Is there an equivalency list between Canon and Nikon DSLR's?

[glitch]

Ladies, Ladies, Ladies...I think we need to cold chill for a moment. Why can't we just accept that both Canon and Nikon make superb camera bodies and lenses and leave it at that?

Because, alas, it's not that simple.

Although neither is it a case of one being far superior to the other. Better suited to a specific task, perhaps, but not superior.

They are so good in fact, with such little difference between them that it really is just a matter of which system you prefer.

Both offer something that the other does not and both have gaps in their range where they ought not to. If it were just a case of whether you preferred Nikon's approach to Canon's, life, and this thread, would have been much easier going thus far.

I can't help but think that the argument is absolutely pointless.

It's not pointless to discuss which is more suitable for a specific photographer or type of photography, but it is pointless to argue about it.

For example, I dislike Nikon's approach to their DSLR cameras apart from the D3 and D700. It annoys me that there are still lenses out there without AF motors built into them. I despair that with certain lenses you've got to get your slide-rule out and run through a set of charts to figure out if the lens will even fit your camera, let alone work properly.

I also hate the fact that Nikon still plod along with their 80-400mm when Canon have the far superior 100-400m, find it incredible that Nikon don't offer the same quality of prime lenses under 200mm that Canon do and really find it hard to understand why Nikon lenses have so any bits on the lens mount that can get bent/broken/damaged/dirty so easily, where Canon's EF mount system is so neat and tidy.

But then again I hate the fact that I've got to buy a 1Ds MkIII to get the AF system and sensor I want in a Canon camera.

Swings and roundabouts, eh?

 

[GTRacer]

It's not pointless to discuss which is more suitable for a specific photographer or type of photography, but it is pointless to argue about it.

For example, I dislike Nikon's approach to their DSLR cameras apart from the D3 and D700. It annoys me that there are still lenses out there without AF motors built into them. I despair that with certain lenses you've got to get your slide-rule out and run through a set of charts to figure out if the lens will even fit your camera, let alone work properly.

I also hate the fact that Nikon still plod along with their 80-400mm when Canon have the far superior 100-400m, find it incredible that Nikon don't offer the same quality of prime lenses under 200mm that Canon do and really find it hard to understand why Nikon lenses have so any bits on the lens mount that can get bent/broken/damaged/dirty so easily, where Canon's EF mount system is so neat and tidy.

But then again I hate the fact that I've got to buy a 1Ds MkIII to get the AF system and sensor I want in a Canon camera.

Swings and roundabouts, eh?

I'm not disagreeing with you that both brands have their own pluses and minuses, but I feel that I should clear up a few things.

It annoys me that there are still lenses out there without AF motors built into them. I despair that with certain lenses you've got to get your slide-rule out and run through a set of charts to figure out if the lens will even fit your camera, let alone work properly.

Nikon have this obsession with sticking with the F-mount, and as such there will be a few lenses that won't be entirely compatible (it's been what, 50-60 years since they introduced it?). Yes, Nikon were behind the AF curve in the 80's-90's, but they wanted to preserve some form of compatibility between different generations of bodies. All of Nikon's recent lens updates do feature internal motors in order to fill in gaps that their entry models have (the lack of the in-body motor), but to be honest the average entry level user would be happy with the kit lens by itself anyway. Prosumer models lack metering with old lenses, but guessing exposure isn't hard. All Nikon SLR cameras can mount F-mount lenses, the only F-mount lenses that needs a certain camera (or more accurately, a certain feature - permanent mirror lock up) are their invasive fisheye lenses which are pretty rare, and their very first lenses (doesn't have the correct shaped aperture ring), which were entirely replaced later on. I personally find it very convenient to be able to swap my lenses between my DSLRs and vintage Nikon F's so freely - it's a huge plus point for the Nikon system.

I also hate the fact that Nikon still plod along with their 80-400mm when Canon have the far superior 100-400m, find it incredible that Nikon don't offer the same quality of prime lenses under 200mm that Canon do and really find it hard to understand why Nikon lenses have so any bits on the lens mount that can get bent/broken/damaged/dirty so easily, where Canon's EF mount system is so neat and tidy.

I agree with you on the massive gaps in their lens line-up (but that'll improve over time), but the durability of their mount? That's just silly - the only extra thing modern F-mount lenses have compared to an EF lens is that they have a mechanical coupling to adjust the aperture with. Nikon wouldn't have fought so hard to keep the F-mount alive if was unreliable and prone to get broken, especially considering how many times Nikons have been used to cover wars, been sent to space and used for scientific applications.

 

[D.P.]

For example, I dislike Nikon's approach to their DSLR cameras apart from the D3 and D700. It annoys me that there are still lenses out there without AF motors built into them. I despair that with certain lenses you've got to get your slide-rule out and run through a set of charts to figure out if the lens will even fit your camera, let alone work properly.

This is entirely the wrong way round and the difference between Canon and Nikon. With Nikon, they have persevered to keep the F-Mount going for over 50 years and have worked around all engineering issues to maximize lens compatibility. It is one of their major selling points, they don't want users having to buy a whole new set of glass every 15 years when something new like auto focus comes along. You have a back catalog of over 50 years of compatible lenses. There are just a very few fisheyes which protrude too far into the body and come into contact with the mirror.

I also hate the fact that Nikon still plod along with their 80-400mm when Canon have the far superior 100-400m, find it incredible that Nikon don't offer the same quality of prime lenses under 200mm that Canon do and really find it hard to understand why Nikon lenses have so any bits on the lens mount that can get bent/broken/damaged/dirty so easily, where Canon's EF mount system is so neat and tidy.

But then again I hate the fact that I've got to buy a 1Ds MkIII to get the AF system and sensor I want in a Canon camera.

Swings and roundabouts, eh?

The Nikon 80-400 is about the same age as the Canon 100-400, and it is not as if the Canon is an outstanding lens. IQ wise they are practically identical, go to SLRgear.com and compare there is no real world differences. And the comment on primes is also BS, yes Nikon currently have less up to date offerings but there is still a large choice. The new 24 and 50 1.4 lenses have been released, a new 35 1.4 and 85 1.4 will probably be released this year. Where is the Canon 105 and 135 DC lens, Nothing canon offerings comes close. Canon has no real competitor to the 50 1.4 as the the Canon version is plagues by problems. Where is the Canon 85 1.4, probably the most legendary portrait lens ever made. Where is the Canon 35 1.8 DX, no where to be seen. Horses for courses really. Both companies lack options for wide DX primes, there is no 14/16/20mm 1.8 for crop sensors.

In the end, Nikon have less budget than Canon to update lenses, therefore some lenses have been left sometime without getting updates. This is not a big issue hough, screw driven AF is just as fast as USM/AF-S.


Nikon usually release 7 new lenses a year, this year they are expected to release 11. The 80-400, 35 1.4, 85 1.4 and a 24-120 f/4 are among the most likely. (+ plus some consumer zooms

 

[bigredshark]

The Nikon 80-400 is about the same age as the Canon 100-400, and it is not as if the Canon is an outstanding lens. IQ wise they are practically identical, go to SLRgear.com and compare there is no real world differences.

In the end, Nikon have less budget than Canon to update lenses, therefore some lenses have been left sometime without getting updates. This is not a big issue hough, screw driven AF is just as fast as USM/AF-S.

Screw drive AF *CAN* be as fast as AF-S if it's geared for it, the 80-400 is geared to be glacially slow. The AF is spectacularly useless for anything which moves at any rate, it's Nikon's only cheapish super telephoto and should be wildly popular but it's simply no good for many of things you'd want it for - for sports and wildlife it can't even track movement decently on a D2X (I've tried it extensively unfortunately).

Optically it's fine, if you can get your subject to sit still in focus it produces great images.

It should have been a great bit of glass - Nikon's first VR telephoto, good optically at a reasonable price - what's not to like. The lack of AF-S (or just a sensible gearing of the AF as it stands failing that) is the difference unfortunately. It has other failings (it has VR, it should be hand holdable - so why the rubbish ergonomics courtesy of the non removable tripod collar?).

It came close but it's just no good, the Canon 100-400 is no better optically but it's actually practical in use is the difference.

Now it's strongly rumored that Nikon will cough up a replacement (maybe a 120-450 AF-S VRII goes the rumor mill...) and I have high hopes for it, but the 80-400 is garbage.

EDIT: I agree about much of the rest, the primes aren't a big deal in my view, Canon almost have too much choice and I'd prefer Nikon developed zooms like the 14-24 instead of a million different primes personally. Nikon could maybe do with a f/1.2 prime or two would be the only thing (and if we're being picky the build quality of the AF-S 50mm 1.4 isn't of the same standard as the old AF-D version)

 

[bigredshark]

For example, I dislike Nikon's approach to their DSLR cameras apart from the D3 and D700. It annoys me that there are still lenses out there without AF motors built into them. I despair that with certain lenses you've got to get your slide-rule out and run through a set of charts to figure out if the lens will even fit your camera, let alone work properly.

That's about the first time I've heard the ubiquity of the f-mount system criticized! It's great in my view that virtually any lens will fit any body (particularly when there are some great old designs which are still perfect in use - the 135 DC was released in 1990 in current form).

I know a lot of people were uneasy about the decision to produce DX lenses originally as it broke that any lens on any body approach...

 

[Le_Petit_Lapin]

does it really matter? You're going to get the one that feels better in your hands followed by as far up the range as your budget can accommodate, no?