WHAT IS BETTER? A CANON OR A NIKON?

Discussion in 'Mirrorless Digital Cameras' started by kristina_figurazh, Jul 17, 2006.

  1. After getting the dreadful "e18" on my Canon powershot a400, I've been second guessing Canon. I've
    always believed that they are the best when it comes to great quality and wide range of possibilities
    when it comes to photography. Yet, after researching the e18 error, I've found out that a lot of people
    are experiencing these problems and Canon wants nothing to do with this.

    So.. in YOUR opinion (only if you've used Canon & Nikon both) what is your best choice for a
    professional camera?

    I was looking into getting a Canon 20D which is around $1,000.. is it worth it?
     
  2. Kristina,

    I've never heard of Error E18, but decided to search the net about it... sorry, but I never had this problem. In fact, I don't remember ever seeing a post on this forum about the E18 error code.

    I just did a Photo.Net Search, and there's a dozen or so posts about this problem... Wow.

    I have two Canon Point & Shoot cameras and have never had a problem with either of them. I have the A40 which is four years old and a SD400 that is a about a year old.

    I like many of the Canon Point and Shoot cameras, but there are only a few of the other point and shoot cameras from the other manufacturers that pique my interest... and they are the Fuji F10, F11, and F30. I did buy a Fuji F10 for it's low light great low ISO noise... but I only paid $150 for it, brand new.

    To answer your question about the Canon 20D... I bought this camera almost two years ago. And I absolutely love using it. For $1000, it's a fine deal... but if I were you and you really want a DSLR, I'd buy the Canon 30D for $1250. I think there's enough improvements to justify the extra $250. I think the biggest feature of the 30D is the addition of "Spot Metering"... but there are many other small improvements.

    Do you have experience with film SLR's? If you do, then you'll understand the high expense of owning a DSLR with the expense of lenses. You can really get caught up in buying many lenses.
    I get alot of pleasure from my Canon 20D and the various Canon lenses that I've bought for it... lot's of exciting photgraghs.

    There's plenty of information on this forum about the Canon 20D and 30D. Just use the Search function of this Photo.Net forum and you can read to hearts content on each of these DSLRs.

    I hope this helps.

    //Chuck
     
  3. I am a Nikon user and my BF is a Canon user. Other than the fact that his DSLR is a pro
    camera and newer than my DSLR, I can't say one brand is better than the other. I will
    always shoot Nikon and he will always shoot Canon, although we have swapped on
    occasion. To me, it's splitting hairs when it comes to comparing Nikon and Canon. They
    are both top brands but that's just my opinion, but I'm sure others will agree.

    In fact, I have a Canon A620 and love it. Nikon just didn't have anything that could
    compete with all the things I wanted out of a point and shoot camera. I just hope I never
    run into the dreadful "e18."

    The Canon 20D is a great camera although I find the shutter a bit loud. Can't give you
    much advice on the 30D though, as I haven't really read up on it.

    Best of luck!
     
  4. ... the best when it comes to great quality and wide range of possibilities when it comes to photography.
    Lots of high quality kit out there from many manufacturers. As far as "wide range of possibilities", well, that's the job of the picture taker. And unless you need something (a lens, a flash unit, whatever) that one mfr makes but another doesn't, then it really doesn't matter. They're all good enough that the name on the camera is not going to be the limiting factor. So get whatever you like better, use it to death, and don't waste time second-guessing. Re: 20D. Excellent camera, but you have to tell us what you want to do with it. If you're looking for something with interchangeable lenses and a comprehensive system, it's great bang for the buck. If you're looking for a lightweight camera to take everywhere and fits in any pocket, it's a waste of $1000. What do want to do with it? (If you're looking for a pocketable P&S, try the Fuji F30.)
     
  5. The 20D should be worth $1000 if you like the rest of the system.

    I am a long-term Nikon shooter, currently with a D200. My two partners both shoot Canon, one with a 20D and the other with a 1DSMkII. On paper, the 1DSMkII is better and the 20D not a contender. In real life, I happen to prefer the images from my Nikon over either -- whether before or after post processing. This could reflect my partners' skills in setting up their cameras and post processing and not a brand-to-brand difference. However, I have done post processing work for both and I still like the Nikon renditions better.

    There are a lot of factors to consider. If I was starting out with nothing, the decision would be difficult -- and I can't guarantee that I would go with Nikon (I do a lot of high-ISO work). There are trade-offs, but both Canon and Nikon are at the top of the pro D-SLR game.
     
  6. This question comes up very often, and it has been discussed to death. Nikon was always the camera used by professionals, and Canon spent a lot of money trying to knock em off the top of the pile (of old broken Pentaxes, Minolta's and Konicas). Canon is a bigger company than Nikon, which is a divison of Mitsubishi, which made the the Zero fighter used against the Allies in World War II. As a result Canon, which also sells copiers, printers and all kinds of other gear, has much more money for R & D than Nikon, and can afford to build their own chips (Nikon relies on Sony for their chips). Canon also leapfrogged Nikon in the AF wars of the 1980s and 90s, by introducing a new AF mount that permitted radical new lens designs and a silent af system. This one factor basically destroyed Nikon's position, as Nikon was forced to rely on an obsolete mount. Nikon has never really caught up with Canon.

    Not to say Nikon does not make super gear. In many ways they are better. The viewfinders of their cameras were always much nicer, and the ergonomics always made more sense to me. I also prefer the look of Nikon lenses, the colors have a lot of punch and the optics to my eye are sharper than Canon lenses.

    In this day and age it's quite difficult to say which is better. Personally I have been shooting with a Sony R1, which I like a lot. It is not as fast as either the Canon or Nikon DSLRs, but the lens is much nicer than anything made by either company, the shutter is silent, and it has a waist level finder.

    If you have the money, I would not even consider the 20 or 30D or the D200, but skip right to the Canon 5D, which allows you to use 35mm lenses at their proper focal length.

    That's my opinion, and as they say, opinions are like sphincters, everyone has one, and they all stink!
     
  7. I am a Nikon user.

    Basically the same but one may feel better on the hand than the other, so try it out. Such as ergonomics button lay out, menu layout etc.

    The more impt things are what it has in accessories, b/c you are buying into a system. Such that if you use film and digital the 17-40 Canon lens can be beneficial, while the Nikon 17-25 or 18-35 is fine on film but goes a bit wacky on digi as its a 1.5x so its a bit short. The Canon is 1.6x.

    Canon has the 17-55 EFS with IS, Nikon has no VR with their one.
    8MP is good to have but not really a +ve but least it is.
    IS is avail on monstser tele's while Nikon no.
    Canon has full frame.

    Those are the stuff I like about Canon. The cheaper dSLR also have base unit so that is handy as well.

    To me its more, that one may have more options but that does not govern what is better than the other, it is just a tool. But having said that those stuff I listed are a bit out of the price range for a beginner. I guess I am saying Canon may be a step head at this time, but if you are gonna spend that money is a different story.

    Nikon to me personally I like it b/c I always been a Nikon user and I like black color and I like the design of the cam its easy to use etc for myself personally the buttons etc. I don't have a ton of money so those stuff are not that impt for me. One adv Nikon have is that more wide lenses and other than that they have a v good travel lens 18-200 VR AFS. VR is IS (image stabiliser). AFS is USM or fast focus and quietness.
     
  8. However if you are looking for a innovative fast paced company that will be Canon. They have more technologies and release cams faster than Nikon.

    One of the adv of Canon is maybe more lenses has USM and IS. Another is that full frame has been available for some yrs now, they have their 3rd camera out now, even if you are not got the money to spend there, Canon is one step further and if you like that or be it psychologically I guess that is one point to make. But remember that does not improve your skills as a photographer.
     
  9. I'd say, as far as you're concerned, it doesn't matter.
     
  10. Anyway, the best thing is to go to the store and check em out. Or possibly buy yourself an old Nikon, or any other brand film camera and get used to the SLR experience, then you will have a good place to judge which DSLR suits you best.
     
  11. I have a 10D Canon and it is a wonderful camera.

    Just to make matters worse.why don't you get the new sony รก (alpha) DSLR-A100K .Sony makes excelent cameras,from what I read this camera is very good and not only that, but you can use some of the best lenses in the world made by Carl Zies.

    did I confuse you ? he
     
  12. i was about to "upgrade" my sony 828 to a canon 30d or a 5d until i saw the landscape pictures and portraits in the gallery. digital photography still has a long way to go. the clarity, the detail is just overwhelming that it strikes you as unreal after a few moments. too harsh for my taste. and that is not how the eye works. i am glad i am using the prosumer camera for everyday use and keeping my rangefinders and film slrs for serious photography. ask the same question 2 years from now and i might give a more favorable answer. hopefully, sooner.
     
  13. To re-emphasize what has been said, there is no clear *better* camera. What I might suggest is doing a kit like a Nikon D50 or Canon Rebel XT with the kit lens to try out SLRs. Or picking up a used D70, D100, or Digital Rebel. The new Sony Alphas are rebadged Minoltas, not that there is anything wrong with that. If you are starting out fresh, and not already attached to an SLR system, it is worth the consideration. However, don't use the Zeiss Glass as a selling point (They make two lenses for Nikons, but none for Canon), unless you are a top level pro, you won't notice enough of a difference between a Canon, Nikkor, or Zeiss lens to really worry.
    As for my opinion, I just hate the way the Canons feel. But that is purely opinion. I had a Digital Rebel, hated it, love my D200.
    Possibly you should go for an advanced point and shoot instead? I honestly haven't had much experience with, but would be interested in the Panasonic Lumix line (have Leica glass). They look to be pretty decent and might be an excellent alternative. I have a Canon S3, and so far the verdict is out on it (lots of noise, but that may be from people using it that have no idea what they are doing, it is shared around our company, so I often find myself cleaning up their messes).
     
  14. Hmmmm, which is better, Honda or Toyota, Ford or Chevy, a labrador or a golden retriever, Duracell or Everready, Birdseye or Green Giant, etc., etc., etc.

    As you can tell from the responses Kristina, the answers will be as varied as those who provide them. There are a good number of review sites on the web that will help you narrow your choices, so you might want to start with those (dcresource and dpreview are two that come to mind). I've had a few Canon P&Ss, in both film and digital, and had no complaints, but Canon and Nikon aren't the only games in town.

    And to Nanette, don't you know that Canon people and Nikon people will never mix. Best find a new BF before you do something stupid.
     
  15. I've seen great results with both. Used to own all Canon in the 80's, but a friend loaned me his Nikon system (16mm to 500mm) to try and I went out and sold all my Canon. Canon has come a long way since then. The only thing I would caution is your suggestion that "I've found out that a lot of people are experiencing these problems...".

    The problem with errors and such is that you often only see posts from the 20 or so people that get them, but not the thousands who don't. My Nikon D200's are a good example. I bought mine when people had banding problems. I've never had the issue with either body, but everyone was running around like their heads were chopped off!
     
  16. Kristina:

    Not to add to your indecision but you may want to consider the coming Pentax K10D, see:

    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06182/702575-96.stm
     
  17. This is like asking, "Who makes a better car, Honda or Toyota." Both are excellent. it really comes down to your own preferences.
     
  18. Yet another silly question that gets tons of answers.

    Canon is clearly better if you require a large sensor (the 5D and 1Ds bodies), otherwise in the 1.5 and 1.6 cropped sensor arena Nikon and Canon are pretty much tied for first place. Each has its advantages and disadvantages.

    So yes, one thousand dollars is "worth it" to answer your question.

    Unless you are on a budget, the 20D is NOT the "best choice for a professional camera" and if you had to ask and answer in that manner, then I doubt you're a professional photog.

    Amd, what's with the ALL CAPS subject line?
     
  19. I've used a bit of both, but mostly Nikon. When I bought a new DSLR for myself this year (I
    have used company-owned stuff in my work since the D1 in 99) I bought Nikon, because
    of the FANTASTIC 18-200 VR zoom, which Canon does not yet have. I wish I could've
    bought Canon because their lenses are usually less, but alas... Find which line of lenses
    you really want and buy the body to go with it!

    I kinda prefer Nikon's handling. Image quality is the same, because your camera has little
    or nothing to do with the quality of your image if you have a great eye and take the time
    and are patient, et cetera.

    Bottom line: They're both great. Nikon might know a little more about high-end lenses
    (microscopes, lasers, etc) and Canon might know a little more about sensors. 'm ecstatic
    with my Nikon. My friends are ecstatic with their Canons. You can't lose!

    But... avoid "old technology" like the 20D unless you get a RIDICULOUS deal. Digital
    cameras get old real fast, buy current models. Your lenses may last 10 or 15 years, but
    you'll want to replace the body in 2 or 3.

    And... imho... Skip all DSLRs that don't say Canon or Nikon on them if you're starting from
    scratch. If you have a pile of Minolta lenses, by all means get a Sony, if a pile of Pentax, by
    all means get a K100. I've used all these cameras for years (used to sell 'em and I owned
    Pentax for DECADES) and my own experience is... Buy Canon or Nikon.
     
  20. Buy what serves YOUR needs best. Jot down what you need from a camera and make sure you get it. Or as close as. In the end you need to take responsibility for your own choice. Cheers.
     

Share This Page

1111