Why Canon?

[Clark White]

This is a question men't for the more serious on here. My friend and I were talking about possible upgrades, and while we both love our Nikon's we have noticed that almost every photographer we follow and love shoots Canon. I haven't noticed a huge difference in image quality between Nikon and Canon photo's, I'm just really curious as to why the prevalence of Canon amongst professionals? I'm a long ways off from any upgrade, but my friend is looking to go to full frame in the next few months and we are really torn on sticking with Nikon or switching to find out what we are possibly missing out on? I don't want this to be a Ford v. Chevy conversation, just looking for the reasons people have already gone one way or another.

Thanks for any input!

Clark

 

[cruisertoy]

We just bought a whole new camera system here at work. They really like the D800 but when they started comparing the prices on Lenses, apples to apples Canon was cheaper. They ended up going Canon which doesn't help me borrow lenses since I'm running Nikon.

 

[ywen]

Nikon was behind the digital camera curve up until they released the D3.

Also for a long time, Nikon lacked an abundance of fast prime lenses, which Canon had plenty of. I'm not sure how the lens line-up stand today.

In today's world, for someone starting out deciding between the two, I think if one is to primarily shoot stills Nikon is the better option.. Canon is good if one is to shoot both stills and do video with the same gear.

 

[Lost Canadian]

You don't have to feel bad about choosing Nikon, Grand Master Flash Joe McNally who pretty much wrote the book on flash doesn't. Jimmy Chin, probably the most well respected adventure photographer alive today doesn't. Living legend Frans Lanting and one of my favorite photographers certainly doesn't. Nat. Geo's 2012 Photographers photographer and legend Carsten Peter doesn't. I could rhyme off the names of legendary photographers ad nauseum who shoot Nikon, but that might get old quick.

Reality is both camps have their share of amazing photographers. Heck, some even use both. Marc Adamus has been shooting his Canon 1Ds III with a Nikon 14-24mm hanging off the front of it for a few years now.:elkgrin:

 

[DiploStrat]

My neighbor, who is no slouch in this business ( http://www.brucedale.com/ ) used to shoot Nikon. Now, retired, he shoots a lot of Lumix.

When I went digital, I started Sony and went Nikon when I went back to SLR because the ergonomics seemed better than Canon. At the time, Canon was all you saw. Now, I see more Nikons. (I hate being trendy!)

Bottom line, almost any good camera is better than you are, so pick the line that has the lenses you want. Especially now, when you invest in glass and expense bodies.

 

[Photomike]

As far as image quality both Nikon and Canon are very close - if not the same.

In years past it was the speed of the Canon autofocus system that was the big difference for sports, wildlife and news shooters and I know a lot of pros that switched for this benefit and have not gone back to Nikon.

Today I think that one of the big differences is that Canon is being marketed a lot more, and targeting the beginner. In my classes if I have 10 students with Canon & Nikon - 9 will have Canon and 1 with a Nikon, Canon always outnumber Nikon - never close or more Nikon in 25 years. As one student put it (a Canon shooter) she found Canon more available. You get someone starting in a system it is harder to get them to switch once they get a number of accessories.

For me I like both, went with Canon many years ago as I like the layout of the buttons, the menus as well as the lens selection. Would I ever change, probably not, I have too many accessories and love the set up that I have.

P.S. While typing this I had three camera commercials come on TV. Two for the Nikon 1 and one for Canon pro lenses.

 

[Clark White]

Thanks for the replies! I figured it was something like what most of you were saying, but not knowing that Nikon had been lagging in the past I was having a hard time explaining away the discrepancy in numbers. I'm pretty sure I'm sticking with Nikon for the afore mentioned number of accesseries, and my friend has now chosen to stick with Nikon partly for that, but mostly because a Nikon survived a Grizzly..http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1114874

Thanks again all!

Clark

 

[dnovotny]

It's also a lot easier to shoot what your friends have, so when you need to borrow a lens, or forgot your remote cable, etc. there is a better chance of someone having what you need.
I shoot canon because I bought a canon 10+ years ago as I was jumping on a plane headed overseas. Now all my friends shoot Nikon, but, I won't change because I know the canon menus, and have too many accessories/spare bodies/lenses.

 

[Clark White]

That is what drove me to Nikon to begin with. The only photographer I knew was my uncle, who has always shot Nikon, so I could borrow stuff or ask for help. Still mostly that way, he has a lot more gear then I do after 40+ years of Nikon toys!

Clark

 

[Leo504]

When I bought my first serious rig a few years ago, I looked around between Canon and Nikon. There's really not much diference between the two. I finally decided on Canon because the 7D was a better fit than the Nikon at the same price point (don't remember what that was). I also preferred the Canon layout over the Nikon.

I know I made the right decision then, but the new Nikon 800D has me tempted to make the switch. It's great for landscape photography, but unfortunately it's been out performed on low light situations by the Canon 5d mk3. Low light is where the majority of my focus will be in the next few years, so I'm sticking with Canon. My investment in L glass lenses is another consideration. It's hard to make the jump when you've got a ton of money invested in one system.

On the lighter side, I've always thought that the majority of photographers I follow shoot Nikon. Really the split's about equal.

 

[Lost Canadian]

I know I made the right decision then, but the new Nikon 800D has me tempted to make the switch. It's great for landscape photography, but unfortunately it's been out performed on low light situations by the Canon 5d mk3. Low light is where the majority of my focus will be in the next few years, so I'm sticking with Canon.

On the lighter side, I've always thought that the majority of photographers I follow shoot Nikon. Really the split's about equal.

Lowlight, Canon video yes, stills no.

My investment in L glass lenses is another consideration. It's hard to make the jump when you've got a ton of money invested in one system.

Smart man, both are amazing cameras, but glass is where it's at. If you're invested there's not a lot of reason to switch systems unless you're a demanding pro looking to match certain needs and demands.

 

[Every Miles A Memory]

It was super simple for me. I was 18 years old, needed to get my first SLR so i could stop borrowing my parents and Canon was less expensive than Nikon, and the MAIN reason back then was the weight. Back when they were SLR's, Canon's were a lot lighter weight than the Nikon's were. I used to work at a Ritz Camera just so I could get the discount on Film and Processing back when it was 35mm, and while trying to sell the two side by side, most customers would say "The Canon just feels cheap because of how light it is." The Nikon's were all metal and really heavy

Cindy and I were huge in MTN. Biking, Hiking and Climbing and I wanted the least amount of weight hanging from my neck as possible.

Fast Forward 20 years and we now have amassed a huge collection of Canon specific gear. We don't get paid by any company so don't think I'm making this statement due to image quality, but if I was just starting out, I'd choose Canon simply due to lens cost. I agree with everyone else who says the image quality and pixel peeping between brands is silly these days. It is what it is and any one of the professionals named in this thread could produce cover material with either brands.

One thing I have noticed since we've been running guided photographer tours is the Nikon's are super hard to navigate through when it comes to their menu's. With a Canon body, I can usually change most of the setting's I'd change throughout the day without having to go deep into any of the menus. With the Nikon's, I usually have to search for it and cant do it from the back of the camera with just a quick button like the Canon's have.

Here is probably the main reason

Canon 24-70 f/2.8 - $1599
Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 - $1886.95
Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II - Their latest Version - $2299 - Crazy that they come out with a new version that is this much more!!!

Canon 70-200 f/2.8 - $1449
Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 - $2396.95
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II - Their Latest Version - $2299 Again, crazy for their lenses to come up in price this much, but again reminds why every photographer will say "Invest in lenses and not bodies"

 

[Lost Canadian]

Here is probably the main reason

Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 - $1886.95
Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II - Their latest Version - $2299 - Crazy that they come out with a new version that is this much more!!!

Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 - $2396.95
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II - Their Latest Version - $2299 Again, crazy for their lenses to come up in price this much, but again reminds why every photographer will say "Invest in lenses and not bodies"

Apple to apples, prices are about the same with small variables here and there. For instance the Nikon 70-200 that goes for $2396.95 is version II, and the 24-70 is also the latest from Nikon. So is there any real savings? My bet, no. As for menus, I'm comfortable with both having used both with some frequency and don't really find one better than the other,...just slightly different. I'm a bit quicker around a Nikon but that's only because I use it more. I find both fairly easy to navigate though once you understand some of the different terminology they may use.

 

[Honu]

Nikon was behind the digital camera curve up until they released the D3.

Also for a long time, Nikon lacked an abundance of fast prime lenses, which Canon had plenty of. I'm not sure how the lens line-up stand today.

In today's world, for someone starting out deciding between the two, I think if one is to primarily shoot stills Nikon is the better option.. Canon is good if one is to shoot both stills and do video with the same gear.

THIS above is the best response !

many had the investment in some areas many did switch to nikon a few years back and are happy
many switched cause they were tired of all the lens back focus issues canon has and still has issues with finding a good copy of a lens !!!!
many hate canon flash love nikon flash

I am thinking about going to Nikon !
my history though has been in the 70s rangefinders then in the 80s canon in the 90s nikon in the 2000 canon with the 1D and now in the 10s ready to go back to Nikon
part of it just a switch up also I dont need fast primes these days for my work and the 800E will work with what I want to do these days and instead of renting backs the 800e can give a back a run for its money and really the client wont get any less a file for many thats what counts !

many dont want the 800 to many MP why when its not needed doing weddings as example many pros dont want that extra storage and cards and more CPU to push the files around !

really both camera systems are great
I have a few good friends that shoot nikon and canon and both are insane good

its like a person asking what pans to get its the chef not the pans

 

[Honu]

one thing I actually love shooting the newer M4/3 stuff !!! its very cool and my main camera will become a OM-D when I can find one
I imagine my work camera will be what I have canon still but will fill in with the OM-D just cause it will make it fun again !

unless you are making money give M4/3 stuff a serious look depending on your needs ! not saying its better but its small light easy to carry around and the files can be incredible out of them !!!!

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/olympus_om_d_e_m5_review.shtml