Nikon v. Canon (Trying to Understand the Differences)

[King Kong Matt]

I know this has the tendency to generate some serious discussion. Having owned neither type of camera, however, I am interested in what people perceive to be the significant differences between the systems and what would lead them to buy one system over the other.

Let's keep it civil and informative! Thanks in advance for all your help.

 

[tankboygreg]

I own both and really have no preference of one brand over the other. I own a Canon A620 digicam which I bought for underwater photography. I bought the Canon over the equivalent Nikon because I preferred the feature set of the Canon. With SLRs I went with the Nikon D70 when it first came out. It was the best digital SLR in that price range at that time. Besides, my father is a die hard Nikon user and if I want access to his lenses I need to own a Nikon body.

As for the differences, Nikon and Canon use different sensor technologies. in their digital cameras. From what I understand the drives for Nikon SLR lenses are in the camera body while the drives for Canon lenses are in the lenses. I'm sure you can find more on the technical differences in some of the other threads that have already appeared on this board.

If you are looking at digital cameras you should check out dpreview.com

(Once the debate over Canon versus Nikon is over then we can move on to which housings are better: Ikelite or Sea and Sea?)

 

[mjh]

Have owend both, both are great. Only real differance I see is Canon seems to have the edge in +300mm dry land 2.8 lenses and Nikon with their glass in the 10.5 - 105.

 

[HowardE]

I know this has the tendency to generate some serious discussion. Having owned neither type of camera, however, I am interested in what people perceive to be the significant differences between the systems and what would lead them to buy one system over the other.

Let's keep it civil and informative! Thanks in advance for all your help.

That's a pretty broad question. Are you talking DSLR or Point and Shoot? It would matter.

 

[King Kong Matt]

That's a pretty broad question. Are you talking DSLR or Point and Shoot? It would matter.

Sorry, I should have clarified.

Specifically, I am looking at D-SLRS and will probably shoot as much on land (if not more) than underwater. I am concerned about overall usability, color saturation, and image sharpness (as is probably everyone ).

Hope that clarifies.

 

[fdog]

(disclaimer)I have not owned both. (Actually, although I shoot Nikons, I will confess to having a Canon Digital Elph in the glovebox)

Anyone can make a line-by-line assessment, and trumpet that their brand is better. However, Canon, Nikon, choose either, and you'll be happy; either way you'll feel that you got your money's worth.

That was the short version. Here's the long-winded explanation:

Nikon makes great glass (lenses); Canon makes great glass. The bodies are both well built and the feature sets are pretty similar. Performance is pretty similar, too. I know some will jump on this last statement, but it's true. Both have strengths and weaknesses, and usually the performance difference is miniscule.

Part of my paycheck comes from journalism. Out of all of us, two shoot with Canon, the rest, Nikon. Here's my take on watching their cameras perform:

>Our Nikons take a beating. Their Canons take a beating.
>Our Nikkor glass is unhumanly tack sharp. And expensive. Their Canon glass is tack sharp, and just as expensive.
>The reliability of my Nikons was (and is) astonishing. Their Canons fail just as often, which is to say hardly ever.
>NPS makes sure I always have a camera. So does Canon.
>Nikon parts and techs are everywhere. Canon parts and techs are a blight on the landscape.

I have shot Nikon pretty much forever. The controls and human interface are perfect for me. For the next guy, it may be terrible. So this is a personal thing, and much more important in getting "the shot" than some meaningless tenth of a percent advantage in noise.... and only you can tell which one's ergonomics is right for you.

There are many excellent reasons to pick a brand. Housing availability, TTL compatibility with strobes, etc. Price. My personal recommendation is to work backwards, i.e. pick the lens first, then the body; fit the port to the lens, and the housing comes along with the port.

Honestly, it's truly almost a dead tie. If you don't have an investment in either brand, you'll be happy either way.

All the best, James

 

[HowardE]

Sorry, I should have clarified.

Specifically, I am looking at D-SLRS and will probably shoot as much on land (if not more) than underwater. I am concerned about overall usability, color saturation, and image sharpness (as is probably everyone ).

Hope that clarifies.

Any models in mind? There is definitely a difference between models - you need to compare apples to apples, so what price range are you looking at? <1000 - >1000 >2000?

I just went through the same buying process, and I took about 6 weeks to actually decide.

 

[Diver Dennis]

What did you get howarde?
I have Canon for U/W shooting. I do very little topside but I've just spent some $$$ on topside lenses. Right now I have 2 Rebel bodies because I need a back up in case, god forbid, I flood. They are not that expensive and are adequate for my use. I bought Canon because I had a couple of lenses I could use on bodies throughout their line but I did look at changing over to Nikon. I have to agree with the posters who said it is a tie because that is exactly what my research, including talking to a lot of photographers told me, at least in the price range I was looking at.

 

[HowardE]

Exactly Dennis - the price range is a factor. I ultimately got a Nikon D200 for several reasons. But to do a fair comparison for Matt, I think the price range would be the place to start. Usually the first question I asked someone when they were looking to buy.



Of course, I'd sell them on a more expensive model But seriously - to be helpful...

 

[PerroneFord]

I owned a few Canons before I went to Nikon F-series. Never looked back. Canon absolutely pissed me off with making their lenses obsolete. For a pro, this was unacceptable. Fortunately Nikon has not done this. I did miss the infrared focus and USM lenses when I went to the F4. The Autofocus was laughable in low-light.

Honestly, for most work either is just fine. I have a few friends with D2Xs, and one with the top Digital Canon. Both are very nice, but that D2X just has me drooling every time I lay hands on it.