Canon or Nikon camera

Whatever feels best for you. Saying that the main reason i went for nikon is because my dad had nikon. Means we can now share lenses so there is somehthing to be said for that method. But if there is nothing like that for you then go for whatever feels best in your hand. Go to a camera shop. Try them out.
 
Who gives a flying F-Stop what the camera and lenses look like...? :wacky:

As long as the images they take are good and it feels right in the hands - this isn't bloomin' jewelery guys...

Although I've long suspected that for many so-called 'photographers', camera-kit is exactly that...

I would still use Nikon as I'm unconvinced that Canon are as robust at the Top-End of the range...
Also due to having 'grown-up' with nikons - my second 'proper' camera was an F2-AS, followed by an F3 - Nikons seem more intuitive to me...
 
So would you buy a luminous pink and yellow camera with zebra striped lens? If a camera gives the same performance and at the same price point as its rivals the purchase decision is going to have to come down to something.
 
I'm guessing with the kind of photography Arkady does, looks have very little to do with it and resistance to water and mud are probably a lot more important.

TBH I think all the posing and posturing over gear is such an amateur way of looking at it. Ask most pros and the answer would be "I don't give a stuff so long as it does the job" If I had a client who insisted I use a D3 then I'd use a D3, if I could only get the shots I wanted using a pinhole, I'd use that. It's a tool and the knowledge of how to use one is far more important.

Personally if I were to start from scratch again, I'd sit down with a list of each manufacturer's lenses and the prices. I'd pick my ideal line up from both and only then would I even consider the bodies. Bodies last about three years, lenses 10+ so that's more important to me. I'd probably still favour Canon simply because I am so used to them I can operate them without thinking. I remember when I got the 1Ds, it took me ages to get past the having to think about it phase and to go back through it again would be enough to stick to Canon, especially now they have the 5DII. :)
 
I chose Nikon because the silly white lenses look really cheap.

[/endtrollmode]
 
"The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." AA
 
Arkady said:
Who gives a flying F-Stop what the camera and lenses look like...? :wacky:

As long as the images they take are good and it feels right in the hands - this isn't bloomin' jewelery guys...

Although I've long suspected that for many so-called 'photographers', camera-kit is exactly that...
Click to expand...

Your finest post to date Sir.

Purile arguments like these really pee me off,use what works for you,who gives a flyer what colour the bleeding lens is,looks like or what the camera looks like.

Seems to me that a lot of guys on here view kit as some sort of penile extension..........:naughty:
 
Someone should tell Canon and Nikon nobody cares what their products look like and they could save millions a year designing and refining them :D
 
Seriously I went to the camera shop and tried the two makes side by side with the lenses I wanted. I preferred the nikon due to the feel of it with all the controls better accessible. It was a close thing. I did like the cls thing with nikon too. There are a few lenses from the canon range I would like but had I chosen canon I would have missed out on the 105mm f 2.8 for macro
 
Although I chose Nikon this time around, in the end it doesn't really matter to me since they're both fantastic cameras. I really like Canon's tougher bodies, though gray high end lens bodies kind of make their higher end lens too "in your face" to others. Nitpick, but I prefer low key and just blending in. Nikon's bodies are generally smaller as well. The D40 in particular feels like a little toy - a very capable and cool toy, mind you. In fact, it'll likely be the next camera I get my grubby hands on because i need a small unit for long treks and hikes.

I bought the D90 and am loving it. But had I purchased the 40D I think I would have been equally impressed.

Apples and oranges.
 
cowasaki said:
There are a few lenses from the canon range I would like but had I chosen canon I would have missed out on the 105mm f 2.8 for macro
Click to expand...

Yes, you could have had the 100mm f2.8 macro instead :D
 
I admit to having a Canon addiction.
My mate went out and bought a Nikon D80 as a first ever digicam which he couldn't get to grips with. I borrowed it for a week and hated it. He now has a D300 which I think is the bee's knees - I love it!! Great results although he is using non-Nikon lenses.
If I was starting from scratch? Difficult choice - probably still stick with Canon although I think Nikon has the edge over Canon at present.
I suppose at the end of the day its the photographer and not the camera that counts.
 
well i only have a low end nikon and a low end canon, nikon d60 and a canon 40d.
i like both of them, i prefer the 40d but its a better camera anyway, but there isnt much in it.
the nikon seems more intelliegently designed somehow. maybe its just a newer camera.

I plan to own both canon and nikon lenses and upgrade the bodies as i go, i see no point in being stuck to one or the other when both are great.
i want it all.lol
 
Nikon again, simply because I prefer how they feel in my hands. No other reason at all.
 
I have avoided this thread and still wont comment other than i wont be drawn, Talk about more wars over religion, thats nothing to the pandoras box of which Cannon or Nikon..:muted:
 
Ok, so the question is what would I buy and not what should anybody else buy...

I'm not sure I agree with Arkady about top end Canon's being more fragile than Nikons. The 1-series is pretty bomb proof - I've dropped one in a swamp and its been fine and I've seen them get lots of abuse from the wildlife photographers I know. However, I digress.

For me, the answer is first what lens would I buy and that would push me to a different brand. I would start with the Nikkor 200-400 f/4 VR for versatility. That would push me towards a D3 and a D300s as my camera bodies. I would also need a 24-70, 70-200 and a 500 f/4 to complete my line up.

And that is the reason why I won't change - the change would cost me £12,500 before I'd worried about little subtleties like flash and macro. And, in a couple of years time, Canon may have a similar lens...
 
mstphoto said:
I certainly wouldn't class the Canon 40D as a low end camera.
I have one and I've not long bought a 5D Mk2 and at present I am struggling to justify my outlay. I really can't see a huge difference in IQ between the two cameras using the same lenses.
Click to expand...

thats really interesting, i think i regard it as more low end probably due its age and price and not having any experience with any other cameras.

is there really not a huge difference? you see i had been thinking about the 5dmark2 and the d700, or not getting a new camera at all.

id really be hoping to see a vast improvement in image quality if i bought either but ive been seeing some posts saying there isnt much in it from the 40d. dont get me wrong, i love the 40d and would stay with it if there really is so little difference?

do you think you could write a brief outline of how you have found the 5dmark2 in comparison to the 40d, can pm me if you like, would just be so useful to have.

thanks
 
I would probably see a difference in IQ if I had poster size prints made but at A4 or A3,ones as good as the other.
I'm not suggesting the 5D Mk2 is a poor camera. Far from it. I haven't pushed it too far as yet but at ISO 3200, although a wee bit noisy theres still plenty of detail. It handles well and feels great. Having owned a few Canon DSLRs I would say its the best I've had.
I still can't fault the 40D but I do feel a bit restricted at the wide end of my lenses but make up for it at the longest due to the crop factor.

Low end Canons to me are the entry level 400, 1000 models but saying that they are capable of producing good images as well.
 
Here are 2 images. Can you tell which is the 40D and which is the 5D Mk2?

interior.jpg


Collieston2.jpg


Also check out these 2 threads

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=1781172#post1781172

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=1781181#post1781181
 
mstphoto said:
I would probably see a difference in IQ if I had poster size prints made but at A4 or A3,ones as good as the other.
I'm not suggesting the 5D Mk2 is a poor camera. Far from it. I haven't pushed it too far as yet but at ISO 3200, although a wee bit noisy theres still plenty of detail. It handles well and feels great. Having owned a few Canon DSLRs I would say its the best I've had.
I still can't fault the 40D but I do feel a bit restricted at the wide end of my lenses but make up for it at the longest due to the crop factor.

Low end Canons to me are the entry level 400, 1000 models but saying that they are capable of producing good images as well.
Click to expand...

thanks for the comments, regarding those pics if i had to guess id say the first was the 40d, but then i can also see what you are driving at, theres nothing much in it.

maybe better lenses is the way to go right now.
 
yes mate i did, and i get your point, tbh i think im going to stick with the 40d for a while longer, get some L glass and see how it goes.
 
mstphoto said:
Wise choice.
I bought all my "L" lenses from Onestop Digital. A lot cheaper and great service taking approx 3 days to arrive
Click to expand...

3 days! thats cool,
what lenses do you find are the most useful on the 40d?
im pretty much convinced to get the 70-200 2.8 IS
im really not sure in teh 24-70 or 17-55 type choice for the mid range
do you have any thoughts on the mid range zooms?

will aslo get a couple more primes, as i love my 50mm1.8

sorry for the thread hijack
 
Reading the reviews of the 17-55mm I'd be more inclined to go for that. The 70-200 is a brilliant lens, I had the non-IS for a week and it was superb.
 
When I bought my first dSLR about 5 years ago, I spent a bit of time playing with the Canon 350D and Nikon D70. At the time, I much preferred the feel of the D70 - the 350D did feel rather plasticky and flexed in my hands whereas the D70 felt a lot more solid.

Point is, for me, that's 5 years ago and it bought me into a system. Since then, I bought a D200 and now use a D700. So my initial decision on which manufacturer has long since been forgotten, and I've since spent about 10 times more on more lenses.

Today, it's a tough decision. But then again, I'm already used to one system and love it, so it would be difficult for me to sway to the other side. Plus, a fair few "pro"s I work with have recently been sick to death with the AF issues of their 1Dmk3 and after many many returns to Canon, decided to jump ship - at great cost to them.

But I can't argue there is a wider range of Canon lenses, and the big plus thing for me is canon do quality L glass at reasonable prices. With Nikon, it's "budget" or megabucks. There's no in-between f/4 lineup. Having said all that, I'm not going to switch now :)

edit: forgot to say, I work for Sony and can get Alphas and top end Zeiss glass for very decent prices. But I'm still not switching. Now had sony brought out the Alpha back in 2004, it might have been a different story :)
 
grumpybadger said:
I'm not sure I agree with Arkady about top end Canon's being more fragile than Nikons. The 1-series is pretty bomb proof - I've dropped one in a swamp and its been fine and I've seen them get lots of abuse from the wildlife photographers I know...
Click to expand...

Personal experience...I've dropped my D2x bodies in a river (well I fell in a river while shooting and as a result they got plunged as well...lol) and they both survived, whereas I've seen pro-spec Canons die in the heat and dust of Afghanistan where our D2x's all soldiered on regardless (it was too hot to touch the cameras with bare hands - we had to wear flying gloves at all times to avoid being burnt by the hot metal), but that may have been two isolated cases - one had it's LCD screens go black and never recover, the other's seals failed and allowed so much dust in that the controls seized...

I should point out that the daytime temps there (Helmand, July 2006) were in the high 50's and on several days went over 60C...
No-one's cameras are guaranteed for anything over 38C as far as I'm aware, so even though the Canons failed, they were still operating well outside their design parameters up to that point...

Mostly we (myself, a Royal Navy video cameraman and several Fleet Street photographers) were more concerned that the lens elements would remain seated as the cement holding them in place could have melted...whenever we could, we wrapped damp cloths around the kit to cool it off...
 
Arkady said:
Personal experience...I've dropped my D2x bodies in a river (well I fell in a river while shooting and as a result they got plunged as well...lol) and they both survived, whereas I've seen pro-spec Canons die in the heat and dust of Afghanistan where our D2x's all soldiered on regardless (it was too hot to touch the cameras with bare hands - we had to wear flying gloves at all times to avoid being burnt by the hot metal), but that may have been two isolated cases - one had it's LCD screens go black and never recover, the other's seals failed and allowed so much dust in that the controls seized...

I should point out that the daytime temps there (Helmand, July 2006) were in the high 50's and on several days went over 60C...
No-one's cameras are guaranteed for anything over 38C as far as I'm aware, so even though the Canons failed, they were still operating well outside their design parameters up to that point...
Click to expand...

That's a fair point Rob. I've had problems with my 1DsII in extreme cold where it stopped working but was fine when it had warmed up again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top