DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> For those that have gone Nikon to Canon
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 55, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/24/2006 12:55:48 AM · #1
I'm curious to know what factors might persuade you to switch to a completely different camera system. As a beginner into photography, I bought a D50 because of the value and my dad's adamant support for Nikons. I've seen a lot of people switch to Canon though. Is it for the full-frame? Lenses, accessories? Anything that would be beyond my grasp?
02/24/2006 01:05:31 AM · #2
When I switched to digital SLR from film SLR, I had a nikon film body and a couple of lenses. I bought the Canon 10d. At the time, Nikon didn't have a comparable camera.
02/24/2006 01:11:48 AM · #3
Interesting. I was just about to type approximately what jmsetzler wrote, and there the words appeared on the screen.

I shot with (film) Nikon for years, then purchased a little S50 Canon point n shoot 5 megapixel and fell head over heels for it. Then Canon came out with the 300D Rebel, and Nikon was still fumbling over when to introduce whatever they were going to present.

So, I switched to Canon, and sold all my Nikon equipment. But both camera systems seem to work just fine. I'm very happy with the Canon, though. If only because the instruction manuals are comparatively easy to read.
02/24/2006 01:13:57 AM · #4
With introduction of the D200 and D2X, I don't think a Nikon shooter need to go towards Canon anymore. Untill those camera's came out, Canon was a generation ahead of Nikon so if you had a D70 or a D100 or something like that you didn't have a place to upgrade to as much as Canon.
I really don't see where Canon offers more unless you need a Full Frame sensor.

Message edited by author 2006-02-24 01:14:17.
02/24/2006 01:16:42 AM · #5
Originally posted by yido:

With introduction of the D200 and D2X, I don't think a Nikon shooter need to go towards Canon anymore. Untill those camera's came out, Canon was a generation ahead of Nikon so if you had a D70 or a D100 or something like that you didn't have a place to upgrade to as much as Canon.
I really don't see where Canon offers more unless you need a Full Frame sensor.


Canon's high-ISO noise performance is vastly better than Nikon's, also... It doesn't matter to me (I almost never use high ISO) but for those who routinely do low-available-light photography of action scense, this can be a deal breaker.

R.
02/24/2006 01:21:38 AM · #6
In my opinion, Nikon still has a couple of issues to overcome. They make good equipment, but they are very slow bringing new products to the market table. Their track record in the digital slr market is yet to be proven to me.
02/24/2006 01:34:24 AM · #7
Nikon seems to be getting there(if there not already). If I had Nikon equipment already I dont think I would switch.

If your dad is a Nikon guy and you switch to Canon?? that would be like voting republican or something. ;)
02/24/2006 01:39:11 AM · #8
Originally posted by Niten:

If your dad is a Nikon guy and you switch to Canon?? that would be like voting republican or something. ;)


I think it's called seeing the light! :-P
02/24/2006 11:43:13 AM · #9
Originally posted by TooCool:

[quote=Niten]If your dad is a Nikon guy and you switch to Canon?? that would be like voting republican or something. ;)

Man, good thing I went Nikon then. :)

Originally posted by Yido:

With introduction of the D200 and D2X, I don't think a Nikon shooter need to go towards Canon anymore. Untill those camera's came out, Canon was a generation ahead of Nikon so if you had a D70 or a D100 or something like that you didn't have a place to upgrade to as much as Canon.
I really don't see where Canon offers more unless you need a Full Frame sensor.

That thought hadn't occurred to me at at. That seems very very plausible. I've noticed that Nikon is rather slow at doing anything. I happen not to mind the 1.5 crop factor at all. And the Rebel XT has a 1.6 crop factor as well, so I'm not really losing anything in that aspect.

Robert: Actually, I've read a couple of reviews and comparisons before purchasing the D50, and the noise isn't much worse than the Rebel XT. D50's noise is actually monochrome-esque which tends to look like film grain. The Rebel's noise out like a sore thumb.

Thanks you for everyone's insight. :)
02/24/2006 12:35:46 PM · #10
I went through a bunch of brands with film cameras, including Nikon and Canon. Ignoring the costly Leicas, the Nikons proved to be the most reliable and fun. They felt great in hand, the shutter sounded like serious business and when you dropped them, they dented a little exposing brass. :-)

When I considered buying a DSLR, I was, naturally, biased toward Nikon, despite the slightly greater current popularity of its competitor. The Canon simply felt better when I handled it and used it. I prefer a heavier and heftier body though with a more industrial, functional design than something that looks like it might go out of fashion by December. I simply didn't trust the Nikon body to stand up long enough through the kind of use I could envision for it.

I also realized that I was buying into an expensive system (lenses and accessories) requiring long-term company support and service. Canon appeared to have a significant edge here as well. Quite a few digital photographers whose work I admired or whom I personally knew also seemed to have gone the same route, from Nikon film to digital Canon.

I do not feel particularly evangelical about my individual choice. I think both brands provide good products and hope that they will compete for decades to come.
02/24/2006 12:43:00 PM · #11
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by yido:

With introduction of the D200 and D2X, I don't think a Nikon shooter need to go towards Canon anymore. Untill those camera's came out, Canon was a generation ahead of Nikon so if you had a D70 or a D100 or something like that you didn't have a place to upgrade to as much as Canon.
I really don't see where Canon offers more unless you need a Full Frame sensor.


Canon's high-ISO noise performance is vastly better than Nikon's, also... It doesn't matter to me (I almost never use high ISO) but for those who routinely do low-available-light photography of action scense, this can be a deal breaker.

R.


Interesting to hear that since I believe I've read ( Unless I dreamed it) that the D200 and D2x have the lowest noise at high ISO of any digital camera out there now.
02/24/2006 01:24:17 PM · #12
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Canon's high-ISO noise performance is vastly better than Nikon's, also... It doesn't matter to me (I almost never use high ISO) but for those who routinely do low-available-light photography of action scense, this can be a deal breaker.

This is ironic to me, since a CMOS photosensor is inherently very noisy on its own, much worse than a CCD. But Canon has done such a good job with noise suppression/cancellation in the DigicII processor (starting at the individual photosites, I believe) that it actually comes out a little better than Nikon's CCD. So I have to give Canon kudos for that. I haven't really experienced significant noise in high-ISO shots with my D70s, but it would be great to see the equivalent of the DigicII on a Nikon CCD.
02/24/2006 01:27:07 PM · #13
I thought the DX2 used a CMOS sensor. True?
02/24/2006 01:39:07 PM · #14
Yes the D2X does use a CMOS sensor.
02/24/2006 01:39:59 PM · #15
The truth, what I really want is a "Canikon"

Give me the sweet quiet high ISO level of Canon's DSLRs along with Nikon's great low-light focusing to take the most advantage of the low-noise.

It's like this. Nikons focus better in low-light. Canon's capture better in low-light. Can't I have BOTH!!!!

*lol*

They each have their advantages and dis-advantages. Which do you prefer? Toyota or Honda? Both are good but both have their slight advantages & dis-advantages.

Message edited by author 2006-02-24 13:41:15.
02/24/2006 01:43:38 PM · #16
I was Nikon in the film world, and it was a hard decision to go canon. Cost was one factor as canon is less money. Choice goes to canon as there are more lenses out there. I kind of liked the color of the D70 images better, but canon seems to have lower noise (I compete at another site and the noisiest entries are always Nikon). Lastly was quality, and my last nikon literally fell apart bit by bit in my hands - a button here, a knob there.

Ask deapee - he moved from Canon to Nikon, and seems to rumbling about moving back.
02/24/2006 01:48:11 PM · #17
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

I was Nikon in the film world, and it was a hard decision to go canon. Cost was one factor as canon is less money. Choice goes to canon as there are more lenses out there. I kind of liked the color of the D70 images better, but canon seems to have lower noise (I compete at another site and the noisiest entries are always Nikon). Lastly was quality, and my last nikon literally fell apart bit by bit in my hands - a button here, a knob there.

Ask deapee - he moved from Canon to Nikon, and seems to rumbling about moving back.


Is that true with the fact that Nikon has not changed their lens mount in almost 50 years but thats not the case with Canon. That being said dosen't that mean that Nikon would have more lens choices?

Message edited by author 2006-02-24 14:00:26.
02/24/2006 02:52:13 PM · #18
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:



Is that true with the fact that Nikon has not changed their lens mount in almost 50 years but thats not the case with Canon. That being said dosen't that mean that Nikon would have more lens choices?


No. canon makes more lenses. almost all the 3rd party companies make their lenses for both bodies. Digital sensors are shiny compared to film so a newer lens will be coated for this issue and it is better to stay with newer lenses if possible.

The VW beetle was not changed in over 50 years, but I'm not so sure it's the best car out there...times and technologies change. Canon keeps up. Nikon seems to drag their feet.

02/24/2006 02:59:39 PM · #19
try the D200. I have had mine since late December and am very pleased with it. It is light-years ahead of my D100, which is still a great camera.

The Nikon and Cannon lenses are both great. hard to tell which system is better.

Stay with one system. It it falls behind, it will catch up in a few months and make last year's cameras look like a model T
02/24/2006 03:09:20 PM · #20
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:



Is that true with the fact that Nikon has not changed their lens mount in almost 50 years but thats not the case with Canon. That being said dosen't that mean that Nikon would have more lens choices?


No. canon makes more lenses. almost all the 3rd party companies make their lenses for both bodies. Digital sensors are shiny compared to film so a newer lens will be coated for this issue and it is better to stay with newer lenses if possible.

The VW beetle was not changed in over 50 years, but I'm not so sure it's the best car out there...times and technologies change. Canon keeps up. Nikon seems to drag their feet.


With all due respect could you site proof because all that I have read in my very limited experience says the opposite of what you just said including the fact that if you look on the equipment portion of this site there are more Nikon lenses than Canon. It also seems to me that a 3rd party manufacturer will make lenses for both Nikon and Canon. So I am confused on this subject. More objective info would be welcome.
02/24/2006 03:27:01 PM · #21
Well also started with the Nikon d70, but quickly found out that Nikon was slow to change consumer photo needs. But once you commit yourself to one or the other, you are pretty much stuck. Each Manufacturer has its own lens, and other accessories that are not compatible with each other. I purchased the "fastest" camera in the world at the time (Canon 1D MK II). I use it when I am doing sport shoots. I also continue to use the Nikon d70 when I want to go light. It consistently takes great photos.

I also like being informed about the new models from each camera maker. It is also interesting that there is no one "super" camera out there that will do everything for everyone. If this is a horse race I would be hard press to bet on the winner in the future.
02/24/2006 04:35:02 PM · #22
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Is that true with the fact that Nikon has not changed their lens mount in almost 50 years but thats not the case with Canon.


That's not an advantage - Canon lenses each have their own focusing motor, best suited to that lens. Canon have USM and IS... Nikon's VR is simply a cut-down version of Canon's last-generation IS. The EOS system has only fully-electronic lens mounts, which are as a result far less prone to failure. 50 year old lenses are really not that good... manufacturing processes have so far advanced in the last 20 years that the drop in cost over time simply does not keep up with the difference in quality to modern lenses.
02/24/2006 04:41:07 PM · #23
Originally posted by riot:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Is that true with the fact that Nikon has not changed their lens mount in almost 50 years but thats not the case with Canon.


That's not an advantage - Canon lenses each have their own focusing motor, best suited to that lens. Canon have USM and IS... Nikon's VR is simply a cut-down version of Canon's last-generation IS. The EOS system has only fully-electronic lens mounts, which are as a result far less prone to failure. 50 year old lenses are really not that good... manufacturing processes have so far advanced in the last 20 years that the drop in cost over time simply does not keep up with the difference in quality to modern lenses.


I wasn't talking about VR or AF-S merely the fact of which manufacture has more lens choices and proof of such. The rest is subjective to the equipment you have. (I.E. The mine is better than yours. Debate)
02/24/2006 04:46:48 PM · #24
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

I wasn't talking about VR or AF-S merely the fact of which manufacture has more lens choices and proof of such. The rest is subjective to the equipment you have. (I.E. The mine is better than yours. Debate)


I didn't reply to the lens choices part because i don't know the answer, but five minutes googling will probably inform you. I was merely pointing out that not changing your lens mount in 50 years leaves you at a disadvantage in other ways, even if it increases the quantitative range of lenses available.
02/24/2006 04:50:56 PM · #25
You know I was googling that very fact and could not find anything on the matter. I spent about 25mins googling. So oh well the search goes on. As for the other I will again leave that debate to others much more schooled in the history of optics than I.

The Wazzzzzzzz
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 02:57:09 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 02:57:09 AM EDT.