|
Canon or Nikon??
|
View this Thread in Original format
| lentej |
| Any pro or hobby photographers out there? Which do you recommend, the Canon DSLR's or the Nikon DSLR's? Please no fanatics!! :eyespop: |
|
|
| Marcus Summers |
| Take your megapixels somewhere else. The digital age killed photography. |
|
|
| aquila |
| Whatever you're most comfortable with and suits your budget. |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by aquila
Whatever you're most comfortable with and suits your budget. |
^ Perfectly, this.
In terms of quality, Canon and Nikon have been pretty much on par with each other for years, and years, and years etc. They have slightly different products, sure - Pick the stuff you want, for what you want to do with your photography.
If you're looking at entry level DSLRs and lenses (which I'm assuming you are?), you won't find that much of a difference between the two brands, at all. If you're looking at mid-to-pro level gear, then you really should know what you're looking for already :p
That said, I'm a Canon user, and FuzzQi is a filthy heathen :o |
|
|
| Taipan |
| As someone who doesn't have a clue on the subject - definitely go for Nikon. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| Canon... Just like their tech better. We had a Nikon setup at my last job for the studio. Our photographer was a Canon guy still. |
|
|
| kamil |
The end result is the only thing that matters. Having said that, I don't think anyone can tell what kind of camera was used just by looking at the photographs.
You get what you pay for though, so best bang for the buck will depend on a lot of things because what makes the whole nikon vs. canon debate so difficult is that NONE of their cameras mirror eachother.
I will say this as fact though; Nikon's graphic user interface is absolutely miserably. Canon does a much better job; menus, on screen selections, etc. are laid out understandably, whereas Nikon, especially for a beginner makes it seem like trying to decipher ancient wall scratchings in the pyramids. |
|
|
| kamil |
The D3100 is crap in my opinion. It effectively defeats the purpose of having an SLR as all of the lenses for THAT model need to have a built in autofocus motor, rather than the body powering it. I tried selling a Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 lens to a guy with that camera and I was surprised to learn about that limitation (I had a Nikon D100, sold it not long ago). The Sigma on the D3100 was limited to only manual focus... ridiculous.
I think the D5100 has the same limitations. |
|
|
| bARTovsky |
Lenses be dictatin' yo! That's where your real investment is :)
This might help:
Linky Link
I'm a Canon guy. But that's for sentimental reasons (My dad's first camera was a Canon that he bought in the 60s that he then gave to me so yea.. :p ). |
|
|
| Danny Ocean |
I use Leica nowdays, but it is not for everyone. That said I chose them for their optics which are superb. For example, they are releasing a APO-Summicron-M 50mm f/2 ASPH lens this July for only $7,195.
It renders amazingly though. I have seen Fashion photography taken with it and they look like medium format photos.
That said, I agree that lenses are the better investment.
Anyways, don't overlook Sony's Nex 5n (with external viewfinder) or Nex 7. They take adaptors and use a variety of lenses from all brands. (Sony also makes the CMOS sensors NIkon uses)
I recommend the Carl Zeiss 24 mm - F/1.8 though which does not need an adaptor.
Fujifilm has also released a couple of great cameras, the x100 and Xpro1. I suggest you give them a browse too, perhaps you like the style.
Olympus also has a great set of Zuiko lens selection and their cameras are quite nice, even though they use the micro fourth/thirds system.
The camera and equipment you choose will depend on what you want to photograph too.
If you want to do wildlife or sports, DSLR is the only way to go. |
|
|
| lentej |
| Cheers to everyone. From what I've researched and witnessed, I'll go with the Canon T3i and f1.4 lenses. Will run me around $1200 though :D .... |
|
|
|
|
