Great thread. I agree that if you have Canon glass already, it's a no brainer. But I'll also add that, by a long shot, most of the gear I see pro assignment shooters carrying is Canon. In fact, I'm seeing more Sony than Nikon these days.
I used Olympus film cameras for 15 years. Switched to Nikon and hated them for another 10. When I went digital, I chucked the whole ball o' wax and started fresh with Canon. The image procesors are second to none. Now my investment strategy is to build on the Canon glass collection.
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
This seems to be a common argument made. It seems to me (remember I actually am a canon guy, not trying to flame!) that Nikon's system *would* allow one to be a lot faster once you'd learned it, than the canon system. Menu's require stopping, looking at the screen, changing a setting, then going back to shooting. With the nikon I could just hold a button and turn a dial, and that's easy to do without looking. I use all my buttons on my canon without looking all the time, and it's nice.
I could even say the following for the nikon/canon advantages/disadvantages, and I'm curious if others agree. Necessary disclaimer -- I am simply trying to draw out everyone's honest experiences and thoughts on the relative pros/cons of the 2 systems. I find that most comparisons take what I consider to be a likely cop-out by saying 'they're both great -- doesn't matter' when there are real differences, and it seems worth really discussing them.
Nikon Advantages:
1. Ergonomics/buttons/controls -- if you learn it, you can work faster because the gear can be an 'extension of yourself' easier than with a menu-based system.
2. Fuji DSLR -- you can use the quite well-regarded fuji s3/s5 with your nikon glass, making it simple to have the fuji for weddings and the nikon for sports, for example.
3. Flash system -- questionable these days?
4. Wide-angle lenses -- questionable these days?
Anything else?
Canon advantages:
1. More advanced sensors -- Canon seems to consistently come out with higher-resolution sensors, and more powerful image processors, capable of higher-speed captures and more detailed images
2. Telephoto lenses -- questionable these days?
3. Low-light/high ISO -- we'll see if this still applies with d300/d3?
4. Tilt/Shift
Anything else?
I think it is misleading to describe Canon controls as "menu based." While menus are used more in the lower end products, the 1/5/20/30/40 Ds have buttons and wheels that are easy to learn with practice. About the only time I need to use a menu when shooting is to invoke mirror lockup or bracketed exposures.
Without meaning to be rude, the term "measurebating" comes to mind.
It's not a cop-out to say that both systems are more advanced than the photographers who are likely to use them. Now that Nikon appears to have closed the gap on full frame and high ISO performance, the difference between the brands comes down to personal preference, not capability (with some specific, highly specialized exceptions, as noted by Pathfinder.)
I think it is misleading to describe Canon controls as "menu based." While menus are used more in the lower end products, the 1/5/20/30/40 Ds have buttons and wheels that are easy to learn with practice. About the only time I need to use a menu when shooting is to invoke mirror lockup or bracketed exposures.
Yes. That is my experience with the Canon 5D as well. The critical settings are at my fingertips while I am looking through the viewfinder which, at least to me, is what matters.
In terms of lenses, my impression is that the Canon line is both more complete and more up to date. Nikon has been relatively slow to update their line of lenses with modern fast AF and VR.
I could even say the following for the nikon/canon advantages/disadvantages, and I'm curious if others agree. Necessary disclaimer -- I am simply trying to draw out everyone's honest experiences and thoughts on the relative pros/cons of the 2 systems. I find that most comparisons take what I consider to be a likely cop-out by saying 'they're both great -- doesn't matter' when there are real differences, and it seems worth really discussing them.
Honestly, I don't think saying they are both great is a cop-out at all. I think it is perfectly valid to say that the systems are similar enough that discussing the differences is a waste of time, particularly for professional photographers who have to worry about the bottom line. Gear churn is expensive and if you are continually looking over your shoulder at the other guy to decide which system has the edge this month you are going to sink your business.
As an example, when I went digital, I bought a Canon 5D because that was the best camera available at the time for what I want to do. Nikon has now announced the D3 which would likely be a better camera for me than the 5D (albeit at a significantly higher price). I have no doubt though, that in the next year or so Canon will release a new body which is better suited to my needs than the D3. Should I churn my whole stable of glass just to have a better camera for the next 6 months? At least from where I sit, that would be a silly thing to do. I am working just fine right now, so I can afford to wait.
Honestly, I don't think saying they are both great is a cop-out at all. I think it is perfectly valid to say that the systems are similar enough that discussing the differences is a waste of time, particularly for professional photographers who have to worry about the bottom line. Gear churn is expensive and if you are continually looking over your shoulder at the other guy to decide which system has the edge this month you are going to sink your business.
I agree. I shouldn't have said 'cop out', as that is not really true. You have perfectly elaborated my 3rd category "
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 should just reiterate that it seems there ARE differences, and for someone looking to get into a system it is helpful to really know which system might be best for them, based on their relative strengths/weaknesses.
Also, the argument that they change so frequently as to make comparisons pointless is worth discussing, I think, too. First I must say that I am certainly NOT advocating 'gear churn' and changing systems every time the other brand gets a slight edge. Really I think 'slight edges' are totally negligible, although what is a 'slight edge might be debatable.
Seems to me that megapixels, burst rate, buffer sizes, etc., are slight, but edges that tend to persist with a brand for quite awhile are worth mentioning. For example, Fuji's are compatible with Nikon lenses, so you can use both bodies and the same lenses. Canon has not licensed their mount to anyone, and there is no reason to think they will, so that is a long-term edge.
Also, it seems valuable to pay attention to any other long-term trends. Nikon being slow to update lenses (as mentioned by someone earlier) would be another example of something like that. I would also think that Nikon's lack of shift/tilt lenses would count.
Sounds like the claim that Canon is menu-based only applies to lower-end cameras, too, so that is probably out?
Just a side note, I think you should get a D300 or D3.:D
I make it policy to never let ignorance stand in the way of my opinion. ~Justiceiro
"Your decisions on whether to buy, when to buy and what to buy should depend on careful consideration of your needs primarily, with a little of your wants thrown in for enjoyment, After all photography is a hobby, even for pros." ~Herbert Keppler
Honestly, I don't think saying they are both great is a cop-out at all. I think it is perfectly valid to say that the systems are similar enough that discussing the differences is a waste of time, particularly for professional photographers who have to worry about the bottom line. Gear churn is expensive and if you are continually looking over your shoulder at the other guy to decide which system has the edge this month you are going to sink your business.
I agree. I shouldn't have said 'cop out', as that is not really true. You have perfectly elaborated my 3rd category "
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 should just reiterate that it seems there ARE differences, and for someone looking to get into a system it is helpful to really know which system might be best for them, based on their relative strengths/weaknesses.
Also, the argument that they change so frequently as to make comparisons pointless is worth discussing, I think, too. First I must say that I am certainly NOT advocating 'gear churn' and changing systems every time the other brand gets a slight edge. Really I think 'slight edges' are totally negligible, although what is a 'slight edge might be debatable.
Seems to me that megapixels, burst rate, buffer sizes, etc., are slight, but edges that tend to persist with a brand for quite awhile are worth mentioning. For example, Fuji's are compatible with Nikon lenses, so you can use both bodies and the same lenses. Canon has not licensed their mount to anyone, and there is no reason to think they will, so that is a long-term edge.
Also, it seems valuable to pay attention to any other long-term trends. Nikon being slow to update lenses (as mentioned by someone earlier) would be another example of something like that. I would also think that Nikon's lack of shift/tilt lenses would count.
Sounds like the claim that Canon is menu-based only applies to lower-end cameras, too, so that theory is probably out?
Comments
I used Olympus film cameras for 15 years. Switched to Nikon and hated them for another 10. When I went digital, I chucked the whole ball o' wax and started fresh with Canon. The image procesors are second to none. Now my investment strategy is to build on the Canon glass collection.
I could even say the following for the nikon/canon advantages/disadvantages, and I'm curious if others agree. Necessary disclaimer -- I am simply trying to draw out everyone's honest experiences and thoughts on the relative pros/cons of the 2 systems. I find that most comparisons take what I consider to be a likely cop-out by saying 'they're both great -- doesn't matter' when there are real differences, and it seems worth really discussing them.
Nikon Advantages:
1. Ergonomics/buttons/controls -- if you learn it, you can work faster because the gear can be an 'extension of yourself' easier than with a menu-based system.
2. Fuji DSLR -- you can use the quite well-regarded fuji s3/s5 with your nikon glass, making it simple to have the fuji for weddings and the nikon for sports, for example.
3. Flash system -- questionable these days?
4. Wide-angle lenses -- questionable these days?
Anything else?
Canon advantages:
1. More advanced sensors -- Canon seems to consistently come out with higher-resolution sensors, and more powerful image processors, capable of higher-speed captures and more detailed images
2. Telephoto lenses -- questionable these days?
3. Low-light/high ISO -- we'll see if this still applies with d300/d3?
4. Tilt/Shift
Anything else?
It's not a cop-out to say that both systems are more advanced than the photographers who are likely to use them. Now that Nikon appears to have closed the gap on full frame and high ISO performance, the difference between the brands comes down to personal preference, not capability (with some specific, highly specialized exceptions, as noted by Pathfinder.)
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Yes. That is my experience with the Canon 5D as well. The critical settings are at my fingertips while I am looking through the viewfinder which, at least to me, is what matters.
In terms of lenses, my impression is that the Canon line is both more complete and more up to date. Nikon has been relatively slow to update their line of lenses with modern fast AF and VR.
Honestly, I don't think saying they are both great is a cop-out at all. I think it is perfectly valid to say that the systems are similar enough that discussing the differences is a waste of time, particularly for professional photographers who have to worry about the bottom line. Gear churn is expensive and if you are continually looking over your shoulder at the other guy to decide which system has the edge this month you are going to sink your business.
As an example, when I went digital, I bought a Canon 5D because that was the best camera available at the time for what I want to do. Nikon has now announced the D3 which would likely be a better camera for me than the 5D (albeit at a significantly higher price). I have no doubt though, that in the next year or so Canon will release a new body which is better suited to my needs than the D3. Should I churn my whole stable of glass just to have a better camera for the next 6 months? At least from where I sit, that would be a silly thing to do. I am working just fine right now, so I can afford to wait.
Also, the argument that they change so frequently as to make comparisons pointless is worth discussing, I think, too. First I must say that I am certainly NOT advocating 'gear churn' and changing systems every time the other brand gets a slight edge. Really I think 'slight edges' are totally negligible, although what is a 'slight edge might be debatable.
Seems to me that megapixels, burst rate, buffer sizes, etc., are slight, but edges that tend to persist with a brand for quite awhile are worth mentioning. For example, Fuji's are compatible with Nikon lenses, so you can use both bodies and the same lenses. Canon has not licensed their mount to anyone, and there is no reason to think they will, so that is a long-term edge.
Also, it seems valuable to pay attention to any other long-term trends. Nikon being slow to update lenses (as mentioned by someone earlier) would be another example of something like that. I would also think that Nikon's lack of shift/tilt lenses would count.
Sounds like the claim that Canon is menu-based only applies to lower-end cameras, too, so that is probably out?
save yourself ~$300 (it's from Dell Home)
Just a side note, I think you should get a D300 or D3.:D
"Your decisions on whether to buy, when to buy and what to buy should depend on careful consideration of your needs primarily, with a little of your wants thrown in for enjoyment, After all photography is a hobby, even for pros."
~Herbert Keppler
Also, the argument that they change so frequently as to make comparisons pointless is worth discussing, I think, too. First I must say that I am certainly NOT advocating 'gear churn' and changing systems every time the other brand gets a slight edge. Really I think 'slight edges' are totally negligible, although what is a 'slight edge might be debatable.
Seems to me that megapixels, burst rate, buffer sizes, etc., are slight, but edges that tend to persist with a brand for quite awhile are worth mentioning. For example, Fuji's are compatible with Nikon lenses, so you can use both bodies and the same lenses. Canon has not licensed their mount to anyone, and there is no reason to think they will, so that is a long-term edge.
Also, it seems valuable to pay attention to any other long-term trends. Nikon being slow to update lenses (as mentioned by someone earlier) would be another example of something like that. I would also think that Nikon's lack of shift/tilt lenses would count.
Sounds like the claim that Canon is menu-based only applies to lower-end cameras, too, so that theory is probably out?