Back on the ol' good times of film I used to shoot for my job with both Canon and Nikon but the look'n feel of the Nikon gear made the difference for me. After a long break I went on digital with Nikon, currently I am on my 6th DSLR now - in fact I'm using a combo D800/D600 and I could not be happier. The great compatibility with old MF glass and the IQ of the modern Nikkor primes are the major arguments for me. I do not say that other brands are not good... I just say that Nikon fulfill my needs and I really do not need to look over the fence. Another thing... in certain situation I cross my path with photogs using gear from other camps, mostly from Canon. Many times I feel their envy for the build quality and the IQ coming from my gear. And this says a lot to me.
Mishu01 wrote:
Back on the ol' good times of film I used to shoot for my job with both Canon and Nikon but the look'n feel of the Nikon gear made the difference for me. After a long break I went on digital with Nikon, currently I am on my 6th DSLR now - in fact I'm using a combo D800/D600 and I could not be happier. The great compatibility with old MF glass and the IQ of the modern Nikkor primes are the major arguments for me. I do not say that other brands are not good... I just say that Nikon fulfill my needs and I really do not need to look over the fence. Another thing... in certain situation I cross my path with photogs using gear from other camps, mostly from Canon. Many times I feel their envy for the build quality and the IQ coming from my gear. And this says a lot to me....Show more →
Annie Leibovitz still shoots with Canon as we speak. I don't the quality of her work has decreased judging from the most recent American Vogue issues.
I've been slowly falling out of "love" for Nikon as they continue to release cameras I have no interest in. I'm also pretty pissed about the way they've cut off spare parts and jacked up repair costs. OTOH, Canon is rumored to be releasing an upgrade to their 7D, a camera that Nikon can't match but is what I want. I could easily be shooting Canon this time next year. Meanwhile, I've been shooting a Leica IIIc and Leica lenses 35/50/90mm quite a bit. While falling out of love with Nikon, I've been falling into like with Leica.
mshi wrote:
Annie Leibovitz still shoots with Canon as we speak. I don't the quality of her work has decreased judging from the most recent American Vogue issues.
Well, I only can repeat that Nikon meets my needs regarding the gear. As we all know is not the gear the main factor to produce high quality pictures and a talented photographer can do wonders using any of the systems on the market.
Two23 wrote:
Meanwhile, I've been shooting a Leica IIIc and Leica lenses 35/50/90mm quite a bit. While falling out of love with Nikon, I've been falling into like with Leica.
Kent in SD
That's a big change in your mindset. A year or two back you were quite aggressive against shooting with primes while praising the fast zooms. But old cameras & old glass seems to win your heart lately.
It's a no-brainer for me. Nikon for sure. If nothing else, just for the D800E that I have.
But they also have a whole lotta nice glass.
Nikon has a lot of work to do to keep me happy, but they haven't failed seriously enough to completely turn me away. (that shouldn't be the company's goal) They have a lot of lenses and bodies and other issues to work out. But that doesn't mean they don't have good products and great glass.
Mishu01 wrote:
Well, I only can repeat that Nikon meets my needs regarding the gear. As we all know is not the gear the main factor to produce high quality pictures and a talented photographer can do wonders using any of the systems on the market.
Exactly, camera brands don't matter at all if you know what you're doing.
Nikon have better bodies but I'd prefer canon's lens lineup: 70-200 2.8 without loads of focus breathing, better 100mm macro and of course the 135L and 50 1.2 L.
Honestly, if the question means knowing what I know now (not being a newbie) and all my gear was stolen or something, I'd probably get the minimum I needed and try to watch things for a bit. I don't like the way either Canon or Nikon are going:
Canon's definitely sensor impaired, has prices that have lost touch with reality, but they do have an amazing lens lineup and good customer service.
Nikon's making the best cameras, clearly, but if I depended on my equipment to make a living their repair service turnaround times and cost would terrify me.
I'd probably buy a D800, some Sigma and Tamron lenses (because I really think both are trying to provide better customer service than either of the big guys - although maybe I'm just drinking the Kool Aid again) and see what happens over the next year.
If Canon bought Sony's sensors and technology I'd probably head that way, but I think that has near zero chance of happening.
If Nikon improves repair and service, I'd head that way, but I think that's equally unlikely.
So maybe I'd just be waiting to see which of the other guys 'got next'. Or maybe learn to shoot video. . . . nah, never mind
I had a Sony A100. I loved the fact that the image stabilization was in the body. That's where it belongs, in my humble opinion. That way *every* lens, whether an old manual focus from Minolta or a brand new Zeiss has image stabilization.
However, the autofocus was just awful. I didn't want to buy the A700 as it was oldish technology by the time I was ready. So I waited and waited and ..
Time passed and finally a relative said, "Here, I have this Nikon I'm not using. Want it?" I sold all of my Sony and moved to Nikon.
From the point of view of autofocus, I have never regretted the choice. I am however still annoyed that Nikon (and Canon) were too stubborn to change their autofocus to the body. That choice meant that entire generations of good lenses without VR are still without VR...
If I was starting from scratch today, I would probably go Nikon because of the autofocus--I missed too many good shots with the Sony--, but I would certainly give Sony a close look and see how good their AF is now.
I would stay with nikon. ..... Canon screwed up years ago with the 1d mk3 AF issue and wouldn't bail out the pros who bought several of these. I had 3 new ones and none could lock on to a football player running downfield. After they had 3 attempts to fix these, I asked for a refund and would buy back my older bodies until they corrected the issue with a newer camera .....working for the NFL at that time, canon was the official NFL camera and they flatly turned me down..... I left Canon and built my Nikon system.
Nikon. Because of their sensor technology and the huge strides they have made filling in the gaps in their lens system (compared to around 2006, when I gave up on Nikon). I am talking about great kit like the Nikkor 24 f1.4, 14-24, newly announced 70-200 f4 etc. D600 and D800 look mighty impressive too, and well priced.
From the outside looking in Nikon seem to be on a roll.
I really prefer the ergonomics of Nikon bodies and that is enough for me since lenses seem to be about a draw lately. I do think that Nikon IQ has left Canon pretty far behind since the release of their FX sensors, but always thought Canon enjoyed a better lens selection. Now the FX sensor has moved even further ahead and Nikon released a ton of great lenses. I am sure Canon will find a way to turn the tables one day.
Honestly, the worst thing about Canon is all the people who have no idea about the basics of photography that barely know how to turn on their 5DMKII, but love to fawn over their L series lenses as if every single one was forged by Hephaestus. The majority of my friends with a Canon fall into this category.
Right now I'm shooting both N & C...a 1DMK IV with several Canon lenses including the 800L and a D800 with a bunch of Nikon lenses including the 500VR.
I love Canon glass...Canon really has a lot to offer across the entire lineup, and especially at the tele end where I live. But in challenging lighting conditions the IQ of the 1DMK IV sucks. Since I picked up a D800 a month ago my Canon stuff has been collecting dust. (To be fair, Canon probably has the best action camera on the market right now... the 1DX...just doesn't have enough resolution for my needs).
So right now I'd say Nikon because their sensors are just so damn good. But this could quickly change with the next Canon release.
My D1X was bad from day one I have returned two 24-70/2.8 lenses because of errors (thirth was ok) and my D800 need repairs (af), I think I would go for Canon.
Gary Irwin wrote:
I love Canon glass...Canon really has a lot to offer across the entire lineup, and especially at the tele end where I live. But in challenging lighting conditions the IQ of the 1DMK IV sucks. Since I picked up a D800 a month ago my Canon stuff has been collecting dust. (To be fair, Canon probably has the best action camera on the market right now... the 1DX...just doesn't have enough resolution for my needs).
So right now I'd say Nikon because their sensors are just so damn good. But this could quickly change with the next Canon release.
This!
I loved my L Glass, but using a D800 for a couple days(while performing an AA Filter modification to it), I fell in love with the IQ, resolution, and shadow performance...Canon just cannot compare.
Sold/traded my 1DIV for a D800...am I going to miss the speed, yes. Do/did I need the speed of the 1DIV? no..FX is where I live..and 36Mp is just amazing.
Only regret? not as many "easy" decisions for glass as there is with Canon...
just my opinion.
Starting over, and gladly loving the Nikon, so far!
