Nikon vs Canon

Hi All,

There is something that I have trying to get to the bottom of and I would be interested in your honest views on the subject of Nikon vs Canon please.

I use Nikon equipment but notice that a lot of professionals use Canon. Do you think that is to do with quality, value, weight or is there another reason?

Which do you prefer and why?

Thanks, Kind regards Chris.

Chris,

I'd say quality,value and weight are three things that have probably least relevance on your chosen system.

I guess a lot of it really stems from what system you first bought into, as once a collection of bodies,lenses and associated accessories has been assembled the cost of replacing everything would be extremely high.I guess also,to some extent, you become acustomed to that particular system,i.e. it's layout,it's handling,etc.

I believe one of the reasons why Canon seems so popular,at least amongst wildlife photographers,is because of the advantages that Image Stabilizer technology brings to the big telephoto's,i.e. the 500mm and 600mm's.

Personally I feel the brand is totally immaterial to the end result.
It's the passion,imagination,subject knowledge,skill,etc,etc that the photographer has that is far,far more important than which brand of equipment that is used.
Any modern system is capable of superb results if in capable hands.

Hmm its a tough question. I think it just depends on what gear suits your style of shooting.

I began with a battered EOS 650 in 1996, then left it all at college. Then got back into it after university. Got some kodak P+S then an Olympus E-20 then a Canon D60. I stayed with Canon until the 20D, and had a number of L's etc. I changed to Olympus and then moved to Nikon. I'm now pretty firm on nikon, Good upgrade body in the D2X and plenty of lenses. IS/VR isnt a huge thing to me, a good tpod is enough.

If i had the funds again and starting from scratch, i think i'd stick with nikon. Canons are good but something about them always grated after the D60.

In short both are good but it just depends on which has the best setup for your needs... then again both fit the sigma 800mm :)

If Nikon or anyone else brought out a system that delivered better results, the Pros would switch to it in a heartbeat. Does that answer your question?

I'm not going to argue but i can list off a load of Nikon pros... Which means that they have "a system that delivered better results"...

I owned Nikon and moved to Canon because of an unfortunate incident and for me the decision wasn't based upon the Camera body; it was based on the fact that I, frequently, handhold long telephotos and Nikon don't do IS in a 500mm.

In retrospect, I am glad I moved as Canon appear to set the pace, Nikon appear to consolidate it with a later product which is consequently cheaper for a similar spec. For example the 1Ds2 has been out now for 1.5years and Nikon don't have an equivalent Mega Pixel Camera as yet.

That said, when you buy in... you buy in. The cost of glass will keep most locked in.

Anyway, doesn't the photographer count more than the camera...

Being a Nikon user all I can say is my cost on gear is very minimal because Nikon seldom upgrade to different spec cameras.

How many model upgrades have Canon brought out & have out at present in comparison to Nikon, lets say over the past 3 years, would be interesting to know

Other issues surely are just as important as the species of Camera/Glass, example the computer type needed, the programs used together with computer skills to enhance the image that has been taken, then there are issues regarding a good monitor to view the finish result at its best. Imagine if Nikon & Canon brought out computers & monitors

Hi,

Interesting topic.

I use Canon because that is what I have used since childhood, and just progressed/upgraded over the years. No specific reason other than that.

Nikon obviously make quality gear, but it's like either owning a Ferrari or a Lambo, personal choice I think.

Regards

Rob

Hmm mid 2002-mid 2006 3 years would be...
Canon:
30D 5D 1DIIN 350D 1DSII 20D 1DII 300D 10D 1DS

Nikon:
D80 D2XS D200 D70S D50 D2HS D2X D70 D2H

Pretty close...

Hi Chris

I'm a Canon user but I would say that most of Nikon's gear is on a par with Canon. The two key areas where at present they don't compete are those Tom pointed out 1) they don't have an IS lens above 400mm 2) No 16mb camera or full sized sensor.

David

It as always been mentioned in the brand war that Nikon users are old with beards & slippers, if this is the case shouldn't Canon have sold the IS system to Nikon for its users

For the IS system how many canon user actually use this when tripod mounted? & how many actually need it because they suffer with the shakes lol. Sorry I couldn't help myself lol

Please ignore me

Sensor size has less meaning than it used to, with WA lenses like the sigma 10-20mm "APS" can do wide, and if anything for what we do crop is better for the reduced FOV!

Also as 35mm is really legacy, when people say of its not a full frame sensor i thick they should buy medium format... its "fuller frame than full frame"

I think nikon do have an "ACE Card" with the 200-400 f4 VR though. Its a dream lens though for the prices they sell for.

Hey Vincent, did you know that canon have to pay royalties to nikon for IS :) they have the patent

Didn't know that So Nikon did design it for us oldies Ain't they thoughtful

Hi Chris

I thought I had logged into DPReview for a moment

I think Canon grabbed a big slice of the pro market several years ago with their telephoto IS lenses. Nikon was slow to catch up in this area and as Paul points out Nikon actually have to licence IS technology from Canon. I have also read on the web (so may or may not be true) that Canon refuse to let Nikon use IS technology in lenses longer than 400mm just so Canon can keep an edge in this area.

Most sports photographers use Canon because of the IS in lenses like the 400 2.8, 300 2.8 etc. They are running around all day using monopods and too lazy to hold the lens steady.

Also Canon's AutoFocus system seems to have the edge over Nikon based on any objective comparsion articles I have ever read which is also a factor for sports photographers.

But if you talk to a lot of wedding/portrait/press photographers they all prefer Nikon because of better handling and the Nikon iTTL flash system was/is regarded as better than Canon's ETTL.

Canon is a much bigger company than Nikon so is able to throw huge amounts of money at marketing, R&D, and buttering up pro photographers.

For wildlife photographers probably the ideal combination at the moment would be the Nikon D2x with the Canon 500 or 600 F4 L. If only someone would make a suitable lens adaptor


The reality is that both Nikon and Canon make superb camera equipment and it is down to the photographer to make the most of the gear.

That's my 2 penneth........ time for tea......

cheers

Sean

Most sports photographers use Canon because of the IS in lenses like the 400 2.8, 300 2.8 etc. They are running around all day using monopods and too lazy to hold the lens steady

I'm neither lazy nor reliant on IS for my tele sports shots and the only reason I use a monopod on the long lenses is to give my arms a rest between shots. I sold a 400/2.8 IS lens earlier this year simply because it was too heavy for what I wanted it for, favouring instead a 500mm.....price had more to do with buying the non IS one, I'm not gonna pay 2x as much to get IS, something I NEVER use on any of my lenses when I'm shooting sports....shinty, football, rugby, superbikes or karts. Most pro sports togs I know hardly ever use IS as it slows down the focus response enough to notice and doesn't make any difference when shooting fast moving subjects.
One of the reasons that so many pro sports folks use Canon gear is that they have been introduced to it through advertising from the start of their career. Look at the sidelines of any football game and you'll see plenty of white lenses, synonymous with the Canon brand, they are instantly recognisable. How many would be sports togs look at the sidelines and say "yep, that black lens is a Nikon, Minolta, Sigma" not many, but as soon as they see the white one they just know that it's a Canon....good advertising, marketing and a great CPS make canon a brand on the move at the moment, the product's not too bad either, but not really any better or worse than the opposition.
Hoover held the same position with vacumn cleaners for years, so much so that most folks called vacumns "Hoovers" for years......their product was no better or worse than the opposition's, just they could market it better .
Canon v Nikon is a debate that both companies love, simply because it dismisses the other brands as if they weren't even contenders.

I shoot Canon BTW. Because I think they're cr*p. As if
Not many ppl will spend thousands on a system and then tell you they think that system is rubbish.....except maybe Rene

John

Wll put John

Canon v Nikon is a debate that both companies love, simply because it dismisses the other brands as if they weren't even contenders.

How true!

What happen Fuji, Pentax, Olympus, Rollei, Mamiya, Minolta, Alpa, Bronica, Kodak, Olympus etc ... they all made good 35mm SLR's ( Olympus OM3 - a venerable classic among mountaineers - or even the grail of a OM3Ti ) but sadly they appear to be lagging somewhat behind the digital SLR pace. Not good for them - nor us; especially if Nikon and Canon could ever agree on a 'pricing' arrangement

Who gives a .... what name is on the can.

You buy what you buy because *you* like the handling/feel of the gear, and it does the job for you. If it didn't, then you'd soon move on.

ROFLOL Nick, If canon can so can nik can or vice versus, Its a box that clicks loudly & scares the dam birds off, might look at Phils idea, get into the water with camera submerged slightly to hide clicking sound from nearby Oystercathers.

That is one hell of a Oystercatcher image

I agree tom, i love Oly gear, the E-1 is a fantastic camera to use, i cannot enthuse enough for that camera. The Zuiko 50-200 is also a fantastic lens which with the stealthy E-1 makes for fantastic shots. If Olympus could make a E-1 replacement with a sensor like the 1DII but sharper i'd change in the heart beat.