Is this true about Canon?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by M-M, Feb 1, 2007.

  1. M-M

    M-M Guest

    Someone else wrote the following and I'm wondering if it is true:

    "Canon for some time has been the faster better sports equipment. Not
    all just in auto focus but also frames per second and write speed to the
    buffer is also faster. Read the features and compare. There are also
    many more lenses in the Canon system. Nikon only does as well as it
    does because so many photographers had a large number of Nikon lenses as
    the photo world began to change. Canon now has over 80% on the
    professional market because of chip size and all the great features. If
    you ever use a Canon Camera for just a short while you will see what I
    am talking about and you would never look back. Nothing wrong with
    Nikon of Fuji they are just that other 20% for the most part, and that
    does not make them bad. All of the cameras today make great photographs
    as long as you set them the right way. As for Canons auto focus system
    everything else is second."

    "Read about their ring ultrasonic motor for rapid autofocus. Hold a
    Nikon in your hands and then a Canon--and compare the rapidity of
    autofocus with a long lens (a Canon white lens)--even to Nikon's own
    version of the ring ultrasonic motor."
    --
    m-m
    M-M, Feb 1, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. M-M

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Jan 31, 11:59 pm, M-M <> wrote:
    > Someone else wrote the following and I'm wondering if it is true:
    >


    It's true, it's true.
    It's damn true.
    Annika1980, Feb 1, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. M-M

    Bill Guest

    "M-M" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Someone else wrote the following and I'm wondering if it is true:


    Both Canon and Nikon have their merits, but some of what is quoted is
    just plain wrong.

    > "Canon for some time has been the faster better sports equipment. Not
    > all just in auto focus but also frames per second and write speed to
    > the
    > buffer is also faster. Read the features and compare.


    That's good advice, since reading the features and comparing is where
    you learn the truth.

    > There are also
    > many more lenses in the Canon system.


    Last time I counted (last fall), the difference was a few lenses...not
    exactly a big difference. The only place where Nikon lacks really is the
    tilt/shift model that Canon has. And when it comes to good quality
    consumer lenses, Nikon is doing better than Canon right now.

    > Nikon only does as well as it
    > does because so many photographers had a large number of Nikon lenses
    > as
    > the photo world began to change.


    Except that many of those lenses are useless for sports and action since
    they lack autofocus. Yet Nikon still has a good share of the market.

    > you ever use a Canon Camera for just a short while you will see what I
    > am talking about and you would never look back.


    I laugh when I read stuff like this because I used to own Canon gear
    with some nice L glass, and I sold it all to make the switch to Nikon.
    The reason? Ergonomics.

    I found the Nikon bodies have better control layout and are much more
    comfortable to hold. I compared the Canon 30D and Nikon D80 models, and
    opted to make the switch to Nikon rather than buy another Canon model.

    Of course that's just me. Others may find the Canon better in their
    hands, so handling is subjective.

    > "Read about their ring ultrasonic motor for rapid autofocus. Hold a
    > Nikon in your hands and then a Canon--and compare the rapidity of
    > autofocus with a long lens (a Canon white lens)--even to Nikon's own
    > version of the ring ultrasonic motor."


    I think the person who said that is either a twit, or hasn't used any
    recent lenses from Nikon.

    I own the Nikon 18-70, 50 f/1.8, and 70-200 VR. They all focus equally
    as fast as similar Canon models. I used the 70-200 VR on a D70s
    side-by-side with Canons 70-200 f/4 L on an XT, so I have first-hand
    experience and know that most of Nikons AF-S lenses are very fast and
    very accurate.

    Nikon has other advantages too, but like most of the comments above, the
    differences are small and it all comes down to what the individual user
    needs or prefers.
    Bill, Feb 1, 2007
    #3
  4. M-M

    Bill Guest

    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Jan 31, 11:59 pm, M-M <> wrote:
    >> Someone else wrote the following and I'm wondering if it is true:

    >
    > It's true, it's true.
    > It's damn true.



    What??

    A comment like that and no images to go with it?

    :)
    Bill, Feb 1, 2007
    #4
  5. M-M <> wrote:
    >Someone else wrote the following and I'm wondering if it is true:


    There is no such thing as one camera that does everything best,
    and no one manufacturer has the best models for everything.

    It would make a lot more sense to decribe what *you* want to do
    with a camera, and ask about which models do that best. I'll grant
    that the pecentages are that either a Canon or a Nikon will top the
    list, but even that is not necessarily true.

    The idea that either Canon or Nikon is best at everything is
    riduculous; anyone who makes statements even approaching that
    sort of silliness should be ignored as you search of the best
    model for *your* needs.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
    Floyd L. Davidson, Feb 1, 2007
    #5
  6. M-M

    C J Campbell Guest

    On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:59:19 -0800, M-M wrote
    (in article <>):

    > Someone else wrote the following and I'm wondering if it is true:
    >
    > "Canon for some time has been the faster better sports equipment. Not
    > all just in auto focus but also frames per second and write speed to the
    > buffer is also faster. Read the features and compare.


    Yep. Read them and compare.

    There are also
    > many more lenses in the Canon system. Nikon only does as well as it
    > does because so many photographers had a large number of Nikon lenses as
    > the photo world began to change. Canon now has over 80% on the
    > professional market because of chip size and all the great features.


    No, they have less than 50% of the pro market. And what they do have is
    largely due to marketing, not any real equipment advantage. The photo world
    is not sports photography, either. Pros go through equipment quite rapidly.
    Having a few lenses wouldn't keep them from switching if there was a real
    advantage.

    If
    > you ever use a Canon Camera for just a short while you will see what I
    > am talking about and you would never look back. Nothing wrong with
    > Nikon of Fuji they are just that other 20% for the most part, and that
    > does not make them bad. All of the cameras today make great photographs
    > as long as you set them the right way. As for Canons auto focus system
    > everything else is second."
    >


    Nikon is outselling Canon in Japan. Nikons are widely considered to have
    better ergonomics and better lenses.


    > "Read about their ring ultrasonic motor for rapid autofocus. Hold a
    > Nikon in your hands and then a Canon--and compare the rapidity of
    > autofocus with a long lens (a Canon white lens)--even to Nikon's own
    > version of the ring ultrasonic motor."
    >


    Yeah, do that. And you will see this writer is full of baloney.

    --
    Waddling Eagle
    World Famous Flight Instructor
    C J Campbell, Feb 1, 2007
    #6
  7. M-M

    C J Campbell Guest

    On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 22:06:10 -0800, Annika1980 wrote
    (in article <>):

    > On Jan 31, 11:59 pm, M-M <> wrote:
    >> Someone else wrote the following and I'm wondering if it is true:
    >>

    >
    > It's true, it's true.
    > It's damn true.
    >
    >


    Now, now. If you keep hyperventilating like that we will have to put the
    paper bag back on your head.

    --
    Waddling Eagle
    World Famous Flight Instructor
    C J Campbell, Feb 1, 2007
    #7
  8. M-M

    Roy G Guest

    "M-M" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Someone else wrote the following and I'm wondering if it is true:
    >
    > "Canon for some time has been the faster better sports equipment. Not
    > all just in auto focus but also frames per second and write speed to the
    > buffer is also faster. Read the features and compare. There are also
    > many more lenses in the Canon system. Nikon only does as well as it
    > does because so many photographers had a large number of Nikon lenses as
    > the photo world began to change. Canon now has over 80% on the
    > professional market because of chip size and all the great features. If
    > you ever use a Canon Camera for just a short while you will see what I
    > am talking about and you would never look back. Nothing wrong with
    > Nikon of Fuji they are just that other 20% for the most part, and that
    > does not make them bad. All of the cameras today make great photographs
    > as long as you set them the right way. As for Canons auto focus system
    > everything else is second."
    >
    > "Read about their ring ultrasonic motor for rapid autofocus. Hold a
    > Nikon in your hands and then a Canon--and compare the rapidity of
    > autofocus with a long lens (a Canon white lens)--even to Nikon's own
    > version of the ring ultrasonic motor."
    > --
    > m-m


    The above sounds rather like it was written by someone who does not yet own
    a Camera.

    Roy G
    Roy G, Feb 1, 2007
    #8
  9. Bill wrote:
    > "M-M" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Someone else wrote the following and I'm wondering if it is true:

    >
    > Both Canon and Nikon have their merits, but some of what is quoted is
    > just plain wrong.
    >
    >> "Canon for some time has been the faster better sports equipment. Not
    >> all just in auto focus but also frames per second and write speed to the
    >> buffer is also faster. Read the features and compare.

    >
    > That's good advice, since reading the features and comparing is where
    > you learn the truth.
    >
    >> There are also
    >> many more lenses in the Canon system.

    >
    > Last time I counted (last fall), the difference was a few lenses...not
    > exactly a big difference. The only place where Nikon lacks really is the
    > tilt/shift model that Canon has. And when it comes to good quality
    > consumer lenses, Nikon is doing better than Canon right now.


    The post was specifically about fast sports photo equipment. In the fast
    action department, Canon certainly has the fastest pro digital camera
    (the 1D Mark IIN). But the difference in sports and wildlife action
    photography between Nikon and Canon started before the digital era.
    The main difference for this type of photography is image stabilization
    in the super telephoto category. Nikon has no stabilized super telephotos.
    Nikon had very few lenses with VR back in the film days to compete
    with Canon's IS and Nikon still lags in the upper telephoto range
    (e.g. Canon's 500 and 600 mm f/4 IS have no competition, unfortunately).

    In the digital era, there are two areas where Canon is out in front:
    larger sensors and lower noise. Canon has full 35mm frame pro
    bodies and Nikon does not. Canon's CMOS sensors generally have about
    a factor of 2 lower read noise (great for low light and astronomy
    work). Sensor performance:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary

    >> Nikon only does as well as it
    >> does because so many photographers had a large number of Nikon lenses as
    >> the photo world began to change.

    >
    > Except that many of those lenses are useless for sports and action since
    > they lack autofocus. Yet Nikon still has a good share of the market.
    >
    >> you ever use a Canon Camera for just a short while you will see what I
    >> am talking about and you would never look back.

    >
    > I laugh when I read stuff like this because I used to own Canon gear
    > with some nice L glass, and I sold it all to make the switch to Nikon.
    > The reason? Ergonomics.
    >
    > I found the Nikon bodies have better control layout and are much more
    > comfortable to hold. I compared the Canon 30D and Nikon D80 models, and
    > opted to make the switch to Nikon rather than buy another Canon model.
    >
    > Of course that's just me. Others may find the Canon better in their
    > hands, so handling is subjective.
    >
    >> "Read about their ring ultrasonic motor for rapid autofocus. Hold a
    >> Nikon in your hands and then a Canon--and compare the rapidity of
    >> autofocus with a long lens (a Canon white lens)--even to Nikon's own
    >> version of the ring ultrasonic motor."

    >
    > I think the person who said that is either a twit, or hasn't used any
    > recent lenses from Nikon.
    >
    > I own the Nikon 18-70, 50 f/1.8, and 70-200 VR. They all focus equally
    > as fast as similar Canon models. I used the 70-200 VR on a D70s
    > side-by-side with Canons 70-200 f/4 L on an XT, so I have first-hand
    > experience and know that most of Nikons AF-S lenses are very fast and
    > very accurate.


    This is hardly pro level equipment. Try using a 500 mm f/4 L IS
    with 1D Mark IIN and 1Ds mark II and you'll likely come to
    different conclusions. Even the same L lens on an XT will not
    focus as fast as on a 1D body.

    I went Canon 17+ years ago through dumb luck. When looking at the
    new autofocus cameras, I assumed Nikon was for pros and I couldn't
    afford it, so I went with Canon. I'm glad I did because I now
    use a 1D Mark II and 500 mm f/4 L IS and other lenses for
    wildlife. A lot of what I do would be very limiting and difficult
    to impossible without IS in the super telephoto range. But I do hope
    Nikon catches up in this area. For other types of photography, Nikon
    equals or in some cases surpasses Canon. I would like to see Nikon
    come out with VR super telephotos and full frame sensors.
    The competition will benefit us all.


    > Nikon has other advantages too, but like most of the comments above, the
    > differences are small and it all comes down to what the individual user
    > needs or prefers.


    I agree in some areas, but not concerning low light lowest noise applications,
    and not in image stabilized super telephotos which is very important
    for sports and wildlife action photography. And also not in full frame
    high megapixel count DSLRs.

    At the superbowl this Sunday, check out the photographers on the sidelines:
    how many "white" telephoto lenses (Canon L) versus black (all other
    manufacturers) will you see? Most will probably be using 1D Mark IIN
    cameras and white L lenses, and is not due to marketing.

    Roger
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Feb 1, 2007
    #9
  10. "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> writes:

    > But the difference in sports and wildlife action
    > photography between Nikon and Canon started before the digital era.


    Indeed, it started all the way back in the manual focus era with Canon
    emphasizing SLR's with shutter priority auto exposure when everyone
    else was aperture priority.
    Toni Nikkanen, Feb 1, 2007
    #10
  11. M-M

    ASAAR Guest

    On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 03:16:44 -0700, Roger N. Clark petulantly
    (change username to rnclark) posited:

    >>> "Canon for some time has been the faster better sports equipment. Not
    >>> all just in auto focus but also frames per second and write speed to the
    >>> buffer is also faster. Read the features and compare. There are also
    >>> many more lenses in the Canon system.
    >>> . . .

    >>
    >> Last time I counted (last fall), the difference was a few lenses...not
    >> exactly a big difference. The only place where Nikon lacks really is the
    >> tilt/shift model that Canon has. And when it comes to good quality
    >> consumer lenses, Nikon is doing better than Canon right now.

    >
    > The post was specifically about fast sports photo equipment. In the fast
    > action department, Canon certainly has the fastest pro digital camera


    Nonsense. The first point referred to fast sports equipment.
    Bill quoted this and did not disagree with respect to the claimed
    speed advantage some Canon equipment may hold, and specifically
    agreed with the OP's advice to "Read the features and compare".

    In the very next sentence in the same first paragraph the OP said
    that there are also "many more lenses in the Canon system". Bill
    next quoted that part, and his response indicated that what the OP
    had read was mistaken, and he explained why. Evidently this
    bothered you enough to incorrectly complain that the OP's post was
    "specifically about fast sports photo equipment". It's clear that
    your Canon chauvinism hasn't yet abated. Should Bill have responded
    to the OP's second point be starting another thread, or, as I
    suspect, you'd rather have people only write those things that
    support your preferences or biases?


    > In the digital era, there are two areas where Canon is out in front:
    > larger sensors and lower noise.


    BZZZZT!!! Invalid response. "The post was specifically about
    fast sports photo equipment." Or so you said. <g>
    ASAAR, Feb 1, 2007
    #11
  12. M-M

    Brian Lund Guest

    > > In the digital era, there are two areas where Canon is out in front:
    > > larger sensors and lower noise.

    >
    > BZZZZT!!! Invalid response. "The post was specifically about
    > fast sports photo equipment." Or so you said. <g>


    Less noise will make it more pleasing to watch a picture taken at high ISO,
    which in turn will give you a faster shutter speed as to capture fast-action
    sport pictures! ;)


    Brian
    Brian Lund, Feb 1, 2007
    #12
  13. M-M

    tomm42 Guest

    On Jan 31, 11:59 pm, M-M <> wrote:
    > Someone else wrote the following and I'm wondering if it is true:
    >
    > "Canon for some time has been the faster better sports equipment. Not
    > all just in auto focus but also frames per second and write speed to the
    > buffer is also faster. Read the features and compare. There are also
    > many more lenses in the Canon system. Nikon only does as well as it
    > does because so many photographers had a large number of Nikon lenses as
    > the photo world began to change. Canon now has over 80% on the
    > professional market because of chip size and all the great features. If
    > you ever use a Canon Camera for just a short while you will see what I
    > am talking about and you would never look back. Nothing wrong with
    > Nikon of Fuji they are just that other 20% for the most part, and that
    > does not make them bad. All of the cameras today make great photographs
    > as long as you set them the right way. As for Canons auto focus system
    > everything else is second."
    >
    > "Read about their ring ultrasonic motor for rapid autofocus. Hold a
    > Nikon in your hands and then a Canon--and compare the rapidity of
    > autofocus with a long lens (a Canon white lens)--even to Nikon's own
    > version of the ring ultrasonic motor."
    > --
    > m-m


    As everyone has said no camera does everything the best, there are
    always compromises. Right now Nikon's metering, and flash systems are
    supposedly better than Canons. Argueably Canon's long lenses focus
    faster.
    What Canon does is treat pros better. If you are on their "Pro list"
    you can get free loaners of those white lenses to cover events. Canon
    cover a lot of events this way, shot a "First Night" for a town paper,
    at most of the events a photographer working for a national news
    agency was there. Said his own cameras stay home, He 2 D1mII bodies
    witha 24-70 and a 70-200 IS lenses. We shot a dance troup, he showed
    me his images, I had Tri-X and knew everything I shot was going to be
    very grainy. He said he was just going to pack all the camera and
    lenses in a box and ship them FedX back to Canon in the morning. Nikon
    has a similar program but make it much more difficult for the
    photographers to get equipment and services.

    Tom
    tomm42, Feb 1, 2007
    #13
  14. M-M

    Roy G Guest

    "M-M" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Someone else wrote the following and I'm wondering if it is true:
    >



    Who bloody cares??????

    I like my Nikon.

    Others like their Canons.

    Everyone lives happily ever after.
    ( except of course the proper bar stewards who work in marketing departments
    of Camera Companies).

    Roy G
    Roy G, Feb 1, 2007
    #14
  15. M-M

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 22:06:10 -0800, Annika1980 wrote:

    > On Jan 31, 11:59 pm, M-M <> wrote:
    >> Someone else wrote the following and I'm wondering if it is true:
    >>

    >
    > It's true, it's true.
    > It's damn true.


    Was it Rita? :)

    --
    Neil
    Reverse 'r' and 'a', delete 'l' for email.
    Neil Ellwood, Feb 1, 2007
    #15
  16. Bill wrote:
    > "M-M" <> wrote in message
    > news:...


    >> you ever use a Canon Camera for just a short while you will see what I
    >> am talking about and you would never look back.

    >
    > I laugh when I read stuff like this because I used to own Canon gear
    > with some nice L glass, and I sold it all to make the switch to Nikon.
    > The reason? Ergonomics.
    >
    > I found the Nikon bodies have better control layout and are much more
    > comfortable to hold. I compared the Canon 30D and Nikon D80 models, and
    > opted to make the switch to Nikon rather than buy another Canon model.


    A friend shooting a Canon 5D professionally isn't ready to swap for my
    Nikon D200 -- but he's been grousing about the Canon ergonomics forever
    (he's had two or three Canon DSLR bodies), and thinks Nikon is MUCH
    better in that regard.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 1, 2007
    #16
  17. M-M

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Feb 1, 1:31 am, "Bill" <> wrote:
    > > It's true, it's true.
    > > It's damn true.

    >
    > What??
    >
    > A comment like that and no images to go with it?


    You want to see Canon images? Go buy a Sports Illustrated.
    Annika1980, Feb 1, 2007
    #17
  18. ASAAR wrote:
    > On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 03:16:44 -0700, Roger N. Clark petulantly
    > (change username to rnclark) posited:
    >
    >>>> "Canon for some time has been the faster better sports equipment. Not
    >>>> all just in auto focus but also frames per second and write speed to the
    >>>> buffer is also faster. Read the features and compare. There are also
    >>>> many more lenses in the Canon system.
    >>>> . . .
    >>> Last time I counted (last fall), the difference was a few lenses...not
    >>> exactly a big difference. The only place where Nikon lacks really is the
    >>> tilt/shift model that Canon has. And when it comes to good quality
    >>> consumer lenses, Nikon is doing better than Canon right now.

    >> The post was specifically about fast sports photo equipment. In the fast
    >> action department, Canon certainly has the fastest pro digital camera

    >
    > Nonsense. The first point referred to fast sports equipment.
    > Bill quoted this and did not disagree with respect to the claimed
    > speed advantage some Canon equipment may hold, and specifically
    > agreed with the OP's advice to "Read the features and compare".
    >
    > In the very next sentence in the same first paragraph the OP said
    > that there are also "many more lenses in the Canon system". Bill
    > next quoted that part, and his response indicated that what the OP
    > had read was mistaken, and he explained why. Evidently this
    > bothered you enough to incorrectly complain that the OP's post was
    > "specifically about fast sports photo equipment". It's clear that
    > your Canon chauvinism hasn't yet abated. Should Bill have responded
    > to the OP's second point be starting another thread, or, as I
    > suspect, you'd rather have people only write those things that
    > support your preferences or biases?


    See:
    http://www.nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/index.htm

    http://www.usa.canon.com/html/eflenses/lineup/index.html

    I counted 46 nikon versus 61 canon autofocus lenses. I would call
    that significant: 1/3 more. More significant is lack of VR in the
    supertelephoto range IMO. I do hope nikon comes out with VR in that
    range soon. Canon certainly has more than just tilt-shift lenses over
    nikon.

    >> In the digital era, there are two areas where Canon is out in front:
    >> larger sensors and lower noise.

    >
    > BZZZZT!!! Invalid response. "The post was specifically about
    > fast sports photo equipment." Or so you said. <g>


    Double BZZZZZT!! Action photography is all about speed. Cranking up the
    ISO is often needed when light levels drop. Low noise sensors have the edge.
    So do higher megapixel count large sensors: you don't have to enlarge
    as much to get that large print, and that too helps with noise
    perception in the final image.

    Roger
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Feb 1, 2007
    #18
  19. M-M

    C J Campbell Guest

    On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 02:40:32 -0800, Toni Nikkanen wrote
    (in article <>):

    > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> writes:
    >
    >> But the difference in sports and wildlife action
    >> photography between Nikon and Canon started before the digital era.

    >
    > Indeed, it started all the way back in the manual focus era with Canon
    > emphasizing SLR's with shutter priority auto exposure when everyone
    > else was aperture priority.


    Actually, Yashica beat Canon to that...

    --
    Waddling Eagle
    World Famous Flight Instructor
    C J Campbell, Feb 1, 2007
    #19
  20. M-M

    C J Campbell Guest

    On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 07:02:03 -0800, Roy G wrote
    (in article <Lhnwh.89514$>):

    >
    > "M-M" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Someone else wrote the following and I'm wondering if it is true:
    >>

    >
    >
    > Who bloody cares??????
    >
    > I like my Nikon.
    >
    > Others like their Canons.
    >
    > Everyone lives happily ever after.
    > ( except of course the proper bar stewards who work in marketing departments
    > of Camera Companies).


    Heretic! Next you will be saying that the Ford vs. Chevy debate is
    unimportant.

    Burn him at the stake!

    --
    Waddling Eagle
    World Famous Flight Instructor
    C J Campbell, Feb 1, 2007
    #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. Silverstrand

    Sunbeam Tech Nuuo 550W PSU @ A True Review

    Silverstrand, Jun 22, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    941
    Silverstrand
    Jun 22, 2005
  2. Lew

    Canon 18-55 true FL, not a 1.6 question

    Lew, Jan 10, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    490
  3. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    255
    John Tindle
    Feb 9, 2005
  4. eatmorepies
    Replies:
    30
    Views:
    752
  5. Replies:
    42
    Views:
    993
    Chris Mayhew
    Feb 10, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page