Canon or Nikon?

Status
Not open for further replies.

King Damager

King Damager

King Damager

Soldato
Joined
16 Nov 2010
Posts
16,513
Location
Swimming in a lake
Ok, I'm going to start this off, by saying, please, please, please don't let this thread descend into a fanboy-esque argument.

However, I'm starting to look at the whole DSLR stuff, with the expectation it won't be until Christmas until I finally get one, but hey-ho, we all like to look and dream about what we can get :) Anyway, I love doing plenty of research on stuff first anyway.

Anyway, part of this is looking to start investing in an eco-system. Now I'm sure plenty of people will say you can switch systems if you want, which is true, but it just strikes me as less hassle down the line, rather than having to switch mounting systems and hence all lenses, it seems I might as well aim to go for one, and unless something truly industry changing comes from the other, I'll stick with what I've got.

Lens' I'm happy to go with anything from anyone really, so long as it's optically sound, good quality etc.. So I don't think there's really an issue there. Somehow I feel, even if I go down one route, I'll be adding a couple of Sigma's to the collection at the least. (long term).

Now, realistically, I like a few different topics, notably, wildlife, and landscapes, and I'm starting to look into street photography. I'm starting to think as well I might start to look quite a lot at the whole UrbEx thing (got to review some legal stuff - nearer the time I'll be bugging you mrk). That said, being relatively new, I'm probably going to find I'll experiment with loads.

Now, liking landscapes quite a lot, I've heard that Nikon sensors are the way forward. But that said, I'm kind of thinking it's not like you can't get good landscape photos on a Canon, and considering I'm not planning on going pro, I doubt it's an issue.

I'd probably be looking at anything from entry level to £1k, which obviously creates some range of cameras. As such I'd like to narrow my research down to one of the other, but if there isn't really a major difference, I guess I'll look at both. But yeah, as you advance, does one become the brand to have for certain shots or not?

TL;DR: Are there really any shortcomings in either of the major camera brands that would put you off investing in them as an eco-system if you had a particular target in mind?

kd
 
From what I've been reading here this summer.

Get a Nikon, better sensor, better DR, better AF, sharper optics, just better.

Don't even bother trying the bodies out in the store, ergonomics don't matter when its just better!

lol :p
 
Canon is better!!!


But then in 6 months time Nikon will be better!!




Then in 8 months time Canon will be better again!!


Then in 3 years time you'll realise it makes no difference!!! the skill is in the flesh n bones struggling to make this decision in the first place!





But seriously go with either. They are both just lovely.


You know if landscapes are your thing just settle on a body and lens. It really doesn't make much difference but do get a full frame model if you can afford. Then look at either a prime or a zoom lens at the wide end. My weapon of choice is a 17 - 40 L F4.
Now wax the cash on a LEE filter system. Its the filters that will make the worlds difference not the DSLR brand.
 
Last edited:
If I was starting again I would go Nikon, like for like I prefer what they have at this moment in time. Of course that's without considering if you like the feel of the camera in your hand.

As I'm heavily entrenched now in the canon camp I will use the excuse that I prefer the Canon in my hand and switch/menus access ;)
 
King Damager said:
TL;DR: Are there really any shortcomings in either of the major camera brands that would put you off investing in them as an eco-system if you had a particular target in mind?

kd
Click to expand...

The short answer is no. The nuances between different brands are no going to make a significant difference for the amateur photographer.

One of the best moves I ever made was to buy a second hand high end camera (Canon 5D). It's old tech compared to what you can get these days but for me, that was the whole point - I checked out of the specs race and haven't looked back. Not only have I saved a ton of money (to spend on better lenses) I get a sense of satisfaction from not having to have the latest and greatest to get the pictures I want.

My only caveat is if you wanted to shoot primarily wildlife or sports. Thats not to say you can't dabble in that with any camera but newer cameras generally tend to have more tangible benefits in that regard.
 
King Damager said:
TL;DR: Are there really any shortcomings in either of the major camera brands that would put you off investing in them as an eco-system if you had a particular target in mind?

kd
Click to expand...

Nope they're both good systems, and they tend to ape each other's lens specs so you can normally get what you need in either camp. Sony also have a pretty good range.

Pentax however have a lens range with more gaps in it then Shane MacGowen's teeth.

I went for Nikon, because they had the best ergonomics (for me) on their entry level bodies. Canon and Pentax were ok, at the time both Sony and Olympus were dreadful (since then Sony have changed their grip and Olympus have got out of DSLRs).

Go and try some stuff and get the one you like. If you want to do landscapes make sure you allow for reasonable tripod, a spare battery and a decent bag.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
From what I've been reading here this summer.

Get a Nikon, better sensor, better DR, better AF, sharper optics, just better.

Don't even bother trying the bodies out in the store, ergonomics don't matter when its just better!

lol :p
Click to expand...

Hence my first sentence xD

I'm well aware ergonomics and what fits your hand is a massively important element. I've tired a few, Canon seem to be winning at the moment, although I can't for the life of me get to grips with the abundance of cheap plastic on the grips of the 1100D/D3100...

kd
 
Last edited:
Canon cameras fit my hand better, and I prefer the layout. That being said, if you're willing to sacrifice comfort (if it's even an issue for you) then go for whoever have the best camera in the price bracket you're looking at spending in.
 
To be honest, for DSLR cameras less than £1000 ( consumer range ) I don't think there is much to choose between Canon or Nikon. They all feel a bit cheap and plastic. For prosumer & pro level DSLR's it's a different matter entirely, in my opinion, with Nikon at the top of the tree at the moment.

You might want to consider trying to pick up a 2nd hand D700 or D7000 ... prices are tumbling now that the newer wave of Nikon cameras are out. Similarly, you might be able to source a cheap Canon 5DMk2.

The real question you should be asking yourself isn't " Nikon or Canon ? ", but "Do I really want to get into DSLR photography ?". Have you been using compact cameras for awhile, and come to the conclusion you want to get into photography more seriously ? Once you commit to a DSLR system it's an expensive hobby. And, you will learn, in time, that it doesn't pay in the long run to buy "cheaper" equipment such as third party lenses etc.
 
Last edited:
As a Canon owner for the last 7 years I've been having this moan lately about Canon. Currently their offering of prosumer bodies is quite rubbish in my opinion. They have quite a gap going on in their range for someone that wants to invest £600-£900 in a Canon prosumer crop sensor camera.

The 60D is around £600 and lacks the build quality and feel of a prosumer camera.

The 7D is around £800 and has not the greatest IQ.

I like Canon, don't get me wrong. But for this price bracket they aren't coming out on top body wise. I'm not sure if Canon have anything up their sleeves for the near future? It doesn't look like they have at the moment from my searching.

For anything else I think the race is an even one.
 
Price to performance the Nikon is generally the better right now.

D3100 > 1100D
D5100 ~= 600/650D
D7000 > 60D
D7000 ~= 7D
D600 > 6D
D800 > 5DmkIII
D4 > 1DX

The Nikon build quality is just better too until you get to the 7D stage at which point Canon finally starts pulling back. At the end of the day if you invest in good glass you'll be able to keep that forever, only the body should be changing regularly.

But as I always say to customers in store, hold the cameras and see which feels better to you in the hand, the technology is very similar as are the lenses and in a few years time it'll probably switch again and Canon will be leading the game, so what really counts is that it feels comfortable and intuitive.
 
Canon sensor are at least1-2 generations behind Nikon, Sony, Pentax etc. What is worse is they don't seem so inclined to do anything about it. The latest canon 650d shows they have made no progress and now other cameras with smaller sensors are surpassing them. E.g. The new micro four thirds cameras now give equal or better image quality than the latest canon crop cameras. With that in mind I am not sure canon is even playing in the same league any more. I would rather have the new oly OMD-5 and the nice m4/3 prime lenses than any canon crop setup. It is the trend that is worrying, look at the dxomark numbers for DR etc for canon and Nikon cameras, canon is a completely flatline more or less since the 20d/300d era, Nikon has a nice steady increase.


The other trend with canon is that their bodies are getting more and more plastic and feature sets are going further and further apart from Nikon at similar models. When I got my first dslr I was comparing a Nikon D70 against a canon 300d. The D70 line has now grown into the Nikon d7000 which competes with the canon 7D, while the 300d is now the pretty poor 650d. Nikon has pushed bodies 2 levels against canon who are adding more and more plastic like in the 60d.

New canon prices are also absurd relative to Nikon. they also seem to be updating their lenses at a more leisurely rate. Over the last 5 years Nikon has updated most of their important lenses.


However, the higher up canons lineup you go the less the differences in cameras, at the very top both are more or less equal. If you go for a 5dmk3 it is not so far behind Nikon for many uses. Also the future of the sensors is unclear, 8 years ago Nikon was definitely behind canon but now they are well ahead( and I mean Nikon here, not Sony, sensors in the d3200, d3 and d3s, d4) and they also made a good decision to partner with Sony to share Sony's good sensors. And as I said earlier, the is a clear increasing trend with sensor performace with Nikon with no reason to expect the improvements to stop. Canon has been completely stagnant and unable or unwilling to push the boundary, instead focusing on video, increasing the plastic content, improved jpeg engine etc. Maybe in 5 years canon will get ahead again, you never know.
 
I have to say, the feeling the camera in your hand is a ridiculous reason to buy a camera. They are both ergonomic and you are a human being and will adapt quickly to whatever your using.

Buy the camera that suits your fundamental goals.. That's FF and whatever one you can afford. If you want more bells and whistles you will have to pay the extra, as I say... After 10 mins either one will feel right in your hands and their are multiple reasons to consider before that.
 
I can see a lot of people are going off topic talking about camera's well outside of the price range. Due to that, I'll try and keep on topic!

I got to have a play with the D7000 (nikon) and 600D (canon) camera's earlier when I was out with some people from the photography society at my local university. To be honest I wasn't expecting much from the 600D as I know the D7000 is a great camera, but I was quite surprised by it. Sure its a plastic body, just like all of the "entry" level (hate that saying) DSLRs, but the user interface, button placement etc are both quite intuitive for the most part. If you do landscape photos a lot, the D7000 body would be the better one to go for due to better dynamic range on the sensor, yet if landscapes don't float your boat, its a very muddy line between bodies.

Due to that, I'd concentrate more on lens choices and what you want to try and photograph as both camera systems have some cracking lenses, but theres some big differences in lens line ups.

Example being that Nikon lenses tend to be weather sealed for the most part, with far less canon lenses being sealed against the elements. Funny thing is though, this is only a real consideration if you are actually going to upgrade to a body which can also withstand such harsh weather conditions, so probably a mute point really! Canon can give you a very nice lens line up for relatively low cost (compared to the equivalent nikon lenses for the most part). If you ever want to shoot wildlife, the canon primes at the super telephoto end are far more readily available second hand for bargain prices. You also get the option of F1.2 primes on the canon system if you ever got serious about portrait photography, plus the 1.4 stuff is very well priced and relatively new tech inside them also (aspherical elements etc)

All of that is pretty much irrelevant though if you never intend of going full frame, so bear that in mind! To get the best out of your photos, you really do need to invest in good glass, and that costs FAR more than bodies do in the long run. You DEFINITELY should go to a store where the camera bodies are available to hold and use and have a play with camera's from both side of the fence. Only you know whats comfortable in your hand, how much weight you can take over extended periods and how easy buttons are to press etc given the condition of your joints!
 
I'd buy which ever you get the best Deal on, Nikon D7000 for the price is amazing vaule at the moment, It's all todo with your budget really.
 
-|ScottFree|- said:
I have to say, the feeling the camera in your hand is a ridiculous reason to buy a camera. They are both ergonomic and you are a human being and will adapt quickly to whatever your using.
Click to expand...

I find Canons both uncomfortable and irritatingly menu driven, for this reason I won't ever use one. I need something that I can easily access the dials on and still use the shutter button comfortably (on Nikon middle finger on front dial, thumb on rear and index on shutter), and trying to change options quickly on a Canon is a ballache going through menus, where as with Nikons you have all the buttons and switches to use. Sure you can do some changes with buttons on Canon, but 2 buttons and a dial doesn't seem as intuitive as flicking a switch, and when it comes down to getting that shot speed is everything.
 
I've never heard of a canon shooter who complains about not being able to get a shot because of a convoluted menu. I have no problem setting up quickly and intuitively because I use it all the time, and I have no doubt that with 10mins of you using my camera you would be the same. We are highly adaptable creatures that find a workflow that is suitable within a few minutes of using a new piece of equipment.

I don't want to go off topic, but I hear that same saying continuously and it's nonense. I wouldn't buy a D700 over a mark 2 because it felt better in my hand. I put low light, ISO, moire & aliasing (video) lens choice and price far above feel in my hand..

That's just my take and I mean absolutely no offense.

All the best with whatever you choose...
 
Scott, if you go out shooting for an entire day with a very heavy lens attached to a camera that doesn't feel right in your hand, you really feel the difference. For me the feel of a camera is a big deciding point on purchasing as I've got arthritis so really benefit from having a body that fits the length of my fingers and palm properly.

As for ISO performance, its all much of a muchness if I'm honest. I've owned a 5D mk ii and now I own a D3 and have I noticed an ISO performance difference between the cameras? No not really. Would I actually care if there was a difference, probably not, as I rarely go over 3200 iso anyway with my style of shooting, making it irrelevant over that.

Got to remember that just because something isn't applicable to you when you made your choice, doesn't necessarily mean that someone else won't benefit from it. Example being you mention video, so I guess thats important to you, yet I never shoot video and never even touched the feature on my 5D mk ii when I had it as it just didn't interest me. Does that make it pointless to have as a feature? No not at all.

Horses for courses buddy! :P
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom