Canon or Nikon, which is better value?

<p>There is a current thread on the Nikon forum which questions the relative value of Nikon vs. Canon, particularly the D700 vs the 5D2. I just sold my D700 and got the 5D2. I am much happier with it. It is not that it is a better camera (which it may be), but that it is better for me. Canon has put the money into a sensor with more pixels. Nikon has put the money into a flash and more menu options, such as in camera retouching. Since I never use an on camera flash and find the Nikon menus way too complex and confusing and want to be able to get a better quality large print, I prefer the Canon. If I needed the flash or other Nikon features, I ould have had to buy a D3X to get the better sensor. So overall I would agree that Canon offers better value, for me. In addition I am very impressed with the Canon L lenses. I do most of my work with the 85 f1.2 which is a very good lens indeed. The extra half stop over the fastest Nikon 85mm does matter to me and the lens is sharp wide open, as well in the mid range stops.. </p>

<p>Depends on personal preference. I like Canon better but Joe Cool prefers Nikon. Either way, if you have utter crap images it ain't a problem with the gear. It's you.</p>

<p>Got to agree with Puppy, as long as the kit does its job, it's the photographer that counts.</p>

<p>Do we need another Canon vs. Nikon thread? I used to like dogs better, but now I prefer cats.</p>

<p>I would say a Graphflex is superior with its tilt and shift control which gives you a superior control of focus. That neither Nikon or Canon can match. ;)</p>

<p>Hector, I don't think this is a Canon vs. Nikon thread as in which one is better without taking into account specifically needed attributes. Bruce had clearly explained the question in the subject, it is about value, and then he further qualifies it with the Canon meeting his personal shooting needs. As a user of both systems, I think he probably has some bias towards each system but one meets his current needs rather more.</p>

<p>Sorry, don't see the point. The OP prefers Canon -- as he says, "it is better for me". So the answer to his "question" is "Yes, Canon is a better value <em>for you"</em> . I don't mean to be disrespectful to the OP, but so what?</p>

<p>And dogs definitely rule.</p>

<p>canon has more lenses.<br>

most of canons lenses are cheaper than their respective nikon counterpart<br>

most nikon bodies are cheaper than their respective canon counterpart. tougher to compare though. because they dont always release cameras at the same time.</p>

<p>I like Ford over Chevys.</p>

<p>First thing this morning, my coffee maker was far more valuable than my DSLR. Later, perhaps the opposite will be true. A tool is a tool, and it's suitable or it's not. Bah.</p>

<p>I guess this is one of those neverending debates...<br>

Walking the same Nikon-->Canon road as you, but in a lower league (instead of a D300 i've jumped on a 5D old): I think the decision comes to a simple choice, really. Nikon has better ergonomics, speed, and maybe color range.<br>

Canon has better sharpening, a handful of mid-price/high quality lenses (i think about the 28mm 1.8 and likes). And, what ultimately led the decision for me, is a little cheap if you want to go FF.</p>

<p>I just bought a 5D in good shape for under 1000$. At the time being, you can't have a Nikon FF for the price.<br>

To be honest, i would have taken the D700 over the MKII. ***IMHO***</p>

 

<p>Nikon lenses are more expensive than the equivalent lenses in the Canon line, even with all the recent Canon price increases. Does anyone know Nikon's prices are so much higher?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>maybe color range.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>A bold claim, can you explain, Jack?</p>

<p>Bruce<br>

Our family have had Canons for years (since 1975 on and off) which made it easier for me. I tried out Nikons in the 90s and (having expected to be impressed by the "superior ergonomics" trope that is so often trotted out) found it much less to my liking than Canon, so renewed the connection. But all this is moot as you clearly prefer Canon. If you are looking for affirmation of your choice, then...well chosen!</p>

 

<p>Well, one thing ISN'T up for debate, and that's that Nikon's prices are higher. This is the source of the contention, I believe. We're talking about "value" because if you shoot Nikon, you have to justify why you spent more money. Was it worth it? That kind of thing. With Canon, you get all the features for less money. Some people think there are other compromises that explain the lower price. Other people think Nikon prices their gear inappropriately high. Case in point: Canon 1Ds III vs Nikon D3x. Nikon refuses to compete on price.</p>

<p>When it comes to the Canon/Nikon choice, flip a coin. Both are great brands and both make excellent products. Each is used by fine photographers and great photography is made every day with both systems. In the end any cost differences you might be able to dredge up - often based on how you measure, when you buy, and what you buy - don't amount to much.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>To the subject at hand, the only reliable differential quality statement one can make is that the

current version of the one is better than the previous version of the other. Within current versions, you

can also be pretty confident that the one will be superior in some aspects and the other in other.</p>

 

<p>Ralph, you may be pleased to know that Canon actually offers some outstanding tilt / shift lenses.

My TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II arrived yesterday, and it is simply unbelievable. The 17 is supposed to be

comparable. Both offer the full range of movements you’re pining for. The 45 and 90 are older

models and are restricted to having the tilt and shift axes either parallel or perpendicular (and require a

screwdriver to switch), but are still excellent lenses (if not quite up to the standards of the new

ones).</p>

 

<p>I understand that Nikon has perspective control lenses that only offer shifts, not tilts. If movements are your thing (and if my understanding is correct), then that would be one of the rare clear-cut differences where one brand is unquestionably superior to the other.</p>

 

<p>Of course, the 135 format isn&rquo;t up to the same image quality standards as large format, but

the 5DII is capable of outstanding 2′ × 3′ prints and enlarges surprisingly well

beyond that. If you need more than that, you obviously are already shooting a larger format…and

you are in most rarified company, indeed.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>Nikon has a tendency to promote their product more aggressively than canon. Their "I am Nikon" campaign in Europe and the Ashton Kutcher commercials here in the US seems to give a message that if you shoot Nikon, you are a professional photographer. Just take a look <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHtZL78Rts0">here</a> , he is shooting a wedding with a consumer grade Nikon and people get the message that anyone can shoot a wedding so as long as you have a Nikon.</p>

<p>And I usually find people that shoot Nikon to consider themselves "special" or something because they choose to have "better AF"(The 7D is just as good as the D300s and D700 with hopes of the new 5DmkIII having at least the same AF as the 7D), "better ergonomics"(what does this mean anyway? Nikon counter parts along with their lenses are considerably heavier than canon), "better colors"(what? color means nothing nowadays with digital, I can make a canon neutral picture style look like any nikon pic style with PScs4 or even aperture 3), "better high ISO"(ok, I give them that with the new D3S, but at only 12MP and sacrificing overall sharpness I prefer my canon).</p>

<p>To me "better value" would be my canon because I shoot 5DmkII and 7D and video has become just as important as stills. And Nikon cant even touch canon on video, they have no manual control and they only have 720P at 24ftps. I guess I value the AF system of the eos 7D so much I am actually impressed with Nikon's D3s full frame with superior AF system, but again I have a feeling canon is cooking something special for us that feel the 5DmkII should have been something else. And also lets wait for the 1Ds mkIII replacement. Canon will be the champ for high ISO in the future, I believe.</p>

<p>@ Ben Goren - Nikon currently markets three Perspective Control PC-E lenses with both shifts and tilts, the 24/3.5, 45/2.8, and 85/2.8. You are probably thinking of the older PC lenses, the 28/3.5 and 35/2.8.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I understand that Nikon has perspective control lenses that only offer shifts, not tilts. If movements are your thing (and if my understanding is correct), then that would be one of the rare clear-cut differences where one brand is unquestionably superior to the other.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Matt Orth has taken the words right out of my mouth. How could there possibly be much value in buying something you don't want? If you are happy with what you have, the value is there.</p>

<p>It's pretty simple, Bruce. Why complicate things?</p>

<p>One thing to consider is lens compatability. On your post in the Nikon forum it was stated as a benifit that all Nikon lenses could be used while older canon manual focus l,enses could not be used. This was an over simplification of the answer in my opinion. </p>

<p>Nikon has over the years changed their lenses to take avantage of automation. Over time this has resulted in some incompatabilities. The original Nikon manual focus lenses will not work with the exposure meter. Later lenses will. Most recently Nikon decided to remove the focus motor from the body on their consumer orientated cameras. This means some auto focus lenses will not focus on some camera bodies. If you google Nikon Lens Compatability chart you will find a lot of information regarding this issue. </p>

<p>For Canon you only need to know 2 things. All EF lenses will work on full frame Canon cameras. All Canon APS-C cameras can use EF or EF-S lenses. There are no autofocus or exposure meter limitations. If the lens fits on the camera it is fully functional. That means any EF lens made since canon went to autofocus will work. That is a lot of lenses and Canons current lens chart is very extensive.</p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I stumbled on this thread, I'm currently an Olympus E-3 shooter which I chose because of good colour (my taste) and easy to use of legacies Zeiss and Leica R. The key criteria for me is how well a camera/lens combo can cope with rendering marble. http://halfa.smugmug.com/.</p>

<p>Bells and whistles don't get me over excited, but how a camera handles subtle tonal variations.</p>

<p>Full frame seems the way to go - 5Dmk2 or d700 or ..............?</p>

<p>I vote with Clive for the Olympus E-3. And its color and lenses. Sensor shmensor...such a bore. But then having said all that, the question still persists, namely,"What about <strong>Naomi</strong> ?"</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_of_Chair</p>

<p>Point taken Gerry - though I nearly looked for a Naomi hoping that it had a dynamic range to equal a Contax 645 (with D back) was as transportable as the Oly, FF or a bit better, worked nicely with 35mm legacies, live view 10x magnification for easy fine focus on tripod. etc etc and had acceptable high ISO. and cost about the same as 5Dmk2!</p>

<p>The Naomi SB 28 (silver bullet, 28mg) may be the way to go.</p>

<p>I use Nikon DSLRs and Canon Powershot P&S.<br>

I like that I can use my older manual Nikon lenses on the D300 with matrix metering.<br>

I like Canon.<br>

I have no doubt that they are both excellent systems.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Full frame seems the way to go - 5Dmk2 or d700 or ..............?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sony a850 - obviously?</p>