Nikon V's Canon?

[Adrian "Marvel" Reynolds]

Ok its almost as bad as asking Acrylic or enamel


First a little back ground, I currently use a Nikon D5100 I've had it around 3 years and tbh I don't use half of what it could do, in fact I spent 30 mins last night trying to figure out how to change the F rating I should say I have packed the instruction book in a box ready to move house


I was lucky enough to go to the Photography Show at the NEC on Saturday and saw all sorts of wonderful equipment, my original plan was to have taken the money from my house sale and go on a mad shopping spree, sadly the house fell through so I was just window shopping. I a few friends with me and it became obvious that I was out of my depth with what I could get and do with cameras now days, but my main issue is what to go for, one friend uses a Nikon D810 and the other a Canon, I don't recall which.


I tried to see which would be better for me and all I could sum up was that if I went with Nikon I could use one friends lenses.


I do want to upgrade my kit completely and plan to get a lot more active with my photography, be it scale model pictures, wildlife or scenic shots. I know this would mean at least 3 different lens and that's ok but which make Nikon or Canon?


My tech knowledge on them and taking photos is virtually zero so I'm mainly asking what would you choose with a fairly unrestricted wallet?


Adrian

 

[Fenlander]

I use a Nikon D3300 with mainly the kit lens but I will be in the market for a macro later in the year to be able to capture detail for kit reviews. I ended part one of my photographic phase using Nikon 35mm film cameras years ago so it was natural for me to stay with Nikon when I progressed to a DSLR.


As far as Nikon or Canon, they are both superb cameras that allow excellent results without buying the top end models. With either, what is more important than brand is a basic understanding of photography. It doesn't matter what your subject is, to be able to think a shot through is more important.


A good photographer can take a good picture with anything. An unskilled photographer will not take a great picture no matter what camera or how much it costs. There are two sayings in photography that I keep close to hand.


One: Cameras do not take pictures, photographers take pictures.


Two: The best camera is the one you have with you when a shot arises.


If you want to specialise in a type of photography, a basic knowledge will enable you to get the best for what you need. I don't care how good a modern digital camera is. I don't care how expensive they are. I don't care how 'clever' the cameras software is. These will not help you if you do not know or understand what it is doing or what you need to do to get it to work in a specific way.


It may seem an old fashioned attitude but I am an old fashioned guy but you should be able to use your camera in full manual exposure mode without having to think about it. When you can see a scene, set the exposure, with or without the built I'm meter does not matter, compose the shot and use the appropriate shutter speed/aperture combination for the subject matter/conditions, then you will be a photographer my son

 

[flyjoe180]

I've had a Canon SLR for years and it's been a great camera. I used to be really good at manipulating it, they can be rather complicated and you can get bogged down in settings etc. Now I am more likely to point and shoot using the basic settings I know. I think Graham sums it up nicely.

 

[John Rixon]

Absolutely agree with Graham. On a side note, it's worth bearing in mind that whatever you buy, however amazing it seems now, you won't be able to give away in 3 years time! Sadly, digital cameras keep getting "better", so unles it's going to earn you money, go for a simple camera and concentrate on your glass, which will outlast the body by years. 3 quality prime lenses, Nikon or canon, should be your focus (arf!). Stick these onto either manufacturers dslr body, and you'll be fine. In 3 years time, get a new body if you feel the need, the lenses will still be top notch.

 

[spanner570]

Adrian, to each his own, but why bother with bulky DSLR's? (if that's what yours is) - and all those lenses....


Have a look at bridge cameras. For photos other than on here, I have a Lumix DMC - FZ35. Nice wide angle, 18X zoom. Great, simple camera to use. It needs to be where I'm concerned!


However, my son has just bought a new bridge camera - a Sony DSC-H400 with a massive 63x zoom!!! He showed me a picture he took of the moon a couple of days ago....Unbelievable, from a small bright blob, he zoomed in to show the moon 4" across and crystal clear.


They go for around £130 / £150 brand new. Nice and light and just one lens.....Take a look on youtube for some brilliant pictures using this amazing camera.


I have a Pentax DSLR and lenses, but it's just too heavy and cumbersome and now resides in a drawer, as it's hardly worth selling. These bridge cameras are bob on and fit in the pocket. Dare I say the latest generation of bridge cameras make heavy, multi lens DSLR's almost outdated. Particularly for what you and I seem to require from a camera - a basic point and click, but posh as you want, if you want!


Worth a look, at least......

 

[Fenlander]

Totally agree with you John. Have to admit though that I have personally never gone for a prime lens.


For those that don't know, a prime lens is a fixed focal length as opposed to a zoom. A fixed focal length allows the manufacturer to get the best quality optical set up as it has no moving elements (bits of glass) other than focusing. Generally they are a wider aperture than a zoom allowing you to get more light through it.


Creatively, they allow more control over a shallow depth of field than the smaller aperture of a zoom. So a prime lens is generally a better quality optic with more creative control.

 

[Deleted member 3568]

I use my phone camera for wip shots and my ancient canon D10 for finished builds. I was a professional free hand tattooist (that means everything I did was freehand so never a copy of anyone else's and that they fitted the body part they were on) I spent a fortune on compact cameras with the biggest lens you could get and could never get a decent photo of the tattoos I was doing (this was in the days of film cameras, take pics wait a fortnight see what you took) went into jessops and explained my problem they gave me an slr to borrow for a fortnight, I don't care what anyone says an slr will trounce any other camera, if you're a rubbish photographer like me, you're rubbish photos will still be better than if you took them with your phone or tablet, and a second hand slr is pretty cheap these days, as to canon or nikkon I can't help but I love my D10 even though it's soooo old I think they're both thought of as premium cameras.

 

[demon]

Lumix fz150 for me does anything you would ever need unless your doing it for a job


Just my opinion but most cameras are capable of far far more than the person behind the viewfinder is


Roger

 

[Adrian "Marvel" Reynolds]

I have to say on the odd few occasions I have spent time to play with my camera and adjust stuff it does take a much better photo, I guess I should stop been so lazy or in a rush and set things up to create a better image.

 

[Fenlander]

I have to say on the odd few occasions I have spent time to play with my camera and adjust stuff it does take a much better photo, I guess I should stop been so lazy or in a rush and set things up to create a better image.

It is usually the case Adrian. You don't get a well built model by snapping the bits off the sprue and sticking them together. If you want great results, you have to put the work in.


Problem with digital auto just about everything is that people are brainwashed into thinking the camera can do it all on its own, it can't.


If all you need is point and shoot then that's fine because it fits what you want but if you want to 'up your game' you not only need to be able to take control but understand why.


As with most things, if you know why, how comes easy.

 

[Stevekir]

I have been taking photos since I was 14. I take pictures of my models using a desk lamp and a large sheet of background paper (wall paper lining paper). I also take pictures of family, holidays etc. One camera is a Nikon D3100, kit lens, the bottom of the range for DSLRs, now currently the DS3300. I also get extremely good results with my Sony HX high-end compact bought in 2011. Both have auto focus, variable speed settings, (ISO), 14 megapixels, (GPS recording in the case of the HX). While I know the rudiments of shutter speed, f-number, speed of the "film" (ISO), the care needed to get the focus right for sharp images, and I like to observe the graph of the exposure after taking a shot to check that it is central (no overexposure of either the shadows and the highlights), the only other feature that I use much is manual focus with the Nikon, for taking pictures of some of my models. However, both for models and outdoor shots, both offer other features of which only a few are used by me.


So the point of this ramble is that I use the Nikon for some shots needing manual focus but most are taken with the Sony (and nearly all my outdoor photos) and, frankly, if that was my only camera I would be happy. Camera technology has come a long way during the last 15 years. However, I have had advice that high quality and sharp images rely on a good lens rather than on the body, so it is best to first consider upgrading a DSLR's lens (as has been said elsewhere here).


Despite the above, the photos posted here of the models made by The Migrant (and some others) have stunning sharpness and clarity, and I know he has a DSLR outfit costing a great many hundreds of £s.

 

[colin m]

Ok its almost as bad as asking Acrylic or enamel

I thought it was asking like Ford or Vauxhall. Both very well known, similar products, om the outside anyway. I use a basic Cannon powershot sx510hs. A bit old but works really well. Auto mode is great, but you can do everything manually.

 

[roymattblack]

Don't get fooled by the megapixel count or the digital zoom rating.


It's basically a marketing ploy for those who don't really understand what it all means.


There are bridge cameras and pocket cameras out there that shout '25 megapixels' and 'umpteen x digital zoom, but a Canon or Nikon with 10 mp and a matching lens will blow them out of the water.


The mp count is only a rating of how many 'spots' are squeezed into a certain size of sensor.


It's a way of upping the picture size without using decent lenses - so it cheaper to manufacture.


The gigantic zoom rates often quoted are also a con.


They aren't really zooming in on the subject.


They are just enlarging one area of the sensor - less pixels - so less quality.


Look for OPTICAL zoom. That's where the lens is doing the work, not the sensor.


I use Nikon, just my preference.


The pics below were taken in the caves of Drach with no flash and very low ambient light.


No tweaking or fiddling with the pics has been done.


The Nikon was brilliant.


Roy.

 

[spanner570]

My son knows his stuff and wasn't conned, he is also savvy with mega pixel counts. (me too) His camera is 63x optical zoom. If I can get his permission, I will post an image of his 'Zoomed in' moon shot, then even the most sceptical will be hard pushed to fault the quality and sharpness of the image taken with his inferior bridge camera - sat on a fence post!


If folks are happy to hump a heavy DSLR around + all the lens's etc., that's fine. To each his own. But I just prefer to shove something in my pocket that can cope instantly with any photographic situation in those fleeting, couple of seconds moments...... Without having to rummage in a bag for a suitable lens - and yes, I've been there with my Pentax DSLR.


As with our paint choices, we all have our preferences to suit our own requirements. Photography is the same, as it is with anything that comes down to the individual's choice and requirements.


Peace brothers.....


Yours faithfully,


David Bailey Snowdon

 

[Steve Brodie]

I don't want to add to your confusion, but pixel count isn't the be all and end all some people claim it to be, Some Bridge and definitely compacts have smaller sized sensors in them to capture light, imagine trying to put, say 50 bottles on an a3 sheet of paper ( should have nice room around them) and then 100 bottles on an a4 piece of paper, they would need to be a lot smaller and crammed together. So you have a 100 small bottles, which sounds more than 50 big bottles but the 50 big bottles can take more liquid per bottle. likewise with the sensor, smaller the photosites, less information they can gather at anyone point. which affects the overall definition of the image, and this is all before you start taking into account the quality of the lens to gather that light.


At the end of the day, you take the photo, the camera just's records what you asked it to. Best bit of advice i can give, come off any auto settings and go manual.

 

[stona]

As with our paint choices, we all have our preferences to suit our own requirements. Photography is the same, as it is with anything that comes down to the individual's choice and requirements.


Yours faithfully,


David Bailey Snowdon

I think that's a good point. I need something I can more or less point and push a button. Now, whilst that might not allow me to take professional quality photographs it does allow me to take some more than decent snapshots. Horses for courses as you British say.


Greetings


Leni Riefenstahl.

 

[Adrian "Marvel" Reynolds]

I have a little pocket Canon camera and as you say its ideal for sticking in your pocket and carrying around. The reason I'm going for another DSLR is that I want to improve and broaden my skills by taking shots at air shows, wildlife whilst I'm out and much better pictures of my builds.


I'm told I will need at least 3 different lenses and I'm aware of the costs.


I am planning to do a few courses to help me improve and I've already started to keep my camera off auto


My friend is coming over tomorrow to help coach me with model photography so maybe I should post my efforts


Adrian

 

[dave]

Graham and John have both talked a lot of sense.


To my way of thinking Nikon vs Canon is a personal thing on the feel of the camera. Once you have gone for one manufacturer stay with it, you can replace bodies and keep using lenses., I am still using lenses from my old film SLR on my new digital SLR.


Quality also depends on what you want. Compact cameras with zooms provide good quality if you want computer screen sized shots. But if I zoom in on the image on my computer the difference between my compact camera and my digital SLR rapidly becomes apparent.


The other advantage of the higher quality is you can raise the "film speed" much higher and still get good shots for the computer. In museums where flash is often banned I can still shoot handheld with no problems.


With DSLRs the sensor size is also important, I do not know the canon system but Nikon have a DX and FX, the FX being larger and in the more expensive bodies. The bigger sensor will give better quality. The sensor size also affects lens focal length a 50mm for a DX body is not the same as a 50mm for a FX body, lenses for the FX bodies are also more expensive.


Unless you are very serious and/or plenty of funds I would stay at the smaller sensor DSLRs.


A good way to improve is to look for local photography classes. Some years back I did my City and Guilds photography by evening classes and thoroughly enjoyed it and learnt a lot. I do not know the equivalent courses today, that was back in the days of film and developing and printing your own images.

 

[Adrian "Marvel" Reynolds]

Well without wanting to sound too boastful, I have a budget of around £2000 for the main body and £2000-£3000 for lenses, then I have some aside for accessories like tripods, bags, flashes and lights.

 

[american]

Canon is my favorite. I have a Canon s450. I like what I can do with that camera.