Am I a canon or nikon person?

happy-imp

Background:
I am a newly professional photographer. I have a growing collection of canon glass and equipment. I like to shoot all sorts of things, from fast-paced sports events, events, and weddings; to portraits, artistic pieces, landscapes, and so on. I don't feel I have a 'niche' yet.

I like knowing my camera well and really geeking out on the technical stuff, but only because I can be a perfectionist. My irritation with not getting just what I want drives me to learn why, and how I CAN get it.

I have never really spent much time with a Nikon. I am willing to switch should it really be beneficial to me.

Predicament:
I know that both Nikon and Canon (and others, for that matter) make great cameras. I don't think that one sucks and the other the bomb. The sage advice seems to be "it depends on what you want, what you like, what kind of photography you do" bla bla bla.

OK, so we know that they're both good, and it depends on what you want. The question then becomes, what are each better for? What makes you a 'canon person' or a 'nikon person'? What people are better served by one vs. the other? Is it a personality thing? Is it a type of photography thing?

Also I'll add...

My current impression:
Canon is better at the core technology, and especially the sensors. Their sensors rule, but Nikon puts more time into things like ergonomics, automatic functions (Scene recognition, automatic dynamic range, etc.), ruggedness, etc. Canon is better for people in a controlled environment (like a studio) because you will have the time to get the most out of your sensor. Nikon is better for photojournalists and people who need to be able to shoot fast, especially in demanding situations that require super-rugged equipment, the ability to control your camera quickly and without looking at menus, and where you don't have a lot of time to think about nitty gritty technical details. It will help you with those things with its 'automatic' features.

Please, if you're a pro who has used both, help me out! Is my impression correct? Do I sound like someone who might be a stereotypical candidate for one camp or the other? Any advice? I'm trying to save having to buy a nikon, too, and use them both in order to decide... or at least to see if it seems likely that I should give it a chance.

wxwax

If I had Nikon glass I'd buy a Nikon. I have Canon glass and am happy to stay with them. The new batch of Nikons has me jealous. But if they're superior to Canon's equivalent bodies, the advantage won't last long.

Build quality? I've had a couple in the 1D series and you can drive nails with them.

dangin

when i went digital about 9 years ago, i was a canon guy. i wasn't keen on the all plastic bodies and the ergonics weren't really to my liking, especially the jog wheel. i bought a nikon d70s a few years ago and now i've got 2 d200 bodies and a d3 on order. i would have considered switching back to canon if nikon didn't introduce a camera with significantly better noise control at high ISO but they did just that in the d3. canon has the megapixel edge right now with the 1d3s but for what i shoot, 10-12MP is more than fine for me.

maybe it's the engineer in me that likes nikon's operating system and ergonomics better than canon's...

z_28

I have both, sorry.

But have a little plan to buy Sony, again

gus

From my point of view it wont matter a hoot..zip..nil. Its about what you do with anything that really matters. A good photographer will make a point & shoot run rings around a poor one with $10k of gear.Both sets of gear are perfectly capable.

Its in the photographer..not the equipment.

bham

Some people swear by one or the other. But most of those people have only ever owned and regularly used the one they swear by. For most it would be a little to costly to switch systems. Toyota v Nissan, Ford v Chevy. In the long run competition insures both systems will push to keep up with the other and innovation by one will be mimicked by the other.

LiquidAir

You could be either. Pick one and run with it.

z_28

bham wrote:

Some people swear by one or the other. But most of those people have only ever owned and regularly used the one they swear by. For most it would be a little to costly to switch systems. Toyota v Nissan, Ford v Chevy. In the long run competition insures both systems will push to keep up with the other and innovation by one will be mimicked by the other.

What are you talking about ???

I had Ford Mustang and Chevrolet Camaro Z28 at the same time for several years !
Canons and Nikons too.

Such threads should be totally banned :ivar

swintonphoto

I feel left out... :cry (Oly user)

DJ-S1

I thought the only real distinction between them was that Canon is a touch better in low light. If that doesn't matter to you then either brand will be fine. Since you have Canon glass, I wouldn't waste the investment you have already made.

Good luck with your decision.

seastack

I would say if you've started with Canon, stay with Canon. I'd say the same if you'd started with Nikon. Both are excellent.

You mentioned some impressions about the two companies - rugged v. studio etc. I'm not sure there is a whole lot of distinction between the high end of either, at least not anymore. I know, and know of, photojournalists on both sides of the fence. War photographer James Nachtwey uses Canon, many others use Nikon (sometimes a holdover in the newsroom 'cause they've got awesome Nikon glass lying around that's been there for years). If rugged weatherproofing is important to you, just make sure your camera has this feature. My Canon 5d is rugged but not as weather resistant as the 1d series - wxwax is right, you can drive nails with those.

claudermilk

z_28 wrote:

What are you talking about ???

I had Ford Mustang and Chevrolet Camaro Z28 at the same time for several years !
Canons and Nikons too.

Such threads should be totally banned :ivar

HERETIC!!! You should be burned at the stake! Imagine, forcing a Mustang & Camaro to share a garage.:crazy
:whip








Anyway, back OT. IMHO your impressions aren't all that accurate. I typically use my Canon in uncontrolled situations--frequently theater lighting--and chose it specifically because it could handle those situations better than Nikon could at the time; it appears that is now changed with the D3 and D300, we will see. Canon's prosumer & pro gear is quite rugged, pity any pickpocket that tries to take my big white L, he will have a lens body impression on his forehead. There's also some compelling stories of Canon pro gear in combat & hazardous PJ photography that took a beating & kept on working.

For ergonomics, Canon tends to use the LCD menu system & multi-fuction buttons with the wheel more while Nikon tends to have hard switches & dials on the body. For lenses, the general feeling is Canon has a stronger telephoto lineup while Nikon has a stronger wide angle lineup.

So, look at your ergonomics preferences & more common subject matter and pick your poison accordingly.

happy-imp

Thanks
Thanks for all the feedback. From what I've heard, it sounds like there's no compelling reason to even consider switching. I have to ask a more precise question, though, I think...

Some of my opinions about the canons being better in the studio vs. nikons being better 'automatics' come from articles like this:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/5d-d200.htm

That isn't the only one, I have seen other say the same thing. And, it looks like the d300/d3 will expand on this strategy even more. However, looking at Canon's new cameras can possibly give us insight into their future strategy. They are adding things that make the 1ds mkIII start to edge into medium format territory, which is certainly a 'slow' medium, in that you take your time with it.

Looking at this review we see the canon's resolution totally dominates the nikon's, but the nikon looks better out of the gate. It automatically adjusts things, whereas the canon leaves all the control to you.

I feel torn on that issue particularly, because I could see a great advantage of a nikon at any event where I take massive numbers of pictures, such as weddings, sporting events, etc. However, the thought of the camera doing all these things 'automatically' also bothers me, as it takes the control away from me. How am I supposed to 'see' what I'm going to get with a Nikon when it will go through all these algorithms and adjust it before the final product?

Does anyone have any frustrations/satisfaction/thoughts on that issue? I really would have to have BOTH systems, but a part of me thinks it might make sense. I'd have to get a ton of lenses then.... ugh...

zigzag

1. Honestly, you've asked a whole group of people a question that you can only answer yourself. And you want the results of an internet poll to answer it? In this forum dominated by Canon users, there's only one possible outcome to that poll.

2. I wouldn't trust Ken Rockwell's writings at all. Read around some more and you'll see why. There are much more respected opinions out there.

3. The answers here in general point you in the right direction. There's no reason to switch. Each brand will out-do the other every generation. You'll be just as frustrated on either side of the fence. Try and choose. Once you've chosen (you have), stick.

4. You can run a Nikon in many ways, but it does not take control away from you. That's a misconception. So is the idea that Canons don't do everything automatically just like Nikons.

happy-imp

zigzag wrote:

2. I wouldn't trust Ken Rockwell's writings at all. Read around some more and you'll see why. There are much more respected opinions out there.

4. You can run a Nikon in many ways, but it does not take control away from you. That's a misconception. So is the idea that Canons don't do everything automatically just like Nikons.

Thanks for the feedback on this. With regards to Ken, can you point me in any directions with regards to him not being trustworthy? I haven't seen anything myself...

As to the automation issue... which do you shoot?

TylerW

I really don't know where this argument that canons are only good in the studio, and i don't think it hold much water at all. Both platforms are brilliant, one with slight advantages over the other. And once one establishes a significant advantage, the other will react within the next generation. Its hard to go wrong with either.

You've got an investment in glass and that's nothing to ignore, but it shouldn't marry you to a system you don't like, either. You mention that ergonomics are important to you, and for that, there's only one answer for you:

Go to your local pro shop that carries both platforms and play with both of them. Use them the way you would use your own camera, and make your decision that way.

wxwax

TylerW wrote:

Its hard to go wrong with either.

I think this sums it up.

DavidTO

My grandfather was a folklorist, with 20+ books to his credit. He gathered folk tales and jokes and what-not, and collected them in various books.

This one little bit has always stuck with me. From one of his books, seems like you could easily trade canon/nikon for democrat/republican.

"Why," asked the Northerner, "are you a Democrat?"

"Well," drawled the Southerner, "my father was a Democrat, my grandfather was a Democrat, and my great-grandfather was a Democrat, so of course I'm a Democrat."

"Ah," said the Northerner, "suppose your father had been a horse thief, what would you have been then?"

"Oh, I guess I'd a been a Republican."

happy-imp

wxwax wrote:

I think this sums it up.

OK, so this seems to be the general message. However, I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice that responses to the brand debate typically fall into 1 of 3 categories:

1: Flame -- {brand X} is waay better than {brand Y}!!!! {Brand Y} STINKS!!!

2: It depends on what type of photography you do.

3: They're all great.

I'm getting a lot of 3 here: they're both great. What I am really curious about, however, is a little more detail from people who hold opinion 2. What sort of photography would incline someone of opinion 2 to recommend brand X over brand y? Anyone? I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like a little more detail from the #2 camp

LiquidAir

happy-imp wrote:

I'm getting a lot of 3 here: they're both great. What I am really curious about, however, is a little more detail from people who hold opinion 2. What sort of photography would incline someone of opinion 2 to recommend brand X over brand y? Anyone? I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like a little more detail from the #2 camp

If I had money to burn and I was going to buy a complete new rig, here's what I would do:

For landscape, architecture, or studio work: Canon 1Ds III for full frame and high resolution.

For sports or wildlife: Canon 1D III because I prefer a crop sensor when reach is critical.

For PJ or weddings: Nikon D3 (assuming the high ISO performace is as good as advertised) because CLS gives better control over a remote flash ajnd the 1Ds is overkill.

That, of course is an impression based on the specs for each of these bodies since I haven't used any of them.

However, generalizing from these judgements to lower priced gear would be a mistake. If you are interesed in lower priced offerings, the best system for a particular task might come from either vendor depending on your budget. If you want more detailed feedback, propose two hypothetical camera rigs (one Canon, one Nikon) and ask for the relative merits.

greenpea

gus wrote:

From my point of view it wont matter a hoot..zip..nil. Its about what you do with anything that really matters. A good photographer will make a point & shoot run rings around a poor one with $10k of gear.Both sets of gear are perfectly capable.

Its in the photographer..not the equipment.

...also if your going to get a DSLR, what ever you get today will be totally obsolete tomorrow. Maybe the next Nikon will have the better technology, sensor, ruggedness, etc than the current Canon, then the next Canon after that will have the better better technology, sensor, ruggedness, etc and so on and so on.

Moogle Pepper

greenpea wrote:

...also if your going to get a DSLR, what ever you get today will be totally obsolete tomorrow. Maybe the next Nikon will have the better technology, sensor, ruggedness, etc than the current Canon, then the next Canon after that will have the better better technology, sensor, ruggedness, etc and so on and so on.

(::pissed

It's such a sad relationship with cameras. They woo you with such hot stuff and then you commit .. only to realize that camera duped you!!



Wait...


It is up to you. My canon 30D gets the job done for what I want right now.

pathfinder

There are a few real differences in the systems.

Canon offers three different Tilt and SHift lenses 24, 45, and 90, so if tilt and shift is very important, that might make a difference in someone's decision. I have heard of shooters who chose Canon for that reason alone.

Traditionally Nikon was said to have better wide angles, and Canon better super teles, but I don't think that argument is quite as compelling as it once was.

Some used to think that Nikons flash system was better and easier to use, but Canon's system with ETTL II has gotten very good also.

Both systems have great macro lens choices.

I could be happy with either system, but have chosen to reside in the white lens camp for now.

banbro

It is interesting to read through everyone's thoughts and comments. In my opinion... it doesn't matter what you choose you will always question if you chose the right track but you will make it work for you. I read review after review and talked to friends and co-workers when I got serious about buying a DSLR, after all dropping a grand or more for just a body is a big investment. Either camp... Nikon or Canon, you just can't go wrong. Since you already have Canon glass I would probably stick with Canon unless you find a compelling reason to change.

I have a co-worker that shoots a 20D and a 30D, in fact all of my co-workers who have DSLR shoot Canon and they all had compelling arguments to go the Canon route. Personally for me it came down to holding each body with a lens mounted and finding the one that fit me the best and had controls that I could navigate comfortably. In the end Nikon's D200 won out and a significant part of that was the fit and feel of it in my hands, but... I was also starting fresh with (D)SLR and had zero investment in glass.

claudermilk

I guess I'd fall into about imp's category 2.5. Both systems are excellent, but if you have specific needs one is likely to have an edge. Going back to my own decision, I found I was shooting a lot of dance events. That meant action & low light. up until the announcement of Nikon's D3 and D300 Canon has been the undusputed low-light/high ISO champ. Between that, Canon's excellent lens selection in the focal lengths I need, and ready availability of loaners it became a no-brainer.

Regarding Mr. Rockwell, I wouldn't take anything he says seriously. If you poll around at some of the other major photo fora you will get the same opinion from the vast majority of users. He tends to spout controversial stuff to drive traffic to his site. Why? Ever notice how many banner ads there are there? There's your reason IMHO. I won't even reference the links people give when asking about some nonsense he has there any more so I don't feed the troll.

greenpea

claudermilk wrote:

Regarding Mr. Rockwell, I wouldn't take anything he says seriously. If you poll around at some of the other major photo fora you will get the same opinion from the vast majority of users. He tends to spout controversial stuff to drive traffic to his site. Why? Ever notice how many banner ads there are there? There's your reason IMHO. I won't even reference the links people give when asking about some nonsense he has there any more so I don't feed the troll.

Mr. Rockwell himself actually says that shouldn't take anything he says seriously on his own site :lol

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]While occasionally inspired by actual products or experiences, this site is entirely a work of fiction. It's a joke! Any resemblance to any actual people, places, products or anything is purely coincidental. This site is private and provided only for the entertainment of my personal friends and myself.[/FONT]

kdog

happy-imp wrote:

Thanks for the feedback on this. With regards to Ken, can you point me in any directions with regards to him not being trustworthy? I haven't seen anything myself...

You must not have looked very hard. Google "Ken Rockwell" and you'll see tons of commentary about him.

The first two links that pop up are to his site.

Third link: Question about Ken Rockwell's website

Fourth link: Ken Rockwell - Genius or Fool?

Etc, etc.

kdog

greenpea wrote:

Mr. Rockwell himself actually says that shouldn't take anything he says seriously on his own site :lol

Wait. If you can't trust what he says, how do you know that's true as well? scratch

Wet Oregon

I fully agree 110% with the response "It's the photographer, not the camera that produces great pictures"

wet oregon

i_worship_the_King

For ergonomics, Canon tends to use the LCD menu system & multi-fuction buttons with the wheel more while Nikon tends to have hard switches & dials on the body.

I've used the prosumer Canon & Nikon stuff working with the newspaper, and it's for the ergonomics alone that I went with Nikon. I'm a button person. I despise having to fumble through menus when a simple jog dial gets it done in an instant.

I think it comes down to just like everyone has said so far - 99% of it comes down to you knowing your camera cold so that you can get what you want out of it. Some may be better suited for whatever application, but I refuse to belive that a good photographer can't make up for it by knowing his gear as an extension of himself.

There's my 2cent

Manfr3d

While others perform the usual brand tribalism
I'm usualy outdoors shooting some pictures instead.