# Canon vs. Nikon



## CAG76 (Jan 21, 2009)

I think we should start one.  See what everyone has to say.  Maybe there is someone who has had both.  Me?  I've just had Canon for years love it, but am thinking about getting a Nikon sometime just to see how they are and how they match up.  Im not knocking Canon, but the Nikons seem to be built better.  Also the D40, I've noticed has a kit lens that seems and feels so much nicer than the Canon kit lens that came with my XSi.  These are things I've noticed, but I do love my XSi.

Let me here what others have to say about their Canons, Nikons, Olympus, etc. and if you have had maybe both or all brands.  Which is your fave?

-Christopher


----------



## Battou (Jan 21, 2009)

I have a bunch of brands, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Chinon, Pentax, Minolta and more


I don't have much else to say, they all work.


----------



## Joe&Caroline (Jan 21, 2009)

I have canon but really 2 new for input on this thread just thought Id say what i got


----------



## Enem178 (Jan 21, 2009)

I'm a canon shooter also but I've had alot of time playing around with and shooting my friend's nikon d90. I agree with you that the nikon's kit lens does seem better put together and solid but as far as IQ they seem equal. One advantage I noticed with the nikon is it seemed to me to have a better AWB than my canon. Personally I still perfer my canon 40d because 1st, I love the way it feels in my hand and 2nd, I like the menu layout FAR beter than the d90.  We'll thats my experience with those two bodies.


----------



## Dionysus (Jan 21, 2009)

nice idea, but if this were my board i'd delete this post...people dont play nice when it comes to brands and their love of them.

might start out nice, but will eventually turn into an internet shoutfest.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 21, 2009)

Dionysus said:


> nice idea, but if this were my board i'd delete this post...people dont play nice when it comes to brands and their love of them.
> 
> might start out nice, but will eventually turn into an internet shoutfest.




I LIKE NIKON!!!


----------



## Dionysus (Jan 21, 2009)

*I LIKE LONG WALKS ON THE BEACH AT SUNSET!!!!*


----------



## Corbin Lane (Jan 21, 2009)

I like canon because it works for me, It fits in my hand the way I want it and I like where everything is.

*Runs back to his corner of the world*

Hopefully people will come to this thread for the right reason, and that is to say what they use and why they like it and not argue. :/


----------



## ANDS! (Jan 21, 2009)

There are pros and cons to both brands.  Generally Nikon will have that extra "oomph" as far as body design is concerned, but you are going to pay a damn sure steep premium for it.  Canon on the other hand I think comes in second for "body" but first in bang for your buck.  That you can get a full frame 21MP camera for 3G's or less on the camera side of things is. . .staggering.  Feature wise, I've always been more prone to what Nikon can cram into their cameras, but then Canon usually has an answer waiting in the wings - and cheaper.

Then we get to lenses, and depending on your budget and what you want will determine the winner here.  The biggest pro in Canon's favor it seems is that Canon users don't have to worry about the AF-S bull**** that exists within Nikons entry-level line.  If you have a modern Canon lens and a Canon camera, autofocus is GO!  But then there is that catch - "modern" lens.  If I understand correctly, Canon users are borked on some old school lenses, as Canon changed the design or some sort, so not AI-S equivalent for Canon users; on Nikons side, you have to dig WAY back to find a lens not compatible Nikon's current lineup.


----------



## CAG76 (Jan 21, 2009)

Yeah I know it could get heated.  But before it does, I just want to see and hear some experiences.  I love my XSi, but I have only used Canon.  I am just wanting to see if there is possibly new ground out there for me to try.  I know most people will tell me to just stick with what I've got.  Which is the smart choice, but when I have the money to spend on a new camera when it's time to move up and I get more serious into this thing... should I stick with Canon or go with Nikon?  Thats what I want to figure out in the end.  I know it would really all boil down to maybe renting a Nikon D300 (Thats what's on my mind) if I can at Roberts Imaging and see if it's what I want for my uses.


----------



## Jaszek (Jan 21, 2009)

I use Canon because when I get richer I could have a white lens and stand out from the crown . Naa really i bought canon because The XSI felt better in my hand and was in my price range at the time and I knew absolutley nothing about photography. I have nothing against nikon, I shoot with people who on nikons and one of my really close friends own a nikon (even though she told me she wanted a canon because what she said is that they're better ). BTW I also noticed a lot of female photographers shoot Canon. SO Canon 1 Nikon 0...o and nikon doesn't have this lens: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 so it's Canon 2 Nikon 0


----------



## ANDS! (Jan 21, 2009)

The problem with switching, is you're not just changing cameras - you're changing an entire SYSTEM.  It's like (well in the old days) deciding whether you wanted Windows, or Leopard.  You cant just swap them out; changing means changing EVERYTHING.  The biggest money sink in this game is the system, and by system I mean these lenses.  This is how they hook you.  If you have one lens or two, then its easy to make the switch.  But when you are dealing with SEVERAL lenses (several thousands of dollars worth), you basically think "What the hell is the point?"  If I were to ever get a Canon, it wouldn't be as a second serious body, it would be a casual body that I could potentially take on time where I wouldn't mind it I get exploderated.



> BTW I also noticed a lot of female photographers shoot Canon.



Hmmm.  The CANON is a girls camera.  I like your way of thinking sir.


----------



## CAG76 (Jan 21, 2009)

Ands, your comment is most helpful!  Thats the kind of stuff Im looking for.  In this post I am looking for people with experience with both, and not people wanting to argue whats the best.  But, again I know this will get heated, and maybe deleted later. lol  By then I will have gotten out of this thread what I like to and want to hear.


----------



## Jaszek (Jan 21, 2009)

Hey that was my 300th post .....o and I used Nikons and they're great...but I'll just stay with My canon


----------



## Jaszek (Jan 21, 2009)

OK I'll just go back to my accounting project ...it's 11:57 PM lol


----------



## Dionysus (Jan 21, 2009)

youll go with whatever you have lenses for, as starting over w/ a new brand lenses and all are a *****.

I love my xsi to pieces, but i do wish i could afford a 5d or at least a 50d, for a more rugged build.  I take good care of it and baby it, so the likelihood of it breaking from misuse is rather slim, but still...a more rugged build would make me lose less sleep at night.  Based on what I've seen and researched before i bought this camera, i like canon's iso performance (for equivalent cameras across all makers) more than the others.

I also like that from what i've seen at least, canon lenses seem to be slightly cheaper than nikon, for the same type lens.  You're brand loyalty will also depend on which dslr you start on and learn on.  I grew up w/ my dads film slr, BUT my canon xsi is my first dslr, and i've grown accustomed to the controls and love where they are, and the ease of use.  I pick up a nikon at the store, and its not as instinctual to me.  but like i said, my view is kind of biased since I "grew up" on canon.

My XSI has yet to fail me,and its a wonderful camera for what I can afford. Any ill taken shots were my fault and not the camera.  On the upgrading front I'll probably be upgrading my lenses asap, then after I get the lenses i want, i'll consider which body, as there will probably have been a ton of new models before i reach that time where i'm ready for a new one.

but it will be a 99% chance that it will be a canon.


----------



## Jaszek (Jan 21, 2009)

One more thing...I have a friend who could rant on for hours about why Canons are better, and a teacher that can rant why Nikons are better. I should get them to meet each other


----------



## CAG76 (Jan 21, 2009)

See thats just it too!  I've thought of this and I would have to do something with all the Canon lenses.  Selling them would probably be hard, and traiding them at my local camera shop just won't give me what they are worth so yes.  Right now I only have two lenses, but I do plan on getting another.  I just bought my XSi so it's much to soon to jump into anything else and I plan on getting as much out of it as I can, so looks like I shall move up in the Canon world.  Unless I some how somewhere start making some bucks I could always have a Nikon too if for some reason I like that better.  This is if I were ever rich.


----------



## Jaszek (Jan 21, 2009)

Ashton Kutcher commercials are persuasive I see lol


----------



## Battou (Jan 21, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> If you have a modern Canon lens and a Canon camera, autofocus is GO!  But then there is that catch - "modern" lens.  If I understand correctly, Canon users are borked on some old school lenses, as Canon changed the design or some sort, so not AI-S equivalent for Canon users; on Nikons side, you have to dig WAY back to find a lens not compatible Nikon's current lineup.



Bulls eye, Canon just discarded the FD mount completely in favor of in lens AF and to top it all off Canon only marketed the FD/EF adapter to seasoned vets with large arsonals of FD lenses. The adapter it self is lack luster making it a better decision to just replace as opposed to adapt to fit so it did not sell well to boot, So the best FD/EF adapter is increadibly hard to find and not worth the money when you do find it.

This makes for a pro in the film shooters department though, Glass is avilible at a fraction of the price of modern glass wile those older Nikkor lenses are still averaging into the hundreds of dollars.


----------



## Dionysus (Jan 21, 2009)

hey, the only reason why im trying to push my photos for sale to people is so that i can fund future upgrades..i could give a crap about MAKING money from photography to put into my family's budget..I just want to make enough to upgrade what I want, and not have to take it out of my family's funds.


----------



## Dionysus (Jan 21, 2009)

oh and if i were rich i wouldnt switch brands i'd buy a 1d and a 5d as my rough and tumble camera, and all the top of the line lenses.


----------



## CAG76 (Jan 21, 2009)

This is all good stuff!  Keep it coming!

Here's my Canon story!  I won't say my very first camera, but my verst serious camera I've ever got was a Canon G5.  I just loved that P&S camera and that is when I first saw that I had a eye for photography.  I took many pictures around town and even got some kids-in-action pictures that turned out just awesome!  After about 5 years (just guessing) the camera card insertion door broke and I wanted a new camera.  I then bought another P&S moving up to a G9 which I still have.  This thing was even better!!!  My boss bought a XTi at work so I could take company pictures of our product for our website and catalogs.  I liked that XTi so much that after he gave me such a huge bonus that after thanks giving I bought my XSi.  Just like many of you Canon users have mentioned.  I knew where everything was at.  It took me know time to just pic it up and use it because it is roughly the same camera I use at work!  Don't get me wrong, I love my XSi!


----------



## Jaszek (Jan 21, 2009)

CAG76 said:


> ...I love my XSi!


SO DO I!!! lol


----------



## CAG76 (Jan 21, 2009)

That sounds like a good idea!  Thats what I may do if I get rich.  If I do get rich it won't be from photography.  Hopefully it will be from writing and illustration my story books.  But I love photography.  I wouldn't mind making money from it.


----------



## Jaszek (Jan 21, 2009)

SOrry to steal your topic but what do you people's use to sell your photos?


----------



## Dionysus (Jan 21, 2009)

im more than happy making play money from it...as i have no interest in making a living from it.


----------



## Dionysus (Jan 21, 2009)

i WAS using deviantart , but now i have a smugmug pro account, and it looks a lot more professional, instead of all the naked amateur photographers on DA lol.

also theres a coupon code you can use on smugmug that knocks the membership cost down from 150  to 75.00/yr.


----------



## Jaszek (Jan 21, 2009)

When I decide to get a smugmug account I'll PM you for the code (if you have it that is)


----------



## Dionysus (Jan 21, 2009)

of course, feel free too...but just keep in mind that its just for the first year..after that its full price.


----------



## Jaszek (Jan 21, 2009)

Yea I know that


----------



## Battou (Jan 22, 2009)

Jaszek said:


>



She's cute, EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM ?


----------



## CAG76 (Jan 22, 2009)

For anyone interested in selling prints of your work, check out these sites.

popmount.com

Custom laminating service - Design by Vision.

I've had just two small prints done by Pop Mount with white edging and I just love it!  The print quality is just awesome!  However, Design by Vision located in California, does not do printing.  I printed prints from my printer and mailed the prints to them.  I still have yet to see their mount work.  I like them because they can do double mounts.  A mount on top of another mount.  Check these out.  This would be a fun way to sell print and mounts to people that might want something pretty that you have taken to hang on their walls!

-Christopher


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Jan 22, 2009)

Battou said:


> She's cute, EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM ?



Looks like it from what I found with google.

MRSP according to Wikipedia...  89 THOUSAND dollars


----------



## Battou (Jan 22, 2009)

fiveoboy01 said:


> Looks like it from what I found with google.
> 
> MRSP according to Wikipedia...  89 THOUSAND dollars



Does she come in FD


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Jan 22, 2009)

SHE better come with the lens for that price


----------



## TheOtherBob (Jan 22, 2009)

Battou said:


> She's cute, EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM ?


 
Not generally the numbers I think of when I see a pretty girl, I must say...


----------



## teneighty23 (Jan 22, 2009)

When it comes down to the element of photography as an art, Nikon or Canon are the exact same, both offer the same lenses and accessories, what makes photography is ones composition and more importantly, the light, i view Nikon and Canon as the same thing with two routes. like picking your dream car in either red or blue, its the same thing, you only like one better; because, its cooler. I chose Canon.


----------



## fwellers (Jan 22, 2009)

I only have one Dslr, a Nikon D90. But from all I've heard, and seen, Canon makes a significantly bigger and heavier body than Nikon.

I only know one professional photographer, he's actually more into video production now. He was playing with my D90 and kept saying over and over how he's going to switch to Nikon because he's tired of all the weight and bulkiness of the Canon. That would be saying a lot because he has such an investment in Canon lenses.
But he says that there are converters he would use that make the Canon lenses work on Nikon.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jan 22, 2009)

CANON is the best!!!!


----------



## elementguy13 (Jan 22, 2009)

Ptyler22 said:


> CANON is the best!!!!



I own two nikons but I have messed around with my friends cameras countless times which happen to be a canon and an olympus.  And I must say I really dont like olympus at all (who does)  but the canon is very nice but yet the XS feels very very cheap in the hand but it does put out some great pictures.  Nikon feels great in the hand, always but canon not so much it seems.  BUT they both put out amazing pictures so really cant compare if you ask me.  Its more about the photographer not the camera.


----------



## SlimPaul (Jan 22, 2009)

I've had canon before and I wasn't happy with it. After I moved to Nikon I saw a HUGE difference! Nikon's faster, more comfortable, has better image quality. Everything's better about Nikon! 
And who's saying Nikon's more expensive? Nikon D90 beats the Canon 5D!!


----------



## Overread (Jan 22, 2009)

*is shocked that there isn't a fight yet!*

fight fight fight fight!






anyway far as I can see it I have yet to see a nikon shooter consistantly outclass a canon or the other way around. Both systems are well suited to pretty much any kind of photography and lens options are diverse for both brands, both in house and 3rd party. 
Biggest difference appears to be in bodies, but they change so quickly that its really impossible to stick with the best unless your willing to up and sell all your gear every few years to stick with "the best for you". Some are willing to do this and to invest in new gear - often Pros that earn big money of their gear - amateurs tend to stick with their system or invest separatly in the new one.

Far as I can see it the only big lens difference between canon and nikon is the MPE 65mm macro - which is a very specialised lens anyway


----------



## Captain IK (Jan 22, 2009)

I shoot Nikon because my brother shoots Canon and I don't really like him all that much.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 22, 2009)

Captain IK said:


> I shoot Nikon because my brother shoots Canon and I don't really like him all that much.





lol


----------



## Jaszek (Jan 22, 2009)

Captain IK said:


> I shoot Nikon because my brother shoots Canon and I don't really like him all that much.



nice lol. So that means my brother has to get a Nikon lol.


----------



## SlimPaul (Jan 22, 2009)

I don't understand people who speak out against something although they've never used it. Don't say that canon's better if you've never used the better Nikon. Same story with the PC users. They live in their own world, and say all the bad stuff about macs. "they're not compatible, bla bla bla". I've used PC for 5 years before and from my own experience, I can tell you that Macs are better. Period.
Sorry for the little OT.


----------



## Dionysus (Jan 22, 2009)

SlimPaul said:


> I've had canon before and I wasn't happy with it. After I moved to Nikon I saw a HUGE difference! Nikon's faster, more comfortable, has better image quality. Everything's better about Nikon!
> And who's saying Nikon's more expensive? Nikon D90 beats the Canon 5D!!


 

lol the nikon d90's counterpart is not the 5d...its more the 50d


----------



## tsaraleksi (Jan 22, 2009)

Having used both cameras, I'll be straightforward. If you claim that the D90 is better than the 5D in any critical context, then you flat out don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps you prefer Nikon's native bumped saturation, sharpening, and contrast levels-- that would give the impression that Nikon is better for someone uninterested in spending much time finetuning the camera to their personal needs. 

As is usually the case, one company may have a photo-finish lead on the other for a second, then it switches, then back again. To claim one company is vastly superior to the other is foolish. 

Interesting note though-- from what I can see, Canon owns a lot of the the "used to shoot medium format before high-res 35mm dSLRs came out" portion of the market because it took Nikon a long time to release a really high-res dSLR. (1Ds mark II came out in what, 2004 vs. the D3x which is just being released).


----------



## Dionysus (Jan 22, 2009)

SlimPaul said:


> I don't understand people who speak out against something although they've never used it. Don't say that canon's better if you've never used the better Nikon. Same story with the PC users. They live in their own world, and say all the bad stuff about macs. "they're not compatible, bla bla bla". I've used PC for 5 years before and from my own experience, I can tell you that Macs are better. Period.
> Sorry for the little OT.


 
it's solid stances like this that cause the flamewars.  Words like "better" shouldnt exist in these threads...all sides will think that their brand is "better", especially for them.

ideas and thoughts are fine, its the rigid statements like "______is just better" that has no place. "better" is like beauty, its all in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## SlimPaul (Jan 22, 2009)

Dionysus said:


> lol the nikon d90's counterpart is not the 5d...its more the 50d



I'm not talking about megapixels... 
and the D90 is faster than 5D


----------



## Dionysus (Jan 22, 2009)

neither am i.


----------



## SlimPaul (Jan 22, 2009)

Dionysus said:


> neither am i.



I'm not gonna argue with a Canon guy


----------



## CAG76 (Jan 22, 2009)

Wow!  I see so many Canon people.  That makes me feel good though if I had a Nikon I wouldn't feel bad either.  As Teneighty23 said, I bet they are more than likely the same as far as picture quality.  It's all about preference.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 22, 2009)

CAG76 said:


> I think we should start one.  See what everyone has to say.  Maybe there is someone who has had both.  Me?  I've just had Canon for years love it, but am thinking about getting a Nikon sometime just to see how they are and how they match up.  Im not knocking Canon, but the Nikons seem to be built better.  Also the D40, I've noticed has a kit lens that seems and feels so much nicer than the Canon kit lens that came with my XSi.  These are things I've noticed, but I do love my XSi.
> 
> Let me here what others have to say about their Canons, Nikons, Olympus, etc. and if you have had maybe both or all brands.  Which is your fave?
> 
> -Christopher


This week I gave myself the opportunity to reevaluate the 50D and the D90.  I spent quite a while driving the lady nuts at the local camera store playing with both.  Shooting pics, playing with the auto-focus in various light conditions, playing with the menus, figuring out what features I like and don't like... what I need and don't need.

I'm not predisposed to any particular brand as I just got in the DSLR game about a month ago.  I was really torn between the D90 and the 40D (at the time) and even after my purchase continued to research the D90 and compare it to my 40D.  I sold my 40D this week and started over (I do things like that).

So, here's what I came up with.  These items are in no particular order, they are more or less random thoughts on my side-by-side comparison.

1)  50D "feels" much better built than the D90.  I suspect it's because the 50D is magnesium and the D90 is mostly plastic.  I much prefer the feel of a metal body.  I did play with a Canon XSi and I agree that the Canon plastic frames don't feel as well built as the Nikon... but then I don't care for plastic frames in general... and I feel the D90 is more evenly matched with the metal framed 40D in terms of price point and features.  The Canon wins in this department.

2)  The Nikon kit lens did "feel" better in terms of how smooth and solid the zoom was.  The Canon doesn't feel bad at all... but the D90's 18-105mm lens offered a little more resistance to my input than did the Canon 28-135 lens.  Having spent time behind the Canon 28-135mm lens I can say it's a pretty good lens and have no problem with it at all.  I would say it's a draw here.

3)  I much prefer the menu of the 50D.  To me it's more logically laid out and easier to navigate.  It's not cluttered with a bunch of useless features (to me).  I don't care to edit my pictures on the camera or overlay pictures on the camera, I much prefer to use my PC for that.  Having these features on a DSLR doesn't make much sense to me and I think it clutters things... gimick features I would never use.  The Canon does have one annoying feature, the sRAW stuff.  On the 50D they took it even further and now have two levels of sRAW, or compressed RAW format.  I see no reason to use sRAW vs. RAW or JPG.  This is a relatively minor point.  I also don't care for the HD Video of the D90.  I thought this would be a really cool feature and it haunted me after purchasing my 40D.  Now that I've played with it, I can honestly say I would never use it.  It's really pretty bad.  Just another half developed gimick I have no use for.  Canon wins here.

4)  I prefer the button layout on the 50D.  Even the trigger on the D90 wasn't to my liking.  It points pretty much straight up at an uncomfortable angle (I have huge hands).  With the 50D the trigger is angled more forward and is easier for me to comfortably rest my finger on.  There were a couple things about the adjustment wheels I did like about the D90.  You have one under your trigger finger (Canon has it just above the finger which is good too) and they have one by your right thumb.  I like the wheel under the right thumb vs. the big wheel much lower on the 50D's layout.  The LCD light button is also easier to hit on the D90 (power switch surrounding the trigger button).  Aside from these two buttons/wheels, I like the overall layout better of the other buttons.  I especially like the big wheel for menu navigation on the Canon.  I could do with either, but the slight advantage goes to the Canon.

5)  Playing with the AF was another key issue I wanted to further investigate.  I wanted to see if the D90's 11 point auto focus was any better in practical use than the Canon 9 point.  I played with them for about 30 minutes, comparing them side by side.  I honestly found very little difference in their performance.  The D90's AF point markers in the viewfinder were way more subtle and I found it difficult to see them under certain lighting conditions.  The Canon was always easy to see regardless of the lighting conditions.  Both cameras performed the same under lower light (I couldn't test outright dark conditions) in my tinkering.  I found no practical difference in the 11point vs the 9point systems and I prefer Canon's viewfinder AF point markings.  I gave a slight advantage to the 50D.

6)  I liked the LCD screen on the 50D better than the D90's.  While they have similar specs in terms of resolution on paper, the 50D's LCD seems sharper and is viewable at a wider angle than the D90's.  I didn't get a chance to see them both in direct sunlight, but in general I really like the 50D's display.  It BY FAR blows away my 40D's display, and this alone would be enough for me to jump ship from the 40 to the 50D.

7)  I like the fact the 50D has a faster continuous shutter speed than the D90.  I also like that I have an extra stops on the ISO and on the shutter speed with the 50D.  In practice I don't know how much of a difference this would make in shooting pictures or how often these extra stops would be used (I'm still a noob after all)... but I do like having them there to play with.

8)  I don't have first hand experience, but I've read on the 'net that the D90 has trouble connecting to PC's sometimes via its USB cable and to be prepared to use a card reader to get your images off your camera.  I didn't have this problem with my 40D and I suspect the 50D is no different.  I prefer to connect my camera via USB and not be forced to pull my memory card out every time I want to dump images or be forced to carry a card reader with me in my Macbook Pro bag.

9)  I've not seen any appreciable difference in image quality between the two cameras.  I would say they're pretty evenly matched on this front.  It boils down to features, layout and construction for me.  

I would say I'm quite comfortable sticking with Canon and the 50D on my next purchase.

If I were looking at staying in the D80/XSi-XTi realm I would have to do another evaluation.  But in the higher end models such as the D90 and 50D I believe the advantage goes to Canon - at least for my personal needs.  Heck, I would say the 50D is more evenly matched with the Nikon D300 than the D90 which is even better given the price difference.

YMMV


----------



## CAG76 (Jan 22, 2009)

SlimPaul I am a Mac man too!  Grew up on PC and had PCs for 15 years.  I've worked on a Mac for 10 and about time I finally got me my own iMac.  Not even a Mac Pro and I just love it!  No problems with that, that I am having even with my PC at work.  I don't dog PCs, but I do like Macs better.  I am a graphic designer anyways, so we have more of an advantage with Mac.


----------



## andrew99 (Jan 22, 2009)

Well this thread has more level headed posts than I expected!  

Both systems are great, the two best out there.  You can't go wrong with either one.   I chose a Nikon as my first camera, mostly just because of the ergonomics and I liked the large, bright LCD screen.

So what generalities has everyone noticed about Nikon and Canon?  Let's stay objective without the brand loyalism..  This is what I've noticed from my own experience and also reading on the internet:

Canon seems to produce slightly sharper images.  Could be due to in-camera processing, though.
Nikon seems to produce stronger colours and better contrast, also could be due to in-camera processing.
Nikon seems to have better ergonomics, but this is purely subjective...some people might hate Nikon's menus and button layout.
Nikon has a better flash system.
Canon lenses are a bit more reasonably priced.


----------



## usayit (Jan 22, 2009)

CAG76 said:


> I think we should start one.  See what everyone has to say.  Maybe there is someone who has had both.



START ONE... sheesh... there are at least a two dozen of them every year.  :er:


----------



## mrodgers (Jan 22, 2009)

I have a Fuji, and it's also not a dSLR.  Thus, I don't have much of an opinion, but.......

Image quality wise, I've seen great images from Nikons, Canons, Sonys, Pentax, Fuji........  They are all pretty much the same when you get right down to it.  Even with kit lenses, how can you complain about quality of any dSLR when looking at comparable models from each company.

So, we move on to feel and ergonomics.  I have played briefly with a Canon XTi and in the stores played with a D40 and an XS.  In my hand, with the D40 my finger was on the shutter button at all times with my thumb or fingers of my other hand free to move to all the other buttons.  Finger at the ready on the shutter no matter what button I wanted to hit to change something.  The Canon XS, several functions would require my index finger to move off the shutter.  I believe it was the same with my friend's XTi, had to pull the finger off the shutter to use the scroll or a few of the buttons.

That sells me on Nikon if I were looking.  Of course, that isn't looking at the higher models, but I wouldn't be looking at spending what I would spend to replace my POS car on a camera.  The way the XS I played with in the store just seemed all wrong to me.  The D40, I could easily adjust anything with only picking up the camera for the first time and for the second time ever having a dSLR in my hand.  The first dSLR I had in my hands was the friend's XTi of which I had to hunt around to find what would adjust what, all the while him telling me, _"You'd better not mess up my settings."_  Which that is funny beings that he uses it in full auto of everything, LOL.


----------



## epp_b (Jan 22, 2009)

Wow... page 3 and no digression into a flat-out flame war yet, I'm impressed.

I have a Nikon because, well...it was the cheapest "big name" DSLR that I could find at the store I was browsing at the time.  I didn't actually know much of anything about cameras or photography at the time.

If I had to choose again, I could probably be swayed either way, but not likely in the way of any of the other brands.

I like Nikons for their intuitiveness, navigability, handling and comfort.  Their LCDs are also better.  The vast compatibility of the F-mount can be both a blessing and a curse.  I can buy just about any old manual lens and use it on my newest digital body and vice-versa.  But, then I _have_ to buy all this old crap, because I can!  It's so cheap!

If I could get over not having the giant wooden hands that Canon seems to model the cameras for and having to dig through menus for basic, frequently-used settings, I could swayed towards Canon because of their no-nonsense EOS system.  An EOS lens is an EOS lens is an EOS lens.  Is it any wonder there's no such thing as "CAS"? 

Sony: _maybe_ because of the compatibility with the Konica-Minolta system that they inherited and their very fast AF system.  But, I generally don't like Sony as a company.

Pentax: nope.  I hate those stupid electronic focus rings.

Olympus: Handling is OK, similar to Nikon...but 4/3rds, are you kidding?


----------



## Village Idiot (Jan 22, 2009)

dEARlEADER said:


> I LIKE NIKON!!!


 
All I have to say is that Ken Rockwell is a joke.

/thread


----------



## SlimPaul (Jan 22, 2009)

That's a nice review, but you're used do Canon so it's different. I prefer the Nikon menu. Also, keep in mind that 50D is more expensive, so you should compare it to D300 perhaps.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 22, 2009)

SlimPaul said:


> That's a nice review, but you're used do Canon so it's different. I prefer the Nikon menu. Also, keep in mind that 50D is more expensive, so you should compare it to D300 perhaps.


The 50D ($1,410) and the D90 ($1,169) are pretty much in the same price class.  The D90 is targeted towards the 50D market price wise I would say.  The D300 ($2,146) is quite a bit more expensive than the 50D.  So I would say the D90 and the 50D are pretty much competitors on the price front while the D300 and the 50D are competitors on the feature front... which makes the 50D even more appealing.

Prices are from Adorama.

As for layout, I've had my 40D a total of 4 weeks.  I would hardly say I'm used to anything.  I'm very technical and can easily jump between OSX, Vista, XP, Linux, etc.  I don't find the menus on either camera to be complex in the slightest.  I do think the Canon's buttons are marked a little better and the menu's are laid out better.  The Canon also lacks all the gimicks (photo editing on camera) which is a plus to me, and might be a negative to someone else.  But I found the D90's menus to be unnecessarily cluttered.

Chevy vs. Ford.  It's all personal preference.  Someone else will likely say the gimick features are useful to them and they prefer the menus of the D90 to the 50D.  Who's right and who's wrong?


----------



## inTempus (Jan 22, 2009)

epp_b said:


> I like Nikons for their intuitiveness, navigability, handling and comfort.  Their LCDs are also better.


Have you played with a 50D?  OMG, there's no comparison on the LCD front anymore.  The 50D is notably superior to the Nikon LCD.  I'm sure this will change next year as they continue to duke it out, but the 50D is the clear winner here.


----------



## Slaphead (Jan 22, 2009)

From what I've seen I don't think there's really any real difference in terms of quality between the 2 brands, and I think that most people who get into photography with dSLRs are going to stick with whatever brand/system that they bought first. For me that was Nikon and it seemed natural that I'd upgrade with another Nikon body - If I'd bought Canon first then I believe I'd be a Canon fan.

But what I'd really like to know is who here switched from Canon to Nikon, or vice versa (other brands also), and especially why? It seems that switching would be a really big and expensive step in that you'd have to re-buy all the lenses etc.


----------



## Vudoo4u2 (Jan 22, 2009)

I dont mean to harp on you, but I think the D300 price you got is with a kit lens...

the D300 and the 50D are similarly priced for body only (relatively speaking)

D300 body: 1696.95
50D Body: 1230.00

But I think for myself what it came down to was the overall image clarity/quality afforded by Canon (VS the nikons I was looking @..important point), but then again, I dont think this discussion can be based on a brand vs brand argument, both Canon and Nikon have some fantastic cameras, it just depends what you are willing to spend.

*for reference, my experience comparing the two comes from looking @ the 5D Mark II vs the D700/D3/X and the 1Ds Mark III when used with both L Lenses (Canon) and Nice Nikon lenses


----------



## ANDS! (Jan 22, 2009)

The D90, currently at 900 or so (body only) on BH is a bit cheaper than the 50D at 1200.  The 50D is Canon upper hobbyist/ameutuer-pro body, and thus is more comparable to the Nikon D300 at about 1400 (not sure where the 2100 comes from).  The D90 is firmly directed towards the serious hobbysit alongside the Canon XSi.  As with (almost all) Nikon/Canon bodies, the Canon will always be a bit cheaper.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 22, 2009)

I made it pretty clear where I got my prices from, and yes - they all included a kit lens.  It would be kind of pointless for me to buy a camera without a lens.  I don't have a stash of Canon or Nikon lenses in my office.  I need a complete system, as would any first time buyer.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 22, 2009)

Slaphead said:


> But what I'd really like to know is who here switched from Canon to Nikon, or vice versa (other brands also), and especially why? It seems that switching would be a really big and expensive step in that you'd have to re-buy all the lenses etc.


I was seriously considering the switch this week given I only have one lens on my 40D, and that's the kit lens.

I really like the D90 on paper, I've been mulling it over for the last 4 weeks.  I did my side by side comparison last night between it and the 50D.  I am willing to go with whichever camera grabbed me.  I initially went in thinking I was going to walk out with a Nikon D90.

I walked away feeling the 50D is more to my liking.


----------



## lockwood81 (Jan 22, 2009)

Olympus....its all I've ever used.


----------



## andrew99 (Jan 22, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> Canon upper hobbyist/ameutuer-pro body



:scratch:

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I'm still trying to figure out what an upper hobbyist amateur pro camera is!   :mrgreen:


----------



## inTempus (Jan 22, 2009)

andrew99 said:


> :scratch:
> 
> I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I'm still trying to figure out what an upper hobbyist amateur pro camera is!   :mrgreen:


I think it's one stop below semi-pro... it's how you justify the D90's market position.    Better than a XSi but not quite as good as a 50D.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 22, 2009)

I bought my 50D today from Amazon for $1,235 and it included the 28-135mm kit lens.  I plan on selling that lens and replacing it with a L series... once I figure out which one I want.

So, Adorama while popular is pricey.

Amazon also has the D90 with lens for $1,184.  So the price between the D90 and the 50D is negligible if you shop around.  

This makes the 50D even more attractive.


----------



## epp_b (Jan 22, 2009)

Canon and Nikon can't really compared directly.  Nikon has four lines, Canon has three, and none of them really compare all that directly.



> I bought my 50D today from Amazon for $1,235 and it included the 28-135mm kit lens.


That's a weird kit lens for a crop frame body.


----------



## Dionysus (Jan 22, 2009)

SlimPaul said:


> I'm not gonna argue with a Canon guy


 
thanks for showing an example of what sparks the usual ****talking.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 22, 2009)

epp_b said:


> That's a weird kit lens for a crop frame body.


Why?  They've been shipping that lens with the 40D for over a year, and now they're offering it on the 50D.  It takes great pics.


----------



## ANDS! (Jan 22, 2009)

> I made it pretty clear where I got my prices from, and yes - they all included a kit lens. It would be kind of pointless for me to buy a camera without a lens. I don't have a stash of Canon or Nikon lenses in my office. I need a complete system, as would any first time buyer.



The reason most people list the price of bodies only, is because no one can possibly know what type of photography an individual is interested in.  I would certainly HOPE, that anyone buying a camera, has the common sense to buy a lens (that suits their tastes) to go with it.



> I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I'm still trying to figure out what an upper hobbyist amateur pro camera is!


I consider these the folks who don't have to be told how to control light, that have a complete understanding (and NEED) of the utility options that an advanced body provides, and may or may not be inching towards potentially getting paid for their work, or is interested in getting results as if they were getting paid for their work.  Nikon and Canon have their idea on where their cameras are aimed, and for Nikon, anything D90 and below is mid-range and aimed at the Serious Hobbyist to the beginner.  D300 and up is for that serious hobbyist making the transition to big deal Holyfield photography.


----------



## epp_b (Jan 22, 2009)

> Why? They've been shipping that lens with the 40D for over a year, and now they're offering it on the 50D. It takes great pics.


Kit lenses are usually wide to short telephoto (eg.: 18-55, 18-70, etc).  28mm is not anywhere near wide on a crop frame.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jan 22, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> Why? They've been shipping that lens with the 40D for over a year, and now they're offering it on the 50D. It takes great pics.


 
28mm - 44.8mm FOV on 1.6x APS-C sensor.
Standard kit - 18-55 which is 28.8mm FOV.
L "kit" - 24-105 = 38.4mm FOV which is still not very wide.

24mm on a full frame sensor is still wider than 18mm on an APS-C. 38mm - 44mm is usually not wide enough for a standard lens. When I used the 24-70 f/2.8L on a 30D, I was having problems in tight spaces where I shouldn't have been if I was using 17-50 or 18-55 or a full frame camera.


----------



## Lyncca (Jan 22, 2009)

I shoot Nikon simply because that was the camera my husband bought me for Christmas. Now, I stay Nikon cause I am used to their system and all of my equipment is also Nikon. I also played with my boss's Canon 40D and it was a great camera. It was a refurb and died after 400 shots though 

I think both systems are perfectly fine. If you know how to take a photo, you could pick up either one and shoot fine after stumbling through the navigation.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 22, 2009)

epp_b said:


> Kit lenses are usually wide to short telephoto (eg.: 18-55, 18-70, etc).  28mm is not anywhere near wide on a crop frame.


Canon also offers an 18-200mm lens, but the additional cost is substantial. It adds another $300 to the price of the kit.


----------



## Vudoo4u2 (Jan 22, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> I made it pretty clear where I got my prices from, and yes - they all included a kit lens. It would be kind of pointless for me to buy a camera without a lens. I don't have a stash of Canon or Nikon lenses in my office. I need a complete system, as would any first time buyer.


 

I know that, I wasnt saying youre crazy 

the kit lens offered on the D300 is a far more expensive lens than the kit lens on the 50D that you picked on adorama...that was my only point,

If you got an equivalent lens for the 50D, the price would be relatively similar, I wasnt trying to say your prices were wrong and I realize you want a lens with the body. (the kit lens on the D300 is ~700, the kit lens on the 50D is ~140!) haha

*insert clinking beer mug smileys here*


----------



## inTempus (Jan 22, 2009)

Vudoo4u2 said:


> I know that, I wasnt saying youre crazy
> 
> the kit lens offered on the D300 is a far more expensive lens than the kit lens on the 50D that you picked on adorama...that was my only point,
> 
> ...


I wasn't technically responding to you.  

But yes, I understand where you're coming from.  I wouldn't buy a D300 then get some $200 lens... that would kind of defeat the purpose of buying a D300.

I seriously considered the D300, but for whatever reason I was drawn more to the 50D Canon.  Perhaps next year when the next generation cameras come out things will appear differently to me.  But by then I'll likely be pretty heavily invested in Canon as I'm already looking at $4k of glass for my 50D. 

I'm thinking my next big move will be for the 60D (guessing here) or the 5DMkX (III perhaps).

We'll see.

But given my research I'm pretty firmly planted in the Canon camp at this point.


----------



## Kegger (Jan 22, 2009)

Sissy... lol Just playin dude.


----------



## Vudoo4u2 (Jan 22, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> I wasn't technically responding to you.
> 
> But yes, I understand where you're coming from. I wouldn't buy a D300 then get some $200 lens... that would kind of defeat the purpose of buying a D300.
> 
> ...


 

I came to the canon conclusion for myself after a lot of research into it.

Currently, the 5dmkii provides the highest possible image quality/details/resolution etc between nikon and canon models.  Even the Canon 1Ds MkIII has slightly less detail than the 5DMKii just because the n5dmkii is newer and runs off a slightly upgraded version of their digic processor.  Nikon, while a wonderful manufacturer I am sure will have a camera in the same range soon enough, lacks a full frame sensor camera with this much detail/quality of image, unless you are getting the D3X, which I would say as far as image quality is concerned, is comparable to the 5dmkii and the 1dsmkiii.  Yes, the 1dsmkiii and the d3x are faster cameras than the 5dmkii, but as far as quality is concerned, the three are very very close with the edge probabyl going to the 5dmkii purely because of its more recent release date/new tech.  (but that difference in quality is minimal at best)

On this basis, at this moment, on this day, I went with the 5dmkii for the image quality/resolution and enlarging benefits with the good canon L glass.  While nikon has great lenses as well and wonderful bodies, unless youre spending 8k on the d3x, you arent going to get the same resolution and quality as the 5dmkii and the 1dsmkiii (which is also 8k).  And I wasnt willing to spend 8k on a camera anyways, and the 5dmkii being so new with the specs it had, was on par/slightly better than the 8k models in quality.  Thus, my choice was made.  I dont do sports much, and even if I choose to do some, I'm positive the 5dmkii will be fine assuming I have the propeer glass (my 70-200 F 2.8 IS L should suffice for most)

I like red stripes as well


----------



## Samanax (Jan 22, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> I'm thinking my next big move will be for the 60D (guessing here) or the 5DMkX (III perhaps).


My guess is you'll want to get a full frame DSLR after you see how nice the DOF is on one. I'm a Canon shooter and 7 of my shooting buddies have gotten a Canon 5D or a 5D Mk II in the past 6 months. I would love to get one too, but I can't justify the cost since my shooting skills stink. I want to outgrow my XTi first.


----------



## epp_b (Jan 22, 2009)

Don't try a full frame DSLR.  You will become addicted.  And, yes, the DOF control on full-frame compared to crop-frame is very nice.


----------

