Canon or Nikon?

King Damager · 20 Oct 2012 at 14:31

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

King Damager · 20 Oct 2012 at 15:34

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

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

King Damager · 21 Oct 2012 at 00:59

Actually that's a good point, are there major ISO differences? I do like to get out at night if possible

kd

King Damager · 27 Oct 2012 at 16:33

Ok, so to bring this thread back slightly, I'm starting to look more into the Nikon stuff, and it seems fair to say that at the moment I might want to put aside body choice for now, as I can go with either without too much difference.

So, who wants to speak to me about Lenses...

Whilst obviously I could happily buy Sigma's for both, the best Sigma's seem to be fixed focal length, and they don't seem to compete anywhere near as well with some of the Canon/Nikon choices for telephotos.

That said, looking at the Nikon choices they seem to lack more in lens differentiation.

Canon have their 'L' range, that everyone seems to hail as fantastic, and then they have more budget options along side that.

E.g. Nifty Fifty they have the 1.8 50mm, and the 1.2L.

Nikon have a 1.8 and 1.4 50mm, but do we just presume the 1.4 is built better than the 1.8?

It's potentially a weird idea, but do people see what I'm getting at, that they don't seem to have one set of lenses that are better quality than the others they make, rather they just differentiate on aperture.

kd

King Damager · 27 Oct 2012 at 18:03

The thing is you've just used great examples of all the fixed focal lengths. I'm happy to know that the Sigma's are very good at 50/85 (and presumably 35), which'll work with either, it's really more an issue of the non sigma choices.

More interested in the zoom options.

Presuming the 24-70 G isn't bad, but does it really compete with the 24-70L, and I guess the Sigma 24-70.
I mean, the sigma is £510, Nikon £1200, and L is £1760 (DR prices).

Now presumably, that means the L lens is better than the Nikon which is better than the Sigma. Which basically means, in that top end range, Nikon basically have nothing that compete with Canon?

Sigma's pricing means that to be honest, for 35/50/85, if I decide I want them I'll probably go with the Sigma's considering the quality that people have said about them.

In the 70-200 range, You have Sigma's f2.8 for £700, Nikon's for 1450, and Canon's f2.8 for 1450(IS versions of C/N). But also, from the canon perspective, if you wanted to save a bit of cash, they've got the 70-200F4L with IS for 770, without IS for 443, and an f2.8 without IS for 870. Where as with Nikon you're basically stuck with just the Nikon or the Sigma?

I'm sure again, it's not hard to work your way around it, but it does seem that the Canon Lens range is more developed?

Again, I'm happily to listen otherwise, but, yeah, in the zoom/telezoom range, Nikon doesn't seem to compete as well in terms of sheer number of offerings for various prices. Although, that said, if you go beyond 200mm, they seem to start to have the lead over Canon.

kd