Canon vs Nikon vs Photographer

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules

FM Forums | PRO digital corner | Join Image Upload
1

end

stevenD
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #1 · Canon vs Nikon vs Photographer

I started out years ago and had two different Nikon FILM bodies, they were nice cameras, but my last four DIGITAL bodies have been Canons and I like them just fine.

In my opinion (and a few others) Nikon has been playing catch-up to Canon ever since the first Digital SLR Camera came out and while the D3 looks pretty awesome, I just don't feel like switching all my Glass over.

And if Nikon really wants to go toe-to-toe with Canon, they need to be competitive with them BIG Glass (look at these B&H prices):

Examples:
(1) 500mm f4 Lens:
Canon price: $5800
Nikon price: $7900

(2) 400mm f2.8 Lens
Canon: $6800
Nikon: $8500

(3) 300mm f2.8 Lens
Canon $4100
Nikon $4500

And lastly I have nothing against Nikon Shooters, I wish there was more of them...Lots MORE! - as then Canon would be forced to keep their prices down.... Come on Nikon, let's see that D3MKII

Sep 22, 2008 at 05:57 AM

OzPic
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #2 · Canon vs Nikon vs Photographer

Who cares what camera the next guy has ,we should all be happy with what we have as they are all good cameras.
Why do people always feel the need to switch ....... I think I must be missing something

Dean.

Sep 22, 2008 at 09:55 AM

farley
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #3 · Canon vs Nikon vs Photographer

I have yet to have a customer ask what camera I use. They could care less. They ask if I can do this or that, or can I shoot this or that. All the customer does is agree to buy or not. I have used Nikon digital and sold pics and I now use Canon and sell pics. I think if I used Sony, Pentax, or any of the others I would sell pics. I chose my system on glass that suited my needs. It has reached the point in my opinion that there are several manufacturers that sell good camera. Canon and Nikon should be careful of hubris. That deal with Mark III was stupid, and those kinds of things will cost customers new and old.

Sep 24, 2008 at 01:27 PM

ShutterLover
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #4 · Canon vs Nikon vs Photographer

I shot Nikon growing up, although I never had more than consumer-grade body and lenses. I though Nikon was the ultimate - had the brand cachet. I first looked at the D70 when going digital and didn't really consider Canon. Then as I read and researched started to covet some of the Canon lenses more. Canon had full-frame to upgrade to later (I didn't like the sound of a 'crop camera' when I learned DSLRs did this). ISO performance was way better on Canon at the time and megapixels clearly more (yeah, I know).

Now, who knows what I'd do. There are some nice Nikon lenses I like the look of, the D300, D700 and D3 are nice, nice, nice. I'll stay with Canon forever as I'm so invested but if Nikon had caught up a little faster...

Sep 26, 2008 at 12:33 PM

aboudd
Online
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #5 · Canon vs Nikon vs Photographer

Talent doesn't have a brand name. Four years ago there was a movie, Born into Brothels: Calcutta's Red Light Kids. The filmmakers gave the kids cameras (with no discussion of brand names - and they weren't thousands of dollars either) to shoot their lives. Many of the kids took beautiful photographs, one child showed actual brilliance. Do yourself a favor - rent the movie for some real world perspective of why photography is important. Then, the next time the flotsam and jetsam of one of these insipid discussions flares up on FM you can ignore it, get out and create something instead.

Sep 26, 2008 at 12:56 PM


FM Forums \| PRO digital corner \| Join Image Upload 1 2 end