Canon or Nikon?

TiCoyote · Jul 28, 2010

I always had the understanding that Nikon makes better sensors and AF systems, but Canon makes sharper lenses. Then a friend of mine who knows way more about photography than I told me quite the opposite.

I shoot with a Canon because I think they perform a bit better. Faster startup time, more FPS. I also like the feel of the body in my hands. Also, I think you get more bang for the buck. Every comparable body and lens for a Nikon costs a few bucks more than then its Canon doppelganger. However, I have heard many people say that IQ is slightly better in Nikon, and DPReview's test shots often evidence this.

Neil S. · Jul 28, 2010

Mike_E said:
Do none of you have lives?

Here you go Neil, as you couldn't find your copy. (unless I missed your post)

This

JamesMason · Jul 28, 2010

Neil S. said:
Mike_E said:

Do none of you have lives?

Here you go Neil, as you couldn't find your copy. (unless I missed your post)

Click to expand...

This

Noooz iz stil movez. Flog Morz

Petraio Prime · Jul 28, 2010

shaunly said:
You seem to base your decision that canon is better because of their mounts. But that's only one thing! Did you forget about all the other hundreds of feature and technology that goes into the lens and body? I agree that the canon wider mount will make it easier to make ultra fast lens, but serious who needs a 50 f1? So yea I'll give it to canon for having a 85f1.2 but you swear like that is a MUST have for all photographer. The nikon 85f1.4 is only f1.4 but that's still f1.4! That lens is legendary itself.

Look, I'm not here saying Nikon is better, and from reading your post, you seem very knowledgeable about the technical side, so im not saying I know more than you. Like I said, from what I've been ready from you, the only argument you have is canon having a wider mount, thus making them more advance, which I just don't agree on.

... just my 2cent

No, shaunly, if you read my post carefully you'll see what I'm saying is that Canon in 1989 introduced an autofocus camera system that was redesigned from scratch, from the ground up, to be an autofocus system. It's only partly the lens mount, and it had nothing to do with digital.

Neil S. · Jul 28, 2010

...........

fokker · Jul 28, 2010

This thread actually makes me want to ditch my canon gears and get a D700

shaunly · Jul 28, 2010

Petraio Prime said:
shaunly said:

You seem to base your decision that canon is better because of their mounts. But that's only one thing! Did you forget about all the other hundreds of feature and technology that goes into the lens and body? I agree that the canon wider mount will make it easier to make ultra fast lens, but serious who needs a 50 f1? So yea I'll give it to canon for having a 85f1.2 but you swear like that is a MUST have for all photographer. The nikon 85f1.4 is only f1.4 but that's still f1.4! That lens is legendary itself.

Look, I'm not here saying Nikon is better, and from reading your post, you seem very knowledgeable about the technical side, so im not saying I know more than you. Like I said, from what I've been ready from you, the only argument you have is canon having a wider mount, thus making them more advance, which I just don't agree on.

... just my 2cent

Click to expand...

No, shaunly, if you read my post carefully you'll see what I'm saying is that Canon in 1989 introduced an autofocus camera system that was redesigned from scratch, from the ground up, to be an autofocus system. It's only partly the lens mount, and it had nothing to do with digital.

I read it alright, but isn't canon AF system inferior to Nikon? Every pro nikon telephoto lens for the pass years is AFS. those afs pro lens focuses amazingly fast and accurate! I'm no pro level and I could easily tell you that.

If your talking about pre D3 era then yes, I totally agree with you but since the release of the d3/s/x/700 nikon has made a huge come back. Since I know your very tech savvy... Look at the specs and all the tons of review and measurement on the nikon D series and tell me they're wrong.

oldmacman · Jul 28, 2010

JodieO said:
By the way, I would like to see a canon image at 5,000 ISO with a 70-200 lens that even comes close to this...

and this should be ISO 2,000 - not a lick of digital noise. I shoot ISO 2,000 all the time outside at my studio, and have blown images up to 40x60 with no digital noise. Nikon D3/D700 have been wonderful for that. I haven't seen the low light situation matched in Canon yet, although I suspect it will eventually come.

Your shots are terrific. I offer these for comparison only and by no way indicate they are in league with you horse shots.
These ducks were shot hand-held with a 70-200 4L at ISO 6400:

This Alligator was shot hand-held (SOOC), indoors with a 300mm 4L + 1.4x extender at ISO 3200:

This night time shot of Sacre Coeur was shot hand-held with the 24-105 4L at ISO 4000:

I don't even blink setting my ISO as high as 3200. The only time I hesitate is going 6400 or above.

As I stated in a very early post, I think you should stick with Nikon because you already have Nikon gear. As others have pointed out, and as I hope these pics illustrate, Canon or Nikon will provide great pics.

Gaerek · Jul 28, 2010

mrshaleyberg said:
So I would really appreciate some input on this. I currently use a Nikon d60. This was my starter camera. I was looking into getting a D300, but then I started looking at canons.

I love my Nikon, but the D300 is a 12.3 MP when a Canon 7D is 18 MP. The price for a body is around the same. With Nikon are you basically paying this much for the name? Why are they the same price, when one has WAY higher MP? I don't get it. It's almost making me want to switch to Canon. Especially before I start buying a bunch of lenses to use with my Nikon.

What would some of you suggest?

/end derail

So, to answer the OPs actual question, and get out of this ridiculous "MINE IZ BIGGAR THN URSZ!!@!!111" fight, stick with what you have.

I own Canon, and I'm telling you to stick with what you have. The grass isn't greener on the other side of the fence. Pick up a D300, or even a D700 if you can manage it. You will not be disappointed. If you've invested in even just one extra lens, or piece of equipment that won't work with the other brand, it's not worth changing. Your photos won't magically become better, and your photos won't magically be easier to take.

Megapixels really don't matter anymore. For 95% of the user base, 12MP is way more than enough. I would still say that for 75% of the user base, 8MP would be enough. There's more to a camera than pixels, and that should be the last reason to switch brands, unless for some reason you need that extra resolution (which quite honestly, isn't very likely).

canonguy12 · Jul 28, 2010

Gaerek said:
mrshaleyberg said:

So I would really appreciate some input on this. I currently use a Nikon d60. This was my starter camera. I was looking into getting a D300, but then I started looking at canons.

I love my Nikon, but the D300 is a 12.3 MP when a Canon 7D is 18 MP. The price for a body is around the same. With Nikon are you basically paying this much for the name? Why are they the same price, when one has WAY higher MP? I don't get it. It's almost making me want to switch to Canon. Especially before I start buying a bunch of lenses to use with my Nikon.

What would some of you suggest?

Click to expand...

/end derail

So, to answer the OPs actual question, and get out of this ridiculous "MINE IZ BIGGAR THN URSZ!!@!!111" fight, stick with what you have.

I own Canon, and I'm telling you to stick with what you have. The grass isn't greener on the other side of the fence. Pick up a D300, or even a D700 if you can manage it. You will not be disappointed. If you've invested in even just one extra lens, or piece of equipment that won't work with the other brand, it's not worth changing. Your photos won't magically become better, and your photos won't magically be easier to take.

Megapixels really don't matter anymore. For 95% of the user base, 12MP is way more than enough. I would still say that for 75% of the user base, 8MP would be enough. There's more to a camera than pixels, and that should be the last reason to switch brands, unless for some reason you need that extra resolution (which quite honestly, isn't very likely).

+1 :thumbup:

Idahophoto · Jul 28, 2010

canonguy12 said:
Gaerek said:

mrshaleyberg said:

So I would really appreciate some input on this. I currently use a Nikon d60. This was my starter camera. I was looking into getting a D300, but then I started looking at canons.

I love my Nikon, but the D300 is a 12.3 MP when a Canon 7D is 18 MP. The price for a body is around the same. With Nikon are you basically paying this much for the name? Why are they the same price, when one has WAY higher MP? I don't get it. It's almost making me want to switch to Canon. Especially before I start buying a bunch of lenses to use with my Nikon.

What would some of you suggest?

Click to expand...

/end derail

So, to answer the OPs actual question, and get out of this ridiculous "MINE IZ BIGGAR THN URSZ!!@!!111" fight, stick with what you have.

I own Canon, and I'm telling you to stick with what you have. The grass isn't greener on the other side of the fence. Pick up a D300, or even a D700 if you can manage it. You will not be disappointed. If you've invested in even just one extra lens, or piece of equipment that won't work with the other brand, it's not worth changing. Your photos won't magically become better, and your photos won't magically be easier to take.

Megapixels really don't matter anymore. For 95% of the user base, 12MP is way more than enough. I would still say that for 75% of the user base, 8MP would be enough. There's more to a camera than pixels, and that should be the last reason to switch brands, unless for some reason you need that extra resolution (which quite honestly, isn't very likely).

Click to expand...

+1 :thumbup:

I also said earlier. I switched to Canon partly for the more MP and have yet to see it. The 50D is a awesome camera and it does amazing images but are not better than what I had with the Nikon even though it was short 3MP. I know it is 6MP with the &D and I have used it again no real difference in 90% of the shots. If I crop the hell out of a image those extra MP will help a bit more, but I don't do that to much and when I do I only usually crop a small portion. One exception can be see in my Gallery. Not my best work and a bit old, but put them up till I can get more recent stuff together. Have not tried the shot with the 50D yet, I really need to but I don't see it doing any better judging from past shots with it.

It was said by Gaerek, now I'm going to say it. I'm a Canon user and I;m telling you to stick with Nikon. They have awesome cameras that can match or even out do Canon in every area. These two giants have been going at it for years. Yeah one maker might have a better version out for a month or so but then the other brings out a model to top it, then its rinse and repeat. There is no reason to change.