In this article I want to touch on the very difficult, almost unbearable, full of contradictions and subtleties topic of choice between Nikon System and Canon System... This part of the 'confrontations' will only touch on the topic relatives discrete (i.e., fixed) autofocus lenses that are suitable, or may be suitable for portrait shooting.
Confrontation systems Nikon / Canon. Part 1. Discrete portraiture. This picture was shot neither on Nikon nor on Kenon.
What is written here is nothing more than my personal, subjective vision of this issue. I used to joke about the fact that Nikon and Canon they only do that they copy names and pathos for their trinkets products. But, making reviews of various photographic equipment, working as a photographer and talking with my colleagues, I have accumulated a lot of notes about the main issue of Life, the Universe and Everything Else: Nikon or Canon? In addition, recently I have been tormented by the issue of acquiring the highest quality lens for personal use, which was the starting point in the creation of this article.
In this article, I mean by portrait fixed lenses only lenses with a fixed focal length from 85 to 200 mm, designed to work with full-format cameras and having automatic focus. These lenses were originally designed to work with the Nikon FX central lens (full-format Nikon cameras) and the Canon central lens with an EF mount. and where a half ?? But what about your favorite half dread !!!!!!!
Nikon can conditionally distinguish only 18 lens models that fit my criteria:
| Lens | Exit time | Today's prices |
| Nikon Nikkor Z 85mm 1: 1.8 S | July 2019 | View-> |
| Nikon 85mm 1: 1.8 AF Nikkor | December 1987 | Outdated |
| Nikon 85mm 1: 1.8D AF Nikkor | March 1994 | Outdated |
| Nikon 85mm 1: 1.8G AF-S Nikkor | January 2012 | View-> |
| Nikon 85mm 1: 1.4D AF Nikkor | November 1995 | Outdated |
| Nikon 85mm 1: 1.4GN AF-S Nikkor | August 2010 | View-> |
| Nikon 105mm 1: 2.8 AF Micro Nikkor | June 1990 | Outdated |
| Nikon 105mm 1: 2.8D AF Micro Nikkor | October 1993 | Outdated |
| Nikon 105mm 1: 2.8GN AF-S Micro Nikkor ED VR | February 2006 | View-> |
| Nikon 105mm 1: 2D AF DC-Nikkor | September 1993 | Outdated |
| Nikon 105mm 1: 1.4EN AF-S Nikkor ED | July 2016 | View-> |
| Nikon 135mm 1: 2 AF DC-Nikkor | October 1990 | Outdated |
| Nikon 135mm 1: 2D AF DC-Nikkor | November 1995 | Outdated |
| Nikon 180mm 1: 2.8 ED AF Nikkor (MKI) | September 1986 | Outdated |
| Nikon 180mm 1: 2.8 ED AF Nikkor (MKII) | January 1987 | Outdated |
| Nikon 180mm 1: 2.8 ED AF Nikkor (MKIII) | November 1987 | Outdated |
| Nikon 180mm 1: 2.8D ED AF Nikkor (MKIV) | December 1994 | Outdated |
| Nikon 200mm 1: 2G ED AF-S Nikkor (MKI) | June 2004 | Outdated |
| Nikon 200mm 1: 2GII N ED AF-S Nikkor (MKII) | September 2010 | View-> |
| Nikon 200mm 1: 4D ED AF Micro Nikkor | October 1993 | Outdated |
Also, a brief description of these models can be found in my article on choosing a portrait lens for the Nikon system.
Canon has a little less models - 15 pieces:
| Lens | Exit time | Today's prices |
| Canon LENS EF 85mm 1: 1.8 USM | July 1992 | View-> |
| Canon LENS EF 85mm 1: 1.2 L USM | September 1989 | Outdated |
| Canon LENS EF 85mm 1: 1.2 L II USM | March 2006 | View-> |
| Canon lens RF 85mm F1.2L USM | May 2019 | View-> |
| Canon lens RF 85mm F1.2L USM DS (DEFOCUS SMOOTHING) | October 2019 | View-> |
| Canon LENS EF 85mm 1: 1.4 L IS USM | August 2017 | View-> |
| Canon lens RF 85mm F2 MACRO IS STM | July 2020 | View-> |
| Canon MACRO LENS EF 100mm 1: 2.8 | April 1990 | Outdated |
| Canon MACRO LENS EF 100mm 1: 2.8 USM | March 2000 | Outdated |
| Canon MACRO LENS EF 100mm 1: 2.8 L IS USM | October 2009 | View-> |
| Canon LENS EF 100mm 1: 2 USM | October 1991 | View-> |
| Canon LENS EF 135mm 1: 2.8 Softfocus | October 1987 | Outdated |
| Canon LENS EF 135mm 1: 2 L USM | April 1996 | View-> |
| Canon MACRO LENS EF 180mm 1: 3.5 L USM | April 1996 | Outdated |
| Canon LENS EF 200mm 1: 2.8 L USM | December 1991 | Outdated |
| Canon LENS EF 200mm 1: 2.8 L II USM | March 1996 | View-> |
| Canon LENS EF 200mm 1: 2 L IS USM | April 2008 | View-> |
| Canon LENS EF 200mm 1: 1.8 L USM | November 1988 | Outdated |
Let it not bother anyone that Nikon has a bit more models. At times, Nikon updated its range of lenses adding only a very minor improvement to the previous version. So, the following groups of lenses have the same optical design and in all other respects do not have cardinal differences:
- Nikon 85mm 1: 1.8 AF Nikkor и Nikon 85mm 1: 1.8D AF Nikkor
- Nikon 105mm 1: 2.8 AF Micro Nikkor и Nikon 105mm 1: 2.8D AF Micro Nikkor
- Nikon 135mm 1: 2 AF DC-Nikkor и Nikon 135mm 1: 2D AF DC-Nikkor
- Nikon 180mm 1: 2.8 ED AF Nikkor MKI and MKII, MKIII, 'D' MKIV
- Nikon 200mm 1: 2G ED AF-S Nikkor MKI и Nikon 200mm 1: 2GII NED AF-S Nikkor MKII
Canon is also updating its lineup and the following lens groups have the same optical design:
- Canon LENS EF 85mm 1: 1.2 L USM и Canon LENS EF 85mm 1: 1.2 L ii USM
- Canon LENS EF 200mm 1: 2.8 L USM и Canon LENS EF 200mm 1: 2.8 L ii USM
As a result, Nikon has 11 different models, and Canon has 10. Nikon and Canon go head to head in terms of the variety of lenses.
In the sign the meaning 'Outdated'means this lens cannot be purchased new. Clever guys who write about used in the comments. options for photographic equipment do not take into account that a guarantee and warranty service is important for a professional.
About macro lenses
If you try to use a macro lens for portrait photography, in real life for this task only Nikon 105mm 1: 2.8GN AF-S Micro Nikkor ED VR or Canon MACRO LENS EF 100mm 1: 2.8 L IS USM is taken. Both lenses are by and large very good and here the forces of the systems are approximately equal. All other macro lenses indicated in the tables, due to their specific features and lack of stabilizer, are not of particular interest for portraiture. Anyway, choosing a good portrait lens on a number of macro lenses, I would advise you to pay your last attention, and here's why:
- Macro lenses have less aperturethan comparable focal length 'classic' lenses.
- Macro lenses are 'sharpened' primarily for shooting small objects, work in the classic range of focusing distances is rather a secondary function. Ultimately, macro lenses have very slow focus ring travel at the distances at which people are captured. The small pitch of the focusing ring is damn awkward when focusing manually and causes more focusing errors when focusing automatically.
My little summary on macro lenses: Nikon and Canon each have one serious player, who can act both as a macro lens and as a portrait lens. We can say that here Nikon and Canon hold parity. The functioning and capabilities of other macro lenses should be of interest only to photographers who purposefully shoot macro.
About 85mm and Nikon system issues
In the amateur segment, I would call Nikon 85mm 85: 1G AF-S Nikkor and Canon LENS EF 1.8mm 85: 1 USM the direct competitors of the 1.8-current.
It should be noted that in the fall of 2006 a camera was released Nikon D40, it has been cut for compatibility with 'AF' type lenses and required the use of 'AF S'. In the label, such lenses are highlighted in green.. But the trouble is, from the list of compatible lenses there was only the large and heavy Nikon 200mm 1: 2G ED AF-S Nikkor, which owners of the unpretentious could hardly afford Nikon D40, and 'makrushnik' - Nikon 105mm 1: 2.8GN AF-S Micro Nikkor ED VR. The classic portrait lens, which could be used on amateur cameras, had to wait another 3 years (an eternity in the era of new technologies). With this camera, the serious trouble with the compatibility of Nikon lenses with amateur cameras began. You can imagine that you go, buy your own cute 'Nikkor', put it on your amateur camera, and he does not want to focus on it! And a whole horde of such cameras was released: D40, D40x, D60, D3000, D3100, D3200, D3300, D5000, D5100, D5200, D5300, D5400WTF?, D5500... And I'm already silent about 'Nikon 1' mirrorless cameras, which are not compatible with lenses like 'AF'.
What do I personally care about amateur cameras? We are talking about serious matters - portrait lenses! But the point here is this - in due time Nikon D40 I had a spare camera for the D200 / D90, and it's damn inconvenient to have defective system, which does not fully support their own native lenses. FROM Nikon D40 I could not fully use my favorite and inexpensive Nikon 85mm 1: 1.8D AF Nikkor. Moreover, such lenses cannot just be given to a friend / acquaintance who has an amateur camera. There are a great many such examples. I guess it was with this lens that I had a suspicion that Nikon had blundered somewhere.
If we take the Canon system, then there is full compatibility (except for very rare cases) of lenses with Canon EF mount and cameras with Canon EF / EF-S mount. Even if we take the oldest lens from the list presented by me - Canon LENS EF 135mm 1: 2.8 Softfocus, 1987, then it will work on any Canon CZK.
At the same time, the Canon LENS EF 85mm 1: 1.8 USM has been available since July 1992, and the Nikon 85mm 1: 1.8G AF-S Nikkor since January 2012. Canon's built-in noiseless focus motor introduced 20 (twenty!) years earlierthan Nikon. However, it is worth noting that Nikon has been making 85s since December 1987 (Nikon 85mm 1: 1.8 AF Nikkor). As a result, Nikon had an affordable 5 / 85 for 1.8 years, while Canon did not. But, in general, in the budget 85-current segment, Canon beats one of its successful Canon LENS EF 85mm 1: 1.8 USM against three Nikon 85 / 1.8.
As for the TOP 85-current, here the Canon system wins. The Canon LENS EF 85mm 1: 1.2 L USM was released back in September 1989, six years before the legendary Nikon 85mm 1: 1.4D AF Nikkor. At the same time, the Canon equivalent has a larger geometric hole and a USM motor. The appearance of the motorized Nikon 85mm 1: 1.4GN AF-S Nikkor had to wait another 5 years (a total of 11 years since the release of the TOP 85tki from Canon). The difference between F / 1.2 and F / 1.4 is one-third of the stop, and at least stand still, Nikon does not have such F numbers for portrait shooting in full frame!
Canon was also the first to release the 85 / 1.4 lens with stabilizer - Canon LENS EF 85mm 1: 1.4 L IS USM
Summary of TOP 85. In the TOP segment, the 85-current Canon system wins.
Even if we discard the lack of full compatibility of Nikon lenses with the younger line of SLR cameras, then the lack of a built-in focusing motor in the lens imposes some more limitations. The focus motor really sounds very loud during focusing, there is no direct access to the focus ring (Nikon M / A or Canon FTM modes), there is a more complicated method for switching between manual and automatic focus mode, etc.!
To be precise, all Nikon lenses with a built-in focus motor use SWM motors, which are quite quiet. Canon lenses are all equipped with a built-in focusing motor, usually quiet USM or STM motors, but there are also old lenses with the usual noisy micro-motor. These lenses include only Canon MACRO LENS EF 100mm 1: 2.8 and Canon LENS EF 135mm 1: 2.8 Softfocus, marked in yellow (such lenses do not have the prefix 'USM' or 'Ultrasonic' or 'STM' in their name).
If you shoot certain stories in a row on the rumbling Nikon mastodons, such as Nikon 180mm 1: 2.8D ED AF Nikkor MKIV, and then shoot the same thing on the quiet Canon LENS EF 200mm 1: 2.8 L II USM, then the superiority in working with Canon optics will be on the face. I’ve been feeling very strongly lately defective Nikon lenses without a focus motorWhen working with them, sometimes one gets the feeling that one has a prehistoric technique in one's hands. This article is not paid for, believe me, I just had / have the opportunity to touch various 'pieces of glass' in real conditions. The absence of a focusing motor theoretically only reduces the cost of making a lens and simplifies its repair, but if there is nothing to cover, you can always write about an abstract 'drawing' of lenses of this or that system :).
100mm / 105mm
Nikon and Canon each have several 'portrait hundredths' - Canon LENS EF 100mm 1: 2 USM (October 1991), Nikon 105mm 1: 2D AF DC-Nikkor (September 1993) + Nikon AF-S Nikkor 105mm 1: 1.4E ED N (2016). The lens from Canon is very attractive for its low price. Nikon's first lens to feature 'Defocus Control' i.e. 'Out of focus control'. The second lens from Nikon has a huge f / 1.4 aperture. Due to the unique technology of 'DC' and F/1.4@105mm, it is impossible to compare lenses directly, but if we weigh the pros and cons, I would stick with Nikon's lenses. Nikon DC is a topic for a separate Olympiad, it has certain difficulties in setting up and using it. All in all, the Nikon system theoretically shows more advantages here.
135mm
Probably one of the main questions is the choice of the 135th. This is one of the most sought after open air portrait lenses. Nikon has the unconquered Nikon 135mm 1: 2D AF DC-Nikkor (November 1995), Canon has the Canon LENS EF 135mm 1: 2 L USM (April 1996). If you recall the story that Nikon has been making its 135/2 since 1990 (the first Non-D version), and Canon had to wait another six years before the 135 F / 2.0 came out. Again, due to the unique 'DC' technology, lenses cannot be compared directly. But I really want to, because I'm looking for the best tailor! As a result, I am much more attracted to the Canon LENS EF 135mm 1: 2 L USM, because it is 'performance without unnecessary problems'.
Based on my needs, I personally have two serious complaints about Nikon - the lack of a model update Nikon D700 and updates to the Nikon 135mm 1: 2D AF DC-Nikkor portrait lens. 'DC' is good, but the lens itself is outdated.
Also, Canon has an unusual 135mm - Canon LENS EF 135mm 1: 2.8 Softfocus with a 'soft focus' system (this is not at all like Nikon DC). As a result, if you look at both systems, Canon has one very productive Canon LENS EF 135mm 1: 2 L USM and one creative Canon LENS EF 135mm 1: 2.8 Softfocus, while Nikon has only one super-creative Nikon 135mm 1: 2D AF DC-Nikkor. It is for the sake of Canon LENS EF 135mm 1: 2 L USM that many photographers are willing to choose Canon instead of Nikon. Canon's system in the choice of 135 is preferable.
180mm
The choice between Nikon 180mm 1: 2.8D ED AF Nikkor MKIV and Canon LENS EF 200mm 1: 2.8 L II USM is also obvious to me. I suffered a lot with slow focusing, an absolutely stupid focus mode switch and rather big noise of my own Nikon 180mm 1: 2.8D ED AF Nikkor. The Kenon lens is much more tech than the Nikon. Among the lenses of the class 180-200 / 2.8, Canon clearly leads.
200mm
As for super-class 200 / 2.0 lenses, here too Canon can boast of the existence of the unique Canon LENS EF 200mm 1: 1.8 L USM. Nikon did not have a 200 / 1.8 class lens. But Canon LENS EF 200mm 1: 1.8 L USM is outdated and the main competition now has to go between Nikon 200mm 1: 2GII N ED AF-S Nikkor and Canon LENS EF 200mm 1: 2 L IS USM. These are very specific lenses, it is difficult to say which one is better. But if we consider system selection issue, I would be flattered that in 1988 Canon created its 200 / 1.8, and Nikon slowed down for another 16 years!
Experienced photographer chooses not Nikon or Canon, but a system for comfortable operation... And the earlier this or that new technology was introduced, the more feedback it will receive and the better the new updated or modified model will work. Therefore, I am quite seriously attached to the release date of this or that lens.
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Results
Portrait photography is one of the most popular in the world. Having a good portrait photographer is vital. I still think that it doesn't matter what you shoot. Without the work of a photographer, all these expensive lenses are nothing more than pieces of glass and metal, soulless, gray, unable to create anything on their own. And if someone decided to acquire a high-aperture fixture for porter shooting, then in general the Canon system can offer more 'functional' options than Nikon.
On the topic, see also:
I expressed my opinion, I am waiting for your bright thoughts on this in the comments.
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
Cat Vaska (Arkady) listens and eats.))
In general, the article and comments of the canonists crippled me, I hope the Canon members will be rewarded in the second part.
Nikon, in fact, has one drawback - the flange distance! Total - Soviet optics does not stand up normally! And the Canon is more convenient in this regard.
Glasses - Nikon has a better park;
Cameras - Nikon wins again (convenience + functionality + technology);
Raws - Nikon has super rubber;
Skinton - what kind of crooked "hands" and "blind eyes" you need to have in order not to get a normal color! Not even worth discussing!
Of course, you can live with the Canon, if you didn't know otherwise ... They live like that poor ...
"Skinton is what kind of crooked" hands "and" blind eyes "you need to have in order not to get a normal color!"
Have mercy on us, poor, O great sensei!
Teach us how to get a healthy physical color of rhinestones from the hip.
You can, for example, start with halogen lamps (pah on them three times).
Konichuva.
Konichiva, Gozaimashta :)
your wretched life, in the case did not really say anything, the amateur is immediately visible
I’m shooting Nikon and I and the customers like it. The client doesn’t care what kind of camera you have, he selects the photographer based on the work he saw. Everything else is HERESY !!!
For the first time, I am very indignant at what the author writes.
Added a little cheap booth, it is now in fashion. Thank you for not having blood.
“What is written here is nothing more than my personal, subjective vision of this issue” - these are the words of the author at the beginning of the article. what made you so “upset”? oh yes, I forgot: there are two opinions - mine and the wrong one (c). :) does it work?
There are public places where it is not customary to swear and, say, defecate - even if you express your opinion by this. There is an invisible line beyond which you should not cross, everyone has it in different places, and some do not have it at all. The problem is that some things have to be intuitive, it's hard to explain, and some don't need to.
those. “It should be intuitively clear that canon is better”, and this topic should not be touched upon in a decent society, as it is rude?
Lynx, run out of arguments - start moving carts about higher matters that are not available to everyone.
The author objectively compared the lenses. Are there inconsistencies or contradictions? Write, read, discuss.
of course, of course ... these "poor" people live, take pictures, win, for example, in World Press Photo 2015 ... here, by the way, is a link to the material, which says what cameras the winners of this competition use.
http://www.quesabesde.com/noticias/world-press-photo-2015-camaras-fotos-ganadoras_12834
just look at two visual tables, cameras and models. :)
This table immediately shows that Hasel and an apple smartphone are at the same level))
“Glasses - Nikon has a better park;
Cameras - Nikon wins again (convenience + functionality + technology);
Raw'y - Nikon has super rubber;
Skinton - what kind of crooked "hands" and "blind eyes" you need to have in order not to get a normal color! Not even worth discussing! ”
It was just necessary to attribute IMHO at the end and that's it)) The whole photo as a whole is one continuous IMHO and there is someone who likes what, there is nothing “generally obligatory”, “everyone d ... t as he wants”, so this “measuring with pipis” is not appropriate , adult men)))
Alexander, people here are tormented in search of Truth, and you write such rudeness to them.
dragging it at the very beginning of the article and it was written that this is IMHA.
If you shoot mostly portraits, you can still pay attention to Sonya. They have the soulful Zeiss Planar T * 85mm f / 1.4 ZA and Zeiss Sonnar T * 135mm f / 1.8 ZA. Unless, of course, SLT cameras do not bother.
Arkady came across an interesting lens http://www.ebay.com/itm/YONGNUO-lens-YN-50MM-F1-8-Large-Aperture-Auto-Focus-Lens-For-Canon-EF-Mount-EOS-/121569510715?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c4e1b853b
have information on it?
http://www.optyczne.pl/index.html?producent=118&obiektyw=1258&typ=0&moc=0&sort=
here is a test of this lens
understandably. what to expect? ...
Hello. I want to share my observation: I have a Nikon 7100. He has a crop of 1,5. There is a mode of 1,3 from the first value, in which the final crop is 2,0. Result: any fifty-kopeck piece becomes a portrait lens with an ef-100mm. We all know that optically fifty dollars are of very high quality (lenses, assembly is different). Filmed by Nikonovsky 50 G 1,4 - a fairy tale. Kaleinar turns into 200-tonne, tair into 260-tonne. Helios, bought for a penny - portrait. Megapixels are enough for A4 printing. Maybe someone will benefit from this experience.
But I’m clinging to him 200 mm f4, but he doesn’t want to become an infection by 400 mm
I'm not talking about the approach, but about the viewing angle. And the image is formed without the participation of the peripheral parts of the objective lenses, which is also not bad. In general, the portraits are not "nosy", the picture is good. Like you also have 7100? Have you tried it? This idea is somehow not taken seriously by my familiar photographers, but I quite like it.
It is a pity that Nikon stopped at such a small increase in the crop factor, I just really like my Nikkor 28 / 2,8 AI-S, and I would gladly use it as a telephoto lens ...
give on 28 on a soap dish!
Take Nikon 1 ... but don't, take your smartphone, pick the optics out of it and attach your favorite 28 / 2.8, there will be a mega telephoto.
I would have done so a long time ago if my smartphone could then fit normally in my pocket)
From the change of places of the terms, oh, from the crop, the focal length does not change, only the viewing angle changes. The focal point remains the same, the distortions are the same, the compression of perspectives is the same. :)
Holy true truth! I subscribe to every word.
Sorry, have you tried it? And How? No, have you tried it? Why write? I know the theory - since it is, to put it mildly, not complicated. Instead of trying and sharing experiences, albeit negative, but REAL, this circus. Are the distortions the same? Is the perspective compression the same? Yes? Okay: the distortion is not the same - the shooting is carried out with the lens area closer to the central axis of the lens. And the perspective also depends on the aperture: yes, the less the ether, the further the background is visually, but this is good, but when you set q 1,4 and sharpen your eyes (the grip is razor thin), the blur starts already on the skin of the face, making it more delicate, and the background with its perspective is generally blurred so that it “leaves” the plot. So much for the "change of terms"
Do not flatter yourself, the glass controls your flu, and on the matrix that the full mode is trimmed, it does not affect the depth in any way, and do not puff so harshly everything was checked and not checked in portraits, but on the macro, where the flu is generally mycoscopic. Just for the camera 7100 has its own separate branch, there is a sea of information.
Dear, well, you DIDN'T READ my post, why write something? Yes, and offend? Do you have any complexes?
No comments ...
A very rewarding experience. For those who can not crop finished photos.
So portraits can be shot wide at 36 megapixels and cropped, cropped, cropped ....
And to enable crop 2.0 on the camera, does this not crop?
Yes and no. Give it a try.
What to try? What will be the difference if:
a) turn on the crop mode and take off
b) take it off, and then off
Moreover, in the viewfinder, I will still see the image without cropping (a DSLR), is it not better to crop the image more accurately at home then?
And everyone does what is convenient for him. It’s like that for me. I just shared the experience. You are so uncomfortable and not necessary. Shoot as conveniently.
You need to crop at the time of shooting, and not post-factum.
Who needs you? Everyone has the right to achieve results in the way that suits him, and not in the way you said. If you are too lazy to do post-processing of the photo, this does not mean that everyone has it. It is not always possible and necessary to crop at the time of shooting.
Skinton, Skinton ... SKINTON ... I personally prefer that Nikon has a great RAW. Apreori has a wider dynamic range than Canon. I will make the desired color in the editor. Nikon has excellent fixes (35 1.8G, 50mm 1.4G, 85mm 1.4 / 1.8G, 20mm 1.8G and many others) Nikon cameras are very reliable. Everything suits me NOW in Nikon. I forgot to write about excellent focusing on Nikon cameras, even on younger bodies.
you can do anything. even a black skin tone. But when you have 500 photos in a session and each one has its own skin, and you need to give them “yesterday”, then you are guaranteed a soap in the soap, despite the “rubber RAW”. it was already above.
200-GO to the glory of Celestia and all friendships!
Give 500 get in a week!
I wonder why the confrontation Nikon - Canon always rolls into "you have fig lenses - And you have a curve skin tone" Well, DD and the flange will sometimes drag in. And why no one remembers that Canon writes video better (useful for fusion), has sRaw (only recently introduced in nikon), has flashes with a built-in transmitter / receiver and a native module for control from TTL (no need to buy pocket wizards and other crap for expensive or some kind of china with a purely manual control of the flash). On the flea market of lenses for 3 Canon lenses, there is 1 Nikon lens (actually in my city).
because they write videos in about the same way for comparative models, often people take exactly D600 / d610 for video,
S-Rab is not too much of a surrender to whom, as "recently introduced."
The CLS system, as far as I know, is available in some kind of canon. But there is no normal control of the built-in flash (we don't take into account the krokhobors 1-2-3EVs, adjustable through one place), so working with simple ignition is problematic for them - the built-in flash always tries to spoil everything.
At a flea market in my city, 2 Nikon’s usually 1 Canon and 0,5 Sony, and this depends more on the prevalence and cheapness of the younger carcasses of a particular system in the city.
So everything is right
what is right? that all the confrontation between the systems is only wide or a skinton to choose from plus different controls?
Dmitry, and all other interlocutors. In fact, everything is correct: if a person is engaged in photography, as an amateur, this is correct, if he is a professional, this is correct. If the photographer is an ardent supporter of Nikon, that's right, Canon is also right. If a photographer has an idea to switch to a different system and check its merits, this is correct if he shares his thoughts with other people, photographs on film, SF, 8x10 inches, etc. - all this is also correct :) There are many wrong things and actions, but this does not apply to the site :)
I agree Yuri with all of you written!
Yes, different design and color representation of cameras and ergonomics with focusing.
Well, the question of choosing lenses.
lynxes at one time chose Nikon, not Canon, simply because Nikon's carcass fell into my hand and was comfortable, but the Canon's was not.
Although the lens in the canon is still ugly looking plastic.
Yes, I have always been interested in this aspect, so exalted in the carcasses and their guts, and such a disregard for the design of lenses from the kenon. In the language of blondes - they are simply not beautiful. And photography, all the same, suggests some kind of aesthetics. It seems that the design department is not paid extra and they are taking small revenge.
Nikon also has a wonderful Df :)
This is ugly for us, but for the Japanese it may be just right.
Judging by the design of Japanese cars, beauty is a purely intimate affair. (I'm talking about those cars that are only sold in Japan)
sRAW is not a full-fledged rav-file, and generally on rav actually. Nikon starting with the D810 and D4s also has it.
I am personally convinced that the video needs to be shot on a camcorder. Take pictures with the camera.
What you need to shoot in JPG, not in graves.
That since you are working with light, the cost of the transmitter is nothing.
What is extremely important, for me personally, is getting a juicy, vivid picture of a landscape, or a neat, pleasant picture of a person immediately, without subsequent shamanism in your computer.
If I cannot achieve this right away, then everything else, literally everything, does not matter to me.
I think some pictures from the canon are some kind of drawn ones? And they look a little like the photo, although others on the contrary like it more than reality.
you are confusing clean shots and stills with modern "multi-processing" presets of lightroom and FS.
there really are often "overshopped"
There is a war of the people, a holy war ...
Karl, would you think about the ambiguity of your statements.
As an amateur housekeeper with 3 years of experience, I will bring my own 5 kopecks. For some reason, this topic is distant and incomprehensible to me, the color of the skin on my zipegs without processing I consider natural, sometimes more beautiful than natural, it depends on the light and the lens - 50 \ 1,8D in diffused sunlight. light - super. I read the pros, who are not satisfied with 800 because of the incorrigible skin tone (in the pictures it is natural, as it is), and 5D, 1D immediately give a certain commercial skin tone. Yes, the pictures have a kind of tanned, well-groomed skin, but do I need this for a photo of a child or old parents?
waiting for the second part ...
Yes, Arkady, the throw-in is counted))) we are waiting for the second round!
Well, Arkady wanted the best, but it turned out to be another srach in the comments ...
it was inevitable. Only in running is everything objectively - the first came, so the best. And then “picture”, “skin tone”, “convenient / inconvenient”. I think he knew what he was doing when he wrote this.
PS Maybe he wants to switch to another system, but he lacks the spirit - so he wrote to see a decisive argument in disputes that he himself did not find. And here instead of a case we wrote 2 pages of jokes. However, this is only a guess)))
That's okay in running, objectively .-) And a false start, and the legs are longer, and the weight is greater, but ... in general, another dozen two a -))
The word "Opposition" in the title is a provocation. I played on our strings and we expect the result.
Epic holivar! And where? On Radozhiv! Arkady, congratulations! It was necessary to observe neutrality for so many years, and, in fact, to create Nikon's forum (the majority of the site's audience) and so enchantingly throw it in! These are 100% wines! Tellingly, the audience defended Nikon's cameras (skinton, rav, ergonomics, functionality, etc.), without even understanding the essence of the article - choosing a worthy portrait photographer for work and creativity, and the kenon-nikon system itself is already secondary. I chose a lens - I bought a camera for it. Naturally, Elki 85 / 1,2 and 135 / 2.0 from Kenon are out of competition here. Same news to me)
why understand something, delve into something. Interestingly, one I noticed that Nikonists - as fanatical sectarians - do not allow the slightest criticism of their "idol", even thoughts do not admit that something can be compared with their "miracle". and everyone is proving, proving, proving something ... they have with Nikon, as with the dead - about him either good or nothing.
I agree with many. The lens of the canon in the total mass is really quite inconspicuous. Of course, the new nikon glasses, in my opinion, look worse than the old versions, but before the canon they should be mutilated and mutilated. As if the design department were really mocking.
another wise guy with his IMHO
Wangyu, then Arkady in the spirit of political correctness and pluralism of opinions will create part-2, where shiriki or fifty kopecks nikon give kenon to the delight of the public. I would, in place of advertisers of the Display Network, anticipating such a move, and such a crowd of visitors, I would buy Arkady an eternal subscription to the rental room for equipment for every taste. I have not seen such a pass of passion for a long time, I thought everyone had calmed down.
I read it, I was silent ... In the end, I got so tired of these disputes about skintones that I decided to check in practice how relevant and fundamental it is. I took as a basis comparative portraits from both systems, taken from other sites. So, although this is certainly not a secret for many, if you wish, Nikon's skin can be brought as close as possible to Canon's skin in just a minute: one adjustment layer with levels and one with curves. Everything, then the system on which the picture was taken is extremely difficult to determine. At least the unassuming look of my wife did not find any differences in the pictures.
Example Canon 5D M3 vs Nikon D700: https://cloud.mail.ru/public/cd427bc3220a/Canon%205D%20M3%20vs%20Nikon%20D700%20skintone.psd
The difference is so insignificant that what's the point of arguing about the skinton? You can argue about the functionality, usability, affordability, etc., but these factors are purely individual.
And you could not simplify the viewing option a bit, ready-made JPEG, preferably combined for clarity of comparison, otherwise the file does not open on the phone. Thanks.
So I deliberately so that you can see what adjustments have been made. By the way, in this particular case, even one layer with levels is enough. By the way, it was in this portrait that a holivar was started on one of the blogs, what do you see Nikon is a cold and technical picture, and Canon is volume, plastic and color. Well, here is the before and after render:
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/3237076331ae/Canon%205D%20M3%20vs%20Nikon%20D700%20skintone%20(before).jpg
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/73328634343e/Canon%205D%20M3%20vs%20Nikon%20D700%20skintone%20(after).jpg
Strange, I have 404 on both links.
Well, copy to the clipboard - the site engine spoils the links.
I immediately determined where Nikon is, it has a yellow-green hue.
Didn't guess, it's just Canon! ))) Nikon on the right. Canon is yellow "by default", Nikon is cold, so the right picture is brought to yellow skin with an adjustment layer with levels.
Sorry, but WHAT are you comparing?
if the car is BB, then it differs not just between models of different brands but also between models of the same brand and even (oh, what a horror!) in different firmware versions of the same camera. and also the BB, especially for portrait photography (!) is adjusted according to the gray card and other passports :)))
We compare the Skintons here. And I'm talking about what anyone needs, he will do what he needs, and give a fuck about the original skin tone. And which skin tone is better by default is a matter of taste. To summarize: Skinton is not a reason to abandon Canon or Nikon.
totally disagree with you.
The problem of a white man's skin is that there is a combined color signal, well, there is no such slider to correct the skin tone. the second problem is that there is a certain standard in the photography industry (“commercial skin tone”), where, starting from a certain level, images with an earthy-gray-greenish skin tone are no longer quoted and are not seriously considered.
To summarize - skin tone is very difficult and takes a long time to level in the editor if it is initially far from the desired one. hard and long - read - expensive $$$
often, you just can’t get the right one if the color is wrong.
if you are not a pro and do not see the difference in shades and skin tone, or if you like the skin tone of this brand, then of course skin tone is not a reason to abandon any system.
if you are a pro and / or see a difference and / or you don’t have so much time for editing, then a commercial skin tone (and this is a heap, about three, canons) is a strong reason to buy a system where you don’t need to “level” the skin for a long time.
We drag this about and talk about dancing with a tambourine.
What can do without them now? Someone likes cold tones, someone warm, someone blue, someone greens, someone fills it with purple or magenta, someone likes it more powerful and more contrast, someone neutral and pastel colors, etc. .d. Neither Nikon nor Canon has a standard here. And no one forces you to translate Nikon's skin into Canon and vice versa (although someone does so). I don't like the default skin tone of any of the systems at all, but every time it fits the situation and mood. And besides skin tone, there are so many more processing options, there is a sin to simply refuse these opportunities. You don't think that photos from Canon are not processed? Almost every one. Long? By no means, there are profiles, macros, batch processing - you create and automate a set of templates for yourself for all occasions, if you don't have time to mess around. In general, I mean that the default skin tone is IMHO in general the last thing a creative person and a professional should bother with, the exception is those who shoot on the machine in jpeg. Although disputes and arguments sometimes sound so eloquent and convincing that subconsciously the thought creeps in: “shouldn't we change the system?”. But this is all from the evil one ...))))
The whole trouble is that people really consider pampering the desire to get the right picture right away.
You try to configure your device in advance of the picture, not counting on further conjuring on your computer. Tell yourself what will turn out to be impossible to change. I assure you, the results will be amazing. And in terms of composition, by the way, too.
In terms of composition, light, further crop - I agree. Why not work with flowers after the fact? You can't do much on camera no matter how hard you try. Even when they were filming, they experimented with chemistry, paper, and not only. And a friend recently sent me his pictures from the winter theme. Beautifully insanely simple - paintings, not photos! Well, I immediately asked: how did you shoot, what kind of glass, where did the bokeh and snow come from? It turned out to be studio pictures, only with large-scale post-processing in Photoshop. By the way, he did not reveal all the secrets - after all, his bread. But if it doesn't work out well on camera, why can't you take photoshopping? The main thing is not how and what to shoot, the main thing is the result. Shoot without processing just on principle?
Of course, editors are extremely necessary and sometimes even indispensable (for example, a wonderful opportunity to remove wires, poles, etc.). I use Nikon CaptureNX2, Photoshop and Lightroom on an ongoing basis.
Here the question is somewhat different: is it possible to get the desired result without post-processing? Perhaps this is one of the most important issues of modern digital photography.
After all, if there is not enough color, you can set the saturation in the photo in advance. The same with brightness (exposure), contrast (ADR), etc.
In parallel, preferably with a fix, not a zoom. Fix allows you to clearly keep the frame in mind and immediately create a composition, immediately throw the garbage out of the frame.
Over time, you begin to see things that you did not notice before. You begin to concentrate on the important, see the interconnection of light and shadow, lines and shapes. You already know where shades are hidden that are invisible to the eye, but which will certainly blossom in the picture with a wonderful bouquet.
When we do not count on an omnipotent post-processing, we ourselves compel ourselves to use our highest creative abilities to the fullest. We try to find the best angle, light, constantly try to take into account our past mistakes, and improve skill.
Quite a variety of things can do without them.
When I sit down to process a photo, then if I use all sorts of curves, toning, channels, etc. - I want to do it to fulfill / globalize the creative idea, and not “first try to make it look human, and then we will try to create”.
and yes, I hardly do any photo processing except for all the basic crop-shadows-highlights-contrast-blemish removal.
And such dances with a tambourine and “real fatographers shoot current in raves !! 11” annoy me, I prefer to set up the camera, know how and what it will shoot and shoot right away in the jeep, only resorting to edits if necessary.
I personally know several people who, after working on old SSD matrices from Nikon, did not switch to new Nikon models, but switched to Canon, some with the sale of a sickly park of optics. Just to ...
And then everyone chooses for himself what is more important - ergonomics or "out of the box".
Yesterday, one of the users also noticed that there are no clearly bad or good lenses, and each is good in a particular situation, as applied to the case. Although this is a purely subjective perception. Here, too, I agree with this opinion, contrary to the article by Arkady. ;) And I like the cameras, and those and those, and even Fuji, Sony and Olik. :)
Some kind of dull article, pulling the facts by the ears.
Each shoots on a different ph, each shoots as he likes (because he shoots for his pleasure) or because his client likes it. Do not look for perfection, he will never be. There is only harmony of the photo! You can shoot on a smartphone, and that's good too! look for harmony in photos and not in pieces of iron, no matter what you photograph! or just buy yourself all the glass, all the fotics (Nikons. Kenons, Olympuses, etc., etc., and sit at home juggle). Rejoice at the creation and not with what you do it !!!!
I did not expect such a turn from Arkady ... Arrange another senseless flood ... I thought, even though this resource does not suffer from such hysteria.
The flood was not arranged by Arkady, but by the users of Nikon, who felt hurt “for the years spent aimlessly”))
from for people like you and floods arranged what difference does anyone have what ph and what difference does it make to anyone who is insulting !!!!!
Namesake, you are awake!))) You are far from reality))) Nikon - written with a capital letter!))) This is the name of the Firm!))) Here is a boot - you can write with a small ... =)
And what is the reality? As small children, who has something cooler))) Arkady simply expressed HIS opinion on this matter and it began ...))
Yes, in truth, reality is far from the brand of technology. Pros and cons are everywhere.
I agree completely, the main thing is the photographer, and the technique is secondary. Then what is the reason for this whole argument?))