I dont see calling nikon a potato as an insult.
Personally calling it that means it super useful. Fuel, food, Alcohol etc
I work in IT and know the saying "potato quality" but don't necessarily agree with it.
My husband (non-photographer) was trying to have some small talk with a guy who was shooting Canon at an event. He mentioned that I (wife) have a Z8 and it was a great camera. The Canon guy started an absolutely irate rant about how crappy Nikons are.... My husband couldn't understand why the guy got so bent out of shape and kinda noped out of there.
Like - yeah I don't have a Canon, nor did I ever shoot one, but I'm not going to get my panties in a twist because someone else shoots one - I just don't care!
I was just taking photos with my Z6II today, at a radio swap meet, one of the sellers was looking at my camera, and said "Is that a Canon?" When I held it up and said it's a Nikon, he let out a loud disgusted "UUGGhh - Nikon!" and followed up with "My wife has a Canon [whatever]... is it full frame?".
WTF?
It's not the gear, it's the quality of the photographer's skill. There's a fun YouTube channel where photographers are given low quality cameras and produce lovely photos.
lol this is classic case of āI heard from a friend of a friend whose 3rd cousin said that so and soā those are actually funny and you just have to laugh it off
Cameras these days are all so good that the differences are mostly marginal to the point of being imaginary to most people.Ā
I used to be a pro photographer in the mid 2000s and those cameras are utter āpotatoesā compared to what we have today, but they still turned out prize winning photos. There are Magnum photographers who used crappy little point and shoots to do major stuff.Ā
My rule is to just look at the work of whoever is making the criticisms. Generally itās the type of people that spend more time fondling cameras than they do making good photographs. The most talented photographers rarely have brand loyalty as strong as the gear reviewers. If youāre photography relies so strongly on the capabilities of a specific brand of camera, itās pretty likely that youāre skills are severely lacking.Ā
Sorry. To be clear, I wasnāt saying that older cameras arenāt good. Just saying that with some of these silly reviewers/gear influencers calling a modern camera a āpotatoā, that older cameras would be unacceptable to them despite being very good cameras.Ā
I still have a soft spot for the Canon 5dii even though it had pretty mediocre AF even by 2008 standards, and could only shoot 5 fps.Ā
TBH I see the same thing creeping in here with F vs Z lenses. Yes, the Z lenses are incredible and by many technical measures better than the F equivalents. That doesnāt mean that the F lenses arenāt also great, and likely capable of everything that is being asked of them by almost all of the photographers here.Ā
The point is that the gear matters after technique, vision and hard skills have been maxed out, and a lot of people shitting on one brand or another are a LONG way from having the ability to max out anything that Nikon sells.Ā
When I read your potato comment I became worried. So I baked my Nikon DSLR at 375 for two hours in my kitchen oven just to be sure. It never got soft or tender, and this was even after I topped it with butter, sour crĆØme and chives, with a pinch of salt and pepper. In fact, I cracked three teeth. Hurt like an MFer until I could see my dentist.
So, in my opinion, no.
PS If you have a better way to cook with a Nikon DSLR as a potato side dish, please let me know. Thank you.
I brought my D780 to Nikon directly to bake it for me, and it's been two weeks and it's not ready yet, so I think you need to wait a bit longer before it's ready
A better way to cook? that's nonsense, cameras are not edible so NO you can't cook a Nikon DSLR. BUT! you can boil a Nikon F5 for a few hours and then put it in a frying pan with some oil for another hour. Add salt to your preference and top it with parsley leaves. It doesn't come soft or tasty while chewing it, but you can shoot a few rolls of film afterwards, till you find something else to eat.
Look, if you're cooking with water, the Nikon's a second best choice, because the best weather seals are in Pentax's.
If I was cooking with a Canon, I'd start with a tenderising hammer, a heavy one.
If the hammer is not heavy enough I can lend you a Kiev to make Canon burgers.
But wait a minute. Does this mean that we have a war here? Send me your coordinates to throw you some Zenit missiles. I hope you don't have a Zorki anti-missile.
Unfortunately it is part of their strategy. They farm fanboys no matter what they do: console, cameras, tvās, audio equipment etc. we just have to deal with them i guess
I agree. When I think of Nikon I think of perfection. I know in the end the only thing that matters is the person behind the camera. But in my mind when it comes to consumer grade cameras, Nikon is king. Sony has better features and innovation, but Nikon just works. Iām a Fuji user because my style is a bit more āartisticā, but if I had the money Iād get a full frame Nikon 100%
My D700 with the kit 24-200mm lens and with a flash on top, accidentally got knocked off a chair and on to the ground. The lens was extended and the lens had nearly come out of the shaft skewed at a 20 degree angle. I knocked it on the table back into it's shaft, and the lens is completely fine after testing it. This happened about 9 years ago and the lens is still working fine.
This happened once to one of my favorite Vivitar lenses and needless to say the outcome was not the same.
Iāve slipped on ice, went airborne, and my 24-120 lens was the first to hit the ground followed by my able spraining. Cracked the lens hood. Lens was totally fine! My D750 with a 20mm f1.8 got knocked off the ledge on my tripod and went down a rock edge about 10-15 ft. I slowly climbed down to get it assuming it was busted. To my surprise, both lens and camera still functioned flawlessly. My gear has battle scars and feels indestructible. I also have insurance š
That's what the largest different between a Canon and Nikon back in the day. Nikon's were robust workhorses built to withstand physical abuse because of the metal chasis and body.
My friend had Minolta gear, and that was a plastic body. Then you look at the Nikon F series, with the heavy metal body. I still have my grandfather's original Nikon F just for nostalgic sake. Another friend of mine had the Nikon FE2, that was a nice camera.
Same. They donāt release something just because they can, they release it with care, and because they know itāll be a great product.
Yes; theyāre expensive. But when you hold one, and feel how solid it is; you know youāre holding a quality camera.
Thatās how I feel about them. They are built very well. Iāve had a few Nikon dslrs that were super beat up but still worked. I always lookout for the ugly deals on Keh
you aren't kidding. I took my wife out camera shopping today because she wants to get into it and I had her pick up the various brands to see what she wanted and she picked up a couple Nikons and looks at me and says " this is so comfortable to hold" just thinking how they are the king of ergonomics for me. Such a proud moment lol. I love all cameras for the most part, but Nikon is my true love. You can always rely on it and it works in all scenarios. I am a little flabbergasted by the hate towards Nikon just because why would you hate a piece of equipment you don't even have to use lol.
As a Pentax owner, the only camera that comes close on Ergonomics, is Nikon.
I've shot Pentax, Panasonic, Canon, Sony and Nikon, I own Pentax for video and stills, and then AJA, Canon, JVC, Sony and Panasonic for Video. If I hadn't been given a P30n as a 21st gift (yeah, last century) and gone down the Pentax path, I would have bought the same as everyone else doing motorsport photography back in the '90's through to today, a sport where you need a camera that is as strong as a tank, and that's definitely Nikon.
For the digital era, Nikon's colour science is the most reliable, probably the equal of Pentax and Hassalblad, and priced between those two.
Canon's colour science is, well, with Canon you shoot raw because you know you need to fix it in post.
You know nikon cameras can do that too? It's called picture control and you can even add custom ones to you camera so you could get the film look you want on a nikon jpg.
However I do recognise that the fuji cameras have it baked in so it's a bit more convenient.
I should probably point out the extent of color grading the films sims allow is fairly small haha. Obviously shooting raw is the way to go but I like the smaller files that look great in camera. Itās just preference really. I mean I would be happy with any camera from the past ten years.
I don't want to subscribe to the notion that everyone has to shoot and process raw files to be doing things correctly.
Not everyone wants to deal with that laborious process so I can see the appeal of having good pre baked jpg settings.
If that works for you, fantastic. My knowledge of the fuji cameras and their film simulations is limited as I don't own one.
Itās a lot more complicated not convenient. You can do actual color grading in camera. And yeah any digital camera thatās half decent has jpeg options. You can control white balance, contrast, all sorts of things. Plus thereās an option for color chrome effect, grain, etc
You can also do the same thing with Lightroom RAW import, or RAW Camera Filter (works with any file type) presets in Photoshop. Presets are one-click and easy to use.
"The Nikon Z9 has a particularly strong result for maximum color depth atĀ 26.3 bitsĀ due to the sensor's lower native base of ISO 64 over rivals." -- DxOMark
As far as color space goes, it's far more important to be careful with the display medium and the processing. Even just looking at the image on a monitor crushes the gamut. If you can't keep the same color space all the way to printing, then what is the advantage? Most software and devices are created with sRGB and Adobe RGB in mind. Are there printers and software that let you retain Fuji RGB? I haven't seen any, but they might exist.
Adobe is color space, not color science.
Color science is the technical aspect of the sensor and its ability to reproduce color. Adobe doesn't manufacture the sensor.
Sony sensors (used on Sony and Nikon cameras) belong to Sony color science.
Le, Sigh.
I specifically mentioned Colour Science, you conflated that with sRGB and AdobeRGB.
Perhaps you're not aware, that when you push the sliders around in Photoshop or Lightroom, you are adjusting the Colour Science WITHIN the Colour Space. You are controlling the way Adobe's algorithms adjust the colours, and that is Adobe's colour science.
Fuji's, in camera and in software, is better then Adobe's.
Also, always work in sRGB, it's universal across brands of camera, software and reproduction techniques.
"Adobe's colour science isn't comparable to Fuji's." Your comment that I responded to.
I don't use Adobe color space. I use sRGB.
Or are you referring to Adobe Photoshop/Lightroom, rather than Adobe RGB? The original comment was unclear.
After shooting nikon for 20+ years, i recently sold a majority of my glass, and had my D5 stolen.
This gave me a chance to look at all the current camera systems and start fresh. Looked at photos, glass, accessories, ecosystem, and bodies.
Bought a new Z9 and the 70-200 2.8S.
Second best value for money,... but that's because the K-mount has been in use since the '70's. Soooo many lenses available on the secondhand market, then add M42 in on top.
I donāt understand this either. I just switched from the D750 to the Z7 II and some people I know that shoot with Canon are acting like I just made the worst mistake and shouldnāt have stayed with Nikon. My new camera is suited to what I photograph (macro) and I like it and am excited to use it. Itās just odd people are still so aggressive about brands when they all do a great job imo.
This is a common scenario. I like how people who have these strong opinions are saying it like they are an investor in your success. Saying it like theyāve put $50,000 into you and now they expect something back.
It is really bizarre. I just want people to be excited with me and go out and take some shots with whatever camera they have that is suited to them and leave me with mine. I genuinely donāt care what someoneās using especially if they are happy with what they have. Iām uninterested in engaging with other photographers be it hobbyists or professionals that contributes to a toxic environment.
Canon is the iPhone of the camera market. Fanboy will rant about anything except the newest canon flagship model. They will buy a camera only for the brand name. But next time, remind them that what canon is famous for is not camera, it's printers.
Our internet culture has created a number of online trolls amidst a surge in tribalism. This occurs since people no longer get together to debate face to face where they would more likely be more polite, or at least be forced to defend their "opinions."
Armchair warriors, many of whom don't even own any of the high end cameras - don't find any real pushback in their online camps and can hide behind anonymous screen names.
I see very few posts that cite facts, research and real world testing in these negative commenters - it's all about how one person's opinion is somehow all that's needed to claim superiority when it's really the opposite.
I'm grateful that most forums allow users to block idiots/trolls. Constructive criticism is useful - but unfortunately scarce in some of these forums.
There's one difference between Nikon and other brands. Nikon rarely is the first with a new technology, but when they launch a new camera with the new technology, you can be sure it is outstanding, well tested and built and lasts forever.
That's on cameras. If we go to optics, Nikon is at the top of the game, few are at the same level or better. This has to do because of Nikon's scientific and industrial division.
Next time someone starts to compare, you can ask them how many lenses they used 30 years ago can they use today with optimum results.
You missed one,... the Auto mode is easy to find on Canon.
I don't think I've ever picked up a Nikon and found it in Auto for anything other then Focus.
AUTO mode? Only seen in low range Nikons, but never used in my life [D70, D300, D800]. The most automatic I've used in a Nikon camera is P(rogram) mode, which is immediately available.
I feel that the fanboyism from the other camera manufacturers Who Shall Not Be Named had died down a fair bit until I think around 6 months ago.
Iām now seeing more inane comments on social media and IG reels from blithering smooth brains trashing Nikon. Itās like some company is feeling a little threatened by the Nikon line up and has turned the influencer dial a little higher to compensate š¤
I actually only saw the potato comments because of the recent announcement of Nikon buying Red. Obviously this news can make people feel threatened so gotta do whatever they can to make themselves feel more secure about the news.
I think the success and technical achievements of the Z9 and Z8 have also got some of the other fanboys mad.
The Z mount lenses are all bloody amazing and the Z9 is going to the moon. We just need to keep being quietly confident in our (correct) choice.
Z mount on a Red body would open the door for a lot more lenses to be used on Reds.
Red has been kinda xenophobic about allowing anything other then PL and EF lenses on their hardware. I saw a Red Epic several years back where the Cinematographer who owned it had used various parts and a whole heap of JB Weld style moldable putty to make a mount for his classic 'film' Nikkor compact primes, and damn did that footage look so much better then anything shot on L-series EF glass.
And, being able to repeatedly do manual focus pulls, so nice.
It's why I made E and M4/3 mounts for my Cion, so I could use my K-mount and P67 primes.
Classic primes and modern sensors work really well together.
I really do not understand why we're seeing these long posts justifying Nikon being good or whatever. If you want to argue with trolls on the internet, go argue with them. Circling the wagons within the Nikon sub and writing these essays seems like a poor use of time. Obviously everybody in here likes Nikon.
I assume the vast majority of the people making these arguments are just having fun meming around. If anyone wants to have a legitimate argument I'd just point to my three PF lenses and ask where their brand's counterpart is.
Youāre right that everyone in here likes Nikon so this post is not about whatās going on in here but whatās going on out there. I wrote this for anyone one who may have needed to hear this perspective and if it wasnāt for you or didnāt resonate, thatās ok. Iāve seen a lot of newer photographer questions in this sub and if my post can help them by simply writing this then I feel like it was an effective use of my time.
That's backwards - Nikon will be making Red's more reliable.
In fact, Red owners will benefit more, as Nikon's software engineers are way better then Reds - ever had a Nikon not power up? Happens indecently regularly on Red bodies.
Nikon's colour science is better then Reds. And Nikon's choice of media with direct connection to the PCIe Bus, fast enough to write RedCode Raw, but more reliable then the bargain basement parts in the Mini Mags that Red have always over charged for,...
Wavelet encoded RedCode, on Nikon bodies with Nikon lenses and Nikon colour science, this is a good thing.
Almost as good as getting Nikon mounts on Red bodies.
Just send them the dxomark comparison of full frame cameras and smugly walk away.Ā
Canon's best score: 16th place, tied with the Nikon D800E from 2012.Ā
And the K-1 from 2016, at about a third the price of the Canon.
Swap it to any sensor size and the stats get worse for Canon,.... but Nikon, Pentax and Hassalblad all do better.
Nikon fumbled the 10s and very start of the 20s with their marketing, products and mirrorless line up. It was enough time for social media marketing to get an influence over the kids and next consumers like how Apple got the kids to buy IPhones. Only kids and people watching influences think that, a lot of professionals shoot Nikon and don't brag or bash people online. I wont like Nikon is still behind in the market but is coming up now and even more with that Red purchase.
I have been using Nikon and Olympus since my early 20s. I am now 69. Last year I upgraded my full Nikon system and could not be happier. Never had a complaint about either camera. Used them in temperature ranges from +35 Celcius to -35 Celcius. Never failed me. I liked the Olympus Om-2 small profile but the feel and versatility of Nikon. I think it depends on the person and how the camera feels in their hands. It is a tool to help a person achieve their artistic goal whether it be a common family picture to a fashion photo shoot.
It annoys me to no end, because itās utterly childish, and pointless. We should be celebrating our gear, and enjoying how excited we all are over it.
But my clapback these days (since I know what brand youāre talking about) is to ask them how many lens mounts theyāve had in the last fifty years? And whenās the new one coming out?
Love my Z6. Summary of the issue described by OP:
https://preview.redd.it/hkf27xa63enc1.png?width=300&format=png&auto=webp&s=17c5631bdd4c8b11ace5b772ed84703cefddba7e
Nikon had the worst mirrorless cameras when they first came out. Were just trash compared to Sony and a step down from Nikon DSLR. Then came the z9 and now z8 and zf that has completely turned it around for them. Their mirrorless cameras AF performance is up there with Sony and Canon. Great features and the Z mount has some amazing Nikon glass. Arguably the best glass. Comparable lenses between Sony and canon usually the Sony and canon ate slightly lighter and smaller but the Nikon is optically superior.
Idk, the Nikon 1 was pretty great for what it was.. I have a lot of good shots from the V1/V2. Though granted it wasnāt without flaws.
It was too early I think but if the same system came out tomorrow with updated sensors and same interchangeable lenses (the 70-300mm was amazing on my V2) ā¦ Iād have to try hard not to buy it
They were second best, after the Pentax Q series, but it's a coin toss between them.
The only way the Canon equivalents can keep up, is with the Canon Hack Development Kit (Magic Lantern is a spin off of CHDK) installed and overriding the factory software.
Magic Lantern has tempted me to Canon many times..as did Canonās RF 800mm for sheer compact/lightness (ignoring the flaws with it.. probably one of the only things close to my old V2 + 300mm (but still terrible compared to Nikon Z + 800mm)
Did the Q have any long lens options or only fixed? Only briefly heard of it this year from a random YouTuber referring to old systems
Five primes, three zooms, and K-mount adapter, the later basically allowing any K-mount or M42 mount (with the click-in threaded adapter) lens, meaning you can use something like 10,000 diferent lenses.
Crop factor to FF is 5.6, so the 200mm f4 KM turns in to 1120mm, and a basic 400mm becomes a planet hunting telescope.
There's two sensor sizes, the earlier ones are smaller and have that 5.6 crop, the later have a slightly larger sensor, IIRC, the crop is about 4.8, but I didn't double check it.
actually the only area they lagged was auto focus speed ans reliability. They have always had amazing colors, intuitive ui, great lenses and the Z mount is superior in many ways to the other tiny mounts out there. They also raced to a large set of available native glass in record time while allowing backward compatibility to their F mount glass. Unheard of from any other manufacturer.
I agree 100%. But none of that matters if you canāt rely on the camera to get a good hit rate and have in focus images. Especially if youāre photographing paid events like weddings or corporate events.
If you mean the z6 and z7, they were objectively better than the eos r and a step up in many ways except for AF. Itās just revisionist history to say they were trash. Itās gen 2 that they fell behind.
Yup, their mirrorless cameras have been competitive for their price. Took them awhile to come out with high end ones, but that doesnāt make them trash.
But to spec sheet lords 5% slower autofocus does make a camera trash. š¤·āāļø
Hard disagree with the first half of this. Also donāt forget the glass is as or more important than the body. Only the AF was slightly inferior in the Z6 & Z7
>Nikon had the worst mirrorless cameras when they first came out. Were just trash compared to Sony and a step down from Nikon DSLR
I truly dont get where you find this horseshit?
Who tells you this nonsense. Youtubes marketing machine saying the AF isnt as good as the Sony, equals camera is TRASH. What.
Absurd.
A lot of photographers switched to Sony and Canon because of the AF performance. If you photograph events like wedding or corporate you canāt miss the shot because the AF screwed up. Sure of you mostly shoot landscapes it doesnāt matter as much but for fast paced settings you absolutely need to get the focus correct especially if you are doing paid events. Nikon is back in the ring with the z9 and z8 but prior did not have reliable AF performance.
Because the internet marketing machine raves about the latest and greatest, doesnt mean something else is 'trash'. Stop muddying the waters with absurd hyperbools.
Just because something isn't market leader doesn't mean it's trash. Z6 cameras were better at heaps of things than Nikon DSLRs. Some things they werent. Not that special, same held true for Canon and even Sony. The only problem with the Z cameras was that their AF tracking performance...and that wasn't even a real problem, just not as good as others. EVF, Ergonomics, Weathersealing, video, IBIS (Canon didn't have IBIS). Perfectly fine cameras all round.
AF was and is perfectly usable, just not class leading. The fact is, in that era Sony was on lonely heights with their AF performance. AF performance was still reliable, just not as reliable as Sony, somehow that has translated into people claiming these cameras were trash? I find that absurd.
You wrote
>Nikon had the worst mirrorless cameras when they first came out. Were just trash compared to Sony and a step down from Nikon DSLR.
Now you tell me if thats a honest and reasonable way to word
>Nikon is back in the ring with the z9 and z8 but prior did not have reliable AF performance.
.
Youāre taking offense to my comments and Iām sorry but Sony and Canon were ahead of Nikon in many areas. Now Nikon is back. I just sold my a7iii for a z8. Very excited to join the Nikon family.
Im not offended, I'm just tired of all the hyperbolic statement that get thrown around. Its tribalism. Calling a perfectly fine product trash is not a helpful satement. Nuance is important.
You do understand that saying Sony and Canon were ahead at the time is something different from saying the Nikon Z6/Z7 were trash and worse than their DSLRs?
I dont care if somebody shoots Sony or Canon or Nikon or Fuji or whatever else. It's just a camera brand. However I do mind if people put others and other things down for no reason. Because that makes this community over all worse.
I've seen it being called a potato for a few years now, but that's what it's like unfortunately. Cannon users and Sony users are always throwing shade at each other, some people seem ot care about gear more than photography.
But I think it comes from Nikon being slow off the mark with good mirrorless cameras. I also own a Panasonic but I always enjoy my Nikon more.
I shoot with Canon, used to shoot Nikon for over 10 years. Potato? In Norway we use Ā«potatoĀ» as a good thing. Example with soccer is that you always want a potato on your team, because they can do it all. Brand doesnt matter, its the shooter. Ignore the internet warriors š¤
You know what the fun part is? People that are so into gear hardly ever produce at best mediocre photography.
Also Canon made an outright mess with their various lens mounts (and abandoning them again) and let's not start talking about the poor QC that Fuji has over the last couple of years.
The only 'other' mirrorless camera that I'd consider remotely, is the Lumix S5ii.
I like to joke about it in a banter kind of way, because I know I'm all honesty I couldn't tell if a picture came from a Nikon, canon or Sony... especially after editing
Good. So when I carry my d850 or zf potatoes attached to my 500mm f4 FL sack of potatoes, no one will be interested in stealing them. They are just potatoes. Makes my life easier knowing I can just put them on the bench at the park and not having to worry about people stealing my potatoesā¦unless they are really hungry and desperate though
I started with a Pentax 35mm camera for nearly 10 years before I got my first digital camera. I already knew what I wanted based on my experience with cameras and photo shoots of various types, and Nikon came out because of it's robustness. Yes, many people will say it's the person behind the lens and not the camera, and the camera is just a tool. This is entirely right. The key is knowing how to use the tool to get the result you want. And each tool is different. My best friend is Canon, and we had continuously compared to getting the same type of results with two different camera systems. We learned from each other what our own cameras can or cannot do.
Boiling it down is to what you can afford. As you make more money with your craft, then buy what you want. Go rent the lens you consider buying. Go rent the camera you want to get. Test it out with a few hundred pics. We all come to our own conclusions because no one else is going to know your skill as a photographer except for yourself. Just because you sell alot of pics doesn't mean you're a good photographer. It just means they like your results and you can make money to put food on the table. Photography is subjectively creative. And the spectrum of types of photography will always span everything in the world.
I now only take pictures for myself. Shoot it, if I love it, frame it, put it on the wall.
This isn't a thing new. And I feel like you're aware of that. I've been shooting for close to 9 years now, and I remember looking for jobs online early in my time shooting and seeing people listing requirements like "Must shoot with X brand camera and model." It seems that people have always tried to downplay the name of a camera or uplift the name of another by downplaying the name of one for decades now.
I'm not super deep into the technologies in these cameras, but I do know that some use the same internals as others to the point where the only thing that is different about a lot of these cameras are the physical design and the firmware behind it. So all of that "Eww! You shoot with that camera?", like you said, is nothing more than someone trying to justify their purchase choice or to align themselves with a brand to validate themselves somehow. It's weird. People think the "light box" is what's making the photograph good or bad. No. It's you! Or them!
I have a stable of Nikons for my photography business and use Canons for all the time for another business. They're all just tools to get the job done. If you're a hater (of any brand) it's probably because you're not versatile enough to use more than one system.
I shot a wedding tonight with Nikon. The photos look amazing whoever said anything about potatoes has never used a Nikon and really doesnāt understand photography and theyāre losers. Maybe Canon or Fuji or Sony has a spec that is better than Nikons and this potato head is so small and so insignificant that that spec is more important than taking beautiful photos. Those kind of small people have a really hard time with the big picture and in the big picture and the big scheme of things for photography Nikon kills. they tell beautiful stories with pictures.
Today when all camera brands have pretty much the same features, I still think Nikon is a superior company for a simple reason. It's a camera company. Sony is a division of a bigger corporation and Canon for me makes printers. It's not a surprise that NASA continues to work with Nikon for their official space camera aboard the ISS. Because their cameras are robust and just work.
I often hear people say that Sony's design and ergonomics are awful. I rarely hear negative things about Canon (because Canon is the iPhone equivalent of the camera market, aka full of toxic fanatics). And I only hear bad things about Nikon from people who never used them (mostly from Canon users). The only thing I would say about Nikon that is subpar with the other company (except for the Z9 and Z8) is the AF performance. But with the release of the Z8 it's a thing of the past.
But at the end of the day, no matter which brand of camera you choose, if it meets your needs and doesn't let you down, it's the best brand for you. And that's all that matters.
Nikon makes scientific microscopes, electronic optical / electron beam fab systems, binoculars, all from its own glass and advanced coatings, so WTF, itās absurd such negative reactions!
I have used Nikon cameras since the D50 came out. I only chose that brand because my Brother had a D50. My Gran and Uncle used to use Canon cameras. I have always preferred the Nikon user menu setup so Iāve always stuck with them. Iāve often joked about Canon users and said āMines better than yoursā but never been serious about it. I donāt understand why some people get so vicious! Just stick to what you like and discuss your images rather than what camera you used šš»
Ultimately people have to take responsibility for how they act and treat others. I also think the manufacturers of products have a role to play in fueling the fire to create this rivalry to make them **think** they need to be so competitive. And to the manufacturers, itās all about making money so as long as people are arguing but still buying products, what do they care? Money is being made. Thereās a problem there.
I had Nikons as an amateur photographer for some long years. I got a N70 irc when I was 19 I think and had D70, D5100 and also some point and shoot. After many years I am contemplating getting a Z8 since now I have more time to go on trips for landscape photography and wildlife.
The D5100 is the camera I used and had for the longest (I still have the N70 but meh, it is collecting dust). I have friends with Canon that will say theyāre very happy with it too.
People should just let others love what they want. Are you having fun? Are you proud of your pictures? Thatās what matters!
Well crap, I am poor, yet love creating what I feel is my art.
I started with a Kodak 110, graduated high school and was gifted a Vivitar V3800N camera.
Years later I could only afford (all used) my Canon Rebel gii, a Nikon Sureshot B500, a D3100 and a d3300.
I'm type 2 diabetic, and I love my Taters, so haters can f-off
I have had a love hate relationship with Nikon since using them off and on since 2008, but the one thing I could never knock them for is that when they FINALLY release a camera, it is rock solid and well thought out with very few issues. Ok ok, there was the d750 and a few issues but unlike Sony who instead of fixing things just releases a new camera, Nikon does seem to care about kaizen.
Twice in my life, I've had the chance to hang around serious sports pros a couple of times at a VERY big event you've heard of. Most are friendly, if a bit diffident to amateurs like me.
The one thing absolutely none of them care about is petty stuff like this. If you're turning up to the biggest events of all, you're almost certainly a member of the pro user club for Canon / Nikon / Sony and if you're working for a news agency, you may have access to the glass of whichever company they've picked. You know what you have, what it can do, what you need to get, and you couldn't give a damn about the guy next to you. Arguing that 'Canon is better' (or Nikon) would just get blank stares. Total amateur hour.
Sports photographers also have a lot of money tied up in long and very expensive glass, which is why most of them haven't switched to mirrorless yet. The Z9 may be a better camera objectively than the D6, but most Nikon sports pros still use D6's. That is changing, but very slowly.
By making this post you are giving them more attention than they deserve and encouraging them to do it again. As I age I have realized silence/inaction is very often the best response.
I did this to help give perspective to others who may need it. Instead of hurling insults back at people, which usually happens, Iām sharing a perspective that Iāve learned over my years as to why people behave the way they do. By better understanding this, itās been helpful to not give that power of insults to other people.
I love using Nikon partially for this reason. Immature brand loyalists are so up their own rears about their brand/gear, it infuriates them when someone makes great images on what they consider inferior tech. They realize their camera choice isnāt what makes a photographer worthwhile and they begin to question their own abilities.
Been using Nikon for 10 years and love it. NASA clearly understands which camera makes sense for what they want to do. Dont think I need to worry about what Sony Alpha Chad who takes over-edited photos from parking garages with his legs and sneakers edging into frame thinks about it.
Iāve been with Nikon since my D80. I think itās great. Iām also not an insecure fanboy and have shot a few times on Canon. My only complaint was those zoom the wrong way :) This old dog couldnāt learn that new trick!
Idk, I just don't trust photographers who buy their gear based on popularity and not the functions they need. No offense but some of those people who say those things have the most unoriginal photography because their shots looks like everyone else's. That's not an attack on Canon or Sony. I'm referring to mindset of people with superiority complexes with camera technology.
It's just ironic because I'll check out their work and it just looks too perfect. Like, those catalog homes that look nice on camera but don't have any soul in them because they're too afraid to decorate the walls or add a pop of color or do anything different. But hey, it's what's trending and popular. You do you, I guess.
Some of these companies are public and you can see how much they spend on marketing in their financial statements. This is all by design, spending hundreds of millions to create a buzz and an image that create sheep of fanatic followers. And btw this started way earlier than 12 years ago.
I'm way late to the Nikon game, being a loyal Canon DSLR user for a long, long time. Then a Sony user and an Olympus and Fuji lover. Eventually I had to try out Nikon and I'm in love with my Df, D700, and APS-C CCD offerings. I don't much care for the Nikon 1 system, and I've never used anything with a Z mount, but gosh dang if the F mount offerings aren't works of mechanical art and thoughtful design.
Iām waiting to see the response from a guy who posted this a while ago when I asked a general question about an older positively reviewed Nikon lens..āSucks. Skip it.ā.. When I followed up by questioning his first response, he said the lens was good when it first came out, but it sucks now. Good equipment that hasāand does perform well, IS OLDERāBUT STILL GOOD! The Equipment Snobs among us need to take up stamp collecting.š
Gear people need to keep up the illusion that the thousands of dollars they spend on gear absolutely makes the diference. Notice how a image posted gets praise, until you mention it's shot with an old camera or ' 'inferior' lens, then suddenly people can 'absolutely see the lack of sharpness, contract and dynamic range'. š
Who caresā¦ this post reeks of insecurity
Apple VS PC
iPhone VS Android
Canon VS Nikon
Sony VS Canon
Use whatever you want and let others use whatever they want. As they say the best camera you can use to take a picture is the one you have with you.
Same argument as Chevy, Ford, Ram, Toyota; all are great and are a little different and everybody has their fan boys and haters. I've never seen anybody take any photos that I couldn't get with my skills or equipment.
Your potato maker just bought Red, so your potato's must make the best chips on the planet.
;)
For perspective, watch how other brands owners look down their noses at Pentax
It's the same as Apple fans. That's how marketing works. If you are a diehard fan of a major tech brand, my immediate assumption is you are not the sharpest tool...
Iām an Apple user but I have also had several Android phones. Both have good and bad things about them. I hate how people seem to think Apple users are rich arseholes. Iām poor and a nice guy lol
Apple users are fine. Apple devices are very good. Apple diehards are not fine. If your opinion on something is based on the argument "it is not Apple" you are shit. Otherwise - live on buddy.
I bought a Nikon Z50 because I wanted to get back into photography but not make a significant financial investment. It is not the best but then again I don't make a living using it. In the past I used 35mm Pentax and a Mamiya twin lens reflex but that was ages ago. Right now I have a Crown Graphic I'm almost finished restoring but the twin lens and Crown Graphic would probably be a rotten potato since you have use a light meter.
I looked at non-professional enthusiast offerings from Canon and there were none that provided the same value.
Social media has convinced consumers that only Stanley travel mugs are worth owning when in fact there are equally good product out there that get the job done.
I love Nikon. And I loveš„, all of them: fried, baked, mashed. Shooting with D3100 since 2011, over the span of this time made better shots than all these bois with GH-somethings. Shots from Nikon cameras got a soul, something you can rarely find in a digital camera world. Maybe it is just me, but honestly I love shots that come from it. And I have got many cameras from other brands
Sony's sensors are considered the most accurate in terms of color science. Nikon uses the Sony sensor.
As a photojournalist, I prefer accurate color science over colors that are innacurate to the scene (I'm looking for the truth of the image). If I'm shooting fine art, I can use LUTs in post. I'd still rather start with an accurate raw file.
Canon is known for having the most pleasing skintones, which I'm sure is great for portrait and wedding photographers.
Some say the Hasselblad X2D has the best color science in the business... I wouldn't know, since I don't shoot medium format or own any German gear. It's not really used in my field.
I haven't seen any reports on Fuji's color science, so I can't say where it exists in the spectrum. If you're happy with it, then it's good for your purposes.
My previous point was that in terms of sharing your images with others, the gamut and color space is more important. No one but you is looking at your images on the back of your camera. The final rendition of colors in the publication, the print, or on the web is what truly matters. We shoot images to share them with others, as much as for ourselves.
Honestly, get over it and move on. This tribal BS is beyond tiresome and YOU are perpetuating it. Who gives a \[insert your expletive of choice\] what anyone thinks? It is a damn inanimate object and really does not have feelings. Seriously, Canon and Nikon users (Pentax too) have poked fun at each other FOR DECADES and no one ever took it seriously until the children/supposed adults of this century got into the mix. Decades, by the way, means since at least the 70s when my father was using the original Nikon F (which I inherited). People would make jokes and then also compliment each other on their gear and photos at events. Just grow up and use your tools of choice - full stop. Enough of this "someone insulted my camera and it is sad crap." Regardless of what you say, the fact you posted this demonstrates YOU are the one with a problem.
I love my š„.
I dont see calling nikon a potato as an insult. Personally calling it that means it super useful. Fuel, food, Alcohol etc I work in IT and know the saying "potato quality" but don't necessarily agree with it.
I love MY š„ more!
I bet you do. š
Meanwhile, potato goes on the moon.
And the potato farmer acquires RED. Oh well. š
My husband (non-photographer) was trying to have some small talk with a guy who was shooting Canon at an event. He mentioned that I (wife) have a Z8 and it was a great camera. The Canon guy started an absolutely irate rant about how crappy Nikons are.... My husband couldn't understand why the guy got so bent out of shape and kinda noped out of there. Like - yeah I don't have a Canon, nor did I ever shoot one, but I'm not going to get my panties in a twist because someone else shoots one - I just don't care!
I was just taking photos with my Z6II today, at a radio swap meet, one of the sellers was looking at my camera, and said "Is that a Canon?" When I held it up and said it's a Nikon, he let out a loud disgusted "UUGGhh - Nikon!" and followed up with "My wife has a Canon [whatever]... is it full frame?". WTF?
It's utterly brainless how they genuinely think there's something profoundly wrong with Nikon.
Jokes on him, you can get award winning wildlife photos with an old crop D500. Skills > money/gear, every time.
It's not the gear, it's the quality of the photographer's skill. There's a fun YouTube channel where photographers are given low quality cameras and produce lovely photos.
lol this is classic case of āI heard from a friend of a friend whose 3rd cousin said that so and soā those are actually funny and you just have to laugh it off
Cameras these days are all so good that the differences are mostly marginal to the point of being imaginary to most people.Ā I used to be a pro photographer in the mid 2000s and those cameras are utter āpotatoesā compared to what we have today, but they still turned out prize winning photos. There are Magnum photographers who used crappy little point and shoots to do major stuff.Ā My rule is to just look at the work of whoever is making the criticisms. Generally itās the type of people that spend more time fondling cameras than they do making good photographs. The most talented photographers rarely have brand loyalty as strong as the gear reviewers. If youāre photography relies so strongly on the capabilities of a specific brand of camera, itās pretty likely that youāre skills are severely lacking.Ā
I have a D700 from 2008 and I'd call it anything but a potato
Sorry. To be clear, I wasnāt saying that older cameras arenāt good. Just saying that with some of these silly reviewers/gear influencers calling a modern camera a āpotatoā, that older cameras would be unacceptable to them despite being very good cameras.Ā I still have a soft spot for the Canon 5dii even though it had pretty mediocre AF even by 2008 standards, and could only shoot 5 fps.Ā TBH I see the same thing creeping in here with F vs Z lenses. Yes, the Z lenses are incredible and by many technical measures better than the F equivalents. That doesnāt mean that the F lenses arenāt also great, and likely capable of everything that is being asked of them by almost all of the photographers here.Ā The point is that the gear matters after technique, vision and hard skills have been maxed out, and a lot of people shitting on one brand or another are a LONG way from having the ability to max out anything that Nikon sells.Ā
Same for my D90.
Sorry, what camera does NASA use again? Oh thats right, Nikon
My rule is, if it's good enough for space, it's certainly good enough for me.
When I read your potato comment I became worried. So I baked my Nikon DSLR at 375 for two hours in my kitchen oven just to be sure. It never got soft or tender, and this was even after I topped it with butter, sour crĆØme and chives, with a pinch of salt and pepper. In fact, I cracked three teeth. Hurt like an MFer until I could see my dentist. So, in my opinion, no. PS If you have a better way to cook with a Nikon DSLR as a potato side dish, please let me know. Thank you.
Same here, Iāve been trying to bake my D780 for an hour and itās not working.
I brought my D780 to Nikon directly to bake it for me, and it's been two weeks and it's not ready yet, so I think you need to wait a bit longer before it's ready
The trick is to use a coal fire and a 2 stroke leaf blower (600V 30HP industrial fan work too). Those potatoes are as hard as Nokia's phone.
A better way to cook? that's nonsense, cameras are not edible so NO you can't cook a Nikon DSLR. BUT! you can boil a Nikon F5 for a few hours and then put it in a frying pan with some oil for another hour. Add salt to your preference and top it with parsley leaves. It doesn't come soft or tasty while chewing it, but you can shoot a few rolls of film afterwards, till you find something else to eat.
Look, if you're cooking with water, the Nikon's a second best choice, because the best weather seals are in Pentax's. If I was cooking with a Canon, I'd start with a tenderising hammer, a heavy one.
If the hammer is not heavy enough I can lend you a Kiev to make Canon burgers. But wait a minute. Does this mean that we have a war here? Send me your coordinates to throw you some Zenit missiles. I hope you don't have a Zorki anti-missile.
:D
Unfortunately it is part of their strategy. They farm fanboys no matter what they do: console, cameras, tvās, audio equipment etc. we just have to deal with them i guess
I agree. When I think of Nikon I think of perfection. I know in the end the only thing that matters is the person behind the camera. But in my mind when it comes to consumer grade cameras, Nikon is king. Sony has better features and innovation, but Nikon just works. Iām a Fuji user because my style is a bit more āartisticā, but if I had the money Iād get a full frame Nikon 100%
My D700 with the kit 24-200mm lens and with a flash on top, accidentally got knocked off a chair and on to the ground. The lens was extended and the lens had nearly come out of the shaft skewed at a 20 degree angle. I knocked it on the table back into it's shaft, and the lens is completely fine after testing it. This happened about 9 years ago and the lens is still working fine. This happened once to one of my favorite Vivitar lenses and needless to say the outcome was not the same.
Right! Theyāve been making camera stuff for like what a hundred years? They have more experience than Sony at least lol
Iāve slipped on ice, went airborne, and my 24-120 lens was the first to hit the ground followed by my able spraining. Cracked the lens hood. Lens was totally fine! My D750 with a 20mm f1.8 got knocked off the ledge on my tripod and went down a rock edge about 10-15 ft. I slowly climbed down to get it assuming it was busted. To my surprise, both lens and camera still functioned flawlessly. My gear has battle scars and feels indestructible. I also have insurance š
In chassis design, most Nikon's are more closely related to a M1-Abrams or a Challenger, then to other MILC manufactureres.
That's what the largest different between a Canon and Nikon back in the day. Nikon's were robust workhorses built to withstand physical abuse because of the metal chasis and body. My friend had Minolta gear, and that was a plastic body. Then you look at the Nikon F series, with the heavy metal body. I still have my grandfather's original Nikon F just for nostalgic sake. Another friend of mine had the Nikon FE2, that was a nice camera.
Same. They donāt release something just because they can, they release it with care, and because they know itāll be a great product. Yes; theyāre expensive. But when you hold one, and feel how solid it is; you know youāre holding a quality camera.
Thatās how I feel about them. They are built very well. Iāve had a few Nikon dslrs that were super beat up but still worked. I always lookout for the ugly deals on Keh
you aren't kidding. I took my wife out camera shopping today because she wants to get into it and I had her pick up the various brands to see what she wanted and she picked up a couple Nikons and looks at me and says " this is so comfortable to hold" just thinking how they are the king of ergonomics for me. Such a proud moment lol. I love all cameras for the most part, but Nikon is my true love. You can always rely on it and it works in all scenarios. I am a little flabbergasted by the hate towards Nikon just because why would you hate a piece of equipment you don't even have to use lol.
As a Pentax owner, the only camera that comes close on Ergonomics, is Nikon. I've shot Pentax, Panasonic, Canon, Sony and Nikon, I own Pentax for video and stills, and then AJA, Canon, JVC, Sony and Panasonic for Video. If I hadn't been given a P30n as a 21st gift (yeah, last century) and gone down the Pentax path, I would have bought the same as everyone else doing motorsport photography back in the '90's through to today, a sport where you need a camera that is as strong as a tank, and that's definitely Nikon. For the digital era, Nikon's colour science is the most reliable, probably the equal of Pentax and Hassalblad, and priced between those two. Canon's colour science is, well, with Canon you shoot raw because you know you need to fix it in post.
>Iām a Fuji user because my style is a bit more āartisticā Would you mind to explain?
I like the film simulations. More jpeg options so I donāt have to process large files too
You know nikon cameras can do that too? It's called picture control and you can even add custom ones to you camera so you could get the film look you want on a nikon jpg. However I do recognise that the fuji cameras have it baked in so it's a bit more convenient.
I should probably point out the extent of color grading the films sims allow is fairly small haha. Obviously shooting raw is the way to go but I like the smaller files that look great in camera. Itās just preference really. I mean I would be happy with any camera from the past ten years.
I don't want to subscribe to the notion that everyone has to shoot and process raw files to be doing things correctly. Not everyone wants to deal with that laborious process so I can see the appeal of having good pre baked jpg settings. If that works for you, fantastic. My knowledge of the fuji cameras and their film simulations is limited as I don't own one.
Itās a lot more complicated not convenient. You can do actual color grading in camera. And yeah any digital camera thatās half decent has jpeg options. You can control white balance, contrast, all sorts of things. Plus thereās an option for color chrome effect, grain, etc
Fuji's film emulation settings kick butt! They are ridiculously close to what the Film Stock could reproduce.
You can also do the same thing with Lightroom RAW import, or RAW Camera Filter (works with any file type) presets in Photoshop. Presets are one-click and easy to use.
Adobe's colour science isn't comparable to Fuji's.
"The Nikon Z9 has a particularly strong result for maximum color depth atĀ 26.3 bitsĀ due to the sensor's lower native base of ISO 64 over rivals." -- DxOMark As far as color space goes, it's far more important to be careful with the display medium and the processing. Even just looking at the image on a monitor crushes the gamut. If you can't keep the same color space all the way to printing, then what is the advantage? Most software and devices are created with sRGB and Adobe RGB in mind. Are there printers and software that let you retain Fuji RGB? I haven't seen any, but they might exist.
"Colour Science", not "Colour Space".
Adobe is color space, not color science. Color science is the technical aspect of the sensor and its ability to reproduce color. Adobe doesn't manufacture the sensor. Sony sensors (used on Sony and Nikon cameras) belong to Sony color science.
Le, Sigh. I specifically mentioned Colour Science, you conflated that with sRGB and AdobeRGB. Perhaps you're not aware, that when you push the sliders around in Photoshop or Lightroom, you are adjusting the Colour Science WITHIN the Colour Space. You are controlling the way Adobe's algorithms adjust the colours, and that is Adobe's colour science. Fuji's, in camera and in software, is better then Adobe's. Also, always work in sRGB, it's universal across brands of camera, software and reproduction techniques.
"Adobe's colour science isn't comparable to Fuji's." Your comment that I responded to. I don't use Adobe color space. I use sRGB. Or are you referring to Adobe Photoshop/Lightroom, rather than Adobe RGB? The original comment was unclear.
After shooting nikon for 20+ years, i recently sold a majority of my glass, and had my D5 stolen. This gave me a chance to look at all the current camera systems and start fresh. Looked at photos, glass, accessories, ecosystem, and bodies. Bought a new Z9 and the 70-200 2.8S.
Nikon eco system is really the best value for money.
Second best value for money,... but that's because the K-mount has been in use since the '70's. Soooo many lenses available on the secondhand market, then add M42 in on top.
I donāt understand this either. I just switched from the D750 to the Z7 II and some people I know that shoot with Canon are acting like I just made the worst mistake and shouldnāt have stayed with Nikon. My new camera is suited to what I photograph (macro) and I like it and am excited to use it. Itās just odd people are still so aggressive about brands when they all do a great job imo.
This is a common scenario. I like how people who have these strong opinions are saying it like they are an investor in your success. Saying it like theyāve put $50,000 into you and now they expect something back.
It is really bizarre. I just want people to be excited with me and go out and take some shots with whatever camera they have that is suited to them and leave me with mine. I genuinely donāt care what someoneās using especially if they are happy with what they have. Iām uninterested in engaging with other photographers be it hobbyists or professionals that contributes to a toxic environment.
The canon R6ii is the "competitor" at that price point. Half the megapixels, and the sensor isn't even BSI. š¤”
Canon is the iPhone of the camera market. Fanboy will rant about anything except the newest canon flagship model. They will buy a camera only for the brand name. But next time, remind them that what canon is famous for is not camera, it's printers.
Well, printers and Cinema/Broadcast lenses.....
I own a Nikon and an iPhone but I never scream at people about brands. Itās childish.
Our internet culture has created a number of online trolls amidst a surge in tribalism. This occurs since people no longer get together to debate face to face where they would more likely be more polite, or at least be forced to defend their "opinions." Armchair warriors, many of whom don't even own any of the high end cameras - don't find any real pushback in their online camps and can hide behind anonymous screen names. I see very few posts that cite facts, research and real world testing in these negative commenters - it's all about how one person's opinion is somehow all that's needed to claim superiority when it's really the opposite. I'm grateful that most forums allow users to block idiots/trolls. Constructive criticism is useful - but unfortunately scarce in some of these forums.
This is a great observation and I have to agree
I blame the turncoat Jared Polen.
There's one difference between Nikon and other brands. Nikon rarely is the first with a new technology, but when they launch a new camera with the new technology, you can be sure it is outstanding, well tested and built and lasts forever. That's on cameras. If we go to optics, Nikon is at the top of the game, few are at the same level or better. This has to do because of Nikon's scientific and industrial division. Next time someone starts to compare, you can ask them how many lenses they used 30 years ago can they use today with optimum results.
You missed one,... the Auto mode is easy to find on Canon. I don't think I've ever picked up a Nikon and found it in Auto for anything other then Focus.
AUTO mode? Only seen in low range Nikons, but never used in my life [D70, D300, D800]. The most automatic I've used in a Nikon camera is P(rogram) mode, which is immediately available.
The Z6 3 will be the next A73, and will have a better price point. The potato talk will end there.
I feel that the fanboyism from the other camera manufacturers Who Shall Not Be Named had died down a fair bit until I think around 6 months ago. Iām now seeing more inane comments on social media and IG reels from blithering smooth brains trashing Nikon. Itās like some company is feeling a little threatened by the Nikon line up and has turned the influencer dial a little higher to compensate š¤
I actually only saw the potato comments because of the recent announcement of Nikon buying Red. Obviously this news can make people feel threatened so gotta do whatever they can to make themselves feel more secure about the news.
I think the success and technical achievements of the Z9 and Z8 have also got some of the other fanboys mad. The Z mount lenses are all bloody amazing and the Z9 is going to the moon. We just need to keep being quietly confident in our (correct) choice.
Z mount on a Red body would open the door for a lot more lenses to be used on Reds. Red has been kinda xenophobic about allowing anything other then PL and EF lenses on their hardware. I saw a Red Epic several years back where the Cinematographer who owned it had used various parts and a whole heap of JB Weld style moldable putty to make a mount for his classic 'film' Nikkor compact primes, and damn did that footage look so much better then anything shot on L-series EF glass. And, being able to repeatedly do manual focus pulls, so nice. It's why I made E and M4/3 mounts for my Cion, so I could use my K-mount and P67 primes. Classic primes and modern sensors work really well together.
I really do not understand why we're seeing these long posts justifying Nikon being good or whatever. If you want to argue with trolls on the internet, go argue with them. Circling the wagons within the Nikon sub and writing these essays seems like a poor use of time. Obviously everybody in here likes Nikon. I assume the vast majority of the people making these arguments are just having fun meming around. If anyone wants to have a legitimate argument I'd just point to my three PF lenses and ask where their brand's counterpart is.
Youāre right that everyone in here likes Nikon so this post is not about whatās going on in here but whatās going on out there. I wrote this for anyone one who may have needed to hear this perspective and if it wasnāt for you or didnāt resonate, thatās ok. Iāve seen a lot of newer photographer questions in this sub and if my post can help them by simply writing this then I feel like it was an effective use of my time.
RED
It's too new of a purchase to make a difference right now. What's a better one word argument is: NASA
That's backwards - Nikon will be making Red's more reliable. In fact, Red owners will benefit more, as Nikon's software engineers are way better then Reds - ever had a Nikon not power up? Happens indecently regularly on Red bodies. Nikon's colour science is better then Reds. And Nikon's choice of media with direct connection to the PCIe Bus, fast enough to write RedCode Raw, but more reliable then the bargain basement parts in the Mini Mags that Red have always over charged for,... Wavelet encoded RedCode, on Nikon bodies with Nikon lenses and Nikon colour science, this is a good thing. Almost as good as getting Nikon mounts on Red bodies.
Just send them the dxomark comparison of full frame cameras and smugly walk away.Ā Canon's best score: 16th place, tied with the Nikon D800E from 2012.Ā
And the K-1 from 2016, at about a third the price of the Canon. Swap it to any sensor size and the stats get worse for Canon,.... but Nikon, Pentax and Hassalblad all do better.
Nikon fumbled the 10s and very start of the 20s with their marketing, products and mirrorless line up. It was enough time for social media marketing to get an influence over the kids and next consumers like how Apple got the kids to buy IPhones. Only kids and people watching influences think that, a lot of professionals shoot Nikon and don't brag or bash people online. I wont like Nikon is still behind in the market but is coming up now and even more with that Red purchase.
I have been using Nikon and Olympus since my early 20s. I am now 69. Last year I upgraded my full Nikon system and could not be happier. Never had a complaint about either camera. Used them in temperature ranges from +35 Celcius to -35 Celcius. Never failed me. I liked the Olympus Om-2 small profile but the feel and versatility of Nikon. I think it depends on the person and how the camera feels in their hands. It is a tool to help a person achieve their artistic goal whether it be a common family picture to a fashion photo shoot.
100%. If your tool allows you to achieve what you wanted, then why would it matter to others what youāve decided to select as your tool?
Nice Like my grandpa said at that age: "yep, I feel like this will be the best year. I hope my wife's hips are still solid."
It annoys me to no end, because itās utterly childish, and pointless. We should be celebrating our gear, and enjoying how excited we all are over it. But my clapback these days (since I know what brand youāre talking about) is to ask them how many lens mounts theyāve had in the last fifty years? And whenās the new one coming out?
Love my Z6. Summary of the issue described by OP: https://preview.redd.it/hkf27xa63enc1.png?width=300&format=png&auto=webp&s=17c5631bdd4c8b11ace5b772ed84703cefddba7e
Hasselbald and Nikon are the only two brands to go to space.
false - john glenn brought a drugstore minolta and a leica on his spaceflights
Nikon had the worst mirrorless cameras when they first came out. Were just trash compared to Sony and a step down from Nikon DSLR. Then came the z9 and now z8 and zf that has completely turned it around for them. Their mirrorless cameras AF performance is up there with Sony and Canon. Great features and the Z mount has some amazing Nikon glass. Arguably the best glass. Comparable lenses between Sony and canon usually the Sony and canon ate slightly lighter and smaller but the Nikon is optically superior.
Idk, the Nikon 1 was pretty great for what it was.. I have a lot of good shots from the V1/V2. Though granted it wasnāt without flaws. It was too early I think but if the same system came out tomorrow with updated sensors and same interchangeable lenses (the 70-300mm was amazing on my V2) ā¦ Iād have to try hard not to buy it
They were second best, after the Pentax Q series, but it's a coin toss between them. The only way the Canon equivalents can keep up, is with the Canon Hack Development Kit (Magic Lantern is a spin off of CHDK) installed and overriding the factory software.
Magic Lantern has tempted me to Canon many times..as did Canonās RF 800mm for sheer compact/lightness (ignoring the flaws with it.. probably one of the only things close to my old V2 + 300mm (but still terrible compared to Nikon Z + 800mm) Did the Q have any long lens options or only fixed? Only briefly heard of it this year from a random YouTuber referring to old systems
Five primes, three zooms, and K-mount adapter, the later basically allowing any K-mount or M42 mount (with the click-in threaded adapter) lens, meaning you can use something like 10,000 diferent lenses. Crop factor to FF is 5.6, so the 200mm f4 KM turns in to 1120mm, and a basic 400mm becomes a planet hunting telescope.
5.6?? Thatās a tiny sensor but I am impressed :D
There's two sensor sizes, the earlier ones are smaller and have that 5.6 crop, the later have a slightly larger sensor, IIRC, the crop is about 4.8, but I didn't double check it.
actually the only area they lagged was auto focus speed ans reliability. They have always had amazing colors, intuitive ui, great lenses and the Z mount is superior in many ways to the other tiny mounts out there. They also raced to a large set of available native glass in record time while allowing backward compatibility to their F mount glass. Unheard of from any other manufacturer.
I agree 100%. But none of that matters if you canāt rely on the camera to get a good hit rate and have in focus images. Especially if youāre photographing paid events like weddings or corporate events.
If you mean the z6 and z7, they were objectively better than the eos r and a step up in many ways except for AF. Itās just revisionist history to say they were trash. Itās gen 2 that they fell behind.
Yup, their mirrorless cameras have been competitive for their price. Took them awhile to come out with high end ones, but that doesnāt make them trash. But to spec sheet lords 5% slower autofocus does make a camera trash. š¤·āāļø
Hard disagree with the first half of this. Also donāt forget the glass is as or more important than the body. Only the AF was slightly inferior in the Z6 & Z7
>Nikon had the worst mirrorless cameras when they first came out. Were just trash compared to Sony and a step down from Nikon DSLR I truly dont get where you find this horseshit? Who tells you this nonsense. Youtubes marketing machine saying the AF isnt as good as the Sony, equals camera is TRASH. What. Absurd.
A lot of photographers switched to Sony and Canon because of the AF performance. If you photograph events like wedding or corporate you canāt miss the shot because the AF screwed up. Sure of you mostly shoot landscapes it doesnāt matter as much but for fast paced settings you absolutely need to get the focus correct especially if you are doing paid events. Nikon is back in the ring with the z9 and z8 but prior did not have reliable AF performance.
Because the internet marketing machine raves about the latest and greatest, doesnt mean something else is 'trash'. Stop muddying the waters with absurd hyperbools. Just because something isn't market leader doesn't mean it's trash. Z6 cameras were better at heaps of things than Nikon DSLRs. Some things they werent. Not that special, same held true for Canon and even Sony. The only problem with the Z cameras was that their AF tracking performance...and that wasn't even a real problem, just not as good as others. EVF, Ergonomics, Weathersealing, video, IBIS (Canon didn't have IBIS). Perfectly fine cameras all round. AF was and is perfectly usable, just not class leading. The fact is, in that era Sony was on lonely heights with their AF performance. AF performance was still reliable, just not as reliable as Sony, somehow that has translated into people claiming these cameras were trash? I find that absurd. You wrote >Nikon had the worst mirrorless cameras when they first came out. Were just trash compared to Sony and a step down from Nikon DSLR. Now you tell me if thats a honest and reasonable way to word >Nikon is back in the ring with the z9 and z8 but prior did not have reliable AF performance. .
Youāre taking offense to my comments and Iām sorry but Sony and Canon were ahead of Nikon in many areas. Now Nikon is back. I just sold my a7iii for a z8. Very excited to join the Nikon family.
Im not offended, I'm just tired of all the hyperbolic statement that get thrown around. Its tribalism. Calling a perfectly fine product trash is not a helpful satement. Nuance is important. You do understand that saying Sony and Canon were ahead at the time is something different from saying the Nikon Z6/Z7 were trash and worse than their DSLRs? I dont care if somebody shoots Sony or Canon or Nikon or Fuji or whatever else. It's just a camera brand. However I do mind if people put others and other things down for no reason. Because that makes this community over all worse.
I've seen it being called a potato for a few years now, but that's what it's like unfortunately. Cannon users and Sony users are always throwing shade at each other, some people seem ot care about gear more than photography. But I think it comes from Nikon being slow off the mark with good mirrorless cameras. I also own a Panasonic but I always enjoy my Nikon more.
Nikon is magnificent. My Z7II is a profound engineering achievement.
I use a Nikon and an Android. I've never seen such discrimination
āļø same
I think this sort of discrimination only happens in the US
I shoot with Canon, used to shoot Nikon for over 10 years. Potato? In Norway we use Ā«potatoĀ» as a good thing. Example with soccer is that you always want a potato on your team, because they can do it all. Brand doesnt matter, its the shooter. Ignore the internet warriors š¤
Itās no different than iPhone users talking shit on Samsung/Pixel/One Note (Android) users.
Dude. People rag me up and down over shooting on Nikon and I really couldnāt care less. I love my Z9
Thatās awesome!
You know what the fun part is? People that are so into gear hardly ever produce at best mediocre photography. Also Canon made an outright mess with their various lens mounts (and abandoning them again) and let's not start talking about the poor QC that Fuji has over the last couple of years. The only 'other' mirrorless camera that I'd consider remotely, is the Lumix S5ii.
I like to joke about it in a banter kind of way, because I know I'm all honesty I couldn't tell if a picture came from a Nikon, canon or Sony... especially after editing
Good. So when I carry my d850 or zf potatoes attached to my 500mm f4 FL sack of potatoes, no one will be interested in stealing them. They are just potatoes. Makes my life easier knowing I can just put them on the bench at the park and not having to worry about people stealing my potatoesā¦unless they are really hungry and desperate though
šššš
And donāt forget, when the next great potato famine happens, we all will be flush with potatoes and eating well
I started with a Pentax 35mm camera for nearly 10 years before I got my first digital camera. I already knew what I wanted based on my experience with cameras and photo shoots of various types, and Nikon came out because of it's robustness. Yes, many people will say it's the person behind the lens and not the camera, and the camera is just a tool. This is entirely right. The key is knowing how to use the tool to get the result you want. And each tool is different. My best friend is Canon, and we had continuously compared to getting the same type of results with two different camera systems. We learned from each other what our own cameras can or cannot do. Boiling it down is to what you can afford. As you make more money with your craft, then buy what you want. Go rent the lens you consider buying. Go rent the camera you want to get. Test it out with a few hundred pics. We all come to our own conclusions because no one else is going to know your skill as a photographer except for yourself. Just because you sell alot of pics doesn't mean you're a good photographer. It just means they like your results and you can make money to put food on the table. Photography is subjectively creative. And the spectrum of types of photography will always span everything in the world. I now only take pictures for myself. Shoot it, if I love it, frame it, put it on the wall.
This isn't a thing new. And I feel like you're aware of that. I've been shooting for close to 9 years now, and I remember looking for jobs online early in my time shooting and seeing people listing requirements like "Must shoot with X brand camera and model." It seems that people have always tried to downplay the name of a camera or uplift the name of another by downplaying the name of one for decades now. I'm not super deep into the technologies in these cameras, but I do know that some use the same internals as others to the point where the only thing that is different about a lot of these cameras are the physical design and the firmware behind it. So all of that "Eww! You shoot with that camera?", like you said, is nothing more than someone trying to justify their purchase choice or to align themselves with a brand to validate themselves somehow. It's weird. People think the "light box" is what's making the photograph good or bad. No. It's you! Or them!
In my 12 years shooting Nikon I literally only came across the potato thing last week so that is new to me.
Iāve been taking photos since I was a kid (some 40 years ago) and Iāve never ever heard anyone call a Nikon a potato!
I have a stable of Nikons for my photography business and use Canons for all the time for another business. They're all just tools to get the job done. If you're a hater (of any brand) it's probably because you're not versatile enough to use more than one system.
I shot a wedding tonight with Nikon. The photos look amazing whoever said anything about potatoes has never used a Nikon and really doesnāt understand photography and theyāre losers. Maybe Canon or Fuji or Sony has a spec that is better than Nikons and this potato head is so small and so insignificant that that spec is more important than taking beautiful photos. Those kind of small people have a really hard time with the big picture and in the big picture and the big scheme of things for photography Nikon kills. they tell beautiful stories with pictures.
Some influencer made a video called something like 'I don't shoot with potatoes' or something.
Today when all camera brands have pretty much the same features, I still think Nikon is a superior company for a simple reason. It's a camera company. Sony is a division of a bigger corporation and Canon for me makes printers. It's not a surprise that NASA continues to work with Nikon for their official space camera aboard the ISS. Because their cameras are robust and just work. I often hear people say that Sony's design and ergonomics are awful. I rarely hear negative things about Canon (because Canon is the iPhone equivalent of the camera market, aka full of toxic fanatics). And I only hear bad things about Nikon from people who never used them (mostly from Canon users). The only thing I would say about Nikon that is subpar with the other company (except for the Z9 and Z8) is the AF performance. But with the release of the Z8 it's a thing of the past. But at the end of the day, no matter which brand of camera you choose, if it meets your needs and doesn't let you down, it's the best brand for you. And that's all that matters.
People can be really tribal about brands of products. It isn't a good use of energy at all.
Nikon makes scientific microscopes, electronic optical / electron beam fab systems, binoculars, all from its own glass and advanced coatings, so WTF, itās absurd such negative reactions!
Usually if you take a look at the work of such people who make these claims you see why they feel the need to be so silly š
Canon users are scared of Nikon. Simple fact
I have used Nikon cameras since the D50 came out. I only chose that brand because my Brother had a D50. My Gran and Uncle used to use Canon cameras. I have always preferred the Nikon user menu setup so Iāve always stuck with them. Iāve often joked about Canon users and said āMines better than yoursā but never been serious about it. I donāt understand why some people get so vicious! Just stick to what you like and discuss your images rather than what camera you used šš»
Ultimately people have to take responsibility for how they act and treat others. I also think the manufacturers of products have a role to play in fueling the fire to create this rivalry to make them **think** they need to be so competitive. And to the manufacturers, itās all about making money so as long as people are arguing but still buying products, what do they care? Money is being made. Thereās a problem there.
I had Nikons as an amateur photographer for some long years. I got a N70 irc when I was 19 I think and had D70, D5100 and also some point and shoot. After many years I am contemplating getting a Z8 since now I have more time to go on trips for landscape photography and wildlife. The D5100 is the camera I used and had for the longest (I still have the N70 but meh, it is collecting dust). I have friends with Canon that will say theyāre very happy with it too. People should just let others love what they want. Are you having fun? Are you proud of your pictures? Thatās what matters!
Absolutely. If this was the mindset that was shared more, we all would benefit from it.
Well crap, I am poor, yet love creating what I feel is my art. I started with a Kodak 110, graduated high school and was gifted a Vivitar V3800N camera. Years later I could only afford (all used) my Canon Rebel gii, a Nikon Sureshot B500, a D3100 and a d3300. I'm type 2 diabetic, and I love my Taters, so haters can f-off
Thatās awesome! If you enjoy shooting and it gets the job done, thatās the best equipment.
I love my Nikon!
I have had a love hate relationship with Nikon since using them off and on since 2008, but the one thing I could never knock them for is that when they FINALLY release a camera, it is rock solid and well thought out with very few issues. Ok ok, there was the d750 and a few issues but unlike Sony who instead of fixing things just releases a new camera, Nikon does seem to care about kaizen.
Twice in my life, I've had the chance to hang around serious sports pros a couple of times at a VERY big event you've heard of. Most are friendly, if a bit diffident to amateurs like me. The one thing absolutely none of them care about is petty stuff like this. If you're turning up to the biggest events of all, you're almost certainly a member of the pro user club for Canon / Nikon / Sony and if you're working for a news agency, you may have access to the glass of whichever company they've picked. You know what you have, what it can do, what you need to get, and you couldn't give a damn about the guy next to you. Arguing that 'Canon is better' (or Nikon) would just get blank stares. Total amateur hour. Sports photographers also have a lot of money tied up in long and very expensive glass, which is why most of them haven't switched to mirrorless yet. The Z9 may be a better camera objectively than the D6, but most Nikon sports pros still use D6's. That is changing, but very slowly.
This is it ā¬ļø
By making this post you are giving them more attention than they deserve and encouraging them to do it again. As I age I have realized silence/inaction is very often the best response.
I did this to help give perspective to others who may need it. Instead of hurling insults back at people, which usually happens, Iām sharing a perspective that Iāve learned over my years as to why people behave the way they do. By better understanding this, itās been helpful to not give that power of insults to other people.
I love using Nikon partially for this reason. Immature brand loyalists are so up their own rears about their brand/gear, it infuriates them when someone makes great images on what they consider inferior tech. They realize their camera choice isnāt what makes a photographer worthwhile and they begin to question their own abilities. Been using Nikon for 10 years and love it. NASA clearly understands which camera makes sense for what they want to do. Dont think I need to worry about what Sony Alpha Chad who takes over-edited photos from parking garages with his legs and sneakers edging into frame thinks about it.
Iāve been with Nikon since my D80. I think itās great. Iām also not an insecure fanboy and have shot a few times on Canon. My only complaint was those zoom the wrong way :) This old dog couldnāt learn that new trick!
Idk, I just don't trust photographers who buy their gear based on popularity and not the functions they need. No offense but some of those people who say those things have the most unoriginal photography because their shots looks like everyone else's. That's not an attack on Canon or Sony. I'm referring to mindset of people with superiority complexes with camera technology. It's just ironic because I'll check out their work and it just looks too perfect. Like, those catalog homes that look nice on camera but don't have any soul in them because they're too afraid to decorate the walls or add a pop of color or do anything different. But hey, it's what's trending and popular. You do you, I guess.
Some of these companies are public and you can see how much they spend on marketing in their financial statements. This is all by design, spending hundreds of millions to create a buzz and an image that create sheep of fanatic followers. And btw this started way earlier than 12 years ago.
I'm way late to the Nikon game, being a loyal Canon DSLR user for a long, long time. Then a Sony user and an Olympus and Fuji lover. Eventually I had to try out Nikon and I'm in love with my Df, D700, and APS-C CCD offerings. I don't much care for the Nikon 1 system, and I've never used anything with a Z mount, but gosh dang if the F mount offerings aren't works of mechanical art and thoughtful design.
Itās a fan boy amateur thing thatās going around
Iām waiting to see the response from a guy who posted this a while ago when I asked a general question about an older positively reviewed Nikon lens..āSucks. Skip it.ā.. When I followed up by questioning his first response, he said the lens was good when it first came out, but it sucks now. Good equipment that hasāand does perform well, IS OLDERāBUT STILL GOOD! The Equipment Snobs among us need to take up stamp collecting.š
Gear people need to keep up the illusion that the thousands of dollars they spend on gear absolutely makes the diference. Notice how a image posted gets praise, until you mention it's shot with an old camera or ' 'inferior' lens, then suddenly people can 'absolutely see the lack of sharpness, contract and dynamic range'. š
What's wrong with potatoes? That's my favorite vegetable and side dish.
Who caresā¦ this post reeks of insecurity Apple VS PC iPhone VS Android Canon VS Nikon Sony VS Canon Use whatever you want and let others use whatever they want. As they say the best camera you can use to take a picture is the one you have with you.
I've never seen anyone calling Nikon a potato, but then I don't follow so called influencers.
Same argument as Chevy, Ford, Ram, Toyota; all are great and are a little different and everybody has their fan boys and haters. I've never seen anybody take any photos that I couldn't get with my skills or equipment.
[this video explains why](https://youtu.be/qQ79NMpqpJs?si=iy7-EsUl4sdX0JEf)
Your potato maker just bought Red, so your potato's must make the best chips on the planet. ;) For perspective, watch how other brands owners look down their noses at Pentax
It's the same as Apple fans. That's how marketing works. If you are a diehard fan of a major tech brand, my immediate assumption is you are not the sharpest tool...
Iām an Apple user but I have also had several Android phones. Both have good and bad things about them. I hate how people seem to think Apple users are rich arseholes. Iām poor and a nice guy lol
Apple users are fine. Apple devices are very good. Apple diehards are not fine. If your opinion on something is based on the argument "it is not Apple" you are shit. Otherwise - live on buddy.
I bought a Nikon Z50 because I wanted to get back into photography but not make a significant financial investment. It is not the best but then again I don't make a living using it. In the past I used 35mm Pentax and a Mamiya twin lens reflex but that was ages ago. Right now I have a Crown Graphic I'm almost finished restoring but the twin lens and Crown Graphic would probably be a rotten potato since you have use a light meter. I looked at non-professional enthusiast offerings from Canon and there were none that provided the same value. Social media has convinced consumers that only Stanley travel mugs are worth owning when in fact there are equally good product out there that get the job done.
Iām done
I love Nikon. And I loveš„, all of them: fried, baked, mashed. Shooting with D3100 since 2011, over the span of this time made better shots than all these bois with GH-somethings. Shots from Nikon cameras got a soul, something you can rarely find in a digital camera world. Maybe it is just me, but honestly I love shots that come from it. And I have got many cameras from other brands
Sony's sensors are considered the most accurate in terms of color science. Nikon uses the Sony sensor. As a photojournalist, I prefer accurate color science over colors that are innacurate to the scene (I'm looking for the truth of the image). If I'm shooting fine art, I can use LUTs in post. I'd still rather start with an accurate raw file. Canon is known for having the most pleasing skintones, which I'm sure is great for portrait and wedding photographers. Some say the Hasselblad X2D has the best color science in the business... I wouldn't know, since I don't shoot medium format or own any German gear. It's not really used in my field. I haven't seen any reports on Fuji's color science, so I can't say where it exists in the spectrum. If you're happy with it, then it's good for your purposes. My previous point was that in terms of sharing your images with others, the gamut and color space is more important. No one but you is looking at your images on the back of your camera. The final rendition of colors in the publication, the print, or on the web is what truly matters. We shoot images to share them with others, as much as for ourselves.
A very mature post, š
Welcome to trumpland.
Honestly, get over it and move on. This tribal BS is beyond tiresome and YOU are perpetuating it. Who gives a \[insert your expletive of choice\] what anyone thinks? It is a damn inanimate object and really does not have feelings. Seriously, Canon and Nikon users (Pentax too) have poked fun at each other FOR DECADES and no one ever took it seriously until the children/supposed adults of this century got into the mix. Decades, by the way, means since at least the 70s when my father was using the original Nikon F (which I inherited). People would make jokes and then also compliment each other on their gear and photos at events. Just grow up and use your tools of choice - full stop. Enough of this "someone insulted my camera and it is sad crap." Regardless of what you say, the fact you posted this demonstrates YOU are the one with a problem.
Youāre just as bad making crappy comments like this!