Canon vs. Nikon - Picture quality, difference

I am about to buy a new camera either Digital SLR or Film Camera.

I am going to but a EOS 3, F100 or D30, D100.
I don't have any glasses for either one.

I know canon vs. nikon has been discussed many times. I tried to search the forum, buy I couldn't find the information that I needed.

I am not interested price issue and all the fancy new techknowlege. I what I want to know is the difference in quality of picture.

Since they use differen lenses, they will produce difference picuture. I am not asking which one is better, but just characters in terms of color, sharpness, .......

Please help me.

If you are only shooting as a novice then BOTH will serve you well and the direct answer to your question in this case is that it would be too close to call. Pro shooting such as PJ work is a whole different ball game and while they both are still basically even (IMO), Canon may get the nod for having a much greater line in versatitly of optics.

Remember also: Much of the final outcome is directly related to your post processing software and knowledge of it's use.

maximum said:

I am about to buy a new camera either Digital SLR or Film Camera.

I am going to but a EOS 3, F100 or D30, D100.
I don't have any glasses for either one.

I know canon vs. nikon has been discussed many times. I tried to
search the forum, buy I couldn't find the information that I needed.

I am not interested price issue and all the fancy new techknowlege.
I what I want to know is the difference in quality of picture.

Since they use differen lenses, they will produce difference
picuture. I am not asking which one is better, but just characters
in terms of color, sharpness, .......

Please help me.

Click to expand...

--
Mel

Last time I heard that (I don't remember where) canon is better for the portrait and nikon is for the landscape so on. Nikon has a good contrast and canon has verly bright color.

If they are that close in terms of quality, I don't know where this myths come from.

You will get 100 different answers on a forum. Choose the camera based on functionality and lens range which suits your application and pocket. There is little difference between the quality of these cameras whether film or digital.

The performance or picture quality depends more on the photographer than the camera.

--
Geoff

I have both systems, and at the current top level cameras and lenses ie. Canon 1Ds & 1D, and the Nikon D1X.

In terms of picture quality, there is little doubt that at present the Canon 1Ds is the winner. This camera body along with the superb range of lenses from Canon which now include many IS lenses, makes Canon a highly formidable opposition for Nikon.

Both comapnies have very good lenses, and to say that one company's lenses are overall superior to the other is simply not correct, it is much more complex than that. Yet I think if you must make a choice between the two brands, then I would be asking myself what my prime photographic choices are in terms of subject matter. For instance if sports or wildlife are a high priority, then Canon has the definite edge with its superior focussing accuracy and image stabiliser lenses. For landscape work, then in my experience the 17-35mm Nikon lens is sharper at the edges than the Canon equivalent, and going by some evaluations by others with the Canon 16 and 17-35mm lenses, it doesn't seem to be an isolated case.

I think that any choice between these brands will not be a poor one, and rather a choice that is dependant upon your own needs.

Regards,
Geoff

No Offense meant, but some of the greatest photographers (that use/used 35mm) have used Canon and others Nikon and some of them dare say it used both! Some of the worst shooters have used Canon and Nikon and more often than not used both. For Gods sake just by a camera the whole notion that one is this or that is silly becasue if you wanted to be anal you would have to discuss each lens for each system and then which batch it is from and what year and the age and then what filter are you going to use in front of it. It is only a camera and it is only glass this isnt rocket science folks.

Go rent the geatr you are interested in and see which 'feels' right in your hand and how the controls work under your fingers and then shoot some film or bits and see if you are happy, if not try the other guys camera and see if it is better or worse then buy the one you like.
Jon Zalkin

Only following up in this manner 'cause it's ben a two Martini evening, but...
It's just a camera, go buy one or the other and be done with it!

I wavered between the D60 and the D100 for a couple of weeks, but ended up renting both for a weekend, and found that there was little if any "real" difference between the two.

In other words, in the real world, any shooting I did with one camera could be done with the other. One "felt" a little better in the hand, one had a Macro lens that was the focal lenght that was perfect for me. One had five AF focus points, one had three. One had... You get the idea! ICome down to features, it was back and forth, and meantime, the damn pictures looked fine either one!

So I just BOUGHT one. Haven't looked back since, and made a ton of money so far, and looking forward to more.
Bill R.

I used to use Nikon, and now use Canon. Both are good systems, but they are not they same. Both have strengths and weaknesses. You need to evaluate what matters to you and what doesn't.

For example: The Canon EOS3 has the best autofocus system of the ones you mentioned, the Nikon F100 is the sturdiest, and the digitals are, of course, digital. Nikon has better ergonomics; Canon has a wider selection of specialty lenses (tilt-shift lenses, 5 times magnification macro lenses, etc.).

They're all good choices, but different. I suggest you decide what is important to you before getting locked into an investment in a system which may be sub-optimal for your particular style of usage.

--Mike

maximum said:

I am about to buy a new camera either Digital SLR or Film Camera.

I am going to but a EOS 3, F100 or D30, D100.
I don't have any glasses for either one.

I know canon vs. nikon has been discussed many times. I tried to
search the forum, buy I couldn't find the information that I needed.

I am not interested price issue and all the fancy new techknowlege.
I what I want to know is the difference in quality of picture.

Since they use differen lenses, they will produce difference
picuture. I am not asking which one is better, but just characters
in terms of color, sharpness, .......

Please help me.

Click to expand...

Whereever you heard these comments from, yes, they are myths.

As I attempted to state to you earlier and will attempt again (from my own experience) BOTH of these camera's film or digital will basically be indistinguishable in final out put. AGAIN, with digital, post processing means everything.

The other comments here echo this and all are good advice. As one poster stated, asking such a question will inevitably generate a ton of different opinions, however so far, you have received very sound responses here. These forums can be a wealth of information if one sifts through the occassional bias and listens to the experiences expressed.

Good shooting!

maximum said:

Last time I heard that (I don't remember where) canon is better for
the portrait and nikon is for the landscape so on. Nikon has a good
contrast and canon has verly bright color.

If they are that close in terms of quality, I don't know where this
myths come from.

Click to expand...

--
Mel

And I went through the same dilemma, asked a lot of questions here and in my local pro camera shop, and bought a Fuji S2 Pro and Nikon/Nikkor glass. I needed the slight edge in low-light Auto-Focus help because I shoot at dusk, night and dawn quite a bit, better pop in the colors, and the flexibility across future platforms of the Nikkor lenses (Fuji, Nikon, and Kodak). But as I've said before here, while people have preferences, both BMW and Mercedes make cars that you'd be happy with.

Mike Spinak said:

For example: The Canon EOS3 has the best autofocus system of the
ones you mentioned, the Nikon F100 is the sturdiest, and the
digitals are, of course, digital. Nikon has better ergonomics;
Canon has a wider selection of specialty lenses (tilt-shift lenses,
5 times magnification macro lenses, etc.).

They're all good choices, but different. I suggest you decide what
is important to you before getting locked into an investment in a
system which may be sub-optimal for your particular style of usage.

--Mike

maximum said:

I am about to buy a new camera either Digital SLR or Film Camera.

I am going to but a EOS 3, F100 or D30, D100.
I don't have any glasses for either one.

I know canon vs. nikon has been discussed many times. I tried to
search the forum, buy I couldn't find the information that I needed.

I am not interested price issue and all the fancy new techknowlege.
I what I want to know is the difference in quality of picture.

Since they use differen lenses, they will produce difference
picuture. I am not asking which one is better, but just characters
in terms of color, sharpness, .......

Please help me.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

maximum wrote:
"I am about to buy a new camera either Digital SLR or Film Camera.

I am not interested price issue and all the fancy new techknowlege.
I what I want to know is the difference in quality of picture".

What you NEED is Sigma Faveon DSLR or a Nikon F5[film], they leave ALL others in the dust...

Sigma is the ONLY camera with Faveon, F5 is the best film camera in a 35mm format...

If you really want the best, try a Medium Format with a digital back...

You may want to check out http://www.photodo.com

They've ranked quite a few lenses based on quality. That said, and having used both systems, you're not going to see major differences in the best lenses from both lines. In fact, you'd be lucky to see ANY differences.

There's a quote that's going around here that says "most lenses are better than most photographers".

Unless you're going to shoot locked down on a heavy tripod, mirror lockup, cable release/timer, etc., you're NOT going to see any difference in the pro lenses...

Thanks for all the advices.

I own a Nikon mf system and will upgrade either AF or Digital.

Thanks again.

Dust? I agree the Sigma D9 is competitve, but then again you're stuck with Sigma lenses. I wouldn't agree that it is materially better in image quality than any of the D60, D100 or S2, but each has its advantages and all four hover in the US$1800-2200 range before you add lenses. And yes, I'd love to have a Medium Format with a digital back. The Hassy H1 is fabulous, or even "just" a Mamiya 645 AFD with a digital back. Ante up the $6K for the camera and one lens, and another $8-10K for the Kodak digital back and you're right, the equipment would make great images in the hands of a good shooter. That isn't really the kind of advice the guy starting the thread was seeking it seems to me...

others in the dust...

gary124656 said:

Sigma is the ONLY camera with Faveon, F5 is the best film camera in
a 35mm format...

If you really want the best, try a Medium Format with a digital
back...

Click to expand...

Any answer you get to this will be subjective, so here's mine based on owning and using both canon and nikon. For the sake fo full disclosure, I have chosen canon for the long haul.

Each have their strenghts, but in a nutshell, for eye-poping sharpness, I think Nikon is a better choice. Their lenses, particularly at the long end, render razor sharp images. To this day I have never owned a lens as sharp as the Nikkor 180 2.8 ED-IF AF lens. These are the lenses you want if you are shooting for newspaper publication, many types of magazine work, Where crispness is of primary importance. I also think this makes the Nikkors great for lower megapixel cameras like the D1. Since the CCD only resolves so much detail, you are better off with a lens that has snap. Images from the D100 (6MPX) are too snappy and start to look harsh from the digitizing of that high contrast data.

Canon wins for fine detail. The Canon image don't have the snap that Nikon glass carries, but the Canon glass seems to have an ability to resolve very small details that just blur with Nikkor glass. The Canon lens look is very Leica-like in having strong micro contrast. When comparing chromes from a Nikkor 24mm to a Canon 24mm it's hard to believe they are from the same format there is so much more detail in the Canon image. IF you are shooting people (portraits, fashion, not news) or landscapes Canon is a better choice. It's also why I think the Canon lenses are better for high megapixel digital camera, because we are now dealing with sensors that can split hairs.

Nikon lenses are superior for color neutrality, to the point of having no signature. Canon lenses tend to vary from perfectly color nuetral to some that lean slightly warm, for my work, a benefit. I like the subtle warm shift I find in a few of the Canon lenses, again there is a Leica-ness to them.

Botth lines had some real dogs as well. There are a few of the lower priced Canon lenses that are an embarrassment. And I've seen low end Nikkor Zooms that would turn anyone away from the brand. Canon helps you know a bit where the better lenses are by labeling their better lenses with the L designation, although there are some non-L stars in the canon line-up. This is much tougher on the Nikon side. Other than what you hear around, there is no way to know to which lenses Nikon has given the greatest care.

All of this is ignoring the technical differences, but there is one that must be mentioned. Despite serious improvemnts on the Nikon side lately, Canon simply owns the fast focus market.

Tom
--
http://www.kachadurian.com

maximum said:

I am about to , buy a new camera either Digital SLR or Film Camera.

I am going to but a EOS 3, F100 or D30, D100.
I don't have any glasses for either one.

I know canon vs. nikon has been discussed many times. I tried to
search the forum, buy I couldn't find the information that I needed.

I am not interested price issue and all the fancy new techknowlege.
I what I want to know is the difference in quality of picture.

Since they use differen lenses, they will produce difference
picuture. I am not asking which one is better, but just characters
in terms of color, sharpness, .......

Please help me.

Click to expand...

Thomas,

You know I read along with great admiration for how you broke down (in your opinion) the lens differences. That is until you got to the end and said there was no way to determine which were the better Nikon lens (basically).

Have you ever heard of ED or AF-S? How long ago did you shoot Nikon?

Mel

Thomas Kachadurian said:

Each have their strenghts, but in a nutshell, for eye-poping
sharpness, I think Nikon is a better choice. Their lenses,
particularly at the long end, render razor sharp images. To this
day I have never owned a lens as sharp as the Nikkor 180 2.8 ED-IF
AF lens. These are the lenses you want if you are shooting for
newspaper publication, many types of magazine work, Where crispness
is of primary importance. I also think this makes the Nikkors great
for lower megapixel cameras like the D1. Since the CCD only
resolves so much detail, you are better off with a lens that has
snap. Images from the D100 (6MPX) are too snappy and start to look
harsh from the digitizing of that high contrast data.

Canon wins for fine detail. The Canon image don't have the snap
that Nikon glass carries, but the Canon glass seems to have an
ability to resolve very small details that just blur with Nikkor
glass. The Canon lens look is very Leica-like in having strong
micro contrast. When comparing chromes from a Nikkor 24mm to a
Canon 24mm it's hard to believe they are from the same format there
is so much more detail in the Canon image. IF you are shooting
people (portraits, fashion, not news) or landscapes Canon is a
better choice. It's also why I think the Canon lenses are better
for high megapixel digital camera, because we are now dealing with
sensors that can split hairs.

Nikon lenses are superior for color neutrality, to the point of
having no signature. Canon lenses tend to vary from perfectly color
nuetral to some that lean slightly warm, for my work, a benefit. I
like the subtle warm shift I find in a few of the Canon lenses,
again there is a Leica-ness to them.

Botth lines had some real dogs as well. There are a few of the
lower priced Canon lenses that are an embarrassment. And I've seen
low end Nikkor Zooms that would turn anyone away from the brand.
Canon helps you know a bit where the better lenses are by labeling
their better lenses with the L designation, although there are some
non-L stars in the canon line-up. This is much tougher on the Nikon
side. Other than what you hear around, there is no way to know to
which lenses Nikon has given the greatest care.

All of this is ignoring the technical differences, but there is one
that must be mentioned. Despite serious improvemnts on the Nikon
side lately, Canon simply owns the fast focus market.

Tom
--
http://www.kachadurian.com

maximum said:

I am about to , buy a new camera either Digital SLR or Film Camera.

I am going to but a EOS 3, F100 or D30, D100.
I don't have any glasses for either one.

I know canon vs. nikon has been discussed many times. I tried to
search the forum, buy I couldn't find the information that I needed.

I am not interested price issue and all the fancy new techknowlege.
I what I want to know is the difference in quality of picture.

Since they use differen lenses, they will produce difference
picuture. I am not asking which one is better, but just characters
in terms of color, sharpness, .......

Please help me.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Mel

maximum said:

I am going to but a EOS 3, F100 or D30, D100.
I don't have any glasses for either one.

Click to expand...

I think you'd be happy with either one, and the difference between the two is unlikely to make or break a shot, but I have noticed that similar Lenses from Canon tend to be significantly cheaper, and Canon does have a wider selection. So if you have the choice of five lenses versus four that might be a consideration for you. I shoot Nikon, so this may just be Grass is Greener syndrome.

Larry