Canon or Nikon?

Status
Not open for further replies.
King Damager said:
Actually that's a good point, are there major ISO differences? I do like to get out at night if possible :)

kd
Click to expand...

Look at dxomark http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings/(type)/usecase_sports

Nikon have a definite edge and offer better high ISO performance at all camera levels. Whatis more is that canon sensors of late have very pronounced banding issues or high chrominance noise or conversely have lost details through filtering, which is less pleasant than grain like luminance noikse which Nikon has tended to output.

However, the differences between sensor sizes or lens aperture tends to dominate. Some camera like the Nikon D3s are really unmatched by canon. At the lower end I wouldn't worry too much. For the crop sensor cameras the Nikon 1.5x crop is larger than canons 1.6x crop swill always allow for better light performance given equal technology.

ISO differences is not really the differentiator as much as dynamic range. Canon is really lagging in this area. Whether DR is import depends on what you shootbut is one of the main reason why People still shoot film because for many DR s the most critical sensor performance. Again, t s not just the raw numbers, canon sensor are notorious for banding issues in shadows, so just because the raw numbers say 1-3 stops difference the visible inference can be greater because patterns and bands are readily o set able byte human eye relate to random noise.

Other sensor related things is resolution. Some canon sensor have a strong Anti-aliasing filter in place to aid moire performance in video. Nikon sensors have weaker AA filter and give sharper still images.


Still, after all iideaid and done your biggest weakness will be your skill. Canon cameras are perfectly capable and even the entry level cameras give better photos than $10,000 cameras from 10 years ago. So if there is something that draws you to canon then iwouldn't worry.starting from fresh given current line up, sensors, trends, features then Nikon definitely have an edge. That Edge might go th other way in the future.
 
Last edited:
King Damager said:
Actually that's a good point, are there major ISO differences? I do like to get out at night if possible :)

kd
Click to expand...

As DP says, if you are shooting static objects high ISO performance should play no part in your decision as you should be planting the body on a tripod and exposing over a longer time at lower ISO's.

I owned a D80 then moved to a D90 and after dropping all my gear in a lake moved to Sony.

I've also used quite extensively a D7000, a 550D and a 7D so feel I'm quite well placed to comment.

Honestly just buy the best camera that fits your budget and don't be too bothered about brand.

Have a look at each systems lens line-up and see how you might want to grow your lens collection in the coming months, also a consideration that influenced my decision to move to Sony was that a good friend of mine shot Sony which means we can swap lenses at will.
 
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
 
The Nikon 1.8 isn't really much different than the 1.4. Both of which are miles better than the Canon 1.8.
The Canon 50 1.4 is so unreliable it's a liability.
The 50 1.2L isn't exactly fantastic, poor bokeh, focus shift and not that sharp, in fact the Sigma 50 is supposed to be better.

The 35L is soft and 1.4

The 85L renders lovely, but isn't noticeably different than the Sigma 85 and even less so than the Nikon 85, but is nearly double the weight, focus is twice as slow, and isn't weather sealed.

I agree though, it would help if Nikon had an L brand equivalent, but it's not exactly hard to work out which is the best glass.
 
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
 
King Damager said:
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).


kd
Click to expand...

Lol 24-70G isn't bad :confused:
Yes the 24-70L ii, is slightly better, but then it should be considering the cost, and that's it's only just been released.
The sigma's don't compare.

But you could say the same about the 14-24, Canon has nothing that can compete with it's quality.

Long lenses isn't my bag, but I think the Nikon 70-200 F4 is being released in November. Tbh, wouldn't want to buy a long lens without VR/IS.
 
Last edited:
King Damager said:
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
Click to expand...

The canon L phenomenon is really just good marketing from canon, it doesn't mean anything specific wi regards to image quality, build quality, focus speed, weather sealing. About the only thing is a high price tag....

With Nikon you just get what you pay for, you want the high end constant aperture zoom then you will pay the money, you want a cheap variable aperture zoom then you pay much less. No need for marketing wizardry here. Canon have their red ring, Nikon uses gold ring and often a bronze plate for the name. Canon have an ugly dirty grey because their fluorite elements are susceptible to deformation at higher temperatures, Nikon's ED glass is immune to temperature deformation (in the natural temperature ranges) so the lenses can remain black (some lens are sold white so you can pretend you are a canon shooter).


Now one of the reasons Nikon don't purposely differentiate is because they make all their lenses to the highest image quality, build quality and aperture/design for that level of lens at the intended price point. They won't make the slower prime have worse image quality than the faster prime to make the fast prime have a marketing premium with L printed on it. Thus lenses like the Nikon 50mm and 85mm f/1.8 are excellent optically and their build quality is not really any different to more expensive primes. the same goes for consumer zooms, the variable aperture zooms and kit lenses from Nikon have remarkable sharpness these days. E.g., lenses like the 16-85mm are every bit as equal, resolution wise, to expensive canon L lenses or nikon fixed aperture glass.



As a summary, if a Nikon lens is expensive then it is a pro lens and would be marketed as an L lens with Canon. If it is cheap it might still have good build quality and excellent image quality, but is more likely to be variable aperture or have a slower aperture than some other Nikon lens of equal focal length.


I would also tend to ignore any hype about canon L and just look at the quality of the lenses themselves. E.g. Canons 17-55mm IS f/2.8 is a wonderful lens but for some reason is not an L, but their 17-40 is an L lens with mediocre quality, their 100-400mm is an L but has a variable aperture and is no where near the quality of the canon 70-200 lenses etc.
 
King Damager said:
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
Click to expand...

With regards to moderate tel zooms, on Nikon you can buy the new 70-200mm f/2.8VRii but also the older 70-200mm F/2.8vr and Nikon still sells newly manufactured 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D lenses and you can find 80-200mm AF-S lenses readily second hand. There is the older 70-210mm f/4.0 E series MF lenses and now Nikon have released a new 70-200mm f4.0VR lens. All of these are optically superb and cover a huge price range. Don't discount the older 80-200mm, my one was much sharper than my 70-200VR.


Another little unknown is that Nikon still manufactures and sells brand new 50mm f/1.2 AIs lenses that are pretty similar to the canon but MF.
 
An Exception said:
Lol 24-70G isn't bad :confused:
Yes the 24-70L ii, is slightly better, but then it should be considering the cost, and that's it's only just been released.
The sigma's don't compare.

But you could say the same about the 14-24, Canon has nothing that can compete with it's quality.

Long lenses isn't my bag, but I think the Nikon 70-200 F4 is being released in November. Tbh, wouldn't want to buy a long lens without VR/IS.
Click to expand...

Actually most of the reviews are showing the Nikon 24-70G to be better than the canon 24-70Lii, e.g. Look at photozone, Nikon is clearly ahead at 70mm from f/2.8 and f/4 elsewhere. Not easy to compare between cameras on photozone but I certainly wouldn't say the canon is better, especially if one considers the price difference.
 
D.P. said:
Now one of the reasons Nikon don't purposely differentiate is because they make all their lenses to the highest image quality, build quality and aperture/design for that level of lens at the intended price point. They won't make the slower prime have worse image quality than the faster prime to make the fast prime have a marketing premium with L printed on it. Thus lenses like the Nikon 50mm and 85mm f/1.8 are excellent optically and their build quality is not really any different to more expensive primes. the same goes for consumer zooms, the variable aperture zooms and kit lenses from Nikon have remarkable sharpness these days. E.g., lenses like the 16-85mm are every bit as equal, resolution wise, to expensive canon L lenses or nikon fixed aperture glass.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to imply that Canon (or any other lens manufacturer coming to that) don't do the best they can at the price point ? seriously ?

You mentioned the Canon 100-400 lens - you do realise this is one of Canons best selling lenses ? According to you everyone bought it just because its got an "L" in the name, never mind the quality :rolleyes:

I think some people here seriously need to go look at the results photographers are getting with all these "marketing gimmicks" and "soft" lenses.

imho the biggest problem with Nikon is the AF vs AF-S thing when it comes to upgrades.. at least with Canon you can stick to EF lenses on a crop and know those lenses will be good on whatever body you may move to in the future.

I agree with earlier posters that its not really going to make much difference which brand you go for - its a bit like a learner driver buying a Ferrari or a Porsche, both will be very quick cars - will one of them hold the driver back ? not a chance, both are very capable machines. Might the driver prefer one over the other for purely subjective reasons ? absolutely.
 
Hmm, going by the advice in this thread, I would end up just buying a Nikon body. That would be it, nothing else, because clearly the Canon bodies aren't up to it and neither are the lenses.

Add to that most of the Nikon lenses aren't up there either apparently - so that's it, I'm off to purchase a Nikon Body, no lens and then photograph it with my unreliable Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 if it will work.

There again I might stick it on a table 100 feet away and shoot it with the 100mm-400mm, hopfully the single square block of pixels that it will apparently render might be recognisable as a Nikon body, or my last attempt would be to create that lovely soft focus effect with my EF 35mm f/1.4 L, which up until now I hadn't realised that the front element was made of jelly....

:rolleyes:
 
Andy90 said:
Add to that most of the Nikon lenses aren't up there either apparently - so that's it, I'm off to purchase a Nikon Body, no lens and then photograph it with my unreliable Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 if it will work.
Click to expand...

No need for sarcasm buddy, it's probably the most fragile unreliable lens made.
This is camera gear, there is no need for emotional outbursts.
 
I don't think there is a official statistic, the only people who can answer that are the repair centres and ask which they get in most often. Then again, some could be nothing, like my cracked screen on the 35L, that's nothing to do with reliability, it could happen on any other lens.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom