Canon currently a better value?

<p>I recently had my beloved Fujifinepix S5Pro stolen and am in the market for a replacement DSLR.</p>

<p>It seems there are two gaps in the <strong>current</strong> Nikon product line:<br>

1. between the D90 ($900) and D300 ($1520) ....difference of $620<br>

2. between the D300 ($1520) and D700 ($2400) ...difference of $880</p>

<p>Furthermore Canon always seem to "give" you a bit more than Nikon.<br>

Take for example similarly priced full frame DSLRs...Nikon D700 (12MP, $2400) vs Canon 5D Mark II (21MP, $2500). Am I missing something here? Is Canon truly a better value or is Nikon a better DSLR in terms of technology and build quality when compared to an similarly priced Canon?</p>

<p>Im sure its going to see-saw back and forth in the near future with new products from Nikon. But for now, I'm going to hang tight since Nikon just doesnt seem to offer what I want...which is a camera that sits/priced between D90 and D300 or D300 and D700. Thoughts?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well, AFAIK Nikon is way better in high ISO than a Full frame Canon. </p>

<p>If you want full frame D700, compare to price to Canon 5D but it doesn't do high ISO that good. </p>

<p>As for best bang for dollar. I use a Nikon D70, 6MP b/c I don't use high ISO. Haha. With Nikon you can acess the manual focus lenses too. Canon has changed their mount although you could hack it I think. </p>

<p>With my 6MP, I routinely print A3 out, that is about 16x12. I have printed 20x30 or larger I think. I have no reason to get more MP. It's gone to camera club exhibitions and competitions. </p>

<p>My mate got a Canon 400D or 500D or something. He doesn't print at all. Haha. He's very materialistic, he even wanted a titanium body.</p>

<p>If you want pixels just shoot digital medium format. Sheez.</p>

<p><br />Both systems are great. Each with their pro's and con's. If you already have a set of Nikon lenses, you'd be throwing money away chosing Canon.<br>

It's an endless discussion......</p>

<p>Hey, if pro's have shot with both brands? Does it mean neither is good enough for you?</p>

<p>I read that National Geographic for a double page magazine spread only require a 6MP file as its editorial. Source, Bob Krist.</p>

<p>Do you really want to walk around with a camera that the word "REBEL" on it?</p>

<p>I think best bang for your buck really depends on the specifics of what you plan on doing with your treasure trove of lenses and body. Each manufacturer has something which appeals more to one camp than another...and then it changes. If you already have excellent lenses which fit either line, choose the appropriate line, simple economics.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Take for example similarly priced full frame DSLRs...Nikon D700 (12MP, $2400) vs Canon 5D Mark II (21MP, $2500). Am I missing something here? Is Canon truly a better value or is Nikon a better DSLR in terms of technology and build quality when compared to an similarly priced Canon?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What exactly is "value" to you?</p>

<p>For example, have you compared the AF capability between the two cameras? How about frame rate, weather sealing, the ability to control remote flashes ....</p>

<p>The 5D Mark II clearly has more pixels. To some people that is important; to some it is not. And there are other factors ....</p>

<p>Phineas,</p>

<p>Good luck to shop Canon! This way you'll save money to pay for an expensive lesson: "What you pay is what you get!" When you'll end bored by the cheap AF performance in Canon we will welcome you back to the dark side as a hopefully repented prodigal son!</p>

Then buy canon if megapixels are everything to you.

<p>Phineas - your question is valid, but unanswerable. Like most on the Nikon board, I have much more experience with Nikon, but my honest assessment is that they are both good, just different. Depending on your particular needs for a camera and for a particular set of lenses, you may find that Canon or Nikon provide a better value for your particular situation.</p>

<p><br /> Conventional wisdom is that Canon brings innovation to the marketplace faster than Nikon and at lower price points. A less widely held, but still common, belief is that Nikon's build quality is a bit better than Canon's. My own observation seems to bear this out, but I really doubt that there is any significant difference in most situations between the photos taken with a Nikon D700 and 70-200mm AF-S lens and the Canon 5D and equivalent Canon lens.</p>

<p>Found this<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/big-three.shtml</p>

<p>Nikon still better in high ISO thou. Note the D3x isn't as good as the D3 in that respect.</p>

<p>Both are great. Both will give you great images, and for 99.9% of the photography most of us do, the megapixels do NOT matter.</p>

<p>Or perhaps you only have "analysis paralysis". There is treatment for that now. ;-P</p>

<p>Yeah, megapixels matter, but not so much within a certain range. I mean, there's a difference between 3MP and 10MP, but in the range of 3-8MP there isn't much difference. Also, in the range of 10-18MP there isn't much difference. There is probably something to be said for the jump from 12MP to 21MP, but there is so much detail aleady at 12MP that you have to look really close to tell the difference. It certainly isn't a big enough deal to let that alone make a decision for you.</p>

<p>I am confused by your question regarding prices. Are you looking for something in the $1200 range or the $2000 range? It's almost as if you are trying to decide just how many market segments there are, for marketing purposes, rather than for your own use to select a camera. If all you need is a camera, it shouldn't matter how many market segments Nikon has settled on vs how many Canon has settled on. I mean, if Nikon has 6 cameras in their lineup, and Canon has 7, does any of this matter if you're only going to buy one camera? </p>

<p>Name your price, and let's talk specific camera models that are actually competing for your money.</p>

<p>Nikon has more lenses when you factor in the ability to use any Nikon lens back to 1977 (AI lenses) or even earlier with AI converted lenses. Nikon has a better flash system (iTTL) than Canon. Canon on the other hand has more AF lenses than Nikon (last time I checked). Canon also seems to have a larger install base (more Canon SLR users than Nikon SLR users). I dunno, if you're just starting out you'd win going with either system in my opinion, there is no such thing as better value either way. It's like saying Ford has better value than Toyota, or vice versa. You have to handle them at the local camera store and talk to friends who use them. </p>

<p>I use Nikon because my father used a Nikon F while I was growing up, and I eventually got to use it when he bought an FE2. He gave me a new FE2 when I graduated from high school and I've been a Nikon user ever since. I've had Canon cameras over the years but I don't have them anymore, though I have 4 Nikon cameras currently (two film and two digital). </p>

<p>A camera with slightly better noise behavior at ISO 6400, or one FPS faster burst shooting, or two more choices in f/4 lenses does me no good at all if, when I pick it up to use it, I truly dislike using it. There are real and substantial ergonomic differences between the N and C systems, and for many people those differences completely trump exposure, resolution, and lens collection hair splitting.<br /><br />Touch the cameras in similar classes from both makers (and from Pentax and Olympus, while you're at it) and Use The Force. One of them will talk to you more than the others.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon D700 (12MP, $2400) vs Canon 5D Mark II (21MP, $2500). Am I missing something here? Is Canon truly a better value or is Nikon a better DSLR in terms of technology and build quality when compared to an similarly priced Canon?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>are you missing something? well, with the 5dmkII, you'd be missing the same AF system as in that company's top of the line body, which you get with the D700. there are other differences, too, such as ergonomics and flash metering, not to mention frame rate, as shun pointed out. so in essence, with a $2500 camera, Canon is "giving" you an inferior AF system. you also don't really get into detail about what you think you'd be gaining with Canon,other than a vague premise of the grass being greener.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>, I'm going to hang tight since Nikon just doesnt seem to offer what I want...which is a camera that sits/priced between D90 and D300 or D300 and D700. Thoughts?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>i'm not quite sure what you're saying here. you're upset because nikon doesnt cater its marketing specifically for you by offering a body at the $1250 price point and the $2000 price point?</p>

<p>what's wrong with a d300? only one of the best digital bodies ever made. new prices on those are sub-$1500 now; it was $1800 when it came out. and d700 prices are dropping too. plus the d90 has been the market leader in the sub-$1000 range; currently they're only $800 new. what do you need to do that you can't with a d90?</p>

<p>compared to an S5, a d90 would certainly be an improvement in many ways. it's doubtful there will be a S6pro or S7pro, so it's not likely you'll see that fuji sensor making a comeback.</p>

<p>in any event, you're quite bold for posting this on a nikon forum, but assuming you're not a troll, i dont see the point of this post.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>When you post in a Nikon forum, you are going to get Nikon answers, don't you think? Best to evaluate your needs and get into a camera that fits them. If you are a pro, probably best to be into Nikon or Canon, as easiest to rent and they have the best range of lenses and such. Any reason not to stay with Fuji?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It's a fair question. I recall being a bit confused back in 2005 about the differences between the D2H and D2X. Some folks were saying "megapickles don't matter". The D2H was a bargain at that time due to the closeout/blowout prices so I got one. Still happy with it but... megapickles do matter up to a certain point. I've occasionally been very limited by the 4 mp max rez of the D2H. For example, the D2H has virtually excluded me from some stock sales. I still think a good clean 12 mp would be adequate for my needs, but who knows what the future holds.</p>

<p>If the OP is a fine art style photographer - landscapes, portraits, still lifes, etc., all at lower ISOs - then the Canon is probably the best buy. Lots of megapickels for the money. If you don't need low noise/high ISO performance and don't shoot action oriented stuff, the disadvantages of the Canon may be irrelevant to your needs. And depending on your target audience, it is conceivable that in a few years some stock markets may demand greater resolution than 12 mp can deliver.</p>

<p>So it depends on your style of photography, including where you see your style taking you in the next five or so years.</p>

<p>Generally speaking Nikon is better for high ISO performance and Canon is better for low ISO resolution. I started with a Canon DSLR and switched to a Nikon D2X and Kodak SLR/n, since I invested completely in Nikon manual lenses. Some specific cameras, like the D2X, are brilliant to use with Nikon manual focus lenses but many Nikon DSLRs won't meter and some won't even mount. At least every Canon will meter with every Nikon lens ever made, and with the adapters their are no problems, or at least fewer problems, mounting lenses to the Canon body.</p>

<p>In my opinion the Nikon D90 is the best valued crop body and the 5D II is the best valued full frame body. I don't know if Nikon and Canon have done it on purpose but ever since they started making DSLRs they have placed their cameras into the marketplace between each other, and never actually pitting the same spec camera directly against each other. The 1DsIII and D3x are as close as they have ever gotten, head-to-head. </p>

<p>I have a cache of excellent Nikon and Zeiss lenses, a Nikon D2x, and a Canon 5DII. For landscape-type work, composing carefully and on a tripod, I prefer the 5DII with an F-mount adaptor. Today for a product-and-model shoot I used the D2x, as it literally can run rings around the Canon for fast-paced work, and the client was very happy with the result. So to say one is "better" than the other, makes me want to ask, "better for what ?". Choose the proper tool for the job.</p>

<p>Canon has a 'L' [Lots of bucks] line of lenses. In sunshine, at f11 -- it is hard to tell the image quality of a regular Canon EF lens and a Canon L EF lens.</p>

<p>Nikon makes Nikkor lenses. Most work fairly well. And of course, you would have to hunt a long, long time to find something in the Canon line up that sounds like a f11 1000mm Reflex-Nikkor....</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you've shot with a Fuji S5 and had no problem with MPxls, frame rate or focus speed, you'll be disappointed either way. Your old Fuji outperforms both in image tone, color/quality at all but the highest ISO. Replace the S5 with a new S5 for $650 bucks and wait for the next generation from Nikon or ...Dare I say...Fuji. Their not out of the game just yet.</p>

<p>Now from Lex's statement. Hmm.... I am a tripod user, landscapes, don't care much about AF and FPS, for the price of approx a D700, I can get 25MP or abouts, might tempted me..... if I hadn't got Nikon.</p>

<p>LOL</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon just doesnt seem to offer what I want...which is a camera that sits/priced between D90 and D300 or D300 and D700. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am sorry! I just find it funny that you want something that doesn't exists basing your wish in price. More just the price you gotta look at the features that you need in a body. So? What does the D90 doesn't have that you want and what does the D300 have and you don't need?</p>