Canon/Nikon equipment circularity?
Hello,
About two years ago I bought my first DSLR -- a Digital Rebel XTi. I had to choose between that and the D80 before I went away on a three week vacation to Hawaii. Obviously the Nikon gear would have been a bit more expensive, but the defining factor in the end was that I was able to get the Rebel before I left, and was not able to get the D80 (which was okay, since the price difference also allowed me to get a grip, a nice bag, an extra battery, and more).
At the time, Canon seemed to have had the upper hand with bodies, and I heard about a "mass migration" of longtime camera users from Nikon to Camera because of Canon's lens image quality. Now, having watched reviews carefully over the past few years, Nikon seems like they're coming out with bodies that are wiping Canon all over the floor. But you still see the "Sea of White" at sporting events and the like.
So here's my question for those more experienced than I: I have a body, a good flash, and two lenses -- a decent amount, but not that much (although I do love my 70-200mm f/4 IS L lens). It's not too late for me to sell my gear and switch to Nikon if that is a better option. But is there a circularity that takes place between the two, where Nikon has the better bodies/lenses for a while, then Canon shapes up and gets their act together and starts producing great stuff again, then Nikon licks their wounds and comes forth with their new Canon-killers...? Does Nikon generally have the upper hand and Canon's recent reign at the top was a fluke?
I know that many of the Canon lenses are still fantastic (like my 70-200 f/4, which doesn't require a tripod and is compact and light enough to easily carry around), and I don't really know about lenses on the Nikon side. Are Canon's lenses generally better, and would switching systems trade the better lens for the better body?
(I know the adage that it's not about the equipment but who's behind it...but having the best equipment can't hurt either. :-) )
Thoughts appreciated. I'd especially love knowing if this is a pattern that repeats over the years between the two.
Thanks!
About two years ago I bought my first DSLR -- a Digital Rebel XTi. I had to choose between that and the D80 before I went away on a three week vacation to Hawaii. Obviously the Nikon gear would have been a bit more expensive, but the defining factor in the end was that I was able to get the Rebel before I left, and was not able to get the D80 (which was okay, since the price difference also allowed me to get a grip, a nice bag, an extra battery, and more).
At the time, Canon seemed to have had the upper hand with bodies, and I heard about a "mass migration" of longtime camera users from Nikon to Camera because of Canon's lens image quality. Now, having watched reviews carefully over the past few years, Nikon seems like they're coming out with bodies that are wiping Canon all over the floor. But you still see the "Sea of White" at sporting events and the like.
So here's my question for those more experienced than I: I have a body, a good flash, and two lenses -- a decent amount, but not that much (although I do love my 70-200mm f/4 IS L lens). It's not too late for me to sell my gear and switch to Nikon if that is a better option. But is there a circularity that takes place between the two, where Nikon has the better bodies/lenses for a while, then Canon shapes up and gets their act together and starts producing great stuff again, then Nikon licks their wounds and comes forth with their new Canon-killers...? Does Nikon generally have the upper hand and Canon's recent reign at the top was a fluke?
I know that many of the Canon lenses are still fantastic (like my 70-200 f/4, which doesn't require a tripod and is compact and light enough to easily carry around), and I don't really know about lenses on the Nikon side. Are Canon's lenses generally better, and would switching systems trade the better lens for the better body?
(I know the adage that it's not about the equipment but who's behind it...but having the best equipment can't hurt either. :-) )
Thoughts appreciated. I'd especially love knowing if this is a pattern that repeats over the years between the two.
Thanks!
0
Comments
Link to my Smugmug site
Thanks for the oh-so-useful reply.
― Edward Weston
Kdog is tagging this thread, he wants to lurk and hear what's going on.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Take good photographs. As I said, I know that what is behind the camera is more important than the camera itself.
However, the bodies and lenses can have varied effects on the picture -- noise/sharpness/contrast/dynamic range/chromatic abberation/etc. etc., some of which can be corrected in post processing and some of which cannot, and no one likes a shot ruined by weak equipment. Many professional photographers have preferences ranging from minor to fanatic for one side or the other. So for someone like me, that does not own a significant investment in equipment -- yet -- I rely on things like reviews (such as on dpreview) to help me ensure that as my investment increases that I will feel like I made the right one.
Right now I'm at a point where I can switch, before I own too much equipment to make switching infeasible. So I'm trying to figure out whether doing so makes sense...whether Canon glass still makes my current investment worthwhile, even if Nikon bodies are currently winning top prizes, or whether I should consider switching to a Nikon system.
The same conclusions can be made for lenses. Both companies make excellent lenses.
Hasty generalizations are rarely valuable.
Specific cameras do have specific advantages and disadvantages. If you have specific models you wish to discuss, feel free to mention them.
Likewise, if you have specific applications you need to cover, some cameras may be more suited than others. Feel free to mention the applications and we can probably provide suggestions for suitable solutions.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
If you have specific answers to these questions, then it might be time to look at another camera body. But, I would council you to look to Canon first since you are already invested, to some degree, in that line. If, after finding that there is nothing in the Canon line that will meed your needs and there is in some other manufacturer and the cost of conversion is not too high (remember you have to account for the price of the new equipment and the amount you are going to loose on the sale of your used equipment) - then it might be worth while to think about conversion.
But, remember this as well .... the pendulum swings both ways. For a while Canon may have the advantage and, before you can turn around, some other manufacturer (usually Nikon) will have the upper hand. Only to loose it in sort order. The tide to Nikon that has been the subject of many posts ever since the Olympics will soon reverse.
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
My message here is that you have already invested in some good equipment - Canon Lenses. Body's are getting to be disposable these days. Try a better body in the Canon line and see if you like it.
And, to reiterate what many have said here, don't get caught up in the feeds and speeds of this brand versus that brand. Concentrate on making good images and enjoy your photographic passion!
Cheers and good luck...Andrew
Andrew Barton - Life & Landscape
http://nowhereimages.smugmug.com/
And irrespective of whatever amazing new equipment models come along, the specification and capability of your present equipment remains the same as when you bought it!
Thanks for the posts to the people who replied.
It's not that my current camera is unable to do anything specific, only that if I should ever consider switching, now is the best time for me to do so (while I have minimal lens investment). (I am absolutely aware that switching systems or camera bodies will not fix bad photography; that has nothing to do with my question, as I know that no body or lens will fix a poorly taken shot.)
From comments here and elsewhere, it sounds like my best bet would be to stick to what I already do have, which is not much, and save any money I would spend in a switch on more lenses :-)
I think going for more lenses makes good sense! But I also don't think it is beyond reason to own several makes of camera and get whatever use you can from them. I suspect that different cameras do different things better..so owning more than one brand can seem to make sense. These are tools.
cheers, tom
The XTi will produce fine results and exceed the capabilities of much of it's owners IMO. Now if you are finding that there is something specific that you don't get from Canon that you can from Nikon then it may be worth switching to.
As for outright image quality between Canon and Nikon, at similar levels, I think the difference is not significant. Since Nikon moved to CMOS sensors, the noise levels seems about the same. The dynamic range seems about the same. The main difference seems to be in body design ergonomics.
Canon/Nikon battle is like Ford/GM, one keeps coming up to up the other guy and if you switch to Nikon now, you may find yourself migrating back and forth and back and forth and back and forth.
So unless you find a specific thing lacking in the Canon system that you need/want that Nikon offers, I'd probably not make the change and just go out and shoot shoot shoot.
Great glass will last you through upgrades and serve you better in the long run. Nikon and Canon both make excellent systems and sometimes one or the other will make a slightly better system than the other, but that should never be the deciding factor.
Choose a system based on your needs and your future goals. Keep in mind that it is the glass that will keep you brand locked in the long run.
If you like Canon, stick with it and invest in good glass. This will help your photos more than any body.
Website
Equipment angst is unnecessary. Nikon and Canon would not be market
leaders if they produced only weak equipment.
Yet you don't seem to truly understand what it means:
Ernest Hemingway: "Good pictures, what camera do you use?"
Irving Penn: "What typewriter do you use?"
― Edward Weston
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I think you should figure out if you're concerned about features or about image quality. In my view, there's no appreciable difference in IQ in real terms across the brands. I'm not factoring in advances in ISO sensitivity.
Those are Nikons. Nikon lenses last so long that eventually the black wears off.
I'm a Nikon kinda guy, always have been, always will be unless Nikon tanks. This is mainly because when I bought my first slr in Japan, Nikon was really the only game in town and Canon wasn't on the horizon. This being said, if you have good Canon glass, and a decent body, stick with it, maybe upgrade your body. I think this flip-flopping between Nikon and Canon is mostly marketing hype and is going nowhere because both deliver superb quality. My $.02 worth is stay with what you are comfortable with and invest in better glass to meet specific needs.
Regards,
John
http://www.walkerimages.smugmug.com
http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=10076