Canon or Nikon

[Keith Knipling]

This question has been beaten to death, but I wanted to pose it here on a Mac forum. As people who value function, elegance, and an appreciation for design, as compared with the "mainstream," I was wondering if Mac people particularly favor one line over the other.

I am torn between the Canon 40D and the Nikon D200/D300. The Nikon feels better in my hand, and Nikon's have always been known for their ergonomics. I tried both in the store, and the initial impression of the Canon was that it was "simpler." I was just wondering which brand people prefer from a design perspective.

Then, of course, there is image quality. Seems to be a tossup here, with the edge to Canon for lower noise.

And of course the bigger question is the lenses... Thoughts on that?

-Keith

 

[Westside guy]

As people who value function, elegance, and an appreciation for design, as compared with the "mainstream," I was wondering if Mac people particularly favor one line over the other.

Yes, they definitely do. Some particularly favor Nikon, while others particularly favor Canon.

This has been beaten to death on this forum as well.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Both.

Seriously.

I do not think it is possible for anyone to pronounce either one better than the other, unless you are doing something so specialized that you need a certain lens or feature only offered by one or the other manufacturers.

Flip a coin - IMHO that's as good a way as any to choose.

 

[swiftaw]

Seriously, there is no right or wrong answer here, so it all comes down to personal preference.

Try them both out, which feels better in your hand, which controls are more intuitive to you. Many camera stores will allow you to rent equipment for a couple of days, so rent the both and test drive them for a few days.

 

[cr2sh]

Try them both out, which feels better in your hand, which controls are more intuitive to you.

Agreed.. for me it was only a matter of getting the cameras into my hand.. after holding them I knew which camera I was more comfortable with.

 

[miloblithe]

Seriously, there is no right or wrong answer here, so it all comes down to personal preference.

'
And priorities/strategies/budget. There are nuanced, specific advantages to each.

 

[JBat]

'
And priorities/strategies/budget. There are nuanced, specific advantages to each.

Yep. Choose your poison and have some fun. Both companies make excellent products and always have.

 

[Rube]

I would go Canon (because that's what I have).

Everytime I see a gallery of photographers they all have Canon telephotos in their distinctive beige color. I think that's one reason why Canon refuses to make telephotos in black, it's free advertising.

 

[OreoCookie]

Unless you absolutely need a special lens the other manufacturer doesn't have (e. g. Canon's loupe macro) -- which in 90-95 % of the cases isn't relevant --, I would base my decision on ergonomics. The details (6/8 fps vs. 6.5 fps, etc.) are usually not relevant, unless you have specialized interests. I reckon that even for sports photography, both are `good enough'.

We can all agree that `both are good cameras' etc. etc. which just means that the photographer is usually the limit nowadays and not the equipment. Take whatever feels best in your hand.

Other than that, I don't think you'll hear anything beyond personal preference. (I shoot with a Nikon, but I've also owned an early Olympus dslr, too.)

 

[Abstract]

Unless you absolutely need a special lens the other manufacturer doesn't have (e. g. Canon's loupe macro) -- which in 90-95 % of the cases isn't relevant --, I would base my decision on ergonomics. The details (6/8 fps vs. 6.5 fps, etc.) are usually not relevant, unless you have specialized interests. I reckon that even for sports photography, both are `good enough'.

Agreed.

There are people who always recommend getting a camera based on the lenses, but.....lets face it, most new/potential DSLR owners don't know what they want, or want to do a bit of everything. You can get lenses to "do a bit of everything" with either Canon or Nikon, and still have another 11 lenses that you'll never own, but wish you could afford.

Get the camera body that feels good for you. I'll give you a tip regarding photography: You have to actually hold it to take photos. You can't really dodge this problem entirely. If you find the ergonomics unnatural, you may as well get a different camera, whether it's another model from the same brand, or a different brand altogether. Just get whatever makes sense.

Also, this "noise" issue isn't an issue at all. Marketers just needed a new way to sell you a camera.

Go to http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM and compare the brand new Canon 40D to the older Nikon D80. The D80 actually produces cleaner photos at high ISO, or at least IMO. It definitely does at ISO 1600, although at ISO 3200 it looks like a tie, with the Canon preserving sliiiightly more detail, but the D80 producing better colours and a nicer overall image (again, IMO). Also, the Canon 40D photos at ISO 1600 and 3200 have a slight green tint to them.

I'm not saying the D300 will definitely be better, but I'm saying it's so close that there's no point. The only REAL difference in noise comes from comparing these cameras to a Nikon D3 or Canon 5D. If you're only comparing the 40D and D300 to each other, or to other dSLRs with APS-C sized sensors, you won't see any noise differences in real world applications.

 

[kwajo.com]

As people who value function, elegance, and an appreciation for design, as compared with the "mainstream," I was wondering if Mac people particularly favor one line over the other.
-Keith

That's why I chose Pentax over Nikon and Canon (the "mainstream")

 

[Father Jack]

Go Canon, you wont be disappointed ..

 

[ChrisA]

When you pick a brand you are not just selecting between the 40D and D300. You are also likely picking your nest three DSLR bodies. Almost no one switches brands. So you place a bet that in three to five years you will want to by wantever "your" brands has for sale.

In general I think, Nikon is the more conservative company and sticks with what works. Canon will have whatever the latest technology is first. Canon's low-end kit lenses are lower end then Nikons kit lenses but once you move up out of that level nboth are very good. If you are shopping for a used Lens you find better deals with Nikon because their lens compatabilty goes back mucjh farther. I think Nikon's light metering is best and everyone knows thier flash meting is better. Canon might have better autofocus but that depands on the specific body. Slight difference in style really.

 

[bousozoku]

Go Canon, you wont be disappointed ..

No one ever lost their job buying Microsoft. There are lots of empty statements out there. Want to try another one?

If it's down to Nikon and Canon, there isn't much between them except the ergonomics. There are equivalent lenses from the two and the various third parties. For me, between the two, it would have to be Nikon because of the ergonomics and the general intuitiveness.

Then again, thankfully, I don't have to make that choice.

 

[epicwelshman]

I have a Nikon. Friends have Canon's. I know people who have switched from Nikon to Canon, and others who have switched from Canon to Nikon. I know others who have Olympus, Pentax etc.

Frankly, it doesn't matter. You could have a D3 with a 70-200 f2.8, but if you're a crap photographer then the photos will still be crap. You could have a D40, or Rebel XT with the kit lens, and if you're a good photographer you'll have good photos.

Your most important tool is your "eye".

 

[filmamigo]

It's not just down to Nikon and Canon -- there are good choices beyond the "marketing" leaders.

I love the ergonomics of Pentax. If you are considering a Nikon D200-class camera, the K10D delivers a comparable feature set (including compatibility with older lenses), weather sealing, and image stabilization.

Cameras are very "personal" devices -- you should hold them in your hand and play with them before you make up your mind. The perspective of a Mac user is that the market-share leaders aren't always the best choice...

 

[Hmac]

Both are excellent cameras. I prefer my Nikon for its ergonomics and better-organized menu systems, and I really like Capture NX for it's handling of .nef images. Canon makes a good camera and it they are capable of good images but they've has never made a camera that made me even consider switching.

 

[Lovesong]

Well, as others have said, given your choices, you really can't go wrong with either. I went with Canon for several reasons, the main one being their excellent L glass (which Nikon has equivalents of), the fact that at the time they were the only ones offering a full frame body (love that 5D), and the fact that when I went to the store, it simply felt better-made (that and it's manifactured in Japan, as opossed to Thailand- I don't know, old-school prejudice about things made in Japan or Germany).

If you're in the mood for some humorous Nikon vs. Canon debate, and to see how your equipment really doesn't matter check this out.

 

[Clix Pix]

Whatever feels best in your hands, whatever is most responsive, whatever does what you need, expect and want.....that's the camera to buy. Definitely both Nikon and Canon have excellent lenses and so that's a consideration inasmuch as the future: will you need/want a particular lens for a particular photographic task? Does the camera manufacturer offer that lens? You have your heart set on being able to achieve specific results? Which lens will do that for you? Do the homework now, even though you might not be able to buy that particular lens for a while.... Does one camera body feel "right" to you while another feels merely "OK?" Think about your future shooting situations, when you may be moving fast, shooting fast, and therefore want your camera to feel like an extension of you. Whichever camera feels best to you and whichever camera manufacturer offers the lenses you want and need, well, that's the way to go.....

Good luck with your decision!

 

[JBat]

That's why I chose Pentax over Nikon and Canon (the "mainstream")

Sorry, Pentax has been making cameras since around 1938. They may not have near the market share of Canon or Nikon, but they've making fine cameras for a long time. Hardly a marginal player in the camera industry.

 

[Father Jack]

No one ever lost their job buying Microsoft. There are lots of empty statements out there. Want to try another one?

I based my statement on the fact that I used Canon cameras as a freelance photographer for over 20 years, I wasn't disappointed ...

 

[Cybergypsy]

Nikon......all the way

 

[compuwar]

I based my statement on the fact that I used Canon cameras as a freelance photographer for over 20 years, I wasn't disappointed ...

*shrug* Many folks have done the same with Nikon, if you think the camera makes THAT much difference, you're probably not as authoritative source as you think.

I've never been disappointed by transparencies from my Canham MQC57 either, that doesn't make it the right camera choice for everyone- heck, it doesn't make it the right choice for a lot of what I shoot these days.

In the 35mm-sized body arena- I've known lots of people disappointed by both Canon and Nikon, usually because they took blanket statements about one brand or the other as fact.

 

[Westside guy]

Okay, when I posted earlier I was really hoping this wouldn't turn into YANVCA. But since it has, let's settle this.

Mr. O.P. Keith Knipling: bottom line is, Canon and Nikon are both compromises - mere toys. If you're not shooting with a Hasselblad medium format digital camera, you're not getting all you can out of your photography.

 

[bousozoku]

Nikon......all the way

That's a battle cry, not a reason to buy. Have any thoughts behind that?

*shrug* Many folks have done the same with Nikon, if you think the camera makes THAT much difference, you're probably not as authoritative source as you think.

I've never been disappointed by transparencies from my Canham MQC57 either, that doesn't make it the right camera choice for everyone- heck, it doesn't make it the right choice for a lot of what I shoot these days.

In the 35mm-sized body arena- I've known lots of people disappointed by both Canon and Nikon, usually because they took blanket statements about one brand or the other as fact.

You always seem to have good words.

If there were no automatic exposure modes or automatic focus on these cameras, would half of these people be photographers? Could they have survived the early 1970s with their favourite brand? I seem to remember several people returning their SLRs because they couldn't load the film and wasted a lot of rolls doing it.