Nikon vs Canon From Someone with both

[Akreager]

No one can accuse me of liking Nikon better than Canon since I now own/use both!!

There is not enough time in the day to go into all the details, but here are some quick thoughts on Nikon vs Cannon.

First if anyone tells you one just plane sucks...sucks big....and the only way to go is the other - completely discount them. They do not know what they are talking about.

I bought a D70 over the digital rebel when they first came out for one reason and one reason only. Wireless multiple i-ttl flash. Nikon was the clear leader at the time. Canon has closed the gap and has a very respectable system, but the edge still goes to Nikon.

Most objective reviewers will give the edge to the D70 over the Rebel. but it is just an edge. I would never advise anyone to get a D70 if they have a Rebel.

The biggest issue with the D70 is low light performance. It starts to get pretty noisy above iso400. I do not have personal experience with the Rebel in low light, but testing posted by respected reviewers would give it only a very slight edge to the Rebel on high iso noise.

I solved the noise problem for the most part by using a quick leveling tripod with a quick level grip and a very nice lense that allows me to get sharp pics wide open (the 17-55F2.8DX - but it should be good at $1250 USD). I also leveraged Nikons wonderful flash system, some neat little folding softboxes, and a flash braket to make wonderful flash pics when high iso noise was a problem with available light.

Is the D70 as good as the 20D. No, but I would not rush to get rid of a D70 just to get one. I expect that Nikon's spring/summer replacement for the D100 will be as good if not a bit better than the 20D. Most industry Professionals agree. If you are never going to buy a better camera than the 20D or the D100"MarkII" buy Canon if you have Canon lenses....Buy Nikon if you have Nikon lenses. If you are starting from scratch the edge at this level will probably go to Nikon when all the dust settles but that is not for sure yet. Both will be great systems/tools and if you can't take a good pic with either.........

As we move up the food chain the advantage really tilts to Canon. They seem to have firgured out what the higher end user wants and really delivered some good products. I recently got a 1D MarkII and have started to build an arsenal of L glass. That said I still use my little old D70 with the 3 SB800 for wirless flash stuff. It takes great pics when used correctly in conditions that favor it.

So I just said a buch of stuff that boils down to Nikon has the edge at the lower and mid end and Canon has a true true advantage at the high end.

It does not make sense to trash Nikon in favor of Canon because the Curent $8000 Canon flagship body (which will only work well with $$$$$L glass) trumps Nikon's high end if you are going to put 1500-3000 total into a system.

I could go on an on......

[IanBMW]

I believe it comes down to lens choice if you ask me. I like the lenses for the Canon over the Nikon, so I will continually build up my Canon Lenses collection and upgrade bodies every now and then. Oh and I still Love Nikon for one reason......competition. As long as we have Nikon jumping ahead of Canon, Canon will in turn release a better product and jump ahead.......and the circle is ongoing. If you ask me without Nikon And Canon constantly striving to beat the other out they have both came out with some great innovations that wouldnt have came out if say Canon had the Microsoft Monopoly advantage ;)

[robertwgross]

For some time, the prevailing wisdom was that Nikon still makes the best film cameras, but that Canon makes the best digital cameras. Has that changed?

I look at it from the standpoint of lenses. I have one set of EF lenses that I can stick onto my film camera or my digital camera, and I don't think I would want to have two brands of lenses floating around.

---Bob Gross---

[jbradc]

I made the switch years ago. I had a Nikon F4 and several lenses but when my local dealer let me use the EOS1 I fell for it, it has been Canon ever since (Film & Digital). But the truth is great images can be created with either one, just keep shooting!

[adamsti]

Definitely agree Canon has it on the high end. Nikon is just getting around to putting VR in it's long primes. The first being the 300 f/2.8, but it is much more exspensive that Canon's 2.8, and it is 6 years too late. Canon's 300 f/2.8IS came out in 1999.

Have to agree though, you are just fine with either system. In the right hands they are both more than capable.

[KennyG]

Nikon has an on-going major issue with high ISO sensor noise in all models, there is no argument about that, even their top-end models can't match a 20D for noise performance. Add to that astronomically high prices for lenses that even make Canon's L prices appear acceptable and terrible after-sales service, you can see why so many pros are deserting them in favour of Canon. The general public however, will believe anything that the salesman in Ritz or Jessops in the UK tell them and, if they are trying to sell more Nikon, that's what gets sold.

I don't think Nikon can fix their problems very easily even with their belated move to CMOS sensors.

[blinking8s]

I personally own a 20d, before that I had a 300d(drebel) and at work we have a d70, 2x d100's and a d1x...

The d70 functionally is a nicer camera than the 300d, more features...but I hate having to go into the menu for so much stuff, and the LCD isnt near as nice to me as canons. For entry level or general amateur photography I would feel more comfortable with a 300d, need the pro features then the d70 is your choice...after that Id only choose canon. I like nikkor glass a lot though.

But I honestly think the 20d is worth the $500 more or whatever than the d70...its been an amazing camera.

I personally think nikons lost the dslr body race...its a pitty cause the f100 was an AMAZING 35mm camera...but this late int he game even their 1 series line will have a tough time matching up to the 1d mkII and above

best bang for my buck...20d all the way

[mdr]

When it comes to manual film cameras, Nikon rules :).

When it comes to digital cameras, Canon rules :D.

In my bag I have a Nikon FE loaded with Ilford HP5, a Canon EOS 3 loaded with Velvia 50 and a Canon 20D loaded with, ahum Lexar 'film' :cool:.

Need I say more?

[tim]

Canon has great technology, but it seems that in the 10D/20D series of cameras they only give us what they think they need to to stay ahead or level with the competition. They could give us better features, but it would effect sales of the 1D series, so they only give us what they have to. Nikon seemed to give the best they could with the D70, without worrying too much about the effect on sales of high end cameras. I could be completely wrong here, but that's the feeling I get.

[ed2day]

For me it was a matter of value. I bought the Canon DReb w/lens for $420 with their rebates. What does Nikon have in that price range? The D70 is twice that price so I would hope it has more than just an "edge" over the canon.

[soccerbyron]

I have been using Nikon since 1984. In that time I had (and still have F3, N90s, F5, F100 and a D100). But last fall I got to the point where I needed a faster frame rate on a digital body and it came down to D2H or switching to Canon and the 20D. After much thought and input from friends using both systems, I went with the 20D. For a little more than the cost of the D2H, I was able to get the 20D body, grip, 17-40, and 70-200. I haven't regretted the decision for a minute.

[ScottE]

As new models come out we can only hope there will be a see-saw battle with Canon being better some of the time and Nikon some of the time. Hopefully Pentax and Konica/Minolta will be in the fray too.

The more competition, the better and cheaper cameras we are going to get.

I think it is pointless to switch from brand to brand because sooner or later the other brand will catch up.

[S230]

Thanks for the insight. In my prior posting,
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=50304
I was wondering for a very long time and it's great to hear from someone with experience with both. I had to think for some time and made the choice to go with Canon because of the future direction Canon is going. The D70 is a good camera and definitely better than the 300D but if I plan on going forward with the 20D then I need to stick with one brand.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Comparing the two companies' lowest cost entries into digital is not a comparison or the two companies,. it is a comparison of two cameras.

[jay24k]

To me lowest cost is a comparison. If both compete almost exact, one being half the price is a BIG difference. Why buy an Alienware when another brand performs the same and costs half?
Economics.

[Digital Louie]

:rolleyes: I just sold my D100 and my F100. They were great cameras and now I'm stuck with three lenses to sell. On the other hand, my new 20D is awesome and I can't imagine going back to my Nikons. The features and their ability to be accessed more easily sold me on the Canon. Well, the magazine adds with all the white lenses didn't hurt the decision process either.

Having said that, I struggle, when I look at my images, to remember which one shot which image. They both take excellent images. Now if I could get better...
Just my 2 cents.
Shawn:lol:

[poke]

Considering I've never even held a Nikon... and the camera before my 10D was a kodak disposable... I'm pretty happy with my 20D :p

[rbbblues]

adamsti said it all........."in the right hands"....a brownie will take great images.........

[scottbergerphoto]

For me the major issue is color reproduction. How true to life and vibrant are the colors without looking fake. I left Nikon for Canon because Nikon didn't measure up in this area and still doesn't if you read www.nikonians.org. So my film camera is an F5 and my digital cameras are Canon.
Scott

[eosster]

I had both Canon and Nikon, hope Nikon catches up soon. It will be good for the consumer like us(pro or not). It's better to have a competition among DSLR companies.

[HJMinard]

I find it a bit ironic when someone recommends waiting until the next Nikon camera is released ... "It will have an edge over its Canon counterpart." Wonderful ... more than a year after the 20D's release Nikon will finally have a competitor? Whoop de-doo ... wait just a smidge longer and the 30D will blow the D100 MkII out of the water. Both manufacturers make excellent cameras, but by any measurement, and at any price point, Canon is at least one year ahead of Nikon in digital camera development.

[CyberDyneSystems]

At least one year,.

In the case of the 1D,. they were THREE years ahead,. the 1Ds,. 3 years ahead...
The 1D MkII,. it remains to be seen,.. all I know is that Canon will replace the 1D mkII before Nikon ever releases a competitor for it...

[oddball]

Seems like a lot of former N**** owners here.

I grew up with N**** film cameras and when the shift to digital photography was due, I came to realize Canon was the leader in cutting edge digi-technology. Even when I bought my first P&S (Canon SD100), Canon was the brand to buy.

[S230]

from what I am hearing and noticing so far, unless Nik*n is able to come out with something better and quickly, they are going to be competing with brands such as Minolta, Sony, etc., even Casio?? =P

[picturemaker]

Some twenty-plus years ago, my first SLR's were Canon - TX, AE-1, F-1 - and I loved them. After a short time away from shooting, I picked up a used Nikon FE-2 that I liked a lot. Later, I fell in love with a collegues F-3HP and have been with Nikon ever since. All my nikon film bodies were all excellent - N90s, F100, F5, and even N6000. When the time came to go digital I started with a used D1, progressed to D1H, D1X, and currently D2H. I even used a D70 for a short while. Now, I am very seriously contemplating returning to Canon.

Unfortunately, while it is an excellent handling camera and image quality is not really too bad, the D2H has fallen short of my expectations and really does not meet the demands of some of my needs. I'm just not happy with the images I'm getting out of it - due more to noise and other image issues, I think, than resolution since I have been happier with more of my D1 and D1H images. The D1X is really too slow, although I was happier with it's image quality as well. The D70 is slow as well, all though it does have better processing, color, and flash capabilities than the D1X. I also didn't care for it's lack of vertical grip/release or remote conectivity. Great images though. So I feel stuck unless I want to shell out $5K for a D2X which otherwise sounds like it would solve my dilemma.

Not wanting to spend that, though, the best option is looking very much like the Canon 20D. Even a 1D Mark II is less expensive than a D2X and would likewise solve my problems. I don't mind changing lenses. Except for Nikon's 200-400, I like many of the Canon lens options better - and I'd like to replace some of my current Nikon glass anyway. I'd loose my 400 f2.8 but could replace it with Canon's 400 f5.6 which would be adequate (though I'd miss the versatility of using converters with the fast f2.8 lens). If I sold the 400 f2.8 to buy a D2X theres no such less expensive 400mm option in Nikon's lineup and I'd prefer not to go with third party lenses or the 80-400 VR which is too slow. Where I might replace my 18-35 Nikkor with a better 17-35 or 12-24 f2.8 ($1K+ lenses), if I also switched to Canon, I could replace that lens with the well reviewed and much less expensive 17-40 f4. A 70-210 IS, or Non-IS?, could easily replace my 70-200 VR. And, I might not even need to replace my 24-85 Nikkor - or I could replace it with a 50mm f1.8 which i hear is outstanding.

It almost makes sense, and I am almost sold on the idea (would have to sell it to my wife next) but am concerned about adapting to the operational and workflow differences between the two systems. I've also not heard much about flash performance with either the 20D or 1D Mark II and, being finally very happy with flash and the D2H, am tentative of loosing ground there. Build quality of the 20D is a minor issue, compared to my D2H especially, but it seems rugged enough and I generally handle my gear pretty lightly.

I'm not a "grass is greener" kind of guy and I do believe that I can make great images with any camera I am fortunate enough to have. But then, if that is indeed the case and my images would me accessable to more markets due to higher resolution, why not switch to Canon?

I'd love to hear any and all thoughts on the matter. Thanks.

Scott
---------------------------

N***n user but re-considering!

[S230]

I'd loose my 400 f2.8 but could replace it with Canon's 400 f5.6 which would be adequate (though I'd miss the versatility of using converters with the fast f2.8 lens).!
I am no expert but just browsing through Canon's Catalogue, Canon does make a EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM. Hope this helps.

[picturemaker]

I am no expert but just browsing through Canon's Catalogue, Canon does make a EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM. Hope this helps.





Indeed, Canon does make a 400 f2.8 - and many other fine lenses. My point about replacing my Nikkor 400 f2.8 with a Canon 400 f5.6 had to do with using the difference in cost to help pay for the system conversion to Canon. Also, if I were to stick with Nikon and use a simalar stretegy to pay for a D2X, my only inexpensive replacement option would be either a 3rd party (probably sigma) lens or an 80-400 zoom. I could also use a 300 f4 with TC, which I've done a lot of in the past, but I'm growing less and less tolerant of the loss in image quality going that route. Nikon, in thier stupidity (imho), doesn't make a fixed AF 400 f5.6.

Thanks