Is the grass greener on the other side? (Canon or Nikon)

Nikon Strengths:

- Off Camera Flash consistecy
- Better Sensor, dynamic range
- Sturdier Camera Bodies
- Single Button Functions on bodies
- Hoods come with all lenses
- Historically better focusing system
- DX lenses can be used with FX cameras
- Newer G series lenses


Canon Strengths:
- Huge aray of lenses - from Gold ring Mid range to Red ring L series. Dominates the prime and long telephoto market. Has 1.2 Autofocus lenses Nikon cannot make.
- Many mid range lenses and all L lenses made in Japan.
- All Full Frame Cameras made in Japan.
- majority of Lenses have faster autofocus speed than Nikon
- Accurate LCD screen
- GPS built in (6D only)
- Faster FPS (1DX)
- Videos (thanks Magic Lantern)
- Better Quality Control (Nikon has oil sensor issues)

Roshan wrote in post #15928586
- Sturdier Camera Bodies

Interesting because someone mentioned that they would rather smack someone over the head with a Canon, maybe that was just for a 1-series though.

Personally a sensor with more DR would be great, but I use my TS-E 17mm and rely on LV a lot for landscapes which is my passion.

Fortunately I'm too invested in Canon and the 5DII is 'good enough' to think about switching. I say fortunately because of the cost involved and the never ending quest for the 'best' is not why I got into photography.

kf095 wrote in post #15927831
D90 which I wanted was $200 above my purchase limit in 2009.
I went with new 500D instead. To realise it is nice to have FF in addition to crop.
Canon has best affordable FF camera for me, which was 5Dc.

I like how Rebel-like Nikon cameras processing colors and how auto mode has central AF point selection.
I like how Nikon has extra protection to LCD screen.

Am I going to switch to Nikon? Of course not. I'm not a gearhead.
5D MKII is going to be next most affordable FF camera for me. Some time...
And I like L.
L stands for Luxury Nikon lenses are kind of no_name for my taste.

corrected your post for you

davidc502 wrote in post #15928413
Nikon doesn't have the vast array of lenses Canon has.... They are typically harder to find and in some cases more expensive, and not necessarily better IQ.

Canon is really where it's at when it comes to Lenses... IMHO.

Funny you say thst. Just checked out your lens lineup and I don't see anything in it that you could not achieve with Nikon.

Hogloff wrote in post #15929166
Funny you say thst. Just checked out your lens lineup and I don't see anything in it that you could not achieve with Nikon.

Very true, I don't have the L line-up many here have (don't have any L's). My guess would be that Nikon would have a difficult time matching all the L's vs. regular USM lenses. I wouldn't disagree.

Still it's nice to know where Canon stands vs the competition. I'm always more than happy to give my opinions about it

Cheers,

I started off with Canon, switched to Nikon, then came back to Canon.

Why the initial switch to Nikon? The 1D4. It was a disappointment for wedding photography. I didn't want to go back to the 1D3 or buy the 5D2. So I switched to a D3, D700, 14-24G, 24-70G, 70-200VRII, 24G, 85G, 105VR, 200 f2 VR, SB-900 x 3. I was very happy with it. That said I always felt that the way the crosstype AF points are arranged in these cameras were awkward and lacking. But again, overall, I was very happy. But then I decided I wanted to get into video and that changed everything.

I kind of reluctantly returned to Canon. Buying a pair of 5D2s. I felt the AF system wasn't great but managed OK. Ironically I never ended up getting into video so I was left to wonder what the heck did I do?

And then came the 5D3 to the rescue! It was pretty much THE camera I always wanted, and perhaps what the 5D2 should have been to begin with.

The latest Nikon cameras intrigue me a lot. But the 5D3 hits the sweet spot as a wedding photographer. Excellent AF system with nice spread of the crosstype AF points. Just the right amount of resolution. Very good high ISO noise handling. 6fps. Dual slots. Excellent ergonomics. I absolutely hate where the ISO button is located on the D700 (and hence the D800) and even more so on the D3 and D3s (and hence the D4). I was SUPER impressed with the noise handling of the D3s. Nikon lenses were fine lenses. For all intents and purposes, other than an odd lens here and there, they have caught up.

But again, I am content with the 5D3...shadow details be damned!

nicksan wrote in post #15929239
For all intents and purposes, other than an odd lens here and there, they have caught up.

I read somewhere that Nikon planned on making a similar f/4 line-up like Canon (24-70f/4 70-200f/4 24-105f/4 etc.), but that's been several years ago. Would it be accurate to say that's been completed now? I haven't looked, so I'm asking.

davidc502 wrote in post #15929263
I read somewhere that Nikon planned on making a similar f/4 line-up like Canon (24-70f/4 70-200f/4 24-105f/4 etc.), but that's been several years ago. Would it be accurate to say that's been completed now? I haven't looked, so I'm asking.

Yes. 24-120 f4 VR, 70-200 f4 VR, etc..

I switched to Nikon a few months ago, and here's what I learned:

1. Both systems are great.

2. Neither will make you a better photographer.

3. It's extremely easy and intuitive to get horrible results from both.

4. It takes learning, patience and practice to be a good photographer.

5. Neither comes with a creativity setting. If it did, I'd have mine turned to 11.

-----

In all seriousness, I started with a Rebel XS. Great camera. Really. But it was very limited (max 1600 ISO with auto ISO to 800). It shot slowly and sounded like R2D2.

Then I upgraded to the T2i. It did much better on going higher ISO, but it didn't get better results than the XS in equal light really. My photography was no better, I never used the video, and the biggest problem for me was the same problem as the XS: very loud shutter. Don't get me wrong: It makes a cool sound, but it's loud and there's nothing you can do about it. I knew I'd had enough of that when I was in the Yale Library in Connecticut and took a photo. Every head looked up at me from that one picture. The shutter makes this sound: CHACHINK.

One day I was messing around with cameras at Best Buy and the Nikons were so quiet. Plus, the lenses on the entry level and mid-level models were snug (as opposed to the standard lens that comes with the 7D is the flimsy, lens-creeping 28-135...OLD lens, and the little lenses on the rebels are cheap plastic...sharp....but cheap...not much better than the nifty fifty).


So, anyway, I was looking at the 7D (hoping it might be quieter), but those Nikons were so quiet. I couldn't figure them out on-the-spot, however, and the salesperson couldn't help me get the settings I wanted. Another customer helped me and said, "the D7000 is going on sale on Black Friday."

So I sold my T2i, with the 28-135 and the nifty fifty. I got 650 bucks for it, then bought the Nikon D7000 for $999 from Amazon, no shipping, no sales tax. It came with the 18-105 lens (IS, fast AF, etc.) and I haven't regretted it for a second. It's an amazing camera. Plus, it came with a lot more than Canon gives. Full manual, lens hoods, a couple straps, two battery charging options, a bag for the lens, and a couple other things I'm forgetting (plus the hot shoe has a cap, as does the rear screen). You get a lot more in the box. The D7000 is very heavy for such a compact unit. I like that. In my mind heavy means quality...true or not.

It did take me a long time to figure out how to get everything right (settings) and Nikons give you much deeper menu options (or perhaps it was the D7000---Nikon's version of the 7D). So many options for exposure, white balance, and all auto features can be customized. It's a lot of camera for the money. I also picked up, for $199, the 35mm 1.8g, which is much, much sturdier and hardy than the nifty fifty was.

So, the grass is greener for me. I now have the white balance figured out, autofocus is fast, and I'm happy with the low light capabilities, color, dynamic range, and more. But what do I really love the most? THE QUIET SHUTTER. I can take a picture almost anywhere and it barely makes a noise. Just a faint click. Man, I love that. Super fast focus and very quiet click.


However: When I go full frame I fully expect to go Canon. Even after six months of shooting with my Nikon, I'm still used to Canon. Plus, Canon's DPP software that comes with the cameras is absolutely outstanding software compared to the utter crap Nikon gives with their cameras. Don't even try to use their software to convert raw files. It's like watching a snail cross the yard. I had to buy Lightroom (which is great software anyway) to convert raw files.

My dream camera is the Canon 6D, which I'm debating going after in the near future. Why?

Low light.

If you go to www.dpreview.com and go to their studio comparison tool you will see that nothing on the market right now can beat that 6D in low light, high ISO noise. I had it cranked up to somewhere around 24,000 ISO and the 6D was still keeping it together. Amazing. My D7000 was junk by then and the full frame Nikons were no match either. That also goes for the 5D2 and even the 5D3.

I'm telling you, that 6D might not be for sports, but it absolutely kills every single full frame camera on the market when it comes to fighting noise at high ISOs while maintaining detail. It's truly remarkable what they've done with that camera. http://www.dpreview.co​m/reviews/studio-compare

But I'll never buy another entry-level or mid-level Canon again until they get the shutters totally silent, the sensors a little bigger (Nikon's crop sensors are 10% larger than Canon's), and stop making those flimsy entry-level lenses. It's crazy that they are still selling that 28-135 USM IS lens. That thing is a dinosaur and I hope I never see it again.

Just my opinion.

And keep in mind what I said before: Both systems are equally capable of bad photos. My portfolio is proof.

^--- Nice post!

MikeFairbanks wrote in post #15929321
I switched to Nikon a few months ago, and here's what I learned:

1. Both systems are great.

2. Neither will make you a better photographer.

3. It's extremely easy and intuitive to get horrible results from both.

4. It takes learning, patience and practice to be a good photographer.

5. Neither comes with a creativity setting. If it did, I'd have mine turned to 11.

-----

In all seriousness, I started with a Rebel XS. Great camera. Really. But it was very limited (max 1600 ISO with auto ISO to 800). It shot slowly and sounded like R2D2.

Then I upgraded to the T2i. It did much better on going higher ISO, but it didn't get better results than the XS in equal light really. My photography was no better, I never used the video, and the biggest problem for me was the same problem as the XS: very loud shutter. Don't get me wrong: It makes a cool sound, but it's loud and there's nothing you can do about it. I knew I'd had enough of that when I was in the Yale Library in Connecticut and took a photo. Every head looked up at me from that one picture. The shutter makes this sound: CHACHINK.

One day I was messing around with cameras at Best Buy and the Nikons were so quiet. Plus, the lenses on the entry level and mid-level models were snug (as opposed to the standard lens that comes with the 7D is the flimsy, lens-creeping 28-135...OLD lens, and the little lenses on the rebels are cheap plastic...sharp....but cheap...not much better than the nifty fifty).


So, anyway, I was looking at the 7D (hoping it might be quieter), but those Nikons were so quiet. I couldn't figure them out on-the-spot, however, and the salesperson couldn't help me get the settings I wanted. Another customer helped me and said, "the D7000 is going on sale on Black Friday."

So I sold my T2i, with the 28-135 and the nifty fifty. I got 650 bucks for it, then bought the Nikon D7000 for $999 from Amazon, no shipping, no sales tax. It came with the 18-105 lens (IS, fast AF, etc.) and I haven't regretted it for a second. It's an amazing camera. Plus, it came with a lot more than Canon gives. Full manual, lens hoods, a couple straps, two battery charging options, a bag for the lens, and a couple other things I'm forgetting (plus the hot shoe has a cap, as does the rear screen). You get a lot more in the box. The D7000 is very heavy for such a compact unit. I like that. In my mind heavy means quality...true or not.

It did take me a long time to figure out how to get everything right (settings) and Nikons give you much deeper menu options (or perhaps it was the D7000---Nikon's version of the 7D). So many options for exposure, white balance, and all auto features can be customized. It's a lot of camera for the money. I also picked up, for $199, the 35mm 1.8g, which is much, much sturdier and hardy than the nifty fifty was.

So, the grass is greener for me. I now have the white balance figured out, autofocus is fast, and I'm happy with the low light capabilities, color, dynamic range, and more. But what do I really love the most? THE QUIET SHUTTER. I can take a picture almost anywhere and it barely makes a noise. Just a faint click. Man, I love that. Super fast focus and very quiet click.


However: When I go full frame I fully expect to go Canon. Even after six months of shooting with my Nikon, I'm still used to Canon. Plus, Canon's DPP software that comes with the cameras is absolutely outstanding software compared to the utter crap Nikon gives with their cameras. Don't even try to use their software to convert raw files. It's like watching a snail cross the yard. I had to buy Lightroom (which is great software anyway) to convert raw files.

My dream camera is the Canon 6D, which I'm debating going after in the near future. Why?

Low light.

If you go to www.dpreview.com and go to their studio comparison tool you will see that nothing on the market right now can beat that 6D in low light, high ISO noise. I had it cranked up to somewhere around 24,000 ISO and the 6D was still keeping it together. Amazing. My D7000 was junk by then and the full frame Nikons were no match either. That also goes for the 5D2 and even the 5D3.

I'm telling you, that 6D might not be for sports, but it absolutely kills every single full frame camera on the market when it comes to fighting noise at high ISOs while maintaining detail. It's truly remarkable what they've done with that camera. http://www.dpreview.co​m/reviews/studio-compare

But I'll never buy another entry-level or mid-level Canon again until they get the shutters totally silent, the sensors a little bigger (Nikon's crop sensors are 10% larger than Canon's), and stop making those flimsy entry-level lenses. It's crazy that they are still selling that 28-135 USM IS lens. That thing is a dinosaur and I hope I never see it again.

Just my opinion.

And keep in mind what I said before: Both systems are equally capable of bad photos. My portfolio is proof.

Great post! This was the reason I made the thread

I've had, still do, doubt I'll sell it, a 40D. I bought a D800 last week. I can compare ergo, but besides that, I can't compare them. I didn't think the 5D3 was good enough to buy over the D800; I've used the 5D2 and it's awesome (I'm getting into Zeiss, so the AF doesn't matter yet), but it has older technology and doesn't have the resolution nor DR of the D800.

They're tools. I don't really view them as toys. It's awesome to hold a very sturdy D800 in my hands, but it's better to view the end product on a screen or print.

I have been on the other side with a Nikon D800 and I can tell you that if you are using a 5DIII with L glass, it certainly is not greener on the other side!

MikeFairbanks wrote in post #15929321
I switched to Nikon a few months ago, and here's what I learned:

1. Both systems are great.

2. Neither will make you a better photographer.

3. It's extremely easy and intuitive to get horrible results from both.

4. It takes learning, patience and practice to be a good photographer.

5. Neither comes with a creativity setting. If it did, I'd have mine turned to 11.

-----

In all seriousness, I started with a Rebel XS. Great camera. Really. But it was very limited (max 1600 ISO with auto ISO to 800). It shot slowly and sounded like R2D2.

Then I upgraded to the T2i. It did much better on going higher ISO, but it didn't get better results than the XS in equal light really. My photography was no better, I never used the video, and the biggest problem for me was the same problem as the XS: very loud shutter. Don't get me wrong: It makes a cool sound, but it's loud and there's nothing you can do about it. I knew I'd had enough of that when I was in the Yale Library in Connecticut and took a photo. Every head looked up at me from that one picture. The shutter makes this sound: CHACHINK.

One day I was messing around with cameras at Best Buy and the Nikons were so quiet. Plus, the lenses on the entry level and mid-level models were snug (as opposed to the standard lens that comes with the 7D is the flimsy, lens-creeping 28-135...OLD lens, and the little lenses on the rebels are cheap plastic...sharp....but cheap...not much better than the nifty fifty).


So, anyway, I was looking at the 7D (hoping it might be quieter), but those Nikons were so quiet. I couldn't figure them out on-the-spot, however, and the salesperson couldn't help me get the settings I wanted. Another customer helped me and said, "the D7000 is going on sale on Black Friday."

So I sold my T2i, with the 28-135 and the nifty fifty. I got 650 bucks for it, then bought the Nikon D7000 for $999 from Amazon, no shipping, no sales tax. It came with the 18-105 lens (IS, fast AF, etc.) and I haven't regretted it for a second. It's an amazing camera. Plus, it came with a lot more than Canon gives. Full manual, lens hoods, a couple straps, two battery charging options, a bag for the lens, and a couple other things I'm forgetting (plus the hot shoe has a cap, as does the rear screen). You get a lot more in the box. The D7000 is very heavy for such a compact unit. I like that. In my mind heavy means quality...true or not.

It did take me a long time to figure out how to get everything right (settings) and Nikons give you much deeper menu options (or perhaps it was the D7000---Nikon's version of the 7D). So many options for exposure, white balance, and all auto features can be customized. It's a lot of camera for the money. I also picked up, for $199, the 35mm 1.8g, which is much, much sturdier and hardy than the nifty fifty was.

So, the grass is greener for me. I now have the white balance figured out, autofocus is fast, and I'm happy with the low light capabilities, color, dynamic range, and more. But what do I really love the most? THE QUIET SHUTTER. I can take a picture almost anywhere and it barely makes a noise. Just a faint click. Man, I love that. Super fast focus and very quiet click.


However: When I go full frame I fully expect to go Canon. Even after six months of shooting with my Nikon, I'm still used to Canon. Plus, Canon's DPP software that comes with the cameras is absolutely outstanding software compared to the utter crap Nikon gives with their cameras. Don't even try to use their software to convert raw files. It's like watching a snail cross the yard. I had to buy Lightroom (which is great software anyway) to convert raw files.

My dream camera is the Canon 6D, which I'm debating going after in the near future. Why?

Low light.

If you go to www.dpreview.com and go to their studio comparison tool you will see that nothing on the market right now can beat that 6D in low light, high ISO noise. I had it cranked up to somewhere around 24,000 ISO and the 6D was still keeping it together. Amazing. My D7000 was junk by then and the full frame Nikons were no match either. That also goes for the 5D2 and even the 5D3.

I'm telling you, that 6D might not be for sports, but it absolutely kills every single full frame camera on the market when it comes to fighting noise at high ISOs while maintaining detail. It's truly remarkable what they've done with that camera. http://www.dpreview.co​m/reviews/studio-compare

But I'll never buy another entry-level or mid-level Canon again until they get the shutters totally silent, the sensors a little bigger (Nikon's crop sensors are 10% larger than Canon's), and stop making those flimsy entry-level lenses. It's crazy that they are still selling that 28-135 USM IS lens. That thing is a dinosaur and I hope I never see it again.

Just my opinion.

And keep in mind what I said before: Both systems are equally capable of bad photos. My portfolio is proof.

This is why I chose the D7000 over the 7D. I wasn't quite ready to go full frame, but fell in love with the d7000

Canon lenses = 1 year warranty
Nikon lenses = 5 years warranty