canon vs nikon bodies

This maybe a dumb question, but what is the big deal with nikon bodies. When I was looking at a catalog, I noticed most of their bodies are only 12 or 14 megs. Why not more megapixel bodies, is it. An iso thing that sells them? Just a curious question?

Canon has ruled the Megapixel race since 2000.
Canon also ruled DSLR in pretty much all other aspects up until about 2007.

In the last few years Nikon has been able to focus on other aspects and successfully challenge Canon.
Now it's not a matter of who has better bodies, but more, who has ones more suited to your specific needs.

D3s appears to have the best high ISO capability at the moment. Redesigned sensor but full frame and only 12MP no doubt helps.

skater911 wrote in post #11486055
This maybe a dumb question, but what is the big deal with nikon bodies. When I was looking at a catalog, I noticed most of their bodies are only 12 or 14 megs. Why not more megapixel bodies, is it. An iso thing that sells them? Just a curious question?

Depends on your needs.

Some, in fact probably a whole lot of photographers, don't need 21MP. Some of course do without question.

Currently, Nikon has the ISO war won. The D3s is at least a stop better than anything Canon has out. As to AF, that's really a debate that has no clear cut answer. The 1DMKIV is certainly a force to be reckoned with. Canon clearly has the edge in video although Nikon is catching up. Canon without question has the MP war won.

Whether any of these features matter to you again depends on what you shoot.

What's clear is that both camps offer top notch photography equipment. You can't go wrong either way.

That's what I thought, I was just a little suprised on the price per feature difference. I think canon's done a nice job on producing a affordable full frame body, where nikon's is very pricey.

skater911 wrote in post #11486799
That's what I thought, I was just a little suprised on the price per feature difference. I think canon's done a nice job on producing a affordable full frame body, where nikon's is very pricey.

Did you mean it the other way around?
The Nikon d700 is full frame and costs $2350 on BH; the 5Dii is $2500.

on the video side ... a 7D trumps a D3s.

this is not from my personal opinion ... it is from a shootout: film vs DSLR (2010).
It was completed by members in the film industry.

very cool to watch ... 3 - 30 min on-line videos on the testing.

as far as picture taking side ... to me it is not about bodies but about which system better fits your style.

I have seen fantastic wedding shots from both, and then it is coming down to the gray matter behind the glass.

Tadaaa wrote in post #11486825
Did you mean it the other way around?
The Nikon d700 is full frame and costs $2350 on BH; the 5Dii is $2500.

I over looked that body, so I retract what is said prior. Now when people say it depends on your style, what is the style difference between them?

skater911 wrote in post #11486928
I over looked that body, so I retract what is said prior. Now when people say it depends on your style, what is the style difference between them?

It's not differences in the bodies, it's differences in how you shoot...

The so-called "Full Frame" bodies are targeted a bit more toward studio and landscape photographers where split-second, rapid-fire shooting isn't as big of an issue for say, sports photographers or photojournalists who may need to rattle off several frame bursts to capture the peak of action. The "crop bodies" can generate higher frames per second rates to facilitate that.

This is not to say however that a crop body can't take a nice portrait or capture a stunning landscape and there are many photographers working in both sports and as PJs who prefer the full-frame bodies.

There is however a difference in cost of lenses with Canon glass being cheaper than Nikon.

chauncey wrote in post #11487157
There is however a difference in cost of lenses with Canon glass being cheaper than Nikon.

How long this lasts remains to be seen given the prices for the new large primes that are due in 2011...

it would it had been easier for me a few weeks ago to say which was better.. but since i got a D3 as gift to me. i can tell you that i respect what nikon does, i only have a basic 50 1.8 but i cant put the camera down.
im seriously thinking of getting all my canon stuff sold.

better iso performance, zoom lens preference and ergonomics is what i see most people say why they prefer nikons.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #11486097
Canon has ruled the Megapixel race since 2000.

Up till almost 2 years ago when Nikon came up with the D3X that is

nicksan wrote in post #11486341
Depends on your needs.

Some, in fact probably a whole lot of photographers, don't need 21MP. Some of course do without question.

Currently, Nikon has the ISO war won. The D3s is at least a stop better than anything Canon has out. As to AF, that's really a debate that has no clear cut answer. The 1DMKIV is certainly a force to be reckoned with. Canon clearly has the edge in video although Nikon is catching up. Canon without question has the MP war won.Whether any of these features matter to you again depends on what you shoot.

What's clear is that both camps offer top notch photography equipment. You can't go wrong either way.

How can you say this when there is a Nikon D3x with 24mpix?