Canon or Nikon? A Poll...

[benjikan]

This was from a Poll from another Forum giving only these two choices, Canon or Nikon. It was a Poll given by someone who in my opinion has been profoundly and inexorably brainwashed and as a result I felt compelled to leave the following message:

My Heading: Neither...All Of and Anything that Can...

This is a false premise...Most of the present day DSLR's can be used professionally. Whether it is Sony, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Sigma, Leica or Samsung. Ten million pixels is more than enough o be published in all types of magazines as well as most poster formats. I have been published using the Canon 350D, just to prove to myself that it doesn't really matter and I could. In fact I once used a Canon G5 circa 2002-3 "5" megapixel camera with hot-shoe and RAW capability allowing me to use off camera studio flash power packs and the shoot was published with this consumer digital camera.

I am fed up with pixel peeping incompetents that spend most of their time scrutinizing the screen on the computer rather than enjoying the act of expression. If what you find joy in is the technical aspects of the anatomy of a camera, perhaps that may be the subject of your post. I can guarantee that if I gave you a 'Blad with a 39 mega pixel back it wouldn't improve on your capacity to express what you are expressing presently and until you understand the need to have "X-Zillion" Pixels, I suggest you spend more time perfecting your art. By doing so you may then ask yourself. Is the tool I am using limiting my capacity to express that which I need to express by being technically substandard? Is it therefore impeding my capacity to express myself? Give me a Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Sony, Leica, Olympus, Sigma or what ever and I will take images that will work because I know the support it will be utilized in.

It is the photographer and not the camera that captures the image. It is through those eyes that we can see a part of the "ID" and what is important to the artist. It is the capturing of that moment that makes the individual unique. The decision as to when one captures the moment is crucial to his/her expression and not with which camera it was taken with.

Ben

[Rooz]

there has been a poll like that here. there are also the usual brainwashed, brand name, mental midgets here aswell. the Net is in many ways a reflection of our world and God knows there is no shortage of idiots and many a village missing valuable members.

:)

[SpecialK]

In many cases, people express opinions as if it is fact.

Other times, a single feature or lack of it is given as the reason something should be avoided.

Some examples:

The Pentax SR should be turned off if panning on a tripod. Nikkor VR II allows panning on a tripod. I don't own a real tripod, and don't plan on shooting photos requiring panning on a tripod so why should I buy a Nikon sysyem at twice the price so that I can do that?

The K100D must be changed to the Tungsten WB setting below 4000k as the AWB does not function in that range. Fine, so change the setting. However, I shoot RAW, so it is a non-issue, anyway...

And, the K100D buffer does not allow more than 3 RAW/5 JPG shots in a row. Sports shooter gasp - but how many catch-as-catch can shots do you really take? Do not good photographers time the shot for peak action - or do they just squeeze the button like a drunken monkey and pick the one good one?

Many pixel-peepers, as Benjikan points out, seem oblivious to the fact some people like to take pictures a hobby.

I have yet to see any photo in a gallery which convinced me that I HAD to have THAT camera.

[Riley]

hi Benjamin
I still use your some of your post production processing techniques
in particular the sharpening and soft light layer
it isn't suitable for all photography of course
but it can really make images pop

I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank you for that

cheers

[Voigtlanderr2]

I use both Canon and Nikon and I can honestly say that there are things I like and hate about both. Canon can take their method of changing the focus point and shove it along with the troublesome little wheel on the back. If Nikon could make the D2HS with 8 megapixes like the 1DmkIIN it would be perfect - but knowing Nikon that will not come for another year or so. and Nikon's 85mm f 1.8 compared to the canon equiviolent is a joke - you can hear the darn thing focus and it isn't hearly as fast as the canon plus it only stops down to 16 where the canon lens stops down to 22 - and yes this has caused me a problem before.(I am not making this charge in regards to all their lenses)

[Djzleite]

It is the photographer and not the camera that captures the image.

Exzactly, i´m new to this world of photo and i´m studing it at school and started for Sony W100, H5 and now just bought the Sony A100 after reading much reviews and opinions, worked with a D200 and tested a D80, D200 was extremely heavy, D80 was more expensive than A100 so i grabbed Sony and the 2 lens kit wich i´m very satisfied, for the quality and 1000 euros price, i don´t think i´ll need more soon but specialy to get experienced with this setup, took some photos on auto mode and went to my pc to check them out :eek: realy amazing results for definition and colors, things seamed like postcards and sky with clouds simply amazing.
Yeah, if we can´t do professional work with this kind of toys.
Better than my A100 ? well ... maybe 2 A100 :D was disapointed with having only jpg so i have now raw in high definition and 300mm lens to bring things much near.
After days reading and watching the most going to D80 i couldn´t figure why people would expend more for the same or less in my view.
Each one is free to choose and i think most of the machines around are more or less at the same, they all have plenty of quality to bring amazing results, it´s just a question of taste and price.

[some guy]

Sony is already the 2nd largest seller of P&S cameras. They are poised to take the Numero Duo spot in the dSLR world too. There are some news on a pro-level Sony dSLR coming out soon. I hope it still utilise the KM mount. Zeiss lenses = mucho dinero.

[nqjudo]

Couldn't agree with you more Benjikan. Some of the best images ever captured on film were done so with equipment that is primitive by today's standards.

[Pokadots]

What forum was it?

[aparmley]

This was from a Poll from another Forum giving only these two choices, Canon or Nikon. It was a Poll given by someone who in my opinion has been profoundly and inexorably brainwashed and as a result I felt compelled to leave the following message:

My Heading: Neither...All Of and Anything that Can...

This is a false premise...Most of the present day DSLR's can be used professionally. Whether it is Sony, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Sigma, Leica or Samsung. Ten million pixels is more than enough o be published in all types of magazines as well as most poster formats. I have been published using the Canon 350D, just to prove to myself that it doesn't really matter and I could. In fact I once used a Canon G5 circa 2002-3 "5" megapixel camera with hot-shoe and RAW capability allowing me to use off camera studio flash power packs and the shoot was published with this consumer digital camera.

I am fed up with pixel peeping incompetents that spend most of their time scrutinizing the screen on the computer rather than enjoying the act of expression. If what you find joy in is the technical aspects of the anatomy of a camera, perhaps that may be the subject of your post. I can guarantee that if I gave you a 'Blad with a 39 mega pixel back it wouldn't improve on your capacity to express what you are expressing presently and until you understand the need to have "X-Zillion" Pixels, I suggest you spend more time perfecting your art. By doing so you may then ask yourself. Is the tool I am using limiting my capacity to express that which I need to express by being technically substandard? Is it therefore impeding my capacity to express myself? Give me a Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Sony, Leica, Olympus, Sigma or what ever and I will take images that will work because I know the support it will be utilized in.

It is the photographer and not the camera that captures the image. It is through those eyes that we can see a part of the "ID" and what is important to the artist. It is the capturing of that moment that makes the individual unique. The decision as to when one captures the moment is crucial to his/her expression and not with which camera it was taken with.

Ben

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Ben. I couldn't agree with you more. As someone once caught up in the technical side I can attest to the obsession it can become. When in fact focusing on perceived shortcomings, whether they be real or perhaps a phenomenon, makes it easier to prolong the inevitability of ones own realizations that perhaps they lack the adequate skills required to really express themselves via photography.

Luckily, I have identified my shortcomings with respect to self expression and am taking steps to remedy it.

The most important lesson I've learned in the past 3 years is this: if you only focus on the gear, you miss the point of this all.

[some guy]

You know what will truly drive one mad.... dead/hot pixel tests! :D

[DonSchap]

One of the more fascinating aspects of today's camera's is the technology explosion that is going on with it. It took forever for film to change. Heck, some of the stuff they used to make film emulsion out of would make a gopher gag.

Photography, today, is cleaner and faster than it has ever been. It allows people with great talent to compete with people with little to no talent. It is so common place, it is in nearly everyone's cellular phone.

Photography is communication at light speed ... so I suggest we let technology capture the moment as fast as it can and just be happy your not in some stifling developing tent, in the Mohave' Desert, having to mix chemicals and crud just to ...

GET THE SHOT!

Here's to you guys in 1860 ... we are where we are today ... because no one, in their right mind, ever wants to ever do that again! Learn from the past ... not to repeat it. :cool:

[Geoff Chandler]

Canon or Nikon...??
Yes please ........either!
What about a Pentax?? Yup! That would do nicely!! (etc etc)
Thing is - we're really spoilt for choice...
~ so much that we're (some of us) blaming the cameras for what we as
photographers can or cannot do!
Appart from a few original cheap P&S film cameras, including a Kodak 126
as a child - I started, more seriously, when I wanted to be able to do more,
with an all manual Praktica - y'know one of the many almost identical clones they had out in the 70's & 80's MTL3, STL1000,...Ok so they were a bit slower than Autofocus and you had to set your own light shutter and apperture - but armed with a halfway decent lens I still find occasionally, while looking back through my archives, - some pretty cool shots.
So - find a camera that sits in your hands nicely - make sure it works the way you do - arm it with a decent lens or two and forget it! - take photos!

[sk8nphoto]

k well nikons are great cameras for a decent price...but canons are going to be a little bit more better quality for a lot more...

[fionndruinne]

Nope, not true. Generalizations are bound to fail, as is the subject of this thread.

[Geoff Chandler]

As soon as anyone stands up and declares a brand or individual product
is best - someone else will disagree. Anyway - how do we define best anyway? Best for one person may not be best for another.
(Nice choice of camera fionndruinne... whoops sorry!)

[fionndruinne]

Should clarify my sentence structure; as is being addressed by the subject of this thread.

*glances furtively*

Thanks Geoff - likewise (in modulated whisper).

[mcenut]

The best quote I ever saw on a similar subject is by Photographer John Shaw:

"Should I buy a digital camera?" My answer is always the same: "I dont have the faintest idea." Would you ask a stranger who doesnt know your habits, your interests, your budget and your preferences whether you should buy a Hasselblad camera or a pickup truck or an extra spicy burrito?

[Djzleite]

After hours of reading i picked A100, very fine for what i´m going to do with it, price vs quality was worth but was almost going to D80, price made me choose and i´m satified with the good results not realy with the 75-300mm lens wich i returned back, 18-70mm is doing a nice job for now.
Yeah, tamron 18-250mm is in my aim in the future but for now i´m done.
Maybe i´m fidel to Sony products ...

[LR Max]

Funny I stumbled upon this thread.

My friend has a Canon 30D. I was playing with it one day and said to myself, "Wow! This is a nice setup right here!!"

Then last night this same friend had to go grab a quick photo and she grabbed my Nikon D70s sitting on the table. She came back and said, "Wow! This is a pretty nice camera!"

:p

So, really, the difference? I think Nikon has a better selection/more capable hotshoe flashes. Also word on the street is that entry level nikon glass is better than Canon lenses. I have a few entry level lenses for nikon and yes, they do perform very well. At the same time, I know a couple kit lenses on rebels that produce a very good image.

[Daubs]

This post reminds me of the old "Chevy vs. Ford" debates (with Dodge playing the Pentax role :) ). I'd agree with the "either" choice. I opted for Nikon based on some reviews / information and what I was looking for in a DSLR. Very happy with my camera. I'm sure if I had gone Cannon I'd be equally happy.

[LR Max]

This post reminds me of the old "Chevy vs. Ford" debates (with Dodge playing the Pentax role :) ). I'd agree with the "either" choice. I opted for Nikon based on some reviews / information and what I was looking for in a DSLR. Very happy with my camera. I'm sure if I had gone Cannon I'd be equally happy.

Exactly. I use that analogy all the time. People ask me "whats the difference between a canon and nikon??" (of the same class). I use the chevy/ford analogy, just gotta get picky about the little things and price.

[Rooz]

absolutely right. unless you are high end pro and need to use a 1D, full frame and 10fps, the mid level pro-sumers are much of a muchness.

you won't find images from either brand where you think "shit, i shoulda bought a nikon." features, ergonomics etc are a diffrent story.

[RichNY]

absolutely right. unless you are high end pro and need to use a 1D, full frame and 10fps, the mid level pro-sumers are much of a muchness.

you won't find images from either brand where you think "shit, i shoulda bought a nikon." features, ergonomics etc are a diffrent story.

I don't agree- I say that every time I look at one of my flash pictures ;)
It balances off with all the indoor sports shots at ISO 1600. I'm beginning to think that if we need multiple bodies it may be better to adapt to two systems and have the best of both worlds.

[LR Max]

You know, post processing has become almost (probably more) as important as taking the actual picture. The image can be so radically altered and enhanced, its crazy.

Now this doesn't make up for skill. No Sir. You still gotta know what you are doing. But at the same time, little "problems" with the images can be fixed with the click of a mouse button.

Like I said, this is no excuse for skill BUT it does close the gap between straight up quality.

[Riley]

You know, post processing has become almost (probably more) as important as taking the actual picture. The image can be so radically altered and enhanced, its crazy.

Now this doesn't make up for skill. No Sir. You still gotta know what you are doing. But at the same time, little "problems" with the images can be fixed with the click of a mouse button.

Like I said, this is no excuse for skill BUT it does close the gap between straight up quality.

thats very true, thats why a lot shoot RAW, because there is more latitude in the exposure to make up for indescrepencies that mar an image. I doubt there is a pro photog anywhere that wouldnt lean on PP, for some its a prime effect. You see it all the time in fashion magazines, where competition is very hot.

So despite the ravings of fanatical twats on boards, it has always been so. In the film days it was dodge and burn, carefully masking the exposure. And a good lab technician could make or break your career.

It is always better if 'thats' the way it came out of the camera. But i dont feel guilty taking the money when some manipulation has been necessary to straighten out some defects.

[fionndruinne]

PP is a skill as well... especially when one doesn't rely on "1-click" fixes and preset alterations. Plus, the artistic eye can be heavily taxed just by the amount of available options in a program like Photoshop - many inexperienced padwans fall prey to tons of over-processing, and the results are very real... they're the main body of this obscure website called Myspace.

Myspace is evil.

[Riley]

you need to consider the types of published photography too

realist reportage, little PP, sometimes a touch up will get you fired !
product photography, for portraits too, clean crisp images
high art photographer, usually abstract with an accent that is PP in
graphic designer, a means too a digital image end


all of them are valid courses, buy usually you gravitate you too where you are comfortable

[LR Max]

Riley,

Its all hit n' miss on photoshopping an image for commerical use. The news peoples (AP, UPI, Reuters) are all against the post processing. In fact, they now ONLY accept images that were shot at 100ISO with a 50mm lense. On top of that, they run your photo through verification software to make sure it hasn't been altered :eek: .

In non-news publishings, there can be a lot of post processing to make an image better. I now have to shoot RAW for my photo editor (pain in the rear, considering I'll take ~700 photos) because a good image can be turned into an awesome image. Just about every advertising you see at the mall these days has some sort of significantly altered image.

So now everything is pretty much a level playing field. It all comes down to what you are comfortable with (Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Sony, etc) and then having the skills to get that good image.

[cdifoto]

Riley,

Its all hit n' miss on photoshopping an image for commerical use. The news peoples (AP, UPI, Reuters) are all against the post processing. In fact, they now ONLY accept images that were shot at 100ISO with a 50mm lense. On top of that, they run your photo through verification software to make sure it hasn't been altered :eek: .

Bullshit alert.

[fionndruinne]

Heheh.

I do agree as hinted above that Nikon ergonomics are quite a bit better. Granted my only real experience with Canon has been the XTi and 20D, but the D40 and D80 blow those out of the water in terms of comfortable and intuitive handling (not that intuitive means a whole lot over time, as getting used to the physicality is one of the first things we do with a camera... but still).

[RichNY]

Bullshit alert.

LOL- Sad but true.

[Rooz]

In fact, they now ONLY accept images that were shot at 100ISO with a 50mm lense. On top of that, they run your photo through verification software to make sure it hasn't been altered :eek: ..

why would they do that ? :confused: i have never had a photo in a commerical agency in my life but this doesn't make sense to me.

what about F1, or in fact any sports - most of it done with 200/400mm and much high iso's; especially indoors.

[Geoff Chandler]

You know, post processing has become almost (probably more) as important as taking the actual picture. The image can be so radically altered and enhanced, its crazy.

Now this doesn't make up for skill. No Sir. You still gotta know what you are doing. But at the same time, little "problems" with the images can be fixed with the click of a mouse button.

Like I said, this is no excuse for skill BUT it does close the gap between straight up quality.
Of course - this is only really like the work film photographers do in the dark room in a way, teststrips and experiment with paper and exposures and so on,
there is nothing wrong IMHO in an odd bit PP - personally, despite enjoying the creative outlet, I prefer to tweak as few as possible - but won't hesitate if I think it will help a bit. One of my reasons for liking the Nikon - other than ergonomics and comfort, was that the images look 'nice' straight off the camera. of course, with digital, we are also tweaking in many cases within the camera: Saturation, Contrast, WB, Hue, Vividness, Sharpness.... I know RAW shooters use little of this - but to many 'Real World' photographers these things are a help in getting the kind of results you want with the least amount of fuss.

[cdifoto]

Of course - this is only really like the work film photographers do in the dark room in a way, teststrips and experiment with paper and exposures and so on,
there is nothing wrong IMHO in an odd bit PP - personally, despite enjoying the creative outlet, I prefer to tweak as few as possible - but won't hesitate if I think it will help a bit. One of my reasons for liking the Nikon - other than ergonomics and comfort, was that the images look 'nice' straight off the camera. of course, with digital, we are also tweaking in many cases within the camera: Saturation, Contrast, WB, Hue, Vividness, Sharpness.... I know RAW shooters use little of this - but to many 'Real World' photographers these things are a help in getting the kind of results you want with the least amount of fuss.

So, if you shoot RAW, you're not a "real world" photographer? :eek:



Shit. I better go back to JPEG then... :rolleyes:

[Geoff Chandler]

So, if you shoot RAW, you're not a "real world" photographer? :eek:

Shit. I better go back to JPEG then... :rolleyes:
Haaa!!!:) :D :) :D :)
I think you know what I meant though ;)

I haven't got the time to process all my shots from RAW - in fact
I would probably have to give up digital photographty if that were neccessary!
So what I mean is - I go out - I take the pictures I enjoy them. Some I print, some I share, a few I adjust. That's life in the 'real world'. (for me)

[Rooz]

come on geoff...it doesn't take me any longer to process RAW than it does to do a jpeg unelss your PC is slow. there is essentially 1 more step in the process which is to save the raw file as a jpeg which can be done as a batch anyway. i have all my raw files in one place and save all the exported jpegs to another folder. easy peasy. :)

not sure why so many people think that raw is more difficult or longer. maybe i'm doing something wrong or missing something. :D

[coldrain]

Hmm... I have no Nikon and I mainly shoot in JPEG. I wonder what I am doing wrong, Geoff. Jamison also shoots in JPEG and prefers Canon, and he tested a D80 quite thoroughly.

Anyway, enough for the blanket statements I guess. RAW has one big advantage, it gives you extra room when you need it, especially in the bright part of the spectrum. And converting to JPEG only takes one step, with your own prefered settings in the RAW convertor, just like having prefered JPEG settings in your camera.

RAW is to be able to get the best out of the shot, where JPEG already lost a lot of information. That is all there is to RAW.

[cdifoto]

I haven't got the time to process all my shots from RAW

Time to move up from that Pentium 1 Processor Geoff. :eek: :D

[Rooz]

I wonder what I am doing wrong

Do you always answer your own questions coldy ? :confused:

I have no Nikon.

[Geoff Chandler]

come on geoff...it doesn't take me any longer to process RAW than it does to do a jpeg unelss your PC is slow. there is essentially 1 more step in the process which is to save the raw file as a jpeg which can be done as a batch anyway. i have all my raw files in one place and save all the exported jpegs to another folder. easy peasy. :)

not sure why so many people think that raw is more difficult or longer. maybe i'm doing something wrong or missing something. :D
Fair comment
However
I would guestimate I only process about 20% of my photos ~ maybe less
I understand, also, that RAW are bigger files - so that would gove me less space (not insumountable). Ideally I would process very few pictures.
I don't think I have any sort of RAW converter either.
I just decided I couldn't be doing with RAW at all.!
PC is old but sufficient - that's not the problem - I have a family and commitments - already they say WHY am I always fiddling with my photos - so I don't want to agrivate the situation any further.
I am happy if my camera produces photos that look good and only have to adjuts a few that don't quite come out as expected. Don't get me wrong - I enjoy tweaking - but just can't afford lots of time for it.
Hope that makes sense.:rolleyes:

[cdifoto]

Fair comment
However
I would guestimate I only process about 20% of my photos ~ maybe less
I understand, also, that RAW are bigger files - so that would gove me less space (not insumountable). Ideally I would process very few pictures.
I don't think I have any sort of RAW converter either.
I just decided I couldn't be doing with RAW at all.!
PC is old but sufficient - that's not the problem - I have a family and commitments - already they say WHY am I always fiddling with my photos - so I don't want to agrivate the situation any further.
I am happy if my camera produces photos that look good and only have to adjuts a few that don't quite come out as expected. Don't get me wrong - I enjoy tweaking - but just can't afford lots of time for it.
Hope that makes sense.:rolleyes:

That's fine and it's your situation, but that doesn't make it any "real world" than any other person's situation...


Blanket statements suck.

[coldrain]

Blanket statements suck.
Now there is a blanket statement if ever I saw one :eek:

[Riley]

something about pots and black kettles

[Geoff Chandler]

Now there is a blanket statement if ever I saw one :eek:
I thought I made my point of view clear enough.:D
~ as for blanket statements? I haven't got time for that argument:D

[fionndruinne]

Originally Posted by coldrain:
I wonder what I am doing wrong

Do you always answer your own questions coldy ?


Originally Posted by coldrain:
I have no Nikon.

*nearly chokes*

[aparmley]

At first, when you begin exploring RAW conversion it takes a while longer. Once you get a feel for RAW files and what you need to do the process is very fast. RAW gives you more wiggle room, if you need it shoot RAW, if you don't nail the exposure and shoot JPEG. No big deal.

I've come to the conclusion that the question "Canon or Nikon?" can only be answered one way - its the same way for everyone too (Despite what anyone online says): Spend a few hours/days shooting with both systems - then decide. If you need more time, take more time.

[cwphoto]

I'm beginning to think that if we need multiple bodies it may be better to adapt to two systems and have the best of both worlds.

Just what I didn't need to hear. :(

[RichNY]

Just what I didn't need to hear. :(

I thought you'd be the happiest by this... aren't you bored having pretty much run out of Canon glass to buy? ;) :D

[coldrain]

I thought you'd be the happiest by this... aren't you bored having pretty much run out of Canon glass to buy? ;) :D
Would you be able to come up with a Nikon lens that would actually enhance his currect set-up in a worthwhile way? That is a much more interesting question.

Let alone that no Nikon body would give him comparable FPS nor sensor/image quality (remember that CW often uses higher ISO settings).
And that MK III is pushing the dynamic range even further.
I could see CW use a Fuji S5 Pro for certain wedding work, maybe. But that is about the sensor, not the glass. And maybe the 1D MK III will perform as good in the areas that Fuji shines.

[cwphoto]

I thought you'd be the happiest by this... aren't you bored having pretty much run out of Canon glass to buy? ;) :D

Not until that 1200/5.6 finds a home here - I gots to have it man! :D

[cwphoto]

Would you be able to come up with a Nikon lens that would actually enhance his currect set-up in a worthwhile way? That is a much more interesting question.

Let alone that no Nikon body would give him comparable FPS nor sensor/image quality (remember that CW often uses higher ISO settings).
And that MK III is pushing the dynamic range even further.
I could see CW use a Fuji S5 Pro for certain wedding work, maybe. But that is about the sensor, not the glass. And maybe the 1D MK III will perform as good in the areas that Fuji shines.

The 200/2 VR and 200-400/4 VR look very tasty.

I'll stick with what I have for now, but a Nikon system isn't such a silly idea after seeing the objective comments made around here lately. :)

[aparmley]

Would you be able to come up with a Nikon lens that would actually enhance his currect set-up in a worthwhile way?

There is more to photography than just the lenses. ;)

[Chinsumo]

I've only ever used the Canon Xti and Nikon D80 slrs. And I prefer the Nikon. :D