# Why did you buy Canon?



## EDL (Apr 28, 2012)

So, what is it about a Canon that swayed you over a Nikon, or Sony, or...?


----------



## ambaker (Apr 28, 2012)

EDL said:
			
		

> So, what is it about a Canon that swayed you over a Nikon, or Sony, or...?



I was torn between Nikon and Canon.  I went to the store, played with both, and the Canon felt better in my hands.  Any of the current cams are capable of excellent images.  So, for me, it boiled down to which fit my hands the best.


----------



## Overread (Apr 28, 2012)

Well a few reasons:

1) At the time Canon (Esp with the entry level camera bodies) was more ruling the roost in terms of camera body specifications. Noise control was higher on the entry level and in general through the range. So there were a fair few canon supporters around. 

2) Many of the wildlife shooters I ended up chatting too were also shooting Canon 

3) 400mm f5.6 - 100-400mm - 300mm f4 - all within the rough price range I saw that I could possibly afford one day. Something that, again, lacked in Nikon was the variety of choice (they just have the 300mm f4).

4) Can't honestly recall if I considered it at the time or was even aware it existed - but the MPE65mm macro certainly keeps me with Canon today. 1:1 to 5:1 and a totally Canon unique lens. There are other options, but honestly this is the simplest way to get the 1-5 range of magnifications in a single lens package (and the other options are not cheap either - for good quality).


----------



## Alex_B (Apr 28, 2012)

Because the EOS100 was exactly what I needed at that time. Then subsequently I stuck with Canon for SLRs as they are compatible with my lenspark. My first venture into digital was with the 5D which I did never regret after.


----------



## EDL (Apr 28, 2012)

+1 to Overread...macro is my goal and that MPE65 is sweet.  Was just curious if there was something else in particular (technically) about the Canons.

Thanks guys.


----------



## TheKenTurner (Apr 28, 2012)

Well I wanted my T3i for mostly video. Also, my brother already had a Canon, so I got to start off with some of his lenses.


----------



## BuS_RiDeR (Apr 28, 2012)

I bought the original Canon Rebel film SLR back in the late '80s/early '90s. I haven't switched brands since then.


----------



## jaomul (Apr 28, 2012)

Cos carrying a canon sounds cool


----------



## AK_Jeff (Apr 28, 2012)

Someone returned a new T2I at Wal Mart and they could not sell it as new. Got at 50% off. Now I look for the red tag and was able to buy my wife one as well. Good camera to learn on.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 28, 2012)

I bought a Canon 20D back when 8 MP was "the new standard" over the prior generation's 6MP I had in my Fuji S2 Pro. The 20D was my "Canon trial" camera. I got it with a Sigma 18-125 DC lens for walkabout use, and a 100mm f/2.8 EF macro that I got used for $240 as I recall. I then picked up a 50mm f/1.8 EF-II lens. I the next lens I got was soon after, when I bought a 70-200/2.8 L-IS USM. it might be hard to imagine today, but the 2003-2004 era was pretty far behind where we are today; the quality of the images from a $699 low-end Nikon or Canon or Sony are far above those of even a professional camera of that era, and MUCH of the software we take for granted today was in its infancy back then.

At that time, Nikon's D100 was a so-so camera...Nikon's D1h was at 4.2 MP, and had simple but decent five-area autofocus...Fuji's S2 Pro had beautiful color! BUT--it needed 4-AA batteries AND two, 123A lithium batteries in order to get say 300 shots on one load of AA rechargeables. Without the two 123A batteries, the Fuji S2 Pro would chew through the 4 AA's in as few as 45 frames!!! One set of batteries ran one side of the camera, the other set ran the other side--normally. But, withiout the lithiums in the handgrip, the AA's in the battery tray underneath the grip were forced to carry the whole load, and without those two 123A's ($6.99 each then at walk-in retail!!! and NO rechargeable 123A at that time!) the Fuji S2 pro, while the best camera for a Nikon user in terms of color and pleasing images, was a real PITA in terms of battery switching,charging, and hassles. When it hit the market, the Canon 20D was **the** hot, new wedding and generalist camera. At least as far as I was concerned.

I later got a 5D classic kit with the 24-105 f/4 L IS USM as an all-arounder, and added the 580 EX-II flash, the 50/1.4, 85/1.8,135/2,135 2.8 Soft Focus, and in 2006, that and the 70-200 2.8 made up a pretty hot chit Canon setup!!! The 5D and 50 and the grip is the camera seen in my avatar selfie to the left<<<<. At the time, Nikon had NO full-frame option, and the 5D Classic was, at the time, one of the best imagers on the market. The 5D still compares favorably with the Nikon D3 and D700 bodies in terms of image quality. I bought the 5D because I REALLLLLLLY wanted to see what a full-frame camera was like, and I wanted to see if I could make a clean break from Nikon and to Canon. At that time, Nikon (and me!!!) was still "stuck" with the D2x...which was, in many was, a freaking fiasco...a $5,000 fiasco.


----------



## Railphotog (Apr 28, 2012)

I wanted a camera with a fast lens mount.  The Pentax I looked at had screw mount lenses, the Canon had their FD breech lock lenses, which sold me - about 50 years ago.  Stayed with Canon ever since, haven't regretted it.


----------



## fenderjaguar (Apr 28, 2012)

Canon didn't sway me from any other brand. Canon felt good in my hands and I like their menus and all that. I take the pictures my camera doesn't. I haven't regretted buying a Canon camera at all.


----------



## neilwharton (Apr 29, 2012)

At the time I was buying a new camera I was actually going for the pentax K10 and they were out of stock.  The canon 400D was the only one they had in at that time so I bought it and after buying a lot of glass there is no reason to swap to a different brand.


----------



## KirkS (Apr 29, 2012)

When I was a kid (c. 1970's), my Dad had a Bell & Howell FD35, that had a Canon 50mm 1.4. I learned on that camera. He then upgraded to the AE-1 (which I still have and use), and I've never looked back. I even went to work for Canon for a couple of years!


----------



## Deo (Apr 29, 2012)

More lens choice, faster auto focus, more frame rate, more 3rd party accessories.


----------



## JSER (Apr 29, 2012)

Because only canon had 8fps AND an 18mp sensor that lets Nikon out and I have yet to see a PRO use a sony etc for good reason


----------



## KenC (Apr 29, 2012)

I sort of fell into it like some of the previous posters.  My first digital was a G6 (bridge camera) and I was still using Pentax film SLR's.  I chose the G6 because I liked the set of features better than the ones on the Nikon equivalent (whatever that was) and once I got used to Canon controls/software I saw no point in switching when I got a DSLR.


----------



## usayit (Apr 29, 2012)

Way back I was a Pentax shooter and my father had a Minolta Maxxum.  Both companies sparked a move to bring AF to the masses.  With money in pocket a few years later, I decided it was time to buy a new system.   During that time Canon was really making great strides with their new EOS system.   It brought great improvements to AF performance, USM, and IS (100-400L being one of the early high quality zooms with IS).  I was sold and purchased Canon.   By the time digital struck, I had such a large investment in Canon (happy too) that I stuck with them.

IMO, people nit pick and pixel peep way too much these days.... pretty much any brand can fulfill the needs of 90% of the consumers that buy cameras.   Brand matters even less now that digital has advanced far enough.


----------



## Buckster (Apr 29, 2012)

In my film days, I shot mostly Nikon, with a Yashica as a secondary camera to switch between color/BW or ISOs.  When the first digital p&s cams came out, I played with a couple Sony models.  DSLRs weren't ready for prime time yet, but I was eager to see them come into their own.  Then Canon introduced the 20D, and I made the leap to digital with it because it had the features I was looking for.  At the time that I bought the body, I also got the 18-55, 28-135 & 100-400, plus extra batts, CF cards, etc.  I was not disappointed in any way.  Since then, I've continued to build on the Canon platform with several more lenses, a 40D, a 7D, a 5DMKII, 4 speedlights, grips & other assorted Canon-specific gear.  It continues to meet my needs and expectations.  I could just as easily have jumped into a Nikon DSLR system had they been the first to offer what I wanted at the time, and I'm sure I'd have been just as happy with that platform.


----------



## sovietdoc (Apr 29, 2012)

> *Why did you buy Canon?*



Glass.


My first DSLR was a Canon Rebel Xti.  A few years later  I've upgraded to rebel T1i because it was the first with video capabilities.  Then a few months ago I caved for a FF body as my photography passion has grown.  The choice was 5D III or D800 because with my rebels I knew I would one day go "all serious" and I didn't want to buy any expensive glass for my rebels, in case I had to jump over to Nikon.  So after researching a ton I went for 5D III, major decision breaker was actually the glass offered by the brand, not the DSLR body itself.    

I am sure everyone would agree that at this point, with D800 vs 5D III both cameras are very similar.  So I couldn't really pick which body was better although I was leaning towards Canon's ergonomics.  SO I looked at the lens I wanted to use.  Being a photographer on the go, I wanted my future kit to be as versatile as possible while being as light as possible as well.  So the decision was to only get 2 lenses.  Best "all around" lenses were zooms, so I looked at those.  Money wasn't a problem, but IQ was.  I didn't want anything slower than f/2.8 and even at 2.8 I wanted the best possible IQ.  After researching a ton, I decided that Canon's 70-200 II was better than Nikons.  Although very close, and nikons having better resolution in the center, the Canons 70-200 had better resolution all around and a lot better CA control.  For me, this is more important than slightly better resolution down the center.

As for the second lens I've decided on Canon's upcoming f/2.8 24-70 II because I was impressed by the stats.  Yes, there are no good sample images taken with it yet, nor there are any solid technical previews/reviews.  But this all derives from MTF charts and the charts are amazing for that lens.  I think when it comes out in July it will be world's best f/2.8 24-70 by IQ.

So in the end, having found 2 perfect lenses for me, which were both Canon, I've decided to get 5D III instead of D800.  And this is how I ended up with Canon.  And like I said, the major decision breaker was the glass.


----------



## iresq (Apr 29, 2012)

Started with ae1. Don't recall why, probably price back then. Canon has never given me a reason to switch. Bought first digital rebal. Recently upgraded to 60d. Wish I could justify higher stuff, but I'm happy happy.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Apr 29, 2012)

sovietdoc said:


> > *Why did you buy Canon?*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hmm, odd... Nikon seemed to have beaten Canon in the trinity. They have the 14-24mm which Canon doesn't have. According to DxOMark, Nikon's 70-200mm is sharper, 24-70mm is also sharper...


----------



## jaomul (Apr 29, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> sovietdoc said:
> 
> 
> > > *Why did you buy Canon?*
> ...


This purpose of this thread was not a canon/nikon p**sing match. Nobody bought canons here for those sharpness graphs


----------



## EIngerson (Apr 29, 2012)

All the people that I learned from and talked photography with had canon, so that's what I felt comfortable with.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Apr 29, 2012)

jaomul said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > sovietdoc said:
> ...



I'm not trying to say Canon is not better. It's just that I was trying to see from where did he get the information that Canon's 24-70 was better than Nikon's 24-70. I do buy stuff from graphs, the MTF and DxOMark's graph gives me a good representation of how sharp a lens is.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 30, 2012)

You know, I have no good reason why I went Canon.  I guess because it wasn't Nikon.

Growing up, everything was Nikon.  I guess I just wanted something different.


----------



## irfan.in.tx (Apr 30, 2012)

More lens choices. Compatibility with high quality legacy glass with adaptors.


----------



## bratkinson (Apr 30, 2012)

After learning photography on my grandfathers folding Kodak in 1958 or so, and a handful of Kodak Instamatics later, I graduated to 35mm about 1970.  That was a Minolta view-finder camera.  The pictures were OK, except the ones with the lens cap still on!  In 1976, I wanted a 'real' camera, a SLR.  The camera store near me put me into a Canon AE-1, which was the newest/best beginner SLR of the day.  Unfortunately, the AE-1 suffered new-model 'teething' problems (eg, bleeding edge technology), so the dealer gave me full credit on the AE-1 predecessor, an EF.  I must've shot a couple thousand rolls on my two EF bodies, before I got married and put down my camera.  5-6 years after the divorce, I picked up a Canon G-3 (you mean there -are- other manufacturers out there?), graduated to a g-5, then a 30D, and now a 60D.  My next years' tax refund is already allocated to buying a 5d3.

In short, ever since I got 'real' about photography, I've been shooting Canon equipment.  If it ain't broke, don't fix(replace) it!

As an aside, I sent my dropped/broken 580EX II flash to Canon repair 2 weeks ago and got it back in MINT condition last Wednesday---THAT'S SERVICE after the sale!!!!


----------



## usayit (Apr 30, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> I'm not trying to say Canon is not better. It's just that I was trying to see from where did he get the information that Canon's 24-70 was better than Nikon's 24-70. I do buy stuff from graphs, the MTF and DxOMark's graph gives me a good representation of how sharp a lens is.



WTH are you here anyway???   Other than to start a flame war that has been done over and over and over.  The question was "Why did you buy Canon?   Not which is better Nikon vs Canon.  You shoot Nikon... go start your own thread.

If someone chose to share their opinion (which is the purpose of this thread), its their prerogative.  As someone already mentioned, they didn't ask for you input.  I'd say thumbs up to sovietdoc for following his/her own discovery rather than being a sheep.  Its kinda pathetic....  do you need some sort of number on some graph or some un-related thread on some forum as some form self-assurance of your investment?


----------



## andress (Apr 30, 2012)

I wanted to work with film and photography and my friend a recent graduate in electronic media  told me about canon. I was going to go with Nikon but he told me about the T3i and 60D and most recommendations agreed so I took to his wisdom.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Apr 30, 2012)

usayit said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not trying to say Canon is not better. It's just that I was trying to see from where did he get the information that Canon's 24-70 was better than Nikon's 24-70. I do buy stuff from graphs, the MTF and DxOMark's graph gives me a good representation of how sharp a lens is.
> ...



I'm not here to start a flame war. I simply posted my opinion, I got into this thread because I saw the OP posting several threads for different brands on the same questions. I was just curious. They didn't ask for my input, but they could choose to ignore input too. Graph and charts are less biased than humans anyway. I'll end my postings here, before another flame war starts.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 30, 2012)

When i got into Canon there was no other make to touch the 1Dmk1 for sports photography and with the lenses i have i will not be moving


----------



## Dao (Apr 30, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> I'm not here to start a flame war.



It seems like you did.  oh ..well    


Just for the assurance, you did make the right choice for buying a Nikon camera since the DxO mark said the sensor in Nikon camera are the best in the market.  And the photographs that produced by your camera are going to be the best. No doubt.  I made the wrong decision when I first pick up my Canon EOS Rebel XTi.

Since I made the wrong decision so I punished myself by not getting the best sensor camera in this world. Instead, I bought a noisy EOS 40D.  And recently, after seeing all those D800 D4 cameras perform so well in DxOmarks while my 40D seems to be at the bottom of the chart, I punished myself again by not going to D7000 and pick up a nosier 7D.


----------



## sovietdoc (Apr 30, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> *According to DxOMark*, Nikon's 70-200mm is sharper, 24-70mm is also sharper...




That's your problem right there


----------



## EDL (Apr 30, 2012)

Well, I've decided that Canon will be what I buy.  Although it won't be my first lens, I want the MP-E65 at some point so that dictates the camera.  I am confortable that the Canon is as good as Nikon (and sorry of that ruffles any feathers), but based on the actual photos I've been looking at there is no way to tell if it came from a Nikon or a Canon just by looking at them...they're all good and 

As of right now I'm planning on a T2i.  I looked at the T3i but don't see anything in the specs different/better enough to warrant the extra cost for me.  I have no interest in the video modes at all.  I'm not a sports or action shooter, so faster frame rates don't mean anything to me...and the T2i is in my budget.

Then again, with the D3200 just out I wonder if Canon will release something to compete with it?  If not, then the T2i it is.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Apr 30, 2012)

sovietdoc said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > *According to DxOMark*, Nikon's 70-200mm is sharper, 24-70mm is also sharper...
> ...



I do agree that I have a weird obsession for DxOMark, but no doubt their tests are more reliable than others IF you know how to interpret them.


----------



## rebelred (Apr 30, 2012)

Ergonomics was my reason for choosing Canon; every body I have put in my hands feels like it was custom made to fit me. The Nikons I have fondled felt chunky and cheap.


----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 30, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> sovietdoc said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...



I agree as well.


----------



## Dao (May 1, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> I do agree that I have a weird obsession for DxOMark, but no doubt their tests are more reliable than others IF you know how to interpret them.




Obsessed with Benchmark.  I do not think you are the only one.  And it is quite common in the technology world.  There are people who made their decision mainly based on benchmark.  Back then in the computer world, manufacturers even tuned/designed their hardware so that it will score high in benchmark.  To a point some of the benchmark become meaningless and often cannot reflect the real world application.    I am not saying it is the case now with the DxOMark.  But I will not make my purchase decision solely based on benchmark.  And you do not need to get the best in the market to be happy.

If I want to buy a f/1.2 lens and the benchmark said the corner is soft when wide open.  I will say ok, thanks for telling me, but I will still going to get that because when I want to shoot at f/1.2, most of the time I do not care about corner softness because it is going to be out of focus anyway.

In photography, I strongly believe whether you can create a stunning image is the key.  Couple years ago, when I saw some forum members were able to create beautiful images with their Nikon D50 and D40 while I was using a Canon 40D, I told myself I need to work harder and practice more.


----------



## Alex_B (May 1, 2012)

one of my favourite lenses (I took many of my better images with this lens) is one with a rather poor DxO benchmark. Hence I do not care much for benchmarks anyway


----------



## EchoingWhisper (May 1, 2012)

Alex_B said:


> one of my favourite lenses (I took many of my better images with this lens) is one with a rather poor DxO benchmark. Hence I do not care much for benchmarks anyway



What lens is it?


----------



## EchoingWhisper (May 1, 2012)

Benchmarks helps me decide which one to get, eg. two lenses of the same type ie same focal length and fstop, benchmark and price will help me determine which one to choose.


----------



## gsgary (May 1, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Benchmarks helps me decide which one to get, eg. two lenses of the same type ie same focal length and fstop, benchmark and price will help me determine which one to choose.



But they don't help your photography


----------



## Buckster (May 1, 2012)

gsgary said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Benchmarks helps me decide which one to get, eg. two lenses of the same type ie same focal length and fstop, benchmark and price will help me determine which one to choose.
> ...


And when human eyes can't discern the difference in the results, then the benchmarks mean absolutely nothing.


----------



## bscenefilms (May 1, 2012)

I had been a Nikon user since probably around 1969 or so.  Over the years I was very happy with the lenses and cameras.  Digital showed up and after a while I bought a D100.  After about 6 months it failed under warranty.  Nikon "fixed" it.  The fix lasted about a month before it showed the same issue.  Back to Nikon again.  And again it lasted about a month.  I decided to pick up a D70 around this time as a B cam.  The D70 started to lock up about 9 months after I bought it.  I was pretty unhappy with Nikon at this point.  Then I saw this:

[video=vimeo;7151244]http://vimeo.com/7151244[/video]

And discovered that I could get adapters for my Nikon lenses to use on the 5D.  This camera is far from perfect but I do love it so.  Great images from it and it has been a very reliable camera.  My wife bought a couple of them for use on her cinema work and she has been very happy with them as well.


----------



## zcar21 (May 1, 2012)

When I first started looking at the entry level cameras it was very easy to choose canon over nikon, I knew the layout, better iso, better price. Then I found out about USM lens, and loved it. I am attracted to some nikon lenses and the nikon d300,  so I might switch in the future just to try it.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (May 2, 2012)

gsgary said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > Benchmarks helps me decide which one to get, eg. two lenses of the same type ie same focal length and fstop, benchmark and price will help me determine which one to choose.
> ...



But they at least help me know that I bought the right thing, which has the best valuerice. You could choose not to look at benchmarks, but that way you'll be using the prayNspray technique. You don't know if what you're buying is right. lol


----------



## gsgary (May 2, 2012)

I dont look at that site for any help i do my own research and this Nikon lenses are better than Canon is ********


----------



## EchoingWhisper (May 2, 2012)

gsgary said:


> I dont look at that site for any help i do my own research and this Nikon lenses are better than Canon is ********



Having your own research and tests always leads to inconsistency. There are many variables that you might not have fixed.


----------



## jaomul (May 2, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...


Not judging you on gear but you comment on so many higher spec lenses etc but your gear is entry level as far as i can see. We can all recycle Google searches in different ways. It does help when people ask about gear and at least you have some experience with that gear either because you own it or tried it or have a friend that has it. Nikon at the moment is killing canon in DxO charts, but are nikon users taking better photos than canon shooters? I expect going forward you will post the highest rated and sharpest photos ever seen on TPf


----------



## EchoingWhisper (May 2, 2012)

jaomul said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



I'm not saying that Canons aren't good and Canon people can't take good photos. Canon and Nikon are leapfrogging each other every few years so basically going with either depends on when you're buying. No doubt Canon is better in terms of APS-C sensors until Nikon came up with D7000, and in terms of full frame, the D800. Before that, Canon's sensors were better for almost a decade. I'm just trying to say, by looking at benchmarks, Canon or Nikon, your money can be better spent. I believe that Canon will leapfrog Nikon again though.


----------



## gsgary (May 2, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:
			
		

> Having your own research and tests always leads to inconsistency. There are many variables that you might not have fixed.



But you cant go wrong with 300f2.8L  200f2.8L  50f1.4  24-70f2.8L  70-200f4L just a few of my lenses


----------



## EchoingWhisper (May 2, 2012)

gsgary said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you can't go wrong with those lenses, then what's the point of conducting those tests and researches?


----------



## o hey tyler (May 2, 2012)

EW, from what I've seen of your posts... You do far too much looking at benchmarks and not enough time actually taking photos. I'm still convinced that you're more interested in optical physics, and not interested in photography aside from owning an entry level DSLR and some kit lenses.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (May 2, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> EW, from what I've seen of your posts... You do far too much looking at benchmarks and not enough time actually taking photos. I'm still convinced that you're more interested in optical physics, and not interested in photography aside from owning an entry level DSLR and some kit lenses.



I do takes quite some photos, maybe not the best, but rarely do I post my photos here. And I'm also very interested in physics.


----------



## hukim0531 (May 2, 2012)

I purchased my first Canon DSLR based on my experience with my 35mm Rebel.  I thought I might make use of the old 35-80mm kit lens from this era, but I found nifty 50 to look so much better in IQ.  I never owned Nikon DSLR, but have plenty of friends who does.  I find Nikon's default WB to look very unnatural.  And their ADR while handy, make picture look very unnatural even at medium setting.  Of course if you tend to shoot RAW and post process your images anyway, this is probably not a con.  I agree with sentiments of many here that both Canon and Nikon have inherent strengths and weaknesses, but in the end, it is you as a photographer who creates a good vs. a bad image.  I've seen plenty of beautiful images created by low end last gen Rebel cameras using kit lens in the POTN forums.  So quit bickering about whose schwartz is bigger, instead, go out there and shoot!!


----------



## Buckster (May 2, 2012)

Pro job of derailing the thread.  :thumbup::er:


----------



## Demers18 (May 2, 2012)

For me it was a toss up between Canon and Nikon. I wanted to go with a brand that was tried and true and that was known for quality.

I had a Canon powershot previously so I was familiar with the menu's. At the end of the day it really came down to how the camera felt in my hands as I knew either Can on or Nikon would be good. I started off with the T3i and then shortly after switched to the 7D as I wanted a weather sealed camera, and maybe an upgrade, as I found myself outside more often than not and needed a camera that would not be affected by the elements.


----------



## gsgary (May 2, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...



That still does not matter unless you know how to use the better gear and you don't so why worry about it


----------



## gsgary (May 2, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...




I don't, i just buy mostly L lenses


----------



## jowensphoto (May 2, 2012)

I've shot with Sony, Fuji, Nikon and Canon. Every brand has it's stregths just as every brand has it's downfalls. In the right hands, all are capable of taking amazing photos.

I stuck with Canon because I perfer the interface to the other brands. I like the way it feels in my hands and the way the menu/controls are set up. I shot with a friend's Nikon not long ago... everything seemed "backwards" to me and it felt awkward.

It all comes down to personal taste.


----------



## rexbobcat (May 3, 2012)

It was the first camera I handled, and it has a nice layout. I'd much rather have more buttons than have one dial with every setting on it. Nikon just felt weird in my hands. It felt like they tried too hard on the ergonomics and body style. 

I also liked Canon because their entry-level cameras seemed to trump Nikon's in my opinion. My parents always bought Canon brand compact cameras well, even in film days. I guess I've always been around them so it was just natural.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (May 3, 2012)

gsgary said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



That's only for the rich or the pros. I'm not either, therefore I couldn't afford to buy the wrong stuff cause' I can't afford higher end lenses.


----------



## belial (May 3, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:
			
		

> That's only for the rich or the pros. I'm not either, therefore I couldn't afford to buy the wrong stuff cause' I can't afford higher end lenses.



Personally I prefer real world reviews as opposed to lab tests. Plus tbh I like some of the lens flaws. Real world reviews just serve me better


----------



## Alex_B (May 3, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> Alex_B said:
> 
> 
> > one of my favourite lenses (I took many of my better images with this lens) is one with a rather poor DxO benchmark. Hence I do not care much for benchmarks anyway
> ...



The 24-105 f/4 IS L ... a cucumber of a lens in some way, but I fix CA and distortion in RAW conversion, and the sharpness is OK. Its versatility makes it my often preferred choice.

Best out of camera image quality I get from my 300 f/4 IS L .. no CA visible at my 5D II, no relevant distortion, and really sharp from slightly beyond f/4 onwards.

Always keep in mind quality variation from specimen to specimen. Apparently I got a really good 300.


----------



## bentcountershaft (May 3, 2012)

One of the reasons I bought my Canon was because of the prices of lenses at the time. Canon's top lenses weren't as expensive as Nikon's. I bought my 24-70 for $1200 instead of $1600. My 70-200 for $1600 instead of $2000. Now Canon has released newer versions of both of those lenses, both of which cost more than the Nikon equivalent. So much for that.

Another reason is that Nikon's lens compatability chart was baffling to me at the time. It makes sense now, but as an absolute beginner that thing is confusing as hell. Being that I wasn't buying a full frame Canon, any ef or efs lens would work and I liked that simplicity. Much less intimidating to someone that knows nothing.


----------



## EDL (May 3, 2012)

Benchmarks are important, for many reasons.

Not all the reasons are necessarily good ones.  Benchmarks are major hype for marketing.  Personally I think America as a whole is eat up with benchmark fever.  We already know how benchmarks affect the PC market, yet in many cases it's difficult to decipher what they really mean.

Certainly benchmarks are important in photography as it's a bit moe difficult to synthesize benchmarks for optical sharpness or other physically measurable characteristics of a lens, but photography is subjective, so having the most technically perfect equipment doesn't guarantee you'll take great photos.  

I'm a bit put off by internet "reviews" by consumers because in almost every case you'll find a nearly 50/50 split on whatever item you are looking at.   Such is the nature of the internet.  Reviews by photography specific bloggers or established industry magazines are usually decent, but even they can vary from reviewer to reviewer.

For me, I like a mix of all the above.  Ultimately it's like anything else, you know your budget, you know what you like and it's your own opinion of your equipment that matters.


----------



## globalukk (May 4, 2012)

I've always been a Canon man, always been happy with them.


----------



## pickle788 (May 6, 2012)

I bought a 1000d on special to photograph my kids then fell in love with photography. I lernt on my 1000d which has recently broken  now time to upgrade to a 7d love canon tried a Nikon and hated it 7d will be my next cam


----------



## Crollo (May 6, 2012)

I can use a canon to destroy my enemies fortress, while all they have are Nikons and Sonys which aren't very effective against castles.


----------



## billyunderhill3 (May 13, 2012)

I was looking to purchase my 1st DSLR, and a friend of mine was looking to unload a 30D. It was all downhill from there! Wouldn't think about jumpin ship.


----------



## hopelaurenphotograph (May 25, 2012)

For me it was simple reasons. I liked the feel of the canon in my hand much better, and all of my previous point and shoot cameras (advanced and practical for carrying around in my pocket) had been canon. Since canon is pretty good about keeping a lot of the functions similar it was a very easy transition from my adv-point and shoot canon powershot to my rebel t2i.


----------



## Jkay (Jun 1, 2012)

Chooses CANON because, 

*it offer's 5X Zoom
HD 720p Movie
Great Filters
Discrete mode
Feels good in hand
Nice colors to choose from
Image Stabilizing

*Only thing I've noticed as -ve point in this camera is, when I take macro mode WITH flash, there is a black portion appearing in the image's right bottom corner. May be it is there because the flash is placed on right side of the lens.


----------

