# Should I stay with Canon or moving to Nikon



## tangpett (Sep 5, 2012)

Hi all,

I am a newbie here, nice to meet you guys all.

I am now using EOS600D for 1.5 years and I am also now deciding to upgrade my camera. However, many of my friends encourage me to switch to Nikon with the following reason below:-

1. Better noise performance *!!!!!*
2. Better Image quaily *!!!!!*
3. All focus point light metering *!!!!!*
4. Faster control

I also have seen the review the comparison between canon and nikon (60D vs D7000, 7D vs D7000) and many reviewers also suggest that nikon is better (except the VDO mode).

For myself I am not in kind of bias to any brand and the investment is not a problem... but need your guys suggestions!!!! 

e.g. 

- why would you guys stay with Canon?
- The image quaily between Canon and Nikon are different?
- Is canon's noise performance really bad compare to nikon? 
- Pros and cons for each brand
- etc...

P.s I am taking for both landscape and portrait

Many thanks

Tang.


----------



## cliffwang (Sep 5, 2012)

Quite easy for me.

Do you need high ISO?(If yes, +1)
Do you like Canon's lenses more than Nikon's lenses?(If yes, +1)
Do you like Canon's control more than Nikon's control(If yes, +1)
Do you think Canon's price is fine for you(If yes, +1)

If the total score is >=2, stay with Canon.


----------



## M.ST (Sep 5, 2012)

You only can switch if you don´t have a lot of Canon lenses and cameras.

But I don´t wont switch because the Canon lens lineup is perfect for me and the cameras meets my expectations.

Compared to the Nikon D4 the 1D X have better noise performance, better image quality and is faster. 

With the D4 I test two weeks the D800E and find out that the D800E can´t reach the image quality of my 1Ds Mark III.

I agree with you, that I never want to buy a 60D or 7D.


----------



## victorwol (Sep 5, 2012)

1. Better noise performance *!!!!!*

_*Doubt it, not at high ISO if you are talking about 5D MKIII or 1DX. 7D may be...
*_
2. Better Image quaily *!!!!!*

_*Again, Doubt it... there are a lot of factors in image quality, not only the body...*_
3. All focus point light metering *!!!!!*

_*Don't know... *_

4. Faster control

_*What you mean? Navigation of the menus??*_


- why would you guys stay with Canon?

_*Lot of glass, big investment. CPS is awesome. Great service, better ergonomics... although that is pretty much personal taste.*_
- The image quaily between Canon and Nikon are different?

_*I think that will depend a lot of the lens used, not only the body, in my opinion, Canon glass is better.*_
- Is canon's noise performance really bad compare to nikon? 

_*Again... depends on the boy you are talking about. I doubt there is much difference*_
- Pros and cons for each brand

- etc...

_*If you do not have much investment yet, then is the right moment to select directions... make your own opinion by testing if you can, can you rent? check before buy? Our opinions are pretty much going to be biased since we probably love what we have *_


----------



## K3nt (Sep 5, 2012)

Just had to chime in on this.
Nikon stuff have some good things going for them, but as several reviews have stated, in a practical situation Canon cameras more often have the edge through a more efficient user interface. Switching settings on a Canon is easier and faster than a Nikon.
There was one specific review regarding wedding photography I read on the 5D3 vs. D800 and the 5D3 won because it simply was just more practical in an ever changing situation.
I think the ISO performance on the new stuff is on par with each other and not really a factor. I rarely shoot above ISO800 so for me something like 25600 or 51200 is completely overkill, sure, it may have its occasional use, but everyday? Don't think so.
I love Canon lenses, go L and you'll never want to use anything else.

But I can't speak for anyone else and your situation is most likely different to my own. Try them both out, whatever feels right is the correct choice for you. Technical details can be argued until the cows come home, but ultimately the equipment that enables YOU to take the best pictures you can is what you need.

(On a side note, I think the tech specs regarding ISO, MPs are becoming largely irrelevant as a comparison point, except for very niche applications and more focus should be given to ergonomics, ease- and speed of use etc.)

All the above is very biased and Canon-fanboism, so noone shoulod take anything too seriously, I'm not trying to start a flame war, just voicing my view of the world.


----------



## heptagon (Sep 5, 2012)

Think about what you will shoot and then look if there are good lenses you can afford.


----------



## LostArk (Sep 5, 2012)

*1. Better noise performance !!!!!*
BS
*2. Better Image quaily !!!!!*
BS
*3. All focus point light metering !!!!!*
This is only really a boon for shooting a moving subject under changing lighting conditions. I'll admit though that this is my #1 gripe with Canon.
*4. Faster control*
I find the opposite is true - Canon is much faster and intuitive to operate. It comes down to personal preference.

*- why would you guys stay with Canon?*
Because I'm familiar with the interface and ergonomics (and find them superior to Nikon) and prefer Canon lens quality and selection.
*- The image quaily between Canon and Nikon are different?*
No, only if you shoot test charts and compare them. No one can look at a photo and tell if it was taken with a Canon or Nikon.
*- Is canon's noise performance really bad compare to nikon? *
No. I crank my 7D to ISO 6400 without hesitation (view large size):




Mitja Harvilahti by Nοah Fence, on Flickr

If noise is the only aspect of your images you have left to worry about, you are a better photographer than most.
*- Pros and cons for each brand*
As you pointed out, Nikon offers spot metering from any AF point. Nikon's flash system also has some arcane advantages. Those are really the only things I can think of Nikon has going for it. Oh, the D800 if you're a megapixel whore or medium format wannabe. 
*- etc...*
In the end, it's best to choose the camera that feels best in your hand and is the most intuitive to operate. Image quality, features, lenses, blah blah blah are essentially all the same for both, and only seriously demanding professionals with highly specific applications or rich & fickle hobbyists have any reason to switch brands. Don't make the classic beginner's mistake of worrying about the camera. Consider what lenses you'd ultimately like to acquire, as both Canon and Nikon have offerings unique to their system (such as the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 or the Canon 17mm TS-E).

For landscape and portraits, I'd be perfectly happy with a 600D and some nice glass, though if you really never shoot moving subjects I'd suggest the 5D Mark II. You shouldn't buy _anything_ until the dust settles after the D600 hits.


----------



## killswitch (Sep 5, 2012)

I too faced similar situation. First, I will state that before using Canon, I thought I was more of a Nikon guy. But that changed once I touched a Canon body. I will try to answer your questions to the best of my knowledge and experience.

First off, both Nikon and Canon is capable of producing fantastic images. What in the end mattered is how well I feel when I hold the bodies. Like I said I was a Nikon person, but without knowing how Canon felt. The moment I touched a Canon body (7d, 60d, even 600d) I instantaneously felt a more comfortable grip because of the body's ergonomics. Hold them, see what you feel comfortable shooting with.

Second, to my surprise I felt the Canon's navigation systems was more intuitive. Now, this varies from person to person. So check both, see what feels easier for you. The button placements, etc (varies from body to body).

Third, the lens. Where do I begin. Both Nikon and Canon produce amazing glasses. You can't go wrong with either. If you have already invested in a lot of Canon glass, then switching doesn't make sense (at least for me). Canon's L series glasses are out of this world. 

Fourth, let's say for example, some selected Nikon models performs better in certain areas(e.g. dynamic range) today , while Canon in other areas (high ISO performance). It can be completely opposite for other models from each brand. So, I would think what my needs are and will the certain brand in question deliver what I need.

Fifth, they are just tools. Both produce fantastic image, but if you must know Canon is known for producing better colors. Plus, in the end your artistic sense will dictate the quality of the photos you take.

Hope I made sense. Also, noise performance of Canon's 5d series onwards are superior imho. Check dpreview.com. Canon 7d rival was Nikon d300 back then, and 7d was simply superior in every aspect. If you compare a old model like 7d with a newer Nikon body like the d7000 even then they demand respect in their own areas of specialty. So it's all very relative and it is hard to claim one brand is better than the other. I am no expert, but though I'd share my experience.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 5, 2012)

LostArk said:


> ..For landscape and portraits, I'd be perfectly happy with a 600D and some nice glass, though if you really never shoot moving subjects I'd suggest the 5D Mark II. You shouldn't buy _anything_ until the dust settles after the D600 hits.



A lot of good advice has been offered so far, and some tripe.

You'll take the best shots with a system you're comfortable with, any system. So use what you like.
but be aware of the differences and let that also guide you depending on what you want to do with your images.

Small prints or on-screen, doesn't really matter.

BIG prints... I'll lean towards my Nikons because...

When it comes to post-processing my images I can get more out of my recent Nikon bodies' raw files than I can from a Canon raw file. But this only matters when the shot I'm taking is something the Canon is weak at and I can only really say there is one circumstance where I will pick Nikon, no contest - 
Landscapes under challenging lighting conditions. 

I would describe this as a high dynamic range scene with full sun illumination and (large) parts of the scene in deep shadow.
IF you want to bring up the shadows then the Nikon's low ISO files are lower noise and post-process better.
Otherwise you can shoot really good landscapes with Canon too. I tend to prefer Canon color rendition, overall handling and most of their lenses. Plus their free DPP software works very well for basic processing and adjustments of your raw files.

I prefer my Canons for portraits and most general shooting
I prefer my Nikons for landscape and artistic work where I'll be doing more post-processing to create the final image.

LostArk is right about this, wait until after Photokina announcements and keep watching for more rumors of soon-to-come hardware because there's a dustup coming with Canon trying to counter the various body-slams from Nikon this year.

FWIW, I'm not really happy with the 5D Mk II, it's noisy and can even show some banding noise in midtones and sky under proper exposure. It's a decent camera, and a very cost-effective full frame one that can still produce some great images but its files can also start to fall apart pretty quickly under extensive post processing.


----------



## LostArk (Sep 5, 2012)

Like I alluded to in my post, if one is skilled enough to the point of being able to take advantage of the nominal differences between the two systems, such as being able to pull a little extra out of shadows, it becomes a matter of how bad you want or need that extra niggle room. However, it should be no consideration whatever for a beginner. There is no photo a Nikon can take that Canon can't. If you consider that Nikon lenses can be adapted to Canon cameras but not vice versa, that statement might not be entirely accurate *cough 17mm TS-E*


----------



## Ewinter (Sep 5, 2012)

> LostArk is right about this, wait until after Photokina announcements and keep watching for more rumors of soon-to-come hardware because there's a dustup coming with Canon trying to counter the various body-slams from Nikon this year.


While I agree nikon got a few square hits in on the 5d3, by no means did they thrash it, and arguably canon got in a few good blows with the 1dx and the first radio capable flashes with the 600exrt


----------



## sandymandy (Sep 5, 2012)

tangpett said:


> I am now using EOS600D for 1.5 years and I am also now deciding to upgrade my camera. However, many of my friends encourage me to switch to Nikon with the following reason below:-



Sounds to me like Fanboy talk. Just use whatever camera you like. Your friends ever got experiences with canon cameras? And i mean REAL experience (several lenses, bodies, situations) not just touching it in the store for checking the haptics  Somehow i doubt it.

If you look at photos and are asked "was this shor with a nikon or a canon?" theres no way u can tell a difference so just choose whatever brand you like...

I stick with canon cuz i just prefer their lenses


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 5, 2012)

Nigh-con have more megapickles and dxo say Nigh-con are betters at photos of charts if you regularly use unprocessed raws in your work.

Both systems are good but you need to use dr Carl zeuss lenses to be a pro.

I listen to my friends all the time, they are always right and it saves me thinking so i can preserve my brainpower for the national enquirer crossword.

Clue1: i'm kidding.

Clue2: its a canon forum. What do you think folk are going to say?

In truth, if you've been using a rebel then any midrange camera is going to be a step up.
If you don't have a large lens legacy now is the time to swap for something that fits the hand better, or is geared towards a specific interest (sounds like full frame for you) so you will need to spend a lot more money than you have so far, as you'll need the better quality & full frame lenses.

Go into a shop. Try suitable cameras in the hand. Look through the viewfinder. Try the menu.
Folk get a bit obsessive about extreme high iso performance, about dr performance etc. it matters, but not as much as it being a camera thats comfortable to hold, that you understand how to work, that you are confident using.

You never / very rarely hear pros slagging off one system over another, thats generally left for amateurs on the autistic spectrum who spend too much time on forums.

At the moment you are looking at either a canon 5d2 or Nikon D700 as the very least suitable upgrade, new, for your interests. 

Nikon have the d3x and the d800/e. canon will have something that matches or smashes their specifications soon.

In truth, you'll have a good bit of kit no matter which of the two you buy.


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 5, 2012)

I had the same dilemma until I've tried real photography. One thing, among your tools, lens is more important than your body. 2nd thing, photography will always be relying more on the photographer and not the tools. I am using 500D since 2009. You might say it's old but I have some excellent lenses like 28mm F1.8, 50mm F1.8 II, 100mm F2.8 macro non-L, and 55-250mm IS. I still envy those using Nikon D90 and the even the newer Canon bodies but it did not stop me from taking better pictures than those using better cameras than 500D. Nowadays, it doesn't really matter if you're using Canon or Nikon or Sony. What matters is that you continue to take pictures and continue to learn while taking them. I also don't fear scrutiny of my photography. In fact I'm happier if somebody criticizes my work.  I'm telling you 600d is more than enough to produce very good pictures even at higher ISO. Someday, I might change to full frame but meanwhile, I just continue to shoot until my camera refuse to shoot anymore.


----------



## xps (Sep 5, 2012)

LostArk said:


> Like I alluded to in my post, if one is skilled enough to the point of being able to take advantage of the nominal differences between the two systems, such as being able to pull a little extra out of shadows, it becomes a matter of how bad you want or need that extra niggle room. However, it should be no consideration whatever for a beginner. There is no photo a Nikon can take that Canon can't. .....


+1

Some people of our photo-club own Nikon. 800E and better bodies. But the quality of the shown pictures more often differs in the quality of the person that handles the camera, than in the camera itself.

Yes indeed, our company photographers say, that the 800E is better than the 5D3 in aviable light photography and they switched to Nikon. Big discussion about that.... But the contest for an eye catcher in our company area won an employee that used an 60D without an L-Lens. The picture is blown up to 3m, looking amazing. It is not always only the equipment that decides wheter an image is good or not. You have to know how to use your camera, and how to get an extraordinary shot.

All the reasons to stay or to leave Canon are good reasons . Decide yourself which weighting each aspect has. Try to lean an Nikon Body and work with it for an day. Look if it fits better.


----------



## xps (Sep 5, 2012)

verysimplejason said:


> I had the same dilemma until I've tried real photography. One thing, among your tools, lens is more important than your body. 2nd thing, photography will always be relying more on the photographer and not the tools. I am using 500D since 2009. You might say it's old but I have some excellent lenses like 28mm F1.8 and 100mm F2.8 macro non-L. I still envy those using Nikon D90 and the even the newer Canon bodies but it did not stop me from taking better pictures than those using better cameras than 500D. Nowadays, it doesn't really matter if you're using Canon or Nikon or Sony. What matters is that you continue to take pictures and continue to learn while taking them. I also don't fear scrutiny of my photography. In fact I'm happier if somebody criticizes my work.  I'm telling you 600d is more than enough to produce very good pictures even at higher ISO. Someday, I might change to full frame but meanwhile, I just continue to shoot until my camera refuse to shoot anymore.


+1


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 5, 2012)

Thanks xps. Somehow, I hope everybody can just be happy and shoot. I have also a Canon G11 and I'm happy that some of my friends envy a lot of my shots I'm able to produce with just a point and shoot. But of course, I'm still dreaming of a 5D2 or 5D3 + 17-40.  I hope Canon can produce sub $1500 full frame.


----------



## aj1575 (Sep 5, 2012)

tangpett said:


> However, many of my friends encourage me to switch to Nikon with the following reason below:-



Forget about the difference in the specs. As a newbie everything will make nice pictures; and even if you become a pro, it does not matter. Some pros are shooting Nikon, some Canon, both can live with what they have.

There is only one reason I can think of, that would make sense for you to switch. If all or most of your friends have Nikons, than it would make sense to switch to Nikon, because you could share some eqiupment, say a special lens for some work you like to do, or a second body you could borrow to shoot an event, or you can buy used eqiupment from them.

So stop worry about tech specs, todays cameras are amazing compared to what we had 10 years ago, and the difference between brands is neglectable.


----------



## gnd (Sep 5, 2012)

_- why would you guys stay with Canon?_
We love Canon. Even if Nikon gets better sometimes.

_- The image quaily between Canon and Nikon are different?_
Depends on camera model. Right now Nikon D800 (sensor made by SONY) has arguably the best IQ in the world. Not for long. So, you should be asking if image quality between Canon and SONY are different. 

_- Is canon's noise performance really bad compare to nikon? _ 
Check the tests. 

_- Pros and cons for each brand_
They're both great, innovative, established photo brands set apart competition. If we need to say, Canon has fantastic lenses and diverse range, the L series is legendary. But it all depends on your budget. Nikon is a school of its own. Has seen a lot of rugged action since the film days. That's enough to make a name. In digital imaging Nikon never caught up. They left it to SONY.

_- P.s I am taking for both landscape and portrait_
Landscape, check the works of Art Wolfe and his gear. Portrait, the EF85/1.2L II is the best lens in world as we speak. From the 600D you'd probably upgrade to Canon 7D. Fantastic model and vastly improved with the latest firmware. Look no further.


----------



## xps (Sep 5, 2012)

verysimplejason said:


> I hope Canon can produce sub $1500 full frame.


I don´t think they slaughter their cash cows.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 5, 2012)

xps said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > I hope Canon can produce sub $1500 full frame.
> ...



Not yet anyway, in 5-10 years the pressure from mirrorless and cheaper system cameras might get so high they'll trickle the ff downwards. But a 5d2 replacement will be more like $2000+ as the 5d3 is still $3000+



gnd said:


> From the 600D you'd probably upgrade to Canon 7D. Fantastic model and vastly improved with the latest firmware. Look no further.



... unless you want to keep access to *the* killer feature that separates Canon from Nikon and the reason I am using Canon: The possibility to install firmware addons like Magic Lantern (unfortunately doesn't run on 7d).


----------



## xps (Sep 5, 2012)

Do you use magic latern? Is it worth installing on the 60D?


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 5, 2012)

I think if Nikon produces a sub $1500 FF or near that price, Canon will be forced to release one also. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 5, 2012)

For 60D, I think it's worth it if you're going doing movies. As for stills, it depends. I have used it on my 500D but I can't find enough reason to use it.


----------



## Hillsilly (Sep 5, 2012)

Have you and your mates taken a real world photo of the same object at the same time and compared the Canon shot with the Nikon? Was one better than the other? Which one?

At some low ISO's some Nikon bodies have an edge over some Canon ones. With other settings, Canon has the edge. The differences are real and noticeable. But do they matter. Do they make one photo "better" and does anyone really care? Only you can answer that one. Like many people, I can't tell the extraordinarily subtle differences between a Canon photo and a Nikon photo, unless they are side by side and even then I feel the Canon photos are better at least half the time. Given that Canon has the lenses I want (and which Nikon lacks or wants to charge extremely high prices), I'm happy in the Canon camp. Your needs may differ.


----------



## Lawliet (Sep 5, 2012)

tangpett said:


> 1. Better noise performance *!!!!!*
> 2. Better Image quaily *!!!!!*


Marginally at best - you need ideal circumstances to actually get benefits of the sensor in lets say the D800/E.



> 3. All focus point light metering *!!!!!*


That would be my second main grief w. most Canon cams. The other point is the sync time, most Nikons run circles around the 5D3 in case you want to use flash while the sun is out. That and the battery grip design, no quick (un-)mounting based on the situation...


> 4. Faster control


A matter of taste and the actual task to be done.


> - why would you guys stay with Canon?


Lenses. No earth shattering differences, but some little things here and there that add up and 

Although "stay" is not the best term - using both systems makes that somewhat a moot point.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 5, 2012)

xps said:


> Do you use magic latern? Is it worth installing on the 60D?



Argh - ml is the absolute killer, just install it. It even improves still image quality because the ml isos are *better* than the Canon isos due to different digic configurations!


----------



## xps (Sep 5, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> xps said:
> 
> 
> > Do you use magic latern? Is it worth installing on the 60D?
> ...



thanks. I´ll install it after getting my 60D repaired (stop down button has no function anymore).


----------

