INFO: Trad Archery for Bowhunters



Author Topic: Canon VS. Nikon  (Read 2828 times)

Offline Dave Stein

  • Moderator
  • Trad Bowhunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
Re: Canon VS. Nikon
« Reply #20 on: March 02, 2007, 04:25:00 PM »
Steve,
Thanks for the information. This RAW stuff will probably kick my butt for awile but hopefully it will work out in the end. Pacific Bow Butts is doing well. I've been away in Iraq since the end of summer so I need to catch up with what has been happening. How are your targets working out?

Dave
AMAZINGLY SIMPLE HOME REMEDIES:

If you have a bad cough, take a large dose of laxatives; then you'll be afraid to cough.

Offline 808nate

  • Trad Bowhunter
  • **
  • Posts: 26
Re: Canon VS. Nikon
« Reply #21 on: March 20, 2007, 01:15:00 AM »
I'm a canon person myself, to make it simple this is how I look at the whole "canon vs nikon" arguement:

canon: better lens mount/lenses, better build, brither viewfinder, beter high ISO image quality. generally heavier cameras

nikon, better flash system (built in wireless trasmitter etc) better ergonomics, better menu interface.

it's all about what you value in a camera. keep in mind with both canon and nikon you pay for the name.

Online Phil Magistro

  • Contributing Member
  • Trad Bowhunter
  • ****
  • Posts: 333
Re: Canon VS. Nikon
« Reply #22 on: March 20, 2007, 06:50:00 AM »
I'd have to disagree about Canon having those advantages.  Nikon builds great glass for more than just photography.  Their lenses are used in microscopes,including surgical microscopes, and the quality is probably only bested by Leica or Zeiss.  The build, viewfinder, ISO handling are all dependent on the camera body.  I'm certain that my D200 has a bigger and brighter viewfinder than a Rebel XT.  And I doubt that any Canon has a bigger or brighter viewfinder than my D2x.  

The ISO myth has been disproven by a number of photographers. And any camera with a good, fast lens and a battery pack will be heavier than a point 'n shoot.  But, with the exception of the Canon 1Ds, most Nikons are a bit heavier.  The D200 is 4 ounces heavier than the 30D.

The bottom line is that unless you use both cameras most opinions are based on conjecture or third-party stories.  Both companies make good porducts.  Each has some perceived benefits and some perceived drawbacks.  Somewhere in their product lines are cameras and lenses that will fit the needs and budget for most people.  And the images that they produce will not be totally dependent on the equipment, but more on the ability and skill of the user.

 www.pmagistro.com
"I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best."    - Oscar Wilde

Offline 808nate

  • Trad Bowhunter
  • **
  • Posts: 26
Re: Canon VS. Nikon
« Reply #23 on: March 20, 2007, 05:55:00 PM »
true, different cost bracket cameras can't fairly be compared, as for the lenses I know nikon glass is excelent, i was referring to the canon lens mount, the EF canon mount without any moving parts that i like so much.

I've used both the D200 and 30D both are superb, i just prefer the 30D

Offline JBiorn

  • Trad Bowhunter
  • **
  • Posts: 978
Re: Canon VS. Nikon
« Reply #24 on: March 21, 2007, 08:15:00 PM »
Tim has GREAT advice about the one lens to go with at first.

 Congratulations on your new camera, have fun.

 If you want a good forum for advice and critique try  www.photographycorner.com

 I'm SeaSpectre there.

 Jeff

Users currently browsing this topic:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
 

Contact Us | Trad Gang.com © | User Agreement

Copyright 2003 thru 2024 ~ Trad Gang.com ©