Canon or Nikon?

[Daz Savage]

To be fair it's really a matter of familiarity.
Nikon/Canon - there's no difference at all really.
Technology has moved on so far now that any slight discrepancies between any two cameras within similar a price range will be so slight that nobody will really be able to discern it with the naked-eye. (Naked breasts either!)

In this biz you have composition, lighting and choice of model and I think that's about it.
I know people making great money using mid-range hybrid cameras that bear neither Canon or Nikon badges.

As I've always said - nobody is judging our work on it's artistic merits (not the customers anyway)... the punters vote with their pants round their ankles and they're after clear photos of the goods...[img]http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/ ... Elixir.gif[/img]

...all else is vanity.

Having said that... I'm a Canon man.
[img]http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/ ... ssi001.gif[/img]

[WigBilly]

Canon's colours have always had the edge over Nikon for me, although I have'nt compared their latest SLRs...went for a Nikon D50 last time purely cos I have big hands and the Canon equivalent felt too small...

[one eyed jack]

If anyone can. Canon can!happy!

[Peter]

Not much difference really, It's just that canon tend to be used by girls and gays.



Seriously, try and work backwards, you should always base the decision to buy a camera on the glass you need. Check out which lenses you need, then buy the body to fit those. Both will probably have the right lenses to cover virtually 100% of the average photographers needs, so then see if there's any other accessory you need that is provided by one and not the other.

If all things are equal, then just buy what you like the look of.

[TheDMan]

Nikon D3 and a Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 is all you'll ever need.

[Daz Savage]

Basically yes... of course you would go for the Nikon but that's because the Canon you have put it against is an inferior model in my opinion...
...not to mention the fact that it comes with a piss-poor lens.

For this money you would be well advised to look somewhere like here:

And search for a pre-owned, higher-spec camera that will serve you very well and that you can grow into.
When I got my first 35mm camera 22 years ago I went for the EOS500 (I think it was). Anyway it was the one that did NOT have a fully manual option. You had Program-Mode, Aperture Priority and Shutter Priority but that was it. (Okay I was a fool... but then I was an 18 year-old who had spent his entire life till that point taking piccies with a Kodak pocket thingy! I went for something that looked the part... but I soon found that it wasn't because although it allowed me to be more creative and push myself a bit further - I was bolloxed when I tried to take it into a studio... you need Manual settings for that baby!
Sold it after 4 weeks and upgraded immediately. (both cameras cost me about ?400 to ?500 I think - and that was 1980!)

So do think about the future and what you may need from your kit at a later date.

[Daz Savage]

Excellent point Peter... but not about the girls and gays bit of course!..


...I hope!

[Daz Savage]

Had a discussion recently with a mate who does weddings etc.
He says Nikon is better and then produces one of the most expensive 35mm digital camera bodies you can buy... with some excellent technology screwed to the front as well.
He states that at the top end of the temperature scale (ISO) this camera out-performs Canon, giving excellent colour and contrast reproduction without over-graining the lower-end.
So when he enlarges the pictures of the Bride & Groom to the size of a billboard the image still looks 'sharp, clear and picture-perfect!'

"But..." I replied, "I don't care because I don't DO any of that."

To be fair though, Nikon's do sound better by far... seriously, put two cameras together, set them on high-speed and listen to those curtains whizz-by baby!
Nikon defo has the edge there.
[img]http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/ ... hitect.gif[/img]

[kiNky erOtica]

Always used Nikon