Canon Vs. Nikon

I'm sure this has posted but I want an up to date discussion with both companies newest bodies.

I currently shoot a Nikon D300 with 200-400mm VR lens. I am considering selling all of my Nikon equipment and trading it in for a Canon 7D and 600mm lens. I mostly shoot wildlife, and more specifically birds, and would enjoy the extra focal length for a lot less than a Nikon 600mm. What are everyone's thoughts? The one thing I love about my current set up is the image sharpness and clarity even when handheld and shot from moving vehicles (don't do it that often but have). All thoughts are appreciated!

Canon has nothing that resembles that 200-400, so if you're in love with the zoom capability, you'll be giving up a lot. But for LBB's (little brown birds), it would be hard to beat a 600. I shoot more large animals than small, and I'm as concerned about the comp around the animal as I am about the animal, so a 200-400 is my most coveted lens. My fixed 500 f/4 is frustrating for me, because often it just crops off more than the surrounding landscape than I want. I'd trade in that 500 for a 200-400 long before I'd even think about a 600.

Ryan, I don't think I've ever heard of someone complain about the image quality for the Canon big guns (400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4), I can't imagine you'd be disappointed. The only thing that I would wonder about is the fact that your 600mm lens with the 1.6x crop factor on the 7D becomes 960mm effectively. Even with IS, can that focal length provide a sharp image hand-held from a moving vehicle? That'd be interesting to see!

Canon has nothing that resembles that 200-400

The 100-400 ain't an f/4, but in these days of phenomenal high iso performance, one stop really isn't the end of the world. For the weight savings and extra 100mm on the wide end, that lens is as versatile as one could hope for. It won't take a teleconverter, but if you're putting on a tc then you should probably be switching to the 500...

That's useful feedback Floris. Folks I know with the 100-400 are unhappy with it, but that may be a simple matter of the hands that guide it. I was on hand in Yellowstone for bears and wolves a couple of May's back with a friend who owns the 200-400 and another using Canon and the 100-400. After comparing results each evening, the Canon user went home and switched entirely to Nikon. Bottom line is to get the lens that best suits our individual needs and tastes!

Sorry, Floris, but these two lenses are in entirely different leagues. The 100-400 L is more comparable to the Nikon 80-400 VR (with the difference of the ultrasonic focus motor).

I love my 100-4000 for its versatility, and it is pretty sharp, especially at f8, but the 200-400 is still a step up from the samples I have seen. I did enjoy using the 500 because it makes you get more creative on the comp, just as many primes do.

I would simply buy a used Nikon lens rather than switch systems.


Kent in SD

I agree with Kent. I use the Nikon 200-400mm vr, along with the 500mm vr. I had the 600mm Af-s also, but never used it much and recently sold it. I would seriously be missing my 200-400mm if it were gone. With travel restrictions being what they are, the 200-400mm with a teleconverter is the perfect travel lens.

I know several people that have switched from Canon to Nikon just for the 200-400. As Hank has said Canon doesn't have anything that compares to it. Canon does have the 100-400 but as Basil said that's best compared to the Nikon 80-400. The 200-400 is more compared to the 400, 500 primes. The one bad thing about Nikon is that price of big glass compared to Canon. You can buy the 600 and 7D for about the same price as the Nikon 600.

You really can't go wrong with either one. I guess it's just a personal preference.

Ryan, manufactuer preference aside, I have both of the afore mentioned cameras/lenses and prefer the Canon. My wife shoots the Nikon D300s and I the Canon 50D, I use either setup and personally prefer the Canon (which is why I switched to it from Nikon.) It really is only the end user skills and shooting styles that need to be considered. Why spend the money for the big switch if you don't really need too.
P.S. If you buy the Canon, go big or go home (800mm or 1200 mm )

Ryan, if you are a bird shooter and that is what you want to concentrate on, then I believe it is hard to beat the Canon big glass for the price. I shoot the 500 f/4 IS and let me tell you, I would not trade my 500 for anything. Add a 1.4x TC and it is still dead on sharp. The combo I shoot with is the 7D and 500mm and for birds I do not see how it can be beat for the price point. Another option is the 300mm 2.8 with 1.4 and 2.0 TCs. With the 2.0 you get a 600 5.6 that is still deadly sharp. This combination of lens and TCs gives you a ton of flexibility, relatively light weight for hand holding, and super sharp results in any combo. I believe the 500 4 and 300 2.8 are two of the sharpest lenes ever produced for their cost.

Thank you all. The primary reason for me thinking about switching is the price. I shoot almost entirely birds and a lot of ducks that don't like to hang around shore. As we don't have much for wildlife around Iowa and Wisconsin other than deer I rarely shoot anything larger than swans.

I added it all up and give or take $500 I can sell my Nikon kit and switch to all the same lenses and flashes plus upgrade from a 200-400mm and D300 to a 600mm and 7D.

The 7D obviously has more megapixels and seems to have better image sensor cleaning than the D300 while still matching the fps.

I own the Nikon teleconverters but have not been real pleased with the image clarity in low light and really just about any lighting conditions (probably poor technique on my part but my techniques work best without teleconverters).

I worry a bit about not owning an equivalent lens to the 200-400mm but 9 out of 10 times I wish I had a greater focal length with my 200-400mm. Again, it would only cost me about $1,000 to replace my equipment with Canon and lose a couple of rarely used lenses I already have.

Really, my reason for posting this was to find out what the differences in technology were in the lenses. It seems like Canon has not updated the technology in their long lenses as much as Nikon. I don't have much to support this and was just wondering if this was really the case.

Thanks Ron,
I'm right with you and think you make a convincing argument. I had already started typing the last reply when you must have posted.

Chiming in late.. I'm a Canon user and if it came down to a Canon 100-400 or a Nikon 200-400 I would certainly pick the Nikon as I have shot them both. But, if I did wildlife especially bird photography I would certainly use my Canon 7D and prime 500f4. over Nikon. I selected the 500f4 over the 600 f4 and saved a bundle. With the crop factor of the 7D and a 1.4x you have plenty of power. Actually when photographing wildlife with my 7d and 500 I have to back off much of the time.

Ryan, I don't know if it was on this site or another I monitor but the other half is the body.

It seems that a cruise to antarctica featured Canon, Nikon and others. In the environment, no Nikon body failed, but, if memory serves, out of about 17 Canon bodies, 2-4 failed.

So, Nikon bodies are rugged and that could be a factor in chossing camera bodies outdoor and wildlife photography.

Something to investigate if there are specs and stoires.

the fisch

Ryan: I am late to the discussion. Don't usually get here until the weekend. 12-15 years ago, I was in the same (well, maybe similar) "boat." I have been amused by the Ford vs. Chevy discussions over the years on the internet. I appreciate that this really isn't one of those. My first "brand" camera was a Canon TX. The shop I frequented at the time was a Canon dealer and they pushed them. Later, in college, I had an opportunity to purchase a Nikon body with 3 lenses (which gave me more than my 50mm lens on the TX). I have owned Nikon ever since -- not because I think it is better. More, because its kind of like a marriage, and when I look at the divorce it becomes expensive.

In the early - mid 90s, when everything had gone to AF, I started looking at trading my Nikon AF body for the Canon EOS system. At that time, Canon was ahead of Nikon in AF technology. I looked at all the things I would have to sell and then replace with Canon and it would have cost me. At that time, Peter Burian (who was shooting Canon equipment) a Canadian pro, gave me good advice. He pointed out that these things were kind of a see-saw, and at varying times in history, Canon had something better, then Nikon jumped out with something better (too bad, actually, that the lenses and bodies don't have interchangeable technology ).

I am sure you have done the "math" and it does appear that -- particularly for bird photography, Canon seems to have the "edge." I personally don't think one system is "better" than the other. But you do have to look at what works for you. With Canon, there will also be a "learning curve" as much of its "ergonomics" are different. I wouldn't let that be a deciding factor -- just one of many considerations.

If you can end up with a better system for you without it costing you -- considering EVERYTHING you need to change, it may be a smart move. I ultimately took Peter's advice and am still (happily) shooting Nikon.

Thanks all! I decided on sticking with Nikon and moving up to the 600mm. Biggest factor was discussions with others about ergonomics and the technologies in the long lenses. Plus I didn't want to go through the hassle which I think is the biggest reason.