Nikon versus Canon by Ken Rockwell

beansbaxter · 10-05-2008, 06:55 PM

Nikon versus Canon
03 October 2008
By Ken Rockwell

Even though Canon has been ahead of Nikon in designing way-out pro lenses the past 20 years (for instance, Canon just announced what is probably their fourth 24mm f/1.4 lens, and Nikon's fastest 24mm is the discontinued 24mm f/2 manual focus), I just realized that 25 years ago, I made the right choice to go with Nikon.

I used to shoot Minolta from 1973-1983. I was an expert at every technical nuance, but my photos stank. Like most photo hobbiests, I thought buying a better camera would improve my photos since it didn't dawn on me until 1990 that vision and an art background are what leads to great photos, not equipment. I shopped for pro cameras, which was Nikon, and also compared Canon. I went with Nikon because it had been the camera of pros since the 1960s. (I worked at a newspaper at the time.)

In addition to the fact that Nikon was the pro leader, with the ability to rent any lens I might need from any pro house, I compared it to Canon, especially looking at the lenses.

The AI-s Nikkor lenses, even the cheapest 50mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/2.8 AI-s lenses of 1983 when I was shopping, were works of art. They were all made of metal and made to the most extraordinary mechanical standards.

By comparison, many of the competitive Canon FD lenses had plastic aperture and focus rings. The better Canon lenses were mostly metal, but the basic ones were more cheaply made, and the better ones just didn't feel as good as even the cheapest Nikon AI-s lenses.

The Nikon AI-s and Canon FD lenses sold for the same prices as each other.

I chose to go with Nikon based on the superior mechanical quality of their lenses in December 1983, and the rest is history. I still have my first Nikon, an F2AS, and it still works great.

Recently, reviewing canon gear of that era, I suddenly realized I made the right choice 25 years ago.

I was shooting a Canon A-1 and some FD lenses yesterday. The FD lenses are fine, but when I compare 25 year old FD lenses to 25 year old AI-s lenses, the differences in quality have become all the more obvious over time. The A-1 is a clumsy, noisy beast that feels like the 1970s, while Nikon's comparable FE and FA still feel great.

The Nikon AI-s lenses are still perfect today, while the FD lenses feel like toys. The focus of my 25 year old AI-s lenses still flicks with a fingertip, while the grittier plastic rings of the FD 28mm f/2.8 or older 50mm f/1.4 SSC FD need a whole hand to wrench.

AHA! I was right! I would have been silly to have paid the same price for Canon FD lenses instead of buying pro grade with Nikon AI-s. I would have been an idiot to invest in a Canon FD system, instead of going with Nikon, especially since they all sold for the same prices back in 1983~1984 when I bought into Nikon.

I kid you not, another thing didn't dawn on me until later last night.

The Canon FD lenses are orphans. They are paper weights today, since they don't work on any Canon camera made in the past 20 years. If I had bought them, I'd have had to replace them years ago.

My Nikon manual focus lenses still work great on today's digital cameras, especially the D3 and D700. These lenses can still perform as well, or better, than the latest AF lenses.

Manual focus lenses are better for use on the D90 in movie mode because they focus more smoothly than AF lenses used manually.

Canon abandoned its FD lenses 20 years ago.

Nikon still makes manual focus AI-s lenses, and you can still buy them brand-new today!

Buying the better camera did nothing to get better photos, but it made me feel good.

Today isn't 1983. Today, Canon is used by the pros and Canon has a much broader and more advanced line of AF lenses, although the Nikon D3 is winning pros back to Nikon.

Which is better? Today, Canon and Nikon are different, and which is better depends on what you want to do. For landscapes, go with the Canon 5D or 5D Mark II, and for news, sports and people, go with Nikon for its superior handing and ergonomics.

Source: Ken Rockwell

eric · 10-06-2008, 11:18 AM

god he's an idiot. I still read his site every few days but I don't click any of his 'buy it here' links. So, does he win or do i?

JayT · 10-06-2008, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beansbaxter

...Like most photo hobbiests, I thought buying a better camera would improve my photos since it didn't dawn on me until 1990 that vision and an art background are what leads to great photos, not equipment...

Uhh... So what is the point of this article?

beansbaxter · 10-06-2008, 01:04 PM

The point of the article is exactly what you quoted, that was what stood out for me, in addition to when he said this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by beansbaxter

Buying the better camera did nothing to get better photos, but it made me feel good.

What's lame is I really want a full frame DSLR, no longer for the reasons of wanting to take better photos, but my DX camera makes a 50mm look like a 75mm since it crops so much off.

JayT · 10-06-2008, 02:15 PM

I want a full frame to take better pics

MotoPhotog · 10-08-2008, 07:48 AM

Ken Rockwell sure does love, Ken Rockwell.

10-05-2008, 06:55 PM	#1 (permalink)
beansbaxter Administrator Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 517 Blog Entries: 4 From: Seattle, WA My Camera: Nikon D300	Nikon versus Canon by Ken Rockwell Nikon versus Canon 03 October 2008 By Ken Rockwell Even though Canon has been ahead of Nikon in designing way-out pro lenses the past 20 years (for instance, Canon just announced what is probably their fourth 24mm f/1.4 lens, and Nikon's fastest 24mm is the discontinued 24mm f/2 manual focus), I just realized that 25 years ago, I made the right choice to go with Nikon. I used to shoot Minolta from 1973-1983. I was an expert at every technical nuance, but my photos stank. Like most photo hobbiests, I thought buying a better camera would improve my photos since it didn't dawn on me until 1990 that vision and an art background are what leads to great photos, not equipment. I shopped for pro cameras, which was Nikon, and also compared Canon. I went with Nikon because it had been the camera of pros since the 1960s. (I worked at a newspaper at the time.) In addition to the fact that Nikon was the pro leader, with the ability to rent any lens I might need from any pro house, I compared it to Canon, especially looking at the lenses. The AI-s Nikkor lenses, even the cheapest 50mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/2.8 AI-s lenses of 1983 when I was shopping, were works of art. They were all made of metal and made to the most extraordinary mechanical standards. By comparison, many of the competitive Canon FD lenses had plastic aperture and focus rings. The better Canon lenses were mostly metal, but the basic ones were more cheaply made, and the better ones just didn't feel as good as even the cheapest Nikon AI-s lenses. The Nikon AI-s and Canon FD lenses sold for the same prices as each other. I chose to go with Nikon based on the superior mechanical quality of their lenses in December 1983, and the rest is history. I still have my first Nikon, an F2AS, and it still works great. Recently, reviewing canon gear of that era, I suddenly realized I made the right choice 25 years ago. I was shooting a Canon A-1 and some FD lenses yesterday. The FD lenses are fine, but when I compare 25 year old FD lenses to 25 year old AI-s lenses, the differences in quality have become all the more obvious over time. The A-1 is a clumsy, noisy beast that feels like the 1970s, while Nikon's comparable FE and FA still feel great. The Nikon AI-s lenses are still perfect today, while the FD lenses feel like toys. The focus of my 25 year old AI-s lenses still flicks with a fingertip, while the grittier plastic rings of the FD 28mm f/2.8 or older 50mm f/1.4 SSC FD need a whole hand to wrench. AHA! I was right! I would have been silly to have paid the same price for Canon FD lenses instead of buying pro grade with Nikon AI-s. I would have been an idiot to invest in a Canon FD system, instead of going with Nikon, especially since they all sold for the same prices back in 1983~1984 when I bought into Nikon. I kid you not, another thing didn't dawn on me until later last night. The Canon FD lenses are orphans. They are paper weights today, since they don't work on any Canon camera made in the past 20 years. If I had bought them, I'd have had to replace them years ago. My Nikon manual focus lenses still work great on today's digital cameras, especially the D3 and D700. These lenses can still perform as well, or better, than the latest AF lenses. Manual focus lenses are better for use on the D90 in movie mode because they focus more smoothly than AF lenses used manually. Canon abandoned its FD lenses 20 years ago. Nikon still makes manual focus AI-s lenses, and you can still buy them brand-new today! Buying the better camera did nothing to get better photos, but it made me feel good. Today isn't 1983. Today, Canon is used by the pros and Canon has a much broader and more advanced line of AF lenses, although the Nikon D3 is winning pros back to Nikon. Which is better? Today, Canon and Nikon are different, and which is better depends on what you want to do. For landscapes, go with the Canon 5D or 5D Mark II, and for news, sports and people, go with Nikon for its superior handing and ergonomics. Source: Ken Rockwell __________________ “The camera’s only job is to get out of the way of making photographs.” -- Ken Rockwell beansbaxter.com is my blog.

10-06-2008, 02:15 PM	#5 (permalink)
JayT Senior Member Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 145 From: Darkness My Camera: must take pretty pictures	I want a full frame to take better pics __________________ JayTPhotos.com

10-08-2008, 07:48 AM	#6 (permalink)
MotoPhotog Senior Member Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 199 From: Federal Way, WA My Camera: D300 & D200	Ken Rockwell sure does love, Ken Rockwell. __________________ http://darrenbeattyphotography.com

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-06-2008, 11:18 AM	#2 (permalink)
eric Senior Member Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 268 From: Seattle	god he's an idiot. I still read his site every few days but I don't click any of his 'buy it here' links. So, does he win or do i?