Canon vs. Nikon , first choice today independently by money

[miscellanea]

<p>I'm not interested on large print quality and/or High ISO beyond 3200 . <br>

I need the better IQ as seem did have old Canon 5D with the appropriate lenses.<br>

So please don't ask what i'm generally shooting ! I shoot landascape , macro , sports outside and inside , streets photos , portraits, concert hall .<br>

Which are today , independently what i want to shoot and the money i may spend , the best 1 or 2 system ? or if I would have the 2 systems ? (one FF and another one not FF ? )<br>

Canon 5D : slow AF , no sensor clean , no sealed , no 14 bit ....Canon 5D2 : slow AF , no dust protection... , it seems a toy with moovie , a compromise .... ; Canon 40/50D : no Full frame but perhaps a second camera after an FF Nikon or Canon 1Ds Mk III/II and 50 D ? Canon 5D and 50 D? Nikon D3 and D300 ? Nikon D3 and Canon 40/50D ?Canon 1Ds Mk III and D300 ? ....<br>

So should we choose now Nikon D3 or D3X ? plus Nikon D300 ...........or Canon 1Ds Mark III and 50D ? <br>

Second questions regards lenses : Nikon 14-24 , Canon 14mm. , Nikon 24-70mm. , Contax 35-70mm , (not Leica with Conorus adapting) Contax 50 1.7 , Canon 85 f1.2 , Canon 70-200 f4 , Nikon 105 Mikro , Sigma 150 Makro , Contax 100 Makro , Leica 100 Macro Apo , Leica 280 f2 Telyt , New Contax ZE ?<br>

What about Nikon 200 f2 vs. new Canon 200 f2 ? and Nikon 300 f2 vs Canon 300 f2 ?<br>

So the question is : which is , independently from the money , or assuming one could spend 40.000 USD and nothing more (I'm not speaking about Medium format) the best 35mm. digital SLR equipment you would buy today , eventually of 2 different brands ?</p>

[matthias_meixner2]

<p>There is no such thing like a "best 35mm digital SLR equipment". It depends on what you want to accomplish. And up to a certain degree it is a matter of taste.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Once you're able to afford the better offerings from each manufacturer, you really need to physically handle them to see what feels best. Physical ergonomics and menu systems really matter.<br /><br />I don't see Nikon's D700 on your list, which is an odd thing to leave out, I think. Especially because things like the vertical grip and batteries can be shared with the D300. That's a great pair of cameras. If you don't need the D3(x)'s double CF card ports and aren't looking at very large prints, I'd consider a D700 and D300, and then put the <em>real</em> money into the lenses.</p>

[dwain_barefield]

<p>I have to agree with the previous posts. "The Best ..." is subjective. What's best for one person may not be the best for someone else. Choose the camera that you're the most comfortable using, and invest in good quality glass. Develop your photographic skill and techniques. A camera is simply a tool. <br>

In the hands of the right person, with the requiste photographic skills the price of the tool becomes irrevelant.</p>

[kari v]

<p>D700 is very tempting, much more than 5DmkII, but Canon has some sweet lenses.</p>

<p>5D mkII, 24/3.5L II TS-E, 35/1.4L, 85/1.2L, 90/2.8 TS-E, 135/2L, MP-E 65 macro.<br /> 500D, 17-55/2.8, 70-200/4 IS for light travel.<br /> Yeah, I guess I could live with that. Leaves a nice pile of cash to find something interesting to shoot.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Doesn't matter. They're both excellent systems. If you can't take world class pictures with either one, it's not the fault of the equipment.</p>

[lucafoto]

<p>The Best is what You do with it, and that is a function how well you know how to use the tools of photography.<br>

Simply put Canon offers great lenses ("L" glass), and Nikon offers great features (Too many to list!). <br>

Challenge your self to be better, not your equipment.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Flip a coin. There are great photographers using System N and there are great photographers using System C and there are great photographers using none of the above. They all produce really excellent photographs, and one cannot tell what brand of equipment was used by looking at the photographs.</p>

<p>There is no intelligent answer to the "which is the best system you could buy question." In fact, the question suggests that you should not buy either at this point.</p>

<p>Sorry.</p>

[martin-s]

<p>I made my decision (Canon FF) based on the lenses available.<br>

Lenses are a long term investment, while cameras keep evolving at a faster pace.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>There is no Canon 300mm f2 lens nor a Leica 280/2. You are right though, there is a Nikon 300mm f2. Costs $10000 to $15000, just for that.</p>

<p>My vote goes to the Nikon D3X and Nikon D2X. Oh, what the heck throw in a 1DsIII to take a couple of the Leica and Zeiss/Contax lenses that are outstanding. </p>

[george_widman]

<p>This is silly: "So please don't ask what i'm generally shooting !"<br>

Because the extended range of your needs limit the answer to the D3X, and this comes from someone who just bought his second 5Dm2. The listing of sports and concert hall did in all but the D3, but the others listed moved your choice to only the D3X.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Ratehr a ramblig question with a wide range of price points but here goes. I am a dedicated Canon shooter - over 25 years and I still own 11 bodies and about 40 lenses. however, Nikon has a slight advantage with two items - the D3 and the 14-24 F2.8 zoom - both outperform the canon equivalent. After that there is not much in it. I would choose the 5DII over the Nikon 700 although they are close. I am surprised that you dismiss the 5DII as a toy just because it has video - it does 90% of what the 1DsIII and Nikon D3X do for a third of the price. The main difference is build quality and a better AF on the 1DsIII and D3X. You state that you don't need High ISO (beyond 3200!) and large prints. Almost any body will satisfy the medium size print criteria and only the D3 / D3X / D700 and 5DII produce good prints at ISO 3200. I guess I am just getting old but I consider anything above ISO 400 to be high ISO - not anything above ISO 3200. If the 5D did not produce the quality you needed than you are probably limited to the 5DII, D3X and 1DsIII</p>

[summicron_sam]

<p>If I had to start from scratch with $40,000 USD?<br />5D Mk II<br />Canon 200mm f/2L IS (over the Leica 180m f/2.8 APO)<br />Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar ZF (w/ Nikon adapter) (over the Leica 100mm APO)<br />Canon 85mm f/1.2L II (might also get a Leica 80mm Summilux used if for <$1000)<br />Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 SLII NOKTON (w/ Nikon adapter) (REALLY great bokeh)<br />Canon 50mm f/1.2L<br>

Leica 50mm Summilux (pre-ROM, used -- draws real nice)<br />Canon 35mm f/1.4L<br />Leica 35mm Summicron (draws real nice)<br />Zeiss 28mm f/2 Distagon ZF (w/ Nikon adapter)<br />Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon ZF (w/ Nikon adapter)<br />Canon 24mm f/1.4L II<br />Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L<br />Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L<br />Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L<br />Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 (w/ Nikon "G" adapter)</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>G Dan and Philip have provided their usual sagacious advice, Diego. You should carefully read their posts.</p>

<p>I do have a couple of comments. First, if you think that the 5D Mark II is a toy, you're dead wrong. It has by far the best image quality of any DSLR in its price class, and arguably of any currently available full frame DSLR at any price. If you dismiss it, perhaps that suggests that you don't value exceptional IQ.</p>

<p>And second, I share Philip's incredulity with your remark that 3200 is not a high ISO value. When shooting film, I typically use 100-400 ISO. Anything beyond that is "high." But even in the digital age, 3200 is considered high.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Who cares? First choice today isn't necessarily first choice tomorrow, assuming some arbitrary set of criteria. Buy whatever feels best for what you want to do and don't worry about what is "first choice." I've never met a photographer that thought this way, only gearheads.</p>

[captainkimo]

<p>Both brands, Brand C and Brand N, make good cameras. What will work for other guys here may not work for you. What you should do is to look up the line up of lenses for each and see which one will be more appealing to you (the one that can address your needs). You're buying into a system and not a camera alone. Also make sure to handle the cameras and compare them side by side in person to see which one fits you the best. Good luck on your purchase!<br>

Cheers!<br>

<em>Captain Kimo</em></p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>The "best" is probably the Nikon D3X, but what a silly price and what a tank. It is very hard to beat Canon both in the range and choices of lenses available - usually at the most competitive prices.</p>

<p>The Canon 5dMk11 is a great camera and has a dust removal system and is certainly not a toy.</p>

<p>You need to decide for yourself: either are good choices. I chose Canon, but that is largely because I have Leica R lenses that I wanted to use on a DSLR and mounting them is easy.</p>

[dansutton]

<p>i see no reason why the d3x could be considered the best; rather several of us would feel very handicapped by this beast. as i don't do much studio work i would never consider the d3x the best, not would i even really like it. A d3 would be a whole lot of camera, but the d3x has chosen its path, and it's not the path for me. </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>"Best" in terms of resolution and high ISO noise. It's not for me either.</p>

[Sanford]

<p>If money is not an obstacle, buy both, use both, and trade in the one you don't like. My SLR system is Nikon which I think is ergonomically and optically superior to Canon, based on my opinion from years of experience with Nikon and some experience with Canon. On the other hand my preferred P&S in a Canon which has a much easier to use interface. </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Bottom line: There is no "best."</p>

[miscellanea]

<p>Thank you very much to all for the answers . About ISO I recognize that 3200 ISO is very high value also in digital cameras. Regarding "the BEST" I may agree and is too much subjective. As for my future choice ...I'll decide.</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>wow... did someone win the lottery? </p>

<p>As other's have said, what is best (if we could even determine this with some degree of certainty) today is likely not going to be best tomorrow. Absent the optically excellent but very flawed (aww... no filters) 14-24 you'd probably be better of with canon. Grab the 1ds mkiii (or two if money is no constraint) the new TS-E 17mm, 24L, 35L,85L,135L, 200L, and 300L and be done with it. If you need the 14-24... there are adapters that allow you to use a nikkor "G" on a canon. </p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>From and Canon and Nikon shooter and I don't want to get flamed....this is an opinion only:<br>

Canon has a slightly wider range of top end lenses.<br>

Nikon has better affordable level prosumer bodies (D300/700). At the D3, 1Ds level, nothing in it.<br>

Canon sensors seem to have a nicer hue without colour adjustment. Nikons are better at high ISO's.<br>

Nikon seem to be ahead on innovation and body integrity, but its a timing issue only. Canon will have their day.<br>

If I was starting out from scratch and I had ten grand to spend, I'd buy an M8.2 and three vg used lenses.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>Best? Medium format digital, unless you can deal with a large format scanning back.</p>