# What made you choose Canon in the first place?



## sunnyVan (Apr 13, 2013)

I picked up a Nikon 5100 and I actually kind of liked it. But then I thought to myself, why pay the same money for a Nikon that was not even made in Japan? So I went for Canon and got a 60D. Stupid reason I know. 3/4 of my friends shoot Nikon. I don't like to be asked to lend lenses. That's another reason. 

Sometimes I wonder if it was the right decision. I have a 6D now. Nikon D600 seems pretty attractive. I'm not going to switch over to Nikon. The switching cost would be too high. But are there things about Canon camera, lenses, or optical technology that are superior to Nikon? I'm not really looking for validation, but I'm curious to learn more about Canon since I consider myself a newbie. Please share your views.


----------



## SithTracy (Apr 13, 2013)

I went Canon after using Olympus 4/3 for years and when I was switching systems I preferred the grip and feel of Canon as well as the menu system. Seemed like it made more sense to me (perhaps more like the Oly menu's I was used to). Additionally, I considered that Canon seems to take part in all aspects of it's camera. Development of the processor, the image sensor, etc. I wanted the 60D, my wife purchased the Rebel T3i for me. It served me well for a while and I recently added a 5D mark III and love it. Most everyone I know shoots Nikon, and it is also a good system. While one has strengths over the other, in the end, I feel it is a wash and most of my Nikon shooting friends feel the same. A couple are really impressed with the video. What I like about Nikon systems is highlights in the shadow areas are just better. But I am not disappointed in the 5D3 at all and would not dream of switching to Nikon at this point in time.

I considered the 6D but ended up with the 5D Mark III for the focus system. My daughter plays on a travel basketball team and I missed a lot of shots with the T3i, not so with the 5D. I felt the focus system on the 6D was too similar to the T3i.

I still have the T3i and use it for non sports stuff with a Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 on it most of the time.


----------



## mkabi (Apr 13, 2013)

When I got married in 2010, both videographer and photographer (being pals) were using Canons. I knew what to expect given that they provided me with sample footage and stills prior to signing up with them, but I didn't know that those results were from a DSLR.

I loved the final product so I thought, why pay thousands of dollars to have someone else do pictures and video when I can do it myself.Now I'm not interested becoming a professional videographer or photographer, because there is too much post-production work, where they are pretty much sleeping in front of their computers.

So long story short, I researched and researched, between Nikon and Canon, saw the slow motion craze with Canon and Twixtor, was mesmerized into buying a t3i. I just recently switched it for a 60D.


----------



## Niterider (Apr 13, 2013)

First was the superior glass canon offers. It was significantly cheaper and better than Nikon when I got into photography. Now canon's recent price strategy is making me stray away from the $1500+ lenses. I am just hoping completion from sigma, tameron and samyang drive down the prices of canon's lenses.

Second was Magic Lantern. It transforms the camera into a whole new machine. All the features and capabilities are what keeps me committed to the canon system

And third is the video capabilities. No need to explain why, since everyone knows the profound effect the 5d ii had on video.


----------



## JPAZ (Apr 13, 2013)

After moving from 35mm film to an Oly p&s years ago, I decided I wanted to get back to a SLR but a digital one. Went to a camera store while on vacation, described my previous experiences to the sales guy, and he put 2 kits down on the counter in front of me: a Nikon D80 and a canon XTI. The canon just "felt" better. The rest is history.


----------



## RGF (Apr 13, 2013)

I was shooting a Nikon F5 and canon had the EOS3 and IS lenses. Nikon did not. Canon was moving the needle, Nikon was solid but studgy. So I bit the bullet and jumped ship. Occasionally I think of going back,but not sure I ever will. Not just the sunk cost of lenses and bodies but there is no real compelling differences between the systems. Each has its plus, ...


----------



## timmy_650 (Apr 13, 2013)

Growing my we had Canon in my house (film slr), the we moved to point and shoots and 2/3 were canon. So when i talk my dad back into get DSLR we got a canon bc he had lens (was a canon guy too). So when I got a camera I was conferrable with a canon and nikon felt backwards to me. 
I was tempted by the D600 too but the cost of switching over isn't worth the money.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 13, 2013)

I've just always heard that Canon is the best (and that's what family used).

I haven't seen anything to the contrary so far.


----------



## Radiating (Apr 13, 2013)

sunnyVan said:


> I picked up a Nikon 5100 and I actually kind of liked it. But then I thought to myself, why pay the same money for a Nikon that was not even made in Japan? So I went for Canon and got a 60D. Stupid reason I know. 3/4 of my friends shoot Nikon. I don't like to be asked to lend lenses. That's another reason.
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if it was the right decision. I have a 6D now. Nikon D600 seems pretty attractive. I'm not going to switch over to Nikon. The switching cost would be too high. But are there things about Canon camera, lenses, or optical technology that are superior to Nikon? I'm not really looking for validation, but I'm curious to learn more about Canon since I consider myself a newbie. Please share your views.



There are really only two things that made me go with Canon.

After a careful review of Canon's lenses and bodies and my shooting needs I figured out that what I needed most was high ISO performance and the best normal lens money can buy.

The 24-70mm f/2.8 II is the best normal lens money can buy and the 5D Mark III has the best high ISO performance, beating the D800 by a slim margin (most sources say they perform equally but the 5D3's rated ISO is actually a quarter of a stop higher, also the noise from the 5D3 has a better more gausian distribution which responds better to NR).

I also get to play with a D600 often, it has several software features removed from the D800 to differentiate it which I didn't like, and the D800 has too many megapixels, and no sRAW mode which means the files will always be huge.

The fact that the 24-70mm f/2.8 II was APO sealed the deal for me.

Right now Canon only has me by a hair. 

My hope is that Canon release the following lenses pretty soon to start taking away the lead from other manufacturers in other areas:

35mm 1.4 L II
50mm f/1.8 IS
55mm 1.4 L (based on the Zeiss 55mm f/1.4)
16-35mm f2.8 IS L, based on the Nikon patent, much better IQ.
75-150mm f/2.0 IS L
24-70mm f/2.8 IS


----------



## kbmelb (Apr 13, 2013)

When I was looking to get my first dslr, I picked up the Nikon d80 and couldn't figure out how to operate the aperture controls in manual mode. The 40d next to it was quite easy and much more comfy in my hands. 

Lenses like the 85L & 50L keep me firmly in place. Plus the 5d3 is pretty good too.


----------



## tdrive (Apr 13, 2013)

I went from a Pentax KX to a Nikon D7000. I now have both a Canon 60D and a 6D. I think that the Nikon nailed the exposures better in ambient as well as flash compared to my Canons which seem to underexpose by 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop. I am finding the flash on my Canons quite frustrating in ETTL as there doesn't appear to be much consistency in the shots.
I did however switch over because the photos just looked better on the Canons. The skin color is realistic on both of the Canons where as on the Nikon, was often sickly looking. Landscape photos also seem to look better on the Canons. From my limited experience, the Nikons seem to be better value but at the end of the day, its all about the photo.


----------



## Knut Skywalker (Apr 13, 2013)

The first DSLR i used in school was a Nikon D300. I liked it very much but i didn't understand the controls right It wasn't intuitive enough for me as a beginner in photography. And the second thing I didn't get about Nikon cameras was the nomenclature. It was easier for me to choose a Canon camera that fitted my needs and my bank account than it was to choose a Nikon at that point. Also i liked the controls more. I considered both, Nikon and Canon and settled with a Canon 450D, which then got upgraded to a 5D Mark II.


----------



## GaryJ (Apr 13, 2013)

Started with the AE-1 when first out,upgraded to Zenza Bronica ETRS , when digital settled down after 2006 got back with canon , now have 7D,why? because it is not a Nikon , the modern glass for the canon is just so superior othwise you would see a preponderance of black lenses at sports events,this is one of many reasons.


----------



## Nishi Drew (Apr 13, 2013)

I started with video, with the advent of HDSLR video with interchangeable lenses I saw the future, but my T1i was pathetic with video, still better than most of what was around, but 20FPS at 1080?? Terrible moire and on and on, laughable, but taught me a lot, and I eventually got into photography (well who would have guessed it's a photographic tool with a video mode) through that, now it's a 5DII and I'm shooting portraits, events and weddings.
But, now that I'm getting back into video work, and Canon hasn't wowed me (or anyone) since the 5DII, and with the 5DII and IIIs inherent load of disadvantages compared to everyone else in the competition, I'm now moving to mFT with the new GH3, soon. Though, I'm both so familiar with Canon and so invested I won't leave the system behind, so far as a second camera for video, and for all of the photo work it does marvelous work, especially with such great lenses as the Sigma 35, which sure, doesn't justify staying with Canon, but it's not cheap and I have it in EF mount so again as an investment goes I'm sticking. Further reasons for sticking though, I've always preferred Canon for the ergonomics, few Nikon grips felt like they could stay in my hand, some Canon's are no good but those are the lower level ones, Nikon only made a few pro cams with grips made for human hands, where Canon understands what's comfortable and usable. And the controls, operation, what a lot of people like with Canon.


----------



## ewg963 (Apr 13, 2013)

I'm familiar with Canon. I like the selection of glass.


----------



## J.R. (Apr 13, 2013)

My first DSLR was a Sony Alpha 300. When I was considering an upgrade, I had a chance meeting with the local camera retailer who had a large number of 7Ds dumped on to him by the distributor. He talked me into buying one and I've been with Canon ever since 

I've shot with Nikon cameras recently and I found the user interface to not be as good as the Canon - maybe I'm so used to Canon now that to shooting with Nikon would be similar to learn writing with my left hand - not an option unless I really have to.


----------



## lholmes549 (Apr 13, 2013)

When I first looked into buying my first DSLR I had a look at many reviews and decided that Canon fulfilled my needs within the price range I was looking at better than Nikon. Also, a few of my friends had Nikons and they never felt good in my hands, the menu system wasn't easy to use (or to look at) and the lens choices weren't as good. So I tried out the 550D and it felt a lot better in my hand, the menu system was brilliantly easy and the whole system just seemed to suit me more; I wasn't pixel peeping when I was comparing the two. 
Now, I do a lot more research before I buy my next DSLR but I think that I will stay Canon unless Nikon come up with something that will make a real difference to my photography because I have too much invested in Canon glass and feel like I know the system inside out which is a must. 
Cameras get "better" with every year that goes by but instead of focusing on what gear you have you'd be better investing time into progressing your photographic eye. I'm not a professional so I don't NEED the most dynamic range, highest pixel density, or sharpest fastest glass because a lot can be done with pretty basic equipment nowadays, it just takes skill. Professionals need equipment they can rely on every time but for me it's a learning curve.


----------



## CanadianInvestor (Apr 13, 2013)

Started off with a Nikkormat in 1976. Great camera. Had it stolen from the boot/trunk of my car 20 years later. A few weeks after that I went on business to Canon's European HQ outside Amsterdam and while waiting for my host, saw a photograph of sports photographers all of whom appeared to be shooting a crucial shot at a FIFA World Cup match. It was a side shot and all I could see was a sea of about 30 white lenses pointing in one direction. The photo took up a whole wall. If people who earned a living depended on this company's equipment, my reasoning went, it was good enough for me, and at the first opportunity after that, I bought a Canon camera and have had no regrets.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Apr 13, 2013)

sunnyVan said:


> I don't like to be asked to lend lenses. That's another reason.



I agree on this, I'm kinda anal about my equipment so don't like to lend out lenses - also to avoid getting into uncomfortable situations if there is a (minor) issue with a lens after it's returned. My best photographing friend shoots Nikon, so no issue there! 

My first SLR was an old Canon EOS 50e that I got for free during a company internship; it was a company camera but it (and several others) had been sitting on the shelf since they had been using digital camera's instead for several years already. It came with a Metz flash and a kit lens. A nice gift and I was lucky to be there when they were cleaning out the old stuff. 

I checked out Nikon when I decided to go digital but Canon appealed to me a little more, especially because I already had some experience with the system and the 'cleaner' design of its controls. Of course I had the Canon compatible Metz flash to boot.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 13, 2013)

Used to shoot 4/3 Olympus...... And they abandoned the format for micro 4/3. Looked at Nikon and canon,greatly preferred the canon user interface on the above-rebel cameras and the selection of glass, and never regretted it.

And the 70-200..... It's worth going canon just to use that lens!


----------



## kaswindell (Apr 13, 2013)

My first SLR was a Canon TX (basically a stripped down FTb) in the late '70s... I have had a number of Canons since and while I looked at Nikon when it was time to go digital I decided that Canon had the better controls, so switched from FD to EOS.


----------



## jeff92k7 (Apr 13, 2013)

I started out with a Canon Vixia camcorder when I needed a good video camera for a decent price. The Canon got consistently higher reviews over the competing models in the same price range. A couple of years later, I wanted another video camera so I could use multiple cameras on projects. With an increased budget, I reviewed the available options. Again, the Canon cameras came out on top because of the video capabilities of the Canon DSLR's. I purchased a T2i and a few lenses, installed magic lantern, and have never regretted it.

Now I spend more time doing still photos than I do with video, and still find Canon cameras (and glass) to be well worth the cost.


----------



## IWLP (Apr 13, 2013)

I bought my first DSLR in 2005, and was choosing between a 20D and a Nikon D70. At that time, Canon's CMOS sensor tech was superior to Nikon's CCD tech, especially in low-light shooting. It was impressive that the 20D gave a "clean" ISO 400 and a "usable" ISO 800, as I recall. 

There were other things I liked better about the 20D and the Canon system (AF, base ISO of 100, 8mp vs. 6mp), but a camera dealer in Wichita, KS, said he had more Nikons come in for repair than Canons. That sort of helped seal the deal at the time.


----------



## sunnyVan (Apr 13, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Used to shoot 4/3 Olympus...... And they abandoned the format for micro 4/3. Looked at Nikon and canon,greatly preferred the canon user interface on the above-rebel cameras and the selection of glass, and never regretted it.
> 
> And the 70-200..... It's worth going canon just to use that lens!



You're probably right. The 70-200 is excellent, although I don't know if Nikon has something similar. (I don't know Nikon too well). The only downside about the white lens is that it's a bit intimidating to other people. It's hard to be discreet.


----------



## jm977 (Apr 13, 2013)

Quite a few reasons. From the days of film, my personal perception was that the Canon lenses were better. Now it's a fuzzy area but in any case, the Canon lenses are very good. The transition to digital was another reason in that to my eyes, the Canon output was more pleasing. And Nikon camera are all "backward". My brain can't get around the ergonomics of their bodies and the Canons just make more sense to me. I hear the Nikons are easier to use regarding their flash system but I've grown accustomed to my gear and I have amassed far too much to make a switch feasible. As a side note, a local college has photography courses and dictate the use of Nikons. Personally, I find that distasteful and don't see how they can get away with that as many students enroll only to find out their Canon gear needs to be sold to fund Nikons. On the upside, there is always a plentiful supply of very unused, used Canon gear for sale every fall.


----------



## sunnyVan (Apr 13, 2013)

jm977 said:


> Quite a few reasons. From the days of film, my personal perception was that the Canon lenses were better. Now it's a fuzzy area but in any case, the Canon lenses are very good. The transition to digital was another reason in that to my eyes, the Canon output was more pleasing. And Nikon camera are all "backward". My brain can't get around the ergonomics of their bodies and the Canons just make more sense to me. I hear the Nikons are easier to use regarding their flash system but I've grown accustomed to my gear and I have amassed far too much to make a switch feasible. As a side note, a local college has photography courses and dictate the use of Nikons. Personally, I find that distasteful and don't see how they can get away with that as many students enroll only to find out their Canon gear needs to be sold to fund Nikons. On the upside, there is always a plentiful supply of very unused, used Canon gear for sale every fall.



Wow really? That's really distasteful. I'm not surprised if there's some kind of under the table deal...


----------



## Badger (Apr 13, 2013)

Ah nostalgia 
I couldn't quite afford the 10D at the time, then Canon came out with the first DSLR with a kit lens for under $1000, the original Digital Rebel. I jumped in and haven't looked back since.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 13, 2013)

quite simple ... EOS350D ... there was no comparable product avaliable back then at that pricepoint.
later I stayed with Canon, beacuse
1. i was familiar with the user interface + ergonomics
2. Nikon never got around producing a 17-55 with IS (or VR). 

First day the 7D became availbale I got it an will hold on to it, until I finally get a compact, but very hi-end mirrorless system camera with FF-sensor. My preference would be a Canon FF mirrorless with D800 sensor, AF-performance like 1D-X and body size like SOny RX-1 ...


----------



## 2n10 (Apr 13, 2013)

I had a Kodak Z730 and decided I wanted a better camera to take photos of my hobby and A canon SX20IS seemed to fit the need and pocketbook.

I later decided I wanted something that gave even better quality and got a T3i with both kit lenses. I then purchased a 7D because I had always lusted after its abilities and considered it to be in my price range.


----------



## aroo (Apr 13, 2013)

My first digital camera was/is a Powershot S50. Love it. One day it started putting terrible pink and white lines all over the image. Canon fixed the whole thing, at least 3 or 4 years old, no charge.

So at the same time I wanted to get a DSLR and the Xsi was just about to be replaced (which I didn't realize at the time), and I got a great deal on a bunch of starter lenses and the body. Love that camera. I bought it because of the great service on the previous one. Autofocus failed after 2 years, I had to pay almost what the body sells for used to get it fixed. Not as impressed this time, but hey, it works great now and gets heavy use. Also got an Elan 35mm on CL for $10.

Started teaching in an art department that needed new gear so I got Canons for the school since I know how to use and teach that system. Love having all the cameras share lenses and students can check out what they need for their purpose.


----------



## Jens_T (Apr 13, 2013)

I bought my first DSLR back in 2007 - after having shot with a Minolta X300 many years before.
The choice was between the Canon 40D and Nikon D200. The two decisive points were that the D200 was a tad to expensive for my budget and I liked the feel / grip of the 40D better.
My 40D is still in use and only recently I added a used 5D2. ( I guess I have would have been able to afford a D200 I would shoot a D800 now  )


----------



## overniven (Apr 16, 2013)

My first camera was a film Rebel 2000 back in 1999 or so. After spending a couple of years with it, I bought a Sony digital camera. After spending several disappointing years with it I went back to canon and purchased a Rebel T1i. Several lens purchases later, I'm still using it, but am now shopping for a replacement. I'm not so deep in that I couldn't switch to Nikon, but I've had a good experience with this camera so sometime this year, I'll upgrade to a nicer body. I'd like to go FF, but I'm not sure I can afford the glass needed to make it shine.


----------



## eml58 (Apr 17, 2013)

Can on ??
Nik on ??

I think Can on sounds nicer than Nik on

Ok, joking, Lenses, just about the Lenses, I've been a Nik on shooter a long time back, switched to Can on with the Ae1, tried the more recent Nik on D800 (For Underwater, to replace my 5DMK2) wasn't happy with it, too much Hype (Which I was believing) not enough substance, good Camera but not good enough to stay with, sold it & put one of my 5DMK3 into a Seacam Housing, now with the news the 200-400f/4 (1.4x) is actually going to be available later this year, I'm a Can on shooter for life Baby.


----------



## bholliman (Apr 17, 2013)

I'm not sure... I used to shoot with a Nikon FM2 back in the film days and loved it. I eventually sold it and didn't do much photography until my interest was rekindled 3-4 years ago. I had decided to buy a DSLR for the IQ, FPS and optical viewfinder but was undecided between Nikon and Canon. I'd read enough to know that those two manufacturers had the broadest line of cameras and lenses, so I narrowed it down to the two big dogs.

I read several reviews and was still undecided between the Canon T2i and whatever the competing Nikon body was back in 2010. I decided on the T2i (550D) after handling both it and the Nikon at a Best Buy store liking the feel and layout of controls better on the Canon. Now, I have roughly $9k invested in Canon cameras and lenses, so I'm probably a Canonista for life.


----------



## Rick (Apr 17, 2013)

In 2003, when I decided to buy a DSLR, I also decided it was going to be FF - eventually. Canon had the only FF DSLR but it was expensive. Rumor in the fall of 2003 on DPR was that it wouldn't be long before an affordable FF appeared. Whether anyone repeating that gossip back in those days actually knew what they were talking about was debatable but I acted on it as though it was gospel. I bought a Rebel as an interim camera and two years later baam!! the 5D was released. Something else influenced my decision too. Nikon and their customers swore by crop and I had no way of knowing at that time it was just swagger and smack mostly. But, bottom line, I didn't want to invest in a brand that was "never" going to employ FF sensors.

That was 2003. Today, I use Canon and Nikon. If Sony ever makes another FF DSLR with 30+ MPs, I'd love to own the CZ 24-70. If Leica ever figures out that selling cameras cheap so that they can sell their lenses is the truly smart move, I'll buy an Mxx (assuming their manufacturing can keep up with the demand). The point being that I am not married to a brand. I bought Nikon as soon as they released a FF camera that was not a duplicate of any Canon cameras I already owned and purchased Nikkor lenses that outpreform what Canon has or that Canon doesn't have at all.


----------



## beckstoy (Apr 17, 2013)

IMHO, I think that Canon is better with skin tones. Also, low ISO performance of the 5DM3 put me squarely in their camp.

Canon glass is better for the dollar, bodies feel better in the hand, ergonomics are outstanding, and therefore even with all my heavy glass it all seems easier to carry and use.

I've always been impressed with Canon's attention to IQ, Processors and ISO. I don't need Mega Mega-Pixels for what I do (Weddings, Events).


----------



## UrbanImages (Apr 17, 2013)

I learned how to shoot on my dads AE-1 when I was a teenager. When I decided to get my own it was the Rebel G,(which I still use). I was a skeptical adapter to digital, I made the plunge in 05 and bought the silver Rebel. I was hooked!! After that I upgraded to the 40D in 08 and have since purchased 2-5D II's, 5D III and 7D.. I shoot professionally, and have what I truly believe is superior glass in Canon lenses. My partner shoots Nikon, I don't find it to be very user friendly in both operations and ergonomics. When we have big shoots, she always makes me do it with my Canon's


----------



## azog (Apr 17, 2013)

First off, the support. I was travelling through Asia (Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines) a few years ago with my Nikon. I started having problems with my shutter closing halfway through an exposure and tried everything I could think of. So I tried finding someone who could look at it in Thailand, no luck since Canon was the dominant brand there. Got to The Philippines and Canon was everywhere there as well but noone would have a look at my Nikon  Finally caved and bought a 5d2 and literally gave my old camera away. Haven't looked back since.

Second, I like the skin tones sooooo much more on my 5d2 than the comparable D700, D800. People just look more alive and vivid rather than pale and sickly on the Nikons. Sure you can tinker in post, but I prefer not to do too much work in post anyway.

Third, is Magic Lantern. There is no equivalent on the Nikon side of things and since I shoot a lot of video while travelling, it really comes in handy and I can't imagine not being able to use it anymore.

Finally, there really isn't a better all around camera than the 5d3 in my opinion. I am upgrading to it in the near future and if I had gone Nikon, I would be stuck with either a D800 or D600. Since downgrading is out of the question, I wouldn't touch the D600. The D800 also feels slow, sluggish, and I don't like having to upgrade my computer to handle the file sizes in LR.

Although there are some things on the Nikon side such as better dynamic range, the creative lighting systems, better ergonomics (subjective), and a slightly better shutter sound (really subjective) that I want, I am happy with my Canon.


----------



## rizenphoenix (Apr 18, 2013)

I recently upgraded to full frame and during this time I considered both the 6D and the Nikon D600. Before making the purchase I dropped my two most used lenses, rendering both unusable. This left me with only a nifty 50 - thus freeing me from any real concern for having to switch makers. I tried both several times and as much as i wanted to like the D600 due to it's superior spec list I just couldn't. The 6D had much better color rendition. The button layout and the way the camera's fit my hand also were vastly better on the 6D. The final factor was despite the lackluster spec list the 6D kept up with or exceeded the D600(especially in low light situations) in real world performance.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 18, 2013)

Back in the 1960's, it was a choice between Canon Nikon, Pentax, and Minolta. I could not afford a Nikon F, and Pentax was also expensive, so I bought a new FTQL. Since then I've had almost every brand of film camera and most of the digital ones as well.
Now that I have $$$$$ invested in lenses, I'm not likely to change.
I will buy whatever brand of P&S I fancy though.


----------



## Jan (Apr 18, 2013)

My first (D)SLR was the 400D, I chose Canon over Nikon, because I liked the colors out-of-cam better...

However, nowadays, I'd go for the D5200...


----------



## sandymandy (Apr 18, 2013)

1100D was just the cheapest DSLR option i could find


----------



## psolberg (Apr 18, 2013)

They used to be the only game in town about a decade ago when it was strange to shoot anything else, so I did pick them. Thankfully for everybody, the days when it was canon or nothing are long gone. Choice is awesome and I went from 5DI/II/III-> D800. Mirrorless, I'm set on m4/3 at this point. Video, Sony easily trumps anything canon, although I'm more interested in the small low cost players like blackmagic, specially their m4/3 offerings.


----------



## AG (Apr 18, 2013)

I ended up going canon for few different reasons. 

First and foremost is i prefer the way it felt in my hand compared to the Nikons. Just felt more natural.

Then there was the video option that other brands didn't have at the time.

Lastly it was the fact that i started shooting Canons back the film days, moved to Pentax then when digital came around went back to Canon. So i guess a bit of brand loyalty there as well.


----------



## gigabellone (Apr 18, 2013)

I bought my first dslr 2 years ago. I went to the shop to buy the Nikon D3100, and out of curiosity tried handling a Canon 550D. It was love at first sight. ;D


----------



## BLFPhoto (Apr 18, 2013)

I bought my first EOS camera in 1991, moving over from the old FD system. I quickly built a stable of lenses which has continued to evolve and which is a primary argument for me to stick w/Canon as my personal kit. I added digital beginning with the second-gen D60. At that point, Canon, along with Kodak, was leading the way into the DSLR realm. 

I don't play favorites, though. I like and use competing products, especially Nikon. A camera is simply a tool for me, and I'll use what is available, or when applicable, what will work for the particular situation I'm shooting for. For the vast majority of what I do, my Canon gear meets the requirement.

I see no reason to change at this point.


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 18, 2013)

My first DSLR was a 500D. Back in the day I was a student and couldn't afford anything too fancy, and I liked the Rebel line better than its Nikon equivalent. I also felt that Canon color rendition was more _pleasant_ - which is different from more _accurate_, as many like to say. Many of my friends had Canon rebels too, so at that time I trusted their opinion.


----------



## jm977 (Apr 18, 2013)

sunnyVan said:


> jm977 said:
> 
> 
> > As a side note, a local college has photography courses and dictate the use of Nikons. Personally, I find that distasteful and don't see how they can get away with that as many students enroll only to find out their Canon gear needs to be sold to fund Nikons. On the upside, there is always a plentiful supply of very unused, used Canon gear for sale every fall.
> ...



I don't know if it's a "backroom deal" or simply laziness on the part of the school so that they don't need to teach both systems. The problem in either case is that graduates are going to likely go into their craft tied to that system. If I were an enrolling student, I'd be putting up a protest (though I'm sure some have tried and failed) and giving Canon a call. In any case, this college gets a big thumbs down from me and I'd never recommend it. It's not about Canon vs. the other guy, it's about teaching photography and allowing the student to choose the gear they are comfortable with.


----------



## bbb34 (Apr 18, 2013)

My brother had a Nikon. I didn't want to buy a bigger Nikon than he had. With a Canon instead, I could have a more advanced model, and he could still look down at it, because it wasn't Nikon. Everybody happy!


----------



## mrsfotografie (Apr 18, 2013)

bbb34 said:


> My brother had a Nikon. I didn't want to buy a bigger Nikon than he had. With a Canon instead, I could have a more advanced model, and he could still look down at it, because it wasn't Nikon. Everybody happy!



My sister and brother-in-law use Nikons, and Apple products for that matter, while in my household it's Canon and PC's (and a little bit of Sony and Panasonic). I wonder is there is a connection?


----------



## rahkshi007 (Apr 18, 2013)

My first DSLR is nikon d3000 at my age of 19, i purposely bought the cheapest model to test whether i have any interests in photography. in between i have some newbie lens also eg, 35mm f1.8, 18-200mm and 55-200mm. after 2 years of doing photography , i found that i have passion in photography so i decided jump to FF. that time i only have 2 choice, 5dm2 or d700.. finally i choose canon cause, 
1) 5dm2 have video capability d700 no.
2) 85mm f1.2L II
3) 24-70 2.8L is cheaper than nikon version (in my country)
4) 50mm f1.4 is cheaper than nikon version (in my country)
5) 17-40mm L cheaper than 16-35 f4 nikon version..
6) For Asian skin tone, i really like what the 5dm2 produced . in d700, our Asian yellowish skin tone look even worst.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Apr 18, 2013)

Simple reason: It felt better in my hands. Ergonomics I also think navigating the menu is easier.

When I picked up the Nikon, my fingers didn't fall naturally on buttons. I had to hunt for them. I also thought using the buttons was confusing to use. In some ways I like the display of the Nikon. But I wonder why they change the sizing of numbers... That's kinda 'off' to me.

I didn't consider any other brand simply because of the support and lens availability. I think the Sony A99 is pretty darn nice and the Pentax systems are pretty sweet too. But I want more lens choices.


----------



## bigal1000 (Apr 22, 2013)

beckstoy said:


> IMHO, I think that Canon is better with skin tones. Also, low ISO performance of the 5DM3 put me squarely in their camp.
> 
> Canon glass is better for the dollar, bodies feel better in the hand, ergonomics are outstanding, and therefore even with all my heavy glass it all seems easier to carry and use.
> 
> I've always been impressed with Canon's attention to IQ, Processors and ISO. I don't need Mega Mega-Pixels for what I do (Weddings, Events).



+1 I seem to think Canon images just seem to look more natural,more film like than digital,I sold my Nikon gear and switched to Canon and I'm glad I did.


----------

