Nikon vs Canon

[fmw]

I think the problem is that two distinct winners have emerged in the DSLR end of the market and that takes some of the patina from some of the others. The same was true of 35mm cameras. I thought the Contax was one of the best 35mm camera systems one could buy, to say nothing of the amazing Leica R series SLRS but the big 2 still dominated. The Contax and Leica lenses were as good as any and better than some.

In medium format, Nikon and Canon don't even exist. This is the world of Hasselblad, Rollei, Mamiya and, yes, Pentax.

In point and shoot, I'm pretty sure both Olympus and Hewlett Packard outsell Canon and Nikon.

Worrying about the brands is silly, really. Look at the system and see how it suits your needs. Look at the support also. A Nikon pro photographer can belong to NPS. It's a big deal. It means very rapid repairs, the ability to borrow lenses, all kinds of things. It isn't available with companies that don't cater to pros nor should it be. So a pro might be drawn to Nikon where it wouldn't matter to an amateur. Look beyond the equipment itself

If there were a best brand for everyone, then there would only be one brand. Don't worry about sensors and lenses. Worry about the system overall and how it relates to what you want to do photographically.

 

[Don Simon]

Well Said Fred

Honestly I have no special allegiance to company A or B besides the fact that I find their products the most appropriate for my purposes. What I see as the strengths of one system others will see as weaknesses and vice versa; not everyone's going to agree and nor should they. I did however react to the suggestion that high-quality gear from companies with over a century's history of innovation and production of fine optical equipment can be reasonably compared to a cheap Fiat copy mainly known for being the butt of jokes. Just didn't seem to make much sense to me

 

[Mad_Gnome]

Lastly, i would not go with sony or panisonic simply for the reason that they have not been in the camera market for long. There is no way to know if one day in 5 years they will just pull out from the camera market leaving you with a useless system.

Sony has not been in the market long, but their entire camera division was brought over wholesale from Minolta, who were in the camera game for an extremely long time, and I don't think anyone can deny the fact that they made high-quality equipment. There are many lenses made by Minolta that are arguably some of the best lenses ever manufactured. The camera that Sony introduced is also an extremely strong indicator that they are VERY serious about the DSLR market, and I think that one can expect to see many more high quality cameras from them in the future. This sort of defeatist thinking is what will kill the DSLR divisions of many companies that would otherwise make very good equipment and help to fuel the market and drive prices down.

I also wouldn't entirely rule out Panasonic, although they may be shooting themselves in the foot. The Olympus 4/3 system, while a very good camera system, has very little market share, and is unlikely to draw many more customers from the rest of the market. At most, they may convert some of their current DSLR-style high-end P&S camera customers.

As far as 35mm systems, I think there were actually 3 major players. Minolta may not have had an equal share compared to Canon and Nikon, they had at least 5 times the sales of the next competitor in line, and were still a strong market presence. They also introduced hundreds of innovations that these days are considered industry standards, and caused Canon and Nikon to scramble. Appreciate your Program and Automatic modes on your camera? Thank Minolta for that. How about autofocus? Look back to 1985 when Minolta introduced the Maxxum 7000, the world's first autofocus camera. Appreciate coated optics? Minolta produced the world's first coated lenses in 1946. Multi-coating followed in 1958. How about automatic control of the lens diaghram, which keeps your viewfinder bright until the shutter release is depressed, then stops the lens down to the selected aperture setting? The Minolta SR-2 was the first camera to offer that feature in 1958. It was also the first camera to use a bayonet lens mounting system, rather than time-consuming screw- and breech-mount lenses. And that's just a few of the things that Minolta introduced. The list goes on.

My point is, don't rule other companies out just because they're new to the game. Everyone is new to the game at one point or another. That doesn't mean they have nothing to contribute, or that they'll disappear in a few years. As for them possibly being useless systems in 5 years, look at your own example of Pentax. They've been using the same system since 1975. Minolta/Sony have been using the same system since 1985. That's far from useless in my book.

 

[Don Simon]

Good points. I used both Minolta and Pentax for film, and had to make a choice when I decided to buy a digital SLR. Konica-Minolta dropping out of the camera business pushed me towards Pentax, although I still waited for the new KM/Sony. When it came out I decided that I preferred the current Pentax model to the Sony, but it was still a very hard decision as I'd always been impressed by the quality of the Dynax/Maxxum cameras and lenses - both film and digital. If Sony had announced an intention to release an updated 7D then it would have been an even harder decision.

I do understand people's concerns; Konica-Minolta totally dropping out of the market is likely to cause concern among their potential customers even if they will be catered for by Sony. Personally though I think Sony are definitely serious about the DSLR market - after all, I think we can see that they know how to make a digital sensor. I'll be very interested to see what they do next with the KM legacy.

 

[Mad_Gnome]

Personally, I'm drooling over some of the glass Sony has announced. Several Carl Zeiss T* lenses and the world's first AF 500mm reflex lens. I'd say they're very serious about DSLR indeed.

 

[LWW]

When Nikon sold their 1st SLR in 1959 people obviously invested in glass. When Nikon went to AI lens technology with the F2 the old non-AI lens could be modified for about $10.00 each to work with the new system. That or continue to use it without the AI features.

When Nikon went to AIS technology with the F3 all of the old AI glass would work fine. When Nikon went into AF all the old AI and AIS glass worked just fine as well...in fact with the F4 you could still use the old non-AI glass even if it didn't have the $10.00 modification.

Now most of the glass was backward compatible. In fact Nikon still makes glass which will work perfect on an old F/F2/F3/F4/F5/F6 film SLR. That's how you take care of your customer base across nearly a half century.

Also, if any of those film body owners wanted to upgrade from an F(X) body to a newer F(X) or even a D(X) body...well all their glass could be carried forward. Obviously a 1959 Nikkor won't AF and didn't have meter contacts built in, but it will mount on a new body and still take beautiful photos. The photog who had owned it for 47 years is used to manually focusing and metering it anyway.

Had you bought any other system you at least once would have had to buy all new glass. That to me is why I suggest Nikon to everyone starting.

I also have become infatuated with the smaller sensor size on the Nikon DSLR's. Logic would tell you this is a Canon plus...until you consider all of that film oriented ED glass is now peeking thru a sweet spot and that the smaller sensor has less light fall off in corners than a full frame would. Lastly my exotic ED glass for film becomes the equal of uberexotic ED glass I could never afford for film. I always lusted for a 300mm F2.8 ED but settled for the F4. I also always wanted a 500m F4 ED. Ultra expensive and you need sherpas to carry them for you. Guess what? My 80-200mm F2.8 is now the equal of that 300mm F2.8...with zoom thrown in. My old 300mm F4? It bbecomes equal to a 450mm F4. Close enough.

That being said Canon is IMHO very good stuff from a very good company.

The best glass in this section of the market is IMHO Nikon, Canon, Leica, and Contax. I think Nikkors are best, but you can argue that my opinion is biased. I will say this however...anyone using and of those 4 pro level glass makers stuff under equal circumstances will find it extremely difficult to find more than very subtle differences between any of them.

Leica didn't own the market IMHO because of cost...ridiculous. Contax is a bargain only when compared to Leica. Their prices aren't ridiculous, merely astounding.

So where does that bring us back to? Canon v Nikon.

Between the 2 there isn't a bad choice. Both offer full systems with upgrades galore. Both have plenty of retail outlets. Both have high quality.

LWW

 

[airgunr]

I'll throw my 2 cents in.....

I've owned both and they are excellent systems. The main difference for ME is the lens compatability of Nikon vs Cannon. Almost all my lenses will work with the older all manual 35mm Nikons as well as the newest DSLR's from them. As others have indicated there will be some comprimise with functions like metering and AF.

Canons lenses are not as versital as the FD mounts will not work with the newer bodies and visa versa.

For me this is important as I carry a FM2n manual 35mm as a backup to my F5 and only one set of lenses for both.

Other systems do this as well but I am not familiar with them so can't speak to their capablilties.

 

[Michael Humle]

Just for kicks, you might want to check out the Olympus Evolt E-300 kit that comes with a Zuiko 14-45mm (28-105mm) lens. You'll be suprised at what this camera has to offer for the money! I am also a great fan of Nikon and Canon but I still went with the Olympus after careful consideration. Sorry if I added to the decision making process...

 

[DocFrankenstein]

That to me is why I suggest Nikon to everyone starting.

Considering the fact that everybody starting DOESN'T own ANY of the nikon glass... it's a pretty bad reason to go nikon.

From that point it makes more sense to go canon, because their AF system was designed from scratch and works better because it has no limitations or compatibility issues whatsoever.

Plus - all of the nikkors can be used on canons anyways. And usually with more functions than on the nikon digital bodies. Kinda funny.

I'd be shooting with zeiss/contax glass if I had the choice. IMO they're much better than canon.

 

[nakedyak]

I feel like I am beginning to be somewhat qualified to talk about this subject. I'm currently using a Nikon D70s for work, along with a Canon 20d for some work and my personal use.

The D70s feels cheap and flimsy compared to the Canon body. One thing that the Nikon has over the Canon though is the 10.5mm DX fisheye. Its an awesome lens, and to get the same thing you'd need the 5d and the 15mm f2.8 fisheye for the canon.

I've been using the D70s with the Nikkor 12-24mm lens, and im just not that impressed. The Nikkor 12-24 is supposed to be such a great lens, it costs almost 1,000 bucks. Yet it feels very plasticy and cheap, the lens zooms too easily, there is no dampening. It also just doesn't feel that "wide".

I recently used the Tokina 12-24 f4 with my 20D, and was very impressed. The quality of the build was better than the Nikon, and the image quality seemed good as well. This is a $500 lens.

Anyway, back to the bodies of the cameras.

If you compare the image quality between the Canon and Nikon, the canon just seems to have more "punch". Brighter colors, more contrasty, you have to appreciate the ISO 100 on the Canon. Noise is handled better on the canon.

I do love the huge viewfinders of the D80 and D200 though.

thats my 2 cents

 

[Don Simon]

Had you bought any other system you at least once would have had to buy all new glass. That to me is why I suggest Nikon to everyone starting.

Pentax made the switch from M42 screw to K bayonet mount, but produced an adaptor that enabled the use of the older lenses on the new system... no requirement to buy all new glass there. And that switch was made 30 years ago.

The best glass in this section of the market is IMHO Nikon, Canon, Leica, and Contax.

I've not heard many complaints from people who own Minolta G glass or Pentax Limiteds, and I don't think that's because they're simply ignorant of the wonders of Nikkors and the rest.