Canon or Nikon?

[Derrel]

More coherent? Hardly. Canon has 1.6x, 1.3x, and 1.0x cameras. They have color-blind cameras for the most part that get very confused under a lot of everyday situations, and Canon has had horrible problems figuring out how to do TTL flash control, for years. Canon might have been designed to be digital in 1986, BUT at the time, ONLY NIKON,and I mean ONLY NIKON had matrix metering; Nikon invented matrix metering with its FA camera, and has refined it since. Nikon then invented color-matrix metering, and has been refining that, so that the cameras KNOW the color and the reflectance value of objects, so that metering is very successful--Nikon called that RGB Color Matrix metering, and it has taken Canon 15 years to get around the Nikon patent. Nikon invented 3-D metering or Distance-Aware metering for both flash and ambient...Canon has taken 10 years to almost catch up. Nikon invented multi-flash remote flash triggering and control--Canon is STILL trying to figure out how to implement. Nikon invented the Auto ISO setup....Canon is still trying to figure out how to do that.

The what lens fits what body argument is amusing to newbies who are perplexed by what fits what: bottom line is the baby Nikons have only been on the market for three years,and they are the cheapest cameras Nikon makes. Unlike Canon,however, Nikon has NEVER ABANDONED or ('effed over) their user base: the oldest Nikon lenses, dating from 1959 to 2010, in manual focusing and autofocusing will mount and will SHOOT with over 50 million lenses. Read it again--the baby Nikons, D40,40x,D60,D300,and D5000 will mount any Nikon F-mount lens made since 1959 and will shoot photos with ANY of 50 million Nikkors. And maybe 200 million F_mount 3rd party lenses. But these 2007 to 2010 Baby Nikons will not autofocus with AF-D lenses made from 1986 to 2010. But they will accept basically ANY F-mount accessory with no modifications to the lens or body, so the Baby Nikons have 50 years; worth of backward compatibility. BUT NO AUTOFOCUS with screw-driven AF lenses introduced in 1986.

So, on either score, Nikon wins on the lens compatibility issue...Canon lenses made prior to 1986 are FD mount, and are basically worthless orphans...Nikon manual focus lenses made since 1959,all the way to 2010 are usable,and many are available sued, quite affordably, allowing beginners to buy a lot of nice glass,cheaply.

The idea that Canon designed the EOS system to be autodfocus from the ground up makes a nice sound bite, but unfortunately, Canon layed the groundwork for their system back in an era when they were woefully behind Nikon in terms of light metering, TTL flash metering, and a few other technologies... Canon has struggled with a lot of issues, for decades...their "ground up" EOS system was, unfortunately creted with color-0blind light metering, no matrix implementation, and 1980's ideas on how to implement cheap button and wheel controls over exposure and camera controls...they kind of got started with their first-ever approach, and have payed the price ever since...they started the race first, and were handicapped later,as better engineering solutions were developed.

I own both Canon ($10,000 worth) and Nikon (embarrassingly much gear) systems...the thing about Nikon is what Thom Hogan says: Nikon will often offer their product after Canon does, but in a better implementation....that's Nikon's MO, and that's the way Samsung went from electronics wannabe to market-leading in so many categories: allow the others to proceed, see what they do,where they fail, and then beat them with better engineering and a better thought-out product.

Nikon's top end cameras are all full-frame....Canon is limping along with the 1.6x,1.3x,and 1.0 x bodies, and struggling top get their flash control system to meter right,and fighting interference battles on their new EX 580-II flash units...and now having to re-design its lenses which cannot perform well enough on high-density sensors. Canon behind more coherent is laughable...

 

[Derrel]

For beginners who like high-tech gadgetry, I think Canon's low-end cameras are the better choice...for those who want to use a low-end d-slr as a point and shoot, Nikon's color-aware metering makes Nikon the better choice.

For more experienced shooters or professionals, Nikon has much to recommend it...

Canon has some good lenses, Nikon has some good lenses...Canon lenses in the USA sell with a 1-year warranty, Nikon lenses come with a 5-year USA warranty. That's it for me in this thread. THere are other threrads just like this if people wanna' read the same stuff at greater length.

Which is better? Virginia style BBQ sauce, or Texas-style BBQ sauce? Discuss among yourselves.

 

[Petraio Prime]

More coherent? Hardly. Canon has 1.6x, 1.3x, and 1.0x cameras. They have color-blind cameras for the most part that get very confused under a lot of everyday situations, and Canon has had horrible problems figuring out how to do TTL flash control, for years. Canon might have been designed to be digital in 1986, BUT at the time, ONLY NIKON,and I mean ONLY NIKON had matrix metering; Nikon invented matrix metering with its FA camera, and has refined it since. Nikon then invented color-matrix metering, and has been refining that, so that the cameras KNOW the color and the reflectance value of objects, so that metering is very successful--Nikon called that RGB Color Matrix metering, and it has taken Canon 15 years to get around the Nikon patent. Nikon invented 3-D metering or Distance-Aware metering for both flash and ambient...Canon has taken 10 years to almost catch up. Nikon invented multi-flash remote flash triggering and control--Canon is STILL trying to figure out how to implement. Nikon invented the Auto ISO setup....Canon is still trying to figure out how to do that.

The what lens fits what body argument is amusing to newbies who are perplexed by what fits what: bottom line is the baby Nikons have only been on the market for three years,and they are the cheapest cameras Nikon makes. Unlike Canon,however, Nikon has NEVER ABANDONED or ('effed over) their user base: the oldest Nikon lenses, dating from 1959 to 2010, in manual focusing and autofocusing will mount and will SHOOT with over 50 million lenses. Read it again--the baby Nikons, D40,40x,D60,D300,and D5000 will mount any Nikon F-mount lens made since 1959 and will shoot photos with ANY of 50 million Nikkors. And maybe 200 million F_mount 3rd party lenses. But these 2007 to 2010 Baby Nikons will not autofocus with AF-D lenses made from 1986 to 2010. But they will accept basically ANY F-mount accessory with no modifications to the lens or body, so the Baby Nikons have 50 years; worth of backward compatibility. BUT NO AUTOFOCUS with screw-driven AF lenses introduced in 1986.

So, on either score, Nikon wins on the lens compatibility issue...Canon lenses made prior to 1986 are FD mount, and are basically worthless orphans...Nikon manual focus lenses made since 1959,all the way to 2010 are usable,and many are available sued, quite affordably, allowing beginners to buy a lot of nice glass,cheaply.

The idea that Canon designed the EOS system to be autodfocus from the ground up makes a nice sound bite, but unfortunately, Canon layed the groundwork for their system back in an era when they were woefully behind Nikon in terms of light metering, TTL flash metering, and a few other technologies... Canon has struggled with a lot of issues, for decades...their "ground up" EOS system was, unfortunately creted with color-0blind light metering, no matrix implementation, and 1980's ideas on how to implement cheap button and wheel controls over exposure and camera controls...they kind of got started with their first-ever approach, and have payed the price ever since...they started the race first, and were handicapped later,as better engineering solutions were developed.

I own both Canon ($10,000 worth) and Nikon (embarrassingly much gear) systems...the thing about Nikon is what Thom Hogan says: Nikon will often offer their product after Canon does, but in a better implementation....that's Nikon's MO, and that's the way Samsung went from electronics wannabe to market-leading in so many categories: allow the others to proceed, see what they do,where they fail, and then beat them with better engineering and a better thought-out product.

Nikon's top end cameras are all full-frame....Canon is limping along with the 1.6x,1.3x,and 1.0 x bodies, and struggling top get their flash control system to meter right,and fighting interference battles on their new EX 580-II flash units...and now having to re-design its lenses which cannot perform well enough on high-density sensors. Canon behind more coherent is laughable...

Yeah, but Canon, by starting over with the new mount, freed their designers to do more things that Nikon was not able to do. We discussed that in the high-speed lens thread. Nikon was very late to get to a full-frame DSLR in part because of this.

Canon's thinking was probably like this "who cares if you can fit a 1959 lens on your camera, if it isn't autofocus, and is woefully weak in performance compared to newer designs?"

When I use the term 'coherent', I am referring to the autofocus lens-body system that Canon has. All the lenses are motorized, whereas some of Nikon's are, some are not.

I believe Canon also pioneered anti-shake technology, for which you did not give them credit, as well as the USM motors....

Not that I care about any of this...I use film and Leicaflex and am not going to switch...to Canon or Nikon, ever.

As far as metering is concerened, I was never impressed by Nikon. I shot with an F3 and flash a lot of times (I worked in AV production for a while, and used their equipment), and the Nikon metering left a lot to be desired.

 

[dimwit]

Which is better? Virginia style BBQ sauce, or Texas-style BBQ sauce? Discuss among yourselves.

South Carolina. Duh.

 

[Idahophoto]

I have used both systems and I was fond of the Nikon overall a bit better. I think Nikon is much better at higher ISO and unlike one reviewer I find the AF to be better. When it comes to handling it's easily Nikon. Plus I miss image overlay on my Nikons. Canon just drives me nuts with some of its button placements. I do enjoy my Canon they have some real nice lenses they are built tough and functions work fast.

Both systems are real good and it really boils down to what kind of shooting you plan on doing. MP means very little anymore. You will really be hard pressed to spot the difference short of a real major large image.

Yeah I would stick with the Nikon system as you have already put money into it there is no real reason to change.

 

[meccalli]

umm, so a D5000 isn't a NIKON? I wanna get one but the radical view I saw here indicates that its not a good camera worthy of the name NIKON :/ ...I just need to know.

 

[Neil S.]

More coherent? Hardly. Canon has 1.6x, 1.3x, and 1.0x cameras. They have color-blind cameras for the most part that get very confused under a lot of everyday situations, and Canon has had horrible problems figuring out how to do TTL flash control, for years. Canon might have been designed to be digital in 1986, BUT at the time, ONLY NIKON,and I mean ONLY NIKON had matrix metering; Nikon invented matrix metering with its FA camera, and has refined it since. Nikon then invented color-matrix metering, and has been refining that, so that the cameras KNOW the color and the reflectance value of objects, so that metering is very successful--Nikon called that RGB Color Matrix metering, and it has taken Canon 15 years to get around the Nikon patent. Nikon invented 3-D metering or Distance-Aware metering for both flash and ambient...Canon has taken 10 years to almost catch up. Nikon invented multi-flash remote flash triggering and control--Canon is STILL trying to figure out how to implement. Nikon invented the Auto ISO setup....Canon is still trying to figure out how to do that.

The what lens fits what body argument is amusing to newbies who are perplexed by what fits what: bottom line is the baby Nikons have only been on the market for three years,and they are the cheapest cameras Nikon makes. Unlike Canon,however, Nikon has NEVER ABANDONED or ('effed over) their user base: the oldest Nikon lenses, dating from 1959 to 2010, in manual focusing and autofocusing will mount and will SHOOT with over 50 million lenses. Read it again--the baby Nikons, D40,40x,D60,D300,and D5000 will mount any Nikon F-mount lens made since 1959 and will shoot photos with ANY of 50 million Nikkors. And maybe 200 million F_mount 3rd party lenses. But these 2007 to 2010 Baby Nikons will not autofocus with AF-D lenses made from 1986 to 2010. But they will accept basically ANY F-mount accessory with no modifications to the lens or body, so the Baby Nikons have 50 years; worth of backward compatibility. BUT NO AUTOFOCUS with screw-driven AF lenses introduced in 1986.

So, on either score, Nikon wins on the lens compatibility issue...Canon lenses made prior to 1986 are FD mount, and are basically worthless orphans...Nikon manual focus lenses made since 1959,all the way to 2010 are usable,and many are available sued, quite affordably, allowing beginners to buy a lot of nice glass,cheaply.

The idea that Canon designed the EOS system to be autodfocus from the ground up makes a nice sound bite, but unfortunately, Canon layed the groundwork for their system back in an era when they were woefully behind Nikon in terms of light metering, TTL flash metering, and a few other technologies... Canon has struggled with a lot of issues, for decades...their "ground up" EOS system was, unfortunately creted with color-0blind light metering, no matrix implementation, and 1980's ideas on how to implement cheap button and wheel controls over exposure and camera controls...they kind of got started with their first-ever approach, and have payed the price ever since...they started the race first, and were handicapped later,as better engineering solutions were developed.

I own both Canon ($10,000 worth) and Nikon (embarrassingly much gear) systems...the thing about Nikon is what Thom Hogan says: Nikon will often offer their product after Canon does, but in a better implementation....that's Nikon's MO, and that's the way Samsung went from electronics wannabe to market-leading in so many categories: allow the others to proceed, see what they do,where they fail, and then beat them with better engineering and a better thought-out product.

Nikon's top end cameras are all full-frame....Canon is limping along with the 1.6x,1.3x,and 1.0 x bodies, and struggling top get their flash control system to meter right,and fighting interference battles on their new EX 580-II flash units...and now having to re-design its lenses which cannot perform well enough on high-density sensors. Canon behind more coherent is laughable...

Derrel as always you make some good points here.

-I would say that Nikon has a beter metering system, hands down.

-Nikon is also "re-designing it's lenses", this will always be the case for both companies.

-On dpreview.com they gave the crown for the best 70-200mm 2.8 to Canon (IS MK 2) "by a whisker". It would seem theres a horse race going on for lens design here....and Nikon is far from having it won.

-Resolution does matter, and for the crop market at least (7D) Canon wins here.

-Full frame Nikon wins resolution hands down, but most people cant afford a $7000 body.

-Canon has also developed a better video system for their DSLRs. This is a very uesful feature, and I hear professional filmakers have already used the 7D for segments of major films.

-AF I am not really sure, I thought that Canon had the best AF though....

Just some points for the discussion.

 

[cailinp]

I love my d5000...... but thats just me.

 

[Neil S.]

I would have to say that if money was no object I would probably switch to Nikon.

The prospect of a D3x and some of Nikon's latest lens offerings is quite tasty.

This is a pipe dream though, and I am very happy with what my Canon system currently provides.

I love the 7D, and the only major thing I would like to see on it is better metering. I am quite pleased with the metering improvement over my 30D though.

 

[shaunly]

I was on the same boat before I bought my D700. I was seriously considering switching over to canon but after months of research and playing with both camera (my buddy's 1D MK3/ 5DMK2/ D700), I went with the D700 and couldn't be happier.

All of the Canon body besides their pro line (1D) felt cheapy! Even their 7D/5D with magnesium body. Nikon D300/700 just feels so solid, and natural. Even the lighter/smaller D90 felt good. I did not like Canon button layout what so ever. But the main thing that made me choose the D700 over the 5D2 was... better ISO/AF/metering system/ higher FPS/ flash system. For what I do, I needed a camera that works fast! I don't need video and 21mp.

I made my decision strictly on both body and did not care about lens investment. I didn't mind dumping all my Nikon lens and switch over because my all my lenses (except for one) were DX anyways.

In the end, my decision worked out great for me and this is my personal opinion.

 

[bentcountershaft]

No matter which system you own there's an excellent chance that you'll occasionally look across the fence to see if the other side has greened up any. When I do that I try to tell myself to quit checking out my neighbor's yard and put my eye to the viewfinder to snap some shots.

 

[Gaerek]

I guarantee whatever you choose, you will love. The grass is NOT greener on the other side in the photography world. Both Canon and Nikon have their benefits and drawbacks, but in the end, most users won't see a difference. I sometimes wish I had gone Nikon, but in the end, no one is looking at my images saying, "Oh, that must have been taken with a Canon...next time, try a Nikon!" It's a shame that people have been using this thread as an e-peen measuring contest, nit-picking about absolutely non-consequential issues.

 

[kundalini]

Which is better? Virginia style BBQ sauce, or Texas-style BBQ sauce? Discuss among yourselves.

Hands-down, it is vinegar based Eastern North Carolia style.

 

[Neil S.]

I guarantee whatever you choose, you will love. The grass is NOT greener on the other side in the photography world. Both Canon and Nikon have their benefits and drawbacks, but in the end, most users won't see a difference. I sometimes wish I had gone Nikon, but in the end, no one is looking at my images saying, "Oh, that must have been taken with a Canon...next time, try a Nikon!" It's a shame that people have been using this thread as an e-peen measuring contest, nit-picking about absolutely non-consequential issues.

These are wise words.

Can someone please post that dead horse picture thingy. I think its about time for it.

 

[Rekd]

Canon.

Anything else for sports or wildlife photography is settling for WAY less. Professionals AND Amateurs alike recognize the superiority of Canon.

NOW you can bring out the dead horse. :mrgreen:

All in jest, of course.