Why is Canon more popular than Nikon?

[Jim F.]

Canon always has more cameras on dpreview.com's list for clicks in
the last five days. What makes Canon so much more appealing than
Nikon for a high percentage of consumers and pros?

I don't want to start a war here, but I'm really surprised by the answers I've read in this discussion. People are reacting on a gut level and not really being very logical IMO. Blaming everything on "marketing" is a rather limited and "head-in-the-sand" evaluation of what has happened IMO.

I'm a Canon shooter, and have been for decades. I'm fortunate in that I can choose whatever system I like and have chosen Canon over Nikon several times for many reasons.

The last time I thought about switching was back in the 90's. Film ruled and Nikon still had it's "pro" mystique, but for some reason I just wasn't swayed. In every case, it seemed like you got more from Canon than you did from Nikon at a lower price point (that hasn't changed) and I ended up getting more canon gear.

Then film started slowly letting a new thing called "digital" enter the market around 1999 - 2000 (Nikon D1, Canon d30, etc.) and while the F5 is/was an absolutely great camera, I prefered my 1VHS in 2001. Again....

Digital - Things started out fairly equally, but I think Nikon went to sleep. The D100 was a successful camera, but what happened? It took 4 years for an update and many people decided they no longer wanted to wait and jumped ship.

Why is Canon more popular today? I'd suggest people compare the offerings as a starting point. Sure there are many more amateurs that will judge a book by its cover (e.g., MP) but there are many more reasons why Canon dominates. while I didn't read all the posts here, I didn't read one that mentioned FF sensors and I know many, many people don't want to be limited to a 1.6x (canon) or DX cropped format sensor.

I didn't read one that mentioned the price comparison between a Nikon 500mm lens and one from Canon has a price differential of $1700; Nikon often charges far more for their lenses and anyone can do their own comparisons at B&H.

What about the selection of lenses in general? Canon offers far more choices than Nikon does. How many Tilt/Shift lenses does Nikon offer? The answer is one, while Canon offers three (24mm, 45mm, and 90mm). How many versions of a 70-200 (or equiv.) does Nikon offer? Answer - one (color choice n/a). Canon offers three (70-200 2.8 IS and non-IS, and an f/4.0 version). Canon offers an 85mm f/1.2L lens, and an 85mm f/1.8. This is continued throughout the range. Note: I'm not talking about lens quality which is a separate post/argument (but I have no fear being on the Canon side), I'm talking about choice. Yes, older Nikon lenses are compatible with many different cameras while Canon did the FD to EF conversion that angered many people, but that too is a separate discussion.

Ergonomics? While I like some of the buttons that nikon offers and wish Canon would do the same, I like the feel of Canon cameras better. I used the D200 along with my 5d. IMO, there was no contest, the Canon not only fit my hands better but it felt better. That's a personal choice again and I know some prefer Nikon. IMO this is not a reason to choose one system because you can adapt.

Noise and picture quality - When it comes to high ISO noise Canon wins and is not worth discussing IMO. IQ is a factor of that sometimes, but I'd say that the two lines both are capable of producing excellent quality pictures with the right photographer.

Flash - Nikon can have this one. I use strobes so it doesn't really matter, but I do wish Canon would build in a controller the way Nikon does.

Sports shooters - compare the Nikon's D2h against Canons 1DmkII or 1DmkIIn. IMO, case closed. Note lenses also play a huge part in this game (see above).

Marketing - who but beginners care? yes, there are lots of beginners, but remember they ultimately buy what they're told told to buy by others (family, friends, sales people in retail stores).

I personally don't care how many tennis players Canon gets to market their products, of it Nikon shows Kate Moss (with or without "coke") it doesn't sway me at all. For me, and many of those on this site, the bottom line should be IQ, features, choices, options, etc. If anyone here is buying a camera based on an old perceived image of "pros shoot Nikon" I think it's time to seriously reevaluate what's happening in the pro/am markets, and why.

 

[Tuukka]

Hi Jim!

Must have took you a long time to write all that and Thank You for your insight...(and there's always a but..) but...

Jim F. wrote

People are reacting on a gut level and not really being very logical IMO.

"Gut level" = "My Opinion" , no right or wrong here.

Still I don't think you answered to the original question.

You had good arguments over "Your" side there, but still marketing is propably more important than many of those arguments put together.

Marketing shapes the product image into peoples minds, but it also creates a sense of availability and so creates a place for it in their everyday life.

Having that said some of your arguments do seem to lack a bit depth Jim.
Heres a couple:

What about the selection of lenses in general? Canon offers far
more choices than Nikon does. How many Tilt/Shift lenses does Nikon
offer?

How many people you know that actually owns tilt/shift lenses?

I know many,
many people don't want to be limited to a 1.6x (canon) or DX
cropped format sensor.

If general public is conserned most of the everyday digitalcamera buyers don't even have a clue what FF is. People don't buy Fiat Punto's because Ferrari has F60.

Marketing - who but beginners care? yes, there are lots of
beginners, but remember they ultimately buy what they're told told
to buy by others (family, friends, sales people in retail stores).

... Hence making Canon more popular. If you go backwards far enough there's always the one that has bought the camera based on ad's or because some tennis player has it. Oh, and buttering up sales people is part of marketing too.

But I do understand that I might be tempted to reply way you did if I'd be a Canon user.. And like you said your didn't write to start a war so it's cool.

Cheers.
-T

Post Scriptum : Pro's actually do shoot with Nikon too.

--

 

[Ed Horst]

At least one reason why Canon became very popular -- especially with the pros...

Architecture.

Nikon used to be the dominate player with regards to sports photography and other professional 35 mm SLR uses. But, with the introduction of Canon's EOS product lines -- now almost 20 years ago -- Canon made the move to an all electronic interface to their lens and used optimized focusing motors built into each lens. This allowed them to size the motors appropriately and put larger, more powerful motors into their larger lens'. Nikon, for years, still relied on a mechanical binding to the motor in the camera body. This and other aspects of the EOS architecture alone fairly quickly made all the high end sports photography turn into all "white lens" (Canon's larger lens) on the the sidelines.

 

[turbopenguin]

A subsidiary of a company cannot be publicly traded. Nikon is an independent entity. The stock is listed in Japan as 7731 (Can-on is 7751) and can be invested in the US through the ADR "NINOY." Hope that it clarifies things.

--
D200 + lenses + Light

 

[Chris Horsley]

My guess

For the consumer - more megapixels

For the pro - less noise at high iso

But doesn't Nikon have features Canon doesn't?

For most people, megapixels is still the most important feature.
That is why the D200 is very popular even though its noise level is
higher than the D50 and D70, and even though it is more than twice
the price. That is why the D2X costs so much, even though it has
even more noise than the D200. Megapixels are why people still buy
the D2X.

wrong people buy the D2x for better IQ, handling and build quality

whilst the d200 is a good camera its not a D2x

people rave about the D2x being noisy it's fine all the way up to iso800 i never used film that fast so why should i use it in a digicam
--
Chris Horsley
Equipment in Profile

 

[the1sen]

i went with Canon for a lot of reasons. it was a difficult decision. I shot Nikon film for years. Nikon & Canon make wonderful photographic tools. reasons for buying Canon for me (pro) are as follows:

1. .nef = proprietary malarchy for post processing. no way would i buy a d2x after seeing this and Nikon's ridiculous response to the reasons for it

2. Canon interface is just fine for those who can read. you first must read the manual though.

3. Lenses - great glass = great photos no matter what you shoot. Canon has some nice glass just like Nikon
4. Noise - less of it at higher ISO, and i do use it at times.
5. fit - it fits for my hands.
6. CF usage as opposed to SD in lower echelon cameras

Nikon makes great cameras & lenses. Canon makes great cameras & lenses. the operator makes the photos what they are. the competition between all these companies benefits all photographers of all walks. you have the ability to pick something that fits your needs, and enjoy yourself. pretty simple

--
go shoot, it'll make you smile

 

[Peaz]

Seriously, I look at this two brands and like (and dislike) both sets of features. If I can afford it, I'd buy both systems! Who don't

As for why Canon is much more popular? Well, just read up on Canon's revival in the industry and you'd see how strong a company it is. And for that, I think they totally deserve the domination in the industry...even though I still (personally) pro Nikon
--
Ken Ng
http://gallery.placidthoughts.com/
Shoot stock - http://gallery.placidthoughts.com/stock.php

 

[arenaman]

Canon is wiping the floor with Nikon/Sony in the area of sensors.

floor in the area of sensors? how eloquent... how sensible... how
English...

Mmm?

but I wonder where this idea comes from, Canon marketing division?

have you ever seen any other sensor parameters but noise?

Less noise and higher resolution seems to be attractive to quite a few people. As does full frame. Now maybe Nikon excels in every other way (and I believe Nikon cameras and lenses are fantastic) but noise and resolution and full frame seem to be the major factors for a lot of people.

Sony is now a digital SLR manufacturer and has stated it wants to
crush Nikon, basically.

In these circumstances, to NOT develop it's own sensors would be
suicidal

for you to know Nikon has its own sensor (actually, 3 of them now),
and who manufactures those for them does not matter much.

I knew Nikon had their own sensor, in the D2H I believe, but I thought that that's is far as it went. Which cameras feature a Nikon sensor?
--
Michael Stubbs, Middlesbrough, England

 

[RBH]

1 word
MARKETING

Canon is a much better marketer than Nikon. And sorry to say for the most part people buy based on marketing.

--
Robert
http://www.photoforum.ru/19033

 

[Julia Borg]

Less noise and higher resolution seems to be attractive to quite a
few people.

D2X has higher resolutrion then any Canon.

As does full frame.

this does not attract "quite a few people" more then lusting. price tag is steep, not only for the camera, but for the lenses too. You really need very good lenses for full frame.

--
Julia

 

[ohyva]

Less noise and higher resolution seems to be attractive to quite a
few people.

D2X has higher resolutrion then any Canon.

Really. Perhaps you should look the spec of 5D and 1Ds2.

As does full frame.

this does not attract "quite a few people" more then lusting. price
tag is steep, not only for the camera, but for the lenses too. You
really need very good lenses for full frame.

I guess 5D cost less than D2X.

--
Julia

 

[Gustavo Tosello Pinheiro]

I've heard a lot of interesting and some dumb stuff here... The worst is comparing Canon to Landcruisers and Nikon to Defenders...

Leica would be a Land Rover Defender.

As for Canon and Nikon, both would be japanese SUVs... On the mud, none of them would survive.

As for photo, it doesn't care what you own, I've seen great creative pictures taken with P&S, although really nature photographers use Leica or Medium Format... I own a EOS 55 and a Rebel 350D, always been happy with both although I think the grip of the 350D is not perfect. I got the 350D instead of a Nikon (which has a better grip) cause I could still use my lenses from the EOS 55. Have friends who owns Nikon and Canon, and know pros who carry Nikon and are changing to Canon as they are going Digital. But those guys don't use pro-sumer equipment, they are pros. As for us, mortals, any of them is great. My next camera will still be a Canon, probably I'll upgrade my Digital body to a bigger one as soon as it's worthy... But I still love my film body and the best pictures I take I still take on film... usually B&W film...

But this discission is uselless... Don't waste your time, get a Leica!

 

[agenkin]

D2X has higher resolutrion then any Canon.

Really. Perhaps you should look the spec of 5D and 1Ds2.

Julia probably was talking real world resolution tests, not just the megapixel count in the specs. Check this out for yourself:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page31.asp

The D2X outdoes 5D in resolution, and loses to 1DsII.

However, don't forget that D2X is doing that with a cropped sensor! So, one can say that D2X's sensor actually has higher resolution than any Canon's sensor.
--
Arcady Genkin
http://agenkin.fotokritik.ru/

 

[Gustavo Tosello Pinheiro]

Tukaa, do you know why Canon sells more? Because they make today the best range of products for the demands of the consumers, and they advertise that to the potencial buyers, that's all.

Until Canon changed their mount, Nikon was winning, they had the best lenses, the more reliable equipment, an easier lens changing system. But they foccussed only on professional market. They forgot that the 35 mm cameras were part of the mass product society. As Nikon once did, getting Contax features to develop their SLRs, Canon looked at the market and benchmarked what consumers wanted. They made photography easy for amateurs. And so they developed the prosumer market which is today much more profitable for them than professionals.

This leaded them to grow on marketshare and so Canon entered the Digital market before, and with better products. Nikon didn't loose the pace, and released some great products. I guess Canon is going to dominate the market for some time yet, but the true is that it doesn't care which brand is the best, enjoy your equipment and use it to the limit.

My first camera was an Olympus Trip 35mm. I learned to take pictures with my aunt's Nikon F-2 when I was a kid, and had many cameras until I bought my SLR, an EOS-55 (japanese model) and a couple lens from a friend who thought it was to complicated... : ) Loved it and still have it. My first digital was a Nikon Coolpix 2200, bought it to take snapshots, like a toy, had so much fun that I really missed it when it was robbed... But after that I decided to get a DSLR... Got a 350D... Cause I already have some lenses that fit it... Nikon D70 has a better grip? It's true, but so what? This does a great job and althought I always use it I haven't abandoned my EOS-55... And never will! (maybe I do, if someday I'm able to get a Leica).

It's not the brand or the camera that makes a better photographer...

--
[email protected]

 

[totleytom]

Quote: "At least one reason why Canon became very popular -- especially with the pros...

Architecture.

Nikon used to be the dominate player with regards to sports photography and other professional 35 mm SLR uses. But, with the introduction of Canon's EOS product lines -- now almost 20 years ago -- Canon made the move to an all electronic interface to their lens and used optimized focusing motors built into each lens. This allowed them to size the motors appropriately and put larger, more powerful motors into their larger lens'."

I agree 100% with this. It's difficult to remember now but Canon seemed to be the only manufacturer who had seriously thought about the best way to organise autofocus, etc, in the late 80s. They took a complete beating from Minolta when they introduced the Minolta 7000 and its brethren, and in the followng year most other manufacturers, including Nikon, produced AF cameras as well. Then the EOS 650 & 620 cameras were announced with the first EF lenses, and they were just so much ahead of anything else: AF detection in the body, all the motors in the lenses, only electronic communication between the two. The user interface was much better than anyone else's: you cannot imagine now just how right the use of the 'electronic input dial' felt, instead of having to keep jabbing at a pesky tiny button. And the excitement over the first USM-equipped lenses! No other manufacturer had anything like this. And it wasn't just flashy technology - it all worked, and worked well.

True, there was a cost to all this, and that was the cutting-off of their existing FD-mount users. Nikon, to their credit, made a point of ensuring backwards compatibility. But the cost of that was not having motors in the lenses, etc, and I think they paid for it: the EOS 630/600 was a semi-pro camera just 18 months or so after the 650, and of course the EOS 1, very shortly after that, was a true professional system camera that had all these benefits. I think Canon built up a huge reputation in that era, 1988 - 1995. Face it, everyone else has adopted versions of Canon's technology: Silent Wave motors, G lenses, dials.... Since then they've defended their position well, and no-one has overhauled them.

 

[leertracy]

For many people it's "which can I more easily get help with?" I have a friend at work who is a Canon guy -- he hasn't made the transition to digital but has loads of film experience and gear. I also have other friends in the Canon camp using 20Ds. I have no Nikon friends. So logically, I'd be better off going Canon. Maybe I'd be able to buy used stuff or borrow their cool lenses, even.

So when I started looking at cameras, I looked at the Canons and learned that the one I could afford would be the 350/Rebel. But when someone had me take their photo at the beach with a Rebel early this year and I got to see how it felt out in the world just for a sec, it wasn't bad, but it didn't wow me. Ironically, my impressions were echoed by a Canon guy at work-- he'd rented a Rebel and hated it. And of course, I read all the reviews that raved about the camera but also talking about Canon 'crippling' their entry level cameras. And then when I handled it, I could see all the negative stuff right there and feel them all, just as described. On the other hand, the 30D seemed to me to be a gorgeous piece of technology and felt perfect in my hand and I read wonderful things about it. When I held it,it was like the Ring talking to Bilbo, I tell you. IT CALLED MY NAME. What a camera. But it's out of my price range. By a lot.

I do not want to get a camera and feel like I settled for the Focus when I wanted the Mustang, which is what It felt I'd be doing going with the Rebel. And ironically, this is because of how Canon does things -- they made the Rebel compare terribly with the other cameras. And I don't want to buy a camera and immediately start plotting to replace it with a better Canon as soon as I can afford it.

But if I could afford a 30D I would be a Canon person for life. And Id have the support of my Canon friends and be able to use their stuff!

 

[Forrest41926]

you can't take other parts out of equation. if camera has poor
flash system, whatever good is the sensor you can't get a shot.

I've had my current camera body for about four or five months, and a little more than 5,000 exposures. Not one of them was made with a flash. Some with fast primes, though.

Yes, you absolutely can make photos regardless of the flash system; even without a flash system.

 

[Julia Borg]

D2X has higher resolutrion then any Canon.

Really. Perhaps you should look the spec of 5D and 1Ds2.

perhaps you should do that resolution is pixels per mm.

D2X is 181 pixels per mm
5D is 121 pixels per mm
1Ds2 is 139 pixels per mm

perhaps you should also look at Bjorn's real life tests.

I guess 5D cost less than D2X.

count the lenses too. wide angles specially. you seem to miss that point in my post

--
Julia

 

[Julia Borg]

you can't take other parts out of equation. if camera has poor
flash system, whatever good is the sensor you can't get a shot.

I've had my current camera body for about four or five months, and
a little more than 5,000 exposures. Not one of them was made with
a flash.

Many pro photographers can't do without camera flash system.

many amatures, too. (as well as some landscape photographers use flash.)

That is why both makers are constantly working to get their flash systems top notch.

that is'why some Nikon flash components are so hard to purchase.

that is why when you ask "why Nikon" you will often hear "because of their flash system".

that is why Metz even exist.

on a side note, photographers who use 5D for landscapes are minority. that does not invalidate your wish to find the right lens set for your camera. so even if flash matters for minority only we still have it as an issue.

--
Julia

 

[Guy M Wong]

I agree that marketing has something to do with it. But this post in the D1/D2/D10/D200 forum says it all. As Nikon users, we need to all protest this dumb policy. Someone hit the nail on its head, if Nikon allows authorized dealer such as B&H to sell grey market product, why wouldn't they fix those products, at a fee? Thom Hogan's piece is eye opening, even though it's old and many of us have seen it before.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=17714776

Guy