Nikon vs Canon

[Steve Williams]

I can remember vividly getting my first really great 35 mm SLR in 1969, a Nikon FTN. Used it for years with all sorts of lenese and lived within the bubble that the sun rises and sets on Nikon with respect to anything photography. With the dawn of the digital age film was supplanted and changes in ameras over the past 5-6 years has been dramatic. The new kid on the block now seems to be Canon with its EOS system.The top dogs in the shoot pout are the NikonD3X ( MSRP of $7995) vs the Canon EOS 1DS Mk lll (MSRP of $6999).

I am curious as to who has experience with either or both of these camera and which (if either ) tops your list

My son who is a film school graduate with a minor in photography said not to get either. He does however prefer Canon to Nikon and the one he says to get is the EOS 5D Mk ll at $2499 which he says is a newer chip than the top of the line Canon

Any thoughts or comments ?

 

[amirm]

This requires a much lengthier response than this one. But here is the elevator pitch.

In the 1980's, Nikon had a commanding lead over Canon. Most Pros used it and as such, there was a ton more information on how to get the best out of the system. Fast forward to Digital, and Nikno found itself out-gunned by Canon who due to its other divisions, had far more assets to through into the game including CMOS sensors they had designed. They also got an amazing leg up with image stabilization which they got into many of their lenses. Nikon countered with VR technology but it was not widespread until recently. In addition, Nikon lenses tended to be more expensive than Canon in the super telephoto range.

Today, the race is much closer. Nikon finally managed to get good sensors and bodies to support them. If I were to net it out (note that I am NOT a Nikon user), here is where it is at:

Nikon:
+ Better noise performance although both systems are incredibly good compared to point and shoot consumer cameras.
+ Better wide angle lens performance. Canon just doesn't make a good wide angle lens. They have redesigned a couple of them recently but still not quite there.
+ Better flash support. Nikon just knows better how to expose flash images.

Canon:
+ Wider set of lenses with image stabilization
+ Lower cost of lenses in some cases
+ Dominant in Pro market although the screw up with Mark III autofocus system (multiple recalls) set them back fair bit. Still, Canon now has the position Nikon had in 1980s.
+ Multiple bodies with full size sensor such as 5D Mark II that you list.
+ Throws in software that converts raw images. Nikon charges for it. That said, the Canon software is pretty bad from usability but still, if you don't want to buy other software and want to shoot in RAW mode, Canon is there.
+ Canon simply has more R&D horsepower than Nikon so I expect them to keep producing more.
+ If you go with Canon, I can help you with answering things. If you go with Nikon, you are out of luck .

I think your son's advice is right on. I have 1Ds MKIII and it is a wonderful camera. But it is very large and heavy and you have to be in a serious mood to shoot with it. I also have a 5D (MK I) and I take that around most of the time and it produces wonderful images. BTW, used 5D are pretty cheap and great alternative to 5D MKII. I have posters at 16x20 inches produces from it!

If you go with Canon, I highly recommend getting the 24-105 IS lens. The combo will take care of 90% of your pictures. Then add 70-200 F4 IS and you now have that range covered. Each one of these is another $1K or thereabouts. If you let me know what your interest/budget is I can suggest other choices.

 

[Steve Williams]

If you go with Canon, I highly recommend getting the 24-105 IS lens. The combo will take care of 90% of your pictures. Then add 70-200 F4 IS and you now have that range covered.

My son has both those lenses

Amir does the new Nikon D3X have current updated technology like the EOS 5D Mk ll

 

[amirm]

Yes it does. But again, remember that it is Pro camera so it is quite a bit bigger and heavier than 5D MKII. I wouldn't for example take D3X or IDs MK III on vacations with me whereas 5D always goes in my bag.

There used to be a big camera store in San Jose (San Jose camera???). May want to drop by and see if they have these in stock so that you can hold them in your hand. As soon as you do, you will see what I mean by size and weight.

 

[Steve Williams]

I have hand held them many times. My son has an EOS 50D with the full chip.

The huge Nikon and Canon IMO need be used with a tripod or unipod

 

[Jay_S]

I have two Nikon FTN Apollos gathering dust in my closet!

I think that system choice should be based on lenses rather than features of current bodies. Digital bodies have a short life span compared with lenses. Base your system brand choice on the lenses you already have, want to buy, or can borrow from a friend.

If you don't have lenses, buy the brand that you will actually carry around and use. See which feels the best in your own hands. I like to use the small DX Nikons because they are light weight. I would never carry the full-sized Nikons or Canons, superb as they are. Their size and weight are no fun.

 

[Sharp 1080]

I've used both. My workmate has the D3X. I own the Canon 1D MKIIN. They are both great cameras and if you are a sporadic shooter and like Canon why not look at the 7D? As it has been mentioned the "pro" cameras are heavier for good reason as I learned first hand dropping my 1D and 70-200 on the asphalt while shooting a motorcyle race. Camera and lens were fine after the drop! If you do chose Canon I would recommend the 24-70 over the 24-106 which has a longer reach but I always try to get close to the subject and shoot as close as possible.

 

[vinylphilemag]

I have hand held them many times. My son has an EOS 50D with the full chip.

The EOS 50D doesn't have the full size sensor chip: that honour goes to the EOS 5D Mk 2 and the EOS 1Ds III.

 

[Steve Williams]

My mistake. My son told me to get the one with the single chip and I thought that was his.

 

[rblnr]

I'm a Nikon man, but you can't go wrong with either. I think both cameras listed at the head of the topic (actually D3s is latest Nikon) are waaay overkill for anything but daily professional use. Too big and heavy, and IQ will not exceed that of the lower full frame models below in 95% of uses. For a committed non-pro who wants a full frame sensor, I'd go with either a Canon 5D or Nikon D700.

While it's true that Canon is a larger company w/more resources (and I've worked for them), it's not necessarily true that this is a major leg up. Nikon works with Sony on their sensors -- given the high ISOs they've been able to achieve w/great lack of noise, it's hard to say they're behind on the sensor/image processing front. In a way, it's a game of timing as to who's on top. Nikon's D300 blew away Canon's competitor on the semi-pro DX sensor (smaller) front. A year+ later, Canon's reply may have grabbed a slight lead. . Nikon's D300s now looks expensive versus the Canon 7D. Same is true on the upper end cameras. As was commented upon earlier -- Nikon fell behind at the beginning of digital, but caught up and gained some ground when Canon had problems w/their flagship.


Factors:

- Which feels better in your hand? This is largely why I'm a 'Nikon Man' -- it feels exactly right, like an instrument.
- Which ergonomics feel more intuitive?
- Does video capability matter? Canon is ahead on this at the moment.
- I'll agree with the above that Nikon's flash system is better, and their AF systems a bit quicker too. Canon has recently changed their white balance system in a way some say outperforms Nikon.
- Lenses are tough. Many will say Nikon's are a bit more contrasty based on their coatings, and Canon's a bit more 'creamy'. This perception is probably has more to do w/the early iterations of Canon's CMOS sensor which felt a bit 'pastelly' vs. the CCDs that dominated early. Both have recently made improvements to their VR/IS systems that are finding their way into new lenses. Bottom line though at longer focal lengths particularly, nothing compares to a tripod for sharpness. For non-pros, Tokina's top of the line lenses a great -- well built w/excellent image quality. I tested my 12-24 F2.8 against the Nikon equivalent, it was pretty much a wash. Edge to edge sharpness and flatness of the image where very, very close. That said, I wouldn't trade my Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 for anything. And the 18-200, which is an ultimate 'walk-around' lens, is better than the Canon counterpart. At the moment.

Me, I own a Nikon D200 which I use both professionally and not. I've sold plenty of images taken on it. I'm tempted by some of the newer cameras and it would be handy to have video capability and better high ISO performance, but I'm trying to stick to my credo of skipping a generation before a new purchase. Bottom line is that improvements are becoming very incremental (not unlike audio really) as DSLRs/sensors/image processing has become a mature tech. I'm waiting (and waiting) for the Nikon D400 before I jump back into the market. Will I get better pics out of it? Probably only slightly and under certain conditions.

As an aside, I own a Canon S90 compact -- don't love some of the ergonomics but Nikon has nothing like it -- small cam w/large (APS-C) sensor. Great image quality for the size.

 

[Steve Williams]

Great review Bob

My daughter bought the S90 to go to Australia with

I am leaning towards the 5D Mk ll full chip sensor

 

[rblnr]

Hold both in a store, play around w/them. See if you lean one way or another based on that. Can't go wrong w/either.

 

[Steve Williams]

Hold both in a store, play around w/them. See if you lean one way or another based on that. Can't go wrong w/either.

I actually have. My son also has the 50D

 

[amirm]

Here is a little story to back what rbnr said.

A photographer goes to friend's house who is a hunter. He shows up with his pro camera bodies and bunch of lenses. Hunter friend looks at all that gear and says, "oh boy. you should be able to take really good pictures with all that equipment!" Photographer friend says nothing. The next day, hunter friend comes back with a bunch of game he had hunted. Photographer friend takes a look and says, "oh boy. you should be able to hunt a lot of animals with that gun!"

While the gear helps, it is always the photographer who brings the skill to take the best pictures. So my recommendation is to get a notch down camera that is lighter and easier to use and put the rest of the money toward taking one photography workshop. The latter will improve your skill in a few days far more than any extra equipment!

Of course, for some applications such as wildlife, you are kind of stuck with having to buy heavy and expensive gear. But outside of that, the skill of the photographer dominates in this day and age once you go above point&shoot cameras.

 

[vinylphilemag]

I am leaning towards the 5D Mk ll full chip sensor

If I had the shekels, that'd be my first choice (the EOS 1D series is way too much overkill for me!), the second being the EOS 50D (or the 650D when it comes out "soon"). Neither are an option for me financially at the moment, so I'm settling for a Rebel T1i. I'm getting it for free in exchange for some air miles which I'm very unlikely to use.

 

[Steve Williams]

If I had the shekels, that'd be my first choice (the EOS 1D series is way too much overkill for me!), the second being the EOS 50D (or the 650D when it comes out "soon"). Neither are an option for me financially at the moment, so I'm settling for a Rebel T1i. I'm getting it for free in exchange for some air miles which I'm very unlikely to use.

OK Rich you have gotten my curiosity. What is the Canon 650D and is it more or less $$ than the 5D

 

[rblnr]

While the gear helps, it is always the photographer who brings the skill to take the best pictures. So my recommendation is to get a notch down camera that is lighter and easier to use and put the rest of the money toward taking one photography workshop. The latter will improve your skill in a few days far more than any extra equipment!

Of course, for some applications such as wildlife, you are kind of stuck with having to buy heavy and expensive gear. But outside of that, the skill of the photographer dominates in this day and age once you go above point&shoot cameras.

100% agreement. Only thing that's gotten a bit easier is exposure in that you immediately see the results.

 

[vinylphilemag]

OK Rich you have gotten my curiosity. What is the Canon 650D and is it more or less $$ than the 5D

Alas, a finger slip, Steve... I meant to type "(or the 60D when it comes out "soon")". I.e., the EOS 50D's replacement, rumoured to be coming later this year. It'll take the place (more or less) of the 50D in Canon's line up, so it would be the 5D's little brother.

 

[Chefjuke]

As a longtime photo enthusiast (and technically, as I recently sold a photograph that was used for the album cover for a friend's recent album, a professional) who has followed the product lines of both Canon and Nikon over the last 10-15 years, I'd say the answer is... "either". On a number of occasions, Canon has come out with a new technology or breakthrough in price or function FIRST, but Nikon would follow up 6-10 months later with a better implementation. My perspective is, you can't go 'wrong' with either one and many of the differences at this point come down to approaches to ergonomics and or personal preferences for controls and layout of the camera.

I have used Canons since the mid-1980's when my photography hobby became serious. I use Canons now, not because of a specific difference in my view of Canons vs. Nikons, but rather because of my investment in Canon lenses would be difficult to replace if I were to jump ship to Nikon or another brand of DSLR.

I currently have two Canons, my primary is the Canon 5d Mark II, which has, to an old hand like me, unbelievable low-light performance, and my secondary is a Canon 40d. I also have a small Canon s570is point and shoot that I keep handy just in case when I am not carrying my camera bag around with me.

Here's one of my first shots I took with the 5d Mk II. It was in a dark club, handheld in extremely low light.
http://www.chefjuke.com/GALLERY/PHOTOS/slides/IMG_0184.html

In my film days, to take a shot like this, I believe I would have ended up with grain the size of pingpong balls.

 

[Steve Bruzonsky]

Hi guys. I wanted my 20 year old daughter to get a Theta Digital camera but as far as I can "see" they are bust.

We chose between Nikon and Canon. She ended up with a Canon T1i refurbished from Adorama Camera online for $600.
She is taking college photo classes now. She luvs it!

And for the introductory film B & W photography class she took, I bought her a Canon AE-1 Program with a 2nd zoom lens and flash to $79 on EBay. Funny thing is I had same camera circa 1984-1991.