Canon or Nikon

S

SuperzShields

Junior Member
Suspended / Banned
Messages
82
Name
Ryan
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all, I know this gets covered to death but, are canons considered better for wildlife photography and why? is it just because the lenses at the desired focal legnth are cheaper or what?

Cheers
Ryan :)
 
Who considers Canon Cameras are better for wildlife?
Nikon owners could say the same about Nikon cameras.
So could everyone with different camera makes.

The answer is none , its the photographer and their ability to capture wildlife that makes the difference

Realspeed
 
The wildlife photographer of the year exhibition seemed to have more Nikon shooters, though I wasn't counting. I don't think it really matters as both companies produce excellent cameras and lenses.
 
It's just a general thing that i see most people take pictures of wildlife using canon. I thought this could be due to the cheaper long focal legnth lenses with canon? I'm just looking to get some opinions to help me make my desision as to what camera to get.

Thanks
Ryan
 
SuperzShields said:
It's just a general thing that i see most people take pictures of wildlife using canon. I thought this could be due to the cheaper long focal legnth lenses with canon? I'm just looking to get some opinions to help me make my desision as to what camera to get.

Thanks
Ryan
Click to expand...

Get what suits you is the answer

One camera these days is really just as good as the next and very little difference in picture quality, so really its down to the way the camera feels when held- menu layout and features. Suggest going to a camera store and try some out and see which you prefer.

Its the lens quality that can make the most difference.

As for photographing wildlife that can range from a whale breaking the surface of the sea to a snail crawling up a plant stem to a snake slithering through the grass, in other words it covers a wide range of photography and which lens used to produce the best image
 
Last edited:
I've been to the currys a couple of times and had a play with both but I don't prefer one over the other. Would you say that both canon and nikons lenses are of an equal quality for the same price?
 
Hard to do a comparison as Nikon owners don't use Canon lenses and visa versa. You can get a very good sharp lens or not in any make be it Nikon or Canon or any make. Even that can be fine tuned in some cameras such as my Nikon D300 and no doubt in some Canon cameras as well.

Whichever you decide you will always wonder if you have made the right choice, and a camera a little more expensive with more features is something you wish you had decided to buy anyway.

Realspeed
 
If you want to compare lenses the best way is to google some test reports. Here's a couple of links to start you off:

http://www.ephotozine.com/reviews

http://www.dpreview.com/products/lenses

BTW The very best lenses are Olympus SHG digital Zuikos, I don't think many would argue about that. Only problem is there's a distinct lack of bodies in the range at the moment - one to be precise, the E-5 (which costs about £1400 body only). You'd have to be very keen to go there, because the lenses aren't cheap either.

Canon and Nikon are more accessible and practical, and are well supported by third party lenses too. Best advice is to compare reviews, compare prices and make a decision. Are you sure you have no preference in how the cameras handle, though? Handling is far more important than features or megapixels but is often overlooked, especially by beginners. Things to look for are how well does the camera fit in your hand? Is the grip comfortable? Does the placement of the controls seem logical to you? Are they easy to reach and operate whilst maintaining your grip, ready to shoot? Can you adjust the main controls without taking the camera from your eye? Can you see all four corners of the image through the viewfinder, especially if you wear glasses? Is the information displayed in the viewfinder easy to see and understand? Are the menus easy to access and logical to your way of thinking? The list goes on. Don't be frightened to make several trips to the shop and spend a good long time familiarizing yourself with each of your potential choices.

Of course, you'll be lucky to find a camera that ticks all those boxes (although the E-3 comes pretty close for me) but it gives you some idea on what to base your decision. And remember, despite my comments about Olympus lenses being the best, both Nikon and Canon come a very good second, not a poor second! :D
 
SuperzShields said:
Hi all, I know this gets covered to death but, are canons considered better for wildlife photography and why? is it just because the lenses at the desired focal legnth are cheaper or what?

Cheers
Ryan :)
Click to expand...

It's not just about lenses; it's also about how well the bodies perform. How well they autofocus, how well they perform at high ISO settings, how accurately they measure the light.
 
Last edited:
The Canon range seems to have more "cheaper" wildlife lenses like the 100-400 and the 400 5.6. Also their 300 f4 has IS. All nice to have if you're a canon.

On Nikon the 80-400 is slow to af, there's no "cheap" 400 and the 300fs doesn't have VR.

At the top end their all much of a muchness price wise I think (not spent much time looking) and quality seems similar. Only real difference is Nikon has the 200-400 f4 but Canon have one in the pipe line.

If you're just starting the price of consumer long lenses IS important, and so are the features. If I was to start again fresh now I'd have to seriously consider a Canon but would want to spend a few days with one to see if I could get used to the differences, but those middle range lenses are very appealing.

This is just how I perceive stuff as I have been looking for a decent 400mm ish for my Nikon and I can't ever see me affording a 200-400 and there's nothing before that until the 300 f4 + TC a good £3k down the range where canon has the 100-400 and 400 as a middle (ish) ground.
 
maninsuitcase said:
The Canon range seems to have more "cheaper" wildlife lenses like the 100-400 and the 400 5.6. Also their 300 f4 has IS. All nice to have if you're a canon.

On Nikon the 80-400 is slow to af, there's no "cheap" 400 and the 300fs doesn't have VR.

At the top end their all much of a muchness price wise I think (not spent much time looking) and quality seems similar. Only real difference is Nikon has the 200-400 f4 but Canon have one in the pipe line.

If you're just starting the price of consumer long lenses IS important, and so are the features. If I was to start again fresh now I'd have to seriously consider a Canon but would want to spend a few days with one to see if I could get used to the differences, but those middle range lenses are very appealing.

This is just how I perceive stuff as I have been looking for a decent 400mm ish for my Nikon and I can't ever see me affording a 200-400 and there's nothing before that until the 300 f4 + TC a good £3k down the range where canon has the 100-400 and 400 as a middle (ish) ground.
Click to expand...

This is very much the reason i was first looking at canon :)
 
Canon 300 f4 £1095 ... Nikon 300 f4 £975

Canon 300 f2.8 £5500 ... Nikon 300 f2.8 £4000 (The previous Canon was £4000 but talking to a guy last weekend they were no longer available)

Canon 500 f4 £8500 ... Nikon 500 f4 £5700 (Again this is the latest offering from Canon the previous model was close to the Nikon)

Canon 600 f4 £7100 ... Nikon 600 f4 £6700 (That is if the Canon is still available the new one is £10000)

Prices from camera price buster, I dare say the new Canon stuff will stabilise nearer to the Nikon stuff once the early adopter rush slows down.

So fair to say price wise there is nothing in it really, probably find that there are more used Canon lenses out their due to there dominance in the market a few years back, plus those wishing to switch to the latest and greatest new lenses.

The best thing the OP can do is go to a shop and try a couple of bodies in his price range, and get the one that feels the most comfortable, both Nikon and Canon make top quality bodies and optics, he will not go wrong with either.

To try and rate one better than the other will always see a bias depending on the system being used by the poster, or the number of adds placed by one or the other in any particular magazine carrying a review of said products.

The individuals ability, or lack of, will have a far greater influence on the image quality than if they are using Nikon or Canon.
 
I agree with just about all of this. There's really nothing much to choose between Canon and Nikon, at the entry and mid-range levels anyway. The photographer is going to make the real difference. Once you have some experience, and you start looking at the pro bodies, you can make your own mind up.

Canon's 100-400mm and 400mm f5.6 do offer a couple of excellent and relatively affordable lenses for wildlife. Prices go up sharply if you want fast glass, and I doubt if anyone is going to worry quite so much about a few hundred quid one way or the other once you're spending £5000 and more.
 
Martyn... said:
Canon 300 f4 £1095 ... Nikon 300 f4 £975

Canon 300 f2.8 £5500 ... Nikon 300 f2.8 £4000 (The previous Canon was £4000 but talking to a guy last weekend they were no longer available)

Canon 500 f4 £8500 ... Nikon 500 f4 £5700 (Again this is the latest offering from Canon the previous model was close to the Nikon)

Canon 600 f4 £7100 ... Nikon 600 f4 £6700 (That is if the Canon is still available the new one is £10000)

Prices from camera price buster, I dare say the new Canon stuff will stabilise nearer to the Nikon stuff once the early adopter rush slows down.

So fair to say price wise there is nothing in it really, probably find that there are more used Canon lenses out their due to there dominance in the market a few years back, plus those wishing to switch to the latest and greatest new lenses.

The best thing the OP can do is go to a shop and try a couple of bodies in his price range, and get the one that feels the most comfortable, both Nikon and Canon make top quality bodies and optics, he will not go wrong with either.

To try and rate one better than the other will always see a bias depending on the system being used by the poster, or the number of adds placed by one or the other in any particular magazine carrying a review of said products.

The individuals ability, or lack of, will have a far greater influence on the image quality than if they are using Nikon or Canon.
Click to expand...

I rather think the OP was referring to budget consumer grade long-reach lenses and with the possible exception of the 300mm f4's what you have listed is way out of range - so much so that they might as well not exist!

For those prices you could have an E-5 and some Fast Zuiko SHG glass! :D
 
To be fair, I think the OP needs to look at his budget now and future budget.

If he has loads of money to spare then he can look at the expensive lenses.

If he is looking to make money from his photography then invest in the expensive lenses.

If however, (Like me) he is purely a hobbyist who has a family to support and not a lot of funds to spare then either a Nikon or Canon with a Sigma ?-500mm will suffice.

Just my tuppence worth.
 
Yeah my photography is purely going to be a hobby so I guess whatever I can get in my budget will be more than good enough for my needs.

Thanks everyone for the help :)
 
Nikon, Canon, both as good as the other , I used Canon for years, I changed to Nikon when I needed to upgrade my old equipment and the D3 was way ahead at the time with high ISO technology . Now Canon have caught up with that ISO stuff so its status quo again.
Canon and Nikon leapfrog each other and I cant stand the discussions about one being better than the other I think both are great systems, my only observation is that Nikon feel more rounded in the hands Canon have squarer edges and I find Nikon menus easier but once you get to know where things are that is irrelevant anyway.
 
this is just going to turn into a canon is better, no nikon is better post. whatever works for you, everyone is different and has different needs :)
 
Best suggestion here would be to go & experiment in a store with both Canon & Nikon cameras as I found they both feel different to work with. I've always preferred Canon's equipment but a photographer I used to assist worked with a Nikon which I had to adapt to using during my time working for him. In October 2010 it came time to upgrade & I went with Canon for a second time 'cause that's just my personal preference. I worked for Jessops last summer & had many customers coming in just to ask "Canon or Nikon?" & my answer every time would be to hold out one of each & tell them to try it for themselves. Best wishes!
 
"Which is better? A left- or a right-handed screwdriver?"
 
SLRUser said:
"Which is better? A left- or a right-handed screwdriver?"
Click to expand...

They're both equally mediocre - get an electric screwdriver! :D
 
realspeed said:
The answer is none , its the photographer and their ability to capture wildlife that makes the difference
Click to expand...

The perfect answer.........:thumbs:
 
Take a photo with a Canon
Take a photo with a Nikon

Pick the one that has the best shutter sound to you. The Canon sounds like a mechanical super future robot taking a photo, and the Nikon makes a classic clu-clunk sound. Which one sounds better?

This is about as relevant as 99% of the reasons people will give you for one or the other.
 
I used canon initially,but then turned to Nikon after using a friends D90,it was such an easy camera to use,everything seemed to be 'in the right place'.I now use a D300 and a D2xs,both bought secondhand,the D300 on here the other from elsewhere.I would suggest that the OP tries other shops as opposed to Curry's,he will probably find a much better deal elsewhere.He might find that he can get a decent warranty on pre-owned gear too and save a small fortune in doing so.
 
Valleyman said:
Take a photo with a Canon
Take a photo with a Nikon

Pick the one that has the best shutter sound to you. The Canon sounds like a mechanical super future robot taking a photo, and the Nikon makes a classic clu-clunk sound. Which one sounds better?

This is about as relevant as 99% of the reasons people will give you for one or the other.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough. A guy with a Nikon next to me in a hide scared the fox off with his shutter :thumbs:
 
I am a Nikon user, for me, personally I didnt like how the Canons felt in my hands, that was my decider. After that, it was deciding which Nikon was best for my needs. I'm more than happy with what I have.

I also firmly believe that someone could spend thousands on equipment but take worse photos than someone with a cheap compact camera. You've either got the eye, or you haven't and no equipment in the world will give you that!
 
Stop agonising over it! I wrote lists and researched reviews and prices for months and months, and my husband eventually just went out and bought me a Nikon "because lots of journalists seem to have black and yellow straps and they kinda look good".

It's swings and roundabouts. Learn to love the good bits and work around the bad bits - you'll have to do that whichever you choose :)
 
Blythman said:
Funnily enough. A guy with a Nikon next to me in a hide scared the fox off with his shutter :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Yes the Nikon pro cameras like D3 D3s D3x etc do have the old clunk click sounding shutter the D300 D300s have much quieter shutters.

I much prefer the Canon shutter sound but as Im using Nikon (only because I like the feel and layout and easy menu) I have to put up with the shutter.
I use a triple layer camouflage cover on my long lens and that really does dampen the shutter sound as well as protecting the equipment and keeps hands warmer in winter !
 
melcal said:
my husband eventually just went out and bought me a Nikon "because lots of journalists seem to have black and yellow straps and they kinda look good".
Click to expand...

:D

But white lenses with red rings look better :razz::lol:


Yeh it don't really matter. I went with Canon because it felt good and also at the time the 100-400 was the ideal lens for me - and still is :cool:
 
melcal said:
...and my husband eventually just went out and bought me a Nikon "because lots of journalists seem to have black and yellow straps and they kinda look good".
Click to expand...

The reason that a largish number of press photographers have gold rings on their lenses is that Nikon sponded out a huge amount of money getting some (read most) of the major agencies to switch from Canon on a zero cost basis. Both systems now-a-days are perfectly capable.
 
Az_GTi said:
:D

But white lenses with red rings look better :razz::lol:


Not when you are trying to be inconspicuous and camouflage your camera from the wildlife. :razz: :lol:

Strange thing is Nikon also offer a light gray/white lens but they dont seem to sell too many ....if any.
Click to expand...
 
I'm a Nikon user, and am very happy to be so.
The one lens in which Canon beat Nikon hands down is macro,with the MPE-65.
I wish Nikon would make a version of this.
 
I think the only real difference is if you want to buy secondhand lenses there are more canon ones out there check the small adds and london camera exchange. There really isn't much difference in the camera systems just the way they operate go and have a play with them.
Regards
Richard
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top