Canon VS. Nikon Debate

Photography knowledge exchange.

Moderator: Scott Waters

Post Reply
User avatar
justinm
Posts: 3423
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:26 am
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Canon VS. Nikon Debate

Post by justinm » September 5th, 2014, 6:46 am

This is interesting if you're on the fence.

http://petapixel.com/2014/09/04/why-i-w ... on-debate/

User avatar
chrish
Posts: 3295
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:14 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: Canon VS. Nikon Debate

Post by chrish » September 6th, 2014, 10:38 am

Wow. What a review! I don't use Canon or Nikon, but that was pretty sad (and I watched the whole thing).

He starts off by saying that Nikon make better bodies because of their "amazing sony sensors" (sony users smile in unison).

While comparing the sharpness of the 600 f/4 lenses on the pro bodies, he points out that at the same focal length, the nikon gets more detail because of the higher resolution of the sensor. Therefore you could crop a bit and still retain the same amount of detail so the Nikon lens gets you effectively 30% closer (his words, not mine) in regard to detail.

After admitting that Nikon is winning, he moves on to his main issue....the Canon vs. Nikon 70-200 f/2.8. This is the deal breaker for him because the Nikon lens at close range isn't really 200mm at the long end. Strangely, even though the Nikon lens also has higher resolution here and nikon bodies have higher resolution, the effective resolution advantage that conveys in the 600 f/4 lenses apparently doesn't exist here.
And when he shows a photo comparing the "huge" difference this makes, he uses a Tamron lens to stand in for Nikon in his comparison??? Was the Tamron lens even on a Nikon body?

Then he moves on to his other deal breaker, the 50mm 1.8 prices. He admits the Nikon version is a better lens, but difference in cost makes the Canon a much better deal. But he compares the gray market Canon prices ($100) to Nikon full US prices ($216). What is the price of the Nikon gray market version? And why does quality not matter when Canon is cheaper even though it was a deal breaker when they were roughly the same price (70-200)?

Then he criticizes nikon for the fact that they are missing" some rather specialized lenses that Canon offers. Yes, that's true. And I'm sure Nikon make some specific lenses that Canon don't. So??

No, Nikon doesn't make a 400 f/5.6....but they make a highly touted 80-400 zoom that is just as sharp as Canon's prime 400 f/4.5 (if not sharper) so it isn't like Nikon shooters are crying in their milk. And why can't Nikon users use a third party 400 f/5.6. If a third party flash is good enough for a Canon camera, why isn't a third party lens good enough for nikon? And if it isn't, why was the Tamron used in the photo comparison of the 70-200 f/2.8 an acceptable substitute?

He mentions the very specialized Canon MP-E 1-5x macro lens as an example, then admits he has no use for it? So Canon has a wider variety of useless lenses, I guess. I'm surprised he didn't mention that Nikon don't make a 1200 mm lens like Canon's $100K version?

And then he points out that the other makers (Sony, Pentax, etc) don't make a 70-200 pro level lens.......which is simply not true. Sony (and Minolta before them) have made a 70-200 f/2.8 G (pro) lens for decades.

And Canon is better because there are more cheap third party flashes for Canon than Nikon? The reason may have something to do with the fact that Nikon's flashes are superior and Nikon users don't bother buying cheap, chinese flashes. And he complains that Nikon doesn't offer an RF flash system. But Nikon's wireless flash system has been superior to Canon's for a long time. Hmmm, didn't mention that.

For sports photography, he suggests that the cheaper Canon 50mm makes it a better sports photography system. Strangely, when I see professional sports photographers, I never see them using a 50mm f/1.8 lens. He then suggests that the superiority of the Canon 70-200 for sports photos....except most sports photographers use longer lenses than that. And he admits Nikon's longer lenses are better and on better bodies.

Strangely, he does confess that Nikon is better for wildlife photography as long as you are spending over $10,000. But if you want to spend under $10K, Canon is better because they offer a better 70-200mm f/2.8. I photograph a lot of wildlife and I know a lot of wildlife photographers, and none of them rely on a 70-200 f/2.8. Maybe his idea of wildlife photography is a trip to the zoo? For well under $10K, I would take the Nikon bodies and Nikon 300 f/4 over a Canon body with the Canon 300 f/4 any day because both the Nikon lenses and bodies have better resolution (and I would take my Sony 70-400 G on my Sony A-77mii over either of those).

And the "over 10K" number is silly anyway. You could by a pro-level body and a 600 f/4 in either system for well under that price. And you could buy the workhorse of the wildlife photography world, the 500 f/4 with a good body for under $5K......oh wait, unless you wanted to shoot Canon. They don't make a 500 f/4 :oops: ). Guess he forgot to mention that.
Maybe the Canon might be superior at the $1500 level because they have more options, but in real wildlife photography price ranges, Nikon would be as good if not better. The Canon wouldn't be bad in any way, it just wouldn't be superior. So to suggest that Canon is better for budget wildlife photographers is ridiculous, unless your budget is under $1K maybe.

Video,....even though he showed that Nikon has better resolution and faster frame rates, he then decides that although he is not reviewing or comparing other brands for any other category, rather than saying that Nikon wins here, he suggests going to Panasonic instead. Why didn't he ever consider another camera brand for any other comparison category?.....oh, that's right, because Canon outscored nikon in those categories. Other camera brands were irrelevant in that case. :lol: Yes, Panasonic is superior, but he says he is trying to compare Canon and Nikon and not to include other brands.

I'm sure the guy is a very competent and gifted photographer, but that review was so one sided and built around one lens that it wasn't really a legitimate comparison. And I know he titled it "Why I can't switch", but he should have been making recommdations if this was all about his love for the Canon 70-200 f/1.8.

He should have titile his comparison -

"Even though I admit that Nikon have superior camera bodies and superior lenses in many categories, Canon is better because their 70-200 f/2.8 lens is better and that is the most important lens in the world......oh....and I don't really know much about any other camera brand".

:crazyeyes: :crazyeyes: :lol:

MonarchzMan
Posts: 341
Joined: September 8th, 2011, 5:12 pm
Location: Oxford, MS

Re: Canon VS. Nikon Debate

Post by MonarchzMan » September 7th, 2014, 6:13 am

That sounds like a criticism from a Nikon user ;)

I wouldn't call the MP-E useless. I love mine. The clarity of photos of subjects that I could not normally shoot is fantastic. I've heard a number of Nikon users lament not having an option like that. Totally not useless.

User avatar
Noah M
Posts: 2292
Joined: November 3rd, 2012, 6:00 pm
Location: Gainesville, FL
Contact:

Re: Canon VS. Nikon Debate

Post by Noah M » September 7th, 2014, 6:46 am

because the Nikon lens at close range isn't really 200mm at the long end
I watched this section a couple of times, but I never heard him explain how this is true? Does the camera at up the upper range not focus on subjects that are close to the camera? He puts in the asterisk and says its so, but I don't catch him explaining why this is the case.

The general argument I've heard is that Nikon makes better bodies, but Canon has a wider variety of lenses. He seems to say this in a roundabout way. I've also heard some of this depends upon when you are making your comparison. For example, for video, yes Panasonic is probably better, and you should buy a Panasonic device designed for video. But if you want a nice dSLR with great video options, the Canon 70D right now is the better choice because of its Dual Pixel AF. I don't buy his argument that 60fps is better than 30fps. Most TV shows and big budget movies from my understanding still shoot around 24fps or 30fps (there have been exceptions). If 60fps was so much better, Hollywood would be all over that, especially if they thought they could charge more $ at the box office. Where are you watching these videos too? One of the tricks LCD TV companies use to bump their frame rate is frame insertion. So even though your new TV may have a 120Hz refresh rate, it probably is "fooling" you, and I'm not sure how much difference 60fps is going to make compared to 30fps when watching on these TVs or your cell phone or your computer monitor.

The same goes for the photograph comparison. The whole "effective MP" thing seems like a nice way of comparing products, but in reality, 90% of the pictures taken by the consumers of these cameras are going to be displayed on computer LCD monitors and TVs, which only have pretty low PPI resolutions. A 1080x1920 42" LCD TV has something 52PPI (http://pixeldensitycalculator.com/). So when you take that 18MP image and display it on a 52PPI device, you'll have to resize it anyway unless you want to scroll around your subway poster sized picture! All this MP business only matters if you're going to print the picture. So his whole argument that Nikon cameras have better resolution because they have bigger MP sensors to me is rather moot if all you're doing is posting the pictures on Facebook, the FHF forum or emailing them off to friends. The advantage is the "effective zoom" you get by cropping it down, and at some point the difference between 18MP and 24MP IMO is small enough to focus on other features of the equipment when making a purchase.

User avatar
Noah M
Posts: 2292
Joined: November 3rd, 2012, 6:00 pm
Location: Gainesville, FL
Contact:

Re: Canon VS. Nikon Debate

Post by Noah M » September 7th, 2014, 6:49 am

MonarchzMan wrote:That sounds like a criticism from a Nikon user ;)

I wouldn't call the MP-E useless. I love mine. The clarity of photos of subjects that I could not normally shoot is fantastic. I've heard a number of Nikon users lament not having an option like that. Totally not useless.
You'll have to admit this is a fairly specialized lens and for your average consumer who is taking pictures of his kids, or even a weddings/events photographer, they have no need for it.

MonarchzMan
Posts: 341
Joined: September 8th, 2011, 5:12 pm
Location: Oxford, MS

Re: Canon VS. Nikon Debate

Post by MonarchzMan » September 7th, 2014, 7:00 am

captainjack0000 wrote:
MonarchzMan wrote:That sounds like a criticism from a Nikon user ;)

I wouldn't call the MP-E useless. I love mine. The clarity of photos of subjects that I could not normally shoot is fantastic. I've heard a number of Nikon users lament not having an option like that. Totally not useless.
You'll have to admit this is a fairly specialized lens and for your average consumer who is taking pictures of his kids, or even a weddings/events photographer, they have no need for it.
It's no more specialized than a 400mm lens is specialized. If you're going to argue that the MP-E is a specialized, useless lens, the same could be said for a 400mm lens. It's meant for capturing subjects that are far away, which for the average consumer is of little use.

User avatar
Noah M
Posts: 2292
Joined: November 3rd, 2012, 6:00 pm
Location: Gainesville, FL
Contact:

Re: Canon VS. Nikon Debate

Post by Noah M » September 7th, 2014, 7:15 am

If you're going to argue that the MP-E is a specialized, useless lens
I never said useless. I said specialized. In some ways, specialized it highly useful, but only for certain people and instances. And yeah, a 400mm lens is pretty specialized too. Go to the zoo, go to an airshow, and look around. Most people with a dSLR honestly have a kit lens. They might have one other lens with a longer reach in their bag, if they even have a camera bag. I live in Florida, and I see tons of tourists. Only a few people have specialized equipment.

Edit to add:

Honestly, most people with cameras don't even have dSLRs. Even though dSLRs have come down in price over the years, your average person likes the simplicity of a point and shoot. I've actually seen a lot of people who just use their phone or iPad. Seriously, I was at a butterfly exhibit and somebody was walking around with their iPad and using it like a camera :shock: Those who then do get the dSLR will get the kit lens so that the body functions. But then beyond that, they never have the need for a macro or telephoto lens.

MonarchzMan
Posts: 341
Joined: September 8th, 2011, 5:12 pm
Location: Oxford, MS

Re: Canon VS. Nikon Debate

Post by MonarchzMan » September 7th, 2014, 7:23 am

The useless comment was in reference to chrish's comment about the MP-E being a useless lens. I would alter his comment to Canon has a wider variety of specialized lenses, which for people who are wildlife photographers or wedding photographers or landscape photographers can be great intrigue. I switched from Pentax to Canon, although I did give Nikon serious thought, but I chose Canon because it had the MP-E and I wanted to shoot insects, among other things.

User avatar
Noah M
Posts: 2292
Joined: November 3rd, 2012, 6:00 pm
Location: Gainesville, FL
Contact:

Re: Canon VS. Nikon Debate

Post by Noah M » September 7th, 2014, 7:25 am

The useless comment was in reference to chrish's comment about the MP-E being a useless lens.
I wasn't clear on that since you quoted me. We're cool. :thumb:

User avatar
chrish
Posts: 3295
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:14 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: Canon VS. Nikon Debate

Post by chrish » September 7th, 2014, 12:18 pm

MonarchzMan wrote:That sounds like a criticism from a Nikon user ;)

I wouldn't call the MP-E useless. I love mine. The clarity of photos of subjects that I could not normally shoot is fantastic. I've heard a number of Nikon users lament not having an option like that. Totally not useless.
It might sound like Nikon user criticism, but it isn't because I am neither a Canon nor a Nikon user.
I admire the strengths of both systems, but have actually evaluated the systems offered by other brands as well.

Guilty as charged on one count, my comment about the MP-E was hyperbolic. It isn't useless, it just isn't a lens that 95% of Canon users would never consider buying....nor Nikon users for that matter. I guarantee Canon sell a lot more 400mm lenses than they do MP-Es.

My camera system (Minolta/Sony) used to offer a similar lens years ago and I considered buying it but never wanted to spend the money. I bought a bellows system instead which allowed me to go to 11x,.....and hardly used it. That said, if there was still one available in my system (they are still available used), and I found one for a cheap price, I would probably buy it for fun. But I'm not most photographers either.
I switched from Pentax to Canon, although I did give Nikon serious thought, but I chose Canon because it had the MP-E and I wanted to shoot insects, among other things.
So you really didn't choose a system, you chose a lens (or a capability) and adopted the system that had that specialized lens. That is a great basis on which to make a system decision, in contrast to the advice given in the video.
because the Nikon lens at close range isn't really 200mm at the long end

I watched this section a couple of times, but I never heard him explain how this is true? Does the camera at up the upper range not focus on subjects that are close to the camera? He puts in the asterisk and says its so, but I don't catch him explaining why this is the case
I don't understand the physics/optics of it, but the effective focal length of a lens does change slightly at different distances. You see this criticism on certain macro lenses. Even though they say they are say 105mm, when the focus close they aren't really that focal length at that close focus. They are usually less. I think DXOmark gives those values.

MonarchzMan
Posts: 341
Joined: September 8th, 2011, 5:12 pm
Location: Oxford, MS

Re: Canon VS. Nikon Debate

Post by MonarchzMan » September 7th, 2014, 3:58 pm

chrish wrote:Guilty as charged on one count, my comment about the MP-E was hyperbolic. It isn't useless, it just isn't a lens that 95% of Canon users would never consider buying....nor Nikon users for that matter. I guarantee Canon sell a lot more 400mm lenses than they do MP-Es.
I'm actually not so sure about that. 400mm lens is not cheap, bulky for anyone but the most specialized users, and quite specialized. The main difference for the two being that there are a number of other options for long lens capability, but not for super macro. Long lenses on the whole, I'm sure they sell more of, but the MP-E compared to the 400mm f/5.6? I'm not so sure.
So you really didn't choose a system, you chose a lens (or a capability) and adopted the system that had that specialized lens. That is a great basis on which to make a system decision, in contrast to the advice given in the video.
Actually, I did choose a system, because for my purposes, the body options come out to a wash (which is basically expected because otherwise there wouldn't be a debate). So I looked at other aspects that each had, but ultimately chose Canon because of the lens options available for the rather specialized types of photography that I do.

fvachss
Posts: 90
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:21 pm
Location: Ventura County, CA
Contact:

Re: Canon VS. Nikon Debate

Post by fvachss » September 7th, 2014, 6:49 pm

I don't know why I'm being foolish enough to wade into this - other than to say I regularly use both the Canon 65mm MP-E and the 500/4 IS (which decidedly does exist - though good luck finding one for under $5K in the Canon or Nikon world). All that said, the Nikon D800/800E is clearly a better body than anything Canon has now or is likely to have (probably for at least the next year).

So which system is better? Whichever one you already have.

User avatar
chrish
Posts: 3295
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:14 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: Canon VS. Nikon Debate

Post by chrish » September 7th, 2014, 9:20 pm

fvachss wrote:So which system is better? Whichever one you already have.
Are you implying that neither system is really superior and people like the one they have (or is it "have the one they like")?

Otherwise......we'd all just have to go out and take pictures and not worry that some one else might possibly have better gear than us or have made better choices than us. How could you suggest such a thing???

Heresy! We MUST have a victor! :crazyeyes:

User avatar
Noah M
Posts: 2292
Joined: November 3rd, 2012, 6:00 pm
Location: Gainesville, FL
Contact:

Re: Canon VS. Nikon Debate

Post by Noah M » September 8th, 2014, 12:54 pm

I want an old school Polaroid. How can you beat that? :thumb:

User avatar
chrish
Posts: 3295
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:14 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: Canon VS. Nikon Debate

Post by chrish » September 22nd, 2014, 6:58 pm

captainjack0000 wrote:I want an old school Polaroid. How can you beat that? :thumb:
I had one of these for a few years that I bought at a pawn shop for about $20.

Image

It was pretty fun, but you might have trouble finding 120 film anymore.

User avatar
justinm
Posts: 3423
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:26 am
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: Canon VS. Nikon Debate

Post by justinm » October 28th, 2014, 2:31 pm

I have a Canon 30D, it's been a reliable and solid DSLR. At the time it was the right price, and my step father's large collection of Canon lenses played a part in my decision. The camera is starting to act up. Rather than get it fixed, or look into doing so, I'm looking at replacing it. I think in the next week I am going to get the 70D, or wait to see if something else in the Canon line up suits me. At this point I've bought in heavily to the Canon system. I would do nothing but sink money if I sold off my lenses and moved to a different system. So the debate is moot but fun. My office is covered with photos that I cherish, all from years with this 30D. I've been able to make some pretty large prints that completely satisfy me. So I don't understand why I would need an even larger sensor, when this old camera is doing very well.

User avatar
chrish
Posts: 3295
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:14 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: Canon VS. Nikon Debate

Post by chrish » October 29th, 2014, 11:39 am

justinm wrote:I have a Canon 30D, it's been a reliable and solid DSLR. At the time it was the right price, and my step father's large collection of Canon lenses played a part in my decision. The camera is starting to act up. Rather than get it fixed, or look into doing so, I'm looking at replacing it. I think in the next week I am going to get the 70D, or wait to see if something else in the Canon line up suits me. At this point I've bought in heavily to the Canon system. I would do nothing but sink money if I sold off my lenses and moved to a different system. So the debate is moot but fun. My office is covered with photos that I cherish, all from years with this 30D. I've been able to make some pretty large prints that completely satisfy me. So I don't understand why I would need an even larger sensor, when this old camera is doing very well.
Clearly it would be foolish to switch once you are committed to and happy with a system.

But I wouldn't focus on the size of the sensor as much as I would its performance. A big sensor does give you lots of room to crop for online photos which is a benefit, but I wouldn't want a full-frame sencsor. Frankly, I don't consider sensor size other than to make sure it isn't full frame and that it is over 12mp. 14-16 is a good size for me and I wouldn't pay for more.

What is important is the sensors performance, particularly in low light. Here's where you want a newer sensor rather than an older one. Low light performance has improved significantly with each generation of senors.

For comparison (sorry for the bird shots, don't use high ISO on herps much?), here's the best shot I could get when I was forced to use ISO 6400 to get a once-in-a-lifetime photo. This was a camera that had good low light performance for its day (late 2007 model) -

Image

Sure, it is a documentation photo and sure it is amazing when you think about what an ISO6400 film shot would have looked like.

But here is the same setting with a "modern" camera - my 2014 vintage camera's ISO 6400 -

Image
Image

So, it isn't the sensor size that matters. You want a newer sensor not because it is bigger, but because the technology has improved.

I just realized we already discussed this on a previous post here - viewtopic.php?f=15&t=20127

User avatar
justinm
Posts: 3423
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:26 am
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: Canon VS. Nikon Debate

Post by justinm » November 26th, 2014, 10:24 am

Chris,

As always your input is helpful, insightful, and has a lot of weight with me. I'm so casual anymore with photography, that I may just go for the 70D. I haven't purchased anything as I've been traveling and working too many hours. I rarely have free time right now, and likely won't until January. At any rate. The higher ISO and video potential is what I think is most important. The 70D is a major upgrade from my camera and is a system I'm used to using.

speedy
Posts: 77
Joined: May 26th, 2012, 5:44 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Canon VS. Nikon Debate

Post by speedy » November 26th, 2014, 7:18 pm

A bit of the point there Chris. Sensor size means everything. A full frame sensor compared to a cropped sensor or micro4/3's all of the same megapixels will win hands down for low light capability. I was blown away when I went from cropped to full frame. On the crop I would rarely shoot above 400 ISO due to noise. On the full frame I can go much much higher.

IMO full frame is everyones best choice apart from bird photographers. Even then I do a lot of bird photography and can manage better shots cropping the full frame compared to using a crop.

Male Logrunner. One of the most difficult Australian Birds to get a shot of. Heavy handed on the noise reduction, but I am pretty particular about noise. The detail is still there in the bird though
Canon 6D, Canon 100-400mm @400mm, 1/320 F/8 ISO2500
ImageMale Logrunner by R. Francis, on Flickr

User avatar
chrish
Posts: 3295
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:14 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: Canon VS. Nikon Debate

Post by chrish » November 27th, 2014, 11:12 am

speedy wrote:A bit of the point there Chris. Sensor size means everything. A full frame sensor compared to a cropped sensor or micro4/3's all of the same megapixels will win hands down for low light capability. I was blown away when I went from cropped to full frame. On the crop I would rarely shoot above 400 ISO due to noise. On the full frame I can go much much higher.
I agree, although it isn't necessarily sensor size; it is pixel size and pixel density. Large sensors have lower pixel density at the same number of total megapixels. Absolutely a full frame sensor is going to have better noise handling (it better!), but my point was that recent sensors have reduced noise to such a degree that it you can really use higher ISO than was possible just a few years back. Comparing a "last generation" APS-C camera to a current generation FF camera isn't really a fair comparison.

So now I don't need a full frame to get a level of high ISO "usability".
I prefer the crop sensor for the larger magnifications I get and the longer length. Sure, I could crop, but I don't have to.

Post Reply