Explain difference between Canon and Nikon? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Explain difference between Canon and Nikon?


bjman
11-04-2008, 15:18
Quick question for any experts here. I am looking for a 'midrange' DSLR--basically either the Canon Xsi or the Nikon D90. I know the D90 is almost twice as much as the Xsi...but my question is more general.

Can someone tell me what the 'big picture' differences are between Canon and Nikon camera systems--not necessarily between the 2 specific models mentioned above. Rather, once you select a brand, I am assuming that I am basically stuck with that brand.

What I am mostly interested in doing is taking a lot night outdoor pictures (skylines). I know that Nikons have higher ISO ratings, but does this REALLY make a big diference. I also know that the Canon EF-S lenses are not compatible with standard Canon cameras--not really a big issue for me. But what I want to know is if you give up on certain things if you go down the Canon road vs. the Nikon road? Any things that are 'special' about each brand--in general?



Thanks,
BJ

hwyhobo
11-04-2008, 16:19
I am looking for a 'midrange' DSLR--basically either the Canon Xsi or the Nikon D90. I know the D90 is almost twice as much as the Xsi

Midrange would be Canon 40D and Nikon D300 (or possibly D90). In fact, D90 is in such a strange niche, I would not swear to it not disappearing in the next few years.

What I am mostly interested in doing is taking a lot night outdoor pictures (skylines). I know that Nikons have higher ISO ratings, but does this REALLY make a big diference.
You certainly do not want to shoot landscapes/cityscapes at ISO 6400, so for you it is irrelevant. BTW, Nikon has a couple of cameras today that have slightly superior high ISO noise characteristics, but Canon led that field for years, and it tends to shift from time to time. I would pay little attention to it, unless you shoot concerts for a living.

I also know that the Canon EF-S lenses are not compatible with standard Canon cameras--not really a big issue for me.
Same for Nikon - DX lenses do not work well on full-frame D700 and D3. Again, this is completely irrelevant to you. Those lenses are designed specifically to work on APS-sized sensors. If you buy one, and you really want to use it also on a full-frame sensor, that's like buying two-prong plugs and being upset that you cannot use them with your three-phase appliances.

Can someone tell me what the 'big picture' differences are between Canon and Nikon camera systems--not necessarily between the 2 specific models mentioned above. Rather, once you select a brand, I am assuming that I am basically stuck with that brand.[...] But what I want to know is if you give up on certain things if you go down the Canon road vs. the Nikon road? Any things that are 'special' about each brand--in general?
One system-wide difference today is that Canon has more prime lenses and also a couple of well-regarded f4 L zoom lenses (24-105 & 70-200). Nikon's current stress seems to be on the highest shelf f2.8 zoom lenses (excellent quality but more expensive). This may change any time. For all I know Nikon may already be working on a line of f4 lenses.

Another one is that Canon has already announced 5DII with 20+MP, which may be nice for your application, but it is substantially more expensive than what you indicated at the top. Also, Nikon is rumored to have a high-density model in the wings, so whichever way you go, down the road both companies will have something to suit you.

You will also notice that Canon and Nikon models are not exact tier-equivalents. At the bottom Canon XSi vel 450D is positioned above Nikon's D40 and D60. Then Nikon has D90. Then Canon strikes with 40D and 50D, then Nikon ups the ante with D300, and so on. It looks more like a snake trail in the sand than direct competition.

blueiron
11-04-2008, 17:23
I have a few DX lenses and use them all the time on my D3. No issues there.

Too many people get wrapped up in a 2% performance difference one way or another. Much depends on how the camera feels in your hands; i.e. pick up a camera under consideration and see where the buttons and controls fall for you. There is nothing worse than making your hands and mind wrap around someone else's idea of perfection in controls or software.

For me, it was Nikon.

I wouldn't feel any less equipped if someone gave me Canon and said go shoot 5,000 pics.

hwyhobo
11-04-2008, 17:32
I have a few DX lenses and use them all the time on my D3. No issues there.
Here is the relevant quote:

"Also supports DX lenses, viewfinder automatically masks (5.1 megapixels with DX lens)".

So, yeah, you can use them, but it will turn your D3 into a 5MP camera.

blueiron
11-04-2008, 17:43
I often don't enlarge photos to where it would be noticable or critical. It isn't always an equipment performance issue, it is about how the end user needs it.

hwyhobo
11-04-2008, 17:50
.....

blueiron
11-04-2008, 18:01
Normal is a relative term in that context. One can easily use a DX lens with nothing more than a selected software change if they are understanding of the feature and its limitations.

Much of the difference is marketing driven and I don't buy into it. Perfectly wonderful pictures can be captured with either Canon or Nikon. Both are well supported by their manufacturers and most accessories out there are made for these brands. It is impossible to buy the wrong brand in either instance. I am not as enthusiastic about Sony, Sigma, Panasonic, or some other brands due to their limited numbers in the marketplace. Hasselblad is an exception, but few can afford the latest stuff from them.

As long as the OP isn't buying some off the wall new technology that is proprietary from Canon or Nikon, they'll be well served by a EOS-1V / a D300 or roughly equivalent products.

To the OP. Go to a real camera store that supports professionals and rent a camera/lens for a weekend. Do this on the models you want to compare and you'll have a baseline for what works for you and your photo preferences.

hwyhobo
11-04-2008, 19:35
.....

hwyhobo
11-04-2008, 19:50
.....

Glkster19
11-04-2008, 20:17
Unless you're a seasoned photographer, you are not going to pick up either brand and find you are better with one or the other. Either of the 2 will take great pictures. I bought my 1st DSLR in May, looked at all the brands, narrowed it to Canon and Nikon. I found both to be very capable camera's. I chose Canon. Why? Lenses seem to be more plentiful and reasonably priced. One thing I've learned in my short photographic career is that when people tell you a good lens makes all the difference, believe them. You're better off buying a cheaper camera (XSI or D40x/D60) and buy good glass. I came into an extra $1k one day and bought a 70-200/f4 L lens. Figured I'd probably never buy it if I had to actually shell out the money so I took this unexpected cash and made the purchase. Best investment in photo equipment I ever could have made. A week later I scraped up an additional grand and bought a 24-105/f4 L just because of the performance of the 1st L glass I bought.

Anyways, thats my newbie DSLR shootin' opinion. Hope it helps.

blueiron
11-04-2008, 22:42
I don't care how much you understand or what software you use, your D3 operates on 5MP. Period. Clintonesque arguments about the definition of "normal" notwithstanding. Buying a DX lens to use with a full frame camera makes NO SENSE unless you already have one and use it with an APS camera. That was my point from the beginning, and I am afraid you are doing your best to confuse the OP, and I am at a loss as to your reasons.


I am not being argumentative and there is no need to be perjorative. I use my DX lenses on my D3 for some of my work. If that doesn't suit your style/photo interests or others, then so be it.

bjman
11-07-2008, 17:52
Unless you're a seasoned photographer, you are not going to pick up either brand and find you are better with one or the other. Either of the 2 will take great pictures. I bought my 1st DSLR in May, looked at all the brands, narrowed it to Canon and Nikon. I found both to be very capable camera's. I chose Canon. Why? Lenses seem to be more plentiful and reasonably priced. One thing I've learned in my short photographic career is that when people tell you a good lens makes all the difference, believe them. You're better off buying a cheaper camera (XSI or D40x/D60) and buy good glass. I came into an extra $1k one day and bought a 70-200/f4 L lens. Figured I'd probably never buy it if I had to actually shell out the money so I took this unexpected cash and made the purchase. Best investment in photo equipment I ever could have made. A week later I scraped up an additional grand and bought a 24-105/f4 L just because of the performance of the 1st L glass I bought.

Anyways, thats my newbie DSLR shootin' opinion. Hope it helps.

Your thoughts are VERY helpful. However, are you telling me that there really is a HUGE difference between the 70-200 L lens and this one:

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS

Aren't they both 'zoom' lenses. What makes the difference??

Thanks,
BJ

MrsKitty
11-07-2008, 21:02
First of all, which version of the 70-200 L are you wanting to know about? There are four:
70-200 f/4
70-200 f/4 IS
70-200 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8 IS

There is a huge difference between almost any "consumer" lens Canon makes when you compare it to "professional" L glass. The L's are superior in almost every aspect: focus speed, focus accuracy, chromatic abbreation (sp?), true colors, tack sharp, and on and on.

Also, when you have a lens such as the 55-250, the quality of the lens goes down toward the extremes of focal lengths.

The difference is in the build quality, the focus speed (all four versions of the 70-200 are USM which means a fast focusing ring motor), the focal lengths, the quality of the glass in the lens itself, the amount of elements and the max aperture value.

For example, on the 55-250 the max arperture is 4.0-5.6 which means you won't be able to use this lens inside in a dark area without flash. For sports, unless you are outside on a bright sunny day, it's useless. It has IS which is not going to help when shooting a moving subject.

What is your normal subject matter?

Glkster19
11-07-2008, 21:30
Miss Kitty pretty much sums up my thoughts, however, I will ramble on a bit :supergrin:

I've never used the 55-250, however, on one of the photo forums I hang out at it is not talked about that highly, at least not by the more experienced photographers. If you're just starting out, you may find that lens to be to your liking for a while. It is a good range for outdoor stuff, it has IS.

As far as a difference between L glass and others--Huge difference. I had a Sigma 18-125 OS lens that I felt took pretty good pictures. I bought the 70-200/f4 L IS to reach beyond the 125 of the Sigma. The quality was so much better with the 70-200, I bought the Canon 24-105/f4 L IS the following week and sold the Sigma. Aside from my next purchase being the Canon 17-55/f2.8 IS either this winter or next spring, I really don't see myself purchasing anything but L glass as long as I'm serious about photography. I will probably take some chastizing over my strong opinion of the L glass as I know others have lenses that they feel are as good as the L glass. I have a Sigma 24-60/f2.8 that is a very nice lens, but it does not have IS, hence wanting the 17-55 IS. A buddy wants me to shoot his wedding Sept '09 and I feel the IS will be beneficial since it will be in a non-well lit church and I'll have to adapt for that since flashes aren't generally looked upon to fondly in churches.

MrsKitty
11-07-2008, 23:05
I love my Sigma 24-60 2.8 and for the price....... IS would be better but I am not complaining! I was looking at something similar and asked for opinions and somebody suggested it. What I was looking at was $1K and when I read the reviews for this $200 lens I had to see what the hype was. I have been extremely pleased with it. It just proves that all great glass is not L; you just have to research, compare, get opinions and check out all the options. :)

Glkster19
11-08-2008, 08:03
asked for opinions and somebody suggested it.



:whistling::whistling::whistling::whistling::whistling:

Glkster19
11-08-2008, 09:20
Just in case you felt like spending some money on glass:


http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=596835


The 2 exact lenses I've been talking about. Not bad prices, particularly on the 24-105.

MrsKitty
11-08-2008, 16:03
:whistling::whistling:

:wavey: :supergrin:

'scream will be along shortly to remind me that I encouraged him to buy an XTI, original Lensbaby, Lensbaby 3G, and an 85 1.8 :rofl: