# Camera System



## Terry Rogers (Jun 14, 2012)

I know this is probably not the most unbiased forum to post such a question, but I will anyway to see what sort of response I get.

If you were not heavily invested in one brand (ie a 4yo rebel owner) and looking to upgrade your equipement and buy into a camera brand system of either Canon or Nikon, what would you buy into today. Lets say you had 5-6k to do it with.

I guess this post is directed more towards those who already shoot both Nikon and Canon and have extensive experience with both.

As far as typical useage of the equipment would be, 50% portrait/people, 20% landscape, 20% wildlife, 10% sports.

While I am familiar with the Canon brand, I have not used Nikon so I have nothing to compare my experience to. For those who do, what would you choose today knowing what you do now.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 14, 2012)

As of now, I cannot recommend Canon. Its getting quite expensive for newer equipment being released and shows little to no improvement in RAW IQ over previous generations.

Im still with canon because i shoot mostly primes, and canon has remarkable primes.


----------



## Razor2012 (Jun 14, 2012)

Terry Rogers said:


> I know this is probably not the most unbiased forum to post such a question, but I will anyway to see what sort of response I get.
> 
> If you were not heavily invested in one brand (ie a 4yo rebel owner) and looking to upgrade your equipement and buy into a camera brand system of either Canon or Nikon, what would you buy into today. Lets say you had 5-6k to do it with.
> 
> ...



You should post this question in Nikon rumors too.


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 14, 2012)

I would probably re-buy Canon all over again (but slightly different purchases) simply considering a price/performance ratio, and aside from performance I put the resale value of Canon and Nikon above some other system like Sony, which is a consideration. Aside from the D800/5DIII (of which I must be one of the few that prefer the pro/con list of the 5DIII) Nikon seems often to be more expensive in general and I don't see the benefits personally, that true Nikon fans, with more experience and reversed biases, obviously do. That's going mostly by sample gallery images only and not very much hands on experience with Nikon systems at all. Realistically and simply, it doesn't seem that Nikon cameras/lenses can do things that you just couldn't do on an equivalent Canon and vice versa, and I prefer the prices and specs of the Canon cameras, and often cheaper equivalent lenses. So take that for what it's worth. If I could afford it, or if it were cheaper, I 'believe' I would prefer Leica FF to DSLR, but that is untested and at the moment a wild pipe dream at absolute best due to the cost of that system and sheer lack of similar/competitive alternatives. I would not buy a crop body ever again. (actually this last statement, I somewhat take back, as at the same time I wouldn't likely sell my 7D, regardless, I'm hedging my previous statement slightly)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 14, 2012)

I bought a Nikon D800, and have taken about 1000 shots with it over the last month. Its a great camera, however, it really wants the top Nikon Glass to perform, and even then, you need to be pretty careful. For sports and wildlife, Nikon has some great super teles, but nothing like the 100-400mml or 400mm f/5.6L, they are missing the boat for full frame users who are looking for something under $3000 or even under $2,000. Many of their normal under $3,000 telephoto lenses perform poorly with a TC relative to Canon. 

To me, The glass is the most important part of the system, and, while Nikon used to have some of the best, they have not produced equivalents for some of the Canon lenses I use. No 135mmL equivalent, their macro does not match the 100mm L, nothing of the quality of the 24-105mm L, their new 35mm f/1.4 is way overpriced for a average quality lens, and, of course no 400mm high quality low cost glass. 

Canon has produced some great lenses and so has Nikon, but I prefer the Canon glass.

I thought I could get by with Nikons three excellent f/2.8 zooms, but in low light wide open, CA's are the worst I've ever seen. I thought my expensive 24-70mm G was bad until I went to Photozone and found that they saw the same thing. Stopped down, they are fine, but I shoot low light with my lenses wide open, often at ISO 3200, 6400, and even 12800. I can use most Canon primes wide open and get tack sharp images, while with Nikon, only the 85mm f/1.4 is really special.

All my Nikon stuff I bought over the past 2 months is for sale, and I'll stick with Canon.

However, each brand has its strengths and weaknesses, go for the one that fits your style.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jun 15, 2012)

For me, too, it's all about the glass. Nikon doesn't have anything in the same class as Canon's new TS-E lenses, and Nikon's supertelephotos weigh half again as much as the Canon equivalents. Nikon has no answer to the MP-E 65. And on and on and on and on.

For your 50% portraiture, it probably doesn't make much difference, though the 5DIII stomps all over the D800 for wedding / events / action photography. But for your landscapes, wildlife, and sports? No contest. You'll want the TS-E 24 (or the 17, if that's what your eye sees) for your landscapes, and you'll want a Big White for wildlife and sports.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 15, 2012)

Canon, definitely. Echoing the above, it's mostly about the lenses. The lenses which I like best, the Canon version is a hands-down winner for IQ (135L, 100-400, etc.) or ease-of-use (TS-E 24mm), or there's no Nikon equivalent (MP-E65).


----------



## Tayvin (Jun 15, 2012)

Terry Rogers said:


> I know this is probably not the most unbiased forum to post such a question, but I will anyway to see what sort of response I get.
> 
> If you were not heavily invested in one brand (ie a 4yo rebel owner) and looking to upgrade your equipement and buy into a camera brand system of either Canon or Nikon, what would you buy into today. Lets say you had 5-6k to do it with.
> 
> ...



You're asking for a lot out of your camera. People and Landscape is about DR while Wildlife and Sports is about FPS, AF, and high ISO. This will probably be the only time I ever suggest this camera, but the 5D III may be the camera for you. It's kind of good "all around" camera. I can't think of any Nikon cameras like that(in this generation)? If you wait awhile the D600 might be a cheaper option, but that could be a LONG while. As much as I love the D800E - I wouldn't recommend it to the average photographer. It's more of a specialty camera that needs finesse.

As for lenses, Canon and Nikon users each think they have the best lenses. Canon does have the lead in Tilt-Shift, though. That might be something to think about with Landscape.

If I were you I'd put together a Nikon and Canon dream package and work from there...


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 15, 2012)

I would look at the available lens before buying the bodies

The reason for this is that is the major item that impacts the IQ of a print.

I bought a 200 f/2 earlier this year and all my bodies gave significantly better images. Everyone raves about the 70-200 f/2.8 II - as I did. Now I hardly ever use it as the 200 f/2 is in a different league.

Now expand this across the other manufacturers - how do their lens compare to each other, not so much on paper but in real life. Nikon has a 200 f/2 - how does it compare to the Canon version? Same with all the lens such as the 135 f/2 or the 70-200 f/2.8

Without good lens the body is nothing more than a paper weight


----------



## dr croubie (Jun 15, 2012)

Terry Rogers said:


> As far as typical useage of the equipment would be, 50% portrait/people, 20% landscape, 20% wildlife, 10% sports.



Portraits: Canon. They've got the 50/1.2L, the 85/1.2L, and the 135/2L. Nikon's offerings in these areas are not nearly as fast (unless you go for a vintage nikkor noct 58/1.2, last I saw went for $3000 on ebay). Only go Nikon if 22MP isn't enough for a portrait (like you're printing A2 or bigger?). DR doesn't matter so much, studio lighting can be controlled as much as you want.

Landscape: Nikon. The D800(e) is a (relatively) poor-mans MF. The DR and MP are perfect for landscapes, and so is that Nikkor 14-24 that i couldn't afford either.

Wildlife: Tough choice. Nikon at the moment, they've got the D4 and D800 that both focus at f/8 where you'll be focal-length-limited and have to use teleconverters, and they've also got a 200-400 on shelves as we speak. Canon still have the 1D4 that f/8 focusses, and the 200-400x1.4 will be awesome if/when it comes, but for now it's vapourware. The 500/4ii and 600/4ii are available to a few, and by al accounts they're outstanding. The 1DX will be awesome for wildlife when it comes along too.

Sports: Slight edge to Canon. When the 1DX is available to the masses (very soon), those extra 2fps could mean the difference between a front-page spread (of the sports-section at least) and going home to have your editor yell at you for getting nothing. The ethernet port could be the difference between having your images taken directly from the camera to an assistant who selects one, does a bit of basic editing and puts it on the web, compared to a wifi-link that's jammed with too many photos being transferred and interference from the photogs next to you that takes another half an hour to put on the web (yes, I know the D4 has ethernet too).

So if we tie sports and tie wildlife, that gives you 50% reason to choose canon and 20% reason to choose Nikon.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 15, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> Terry Rogers said:
> 
> 
> > As far as typical useage of the equipment would be, 50% portrait/people, 20% landscape, 20% wildlife, 10% sports.
> ...



I use the 200 f/2 for portraits. Quite, quite stunning - makes the 135 f/2 look like a (v. good) budget lens


----------



## dr croubie (Jun 15, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I use the 200 f/2 for portraits. Quite, quite stunning - makes the 135 f/2 look like a (v. good) budget lens



Of course, if you can afford the 200/2.0, you can probably afford a studio big enough to use it...
I've used a Zeiss Sonnar 180/2.8 for gigs, about 10m to the stage makes for nice head-shots on my 7D...

(but if I could get my hands on one of those Nikkor 300 f/2.0 instead of buying a house, that'd be a tough choice to make...)


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 15, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I use the 200 f/2 for portraits. Quite, quite stunning - makes the 135 f/2 look like a (v. good) budget lens
> ...



Hey, the 200 f/2.0L is still cheaper than the 1D X. Sorry, couldn't resist.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 15, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I use the 200 f/2 for portraits. Quite, quite stunning - makes the 135 f/2 look like a (v. good) budget lens
> ...



Didn't work that way for me ....


----------



## lopicma (Jun 15, 2012)

I have been using _Canon _SLRs from the film days, and went with one in a DSLR. Kind of a brand loyalty thing... (and I had some lenses I could use with the DSLR.) However, I watched all of the _D-Town_ podcasts on the Kelby site, and some of the features in the _Nikon _line-up are WAY cool. I'm sure these are all the high end bodies, but still... 

Now that I am into _Canon, _with both hands, up to the shoulders, I am not willing to dump my gear and go with _Nikon_. Take a look, rent a newer body and lens and see what each brand has to offer. At the very least, go to a real camera store, and lay your hands on each model.

God luck, and Happy Hunting,
Mark L.


----------



## noncho (Jun 15, 2012)

Hm... for Canon system with this purpose I would go for:

Eventually new 70D(if it's like rumors say) or 7D. ~1500$
Canon 85 1.8 for outdoor portraits, Sigma 30 1.4 for indoor. ~900$
Canon 400 5.6 for wildlife/sports 1300$
Canon 15-85 IS for general purpose and landscapes. ~700$ (should be cheaper if it's kit with 70D/7D)
Some flash, diffuser and reflector for portraits ~ 600$

Total: ~5000$

Maybe there is a gap between 85 and 400mm, you can add 200 2.8 for closer sports and some outdoor portraits.


----------



## tomscott (Jun 15, 2012)

Cameras are cameras. Most of these arguments are minimal grabbing any of these new age cameras would blow 99% of people away.

Anyway whats to say if you went Nikon that Canon wont bring the next game changer!? Putting all your funds in an alien brand then feeling with the next iteration that you made the wrong choice but will have to stick because of the cost. Canon L lenses are amazing and mostly envy of the Nikon camp. I think the cameras are perfect too I cant wait to get hold of a 5D MKIII. Im not sure why everyone is complaining it is possibly the best overall camera ever made. 

Its not just about which is best technically, what about ergonomics? I find the canons fit better in my hand and switching between Canon models is like a fish to water whereas I play with nikons and will miss shots simply because im not used to the cameras and personally prefer the Canon.

Its personal taste and until you have had a go with each you cant answer it.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 15, 2012)

If you post this question on Nikon Rumors site, most will say Nikon 

Both Canon & Nikon have their Pros and Cons - pick your poison


----------

