Originally posted by Nick C
View Post
Originally posted by Nick C
View Post
N_Architect on the phone; April 2004.
Originally posted by phaleesy
View Post
Interesting discussion. As always, Canon vs. Nikon is a hot debate.
I started off back in 1992 with a film SLR, Nikon F801. Very nice camera indeed. It was paired at the time with a Sigma 35-135 lens (my parents had bought it for me in S’pore).
In 2002 I bought another Canon film body, the EOS 50E (or Elan IIE as it is called in the U.S.) with a grip. It was very good indeed, typical ‘serious’ amateur gear (like getting a digital Canon 50D today). It was paired with the 28-135 IS and the 20/2.8 lens.
Then in 2005 I decided to make the switch to Olympus, who at the time had shaken up things in the market with their E-1 ‘pro’ digital SLR. It was built like a tank and the ergonomics were truly much better than Canon’s (at least the Canon bodies I had tried till that time). The Oly gear, being the new 4/3 format, is a system built right from the start from digital, and this has considerable advantages. It has a small sensor though (half the size of a modern 35mm dSLR sensor and this created the problem of excessive noise (grain) at high ISOs (anything above ISO 400 is not really usable unless you use Photoshop or whatever else and eliminate it, trading in dynamic range from the excessive noise reduction filtering application). The Oly 4/3 gear is also very light and compact, compared to traditional 35mm dSLR gear.
All my attitude towards gear (which by the way has nothing to do with real photography – attitudes with gear do not really exhibit one’s true interest for taking pictures; it is the photographer that counts, not the gear) was about to change, though. In 2005 I visited an annual photography show and made the mistake (read on and you’ll see why) of putting my hands on a Canon 1D. It was the Mark II N, which at the time was Canon’s flagship with the APS-H sensor (x1.3 crop factor), following the full frame 1Ds which was even more expensive.
I am flying to FRA today and tomorrow morning to JFK, and initially this trip was in order to buy photo gear in NY. Don’t know what I’ll end up buying, though, as I heard that Aug 19th there is a Canon press conference and they may announce the 1D Mark IV. So at the moment, with all the 5D IIs and TS-E 17mm out of stock from B&H and Adorama in NYC, I’m holding on (just in case I can manage to avoid myself throwing out $6.5k to get the 1Ds or $3.5k for the 1D Mk III). Anyway, to come back to what I was getting on to say, I was reading the forums and reviews couple of days ago on these two current 1D models, and I remember a guy saying “once you have owned a 1D body you never go back.” True indeed.
As soon as I had touched and felt that 1D Mark II N body four years ago, I set myself of buying such a body sooner or later. The lens range Canon had suited my style of photography as well better. Believe me, the 1D makes such a difference in one’s hands. Of course it comes with a hefty price, but as others have already mentioned you don’t necessarily have to get the top of the line 1Ds. These bodies are literally built like tanks, and the shutter is guaranteed to take 200,000 actuations (or 300k in the latest one? I don’t remember…) Of course their main target group is professional photographers.
As someone else has pointed out already, Canon vs. Nikon is not much of a difference, quality-wise. For phaleesy, let me point out some pros and cons of Canon, in my subjective opinion of course:
Canon positives:
- Very good and extensive array of lenses in all ranges, especially telephoto and tilt-shift;
- L series lens range (weatherproof, some of those lenses are a real work of art);
- 1D body shutter sound and ergonomics (try one and you’ll see what I mean);
- 1D fast body (i.e. x1.3 crop Mark II N or Mark III) mind-blowing and extremely accurate/fast AF performance (though read on for the negatives as well);
- Models available in the market usually right as soon as they are publicly announced;
- IS: a Canon patent that was licensed to Nikon many years ago (although Nikon now has a new ‘IS’ [VR] system which I don’t know if it is another Canon patent development or a new and Nikon-devised design).
Canon negatives:
- Not as vibrant colors (straight off the camera) as Nikon. Olympus’ colors are even more vibrant than Nikon’s by the way;
- Change of mount in the early 80s, from FD to EF. Means all your ‘old’ lenses needed an adaptor to be used with any new body. Now they have EF-S as well. Nikon has remained solidly on DX, and they recently introduced FX (full-frame) mount.
- 5D is a real ‘dust magnet’;
- 1D fast body (Mark III) AF problems upon release, 400D/450D banding problems, etc.; it is unacceptable for a company like Canon to release new and expensive products and have the consumers paying for them and actually being the ‘beta testers’ of those products. Has happened repeatedly and Canon really needs to look seriously into this;
- Big bodies and white tele lenses (e.g. EF 70-200/2.8L IS) attract serious attention;
- Very expensive bodies and lenses (especially the high end ones).
Originally posted by SQflyergirl
View Post
Originally posted by phaleesy
View Post
And if all these seem expensive, never forget that Canon or Nikon gear is almost half the price of Leica gear...
Comment