Velu01 wrote:
I prefer the ergonomics of Canon lenses over Nikon.
That's an interesting angle.
I have never used any Nikon lenses. (However, based on their specs, I understand that some Canon lenses are lighter than their Nikon counterparts, e.g., 200 f/2).
Can you please give us some examples of your preferences .
Peter! -- Nikon lenses mount and manually focus in the wrong direction.
I voted Canon, but I am both a Canon(2/3 of the time) and Nikon shooter 1/3 of the time).
Why Canon - lens choices Canon has lenses not carried by Nikon 8-15L , 17 T+S, 24 T+S that is not impeded by the builtin flash, 50 1.0L, 200 1.8L, 400 5.6, MP-E 65, 800 (though that is changing).
I like the live view implementation better on Canon at least on the 5D MKII.
You can mount with adapters Nikon lenses on a Canon (plus Contax, Leica R, etc) although you can Leitax some to work on Nikon the selection of other lens brands is more vast with Canon. Try mounting a Canon (EF) lens on a Nikon.
That said I would probably still shoot both if I was starting over I just would have a slightly different lens collection.
I started with a Canon T3i then went to a Canon 60D and loved both then went to a Canon 5D classic - loved it but I have now wanted to go smaller and had a Sony 5N but didn't like it for many reasons and the e-mount is not my cup of tea. I wanted to go Sony for the Zeiss AF lenses as we all know lenses are really the key to the soul of the picture. But I again am leaning towards a small type of camera - So I have gone to Leica and love the small form factor and the great IQ that it gives. Its costly but when I started to get into cameras if I had known this in the beginning I would have just gone to Leica and saved myself a ton of money - but I can call that a learning experience and the cost of learning photography. Take note I knew nothing - I was like "what is a F stop?". I will be saving my money for the new Leica M. thats my dream camera.
Canon, probably, though there's a strong allure to sensor-based stabilization with Pentax and Sony. Nikon is the only company with comparable AF performance, but they cost more and often lag Canon in lens designs I care about. Canon also has a more vibrant used market.
Been using Canon for quite a few years now but if I had to start all over again, I'd be interested in a mirrorless system like the Olympus OM-D. That said, the jury is still out on a few aspects of it but it looks extremely interesting to me.
I find the biggest disadvantage of my current gear is the weight.
Psychic1 wrote:
Nikon was on backorder when I began shooting film in 1996 and nothing has changed.
Nikon pushes the technology and Canon makes the sales.
Nikon is Canon's R&D division.
An interesting way of looking at the relationship.
I was a Nikon user beginning with the F going all the way to the D1H. The only reason I switched to Canon is because my employer outfitted me with new Canon gear with the 1DmkII. I liked using Nikon because most of my old gear and lenses dating all the way back to the 60's was still compatible with with my modern digital cameras. As a working photojournalist I was quite happy leaving the D1H (state of the art in it's day) at home and using prosumer gear like the D70 while traveling in some pretty remote and difficult parts of the world. I rode the prosumer gear hard and it kept going strong.
When I switched to Canon with the 1DmkII I immediately purchased a Rebel XT to use as part of a travel kit the same way I had with the Nikons. Unfortunately, the low end Canon prosumer cameras and lenses weren't up to the job. The sensor performed well, but the form function and durability of the cameras were a real disappointment. I did move on to the 30D and it was okay, but bigger and more expensive than the Nikon prosumer cameras at the time.
I'm still a Canon user today and I'm quite pleased with the 5DmkIII and 1DmkIV. What I've found, generally speaking, is that with Nikon and Canon the top shelf pro gear is equal in performance and I'd have no problem using either brand. However, in the prosumer and low end gear I think Nikon is a better product and easier to use. The Canon and Nikon pro L and ED lenses are both top notch, but when it comes to the consumer lenses the Nikons are much better in build quality and optics. I'm sorry, but a lot of the Canon consumer lenses are real dogs. The cheap consumer Nikon lenses are pretty good for the money.
If I had to do it all over again today, I'd stick with Canon. The only reason is because video has become a very important part of my daily work. While many on this forum see no value in DSLR video, it is very important to me and Canon is the industry standard when it comes to video.
If video were not a factor, I see little difference between Canon and Nikon. As a working photographer, these are tools just as a hammer and saw are tools for a carpenter.
SKumar25 wrote:
if you were starting from scratch right now, would you still pick Canon, else who'd you pick, and why?
Maybe 1Ds2, 5D2 and D800E for now then update 5D2 & 1Ds2 to canon high resolution better DR whenever it's available. I just can't leave my 50L1.0, 85L1.2 alone yet. D800E might work well with Zeiss T* ZE21mm f2.8 and ZE55f1.4 & ZE100f2 later on.
D800. Unfortunately I would need to compromise in some lenses which I like in Canon's line and why I am still sticking to Canon. Starting from scratch it would be currently Nikon.
thw2 wrote:
I chose Canon many many years ago because their sensor was far superior to anything else on the market. Their lens collection and features were also the best that time.
Today, Nikon has surpassed, if not caught up with Canon. I will most likely than not choose Nikon. I will also recommend Nikon to any friend or relative who seeks advice in picking a system.
Seems to be reality in some respect: from my photo groups new members all started with a Nikon camera in the past year, nobody with Canon (I did not make any recommendations here since I didn't even know the new members before they joined with their new cameras). The majority of club members on the other hand still uses Canon.
I think that Canon has beginner friendly bodies, but very little beginner friendly lenses. The kit lens and the plastic fantastic feel less durable than a transformers toy. Nikon has some beginner friendly bodies and beginner friendly lenses (namely, the 35 f/1.8 DX). They have a bunch of inexpensive DX macro lenses... basically they have a lot of situations covered. I think Canon rebels are nice in that they're rather feature rich. With Nikon there's a big rift between AF-D capable bodies and bodies that only AF with AF-S lenses.
Part 2:
I really don't think there's a huge difference between Canon and Nikon lenses. Some Canon lenses are better (I like the 35L, the 100L macro), and some Nikon lenses are better (I like the 24 1.4G, and the 85 1.4 better than the Canon counterparts). A lot of lenses, I think are too close to call. A lot of people say the Canon 70-200L is better than the Nikon 70-200 VRII. I seriously can't tell the difference from the files. They both feel awesome in hand. I actually found the 70-200L focusing speed to be surprisingly underwhelming considering the price. I do like Canon's EF-S 17-55 2.8 more than Nikon's (no VR!) equivalent.
I also think that Canon's library somewhat broader. I would like to use a 17 tilt shift. A 70-200 f/4, I don't care for. There are so many 70-300 options that it really doesn't matter. A refreshed 80-400 would be nice, but it's not a lens I need. I don't want any exotic superteles.
I do care about FF ultra-wides, and I think Nikon's selection of 3 (14-24 2.8, 16-35 4 VR, and 17-35) are all pretty damned good. I feel like Canon has fewer options in this realm.
So, I really feel like the lens selection is pretty much the same, unless: (a) you're a beginner, or (b) there's a specific lens that you absolutely need that one manufacturer has and the other doesn't (e.g. 14-24 2.8, 17 TS-E, etc.).
Part 3:
If I were a beginner prosumer starting over, I'd pick Nikon.
If I were primarily a landscape shooter, I'd pick Nikon.
If I were to sink a ton of money to do a wedding business, I'd pick 2 Canon 5DMIII's, a 35L, an 85L, and so forth.
Have a look at the focus breathing issue on the Nikon 70-200 VR II, that is the reason I don't want to replace my Canon with one. Optically and AF wise they're not worlds apart.
Starting from scratch it would be hard to turn down a D600, D800 and all those lovely G series lenses. Nikkor 24mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4 and a couple of G zooms would do it for me. Don't get me wrong, I love my Ls, but the latest crop of Canon FF bodies seem to me to have been eclipsed by Nikon's, am especially impressed with what I have seen of Nikon's Sony sensors.
Nikon have come an awfully long way since the bad old days when it was rumoured they would never produce full frame digital bodies. The worm has definitely turned, and then some!
jj_glos wrote:
Have a look at the focus breathing issue on the Nikon 70-200 VR II, that is the reason I don't want to replace my Canon with one. Optically and AF wise they're not worlds apart.
The Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II is remarkable also in that it is more achormatic than many APO designated lenses. The Nikon VR II doesn't come close to this.
I could have sworn we had this poll or very similar just a few months ago....
Yeah, I asked it then. It'll be interesting to hear what people think now that reality has sunk in a bit.
For me it's stick with Canon, but not without significant regrets about low light low DR and banding.
I guess it means there's yet another purchase somewhere in my future, 3-4 years about. Canon glass and low-light noise + D800 DR especially at low ISO.
Nikon lenses mount and manually focus in the wrong direction. 