# Another Canon vs. Nikon thread



## SONET (Mar 1, 2002)

beauport said:


> I'll define that more, look at the white lenses with red rings on them...........


I don't think the media is the best place to point when making an argument for either camp; many of the photographers in the media are issued gear from their employers and don't really have much of a choice in the matter. Their employer typically provides a body or two (if they're lucky) and will have a pool of lenses and other gear that their photographers get to 'check out' as necessary.

I attend a fair number of events where media photographers are present and have spoken to a number of them about their gear. Most of them aren't buying Canon gear with their own money, and a good number of them have Nikon gear at home despite using Canon on the job. I'm not suggesting that Nikon is better (they both have their strengths and weaknesses), but rather that your image full of 'great whites' isn't as strong of an argument for Canon as you might be suggesting.

--SONET


----------



## beauport (Jul 2, 2002)

Sonet, my orignal post regarding the pro lenses was simply pointing out the volume of pro lenses Canon sells and the profits from which may help fund other lenses in their line. My post also went on to be quite Canon/Nikon neutral as most any user knows it's rarely the camera that takes the winning photo.


----------



## e46Christian (Feb 27, 2003)

Thank you all for the detailed responses. You guys rule. 

I honestly didn't realize this subject is as polarizing as religion or politics, so apologies are in order for the thread title.

I guess I should tell you about the subjects I want to shoot if I want the details to keep pouring in.

Birds...raptors to be precise. I never really cared much for birds until I saw a bald eagle fishing on Vancouver Island and later that year, I was lucky enough to witness a peregrine falcon taking out a pigeon while diving at a ridiculous rate of speed. They've turned this NJ pr!ck into a nature fan.

They're both different - eagles, red tailed hawks, etc. are nowhere near as fast as most falcons and they sit a lot, so they'll be easier to photograph with the help of a good telephoto lens. The peregrins will for sure be a lot trickier, but I know where to find them now .

Thanks again for all your help.


----------



## Test_Engineer (Sep 11, 2004)

beauport said:


> Sonet, my orignal post regarding the pro lenses was simply pointing out the volume of pro lenses Canon sells and the profits from which may help fund other lenses in their line. My post also went on to be quite Canon/Nikon neutral as most any user knows it's rarely the camera that takes the winning photo.


i'd agree with that. That is why I feel the most important thing to do is handle each camera before buying it. If you can't stand the ergonomics of the body...you won't want to use it and become frustrated. It's the main reason I chose the bigger Nikon body over the "cramped" Rebel xt.


----------



## Test_Engineer (Sep 11, 2004)

e46Christian said:


> Thank you all for the detailed responses. You guys rule.
> 
> I honestly didn't realize this subject is as polarizing as religion or politics, so apologies are in order for the thread title.
> 
> ...


:yikes: You're opening yourself up to a very expensive journey. "Bird lenses" can get pricey very fast. Long range is a must(400mm +), and it needs to be fast, because a lot of bird don't just sit out in full sun light.


----------



## beauport (Jul 2, 2002)

e46Christian said:


> Birds...raptors to be precise. I never really cared much for birds until I saw a bald eagle fishing on Vancouver Island and later that year, I was lucky enough to witness a peregrine falcon taking out a pigeon while diving at a ridiculous rate of speed. They've turned this NJ pr!ck into a nature fan.
> 
> They're both different - eagles, red tailed hawks, etc. are nowhere near as fast as most falcons and they sit a lot, so they'll be easier to photograph with the help of a good telephoto lens. The peregrins will for sure be a lot trickier, but I know where to find them now .
> 
> Thanks again for all your help.


Oh boy, I hope you have deep pockets........or you've learned to low crawl up close to your subjects.


----------



## Test_Engineer (Sep 11, 2004)

beauport said:


> *Oh boy, I hope you have deep pockets........*or you've learned to low crawl up close to your subjects.


:rofl: I just wrote the same thing


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Test_Engineer said:


> :yikes: You're opening yourself up to a very expensive journey. "Bird lenses" can get pricey very fast. Long range is a must(400mm +), and it needs to be fast, because a lot of bird don't just sit out in full sun light.





beauport said:


> Oh boy, I hope you have deep pockets........or you've learned to low crawl up close to your subjects.


Me three - lenses that excel at bird photography lie in that class of exotic glass I mentioned in my post. 400-500mm plus a telecoverter, high speed autofocus systems, a very steady tripod, and a gimbal head. That should get you in the neighborhood of $10k, and you haven't bought a body yet (and it should have an autofocus system with some predictive features).


----------



## e46Christian (Feb 27, 2003)

I had a funny feeling that was gonna be the case. :rofl:


----------



## Richard in NC (Oct 23, 2005)

Or you can be lucky and live 5 minutes from a Raptor center. They have hawks, owls, falcons, and even bald eagles. Most were injured or imprinted by humans and wouldn't survive in the wild. This pic was taken years ago with a 6mp Nikon D100.


----------



## Richard in NC (Oct 23, 2005)

Richard in NC said:


> Or you can be lucky and live 5 minutes from a Raptor center. They have hawks, owls, falcons, and even bald eagles. Most were injured or imprinted by humans and wouldn't survive in the wild. This pic was taken years ago with a 6mp Nikon D100.


e46...
Since today was sunny but cold, it was a good day to visit the Carolina Raptor Center. I've now got a D200 with a 18-200 lens. Even sitting still, birds can be a challenge, especially in the shade or in cages. Here are a few I took.


----------



## e46Christian (Feb 27, 2003)

Richard in NC said:


> e46...
> Since today was sunny but cold, it was a good day to visit the Carolina Raptor Center. I've now got a D200 with a 18-200 lens. Even sitting still, birds can be a challenge, especially in the shade or in cages. Here are a few I took.


Thanks, Richard. Sweet pics. Love the golden eagle. Just curious, what kind of owl is it? Is the white bird a kite by any chance?

After much looking around, I ended up settling on a D70s for a smoking price with the 18-70mm lens and keeping some money aside for future lenses. It'll probably be quite a while before I outgrow this camera, especially coming from a Canon point-and-shoot digital.


----------



## Richard in NC (Oct 23, 2005)

e46Christian said:


> Thanks, Richard. Sweet pics. Love the golden eagle. Just curious, what kind of owl is it? Is the white bird a kite by any chance?
> 
> After much looking around, I ended up settling on a D70s for a smoking price with the 18-70mm lens and keeping some money aside for future lenses. It'll probably be quite a while before I outgrow this camera, especially coming from a Canon point-and-shoot digital.


The owl is a great horned owl. The white bird is a partial albino red tailed hawk. It used to have colors!

Good choice for camera and lens. You'll get great pictures.


----------

