Why did you choose to shoot Canon?

[Lazuka]

Well it is a predominately CANON site, and who knows, maybe a high ranking canon rep or bigwig might be lurking one of these days, and see my username, and be flattered that I think so highly of their WHITE super telephoto lenses and let me have my choice of one (or more) for free. :lol:

or 5, so you can give me 1 or 3.

[SteveBrown]

I never knew canon glass was less expensive then nikon glass, thought it was the other way around.

[Canonswhitelensesrule]

or 5, so you can give me 1 or 3.

Sounds like a plan.

I'll take the EF 300mm f2.8L I.S. USM, the EF 500mm f4L I.S. USM, and the EF 800mm f5.6L I.S. USM.

You'll have to get by with the EF 200mm f2.0L I.S. USM, the EF 400mm f2.8L I.S. USM, and the EF 600mm f4L I.S. USM.

Sorry. :p

[Dmab]

I switched mostly because:
1) 70-200 f4 IS -- wicked sharp, good price, lightweight
2) 200 2.8 USM -- USM on a telephoto prime at sub $700 price point

[midnight_rider]

When it comes down to it it is a question of price.
Canon are good bang for the buck...
However if money were no object Nikon have higher quality cameras and lenses but they cost a great deal more item to item for only a smallish practical gain.

If you must have the ultimate over the widest range of items Nikon is the way to go.

For sheer quality Zeiss lenses are probably the state of the art leaders but what can you use them on.?

They (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/583975-REG/Zeiss_1677817_Normal_50mm_f_1_4_ZE.html) mount (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=search&A=search&Q=&ci=0&sb=ps&sq=desc&sortDrop=Relevance&ac=&bsi=&bhs=t&shs=canon+85mm&at=Brand_Zeiss&basicSubmit=Submit+Query) on Canon with no adapter now.

[Candersson]

Lenses!
That was my first priority when I started to look at DSLR a couple of years ago.
Canon turned out to have some very nice bodies as well... :D:cool:
I also had some good experience from Canon SLR back in the mid 80s.
For me the choice was clear and simple.

[Dick Z.]

Our family's always been Canon. My dad shot Canon, all my brothers shoot Canon - it just runs in the family.

I had the opposite experience. I shot my kids with a Nikon. My son bought a Canon5D. So my first DSLR is a Canon XSi, I couldn't afford the 5D But I'm happy with the XSi. :cool:

[NU Husky 91]

I originally owned the Rebel 2000. When it came time to switch to digital SLR the 400D and D40 were the hot models and the reviews pretty much had the two cameras as 1 and 1a.

I went into the shop and tried my Canon lenses on the 400D and they worked and I walked out with a body that day.

[Helena]

5D! Oh, and 35L and 135L. Enough said. :)

[Karl Johnston]

Lenses are cheaper from canon, and the canon menu system, the ergonomics of the canon cameras work better in hands.

Mostly lenses are cheaper from canon, though, and of better optical quality.

[Vincent Vega]

Lenses were cheaper, and I prefer the looks and ergonomics of Canon stuff.

[carlover2218]

I chose Canon due to the fact my first DSLR I used Was an XT, I just liked the layout over the Nikon's and am just hoping after getting my first DSLR that this was the right choice.

[Lazuka]

Sounds like a plan.

I'll take the EF 300mm f2.8L I.S. USM, the EF 500mm f4L I.S. USM, and the EF 800mm f5.6L I.S. USM.

You'll have to get by with the EF 200mm f2.0L I.S. USM, the EF 400mm f2.8L I.S. USM, and the EF 600mm f4L I.S. USM.

Sorry. :p

i'd be happy with just the 200 f2 ISL :X

[laydros]

I was a big fan of Canon when I was selling some of the first digital point and shoots at OfficeMax. When time came to drop money on my first camera I bought a Canon, 2.1 MP. Then someone stole it.

When I decided to get an SLR last year Nikon was out because in the entry level range it was AF-S lenses only, 3 AF points. I basically waited for the best deal on a Rebel or a Sony, and Sony came up first. I really liked the Sony, but availability of stuff locally and the high-ISO noise was bugging me. I decided to move up and over. I liked the feel of the 40D way more than the D90, and the glass. I love that I can buy f/4 L-quality glass. With Sony and Nikon it's pretty much expensive, heavy f/2.8 pro glass, or just ok consumer glass.

Someone put an XS on craigslist brand new for $350, so I jumped. Then I sold the Sony and some lenses, and got the 40D. The 40D just feels right.

[Dick Z.]

Lenses are cheaper from canon, and the canon menu system, the ergonomics of the canon cameras work better in hands.

Mostly lenses are cheaper from canon, though, and of better optical quality.

Especially the Canon 50mm F1.8. Cheap but has great optical quality. :cool:

[Photon Phil]

I made the choice a while ago but wavered when the D3 came out. Honestly the choice came down to a name..... AGASSI.

[Lazuka]

Especially the Canon 50mm F1.8. Cheap but has great optical quality. :cool:

i absolutely hate my nifty fifty, i wish i had my 100 bucks back :O

[KrysiaG]

I actually started with a Nikon D80 and did not get along with it. After 6 weeks, I borrowed a Canon 30D and fell in love. I immediately sold my Nikon gear and converted. :)

[borism]

My first real Camera was a Minolta X700
It got stolen
After a few years I got a Canon EOS 630
Not a great camera in my opinion
Last year I decided to go digital with Nikon and got a D40
It arrived bad, didnt work
Returned it and upgraded my order to a 60D
It arrived and worked for a few minutes and then it froze, this happened a few times
Next day I was so frustrated that I called and returned that one too
The XSI was coming out and had LiveView
Next thing I know i got a bunch of Canon stuff and here i am...
;)

[jcw122]

I initially chose an Canon body over Nikon because I liked the features and specs better than the Nikon equivalent back when the 350D was the highest consumer line product. I also love Canon's lens selection, as well as 3rd party selection. I've been happy ever since, and Canon is continuously making advances with each camera release.

[bohdank]

When I went Canon, it was from a Sony 707, which I actually still like for quick shots, although I've used it only twice in the last year.

I chose Canon for the best-in-class noise performance at the time since that was my biggest complaint with the Sony and previous digital cameras and what pushed me to finally buy a dSLR.

The second reason was the 70-200 f4 IS which Nikon does not have an equivalent for. It was the first lens I bought for my 40D. If Canon did not have this lens in their lineup, I cannot guarantee that I would have gone Canon, at the time.

btw... I've been shooting with film SLR's (Minolta) for decades.

[Dick Z.]

i absolutely hate my nifty fifty, i wish i had my 100 bucks back :O

I love my cheap 50. I did have some problems with soft focus with the 18-55mm kit lens I got with my XSI and sent it back to Canon on the advice of another forum reader (techknology Guy). Canon recalibrated it and now it's super sharp thanks to Tech.Guy and Canon. If you have a soft image or focus problem, call Canon and they will give you all the information you will need to send it in. If it's still under warrenty, it's free. You only pay one way postage and usually get your lens back in a week.

My 50mm F1.8 is also super sharp. Good luck.:D

[Ob Com]

Because I had an AE1-P when I was younger.

Best reason to choose Canon is the fast primes.

[tvphotog]

I take a lot of landscape shots and wanted a FF camera, and had decided on the 5D, waiting for the new 5D2 to come out. I like to shoot all RAW and I wanted a lot of MP's so I could edit, but the cost of the 1DsIII was more than I wanted as was the weight and size. The Nikons for me were "Johnny-come-lately's" to the FF world.

The 5D2 was perfect for me.

I've had Nikons before and though I like the focus and the crispness(which is a in-camera JPEG feature anyway,) I've always thought the button and dial layout was convoluted and non-intuitive. With the 5D2, I can change things on the fly, it's a very natural feeling.

And frankly, even the D700 feels itty-bitty compared to the firm hand around the 5D2.

[darkgoddess]

Both my brothers use Canon. I had a chance to play around with theirs. It was between that or Nikon, and I don't like the nikon menu system or feel.

[Rainyday]

Back in the days of film, I had Nikons, Minoltas and Canons. I hated my Nikons, like the Minoltas sorta okay and loved my Canon T90. The best pictures I ever took were the Canons. The camera fit me, was easy to use, intuitive and I was relaxed and happy with it.

When digital emerged, I bought a Kodak digital p&s. It was awful and I exchanged it for another Kodak. It, too broke down. I then bought a Nikon digital p&s. The camera was sorta okay, but the software was beyond awful.

Finally, the technology matured to the point where I bought a digital SLR. It was the Canon Xsi. I've never looked back. I love the camera, love the lenses and will never, ever use another brand. I'm a fanatic now. It's Canon or nuthin'.

[MyCatsAnnoyingMe]

Upon walking into Henry's today looking to buy a new lens I'm beginning to wonder why indeed I'm using Canon..... There are zero fast primes in Canada.. :rolleyes:

It's very distressing, I need to buy some and if they don't ship some here soon I'm going to be forced to go to Nikon. They have them on websites, go to the store and everyone is on back order.

[The Moose]

I'd used a 350D/400D at school and loved them so I didn't even look at the other brands. To be fair, I didn't actually research anything until after I'd gotten my 400D. Don't regret a thing :D

[PhantomII]

I had been shooting 35mm for many years and loved the control I had over the results.

When it looked like digital was going to be the way to go, I looked over many of the offerings by the different manufacturers, and not being entirely convinced that digital was the way to go, I didn't want to dive in head first only to discover I had wasted a respectably large chunk of cash on something that was utterly useless to me.

I pored over reviews and haunted photography forums for many months, reading, pondering, irritating folks and trying to absorb as much information about digital photography as my tiny little pea-brain could handle.
I finally settled on the original drebel 300D as the best bang for the buck and not so pricey that I couldn't stand the loss if it didn't work out, so I bought it along with the 18-55 kit lens.
Turned out I loved the camera and have since spent too much on Canon lenses and accessories that it would be sheer madness to attempt to switch systems. It seems camera bodies are dirt cheap when compared to the price one pays for lenses.

I've upgraded bodies a few times over the years and my beloved drebel is stowed away safely in it's own camera bag and rarely gets used these days but it still works perfectly and still takes beautiful photos.

So I shoot Canons and unless they screw up big time, I probably always will.

[DisrupTer911]

For me, it's the ergonomics of the bodies. I much prefer canons easy to use simple ctrl layout vs nikons and other brands.

I also prefer the image look and feel and how they take to processing.

Also the lens lineup available to me is much broader and allows for ample rentals to try eAch out due to some sites not carrying as wide a selection in other brands.

[Fernando]

Couple reasons. First was tons of research and after test driving both the 20D and the D100 I preferred the ergonomics of the Canon.

I was still leaving both options open but then got a good deal on a lightly used 20D and a Sigma 70-200 here on POTN and jumped on it.

In my film days I loved my Nikon FM2.

-Fernando

[Brad Remick]

Yep, way back when I looked at the F100 and the EOS 3 (remember film). The EOS felt better in my hand. When I made the switch to digital, I had the lenses.

[TheSportsGuy]

My dad has shot with a Canon for the 30+ years he has been working in the press.

I also love me some Canon :D

[Kasrielle]

I had Canon when I was shooting film, (Rebel, then Elan) and have always been impressed with the brand. When I finally went digital I stuck with Canon for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is I already had a bunch of lenses! LOL

[07accordEX]

For me I was all for Nikon but then I actually FOUND a XSi at school alone for quite awhile with no card inside to identify whose it was, tried it, loved it (turned out to be my friend's friend's camera) also, the price I got my 30d was way more of a camera than others

[That_Fox]

I chose Canon because the lenses were cheaper and because the Nikon that I was looking at didn't have a built in autofocus motor, while the Canon model I bought wouldn't have any problems with that.

[foxesamu]

I take a lot of landscape shots and wanted a FF camera, and had decided on the 5D, waiting for the new 5D2 to come out. I like to shoot all RAW and I wanted a lot of MP's so I could edit, but the cost of the 1DsIII was more than I wanted as was the weight and size. The Nikons for me were "Johnny-come-lately's" to the FF world.
Ahem, we were fashionably late, and I think we've done it the best so far. :D Well... the 5D2 is pretty awesome too, but we're tied.

And frankly, even the D700 feels itty-bitty compared to the firm hand around the 5D2.
That's weird because the D700 is bigger and heavier than the 5D2... :eek:

Oh and, as for the thread title: I didn't. But I really like the way Canons look, and I like the idea of a 70-200 f4L, but it's not enough to make me switch. I had been considering switching for when I go FF, as I know Canon has a better array of primes, but realized that the D700 is my dream camera, and so it is my destiny.

[Retouch UK]

Initially I went canon with my 1st DSLR because I knew 2 people that allready had canons and they recommended them to me. Also I thuought I could pick their brains if I got stuck.

2nd time round I bought my 5D II because I love the look, ergonomics and I know I am buying a quality product. If I went down the nik route id be steping into the unknown and would have to learn menu systems and control locations all over again.

Chris

[DennisW1]

I guess in my case it was simply a matter of having used Canon cameras for so long that I saw no real reason to switch.
My first Canon camera was an AE-1 when they came out, back in the late 70's. I went thru a couple of FT-B's, F-1's (still have my 1980 model F-1 with the Lake Placid Winter Olympics logo on it and 50mmm f1.4 lens). From there I bought Canon's first EOS SLR, the 650, and eventually an EOS3. I stubbornly stuck with film until I saw the 10D in the hands of a friend's brother. He let me play around with it a bit and when I heard that this camera had finally brought the price down to what I could live with, I made the switch to digital. I currently own a 1D MkIII, a MkIIn, and a Rebel XTi (great walk-around camera). At this point I have no thoughts of switching to a different brand. Once you start building a lens collection, such a move becomes quite expensive.

[mattia]

I stepped into the game fairly late, only really getting hooked on photography after my first compact digicam (4MP Minolta, lovely little thing, still works). Next step was a DSLR, Canon came out with the first affordable one (300D), so I got it. And then got a bunch of glass, and finally upgraded the body (the ISO performance was really starting to limit me) to a 5DII.

If I were getting into the game now, it might be a slightly tougher choice, but as an overall system Canon has a lot going for it - great, high quality glass that's generally cheaper than the Nikon equivalents, a nice, big mount that takes more kinds of adapted MF lenses than any other mount (old MF Nikon, Pentax, Contax/Zeiss, Olympus...), really great options in longer telephoto for reasonable prices. Weak spot remains wideangle zooms, where Nikon rules the roost, although the wideangle primes seem to make up for it. Not rich enough for those yet :-)

[Roy P]

Started in the 70's with Praktica, 80's AE1, F1's plus a Nikon FE. When the EOS 600 (630 in US) came out decided to get on board and it still works as well as it did then, along with lenses from the same time like 28 f2.8. Now includes 1D, 40D and 400D.

Today I think I would be happy with any current system but for me as I suspect with most people lens collection detemines camera choice.

[sunnygirl]

Beginning to think because I am an idiot. Sick of canon faulty camera and lens problems.

[Noonaki]

To me, my dad and uncle had Canon A1's back in the 80s and my uncle had a decent collection of lenses and they took amazing shots. I kept telling myself that one day I will own a Canon like them. I was taking photos using an old cartridge 110 film camera then normal 35mm compact cameras until one day in 2008, I thought "wtf am I still doing with a point and shoot?" I went to a mall and saw a couple of ppl with their DSLRs and couldn't take it anymore so went into the hypermarket who sold DSLRs in the same mall and got the 400D, the rest was history!

[jbgeach]

I had previously used a Rebel G with the 35-80? supercheap lens. I thought I should go with Canon since I already had a lens. I don't think I have ever used that lens on my 40D, the 28-135 IS is sooo much nicer. I really think I should try to get $50 out of that lens.

[ron chappel]

Even though i had a few decent canon lenses ,quite frankly i would have gone for any brand that gave me an affordable DSLR! I was sooooo desperate!!!
As luck would have it canon got in first with the 300D
There are a whole lot of very minor details that made life with canon pretty easy as well,like being able to use various other brand manual lenses (a passion of mine),being able to scroll through images while they are all magnified and of course canon's stunning image quality and LOTS of others

Sadly canon have REALLY gone stupid lately,chasing utterly pointless megapoxys when they could instead be increasing image quality further.It's got me so mad at what could have been that i basically hate canon now!

[SuzyView]

I was at a school activity on Thursday and one of the Dad's asked why I chose Canon over the other brands. He's trying to decide which DSLR to get for himself. I told him camera bodies come and go, each having good quality, but lenses never die. I told him I've never seen anything do better than my 70-200 2.8 IS for indoor and outdoor work. I didn't bring it with me, but had the 5D2 and 24-70, no flash. He was blown away by the images on the LCD. I told him, "That' nothing! You should see my 100-400 on my 40D at the soccer fields!" I had people drooling yesterday.

[mattia]

Sadly canon have REALLY gone stupid lately,chasing utterly pointless megapoxys when they could instead be increasing image quality further.It's got me so mad at what could have been that i basically hate canon now!

To be fair to Canon, they've actually managed to do both. Equal per pixel noise and double the resolution is pretty damn impressive. And while I sometimes despair at the 21 MP of my 5D mk II (need. mac. pro. now), I've just gotta love the IQ.

[Jared Byer]

I had previously used a Rebel G with the 35-80? supercheap lens. I thought I should go with Canon since I already had a lens. I don't think I have ever used that lens on my 40D, the 28-135 IS is sooo much nicer. I really think I should try to get $50 out of that lens.

I have been trying to give my 35-80 away for years. No takers yet.

[DennisW1]

Beginning to think because I am an idiot. Sick of canon faulty camera and lens problems.

Well, I guess your next move is pretty obvious then, isn't it?


Funny thing is that many of the working pros, and I'm taking people who live with camera gear 40+ hours a week as their liveleyhood, seldom get caught up in the gear game.

Good example: I work in the media, but not as a stills (or video) photographer. In the course of this I've had the opportunity to work in close quarters with a lot of stills guys from newspapers, magazines, and photo agencies and have made the acquaintance of a few.
One gentleman who I struck up a casual friendship with shoots for a major newspaper. When we first met he was shooting Nikon gear and using a Mac laptop (mind you the paper provides his equipment). We would run into each other mainly at sporting events, and one spring I ran across him for the first time that season and he was carrying two 1D MkIIn cameras and a Dell (Windows) laptop.
Our conversations had really never been about equipment to any great extent but I had to ask him about the switch. His simple answer was that the paper had bought new gear and this is what they gave him. He explained that it took him "about a day" to set the cameras up to his liking and to get familiar with the controls and after that he really didn't see any difference between the two brands.
I saw no difference in the quality of his work in the paper either, so I guess he adapted pretty well.

Point of all this?: To this man's eyes his cameras and lenses were simply tools to do a job. It really did not matter to him what the name on the front was, only that it got the job done when he needed it to. And if anyone has ever shot photojournalism stuff you know you have to be able to count on your equipment when you have to get the shot, period.

If either Canon **or** Nikon gear was such unreliable crap, nobody who's bread and butter depended on reliability would be using them, and if you look at what the day-in-day-out working photographers are using, you see both Canon and Nikon well represented.

I guess that was a long-winded way of saying that I seriously doubt Canon cameras and lenses as a whole are "faulty". Is it possible for anything mechanical or electronic to fail or have a problem? Of course. Blaming an entire product line is just ridiculous.

BTW, despite being a Canon user I would say the same thing to such blanket statements about Nikon gear as well.

[cdifoto]

Maria Sharapova.

[DennisW1]

I was at a school activity on Thursday and one of the Dad's asked why I chose Canon over the other brands. He's trying to decide which DSLR to get for himself. I told him camera bodies come and go, each having good quality, but lenses never die. I told him I've never seen anything do better than my 70-200 2.8 IS for indoor and outdoor work. I didn't bring it with me, but had the 5D2 and 24-70, no flash. He was blown away by the images on the LCD. I told him, "That' nothing! You should see my 100-400 on my 40D at the soccer fields!" I had people drooling yesterday.


I was returning home from a long racing weekend and stopped at Starved Rock State Park in western Illinois. Having treked around for a 4 day motorsports event with heave 1D bodies and long lenses, I was tired and did some hiking on the trails with my Xti. Same thing, a dad with a couple young toddlers asked me if my camera was a "good one" for him to get started with as he had also been looking at the Nikon offerings.
To be honest, all I could say was that either one would give him great photographs, it all depended on which camera felt better to him and if price was the most important issue, which one he could get a better deal on.

[Jakew810]

Why I choose Canon over the others?

1. They use CMOS Sensors, and Nikon didn't use them at the time I purchased my Rebel XT.
2. I can shoot at Higher ISO's then Nikon's CCD's and see a lot less grain then a Major Grain and Noise Festival at 1600 ISO.
3. I do a lot of handheld shots in dark abandoned boarded up spots, and shoot at 1600 ISO, and not see to much grain at all.
4. I've been using Canon Film, Digital SLR'S since the 1980's; I love them.

[CanonDad]

Mine was a really base rule.
They had the cheapest around at the time (400D) which Tesco were doing for a stupid price (their error)

And from there it would have been too pricey to change, so instead i spent my fortune on other Canon gear !!!

[pastanley]

For me it was a toss up. I was debating between a Nikon D80 or a Canon 30D. I just did some research and decided to spend a little more to get a better camera. Thats all it took for me. Then I invested in some Canon lens's. When I got into photography back in June 2007 - I didnt even know about this site nor did I know anything about photography.

[pastanley]

it came before sony and nikon in the alphabet, and i was lazy when browsing the seller's website, whose products were listed in alphabetical order.
HAHAHA! No way man !

[droopy1592]

Portrait lenses

[keonilone]

I chose Canon simply for the fact that Nikon has those newer consumer Cameras that have to have the auto focus motor which requires certain, usually more expensive, newer lenses with the motor in them. And with several family members interested in getting an SLR, it's more cost effective and convenient to choose Canon to be able to use any lenses and have the option to share lenses if we all got Canon.

Dunno if that helps, but that's my reason. :)

[traceye]

I was always taught it wasn't the box, but the lens, so when the 10D came out I thought I'd check into the lenses first. Canon's 70-200 F2.8 NON-IS USM version was and still is one of the sharpest, most reliable lenses out there and that's the one I chose. Then I chose the first edition Rebel and haven't looked back since. I only buy new bodies because I'm a gadget freak.

I've never thought of changing to Nikon, but have thought about adding it to my array of gear only because no camera "does it all" - kinda like Photoshop doesn't do it all either. To diversify with an open mind is always the way to go and the D3 is still looking good as a 2nd camera.

[Supa Lao]

I started off with Pentax dslr. Liked the IQ out of it, but the autofocus was severely lacking. I ended up selling it all. I then decided to go with Canon b/c they had a better prime lens.

[libra67]

i chose it coz i just love the brand :lol:

[nuffi]

Beginning to think because I am an idiot. Sick of canon faulty camera and lens problems.


Have you had issues with the 5d Mark II?

[nuffi]

Funny thing is that many of the working pros, and I'm taking people who live with camera gear 40+ hours a week as their liveleyhood, seldom get caught up in the gear game.

If either Canon **or** Nikon gear was such unreliable crap, nobody who's bread and butter depended on reliability would be using them, and if you look at what the day-in-day-out working photographers are using, you see both Canon and Nikon well represented.

I guess that was a long-winded way of saying that I seriously doubt Canon cameras and lenses as a whole are "faulty". Is it possible for anything mechanical or electronic to fail or have a problem? Of course. Blaming an entire product line is just ridiculous.

BTW, despite being a Canon user I would say the same thing to such blanket statements about Nikon gear as well.


I agree totally, and this is why this thread is so interesting. The fact is that Canon and Nikon are both equally reliable (or unreliable crap, depending on your point of view) so the things that prompt folk to choose one over teh other are kinda interesting.

If I'd come to this party 6 months ago I almost certainly would have gone the other way, just because the release cycle would mean that Nikon's body in my price bracket was the newer one and had more cooler features. That was the thing that finally allowed me to decide, because all the other things are so close as to be largely irrelevent.

[jbigfoot]

I came over from Nikon to Canon in November 2008.

I was having focusing trouble with my D200 and their famous 80-200 f2.8. They were helpful but weren't able to solve the problem; they said that what I was experiencing was a characteristic of the lens. Wrong answer, when you've spent a thousand dollars on what is supposed to be their best glass.

Then I saw this site,

http://imaging-resource.com/

...that compared cameras under identical conditions on test charts. Since I was working in TV at the time, I understood the merits of this testing. Perusing the site, I found that with only one exception, every Canon blew away every Nikon in my precious resolution. (The exception was the D3x.)

Also, most of my friends were shooting Canon professionally and coming out with some grand pictures. I've always liked the look of Canon pictures, even though I took some great ones with my D70 and D200.

Now that I've got a few months with this D50 under my belt, I'm disappointed in a few things. But with the money I've invested in it, I'm pretty much stuck with it. It takes good pictures, so that's the saving grace.

[esspee1200]

feel. focusing, sharpness.

[ralff]

I switched to Canon in the early to mid 70's, not quite sure. Was shooting with a Pentax system and working part time in a photo supply shop, great discount. A Canon rep came in to demo some new camera's for the staff, placed an EF model with a 1.4 50 mm on it lens down on the floor, and stepped up onto the back of the camera body. Explained that this was how tough the build of their cameras was, carry it anwhere and never have to worry about banging it about. SOLD me. Also helped that they had a fantastic range of lenses available.

[datadump]

it was either canon or nik0n.

lens selection. when i first started dSLR, i hated the lens selection for entry level nik0ns with their silly AF-S thingy .. i alsy didnt care for the lousy mere 3-AF points. and lousy high iso performance on entry level bodies.

[junji98]

as a beginner, i didnt like the fact that the D40 (my budget would only allow this camera previously) would only AF on digital lenses! so decided on canon :)

[madspartus]

I got into photography while working at a retail store selling cameras, but didnt carry nikon. They had olympus pentax fuji etc, but canon was clearly the best. I'm happy with it.

[scfan]

I've been a photography buff forever. Had a Minolta SRT101 with assorted lenses for years. No interest in going digital. 4 years ago my daughter started playing club volleyball and we had a website where we could post pictures. The webmaster had a digital Rebel and I was using my camcorder and capturing stills from it. The next year I had a Rebel XT, purchased because of all the time we spent talking about cameras. If he had a Nikon I probably would have gone Nikon. A couple of years ago our coach asked me why Canon, not Nikon and I told her: "Because the guy who got me into digital had a Canon".

[inzite]

the 35L and 85L keeps me a canon user, while the new nikon zooms are keeping me as a nikon shooter.

[D.A.]

It was no1 choice when I bought 30D. In it's class it was best performing high ISO body.
Like ergonomics and looks of canon cameras. Rear dial is amazing. I think i will be long time Canon user for years to come. There are no reasons to jump to other company.

[SteveBrown]

the 35L and 85L keeps me a canon user, while the new nikon zooms are keeping me as a nikon shooter.

Some of you have way to much money. :lol:

[timgaffinphotography]

for me, most of my friends shot canons and they would let me shoot them to see how i liked them and the lenses

[foxesamu]

I came over from Nikon to Canon in November 2008.

I was having focusing trouble with my D200 and their famous 80-200 f2.8. They were helpful but weren't able to solve the problem; they said that what I was experiencing was a characteristic of the lens. Wrong answer, when you've spent a thousand dollars on what is supposed to be their best glass.
Eh, they're right. The 80-200 is not really a pro lens--or shouldn't be considered one--any more. It's simply not fast enough for sports. IMO, you should've done your research and gotten the much superior 70-200 VR which would've made an awesome combo with your D200. Otherwise... carry on.

[jbigfoot]

Eh, they're right. The 80-200 is not really a pro lens--or shouldn't be considered one--any more. It's simply not fast enough for sports.

I learned this the hard way.

IMO, you should've done your research and gotten the much superior 70-200 VR which would've made an awesome combo with your D200. Otherwise... carry on.

I don't think this lens was available when I bought my 80-200, a couple of years ago. I don't remember seeing it listed anywhere.

[ckfishel2001]

had a rebel 35mm so seemed like a natural when I got the itch to jump into digital.

[xn2b8r]

+1 for lenses. Also, having a friend who has lots of Canon equipment and a generous nature (read: good stuff to borrow) helped make the decision for me.

[apersson850]

When I bought my first SLR, I wanted one with some kind of automatic exposure. As I took quite a lot of action photos, I preferred one with time preset, rather than aperture preset. Back then, you could have only one kind at a time, and Nikkormat EL gave you preset aperture, but Canon EF had preset exposure time.

So I got the Canon EF and a set of FD lenses for that. Then it just continued.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Merged with an older thread on the saem subject,
My answer was here;
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=6048000&postcount=43

In a word,. (or oft used phrases)

Practice what you preach
Walk the walk
Put your money where your mouth is.

[DozerLYP]

Because it's the way to go...

[Chopper Al]

My sister-in-law is heavily into photography, and she has a Canon DSLR with lots of toys for it. As her back-up camera, she has a Canon G10. My wife's 50th birthday is this month, and I wanted to get her a good camera. My sister-in-law recommended the G10, and since the reviews on it were excellent, I went with that. So, that being said, I didn't want my son or I to use her camera, so I started looking for a camera for us to use. Did some more research and found the Canon S3 IS got excellent reviews as well. I found an S3 at a local pawn shop for $59 and scooped it up. Works great and am having a blast with it.

Al

[Mark II Shooter]

I did a search, and the last thread about this was from March 2005. Considering how much technology has changed in the last couple years, I'm curious as to why "YOU" specifically chose to go with Canon.



(Cue the church music from hym 247) ..."The Bible tells me soooooo....."
My apologies, you may have to be Baptist to get that one!:lol:

[conbu19]

I had Minolta film cameras for ever and had annoyed the hell out of my wife and four kids for years "taking their pictures".One Christmas came (kids all adults at this point) and they give old dad an S100 "Elph", that little bugger kick started my picture taking again,(my Minolta slr's had sat in the closet for waaayy too long.I drove everyone nuts with the "Elph".Lotta folks bought one cause of me,too.
Few years go buy,bingo merry,merry they give the old man a rebel xt! I still have it and have a Tokina 50-135mm 2.8 that I just bought (demo) from Adorama. Wonderful lens.I own the great "Nifty-fifty" a Tamron super zoom 70-300mm,which does a great job in Macro mode for a 129dollar lens,and of course the whipping boy of all lens aficionados,the 18-55 "Kit" lens.Bless it's little heart.All my gear is carried in a 20 something year old beat-up camera bag of no name significance. Manfroto tri-pod manfroto mono pod,486 ball head and QR plate. I'm not particularly gentle with any of my gear but for about 4 years plus it all works perfectly.

that and Canons corporate position on the world in general and the company community participation, make it easy to like Canon, even if they occasionally frustrate the hell out of me.Take care Steve B.

[Electrical]

because Canon gear looks awesome and nikon looks like an ugly piece of cheap toys'r'us/fisher price crap.

(dead serious)

[wickerprints]

because Canon gear looks awesome and nikon looks like an ugly piece of cheap toys'r'us/fisher price crap.

(dead serious)

And I thought I was the only one who felt this way!

Nikon design is horribly, horribly ugly. There is something about it that is not...harmonious. It's not "clean." For example, compare the Nikon 85/1.4 against the EF 85/1.2L II. The Canon lens is a work of art with its smooth, thoughtful lines. The Nikon is angular, chunky, clumsy-looking. The same thing goes for their bodies. It feels too busy.

Granted, that's not the reason why I chose Canon over Nikon--I just prefer Canon's lens selection and design philosophy. The EF mount is superior. Canon's IS is more advanced than Nikon's VR. And even though Nikon bodies are better performers than Canon's lineup at present, the lenses are where the real value lies.

[Electrical]

And I thought I was the only one who felt this way!

Nikon design is horribly, horribly ugly. There is something about it that is not...harmonious. It's not "clean." For example, compare the Nikon 85/1.4 against the EF 85/1.2L II. The Canon lens is a work of art with its smooth, thoughtful lines. The Nikon is angular, chunky, clumsy-looking. The same thing goes for their bodies. It feels too busy.

Granted, that's not the reason why I chose Canon over Nikon--I just prefer Canon's lens selection and design philosophy. The EF mount is superior. Canon's IS is more advanced than Nikon's VR. And even though Nikon bodies are better performers than Canon's lineup at present, the lenses are where the real value lies.

nikon presented a line of bodies which might be superior to some canon bodies. but keep in mind, canon is now bringing some new awesome bodies as well. we'll just see how nikon can compete with them.

one mistake canon made was to "castrate" the non-ultra-pro cams (everything non-1D series) with a "proper" autofocus. nikon added their D3 focus system to inferior cameras, which of course makes them have some more speed over canon.

i think canon learned from that mistake and since the competition made such a move, they will probably have to do it sooner or later as well.

but still, it's not like i'm trying to track a bullet in mid air with my 50D or 5DII, so i'm not experiencing all the hate towards canons autofocus system. also this whole FPS frenzy going on in the forums and internet between canon and nikon. so what if you get 1 fps more? don't forget that the 5DII shoots a full blown 22Mpixels, while nikon is still pissing around with 10mpixels.

anyway, bottom line is, i went with canon because the gear is beautiful. and i would never switch just because of some AF which is "slow" in _comparison_. it's still damn fast and very accurate.

[neilwood32]

Im Canon because a mate was shooting Canon when i got the bug and i borrowed his 400d. The rest as they say is history.

I do think Canon has the better overall range although there are a few things they could "borrow" from Nikon: flash controller, more AF points, better high iso performance(>3200). But for me these arent enough to jump system.

[DocFrankenstein]

300D was 2x as cheap as nikon d70

[Armageddonmonkey]

I grew up using Canon gear... I first got an interest in photography using my stepdad's old Canon AE-1.... first SLR of my own was a Canon Rebel 2000... moved to digital with a Canon S3IS.... on to my first D-SLR, the XSi...

Canon gear has always been attractive to me... The controls are well placed, and easy for me to use (I didn't crack the book on the XSi for months, till I wanted to see what else was available to use that I hadn't already found for myself).

I've nothing against any other brand really... I've just always been around Canon, am comfortable with it, and havn't had any major issues with any of my Canon gear. If it aint broke....

[rklepper]

C comes before N in the alphabet. :)

[rklepper]

No seriously, my Dad gave me a Canon when I was 6.

[wyofizz]

Because Ashton Kusher sells Nikon :)

[tvphotog]

Because Ashton Kusher sells Nikon :)

Yes, I don't see the attraction either. Everytime I catch one of those commercials, I'm glad to have a Canon.

I think they're trying to get to a demographic of teenage women...but how many among them would buy a DSLR? I think they would better spend their money trying to match the 5D2. Despite all the above comments on the D700, IMHO it's inferior overall to the 5D2.

[wickerprints]

Because Ashton Kutcher sells Nikon :)

Well, Andre Agassi did his thing with the Rebel.... :p

[George Farmer]

I was given a 10D a couple of years ago by my uncle. My first DSLR and red pill into the rewards of photography.

No regrets and after reading through this thread, in particular CD's rationale, I'm glad my uncle has taste. Ironically he reckons I'm now a better photographer than he...

[jon0886]

I wanted to get into photography and my friend was selling his 40D - needless to say, I called dibs!

[S.Horton]

I chose Canon almost by accident.

I stay because the glass is cheaper than Nikon.

If that were not true, I'd have a 200-400 f/4 and a D3 by now.

;}

[yalequan]

I started on Pentax a few years ago and decided that I preferred zooms over primes and went looking for a new System.

I chose Canon because my father uses Canon, and the price of a D700 with a 70-200 could have paid my tuition for a year or so. And I prefer the focal lengths that Canon has over Nikon.

[gas1120]

Well, Andre Agassi did his thing with the Rebel.... :p

Sharapova > Kutcher

[KayakPhotos]

Knowing nothing about photography, I was convinced by a salesman at Best Buy that the 40D would probably be the best camera for me. About 90% of the people I talked to at the photography shop also recommended Canon over Nikon because they said that they liked the ergonomics better. I also got a 40D and 28-135mm IS kit for about $1300, which wasn't bad at the time...

In retrospect, I think that I made the right choice as I really like the Canon system and as someone who is interested in wildlife photography I feel that Canon has much better choices for someone on a budget in that regard. 100-400, 300 f/4 IS, 400 f/5.6=sweetness.

[jobe1492]

Birds are attracted to big white lenses more than big black lenses.:lol:

[MDJAK]

At the present time, and subject to change as soon as Canon produces a body that can focus, I don't shoot Canon, I shoot Nikon.

[elchinito]

I decided to buy a DSLR so I went to the local Best Buy and I tried both the Canon and Nikon brands. I didn't know how to use the Nikon with all those crazy buttons, grabbed the Canon and I just felt in love with it, it was so much easier. That's how it started

[equetefue]

I use to shoot Canon a few years back, but I was I kep finding myself shooting more on the long end, and Nikon simply doesn't have the Telephoto selection on Nikon. Besides that the pricing and availability issue at times simply turned me off.

There are a few things I miss like the great CLS, viewfinders, and excellent performance/price offering in the bodies lately. Still I don't regret the move, but which that Canon would better compete with the Nikon bodies.

[JimAskew]

I bought a Canon G5 P&S five years ago and was delighted with the IQ and all around build. I found POTN while searching on the Internet for G5 tips & tricks. I quickly found that the G5, while a fine camera, wasn't enough...so I got a dRebel XT and the 28-105MM Mark II...the rest is (rapid) history.

[lvidmar]

The school I work for has a suitcase of Canon lenses, 30D's and XT's to check out, not to mention 580's and 430's.

So at first it was the atmosphere of free lenses to borrow, and knowledgeable staff to go to for advice. That, and familiarity with the UI has kept me on Canon.

[malcolm027]

In 2006 I started getting interested in photography and saw so many great pictures with the Rebel XT, and decided to buy one.
Got tons of great photos, and decided to get a 5d about 1 month ago. Whoooo hoooo! I tried some Nikons out before, and I found them uncomfortable to use. I also tried Pentax and Olympus and found them to be awful. I think that if Nikon made better priced cameras/lenses with bigger grips then I might have bought one instead.