Nikon Vs Canon

[logos516]

<p>I was wondering if this is just choice or is Nikon better then canon ? I did alot of resharch befor I bought my Nikon D90 I think it is the better choice but what I did notice is that Canon's Video is much clearer and brighter . I think my Nikon takes awesome Pictures but I have seen some Photo's taken with Canon that are also awesome. I Know that Nikon People will think that Nikon is better but I was just wondering.<br>

Another thing who's got better Glass is canon lenes better of what . This is not a question to start a fight I am new and really want to know thanks for the help<br>

Ed Logan</p>

[ejchem101]

<p>IMHO I think it is more of a feel / preference thing. If you are comfortable with canon, most people stick with them. For me, I chose canon due to one main factor: My grandfather shoots canon, which means he has some lenses I may not.<br>

I guess you could say I was grandfathered in!<br>

Really though, from everything I've read/heard they both make amazing products, and I am thankful both are around to give each other competition. Don't forget to put Pentax and other brands in your mind as makers of great cameras.</p>

[peter_stacey1]

<p>Ed, there is no right answer to this. Both systems are good for their bodies and the lenses.<br>

However, if you want many hours of enjoyment, just run a quick Google search for canon v nikon.<br>

It is as much talked about in photography circles as religion and politics are discussed in general society and it's as polarising as both of them.<br>

You could also ask the PC v Mac question too.<br>

I'm a PC by the way, but YMMV.<br>

Regards,<br>

Peter</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>There is no "versus", it is no contest. Cameras and lenses are tools, and they have to do what you want them to do. In a way that works properly for you. The "better glass".... How about we give that price to Leica?<br>

Of course you see great photos taken with either Nikon or Canon. If you look around (on this site for starters) you will also find outstanding work with Pentax, Sony, Olympus and a very wide variety of film cameras from all ages. And with digital compact cameras. Because the tool doesn't matter all that much, the artist does.</p>

<p>I'm convinced you do not want to start a fight, but never be too sure the fanboys can stay calm...:-) The point is: do not bother too much about the gear and what it is written on it. Use the tools and focus on photography itself. It is much more rewarding than discussing the merits of brand A versus brand B.</p>

[wade_roth]

When I walked into the camera store a few years back to get my first DSLR, I didn't have any bias towards Canon or Nikon. I had done my research and looked beyond the feature comparison of their latest and greatest. Basically, they both have equivalent features maybe not at this moment but over time. Where one is stronger the other will catch up or at a minimum close the gap with their next product release. So that means that unless you switch back and forth, you will never be able to have the absolute "best" at all times. For me the choice became how the camera felt in my hands. I have long fingers. The Nikon just felt a little more comfortable to me and within a few minutes I was already becoming accustomed to the location of the various buttons. When I held the Canon, it felt like I had a really loose grasp of it. Almost like it could slip out of my hand. Because of this, I was having a hard time finding the buttons with my fingers. I've been comfortable with my choice. In the end, as Wouter said, they are just tools.

Good luck.

--Wade

[kevin_delson]

<p>Each brand contains 5 letters; so I think that makes them equal in quality. ;) Just kidding.</p>

<p>You can not go wrong with either choice.</p>

<p>More importantly will be the lenses you choose.</p>

<p>A Ferrari with retread tires won't handle the way it was intended.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>but I have seen some Photo's taken with Canon that are also awesome</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That is a function of the photographer; not the camera body.<br>

Either brand will produce stunning images from a technical POV.</p>

<p>So again, my suggestion is to research the lenses you might want and research them twice as hard than researching the body.<br>

One of the biggest sources of disappointment I see and hear from photographers is their glass.</p>

[hash]

<p>Of course Nikon is the best. That's why we are in the Nikon forum!</p>

[wpahnelas]

<p>the OP says "did alot of resharch befor I bought my Nikon " -- isn't that the way it's supposed to be?<br>

that's why the marketplace exists. one size does NOT fit all. both canon and nikon manage to sell huge numbers of cameras worldwide. there must be things about each system that appeal to potential customers to account for this fact.<br>

don't be surprised if there is disagreement on this subject. aside from fanboys, reasonable people will disagree on which is "best" -- and appreciate that others will come to a different conclusion.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Not again... Stop with the buyers' remorse is my advice.</p>

<p>Look, the simple fact is that neither Nikon or Canon is capable of taking good pictures at all... unless the photographer holding them is capable of it. You have a great camera capable of amazing photographs. Switching to Canon will make zero difference in your ability, except you'll now have a whole new camera to learn. A good photographer can take a better photo with a 5-year-old D70 and a kit lens than a bad photographer can take with a brand new D3X and a 24-70 that's worth ten times the price.</p>

<p>Both are probably exactly equivalent. Is Canon better for video? Maybe, but if you bought a DSLR with the purpose of getting a lot of great video out of it... oops... It's a <em><strong>still</strong></em> camera with a video feature tacked on. Shooting a lot of video? Buy a good camcorder... I recommend Canon for that big time. Or Sony.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Ed, neither Nikon or Canon captures great images. It is the photographer behinds the camera that captures great images.</p>

<p>Both Canon and Nikon make excellent (as well as some not so excellent) cameras and lenses. At the very high end both brands have some exclusive lenses that are not available in the other brand. However, for consumers and even most pros, if makes little difference either way.</p>

<p>Since you already have a D90, Simply stop worrying about camera brands. If the objective is to create great images, I would say 90%+ of that comes from what is behind the camera. I would try to improve that part instead of worrying about small differences between Canon, Nikon or whatever.</p>

[ryan_k]

<p>Each is a system. Just like when you buy Mamiya or Rollei or whatever else... you're not buying just the camera, but the entire line of products available. </p>

<p>I personally use canon because of their lens selection and full-frame availability. I would argue that the Nikon full frame bodies are better than Canon's full frame in many areas, except for price, number of body choices, and better lens options. </p>

<p>If I could easily put a canon lens on a full frame digital nikon body that cost me less than, or just over 1k (used 5d), I would. </p>

<p>For anything other than top-tier, however, they're essentially the same cameras. Go hold them, shoot with them, and find one that's more comfortable for you. Then do the most important thing: TAKE PICTURES.</p>

[andrew_fedon]

<p>Why do some people like Mazda, why do some people prefer a Toyata, some a Mitsubishi ? All good, personal preference thats all. Why are we even having this conversation ?<br>

If I had to give a reason why I use Nikon, I would say brand loyalty. I had a Nikon FE many moons ago, and went from one Nikon to another to another, same lenses etc. I am, and always will be a Nikon man. Then again, I am like that with other stuff. I had a Samsung Tv, and wanted stay with Samsung when i got a new one. Brand loyalty, and you know roughly what to expect from the same brand.</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>If it is video quality you want, you should look at the Pro Video gear listed on the B+H Photo web site. A decent video rig will put both Canon and Nikon to shame over the short video things created in a Digital SLR body.</p>

<p>There is not much to compare. Canon lenses are OK, Nikon lenses may have a bit more selection (AF 105mm DC-Nikkor; AF 135mm DC-Nikkor, as examples.)</p>

<p>But it is your money <strong>to chase down the yellow-brick road</strong> <em>to video perfection</em>....</p>

<p> </p>

[steve_phillipps]

<p>I think this is the key statement here: "I think my Nikon takes awesome Pictures but I have seen some Photo's taken with Canon that are also awesome". Firstly, your Nikon does not taken any photos, you do! Secondly, there have been awesome photos taken with all sorts of cameras.<br>

This really is a non-question, and Shun sums it up perfectly - both Nikon and Canon make very similar ranges, with some cheap and nasty bits, some decent bits and some truly excellent bits - they are very comparable. The rest is down to you!</p>

<p>Steve<br>

<br /></p>

[long_tin_lo]

<p>visit here:</p>

<p><a href="http://longxxlong.weebly.com/nikon-or-canon.html">http://longxxlong.weebly.com/nikon-or-canon.html</a></p>

<p>a more comprehensive review</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>As Shun said "Ed, neither Nikon or Canon captures great images. It is the photographer behinds the camera that captures great images."<br>

Pick the system that meets YOUR needs, the rest is in your mind. Each system will have pluses and minuses.</p>

[hiro]

<p>I traded my Nikon kit for a Canon kit a few years ago. It was fun, but in the end there were too many things I had gotten used to with Nikon.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Recently, I quit shooting my Nikon D300 + f2.8 zooms and began using a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye made in 1959. I shoot ISO 400 b&w film. Honestly, I'm getting some great shots from it and am having a lot of fun! I've begun to think that photography is about 10% camera gear and 90% 'vision.'</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[sandeep_kumar10]

<p>In my view Nikon and Canon are where they are because both of them exist. If there was only Canon or only Nikon, we as customers would have been on the loosing end. Lets hope they both continue to be profitable businesses and keep challenging each other to get us the best there is of photography tools. This is not a redundant debate, its a very important one, lets hope the great divide continues.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Yeah, although this sort of troll-like question <em>could</em> stir a controversy, it is so pointless in the long run that people have failed to rise to the bait so far. There are a few lenses of spectacular quality or special function that could shape a choice for some particular functions, but in general the lines are so equivalent (not least due to competition) that one does as well as the other.<br /> There's what I modestly call von Weinberg's Law:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>At any given time X, either Nikon or Canon will hold the lead in some hot new features. At time X+n ('n' often = about six months to a year), the other will hold the lead overall.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>However, as for</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How about we give that price to Leica?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What a felicitous typo! Leica lenses may not take the priZe (IMHO they are good, but not world-beating good), but they certainly do take the priCe. ;)<br /> I'd put the best (to be sure, often Zeiss-inspired) Nikkors like the classic 105mm f/2.5 (not the macro though that's good too), and the Nikkor (Sonnar?) 180mm up against any Leica equivalents. Ditto for some of the Canon line. Not to mention lenses that aren't even available for the Leicas. Try to find, for example, a Canon TS-E 17mm equivalent Leica lens. :)</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>JDM, that Leica remark was more tongue-in-cheek than serious, in the sense 'let's get it over with'. I do not care who claims to make the best lenses, really. I do care for finding the best for my camera, to the extend they may be of use and fit the wallet.<br>

Luckily a typo saved me there ;-)</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Actually, Wouter, I wondered if it was intentional or not. :)</p>

[andrew_fedon]

<p>As for the video argument, I have a strong opinion on this. Video is video and photography is photography. The addition of video to those cameras is a sales gimmick as far as I'm concerned. A true photographer, as are most on this forum, that enjoys taking and creating works of art with his camera, in the traditional sense, should not be influenced by how good the'video' is on a camera.</p>

[james_kennedy9]

<p>My first SLR was a Canon FT-QL purchased at a PX in Vietnam for $65, which included a case and a 50mm f/1.8 lens. I continued with Canon and transitioned from FL to FD. I gave up on buying new Canons when they orphaned the FD line. My first DSLR was a new Nikon D70. Given the fact that I can use old Nikon glass on new Nikon DSLRs is the deal maker. But I also use Canon digital P&Ss. My favorite new thing is drive by shooting with my wife driving car and I take snaps out the window, and a P&S is easier to handle with a seat belt on. I can get shots while moving at 50 mph in locales where there is no shoulder and it would be instant death to even think about stopping. I will post one just one example taken of house boats in Portage Bay in Seattle WA from a bridge while going 55 mph. Camera is Canon A650IS.</p><div></div>

[mark liddell]

Really there isn't much in it, both are pretty comprehensive pro DSLR systems these days. People make way to big a deal about it and it comes down to smaller things: there are probably more gaps in nikon's lens line, nikon can use manual focus lenses, nikon's flash system works differently, better af systems in prosumer bodies etc.