Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Photography' started by Sam Posten, Jan 6, 2012.
whats the best nikon d4s or canon d1x??
greats photo's Sam
Can of worms - Nikon- vs. Canon-owners.
You won't get a decisive answer, I suppose.
The correct answer is -- whichever one you own. Honestly, if you cannot get outstanding results with the current models from any of the manufacturers, the problem is not with the camera, but with the piece of equipment behind the viewfinder.
I picked up the new Nikon. I can't afford to pay $6,000 right now.
If you aren't shooting 9 frames a second there is very little reason to get a $6k camera. Honestly it's overkill even for me, had the D600 been around when I bought mine it would have made a lot more sense.
I sort of ascribe to that way of thinking and sort of don't. Keep in mind that my first camera was a US Army surplus with titanium body that was built like a tank and looked like it had been driven over by several real tanks. My 'long' lens was a 1972 vintage Vivitar manual focus 400mm. So I have gone the gamut from 'cheaper than dirt' to 'best bang for the buck' to 'Holy crap this is overpriced but I value it for these x features'. Using top quality gear DOES have it's advantages. Limiting yourself to certain tech and techniques CAN be more freeing than you'd suspect. It's all about tradeoffs and putting in those 10,000 hours to get to a certain level and NOT STOPPING THERE, either gear wise, technique wise, experimentation wise or whatever. But if you start at zero and buy the top of the line you may or may not realize what you've got in your hands if you haven't lived without it, that's for sure.
I will never be an artist. I will always be a geek, so YMMV on how you see things differently than I do.
I would agree w/ Sam that the sentiment can sometimes get overstated... although I'd say it generally applies very well when it comes to someone who doesn't really know and needs to ask such questions (and are not likely get all that serious about photography for the finer details and nuances to matter).
Even for a serious amateur, it's generally best to learn to make the most of more limited gear first before leaping ahead, etc. That's in large part why photography classes have generally started out w/ full manual (and usually on B&W film) and a single fixed focal length lens -- that and it helps a lot in training your "eye".
Some of my most favorite shots are still from my old Canon G3 (when I first took photography more seriously)... though 4MP definitely has its limitations, if one should want to enlarge beyond 5x7, maybe upto 8x10 (for a reach). And most of my better shots (on DSLR) do also involve actively limiting myself in certain ways... which others will likely agree too...
I was referring to the "which is better, Canon or Nikon?" questions and discussions we all see. The latest dSLR models from either of this manufacturers, or Sony for that matter, will all produce outstanding results in capable hands. The perceived differences in quality are extremely minor relative to the differences that can be realized by someone spending the time to truly learn about things like proper exposure, lighting, composition, post processing, etc. If someone is unwilling to learn something about photography, even the most expensive camera is going to produce lousy results.