# Nikon vs Canon - Honest Poll before photokina.



## RLPhoto (Sep 7, 2012)

A Simple straight forward poll, Who is better in Bodies and Lenses?

Two votes are allowed, One for body choice and Lens choice.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 14, 2012)

Its obvious.

Canon makes better lenses but Nikon currently Make better bodies.


----------



## Razor2012 (Sep 14, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Its obvious.
> 
> Canon makes better lenses but Nikon currently Make better bodies.



Hmmm, I don't know, I kind of like the Canon bodies better.


----------



## marekjoz (Sep 14, 2012)

Really difficult question and I think only people who have dealt with both, could say something. The more models from both sides someone had to do with, the more one can say. 
Looking at those pictures only, I'd say Canon has better bodies, but it's really subjective to personal preferences, I suppose 












I voted Canon, both 

(sources: http://jaylatestperformance.blogspot.com/2011/09/jazz-band-nikon-event-5-piece-band-kl.html and http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/mm9346IaAxj/Maria+Sharapova+Unveils+Canon+PowerShot+Diamond/08Oq-cYUpwY)


----------



## unfocused (Sep 14, 2012)

Looks like Nikon might have more bodies. Canon seems to prefer European bodies, while Nikon appears to have a preference for Asian. The differences are really pretty marginal and you can get great results with any one or more of them.


----------



## cliffwang (Sep 14, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Looks like Nikon might have more bodies. Canon seems to prefer European bodies, while Nikon appears to have a preference for Asian. The differences are really pretty marginal and you can get great results with any one or more of them.



Man! Number is not the point. I need only one.


----------



## distant.star (Sep 14, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Looks like Nikon might have more bodies. Canon seems to prefer European bodies, while Nikon appears to have a preference for Asian. The differences are really pretty marginal and you can get great results with any one or more of them.



I'll have to see what Roger at the rental house has to say about these models. His opinion carries a lot of weight.


----------



## brad-man (Sep 14, 2012)

I'm afraid I'm going to need quite a bit more field testing with bodies from both sides before I can decide...


----------



## marekjoz (Sep 14, 2012)

And regarding lenses I suppose you all prefer small apertures and like to shoot wide open?
BTW I like Canon's Shar(a)p prime


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 14, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Looks like Nikon might have more bodies. Canon seems to prefer European bodies, while Nikon appears to have a preference for Asian. The differences are really pretty marginal and you can get great results with any one or more of them.



wow...this is funny...LOL...you do notice the highlights are much better with the canon's...


----------



## Aglet (Sep 14, 2012)

Hmmm A bit too much ETTR on those Canon bodies, they're clipping a little.
The Nikon bodies are looking like they're making full use of their DR altho still a bit underexposed for my preferences.



marekjoz said:


> Really difficult question and I think only people who have dealt with both, could say something. The more models from both sides someone had to do with, the more one can say.
> Looking at those pictures only, I'd say Canon has better bodies, but it's really subjective to personal preferences, I suppose


----------



## marekjoz (Sep 14, 2012)

Aglet said:


> Hmmm A bit too much ETTR on those Canon bodies, they're clipping a little.
> The Nikon bodies are looking like they're making full use of their DR altho still a bit underexposed for my preferences.
> 
> 
> ...



I think that many find those bodies not properly exposed...


----------



## Danielle (Sep 15, 2012)

I think they're pretty evenly matched. Nikon has some lenses which don't exist with canon, and vice versa. Some of each are world class lenses. They're bodies (each company) I think appeal to slightly different people, one looking a little more sleek and one more industrial to my eye (canon is the more sleek to me). And their bodies work slightly differently, as in the menu's and buttons etc.

I don't personally care for nikon vs canon. Both have plusses and minus's depending what your comparing.


----------



## SiliconVoid (Sep 15, 2012)

Ambiguous inquiry in regard to the bodies..

What is the criteria of measurement?? Build? - Ergonomics? - Features? - Sensor design and performance..?

In general I think many people have been conditioned by the media and fanboy websites to think that Canon bodies are not as weather sealed and robust as Nikon bodies, often spreading inaccuracies about models like the 5DmkII such as stating it does not have any weather sealing - which is a load of crap.

When people say that Canon bodies, like the 5DmkII, 5DmkIII and 7D, feel like plastic they are actually referring to the smooth texture of its finish - not the physical build - although few reviewers actually clarify that. As if to assert everyone evaluates build quality by the texture of the paint/finish.... 

It is true in many Canon bodies they have designed fewer seals than Nikon bodies, but again few people explain why. In many of Canon's higher-end bodies they implement overlapping seams (like siding is on your house) and therefore do not need the same seals that Nikon uses with butted seams. Canon places seals and o-rings at button points, hotshoe, lcd panels, etc - all those places that one would anticipate seepage.

As for features.. both are equally featured at their price points and equipment tier..

In the area of ergonomics (the ease at which one can control the camera functions) - Canon, hands down. You can access more settings on their higher-end bodies with one hand than you can on any Nikon body, no comparison, period.

Sensor design is the only real difference, and that simply comes down to the different approaches used by each manufacturer. Nikon preferring to have noise be more even, like cheap film and bad exposure produces, versus Canon trying to get rid of it completely, even at the expense of detail loss. Which is the better approach is up to the user - there is no one, right, way. With Canon once you turn off noise reduction you have an easily identifiable noise pattern to process in post, where Nikon has a more uniform noise pattern but is always there no matter what processing you apply. If your output is digital downsamples, or print, then the slight detail loss and splotchy noise pattern of Canon is just not noticeable. If your intended output is crops from full resolution capture, then the granular appearance of Nikon's processing may be preferable.

All in all, I would have to rate Canon as having the better bodies when comparing all aspects, not just porous soft rubber wrappings...

BTW.. Without enabling any type of highlight preservation or in-camera DR features, many of Canon's bodies have greater base dynamic range than Nikon. You can check many different sites around the net - try DPReview for example, where they evaluate/grade the entire operation range of the camera instead of one highest possible single ISO setting performance of a camera like DxO does. Once you do enable DR and exposure preservation features in the cameras the only real difference you see is the manufacturers preference - Nikon increases preservation of shadow detail more than highlights, Canon increases preservation of highlights more than shadows. Again, which is 'better' depends on the photographer. Me personally, when a scene captures my eye and makes me reach for my camera it is specifically the interaction of light and shadow that made it appealing. I am not concerned with nor desire to process out all the shadows, that would completely ruin the imagery of the scene/subject. If I am concerned about anything it is highlights being blown out when wanting to maintain shadows being shadows.. I mean I want the shadows to be just that, shadows. If I could not make out what was in the shadows at the moment of capture, I have no concern with seeing it in the image.

No comparison in lenses. Canon offers a greater selection in their 'pro' lenses than Nikon. Canon offers users the ability to get into pro glass without having to buy the ONLY and most expensive lenses they make like Nikon does. For example (and there are many) the venerable 70-200mm lens you will likely find in any pro's bag, and one most everyone else wants at some point, Canon provides four options from ~$600 to ~$2400, all exceptional optic quality - Nikon has ONE and fork over ~$2400 for it or do not even think about a 70-200m..


----------



## weixing (Sep 15, 2012)

Hi,
IMHO, I don't know which brand had better body or better lens... I don't own or use a NiKon DSLR body or lens for an extended period of time, so I can't comment. 

But as a consumer, I can said that Canon had more choice and product are "more friendly" to people who had not much "resources"($$$). 

Also, Canon model numbering are more systematic and easily understand... smaller number are higher end product and will always perform better than their current lower end model. I don't really understand the Nikon model number system and I can't really understand why some Nikon body require the battery grip to achieve higher frame rate. 

I heard many Canon user complain that Nikon sensor are better... May be current Nikon sensor is a bit better, but I can said that your image processing skill must be at a certain level to really take advantage of that a bit of image superiority and is irrelevant to most average user... at least to me. Oh... just for record, if you shoot photo which lens cap on, you can identify which RAW image is taken by Nikon and Canon by looking at the data.

Anyway, IMHO, you won't go wrong with either of them... both brand are just as good... both had their advantage and disadvantage. In the end, it's all about personal preference and choices... unless you are a technology hobbyist. Anyway, if you got the $$$, get both... 

Just my $0.02 and have a nice day.


----------



## pete vella (Sep 15, 2012)

i've not handled any of those high end canon or nikon bodys; however the ones in white seem like they would focus faster, so you can lock on and get the perfect action shot.


----------



## pwp (Sep 15, 2012)

Unless you own and work with both systems, how could you possibly make a truly informed poll choice on this question? All most of us have to go on is personal choice and anecdotal evidence/viewpoints.

I used to be 100% happy with Nikon hardware but switched to Canon primarily because of the quality of CPS support compared to Nikon support at the time. It may have improved. And now I'm 100% happy shooting Canon.

The poll? It's a fairly pointless question. There is no clear obvious winner here. Both have strengths & weaknesses across different bodies, lenses & speedlights. Bottom line is they're both very close to brilliant.

-PW


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 15, 2012)

5D III + 24-70 mrk II + 70-200 f2.8 IS II = "gifts from heaven"

I vote for Canon body + lens


----------



## robbymack (Sep 15, 2012)

Different strokes for different folks. My guess for most consumers or enthusiasts it comes down to what they currently use (or more than likely the brand of dslr they first bought). for pros, they know their tools and pick the one that suits them best. Sort of a pointless poll, but I get the fun in it. Personally I don't like the ergonomics of Nikon so it's twice for canon for me.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 15, 2012)

SiliconVoid said:


> ..Nikon increases preservation of shadow detail more than highlights, Canon increases preservation of highlights more than shadows. Again, which is 'better' depends on the photographer. Me personally, when a scene captures my eye and makes me reach for my camera it is specifically the interaction of light and shadow that made it appealing. I am not concerned with nor desire to process out all the shadows, that would completely ruin the imagery of the scene/subject. If I am concerned about anything it is highlights being blown out when wanting to maintain shadows being shadows.. I mean I want the shadows to be just that, shadows. If I could not make out what was in the shadows at the moment of capture, I have no concern with seeing it in the image.



Dealing with the _ends_ of a system's DR can be both relative and subjective as far as this kind of image interpretation goes.

But what about when some bodies (coff coff 5D2 coff) actually generate visible pattern noise in midtones (like blue sky) or darker areas that are not even in pushed shadows?

Also, as part of an artist's interpretation, simple controls like contrast and brightness, even when used sparingly with a camera's built in scene mode or picture style, can sometimes bring out these patterned noise artifacts. so it's not always heavy post-processing required to show some of these problems from some bodies. Some low iso images have problems right out of the camera and same with some hi-ISO blotchiness.

I don't agree with your opinion on noise processing.
Patterned noise is nearly impossible to get rid of, uniform noise is easier to remove or can even be left in as it's less obtrusive than patterned noise.



SiliconVoid said:


> No comparison in lenses. Canon offers a greater selection in their 'pro' lenses than Nikon. Canon offers users the ability to get into pro glass without having to buy the ONLY and most expensive lenses they make like Nikon does. For example (and there are many) the venerable 70-200mm lens you will likely find in any pro's bag, and one most everyone else wants at some point, Canon provides four options from ~$600 to ~$2400, all exceptional optic quality - Nikon has ONE and fork over ~$2400 for it or do not even think about a 70-200m..


That is only one example, but a good one. You still have the option of choosing and using 70-200mm class lenses they've made over the past 30+ years tho. So there's a price point for everyone if you don't mind using some older, possibly manual gear. Not that different after all.
OTOH, Nikon has some great lenses Canon doesn't, like the UWA benchmark 14-24mm.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 21, 2012)

Its still overwhelmingly one sided for canon lenses but Nikon bodies are still superior.


----------



## Razor2012 (Sep 21, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Its still overwhelmingly one sided for canon lenses but Nikon bodies are still superior.



I find Nikon bodies too small and there's something weird with the ergonomics/grip. It was more apparent to me when I held the D800.


----------

