# Canon or Nikon



## TimFraccolaPhoto (Feb 9, 2009)

All my teachers/internships have told me nikon whats the big difference between the two is canon just faster but less quaility?


----------



## LarryD (Feb 9, 2009)

Canon and Nikon dominate the world marketplace for professional still cameras.

Some prefer one, and some prefer the other...  There is no possible way to prove the accuracy of such statements.


----------



## AdamBomb (Feb 9, 2009)

Here

...or Here

Maybe here?

Here for Sure!


----------



## Seefutlung (Feb 9, 2009)

TimFraccolaPhoto said:


> All my teachers/internships have told me nikon whats the big difference between the two is canon just faster but less quaility?


 
There isn't any difference in IQ (period).  You mix up a stack of Nikon images with a stack of Canon images and you will be unable to distinguish between the two manufacturers.

CMOS sensors deliver the best IQ at elevated ISO's.  All of Canon cameras come with a CMOS sensor ... only the most expensive Nikons come with a CMOS sensor (D90 and better).

Canon lenses tend to be a bit less expensive then similar/equal Nikon glass.  Nikon is a lot more sexy looking.

Presently, both manufacturers deliver equally capable cameras with no significant difference between the two in IQ.  (A few years ago Canon was clearly top dog but Nikon has completely closed the gap.)

Gary


----------



## andrew99 (Feb 10, 2009)

For any future Nikon vs Canon questions, I will direct people to Seefutlung's post!


----------



## bigtwinky (Feb 10, 2009)

I went with Canon because it was first alphabetically


----------



## Captain IK (Feb 10, 2009)

As I've said before...I went with Nikon because my brother uses Canon...and I don't like him!


----------



## inTempus (Feb 10, 2009)

Seefutlung said:


> Canon lenses tend to be a bit less expensive then similar/equal Nikon glass.  Nikon is a lot more sexy looking.


See, I feel the exact opposite.  I think the Nikon cameras look plasticy and cheap (shiny buttons and plastic looking red triangles).  I think the Canon's look rock solid and heavy duty.  I love a more subdued look (black buttons, I dislike chrome or shiny things).

I think the Nikkor lenses look bland, even the high end ones look like kit lenses to me.  The Canon red rings and white bodies rock.  They scream "high dollar".  

That's why we have two to choose from, everyone has different tastes.  I'm sure there are folks that think Canon looks funky.

As noted, if you're talking about quality of construction or IQ - they're evenly matched.  It boils down to personal preference.


----------



## Seefutlung (Feb 10, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> See, I feel the exact opposite. I think the Nikon cameras look plasticy and cheap (shiny buttons and plastic looking red triangles). I think the Canon's look rock solid and heavy duty. I love a more subdued look (black buttons, I dislike chrome or shiny things).
> 
> I think the Nikkor lenses look bland, even the high end ones look like kit lenses to me. The Canon red rings and white bodies rock. They scream "high dollar".
> 
> ...


 

I think Canon's look clunky and chubby ... like a sister.  Nikon look bold and aerodynamically perfect ... like the professional dancer down the street ... the one that drives the Porsche.

But both Nikon and Canon look the same once the viewfinder reaches the eye (not literally).

Yes, with the camera bodies priced at $1,000+ ... it is all about personal preference.  For camera bodies priced under $1,000 ... Canon's CMOS sensors are superior to Nikon's CCD sensors.

Gary

Gary


----------



## Seefutlung (Feb 10, 2009)

bigtwinky said:


> I went with Canon because it was first alphabetically


 
That is as good a reason as any ... as good as "feel".


----------



## Seefutlung (Feb 10, 2009)

Captain IK said:


> As I've said before...I went with Nikon because my brother uses Canon...and I don't like him!


 
I don't blame you ... had I known your brother shot Canon I would have went Nikon also.


----------



## tsaraleksi (Feb 10, 2009)

People who have been around in photography for a long time (esp. teachers, whose opinions are often dated to whenever they were in college...) often favor Nikon because in the 70s and 80s Nikon was the camera of choice for professionals. However, with the advent of autofocus, Canon's choice to drop their manual focus mount and replace it with an all-new all electronic mount gave them a huge advantage over Nikon, whose position as market leader forced them to maintain support for the older lenses. A decade later, Canon's ability to build their own digital sensors gave them a major leg up in digital. In the last several years Nikon has closed the gap on both of those fronts, but arguments that they have somehow leapfrogged Canon are simply senseless.


----------



## Overread (Feb 10, 2009)

meh there is only one difference (that I have found) between canon and nikon 
only one type of image that a canon camera can capture that a nikon cannot
and that is the canon MPE65mm macro - a macro lens that goes from 1:1 to 5:1 magnifiction and does nothing but macro shots (it will not focus on further off subjects at all). Its a highly specilailsed lens and a very tricky one to learn to use well - its not for everybody.

Course nikon also have the worlds only macro lens (1:1) with VR.

Honestly that is the only difference between the two - aside from that nikon and canon are top brand ranges and its only if you have very specific demands of kit that you will be able to notice a difference - and further you need the right skills to take advantage of that difference.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 10, 2009)

Seefutlung said:


> I think Canon's look clunky and chubby ... like a sister. Nikon look bold and aerodynamically perfect ... like the professional dancer down the street ... the one that drives the Porsche.
> 
> But both Nikon and Canon look the same once the viewfinder reaches the eye (not literally).
> 
> ...


 
Canon's the obvious winner. Especially the 5D MKII. You turn it one and it puts out. It puts out huge and amazing. It'll blow your mind.

Nikon's D700 has all kinds of buttons you have to push first just to get it going, then when it puts out, it's like the 5D MKII's 3 year old sister. It's not quite as impressive and you can't even do it in the dark.










...and by the way...you don't know how hard it was to seriously type that then press the submit button, at least not with a clear conscious. Thank god for being evil.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 10, 2009)

Village Idiot said:


> Canon's the obvious winner. Especially the 5D MKII. You turn it one and it puts out. It puts out huge and amazing. It'll blow your mind.
> 
> Nikon's D700 has all kinds of buttons you have to push first just to get it going, then when it puts out, it's like the 5D MKII's 3 year old sister. It's not quite as impressive and you can't even do it in the dark.
> 
> ...and by the way...you don't know how hard it was to seriously type that then press the submit button, at least not with a clear conscious. Thank god for being evil.


What's so funny?  It's true.

:mrgreen:


----------



## rufus5150 (Feb 10, 2009)

Village Idiot said:


> Especially the 5D MKII. You turn it one and it puts out.



I'll have to remember this if I ever happen to get one for a birthday present. I'll immediately say "I'll be in my bunk."


----------



## guitarkid (Feb 10, 2009)

I shoot Canon, always have, but have shot with friends' Nikons and liked that as well.  I do like the Nikon quality, but the camera felt more simple to me...not that it's a bad thing.  It's almost like PC vs. MAC, Canon being PC.  I can do more with it, have many more options if I choose to have them, but the Nikon, like MAC, is more simple, and it just does the job and it does it well.  It's all a matter of taste.  Whenever I pull my Canons out I get huge compliments....MAN LOOK AT THAT CAMERA!  they see the 5D with a 70-200L white lens with red ring and it just blows their mind.  They see my friend with a Nikon and have not really commented.  Someone above mentioned the Nikons looking more aerodynamic...well, if we were throwing them out a window, I guess we could conisder that.  I also don't like shiny buttons and things of that nature.  I like the all black look, very classy and sleek.  And to me, the body size of the Nikon doesn't seem to change much.  There isn't an awe factor like there is with Canon.  Again, they are both great and I have shot with both but in the end I take Canon.  I have thought about switching to Nikon but have too much invested in Canon.  I will buy some Nikon down the road to toy around with for fun maybe, like a D90, whatever.


----------



## Joves (Feb 10, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> What's so funny? It's true.
> 
> :mrgreen:


 Yeah right! You mean like sliding to On is too complicated for Canon users.


----------



## bhop (Feb 10, 2009)

Holga is best.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 10, 2009)

Joves said:


> Yeah right! You mean like sliding to On is too complicated for Canon users.


eye dunt no whut u sayn.  canun peeple r brilant.  dats y we us canun!1!!


----------



## weddingguy (Feb 24, 2009)

Should you buy Canon or Nikon . . that is the question!  The answer is


YES​


----------



## DemonAstroth (Feb 24, 2009)

I thought Nikon's are rebranded Canon cameras on different bodies, more flashy I may add, with less functions. 


:lmao:


----------



## flea77 (Feb 24, 2009)

I thought Canons were Nikons that failed QC!?!?!?!?  j/k


----------



## Captain IK (Feb 25, 2009)

I don't like the loud bang and ball of smoke that comes out of the lens when I shoot with a canon.


----------



## KvnO (Feb 25, 2009)

The simple solution to this conundrum is to buy into both systems.  But, then you'll soon realize that you should have gone with Sony...

However, I chose Canon because they put zoom lenses together properly.  And, by that I mean the zoom ring.  You turn it clock-wise to zoom out and counter-clockwise (or anti-clockwise...) to zoom in.  Nikon's are backwards (at least from my limited experience with them).


----------



## dEARlEADER (Feb 25, 2009)

Captain IK said:


> I don't like the loud bang and ball of smoke that comes out of the lens when I shoot with a canon.




arrr mateys..  

take it from the Captain who has no doubt shot a lot Canons...


----------



## Jamesy (Feb 25, 2009)

lol, canon :roll:


----------



## Ejazzle (Feb 25, 2009)

buy a sony, they make the sensors for Nikon and Canon anyways


----------



## TheOtherBob (Feb 25, 2009)

bhop said:


> Holga is best.


 
Ugh.  This place is overrun with Holga fanboys who go on and on about the "whiz-bang" wizardry of Holga's multi-color flash and _two_ apertures (one of which works).  Ok, I get that your camera bodies actually keep out 20-30% of light leaks.  And, yeah, I know your plastic lenses were imported all the way from a milk jug factory in China -- you've told me a million times.  Give it a rest already!  

Besides, pinhole cameras will always have better images, without those "lenses" in the way.  :greenpbl:


----------



## yinwu (Feb 25, 2009)

bhop said:


> Holga is best.



Actually I regret getting my Holga and not a Lomo


----------



## brucelee82 (Feb 25, 2009)

Canon or Nikon, it doesn't matter. They are both TOOLS for the photographer to use. I don't claim to be a pro, or even good, but what I've seen is that they are equals. One may have more flash in one area but overall, equal. Get one, get the other, or get both.


----------

