If you value AF accuracy, especially in low light, Nikon is your only choice. There are some things that Canon is generally better at, but shooting people/sports/other moving objects definitely isn't one of them.
Please don't mask your bias as an attempt at fact. This sort of BS opinion isn't going to help.
When I first got into the DSLR biz, Nikon was useless at low-light, fast-speed. I could always tell which of my shooters had created an image, as the pics that myself and my Canon-using reporter craeted required little pp, whereas the Nikon-created images were flat and had to be curved for print. On the other hand, the Canon images lacked vibrance in well-lit, low-ISO situations. Hence, wedding photogs used Nikons, and sports photogs used Canons.
That was years ago. Things have changed drasticaly.
A couple of years ago, I upgraded the newsroom cameras of the daily I worked at. The lenses were all Nikon, so we blew $8k at new gear. I used it, and it was spectacular at both low-light and portrait settings. Yes, the ergonomics bothered the snot out of me, but then again, I wasn't used to Nikon's setup ...
However, in the converse, a few weeks ago a basketball mother who had a decent Nikon and a good 28-70 f2.8 lens to shoot with asked for a little help from me. Having never used that model of camera before, i was able to find the manual white balance settings and show her how to use those, and easily found how to set the camera to better settings than the "auto" she'd been using. Took two minutes. Hardly an issue.
Is the 7d better at low-light sports than the Nikon my old paper bought three years ago? Yeah, but that's an apples-to-oranges comparison: you gotta compare similar-vintage models.
I dont' see much of a difference, brandwise, either way. And I'd not be so biased as to suggest only buying Canon gear, because it ISN'T vastly superior to Nikon. Nor vice-versa.
Do I like my 7d better than the Nikons? Course. It took about six seconds to adapt to, having come from the lower-end Canon line. Could I adapt to a Nikon? Of course. In my arrogance, I say that it aint' the gear, it's the person using it.
Newspaper photogs specialize in drive-by shootings.
Forum for Canadian shooters: www.canphoto.net
I hope you're seeing through this thread (and others), that BOTH systems produce fine machines and can get you great pictures.
Figure out which brand's ergonomics, menus and buttons make sense to YOU and then buy the line that you think you can live with in the longer term. Both lines are in flux right now with a flurry of announcements (just see the other recent threads!) and both lines are offering some terrific new models.
But really - Canon or Nikon BOTH make great cameras and lenses. Toyota or Honda? Chevy or Ford? There will ALWAYS be personal biases from the owners of each, but taken objectively and overall, the manufactures are producing quality, competitive products. You can't go wrong with either Canon or Nikon - choose the one which suits YOU the best.
The crappyness is going to end in about 7-10 hours, actually, when Canon announces the 5D mk3 with flagship AF in a $3500 body.
Yes, Canon has had a long-standing tradition of being VERY snobby about putting flagship features in affordable bodies. But that has changed in the past few years, first with the 7D schooling the 5D mk2 in every way aside from the sensor, and now with the 5D mk3 effectively "replacing" the 1Ds mk3.
From here on out, I'd say the brands are going to be quite similar. I still prefer Nikon for their ability to put even more flagship features in even more affordable bodies, but the bottom line is that Canon is a VERY good option, regardless of whether you plan to stay with the basic lineup forever, or someday upgrade all the way to a flagship or semi-pro camera...
I hope you're seeing through this thread (and others), that BOTH systems produce fine machines and can get you great pictures.
Figure out which brand's ergonomics, menus and buttons make sense to YOU and then buy the line that you think you can live with in the longer term. Both lines are in flux right now with a flurry of announcements (just see the other recent threads!) and both lines are offering some terrific new models.
But really - Canon or Nikon BOTH make great cameras and lenses. Toyota or Honda? Chevy or Ford? There will ALWAYS be personal biases from the owners of each, but taken objectively and overall, the manufactures are producing quality, competitive products. You can't go wrong with either Canon or Nikon - choose the one which suits YOU the best.
The crappyness is going to end in about 7-10 hours, actually, when Canon announces the 5D mk3 with flagship AF in a $3500 body.
Yes, Canon has had a long-standing tradition of being VERY snobby about putting flagship features in affordable bodies. But that has changed in the past few years, first with the 7D schooling the 5D mk2 in every way aside from the sensor, and now with the 5D mk3 effectively "replacing" the 1Ds mk3.
From here on out, I'd say the brands are going to be quite similar. I still prefer Nikon for their ability to put even more flagship features in even more affordable bodies, but the bottom line is that Canon is a VERY good option, regardless of whether you plan to stay with the basic lineup forever, or someday upgrade all the way to a flagship or semi-pro camera...
=Matt=
I was pretty much set on canon by now. I've had the opportunity to play with some models from both at the local camera store, looked at about 15 video reviews and about 30 dpreview.com reviews. I've also spent lots of time comparing them side-by-side. In terms of price to performance Canon keeps winning out, I also love how the 7D, XSI and T2/3/1i feel in my hand. The Nikon ergonomics don't mesh well with my fat fingers, I had this same problem with my Sony Alpha I just got rid of.
Low light performance does matter a lot to me since I plan on doing a lot of work in places where flash needs to be scarcely if at all. I don't plan on doing professional work until I have at least a 7D, but in the mean time I wan't to build a stock pile of lenses and accessories that are compatible.
I've been going back and forth between a few threads for about two weeks now and have received lots of advice from you kind helpful folks, which I greatly appreciate.
I think I'm going to definitely go with Canon. I think the bottom line is, I took great images with my Sony Alpha and a kit lens or with a 15 year old Minolta lens. So I think I can make anything work to my advantage.
Comments
Please don't mask your bias as an attempt at fact. This sort of BS opinion isn't going to help.
When I first got into the DSLR biz, Nikon was useless at low-light, fast-speed. I could always tell which of my shooters had created an image, as the pics that myself and my Canon-using reporter craeted required little pp, whereas the Nikon-created images were flat and had to be curved for print. On the other hand, the Canon images lacked vibrance in well-lit, low-ISO situations. Hence, wedding photogs used Nikons, and sports photogs used Canons.
That was years ago. Things have changed drasticaly.
A couple of years ago, I upgraded the newsroom cameras of the daily I worked at. The lenses were all Nikon, so we blew $8k at new gear. I used it, and it was spectacular at both low-light and portrait settings. Yes, the ergonomics bothered the snot out of me, but then again, I wasn't used to Nikon's setup ...
However, in the converse, a few weeks ago a basketball mother who had a decent Nikon and a good 28-70 f2.8 lens to shoot with asked for a little help from me. Having never used that model of camera before, i was able to find the manual white balance settings and show her how to use those, and easily found how to set the camera to better settings than the "auto" she'd been using. Took two minutes. Hardly an issue.
Is the 7d better at low-light sports than the Nikon my old paper bought three years ago? Yeah, but that's an apples-to-oranges comparison: you gotta compare similar-vintage models.
I dont' see much of a difference, brandwise, either way. And I'd not be so biased as to suggest only buying Canon gear, because it ISN'T vastly superior to Nikon. Nor vice-versa.
Do I like my 7d better than the Nikons? Course. It took about six seconds to adapt to, having come from the lower-end Canon line. Could I adapt to a Nikon? Of course. In my arrogance, I say that it aint' the gear, it's the person using it.
Forum for Canadian shooters: www.canphoto.net
No.
I hope you're seeing through this thread (and others), that BOTH systems produce fine machines and can get you great pictures.
Figure out which brand's ergonomics, menus and buttons make sense to YOU and then buy the line that you think you can live with in the longer term. Both lines are in flux right now with a flurry of announcements (just see the other recent threads!) and both lines are offering some terrific new models.
But really - Canon or Nikon BOTH make great cameras and lenses. Toyota or Honda? Chevy or Ford? There will ALWAYS be personal biases from the owners of each, but taken objectively and overall, the manufactures are producing quality, competitive products. You can't go wrong with either Canon or Nikon - choose the one which suits YOU the best.
The crappyness is going to end in about 7-10 hours, actually, when Canon announces the 5D mk3 with flagship AF in a $3500 body.
Yes, Canon has had a long-standing tradition of being VERY snobby about putting flagship features in affordable bodies. But that has changed in the past few years, first with the 7D schooling the 5D mk2 in every way aside from the sensor, and now with the 5D mk3 effectively "replacing" the 1Ds mk3.
From here on out, I'd say the brands are going to be quite similar. I still prefer Nikon for their ability to put even more flagship features in even more affordable bodies, but the bottom line is that Canon is a VERY good option, regardless of whether you plan to stay with the basic lineup forever, or someday upgrade all the way to a flagship or semi-pro camera...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Low light performance does matter a lot to me since I plan on doing a lot of work in places where flash needs to be scarcely if at all. I don't plan on doing professional work until I have at least a 7D, but in the mean time I wan't to build a stock pile of lenses and accessories that are compatible.
I've been going back and forth between a few threads for about two weeks now and have received lots of advice from you kind helpful folks, which I greatly appreciate.
I think I'm going to definitely go with Canon. I think the bottom line is, I took great images with my Sony Alpha and a kit lens or with a 15 year old Minolta lens. So I think I can make anything work to my advantage.