flogging an old Horse with a new sadle...Canon vs Nikon

Its very interesting to me that I see and hear about people converting FROM Canon to Nikon, but I haven't heard about it being the other way around, not even once. Does this in itself give an indication as to where I should look for my next body/lens (converting?)

I went from Pentax to Canon if that helps.

To op, are you unhappy with what you got? Will converting help resolve the unhappiness?

I have found on more serious sites that I frequent that the trend is actually the other way around.

One day N will be king, next week it will be C then S then H.

Gerry will jump in here with the service issue but I get great service from Canon.

excerpt from a thread just a few away from here.

"I tried Nikon as an experiment (after all the noise the Nikon people make, I thought I'd try get a more objective view), but now I'm bringing this experiment to a close."

and sponsored guys are not an indication of what to get, the web is full of crap like this: URL

In terms of image quality once you hit the semi-pro gear both Nikon and Canon produce great bodies and lenses. For me it boils down to how a camera feels in my hands, and how the buttons and dials work, or do NOT work for me...I use Nikon as they're well-built, do not flex under my big hands like some Canons I've held, and have the controls for aperature and shutter speed in the right place for my thumb and forefinger to adjust.

I think Canon is popular because they are generally well-priced and there are loads of lenses and bodies available on the S/H market as compared to Nikon. The cost of gear for birding is far lower if you go with Canon than with Nikon based on a friends recent experience. The introduction of a f4 range of pro lenses by Canon made it very affordable for keen hobbyists to buy 300mm lenses for instance.

At the moment the 36mp Nikon D800 is the king of DSLR's in terms of resolution and sensor, but I'm sure Canon will pop up with a 37MP body soon :) It's really a matter of personal taste IMHO. But once you tasted the "dark" side you'll seldom go over to those "white" lenses...

I've been there and done that.
I went from Canon, to Nikon, and now I'm sticking to Canon - Luckily I kept most of my Canon stuff, otherwise that could have been really expensive.

Here are my 2c:
In brief save your money and don't change over, unless there is a really compelling reason to.
If you feel tempted then rent the stuff a few times before you buy, and rent the whole system (camera, lens, and flash) - One great camera doesn't make a

great system.

I think people swap brands because they start to second guess the initial brand choice they made many years (when they basically knew nothing),
and they start looking at much more expensive (newer) equipment from the other brand, and compare it to their cheap starter kit - who do you think is going to win ?

You can try buy into whatever is the best at the time, but within a very short time-frame the other manufacture will regain the upper hand.

In SA the following has been my experience with Canon vs Nikon.
1. Canon is way cheaper than Nikon in SA (I'm not sure why but just look at the prices of the 5D3 vs D800, here and in the USA).
2. If you are into Sports photography get a Canon with some long L lenses! They are cheaper than Nikon and are just brilliant.
3. Nikon has a more user-friendly flash/speedlite system.
4. Nikon has a very good service centre in Joburg - People are very friendly and it is quite pleasant working with them.
5. I have had to deal with the Nikon Service Centre so many times in the last 10 months that I've lost count :-(
This ranges from: things missing out of my brand new camera box; my software DVDs were also bent; I had to get a dud R10k lens replaced (in the first week); I had to have my WB adjusted twice before they got it right (http://gordonrudman.com/Articles/6).
6. I have only dealt to Canon SA (CameraTek) once in 7 years, and this was really my fault (I bumped a lens off my table onto a tiled floor) - the service was good but not as good as Nikon.
7. Surprisingly the canon lens above continued to work just fine, but I sent it in just in case.
8. Nikon give free course to beginners (I think canon might be doing this now too).
9. There seem to be some questions about the Nikon Warrantees when selling your kit.


But there is no REAL difference between Canon and Nikon - both make some great kit, if you are willing to pay for it.
Find what feels great in your hands and stick with it.
Using a camera should become like second nature, and you shouldn't even have to think about how to change a setting.
You should be able to adjust all the basic settings without even looking - changing brands will destroy this ability, and slow down your creativity.

Instead of changing cameras, rather spend that money on some great new lenses - it will make a much bigger difference.

Too much emphasis on the tools.
Ask yourselves this: Does your camera take good pictures, or do you create good images regardless off the tools?

Too much emphasis on the tools.
Ask yourselves this: Does your camera take good pictures, or do you create good images regardless off the tools?

+2

There once was a fairy-tale told as such: it depends on what you want to shoot.

If you want to do sport, photojournalism or birds, get a Canon. Canons were generally faster than Nikons and when you are on the sideline trying to get a pic of JP Petersen as he is running toward the try-line, you want to get the shot, not sit there for a camera still trying to focus or get the right settings.

If you want to shoot studio, fashion and glam, get a Nikon, because while its slower than a Canon, Nikons generally has better image quality. (also interesting to note that police forensic departments the world over uses Nikon)

Since that tale has been told, Nikons has gotten a hell of a lot faster (as can be evidenced by the proliferation of black lenses at the sporting events, its not white-lenses only anymore. Canon also has gotten better image quality, which means a lot more fashion and glam guys are using Canon.

So the old "swings-and-roundabout" considerations between the brands have been eliminated. Nikon is fast now. Canon has great image quality now. So whats the diffs (if I'm not allowed to say "service")?

Easy: where and how does one use a camera? Answer: in the hand. How does the camera FEEL in the hand? This is the only question that matters among the top brands. Feature for feature, Nikon vs Canon is a push – Nikon has some things better than Canon (Nikons Creative Lighting System, fer instance), Canon has some things better than Nikon (Rabid fanbois), at the end of the day, its all much of a muchness, decide on your brand on how it FEELS.

However, anecdotal and observational evidence does seem to bear out the OP's position, a lot more people are going towards the Dark side as opposed to the other way round (the cookies are fuckin' awesome, I must admit). And what Derek said about Canon on the second-hand market could be interpreted in an interesting way: WHY are there so many second-hand canons on the market? I've brought up the exact point on these forums, whenever someone sells something, 8 times out of 10 its Canon kit. This can be argued a lot of ways, but I for one can interpret it as people are selling so much Canon kit because it does not work the way you want it to – if the camera did the job you needed it to do, you won't sell it, simple as that. Canon users also SEEM to me to upgrade a lot more often than Nikon users.

I know of one (largely inactive but utterly brilliant) member on here that used to shoot Canon 5DmkII who is now a committed Nikon man after he took up the D800 – and this was a guy who used to criticise my D300 like it was a piece of dog shit I stepped into his carpet.

So there's the answer: you make up your mind by how it Feels. Compare like-for-like and you'll realise there really isn't too much difference, really. Problem comes in that you cannot compare like-for-like with the D800 – Canon does not have a contender yet, but when it does, I'd bet my lunch-money it will kick Nikon's ass. And then Nikon will make something that kicks Canon's ass. And then Canon will retaliate. And Nikon will then.... etc, etc, ad infinitum.

I was going to come in here and post "poor little horse... again" but this thread was actually a good read. Nice stuff!

Ask yourselves this: Does your camera take good pictures, or do you create good images regardless off the tools?

You cant use a chisel to bake a cake. Tools are important. Fitting the tools to the job you want to do is most important. While you dont need a good camera to take a good photo it does make the job a hell of a lot easier.

thanks Matt that video was pretty informative.

I agree with Renegade that this has turned out as a good read.

The reason why I was asking the question, I'm pretty much approaching the point where I HAVE TO UPGRADE GLASS!
I'm still on my 60D Canon body with few complaints. I rent the 24-70 everytime I think the "photos are going to leave my harddrive" because the 17-85mm just doesnt compare in IQ.

For weddings I have rented 5Dmkii's and the problem I have experienced is a focus issue when in the ceremony(in dark chapels) and the dance(when the lights are dimmed) where Liam (who I work with and uses Nikon) doesnt have those issues.

I'm just trying to figure out if I should start scouting for a 2nd hand 24-70mm or convert because of the focus issue

oh oh...and one more thing...

canon = 7 focus points
nikon = 1bajillion focus points

dafuqs up with that?
focusing and recomposing on f2.8 is a kite that just doesnt want to fly

canon = 7 focus points
nikon = 1bajillion focus points

I have 51 on my D300 - played with another cam a few weeks ago that had 9 - its like my fingers were chopped off. One gets spolied quite rotten with all those AF points - especially if you enjoy taking eff-one-point-fuckall portraits the way I do.

Morgaen made a good point, the right tools make your life much easier.
The last thing I want is for my equipment to get in the way. I struggled to take rugby photos for years with a crappy Sigma lens on a 350D and got nowhere, got frustrated and almost gave up completely - I later got a 7D and 70-200L and I'm now getting much much better photos. The tools count!

Anyway The point I was trying to make was that what I have observed is that for the same amount of money you will get better equipment for sports photography if you go with Canon. You can still do it with a Nikon but it will cost you big $$$. But I'm sure Nikon will excel in other fields, for less $$ than Canon - but Nikon in SA is expensive.

As for the focusing issue, the 5Dmkii has always sucked in that regard (that's why I got a 7D), but they have fixed that and given its successor (5D3) a bajillion and 10 focus points :-). Just like Nikon have finally managed to get over their 12 megapixel speed hump. There is some good competition between Canon and Nikon and everyone else, and in the end we win.

Changing sides just because of 1 camera, that will be replaced by something even better in the near future, is in my opinion a waste of time and money.

But if your stuff isn't working for you, and you can afford it, then by all means change over.

Ps. I like the D800, but would spend the money on good lenses instead.

Ps. I like the D800, but would spend the money on good lenses instead

That the irony of the D800 - it does not help if you have that camera, but not the glass to go with it. Its a heck of an investment - you are looking at about 80-odd thousand for a D800 with good glass that will make it worthwhile.

Good glass works on a "below-par" body. Bad glass on a top-of-the-range body will kill you.

Buy glass instead, upgrade the body later.

[edit] check your bloody spelling, Gerry, Christo will sue for copyright infringement![/edit]

As others have said, you cant compare brands as such, it is like saying what is better Toyota or VW and then going and comparing a Hilux to a Golf.

On the point of AF points Canon actually have a better system at the moment:

5DIII = 61 point AF system, 41 of which are cross-type points

D800 = 51-point AF system with 15 cross-type sensors

The 5DII is well known as a dog when it comes to low light AF but it still was/is the body of choice for many very well known and respected photographers like White House photographer Pete Souza who for many years shot with the II and now uses the III. The catch is these guys use the best primes money can buy like 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 135mm.

Nikon will soon announce the D600 this will be an entry level full frame, Canon will also in a month or 2 announce a 6D entry level FF.

If you're looking to upgrade I suggest waiting till the expo.
Both brands (and all the others too) will have great specials there and you can test the cameras for yourself.

Plus as mentioned above there may be new offerings by then.