Is it generally agreed that Nikon has an advantage over Canon in bodies, and vice versa in top shelf lenses?
Was planning on goin Canon 5d II and 2L zooms...when a friend suggested considering making a move over to Nikon...something I had NEVER even considered...
The D700 seems like the logical competitor to the 5dII...Reviews seem to slightly favor the Nikon...
I suggest you do some research on the specific lenses you are interested in. Nikon's 14-24 and 24-70 are very well regarded, but don't take my word for it. There are numerous technical review sites and blogs offering unbiased comparisons between Nikon and Canon glass. Canon has some niche primes that aren't matched by Nikon yet, but they also seem to have some quality control issues at times.
Choice between D700 and 5D-II should be based on preferred subjects you shoot. For Landscapes and static subjects in good light 5D-II has the advantage. For anything that moves and low light the D700 is much better. D700 is arguably a better all-rounder.
IIRC the focusing distance for lenses does not work putting canon on nikon. However i know for sure you can go the other way. You lose all AF control and IMHO is not the best idea to do this. both canon and nikon make good stuff and if you are dealing with prosumer cameras then i doubt you will notice it.
sfrtk wrote:
Is it generally agreed that Nikon has an advantage over Canon in bodies, and vice versa in top shelf lenses?
No it isn't.
Was planning on goin Canon 5d II and 2L zooms...when a friend suggested considering making a move over to Nikon...something I had NEVER even considered...
The D700 seems like the logical competitor to the 5dII...Reviews seem to slightly favor the Nikon...
but how about lens quality?
Which lenses? Both companies make some very fine lenses. Any of the f/2.8 zoom lenses from both companies will be just about equal with the exception of Nikon's 14-24mm f/2.8G. Canon currently makes nothing in that range or frankly in the same class for wide angle zooms.
Looking at a catalog, Canon simply has a larger lens lineup, even on the top end. That said, I personally have found that Nikon lenses provide me with everything I needed to get the shots I wanted. Sure, I'd like to see some other lenses in the lineup - usually the same ones everyone is complaining about not being offered by Nikon - but I can't afford all the lenses I'd like to have that Nikon currently makes so it probably doesn't matter.
Frankly, look at (as in put your hands on) the different bodies and lenses and see which fits you best. I was shooting Nikon film cameras, so it just made sense to go Nikon's DSLR's. Periodically I hear issues about Canon's focusing system, but I'm not sure if that is a widespread problem or just problems the individuals have with making Canon's system work. (Not everyone reports problems.) I certainly have seen great photographs from both systems. So which fits you best?
If you make a living off a camera, you have to weigh the benefits of one over the other and see if a switch is a cost effective option. For most I suspect the answer is no. Then it just comes down to whether you are willing to pay the price, because I doubt that people will pay more for photos from one camera over the other if the photographer does his job. There certainly are professional photographers who have switched (both ways) and feel that it was the best thing they ever did.
If you just do this as a hobby, then it is just up to what you like better and what you are willing to spend. I looked at Canon a few times over the years, and I was never willing to pay for the switch. Nikon has always come through for me and I doubt whether the best Canon cameras would have made an ounce of a difference in the final product I achieved with my Nikons. Likewise for anyone looking at Nikon over Canon.
For me this is a hobby, so my checkbook helps determine the choices for me. Well, that and my wife, who likes to have a say in where we spend our extra money, but that's a different story!
I sure wish Canon lenses would work on Nikon bodies. I'm sick of Canon's DSLR offerings .. the idiots seem to have gone megapixel crazy and are determined to stay there no matter what. I don't need 18 MP .. I just need 10 or 12. But, I don't want to pay the hefty prices for Nikkor lenses either. Wish there was an adapter from EF and EF-S to Nikon mount, preserving all functions. I'd so get a D300 or D300S and use my Canon lenses.
saaketham wrote:
I sure wish Canon lenses would work on Nikon bodies. I'm sick of Canon's DSLR offerings .. the idiots seem to have gone megapixel crazy and are determined to stay there no matter what. I don't need 18 MP .. I just need 10 or 12. But, I don't want to pay the hefty prices for Nikkor lenses either. Wish there was an adapter from EF and EF-S to Nikon mount, preserving all functions. I'd so get a D300 or D300S and use my Canon lenses.
Life's a bitch and then you die. There is no one perfect system that covers all the bases. The trick is understanding where you can compromise and still get everything you need.
sfrtk wrote:
Is it generally agreed that Nikon has an advantage over Canon in bodies, and vice versa in top shelf lenses?
Was planning on goin Canon 5d II and 2L zooms...when a friend suggested considering making a move over to Nikon...something I had NEVER even considered...
The D700 seems like the logical competitor to the 5dII...Reviews seem to slightly favor the Nikon...
but how about lens quality?
Some tests and opinions on recent Nikon lenses vs Canon:
saaketham wrote:
I sure wish Canon lenses would work on Nikon bodies. I'm sick of Canon's DSLR offerings .. the idiots seem to have gone megapixel crazy and are determined to stay there no matter what. I don't need 18 MP .. I just need 10 or 12. But, I don't want to pay the hefty prices for Nikkor lenses either. Wish there was an adapter from EF and EF-S to Nikon mount, preserving all functions. I'd so get a D300 or D300S and use my Canon lenses.
Can't do (at least w/o optics in the converter and that would negate lens quality). The problem is that the lens flange to image sensor distance is greater in Nikon camera bodies than in Canon. I'm sure you see that you can add distance between lens and body in a converter, but you cannot subtract it.
andrewd01 wrote:
I suggest you do some research on the specific lenses you are interested in. Nikon's 14-24 and 24-70 are very well regarded, but don't take my word for it. There are numerous technical review sites and blogs offering unbiased comparisons between Nikon and Canon glass. Canon has some niche primes that aren't matched by Nikon yet, but they also seem to have some quality control issues at times.
Choice between D700 and 5D-II should be based on preferred subjects you shoot. For Landscapes and static subjects in good light 5D-II has the advantage. For anything that moves and low light the D700 is much better. D700 is arguably a better all-rounder. ...Show more →
+1
the 14-24 is unparalleled, and the 24-70 is, in my opinion sharper overall corner to corner than Canon's. The 70-200 that was previously the weak point in N's lineup has now been rectified with the nano coating version.
I would say that if you are looking for fast normal/short tele primes, Nikon only has the 50G with and AF-S motor (two if you count the 35/1.8 DX), which is the weak point in the lineup. The 85/1.4 is great, as is the 35/2 but these haven't been updated for a long, long time. Hopefully that will change soon.
saaketham wrote:
I sure wish Canon lenses would work on Nikon bodies. I'm sick of Canon's DSLR offerings .. the idiots seem to have gone megapixel crazy and are determined to stay there no matter what. I don't need 18 MP .. I just need 10 or 12. But, I don't want to pay the hefty prices for Nikkor lenses either. Wish there was an adapter from EF and EF-S to Nikon mount, preserving all functions. I'd so get a D300 or D300S and use my Canon lenses.
I couldn't have said it any better. Would love to use my 70-200L IS on my D700 instead of that lousy VR that Nikon has.
Canon Warranty 1 Year
Nikon Warranty 5 (FIVE) Years!!
How long are you guys going to believe the Myths??
Quite misleading don't you think?
Compare the cost of the 24-70 lenses, Canon is much less expensive.
Compare the VR II version to Canon in the 70-200. The VR II version is the one to compare because it matches up with Canon. The first VR version stinks in comparison.
Just to inject a bit of compromise here, I actually own a D300s and a 40D,5D, and both Canon and Nikon glass. Not a lot of Nikon glass yet. So far, I haven't seen the equipment having fights on my shelf -- my D300S even has a Canon strap on it!
The two systems, like everything else in the world, have their plusses and minuses. Sometimes the solution can be both. I wish Nikon super teles weren't so darned expensive, not that Canon's are cheap, but $6400 for Canon vs. $8500 for Nikon for a 500mm is pretty ridiculous. I think with Nikon's cameras they could put a huge dent into Canon's sales if they'd just lower their long lens prices for us wildlife shooters.
Greg M wrote:
Quite misleading don't you think?
Compare the cost of the 24-70 lenses, Canon is much less expensive.
Compare the VR II version to Canon in the 70-200. The VR II version is the one to compare because it matches up with Canon. The first VR version stinks in comparison.
Hmmmmm... what makes you say so?
I ask because... I've read three direct comparisons of the Canon and Nikon (VR1) version of the 70-200's, and in all three they give the Nikkor higher ratings. If all you're basing it on is the fact that a new version is being released, does that mean the current Canon (which by the way is likely due for an update) gets updated, the current one stinks?
I'm not trying to bash the Canon 70-200/f2.8IS by the way, I know it is an excellent lens... however so is the VR1 Nikkor. The VR2 may be a significant improvement - particularly on FX, but that sure doesn't mean the old model "stinks".
Where I will agree with you though - other than we're both Sox fans apparently - is that the longer prime Nikkors do seem to be heftier in price tag than the Canon equivalents... speaking strictly of the 400/f2.8's, 500/f4 and 600/f4. Although at those prices, it's a little bit of splitting hairs... they're all pricey.
Some people want their cake and somehow eat it too.
If you hate the prices for the Nikkor glass ... or you think the L's are better ... you already know the solution.
If for you the Nikon feels better or somehow you feel it performs better than the Canon body then you know the solution.
I realize we often gather on these gear forums to make our personal complaints (hell no one in the real world wants to listen right?) but really ... you also must realize the complaint/gripe won't make spit of a difference to either company nor will it make me change from one company or the other. I'm just not that weak (just a joke, no intention here).
Furthermore you could just easily shoot both.
I have found benefits and negatives with either and other companies however never have I thought the gear to be my limiting factor.
I ask because... I've read three direct comparisons of the Canon and Nikon (VR1) version of the 70-200's, and in all three they give the Nikkor higher ratings. If all you're basing it on is the fact that a new version is being released, does that mean the current Canon (which by the way is likely due for an update) gets updated, the current one stinks?
I'm not trying to bash the Canon 70-200/f2.8IS by the way, I know it is an excellent lens... however so is the VR1 Nikkor. The VR2 may be a significant improvement - particularly on FX, but that sure doesn't mean the old model "stinks".
Where I will agree with you though - other than we're both Sox fans apparently - is that the longer prime Nikkors do seem to be heftier in price tag than the Canon equivalents... speaking strictly of the 400/f2.8's, 500/f4 and 600/f4. Although at those prices, it's a little bit of splitting hairs... they're all pricey....Show more →
I used Canon until I recently switched to Nikon. The Canon version of the 70-200 IS works well on the 5d whereas the Nikon version not so well on the D700. IS works very well on the current 70-200. The current VR version is terrible. Compared to the IS it's like there isn't any VR at all on that lens. The new Nikon version is a catch-up lens.
The current VR does stink when compared to the current IS version. The new VR is suppose to eliminate the differences between the the two but in usual Nikon style it comes at a hefty cost. Their catch up lens is going to be $500 more. Where's the justification for that? Same with the 24-70 versions. Why the huge difference in price? There's hardly any real world difference between the two.
I agree with another poster that Nikon would take a lot of market share from Canon if their lens line up was more complete and their prices were more in line with Canon's prices. There's no justification for the large difference in price.
BTW, I'm selling my VR and buying a Sigma to take it's place. VR on this version is practically useless so why tie up the extra money in it. The new Sigma version is suppose to be very good.
To be fair I should add that the reason I switched to Nikon is because the D700 IMO is superior to the 5DmkII. If Canon had put a better AF into the mkII then I might have gotten it instead of switching. Why have a low light camera with an AF that isn't reliable in low light? The AF on the 5d needed the upgrade a lot more then the sensor. I only say "might have" gotten the 5dmkII because I'm sick of the ever increasing MP. The files are getting too big. Let's face it, for most people and for most uses 12mp is plenty with some left over.
Canon Warranty 1 Year
Nikon Warranty 5 (FIVE) Years!!
How long are you guys going to believe the Myths??
Of course, the Canon lens is a professional-quality full frame lens. The Nikon lens is only designed for DX bodies, and is a poor choice for full frame use, so it's hard to understand why Nikon thinks it should be worth as much as a professional-grade lens. I guess enough people clued in that Nikon finally had to discontinue it, and the new FX version will be another $400 or so more expensive when it eventually becomes available.
(just a joke, no intention here).