I have noticed that "artistic" photographers are more likely to use Nikon and Mac.
Hmm. When I went digital, the last advice I got was from a professional "artistic" photographer who had used Nikons for decades but had recently switched to Canon because she prefers Canon's controls and was happy as can be with the change. She has since bought at least 2 more Canons. (She is, however, a fanatic about macs.) I hadn't owned a Canon since the old (wonderful) FTb, but I then went and bought one. No regrets.
I think the real answer is that for many of us amateurs--maybe not for people like Matthew, who make their living doing one type of photography--this is a lot of fuss about very little. (BTW, the last two wedding photographers I watched were carrying only Canons...) Both companies make superb cameras. Both make better cameras than the other made a few years ago. Or to put it differently, if you go back a few years and find a Canon or Nikon that gearheads considered a must-have, the other brand probably makes something better now. For a lot of us, this choice pales in importance compared to study and practice.
I agree with paddler, buying one of the brands and shooting with it will get you better photos than spending hours every day at DPReview and not shooting at all.
For me it was when I changed from film to digital. I was shooting with a Pentax MX and was waiting for them to go digital since Pentax has a good practice of staying with the same mount. But they dragged their feet so I went with Nikon for the same reason. I hate it when the manufacurers change mounts in their lines, to me that is ripping off the customer. Also I like Nikons way of being able to change settings without having to go to the menu.
The ones who have played with both Canon and Nikon - have you noticed if one is better than other in a particular aspect of photography - e.g. portrait shots are better with Nikon and landscape shots are better with Canon - or vice versa?
If I were a pro NFL shooter, I'd be shooting with a 1D mk4 hands-down.
If I were an extreme sports shooter however, or any other type of in-your-face action shooter, it'd be a D3s for sure.
The reason for this is, of course, the 1.3x crop and also Nikon's gorgeous 14-24. Simply put, Canon rocks the telephoto sports and Nikon rocks the ultra-wide action. Certainly however, they're BOTH extremely capable systems and anyone worth their salt could get either job done with the other system. A D3s with a 400 2.8 probably rocks just as much (or more) than a 1D mk4 with a 300 2.8...)
If I were a hardcore landscape / nature photographer, the 5D mk2 (or heck, the Sony full-frame cameras) would be a good choice. It'd give me as much resolution and dynamic range as possible by day, and by night I'd photograph stars and night time lapses using the great high ISO performance.
However if I were a general adventure photographer, I'd probably be going for a 7D or a D7000. Personally, I'd go with the D7000 for it's manual focus lens compatibility and built-in intervalometer, among other things that I find handy in being an "adventure" photographer...
As a wedding photojournalist, I can't imagine shooting on anything other than my D700, or of course a D3 / D3s. The Canon 1Ds mk3 and some other Canon bodies would work, but it's more than just autofocus and ISO, there's tons of subtle functions and customizations that I just can't work without. So I stick to Nikon.
If I were to go into portraiture exclusively, I certainly would consider the Canon system because of the larger mount that allows for f/1.2, and generally gorgeous bokeh all around...
Bottom line for me- For me, I feel like Nikon is a better "all-around" option. Nikon puts a lot of effort into making each camera suitable for a wide variety of tasks, while Canon seems to focus on just a single specialty. (And, admittedly doing it quite well.)
If I were a hardcore landscape / nature photographer, the 5D mk2 (or heck, the Sony full-frame cameras) would be a good choice. It'd give me as much resolution and dynamic range as possible by day, and by night I'd photograph stars and night time lapses using the great high ISO performance.
=Matt=
I think I'd be better off with a Phase one system.
I can't even get my head around the fact that there's no second mouse button. HOW DOES THAT EVEN WORK???
The mouse interface is based on the simple concept of moving the "focus" or "attention" of the cursor to the desired location on the desktop/screen/computer-visual-workspace to the desired location for an activity. Clicking a "button" indicates to the computer software that something should happen within the software, generally an action, context related to the software state and the location of the cursor.
A single-mouse-click may indicate one action, while a double-mouse-click may indicate a completely different action. A keyboard click at that screen location might mean another action. Combining a keyboard button with a mouse button may indicate yet another action, and so forth.
Multiple mouse buttons/keys may improve the user interface or it may confuse the user interface, often dependent on prior user experience and user preference. Ultimately any and all methods may be "learned" by most users. (Except someone as old as I am. )
I think I'd be better off with a Phase one system.
Certainly, if you care to lug it around and save up for it. But for less than $4K, I can get a used 5D mk2 and a used 24 TSE mk2, weighing less than 4 LBS total. Personal preference, but I'd really prefer to shoot landscapes on that. I could hike further and do so more comfortably... :-)
Even though I'm a Canon lover and shoot with Canon equipment but for some reason to me Landscape pictures taken with Nikon look better. It could be that I'm looking at shots taken by professional Nikon cameras/lenses (which really can't be the case ALL the time) but the colors seem more vivid than Canon shots.
Even though I'm a Canon lover and shoot with Canon equipment but for some reason to me Landscape pictures taken with Nikon look better. It could be that I'm looking at shots taken by professional Nikon cameras/lenses (which really can't be the case ALL the time) but the colors seem more vivid than Canon shots.
I hope I haven't offended the Canon gods
No offense here. Nikon is certainly a solid brand and can be extremely competent in "every" area and level of photography.
I would like to introduce you to David and Marc Muench, world-class nature, wildlife and landscape photographers. They have collectively published something like 70+ books and innumerable magazine covers and insides. Magazine names like: Time, National Geographic, Traveler, Arizona Highways, Ski, Skiing, Sunset, Outside, Sierra Magazine, etc. have had images from David and Marc.
While I believe that David shot primarily in large-format 4" x 5", he also shot Canon for many years, and I believe that Marc has been predominantly shooting digital Canon cameras. (Indeed he represented Canon in several advertising campaigns.)
I don't think that you can find any more successful landscape photographers than these 2 guys, and there is no doubt that they could have used about any brand successfully, but they shoot Canon.
No offense here. Nikon is certainly a solid brand and can be extremely competent in "every" area and level of photography.
I would like to introduce you to David and Marc Muench, world-class nature, wildlife and landscape photographers. They have collectively published something like 70+ books and innumerable magazine covers and insides. Magazine names like: Time, National Geographic, Traveler, Arizona Highways, Ski, Skiing, Sunset, Outside, Sierra Magazine, etc. have had images from David and Marc.
While I believe that David shot primarily in large-format 4" x 5", he also shot Canon for many years, and I believe that Marc has been predominantly shooting digital Canon cameras. (Indeed he represented Canon in several advertising campaigns.)
I don't think that you can find any more successful landscape photographers than these 2 guys, and there is no doubt that they could have used about any brand successfully, but they shoot Canon.
WOW!!! I'm speechless. These guys are definitely GREAT! and I'm sure even Great is an understatement for them.
Obviously I had never heard of these guys prior to today so now I can see how Good photography can be when shot with Canon.
No offense here. Nikon is certainly a solid brand and can be extremely competent in "every" area and level of photography.
I would like to introduce you to David and Marc Muench, world-class nature, wildlife and landscape photographers. They have collectively published something like 70+ books and innumerable magazine covers and insides. Magazine names like: Time, National Geographic, Traveler, Arizona Highways, Ski, Skiing, Sunset, Outside, Sierra Magazine, etc. have had images from David and Marc.
While I believe that David shot primarily in large-format 4" x 5", he also shot Canon for many years, and I believe that Marc has been predominantly shooting digital Canon cameras. (Indeed he represented Canon in several advertising campaigns.)
I don't think that you can find any more successful landscape photographers than these 2 guys, and there is no doubt that they could have used about any brand successfully, but they shoot Canon.
The Muench's are great, but Galen Rowell is MY hero, and the photographer that I believe my own pursuits and habits resemble the most. (Go-light, versatile, rugged...)
It is an absolute shame that Galen is no longer with us, I'm sure his work would have only soared to new heights with the gear we have today...
The Muench's are great, but Galen Rowell is MY hero, and the photographer that I believe my own pursuits and habits resemble the most. (Go-light, versatile, rugged...)
It is an absolute shame that Galen is no longer with us, I'm sure his work would have only soared to new heights with the gear we have today...
=Matt=
Do you really mean that, that it is a shame his work is so marred by subpar gear??!!
I can't even get my head around the fact that there's no second mouse button. HOW DOES THAT EVEN WORK???
Been a while since you have seen a Mac i am guessing. Second button is now two fingers, or you can simply add a two button mouse, same ones that work with Windows. Second button even works exactly the same (no more excuses)
Do you really mean that, that it is a shame his work is so marred by subpar gear??!!
neil
Galen Rowell was a tremendous innovator and yes, I do believe that equipment changes and improvements since 2002 could have allowed him some advantages. That is not to slight the work that he did, which still sells nicely today.
Do you really mean that, that it is a shame his work is so marred by subpar gear??!!
neil
Neil, it seems I was again vague in my choice of words. Sorry!
In reality, it is in fact Galen's habit of preferring "subpar" gear that I admired. He often mentioned how he disliked the F5 because of it's cumbersome bulk, and preferred the likes of the F100, or even the plastic-fantastic N65. He championed the lesser known, "slow" lenses like the 20mm f/4 AIS because they were sharp as heck and yet oh-so-much lighter than all those heavy, over-sized f/2.8 zooms... And so on and so forth.
My comment regarding what he "could have done" with today's gear doesn't necessarily conflict with that. Today, I imagine Galen might regularly use a D7000 and D700 far, indeed far more often than a D3s or D3X... (If he were to switch to digital at all, of course; Velvia does still have allure!)
Comments
Hmm. When I went digital, the last advice I got was from a professional "artistic" photographer who had used Nikons for decades but had recently switched to Canon because she prefers Canon's controls and was happy as can be with the change. She has since bought at least 2 more Canons. (She is, however, a fanatic about macs.) I hadn't owned a Canon since the old (wonderful) FTb, but I then went and bought one. No regrets.
I think the real answer is that for many of us amateurs--maybe not for people like Matthew, who make their living doing one type of photography--this is a lot of fuss about very little. (BTW, the last two wedding photographers I watched were carrying only Canons...) Both companies make superb cameras. Both make better cameras than the other made a few years ago. Or to put it differently, if you go back a few years and find a Canon or Nikon that gearheads considered a must-have, the other brand probably makes something better now. For a lot of us, this choice pales in importance compared to study and practice.
I agree with paddler, buying one of the brands and shooting with it will get you better photos than spending hours every day at DPReview and not shooting at all.
http://choudhrysaab.smugmug.com
A contender for this, I reckon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-14646532
It's all just gear ... and a shortcut to finding what's already available in the comp.
pp
Flickr
http://joves.smugmug.com/
If I were an extreme sports shooter however, or any other type of in-your-face action shooter, it'd be a D3s for sure.
The reason for this is, of course, the 1.3x crop and also Nikon's gorgeous 14-24. Simply put, Canon rocks the telephoto sports and Nikon rocks the ultra-wide action. Certainly however, they're BOTH extremely capable systems and anyone worth their salt could get either job done with the other system. A D3s with a 400 2.8 probably rocks just as much (or more) than a 1D mk4 with a 300 2.8...)
If I were a hardcore landscape / nature photographer, the 5D mk2 (or heck, the Sony full-frame cameras) would be a good choice. It'd give me as much resolution and dynamic range as possible by day, and by night I'd photograph stars and night time lapses using the great high ISO performance.
However if I were a general adventure photographer, I'd probably be going for a 7D or a D7000. Personally, I'd go with the D7000 for it's manual focus lens compatibility and built-in intervalometer, among other things that I find handy in being an "adventure" photographer...
As a wedding photojournalist, I can't imagine shooting on anything other than my D700, or of course a D3 / D3s. The Canon 1Ds mk3 and some other Canon bodies would work, but it's more than just autofocus and ISO, there's tons of subtle functions and customizations that I just can't work without. So I stick to Nikon.
If I were to go into portraiture exclusively, I certainly would consider the Canon system because of the larger mount that allows for f/1.2, and generally gorgeous bokeh all around...
Bottom line for me- For me, I feel like Nikon is a better "all-around" option. Nikon puts a lot of effort into making each camera suitable for a wide variety of tasks, while Canon seems to focus on just a single specialty. (And, admittedly doing it quite well.)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I think I'd be better off with a Phase one system.
I can't even get my head around the fact that there's no second mouse button. HOW DOES THAT EVEN WORK???
http://choudhrysaab.smugmug.com
The mouse interface is based on the simple concept of moving the "focus" or "attention" of the cursor to the desired location on the desktop/screen/computer-visual-workspace to the desired location for an activity. Clicking a "button" indicates to the computer software that something should happen within the software, generally an action, context related to the software state and the location of the cursor.
A single-mouse-click may indicate one action, while a double-mouse-click may indicate a completely different action. A keyboard click at that screen location might mean another action. Combining a keyboard button with a mouse button may indicate yet another action, and so forth.
Multiple mouse buttons/keys may improve the user interface or it may confuse the user interface, often dependent on prior user experience and user preference. Ultimately any and all methods may be "learned" by most users. (Except someone as old as I am.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
For me the big difference is the feel of the camera. I have big hands. Small, light cameras, with closely spaced controls, feel awkward in my hands.
I'm currently shooting Canon. Have done Nikon and Sigma in the past.
---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=36.790855,-90.481152
Even though I'm a Canon lover and shoot with Canon equipment but for some reason to me Landscape pictures taken with Nikon look better. It could be that I'm looking at shots taken by professional Nikon cameras/lenses (which really can't be the case ALL the time) but the colors seem more vivid than Canon shots.
I hope I haven't offended the Canon gods
http://choudhrysaab.smugmug.com
No offense here. Nikon is certainly a solid brand and can be extremely competent in "every" area and level of photography.
I would like to introduce you to David and Marc Muench, world-class nature, wildlife and landscape photographers. They have collectively published something like 70+ books and innumerable magazine covers and insides. Magazine names like: Time, National Geographic, Traveler, Arizona Highways, Ski, Skiing, Sunset, Outside, Sierra Magazine, etc. have had images from David and Marc.
While I believe that David shot primarily in large-format 4" x 5", he also shot Canon for many years, and I believe that Marc has been predominantly shooting digital Canon cameras. (Indeed he represented Canon in several advertising campaigns.)
I don't think that you can find any more successful landscape photographers than these 2 guys, and there is no doubt that they could have used about any brand successfully, but they shoot Canon.
Website bios:
http://www.muenchphotography.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=35&Itemid=30
Also see this:
http://www.smugmug.com/artist-in-residence/marc-muench/
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
WOW!!! I'm speechless. These guys are definitely GREAT! and I'm sure even Great is an understatement for them.
Obviously I had never heard of these guys prior to today so now I can see how Good photography can be when shot with Canon.
Thank you ziggy!
http://choudhrysaab.smugmug.com
It is an absolute shame that Galen is no longer with us, I'm sure his work would have only soared to new heights with the gear we have today...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Do you really mean that, that it is a shame his work is so marred by subpar gear??!!
neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Been a while since you have seen a Mac i am guessing. Second button is now two fingers, or you can simply add a two button mouse, same ones that work with Windows. Second button even works exactly the same (no more excuses)
Galen Rowell was a tremendous innovator and yes, I do believe that equipment changes and improvements since 2002 could have allowed him some advantages. That is not to slight the work that he did, which still sells nicely today.
Then again, one can only speculate.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
In reality, it is in fact Galen's habit of preferring "subpar" gear that I admired. He often mentioned how he disliked the F5 because of it's cumbersome bulk, and preferred the likes of the F100, or even the plastic-fantastic N65. He championed the lesser known, "slow" lenses like the 20mm f/4 AIS because they were sharp as heck and yet oh-so-much lighter than all those heavy, over-sized f/2.8 zooms... And so on and so forth.
My comment regarding what he "could have done" with today's gear doesn't necessarily conflict with that. Today, I imagine Galen might regularly use a D7000 and D700 far, indeed far more often than a D3s or D3X... (If he were to switch to digital at all, of course; Velvia does still have allure!)
Take care,
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum