I'm relatively new to landscape photography but while looking at the gear most top pros use I see it is almost all Canon. I have a Nikon D700 with 2 pro lenses (24-70 f/2.8 and 700-200 f/2.8). Did I miss the boat by not going Canon??? I know it is not the gear but still looking to understand why.
I'm a Canon user (although back in the 80's and 70's I shot with Nikon) and I say no you aren't missing much. Not that I'd switch backto Nikon at this point, I love my Canon gear and it serves me well. The truth is that these two companies trade technological edges, and have for decades. I think that at this point in time Nikon has an edge on bodies and with the 200-400 f/4 lens but for over all lens line-up (and some might say but I don't want to get into a flame war -glass) Canon holds an edge at this point. IMO the companies are well balanced and like you said it's not the gear. I know that there are those out there who will disagree with me but that's their point of view. You've got top notch gear it looks like go use it, enjoy it and make some amazing images with it and don't dwell on what the saturation is in the grass on the other side of the fence
I'm a committed Nikon user and I would tend to agree with much of what Hali has said - Nikon and Canon tend to leap-frog one another in terms of who's the current leader. One thing I'll mention that I have heard repeatedly from Canon users (but have no experience with myself): apparently Canon lacks - or has some missing - premium quality wide angle and/or wide angle zooms in their lineup. Please note that I am only parroting what others have told me here...it's not my claim. Interestingly, Hali says "Canon holds an edge at this point" (in terms of lenses) - I would have said the exact reverse! But this is more of an opinion than established fact.
As a nature photography who shoots primarily wildlife (with only a little landscape work thrown in), I can say that either Canon or Nikon could easily meet my needs. I have tried/tested "other" brands (that shall remain nameless) and will say just this: only Canon or Nikon meet my needs.
Cheers...
Brad
PS: It's been said so many times that's it become almost a truism, but I think it's still valid: stick with your lens investment...
I agree with Hali and also believe that both companies are equal in quality and take turns holding the top spot with particular products. Perhaps one reason that Canon has been preferred by landscape photographers was Nikon's reluctance to produce a camera with a full-frame sensor. That may have given Canon a head start by getting people invested in Canon glass, which in turn makes swapping brands an expensive prospect.
One thing I meant to mention in my previous post - unfortunately, while the 70-200 lens you refer to works exceptionally well with cropped sensor (DX) bodies, its performance with Nikon's full-frame (FX) bodies is less than stellar. I experienced this myself and it is well-documented in many reviews, as for example, here:
I used a Nikon N80 for years because I liked the look of Nikon with film, however, I recently switched to digital and went with Canon mainly because I could get a quality camera with a couple high quality lenses (Nikon didn't have a wide angle like the 17-40 for that price) for much less than Nikon. I'm wondering if a lot of people who use Canon digital have done it because of cost. Plus, as said above, the 5D and now the 5DII are amazing cameras for the price.
Once you've got a few lenses in one brand, flipflopping between the two lines can get get really expensive. Been there, done that, didn't even get the T-shirt. If for some reason I lost all my gear and had to replace it, then it would be a tough choice between them. But factoring in the world-class beating you would take in selling your current gear used, there's simply not enough difference between them to justify the cost.
Hank has a point...it looks like you have some great lenses which in the end is the most important thing. I switched over because my Nikon lenses were disappointing me (they weren't high end Nikon lenses) and I knew I needed better lenses...and the Canon price point was more agreeable. I've been told that Canon is a bigger company and has more money to play with so it can offer more variety and lower prices. I wouldn't sweat it, you've got a good set up...it would be nice to have some f2.8 lenses. :)
It's all about the glass, and the kind of shooting you are doing. Some are best served by Nikon's offerings, others by Canon's. Bodies will continue to be updated with newer, better, faster, more feature-laden, lighter, etc versions. But good glass tends to remain consistent. Some lens formulas have been around for a decade or more. There is not a lot of difference between them otherwise. So unless you have a very specific need that is met by one or the other, you can't go wrong.
With that said, Nikon is really good at making really cheap lenses that produce exceptional results, while Canon's non-L glass tends to be on par with cheap third party gear. Not to disparage some of the classics and well-regarded offerings from Tamron, Sigma or Tokina, but quality control, image quality, build quality etc really suffers on the cheap Canon glass. Nikon's cheap glass is not necessarily going to last as long as their pro glass, but generally speaking it does consistently produce good images. No dust sealing, plastic lens mount, focusing and zoom helicoids that still when new and will wear and get loose with time - this is what you get with a cheaper lens. However it is hard to beat a lens like the 70-300 4.5-5.6 for the money, for instance.
Hi Glenn,
I am a Canon user and Just about a year or so ago, I was seriously considering switching to Nikon, but didnt go through for exactly the same reasons mentioned by people above. One of my biggest caveats at that time was the LCD screen quality and other little factors that was much better in Nikon, till Canon stepped up to par with the 50D (in comparison to D300, D300 was miles ahead of 40D). That said though, with the switch, the same lenses in Nikon would have been touch more expensive for me, and biggest of all the 300/4 in Nikon didnt have a VR, while the canon model had the IS.
But at the end of it all, few of my friends, along with me, who all are D-SLR users, are equally split between Canon and Nikon and if in the beginning, if I had gone the Nikon way, I wouldn't have turned to Canon then, just as I wont turn to Nikon now.
Once you have established a lens line-up, stick with it, you can get quality lenses in either brand, and either is definitely not a wrong choice!
Cheers!
P.S- I would definitely consider some of the third party lenses (Tamron, Tokina and Sigma, but the huge caveat there is the lack (or very minimal choices) of IS/VR equivalent!
I just wish Sigma would release a Sigma 120-300/2.8 with OS *sighhh*... sorry for the OT wish!
Another thing which hasn't been mentioned is Canon's IS. When it first came out, it was a huge jump up for iffy situations (handheld telephotos in poorly lit sports arenas come to mind). There were very practical reasons for going to Canon if your livelihood depending on your gear *and* IS would be useful. Nikon has pretty much closed that gap now.
From a practical standpoint, though, there really is no net difference between the two lines. Canon has its strengths and weaknesses, as does Nikon. The decision between brands should be based on
- What are your needs?
- Which manufacturer best meets them?
Beyond that, you really can't go seriously wrong with either brand.
Thanks all! Much of what you said is what I expected to hear. The one unanswered question that I had in my mind is whether or not Canon just offered better image quality for the non-nature landscape photographer. Also, thanks Brad for your insight! It was your website that got me back in the photo hobby to begin with. You're my hero! My spouse keeps telling me to sell all my high-end graphite flyrods and stop chasing marlin with them to pay for this latest addiction! She just doesn't understand!
Not to restart a debate, but I read about all the issues about the 700-200 on the FX sensor and mine has been little to no issue. One stop down and vignette control on high and no noticeable problems even when taking blue sky and white wall shots. Even wide-open for most of my shots I never notice.
Oh, the other reason I asked my question is that I have the 200-400 f/4 on my buy list and looking on the wide end either with the 14-24 or 17-35. Wanted to switch now before I had completely gone over the edge. Now if Nikon would come out with a D700x 24MP camera at the 5D Mk II price point I would be in heaven!
Thanks all! Much of what you said is what I expected to hear. The one unanswered question that I had in my mind is whether or not Canon just offered better image quality for the non-nature landscape photographer. Also, thanks Brad for your insight! It was your website that got me back in the photo hobby to begin with. You're my hero! My spouse keeps telling me to sell all my high-end graphite flyrods and stop chasing marlin with them to pay for this latest addiction! She just doesn't understand!
Not to restart a debate, but I read about all the issues about the 700-200 on the FX sensor and mine has been little to no issue. One stop down and vignette control on high and no noticeable problems even when taking blue sky and white wall shots. Even wide-open for most of my shots I never notice.
Oh, the other reason I asked my question is that I have the 200-400 f/4 on my buy list and looking on the wide end either with the 14-24 or 17-35. Wanted to switch now before I had completely gone over the edge. Now if Nikon would come out with a D700x 24MP camera at the 5D Mk II price point I would be in heaven!
Thanks all! Much of what you said is what I expected to hear. The one unanswered question that I had in my mind is whether or not Canon just offered better image quality for the non-nature landscape photographer. Also, thanks Brad for your insight! It was your website that got me back in the photo hobby to begin with. You're my hero! My spouse keeps telling me to sell all my high-end graphite flyrods and stop chasing marlin with them to pay for this latest addiction! She just doesn't understand!
Not to restart a debate, but I read about all the issues about the 700-200 on the FX sensor and mine has been little to no issue. One stop down and vignette control on high and no noticeable problems even when taking blue sky and white wall shots. Even wide-open for most of my shots I never notice.
Oh, the other reason I asked my question is that I have the 200-400 f/4 on my buy list and looking on the wide end either with the 14-24 or 17-35. Wanted to switch now before I had completely gone over the edge. Now if Nikon would come out with a D700x 24MP camera at the 5D Mk II price point I would be in heaven!
Geez, thanks for your kind words - caught me totally by surprise! Glad to hear your 70-200 is causing you no grief and is working well. Unfortunately mine didn't perform well on my D3 or D700 so I ended up selling it and am now waiting not-so-patiently for Nikon to release the updated version...
RE: 24 MP D700x. Can you hold on until the fall? I won't say anything else...except don't expect it to be at the 5D MkII price...
Brad, heard rumors to that effect. Yeah, with Nikon's last cost increase during a recession I figured the new body would be more than the 5D MkII. Once I get the 200-400 my 15 yr old daughter told me she will take my 70-200, and my D80, as her own camera to use when we go out together. Something wrong with that picture, no pun intended. What my real dream would be is to go with the 200 f/2! I truly am nuts!
I like Canon's digital cameras - I am on my third one now. Altho when I bought it, a Tamron lens was put on it, not sure why, but I like it just fine. I photograph nature and dogs, so maybe the wide angle was the reasoning. I like my Canons! Not the 35mm tho, something wrong with the rewind mechanisms. I lost several rolls of film to that. Nope, no more 110's or 35mm for me. Digital all the way!
Holding breath for the 24mp D700x? Well, don't turn blue! Hope it will come out better than the D3x which has folks so mad. OVERpriced and stripped down in certain feature areas. But did I say overpriced? Maybe Nikon has learned from a huge mistake with the D3x and will produce a much better D700x for not such an outrageous price.
All that aside, I love and use Nikon. Canon is obviously no slouch! I currently use a D700 and D200. My personal museum has a Nikon EM, FE, N90s,and an F5 in it. All lenses I used on those cameras will work with my D700 and D200. Lenses in the Canon line from comparable years to my old cameras will not work with the new Canon bodies. So, you can buy some darn good old Nikon glass cheaply and still use them (full frame even) with your D700 with a little effort to tell the D700 what lens specs you are using. That is a huge plus in the Nikon house that I did not see mentioned above. Ditto what was said earlier, once you have an investment in glass, you probably won't turn back - without a huge loss. Enjoy your Nikon. It's the photographer that makes the images. And btw, the glass and camera have no idea what you are aiming at! (well ok, the body kinda does because of all the data loaded for the computer to use blah blah blah - I digress!)
Troup
Posted by Todd Liotine on July 10, 2009 at 11:34 PM
I was a Contax film user, then Nikon digital with the D70. I switched to Canon mainly for the 5D, at the time Nikon didn't have anything that could compete especially at the price coupled with the 17-40L. I primarily shoot landscape. Second was the choice of lenses the F4L series is perfect for me-quality glass, IS, weather sealing, at a great price. In addition canon offered tilt shift lenses (this was well before Nikon announced their tilt shift series). I purchased the 24 for $850. At this point Canon or Nikon would suit my needs albeit Nikon at a much higher cost. I would love for Canon to come out with a 200-400 eqv.
What were the tests that you used to come to the final decision. I have an investment in Nikon but not overly so. One thing I have heard in this forum question is that Nikon costs more and Canon has a wider lens selection, with I believe the L Series being on par with the Nikon Pro. Nikon appears to have the lead in the bodies but that can always change and Canon can be in the lead down the road when my current bodies are obsolete. Besides, more than a little miff'd at the $8K D3x and the 20% price increase on the glass in Feb 09.
Glenn
Posted by Nat Coalson on July 13, 2009 at 12:19 AM
I like Canon better, because I get more for my money.
Posted by Fred Stearns on July 13, 2009 at 10:33 PM
I consider the choice of camera to be a very personal decision. Nikon and Canon are always leapfrogging each other. That is good as it means that we are getting the best technology. Why is the decision personal? Very simple. I have had many items that I did not use or dropped out of that area because I made the decision based on things that don't matter. Choose the top two or three camera brands and go to your local camera store. Try handling them, take pictures, check out the adjustments, play around with the adjustments through the menus. One of the cameras will come out as more intuitive for you. That is the one that you should buy. It will fit your hands and be the most intuitive for you to use. That means that you will use it and become a better photographer. Just remember that there are published photographs made by using a PHD (that is "Point Here Dummy") camera.
Discussion
22 repliesI'm a committed Nikon user and I would tend to agree with much of what Hali has said - Nikon and Canon tend to leap-frog one another in terms of who's the current leader. One thing I'll mention that I have heard repeatedly from Canon users (but have no experience with myself): apparently Canon lacks - or has some missing - premium quality wide angle and/or wide angle zooms in their lineup. Please note that I am only parroting what others have told me here...it's not my claim. Interestingly, Hali says "Canon holds an edge at this point" (in terms of lenses) - I would have said the exact reverse! But this is more of an opinion than established fact.
As a nature photography who shoots primarily wildlife (with only a little landscape work thrown in), I can say that either Canon or Nikon could easily meet my needs. I have tried/tested "other" brands (that shall remain nameless) and will say just this: only Canon or Nikon meet my needs.
Cheers...
Brad
PS: It's been said so many times that's it become almost a truism, but I think it's still valid: stick with your lens investment...
One thing I meant to mention in my previous post - unfortunately, while the 70-200 lens you refer to works exceptionally well with cropped sensor (DX) bodies, its performance with Nikon's full-frame (FX) bodies is less than stellar. I experienced this myself and it is well-documented in many reviews, as for example, here:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_03.html#AFS70-200VR
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news...
Brad
With that said, Nikon is really good at making really cheap lenses that produce exceptional results, while Canon's non-L glass tends to be on par with cheap third party gear. Not to disparage some of the classics and well-regarded offerings from Tamron, Sigma or Tokina, but quality control, image quality, build quality etc really suffers on the cheap Canon glass. Nikon's cheap glass is not necessarily going to last as long as their pro glass, but generally speaking it does consistently produce good images. No dust sealing, plastic lens mount, focusing and zoom helicoids that still when new and will wear and get loose with time - this is what you get with a cheaper lens. However it is hard to beat a lens like the 70-300 4.5-5.6 for the money, for instance.
I am a Canon user and Just about a year or so ago, I was seriously considering switching to Nikon, but didnt go through for exactly the same reasons mentioned by people above. One of my biggest caveats at that time was the LCD screen quality and other little factors that was much better in Nikon, till Canon stepped up to par with the 50D (in comparison to D300, D300 was miles ahead of 40D). That said though, with the switch, the same lenses in Nikon would have been touch more expensive for me, and biggest of all the 300/4 in Nikon didnt have a VR, while the canon model had the IS.
But at the end of it all, few of my friends, along with me, who all are D-SLR users, are equally split between Canon and Nikon and if in the beginning, if I had gone the Nikon way, I wouldn't have turned to Canon then, just as I wont turn to Nikon now.
Once you have established a lens line-up, stick with it, you can get quality lenses in either brand, and either is definitely not a wrong choice!
Cheers!
P.S- I would definitely consider some of the third party lenses (Tamron, Tokina and Sigma, but the huge caveat there is the lack (or very minimal choices) of IS/VR equivalent!
I just wish Sigma would release a Sigma 120-300/2.8 with OS *sighhh*... sorry for the OT wish!
From a practical standpoint, though, there really is no net difference between the two lines. Canon has its strengths and weaknesses, as does Nikon. The decision between brands should be based on
- What are your needs?
- Which manufacturer best meets them?
Beyond that, you really can't go seriously wrong with either brand.
Not to restart a debate, but I read about all the issues about the 700-200 on the FX sensor and mine has been little to no issue. One stop down and vignette control on high and no noticeable problems even when taking blue sky and white wall shots. Even wide-open for most of my shots I never notice.
Oh, the other reason I asked my question is that I have the 200-400 f/4 on my buy list and looking on the wide end either with the 14-24 or 17-35. Wanted to switch now before I had completely gone over the edge. Now if Nikon would come out with a D700x 24MP camera at the 5D Mk II price point I would be in heaven!
Not to restart a debate, but I read about all the issues about the 700-200 on the FX sensor and mine has been little to no issue. One stop down and vignette control on high and no noticeable problems even when taking blue sky and white wall shots. Even wide-open for most of my shots I never notice.
Oh, the other reason I asked my question is that I have the 200-400 f/4 on my buy list and looking on the wide end either with the 14-24 or 17-35. Wanted to switch now before I had completely gone over the edge. Now if Nikon would come out with a D700x 24MP camera at the 5D Mk II price point I would be in heaven!
Not to restart a debate, but I read about all the issues about the 700-200 on the FX sensor and mine has been little to no issue. One stop down and vignette control on high and no noticeable problems even when taking blue sky and white wall shots. Even wide-open for most of my shots I never notice.
Oh, the other reason I asked my question is that I have the 200-400 f/4 on my buy list and looking on the wide end either with the 14-24 or 17-35. Wanted to switch now before I had completely gone over the edge. Now if Nikon would come out with a D700x 24MP camera at the 5D Mk II price point I would be in heaven!
Geez, thanks for your kind words - caught me totally by surprise! Glad to hear your 70-200 is causing you no grief and is working well. Unfortunately mine didn't perform well on my D3 or D700 so I ended up selling it and am now waiting not-so-patiently for Nikon to release the updated version...
RE: 24 MP D700x. Can you hold on until the fall? I won't say anything else...except don't expect it to be at the 5D MkII price...
Cheers...
Brad
All that aside, I love and use Nikon. Canon is obviously no slouch! I currently use a D700 and D200. My personal museum has a Nikon EM, FE, N90s,and an F5 in it. All lenses I used on those cameras will work with my D700 and D200. Lenses in the Canon line from comparable years to my old cameras will not work with the new Canon bodies. So, you can buy some darn good old Nikon glass cheaply and still use them (full frame even) with your D700 with a little effort to tell the D700 what lens specs you are using. That is a huge plus in the Nikon house that I did not see mentioned above. Ditto what was said earlier, once you have an investment in glass, you probably won't turn back - without a huge loss. Enjoy your Nikon. It's the photographer that makes the images. And btw, the glass and camera have no idea what you are aiming at! (well ok, the body kinda does because of all the data loaded for the computer to use blah blah blah - I digress!)
Troup
What were the tests that you used to come to the final decision. I have an investment in Nikon but not overly so. One thing I have heard in this forum question is that Nikon costs more and Canon has a wider lens selection, with I believe the L Series being on par with the Nikon Pro. Nikon appears to have the lead in the bodies but that can always change and Canon can be in the lead down the road when my current bodies are obsolete. Besides, more than a little miff'd at the $8K D3x and the 20% price increase on the glass in Feb 09.
Glenn
Mark