Nikon vs Canon--what's your preference and WHY?

[boBQuincy]

I have a D50, I liked the Nikon out of the box, and have grown to love it like a son I also like to pick on my Canon wielding buddies at work, you know who you are

Hey!!! I resemble that remark!

Furgus speaks true (for once), pick the one you like, you can't lose with any of them.
My only concern is that the market is overcrowded and some brand(s) will disappear, leaving the owners with no future. It probably won't be Nikon or Canon so I consider them to be the safest bets.

 

[brack]

The eternal debate rages on...

Both are excellent tools, and much of it comes down to personal preference. I use Canon simply because I always have, and I had Canon glass. If I had no prior experience or existing compatible equipment, it would be a tougher choice.

The glass in front of the camera, and more importantly the person behind it, will determine the final quality of the images.

This is how I bought my Canon digital. I started with a very fine Canon film camera years ago (an EOS1). It worked great and I had several Canon lenses that migrated to the digital line .... I went Canon digital.

Choose a tool then develop your skill.

 

[MICKEY88]

This thread comes at a good time as I am looking for my first digital SLR.

I am interested in Canon's dust management mechanism (in the Xti, I think), but haven't met anyone who has had any experience with it -- anyone out there have any thoughts on it?

The D200 was just too heavy for me. Add a quality lends and it's like carrying around a baby. The D80 on the other hand is a nice piece of equipment.

I was a Minolta film SLR user, and have a fair number of lenses, but I'm making no bets on that platform.

I'd gamble on Sony....if they fold, which I highly doubt, {they didn't buy Minoltas entire operation and design team to make a half hearted effort}

you are only out the price of a body....

to buy another brand you are taking the same risk and investing in body and lenses...

 

[Gdad]

I always shot Canon back in the film slr days- but due to years of a digital P&S my lenses were outdated anyway. Both companies make fine cameras but I liked the feel and layout of the Nikon best when I went for a dslr and have been very happy with my D70s.

 

[MICKEY88]

Hey!!! I resemble that remark!

Furgus speaks true (for once), pick the one you like, you can't lose with any of them.
My only concern is that the market is overcrowded and some brand(s) will disappear, leaving the owners with no future. It probably won't be Nikon or Canon so I consider them to be the safest bets.

I respectfully disagree, the market is less crowded than it was for decades with film slrs, I doubt that sony is going anywhere, they made a major committment, when they bought Minoltas factory and design team, they intend to capture a fair share of the market, and know it will take time to do so.

Minolta only folded because of bad management decisions, not focusing on digital early enough in the game, and then givng up too soon, the 7D is a great camera....and captured many awards worldwide...


I have to laugh everytime I see a Canon commercial bragging that they have been the innovators of the camera industry for many years, they can only get away with that since Minolta doesn't exist aanymore, anyone that has followed camera for the past 40 years knows that Minolta had most of the new innovations , and Canon and Nikon tried their best to keep up

 

[MarkBarbieri]

My advice to people is to stay with Nikon or Canon if they think they might get really serious and to consider Pentax, Sony, and Olympus only if they think they'll stick to a small bit of gear. None of the three have a high end camera and not much in the way of top lenses. All three are also in danger of extinction because of very small market share.

Between Nikon and Canon, I would pick whatever your friends have, particularly if anyone of them have cool stuff that you can borrow. You might also fiddle with them to see how they fit in your hands or to see if the ergonomics of one brand really offends you.

For me, it's an easy decision for Canon. They are who I'm most familiar with. They introduced the first IS system. They have the best IS systems. They have the only DO lenses. They are the only ones committed to full frame sensors. They are the dominant player in the market. They are the overwhelming choice of pros in the sports and wildlife fields for a good reason. They are easily the most financially sound (Nikon having been on the rocks quite recently, Minolta having folded, and Pentax having just been purchased). They make their own sensors. They listen to feedback from serious photographers and it shows in the little details of their cameras. They are one of the most innovative companies on the planet, typically being in the top 2-3 companies in number of US patents granted every year.

Nikon is quite good as well. In the past, they were a good bit better. With the start of the autofocus world in the late 80's, they lost their lead. With the introduction of the Rebel, Canon pulled away in market share. Canon moved quicker and more decisively into DSLRs and I think they'll continue to innovate and improve faster than their competitors.

I'm impressed enough with their innovation and engineering that I bought the stock last year. It did quite nicely for me, although this year hasn't started quite so well.

 

[MICKEY88]

My advice to people is to stay with Nikon or Canon if they think they might get really serious and to consider Pentax, Sony, and Olympus only if they think they'll stick to a small bit of gear. None of the three have a high end camera and not much in the way of top lenses. All three are also in danger of extinction because of very small market share.

Between Nikon and Canon, I would pick whatever your friends have, particularly if anyone of them have cool stuff that you can borrow. You might also fiddle with them to see how they fit in your hands or to see if the ergonomics of one brand really offends you.

For me, it's an easy decision for Canon. They are who I'm most familiar with. They introduced the first IS system. They have the best IS systems. They have the only DO lenses. They are the only ones committed to full frame sensors. They are the dominant player in the market. They are the overwhelming choice of pros in the sports and wildlife fields for a good reason. They are easily the most financially sound (Nikon having been on the rocks quite recently, Minolta having folded, and Pentax having just been purchased). They make their own sensors. They listen to feedback from serious photographers and it shows in the little details of their cameras. They are one of the most innovative companies on the planet, typically being in the top 2-3 companies in number of US patents granted every year.

Nikon is quite good as well. In the past, they were a good bit better. With the start of the autofocus world in the late 80's, they lost their lead. With the introduction of the Rebel, Canon pulled away in market share. Canon moved quicker and more decisively into DSLRs and I think they'll continue to innovate and improve faster than their competitors.

I'm impressed enough with their innovation and engineering that I bought the stock last year. It did quite nicely for me, although this year hasn't started quite so well.

I can't disagree with most of what you've said but there are a few things I don't quite agree with,


sony owners have a large pool of Minolta lenses to rely on, and Sony has committed to releasing new lenses, yes they have a small market share when it comes to slrs, but aa large market share of digital cameras in general, with continued quality dslrs , they should capture the sales of people going from sony pns to dlsrs..

canon may have had the first is, but minolta/sony was the first to put it in the body, saving costs on lenses...

if history repeats itself, canon and nikon will get caught up in the race to beat each other to market with new cameras, while Minolta/sony will take the time to produce better cameras, with fewer customer returns... as happened in the early nineties,

as far as full size sensors go, I've read several articles lately in photo mags, stating that full size sensors are over rated and really don't increase quality enough to justify the cost..???

 

[Anewman]

canon may have had the first is, but minolta/sony was the first to put it in the body, saving costs on lenses...

I found no savings on Minoltas non-IS lenses vs Canons IS lenses, at least at the ranges I was comparing. In some cases the Minolta(now Sony) version was MORE EXPENSIVE than the Canon IS version.

I do think the SONY DSLR is a great camera(as I posted earlier), so please dont take this as me putting them down.

 

[Groucho]

In general, I like Sony stuff, but they have abandoned many things in the past. I think it's too early to tell if they are ready to make a serious, long-term commitment. They have their product in a lot of stores but don't seem to be moving many cameras.

The "pro" thing is one thing that Mark and I consistently disagree on (which is OK.) I feel that it's like saying "you're buying your first car, but you may become a race car driver some day, so you'd better buy Bridgestone tires because that's what the Formula One cars use." Someone deciding to truly "go pro" is probably going to want a new camera body and new lenses, as the existing ones may not have the clarity. Let's face it, even the cheapest DSLRs have a lot more functionality than any 35mm cameras that pros might have used until recently.

That "going pro" thing can cost the user a huge amount of money if they ever want to pick up an IS lens, too - I shudder when I see people talking about $1,500 lenses, especially when one of them is considered pretty poor, optically-speaking. IS in the body is a very significant feature IMHO (and most indications seem to be that there's no significant real world advantage of in-lens IS, you just pay a lot more and have only that lens stabilized). Even ignoring the IS, the cost difference can be very significant. I'm fairly pleased with the shots I got from my last trip and they were done by a $367 camera, a couple $175 lenses, a $125 Russian lens, and a leftover cheap Sigma that I had. In other words, my entire camera system was about what a D80 body costs. If I decided to switch manufacturers, I could sell it all for nearly (sometimes more than) what I paid for it.

I'm not sure that full frame sensors are a serious advantage at this point or that they will be in the future. The theory is sound but the results from the Sony sensors in the Nikons and Canons (and obviously the Sony) are darn near identical at all ISO levels, despite only being APS-sized.

As for listening to feedback, the DPReview review of the XTi seemed to have a lot of ongoing gripes from earlier models, and who was the guy who did the recent editorial about the state of the DSLR industry - who was a Canon guy but bemoaned that Canon has been coasting for a while now and needs to start doing better and listening to the users?

I think the K10D is probably the best example of "giving the photographers what they want" and hopefully the others will follow suit. How's that go, "we're #3, we try harder"?

Anyway, this is mostly academic, the cameras are what they are, no matter what the company behind them is up to. As long as you're happy with your equipment, none of this matters.

I will state that only Nikon and Pentax are actual camera companies first and foremost, while Canon is "imaging" primarily (like a combination of Xerox and Kodak) and Sony is "everything electronic"... I like the focus. Pentax also had a very successful DSLR year in 2006 (made good money on them, more than they forecast) and is really riding high. Just look at the number of new Pentax owners we've had around here. They're selling them as fast as they can make them, and the K10D certainly has moved them to the next level. They have their medium-format DSLR coming as well, for the "real" pros. I don't think there's any danger of them going anywhere any time soon.

(Olympus owners are welcome to point out that that's a camera company first and foremost, too, but Olympus doesn't seem to have their heart behind their DSLR offerings, at least not in the US.)

 

[MICKEY88]

I found no savings on Minoltas non-IS lenses vs Canons IS lenses, at least at the ranges I was comparing. In some cases the Minolta(now Sony) version was MORE EXPENSIVE than the Canon IS version.

I do think the SONY DSLR is a great camera(as I posted earlier), so please dont take this as me putting them down.

perhaps the difference was I've not hesitated on buying used minolta lenses, and minolta glass has historically been better quality than canons...

 

[Groucho]

I overlooked the "not much in the way of top lenses" line - Pentax has a ton of extremely, extremely good glass out there, now and in the past. Their Limited lenses can go up against anything else, they are the only ones with a full line of primes, and they are the only ones with pancake lenses - the ultimate in small lenses!

Like most of the other Pentax digital lenses, this has the "quick shift" functionality, which lets you fine-tune the focus even when in autofocus mode and the camera has locked in focus via a half-press of the shutter.

You can state that they may not have the range of high-dollar wide-range zooms (though they exist), but the implication that their lenses are generally somehow subpar is just not fair. Heck, their kit lens, the one that the vast majority of buyers will start with, is certainly better than the Canon kit lens and at least comparable to, maybe better than, the Nikon lens.

They all have good lenses and bad lenses - no matter the name on them. It's all about doing the research to make sure that you're buying a good one.

 

[WebmasterAlex]

Nikon Rules! It's ok if you own a Canon though.. I still think of you almost like a real person

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Like most of the other Pentax digital lenses, this has the "quick shift" functionality, which lets you fine-tune the focus even when in autofocus mode and the camera has locked in focus via a half-press of the shutter.

All Canon lenses with USM (which is just about all of their good lenses) have this capability. Most of their good longer lenses also give you the ability to restrict the focus range so that if you lose track of your subject, it won't have to hunt through the entire range. That capability and the fact that Canon has the fastest focusing lenses is one of the things that helps Canon dominate the wildlife photography world.

Nikon used to extol the virtues of having the focus motor in the body rather than the lens, but I've noticed that they've come around and are now doing lenses Canon's way with their newer lenses.

I have to admit that I'm pretty disappointed with the crummy lenses that Canon sells on the low end. I don't know if they are any worse than the competition, but they aren't very good.

[Pentax] are the only ones with a full line of primes

What constitutes a full line of primes? Canon primes that include 14mm, 15mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 100mm, 135mm, 200mm, 300mm, 400mm, 500mm, 600mm, and 1200mm. They are the only company that made an f/1.0 prime (even if it did suck). They make 3 tilt & shift primes as well.
I can't imagine going to WDW without my trusty 1200mm.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

The "pro" thing is one thing that Mark and I consistently disagree on (which is OK.) I feel that it's like saying "you're buying your first car, but you may become a race car driver some day, so you'd better buy Bridgestone tires because that's what the Formula One cars use." Someone deciding to truly "go pro" is probably going to want a new camera body and new lenses, as the existing ones may not have the clarity. Let's face it, even the cheapest DSLRs have a lot more functionality than any 35mm cameras that pros might have used until recently.

This ignores the large number of people I know (including myself) that have started with low-end gear and slowly upgraded their kit (though not necessarily their skills) to pro-quality.

I do think, however, that people using these forums to help them chose brands are not likely to see a huge difference between the model lines. All of the majors offer relatively comparable features on the low end. For that reason, I recommend that more than anything else, you go with what you are comfortable with and what your friends have.

 

[Groucho]

Nikon used to extol the virtues of having the focus motor in the body rather than the lens, but I've noticed that they've come around and are now doing lenses Canon's way with their newer lenses.

Ditto Pentax, several of their new lenses have in-lens focusing, which only works on the K10D at this point. Hopefully, one of these days, C/N will come around and start putting IS in the body.

What constitutes a full line of primes? Canon primes that include 14mm, 15mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 100mm, 135mm, 200mm, 300mm, 400mm, 500mm, 600mm, and 1200mm. They are the only company that made an f/1.0 prime (even if it did suck). They make 3 tilt & shift primes as well.
I can't imagine going to WDW without my trusty 1200mm.

I admit that I'm mainly quoting one of the Photokina reports from recently, I thought it was DPreview but maybe Steve's or one of the other site, where the author was commenting how one of the new lenses gave Pentax the only full line of primes in the biz. Perhaps he was speaking of "affordable" ones, I'm not sure, and I'm having a heck of a time finding the article. I know I didn't make it up, I read it a few different times... They might have also been referring to the full range of the Pentax pancake primes, tiny and high-quality.

 

[tinksdad]

I can't imagine going to WDW without my trusty 1200mm.

So True!! That way you could just stay in the room and get the action in ALL the parks........

 

[MarkBarbieri]

how one of the new lenses gave Pentax the only full line of primes in the biz.

I noticed that Pentax has a lot of "intermediate" sized lens like a 77mm. Perhaps they consider the gaps between Nikon and Canon's lenses to be ommissions from a "full line". I don't think that's very meaningful, but then neither is having a 1200mm lens or a f/1.0 prime that is uselessly soft. It's more of a bragging rights thing.

 

[Groucho]

Well, it was an independent editorial making the claim, not Pentax. I've never seen Pentax make any specific claims about their lens line (they probably have, but I'm not aware of them.)

 

[garris3404]

About this time last year, I was preparing for a 2 week trip to WDW. I owned a 35mm Canon Rebel with 2 kit lenes (28-70 & 70-300). I had it for years and years. It took great pictures and I was happy with it. But, I had decided to go with a digital SLR and newer digital lenses. I looked at several brands, and narrowed it down to the Canon Rebel XT and the Nikon D50. I further researched these 2 cameras quite a bit.. The Nikon D50 got slightly better reviews and I liked the ergonomics of the Nikon D50 I went to the stores and played with each. With me leaning towards the Nikon D50 (leaving the Canon camp), the real thing that sealed the decision was the Nikkor 18-200 VR lens. It would be the perfect do-it-all and walk-around lens for WDW. Well, I was fortunate enough to get the lens last Jan right before our trip for only $680 and the D50 for $570. I also got the SB600, UV filter, CP filter, remote. Well the rest is history. I love my D50 and 18-200 lens. BTW, I sold my Canon stuff.

 

[zagafi]

Thanks to everyone who chimed in. I really appreciate those who offered thoughtful, reasoned responses--that's exactly the type of stuff I was looking for!

I'm going back to DSLR because I simply haven't found a compact camera that I'm happy with. I'd rather carry something a bit larger and be happy with performance and results than carry a smaller camera and be constantly frustrated.

Thanks again!