Nikon vs. Canon

Mitchell · #1 12-13-2011, 01:00 PM

Nikon D300 used to shoot Canon.

Mitchell · #2 12-13-2011, 02:48 PM

BAHhahaha just had this sent to me...Canon vrs Nikon

http://youtu.be/qTVfFmENgPU

SeaHorse_Fanatic · #3 12-13-2011, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mitchell

BAHhahaha just had this sent to me...Canon vrs Nikon

http://youtu.be/qTVfFmENgPU

That is soooo awesome. Great way to start off the morning.

Thanks for posting this. I'm gonna have to share with friends.

Anthony

MarkoD · #4 12-13-2011, 03:47 PM

That's right. Nikon is for terrorists.

Now watch this one

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_u...?v=H_H8TOKcfjg

JrdBen · #5 12-29-2011, 10:21 PM

These days does it really matter?

Take comparable bodies that stack reasonably well (although most don't) from each, stick them in a bag and tell a person to pick one. Id bet my gear, that as long as it was free no one would complain about the one they got.

I went Canon due to their lens line up. For what I do I felt they had better and more options in the area that was most important to me. That said while there are differences between the two lineups, I don't think it matters much.

1Dmkiv and way too much glass

Ryan · #6 12-30-2011, 01:43 AM

My camera guy told me one day that made me a canon guy.

The image stabilization on the canon will take pictures with the same quality as other canons with a few more MP. For example our P&S 10mp Canon takes equal quality or better than my parents 12MP P&S, especially of moving objects like kids, the dogs, or fish.

MarkoD · #7 12-30-2011, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

My camera guy told me one day that made me a canon guy.

The image stabilization on the canon will take pictures with the same quality as other canons with a few more MP. For example our P&S 10mp Canon takes equal quality or better than my parents 12MP P&S, especially of moving objects like kids, the dogs, or fish.

mega pixels and image stabilization are unrelated. image stabilization is important when the light is low and you need to use a longer shutter speed.

also image stabilization is useless for any kind action photography. generally when shooting action a high shutter speed is used. and any shutter speed thats higher than 1/focal length makes the stabilization useless and could even work against you if you're panning

Delphinus · #8 12-30-2011, 03:06 AM

I like (and have) both.

Although I wish that were true of DSLR's. Only have a Nikon DSLR, and that's because I've got lenses going back to 1990 or so when I bought my first Nikon SLR, back then a 35mm. The lenses work fine for me and would cost a fortune to replace them all to Canon. So I'm "stuck" with Nikon but I don't mind it in the least.

Do wish I had the FX sensor though. One day .. one day.

Ross · #9 12-30-2011, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkoD

Also image stabilization is useless for any kind action photography.
... and any shutter speed thats higher than 1/focal length makes the stabilization useless and could even work against you if you're panning

I agree except for the 1/focal length.
For those not using full frame sensors, it's 1/(focal length * multiplication factor)
(1.6 on canon and 1.5 on nikons)

sphelps · #10 12-30-2011, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

My camera guy told me one day that made me a canon guy.

The image stabilization on the canon will take pictures with the same quality as other canons with a few more MP. For example our P&S 10mp Canon takes equal quality or better than my parents 12MP P&S, especially of moving objects like kids, the dogs, or fish.

Agree with Mark, image stabilizers will do absolutely nothing in relation to a moving subject and the MP relation makes no sense. You need a new camera guy