So, I went into Target yesterday and...

[Tyler]

I was there with the family looking for something else and I decided to check out the *small* collection of cameras they had in stock. I wanted to take a minute and pick them up and just feel them in my hands...I wasn't looking to buy anything but wanted to check 'em out while we were there.

As I'm about to walk away a nice gentleman approached me asked if I needed any help. I told him that I was just beginning to look into DSLRs and wanted to look at the Nikons, Canons and Sonys they had on display.

He goes on, in a nice, non-pushy way (I'm pretty sure they don't work on commission there), to say that he's been a professional photographer for 30+ years (he said he worked part time at Target for the insurance) and suggested that my best best would be Canon for the best results from action shots - I told him that I'd mainly be shooting my girls (soccer games, ballet, running around, etc).

He also goes on to say that Canon glass is "brighter" than Nikon which allows the Canons to work better for action shots. In the light of the store he did point out the glare (for the lack of a better word) in the Canon lenses vs. the Nikon lenses and I have to say that they definitely had a different look and the Canon lenses looked more clear (I guess *lighter* is a better word) than the Nikon lenses.

He just couldn't say enough good things about Canon and how they integrate features into their cameras that are independently developed from different groups at Canon. He made it sound like there's a group that develops technology just for macros and one for landscapes and one for action etc.

Anyway - sorry to go on and on...

1.) Is there ANY truth to the idea that Canon's auto-focus works better than Nikon's? I've read in a few places that Nikon's system beats Canon's hands down.

2.) I'm really confused by his last statement, but I'll ask anyway - is there any truth to Canon lenses working better for faster action? I think the "glare" of the lens comes more from the coatings on the glass but I'm just trying to look at this from every angle.

3.) Can anyone tell me how the Sony auto-focus system compares against Canon and Nikon? Is it better, worse or about the same?

Thanks for reading

[wulf]

I would be a bit suspicious of such claims. What I've heard is that Nikon's have an excellent autofocus system, particularly at the top of the range. Then again, I've got a Nikon, so go figure!

BTW, it is probably better to think about specific cameras and lenses than grouping everything by brand. A top of the line Canon with L-series glass will probably blow my humble D40 and manual, second-hand lenses away on everything except cost and weight. Make sure you compare apples with apples.

Wulf

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by Tyler

1.) Is there ANY truth to the idea that Canon's auto-focus works better than Nikon's? I've read in a few places that Nikon's system beats Canon's hands down.

2.) I'm really confused by his last statement, but I'll ask anyway - is there any truth to Canon lenses working better for faster action? I think the "glare" of the lens comes more from the coatings on the glass but I'm just trying to look at this from every angle.

3.) Can anyone tell me how the Sony auto-focus system compares against Canon and Nikon? Is it better, worse or about the same?

Thanks for reading

1: No. Canon has electronic motors driving the autofocus on ALL their lenses: some Nikon's still rely on screwdrive, which is slower. The other downside is that there are many bodies that dont have the screwdrive motor, so they don't AF on those lenses. At the top end, in fact, Canon have had some missteps with their AF systems (the 1D series have had chronic problems with this) and the 7D is finally taking colour into account with metering (which Nikons have done for a while). The D3/D700 AF system is steps ahead of the 1D/5D system.

2: I dont know what youre referring to in terms of "glare", but both Canon and Nikon have coatings on their lenses to minimize flare. His comment about Canon lenses being "brighter" is a crock too: if he's referring to aperture then it's clearly untrue (and mathematically proveable) and if he's referring to viewfinder brightness then that's a body issue and then you really have to be comparing model-to-model to find any discrepancies. Canon equipment is no better suited for fast action than Nikon. The 1D III is 10fps, the D3 is 10fps. That's body. The only thing you can say about lenses is the USM system in the Canon line which seems to be more prevalent than the AF-S/SWM on the Nikon line, but is slowly creeping in.

3: From experience, the Sony system is quick, but nowhere near as fast as Nikon's AF-S or canon's USM. They have their own "fast" system called SAM, but it's still not as fast. In the lower end, their AF system seems to be behind all the time.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Tyler

1.) Is there ANY truth to the idea that Canon's auto-focus works better than Nikon's? I've read in a few places that Nikon's system beats Canon's hands down.

No, that's not true. Except for the fact that Nikon's entry-level bodies (D3000/D5000) will not autofocus with all the new lenses (only AF-S), there's no truth to this. The two systems are relatively comparable on the entry level bodies. On the higher end bodies, you hear people fighting a lot to justify spending big bux.

2.) I'm really confused by his last statement, but I'll ask anyway - is there any truth to Canon lenses working better for faster action? I think the "glare" of the lens comes more from the coatings on the glass but I'm just trying to look at this from every angle.

Glare is from coatings, and probably what he meant by brighter was the concept of a faster max. aperture. Again, there's really not much difference here between Nikon and Canon with zoom lenses, but when you go to the prime side, it becomes a slightly different story. Only Canon has an autofocusing 50mm f/1.2 (Nikon's is manual focus on all bodies), and only Canon has an 85mm f/1.2 lens. But those are astronomically priced pro lenses, and not a huge advantage for your average hobbyist photog. Where Canon tends to win out is on midrange offerings Nikon doesn't provide and lower prices, because they don't include hoods and only offer 1 year's warranty vs. 5.

Price out Canon's 100mm macro and Nikon's 105mm macro choices, sometime. Also the 70-200 options. Canon tends to have superiority with telephoto glass, Nikon with wide angle.

If you were more interested in landscape photography or portraiture with off-camera lighting, otoh, I'd say go Nikon.

Where there's an advantage to low-light action photography is in focus motors on primes (typical for stage shooting or indoor sports if you can't afford a $1500 70-200 f/2.8 lens). Canon's analog to AS-F (a silent ultrasonic focus motor) is called USM. Most of Canon's primes have them. On the Nikon side, only two affordable prime lenses have USM. AF-S/USM affects the speed of the autofocus locking in, because the motor is what pushes the glass elements into place. The faster the motor, the faster the focus.

It's worse on the Nikon side, because if you don't have AF-S in the lens, the lens won't autofocus at all on an entry level body, whereas on a Canon, if the lens doesn't have USM, it just autofocuses a little slower.

If you are going to be shooting stage and sports on a budget with an entry level camera, I do think that Canon is going to be the better choice, simply because you'll be able to get a relatively inexpensive longer prime that autofocuses, and a good choice of midrange-cost telephoto zooms, like the 70-200 f/4L USM. On the Nikon side, you won't. It'll be f/5.6 consumer zooms and non-autofocusing primes longer than 50mm.

If, however, you can afford to get up to Nikon's D80/D90 tier which can autofocus with non-AF-S lenses, then, it probably won't matter much.

[tiffany]

I dont know specifics about cameras and lenses, but i have a nikon d40 w/ a 70-300mm lens, 2 kids, one is in baseball and football and the other is cheer & softball, I have no complaints w/ my actions shots. My best friend has a canon rebel and she always say my shots are brighter than hers. Im sure it has to do w/ settings. but shes happy w/ her canon. I did alot of research before i bought my nikon and i was more happy with the information on nikons.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by wulf

I would be a bit suspicious of such claims. What I've heard is that Nikon's have an excellent autofocus system, particularly at the top of the range. Then again, I've got a Nikon, so go figure!

BTW, it is probably better to think about specific cameras and lenses than grouping everything by brand. A top of the line Canon with L-series glass will probably blow my humble D40 and manual, second-hand lenses away on everything except cost and weight. Make sure you compare apples with apples.

Wulf

Good point Wulf - I'm probably splitting hairs here and need to focus in on a budget and compare products within the same price range.

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

1: No. Canon has electronic motors driving the autofocus on ALL their lenses: some Nikon's still rely on screwdrive, which is slower. The other downside is that there are many bodies that dont have the screwdrive motor, so they don't AF on those lenses. At the top end, in fact, Canon have had some missteps with their AF systems (the 1D series have had chronic problems with this) and the 7D is finally taking colour into account with metering (which Nikons have done for a while). The D3/D700 AF system is steps ahead of the 1D/5D system.

2: I dont know what youre referring to in terms of "glare", but both Canon and Nikon have coatings on their lenses to minimize flare. His comment about Canon lenses being "brighter" is a crock too: if he's referring to aperture then it's clearly untrue (and mathematically proveable) and if he's referring to viewfinder brightness then that's a body issue and then you really have to be comparing model-to-model to find any discrepancies. Canon equipment is no better suited for fast action than Nikon. The 1D III is 10fps, the D3 is 10fps. That's body. The only thing you can say about lenses is the USM system in the Canon line which seems to be more prevalent than the AF-S/SWM on the Nikon line, but is slowly creeping in.

3: From experience, the Sony system is quick, but nowhere near as fast as Nikon's AF-S or canon's USM. They have their own "fast" system called SAM, but it's still not as fast. In the lower end, their AF system seems to be behind all the time.

Glare isn't the best word - it's what you see when you're looking into a lens on display and you can see the reflection of the overhead lights on the glass. The Canon lenses looked like their coatings were lighter than the Nikon. He wasn't referring to the aperture but just the *look* of lenses and the reflections from the lights.

Good to hear about your experience with the Sony's - I like a lot of their features but if I can't get a clear shot of my kids running around then I won't be happy. A good autofocus system is more important than some other features Sony has.

Originally Posted by inkista

No, that's not true. Except for the fact that Nikon's entry-level bodies (D3000/D5000) will not autofocus with all the new lenses (only AF-S), there's no truth to this. The two systems are relatively comparable on the entry level bodies. On the higher end bodies, you hear people fighting a lot to justify spending big bux.


Glare is from coatings, and probably what he meant by brighter was the concept of a faster max. aperture. Again, there's really not much difference here between Nikon and Canon with zoom lenses, but when you go to the prime side, it becomes a slightly different story. Only Canon has an autofocusing 50mm f/1.2 (Nikon's is manual focus on all bodies), and only Canon has an 85mm f/1.2 lens. But those are astronomically priced pro lenses, and not a huge advantage for your average hobbyist photog. Where Canon tends to win out is on midrange offerings Nikon doesn't provide and lower prices, because they don't include hoods and only offer 1 year's warranty vs. 5.

Price out Canon's 100mm macro and Nikon's 105mm macro choices, sometime. Also the 70-200 options. Canon tends to have superiority with telephoto glass, Nikon with wide angle.

If you were more interested in landscape photography or portraiture with off-camera lighting, otoh, I'd say go Nikon.

Where there's an advantage to low-light action photography is in focus motors on primes (typical for stage shooting or indoor sports if you can't afford a $1500 70-200 f/2.8 lens). Canon's analog to AS-F (a silent ultrasonic focus motor) is called USM. Most of Canon's primes have them. On the Nikon side, only two affordable prime lenses have USM. AF-S/USM affects the speed of the autofocus locking in, because the motor is what pushes the glass elements into place. The faster the motor, the faster the focus.

It's worse on the Nikon side, because if you don't have AF-S in the lens, the lens won't autofocus at all on an entry level body, whereas on a Canon, if the lens doesn't have USM, it just autofocuses a little slower.

If you are going to be shooting stage and sports on a budget with an entry level camera, I do think that Canon is going to be the better choice, simply because you'll be able to get a relatively expensive longer prime that autofocuses, and a good choice of midrange-cost telephoto zooms, like the 70-200 f/4L USM. On the Nikon side, you won't. It'll be f/5.6 consumer zooms and non-autofocusing primes longer than 50mm.

If, however, you can afford to get up to Nikon's D80/D90 tier which can autofocus with non-AF-S lenses, then, it probably won't matter much.

Thanks for the information inkista - you've given me a lot to chew on. I've been focusing too much on camera body research and haven't begun really researching lenses yet. I know that's a huge part of the equation and I appreciate your feedback on this.

I guess I'm stuck on the fence - on one hand I want to be able to capture action shots of my kids but then I want to turn around and shoot a sunset or some sort of landscape and since I can't have to cameras (not not anyway) I'm trying to find the best fit.

Originally Posted by tiffany

I dont know specifics about cameras and lenses, but i have a nikon d40 w/ a 70-300mm lens, 2 kids, one is in baseball and football and the other is cheer & softball, I have no complaints w/ my actions shots. My best friend has a canon rebel and she always say my shots are brighter than hers. Im sure it has to do w/ settings. but shes happy w/ her canon. I did alot of research before i bought my nikon and i was more happy with the information on nikons.

That's good to know tiffany - my girls aren't quite old enough for sports yet but they will be soon and I'm trying to get prepared for the upcoming years.

You all have give me a lot to think about - if anyone else has something to add please feel free to add a comment. I'd love to hear from you.

[WVCoalMiner]

Well........
Maybe he is stretching the truth a bit seeing as one of his first responses to you was.......

he said he worked part time at Target for the insurance

Part Timers DO NOT get insurance at Target???????
40+ Hrs a week or NO Insurance.
So he lied to you right at the start.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by WVCoalMiner

Well........
Maybe he is stretching the truth a bit seeing as one of his first responses to you was.......


Part Timers DO NOT get insurance at Target???????
40+ Hrs a week or NO Insurance.
So he lied to you right at the start.

Interesting - I just don't understand why he'd lie like that...it just doesn't make sense to me. Maybe he was working on commission or maybe they had an overstock of Canon stuff and they were trying to get rid of it...who knows.

[vandergus]

Glare isn't the best word - it's what you see when you're looking into a lens on display and you can see the reflection of the overhead lights on the glass. The Canon lenses looked like their coatings were lighter than the Nikon. He wasn't referring to the aperture but just the *look* of lenses and the reflections from the lights.

Wow. This will tell you absolutely nothing about lens performance. Do you have a local camera store you could go to. They might be a little more helpful. Or at least have a wider selection of models that you can get a feel for.

[natek313]

Originally Posted by WVCoalMiner

Well........
Maybe he is stretching the truth a bit seeing as one of his first responses to you was.......


Part Timers DO NOT get insurance at Target???????
40+ Hrs a week or NO Insurance.
So he lied to you right at the start.

Perhaps. Or, he purchased insurance privately and working at Target enables him to afford it.

Just a thought. Like Tyler said, it wouldn't seem to make much sense if he lied to him about something so insignificant and irrelevant.