Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: For a Full Frame DSLR... Nikon or Canon????  (Read 7220 times)
hassiman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 136


« on: August 26, 2011, 02:17:31 AM »
ReplyReply

I do fine art work, print large...  Landscapes, street photography.
Just wondered what FF shooters here used and liked. Huh

Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3956



« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2011, 02:36:39 AM »
ReplyReply

I do fine art work, print large...  Landscapes, street photography.
Just wondered what FF shooters here used and liked. Huh

Here we go again. Oh dear. Tin hats on, boys and girls.

Jeremy
Logged
pegelli
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 596



WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2011, 03:57:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Here we go again. Oh dear. Tin hats on, boys and girls.

Jeremy

ROFLMAO, Jeremy, you're right and we haven't even mentioned Sony yet, because then we would also need bullet proof vests Wink

To the OP, Let me give you Ansel Adam's advice: the most important part of the camera is the 12" behind it.
Seriously, go out to a shop and handle them all and choose the one that feels most comfortable and intuitive to operate. There are no bad DSLR's made anymore, and certainly no bad FF DSLR's.
Logged

pieter, aka pegelli
lowep
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 415


WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2011, 07:03:53 AM »
ReplyReply

the question is like a phoenix that rises from the ashes every time a new generation of DSLRs bites the ankles of the previous generation of MFDBs and gives anyone who uses this technology frequently and is not asleep three options: ignore the flashing ads at the top of this page and stick with what one has got (warts and all), do what they say and escape the ankle biters by scaling up to the latest and greatest MFDB offering (by mortgaging your house) or allow yourself to be convinced now is the time to jump back into the DSLR pond after an extended detour in MF land (often starting from years ago when the jump was made from DSLR to a MF film camera). To make matters worse this malady is no longer triggered by the release of a new camera but by a constant stream of marketing hype that like presdential elections starts years before the actual event and never stops. I guess for those who are just coming into "serious" digital imaging the answer is no easier than for existing users.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2011, 07:17:01 AM by lowep » Logged
Gigi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2011, 08:44:59 AM »
ReplyReply

the question is like a phoenix that rises from the ashes every time a new generation of DSLRs bites the ankles of the previous generation of MFDBs and gives anyone who uses this technology frequently and is not asleep three options: ignore the flashing ads at the top of this page and stick with what one has got (warts and all), do what they say and escape the ankle biters by scaling up to the latest and greatest MFDB offering (by mortgaging your house) or allow yourself to be convinced now is the time to jump back into the DSLR pond after an extended detour in MF land (often starting from years ago when the jump was made from DSLR to a MF film camera). To make matters worse this malady is no longer triggered by the release of a new camera but by a constant stream of marketing hype that like presdential elections starts years before the actual event and never stops. I guess for those who are just coming into "serious" digital imaging the answer is no easier than for existing users.

Wonderfully said. Can one add another option: all of the above? That they are mutually incompatible only makes the machinations that much more interesting!
Logged

Geoff
Ellis Vener
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1766



WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 26, 2011, 02:06:06 PM »
ReplyReply



To the OP, Let me give you Ansel Adam's advice: the most important part of the camera is the 12" behind it.

While it is true that most of the visual centers in the brain are in the very back and near the base  of both hemispheres,  unless you have  a brain  that is freakishly larger that normal or a skull that has been greatly  elongated, 12" behind a camera's eyepiece is about 5 inches beyond  the back of most homo sapien skulls.
Logged

Ellis Vener
http://www.ellisvener.com
Creating photographs for advertising, corporate and industrial clients since 1984.
pegelli
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 596



WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 26, 2011, 02:12:38 PM »
ReplyReply

While it is true that most of the visual centers in the brain are in the very back and near the base  of both hemispheres,  unless you have  a brain  that is freakishly larger that normal or a skull that has been greatly  elongated, 12" behind a camera's eyepiece is about 5 inches beyond  the back of most homo sapien skulls.

Ha, ha, I don't think he assumed every photographer had a hydrocephalus
Unfortunately we cannot ask Ansel anymore, but my guess is he meant everything included in the 12" behind it  Wink
Logged

pieter, aka pegelli
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7905



WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 26, 2011, 02:34:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Ha, ha, I don't think he assumed every photographer had a hydrocephalus
Unfortunately we cannot ask Ansel anymore, but my guess is he meant everything included in the 12" behind it  Wink
Then again, maybe he was anticipating "live view."   Wink
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
lowep
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 415


WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 26, 2011, 03:14:01 PM »
ReplyReply

He had a beautiful zillion x zillion ground glass and a super hero's cape over his head - why would he bother with corny live view?
Logged
hassiman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 136


« Reply #9 on: August 27, 2011, 03:39:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Okay... I deserved that... 8-)  I was hoping to get a response which might give me an idea of which brand might be better assemble... be more reliable... have marginally better optics.  So far I have gleaned that Canon full frame cameras are better for large landscape prints... but Nikons might have better in-viewfinder displays...  I have a friend with a 5D whose mirror fell off in the middle of an assignment....  I realize what is really important... but I hate wasting my money and I can NOT afford a MF digital... my MF work will remain with my Hasselblads and film...

So any tips?
Logged
pegelli
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 596



WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 27, 2011, 05:04:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Hassiman, reliability is luck of the draw I think. Reliability statistics are averages so there is no guarantee that if you buy the statistically more reliable brand you're camera won't fail, and also the reverse, if you buy the less reliable brand it's still very possible to get 5 years of trouble free operation from your own camera.

Also every brand has some jewel lenses and some average pieces of glass. So it depends if you're looking prime or zoom as well as focal length range to select the best set.

I come back to my original advice, as I think handling is the most important factor, go and try and buy what feels good. You won't be dissapointed I think.
Logged

pieter, aka pegelli
k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1434


WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 27, 2011, 07:59:52 AM »
ReplyReply


So any tips?


I've been shooting Canon for a long time, and I must say I'm not totally thrilled with any of the wide angle lenses that I have used, especially the zooms. The one good wide zoom I own is the Sigma 12-24, and that really needs a tripod as it's best around f/11 or so. My 16-35/2.8 II lens is fine for most of my work (photo-J), but I find it difficult to get corner sharpness for landscapes and architecture. I have not used the Zeiss wide primes, but the results I have seen online seem excellent - but of course one gives up AF with those lenses.

Other than that, I've been very happy with the overall image quality and build quality of the Canon cameras I have used, from my original AE-1 through my current 1D Mark IV bodies.
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7902



WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 27, 2011, 08:28:28 AM »
ReplyReply

So far I have gleaned that Canon full frame cameras are better for large landscape prints...

That was true until the D3x was released 2.5 years ago.

If you like wide, lenswise nothing comes close to the 14-24 f2.8.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1258


« Reply #13 on: August 27, 2011, 01:24:19 PM »
ReplyReply

To answer the original question, Nikons are far better than Canons.

[Re. previous sentence: Sarcasm Alert.]

I've noticed that in the Digital Photography Review forums, the Nikon and Canon advocates have almost entirely stopping slagging each other. That action has moved to the NEX/m4/3 forums, even though NEX and m4/3 have little to do with each other.

I've been using Nikons since the 70s, and they simply seem to fit my hand. I can pick up almost any Nikon, film or digital, and be happily using it in a couple of minutes -- I just understand Nikon thinking. Canons always feel odd to me. Long time Canon users will tell you the same thing, the other way around. I think if I were starting fresh, I'd look around and see if one system or the other were dominant in my area; if one was, I'd go for that one, because there are probably better repair options available, and a better supply of equipment, both new and used. If both systems are common in your area, I guess I'd do a lot of research and then buy based on what kind of photography I was most interested in. I know a few years ago, most architectural photographers went with Canon because of the better Canon shift/tilt lenses. People who did a lot of macro work went with Nikon because of the better micro lenses, and also the more flexible flash system. (I believe if you plan to use a lot of camera-based flash, Nikon is the better system. For some reason, Nikon has always seemed to pay a lot of attention to flash.) Most sports photographers tend to use Canon, because Canon achieved an early digital dominance in that field. Nikon has caught up from a technical aspect, and some would say they've gone Canon one better, but still, at major sporting events, most of the sports pros still use Canon. As far as "feel" is concerned, I think you become accustomed to what you have, and that after a while, either will begin to feel natural. They are somewhat different, though.   

But, basically, with current cameras, the choice between Nikon and Canon is fairly trivial -- almost everything else to do with your photography is more important.
Logged
DaveCurtis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 454


WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 27, 2011, 06:25:40 PM »
ReplyReply

For the record I shoot Canon. However it is common knowledge that Nikon has their nose in front with the D3x. It it a small step above the Canon 1Ds3 in all departments including price. I have compared large prints made with both and the difference is rather small but it is there and visible.

With new cameras expected from both I would personally wait.

Wides for landscapes. Zooms - Nikon.
                               TSE Canon
                               Primes  - I prefer Zeiss over both.
Logged

HarperPhotos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1241



WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 27, 2011, 07:05:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello,

It has been reported that Nikon have filed for a patent for a removable Anti Alias filter system. So for landscape the next generating of Nikon’s could be a better system over Canon.

I use a Nikon D3x and with the Nikon G lenses I am very happy with it. I very really use my Mamiya/Leaf Aptus system outside the studio now.

Cheers

Simon
Logged

Simon Harper
Harper Photographics Ltd
http://www.harperphoto.com
http://www.facebook.com/harper.photographics

Auckland, New Zealand
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


« Reply #16 on: August 29, 2011, 03:00:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Okay... I deserved that... 8-)  I was hoping to get a response which might give me an idea of which brand might be better assemble... be more reliable... have marginally better optics.  So far I have gleaned that Canon full frame cameras are better for large landscape prints... but Nikons might have better in-viewfinder displays...  I have a friend with a 5D whose mirror fell off in the middle of an assignment....  I realize what is really important... but I hate wasting my money and I can NOT afford a MF digital... my MF work will remain with my Hasselblads and film...

So any tips?

The Sony a850/900 cameras are durable and relatively cheap, too, and, outside of maybe the D3x, they'd be tops for landscape IQ.
Logged
Digital_photog
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1



« Reply #17 on: August 29, 2011, 06:45:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I shoot Canon 5D with 17-40 for landscapes the 24-70 works well for portraits. That said I am sure that Nikon FF is equally good with similar lenses. I like the handeling of Canon, others have said go try each of  your choices to see which fits best for you. You and Only you can make this choice. I have found the price for many Canon lenses cost less than the Nikon counterparts. Just my observation. I shoot Nikon and Canon film cameras  the EOS 1N-HS and Nikon F100 both great cameras.  I actually purchased a Fuji S2 for short money so I can use my Nikon lenses on a digital camera. 

Good Luck with your choice!

Fred
Logged
SecondFocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 463


WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 29, 2011, 10:10:18 PM »
ReplyReply

As to Canon or Nikon...

I can without any reservations say Yes!
Logged

Ian L. Sitren
SecondFocus
Tulear
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #19 on: August 30, 2011, 06:05:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Agree with the comments about what makes you feel good when you hold it and handle it.   If you are good enough that every shot or even any shot you take can be graded by the specific lens performance and whether that 14-24 f2.8  is a  bit sharper than that 16-35 f2.8 Canon - then  God bless you.   It's a lot like golf clubs.....will you play better with one brand or the other.  Well, you know brand A has great short irons but brand B has the best mid irons.   Really, this stuff is so close these days technically, that the feel and the GUI are more important considerations than brand reputations.  Ask yourself,  how did all those amazing images taken so many years ago on so much more inferior gear ever happen!!!!   Ansel was right.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad