Are Canons better?
11-29-2009, 12:01 PM
#11
APC co-founder
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Position: B777
Posts: 5,853
Ah, the Ford vs. Chevy, Boeing vs. Airbus, Coke vs. Pepsi debate for cameras.
As mentioned, the camera records the frame composed by a photographer - period. You can find photos taken with an iPhone camera that evoke more emotion or better document a scene better than those taken with a $40K Phase One. It's the photographer that brings meaning to a photo - not the gear.
As for the IS discussion: IS helps stabilize an image when shooting hand held which could help you get an extra stop or two in low light - works great lasts long time. However, when you put that lens on a tripod, the IS can actually degrade the image (the whole platform is locked down, and the lens has stiff spinning inside). That's why Canon and Nikon both include and On/Off switch on their lens for the IS function (RTFM).
As mentioned, the camera records the frame composed by a photographer - period. You can find photos taken with an iPhone camera that evoke more emotion or better document a scene better than those taken with a $40K Phase One. It's the photographer that brings meaning to a photo - not the gear.
As for the IS discussion: IS helps stabilize an image when shooting hand held which could help you get an extra stop or two in low light - works great lasts long time. However, when you put that lens on a tripod, the IS can actually degrade the image (the whole platform is locked down, and the lens has stiff spinning inside). That's why Canon and Nikon both include and On/Off switch on their lens for the IS function (RTFM).
11-29-2009, 12:29 PM
#12
Moderator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
Akro, how about a camera equipment buying question. Last week (Tis the season, see post #15) I raise the question it may be better to bite the bullet and get a full-frame dSLR than to accept what Canon and Nikon have in APS and DX-sensor bodies. I am tempted to buy a Canon 5D even maybe used, even though I could more easily afford a 50D with the cropped sensor. The full frame camera will need better lenses so obviously I'll be stuck using a 50mm prime for a while most likely. I am asking is it smarter to hold out for the better gear in the beginning, or to start at the low end and work up?
11-29-2009, 12:35 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Posts: 490
I always get amused at the this vs. that debate. It does not matter what brand you shoot. If you are a marginal photographer, all the priciest Leica/Canon/Nikon/etc equipment in the world will not make you better. You will only be a crappy photographer with a very light wallet. It is better to use your cell phone and learn how to SEE your subject and frame a shot, to make it tell a story. All the manufacturers want you to spend a zillion dollars, but you need to realize their camera is only a tool and the more money you spend only adds features that MAY or may NOT make your shooting easier, not better.
Having said that, cheap out on the body, but do not cheap out on the glass. And no, Canon/Nikon makes no difference. Just try one that feels good in your hand and where you can make sense out of all the controls. It makes no sense to fiddle with a million settings, only to miss that once in a lifetime shot. A whole slew of websites have cropped up to cater to the dorks who like to take pictures of brick walls to look for meaningless imperfections and debate endlessly (pointlessly) about the latest features. When you look at some of these dorks' work, it usually sucks because all they do is talk about photography instead of going out and shooting!
Having said that, cheap out on the body, but do not cheap out on the glass. And no, Canon/Nikon makes no difference. Just try one that feels good in your hand and where you can make sense out of all the controls. It makes no sense to fiddle with a million settings, only to miss that once in a lifetime shot. A whole slew of websites have cropped up to cater to the dorks who like to take pictures of brick walls to look for meaningless imperfections and debate endlessly (pointlessly) about the latest features. When you look at some of these dorks' work, it usually sucks because all they do is talk about photography instead of going out and shooting!
Last edited by chignutsak; 11-29-2009 at 01:12 PM.
11-29-2009, 01:43 PM
#14
Gets ALL Days Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: Sit down comedian.
Posts: 958
Akro, how about a camera equipment buying question. Last week (Tis the season, see post #15) I raise the question it may be better to bite the bullet and get a full-frame dSLR than to accept what Canon and Nikon have in APS and DX-sensor bodies. I am tempted to buy a Canon 5D even maybe used, even though I could more easily afford a 50D with the cropped sensor. The full frame camera will need better lenses so obviously I'll be stuck using a 50mm prime for a while most likely. I am asking is it smarter to hold out for the better gear in the beginning, or to start at the low end and work up?
The only real upside to a full frame sensor would be if you are shooting with a wide angle lens or fisheye lens. Then a 5D would be a good start. If you are using a standard prime lens like a 50mm or zoom lens, then 50D might be a better choice. Are you shooting sports? Because the 50D has some speed... I think it captures around 7 or 8 frames per second, while the 5D is pretty slow at 3 frames per second. What kind of lenses do you have or want to get?
11-29-2009, 02:11 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: EMB120 Left
Posts: 629
The best camera is the one that's with you, as HSLD mentioned.
I personally hated how the entry level Canon's felt in my hands, so I went with the cheaper and smaller option and got a D40 which actually fits in my flight bag.
I personally hated how the entry level Canon's felt in my hands, so I went with the cheaper and smaller option and got a D40 which actually fits in my flight bag.
11-29-2009, 02:30 PM
#16
Moderator
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,964
What's an intensive purpose?
I prefer definition 3 myself...
Urban Dictionary: For all intensive purposes
I prefer definition 3 myself...
Urban Dictionary: For all intensive purposes
"This is what an HDR is supposed to look like"
11-29-2009, 02:47 PM
#17
Custom User Title
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,271
11-29-2009, 03:42 PM
#18
Custom User Title
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,271
11-29-2009, 04:14 PM
#19
Moderator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
Full frame sensors have their benefits, but first- why do you want a full frame sensor? Are you using wide angle lenses or fisheyes continuously?
The only real upside to a full frame sensor would be if you are shooting with a wide angle lens or fisheye lens. Then a 5D would be a good start. If you are using a standard prime lens like a 50mm or zoom lens, then 50D might be a better choice. Are you shooting sports? Because the 50D has some speed... I think it captures around 7 or 8 frames per second, while the 5D is pretty slow at 3 frames per second. What kind of lenses do you have or want to get?
The only real upside to a full frame sensor would be if you are shooting with a wide angle lens or fisheye lens. Then a 5D would be a good start. If you are using a standard prime lens like a 50mm or zoom lens, then 50D might be a better choice. Are you shooting sports? Because the 50D has some speed... I think it captures around 7 or 8 frames per second, while the 5D is pretty slow at 3 frames per second. What kind of lenses do you have or want to get?
Air-to-air aviation work is very hard to do, but I believe having a physically small camera helps. A prime lens on a cropped dSLR (Canon 7D or Nikon D300s) seems the thing. Here in Wichita air-to-air is done very seriously in order to sell new airplanes, so I know it is very hard to do well and I am not serious about it.
Wide angle lenses... first, I don't have ANY lenses now so I am starting from scratch. I had a Leica 35mm camera with several lenses once upon a time. Digital 35mm is new to me. I feel a need for several lenses... a couple of primes and a nice walkaround lens would be a start. No intention is using a fisheye lens... I would get a zoom before a fisheye.
If I read you well, you are telling me to not bother with a full- frame dSLR unless I am serious about wide-angle. My concern was more for spending money smartly, and I think full-frame may be overkill in my case. I can't quite get it through my head that sensor size does not have bearing on image quality, the exception being wide angle work due to the sensor geometry.
Last edited by Cubdriver; 11-29-2009 at 04:30 PM.
11-29-2009, 05:51 PM
#20
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: A-320
Posts: 6,929
SAAB, buddy... No, I would say all 3 are beyond carried away. First, too many halos- way too many (like the entire image, one giant halo). Was image 1 taken with a tripod, or was it as windy as a hurricane? Are you using multiple exposures? Or adjusting levels of one photo to create several different images before tone-mapping? The biggest problem is the tree branches are no where near aligned with each other. The second biggest problem is the colors. Hey, Im only picking on you because you said "This is what an HDR is supposed to look like". I would be more than happy to help you correctly create an HDR image(with the camera settings, and with the computer), but you have to tell me what kind of computer software you are using first.
Back to the Canon vs. Nikon argument. Is one really better than another? Well, honestly- yes.
If you take the top professional equipment from both companies, Canon Mark III bodies against Nikon D3 bodies- there really is no comparison that Canon makes better equipment than Nikon. It's not even close. Where Canon really blows Nikon out of the water is with the lenses. Take a Canon's 70-200/2.8 L, or 400/2.8 L, or 16-35/2.8 L and put them up against the same lenses as Nikon's top of the line glass and you would be an idiot to say Nikon makes better gear.
Now, if you are comparing the beginner cheap equipment from Canon to the beginner equipment from Nikon (which is what everyone in this forum uses anyway), unfortunately they are both pretty much the same, and both not very good; especially the beginner lenses.
Anyone that wants to dispute that your Nikon equipment is incredible- I wont argue with you, but you might sound like SAAB saying "This is what HDR is supposed to look like"- Really hilarious, and ignorant. I have used both Canon and Nikon, and worked alongside some of the better sports photographers, wedding photographers, and journalists in the country, and when it comes to consumer DSLR cameras, and with the exception of sports photographers, 85% of them all use Canon, sports photographers- its closer to 95% using Canon... which is the same gear I use.
Do you plan on buying top of the line professional lenses one day? If your answer is yes, I suggest you use Canon bodies. If you are a hobbyist using a Nikon body and 2 or 3 Nikon lenses, it really isn't the end of the world and you can still take good images. However, it is no coincidence that the high majority of pros use Canon. Simple as that.
Back to the Canon vs. Nikon argument. Is one really better than another? Well, honestly- yes.
If you take the top professional equipment from both companies, Canon Mark III bodies against Nikon D3 bodies- there really is no comparison that Canon makes better equipment than Nikon. It's not even close. Where Canon really blows Nikon out of the water is with the lenses. Take a Canon's 70-200/2.8 L, or 400/2.8 L, or 16-35/2.8 L and put them up against the same lenses as Nikon's top of the line glass and you would be an idiot to say Nikon makes better gear.
Now, if you are comparing the beginner cheap equipment from Canon to the beginner equipment from Nikon (which is what everyone in this forum uses anyway), unfortunately they are both pretty much the same, and both not very good; especially the beginner lenses.
Anyone that wants to dispute that your Nikon equipment is incredible- I wont argue with you, but you might sound like SAAB saying "This is what HDR is supposed to look like"- Really hilarious, and ignorant. I have used both Canon and Nikon, and worked alongside some of the better sports photographers, wedding photographers, and journalists in the country, and when it comes to consumer DSLR cameras, and with the exception of sports photographers, 85% of them all use Canon, sports photographers- its closer to 95% using Canon... which is the same gear I use.
Do you plan on buying top of the line professional lenses one day? If your answer is yes, I suggest you use Canon bodies. If you are a hobbyist using a Nikon body and 2 or 3 Nikon lenses, it really isn't the end of the world and you can still take good images. However, it is no coincidence that the high majority of pros use Canon. Simple as that.
Here is a better example
carry on
Last edited by JoeyMeatballs; 11-29-2009 at 06:05 PM.
