Objective comparison of Canon to Nikon

mwgrice

Can anybody out there point me to a reasonably objective comparison of the Canon and Nikon product lines? I've been searching, but I keep finding a lot of flame wars, or comparisons of specific models.

I have learned, however, that Nikon lens caps taste better, but Canon lens caps are more filling. Also, a 10 year old with an instamatic can get a surfing shot.*

Currently I have both a Canon (Powershot A95) and a Nikon (Coolpix 950). The Powershot is a decent camera for a point-and-shoot but I'm beginning to get frustrated by its limitations (noise, the built-in lens, it takes forever to start up, etc.). The Nikon is showing its age (and more importantly it's only capable of shooting infrared now).

I'm looking for a DSLR, something along the lines of Nikon's D200/D80, or Canon's 20D/30D/350D. But I'm not looking for advice on buying a camera--I'm trying to get a feel for the strengths and weaknesses of each manufacturer, the glass as well as the bodies and the sensors.

I thank you in advance for your flames, and will happily admit now that my choice of cameras, whatever that may be, demonstrates me to be a person of low morals and poor character.

gus

Canon is way way better.

Osprey Whisperer

Canon has much better accessories.

pathfinder

Canon and Nikon have been battling it out in the marketplace for over 50 years and they both are still successful. Obviously, both systems are capable of making fine images.

The Nikon versus Canon debate has been discussed extensively here and all over the web. Search for Nikon vs Canon and see what you find. But in the end, it always comes down to a personal choice.

Gus, Andy, and I all shoot Canon and each have our reasons for this. Harry shoots with black lenses from Nikon ( poor deluded fellow that he is:D ), but the truth is that I envy him his system from time to time also. The camera bodies have slightly different ergonomics, some prefer one of the other. The systems do have some differences, but none are a deal breaker to me.

Canons long teles may be just a smidge cheaper than Nikons ( Harry would say this is proof of their superiority of course)

Nikons ultra-wide angles may be slightly better than Canon - altho there are those who would disagree.

Some prefer Nikons electronic flash system, but I find the Canon system superb in its control it gives me over lighting.

I can go on and on, but this has been discussed endlessly, and each person has to ultimately decide for themselves after reading and studying, and finally flipping a coin perhaps.

Make your choice after really studying the lenses offered and the flash systems. Bodies will come and go, but glass lives a very long time.

For me the deciding factor, was the quality of the offerings of the long teles from Canon and the availablity of a full frame camera that offers 2 1/4 quality in a portable 35mm size system.

It will be interesting to read the advise others will chime in with.

Welcome to the deep end of the pool:D

I see Bird Man has given our secret away again.

Hey, Birdman, don't let the new guys see the girls until they've been shooting Canon for at least a little while!!

Blurmore

Don't have a array of lenses and system accesories yet?? Choose either. And don't worry be happy. Want a wide range of AF and Manual lenses that can be used without an adapter get a Nikon. Want smooth low noise images at iso 800 and above choose Canon. The D80 is shaping up to be a D200 in a D70 body, and a 20D/30D is a proven durable and refined design. I shoot Canon for a very simple reason (some people would say stupid) it was the best camera out for the money when I was looking to invest in a DSLR system, and Canon believes in putting a PC flash connector ON THE BODY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! of it's advanced amatuer/lowpro cameras. I wanted to give that the emphasis it deserved but it came up short.
My first question for any camera is...does it have a PC connector, if the answer is no or 'its on the flash' my answer for the camera is no, NO PC NO GO.

rjpat

If you want to compare specific camera models from both lines, go to www.dpreview.com

pathfinder

A very interesting highly specific but pertinent reason. A PC connector to trigger a studioflash system ( not to connec to a computer eh??:D )


I'll add another for me - I have had to use the repair facility at Canon Factory Service in New Jersey and was favorably impressed with the speed and quality of the work.

I feel good knowing that my investment in Canon equipment is backed up by real, available quality factory service and maintenance. I hope I never have to use it again, but I like knowing that I can get my expensive toys repaired to factory specifications if the need arises.

Perhaps one of he Nikonians can make a comment about Nikons servie facilities and quality also, as I know nothing about that aspect of the Nikon systems.

I Simonius

mwgrice wrote:

Can anybody out there point me to a reasonably objective comparison of the Canon and Nikon product lines?

When I had this question Idecided there was only one solution - try them!

I took a CF card into the shop and filled em up with different cameras shots
The canon came out tops for me when I looked at them on my computer screen

Osprey Whisperer

pathfinder wrote:

I see Bird Man has given our secret away again.

Hey, Birdman, don't let the new guys see the girls until they've been shooting Canon for at least a little while!!

Really sorry about that Jim. I thought everyone new the ladies prefer the guys that wear white?

Harryb

I can tell you why the Nikon system is the superor system for myself. Others can tell you why Canon is the superior system for themselves. None of us can tell you what the best system for you will be.

Try the offerings from each system and see which one you like working with best. That's the system for you.

I've used the Nikon repair service twice. Both times the repairs were done well and very quickly.

Andy

mwgrice wrote:

I have learned, however, that Nikon lens caps taste better, but Canon lens caps are more filling. Also, a 10 year old with an instamatic can get a surfing shot.*

Are you saying the outcome of The Great Debate wasn't clear to you?

DavidTO

Harry's right. Listen to Harry. It's whatever you like.

But asking questions is crucial, since part of your job now is to determine what you WILL like in the future. Going into a store and touching them, using them is important, but it's only part of the picture, and long-term satisfaction comes from understanding.

Poseidon

I knew this girl once........ her name was Pandora!

Really though, both systems are GREAT, just pick the one you can navigate the best. (Menu's and settings etc...)

mwgrice

Andy wrote:

Are you saying the outcome of The Great Debate wasn't clear to you?

The big thing I got out of it is that Canon tends to do better at high ISO. I admit I was hoping for something more along the lines of: the Canon lens line is strong here, weak there...

Oh, and the photographer seems to make a difference, too.:D

bfjr

Nikon is the be all end all in photo gear.

Ok now that that's cleared up

What's a Canon??? :lol4 :lol

gus

....not quite cleared up so i would like to ad


...one day Nikon is going to be able to match canons high ISO (low light) shooting ability...until then ..buy a canon. There are clear & obvious reasons as to why canon are more popular & nikon shooters are green with envy at this high ISO ability. So much so they dread these threads even being started because they know the whip is coming out.

bham

If you truely want an objective comparison ask an owner of Olympus, KonicaMinolta, etc. Too many photographers have either a Canon or Nikon and I haven't found one that wouldn't recommend theirs over the other. So maybe if you can find someone here who owns neither they may could give you an more objective answer. Also maybe some Canon or Nikon users who switched from a previous system.

I am a Canon user and lover. I believe the main reason I switched to Canon, I had a Minolta film camera(actually still do), was that I knew a few sports photographers that had Minolta gear and they were selling it in favor of going to Canon. This was just bearly preDSLR.

I have been very happy. One other interesting bit of info. I got to know a sports photograher for the local paper who became a member of the AP. Once that happened he got a budget to buy equipment of his chosing. He chose Canon even though the newspaper had used Nikon exlusively for many years. I didn't really get into the why, due to time. This was after I had already gotten a Canon DSLR and lenses, so it didn't affect my decision but it somewhat reinforced it.

All this being said. Both are excellent and it comes down to a personal choice for you. Make it and don't look back.

Seymore

gus wrote:

....not quite cleared up so i would like to ad


...one day Nikon is going to be able to match canons high ISO (low light) shooting ability...until then ..buy a canon. There are clear & obvious reasons as to why canon are more popular & nikon shooters are green with envy at this high ISO ability. So much so they dread these threads even being started because they know the whip is coming out.

And when that happens, I'll have all the QUALITY MF lenses I need, that Nikon made 20-30+ years prior. At that point, MF primes will be hard to come by, and worth a mint. As it stands now, the MF lenses I have are totally compatible with all the bodies I own. I expect that Nikon will keep it that way.

gus

Seymore wrote:

And when that happens

Any idea when ? I mean lets face it, its no secret how to make a camera that can shoot at high ISO ?

Hmm.... hang on...maybe it is. Seriously if this wasnt important then its a no brainer...either camera but this is a serious albatros around Nikons neck.

mrmatt

I'm a Canon 10D, 610, and Nikon 950 owner but I'm a pretty bad photographer and not very knowledgable. I think the best advice I read so far was to first check if you have any existing lens, if you don't, just pick one that appears to be strong in the area you prefer (or just flip a coin). My friend just recently got the new entry level Nikon DSLR (forgot model number) and I was a bit jealous since it seemed like a great price. I haven't bought anything for my 10D in a while and one thing that kind of bugs me is how my camera is not compatible with the EF-S lenses. I'm not sure if a similar situation exists for Nikon but if I were shopping that's one thing I'd look into.

I don't think you can go wrong with either really.

Seefutlung

I've used both Nikon (professionally) and now Canon (hobby). In terms of Image Quality (IQ) there really isn't any difference to speak of. The differences are slight, a Nikon may feel better to one while the Canon to another. Canon has better noise control at 1600 and 3200 ISO, but the difference is slight.

It has been my personal experience (former photo journalist) that similar level (pro, prosumer, consumer) equipment will deliver similar results. A professional will get the same shot with a Nikon D200 as he/she would with a Canon 30D, a D70 with a XT, a $250 Nikon P&S with a $250 Canon P&S, et cetera.

Same for lenses. A pro level Nikkor has similar resolution (sharpness) as a pro level Canon or pro level Sigma, Tokina, Tamron.

Remember that it takes about 50% more MPs to make a visual difference in an image. Even then one has to enlarge the image greater than a 8x10 to actually see a difference.

Presently, Canon has more lenses which are designed for digital cameras ... but Nikon will soon catch up. And the only other major area where Canon beats the rest it that it has a far greater line-up of dSLRs, on the top end, Canon's 1Ds and 5D are superior cameras to Nikon.

Equipment is great to talk about and hype what you have over the competition ... but it is all .. pretty much the same. What makes a difference in photography is the eye and mind behind the equipment.

In a nutshell, you cannot go wrong purchasing a Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Sony, et al. They all perform pretty much the same within their respected class.

Gary

PS- My statements all refer to general photography ... if you shoot something in particular (say ... astro) ... then some brands may be superior to others. If I was starting out in digital photography ... here and now ... I would probably get the D200 (but I have too many lenses to switch now).
G

Blurmore

gus wrote:

Any idea when ? I mean lets face it, its no secret how to make a camera that can shoot at high ISO ?

Hmm.... hang on...maybe it is. Seriously if this wasnt important then its a no brainer...either camera but this is a serious albatros around Nikons neck.

Heh...Nikon HAS a CMOS camera but its most popular model is a CCD body with guts built by papa Sony (who has no qualms about using that same sensor in ITS OWN cameras and thereby diluting Nikon's market power). Simple statement Canon and Fuji are the ONLY DSLR manufacturers who don't outsource their most important component in the body, the sensor. So Nikon has pinned their success on and exploited the hopes of a legion of loyal photographers made more loyal by at one time purchasing good glass from Nikon. On another note, from what I have seen Nikon has been screwing their bricks and mortar stores by not fullfilling their orders in favor of keeping online retailers stocked. So when Nikon opts to put it's best technology in cameras that the common person can afford, then they come to the table playing straight with their (sometimes blindly) loyal legions of Nikkor lens owners. Untill then the 'whip' you spoke of will always be a call to post your iso 800 images. I'm not denying that Nikon glass is good, no I'll come right out and say it is frickin great, Fuji realized it, Kodak tried to get a piece of it, but both of those cameras were hamstringed by their own problems.

Seefutlung

Blurmore wrote:

Heh...Nikon HAS a CMOS camera but its most popular model is a CCD body with guts built by papa Sony (who has no qualms about using that same sensor in ITS OWN cameras and thereby diluting Nikon's market power). Simple statement Canon and Fuji are the ONLY DSLR manufacturers who don't outsource their most important component in the body, the sensor. So Nikon has pinned their success on and exploited the hopes of a legion of loyal photographers made more loyal by at one time purchasing good glass from Nikon. On another note, from what I have seen Nikon has been screwing their bricks and mortar stores by not fullfilling their orders in favor of keeping online retailers stocked. So when Nikon opts to put it's best technology in cameras that the common person can afford, then they come to the table playing straight with their (sometimes blindly) loyal legions of Nikkor lens owners. Untill then the 'whip' you spoke of will always be a call to post your iso 800 images. I'm not denying that Nikon glass is good, no I'll come right out and say it is frickin great, Fuji realized it, Kodak tried to get a piece of it, but both of those cameras were hamstringed by their own problems.

I really doesn't matter who makes the sensor, as long as Nikon specs are met and Nikon quality control are met. (IMO, this goes for any component or equipment. As long as the maker hits the specs of the designer, including quality control, then it doesn't matter who makes the equipment.)

Gary

bfjr

gus wrote:

....not quite cleared up so i would like to ad


...one day Nikon is going to be able to match canons high ISO (low light) shooting ability...until then ..buy a canon. There are clear & obvious reasons as to why canon are more popular & nikon shooters are green with envy at this high ISO ability. So much so they dread these threads even being started because they know the whip is coming out.

Oh please stop with the whip and No I don't dread these threads. I say bring it

Blurmore

bfjr wrote:

Oh please stop with the whip and No I don't dread these threads. I say bring it

*cough* JFET (CMOS like) Sensor *cough*

lets see 800iso's from a D200

Harryb

gus wrote:

....not quite cleared up so i would like to ad


...one day Nikon is going to be able to match canons high ISO (low light) shooting ability...until then ..buy a canon. There are clear & obvious reasons as to why canon are more popular & nikon shooters are green with envy at this high ISO ability. So much so they dread these threads even being started because they know the whip is coming out.

I have to talk to all those pros whose workshops I have taken who told me to always use the lowest ISO possible. What's wrong with them anyhow?
Lets all buy Canons and set the ISO to 1600 permanently and snap away. :lol4

I've been shooting for a while now and I can count on one hand the number of times I needed to go to an ISO higher than 800. I'm amazed that I did so well in the Alligator Farm's photo contest using such an inferior camera at such low ISOs.

Sure its easier to shoot at higher ISOs. Just like its easier to not worry about your WB settings. Just because you won't get the maximum quality shot shouldn't deter you.

Sorry but the high ISO stuff just isn't a selling point to me.

TomaS

Blurmore wrote:

*cough* JFET (CMOS like) Sensor *cough*

lets see 800iso's from a D200

ISO=800 NikonD200 Nikkor 300mm f4
This is about 50% crop of original. Some sharpening applied.

It was overcast, train was less than smooth riding....

Blurmore

OOPS edited becuase it was the 30, I was shooting with both that day.
30D 1600 iso in deep shade straight out the camera.

pathfinder

I think the objectivity of this thread is rapidly disintigrating.............scratch

They're all good.

colourbox

The thing is, the Canon users should not imply that Nikon is bad in low light. Clearly, Nikon is good in low light. The point the Canon people are making is that Canon can be better in low light, but the Nikon people may think the difference isn't important. And that's all fine.

I like the Canon high-ISO performance because I often find myself shooting handheld in low light and I can't afford the fastest lenses. If I used a tripod and had expensive, fast lenses maybe a Nikon would be adequate because I wouldn't be fighting for that last stop or two. That may be where some of the debate is coming from...people with different styles and lens budgets.

I have a Nikon film SLR and went to a Canon digital SLR because Canon had the better body/sensor at my price point at the time I bought, and I only have 2 Nikon lenses. But Nikon has been catching up. If I was buying my first digital SLR today, I would consider Nikon and Canon digital SLRs about equal and I might have never switched. I do love my Canon, however, no regrets there. As it stands, I'm glad I now have a few Nikon and Canon lenses because if either company comes out with a revolutionary digital body I don't have to think twice about buying it.

Blurmore

This is neither here nor there but....
I had opportunity to shoot with a pro event photographer that uses both, yes thats right both (with their respective logo neck straps attached) hanging around his neck at the same time. Makes sense really. He uses the Nikon for flash photography because he likes the accurate WB/matrix metering/good color, he uses the Canon for low light ambient and telephoto work. Interesting thing is I don't think he uses any OEM lenses opting mostly for fast pro Tamron standard and Sigma telephoto glass. Strange guy, great photographer, no hang ups about being a brand trader.