Is there really a difference between Canon and Nikon (regarding price)?

I've been doing a lot of research. It looks like the bodies of each run about the same price as far as getting what you pay for. I've noticed when both Canon and Nikon have a lens that's basically the same, the Canon one is usually slightly less expensive, but the flashes for Canons run more than the Nikons.

Anyway, this is probably a lot of comparison for nothing, but I don't have anything else better to do anyway. Would all of you people say that for comparing them as much as possible, that Canon and Nikon are pretty much neck and neck as far as price/what you get?

 

Yes- we all say that. Thanks for asking. Next question?

 

I've noticed that too, but one thing to consider - Nikon lenses come with a hood, Canon only includes the hood on L lenses. Add the hood and the prices are pretty much the same (seems like the hood typically costs about 10% the price of the lens).

 

Yes- we all say that. Thanks for asking. Next question?

 

Nope- fried already. Thanks for asking.

 

I really wish some of the OGs here who are clicking "View All New Posts" as their way of surfing TPF and replying to anything that comes up that strikes their fancy would pay more attention to what forum they're actually posting in, see that this is the Beginner's forum, and cut people a little slack. This may be an old and tired debate to some of you guys but it's very worthy information to have for Beginners.

Anyways, yes, Canon lenses do tend to be cheaper, especially in the super telephoto range (300mm f/2.8 and up). Sometimes the difference in price is large enough that some Nikon guys will actually go and buy the Canon lens and a Canon body to shoot it with and still come out ahead money wise. A caveat though, and this is just based on what I've heard and the general impression that I've gotten (so not the least bit scientific) is that Nikon stuff "may" tend to be a bit better built so some of the extra expense might be justified, and that Canon "tends to" have more quality control issues on their lenses and even bodies. Some of it is purely economics though too. Canon sells FAR more super telephoto primes than Nikon does due to their hold on the sports market. Since they sell far higher volumes, they can lower the price of these things since they'll make it up on volume. Nikon can't do that and has higher prices here.

One of these days I'm going to get my newbie lens guide together (based on Canon and Nikon systems) and the general pricing differences will be included in that guide.

 

As for price of the SLR bodies, I think Nikon gives the better value.

Lens-wise, I believe Canon has a better selection, but it has been my experience that Nikons glass is better. Oh, I wish Nikon made a 50mm 1.2.

 

I'm a canon user and probably will stay that way. What I've heard is that Nikon kit lenses are a bit better than Canons. Now with 18-55mm IS that canon has they might be evenly matched again but that's what I heard.

Other than that price wise both are pretty same.

 

I see the comment "It's the same as the Ford/Chevy debate" all the time when the Nikon/Cannon comes up. So, I must ask, which one is comparable to a POS Chevy so when I'm in the market for a dSLR, I will know which one not to buy?

 

I dont' like ford or chevy so I drive Volkswagen. Just get what you like the feel of the most.