I agree that Nikons look warmer. I really like their looks actually. Maybe its because I've always been around Canons. When I look at a Canon I think this is the typical DSLR look. When I look at a Nikon the controls look alien to me and I think this one is technologically advanced😀
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Not to start a flame war or anything....
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I agree that Nikons look warmer. I really like their looks actually. Maybe its because I've always been around Canons. When I look at a Canon I think this is the typical DSLR look. When I look at a Nikon the controls look alien to me and I think this one is technologically advanced😀
Canon and Nikon are both great families, obviously. They tend to leapfrog over each other. Canon was "king" for a while, then the pendulum shifter to Nikon. Seems like the pendulum will shift back to Canon one of these days, maybe it's happening now with the 7D and the 5D II. After settling in with Canon (rebel xt and an assortment of pretty good lenses) I read about all this stuff on how Nikon was better. So when an incredible deal appeared I picked up a D40 along with a 55-200 VR lens as a package. Is the Nikon an incredibly great camera? Yes. Is the Canon. Yes. Is one clearly better than the other so that I stopped using the other? No. I still use both and am amazed at what I can do with each. Will I "upgrade" to a newer model? Only if it has some feature that I feel I must have. I'm playing with video these days and if I need to have HD (I don't right now) I might consider one of the dslrs that have video such as a 5D II or 7D or ?????? or maybe just a new camcorder/ps that has HD.
Kaido
Elite Member & Kitchen Overlord
Yeah...
Intel vs. AMD
Nvidia vs. ATI
Canon vs. Nikon
etc. etc. etc.
They're all about the same, one is leading on a given year, then it swings back to the other one. Yay competition! 😀
alfa147x
Lifer
which is good for us
Strange how Elfenix is not on this issue when 'Nikon rules Canon' seems to be one of his things.
Anyway, I chose Canon because back in the day, Canon was the only one that produced affordable FF camera. Though things have changed and Nikon has been offering greater 'bodies, than Canon' I can't go Nikon because of this one issue Nikon has.
It's the image quality issue. Nikon is still experimenting with their color reproduction algorithms and it's just not up to my expectations at all. Even worse, in order to kill noise aggressivly, they chose to kill colors hence those nasty gray cast problem, saturation, and gradation problems.
However, it seems like Canon is along with Nikon on this matter though the problem is much less evident. If Canon gets worse or if Nikon gets better to match current Canon, I guess that'll be the time I move on. Or, I might give up both of them and stick with good old 5D.
Anyway, I chose Canon because back in the day, Canon was the only one that produced affordable FF camera. Though things have changed and Nikon has been offering greater 'bodies, than Canon' I can't go Nikon because of this one issue Nikon has.
It's the image quality issue. Nikon is still experimenting with their color reproduction algorithms and it's just not up to my expectations at all. Even worse, in order to kill noise aggressivly, they chose to kill colors hence those nasty gray cast problem, saturation, and gradation problems.
However, it seems like Canon is along with Nikon on this matter though the problem is much less evident. If Canon gets worse or if Nikon gets better to match current Canon, I guess that'll be the time I move on. Or, I might give up both of them and stick with good old 5D.
twistedlogic
Senior member
Cattykit = Deadtrees?
You can phrase things however you like. However, the 7D is designed to be the competitor to the D300s and the 50d is designed to compete with the D90. 🙂
The 50D *does not and did not fill the same segment in Canon's lineup as the D300 does for Nikon*. The 50D fills the same segment as the D90. Yes, the pricing is not identical.
Yes, the 50D did cannibalize *some* sales from the D300. However the D300 took way way more sales from Canon because Canon just flat out didn't have a D300 competitor. A huge glaring hole in their lineup. The D200 wasn't a big deal because the IQ wasn't up to Canon standards but the D300 was a knockout amazing product. The 50d didn't really compete with it. The 50d's IQ was/is great, but features wise the D300 was a much more pro body and it (along with the D700) caused many to switch to Nikon. Which is fantastic for us Canon users because it made Canon get off their ass and focus on making a great product (7d).
Just because products are priced similarly does not mean they are positioned against each other. For example the D700 and 5Dmk2. Canon users whine about the 5d's af when Nikon puts their best one in the D700, etc, etc. Nikon users whine that they hafta spend $8,000 to get the IQ you can get from canon for $2,500 when you don't need the pro body.
Anyway, just a tangent 🙂
i'm not a camera expert by any means... actually just a newbie amateur, but when i was looking to buy my camera about a year ago, i looked at reviews that compared cameras from those two families as well as looked at the pictures that were taken by them (by the same photographrs so you're comparing same skills with different cameras).
to my amateur eyes, the picture quality looked pretty close. one might have been better than the other... i don't know. i did notice though that at the time Canon cameras and lenses seemed to be a bit more cheaper.
now, i ended up going for the 40d and the 24-70mm. i have noticed that my lens doesn't seem as sharp as some of the reviews indicated so i'll probably send that in for calibration. but in general my criteria was quality and price and i think Canon has great quality stuff but a bit more affordable than Nikon. but i'm sure you can't go wrong with either.
to my amateur eyes, the picture quality looked pretty close. one might have been better than the other... i don't know. i did notice though that at the time Canon cameras and lenses seemed to be a bit more cheaper.
now, i ended up going for the 40d and the 24-70mm. i have noticed that my lens doesn't seem as sharp as some of the reviews indicated so i'll probably send that in for calibration. but in general my criteria was quality and price and i think Canon has great quality stuff but a bit more affordable than Nikon. but i'm sure you can't go wrong with either.
Kaido
Elite Member & Kitchen Overlord
It's kind of one of those things to argue about just to argue about. It's like arguing about which sports car is faster - who cares? They can both merge you on the highway quickly enough and you're only allowed to drive 75 MPH legally anyway, so the point is kind of moot - it really all just boils down to what you personally like, which is where all the fun discussion comes in ^_^
And in the end, we're all just happy we have some really nice toys to play with, thanks to all that corporate competition :awe:
Have you considered the 17-55mm f2.8 IS? It's more suited to a crop body imho.
One could say it's like a carpenter arguing about which brand of hammer makes the best houses. =p
Nope, the 50D was a D300 competitor.
Body
D300 - Magnesium alloy with weather sealing
50D - Magnesium alloy with weather sealing
D90 - Plastic with aluminum alloy
Speed
D300 - 6FPS
50D - 6.3FPS
D90 - 4.5FPS
IQ
D300 - 14-bit RAW
50D - 14-bit RAW
D90 - 12-bit RAW
AF
D300 - 15 cross-type sensors
50D - 9 cross-type sensors
D90 - 1 cross-type sensor
The 50D was definitely a D300 competitor, regardless of how poorly it competed with it. The D90 is a fantastic camera, but it's at the top of Nikon's consumer lineup, like the rest of the plastic-bodied DSLRs that Nikon retails for under $1000. It competes with Canon's plastic-bodied Rebels. Magnesium alloy cameras with faster frame-rates and better AF systems are prosumer cameras.
the strength is old lenses that a) most people buying cameras don't care about and b) often work better on any canon than on many nikons? really? and i wonder how those prices really compare to late 80s/early 90s EF lenses?
(for those who don't know, an EOS's meter will work and the camera can operate in aperture priority with any old nikon lens, but only nikon lenses since 1988 will meter on most nikon bodies. which is a year after the EOS system came out)
not sure that's quite right either.
it's widely acknowledged by pretty much everyone that canikon rarely compete 100% head to head with each other, so why you insist on telling everyone that they do i have no idea.
Last edited:
When making my decision about which FF DLSR to buy it helped to include DxOMark Sensor Camera rankings in the process. I'm primarily interested in image quality and let everything else take a back seat. Their lab hasn't yet updated figures to include the 1D Mark IV nor the 3Ds but my guess is that after they do we'll still see the top DSLR slots taken by Nikon. I shoot primarily interiors and then landscapes so my second criterion was who had the optimum wide angle glass. Right now that's the 14-24mm. A couple concrete reasons to choose one over the other for me. It bears repeating, being able to pick up dirt cheap and excellent used manual focus glass from Nikon's vast collection is another advantage that can't be underestimated. And to ELFenix, I was unaware you could meter Nikon MF glass on EOS bodies. I checked the price of the required adapter. Likely more than the glass itself it seems. B&H sells one in stock now for 270.00. Auctions are likely significantly better, but enough to make it worthwhile? Still, thanks for the info, had no idea and I shot Canon fo r25 years.
Last edited:
Hmmm, maybe. I'm not very good at predicting the future lol but this would be my bet:
1. The D3s will be slightly above the 1DmkIV (because it's full frame vs crop.) They will be very close together though. The D3s will probably be a little better (I would guess half a stop) at high iso and will be the low light camera of choice for a while. The 1DmkIV will be better for sports and wildlife or anything where you need more reach.
2. The D3x will remain the top rated DSLR (and rightfully so, man Nikon did a fantastic job making that sensor rock compared to the a900!) The D3x has amazing image quality and I don't see it being unseated by either the 1DmkIV or the D3s. Now, those two cams may (and probably will) have better high iso performance but the dxomark is an average so meh. Just a hunch but I bet the D3x stays on top. 🙂
3. The 1DsmkIV will come out and take the top dslr spot early next year. It will probably hang onto the spot for a year and a half or so, until Nikon updates something that overtakes it. Rinse, repeat. I love competition.
The great thing is--man, used prices are starting to get so good on older model pro bodies. Here in portland one of the shops got in some "well used" (they came from a newspaper) D2h cams. Now, I know it's not a very desirable camera. However, they had like 5 of them and they wer selling them for $200 each.
Now that would be exciting! I think Nikon's got the algorithm chops aren't letting up just yet though. Imagine, dividing up a sensor as finely as the D3x's and coming up with that kind of dynamic range. That's what I'm talking about.
Shimmishim
Elite Member
I went with Canon simply because all my previous cameras (P&S) were Canon.
Now if I could start over... I'd go for a dual system - canon and nikon.
I have two FF bodies (5d and 5dmarkii) but would love to have the D700.
Lenses wise... Canon has far better primes (50 f/1.2, 35 f/1.4, 85 f/1.2...) but the Nikon zooms are far superior (14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 II).
Yes, Canon is releasing an upgrade to their 70-200 very soon and yes Canon is also releasing a 14-24 very soon... so it'll be neat to see how they compare to the Nikon counterpart.
As for AF... I don't shoot sports... I don't shoot fast moving objects. I get by with the center point (cross-type) on my 5D and Mark II with no problem. I focus/recompose with the center point. It's been good to me.
Interestingly enough I'd like to get the D700 for all of it's available AF points. I find shooting telephoto stuff easier w/o having to focus/recompose.
Anyway that's my take on it. I can't wait until they release a 5DMarkIII updated with the 19-AF points of the 7D. That camera is going to rock! 🙂
Now if I could start over... I'd go for a dual system - canon and nikon.
I have two FF bodies (5d and 5dmarkii) but would love to have the D700.
Lenses wise... Canon has far better primes (50 f/1.2, 35 f/1.4, 85 f/1.2...) but the Nikon zooms are far superior (14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 II).
Yes, Canon is releasing an upgrade to their 70-200 very soon and yes Canon is also releasing a 14-24 very soon... so it'll be neat to see how they compare to the Nikon counterpart.
As for AF... I don't shoot sports... I don't shoot fast moving objects. I get by with the center point (cross-type) on my 5D and Mark II with no problem. I focus/recompose with the center point. It's been good to me.
Interestingly enough I'd like to get the D700 for all of it's available AF points. I find shooting telephoto stuff easier w/o having to focus/recompose.
Anyway that's my take on it. I can't wait until they release a 5DMarkIII updated with the 19-AF points of the 7D. That camera is going to rock! 🙂
the chinese adapters work fine. i think i got mine from kawa on ebay.
edit: apparently canon has filed a patent on a 14-24/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. next trade show for them is CES in january (they're not going to be at PMA so any lenses released will probably be at CES).
Last edited:
Okay, you win. The 50D competes 85% with the D300 and 15% with the D90.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
in all of this, where does price fit in in your comparisons? you might as well compare a d3 to a canon point and shoot, it would be just as valid a comparison as you are making here.
ps. thanks for starting a flame war OP. 🙂
I went with a Nikon, despite the fact that most of my friends use Canon. Tried the Rebel bodies, they just didn't fit my hand as comfortably, the control wheel seems to be in an awkward place, and in general the controls seemed to be more confusing. Take the [*] button for example - what the hell is * supposed to mean? On a Nikon I can clearly understand what AEL means.
Then there's the helpful convenience features, like adjustable Auto ISO. Why on earth would I want to manually futz around with ISO when I can just set the minimum shutter speed I want and the camera takes care of the rest?
And finally, there was no Canon that offered a 1/500 x-sync. That feature alone is a godsend, allows me to create outdoor shots using just the built-in flash that I'd never be able to do otherwise.
Then there's the helpful convenience features, like adjustable Auto ISO. Why on earth would I want to manually futz around with ISO when I can just set the minimum shutter speed I want and the camera takes care of the rest?
And finally, there was no Canon that offered a 1/500 x-sync. That feature alone is a godsend, allows me to create outdoor shots using just the built-in flash that I'd never be able to do otherwise.
twistedlogic
Senior member
D1/D2/D200/D70/D70s/D40/D60/D80 - CCD
D3/D300/D700/D90/D5000 - CMOS
Canon - CMOS
The new batch of Nikons are newer sensors designed by Sony, the same ones used in the Alpha line.
LMAO.
That's definitely true...maybe not so much with the 70-200 F2.8L as with the 14-24 as the telephoto is highly regarded as is. However, Canon definitely doesn't have a match for the 14-24mm so props to Nikon for producing it.
I wonder if Nikon will implement anything like Canon's Hybrid IS in the near future. I really enjoy the benefits of it in my 100mm F2.8L. Of course its value depends on how you use the lens.
And as a side note, I'm pleasantly surprised at how civil this thread has been. I can tell I didn't accidentally wander over to dpreview.
Yeah any lens you can put on an eos even if it doesn't communicate at all will meter just fine. Some however may be less accurate than others. But in general it works pretty well. The funny part being if you say, put an ancient totally manual Nikon lens on a D40 it won't even meter lol. That always cracked me up. Adapt it, put it on Canon body and it meters just fine.
And I bet you are right though I have a feeling that the 14-24, if it's coming soon, would be announced with a new 1DS, but I could be wrong!
Hopefully Nikon will get off their ass soon and introduce a higher megapixel sensor heh. 12mp for the lose. There's gotta be something wrong with having the competition's $1500 product capture more detail at low iso than your new really expensive D3s. (And no, having more megapixels does not increase noise when images are viewed at an equivelent enlargement size, people are just sheep lol)
What's wrong with 12MP? Do you forget to compose properly, or are your walls covered in 30"x20" enlargements?
The 7D technically captures more detail at low ISO than Canon's own really expensive and yet unreleased 1D4. Is there something wrong with that?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
