cbradley
Adventurer
This is a very interesting article I ran across:
http://tiffinbox.org/what-happens-when-a-canon-shooter-uses-a-nikon/
http://tiffinbox.org/what-happens-when-a-canon-shooter-uses-a-nikon/
What happens when a Canon shooter uses a Nikon?
- Thread starter cbradley
- Start date
Michael Slade
Untitled
well, he claims he is a 'manual' shooter but spends the entire article complaining about how his autofocus system, both canon and nikon, betray him constantly. IF he'd learn to use the manual focus he'd miss less shots.
but...I changed my mind about him being an idiot. i think that assessment was too harsh.
but...I changed my mind about him being an idiot. i think that assessment was too harsh.
This guy's a wedding shooter.. can't expect the guy to to manual focus primarily with the SLR. THis ain't no landscape guys.
Canon vs Nikon articles like this is common in the wedding community.. the overwhelming consensus is the Canon pro bodies and lenses have much lower AF performance than Nikon pro equipment. Not a breakthrough article..
Edgar is a actually pretty decent shooter.. I've interacted with him on the wedding forum.. a bit cocky though
Canon vs Nikon articles like this is common in the wedding community.. the overwhelming consensus is the Canon pro bodies and lenses have much lower AF performance than Nikon pro equipment. Not a breakthrough article..
Edgar is a actually pretty decent shooter.. I've interacted with him on the wedding forum.. a bit cocky though
Michael Slade
Untitled
Please. I shot sports and news for YEARS before autofocus was invented. Don't tell me it can't be done.
nwoods
Expedition Leader
I found the article interesting. Seems pretty relevant and objective regarding his personal surprise at what he found out in the conparison. As for manual, I think he is refering to just moving off the "P" mode and tweaking the aperture and shutter speeds. To Michael, perhaps this suggests a less than comprehensive mastery of all things related to photography, but so what? He takes nice images, enough so to make a decent living at doing something he enjoys. Why would you be so critical of that? In your role as an educator, aren't you supposed to be supportive and encouraging?
I bet you didn't shoot at sub f/2 a lot.. try manual focusing at f/1.2 or so and still follow the action..
And if you shot SLR, you probably had the old split prism focus screens, which made manual focusing much easier.. The focus screens in today's bodies do not display accurate DOF when we get to apertures larger than f/2.8.. almost impossible to manual focus even for stationary subjects.
Joe Buissink shoots in P mode http://www.joebuissink.com/ Does that make him a hack?
Last edited:
Michael Slade
Untitled
The author claims to be a manual shooter, complains about the auto-focus performance. I'm only commenting on his own seemingly contradictory positions. As an educator I am paid to give an honest opinion.
I have not commented on P mode, so I'm not sure why you would assume that if one shoots in P mode that I would think he was a hack. I shoot in P mode quite a bit when I can.
I have not commented on P mode, so I'm not sure why you would assume that if one shoots in P mode that I would think he was a hack. I shoot in P mode quite a bit when I can.
nwoods
Expedition Leader
Well,as you know, I am just a layman at photography, but when I deviate from the camera's given settings, such as setting my preferred aperature, iso, and white balance, I consider that change as something I do manually. As in, I took that shot manually. Perhaps that is a misnomer if you feel it's use should be limited to shooting "full manual", for all settings including focus. But I don't take it that far. I think the author has a more relaxed definition of the term as well.
photoman
Explorer
I am not going to lie. My first reaction was much the same as Michael Slade's but for different reasons. I don't care in what mode someone shoots or with what gear, however I tire of the need people have to attempt to make claims to which system is better without the use of any real quantitative measures.
For a true comparison you need bodies which are comparable and lenses which are very close in quality. The author fails to understand that even the so called "upgrade" of his own 50mm prime lenses is widely debated to which lens is actually the best. Chromatic aboration, bokeh, and lens flares vary between the three Canon 50mm lenses and there is no clear cut winner as to which lens is the best.
Comparing the lenses which he currently uses with the lenses he borrowed is not necessarily a fair comparison either. There are 3 Nikkor 35mm lenses, 4 Nikkor 50mm lenses, and 3 Nikkor 85mm lenses. He clarifies that he used the Nikkor 35mm 1.4 but which of the other ones did he borrow?
He mentions the cameras ability or inability to focus in low light, focus quickly, focus accurately, and create the bokeh effect. The greatest influence of these results is the lenses not the camera. Besides the lenses in camera settings including sharpness, contrast, and saturation will affect the returned images as well. What settings does he usually shoot on and what settings was the Nikon set on? Even the base settings will be different between the two camera manufacturers.
So my impression is that while he may be a good photographer, he offers no information which actually compares the cameras or lenses in any scientific manner. It is an opinion piece and not one that has any real bearing on the actual advantages or differences of the cameras because he doesn't even understand the influence of lenses or in camera settings.
For a true comparison you need bodies which are comparable and lenses which are very close in quality. The author fails to understand that even the so called "upgrade" of his own 50mm prime lenses is widely debated to which lens is actually the best. Chromatic aboration, bokeh, and lens flares vary between the three Canon 50mm lenses and there is no clear cut winner as to which lens is the best.
Comparing the lenses which he currently uses with the lenses he borrowed is not necessarily a fair comparison either. There are 3 Nikkor 35mm lenses, 4 Nikkor 50mm lenses, and 3 Nikkor 85mm lenses. He clarifies that he used the Nikkor 35mm 1.4 but which of the other ones did he borrow?
He mentions the cameras ability or inability to focus in low light, focus quickly, focus accurately, and create the bokeh effect. The greatest influence of these results is the lenses not the camera. Besides the lenses in camera settings including sharpness, contrast, and saturation will affect the returned images as well. What settings does he usually shoot on and what settings was the Nikon set on? Even the base settings will be different between the two camera manufacturers.
So my impression is that while he may be a good photographer, he offers no information which actually compares the cameras or lenses in any scientific manner. It is an opinion piece and not one that has any real bearing on the actual advantages or differences of the cameras because he doesn't even understand the influence of lenses or in camera settings.
photoman
Explorer
End result on computer true- but they do affect the histogram on the camera and what you see when zooming in for details which the author said he did during the ceremony to check shadows.
taco2go
Explorer
Read the article to see what the hubbub was all about.
...........it's just photography folks. It's not like we're comparing pharmacokinetics.
Doesn't have to be all about numbers at the end of the day. Gut feelings and instincts can count and be meaningful, at least to the picture taker, and I think he said as much.
There are probably MUCH more reliable, objective studies all over the place for our scientific pleasure and satisfaction.
...........it's just photography folks. It's not like we're comparing pharmacokinetics.
Doesn't have to be all about numbers at the end of the day. Gut feelings and instincts can count and be meaningful, at least to the picture taker, and I think he said as much.
There are probably MUCH more reliable, objective studies all over the place for our scientific pleasure and satisfaction.