Nikon vs Canon

<p>I was very happy with Canon until I switched from a PC to a Mac (everyone said the Mac was better!)... now? I don't know... maybe I should switch to Nikon?</p>

<p>I had a Canon Powershot point and shoot film camera, and later bought a Canon Rebel SLR, also film. I really liked both cameras, they took great pictures.</p>

<p>When I finally switched over to digital a couple of years ago I gave Nikon a shot, first with a Coolpix digital point and shoot. When I was ready to buy my first DSLR, I knew it would be either a Canon or Nikon. I looked at both closely and finally decided on the Nikon. I haven't regretted it and I love the camera.</p>

<p>I really can't say anything bad about either brand. But I find it interesting that <strong>Canon's first production camera </strong>(1936) <strong>used a Nikon lens</strong>.</p>

<p>Seems pretty ridiculous that you are complaining about switching from color to black & white in camera when you should really do that in post-production anyway. And besides nikon has the "my menu" which lets you put a bunch of menu options in one list for easy access... did you try this?</p>

<p>NASA shoots Nikon, suck that Canon fans!<br>

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/1006/10061402nikoniss.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/news/1006/10061402nikoniss.asp</a> </p>

<p>Like Rafael, I would have liked to see Minolta in the DSLR game. I have a Minolta scanner (pre-Konica) and it is superb. Bought a Minolta film camera just before K-M dropped out of the business. Then again, I sprung for a brand new Canon A-1 (<em>still</em> a superb camera, BTW) about two years before they dropped FD for the EOS mount. As a consequence, when I finally went AF, it was a Nikon system purchase for me (F80/N80 and now a D700 - wouldn't part with either of them).</p>

<p>Sinh - you forgot to mention that CSI <em>always</em> shoot Nikon. I learnt <em>all</em> my technique from those shows (!)</p>

<p>So, you switched cameras because the menus? Not, um, because of image quality? Better lens selection? Better DR? Better NR? More resolution? Better skin rendition?</p>

<p>I have no dog in the Nikon vs Canon fight (they are both excellent) - but it seems to be a curious reason to choose, much less change, the camera line over. It is, if you pardon me, like choosing a car strictly over the font on the odometer.</p>

<p>Ah well, to each his own I guess.</p>

 

<p>I have to second the views that Matt above, and others here have put forth. The original post seems like a troll, nothing more. Switching cameras because of menus, when one supposedly was a pro? Sorry, lacks the ring of convincing truth to me. There are many reasons to fault Nikon, most obvious of which right now is their appalling management of US inventory, but the stuff mentioned here doesn't do it. I'm surprised this thread wasn't closed, photo.net usually does a good job keeping this sort of garbage out of the mix.</p>

<p>Bruce,<br>

Congrats on starting a thread with useless and provocative name.</p>

<p>Wow. Really ?!<br>

G Dan Mitchell said it best. <br>

I'm new to owning my own DSLR and have read so many articles on photography and what's the best equipment. It's all a matter of preference. It's what you do with the equipment that really matters.<br>

Nonetheless, quality equipment is very important to me, and there is plenty to choose from. I choose Canon originally..but when I held the Nikon it just felt better in my hands. Can you imagine if we didn't have any choices ? I guess then'd we'd have nothing to write about...no vs. ?</p>

 

<p>Canon is definitely better than Nikon:</p>

<p>1. Canon makes their own sensors, Nikon buys their sensors from Sony (after a long time trying to say that they wanted to go with cropped sensors for some good reasons)</p>

<p>2. Canon lens mount is better than Nikon very confusing lens mount (can I use my AF 50mm lens with a D90 or D3000?, for example)</p>

<p>Other things are very minor details that can be changed, improved anyday, and they are more for different tastes and habits like: menu, flash auto modes, speeds, shutter clicks rates. How about Nikon lens has to mount on counter clockwise, is that right or wrong? it does bother me though.</p>

<p>I think that Pentax has the best mid level prosumer camera - the K 7 with exquisite ergonomy, weather sealing and full backward compatibility and now 760 USD at BH Photo !<br>

Now kill me!</p>

<p>I think it's fun to debate this, so long as people don't get so emotional about it. [standard opening with balanced phrases] I use Nikon, my camera buddy uses Canon. I like both brands. When people ask me for camera advice, I usually listen to what they say and have not issue recommending either (sometimes I recommend Canon).</p>

<p>[now begins the more partial stuff]</p>

<p>I like the ergonomics on Nikon better. Every Canon Body, Xsi, right up to 5D Mk. II, feels like a rickety, squeeky, mess to me, as well as their cheaper lenses.</p>

<p>I like the general features on Canon better. Most/all their cameras, generally speaking, have the same features, like bracketing, excellent video performance (1080P!). Nikon, at times have skimped here and there on some features. The D40/60/3000 doesn't have bracketing, for example. The 40/60 only had 3 autofocus points.</p>

<p>Back to ergonomics, I like how Nikon (sort of) prefers the thumb wheel over Canon's trigger wheel on budget models. Changing aperture doesn't require you to move the trigger finger with Nikon. Changing ISO on Canon required that you pushed the ISO button, move your index finger off the shutter release to the wheel, turn it, move your finger back to the shutter release, and take the picture. On Nikon, you could do all that and keep your trigger finger on the shutter release. On the mid-end, Nikon has a thumb wheel and a trigger wheel (which I prefer) over Canon's trigger wheel + menu wheel.</p>

<p>Lens selection: I think Canon has a somewhat broader range of lenses, but irritatingly, it seems like with every category of lens, you get your choice between a cheap, plastic, rickety lens, and a built-like-a-tank $1500 L lens. Nikon seems to walk the middle road a bit better.</p>

<p>D700 vs. Canon 5D Mk. II: I found it amusing that it was the menu that tilted the balance for the OP. With my friend, Nikon's 'reverse-threading' (clockwise screws the lens out) that broke the deal. But compare cameras for a sec: niether of them are very 'balanced. Yes, the 5D Mk. has a good balance between resolution and high ISO. The D700 skimps on resolution... but for god's sake the D700 is a *machine-gun*, with a super accurate autofocus. You hold the button down, and, a few seconds later, you have 15 pictures of a condor mid-flight.</p>

<p>Now the Canon 7D vs. the D300s: I've been thoroughly impressed with the 7D. Fast shooting, fast autofocus... overall an amazing camera.</p>

<p>Threads like this are quite valuable as they inevitably outline the history of technology of both companies -- the two biggest players in the DSLR field. I ignore Sony and similar. No patience.</p>

<p>I enjoy the point/counterpoint and some of the mild flaming. Keep it up! (it was the EOS system itself that sold me to Canon 20 years and a month ago) As previously mentioned, lens compatibility -- you need an encyclopedia to figure out Nikon whereas with Canon it's this easy: ALL EF lenses work fine and meter and AF fine on ALL Canon SLRs.</p>

<p>(and finally, why someone would prefer to shoot in B&W only mode is something I cannot fathom -- it is so much better done in post)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you ask me I wish Minolta were still in the picture (not the cheap Sony stuff today that uses Minolta glass.) The closest digital SLR to resemble a film camera was Minolta's last great camera, the Maxxum 7D.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good, I'm glad Sony stuff is cheap although that doesn't quite explain why I still can't afford most of it :)</p>

<p>I haven't owned or used a Maxxum 7D (aka 7D the original?) but I do own and use a Sony a700 and that is certainly a very ergonomic and button-friendly design, and very akin to the 7D, if reports from owners of both are to be believed. An almost identical design was carried over to the a850 and a900, although unfortunately it looks increasingly unlikely that Sony will stick with this approach for future prosumer models.</p>

<p>And what does anything have to do with Canon vs Nikon? I grew up with a Canon AT-1 and a total of 3 (spelled out: three) FD mount lenses. So when the EOS mount came along I obviously could never forgive Canon for letting down one seriously committed customer :)</p>

<p>Actually it took me quite a while to switch eventually to AF and digital SLR. At which point I naturally chose to buy into the only other system that really shafted their manual focus era customers when AF came along: Minolta/KM/Sony. Why not Canon or Nikon? Thanks to feebay I had started collecting a lot of old manual focus gear from major and minor brands of the 70s and 80s. That taught me nothing about digital photography, but it did teach me about subtle differences in ergonomics as well as the relative unimportance of choosing any particular single brand. As with all things electronic, there's no telling what surprises will come out next, but so far I've been entirely happy with my choice, and if I weren't then I wouldn't hesitate to graze other RGB pastures.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>ALL EF lenses work fine and meter and AF fine on ALL Canon SLRs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I should also note that I have a Canon film camera. Back when Canon introduced the EF mount, they completely abandoned the FD mount, and all the FD camera bodies and lenses are now swimming around Ebay. I bought a 50mm f/1.4 for $40.</p>

<p>I'm sure the people who paid money for Canon's FD equipment way back then were extremely pissed when Canon did the big "F U," but ultimately it's been good for me, since I can scoop up this equipment really cheap (and good for Canon too, I think).</p>

<p>I do think that Canon's mount is more modern than Nikon's mount, but look at it another way: you can mount a 1977 manual focus lens on a D300s, and it will work perfectly. You cannot screw in a 1978 FD lens onto a Canon EF camera. There are no cheap adaptors... the adaptors require corrective optics: they are rare and *very* expensive.</p>

<p>This means that a 1977 Nikon 50mm f/1.4 lens will go for $100 or more on ebay, because you can still use it with a D300. A 1978 Canon 50mm f/1.4 only goes for $40, because there are so few modern cameras that can use it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> I grew up with a Canon AT-1 and a total of 3 (spelled out: three) FD mount lenses. So when the EOS mount came along I obviously could never forgive Canon for letting down one seriously committed customer :)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Such as this fellow right here!</p>

<p>Hi Everyone<br>

I've worked with both Nikon and Canon cameras professionally as well as Leica's, Mamiya's and a Toyo 5x4 camera. I just never get the point of this debate. I defy anyone to tell the difference between a picture taken on a Canon and Nikon DSLR of similar cost / spec. All modern DSLR's are capable of taking great pictures as are 60 year old film cameras.<br>

Buy which ever camera you like best then use it as much as possible. Don't be conned into upgrading every year by the manufacturers - the megapixel race is just a marketing ploy in many respects. I still use my 5D alongside my 5D MK2 and the difference is quality at say A4 is very hard to spot. OK newer camera's have less noise at higher ISO's but who wants to shoot at ISO 6400 anyway unless you really have to.<br>

I've just bought a Panasonic G1 for family snaps and when I want to travel light with a small compact camera that's unobtrusive then it beats my 5D MK2!.<br>

Best regards<br>

David<br>

<a href="http://www.david-thrower.blogspot.com">www.david-thrower.blogspot.com</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I was looking at this earlier, wondering (rather academically as I couldn't afford to anyway) whether the switch to nikon could be beneficial. Rather than taking the body POV though, it's a matter of lenses and here is where nikon are lagging <em>for my purposes</em>.<br>

1) UW Zoom. I have a 17-40 F4L. Nikon have finally answered this with their 16-35 F4 VR. On paper the nikon looks a better lens, although significantly heavier and more expensive. <em>Advantage Nikon</em><br>

2) 50mm/ I have a 50 F1.8 mk I. I suspect this is no better or worse than the nikon 50 F1.8. <em>Draw</em><br>

3) Standard Zoom. 24-105 F4L IS. This is a lens that nikon have no answer to - the 24-120 is a consumer-grade lens akin to the 28-135IS, the nikon 24-85 F2.8-4 has no USM nor IS and if I wanted the weight and expense of a 24-70 F2.8, canon could equally oblige. <em>Advantage Canon</em><br>

4) Telezoom. I have a 70-200 F4L. I want the F4L IS. Nikon, however, only offer serious 70-200s in F2.8. Again, I don't want the weight. <em>Advantage Canon </em><br>

5) (Super)Tele. 300 F4L IS. Nikon do have the AFS 300 F4 now, which it took them long enough to come out with, but the lack of VR kills it - I find IS invaluable in this lens. <em>Advantage Canon</em><br>

So... without even looking at the bodies, I find my lens selection pretty firmly puts me in the direction of canon. <br>

I think that Nikon are doing some great things - they have some wonderful bodies while the 14-24 and 200-400 are lenses that canon users can only turn green over. If I could afford the 200-400 then that would be a seriously compelling lens, but as it is I find myself happy with what I have. <br>

Now... how to afford that 70-200 F4L IS and the 300 F2.8L IS....</p>

<p>When are we going to just eyeroll at these threads. They are simply useless. I am a confirmed Nikon user. I am a confirmed Nikon user becase when I started buying serious gear in 1973 there were only two choices and Paul Simon was singing about Nikon. I still have that F/1.4 mentioned above and sometimes use it. Canon's decision to change lens mounts did not bother me at all as I was a Nikon guy. Why change? Had I been a Canon user I probably wouldn't have changed anyway. I am a loyal guy. <br>

So the unpopular rant is this. No one who has posted on this thread takes any better pictures because they are a Canon/Nikon user. Myself included. Maybe Canon makes a lens that shoots around corners and Nikon doesn't but none of us really give a damn. Perhaps the autofocus system of a D700 is a convenience and maybe the Canon 1DS MARK zillion runs on earwax but none of that makes a bit of difference in the long run. If we are good photographers then we can take great pictures with an Argus C-3. If we suck we can't take good pictures with a Hasselblad CFV-39 39 Megapixel Digital Back on a CM500 backed up by a personal assistant carrying an array of Hasse's best glass. (Though we will look very cool, particularly if we have a nice vest and avaitor glasses.) </p>

<p>These threads are oh so tiring. We all know that we can't buy a game and that 50% of our equipment spending beyond a Rebel or D40 would be better spent on training.</p>

<p>Which is better? Nikon or Canon? Well. For wedding photography maybe it is Denis Reggie and he shoots Canon. Or maybe you need a nice portrait. You might consider Gene Martin and he shoots Nikon. They both seem to have done fairly well. Maybe even that Sony shooter Nigel Barker has a shot at success. Unless he reads this thread and gets nervous. </p>

<p>I tried to stay out of this one because I both like Canon and Nikon. Come to think about it I like some features on Pentax, Olympus, Sony... I also switched to Canon after a 15 year stint with Nikon Cameras. I still own a Nikon FM2 and FE2 as my security blankets. One thing I noticed throughout the years especially with with the mid-leve prosummer cameras is that if you put a Canon camera and a Nikon camera which are similarly priced next to each other, the Canon looks like "plain-jane" next to the Nikon. The Nikon camera seems more robust has more features and overall looks more like a professional camera than the Canon. Not that anyone would use all of the features but they are nice to have. I'm not saying that a Nikon will out perrform the Canon, because there are other things involved like lenses, skill etc, but sometimes as a Canon user you wonder if you are missing something. <br>

I didn't have the same problem that Bruce had, because I had practice with a Canon film camera prior to going digital. At first it was hard getting use to that little wheel on the back of the camera(Elan II), but now I love it. With the 7D I can say that Canon finally did not cut any corners and gave us a true semi-pro camera. The Canon 30D, 40D, 50D all failed in that department in my opinion. Even the EOS-3 had more features than these cameras.</p>

<p>I think and respectfully tell you that this is seriously RIDICULOUS!. shoot what makes you happy... but for a person to post this type of VS threads just makes me wonder,,,, are you a photographer? go shoot a Diana or a Holga you will still have the same doubs and problems you face right now. dont waste time.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I do think that Canon's mount is more modern than Nikon's mount, but look at it another way: you can mount a 1977 manual focus lens on a D300s, and it will work perfectly. You cannot screw in a 1978 FD lens onto a Canon EF camera. There are no cheap adaptors... the adaptors require corrective optics: they are rare and *very* expensive.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To be honest, that's simply not discussing the subject in full. Canon released an adaptor for their EOS bodies so consumers could use the adapter in full. It was a bit pricy then, but now the reason for its price difference is because Canon thought, silly them, that you might finally give in and upgrade. If you want, there are a ton of ones to be had and if you can get an elephoto, its not that bad. Arguing Nikon's sake on the lens issue is just ridiculous. Canon has been using the same mount for the last 20 years now. If you really want some old glass, why not just continue to use the old camera body too? Have you ever taken a step back and looked at a Nikon compatibility chart? </p>

<p>People say Nikon have backward compatibility, but try mounting a 70-200VRII on a Nikon F4. Modern DSLR's certainly don't work well as their older cameras do with manual focus lenses, so I tend to think that the whole "Canon not backwards compatible" thing is a non issue.</p>

<p>Hey, I took this with a Canon. Can someone tell me how it would be better with a Nikon? Or if I took it with a Nikon, how it would be better with a Canon?</p>

<p><img src="http://spirer.com/rollerderbymay2010/content/bin/images/large/357P1649.jpg" alt="" width="694" height="521" /><em>Bay Bombers</em><br>

It's a good thing this post happened, I might never know what to do.</p>

<p>Note to moderators: Shouldn't there be a 'more beating of dead horses' forum especially for threads like this or the endless film-vs-digital?</p>

 

<p>My two cents.. My first new 35 mm SLR was an Exacta VX500. It worked, but it was absolutely garbage, and everything from the lens mount to the shutter wore out to the point of failure with normal use over a year or two. I like them for reasons better explained by the "Stockholm Syndrome", but they really are junk cameras. Despite their many quirks, a new Kiev MF camera is a gem compared to an Exacta. I want another one though, as it was my first new SLR, and I'm a sap for the entire Exacta story line.</p>

<p>My first "real" SLR was a Canon FTb. I still have it, 40 years later. Canon builds great cameras. I like Canon glass, both FD, and EOS. I might be in the minority, but I applaud Canon for making the jump to the EOS mount, despite the implications to my lifetime of FD cameras to that point. I never had a reason to shop for Nikon, as Canon has always delivered for me. Even in this current day, I simply prefer Canon gear to Nikon, and I even prefer the way that Canon gear feels in my hands over Nikon. That is a subjective matter, and it doesn't surprise me to read that Nikon enthusiasts prefer Nikon ergonomics over Canon. Imagine that.....</p>

<p>I have a few Nikon models on display, and even though I have never shot a picture with a Nikon camera that I have owned, I have used many Nikon cameras owned by friends and peers who happen to prefer Nikon to Canon. It's a fun thing to swap gear with friends, and beat each other up over their "poor" equipment choice later in the day. The bottom line is that I have no desire to own a Nikon working kit, but I pray that Nikon answers every Canon advance, and raises the stakes a bit higher at the same time. I know that Canon will do the same when Nikon captures the lead for a time.</p>

<p>I also prefer Canon glass to Nikkor glass by a slight margin, but there is really no point in nit-picking between two lens brands that constantly remain at the top of the game for decades on end, as both brands are locked into a competitive drama that will never end up with a clear victor. Thank God for that, as we all win.</p>

<p>The truth is, I like Canon for the long term, while some of my friends prefer Nikon. Personal loyalty is deserved in each case, but it is the constant competition between the two brands (including other brands now) that makes both brand camps win in the end. Without a worthy adversary like Nikon to compete against, Canon might never have even thought of developing the F1 series, the T-90, or the EOS line at all. I have no intention to buy a Nikon camera to take pictures with, but if Nikon fell on hard times for some reason, I would support them with my Dollars in a heartbeat. Without Nikon, Canon would not have had to work so hard, and risk so much. Without Canon, Nikon would be in the exact same situation.</p>

<p>All of us at the front lines of photography would be in a different reality today. If push came to shove, and my Canon kit happened to be replaced with a Nikon kit in the morning, I would still be fine, as I would adapt to the differences (I would paint over that red stain on the grip though. Nikon is into visual trademarks that adorn basketball shoes, and I can't deal with that), but I would still hope that the competition would resume as soon as possible. No matter which brand you prefer, or would die for (I met a few from each camp who might), it took both brands to deliver the level of camera tech we all enjoy today. And it's cheap, too.....</p>

<p>I love Canon, and I hate Nikon. Long live Nikon!</p>

<p> </p>