[Macworld]

Post your comments for Nikon vs. Canon debate: a reasoned defense here

[leicaman]

Having been a long-time Leica users (hence the name) I have bounced around since abandoning my first love, because I simply could not afford them any more, I've used them all.

Now I use Canon at work - a 1Ds Mark II 16.7 megapixel monster is my main tool. But after a workshop I was at last year, where they showed us photos shot at ISO 6400 with a then unnamed camera (now the D3) I was hooked. I've always liked Nikon bodies best. I used to lament about not being able to put my Leica R lenses on an F5 body - which was my favorite film SLR body (the Leica M6 being my favorite rangefinder body). So my personal camera is a D200. I'll be picking up a D3 once my car payments end next year.

So I can see where this reasoned shift to Nikon for productivity reasons is coming from. I agree. I wish I could switch my work cameras to Nikon. Be that as it may, being a member of Nikon and Canon Professional Services is pretty cool. :D

[Philbert]

I agree, leica -

For the first time ever in 25+ years of shooting, I'm considering the switch to Nikon simply because of the much improved high ISO performance. I've been in plenty of Canon vs Nikon digital debates, each system has their pros and cons, but the single reason Nikon was never even a consideration was the fact that Canon simply owned Nikon when it came to high ISO performance. (In terms of image quality, the D2x can't compare to my 1Ds MK II at ISOs higher than 400.)

With these new Nikons, that's changed in a drastic way.

I may wait to see what the D3x offers in terms of greater resolution, but it appears that hell HAS frozen over. ;)

-phil

On a related note, it's good that Canon FINALLY has some real competition.

[ibeetle]

Oh crap! Here we go again. This is not important. You do not see Leica vs. Rollei arguments do you?
Both have strengths and weaknesses. What ever you are happiest with is what is important.
This is like arguing over which is better Parker Brothers or Milton Bradley board games.

Besides. Everybody knows Nikon is better.

[moose_n_squirrel]

The moral of the story is...

If you wish one platform would pass the other, just wait.

(Looking forward to reading about Canon's amazing resurgence 3 years from now, and Nikon's amazing resurgence 6 years from now, and Canon's amazing resurgence 9 years from now.......)

[NewKojak]

The most important thing here is that there is a battle between these two companies and that we all benefit from it. We all have Canon to thank for breaking the floor on pro-sumer digital SLR. We have Nikon to thank for following them down there and putting out competitive bodies at all kinds of price-points.

[mrbach]

I think most people make the mistake of confusing past products with present digital ones. I used Nikon for years for 35 mm film, then switched to Canon for digital. Then I finally switched to Pentax for DSLR. Many of the components of these cameras are made in the same factory somewhere in Asia, and with the current state of CMP polishing machines, I think you will be hard pressed to find one brand with superior glass or coatings.
To suggest that a Nikon today is the same as a Nikon of 25 years ago is ridiculous. Today you are buying a sensor connected to a small computer that writes to an SD drive.
For instance, my Pentax uses the same sensor technology as the Nikon. To me, it wasn't about loyalty, it was about features, so I just bought the camera with the most features that I needed. Before purchasing, I saw no difference in quality among any of the higher end cameras,
The Nikon vs Canon debate is about as useful as a Ford vs GM debate. In the end, you are arguing over something that doesn't really exist anymore. These are different products with old names on them.
Flickr proves that a good picture comes from the photographer, not an overpriced brand name.

[sheldonc]

Thanks, Rick, for the heads-up on this article. It's a really good read.

Like lots of people, I have one preference over the other. This mostly stems from stepping into the fray at a point when that platform was deemed best, and the other behind. I never get involved in these arguments because it always an "us vs. them" stance that forever descends into personal attacks and insults. They are no fun and rarely offer clear advice.

Most of the photographers I know stick to the brand they have invested their money in. If you've been buying Nikon lenses, attachments, support gear, you then tend to stick with Nikon. Switching to Canon from there would become an incredible loss of money.

Then you get used to a brand. Use it long enough and you know what does what, where to put your fingers, how quickly you can change settings, lenses, whatever. Swapping to another brand means learning all that muscle-memory stuff over again. Pros who've been doing stuff for years just won't do it.

After all is said and done, the equipment is immaterial. It's the photo that counts. How you take the photo and with what camera is always interesting, but I've found people who can catch amazing shots with the unlikeliest of cameras. Use what you love, then make the camera disappear.

But for people who are jumping in, look everything over. Photography is a great field, but it requires a substantial investment. Well reasoned, clear-headed articles like this help budding or growing photographers make rational decisions.

[Rugby]

My first "love" (camera love!) was a Nikon F4s, I had a F801 and decided I loved the rugged looks and touch. It followed me on a one year trip around the world (I picked up a F90x as it is lighter) but I still have it, cleaned and tucked away when all digital cameras die ; ) . I bought a F5, same reason speedy for my rugby picts (hence the name : ) )and it also has to withstand abuse from weather and my careless handling. For picts it's the 300mm 2.8 IF-S with converter (1.4 and 2.0 but mostly it's 1.4)
Recently I bought my first D200 which I now use for my sport picts (it IS much quicker to come home and upload....

I never enjoyed the handling of Canon and yes that IS an individual taste. But what really impresses me is my Mamya 645, seeing a sharp Velvia 100 on that one.....oooh

[dreyfus]

Well, I am not at all emotional about it, as I use both (have 2x D200s, 1x 1 Ds MkII, 1x 1 D MkII, 2x 5D). Still, I cannot fully agree with some points - or rather: lack of points mentioned.

Nikons problem is not - and has not been - lack of features and flexibility, so there is nothing to make up. Nikons problems are on different levels - the high ISO performance and lack of a "full frame" model were the most obvious and it is good they solved them in an impressive way. Just, the story does not end here. IMHO the following points need to be addressed before one can really call "even":

- Lens line-up: While Nikon is very competitive in the zoom, macro and tele lens sectors, their prime line-up (wide angle and normal) is abysmal compared to Canon or Pentax, lack of tilt-shift lenses hurts too.
- For some tasks megapixels do count and as long as some things do still move, stitching is not solving that problem. Nikon must attack the 1Ds MkII/MkIII class at some point. Their policy is to work their way up - they have started attacking Canon at the consumer end (D80/D40/D40x), gained significant market share, now they attack the prosumer market (D3/D300) - how successful this will be remains to be seen. IMHO the price of both models will have to come done a bit to achieve this. The high end must be next.
- Service and support: The international support network of Nikon is simply not anywhere close (cannot speak for the US) to what Canon does offer. Repair times are excessive, spare part availability is poor.
- Availability of accessories: Nikon does have a quite competitive line-up of accessories (cable releases, remotes, macro tools, etc.) - unfortunately wait times to order these items are sometimes unbelievable. Last year I was waiting 4 months for a cable release and I am awaiting a spare part for a lens since 14 months (not a typo)... sorry, if Nikon wants "pros" to reconsider them, this has to change big time.
- Build-quality: Each of my D200s has needed service more often than all of my Canons together (2 and 3 repairs versus 0) and every single time there were discussions about warranty coverage involved - hundreds of D200 users were reporting problems with hand grips coming loose, wrong "empty battery" indications and other (sometimes minor) problems. Still, each and every time they try to play the "never heard that before" game and blame the customer. Unacceptable.

Having the hardware is only one part of the story. Still, glad they have that solved. Canon's dominance was getting too much.

[folklore]

I can take crappy photos just as well with a Nikon as I can with a Canon, so I tend to avoid the squabbles between the two camps. But it is fun to watch the flame wars. :)

What's really amazing is how far DSLRs have come in just a few years, and how brutal the competition is between Nikon and Canon. I've certainly come to realize that, like any art, most of photography occurs between the ears, not in the camera anyway.

[leicaman]

Mrbach, you are sadly mistaken. Nikon makes their own lenses, except for a few of their consumer lenses. They do not come from the same factory as any other makers. And Nikon even makes a lot of their own glass. Their bodies are designed by them, and the sensors in the D3 and D300 are their own designs. Nikon even makes the steppers that produce integrated circuits - including the steppers that Canon uses to make their sensors.

Canon also makes most of their own lenses. You need to know more about the industry before making such a claim. I've been a professional shooter since the mid-80s, and a camera user since the late 70s. I know the history of the industry.

You're right that the photographer is what makes a picture great. Nothing more boring the a properly focused fuzzy concept. But a great photographer will benefit from the ergonomics and performance of a camera more than you might think. Try shooting professionally for a couple of decades like me and you'll see what I mean.

And I didn't mean to imply I switched pro systems. I owned a cheap DSLR for personal shooting for a while. Not Nikon. But when I finally decided it was time to go with some kind of serious camera, I was glad I could choose Nikon, confident they had beaten the noise barrier between them and Canon.

[Rick LePage]

How right you are.

I had an interesting conversation with some Nikon folks after a demo last year. We were discussing the whole "Canon vs. Nikon thing," and one of them said something along the lines of:

"This has been going on for decades. Every couple of years, Canon jumps ahead of us in terms of features, or releases some camera or lens that everyone has to have. Then we come out with something that leaps ahead of them. We go back and forth. It rarely changes the mind of the pros, who tend to be locked in to one or the other of us, but it definitely helps with everyone else. If it's our time, you know that it will be their time again some time in the future."

I thought it was a refreshing outlook on competition. When I repeated the gist of it to a person I know, they said that it was true, "but we still sell more cameras than they do."

[meta]

I can't see myself ever buying a Nikon camera, because I've experienced what Nikon Digital's warranty service is like for their scanners.