# Why canon?



## willrobb (Jan 19, 2012)

So, why are you all canon users? What makes you choose canon over Nikon, Pentax, Olympus etc?

My reason is dull. When I first started learning photography and had no money a cheap canon film body and lens was all I could afford as my local store had them on sale and they were the cheapest, I learned on that body and I just kept using canon, it's always delivered whatever I need and I do really really love the glass (told you it was dull).

How about therest of you? I'm particularly keen to hear from people who jumped ship from Nikon to Canon to hear what made them change....or anyone who jumps from Canon to Nikon for that matter.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 19, 2012)

I changed from Nikon to Canon mainly because after using both i much prefered the control layouts on the high end bodies of the canon I wish the lower models would adopt the way the 1D sets AEB though


----------



## ronderick (Jan 19, 2012)

Mine was pretty simple:

1. The 40D fit my hands much better than the D80, and

2. I have more Canon shooters around me when I started, so it was easier for me to find help.

The reason why I stuck with Canon was because of 5D2 which appeared as I contemplated whether to go serious by switching over to the D700 but was holding back because of the 95% viewfinder... though I remember back then the price was pretty tempting.

Now, once into the FF bodies, there's no turning back with the lens investment ;D


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 19, 2012)

Canon has long had a strong point of low cost mass produced camera equipment that may not be the very best, but it is a good value for the money. 

They do make design compromises in favor of lowering the cost of production while still making a excellent product. This has allowed them to have a higher profit margin and still price products very competitively. Thats why I bought my first Canon FTQL back in the 1960's, a Nikon was just too expensive. I had a Nikon CP 990 when the Digital Rebel came out, and bought one because once again, I got more for my dollar. Same with 5D MK II and a lot of other Canon models.

I don't know if that will always hold true, they seem to be raising prices to the point where they are close to Nikon, and the 1D X might even be more expensive, we have yet to see the price. However, the cost of nikon lenses is still far ahead of the Canon ones.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 19, 2012)

I got a really good deal on a Canon 300, then a Canon 1000, a Canon 100 and a Canon IX. I had some Canon lens so the move to digital was obviously less painful by buying a 40D ......


----------



## D.Sim (Jan 19, 2012)

Well... why NOT Canon?

Not much to my story, first ever dSLR I ever tried was the 50D, loved it... wanted an SLR ever since, and when I finally saved up the money for it, got it. Not regretted it, even after using the newer 60D and 7D, even the old 5D. 

Now that I've been shooting for a while though, I've found another reason... and if this were sesame street I'd be saying today's post is brought to you by the letter "*L*"


----------



## Leopard Lupus (Jan 19, 2012)

My first camera was an AE-1 with the 50mm 1.8 mounted that I purchased for $70 from a local photographer. Ever since then, I've been with Canon. I love the glass (and of course the 5D mk ll) so there really isn't any reason for me to switch over. Canon really is able to cater to a wide variety of shooters!


----------



## bycostello (Jan 19, 2012)

happenstance in my original purchase and now locked in because of lenses... don't matter though which brand as i've said before it ain't the camera that takes the image...


----------



## BlueMixWhite (Jan 19, 2012)

I recently sold off all my nikon stuffs and ready to jump to canon because of the varities of lens available from Canon and also it's seem more affortable and more highly rated as compared to nikon. The way I see it, if i continue with nikon i couldnt afford those "N" lens as they are way over my budget. Whereas with canon, i could start of easier with the 24-105L f4, the 17-40L f4 and maybe the 135L f2 in near term. 

My situation is kinda epic as my friends pointed out, i was so sure i'm going for the 5Dmk2 and at the same time a used 24-105L mint condition happen to passby and i got it without a body in hand. This all happen in Dec, and by Jan i'm ready to get my 5Dmk2.........but to my bad luck, my iMac logicboard decided to quit and can consider my iMac is total. The replacement of the logicboard is as close as a new iMac. Therefore i have no choice but to forego the 5D 1st and get my computer sorted out. Where as the same time i am also like some, having the dilemma whether i should wait for the mk3. :


----------



## willrobb (Jan 19, 2012)

BlueMixWhite said:


> I recently sold off all my nikon stuffs and ready to jump to canon because of the varities of lens available from Canon and also it's seem more affortable and more highly rated as compared to nikon. The way I see it, if i continue with nikon i couldnt afford those "N" lens as they are way over my budget. Whereas with canon, i could start of easier with the 24-105L f4, the 17-40L f4 and maybe the 135L f2 in near term.
> 
> My situation is kinda epic as my friends pointed out, i was so sure i'm going for the 5Dmk2 and at the same time a used 24-105L mint condition happen to passby and i got it without a body in hand. This all happen in Dec, and by Jan i'm ready to get my 5Dmk2.........but to my bad luck, my iMac logicboard decided to quit and can consider my iMac is total. The replacement of the logicboard is as close as a new iMac. Therefore i have no choice but to forego the 5D 1st and get my computer sorted out. Where as the same time i am also like some, having the dilemma whether i should wait for the mk3. :



Major bummer about the iMac, really sorry to hear about it. Hope you manage to get a new iMac sorted out and manage to get a good deal on a 5DmkII.


----------



## Doodah (Jan 19, 2012)

Long, long time ago, Canon used to lead the field of sensor performance. That was when I hopped on the Canon bandwagon.


----------



## squarebox (Jan 19, 2012)

I just recently got a dSLR but the reason i choose canon was way way back when I moved to a Digital P&S there were only two big companies, Sony and Canon who were making cameras. Sony had Zeiss glass, and sonys electronics are always top notch... just break after 6 months so I went with Canon who had an impressive line-up of P&S from simple cameras to the Gs. That being said, I just stuck with Canon the whole way.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 19, 2012)

Leopard Lupus said:


> My first camera was an AE-1 with the 50mm 1.8 ...



Me too! 

I'm not adverse to using other cameras. For example, during a lot of the 90's / early 00's, I was using a Mamiya RB67 just as much as my Canons. Even today, I do almost as much shooting with a little Mamiya and an Olympus as I do with my Canon. In recent years, I've considered switching to Pentax (I think their small lenses are cool), and Sony (after reading reviews on their 24mm, 85mm and 135mm). Sometimes I even think about switching to Nikon (my sister shoots Nikon and we could share lenses).

But ultimately, other systems have problems and compromises. Whereas the Canon range is almost perfect. I'm happy with the camera and lenses that I have. I don't think that switching to another manufacturer will really add anything. Or to put it another way, my photos would suck just as much if they were shot with a Nikon as they do now.

Of course, if Mr Nikon came and offered me a lucrative sponsorship deal....


----------



## MazV-L (Jan 19, 2012)

After doing some research, I decided on Canon, the 50D was my first Dslr, I was liking what I read in the reviews about it. I liked that Canon had a larger range of lenses and not as pricey as Nikon. It's definitely the favoured brand used by the Pros I know, in fact, I don't personally know any Pros using Nikon. 
I only have plans to upgrade within the Canon System, nothing about them to annoy me enough to want to switch.


----------



## AG (Jan 19, 2012)

Mine was a pretty simple reason.

Started with an old Pentax SLR back in ye olde times. When digital hit i decided to change. Choice was Canon or Nikon and honestly i just didn't like the feel of the Nikon compared to the Canon.

Simple as that.

I have all the respect in the world for Nikon and the D4 looks like a nice piece of kit but the ergonomics of their cameras just doesn't feel right to me.


----------



## 00Q (Jan 19, 2012)

For me its pure accident. When I was looking into my firsr DSLR, I was open to both. My friend who told me about the camera had a canon. So was another friend. So I bought into a canon. Equally, had they been using a nikon, I'd be with nikon. 

I must admit, at the time I genuinely thought canon was better, from the reputation. But now Im realising nikon prob makes better cameras.


----------



## moreorless (Jan 19, 2012)

If it was just down to the body I'd probabley have gone with a Pentax K-5 but the lens support just wasnt there, no weather sealed UWA and no long range standard zoom.

Besided to get the lightest high megapixel body I could and Canon offered a few more megapixels and slightly cheaper lenses than Nikon.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 19, 2012)

I wanted the cheapest and smallest, so when the 350d came out, that was the answer. Simple as that, but I kept using Canon because I liked it better and still do. The ease of use is what's important to me. I need to find the settings I need, fast, and at that Canon is simply the best.


----------



## Picsfor (Jan 19, 2012)

My first camera was a Praktica, which had quite a hefty state of the art (at the time) 28-200 zoom lens attached, which got damaged at work.

The insurance money allowed me to get a used Canon AE1P with the same lens (which was cheaper for Canon models!) an i never looked back.

Soon after i came by a squeeky A1 body to use as a second body - then saved up and bought a mint A1 body with power grip (equivalent to modern battery grip except it allowed me to shoot at 5ps with film). Finally, i changed my AE1P to another A1 so i had symmetry across the range.

I just loved the A1, and the 5D2 was the first digital to match my love of a camera, the 30d and 40D were good introductions to digital, but didn't set my photographic fire alike like the 5D2 or A1 did.

And that is pretty much how i look at cameras now - the 1D series have never really done it for me, until the 1DX - but who knows what the future will bring.

I've looked at Nikon a few times, but never quite found anything that really 'grabs me' like my 5D2. I might moan a lot about the AF, but i do not think it is too much to ask that Canon make all 9 points good quality AF points, given how much further down the line they are with AF technology - and that's what frustrates me with it.


----------



## kubelik (Jan 19, 2012)

when I first got back in to digital photography I was looking for affordable consumer DSLR's. I noticed that a lot of Nikon bodies and lenses had asterixes next to them saying such-and-such would not autofocus with this lens because it lacked the motor driver. that just struck me as something incredibly lousy, to have cameras and lenses in this day and age that you had to sort through the specs of before you could tell if it was going to AF or not. and thus ... Canon.

less importantly, but something I noticed later, is that Nikons are stupendously ugly. if there are any other design professionals who would like to debate that one, well ... let me know.


----------



## JR (Jan 19, 2012)

About 15 years ago I was shooting Nikon (with film of course) but then sold all my equipment. About 18 months ago when I started photography again I was starting from a clean slate and originally bought the Nikon D7000! For some reason I did not like the feel and the IQ of it so I decided to trade it in quickly and instead go with Canon.

Originally the lens selection of Canon and the IQ of the 5D mk II sold me to the brand. Today with several L lens under the pocket, I often look at Nikon and ask myself: do they have the same lens selection as Canon and do they have a oke for like equivalent for each L lens I own? While Nikon makes great lens too, I could not live without my 50 1.2, 85 1.2 and the 135 for which I think NIkon has inferior product in that focal lenght.

Of course 18 months later I now also want a kick-ass AF system and better low light performance, but this is why I crave the 1DX!


----------



## Neeneko (Jan 19, 2012)

For me it was because I got a bunch of hand-me-down lenses to get me started.

To be honest, I kinda regret going with Canon, but at this point replacing all my lenses with Nikon equivalents would be costly. 

Canon cameras lack a lot of capabilities that I would really like to have.


----------



## gbchriste (Jan 19, 2012)

I first took up photography circa 1980 with an AE1 and later upgraded to an A1, augmented with a Mamiya C330 twin lens reflex. Mostly did B&W outdoor scenic and landscape work and my real passion was working in the darkroom graciously provide free of charge by the United States Air Force as part of the on-base recreation facilities. When the Air Force started closing down these darkrooms due to cost to equip and manage them, especially the disposal and handling of chemicals, the cameras went in to the closet and only came out very rarely for birthday parties and such. After awhile, they quite coming out at all and hadn't seen the light of day in well over 20 years.

When I had my first grandchild on the way, I decided to jump back in to photography and since I still had a bag full of Canon gear and lots of fond memories, that's where I started looking. After handling a number of bodies, the 40D just seemed to fit my hand right and I liked the controls, so that's where I started. I've since stepped up to the 5DMkII with a 70-200 2.8L as my main lens (mainly shooting natural environment/light portraits now).

I'm crazy in love with the IQ and color rendering I get but like a lot of other people, I do so wish Canon would step up with a better AF system. I participate in a highly regarded portrait photography forum that is populated with a lot of pros that shoot astoundingly good stuff and there's a hardly a week goes by when one of them doesn't announce they are switching to Nikon because they are tired of battling the 5DMkII AF weaknesses. I'm not there yet but I do often wonder if the grass might be greener on the other side.


----------



## alipaulphotography (Jan 19, 2012)

450D going for a ridiculous price on ebay.

Lenses seemed to be slightly cheaper than the nikon equivalent. 

Favourite camera is probably my Olympus OM-2 though.


----------



## 7enderbender (Jan 19, 2012)

For me it also was based on what was available. My dad had (still has) a Canon A1 so that's what I started using first before I got my own AE1-P. It always did what I needed it to do and has been around the world with me a few times and been refurbished twice. I still use that one.

One of my best friends also happened to be a Canon shooter so we were always able to share gear. I never made the switch to the EOS system during the film days though. Just wasn't a big fan. I came close once to buying a used Nikon F5 once but then didn't though I really liked the feel of that one. Also, Leica R bodies made it on the short list a few times. Same with Contax. Olympus was nice as well and I actually just loaded my MjuII with a roll of film. But I always stuck to the Canon FD system (plus the occasional Canon digital P&S). Unfortunately, with digital there is no good way of using those lenses still. The aforementioned buddy bought a Samsung NX10 and still uses FD lenses with that one. It's a bit iffy though.

So when digital became more or less unavoidable I had to decide where to go since I needed to start from scratch. With unlimited funds I would have opted for the Leica M9. In the real world it became a decision between Nikon and Canon (and Sony for a very brief moment). In the end I chose what I was most familiar with. Both have their pros and cons. And Canon red just looks better than Nikon mustard yellow...


----------



## EYEONE (Jan 19, 2012)

My story is the same as some others. I wanted to get into photography and two of my close friends shot Canon. So I just bought the same camera as them. I probably should have researched Nikon a little more than I did. I knew that I should get Nikon or Canon but I really didn't know anything else about it.

But looking back and knowing what I know now I don't regret the Canon purchase. Nikon makes some great cameras and you can't fault anyone for choosing them. But I do feel that Canon's EOS system is a lot more unified than Nikon. Nikon has more backward compatibility which is great but it comes at the cost of a unified system. I'm sure Canon made a lot of photographers mad back in the 80s by switching to the EF mount but in the long run it was the right decision. And now Nikon has cameras with AF motors and some without AF motors and a bunch of lenses with aperture rings that don't actually need them on and on. It just seems patched together.

When I think about buying that first camera and how I had no idea what made a lens good, what an f-stop was, what ISO meant or USM, or IS. I learned so much so fast. I ate it up, I just *loved* photography and cameras. And still do of course.


----------



## 7enderbender (Jan 19, 2012)

BlueMixWhite said:


> I recently sold off all my nikon stuffs and ready to jump to canon because of the varities of lens available from Canon and also it's seem more affortable and more highly rated as compared to nikon. The way I see it, if i continue with nikon i couldnt afford those "N" lens as they are way over my budget. Whereas with canon, i could start of easier with the 24-105L f4, the 17-40L f4 and maybe the 135L f2 in near term.
> 
> My situation is kinda epic as my friends pointed out, i was so sure i'm going for the 5Dmk2 and at the same time a used 24-105L mint condition happen to passby and i got it without a body in hand. This all happen in Dec, and by Jan i'm ready to get my 5Dmk2.........but to my bad luck, my iMac logicboard decided to quit and can consider my iMac is total. The replacement of the logicboard is as close as a new iMac. Therefore i have no choice but to forego the 5D 1st and get my computer sorted out. Where as the same time i am also like some, having the dilemma whether i should wait for the mk3. :



Oh come on. If you can make the switch from Nikon to Canon you can also go from MAC to PC. It's really the same bang-for-the-buck issue only more so ;-)


----------



## Eisbaer (Jan 19, 2012)

When I was young everybody around me had Canon. So, I started with a T70 than T90 than 40D and never I was disappointed. 

When I went digital I considered to switch to Nikon for a short time. But Canon felt at home.

Best regards
Eisbaer


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jan 19, 2012)

First reason is, that after a short talk with a couple of photographers, I was convinced I should buy one of the big brands. Around here, it's Nikon & Canon - I don't even remember when I've last seen a DSLR of a different brand.

Another reason I bought Canon was similar to kubelik's ...



kubelik said:


> when I first got back in to digital photography I was looking for affordable consumer DSLR's. I noticed that a lot of Nikon bodies and lenses had asterixes next to them saying such-and-such would not autofocus with this lens because it lacked the motor driver.



I've found it confusing. Wikipedia's description of Canon & Nikon lenses & posts to a local photography equipment forums strengthened my impression that it's easy to select a Canon lens, and confusing to select a Nikon lens.

Another is posts I've read that Nikon's FX line is missing a few lenses, like a 70-200mm f/4. In retrospective, I would much rather have a 14-24mm over a 70-200mm f/4.

Finally, there were a few people who owned Canon and could let me work a bit with their equipment. E.g. two co workers have Canon equipment, and we exchange impressions of equipment and let each other shoot with each other's lenses. There wasn't and isn't anyone who would let me do the same with Nikon equipment.


----------



## awinphoto (Jan 19, 2012)

For me as a kid my parents (not photographers nor even really enthusiasts, they could have a roll of film last a year or two in camera) had a canon semi manual camera... I learned both cameras in high school photo and college, but when nikon first came out with the nikon d1x (their only digital camera at the time) and canon had their D30's and D60's, I liked the feel of the Canon, the system was more intuitive, I could pick it up and not have to change a ton of settings to get what I wanted... It was more user friendly. I found the nikon interface, like photoshop, had like 3 different buttons/menus to do the exact same thing and the D1x had 100's of options and such... was just too much for me to pick up and start shooting... I never really got comfortable with it. When the 10D came out I took the plunge and been using Canon ever since. I'm sure Nikon has refined it's camera/menu system, but it's a tad too late.


----------



## bainsybike (Jan 19, 2012)

I'd been using Canon compacts for a couple of years and wanted to move up to a DSLR, so I was leaning towards Canon because I was familiar with the menus. I went into a shop and handled both the 400D and the Nikon D40X. Both felt very nice in the hand, and they told me in the shop that there was nothing to choose between them. I preferred Canon's CF card to Nikon's SD.

But, and I'm ashamed to admit this, the main thing that put me off the Nikon was the red flash.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 19, 2012)

I shot Minolta and Pentax film SLRs, then after a long hiatus went looking for a dSLR in 2009. It was pretty easy to boil it down to Canon vs. Nikon based on lens selection alone. A couple of friends shot Canon, a couple of pro photogs we'd hired to do family portraits shot Canon, and the Nikon lens confusion was another factor. 

One other factor was online information - the two sites I happend on early on were TDP and Nikonians. The former had detailed information on cameras, lenses, and accessories in a helpful, readable fashion, and the associated forum was congenial and friendly. OTOH, when I went to nikonians.org, I was almost immediately greeted with, "_We recommend that you upgrade your membership to at least silver level to enjoy the full functionality of the Nikonians community,_" i.e. pay to play. No thanks.


----------



## distant.star (Jan 19, 2012)

bycostello said:


> happenstance in my original purchase and now locked in because of lenses... don't matter though which brand as i've said before it ain't the camera that takes the image...



Yep, pretty much the same.

When I rather arrogantly decided I could take great pictures I decided to get an SLR, a "real" camera. One of the best around at the time was the Minolta SRT-102 -- with the new TTL metering. Wow.

At work in the eighties, we used Nikon. In the early nineties when I had to buy my own stuff I went into a camera shop that sold Canon -- so that got me committed with body and glass.

But, as Costello says, whatever gives me a good image. Canon is as good as the next, better than most in my opinion.


----------



## Narcolepsy (Jan 19, 2012)

I honestly can't remember why I bought an AE1-P rather than a different SLR - I was 11 or 12 at the time and got it second-hand with the proceeds of singing in a church choir... I got all my family into Canon - both brothers and my father subsequently bought A1s.
I then went away from Canon for quite a while - mostly because the way I make money from photos can often rely on other people taking the photo (of me doing a procedure) - and I moved very early to digital and P&S (this was accompanied by scanning in hundreds of slides to use them in powerpoint). My most successful P&S was an HP850 - surprisingly good IQ straight out of the camera.
Came back to Canon when I wanted more from my camera for the increasing number of fun (i.e. non-earning) photos.... just wasn't happy with the IQ (or autofocus ironically enough) of my last semi-P&S (a Fuji s9600). Spent a long time trying to decide between Canon and Nikon - the lenses and the familiarity with the language of the lenses won it for me.... so I am now a proud owner of a 5D2 and saving up for more lenses....
Only problem is I now have to get other people to use the 5D2 well for the photos that I used to justify its purchase..... :-\


----------



## Yoshiyuki Blade (Jan 19, 2012)

For me, it's because I grew up seeing Canon in the house. I remember my dad using an old Canonet as far back as I can remember. It was before I even knew what name brands meant. The camera is still around the house and its nice to know what the controls mean now (I probably know more than my dad does because he's mostly been a casual user). Anyway, it wasn't long into my lifetime before I noticed my dad eagerly wielding his first film SLR, the Rebel in the early '90s (I was around 5-6 years old by then). I think it even came with a VHS tape to introduce the user to the camera because I noticed him watching something about Canon. I wonder why no such introductory media exists these days?

From that point forward, the brand just stuck around. My dad got a Canon "bubble jet" printer whose quality far exceeded those incredibly noisy ribbon-based printers. Enter the digital age, he bought a Sony P&S camera. We were actually shocked by how clean the image was and previously imagined it to be slightly better than something you'd get off of a web cam. A few years later, after looking into it more deeply, we figured a Canon P&S had better image quality and switched over to that. The build quality didn't match the Sony camera, but it the image quality mattered more to us. Around 2006 or so, my dad bought the Rebel XTi, which remained mostly unused as photography became less and less relevant in out lives. I had probably used it the most, and I even did some fun stuff like make timelapse videos from it, but overall it just collected dust.

But for some reason, my interest in photography spiked in pretty much the last half year or so. I learned most of the technical details of photography with the Rebel XTi and bought my first prime lens, the 50mm f/1.4. I was amazed by how sharp the images could be (when stopped down a bit, of course).

I suppose my dad had the itch to get yet another Canon camera and this time we decided to make this one count. We got the 5D MkII when the B&H xmas sales were all too tempting. Now I've spent the last month trying to tame this beast and make the most out of it. I've already taken some fresh, updated shots of the whole family, when we'd otherwise go years and years without a single shot taken. I hope to make photography more relevant now that this beastly camera is in our possession. It truly is out of our league since we're amateur/casual photographers and I hope to change that.

TL;DR: Canon was a household name growing up and I've stuck with it (not to mention Canon maintains its presence to this day).


----------



## K-amps (Jan 19, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I wish the lower models would adopt the way the 1D sets AEB though



+1


----------



## bvukich (Jan 19, 2012)

Superficial reasons: Because Nikon bodies are ugly, and I can't stand Ashton Kutcher.

Slightly less superficial reasons: Nikon has an illogical model number scheme, and you need a slide rule to figure out which lenses work with which bodies.

Genuine reasons: *Because of the S100* (the circa 2000 version), it was my first digital camera, and was AWESOME (for it's time). And I just kept buying Canon from then on, progressing through the P&S models, through bridge models, and finally on to an XSi shortly after it came out. I got a 60D right after they came out to hold me over until the 5D3, if I had known it would take this long, I would have gotten a 7D.
*Because of lenses.* I perceive the Canon line to be better in areas that matter to me, and a better value. I don't have a huge glass investment yet, certainly small enough that I could sell it all and only lose a few hundred dollars, if I chose to switch. So it's not an investment that's keeping me here, it's a conscious, rational decision based on what I think is the best path for me.
And the newest addition... *because of magic lantern*. Seriously, it's that damn cool. And this is more based on the potential, than on any current feature of ML. Just the fact there is an active community, successfully working on firmware hacking, is a HUGE advantage on Canon's part.

Readers digest version: Came for the bodies, stayed for the glass, magic lantern was dessert.


----------



## K-amps (Jan 19, 2012)

Doodah said:


> Long, long time ago, Canon used to lead the field of sensor performance. That was when I hopped on the Canon bandwagon.



+1

That, the reasonable cost of entry and the RebelXT did it for me


----------



## bigblue1ca (Jan 19, 2012)

Way back when..... in 2003 after holding out a year or two to buy a digital camera, based on reviews on DPR and price point I bought a Canon PowerShot A80 4MP. Great P&S at the time, I still like the colours of those images. Anyhow, I really liked it and that lead to me buying another Canon P&S which I also liked. So when I decided to step into the world of DSLR, it was natural to go with Canon.


----------



## K-amps (Jan 19, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> For me it was because I got a bunch of hand-me-down lenses to get me started.
> 
> To be honest, I kinda regret going with Canon, but at this point replacing all my lenses with Nikon equivalents would be costly.
> 
> Canon cameras lack a lot of capabilities that I would really like to have.



Like what?


----------



## Yoshiyuki Blade (Jan 19, 2012)

bigblue1ca said:


> Way back when..... in 2003 after holding out a year or two to buy a digital camera, based on reviews on DPR and price point I bought a Canon PowerShot A80 4MP. Great P&S at the time, I still like the colours of those images. Anyhow, I really liked it and that lead to me buying another Canon P&S which I also liked. So when I decided to step into the world of DSLR, it was natural to go with Canon.



Yeah, the A80 was the first Canon P&S camera that we got at the time. It gave some very clean images. I didn't mention this in my wall of text above, but we've gotten 2 more Canon P&S cameras after the A80 broke and neither of them seemed to match it in quality to my eyes. The 2nd one (A700) broke too and the 3rd one (A720 IS) still works fine. I later found out that the A80 had quite a large image sensor, which may have contributed to quality? I dunno for sure, but it was a purely subjective impression at the time.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 19, 2012)

I bought a Konica SLR when I was in high school and used it through college and my first two newspaper jobs. When I got a job as a photographer at a small daily, I knew I had to upgrade. As a poor, underpaid photographer with a family to support I had to make every penny count.

Added up the cost of what I needed from Canon and Nikon and figured out I could get an additional lens by buying Canon. Borrowed the money from the credit union and bought an F1, four lenses, and an AT-1 body as a backup. 

Hard to imagine now, but at the time, hardly any news photographers used Canon (Nikon practically owned the business). Got lots of sneers from others, but it was what I could afford and it was far superior to the Konica. 

When I got back into photography a few years ago, I never considered anything but Canon.


----------



## bvukich (Jan 19, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Neeneko said:
> 
> 
> > For me it was because I got a bunch of hand-me-down lenses to get me started.
> ...



I'd like to know too.

Besides the basic trait of Nikon differentiating performance tiers by resolution, and Canon by AF; there are no features I can think of that Nikon has, that Canon doesn't have on their equivalent model.


----------



## Neeneko (Jan 19, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Like what?



The main two would be UV sensitivity and compatibility with a wide range of machine vision lenses. Nikon's F Mount in general has a much richer third party market since the mount is used by more manufacturers then just Nikon in their bodies. Many of these, like the noct and medical lenses do not really have Canon equivalents.

Trap focus would also be nice, but I understand there is a way to hack Canon bodies to do something similar.


----------



## glzq (Jan 19, 2012)

I had a Canon point and shoot (SD700IS) which was a great camera, but not so good in larger environments, so I'd been pondering a DSLR for a while. A friend of mine who is a sound engineer was at an event where one of his employees was taking pictures with a Canon DSLR, a telephoto lens, and a monopod. At first I thought that his tripod had broken and felt sorry for him 
I then asked him about DSLRs and he was a big Canon fan. He said a lot of good things about it, but wasn't really objective, so I asked another friend of mine who is a professional photographer, and uses Nikon. He said that it boiled down to personal preference and need more than one brand being superior to the other. At the time I was looking at the Canon Rebel XSi (450D), and was comparing it to the Nikon D60, which was cheaper. While both cameras offered a lot to a newbie like myself, the Canon had more points of focus when compared to the Nikon. So I waited and waited, and then one weekend BestBuy dropped the price, and I had some Reward Zone certificates and a gift card, so I ended up buying the XSi with the kit IS lens and have never regretted it!
I recently upgraded to a Canon 7d, and to be honest, I didn't even look at the Nikon equivalent. I don't mean that in a negative way, it was just because I could use my existing lenses on the 7d, and I have a friend who has one and loves it!


----------



## karminator (Jan 19, 2012)

Had a Nikon 35mm film point & shoot for years. Just loved it, one of the best cameras I ever owned. After many years it broke.

In the early days of digital, my sister had a Canon PowerShot & loved it. I played with it and decided to get one.
I really liked the User Experience - small form factor, even from the little arrow on the battery to let you know the correct way to align it in the camera.

When going to SLR, I read one site that mentioned you are not buying a camera, but an entire system - lenses, flash, bodies, etc. The overall Canon system was superior, and I already had good experiences with the brand.

Now I'm into it too deep w/ lenses, etc. to ever change. Bodies come and bodies go, sometimes Nikon is ahead, then Canon responds.

Overall, I'm very happy.


----------



## kennykodak (Jan 19, 2012)

a friend told me to buy a Canon F1 and play with it when i wasn't flying in the Vietnam war to keep from going nuts. through the years i have had Nikons and Hasselblads (even digital) and keep returning to Canon.


----------



## CanonGuy (Jan 19, 2012)

Well two simple reasons:
1. Fit in my hands much better than Nikon's what I've tried
2. All the buttons, for me much better places (in 7D) than like D300s

These two reasons made me use Canon over Nikon or other DSLR producers


----------



## bvukich (Jan 19, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Like what?
> ...



Ok, _perhaps_ a fringe case... but that's a really good reason if applicable.

Magic Lantern provides trap focus (and a bunch more cool features).


----------



## m3tek44 (Jan 19, 2012)

my reason is simple.... For those of you who started with point and shoot, I had A300 using 2 AA batteries and slowly upgraded to S45 (4MP and wow,,, that's was a brick point and shoot).... and every year I was upgrading to S55 and S770 and so on....

Finally I gave in and decide to upgrade to EOS body to 60D and found out I need to upgrade my lens and never looked back..... Just royal Canon user for 10+ yrs.


----------



## K-amps (Jan 19, 2012)

bvukich said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Neeneko said:
> ...



One stands out to me: (more so because there are Third Party hacks for it) Nikon Mid range bodies can do more than 3 AEB's, something that I have always wanted. Canon does 3 AEB for all bodies except the 1D series, where it allows 7 AEB. Why not allow a 5AEB in the mid-range line (Yes ML gives us that option, but it should be standard).


----------



## bvukich (Jan 19, 2012)

K-amps said:


> bvukich said:
> 
> 
> > K-amps said:
> ...



That was the only feature I could think of too, but since ML lets me do 9, I disregarded it.


----------



## Taemobig (Jan 19, 2012)

A year ago my neighbor was a photography enthusiast and he sometimes needs an assistant for some of his shoots so he asks for my help sometimes. I got interested in photography at that point and he recommended getting a canon 40D because that was the same camera he was using then. I found one on craigslist for $400 and the seller was nice enough to sell me a 50mm f2.5 macro for $50. My neighbor had some L lenses that I was able to borrow as well. It made sense to stick with canon so both my neighbor and I can share lenses.

Now he uses a 7D and I upgraded to a 5d mkII recently. I borrow his 7D when I need speed, and he borrows my 5D mkII if he needs a wider frame.


----------



## Z (Jan 19, 2012)

Because _"canon"_ sounds cool.

... But moreso because my father shot Canon, and my first camera was a gift from him.


----------



## traveller (Jan 19, 2012)

Like many of the decisions that we all find ourselves stuck with: "it seemed like a good idea at the time..." 

Like a marriage, for better or worse I've stuck with my decision thus far... Mostly it's been "better", but that doesn't mean we don't still look at what other people have!


----------



## Imagination_landB (Jan 19, 2012)

A big deal on the 60D.. Controls on and in camera are a lot better IMO and easier to start with. Larger lens selection available. Longer telephotos, better macros and the list goes on.. for sure nikon does have some advantages but canon is canon.


----------



## smirkypants (Jan 19, 2012)

I never could figure out how to pronounce "Nikon" properly.


----------



## K-amps (Jan 19, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> I never could figure out how to pronounce "Nikon" properly.



;D ;D ;D

You get an applaud for that.


----------



## Neeneko (Jan 19, 2012)

bvukich said:


> Ok, _perhaps_ a fringe case... but that's a really good reason if applicable.



Yep, I fully admit I am a fringe case ^_^ 



> Magic Lantern provides trap focus (and a bunch more cool features).



Sadly all of my bodies are too old to run Magic Lantern, but I am looking forward to trying it out once I upgrade.


----------



## JR (Jan 19, 2012)

bvukich said:


> Ok, _perhaps_ a fringe case... but that's a really good reason if applicable.
> 
> Magic Lantern provides trap focus (and a bunch more cool features).



Is this feature actually available for the 5D mkII? I thought the focus stuff was for older camera last time I checked on the magic lantern website...or maybe it was the big sign that this firmware can damage my camera permanently that got to me!


----------



## bvukich (Jan 19, 2012)

JR said:


> bvukich said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, _perhaps_ a fringe case... but that's a really good reason if applicable.
> ...



Not 100% sure, but I don't think so. I know it's in the Unified firmware though, so once the 5DII is officially on the Unified then for sure yes.


----------



## Cetalis (Jan 19, 2012)

I needed to get a film SLR for a photo class but knew that i'd go digital eventually, and picked canon because the EF mount meant i wouldn't accidentally get a camera/lens without autofocus or autoexposure, or have to worry about compatibility.

I later toyed with an old nikon and pentax k-r, and I can't say that I liked the rear dials or ergonomics.


----------



## Mark1 (Jan 19, 2012)

For me the decision as to why I stay with Canon is down to the lenses. I look at the Nikon lens range and they just don't have the variety of choices in the various price brackets. The killer for me is that there is no direct competitor for the Canon 24-105 F4L IS. That lens alone keeps me in the Canon camp as Nikon's 24-120 is a stinker apparently!


----------



## Kernuak (Jan 19, 2012)

I used to shoot with film in my teens with a Zenith 11, but my career took me away from photography. When I decided to "return" back in 2007, I did some research about using my old M42 lenses, which I still had (along with my Zenith). I found out that adaptors could be found for both Canon and Nikon, but they wouldn't focus to infinity on Nikon bodies, which sort of pushed me towards Canon. I then tried out a few bodies, preferring the feel of the D80 over the 400D (I also liked the feel of the 40D, but that was significantly more expensive at the time). The D80 was more expensive than the 400D (it was after all a different target market) and the D40 was lower resolution. After weighing up the options, I decided to save some money and use my old lenses with the 400D. It turned out, I didn't like the results, as even the kit lens and the Tamron I got at the same time had much better image quality and soon got the 100-400. The rest is history. Having tried to use Nikons a couple of times since, I think the menus and general ergonomics on Canon suits me better (although using full manual is a pain on xxD cameras), my only complaint is having to go delving for mirror lockup, instead of an easy to reach button. I could program one of the custom settings, but they have their own disadvantages too.


----------



## willrobb (Jan 19, 2012)

kennykodak said:


> a friend told me to buy a Canon F1 and play with it when i wasn't flying in the Vietnam war to keep from going nuts. through the years i have had Nikons and Hasselblads (even digital) and keep returning to Canon.



Great camera, bet you got some amazing photos in Vietnam.


----------



## archangelrichard (Jan 19, 2012)

Like some here I started out in the 60's; with a Petri 7S (remember those?) then a true SLR - a Mamiya 1000 DTL. Have had several cameras between there and Digital, (35mm and 6 X 7) first digital was an upmarket Sharp. then a pocket olympus but when I wanted a real DSLR I looked at Pentax, Sony, Nikon and Canon - for the money the Canon 450D has better resolution, the Sony would have been my choice were it not for the small place they have in the market / aftermarket

I am not a fan boy, people have reasons for preferring one to another although most often you get the "my father / friends had an oldsmobile so I bought one ... " kind of lack-of-logic; I just went for price / performance and a healthy aftermarket was very important to me (for those who do not understand this look on eBay for Canon accessories, then all other brands combined! There are things you can get for a canon you can't get for other brands)


----------



## pwp (Jan 20, 2012)

Why Canon? For me it was the quality of professional service and support. 

It was in sheer frustration with Nikon's service and support that I ditched my Nikon F4 film cameras and switched to Canon EOS 1n. Canon CPS was a revelation.

The switch to Canon was further validated in the early digital days with clearly better cameras. The D30 of 2000 and the D60 of 2002 were revolutionary. The original 1Ds announced in late 2002 and subsequent 1-Series incarnations have mostly been clear winners for me. 

OMG the 1Ds was almost a decade ago! http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1ds/

Switching platforms today would be business suicide with a deep financial committment to Canon glass. But if I was starting out today, my research could possibly push me towards Nikon. Like Canon they're making brilliant cameras. And we all benefit from the hot competition!

But hey, in spite of the lack of stellar wide zooms, (Nikon 14-24 anyone?) I love my Canons and the brilliant support from CPS.

Paul Wright


----------



## Bruce Photography (Jan 20, 2012)

After using 4x5 and twin lens reflex cameras in the sixties I went with Pentax. I went into computer programming for many years and mostly did video until I picked up a Sony point and shoot. Finally the Canon 10D came out with a reasonable price tag and good quality. At that time Nikon didn't make their own sensors, but Canon did. Having been in research I believe that whoever owns their own technology is the long run winner in technology and price. From what I can see that still holds today. In fact I'm wondering why Canon isn't introducing technology faster -- are they waiting for Nikon to catch up? I think even they were surprized how fast people took to the 21mp, full frame 5dmk2 with video. Why Nikon didn't add sensor cleaning to the D3X and it didn't have higher and better ISO handling is what kept that camera from being better accepted than it has been. Canon needs something with higher megs for me to invest in a new body. I'm a landscape guy. Interesting thread....


----------



## akiskev (Jan 20, 2012)

Although I supported McLaren, I think that this Williams somehow affected my choice on selecting a camera brand. 
Oh, and the great Canon ergonomics ;-)


----------



## lonelywhitelights (Jan 20, 2012)

Ergonomics and ease of use! mainly on the higher end models as I can't say I'm a fan of the small plasticy models below the 7D which seem to be made for tiny elves but I have big hands so there's that to consider

also, a friend of mine is a big Nikon user and I just didn't like the experience of shooting with his D700 but that's more down to the fact that I hadn't ever used a Nikon DSLR before and it was all new and scary =D

I won't talk about IQ because that's a tough thing to talk about, every manufacturer makes really great cameras these days that you're going to get good results if you know what you're doing.

And as a personally opinion, Canon are much better looking than any other camera


----------



## Patrickfoto (Jan 20, 2012)

Having used Pentax and Olympus 35mm film cameras as well as Bronica MF in the 80's I tried out both the Nikon and Canon top of the range models when I was upgrading in the late 80's and fell in love with the Canon T-90! It was far ahead of it's time and led me to but an EOS 1 on launch...but the T-90 is still, to this day, the best camera body I've used.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 20, 2012)

akiskev said:


>



So, Canon cameras are a vice like beer and cigarettes?


----------



## bvukich (Jan 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> akiskev said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



An addiction for sure.


----------



## iaind (Jan 20, 2012)

Having started with a Praktika LTL and M42 lenses I moved to Olympus in the 80's om1,2 &3.You couldn't change film mid roll. When autofocus was introduced Olympus went bridge leaving OM owners in the lurch. Eventually went digital compact and after a few including S70 went for 400d initially adding 40d 18 months later. Going FF with 5dii meant start of L Series upgrades. (Isn't black and yellow a warning signal, wasps, tigers etc)


----------



## iaind (Jan 20, 2012)

bvukich said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > akiskev said:
> ...



If only I could get the 300 2.8II and above on prescription not to mention a couple of 1dx's


----------



## cfargo (Jan 20, 2012)

I started with Nikon but switched to Canon as they just felt better in my hands. For many years Canon was leaps and bounds ahead of Nikon in technology although Canon has been slacking in the last couple of years letting Nikon catch up. With Nikon's new policy of not wanting to sell parts to consumers, camera stores or independent camera repair shops, there is no way in hell I would own one today.


----------



## juwi (Jan 20, 2012)

Well, when I startet out with DSLRs I had a Nikon D200 for a few weeks, which I got from Uni for the duration of a project (well, I also took it with me on holidays, because the person who was responsible for handing them out, then is a good friend). Well anyway, I really liked the D200, but I knew, that there'd be no way for me to spend that kind of money on a new camera body, let alone ~700-800 Euros, people wanted for a used one on ebay back then. As a student I simply didn't see a justification for spending that kind of money on something that was beginning to become a hobby.
So in the end someone offered me a 40D with and old, crappy Tamron Lens for around 400 Euros and that is how I chose a Canon. Looking back at that purchase now after almost two years I've got to say, that I still miss the D200s Viewfinder and AF System, since I consider both of them to be far superior to Canons implementation on the 40D, but otherwise I do prefer the 40D, since I find it to have a far superior button and dial layout. Also I find Canons Menu layout to be way better. So in the end I'm glad I chose the Canon, even though at first I did regret it, back then.


----------



## cheeseheadsaint (Jan 20, 2012)

When I first decided to get a DSLR, I knew it was either going to be Canon or a Nikon as that's what my photo teacher recommended.

Already, though, I was biased toward Canon because my favorite horse photographer was Bob Langrish and he used Canon.

I also searched and read tons of Canon vs Nikon threads before realizing that there is no way I'd get my decision based on that because there were strong proponents on both sides.

Then I looked at the online prices and Canon's lenses were generally cheaper than Nikon.

Finally, at Costco, there was a huge rebate on the Canon rebel xsi kit that included the gadget bag, memory card, 100 prints, kit lens and 55-250mm and so that was the ultimate trigger. It was cheaper than the nikon deal they had at the time.


----------



## juwi (Jan 20, 2012)

cfargo said:


> With Nikon's new policy of not wanting to sell parts to consumers, camera stores or independent camera repair shops, there is no way in hell I would own one today.



That explains a lot. Having been to IFA in Berlin last year, where Canon had a huge booth where they let people try out all their gadgets, Nikon just had a little "Business Lounge". Kind of gave me the impression of "Hi, we're Nikon and we hate consumers so get the f*** out of here". Would've actually loved trying out some of their stuff, but apparently they didn't want to show off their products at a consumer event.


----------



## cheeseheadsaint (Jan 20, 2012)

The one thing that I liked nikon for over canon was that I remember my photo teacher being able to take strobe shots using the in camera flash and i thought that was pretty cool, and easier than rushing over to flip the light switch, and most of the time nearly tripping over things in the dark. Do any of the canons have the strobe light flash capability?

But I do not regret at all getting into the canon system.


----------



## Ignatius (Jan 21, 2012)

Well... I decided to buy a DSLR in mid 2010. But the rumors stopped me: both Nikon and Canon were about to replace their semi-pro bodies (D7000 and 60D were supposed to be arriving). So, I waited until the new models were announced.
The D7000 seemed better than 60D. So I decided to buy the black/yellow model.

But at the on-line stores one could just make a reservation for the D7000, and the shipment date was unpredictable.

I consulted some (italian) forumers, and they told me that my idea was correct. 
Yes, I could start with a full-frame sensor: a second-hand 5D "classic", which costed more or less as much as the 60D.

December 2010: I bought my 5D "classic" plus 24-105 F/4 IS L. 

Now: 70-200 F/4 IS L and 100mm Macro F/2.8 IS L have joined the 5D, and the lack of a "Nikon 70-200 F/4 VR" lens is one of the main reasons why I can't conceive the idea of switching to Nikon.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Jan 21, 2012)

I chose Canon mainly for their more flexible tilt lenses (Nikon calls theirs PC lenses for a reason - PC starts with just plain ole' shift lenses, and they're still catching up to the Canon lineup). Nikon does very well with some of their primes, and better than Canon in a few (I keep reading that they're better reputed in wide angles and wide zooms, at least until recently).


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 21, 2012)

I got a Canon Vixia camcorder in December 2009 and thought it was awesome. But then I was over at my neighbor's (pro photographer) and he pulled up a random video he had recorded at his last photo shoot. I think my reaction was "That's the most HD shit I've ever seen!" Then I did some research, and ended up getting a T2i/18-55 kit. 

I was told I HAD to get other lenses, so I started looking and these were some of my noob thoughts: 
1) I got 18MP yay, that must mean it's better than this guys 1DII since it's only 12mp!
2) Why are there so many 70-200mm and 70-300mm lenses?
3) I already have an 18-55IS, why is the 17-55IS $1000 more?! For 1mm!?
4) Why is this 85mm cost $1800 more than this other 85mm? I'm not sure what this f/number means but it's only .6 difference so how much better could it be? 

I didn't know jack about photography but knew I had to learn if I wanted to use the thing properly. Took 20,000 pictures over the following 8 months and decided that DSLRs were something I wanted to stick with. 

I bought a 5DII in November 2010, followed by 11 or 12 different L lenses over the course of 2011, gradually narrowing them down to the ones in my sig. I've shot a pretty ridiculous amount of video, recorded over 60 bands with 2 5DIIs and a 7D, its pretty crazy how much you can learn in 2 years. Thanks Canon.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 21, 2012)

Another reason I like Canon is because people care about Canon. There is a lot of interest in their products, a lot of knowledgable people using their cameras and lenses, and a lot of resources available. There is a real Canon community out there which makes being a Canon owner more enjoyable.


----------



## Meh (Jan 21, 2012)

I love my 7D, my 5D2, my 24-105mm f/4, my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, my 16-35mm f/2.8 II, and my 580 EX II's. They're great. I love Canon. It just feels right. My Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is ok.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Jan 21, 2012)

Why Canon?

Because my other option was Nikon...


----------



## 2likru (Jan 21, 2012)

Growing up, all of the really good photographers I knew used Canon SLR bodies so I was turned on to the name before I ever started my photography. I learned photography on a Pentax but I always had those old photographers prasies in the back of my mind. Then when I was reserching to buy my first digital camera I really begain looking into the Canon range and comparing it mainly to Nikon ( which by that time I had heard plenty rave about). I noticed that the Canon lenses were much less exspensive than the Nikon comparibles with no hit in IQ differece but with some give in build quality on the lower end. I knew I would want to get deep in whatever system I chose so the price differece was a big deal for a broke collage student. I bought the rebel xsi and haven't looked back.


----------



## K-amps (Jan 22, 2012)

keithfullermusic said:


> Why Canon?
> 
> Because my other option was Nikon...



ROFL +1 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## pdirestajr (Jan 22, 2012)

Andre Agassi was a Rebel.


----------



## distant.star (Jan 22, 2012)

As an older guy the bottom line for me is Canon's Heaven Assurance Program (HAP). If you're a Canon user when you die, not only do you have an assured place in heaven -- but express check-in.

No such assurances with other brands.

Sure puts my mind at ease every time I pick up one of my cameras!


----------



## Minnesota Nice (Jan 22, 2012)

The video mode. By far. I use it more than I take pictures.


----------



## K-amps (Jan 22, 2012)

distant.star said:


> As an older guy the bottom line for me is Canon's Heaven Assurance Program (HAP). If you're a Canon user when you die, not only do you have an assured place in heaven -- but express check-in.
> 
> No such assurances with other brands.
> 
> Sure puts my mind at ease every time I pick up one of my cameras!



+1 ;D ;D ;D Love it.


----------



## Otter (Jan 22, 2012)

Everyone I knew used Canon and recommended it.


----------



## thure1982 (Jan 22, 2012)

Bought my first Ixus 400 ages ago and since then I've been hocked.

That camera actuality got stolen by a pensioner during a bank visit (long story) so I rushed into a Camera-store and bought a cheap "good" camera that was recommend. I needed a camera for the coming weeks vacation.
He gave me an Olympus somethingsomething...
Don't remember what what model it was but after having it for one week I returned it because "He said it would be as good as my two/three year old Canon" and it sure as f**k wasn't.

After that I didn't have a camera until I bought the just released Canon EOS 40D.
Nothing more to say...


----------



## jwong (Jan 22, 2012)

Started with a film Pentax SLR because my dad had some old Pentax-compatible lenses. I never bought lenses for it because I wanted a system that would last and had a wider choice of lenses. Jumped into digital with Nikon Coolpix 990 in 2000 before dSLRs were available. Jumped to Canon with the 20D in 2005 because it was the best at the time. Been using the 20D (even now) and will upgrade to 5DIII, whenever it comes out. I like it that Canon stuff is usually less expensive than their Nikon counterparts. Plus this forum is so much more civil than the Nikon one.


----------



## Zo0m (Jan 23, 2012)

I jumped to the canon boat when I decided to make the switch to FF. Since I needed to replace all my DX Nikon glass anyhow I figured I might as well try the other camp. So far really happy I decided to do it


----------



## timkbryant (Jan 23, 2012)

willrobb said:


> So, why are you all canon users? What makes you choose canon over Nikon, Pentax, Olympus etc?



Way back, I bought a Powershot A80 (within weeks of it being discontinued, I got one of the last ones still for sale). Then, a few years later, when I needed to get an SLR for my reporting gig, I was already comfortable with Canon. I asked around and was told I couldn't go wrong with either Nikon or Canon. So, I stuck with Canon and bought a Rebel XS. It's served me well.


----------



## D_Rochat (Jan 23, 2012)

My situation was very similar. I had owned a Canon point and shoot in the past and decided to stick with what was familiar (even though the P&S and DSLR are nothing alike....). Canon and Nikon were the only real two options for me and I think I'd be happy either way, but I do love L glass.


----------



## PeterJ (Jan 23, 2012)

My reason's a bit lame but when moving from a P&S with little knowledge of DSLRs and lenses it was largely based on 80% or so of useful introductory YouTube videos seeming to use a Canon, plus most local stores seemed to stock a bit more in the Canon range than Nikon. Anyway after some brief research I saw their market share was roughly equal, so gathered it was a bit like a GM versus Ford argument so I'd just go for the system that seemed to offer the most Internet and local support. Now I'm a bit more informed never regretted it ;D.


----------



## Redreflex (Jan 23, 2012)

In 2009, 2-3 months before I even thought about buying a DLSR (P&S prior), I went to the annual exhibition for the National Geographic Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition at the Natural History Museum in London. Didn't occur to me at the time, but when I decided to go down the DSLR route, I recalled about 70% of the photos on display were taken with a Canon, as opposed to Nikon.

Simple as that!


----------



## Forceflow (Jan 23, 2012)

Simple: Canon EOS 300D (Digital Rebel in the US I think)
Before that one there simply was no affordable digital SLR out there. (Well, affordable for me of course) The 300D changed that. After that I was simply too invested in glass and accessories to switch to Nikon. (And let's face it, those two are so close together I see no point in switching brands just because Nikon might have the edge for a little while here and there) If Nikon would have come out with an equivalent of the 300D at that time instead of Canon I am pretty sure I would be a Nikonian.
Though with the 300D, 40D, and now my second 7D I gotta have to say I never regretted my choice.


----------



## JigokuTrigger (Jan 23, 2012)

Natural progression. I had canon P&S all my life... (20odd years) so a Canon was my first choice. Although sometimes that little kid in me who wants to play with the other kids toy comes out and I think. Why did i not choose Nikon.


----------



## Joker328 (Jan 23, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> I was told I HAD to get other lenses, so I started looking and these were some of my noob thoughts:
> 1) I got 18MP yay, that must mean it's better than this guys 1DII since it's only 12mp!
> 2) Why are there so many 70-200mm and 70-300mm lenses?
> 3) I already have an 18-55IS, why is the 17-55IS $1000 more?! For 1mm!?
> 4) Why is this 85mm cost $1800 more than this other 85mm? I'm not sure what this f/number means but it's only .6 difference so how much better could it be?



Your "noob thoughts" cracked me up. I briefly got into photography when I was younger and understood the basics, but had no idea how much went into different pieces of equipment. I had an old Rebel and I think I just stuck with the kit zoom and a cheap telephoto zoom. But now that I'm getting back into it I'm realizing how much I didn't know, specifically how your typical concepts of "more is better" and generally quantifying quality just don't apply. This entire thread is a prime example of that. You don't see many posts saying, "I chose Canon for more MPs and AF points." Both brands make excellent products. It's mostly about feel, convenience, price, and chance/opportunity. At the end of the day, these are all just tools, and all the best tools can do is make your life/craft slightly easier. It's ultimately about how you use them. And that's why I'm leaning toward Canon at the moment. With Nikon's recent price fixing and shutting out of unauthorized repair shops, Nikon seems pretty intent on making life more difficult for their customers.


----------



## 21tones (Jan 25, 2012)

This is a very interesting thread for me, as I am just getting back into photography after a break of 20 years. I started photography with the all manual Praktica MTL3, because it was cheap, and got hooked. For some reason the importance of avoiding camera shake really made an impression on me and Canon's use of shutter priority auto on the AE-1 led me to buy that camera. When the A-1 came out shortly after I thought it was amazing, and had to have one, given I needed two cameras to do colour and b&w. When the T-90 came out it seemed space age, and I got one for the tremendous metering flexibility. Then shortly after Canon started to shift to auto-focus development, and FD lenses became obsolete. I gave up photography shortly after. When I wanted to use a camera again a few years later the T-90 shutter had seized. I got it fixed. It seized again... Now, I've been considering the Nikon D5100 and the Canon 600D. One brother-in-law uses a D700, the other a 5Dmk2. Both are supporting their brands! I really wanted to get the 5100 as I felt I'd been sold down the river by Canon, as my mass of FD stuff, which I still have, was no longer usable with EOS bodies. My Nikon brother-in-law, kept telling me how Nikon hadn't changed their lens mount etc. But the D5100 video seemed poor compared to the 600D. I don't anticipate using it much but my wife does. The handling for stills just didn't suit me - not enough direct access to what seem important parameters, if I understand digital ways of working well enough. I bought the 600D body yesterday to get the current cashback. Lens choices next! Then full-frame enticement probably as everywhere I go now I'm seeing potential photos..... Canon for APS-C it would seem, but I'm still keeping an open mind should I decide at some point to go for full frame, as the EF-S lenses needed for best match with the cropped format wouldn't be any use. At least Nikon is no different in that respect. I can envisage my son taking the Canon stuff with him when he leaves home and me starting from scratch again! Will I go for Canon for a third time?


----------



## poias (Jan 25, 2012)

For us, it is not "why canon?", but "why the hell canon?". We are STUCK with Canon, at least for the next couple of months.


----------



## waving_odd (Jan 25, 2012)

Ditto many of the points from previous posters on this topic.



bvukich said:


> Because Nikon bodies are ugly



But in addition, being a photographer, aesthetics plays a big role inside of me too.

I really cannot stand why Nikon puts those ugly flash sync and 10-pin remote terminals in the front, hence their ugly rubber cover as well. It's just sooooo _*ugly*_! 

Also if you compare the top part (from mode dial to the prism housing and all the way to the shutter release) of their cameras and that of Canon's, Canon's streamlined body is just totally _*sexy*_!

Well, it's just my view of aesthetics... and it's just my little emotional feeling about Canon's camera.


----------



## gwei8 (Jan 26, 2012)

It just feels good in my hands, was never into Nikon ergonomics.


----------



## Craig Richardson (Jan 26, 2012)

Back when I was buying my first DSLR I went into the camera store with my bag full of Nikon film lenses from my Nikon EM. I first tried the entry level Nikon cameras and the salesman could not get the camera to work with my legacy lenses. 

I tried Canon next and it was a clear winner from the beginning since using old lenses was ruled out at the time. Now I use my legacy Nikon lenses with an adapter on my Canon bodies. What is funny is that since then I have used my legacy lenses on a few Nikon DSLR bodies and they work fine, I have no idea what this camera salesman did wrong!


----------



## revup67 (Jan 26, 2012)

After getting a Canon AE-1 for college graduation I fell in love with it, never a mechanical issue. I've never looked elsewhere despite my younger brother's excellent concert photos from the 70's and 80s on his Nikon. Sibling rivalry perhaps?


----------



## CatfishSoupFTW (Jan 26, 2012)

mine is for sure simple. its just what i picked up first. i learned everything using a 40D body, before even handling a nikon. i did also learn via a pentax K1000 but i mean in the DSLR area, its just what i picked up first. now, i have used various nikons, but the button layout, and overall ergonomics in my opinion just isnt right unlike the canon button layout. I have shot before with a Nikon D3 before and it does shoot great, but its just the buttons that now get me. also the price of conversions or differences between canon or Nikon is quite the difference. Canon is the cheaper route i feel.. to an extent of course. its still expensive. D:


----------



## Cannon Man (Jan 26, 2012)

I think i bought my first point and shoot because there seemed to be more commercials for canon and also other canon products so i trusted Canon to get my first 250$ and stuck with canon till this day.

The reason i am still with canon are the 1D cameras and an excellent collection of lenses that i trust more than the nikkors, the lenses i can't live without are the TS-E 24mm 3.5L II and the 85mm 1.2L II USM.

I prefer Canon to nikon but having said that i have nothing against nikon. My only problem has been that the nikon cameras have been really ugly an i still don't why the D4 has the stupid wheel on top. and the 24MP D3 had a bad buffer and the pictures were slow to come to the screen. why make a 7000$ camera underpowered.

If your still reading this i would like to point out that i don't believe in religiously sticking to one brand.. why now own them all?? and the upcoming D4 is a beautiful camera that i will get as an addition to my kit just for the heck of owning one.


----------



## ghosh9691 (Jan 26, 2012)

Simple: Back then (early 90's), Nikons were noisy buggers due to their screw focus, i.e. motor in the body coupled to lens by means of a screw driver. Scared all the birds away with the noise! Canon on the other hand was whisper quiet (by those standards) and the birds (both, winged and wingless two-legged variety) loved it


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Jan 26, 2012)

Getting good advice on web forums helped me choose Canon for the killer combination of price, features, quality and lenses. Not the high-end stuff, but beginner stuff like the decent kit lens, 70-200 f/4 and 55-250.

What has locked me in is Magic Lantern. Features like focus peaking in live view, trap focus, intervalometer, focus racking... awesome.


----------



## chrisdeckard (Jan 26, 2012)

First, the obvious reason... Because red is better than yellow in so many ways. Red shoes? Better! (Man with one red shoe as an example). Cherry better than lemon. Lasers? When do we ever see yellow lasers? Red light saber? Better!

I started out on a Rebel XS. I picked that over the equivalent Nikon because a good friend told me that I should pick what most people around me had. That way we could share lenses, accessories, etc. If more people around me had used Nikon, I probably would have gone that way instead.

What I've come to find, though, is that the used lens market for Canon is absolutely HUGE! More than half of my lens and body purchases have been purchased used. The prices are better, and if you don't find what you want, wait a day or two. It'll show up. Canon lens naming conventions are a lot clearer too. It is what it is, no extra stuff. I like that there are normally at least two lenses within a focal range. That way I can start out cheap(er) and work my way up if I know I'll use it more or have a specific need after using it for a while.

I'll definitely second the Ashton Kutcher comment. Don't really care for him, so would rather not employ him. 

Deep down I think both are great. It's like buying tools. You can go to Sears and get Craftsman or Lowe's to get whatever they have. It's how the tool feels in your hand, and how it meets your specific needs. The only problem with this "set of tools" is that once you buy a lot of them, you are kind of locked in.


----------



## K-amps (Jan 27, 2012)

Hesbehindyou said:


> Getting good advice on web forums helped me choose Canon for the killer combination of price, features, quality and lenses. Not the high-end stuff, but beginner stuff like the decent kit lens, 70-200 f/4 and 55-250.
> 
> What has locked me in is Magic Lantern. Features like focus peaking in live view, trap focus, intervalometer, focus racking... awesome.



What body do you mate the ML to, and how was the transition experience? Is it intuitive or does it have a steep learning curve. Would appreciate your input.


----------



## Emeyerphoto (Jan 27, 2012)

The reason I shoot Canon is two-fold. I was a Minolta shooter but I was outgrowing my Minolta 5d. A co-worker was a wedding shooter who used a 30d and I was impressed by how it felt in my hands and the availability of lenses, batteries, and accessories there were compared to Minolta/Sony so I saved up my milk money and purchased a 40d which I still use, and have never thought about looking back.


----------



## Ronaldbyram (Jan 28, 2012)

I think of it like this.. Are you a Jeep or a Land-rover person or Chevy or Ford. (you like what you like)
Me I'm Jeep(I own 3). When it came time for the Digital world my first was a Nikon Cool pics P/S. But it went back and I got canon. Then when it came time to move up to DSLR, I have sitting at my feet a older Minolta x700 SLR and I could of bought Sony and used those lenses. I looked at the Canon vs Nikon. I chose Canon. Anyone can buy a Nikon and I see a lot of people in my camera classes have them. For me I like to standout.. Be a Rebel!.


----------



## eeek (Jan 30, 2012)

Years ago the XTi was on sale. $15,000 worth of equipment later, here I am.


----------



## K-amps (Jan 30, 2012)

eeek said:


> Years ago the XTi was on sale. $15,000 worth of equipment later, here I am.



+1: short and sweet, says it all doesn't it?

How does a sales campaign justify itself, how do they quantify that by losing $100-200 they gained thousands... very interesting.


----------

