Canon - Nikon Observations

D-Mac wrote:
Canon "consumer grade" lenses produce some pretty shocking CA and
have real problems at middle distance focus. Several of the "L"
lenses should never have been named a Professional lens either.

Just to let you know what the Saab-driving, ponytailed marketing geniuses
really think of the term "professional":

http://www.mendosus.com/jpg/mints.jpg

A more useless description would be hard to find.

I'm surprised anyone would take the terms "consumer", "prosumer" or
"professional" seriously nowadays.

--
Jeff R.

measekite wrote:

The big difference between Canon and Nikon is in lenses. Not that you are
going to get much better results with one over the other and not that
either has super large gaping holes in their lens line that will persist
over a reasonable period of time but the difference is in $$$$. It seems
that the majority of Nikon lenses are more costly than Canon. I do not
know what you are getting for the additional money.

Usually nothing (or less).

For example, Nikon aficionado Ken Rockwell wrote about the wide-angle
Canon 10-22 EF-s zoom: "This is a great lens. It's so great it makes me
want to swap over to Canon from Nikon, because it's better than my
favorite Nikon 12 - 24 mm lens. It's better because it has less
distortion and costs less. I paid over $1,000 for my Nikon; this
superior 10 - 22 sells for $700." Actually the EF-s 10-22 can be had for
around $600, while the Nikon 12-24 is around $825, but the bottom line
is that you get nothing for that 35% premium for the Nikon lens. It's a
similar situation for the 18-200 lenses from each manufacturer. The
Nikon got dinged for distortion much more than the Canon, as well as
being dinged for the zoom setting creeping (a problem on many Nikon low
end lenses). Yet the Nikon has a street price of around $625, while the
Canon goes for around $500. Neither lens is anything to write home
about, and both are "Recommended (with reservations)" by dpreview, so
what makes the Nikon worth a 25% premium over the Canon?

Nikon's low-end lenses are pretty bad in terms of chromatic aberration
and focusing, similar to what Canon used to bundle with their very low
end film Rebel SLRs, and which I don't think are even available any
more. Many of the Canon mid-range lenses have L quality optics, but lack
the professional build quality of the L lenses. For mid-range lenses,
the Canon lenses tend to have faster and more accurate AF, though of
course part of the AF accuracy and speed depends on the body.

It was interesting to watch the Canon-Nikon wars back when the EOS
system was introduced. You had a lot of pros switching to Canon because
of the in-lens focusing motors. Nikon copied that innovation, then Canon
came out with their L lenses and the fluorite element lenses that
Nikon tried to counter with their low-dispersion element lenses, but
never managed to get up to the quality of the Canon lenses. Most of the
remaining Nikon professionals made the switch when Nikon insisted that
there was no need for full frame digital and said that they had no plans
for full frame bodies.

Has any pro ever switched to Nikon from Canon? I'm sure it's happened
but you never hear about it. It's always stuff like 'I switched to Canon
because I wanted a high-resolution full frame body,' or 'I needed to
switch to Canon because I'm doing sports photography and Nikon lacks the
lenses I need."

Where Canon lags Nikon slightly is in flashes. I don't know why Canon
hasn't been able to design flashes as good as Nikon's.

In article , SMS
wrote:

For example, Nikon aficionado Ken Rockwell wrote about the wide-angle
Canon 10-22 EF-s zoom: "This is a great lens. It's so great it makes me
want to swap over to Canon from Nikon, because it's better than my
favorite Nikon 12 - 24 mm lens. It's better because it has less
distortion and costs less. I paid over $1,000 for my Nikon; this
superior 10 - 22 sells for $700."

ken admits he makes stuff up. he may be lying about this or he may not.

Nikon's low-end lenses are pretty bad in terms of chromatic aberration
and focusing, similar to what Canon used to bundle with their very low
end film Rebel SLRs, and which I don't think are even available any
more. Many of the Canon mid-range lenses have L quality optics, but lack
the professional build quality of the L lenses. For mid-range lenses,
the Canon lenses tend to have faster and more accurate AF, though of
course part of the AF accuracy and speed depends on the body.

and many midrange nikon lenses have ed glass. both companies make
decent lenses as well as budget lenses.

It was interesting to watch the Canon-Nikon wars back when the EOS
system was introduced. You had a lot of pros switching to Canon because
of the in-lens focusing motors. Nikon copied that innovation, then Canon
came out with their L lenses and the fluorite element lenses that
Nikon tried to counter with their low-dispersion element lenses, but
never managed to get up to the quality of the Canon lenses.

actually they're quite close and canon had l lenses before eos came out.

Most of the
remaining Nikon professionals made the switch when Nikon insisted that
there was no need for full frame digital and said that they had no plans
for full frame bodies.

nikon never insisted there was no need for full frame. what they said
was that they'd do it when it was cost effective to do so.

Has any pro ever switched to Nikon from Canon? I'm sure it's happened
but you never hear about it. It's always stuff like 'I switched to Canon
because I wanted a high-resolution full frame body,' or 'I needed to
switch to Canon because I'm doing sports photography and Nikon lacks the
lenses I need."

actually quite a few have switched to nikon due to the canon 1d mark
iii focusing problems. look at photos of the olympics and there are
far fewer white lenses than in previous years.

SMS wrote:
[]
It's a similar situation for the 18-200 lenses from each
manufacturer. The Nikon got dinged for distortion much more than the
Canon, as well as being dinged for the zoom setting creeping (a
problem on many Nikon low end lenses). Yet the Nikon has a street
price of around $625, while the Canon goes for around $500. Neither
lens is anything to write home about, and both are "Recommended (with
reservations)" by dpreview, so what makes the Nikon worth a 25%
premium over the Canon?
[]

But you had to wait three years for Canon to catch up with Nikon in even
making an 18-200mm lens available. Yes, there were early reports of
creep, but Ihaven't seen creep in two recent samples of these versatile
lenses.

It wouldn't surprise me that the reviewers were more familiar with the
distortion to be expected from an 18-200mm lens, and so commented less
when the Canon lens eventually appeared.

In the UK, it seems that there is far less difference in price between the
two lenses (about 5%), and the Nikon includes a lens hood and carrying
pouch.

David

"Matt Ion" wrote in message
...


What is this! Agreement and civility in the Canon-vs.-Nikon debate??! We
can't have this!!

I agree, I want to see blood spilt over this ;-)

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:09:37 -0800, Matt Ion wrote:

HEMI - Powered wrote:
BigDog1 added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

Nicely said. I've been listening to this Canon vs. Nikon debate
since I first started down this road in the late 60's, and I'm
weary of it. The simple fact is, saying one is better than the
other is like saying my Dad can beat your Dad, and they're both
6' 4" and 250lbs of solid muscle. It's just silly.

Around here, this debate is like arguing about religion or
politics. I truly believe that NO DSLR will produce bad pictures,
but SOME can produce higher quality than others. Price has the most
to do with it as does where a given camera model is in it's life
cycle.

These days, in any given "class" of cameras, I think the biggest
difference you get with price is physical build quality, and
bells'n'whistles. You could conceivably have two cameras by the same
manufacturer that use the same sensor, the same processor, and mount the
same glass on them, giving the same image quality, yet have one cost
$1000 more than the other... because it has things like a larger,
brighter viewfinder, manual focus aids, a built-in vertical grip, faster
AF performance, higher continuous-shooting framerates, and is built on a
metal skeleton vs. mainly plastic. In other words, better construction
with the same basic innards, and bells'n'whistles.

As with any tool, the more expensive one won't necessarily give better
results... it just gives the user more options, flexibility, and/or
durability.


While basically true there is the possibility that a particular user could
indeed get better results due to some particular group of features like
grip, viewfinder, frame rates etc since they would aid him in getting the
shot.



As you say, all else being equal, the most important component
of the equation is the photographer. The OPs points are
perfectly valid. If the camera feel good in his hands, and he
likes the controls, that's the one he should use.

Oh, I fully agree with that, and is what I said to the OP. I chose
my first DSLR, a Canon Rebel XT, over the Nikon D-70s because it
was smaller and lighter and I liked it's controls better.
Unfortunately, it turned out to be VERY noisy, hence I bought a
Rebel XSi last spring.

One of my old friends from work bought a Nikon D80 last year. He
and I compared notes at lunch and looked at each other's new toy.
We BOTH concluded that what WE bought was more convenient to use.

I don't believe there is ANY single right answer to the perennial
"what camera is best?" debate.


What is this! Agreement and civility in the Canon-vs.-Nikon debate??!
We can't have this!!

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:30:18 +1000, D-Mac wrote:

"measekite" wrote in message
...
Basically, I like the Nikon D90 better than the Canon Digital Rebel Xsi.
For me it just feels and handles better and there are more buttons for
quicker access to everyday controls.

The jury is still out about the Canon 50D. Most of the reviews claim that
it is better than the D90 but after a quickie look the D90 seems more
comfortable.

The big difference between Canon and Nikon is in lenses. Not that you are
going to get much better results with one over the other and not that
either has super large gaping holes in their lens line that will persist
over a reasonable period of time but the difference is in $$$$. It seems
that the majority of Nikon lenses are more costly than Canon. I do not
know what you are getting for the additional money.
--------------------
Canon "consumer grade" lenses produce some pretty shocking CA and have real
problems at middle distance focus. Several of the "L" lenses should never
have been named a Professional lens either. The system Canon use wants to
send the lens to infinity long before it should.

Nikon's latest bunch of "Consumer grade" lenses are excellent. Some small CA
is visible in the 18 -135 but generally, 80% less (IMO) than Canon lenses.
Nikon's auto focus system whilst being slower than the Canon system is far
more accurate. Middle distance focus is so much better than Canon's, you'd
really wonder why they let it happen.

I speak from experience. I dumped all my Canon gear over a 4 month period
and bought Fuji and Nikon cameras. The last Canon's I had were a 5D and a
40D. You are right about the top end lenses being dearer than "L" Canon
lenses but for perfectionists, there is no equal to the Nikon's in Canon's
range. During my evaluation period I also used Pentax, Mamiya and Olympus
cameras.

But Nikon has no answer currently for the Canon 5D MKii

It's true the D3 is lower resolution than a 1D Mk III. What isn't clear most
of the time is that at about 8 Mp, Digital exceeds fine grain 35mm film and
can be enlarged to MF sizes due to lack of grain. Posters I've seen made by
a rival with his 1D are not as well defined as posters I make from D3
images.

The 21MP Canon 5D MKii will (more noticeably when cropped) will have a
better print image quality than Nikon. I would expect that a new version
of the D700 will be out shortly.


There may be some valid argument to buy Canon in the lower and Pro
ranges but image quality is not one of them. Most Professional
photographers using Canon gear do so only because they can rent $20,000
lenses pretty much on demand. Nikon Pros buy their own.

Had I elected to stay with Canon, I would have saved the cost of a new
car and gained access to the huge 1000mm FL lens they hire out to Pros.
Then I asked myself WTF does a wedding and publication photographer want
with such a lens?

My wedding cameras all have 18 - 200 lenses on them. I carry a wider
lens but have never used it in over 9 months. DxO Optics Pro fix the
lens differences and make the images as good as if they'd been shot with
a couple of lenses costing 4x the cost these.

From my point of view, the 50D is just an evolution of the 20D without
fixing any of the real problems facing mid range Canon DSLRs. The D90 is
evolutionary also but it evolved from a pretty good camera in the first
place so there are less problems brought forward. The movie thing is
some sort of "mine's as good as yours" ****ing competition I think and
really ought to be dropped if they can't get it right.

Can you provide a lot of detail and specifics on why you feel that the
Nikon D90 is better than the Canon 50D. Can you also explain why most of
the reviews tout the Canon 50D over the Nikon D90. I know that the build
quality of the Canon 50D is better but I do feel that for most the build
quality of the D90 is good enough.

And what about the D300?


For a first time owner I'd recommend a Pentax or Olympus over either
Nikon or Canon but getting into the area of serious photographers, The

why?

Nikon system is much better than the Canon stuff but if sports shooting

why?

(professionally) is where you're heading, Canon is the only choice that
makes any financial sense.

Douglas

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 07:26:01 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:

SMS wrote:
[]
It's a similar situation for the 18-200 lenses from each
manufacturer. The Nikon got dinged for distortion much more than the
Canon, as well as being dinged for the zoom setting creeping (a
problem on many Nikon low end lenses). Yet the Nikon has a street
price of around $625, while the Canon goes for around $500. Neither
lens is anything to write home about, and both are "Recommended (with
reservations)" by dpreview, so what makes the Nikon worth a 25%
premium over the Canon?
[]

But you had to wait three years for Canon to catch up with Nikon in even
making an 18-200mm lens available. Yes, there were early reports of
creep, but Ihaven't seen creep in two recent samples of these versatile
lenses.

See Camera Labs . com.

They have a video review and actually demonstrate it.



It wouldn't surprise me that the reviewers were more familiar with the
distortion to be expected from an 18-200mm lens, and so commented less
when the Canon lens eventually appeared.

In the UK, it seems that there is far less difference in price between the
two lenses (about 5%), and the Nikon includes a lens hood and carrying
pouch.

David

And what about the remainder of SMS comments where he actually claims that
Canon lenses are superior to Nikon. From what I can actually see are the
following facts. It appears that Canon have more good lenses available
under $1,500 (I do not care and cannot justify lenses that cost more or
are over $5,000) and that when compared to a similar Nikon lens the Canon
is less money.

measekite wrote:
[]

(I wrote)
But you had to wait three years for Canon to catch up with Nikon in
even making an 18-200mm lens available. Yes, there were early
reports of creep, but Ihaven't seen creep in two recent samples of
these versatile lenses.

See Camera Labs . com.

They have a video review and actually demonstrate it.

From a recent sample of the lens, or from three years ago?


And what about the remainder of SMS comments where he actually claims
that Canon lenses are superior to Nikon. From what I can actually
see are the following facts. It appears that Canon have more good
lenses available under $1,500 (I do not care and cannot justify
lenses that cost more or are over $5,000) and that when compared to a
similar Nikon lens the Canon is less money.

I assume he has made an objective comparison using criteria which suit the
way he wants to use the lenses. You may need to do the same. On the lens
I mentioned, the UK cost differential appears to be about 5%, so I would
consider the choice of camera and it's handling characteristics to be more
important than saving or paying a few pennies more for the lens. As my
photography is a hobby, and as my lenses will be used in the field, on
trips, near the sea etc. etc. getting rather worn, I would not wish to pay
more than about US $600 for either lens or body. Other people's limits
will be different.

Cheers,
David

measekite wrote:

And what about the remainder of SMS comments where he actually claims that
Canon lenses are superior to Nikon.

Hold on there, I never really said that (or I didn't mean to say it that
way). What I meant to say that in each price class for lenses, Canon
_usually_ delivers equal or better results at equal or lower cost. If
cost were not a consideration, you could probably match up Nikon and
Canon lenses pretty closely until you moved up to the professional "big
white lenses" where Nikon doesn't compete.

If a D-SLR buyer is starting from scratch, with no existing lenses, then
it's certainly worth considering the cost differential for lenses of
similar quality when choosing which system to buy into. But it's only
one of many considerations. As David pointed out, Canon was very late to
the game with their 18-200 IS lens, and if someone wanted that type of
lens, up until recently that would have been a reason to not even
consider Canon.