Nikon vs Canon. Camera geeks muster here.

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Ravers, Sep 22, 2010.

?
  1. Nikon

    38 vote(s)
    50.7%
  2. Canon

    34 vote(s)
    45.3%
  3. Other

    3 vote(s)
    4.0%

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Ravers

    Ravers LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    Much like the age old Land Rover vs other 4x4 debate or 5.56 vs 7.62 debate, lets have it out about SLRs.

    I've got a Nikon D5000 and I love it, my best mate has a Canon EOS something or other which is also very nice. They both weigh in at around £600 with lens, case, memory card etc. but my Nikon just feels better built, somehow the Canon feels more fragile with cheaper plastic in my opinion.

    Picture wise it's hard to tell the difference between the two.

    Some come on then lets have it!
     
  2. I love my Pentax. Optio X90. If I had one criticism it is not good for taking wide angle photos - for example large groups of people, where detail is important. However it's presets menus are fecking top-show!
     
  3. CanoWorms, Ravers :)

    In my opinion (like a*seholes, everyone has one)... I struggle with the ergonomics of the Nikons, right up to the D3. I use Canon. Out of the box, a friend's Nikon has better - read: More saturated, sharper - images then my Canon, which means that I have to work a BIT harder to get the same result. Photoshop is my friend ;)

    The prosumer arena I give to the Canons - until the abomination of the Canon D60 weas launched. Polycarbonate body indeed! Harumph.

    All reports that I've read say roughly the same thing - Nikon images sharper out of the box, the only exceptions being the pro cameras (EOS 7, 5D MkII, 1D MK IV and the Nikon equivalents). Nikon wide-angle and normal lenses better, Canon's short- to true telephoto better (take the 100-400 L IS as possibly the ultimate telephoto for around 6 years).

    The last year or so has proved to be another decisive time for photography, with Sony FINALLY starting to make its presence felt again.

    I'll stick to my Canon, thanks apart from my Nikonos V
     
  4. NIKON for me. Mind you I am still on a D100, for a lack of funding to get a D90... I don't dare start using a friends more recent model for fear I would rush to the US and buy a new one... in reality it does not matter, the real cost is in the lenses (I am the proud owner of 12-24, 25-125 and 100-400), you will always be able to use those for as long as you stick to the respective brand. The weakest link with Nikons of my generation is the cleaning of the sensor (of the dust that gathers), which has now been resolved. Really inconvenient if you are in the desert and need to change a lens...

    I have found that once you are used to a system, one or the other, it is best not to switch but to stick with your brand. I find in my photographic everything that Nikons are incredibly good with skin colour in portraits.
     
  5. Obviously no easy (or right) answer here Ravers old boy.

    If you're an (D)SLR user then it all depends on your first camera.
    If you buy Nikon, Canon or any of the others you start to amass lenes for that camera, so when it comes to buying a new body you buy one to fit your lenses. The exception being the professional or the rich guy who may decide to change systems. Barring a lotto win thats not me!

    As for the big two I don't think that there is a huge difference between them. That siad of course, CANON ALL THE WAY!

    Q.
     
  6. Just like Quaker says,depends on your first camera.

    My first DSLR was a Nikon D40, loved it to bits when I first got it. In a short while other people I know got one too. Once I wore that out I replaced it with a D3000 and a D40x to save on lens changes at busy events.

    I don't know about Canon but Nikon lenses can be expensive though.
     
  7. Made the swap from Minolta to Canon when I went digital and have been impressed with the system ever since. By the way anyone want any old minolta kit let me know including some lenses.
     
  8. Alsacien

    Alsacien LE Moderator

    Leica S2.....was looking at some 50x50cm black and white portraits shot with one a few weeks back - stunning...

    Unfortunately I would suffer from wallet cramp at the asking price, so I'll stick with my Nikon D90 which is the doggies danglies for the dosh. The AFS VR2 18-200mm zoom is great for allround use as is my new 50mm 1:1.4. I also have a 10-24mm for underwater use which works fine.
    Canon lens being white are very non-tac.....
     
  9. Good 2 cu back Alsascien. Leica and Hasselblad are in a league of their own, though they do produce stunning pictures if u know how to operate them, you'd have to take out a mortgage to buy them though.
     
  10. Canon EOS 400.

    I stuck with Canon when I changed to Digital as my film camera was a Canon A1.
     
  11. Canon for me, but only because when I switched to digital I had all the lenses.

    I'd add another checkbox to the poll: 'They're both bloody good makes, and used correctly there's not much between the two'.
     
  12. Gremlin

    Gremlin LE Good Egg (charities)

    We all know that when it comes to procurement the MoD gets it wrong every time......

    They picked Nikon!!! :razz:

    Canon all the way!

    ================= =================== ===================


    Serious answer:

    It used to be said that you picked a Nikon for Fine Art, Portraiture and Landscapes, whilst Canon was best for Sports, Wildlife and PJ shots.

    A lot of this was down to the differences in the manufacturer's approach to sensors and lenses: ie

    Nikons have historically handled low light shots better and had Cleaner Image Quality due to their lower density sensors, where as Canon's capture more detail and afford the ability to crop better.

    Until recently (3 years ago or so) Canon's AF system was light years ahead of Nikon's for speed.

    Nikon have traditionally excelled at the wider focal length lenses, whereas Canon were known for the quality of their telephotos.

    All of that has changed and professional photographers are switching both ways between the two. The big white lens no longer has complete dominance at sports events like Wimbledon, and likewise the front cover of Nat Geo is no longer likely to just be Nikon (although it was probably more likely to be a Medium Format anyway!).

    The simple fact is that both make bloody good cameras, and more importantly systems. If the person behind the camera is good enough then they will get great images which ever they choose!
     
  13. Re MOD procurement probably due to having lenses that date back to the F/F2/F3 etc camera bodies that still work with digital - tho they struggle as the sensors are more demanding than film for better glass.

    At the pro end Nikon trumps Canon in low light, though the 1D models still are best for detail in normal ISO ranges.
    At the consumer end the Canon 550D is astounding.
    But these are just black pixel boxes looking for an image without decent glass in front.
    The merging of vid/stills is really making real progress especially with HD & sound.
    For a point & shoot I use a Canon PowerShot S90, not to everybody's liking, as the controls are a bit fiddly but it does shoot in RAW.
    If you are looking for a high-end P&S, it's worth checking out Panasonic's new LX5, many swore by its predecessor the LX3.
    BTW shooting in RAW does make a difference, if you looking for detail and PS CS5's Raw Converter now makes it really worth the effort.
     
  14. First bold. Yes, absolutely. I used F2s in the Army - loved 'em. (I still prefer Canon :smile: ) But
    you'd have to be mad to switch everything to Canon after the advent of digital photography with all the existing Nikon kit.

    Second bold: RAW - Yes, yes, yes. So much flexibility.
     
  15. Canon 400 and 7D no complaints at all!