
Nikon versus Canon: A Story of Technology Change - tomaskafka
https://medium.learningbyshipping.com/nikon-versus-canon-a-story-of-technology-change-45777098038c
======
jasode
Some more factors not mentioned in the blog:

\- Canon came out with Image Stabilization lenses first and had a 3 to 4 year
head start on Nikon. (Arguably, Nikon invented VR Vibration Reduction first
but they didn't beat Canon to market by making professional lenses
immediately.) This started the mass exodus of professionals to Canon and
caused the "sea of white lenses" you see at every sports event.[1]

\- Canon bet on in-house CMOS technology for sensors instead of Nikon's
strategy of partnering with Sony (and Kodak). Canon iterated faster on their
digital cameras. In 2002, Canon had a very well-received 1ds full-frame
digital while Nikon only offered a body for Kodak's horrible Dcs Pro 14n.
Nikon didn't have their own full-frame camera until 2007. In technology races,
5 years is an eternity. Although the most expensive camera is never the best-
selling product, any leadership position in the top-of-the-line camera can be
leveraged and its features can trickle down to the cheaper mass-market
cameras.

\- Canon was the bigger company with other profitable product domains outside
of cameras such as photocopiers, video camcorders, printers, etc. (E.g. Canon
made the imaging engine for both Apple LaserWriter and HP LaserJet.) This
allowed them to plow more capital and investments back into the camera
division. Nikon also some other domains such as scientific microscopes and
film scanners but they were less profitable.

In the film days, Nikon definitely had the perception of being the "Ferrari"
of cameras but the shift to digital allowed Canon to take the lead.

[1]
[https://www.google.com/search?q="telephoto+lenses"+sports+ev...](https://www.google.com/search?q="telephoto+lenses"+sports+events&source=lnms&tbm=isch)

~~~
mtgx
And both seem to be completely missing the smartphone revolution.

I think it would be great to see some Canon or Nikon tech in smartphone
cameras, but they should've tried to do it like 5 years ago. I'm not even sure
they'd have that much to offer smartphone makers at this point, for the same
reason Intel wouldn't have too much to offer to Qualcomm in the smartphone
market at this point - these companies already have all the expertise and
experience they need in the markets they already dominate.

Smartphones have already almost completely wiped out the compact camera and
"amateur" market for DSLRs. The predominance of ML accelerators in smartphones
and new innovations (like using multiple cameras, or light-field tech, which
Google may still use in future Pixels) is going to take smartphone cameras to
the next level in the next 10 years.

~~~
fiddlerwoaroof
I'm not sure this is true, you can only do so much with a camera small enough
to fit into a general purpose device.

~~~
ktta
It's not perfectly true, but it doesn't matter.

I bought a Nikon DSLR (Most expensive purchase till then), thinking that I
would take it around whenever I go out for fun trips.

I did take it out often. I had some great pictures with it. No problems, not
even today.

But after I got the Pixel 2 XL, the pain points with DSLRs are obvious for
regular shooting. They need to be charged, the SD card needs to be put in a
computer to transfer files, and they're bulky so carrying them is a problem.

So now, when I want to take a nice quick photo, I wish I had my DSLR, but I
take the photo with my phone anyway, and I don't think much about it.

I'm not saying DSLR are going to be completely irrelevant. But they're getting
so close to the ideal picture quality for normal photos (i.e. no shutter speed
or focus requirements) they're just fine. And the problem is they're getting
better.

They won't replace the full-frame cameras with have large ecosystems around
them, but they'll make people like me think twice before buying a DSLR.

~~~
komali2
Interesting, I took a totally different perspective - as easy as it is to take
a picture with my pixel 2, I get almost no satisfaction from it. No fun of
choosing a good fstop, framing the shot, etc. Editing it later in Lightroom...

The picture taking I do on my phone is very different I do on my dslr. As for
battery life maybe I'm not shooting enough but I've literally never "had" to
charge it. I don't even bother bringing the charger anymore, the damn battery
refuses to die. I just charge it after a trip or once a month at home. Fat SD
card means same for memory.

Are you shooting in raw and editing your photos?

~~~
ktta
>Are you shooting in raw and editing your photos?

Yep, I do the whole works. All of them in RAW, spending an hour or so editing
in Lightroom (with favorite presets), have a flickr (like every other DSLR
owner). But it stopped being fun after seeing that so many people do the same
'artistic' stuff, it doesn't feel like I'm doing something 'worthwhile'
anymore. Now I just want to take photos and videos with friends. I find them
more important.

I used to care about the right focus, shutter speed etc. But with a phone, if
you use the portrait mode, you get something like f/1.5, and if you don't, you
get something like f/18\. So that almost takes care of the focus problem for a
lot of cases.

When it comes to shutter speed, I use the high shutter speed when there are
faster moving objects. That's a problem with a phone, but with enough photos
taken quickly, one of them usually turns out good. People use low shutter
speed only for long exposure shots like nightsky, waterflow, etc. which isn't
a 'normal' photo.

Low light is one place I guess where a phone can't exactly do as well, but as
I said, it just needs to be good enough, and not perfect.

About the battery of DSLR, often I don't take it out anymore, and between
uses, the battery is so low that I have to charge it. So it leave it, and next
time, its pretty much dead. Poor maintenance, but it again ties into if it is
worth it.

~~~
ghaff
I still shoot with interchangeable lens cameras (both Fujifilm and Canon) but
I do use my iPhone more and more of the time. On a recent trip to Europe, I
had both my Fujifilm with a couple of lenses and my iPhone X. Looking through
my photos on Flickr, there are some that I obviously took with the XE-3 given
the low light conditions. But for many of the rest of my edited/curated
photos, I couldn't have told you which camera I used without looking at the
metadata. Probably if I blew things up big enough and really examined the fine
detail, but not with casual viewing at normal sizes.

------
abakker
Can I just say that what I really want is a mirrorless that is shaped more
like a pistol than a traditional camera?

I have a 5DSR and a bunch of lenses, and don’t get me wrong, it is a fantastic
camera...but, innovation in the form factor of cameras would be a welcome
change. The existing industrial design is overly informed by the constraints
of a roll of film, but, is not either the most ergonomic or the most stable
position to hold a camera. We could do much better if we’d give it up.

Small size mirrorless bodies really show what’s wrong with the current style,
too. They’re difficult to hold on to, and the buttons are virtually all dual
purpose. At least the 5D has a nice grip, but with any kind of telephoto it
becomes pretty awkward to stabilize.

Finally, with a “pistol format” camera, you can extend the viewfinder back
from the lens, which can let you keep the existing big lenses and sensors but
make an overall smaller package (the components move into the grip). This
shallow sensor-lens depth is the main impediment to putting full frame glass
and sensors into the standard small size mirrorless bodies. As has been cited
elsewhere in this thread, smaller glass with higher density sensors is not a
long term solution. Big glass does have a lot of advantages for high end
photographs.

~~~
coldtea
> _Can I just say that what I really want is a mirrorless that is shaped more
> like a pistol than a traditional camera?_

I can see how that would be great for taking pictures at airports and major
crowded events -- especially if one is black or middle-eastern...

Seriously, what would the improvement be? It would be tedious to hold pistol-
like, and more shaky than current designs. And it's not like it hasn't been
tried (e.g. old 8mm film cameras were like that).

> _As has been cited elsewhere in this thread, smaller glass with higher
> density sensors is not a long term solution._

It has already eclipsed bigger glass. And not just smaller glass, but the tiny
kind of glass in mobile phones (sub 1").

For most people, that's it, and bigger glass is only for specialists and
enthusiasts (trucks vs cars -- for most people the mobile camera is their car,
and pro cameras are trucks for limited people).

And of course it's only gonna get better -- an major mobile phone with like 1"
sensors (plus all the processing advancements inside due to the crazily better
than even a pro DSLR/mirroless processor) gonna wipe out what's remaining from
the compact market too.

~~~
abakker
A pistol grip is more comfortable and more stable to me, so, that is my
evidence. I was actually thinking of the RC car controllers or power tools.
Your hand is strong in that configuration vs a standard camera.

We seem to have fallen a long way as a society though that I can’t discount
your worry that the police will kill you for taking photos with an odd shaped
camera.

Specifically, though, I was talking about high end cameras. There are some
high capability cameras in bodies that really make them unpleasant to use. The
a7r in particular. Great results, but terrible ergonomics. And, there’s a
reason people still use canon lenses on Sony cameras.

I agree on mobile phones though, my iphoneX is where I take almost all non
critical photos. If only I had a flash sync I’d be in good shape.

~~~
coldtea
> _I was actually thinking of the RC car controllers or power tools. Your hand
> is strong in that configuration vs a standard camera._

For the former, it doesn't matter if you're a little shaky, and for the
latter, it's expected to be shaky (the power tool generates shake). So not
sure if those are the best examples for camera design based on that (and power
tools can tire your hands if hold for an extended period of time).

> _Specifically, though, I was talking about high end cameras. There are some
> high capability cameras in bodies that really make them unpleasant to use.
> The a7r in particular. Great results, but terrible ergonomics. And, there’s
> a reason people still use canon lenses on Sony cameras._

That I agree with, but I'm not sold on the pistol grip.

Perhaps if it also has a shoulder mount -- like video dslr pisto-like grips to
stabilize it.

~~~
abakker
Rifle grip would be nice. I’m certainly steadier with a rifle than a camera.
So much for not getting killed by the police though.

Try mounting a handle to your tripod mount once or twice. I think you’ll be
surprised how well it works. (Use a remote trigger in your left hand).

------
_ph_
In my eyes, over the decades both companies kept leapfrogging over each other.
With the T90, Canon probably made the most advanced non-AF SLR, only to
abandon the FD-mount. This was a very costy change, which paid of later on, as
it allowed Canon to start over without any legacy. Early on, Nikon had the
lead in DSLRs, but Canon was the first with a 35mm DSLR. Nikon took a long
time to go 35mm, but the D800 and D810 was a big step ahead with its 36mp
sensor, only very recently Canon exceeded that with ther 50mp version of the
5D.

The next important step for both companies will be the transition to
mirrorless technology. As µFT and the Sony A7/A9 are showing, mirrorless is
the next step in camera technology. It will be interesting to watch how Canon
and Nikon approach this transition. As both companies currently make their
money with SLRs, it is a risky step, but an inevitable one. If one of them
missteps in that transition, it means at least a big set back if not a
complete loss of their role in the camera market.

~~~
eslaught
For those of us who are only half paying attention, why is mirrorless an
inevitable step?

I would have said that the advantage in sensor size of 35mm DSLRs would give
them a long-lasting advantage over anything with a smaller sensor, even with
advances in that technology.

~~~
tass
Two very comparable cameras with the same sized sensor:
[http://camerasize.com/compare/#724,718](http://camerasize.com/compare/#724,718)

Sony's mirrorless camera is also more compact than SLR cameras with smaller
(APS-C) sensors:
[http://camerasize.com/compare/#724,708](http://camerasize.com/compare/#724,708)

They're also quieter (no mirror slap) and having an electronic viewfinder
allows you to see what will be recorded. For example, you can directly see the
effect of a longer exposure or higher sensitivity.

~~~
fooker
Their batteries last significantly less and the lenses tend to be bulkier than
equivalent DSLR lenses. This takes away most of the advantages.

~~~
khhh35575544
Video is superior on mirrorless though.

~~~
bigdubs
That's not because of the cameras being mirrorless; it's because (for Canon
anyway) they purposely gimp video on their DSLRs to get you to buy their Cine-
EOS cameras.

~~~
khhh35575544
Not working though is it? Mirrorless are making huge strides in video

~~~
fooker
Strides which do not result from them being mirrorless. You should understand
that the mirror does not get involved at all when doing video with a DSLR. So,
all of these 'strides' can and have been replicated in the next version of the
cameras.

~~~
khhh35575544
I'm not sure what your point is - it's mirrorless that have really pushed the
tech on here at least at the cheaper end of the market. It's my understanding
that Lumix G range for example has been widely adopted for video in a way that
SLR has not. Are you saying these users will defect to SLR with a new
generation? Can't really see why, since all that going SLR would do is
introduce some extra mechanics they don't need.

------
Jedd
In the Four Thirds, later Micro Four Thirds, world, Olympus and Panasonic
played out some of the familiar tropes between these two corporations --
except they (Oly & Pana) had already agreed on the sensor size and lens mount
electronics... so it was much less risky or painful to commit to one over the
other.

In general terms, Panasonic had the better motion video features, Olympus had
the better stills, but it was / is pretty fuzzy, and a closely matched feature
set.

One of my top five favourite blog posts ever is an impassioned rant [1] about
digital Full Frame sensors, originally published in 2008 before they became
generally affordable (but while they were still very much a fantasy for many
photographers who didn't _really_ understand why they wanted one). Updated
over the years, and still worth the read.

As someone entering the field _without_ a large collection of (by contemporary
standards) poorly designed, overweight, ill-suited lenses -- it was a less
complex decision to identify the path that most closely resembled an open
standard.

[1]
[http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secrets/FullFrameWars.html](http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secrets/FullFrameWars.html)

~~~
_ph_
The article is still quite valid. The sensor prices might have come down a bit
further than expected, but a full frame camera still carries a substantial
premium, especially when compared to µFT. But more important than the sensor
prices are the consequences for the lenses, if you compare the sensor formats.
The camera companies have solved the problems with vignetting and soft corners
by designing a whole set of new lenses[1]. So a 35mm sensor performs nicely
with modern lenses, but those lenses are quite expensive and most importantly,
vastly bigger and heavier than their ancestors. So while a 35mm system might
provide the maximum quality, for anyone with a budget, both financially and
transportation-wise, the µFT system is more in the spirit of analog 35mm
format, both size and performance wise, while the digital 35mm cameras drift
more into the classic medium format field, in performance but importantly also
price and size wise.

[1] Meanwhile Leica managed to bring their digital M cameras to 35mm, getting
excellent image quality even in the corners with a mix out of clever sensor
design and in-camera post processing.

~~~
petre
I used to dismiss Leica M as photo gear for Magnum photographers and rich
snobs, but then they began manufacturing excellent lenses for the µFT system
at more acceptable prices. If an M Summicron is 3.3k, the equivalent µFT lens
costs $500 - less than the Zeiss Tuit Sony E lenses, which got not so great
reviews.

~~~
CydeWeys
I assume this is the lens you're speaking of?
[https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/768816-REG/Panasonic_...](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/768816-REG/Panasonic_H_X025_Leica_DG_Summilux_25.html)

If so, it's sitting tied for the #1 spot of next lenses I'm getting, along
with the Sigma 30mm/f1.4. The biggest hole in my lens collection right now is
a fast portrait good bokeh prime. The Sigma is cheaper, and I like the
slightly longer focal length, but it's also bulkier since it's not truly a
native lens, and I suspect its image quality may not be as good. Do you have
the Leica, and how is it?

~~~
SourPatch
If you're into portraits, the Olympus 75mm/1.8 is one of the best M4/3 lenses
available.

~~~
Stratoscope
That is one of my favorite M4/3 lenses! (The others being the Olympus 60mm
f/2.8 macro and the Samyang/Rokinon 7.5mm fisheye.)

I have to show off a puppy portrait from the 75mm. Her name is Brownie, so
this is called Pumpkin Brownie:

[https://geary.smugmug.com/Pets/Dogs/i-dNMQW2v/A](https://geary.smugmug.com/Pets/Dogs/i-dNMQW2v/A)

------
slr555
There is a sales and marketing side to this story as well. Switching costs in
photography are quite high if you are invested in a system. Changing systems
means selling every lens you own at a greatly depreciated price and purchasing
new equivalents at full price. Canon wanted the pro sports market and Nikon
was deeply entrenched. 300mm, 400mm, and 600mm lenses that are der rigeur for
the sports pro (plus a few others like the 70-200mm) are far more expensive
than camera bodies. Canon heavily subsidized the switching costs for key
influential pros to get the ball rolling. These incentives were strategically
timed to coincide with some of the innovations mentioned in the article. Had
they not primed the pump and switched all there big teles to putty gray the
battle would have been much tougher.

As far as the Nikon vs Canon thing, I remember a Helmut Newton documentary
where a tourist hands him an instamatic camera to take a picture of the
tourist with the model. Newton obliges and they show the finished shot. Which
looks exactly like a Helmut Newton. It's not the hardware....

------
yladiz
I'm not sure how true this now, but a few years ago the idea was that in
general Canon had the edge (and it does have the marketshare) but Nikon was
better at low-light, non sports, and had somewhat better quality for the
price, whereas Canon was better as sports, video, and had a larger range of
lenses. This is why I chose a Nikon D7000 about 7 years ago. If I knew what I
knew about my preferences now, back then, I would have gone with something
lighter and smaller, like a Pentax or Olympus.

If I were to choose today, I'd go with a Sony mirrorless instead since that
seems to be where the market is going and Canon/Nikon are slow to catch up to
mirrorless cameras. The nicer Sony A series mirrorless cameras are perfect for
my use cases (I don't do sports, and generally like low light or underexposing
my photos, I'd like to have full frame, and I really prefer something light),
whereas fitting these criteria is difficult/not possible with Canon or Nikon,
primarily the competing lightness and full frame aspects.

~~~
ilovecars2
I just bought an A6000 mirrorless camera and love it! I’ve had it for a couple
of weeks and so far it’s been great. Low light shooting is excellent and 1080p
60FPS video is nice. I don’t care for the integrated WiFi so don’t use it.

~~~
culot
The a6000 is the value champion. It amazing that they can sell it for $600.

That you can get a Sony a7 for only $800 is likewise amazing. Such stellar
image quality for so little bank.

It'll be interesting to see Canon and Nikon enter the mirrorless camera space
in earnest. Hmm.

~~~
opencl
I bought a NEX-6 for ~$450 4 years ago and am shocked at the total lack of
improvement at that price bracket since then. Of course this was right after
the price dropped in response to the A6000. The A6000 is definitely nice but
actually has a few regressions compared to the NEX-6, with a lower-resolution
viewfinder and losing the electronic level.

------
influxed
Ease of use is what hooked me in the early 2000s with the Rebel, so I stayed
with it during the switch to digital SLR a few years later.

It's interesting that while autofocus is what captured a lot of the market,
Canon's current manual-focus lenses are what keep me firmly locked in.

Their TS-E line (tilt/shift) can't autofocus, yet is everything I want and
more from photography. They iterate more and have more to offer than Nikon's
equivalent lens line, PC-E (perspective control).

I use my phone to take pictures more often than my DSLR, but "DSLR equivalent"
or "DSLR quality" are just silly phrases for a phone until they can shift the
focal plane or have super telephoto ability.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_control](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_control)

~~~
vvanders
Yeah, to me Canon has the edge in lens library which really matters more than
the body(unless you're shooting sports).

Lenses like the 35/1.4, 85/1.2, 135/2, TS-E family and others just can't be
found else where(although some of the Zeiss stuff comes close).

~~~
blattimwind
I've heard similar comments about the 1.2 stop lenses before, but not one
person making them ever used them when they said it. In these cases it is
probably the "high end bias" at work: X makes a very good premium Y, therefore
I assume their low/mid-range Z is good as well. We see this frequently with
CPUs and GPUs: X has the performance crown, therefore for performance, buy X,
regardless of price segment.

~~~
vvanders
So the 85/1.2L is somewhat of a specialty lens(much like the TS-E series)
you'll find it's more used for portraits and the like.

I've rented it and it's a legitimately an incredible piece of glass(esp
considering the problems the 50/1.2L has), I just didn't shoot things enough
where I could justify laying out ~$2k for a single lens.

I do however own both the 35/1.4L and 135/2L which are both amazing lenses.
The 35L is wide enough to be incredibly versatile and the bokeh rendering is
_sublime_. The 135L has awesome reach and one of the fastest focusing lenses
short of the big white L lenses which cost 4-5x. Only the 85/1.2L and 200/2L
are better at obliterating backgrounds but they each have their own drawbacks.

I've also rented the 200/2L and that is also amazing(with a pricetag to match
at ~$5k) but Nikon has an equivalent so it's not much in the argument of Canon
vs Nikon.

~~~
blattimwind
I don't quite see the special thing about the 135, though? Nikon has had
excellent lenses in that range for a long time (105/2.5, the AF 105/2 and
135/2), I think almost every lens maker does.

~~~
vvanders
Well it's 50% the cost of the Nikon and looks like there's a fair number of AF
problems with the 135/2 DC.

Also, the 135 DC looks like it has really poor chroma aberration[1].

[1] [https://www.the-digital-
picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample...](https://www.the-digital-
picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-
Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=646&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0)

~~~
blattimwind
This is longitudinal aberration; visible even in the center, so the test chart
isn't actually in focus.

~~~
vvanders
No, that's chroma aberration(of which longitudinal is a type), the Canon 100/2
exhibits the exact same purple fringing on high contrast areas. I know because
it's what I moved from when I got my 135L.

If that was out of focus you'd see a clean transition from black->grey on the
edges and a lot more of the detail would be lost.

------
shawnz
This is mostly unrelated, but I've had a longstanding question about the
camera industry and maybe someone here will know the answer. Why do we keep
investing in DSLR technology when mirrorless is obviously superior? Is it just
a matter of professional photographers being hung up on old technology?

~~~
mozumder
It's because SLRs are superior to mirrorless, since there are no advantages of
a mirrorless camera over SLR tech.

SLRs don't have the latency that mirrorless cameras have, which is important
for sports & journalism. If you're shooting still-life, then mirrorless is
probably fine.

SLRs also have better phase-detect AF sensors available to them. Mirrorless
phase-detect sensors are primitive, and eat up image sensor area, so they
can't be as sensitive.

Also, mirrorless eats up batteries, since you now have to power the sensor and
viewfinder full-time.

Really, companies need to stop making mirrorless cameras, since they're not
useful. I don't know why anyone would buy them.

~~~
shawnz
> there are no advantages of a mirrorless camera over SLR tech.

Here are a few I can think of.

\- Less moving parts, so increased reliability.

\- Possibility of faster shutter time (assuming the autofocus issues with
mirrorless can be resolved).

\- No high precision SLR mechanism means more engineering budget to spend on
better sensors, etc. Thus producing a better camera at the same price.

\- Viewfinder shows a truer representation of the final image since it's
reading from the same data as what will ultimately be captured.

~~~
rangibaby
> Less moving parts, so increased reliability.

I use Nikon and haven't heard of a mirror failing on its own. Ever! Dead
cameras due to some electronic part that got wet or desoldered OTOH...

> No high precision SLR mechanism means more engineering budget to spend on
> better sensors, etc

I don't think the way the reflex mirror works has changed for ~50 years.

~~~
shawnz
Furthermore (sorry, can't edit my post): A mirrorless camera would require
strictly less electronic parts than a DSLR. So your experience with
electronics failures supports the idea that a mirrorless design could be more
reliable.

------
neom
imo Canon created and then heavy push into a digital prosumer market. The
Canon 300D Kit was priced perfectly to capture mid-market, many in that mid-
market went on to become the pro market. My college cohort was the first
through the newly created “Digital Imaging and Technology” program(at art
school in canada), by the time we graduated (2006), most people had switched
to Canon because the CA / Lens Sharpness / AF became demonstratively better.
From there it was a natural path to follow 30D > 5D > 5DmkII. Additionally,
the Canon prime lineup at the time was fantastic.

------
flavio81
As a camera nerd owner of many of the cameras mentioned in the article: Canon
F-1, New F-1; Nikon F, F2, and F3, plus some Canon EOS cameras, I can plainly
say this article is ill-researched and downright silly in places. It
thoroughly ignores a big part of the Canon-Nikon war, which started even
before the Nikon F was introduced(1959), and attributes -like a fanboy-
inventions like "electronic metering" or "Autofocus" to Nikon, where the truth
is that neither Nikon nor Canon were involved in inventing such stuff.

Comparing the F-1 to the Nikon F by comparing pictures of how big the system
looks? That's the most idiotic camera comparison i've ever seen!!

The story of Canon vs Nikon is very long, starts in the mid-50s, and in truth
is a three-actors story: It is really the story of Asahi Optical (Pentax) vs
Nikon vs Canon. For Canon was the direct competition to Nikon in the
rangefinder era (1950s-early 1960s), and Nikon was direct competition to the
established Pentax in the SLR era. For most of the early 60s, photojournalists
either preferred the Nikon F (the "system") or the Pentax (spotmatic and early
models).

Basically, Nikon(Nippon Kogaku) was an optical manufacturer and Canon was a
small shop which did the big feat of building the first japanese 35mm camera.
So this first camera was first sold with Nikon lenses, since Canon(Kwanon)
didn't manufacture lenses.

Then, all through the 50s, Nikon brought a series of very sophisticated
rangefinder cameras (& lenses) and Canon brought some very high quality
rangefinder lenses. The two rangefinder systems were already competing (!)

Canon, in the early 60s, considered rangefinders the better system and didn't
think SLR cameras were to be strong competition, that's why in 1959 they
released a half-baked effort at a SLR, the Canonflex, just to have something
to show off when the Nikon F was released. The Canonflex wasn't even released
with a wide angle lens, which shows how little commitment Canon had to SLR
cameras.

Meanwhile in the early 60s, Asahi Optical (Pentax) already had very refined
SLR cameras and a whole array of SLR lenses. The first japanese wideangle lens
for a SLR was released by Asahi, not Canon nor Nikon.

The Nikon F was the first _japanese_ SLR "system" camera and this head-start
made them get more customers than any competitor (save Pentax). The 1971 Canon
F-1 camera was the culmination of an attempt that started by Canon in the
mid-60s to create a SLR that competed frontally with Nikon. This attempt
started first by Canon massively increasing the R&D in camera lenses,
culminating in a series of many "firsts" in japanese optics (during the
1965-71 period). Part of this long-term strategy was creating lenses of state-
of-the-art performance, which often beat the (then current) Nikkor lenses at
magazine reviews. An example is the Canon FL 19/3.5R (1965) which was
thoroughly superior to the Nikon offering, another example was the FL-F
fluorite telephoto lenses (1968). Another example was the FL 55/1.2 aspheric,
the first production standard lens with aspheric surfaces. This was obviously
a preparation for the release of the F-1 camera.

The F-1 camera was thoroughly superior to the Nikon F and a formidable rival
of the (introduced in 1971 as well) Nikon F2. It got accepted and used by
professionals, however Nikon had entered that market first. Even today the
high value of the F-1 in the used market is an indication of the esteem this
camera is held by the collectors.

The New F-1 camera (1981) was the direct competitor of the Nikon F3 as well,
but that's another story!!

~~~
anta40
>> The F-1 camera was thoroughly superior to the Nikon F and a formidable
rival of the (introduced in 1971 as well) Nikon F2

I've some old Canon film gears: a Canonet and Canon P. All of my film SLRs are
Nikons and Minoltas.

Let me see this F-1 fellow :)

------
ubernostrum
I'm supposing that this comes up in the context of people complaining about
Apple. It's interesting to see an example of a company which basically chained
itself to backwards compatibility and a sort of focus-group dedication to what
"pro" users wanted, and ended up losing the "pro" market as a result (to a
company that willfully broke compatibility and developed something nobody
seemed to be asking for).

~~~
tonyedgecombe
I've wondered for a while if we worry too much about backwards compatibility,
it must be a huge burden for companies like Microsoft to deal with. Meanwhile
Apple seems to almost relish breaking old API's with each new release of macOS
and it doesn't seem to hurt them.

~~~
_ph_
With cameras of course lack of backwards compatibility means breaking
compatiblity with existing lenses. A complete "pro" set of lenses is worth
thousands if not tens of thousands. So this is a step to be taken carefully.
When Canon retired the FD system, a lot of people were unhappy, certainly
hurting Canons business at that time (incidentally, that caused me to swith
from Canon FD to Nikon F when getting my first AF-SLR). In the long time, that
big step has paid off for Canon.

------
nayuki
The history of Nikon vs. Canon reminds me of the following stories.

* In the "System Compatibility" section, this talks about how Canon threw out backward compatibility in 1987 (to the chagrin of existing customers), but gained an all-electronic lens mount that eased future expansion and achieved better compatibility in the long run: [https://kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm#comp](https://kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm#comp)

* In the "Introduction" section, this talks about how autofocus was superior on the early Canon products than the early Nikon products: [https://kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm](https://kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm)

* Nikon's insanely complicated matrix of body-lens compatibility: [https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm](https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm) . Whereas on Canon, simply "if it fits, it works".

------
robotmay
My dad always shot Nikon (until recently when he picked up a smaller Fuji
thing), but I personally have always preferred Canon for two reasons:

1: Variety of lenses. When I was into photography ~10 years ago, you could buy
4 different Canon 70-200mm lenses; an F4, F4 w/ image stabilisation, an F2.8,
and an F2.8 w/image stabilisation. This meant that they had a great bit of
glass within multiple different price ranges, and it made it much easier to
get into their ecosystem.

2: The menu system on Canon cameras is really logical, for me. Nikon menus
have always confused the hell out of me.

~~~
Obi_Juan_Kenobi
Does Canon do the "U" modes like some Nikon cameras?

I know people give Ken Rockwell a lot of shit, and often with reason, but he's
so so right that those are a game changer. I don't have to think, I can just
move to "U1" or "U2" for my most common shooting scenarios and I'm done.
There's also the customizable "Fn" button that gives quick access to a custom
menu. Nikon cameras that feature this have easily the best UI in the industry.

~~~
kooshball
Not familiar with Nikon but it sounds like this is the custom settings mode.
This exist in the Canon world as Custom shooting mode. My very old 40D has
C1/C2/C3 which are exactly for this. I agree theyre extremely useful as I stay
on these mode 90%+ of the time.

~~~
petepete
Nikon pro bodies don't have a custom setting selector on the top but has five
'profiles' that you can select using the __i __button, each bank contains a
full config.

I don't really use them except for having a 'basic' setup that reenables focus
by half pressing the shutter button in case I hand my camera to someone who
doesn't use back button focus.

------
rb808
Its kinda like battling about who's best as the whole boat sinks. Its rare to
see a compact camera these days and SLRs are slowly disappearing too. I know
I've stopped using mine. There will always be pros and some enthusiasts, but I
can only see pain for these companies Canon & Nikon will probably limp along
but Pentax, Ricoh, Olympus, Fuji will end up like Kodak.

------
FreekNortier
No science behind it but I just like the way a Nikon looks and the way it
feels when I hold it.

------
FiveSquared
What change? Canon or Nikon’s DSLR’s have been dropping due to a lack o
“breakthroughs” in the industry. If they made a camera with a “smart” setting
that adapts to the current conditions, make it easy to use, make it easy to
sync with smartphones, and price it at 400-500 dollars, it could be a must-
have for Instagram addicts.

~~~
CydeWeys
Many cameras do now have the ability to sync with a smartphone over Bluetooth
or WiFi, it's just unrefined and drains battery life. My camera, the Olympus
OM-D E-M5 II, can do this with nothing more than an app install on
Android/iOS. The battery drain is problematic, though, and it doesn't work
unless you shoot in JPG or RAW+JPG! That's right, it won't auto-convert images
on the fly just when requested. Since I shoot RAW only for higher burst
performance, that means that I don't use this photo, and wait until I get home
before posting anything.

~~~
petepete
Nikon's SnapBridge app is an abomination. There was a recent upgrade that
improved things, but it's still unreliable, even for providing the camera with
GPS data.

