Pro's and Con's of owning a Nikon vs Canon

Oh one thing is Canon pro services are friendlier than Nikon but I doubt that would be a consideration for a beginner. It's just as expensive to repair the Canon gear as it is Nikon.

Rob pix4u2 wrote: Come to a Cincinnati Cyclones game this winter for a side by side comparison between Tony and I.

Tony's arms are probably bigger from lugging that extra weight

3 pages of pro's and con's? You guys are great. I'm sure my friend will be very appreciative of your comments and help.

Pettigrew wrote: 3 pages of pro's and con's? You guys are great. I'm sure my friend will be very appreciative of your comments and help.

It's always like this when this subject comes up. Just like the old Ford vs Chevy "battles" years ago until those rice burners showed up.

Seriously, you can't go wrong either way. I chose Canon because it offered more options on entry level models. But that was just my opinion. My friends and I love our Canons and my other friends love their Nikons.

PONTIAC RULES THE STREETS !!!!

Rob pix4u2 wrote: PONTIAC RULES THE STREETS !!!!

Sorry, off subject

Nah, threads on this board NEVER go off topic!

Tony! Haven't seen him since the Ducks games. Good photographer and all-around good guy. Was always nice to me, him being the pro and me being - well, the newbie to say the least.

I have 3 Canon cameras, and no Nikons - yet, but never say never. I also have Ricoh and Pentax and that's just SLRs. Maybe it depends somewhat on what you buy first, then you get a lens, then another camera body & another lens...

Go blad digital or go home.

Scotty wrote: Go blad digital or go home.

And leave you all alone? Never

Rob pix4u2 wrote: PONTIAC RULES THE STREETS !!!!

Yes sir. I had a '67 GTO when I was in high school. 400 bored 40 over, 10.5:1 pistons, triple valve springs, Zoom pressure plate and clutch. That baby would light 'em up for as long as you wanted to keep your foot in it.

Baydream wrote:

Scotty wrote: Go blad digital or go home.

And leave you all alone? Never

Shadowfixer1 wrote:

Rob pix4u2 wrote: PONTIAC RULES THE STREETS !!!!

Yes sir. I had a '67 GTO when I was in high school. 400 bored 40 over, 10.5:1 pistons, triple valve springs, Zoom pressure plate and clutch. That baby would light 'em up for as long as you wanted to keep your foot in it.

Yes I had a '70 GTO with the 400 , Holley 4 barrel, headers & dual exhaust- Yes those were the days !!!

Firstly, I've owned a lot of Canon stuff and a bunch of Nikon stuff. Both are good and it really depend on your shooting style etc. That said... here comes the long post...

Shadowfixer1 wrote: I use Nikon but it doesn't matter. A person needs to handle the cameras in a makers line and play with how it works to see which they prefer. Both will produce excellent images. Most feel that Nikon has a better focussing system and a better flash system. Canon lenses tend to be a little cheaper for the good glass. I would use Canon if it felt better than the Nikon. The Nikons I have owned just have a better and more solid feel to me. It's all personal preference.

This pretty much sums it up. Generally speaking the AF on Canon stuff sucks. This is a big deal because it doesn't matter how awesome a photo is, if the focus is off then it looks crap (IMHO). I owned a Canon 1DIV before using the D3s. The 1DIV does have very good AF. The D3s is slightly better. The 7D is supposed to have good AF, but to put it bluntly, most people who own one don't know how to dial it in right (so they say it sucks). The 5DIII (3) better improve the AF or I KNOW people will switch to Nikon (my Canon using buddy said so ).

Generally I'll say Canon are better for portraits (more MP mainly) and landscapes (their colours seem to work better that way). Though for me personally (as I say below) I prefer Nikon for portraits as I like the skin tones Nikon tends to get. Though Nikon tend to mess up purple.

Personally I like Nikon colour better. I never really got Canon tweaked right in Lightroom after trying for 3 years. It's not that the colours were bad per say, it's just the colours IMHO were inconsistent. Took me about 2 days of tweaking to get Nikon the way I like). I just like the way they handle skin tones. Trust me I struggled for long enough with Canon color to know there's a difference.

That said, get a colorchecker passport and set up any camera, the color differences fade away (pun intended).

MLKstudios wrote: If you compare equally priced models, the image results are similar. The main difference is the location of the controls (plus how you navigate to menu items).

Best advice is to go hold both. Buy the one that feels right to YOU.

Matthew

Yes this is true. Nikon tend to have more dials and such on the body itself. I find this much better. Canon have slightly more things stuck in menus. This can be OK if you're use to it though. It's a personal preference thing.

lucky1one wrote: Personally, I like the images made by Canon more than Nikon.

Yeh this is a personal opinion and it really depends on what you shoot and what look you're going for.

As I said before, my main concern with Canon is the inconstancy it had with colour. It was really hard to get it dialed in with LR. That brings me to another point. Nikon's metering system is better than Canon. Sure it gets tricked sometimes, but it's more consistant and gives more predictable colours somehow... not sure if the metering system is linked to the colour or what.

effron wrote: Its been done to death. I shoot Nikon, but wouldn't hesitate to use a Canon. It don't matter too much............

While I agree in principle, I WOULD hesitate to use a Canon. This is because I know the AF system is dodgy on most of the bodies (7D and 1DIV are exceptions). I don't have anything against Canon though. My video camera (XF300) is a Canon and I think they're a great company.

KCook wrote: There is a zen difference in their designs. My view is that Canons are designed for artists and Nikons are designed for technicians.

Mmm personally I think Canons are designed by Engineers (and marketers... ahem... MP) and Nikons are designed by photographers.

Baydream wrote: Rob - Maybe that's why sports shooters go Canon. Holding up those heavy Nikons is tough

The 1D series is why they go for Canon. Gives them slightly more reach (x1.3) that said, a lot of sports shooters are going D3s these days. Better high ISO (lets them keep the shutter speed high) and excellent AF system make it a tempting choice for the sports shooter. Can't really go wrong with either. Both are EXCELLENT cameras for sports.

Stealthy Ninja wrote: Firstly, I've owned a lot of Canon stuff and a bunch of Nikon stuff. Both are good and it really depend on your shooting style etc. That said... here comes the long post...

Shadowfixer1 wrote: I use Nikon but it doesn't matter. A person needs to handle the cameras in a makers line and play with how it works to see which they prefer. Both will produce excellent images. Most feel that Nikon has a better focussing system and a better flash system. Canon lenses tend to be a little cheaper for the good glass. I would use Canon if it felt better than the Nikon. The Nikons I have owned just have a better and more solid feel to me. It's all personal preference.

This pretty much sums it up. Generally speaking the AF on Canon stuff sucks. This is a big deal because it doesn't matter how awesome a photo is, if the focus is off then it looks crap (IMHO). I owned a Canon 1DIV before using the D3s. The 1DIV does have very good AF. The D3s is slightly better. The 7D is supposed to have good AF, but to put it bluntly, most people who own one don't know how to dial it in right (so they say it sucks). The 5DIII (3) better improve the AF or I KNOW people will switch to Nikon (my Canon using buddy said so ).

Generally I'll say Canon are better for portraits (more MP mainly) and landscapes (their colours seem to work better that way). Though for me personally (as I say below) I prefer Nikon for portraits as I like the skin tones Nikon tends to get. Though Nikon tend to mess up purple.

Personally I like Nikon colour better. I never really got Canon tweaked right in Lightroom after trying for 3 years. It's not that the colours were bad per say, it's just the colours IMHO were inconsistent. Took me about 2 days of tweaking to get Nikon the way I like). I just like the way they handle skin tones. Trust me I struggled for long enough with Canon color to know there's a difference.

That said, get a colorchecker passport and set up any camera, the color differences fade away (pun intended).

MLKstudios wrote: If you compare equally priced models, the image results are similar. The main difference is the location of the controls (plus how you navigate to menu items).

Best advice is to go hold both. Buy the one that feels right to YOU.

Matthew

Yes this is true. Nikon tend to have more dials and such on the body itself. I find this much better. Canon have slightly more things stuck in menus. This can be OK if you're use to it though. It's a personal preference thing.

lucky1one wrote: Personally, I like the images made by Canon more than Nikon.

Yeh this is a personal opinion and it really depends on what you shoot and what look you're going for.

As I said before, my main concern with Canon is the inconstancy it had with colour. It was really hard to get it dialed in with LR. That brings me to another point. Nikon's metering system is better than Canon. Sure it gets tricked sometimes, but it's more consistant and gives more predictable colours somehow... not sure if the metering system is linked to the colour or what.

effron wrote: Its been done to death. I shoot Nikon, but wouldn't hesitate to use a Canon. It don't matter too much............

While I agree in principle, I WOULD hesitate to use a Canon. This is because I know the AF system is dodgy on most of the bodies (7D and 1DIV are exceptions). I don't have anything against Canon though. My video camera (XF300) is a Canon and I think they're a great company.

KCook wrote: There is a zen difference in their designs. My view is that Canons are designed for artists and Nikons are designed for technicians.

Mmm personally I think Canons are designed by Engineers (and marketers... ahem... MP) and Nikons are designed by photographers.

Baydream wrote: Rob - Maybe that's why sports shooters go Canon. Holding up those heavy Nikons is tough

The 1D series is why they go for Canon. Gives them slightly more reach (x1.3) that said, a lot of sports shooters are going D3s these days. Better high ISO (lets them keep the shutter speed high) and excellent AF system make it a tempting choice for the sports shooter. Can't really go wrong with either. Both are EXCELLENT cameras for sports.

My keeper rate in burst was a lot higher on the D3s compared to the 1d mark 3. That's in Ai-servo though. In single shot, it was fast and accurate. The 5d's focus system is garbage though. They really need to update it. I do still miss the 5d classic though.

I'm a Nikon guy, and I'm pretty new to photography in general. but it appears that the IQ is so good between the two brands that if I couldn't get a decent image from a Canon, the problem probably wouldn't be with the equipment .... it would be operator error, IMHO.

Just to make the conversation even more interesting I know a professional portrait photographer that shoots a Fuji S-5 body and Nikon lenses, she does amazing work with her Fuji!