Age old question, Nikon VS Canon

[jonikon]

In the spirit of full disclosure here is my story. My first SLR was a Canon Ft, back in the day and I stayed with Canon right up to the A-1 and then the unthinkable happened. Canon developed the EOS system that rendered my Canon FD lenses useless for their new EOS cameras! It's a real heart breaker to having invested in lenses that are suddenly made obsolete by the manufacturer! (I still have some FD lenses I use for paper weights). So you can understand when I dumped Sony back in November of 2010 and sold my a700, lenses and accessories), I was more inclined to go with Nikon than Canon.That said, I was still willing to give Canon a go, if I liked their cameras better, than Nikon. Turns out I did not.

Here are some reasons I went with Nikon over Canon.

• Since Canon downgraded their DX0 series with the introduction of the 60D. they have nothing that compares to the Nikon D7000 in terms of value/features in the $1000 price range.
• IMO, Nikon now uses superior Sony sensors to Canon's. DxO Mark agrees, if that is important to you.
• Nikon offers better lens value in their APS-C only lenses. For instance, I am amazed at how sharp the Nikon 18-105mm kit lens is even on the 16MP D7000.
• I like the five year warranty that I get with Nikkor lenses.
  
• I much prefer the traditional thumb and finger wheels of the D7000 over the rear vertical control wheel on the Canon's, which I never got used to with the 40D I bought used (and later sold).
• I prefer the user interface, button placement and extensive customization available on the Nikon D7000.
• I prefer the Auto ISO implementation (allowing setting of minimum shutter speed), over Canon's Auto ISO.
• Nikon's flash system is far superior to Canon's. (Sony's flash system is a total joke!).

These are a few of the reasons I chose Nikon over Canon, but your assessment may be different. Either way, you can't go wrong with Canon or Nikon. Just stay away from Sony an Pentax though.


- Jon

 

[Mike_PEAT]

nt=No text

 

[Graystar]

Vultite wrote:

Hey guys, I'm considering a change from Sony to Nikon or Canon...just would like to hear thoughts and opinion of what you would do and why? In case you're wondering, I'm not satisfied with Sony because of the lack of lenses (and they are discontinuing more without reason) so I'm looking for something better. I do landscapes as well as portraits so I need something versatile.

I don't really care about video, where Canon might do better, but as photographic tools there are some important differences that make Nikon better.

A significant difference is that on a Nikon the Spot metering function follows the selected focus point. On a Canon, Spot metering is fixed on the center focus point.

Your best white balance will come from a custom setting from a gray card. Nikon makes setting the white balance really easy, whereas Canon's process is cumbersome. I carry a 4"x6" gray card in my back pocket and pull it out to set a custom WB any time I step into new light. It only take a few seconds on my Nikon. It takes multiple steps and a trip to the Menu on a Canon.

With a Nikon you can extend the meter auto-off timer. This allows you to lock exposure, and then use that same exposure for many shots...you can even hang around for up to 30 minutes without taking a shot and your locked exposure will remain locked. With Canon, you always have to press the AE Lock button after every shot if you want to keep the AE lock...and then it will only keep for 4 seconds. That greatly limits the benefit of the AE Lock function...so much so that you'll find yourself using Manual mode instead of AE Lock. That's a shame because AE Lock is far more versatile.

Nikon's Auto ISO is superior to Canon's. With Nikon you set a Minimum Shutter Speed, and the ISO remains as low as possible until that shutter speed is reached. If the lighting conditions require a slower shutter, then the camera will increase ISO instead. With Canon, there's some algorithm for determining the ISO when ISO is set to AUTO...and no one knows what it is. That camera may end up setting a higher ISO than is necessary.

There's also the fact that Canon sensors basically suck when compare to the Sony sensors in Nikon cameras. Canon's latest T4i/650D isn't even as good as my 4 year old Nikon D90 (according to DxOMark.) The Nikon D3200 has a full one stop less noise than Canon. That means that shooting at ISO 200 on a D3200 is like ISO 100 on a T4i. For low-light, high-ISO shots, Nikon is definitely better.

 

[Sammy Yousef]

[No message]

 

[rsn48]

Yes some excellent points as to why a Nikon is better, I can't imagine why so many professional's use Canon, I guess they just don't know.

How about Art Wolfe, perhaps he should be contacted and told why not to shoot with Canon...lol:

http://www.artwolfe.com/

 

[bjake]

Nikon or Canon may not be the best cameras,just better marketing by their company.Think there are comparisons on Dpreview but don't remember for sure.Current Pentax Dslr's are waterproof when used with the Wr line of lens.They have in body sr and all lens made from the 1950's can be used on today's cameras .Quickly found this comparison to equivalent Nikon and Pentax and suspect there are some comparing Pentax to Canon and Nikon to Canon.

Loading…

snapsort.com

 

[rsn48]

I bought my first film SLR in 1973. I walked into a camera shop in down town Victoria BC and told the guy I wanted the simplest SLR camera made because I knew nothing about photography. I didn't research for months, post on a forum hoping my choice would be made for me, or any other method involving angst. The guy handed me a Konica T3, I pretended to look at it like I actually knew what I was doing, bought it and took it home. To be honest, I barely had any inkling that I had any interest in photography. I was a young Canadian Navy Officer at the time and mucking around with a camera would wile away some of my time.

That simple T3 was my introduction to the world of photography. I owned that camera and lenses until 1990 when I bought a Canon 10s film SLR. I was an avid reader of Popular Photography back then, still occasionally read it, and knew that Canon had surpassed Nikon in many ways, though Nikon had been the dominant manufacture in the 50's through to the late 80's. Back then the flash system was better on Nikon than Canon, and Canon stubbornly did not add spot metering to any of the models below the top model; always partial metering. Again I didn't do massive amounts of time researching what I bought but definitely more than my first camera. The Canon 10s was the second model, just below the top model.

Most don't really have a strong reason why they went with Nikon or Canon. If you talk to Nikon folks who are in the know about things photographically, they will tell you there are some Canon features they prefer (don't know if it is still true but at one point the lowest ISO on Nikon was 200, not a great choice often for landscapers). And if you talked to Canon owners they could mention Nikon features they wish they had. Until about a year ago, Nikon definitely led the pack in flash photography but that is changing.

Trying to read the posts in response to your question really won't help to any extent, the more experience you have in photography the more you can make an informed decision. But realize professional photographers have been using both systems and producing admirable results for many decades.

I have a book that under went 7 editions before its last in roughly 1972 and in it there is one chapter on how to choose a camera. In this chapter, it opens with the problem of sorting your way through the choices in pursuit of the "perfect" camera; it didn't exist back then and it doesn't exist now. There are cameras that are better for landscape and portraits, there are other cameras that are better for war and photo journalism, and sports and action.

I would not want to use and own some of the lenses and cameras that art Wolfe uses and used in his excellent television series, his gear is heavy and cumbersome much of it is designed to be weather proof and fast action with wide fast lenses (interpretation heavy lenses and heavy cameras, used together and even heavier package). I use fast primes but fast zooms are to heavy to lug around all day.

You really won't know what you need until you get some experience, then your choices will be more obvious. Reminds me of an old Jesuit joke. A Jesuit, a Franciscan and a Redemptorist were praying to God ask God which order was the most favoured. Thunder and lighting happened and a note floated down from heaven. In the note, God said - "I have no preference of Orders, I love them all" Signed God sj.

Well that note could also be about camera systems, and God would say he loved them all equally. And it would be signed God - equipment list: Canon 5D 3, Canon 70 - 200 f2.8 IS Mk 2, Canon 50mm f1.2 L, Canon 24 - 70..... Well you get the idea!

 

[Mako2011]

bjake wrote:

.Quickly found this comparison to equivalent Nikon and Pentax and suspect there are some comparing Pentax to Canon and Nikon to Canon.

Loading…

snapsort.com

The D5100 is an entry level Nikon. The Pentax K-5 is not entry level

The D5100 should be compared to the K-30
Both are fine cameras but lens selection becomes the real separator.

 

[Ubilam]

You pontificated so much stuff that I forgot my password and got a brain fart. I had to look it up. Now I forgot what you said. Well done!

 

[Graystar]

rsn48 wrote:

Yes some excellent points as to why a Nikon is better, I can't imagine why so many professional's use Canon, I guess they just don't know.

Well, if nature photographer Ole Jørgen Liodden is any indication, you would be correct. He used Canon cameras to produce some of his books. But a need for equipment that Canon couldn't provide brought an opportunity to use Nikon equipment, and he was hooked. He immediately switched to Nikon.

I never said you couldn't take a picture with a Canon camera...just that Nikons are better suited to the task.

 

[mlewan]

Vultite wrote:

Hey guys, I'm considering a change from Sony to Nikon or Canon...just would like to hear thoughts and opinion of what you would do and why? In case you're wondering, I'm not satisfied with Sony because of the lack of lenses (and they are discontinuing more without reason) so I'm looking for something better. I do landscapes as well as portraits so I need something versatile.

I'm in the camp believing that Nikon and Canon on average are equally good. Assuming that is true, you could narrow down your criteria based on Sony's "lack of lenses". Do you know exactly what kind of lenses you are looking for? You could google or ask in the Nikon and Canon forums for "best versatile lens" or "best portrait lens" or "best landscape lens".

Once you got an idea of what the best options are for each brand, you compare the best Nikon versatile option with the best Canon option, and see which wins. That will tell you what is best for you.

You may want to keep budget in mind as well. As an example, both Nikon and Canon have a versatile 28-300mm lens. The Canon one costs more than twice as much as the Nikon one.

And when it comes to 70-200mm, Canon has four lenses at different prices, each of them cheaper than the Nikon one. Even if the Nikon one really is the best one, is it the one that suits your wallet best?


To muddle the waters further, if you are price conscious, the best choice may be third party lenses like Sigma and Tamron, and they are usually equally good or bad on both Canon and Nikon. And many of them have Sony mount versions as well, but you probably knew that.

 

[aardvark7]

I looked at another of your threads and it showed your kit which, to be honest, is very minimal indeed if you think that Sony are limited in their lenses!

The only real gaps that I see, from Sony's perspective, are for a T/S range, wide primes and fast long lenses, with a possible argument as to a really good macro. All of which tend to be fairly specialised with inevitable price tags to match even when released.

That there are good third party options in almost all areas makes your reasoning a little more odd.

To be fair, though, I suspect that you do want to change and feel frustrated, although can't really put it into words. This is not something to be particularly ashamed about as we all feel that way from time to time (I bet even high end Canon and Nikon professionals occasionally glance enviously at the other brand), which is the reason for the expression, "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence"!

My advice is to step back and take a deep breath. Then look at your back catalogue of shots and decide which you prefer taking, which are the most successful and where you are most limited or fail in your objectives. Once you have that nailed down then you will get a clearer picture of what you need to address your difficulties, whether that be camera, lenses, knowledge, or experience.

Of course, you do have to be realistic as to the money (or the time) you want to spend. For instance, if fast sport or nature is your thing then you are unlikely to get a high percentage of keepers unless you throw big money at your glass! The only solutions then, if funds are limited, would be hire or finding secondhand bargains (if only!!).

Ultimately, this is an exercise of honesty about your own aspirations, your abilities and your purse. Judge that wisely and you will enjoy photography, act in haste and you will forever feel frustrated.

 

[CFynn]

Vultite wrote:

Hey guys, I'm considering a change from Sony to Nikon or Canon...just would like to hear thoughts and opinion of what you would do and why? In case you're wondering, I'm not satisfied with Sony because of the lack of lenses (and they are discontinuing more without reason) so I'm looking for something better. I do landscapes as well as portraits so I need something versatile.

They both make fine cameras and lenses. Are you thinking of APS-C or full frame? For landscapes and large prints the D800 or D800E look attractive.


However there are lots of factors to consider, including ergonomics and service.


"Nikon cameras do cost us more to maintain in service and our pricing model has to reflect that. Repairs are a bit more expensive and take longer (which has to be priced in – time out of service is $ to us). Parts availability (we can do very few repairs on Nikon in-house, even simple things, because of lack of parts) has made that worse lately."

- and that was written before Nikon USA restricted parts supply even more


Source: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/04/d7000-dissection (comments section)

 

[Digirame]

I'm using both Olympus and Canon DSLR cameras. I think Nikon has an impressive array of cameras and lenses. Between which is better, Nikon or Canon? I think it will just depend on what's the latest innovative products developed out there. I think Nikon wins in that category for the moment. So, we wait on the Canon side for a response...they need to push the creative envelope more. But at the moment, I'm plenty happy with what I've got. Really, either system should satisfy most users.


From what I understand, as a broad generalization, the Canon T2i (550D) to T4i (650D) cameras take better JPEGs than some of the Nikon counterparts. Some abhor the thought of taking JPEGs and others just won't want to use RAW. So, it depends on your needs and what you can afford...look at the lenses...and just pick one. The rest of it, mostly is upon you to produce results.

 

[Sean65]

Canon have only ever made one camera worth owning and that was the 5D Mark II and even that camera was a little slow and rubbish with flash.

Get yourself a nice Nikon D700 and you'll soon forget all about cameras and just concentrate on photography.

 

[Digirame]

The Nikon D700 was one of the best four years ago...a real gem...but it's old technology...nice 12.1 megapixel camera...add some nice lenses...even used as I see on Ebay that may be too expensive for a lot of folks. The cameras and the lenses make the best pictures, combined with the skill of the photographer. I sure enjoy using 18 megapixels for cropping. I don't plan to use anything less than that...next is 24 megapixels and higher for me (after I get a better telephoto lens).

 

[aardvark7]

Your initial post suggested that you were interested in opinions, but to not return and express a little thanks for offering advice might be construed as a little inconsiderate at the very least.

 

[nikkorwatcher]

Doesn't the stereotype go that Canon rules at sports, and Nikon has better metering and flash for other journalist and portrait applications? Anyway, I know for a fact that the question of Canon v Nikon for landscapes has come up before... search is your friend.

 

[pixelless]

Write down the lenses and flashes that you think you would need on each brand; add the prices; Buy the cheapest! Really, they both make great cameras. If you are asking this question here, it is because it doesn´t really matter which brand to you. So you might as well go with the cheaper.

I don´t talk down on nobody´s camera brand, but if I thought Canon made better cameras/lenses/flashes I wouldn´t be shooting Nikon.

 

[Sean65]

EDIT