Why is it always nikon vs canon?

alaios

Dear all,

I am kind new to this game so I do not know too much of the history in cameras. It looks like (my feeling) that most people having a dslr aps-c and even more at full frame cameras, people are other at nikon or at canons field.


I just wonder why these two systems are so popular and other companies did not compete well with them? What was wrong for example with the latest sony full frame camera and lens options? Do they lack hardware options? Do they have less accessories? Or is it just that people had already lot of lenses that they wanted to use and thus they did not want to migrate.



Last question would be if the sony dslr bodies have this hybrid viewfinder so pretty much is like using a todays mirrorless. Is not that right?

Regards

Alex

cmason

Back in the day, Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Olympus, and Pentax were big names in SLRs. Olympus 'invented' the modern SLR, but the design has been around a very long time. 30+years ago, cameras began to add more and more automation: auto exposure, auto focus, autowinding, etc. Canon and Nikon were leaders in creating these auto SLR cameras, and took the lead in the market. They later became leaders in developing dSLRs.

Minolta shrank, and eventually folded, and were bought out by Sony. Sony had been involved in the consumer and professional/broadcast video areas, but not involved in photography, other than a few point and shoot models. With their purchase of Minolta, they decided to invest in the dSLR space, which is where you know Sony from. They are the new comers. Their compact and mirrorless NEX models are the basis of most all of their cameras today, and they are indeed mirrorless, but use Sony's expertise in sensors, which are APS-C and Full frame. (their sensors are used by Nikon today)

Olympus and Pentax were small, and have stayed small. Olympus tried to innovate a few times, with some interesting results, but eventually lead the charge with the new 4/3 spec, which evolve into 'mirrorless' over time.

So Canon and Nikon where the big vendors and have the broadest systems. Canon's EOS system is very extensive, as it has been around since 1987. Therefore, customers have continued to use and buy EOS lenses and cameras in that system for all the time. A lens purchased for a film EOS camera in 1987 works fine on a modern EOS dSLR.

Nikon can claim an even longer system life with their 'F' system, but it is more convoluted than Canon EOS.

The smaller vendors do not have as long a history of compatible lenses and bodies, though they have been around a long time. Minolta lenses still work on many Sony cameras, though they have abandoned that history with their new 'E' bodies.

divamum

Toyota vs Honda. They aren't the ONLY cars, but they are often the most popular/well-known (at least in the US. In Europe it might just as easily be Peugeot vs VW, but you take my point)

Matthew Saville

Pshh, forget Sony, Pentax is where it's at for me right now! As an adventure / landscape photographer, The K-3 mk2 is making a huge splash.

There are many things that "underdog" companies will always do that the bigger players never will. Pentax is definitely making some of the best cameras out there, but they're simply not in the spotlight because market share has much less to do with actual superiority than you think.

In fact the causes and implications of "market share" are like global warming- you can argue all day long about who is right or wrong, but the bottom line is that it's a slow-moving beast, one we may or may not be able to control.

wtlwdwgn

Canon and Nikon are the Honda and Toyota of the camera world. That said the motoring journalists often cite them as not handling as well as cars from smaller manufacturers. The only way to judge what DSLR is good for you is to hold it in your hands and shoot with it. For me a Pentax K-3 handles best. The new K-3 II has a new pixel shifting ability to increase resolution. They are priced right too compared to their competitors. Just my $0.02.

cmason

One thing to be said for going with Canon or Nikon: accessories and lenses. If you have a Canon or Nikon camera, just about any Nikon or Canon, you will find nearly every accessory: bags, straps, cables, thingamajig, doohicky, thingamabob, will be made for your camera. If you have another brand, you will often find that it isn't offered for your brand or your particular model.

Lenses are similar. However, Canon and Nikon themselves make a huge range or lenses at multiple price points. But then also, you will find 3rd parties like Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss, etc making lenses for Canon and Nikon. For other brands, its usually the smaller set of manufacturer lenses, and perhaps a 3rd vendor like a Sigma. Often you won't find any third party lenses.

Its just the vendors going after available market, not making a judgement on whether a camera is good or bad.

Matthew Saville

cmason wrote: »

One thing to be said for going with Canon or Nikon: accessories and lenses. If you have a Canon or Nikon camera, just about any Nikon or Canon, you will find nearly every accessory: bags, straps, cables, thingamajig, doohicky, thingamabob, will be made for your camera. If you have another brand, you will often find that it isn't offered for your brand or your particular model.

Lenses are similar. However, Canon and Nikon themselves make a huge range or lenses at multiple price points. But then also, you will find 3rd parties like Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss, etc making lenses for Canon and Nikon. For other brands, its usually the smaller set of manufacturer lenses, and perhaps a 3rd vendor like a Sigma. Often you won't find any third party lenses.

Its just the vendors going after available market, not making a judgement on whether a camera is good or bad.

"Accessories" is usually just another term for aftermarket stuff they should have included for free in the first place, IMO. That's one reason why I've always liked Nikon over Canon- For a very long time, Nikon was the only one to offer a built-in wireless flash commander via the pop-up flash, as well as a built-in intervalometer; two things that canon took forever to add.

Lenses are a bit more important of course, but they can still be a drawback due to the "paying for a name" factor. In fact for what I do, I've almost completely given up on Nikon / Canon for lenses, between Rokinon, Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron offerings. Just about the only thing going for Nikon right now is their f/1.8 G lineup, and just about the only thing going for Canon right now is, well they have a few things but I'm running out of steam so I'll stop rambling now. You get the idea.

TLDR, sometimes being "one of the big guys" isn't a good thing. The underdog almost always works a lot harder to be relevant.

paddler4

Toyota and Honda are a very poor analogy. According to one source, statista.com, Toyota (#1) had 12.3% of the worldwide market in 2013, and Honda (#9) had 4.4%. In between were GM, Volkswagen, Hyundai-Kia, Renault-Nissan, ford, SAIC, and Fiat-Chrysler. (One goal of Ferdinand Piech, who just stepped down as head of the Volkswagen supervisory board, was to replace Toyota as the #1 manufacturer in the world, and he almost made it.) In the US, Toyota was #3 with 14.4%, beaten by both GM and Ford, and Honda was #5 with 9.3%. I couldn't find worldwide or US DSLR sales figures, but in Japan, Canon (#1) had 49.2% in 2014, and Nikon had 42.5%. I'm guessing that the US and worldwide figures are not quite as extreme, but clearly, the two companies vastly outsell the competition.

Given their huge sales and long history, the two companies offer a lot of options, and aftermarket vendors virtually always make their products available for both. However, for many people, this won't much matter, and the other manufacturers' offerings may be a better choice. (Full disclosure: I have had Canons since 1972, although with one break for a Richoh.)

alaios

Allow me to tickle you a bit.
What is wrong with the alpha 99 sony camera? Their full frame camera. What make you say "I am not buying that sony camera but again my loved Nikon/Canon".
I am looking on the a mount lenses for example and I see many lenses that are affordable. Why people did not move there?
Regards
Alex

ziggy53

alaios wrote: »

... What is wrong with the alpha 99 sony camera? Their full frame camera. ...

Nothing at all "wrong" with a sony a99 body, but a few things to consider.

Compared to a conventional dSLR, the Sony a99 is a translucent mirror body. This means that some of the light from the lens to the sensor is diverted for the purpose of the viewfinder. The mirror is "always" in the image path. This has several basic image and design consequences:

1) The sensor is rendered with less sensitivity since some of the lens' image is diverted away from the purpose of image capture.

2) The viewfinder is darker than a conventional dSLR since only part of the image is sent to the viewfinder. In low light this can be problematic.

3) The image quality is very slightly compromised, since it always passes through the translucent mirror before image capture at the image sensor. (Sony is using some very clever image processing to minimize the image degradation.)

4) The pellicle mirror is very fragile, and can be rather easily damaged, compared to other camera mirror designs.

There are, of course, user and system advantages to using a pellicle mirror design, but none which improve image quality.

alaios wrote: »

... I am looking on the a mount lenses for example and I see many lenses that are affordable. Why people did not move there? ...

Affordable is not the same as cheap and low-quality, although many folks think, "How bad can this cheap lens be?"

There exist a number of manual focus/aperture lenses and autofocus lenses which provide true value and affordability. Whether those lenses meet your budget and needs depend on your needs, budget and the specific lenses in question.

There also exist, for almost every current digital camera manufacturer bodies, a number of cheaply made and cheap to purchase lenses, which I cannot recommend under most circumstances.

As usual, it would have been nice for you to mention your needs, expectations and budget. Since you choose not to share that information, it is impossible to make recommendations or even suggestions.

Good luck with your quest, what ever that is.

alaios

Hi thanks for the feedback.
I do not think that the viewfinder of the a99 is darker since is all way electronic.

Now regarding my needs.
I need a camera/system with very good flash support with that I mean (few examples that come into mind)


-variety of accessories, like normal ttl cables at a reasonable cost. In my alpha camera the simpler ttl cable costs 100 euros. It need two adapters and a very specific cable for that

-ability to control from the camera body your external flashes "Hey you flash number 1 go TTL, Hey you flash 2 please half power down, Hey you flash number 2 please turn off for now". That could save me a lot time and make me more responsive on changes

-big selection of flashes that support ttl and hss

-wireless ttl transmitters (yes I want to walk in a city holding my ttl flash at hands or at a bracket) that they do not cost a fortune


That is the first part of my needs

the second part is I need a camera (I care not about wifi, gps, ultra violet ray coffee machine.
Then I need something like: Iso 3200 usable even though I rarely shoot that high. I care not about high fps too. I typically do back button focus and shoot few shots with shutter button. Movable focus point to go to the eye). Good grip. Many many buttons so no menu diving when I do "work" (okay only on rare occasions) . An external battery grip is considered good to have though
This is the reason there are times I think that a nikon d700 is exactly what I need in terms of camera functionalities (second part). That also makes candidate the equivalent canon full frame camera (in terms of price/performance) which I do not know what is the model name... . I am not sure though how these cameras do with flash I described above (first part)

I am not 100% sure about the full frame camera format , although I only shoot portraits and thus the extra shallow of depth is good to have. In that case I am also okayish with an aps-c although I see that for the dof, I typically need, I would need to spend more for faster lenses anyway

The third and final part. I just need two lenses to get started. 70-200mm at price below 1k (around 600-700 would be much appreciated). I can trade off the VR if needed, since I like to shoot at sync speed (1/250 ?). One more prime lens at around 400 euros should be also nice to have. I think something in the region of the 85-135.. Perhaps a 85mm 1.8 lens is not that expensive on nikon. I do not know what canon needs. In reality I am not a big fan of the fastest lenses and I can work with 1.8 or 2.8 maximum apertures, especially in case they are "usable" wide open.

Well that is in .. brief!
Regards
Alex

ziggy53

alaios wrote: »

Hi thanks for the feedback.
I do not think that the viewfinder of the a99 is darker since is all way electronic. ...

You are correct. I am very wrong. The Sony a99 viewfinder is indeed an electronic display, and compensates for lighting to produce a visible image preview regardless of ambient light.

divamum

ETA: A LOT of people are jumping to the Sony flagship cameras at the moment - their sensors are supposed to be out of this world. They may well become the "third" brand in portraits from what I'm hearing/reading at the moment...........

Why iso 3200? What are you shooting that needs that kind of ISO? Most cameras, even 5year old models, are happy up to 1600-2000 if you expose properly.

If you want all that flash gear, stick with Canon or Nikon. Sony is catching up to the others, but there just aren't as many goodies availale as far as I know. I'll let Nikon folks identify the models there, but in the Canon camp:

used 7d Mk I: still a great camera (I have mine as my backup and use it regularly). I regularly use it at ISO 2000 in theater situations and it's fine with a little noise reduction in LR
70d: from what I've seen, the best XXd camera for quite a few years
6d: budget full-frame

I own a 5dII and while I am happy enough with it to keep using it, I can't say I'd recommend it over a 6d or 5dIII unless budget is REALLY tight.

Add:

24-105 f4 (walkaround lens)
70-200 f4 (with or without IS - the one without can be picked up for $500 used. For bokeh/blur, shoot at the long end, where f4 is just about right).
50mm 1.8 or 1.4 OR OR 85mm 1.8 OR 135L f2. The last one - the 135 - is without question the best lens of the bunch, but it will depend on what your needs are. For concert shooting, it's as good as it gets.
3rd party triggers + flashes if you want to keep it cheap OR the 600rt system (built-in radio triggers). The latter are extremely pricey, but people who have them LOVE them.

alaios

great answer thanks.. .You know divamum I think I have to see if I should go canon or nikon... For some reasons this nikon d700 looked always like a dream machine for me...

What would be the relevant choices in the nikon world?

I guess that both nikon and canon full frame can control flash remotely and adjust power settings
Regards
Alex

chadd

I think it's just because of their big loud names.
If you ask an average person on the street to say the first camera brand that come into their minds they would definitely name Nikon or Canon, not Fujifilm or Olympus.
These brands have a really successful promotion.

Brett1000

divamum wrote: »

used 7d Mk I: still a great camera (I have mine as my backup and use it regularly). I regularly use it at ISO 2000 in theater situations and it's fine with a little noise reduction in LR
70d: from what I've seen, the best XXd camera for quite a few years
6d: budget full-frame

I own a 5dII and while I am happy enough with it to keep using it, I can't say I'd recommend it over a 6d or 5dIII unless budget is REALLY tight.

Add:

24-105 f4 (walkaround lens)
70-200 f4 (with or without IS - the one without can be picked up for $500 used. For bokeh/blur, shoot at the long end, where f4 is just about right).
50mm 1.8 or 1.4 OR OR 85mm 1.8 OR 135L f2. The last one - the 135 - is without question the best lens of the bunch, but it will depend on what your needs are. For concert shooting, it's as good as it gets.
3rd party triggers + flashes if you want to keep it cheap OR the 600rt system (built-in radio triggers). The latter are extremely pricey, but people who have them LOVE them.

the refurbished 6D was around $1,200 - better deal than a used 5D2