Canon/Nikon any REAL difference????

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dane Brickman, Jun 30, 2004.

  1. I'm going to get an entry level DSLR with the intention of upgrading as
    major refinements come on board.... my film gear is Contax and so my current
    lens collection will not be a factor.

    My question is, in terms of final print quality and thinking long term, does
    it really matter if I chose Nikon over Canon or Canon over Nikon?

    Does (will) one really blow the other away now or in the future, or does it
    just come down to personal preference?
    Dane Brickman, Jun 30, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dane Brickman

    paleryder Guest

    "Dane Brickman" <> wrote ...
    > I'm going to get an entry level DSLR with the intention of upgrading as
    > major refinements come on board.... my film gear is Contax and so my

    current
    > lens collection will not be a factor.
    >
    > My question is, in terms of final print quality and thinking long term,

    does
    > it really matter if I chose Nikon over Canon or Canon over Nikon?
    >
    > Does (will) one really blow the other away now or in the future, or does

    it
    > just come down to personal preference?


    IMHO, personal preference. Canon seems to be willing to
    innovate more. Nikon may have an edge in its flash system.
    Canon has an edge with widely available USM and IS lenses.

    Try them for fit and feel with your shooting style and choose
    whichever works better for you. Neither company is likely
    to fold.
    paleryder, Jun 30, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dane Brickman

    Chuck Guest

    > Does (will) one really blow the other away now or in the future, or does
    it
    > just come down to personal preference?


    Personal (even religious for some). I choose Canon.

    Tried Nikon, didnt liked the pictures I made, also found that Nokonians
    community is weird.

    Go read the threads , scary !
    http://www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?conf=DCConfID3


    Chuck
    Chuck, Jun 30, 2004
    #3
  4. In article <>,
    "Chuck" <> wrote:
    >
    > Tried Nikon, didnt liked the pictures I made, also found that Nokonians
    > community is weird.


    Like that they actually might spell Nikonians correctly :-(

    > Go read the threads , scary !
    > http://www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?conf=DCConfID3


    Seem normal to me.
    --
    Duzz that A moose you ?
    Any Moose Poster, Jun 30, 2004
    #4
  5. Dane Brickman

    bmoag Guest

    I strongly believe that all gear of a certain quality is more or less
    equivalent. I do not believe that the features of Canon or Nikon (or Minolta
    or Pentax, etc) are such that the gear will be the major factor restricting
    image making ability: the photographer is really the limiting (or enabling)
    factor. This newsgroup both amuses and irritates me at times because of the
    mindset of some writers that gear (or "kit" as the British would say) is
    all. Really, gear is the smallest part of the aesthetic equation, a very,
    very small part. A talented photographer with a Nikon990 will make better
    images than most of us with a D100.
    bmoag, Jun 30, 2004
    #5
  6. In article <cbt6ui$vch$>, says...
    > I'm going to get an entry level DSLR with the intention of upgrading as
    > major refinements come on board.... my film gear is Contax and so my current
    > lens collection will not be a factor.
    >
    > My question is, in terms of final print quality and thinking long term, does
    > it really matter if I chose Nikon over Canon or Canon over Nikon?
    >
    > Does (will) one really blow the other away now or in the future, or does it
    > just come down to personal preference?


    Canon is leading the way in research right now, and their selection of
    Image Stabilization (IS) lenses is quite good. Nikon still makes
    excellent equipment and the D70 is quite a steal at its price. Unless
    you're dedicated to shooting pro and spending $5,000 to do it, it really
    comes down to personal preference. Try both cameras and see which one
    you like best.
    Brian C. Baird, Jun 30, 2004
    #6
  7. In article <EXpEc.79459$>,
    says...
    > Really, gear is the smallest part of the aesthetic equation, a very,
    > very small part. A talented photographer with a Nikon990 will make better
    > images than most of us with a D100.


    Very true. But one word in favor of good gear - if it gets out of your
    way and lets you take the pictures you want, then it's a good piece of
    equipment.
    Brian C. Baird, Jun 30, 2004
    #7
  8. Dane Brickman

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    There aree differences. Canon tends to have less noise at the same ISO but
    not a whole lot.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    "Dane Brickman" <> wrote in message
    news:cbt6ui$vch$...
    > I'm going to get an entry level DSLR with the intention of upgrading as
    > major refinements come on board.... my film gear is Contax and so my

    current
    > lens collection will not be a factor.
    >
    > My question is, in terms of final print quality and thinking long term,

    does
    > it really matter if I chose Nikon over Canon or Canon over Nikon?
    >
    > Does (will) one really blow the other away now or in the future, or does

    it
    > just come down to personal preference?
    >
    >
    >
    Tony Spadaro, Jun 30, 2004
    #8
  9. Dane Brickman

    Jimmy G Guest

    Thank you, however I was JUST as weird while I had Canon gear as I was while
    I had Nikon gear.

    Don't be a complete bozo: The type of equipment one owns & uses hasn't got
    the last thing to do with personality traits.

    Grow a brain!
    Jimmy G, Jun 30, 2004
    #9
  10. "Dane Brickman" <> writes:

    > Does (will) one really blow the other away now or in the future, or does it
    > just come down to personal preference?


    I think they're basically equivalent. My suggestion is to rent one for a
    weekend, then next weekend rent the other one. Try them out day and
    night. If one camera speaks your name, buy it. If they seem equivalent to
    you, look at the whole system that is available and choose the one that
    seems to fit your needs.
    --
    Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
    Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
    http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.
    Phil Stripling, Jun 30, 2004
    #10
  11. Dane Brickman

    Chuck Guest

    >
    > Don't be a complete bozo: The type of equipment one owns & uses hasn't

    got
    > the last thing to do with personality traits.


    Really ? Like Apple ? BMW ? Ralph Lauren ? Hyundai ? Colnago ? Specialized ?
    Linux users ? Those brands have nothing to do with personality or lifestyle
    ?

    I can see a difference between Nikonians and Canonians. Sorry for you if you
    cant.

    (Of course not ALL of them, but usually Nikonians are snobs. Its Nikon only,
    nothing else).

    Before I got my new camera , I spent a month searching the newsgroups and
    forums.
    And I could feel how the Nikonians were so proud of their camera. For some
    of them, owning an expensive digital camera and showing it to everyone is
    the fun part of it.

    Of course like I said, its not true for everyone.

    Chuck
    Chuck, Jun 30, 2004
    #11
  12. I use a Fujifilm A 205 digital camera and a Leica M film camera -- I can be
    stuffy about my Leica and practical about my Fuji.

    Paul Riemerman

    "Chuck" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >
    >> Don't be a complete bozo: The type of equipment one owns & uses hasn't

    > got
    >> the last thing to do with personality traits.

    >
    > Really ? Like Apple ? BMW ? Ralph Lauren ? Hyundai ? Colnago ? Specialized
    > ?
    > Linux users ? Those brands have nothing to do with personality or
    > lifestyle
    > ?
    >
    > I can see a difference between Nikonians and Canonians. Sorry for you if
    > you
    > cant.
    >
    > (Of course not ALL of them, but usually Nikonians are snobs. Its Nikon
    > only,
    > nothing else).
    >
    > Before I got my new camera , I spent a month searching the newsgroups and
    > forums.
    > And I could feel how the Nikonians were so proud of their camera. For some
    > of them, owning an expensive digital camera and showing it to everyone is
    > the fun part of it.
    >
    > Of course like I said, its not true for everyone.
    >
    > Chuck
    >
    >
    Paul Riemerman, Jun 30, 2004
    #12
  13. "bmoag" <> wrote in message news:<EXpEc.79459$>...

    > all. Really, gear is the smallest part of the aesthetic equation, a very,
    > very small part. A talented photographer with a Nikon990 will make better
    > images than most of us with a D100.


    And we see proof of that every day. Anybody (really) interested in
    photography would visit galeries and exhibitions on a regular basis.
    If you check the equipment of those truly professional and well done
    pictures, you'll find mediocre cameras and lenses nobody on the usenet
    likes (e.g. the standard 28-80 as supplied with a Minolta Dynax 4)

    In terms of Nikon vs. Canon: that'll be your personal taste. Right
    now, in terms of entry level DSLR cameras, the Nikon D70 is plainly
    and simply the better camera. As usual, this will last a couple of
    months until Canon introduces a new entry level DSLR that will beat
    the D70. You can't base your decision on this.
    Bernhard Mayer, Jun 30, 2004
    #13
  14. Dane Brickman

    Mick Sterbs Guest

    "Dane Brickman" <> wrote in message
    news:cbt6ui$vch$...
    > I'm going to get an entry level DSLR with the intention of upgrading as
    > major refinements come on board.... my film gear is Contax and so my

    current
    > lens collection will not be a factor.
    >
    > My question is, in terms of final print quality and thinking long term,

    does
    > it really matter if I chose Nikon over Canon or Canon over Nikon?
    >
    > Does (will) one really blow the other away now or in the future, or does

    it
    > just come down to personal preference?
    >

    You're asking questions to which the answers can only be purely subjective.
    There is no objective answer - the Canon lovers, like me, will say Canon all
    the way, and the Nikon lovers will only say Nikon. I think the Canon camp
    will claim that there's a better lens choice.
    Mick Sterbs, Jun 30, 2004
    #14
  15. Dane Brickman

    Charlie Ih Guest

    In article <>,
    Mick Sterbs <> wrote:
    >
    >"Dane Brickman" <> wrote in message
    >news:cbt6ui$vch$...
    >>

    >You're asking questions to which the answers can only be purely subjective.
    >There is no objective answer - the Canon lovers, like me, will say Canon all
    >the way, and the Nikon lovers will only say Nikon. I think the Canon camp
    >will claim that there's a better lens choice.
    >


    There is always an exception. At least Nikon has its own 12-24 lens
    for the D100 and Canon does not have that for their equivalent cameras
    yet AFAIK. Let us know otherwise. Of course you can use Sigma lenses on
    both.


    >



    --
    Charles S. Ih
    302-831-8173, FAX 302-831-4316
    Charlie Ih, Jun 30, 2004
    #15
  16. On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:10:54 +0000, Charlie Ih wrote:

    > There is always an exception. At least Nikon has its own 12-24 lens for
    > the D100 and Canon does not have that for their equivalent cameras yet
    > AFAIK. Let us know otherwise. Of course you can use Sigma lenses on
    > both.


    Canon has full frame, Nikon doesn't. You can use the Sigma 12-24 on a
    Canon, and it's even a full frame lens, unlike the Nikon DX lens. Both
    systems are still evolving their digital line up though, so and advantages
    in either direction are likely to be temporary.

    As a Canon user, I'd like an equivalent to the 10.5mm fisheye, and I think
    Nikon is currently catering better to the APS sensor size than Canon.
    However, Nikon have announced they have no intention to go full frame, and
    I think that's a mistake. I'd like an affordable full frame camera, and I
    think Canon will get there sooner based on current performance. It took 2
    years 8 months to go from a $7000, 4Mp, 1.3 crop mark 1 to a $4500, 8Mp,
    1.3 crop mark 2 with lower noise, and lots of other improvements. At that
    rate of improvement, relatively affordable (say sub $3000) full frame may
    arrive within 5 years. If Nikon has stuck with the APS sensor, I think
    they'll be at a serious disadvantage then, and if they go for a bigger
    sensor at a late stage in the game, they'll have a lot of annoyed DX lens
    owners.

    Mike.
    Mike Brodbelt, Jun 30, 2004
    #16
  17. Dane Brickman

    Steve Hix Guest

    In article <cbuome$5a2$>,
    (Charlie Ih) wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Mick Sterbs <> wrote:
    > >
    > >"Dane Brickman" <> wrote in message
    > >news:cbt6ui$vch$...
    > >>

    > >You're asking questions to which the answers can only be purely subjective.
    > >There is no objective answer - the Canon lovers, like me, will say Canon all
    > >the way, and the Nikon lovers will only say Nikon. I think the Canon camp
    > >will claim that there's a better lens choice.

    >
    > There is always an exception. At least Nikon has its own 12-24 lens
    > for the D100 and Canon does not have that for their equivalent cameras
    > yet AFAIK. Let us know otherwise.


    Years ago, Consumer Reports compared the Nikon lens line against Canon's
    FD series. Their conclusion: Canon couldn't really be considered by
    serious professionals, because they had fewer fisheye lenses than did
    Nikon.

    Like you said, pick the tools to do the job you want. I've never been
    all that interested in using fisheyes for much.

    And no, I still don't pay much attention to CR (not just in reference to
    professional camera reviews).

    > Of course you can use Sigma lenses on both.


    Please, no. You'll wake the troll.
    Steve Hix, Jul 1, 2004
    #17
  18. On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:02:29 -0400, "Dane Brickman" <>
    wrote:

    >I'm going to get an entry level DSLR with the intention of upgrading as
    >major refinements come on board.... my film gear is Contax and so my current
    >lens collection will not be a factor.
    >
    >My question is, in terms of final print quality and thinking long term, does
    >it really matter if I chose Nikon over Canon or Canon over Nikon?
    >
    >Does (will) one really blow the other away now or in the future, or does it
    >just come down to personal preference?


    Personal preferences, the D70 does have some better features, but
    costs more... so you pays your money and takes your choice.


    --
    Jonathan Wilson.
    www.somethingerotic.com
    Jonathan Wilson, Jul 1, 2004
    #18
  19. In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > Personal preferences, the D70 does have some better features, but
    > costs more... so you pays your money and takes your choice.


    Indeed. From the sample images at dpreview.com, I can honestly say I
    don't see a difference in image quality from the 10D to the Digital
    Rebel to the D70. All fine cameras, and we're lucky to live in an age
    where they are affordable and reliable.
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 1, 2004
    #19
  20. Dane Brickman

    fs Guest

    How about the noise level at a 200 ISO setting for the Canon verses the
    Nikon


    "Brian C. Baird" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    > >
    > > Personal preferences, the D70 does have some better features, but
    > > costs more... so you pays your money and takes your choice.

    >
    > Indeed. From the sample images at dpreview.com, I can honestly say I
    > don't see a difference in image quality from the 10D to the Digital
    > Rebel to the D70. All fine cameras, and we're lucky to live in an age
    > where they are affordable and reliable.
    fs, Jul 1, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Steve Freides

    Difference between cheapie and 'real' digital camcorders

    Steve Freides, Jun 8, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    461
    Dominic
    Jun 8, 2004
  2. rander3127

    The rear channels, any real difference??

    rander3127, Oct 3, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    541
    LASERandDVDfan
    Oct 4, 2004
  3. Networking Student
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,224
    vreyesii
    Nov 16, 2006
  4. Edge
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    530
  5. Grandpa Chuck

    Any real difference between iPods and the knock-offs.

    Grandpa Chuck, Feb 3, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    784
    fred-bloggs
    Feb 6, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page