canon or nikon ???

[Pixeldust Fairy]

I have a canon digital rebel. About 3 years old and I am wanting to upgrade. Im thinking of going Canon 40D, because all my current lenses fit. But on the other side Im curious about a Nikon .

Experts give me your opinion

 

[Master Mason]

I just upgraded from an XT to a 40D, and have been very happy. As for switching brands, I think that would depend on how much stuff you have that will carry over to the 40D, if your talking a kit lens and a nifty 50, then no big deal, if you have a couple of "L"s then it becomes a much larger undertaking.

The other thing is you are currently used to the way canon's perform, so while each model is different, they still have a comonality to them.

Nikon makes some very nice equipment. If you are seriously concidering switching brands, then you should also take a look at the Pentax and Sony Lines, and possibly the Olympus.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I don't see enough difference between either of them to justify the cost and hassle of switching, unless you are into a specialty that one handles much better than the other. A guy at work is fuming over the cost of the new Nikon 500mm and 600mm lenses. He's thinking about switching just to save the $2,500 price difference per lens. On the other hand, he does a lot of macro stuff and gushes about some funky macro flash set-up that Nikon has for which Canon has no equivalent.

For normal stuff, I don't think you'll see all that much of a difference.

 

[Pixeldust Fairy]

Im leaning more toward the Canon, simply because of the lens factor. I guess I am just curious about a different brand. I have been happy with my Canon and I even have 2 pocket cameras from Canon. I will be using a Nikon in a class I am helping with at my kids school. I guess I can play around with it and see if it is really much difference. Thanks for the help.
Sharon

 

[MICKEY88]

I don't see enough difference between either of them to justify the cost and hassle of switching, unless you are into a specialty that one handles much better than the other. A guy at work is fuming over the cost of the new Nikon 500mm and 600mm lenses. He's thinking about switching just to save the $2,500 price difference per lens. On the other hand, he does a lot of macro stuff and gushes about some funky macro flash set-up that Nikon has for which Canon has no equivalent.

For normal stuff, I don't think you'll see all that much of a difference.

if the macro flash he is referring to is this. Nikon SM-2 Macro ring light ..

there are similar aftermarket ringlights available for canon..

 

[Gdad]

Canon or Nikon?

I think the obvious answer here is the Pentax K10D

What? You know someone was going to say it.

 

[bluedaisy1974]

my husband is a professional photographer, and he only uses nikon!

he's a bit of a nikon snob acutally! but his work is fantastic, so i guess he's on to something.

 

[Master Mason]

my husband is a professional photographer, and he only uses nikon!

he's a bit of a nikon snob acutally! but his work is fantastic, so i guess he's on to something.

Yes but all those folks you see shooting professionally everywhere with the big white lenses are shooting canons.

Not knocking Nikon in anyway, but there are just as many if not more profesionals shooting with canon. Both companies make great cameras, it all comes down to personal preference.

 

[KrazyPete]

Yes but all those folks you see shooting professionally everywhere with the big white lenses are shooting canons.

...maybe not all of them.

I don't think I've actually ever seen one of those in real life. It's an imported version of the 70-200mm f/2.8 vr. I know I've never seen it actually in stock at B&H. My "personal preference" is the black version anyway.

 

[jann1033]

i was just reading an article that compared the 2, their opinion was canon had a wider lens selection than most brands but nikon bodies were typically slightly less expensive than canon( which imo is hard to really say since they don't really seem to match up completely to me)

i'm sure there are many who would disagree with both those points

 

[Master Mason]

...maybe not all of them.

I don't think I've actually ever seen one of those in real life. It's an imported version of the 70-200mm f/2.8 vr. I know I've never seen it actually in stock at B&H. My "personal preference" is the black version anyway.

There are a few pentax lenses that are white as well, they use the white to protect the flourite elements that are more sensitive to heat. But the vast majority of them are canons.

 

[Marinerbaby]

When I went from film to digital I had to make the choice between Canon and Nikon. I shot Canon with film so that is in the end what I felt comfortable with. A good friend of mine shot Nikon film and went Nikon digital. We both are professional photographers and I think we both are happy with our choice. There are positives (and negatives) on both sides but what I found works best is what works for me.

I have seen beautiful work with Canon and I have seen just as beautiful portraits with Nikon. I believe it's more about the glass and the person behind the camera.

 

[Geoff_M]

I'm a Nikon guy (my Dad also worked for Nikon in the 1970's), but I'd recommend what others have said... If you've invested a lot in lenses already, I'd advise you to stick with Canon. Then you trade in your lenses, you'd be lucky to get 30 cents on the dollar with a local dealer.

But if you were a dSLR newbie, I'd recommend Nikon.

 

[Nikel]

Both companies make great cameras, it all comes down to personal preference.

Yup.

Since you already have canon lenses, I'd personally stick with canon. Otherwise my advice would be to head to some camera store and actually hold and play with each, and then decide. Nikons feel very awkward to me, but there are plenty of people that say the same thing about canon.

 

[Groucho]

There are a few pentax lenses that are white as well, they use the white to protect the flourite elements that are more sensitive to heat. But the vast majority of them are canons.

Most of the big non-black Pentax lenses are silver... there may be one or two white ones, but silver is not uncommon for the massive ones.

On topic, if you have lenses for a system, it makes sense to stick with it. Too bad it's Canon though.

 

[We-Luv-Disney]

Come on everyone knows the best cameras are.....

Seriously though, I shoot with canon, but either is a good choice. IMO the photographer is more important than the camera.

 

[Pixeldust Fairy]

Come on everyone knows the best cameras are.....

Seriously though, I shoot with canon, but either is a good choice. IMO the photographer is more important than the camera.

I have seen your photos and they are beautifull. If only I could take such amazing photos. Hmmm you use a canon eh.. I am seriously wanting a 40D. Im just waiting on my local camera shop to get the kits in.

 

[captaincrash]

I had to chime in....

NOW - please - allow me to slip on my flame proof suit first, and test it....

.... I've always been a NIKON snob. Been so for a long time and used to take great emotional pride in my equipment - and my hobby craft. That was 30 years ago.

After a decade of working, slaving at mortgages, and now starting a family with 2 young kids - I rediscovered my old passon for photography - only today it's gone digital. And it is a wonderful brand new world in many ways.

A few years back I think most would agree it was a knife fight with the early DSLRs. Nikon and Canon were the big contenders for dominance... and most would not deny that Canon has emerged the big winner. On Amazon their top 5 DSLRs are all Canons (11/4/2006): http://www.slrtoday.com/articles/10...inate-Digital-SLR-Bestsellers-List/Page1.html For several years Canon has sold more DSLRs then all other manufacturers combined. And only recently has Nikon been able to say they now sell more DSLRs then Canon .... in Japan (only). In fact, it was only in the month of December for 2006 supposedly... http://www.studiolighting.net/nikon-dominates-japan-dslr-market-canon-400d-still-no1/ And here is an unscientific representation of brand and model specific interest in the market among DP Review ENTHUSIASTS http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/stats.asp You'll note the top 10 have 8 Canon models represented - and Canon as a brand gets more click through interest then the next 3 companies combined : Nikon + Panasonic + Sony.

That said... I think the guy in 2nd place works harder for your attention - and I admire certain aspects of the Nikons over the Canons. In particular - the fit and feel - plus some aspects of the handling qualities. While on the other hand I would say Canon has had a full frame DSLR body for 5 years.... and only now is Nikon emerging with thier first full frame DSLR at roughly the same resolution as Canon had 5 years ago. Now thats' not the whole story because the new Nikon has new features the old Canon did not have. But it HAS been 5 years. Technically... you might think Nikon is technically 5 years and 2 generations BEHIND Canon in strictly sensor size and resolution in their TOP OF THE LINE bodies.

So ... WHY is it that Canon sells more bodies then everyone else combined? Is it marketing? Is it obvious technical superiority? Is it the lens selection? DO folks buy bodies according to the alphabet - hence stop and buy at "C" before "N", "P" or "O"? In the most recent full year 2006 Canon had 46.7% of all DSLR sales compared to Nikon with 33%. Overall - Canon was #1 with 18.7% of all D camera sales and Nikon was #6 with 7.6% of market share. World wide #2 was actually Sony followed by Kodak. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUST23502820070403?pageNumber=2

I think a reasonable strength is thier early lead with CMOS sensors. The images rendered from the Canons was more desirable post camera then the nikons - with their slightly more saturated and contrasty images. Which some feel are "better" because they require less post camera attention to be visually pleasing - but on the other hand there MIGHT be more image detail lost in having an original image will so much intnesity. NOW... consider - I am NO expert - and only barely a professional in that I've been paid for some of my work - and I am essentially retired and donate the vast majority of my production (that is not for personal use).

So - I think the Canon DSLRs had a technological advantage with their sensors. Especially for full size sensors - and even with lenses. They introduced the worlds first consumer level standard zoom lense with IS... which I believe was the 28-135 IS. Or at least PhotoZone.DE says so.... http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_28135_3556_is/index.htm Also, I noticed the Canon focusing systems seemed to be more sophisticated then the Nikons - and that's just me with a peanut gallery opinion.

Now - there are things I'm sure everyone can nit pick. IE, it pricks the imagination to think the IS mechanism could be in the BODY as opposed to the lenses. And I saw a test report in print that suggested the body mechanisms did a darn good job... thus calling into question the expensive Canon approach - which essentially milks us of some hard earned / saved moola. AND... I see Nikons and especially Pentax selling at lower price points then Canon. And that leaves me wondering when (if ever) Canon will drop thier prices or step up some of thier features to trump their hot running competitors.

In general - my friends simply say Canon has the edge in lenses and sensors. Body wise - it's a tight horse race for fit, design and finish. Cost wise - Canons will cost more.

OK... so bring it on. GO ahead and sling some mud - I know it's due me - and remember - I would rather shoot NIKON if they had the edge when I was starting my new DSLR kit. Now that I've invested in a few lenses I'm officially BIASED and I'll be extremely unlikely to switch - unless I had a really compelling reason. And Nikon does not have any obvious significant advantage.

There really is a lot more in common then different though - for the most part. Some may focus on specific differences as compelling - but the larger market suggests the lead is dominated by Canon for DSLRs - as well as for most of the pocket digicams. You will obtain prety good results with almost any manufacturer and their better pocket or DSLR models. So - step forward with an open mind. You're on thecusp of a fun decision - what new DSLR toy to buy! What FUN!

OK.... my point - I think you should go with what your existing KIT leads you to - and if it were Minolta/Sony ... so be it. If its' Canon - as in my case and yours' - then it's an easy decision. In your case - there is little serious distinction between the two except that you already have some Canon lenses - which lenses and accesories do you have? Maybe you should go try the two that interest you most.

REMEMBER - Ultimately, the photographer makes the MOST difference... as would the paying jobs and terms you wrangle more then the equipment. Of course, if you're making a living with your equipment then it pays for you to simply get the best that you can get - and you already know what a "cost is no object" decision looks like... the Hasselblad with all your favorite lenses! Yuck - hope no one shoots you for your kit if working in the field! I've had friends who work professionally who have been robbed of thier equipment - and that is NO fun. There should be a special place of torture beyond this existance for camera thieves!!!

 

[Groucho]

Interesting points. I think that one other thing to remember is that DSLRs are much more of a consumer item over the past year or two, now that prices have dropped to a much more reasonable level than they were originally - back when most buyers were more likely to be photo pros.

Now, DSLRs are finding their way into many more hands, people who would have used an SLR in the film days, when you could get a decent setup without breaking the bank.

What that means is that you'll have a lot more impulse buys or poorly-researched buys. Canon is probably champs at getting their DSLRs into as many stores as possible - from photo stores to Office Depot to K-mart. This alone can move a huge number of camera. Plus, they sell so many different things that there are countless folks who will buy Canon with the trust that anything with their name on it will be quality - this kind of thinking kept General Motors in business in the '80s. Seriously, though, even my own father is that way - I think the feeling is that Canon is a "safe" buy even if others may be better. To paraphrase IBM, "no one ever got fired for buying a Canon".

Now, add to that the fact that the C/N entry-level DSLRs are, generally speaking, fairly evenly matched and that you need to know a fair amount just to understand why you'd choose one over the other, and it's anyone's game. Chances are that if you want into a store that sells both, which gets the recommendation from the salesman depends on what the salesman is a personal fan of.

I do agree with the "#2 tries harder" theory - now just imagine how hard #3, #4, and #5 try.

The most controversial opinion I have is that Canon, because they have the largest number of DSLRs available, intentionally handicaps their cheaper equipment more than they need to. The Rebels generally get knocked for ergonomics, build quality, and kit lens compared to the competition, and their non-L lenses are maybe not what they could be. Canon could certainly build a sturdier Rebel with a better-quality kit lens - but I don't think they're particular interested in bothering, they'd rather have you want to upgrade to a 30D/40D and more expensive lenses. Being the top seller gives them the luxury of doing that.

 

[captaincrash]

Groucho:

I agree... I definately get the feeling that the entry level DSLRs from Nikon are well made - feel great ergonomicly, and get my nod. However, the Canon entry level models are not bad - and possibly superior on several technical aspects (focusing array and sensor). BUT... I really notice the build quality and ergonomic issues with them. That mode dial (of all things) on the XT leaves me wanting more. In my hand - any Nikon feels fine - and the 10/20/30/40D series fits my hands like a glove. I think Canon did this deliberately to "up sell"... and Nikon deliberately makes their entry models look and feel superior.

That said - the better XT model sort of embarassed the 30D in a lot of ways. So the 30D had longer shutter life, higher ISO and a normal half size EOS magnesium body. Among other things... it had lower absolute resolution then the top XT. That last bit seemed kind of ackward to me.

SO - yeah... Canon has a comfortable edge and is doing some things "as it pleases" apparently ... to our slight detriment.

I do watch the competition mildly with interest. There are things I would have wanted in the Canon line up - like the in body IS - which are unlikely to happen in my lifetime ... so it seems.

Aside from that - you should enjoy the shopping experience. There are several interesting options (even IF you have a few Canon lenses). And I would just have some fun studying, comparing and contrasting. And right after that - get ready to sit down to start considering something NEW.... the workflow issues post camera. NOW THAT is a whole new conversation all by itself!