Nikon or Canon ...

[DandyA]

just wondering which camera you'd prefer for photographing snooker ... here's a couple of reviews to help you decide ...

although they are not age-restricted on YouTube, I'd like to suggest that parental guidance is advised, these videos may be deemed not suitable for all ages ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkg7pAxi4gE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adQHzNfvzFM

[kyofai]

both brand of camera should be capable of taking the snooker pictures you want. it all depends on how much money you want to spend on the right gear( the body and the len that suit your purpose). and do you know how to utilize the camera. its like giving you a john parris ultimate won't make you make century instantly.

[mythman69]

I am not sure he is looking at the cameras . . .

Could be wrong though.



What sort of cue is that at 8-51 in the second video?

[damienlch]

Off topic but does anyone know the snooker club seen in the videos?

[ferret]

Canon, I have attached one of my images at full resolution for you to see.

Both cameras are as good as each other apart form low light performance which Canon just has the edge over Nikon, the difference you will find in the lens's

The image attached was taken with a Canon f2/8 300mm L IS USM, I have sent a link to this thread to another Snooker photographer who used to use Nikon, and I am sure he will put up a image taken with his Nikon for you to compare but you will see that the Nikon image is grainy, this is because you have to up the ISO speed to get a good exposure, you will also notice vignetting and colour fringing on the Nikon images this is basically down to the crap lens quality.

Only Canon make White lens's so when you watch any sporting event count how many white and black lens's you can see, bet you white far outweighs black.

Canon lens was £5K+ - http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-c...-lens/p1522209

IMG_6775.jpg

[ian_k]

canon, but with the right lens

[ADR147]

£5k for a lens - bloody hell that makes cues look cheap!

[itsnoteasy]

Have to agree nothing between the cameras, but Canon L series lenses, are the best.

[ferret]

It is all about the lens and not the camera, a decent photographer can use any camera, the camera I use is 5 years old, never seen the need to update it as it does what I need it to do, you got to be mad if you go and spend thousands every few years updating just for a extra few frames a second or better ISO performance.

I just looked at the second hand value of my camera and it is £220 and if it broke I would probably buy the same camera again, where my brother just spend £2k on the new Canon 5D mkIII but he got crap lens's apart form the 70-200mm f/4-5.6 l USM he purchased from me a few years back, the shame is that he could of kept his old 50D camera and taken the same pictures but spent the £2k on a decent lens or even 2 decent lens's for doing what he wants to do.

[haggishunter]

For me it's canon, there's probably not much in it though, apart from the fact that every single thing is back to front on them, even the direction the zoom rings on the lens go a different way, i know about a dozen folk into photography and interestingly the 3 people who do it professionally do use nikons, but I also know a couple of folk who do videography as their fulltime job and they use Canon's, I started with a Canon eos 500d 3 years ago and because I bought into their lens family it would have cost me a lot of money to try nikon as i have 3 good lens', I just upgraded to the canon eos 7d and I am absolutely chuffed to bits with it, probably the best thing I have ever bought!

[itsnoteasy]

What you got Ferret., 450d ?think they make around that price now.