Can someone with a good knowledge of photography summarize the various camera companies in terms Sup Forums can understand?
Who is the Dell of cameras? The HP? The Apple?
What is the basic difference between
>Canon
>Nikon
>Sony
Which one is the one for hipster faggots, and which one is the one for neckbeard autists?
Please take /guts/ and /bst/ with you.
also
>/p/
I would like a reply tonight please, thx.
Yes.
Canon = Intel
Nikon = AMD
Is this fair?
The Lenovo pf /p/ is Pentax and you should buy everything from them.
You got it backwards, Nikon D series are better than Canon Rebel series.
Apple = Leica
Do they make very expensive cameras that go for next to nothing on the used market?
>>Canon
An excellent camera company. They have the most vibrant 3rd-party market as well.
>>Nikon
The world's best glass and lens company. They make cameras as a way to sell glass.
>>Sony
A better electronics manufacturer than either of the above. But then, the above buy a lot of parts from Sony, so it's not like you're really missing out.
It seems you were not kidding. Just looking at a few ebay auctions there are far more Pentax cameras with impressive capabilities for less than $100 than anything I saw from Canon or Nikon.
Professionals treat camera bodies as kind of fleeting/ephemeral.
The only real effect the body has is to lock you into a lens system (and to a lesser extent, accessories). $2000 for a camera body pales in comparison to what the same person will pay in lenses. Bodies come and go, glass is forever.
>Pentax cameras with impressive capabilities for less than $100
....
if that's your budget, you should be hunting for point and shoot, not DSLR. Or did OPs pic just mislead?
That ain't how we do things around here.
>That ain't how we do things around here.
'that'? what exactly is 'that'?
Oh, I should be giving crap advice and baiting OP into wasting money? Gotcha.
>which one is the one for neckbeard autists?
canon, because of hacking options and more lens options
>the apple
leica
What is the Thinkpad of DSLR/Digital cameras?
"That" is looking to use professional grade hardware when possible, since on the used market it will almost always beat new consumer equipment in performance and flexibility. And it lasts a lot longer.
I can't say if it is true for cameras or not, since it seems cameras hold their value a little better.
canon 5d mark 1
>Canon/Nikon
nVidia of the field, overpriced with little to no benefits of their competition
>Sony
AMD of the field, Less known for quality but actually suppresses the nVidia in more than one aspect.
>Fuji/Olympus
No PC counterpart, probably Intel or AMD APU?
>Leica
Apple, overpriced shit
By thinkpad I meant cheap old faithful in plentiful supply, and I can't seem to find any 5d mark 1 on ebay it's not in plentiful supply.
>"That" is looking to use professional grade hardware when possible, since on the used market it will almost always beat new consumer equipment in performance and flexibility. And it lasts a lot longer.
Oh, sure. But OP is saying 'OMG so cheap' and hasn't looked at lenses. The bodies do not hold value. But OP buying a D3 for $100 is pretty silly when he doesn't realize the lenses cost 10-100x that. And lenses *do* hold their value. You have to go back to MF in the 60s and 70s to find top of the line optics that are bargains.
...and cheap lenses aren't going to give you better results than an iPhone.
plenty of people would say Canon EOS Rebel to that.
try 5d classic
OP hasn't said anything about price.
I assumed was OP.
I'm all for using top of the line old equipment. I don't own a lens newer than 1978. But drooling over bodies ain't the way this is done. I'm locked into Nikon, I wish I wasn't.
I have a EOS Rebel S II film SLR with a 35-80mm lens.
If I buy just a Canon camera body off of ebay the lens from this should fit it, right?
Yea, that is the idea of Rebel.
Get lens collection and then just change body.
EOS lenses stright up work on EOS bodies AFAIK.
I really really wish the Clapistani entry-level Canons weren't dubbed "Rebel" it's so fucking tacky.
They're not outside the US.
The Rebel T5 is called 1200D.
Not like it matters anyway you should be getting a Nikon D3300, if you're in that budget range.
Seems like there are a lot of EOS 10Ds for sale on ebay that would work with my lens.
Would this be a pretty good choice to start off?
>OP buying a D3 for $100
That's a D1, bruh. I'd like to see where you're getting a D3 for $100.
>Leica
>Overpriced
Find a better 50 and 35mm lenses anywhere at any price point for full frame and come back telling me that Leica are overpriced.
one minor thing, 10D doesn't support EF-S lenses only EF.
if I understand correctly EF-S lenses are made specially for APS-C censor (not full frame)
Sigma, now what?
Cameras:
Canon: Intel
Nikon: AMD
If you're into cheap camera (
Voigtlander
what about film cameras?
What a retard! you know nothing about cameras fag!
Sony makes the best sensors in my experience
When it comes to camcorders, canon is fucking awful. Their microphones are worse than 2 cent mics
>What is the basic difference between
>>Canon
>>Nikon
They are the same.
Only difference is Nikon uses Sony sensors, which are currently superior to Canon sensors. (but that could easily change in the future)
>>Sony
Technologically more advanced, but they seem incapable of making a usable interface.
You have to be an uber nerd to prefer Sony over Canon/Nikon.
Also Sony has no lenses.
Just don't fall for the mirrorless meme.
No because these are cameras and Nikon isn't garbage.
Either that or the Nikon D300s
I prefer:
Nikon: Coca-cola
Canon: Pepsi
Because Nikon is the "original", but Canon is the more successful copy.
former /p/ here, wouldn't advise visiting.
>Leica
Obnoxiously expensive, even in the world of cameras. Near-perfect optics command obscene prices, while their sensors are usually...very good. Easy to compare to apple, but the reality is Leica is far more of a "luxury company" than Apple, who will at least sell you a decent computer for 3k.
>Canon
The widest range of lenses available, with quality ranging from "yuck" to "perfect". Canon has a variety of fool frame cameras available, with a wider selection than any other major manufacturer. However, Canon's sensors are all developed in-house, and have always struggled with low light/high ISO. Easily compared to HP, you can get anything you want for a slight premium as long as your expectations are kept in check.
>Pentax
The tech equivalent of the Radeon 480: everyone was waiting for Pentax, a company that offered competitive, quite good product at a lower price, to compete in the enthusiast market with the K1. Is the k1 just a cheaper 970, released too late? We'll have to wait for the full benchmarks.
It literally makes no difference if your decision is between canon and nikon.
Nikon - Indestructible for the Pro Line
Canon - Compatible with Nikon if slightly less durable for Pro line
Sony - Mish mash of consumer tier products with good electronics but not that durable
>Nikon
A viable competitor to Canon, usually with better sensor tech they bought from Sony. Selection of modern lenses is somewhat smaller, but they can easily go toe-to-toe in both APS-C format "mom cameras" as well as the prosumer dick waving market, and win in low-light every time. Canon's newest fuckhuge resolution DSLRs looked like they were poised to give Nikon a run for their money, but it turns out those are plagued with low-light problems and manufacturing issues too. Easiest comparison would be to Dell.
>Phase One
The company that puts together the render farms that Pixar uses. Most expensive, and produce the best-resolved images in its price point (which it really only shares with Hassy/ studio Pentax cameras) as long as you're in a controlled studio environment.
>Hasselblad
The iphone division of apple, made the camera that went on the moon and rode the subsequent tide of dickwaving into the present day, where they make studio cameras at obscene prices, a place where they really don't have to compete, people will buy 'em anyway.
>Sony
The plucky new imaging company that inherited Minolta's expertise, currently makes sensors for Nikon and its own, near-night vision cameras and cinema setups. Like Tesla, many people will hype their products up like the second coming, but real-world issues with autofocus (the mirrorless meme strikes again) should serve to temper your expectations. Still, they can sell you something nobody else can.
>the apple of cameras
leica
>difference between companies
canon have cheap used lenses but shitty sensors (or maybe let me rephrase, decent sensors, but not even nearly as good as modern nikons)
modern nikons have proper sensors but it's usually more expensive system when you just want to do your casual nice photos
sony lens ecosystem is meh, sensors are good
you think pepsi is more successful?
someone has never left their own country
Official camera brand ranking:
God tier:
Phase One
Hasselblad
You're awesome....you failed miserably...but you're awesome tier:
Pentax/Ricoh
Sigma
Samsung
Great tier:
Nikon
Canon
Avoid the gear and avoid its users tier:
Sony
Good Goy tier:
Leica
k-30
>Fuji
More or less succeeded Leica as the company who sells That Good Camera You Fit in Your Pocket. They have their own ILC-system with a few lenses, nowhere near as many as M4/3. Slightly more expensive but with excellent color reproduction, low-light performance, and optics, they're pretty deece. Nvidia I guess, because they release expensive, incremental upgrades on a regular basis that you can avoid.
>Panasonic + BMCC
The apple of the early 2000's, everyone who's interested in these cameras is a "director". Realistically, they offer great capabilities and features not seen in this price bracket, as long as you're not taking stills. Use the smaller m4/3 sensor format exclusively because mirrorless lel.
>Olympus
Mirrorless lel. With panasonic, founder and standard bearer of the micro four-thirds sensor format. Autofocus could use work, but their cameras are very cheap if you wait a few years and are nice for what you pay. Like Lenovo, inherited a legacy from an analog era and proceeded to make pretty deece products for what they are.
Can we please stop comparing Apple to Leica?
Apple would never sell an iPhone without an LCD screen.
Also every nigger in the hood owns Apple products now.
Leica is more like Lamborghini: you'll probably never own one and you should be glad.
What is this mirrorless thing you talk about?
BONUS ROUND: CAMERA SOFTWARE
>Adobe
Haven't offered a meaningful upgrade since the clinton administration. Raw support extends to canon and nikon, good luck having "blue" read as "magenta" on your nice pictures you filthy swine, but please put $100 into the development jar every month ;)
>Phase one
CaptureOne has great raw support, but fuck if the interface isn't awful.
>RawTherapee
Quite good, and FOSS. I forgot why I don't use it but there certainly was a reason.
film
>tfw wanting to buy a nikon d750
>mfw the fucking prices keep on rising
Leica M7 with Leica Lenses
This
But in addition for Sony.
Sony's mirrorless cameras are High-end shit, even if they look like toys, they're good shit...
And the mirrorless body allows for you to buy an adapter and throw literally any fucking lens on them.
Can confirm. Bought a Passive Nikon and Active Cannon Adapter for not much at all (Passive: No Electronics support - Manual Focus\Exposure | Active - Opposite)
now you can stock up on glass and say you want to switch down the line to a Canon or Nikon, you'll have lenses, or if you stick with the sony, You've got a shit load of lenses.