nobbylon
Veteran
A very entertaining read, atleast 3 times I burst out laughing, thanks for the link.
Choosing an Autofocus SLR: Canon vs Nikon
- Thread starter msbarnes
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 70
- Views 10K
msbarnes
Well-known
I know old lenses can be good. My main reason for wanting newer lenses is for autofocus and image stabilization.
If it weren't for autofocus and image stablization then I'd be much more happy with a manual focus camera (which I own and use). I'm looking for something complimentary and these two features are important to me for what I intend to do. A Contax G is another camera I'm considering but this is an entirely different discussion. Before I starting a non tangential discussion I figured that I'd narrow it down to Canon vs Nikon, then autofocus SLR vs autofocus RF (or however you want to classify the G)
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
Glad you liked him, an acquired taste but sometimes a necessary antidote to those sites we all secretly visit from time to time.
More here, thinking material this time.
http://www.alexcoghe.com/documenting-the-human-condition-interview-to-chris-weeks/
msbarnes
Well-known
Thanks for the link. This seems to be kind of what I was looking for. I haven't read over it yet but I know that some people switch brands for particular reasons. I just wanted a better idea of why people prefer one over the other. And for what reasons.
peteography
AAAAARGH MOTHERLAND
The 5d2 supports this aswell. It's the little thumbstick that selects an AF point (with push in for centre point and the usual pick af point button as all points automatic thing), the af-on button is switched for an af-off button in the custom functions.
Shame both brands of cameras take so much fiddling to set up! (give me an rb67 anyday >.>)
leicapixie
Well-known
i have used both. Neither one takes the 1st place. Canon lenses are superb, Nikon lenses more contrasty, appearing sharper. The OP mentioned strobes which so far no one has addressed! Mentioned Fashion and I suppose onto glamor. Well if it's a learning tool, a curve in your shooting, I don't see why SLR trumps a RF.
Nikon does better with electronic flash. Canon slightly behind. I personally found that earlier auto focus of Canon not that accurate in the light i struggled in. i.e. Low light. The specialty of RF. So the OP ought to 1st think about strobes and or other light before an auto-focus system..
Truth tell when i look back at my Editorial and Fashion illustration using the equipment i had more important than buying NEW equipment. A larger format like Medium Format would benefit Fashion.. It doesn't have to be a Hasselblad. An old Rollei or Mamiya TLR. I know i am off course but think your question out again.
Nikon does better with electronic flash. Canon slightly behind. I personally found that earlier auto focus of Canon not that accurate in the light i struggled in. i.e. Low light. The specialty of RF. So the OP ought to 1st think about strobes and or other light before an auto-focus system..
Truth tell when i look back at my Editorial and Fashion illustration using the equipment i had more important than buying NEW equipment. A larger format like Medium Format would benefit Fashion.. It doesn't have to be a Hasselblad. An old Rollei or Mamiya TLR. I know i am off course but think your question out again.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I was curious about the AF tunability of my D700 and went searching for info on the net about setting it up to to suit what you're shooting. I'd been at a motocross meeting and while I was impressed with the camera's auto focus abilities with objects travelling at speed I was curious to see if a pro would use a different set up to optomise it further. I found a blog by a sports photographer of twenyty five years who walks you through what he considers the ideal settings. You'd never have figured it out by studying the manual!
As it turns out the default settings really don't maximise the camera's abilities ... which is no surprise of course. 😀
As it turns out the default settings really don't maximise the camera's abilities ... which is no surprise of course. 😀
Bobbo
Well-known
Fun Fact of the Day: ANY film SLR you will buy will be OLD tech. Canon has not introduced a pro film camera since 2000 (The EOS-1v is 12 years behind in AF and battery tech), while Nikon released its last pro film camera in 2004 (which has better batteries, but AF is still 8 years old). The F5 was released in 1996. You will NOT get the best AF tech available from EITHER brand. The next-tier down (F100/EOS 3) have similar AF specs to their bigger brothers.
That said, the tech is similar between both. I'd go on ergonomics. Buy an F5, a 1v and a 50mm lens for each to try them out, then hock the one you like least.
That also said, I'm a Nikon guy. Used both, switched to Nikon and never looked back (the on/off switch location on the X0D series cameras killed it for me... too easy to hit with your belt if its over your shoulder). Glass is similar (and at an 8x10, you will NOT notice a difference. Any issues with contrast/color may generally be fixed in post).
That said, the tech is similar between both. I'd go on ergonomics. Buy an F5, a 1v and a 50mm lens for each to try them out, then hock the one you like least.
That also said, I'm a Nikon guy. Used both, switched to Nikon and never looked back (the on/off switch location on the X0D series cameras killed it for me... too easy to hit with your belt if its over your shoulder). Glass is similar (and at an 8x10, you will NOT notice a difference. Any issues with contrast/color may generally be fixed in post).
racoll
Well-known
Handle one from each manufacturer. I got into Canon because way back in the early 90s, the Canon EOS A2 felt better in my hand than the Nikon N90. That's what decided it for me. Since then I've used many cameras from both companies with my favorites being the Canon 1v and the Nikon F100. I love both of these cameras immensely (although I must say that the 1v's AF acquires subjects faster and tracks better than the F100, but that is solely my experience and my opinion!), and would heartily recommend either to anyone. The F100 can be bought nowadays for $200, often less, while the 1v costs over twice that. You can't go wrong with either brand; they're both superb, but see which one feels best in your hand.
Andy
Andy
msbarnes
Well-known
A little off course but still relevant. I appreciate your advice. I'm interested in this fashion stuff, but I do not know where to begin so I'm researching it on different fronts.
What I do know is that I want to stick with film (atleast initially) because black and white film has the look that I like. What I have not decided is whether I want to begin with MF or 35mm film, RF or SLR, AF or MF. A Canon/Nikon SLR just seems to be the most flexible system and would probably give me the most mileage in the long run. Ofcourse some well-known photographers stick primarily with one camera/focal length while others have used many....
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
I was in a bit of a similar situation two years ago. I had a bit of money left and wanted to buy a professional SLR. (Digital in my case, the main choice was between a D700 and a 5D II)
At the time I was mainly using a Nikon F2AS as my main film SLR and was (and am still) very happy with it. I had also just inherited a Leica R5 with a few R lenses that I wanted to continue using.
It was a bit of a tough choice. System wise the Nikon was attractive because of the possibility to continue using existing Nikon lenses, while the Canon promised easier adaptability of existing lenses - especially the Leica lenses, for which there are interchangeable Nikon mounts, but I would have liked to keep them as original as possible (because of an emotional attachment to them). Lens lineup wise both were pretty equivalent, but there were some lenses in the Canon system that interested me and for which there was no Nikon equivalent (most prominently the 24/f3.5 TS/E II, which is much more flexible, close to large format). Camera-wise it was a choice between the D700's sophistication and marginally better ruggedness and the 5D's more basic user interface (which was a plus), better resolution for landscape photography, easier to use (as I find) live view, visual remote control from an Android device and the video option.
I ended up going with the Canon and it was a good choice that I'm happy with. There are moments when I still think the Nikon would have had its advantages (in particular whenever Nikon presents something new and fancy), but I guess I would have had those either way. I ended up getting that TS-E lens and it turned out enough of a justification all by itself, and the "slow photography" akin to medium or large format photography that has become possible with the live view and Android functionality has turned out quite enriching.
Landshark
Well-known
msbarnes, Many of the references above relate to digital bodies which are somewhat different to film.
Yes you should try both Nikon and Canon. Transferring from one to the other is ALL ergonomics and not what someone else feels is best.
In Nikon try (if you can) An f100 vs. F4/F5. Depending on weight, physical size and size of your mitts, they're all significantly different.
For most average people the F100 will cover what you want to do.
Autofocus & ability to use electronic flash. BTW the prime lenses are slightly smaller on the Nikon.
Yes you should try both Nikon and Canon. Transferring from one to the other is ALL ergonomics and not what someone else feels is best.
In Nikon try (if you can) An f100 vs. F4/F5. Depending on weight, physical size and size of your mitts, they're all significantly different.
For most average people the F100 will cover what you want to do.
Autofocus & ability to use electronic flash. BTW the prime lenses are slightly smaller on the Nikon.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
A Matter of Worth
A Matter of Worth
+1 to Canon for realizing that their lenses are worth less than Nikon glass.
A Matter of Worth
+1 to Canon for realizing that their lenses are worth less than Nikon glass.
Bob W
Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Contarama
I think the Canon pro lenses are cheaper than Nikon pro lenses.
This is not totally correct. Some of the older Canon lens designs have lower prices than the newer Nikon designs, but the newer Canon designs are the same or more expensive than the Nikon.
Bob W
Originally Posted by Contarama
I think the Canon pro lenses are cheaper than Nikon pro lenses.
This is not totally correct. Some of the older Canon lens designs have lower prices than the newer Nikon designs, but the newer Canon designs are the same or more expensive than the Nikon.
Bob W
Last edited:
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Bob W
Member
I meant to include the other quote also. Sorry. That was were my comment was directed.
Bob W
gavinlg
Veteran
Canon for simple ergonomics, the glorious canon skin tones from the canon designed/manufactured sensors, and the glorious L lenses.
I find nikon DSLRs fidgety, sharp/hard feeling, and their lenses less 'pleasant'. I find nikons skin tones are overly yellow a lot of the time, and go grey in low light.
Just my thoughts from using the 2 brands quite a bit over the last few years.
I find nikon DSLRs fidgety, sharp/hard feeling, and their lenses less 'pleasant'. I find nikons skin tones are overly yellow a lot of the time, and go grey in low light.
Just my thoughts from using the 2 brands quite a bit over the last few years.
Jamie123
Veteran
I'd go with Canon because you can borrow your cousin's lenses but in the end it really doesn't matter much especially if you're looking at film SLRs. You'll get used to whatever you buy and then the cameras of other brands will seem weird to you when you first pick them up. But they're all just cameras. Unlike with mechanical cameras, I feel that with auto-everything cameras I have little emotional attachment to the devices I'm working with. I'm used to Canons but I'll use a Nikon if that's what's available to me.
Since you're looking to do fashion work with strobes, how about an autofocus medium format SLR like Hasselblad H1/H2 or a Contax 645? The AF on those isn't anywhere near that of the 35mm SLRs but you'll have leaf shutter lenses which is nice for strobe work. And of course you'll have medium format resolution and tonality.
ottluuk
the indecisive eternity
When you're going through all the trouble to set up studio lighting and shoot film, you might as well get better quality out of it and get a MF camera. Something like Pentax 645 (N, NII), Contax 645, Mamiya 645 AFD; leaf shutter lenses, where available. An early, film based Hasselblad H kit, if you're lucky.
If you insist on the Canon/Nikon choice, toss a coin if you can't decide. I went Canon years ago, because they had a respectable reseller+service in a more reasonable location. I could walk in there, handle stuff, and even get a modest discount if I was lucky. On the lens front, both have some special items (like the Canon 65mm 1-5x extreme macro lens) that you can't get on the other side - but none that make a noticeable difference for general portraiture/human interest stuff.
If you insist on the Canon/Nikon choice, toss a coin if you can't decide. I went Canon years ago, because they had a respectable reseller+service in a more reasonable location. I could walk in there, handle stuff, and even get a modest discount if I was lucky. On the lens front, both have some special items (like the Canon 65mm 1-5x extreme macro lens) that you can't get on the other side - but none that make a noticeable difference for general portraiture/human interest stuff.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Maybe it's better that way?
Similar threads
