Cannon or nikon?!!

Ksanti said:
The beauty of the 14-24 was that it was staggeringly sharp (as is Nikon's later 16-35) and wasn't a fisheye.

None of the Canon lenses, including primes, in the focal range are as sharp across the frame as the Nikon, and the 8-15L you mention is very much a fisheye (i.e. straight things do not stay remotely straight).
Click to expand...

But the 10-22 is VERY sharp across the range. Crop only but for 80% of users that won't be an issue.
 
odd jim said:
But the 10-22 is VERY sharp across the range. Crop only but for 80% of users that won't be an issue.
Click to expand...

For a majority of professional landscape toggers it is an issue though, and considering the majority of serious Canon landscape toggers shoot on full frame, after a few years of the 7D being the go to action camera (short of the 1D cameras), the absence of a 14-24 rival is a big hole in the Canon lens lineup for those shooters.
 
Canon.
Its pronounced the same in English and American.
No Nye-kon / Nick-on debate.
 
Ksanti said:
For a majority of professional landscape toggers it is an issue though, and considering the majority of serious Canon landscape toggers shoot on full frame, after a few years of the 7D being the go to action camera (short of the 1D cameras), the absence of a 14-24 rival is a big hole in the Canon lens lineup for those shooters.
Click to expand...



personally I don't think it is. the nikon has a huge bulbus element so no filter thread and is very prone to flare.
 
kevshore said:
It's time I had a rethink about my friends. Especially those that DON'T shoot Nikon. :D
Click to expand...

who said i had any nikon friends anyway ?? :D

just to stoke the fire up look at all the big sporting events and see how many big white beautiful lenses stand out therel from the ALSO RANS :D
 
It has to be Nikon without a doubt. I mean common a brand like Cannon can't even colour coordinate its own lenses with its dSLR bodies, if they can't get the simple things right, forget them...
 
Ksanti said:
That can't be right. The 600 f/4 has 150mm aperture diameter, an 85 f/1.2 has about a 71mm aperture? Unless it's something to do with the mirror placement in relation to the mount?
Click to expand...


Nikon lenses sit further away from the film/sensor. So you would need an adapter with a negative length, to allow the lens to still reach infinity plus the EOS mount is larger than the nikon mount
 
Neither, its horses for courses, ie each photographer will have their own preference for what feels right in their hands and offers the features they want.

If you go on lens compatibility and backwards compatibility then Pentax wins hands down as any of the various Pentax mount lenses will fit and work with their bodies with working anti shake too.

I own a canon, why? cos it felt right in my hands and does the job I want it to do.
 
.....whichever I own, the other seems to make the better camera/lens for my needs. swapped twice now... will I ever learn?

Still, if I'm picking sides I'm with Canon. And I'm a Nikon owner. That way, I'm covered whatever happens.
 
The first Canon camera had a Nikon lens ! (Well a Nipon which later became Nikon!)

HM Forces all-arms photographic course at RAF Cosford taught us to use Nikon and most units still use them. I have used most models since the FE and can vouch for their quality and reliability if you look after them. They feel right in my hands and I have used them ever since.

The whole Nikon-v-Cannon debate can get a bit tedious. It's just a tool for capturing the image :thumbs: However, the important thing is what suits you. Handle as many cameras as you can and get the camera with the most features that you can afford. Good luck with your purchase.

Nick
 
t-m said:
Surely real men use Cannons ?

frycannon1.jpg

frycannon2.jpg
Click to expand...

Thats not a Canon it's a mortar !
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Thats not a Canon it's a mortar !
Click to expand...

Nonsense, it's a Vickers-Armstrong 4-pounder cannonette :D
 
If I had to be forced it would be Canon - lenses are better (Nikon's are waaay over rated and priced) colour processing is far nicer on Canon, and I can use all my film glass on digital without losing IQ or messing with the focal length.

Plusses for Nikon would be the bodies feel nicer, and I like the feel of the shutter. (Can hand hold non stabilised lenses at much slower seeds than I could ever hand hold Stabilised lenses on 4/3 based cameras)

The most annoying feature of my Fuji is that it's a Nikon body which is stupidly large.
 
I think Hasselblad are better than both nikon and canon, the sensor on a medium format digital camera is much better in every way, BUT I can't afford or will never be able to afford one because I'd want the large format sensor which is even more expensive than medium format. I like how insane and big they look too, perfect for street photography and being discreet ....ahh one can dream
 
Good point regarding street photography at least you can hide behind the camera :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top