# Why so many people use Canon???



## enyceckk (Jun 8, 2014)

View attachment 76319

Saw this photo online while reading Sharapova beats Simona Halep in French Open final.

Where are the Nikon at? Doesn't Nikon have better sensor? Like the D7100 vs 70D

I own a Nikon, and planning to go Canon because of Magic Lantern. But will wait to see what Canon and Nikon will release later this year.


----------



## jaomul (Jun 8, 2014)

Canon may have been one of the sponsors of this event. Also they make great cameras. Internet charts are often nit overly useful in real life


----------



## enyceckk (Jun 8, 2014)

You are right.. Canon lens does look better at the same price range.

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S VR II Nikkor Lens Image Quality


----------



## Overread (Jun 8, 2014)

Canon has BIG WHITE LENSES. 

The result of this is when a Canon user shoots at any sporting event they stand out really well - it advertises for Canon without any effort. In addition a few years back Canon were ruling the roost DSLR wise - everyone was going Canon, esp in the long lens and sports departments. Now in todays market Nikon has really pushed their game and many think that they've superior sensors and noise control over Canon. 

However many of those sports togs likely have so much invested that the gain in jumping system just isn't worth it for the costs involved in trading one setup for the other.


----------



## limr (Jun 8, 2014)

Canon has been an official sponsor of a lot of sporting events, including the U.S. Open, UEFA cups and a few World Cups. Its uSA division is also an official sponsor of the NY Yankees and the NFL. They've got a lot of money to make themselves visible at these events.

I watched the Belmont race yesterday and every photographer there had bright yellow Nikon vests to go with their Nikon cameras and lenses. 

To answer your question, you just have to follow the money.


----------



## BGeise (Jun 8, 2014)

Just wait Sony will be giving the big two a run for their money here shortly. Sony isn't afraid to try new innovative things


----------



## jaomul (Jun 8, 2014)

Sony are big sponsors of upcoming soccer world cup. Can't see their A7 doing the do their though


----------



## hombredelmar (Jun 8, 2014)

enyceckk said:


> View attachment 76319
> 
> Saw this photo online while reading Sharapova beats Simona Halep in French Open final.
> 
> ...




It is a lifelong debate Nikon vs Canon. I posted similar question a while ago and was informed by our forum members that it is not a matter of what is better rather who is behind the camera. It made sense to me


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 8, 2014)

Canon is like Apple. They have to give away their products and do expensive sponsorships in order to stay in business.


----------



## radiogooroo (Jun 8, 2014)

I'm a radio broadcast engineer and I was courtside at the NCAA Final Four a few months ago.  There were multiple cameras mounted along the edge of the stage that the court was built upon.  About half were Nikons, mostly D4s with the 24-70, on some sort of robotic mount and ethernet tethered.


----------



## manaheim (Jun 8, 2014)

Canon is a MASSIVE company with far more resources available. There is a chicken/egg question there, but I honestly think it is because Canon makes all KINDS of stuff... and Nikon sticks to cameras and optics. Diversification is how you grow a business.


----------



## radiogooroo (Jun 8, 2014)




----------



## KmH (Jun 8, 2014)

BGeise said:


> Just wait Sony will be giving the big two a run for their money here shortly. Sony isn't afraid to try new innovative things


Sony stock isn't worth near as much these days as it was 14 years ago (late 1999) when it peaked at $140 or so a share.
Today it's about $16 a share because Sony is not nearly as innovative as they once were.


----------



## radiogooroo (Jun 8, 2014)

And here's a tiny portion of the wide shot above showing the tethered D4s on the edge of the court.  I may have been wrong earlier.  It doesn't look like there are any white Canon lenses there.


----------



## goodguy (Jun 8, 2014)

Why so many people use Canon ?

I am not sure anyone has true statistics on how many people use Canon and how many use Nikon.
We can only use our eyes when we walk around and statistically it means very little.
I believe Canon does sell more DSLR then Nikon so I guess that say something.

I go every second weekend out and to me it looks like there roughly is a tie between the amount of Nikon and Canon DSLRs that I see in peoples hands.

If you question was is Nikon better then Canon and how come more people by Canon then I think if thats true you can explain it by Canon has a better PR department, yuo can say in the past they were indeed better and people are still under the impression it is still so today.

Makes no different, everybody should vote with their wallet in whats good for them, at the end of the day as people said many times its all about the person behind the camera, all modern cameras can create good pictures, some better then other but all are very capable so it really is about your own skills that makes the true differance.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 8, 2014)

Many sporting events have agency shooters who use gear provided by their employers. In the past, pre-2007, Canon was the preferred choice of many large organizations due to higher-megapixel, just flat-out BETTER sensors. After the Nikon D3 generation was invented in 2007, suddenly Nikon had a lead in cameras, and Canon had the disastrous 1D Mark III, the pro-camera-that-could-not-autofocus-properly debacle for 18 months in a row, and most of the Sports Illustrated shooters who were not shooting Nikon switched to Nikon. The thing is, the big lenses that many agencies buy last for literally YEARS, so the pendulum swings often show a delayed response.

At the 2008 Olympics, Canon might have had an edge in users, many of whom were using 5-year old lenses and 2- to 3-year-old bodies bought by their employers or themselves, but even in 2008 the "edge" Canon might have had was debatable, as you can see by this shot of WORLD-WIDE photographers at the 2008 Beijing Olympics: http://files.fotopolis.pl/download/canikon.jpg

By 2012, Nikon was more prevalent at high-end international events, like the Olympics. These things kind of go in cycles. Nikon,Canon,Nikon,Canon,Nikon,Canon. There really are no other realistic choices except for the Big Two these days.

It's a photo finish as Canon and Nikon both claim Olympic gold - AJW by The Asahi Shimbun


----------



## snerd (Jun 8, 2014)

Maybe just personal preference?


----------



## runnah (Jun 8, 2014)

I would say because they are one of the two largest makers out there.

Same reason people buy Chevy and Ford.


----------



## Pav10566 (Jun 8, 2014)

I have been in photography for almost 45 years now....I'm a Canon user. Back in the 60's Canon was the Professional tool for Sport reporters with their F1 and I also remember National Geographic as big users of Canon material too...but war correspondents were Nikon users


----------



## JoeW (Jun 8, 2014)

1.  The short answer is:  that Canon makes a lot of good cameras.  That's also the answer to the question about why so many people use Nikons:  b/c Nikon makes a lot of good cameras.

2.  The more involved answer is Darrel's where he explains the nature of trends and how the camera business has evolved.  Think of it this way:  the World Cup (soccer) is starting up in a matter of days.  Many of the players and teams will be wearing Nike (uniforms or shoes).  Is that b/c Nike makes the best clothing and cleats?  Nike, Puma, Adidas, and others are in a battle for visibility that sells their product.

3.  The even more involved answer is that you're looking around, seeing a lot of Canon users and conclude "everyone uses Canon."  You're operating on a very limited sample size.  And I'd be saying the same thing if you asked why everyone is using Nikons.

The reality is that it's the shooter that matters the most.  I've been shooting for 35 years, most of that time with Nikons so I'm more used to them ergonomically.  I'd like to think that once I adjusted, I could pick up a Canon or a Sony or a Pentax and also create some lovely work.  For the past 30 years, I've mostly driven cars made by Honda.  My wife drove Hondas before I met her.  That doesn't mean everyone drives Hondas.  Nor does it mean Hondas are responsible for my excellent driving record--I'd like to think that my skill as a driver has something to do with that.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jun 8, 2014)

From the perspective of the average consumer, I imagine it has something to do with the fact that Canon has their hands in several different markets, while Nikon generally sticks with cameras/lenses and...binoculars/scopes.

So more people probably have some kind of Canon product or knows someone who does whether that be a projector or a printer, and since it's (assuredly) reliable and familiar, they're more likely to buy a Canon camera.

From a professional's point of view, it really just varies too much to figure out why.


----------



## Dao (Jun 9, 2014)

Same as why so many people eat at McDonald?

Best product does not equal to best selling product.  It just need to be decent and the rest is just how to market it and how the market react to it.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 9, 2014)

If someone were to pay me to use top end Canon gear I'd use it.

Until then, I'll just use what I have ...


----------



## ConradM (Jun 9, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> From the perspective of the average consumer, I imagine it has something to do with the fact that Canon has their hands in several different markets, while Nikon generally sticks with cameras/lenses and...binoculars/scopes.
> 
> So more people probably have some kind of Canon product or knows someone who does whether that be a projector or a printer, and since it's (assuredly) reliable and familiar, they're more likely to buy a Canon camera.
> 
> From a professional's point of view, it really just varies too much to figure out why.



That's a good point, I've had several Canon P&S's and a Vixia video camera. Heck my first experience with a DSLR was with a Rebel.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 9, 2014)

Coke, Pepsi=Canon,Nikon. RC Cola is Sony. Dr. Pepper is Pentax.


----------



## shadowlands (Jun 10, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Coke, Pepsi=Canon,Nikon. RC Cola is Sony. Dr. Pepper is Pentax.



You nailed it.


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 17, 2014)

enyceckk said:


> Doesn't Nikon have better sensor? Like the D7100 vs 70D


 Yes.

Canon 70D has Dualpixel, the big breakthrough for sensorbased AF, which gives them a big edge with lifeview and video AF performance.

Canon 70D has a flipscreen, which for some odd reason Nikon still only offers in the D5x00 line of cameras.

The 70D probably has also a couple other advantages I dont remember. Its a pretty good offer. Even if the D7100 is also a great offer.

Both Canon and Nikon suffer with their APS-C offers because of lack of lens choices.

Howeer, Canon just published an awesome APS-C wide lens zoom. Its the new 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 that is very cheap (300 bucks) and apparently optically awesome. This puts Nikon at a disadvantage.

Canon in general has superior video performance and superior noise reduction algorithms over Nikon.

And last not least the sensor might be a bit better, but its not worlds of difference.

Canon right now is in the disadvantage over sensors because Nikon has no qualms to buy Sony or Toshiba sensors if they are better than what Nikon themselves can produce.

But Canon produces their own sensors, which also allows them to give their cameras an edge. For example the 5D Mk 3 and the 6D both offer native ISO 25600 - something Nikon has not offered at all, before the D4s.

Lets face it, Canon and Nikon have been at this game who is better since a long time. One of the two is always ahead of the other, but the difference isnt large - not large enough to really care, anyway, if you have already invested in a large collection of glas.

And lets not forget the dawn of mirrorless cameras which makes the choices even harder. I'm really curious how that will play out.


----------



## CAP (Jun 17, 2014)

I Shoot a Canon 1DX as main body,  and it murders Nikon D4 " AKA company-N " in all most every way.  My best friend shoots Nikon and and has as couple D4's and loves them but even he will admit that my 1DX spec's and reviews trumps company N's top dslr the d4.

 He also says that only until Nikon puts a body than can compete with the canon 1DX.

And i been shooting canon since the canon A1 witch i still have by the way.  And am very loyal to canon not just because its canon.  I am a spec guy i like tech details and it is just that canons equipment is better. body wise i mean, i am not sure about lenses but's canon body's wins.

Also canon has 24/7 us based CPS support is another big plus for canon.


----------



## CAP (Jun 17, 2014)

[h=3]Advantages of the Canon 1D X[/h]




Many more cross-type focus points*41*vs*15*




Grab focus in difficult situations



Better maximum light sensitivity*51,200 ISO*vs*25,600 ISO*




The 1D X's maximum light sensitivity is 1 f-stop better



Larger viewfinder*0.76x*vs*0.70x*




Around 20% larger viewfinder



Shoots faster*14 fps*vs*11 fps*




Around 30% faster continuous shooting



Higher resolution screen*1,040k dots*vs*921k dots*




More than 10% higher resolution screen



More focus points*61*vs*51*




Set focus accurately within the frame



Higher true resolution*18.1 MP*vs*16.2 MP*




Capture more than 10% more detail in your photos



Significantly thinner*3.3"*vs*3.6"*




Around 10% thinner



Smaller*158x164x83 mm*vs*160x157x91 mm*




Around 10% smaller



Slightly more lenses available*156 lenses*vs*152 lenses*




Almost the same


----------



## play18now (Jun 17, 2014)

Because the 1DX is a fabulous camera.  Same reason there are lots of Nikon shooters at sports events.  Because the D4 was a great camera, but the D4s is a fabulous camera.  It's very much like asking which soda you prefer, as mentioned above, or why Sharapova was playing with a Head racquet at the match.  A company put it in her hand, and said we're not going to charge you for this.


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 17, 2014)

For the record, not even one of these values is any relevant.

The 1D X is better than the D4s, but not because of these academic differences.

One big difference is that the AF algorithms of Canon are currently better than the ones of Nikon (which affects all their DSLRs).


----------



## CAP (Jun 17, 2014)

Solarflare said:


> For the record, not even one of these values is any relevant.
> 
> The 1D X is better than the D4s, but not because of these academic differences.
> 
> One big difference is that the AF algorithms of Canon are currently better than the ones of Nikon (which affects all their DSLRs).


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 17, 2014)

Ok, a couple of things "for the record", there are a ton of lens choices available from both canon and nikon that will work fine on their crop sensor bodies.  This is not an advantage or disadvantage to either, both companies realize that lenses that work on both crop sensor and full frame sell better.

Huge iso's like 25600 are completely useless if the sensors high iso to noise profile sucks.  There is zero advantage to having an iso setting you would most likely never want to use because the noise level would be horrific.

Lets face it, all cameras have their strengths and weaknesses and some are better suited for certain things than others are, and frankly whatever choice someone makes in cameras is fine as long as it meets their needs. 

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 18, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Ok, a couple of things "for the record", there are a ton of lens choices available from both canon and nikon that will work fine on their crop sensor bodies.


 Which is a valid point for a 400mm f2.8 which wont be much smaller and cheaper for DX body, then for a FX body (aperture = f/D, with f being focal length and D diameter of the pupil, thus a 400mm f2.8 is at least 400mm / 2.8 ~ 143mm wide - which is ALWAYS the minimum diameter for this lens).

However, shorter focal lengths can be made substantly smaller and cheaper on APS-C bodies. Plus of course the 400mm is a 600mm equivalent on the APS-C body - you have to mulitply everything by the crop factor 1.5 to get the equivalent focal length for APS-C. Which means for *wide* lenses you're at a disadvantage with APS-C, because you really need extra lenses for this either way - there just isnt a 10mm for full frame in the first place, unless we talk about extremely exotic lenses. And in general, all wide options are not only oversized for APS-C, they are also prohibitively expensive on top.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Jun 18, 2014)

I will say this. If having a useless ISO 25,600 means less noise at 6400, then there's a bit of a point to that. Like my 7D-6400 is useless, but I can actually USE 1600 (or hell, 3200), unlike my Olympus.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 18, 2014)

480sparky said:


> Canon is like Apple. They have to give away their products and do expensive sponsorships in order to stay in business.



That's not what their stock prices say.


----------



## ongpeitong (Jun 18, 2014)

Canon is a well-known brand in digital camera field nt only bcm of the quality bt also d cost effective price. 
It is affordable by ameatuer as well as professional to produce great masterpiece. I do like Canon too bcz 
easy to use.  I also produce many masterpiece by canon EOS REBEL t3i.

Canon EOS Rebel T3i


----------



## Civchic (Jun 19, 2014)

I use Canon because I got my T3 for "free" (cashed in a bunch of airmiles I'd been collecting for years).  They didn't have a Nikon.    I love my T3, but I'm starting to struggle with some of the limitations (no spot metering, lots of noise at over ISO800) and will likely upgrade within a year or two.  To a Canon.


----------



## lambertpix (Jun 19, 2014)

You know, I can't tell you why anyone else shoots Canon, but I'll tell you why *I* shoot Canon.

When I looked at both lines a number of years  ago, I found the controls and settings a ton more intuitive to use, and  for equivalent models, Canon had buttons for the stuff I wanted to  change, vs. burying stuff in menus.  This was important enough for me, in fact, that I picked up a used 30D vs. a new Rebel because the ergonomics & performance were better a notch above entry-level.  At the time, I would have considered Nikon if I'd seen a killer deal, and I probably would have done the same thing there (with a used D200, or something like that).

 Since buying my first Canon, I've  had occasion to witness a number of bewildered Nikon shooters who seem  to have the hardest time making the simplest possible changes to camera  settings -- including more than one person frantically muttering, "why  are you *doing* that??" (or words to that effect -- expletives deleted).   Now, I'm sure that in all of those cases, there's a simple fix, and  I'm sure there's a section of the manual dedicated to solving exactly  the problem these poor souls were experiencing, but I was pretty happy  just not having those problems in the first place.

I've owned three Canon DSLRs (and a P&S before that), and all they  ever did was work every damned time I pulled them out of the bag.  Hot,  cold, humid, dry, inside, outside, you name it -- I pick 'em up and they  work.  I can see my settings instantly (mostly on my top LCD) and I can change them -- in most cases without  going into a menu.  Oh, and when I *do* make changes, I just love to  store them in my user settings slots so I can switch everything from ISO  to AEB to flash control to you name it just by hitting the mode dial.  To the best of my knowledge, that's a feature not found on *any* Nikon (and yes,  I know you can save & load settings to a file.  It's not the same).

I don't dispute the fact that Nikon has done a fine job of using Sony's sensors (do you think they could outsource their shutters, too?),  but my actual productivity usually winds up being every bit as much  about the ergonomics and ease-of-use of the whole system than it is  about the sensor itself.  I'd love to see Canon catch up on sensor tech,  because they really are lagging Nikon-Sony right now in that area, but  whenever I'm shooting anything that isn't sitting still waiting for me  to get my settings right, it's pretty nice to have a tool that helps me  get the exposure I want on my inferior sensor *right now*.

Incidentally, here's a guy who switched to Canon for its  ergonomics -- skip to  about 4:20 to see his specific observations.






I fully expect that ergonomics are a personal choice, and I'd expect a large number of Nikon shooters to be just as passionate about how great the ergonomics are on their Nikons, but for me, the Canon fits me, it does what I want it to do, and the overwhelming majority of the time, I'm able to use it as a tool to accomplish what I'm trying to do, vs. trying to chase the camera because it's not doing what I want.

Anyway, that's why *I* shoot Canon.


----------



## limr (Jun 19, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Coke, Pepsi=Canon,Nikon. RC Cola is Sony. Dr. Pepper is Pentax.



Dr.Pepper and Pentax, all day long. :mrgreen:


----------



## Derrel (Jun 19, 2014)

Pentax and Nikon and Leica...they went the same way on lens mounting, focusing direction, shutter speed changing, well over 50 years ago. Pentax in actual operation is a lot like Nikon. Pentax has always made really great cameras in the hand...the ergonomics and the "feel" on Pentax cameras has been very much targeted at actual "shooters". Decades ago, with the Spotmatic, Pentax utterly NAILED the kind of ergonomic simplicity and minimalist design that took decades to become common. For example, when Pentax was taking the European professional market by storm, Nikon was offering up the hugely clunky, bulky, and anti-ergonomic F with the Photomic FT and then FTn and finally the FTN metering prisms....OMG...and Canon had the clunkiest, ugliest POS junker camera designs you can imagine...meanwhile, Pentax had elegant, simple designs that would not be seen until Apple started making things like the Mac Mini and the iPhone.

Later, the Pentax LX versus the Nikon F3 and Canon F1-N...no contest as to which was the BEST design by farrrrrr, with an electronically timed shutter AND a redundant mechanically-timed system as well, water sealing gaskets, and so on....the Pentax LX was an amazing system camera...*but it went nowhere*. A few years later, the Pentax Super Program versus the Canon A-1, the first 5-mode 35mm SLR. The Canon A-1 was an **amazing** camera breakthrough, and a hugely, hugely disappointing sales flop. The Super Program was hailed as the best enthusiast camera from any maker, and the economy sibling, the Program PLus was nice too, but nowhere near the tour de force that the Super Program was. The Super Program/Program Plus era was the high water mark for Pentax, sales-wise.

It's weird...Leica was once the undisputed KING of 35mm, from 1930 until 1959, when the Nikon F came out. But the thing was, in the EARLY 1950's Nikon invented the electric motor drive, when Leica still used KNOB-wind advance; Korean war journalists who came back with Nikon cameras and lenses established the "Nikkor" lens as the new standard for "wiry-sharp" images; the F in 1959 started the fast decline of the 35mm rangefinder. Canon hired Nippon Kogaku to build the lenses fore ALL of the new Canon rangefinders; Canon hewed to the rangefinder model for too long after Nikon's F SLR hit; by the time Canon had a "system" SLR, they just copied Nikon and called theirs the Canon F-1...copying Nikon's F...Nikon went F-2....Canon countered with the F1-n. Nikon 25 years later invented the first affordable D-SLR, the Nikon D1....canon needed about four, five years to counter with a pro d-slr, the Canon 1D....see the name-game at work?

In the overall scheme of things, a LOT of camera brands died out...or were sold and re-sold, and so on. Ricoh, Minolta, Konica,Petri, Exakta, Yashica/Contax, basically, all DEAD brands. Pentax has been sold twice within the last decade, and is barely clinging to life, but apparently has loyalty in Japan as a venerable brand. It's weird, but the majority of 1960's to 1980's camera brands could NOT SURVIVE, even with fabulous offerings and really nice cameras and lenses. When autofocus hit around 1987, Canon and Minolta both had excellent initial offerings, but by the time digital cameras were emerging, Minolta spent zillions on the failed APS-C film endeavor AND lost a huge patent infringement case, and those were mortal wounds; Minolta's first d-slr was stillborn; Pentax waited YEARS to make a d-slr, and by then, it was too late. Nikon had been partnering with FujiFilm and Kodak to make early d-slr cameras, but the prices were in the $25,000-$30,000 range; the 1998 Nikon D1 at $5,998 KILLED Kodak's hybrid DCS 460 business. Canon had...NOTHING, nothing at all for a few years, then they hit with the Canon D30, a 3-MP consumer d-slr for $3,000, up against the Nikon D1 and D1h at basically twice the cost. At that point, everybody but Canon and Nikon was walking dead in the d-slr market. When Canon got the first sub-$1,000 d-slr on the market with the original Digital Rebel, the entire d-slr market exploded with new sales. Nikon introduced their sub-$1,000 offering, the D70. So, within about a six year span, ALL the competitors that used to be in the biz were reduced to....near ashes. Kodak AND Contax made Full-Frame d-slr's well before Canon ever did, and way before Nikon did, but those things died out very early. Contax made one model, Kodak made the DCS 760 6-MP on the Nikon F5 body, then the Kodak 14n, the 13.8 megapixel built on the N-80 body. FujiFilm made the S1,S2,S3, and S5 Pro d-slr models, allll on Nikon bodies. And yet, the only two companies to emerge winners were Coke and Pepsi...

Coke, Pepsi. RC Cola (under new management). Dr. Pepper. 

Kodak=Tab. Contax/Yashica = Jolt Cola. Alllll gone!


----------



## limr (Jun 19, 2014)

Derrel, you're a friggin' encyclopedia! :hail:

Now can you read that out loud and post an audio file?


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 19, 2014)

limr said:


> Derrel, you're a friggin' encyclopedia! :hail:
> 
> Now can you read that out loud and post an audio file?


Tell him to use his "sultry" voice.  You won't be disappointed .  lol

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## JacaRanda (Jun 19, 2014)

I shoot Canon because Ron Howard's hairline is about the same as mine; if I did not shave.  I would have gone Nikon, but I was pissed at Ashton Kookner for taking my G.I. Jane.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 19, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> I shoot Canon because Ron Howard's hairline is about the same as mine; if I did not shave.  I would have gone Nikon, but I was pissed at Ashton Kookner for taking my G.I. Jane.



We coulda' made beautiful music together in the band JacaNikon...but you joined up with those rejects from Cheap Trick...or was it the guys from Nelson or Hansen??? I forget...been sooo long ago!


----------



## Derrel (Jun 19, 2014)

limr said:


> Derrel, you're a friggin' encyclopedia! :hail:
> 
> Now can you read that out loud and post an audio file?



This will have to tide you over.... ;-)


----------



## JacaRanda (Jun 19, 2014)

Derrel said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > I shoot Canon because Ron Howard's hairline is about the same as mine; if I did not shave. I would have gone Nikon, but I was pissed at Ashton Kookner for taking my G.I. Jane.
> ...



LMAO.   :lmao: YOU'RE KILLING ME D-SIZZLE!!!!!!!


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 20, 2014)

Derrel said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > I shoot Canon because Ron Howard's hairline is about the same as mine; if I did not shave.  I would have gone Nikon, but I was pissed at Ashton Kookner for taking my G.I. Jane.
> ...


I always preferred the Peter, Paul and Jaca years myself.  It just seemed it was more about the music then.  After that his stuff got a little to "commercial" for my tastes.

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 7, 2014)

pravardhawan said:


> The only reason is people prefer quality however, Nikon is also good in its respect but the quality, strongness and attractive look is better of Canon.


Umm, no.   Not sure where you got this very, very mistaken impression but in the crop sensor line up in particular nikon has superior image quality when comparing cameras in the same price range.

The nikons have newer, higher mp sensors with better dynamic range and low light.

Canon does have a larger buffer and usually an edge in video, but to say they have higher still image quality just isn't true.


----------

