Board index Photography Technical Questions Please explain to me why is any canon is better than nikon?

Technical Questions

Please explain to me why is any canon is better than nikon?

Discuss technical aspects of photography
attila_cseh
 
Posts: 23

made typo's

Post Sat May 12, 2007 5:17 am


sorry i made few typo's , i hope you understood what I'm taking about it.

dougj
 
Posts: 2276


Post Sat May 12, 2007 7:26 am


Some, and probably a lot of this comes down to image processing – both in camera with JPG format and computer processing for both JPG and RAW. Composition is naturally key, a good body & lens, and their correct use is important. Let’s say quality DSLRs (Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Sony, etc) are mounted with the “sameâ€

djwixx
 
Posts: 1360

Re: made typo's

Post Sat May 12, 2007 1:18 pm


attila_the_hun2 wrote:sorry i made few typo's , i hope you understood what I'm taking about it.


Of course - just a having a little fun.

djwixx
 
Posts: 1360

Re: ok

Post Sat May 12, 2007 1:36 pm


attila_the_hun2 wrote:Anybody can be a good photographer, with any type of lens, and cameras, because catch the moment , is not to can to buy for money, feel the nature, or feel the pain or somebody's face, without you will break the moment, this is the photography, not making photos in front of 5 light..
I was talking about: my feelings about the lenses like sigma is not work with well with nikon, i love nikon, i have a fuji s3, and s5, and nikon d200, but i still fell the canon has something more with this lenses, and this is not about my settings, or about my eyes.That was my questoin, my friends!


I think most people would agree that Canon probably produces the best lenses especially the L lenses but for the 2K you're talking about I would stick with the D200 you already have and carefully consider what lenses you need. For 2K you are not going to upgrade to anything to replace what you already have with something better and include lenses.

I have no experience with Sigma, but I've heard a lot of hit and miss stories which is enough to put me off. I have several Tamrons and I think you can get some very good lenses for what they can cost, but again it's price versus quality.

From vague experience I would have to say the low end Canons feel terrible and cheap, but I can't vouch for functionality. Even the Nikon D40 feels like a great camera compared the similar Canon.

gilp
 
Posts: 180


Post Sat May 12, 2007 2:08 pm


Yeps.... you can't expect a 200$ lens to perform and offer top quality optics...

But the original question was regarding the "same lens" on two different bodies... the problem with that is they are NOT the same lens... same model and make yes... but not the same lens... and this is where third party lens makers are a bit less reliable... simply because the "reject" threshold is higher. there are tons of stories of sigma lenses doing all sorts of weird things.. maybe a lot of them are urban legends... but to an extent, it's obvious that in order to come in at the price point Tam and sigma sells their glass... there has to be a wider margin of "acceptable"..

one thing is for sure... it doesn't matter what brand, Sig, Tam, Canon, Nikon.... a "cheap" lens is a cheap lens... canon's cheap lenses are horrible... case in point the notorious (I think funny) 75-300 5.6....yeeeek

pathfindar
 
Posts: 258


Post Sat May 12, 2007 5:03 pm


I own both Canon and Nikon- they both can take excellent shots. I am phasing out Nikon to Canon mostly because I have had more problems with the Nikons and keeping them going. I don't think I have ever had one of my Canon's to a repair shop yet. I think there is a little more bang for my buck with Canon also.

lord_of_the_badgers
 
Posts: 440


Post Sun May 13, 2007 11:59 am


may i make a possibly controversial point/s - re: usage of sigma/nikon/sharpness


1. Pbase has many talented/potentially talented photographers, but i would hazard that there's less of those people, than, er... others. That's an awful lot of pics of doggies/babies/daughters first ballet class etc.... vs some seriously good stuff. Both have value in their place of course - I'm not looking down my nose at this

2. Sigma lenses are (please, no disrespect - if i cause offence I apologise whole heartedly in advance) - generally - used by those either starting out or on a ltd budget - generally those who are less critical & less technically adept. It's a HUGE generalisation & I am aware of the irony, given my rather over the top response earlier here (sorry!)

So I just don't think a large site like pbase is the place to look for fantastically representative pics from any one camera body - in fact I notice that the "better" photographers don't even mention what they use, unlike gear heads like myself - I'm still on the first tentative step of the ladder to getting paid for being a photographer, IMO, at this stage with any photographer, gear is perhaps a little over important as we search to find our way & skillset.

Don't know that makes sense, but in general terms - looking for brilliantly non-over sharpened pics by a sigma lens on pbase is a tall order

gilp
 
Posts: 180


Post Sun May 13, 2007 1:09 pm


LOTBadgers.. you are absolutly right.

BUT...of course there's a but! I think that if a neophyte person goes to a forum and asks about lenses...that person, while not discrimant yet, is looking for some direction to either make a wise purchase or understand why his/her photos are not up to his/her expectations....

so it's ok for people to trash and bash the bad stuff!


That being said... if we remove all the expensive glass from the discussion...and look at entry level lenses... then we have a topic! Having had the displeasure of working with canon entry level glass... I can vouch for the fact that Sigma and Tam make better low end glass... don't ask me why...they just do.

lord_of_the_badgers
 
Posts: 440


Post Sun May 13, 2007 5:12 pm


sure - i know what you're saying - i just wish the OP would consider other methods of research - trying out the cameras in shop for example. Rather than rush to assume that Nikon cameras with Sigma glass take a bad pic. My D200 out-resolves some of my pro-spec lenses at certain times anyway...

Canon do have an edge, but it is most definitely elsewhere & widely documented.

At the lower end in nikon terms there's the 18-70 zoom, and 85 1.8, 60mm micro.. but yeah, Sigma for example, have an edge on say, the 12-24 - certainly a bargain.

emcphotoart
 
Posts: 5

Re: Please explain to me why is any canon is better than nikon?

Post Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:19 pm


up to now, yes the canon was better, mainly because of cmos memory. the new Nikon D300, which I now have, has CMOS, and far better colour quality than a canon, in my opinion and that of many sellers of cameras. you have to look Nikon D300 to see all the changes, but it includes an ISO peak on about 4000 ! I have seen no grain at 1000 ISO,, and we are still trying various settings.
emcphotoart

friej
 
Posts: 2

Re:

Post Sun May 04, 2008 2:49 am


[quote="lord_of_the_badgers"]Canon have the edge on (a rough list!!):

R&D costs
hi ISO noise
Pro Bodies with the above characteristic

Nikon:

Ergonomics - the bodies just feel RIGHT


I'm a d200 user. i have some of Nikon's finest lenses - I don't really use Sigmas. Cast your eye of my later stuff. Let's hear your comments. Go on, dare you...

Ok I took the dare as I normally always do. Sorry to say I wasn't impressed with anything I saw. Some things were just about there but nothing ever seemed to get a message across. Oh well.

kenmac
 
Posts: 10

Re: Please explain to me why is any canon is better than nikon?

Post Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:13 am


Goddam.... Would anybody go to Rembrant and ask him...'Wow..what a great painting..what kind of brushes do you use to get such great results...I want brushes just like that" Canon do some things well, Nikon do some things well, Olympus do some things well..Pentax do ......etc.

agroni
 
Posts: 990

Re: Please explain to me why is any canon is better than nikon?

Post Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:21 pm


No to mention the better canon functions....CANON also sounds better than NIKON ;)
It's a CANON
I have a CANON
Cool CANON
:)
Image

djwixx
 
Posts: 1360

Re: Please explain to me why is any canon is better than nikon?

Post Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:17 pm


kenmac wrote:Goddam.... Would anybody go to Rembrant and ask him...'Wow..what a great painting..what kind of brushes do you use to get such great results...I want brushes just like that" Canon do some things well, Nikon do some things well, Olympus do some things well..Pentax do ......etc.


Well said............... Use what you have or can afford and enjoy it. When did penis envy enter the camera world?

sbbish
 
Posts: 282

Re: Please explain to me why is any canon is better than nikon?

Post Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:54 pm


djwixx wrote:Well said............... Use what you have or can afford and enjoy it. When did penis envy enter the camera world?


I'm pretty sure this answers that question.
http://tinyurl.com/5vp54m

Scott

PreviousNext

Board index Photography Technical Questions Please explain to me why is any canon is better than nikon?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests