| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/20/2006 11:28:05 AM · #26 |
| My wife was working at photo shop and bought me my first camera which was a Nikon N65. When we looked at the Nikon vs Cannon in the same price range the Nikon had a metal lens mount and felt sturdier. I have been with Nikon ever since. My wife also had a bunch of Nikon glass already so that didn't hurt either. |
|
|
|
06/20/2006 11:29:23 AM · #27 |
I chose Nikon for many reasons.
One. Nikon has always been a trusted name in the camera industry
Two. Nikon had a camera with all the features I wanted in my price range
Three. A friend let me use her D70 for a couple of days so I had some first hand experience with the D Series. I got comfortable with the camera fast.
Four. The quality of the camera itself and the photos it takes are very good.
Five. A few friends also own nikons and talked me into the idea of swapping glass with them however those jerks have not bought any decent lenses as of yet but keep asking to use mine.
Not trying to dish other brands. I also own Minolta and Canon 35mm SLR Film cameras and a Olympus digi all are good cameras and all take nice photos.
Edit Sold the Minolta over the weekend.
Message edited by author 2006-09-06 22:20:21.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2006 03:37:52 AM · #28 |
I already had an FM2N manual film Nikon that is a very solid, extremely reliable camera. Part of my photo 2 class assignment as a photo major in college was a densitometry test. This involved shooting a grey card 9 times from 4 stops under to 4 stops over exposed (to produce a strip of film containing all the zones of the zone system) then developing the film at normal time/temperature. After the film is developed then it is read on a densitometer to check that the zones fall within the prescribed tolerances for film density for the given zone. Surely enough my 20 year old Nikon was dead on, while everybody with a canon rebel or ae-1 (nobody knows what a nice canon film camera is) had to adjust their film speed because their meters were all off by a stop.
When moving to digital I was seriously considering canon, but the 10d was too old, the rebel was way too small for my big hands, and their flash system sucks.
The D series Nikons feel right in the hand, the dials are in the right places, and they have i-ttl flash with 1/500 sync speed and a commander mode which is great for studio photography. This and the D type Nikon lenses are superb. Yeah Canons have less noise at higher iso, but in a studio setting this is irrelevant. (Nikon has finally overcome this issue though in the D200, which was also sold out for months after it's release).
There is a certain prestige about the rich history of a Nikon.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2006 03:52:28 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by kosmikkreeper:
I had also shot with DrJones D1X before getting the D70 and found the buttons and menu to be quite intuitive.
|
You actually go to touch DrJones D1x? You're a lucky guy. |
I want a shot with some of his models. LOL
Anyway I have both a Nikon Coolpix 950 and 8700. At the time I purchased each most reviews put them at the top of the heap for what I wanted the cameras for.
I know, I'm a Canon user now, but that is because of monetary considerations. I also use Minolta equipment for 35mm. I don't do the brand loyal thing. I pick the equipment that best suits my needs at the moment.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2006 05:52:17 AM · #30 |
My P&S (Coolpix 2500) is a very, very cool little camera, and I used a Coolpix 5400 as well for a while.
I chose the nikon at the time because it was the best bang for buck in a pocketable camera.
I went with Canon when I moved to the dSLR because I had friends already with Canon SLR's (Film and Digital) who I could borrow good lenses off until I could spring for them myself.
There is very little to pick between the big players when you don't already have an investment in one of the systems...
Cheers, Me.
Message edited by author 2006-06-22 05:53:27. |
|
|
|
06/22/2006 06:02:56 AM · #31 |
The very first camera I bought was a Nikon Coolpix 880, after researching plenty on the web. It was expensive for an entry level photographer, but hindsight it was good to purchase something that was cutting edge at the time, and hand a fair amount of manual control. That gave it longevity. It served me well for 5 years (and is still going strong in the hands of my father). I treated it quite roughly over the years, yet it never let me down (once dropped it quite violently down on a brick floor, and all I had to replace was the battery bay door - $7 on Ebay). Took really good photos for a compact with only 3.14 megapixels.
I suppose I'm quite a loyal person, so when I upgraded to DSLR, Nikon was at the top of my list. Plus, when I bought, I found the Canon 350D a little too small and plasticky, but the 20D a bit too expensive. The Nikon D70s was just right.
Not that I am a slave to brands. I use a Canon IXUS 50 as my P&S, and it takes tremendous photos. Also lightning fast for an ultra-compact. I also use a Canon Pixma printer, and it is fantastic. I highly recommend that range.
Still, nothing beats the feeling of releasing the shutter on my D70. As advice for people making a decision, both Nikon and Canon are tried and trusted brands with great cameras in their range. You can't go wrong with either really. But buy one that you fall in love with. That way you'll want to spend more time with it, and that will give you a better chance of taking great photos with it. |
|
|
|
06/22/2006 08:19:42 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I had my heart set on the 300D Rebel. There was no question in my mind that I was going with Canon...until I held the Rebel in my hands and couldn't figure it out.
Out of curiousity I asked the salesman to show the the D70 which I had all but ignored and it was a perfect fit. I started working it right away and it fit in my hand like a gem.
I couldn't even look at the Rebel after that and the kit lens on the Nikon felt/looked much more solid. |
Exactly the same for me
|
|
|
|
06/22/2006 08:29:45 AM · #33 |
I was looking to get an EOS20D but after talking with one of the camera men at a commercial shoot for the company where I work I'm leaning towards the D200 by Nikon. He told me that during a animation project they had 10 d100s working 8 hours a day for a year and not one of them broke down once. Besides they're official sponsors of the NY Mets!!!Let's go Mets!!!!
|
|
|
|
06/22/2006 09:16:45 AM · #34 |
I was using a Canon G2 for my photo work (product photography) and I was saving for a Canon DSLR system. I was sold on Canon. I liked the way my Canon G2 represented color. At the time Canon had the 1D Pro series out and I found it superior to the Nikon offerings and I was determined when I bought my DSLR it would be a Canon 1Ds ($7,000!)
But I changed jobs and went to work for a professional photo agency and design firm and they used Nikons. My company at that time got an assignment to shoot an event but it was on a saturday and I was the only person willing to shoot it. However, my Canon G2 was not going to cut it so my company let me use a Nikon D2x.
That was it. The senior photographer spent about an hour getting me familiar with the Nikon D2x the day before the shoot (using all the wireless stuff and the various functions) and off I went.
I got a sense that the Nikon D2x was pretty good from my brief training session but...on "game day" I was pretty nervous. You normally wouldn't learn to use a camera and system the day before a professional event and I was worried. Remember, I was a Canon G2 user going to a Nikon D2x with only a one day of familiarity with a camera to shoot an event (Thank God it was a non-paying charity event but still...I was the only shooter).
Well, as they say, the rest is history. I had a studio set up on sight to shoot people making donations to the charity in the VIP area and I was shooting photojournal style inside a building and in night outside for a celebrity auto auction...you name the condition and I had to shoot in it.
The Nikon D2x made me better than I was. It was so fast, so easy to use...it felt like I had owned it for my whole life.
When I got back to the photo agency on Monday to break the shots down the senior photographer took a look at the shots and ..frankly...couldn't believe the number of keepers I had. He had been really skeptical of me going in on such short notice with all this gear. I mean...it even amazed me and I was there doing the shooting!
That weekend's experience sold me. I took my photo equipment savings that week and purchased my Nikon gear. I had nothing but some old manual Nikon glass that was not able to be used so you can only imagine how happy the camera sales guy that waited on me was that day!
I still think Canon is awesome and their low light performance of cameras like the 5D is great. I have moved on to a different company where there is a mix of Canon and Nikon and I get to mess around with the Canon stuff but...for me...everytime I pick up my Nikon gear my confidence is through the roof that I will get the shot and that is what you should base your purchase on. |
|
|
|
06/22/2006 11:38:28 AM · #35 |
I choose Nikon because I read that they were easier to use and better quality.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2006 11:45:42 AM · #36 |
I chose Nikon because of I was shooting film with a Nikon and my lenses would transfer over. However, I've always heard that Nikon has the best glass. The comparable Canon at the time was going to cost something like $150 more so I stuck with the Nikon. Plus, someone at work claims that Canon is satan!! LOL!
|
|
|
|
06/22/2006 11:55:46 AM · #37 |
I must have been a) sleep deprived, b) drunk, c) stoned, d) possessed by a demon or e) all of the above.
Message edited by author 2006-06-22 12:01:32. |
|
|
|
06/22/2006 12:09:13 PM · #38 |
| I bought a Nikon because of sentimental reasons. The very first SLR I used was a Nikon that my mother gave me. That camera was given to her by my grandfather. So there. ;) To me, both Canon and Nikon make great cameras, so the decision was easy. |
|
|
|
06/22/2006 12:10:37 PM · #39 |
Because they made the D70.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2006 12:13:55 PM · #40 |
For me, it was a long and painful decision process between Nikon D50 and the Canon 350D. I was starting anew - no lenses prior to purchase. I found that, image quality wise, both cameras were on par, but D50 was cheaper, fit *much* better in my hands, and I already had 1.5GB of SD cards. (As a side note, I think that the older Canon 300D is a much more comfortable camera than the 350D.) I learned that Nikon iTTL flash system is superior to the comparable system of Canon, and that Nikon lenses are generally better in the wide and normal ranges, whereas Canon has more good stuff to choose from in the telephoto end.
I liked that Nikon didn't have the ridiculous L/non-L division of lenses. Its "compromise" lenses are often not worse in speed and image quality than their Pro brothers (unlike Canon's whose compromise quality lenses often have fixed aperture of f/4 instead of f/2.8), but cost half as much or less. For example, 35-70/2.8D vs. 28-70/2.8, 20-35/2.8 vs. 17-35/2.8, 80-200/2.8 vs 70-200/2.8. The compromise is often only in a few mm of zoom range, the absense of environmental seals and autofocus speed.
It also appealed to me that I had a huge market of excellent and inexpensive used manual focus lenses that I can put on my camera without a need for adapter. Metering doesn't work with D50 (it does with D200 and above), but the aperture coupling works, so at least I can focus with the aperture wide open, and metering is very easy to figure out on a dSLR using the hystogram.
Another observation: I don't think Nikon would have released the equivallent of 30D; instead, it would have released it as 20Ds, and make its firmware available to the owners of 20D for free, as it happened with D70s and D2Xs.
Half a year and more than 5000 shots later I am still very happy with my choice, and haven't regretted going this way. |
|
|
|
06/22/2006 01:31:26 PM · #41 |
Back in film, I had an Exa for a few years then went "upscale" with a Minolta SRT-102 in 1973. Never bought another Minolta SLR because that was the best they ever made (no joke).
When I decided to take the plunge into DSLRs I considered only Nikon and Canon. For the price I wanted to pay the only choices were Nikon D70 or Canon Digital Rebel (300D). The Nikon body and kit lens had a much better feel, and had a feature set much more to my liking, so I bought it.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2006 04:35:07 PM · #42 |
Like many here I bought my first DSLR right after the D70 came out. There was no comparision when you actually held one in your hand. I found it very intuitive and it had a solid feel. Their reputation was unquestionalble, especially in the nature / wildlife world.
My past has included Fuji, Pentax and Petri (that goes back a ways huh?). Paid as much for a 2MP Fuji in 2000 as I did for the D70 in 2004!
As for lenses when you compare the top of the line in both Canon and Nikon they are very close, both in quality and price. Never have been able to figure out why people say Nikon lenses cost more. As a matter of fact I think I paid less for my Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR than a comparable Canon. Canon does have those long (500mm and 600mm) IS lenses but I would need to rob a bank!
So I have no regrets and now I lust for a D200 and a Nikon 600mm F4. Anyone got 10k or so they want to get rid of?
|
|
|
|
09/06/2006 08:42:41 PM · #43 |
I actually have a Canon 30D which is my first DSLR, and of course I love it. And, like everyone else, I chose it because I grew up with Canon cameras. What I actually wanted to mention though was that one of my US Army Special Forces friends just came back from some place that he couldn't disclose where he was taking pictures of people he couldn't disclose. but he did disclose that he was using a Nikon D200... So that is WICKED COOL if you're a Nikon fan.
Just for fun... He told me that he had a wireless transmitter on the camera that could wirelessely upload the photos from up to 500 meters onto his battlefield laptop, which was connected via satellite to some US info database, which would run facial recognition on the photo he just took. So a couple minutes after he snapped the photo he would know if it was a "primary target" and would have all of the information available on that person. all from the middle of nowhere. pretty crazy... |
|
|
|
09/06/2006 09:16:00 PM · #44 |
_A_
[(o)]
Message edited by author 2006-09-06 21:54:23.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2006 09:23:25 PM · #45 |
iTTL working wireless with the SB800
|
|
|
|
09/06/2006 09:23:54 PM · #46 |
| I think Nikon camera bodies look very nice. |
|
|
|
09/06/2006 09:33:05 PM · #47 |
|
|
|
09/06/2006 09:51:57 PM · #48 |
When I started photography some friends of mine had a full pro gear Nikon.
I bought a F60 so I could use their lenses and flashes. Well then I got hooked on photograpy an bought a F90x, with some nice lenses and stuff and we could use each others stuff.
And now I'm the only one who became a pro-photographer en so they come to me to use my digital camera's (D200, D100) And my lenses.
The other reason is Nikon feels good, nice weight, I can do with it what ever I want. Old MF lenses are still usable, and..... Now I really don't kow how a Canon works without looking.
I can set my Nikon in the dark, with out using any lights. Because the basics of the F60 are still the same on a D200.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2006 10:07:00 PM · #49 |
I was convinced for a while that my dream camera was a Canon 20D, and at this time I really wasn't a camera person. My friend,  fatLouie, was in the same boat, was convinced alongside myself that Canon was the bomb(cheesy pun intended). One day I ran across a blasphemous document- a website which claimed that the 1Ds was actually not that great, and that the D2X was better. Dumbfounded, I read on, and saw that I indeed appreciated the Nikon pictures better.
When I eventually entered the DSLR market, I decided I would borrow the money for the camera from a relative and pay it off slowly. So, cost became much less of an issue for me, with a no interest loan to pay it off at an easy rate. Louie had at this point purchased a D70, having converted to Nikonianism, and when the D200 came out I was absolutely shocked by what it offered for the price.
I had read plenty which claimed the D200 was like holding sex, and without touching it I found my best opportunity to buy it. Despite month long waiting lists in May, I checked and checked Best Buy, Circuit City, Adorama, etc... to see if they were back in stock. One lucky day, a quick Best Buy scan proved fruitful. I placed my order by phone. Within three hours of coming into stock, the D200 was back out of stock.
And ever since I've been thrilled. I've spent days in torrential rain during the rainy season in Thailand with no damage to my camera, and I took pictures which I will treasure forever. I've also beat the living crap out of it.
I really tried to look at Canon, but they seemed to be about big numbers and Full Frame sensors. I was nervous about noise, but as I discovered noise is very easily preventable and often the fault of the photographer. I've been shocked not only at my 1600 ISO results, but better yet, I've even seen more than usable results into the 2000's.
Don't get me wrong- Canon delivers a solid product, and I've known several respected photographers who use Canon- but Canon just isn't for me. Perhaps in the future I will pick up a Canon one day and crap my pants- and on that day I will switch.
Until then, I will appreciate my immediate controls over all functions of my camera, so that I can blame myself and not my D200. |
|
|
|
09/06/2006 10:11:14 PM · #50 |
Because Nikon Rocks!!!
Message edited by author 2006-09-06 22:11:22. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/29/2025 07:28:02 AM EDT.
