david.elliott
Well-known
Not as good as the 40d in what sense?
Choosing an Autofocus SLR: Canon vs Nikon
- Thread starter msbarnes
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 70
- Views 10K
Not as good as the 40d in what sense?
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
That may be a issue with DSLRs, where ISO is a variable like time or aperture. The original poster explicitly asked for AF SLRs, so he seems to want film. Where DX will account for ISO, and even if it does not, ISO does never change mid roll, and will often stay the same for dozens of rolls.
peteography
AAAAARGH MOTHERLAND
david.elliott, the 40D just has the best af system in a digital canon camera I've ever used (one press for any focus point and a button for af-off to lock focus, allowing you to drop a point over a subject, select it and focus continuously until you need the focus locked, whilst shooting and not gypping around with focus areas like in the 7D). It also has the shortest finder blackout, I think due to the mirror being driven both up and down, though I haven't used a 1n, v, d or ds, I have used a 3, which was comparable but more complicated due to sheer number of points.
Sevo, indeed 🙂
Sevo, indeed 🙂
Last edited:
david.elliott
Well-known
Thanks! I am not familiar with canon dslrs and I was thinking about maybe getting a 5d2, so I appreciate the info.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
Lots of opinions that my brand is best - usually by folks who have only used one brand. I think it's hard to miss if you choose any major brand - even though Nikon is clearly superior in every way.
nobbylon
Veteran
having to release the lens to press the iso button?
not with you on this at all.
on the F5 I push the rear button and set.
on the D3 and D700 I press ISO and roll the wheel.
what are you talking about? can you explain?
As for D700 and focus issues, I've had none since day 1. Did you set the camera up properly?
kdemas
Enjoy Life.
I agree, I've never seen this on any of my Nikon bodies, and I have had many up to and including the F6 on the Film side.
kdemas
Enjoy Life.
**Getting out the Popcorn and soda. Haven't seen a nice Canon vs. Nikon war in a while.**
These can be even more entertaining than the Film vs. Digital jousts.
These can be even more entertaining than the Film vs. Digital jousts.
drew.saunders
Well-known
Rent! http://www.borrowlenses.com/
If you live in Northern California, you can go to their San Carlos location and pick up the cameras and lenses on the spot, otherwise they'll ship them to you. Have a Nikon weekend and a Canon weekend, and maybe a Sony and/or a Olympus weekend too. They also rent lighting, so you can test all sorts of combinations before spending a big chunk of change on one system or the other.
In the manual focus film days, I was always Canon-Fodder and never a Nikonista, mainly because I started with a T70 and didn't like that the Nikons focused the "wrong way." That was the main difference back then, most folks probably don't notice the manual focus direction these days. When I got into large format, I picked up a Nikkor 200M lens and found a Nikon Technika-sized lens board, so I matched them in order to completely confuse the small format people. After selling my F1 and F1N and lenses, that means I now own more Nikon stuff than Canon!
Moriturii
Well-known
These bloody this vs that threads are absolutely rotting this forum up lately.
nobbylon
Veteran
haha, Indeed. Sit back and wait for more weblore and mis-information to bamboozle everyone!
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
Hmmm, maybe a Nikon shooter who's a little cross-eyed to start?
Or one that recognizes that with a mix of glass, they can get the best of both companies?
I'd note that the Canon 5d mk I and II are both old tech at this point.
In all honesty, I rate some Nikon glass well above Canon. the 50mm f1.4 and 35mm f1.4 come to mind. But in other glass, canon can't be beat (the 70-200 f2.8l is v1 or v2). The Canon l-series zooms are very very hard to beat hands down.
Or one that recognizes that with a mix of glass, they can get the best of both companies?
I'd note that the Canon 5d mk I and II are both old tech at this point.
In all honesty, I rate some Nikon glass well above Canon. the 50mm f1.4 and 35mm f1.4 come to mind. But in other glass, canon can't be beat (the 70-200 f2.8l is v1 or v2). The Canon l-series zooms are very very hard to beat hands down.
thegman
Veteran
I got a Nikon D7000 basically for the (sort of) weather sealing, 2 SD card slots, and that you can get lenses with real aperture rings. Looking back, those factors are no big deal and a Canon 7D would serve me just as well. If it broke, I'd consider Canon, just for a change.
I think there is a reason we joke about "Canikon", as they are basically the same. Some people will find things in either that they feel they can't live without, but personally I'm not sure I see any significant difference.
I think there is a reason we joke about "Canikon", as they are basically the same. Some people will find things in either that they feel they can't live without, but personally I'm not sure I see any significant difference.
Vincent.G
Well-known
NEVER listen to anyone who tells you one brand is better than the other.
Particular
Disassembler, occasional reassembler
These have always been a mystery to me, having never really warmed to any slr. I have always sided with canon people though because back in the 90's (when it still mattered) I kept getting a lot of bad vibes from (perhaps jealous) nikon owners.
I was told I was arrogant for showing up everywhere with a leica m3, as if I was showing off (I at least was taking pictures). I was told that I had been ripped off, that I paid too much for my one body one lens kit, even though they paid a lot more for an F4 and 3 lenses. But nikons are the best, so they are worth it. The same people would come to me later with stories like "I was running down the stairs, and my F3 slipped from my hands, and now the lens won't stay on. What should I do?" (ehh, buy a strap?).
Perhaps it was a sign of the times, but I never got as much talk back from canon owners, so I concluded they were friendlier. I don't think that characterization still holds up though.
msbarnes
Well-known
I didn't mean to make this into an obvious Canon vs Nikon thread.
I mostly wanted advice in how one should choose between the two for my specific application. Maybe there is something inherently better than the other? I know that for legacy lenses, Canon is the better choice and will always be (assuming the mounts remain the same). Things like that. My lens requirements seem pretty easy (35mm-85mm, mostly). I don't know much about IS/VR so maybe one is miles ahead of the other. I really do not know.
Photography is very broad but I have no idea if one is more focused on targeting the area that I intend to focus on. I mean for more niched areas maybe one has a one-of-a-kind tilt shift lens or a superfast tele etc.
I didn't mean to ask (atleast in an obvious way) who makes the better glass or body. I haven't looked at test charts and do not intend to seriously, but I doubt that any particular pro lens at the same price point is noticeably better than the other. I'm not accustomed to either ergonomics (I prefer RF for 35mm) so I feel that I can adjust to either. I can understand one feeling backwards to the other if I was a diehard Nikon/Canon shooter.
I mostly wanted advice in how one should choose between the two for my specific application. Maybe there is something inherently better than the other? I know that for legacy lenses, Canon is the better choice and will always be (assuming the mounts remain the same). Things like that. My lens requirements seem pretty easy (35mm-85mm, mostly). I don't know much about IS/VR so maybe one is miles ahead of the other. I really do not know.
Photography is very broad but I have no idea if one is more focused on targeting the area that I intend to focus on. I mean for more niched areas maybe one has a one-of-a-kind tilt shift lens or a superfast tele etc.
I didn't mean to ask (atleast in an obvious way) who makes the better glass or body. I haven't looked at test charts and do not intend to seriously, but I doubt that any particular pro lens at the same price point is noticeably better than the other. I'm not accustomed to either ergonomics (I prefer RF for 35mm) so I feel that I can adjust to either. I can understand one feeling backwards to the other if I was a diehard Nikon/Canon shooter.
Contarama
Well-known
I bought a used D5000 (because I have a F2...if I would have had a F1 I would have bought a Ti2 haha) and I use my 105/2.5 "legacy" lens on it all the time. It makes mean snaps I tell you.
I catch flak from other Nikon users about the new lenses with their micro space dust coatings are SO much better than the old glass.
Hmmph...I don't think anything is better than my 105/2.5.
I catch flak from other Nikon users about the new lenses with their micro space dust coatings are SO much better than the old glass.
Hmmph...I don't think anything is better than my 105/2.5.
tightsqueez
Well-known
Nikon and Canon are the same… both have the capacity to take some of the world's worst pictures. And yes, even Leica cannot escape this realm. Sorry but there is very little difference and I've owned both complete systems over time. In terms of what is going to get me a good picture, the mental incapacitating Nikon vs. Canon debate is probably ranked 99th.
Which happens to rank behind whether I have a hangover or not. Ha ha.
What do I own now? Nikon. And I certainly cannot give a straight answer why.
Which happens to rank behind whether I have a hangover or not. Ha ha.
What do I own now? Nikon. And I certainly cannot give a straight answer why.
nobbylon
Veteran
The latest canon zooms appear to be fractionally sharper in the corners but since most people seem to like out of focus backgrounds it's a none event anyway. Wide open I can advise that the VRII 70-200 Nikon is a tad sharper than the 24-70 2.8 Nikon which is an amazing lens in itself shot wide open. I tend to shoot both at 3.5 anyway and never had a problem with the equipment. Out of focus shots are more to do with lazyness on my part for not checking fast enough speeds set for subject movement etc.
Any of the pro zooms are going to cost 5x a pro film body anyway so I'd pick the lenses first and then buy a body to suit. EOS 1V or an F5, it's as easy as that.
With regard to your 85 choice, I was out this afternoon with the 85 1.4 and even at 10-15 feet, at 1.4, focus spot on, on my daughter, her friend sat next to her slightly off plane = out of focus. At f4 all good. I was trying to acheive the impossible. Having the best lenses is all very well but if the technique is off then one might as well shoot through a milk bottle! That 85 1.2 Canon is going to be even worse!
Any of the pro zooms are going to cost 5x a pro film body anyway so I'd pick the lenses first and then buy a body to suit. EOS 1V or an F5, it's as easy as that.
With regard to your 85 choice, I was out this afternoon with the 85 1.4 and even at 10-15 feet, at 1.4, focus spot on, on my daughter, her friend sat next to her slightly off plane = out of focus. At f4 all good. I was trying to acheive the impossible. Having the best lenses is all very well but if the technique is off then one might as well shoot through a milk bottle! That 85 1.2 Canon is going to be even worse!
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
You may be interested the process and decision making a working pro goes through when he decides to switch, again, brands. Chris Weeks says it straight and his language may offend.
http://aphotocontributor.typepad.com/aphotocontributor/2012/04/sea-change.html
http://aphotocontributor.typepad.com/aphotocontributor/2012/04/sea-change.html
Similar threads
