Nikon and Canon users (1 Viewer)

Gentoo · Nov 14, 2008

pduxon said:
now i am thoroughly confused the d80 is an old model realistically and it wasn't aimed at the 40d was it? probably between the 400d and the 30d at the time it was launched I guess.

the d90 is a similar price to the 40d. If the 50d is competing with the d90 then what is canon using to compete against the d300???

Anyway both companies make great cameras and lenses. I have friends with both.

I was reading this earlier http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/technology/personaltech/13basics.html

and this led me to look up alex majoli

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844

go out take photos. ok the lens matters for birds but i think some folk get hung up on "gear" and MEGA PIXELS

and not intended as criticism of anyone imparticular

Because I'm also into electronics, I see what these companies have done a little differently than most. There are several "classes" aimed at specific markets.

The entry level DSLR market They are about the same in this market:

Canon rebel series XT, XTI, XS and XSI
Nikon.................D50, D40, D40x and D60

Mid-range/advanced: Canon wins hands down in this market:

Canon, 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D and 50D
Nikon,.........D70, D70s, D80 and D90 (Nikon was slow and had no competitor for the 10D)

High end (between pro and advanced) Canon does not yet have anything in this market so it sort of balances things out as Canon kills Nikon in advanced:

Nikon D100, D200 and D300

Pro level: This is the market where they really leap frog one another, currently, Canon is ahead.

Canon, 1D through 5D series
Nikon, D1 series through to the D3

Then of course there is the other way to classify these cameras, that is on the technical side. The above however are how these companies target a portion of the market.

The D700 was a distraction Nikon played with and then had their asses handed to them by the Canon 5Dmk II

Leif · Nov 14, 2008

pduxon said:
now i am thoroughly confused the d80 is an old model realistically and it wasn't aimed at the 40d was it? probably between the 400d and the 30d at the time it was launched I guess.

the d90 is a similar price to the 40d. If the 50d is competing with the d90 then what is canon using to compete against the d300???

Anyway both companies make great cameras and lenses. I have friends with both.

I was reading this earlier http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/technology/personaltech/13basics.html

and this led me to look up alex majoli

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844

go out take photos. ok the lens matters for birds but i think some folk get hung up on "gear" and MEGA PIXELS

and not intended as criticism of anyone imparticular

I agree. Personally I prefer Canon's approach to bodies as the 40D has all that most of us need (metal body, decent AF, MLU) at the price of a D80. The D300 has more than most people can use, though that does not stop it selling like hot cakes.

IMO Canon saw that Nikon were on to something with the D300 i.e. better build, sealing, LCD etc, and the 50D is their attempt to get in to that market i.e. more money. Stick with the 40D would be my biased suggestion. I feel that the 50D is largely for pixie heads.

Leif · Nov 14, 2008

Gentoo said:
Because I'm also into electronics, I see what these companies have done a little differently than most. There are several "classes" aimed at specific markets.

The entry level DSLR market They are about the same in this market:

Canon rebel series XT, XTI, XS and XSI
Nikon.................D50, D40, D40x and D60

Mid-range/advanced: Canon wins hands down in this market:

Canon, 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D and 50D
Nikon,.........D70, D70s, D80 and D90 (Nikon was slow and had no competitor for the 10D)

High end (between pro and advanced) Canon does not yet have anything in this market so it sort of balances things out as Canon kills Nikon in advanced:

Nikon D100, D200 and D300

Pro level: This is the market where they really leap frog one another, currently, Canon is ahead.

Canon, 1D through 5D series
Nikon, D1 series through to the D3

Then of course there is the other way to classify these cameras, that is on the technical side. The above however are how these companies target a portion of the market.

The D700 was a distraction Nikon played with and then had their asses handed to them by the Canon 5Dmk II

In the UK the cheapest DSLR with lens is by far the Nikon D40. Price matters at that end of the market.

I would say that the 40D and 50D compete with the D200 and D300. And of those IMO the winners are the 40D and D300. And I suspect sales back that up though the 50D will probably sell lots.

Regarding Canon leading the pro market, that is debatable. An awful lot of pros have migrated to Nikon to use the D3 and D700 given that 12 MP is more than enough for an A3 print. I am not sure on what you base your assessment, but there is a tendency to base comparisons on pixel count and sensor size.

At present Nikon are making lots of money, and more this year than last. I am not saying that implies that Nikon are better, far from it, just that they are making good commercial decisions.

a.dancy · Nov 15, 2008

Leif said:

I am no fan boy if that was the intended implication. And if it was then I resent it.

Click to expand...

Leif said:
Leif....no implication intended at all. I don't know you. If there had been any intention I would be more direct and it would have appeared in the first paragraph where I in effect agreed with you. My comment was assigned to the third paragraph where I made a general statement and I hoped that that was how it would be perceived.

Leif · Nov 15, 2008

a.dancy said:
Leif said:

I am no fan boy if that was the intended implication. And if it was then I resent it.

Click to expand...

Leif said:

Leif....no implication intended at all. I don't know you. If there had been any intention I would be more direct and it would have appeared in the first paragraph where I in effect agreed with you. My comment was assigned to the third paragraph where I made a general statement and I hoped that that was how it would be perceived.

Click to expand...

Okay, thanks, that's clear.

pduxon · Nov 15, 2008

Gentoo.

PLEASE don't take this personally but your last comment about the d700 makes you sound like Ken Rockwell!! (really not personal!!). The 5dII will no doubt be an excellent camera (virtually all canon's are) but it hasn't come out yet!! Reminds me of one KR's reviews when he admitted he'd never used the product!! Anyone know if the 5dII sensor is one used by canon before?

Nikon and Canon tend not to compete directly from what I can observe. You are quite right that Nikon are playing catch up in some sectors.

I believe that Nikon position their cameras in between canon's e.g. d70 is in between the 300d/350 but below the 10d/20d etc.

The d90 is interesting because it competes currently with the 40d on price. The 40d undoubtedly has a more pro speced body. Does it produce better images? i suspect not (please note I've never used a 40d). I make that statement purely on the basis that why did Canon launch the 50d quite so soon? The d90's image quality is according to a Mr T Hogan "is close enough [to the d300] to be called the same". The 50d price is falling all the time (as I like to remind a friend of mine who is resisting the temptation of buying one). It makes me think that the 40d will disappear and the 50d will sit in between. For those of you Canon shooters who love the 40d may I say its probably the bargain of the moment.

Nikon's problem has been noise the d80 I wouldn't use above ISO 400, I'm told that's true of the d200, what surprised people with the d300 and especially the d3 was that Nikon had a big leap on noise. Noise was Canon's big thing.

FF is somewhere that Canon still dominates. but one of the things commented on the Olympics was how many bodies no longer had grey lenses.

Not sure why Nikon launched the d700 it certainly acted as a spoiler to the sony a900 and the price now is 2/3 that of the 5d MKII at launch (based on current uk prices). I guess there were enough people like Hogan who prefer that body size to a d3 size.

The d700/d3 is more a PJ camera. Whereas Canon's certainly attracts those who need megapixels.

I think Canon undoubtedly has a clear edge for people on this forum and really needs to add VR to the afs 300 f4 and afs to the 80-400vr. Both are decent lens (i've captured a hobby in flight with the later) but they NEED updating.

The big lenses do tend to find Nikon about 10% pricier (in the UK). If I had to swap AND I was after a £5000 lens (AND I'M NOT!!) that would be eroded in buying bodies and wide angle lenses etc. a few years ago Nikon had no such lenses with VR.

I think Nikon is a little easier to predict than Canon in the sense Nikon have a trend. d300/d200 sensor moves down to next level. Canon tends to use more sensors. so the next d40/d50/d60 will probably use a d90 sensor (and they need to do this).

It would seem that sometime this year a new 24.1mp FF will be launched by Nikon is this a problem for Canon shooters? Of course not it will provide competition. Competition from both Nikon and Sony means that Canon have to answer and that's good for Canon shooters.

If you want to buy a different brand do so. its your money and you've earned the right to spend it how you will. Personally I think you get more out of buying a 300f2.8 but its your dosh

Gentoo · Nov 15, 2008

pduxon said:
Gentoo.

PLEASE don't take this personally but your last comment about the d700 makes you sound like Ken Rockwell!! (really not personal!!). The 5dII will no doubt be an excellent camera (virtually all canon's are) but it hasn't come out yet!! Reminds me of one KR's reviews when he admitted he'd never used the product!! Anyone know if the 5dII sensor is one used by canon before?

Nikon and Canon tend not to compete directly from what I can observe. You are quite right that Nikon are playing catch up in some sectors.

I believe that Nikon position their cameras in between canon's e.g. d70 is in between the 300d/350 but below the 10d/20d etc.

The d90 is interesting because it competes currently with the 40d on price. The 40d undoubtedly has a more pro speced body. Does it produce better images? i suspect not (please note I've never used a 40d). I make that statement purely on the basis that why did Canon launch the 50d quite so soon? The d90's image quality is according to a Mr T Hogan "is close enough [to the d300] to be called the same". The 50d price is falling all the time (as I like to remind a friend of mine who is resisting the temptation of buying one). It makes me think that the 40d will disappear and the 50d will sit in between. For those of you Canon shooters who love the 40d may I say its probably the bargain of the moment.

Nikon's problem has been noise the d80 I wouldn't use above ISO 400, I'm told that's true of the d200, what surprised people with the d300 and especially the d3 was that Nikon had a big leap on noise. Noise was Canon's big thing.

FF is somewhere that Canon still dominates. but one of the things commented on the Olympics was how many bodies no longer had grey lenses.

Not sure why Nikon launched the d700 it certainly acted as a spoiler to the sony a900 and the price now is 2/3 that of the 5d MKII at launch (based on current uk prices). I guess there were enough people like Hogan who prefer that body size to a d3 size.

The d700/d3 is more a PJ camera. Whereas Canon's certainly attracts those who need megapixels.

I think Canon undoubtedly has a clear edge for people on this forum and really needs to add VR to the afs 300 f4 and afs to the 80-400vr. Both are decent lens (i've captured a hobby in flight with the later) but they NEED updating.

The big lenses do tend to find Nikon about 10% pricier (in the UK). If I had to swap AND I was after a £5000 lens (AND I'M NOT!!) that would be eroded in buying bodies and wide angle lenses etc. a few years ago Nikon had no such lenses with VR.

I think Nikon is a little easier to predict than Canon in the sense Nikon have a trend. d300/d200 sensor moves down to next level. Canon tends to use more sensors. so the next d40/d50/d60 will probably use a d90 sensor (and they need to do this).

It would seem that sometime this year a new 24.1mp FF will be launched by Nikon is this a problem for Canon shooters? Of course not it will provide competition. Competition from both Nikon and Sony means that Canon have to answer and that's good for Canon shooters.

If you want to buy a different brand do so. its your money and you've earned the right to spend it how you will. Personally I think you get more out of Nbuying a 300f2.8 but its your dosh

nah I don't take that personally. You worded that quite well and I know what you meant. I realized I sounded like him when I wrote that but I stand by my words all the same. I personally don't have too much of a problem with KR as some of his stuff is helpful, you just have to take the rest with a grain of salt.

I'm thinking more and more of figuring out the most I can get out of what I have (thanks in no small part to a very helpful BF member). I just tend to like to collect electronic devices even when I shouldn't and perhaps it's time for me to be more practical.

pduxon, I also find your advice very helpful as well, thanks for posting it and keep it coming. I looked at the 2.8 prime and that's a little more than I can afford right now unless I find a deal on ebay.

Adey Baker · Nov 15, 2008

Gentoo

If you enjoy collecting electronic devices (and there's nothing wrong with that!) then you've probably already decided to buy some Canon kit to run alongside your Nikons.

From a practical point, though, I'd strongly suggest staying with one system to use in the field. There used to be a fundamental difference in the two systems where the focus ring of one system turned in the opposite direction to the other system - it still does, of course, but autofocus has made this less of a problem than it used to be. I've read of 'horror' stories of pro photographers changing systems to get the 'better' latest kit only to have to trade-in at a great loss to get back to the system that they could operate instinctively!

There's still a problem with using two different systems in that they're not identical in the way you change settings, etc. Not a problem with a static subject but with unpredicatable subjects like birds it could make the difference in getting 'The' shot or not if you have to hesitate before you're able to change a vital setting. I have both 20D and 40D bodies and I find it irritating that the ISO setting, for instance, is different on each body - with two totally different camera systems, I'd never feel that I was using them to their full potential.

Gentoo · Nov 15, 2008

Adey Baker said:
Gentoo

If you enjoy collecting electronic devices (and there's nothing wrong with that!) then you've probably already decided to buy some Canon kit to run alongside your Nikons.

From a practical point, though, I'd strongly suggest staying with one system to use in the field. There used to be a fundamental difference in the two systems where the focus ring of one system turned in the opposite direction to the other system - it still does, of course, but autofocus has made this less of a problem than it used to be. I've read of 'horror' stories of pro photographers changing systems to get the 'better' latest kit only to have to trade-in at a great loss to get back to the system that they could operate instinctively!

There's still a problem with using two different systems in that they're not identical in the way you change settings, etc. Not a problem with a static subject but with unpredicatable subjects like birds it could make the difference in getting 'The' shot or not if you have to hesitate before you're able to change a vital setting. I have both 20D and 40D bodies and I find it irritating that the ISO setting, for instance, is different on each body - with two totally different camera systems, I'd never feel that I was using them to their full potential.

As strange as it sounds, learning two systems is one of the things that attracted me to learn Canon. Of course you're right when you say that I would miss a lot of shots while I tried to figure out what to do. A love for electronics doesn't really mesh well with a desire to take great bird pics.

I didn't respond to this earlier but the non AF-S 300mm F4, the regular AF version works fast on the D300, at least as fast as the 70-300mmVR I have.

Duke Leto · Nov 15, 2008

hmm a most interesting thread, I don't believe I'm anything else than an amateur photographer, I enjoy a hobby that for some weird reason evolved into a love of capturing birds in the wild.
I honestly believe its not what you have but how its used, okay there is a point where you need to have a basic level of equipment especially if you shoot wildlife, but after that most discussions are down to technical aspects and test bench improvements. No doubt there are advances but how does the average user extract the best out of the advances? There are changes which are obvious before everyone quotes the more obvious like vr or improved AF etc.
In 1990 (I think it was) I bought a Contax 167mt. I sold that camera / lens to a collector in Sweden in 2006, it serviced me for 16 years.
Why is it different today? Why are people driven to believe that upgrading or changing will benefit them? Are we sucked in to magazine / marketing hype? Do we get told that it will improve things? Are we victims of subliminal advertising? do we envy those that have newer / better / bigger things? do we feel inadequate if we don't have these?
And before anyone asks I drive a Skoda.......
Posted not to offend but to stimulate discussion

Adey Baker · Nov 15, 2008

Duke Leto said:
In 1990 (I think it was) I bought a Contax 167mt. I sold that camera / lens to a collector in Sweden in 2006, it serviced me for 16 years.
Why is it different today? Why are people driven to believe that upgrading or changing will benefit them? Are we sucked in to magazine / marketing hype? Do we get told that it will improve things? Are we victims of subliminal advertising? do we envy those that have newer / better / bigger things? do we feel inadequate if we don't have these?

Posted not to offend but to stimulate discussion

Of course, we did upgrade regularly in the 'good old days' - every time a new 'improved' film came along! By the 1990s SLR design had reached a stage where they would do pretty much everything that was asked of them; Canon, for instance, made the EOS3 for quite a few years without ever needing to upgrade it at all - but it was a long way ahead of earlier SLRs that were slow, noisy, non-motor-driven, with dim viewfinders that 'blacked out' with tele lenses. The very early ones had non-return mirrors, no exposure meters, slow-fitting screw-thread lens mounts, etc., etc., etc.

The big difference now is the speed of new models coming onto the market and I'm not sure that strong competition is all that healthy for us, the consumers, if they keep trying to leap-frog over one another with the latest multi-megapixel model, rather than developing genuine improvements -personally, I'd say that if you have a good model, don't even look too hard at another until you're 2 or 3 models further down the line!

Leif · Nov 15, 2008

a.dancy said:
My suggestions are based on just going with Canon. The Nikon 300f4 AF-s seems to be a superb lens though I have never used it. Of course financial considerations come into the equation.

I HAVE had a Sigma 400APO Macro...the glass is not bad but I gave it away.

I will not get into a discussions such as 'Nikon v Canon' or indeed the 'Nikon 300f4 plus 1.4 converter is better than the Canon 400f5.6 L' prime. When you are dealing with top quality glass from either camp the photographer using the equipment will make more of a difference to the final quality and outcome of the image than the negligible difference alleged to be offered by fan boys of either brand.

I have had time to think about your post. I referred to the Sigma lens. You dismissed it. I compared the 300mm +TC to the Canon 400mm lens, and you dismissed such comments ascribing them to fan boys. Basically you dismissed my post and ended on a personal insult. I think I am entitled to make the point that the Sigma lens is optically on a par with brand name lenses without personal abuse from a moderator who should know better. I have also owned the Nikon 400mm F5.6 lens.

Regarding the Sigma 400mm APO macro, see the attached image. The per pixel sharpness is very good. I subsequently tried to shoot the insect with a 200mm micro lens, but it would not tolerate such a close approach.

Duke Leto · Nov 15, 2008

Adey Baker said:
Of course, we did upgrade regularly in the 'good old days' - every time a new 'improved' film came along!

Some us us never even did that, nothing wrong with Fujichrome 100 or ektachrome 25.......

Adey Baker said:
if they keep trying to leap-frog over one another with the latest multi-megapixel model, rather than developing genuine improvements -personally, I'd say that if you have a good model, don't even look too hard at another until you're 2 or 3 models further down the line!

Too right, bought my daughter a Fujipro S3 for studio work and gave it a run out, okay the buffer is non existent and it might do 2fps in RAW up to around 3 frames..... but my kingfisher shot is the best I have ever taken

Leif · Nov 15, 2008

Duke Leto said:
Some us us never even did that, nothing wrong with Fujichrome 100 or ektachrome 25.......
[/COLOR]

The way that some people (especially on dpreview) dismiss many current cameras as useless, you wonder how anyone managed to take a picture in the days of film. Whereas people such as Art Morris took first rate images with 50 ASA film. No doubt a generous helping of talent and hard work helped.

Gentoo · Nov 15, 2008

Duke Leto said:
hmm a most interesting thread, I don't believe I'm anything else than an amateur photographer, I enjoy a hobby that for some weird reason evolved into a love of capturing birds in the wild.
I honestly believe its not what you have but how its used, okay there is a point where you need to have a basic level of equipment especially if you shoot wildlife, but after that most discussions are down to technical aspects and test bench improvements. No doubt there are advances but how does the average user extract the best out of the advances? There are changes which are obvious before everyone quotes the more obvious like vr or improved AF etc.
In 1990 (I think it was) I bought a Contax 167mt. I sold that camera / lens to a collector in Sweden in 2006, it serviced me for 16 years.
Why is it different today? Why are people driven to believe that upgrading or changing will benefit them? Are we sucked in to magazine / marketing hype? Do we get told that it will improve things? Are we victims of subliminal advertising? do we envy those that have newer / better / bigger things? do we feel inadequate if we don't have these?
And before anyone asks I drive a Skoda.......
Posted not to offend but to stimulate discussion

Sounds like you started out from the other end of where I did. I have always been a birder and more recently got into the photography side of things, especially with DSLR's which also bring in another one of my interest, electronics. I've grown to love photography now (although I'm still not yet that good but working on my technique), I now have something that combines all of my interests into one and I find that a bit overwhelming, in a good way.

I'll admit I do get sucked into that " I've gotta have that" mentality and that goes back to me stereo and computer buying days lol. Problem now is that cameras are a much more expensive group of electronics than my other passed interests.

I can say once the weather cools off, I will be out with the gear I have now happily shooting away.

pduxon · Nov 15, 2008

Gentoo said:
pduxon, I also find your advice very helpful as well, thanks for posting it and keep it coming. I looked at the 2.8 prime and that's a little more than I can afford right now unless I find a deal on ebay.

well I was thinking that a 50d and a 300f4 and a TC would be approx 2/3 the price of a 300 f2.8 over here

Duke Leto · Nov 15, 2008

Leif said:
The way that some people (especially on dpreview) dismiss many current cameras as useless, you wonder how anyone managed to take a picture in the days of film. Whereas people such as Art Morris took first rate images with 50 ASA film. No doubt a generous helping of talent and hard work helped.

Absolutely that just about sums its it up, well said...........:t:

pduxon · Nov 15, 2008

Duke Leto said:
Some us us never even did that, nothing wrong with Fujichrome 100 or ektachrome 25.......

Too right, bought my daughter a Fujipro S3 for studio work and gave it a run out, okay the buffer is non existent and it might do 2fps in RAW up to around 3 frames..... but my kingfisher shot is the best I have ever taken

SSSSSSSOOOOOOO tempted by the s5 pro at £428.

I must admit I think the discipline of film is something I could use now.

Duke Leto · Nov 15, 2008

Its something that I think we will unfortunately loose, I do love it when a shot comes out of the camera just right.....
30 years time and no one will have grown up with film SLR's we'll all have gone the way of the Dodo

a.dancy · Nov 16, 2008

Leif said:
I have had time to think about your post. I referred to the Sigma lens. You dismissed it. I compared the 300mm +TC to the Canon 400mm lens, and you dismissed such comments ascribing them to fan boys. Basically you dismissed my post and ended on a personal insult. I think I am entitled to make the point that the Sigma lens is optically on a par with brand name lenses without personal abuse from a moderator who should know better. I have also owned the Nikon 400mm F5.6 lens.

Regarding the Sigma 400mm APO macro, see the attached image. The per pixel sharpness is very good. I subsequently tried to shoot the insect with a 200mm micro lens, but it would not tolerate such a close approach.

Leif

As stated I did not slurr you. I disagree with your selective observation that I have dismissed everything you said. I did not. I agreed with you that the Sigma 400APO MAC was a fine lens or at least optically not bad. It served me well when I shot with film, but it is an old lens which is no longer made by Sigma and some are not chipped for digital cameras. I did not consider it suitable for birds in flight or focusing on moving targets . I gave the lens away to a good friend. If I do not agree with you entirely I see no reason for you to assume any more than the fact that I simply disagree. Your shot by the way is superb.

I agreed with you that one has to make financial considerations .

I agreed with you that the Nikon 300f4 seems to be a superb lens worthy of consideration.

My reference to "fanboys" was placed in a seperate paragraph where I made a general statement of a kind I have made before . It is regrettable that that paragraph referred to the Nikon 300f4 which is probably the reason you are making the link and drawing the wrong conclusion, but I can assure you that I was NOT having a go at you. You might also note that I still use Sigma lenses:t:

I was not aware that Nikon made a 400f5.6 lens.

If you do not accept what I have said then we will just have to agree to disagree, and that I would regret. I hope this matter can be laid to rest.

Regards

Adrian

Nikon and Canon users (1 Viewer)

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

Registered User

Well-known member

Quacked up Member

Guest

Member

Guest

Without habitat, there is no wildlife. It's that s

Member

Well-known member

Attachments

Without habitat, there is no wildlife. It's that s

Well-known member

Guest

Quacked up Member

Without habitat, there is no wildlife. It's that s

Quacked up Member

Without habitat, there is no wildlife. It's that s

Registered User

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread