connection to my photos and my loyalty to my brand. It's that I feel a continuation of everything, and I'd lose this if I were to shoot with a Nikon. Simply put, take your  manual transmission Honda Accord coupe you inherited from your father, keep it in the family for 20 some years, pouring all this money into upgrades and fixtures, then throw it all away for a brand new automatic Subaru. It's still a car, but you lose that connection and familiarity. To this effect, I lose all emotional connection in my photos were I to use a camera I am completely unfamiliar with.
Granted, you could learn to get used to it, but I personally would prefer to be taking pictures in the time spent learning a new system.
I know this was technical like nothing else (total sarcasm), but this was just my two pennies to rub together.


----------



## gsgary

Forget them both get a Leica M9 or Sony A7 if you want nice colour, A7 and Voigtlander close focus is good fun


----------



## Derrel

Canon has a long, rich history in imaging; when Canon was started as a brand, they had zero lens making expertise, so for roughly their first decade, they payed Nippon Kogaku to make all their lenses for their new Canon cameras. Nippon Kogaku...you know, Nikon. The early Canon cameras shipped with Nikon lenses. Kind of weird, but that was a long, long time ago, before Canon acquired lens-making technology and know-how, and before Canon diversified into other areas, like office automation equipment.



[sign on a Portland building that I snapped back in 2004]

I would say, switch to Canon for their rich tradition in electronic typewriters, word processors, and calculators. The people at Canon have always been smart; after all, they hired Nikon to make their first decade's worth of lenses for them, which was a pretty smart move, since Canon rangefinders had to compete in a marketplace that had the leading brands in 35mm rnagefinder cameras, which were the Leitz-made Leica III-series cameras, and Zeiss-Ikon's Contax-branded cameras and lenses. Without Nikon's lens-making and lens-designing expertise, Canon might have flopped and never made it as a camera company.


----------



## runnah

Derrel said:


> Canon has a long, rich history in imaging; when Canon was started as a brand, they had zero lens making expertise, so for roughly their first decade, they payed Nippon Kogaku to make all their lenses for their new Canon cameras. Nippon Kogaku...you know, Nikon. The early Canon cameras shipped with Nikon lenses. Kind of weird, but that was a long, long time ago, before Canon acquired lens-making technology and know-how, and before Canon diversified into other areas, like office automation equipment.  <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=75718"/> [sign on a Portland building that I snapped back in 2004]  I would say, switch to Canon for their rich tradition in electronic typewriters, word processors, and calculators. The people at Canon have always been smart; after all, they hired Nikon to make their first decade's worth of lenses for them, which was a pretty smart move, since Canon rangefinders had to compete in a marketplace that had the leading brands in 35mm rnagefinder cameras, which were the Leitz-made Leica III-series cameras, and Zeiss-Ikon's Contax-branded cameras and lenses. Without Nikon's lens-making and lens-designing expertise, Canon might have flopped and never made it as a camera company.



I reiterate my point. ^this is a nikon user.

Now don't you want to switch?


----------



## Derrel

runnah said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canon has a long, rich history in imaging; when Canon was started as a brand, they had zero lens making expertise, so for roughly their first decade, they payed Nippon Kogaku to make all their lenses for their new Canon cameras. Nippon Kogaku...you know, Nikon. The early Canon cameras shipped with Nikon lenses. Kind of weird, but that was a long, long time ago, before Canon acquired lens-making technology and know-how, and before Canon diversified into other areas, like office automation equipment.  <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachments/canon/75718-convince-me-switch-canon-canon-sign-i-shot-2004.jpg"/> [sign on a Portland building that I snapped back in 2004]  I would say, switch to Canon for their rich tradition in electronic typewriters, word processors, and calculators. The people at Canon have always been smart; after all, they hired Nikon to make their first decade's worth of lenses for them, which was a pretty smart move, since Canon rangefinders had to compete in a marketplace that had the leading brands in 35mm rnagefinder cameras, which were the Leitz-made Leica III-series cameras, and Zeiss-Ikon's Contax-branded cameras and lenses. Without Nikon's lens-making and lens-designing expertise, Canon might have flopped and never made it as a camera company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I reiterate my point. ^this is a nikon user.
> 
> Now don't you want to switch?
Click to expand...



THIS^^ [runnah] is a recent convert to Canon, and he's a former Nikon user...

You know how they say,"There's nobody more insufferable than  an ex- cigarette smoker?"

I was for six years, a dual-system owner, with $10,000 worth of Canon gear in addition to three decades' worth of Nikon gear...two Canon d-slr bodies with grips, three Canon L-lenses, some regular Canon primes, and two Sigma zooms....so...I actually KNOW what Canon is like from having spent over $10,000 of my own money, just to see if it could replace Nikon for my uses. It could not, really.

Yeah...Canon... They had a lead in digital imaging at one time, but they lost it when Nikon came out with the D3 generation of bodies. They might some day gain their lead back, but probably not until they can upgrade their sensor fabrication to something newer than the 50-micron process they are saddled with today, and have been for about a decade. That old-fashioned sensor technology is why Canon can't hit the 36-megpaixel threshold, and is stuck below 24 MP on every sensor size...old sensor technology...and ALL sensors fabricated by Canon...not the best producer, whoever that might be, but in-house... see the article linked to a few posts up, about Sony sensors...


----------



## runnah

I am a convert because I am not a dogged brand loyalist who can look past the petty squabbling and pick the best camera for my needs.

If nikon had what I needed I would have stayed with them. If sony, Pentax, Fuji or whomever had what I wanted I would have switched. Brand doesn't matter.

Honestly the sony a7s (I think) looks pretty damn good and might be my next platform.


----------



## centauro74

Ask Scott Kelby,  why he switched to canon. 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk


----------



## TCampbell

Derrel said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canon has a long, rich history in imaging; when Canon was started as a brand, they had zero lens making expertise, so for roughly their first decade, they payed Nippon Kogaku to make all their lenses for their new Canon cameras. Nippon Kogaku...you know, Nikon. The early Canon cameras shipped with Nikon lenses. Kind of weird, but that was a long, long time ago, before Canon acquired lens-making technology and know-how, and before Canon diversified into other areas, like office automation equipment.  <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachments/canon/75718-convince-me-switch-canon-canon-sign-i-shot-2004.jpg"/> [sign on a Portland building that I snapped back in 2004]  I would say, switch to Canon for their rich tradition in electronic typewriters, word processors, and calculators. The people at Canon have always been smart; after all, they hired Nikon to make their first decade's worth of lenses for them, which was a pretty smart move, since Canon rangefinders had to compete in a marketplace that had the leading brands in 35mm rnagefinder cameras, which were the Leitz-made Leica III-series cameras, and Zeiss-Ikon's Contax-branded cameras and lenses. Without Nikon's lens-making and lens-designing expertise, Canon might have flopped and never made it as a camera company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I reiterate my point. ^this is a nikon user.
> 
> Now don't you want to switch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THIS^^ [runnah] is a recent convert to Canon, and he's a former Nikon user...
> 
> You know how they say,"There's nobody more insufferable than  an ex- cigarette smoker?"
> 
> I was for six years, a dual-system owner, with $10,000 worth of Canon gear in addition to three decades' worth of Nikon gear...two Canon d-slr bodies with grips, three Canon L-lenses, some regular Canon primes, and two Sigma zooms....so...I actually KNOW what Canon is like from having spent over $10,000 of my own money, just to see if it could replace Nikon for my uses. It could not, really.
> 
> Yeah...Canon... They had a lead in digital imaging at one time, but they lost it when Nikon came out with the D3 generation of bodies. They might some day gain their lead back, but probably not until they can upgrade their sensor fabrication to something newer than the 50-micron process they are saddled with today, and have been for about a decade. That old-fashioned sensor technology is why Canon can't hit the 36-megpaixel threshold, and is stuck below 24 MP on every sensor size...old sensor technology...and ALL sensors fabricated by Canon...not the best producer, whoever that might be, but in-house... see the article linked to a few posts up, about Sony sensors...
Click to expand...


Except that 36mp is not an advantage on a 24mm x 36mm sensor.  The camera is diffraction limited by f/8 and I don't care what glass you put on.  That's physics... not opinion.


----------



## jayindhawan

There is no other made till yet which has image quality compare to Canon. Canon is the best camera in respect of all models.


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs

There is no other made till yet which has image quality compare to Nikon. Nikon is the best camera in respect of all models.


----------



## table1349

I've used both for 40 + years, along with almost every other brand.  In today's market the true differences between the the major players for most shooters are irrelevant.  The idea that any one brand of camera is pure hokum.  Every photographer has his or her needs.  If the system meets those needs then IT is the best system for that photographer.  Plain and simple.


----------



## tecboy

Yep, Nikon is #1!


----------



## DeWestelinck

I'm a Canon user and know both photographers on Canon & Nikon sides...
But all parties agree, it's Sony you'll need to keep your eye on! 
Especially for the pro market. Rumours are they are going full on for this.


----------



## Overread

Sony has a long way to go. A very long way before they can touch Nikon or Canon  - and with Nikon using Sony sensors that's a further shot in the foot for Sony in direct sales since it means that many will just go "well sony has a great sensor - I'll get a Nikon".


----------



## gsgary

Overread said:


> Sony has a long way to go. A very long way before they can touch Nikon or Canon  - and with Nikon using Sony sensors that's a further shot in the foot for Sony in direct sales since it means that many will just go "well sony has a great sensor - I'll get a Nikon".


I have not touched my Canon gear since buying the Sony A7 I'm probably going to sell it all it much nicer to use than the Canon cameras I have


----------



## sashbar

No one spends more on advertising and marketing their cameras than Canon. So you must buy it. But, they are right, keep your eye on Sony. They can easily overtake Canon in this department.


----------



## Overread

gsgary said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sony has a long way to go. A very long way before they can touch Nikon or Canon  - and with Nikon using Sony sensors that's a further shot in the foot for Sony in direct sales since it means that many will just go "well sony has a great sensor - I'll get a Nikon".
> 
> 
> 
> I have not touched my Canon gear since buying the Sony A7 I'm probably going to sell it all it much nicer to use than the Canon cameras I have
Click to expand...


Yes but you're crazy after the film took your mind - all those developing chemicals!


----------



## gsgary

Just made an adapter to try pinhole with my TLR


----------



## runnah

The older I get the more I realize that a camera is a camera. I've said it before I will get what ever camera suits my needs the best. It could be a Pentax but as long as it did what I need it to do I am happy.


Jk I'd never buy a Pentax.


----------



## TCampbell

runnah said:


> The older I get the more I realize that a camera is a camera. I've said it before I will get what ever camera suits my needs the best. It could be a Pentax but as long as it did what I need it to do I am happy.
> 
> 
> Jk I'd never buy a Pentax.



Not even a Pentax 645Z medium format digital SLR?  51 megapixels of luscious medium format juiciness!  No?

Ok, so you might not "buy" the Pentax... but if someone gave you one, I suspect you'd try to hold back on just pitching it in the trash.


----------



## tecboy

I'm tired with my canon camera.  Convince me to switch to Nikon.


----------



## jaomul

TCampbell said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I reiterate my point. ^this is a nikon user.
> 
> Now don't you want to switch?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THIS^^ [runnah] is a recent convert to Canon, and he's a former Nikon user...
> 
> You know how they say,"There's nobody more insufferable than  an ex- cigarette smoker?"
> 
> I was for six years, a dual-system owner, with $10,000 worth of Canon gear in addition to three decades' worth of Nikon gear...two Canon d-slr bodies with grips, three Canon L-lenses, some regular Canon primes, and two Sigma zooms....so...I actually KNOW what Canon is like from having spent over $10,000 of my own money, just to see if it could replace Nikon for my uses. It could not, really.
> 
> Yeah...Canon... They had a lead in digital imaging at one time, but they lost it when Nikon came out with the D3 generation of bodies. They might some day gain their lead back, but probably not until they can upgrade their sensor fabrication to something newer than the 50-micron process they are saddled with today, and have been for about a decade. That old-fashioned sensor technology is why Canon can't hit the 36-megpaixel threshold, and is stuck below 24 MP on every sensor size...old sensor technology...and ALL sensors fabricated by Canon...not the best producer, whoever that might be, but in-house... see the article linked to a few posts up, about Sony sensors...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that 36mp is not an advantage on a 24mm x 36mm sensor.  The camera is diffraction limited by f/8 and I don't care what glass you put on.  That's physics... not opinion.
Click to expand...


I usually agree with and often got good advice reading your posts. This argument is weak though. All my lenses and most I know open up more than f8. A lot of creative photos are taken in the f1.2 to f8 settings on a lens, where 36mp is more resolution than 24mp. Whether you need 36 is another matter


----------



## runnah

TCampbell said:


> Not even a Pentax 645Z medium format digital SLR?  51 megapixels of luscious medium format juiciness!  No?  Ok, so you might not "buy" the Pentax... but if someone gave you one, I suspect you'd try to hold back on just pitching it in the trash.



I am a man of my word! 

But you are welcome to send me one to test the theory.


----------



## jjtarnow

Both are great and will continue to play the one-over the other tech game until another OEM grabs meaningful marketshare. As far as I can tell the choice is a personal one and to completely switch interface standards for one or two "better" features is fruitless over the longer term. I chose Canon because my friend had a Canon to loan to me when I was getting started. Once I decided to buy my own gear it was natural to stick with Canon...no other reason...I could have easily been a Nikon user.

Although you do get a lot of stares with the white lenses....makes up for a lot (or a little)....

Good luck..


JJ


----------



## CameraClicker

tevo said:


> I've had this conversation with some photographer friends recently, and I'm interested to hear you all weigh in on it. I shoot Nikon because I find the build quality to be superb, I love the feel of the cameras in my hand, and I love Nikon optics. However, there are drawbacks as there are on any system, and I have had Canonites point out things like color reproduction/skin tones that are different among the two. So, set aside the fact that I am already heavily invested in Nikon, and set aside the fact that it is the photographer not the camera that makes good photos, why should I switch to Canon? Convince me.



Generally I like the fit of Canon products, in my hand, better than the feel of Nikon products.  I can't think of a single reason you should change if Nikon gear is doing what you need it to do and you are comfortable with it.

Change is inevitable, but we only appreciate it when we perceive it as change for the better.


----------



## zutty

I chose Nikon because I had a history with Nikon way back in the pre-digital days. As a professional musician I use the same judgement I used in choosing instruments. As a tool, it has to feel good in my hands and express the images I see in my head just as I used to produce the music I heard in my head.


----------

