Canon Vs. Nikon

Im just getting into underwater photography and im ready to get my first SLR. I live in South Florida and make many many trips to the Bahamas and i was wondering which camera company is better for reef and tropical fish and coral. I free dive and dont go lower than 20 feet.

thanks ahead of time for comments and answers

Do a search on the forum for canon vs nikon, I doubt you´ll get useful info from this poll, nor many people that just can say canon or nikon without elaborate a lot.

Besides if you do your homework well you´ll find that the correct answer for your quetion is "both" or "either" or "any of those".

I don't think it matters. The differences are tiny these days.

Do a search on the forum for canon vs nikon, I doubt you´ll get useful info from this poll, nor many people that just can say canon or nikon without elaborate a lot.

 

Besides if you do your homework well you´ll find that the correct answer for your quetion is "both" or "either" or "any of those".

Roger that big time. There are presently at least two active threads on this subject. I just now posted to one of them.

Only complete losers shoot with Nikon.

Only complete losers shoot with Nikon.

Like those who bought Canon, say in 1975? They are the losers since the mount got changed from FD to EOS whereas one can mount almost all previous Nikon SLR lenses on current cameras. The main exception are lenses requiring MLU (there is a way to adapt them). I have some 60's vintage lenses, some are modified to Ai others not, that I can still shoot with. Nikon users are thus the winners. It is the Canon user who has lost. BTW I have previously owned several FD series Canon bodies (a couple of F1's as well as an FTb).

We are all where we are.

Both systems are very good.

We are all where we are.

Both systems are very good.

This is true, however, people keeping asking the provocative question.

This debate has been raging for decades. Back in the 70's one of my photo mentors suggested a solution - own both. For example, what if one wanted a Canon lens that Nikon did not make. The solution was to get an AE-1, which was then one of their less expensive models, and the lens you wanted. A few folks had lenses adapted for a cost close to what the AE-1 cost.

Only complete losers shoot with Nikon.

Me thinks you rose to the bait Tom.

Me thinks you rose to the bait Tom.

Are you Canon fodder?

Like those who bought Canon, say in 1975?

As for canon v nikon .. everyone is right .. plenty of info in the forums about them both . and all the other brands.

What I would do is pick a budget for the camera you want .. and then ask which cameras you should be looking for and mention any that have caught your eye.

1975 .. if you still have a lens from back then in good condition you must have barely used it !!

Or the previous owner. I have several that are > 9 on a 10 point scale. A 55 Micro with metal focusing mount that looks like new, bought for < $100. Look what folks are spending on a MF Zeiss lens! A very sharp lens as well. I already had a newer version from the 70's that is slightly more worn though it has many rough miles on it all from all over Alaska but could not pass this one up.

Similarly I have some vintage Leica lenses to use on my M8, some are from the 1950's!!!

I happened to start with Nikon. I don't think Canon has anything that would make me really want to switch camp. If I started with Canon, I probably would not switch camp to Nikon either.

Only complete losers shoot with Nikon.

I resemble that..

Dude I forgot to warn you! naming a post "canon vs. nikon" drags more attention around here that if you name it "SEX, SEX, SEX" or "ANGELINA JOLIE SEX VIDEO"... sad but true....

Me thinks you rose to the bait Tom.

Dude I forgot to warn you! naming a post "canon vs. nikon" drags more attention around here that if you name it "SEX, SEX, SEX" or "ANGELINA JOLIE SEX VIDEO"... sad but true....

ROFL

Too funny...

Dude I forgot to warn you! naming a post "canon vs. nikon" drags more attention around here that if you name it "SEX, SEX, SEX" or "ANGELINA JOLIE SEX VIDEO"... sad but true....

Really! A much more important question is Jennifer Aniston or Angelina Jolie? I'll take JA over AJ any day of the week. Not that I could get either one.

BTW, I've used both over the last 20 years and may have individual preferences, ie, a particular MFG's lens over the rivals, but can't really say I favor one complete system over the other.

Great now on top of the C vs N crap, we're going to attractive spammers with porn sites of celebs!

I find the technical arguments of Nikon versus Canon pretty hard to follow, so I tend to steer clear of those bunfights. From what I've seen, there's not a huge gulf in quality between a well-taken image from the leading cameras in either camp.

However, if you pit an experienced diver with good buoyancy skills, an understanding of the environment and knowledge of the subjects versus someone lacking in any of these departments, and the difference between their images will be obvious. No matter which system they are using.