Anytime someone on here asks a Canon/Nikon which is better question, there will almost always be some sort of rather hostile "Canon/Nikon has better lenses" etc.
One thing I've learned is that all of the major brands are pretty much the same, especially as far as lenses go.
In my testing, I've found that both brands make some absolutely stunning lenses which are better even than their German equivalents, and both brands have made some real dogs. Check out the 100 or 105 Macro lenses from both brands-you'd be hard pressed to find a better lens.
Yes, Canon makes L lenses. All the L designation means is that they have some sort of special lens element(fluorite, UD glass, aspherical) in order to correct some specific aberration.
Nikon has these too, they just don't have a "catch all" designation fo them like Canon does.
Some lenses don't need special glass-the 100mm macro lenses, for example, work great with classical lens designs.
2007-09-13 03:50:31 · 12 answers · asked by Ben H 6 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Photography
Both brands have their areas in which they excel. Canon, for example, has excellent super fast lenses which Nikon doesn't, like the 24mm 1.4, 50mm 1.0 or 1.2, and 85mm 1.2.
Nikon, meanwhile, has the huge compatibility base of nearly 50 years of compatible lenses and camera, plus more "bits and pieces" than you can shake a stick at.
Most people on here who are buying cameras, though, don't give a hoot as to any of these, and even for most photographers they don't make any apreciable difference.
2007-09-13 03:53:38 · update #1
Tabulator32,
Believe it or not, all of the major brands use at least some plastic lens elements these days.
Asperical lens elements, which give modern zooms their exceptional performance, are exceedingly difficult to grind out of glass the way most spherical lens elements are produced. Thus, to reduce cost in "mass market" lenses, it's common to mold the aspherical elements out of optical plastic, or otherwise cement a plastic add on to a spherical glass lens in order to get the aspherical shape.
As far as quality, when I use 35mm film(not much anymore, I prefer medium format), I grab a 20 year old Canon F-1 that's made out of solid brass. I stick on the front of it either a 24mm f2 or 135mm f2 lens, both of which are far better lenses than I am a photographer.
If you really want to see quality construction, check out a German camera. As much as I like my Japanese cameas, they simply don't operate as silky smooth as my German Rolleiflexes.
2007-09-13 04:02:53 · update #2
Peopel always insist that one brand is better than another because some brands ARE better than others.
A Nikon camera is a better camera than the little plastic jobbie you get out of a 50¢ gumball machine as a premium for you gumball.
As far as Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Minolta, etc. goes, each has to strong points and their weak points. As far as one being better than the other, it's mostly a subjective observation.
When i first got started in 35mm, I started with Nikon. There were better cameras, but at the time, Nikon was about the best 35mm available. This was before Canon introduced it's first F-1 and before Olympus introduced the OM-1. Minolta had it's SRT 101 on the market, but I decided to go with Nikon.
As a result I am slightly biased towards Nikon, but I will be the last one to say that Nikon is better than a given competitor, unless I can clearly demonstrate a difference. For some people, Nikon would be a better choice; for others it might be Canon or another brand. I would so recommend.
2007-09-13 05:39:05 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure how's this fanboy-ism get into the camera world. May be it's just how people are. Take a look at that question where someone asked which one between a Nikon D300 and Canon 40D is the better one and see that every answerer got thumbs up and down at the same time. It's just ludicrous especially because both manufacturer made good camera (and lenses).
Of course one of them got an edge at some point, but so does the other and neither one are perfect. But they're still good anyway.
2007-09-13 04:17:23 · answer #2 · answered by dodol 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, in the old days this was closer to true, I can put my finger on a few specs that really point to a better camera when talking about digital. In the days of film, it was all about reliability and lenses. these days, those are still factors but other important distinctions arose: high ISO noise preformance, frame rates, color balance meters, exposure meters, autofocus speeds... sure the overall difference in quality between Nikon and Canon will not make a big differnce in your results, but these days, If I could afford it, I would get a nikon D3, ISO 25,600 and 11fps on a full frame are kind of sexy.
2007-09-13 06:03:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Brand loyalty.
As for myself I'll just keep clicking away with my trusty Minoltas. By the way, Minolta made some really great lenses back in their day. In fact, Minolta designed and manufactured their lenses from start to finish. Leica thought well enough of them to use at least 3 of them - the Minolta ROKKOR-X 16mm full frame fisheye and the 35-70mm f3.5 and 70-210mm f4 constant aperture zooms. Leica sold the zooms as Vario-Elmar zooms.
2007-09-13 05:02:20 · answer #4 · answered by EDWIN 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i'm in Atlanta additionally and that i do no longer propose the Wrangler to you. As a clean driving force, you're carriers to over recommendations-blowing the guidance in an emergency difficulty. through intense experience top and short wheelbase on the Wrangler, you're lots greater possibly to roll over than you would be in a typical sedan or sporty automobile. additionally, examine with your discern's coverage agent to ensure, coverage in this automobile for a sixteen 3 hundred and sixty 5 days previous male is going to be $$$$. finally, the crash risk-free practices in a truck, as antagonistic to a automobile, isn't all that super. you have have been given a lot of time to get the Jeep, interior the intervening time carry on with something that have been given greater predictable dealing with. sturdy good fortune!!
2016-11-10 08:00:40 · answer #5 · answered by durrett 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well that is a good question. I have a canon and its better than all the other cams that I have had, but i cant say about Nikon because i have never used one. I guess its just in the eyes of he beholder.
2007-09-13 04:54:47 · answer #6 · answered by thesunnshynne 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I quite agree. The best camera is the one behind your eyes. Much of the argument about which brand is best is caused (a) by advertising - the camera makers wanting us to believe theirs is the best and, (b) by photo magazine journalists who have nothing better to do than spend their lives churning out copy week in/week out, doing so called 'comparative' tests etc., etc.
2007-09-13 04:15:48 · answer #7 · answered by rdenig_male 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i love both! i have a nikon film and a canon digital. And i love them about the same even though they are so different!
2007-09-13 05:41:05 · answer #8 · answered by Heather 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
People want to feel validated in their tastes. Unfortunately, as you point out, a lot of our tastes and opinions can be based on a prejudice that has no merit.
2007-09-13 03:56:36 · answer #9 · answered by riderpops 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Canon cameras use all glass lenses and have survived thousand-foot tumbles off of cliffs to shoot perfect pictures when picked up.
Its just good to know there are still quality cameras out there.
Do you have a problem with quality?
2007-09-13 03:54:50 · answer #10 · answered by tabulator32 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋