View Full Version : Canon or Nikon camera
missmoloko
07-08-2009, 20:28
Hi
If you were to start buying your gear from scratch would you buy Canon or Nikon? And why?
ecoleman
07-08-2009, 20:30
I use canon personally, but I would go to a camera store and have a play. See what fits your hands better, have a play with the menus and settings etc.
They are both good makes, so it comes down to personal preference.
I think Canon have a wider range of lenses/accessories.
pete.rush
07-08-2009, 20:34
Difficult choice, there are pro and con's for each. Personally it would be down to lens choice, canon has the fantastic 300mm f2.8, but for versatility I do like Nikon's 200-400mm f4 as I mainly shoot motorsport and aviation. It would be a more difficult choice now than when I made mine all though years back with the Canon 20D as my first camera over the Nikon D70.
i would keep the money and not get involved in this money pit of a profession / hobby
Oh Here we go!
Toy camera = Canon
Real camera = Nikon
Depends what level camera you're looking for, and what you intend to shoot.
I went with Nikon in March. Ergonomics were a big thing for me, and I preferred Nikon, the rear display at the time was higher res and larger than Canon's offerings. I'd handled friends 350d's and 400d's before but found them unfriendly.
I was looking for a mid-range crop sensor camera and Nikon had more to offer in this dept. That's not to say one brand is better than the other.
Oh Here we go!
Toy camera = Canon
Real camera = Nikon
:bang::bang::bang: :shake:
hashcake
07-08-2009, 20:46
Either cos both will do want you want from them.
reading magazines at the moment, there seems to be a real spread between the 2 main manufacturers, the 5dII being the better of the full frame, where as a Nikon is generally regarded the better mid range etc etc, bottom line is to go and try what you like and buy what you feel confortable with. ALL cameras turn out good work, as long as the manual interface between outside world and camera is functioning correctly ;)
Canon for me, again. Nikon reminds me of being stuck in the 80's/early 90's with the look of their lenses and kit. Plus the plethora of pro-togs you see at sporting events seem to be using their off white L lenses, so if it is good enough for them....:D
grey.squirrel
07-08-2009, 20:51
I'd keep my nikon but paint all the lenses white so when I to sporting events it blends in more ;)
edit - looks like me and Laudrup have the same ideals lol
i would keep the money and not get involved in this money pit of a profession / hobby
Amen to that!
Nikon reminds me of being stuck in the 80's/early 90's with the look of their lenses and kit.
Oh, dear. :cuckoo:
Mangelwurzel
07-08-2009, 20:58
I sold my Canon kit and bought new Nikon kit this month. Love Nikon.
Various reasons but CLS and i-TTL just rocks. Can't believe Canons still don't have built in wireless flash commanders :thinking:
Also i find the D90 focuses better in low light than the 40D. Admittedly the 40D feels better and is more solid but there's not much in it once you fit a battery grip :)
Oh, and white lenses on black bodies is just wrong :gag:
Seriously, at the end of the day the final print will give you no idea of what camera took what. Just go and hold some cameras, some will feel right, some won't.
Oh, dear. :cuckoo:
You think Nikon kit is aesthetically pleasing? :shrug: They really should use some decent marketing hook like Canon have done with their grey L lens.
Anorakus
07-08-2009, 21:01
SONY!!
I just had to be different :(
A.
Davec223
07-08-2009, 21:01
It's down to personal choice, I have had cannon in film and nikon in digital, that are both good makes. I would say that 99.9% of togs would not be able to tell if apic had been taken with a nikon or a cannon.
You think Nikon kit is aesthetically pleasing? :shrug: They really should use some decent marketing hook like Canon have done with their grey L lens.
Well, I do.
Are you aware of who designs the shape of the Nikon bodies?
Davec223
07-08-2009, 21:14
Well, I do.
Are you aware of who designs the shape of the Nikon bodies?
No, I have no idea whodesogns rge nikon bodies, so please enlighten me I am intregued (sp?) now.
Giorgetto Giugiaro.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giorgetto_Giugiaro
A guy that designed the Renault 19 isn't exactly filling me with confidence here :D
A guy that designed the Renault 19 isn't exactly filling me with confidence here :D
Pretty predictable response.
I think if I had a client list like that, one that included Renault but also Lambourghini, Ferrari, BMW, VW, De Lorean, Ford, Bugatti and many more, I'd be very happy with myself thank you very much.
GirlBehindtheCam
07-08-2009, 21:27
when i told some photographers (as i also model) i wanted to take up photography as a hobby, they all had divided opinions on the canon and the nikon, some said the canon was platicky and some said the nikon was a waste of money and some said that nikon was used by the pro's and canon really wasnt.
I personally think its more to do with the person behind the camera and im no pro so i couldnt tell the difference between nikon and canon but i guess its a trial and error thing, if one doesnt work for you personlly then go for the other
They really should use some decent marketing hook like Canon have done with their grey L lens.
You mean something like THIS (http://img.kakaku.com/images/productimage/fullscale/10503510225.jpg) or THIS (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AF2870mm/NikonAFZM2870mmf28DIFEDGray.jpg) :D
You mean something like THIS (http://img.kakaku.com/images/productimage/fullscale/10503510225.jpg) or THIS (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AF2870mm/NikonAFZM2870mmf28DIFEDGray.jpg) :D
So it is possible to have a Nikon and look good? :p
Aren't these grey lenses quite rare for the Nikon?
So it is possible to have a Nikon and look good? :p
Aren't these grey lenses quite rare for the Nikon?
Not so much rare as selective, unlike common Canon's :razz: :D
As a couple of people have already said (between the flames!)... get the things in your hand and see what feels best. So to speak! :naughty:
http://www.cametaauctions.com/ebay/used/34346/images/34346_01.jpg
malla1962
07-08-2009, 23:20
Give me the Canon.:D
ian ditch
07-08-2009, 23:26
imo the camera's are virtually identical, the difference its that Nikons cheaper range of lenses are much better than canons (but not all). dearer lenses are similar.
donutagain
08-08-2009, 08:51
and who's lenses did canon use to start with ???
the only reason they don't use them now is because nikon said it's my lens and i'm taking it home ( i may have made that last bit up )
ChrisMClark
08-08-2009, 08:56
I'd go with Nikon again, partly because there's no other sensible choice given (Canon? pffft :D) and partly because of the lack of accessories for Olympus SLRs. I love the feel of the larger Oly SLRs, everything right down to the positive action of the buttons, even on my old E-420, feels positive. My D40 feels a little 'hollow' when you press a button. I probably wouldn't go with Olympus again, it'd always be Nikon, but that's a cost and ease-of-ownership thing. Oly kit is a little hard to come by...and it's not exactly cheap either.
malla1962
08-08-2009, 09:28
and who's lenses did canon use to start with ???
the only reason they don't use them now is because nikon said it's my lens and i'm taking it home ( i may have made that last bit up )You have lost me here? so canon were using Nikon lenses before Nikon even started to make them.:D
I think this sums up the situation. Please read the following link. I think you'll see the light.:thumbs:
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=154817
You have lost me here? so canon were using Nikon lenses before Nikon even started to make them.:D
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/nikon_canon.htm
s-leeson
08-08-2009, 09:33
i have nikon and would have nikon again, canon's just feel cheap to me, nikons feel more sturdy and well balanced.
i'll be sticking with nikon for the forseeable future...unless i can ever afford a leica s2 :naughty:
malla1962
08-08-2009, 09:46
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/nikon_canon.htmNow it all makes sense, so when nikon started they could not make body's now they can't make lenses.:thumbs:
mastertrinity
08-08-2009, 09:54
neither can canon
sony!! sony!! sony!! sony!! sony!!
malla1962
08-08-2009, 09:55
:cuckoo:neither can canon
sony!! sony!! sony!! sony!! sony!!:cuckoo:
kingbling11
08-08-2009, 10:06
Whatever feels best for you. Saying that the main reason i went for nikon is because my dad had nikon. Means we can now share lenses so there is somehthing to be said for that method. But if there is nothing like that for you then go for whatever feels best in your hand. Go to a camera shop. Try them out.
Who gives a flying F-Stop what the camera and lenses look like...? :cuckoo:
As long as the images they take are good and it feels right in the hands - this isn't bloomin' jewelery guys...
Although I've long suspected that for many so-called 'photographers', camera-kit is exactly that...
I would still use Nikon as I'm unconvinced that Canon are as robust at the Top-End of the range...
Also due to having 'grown-up' with nikons - my second 'proper' camera was an F2-AS, followed by an F3 - Nikons seem more intuitive to me...
So would you buy a luminous pink and yellow camera with zebra striped lens? If a camera gives the same performance and at the same price point as its rivals the purchase decision is going to have to come down to something.
I'm guessing with the kind of photography Arkady does, looks have very little to do with it and resistance to water and mud are probably a lot more important.
TBH I think all the posing and posturing over gear is such an amateur way of looking at it. Ask most pros and the answer would be "I don't give a stuff so long as it does the job" If I had a client who insisted I use a D3 then I'd use a D3, if I could only get the shots I wanted using a pinhole, I'd use that. It's a tool and the knowledge of how to use one is far more important.
Personally if I were to start from scratch again, I'd sit down with a list of each manufacturer's lenses and the prices. I'd pick my ideal line up from both and only then would I even consider the bodies. Bodies last about three years, lenses 10+ so that's more important to me. I'd probably still favour Canon simply because I am so used to them I can operate them without thinking. I remember when I got the 1Ds, it took me ages to get past the having to think about it phase and to go back through it again would be enough to stick to Canon, especially now they have the 5DII. :)
Now it all makes sense, so when nikon started they could not make body's now they can't make lenses.:thumbs:
Their lens guys "zoomed" off to start Tokina ;) http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/non-nikon_articles/tokina/Tokina_AT-X_M100AF/Tokina_AT-X_M100AF_1.html#tokina_story
cowasaki
08-08-2009, 11:33
I chose Nikon because the silly white lenses look really cheap.
[/endtrollmode]
"The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." AA
fracster
08-08-2009, 12:08
Who gives a flying F-Stop what the camera and lenses look like...? :cuckoo:
As long as the images they take are good and it feels right in the hands - this isn't bloomin' jewelery guys...
Although I've long suspected that for many so-called 'photographers', camera-kit is exactly that...
Your finest post to date Sir.
Purile arguments like these really pee me off,use what works for you,who gives a flyer what colour the bleeding lens is,looks like or what the camera looks like.
Seems to me that a lot of guys on here view kit as some sort of penile extension..........:naughty:
Seems to me that a lot of guys on here view kit as some sort of penile extension..........:naughty:
So you have 3 different sizes? :lol:
Someone should tell Canon and Nikon nobody cares what their products look like and they could save millions a year designing and refining them :D
Munchkinn
08-08-2009, 12:29
Yes, definetly have a grope before buying anyhting from any make...
cowasaki
08-08-2009, 12:36
Seriously I went to the camera shop and tried the two makes side by side with the lenses I wanted. I preferred the nikon due to the feel of it with all the controls better accessible. It was a close thing. I did like the cls thing with nikon too. There are a few lenses from the canon range I would like but had I chosen canon I would have missed out on the 105mm f 2.8 for macro
Although I chose Nikon this time around, in the end it doesn't really matter to me since they're both fantastic cameras. I really like Canon's tougher bodies, though gray high end lens bodies kind of make their higher end lens too "in your face" to others. Nitpick, but I prefer low key and just blending in. Nikon's bodies are generally smaller as well. The D40 in particular feels like a little toy - a very capable and cool toy, mind you. In fact, it'll likely be the next camera I get my grubby hands on because i need a small unit for long treks and hikes.
I bought the D90 and am loving it. But had I purchased the 40D I think I would have been equally impressed.
Apples and oranges.
There are a few lenses from the canon range I would like but had I chosen canon I would have missed out on the 105mm f 2.8 for macro
Yes, you could have had the 100mm f2.8 macro instead :D
mstphoto
08-08-2009, 13:20
Oh Here we go!
Toy camera = Nikon
Real camera = Canon
mstphoto
08-08-2009, 13:30
I admit to having a Canon addiction.
My mate went out and bought a Nikon D80 as a first ever digicam which he couldn't get to grips with. I borrowed it for a week and hated it. He now has a D300 which I think is the bee's knees - I love it!! Great results although he is using non-Nikon lenses.
If I was starting from scratch? Difficult choice - probably still stick with Canon although I think Nikon has the edge over Canon at present.
I suppose at the end of the day its the photographer and not the camera that counts.
well i only have a low end nikon and a low end canon, nikon d60 and a canon 40d.
i like both of them, i prefer the 40d but its a better camera anyway, but there isnt much in it.
the nikon seems more intelliegently designed somehow. maybe its just a newer camera.
I plan to own both canon and nikon lenses and upgrade the bodies as i go, i see no point in being stuck to one or the other when both are great.
i want it all.lol
Paulie-W
08-08-2009, 13:41
Nikon again, simply because I prefer how they feel in my hands. No other reason at all.
mstphoto
08-08-2009, 13:43
well i only have a low end nikon and a low end canon, nikon d60 and a canon 40d.
i
I certainly wouldn't class the Canon 40D as a low end camera.
I have one and I've not long bought a 5D Mk2 and at present I am struggling to justify my outlay. I really can't see a huge difference in IQ between the two cameras using the same lenses.
james_death
08-08-2009, 13:46
I have avoided this thread and still wont comment other than i wont be drawn, Talk about more wars over religion, thats nothing to the pandoras box of which Cannon or Nikon..:schtum:
grumpybadger
08-08-2009, 13:54
Ok, so the question is what would I buy and not what should anybody else buy...
I'm not sure I agree with Arkady about top end Canon's being more fragile than Nikons. The 1-series is pretty bomb proof - I've dropped one in a swamp and its been fine and I've seen them get lots of abuse from the wildlife photographers I know. However, I digress.
For me, the answer is first what lens would I buy and that would push me to a different brand. I would start with the Nikkor 200-400 f/4 VR for versatility. That would push me towards a D3 and a D300s as my camera bodies. I would also need a 24-70, 70-200 and a 500 f/4 to complete my line up.
And that is the reason why I won't change - the change would cost me £12,500 before I'd worried about little subtleties like flash and macro. And, in a couple of years time, Canon may have a similar lens...
I certainly wouldn't class the Canon 40D as a low end camera.
I have one and I've not long bought a 5D Mk2 and at present I am struggling to justify my outlay. I really can't see a huge difference in IQ between the two cameras using the same lenses.
thats really interesting, i think i regard it as more low end probably due its age and price and not having any experience with any other cameras.
is there really not a huge difference? you see i had been thinking about the 5dmark2 and the d700, or not getting a new camera at all.
id really be hoping to see a vast improvement in image quality if i bought either but ive been seeing some posts saying there isnt much in it from the 40d. dont get me wrong, i love the 40d and would stay with it if there really is so little difference?
do you think you could write a brief outline of how you have found the 5dmark2 in comparison to the 40d, can pm me if you like, would just be so useful to have.
thanks
mstphoto
08-08-2009, 14:24
I would probably see a difference in IQ if I had poster size prints made but at A4 or A3,ones as good as the other.
I'm not suggesting the 5D Mk2 is a poor camera. Far from it. I haven't pushed it too far as yet but at ISO 3200, although a wee bit noisy theres still plenty of detail. It handles well and feels great. Having owned a few Canon DSLRs I would say its the best I've had.
I still can't fault the 40D but I do feel a bit restricted at the wide end of my lenses but make up for it at the longest due to the crop factor.
Low end Canons to me are the entry level 400, 1000 models but saying that they are capable of producing good images as well.
mstphoto
08-08-2009, 14:34
Here are 2 images. Can you tell which is the 40D and which is the 5D Mk2?
http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i43/mstphoto/interior.jpg
http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i43/mstphoto/Collieston2.jpg
Also check out these 2 threads
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=1781172#post1781172
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=1781181#post1781181
razor777
08-08-2009, 14:39
I'm a Canon man through and through, anyway after using a Nikon D3 for the weekend I would have to say Nikon. :lol:
I would probably see a difference in IQ if I had poster size prints made but at A4 or A3,ones as good as the other.
I'm not suggesting the 5D Mk2 is a poor camera. Far from it. I haven't pushed it too far as yet but at ISO 3200, although a wee bit noisy theres still plenty of detail. It handles well and feels great. Having owned a few Canon DSLRs I would say its the best I've had.
I still can't fault the 40D but I do feel a bit restricted at the wide end of my lenses but make up for it at the longest due to the crop factor.
Low end Canons to me are the entry level 400, 1000 models but saying that they are capable of producing good images as well.
thanks for the comments, regarding those pics if i had to guess id say the first was the 40d, but then i can also see what you are driving at, theres nothing much in it.
maybe better lenses is the way to go right now.
mstphoto
08-08-2009, 14:51
Correct!! Just the point I have been trying to make
Both these shots were taken with my EF 24-105L lens
Have you managed to take a look at my wildlife shots yet? I think this proves my point regarding the 40D
yes mate i did, and i get your point, tbh i think im going to stick with the 40d for a while longer, get some L glass and see how it goes.
mstphoto
08-08-2009, 17:27
Wise choice.
I bought all my "L" lenses from Onestop Digital. A lot cheaper and great service taking approx 3 days to arrive
Wise choice.
I bought all my "L" lenses from Onestop Digital. A lot cheaper and great service taking approx 3 days to arrive
3 days! thats cool,
what lenses do you find are the most useful on the 40d?
im pretty much convinced to get the 70-200 2.8 IS
im really not sure in teh 24-70 or 17-55 type choice for the mid range
do you have any thoughts on the mid range zooms?
will aslo get a couple more primes, as i love my 50mm1.8
sorry for the thread hijack
Reading the reviews of the 17-55mm I'd be more inclined to go for that. The 70-200 is a brilliant lens, I had the non-IS for a week and it was superb.
Boldonian
08-08-2009, 18:25
Oh dear , the fan boys are out in force here. :-)
andy_fozzy
08-08-2009, 18:26
"The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." AA
Nuff said :clap:
When I bought my first dSLR about 5 years ago, I spent a bit of time playing with the Canon 350D and Nikon D70. At the time, I much preferred the feel of the D70 - the 350D did feel rather plasticky and flexed in my hands whereas the D70 felt a lot more solid.
Point is, for me, that's 5 years ago and it bought me into a system. Since then, I bought a D200 and now use a D700. So my initial decision on which manufacturer has long since been forgotten, and I've since spent about 10 times more on more lenses.
Today, it's a tough decision. But then again, I'm already used to one system and love it, so it would be difficult for me to sway to the other side. Plus, a fair few "pro"s I work with have recently been sick to death with the AF issues of their 1Dmk3 and after many many returns to Canon, decided to jump ship - at great cost to them.
But I can't argue there is a wider range of Canon lenses, and the big plus thing for me is canon do quality L glass at reasonable prices. With Nikon, it's "budget" or megabucks. There's no in-between f/4 lineup. Having said all that, I'm not going to switch now :)
edit: forgot to say, I work for Sony and can get Alphas and top end Zeiss glass for very decent prices. But I'm still not switching. Now had sony brought out the Alpha back in 2004, it might have been a different story :)
I'm not sure I agree with Arkady about top end Canon's being more fragile than Nikons. The 1-series is pretty bomb proof - I've dropped one in a swamp and its been fine and I've seen them get lots of abuse from the wildlife photographers I know...
Personal experience...I've dropped my D2x bodies in a river (well I fell in a river while shooting and as a result they got plunged as well...lol) and they both survived, whereas I've seen pro-spec Canons die in the heat and dust of Afghanistan where our D2x's all soldiered on regardless (it was too hot to touch the cameras with bare hands - we had to wear flying gloves at all times to avoid being burnt by the hot metal), but that may have been two isolated cases - one had it's LCD screens go black and never recover, the other's seals failed and allowed so much dust in that the controls seized...
I should point out that the daytime temps there (Helmand, July 2006) were in the high 50's and on several days went over 60C...
No-one's cameras are guaranteed for anything over 38C as far as I'm aware, so even though the Canons failed, they were still operating well outside their design parameters up to that point...
Mostly we (myself, a Royal Navy video cameraman and several Fleet Street photographers) were more concerned that the lens elements would remain seated as the cement holding them in place could have melted...whenever we could, we wrapped damp cloths around the kit to cool it off...
fracster
09-08-2009, 08:14
So you have 3 different sizes? :lol:
Yeah!
Small,tiny and inebriated.....:lol:
grumpybadger
09-08-2009, 08:29
Personal experience...I've dropped my D2x bodies in a river (well I fell in a river while shooting and as a result they got plunged as well...lol) and they both survived, whereas I've seen pro-spec Canons die in the heat and dust of Afghanistan where our D2x's all soldiered on regardless (it was too hot to touch the cameras with bare hands - we had to wear flying gloves at all times to avoid being burnt by the hot metal), but that may have been two isolated cases - one had it's LCD screens go black and never recover, the other's seals failed and allowed so much dust in that the controls seized...
I should point out that the daytime temps there (Helmand, July 2006) were in the high 50's and on several days went over 60C...
No-one's cameras are guaranteed for anything over 38C as far as I'm aware, so even though the Canons failed, they were still operating well outside their design parameters up to that point...
That's a fair point Rob. I've had problems with my 1DsII in extreme cold where it stopped working but was fine when it had warmed up again.
antonroland
09-08-2009, 11:48
Giorgetto Giugiaro.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giorgetto_Giugiaro
And he should rather have stuck with cars.
The D3 is an awesome (and my next) camera but the puny little high up 4-way controller simply cannot be reached when shooting the body in portrait format.
Hopefully it is my ignorance which leads me to think that I might want to manipulate that controller while shooting.
In the meantime I will hang onto that as a consolation for the fact that I cannot afford the D3 yet.
As for the original question, I think the answer is clear although I would admit to wanting a dual system as both brands have their strong points.
I am simply leaning in favour of Nikon for the type of shooting I do.
antonroland
09-08-2009, 12:06
Here are 2 images. Can you tell which is the 40D and which is the 5D Mk2?
http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i43/mstphoto/interior.jpg
http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i43/mstphoto/Collieston2.jpg
Also check out these 2 threads
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=1781172#post1781172
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=1781181#post1781181
EXIF info says 30D:shrug:
Fact is, one cannot and should not make huge decisions from images other than full sized off-camera images showing scenes, camera settings and shooting conditions as close to identical as possible.
mstphoto
09-08-2009, 13:31
OOOOOOOOOPS!!
Really sorry for the slip up. Just remembered that I had the nifty fifty on the 40D for photographing the guests as they arrived and the interior shots were with the 30D and 24-105L
Just goes to show that its the glass on front and not the camera that makes the difference.
antonroland
09-08-2009, 13:40
OOOOOOOOOPS!!
Really sorry for the slip up. Just remembered that I had the nifty fifty on the 40D for photographing the guests as they arrived and the interior shots were with the 30D and 24-105L
Just goes to show that its the glass on front and not the camera that makes the difference.
Fair enough but TBH I think the 30D is a way better camera than the 40D.
Agree totally with the better glass argument:thumbs:
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.