Canon v. Nikon

[ccpickre]

Can anyone expain the pros and cons of getting a Canon over a Nikon, or Vice versa?

It woul dmake explaining what to think about when shooting and buying new equipment so much easier for my phtoographers at the school paper, and I'll be honest, I don't know Nikon that well.

[davemj98]

There is a small thread already posted on that subject here; try the search thingy.:wink

[Andy]

There is a small thread already posted on that subject here; try the search thingy.:wink
http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1134620

[Andy]

http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1134620
So, this was a couple years ago :D

NOW? Nikon has really got some impressive stuff. The D3 is awesome, amazing at ISO 6400, 12000, 25000 even!

The Nikkor 14-24 new zoom has got me drooling.

And the D300 is a great camera, too.

You have to choose, really.

For me, Landscapes and Portraiture, I prefer the Canon 1Ds Mark III. If I shot sports and or PJ or wildlife, I'd give the Nikon a serious, serious look.

[ccpickre]

So, this was a couple years ago :D

NOW? Nikon has really got some impressive stuff. The D3 is awesome, amazing at ISO 6400, 12000, 25000 even!

The Nikkor 14-24 new zoom has got me drooling.

And the D300 is a great camera, too.

You have to choose, really.

For me, Landscapes and Portraiture, I prefer the Canon 1Ds Mark III. If I shot sports and or PJ or wildlife, I'd give the Nikon a serious, serious look.

I was wondering more about comparing the sensors, auto focusing, features, noise reduction. But I'll give the other thread a look.

Thanks :D

[ccpickre]

Ultimately what I've heard is Nikon is more affordable, but only because they have more diverse lineups. Where as Canon has 4 series (400, 40, 5 and 1's).

I've heard Nikon tends to be greener in shadows, and the ISOs aren't as noise free.

But Canons are of course more expensive, and I think I heard Nikons tend to be a little faster for auto focusing.

But this is all speculation from other phtoogs. I shoot Canon religiously (I would probably be disowned by Pathfinder if I had asked for Nikon stuff :D) so I only really know Canon.

[BPerron]

With the introduction of the d300 and the d3 nikon is now back in the market...

Canon rules the high ISO and sharpness still, even comapred to the d3...other then that I think nikon is way better with everything else...

This is why I will be getting a canon 5d for landscape and tripod shots and a nikon d300 for every other type of shooting...

[Tee Why]

In all honesty, putting aside the pro grade bodies like D3 or the 1D series most won't buy and looking at the consumer grades stuff, I'd say there isn't that much difference.

I shoot with Canon's and have a small amount of experience with Nikons but having used Nikon D40, D200, and D300, I think Nikon's feel better in the hand than comparable Rebel, 40D, and the 5D.

I still think among the consumer grade bodies, Canon tends to have less noise at higher ISO. Especially if you shoot in RAW. I remember the colors from the Nikno d50 looking so much more vibrant than Canon's but this is easily fixed in post processing. Again, if you shoot in JPEG, turning up the saturation and contrast may fix this as well.

Lens wise, I'm not too familiar with the Nikon glass, but I'd assume that they offer similar line ups with advantage going back and forth depending on specific application and what not.

Personally, I don't think it'll make that much of a difference. I'd go more at a price point and any specific lenses/accessories you are looking at and go from there.

[tsk1979]

Canon is better than Nikon, Period.
:gun2:gun2
Let the flames begin :rofl:rofl

[Harryb]

Can anyone expain the pros and cons of getting a Canon over a Nikon, or Vice versa?

It would make explaining what to think about when shooting and buying new equipment so much easier for my phtoographers at the school paper, and I'll be honest, I don't know Nikon that well.

It isn't a Nikon V. Canon anymore. The offerings from Sony, Pentax, Okympus, Fuji, and Sigma are also outstanding cameras. There is no objectively better camera. The major differences are subjective and vary according to the whimsy and prejudices of the individual shooters.

You can shoot a scene with each of the various DSLRs and in the end you would not be able to tell which camera took which shot.

[Davidoff]

It isn't a Nikon V. Canon anymore. The offerings from Sony, Pentax, Okympus, Fuji, and Sigma are also outstanding cameras. There is no objectively better camera. The major differences are subjective and vary according to the whimsy and prejudices of the individual shooters.

You can shoot a scene with each of the various DSLRs and in the end you would not be able to tell which camera took which shot.


It probably has more to do with handling than with image quality these days, I always found the Nikons MUCH more confortable to hold and I always felt the controls are much nicer. And I use a D70s, the D300 is just amazing in this regard ( I'm not even mentioning image quality ).


rant time-

Another thing that gets annoying sometimes is the Canon L thing, they get huge praise, as if they're the only high quality lens, when Nikon has lens that are just as good or better, but because they don't have a special letter or red ring, people don't pay attention.

- rant time over

[pathfinder]

Ultimately what I've heard is Nikon is more affordable, but only because they have more diverse lineups. Where as Canon has 4 series (400, 40, 5 and 1's).

I've heard Nikon tends to be greener in shadows, and the ISOs aren't as noise free.

But Canons are of course more expensive, and I think I heard Nikons tend to be a little faster for auto focusing.

But this is all speculation from other phtoogs. I shoot Canon religiously (I would probably be disowned by Pathfinder if I had asked for Nikon stuff :D) so I only really know Canon.


Price is not really a major difference - some Canon lenses are higher, some Nikon lenses are higher (in cost).

I agree with Andy, the D3 and the D300 are fantastic cameras, that I would love to shoot with. I shoot Canon because I already own Canon lenses and flashes. The new Nikon 12-24 is getting great praise and I wish I could use it also.

But Harry is right, today, the major differences between Nikon and Canon grows smaller and the ability of the user is still the dominant factor.

Learn to use what you own to its ver best and you will make fine images, whether Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Sony etc.

I enjoy using a point and shoot frequently.

[claudermilk]

Between Nikon & Canon these days, it's gotten to individual preference. Which philosophy of controls meshes better (more button driven or more menu driven respectively), which camera sits in the hand better, which specific set of specs meets the photograper's needs best. Both have excellent glass--recall that Nikkor glass was considered the top for a very long time before Canon caught up.

For the other manufacturers, while the body capabilites are closing in on the top dogs, there is still a much larger gap with compatible accessories. Both Nikon & Canon have extensive lines of gear which is supported by a large third party base of support. The others don't have this as much, particularly in non-OEM choices.

[ziggy53]

It's honestly hard to find a recent dSLR from "any" manufacturer that is a complete dud.

Cameras are just tools, and SLR type cameras are very versatile because they are part of a "system". Consider the complete system when making a choice, unless you have a specific project with a budget large enough to allow specialized purchases or rentals.

I do find that Nikon cameras tend to have a layout reminiscent of older film SLR cameras. The Canon 1D series has a layout that makes a lot of sense when you become familiar with it (although it is similar to the Canon 1V pro film series). The entry and mid-level Canon cameras are different still. I have not found a single camera that I could not become familiar with in short order, and I'm not "that" special. I really don't think there is a camera layout that is terribly unusable because it would not last in the current free market.

I continue to produce interesting (to me) images with both a Minolta DiMage A2 advanced digicam and a FujiFilm F30 consumer digicam.

Learn to use what you have and grow yourself into what you "need", according to the tasks at hand. Try to resist the "I could be so much better if I only had ..." mentality.

[Seefutlung]

The entry level Nikon cannot autofocus all Nikkor lenses.

All of Canon cameras will autofocus all Canon lenses that autofocus.

All but the most expensive Nikon cameras (D3 & D300) use an inferior CCD sensor.

All Canon cameras use the superior CMOS sensor.

That being said ( ... I hate that phrase), at photos sized 8x10 and smaller and at ISO of 400- ... you won't be able to distinguish between a Canon and a Nikon images (toss a bunch of prints on a tabletop and you won't be able to separate them into a Canon and/or a Nikon pile).

I'm with Ziggy on "feel". When you purchase a SLR you are actually buying a camera system. Look at the system and make sure that the manufacturer supports your principle passion. i.e. infrared photography, macro, sports, astro, et cetera. As a former news photog, I've learned that buying a camera because it feels good is a bit of poppycock. You will adapt and usually quite quickly, to whatever camera system you choose. All modern cameras are designed for the human hand and human brain ... so unless you have something going on out of the ordinary ... you will easily adapt to most/all camera designs.

Use "feel" as the last and least important qualifier for your camera purchase. As most cameras are so similar in cost and image quality ... feel may just be your deciding factor ... but once again ... feel is the least important factor to consider.

Gary

[dmmattix]

The entry level Nikon cannot autofocus all Nikkor lenses.

All of Canon cameras will autofocus all Canon lenses that autofocus.


That was an important feature to me when I went digital. I had shot with a Canon EOS 630 for years and had several not really great lenses but the worked on the first digital (D30). Kept me from having to invest a ton of money up front to get decent coverage.

That was one thing Canon did right and Nikon wrong in my opinion was to create an entirely new mount when they went autofocus. Nikon tried to modify their mount and it led to quite a bit of confusion as to what lense would work on what camera.

[Harryb]

That was an important feature to me when I went digital. I had shot with a Canon EOS 630 for years and had several not really great lenses but the worked on the first digital (D30). Kept me from having to invest a ton of money up front to get decent coverage.

That was one thing Canon did right and Nikon wrong in my opinion was to create an entirely new mount when they went autofocus. Nikon tried to modify their mount and it led to quite a bit of confusion as to what lense would work on what camera.

Actually Nikon has stayed with the F mount for over 30 years now. The only cameras in its line-up that won't AF with older non AF S lenses are the entry level D40 and D40X. Since the target buyers for those cameras are folks new to DSLRs this is a non-issue as they won't normally have a collection of older lenses.

[BPerron]

Actually Nikon has stayed with the F mount for over 30 years now. The only cameras in its line-up that won't AF with older non AF S lenses are the entry level D40 and D40X. Since the target buyers for those cameras are folks new to DSLRs this is a non-issue as they won't normally have a collection of older lenses.

That is what I thought...but was not 100% positive...

[KED]

But Canons are of course more expensive.

When I took up this hobby, I turned for advice to a pro friend of mine who uses Nikon. One of the things he told me was that even if Canon bodies are a little more expensive in the mid- to high end, Nikon lenses are more expensive than Canon, and one usually owns more lenses than bodies. I went with Canon for a host of reasons and have not had reason to verify the relative expense of bodies or lenses; all I know for sure is that it can get expensive in a hurry either way. :wink

[Harryb]

That is what I thought...but was not 100% positive...

It was Canon who introduced EOS cameras and lenses in 1985 which were incompatible with its pre-1985 products. Ancient history but interesting.

[BPerron]

It was Canon who introduced EOS cameras and lenses in 1985 which were incompatible with its pre-1985 products. Ancient history but interesting.

It is very interesting...

[KED]

I'm not "that" special.
We think you are! :bow

[ccpickre]

Holy cow, thanks for the responses. They will help a lot.

I am currently one of the photo editors for my school paper, and we have a LOT of photographers who don't have their own cameras, but are looking, and it's hard to give them an honest opinion cause I don't know Nikons at all. I've looked at ours (the paper has a D200, D2H, D1x, and a few D70s I think) but not enough to become familiar with them.

So I just wanted to get some responses from professionals and experienced photogs, so I can help them pick a camera that suits them.

PS. Long time no see Harry. Don't know if you remember me, but I was with Jim and Kathy (Pathfinder and Nightengale) in early 06 at the Gator park. I was trying to photograph birds with a Panasonic Lumix :) I've upgraded since then though.

[Seefutlung]

Actually Nikon has stayed with the F mount for over 30 years now. The only cameras in its line-up that won't AF with older non AF S lenses are the entry level D40 and D40X. Since the target buyers for those cameras are folks new to DSLRs this is a non-issue as they won't normally have a collection of older lenses.

I was told by a Nikon user that only the AF-S lenses will autofocus on a D40/D40X and that AF-S came in two flavors, crappy and very good (aka very expensive).

Just seems like a limiting factor to me.

Gary

[ccpickre]

That's what the general consensus between all the PJers I know, that lenses are better than bodies nowadays. And you spend more on lenses than bodies anyway.

Thanks for all the help. If anyone has more info I'm all ears.

[Davidoff]

It is a limiting factor, but that isn't stopping the D40 from selling extremely well. Most people don't know or don't care, I've lost track of the times I've explained this to people who had no idea if the lens they intended to use would af. Actually, they didn't know what lens they intended to use.... :scratch

[Harryb]

I was told by a Nikon user that only the AF-S lenses will autofocus on a D40/D40X and that AF-S came in two flavors, crappy and very good (aka very expensive).

Just seems like a limiting factor to me.

Gary

Sigh, I'm alway amazed at how Canon shooters are so concerned over the "plight" of the D40/D40X users.

Amazingly enough there a hundreds of thousands of DSLR users who don't want or need 2.8 glass or L glass, etc. My son dabbles in photography so I gave him my old D100 and I got him the 50mm 1.8, 18-70MM 3.5-5.6 and the 55-200mm VR lenses. He's thrilled with the camera and lenses. Of course some consider these lenses to be "crappy" but my son is a happy camper.

Folks starting out get the D40 or the latest version of the Rebel because its either a starting point or its all they can afford. All those poor souls have to endure the hardships of "crappy" glass because they can't afford or want the higher price glass.

BTW in all seriousness I truly abhor gear snobs who write off kit lenses etc as "crappy". I have shot with a number of gear snobs who had the latest and most expensive bodies and glass. An amazing number of them took some of the most mediocre shots I have ever had the misfortune of viewing.

[Harryb]

PS. Long time no see Harry. Don't know if you remember me, but I was with Jim and Kathy (Pathfinder and Nightengale) in early 06 at the Gator park. I was trying to photograph birds with a Panasonic Lumix :) I've upgraded since then though.

I sure do remember you and its good to "see" you again. :wave

[Andy]

I sure do remember you and its good to "see" you again. :wave
Harry!

Not a word :rutt about me pimpin' Neeekon? :D

[Davidoff]

My son dabbles in photography so I gave him my old D100 and I got him the 50mm 1.8, 18-70MM 3.5-5.6 and the 55-200mm VR lenses. He's thrilled with the camera and lenses. Of course some consider these lenses to be "crappy" but my son is a happy camper.



Come on Harry ! Don't say things like that :doh
The kit you gave your kid who " dabbles " is almost like mine ! Except I have a D70s instead of the D100 and I have the sigma 70-300, that I was thinking of upgrading.... yes... to the 55-200VR ...

[Harryb]

Harry!

Not a word :rutt about me pimpin' Neeekon? :D

I think I can speak for all Nikonians when I say we did a happy dance when we saw your post. I was actually moved to tears.

[Harryb]

Come on Harry ! Don't say things like that :doh
The kit you gave your kid who " dabbles " is almost like mine ! Except I have a D70s instead of the D100 and I have the sigma 70-300, that I was thinking of upgrading.... yes... to the 55-200VR ...

Well if you come on down here and be my sherpa for 2-3 years and do a good job I might be able to adopt you. :ivar

I have a good set up with expensive bodies and some very expensive glass. Now I only had to work for 40+ years to afford this set-up. When I was working and saving and investing my $ for retirement I couldn't afford all this high price gear. Up to my retirement I was shoooting with glass that has been previously described as "crappy". Fortunately I was too stupid to realize that I was shooting with "crappy" glass and I went out and got some pretty good shots.

[swintonphoto]

Don't forget the great Olympus cameras!

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_digital_slr.asp

[Davidoff]

Well if you come on down here and be my sherpa for 2-3 years and do a good job I might be able to adopt you. :ivar

I have a good set up with expensive bodies and some very expensive glass. Now I only had to work for 40+ years to afford this set-up. When I was working and saving and investing my $ for retirement I couldn't afford all this high price gear. Up to my retirement I was shoooting with glass that has been previously described as "crappy". Fortunately I was too stupid to realize that I was shooting with "crappy" glass and I went out and got some pretty good shots.


And then your son could hand me down his kit ? lolol:wink

I just said that because I think it was funny because it was so much like what I have. There are times when I wish for nicer gear, but what I have hasn't let me down. Unless I try to do stuff I know it's not good for, like 200mm in low light at f/5.

How's that 55-200VR ? Have you ever used the sigma 70-300 APO ? Would you say it's an improvement ?

[Harryb]

And then your son could hand me down his kit ? lolol:wink

I just said that because I think it was funny because it was so much like what I have. There are times when I wish for nicer gear, but what I have hasn't let me down. Unless I try to do stuff I know it's not good for, like 200mm in low light at f/5.

How's that 55-200VR ? Have you ever used the sigma 70-300 APO ? Would you say it's an improvement ?

The build on the 55-200 isn't the greatest bit it provides good results and the VR is a factor. I haven't used the Sigma but I heard its strong up to 200MM but the IQ goes down over 200mm. I would go with the 55-200.

[ccpickre]

He's thrilled with the camera and lenses. Of course some consider these lenses to be "crappy" but my son is a happy camper.
I'd be MORE than thrilled if my dad tossed me his old 5D and a few of his lenses :rofl (hint, hint dad :D)

I have shot with a number of gear snobs who had the latest and most expensive bodies and glass. An amazing number of them took some of the most mediocre shots I have ever had the misfortune of viewing.
:D My dad said L glass is bling for photographers who just want to show off their bling :) Doesn't mean I don't worship my 135 f/2 :clap It's definitely my favorite lens. I'm still debating whether I want to get the 24 1.4, the 20 2.8 or the 85 1.8. With the studio work I'm considering doing the 85 might be pretty nice.

I sure do remember you and its good to "see" you again.
I'm hoping to save up some money and go back to Otown to photograph again, now that I know more.

[Seefutlung]

Sigh, I'm alway amazed at how Canon shooters are so concerned over the "plight" of the D40/D40X users.

Amazingly enough there a hundreds of thousands of DSLR users who don't want or need 2.8 glass or L glass, etc. My son dabbles in photography so I gave him my old D100 and I got him the 50mm 1.8, 18-70MM 3.5-5.6 and the 55-200mm VR lenses. He's thrilled with the camera and lenses. Of course some consider these lenses to be "crappy" but my son is a happy camper.

Folks starting out get the D40 or the latest version of the Rebel because its either a starting point or its all they can afford. All those poor souls have to endure the hardships of "crappy" glass because they can't afford or want the higher price glass.

BTW in all seriousness I truly abhor gear snobs who write off kit lenses etc as "crappy". I have shot with a number of gear snobs who had the latest and most expensive bodies and glass. An amazing number of them took some of the most mediocre shots I have ever had the misfortune of viewing.

I'm just reporting what a Nikonian told me. Why people have to endure a "crappy" lens really doesn't pertain to the OP ... but since you brought it up ... I believe that a neophyte to photography should start out with a kit lens and use said lens until it falls apart from wear (or as familiar and comfortable with the lens' capabilities as they are with their hands).

At such point, hopefully, a person will have the skill and expertise to capitalize on the differences between lenses which are crappy and lenses which are good.

As to your "gear snob" comment ... see above. I call gear snobs "collectors".

Gary

[Glenn NK]

1. Camera bodies come and go; lenses last much longer.

2. A good lens for me costs about the same as the body - I have four lenses - thus most of the money is in the lenses, not the body.

3. Add in the cost of the other accessories (flash, tripod, memory, filters, bags, remote releases, angle finders) and the cost of the body becomes even less significant.

4. It's been pointed out that there are other players than Canon and Nikon - good point.

5. Someone else suggested that a pile of 8 x 10 pics couldn't be sorted as to which camera took them. I agree.

6. Someone else suggested that the photographer may even have more effect on the result - I agree.

7. Last year Canon had the high ISO edge, now it might be Nikon, next year who?


My recommendation would be to look at the type of photography one does (if one knows), and choose the brand that has the best selection of lenses that suit one's needs.

My secondary recommendation would be to stay with one of the two major players - they have the largest selection of lenses.

If I was starting over, I would look closely at the two major brands, but I wouldn't do the selecting over the internet (mostly it will be biased opinions) or by mail order (pictures and advertising are hard to interpret) - I would go into a real camera store and handle the two cameras for a period of time and choose the one that felt best.

[ccpickre]

A few of my photographers think their Nikon 18-200 3.5 to 5.6 is more than satisfactory for PJ. It's gotten to the point that I have to be flat out rude to them so they stop using it. So I agree, it ismostly the photog, but there are limitations to the equipment that they sometimes forget or don't realize. And the more I point out the limitations, the more these few argue with me and try to tell me their pictures are perfectly fine (it's getting annoying to have to point out their photos are underexposed AND motion blurred at the same time because the lens wasn't sufficient)

They then proceed to ask me about a better camera, even though I tell them the lens is what will make better photos.

That's why I'm trying to learn more of the pros and cons, so I can better tell them what they should think about. I just think they think taking a few pictures to make money is ok. They don't realize what we serious Pjers put into our craft.

[puzzledpaul]

<< Can anyone expain the pros and cons of getting a Canon over a Nikon, or Vice versa? >>

For anyone serious about high mag macro pics, then no-one else offers an equivalent lens to Canon's MPE 65.

pp

[ccpickre]

<< Can anyone expain the pros and cons of getting a Canon over a Nikon, or Vice versa? >>

For anyone serious about high mag macro pics, then no-one else offers an equivalent lens to Canon's MPE 65.

pp
Well we don't do much macro work for the school paper. But I may start playing with my 100 macro again here real soon

[pathfinder]

Well we don't do much macro work for the school paper. But I may start playing with my 100 macro again here real soon


I like your new avatar:thumb , but I am not ready to donate a 5D just yet.:D

[Harryb]

I like your new avatar:thumb , but I am not ready to donate a 5D just yet.:D

Well you could buy the D3 and pass along your 5D. Just a helpful suggestion. :ivar

[SavedByZero]

Blondes or Brunettes?? would be an easier question to answer imho.

[Seefutlung]

ccpickre-

If the camera is to be used for photo journalism ... unless you can afford the D3 or D300 ... you gotta go with Canon for this one reason ... Low Noise at High ISO.

As a former news photog I shot most everything with available light ... which means elevated ISO/ASA of 800 to 1600. Canon's CMOS sensors do a much better job at noise reduction at high ISOs than Nikon's CCD sensors.

That single plus in the Canon column is enough to go Canon because nearly every other assignment would probably require an elevated ISO. For news photography ... mmmh ... every thing else between Nikon and Canon cameras is about the same. (If you can afford a D3 or D300 ... then just flip a coin ... cuz you won't see any dif between Nikon and Canon in the paper or in the field.)

Gary

[pathfinder]

Well you could buy the D3 and pass along your 5D. Just a helpful suggestion. :ivar

Harry, I have seriously considered just that:wink , but in the end, my investment in glass has held me captive ( happily) in the Canon camp.

I will wait a year, and see what is Canon's response to the glove thrown into the ring by Nikon.

What a great pair of choices we all have to consider now!

[ccpickre]

I like your new avatar:thumb
That was my self portrait for a class. You can't see it in the avy, but I have my headphones in, repsresenting my two loves. Music and Photography (and a hooded sweatshirt, so technically 3 :D)

Well you could buy the D3 and pass along your 5D. Just a helpful suggestion.
Now this is a very thoughtful suggestion, one worthy of serious discourse :barb

Although I am considering medical donations, selling DVDs and CDs, and throwing myself into studio and portraiture photography this summer to save up for the 5D MkII. Maybe I should hone my poker skills while I'm at it. And Casino Aztar in Evansville isn't too far. Or maybe some Lottery tickets :rofl

[LiquidAir]

It was Canon who introduced EOS cameras and lenses in 1985 which were incompatible with its pre-1985 products. Ancient history but interesting.

I was a T90 user (one of the last cameras with the old FD mount). I stuck with that T90 for many years because 1) it was a really nice body, and 2) I didn't want to buy new lenses. That said, I do think Canon has been well served by their decision to shift to a 100% electrical mount all at once rather than following the more progressive approach Nikon took. When I was (finally) looking to upgrade to a AF film body in 2000, the Nikon's first generation of electric mount lenses were coming out and their lens line was something of a mess. More to the point, at that time only the high end pro bodies would accept electronic mount lenses. As a result, I bought an EOS-3 and never looked back.

My understanding is that Canon patented the electronic mount and Nikon could only shift over when the patent expired 17 years later; since Canon was very much the number 2 camera vendor at the time my guess is that they didn't feel they had much to lose by shifting mounts and they had a lot to gain; much of the advantage Canon had in AF performace during those years (1985-2000ish) was due to the electronic mount and I think that decision directly accounts for the large number of white lenses at sporting events. Finally Nikon appears to be making up for lost ground and updating their entire stock of lenses to electronic mount.

[NeilL]

I was a T90 user (one of the last cameras with the old FD mount). I stuck with that T90 for many years because 1) it was a really nice body, and 2) I didn't want to buy new lenses. That said, I do think Canon has been well served by their decision to shift to a 100% electrical mount all at once rather than following the more progressive approach Nikon took. When I was (finally) looking to upgrade to a AF film body in 2000, the Nikon's first generation of electric mount lenses were coming out and their lens line was something of a mess. More to the point, at that time only the high end pro bodies would accept electronic mount lenses. As a result, I bought an EOS-3 and never looked back.

My understanding is that Canon patented the electronic mount and Nikon could only shift over when the patent expired 17 years later; since Canon was very much the number 2 camera vendor at the time my guess is that they didn't feel they had much to lose by shifting mounts and they had a lot to gain; much of the advantage Canon had in AF performace during those years (1985-2000ish) was due to the electronic mount and I think that decision directly accounts for the large number of white lenses at sporting events. Finally Nikon appears to be making up for lost ground and updating their entire stock of lenses to electronic mount.

Good post!

[claudermilk]

Blondes or Brunettes?? would be an easier question to answer imho.
REDHEADS! :D

ccpickre-

If the camera is to be used for photo journalism ... unless you can afford the D3 or D300 ... you gotta go with Canon for this one reason ... Low Noise at High ISO.

As a former news photog I shot most everything with available light ... which means elevated ISO/ASA of 800 to 1600. Canon's CMOS sensors do a much better job at noise reduction at high ISOs than Nikon's CCD sensors.

That single plus in the Canon column is enough to go Canon because nearly every other assignment would probably require an elevated ISO. For news photography ... mmmh ... every thing else between Nikon and Canon cameras is about the same. (If you can afford a D3 or D300 ... then just flip a coin ... cuz you won't see any dif between Nikon and Canon in the paper or in the field.)

Gary
Up until the latest releases I'd agree. Now with Nikon's two new bodies even that is muddied. This from someone who chose Canon over Nikon primarily for that advantage.

Today I think it's 6 of one and half-dozen of the other. Look at what lenses you will need & who covers those the best. It seems Nikkor glass is still pricier than Canon in general, so it's a factor to consider.

[ccpickre]

So basically what you're all saying is, that there is no good answer to my question :rofl

[Moogle Pepper]

REDHEADS! :D

A man with real good tastes!

Judging Canon V. Nikons is like asking why the sky is blue, asking whether I like oranges or mangos, etc.

[ziggy53]

So basically what you're all saying is, that there is no good answer to my question :rofl

The only good answer to the question, "Canon v. Nikon" (... or any other recent dSLR offering for that matter is, ...




"Yes!"

(as in there are really nice offerings from all the players. The similarities in quality and overall functionality, within similar market lines, are vastly greater than the differences.)

There are specific qualities that your application may be sensitive to that would skew particular models to your favor. Analyzing how you shoot and your specific needs are ultimately the best ways to buy any camera, dSLR or not.

[ccpickre]

So basically I should tell my photogs to figure it out themselves, cause it's too confusing for me.

[raptorcaptor]

Ultimately what I've heard is Nikon is more affordable, but only because they have more diverse lineups. Where as Canon has 4 series (400, 40, 5 and 1's).

I've heard Nikon tends to be greener in shadows, and the ISOs aren't as noise free.

But Canons are of course more expensive, and I think I heard Nikons tend to be a little faster for auto focusing.

But this is all speculation from other phtoogs. I shoot Canon religiously (I would probably be disowned by Pathfinder if I had asked for Nikon stuff :D) so I only really know Canon.

The high end Nikon lenses are more expensive than Canon. At this point you can't go wrong with either!

[ziggy53]

So basically I should tell my photogs to figure it out themselves, cause it's too confusing for me.

Send them here.

We'll ask a few questions and then offer advice based on our collective knowlege and experience. Plus they'll get a chance to meet some really nice people. :clap

[evoryware]

I just didn't like the way the Nikon's felt in my hand or looked. I still don't although the D300 was more comfortable to shoot with when my friend had the hand strap on.
That said, I'm in w/ Canon, I love the style, color, and feel, and have no viable reason to switch. Only to buy more equipment. :wink
Not like Canon is going the way of Polaroid because Nikon may have finally temporarily caught up.

[Seefutlung]

So basically I should tell my photogs to figure it out themselves, cause it's too confusing for me.

Once again .. unless your photogs can afford a D3 or a D300 ... then Canon is the manufacturer of choice because Canon has an advantage over Nikon in low noise at elevated ISOs.

If they can afford a D3 or a D300 ... then all things are pretty much equal in IQ ... so back to the coin toss or look at other factors than IQ ... i.e. affordability ... access to glass ... and last and also least importantly ... how the camera feels.

Gary

[jthomas]

Harry!

Not a word :rutt about me pimpin' Neeekon? :D
Well, I was about to remark how ecumenical Andy has become.

[harrysamuel]

The entry level Nikon cannot autofocus all Nikkor lenses.

All of Canon cameras will autofocus all Canon lenses that autofocus.

All but the most expensive Nikon cameras (D3 & D300) use an inferior CCD sensor.

All Canon cameras use the superior CMOS sensor.

That being said ( ... I hate that phrase), at photos sized 8x10 and smaller and at ISO of 400- ... you won't be able to distinguish between a Canon and a Nikon images (toss a bunch of prints on a tabletop and you won't be able to separate them into a Canon and/or a Nikon pile).

I'm with Ziggy on "feel". When you purchase a SLR you are actually buying a camera system. Look at the system and make sure that the manufacturer supports your principle passion. i.e. infrared photography, macro, sports, astro, et cetera. As a former news photog, I've learned that buying a camera because it feels good is a bit of poppycock. You will adapt and usually quite quickly, to whatever camera system you choose. All modern cameras are designed for the human hand and human brain ... so unless you have something going on out of the ordinary ... you will easily adapt to most/all camera designs.

Use "feel" as the last and least important qualifier for your camera purchase. As most cameras are so similar in cost and image quality ... feel may just be your deciding factor ... but once again ... feel is the least important factor to consider.

Gary

My d200 uses the same lenses my F100 uses which use the same lenses my FE still uses. When I get my D3 it will use every lense I own all the way back to 1977. If I look around and want to buy glass back to 1947 I can get the early ones modified. But I doubt I will buy any pre 1977 Nikon lenses. But they are great glass and cheap.

My AE1 still takes great photos, but I can not buy a new one that will use the lenses I own for it.

Canon vs Nikon, if you read the manuals and spend time learning how to use your camera you will take great shots. If I show you a print and ask if it came for one of my three Nikons or my Canon you will not be able to tell. I really want an 8MM for my Nikon. And unless I can use my Canon glass on a current body I see no reason to think one day Canon will not change mounts again. And make those perfect lenses obsolete, great way to sell a lot more glass. If Canon does that again Nikon will own the market for years after that.

My vote for the best camera is ..... the manual you are willing to read.

The Nikon does fit in my hand better than my Canon. But I am still mad about the lense thing. Not really. It just made buying an F100 the best choice since I had both Nikon and Canon lenses at the time and a new Canon would not use the old Canon glass. four perfect lense, still in use, on a 40 year old camera that look like it was bought yesterday. I had better Canon glass than Nikon at the time. Would never trust Canon again. And my Nikon takes such great phots when I remember to set it right, and when I don't? Well thats what lightroom is for.

[ccpickre]

I find Nikons to be bulky and weighty. They are uncomfortable to me.

[ziggy53]

My d200 uses the same lenses my F100 uses which use the same lenses my FE still uses. When I get my D3 it will use every lense I own all the way back to 1977. If I look around and want to buy glass back to 1947 I can get the early ones modified. But I doubt I will buy any pre 1977 Nikon lenses. But they are great glass and cheap.

My AE1 still takes great photos, but I can not buy a new one that will use the lenses I own for it.

...

The Nikon does fit in my hand better than my Canon. But I am still mad about the lense thing. Not really. It just made buying an F100 the best choice since I had both Nikon and Canon lenses at the time and a new Canon would not use the old Canon glass. four perfect lense, still in use, on a 40 year old camera that look like it was bought yesterday. I had better Canon glass than Nikon at the time. Would never trust Canon again. And my Nikon takes such great phots when I remember to set it right, and when I don't? Well thats what lightroom is for.

While I appreciate the fact that Nikon hasn't changed their basic lens/body mount in a long time, I appreciate more that Pentax has the best lens compatability of any manufacturer, ever. I still have old Pentax screw-mount (universal screw)/M42 glass that will fit a modern Pentax body with the use of a simple, and cheap, adapter.

Better yet, I can buy simple adapters that allow the use of older manual focus lenses from several manufacturers on my Canon dSLRs, namely Pentax (screw and bayonet "K"), Nikon F, Contax, Olympus OM and Leica R.

I do have an adapter to use Canon FD lenses on the EOS system cameras, but it does not work well with the short focal length lenses I have available.

Granted, all of these lenses would be manual focus and preset aperture, but the adapter I use for Pentax screw mount has a chip that allows focus confirmation and auto-exposure convenience.

Quality of some of the older Pentax mount glass can be pretty good as well:

Vivitar 500mm, f6.3 (wide open)
http://dgrin.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10525&d=1138925123

Crop from above:
http://dgrin.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10526&d=1138926158

Pentax 50mm, f1.4 SMC (at f5.6)
http://ziggy53.smugmug.com/photos/82051370-D.jpg

Crop from above:
http://ziggy53.smugmug.com/photos/82271260-D.jpg