A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Nikon vs Canon and the whole dSLR thing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 7th 07, 05:28 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
flambe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Nikon vs Canon and the whole dSLR thing

I just returned from 3 weeks in Europe and Africa.
An informal impression is that Nikon dSLRs significantly outnumbered Canon
dSLRs on those of us touristos schlepping these heavy beasties. That really
surprised me as my impression has been that Canon outsells Nikon.
Most Nikon dSLRs had the 18-200 VR attached and were being carried by
Europeans.
Although I saw one older Japanese gentleman with an 800mm howitzer hanging
from his neck attached to his Canon.
I envied the lens but not the neck pain.
Despite my lifetime investment in higher end cameras and glass I am
seriously thinking that on my next trek I am only going to carry an image
stabilized long zoom EVF type that records in raw.
Who is going to see the pictures that most of us take anyway apart from
friends and family? Personally and aesthetically satisfying results can be
had without having to schlep pounds and pounds of gear . . .
It may be time to find my old Ebay account number and empty the closet.




  #2  
Old October 7th 07, 06:47 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
James Z
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Nikon vs Canon and the whole dSLR thing

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 09:28:24 -0700, "flambe" wrote:

I just returned from 3 weeks in Europe and Africa.
An informal impression is that Nikon dSLRs significantly outnumbered Canon
dSLRs on those of us touristos schlepping these heavy beasties. That really
surprised me as my impression has been that Canon outsells Nikon.
Most Nikon dSLRs had the 18-200 VR attached and were being carried by
Europeans.
Although I saw one older Japanese gentleman with an 800mm howitzer hanging
from his neck attached to his Canon.
I envied the lens but not the neck pain.
Despite my lifetime investment in higher end cameras and glass I am
seriously thinking that on my next trek I am only going to carry an image
stabilized long zoom EVF type that records in raw.
Who is going to see the pictures that most of us take anyway apart from
friends and family? Personally and aesthetically satisfying results can be
had without having to schlep pounds and pounds of gear . . .
It may be time to find my old Ebay account number and empty the closet.




You are not alone in this thinking and decision. I've read many threads in many
forums in the last few months with the same wave of thought.

The only reasons we bought SLRs was to be able to get accurate framing with the
through-the-lens viewfinder. Being able to see what the film will see,
especially important for macro photography. Also to get the increased ranges in
lenses that were eventually made available. The only reason we switched to 35mm
film was that film grain size decreased and ASA (ISO) ratings increased enough
to make it acceptable. Those advances made in the movie industry. (Don't most
people know that those sprocket holes on the sides of their 35mm film was
originally used to feed it through a movie-projector?) The only reason
interchangeable lens systems were made was because not enough zoom-range could
be fit into one single lens. Zoom lenses didn't even exist before then. You
usually had 3 lenses (if lucky), wide, normal, and short telephoto for
portraiture. Remember when a 210mm f.l. f/6.3 for an SLR was a WOW lens? This
was before multi-coating was invented, mind you. You were just happy to have
that much reach. All that flare only showed everyone how many lens elements you
had and how expensive your lens must be. You took pride in using that lens-flare
to your advantage. (Seen today as lens-flare editor plugins to try to recreate
the charming(?) defects from the "good ol' days".) People would laugh at that
today if it was promoted as a selling-point on a digital camera. Image quality,
while important, was more dependent on what film we happened to peel through the
back of the camera than the lens we could afford.

Before that we originally moved to SLRs for their smaller size and because we
didn't want to lug around that bellowed camera that didn't even allow us to
accurately see what was going to be on the film anymore, not since view-camera
days anyway. When it required a covered-wagon to haul everything needed to take
few dozen images per trip. It was always a matter of convenience and quality
plus versatility compromises. Today people are finding that we don't need the
interchangeable lenses anymore if enough zoom range comes all included in one
lens and the quality and light-grasp is kept high enough for our intended
purposes. You can get the quality plus the versatility that you need in a very
small compromise today. Nostalgia is nice, but not when it's holding you back.
Not many people today take a covered-wagon with three-dozen plates of glass and
all darkroom supplies to document their vacation, except as an interesting
exercise to experience true hardship firsthand. Why isn't the dSLR gang
clamoring for the return of the covered-wagon, view camera, flash-powder
explosions, and glass plates with film-grain large enough to see with the naked
eye? It was bigger, it cost more, it's more impressive, it must be better. :-)

What's that old saying? Don't live in the past, there's no future in it.

Remember holding next shot's flash-bulb in your mouth to wet the contacts before
putting it in the socket to make sure it would work? Then still keeping your
toes crossed (all fingers are in use, sorry) because you're not sure if it'll
fire this time? That was so much better than those silly and small xenon strobes
that they finally invented. I enjoyed picking the plastic-covered glass bits out
of my pockets after having sat down on 8 of them again. Yeah, give me that
again. I bet most people today don't even realize why it is called a "BULB"
shutter setting on their cameras and why, at one time, it was a required feature
to make the camera functional for flash photography.

  #3  
Old October 7th 07, 09:44 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 182
Default Nikon vs Canon and the whole dSLR thing

On Oct 7, 2:52 pm, Scott W wrote:
flambe wrote:
I just returned from 3 weeks in Europe and Africa.
An informal impression is that Nikon dSLRs significantly outnumbered Canon
dSLRs on those of us touristos schlepping these heavy beasties. That really
surprised me as my impression has been that Canon outsells Nikon.
Most Nikon dSLRs had the 18-200 VR attached and were being carried by
Europeans.
Although I saw one older Japanese gentleman with an 800mm howitzer hanging
from his neck attached to his Canon.
I envied the lens but not the neck pain.
Despite my lifetime investment in higher end cameras and glass I am
seriously thinking that on my next trek I am only going to carry an image
stabilized long zoom EVF type that records in raw.
Who is going to see the pictures that most of us take anyway apart from
friends and family? Personally and aesthetically satisfying results can be
had without having to schlep pounds and pounds of gear . . .
It may be time to find my old Ebay account number and empty the closet.


My impression is that in the last couple of years Nikon has been
catching up pretty fast and I would not be surprised if they are selling
more cameras at this point in time (I have no data on this).

Nikon has also finally gotten into the truly high end with the D3, or at
least they will have once they get it to market.

As for going to a EVF camera to replace a DSLR that is something that
only you can decide, how much weight you are willing to haul around is
something that only you know. You might want to look at some of the 4/3
cameras, for the same focal length range they are a fair bit smaller.

I spent a lot of time shooting with a EVF camera, a Sony F828 and now I
shoot with either a 350D or a 20D. EVF cameras have improved a fair bit
since the time of the F828 but there are still two problems that are ard
to over come, they don't do very well at high ISO settings and they are
far slower at focusing then a DSLR.

As far as image quality goes, if you are not making print larger then 8
x 10 inches it will be hard to see a difference, if you had good light
when you took the photo and if the timing of the shot was not critical.
I know I am getting shots now with the DSLRs that I would have had
trouble getting with the F828, or any other EVF camera for that matter.

The other thing I notice is that using a DSLR is just a lot more fun for
me, YMMV. I really like the responsive feel it give me, push the button
and it takes the photo right then. If you are shooting landscapes this
will not matter much, but if you are photographing sport, animals or
people this can make a world of difference.

And it does not have to be a one or the other kind of thing, my wife and
I own a couple of DLSRs and a number of point and shoot digitals. We
take the right camera for the job, which is usually a DSLR but sometime
you want something really like and compact.

Scott


Looking through the history of digital camera (Through wikipedia or
the timeline provided in dpreview), it is not surprising that Nikon is
still doing well in Europe. Sometimes a perception or popularity of a
camera does not go across the continent. In North America, perhaps it
is true that Canon is the leading the pack at the moment. However, the
history indicated that the first professional digital camera, the
Nikon D1 was introduced in June 1999. Canon only was able to match
that by the introduction of its EOS-1D in Sept 2001, 2 years behind
Nikon's first DSLR. Looking back through the history, the frontiers
of the digital cameras appear to be Sony, Fuji, Kodak and Olympus.
Perhaps this was also unthinkable in the eye of people in this part of
the world.... where everybody's talk is only about Canon and Nikon. I
recall a Sony Mavica digital camera using a 1.5 inch. computer
diskette in the early 1990s in a photo store in South east Asia. The
first digital camera was Fujifilm, introduced in 1988, and that camere
did not even come to North America. Kodak introduced digital cameras
in the early 1990s too. At that time, both Nikon and Canon were far
behind, and perhaps still boasting their superiority in film SLR
(Canon A-1, Nikon F-1, etc).

Talking about these two brand cameras, I am surprised that Nikon was
not making a big fuss intially about the naming of its rival camera in
2001. Nikon's official camera names are Nikon D1, D2, D3, D50, D70,
D200, D300, etc. Canon's official names, on the other hand are Canon
EOS 1D, 2D, 5D, 10D, 30D, 40D, 300D, 350D, etc. Nowadays, people both
refers just the letter and the numbers only, such as 5D means Canon
5D, and D200 means Nikon D200. But the numbering system suddenly
clashed recently with the introduction of the new Canon 40D versus
Nikon D40 and D40x, as well as Nikon's new D300 vs. the older Canon
350D or 400D (Rebel Xti). So 40D is Canon and D40 is Nikon....... a
very confusing brand numbering system!

  #4  
Old October 7th 07, 11:21 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Nikon vs Canon and the whole dSLR thing

In article . com,
wrote:

However, the
history indicated that the first professional digital camera, the
Nikon D1 was introduced in June 1999. Canon only was able to match
that by the introduction of its EOS-1D in Sept 2001, 2 years behind
Nikon's first DSLR.


you skipped the old kodak slrs that go back to the mid-90s which were
based off nikon and canon film bodies as well as the canon d30 that
came out in may, 2000, and for roughly half the price of the nikon d1.

nikon updated the d1 to the d1h and d1x in january, 2001, followed by
the canon 1d in september 2001. there was also the short lived contax
full frame dslr announced in july, 2000 and the pentax full frame dslr,
shown in february 2001 and later cancelled.

But the numbering system suddenly
clashed recently with the introduction of the new Canon 40D versus
Nikon D40 and D40x, as well as Nikon's new D300 vs. the older Canon
350D or 400D (Rebel Xti). So 40D is Canon and D40 is Nikon....... a
very confusing brand numbering system!


what's even more confusing is the canon d30 and 30d, two very different
cameras. there is also the konica/minolta 5d and canon 5d.
  #5  
Old October 8th 07, 12:14 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Kinon O'Cann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default Nikon vs Canon and the whole dSLR thing


"flambe" wrote in message
...
I just returned from 3 weeks in Europe and Africa.
An informal impression is that Nikon dSLRs significantly outnumbered Canon
dSLRs on those of us touristos schlepping these heavy beasties. That
really surprised me as my impression has been that Canon outsells Nikon.
Most Nikon dSLRs had the 18-200 VR attached and were being carried by
Europeans.
Although I saw one older Japanese gentleman with an 800mm howitzer hanging
from his neck attached to his Canon.
I envied the lens but not the neck pain.
Despite my lifetime investment in higher end cameras and glass I am
seriously thinking that on my next trek I am only going to carry an image
stabilized long zoom EVF type that records in raw.
Who is going to see the pictures that most of us take anyway apart from
friends and family? Personally and aesthetically satisfying results can be
had without having to schlep pounds and pounds of gear . . .
It may be time to find my old Ebay account number and empty the closet.


I recently (a few months ago) got a Panny FZ50 for the same reasons you
mention, but did not ditch the 5D and three lenses. I carry the panny when I
want to travel light, and I really like it. As you note, most of the time
it's friends and family, and those pics are viewed either on line in a
reduced size or in print. In each of those situations, the Panny is fine.
It's not a substitute for the Canon, but for a lot of situations, like when
I'm on the bicycle or motorcycle, or just want to travel light, it's the way
to go.

  #6  
Old October 8th 07, 02:14 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Malcolm Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default Nikon vs Canon and the whole dSLR thing

Interesting observation re mix of Canon and Nikon. I am a professional
photographer and travel a lot so come across a wide range of professonal and
amateur photographers all over the world. My conclusion is that
professional photographers have been flocking from Nikon to Canon for most
if not all of the past ten years. Amateur photographers of long standing on
the other hand have mostly stuck with Nikon a name they have known or
trusted for many years. New amateur photographers using DSLR's seem more
likely to go Canon.

I changed fro Nikon to Canon in the mid 90's - Professionals for the last
ten years have credited Canon with better digital cameras (accuracy of
autofocus, accuracy of exposure, lowest noise and best range of lenses). It
will be interesting to see the real results of production models of the
Nikon D3 and Canon EOS1Ds III later this year (particularly WRT noise) -
Nikon may have caught up or passed Canon but it is too early to say. It is
certainly true that the DSLR technology is advancing very rapidly (too our
benefit).

The dark horse I believe is Sony with their Konica/Minolta technology and
their semiconductor (read sensor) technology - they may surprise us all.

Malcolm


  #7  
Old October 8th 07, 03:01 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
ASAAR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,057
Default Nikon vs Canon and the whole dSLR thing

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:47:48 GMT, James Z wrote:

Not many people today take a covered-wagon with three-dozen
plates of glass and all darkroom supplies to document their vacation,
except as an interesting exercise to experience true hardship firsthand.


But you would if the camera ran the CHDK hack, Biddy!

  #8  
Old October 8th 07, 03:08 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
ASAAR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,057
Default Nikon vs Canon and the whole dSLR thing

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 01:14:48 GMT, Malcolm Smith wrote:

It is certainly true that the DSLR technology is advancing very
rapidly (too our benefit).

The dark horse I believe is Sony with their Konica/Minolta
technology and their semiconductor (read sensor) technology
- they may surprise us all.


Knowing Sony, we might hope that the surprise doesn't turn out to
be another of their ill conceived copy protection schemes.

  #9  
Old October 8th 07, 03:23 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Daniel Cartman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Nikon vs Canon and the whole dSLR thing

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 22:01:39 -0400, ASAAR wrote:

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:47:48 GMT, James Z wrote:

Not many people today take a covered-wagon with three-dozen
plates of glass and all darkroom supplies to document their vacation,
except as an interesting exercise to experience true hardship firsthand.


But you would if the camera ran the CHDK hack, Biddy!


What's the matter? Did CHDK make 3 of your cameras into obsolete doorstops? What
a shame for you to have wasted that much money on dSLRs that can't do what a
CHDK P&S camera can do. You'll learn.Then again, judging by the droves of
misinformation in your posts I can see that might never happen. Enjoy your envy
and petty spite, it looks good on you. It adds a special something to that
personality that you never had.

  #10  
Old October 8th 07, 03:33 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Malcolm Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default Nikon vs Canon and the whole dSLR thing

Rita

I have seen many of your posta re Canon Vs Nikon lenses and I know you are a
fan of Nikon however overall I believe the range and breadth of Canon lenses
to be better and this has been one of the primary reasons professional users
have been converting. Nikon do however make very good gear and possibly
have a number of lenses which outperform the Canon equivalents. A lot has
been said over the years claiming Zeiss are the best etc but it is my belief
that Canon have the best overall set of parameters for digital SLR lenses
(sharpness, focussing accuracy etc) - for example about five years ago Canon
found that they had edge aberations with some of their lenses with full
frame digital sensors (because of the angle light rays were hitting the
bumpy edge full frame sensor cells) and they have been progressively
replacing them with new designs - we don't know yet if Nikon will find the
same thing with the D3 or that other problems will emerge. I have ordered a
1Ds III to replace my aging 1Ds (which has done me very good service) and
have already started reviewing my lens range (most recently with a 85 f1.2
II). I think we need to see the results of production D3 and 1Ds III which
will be released about the same time to see if Nikon has blown Canon away -
technology is advancing so rapidly that cameras released six months apart
one could expect the later release to me more advanced

One thing is for sure the next few years will be very interesting for us
photographers - sorry for the rambling nature of this post.

Malcolm


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon maintains DSLR lead over Canon frederick Digital SLR Cameras 230 August 10th 07 03:22 AM
Nikon maintains DSLR lead over Canon frederick Digital Photography 173 July 19th 07 07:20 PM
User ratio Canon DSLR to Nikon Ken Litton Digital Photography 8 November 21st 06 04:16 PM
Users of Both Canon and Nikon DSLR measekite Digital Photography 8 October 13th 06 07:18 PM
Canon should be totally ashamed of this (and some others too) HP got this basic and absolutely essential thing right in their little digicam that's cheap even for a P&S, so why can't Canon?!! Yes, I know, there's more to the Canon 20D, but w Mike Henley Digital Photography 58 December 15th 04 06:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.