Canon vs. Nikon vs. the rest

[jpetrow]

Hi,

I'm a die hard Canon user, but most of my friends have been using or have started to use Nikon.

So I decided to post a global poll in quebler to see that there are fellow canonists still out there. (secretly hoping to see a huge win for Canon so I can rub it in my friends' faces)

Join the battle at http://quebler.com/results?q=1i :)

[nphsbuckeye]

One has to search for relatively minute differences between Nikon and Canon, however, there are few reasons to go to a third party. There, my answer.

[TheHoff]

What would a bunch of stranger's opinions matter? Why not just research SLR sales for the past year since that is more of an accurate poll than asking people on a Canon forum to vote one brand or another?

[jpetrow]

Well, first of all sales are not the same as what people think. You might have bought something but realized that you were better of with what you had etc. Or you might be a long time Nikon user, but still think that Canon has really pulled it off with 5d mark2.

[Perry Ge]

I see your poll says "who makes the best DSLR cameras" and nothing about the rest of the system. So because of that, I have to vote for Nikon ;).

[plucks]

I voted Canon. Mainly because I have been supporting them since I got my first Camera.

[Bob_A]

It also matters which market segment you are looking at IMO:

Beginner/low end DSLR's (below the Canon XXD and Nikon D90 models) -> Canon by a wide margin
Mid range enthusiast DSLR's (Canon XXD, Nikon D90) -> Slight advantage to Canon
High end enthusiast DSLR's (5D MKII, D300, D700) -> Nikon (don't shoot me :) )
Pro DSLR's -> tie

Consumer zooms - Nikon (due to IQ, not quantity)
Pro zooms - Canon (because Nikon doesn't have f/4 pro zooms). Quality from both Nikon and Canon are good.
Short primes - Canon by a wide margin.
Long primes - Tie?

Flash system -> Nikon


I have gear for both systems, and Nikon certainly has most of what I need. However, if I shot primes (which I don't) the clear winner would be Canon. Frankly if Nikon's higher end bodies weren't so good there is no way that they'd have the market share they enjoy given their selection of primes.

[Perry Ge]

It also matters which market segment you are looking at IMO:

Beginner/low end DSLR's (below the Canon XXD and Nikon D90 models) -> Canon by a wide margin
Mid range enthusiast DSLR's (Canon XXD, Nikon D90) -> Slight advantage to Canon
High end enthusiast DSLR's (5D MKII, D300, D700) -> Nikon (don't shoot me :) )
Pro DSLR's -> tie

Consumer zooms - Nikon (due to IQ, not quantity)
Pro zooms - Canon (because Nikon doesn't have f/4 pro zooms). Quality from both Nikon and Canon are good.
Short primes - Canon by a wide margin.
Long primes - Tie?

Flash system -> Nikon


I have gear for both systems, and Nikon certainly has most of what I need. However, if I shot primes (which I don't) the clear winner would be Canon. Frankly if Nikon's higher end bodies weren't so good there is no way that they'd have the market share they enjoy given their selection of primes.
I agree with you about the bodies (although I wouldn't classify them like you do, D300 doesn't realllllllly belong in the same group as the 5DII and D700).

But wait...so the f/4 zooms win the pro zoom category for Canon? I have to disagree, again due to IQ, not quantity, like you say with the consumer zooms. Nikon's 14-24 is one of the best lenses I've ever seen, their 24-70 and 70-200 lenses are optically superior to the Canons, and the 200-400 is just a dream come true.

Long primes I would give to Canon because of the existence of cheap, quality options like the 400 5.6 and 300 f/4, I think they're important in the lineup.

Short primes I agree with you, Canon smokes Nikon. Nikon's flash system FTW.

I shoot Canon mostly for the 85L :lol:, but the lenses I have, Nikon really doesn't have an answer for. I also like Canon's AF system a bit better, it feels zippier in action. But I do think Nikon's high end bodies are superb, and likely better overall.

[Bob_A]

I agree with you about the bodies (although I wouldn't classify them like you do, D300 doesn't realllllllly belong in the same group as the 5DII and D700).

But wait...so the f/4 zooms win the pro zoom category for Canon? I have to disagree, again due to IQ, not quantity, like you say with the consumer zooms. Nikon's 14-24 is one of the best lenses I've ever seen, their 24-70 and 70-200 lenses are optically superior to the Canons, and the 200-400 is just a dream come true.

Long primes I would give to Canon because of the existence of cheap, quality options like the 400 5.6 and 300 f/4, I think they're important in the lineup.

Short primes I agree with you, Canon smokes Nikon. Nikon's flash system FTW.

I shoot Canon mostly for the 85L :lol:, but the lenses I have, Nikon really doesn't have an answer for. I also like Canon's AF system a bit better, it feels zippier in action. But I do think Nikon's high end bodies are superb, and likely better overall.

Agree with you about the D300 ... but I placed it there because of build and features, not because it competes with the FF goodness of the 5D MKII or D700. Hower I also place the D700 as a better all around camera than the 5D MKII.

And I know what you mean about Nikon pro zooms, but my only experience is with the 24-70, which definitely is better than the Canon equivalent. But my Canon 70-200 f/4L was sooo good I can't imagine any Nikon besting it :) And not having f/4 pro zooms is a big disadvantage for those of us that like to pack light.

[blue9]

What i think is a huge downer with the D-700 and the Eos5 mk2 is the lack of a body Image stabilization system. This makes the Sony A900 a potent competitor to both of them.

A feature that i really like about the D5 mk 2 is the possibility to make HD p1080 semi pro videos (However i know that this might not be important to many).

I talked to my local photo store (in Norway/Europe) And they have a hard time selling D-700 after eos 5d mk 2 was introduced because of 21 M pixels (Vs Nikons 12,1) and HD P1080. However Nikon her in Europe has lowered the price of the D-700. So the D-700 is around -35% lower in price so sales have gained.

[nphsbuckeye]

What i think is a huge downer with the D-700 and the Eos5 mk2 is the lack of a body Image stabilization system. This makes the Sony A900 a potent competitor to both of them.

A feature that i really like about the D5 mk 2 is the possibility to make HD p1080 semi pro videos (However i know that this might not be important to many).

I talked to my local photo store (in Norway/Europe) And they have a hard time selling D-700 after eos 5d mk 2 was introduced because of 21 M pixels (Vs Nikons 12,1) and HD P1080. However Nikon her in Europe has lowered the price of the D-700. So the D-700 is around -35% lower in price so sales have gained.
In body stabilization is not very effective on longer focal lengths - which is when it is really needed. Plus, until Sony dramatically cheapens there lenses and improves high ISOs, they won't be a player.

[Bob_A]

What i think is a huge downer with the D-700 and the Eos5 mk2 is the lack of a body Image stabilization system. This makes the Sony A900 a potent competitor to both of them.

A feature that i really like about the D5 mk 2 is the possibility to make HD p1080 semi pro videos (However i know that this might not be important to many).

I talked to my local photo store (in Norway/Europe) And they have a hard time selling D-700 after eos 5d mk 2 was introduced because of 21 M pixels (Vs Nikons 12,1) and HD P1080. However Nikon her in Europe has lowered the price of the D-700. So the D-700 is around -35% lower in price so sales have gained.

Besides IS in the lens being a technically better approach you need to remember that the EOS (and Nikon equivalent) lens line-up is also used for film bodies. It's pretty hard to make film jiggle around to stabilize the image in-body :) Maybe someday Nikon and Canon will offer both though, so you can either purchase a lens with IS/VR or live with a slightly poorer adaptation of image stabilization in-body. I'd rather see this than movie mode, which for me is a useless feature (I said "for me" ... for others it may be reason enough to buy a 5D MKII).

In body IS isn't a great reason to go with Sony though IMO. They may be making the sensors for Nikon, but they sure don't seem to understand how to get decent high ISO noise performance. Unless you're a studio person or you only shoot at ISO 100 or 200 the Alpha 900 is a pretty poor performer. Until Sony figures out how to get rid of high ISO noise without getting rid of all the image detail they won't be a very "potent competitor" to Nikon and Canon.

The price of the D700 has actually gone up in North America since Christmas. But considering the camera has been in the stores for over six months it's pretty reasonable that it's price is now lower than what it was introduced at. It's interesting to note that some stores in the US had the D700 on backorder in mid February, probably with people trying to beat a price hike ... which is a bit contrary to your part of the world :)

The 5D MKII will also drop in price considerably from what it is now, but probably not until about May or June.

[Spacemunkie]

I want a Pentax :D

[fiveFPS]

the pentax W30?

[Bob_A]

I want a Pentax :D

They make very nice cameras for the $. :)

[DC Fan]

A decade ago, Minolta had a major lead in consumer-grade DSLR's before the company discarded that lead. Now, reborn under the Sony name, that brand has made a nice comeback and is a renewed force in the marketplace, held back only by their non-standard flash shoe. :)

[Dragos Jianu]

Since the question was referring to DSLR bodies alone and nothing else, i too had to vote for Nikon. Their new lineup, in my opinion, is quite a bit better then Canon's.
I use Canon because of their lens lineup and better prices. I don't understand the fuss about Nikon vs Canon, they are not football teams. They are both amazing, and each has it's strengths and weaknesses.

[nphsbuckeye]

Since the question was referring to DSLR bodies alone and nothing else, i too had to vote for Nikon. Their new lineup, in my opinion, is quite a bit better then Canon's.
I use Canon because of their lens lineup and better prices. I don't understand the fuss about Nikon vs Canon, they are not football teams. I think they are both amazing, and each has it's strengths and weaknesses.
Agreed. It's a cult the way some people worship their camera(s). I like Canon because of what Canon makes, not because the label says Canon.

[blue9]

At least what's important is that there is more competition in the pro and semi pro marked. I think in the 80's about 90% was using Nikon (Not good) until Canon Eos-1 made many pro's go over to Canon. In fact the rivalry we see between Nikon And Canon is a good thing for the consumer. And even if i have mostly Canon gear, i am glad to see that Nikon is giving Canon stiffer Competition :)

[nphsbuckeye]

At least what's important is that there is more competition in the pro and semi pro marked. I think in the 80's about 90% was using Nikon (Not good) until Canon Eos-1 made many pro's go over to Canon. In fact the rivalry we see between Nikon And Canon is a good thing for the consumer. And even if i have mostly Canon gear, i am glad to see that Nikon is giving Canon stiffer Competition :)
Can't argue about competition. However, it seems like one company will be on a roll for a while for the other to catch up.

[Bob_A]

A decade ago, Minolta had a major lead in consumer-grade DSLR's before the company discarded that lead. Now, reborn under the Sony name, that brand has made a nice comeback and is a renewed force in the marketplace, held back only by their non-standard flash shoe. :)

... and their poor high ISO performance.

..... and just by being Sony. They won't be able to help themselves and will eventially "Sonyize" the KM line, then Canon and Nikon will have nothing to worry about ;)

[LowriderS10]

not a single mention of Leicas and no voting option for Leica or Pentax or Olympus...hmmm

[Bob_A]

not a single mention of Leicas and no voting option for Leica or Pentax or Olympus...hmmm

It would be nice to play with all of them ... and Hasselblad too! :)

Actually Pentax was mentioned a few posts earlier in this thread.

[LowriderS10]

It would be nice to play with all of them ... and Hasselblad too! :)

Actually Pentax was mentioned a few posts earlier in this thread.

whoops...my bad, I meant to say Sigma

[songexe]

I'm sick and tired of Sony proprietar'izing every damned thing they make. Sony point and shoots? Can't use a mini-usb to charge. MP3s? Nope, try ATRAC3. Want a standard hotshoe? Sorry, use the Sony one. What about CDs? We use minidiscs instead. CF and SD cards look nice, but you'll have to use Sony MemoryStick to store your pictures on.

Until they show that they're not actively trying to screw me over at every step of the way, I won't go near a Sony camera.

[LowriderS10]

werd to that...I LOVE Sony stuff (I'm on my 4th Sony Ericsson phone, have a PSP, 4 Sony headphones, etc etc), but I'm REALLY glad my phone service provider keeps giving me free memory cards with my phones, 'cuz it's retarded how you have to buy a Sony card for Sony equipment...

[dtiproductions]

Hardcore Canon User still....

[blue9]

I can't help noticing how dominant Canon is on sports events. Everything from soccer to ski sports. Could it be related to EOS-1n RS (rs for real time super)?
Didn't Canon get a reputation for fast sports cameras because of 1n RS? Or is it related to IS technology or good 300/400 optics? A few days ago i was following winter sports on the TV. In the Photograph's corner all i could see was the classical canon grey 300/400 2.8 Canon lenses.

[foxesamu]

Well, first of all sales are not the same as what people think. You might have bought something but realized that you were better of with what you had etc. Or you might be a long time Nikon user, but still think that Canon has really pulled it off with 5d mark2.
They did really pull it off with the 5D2--it's their best DSLR since the 5D, IMHO. I would still slightly rather have a D700 though. I would kill to be able to afford one + good glass. Alas, I'll probably have to live with a mere D300 or D400 this year.

[S.Horton]

Watch out for these guys:
http://www.red.com/

[nphsbuckeye]

Watch out for these guys:
http://www.red.com/
Only tens of thousands of dollars away from being competitive!

[paddycook]

their 70-200 lenses are optically superior to the Canons,

Are you sure? I've not used the Nikon 70-200, but I've seen plenty of Nikon users complain about the soft corners on that lens. You certainly don't hear Canon users moan about their 70-200s (and my 70-200 F4 IS is absolutely sharp as a tack)

[Perry Ge]

The 70-200 2.8 VR is pretty close, so it's not obvious maybe, but the 24-70 that I mention before the part you quoted is definitely superior to the Canon. Canon folk do complain about the 2.8, but people are too picky :lol:.

[XterraJohn]

I can't help noticing how dominant Canon is on sports events. Everything from soccer to ski sports. Could it be related to EOS-1n RS (rs for real time super)?
Didn't Canon get a reputation for fast sports cameras because of 1n RS? Or is it related to IS technology or good 300/400 optics? A few days ago i was following winter sports on the TV. In the Photograph's corner all i could see was the classical canon grey 300/400 2.8 Canon lenses.

You didn't watch the olymipcs, did you?

[Perry Ge]

You didn't watch the olymipcs, did you?

Yah the Nikon presence was massive. Possibly even more than the Canon presence. That's not something you would ever have seen a couple years ago.

[S.Horton]

Watch out for these guys:
http://www.red.com/

Only tens of thousands of dollars away from being competitive!

I think it is just a matter of time.

[songexe]

Except there arn't even screens to display 4K content yet...

[nphsbuckeye]

I think it is just a matter of time.
Definitely, but how long might that be?!

[alduin]

The way I see it, even if Red doesn't start competing directly with the DSLR manufacturers, it's great to have someone like them out there to spark some innovation. Things that stick in the high-end world will eventually trickle down to the consumer level.

[S.Horton]

Definitely, but how long might that be?!

I don't know.

The point is that technology is a leap-frog game.

I think RED is the current frog.

[nphsbuckeye]

I don't know.

The point is that technology is a leap-frog game.

I think RED is the current frog.
I really don't doubt that, but it is very expensive and the lenses are limited currently, somewhat limiting its viability.

[alduin]

I really don't doubt that, but it is very expensive and the lenses are limited currently, somewhat limiting its viability.

You mean like the DSLR way back when? =)

[S.Horton]

^^ Exactly.

[nphsbuckeye]

I didn't know dSLRs cost $17,500 or were ginormous tubes instead of the same size as a film camera...

[alduin]

I didn't know dSLRs cost $17,500 or were ginormous tubes instead of the same size as a film camera...

Try $30,000 and carried in a suitcase. =)

In 1991, Kodak released the first commercially available digital SLR, the Kodak DCS-100. It consisted of a modified Nikon F3 SLR body, modified drive unit, and an external storage unit connected via cable. The 1.3 megapixel camera cost approximately US$30,000.

Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_single-lens_reflex_camera#History), DCS-100 image (http://www.digicamhistory.com/Kodak%20DCS-100%20set.jpg)

All technology starts somewhere, and that somewhere is usually at the corner of Expensive and Large.

[nphsbuckeye]

The camera itself is much smaller than the RED, currently.

[alduin]

The camera itself is much smaller than the RED, currently.

I'm not sure you understand.

The camera alone won't get you a picture. See that big heavy rectangular thing with the buttons on the front of it to the right of the camera? The one with the built-in 200MB 3.5" SCSI drive and enough batteries to run it all?

That's your CF card.

[René Damkot]

That's your CF card.

:lol::lol::lol:

Here is another article on it: Click (http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Kodak/index.htm)

[nphsbuckeye]

I'm not sure you understand.

The camera alone won't get you a picture. See that big heavy rectangular thing with the buttons on the front of it to the right of the camera? The one with the built-in 200MB 3.5" SCSI drive and enough batteries to run it all?

That's your CF card.
I was talking about only the camera. Just like with the RED rig, it looks like it's just a smaller version of a pro video camera for filming.

[pl_silverado]

Canon, Nikon, who cares. They are all just tools.

I went with Nikon because it felt better in my hands, and i liked their button layout.

[alduin]

I was talking about only the camera. Just like with the RED rig, it looks like it's just a smaller version of a pro video camera for filming.

What good is "only the camera" if you don't get an image out of it?

I'm sure if the RED model didn't have to actually provide the user with an image, they could make it a lot smaller as well.