Who here has Nikon's and which ones and why??

Permagrin wrote in post #9330104
the biggest difference is price...nikon costs more.

Then there's the prime difference...canon has better wide angle primes. Nikon's are almost non-existent in AF.

Then there's the zoom difference...nikon has better zooms. 14-24, 24-70 & 70-200 (though this may be debatable after the new 70-200 is tested).

Nikon seems heavier...everywhere. That can be a drag after a long day's shoot.

Nikon's color renditions are preferable to me. As are the ergonomics. Though I do miss the wheel from canon, I love that I don't have to go menu diving for everything.

I love it that I can throw a grip on the D700 and get 8.5 fps on full frame. I also prefer the high ISO handling in nikon.

I miss the 70-200 F4IS from canon. It was my absolute favorite zoom ever.

What? Nikon has a 14mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, and the 35mm all f/2.8 or wider.

dudemanppl wrote in post #9339355
What? Nikon has a 14mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, and the 35mm all f/2.8 or wider.

yep, no 1.2, no 1.4. And mediocre at best. I may shoot nikon but I'm not blind to their weak points.

Permagrin wrote in post #9330104
the biggest difference is price

IMO, the biggest difference is user interface.

Absolutely Fabulous wrote in post #9330349
it's the hardware

Absolutely Fabulous wrote in post #9330815
I know hardware make a difference.

Sorry, but you "know" wrong.
I've seen great images from both (good) Nikon and Canon bodys. In print on the wall. Big.

Not all that much difference between a good Nikon or Canon. Both have their strenghts and weaknesses, neither is "best for all". And the differences that exist are small and likely only noticed in quite specific cases.

It depends on what and how you shoot, what glass you need, what light conditions are, etc.

If you cannot take a good image with a Canon, you cannot take a good image with a Nikon, and you cannot take a good image with a LeicaS2.

Absolutely Fabulous wrote in post #9330045
A few friends are trying to push me to Nikon. I know a few of you have both. Why both? What differences are there between them to you?

If your friends have a bunch of high end Nikon lenses that they will loan to you frequently then this is a no-brainer. Otherwise, who cares what they want you to buy?

I prefer the Nikon D700 for a FF body from the standpoint of features vs. the Canon 5D Classic or Mark II. I see no advantage to more pixels, I don't shoot video and I always want the best AF I can get.

I do however slightly prefer the 1D Mark III to the D3 for low light action shooting, and I prefer Canon body ergonomics to Nikon body ergonomics in all situations.

For me the real kicker is lens selection. I prefer Canon for a few specific lens reasons:

1) 24-105L on a FF body like the 5D. This is my travel rig, and the Nikon 24-120 is a stop lower and in a different (worse) IQ league. Both companies 24-70/2.8 lenses are too big, too heavy and too short for this role.

2) 135L. This is my prime sports lens, and it is better at it than the Nikon 135mm.

3) 17-40L - meets my ultra wide angle needs for a lot less money that the Nikon 17-35/2.8, never mind the 14-24 which is $$$.

4) Speaking of $$$ - I know if I shot Nikon the $6000 200-400/4 VR would prove irresistable. Better I live with Canon and my 300/4 IS.

5) The Nikon 85/1.4 is not as good as the Canon 85/1.2, but this is not a deal breaker as I could live with the Canon 85/1.8.

If equipment is irrelevant... as some are suggesting... then we're all a bunch of suckers. We should be buying Quantaray lenses for far less money and getting equal results. Fact is, all other things being equal, equipment DOES make a difference. Even within the Canon brand alone there are some lenses better than others, and we all know it.

This does not mean that equipment is the only factor, or even the primary factor, just one of many pieces of the puzzle.

Absolutely Fabulous wrote in post #9330045
A few friends are trying to push me to Nikon. I know a few of you have both. Why both? What differences are there between them to you?

The only thing I own with a Nikon nameplate is a dedicated film scanner.

Anyway, I don't know if it's my own biased perspective, but it does seem to me that Nikon owners tend to be more passionate about their choice of gear. I'm not sure if they really believe in it that much, or if they feel the need to justify (to themselves) the extra cost. Maybe a little of both.

René Damkot wrote in post #9339763
IMO, the biggest difference is user interface.

Sorry, but you "know" wrong.
I've seen great images from both (good) Nikon and Canon bodys. In print on the wall. Big.

Not all that much difference between a good Nikon or Canon. Both have their strenghts and weaknesses, neither is "best for all". And the differences that exist are small and likely only noticed in quite specific cases.

It depends on what and how you shoot, what glass you need, what light conditions are, etc.

If you cannot take a good image with a Canon, you cannot take a good image with a Nikon, and you cannot take a good image with a LeicaS2.

What my comment meant is hardware makes a difference in the respect that a cheap P&S can only give you so much. You can get a good image but it's much harder to get that perfect on the wall shot.

A bad photographer with $50,000 worth of kit will still suck. But the really good photographer will still struggle with the $20 camera. If hardware made no difference Canon and Nikon wouldn't have as much money in their banks, although I DO think some of it comes down to people THINKING the gear will magically transform their bad photos into good photos.

JeffreyG wrote in post #9339772
If your friends have a bunch of high end Nikon lenses that they will loan to you frequently then this is a no-brainer. Otherwise, who cares what they want you to buy?

I prefer the Nikon D700 for a FF body from the standpoint of features vs. the Canon 5D Classic or Mark II. I see no advantage to more pixels, I don't shoot video and I always want the best AF I can get.

I do however slightly prefer the 1D Mark III to the D3 for low light action shooting, and I prefer Canon body ergonomics to Nikon body ergonomics in all situations.

For me the real kicker is lens selection. I prefer Canon for a few specific lens reasons:

1) 24-105L on a FF body like the 5D. This is my travel rig, and the Nikon 24-120 is a stop lower and in a different (worse) IQ league. Both companies 24-70/2.8 lenses are too big, too heavy and too short for this role.

2) 135L. This is my prime sports lens, and it is better at it than the Nikon 135mm.

3) 17-40L - meets my ultra wide angle needs for a lot less money that the Nikon 17-35/2.8, never mind the 14-24 which is $$$.

4) Speaking of $$$ - I know if I shot Nikon the $6000 200-400/4 VR would prove irresistable. Better I live with Canon and my 300/4 IS.

5) The Nikon 85/1.4 is not as good as the Canon 85/1.2, but this is not a deal breaker as I could live with the Canon 85/1.8.

Thanks for a useful post.

Absolutely Fabulous wrote in post #9340008
What my comment meant is hardware makes a difference in the respect that a cheap P&S can only give you so much. You can get a good image but it's much harder to get that perfect on the wall shot.

A bad photographer with $50,000 worth of kit will still suck. But the really good photographer will still struggle with the $20 camera. If hardware made no difference Canon and Nikon wouldn't have as much money in their banks, although I DO think some of it comes down to people THINKING the gear will magically transform their bad photos into good photos.

The difference from a nice P&S like a Canon G10 to a nice dSLR like a Rebel XSi or even a very nice dSLR like a 5D Mark II or a 1D Mark III is huge. The 1D3 can literally do things that the Rebel cannot, and the Rebel can really do things that the G10 cannot.

But in the threads I've seen you posting, you are contrasting gear that is not like that difference. The differences between a Nikon D700 and a Canon 5D Mark II are significant in some ways, but probably immaterial as far as actually getting the shot.

I have a lot of specific gear preferences for how I work and what I shoot, but I could absolutely work with either Canon or Nikon and the real differences in prints would be negligible.

This is a struggle for any newbie though. You don't know where your photography interests will eventually take you, so you don't know which system will ultimately be best for you down the road.

Good news is that it probably really does not matter. Flip a coin and you will wind up in a perfectly good system. Just don't try to switch systems later - it costs too much and will have almost no real effect.

Good luck. A lot of these decisions seem bewildering. If anything, that is your clue to take it slow. Pick up a camera, flash and a couple modest lenses and shoot for 3-6 months before buying tons and tons of gear.

You will ultimately do less gear swapping that way then by trying to buy 'the best of everything' up front.

The thread is more out of curiosity more than anything. I already know by buying and trying that some things I like better than others. It's a learning curve.

Permagrin wrote in post #9339693
yep, no 1.2, no 1.4. And mediocre at best. I may shoot nikon but I'm not blind to their weak points.

Well I shoot Nikon too. To OP: If you find yourself buying a DX camera get a 35 1.8.

For the record, this is a comparison of a $1000 lens to a $400 lens. Might be inconsequential to some, but means the difference between owning the lens and not owning it for me.

Absolutely Fabulous wrote in post #9340008
But the really good photographer will still struggle with the $20 camera.

I could be wrong, but should the pertinent question not be, "Would a D700 produce any different results for a really good photographer, compared to a 5D2?"?

Barring specific applications, is there any greater influence on what brand one tends to stick with than which brand one happened to buy first?

I've never owned Canon, but I do lurk here because there's a lot of good info flying around.

That being said I was recently in the nikon vs canon decision headache while upgrading to Full Frame cameras. I chose Nikon (D700) because I fel that the lenses I wanted were much better on the Nikon side, and the body was significantly better feature wise as well.

Now if I'd needed 20+ MP's then that would be a different story and I'd be shooting Canon (maybe Sony) right now. But I didn't. I needed great low light performance, quick and responsive AF performance, good frame rate, and high durability build. I also needed impeccable zooms in my selected focal length range. And the final requirement was a great flash system. The only brand that could check all those boxes confidently in my spending range? Nikon! I have a ton of respect for Canon, but there lineup just isn't there for me right now. 4 years ago things would have been different, as the 5D would have been the only game in town, but that's changed now.

My gear list is short but sweet:

D700
AF-S N 24-70 f/2.8
AF-S VR 70-200 f/2.8
85 f/1.8
SB-900 (speedlight) with 3 more on the way.

I really don't think that the Canon 24-70 is even in the same league as the Nikon. And I preferred the Nikon 70-200 as well, superb lens. I take my gear into the field quite often, so having an all magnesium and gasketed construction means a lot to me, and the zooms I use are also fully weather sealed. The AF system is as good as it gets in SLR's, and the frame rate is a healthy 5 FPS, with the possibility to expand to about 9 when needed.

I couldn't be happier.

nikons 24-70 is about $1800, 70-200 is about $2400. You could save a whole $1000 of that if you go canon and buy a 135mm L for that thats what I did. lol. Also to be honest, those pics from that nikon will not look $1000 better

I only paid $1600 for each lens brand new from a canikon dealer ~$450 for the 85f/1.8.

I never implied that the pictures look any better. Though they just might to some. I know I wouldn't be happy with a 5DII and probably wouldn't be using it near as much as the D700 though. So maybe it is $1,000 better if you look at it that way.