lenses: difference between Nikon and Canon

[GotMyOrangeCrus]

The best advice for anyone is to not come to this site for camera advice. I love this site for Mac advice, but not camera advice. People will claim objectivity on here, but them bash the other maker they don't own and then at the same time trying not to seem that way (BTW it is obvious). Mostly BS and from the same old people. Go to a Nikon site, a Canon site, a Sony site, etc.(google) and see what they have to say ( many excellent photographers on them, not just a few on here who are like being big fish in a small pond). Also go to independent sites where there are less biases. Then go test out the cameras yourself.

LOL, dedicated camera sites are ever worse. Thats why I try to stay away from them. You think the objectivity is bad here, Its far worse on most of them. That is unless you go to a site that only deals with a specific camera and even on those you have terrible objectivity as everyone uses the same system and they all think that system is the best.

 

[GotMyOrangeCrus]

You really should upgrade your circle of friends

The people I hang around with, which include Cal Tech Engineers that actually create cameras for "the industry", choose Nikon.

18.8% to 8.4%. You may know more people that use Nikon but the industry as a whole has more than double the number of Canon users.

 

[jaseone]

LOL, dedicated camera sites are ever worse. Thats why I try to stay away from them. You think the objectivity is bad here, Its far worse on most of them. That is unless you go to a site that only deals with a specific camera and even on those you have terrible objectivity as everyone uses the same system and they all think that system is the best.

Actually I have seen Canon recommended on primarily Nikon sites several times now and if it is the right choice for the intended use then I will even recommend the Canon over the Nikon.

 

[hogfaninga]

LOL, dedicated camera sites are ever worse. Thats why I try to stay away from them. You think the objectivity is bad here, Its far worse on most of them. That is unless you go to a site that only deals with a specific camera and even on those you have terrible objectivity as everyone uses the same system and they all think that system is the best.

Read my post again genius. I said the dedicated forums (Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc) are biased, but at least you get a wide range of opinions there unlike the few here who dominate. Reading comprehension is a good thing. I also said, they should visit independent sites where the biases are less and more objective overall than the dedicated sites. Then they need to go play with the cameras that are in consideration at their local store. Is that clear?

 

[Phrasikleia]

The best advice for anyone is to not come to this site for camera advice. I love this site for Mac advice, but not camera advice. People will claim objectivity on here, but them bash the other maker they don't own and then at the same time trying not to seem that way (BTW it is obvious). Mostly BS and from the same old people. Go to a Nikon site, a Canon site, a Sony site, etc.(google) and see what they have to say ( many excellent photographers on them, not just a few on here who are like being big fish in a small pond). Also go to independent sites where there are less biases. Then go test out the cameras yourself.

I frequent several other photography forums and can only agree with part of what you just said. There are a number of professional photographers posting here at MR, but I would have to agree that enthusiasts predominate. However, as for "bashing' or what have you, that sort of thing goes on to some degree at any site that has a mixed-brand presence. So if you go to a Canon- or Nikon-specific site, you will of course not see too much heated conversation over brands. You also won't find a real cross-section of brand knowledge.

In general, I think people on MR tend to be quite good-natured. By accusing some here of frequenting a "small pond" for egotistical purposes or of being disingenuous in their advice, you are undermining your implicit cry for cordiality and sincerity.

 

[hogfaninga]

I frequent several other photography forums and can only agree with part of what you just said. There are a number of professional photographers posting here at MR, but I would have to agree that enthusiasts predominate. However, as for "bashing' or what have you, that sort of thing goes on to some degree at any site that has a mixed-brand presence. So if you go to a Canon- or Nikon-specific site, you will of course not see too much heated conversation over brands. You also won't find a real cross-section of brand knowledge.

In general, I think people on MR tend to be quite good-natured. By accusing some here of frequenting a "small pond" for egotistical purposes or of being disingenuous in their advice, you are undermining your implicit cry for cordiality and sincerity.

LOL OK. I guess when it hits home it hurts. I never cried about cordiality or sincerity. I advice anyone who frequents here for camera advice to go elsewhere for better range of advice besides the dominant few who post here. They have clear biases and it is obvious. At least with dedicated sites you get a large range of opinions. Many Canon, Sony, Nikon sites have over 10,000 members that is dedicated to photography. Go to those sites for a wide range of opinion. I'm not saying it is bad here, but the opinions are dominated by 3-4 people all the time.

 

[GotMyOrangeCrus]

Actually I have seen Canon recommended on primarily Nikon sites several times now and if it is the right choice for the intended use then I will even recommend the Canon over the Nikon.

So because you have seen a couple people recommend Canon on Nikon sites that somehow disproves what I was saying, lol. Sorry but nowhere did I say that 100% of the people on 100% of the dedicated photography forums were biased and unreasonable. I said you will find less objectivity on profession photography forums then you do in here and that is without a single doubt true as I have spent a sickening amount of time on most of the major sites. The Ego's on top of the bias and lack of objectivity just makes them extremely hard to bear. Its why I now come here.

 

[OreoCookie]

Lens Quality? Who is talking about lens quality? I am talking about market share, lol. There are 2 reasons why Canon has been so wildly successful over the last 20 years. Its because of the huge success of their EOS line and the better selection of lenses.

You write `…*better selection of lenses' and we're talking about the pro market. But I admit, I got that bit from another post of yours in another thread, I had a tough day at work and I was mixing stuff in my brains (correcting exams for 11 hours) If you really meant selection only, then you're right, I misrepresented what you said (it didn't fit your quote). But even if it comes to selection, I still disagree. I don't see any gaping holes in Nikons or Canons line-up, save for some special lenses that are important only for a fraction of the market.

You can disagree but your still wrong. The sales numbers speak for themselves. Nikon has gained almost 7-8% in yearly sales while Canon has lost around 5% in yearly sales. Considering the VAST majority of cameras being sold are digital they its simply common sense that they are having a harder time keeping up their market share with Digital then they had with film. The numbers tell everything.

In 2007, the gap was 3 % (43 % vs. 40 %). Of course that's just sales.

To my knowledge, Canon had a very tough time in the pro market until digital cameras went along while the F4 and F5 were the tools of the trade (but I can't find any numbers on that).

 

[GotMyOrangeCrus]

LOL OK. I guess when it hits home it hurts. I never cried about cordiality or sincerity. I advice anyone who frequents here for camera advice to go elsewhere for better range of advice besides the dominant few who post here. They have clear biases and it is obvious.

No, you obviously just have no idea how bad the professional photography forums get. This place is a cake walk compared to those especially in regards to egos and objectivity. Again its why I come here now.

 

[hogfaninga]

No, you obviously just have no idea how bad the professional photography forums get. This place is a cake walk compared to those especially in regards to egos and objectivity. Again its why I come here now.

OK. I'm just a member of 4 of them and post at all of them, but whatever you say. LOL We all can't be know it all's about photography like you, but then again anyone can be anything on the internet especially with google.

 

[Foucault]

Canon and Nikon are two of the best DSLR manufacturers today, and both have their strengths and weaknesses. You simply can't go wrong with either one. Pentax, Olympus, and Sony have a solid lineup of DSLR's as well. The main reason I got both a Nikon D700 and Canon 5DMKII is because I valued both it's strengths. And I consider them as two different tools to capture cameras, instead of competing tools. Same way that I both have Windows and MAC OSX on my Macbook Pro.

 

[GotMyOrangeCrus]

You write `…*better selection of lenses' and we're talking about the pro market. But I admit, I got that bit from another post of yours in another thread, I had a tough day at work and I was mixing stuff in my brains (correcting exams for 11 hours) If you really meant selection only, then you're right, I misrepresented what you said (it didn't fit your quote). But even if it comes to selection, I still disagree. I don't see any gaping holes in Nikons or Canons line-up, save for some special lenses that are important only for a fraction of the market.

In 2007, the gap was 3 % (43 % vs. 40 %). Of course that's just sales.

To my knowledge, Canon had a very tough time in the pro market until digital cameras went along while the F4 and F5 were the tools of the trade (but I can't find any numbers on that).

Yes I was just referring to selection just as the post stated. You are however 100% correct in that I personally do think canon Lenses are higher quality however I leave that out as it just leads to big arguments and it had nothing to do with my post anyways.

as for the recent sales figures, I already quoted those. Were not talking about yearly sales figures were talking about total installed user base and in that regard Canon still owns Nikon. 18.8% to 8.4%. For every 100 People that have a Canon system only 44 have a Nikon. That is a considerable lead. Even if Nikon eclipsed Canon in sales it would take them decades to erase that lead.

By the way this has nothing to do with which camera system is better. My posting was simply in response to a post that was 100% inaccurate in regards to the actual market percentages that Canon and Nikon control. Nikon has closed the gap recently in regards to sales however they are still way behind in total market share.

 

[GotMyOrangeCrus]

OK. I'm just a member of 4 of them and post at all of them, but whatever you say. LOL We all can't be know it all's about photography like you, but then again anyone can be anything on the internet especially with google.

WOW, 4 of them, LOL. Now I am a know it all. Thats funny stuff. I will ignore your posts from here on out as I dont get in name calling matches on forums. I grew out of that in grade school. As too the suggestion that I am not a photographer and get my info on Google, if that makes you feel better then you can believe whatever you want. Do you honestly think for a second that I care what you believe in regards to my career. You clearly have issues, lol.

 

[Cliff3]

To my knowledge, Canon had a very tough time in the pro market until digital cameras went along while the F4 and F5 were the tools of the trade (but I can't find any numbers on that).

Canon had a tough time in the pro market until the pros made the leap to autofocus cameras. Canon abandoned their legacy lens mount and came up with a better design that the sports shooters and PJs ^eventually^ adopted in droves. Nikon took an approach that retained backward compatibility with existing lenses, but their solution was not as effective for the new AF lenses as Canon's was.

 

[hogfaninga]

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/643551/

Read post #7. Practice what ya preach.

 

[Ridge08]

jessica:

As for adaptors, I would stay away from them. Buy a lens fitted for that specific camera and don't try to push your camera into doing something it is not meant to do (ie: take a canon lens when it is a nikon).

Cliff3:

These are mechanical adapters, so you will lose autofocus, matrix metering, and the ability to control aperture from the camera body. Image quality won't be affected. Unless these are very special Nikon lenses, I would be disinclined to use an adapter.

Both of you, thanks for the info.

Foucault:

Nikon sometimes is too "contrasty" and the colors don't pop as much as Canon's. I've noticed my portraits and landscape photos are fantastic.

GotMyOrangeCrus:

The one thing I have noticed pretty much across the board is that Nikon glass is more contrasty than Canon glass especially their pro lenses. Some prefer that and some dont, I dont.

Do other people find this?

What is the practical effect of a more contrasty lens? Wouldn`t that mean more small details in the picture? If so, is that a bad thing because it draws attention away from the main subject of the photo? If you were taking landscapes, wouldn`t it be a good thing to get as much fine detail as possible?

I`ve also read that you get better color saturation out of Canons. Does your experience replicate that? If so, is it a matter of the lens or the body or both?

Hogfaninga, I appreciate the advice that I should post questions like these in more than one forum. I put them up here because I asked some questions here the other day and got replies that are helping me to think about where I want to go with my photography.

Even though I`ve only been here a few days, I can see that the discusion is dominated by a small number of people. I don`t mind that because those people are giving me things to think about, and because those same people seem to consistently suggest that I consult other sources of information before buying anything.

People like the ones who dominate this forum are the reason I haven`t added any glass to the kit lens that came with my camera: I`m swinging towards buying equipment that will last in the longer term.

And that`s why I started this thread: I`m at the beginning of my DSLR adventure and don`t have anything invested in expensive lenses. I can easily switch if I want to. I know I need to look at charts if I want objective information, but the kind I`m on this forum for is more subjective, based more on people`s personal experience.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

These are mechanical adapters, so you will lose autofocus, matrix metering, and the ability to control aperture from the camera body. Image quality won't be affected. Unless these are very special Nikon lenses, I would be disinclined to use an adapter. I was not able to locate an adapter to mate Canon lenses to Nikon bodies, just Nikon to Canon EOS. Novoflex and Kawa appear to be the sources for these.

You can use Leitz, and Nikon lenses on Canon EOS.

 

[booch]

go to
http://www.dpreview.com
http://www.fredmiranda.com

more than enough info on both systems

 

[maestrokev]

First, I`m not trying to spark a Nikon vs. Canon discussion.

I`ve seen a few people mention that Nikon and Canon lenses have different strengths and weaknesses, or perhaps slightly different characteristics in terms of the picture they produce.

Can someone please elaborate in specific terms (or link to somewhere that does)?

Try reading some of the articles on Luminous Landscape. Traditionally nature/press photographers favoured Nikon and sports photographers favoured Canon - part of this had to do with the sponsorships agreements. You'll notice that most Canon lenses have a larger minimum focus distance than Nikon - sports photography is about distant objects.

The reality now is that both manufacturers dominate the 35mm market and have similar overlapping products in almost every area. In terms of what is the Canon look or Nikon look, it's getting harder to tell with all the digital processing, both on camera (eg. anti-aliasing) and software (Aperture, Lightroom), that goes on - as long as you're comparing similar lens/body quality, Canon pro vs Nkon pro equipment. It's a matter of preference - like how some swear by the Leica look.

If you're really interested, go visit a photography school and speak to pro's who have been in the industry for 30+ years and shot with both brands. They'll be better at explaining how the two brands have converged.

 

[ArtandStructure]

Most of the photos on my site, www.artandstructure.com, were taken with a Nikon D40 (the least expensive "current" DSLR to my knowledge), with the most expensive lens being a Tokina 11-16mm lens ($600 and highly recommended by the way). The Nikkor 55-200mm VR is my other favorite lens...and only $200. Yes, a 70-200mm VR is on my list, and so is a D90 in a couple months, but both companies make quality gear. Anyone quibbling over the slight variances from one to another needs to learn how to take better photos because the quality that can be had with either system, even on a budget, is professional and any photographer worth their craft can make photos of the highest quality with these tools.

My photos are owned in at least a half dozen states and are on display at a gallery in Ashland, Oregon, considered just about the best small arts town in the country.

As far as who has more lenses to choose from, who cares? I suspect Nikon has a greater range of lenses available to current cameras than Canon if we want to include all the old lenses going back several decades. If we want to include current lenses only, then Canon may have the edge, but PCs have at least 10 times as much software available for a given task than Macs, yet I have the best tools IMHO and most of them are Mac only.

As far as market share, again, who cares? PCs have ten times the market share of Macs. See how much I care above. Nikon and Canon have been neck and neck, essentially splitting the market evenly for the last 2+ years (when counting just DSLRs. I have no idea what the split is for all digital cameras but it is outside this conversation though Canon makes great point and shoots). Installed base beyond that does not matter. A good 2+ year old DSLR can still take great photos but if we are going to quibble about it, a 2+ year old DSLR generally isn't in the same league as a current DSLR. It is a different generation of technology. I would also suspect most serious professionals (and even amateurs) are upgrading their cameras in 3 years or less anyway, so recent market share is a largely reliable indicator of any useful "installed base" for this kind of conversation.

In short, to answer the original poster's question: the differences, if any, are slight and could be adjusted in post anyway. Don't worry about it. Go shoot and enjoy. Whatever focal length/f-stop you need is most likely available to you. The rest is up to you to make use of.

For myself, the 11-16mm Tokina is a great lens. While Nikon's 14-24mm is generally considered the best ultra-wide zoom for full frame work, I really like the Tokina and it can supposedly be used at 15-16mm on a full-frame camera and is available for both Canon and Nikon bodies. I also have the 50mm/1.8. Canon also makes one of these though I hear the Nikon has better bokeh with regard to the shape of highlights due to a design using more blades. I don't know; I haven't played with the Canon. Both companies make a comparably priced 70-200mm with image stabilization. I am also considering the new Nikkor 35mm 1.8. Those lenses cover the extent of my wants/needs.

All the best,

Jesse Widener
Art and Structure design studio

 

[compuwar]

Sorry but that is not accurate at all especially when looking at the last 20 years, especially the last 10-15.

Reading comprehension 101- DSLRs is Digital SLR, neither company has been making DSLRs that long.

Do other people find this?

MTF charts show contrast and resolution, you can compare the charts and get a good indication of contrast yourself.

 

[OreoCookie]

What is the practical effect of a more contrasty lens? Wouldn`t that mean more small details in the picture? If so, is that a bad thing because it draws attention away from the main subject of the photo?

I don't think this will be an issue for you at all. It's not for me, I've never noticed any difference in manufacturers in that respect.

Nobody will ask you later on `Oh, that's a nice picture, you used a Canon/Nikon, right?' You worry too much about it.

And that`s why I started this thread: I`m at the beginning of my DSLR adventure and don`t have anything invested in expensive lenses. I can easily switch if I want to. I know I need to look at charts if I want objective information, but the kind I`m on this forum for is more subjective, based more on people`s personal experience.

So don't worry about it. Unless you have the intention to become a professional, all manufacturers of dslrs produce cameras that will suit your needs (= the needs of a consumer and prosumer).

 

[GotMyOrangeCrus]

What is the practical effect of a more contrasty lens? Wouldn`t that mean more small details in the picture? If so, is that a bad thing because it draws attention away from the main subject of the photo? If you were taking landscapes, wouldn`t it be a good thing to get as much fine detail as possible?

I`ve also read that you get better color saturation out of Canons. Does your experience replicate that? If so, is it a matter of the lens or the body or both?

It really is a matter of preference. For example I shoot Kodak 64T EPY on almost all of my architectural exteriors because its a far less contrasty film than Kodaks 100 daylight EPN. I prefer open shadows with more detail. This effect is basically what we see with Canon and Nikon Lenses although to a much lesser degree than we see with those films. Canon glass simply produces more open shadows and I have actually been in a very unique position to test both systems for a very long time as one of the photographers I have shared a studio with for the last 8 years uses Nikon and we use each others gear all of the time. And to answer your question, yes there are other photographers who think the same thing.

No more contrasty does not mean more small details in fact a more contrasty picture actually has less detail especially in the deep shadows and bright highlights. Your basically shortening the range of tones and the result of that is you get details that simply fall off both ends. In regards to color saturation, lets just say a lot of photographers feel that way and I agree. I dont want to get in another huge pissing contest with some of the people in here so ill just say use google and see what other photographers are saying. Some people in here take serious offense to the idea that Canon has preferable glass so I am just staying away from that from here on out. Or you can always send me a personal message and I can answer you far more directly in those.

 

[Abstract]

There are no differences in Nikon and Canon lens quality, or any practical differences in image quality. The models don't even match up.

There are only differences in individual lenses, as not ALL their lenses can be of equal quality up and down the entire line-up.


I think the main preference between the brands right now is in the ergonomic department, and specific features being available at different price-points in their lineups. I mean, up until recently, you couldn't even get spot metering on the 300D/350D/400D camera line despite it being the most basic metering method in today's cameras. With Nikon, they decided to make their entry level camera smaller than everyone elses (well, until the Canon 1000D came along and made size comparable), and I like my cameras a bit bigger, not smaller.

 

[jbernie]

If you are a casual user with no current lenses and no friends with a DSLR then it doesn't really matter which brand you go with. It won't be cheap when you want to get the really good lenses

If you have a specific, most likely professional, need for the camera then most likely you will chose the brand that has the lense(s) that most closely handle your needs. Though again, you still need to factor in concerns such as existing lenses/bodies etc.

As to the numbers, unless you are working with exact sales numbers over multiple years, who cares? 100% of people I know with DSLRs shoot Canon. But is only me, a friend & his brother. Everyone else has P&S .

The biggest problem with comparing lenses is that very rarely do you have an exact overlap, think of ultra wide angles for Canon's, Canon has the 10-22 & Sigma does 12-24. You might get a bit more luck on the primes but isn't always apples to apples even when just looking at lenses for the same mount.