I have had an N90 and recently sold it to purchase an N80. I hear lots of talk about how great cannons are. However, I have never heard anything as to their being too light and therefore, easily damage. Can anyone corroborate my thesis here?

-- Nauman Saghir (nsaghir@hotmail.com), December 20, 2000

Answers

Benny said it well...

-- Brad Hutcheson (bhutcheson@iname.com), December 21, 2000.

What's the thesis again?

-- Chuck (chaohui@msn.com), December 20, 2000.

Sorry "Hypothesis". The Hypothesis is as follows

"Cannon, even though with its eye towards technological advances, does not hold a candle to the performance and the durability of a Nikon.

(The Cameras in Question are 1)Nikon N80 2)Cannon rebel 2000

-- Nauman Saghir (nsaghir@hotmail.com), December 20, 2000.

I think I would agree with this statement in reference to the Rebels, but not necessarily to other Canon EOS models.

rick :)=

-- Rick Oleson (rick_oleson@yahoo.com), December 20, 2000.

You are not comparing the same class of cameras here. N80's Canon equivalent is Elan 7E. I think the Elan 7E holds more than one candle to the N80 in performance, and superficially at least, outscores the N80 in durability as well.

-- Chuck (chaohui@msn.com), December 20, 2000.

My Canon holds 0 candles vs Nikon - it has no hands. To paraphrase the old question previously asked here, What is the photograhic objective?

-- Mark Mitchell (ms_mitchell@usa.net), December 20, 2000.

My Canon holds 0 candles vs Nikon - it has no hands

That's what the round hole in front of the mirror is for.

-- Chuck (chaohui@msn.com), December 20, 2000.

I've not heard of any great reliability problems with the Rebel 2000 or any previous Rebels for that matter. Any equipment will break ocasionally, but overall the Rebel series has been fairly durable for it's price range. But you really are comparing apples to oranges when you put the Rebel 2000 up against the N80. The Rebel is better compared to the N65, or the N80 compared to the Elan 7.

The Rebels reakable feat is that it's as light as it is with the features offered and yet it still holds up well. Tough plastic, I guess.

-- Jim Strutz (jimstrutz@juno.com), December 20, 2000.

Like Canon? Buy Canon! Like Nikon? Buy Nikon! Drop Canon : Canon break. Drop Nikon : Nikon break. Hope this helps.

-- benny stevens (b.stevens@jvc.be), December 21, 2000.

I bought my first EOS camera 10 years ago, it was the 1000. It still works flawlessly. I have used an EOS 300 for 6 months in Mexico, from Palenque to Mexico City. Still works flawlessly. Perhaps I was lucky. My personal view is that cameras are complex electronic devices, and so eventually they will break (as TV sets and toasters). I would not consider an F80 to be especially heavy too..

-- Paulo Bizarro (pbizarro@cggp.pt), December 21, 2000.

YOU GUYS ARE WAY TOO FUNNY!!!!! I have come to the conclusion that "One must feel comfortable with what one uses". FOR GOD SAKES!!! Up 'til 1999 I used an Olympus OM1!!! I loved it, wasnt the latest and the greatest, it did what I wanted it to.

Also, I believe, chasing the latest and the greatest is like chasing ghosts, never realy catch it.

Anywho, thank you for the resposes, and a jolly christmas to all!!!

-- Nauman Saghir (nsaghir@hotmail.com), December 21, 2000.

MINE IS BIGGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

can we stop with this kind of nonsence?

Pick the one that fits you best and you feel more conftarble with, NONE is a Leica!

-- Diego K. (heuristica@yahoo.com), December 21, 2000.

So what Leica?

I have used a M2 under the circumstances it's supposedly ideal for, low light photography where being invisible and silent were absolutely demanded, and hated it.

I have a Hasselblad kit lying in the closet gathering dust, IMO one of the most overrated and overpriced systems on the market.

Every professional photographer has his favourite cameramaker, but knows that each camera has its own merits and weaknesses, and the ideal camera that can handle any situation doesn't exist.

4x5 gives superior technical quality at the cost of handling speed, MF gives great compromise between technical performance and userfriendliness, but at a cost, and 35mm gives superior versatility but small negatives.

Leica has great lenses, but the M series only offer a limited telephoto range, the R series only with a steep pricetag. Canon offers great technique, but introduces so much new gizmo's with each new camera that you always feel somewhat cheated and Nikon in the past maybe has leaned too long on its historical reputation, allowing camera's like the F4 to stay too long on the market to be overtaken by EOS 1n and USM lenses.

Yes, Nikons and Canons are no Leicas, but that's what the nametag on the camera says too.

Owning and using a Leica doesn't automatically mean your pictures will be superior to those taken with a Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta,Pentax, Ricoh or Zenith.

Maybe sharper, but a lousy sharp picture from a Leica still is inferior to a powerfull image shot with any old camera the photographer happened to have with him.

Paul K

-- Paul K (photopp@casema.net), December 22, 2000.

Both Nikon and Canon attract loyal fans, some of whom seem to have dedicated themselves as evangelical sales representatives for their respective pet brands on the internet. If you want a more objective comparative review between the two brands, this is what Philip Greenspun has to say about it: http://www.photo.net/photo/canon-v-nikon.

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), December 23, 2000.

The next person that starts a Nikon vs Canon (it's spelled with ONE n!!!) thread, I'm gonna clonk 'em on the noggin with my C330. Got it?

-- Tim Brown (brownt@flash.net), December 27, 2000.

Hey, these Neekon vs Cannon debates provides a valuable public service! I mean it's keeping people occupied who would otherwise while away their lives watching Jerry Springer, right?

Besides, it is really worth damaging your C330?

-- Chuck Fan (chaohui@msn.com), December 27, 2000.

I love this!!! Neekon and cannon are both worthy of a fight!!!

-- Nauman Saghir (nsaghir@hotmail.com), December 27, 2000.

Picture quality does not matter - the name does matter - buy Nikon. Picture quality does not matter - neither does the name - buy Canon. Picture quality does matter - buy Leica.

-- Nick Cannon (cantsay@notatall.com), January 05, 2001.

Want to spend an exuberant amount of money- Buy lieca Want to make great pictures- get a skill want to be worried about Carl ziess lenses- buy lieca

My Moto: You can have a 5k dollar camera and still be a crappy photgrapher......or you can use a 200 dollar camera and be a good photgrapher.

-- Nauman Saghir (nsaghir@hotmail.com), January 05, 2001.

I currently use a Canon Rebel 2000 and so far it had done nothing less than the "big wig" cameras. As a matter of fact, It does everything they do. The key is knowing your camera and it's possibilities and limitations. I have been photographing seriously for almost a year and I have already had photos published and purchased. Whether you have a Canon, Nikon, Leica or Minolta, without the creativity of a good mind...it's just a pinhole.

-- Berlyn Phillips (phillips_berlynda@hotmail.com), March 17, 2001.

yo paul k... give me your hasselblad if you're not going to use it.

-- peter bg (pbg333@hotmail.com), July 21, 2001.

Subject Nikon is better?

I don't really know what camera is better. I do know that Nikon makes good products, whether they are the inexpensive ones or the expensive models. I recently bought the N80 with two kick ass lenses, which I otherwise would not have been able to buy if I had purchased the F5 like I wish I could buy. The quality of the photographs, as far as I can see are pretty dam good. I also have the FE which I love, and guess what, the new lenses work on the FE. I think the only other camera that can do that is the Pentax. I wish I could afford a Leica, or a Hasselblad, or a Mamiya, but I can't. Most of all I hope that with practice and hard work I someday will make meaningful images that speak and move people. Isn't that what it's really abou

-- Eduardo Acosta (eduardoacosta68@hotmail.com), September 06, 2001.

During the week days I work in digital media and visual film effects and during my weekends for the past 2 years I have worked in retail, at a camera store no less.

It astounds me even to this day, how many customers will come in and choose to pick up the debate on Nikon Versus Canon and then claim that they only want to settle for Nikon because they "hear" that Nikon is best. They then attempt to try to wrangle a better price for cash which amuses me to no end. The biggest justification for their argument is that Nikon is made in Japan although that is not the case for some of the most recent releases of the F65 (N65).

When my fiance told me of her interest in photography, I decided to buy her a camera that she could grow with. Budget was of no concern to me. I wanted to get her a camera that was well designed and practical plus reliable and capable of taking a good photograph. She had demonstrated her abilities on simple digital and compact cameras and I had been impressed with her ability to work so well with such crude devices (compared to the control and versatility of an SLR).

I researched the two brands exhaustively for 6 months and spoke with reps from Canon and Nikon as well as camera technicians and repairers. Both manufacturers are clearly the top of the line choices for the serious photographer and enthusiasts alike and it opened my eyes in many ways to the dogged mentality behind the thinking of the general public.

Final conclusion was that the quality is evenly matched. Most Nikon users are diehards but their camera is well worth of the fight. In the end, I chose a Canon Elan 7E (Eos 30 with Eye Control) as my end result and I have been stunned with the results both in my hands and in the hands of my fiance. I have since found that four of my fellow staff opted for the same. I chose this model because it was the highest model (with the exception of the Eos 5 which is being deleted in the near future) that also included a built in flash. Why did I chose Canon over Nikon? Fluoride glass in the lenses, Ultrasonic (USM) lenses which are quieter, faster and more rugged, L-Series lenses and the fact that replacement parts and replacements are slightly more affordable, as are acessories. Canon is as respected as Nikon and is used extensively by the media and professionals across the world. The lens selection alone exceeds Nikons considerably and many third party products are also available. The most expensive lens I found was about $270,000 (Aust) from Canon although there are only six in the world...

Bottom line, I looked at all the repair books and discovered that the Canon brand was the most reliable and least likely to break down or develop defects. I would even venture to say that Canon as a brand, was more reliable than any other brand on the market with the exception of Leica. Leica, though wonderful, was literally a waste of money to me. Kind of like paying $25 for a cheeseburger just because you're dining at Spagos or something. I think Leica is dated in it's looks and impractical for the average user though the quality is clearly there.

If the body of the camera is there to hold the film and little more, the end choice would most likely result from a decision based on lenses since that's where all the magic comes from. Since Canon offer a larger variety and more types of lenses than Nikon, yet the bodies are so similar (excluding Canon's amazing Eye Control coupled with A.I. Servo Tracking feature), Canon came out in front for this alone. I admire the quality of Nikon but, even with the dollar being a non-issue, I chose Canon because the choices and variety. Lenses were clearly the deciding factor.

If I were given either brand as a gift myself, I'd be equally pleased. Neither is better than the other when it comes to quality and ability. It comes down to cosmetic differences and personal opinions.. and most importanly, the issue of lens quality and variety. The only brand to offer the most variety is Canon.

-- Marco (new_drive@hotmail.com), November 28, 2001.

You wrote : "I have had an N90 and recently sold it to purchase an N80. I hear lots of talk about how great cannons are. However, I have never heard anything as to their being too light and therefore, easily damage. Can anyone corroborate my thesis here?

-- Nauman Saghir (nsaghir@hotmail.com), December 20, 2000"

Cannons are by no means light. You need four people to even pull one of them, and half a dozen people to lift a light Cannon. Loading them is pretty cool too, but each ball weighs a heck of a lot so dont drop it on your foot. When shooting with a Cannon, you have to be very careful otherwise your face could get bashed in by the recoil unless properly secured. Oh yeah, and my Cannon can beat up your Nikon.

-- Andrew (Andrew@hotmail.com), January 14, 2002.

Well, I agree with the posts. You're not comparing like models. But in terms of reliability on a recent trip to Antarctica where I don't think I could've had worse luck on the weather 3/4 Canon Elans died. One died in a slight fog, another in a slight mist, the other when it got a little rain on it... nothing I wouldn't think a semi-pro camera couldn't handle. I said, "Geesh, wouldn't want to own one of those". Could be coincidence though. There were 13 Nikons on the trip of which 7 were N80's... and all... all worked throughout the trip even when the weather turned so bad it killed a weather resistant Leice P&S, my camcorder, my friends camcorder and 2 Minolta's, fried my battery, most people didn't even bring their camera's out that day.

In the end though, Minolta's faired the worst with 13/14 casualties, then Canon with 3/4 casualties (the one working was put away after the other 3 died within the first 3 days and used only when the weather was great), and all 13 Nikons worked throughout the trip... in stuff I would think a camera would die. On topic I keep seeing advertisements for better sealing in the Canon camera's like that's their major selling point... perhaps they know they have a reliability problem in moisture? Canons do offer cool and inexpensive lenses compared to Nikon, knowing that they're susceptible to moisture might prepare you better. Since you have the Nikon system, stick to it and I think everyone would agree. My experience shows it's the most dependable of the brands.

-- Mark D (Mark@Aol.Com), January 18, 2002.