Canon vs. Nikon

[Nate82]

which digital slr should i get? i'm on the fence between a Canon XSi and a Nikon D80 the Canon has 2 more megapixels and they are the same price i'm just getting into photography and I want the most versatile camera. Is the only difference the Nikon name? Thanks for the help guys

 

[Poseidon]

There are a LOT of debate threads about which is better, but to be perfectly honest, they are almost equal at this level. Canon MAY have a slight edge in high ISO performance, Nikon MAY feel better in your hand. You really can't make a wrong choice, just buy the one that makes more sense to you. (Meaning the menu navigation, how to change the ISO, Aperture, etc...)

Or, flip a coin!

 

[Nate82]

so the difference in megapixels won't really make a difference?

 

[primetime]

You cant go wrong with either camera. The main thing for great pics is practice and a macro lense for coral shots.

 

[Poseidon]

Nope. Just in file size, it MAY have an impact if you do a LOT of cropping, but for the most part you won't be able to SEE a difference in prints. I print 20x30 from 8MP camera's, so anything more then 8 is plenty. Canon (especially) and Nikon both want you to think that MP is everything, it is NOT, not even close actually.

Both Camera's are great, but 2MP one way or the other won't be a factor.

 

[Nate82]

ok great good to know thanks a lot

 

[Poseidon]

No Problem!

 

[RyanG]

Nikon makes better lenses IMO. Nothing beats Nikon glass

 

[Poseidon]

I am incredibly happy with Canon glass. Do you have anything to back up Nikon glass over Canon? I'm not trying to be difficult, I just don't think that either Canon or Nikon glass is better then the others, by a significant margin. If you look at the photo industry, there are MORE pro level Sports shooters that use Canon then there are Nikon. If you look at the Wedding industry, then it is much closer, maybe 60/40 Canon in my experience, but for "general use" I think Canon and Nikon are very equal.

I have owned both Canon, and Nikon, and Hasselblad for that matter, and like I said, I can't find a significant difference.

Well... Let me qualify that. Comparing PRO level lenses from each company, not comparing a Canon L to a Nikon consumer grade or vice versa....

If you compare a $1600 Nikon 24-70 2.8 lens to a $70 Canon, of course the Nikon is better, but the same would be true if you reversed the comparison.

 

[saltwaternewb]

Nikon. 'Nuff said.

 

[saltwaternewb]

Nikon makes better lenses IMO. Nothing beats Nikon glass

I actually hear this a lot but from many photographs I have seen on the net there is no way to tell the difference between a picture shot with a Nikon or Canon lens. They are all so close to being equal that it really comes down to feel of the camera, layout of the buttons and functions, and in many cases brand loyalty. No matter what body you choose, the lens quality will make more difference in the shot quality then the body it is attached to and more important than that is the ability of the person taking the picture.

 

[RyanG]

Posiedon notice the IMO(in my OPINION) I have used both nikon and canon cameras since I was 16(11 years ago) I have always preferred the Nikons I have better luck with my photos with them. As for the Nikon glass statement it may be unfounded but I have yet to see a pair of canon binoculars or a canon riflescope, I was started on Nikon and that is where Ill spend my money and will recommend them to others.

THIS POST IS NOT A FLAME PLEASE DONT CONSTRUE IT AS SUCH

 

[Poseidon]

Neither was mine Ryan, but I see more and more statements on both sides that this is better then that....

I was asking for reasons why you prefer one over the other, rather then opinions.

 

[gparr]

I, too, have not seen any evidence that either brand is notably better. There was a time, in the film days, when Nikon's lenses were clearly better, while the film SLR bodies were essentially equal. Over time, Canon's lens quality caught up. With DSLRs, Canon got a jump on the field and enjoyed it for some time. These days, all evidence suggests that Nikon has caught up to Canon in the camera field. The end result is that we have two companies producing essentially equal equipment in essentially the same price ranges. Then it becomes a matter of brand preference, which is purely subjective. I would argue that, after Canon and Nikon, there is a huge step down to the other camera makers.

I agree that there are a lot more Canon sports shooters in the world, but I think that's more a function of the lead Canon once had in DSLR quality and digital was such a natural transition for sports photographers because of the time/cost element in terms of getting images from camera to print. Wedding/portrait photographers, in the past predominently Nikon users, were not among the early adapters of digital technology. By the time digital quality caught up to film Nikon was starting to make progress with DSLR technology so it was likely easier to stick with the favorite brand.

The Nikon/Canon discussion will never reach a conclusion. Maybe I'll start a separate thread and we can have the same discussion about Macs and PCs.

Gary

 

[Nate82]

hmm good analogy i think i'm just gonna play around with them at the store

 

[Poseidon]

Gary, well put! That is what I was trying to get at, I know there will always be people loyal to one brand or the other, but in all honesty I don't think you can go wrong with either. (I also agree about the "others" they are a step behind for sure.)

I am not above being proven wrong (or right) about lens quality though, I say it is a toss up, but if anyone can show me data to prove otherwise, I am up for learning!

 

[JuniorMC8704]

Without getting into th retorical answer i give the 100 people who have asked this, canon hands down until you reach the level of nikons at the D300.

This is assuming taking low ligh pictures (most aquarium shots are) is a priority, canon is top until that level.

However, build qulity goes to nikon all the way in the entry to mid level DSLRS.

 

[gparr]

Nate, good move. I'm with Poseidon 100%. These days, you need to actually hold a DSLR body to see if it's comfortable in your hands and if the controls are intuitive to you. It's very easy to get a body that's too small, particularly if you have big hands, or the reverse. Controls must be easy to find and use. If he camera is uncomfortable or you are always having to search for the right control, you won't use the camera as much and they make very expensive doorstops.
Gary

 

[cparka23]

I agree w/ Poseidon. Megapixels aren't everything. I think most of these cameras would benefit more from including better kit lenses than increases in MP.

That said, I jumped on the Canon ship largely for one reason. Without seeing an apples-to-apples comparison of the same picture taken w/ both brands, I think Canons show less noise at the same ISO settings. Whether this is in-camera noise reduction or simply sensor design is technically beyond me, but I think it does a fantastic job when compared to software noise reduction.

On the other side, Nikons tend to shoot at faster frame rates. They also have a broader ISO range on their lineup (though the extra settings are not really useful, IMO). Build quality's been mentioned already.

The only other brand worth mentioning is Sony. They design the sensors for Canon and Nikon in all their dSLR cameras, and they're aggressively priced. They acquired Konica-Minolta awhile back, so they have old lenses to go with the ones they are currently producing. I've also read that their Live-View is better than what's found in CaNikon's entry-mid level SLR cameras... but I hate memory sticks.

 

[Poseidon]

cparka, are you sure they make the Canon sensors? I know that Sony made the Nikons, especially the CCD type, but I am about 90% certain that Canon make their own CMOS type sensors.

I know that Canon's R&D department took a lot of heat for choosing CMOS a few years ago when everyone else was doing CCD.