nikon vs canon

Started Apr 4, 2013 | Questions
Joeb173
New MemberPosts: 3
Like?
nikon vs canon
Apr 4, 2013

:-DIm Joe..Im new to the DSLR cameras. I've been looking at Canon and Nikon. In the mid-range DSLRs. I like the Canon T3i, and the T4i. Also the Nikon D5100, D5200, and D7000.  I was looking a several kits that all of these come in. The question that I have concerns purchasing extra lenses a bit down the line. Now comparing apples to apples concerning different lenses from the two different companys. Are Nikon lensed significantly more expensive to buy then Canon. Or vise-versa. Ane the same concern about the quality.....

If someone can provide me with some insite I would appreciate the help..

ANSWER:
This question has not been answered yet.
Eddaweaver
Senior MemberPosts: 2,206
Like?
Re: nikon vs canon
In reply to Joeb173, Apr 4, 2013

You don;t have to buy either as other companies like Tamron and Sigma produce lenses for both mounts.

I think Nikon is ahead for bodies but I'm not an expert

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
trekkeruss
Senior MemberPosts: 3,615
Like?
Re: nikon vs canon
In reply to Joeb173, Apr 4, 2013

Joeb173 wrote:

Are Nikon lenses significantly more expensive to buy then Canon.

No.

And the same concern about the quality.....

Both brands make some very good to excellent lenses, and both brands make some just-okay lenses.

Both company's have their fans, and you can't really go wrong either way. Just go with the brand or model that feels the most comfortable in your hands.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Joeb173
New MemberPosts: 3
Like?
Re: nikon vs canon
In reply to Eddaweaver, Apr 4, 2013

See that....learned somthing already...Thanx joe

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Joeb173
New MemberPosts: 3
Like?
Re: nikon vs canon
In reply to trekkeruss, Apr 4, 2013

Thank you..joe

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
KCook
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,409Gear list
Like?
Re: nikon vs canon
In reply to Joeb173, Apr 4, 2013

Links to threads that beat these drums a little more -

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3151378

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3368871

Kelly Cook

 KCook's gear list:KCook's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Olympus PEN E-PL2
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
luisfgranada
New MemberPosts: 2Gear list
Like?
Re: nikon vs canon
In reply to Joeb173, Apr 4, 2013

Hello there,

I'm in the middle of a dilemma myself. I used to have a Canon EOS Rebel XS (1000D in Europe) for a couple of years and the last year I sold it to buy the Nikon D90. I have nothing to say against this camera as it's a very good camera, but now I don't know if it's a good idea to switch back to Canon. I'm spending a lot of time reading and making comparisons and the main difference I see is in the price and availability of lenses. Tthis is a personal choice and might not be your case.

The main differences I've have found are the following:

I've heard people talking about the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM which is a wide zoom of a very good quality at a regular price. Nikon has nothing at this price, if you want something similar you need to go for the Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED which it might be better (I don't know) but it is two times the price of the canon.

The other lens is the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM which is a good lens and cheap, if you want to buy something similar in Nikon you need to buy the AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR which is twice the price.

The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM is a very good quality lens (I've seen some reviews) and better than the nikon AF VR Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED which are about the same price. Recently Nikon released the new AF-S NIKKOR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR but this is twice the price of the Canon and the previous Nikon version.

And the last lens I might want to buy is the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM which is about $1300. Is cheap and good quality. If I want something similar in Nikon I need to go for the AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8G ED VR which is about $8500.

Of course every people need to think what kind of photography they want to do. The kind of photography I would like to do is wildlife photography and landscape as well, and that's why I'm interested in these lenses (the cheaper the better as I'm not a pro).

So there are differences, the camera bodies might be not so different, but the lenses I think at the moment Canon has more models available and lower prices than Nikon (Canon has at the moment five models of the 70-200 lens, and four models of the 400mm lens)

This is driving me crazy and I will probably make a choice over the weekend, but because I'm not a pro and I'm not planning to buy $6000+ lenses (for now) I might switch to Canon again.

Regards,

Luis

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mobi1
Forum MemberPosts: 65
Like?
Re: nikon vs canon
In reply to luisfgranada, Apr 4, 2013

Both Nikon and Canon are good brands.

If you are buying a new DSLR for first time, check what your close friends/relatives are having. Buying same brand as theirs may allow to exchange lenses with them.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Guidenet
Forum ProPosts: 12,436Gear list
Like?
Re: nikon vs canon
In reply to luisfgranada, Apr 4, 2013

Luis, you've picked just about every spot where Canon makes something Nikon doesn't and where you chose a much more expensive substitute from Nikon to suplant it.

For example, Canon's excellent but very old 17-40 f/4 design. You said Nikon doesn't make the same but there was the 17-35 f/2.8 at twice the price. What you didn't say was there was the much more modern Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR which is not much more but does have vibration reduction and nano crystal coatings. It's a more modern design and considered quite a bit sharper. There's also a brand new 18-35 which is also looking like a real winner.

You then went on to compare the Canon 70-200 f/4 without vibration reduction to the Nikon 70-200 f/4 with it.

The truth is that the pricing is about the same across the lineup. When Canon releases a new model, the price is usually quite a bit more than the Nikon that's been available for a while, and the other way around. Moreover, the things like IS and USM play a role in pricing.

If you're constantly jumping ship from one to the other for lens pricing, you're really doing yourself a disfavor. Stick with one or the other and slowly build a good kit with either. Both have enough glass to satify even the most discerning glass collector. They both have lenses in almost every category you can think of, and usually more than one or two designs in each category.

Right now, the difference between the two is more at the entry level or enthusiast level where Canon has been spending more time on video ability and Nikon on still photography. Canon might be the best choice for someone wanting to specialize in movies where Nikon has a better sensor with more dim light ability, dynamic range, and color depth as well as more megapixels.

At the professional and semi-professional level, I think Canon and Nikon area at near parity with no real advantage to either. I think Nikons are a little more feature rich and slightly less money right now, but that could change in the next round. I think Nikon caught Canon with their collective pants down a little with the D800 and D600 but we'll see over tme.

Nikon is one of two camera companies who make their own optical glass and have been in the lens business the longest. They are an optical company where Canon is a larger overal company into printers, office equipment and a lot more. Neither is better than the other.

The only issue I see is that Canon owners tend to wear pink tutus under their street clothing and have camel flea infestations, but some can live with that.

-- hide signature --

Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

 Guidenet's gear list:Guidenet's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon D3S Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF +24 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Placation101
Regular MemberPosts: 455
Like?
Re: nikon vs canon
In reply to mobi1, Apr 4, 2013

mobi1 wrote:

Both Nikon and Canon are good brands.

If you are buying a new DSLR for first time, check what your close friends/relatives are having. Buying same brand as theirs may allow to exchange lenses with them.

+1 plus they can get you rolling quickly on how all the controls work.

Bodies I think you get more for your money with Nikon currently.

Lenses. Both have a lot of lenses and prices are a toss up. There are better deals to be had and better choice with both depending on which lens.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
luisfgranada
New MemberPosts: 2Gear list
Like?
Re: nikon vs canon
In reply to Guidenet, Apr 4, 2013

Thanks Craig!

Guidenet wrote:

Luis, you've picked just about every spot where Canon makes something Nikon doesn't and where you chose a much more expensive substitute from Nikon to suplant it.

For example, Canon's excellent but very old 17-40 f/4 design. You said Nikon doesn't make the same but there was the 17-35 f/2.8 at twice the price. What you didn't say was there was the much more modern Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR which is not much more but does have vibration reduction and nano crystal coatings. It's a more modern design and considered quite a bit sharper. There's also a brand new 18-35 which is also looking like a real winner.

The Canon 17-40 f/4 I agree with you, it's an old design but excellent quality, it's about $836, the Nikon 16-35 f/4 which is more modern is about $1257 and although it has VR is more expensive and less focal range as well. In Nikon I don't have a cheaper choice and that's my point.

You then went on to compare the Canon 70-200 f/4 without vibration reduction to the Nikon 70-200 f/4 with it.

Again Canon has a cheaper lens available. The Canon 70-200 f/4L IS USM and the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR are similar in price but in Nikon I don't have a non-stabilized cheaper version.

I understand that IS is important and it's better but some times is not needed (for example when shooting on a tripod) and if the lens does not come with it, it's cheaper, and Nikon does not offer that choice.

The truth is that the pricing is about the same across the lineup. When Canon releases a new model, the price is usually quite a bit more than the Nikon that's been available for a while, and the other way around. Moreover, the things like IS and USM play a role in pricing.

Agree with you

If you're constantly jumping ship from one to the other for lens pricing, you're really doing yourself a disfavor. Stick with one or the other and slowly build a good kit with either. Both have enough glass to satify even the most discerning glass collector. They both have lenses in almost every category you can think of, and usually more than one or two designs in each category.

Agree with you, but I have the kit Nikon D90 18-105 VR, that's why I want to be clear before buying some lenses as once I do that I'm sticking with that brand.

Right now, the difference between the two is more at the entry level or enthusiast level where Canon has been spending more time on video ability and Nikon on still photography. Canon might be the best choice for someone wanting to specialize in movies where Nikon has a better sensor with more dim light ability, dynamic range, and color depth as well as more megapixels.

At the professional and semi-professional level, I think Canon and Nikon area at near parity with no real advantage to either. I think Nikons are a little more feature rich and slightly less money right now, but that could change in the next round. I think Nikon caught Canon with their collective pants down a little with the D800 and D600 but we'll see over tme.

Agree!

Nikon is one of two camera companies who make their own optical glass and have been in the lens business the longest. They are an optical company where Canon is a larger overal company into printers, office equipment and a lot more. Neither is better than the other.

The only issue I see is that Canon owners tend to wear pink tutus under their street clothing and have camel flea infestations, but some can live with that.

-- hide signature --

Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

Thanks!

Luis

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JamesRL
Senior MemberPosts: 2,337Gear list
Like?
Re: nikon vs canon
In reply to luisfgranada, Apr 4, 2013

luisfgranada wrote:

Again Canon has a cheaper lens available. The Canon 70-200 f/4L IS USM and the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR are similar in price but in Nikon I don't have a non-stabilized cheaper version.

I understand that IS is important and it's better but some times is not needed (for example when shooting on a tripod) and if the lens does not come with it, it's cheaper, and Nikon does not offer that choice.

Well a quick trip to one of the local chains here shows that I can buy the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AFD brand new  for $1149.  Yes the Canon 70-200 f4 non IS version is cheaper.

But there are alternatives and choices.

 JamesRL's gear list:JamesRL's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Guidenet
Forum ProPosts: 12,436Gear list
Like?
Re: nikon vs canon
In reply to JamesRL, Apr 4, 2013

JamesRL wrote:

luisfgranada wrote:

Again Canon has a cheaper lens available. The Canon 70-200 f/4L IS USM and the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR are similar in price but in Nikon I don't have a non-stabilized cheaper version.

I understand that IS is important and it's better but some times is not needed (for example when shooting on a tripod) and if the lens does not come with it, it's cheaper, and Nikon does not offer that choice.

Well a quick trip to one of the local chains here shows that I can buy the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AFD brand new  for $1149.  Yes the Canon 70-200 f4 non IS version is cheaper.

But there are alternatives and choices.

And the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 is a stop faster at f/2.8 and that's worth it's weight in gold.

With respect to the 17-40, there's the cheaper Nikon 18-35.

The point is they don't match up completely. The 16-35 f/4 has VR, while the Canon does not. Big deal but nothing is a perfect match. It's silly to claim one is cheaper than the other by hand picking a few miss matche examples.

-- hide signature --

Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

 Guidenet's gear list:Guidenet's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon D3S Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF +24 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
hotdog321
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,546
Like?
Re: nikon vs canon
In reply to Joeb173, Apr 4, 2013

I'm a lifetime Canon guy, though I've also used Nikon professionally. Both systems are superb, both produce a terrific line of lenses (although both also produce the occasional clinker body or lens).

IMO: I've noticed a startling increase in prices on the high-end Canon lenses and bodies in the last 3-4 years. For instance, I just bought a 24-70 f/2.8L II lens for over two grand! Great lens, but . . . ouch! Also noticed a sharp increase in Canon repair prices.

I suggest investing in a system that "feels" best in your hands and is most ergonomic.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads