# Nikon vs. Canon



## Mel (Oct 9, 2006)

I went into one of my local Ritz Camera shops and I was going into seeing the camera of my dreams. Nikon D200. Well the guy I was talking too, is a Canon lover and he was telling me all about how Canon is better and what not. And I went on to tell him, that I wanted to eventually take pictures at an in home studio. And he went on to say that the Nikon you have to purchase Nikon equipment to really let that work right, but with the Canon it has it's own place for hook up to lightening and you can basically buy any brand to shoot with. And He brought up a lot of other features that the canon has. and It all sounded good to me. So i guess my question is Canon or Nikon? What i find is that most people shoot Canon? why? I guess i really don't care either way. I just want the best  One more question, what is the Canon camera that is the same as the Nikon D200? I hope this all makes sense. 

Thanks a bunch,


----------



## xfloggingkylex (Oct 9, 2006)

I hope you realized what you've just set in motion with this post.


----------



## ladyphotog (Oct 9, 2006)

First off you need to realize that you were talking to a salesman, and he makes commission. Secondly, you need to make up your own mind about a camera system. Do you really think that so many people would use Nikon if you had to use Nikon everything with it? You have opened up pandora's box with this one. Me, I'm Nikon all the way, they have had the best glass in 35mm for years and it's all about the glass.


----------



## xfloggingkylex (Oct 9, 2006)

but lots of people think L glass is the best.  I really dont think it is something you can prove one way or the other is better.  Find something at is comfortable for you and fits your budget.  and if your budget is unlimited, go medium format and screw both nikon AND canon.


----------



## newrmdmike (Oct 9, 2006)

for real. haha.  i shoot nikon, and would say that there aren't many good arguments out there that would put nikon ahead of canon, if any.

just remember that its about the photographer, not the camera.  there are great photos being made with both nikon and canon.  

just realize there is no full frame nikon camera out there, and that the d2xs isn't worth the extra money when comparing it to the 5d.

i'm in the same boat as you, and am making the switch from nikon to canon asap.  

considering where both companies are at right now, i put canon ahead by a mile.  JUST REMEMBER YOUR HEARING THAT FROM A NIKON USER.

pro nikon arguments:
better glass (i find this debatable)
not as bad of falloff (i think the natural vignetting of canon is nice, and software can correct it)
nikons 80-200 f/2.8mm lens is better than what canon has to offer
SB-800's are amazing ( i think they are better than canons 580)
tougher lenses and bodies (i agree)
better body design as far as button placement etc. (debatable)

pro canon arguments:
-better imaging chips
-full frame sensors
-cheaper glass in u.s.
-higher res pro bodies.
-better customer service
-faster focus systems (from my experience, but may not be 100% true)
-when you order somthing from canon you get it, with nikon its backordered FOREVER
-better tilt shift lenses available.


----------



## newrmdmike (Oct 9, 2006)

also fotolady, if your not shooting 35mm its not all about the glass. i'm with you that good glass is really really important, but if your imaging chip can't realize what the lens can, then whats the point.  even if nikons glass is better, the imaging chips are not.  canon is by default sharper.
while nikon has higher dynamic range, canon is killing nikon in sharpness on the chip side of things. . . 

go to www.dpreview.com and read the d200 review


----------



## KevinR (Oct 9, 2006)

First off, the Nikon D200 does just fine for studio work. He is not quite right there.
I have used both. Both are great systems. I am just a Nikon user from way back, so I have that comfort thing working.

Buy what feels good to you. 

Perfer the manly feel of the Nikon bodies versus the girlie dainty feel of the Canons.


----------



## ladyphotog (Oct 9, 2006)

newrmdmike said:
			
		

> also fotolady, if your not shooting 35mm its not all about the glass. i'm with you that good glass is really really important, but if your imaging chip can't realize what the lens can, then whats the point.  even if nikons glass is better, the imaging chips are not.  canon is by default sharper.
> while nikon has higher dynamic range, canon is killing nikon in sharpness on the chip side of things. . .
> 
> go to www.dpreview.com and read the d200 review



Exactly right, that is why I still shoot film. Digital is not there yet. Did I start another debate?


----------



## newrmdmike (Oct 9, 2006)

Digital is there yet, compare some prints from other people and see if you can tell any difference between digital and film.

i will agree that from medium format up film has it, but 35mm is not that great.   its just cheap and easy.

mel is obviously going with digital, so discuss digital nikon vs. digital canon


----------



## fmw (Oct 9, 2006)

These two brands are the two leading brands of digital SLR.  I guess that says all you need to know.  Obviously you can get the results you want with either system.


----------



## ladyphotog (Oct 9, 2006)

newrmdmike said:
			
		

> Digital is there yet, compare some prints from other people and see if you can tell any difference between digital and film.
> 
> i will agree that from medium format up film has it, but 35mm is not that great.   its just cheap and easy.
> 
> mel is obviously going with digital, so discuss digital nikon vs. digital canon



Relax, I was stating my opinion and you are welcome to state yours but no digital is NOT there yet and yes I shoot 35, 6x6 and 4x5. I have shot with digital SLR's and my manual focus Nikon F3 can run rings around all of them. Until digital can give me a creamy black and white then it's not there.


----------



## newrmdmike (Oct 9, 2006)

i am relaxed, sorry, but this is tough on me as i'm changing systems, and strongly needing to justify it.

are you still printing everything yourself on silver?  because if thats the "film feel" your talking about, then know that i print plenty of digital, to silver.  and know people who print digital to platinum. . . in fact the most beautiful platinum prints i've ever seen started out in digital cameras.

if your talking about the pure dynamic range, and beautiful grain graduations, then i agree film has a beauty that i don't think digital will ever have.

however, as i am no master printer in the darkroom, and don't have time to hand print everything, and can't afford to pay a master printer digital is the path i have chosen.

if i could afford to shoot everything film i would, however i am in business. the digital workflow has proven itself to me in both cost and image results.  

a friend of mine who tought most of the photography professors at my university is a master printer and master photographer, yet he chooses digital now for the ease.  while ease isn't everything, perhaps photography is more about what you see than how you present what you see.


----------



## ladyphotog (Oct 9, 2006)

Yes the beautiful gradiations that Oriental paper from a negative will give you. I print all the B&W prints that I sell because that is what they are looking for, it is art. If I still had my studio open I would probably be shooting digital as well however, I have the luxury and pleasure to be able to sell fine art pieces. Therefore, I could use no other than film. When it comes to digital I truely wish that Nikon would come out with a full frame sensor, I have some great wide angle lenses. I'm sure it is great to not have to drop your film off at the lab, come back and edit, then come back again and pick up the prints. To be able to delete as you shoot and to know that you would never have a shutter problem without knowing about it.


----------



## Oldfireguy (Oct 9, 2006)

So Mel.  Did you get your question answered?

Oh and I am a dedicated Nikon user both film and digital.  Been shooting Nikons since 1976.  I'm to damn old to switch.


----------



## darich (Oct 9, 2006)

ladyphotog said:
			
		

> Relax, I was stating my opinion and you are welcome to state yours but no digital is NOT there yet and yes I shoot 35, 6x6 and 4x5. I have shot with digital SLR's and my manual focus Nikon F3 can run rings around all of them. Until digital can give me a creamy black and white then it's not there.



I think newrmdmike was merely pointing oiut that the original poster didn't ask about medium format v 35mm or v any other type of film. The original question, I believe, was should i buy a canon dslr or a nikon dslr.

I'm not disagreeing on the quality of medium format (although I've never used it) but that should be discussed on another thread methinks:mrgreen:


----------



## Mel (Oct 9, 2006)

OH Wow!!!! sorry, didn't mean to start a fight! it's a good thing you (ladyphotog and newrmdmike) are hopfully miles away from each other! lol ok.. ummm.... sort of fredcwdoc. But believe me I won't ask this question again.  I knew that either you are a NIKON user or a CANON user. I guess what i was looking for is the pros and cons of both. And i guess what i was looking for is the cons of a NIkon from a Nikon user and the cons of a Canon from a canon user. i think then i would get the truth. Now i'm not saying you aren't telling me the truth. I just don't like the heat that is going on! scary!  smile everyone.  So really I didn't get my answer that i was looking for, but i did get, it is merely a personal opinion.


----------



## ladyphotog (Oct 9, 2006)

darich said:
			
		

> I think newrmdmike was merely pointing oiut that the original poster didn't ask about medium format v 35mm or v any other type of film. The original question, I believe, was should i buy a canon dslr or a nikon dslr.
> 
> I'm not disagreeing on the quality of medium format (although I've never used it) but that should be discussed on another thread methinks:mrgreen:



And if you look at my original post I was talking about Nikon and Canon and telling Mel that it was all about the glass. Why do people think that you can't have a friendly debate so therefore they have to intrude into something that was resolved with no problem whatsoever? Mike and I are cool, no hard feelings, just passionate about what we believe.


----------



## Torus34 (Oct 9, 2006)

I'm not partial to either Nikon or Canon. For image quality, I do kinda favor the Sinar 8x10 . . . ;-)


----------



## JIP (Oct 9, 2006)

I, being a Ritz Camera employee would have to say I used to fall into the same trap of trying to switch a person and steer them away from what they ask for in my case being a Nikon person I have tried to sway people from Canon to Nikon.  I have changed this attitude and think that if you stick with Canon or Nikon for a DSLR you can't go wrong.  Now I know there will be people probably chiming in eventually saying "what about Olympus, Pentax, etc." but a few months ago they probably said the same thing about Minolta.  The best way to choose between brands is to feel the camera in your hand, evaluate some of the features that differ between the 2 and decide for yourself. This is the age-old debate with alot of passion on both sides but that should tell you that there is really no absolute answer.


----------



## newrmdmike (Oct 9, 2006)

heck yeah, me and mel are cool, we go way back. lol.

I will say on her behalf that i too believe that nikon has the 35mm film  market hands down.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Oct 9, 2006)

It doesn't matter what system you shoot. Both of them are being used professionally all over the world and will deliver results if you know how to use them.

Optically, they both have their dogs and gems. Leica and Zeiss glass outperforms either one of them. When comparing nikon vs canon glass - you're splitting hairs. Some lenses are a bit better - some a bit worse. Good ones cost one to two grand each.

For studio the camera body doesn not matter at all. In fact I would buy a D50 or similar for studio shooting, because you don't need autofocus and the extra features.


----------



## DeepSpring (Oct 9, 2006)

It's like asking a redneck what's better, Dodge or Ford.

Either one will suit you fine pic the one that feels more comfortable


----------



## Dylan (Oct 9, 2006)

I use Canon... not by choice but because that's what was given to me. I can't speak for digital because I'm still using film however I will point out one thing which might help you mel. I've been looking at used lenses for the past month or two and it seems like there's a better supply of Canon lenses to choose from. If you're like me (shoestring budget) this means a lot. I can't afford to drop 700.00 on a new lens (omg that's a months worth of daycare for my daughter). I'm sure that each brand has their pro's and cons but in the end they both offer very well made equipment. Which ever brand you choose you're likely to get your moneys worth. good luck.


----------



## Rob (Oct 10, 2006)

Flip a coin.

Not helpful, but neither are N vs C conversations generally. For every pro there will be an equally good con from the other side.

Right, so here's the experienced and biassed opinon of one guy....

Nikon make sharper primes.
Canon make better AF.

For studio work, where you're mainly aiming for sharpness(?) then Nikon. For studio work where you don't trust your ability to focus as much as AF, then Canon. Goes both ways you see?

I won't go any further cos there really isn't a lot in it from my pov. I'm a Nikon film, Canon digital convert. There is so little in it that other factors may influence your purchase such as pre-owned kit, experience with button placement, brand allegience etc.

Rob


----------



## Alex_B (Oct 10, 2006)

on the field of SLR I started with a Canon film SLR .. and that means I have lenses and I got used to handling a Canon.

Now when I touch a Nikon it is confusing, all the wheels and buttons are in the wrong places FO ME .. for others it might be the other way around 

Also I wanted full frame since I am lazy and don't want to translated focal lengths all the time 

So that is why I decided for Canon DSLR.

Still I think Nikon makes both good cameras and lenses, as does Canon (even though this is debated). So in another world with a different personal history I might be a follower of Nikon 

Oh, and I even have Nikkor glass.... in my film scanner 


In any case, one should play with the cameras of different brands and then compare what feels best .. JMHO.


----------



## Don Simon (Oct 10, 2006)

JIP said:
			
		

> Now I know there will be people probably chiming in eventually saying "what about Olympus, Pentax, etc." but a few months ago they probably said the same thing about Minolta.


Yep, and people are still using Minolta cameras. Sony has adopted their system. Granted it must be annoying for Minolta users, but it's not as if their existing gear has suddenly ceased to work. Olympus are going their own way with the four thirds thing and of couse they're not the natural choice of professionals, but I don't think they ever claimed to be. Meanwhile Pentax have moved on from their insistence on making only entry-level models with the K10d, and I don't think the future looks particularly bleak for their user base. Again that user base may not include that many professionals, but that doesn't mean choosing their products is a wrong or foolish decision (which is sort of implied by saying that only with Canon and Nikon can you not go wrong).

Sorry, I know you've heard it all before. That's what happens in these threads; the Canon people tell you to go for Canon, the Nikon folks say Nikon, other folks say go for either but don't even think about anything else, and those of us who use anything-else get annoyed. Meanwhile I imagine the dedicated medium and large format people watch on bemused. Just like the film vs digital debates, "deja vu" doesn't even begin to cover it...




			
				Alex_B said:
			
		

> one should play with the cameras of different brands and then compare what feels best .. JMHO


Amen. All the theory, tests, graphs, reviews, testimonials etc are great but they won't really tell you which product feels more comfortable and convenient to use and produces the most pleasing images for you personally. That's something you have to figure out for yourself. Go to the shop with a blank memory stick, hold the various cameras in your hands and take a bunch of shots with them. One may not automatically feel more right than another; therefore find friends or associates with dSLRs and see if you can borrow theirs.


----------



## newrmdmike (Oct 10, 2006)

everyone is forgetting a very important factor here.  who is going to serve you best in the future.  if a company is going to abandon somthing and try somthing new, that may prevent you from using equipment you've spent money on.  if you have tons of gear and tons of money invested in a system, and don't research all of the options out there you could get screwed.  

more important than what feels right, or what looks slightly better, is who is going to continue to cator to your needs.  if nikon suddenly went full frame, a lot of nikon users out there would be ****ed, it means your nice wide angle dx lenses are trash on a full frame body.

the reason i would say canon is the smartest investment is because they have continued to imrove their digital line.

Nikon has pretty much just upgraded the same system - making wide angle dx lenses etc means they plan on NOT going full frame.


canon also has introduced cheaper full frame bodies, just compare the price of 5d to d2x.

so, as many people on this thread have said, they are about the same, or that both are good enough.  thats just on the performance end of current models.  what about the economical end?  what about the customer service end? is nikokn as financially stable as canon?  who is improving?

unless you just have money coming out your ass then shouldn't everyone here be concerned with their systems future?  nikon vs. canon is important.

most people here would agree that canon has nikon beat in the digital market.  thats a huge deal considering that nikon isn't making but one film camera anymore, and there isn't exactly a huge demand for it . . . 

i think that choosing canons system could be considered a smarter investment than nikons.

AND I SHOOT NIKON


----------



## cptnwinky (Oct 10, 2006)

I'm a complete noob so my opinion may be worth snot but you all have the priviledge of it anyways...

I ran into the same debate with the camera salesmen that you are facing, about 2 months ago. I ended up going with the Nikon (albeit a D50, rather than a D200) simply because it felt comfortable in my hands and I found most of the controls intuitive (to my taste, not to anyone elses).

I get the feeling that either way I might have went I would have been happy with the purchase (aside from the fact that the canon just felt like a cheap digicam in my hands). I'm just learning about photography so I am not so worried about all the professional features that I might miss out on, on one or the other. If I learn better down the road, or find a niche that I really enjoy then that will be the time to re-examine my camera choice.

All in all, probably a really naive reason to choose a camera but I'm happy with my decision and that's all that matters to me.


----------



## Don Simon (Oct 10, 2006)

cptnwinky said:
			
		

> I ended up going with the Nikon (albeit a D50, rather than a D200) simply because it felt comfortable in my hands and I found most of the controls intuitive (to my taste, not to anyone elses).



This, to me, still feels like a fairly good reason to choose a camera system. If I find that a system's ergonomics and operation is inconvenient and irritating and find it difficult to achive the results I want with said system,  then repeating a mantra of "I have made a sensible investment... I have made an economically sound and pragmatic choice and am well insured against future developments" is not going to make it better.

Are Nikon users who buy lenses designed for APS-C really be ****ed? Of course the lenses would be no good on a full-frame body... but you said yourself that Nikon isn't making a full-frame body; I expect the people who buy those lenses will be aware of that. If cameras, lenses, flashes and accessories were programmed to immediately stop working the moment the competition makes something better, then they would be ****ed. But Nikon cameras and lenses continue to work, and continue to sell, despite the presence of the 5D on the market. And until it's proven that second-hand cameras transmit leprosy, I don't see why Nikon owners would find it impossible to sell on or trade in their gear should they decide to switch.



			
				newrmdmike said:
			
		

> AND I SHOOT NIKON



I think we got that


----------



## xfloggingkylex (Oct 10, 2006)

having used the D50 and the Rebel XT, I would still have to go with my Pentax *istDL.  obviously pentax doesn't have a huge line at the moment but with the announcment of the K10D I am not in the slightest bit worried they will be dissapearing anytime soon.  You really just need to pick something you like.  Personally I love the menu's on the pentax as well as its unsurpased high ISO clarity (at least for the entry levels).  Just pick what feels good to you, because if you were really looking for the best of the best, you wouldn't be looking at small format camera's anyways.


----------



## thebeginning (Oct 11, 2006)

oh i just LIVE off these threads!! 

love it love it love it.  may the debate continue!

let me kickstart it:

canons suck. nikons suck.  wait no...

hasselblad sucks. mamiya sucks.....and zeiss and lieca too.  or is it leica? bah who cares, they both suck.



none of the cameras mentioned so far have a video mode.  what the crap, my point and shoot is better than those, it has one.


----------



## LWW (Oct 11, 2006)

DeepSpring said:
			
		

> It's like asking a redneck what's better, Dodge or Ford.
> 
> Either one will suit you fine pic the one that feels more comfortable



And the correct answer would be Chevy/GMC and most people who drive trucks aren't rednecks.

LWW


----------



## LeftRightLeft (Oct 11, 2006)

i was in a similar situation.. canon or nikon, i have a canon p&s and was happy with it.. but for my first dslr i ended up with the nikon d80, felt like the best in my hands out of the dlsrs in my price range


----------



## xfloggingkylex (Oct 11, 2006)

LWW said:
			
		

> And the correct answer would be Chevy/GMC and most people who drive trucks aren't rednecks.
> 
> LWW


 
chevy because they made the IROC :lmao:


----------



## abraxas (Oct 11, 2006)

I love my Nikons because of the way they look and the way they feel in my callused, yet strong hands as I caringly caress their firm bodies. I while away my idle hours staring deep into their dark lenses and gently touching all the little buttons and wiggling their sensitive little selectors with my fingertips. Softly, I blow tiny specks of dust from their sweet faces during the most romantic sunset and upon the golden sunrise... My eyelash brushes the view finder,... ever so slowly, delibrately and carefully I twist the focus... then... click!!!!

Would you look at that...

I think they love me...

.. Gottago....

(Cool, 500th post!)


----------



## thebeginning (Oct 11, 2006)

abraxas said:
			
		

> I love my Nikons because of the way they look and the way they feel in my callused, yet strong hands as I caringly caress their firm bodies. I while away my idle hours staring deep into their dark lenses and gently touching all the little buttons and wiggling their sensitive little selectors with my fingertips. Softly, I blow tiny specks of dust from their sweet faces during the most romantic sunset and upon the golden sunrise... My eyelash brushes the view finder,... ever so slowly, delibrately and carefully I twist the focus... then... click!!!!



:shock:


mental note: stay away from nikonians, they're all on ecstasy.


----------



## Orgnoi1 (Oct 11, 2006)

These threads really amuse me...

First of all... either brand WILL suit you for your needs... it really boils more down to the model you buy as to what specific benefits you will gain or lose. My list of cameras I have practical experience with is fairly long (including both Nikon and Canon) and I have not once used a camera I didnt "like" or that wouldnt serve any basic photographers needs.

Obviously you really went into the store without enough practical knowledge ahead of time (at no fault to yourself) so the employee who may or may not have ever made a dime shooting gave you some poor advise. I dont personally shoot studio work but I will tell you that both Canon and Nikon will work great in a studio environment. The D200 is a good camera as well as the other models Nikon puts out, and thats coming from a Canon shooter which I am.

Disclaimer: The following statement is meant to be humorous and not meant to instill riots.

With that said I would say a lot of Nikon users are like Harley riders. They always feel they have to justify the cameras and lenses they use... just like Harley riders have to wear all Harley gear and make sure that you know... they are riding a harley...LOL

Seriously though... good luck with your choice!


----------



## clarinetJWD (Oct 11, 2006)

Pardon to the Ritz employee here...but I think that may be your problem...everytime I've ever gone to a Ritz shop, they always try to sell me what I don't want.  Honestly, you'd be better off ordering it from a respectable online retailor (B&H, Adorama, Cameta) than Ritz...

That being said... D200


----------



## abraxas (Oct 11, 2006)

Ok, now that the expended batteries are on the charger, I've picked up the dirty lens tissues and zipped up the case, I'm reminded that when I bought my original Nikon it was because I liked the feel of the machine when I held it- period.


----------



## Tiberius (Oct 11, 2006)

clarinetJWD said:
			
		

> Pardon to the Ritz employee here...but I think that may be your problem...everytime I've ever gone to a Ritz shop, they always try to sell me what I don't want.  Honestly, you'd be better off ordering it from a respectable online retailor (B&H, Adorama, Cameta) than Ritz...
> 
> That being said... D200


Amen.  The only thing I ever listened to my local Ritz employee's advice on was when buying a cheap tripod (I don't use it enough to justify getting a Gitzo quite yet).  I have a friend who works there and the staff was repeatedly telling stories about problems with the D50 that don't exist (I own one, have two friends who own one, and surf the Internet talking to people who own them and never have had build quality or optical issues like they'd have you believe).  When I went in to compare the feel of the D50 vs. the 350D a year or so ago they were also heavily pushing Canon without ever listing specific reasons it was better.  (Not insulting the Canon - it's just that both cameras are rock solid)  They base their opinions off commissions, not facts, and it's annoying as hell.

Oh, and I'm not a fan of Quantaray crap either.  I'll be replacing my UV filters one of these days.


----------



## Alex_B (Oct 11, 2006)

Just a comment ... things are as bad here in Germany (and in the UK sometimes). Hard to find any good shops with qualified staff. I guess sometimes they simply have directives what to push in order to make the best profit.

In the mass-consumer shops there is mostly NO expertise ... and in the expensive Expert-shops I am sometimes not recognized as a potential customer for expensive equipment (as in when I am hung over, did not shave, or did not dress up with a tie ) .. I once was rather shocked when I was told by arrogant staff that they could not help me  .. well after that I decided to help myself and bought my L lenses online


----------



## Christie Photo (Oct 11, 2006)

They're both good.  

I always had Nikon 35mm gear at work simply because in the past (pre-internet), I could find more used Nikon in the camera shops.  I used the 35mm for slides ONLY.

I have a couple of Canon DSLRs now....  the first Canon gear I've EVER owned in my 30+ years of photography.  I like them fine.  They're JUST TOOLS.  They do what I tell them, so I'm happy.

Over the years, I've printed from both Nikon and Canon optics and found them to be comparable...  both with nice contrast (as opposed to Asahi, which I thought was just as sharp).

My advice, chose a camera with the features YOU like, and you can't go wrong.  They're both good brands.

Pete


----------



## eddiesimages (Oct 12, 2006)

Who is better the Yankees or Mets?

Ford or Chevrolet?

Coke or Pepsi?

It's all a personal choice, I'll take the Braves, Jeep, iced tea and Nikon.


----------



## bitteraspects (Oct 12, 2006)

Mel said:
			
		

> I guess what i was looking for is the pros and cons of both. And i guess what i was looking for is the cons of a NIkon from a Nikon user and the cons of a Canon from a canon user.


the only con to shooting canon (if you want to call it a con), is cost. but at the same time you get what you pay for, not just with cameras, but with everything. canon puts out superior equipment, but it is a bit costly the more you get into it. nikon will put out similar (but by no means "better") products, for cheaper. in the end it comes down to personal preferance. the only real way tomake a decision is to go to a shop, try them both, and pick the one you like better (or in the case of nikon, the one you can afford)

:hugs:


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Oct 12, 2006)

bitteraspects said:
			
		

> the only con to shooting canon (if you want to call it a con), is cost. but at the same time you get what you pay for, not just with cameras, but with everything. canon puts out superior equipment, but it is a bit costly the more you get into it. nikon will put out similar (but by no means "better") products, for cheaper. in the end it comes down to personal preferance. the only real way tomake a decision is to go to a shop, try them both, and pick the one you like better (or in the case of nikon, the one you can afford):hugs:


 If I may add:
1) abovementioned cost. Bodies are a bit more expensive, the glass is IMO just as expensive.
2) The glass doesn't have good manual focus scale.
3) The viewfinders are CRAP across the whole lineup all the way into the pro 1Ds MkII. They're just small
4) I dunno what nikon is like, but canon has plastic moving parts even in their touted L lineup. Not the optical part, but the gears and such are made of plastic.
5) Canon's "slow primes" are crap. 28/2.8... 35/2... 50/1.8... are just sub par. If you like schooting with primes - nikon is the way to go.
6) Their wide angles suck. Nikon is clearly better.
7) I don't like the bokeh of many lenses


Pentax and nikon are much better in that department. IMO nikon and pentax are better value for money unless you have money for a 1 series body.

Also - their large telephotos are great. 200/1.8... the 300/2.8 and up are all stellar. So if you're doing birding - it's the way to go.


----------



## Tiberius (Oct 12, 2006)

Re: Point 6 - I'm a Nikon Guy myself but last I checked the Canon 10-22 was about the best wide angle out there.


----------



## bitteraspects (Oct 12, 2006)

DocFrankenstein said:
			
		

> If I may add:
> 1) abovementioned cost. Bodies are a bit more expensive, the glass is IMO just as expensive.
> 2) The glass doesn't have good manual focus scale.
> 3) The viewfinders are CRAP across the whole lineup all the way into the pro 1Ds MkII. They're just small
> ...



BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH


that was hilareous. thank you for that.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Oct 12, 2006)

Tiberius said:
			
		

> Re: Point 6 - I'm a Nikon Guy myself but last I checked the Canon 10-22 was about the best wide angle out there.


 That might be true. I didn't read any APS-c UWA comparisons. I was referring in terms of the FF wide angle primes. 35mm and less... Generally nikon is better IMO



> Over the years, I've printed from both Nikon and Canon optics and found them to be comparable... both with nice contrast (as opposed to Asahi, which I thought was just as sharp)


 Are you saying Asahi was worse or better? Could you elaborate a bit?

Thanks

Bitteraspects - why do you find it funny?


----------



## bitteraspects (Oct 12, 2006)

DocFrankenstein said:
			
		

> That might be true. I didn't read any APS-c UWA comparisons. I was referring in terms of the FF wide angle primes. 35mm and less... *Generally nikon is better IMO*
> 
> Bitteraspects - why do you find it funny?



that is why

you dont have facts, just opinions. mhich is exactly what reviews are as well. your bold statements made with no bearing on the facts is hilareous to me. the fact remains that coke, mcdonalds, and t-mobile/vodafone are better


----------



## JIP (Oct 12, 2006)

clarinetJWD said:
			
		

> Pardon to the Ritz employee here...but I think that may be your problem...everytime I've ever gone to a Ritz shop, they always try to sell me what I don't want.  Honestly, you'd be better off ordering it from a respectable online retailor (B&H, Adorama, Cameta) than Ritz...
> 
> That being said... D200



I have to tell you and this is coming from a diehard Nikon user if you go into a Ritz camera and someone tries to push a Canon on you over a Nikon the last thing on that persons mind is commission.  Just a little trade secret I guess not really a secret but Canon of all camera brands in my experience was the company that gave little or no sales incentives (i.e. a little extra from the camera compay to sell a particular product) of all the camera companies.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Oct 12, 2006)

bitteraspects said:
			
		

> that is why
> 
> you dont have facts, just opinions. mhich is exactly what reviews are as well. your bold statements made with no bearing on the facts is hilareous to me. the fact remains that coke, mcdonalds, and t-mobile/vodafone are better


 I'm not getting into an argument, unless you show me your kickass gallery.

Look up viewfinder magnification data for the current canon SLRs. Bigger = better

How many canon wide angle primes have u used? What did you compare them with?


----------



## bitteraspects (Oct 12, 2006)

[quote5) Canon's "slow primes" are crap. 28/2.8... 35/2... 50/1.8... are just sub par. If you like schooting with primes - nikon is the way to go.
 6) Their wide angles suck. Nikon is clearly better.
 7) I don't like the bokeh of many lenses[/quote]

i have had the pleasure of trying quite a few lenses, including the 14mm f/2.8, 24mm f/1.4, 28mm f1.8/2.8, 10-22mmf3.5-4.5, ect.
all of them preform amazingly. i have also had the displeasure of using some of nikons similar glass. canons lenses speak for themselves.

and by the way the 50mm isnt a wide angle lense. 

blah blah blah blah blah..........


that is all


----------



## thebeginning (Oct 13, 2006)

wow, i'm actually agreeing with bitteraspects on this one :shock:.




			
				DocFrankenstein said:
			
		

> If I may add:
> 1) abovementioned cost. Bodies are a bit more expensive, the glass is IMO just as expensive.
> 2) The glass doesn't have good manual focus scale.
> 3) The viewfinders are CRAP across the whole lineup all the way into the pro 1Ds MkII. They're just small
> ...


i see what you're getting at doc, and while some of these may be true points (like some parts of the lens even in the L's being made out of plastic), it's hardly even worth mentioning.

here's my 'point of view':

1) yes, true
2) ummm maybe not, but they are autofocus lenses (?).  if you want a good manual focus scale get MF lenses.  it's kind of a no duh type thing.  we aren't complaining about our MF lenses having super slow focus, are we? 
3) also relative.  the viewfinders on the 1.6x crop cameras are indeed smaller than 35mm viewfinders.  but the majority of people using cams like the 350d are people coming from point and shoots.  it's huge to them.  IMO there's no reason to complain about the 5d and 1ds viewfinders because they are quite big and bright, almost identical to 35mm cams.  or are you comparing these to medium format viewfinders? that is certainly not the argument we're in at the moment.  
4) yes, lenses and some L lenses have a few plastic (even though it's very strong high-quality plastics or reinforced plastics) moving parts in them...but...so what? They are some of the most well built autofocus lenses today and you're never going to know the difference. besides, if they were that bad, would so many professional sports and event photographers be choosing them over all the other competition if they broke all the time? or are you comparing them to standard focal length rangefinder primes? again, not the current issue.
5) some of canon's slow primes are crap (but so are other brands options, so what's the big deal?), yes  the 50mm 1.8 is 'crap'. the 35mm f2 is 'crap' as well.  or is just the photographer that is crappy?  have you tried the same shots with a 50mm 1.2 or a 35mm 1.4 and achieved better composition? or are you relying on the equipment to make good photographs?  the point is, that doesnt matter.  there are very succesful fashion photographers that use the 50mm 1.8 as one of their main lenses.  besides, you're looking at their 'slow' primes, which were specifically made to be cheaper.  take a look at the 35 1.4, the 50 1.2, the 85 1.2, the 135 f2....honestly, some of their primes are absolutely fantastic.  
6) yes, nikons wide angles are slightly better (canon's 16-35 and 17-40 have some edge issues sometimes...but they are still very good).  keep in mind though that fifteen years ago canon's current wide angles would be the best out there. this is another 'does it really matter?' issues.  if the slightly better edge detail is THAT important to you, why aren't you shooting large format or mf digital?
7) 'i dont like the bokeh of many lenses'.   what the heck is that supposed to mean...and what is 'many'?  again, have you even seen shots taken by their fast primes?  the bokeh is some of the best i've ever seen, and i've compared them to leica, zeiss, nikorr, and a few more miniscule ones as well.  if you're comparing the bokeh of the 50mm 1.8 (5 aperture blades) against some nikon offering that has 8 or 9, well duh you're not going to like the bokeh is much.  that's common sense.  not all nikons have perfect bokeh either.


IMO i think you just overanalyze...like WAY too much.  and you use the word 'suck' way too often...especially when referring to a company that is commonly known to be the leader in digital photography - right alongside the company you support in lens quality.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Oct 13, 2006)

Yes, I'm realying on my equipment to make good photographs.

Yes, the L glass improves composition.

Common knowledge or popularity is not an indicator of quality.


----------



## SonicME64 (Oct 13, 2006)

DocFrankenstein said:
			
		

> Yes, I'm realying on my equipment to make good photographs.


1.) Take this quote as you may.



			
				Illah said:
			
		

> I understand a good photographer will take good pics with a crap camera while equipment won't make a bad photographer any better - I don't expect a new lens to suddenly make 'better' pictures


Good equipment will not necessarily make good photographs.



			
				DocFrankenstein said:
			
		

> Yes, the L glass improves composition.


2.) Composition has nothing to do with the lens, you compose the photograph, not your lens... there would be no point to even being a photographer if your camera did all the work for you.



			
				DocFrankenstein said:
			
		

> Common knowledge or popularity is not an indicator of quality.


3.) The only part of your post I agree with.


----------



## Alex_B (Oct 13, 2006)

OK, my advice for this thread : 

- don't use any swearwords or words which could be mistaken for them, this is in part about religion, so we should all show some respect for brand names .

- don't use sarkasm or humor, people who read your posts and are prepared to fight will not realise it and take everything literally .

- most importantly ... calm down and go shooting nice images .. I do not care at all if for this you use primes or zooms, canon or nikon, L glass or Nikkor or if you use your mobile phone camera!


----------



## rmh159 (Oct 13, 2006)

Alex_B said:
			
		

> - don't use sarkasm or humor, people who read your posts and are prepared to fight will not realise it and take everything literally .


 
Isn't that the *point* of using sarcasm and humor???  Besides if someone is reading this looking for an argument sometimes it's too tempting to push the buttons.

Along with the L glass improving composition the name on the side of the camera also improves image quality.


----------



## Alex_B (Oct 13, 2006)

rmh159 said:
			
		

> Isn't that the *point* of using sarcasm and humor???



Hmm, maybe I am just bein naive, but I always thought sarcams was meant to make me smile and humor was meant to make me laugh 



> Along with the L glass improving composition the name on the side of the camera also improves image quality.



Hmm, the one currently in my hand reads ... Coronet ... is that good or bad?


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Oct 13, 2006)

SonicME64 said:
			
		

> Good equipment will not necessarily make good photographs.


What do you know? Your camera doesn't even have a zoom! :lmao:

Kidding! Kidding!

Let's hug and make up. Canon makes fine products, but they're not perfect. I've used... 9 photo systems in total. 

There's no perfect one. All of them expose... and all of them will make a great photo if the light is right.

Oh, and I forgot. Canon ETTL flashes are a level below nikon. Even metz flashes work better on the canon bodies. And they don't have a PC cord


----------



## SonicME64 (Oct 13, 2006)

DocFrankenstein said:
			
		

> What do you know? Your camera doesn't even have a zoom! :lmao:
> 
> Kidding! Kidding!
> 
> ...


When I throw the 300mm telephoto and 2x converter on there... that's a zoom... albiet a hell of a lot slower. 

:hug:: Agreed, I can't really say any camera system I've used is perfect. I've used Pentax and Nikon as well, and found Canon to be a good fit for me. I guess what it boils down to, is what you prefer, and what feels good for you. Exactly, even a disposable will make excellent photos if the light is right.

But I do stand by my point that composition has nothing to do with the lens and camera body, and everything to do with the photographers eye. 

We may have gotten off on the wrong foot here... friends? 

Edit: I don't use a flash. I'm more for the existing light style.


----------



## loves_guitar (Oct 13, 2006)

One reason and one reason only to go with Nikon:
That's what they use on CSI!


----------



## EBphotography (Oct 13, 2006)

Good to see people are calming down a bit! :hugs:

*calls the SWAT team and tells them to go home*

It's all perspective, and I think everyone here has seen some of the brilliant work people have posted here taken with just a point and shoot!  The quality of the camera is important in some situations but in general great photos are achieved with any camera.


----------



## Simon (Oct 13, 2006)

The lens is the most important aspect of a camera, so work out what glass you want and base your decision on that, as the body will be your smallest investment.


----------



## LeftRightLeft (Oct 13, 2006)

loves_guitar said:
			
		

> One reason and one reason only to go with Nikon:
> That's what they use on CSI!


 
hahaha ive noticed that too!!

not the reason i got a nikon though


----------



## loves_guitar (Oct 13, 2006)

LeftRightLeft said:
			
		

> hahaha ive noticed that too!!
> 
> not the reason i got a nikon though


 
Did anybody watch last night's episode [Thursday, Oct. 12/06]? There was a BLATANT product shot of the Nikon camera. Quite funny. 

But I'm a Nikon guy, so it was all good!


----------



## Don Simon (Oct 13, 2006)

loves_guitar said:
			
		

> One reason and one reason only to go with Nikon:
> That's what they use on CSI!


I dunno if it's a reason to go with Nikon; actually film and TV tell me to avoid Nikon like the plague. The CSI team use Nikons and at least two people get murdered every week... David Hemmings used a Nikon in _Blow Up_ and someone got murdered... Jimmy Stewart used a Nikon in _Rear Window_ and someone got murdered... in _The Omen_ David Warner uses a Nikon and gets decapitated! Yep, those Nikons are cursed. Shoot Canon, it's the safe choice.

At last this is turning into a sensible debate. :lmao:


----------



## bitteraspects (Oct 13, 2006)

BAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA


----------



## DeepSpring (Oct 13, 2006)

hahahahahah


I'm glad I went with canon


----------



## airgunr (Oct 14, 2006)

Ok, I guess I'll pop in with my 2 cents worth.....

I shoot Nikon but both are fine systems.  As to one of your original points, you don't have to use Nikon lighting systems exclusively to get good results.  That is just the Salesman's BS.  Nikon works well with almost every lighting manufacture out there.

I choose Nikon because I can use my newest modern lenses with my F5 as well as my old all manual FM2n cameras.  If and when I go for digital all my lenses with work with that camera as well.  Canon does not have this backwards/forwards compatibility with lenses.  I could not use the same lenses with the AE-1 and their newest Digital SLR's.  

That was the deciding factor for me.  Is that important for you?  If not then Canon may end up being your choice or any of the other major brands.

As several others have said it's the photographer and not particularly the box that takes the picture which is important.


----------



## JIP (Oct 14, 2006)

Simon said:
			
		

> The lens is the most important aspect of a camera, so work out what glass you want and base your decision on that, as the body will be your smallest investment.



If you are talking digital this thinking is outdated.  In the past your camera was just a light tight box and the lens and film was more important.  With the advent of digital the camera companies have found a way around this and now the quality of your body is as important as the glass you put on it.


----------



## fmw (Oct 14, 2006)

JIP said:
			
		

> If you are talking digital this thinking is outdated. In the past your camera was just a light tight box and the lens and film was more important. With the advent of digital the camera companies have found a way around this and now the quality of your body is as important as the glass you put on it.


 
Not really.  The camera companies don't make the sensor arrays.  They are made by third parties and sold to the camera companies.  Sensors are sensors, basically.  Yes the compression software in the cameras is different but, if one captures Raw files, that isn't an issue.  Some cameras have more resolution than others but those with the same resolution perform the same.  The lens is still what forms the image.  The sensor array in the camera simply records it.  This might all change in the future but better lenses still provide better technical images.


----------



## .Steve (Oct 14, 2006)

loves_guitar said:
			
		

> Did anybody watch last night's episode [Thursday, Oct. 12/06]? There was a BLATANT product shot of the Nikon camera. Quite funny.
> 
> But I'm a Nikon guy, so it was all good!



Yeah, I noticed that, also.  Nikon must have paid CBS lots of money, because if you watch carefully, they always show the Nikon, plain as day.  But I agree, they did keep the camera on that D200 (I believe), for quite a few seconds.


----------



## thebeginning (Oct 14, 2006)

fmw said:
			
		

> Not really.  The camera companies don't make the sensor arrays.  They are made by third parties and sold to the camera companies.  Sensors are sensors, basically.  Yes the compression software in the cameras is different but, if one captures Raw files, that isn't an issue.  Some cameras have more resolution than others but those with the same resolution perform the same.  The lens is still what forms the image.  The sensor array in the camera simply records it.  This might all change in the future but better lenses still provide better technical images.




sorry, but your reply was more off than JIP's.  

some company's do have others make their sensors (nikon uses sony sensors, for instance), but not all of them.  canon makes their own sensors.  

I think by 'compression software' you mean image processors, which are certainly not just 'compression' related.  the image processor controls color, sharpness, contrast, noise, and image processing speed.  this is obviously extremely important, and has nothing to do with wether or not you shoot RAW.

'those with the same resolution perform the same'.  

that's utter craziness.  does an off brand 'ebay only' 10 megapixel point and shoot have the same performance quality as a d200?  of course not.  and you hardly even mentioned sensor size, which has a huge difference in image quality and appearance.  

lenses do matter a ton.  I would venture to say that they still are more important in some situations than the body (most of the time this argument is like 'should i get the d200 and kit lens or a d70 and some nice glass?  I wont be buying anything else in the next few years').  but the body is definitely important.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Oct 15, 2006)

fmw said:
			
		

> Not really.  The camera companies don't make the sensor arrays.  They are made by third parties and sold to the camera companies.  Sensors are sensors, basically.  Yes the compression software in the cameras is different but, if one captures Raw files, that isn't an issue.  Some cameras have more resolution than others but those with the same resolution perform the same.  The lens is still what forms the image.  The sensor array in the camera simply records it.  This might all change in the future but better lenses still provide better technical images.


|
I'd have to disagree with you just as mr. thebeginnging did.

The body matters just as much as the lens. The sensor technology and the amplification methods matter and there's a definite reason to pay for larger/better sensor and camera.


----------



## DeepSpring (Oct 15, 2006)

If anyone saw "Thank You for Smoking" (just did today) the press all had Canons


----------



## LWW (Oct 15, 2006)

thebeginning said:
			
		

> does an off brand 'ebay only' 10 megapixel point and shoot have the same performance quality as a d200?  of course not.



I'm not so sure of that?

If you swapped nothing but the sensors I doubt that the difference would be substantial.

Keep in mind this would now give the cheapo access to D200 internal processing and Nikkor glass while limiting the D200 unit to ebay standards.

LWW


----------



## LWW (Oct 15, 2006)

DeepSpring said:
			
		

> If anyone saw "Thank You for Smoking" (just did today) the press all had Canons



In "Brilliantovaya ruka" they all used Zenits.

LWW


----------



## Alex_B (Oct 15, 2006)

All Sensors that work with the Bayer-Matrix will give similar performance if the pixel size is similar, and the quality of the materials used. You could build a crappy sensor with the same specs as high-end one, but no serious company would dare to do so 

HOWEVER, companies will not necessarily stay with the Bayer-Matrix way of doing it .. so there comes improvement probably, in particular regarding initial sharpness (before any camera software messes with the data) and hopefully someday regarding dynamical range.

Also the amplifier just behind the sensor can make a huge difference in particular regarding noise.

So here we are, the camera body is quite important and expensive these days, certainly more expensive than film-bodies. However, even if you go for the high end DSLRs still when you buy adequate glass for them, the latter ruins your bank account!

On my DSLR I can clearly see the weak points of my lenses (whcih are really not cheap ones). So what is the point of investing huge sums of money on the body if the lenses downgrade your output?

I personally am much more relaxed when I pay a lot for a good lens, than if I pay alot of money for a camera body which will be obsolete in 2 years time as technology has advanced.

These days a good lens will be your friend for quite some years, and it will probably survive several camera bodies.

And please don'T forget, that sensor materials degrade over the years ... diffusion processes will kill any sensor at some point. So today's cameras are not built for eternity anyway.  Therefore I really like the concept of a digital back which you can replace after some years without replacing the whole camera (if those Hasselblad digibacks weren't just so hell expensive  ).


----------



## Alex_B (Oct 15, 2006)

LWW said:
			
		

> If you swapped nothing but the sensors I doubt that the difference would be substantial.



The results from the cheap off-brand point and shoot sensor would certainly be improved. However, the difference would still be substantial.

In today'S cameras sensor costs are one of the major costs. Cheaper camera almost always also means cheaper sensor.


----------



## fmw (Oct 15, 2006)

thebeginning said:
			
		

> sorry, but your reply was more off than JIP's.
> 
> some company's do have others make their sensors (nikon uses sony sensors, for instance), but not all of them. canon makes their own sensors.
> 
> ...


 
No kidding?  Canon has a manufacturing facility that makes solid state CCD's?  I wonder how they make that work out financially.  I can imagine a company the size of Hitachi or Matsu****a having that but it boggles the mind to think that one the size of Canon has one.  That's truly amazing.


----------



## thebeginning (Oct 15, 2006)

fmw said:
			
		

> No kidding?  Canon has a manufacturing facility that makes solid state CCD's?  I wonder how they make that work out financially.  I can imagine a company the size of Hitachi or Matsu****a having that but it boggles the mind to think that one the size of Canon has one.  That's truly amazing.



i suppose it is...but remember Canon doesnt use CCDs in their cameras, they use their own design - something called CMOS sensors.  they are also a HUGE company, making everything from cameras to video cameras to lenses to printers to huge flat panel tv's....and that's JUST the consumer market. they also make office printers, high tech medical equipment, space research equipment, semiconductors, and many many other things that many of us have no idea about.  it can be safely said that they are either the leader or in the running for the lead in most of their areas of production.  I dont see what else it would need to be a huge company.


----------



## thebeginning (Oct 15, 2006)

LWW said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure of that?
> 
> If you swapped nothing but the sensors I doubt that the difference would be substantial.
> 
> ...



i dont how it is even feasible to say that a camera with a 22.7x15.1mm sensor gets the same quality as a 8.8 x 6.6 mm one...that's almost like saying that 35mm film is just as good (or close to) 6x7cm medium format or even large format film.  it has little to do with internal processing or lenses.  it has to do with packing so many photosites on such a small area.


----------



## Alex_B (Oct 15, 2006)

Correct, Canon does develop and produce their very own CMOS sensors. When I was still doing semiconductor physics, I never thought that CMOS would be such a success in digital cameras 



			
				thebeginning said:
			
		

> i dont how it is even feasible to say that a camera with a 22.7x15.1mm sensor gets the same quality as a 8.8 x 6.6 mm one...that's almost like saying that 35mm film is just as good (or close to) 6x7cm medium format or even large format film.  it has little to do with internal processing or lenses.  it has to do with packing so many photosites on such a small area.



And even if the sensor would cope with that high density (which it does not as we all know if we look at noise profiles), the we would need an extremely good lens to satisfy this tiny sensor with this ultra high resolution. Also, diffraction probably is a larger problem with smaller formats.


----------



## thebeginning (Oct 15, 2006)

Alex_B said:
			
		

> Also, diffraction probably is a larger problem with smaller formats.



yep.  that's why we get softer photos if we stop down past f11 or so while using a 1.5 or 1.6x crop camera, while on 35mm film we could go to f16 and sometimes f22 without losing much sharpness.


----------



## JIP (Oct 15, 2006)

fmw said:
			
		

> Not really.  The camera companies don't make the sensor arrays.  They are made by third parties and sold to the camera companies.  Sensors are sensors, basically.  Yes the compression software in the cameras is different but, if one captures Raw files, that isn't an issue.  Some cameras have more resolution than others but those with the same resolution perform the same.  The lens is still what forms the image.  The sensor array in the camera simply records it.  This might all change in the future but better lenses still provide better technical images.



All I'm trying to say is in the past, and I'm using Nikon for an example because thats models I know if you wanted to choose between bodies the price was in speed and durability.  So if you looked at say for example to use older models a Nikon 8008 compared to an F4 or a little newer an N70 compared to an F5 the only difference in the body would be the speed of focusing and of advancing the film and mabye a few bells and whistles.  As far as image quality the thing that mattered most with that comparison would be glass and film stock the light tight box the lens as attached to really had nothing to do with image quality.  Now fast foreward to digital cameras if you have a choice between a D50 and a D2x I'm sorry I dont care what you think, if you put the same piece of glass on both cameras and shoot side by side the D2x will make the better image everytime.  Personally I think this sucks because I was a long time supporter of the notion of "the glass is what really matters save your money on the body and buy good glass" and in camera sales this is what I told people now and don't get me wrong I agree that good glass is extremely important but now you have to factor in body quality as well.


----------



## Alex_B (Oct 15, 2006)

JIP said:
			
		

> ... if you put the same piece of glass on both cameras and shoot side by side the D2x will make the better image everytime.  Personally I think this sucks because I was a long time supporter of the notion of "the glass is what really matters save your money on the body and buy good glass" and in camera sales this is what I told people now and don't get me wrong I agree that good glass is extremely important but now you have to factor in body quality as well.



OK, I guess we found something here we can all agree on 
Whereas in the past you had to spend a fortune on the glass only, these days you pay a second fortune on the camera body too to take advantage of that glass you just bought


----------



## aNgLiaM (Oct 15, 2006)

Alex_B said:
			
		

> OK, I guess we found something here we can all agree on
> Whereas in the past you had to spend a fortune on the glass only, these days you pay a second fortune on the camera body too to take advantage of that glass you just bought



QFT!


----------



## Alex_B (Oct 15, 2006)

aNgLiaM said:
			
		

> QFT!


= "quit talking f*ggot" ???????????


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Oct 15, 2006)

Alex_B said:
			
		

> = "quit talking f*ggot" ???????????


Highly unlikely.

It's would make it QTF... not QFT

But I like the interpretation! :lmao:



> HOWEVER, companies will not necessarily stay with the Bayer-Matrix way of doing it .. so there comes improvement probably, in particular regarding initial sharpness (before any camera software messes with the data) and hopefully someday regarding dynamical range.



Have you come across the new sigma? It has re-released their new camera which is a non-interpolated foveon sensor based goodness.

Sigma SD14

Here's a more graphical presentation.


----------



## Alex_B (Oct 15, 2006)

DocFrankenstein said:
			
		

> Highly unlikely.
> 
> It's would make it QTF... not QFT
> 
> ...



Oh, QTF, QFT, whatever, my guess was that  I was wrong with my interpretation anyway 

Thanks for the link. Yes, that might be some interesting thing with those new sensors.


----------



## aNgLiaM (Oct 15, 2006)

Alex_B said:
			
		

> = "quit talking f*ggot" ???????????



that doesn't even make sense...QFT is "quoted for truth" or "quite f*ckin' true."  "quit talking f*ggot" isn't even in the right letter order.

:meh:


----------



## Alex_B (Oct 15, 2006)

aNgLiaM said:
			
		

> that doesn't even make sense...QFT is "quoted for truth" or "quite f*ckin' true."  "quit talking f*ggot" isn't even in the right letter order.
> 
> :meh:



see my last post!
sorry, was just not concentrated and as that acronym made no sense to me I entered it in google and one of the hits was what I posted 

Don't worry, no offense taken


----------



## Irminsul (Oct 15, 2006)

I shoot both film and digital with Canon cameras (respectively, an EOS ELAN 7ne and a DRebel XT).  I've never shot with a Nikon, so I can't speak for myself.  But, the reason I made my first SLR a Canon is that a friend of mine, a longtime professional photographer, recommended it.  This person is a Nikon user who told me that now that he's gone digital he would've preferred a Canon, but that he was too deeply invested in Nikon glass to make the switch.  But he recommended that I get a Canon.  

I'm happy with both my Canons, but I've always wondered why most professional photographers (the ones that I happen to know or know about) seem to be Nikon shooters.  Maybe they're in the same position as my friend.  They began as Nikon 35mm shooters.  This is just my admittedly limited personal perception, though.


----------



## aNgLiaM (Oct 15, 2006)

Alex_B said:
			
		

> see my last post!
> sorry, was just not concentrated and as that acronym made no sense to me I entered it in google and one of the hits was what I posted
> 
> Don't worry, no offense taken


first hit on google 

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=QFT&btnG=Google+Search

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=QFT

 1.    QFT                     

 *677* up, *93* down          

 
                     QUOTED FOR TRUTH

 Used on internet forums when quoting someone with similar views as yours. 



 you know i just gotta rub it in a little now that you're down


----------



## Alex_B (Oct 15, 2006)

aNgLiaM said:
			
		

> 1.    QFT
> 
> *677* up, *93* down
> 
> ...



pffffff... now I can see it myself, probably I mistyped it while on google.

Actually I do not feel all that down  Managed to post plenty of nice pictures on the forum today, all of them taken with film SLRs, and I will have pizza soon :lmao:


----------



## aNgLiaM (Oct 15, 2006)

Alex_B said:
			
		

> pffffff... now I can see it myself, probably I mistyped it while on google.
> 
> Actually I do not feel all that down  Managed to post plenty of nice pictures on the forum today, all of them taken with film SLRs, and I will have pizza soon :lmao:



pizza?    i want pizza.


----------



## Alex_B (Oct 15, 2006)

aNgLiaM said:
			
		

> pizza?    i want pizza.



Hah! got you there! 

I will order online here:
http://www.hallopizza.de/

but I guess they don't ship to your place


----------



## thebeginning (Oct 15, 2006)

DocFrankenstein said:
			
		

> Have you come across the new sigma? It has re-released their new camera which is a non-interpolated foveon sensor based goodness.
> 
> Sigma SD14
> 
> Here's a more graphical presentation.


ahh yes i looked into that a little when it was announced.  very interesting.  unfortunately i *think* that, like the sd10 (Which had something slightly similar), it has the potential to be a bit of a dissapointment in actual shooting situations.  the color looks nice though


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Oct 15, 2006)

thebeginning said:
			
		

> ahh yes i looked into that a little when it was announced.  very interesting.  unfortunately i *think* that, like the sd10 (Which had something slightly similar), it has the potential to be a bit of a dissapointment in actual shooting situations.  the color looks nice though


 What did SD10 do badly?

I've never even seen that camera, let alone know how it performs.

EDIT: but i'm really curious as to the performance, because I'll probably get that SD14 and dump canon if the body goes for the same amount a 30D does.


----------



## thebeginning (Oct 15, 2006)

DocFrankenstein said:
			
		

> What did SD10 do badly?
> 
> I've never even seen that camera, let alone know how it performs.
> 
> EDIT: but i'm really curious as to the performance, because I'll probably get that SD14 and dump canon if the body goes for the same amount a 30D does.



i haven't done extensive research on it, but from what i have read and picked up, the sd10 had good color reproduction, but not much else.  it had a few nice things like a dust protection screen (also on the sd14) but when compared to nicer canon or nikon bodies they were just dinky.  the AF was slow, the body was made badly, it only capture RAW, it had bad high ISO performance, etc.

i'd just wait for a while till some exstensive reviews come out before getting one.


----------



## DeepSpring (Oct 16, 2006)

http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5211531,00.jpg


Tom Cruise uses canon......... anyone want an xt I think I'll switch to nikon now hahah


----------



## thebeginning (Oct 16, 2006)

DeepSpring said:
			
		

> http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5211531,00.jpg
> Tom Cruise uses canon......... anyone want an xt I think I'll switch to nikon now hahah



hahahah

where did you find that, was there a story?


----------



## DeepSpring (Oct 16, 2006)

saw it on the canon forum


----------



## thebeginning (Oct 16, 2006)

so funny. 

that's heavy metal right there.


----------



## DeepSpring (Oct 16, 2006)

It really is

wonder if one of the real photogs let him hold it for a second or if he actually knows how to use that beast?


----------



## thebeginning (Oct 16, 2006)

oh i'm sure it was just another photographer's request.  you honestly think tom cruise could operate it?


----------



## Don Simon (Oct 17, 2006)

They probably told him it was a device for calling the mothership


----------



## thebeginning (Oct 17, 2006)

ZaphodB said:
			
		

> They probably told him it was a device for calling the mothership




hahaha. perhaps, perhaps.  or 'something _similar to this_ might have held the soul you possess now!'


----------



## Alex_B (Oct 17, 2006)

IS THAT REALLY TOM C? WOW .. he got old 

would like to see photos taken by him  ... then we could maybe laugh .. or maybe not! you never know!


----------



## justphotos (Oct 18, 2006)

I have a nikon 6006 (F-601). I'm relatively new to photography and this works fine for me. I know i'm barely scratching the surface with what i now about this piece of equipment, but it takes very good quality pictures for both portraits and snapshots.


----------



## dewey (Oct 18, 2006)

Just go buy what YOU want, not what a salesman wants you to buy.

Opinions are great, and this is a great place for getting advice... but Canon vs. Nikon isn't ever going to get you anywhere.

I work with newspapers... they're split about 1/2 and 1/2.  Some papers are Nikon papers, some are Canon papers.  Every newspaper photog I've ever talked to loves his or her equipment no matter who makes it.

Go buy what you want.

Shoot lots of photos.

Be happy.



- Dewey


----------



## zedin (Oct 18, 2006)

I have no idea about current canons but when I was making the choice back when it was about film I went with nikon because I wanted 2 dial wheels to adjust apature and shutter speed instead of just the 1 found on canon =)  So since I had nikon lens I kept with nikon.  There are some functions I like on canon but I also like nikons.  So just figure out which fits your hand better and you will be set. (or just buy BOTH! :greenpbl


----------



## Funky (Oct 18, 2006)

Bah....the sony alpha 100 owns all camera bodys in its price range.
sorry im a firm lover i like it more than my d200 soooo yeah.


----------



## thebeginning (Oct 18, 2006)

Funky said:
			
		

> Bah....the sony alpha 100 owns all camera bodys in its price range.
> sorry im a firm lover i like it more than my d200 soooo yeah.



are you kidding or do you really like it more than your d200?


----------



## Fliphishermon (Dec 27, 2007)

Kodak. Second choice would be a Polaroid.

Geeze. What a question to ask ... 

It's like, "Blonde or Brunette?"

Either way you're going to be spending lots more money.


----------



## Joves (Dec 27, 2007)

newrmdmike said:


> Nikon has pretty much just upgraded the same system - making wide angle dx lenses etc means they plan on NOT going full frame.
> .
> 
> so, as many people on this thread have said, they are about the same, or that both are good enough. thats just on the performance end of current models. what about the economical end? what about the customer service end? is nikokn as financially stable as canon? who is improving?


 Where to begin. While yes most of Nikons line is cropped sensors, they did make their first Full Frame, the D3 while yes expensive, it is blowing the higher end Canons away in high ISO performance. Plus you can swithch the sensor from full frame to cropped, there by being able to use all of thei lenses. As I see it Nikon will trickle down the full frame, maybe not at a pace fast enough for some but, it will happen. 
 And are you saying Nikons' customer service is bad? I have not found that to be the case. Are you saying Nikon is not improving? I beg to differ there as well. Please do go Canon because, I have heard some complaints on their service from owners on other forums. Granted I have heard some from Nikon owners too but, I have never been anything but satisfied. 
 My advice is to the OP and, hold whatever cameras you are considering and, buy the one that feels best. I would take the D300 over the D200 myself.


----------



## Mike_E (Dec 27, 2007)

Umm, you do realize that this thread is over a year old, right?


----------



## usayit (Dec 27, 2007)

But Mike... it is such a common question posted.. perhaps they were just keeping it all together.  

Hehehe lol.


----------



## chente922 (Dec 27, 2007)

i look for a lot of advise in this topic before buying my canon and it all depends of what each individuals prefer... i just want to say that i bought a canon because there isn't any nikon service in puerto rico while canon have...


----------

