Canon currently a better value?

[acarodp]

<blockquote>

<p>Canon always seem to "give" you a bit more than Nikon</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Like what? megapixel? Now they are, and Nikon wins in high ISO noise. In the past generation (D40 vs D200 for example) it was the opposite. If you want more MP, now Canon is giving more (D3x excluded). But at the previous generation you should have thought the opposite. So how can it be "always"? I have nothing against Canon products, I don't use them but I'm sure they are great. but I don't see your statement as very rational.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Take for example similarly priced full frame DSLRs...Nikon D700 (12MP, $2400) vs Canon 5D Mark II (21MP, $2500). Am I missing something here? Is Canon truly a better value or is Nikon a better DSLR in terms of technology and build quality when compared to an similarly priced Canon?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes you are, but I'm surprised of this since it is pretty obvious: if you are wondering why Nikon wants you to pay the same for half the pixels and no video, you are missing superior AF, superior frame rate, superior DR, superior high ISO, superior metering, flash metering and build quality.<br>

On the other hand, if you wonder why Canon wants you to pay the same for lesser AF, lesser build quality etc etc, you are missing higher pixel count and video. D700 and 5D2 are simply cameras optimized for different users. For me, a D700 is the better value given the things I need. For a landscape shooter I guess it is the opposite. For most purposes they are likely both extremely competent.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>a camera that sits/priced between D90 and D300 or D300 and D700</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What you see here is an age-old game that Nikon and Canon are playing with each other: they almost never place their products straight one against the other in price terms. So an user that wants something between D90 and D300 might get a 60D, and an user who wants something between 60D and 7D might get a D300. The 5D2/D700 case is in fact the exception, price wise. And still, they optimized the cameras differently in terms of specifications. This way, they both get more sales, and a non-committed user has more choice. Of course, a committed user might end with his brand of choice not providing the mix of features and price he would like best.</p>

<p>But I guess you should clarify (to yourself, and if you like, to us as well) what you need and what you want. Midway between D90 and D300 is ~1250$, midway between D300 and D700 is ~2000$. My personal point of view is that if you don't know whether you want to spend X dollars, or X*1.6 dollars, you have not considered the question accurately enough. Whatever your answer, you should be able to constrain your needs better than this before spending that amount of money.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p>L.</p>

[douglas lee]

<p>Canon has more megapixels. Nikon's focus. So, you can have more unfocused megapixels or few focused ones. Take your pick. ;-)</p>

[craig_makela]

<p>For me, it was a toss up among the D90 and Canon 50D. I went with the D90 because I don't like the wheel at the back of the Canon to navigate through the menu. That's how small the difference was in brands to me. It's all a matter of personal taste. Regarding better value? I think there is a level playing field there, otherwise Canon would be way ahead in sales.</p>

[david_poole1]

<p>I have owned both vendors but decided upon the Nikon due to the amount of compatible lenses I owned and the build quality of the Nikon's higher end cameras. Both vendors have a good product and offer a person a good tool to take pictures. I feel it all comes down to what your familiar with and what you want in a camera or what you want the camera to do for you and also the skills you have as a photographer. The camera is just a tool for expressing your ideas but it's the stuff between your ears that really does all the work.<br>

Both vendors have options that will support your skill level. I say rent a camera from each vendor and take a few pictures and then make a decision.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>IMHO the best value is the system that meets your needs. Decide what is most important to you then go with that system. I have enough pixels, I like the focus system of the D700 as well as the high ISO when needed and I purchase older lenses.</p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>You called it "beloved." It's a Nikon with a Fuji sensor. So get a used Fuji and get back to taking pictures. The rest of the exercise is just wasted time after a while.</p>

[jason_hamilton1]

<p>I didn't read through all the responses, but I got through the first few, and I wanted to answer from the point of view of a Canon user who has looked into Nikon a lot.</p>

<p>First on the 5D Mk II vs. D700, there are serious pros and cons to each. The 5D Mk II has higher resolution and video, but the D700 has better build/weathersealing and a pro level AF system, which the 5D Mk II sorely lacks. With all of that said, there are strong signs that a new D700 is on the way, which would cause the price of the current one to drop, and the new one will probably have either video, more resolution, or both. If I had a $3000 budget right now I would be sitting on it until the follow up to the D700 is released, I think it will be soon.</p>

<p>Overall I think there is very little difference between the brands. Canon wins in lens selection, especially if you favor primes. Canon also has a much better semi-pro lineup with the f/4 L lenses. Nikon is starting to offer more in this range, but they still aren't there. Some people prefer Nikon ergonomics by far, and the ability to use old lenses is very nice. Nikon seems to have been winning at high ISO for the last couple of years.</p>

<p>But I have recently decided it comes out to this. Nikon stuff is a little bit better quality. For the sake of argument lets say 10% (this is arbitrary). And it costs a little bit more than the increase in quality, lets say 20%. Kinda like Apple computers. On the upper end of quality you pay more for each percent increase in quality than you do towards the middle. Case in point, moving from a kit lens to a mid range lens might go from $200 to $500, but moving to a pro lens will cost $1600.</p>

<p>But when it comes down to your craft, would you rather get the best bang for your buck, or get the best when it only costs you a little more?</p>

<p>I'm still on Canon because it is the only way I can afford to shoot full frame, but my Nikon FE and a few AI lenses are hanging around. I started on Sony before I knew how serious I would get, and when I upgraded I made the decision to go with Canon instead of Nikon because I felt like Canon was better in the midrange. But as this becomes more serious and starts to make money, and I knew this when I left Sony, I expect to move to Nikon.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Sometimes I wonder if it all isn't just spitting into the wind. I mean how high of an iso do you really need? Canon noise is not an issue with the newer models, 5dII can be great to iso5000 and certainly good at 3200. I shoot a lot at 1600 and can make huge prints, like 40x50. It will all be moot when the black silicon hits consumer products anyway, then we will be bitching about what camera can actually shoot a good shot at iso 100 or who can make a shutter speed fast enough to actually use those fast lenses wide open!</p>

<p>Focus, anyone remember the day there was not AF? Even sports photographers worked this way. Sometimes I wonder how many could make an image if their AF or meter went out! And why does an advanced AF system matter to those who shoot landscape or other "still" objects anyway? It's great to have it, but why pay for something you don't use--maybe get a feature for that money you can use! God gave us eyes and I remember when we actually used them to make an image!</p>

<p>MP, now resolution is another matter. Depends on your intended use now or in future. If you print only 8x10's to 11x14, maybe lower is ok. I have made great 16x20's from an 8mp camera. Someone said maybe stock agencies will want more pixels as things move along. They used to require a minimum 50mb, unresampled, 8 bit file back before shooting digital was common. It was pretty commonly known that a 50mb file gave more elasticity as to uprez and post work than a smaller file.</p>

<p>Although I am certain that some of the differences really matter to (are actually used by) some photographers, most wont ever use the "extra" benefits of one or the other better features of Nikon vs Canon arguments. I think one just has to evaluate their use for one's own "real" world use of the camera. The great thing about real pros is that they don't care what camera they use and will buy multiple systems or change systems frequently based on what is best in the market at the time. Most have multiple systems, but you will find that they invest mostly in systems where the manufacturer is bringing real value to the product on a consistent basis.</p>

[lee_richards2]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm going to hang tight since Nikon just doesnt seem to offer what I want...which is a camera that sits/priced between D90 and D300 or D300 and D700. Thoughts?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Just one. This comment makes no sense at all. Fill us in. Tell us what you like to shoot. Tell us what lenses you want. Tell us what your budget is. Tell us your skill level and what training you have. Then we will consider all of these variables, carefully weigh the choices and tell you that we have finally arrived at the answer. Which is....it doesn't matter at all for 99% of the shots you will ever take and 99.9% of all the prints you will produce which camera you buy.</p>

<p>The best advice on this entire thread is that you go to the camera store, look at all the possibilities, pick a camera and never look back. Stop nattering about L series lenses. Unless you can articulate why you would spend the additional to get one you don't need it. The F4 L series lenses are a waste of money for the VAST majority of shooters. You will NEVER see the difference in the final product. As for the build quality of these lenses, unless you are a professional photojournalist you will never challenge the build quality of even a kit lens. And if you are a professional photojournalist you will not buy an F4 with an F2.8 on the market. 21mp vsrs 12 mp. Which billboard company do you work for? No effective difference for 99.9% of your shots. Then if you do decide to use them be very careful of your lens array. You will finally begin to see the flaws in your lenses. </p>

<p>I have seen photos on this site, taken with D100's and Rebels that are so beautiful, so artisitc and so well crafted that they prove the myth of the expensive camera. You can't buy a game in photography any easier than you can in golf. I repeat this to my acquaintances who ask me about cameras all of the time. </p>

<p>Your 'beloved S5pro' is a D200 with a different menu system and sensor. If you were comfortable with its handling and have become used to its buttons and feel (you said beloved) then it is a no brainer. Get a D300 or D700 and go for it. If you change to Canon you will have to re-learn your way around the camera. You will probably hate the Canon's wheel. Forget the F4L gimmick and get the lenses from the Nikon lineup that you need and can afford. If you want your Nikon or Canon to fit in cost between the numbers you mentioned get a DEMO.</p>

[felix_mizioznikov]

<p>I have two 5d2's and both were still less than one nikon d3. the noise is no issue and no worse then the nikon at any given iso, which is also pointed out on the review website Ray provided. . Canon just made a better product with more usability and video features. if your going to spend 8 grand move into the medium format hassy product.</p>

[andrew_espinosa]

<p>I'm a canon user and don't know a whole lot about nikon specifics, but I can tell you why I went canon over nikon, and it was because you can get more camera for your money with canon. If you're buying the latest tech like a 5dii or a 7d, and maybe even a 50d, you're going to find a nikon that's almost equivalent to each one of those.</p>

<p>5dii - I've read there is a nikon that highly outperforms it, but it's also 3-4 times the price of a 5dii. With the 5dii and the 7d canon has pretty much eliminated any complaints with iso. I don't doubt there is a nikon that can outperform them with iso capabilities, but they won't give you that much of an advantage in that arena where it's worth dumping all the other advantages those cameras offer you.</p>

<p>7d - I don't think anyone can argue that there is a better crop sensor camera out there right now. It's good in low light (yes I'm sure most if not all modern full frames can top it in low light) and it has options you just can't find on a camera at that price.</p>

<p>Autofocus canon vs nikon: I've heard nikon's is better, and for probably much more than a decade, but really only lower end canons have any discernible difference in their performance. I do believe the latest 1diii (possibly wrong model number, but I know it's a 1d) from canon had troubles with autofocus when shooting at ~10fps, but then again no other camera was about as fast as it, so the nikon competitor wouldn't even be able to have a chance to reach those speeds. In the end I've read the new 1div has fixed those problems which is now the latest and greatest.</p>

<p>Weatherproofing - You'd be amazed at where non-weatherproofed bodies can go and do, especially if you take just that little extra bit of care with them. The only people who need pro level weatherproofing are those shooting on safari or in the antarctic or something to that effect. Unless you are that kind of photographer, I wouldn't base any decision on a camera based on that.</p>

<p>The one arena I've heard where Nikon completely lays waste to Canon as of late is interface. I've heard nikon's have always been way more user friendly, but people obviously make do with canon, and it seems they've been listening with the release of the 7d.</p>

<p>Price $ and compatibility: I always see more deals for canon lenses on sites like slickdealsnet and **GREGSlist**. I look for nikon lenses too because they can be mounted with an adaptor on to canon bodies. Here's a huge plus to Canon on compatibility to old Nikon lenses, you can still meter with a canon body while having a nikon lens attached, which you can't say the same about old nikon lenses on new nikon bodies.</p>

<p>So that's why I go canon. I know most of my facts are accurate, I might be slightly off on some of the model numbers, but it doesn't change the quality of the argument, it just means I meant one particular camea/lens over another. Either way, something in the canon line has an advantage or really isn't as bad as some with bias would like you to think.</p>

<p>Just remember, you can shoot with pretty much any brand these days and be just fine. Even Sony, pansonic, olympus, etc. make more than usable cameras. I would for the most part say no camera aside from the 7D has anything that isn't blaringly obvious why you should choose one competitor over another. I separate the 7D for crop sensor cameras, but I don't doubt Nikon will pump out another camera to match it in some way, so then it's game changing ways will be nullified.</p>

[sim_m]

<blockquote>

<p>At least every Canon will meter with every Nikon lens ever made, and with the adapters their are no problems, or at least fewer problems, mounting lenses to the Canon body.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p><strong>John Crowe,</strong> Are you saying that Nikon lenses mount on Canon EOS bodies.<br>

Manual, G or both lens types ? never heard of this.</p>

[kerry_grim]

<p>Nikon is better than Canon. Canon is better than Nikon. Who cares? Why not let all this competive crap to the manufacures? Choose one based on the features you need and enjoy photography instead of a bragging rights thrill from owning the equipment. But you should own equipment that you can trust, then you can free your mind to do photography.</p>

<p>Everything in life is so competitive. Photography should be an escape from that!</p>

[andrew_espinosa]

<p>Kerry, that's pretty much how I see it. Since I'm already on the canon system I probably won't be making any switches, but even I only shoot with a Rebel XT. I've shot with a 40D and felt that would fit all my needs, and you can buy one used for about $600-$700. Low light really stopped being an issue around the time of the release of the canon 40D, so now the only reason I am holding out is because all of the features loaded intho the 7D for a comparitively much lower price. My plan is to pick one up used or new somewhere within a year or two.</p>

<p>I truly believe Image quality has plateaued within the last couple of years. I don't doubt one is better than the other in that arena, but that's like turning down $45 million because it's not quite $50million, either way most modern cameras will fit anybodies needs, and you can do it for really cheap.</p>

[Sanford]

<p>I will have to say that when it comes to small "pocket" digital cameras, Canon has it all over Nikon.</p>

[mizore]

<blockquote>

<p>Here's a huge plus to Canon on compatibility to old Nikon lenses, you can still meter with a canon body while having a nikon lens attached, which you can't say the same about old nikon lenses on new nikon bodies.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That's news to me and my D300, which has four manual focus lenses entered in its database so it can actually do more complex metering with them, and would have been news to anyone with a D200, D700, or the big pro Ds. It is true of the consumer grade Nikon digitals.</p>

[andrew_espinosa]

<p>@Rebecca: That's probably a limit to my nikon knowledge that I mentioned before, but now that you mention it I do remember that being a cool little function on the pro grade nikons. More importantly it seems that fact is more relevant to Phineas as pro level cameras are being considered. Judging by the trend in the DXXX models you mentioned, my assumption is the D90 that Phineas mentioned would not have this capability. If not let me know and I'll correct this if I can.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=127625">Sanford Gerald</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 12, 2010; 02:52 p.m.<br>

I will have to say that when it comes to small "pocket" digital cameras, Canon has it all over Nikon.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You don't honestly consider these little consumer cameras to be <em>serious</em> photographic tools do you?</p>

[Sanford]

<p>Scott - I absolutely do, in fact I'm considering using one exclusively. My D300 is starting to feel way too heavy.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>It seems there are two gaps in the current Nikon product line:<br />1. between the D90 ($900) and D300 ($1520) ....difference of $620<br />2. between the D300 ($1520) and D700 ($2400) ...difference of $880<br>

...<br>

Im sure its going to see-saw back and forth in the near future with new products from Nikon. But for now, I'm going to hang tight since Nikon just doesnt seem to offer what I want...which is a camera that sits/priced between D90 and D300 or D300 and D700. Thoughts?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Yes, I have some thoughts.</p>

<p><strong>Thought 1</strong>: Why are you debating the features full-frame, high-end models when your price range is considerably lower?</p>

<p><strong>Thought 2</strong>: I have no idea what you mean by "<em>sits/priced between D90 and D300 or D300 and D700.</em>" The D300's price is already between the D90 and the D700. Are you saying that if someone charged $300 MORE for a D300 you'd buy it?</p>

<p><strong>Thought 3</strong>: With a minimum of Googling you'll find endless comparisons between the D700, 5DmkII and other cameras in that price range. Each model has strengths and weaknesses, and each one is a wonder camera in its own right. Do your research; then you will no longer be "<em>missing something</em>."</p>

<p><strong>Thought 4</strong>: I'm not even sure why you bothered to bring up this topic since your ultimate objective seems to be to "<em>hang tight</em>" and take no action.</p>

[hugh_j.]

<blockquote>

<p>Canon currently a better value?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe. Tomorrow, next week, or next month it will be Nikon's turn. Or Sony. People with more money than brains who change systems more often than their underwear just to get the "latest and greatest" are the prime source of mint, secondhand, barely used (beyond test chart shots) gear for me. Thanks!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is Canon truly a better value</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, absolutely. That's why anyone who shoots anything other than Canon is a dolt. Right?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Im sure its going to see-saw back and forth in the near future with new products from Nikon.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just one question: How did you manage to buy your Fuji S5Pro?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I am afraid that this thread has turned into yet another C vs. N debate. Therefore, I am closing the discussion.</p>