Nikon vs Canon (some advice please)

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/28/2012 11:08:05 AM · #1

I realise this topic has the potential to create a lot of controversy and has also been done to death, but some genuine advice from people (especially those that have shot both) would be very useful to me.

So I'm wanting to go full frame and have decided to either go for the d700 or the 5d2 with a view to spending the saved money on good glass since the body can always be upgraded at a later date when a good deal pops up.

Now all in all from what I've seen the d700 is just a better camera than the 5d2 however you look at it aside from mp count which while a little on the low side, I'm fairly sure I could live with for, say, a couple of years (a hypothetical time frame for upgrading the camera body). So to me this seemed like an easy decision (the d700 being cheaper also), however not knowing too much about Nikon glass I started looking in to it and it seems Canon's offerings in the focal lengths I'd want to shoot are generally better then the Nikon equivalents, the glass I'd likely want with each camera (and thoughts based on what I've gathered so far using sites such as the-digital-picture.com) being:

Canon:
17-40mm f/4
Cheaper than the Nikon equivalent and with less distortion and CA's.

24mm f/1.4 II
Pretty similar to Nikon's offering though less CA's and a bit cheaper.

100mm f/2.8 IS Macro
Hardly any CA, unlike the Nikon equivalent, and also sharper.

400mm f/5.6
Extra 100mm.

Nikon:
16-35mm f/4
VR (not sure how much I'd use this) and 1mm wider.

24mm f/1.4
Pretty similar to Canon's offering, though a little sharper.

105mm f/2.8 Micro
Cheaper than Canon equivalent.

300mm f/4
f/4 and cheaper than Canon's 400mm.

Now obviously it's easy to be too clinical here and doing these sorts of comparisons doesn't give you the whole story (and doesn't touch on such things as AF abilities at all) - but then that's why I've made this thread. What I'd really like is some informed advice to sway me one way or the other, I've shot with all the above Canon lenses (except the macro), but none of the Nikon, so I'm only going by test charts, but it seems Nikon glass is much more prone to CA's, so is this a factor in the real world or do the test charts not tell the whole story here? Are there any Nikon lenses I've overlooked that'd be suitable alternatives? Also how much better is the d700 at focusing in low light than the 5d2?

A brief summary of the impression I've got so far (which could be wrong) is: It'd ultimately cost me more to go Nikon by a small margin, but they have the better bodies... Canon has the better glass though, with a lot of Nikon's offerings showing heavy CA compared to their otherwise-equal Canon counterparts.

Ideally I'd rent both out to compare side-by-side over a period of time, but the cost of doing that in this country is close to buying one of the lenses I've listed above. I'm sure I'd be happy with either but I'd naturally like to be able to make as informed a decision as possible so any responses will be much appreciated.

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

04/28/2012 11:17:07 AM · #2

Why compare the Canon 400 to the Nikon 300? Canon has a 300f4IS, so I would compare apples to apples.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

04/28/2012 11:24:01 AM · #3

Because I'd rather have the 400 - just Nikon doesn't have an exact equivalent.

Tommy_Mac

Nikon D800

04/29/2012 09:22:48 AM · #4

Originally posted by HawkinsT:

Because I'd rather have the 400 - just Nikon doesn't have an exact equivalent.

I'm not sure the price difference but if you went with the Nikon 300 an paid roughly 500 bucks more you could get a 1.4 or 1.7 teleconverter which works awesome!! Still a very sharp lens...and "bigger" than the 400 with both. I've only rented the 300, but definitely plan on buying one. It's a great lens

Message edited by author 2012-04-29 09:23:27.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

04/29/2012 09:53:57 AM · #5

Well you might also look at the directions they've gone in a future sense.

I always had mixed feelings about my sensor in my D7000, and Nikon has carried on with it in the D800. I have found a way to get around it (see my post in //www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=1143611). But I personally think the noise handling is better in the Canons...especially the Mark III. I considered that instead of buying a D800 after I cancelled it. But I also decided to wait a while before going full frame.

It looks like you love primes, and that's not a bad thing. However, one of the reasons I'd be hesitant to go to Canon is the great zooms I have for the Nikon line. Surprisingly, the best lenses I have are the 18-200 VR and the 28-300 VR. I say best because while they are not as "good" as the 24-70 or the 70-200 on corner to corner sharpness, they are DAMN GOOD. I've only once been unsatisfied with a picture I took with the 18-200. Most are spot on. The 28-300 is newer to me...less than a year whereas I've been using the 18-200 for more than 4 years (I think...ever since my D80). Whereas I have the 24-70 and 70-200, I only use them in the studio because of their bulk in the bag and focal length limits in the case of the 24-70. I always take either the 18-200 or 28-300 with me, along with my Sigma 10-20 and Nikon 10.5 fisheye.

These are called vacation lenses by many, but I've used the 18-200 in the studio, and gotten results as sharp as the 24-70. Examples here, all shot with the 18-200. I switched to the Nikon from Canon for this lens 4-5 years back. Canon has one now, but I don't know if it's as good.

What's my point since you seem to be going for primes...just that you might also consider the great zooms Nikon has! They provide a great bang for the buck and carry weight. I would not have even considered a switch to full frame without the 28-300 being released (their full frame zoom).

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

04/30/2012 06:25:59 PM · #6

Thanks for the replies...

Originally posted by Tommy_Mac:

I'd probably get a teleconverter at some point. My experience with Canon's 1.4 III and 2.0 III converters though is (on top of the extra cost) they slow down af significantly so I prefer having a longer lens without a converter for that reason.

Originally posted by Neil:

From what I've seen noise performance in the d800 if you scale it down to 22.3mp is a fair amount better than the 5d3 - just the canon has better noise reduction in jpg's. Even if that's not the case though the d700 definitely has better noise performance than the 5d2.

Ah, given an unlimited budget (or at least a more sizeable one) I'd be with you on the zooms, however I have zooms on my current camera and find myself rarely using though because of my love for primes. The way I see it, with a zoom I can get, say, 20% 'decent' photo's, but maybe 1% will be 'exceptional'. With primes I get perhaps 10% 'decent' photo's, but 2% 'exceptional'. Basically I have a higher keeper rate but at the end of the day if I go out and come back with one really great photo, that's a win for me, and primes just do that better. I'm also fond of the thinking involved when you have just the one focal length to work with - although that's not to say I don't like the ease of zooms on occasion.

Anyway, thanks again for the feedback, I'm leaning quite heavily towards the d700 now due to all the advantages I listed above, and with lenses it seems to me the more I look at it both Canon and Nikon have some really great lenses the other doesn't, but on the whole it works out about even and they both have similar equivalents for most lenses where either would suit me fine.

cowboy221977

Canon EOS-60D

04/30/2012 06:28:40 PM · #7

LOL why compare Nikon to Canon...just go Canon....LMAO

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

04/30/2012 06:38:18 PM · #8

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

LOL why compare Nikon to Canon...just go Canon....LMAO

They certainly have the larger marketing department =). Investing this much money in something I think it's sensible to do the research though, else you end up with a sigma dslr =).

tanguera

Nikon D750

04/30/2012 08:44:40 PM · #9

You cannot go wrong with either. The differences you're talking about are not significant enough in real time application to agonize about.

chazoe

Nikon Z7 FX

Nikon MF Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/2.8D PC

04/30/2012 08:52:01 PM · #10

Originally posted by tanguera:

You cannot go wrong with either. The differences you're talking about are not significant enough in real time application to agonize about.

This ^^^^^

The technology is getting so good on all sides that brand really doesn't matter. The real important thing is feel and personal preferance. I shoot Nikon because I like the way it feels in my hand better. I like the layout of the buttons and menus better. And I know this sounds silly but I like the way the shutter on a Nikon sounds compared to Canon. Lol

Magnumphotography

Canon EF 500mm f/4.0L IS USM

04/30/2012 09:10:56 PM · #11

Take a look at this comparison. It helps to show the features, side by side.

//snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II-vs-Nikon_D700

Over all, I would say the 700 is a better camera. More well rounded with it's 5fps and focus system.
But, if you want to print big or crop like crazy MMM.. the mark II would fit well. Just not the best, as an action sports camera. As it's
focus system, is not super responsive.

Lens wise I like Canon. They offer focal lengths not offered by Nikon. Such as your 400mm 5.6, 300 f4 stabilized, 8-15mm fisheye, 800mm 5.6 (I may sell a kidney) and a few other fine lenses.
Nikon has a few on Canon, but I believe Canon will have more interesting offerings. I too have noticed nikon's ca in the digital picture.com. I use my 500f4is with 1.4x teleconverter. If you compare the two brands,
the Canon (Sorry) seems to win. Bare lens though, the Nikon looks maybe a little better. This is just one lens example. Don't get me wrong, Nikon has many great lenses. The 300f4 is excellent.
For me, Nikon wins the wide angle end and Canon the telephoto end. If you are comparing to a very fine degree.

Keep in mind, an extra body and back up lens are a bonus. Are you single? Grab some cameras and shoot, It's a great first date idea!

Basta

Nikon D4

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

04/30/2012 09:17:55 PM · #12

don't listen to me. but here is something to think/try. get a Nikon and a Canon ( at the store , or any other way you can) and play 5 minutes with each. See which one feels better in your hand. Which one fits your hand better.
Then think about what your buddies shoot ( not internet buddies, the real life ones) if they all have Canon its an easy way to try out new gear before buying it yourself. If they all have Nikon, and you have Canon, you are on your own.

Other than that Canon and Nikon are so close you cant go wrong with either.

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

04/30/2012 09:32:36 PM · #13

i would go with whatever offers the better glass.

caba

Nikon D800

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

04/30/2012 09:41:59 PM · #14

Never buy either brand because one might be cheaper, buy what fits you. Rent to test drive both. You will be happier with what ever you choose. You can't go wrong with either one.