Kasserine06

I recently met a professional photographer (or at least claimed to be) at a store looking to buy a DSLR as a gift for someone. We got talking and he sort of laughed at me for using a Nikon D80. According to him, professionals only use Canon. I asked him why and he said the pictures always come out better because the lenses and sensors are better. He also said that Canons require less post processing and print more accurately. I didn’t understand what he meant about post production because I always thought post production is something you do as much or as little as you want. The printing thing I did not understand at all. I thought that has to do with how accurately you monitor represents the image and how accurately your printer prints.

I use Nikon because I already had some lenses to start with and they are so much more user friendly. I got lost in Canon’s menus looking for ISO, flash settings, and other settings that get changed frequently. The LCD on Nikons also seem to be more accurate than the Rebels which seem to have a strange tint.

My understanding with Canons popularity is that Canon had the fastest autofocus when Nikon and Canon both came out with them so all sports photographers went to Canon and Nikon has never given them a reason to switch over to Nikon. That explains sports photographers, but there are plenty more professionals out there. To me it seems Canon and Nikon both make comparable cameras and have equal market shares.

Can anyone tell me if Canons really are the standard? And is it that my amateur eye can’t tell the difference, or do Canons really take better images?

JoeyMeatballs

He's an idiot............................not a "professional photographer". You should have told him, if you buy a Canon camera, you simply become a Canon owner vice versa. The Camera just records what YOU frame.

He is probably the same guy that buys a new body when it comes out......... The D80 is more than capable, I am looking into the D300 but am probably going to end up getting the D90..........

You should have told him you were Leica only, and Canon's are for poor people

Post processing is a large part of producing a good image. There are thousands of different things you could do, HDR is one of them. It get's a bit out of control with people making the pictures look like cartoons, but it is still a form of Post processing, some other examples are reducing noise, working with curves etc........


The first picture is what an HDR is supposed to look like, however people (like I did in the last 2) tend to get carried away

Here are a few HDR images I made

Cubdriver

I have nice images hanging on my walls taken by Point 'n Shoots as well as fine-art Hasselblads, and I love them both. If the format of the final image is small it is hard to the difference. Lately I have been making aerial images at high magnification which challenge the abilities of my inexpensive point and shoot. Specifically, I am getting distortions and wash-out that only a better camera can help with, and I have to throw away shots that would have worked with a better system. So I am looking at dSLRs, but is it to do something that I cannot do rather than make a minor improvement in something I can do. If weren't for that I wouldn't bother. You have to keep your artistic purpose in mind or risk getting too wrapped up in cameras.

AZFlyer

Agreed. The guy you spoke to is definitely an idiot and by the sounds of it he has an IV with the Canon cool-aid hooked up to his veins.

Both companies make great cameras and for all intensive purposes, anyone would be fine with either brand.

Unfortunately, the world of photography is populated by many snobs and ignorant people who spout garbage like that.

.....but Nikon is still better.

And Joey....my vote is for the D90.

Slice

What's an intensive purpose?

I prefer definition 3 myself...

Urban Dictionary: For all intensive purposes

Kasserine06

I forgot to mention, the reason we got talking was because he asked the sales person if he could get the Canon without the image stabilizing lens. I thought it was strange to spend over $1100 on a camera and then try to save $50 on the lens. I asked him why he didn't want the IS and he said that professionals don't use it. I really could not understand that. Why wouldn't professionals want lenses that would reduce your chance of image blur? He couldn't really explain why and blamed it on his lack of English (He was French).

Does image stabilization or vibration reduction reduce image quality? I can't see how using servos to keep the image still on the sensor can be bad.

AZFlyer

Son of a .....

UnlimitedAkro

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.

AZFlyer

IS (or VR as Nikon calls it) is great for hand held stuff, but it can actually be a hindrance when shooting longer exposures (usually 10+ seconds) while mounted on a tripod. When on a tripod it is best to have IS/VR turned off. IS/VR is designed to detect motion, but unfortunately, it doesn't do a good job of detecting when there isn't motion, and the result is a blurred image because of the lens wanting to correct for a non-existant motion. Nikon's new VRII supposedly corrects this. It is possible that this guy was referring to this as his reason for not wanting the IS lens.

Regardless, the guy is still an idiot. He'll miss having that IS when he is shooting hand-held in lower light on a long zoom. Don't worry, Kasserine, you'll have the last laugh.

UnlimitedAkro

Actually IS can hurt more than it helps. I have IS built into several of my lenses, but I only use it maybe 5% of the time of shooting, almost never. Image Stabilization is really only needed in zoom lenses in really low light. You have to figure out how often you find yourself in that kind of a situation. Most professional sports photographers, wedding photographers, and journalists have camera bodies that are such a high quality that it is better for them to bump up their ISO slightly to keep from getting blurry images. Most professional camera bodies produce nearly zero noise in an image at ISO's above 800, while a beginner camera can produce more noticeable noise at ISO's as low as 200.

Also, there are other things that professional photographers do to get a faster shutter speed than just using a "crutch" of image stabilization. The correct breathing and holding of the camera when the shutter button is pressed can allow a good photographer to get a better image than turning on IS.

What most amateur photographers do not understand the concept of light and shutter speed with Image Stabilization. If you have plenty of light, there is no need to have your IS turned on. People constantly shoot at shutter speeds of 1/500 or higher with their IS turned on. Why? Unless you are using a 1000mm or greater zoom lens, there is no need to have IS with that high of a shutter speed!

As for a tripod mounted camera, if you are on a tripod there is zero need to have IS turned on. ZERO, and no exceptions. If you are taking long exposures, the IS gyros will make your image blurrier than you would get with the IS turned off. Unfortunately, more people blur their images on long exposures by pressing the shutter button- its probably the number one mistake on long exposures. Use a cable remote or use your camera's timer. There is no need to touch the camera on a long exposure.