Is Canon really that much better?

[panocho]

. but collectively yes because Canon has a larger system with cameras that Nikon doesn't touch.

I don't think that this can be called "better than". They do touch certain fields in which Nikon doesn't work, but that is not "better", nor "worse". By the same token, it could also be argued that Nikon is "better" precisely because they have a smaller system, i.e., they focus better exclusively on that which they touch. Everybody knows that the narrower your working field, the most professional you become at it...

...now this is obviously a false statement. And so is the other one, I believe. The one works in a larger field, the other in a smaller one. None of this makes either better.
Is Fuji better because they also make film? And Sony the best of all, since they make TV's, hi-fi systems, etc? Well, they make more things, but that is not better -nor worse.

 

[Seefutlung]

I don't think that this can be called "better than". They do touch certain fields in which Nikon doesn't work, but that is not "better", nor "worse". By the same token, it could also be argued that Nikon is "better" precisely because they have a smaller system, i.e., they focus better exclusively on that which they touch. Everybody knows that the narrower your working field, the most professional you become at it...

...now this is obviously a false statement. And so is the other one, I believe. The one works in a larger field, the other in a smaller one. None of this makes either better.
Is Fuji better because they also make film? And Sony the best of all, since they make TV's, hi-fi systems, etc? Well, they make more things, but that is not better -nor worse.

We are talking digital cameras ... and yes, Canon, with their system wide ability to move (or start) on so many different and unique platforms and levels, makes Canon better than Nikon, which in comparison, hasn't as many levels or unique cameras. Once again, In my opinion, collectively Canon is better, individually, no brand is head and shoulders above the other.

 

[Mike_E]

My Nikon takes far better photos than my Canon.
I don't have a Canon.
Until I can take better photos than my Nikon is capable of then what's the point of wanting better or even different? I'm tall enough to reach all of the buttons in the elevator and all my other parts will reach whatever they need to as well, so who needs the end all be all of cameras? Not that I'm accusing anyone of any deficiencies but really, if you are that good a photographer clue the rest of us in on how to better use what we already have.

mike

 

[Christobal65]

If any one brand really was that much better then the inferior company would basically fall off into nothing. For the better part of 35mm photography's existence Nikon was the 'Professional' brand right up until they made the mistake of not taking auto focus seriously.

Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages. Nikon still hasnt figured out the top end of the market and brought out proper competition to the 1D series. Canon still hasnt figured out the entry level pro market, they have nothing to compete with the D200 (30D is as close as it gets but its more accurately compared with the D80). Nikon is strongly attacking the bottom end of the market first with the D50 and now with the D40 and D40x. In my opinion Canon has a quality of materials issue their cameras feel cheap (i know they aren't) unless you are willing to spend over 1700 for a body. Nikon builds their cameras with materials that feel far superior to those of Canon. (I cannot speak above the D200/30D level cause i have limited experience with cameras that are higher in the market.)

When i was shopping for my DSLR over 2 years ago I had my heart set on a Rebel XTi...right up until i put my hands on it. It just didnt seem to fit my hand and the materials just didnt seem to stack up. Then it was pointed out to me that the D70 (what i ended up buying) had basically all the similar features of the Canon 20D for the same price and a nice lens to go with it.