Nikon v Canon

A

asm

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
Yes
I know I might be opening up a can of worms here as everyone has their own views, but which is better Canon or Nikon?

I've gone down the Canon route and have the 40D but I'm looking to upgrade the body possibly to a 7D.

However so many of the people I talk to recommend Nikon, I'm wondering about a Nikon D300s instead? Although I don't fully understand the Nikkor range of lenses!

Before I make any big financial commitment to any one brand I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts or advice?
 
It depends on what you want to shoot and which you are more comforable with. They are all tools at the end of the day and you really need to try them out to see which is best FOR YOU :)
 
*Starts eating popcorn*
 
As any Canon shooter will tell you, clearly Nikon.

:cuckoo:
:exit:
 
Can of worms,,, oh yes,,,, Canon v Nikon
I changed from Canon to Nikon, i have the D300s and can tell you i find it excellent, the menus on Nikon's are much more in-depth and offer more expansion than the Canon's i have used (40D, 50D,).

it just depends on what you like, if you are use to a Canon you will probably feel more comfortable with another, you will already have lenses and know your way around the camera.
If you change it will seem strange at first, this is the time you will wonder if you made the right choice, then you will get to grips with the different features, find the benefits and one would hope enjoy the pics you take.

one thing that will blow you away on the D300s is the AF.
 
Blimey, I haven't seen a Canon vs Nikon thread for a while!!

This could be fun!! :thumbs:

I really don't think there is a better brand, I think it comes down to what individual camera suits you physically, and also which model suits the type of photography you do!
 
Assuming you're happy holding both, I would say that really the difference lies in the lenses (remember you're buying into the system, not just the body).

Canon lenses are typically cheaper and have some pro quality lenses at more affordable specs (i.e. 70-200 and 300 with constant F4) than Nikon do.

So although it's the "must have, newest bodies" that have the sex appeal, it's really the lenses that will make it do what you want at the prices you want so I would (with the benefit of hindsight) pick the system on the choice of lenses. Invest in lenses and they will last you a lifetime, buy the latest body and it'll be kaput withing a few years...
 
Canon FTW!:1st::banana:















getting a D90 next month.:whistling:
 
Can of worms, that's an understatement! I personally am very happy having used 3 consumer level Canon SLRs over 6 years. Each have their own advantages, such as any previous familiarity, but lenses are the deciding factor for a fresh starter. If there's one thing I wish I could have from a Nikon it's 1/3 stop ISO (I have a 450D), it's only a firmware issue and would make such quality differences as I often find myself torn between 400 and 800 with a noticeable drop in quality being the pay off for ISO 800.
 
mastertrinity said:
neither sony kicks both their butts:razz::lol::lol:
Click to expand...

Except in the AF department. And High ISO quality. And customisable menus settings. And speed. Actually, everything but live view and price.:lol::naughty:
 
That's where the comment I made about depending what you shoot comes in. Matt tops out his ISO at 800 while I often need to shoot at 3200.

So it all depends on whether you need a crop sensor camera, a full frame camera and if you need to shoot at 600mm or in low light conditions or in a jungle/arctic...............
 
This one really is a canon, er, can of worms! :clap:
 
Only a muppet would buy a.......

4362453161_eacc5b593e_o.jpg


:naughty: :exit:
 
BouncyMelons said:
That's where the comment I made about depending what you shoot comes in. Matt tops out his ISO at 800 while I often need to shoot at 3200.

So it all depends on whether you need a crop sensor camera, a full frame camera and if you need to shoot at 600mm or in low light conditions or in a jungle/arctic...............
Click to expand...

yes, thats the thing all companies have different ways of doing things so some are better than others for different things.
 
I subscribe to the view that if one was better than the other - we'd all have them.

I've had a few of each and have been equally happy.

I think a lot of people are die hard Nikon/Canon and that's fair enough but I suspect that anybody willing to put the time and effort in can produce what they need with either.

Just go and see which you feel most comfortable with.
 
Go to a shop with some money, buy the one you like the most. Simples.

If you have enthusiastic mates, borrow their cameras for a bit and see how you get on with them. Also, if you buy the same brand as them, you can borrow their lenses ^_^
 
I always advise that people buy the brand that is owned by a friend. The ability to quickly swap and share equipment is worth 100000x more than any petty insignificant technical detail.

All the cameras since the D200 and 20d have produced superb quality output, so the answer is neither.

(I shoot Fuji)
 
I don't have a dSLR at the moment, but I've got a feeling that's going to change.

Having done loads of reading up I was sure my first love would be a Canon, despite having a strange attraction to an Olympus (oh come on we all have a weird crush once in a while).

I popped down to Jessops for a spot of speed dating, although nothing long term has come of it yet, I think my first love will be Nikon, and defiantly not an Olympus (one very quick fondle was enough to put me off).

Moral of the storey, don't just look at pictures on the internet.
 
so what was the answer to the original post ,film or digital ?
 
mastertrinity said:
yes, thats the thing all companies have different ways of doing things so some are better than others for different things.
Click to expand...

Yes, but apart from Sony having the best LV and being cheaply priced, theres nothing else that is that special. Whereas Canon...well:D































































In my VERY humble opinion.:D
 
In my opinion, there is nothing in it. That said, I personally switched from Canon to Nikon and do not see myself ever going back.
 
My first camera was a Nikon D60, bought in March. I was only 13 and so took the advice from the shop owner (who was also a wildlife photographer using a D300). Having bought this, I soon thought that I had made the wrong decision and was wishing that I had bought a 40D/50D (when it came out) and 400mm f5.6, due to the faster frame rate and lens quality.

It may also have been due to the lenses colour :D :D

However, as I got nearer Xmas 2009 (the point at which I wanted to make the switch), I started to talk to people and somehow eventually turned out glad that I had bought into Nikon having seen the D3 and heard of the noise capabilities, and the AF speed. I bought a D300s in September 2009 and it is amazing!

However, I think that it depends on what you need from the camera. The Nikon has great noise, while the Canon has 18mp and 8fps (the Nikon has 7).

Lens-wise, I have a Sigma as it was cheaper than the Nikon. I think it is fantastic (the Bigma) as it is so versatile and does not cost thousands (it didn't when I bought it anyway). Canon have a wider range of lenses, with some cheaper alternatives such as the 100-400, and the 70-200 f4. Although Nikon's lenses are deemed to be inferior, I couldn't pick a difference between the 2.

I have seen many people say of the 7D that everything is great apart from 1 thing: sharpness. I cannot say if this is true as I do not own a Canon, but I think that if you already have a substantial amount of Canon lenses, it may not be worth switching unless you feel it is essential.

Hope all that waffle helps :)

Oscar ;)
 
Well, for sharpness my 450D quite frankly sucks. I have to use Live View AF, or fire the preflash if I want a picture that is acceptably sharp like a pin. It's the whole reason I am going to start using MF and MF only - lower end Canons = teh suck in focussing.
 
"Nikon DON'T SKYDIVE son"

One of the most chosen camera bodies (Canon 450D) to be flung out of a plane @100mph strapped to a helmet and skydiver traveling @ speeds of up to 180/190 mph, going from 120mph to 14/16mph in around 4 sec's, pulling 3 positive G's every jump, day in, day out, punching through clouds, humidity, around - 10 + jumps a day, for around 2 years (skydivers play with it, utill they break it :D )

Canon or who, sorry, I forgot :thinking:
 
trencheel303 said:
Well, for sharpness my 450D quite frankly sucks. I have to use Live View AF, or fire the preflash if I want a picture that is acceptably sharp like a pin. It's the whole reason I am going to start using MF and MF only - lower end Canons = teh suck in focussing.
Click to expand...

my 300D coped with rally cars, the only reason i sold it was to get AI servo.. :thinking:
 
[/QUOTE]I have seen many people say of the 7D that everything is great apart from 1 thing: sharpness. I cannot say if this is true as I do not own a Canon, but I think that if you already have a substantial amount of Canon lenses, it may not be worth switching unless you feel it is essential.
[/QUOTE]

Yes....not true at all. Canon are pin sharp.:D

















No, seriously, of all the Canon I have had, even my current 30D, none are as sharp as Nikon straight from the camera. However, it doesn't bother me anymore, as I seem to get round it in CS3. That is just using fairly standard lenses. Whereas, I used a cheap Tamron 70-300 on a D50, and it is pin sharp, with Canon thats not the same. I've never been fortunate enough to try L glass on a Canon, so it may be that they demand better glass than Nikon to make the best of their sensors.So, there is some truth in that Canon are a little soft. ;)
 
mmm...desert/jungle/arctic...that'll be a Nikon then...lol
 
trencheel303 said:
Well, for sharpness my 450D quite frankly sucks. I have to use Live View AF, or fire the preflash if I want a picture that is acceptably sharp like a pin. It's the whole reason I am going to start using MF and MF only - lower end Canons = teh suck in focussing.
Click to expand...

You must have got a sicky! Take it back to the shop.
 
:tumbleweed::runaway: wake me up when this thread is over its been a long day :D
 
Please, someone, put this thread out of its misery. It's 38 posts too long already.
 
trencheel303 said:
Well, for sharpness my 450D quite frankly sucks. I have to use Live View AF, or fire the preflash if I want a picture that is acceptably sharp like a pin. It's the whole reason I am going to start using MF and MF only - lower end Canons = teh suck in focussing.
Click to expand...

What are you taking images of, what are the conditions and what lenses are you using. Machine gun photography doesn't work very well, especially with a 450D, shutter lag.....
 
Sorry. I'm partly to blame, been feeling mischevious this evening for some reason. Won't say nuffink more. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top