Upload & Sell: Off
| p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Why do Nikon images look sharper and better to me? Please help another undecided. || |
I presently shoot Canon, but usually tell people on a budget to go Nikon. I think the less expensive Nikon lenses are (mostly) better than or (sometimes) equal to the less expensive Canon lenses. Your criticism of Canon's 50mm f/1.4 is well founded. Also, I think the new 7100 is probably a terrific budget body, but I have never used one.
Problem is, if you plan to step up to better performing gear, the best argument Nikon has is the D800, some price advantages on good lenses like the 24-70 zoom, and a few bright spots like the 14-24 zoom. And also probably a better flash systemóno small thing for event and wedding shooters.
The D800 is going to be a great, great camera in its next, sorted out implementation. For now, for every application but extremely large prints, the 5D III beats the D800. The commenters who are trying to suggest autofocus deficiencies in Canon's present lineup don't know what they are talking about. The 5D III or 1 Dx will deliver more keepers (judged on focus sharpness) than any Nikon body.
Canon's mid-to-high-end lenses offer more choices andówith notable exceptions such as Nikon's 14-24 zoomóbetter image quality (but often small by small-to-negligible margins) than the equivalent Nikons. Both makers offer some great lenses that the other doesn't, but Canon has many more of those. Almost anyone who had a choice of either system and wanted high-end telephotos or telephoto zooms would choose Canon, except possibly on price. Same with tilt and shift lenses. Same with image stabilized wide angles.
None of this is meant to suggest you can't assemble a great pro-quality system on the Nikon side. But the choices are easier and more plentiful if you do it with Canon. Unless you need to print larger than 30 inches wide. In that case the D800 decides the argument.