- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,743
- Format
- 35mm
If I wasn't a Pentax guy (best optics and stabilization) I'd probably select Sony. Neither Nikon nor Canon both of which are doing better with products other than DSLR..
Ask a serious film maker...they'll say Sony or Panasonic.
I know that the Nikon people are going to burn me at the stake for this, and I have to say that manual Nikon SLRs are the greatest ever...buuuuuuut.
Canon knocked it out of the ballpark when they released the EOS system. The EF lenses to me feel mature, solid and dependable across the price range. My 40mm 2.8 feels just as nice as my 70-200 2.8L II. I can't say the same for Nikon lenses. The cheaper and older lenses for autofocus just don't feel complete. Autofocus can be slow and jittery, it's not a smooth experience.
Second point. Canons menu system is easy and straightforward.
Let me get some accelerator, a stake and some matches ...
Just watch out for the Canon EF-S lenses - easy to confuse with EF lenses, but only compatible with the smaller sensor cameras.
I actually have a really handy 22-55mm EF lens that was designed for the short lived APS film cameras, but as they didn't have a different lens mount designed, it is compatible with the entire EF line, and actually gives decent results on 35mm film.
That's an oddball. Does it vignette much?
Not at all - it is designed to cover the full frame.
Its corner performance isn't stellar, and it isn't very fast, but it is absolutely tiny and it covers a great range of fields of view.
Look, an EF 50 1.8 made in 1992 is basically the same as one made in 2018. Can't say the same for Nikon.
I can. An AF50 1.8 in the D line is still available new: https://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/AF-Nikkor-50mm-f%2F1.8D.html
It's substantially the same as the one I used in the early 90s and, like the Canon lens, was and is an excellent lens for the price.
You can make your point, and I get what you mean. This just isn't the lens to use to make it.
Didn't they take the aperture ring off the lens at some point?
Hi i m photographer and i want to buy new DSLR. What will be your opinion which brand is Beast i.e Nikon, Canon, Sony or any other
Dude, we get your point.
THIS is not the lens to use to make it is all I'm saying.
Find an E (electronic diaphragm) or a G lens and it isn't backwards compatable. But Nikon only just announced the discontinuation of some D lenses, and the D line goes all the way back to early AF days.
Nikons are great. I love mine to death, but the mirrorless don't drive old lenses without internal focusing so they're a pretty clean break from the old lens technology. Likewise, the E lenses don't work with pre 2006 camera designs, so literally no film camera can use the electronic diaphragm, and the G and later lenses don't have an aperture ring. Plenty of issues that you point to if you're looking to have one lens to go from an early AF camera to a DSLR to a mirrorless with the adapter.
Their menus are also kludgy as all get out. Nikon is bad at software, always was.
But this flailing about feels too much like s fanboy who just wants to pick a fight. Nobody gives a shit about the Canon/Nikon holy wars anymore, except for people who want to fight because they want to fight.
And, frankly, picking on the AF50 as the inferior lens is kind of telling. Shows you don't know Nikon at all, you're just fanboying. It's the ultimate cheap SLR lens. Sharp, fast focus, and cheap as chips. $65 used, $110 new. If you want to prove your superiority, you don't go after the sweet, easy going kid that everyone loves. Go after the prickly one with obvious flaws.
It's the only autofocus lens I use reliably honestly. I have a good amount and I generally go to the 50.
I'm not fanboying. Just stating my preference with digital. When it comes to manual film Nikon is king. Canon isn't even close.
Sony and Panasonic for video work. Sure.
For stills? Eh. Nope. Sony is not rock solid reliable, lenses are a fortune. Panasonic was made for video work. Pentax is for Pentax people.
Less issues than Nikon however. Canon branded EF lenses will autofocus accurately with any EOS body digital or film.
Can't say the same for Nikon.
Now the comments on Nikons are interesting. I have 8-9 legacy lenses, some AI and some converted, that all work just fine with my D-750. What non-compatibility issues have you other folks seen?
Why wouldNikon bodies work with Canon EF lenses?
When someone is just starting out the F mount can be very confusing. Canon is easier. If it's FD it don't work. If it's EF it works.
Hardee har.
Dude, we get your point.
THIS is not the lens to use to make it is all I'm saying.
Find an E (electronic diaphragm) or a G lens and it isn't backwards compatable. But Nikon only just announced the discontinuation of some D lenses, and the D line goes all the way back to early AF days.
Nikons are great. I love mine to death, but the mirrorless don't drive old lenses without internal focusing so they're a pretty clean break from the old lens technology. Likewise, the E lenses don't work with pre 2006 camera designs, so literally no film camera can use the electronic diaphragm, and the G and later lenses don't have an aperture ring. Plenty of issues that you point to if you're looking to have one lens to go from an early AF camera to a DSLR to a mirrorless with the adapter.
Their menus are also kludgy as all get out. Nikon is bad at software, always was.
But this flailing about feels too much like s fanboy who just wants to pick a fight. Nobody gives a shit about the Canon/Nikon holy wars anymore, except for people who want to fight because they want to fight.
And, frankly, picking on the AF50 as the inferior lens is kind of telling. Shows you don't know Nikon at all, you're just fanboying. It's the ultimate cheap SLR lens. Sharp, fast focus, and cheap as chips. $65 used, $110 new. If you want to prove your superiority, you don't go after the sweet, easy going kid that everyone loves. Go after the prickly one with obvious flaws.
If you don't have photographer friends you're stuck with Internet gossip (like this thread).
If you do have photographer friends, ask them what they'd buy.
Don't pay attention to people who have lots of lenses. Look at the photographs they've printed.
There's no good reason to buy a DSLR if you're not going to make prints, one way or another.
If you have a good film camera, don't use lack of a dslr as some kind of weird alibi.
Scan your favorite film. Even the top level Epson scanner is cheap by comparison to dslrs and it'll be far more useful in the long run.
Make inkjet prints from your favorite (or most puzzling) scans (files). That way ;you'll see why you've been making photographs. Most film photographers do almost nothing with them. Holidays, family, vacation. Nothing more. Or they pretend snaps of strangers are "art."
Instead of buying a dslr (I love mine), commit seriously to photography. That will probably lead you to some form of digital camera....eventually. But figure out what you think you're doing by snapping that shutter.
Hardly anybody on Photrio talks about WHY they're making their photographs, and fewer still talk about what they INTEND TO DO by making photographs.
Don't get trapped in camera-accumulation. Review your existing photos. You made them (probably carelessly, as most of us tend to do). Stop making photos until you have some kind of idea about what/why.
Better yet, get APSC rather than full frame. APSC cameras are far smaller and far lighter than full frame as well as FAR less expensive . But if you enjoy the advertisements and fanboy hype, and have money to burn, that's up to you and your rabbi (or whoever).
I'd bet you can't distinguish APSC files from full frame files except in fantasy enlargements or in wild crops. In other words, if you print or view @ 13X19 you won't see any difference.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?