# Canon vs. Nikon?



## jeljohns (Apr 8, 2009)

This post is not intended to start a Canon vs. Nikon war, I'm just curious. I know everyone has their preference, but is there a big difference in the brands? I have taken several photo classes now and every instructor has totally dissed Canon. In my last class the instructor said on the first day that "Nikon is just better" and looked pained whenever he had to help someone who had a Canon. In another class I was told that only Nikon takes sharp pictures, that pictures from a Canon are always soft. I recently tried to sign up for another class and the instructor asked me what type of camera I had. When I told him Canon he said it would be hard for me to accomplish anything in his class because I wasn't working with top of the line equipment. I always thought that GOOD photographers make great pictures, not the particular form of technology you choose to use. Most of the photo stores in my area seem to push Nikon as well. I chose a Canon because all of my friends and family have Canons and spoke highly of the brand, nothing against Nikon.


----------



## lockwood81 (Apr 8, 2009)

Neither.....  

PC vs Mac
Zune vs IPod
Nike vs Puma
Honda vs Toyota 
Ford vs Chevy
.......


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 8, 2009)

Your instincts are correct...it's the the photographer, not the camera.  It almost sounds like these instructors have an agenda to push Nikon.

Blindly comparing brands is so very useless.  Each brand has different levels of cameras and lenses.  It's easy to say that a Nikon D700 is better than a Canon Rebel XT...you could also say that a Canon 5D mkII is better than a Nikon D80.  What does that prove?...nothing!

I would be very careful about spending any money on classes from instructors with that attitude.


----------



## jeljohns (Apr 8, 2009)

After the one instructor told me my equipment wasn't top of the line so I couldn't learn anything I declined to take the class. Sad really, because I'm sure he has a lot of knowledge, but is only willing to share it with Nikon shooters.


----------



## c0ps (Apr 8, 2009)

OH boy here we go..... 

  Your teachers are idiots! I was a canon owner who has switched to nikon, Not because there better, but because canon pissed me off when I had a camera issue. Since than I been using nikon. I can tell you that they are both great cameras and you will not be disappointed with either of them.

   I find it hard to believe that every instructor you came across dissed cannon unless they have shares in nikon. You are right "GOOD photographers make great pictures" I seen photos shot with P&S that will put crappy photographers with high end equipment to shame. I'm sorry but if thats the information your getting from the instructors around your area, its time to go find a REAL instructor!


----------



## jeljohns (Apr 8, 2009)

I agree! But there seems to be a shortage of those. I'm frustrated because there is only so much I can learn on my own as a beginner and it would be nice to have a decent, understanding, and PATIENT instructor who wanted to share their knowledge without ego.


----------



## c0ps (Apr 8, 2009)

lockwood81 said:


> Neither.....
> 
> PC vs Mac
> Zune vs IPod
> ...



Pc vs Mac = PC , more software
Zune vs Ipod = Ipod, more accessories
Nike vs Puma = Nike more retailers
Honda vs Toyota = Honda, Better interest rates
ford vs Chevy = Chevy, Ford sucks!

cannon vs Nikon = Stay tuned at the end of this thread


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 8, 2009)

I'd be tempted to 'test' these instructors.  Bring in a bunch of high quality prints of professional shots and ask them to point out which ones were taken by what camera brand...and just to mess with them, none of them would be Nikon.


----------



## Dao (Apr 8, 2009)

hum ..   did you go to the classes organized by nikonschool.com? 

just joking.....

But seriously, I do not think one system is better than the others.  You use different tool for different things.

If I want the best high iso performance camera, I may go with Nikon.  If I want to camera that can give me very sharp and details photo, I may go with Canon.  If I want a system that can produce great macro shots,  I may choose Canon ...  on and on ....

Really, no real answer here for which one is better.   On top of that, adding cost and other formats into the equation will make it even more confuse.


----------



## inTempus (Apr 8, 2009)

Yeah, Canon isn't really a professional photogs gear of choice.  I mean, it's not like you would find a White House Photographer using something like a Canon or anything.  

You never see white lenses (a Canon trademark) at big events or anything either.

















I would say your "instructors" probably shouldn't be instructing and should be working behind a Nikon sales counter.  They obviously are either ignorant or are so fiercely brand loyal they're extremely poor instructors.


----------



## jeljohns (Apr 8, 2009)

Haha, those pictures are great!


Sooo...if the instructors in my area aren't the best teachers...what is the best way to learn and get better on my own? The forum has been awesome, but sometimes you just want a human being there showing you stuff, ya know?


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 8, 2009)

> Sooo...if the instructors in my area aren't the best teachers...what is the best way to learn and get better on my own?


Maybe find a working photographer and ask to assist them.  In Photography, like many things, you can learn a lot more in the real world, than you can in a classroom.  
If that is more than you want to do, then maybe look for a local photography club or society...somewhere where you can meet & talk to other photographers.


----------



## tsaraleksi (Apr 8, 2009)

Chances are these "instructors" have worked professionally in 20 years (1987 being the year that Canon introduced EOS and started stealing a lot of thunder from Nikon). Before then "Nikon is King" held a lot more truth, and it's not uncommon to find older folks who are stubborn in their belief that Nikon is just inherently better, even while wielding some very entry level Nikon against a top-of-the-line Canon. In the commercial photography world it's either a 50/50 split or leaning Canon-- the D3x is the first Nikon with enough resolution to satisfy a lot of folks who prefer a high megapixel dSLR over medium format, so prior to that introduction Canon was more or less the only choice if you wanted more than 12 megapixels. 

In short your instructors are either misinformed or simply outdated.


----------



## LarryD (Apr 8, 2009)

Hmmm.....

Seems like I've read this exact post before............

In any event.........If you were taking a photography class, the camera should have been irrelevant.

Fundamentals of photography; composition, lighting, exposure and creativity are what you are there to learn.  No instructor should be standing over a student and telling them what levers, switches, or dials on a particular camera brand need to be turned, only that, for example, ISO, shutter speed, and aperture work together, etc.,..............they are fundamentals that work with all cameras.

Now, if you signed up for a course on "How to use a Nikon", then you might have been in the wrong place.


----------



## Mindy (Apr 8, 2009)

I just wonder if the people running your school would be interested in learning about a teacher who refuses to teach a student because of their equipment and _not_ because of their prerequisite knowledge. That teacher might be out of a job! Try that. It might be fun.


----------



## bhop (Apr 8, 2009)

Everyone else has already said it, but I will too.. your teachers are just wrong, and i'm a Nikon shooter.  Personally, I think you should take the class anyway and prove that brand doesn't matter.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 8, 2009)

jeljohns said:


> This post is not intended to start a Canon vs. Nikon war, I'm just curious. I know everyone has their preference, but is there a big difference in the brands? I have taken several photo classes now and every instructor has totally dissed Canon. In my last class the instructor said on the first day that "Nikon is just better" and looked pained whenever he had to help someone who had a Canon. In another class I was told that only Nikon takes sharp pictures, that pictures from a Canon are always soft. I recently tried to sign up for another class and the instructor asked me what type of camera I had. When I told him Canon he said it would be hard for me to accomplish anything in his class because I wasn't working with top of the line equipment. I always thought that GOOD photographers make great pictures, not the particular form of technology you choose to use. Most of the photo stores in my area seem to push Nikon as well. I chose a Canon because all of my friends and family have Canons and spoke highly of the brand, nothing against Nikon.


 
He is a tosser you won't learn anything from him try and find another class


----------



## bigtwinky (Apr 8, 2009)

I guess I lucked out with the 2 teachers i have had so far (and will have until I done with these courses)

One is a Canon shooter (heavier on photoshop, and makes movies to) and the other is a Nikon shooter (heavier on commercial work).  Both have always said that Nikon and Canon are both great cameras and its more of a user preference to choose which to get (specially at our level of knowledge).  At the high end, they both offer a huge range of functionality and both systems offer a huge range of lenses that can offer amazing pictures.


----------



## inTempus (Apr 8, 2009)

jeljohns said:


> Haha, those pictures are great!
> 
> 
> Sooo...if the instructors in my area aren't the best teachers...what is the best way to learn and get better on my own? The forum has been awesome, but sometimes you just want a human being there showing you stuff, ya know?


You can learn quite a bit on your own through experimentation, good books and finding others in your area to shoot with.

I found friends through Do something, Learn something, Share something, Change something - Meetup.com.  I am now going to several group functions a month that offer everything from courses for beginners to studio sessions with models.  There's no substitute for sitting down with your gear and shooting pics, taking notes, and learning through trial and error.  

Of course you will need a good basic understanding of photography before some of the things make much sense, for that I highly recommend this book:  [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Exposure-Photographs-Digital-Updated/dp/0817463003/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239214799&sr=8-1]Amazon.com: Understanding Exposure: How to Shoot Great Photographs with a Film or Digital Camera (Updated Edition): Bryan Peterson: Books[/ame]

Once armed with knowledge, you'll just need to get the shutter time to really improve your photography.  I can't believe how much my photographs have improved over the last few months using this method.


----------



## Jaszek (Apr 8, 2009)

I always argue with my teacher that canon is better than nikon and vice-versa. But at the end we both know none of them is better lol. And do what someone else said, get a bunch of Canon prints and ask what camera it was taken with, maybe add in some pentax and Sony shots also. O and get a hidden camera so we can see his reaction


----------



## flea77 (Apr 8, 2009)

I have a few questions....

1) He said because you were not using top of the line equipment, all you stated was Canon. It could be you are using a low end Canon P&S in a DSLR class because you never specified any of that. So what camera do you have?

2) You ask how you can get help in your area but you did not fill in where you are in your profile so we have no way to help you find help. Where are you? What city, state, country, continent, planet, solar system, galaxy?

Allan


----------



## c0ps (Apr 8, 2009)

Thread still going huh. Let me try and help...

1. the president's picture was taken with a canon.
2. Nasa uses nikon cameras and lenses.

Does that help you decide? lol, Go to your nearest camera shop and play with both of them and make your own choice.


----------



## gravity0 (Apr 8, 2009)

c0ps said:


> Thread still going huh. Let me try and help...
> 
> 1. the president's picture was taken with a canon.
> 2. Nasa uses nikon cameras and lenses.
> ...


 
Nasa also contracts with the lowest bidder.  :lmao:


----------



## flea77 (Apr 8, 2009)

gravity0 said:


> Nasa also contracts with the lowest bidder.  :lmao:



So do all government agencies, hence I would say that the President's photo was also taken by the lowest bidder.

Allan


----------



## EhJsNe (Apr 8, 2009)

Jaszek said:


> I always argue with my teacher that canon is better than nikon and vice-versa. But at the end we both know none of them is better lol. And do what someone else said, get a bunch of Canon prints and ask what camera it was taken with, maybe add in some pentax and Sony shots also. O and get a hidden camera so we can see his reaction


 
me and my teacher do the same thing. Just I have a Nikon, and she has a canon. I even wrote a persuasive report on why I feel Nikon is better than Canon....didnt work out to well. I ended up just saying everything good about Nikon and everything bad about canon....
We switched lens caps and straps, just cause we can. So now my Nikon Fm10 has a Canon EOS Digital Strap (even better, my camera uses film) and my one lens has a Canon Lens cap (my other lens cap is to small. darn shucks)


----------



## EhJsNe (Apr 8, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> Yeah, Canon isn't really a professional photogs gear of choice. I mean, it's not like you would find a White House Photographer using something like a Canon or anything.
> 
> You never see white lenses (a Canon trademark) at big events or anything either.
> 
> ...


 

wasnt their an entire thread saying everything wrong with the portrait? The only good thing I remember was that it was Tack sharp.

And notice....the people shoooting the canon cameras....are sitting in front of an Olympus sign....and one lens has duct tape on it....


----------



## inTempus (Apr 8, 2009)

flea77 said:


> So do all government agencies, hence I would say that the President's photo was also taken by the lowest bidder.
> 
> Allan


It was a private purchase.  The photographer has been a Canon shooter for some time.  Not that it matters.


----------



## c0ps (Apr 8, 2009)

gravity0 said:


> Nasa also contracts with the lowest bidder.  :lmao:



Actually it had nothing to do with contract bidding. Canon's equipment would not hold up to the vibration while launching due to certain chemicals used to produce there lenses.


----------



## Jaszek (Apr 8, 2009)

sand.......?


----------



## FrankLamont (Apr 8, 2009)

Back to the OP:

Quite a few Canon cameras produce rather soft images, I can vouch for that. But a bit of tweaking here and there should fix it; and anyway, it's only very obvious when pixel-peeping.

I also say, while I disagree with that instructor, that he could be looking 'pained' because he isn't used to a Canon camera. But of course, that's giving him the benefit of doubt.


----------



## Invictus (Apr 9, 2009)

Canon/Nikon vs. Olympus?


----------



## saltydog3317 (Apr 9, 2009)

When I was buying my first camera I did a bit of shopping around my city in and out of a few different stores and the one thing that they ALL were telling me, " BUY NIKON " you will thank us later down the road. This was what every store was telling me for different reasons.


----------



## inTempus (Apr 9, 2009)

saltydog3317 said:


> When I was buying my first camera I did a bit of shopping around my city in and out of a few different stores and the one thing that they ALL were telling me, " BUY NIKON " you will thank us later down the road. This was what every store was telling me for different reasons.


It's definitely a regional thing in my experience.  Around here, the vast majority of photogs seem to be using Canon.  

It totally depends on the bias of the sales person too.

Best Buy:  You don't get a serious answer to your questions because the kids working there have never used 99% of their product.

Calumet:  One sales person will say "get a 5DMk2 because it produces better images right out of the camera and is easier to use" and another will say "get the D700 because it produces better images right out of the camera and has superior AF for action".

Samy's Camera:  The only sales guy I spoke to there was HUGE into Canon.  I asked about the D700, and he said it's a great camera but he would take a 5DMk2 or a 1DS over anything Nikon offered.

So, it's really a matter of bias by your sales person.  

I've found absolutely no shortage of people using both types of gear, but I tend to see more white lenses at various events than I do black ones in my neck of the woods.  Elsewhere I'm sure things are very different.


----------



## c0ps (Apr 9, 2009)

As you all know white stands out more than black against dark shadows. so lets take this pic







and highlight the black lenses in red, and white ones in yellow.






Doesent give you the impression as the original one does it?  

So now your asking, so whats your point? my point is this! nothing! I'm bored and its to cold to go take pictures hahahaha.


----------



## Jaszek (Apr 9, 2009)

with a quick look I already see you marked two white lenses as black, the ones on the very top. And also you marked one black lens as two


----------



## inTempus (Apr 9, 2009)

c0ps said:


> Doesent give you the impression as the original one does it?
> 
> So now your asking, so whats your point? my point is this! nothing! I'm bored and its to cold to go take pictures hahahaha.


I think you missed the point completely.  The point was that white lenses are present, not that they were the only ones present.

That had to have been a fun, albeit pointless, exercise with all the dots.


----------



## c0ps (Apr 9, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> I think you missed the point completely.  The point was that white lenses are present, not that they were the only ones present.
> 
> That had to have been a fun, albeit pointless, exercise with all the dots.



Well of course there are canons present! why would we need a picture to tell us that. The dots where kind of pointless, would of been easier to post a picture like this http://web500.us/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/canon-nikon.jpg 

dont get all up tight guys, I just like messing with people in threads like this one


----------



## tsaraleksi (Apr 9, 2009)

While there is actually a good reason for the white lenses (heat dissipation) painting the tele-lenses had to be about the most brilliant marketing strategy in photography.


----------



## ann (Apr 9, 2009)

as a photo instructor i am sad to hear that someone is taking that stand.

I happen to use nikon , so of course i understand that camera better than say a canon; however, that doesn't mean that the student should be provided with less information, or discouraged from taking a class because they are using a different brand.

an fstop is an fstop, etc. regardless of the camera name.

there are too many instructors out there who give us all a bad name, but i suppose that is true for many things.


----------



## flea77 (Apr 9, 2009)

I'm still waiting for the OP to answer some questions.....He stated that he had a Canon, which could be this one:

Canon PowerShot A470 digital camera

then he states that the instructor says he might not want to take the course because he is not using top line equipment. If he was using the linked Canon above then the instructor would be RIGHT.

Why does this have to devolve into Canon vs Nikon when it sounds to me the OP tried to take an advanced photo class with a bottom of the line camera?

Allan

PS. I have shot with both, both are great, both will work in a classroom equally well, I despise white lenses.


----------



## jdwyer (Apr 9, 2009)

i feel like most sports photographers on the sidelines at football games etc. use canons. 
any truth to this? any reason a canon *might* be considered better for action photography?


----------



## tsaraleksi (Apr 9, 2009)

In the late 1980s, both brands brought out autofocus cameras. Because Canon was, at the time, firmly in second place to Nikon, they felt safe ditching their old mount (FD) and replacing it with an entirely new all-electronic mount system (EF), which was better suited to to communicating autofocus information to the lenses, and in many ways is an ideal mount-- which makes sense because it was designed after having had time to study all of the other companies' mounts and their own older model as well. At the same time, Canon lenses handled all of the focusing in the lens. 

Nikon, on the other hand, had such a large professional user base that their autofocus cameras had to be compatible with older manual lenses, tying them to the F mount and meaning that they built their autofocus around the camera bodies, which is essentially an inferior system. 

In the early 90s, sports photographers quickly realized that Canon had a substantial advantage in AF speed. It was during this time that journalists and sports photographers began a mass migration to Canon. Then, in the early '00s, Canon had a clear lead in sports camera digital bodies (1D vs. D1h was no contest, for example). The result was that most people who rely upon fast AF had switched to Canon by the mid '00s. 

The latest generation of Nikon bodies and lenses have finally closed this gap, which is why we're starting to see more parity in cameras used on the sidelines-- indeed, the 1D mark III AF debacle combined with the release of the D3 was a major force in that change.


----------



## KmH (Apr 9, 2009)

jdwyer said:


> i feel like most sports photographers on the sidelines at football games etc. use canons.
> any truth to this? any reason a canon *might* be considered better for action photography?


That was probably true....until Nikon released the D3. ISO 25,600 and 9 fps pretty much blew Canon out of the water. A lot, and I mean a lot, of Canon sports shooters jumped to Nikon for that kind of ISO and frame rate.

As far as the OP's observation, the camera brand has less to do with the quality of an image than does the technical skill and artistry the photographer brings to the equation.

That said, if you follow Canon and Nikon equipment forums it doesn't take long to see Canon owners endure more problems with their camera bodies than do Nikon owners.

A case in point. A few weeks ago my friend Wilson Marshall finally got the shiny new Canon 5D Mk II he'd been waiting for. Once the battery got charged he put it in and fired that puppy up. A look through the viewfinder to compose his first shot, press the shutter realeas and.........nothing. Error code: dead shutter.

For fun: Do a search for Canon Error 99.

You may have guessed by now. I use Nikon gear.


----------



## tsaraleksi (Apr 9, 2009)

KmH said:


> That was probably true....until Nikon released the D3. ISO 25,600 and 9 fps pretty much blew Canon out of the water. A lot, and I mean a lot, of Canon sports shooters jumped to Nikon for that kind of ISO and frame rate.
> 
> As far as the OP's observation, the camera brand has less to do with the quality of an image than does the technical skill and artistry the photographer brings to the equation.
> 
> ...



The 1D mark III is a 10 frame per second body. The reason people switched was pretty much the ISO and for some concerns over the screwy AF in the 1D3. Beyond that, people have just as many problems with their Nikons as people have problems with Canons. Both companies make high quality products that perform to a high standard. 

What I have seen is that Nikon users tend to have a much more fanatical opinion about the issue, perhaps from years of photogs switching to Canon? 

(one of the oddest things I've seen was a lengthy page from a D2x user blasting full frame and going on and on about how DX format was a superior system. You could see these claims all over the place, until Nikon came out with a full frame camera and all of a sudden everyone's opinion changed).


----------

