Back in the film days it used to be the case that both had capable bodies, but Canon's lenses were generally cheaper than the Nikon counterparts. Canon also first came out with USM, IS, etc. which set them apart. All these are no longer true; and Nikon even has better bodies now.
chez wrote:
Nikon is where I would be. For landscape their d800e along with a mitt full of Zeiss glass and the 14-24 would make me very happy.
I am very happy with the D800E and third party primes for landscape. It doesn't have to be expensive primes. Voigtländer Nokton 58 mm f/1.4 is extremely sharp stopped down (better than Zeiss imo) and the Apo-Lanthar 90 mm is excellent at all apertures. Both lenses also have very little lateral CA, one of the big turnoffs with Nikon lenses.
The D800E files are so wonderful in resolution and dynamic range, the enjoyments is so much greater than with the Canon 5DII. It is very sad to read all the negativity when people wish for a similar Canon camera. I really hope my Canon friends will get the pleasure of a similar camera.
For general purpose, I would still get a Canon 5DIII for the autofocus and lens selection, and a mirrorless for portability.
I would still pick Canon. The 5DMK3 is still IMHO the most versatile body out there. I tried the D800 and found it would be great as a landscape camera but did not work as well in more action oriented situations especially in low-light. So the 5DMK3 remains as the best all-arounder. Then there is Canon's lens selection which I prefer over Nikon.
Breitling65 wrote:
Interesting results on mirror-less, so much noise and so many aggressive responders who seem ready to die for these cameras but not many would like to start with ...
I did some analysis of global market shares and found that the combined shares of Nikon and Canon DSLRs have stayed the same at around 77% over 2010 and 2011. Despite all the noise about mirrorless cameras gaining popularity, Nikon and Canon shares have hardly wavered. What has really changed is that the smaller players like Olympus, Panasonic and Sony have switched from DSLRs to fully mirrorless offerings.
I think I would be fine with either Nikon or Canon if I was starting again from scratch. IMO they both offer excellent SLR systems and both offer equipment that exceeds my capabilities and needs as a photographer.
I started with Canon on film in the 80s and I have friends and a brother who shoot Nikon so I've used plenty of Nikon gear. For me, I don't think switching systems would accomplish anything more than wasting money.
Breitling65 wrote:
Interesting results on mirror-less, so much noise and so many aggressive responders who seem ready to die for these cameras but not many would like to start with ...
I'm not one of those mirrorless defenders but I'd like to say that in this forum, mirrorless is most likely a second citizen, something to complement a DSLR rather than a replacement. So it's quite understandable why most people wouldn't choose it if they were starting over.
I would still pick Canon any day over Nikon. I used to shoot Nikon back when I was still using film. I had numerous issues with Nikon products, due to their attitude and extremely poor customer service they assured that no matter what Nikon ever releases I will never buy one of their products again. All I can say for Nikon, "Is thanks for turning me onto Canon when I went digital"
I'm pretty happy with Canon. But if I was starting fresh, not invested in a system, I'd choose Nikon. They have nearly closed the gap no the lenses I car about most (fast primes), have some superior lenses (14-24), and have IMO superior bodies. Not looking to switch, as I hope the pendulum will swing back again, but that's what I would choose.
Breitling65 wrote:
Interesting results on mirror-less, so much noise and so many aggressive responders who seem ready to die for these cameras but not many would like to start with ...
Mirrorless cameras are great. I regularly use my u43 cameras (primarily Panasonic GX1). But I use it when I want something nice and small to take with me. I only carry the camera, one fixed lens, and the EVF. All of this fits in a setup that is a little bigger than a P&S.
But if one is going to carry enough mirrorless camera gear to require a medium sized or larger camera bag then the size/weight advantage of the mirrorless system has been negated, and any performance compromises is not acceptable. That is, I might as well carry a DSLR.
Also, having a mirrorless camera system does not equate to any price savings. You can easily spend $1000+ on a body and a good lens can easily exceed $1000.
n0b0 wrote:
I'm not one of those mirrorless defenders but I'd like to say that in this forum, mirrorless is most likely a second citizen, something to complement a DSLR rather than a replacement. So it's quite understandable why most people wouldn't choose it if they were starting over.
Why not to start with? It is so promising technology .... 😉
I voted other .. and will be switching to Nikon or Sony in the off-season. Love Canon glass, the rest not so much. Didn't come to this decision lightly .. over 10 years shooting Canon as a pro, probably over a million frames taken with Canon gear.
The two biggest issues are AF and reliability. Especially reliability .. I've had a number of 1 series bodies throw a shutter with less than 40m clicks, in fact I've had to get repairs done to every single 1 series body I've ever owned. 100% failure rate with Canon pro bodies .. and I think the newer Canon bodies are getting worse.
Breitling65 wrote:
Why not to start with? It is so promising technology .... 😉
I didn't think I could make my explanation simpler than saying mirrorless complements DSLR, not replaces it.
If you were to start over, logic dictates that a piece of complementary technology like the mirrorless would not really be a suitable option. Unless of course you've had it with DSLR and you're looking to downsize your gear.
If I intended shooting landscape, fashion, or studio work, or for purely family photography, Nikon. And there is a difficulty with landscape, because of mediocre Nikon tilt and shift offerings, so maybe Canon for landscape after all. Canon for pretty much everything else: (landscape, maybe); photojournalism; sports, wildlife; events; weddings; portraits; architecture; travel. Lens choices tilt the decision more than bodies in some of those categories.
n0b0 wrote:
I didn't think I could make my explanation simpler than saying mirrorless complements DSLR, not replaces it.
If you were to start over, logic dictates that a piece of complementary technology like the mirrorless would not really be a suitable option. Unless of course you've had it with DSLR and you're looking to downsize your gear.
Why would you take two set of lenses in your bag? Or you will attach to EF adapter? iphone is all I need besides 5d3 and lenses
I haven't used the Nikon 24 or 45PCE but the 85PCE I'm very familiar with having owned two copies and using both of them on Canon bodies, compared it to the Canon 90 TSE and the Nikon out resolves it by a fair margin...
splathrop wrote:
If I intended shooting landscape, fashion, or studio work, or for purely family photography, Nikon. And there is a difficulty with landscape, because of mediocre Nikon tilt and shift offerings, so maybe Canon for landscape after all. Canon for pretty much everything else: (landscape, maybe); photojournalism; sports, wildlife; events; weddings; portraits; architecture; travel. Lens choices tilt the decision more than bodies in some of those categories.
n0b0 wrote:
No offense mate but... WTF are you on about? Do you even understand the OP's question? Or are you just trolling now?
I am responding on "mirror-less complements" from you above. trolling-shmolling, are you from kindergarten? Do you always follow OP questions? Mirror-less doesn't belong to this forum at all so?
