Nikon vs. Canon – starting all over which one you will pick

I love my Canon 7D and i really like Canon ergonomics and the 70-300L lens
but given recent announcements - i would have gone with Nikon
D600 is better than 6D for my needs
If canon would have used 7D AF --> i will be happy but they just well ... - i think made stupid mistake
Yes of course i think 5DIII is probably ideal for me and better than d600 - but i can buy a lot of glass for the difference.

Well i may do it anyways when i decide to go FF since for people like me that has ef-s glass the move to FF requires new glass anyways!

I am similarly disappointed with Canon's product decision. But then f/1.2 and the stupid look of Nikon cameras keep me firmly in Canon camp. For now.

Putting 7D AF on the 6D, would have created the same problem the D600 has, an autofocus system with poor coverage over a whole full frame. I think Canon made the better trade off for the budget full frame focus system.

And I'd probably have gone with Nikon if I could choose now, as I find myself often wishing my camera had more dynamic range and better shadow recovery. However Canon lens are fantastic and well, Nikon just seems to be bad at industrial design, anyone else find their lenses and bodies very ugly? Bothers me trying to make art on a device that is poor art. Still, their sensors are the best tool for the job.

I like the feel (and look) of Canon - i spend a week with the D300 (the competition to 7D at the time) and could not stand the feel of it
But Canon just take us for granted the 6D should have been priced around $1500 if they want to keep people like me the their Camp
if you used Nikon crop body your lenses will be useful (as crop) on their FF body
We can not do it with EF-S lenses -- so we have a penalty and than we need to pay for an inferior FF body - Canon marketing got it very wrong this time

f/1.2 and affordable super teles are what keeps me in Canon Camp.
The 5D3 is awesome but I wish it had D800's DR.

In the mid-1980's I made a detailed comparison of Nikon vs. Canon before jumping into an SLR. I noticed that when a valid apples to apples comparison was made the Nikon cost more, as did all the accessories, etc. It wasn't a huge amount, perhaps 10% on average, but I couldn't see where the extra money went. I bought into the Canon line and haven't looked back ever since. When I moved to a DSLR, I was surprised that old lenses, Speedlight, and even my old remote shutter release were still useable.

I do wish more speciality retailers carried the Canon line. Except for places like Best Buy, Target, Walmart, etc. there are very few places I can go and try lenses, accessories, etc. Pretty much all on-line shopping.

I shot Nikon for most of my life. I learned on my grandfather's Nikkormat FTn, then inherited my dad's FM2 in the early 80s. When I graduated high school and auto-focus cameras became more affordable, I bought an N90. When I got serious about it, got an F5 and F100. I had over 10 lenses, both AF and MF. I loved them all and never even considered switching to Canon. There were no forums to discuss options or features. I would order from B&H from a catalog, not the internet.

Then digital came around and I sold everything (except my grandfather's Nikkormat and his MF Nikkor lenses). For about 3 years I shot a P&S digital fixed-lens Leica.

When I got back into photography, I looked at the Nikon bodies immediately, but was dissappointed with the feel of the body and the cluttered design. I was unimpressed with the rear viewscreen and the construction of their newer (non-aperture ring) lenses. Then I held a Canon body for the first time. It just felt right. The ergonomics felt better and the quality of the build just felt right.

In the end, I knew that both Nikon and Canon would produce equally good photographs and would serve me equally fine. I made my decision based on what was more comfortable to use every day.

In the end, I think both companies produce fine cameras and equipment. It's up to the user to choose based on personal preference, comfort and purpose.

I still like Canon.

Lehamanncpa
it is true that all makes are making great products - but if for the same amount of $ i get more from one side and i am starting from scratch t- it just makes sens to take that route

Canon made it easy as well by not allowing the use of EF-S on FF (i do know there is engineering reason for it - but Nikon system allows it)

lehmanncpa wrote in post #15008010
When I got back into photography, I looked at the Nikon bodies immediately, but was dissappointed with the feel of the body and the cluttered design. I was unimpressed with the rear viewscreen and the construction of their newer (non-aperture ring) lenses. Then I held a Canon body for the first time. It just felt right. The ergonomics felt better and the quality of the build just felt right.

In the end, I knew that both Nikon and Canon would produce equally good photographs and would serve me equally fine. I made my decision based on what was more comfortable to use every day.

Yes. Design matters, not just for looks, but how it works and how comfortable it is to use. This is the thing about Nikon that displeases me. Their industrial design is no where near Canon's.
Nikons have the best dynamic range though which is of huge importance for landscapers, 14.4 EV for the D800 verses 11.7 for the 5D Mark III. That's a big difference, over two stops

I am quite satisfied with my 5D3 and 7D, and Canon's lens line up fits my needs better.

Canon. Ergonomics and feature sets just match my needs. I don't need "shadow recovery" as much as others I guess. I usually control my lighting. I like Canon skin tones better. If I want more camera, the 5D3 or the 1DX are both available. Sure, they are expensive but even the 1DX is less than I would have spent on film in a 3 year period. The 5D3 from that perspective is a bargain. While it would be nice to have it less expensive (and I'm sure the price will come down in time), I really don't get all the griping that people do. I would certainly not change to the clunky, ugly, inefficient design of the Nikon just to save a few dollars.

Personally I would pick Canon because the layout and ergonomics are what I am used to and prefer, but I would recommend Nikon to anyone else.

It really depends what I am buying for.

If I was buying for editorial and needed to top end bodies, zooms and long glass, it would be Nikon, no question.

D4 is almost a grand cheaper than the 1DX.
D800 would give me a great backup/portrait/featur​e camera with lots of MP.
Canon's 200-400 is going to be like 11k. Nikon's is 7k.

Savings add up there.

But my primary gig is wedding photography.
I prefer the 5D3 to the D800 for weddings. One big reason is mRAW. There is no smaller RAW with the D800.
I prefer the Canon primes (specifically the 35L, 85L and 135L) to Nikon's. I think the 100L and 105VR is a wash.
Canon has the wifi flashes, which are great (but I don't have - if I was starting new, I probably would go in with them.)

DR is important for me as i do a lot of landscape
however also hi ISO is important to me (for dusk shots etc)
if i remember correctly the DR @ Hi ISO of the Canon is actually better
but overall as it stands right now the Nikon offering is more compelling (for me)

I guess it was easier with film. All I remember being concerned about was optic quality of lenses, shutter speeds and durability of the camera. Both Nikon and Canon were very good at everything, mechanically. It wasn't until technology started to ramp up and AF was introduced that the differences between Nikon and Canon really began to show. Canon redesigned their mount and came out with EF lenses with built-in motors and Nikon decided to keep their traditional mount dating back to 1959 and initially kept the motor inside the body. The AF and metering systems became more advanced and each had their strengths and weaknesses.

Image quality was much more a function of what film you used and how you processed the negatives. Of course, when shooting slides, the window of processing became much narrower than with negaitves. I remember choosing Fuji Sensia or Provia for bright colors, Kodak Portra 160/400 for portraits, weddings and natural skin tones and Kodak T-400 for B&W. I remember pushing B&W film to 800 or 1600 sometimes to get that grainy look.

It seems that with digital, all those choices of film now come rolled up into what camera you get, versus how you process the image in PP. That, coupled with nifty gadgets and doo-dads like touch screens, wi-fi, built-in flashes, HDMI output, etc seem to set the two apart.

I own a 5D3 and a 30D and still use them the way I used to use my grandfather's Nikkormat FTn. I meter, I focus and I take the picture. For those purposes, either brand will serve my needs. I prefer Canon simply becuase I find it easier to meter, focus and take the picture. Not because it has this feature or that feature. I may be old school, but I venture to say that I'm not the only one who thinks this way.

The younger generations that grew up with Nintendos, Playstations and Xboxes may be swayed by all the gizmos and gadgets offered by one brand of the other, but the generations of Atari 2600s and older still use a camera to immortalize a special moment with a photograph, not upload a snapshot of your sushi roll dinner to Facebook.

I'm not trying to belittle the technologies offered by each brand. I'm just trying to point out that each camera is fundamentally, a camera. Both of them meter, both of them focus and both of them can capture a good image. Everything else is just window dressing for me.