I would like to get some construtive stuff here. No nonsens from little kids who just got their first DSLR a month ago. And please no Canon vs. Nikon wars.

Pure facts please!

Especially I would be very interested to hear those guys who used Nikon Pro cameras and lenses and currently shooting with the equivalent Canon body and L-Lenses.

Vasco G.

"Pure facts please!"
Some advantages, like a sertain feeling a product gives you, is impossible to lable as a fact, even tho it probably is for some. Example; i love the colors my 10D gives me. It's the colors, the tones, the whole feel of the image coming out of the camera that made me choose Canon gear over let's say Nikon. Nonsense or not, it's fact for me.

I am not convinced there are true advantages. Each has its own strentghs and weaknesses, but overall the capabilities seem to be very similar. Compare it with Airbus and Boeing if you will. Both the same, but still different enough to make for heated conversations!

I agree with you Peter.
To me it is just a matter of taste or what you are used to operate.
Personally i don't like the zillion knobs on a Nikon but then again i am a long time Canon user.
Also i think there isn't even much difference between consumer, semi pro and pro equipment as long as it comes down to image quality.
The glass used is by far the most important item if you ask me because it keeps you shooting where others have to stop although even in that area given the right conditions you won't see much difference.

Willem

A good reason to go for Canon is the large number of IS lenses, which is—if it works—a fantastic feature. Also, when I got my DSLR I compared prices of lenses & figured Nikon gets more & more expensive the better the lenses are. Of course one usually doesn't buy an L lens every year, but it's good to know for the future.

Vasco, do you plan to switch to Canon?

Thomas

It does seem that Canon has maintained an advantage over Nikon in recent years with regard to the specification of their pro cameras - ie. at any point in time, Canon will have either a faster frame rate and/or higher resolution model available than Nikon. I guess this is down to the investment Canon made in its own sensor fabrication plant.

With the new 1Ds2, for example, Canon is pushing the medium format market hard and the camera will clearly be a critical factor in converting certain types of pros to digital.

In terms of "traditional" camera features (eg. metering, AF, construction) there's little if anything in it - much will be down to personal preferences.

On lenses - while the advantage in optical quality alone may swing one way or the other for a particular example of a lens. I think overall Canon has for a long time shown a better track record in lens development and the incorporation of innovative technologies, be it USM, IS, DO. This was for me the key reason for sticking with Canon when I replaced my old FD system.

My gut feeling is that other factors aside, you're more "futureproofed" with Canon. For example, if I were a Nikon user, I think I'd feel a bit miffed that since Nikon announced the 12.7mp D2X for January release, Canon managed to produce AND SHIP the 16 mp 1DS2. Now I know pixel counts aren't everything, and each photographer will have their own idea of what the most important features are for them ... but in most cases it seems Canon gets there first.

Cheers,

Colin

I have used Canon SLR cameras for over 20 years with digital models from last year.

You are referring to Canon Pro gear and to me this can only be L series lenses and film cameras from EOS 3 upwards and in digital the EOS 1D range.

I've worked my way through the Canon EOS SLR range from the 1000F to my EOS 1D MkII and also from standard EF to L series lenses.

When I bought a new camera system a couple of years ago I opted for the EOS 30 with the 28-80 (from memory) and the 75-300 USM III. Straight away I found the 75-300 to be very soft compared to my old Sigma DL 75-300 so after a few months that went on eBay. I bought a 100-400L and the difference was simply stunning. The optics, autofocus and IS simply eclipsed the results gained from the 75-300. Mind you you pay for it!

Last year switching to my first DSLR, a 10D I added a 70-200f4L to my collection the quality was evident. I was a little disappointed with the 400 end of the 100-400 so I decided to sell both lenses. I replaced them with a 70-200f2.8 IS L which is simply superb and a Sigma 300f2.8. The Sigma produced some fantastic results and the optics were excellent. However the build quality let it down and some 5 months after purchasing it is started to fall apart. LCE Southampton where I bought it were great and I now have a Canon 300f4 IS L in replacement. I was a little concerned at first about losing the f2.8 to an f4 (also the 2.8 looked very impressive), but in the couple of months I've had this lens it really has been superb. The IS makes up for the lose of aperture and realistically I rarely use f2.8 for this kind of photography.

You cannot compare the standard EF lenses to the L-series. Yes they are very expensive, but at the end of the day you get what you pay for!

Until the arrival of the 20D, I don't think you could even compare the D30/60/10 or 300Ds to the that of the 1D range. The new 20D appears to be a serious piece of equipment with the technology off the back of the EOS 1DMkII. The biggest obstacle is price, but if money wasn't the issue, what would you buy?



20D vs. 1D Mk II
A debate that will ring through the web's discussions forums for months to come is one which compares the 20D to the 1D Mk II. They're both 8 Megapixel cameras, and though not quite as fast as the Mk II, at 5FPS the 20D is fast enough for many photographers. The price difference is considerable, and so why not buy a 20D instead of the much more expensive Mk II?

Here are the main pros and cons:

— the Mk II is much more expensive (nearly three times the price)

— the MK II is much bulkier and heavier

— the Mk II is a lot faster, more so than just the number of frames per second would suggest

— the Mk II has a 1.3X factor vs. the 20D's 1.6X cropping factor

— the Mk II has larger photosites (pixels) and therefore a theoretical (at least) advantage in terms of noise at high ISO

— the Mk II has far superior weather sealing

— the Mk II is considerably more ruggedly built

— the Mk II has a 200,000 cycle shutter

— the Mk II has a significantly larger and brighter viewfinder

— the Mk II has a much larger buffer

— the Mk II has spotmetering and 45 point autofocus

Sourced from http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/20d-part1.shtml

Regards
Martin

What Are The True Advantages Of Canon Pro Gear?

=> CPS (Canon Professional Services) membership

http://www.cps.canon-europe.com

What are CPS Membership Benefits

CPS Card - CPS Members receive a CPS membership card. This identifies holders as a CPS member and provides them with access to CPS support at a wide variety of events in more than 20 countries.

Event support - Available to CPS members accredited to work at events where CPS teams are present - click here to see events.

A Priority Service - including a fast track repair service, emergency back-up loans, and a check & clean service.

Communications - such as Newsletters and news of special discounts via professional dealers and special direct mail offers

CPS members can also expect invitations to the following types of meeting, although not yet in every country:
Product demonstrations
Workshops - Digital & Analogue
Seminars
Roundtable discussions

What equipment do I need to qualify as a CPS Member

To become CPS members you must meet the following minimum equipment ownership requirements:

Two Professional SLR bodies.
Three L series lenses.

EDDL

Also read further down...

Do I need any Certification to qualify as a CPS Member
Yes - potential members should have a valid Press Card, or another accepted credential showing them to be a full time Professional. Membership of an officially recognised Professional Association is also valid.

Staffan

Interesting facts so far.

If I am switching which I thought about in the past recent months, I have to sell most of my Nikon gear and take the plunge and buy Canon instead.

This is gonna be an expensive venture:

I have to replace my beloved Nikon 400f2.8 with a Canon 400f2.8L IS or even a 600mm f4.
Ever since I had Mark Garfinkel's 600f4 in my hands, I wanted one. Maybe now it is the time.........

I need a wide angle and ulta wide angle and something in between 35 and 400 and a body of course.

I guess I have to pay my local pro shop a visit.......

Vasco

p.s. I'd be interested in hearing more opinions......

Do I need any Certification to qualify as a CPS Member

This seems to vary from country to country ... in the UK, you simply have to spend a load of dosh. In the US, some professional accreditation seems to be necessary. I have heard that US dealer won't honour UK CPS membership.

Vasco - big and expensive move - perhaps the question is WHY you want to switch (or what is it about Nikon that's disappointing you). If IS is the big issue, I believe there are gyro stablising devices which can be added to any lens. Its also worth considering that wide angle lenses are perhaps not Canon's strongest suit ... you could well be better off with Nikon here.

Incidentally, for those in the UK, I noticed yesterday that LCE Southampton have a used 400mm f2.8 for £2600. Anyone tempted?  

Cheers,

Colin

Vasco,

Either the 16-35L or 17-40L would be excellent choices in the ultra wide department. The 1.3x crop of the pro 1-series DSLRs wouldn't look too bad on either of the 2. I recently upgraded to the 16-35 from the 17-40, just because of that extra 1mm it afforded me. Crisp, clear and sharp.

I've gone in a big way into primes but I still find my 100-400L very useful. My recent acquisition is the fantastic 400/4 DO IS, this was a replacement for my 500/4L IS which I found to be way too heavy to lug around. The 400 DO is just an amazingly light and compact supertelephoto. Here's a recent sample...


View Large View Medium

Photo © Vector Grafix


You wouldn't regret the switch. I switched back in the early 1990s and haven't looked back since.

ckw said: My gut feeling is that other factors aside, you're more "futureproofed" with Canon

Yes, and that's what Canon told us when we all had FD mount lenses too...!

Andy

My gut feeling is that other factors aside, you're more "futureproofed" with Canon.
Yup... and what about the EF(s) mounts that don't fit onto my 10D ?  

Had an interesting assignment today.
Photographing R/C aircrafts, an electrical powered indoor event.
Very demanding, very difficult due to bad light conditions but great to do as well.
Those little buggers are fast and in the given conditions had to work with iso 800/1600 and the lens wide open.
For sure something where you need to have good equipment or go home.
This lead me to the following thing which might be a consideration as well.
If my memory serves me right the AF motor is placed inside the camera body(Nikon) and in the lens(Canon).
As i was in the need of a very fast and accurate AF, which i luckily have(Sigma 70-200/2.8EX), i was thinking that it doesn't matter what you buy in the Nikon case because it will never get faster as the camera allows it to.
In other words if one of the lens manufacturers gets a brain wave(USM/canon - HSM/sigma) as a Nikon user you can never take advantage of it.
My thinking might be wrong though.

Some of today's images as example.

Isn't Nikon's AF-S, lens driven, similar to USM/HSM?

Nice shots btw!

Staffan

[Edited 2004-11-22 00:39:13]

Isn't Nikon's AF-S, lens driven, similar to USM/HSM?

In the end yes Staffan, the Nikon AF is also lens driven but to my best knowledge with one difference.
A Canon body only holds the electronics where the Nikon body holds the electronics as well as the motor to move something back and forth in the lens.
I suppose that is why you can have very slow and very fast lenses on a Canon where on the Nikon it doesn't matter so much.
Not sure whether this is a pro or a con though but anyway something to think about.

Greetz, i am off.

No, I meant that the AF-S lenses have the motor in the lens. At least that's what I thought.. Anyone know for sure?

Staffan

I always find it interesting to see what photojournalists use with regards to camera setup.

My travels have lead me that most of Calgary's newspaper photographers use Canon. However, when I was in Vancouver each one that I met used Nikon and swore by it.

Nikon Canada offers NPS (Nikon Professional Services) which offers identical services to that of Canon. The qualifications are dependant on the number of pro grade lenses you own, and whether you are a full time photographer.

CPS membership requirements vary from region to region. Here in Asia, all you have to do is to own 1 pro grade body (EOS 1, 3, 10D, 20D etc...) and at least 1 L lens. Shouldn't be too hard of a requirement to fulfill since this would be the most basic setup of a lot of photogs.

Here's a link to the European CPS membership page. The requirements are a tad higher...

http://www.cps.canon-europe.com/faq/view.do?catId=1002

(EOS 1, 3, 10D, 20D etc...)

Now that's interesting... what are we classing as being Canon Pro equipment?

The 'L' series lenses appears to be a given but I was a bit surprised to see the 10D in the above list and to a certain extent the 20D. I was thinking more along the lines of

D30 / 300D = Consumer DSLR

D60 / 10D / 20D = Prosumer DSLR

1Dmkii, 1DSmkii, 1Ds = Pro DSLR

... this list being any Canon DSLR available today both new and secondhand.

I can see how the 20Ds spec might be blurring the distinction slightly though!

Cheers!

Rez
 

I've seen lots of pros using the 10D as their main or 2nd body. Canon certainly regard them as enough of a requirement to for CPS membership as they are listed in the paper application form I got. Even the 300D fits their requirments if I remember correctly.

Vasco,

Just to let you know that I have been having the same dilemma since July.

I think that the Canon L series range is a better overall range than what Nikon can offer at the moment, body for body I don't think that there is much in it feature or quality wise.

Do I take a big hit with selling all of my Nikon gear and make the switch or do I tough it out hoping that Nikon will speed up their development and improve their range. I have a deposit on a D2X so am going to see what thats like before making the decision.

Paul

I have no doubt that the Nikon D2X will be a fine camera ... the concern is how long it took Nikon to get there (assuming they keep to their release dates), and so where will Nikon be in 18 months?

I believe it has been stated by a senior Canon person that the 1DsII will be the last Canon in the Series 1 format, and that a replacement body type is already in design. Also, it would seem that if Canon were to use 20D pixel size/pitch on a full frame sensor they could today produce a 20-22mp sensor. I would be very surprised if within 18 months Canon didn't announce a new single pro model offering 20-25mp, with at least 6 frames/sec and much larger buffering - and that's just extrapolating from what Canon have on the shelf now with some conservative growth factors. Who knows what other tricks they have up their sleeve? For example, I understand they are working on their own version of a Bayer-free Foveon.

Ultimately, it comes down to money ... will Nikon be able to stay in the game? My personal opinion is Nikon should have taken the gamble Canon did in changing from FD - EOS and adopted the 4/3 format along with Olympus. This would have given them something significantly different to Canon as well as a very interesting development path for the future. As it is, they are playing catch-up and simply don't have Canon's resources.

Cheers,

Colin

I had the same question for a long time because I could never afford L glass from Canon. I recently wanted to get rid of my EF 75-300mm II because I found that it was too soft at 300mm. I found a great deal at Ebay for a used Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L. This lens is now discontinued but many people say it is one of the sharpest (if not the sharpest) zoom lens that Canon ever made (search for "Magic Drainpipe"). It is heavy, not your everyday walkaround lens but the photos are so sharp with excellent contrast and colours in the whole zoom range, even wide open! The build quality is very good because its made of metal. Mine is made in the late 90s, it has been used intensively and apart from a few scratches on the body it is perfect. Now I understand why L glass is so expensive and I will try to buy another one when I get a chance.

Vasco -

Pick up this book:



http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=12218&is=REG

It is pretty much the Bible on EOS lenses. And a great primer.

I myself am in the process of upgrading to the 1D MkII. My D60 is just not enough for me anymore in the commercial work. I need a pro body. I am currently debating a used 1Ds or a new 1D Mk II. I am leaning towards the Mk II. For a brief moment I thought of just getting a 20D and spending the rest of the money on L glass or maybe a new portable flash pack. But one thing I've learned after using the hell out of my D60. Durability is key. The 20D is still a prosumer camera and it's just not as sturdy. The 1 series are made for far more shutter cycles than the prosumers and are weatherproof.

I know this doesn;t really answer your Nikon vs. Canon query  , but I know what you are going through. The research is time consuming...

But again, get that book if you can. You're realize, after a few days reading, why the Canon EF system is so amazing. And expensive.

wm

Thanks guys for the valuable input so far.
This is a real tough one.....

Wide angle is not my main concern, I would say 80-90% of my shots were taken with 400mm and above, so I am looking at those Canon primes with a fast rugged body.

I have to pay my local pro shop a visit and who knows what will happen.......

Vasco

Vasco,

Been thinking about these Canon guys notice how they are always upgrading?

D30 then D60 then 10D then 20D next week there is the 30D too 

One day Canon will get it right  

Taking cover

Paul  

At least we have something to upgrade ! haha  


Willem

I used Nikon products years ago when I first started shooting but am now a devoted Canon fan. The metering system and electronics, in my opinion, are streets ahead of the Nikon bodies. I have also found that they can take a lot more of a hammering than the Nikon ones, they seem to be a bit sensitive when it comes to taking then out into the bush etc.

When I travel somewhere I am usually taking with me 2 x EOS1V bodies, a 17-35, 28-70 2.8L series, 70-210 2.8L Series, 35-350 and a 100-400 image stabilised lens. However havent been happy with the 100-400 lens and am getting rid of it. Decided instead to spend $2.5K USD and get one of Ken Labs KS-6 gyros and used it on the weekend for a shoot and it was awesome and well worth the money. I was in one helo shooting another which was about 250ft below us, and was at the 350 end of the 35-350, AND at 50th of a second and still had a good number of pin sharp images.

Although I have been resisting the urge to go digital I have just ordered today two of the new EOS 1DS Mark IIs. Once I have tried them out on a few photo shoots will post my impressions of them. Thought if I am going to change to digital might as well go the whole way.

Cheers

Air 2 Air.

Air 2 Air,

Do you think that the 35-350 L is better than the 100-400? Okay, the former doesn't have IS but in aviation photography it is better if the lens could zoom out lower than 100mm. We usually position ourselves in such a way that the plane is fast approaching towards us and it will be nice if it was possible to zoom out more than 100mm. This is why I personally prefer the 70-200 range over the 100-400 and the 35-350 will be excellent for sure.

Sorry if this is a little off topic. Any thoughts?

Thanks.

OD720 - All of my photography is done from one helicopter to another or from one aircraft to another. When shooting helicopters I find that the 35-350 gives me just the right ranges I need to get some awesome shots. However when shooting in the military jets I try to use a fixed 100 lens because otherwise it is too hard to focus through the canopies.

I tried the IS 100-400 and didnt like it, because and I dont know if this is just the lens I had, or its the same with all of them but when it locks onto the subject it gives a little bit of movement before it locks on. Therefore I bought the Ken Lab gyro and went back to using my regular lenses which are the 35-350, the 28-70 and the 70-200, with the gyro attached of course and the results in my opinion are much better than the IS lens itself.

Air2Air.

Paul,

I guess it is a choice of either upgrading because you want to or because you have butter fingers  

Cheers

Ben Pritchard

Rez - I would say that the D30 would be up there with the 'prosumer' DSLR's as when it originally came out it was at a similar or higher price in comparison with the D60, 10D etc. The only 'consumer' DSLR being the 300D which was especially marketed as a budget range DSLR.