Nikon vs Canon

<p>This is a response to the Nikon vs. Canon discussion on the Nikon forum. As a film photographer, who once used Nikons to make a living, I preferred Nikons, going into digital. So I got a d90, and when that failed to satisfy, a d700. I used them for about a year. I never liked either one of them. There were way too many menu choices on the Nikons. Things like in camera retouching. In fact, they put every thing they could think of on the menus of the digital Nikons. It was so confusing, that I kept one set to B&W, one to color. I could not (no, I am not retarded) switch from B&W to color without a lot of problems finding the right settings on the menu. This was ridiculous! Why not a simple switch on the camera for something so basic. No, I had to immerse myself in a ridiculous menu without end. Finally, I got so fed up with the Nikons, that I bought a Canon 5D2. Wow! So simple and easy to use. The things that took endless fiddling on the D700, were easy on this Canon. Simple switching from B&W to color was instantaneous. You didn't even have to look at the manual. Everything was as easy as it should have been. I was very happy with the Canon. I bought a second 5D2 body and an adapter for my Nikon lenses. I sold the Nikon bodies. Fortunately they had a pretty good resale value, so I did not lose that much. Little by little I have been selling those Nikon lenses, keeping only the lenses that would be good for my wonderful Nikon FM3 film camera. About six months into the Canon digital cameras I am very happy with them. </p>

<p>Here's my story. It took Nikon a few years to finally jump on the full frame bandwagon with their FX series bodies. Nikon representatives repeatedly told me that they would not design a full frame sensor camera. That was back in 2006. Digitally, Canon was already ahead of Nikon. Frustrated, I sold all of my Nikon film gear (with the exception of their film scanner and 77mm L37C filters) and switched to Canon digital. For me, it is Canon for life.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is a response to the Nikon vs. Canon discussion on the Nikon forum.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I missed the discussion you refer to (I view the forums using "unified view"). I had to go back and see what it was that you're talking about. The OP asked a question in a very neutral, non-confrontational fashion, and the resulting discussion stayed balanced; the overriding theme is that both brands are quite competent and it boils down mostly to taste.</p>

<p>So, how is this thread, in any way, shape, or form, a "response" to that? Are you disappointed that there wasn't any flaming? Is that what you need, and what you hope to get, here?</p>

<p>Joseph: No I am not hoping for a fight. I simply wanted to convey my experiences with the two brands. I still have a Nikon film camera and like it very much. This site can be very confrontational. I have tried to stay out of the battles in recent years.</p>

<p>@Bruce<br>

Out of curiosity, don't you miss the AF system of D700? Don't get me wrong, I love my 5D (classic) but I wish the outer AF points have been crossed type.</p>

Canon cameras are for engineers while Nikons cameras are for photographers is the term I was accustomed to hearing.

<blockquote>

<p>Canon cameras are for engineers while Nikons cameras are for photographers is the term I was accustomed to hearing.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, and it was - and is - tripe.</p>

<p>Agreed, that's nonsense, the systems and individual components are pretty comparable, they have to be they're serving the same customers.<br>

I must admit, Nikon did seem to lose the plot a bit a few years back, firstly as has been mentioned, taking an age to bring a full frame body out, and just as importantly falling MILES behind with image stabilisation. Off the top of my head I can't remember how long Canon had IS lenses in the big pro lenses (300 2.8, 400 2.8, 500 f4 and 600 f4) but it was a LONG time! What was Nikon thinking?<br>

But with their superb VR long teles plus the sensational D3 series they've definitely got back into the game.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>My opinion is that it's a simple matter of lens compatibility. All EF lenses work on all EOS bodies, and anything that physically mounts on an EOS body (anything from a pinhole in aluminum foil to screwmount Pentax takumars to modern professional L lenses) works with the body's light meter. This holds true for everything from the lowliest 10-year-old 35mm rebel to the latest pro-grade DSLR.<br>

Nikon's lens compatibility situation is <a href="http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/slr-lens.html">somewhat more complex</a>. For me, it's as simple as that. Canon makes my life easy when it comes to buying equipment (either new or used). Nikon would make it hard.</p>

<p>Not quite Matt, EF-S lenses won't cover the full frame bodies. Canon have full frame, 1.3x and 1.6x crop bodies - how is that less complex than Nikon? With Nikon you get the added bonus / complication that you can use manual focus lenses too, including some 50 years old!<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>I didn't say EF-S, I said EF. Anyone buying a full-frame or 1.3x crop Canon DSLR is probably not the target market for an EF-S 55-250.<br>

As for Nikon's manual lens compatibility, the chart I linked to will show how using 50-year-old Nikon lenses comes with caveats. A 50-year-old lens may mount, but the camera may or may not allow the light meter to work with it. An AF lens may or may not autofocus with an AF body depending on the types and combination of lens and body AF drives. This is not exactly simple.<br>

If one wants to point to a company that has some <em>real</em> backwards compatibility, look at Pentax. Every SLR lens they've ever made (even the medium format SLR lenses!) mounts and meters on every DSLR they've ever made (sometimes with a $10 adaptor ring), and every AF lens they've made autofocuses on every DSLR they've made. Now <em>that's</em> easy.</p>

<p>After Nikon did find the full-frame caravan, it was as if everything Nikon was so perfect and Canon had suddenly fallen hopelessly behind. One area in particular that was touted was low-light, high ISO performance.</p>

<p>I do not have a Nikon DSLR, and it may be better at low light for all I know, but I accidentally shot a whole bunch of shots last week with the 5D II accidentally set to ISO 12,800:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/11110290&size=lg</p>

<p>After the first shot or two I dispensed with the tripod for the rest of the shoot. Maybe one has to blow the print up to see the noise. All that I can say is that this (not to mention some others like it in the same folder, mixed in with some made with a 50D at lower ISO) is very "usable' indeed.</p>

<p>I shall have to try ISO 25,600 and set what I get.</p>

<p>What I like about the 5D II is that I get incomparable resolution (for the price) and AF that is good enough for my purposes. The D700 might have better low-light, high ISO performance and better AF for all I know, and the D3X might be King of Resolution, but I have got <strong>PRETTY CLOSE TO ALL OF THAT</strong> in one package, a package that costs about one-third of the D3X, and I like it very much, thank you very much.</p>

<p>Nikon makes some great gear, and there is no doubt something to be said for having dedicated cameras that are the best in their class for given applications, but there is also something to be said for a camera that is <em>very, very good at darned near everything.</em></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Yes Matt, but if you're putting it like that you could say that all Nikon full frame AF lenses will work with all Nikon AF bodies. If you want to stick to just those lenses then it's as easy as the Canon situation. The Nikon situation is only more complicated because you have more options if you want them. Not great sticking an FD lens on a Canon AF body.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Not great sticking an FD lens on a Canon AF body.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Not to say that some of us did not try--oh, wow, how we tried! No adapter that I bought ever did it for me.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I have done it, but by a very unorthodox route. I have several FD lenses converted for cine use (300 2.8, 500 4.5 and 800 5.6). These get converted into a Universl mount, by removing the entire back section and building a new one. In this way you can put serious screw on adapters to mount the lens on Arriflex, Panasvision, Sony B4 mount etc., as well as Nikon, Leica, EF and any other stills mount you want. In this way I've used these excellent old FD lenses on Canon 20D, Nikon F5, Nikon D3 and many others.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Yawn.</p>

<p>The whole "Nikon v. Canon" thing is a giant waste of time and bandwidth. Both companies make excellent photographic equipment, and there are great photographers using the equipment from both of them to produce outstanding photography. There is nothing in the resulting photographic work that lets a viewer determine which brand was used.</p>

<p>I have good photographer friends who use Nikon and I have photographer friends who use Canon. When we get together to talk photography, "Nikon versus Canon" is about the last topic that we would be interested in... and when it does come up we sort of laugh at ourselves and then return to more interesting and significant topics.</p>

<p>I'm a Canon user. But if I woke up one morning and found that all of my gear had been replaced by Nikon equivalents my photography would be essentially the same. Well, at least once I learned to turn the ring the opposite direction...</p>

<p>Pick a brand and get on with the process of making photographs.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>This is a response to the Nikon vs. Canon discussion on the Nikon forum.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not exactly. That "response" would be in the forum where the original discussion was taking place. This just spreads the, uh, "joy" of that "discussion" to a new forum. I, for one, do not welcome this distraction.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>so Bruce if you want simplicity, then buy a Leica. All of the small format cameras produce an acceptable final image, but I was led to beleive that Nikon's AF was what made it appealling to you sports shooters.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Pick a brand and get on with the process of making photographs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have had trouble doing that. I still have the sweet, sweet manual focus Nikon 600 f/4 that I got on the auction site in 2006 for pennies on the dollar (and which I do indeed use on Canon bodies with a simple adapter), and I recently bought an old Kodak 14n just so that I can use the few pieces of sweet Nikon glass that I still have. (Don't knock the Kodak: that baby is sweet, pixel for pixel, all fourteen million of them, as long as the light is good and the planets are aligned right.)</p>

<p>Why not? Other people would have put the money into a retirement account. I can liquidate Nikon glass any time I want and use it in the meantime. I like living in two different worlds. Since I occasionally put Pentax, Zeiss, Pentacon, Hasselblad and who knows what kind of glass on Canon EOS bodies, one might say that I am living in lots of different worlds. I sure do have a lot of adapters, though. . . .</p>

<p>It might be self-indulgent, but I'm just havin' fun.</p>

<p>--Landrum</p>

<p>Landrum, my point remains. If you like your manual focus Nikon gear - which is wonderful gear - then just go ahead and use it. Or Canon gear. Or a Leica. Or MF. Or LF. Or a four-thirds camera from Olympus. </p>

<p>Any and all will be preferred by some photographers for reasons that others may or may not share. (For example, while I understand and respect your preference, "sweet manual focus" wouldn't persuade me to switch brands. :-) It is the idea that one camera, brand, model, format, or whatever must be proven "best" that is simply pointless in the end.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>My story is that I started film with Nikon and built up the lenses system gradually. In 2006, I pulled the trigger for D2Hs. I like the camera, but wish it had full format sensor. However looking back, I wish that Nikon started FX frame earlier like Canon. It was a short vision by Nikon at the beginning that frustrated a lot of Nikon users. Having said that, I do not mean to jump the ship. On the other hand, nikon catches up and has a couple of front runners for FX frame now. Now it matters to talk to wife for fund.</p>

<p>The thread really needed no response. If you enjoy Canon, enjoy. If you enjoy another brand, enjoy.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This site can be very confrontational.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not my experience at all. Brand battles seem to rare here. Let's keep it like that.</p>

<p>"The whole "Nikon v. Canon" thing is a giant waste of time and bandwidth. "<br /> I agree with you G Dan Mitchell, and yet here we both are contributing to the conversation!<br /> That is what forums are all about after all, so why not.<br /> Steve<br /> <br /></p>

<p>I started with Nikon, and it was absolutely the best. For some reason that I can no longer remember, I gradually moved over to Canon, and it was absolutely the best. Then I picked up some more Nikon gear, and for a while the two were equally good. Then for some reason that I can no longer remember, I sold the Nikon gear and then Canon was absolutely the best. It remains so today, unless for whatever reason I switch back to Nikon, at which point it will be absolutely the best. I guess "best" is defined by that which I own and use. In that regard, Pentax 645 and Hasselblad 501cm are also the best. Mamiya 7II used to be the best when I owned it, but it is no longer the best because I sold it.</p>

<p>I'm sitting here in an airport terminal, and I have to have something to do. Participating in a civil intellectual discussion is a good way to pass the time. Thanks.</p>

<p>Steve, I'm not contributing to a discussion of "whether Nikon or Canon is THE BEST!" - I'm here to try to discourage this kind of useless and often eventually angry and confrontational stuff in this forum.</p>

<p>The best outcome in a thread like this is for people to realize that arguing about whether Nikon or Canon is "best" is quite pointless and ultimately hopeless.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I agree with the sentiments that Canon and Nikon both produce exceptional cameras and lenses. For me the shift from Nikon to Canon was ultimately a monetary consideration given my photographic interests, particularly in regards to wildlife photography. I used Nikon film SLRs for years, then shifted to Nikon DSLRs for a time. I ultimately made the shift to Canon because their super telephoto lenses tend to be significantly cheaper on the used market. Hiking miles into the backcountry, I also appreciated Canon's more lightweight attempts at fixed f/4 L zooms. Nikon finally has VR in their super teles and is beginning to expand their f/4 zoom range, but it is still difficult to find these at a similar price point to Canon's offerings.</p>

<p>As far as equipment capacities and ease of use, I honestly think both companies are excellent, though.</p>