Canon and Nikon Quality and Quality Control

[Playdo]

I'm looking into quality and quality control between the two big companies; Canon and Nikon for a project.

Please share any experiences that you have had and feel free to go as in depth as you like. Whether it be something that didn't live up to your expectations, something that was faulty, problems getting the equipment repaired, unnecessary time + cost lost etc...

I look forward to reading them.

 

[Josh220]

I don't like this guy, but since you haven't done any research, it might be a good read.

Nikon vs. Canon

For more info, try here:

More Nikon vs. Canon

You can also search this forum, there are dozens, if not hundreds of threads beating this topic to hell.
I have a feeling this will just be another "one bashes the other" thread. Bring on the flame wars!

 

[Playdo]

Hi Josh, thanks for yor input. That's ok, I have done research but I'm interested in hearing more first hand responses (or any other good links). It seems to be a touchy subject for many so please voice your opinions here.

 

[inTempus]

You're citing Ken Rockwell as a source for a comparison between Nikon and Canon (much less anything else)?

Ken Rockwell reviews products he's never even seen in person. He admits his whole site is a joke. From his own website:

To the OP, if you're honestly going to ask people their opinions about products your "research" won't be worth a whole lot. You've just stepped into one of the biggest religious wars ever, it rivals the Chevy vs. Ford debates that never end.

 

[Big Mike]

I agree. Asking people's opinions about quality control at Canon/Nikon...isn't likely to give you much in terms of worthwhile information.

I think it's an interesting topic...but you would have to get the information right from the companies themselves, for it to really be worth anything. Also, I'm sure that their QC is at least slightly different from factory to factory. The top end lenses being made in Japan probably have different QC standards than the cheap kit lenses being made in China, Korea or Thailand (or wherever).

 

[MrLogic]

You're citing Ken Rockwell as a source for a comparison between Nikon and Canon?

He's not as anti-Canon as some of you Canon guys make him out to be. Besides... he's a Leica man now, anyway.

But yes... not a good comparison site. But a good read - if you can dig his sense of humor - nonetheless. His Leica M9 review is hilarious.

 

[Playdo]

Getting peoples' experiences is a very useful way to research a topic like this. I'm also hoping people will post links that have delved a little deeper and have some statistical information.

That's ok, I'm fully aware that people get emotional when Canon & Nikon are mentioned in the same topic but it's up to them to understand why they get so emotional over it.

This post is purely here as stated in the original post. If you have any angst towards the company that you have invested in then vent it here (just clearly explain your reasons why). There's no bias this is open to both Canon and Nikon users.

 

[IgsEMT]

Well, let the chocolate vs Vanilla begin...

Five yrs ago when digital (from Bronica), I went with Nikon b/c my mentor was a Nikon shooter. He was a Nikon shooter b/c his 35mm was a Nikon, for medium format it was Bronica. So I figured if I have any Qs I can ask him. Five yrs later after working with both Nikon and Canon, I have no regrets. I had a pleasure of working with Nikon (d50, d70, d80, d90, d100, d200, d300, d700) and with Canon (20d, 30d, 50d, 5d, 5dmii, 1dmiii). The list is big and the glass list to it is also pretty extensive.
The only and I mean only reason why I prefer Nikon to Canon is I like the feel of Nikon body in my hand and I don't like the aperture ring on Canons. Aside from that, in my experience both brands provide amazing image quality.

 

[musicaleCA]

Both brands have excellent quality control. I haven't seen a bad piece of gear out-of-the-box from either side. Third-party lenses is where you should be more wary, and Sigma is probably one of the worst in this regard.

 

[Buckster]

Both brands have excellent quality control. I haven't seen a bad piece of gear out-of-the-box from either side. Third-party lenses is where you should be more wary, and Sigma is probably one of the worst in this regard.

And yet, I love my Sigma 180mm EX macro.

My Nikon F film camera from the early 1960's still works fine. My Canon digital cameras have all worked fine. I like both brands and have found them equally reliable and well built.

 

[JamesMason]

You're citing Ken Rockwell as a source for a comparison between Nikon and Canon (much less anything else)?

Depends on what mood he is in, sometimes ken likes nikon sometimes he likes canon. Every now and again he gets annoyed with them both and likes leica for a bit. You are right the site is a joke

 

[Derrel]

Nikon D3 / D300 Vs. Canon

I deliberately have not ready *any* of the posts above before posting this,so my comments are not in response to anybody's comments. Unlike many people, I own a pretty wide-array Nikon system, but in 2005 I added a Canon 20D and a few lenses to my Nikon kit, and then added an EOS 5D and 580 EX-II. I have several items in common in both systems. Here's what have noticed: Nikon occasionally has trouble meeting demand for its brand-new products, like the 70-200 VR, 200-400 VR, 18-200 VR, or the D3 and D300. Nikon is a smaller company than Canon,and does not have the production capability Canon has.

My feeling, based on internet message boards over the last 5-7 years, is that Canon had a HUGE problem with front and back-focus issues on many lenses and bodies, and invented AF micro-adjust because they were literally, losing sales and customers, due to sub-par AF performance with many different lenses. Now that AF microadjust has shown its worth, Nikon has implemented the same feature.

Nikon's biggest problem has been lack of product in stores,with waits of many months, even a year, to get the "hot,new thing" at walk-in retail. Only the largest retailers,like B&H and Adorama, often have products.

Nikon lenses often cost more than comparable Canon lenses,and it is my own,personal belief that the extra $100-$500 cost of a Nikkor is due to tighter production line tolerances and more QC attention payed to lenses which are produced on a smaller scale. I've heard of more examples of poorly-centered zooms from anon than from Nikon, but that's all anecdotal evidence.

BOTH companies have had "debacles". Nikon's D70 BGLOD or Blinking Green Light of Death syndrome was embarrassing....Canon's EOS 1D Mark III's 18-month saga of unreliable autofocus in sports action under high-contrast bright lighting conditions was a major black eye,and sent many professional sports and news shooters over to Nikon's D3. NEITHER company is faultless in its manufacturing and delivery or its product lines and QC...each has some dogs and some diamonds.

Canon's major-major problem to me has been the unexpected,random failure of its bodies with the Err 99 code....it has cost me shots and shut down shoots for me numerous times with the 20D and 5D....I have never had a Nikon body Err out on me for no apparent reason. Ever.

 

[chip]

I have been shooting Nikon SLRs only for 20 years. I bought a Canon 5d2 and a few lenses this year. I have taken a few K pics with the Canon. In terms of quality I think Nikon is better. Nikon cameras feel more solid and well made. But Nikon usually cost more too. In terms of picture quality I think you can produce wonderful photographs with either. I do feel Nikon has better flash exposure control. It almost always nails difficult indoors back lit shots 100% of the time. I think Nikon has a better scene recognition program. No, I am not trying to start a Nikon vs. Canon debate ;-) Canon sells a lot more cameras than Nikon but I think Nikon caters to the photographers more.

 

[musicaleCA]

I think Nikon caters to the photographers more.

Er. No. Just no. If the 1D isn't catering to photographers, I think you need a reality check. :lmao: (Heck, the argument could be made in reverse, in that Canon makes all of their hardware, while Nikon gets their processors and sensors from other manufacturers, and has less direct control over the product.)

Both brands have excellent quality control. I haven't seen a bad piece of gear out-of-the-box from either side. Third-party lenses is where you should be more wary, and Sigma is probably one of the worst in this regard.

And yet, I love my Sigma 180mm EX macro.

Ah, yes, but this thread is about quality control, not overall quality. They're different subjects. Sigma has certainly produced great lenses. The difference really is that with Sigma, you're more likely to get a lemon than when you stick to the lenses of your camera's brand. >.<

 

[Buckster]

I think Nikon caters to the photographers more.

Er. No. Just no. If the 1D isn't catering to photographers, I think you need a reality check. :lmao: (Heck, the argument could be made in reverse, in that Canon makes all of their hardware, while Nikon gets their processors and sensors from other manufacturers, and has less direct control over the product.)

Both brands have excellent quality control. I haven't seen a bad piece of gear out-of-the-box from either side. Third-party lenses is where you should be more wary, and Sigma is probably one of the worst in this regard.

And yet, I love my Sigma 180mm EX macro.

Ah, yes, but this thread is about quality control, not overall quality. They're different subjects. Sigma has certainly produced great lenses. The difference really is that with Sigma, you're more likely to get a lemon than when you stick to the lenses of your camera's brand. >.<

I've heard of people getting lemons with every brand. All I can tell you is what I've personally experienced, and my Sigma's terrific - no complaints at all. To listen to you, people should stay away from Sigma lenses, and I'm here to say - not so fast.

Perhaps you have some actual data to back up your claims that Sigma is more prone to ship lemons than anyone else though? Love to see it.