Canon vs. Nikon

[sapporobaby]

Sorry, but anyone blaming a kit lens on a bad photograph is like a workman blaming his tools.

A DSLR is a very difficult item to pick up from scratch and take good pictures with. However, it's a very easy item to pick and up and start taking utterly awful photographs.

You hit the nail on the head. I have been reading this thread and only feel inclined to post when something sooooo utterly wrong is posted.

To the OP, Nikon or Canon. Both are great and both will give you good photos, but in the end, the shots are only as good as the photographer and the technique. I recommend Nikon because it suits my style of shooting. I defy any Canon user here to match the Nikon D3S in low light shooting. Commercially the D3S is the standard by which all consumer cameras are measured. However if you want to shoot video, Canon is the way to go. I tend to shoot fast moving object, street scenes, and low light often. The Nikon with the right lenses makes this possible for me. Also, I can take a slow lens (120-400mm Sigma, f4.5-5.6), push the ISO well into 8000 or even 10000 and catch my daughter deflecting a goal, all the while experiencing low noise. I don't know of any Canon that can do this. Sooo.. decide what you want to shoot, and let that be your guide.

 

[puckhead193]

not to add fuel to the fire but how come in professional sports you see more canon then Nikons on the sidelines?

 

[firestarter]

I recommend Nikon because it suits my style of shooting. I defy any Canon user here to match the Nikon D3S in low light shooting. Commercially the D3S is the standard by which all consumer cameras are measured

The D3S is NOT a consumer camera. And last time I checked, the OP wasn't thinking of dropping $5100 on a body.

not to add fuel to the fire but how come in professional sports you see more canon then Nikons on the sidelines?

Probably due to early decisions in AF lens design. Until AF-S came along, Nikon cameras focussed their lenses using a motor in the body and a 'screwdriver' poking into the lens. Fine for small lenses; but for large lenses you would have slow focussing as the (relatively weak) body motor would have to be geared down to move the big glass.

Canon ditched their old lens design and went all electronic with their AF cameras. All motors are in the lens, so a large lens gets a big motor that's better matched and able to focus quicker.

This is all a moot point now though. Nikon followed Canon by switching to in-lens motors with the AF-S series, and there should really be no difference now. Indeed Canon have had some notable focus issues in recent cameras, so today's pro Nikon may well be better suited to sports.

 

[Vudoo]

not to add fuel to the fire but how come in professional sports you see more canon then Nikons on the sidelines?

There are a few reasons for this.

1. For a period of time, Canon had full frame sensors and Nikon didn't, but that has changed with the Nikon D3 series and the D700.
   
2. Canon has more lenses with some focal lengths that Nikon doesn't have such as the 800mm.
   
3. Canon is also a larger company with deeper pockets so they have been known to donate or subsidized equipment to businesses and professionals.

 

[reputationZed]

Once again the initiate, in ignorance of what has gone before him, fans the flames of the holy war.

Both make great cameras, some of the best glass out there, and generally crappy kit lenses. My advice is to find a store where you can handle a body or two from each to see what feels best in your hands. I've got big hands and the Nikons just felt a bit better in my hands than the Canons. There both very, very good camera systems, from companies who are just as integral to the photographic landscape as Apple is to technology.

 

[sapporobaby]

not to add fuel to the fire but how come in professional sports you see more canon then Nikons on the sidelines?

You do know that Nikon has white or gray colored lenses right, if you were using the white Canon lenses as a reference.

----------

Once again the initiate, in ignorance of what has gone before him, fans the flames of the holy war.

Both make great cameras, some of the best glass out there, and generally crappy kit lenses. My advice is to find a store where you can handle a body or two from each to see what feels best in your hands. I've got big hands and the Nikons just felt a bit better in my hands than the Canons. There both very, very good camera systems, from companies who are just as integral to the photographic landscape as Apple is to technology.

Ding, ding, ding !!!!!! We have a winner....

 

[reputationZed]

There are a few reasons for this.

1. For a period of time, Canon had full frame sensors and Nikon didn't, but that has changed with the Nikon D3 series and the D700.
   
2. Canon has more lenses with some focal lengths that Nikon doesn't have such as the 800mm.
   
3. Canon is also a larger company with deeper pockets so they have been known to donate or subsidized equipment to businesses and professionals.

I'll throw in another reason, Canon's big pro level glass is white, making them jump out of the crowd. In actual numbers the balance is likely in Canon's favor, but it's not as overwhelming as many think.

 

[reputationZed]

To the OP, I say pick up a Nikon D3100 or D5100. While you may not have a million lenses that Canon produces, in many cases you won't need them. I am currently using the "trinity" lenses from Nikon (14-24mm, 24-70mm, and 70-200mm. All f2.8) and I can tell you that there are not many lenses in the consumer range that can reproduce the clarity, speed and performance. Get yourself the Nikon 18-200 VRII, and you are all set with a decent lens that will cover most of your needs. Hope this helps.

I always felt the 18-200 was highly over rated. It was a good lens, but heavy for it's speed, and I never really found that I needed one lens to cover 18-200. Granted I had the original, not the VR-II, but I found Nikor 50mm f1.8 to be an order of magnitude sharper, and several orders of magnitude cheaper, not to mention being a faster lens. The old adage that it's best to learn with a prime may not be gospel, but when one of the sharpest lenses Nikon makes can be had for a fifth of what the 18-200 will cost, I can't see passing it up.

OP don't get to caught up in gear lust. You don't need Pro glass to take great shots. You do however need to get out there and shoot which I am quite sad to admit I have not made enough time for myself these last few months.

 

[sapporobaby]

I always felt the 18-200 was highly over rated. It was a good lens, but heavy for it's speed, and I never really found that I needed one lens to cover 18-200. Granted I had the original, not the VR-II, but I found Nikor 50mm f1.8 to be an order of magnitude sharper, and several orders of magnitude cheaper, not to mention being a faster lens. The old adage that it's best to learn with a prime may not be gospel, but when one of the sharpest lenses Nikon makes can be had for a fifth of what the 18-200 will cost, I can't see passing it up.

OP don't get to caught up in gear lust. You don't need Pro glass to take great shots. You do however need to get out there and shoot which I am quite sad to admit I have not made enough time for myself these last few months.

You have a good point. I had the original 18-200 as well. It was not bad but as my skills improved, I moved into pro glass even though they are heavier. The performance is worth it. I have a 50mm as well, and agree that it is a nice lens. Fast, light, and responsive.

 

[Flash SWT]

not to add fuel to the fire but how come in professional sports you see more Canon then Nikons on the sidelines?

As others have mentioned it really is fairly even these days. At Texans/Raiders this afternoon I'd say Canon had a solid majority but not by a huge amount. One thing that makes it deceiving is that many of the Nikon shooters have switched from using a 400/2.8 to the 200-400/4 zoom which is physically smaller and doesn't stand out as much.

Another thing to consider when looking at professional sports as an indicator is that many of the photogs on the sideline are staffers using company gear. Most places are locked in to one brand or the other solely based on when they made the jump to digital. It is one thing for a single photographer to consider making a switch between companies but an entirely more complicated endeavor when you consider needing to replace 20 to 30 bodies plus all the lenses to go along with them.

You do know that Nikon has white or gray colored lenses right...

This is like bigfoot for me. I've heard of them, but never actually seen one in real life!

 

[Chasesmith]

If you're looking for a good in-depth comparison on Canon vs Nikon, check this out - http://getcomparisons.com/canon-vs-nikon#review-4721

I use a Canon EOS 600D and I chose it over the Nikon D5100 primarily because of its better grip handling, wireless flash controller, and battery life.

 

[Vudoo]

You have a good point. I had the original 18-200 as well. It was not bad but as my skills improved, I moved into pro glass even though they are heavier. The performance is worth it. I have a 50mm as well, and agree that it is a nice lens. Fast, light, and responsive.

I got the 50mm initially because it was a prime and it was cheap, but I soon learn that it's really not a good focal length on a DX sensor. You really end up with a 75mm lens which is too long unless you want to do portraits. That's why I always tell DX users to get a 35mm instead. I have the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 on my D700 and it works nicely on FX.

If you're looking for a good in-depth comparison on Canon vs Nikon, check this out - http://getcomparisons.com/canon-vs-nikon#review-4721

I use a Canon EOS 600D and I chose it over the Nikon D5100 primarily because of its better grip handling, wireless flash controller, and battery life.

If I was going off that website, I would lean towards Nikon. The only thing in the Canon column that maybe of interest to me was HD-SLR and cheaper lenses. The better sharpness is questionable. The greater frame rate is dependent on which model you were comparing. And more megapixels isn't necessary better.

 

[tinman0]

not to add fuel to the fire but how come in professional sports you see more canon then Nikons on the sidelines?

Back in the mid 80s, Canon were late to the AF scene. They had developed the T80 with motors on the lenses before most of the industry, but it wasn't very successful (although I'd love to pick on up one day).

The industry moved very quickly to launch AF and they all, without exception, used a motor in the body and a movable pin on the lens mount. This meant that in many cases, the new AF bodies were able to take older lenses.

Canon didn't follow this, and developed (or at least were the recipients of) a very small motor that they could mount in the lens. IIRC the motor was actually a ring around the lens but I could be wrong.

This proved much much faster and accurate than what everyone else was doing, which was a big thing.

Canon also made the rather brave decision with the EOS to dump the FD mount, and iirc Canon have the largest bayonet system on the market - which means more light to the sensor on the bigger lenses (iirc).

Canon got a lot of ****** at the time for moving to EF so (iirc) they bought a lot of professionals out of their big lens kit so that the pros could go to EOS without dropping huge amounts of cash.

(On a side note, I do not know why Canon gets such a bad name for moving to the EF, when you look at the hodge potch that the competition have - here's looking at Nikon that have 2 different AF lenses etc, and all sorts of body incompatibilities with lenses.)

 

[compuwar]

(On a side note, I do not know why Canon gets such a bad name for moving to the EF, when you look at the hodge potch that the competition have - here's looking at Nikon that have 2 different AF lenses etc, and all sorts of body incompatibilities with lenses.)

Because Canon stranded all of their users by making the old lenses completely incompatible, while Nikon has only hampered the consumer-level bodies, and the bulk of people purchasing those don't own a single "old" lens- so they've only effectively crippled the used market for a very small percentage of users, whilst Canon stranded literally thousands of working professionals as well as amateurs without a path forward that didn't include re-purchasing every single existing lens.

Since lots of folks with older lenses actually shot before autofocus existed, it's not as big a deal- but more importantly professional and prosumer bodies are 100% compatible with pretty-much every autofocus Nikon lens ever made, and almost all lenses made from about 1979 onwards, and ironically the lowest-end bodies are often capable of mounting "pre-AI" lenses which means being able to shoot with lenses made back to 1959.

Finally, with Canon you'd have to ditch any EF-S lenses if moving completely to full-frame and couldn't simply switch bodies in the event of a failure of the APS-C body if you carry one of each without purchasing an additional lens. With Nikon, the DX lenses work just fine on the "full-frame" bodies, so in a pinch you can use a crop lens- I've had to do that a couple of times where I needed the extra width of my Sigma 10-20mm shooting real estate on my D3x- I don't do it often enough to go out and get a 14mm FX lens, so I'm glad I can continue to make good on my lens investment without always having to carry two camera bodies.

Paul

 

[rcappo]

I found that Canon's were more intuitive and easily adjusted in manual mode when I was a novice at the store with no assistance.

I liked the lenses as well. Get the fastest (lowest f-stop) you can afford. Primes are different, but better if you use them right (50mm f 1.4 is a good start)

But, get a photography book at the library and read up on technique. The best camera can't help poor composure.

And then play with it. Change the settings, and see what composures work and what doesn't. Pay attention to not washing out or having too much in the shadows...

 

[Cole Slaw]

Get whatever your friends have. It's much easier to swap lenses and get help when you are on the same system.

Otherwise, buy Canon as only gays buy Nikon hehe

Haha, now there's a solid argument.