msbarnes
Well-known
I'm interested in an autofocus SLR for strobes.
OK so I have no experience with strobes but I'm interested in getting into them for fashion/glamour type of photography but I have trouble getting started. I'm looking for a camera specifically for this purpose. I have rangefinders and twins lens reflex cameras for available light and regular shooting so size/noise/weight is not an issue. I know Canon EF mount is more versatile, in that it can mount most manual focus SLR lenses but I have no interest in this, I'm only interested in autofocus lenses, which means the EF mount. The film bodies seem to be about equal and the digital bodies and lenses will continue to evolve together. I haven't looked into the differences so seriously...
So the big question is:
How does a hobbyist choose between one or the other? Ergonomics?
It would be easier if I inherited some Canon or Nikon glass or carried over manual focuses lenses but this is not the case. I'm also in no need to have a digital camera, even. I'm thinking of a long term investment here. I also feel that my requirements are somewhat low so either will be fine.
Is there anything that one does inherently better than the other? I'm not so familiar with autofocus and autoexposure technologies so I'm not sure if one is more suitable for me or not.
All things equal, I'd probably go Canon because one of my cousin's has a 5d.
OK so I have no experience with strobes but I'm interested in getting into them for fashion/glamour type of photography but I have trouble getting started. I'm looking for a camera specifically for this purpose. I have rangefinders and twins lens reflex cameras for available light and regular shooting so size/noise/weight is not an issue. I know Canon EF mount is more versatile, in that it can mount most manual focus SLR lenses but I have no interest in this, I'm only interested in autofocus lenses, which means the EF mount. The film bodies seem to be about equal and the digital bodies and lenses will continue to evolve together. I haven't looked into the differences so seriously...
So the big question is:
How does a hobbyist choose between one or the other? Ergonomics?
It would be easier if I inherited some Canon or Nikon glass or carried over manual focuses lenses but this is not the case. I'm also in no need to have a digital camera, even. I'm thinking of a long term investment here. I also feel that my requirements are somewhat low so either will be fine.
Is there anything that one does inherently better than the other? I'm not so familiar with autofocus and autoexposure technologies so I'm not sure if one is more suitable for me or not.
All things equal, I'd probably go Canon because one of my cousin's has a 5d.
redisburning
Well-known
IMO Canon.
I like their glass a bit better. Also, they have two pro bodies without a built-in grip if you like that sort of thing. In the end, eos-1 vs F5 doesn't make a huge difference to the end user, both are great cameras though neither is small or discreet.
Neither are that expensive either. What will cost you is the AF lens you really want, IMO; the 70-200mm f2.8 with IS or VR
it is THE reason to own one of these cameras to me, though obviously others will differ. if you go Canon, you have a ton of great choices in that zoom range and I do think they've executed their designs better than Nikon over the years.
I like their glass a bit better. Also, they have two pro bodies without a built-in grip if you like that sort of thing. In the end, eos-1 vs F5 doesn't make a huge difference to the end user, both are great cameras though neither is small or discreet.
Neither are that expensive either. What will cost you is the AF lens you really want, IMO; the 70-200mm f2.8 with IS or VR
it is THE reason to own one of these cameras to me, though obviously others will differ. if you go Canon, you have a ton of great choices in that zoom range and I do think they've executed their designs better than Nikon over the years.
Texsport
Well-known
If starting from scratch, Canon has superior autofocus.
Texsport
Texsport
ReeRay
Well-known
There are 2 lenses that keep me in the Canon system. The 85mm F1.2 L and the 135mm F2 L. Nikon may (or may not) have the wide angle edge but from mid range onwards Canon are the clear winners, especially in primes. I use a Canon 5D MK2 and have no inclination to "upgrade" - it's that good. The AF is more than good enough for my type of shooting which includes dimly lit theatre, landscape, sport and portraiture. The light is very harsh here and flash is pretty essential. The 580 EX II is superb with enormous reach.
Just my take on Canon which I've used for 30 years
Just my take on Canon which I've used for 30 years
redisburning
Well-known
on the wide angle front, I do not believe that there is a superior wide angle to the 24 TSE-II for SLRs.
as good? sure. better? don't think so.
as good? sure. better? don't think so.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
Seriously?
Seriously?
You are joking, right? Ever handle a Nikon F4? Hell, even an F100 is pretty freakin' amazing! But the real reason to choose Nikon are the black lenses. I mean, seriously, who wants to use white lenses? Unless they happen to match your white belt and shoes.
Seriously?
You are joking, right? Ever handle a Nikon F4? Hell, even an F100 is pretty freakin' amazing! But the real reason to choose Nikon are the black lenses. I mean, seriously, who wants to use white lenses? Unless they happen to match your white belt and shoes.
dlynch
Member
If I was starting new, I would go Canon, or Sony. I have been a Nikon user since the Nikon F2 first came out. I have found another forum very helpful. POTN is Photography On The Net. It is Canon focused. 
I am currently using a N D300S. (no bias).
Your access to a relative's C equipment would sway me towards Canon. Nikon has a CCW lens mount. Took a while to learn. At least we Nikon owners don't have to index lenses anymore.
DaveL
Toronto
I am currently using a N D300S. (no bias). Your access to a relative's C equipment would sway me towards Canon. Nikon has a CCW lens mount. Took a while to learn. At least we Nikon owners don't have to index lenses anymore.
DaveL
Toronto
msbarnes
Well-known
A few more questions.
1. Is image stabilization / vibration reduction really that useful?
2. I haven't looked at all the MTF's but from the few tests/comparisons that I've seen the 35G/35L is considerably better than their slower counterparts. I assume that the 50G/50L and 85G/85L are better than their slower counterparts as well, but is the difference as drastic? Maybe a bit of an open-ended question, but historically wide angles have been more difficult to design. Most manufactures seem to have produced steller 50's and tele's at moderate speeds without fancy optical designs, elements, and glass. I ask because value-wise it seems that I ought to get the best 35mm and go cheap on the longer lenses for value. I like 35mm the most and I find it to be the most useful lens to have fast. I don't need a f1.4 but the 35mm f2 seems to good at f2.8 while the 35mm f1.4 seems to be good even wide open.
1. Is image stabilization / vibration reduction really that useful?
2. I haven't looked at all the MTF's but from the few tests/comparisons that I've seen the 35G/35L is considerably better than their slower counterparts. I assume that the 50G/50L and 85G/85L are better than their slower counterparts as well, but is the difference as drastic? Maybe a bit of an open-ended question, but historically wide angles have been more difficult to design. Most manufactures seem to have produced steller 50's and tele's at moderate speeds without fancy optical designs, elements, and glass. I ask because value-wise it seems that I ought to get the best 35mm and go cheap on the longer lenses for value. I like 35mm the most and I find it to be the most useful lens to have fast. I don't need a f1.4 but the 35mm f2 seems to good at f2.8 while the 35mm f1.4 seems to be good even wide open.
Pirate
Guitar playing Fotografer
"So the big question is:
How does a hobbyist choose between one or the other? Ergonomics?"
Yes, Ergonomics. There's really not going to be any difference in performance when you get down to the basics. You need to hold both in your hands and see which one fits you better and which controls feel most comfortable and user friendly to you.
This is not to say there are no perks to either system, but they will both give you what you want in the end.
Now, as the perks go, I see these as the most evident:
1. Nikon has not changed their lens mount as Canon has over the years. This means that any Nikon can use any Nikkor glass from 1959 to the present.
2. Canon has an adapter that will allow Nikkor glass to be used on their bodies. So now you can use any Canon glass from that bodies era and any Nikkor glass from 1959 to the present. You will lose the autofocus, but I don't think you'll lose much more than that. If you're Manual savvy then this will be a plus to any Canon user who wants more options in glass.
If I were to choose Canon right now, it would be the 1N-RS. For Nikon, I own an F5 and wouldn't change it for the world.
To msbarnes, re: "1. Is image stabilization / vibration reduction really that useful?"
Yes, very.
How does a hobbyist choose between one or the other? Ergonomics?"
Yes, Ergonomics. There's really not going to be any difference in performance when you get down to the basics. You need to hold both in your hands and see which one fits you better and which controls feel most comfortable and user friendly to you.
This is not to say there are no perks to either system, but they will both give you what you want in the end.
Now, as the perks go, I see these as the most evident:
1. Nikon has not changed their lens mount as Canon has over the years. This means that any Nikon can use any Nikkor glass from 1959 to the present.
2. Canon has an adapter that will allow Nikkor glass to be used on their bodies. So now you can use any Canon glass from that bodies era and any Nikkor glass from 1959 to the present. You will lose the autofocus, but I don't think you'll lose much more than that. If you're Manual savvy then this will be a plus to any Canon user who wants more options in glass.
If I were to choose Canon right now, it would be the 1N-RS. For Nikon, I own an F5 and wouldn't change it for the world.
To msbarnes, re: "1. Is image stabilization / vibration reduction really that useful?"
Yes, very.
redisburning
Well-known
regarding the 35L and 35G,
they're good if you are only looking at SLR lenses but I'd personally struggle to buy one when I shot RF (I assume that you are drawn to that FL on RF)
people will say, "hey it doesn't cost nearly as much as a Summilux" but these are professional tools. does that cut it in the realm of pro lenses? to some, I'm sure it does. me? well luckily Im not a professional so it's easy for me to be elitist about it.
not that the numbers don't agree but that's largely irrelevant.
at any rate, it makes more sense to me to get a f2.8 16-35. if you're doing this to pay the rent check / mortgage payment, f*** everything and get the lens that will get you the shot the highest percentage of the time.
they're good if you are only looking at SLR lenses but I'd personally struggle to buy one when I shot RF (I assume that you are drawn to that FL on RF)
people will say, "hey it doesn't cost nearly as much as a Summilux" but these are professional tools. does that cut it in the realm of pro lenses? to some, I'm sure it does. me? well luckily Im not a professional so it's easy for me to be elitist about it.
not that the numbers don't agree but that's largely irrelevant.
at any rate, it makes more sense to me to get a f2.8 16-35. if you're doing this to pay the rent check / mortgage payment, f*** everything and get the lens that will get you the shot the highest percentage of the time.
nobbylon
Veteran
From using both this is simply not correct.
nobbylon
Veteran
This was always going to end up in another p@@sing match between the Nikon and Canon users. For all intents it doesn't matter as both manufacturers have good bodies and lenses on offer.
From user experience I can say that my F5 focus faster and locks on faster than ANY other body I've used. All Nikon's apart from D4 which I haven't tried.
Especially so with the screw focus lenses. Even the new lenses focus quicker though. It is quicker to focus than Eos equivalents I have used.
The only minor gripe with F5 is number of focus points but in reality it's not that much of an issue.
Durability of F5? Unmatched by anything.
Lens choice for both Nikon and Canon is superb. Some say one kind, others say other!
In 35 there is simply no lens that either have that are as good as a 35 Leica or Zeiss APART from a Nikon 35 1.4G. I used to use an R Summicron on mine until I got fed up with manual focus.
85 focal length, Canon have the edge with their classic 1.2 but it's pricey. The Nikon 85 1.4's are also brilliant.
24-70 2.8's. I've had both and still use both. Nikon is nicer.
70-200 VRII from Nikon is one of the best lenses I have ever used and yes the VR is worth having.
It's a flip a coin choice to be honest. I prefer the solid feel of Nikon's pro bodies but Canon seem to have done ok with their's over the years
From user experience I can say that my F5 focus faster and locks on faster than ANY other body I've used. All Nikon's apart from D4 which I haven't tried.
Especially so with the screw focus lenses. Even the new lenses focus quicker though. It is quicker to focus than Eos equivalents I have used.
The only minor gripe with F5 is number of focus points but in reality it's not that much of an issue.
Durability of F5? Unmatched by anything.
Lens choice for both Nikon and Canon is superb. Some say one kind, others say other!
In 35 there is simply no lens that either have that are as good as a 35 Leica or Zeiss APART from a Nikon 35 1.4G. I used to use an R Summicron on mine until I got fed up with manual focus.
85 focal length, Canon have the edge with their classic 1.2 but it's pricey. The Nikon 85 1.4's are also brilliant.
24-70 2.8's. I've had both and still use both. Nikon is nicer.
70-200 VRII from Nikon is one of the best lenses I have ever used and yes the VR is worth having.
It's a flip a coin choice to be honest. I prefer the solid feel of Nikon's pro bodies but Canon seem to have done ok with their's over the years
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
My Canon can run both sets of lenses (Nikon and Canon eos).
I don't know of a Nikon that can run Canon glass.
All Canon primes are black, but the L-series have a red band around them.
Where the Canon lenses really shine are with some of the L-series zooms.
you will not find a better lens in the 70-200 f2.8l is (v1 or v2) for instance, well other then it being off white.
This was from the press box at the POTUS/Obama inaugural 2008. Note all the off white lenses.
I don't know of a Nikon that can run Canon glass.
All Canon primes are black, but the L-series have a red band around them.
Where the Canon lenses really shine are with some of the L-series zooms.
you will not find a better lens in the 70-200 f2.8l is (v1 or v2) for instance, well other then it being off white.
This was from the press box at the POTUS/Obama inaugural 2008. Note all the off white lenses.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I've had Nikons and Canons over the years.
I've always preferred Nikons. Why? They feel better in my hands, and in the focal lengths I use, I like the lenses more.
Far as I'm concerned, the technical performance is so close as to be a toss up.
Go for what feels better to you.
I've always preferred Nikons. Why? They feel better in my hands, and in the focal lengths I use, I like the lenses more.
Far as I'm concerned, the technical performance is so close as to be a toss up.
Go for what feels better to you.
robbeiflex
Well-known
For me, yes Ergonomics was a major factor. The location of frequently used controls, size and fit in the hands, external controls versus menus accessed via LCD, whether or not the camera has built-in or add-on grip, etc. These parts that you touch and feel will make the difference between a pleasurable experience and a PITA.
Next were the choices and (local, i.e. for me in €) prices of the glass I wanted because of FL, aperture, colour rendition, weather sealing or not, etc..
In the case of digital, the look of the out-of-camera JPEGs including colour rendition should be a consideration too. Many hobbyists spend more time on their RAW and post processing than they do out shooting, and I did not want to be one of them.
In other words, all of this comes down to a number of very personal choices so base it on trying them both if you can. Choosing between Canon and Nikon is like having a choice between Audi and BMW when choosing a car. Both are top of the industry for a reason, and will perform at more than adequate levels for 99.9% of customers. Similar with Canon and Nikon on auto focus, features, quality, etc. There is ultimately no bad choice between these two. However, emotions run high among their faithful customers and its best not to set them off against each other unless you want a fairly pointless argument to ensue.
Cheers,
Rob
ruby.monkey
Veteran
Buy a top-end example of each system and sell on the one you like least? It's not like they cost a fortune nowadays.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
Not Quite This Simple
Not Quite This Simple
You'll lose a lot more than just AF. A Canon body won't be able to automatically control the aperture of Nikon lenses, so you'd better read up on stop-down metering if you plan to go that route.
Not Quite This Simple
You'll lose a lot more than just AF. A Canon body won't be able to automatically control the aperture of Nikon lenses, so you'd better read up on stop-down metering if you plan to go that route.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
Benefits That Aren't
Benefits That Aren't
What self-respecting Nikon photographer would want to use Canon glass?
I've shot with a friends Canon 5D II and I was able to produce nice images. The interface, however, felt awkward and the AF was not impressive. But, hey, I've used Nikon bodies for 30 years, so mit's no wonder that the Canon interface feels awkward to me.
Benefits That Aren't
What self-respecting Nikon photographer would want to use Canon glass?
I've shot with a friends Canon 5D II and I was able to produce nice images. The interface, however, felt awkward and the AF was not impressive. But, hey, I've used Nikon bodies for 30 years, so mit's no wonder that the Canon interface feels awkward to me.
Contarama
Well-known
I think the Canon pro lenses are cheaper than Nikon pro lenses.
peteography
AAAAARGH MOTHERLAND
Having used both Canon and Nikon dslrs, I prefer the ergonomics of Canon cameras. Having to release the lens to press the iso button on Nikon's is ridiculous, especially when you've a 70-200 2.8 mounted; it twists your wrists in an unnatural manner. For me the AF lever isn't as good as seeing the setting in the finder.
Though the double press to delete, all settings reset and thumbswitch for metering are pretty cool.
Fell out with the D700 when it was giving me varying exposures and focus pointed at a still target, never had a complaint with the 5D2 other than it's not as good as the 40D.
Though the double press to delete, all settings reset and thumbswitch for metering are pretty cool.
Fell out with the D700 when it was giving me varying exposures and focus pointed at a still target, never had a complaint with the 5D2 other than it's not as good as the 40D.