Well I'm buying a digital camera and well have just about read everything possible on both Canon and Nikon on the web, In fact I've had it with reading reviews that are either so biased or really don't say anything at all.
This is my predicament. I'm looking at a 5D if I go Canon or a D200 if I choose Nikon, FF and APS sensor both have their good and bad points so I'm not favouring one over the other yet.
If I buy a 5D, all I can afford with the cost of the body would be the 17-40 lens, which I see a lot of guys using for landscape so I guess it must be a decent lens. I would get a 8gig card and a couple of extra filters I want. That's the Canon side done.
If I went a D200 I would get the body, vertical grip, Tokina 12-24, Nikon 70-200VR and a 8 Gig card
From what I gather the 5D has cleaner files but I don't shoot over ISO400 ever, I would mainly be 100 or 200ISO.
I also shoot LF film for landscapes but still want a good landscape kit in digital
If you have the money which would you go and why would you go that way.
I have absolutely nothing in either system so I'm not already stuck in one
If I had the money and were not already heavily vested in Nikon I would go with the Canon. I think NIkon does some things better but with the things that are important to me Canon has the edge (In my opinion).
I use a lot of telephoto, Canon telephoto lenses are generally less expensive and of at least equal quality to the Nikon. Canon also has more long glass with IS (VR for Nikon). Just from web observations the Canon 2X appears vastly superior to the Nikon doubler to me. I don't think there is much difference in the 1.4s though. The ff sensor might have some possibilities but that depends upon one's needs.
RP
Posted by Kent Staubus on March 20, 2007 at 9:17 AM
My own philosophy is it's the classic beginner's mistake to put a lot of money into a camera and skimp on lenses. FWIW, I looked at the D80 and D200 for nearly three months. I decided I didn't need mirror lock up so I went for the more compact D80. It was a solid choice. They share many components, including meter, AF cam, and sensor. With the money I saved by NOT buying the D200, I bought more pro fast glass. I have never regretted putting money into glass; I have regretted putting money into cameras. Don't forget that cameras depreciate very fast now, especially compared to lenses. I sold one of the first shots made with the D80 to a national magazine, so I know the image quality meets publication standards.
The lenses you picked for the Nikon are excellent. The 70-200mm f2.8 VR is outstanding and very useful. If you take both your 4x5 and DSLR into the field, the smaller size of the D80 will be nice. It's an easy camera to handle and use in the field. I use it daily.
Kent in SD
Posted by Dan Borzynski on March 20, 2007 at 10:54 AM
I am a Canon guy. I drool merely at the mention of the 5D, and we won't discuss in public my dreams of the 1DsMII.
Go for the Nikon kit you mention. As Kent points out, the glass is more important. I'd rather have the less expensive camera and better lenses than the other way around. Another thing to point out is that since you do a lot of landscape, especially LF, Canon's wide angles are really the weakest point in their lineup. Nikons are supposed to be better, especially in the corners.
What will you lose with the smaller sensor? The 5D will give larger prints vs the Nikon. Not greatly so, but bigger. In any event, once you get outside of the Nikon's print size limitations, you'll be reaching the point where LF really shines, even over the 5D.
If money was a non-issue, flip a coin. Going the Canon route means spending a lot of your budget on the camera rather than the lens, and a lens in one of the weaker areas of Canon's lineup.
I'm actually wondering if it makes sense to re-examine this film-days truism. In the past a good lens will create a good image on a piece of film regardless of the body it happened to be housed in. This is no longer the case. The camera's sensor technology now plays a major role in the quality of the outcome.
I had to face the same choice a while back. Coming from years of using Nikon 35mm cameras I was biased in that direction. I still feel Nikon makes the most ergonomic and well-built bodies and have a list of frustrations with the Canon. I'm also a fan of Nikon glass and the solid construction of their high-end models.
But... Canon is a generation ahead in sensor technology. Their captures are cleaner (even at ISO 100) and the FF size helps keep noise low and dynamic range high and I don't have to worry about my lenses being incompatible with anything down the road.
If image quality is your primary concern, my subjective opinion is that the Canon CMOS sensors are ahead of the Nikon/Sony CCDs. This is not something Nikon can fix by themselves since they rely on Sony to make their sensors and Sony now wants a piece of this market for themselves.
Now if only Canon could get mirror lockup right... and weather sealing... and pro-grade bodies that don't require a mule to carry... and what's up with those stupid custom functions... and...
No easy answer, I'm afraid.
Guy
Posted by Ron Niebrugge on March 20, 2007 at 11:27 AM
I’m very happy with the 5D. I agree, the glass is important and one reason I would lean towards Canon thanks to their range of tilt/shift lenses and the inclusion of IS in their telephoto lenses.
As a side note, don’t discount the advantage of higher usable ISO’s – it can come in very handy.
Good luck wading through all the opinions!
Posted by Kelly Rowe on March 20, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Okay, I'll take a turn. Will you every photograph people? Will you be using a flash system or available light? Nikon's iTTL is worlds ahead of Canon's ETTL II and because of patent issues, will probably stay that way for many years to come. If you're going with available light, I believe Canon has many more IS offerings than Nikon. In the interest of full disclosure, I went the Canon route for the IS and low light capabilities.
Another consideration that no one has mentioned yet... With the FF sensor you have to use higher quality glass or you can get image degradation in the corners at wide open apertures. I would suggest the 16-35 II over the 17-40 for that reason, if you go with the 5D.
I have a D2x (Nikon) with a lot of money in Nikon glass, I find myself wishing I had invested in a Canon for the exact reasons that Guy mentioned above.....
I did a side by side test of a 5D and the D2x, shooting a test target. Both has similar high quality zooms. We looks at the files at 300% in great detail. The 5D gave a better file in terms of both noise and resolution, and the difference was significant. We also threw in the 1ds2. The 1ds2 was the winner in terms of resolution, but not by much over the 5D and was very close in terms of shadow noice (ISO 100). The Nikon lost on all counts. Will you notice the difference in real life? Hell if I know, but this a little more information for your quest.
I shot Nikon film cameras for a long time. I switched to Canon because they made an IS lens that I wanted and I got tired of waiting for Nikon to make a similar VR lens. (Nikon only had one VR lens available at the time.) After I made the switch, I had second thoughts for a long time. My Nikon bodies were soooo nice.
I did a lot of research before I made the plunge. I came to the conclusion that Nikon made better bodies and canon had better lenses. That was a few years ago. It might not apply to the current batch of digital bodies and Nikon has vome a long way with VR.
If one has a lens you need or a body with a particular feature that you must have, well, there's your choice. Both Nikon and Canon are good systems. You won't go wrong either way.
Posted by Kent Staubus on March 20, 2007 at 11:34 PM
Guy--
Here's how I've come to look at the sensor deal. You are right that cameras have become more important now than they once were. To compensate for that I've come to look at cameras in "classes." For example, comparing a Nikon D40's image to one from a Canon 30D is bogus. I'm not sure that comparing a D80/D200 to a 5D is making a "same class" comparision either. I looked very hard at buying a 5D a year ago. My main interest is that I take a lot of night shots, available light. The 5D is clearly better for this than the Nikons. However, I just couldn't justify the cost since the difference is huge, and the magazines don't pay me all that much anyway. And, I absolutely love the Nikon remote wireless flash. It's so cool to be able to simply set a flash down somewhere, point it where you want, and just take the shot.
Kent in SD
Posted by Mel Ladewig on March 21, 2007 at 12:26 PM
I'd say that nikon definitely has the advantage in flash technology and they do better with body ergonomics. Canon simply has more choices for lenses and is ahead on the sensors.
Cost-wise, I wouldn't say Canon is cheaper than Nikon for lenses. One might be cheaper than the other for a particular lens, but overall, I'd say they are about the same. Canon has increased the price significantly on recent lenses, so it may not be long before Nikon is a little cheaper. Canon does have more IS choices thatn Nikon has VR and I really like what IS gives me on the one IS lens I own. I would buy more IS lenses in the future if my budget allowed for it.
I'm also of the glass is better than bodies mindset. I bought a Rebel XT and put the savings over a 20D into buying more/better glass. There wasn't a measurable difference between the image quality of the 20D and XT that would make a difference in my photography. There are things I would like better about the 20D/30D, but the XT gets the job done. I know I'll move up from the XT to something else in the future, maybe the 5D or its replacement.
Kent, I guess that depends on how you define your classes. You can categorize by cost which will set them apart, or you can categorize by resolution, technology, body style, anticipated usage type etc. which in many cases will put them in the same class.
There's no denying the cost difference, the question is whether the added value justifies it. For some it will, and for others it won't. If I were making images exclusively for magazines I don't think the value would be worth it, but planning to make large prints changes my decision criteria.
Guy
Posted by Kent Staubus on March 21, 2007 at 10:53 PM
No one has mentioned your plan to get an 8 gig memory card. I have had a card fail - once. So I have a large supply of 1 gig cards. They are economical and easy to tote, especially compared to film! My newest digital body creates rather large files, so I am only getting about 60 RAW images per card, but I don't plan to get cards with more capacity.
I am an amateur, so this is just my one cent worth.
Good luck with the new system, whichever you choose. Once you are used to it, you will love it.
Discussion
15 repliesThis is my predicament. I'm looking at a 5D if I go Canon or a D200 if I choose Nikon, FF and APS sensor both have their good and bad points so I'm not favouring one over the other yet.
If I buy a 5D, all I can afford with the cost of the body would be the 17-40 lens, which I see a lot of guys using for landscape so I guess it must be a decent lens. I would get a 8gig card and a couple of extra filters I want. That's the Canon side done.
If I went a D200 I would get the body, vertical grip, Tokina 12-24, Nikon 70-200VR and a 8 Gig card
From what I gather the 5D has cleaner files but I don't shoot over ISO400 ever, I would mainly be 100 or 200ISO.
I also shoot LF film for landscapes but still want a good landscape kit in digital
If you have the money which would you go and why would you go that way.
I have absolutely nothing in either system so I'm not already stuck in one
Thanks
I use a lot of telephoto, Canon telephoto lenses are generally less expensive and of at least equal quality to the Nikon. Canon also has more long glass with IS (VR for Nikon). Just from web observations the Canon 2X appears vastly superior to the Nikon doubler to me. I don't think there is much difference in the 1.4s though. The ff sensor might have some possibilities but that depends upon one's needs.
RP
The lenses you picked for the Nikon are excellent. The 70-200mm f2.8 VR is outstanding and very useful. If you take both your 4x5 and DSLR into the field, the smaller size of the D80 will be nice. It's an easy camera to handle and use in the field. I use it daily.
Kent in SD
Go for the Nikon kit you mention. As Kent points out, the glass is more important. I'd rather have the less expensive camera and better lenses than the other way around. Another thing to point out is that since you do a lot of landscape, especially LF, Canon's wide angles are really the weakest point in their lineup. Nikons are supposed to be better, especially in the corners.
What will you lose with the smaller sensor? The 5D will give larger prints vs the Nikon. Not greatly so, but bigger. In any event, once you get outside of the Nikon's print size limitations, you'll be reaching the point where LF really shines, even over the 5D.
If money was a non-issue, flip a coin. Going the Canon route means spending a lot of your budget on the camera rather than the lens, and a lens in one of the weaker areas of Canon's lineup.
I'm actually wondering if it makes sense to re-examine this film-days truism. In the past a good lens will create a good image on a piece of film regardless of the body it happened to be housed in. This is no longer the case. The camera's sensor technology now plays a major role in the quality of the outcome.
I had to face the same choice a while back. Coming from years of using Nikon 35mm cameras I was biased in that direction. I still feel Nikon makes the most ergonomic and well-built bodies and have a list of frustrations with the Canon. I'm also a fan of Nikon glass and the solid construction of their high-end models.
But... Canon is a generation ahead in sensor technology. Their captures are cleaner (even at ISO 100) and the FF size helps keep noise low and dynamic range high and I don't have to worry about my lenses being incompatible with anything down the road.
If image quality is your primary concern, my subjective opinion is that the Canon CMOS sensors are ahead of the Nikon/Sony CCDs. This is not something Nikon can fix by themselves since they rely on Sony to make their sensors and Sony now wants a piece of this market for themselves.
Now if only Canon could get mirror lockup right... and weather sealing... and pro-grade bodies that don't require a mule to carry... and what's up with those stupid custom functions... and...
No easy answer, I'm afraid.
Guy
As a side note, don’t discount the advantage of higher usable ISO’s – it can come in very handy.
Good luck wading through all the opinions!
Another consideration that no one has mentioned yet... With the FF sensor you have to use higher quality glass or you can get image degradation in the corners at wide open apertures. I would suggest the 16-35 II over the 17-40 for that reason, if you go with the 5D.
I shot Nikon film cameras for a long time. I switched to Canon because they made an IS lens that I wanted and I got tired of waiting for Nikon to make a similar VR lens. (Nikon only had one VR lens available at the time.) After I made the switch, I had second thoughts for a long time. My Nikon bodies were soooo nice.
I did a lot of research before I made the plunge. I came to the conclusion that Nikon made better bodies and canon had better lenses. That was a few years ago. It might not apply to the current batch of digital bodies and Nikon has vome a long way with VR.
If one has a lens you need or a body with a particular feature that you must have, well, there's your choice. Both Nikon and Canon are good systems. You won't go wrong either way.
Here's how I've come to look at the sensor deal. You are right that cameras have become more important now than they once were. To compensate for that I've come to look at cameras in "classes." For example, comparing a Nikon D40's image to one from a Canon 30D is bogus. I'm not sure that comparing a D80/D200 to a 5D is making a "same class" comparision either. I looked very hard at buying a 5D a year ago. My main interest is that I take a lot of night shots, available light. The 5D is clearly better for this than the Nikons. However, I just couldn't justify the cost since the difference is huge, and the magazines don't pay me all that much anyway. And, I absolutely love the Nikon remote wireless flash. It's so cool to be able to simply set a flash down somewhere, point it where you want, and just take the shot.
Kent in SD
Cost-wise, I wouldn't say Canon is cheaper than Nikon for lenses. One might be cheaper than the other for a particular lens, but overall, I'd say they are about the same. Canon has increased the price significantly on recent lenses, so it may not be long before Nikon is a little cheaper. Canon does have more IS choices thatn Nikon has VR and I really like what IS gives me on the one IS lens I own. I would buy more IS lenses in the future if my budget allowed for it.
I'm also of the glass is better than bodies mindset. I bought a Rebel XT and put the savings over a 20D into buying more/better glass. There wasn't a measurable difference between the image quality of the 20D and XT that would make a difference in my photography. There are things I would like better about the 20D/30D, but the XT gets the job done. I know I'll move up from the XT to something else in the future, maybe the 5D or its replacement.
There's no denying the cost difference, the question is whether the added value justifies it. For some it will, and for others it won't. If I were making images exclusively for magazines I don't think the value would be worth it, but planning to make large prints changes my decision criteria.
Guy
You summed it up nicely..
Kent
I am an amateur, so this is just my one cent worth.
Good luck with the new system, whichever you choose. Once you are used to it, you will love it.