Are Nikon and Canon actually better than other traditional photo brands?
I mean, we all have met at least once a person who claims that another traditional brand -basically Olympus, Pentax or even Minolta-, were on par oe even better than the two big names…
I've heard for example that Minolta did the technological advances before any other brand, and that Olympus and Pentax manufactured smaller and better built cameras than Nikon and Canon…
The point is if these die hard fans of the brands mentioned above have facts to support their words or they are being subjective with these expressions?
No.
I prefer Nikon and Canon because they are the biggest which makes them incredibly easy to get accessories like batteries for just about anywhere in the world.
I also think that when anyone says any particular brand is better than another, it is a sure thing that they don't know what they are talking about.
Canon seems to be the camera of choice in my group of contacts and for different reasons I think the ease of use and the attachments is part of it. I had a HP and I really liked it but it was one of the first digital cameras out on the market and the shutter speed was very slow
I got another HP which was a lot more money and more advanced and it chewed up batteries and finally crashed so I kind of like the canon I have now which works fine and I can actually do what I want to with it.
Most pros now use Nikon or Canon. And these two companies cover something like 80% of the market.
You heard wrong. Olympus has a bab rep on repairs.
I know two pro photographers. One uses Nikon, the other uses Canon.
Yes and no
What sets Nikon and Canon from the rest is that they have from 70 to 75 current lenses available for their systems, are the only two who make professional grade dSLR's, professional services and that are supported by Lightroom tethering tool and have the better low light performance in most of their cameras.
Since no one really knows if they will ever need such equipment, some people go ahead and by Nikon or Canon gear, giving themselves the most options in the future.
Here is a link that shows the sensor performance of all current and some past dSLR cameras including medium format
http://www.dxomark.com/...or-Ratings
You can use this to refine your choices as you venture into the world of fully adjustable digital cameras.
You can check Nikon and Canon to see specifically how their cameras compare
People buy Nikon & Canon gear because their lenses, accessories and repairs & service for them are widely available.
Sony, Pentax, Olympus etc all make great cameras, too.
And don't forget Leica, Hasselblad, Mamiya, blah blah blah
The "Canon is better than Nikon" and "Canon sucks, get a Nikon" and "I wouldn't touch a Canon" people are just clueless.
Remember, the most important aspect of photography is the photographer.
No, they just spend more on advertising than they do on research and development, unlike Pentax, Olympus, even Fuji, Sony and Panasonic.
To this day Pentax is by far the cheapest system to buy into, has the most backwards compatibility for their lenses of any manufacturer, any K mount lens made since 1973 will work as designed, all will be image stabilised as it's built into the camera body not the lens and even their entry level cameras have good build quality and all the functions you will ever need. They only bring new models out when there's a reason, usually a technological reason, to.
Thanks for the link fhotoace, interesting that the APS sensored Pentax K5 is rated higher than the full frame senored Nikon D3 and the Canon 5D Mklll which cost 5 times the price.
According to this survey Pentax DSLR users are more satisfied with their cameras than Nikon and Canon owners
https://pictures.dealer.com/jdpower/5e86fe660a0d02b700ea3cdfed392492.pdf
No, they just have bigger advertising budgets.