Nikon or Canon

[levi_swan]

I have been shotting for 6 years now. I want to go pro. With digital. Looking at bith

manufactures I don't know what one to go with. Nikon or Canon. Thanks.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Go and actually handle the cameras you are considering. Both Nikon and Canon make

terrific cameras.

[vincent_j_m]

Instead of going with the usual canon or nikon, I'd recommend the Olympus four thirds system. It has a lot going for it. For one, I've seen back / front focus problems on half the canon and nikon systems I've played with, and dust on the sensor is another huge problem I've come across. There are no reports of any such problems on the olympus system. Their lenses are truly top notch, even the cheap kit lens. The ultrasonic dust removal system really works.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>There are no reports of any such problems on the olympus system.</I><P>That is

becasue there isn't a big enough user base (yet) for these problems to start showing up on

forums like photo.net or dpreview.com

The Olympus is a fine system it just hasn't caught on or been marketed the way Nikon and

Canon have the resources to.

[peter_white2]

Five years from now, it's a very safe bet that both Nikon and Canon will be selling digital camera systems that are fully compatible with the systems they are selling now. It's not a very safe bet that Olympus will even be in the DSLR business. Olympus recently announced that they are scaling back their production of small digicams to concentrate on the DSLR market. When I read that I had to laugh since it's in the small cameras where Olympus seems to be doing a good job. Their DSLRs have been a major failure in the market.

[rjeffrey]

It is pretty much a toss-up between Nikon and Canon. Note that Canon generally has a stronger marketing ability, so you mae see more of them. But in the end, both systems are about the same. I agree with the first post - see which camera feels best to you and go with it.

[ron_jonson]

<i>>>>I have been shotting for 6 years now. I want to go pro. With digital. Looking at bith manufactures I don't know what one to go with. Nikon or Canon. Thanks.</i>

<p>

Hmmm. If you've been 'shooting' for six years...then first of all, you should know the answer to the Nikon/Canon question is futile and pointless to ask. Second of all, you should know that you don't need a Canon or Nikon to "go pro".....What do you shoot with now that makes you want different gear? What type of "pro" style of photography are you interested in where only Nikon and Canon are allowed?

[oceanphysics]

I think Vincent must be trying to sabotage potential competition. As an investment, Olympus is a terrible idea. Somehow roughly 100% of the professional photographers in the world live with the "huge" dust and back-focus problems that Nikon and Canon have and do just fine.

[robert_swagman]

What Rich said.

 

The major factor in image quality is the lens. Nikon, Canon and Zeiss make the top lenses for 35mm/digital cameras. Olympus lenses are not even in the running. Compatability is a major factor. I have Nikon lenses from the 6o's through 90's that are compatible with Nikon digital - in manual mode, which is all I shoot, anyway - the main reason I stayed with Nikon when I when from film to digital. Canon lenses used to be considered 2nd rate, but now-a-days they are superb. Either Nikon or Canon would be an excellent choice.

[robert_swagman]

Ron also has an excellent point. The gear doesn't make the photographer. A friend of mine's a retired architectural photographer; he now sells art images and, up until recently, was using a 3.1mp Nikon, and is now using a 5mp (non-DSLR).

 

Despite all my Nikon and other high-end equipment, my favorite carry-around is the Sony DSC-F717 (5mp). With an Epson 2200 printer, it makes excellent prints up tp 16x20. My only gripe, besides the limited zoom and aperature of non-SLRs, is the propritory storage card. Since I carry a laptop, however, I need a minimal number of cards - I upload to hard/drive, then to CD, at every opportunity.

[frank_skomial]

"With an Epson 2200 printer, it makes excellent prints up tp 16x20."

 

Epson 2200 takes 13" wide paper max. or is it in centimeters? But given proper amount of ingenuity, everything is possible, perhaps?

[jcuknz]

I went with Panasonic after sampling both Canon and Nikon :-)

[jclaice]

I have been condsidering the options of Nikon Vs Cannon. Specifically the d2x vs the EOS-1Ds Mark II. I have spent countless hours reading reviews.My conclusions: What are you comfortable with, and do you already have an investment in Nikon or Canon lenses? The d2x is only about $5000. as compared to the 1DS mK II AT ABOUT $8000. The D2x has 12.4 MP, the Canon has about 17 MP, The Canon is called "a full frame DSLR" and the Nikon has a aprox a 1.5 angle of view with 35 mm lenses ( so far all Nikon DSLR's have aprox angle of view of 1.5 ) I can go on and on about the tech specs and comparisons. Bottom line I chose the Nikon D2x because I like Nikon cameras, I like the 1.5 angle of view eq. when useing the 200 to 400mm lens you actually get about a 350 mm to 600 mm lens, add a 2x converter and you have a lens that can range from ABOUT 300 mm to 1200 mm, pretty nice in my book. On the "wide" side you will need to use a shorter lens on a Nikon DSLR than on a Canon DSLR to achieve the same angle of view. As I said I like Nikon. My suggestion is go rent the 2 cameras, do some tests and let us know what you decided and why. Just my .02 cents worth. Good Luck !

[alexdi]

The camera bodies are a nonissue. The LENSES, however, make all the difference!

 

Canon simply has a larger and more comprehensive line of lenses for most uses. In some areas, particularly the IS telephotos, Nikon isn't even close.

 

True enough, most people are perfectly satisfied without trick technologies. But if and when you DO decide to upgrade, it's nice to know the option is there.

 

On a more mundane note, simply by sheer volume and availability, Canon glass tends to be less expensive. Exceptions are primarily new IS zooms.

 

DI

[mark u]

"Olympus lenses are not even in the running."

 

Absolute nonsense. The Olympus E-System lenses are one of the strongest points of the whole system, being optimally designed for use with digital sensors. Olympus have always been fine optical engineers, and some of their OM lenses are actively sought by Canon full frame shooters looking to improve on the image quality available from Canon's own lineup, despite having to contend with stop down metering and manual focus.

[vincent_j_m]

Robert Swagman wrote:

"Nikon, Canon and Zeiss make the top lenses for 35mm/digital cameras. Olympus lenses are not even in the running."

 

What absolute nonsense. Please, pleeease go and try any of the Zuiko digital lenses and come back and tell us that again. Even their cheap "kit" 14-45 lens which comes along with the E-500 is incredibly value for money, produces excellent images, has almost zero distortion and is very well constructed. Their high end lenses rival Canon's L's and Nikon's ED lenses. I have used them and I can see this with my eyes. FWIW I own a Canon system with a few primes including the 200/2.8L which is a stellar lens. The Olympus zooms are very close.

[godfrey]

If you want to go "pro" and have to ask questions about which camera brand is the one to go

with, you are not ready to go "pro".

 

Godfrey

[jeff_fiore]

Nikon or Canon? Only amatuers argue which is better. Pros pick the system that fits their needs and get down to taking photos. You are not buying a camera, you are buying a system - choose what fit your needs.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>The camera bodies are a nonissue. The LENSES, however, make all the difference!

Canon simply has a larger and more comprehensive line of lenses for most uses. In some

areas, particularly the IS telephotos, Nikon isn't even close.</I>Nope. Canon may have

more IS lens then Nikon has VR lens, and more tilt/shift lenses than Nikon buit Nikon does

better o nthe wide angle end of the lens range and everything else is about a draw.<P>

Bodies are NOT a non-issue. Some people feel they absolutely must have a 24x36mm

sensor and others don't. Ohter people like the factthat Nikon's AF (particularly in the D2Hs

and D2X is superior to Canon's as is there flash system.

[alexdi]

Ellis, it's the difference between lesser performance and complete inability. If you have to shoot 400mm stabilized telephoto on a Nikon, you simply can't. It doesn't exist.

 

I won't cheerlead Canon's wide angles, but between the L series, Sigma, and 3rd party glass via adapters, it isn't exactly a wasteland either.

 

As to bodies, for most parameters except sensor size, it's largely moot. Yes, the Nikons meter better. And some of them AF better. Perhaps they even flash better. But is the gulf vast? Certainly not in the high end. And as you point out, Nikon has proven quite adept at extending into super-wides to make up the cropped difference.

 

DI

[andrew robertson]

Nikon's AF is hardly superior to Canon's. They advertise that it'll focus in lower light, but I

have never seen any independent verification of this. Canon's big USM telephotos are the

FASTEST FOCUSING IN THE WORLD on 1 series bodies.

 

The same with flash. Nikon has a reputation for having better flash, but once one learns

about EOS flash, it's pretty easy and consistent.

[cd thacker]

Nikon:<br><br>

 

Generally superior build quality<br>

Better in-camera metering<br>

Better flash system<br>

Better wideangle optics<br>

Less luminance noise (less color splotches; Nikon noise at high ISO looks more like film grain)<br><br><br>

 

Canon:<br><br>

More lenses to choose from at often lower prices<br>

Manufactures its own CMOS sensors, including "full-frame"<br>

Better marketing<br>

Do a Google search for <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=%22error+99%22&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official">error 99</a>.

[cd thacker]

Make that less <i>chroma</i> (color) noise; Nikon's luminance noise makes it look more like film grain.

[robert_swagman]

Frank

 

I stand corrected on the print size. Middle (read as 'old') age moment.

 

Levi

 

You have to put your hands on the cameras, take some photos and decide for yourself. Only you can decide what's best for you, despite all the educated opinions you've gotten here. I have a large investment in Nikon lenses, so it would be foolish for me to buy anything other than Nikon, unless there was something else so fantastic it made the thought of a large lens investment reasonable. I'm not you, though.

 

Some stores will lease equipment. It's an intelligent way of deciding which camera you want. A minor investment, yes, but one which will pay off and keep you from making a poor, snap decision.

[robert_swagman]

BTW - by lease, I meant rent for a few days (I didn't make that clear in the above post). Rent a Canon for a few days. Then rent a Nikon for a few days. This may only be an option at a dedicated camera store, but it's one I used when trying to decide between an N8008 or the *much* more expensive F4.