If starting fresh, Canon or Nikon? Which has the best lineup in lenses, bodies and lighting?

Hello,

First off, I am not trying to start a flame topic nor an open discussion between fanboys and such...

I was just wondering... 
If someone has 0 investment in lenses and bodies and is starting fresh at a DSLR setup today, not regarding which particular model to purchase, what system would be a better commitment?

In regard to lens lineups, prices, available bodies, flashes and lighting, accessories and general tech, like sensors, metering and AF modules...

Given the current state of both brands and the predictions for the future, what system could be a better medium to long turn commitment and why?

Cheers!

There is no difference in my view. The colors are a little different at least in jpeg - see which you likes best.

--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/

I like most of Nikon's SLR bodies, but Canon has some lenses I'd really like that Nikon lacks. Lenses are a little more important to me, so I'd lean Canon.

You need to look at the photography you plan to do and look at the lenses you need to see if your covered.

Seriously, do you really expect to get a definitive  answer? Ahahah.

There is no one system that is better for every photographer, in every situation.

Go try them both. If you do not specialise in a field of photography that requires a lens only available with one of the systems then the best system is the one you are more comfortable using. You are far more likely to take this around with you and use it.

--
"If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you ever tried".

The bodies of both systems have basically the same features and options so it would be better if you were to handle each to find which suits you ergonomically and which has a more intuitive menu system.

Although this may be a non issue with a beginner but since 2005 Canon introduced some of the finest ever built lenses.

• 70-200 f/4.0 L IS USM
• 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM II
• TS-E 17 f/4.0 L
• TS-E 24 f/3.5 L II
• 24-70 f/2.8 L USM II
• 300 / 400 f/2.8 L IS USM II
• 500 / 600 f/4.0 L IS USM II
• 14 f/2.8 L USM
• 24 f/1.4 L USM II

--
Regards,
Hank
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/638311471/photos/17792/night-launch

Pick whichever one feels best in your hand and has controls that are easy to understand.

--
My Smugmug photos http://www.brianshannonphotography.com/
My photo blog http://brianshannonphotography.blogspot.com/
My 500px photos http://500px.com/brianshannonphotography/
Facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Brian-Shannon-Photography/157237647635870

You start with knowing what type of photography you are interested in.  Set a budget.  Then study which combination of equipment would work for you.  Go to a store and handle all the cameras that are within your budget.  Which one feels better to you.  Read reviews of the cameras and lenses.  In the end, the decision is yours and no one else's.

--
Olga

You ask a meaningless, reductive question. In the current marketplace the two lines are more or less equivalent, and several other manufacturers offer perfectly reasonable alternatives. The medium-term future is murky, and the long-term future is completely opaque.

Nikon lens compatibility goes way back. So more choice and some options for some good older lens to save some money.

Apart from that it's the 10 inches behind the camera that makes the difference.

regards

The question might be better answered if you gave us some more information about your intentions.

Both systems are extremely deep - both manufacturers offer some 70 lenses and 6+ bodies each, plus a myriad of flashes, accessories, postprocessing software, etc. And there is extensive 3rd party availability of compatible lenses, flashes, and other accessories that fill in what holes exist in each manufacturer's lineup. Nikon is known especially for its excellent sensors, Canon for its superior video capabilities.

The bigger issue for a beginner is with which format do you start - APS-C, or Full Frame, or u4/3. APS-C (otherwise known as crop-sensor, about 2/3 the linear size of full frame) is cheaper and lighter, with image quality and capability that is more than enough for most serious photographers. In fact, this statement could be made for the latest u4/3 (half the linear size of full frame) offerings as well; hold that thought. Both manufacturers (and Sony Alpha as well, through their acquisition of Minolta) have had a decades-long dominance in the Full Frame format, which of course is the digital equivalent of 35mm film. APS-C was introduced around 2000 as the first diigital SLR format for cost reasons. Some new high quality APS-C optimized lenses have also been introduced, but mostly such offerings from both manufacturers have been slower "kit" or convenience superzooms as those are what the new DSLR purchasers tend to buy (and, on average, only 1 or 2 of). The best lenses in each lineup are FF lenses. These can be used on APS-C bodies - the mount is the same - but having twice as much glass in them, they are often very expensive and bulky to carry about. But they are what is available. The 3rd party manufacturers often step into this breach with good, if not always great options.

As time has moved on, APS-C has become the dominant DSLR format. But Full Frame costs have come down enough for manufacturers to begin introducing "affordable" FF bodies, and their clear push is to reestablish FF as the DSLR format means that this situation will not change that much.

If you are just considering purchasing a DSLR, and you're not needing to buy immediately, I'd say cool your heels a bit and observe the market. It's in the middle of a huge change to mirrorless technology and competent smaller area sensors, particularly at the entry level, and this year will see fascinating new developments in new-tech offerings from DSLR manufacturers' competitors. Right now, mirrorless cameras have become so good that they challenge or equal APS-C DSLRs in almost all performance areas other than continuous AF performance and viewfinder quality. Within another year or two they will close that remaining gap and begin to attack full-frame (Sony already markets a fixed-lens FF compact). One of the biggest advantages they offer is size/performance. By removing the reflex-mirror box and going completely electronic, body size is much smaller and lighter. This is not always good if you're swinging big, long glass, but great for most everything else.

Canon and Nikon will always have the largest lens assortment and their lens quality is top shelf as long as you're willing to buy FF lenses.

Sony's lens line up is somewhat weaker but by going mirrorless offers great value and capability in their traditional (alpha SLT) and new-age (NEX) APS-C lineups. Oly makes the hot u4/3 camera these days, with excellent but pricey prime-oriented lenses.

Of the two manufacturers, Canon seems to be moving mirrorless on more fronts more assertively than Nikon. Both are defending their DSLR turf, but Nikon more stubbornly. Speaking as a Nikon shooter, I'm a bit worried. But both and their very competent systems will be around for the professional for years to come. I'm just not sure that either system will be what hobbyists will be shooting in another 5 years.

​[Personal Opinion]

Canon seems to be moving strongly toward video recording as their future. In recent years, their big improvements have been in video recording, where Canon now leads the pack. For still photography, Canon's DSLR lineup has pretty much been stagnant for the past four years, and the rest of the pack has caught up to, and mostly surpassed, Canon.

Of course, just about all of the other major brands do video, too. But still photography still seems to be the other brands' #1 concern, with video as an afterthought. In contrast, Canon seems to have video as its #1 concern, with still photography as an afterthought.

Finally (and still personal opinion): as much as I admire the products from some of the lesser players, I have concerns about their longevity in a shrinking market. I'm sure that Canon and Nikon will be making cameras in 10 years. I suspect one or two other brands will be, too, but I don't have a clue which one(s) to bet on. Thom Hogan noted on Tuesday: "Canon and Nikon ... both reported declining profits. The next four largest camera makers reported losses." And I personally think the "enthusiast" camera market is at only the beginning of a lengthy downturn due to people not upgrading as often.

--
The open-source LightZone Project: http://lightzoneproject.org/

Both Nikon and Canon are very good, but as someone said it is the photographer who makes the difference.  One difference, however, is that with Nikon you can use lenses from the 70's unlike Canon who changed their mount and made those older lenses unusable.

Ironically, due to metering, Canon bodies are more functional with early Nikon lenses than Most of Nikon's digital bodies (anything below the D300 line except the D7000).  So if ones goal is to use pre AF nikon lenses a Canon body is the better budget choice (also the 5D is still much less expensive than a D700, and if one is planning to use manual focus lenses budget is typically a primary concern).

To a great extent, but only with the higher end Nikon bodies. Only the D7000 and pro bodies can AF with pre AF-S (the equivalent of Canon's EF-mount lenses to which you refer).

I was really referring to the Nikon AI and AIS lenses which are MF. You're right though the lower models will not focus with the screw type AF lenses.

The old AI and AIS lenses are much better built than the newer lenses and should last a lot longer.

Above all: comfort.   Read the manuals, examine control layouts, and the meaning of those controls - so that when you examine an actual camera in-store, you are not mashing the buttons mindlessly, but are actually going through the motions you would actually be doing when using the camera.   Are the buttons/dials comfortably in reach?   Do actions to reach a certain effect make sense?   Nikon, Canon and others use different control placement and orientation, certain goals are attained via different action sequences.

The camera must feel like an extension of your hands, then it will be a pleasure to use.   The younger you are, the more are you likely to adapt to a system your hands initially don't agree with, but it is often better to go with a system which feels more natural to you.

I think you are just as likely to get a definitive answer on religion as you are the Nikon vs Canon debate.

Go play with them. Talk to salesman (along with asking these questions here, as you are).

They feel different. Many say the Nikons feel "fuller" in the hands.  That Canons are made for smaller hands.  I don't know how true this is, or if it's just BS, but I can tell you that when I tried them out, I liked the feel of the Nikon better.

I like the flash integration, with the Nikon CLS system too.

I'm not a fanboy, but a relative gifted me with a Nikon D80, and I quickly moved up to the newer D4. So these are what I know best.

I'm sure Canon has it's benefits too, I just don't know them.

The other brands... well... I know even less about them, but I see no reason not to steer yourself toward the top 2 photographic companies.

Just my opinion is all.