Nikon V Canon

[Daveash]

OK here's one for all you knowledgeable camera folks. I have a Nikon D200 and D70. When I retire I plan to treat myself to a new 600 VR Nikon when they are actually available. Or am I. Occasionally I get to Houston and I could buy a Canon 5D and a Canon 600 IS lens for the price I would pay for a Nikon 600mm VR or not VR. What is the best bet folks. This may be the last camera and lens I ever buy so I want to get it right.

Many thanks in advance. Daveash

[awallace]

Daveash - I suspect that this will become a religious debate :-)

I prefer Canon, always have, and am likely to stick with Canon. Why? Because when you have 1 second to frame a shot and set the exposure, I know that I can make almost any Canon EOS work. At my local photographic club a while back, I picked up a Nikon, and tried to take a picture. 30 seconds later, I was still mucking about with settings. It just felt wrong to me! Try a Canon and see if it works for you.

There is no doubt that the 5D is an excellent camera, and the prices are coming down. It is likely to be replaced soon, so you may choose to hang on, although the quality of its images are as good as I have ever seen, so do you need more? As for lenses, I don't have any experience with the 600mm. Is that the focal length that you are looking for, as you could save some money and go with a 400mm and 1.4TC. I have heard good things about this combination.

Several things are certain: technology will progress, prices will come down and the Nikon vs Canon debate will continue!

[Daveash]

Awallace, Thanks for the feedback. The problem with hanging on is that I've hung on for the Nikon 600 VR and now it's here, or soon will be I thought I'd see what the Canon camp has to offer. I would like this focal length as I have a Tamron 200 to 500 which is good but limited in not so good light. I expect the Nikon 600mm at f4 without any TC would improve the poor light capability. The other problem I have with Nikon is that every shot has to be manipulated in Photoshop or NX whereas Canon images come out of the camera sharp and with good contrast. Once again thanks for your input, it'll be interesting to see what other folks say on the subject.

[Doug Greenberg]

It seems to me that this thread seems destined to become mere contentiousness for its own sake. What is it you really want to know? The Nikon 600mm. VR tele has not even hit the market yet. We have no real idea how it compares with the Canon IS tele. It's definitely more expensive, but it's also ten years newer in design and there are indications that it might well be superior optically, as well as in terms of newer vibration reduction technology. But will it be superior in any way that's significant enough to justify its higher price? Who knows?

If you want to save a little money and still be assured that you will have a first-rate rig, go ahead and buy Canon. Canon is used by 90% of serious bird photographers at this point, and so the situation is kind of akin to the old adage about how no one in a corporation was ever fired for buying IBM computers, etc. It would be a wise, safe, sane choice.

On the other hand, some of us are admittedly Nikon loyalists, and since this would be your one big, splurging expenditure on this kind of equipment, why not get the newest, most high-tech toy of all? Personally, I was advising newbie bird photographers to buy Canon gear up until the time Nikon announced this new supertele lens. Now, I think that one can't go wrong either way. I have a big investment in much Nikon gear already, so I will be aiming to buy that 600mm. VR dream lens in a few years.

[Doug Greenberg]

The other problem I have with Nikon is that every shot has to be manipulated in Photoshop or NX whereas Canon images come out of the camera sharp and with good contrast. .

I'm sorry, but this is just not true. All DSLR's have anti-aliasing filter technology that makes it imperative that you do some post-processing to get optimal sharpness and contrast. This is just as true for Canon cameras as for Nikon. Besides, what's the problem with working with your hard-won images using post-processing? All of us should be in the habit of optimizing our images on the computer prior to printing or online presentation. It's a vitally important part of the photographic process in this digital age.

[Daveash]

Doug. Your feedback and knowledge is appreciated, thanks. It's extremely interesting the you mention that 90% of serious bird photographers use Canon, that itself goes a long way to answer my question. However so are your observations that the Nikon VR is likely to be newer and better than the Canon. My comments on post processing of images was based on various reviews and comparisons of Nikon and Canon in DPreview where they state that images from Canon cameras need less or no post processing. I only have experience of my Nikon D70 and D200 so can only go on what I read or hear. I am used to Nikon so post processing is now second nature. Once again folks all comments appreciated.

[Doug Greenberg]

The major reason why 90% of bird photographers use white lenses is that Nikon neglected this niche market (and also sports photography) for so long, i.e., it did not incorporate IS/VR into its long lens designs, and Nikon also was slower than Canon to incorporate high-speed autofocusing into its camera bodies. Nikon updated its AF systems some years ago, but Canon's IS advantage remained.

So: if you can spend your money on a lens that has an additional useful feature (IS) and also costs less, why not? There also are some minor issues related to levels of pro-level customer service, but this issue is always in flux. The fact is that up until a few months ago I would unhesitatingly have told new bird photographers to go with Canon, for the reasons given.

I also know that because there are so many Canon users out there, bird photographers using white lenses have regular get-togethers in the field where they swap Canon-related tips and lore while photographing birds and wildlife and generally having a high old time. There likely aren't enough Nikon supertele users to allow similar social events. But personally, I don't care about this particular issue :)

With the release of Nikon's new long lens products, it's a new ball game. Nikon has answered Canon's IS superteles, and from all indications the company has put a lot of terrific engineering into these new lenses. The VR technology is state-of-the-art, the anti-reflective coatings on internal lens elements are new and sophisticated, etc. The lens might be a real blockbuster, worth the additional expense. Or not. My point is that since you aren't buying the lens tomorrow anyway, you really should resolve to wait and see just how these new Nikon lenses perform.

Finally, I maintain that "less post-processing" is a non-issue, inasmuch as all DSLR digital images require post-processing, and whereas one might nitpick about "how much" this or that camera unit or image type might require, in effect one needs to resolve to really master that aspect of digital photography no matter what camera body is employed.

[pe'rigin]

I would go along with what Doug has written here Dave, at least have a good look at the new lenses, the new 400mm 2.8 VR, does look a cracker to own, as cameras will get better in the coming years, bigger chips, more true colour definition, giving you better enlargement possibilities.

Changing to Canon really is a decision only you can make, personally, at this time, I can't see the advantage except for the cost implications.

[Daveash]

Interesting comments all, thanks for the time taken to respond. I'm not retiring just yet and the new Nikon VR's are not here yet although promised for November, so I've got time to await reviews and more feedback. Thanks again.

[citrinella]

All of us should be in the habit of optimizing our images on the computer prior to printing or online presentation. It's a vitally important part of the photographic process in this digital age.

Well, it shouldn't be. Why should it ?

I'll admit to having been burned on this one. I'm a bit colour blind. I tried adjustments - great (I thought). No "normal" sighted person did :-(

Sure, post-processing should be available for the enthusiastic computer user. I work on a computer all day, every day. Post-processing every night ? Sorting, naming (and cropping all those distant spots that are supposed to be birds) is more than enough.

With something as expensive as a 30D I expect to get very reasonable images on my screen out of the box.

Yes, I'm lazy - or maybe I have higher priorities.

Apologies to the OP.

Nikon vs. Canon
No idea, as I haven't used both. In fact, you won't get anyone outside of Nikon (and they're biased) who has had the opportunity to compare the new Nikon lenses with Canon. Canon gear is producing excellent results reliably for thousands of folk. Nikon wouldn't dare produce a pup to try to compete with that. I'd guess that in the real world the improvement in performance will be hard to detect. Either would be fine, limited by the photographer. Wait and see for yourself (well, until we get some objective reviews and a little longer for all the early-adopters to try it in the real world).

In the meantime consider :

Will your use be particularly demanding ? - will a minor improvement in performance matter ?

Does the label bother you ?

Are the pennies important ? - are you really happy to pay the extra ?

And when they hit the shops - see how they feel.

Mike.

[Daveash]

Mike
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I agree with your comments.

Dave

[Doug Greenberg]

First of all, I am confident it's a myth that "Canon photos are better out of the box." This depends on the model camera you are using (they use different sensors, etc), the particular exposure conditions, etc. There are lots of pros and cons to be bandied back and forth with regard to Canon vs. Nikon, but this simply should not be one of them, IMHO.

Second of all, I will assert--boldly--that anyone who uses a DSLR and then doesn't care to invest the time and effort into learning and then exercising some post-processing skills is making a big mistake. Virtually ALL images coming out of a DSLR benefit from some post-processing, and at the very least all such images REQUIRE a bit of sharpening to compensate for the anti-aliasing technology that is a part of how DSLR sensors are engineered.

[Duke Leto]

yep wise words by all, in fact I do not run any in camera sharpening on my lowly Nikons and do it all post production.

PS fueling the argument further, in this weeks AP magazine a top journalist is moving back to Nikon after trying the D3, he is quoted as saying the superb high iso / low light noise free qualities made his mind up, he also indicated that 12M pixel chips were more advantageous for photojournalists as 21M pixel files are too large to play with in the field, he also mentioned that slightly slower more accurate AF was a better option than faster less accurate AF, make of it what you want but don't shoot the messenger. 8-P

[Keith Reeder]

Yeah, the D3 looks great, but for most of us it's pricey enough not to be a consideration - in the same way that many of us Canon guys would be using the Mk III rather than the 40D if we had the cash to spare.

Dave, I used to shoot with the D70 and the D200, but I'm 100% Canon now, and won't be going back - for what that's worth...

Re: the 5D, it's not a fast camera in wildlife/sport photography terms (3 fps, like the D70) - the 40D has very good high ISO performance (I've taken some eye-poppingly good 3200 ISO test shots) and is fast enough in handling and shooting terms to be all most of us would need.

[pe'rigin]

Steve,

Don't forget the Nikon show is on in London soon. D3 and D300 will be there to play with, hopefully those lenses as well.

Going to disagree with Keith, I think the 40D is much better than the Mk III, judging by the wretched stuff I've had to deal with over the past month. Reduce the cost to around the £1800 and I'll agree.

On the photojournalism, they need fast cameras, quality and image size is not a big issue, mainly because of the web printing. This is where the new 400 VR from Nikon could be a real winner. But, Canon have taken such a bite out of the market, are they all going to change?

[Keith Reeder]

Good point about the Mk III, P - I did of course mean a healthy, well-behaved MK III!

;)

Actually, I really just referred to the Mk III as an analogue of the D3, both arguably being "Wish List" fodder that will probably remain beyond the reach of many of us - good as they are.

[Doug Greenberg]

Basically, we have two fabulous camera systems here, and no one will go wrong in choosing either one. Like I said, I'm not such a "Nikon loyalist" that I could not see the previous Canon advantage for long lens photography, and I totally understand why people have gone with Canon for bird photography. And once in the Canon "camp," why should they change?

My main point has been that the announcement of these new, updated Nikon long superteles makes it a whole new ball game, so to speak. Now, for all practical purposes the two systems are equally capable. We can nitpick back and forth about this feature of that camera (we haven't even gotten into the wonders of Nikon's flash system, which I do think is superior to Canon's) :), but overall, we should all be grateful that there are two major companies providing this kind of gear and that the competition between them drives the innovative process constantly forward.

[Keith Reeder]

Nikon has always made great lenses, to be sure - I can't imagine that the new long VR lenses will be anything less than spectacularly good.

As I understand it, they're more expensive than their Canon counterparts though - is that right?

Is there much in it?

[Doug Greenberg]

Yes, they are more expensive, and of course that is definitely a consideration for any prospective long-lens buyers. But as for your question, at this point, who knows? Only time and testing will tell!

[scampo]

OK here's one for all you knowledgeable camera folks. I have a Nikon D200 and D70. When I retire I plan to treat myself to a new 600 VR Nikon when they are actually available. Or am I. Occasionally I get to Houston and I could buy a Canon 5D and a Canon 600 IS lens for the price I would pay for a Nikon 600mm VR or not VR. What is the best bet folks. This may be the last camera and lens I ever buy so I want to get it right.

Many thanks in advance. Daveash

You would have to be a pretty exceptional photographer to stretch either camera to its limits so it's a toss of a coin, I'd guess. The camera is only the tool after all.

[Guidenet]

I would have to totally agree with Doug with regards to post processing. This is not a mechanical or optical issue. It's a software issue. The camera uses software to process the image. Photoshop uses software to process the image. Photoshop and other software has many more features and allows a great deal more latitude in how you want that image processed. Within the realm of digital photography, I don't believe one can ignore or treat lightly the use of processing any more than one can ignore the darkroom in film photography, whether using Canon, Nikon or any other tool to capture the original image.

Oft times in the past as well as now, the difference between a good picture and a great picture can be the difference and skill one has in the darkroom or on the computer.

[K-Lex]

You could debate Canon vs Nikon all day and frankly it would get boring. I'm a Canon man myself, can't justify why, it's just the system I chose and it works for me. There are pros and cons for each but ultimately it comes down to the system you prefer. At that level of the market, neither will be noticably different from the other quality wise.

Keith :)

[awallace]

The comment that Canon produces good images direct from the camera is not that true in my opinion.

I shoot RAW all the time, and post process all of the images on the PC. I used to use JPEG for a while, and still do for snapshots, but don't like the over-sharpening and sometimes "warm" look that is produced.

RAW images typically look dreadful on download from the carmera. However, my workflow for RAW is very quick, and actually I really enjoy getting the best out of the images.

[Leif]

awallace said: "I suspect that this will become a religious debate"

Such threads often end up in pointless fights.


awallace said: "Because when you have 1 second to frame a shot and set the exposure, I know that I can make almost any Canon EOS work. At my local photographic club a while back, I picked up a Nikon, and tried to take a picture. 30 seconds later, I was still mucking about with settings. It just felt wrong to me! Try a Canon and see if it works for you."


I have heard many Nikon users say the same thing about Canon. Some people assert that Nikon has better ergonomics. But many people who use both systems say that it is just a question of getting used to a given system.


Daveash said: "The other problem I have with Nikon is that every shot has to be manipulated in Photoshop or NX whereas Canon images come out of the camera sharp and with good contrast."


If you shoot RAW then there is not much between them. What you are probably commenting on is the in-camera JPG engine. Canon have a stronger sharpening algorithm. But you can always tweak the settings until you get ones you like. IMO you really should be shooting RAW rather than throwing away most of the image information. Shoot JPG if you are in a hurry, as with photo-journalists. Otherwise go RAW. I have shot JPG but only when I accidentally changed the camera settings and I had to throw the images away as the image quality loss was too high for me. I don't find that I need to do much post-processing with Nikon RAW files.


There is no doubt that you can get superb results with Canon gear, and the Canon IS lenses are much cheaper, especially if you buy used. You will not get a used Nikon VR lens for a long while yet.

[awallace]

Leif - you quoted me 3 times, but the last quote is not mine I'm afraid, and in fact I don't think that this statement is true. I also want to point out that I only think that Nikon "feels" wrong because I have used Canon EOS systems for 20 years, and a Nikon system for 20 minutes. Clearly, spending the time to learn the new system is important - but only if Daveash wants to. I suspect that a new Nikon will feel more natural for him.

[Leif]

Leif - you quoted me 3 times, but the last quote is not mine I'm afraid, and in fact I don't think that this statement is true. I also want to point out that I only think that Nikon "feels" wrong because I have used Canon EOS systems for 20 years, and a Nikon system for 20 minutes. Clearly, spending the time to learn the new system is important - but only if Daveash wants to. I suspect that a new Nikon will feel more natural for him.

Apologies. I have corrected the quote attribution!

[Den]

I tend to use my camera as a means of capturing a moment. The fact that it happens to be a Nikon is of little consequence. It's the quality of lightand how it interacts with the subject that interests me. I love action photos of birds with a clean background and use a 600mm to get what I want. The Nikon/Canon debate is a little futile. After countless hours in the field with camera and lens, I do not have to think about the glass or the plastic or magnesium bits, but the subject. The camera handling is automatic and the lens does its job superbly. All top end camera/lenses do the same. Take your pick but do spend more time getting to know the kit and that will enable you to take better pics.
Nikon glass is superb and so is Canon. Nikon cameras are fast and ergonomic- so are Canon ones.
Its light and subject interplay that is important, not the brand or the colour of your lens or the autofocus of the camera.