Nikon VR vs Canon IS

So, I've been trying to find out which is more reliable and overall better.  Opinions are flowing throughout a Google search. What I'm looking for is a third party test that is actually done by pro's with instruments to track the results of the test vs someone hand holding each camera in the field and making an observation.  

My wife wants to get into photography and we are tying to figure out what platform she will go with.  And this time around, I'm spending a lot more time researching things before jumping onto a brand/camera. 

www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare
To me it does not get anymore objective than here. Just do some side by sides on the stabilized lenses. For the most part there is very little difference performance wise with the image stabilizers, because all manufacturers have really become good at utilizing it. Everything now is much like other aspects of the technology are becoming incremental improvements over all. The only wow factor is what the ad departments say they are. 
Personally unless I was changing systems, I would get her a nice Nikon. If she went with say Canon then you have a problem when it comes to buying lenses, and such. It becomes who gets the new goodies for their camera. Or this was the case when I had a g/f that shot as well. I shot Pentax at the time, and she was shooting Olympus if I remember right, could have been Canon, but it was not important to me. She thought I should have shot her system either way, and I was happy with mine. That and you can both share the joy of new Nikon goodies.

I'm betting no matter what "scientific proof" you find, you'd NEVER be able to see a difference in the actual performance. I shoot Nikon of course, but doubt Canon leaves anything on the table. Pick a brand and shoot, and stop fretting.....

effron wrote: I'm betting no matter what "scientific proof" you find, you'd NEVER be able to see a difference in the actual performance. I shoot Nikon of course, but doubt Canon leaves anything on the table. Pick a brand and shoot, and stop fretting.....

I was going to say the same thing.  Good post.  

Canon IS is about a million times better than Nikon. You can trust me, I'm a totally non-bias Canon user who used Nikon before.

effron is right. In real life there's no noticeable difference, they both do a good job. The only slight (and I mean slight) difference I've noticed is Canon's 100 2.8L IS macro lens has better IS than Nikon's 105mm 2.8 VR macro, when shooting in macro mode that is.

The Canon lens' IS will work slightly in macro mode whereas the Nikon version doesn't make much of a difference.

Here's what I'm going on about:

Stealthy Ninja wrote: Canon IS is about a million times better than Nikon. You can trust me, I'm a totally non-bias Canon user who used Nikon before.

Million times better? I don't think so. Arguably better? Perhaps. Ah, hyperbole.

Neither make up for bad technique (speaking from experience).

Seems to me that it's important to make a decision based on all of the factors, not the least of which is, does the camera feel good in your hand? Does the device make sense? Does it have the features you require?  Turns out the OP can't answer some of those questions.

Image stabilization is very nice, but not everything.

Million times better and non-bias?  This deserves to go in that Oxymoron thread in the off topic section here.  

I agree, I'd bet you would need some fancy computer program to determine the difference between the two.  

KENT MELTON wrote: I agree, I'd bet you would need some fancy computer program to determine the difference between the two.  

Like photoshop.

Glen Mosley wrote: Million times better and non-bias?  This deserves to go in that Oxymoron thread in the off topic section here.  

Why so serious?

effron wrote:

Glen Mosley wrote: Million times better and non-bias?  This deserves to go in that Oxymoron thread in the off topic section here.  

Why so serious?

I wasn't 

When it comes to macro, even the literature supplied with the OEM macro lenses will tell you that both AF & stabilization become less effective the closer you get to life size. That said, I do believe I have read where the newest Canon IS is better. Those said, I don't use either AF or stabilization with my macro shooting. Nor do I use a tripod (unless I'm doing a stacked shot). I use all manual settings & a ring light on my older manual focus macro lens. The short duration of the flash allows one to stop down for maximum DOF as well as the short duration of the flash stopping any motion, be it mine or my subjects. If I want some ambient light on the scene, it's just a matter of opening up the aperture a little..... I have 7 different macro lenses, 5 MF versions & 2 AF versions ranging from 55mm to 180mm in focal length, but my go to is an older 105mm F2.8 macro from the mid 1980's...Yeah, you can use many of the 90-105mm lenses as "Portrait" lenses as well, but since I also have an 85mm F1.8, why would I ?
    As to the OP's question, I'd agree that they should stick with the same brand as they have now (unless they are dissatisfied for whatever reason). That way they can share lenses & accessories (provided they get a Nikon DSLR that will meter with any older lenses they may have that don't have a built in focus motor. Personally, I only have one stabilized lens, an 80-400mm Nikkor.... It really only helps when you encounter low light situation & is better with longer lenses...

And we still wait for a fact-based, objective answer.  Good luck with that!