Comments on: Poll: Does Nikon or Canon have better SLRs?
Who has the better SLR line today, Canon or Nikon? Vote and tell us why.
Most Popular
15 sites that went kaput in 2009
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Top 10 news stories of the decade
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
About Underexposed
This blog sheds light on digital photography subjects such as cameras, photo editing, and Web sites. Shankland joined CNET News in 1998 after a five-year stint as a science writer. He's a lab rat who grew up in Los Alamos, N.M., and graduated from Harvard.
Contact Stephen at Stephen.Shankland@cnet.com
Add this feed to your online news reader
Underexposed topics
Canon "discussion". It really boils down to subjective preference.
Both are tools, and both do their jobs really well.
A really good writer and photographer, Ryan Brenizer, writing on
an Amazon blog said this:
"I primarily use Nikon gear, because you have to use something,
and it works well for me. This is a very weak bias, though ? I
shot my last wedding with a Canon and Fuji body, and loved
them both. There are things I love and dislike about every
camera I?ve ever used, which includes just about all of the major
camera lines, and I find nothing more tedious than photography
brand debates."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/A1K7OB8VJ7CMKI/
That pretty much sums it up. If you're pounding a nail, do you
want to use the Klein Tools hammer or the Stanley hammer? Use
whatever feels good in your hand. Does the brand really matter?
debates they are sick of. But if not, OK, brand debates are - on
their face - fairly uninformative. But to boil it down to "whatever
feels good in your hand" is no more an informed way to choose an
SLR than by brand alone. Seriously, though, if brand means nothing
why do companies fight so hard to build and maintain them?
I want something for my bag to carry around.
http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9767018-39.html
Since I wrote it, the Canon G7 had been replaced by the G9, the Nikon's P5000 with the P5100, and the Olympus SP-550UZ with the SP-560UZ.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8745-9153
sts
manufacturing their sensors is a good thing. I use a 1Ds Mark II
at work. But Nikon actually makes the steppers that physically
create most sensors, and a lot of other ICs in various industries.
So they're no slouches when it comes to know-how on sensor
design and manufacturing. And it has paid off big-time for the
D3, whose sensor is designed and manufactured by Nikon. The
D3 and D300 both have CMOS sensors too, which makes a big
difference.
I saw a demo of the kinds of images the D3 would produce at
ISO 6400 more than a year ago at a workshop sponsored
by Nikon. Of course, we didn't know it would be called the D3
for sure, but it was a no-brainer to guess.
As a long-time Leica users I was able to look at both systems
from outside. Using Canon at work made it obvious I'd probably
go Canon. But the 6400 ISO images were so good my personal
camera system choice became Nikon. And I was right to choose
Nikon considering how amazing the D3 has turned out to be.
investment"... and that mean lenses.
Nikon has the same mount system from long time ago, so --not
taking into account other things-- I can still use my FE's lenses.
But there is a point in the article that I want to remark: image
quality. And both brands give good choices.
In the other hand, "pixel count" remains me of the times of the
"megahertz wars" in computers. They mean many times very
little.
By example, take the new distribution of cells in the sensor
from a recent Kodak patent. Normally, sensors has equal
quantities of Red, Green and Blue pixels. The new distribution
has a 1 Red, 2 Green and 1 Blue pixels (just like our eyes!).
So, choosing a camera is --at least for me-- like choosing a
wife, a matter of many issues...
Well, there are also divorces and infidelities!
Which is better for YOU depends mostly on how it feels in your hand and what's on sale.
As long as you go with either Nikon or Canon and use factory-branded glass you'll get a great setup.
I used to own a film SLT from Canon, but I found the popup flash a little bit sloppy, everything fits well on my Nikon, solid construction.
The software that it comes with is only ok, but who cares if you use the tools that come with OS X or others are way better, I don't even use the Nikon software.
The camera is great, took a lot of great pictures and the image stabalization for the longer focal lenght lenses does help a lot and removes the camera shake, nothing better than just using a tripod, but if you don't have one and there is no tree around, this works well.
/P
survived everything I ever put them through - except for the one
that was strapped to the outside of an aircraft during an extreme
decent - but that wasn't Nikon's fault :)
Linux vs. Windows vs. Mac
Its subjective and each have there own strengths.
I have a Canon XTi and like the results it provides. I wish I could try a Nikon as some of the lenses they have look interesting, but honestly what amateur can justify a $5000 camera?
Cheers,
Glenn
they've jockeyed back and forth for years but Nikon has fallen
behind in the digital realm and has yet to catch up. Just look on
the sidelines of any professional sporting event. All those white
lenses? That's Canon L series glass attached to Canon cameras.
Trust me, I've shot both, Canon wins hands down. I've listened
to the Nikon digital crowd swear at their cameras for years. My
most recent experience was covering a Nebraska kid as he
approached the ncaa all time rushing record. I shot side by side
with a Nikon shooter both of us making virtually the same
images, his take was consistently back-focused and the his
image color and saturation held nowhere near the information of
my canon cameras. Swearing at his laptop, applying a
photoshop sharpen to no avail, he said he's had his bodies and
lenses into nikon numerous times only to be told the gear was
within nikon's testing parameters. Outrageous. There's a reason
news organizations all over the world have been dumping nikon
in favor of canon. The canon gear just works.
http://www.kentsievers.com
amount of research and talked to a number of people who
already owned DSLR's. This info may be dated, but I suspect
that it's not.
In general, the conclusion was this:
If you own a single, compatible lens for a body, buy the body
that matches that lens.
If you don't own any lenses, buy the Canon system.
The gist was that the features and performance of the cameras
was so close that it didn't matter, which allows a single
compatible lens to tip the scales in the direction of your existing
lens. If you don't have any and are a fan of any single feature,
that could sway the decision in that direction as well, but the
bottom line is that you can't go wrong with either system
grind.
For starters, Nikon and Canon have been leapfrogging each
other well before DSLRs were introduced. Either one may have
the edge in bodies for this or that market segment at any point
in time, but that may reverse itself in a year or two. Unless you
can afford to buy lenses for both systems, once you buy into a
system, you are committed, and thus it makes more sense to
look at the lens and accessories line-up before you decide which
one to pick.
Until recently Nikon had faster, cheaper bodies but lower image
quality because they used higher-noise Sony CCD sensors
compared to Canon's in-house CMOS sensor technology
(originated with their fax/copier division, a rare example of
diversified conglomerates' synergies at work). Canon was also
the only one to offer full-frame cameras. The situation has
reversed with the introduction of the Canon 1DsMkIII and the
Nikon D3.
Nikon now has the lower-noise camera and Canon has the
higher-pixel count at the expense of higher noise and lower
dynamic range. Which you prefer depends on your requirements.
I shoot low-light so Nikon's trade-off for the D3 is preferable to
me than Canon's for the !DsIII. If I were a studio photographer
looking to make massive posters, Canon's would be preferable.
Even if you look at the lens lineups, the edges each make has
are very localized. Nikon makes better wide-angle zooms, has
arguably better flashes, and macro lenses (although Nikon has
no equivalent to Canon's exotic MP-E 65mm 5x magnification
macro lens). Canon's telephotos are mostly better (Nikon has
introduced some interesting new models, but their production
facilities simply can't keep up with demand and most are heavily
back-ordered). Canon's TS-E lenses for architectural
photography or its fast primes beat Nikon's. Complicating things
further is the fact Nikon now has superlative Zeiss ZF lenses
available in its mount (they could be mounted onto a Canon, but
with severe limitations like the need for stop-down metering).
In the end, for basic consumer stuff, there isn't much of a
practical difference, but for high-end DSLRs, the answer
depends very much on your style of photography.
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=2&productNr=25432
sts
DX (1.5x multiplier), just like the D200 before it, and in fact all
Nikons other than the D3.
Which then led me on the natural progression through the Canon digital line. And I love their cameras. Except for one thing: They shoot HORRIBLE flash pictures. I use a Canon A95 P&S for most of my indoor work because the Canon digital SLRs render color quality so poorly. They underexpose the image. And when you reshoot they overexpose it next time. They do horrendously in strong backlight when a fill-flash is required. Don't believe me? Try searching on the Internet and you'll find plenty of folks grumbling about this same exact problem. It's disgusting: Three different model camera bodies, three different model flashes, always the same crappy results with flash shooting.
--mark d.
http://www.summitpost.org/user_page.php?user_id=26307
new RAW format isn't supported in Apple's iPhoto or Aperture yet,
it will be soon (I'm just shooting RAW + JPEG until then). All my
previous lenses work great, and the image quality is superb. They
really went back to the drawing board on their user-interface. It's a
joy to use compared to that of the D100. The body is extremely
lightweight, battery life is excellent, memory reads/writes are very
fast. The best camera I've ever owned or used.
If you're looking for entry level (price), stay away from the Nikon D-40 or D-40x. Nikon really cheapened the camera down, and you MUST use the AF-S (Silent Wave Motor) lenses, so most Nikon or "after-market" lenses won't work on those bodies. It's a real disappointment for me as a long-time Nikon shooter. There are also new high-end and mid-range bodies from Sigma, Sony and others. The after-market lens marked just hasn't cought up to these newer entries.
The most direct comparison to the D3 would be the Canon 1D Mark III, released earlier this year for sports shooters. It's not full-frame, but it's closer than most SLRs (1.3x field of view crop factor), and with 10 megapixels it emphasizes fewer, more sensitive pixels and fast image processing. The 1Ds Mark III, just shipping now, has 21.1 megapixels, is more for studio photographers.
- Love my Nikon D-40
- by vanrock70 December 5, 2007 5:41 AM PST
- I have the Nikon D-40 and two lenses, 18-55 and 55-200. I seldom need to carry both. I chose the D-40 because it has the best low-light performance for a half-frame 6 mpx sensor.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (71 Comments)I'd been using a rather high-end "near-slr" with a 10x zoom, that cost almost as much as the Nikon. The Nikon is quicker (no shutter delay) and takes much better hand-held low-light images. I do lots of that.
The one drawback is I can't connect the camera to a microscope or telescope, which I could do with my old film-based SLR, but it is now broken. When digital SLR backs that don't require AF lens feedback get cheap enough on Ebay, I'll satisfy that need with one.