I switched over a year and a half ago simply because I found Canon equipment too unreliable and I lost faith in it's ability to consistently deliver a sharp image. Half my lenses had to go back - with a camera - for calibration. My MKIII was so inconsistent that I took a dozen photos on Continuous servo just to insure I had a couple in focus. When every time you click the shutter you question if you really got the shot, it's time to change. You have to be able to trust your equipment.
Nikon has been much better, much more consistent. I know that when the camera says something is in focus, it really is.
To the OP - As far as people giving you a hard time about "nikon junk" I hope they are simply kidding and in no way serious. Pending any issues with the camera (like the MKIII focusing), photos from one system or the other look pretty much the same. No brand of camera can make anyone a better photographer. If anyone thinks that's really the case, I have some AIG stock to sell ya @ $50 a share
Don't worry, Canon will come out the the 1DMIV soon enough and the Canon forum will be filled with people switching from Nikon. Me, I plan to stay - I'll take reliable over anything at this point, and Nikon has been far more reliable than Canon.
I tried out the Nikons because my Canon film bodies were to old for the new mount and Nikon's system seemed to be more flexible. I liked the ergonomics and the menus so I switched.
I still have the old Canon film body and I shoot it on occasion but Im probably just going to pick up an old F4 to mess around with when I want film.
Justin Huffman wrote:
Several shooter buddies of mine are all canon guys....and have beat on me for years about how their system is better and why do i shoot with nikon as its junk.....I used to try and rationalize on the merits of both but it always ended in dribble.
Canon is not failing. Nikon is just catching up after being left behind in the early digital race. Each system has some strengths and weaknesses. In the past Nikon had a few weaknesses that measurberators and people who use cameras as penis extensions would use to win pissing contests like "my camera is better than yours looooooooser, Dee Pee Review says so, just look at the ISO 3200 tests of their famous bottle of Martini and other silly props". Then they'd go on to shoot some crap photos of their kids playing football with a plastic fantastic 70-300 and would marvel at the wonderful slightly out of focus, slightly badly white balanced, slightly crap photos.
But if you look beyond the childish locker room behaviour, there is an equal number of gifted photographers shooting both. For every big name Canon shooter there is a big name Nikon one and vice-versa.
The "exodus from Canon" is just a balancing move that will equalise the exodus from Nikon when Canon was making cameras like the 1Ds and the 5D and Nikon was still sleeping. That and the fact that on the low end, Nikon offers more features for the money. And on the low end people don't care about systems, they are happy to dump their D40/XTi and kit lens every few years and get the latest and greatest that will give them "nice" photos in full auto mode.
Next time you get into an arguement with your shooter buddies, just say the proof is in the pudding. Show them some shots and they show you some shots. The better one wins. No ifs, not buts, no "if you shot your better Nikon photos than mine with Canon they'd be even better". If their photos are better you just shut up and say nothing. The proof is just in the photos.
panos.v wrote:
Canon is not failing. Nikon is just catching up after being left behind in the early digital race. Each system has some strengths and weaknesses. In the past Nikon had a few weaknesses that measurberators and people who use cameras as penis extensions would use to win pissing contests like "my camera is better than yours looooooooser, Dee Pee Review says so, just look at the ISO 3200 tests of their famous bottle of Martini and other silly props". Then they'd go on to shoot some crap photos of their kids playing football with a plastic fantastic 70-300 and would marvel at the wonderful slightly out of focus, slightly badly white balanced, slightly crap photos.
But if you look beyond the childish locker room behaviour, there is an equal number of gifted photographers shooting both. For every big name Canon shooter there is a big name Nikon one and vice-versa.
The "exodus from Canon" is just a balancing move that will equalise the exodus from Nikon when Canon was making cameras like the 1Ds and the 5D and Nikon was still sleeping. That and the fact that on the low end, Nikon offers more features for the money. And on the low end people don't care about systems, they are happy to dump their D40/XTi and kit lens every few years and get the latest and greatest that will give them "nice" photos in full auto mode.
Next time you get into an arguement with your shooter buddies, just say the proof is in the pudding. Show them some shots and they show you some shots. The better one wins. No ifs, not buts, no "if you shot your better Nikon photos than mine with Canon they'd be even better". If their photos are better you just shut up and say nothing. The proof is just in the photos....Show more →
I do not think Canon is falling or failing. I recently made a move to nikon. My reasons were related to canon camera heirarchy where the less expensive models were definitely featurewise inferior or delibrately crippled of features to protect the higher market segment product. Currently if you need good weather sealing and excellent AF then in canon the only option is the 1 series. The 40D/50D are so far away from 1 series in this regard. I did not want to carry the huge 1 series camera just for my routine needs. I wanted a smaller, lighter camera with pro features. Looking at Nikon the D300 and d700 fit the needs well and nikon does not cripple cameras for the sake of it's pro series. The 5d mk II is also crippled to protect the 1D series. This is what compelled my move. Having used nikon's consumer zooms like the 70-300 VR I am impressed by Nikon was giving superb, comparable optical quality compared to pro glass. The difference is primarily build quality and fast aperture but optical quality is the same. Certainly canon keeps the consumers lenses well away from pro lenses.
No I am not expecting consumer grade cameras and lenses to be equal to the pro level ones but please do not cripple a camera just to widen the gap. There are easy ways to create this distinction just like Nikon. Maybe It is this Canon philosophy that makes people move to nikon.
Jammy Straub wrote:
Canon isn't failing, Nikon is just now offering more competitive choices. Which is a good thing. There is more than enough room for more than one top tier professional camera maker.
I agree. There are pros/cons to both systems. I just wish I would could afford to own both (D700 + 5D2 would be great for my needs).
It does seem to me that there has been an increase in threads stating that the poster is considering a switch to Nikon as of late.
I still have my feet in both camps. I'm down to two Canon DSLR items. A Canon 1D, the original, and a Canon 300mm 2.8 non-IS. Those are the two hardest items for me to sell.
Chrono1081 wrote:
+984835048508340858
Sorry OP but this thread is 100% pointless. Canon is not failing in the least. Infact I know more people switching from Nikon to Canon since the 5D Mark II. Canons QC doesnt suck, just more people buy Canon so the numbers look bigger. I used to sell cameras and would see it all the time where someones photography skills are lacking so they blame the gear and return it. Happens all the time. If the gear genuinely is bad, guess what, it happens. Nature of electronics. Happens on every single electronic item you buy.
What I find funny too how people started complaining when Canon issued a voluntary fix to the 1D M3 and 1DsMark III. Funny how noone seemed to notice a problem (especially with the 1Ds Mark III ) but are all of the sudden mad at Canon. hm......Show more →
Well you missed the mark on this one. Even with all the updates and the sub mirror fix I never felt the Mk3 was fixed or worked as well as its predecessor. Since complaints fell on deaf ears I sold it and moved to Nikon. The reason people don't talk about it is because people like you coming out and saying it is their skills and not the camera gets old. When Canon does announce a attempt to update/repair the problem then they feel someone vindicated that it is the body not the person.
As to the point of this thread? I see nothing wrong with asking why. I switch because of the lack of support from a company I invested in. I made a purchase based on their reputation and past products and was grossly let down and the customer service was horrid. I would never stick with a company that did that to me whether it was a car or a camera. I do see a lot of QC issues with things Canon has released lately, some of that I know is over analyzing what a body or lens was intended for but still I see far more grumbling on the Canon forums than in the Nikon ones. Now granted I have come to Nikon late, since the D300/D3 but I have not seen major complaints about the 4 bodies they have released in the last couple years. Do these kind of threads bring the forum IQ down, give me a break these areas are to discuss topics of interest if it does not interest you move on. But if someone was looking around for information about non-technical aspects of a camera or company (Should I buy Canon or Nikon) some history or background never hurts. When someone walks up and asks why you shout X you give them your opinion not facts.
panos.v wrote:
Canon is not failing. Nikon is just catching up after being left behind in the early digital race. Each system has some strengths and weaknesses. In the past Nikon had a few weaknesses that measurberators and people who use cameras as penis extensions would use to win pissing contests like "my camera is better than yours looooooooser, Dee Pee Review says so, just look at the ISO 3200 tests of their famous bottle of Martini and other silly props". Then they'd go on to shoot some crap photos of their kids playing football with a plastic fantastic 70-300 and would marvel at the wonderful slightly out of focus, slightly badly white balanced, slightly crap photos.
But if you look beyond the childish locker room behaviour, there is an equal number of gifted photographers shooting both. For every big name Canon shooter there is a big name Nikon one and vice-versa.
The "exodus from Canon" is just a balancing move that will equalise the exodus from Nikon when Canon was making cameras like the 1Ds and the 5D and Nikon was still sleeping. That and the fact that on the low end, Nikon offers more features for the money. And on the low end people don't care about systems, they are happy to dump their D40/XTi and kit lens every few years and get the latest and greatest that will give them "nice" photos in full auto mode.
Next time you get into an arguement with your shooter buddies, just say the proof is in the pudding. Show them some shots and they show you some shots. The better one wins. No ifs, not buts, no "if you shot your better Nikon photos than mine with Canon they'd be even better". If their photos are better you just shut up and say nothing. The proof is just in the photos....Show more →
Right on the money. This should be stickied in both forums
I don't know. I recently switched to nikon, (mostly for the 105 f/2) I've been a canon shooter for 4 years now, and I've never had a problem with any of their bodies. The only exception is the 5d Mk II. I picked one up from craigslist and I have to say, I feel there is very little differences between the mark II and the regular 5d. I decided to switch over to nikon due to a couple of primes, but I've been pretty impressed with a d300 and the d700. Too bad the d700 doesn't have vdieo because it's actually a pretty cool feature that would be neat while travelling.
"Next time you get into an arguement with your shooter buddies, just say the proof is in the pudding. Show them some shots and they show you some shots. The better one wins. No ifs, not buts, no "if you shot your better Nikon photos than mine with Canon they'd be even better". If their photos are better you just shut up and say nothing. The proof is just in the photos."
Sorry, but the proof will only be in the photos if the person you are arguing with shows you "all" the photos he's taken with his camera, not just his best ones. Having to take 10 shots with your Canon to be assured of getting one or two in focus proves nothing to anyone (other than that your camera's autofocus system stinks... ). I moved to Nikon after using virtually all the non-pro Canon cameras over the years (XTi, 20D, 30D, 40D, 5D, XSi) because their autofocus systems are not reliable. You "will" miss shots you would not with Nikon D300 or D700 (using their cross point sensors) if you use any non-pro Canon camera, and this includes any shots that require focusing, including stills. This has been proven to me time and again in my own personal experience over multiple camera platforms. And if you want to have an argument, I will show you the "proof" in the photos... all out of focus of course.
rkinz wrote:
"Next time you get into an arguement with your shooter buddies, just say the proof is in the pudding. Show them some shots and they show you some shots. The better one wins. No ifs, not buts, no "if you shot your better Nikon photos than mine with Canon they'd be even better". If their photos are better you just shut up and say nothing. The proof is just in the photos."
Sorry, but the proof will only be in the photos if the person you are arguing with shows you "all" the photos he's taken with his camera, not just his best ones. Having to take 10 shots with your Canon to be assured of getting one or two in focus proves nothing to anyone (other than that your camera's autofocus system stinks... ). I moved to Nikon after using virtually all the non-pro Canon cameras over the years (XTi, 20D, 30D, 40D, 5D, XSi) because their autofocus systems are not reliable. You "will" miss shots you would not with Nikon D300 or D700 (using their cross point sensors) if you use any non-pro Canon camera, and this includes any shots that require focusing, including stills. This has been proven to me time and again in my own personal experience over multiple camera platforms. And if you want to have an argument, I will show you the "proof" in the photos... all out of focus of course.
Nope, I still say the proof is in the photos. If the other guy shows you 10 photos that are better than yours this proves that the other system is as good at taking photos as your system is. If it took 1000 shots to get those 10 then that means that the camera might not make the job as easy as your camera but is still capable of excellent results.
As for you AF gripes, obviously some cameras have better tracking than others, so they are better for one kind of shooting than another one. No camera is suitable for every kind of shooting anyway! Some cameras are better for action, some for stills, some for low light and so on. But they can all produce excellent results for their intended purposes.
My opinion on this Canon vs Nikon thing is this: if one cannot produce good photos with any current digital SLR then they either have some specialised need and are using the wrong camera or the equipment is the least of their worries.
Wickedfn4u wrote:
Well you missed the mark on this one. Even with all the updates and the sub mirror fix I never felt the Mk3 was fixed or worked as well as its predecessor. Since complaints fell on deaf ears I sold it and moved to Nikon. The reason people don't talk about it is because people like you coming out and saying it is their skills and not the camera gets old. When Canon does announce a attempt to update/repair the problem then they feel someone vindicated that it is the body not the person.
As to the point of this thread? I see nothing wrong with asking why. I switch because of the lack of support from a company I invested in. I made a purchase based on their reputation and past products and was grossly let down and the customer service was horrid. I would never stick with a company that did that to me whether it was a car or a camera. I do see a lot of QC issues with things Canon has released lately, some of that I know is over analyzing what a body or lens was intended for but still I see far more grumbling on the Canon forums than in the Nikon ones. Now granted I have come to Nikon late, since the D300/D3 but I have not seen major complaints about the 4 bodies they have released in the last couple years. Do these kind of threads bring the forum IQ down, give me a break these areas are to discuss topics of interest if it does not interest you move on. But if someone was looking around for information about non-technical aspects of a camera or company (Should I buy Canon or Nikon) some history or background never hurts. When someone walks up and asks why you shout X you give them your opinion not facts. ...Show more →
Sorry but I absolutely did not miss the mark. A lot of people blame their gear for their photography shortcomings. Just yesterday I had someone asking if they should sell their nikon d90 or whichever one it is because when they shoot pictures of the moon its blurry and too bright.
Like I said before I used to sell cameras for a living and a good 95% of the cameras that got returned "defective" were cause the user simply did not know how to shoot.
As for Canons "shortcomings" im sorry but if you deal with them from a dealers perspective they are a ton easer to deal with then any other camera company out there. If its broke, you send it back or return it to the store and get a new one. Not sure what more people want.
As for "falling on deaf ears" I have to say you are wrong. Seems to me like they are doing the right thing and repairing the issues. Mind you they cant snap their fingers and say "ok! fix is here!" It takes teams of scientists, pr people, engineers, etc to come up with a viable fix, create a workflow for that fix, get the information out to the public, then have them send in their camera to have it fixed.
Not sure why I get worked up over these stupid troll threads. (Sorry OP but this was a trollish thread before you edited it.) I'm not in retail anymore and dont deal with the constant crying over company X's products.
