I'm with Marc on this one. I started with the original Canon D30, moving up to a 1D and also owned a 10D, 20D as well. I had a great collection of L glass and enjoyed it very much with great results. Consider I typically shot weddings, people and landscape photography....not fast moving objects or sports. I found the color and overall quality of of images exemplary. I never bothered with a 5D. I happened to switch over to Nikon when the D200 came out. it was by NO means a "noise free" camera, nor did it possess the smooth noiseless images I felt I got with my 20D, BUT I did consider it a superior tool as far as layout and execution. I also later had a D40x for travel purposes.
One thing I CAN say without reservation. I consider Nikkor glass superior in it's lack of CA and corner sharpness. It took MANY copies of several of the L glass to find this and was a hassle. The Canon 24-70 f2.8 is a POS AFAIAC compared to the wonderful Nikkor version in that focal range. I feel my 50mm f1.4D is superior to their 1.4 50mm as well. I feel Canon's 70-200 f2.8IS and 100-400IS were indispensable for me when I had them and I miss them. Otherwise you can pretty much keep Canon glass
I stepped up to the D300 and feel it was a distinct step above what Canon was doing as well. Apparently so did the marketplace as Nikon gained a HUGE chunk of the market with that premier along with the D3. Until Nikon showed the could step up to the plate with a high ISO performer they had a tough time against the IQ of what Canon was offering....I'll admit that. Now with my D700 I no longer even look longingly at what they provide. It is that Canon glass that scares me away more than anything, not so much their bodies. I'm sure the 5DMkII will be a huge boost for them, but I seriously doubt it will dissuade D700 owners from their lair. I'm happy I have some winning combination in body and lens. I'm good for quite a while now.........
I think most of what is being "discussed" here is totally irrelevant to the average shooter. I have a Canon Rebel XT and was not too happy with some of the results I got. But I found out by trial and error that there are so many bloody settings "in camera" to play with that I eventually got what I wanted out of the XT with minimum post processing. I also noticed some differences in my lenses. The 18/55 kit lens is a good walking around lens and for shooting a little farther off the 28/105 is also nice and the Kenko 1.4X teleconverter extends it a little farther. I had, and sold, a 70/300 IS because I was not doing the kind of shooting that required that long a lens. I also added a Quantaray 50 prime to the lineup for light box shooting. I was told that the Quantaray is a crap lens but if that is true I must have gotten one of the few good ones. And it is built more solidly and operates more smoothly than my Canon 28/105.
With all that said; I have come to the conclusion that for the best results from your camera you have to do two things. First you have to decide what you want to do with the camera and pick the system and lenses accordingly. Also don't forget budget. Second; you have to learn to use the camera you chose in the most effective manner. Even cheap (by todays standards) point and shoot cameras have more internal settings than most everyday shooters will take the time to learn to use. So if you have chosen one of the mid to high end DSLRs you will have a menu for setting things even some so called pro shooters don't fully understand.
I would venture to guess that less than 10% of the people who lurk and/or post here could give you an accurate description of how to use every single setting and adjustment available "in camera". I am an engineer and considered an Alpha Geek by most who know me and I know I could stand to learn more about my XT.
Then after you have your camera and lens setup you have to consider whether or not you want to do minimum or maximum post processing and which program you want to do it with. This is a whole other mine field of choices to consider as well as a potentially expensive one.
From what I have seen here from shooters who use all the different pro and semi pro equipment and software most of the "arguments" over which brand to use is nothing more than elitist pi**ing matches over what is essentially nothing. All the different gear can produce stunning results in the right hands and bad results in the wrong hands. What is more important than what brand gear you shoot is which you are more comfortable with and how well you learn to use it.
Maybe you should spend a few minutes and learn to set up your camera. I see images from both brands of camera all the time...the only difference I see is in the shooter.
I am student at RIT and started shooting 3 years ago so I will tell you my thoughts on this issue...
First off, I went to the camera store to buy my first DSLR and I knew NOTHING about the cameras. It was solely based on some specs and most of all the feel of the camera. I felt the Canon's system is lightyears away from what Nikon has now. The Nikon fits so nicely in my hands and the menus and buttons are placed so nicely. So my first purchase was based solely on what felt "good".
Now here I am, with a D300 and I have used most if not all the high Nikon bodies and even some Canon cameras. I have shot so many various subjects to keep myself on my feet and try to shoot everything. For sports before the D300, I was using the schools Canon 30D and really liked the results. That all changed when I grabbed the 70-200 VR and used the D300 with it. The image quality was nothing like the 30D. Of course this is something subjective and to each his own on this.
But overall, the professionals I inspire to be like care about gear but not to this extent. I really feel this place is getting slightly ridiculous on these flaming wars between the brands. I am not going to school to be your average local highschool yearbook/senior photographer professional but rather a professional who works in NYC and from what I have seen, it really doesn't bother them too much what they shoot. They want to convey to their client a solution to the problem and if there solution is a Hasselblad camera or Nikon camera, who cares. As long as the client is happy then the job gets done.
We are seeing lots of movers towards Nikon which I am very happy for but seriously, to each his own reasons. I will continue to use Canon systems but if it takes me 4 seconds to get an option on a Canon and 1 second on the Nikon, then what could have I missed shooting? I really enjoy a camera that works flawlessly and works for me. I also enjoy Nikons Capture NX2 and see myself sitting less in front of the computer and doing more of what I enjoy.... SHOOTING!
Technology will always get better but if you need to justify your photography by going back and forth then do it. There will always be the people in the field of photography who just buy stuff to just to "have" and brag about then there are people who actually go out and use it.
These are my observations so far and who knows what will happen in the future.
Steve Carlton wrote:
If the difference is in the AA filter, shouldn't the Nikon images just require a little sharpening to be equivalent in that regard?
the AA filter messes with the image a bit and even sharpening cant correct it completly. If you want to see SHARP, look at the company who removes the AA filter from the D300.
oh, I also agree with the others who think this thread is pointless. Maybe we can bug fred to add a new feature "vote to lock the thread", similiar to the thread rating feature, lol.
It's a matter of taste, as usual. Some of the Canon cameras gives alot sharper images due to less aggressive AA filter. On the other hand, some of the Nikon cameras gives alot less color noise at high ISO speeds. Et cetera.
If you like Canon, buy a Canon. If you like Nikon, buy a Nikon. What's the fuzz all about?
galenapass wrote I would think that professionals would be aware of this and compensating for it in the post processing.
Professional will only say that you earn your money with photography, not that your are well informed, not that you are a good/bad photographer.
pr4photos wrote:
i don't want to get into a war here, i just want voice my feelings from what i have seen and experienced.
i am a happy nikon owner - D300, and have had the Fuji S series before the nikon
i'm a professional press photographer so i get to see a lot of photos from other photographers and have been looking at them all with keen interest.
the conclusion i have come to is that the nikons handle much better than the canons (even the canon owners say so) but the image quality on the canons is much better.
i have recently been comparing photos from various pros using the canon 5d and the 1d series, versus the nikon d3. the result - the canon images have much better resolution and are so much sharper. the D3 images have poor colour and are just don't cut it in the resolution and sharpness stakes. i have yet to see a D3 image that comes close to a 5D image.
i am quite shocked at the difference. i love my nikon, but if i had to start again, i would have to seriously think about the canons.
has anyone else come to this conclusion?
i'd like to know why the canons are better - is it all about the chip?
i'm really not trying to knock nikon, because i am a happy nikon user. but i would like to know why they aren't at least on a par with canon...Show more →
i am no pro just an intermediate shooter.
btw nikon offers so many more nationwide classes (nikon academy), etc. than canon does....
i just switched from canon to nikon and i do love canon colors but nikon can and are every bit as good. both systems need tweaking to be at their best.
the only complaint i have is after my new d700 - 24-70 f2.8 - 70-200vr f2.8 is that i have no is/vr on the 24-70 and i need a new computer because NX2 eats up so many resources but it's worth it as both companies handle their respective raw file renditions better than anyone else!
so in the mean time i am learning to get things correct the first time and shooting in camera jpegs for first time since point and shoot days.
I currently shoot both Nikon and Canon, and am still up in the air about which way to drop. I am probably going to wait for the 5D2 to be shipping for a while to get real world feedback AND for Nikon to ship the highly expected D3x/D4. It's not that I want to to rush out and buy a D3x (as much as I would like one), but I do want to know the Nikon is not going to fall at the next hurdle. If the D3x is as good as we hope it is, then I will probably fall on the Nikon side.
The thing that is a little concerning to me is how much work it takes to get good results in ACR from NEF files, and I need to resort to the slow NX2 to get the best out of them. With Canon I can pick a number of different raw converters (including ACR) and get good results very quickly. Maybe I am missing some Nikon tricks in ACR.... or maybe they are just not as good at converting Nikon files as Canon files.
DaveEP wrote:
I currently shoot both Nikon and Canon, and am still up in the air about which way to drop. I am probably going to wait for the 5D2 to be shipping for a while to get real world feedback AND for Nikon to ship the highly expected D3x/D4. It's not that I want to to rush out and buy a D3x (as much as I would like one), but I do want to know the Nikon is not going to fall at the next hurdle. If the D3x is as good as we hope it is, then I will probably fall on the Nikon side.
The thing that is a little concerning to me is how much work it takes to get good results in ACR from NEF files, and I need to resort to the slow NX2 to get the best out of them. With Canon I can pick a number of different raw converters (including ACR) and get good results very quickly. Maybe I am missing some Nikon tricks in ACR.... or maybe they are just not as good at converting Nikon files as Canon files....Show more →
Use LR2 for your Raw workflow and add a little post sharpening during ingestion. Then select a color mode provided by Adobe, or create your own camera profiles, and apply one to your photos. Very simple and the results are similar to the in-camera jpegs. Very fast. I find post processing in NX2 or PS3 or 4 too slow, unless you are only ingesting a few files.
My buddy uses a 5D and his Raw files are not picture perfect. They still require post processing. I've never know a digital camera that produced Raw files that didn't require some post processing. But, I've not used every digital camera and could very well be wrong.
trenchmonkey wrote:
Lame thread of the year...you're a Pro 5D AF doesn't get this quacker.
Spend some time with the D300 manual, there are settings to be tweaked but
the IQ is outstanding. I shoot both disciplines, so no fanboy either way.
Great glass and a competent shooter yields great results shooting C or N.
TM - Thats one of the nicest BIF shots I've ever seen!! Absolutely beautiful.
My Nikon's sharpen up way better and I prefer the color out of camera. Its warmer and more pleasing to my eyes. I've owned $10000 in each system's gear and I returned to Nikon even though I have 24x7 free access to Canon's best lenses, so that should say something.
ShutterLover wrote:
I work on a magazine and get digital files all the time, often with the EXIF intact. I believe Canons DO have an edge in IQ and a good 5D image is slightly nicer than the much more expensive but in most regards supirior D3. Of course, you never get 16mp or 21mp Nikon files.
That's said, I'm talking pretty slight differences here, nothing a reader could notice for the most part. You can do top class work on either system.
What's also interesting is that even those charging top dollar for freelance work don't always have the latest and greatest. 40Ds, D200s, are just as likely to show up as 1Ds II/III or D3 images - even the odd fresh D100 or 20D image appears. Puts prosumer forum-lust into perspective....Show more →
As the saying goes: "Watch out for the man with only one gun. He probably knows how to use it."
and then of course there are those like Mr Monkey and many others on FM who are just plain talented
I think at this point both brands offer cameras with picture quality that's SO close that it's almost not about the sensor or the on-board image processing anymore - it's about the glass and the photographer's skills.
I think it's true. I've don't think I've seen an image from a Nikon camera that was better than it's Canon equivalent. Quite frankly, couple that with lenses that are below their C counterparts and it explains why most people prefer Canon.
It's a shame Nikon doesn't make a camera that competes in the truely professional arena. Hopefully they'll be able to maintain their number 3 position in the market, and not let Sony pull to far ahead of them.
Maybe we will see a decent picture come from a Nikon one day...who knows...
To be fair to the OP. The reason why you probably see the Canons as superior IQ is because up until late 2007 it was 7 out of 10 professional photographers were using Canon and producing more shots that made you go wow. I think those times are a changing. But this is such a subjective thing it is impossible to quantify either way.
These kind of threads are a bit of a laugh. They are nothing like late 2004 when the D70 versus the 300D/Rebel threads were on fire with things like flash sync, 6 v 8, & spot metering etc...now those were some crazy arguments.
nikon has caught up with the d3/d300/d700 IQ-wise. i'd say that for all intents and purposes, they're on par with canon.
also, i think that nikon has the edge in putting their 51-pt AF system in the aforementioned cameras, where as canon will cripple the $h!t out of their non 1-series cameras' AF.
the main thing that nikon lacks right now is fast, ultrasonic-focusing primes. canon has the 24, 35, 85, 135L lenses to which there's no equivalent in nikon land. sure, nikon has awesome zooms and their 200/2 lens is awesome. but nikon still has their work cut out lens-wise.
I have owned both. Been a Canon guy since the D30 came out. I like to see samples to prove this.
Are we talking raw or jpeg? I will agree Nikons out of camera jpegs are soft. If your shooting jpegs try raw for a while. Theres a lot of good convertors out there these days.
I shoot raw only. I really dont see much diifference these days in images. IMO Nikon has the edge on bodies and features including better autofocus. If your a pro and cant get images as good as a Canon I think you need to look at other things not brands.
because NX2 eats up so many resources but it's worth it as both companies handle their respective raw file renditions better than anyone else! 
5D AF doesn't get this quacker.