Nikon vs. Canon « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Other Nikon stuff / news / commentary

Nikon vs. Canon

(98 posts) (59 voices)

Tags:

« Previous 1 234 Next »

bhoveyga

senior member
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 83
offline

I've had a Nikon for 41 years. Well, not "a" Nikon, I started with the Ftn, then F2, F3, D80 and now a D7000. I'll admit to a bit of brand loyalty, but I've never been one to slam Canon ... a good number of my friends shoot Canons and produce wonderful results with them.

Back in 1969 I was looking to replace my Fujicarex, an odd little SLR with a leaf shutter and interchangeable front lens elements and a focusing wheel where Nikon's main command dial is today. At that time and indeed for the previous decade, Nikon had been the pinnacle of aspiration for those with serious camera lust. Looking at the cameras on the sidelines of any sporting event, Nikons were even more common than the white-lensed beasties are today, they truly dominated the pro 35mm market (except for a few rangefinder addicts who carried Leicas). Browsing the pages of Popular Photography, Modern Photography and Camera 35, I always lingered on the Nikon ad, thinking, "Someday."

Eventually, I lucked out... my high school art teacher had a friend who'd just returned from Vietnam and had bought two SLRs over there... a Canon and a Nikon. He had decided to sell the Nikon (an Ftn) because he felt it was the more complex of the two and wanted something simple. So I bought the Nikon with money borrowed from my college fund. My parents groused a bit, but I was planning on majoring in photography... I suggested (well, whined, really) that I should have the proper tools, and they relented. I've often wondered how much my photographic experience would have been altered over the years had that guy decided to sell the Canon instead.

When it came time to buy my first digital SLR, I tried very hard to be objective... I had a nice selection of Nikon lenses but since none of them were autofocus (and the prospect of manual focusing with my aging eyesight on a groundglass with no split image or microprism was not appealing), I was not closed-minded to the idea of jumping ship and starting from scratch. It was a tough call... being on a budget it seemed like Canon was offering more (on paper at least, in terms of megapixels and lenses in my price range, not to mention the much larger pool of used gear for sale). But after playing with cameras from both manufacturers, the Nikons always seemed to feel better in my hand and had more sensibly placed controls and more intuitive menus. I finally settled on a D80. After wandering around the various forums, I ran across a quote somewhere that seemed to sum up my experience: "Canons are designed by engineers, Nikons are designed by photographers." I'd love to know who came up with that so I could give them credit.

In spite of my brand loyalty, which is probably as strong now as it has ever been over the years, I try to suppress it on those occasions when friends or students ask me what camera they should get. Most of the major manufacturers produce capable machines, and tho one particular body may be a better fit for a particular individual, the most important thing by far is to just get SOMETHING and get out there and shoot... keep the camera close at all times and use it until it becomes an extension of your arm.

Posted 2 years ago #
aetas

preferred member
Joined: Dec '09
Posts: 273
offline

bhoveyga said:
"Canons are designed by engineers, Nikons are designed by photographers."

I think I saw this same quote on this site from someone. Which might mean that they just quoted someone else...

Niko you know who said this

Posted 2 years ago #
enthdegree

senior member
Joined: Oct '09
Posts: 53
offline

Canons are designed for marketing, Nikons are designed for photographers.

Posted 2 years ago #
bjrichus

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 921
offline

enthdegree said:
Canons are designed for marketing, Nikons are designed for photographers.

Now THAT'S much closer to the truth.....

Posted 2 years ago #
Treckie

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 561
offline

Back in the 80's Canon favored plastic parts which had a higher repair rate. I chose Nikon and have been happy with them for over thirty years.

Posted 2 years ago #
Michael DeRose

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 277
offline

I picked nikon over canon after researching and personally testing different products for 6 months. I know that sounds a bit crazy, but thats about how long it took to save up enough money (sucks being a college student). After testing both of them, i found that while i liked how canon felt in my hands, the photos from average to pro shooters, just looked so much better then Canon photos.
I also felt that the "best" canon cameras happen to be the 7d and the 5dii. I didn't want to spend a ton just starting out and when i saw the specs and test shots from the d7000, i was pretty much sold. I was getting a camera that had more features and seemed to be on par with the "better" canon cameras. It also helped i had a best buy coupon and basically got the kit for 1200(1173.52) dollars.

Posted 2 years ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

gasman said:
Hi there

I am a 30 year Canon user - which was never really a conscious decision on my part; more due to the fact I "inherited" gear from my father. I have owned a string of Canon film and digital SLRs, and currently a modest collection of high quality glass. I am pausing just for a moment before I buy a full-frame Canon - because on some level I perceive this will be my last chance to switch to Nikon, before I invest heavily in a new body and probably expand my lens collection too.

I don't think I have even shot a single frame on a Nikon SLR. But I have read extensively on them over the years, and I have always warmed to the feature set they offer as well as the ergonomic "look", and brand image. A case in point would be the recently announced D600. It almost seems to have been built with me personally in mind. (The D800 I think has too many megapixels, and too slow a frame rate. Good for landscapes and HD video, not much else IMHO).

That said, I still believe Canon's lens lineup is superior. Nikon's is complicated, and doesn't clearly identify its "professional" lineup - in the way that Canon's L-series does. The lenses also seem to be a heterogenous bunch ergonomically too. I know for a fact that if I switched brands, I would miss my Canon glass - at least initially... At any sports event, in the pro photographer's box, you see about 5 times as many white lenses as black ones. That must mean something.

So I guess my question is - can anyone who has extensively used both systems advise? And is there anything I may not have thought of? Regards

Now that we are here, Canon glass was less expensive...so most of the gray lens guys have told me... not really rue, though. Nikon "pro" lenses have a gold ring. If one looks at various test results on dpreview, DXOmark, one finds the current sensors in the Nikon pro cameras and actually the inexpensive D3200 are somewhat better in performance. And this makes a difference in that all the "pro" Canon and Nikon glass is pretty good, so the end result may depend on the camera body.

Hopefully this thread will get some interesting opinions

Oh, I wonder why NASA uses Nikon and not Canon...

Posted 8 months ago #
golf007sd

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 585
offline

msmoto said:
Oh, I wonder why NASA uses Nikon and not Canon...

+1

Posted 8 months ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

Welcome, Gasman. I'm a Nikon user for similar reasons, but I don't like Canon's ergonomics. I don't know if I would dare switch if I had a huge lens collection, so you're a brave soul. Good luck with whatever you choose and welcome to the forum.

Posted 8 months ago #
El_Pickerel

preferred member
Joined: Jul '11
Posts: 581
offline

msmoto said:
Now that we are here, Canon glass was less expensive...so most of the gray lens guys have told me... not really rue, though. Nikon "pro" lenses have a gold ring. If one looks at various test results on dpreview, DXOmark, one finds the current sensors in the Nikon pro cameras and actually the inexpensive D3200 are somewhat better in performance. And this makes a difference in that all the "pro" Canon and Nikon glass is pretty good, so the end result may depend on the camera body.

Hopefully this thread will get some interesting opinions

Oh, I wonder why NASA uses Nikon and not Canon...

From what I recall another time NASA + Nikon cameras came up, they don't use Canon because the lubricants they use don't work as well in the environment (or lack thereof)

Posted 8 months ago #
Darkhost

senior member
Joined: Sep '12
Posts: 62
offline

To each their own. I've been a Nikon shooter for the past 8-years (very first camera was a D70). I've never even held a Canon to my knowledge, so I can't and won't compare because I'm comfortable and know what Nikon produces. Use what you know and trust; for others it may be Canon, for me it's Nikon.

Posted 8 months ago #
aZuMi

junior member
Joined: Aug '12
Posts: 6
offline

I used to have Canon XTI with a couple of lenses/acc. (kit lens, 70-200 F4L and Sigma 17-70mm, grip) back in 2007. It came to a point where it's so basic, toyish and plastic-ky that I get ashamed just walking with it. So, 2 years later, I finally switched to Nikon D90.

I didn't like the 40D/50D back then and Nikon D90 was the best upgrade with what the market offered. Loved the controls, feel, and ability to learn more about photography. I also noticed that alot of Canon products were:
- focused on wannabe photographers that will eventually sell their DSLR equipment within a year
- doesn't retain the value of second hand DSLRs in lower to mid bodies
- Place a large premium on decent bodies and lenses

Nikon seem to focus more on serious photographers and their put their needs in a body for a reasonable price.

Overall, I'm a satisfied Nikon user and finally decided to pull the trigger with D600.

Posted 8 months ago #
Eric

senior member
Joined: Jun '12
Posts: 363
offline

My first Nikon was an FM2. The only Canon I have owned (other than a P&S) was an AE1. One thing that Nikon has done very well is provide backward compatibility for their glass. This matters to me. Beyond that, after years of use I have kind of learned the logic behind Nikon's design, so I can pick up any Nikon body and get it to do what I want with minimal frustration. The same is not true for a Canon DSLR where my lack of experience leads to frustration. I love my Nikons and will stick with them due to the investment in glass, ease of use and ergonomics. For me, Nikon makes a better product, but my Canon friends do not share that sentiment. I feel as if Canon got a little bit fat and lazy and Nikon has taken them a bit by surprise these past few years. IMO as of late, Nikon has consistently introduced a better product at a lower price than Canon.

Posted 8 months ago #
gasman

member
Joined: Sep '12
Posts: 16
offline

Thanks for all the (surprisingly impartial!) replies, people.

I have spent more time than is healthy obsessing over this subject. A few things I've perceived, in no particular order....

1. Neither is "better". Both manufacturers have made utterly iconic, and both have made utterly ordinary cameras.
2. Canon has had more than its fair share of "ordinary" over the last few years.
3. Up until the autofocus era, Nikon made better lenses; now the opposite is true. For the outsider looking in, Nikon's lens lineup is an utter shambles.
4. Statements like "Nikon is designed by photographers; whereas Canon is designed by engineers" are nonsense.
5. More of the world's "great" photographs were taken on Nikon equipment.
6. Nikon has more kudos. Probably undeserved, but I think it's true all the same. Also, with few exceptions, I think Nikon bodies look better cosmetically (I'm ashamed to admit that's important to me. My old Canon EOS5 film camera, while a great photographic tool, was about as aesthetically pleasing as a horse's rear end)

I honestly don't know what I'm going to do. Selling my 3 Canon L-series lenses would hurt financially. It it wasn't for that, I'd definitely be giving Nikon a go this time - most likely with the D600. Realistically though, I'll probably end up with a 5dMkIII - and be very happy, still wondering all the time what life would be like on the "other side".

Cheers.

Posted 8 months ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

I don't know if Nikon is in shambles and Canon is so much better. The single lens factor I see that Canon has going for them is the middle of the road F4 lineup. That said I haven't shot or used a gold ring "pro" Nikon lens that didn't amaze me. And really I haven't heard many negative comments from anyone ever about any of the pro line of Nikon lenses. It really isn't hard to distinguish the lenses...to me Canon's nomenclature is confusing. I don't know what any of the lens letters and stuff mean. Any of Nikon's F4, F2.8 and pretty much every prime lens are good....some better then others of course, but none are really bad.

At the bottom body level Nikon's feel much better and seem better built. This was almost my single deciding factor in me getting my Nikon over Canon.

I do think either camera brand can take great pictures. I know people that make money and shoot with Nikon and I know ones that shoot Canon. I have seen great pictures come from both. I picked one and I really haven't been disappointed one bit. All my Nikon gear has been great and always performs highly.

Posted 8 months ago #
roombarobot

senior member
Joined: Mar '12
Posts: 57
offline

I recently switched to Nikon because I was going to buy a new body and I looked at Canon's line and their APS-C dSLRs all are based on the same 3-year old 18 Mpix chip, which seems old. Nikon's D5100 and D7000 were based on a much newer 16Mpix chip that many thought to be much better (and the dxomarks look way better). So I got a Nikon.

Right now it seems that Nikon is ahead. Not too long ago Canon was ahead of Nikon. I think this will swing back and forth and that is good for all of us as it keeps the company's prices honest and forces them to innovate.

Posted 8 months ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

It sounds like you know what you're doing, Gasman. What you need is to rent some Nikon gear or at least go handle it in a shop. What you really need is another dad but one who shoots Nikon. See what you can do about that. ;-)

I would go crazy with a canon slr, but the last ones I used for more than a couple minutes were a 5D mark 1 and a 40D, so take that with a grain of salt. I don't know if I could ever love the user interface.

You know you'll get a biased view here, but one of the real advantages of Nikon is the sweet deals you can find on old lenses because they have been so consistent with the F mount.

Posted 8 months ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

I'm not sure exactly how to reply so I'll stick to correlating with the numbering you used - not intended to pick it apart, but just for ease of following as I have seen a bunch of people thinking the same way about switching.

1. "Neither is better" - honestly I think Nikon has the upper hand now and has for the last (now) 2 generations. D300/D700/D3 spanked Canon as well as this generation of pro cameras. Low light IQ, AF & CLS system (Flashes) being the stand out features that differ and I think Nikon does better. The rest of the features are and have matched or been the same for years if not decades. On the lower end, they are basically the same. On video though, it appears Canon does have the upper hand.

2. Canon has been "Blah" or better put, just refining it's line up rather than pushing it forward. Odd to see for sure. I'm guessing they moved resources for the Cine line-ups they have released. That would also explain why their video is much better as well.

3. I don't think Canon Glass is anything more than Nikon glass at all. All tests pretty much show they are the same in every category with new releases. There was a huge marketing push in the 90's by Canon to claim this with their "special" glass. In actuality that glass actually "breathes" (expands and contracts) in extreme weather (hot/cold). That was one of the reasons I read why the US military went with Nikon as their glass is made of elements that does not do this. 99% of us will never be in that type of extremes though.

As for a "mess" I couldn't disagree more, and think it makes more since - but does not line up to Canon's lenses as well. A lot of Canon's extended line up is out dated but they keep everything in the "published" line. They also make 3 of almost every focal length. The F/4 line is what Canon has done better but Nikon is only a 70-200 away from completing that. The f1.2 50/85 are the two we all pine for on the dark side. Their weather sealed lenses are more extensive as well - almost too far though. For example both now have a 28-300vr/is lens. Canon's is $2,000+ and Nikon's is around $1,000. Canon's is weather sealed, Nikon's is not but not brittle either. But honestly if you want a "all-in-one" lens, why would you want a behemoth like Canon's? If you really looked at the prices, Canon is not cheaper - usually $100-400 more in most cases.

4. Funny thing is the statement you stated, I have only heard from Canon users - never Nikon one's. To me, both companies create systems for users.

5. Actually I would think Leica, Zeiss, Rolie, Pentax, Hasseblad, and Crown Graphic have got to be there as well. All have had their runs over the years - Really only Nikon, Canon, and Leica have endured along with Zeiss glass for the last half - century. It still is the person holding the tool that gets the shot.

6. I tend to think all the Kudos for every company are just rotated every year.

I am one to believe that once you have the cash invested in newer great glass in a particular mount or brand, moving becomes so much less economical that it becomes just dumb unless your brand has failed completely. I do think Nikon is better, but is it so much better that loosing/spending an extra $3,000-5,000 or more on glass to change? I don't think so. Plus you have the whole (learn a new system) thing as well. To me everything is close enough that bouncing between brands seems fruitless if you do it more than once a decade.

Canon has some great products coming out - I would say wait till the end of the year to see what they have to offer and then decide how willing you are to learn a new system or if they released something that fits your desires more and go from there.

Posted 8 months ago #
spraynpray

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,514
offline

aZuMi said:
I used to have Canon XTI with a couple of lenses/acc. (kit lens, 70-200 F4L and Sigma 17-70mm, grip) back in 2007. It came to a point where it's so basic, toyish and plastic-ky that I get ashamed just walking with it. So, 2 years later, I finally switched to Nikon D90.

I didn't like the 40D/50D back then and Nikon D90 was the best upgrade with what the market offered. Loved the controls, feel, and ability to learn more about photography. I also noticed that alot of Canon products were:
- focused on wannabe photographers that will eventually sell their DSLR equipment within a year
- doesn't retain the value of second hand DSLRs in lower to mid bodies
- Place a large premium on decent bodies and lenses

Agreed.

I also agree that the Nikon lens line-up is less easy to learn, but how important is that? How many of us are under some kind of time pressure to buy a range of expensive lenses in one go and need to have them painted a different colour to differentiate them from consumer lenses? It is all just marketing and being the weak-minded fools we are, we fall for it every time! Hint: Go by fast Aperture and high price.

Posted 8 months ago #
gasman

member
Joined: Sep '12
Posts: 16
offline

There's some excellent stuff being posted here.

I stand firm on my assertion that Canon's lens line up is better organized. They key issue, of course, is that Nikon doesn't consistently put the focusing motor in the same place (ie. camera or lens). In 1989, with the advent of autofocus, this bought them huge customer loyalty - the consequence now is that we're left with a veritable diarrhea of lens specifications, compatibilities, and nomenclatures. Also, while acknowledging what others have said, I like Canon's "L" lens sub category. These lenses are worlds apart in terms of build quality, and you are also buying assurance that this lens will give excellent performance at any aperture - or else, take it back. After buying my first L series lens, I was so seduced I resolved to never again buy another non-L zoom lens. Easy.

Jonnyapple - great advice to rent some Nikon gear; unfortunately that is easier said than done where I live. What I might in fact do is buy a D3200 kit 'for my wife'. That will at least give me some insight into the Nikon way of doing things, and if I decide i don't like it, well she's still got a great camera.

Posted 8 months ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

tcole1983 said:
I don't know if Nikon is in shambles and Canon is so much better. The single lens factor I see that Canon has going for them is the middle of the road F4 lineup. That said I haven't shot or used a gold ring "pro" Nikon lens that didn't amaze me. And really I haven't heard many negative comments from anyone ever about any of the pro line of Nikon lenses. It really isn't hard to distinguish the lenses...to me Canon's nomenclature is confusing. I don't know what any of the lens letters and stuff mean. Any of Nikon's F4, F2.8 and pretty much every prime lens are good....some better then others of course, but none are really bad.

At the bottom body level Nikon's feel much better and seem better built. This was almost my single deciding factor in me getting my Nikon over Canon.

I do think either camera brand can take great pictures. I know people that make money and shoot with Nikon and I know ones that shoot Canon. I have seen great pictures come from both. I picked one and I really haven't been disappointed one bit. All my Nikon gear has been great and always performs highly.

But you have used a gold ring Nikon. The 105mm macro Nikkor is gold ringed.

Edit- whoops, I misread your post.

Posted 8 months ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

gasman said:
They key issue, of course, is that Nikon doesn't consistently put the focusing motor in the same place (ie. camera or lens).

Actually Nikon has put the motor in all new lenses release for quite a few years. They just choose to support all prior glass (in the advanced - pro bodies) with the same mount, on-board motor, etc.

To be honest, it seems you are stuck in the far past by describing Canon's positives over Nikon from over 10+ years ago. Those arguments don't exist anymore. It seems you are really stuck on the "Label" (L-series) rather than understanding that all of Nikon's 2.8s are at the same level or are better. Put any f/2.8 L lens against Nikon's 2.8's and you will find that Nikon is the same or better build quality and performance is the same or better and for cheaper. The difference you keep referring to is the "label" not anything to do with the quality. You are not the first, but it does seem lazy not to do or look for an actual comparison. You really should read the reviews of the lenses you are looking to replace if you went Nikon.

If you are looking at a D600 or higher, I'm not sure a D3200 would give you a good picture of what you may want Nikon to do. It would be like buying a a Chevy Cruze to find out what a Cadillac Escalade would be like.

Posted 8 months ago #
framer

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 160
offline

I started with an F then a Nikkormat FTN next an F2. I still own and use 4 lenses that I bought from 1970 - 1988. I bought a n6006 to start using AF lenses in the early 90's. That crappy camera lasted two weeks and I bought an F4 and used that camera for 12 + years before I got a D2h as my 1st digital camera. I bought and sold a doz+ lenses over the years but still use those 4 from the early days. I currently own 4 AFs and 2-AFd's.

I do love how I can throw on a 40 year old lens on my D3s.

Nothing against Canon but they focus backward....

framer

Posted 8 months ago #
iris chrome

preferred member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 394
offline

Lens Rentals just recently published the resolution test results for the new Canon 24-70 II. The test pitted the new lens against some very heavy contenders like the 24 TS-E (@24mm), 70-200 f/2.8 IS II (@70mm) and both the old Canon 24-70 and Tamron's 24-70. The unexpected result was when the new 24-70 completely beat all other lenses by a good margin.

Now here is what Roger Cicala, founder of Lens Rentals, had to say about the D800 and Nikon lenses in answer to one of the comments on the article:

"Exact comparisons are hopeless at the exact level, but there’s no question 36 Mpix ups resolution. When we get our true optical bench up we could do an exact lens-to-lens comparison, but Imatest can only compare a lens-camera combination. All of the Nikons tested on D800s are going to have higher resolution because of the camera.

"It was a bit more reasonable to compare the D3x to the 5DII since camera resolution was comparable. Even, then the Nikon 24-70 was very good, resolving 890 / 735 at 24mm and 830 / 720 at 70mm. So the Nikon was clearly better than the original 24-70 Canon, probably not as good as the new one. Speaking strictly resolution shot at short to mid distances. But mount the Nikon 24-70 to a D800 and resolution increases to 1000 / 840 at f/2.8.

"Imatest is testing the camera lens combination, so change the camera and you change all the numbers. But I’d be comfortable saying a good shot on a D800 with a Nikon 24-70 outresolves the Canon II on a 5D III. Then again, put the Nikon lens on a D700 and it’s not close to the Canon."

Btw, the new Canon 24-70 II resolved at 954/831 @ 24mm and 950/809 @ 70mm. The old one resolved at 730/605 @ 24mm and 705/570 @ 70mm. This is on a 5D II body.

Posted 8 months ago #
birdman

preferred member
Joined: Feb '12
Posts: 166
offline

Not that I'm really qualified to interject, but I will. : )
I've owned the following: D70, D700, D7k, Rebel XS, 5d mk2, Canon 40d, and now D800

Nikon has much better wide angle lenses, and a better prime lineup, IMHO. For telephoto, Canon all the way. More choices, and arguably better glass.

Nikon (actually Sony) makes better sensors -- hands down. It's not close, either. This is why I dumped my aging 5d2 for the D800. Canon's ergonomics were easier for me to adapt to. That being said, I love my D800 and am acclimating myself quite well.

Posted 8 months ago #