Canon v. Nikon

ccpickre

Can anyone expain the pros and cons of getting a Canon over a Nikon, or Vice versa?

It woul dmake explaining what to think about when shooting and buying new equipment so much easier for my phtoographers at the school paper, and I'll be honest, I don't know Nikon that well.

davemj98

There is a small thread already posted on that subject here; try the search thingy.

Andy

davemj98 wrote:

There is a small thread already posted on that subject here; try the search thingy.

http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1134620

Andy

Andy wrote:

http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1134620

So, this was a couple years ago

NOW? Nikon has really got some impressive stuff. The D3 is awesome, amazing at ISO 6400, 12000, 25000 even!

The Nikkor 14-24 new zoom has got me drooling.

And the D300 is a great camera, too.

You have to choose, really.

For me, Landscapes and Portraiture, I prefer the Canon 1Ds Mark III. If I shot sports and or PJ or wildlife, I'd give the Nikon a serious, serious look.

ccpickre

Andy wrote:

So, this was a couple years ago

NOW? Nikon has really got some impressive stuff. The D3 is awesome, amazing at ISO 6400, 12000, 25000 even!

The Nikkor 14-24 new zoom has got me drooling.

And the D300 is a great camera, too.

You have to choose, really.

For me, Landscapes and Portraiture, I prefer the Canon 1Ds Mark III. If I shot sports and or PJ or wildlife, I'd give the Nikon a serious, serious look.

I was wondering more about comparing the sensors, auto focusing, features, noise reduction. But I'll give the other thread a look.

Thanks

ccpickre

Ultimately what I've heard is Nikon is more affordable, but only because they have more diverse lineups. Where as Canon has 4 series (400, 40, 5 and 1's).

I've heard Nikon tends to be greener in shadows, and the ISOs aren't as noise free.

But Canons are of course more expensive, and I think I heard Nikons tend to be a little faster for auto focusing.

But this is all speculation from other phtoogs. I shoot Canon religiously (I would probably be disowned by Pathfinder if I had asked for Nikon stuff ) so I only really know Canon.

BPerron

With the introduction of the d300 and the d3 nikon is now back in the market...

Canon rules the high ISO and sharpness still, even comapred to the d3...other then that I think nikon is way better with everything else...

This is why I will be getting a canon 5d for landscape and tripod shots and a nikon d300 for every other type of shooting...

Tee Why

In all honesty, putting aside the pro grade bodies like D3 or the 1D series most won't buy and looking at the consumer grades stuff, I'd say there isn't that much difference.

I shoot with Canon's and have a small amount of experience with Nikons but having used Nikon D40, D200, and D300, I think Nikon's feel better in the hand than comparable Rebel, 40D, and the 5D.

I still think among the consumer grade bodies, Canon tends to have less noise at higher ISO. Especially if you shoot in RAW. I remember the colors from the Nikno d50 looking so much more vibrant than Canon's but this is easily fixed in post processing. Again, if you shoot in JPEG, turning up the saturation and contrast may fix this as well.

Lens wise, I'm not too familiar with the Nikon glass, but I'd assume that they offer similar line ups with advantage going back and forth depending on specific application and what not.

Personally, I don't think it'll make that much of a difference. I'd go more at a price point and any specific lenses/accessories you are looking at and go from there.

tsk1979

Canon is better than Nikon, Period.
:gun2:gun2
Let the flames begin rofl

Harryb

ccpickre wrote:

Can anyone expain the pros and cons of getting a Canon over a Nikon, or Vice versa?

It would make explaining what to think about when shooting and buying new equipment so much easier for my phtoographers at the school paper, and I'll be honest, I don't know Nikon that well.

It isn't a Nikon V. Canon anymore. The offerings from Sony, Pentax, Okympus, Fuji, and Sigma are also outstanding cameras. There is no objectively better camera. The major differences are subjective and vary according to the whimsy and prejudices of the individual shooters.

You can shoot a scene with each of the various DSLRs and in the end you would not be able to tell which camera took which shot.

Davidoff

Harryb wrote:

It isn't a Nikon V. Canon anymore. The offerings from Sony, Pentax, Okympus, Fuji, and Sigma are also outstanding cameras. There is no objectively better camera. The major differences are subjective and vary according to the whimsy and prejudices of the individual shooters.

You can shoot a scene with each of the various DSLRs and in the end you would not be able to tell which camera took which shot.

It probably has more to do with handling than with image quality these days, I always found the Nikons MUCH more confortable to hold and I always felt the controls are much nicer. And I use a D70s, the D300 is just amazing in this regard ( I'm not even mentioning image quality ).


rant time-

Another thing that gets annoying sometimes is the Canon L thing, they get huge praise, as if they're the only high quality lens, when Nikon has lens that are just as good or better, but because they don't have a special letter or red ring, people don't pay attention.

- rant time over

pathfinder

ccpickre wrote:

Ultimately what I've heard is Nikon is more affordable, but only because they have more diverse lineups. Where as Canon has 4 series (400, 40, 5 and 1's).

I've heard Nikon tends to be greener in shadows, and the ISOs aren't as noise free.

But Canons are of course more expensive, and I think I heard Nikons tend to be a little faster for auto focusing.

But this is all speculation from other phtoogs. I shoot Canon religiously (I would probably be disowned by Pathfinder if I had asked for Nikon stuff ) so I only really know Canon.

Price is not really a major difference - some Canon lenses are higher, some Nikon lenses are higher (in cost).

I agree with Andy, the D3 and the D300 are fantastic cameras, that I would love to shoot with. I shoot Canon because I already own Canon lenses and flashes. The new Nikon 12-24 is getting great praise and I wish I could use it also.

But Harry is right, today, the major differences between Nikon and Canon grows smaller and the ability of the user is still the dominant factor.

Learn to use what you own to its ver best and you will make fine images, whether Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Sony etc.

I enjoy using a point and shoot frequently.

claudermilk

Between Nikon & Canon these days, it's gotten to individual preference. Which philosophy of controls meshes better (more button driven or more menu driven respectively), which camera sits in the hand better, which specific set of specs meets the photograper's needs best. Both have excellent glass--recall that Nikkor glass was considered the top for a very long time before Canon caught up.

For the other manufacturers, while the body capabilites are closing in on the top dogs, there is still a much larger gap with compatible accessories. Both Nikon & Canon have extensive lines of gear which is supported by a large third party base of support. The others don't have this as much, particularly in non-OEM choices.

ziggy53

It's honestly hard to find a recent dSLR from "any" manufacturer that is a complete dud.

Cameras are just tools, and SLR type cameras are very versatile because they are part of a "system". Consider the complete system when making a choice, unless you have a specific project with a budget large enough to allow specialized purchases or rentals.

I do find that Nikon cameras tend to have a layout reminiscent of older film SLR cameras. The Canon 1D series has a layout that makes a lot of sense when you become familiar with it (although it is similar to the Canon 1V pro film series). The entry and mid-level Canon cameras are different still. I have not found a single camera that I could not become familiar with in short order, and I'm not "that" special. I really don't think there is a camera layout that is terribly unusable because it would not last in the current free market.

I continue to produce interesting (to me) images with both a Minolta DiMage A2 advanced digicam and a FujiFilm F30 consumer digicam.

Learn to use what you have and grow yourself into what you "need", according to the tasks at hand. Try to resist the "I could be so much better if I only had ..." mentality.

Seefutlung

The entry level Nikon cannot autofocus all Nikkor lenses.

All of Canon cameras will autofocus all Canon lenses that autofocus.

All but the most expensive Nikon cameras (D3 & D300) use an inferior CCD sensor.

All Canon cameras use the superior CMOS sensor.

That being said ( ... I hate that phrase), at photos sized 8x10 and smaller and at ISO of 400- ... you won't be able to distinguish between a Canon and a Nikon images (toss a bunch of prints on a tabletop and you won't be able to separate them into a Canon and/or a Nikon pile).

I'm with Ziggy on "feel". When you purchase a SLR you are actually buying a camera system. Look at the system and make sure that the manufacturer supports your principle passion. i.e. infrared photography, macro, sports, astro, et cetera. As a former news photog, I've learned that buying a camera because it feels good is a bit of poppycock. You will adapt and usually quite quickly, to whatever camera system you choose. All modern cameras are designed for the human hand and human brain ... so unless you have something going on out of the ordinary ... you will easily adapt to most/all camera designs.

Use "feel" as the last and least important qualifier for your camera purchase. As most cameras are so similar in cost and image quality ... feel may just be your deciding factor ... but once again ... feel is the least important factor to consider.

Gary

dmmattix

Seefutlung wrote:

The entry level Nikon cannot autofocus all Nikkor lenses.

All of Canon cameras will autofocus all Canon lenses that autofocus.

That was an important feature to me when I went digital. I had shot with a Canon EOS 630 for years and had several not really great lenses but the worked on the first digital (D30). Kept me from having to invest a ton of money up front to get decent coverage.

That was one thing Canon did right and Nikon wrong in my opinion was to create an entirely new mount when they went autofocus. Nikon tried to modify their mount and it led to quite a bit of confusion as to what lense would work on what camera.

Harryb

dmmattix wrote:

That was an important feature to me when I went digital. I had shot with a Canon EOS 630 for years and had several not really great lenses but the worked on the first digital (D30). Kept me from having to invest a ton of money up front to get decent coverage.

That was one thing Canon did right and Nikon wrong in my opinion was to create an entirely new mount when they went autofocus. Nikon tried to modify their mount and it led to quite a bit of confusion as to what lense would work on what camera.

Actually Nikon has stayed with the F mount for over 30 years now. The only cameras in its line-up that won't AF with older non AF S lenses are the entry level D40 and D40X. Since the target buyers for those cameras are folks new to DSLRs this is a non-issue as they won't normally have a collection of older lenses.

BPerron

Harryb wrote:

Actually Nikon has stayed with the F mount for over 30 years now. The only cameras in its line-up that won't AF with older non AF S lenses are the entry level D40 and D40X. Since the target buyers for those cameras are folks new to DSLRs this is a non-issue as they won't normally have a collection of older lenses.

That is what I thought...but was not 100% positive...

KED

ccpickre wrote:

But Canons are of course more expensive.

When I took up this hobby, I turned for advice to a pro friend of mine who uses Nikon. One of the things he told me was that even if Canon bodies are a little more expensive in the mid- to high end, Nikon lenses are more expensive than Canon, and one usually owns more lenses than bodies. I went with Canon for a host of reasons and have not had reason to verify the relative expense of bodies or lenses; all I know for sure is that it can get expensive in a hurry either way.

Harryb

BPerron wrote:

That is what I thought...but was not 100% positive...

It was Canon who introduced EOS cameras and lenses in 1985 which were incompatible with its pre-1985 products. Ancient history but interesting.

BPerron

Harryb wrote:

It was Canon who introduced EOS cameras and lenses in 1985 which were incompatible with its pre-1985 products. Ancient history but interesting.

It is very interesting...

KED

ziggy53 wrote:

I'm not "that" special.

We think you are!

ccpickre

Holy cow, thanks for the responses. They will help a lot.

I am currently one of the photo editors for my school paper, and we have a LOT of photographers who don't have their own cameras, but are looking, and it's hard to give them an honest opinion cause I don't know Nikons at all. I've looked at ours (the paper has a D200, D2H, D1x, and a few D70s I think) but not enough to become familiar with them.

So I just wanted to get some responses from professionals and experienced photogs, so I can help them pick a camera that suits them.

PS. Long time no see Harry. Don't know if you remember me, but I was with Jim and Kathy (Pathfinder and Nightengale) in early 06 at the Gator park. I was trying to photograph birds with a Panasonic Lumix I've upgraded since then though.

Seefutlung

Harryb wrote:

Actually Nikon has stayed with the F mount for over 30 years now. The only cameras in its line-up that won't AF with older non AF S lenses are the entry level D40 and D40X. Since the target buyers for those cameras are folks new to DSLRs this is a non-issue as they won't normally have a collection of older lenses.

I was told by a Nikon user that only the AF-S lenses will autofocus on a D40/D40X and that AF-S came in two flavors, crappy and very good (aka very expensive).

Just seems like a limiting factor to me.

Gary

ccpickre

That's what the general consensus between all the PJers I know, that lenses are better than bodies nowadays. And you spend more on lenses than bodies anyway.

Thanks for all the help. If anyone has more info I'm all ears.

Davidoff

It is a limiting factor, but that isn't stopping the D40 from selling extremely well. Most people don't know or don't care, I've lost track of the times I've explained this to people who had no idea if the lens they intended to use would af. Actually, they didn't know what lens they intended to use....

Harryb

Seefutlung wrote:

I was told by a Nikon user that only the AF-S lenses will autofocus on a D40/D40X and that AF-S came in two flavors, crappy and very good (aka very expensive).

Just seems like a limiting factor to me.

Gary

Sigh, I'm alway amazed at how Canon shooters are so concerned over the "plight" of the D40/D40X users.

Amazingly enough there a hundreds of thousands of DSLR users who don't want or need 2.8 glass or L glass, etc. My son dabbles in photography so I gave him my old D100 and I got him the 50mm 1.8, 18-70MM 3.5-5.6 and the 55-200mm VR lenses. He's thrilled with the camera and lenses. Of course some consider these lenses to be "crappy" but my son is a happy camper.

Folks starting out get the D40 or the latest version of the Rebel because its either a starting point or its all they can afford. All those poor souls have to endure the hardships of "crappy" glass because they can't afford or want the higher price glass.

BTW in all seriousness I truly abhor gear snobs who write off kit lenses etc as "crappy". I have shot with a number of gear snobs who had the latest and most expensive bodies and glass. An amazing number of them took some of the most mediocre shots I have ever had the misfortune of viewing.

Harryb

ccpickre wrote:

PS. Long time no see Harry. Don't know if you remember me, but I was with Jim and Kathy (Pathfinder and Nightengale) in early 06 at the Gator park. I was trying to photograph birds with a Panasonic Lumix I've upgraded since then though.

I sure do remember you and its good to "see" you again.

Andy

Harryb wrote:

I sure do remember you and its good to "see" you again.

Harry!

Not a word :rutt about me pimpin' Neeekon?

Davidoff

Harryb wrote:

My son dabbles in photography so I gave him my old D100 and I got him the 50mm 1.8, 18-70MM 3.5-5.6 and the 55-200mm VR lenses. He's thrilled with the camera and lenses. Of course some consider these lenses to be "crappy" but my son is a happy camper.

Come on Harry ! Don't say things like that
The kit you gave your kid who " dabbles " is almost like mine ! Except I have a D70s instead of the D100 and I have the sigma 70-300, that I was thinking of upgrading.... yes... to the 55-200VR ...

Harryb

Andy wrote:

Harry!

Not a word :rutt about me pimpin' Neeekon?

I think I can speak for all Nikonians when I say we did a happy dance when we saw your post. I was actually moved to tears.