Canon VS. Nikon
I'm mainly looking at Canon VS. Nikon -- but add your opinion about other manufacturers if you want.
1) Which manufacturer's cameras do you like better?
2) Which manufacturer's cameras have better durability?
3) Which manufacturer has better lenses?
4) Overall, do you like Canon or Nikon better?
The cameras that I am looking at buying are the Canon 5D and the Nikon D200 -- MAYBE the 30D, but probably not.
I tend to prefer Canon cameras, and really like the 5D -- except two things.
1) No built-in flash. I want to use this camera for my non-professional work too, and I won't want to haul around a external flash with the camera just to have a flash.
2) It is getting to be an older and older model. About how often does Canon refresh/update their camera model (i.e. when will the 5D's predecessor be out). On the 5D's predecessor what would most expect to see? Do you think we will see an internal flash? Will it keep the full-frame sensor? Will it have increased resolution? Faster burst mode? etc.
The only qualms I have about the Nikon D200 is that it has a slightly lower resolution than the 5D, and that fact that it is a Nikon -- I haven't had much experience with Nikon dSLRs.
1) Which manufacturer's cameras do you like better?
2) Which manufacturer's cameras have better durability?
3) Which manufacturer has better lenses?
4) Overall, do you like Canon or Nikon better?
The cameras that I am looking at buying are the Canon 5D and the Nikon D200 -- MAYBE the 30D, but probably not.
I tend to prefer Canon cameras, and really like the 5D -- except two things.
1) No built-in flash. I want to use this camera for my non-professional work too, and I won't want to haul around a external flash with the camera just to have a flash.
2) It is getting to be an older and older model. About how often does Canon refresh/update their camera model (i.e. when will the 5D's predecessor be out). On the 5D's predecessor what would most expect to see? Do you think we will see an internal flash? Will it keep the full-frame sensor? Will it have increased resolution? Faster burst mode? etc.
The only qualms I have about the Nikon D200 is that it has a slightly lower resolution than the 5D, and that fact that it is a Nikon -- I haven't had much experience with Nikon dSLRs.
Comments
I know that Nikon has copied these two things, but I trust Canon a lot more - even the first generation of these two technologies were wonderful, and I am sure that they are even better now.
Nikon is slightly cheaper, I know, but I would still go with Canon. I have a severe case of camera lust when I look at the 70-200 L IS lens from Canon - Nikon lenses just don't inspire the same feelings.
The Canon 5D is the way to go - you get a full frame sensor, not even the most expensive Nikon has that. If you buy a SLR with less than a full frame sensor, you will end up with a lens collection biased towards wide angles, which will be less useful when you trade up to a full frame later.
If you want built in flash, then don't get a pro camera like the 5D. All pro cameras use external flash. The 5D was only released a few months ago, I wouldn't start worrying about it going obsolete or anything.
Originally posted by e1618978
The Canon 5D is the way to go - you get a full frame sensor, not even the most expensive Nikon has that.
By the same token, the most expensive Canon camrea doesn't have a full-frame sensor either
Here is the complication tho:
I have a whole bunch of expensive Nikkor lenses that went with my F-series film camera.
BUT, I also have a Canon to Nikkor F-Series Adapter ring.
Anyways, the D200 is very tempting...
In general though I think Canon is the company pushing evolution in cameras and lenses.
Originally posted by icfireball
By the same token, the most expensive Canon camrea doesn't have a full-frame sensor either
Yes it does. The EOS-1Ds Mark II has a 16.7 mp full frame sensor.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...&modelid=10598
or did you mean some other camera? The EOS-1D is old, which is the only reason that it does not have a full frame sensor, and it is less expensive than the EOS-1Ds.
Anyway - I didn't answer your question about lens quality and duribility. Both canon and nikon are about the same, I think, in these two respects.
Originally posted by e1618978
Yes it does. The EOS-1Ds Mark II has a 16.7 mp full frame sensor.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...&modelid=10598
or did you mean some other camera? The EOS-1D is old, which is the only reason that it does not have a full frame sensor, and it is less expensive than the EOS-1Ds.
Sorry -- I actually WAS referring to the EOS-1Ds Mark II. I was looking at a camera table and I accidentally thought Nikons D2X column was Canon's EOS-1Ds Mark II collumn.
As far as professional cameras not having internal flashes, I know this is true, but in my opinion that only professional camera that canon makes that shouldn't have a flash is the EOS-1Ds Mark II. The 5D could easily add a internal flash without much extra weight or cost. I guess my point is that owners of a 5D might have occation for not needing a professional flash but needing a professional camera whereas with the EOS-1Ds Mark II, owners of the camera will be able to afford studio lighting.
Originally posted by icfireball
Sorry -- I actually WAS referring to the EOS-1Ds Mark II. I was looking at a camera table and I accidentally thought Nikons D2X column was Canon's EOS-1Ds Mark II collumn.
As far as professional cameras not having internal flashes, I know this is true, but in my opinion that only professional camera that canon makes that shouldn't have a flash is the EOS-1Ds Mark II. The 5D could easily add a internal flash without much extra weight or cost. I guess my point is that owners of a 5D might have occation for not needing a professional flash but needing a professional camera whereas with the EOS-1Ds Mark II, owners of the camera will be able to afford studio lighting.
I'm not a pro by any means, but the internal flash of most cameras really makes photos look bad. I mainly used very large F-stop lenses and no flash (particularly because I was trying to photgraph a performance that I did not want to interrupt) - to make a flash look good you need to be able to tilt the flash and get a bounce effect.
Some of the external Canon flash units can talk to each other wirelessly, so you can place a few and the flash sync with the main unit.
Originally posted by e1618978
I'm not a pro by any means, but the internal flash of most cameras really makes photos look bad. I mainly used very large F-stop lenses and no flash (particularly because I was trying to photgraph a performance that I did not want to interrupt) - to make a flash look good you need to be able to tilt the flash and get a bounce effect.
Some of the external Canon flash units can talk to each other wirelessly, so you can place a few and the flash sync with the main unit.
I agree that straight on flashes will *not* get the perfect professional photo, but when the lighting is just too dark, I'd rather have an internal flash than no flash.
I had this idea a while ago to add a motorized flash rotator to internal flashes. A panel in the back of the internal flash would rotate the flash (not the popup flash part but rather the bulb and mirror that creates the flash within the popup flash unit) up to 80 degrees up and 80 degrees down.
It is a solid camera.
I myself had to pick between Nikon and Canon (350D or D50) and went for the Nikon, only because it was much more comfotable to hold (350D was just to tiny for my rather big hands)
My advice would be, go to a reseller, spend some time with both cameras and pick your personal winner and go with that.
good luck making your decision.
Both are great camera companies, with fantastic lenses on both sides.
Nikon is great for :
metering
ergonomia
flash system
Canon is great for :
Image quality
high iso performance (especially for the 5D if you consider the ratio sharpness/noise)
This is a very silly resume.
Personally I am a Canon user. I bought my first canon , the EOS 650 when it was released in 1987. So I take the habit to use Canon EOS system. That's why 2 years ago, I bought an eos 10 D, and that's why, I use now an EOS 20 D and an EOS 5D.
If I use to be a Nikon owner, I am nearly sure, that I still will be on nikon gear.
My opinion, is Nikon and Canon make different cameras, but there is no bad choices here
Originally posted by icfireball
The only things the 5D is really better for is the brand, resolution, ISO performance, burst buffer, and full frame sensor
That is some pretty important stuff... If the Canon is better on features, what advantage do you get from "the Nikon is newer"?
Nikon often wins on build quality, whereas Canon wins on performance.
Etc.
Try before you buy.
Originally posted by e1618978
That is some pretty important stuff... If the Canon is better on features, what advantage do you get from "the Nikon is newer"?
Just so that I don't kick myself in the ass for spending thousands of dollars when a new model comes out next week...lol
But again, Canon really ISN'T better on features -- just resolution, high ISO performance, and the full frame sensor. I mean those are very important, but they also come with a premium.
On a note about UI, I've heard the menus on the D200 is very good. But I'm not sure if I like the way the D200 does mode selection.
Another question:
Which two standard zoom lenses would you recomend for the Nikon D200 -- list one cheap/budget one and one with no price limit.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Ah ! the famous Canon/Nikon war.
Both are great camera companies, with fantastic lenses on both sides.
Nikon is great for :
metering
ergonomia
flash system
Canon is great for :
Image quality
high iso performance (especially for the 5D if you consider the ratio sharpness/noise)
Image quality is the sum of all these things, so to put that as a Canon advantage is stupid. At high ISOs, which even most hobbyist and pro photographers tend to avoid, Canons exhibit high chroma noise and Nikons have more luminance noise. Chroma noise reduction is what results in those splotchy blobs on Canon shots. Luminance noise looks just like film grain.
If you shoot exclusively in RAW, the "image quality" difference between Canon and Nikon is pretty much non-existent. Nikon's JPEG/TIFF processing uses very conservative sharpening.
If I snap a better looking image due to superior AF and metering, it doesn't matter how good Digic is.
Although I'll admit that I've found AV people have a hard time accepting the laws of physics. I've had a hard time convincing some folks that for audio quality GSM is vastly inferior to CDMA-95 (and especially 2000), or that analog audio components end up delivering worse signal-to-noise ratio than does a good, digital setup.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
analog audio components end up delivering worse signal-to-noise ratio than does a good, digital setup.
High signal to noise ratios must lead to lousy sound then,
because analog systems sound better than digital 8)
I read that with an converter you can use Nikon lens on a Canon camera, but you cannot do the reverse.
Given that you already have a feel for Canon cameras over Nikon ones, I'd go for the former. The built-in flash on any camera is near-useless anyway.
(I may be biased, because I've already decided to save up for a Canon...)
Originally posted by e1618978
High signal to noise ratios must lead to lousy sound then,
because analog systems sound better than digital 8)
That's right, you're the primary offender. . . I'm going to leave it at "psycologically induced" and move on ... for now.
...now if I just knew how to operate lens cleaning paper, I'd be all set.