canon to nikon

[squishy]

Isn't all the nit-picking over relatively minor differences between two great manufacturers rather pointless? In fact, isn't it great that they offer something different from each other in so many ways? That way there is more choice for photographers and more chance they will be able to fulfill their specific requirements. Just imagine what it would be like if the products from every manufacturer were absolutely identical, with the only difference being the logo on the pentaprism?

Nikon and Canon are both as good as each other, neither is better, just different. And the same goes for Olympus, Pentax and Sony. Arguably these three will never match the top two in terms of pure technical specification but each services the needs of a niche market where, for more photographers than you might think, they actually meet needs based on price point, design, handling, features, available lenses and size/weight better than Nikon or Canon. If the truth be told, many photographers who automatically follow the established route of the big two, only to spend their time moving back and forth between them without ever really being happy, might be better served if they looked more closely at what the lesser brands have to offer.

The only thing that might prise my E-3 out of my hands is an E-5. Many may find this hard to understand but I am actually happy with my system and so grateful that I chose it. Likewise, I find it hard to comprehend that anyone could feel less than satisfied with a top of the range Nikon or Canon, unless they made a fundemental error in choosing a system based on hype rather than their own specific needs. Sure, there will be times that one brand has a slight theoretical advantage over the other but this is often due to product cycles and is liable to alternate frequently, but in the grand scheme of things does it really matter?

Excellent post!

 

[HoppyUK]

Isn't all the nit-picking over relatively minor differences between two great manufacturers rather pointless? In fact, isn't it great that they offer something different from each other in so many ways? That way there is more choice for photographers and more chance they will be able to fulfill their specific requirements. Just imagine what it would be like if the products from every manufacturer were absolutely identical, with the only difference being the logo on the pentaprism?

Nikon and Canon are both as good as each other, neither is better, just different. And the same goes for Olympus, Pentax and Sony. Arguably these three will never match the top two in terms of pure technical specification but each services the needs of a niche market where, for more photographers than you might think, they actually meet needs based on price point, design, handling, features, available lenses and size/weight better than Nikon or Canon. If the truth be told, many photographers who automatically follow the established route of the big two, only to spend their time moving back and forth between them without ever really being happy, might be better served if they looked more closely at what the lesser brands have to offer.

The only thing that might prise my E-3 out of my hands is an E-5. Many may find this hard to understand but I am actually happy with my system and so grateful that I chose it. Likewise, I find it hard to comprehend that anyone could feel less than satisfied with a top of the range Nikon or Canon, unless they made a fundemental error in choosing a system based on hype rather than their own specific needs. Sure, there will be times that one brand has a slight theoretical advantage over the other but this is often due to product cycles and is liable to alternate frequently, but in the grand scheme of things does it really matter?

Of course it's pointless! That's the point It's like arguing in the pub over BMW vs Merc vs Audi - futile, but fun. And ultimately there isn't a right or wrong answer, and it doesn't matter anyway, so you can have the same argument over and over. Like chat forums do.

But you're wrong about Olympus - they're rubbish

 

[Houston1863]

Over the course of time as had been suggested earlier, different companies take the ascendency. I've seen work done with both Canon and Nikon that are simply sublime. I think you need to go where your heart is. My gear had largely been Canon but I went the DSLR route I looked first at Nikon, thinking this was an opportunity to make a permanent change.

However I really preferred the feel of the Canon in my hands. Admittedly at that stage I was comparing the D80 with the 40D but I found the latter more comfortable to use, had a brighter viewfinder and it also came with live view which was important for me as then I did a lot of macro work. I did look at D700 before my recent career change but opted to go the Canon route on account of the range of lenses, weight of the equipment and cost too I have to admit. You can change the default settings on a Canon in respect of colour and sharpness so eventually I wasn't pushed to make the crossover. Both will get the job done.



Enjoy your weekend everyone

H

 

[specialman]

Anyone feel that it's getting to the point where in 4,5,6 or even 10 years time (providing you just want a camera to take photos with), anything that's out at the moment will still be more than sufficient? I'm seriously doubting my sanity saying this, but anything they do from now on is just icing the cake, isn't it?

 

[goldenlight]

Anyone feel that it's getting to the point where in 4,5,6 or even 10 years time (providing you just want a camera to take photos with), anything that's out at the moment will still be more than sufficient? I'm seriously doubting my sanity saying this, but anything they do from now on is just icing the cake, isn't it?

Yes. And as soon as we all realize that we can save ourselves a whole pile of cash!

 

[goldenlight]

But you're wrong about Olympus - they're rubbish

Guess I'm easily pleased but I do wonder how good I'd be if I used a real camera - it wouldn't matter if it was a Canon or Nikon, either way I could agonize over just how good I'd be if I swapped to the other side!

 

[kennycanon]

I can't help but agree and it also sounds like Kenny has tried the Nikons and has a valid reason for changing! We can banter all we want but if you need a tool for a job and find that for you one is more suited than the other, then get the one that works for you! Us non pros, however, need to work out whether its gear lust or a real need. And I know that I have no real need for any of it!

At the end of the day as a photographer you end image is everything .
And if you think ** image is better with a certain bit of kit that's it .
It's all about the final image and my photography is a big part of my living.

 

[tijuana taxi]

Anyone feel that it's getting to the point where in 4,5,6 or even 10 years time (providing you just want a camera to take photos with), anything that's out at the moment will still be more than sufficient? I'm seriously doubting my sanity saying this, but anything they do from now on is just icing the cake, isn't it?

Totally agree and have settled on a second Canon 40D to keep in reserve for my existing one. Decided on this having seen the 60D and its actually gone further away from what I wanted
No interest in video and 10mp keeps enough detail without the noise that extra pixels bring on a small sensor. Only print up to A4 and think its all got a bit crazy lately with so many new innovations
Not worried about a fold out screen (those hinges look slightly vunerable) don't need or want in camera effects/RAW processing either.
Just require a solid body with reasonable ISO ability and decent fps which the 40D gives me, got spare batteries and memory cards so would rather spend my money on a better and more varied lens collection