Nikon v Canon

would love to hear everyones opinions on the Nikon v Canon subject, I am a Nikon man myself, but I cant explain why I went the Nikon route as most of the people I know in photography are Canon buffs

I bought a used NIKON FE 2 as my first Nikon at my local camera store to shoot hockey many many years ago and stuck with the brand on the recommendation of the store owner(my uncle Max) so now I am so deep into Nikon that it would be prohibitive to switch brands. Besides the fact that I love my Nikon cameras and lenses

I am Nikon, but I really don't know why it started as Nikon. Years ago, I had a Panasonic when I was a kid. My husband has a Pentax SLR which he used for years, but stop using when we bought our first digital Sony P&S. Then we upgrade to a higher end P&S Nikon. Which is the start of using Nikon.

I really don't know why Nikon is it. I know that since the P&S Nikon we had was good to us, we bought Nikon DSLR. At this point we will continue to shoot Nikon.

And when I say "we" I do mean my husband and I. We both are into photography, he has his camera and lenses. I have my own. We learn a long time ago we can not share. lol

Just for the record, I have nothing against Canon or other brands. Ever camera has the ability to take a picture. It is up to the photographer to create that photo.

I'm a Canon, just because it's was the brand that had the greater brand in my head There are plenty of people that feel the same way about Nikon. You just bought it because that brand for what ever reason is dominant in your head.

Well I was a Pentax shooter when it was film and I still shot it for a while after digital came along. My first digital I had I considered a toy, the Sony Mavica it was fun for what it was a toy , so I still shot film. Later I got the Nikon Coolpix 995 and was impressed with it. I was still waiting for Pentax to get into the Dslr market but to no avail, then the D50 came out so I tried it bacause of the 995s performance and, I havent looked back. I still have my Pentax MX with the 50mm on it but I sold all of my glass for it long ago. I keep the camera because it was my first ever brand new out of the box camera, every other camera I had before were used ones.

I actually started with canon, switched to nikon, and I think I wanna go both.

Both are great. At the time I bought my first dSLR, a 20D, I already had a few EOS lenses so I opted for Canon. I like the button/menu layouts of the Nikons a little better, but Canons fit in my hands and handle better for me.

If I were starting out these days, I'd go for either.

Yasko wrote: Both are great. At the time I bought my first dSLR, a 20D, I already had a few EOS lenses so I opted for Canon. I like the button/menu layouts of the Nikons a little better, but Canons fit in my hands and handle better for me.

If I were starting out these days, I'd go for either.

Personally, I'd go canon again, which I will, for macro, 17 TS-E, and maybe the 135L unless nikon updates theirs.

I am sticking with Nikon, the D700 hopefully next year with a few new lenses, guess I have just got used to the brand

Scotty wrote: I actually started with canon, switched to nikon, and I think I wanna go both.

One of my next photo gear moves is going to be along the lines of Scotty's thinking ... almost. I have only had the photogrpahy hobby for three years now. Went the Canon route because that's what my brother and his friend used .. simple as that.

I consiidered switching to Nikon a couple of years ago, as I lived thru the 1DMarkIII focus debacle ... Only to discover that the super telephoto primes lenses by Nikon are much much more expensive than the Canon equals ... For example a Canon 500mm f/4 lens is $6,140.00 versus the Nikon 500mm at $8,498.00 .... Why??

My plans are to add a new camera body to my kit, for mostly landscapes, people, etc. I have used a friends Sony A900 and really like the camera ... and the Zeiss glass is "not too shabby" either." I am also intrigued by the upcoming Sony translucent mirror bodies.

Like Crystal stated earlier ... It's not about the camera ... It the person pressing the shutter button

Scotty wrote: I actually started with canon, switched to nikon, and I think I wanna go both.

Just get those bellows man.

As for the 135 (which you mentioned above), Nikon don't really have anything to match that at the moment. That's true.

As for the 17 TS-E that's truely an awesome lens. Nikon only have the 24 PC-E to kinda get close, but then Canon have the equally awesome 24 TS-E too. So if you're into wide PC/TS lenses Canon's the way to go. Personally I'd be happy with a 24 PC-E because I really like the 24mm length and don't mind stitching.


As for Canon vs Nikon:
I'm very similar to Scotty. Started with Canon, got frustrated with their AF on the 5DII (long story) and SCOTTY convinced me to go Nikon.

Secretly I've always admired Nikon from back in the 1990s. I only went Canon in the first place because all my friends shoot Canon.

I really like Nikon, they give me what I need. That said, Canon make some great Prime lenses and make great landscape cameras (and video cameras).

I just got a Canon because my friend has one. In the end, I don't know which I would have chosen if it was up to me, because I know nothing about cameras.

bhowdy wrote:

Scotty wrote: I actually started with canon, switched to nikon, and I think I wanna go both.

One of my next photo gear moves is going to be along the lines of Scotty's thinking ... almost. I have only had the photogrpahy hobby for three years now. Went the Canon route because that's what my brother and his friend used .. simple as that.

I consiidered switching to Nikon a couple of years ago, as I lived thru the 1DMarkIII focus debacle ... Only to discover that the super telephoto primes lenses by Nikon are much much more expensive than the Canon equals ... For example a Canon 500mm f/4 lens is $6,140.00 versus the Nikon 500mm at $8,498.00 .... Why??

My plans are to add a new camera body to my kit, for mostly landscapes, people, etc. I have used a friends Sony A900 and really like the camera ... and the Zeiss glass is "not too shabby" either." I am also intrigued by the upcoming Sony translucent mirror bodies.

Like Crystal stated earlier ... It's not about the camera ... It the person pressing the shutter button

The lenses are the same price, look at the mark II variants of the canon primes. They're a lot more expensive. The nikkor super primes were newere than canon's, which explains the price difference.

Just remember when you leave the 1d3 and go to Nikon, to say the d3 line, you lose reach, because it's full frame.

Apparently Sony's translucent mirror bodies cause ghosting.

Stealthy Ninja wrote: Apparently Sony's translucent mirror bodies cause ghosting.

Which explains why ghost hunters like them so much.