Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Mix Canon/Nikon?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 2:44:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I am a longtime Nikon shooter, first shooting for newspapers, and now doing
portraiture. I have the d70 and love it, along with my favorite nikon
format lenses. I also see Canon really being more technologically
advanced, interms of getting the tech out on the market (sensors, new
cameras) and bringing the prices down. I love the 20D, but the question
is,

since I need two cameras, should I mix systems or stick with my Nikons?
Anyone else try and shoot with two different camera bodies? Is it a
mistake?

Eric

More about : mix canon nikon

Anonymous
January 12, 2005 3:12:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<Eric Bakken> wrote in message
news:2005011123440916807%@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>I am a longtime Nikon shooter, first shooting for newspapers, and now doing
>portraiture. I have the d70 and love it, along with my favorite nikon
>format lenses. I also see Canon really being more technologically
>advanced, interms of getting the tech out on the market (sensors, new
>cameras) and bringing the prices down. I love the 20D, but the question
>is,
>
> since I need two cameras, should I mix systems or stick with my Nikons?
> Anyone else try and shoot with two different camera bodies? Is it a
> mistake?
>
> Eric

It's your cash to spend. In a studio setting, where you can take the
necessary time to set each one the way you want it, why not?

News would be a different stituation, IMO, because you don't want to be
thinking Canon functions when you're holding the Nikon and vice versa.

Just my $0.02 worth...

Jay Beckman
Chandler, AZ
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 5:26:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<Eric Bakken> wrote in message
news:2005011123440916807%@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> I am a longtime Nikon shooter, first shooting for newspapers, and now
doing
> portraiture. I have the d70 and love it, along with my favorite nikon
> format lenses. I also see Canon really being more technologically
> advanced, interms of getting the tech out on the market (sensors, new
> cameras) and bringing the prices down. I love the 20D, but the question
> is,
>
> since I need two cameras, should I mix systems or stick with my Nikons?
> Anyone else try and shoot with two different camera bodies? Is it a
> mistake?

Is is a mistake to carry:
2 different external flashes?
2 different sets of lenses?
2 different battery types?
2 different remotes?
2 different chargers?
Etc.........

The answer is entirely up to you...but...
....If it were up to me, the answer would be a resounding "no."

The speed with which Canon (or Nikon, for that matter) brings out technology
is only a factor if you are convinced that you will continualy upgrade...or
if you plan on investing serious $$ in lenses, etc. Otherwise, the
difference between the d70 and the 20D just aren't that great.

A major reason why people carry two bodies is in case one breaks, their gear
can be used with the second. The other major reason people carry two bodies
is to have two different lenses mounted, and immediately available for
switching back and forth without pausing for a lens change. If you have two
brands...and one body breaks/malfunctions/dies...unless you're carrying
redundant focal lengths from BOTH brands...you're out of luck for that focal
length, and are forced to use the focal lengths you have for the other
brand.

The idea seems quite nuts to me, unless one is considering carrying two
entirely different film formats.
Related resources
January 12, 2005 10:23:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

As one who carried two different brand bodies I can tell you it isn't any
fun. Either make the switch or wait for Nikon to catch up - which they
usually do, although they will probably never get the F mount to duplicate
all teh Canon functions.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

<Eric Bakken> wrote in message
news:2005011123440916807%@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> I am a longtime Nikon shooter, first shooting for newspapers, and now
doing
> portraiture. I have the d70 and love it, along with my favorite nikon
> format lenses. I also see Canon really being more technologically
> advanced, interms of getting the tech out on the market (sensors, new
> cameras) and bringing the prices down. I love the 20D, but the question
> is,
>
> since I need two cameras, should I mix systems or stick with my Nikons?
> Anyone else try and shoot with two different camera bodies? Is it a
> mistake?
>
> Eric
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 10:23:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

What doesn't the Nikon mount do that the Canon mount does?


"Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4g4Fd.16743$fE4.2388528@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> As one who carried two different brand bodies I can tell you it isn't any
> fun. Either make the switch or wait for Nikon to catch up - which they
> usually do, although they will probably never get the F mount to duplicate
> all teh Canon functions.
>
January 12, 2005 11:41:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4g4Fd.16743$fE4.2388528@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> As one who carried two different brand bodies I can tell you it isn't any
> fun. Either make the switch or wait for Nikon to catch up - which they
> usually do, although they will probably never get the F mount to duplicate
> all teh Canon functions.
>
Another myth, what functions can't be done with the "F-mount"?
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 1:23:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² lowest even number here wrote:

> Could someone please describe exactly what it is they feel the
F-mount
> limits.

> I am not arguing with you... I really would like to hear an
explanation of
> this rationale.

There is an excellent explanation at
"http://members.aol.com/photoquack/bayonet.htm"
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 2:11:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Scharf-DCA" <scharf@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1105554238.731254.15810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Mark² lowest even number here wrote:

>> Could someone please describe exactly what it is they feel the
F-mount
>> limits.

>> I am not arguing with you... I really would like to hear an
explanation of
>> this rationale.

>There is an excellent explanation at
"http://members.aol.com/photoquack/bayonet.htm"

That really does paint a picture of difficulty.
I was aware of a number of these issues, but was NOT aware, for example, of
limitations based on distance to film/sensor plane, and others.

Thanks for the link.
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 2:28:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Eric Bakken wrote:
> I am a longtime Nikon shooter, first shooting for newspapers, and now
> doing portraiture. I have the d70 and love it, along with my
> favorite nikon format lenses. I also see Canon really being more
> technologically advanced, interms of getting the tech out on the
> market (sensors, new cameras) and bringing the prices down. I love
> the 20D, but the question is,
>
> since I need two cameras, should I mix systems or stick with my
> Nikons? Anyone else try and shoot with two different camera bodies? Is it
> a mistake?
>
> Eric

I suggest you wait a few months and then get the Nikon version of the
20D It should be out by the.

Normally I believe in sticking with the same brand because of the
difficulty of adjusting to two different types of interfaces and maintaining
some compatibility of lenses and accessories.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 5:19:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:44:09 -0700, Eric Bakken <> wrote:

>I am a longtime Nikon shooter, first shooting for newspapers, and now doing
>portraiture. I have the d70 and love it, along with my favorite nikon
>format lenses. I also see Canon really being more technologically
>advanced, interms of getting the tech out on the market (sensors, new
>cameras) and bringing the prices down. I love the 20D, but the question
>is,
>
>since I need two cameras, should I mix systems or stick with my Nikons?
>Anyone else try and shoot with two different camera bodies? Is it a
>mistake?


Novoflex makes an adapter (roughly $170 at BH Photo)
that allows Nikon lenses to be mounted on Canon EOS
bodies.

I bought one with my 10D but hardly ever use it.

Unfortunately, when Nikon lenses are mounted this
way, there's no focus indication at all from the
Canon aside from the ground glass. That's kind
of stupid, if you ask me.

Needless to say, there's also no auto exposure
or auto focus.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 6:52:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tony wrote:

> As one who carried two different brand bodies I can tell you it isn't any
> fun. Either make the switch or wait for Nikon to catch up - which they
> usually do, although they will probably never get the F mount to duplicate
> all teh Canon functions.

He should make a clean break. Nikon will never catch up, until they dump
the F mount, but that may not be any time soon.
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 6:52:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:XIbFd.5363$Ii4.882@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Tony wrote:
>
> > As one who carried two different brand bodies I can tell you it isn't
any
> > fun. Either make the switch or wait for Nikon to catch up - which they
> > usually do, although they will probably never get the F mount to
duplicate
> > all teh Canon functions.
>
> He should make a clean break. Nikon will never catch up, until they dump
> the F mount, but that may not be any time soon.

Could someone please describe exactly what it is they feel the F-mount
limits?
I am not arguing with you... I really would like to hear an explanation of
this rationale.
It seems like there would be some issues, but I don't understand what those
would be in terms of limiting the possibilities. Is this argument based on
electronic communication between lens and body? -Size of the mount? What?
January 12, 2005 8:39:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Auto focus at f8, for one thing. USM lenses ares much more expensive for
Nikon too as the mount was not designed for it. And it took them seven years
to make an IS lens followed by another two years to combine USM and IS in
the same lens. The F mount is 55 years old and at least 15 years past the
"use by" date.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Darrell" <dev/null> wrote in message
news:D 7mdnfQ7vN8ntHjcRVn-ug@rogers.com...
>
> "Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:4g4Fd.16743$fE4.2388528@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> > As one who carried two different brand bodies I can tell you it isn't
any
> > fun. Either make the switch or wait for Nikon to catch up - which they
> > usually do, although they will probably never get the F mount to
duplicate
> > all teh Canon functions.
> >
> Another myth, what functions can't be done with the "F-mount"?
>
>
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 11:47:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

IF you are doing studio, both performs quite similarly the same. as you are
in control of the lighting n situation.
BUT if you are shooting journalistic, 20D [or 1D Mk II ;) ] is the way to go.

D70 frame burst is just too slow compared to 20D
That's why I still keep my D1H although its ancient .. until D200 / D90
surface anyway ;) 

=bob=

<Eric Bakken> wrote in message
news:2005011123440916807%@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>I am a longtime Nikon shooter, first shooting for newspapers, and now doing
>portraiture. I have the d70 and love it, along with my favorite nikon
>format lenses. I also see Canon really being more technologically
>advanced, interms of getting the tech out on the market (sensors, new
>cameras) and bringing the prices down. I love the 20D, but the question
>is,
>
> since I need two cameras, should I mix systems or stick with my Nikons?
> Anyone else try and shoot with two different camera bodies? Is it a
> mistake?
>
> Eric
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 1:37:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<Eric Bakken> wrote in message
news:2005011123440916807%@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>I am a longtime Nikon shooter, first shooting for newspapers, and now doing
>portraiture. I have the d70 and love it, along with my favorite nikon
>format lenses. I also see Canon really being more technologically
>advanced, interms of getting the tech out on the market (sensors, new
>cameras) and bringing the prices down. I love the 20D, but the question
>is,
>
> since I need two cameras, should I mix systems or stick with my Nikons?
> Anyone else try and shoot with two different camera bodies? Is it a
> mistake?
>
> Eric

Do you really think you can use your Nikon lenses on a Canon body? :-)

Gerrit
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 4:03:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi
Scharf-DCA wrote:

> There is an excellent explanation at
> "http://members.aol.com/photoquack/bayonet.htm"

which is unfortunately
1) Outdated (1998)
2) biased towards Canon (MiQ possilby gets payed by C)
and
3) written by a fanatic Canon enthusiast
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 7:11:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,de.rec.fotografie (More info?)

Benedikt.Schenker@mt.com wrote:
> Hi
> Scharf-DCA wrote:
>
>
>>There is an excellent explanation at
>>"http://members.aol.com/photoquack/bayonet.htm"
>
>
> which is unfortunately
> 1) Outdated (1998)

Nothing has changed since 1998, unfortunately.

> 2) biased towards Canon (MiQ possilby gets payed by C)

Very weak. It's a clear, lucid explanation of the well-known issues
with the Nikon F mount. Clearly the author did choose a Canon product,
but he explains the reasons very well.

> 3) written by a fanatic Canon enthusiast

Hardly fanatic to point out the facts.

You are certainly free to counter the authors statements, rather than
make baseless accusations of payoffs, but of course you won't.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 10:22:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<Benedikt.Schenker@mt.com> wrote in message
news:1106254997.909560.213980@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi
> Scharf-DCA wrote:
>
> > There is an excellent explanation at
> > "http://members.aol.com/photoquack/bayonet.htm"
>
> which is unfortunately
> 1) Outdated (1998)

How can it be "out-dated" when neither lens mount size/distance has changed
since '98?

> 2) biased towards Canon (MiQ possilby gets payed by C)
> and
> 3) written by a fanatic Canon enthusiast

I'll ignore these hypocritically biased statements.
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 1:19:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Mark

Mark² lowest even number here wrote:
> > which is unfortunately
> > 1) Outdated (1998)
>
> How can it be "out-dated" when neither lens mount size/distance has
changed
> since '98?

Yes, of course the size and film distance of the F-mount did not
change. How could it? But how does this cause any problems?

Michael's statements about AF-S lenes and VR are definively out-dated.
Nowadays there are quite a number of lenses with VR and/or AF-S. And
quite a number of Nikon cameras support them.

And the statement that Nikon does not offer tilt lenses was wrong in
1998 as it is 2005.

Benedikt
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 1:40:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:

> I'll be uncharacteristically optimistic and hope you can find the
time
> to present a reasoned argument in favour of the F-mount.

In cases I need a 300mm f/2.8, I borrow it from brother. It is a Nikon
MF IF-ED. He got it used and it is approx. 25 years old. It still works
perfectly. And it still works on his D70 and it still works on my D100.
Of course not AF, and light metering not supported, but this does not
hamper image quality at all.

I also use from time to time my MF 35mm f/1.4 on my D100, although
since I have the 28mm f/1.4 less frequent.

On the other hand, I could use the AF 28 f/1.4 on my 20+ year old FM2
if I'd like to (however, nowadays I'd rather take the F100 for working
with film). If I lend the AF 28 f/1.4 to my brother, he could use it on
his 35+ year old Nikon F, although only with stopped down metering
(although he rather takes the f4 for working with film).

This are some of the reasons why I think it was and is a good decision
of Nikon to stick with the F-mount. Other manufacturers decided to
change the mount, breaking with compatibility. Whether the claimed
advantages of the break are valid for you, only you can tell.

Benedikt


PS: You see, sometimes even "uncharacteristically optimistic" hopes get
true
January 21, 2005 3:17:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

So who is paying you off? Is it Nikon or are you giving away your inanities?

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

<Benedikt.Schenker@mt.com> wrote in message
news:1106254997.909560.213980@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi
> Scharf-DCA wrote:
>
> > There is an excellent explanation at
> > "http://members.aol.com/photoquack/bayonet.htm"
>
> which is unfortunately
> 1) Outdated (1998)
> 2) biased towards Canon (MiQ possilby gets payed by C)
> and
> 3) written by a fanatic Canon enthusiast
>
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 10:17:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<Benedikt.Schenker@mt.com> wrote in message
news:1106288372.242343.169360@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Hi Mark

Mark² lowest even number here wrote:
> > which is unfortunately
> > 1) Outdated (1998)
>
> How can it be "out-dated" when neither lens mount size/distance has
changed
> since '98?

Yes, of course the size and film distance of the F-mount did not
change. How could it? But how does this cause any problems?

Michael's statements about AF-S lenes and VR are definively out-dated.
Nowadays there are quite a number of lenses with VR and/or AF-S. And
quite a number of Nikon cameras support them.

And the statement that Nikon does not offer tilt lenses was wrong in
1998 as it is 2005.
--------------------------

Do they offer tilt/shift lenses?
Or just tilt?
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 12:30:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Mark,

Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
> And the statement that Nikon does not offer tilt lenses was wrong in
> 1998 as it is 2005.
> --------------------------
>
> Do they offer tilt/shift lenses?
> Or just tilt?

Yes, they offer tilt/shift:

"85mm f/2.8 PC Micro-Nikkor, 85mm medium telephoto lens with tilt/shift
mechanism and macro capability"

There is another point I've found Michael's writing is out-dated. The
most praised 200 f/1.8 is discontinued (and yes, Nikon has a 200 f/2
even with VR in it's current lineup).

Other things Michael writes are just not well reflected and/or plain
wrong. Michael writes "The Canon mount is larger in diameter. This
allows a bigger mirror to be fitted, which results in less vignetting
on very long lenses.". The conclusion is not clear for me.
1) The size of the mount is in now way limiting the size of the mirror
2) I newer experienced problems with vignetting with any of the Nikon
bodies and with any of the lenses I had in my hands (although there
might be occasions where it could happen)
3) Even if the viewfinder shows vignetting this does not hamper the
image quality, and I'm after pictures on the firm or sensor and not
after looking trough the viewfinder.
4) What limits the size of the Mirror is the space available between
the film or sensor and here Michael writes "The distance between film
and bayonet is smaller on the Canon in comparison to the Nikon."
Therefore Canon should face bigger challenges in fitting a large Mirror
(however, from my point 3 above, this does not really matter, IMHO)
Benedikt
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 1:46:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,de.rec.fotografie (More info?)

Ralf C. Kohlrausch wrote:

<snip>

> cameras need rabbit-ears on the lenses and other cameras can't even
> mount those lenses without the ears beeing removed this is indeed a
well
> known issue. But it is like complaing that you can't mount FD-lenses
on
> an EOS-camera and EOS-lenses on an FD-camera.

It is different because Nikon continues to make a big deal about how
they won't change their mount because it would upset millions of people
that use their F mount lenses and bodies. The truth is that there are
already many cases of incompatibility, so an F mount lens that won't
mount on an F mount body, is already a cause for concern.

A person with Canon FD mount lenses could in fact use them on an EOS
body, with an adapter.

Nikon has retained all the baggage of the F mount for no good reason.
They could update their mount while still allowing older F mount lenses
to be used.
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 1:59:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,de.rec.fotografie (More info?)

Scharf-DCA wrote:

> Nikon has retained all the baggage of the F mount for no good reason.
> They could update their mount while still allowing older F mount
lenses
> to be used.

And if they did this now, not only would the above occur, but it would
also give then a ~15 year tech lead on Canon's EOS. Most likely too
many marketers at Nikon and not enough engineers.
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 2:10:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,de.rec.fotografie (More info?)

Scharf-DCA wrote:
> Benedikt.Schenker@mt.com wrote:
>> Hi
>> Scharf-DCA wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There is an excellent explanation at
>>> "http://members.aol.com/photoquack/bayonet.htm"
>>
>>
>> which is unfortunately
>> 1) Outdated (1998)
>
> Nothing has changed since 1998, unfortunately.
>
>> 2) biased towards Canon (MiQ possilby gets payed by C)
>
> Very weak. It's a clear, lucid explanation of the well-known issues
> with the Nikon F mount. Clearly the author did choose a Canon product,
> but he explains the reasons very well.
>
>> 3) written by a fanatic Canon enthusiast
>
> Hardly fanatic to point out the facts.

Ehem ;-) I do think that one might argue that MQ possibly has - er -
overlooked a couple of details or maybe just failed to point them out
clearly enough. But then, if I read his postings in american newsgroups,
he doesn't seem to have a problem in stating his opinion quite
misunderstandably ;-) So then: If he complains that with Nikon some
cameras need rabbit-ears on the lenses and other cameras can't even
mount those lenses without the ears beeing removed this is indeed a well
known issue. But it is like complaing that you can't mount FD-lenses on
an EOS-camera and EOS-lenses on an FD-camera.

MQ also forgets to mention the Nikkor 2/300 which miracolously passes
its light through the Nikon-bayonet. And when I had the opportunity to
compare the EOS 1,4/40 to my old Nikkor 1,4/50 I was surprised to find
the rear elements of the Nikkor to be even bigger in diameter. So the
larger diameter of the bayonet seems to be not quite as important as
estimated by some enthusiastic users. Hardly surprising if you know that
even the old and narrow-bayonetted Exaktas had 1.2/58, 1.5/75, 1.5/85;
1.3/180, 2.8/200, 1.2/225 (no typo) and 2.8/300 availabe, to name but a
few.

MQ also forgets to mention the ease of use with a reversed Nikkor for
macro work whereas a reversed EOS-lens can't stop down the aperture. It
took Novoflex' effort to help Canon out of this embarrassing situation
and manufacture an adaptor. But then - of course EOS users can easily
use reversed Nikkors (and Pentaxes and...) to solve this little
peculiarity of the EOS mount.

And so on...

As for the second-hand-marked: although I am regularly checking the
offerings of our local dealers I fail to notice EOS-bargains comparable
to Nikon-prices. But maybe it's just a matter of definition of the word
bargain. I probably like the prices to have one or two figures less than
MQ and if I buy a 2.8/200 it's mor likely to say Soligor than Nikkor.
It's no issue fitting them as the Nikon-bayonet remained largely
unchanged and it's not possible finding them for the EOS as these lenses
were manufactured way back when Canon had the FD mount.
>
> You are certainly free to counter the authors statements, rather than
> make baseless accusations of payoffs, but of course you won't.

I hope I have been able to help out ;-)

Greets
ralf C.
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 7:39:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,de.rec.fotografie (More info?)

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:

> And if they did this now, not only would the above occur, but it would
> also give then a ~15 year tech lead on Canon's EOS. Most likely too
> many marketers at Nikon and not enough engineers.

This is a good point. The EOS mount isn't perfect either. Nikon could
get a big advantage over Canon, with a new mount.
!