Canon or Nikon?

I'm in the market for a big boys camera so I want opinions based on your experience.

I want a DSLR either Canon Eos Rebels or Nikon D3100 series.
I would purchase a kit that includes 2 lenses.
Personal use, not for business

is one better than the other or is it just personal reference?

who has better lenses?

which is more user friendly?

which will actually honor a warranty issue?

some of these kits offer lenses 18-55 then 75-300. Will I miss much in between the two?

I earn my living with cameras. I'm a Canon guy but either will make a fantastic photo. Really, toss a coin when it comes to images both do a great job.

Here is how to pick the one that will work for you. First, find what fits your hand. You want the shutter release and the dials and buttons to fall naturally under your finger such that you can make adjustments without taking your eye away from the view finder. Second,try out and look through the menus, each brand has a slightly different approach to how their menus work kind of like Apple and Windows. They are similar but different.

I like the Canon mid range and pro bodies because they fit my hand and I can make quick adjustments on the fly. I don't like the Rebel series bodies because with their small size they don't fit my paws. Also many adjustments are buried in the menu instead of on dials and buttons. With the Rebel series I have to take the camera away from my eye, work down through menus to make changes I can make on the fly with the next step up in camera. The bottom end Nikon suffers with the same problems. The mid level bodies are much better tools.

The Nikon bodies flat don't work for me. The shutter release doesn't fall under my finger naturally.

Also, take a look at lenses. Buy the best glass you can afford. You're going to have those lens much longer than you will have the camera body.

With dslr Canon for years was the pro choice for many things. Just watch a sporting even and count the white lens you see being used. Those big white lenses are Canons. The last few years Nikon has caught up when it comes to sensors and they are making inroads into Canons market share.

I recently picked up a Canon 70D with some cheapy kit lenses from Costco to take to Mexico to photograph my daughters wedding. The whole setup was less than just one of my better lenses. If it went missing I wasn't going to be too broken hearted. I can say it is an amazing tool and can highly recommend it if it fits your paw.

Asking Canon or Nikon is like Smith or Colt. I'm a Nikon owner so I'll recommend Nikon.

Mostly it's personal preference.

I really do think Nikon has better entry level kit lenses. I still have and use the first lens I got with my first Nikon DSLR - and I have a several "good" lenses now.

User friendly is largely personal preference too.

I've heard good and bad warranty stories about both.

The 20mm between 55 and 70-75mm is a couple of steps. It's a non factor.

In most instances, when you're looking at an entry or mid-level DSLR you won't notice much difference in the photos. As Bill Bates said, pick what fits you, not just a name. I personally use Pentax because they fit me (and I can use my 40-60 year old Pentax lenses) but that doesn't mean they would be a fit for you. If you live in or near a large city, look for a camera store that has the models you want to consider and actually hold them.

As far as your question regarding lenses goes, I would look for a kit with 18-135/140 and a 50-250/300 range lenses. The 18-135/140, compared to the 18-55, generally is a much better walk around lens IMHO. You wouldn't lose much between the two lenses you named but with an 18-135 you're covered.

CW

I'm personally biased toward Nikon. For years, I've used Nikon film cameras. Everything from the F3, to the F5. I also very much liked the FE and FE2, and I've also owned the Nikkormats.

When it came to moving to digital, I continued with Nikon, mostly because I already had mount-compatible lenses. I still occasionally use a 20mm f2.8, a 50mm f1.4, and a 105mm f2.8. Those aren't the latest, and they're manually focused, but I really like the images they produce.

In the end, Bill Bates hit it. Get the one that fits your hand. Both have excellent glass, especially in the better lenses.

Both brands are top notch and have been battling it out for decades. So from a quality perspective they're about the same.

I give Nikon the edge for utility as there are a slew of older Nikon lenses that will work with new Nikon bodies. But if I were in your shoes looking at 35mm "style" cameras what I would try to settle on is the sensor size. The models you are looking at have what is known as a "cropped" sensor. They can and do produce astounding picture quality but you may want to consider a full frame sensor. In short, a full frame sensor is the same size as a 35mm negative. The cropped sensors are just that, cropped, or smaller. Just as with film, the larger the image is to start, the better quality you'll have with enlargements, all else being equal.

Another curveball, if you're buying a camera you intend to keep for a while you may also want to look at mirrorless models. They are compact with good size sensors and are also interchangeable lens capable. Some model offer an electronic viewfinder that attaches to the "hot shoe" if you want the feel of shooting with a 35. (Check out the Fuji!)

Dig into the internet a bit, there are alot of dedicated photo sites with tons of free knowledge, just like here with firearms.

Good luck and happy shooting!

I've been using Nikons continually for 35 years. I still have a few manual lenses and film bodies that still get some use. I enjoy their digital stuff and the high end lenses are truly great. I mostly shoot my kid's sporting events and family activities. I shoot the animals and sights around the yard and always take at least one body and several lenses when on vacation.

Of course the Nikon v Canon debate is similar to Chevy v Ford. There are pluses and minuses for each. At the level you're looking, I don't see a real advantage between the two. They will both take great pictures and both will have similar limitations in low light, versatility, speed, settings, etc. I have ALWAYS had great factory support and quick repairs from Nikon.

For top-notch reviews of all things Nikon Camera, google "Ken Rockwell". He does amazing reviews on bodies, lenses and accessories.

I think when you are dipping into DSLR either one would be fine - in fact, I might even suggest a used "pro" type DSLR like a Nikon D300s or even a D200 (can be had for $300 or so - be sure to check the shutter activations - less than 30,000 would be good as it should go 150,000). I'm a Nikon guy for about 50 years so take this for what it's worth.

If you really get into it, your main expense will be lenses - I still use my Nikkors that I bought as a teenager back in the 60's on my digital bodies (D200, D700).

Olympus 4/3, just to be different.

I'm an old Canon guy...

But then as now, I believe that if you want to take photography seriously Nikon is the way to go.

After the days of film, I've had many digital cameras and the Nikon was the best hands down. I have never owned a DSLR though.

rwsmith said:

But then as now, I believe that if you want to take photography seriously Nikon is the way to go.

After the days of film, I've had many digital cameras and the Nikon was the best hands down. I have never owned a DSLR though.

Click to expand...

These days Canon pretty much dominates the pro fields in photo jouranlism, sports and wildlife photography but Nikons do take good photos.

75% of Professional Photographers used Canon DSLRs to Cover the Super Bowl

meaneyedcatz said:

some of these kits offer lenses 18-55 then 75-300. Will I miss much in between the two?

Click to expand...

Just to add - 55mm-75mm is a footstep in either direction so don't worry about zoom as much as aperture (f-stop) of the lens. Photographers pay dearly for a "one stop" advantage (e.g. an 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor is about $600 while an 85mm 1.4 Nikkor is $1600+). Fixed aperture primes (non-zooms) are a nice way to start and you will usually get better quality than with a cheap kit zoom lens.

Lots of good advice has been given. The lower end Nikons and Canons are very similar, and what feels better in you hand, and control lay out preference is important.

Personaly, I am a fairly serious Nikon shooter. I enjoy using my older Nikon digitals, like the D2Xs, but in digital cameras, like computers, newer is better. Digital sensor performance and auto focus has improved by leaps and bounds in recent years, and a new Nikon D3100, a consumer camera, will offer more resolution and better low light performance than my D2Xs, a camera that was a top of the line, $5000 pro camera just 8 years ago. Matter of fact, the newer D3200 might be an even better choice. Newer, better sensor. Better movie mode.

When you buy one (Nikon), they are available in kits, with lenses included. The 18-55 and 55-200 are popular kit lenses, and are very nice for the money. The 55-200 is available with VR (vibration reduction), and is worth spending the few extra bucks for, as it enables you to hand hold the camera and clear pictures in lower light with telephoto lenses. Another thought, if $$ is a consideration, is to also look for a clean, used, AFS Nikon 50mm f1.8 lens. It will allow a lot more light into the camera, hence higher shutter speeds, and provide good performance for things like kids, who don't like to sit still.

Another nice thing with Nikon Is you can find older, manual focus Nikon lenses that will work great on your camera, for not a lot of money. Canon changed the lens mount on its cameras when they went to auto focus, making their FD manual focus lenses un-useable on their newer AF bodies.

Both makers have had good and bad reports of service, though I believe as in anything, it is exaggerated on the internet. With Nikon, I would advice buying a genuine Nikon USA import model, not "Grey market", thru an unauthorized importer, as Nikon USA repair will not stand behind them.

Larry

I've used Nikon F1 and Canon A1 35mm and both are fantastic. With digital, things are a bit different. I designed, tested and worked with CCD imagers for many years and here are some things I look for.

Dark imaging. All CCDs work well with good light. The measure of a good CCD is how well it works in low light. Due to the microscopic geometries involved, cell to cell leakage and uneven efficiencies create a myriad of problems. Take a photo of absolute black (lens cap on) and then look for white or colored spots. Every spot is a bad pixel. Do the same with very dim, dim, and medium light. You don't want a spotty image or one that appears splotchy. A good imaging chip will provide images that just appear dark and may be able to be fixed with photoshop.

Light overload (cell saturation) CCD cells are like little buckets that capture photons of light and recombine them into electrons that create the tiny voltages that make up an image. These little buckets are very close to each other. Bright light can fill a bucket to overflowing and then the excess electrons can spill into adjacent buckets creating large washed out areas. You want an imager chip that can take in quite a bit of light without spillover. On a bright sunny day with white clouds and bright reflections, you don't want to sacrifice sharpness due to cell overload. So, take a photo of a square grid under bright light conditions and small thin lines. You're looking for lines that break up or disappear anywhere on the image. A window screen is a good subject with direct sunlight on it.

Shutter Delay One of the biggest annoyances I have with DSLR is shutter delay. I want the photo when I dipress the shutter button. Not a half second later. I want it now. For fast moving images and those shots that just can't wait, having a shutter that takes the picture after the event has passed is worthless. Airshows, sporting events, nature, etc. don't wait for your camera to make up its mind when it will do what you asked it to do. I want it now. Right now.

Other than that, as others have posted, they are both excellent cameras and will make you happy. Like picking a new handgun, find one that fits your hands easily and comfortably, has features you can find and use effortlessly and is intuitive to use. Then, have fun taking photos.

loutent said:

Just to add - 55mm-75mm is a footstep in either direction so don't worry about zoom as much as aperture (f-stop) of the lens. Photographers pay dearly for a "one stop" advantage (e.g. an 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor is about $600 while an 85mm 1.4 Nikkor is $1600+). Fixed aperture primes (non-zooms) are a nice way to start and you will usually get better quality than with a cheap kit zoom lens.

Click to expand...

With current generation of sensors from both Canon and Nikon fast lenses are not as big a need as they once were. The high iso performance with the latest cameras is simply amazing. Just a few years ago photos taken at 800 iso were barely useable due to noise (grain for us older film guys). Now you can shoot at iso like 6400 and 12800 and have a pretty grain/noise free image. That means you can still have decent shutter speed at smaller apertures in very low light.

There are other reason than more stops of light for wanting a fast lens but low light isn't the issue it was just a couple of years ago.

These were quick test shots taken handheld in low light at f5.6 and 6400 iso.



sorry about the subject but for a shadows noise test it works.



but without a fast and expensive lens you will never get this look.





if you click and take the elk photo up to full size you can see the grain/noise in the background. It was taken 800iso today it would be grain free.

I'm going to jump in with the big boys. I've been using Canon for 20 plus years, so therefore I'm a Canon guy. Like others have said the choice comes down to personal choice.

One question is what brand do your friends have? If you the same brand they do they can help you with all the whistles and bells the new cameras have these days. Also they may loan you a lens from time to time. I let a few of my close friends borrow a lens from time to time.

Some folks my disagree but I'm not a kit kind of guy, necessarily. What are you shooting? Landscapes, wildlife or just general picture taking. General pictures, a kit with a 28-135 lens or so would be great. If you are going for wildlife, get a body only and the your zoom lens of choice. And the same is true for landscapes.

Years ago it was all about the glass, lens, I 'm not sure that is the case today since everything is digital and there is some great software out there to help with your short comings.

Thanks to everybody, I appreciate it.

And the discussion continues!! I've been a Canon man all the way back to when I helped pay for college doing weddings. Started with a TL (50/1.8) in jr/early high school and then with my senior high purchase of an F1, an FD50 (1.4), a 28 (I think), a 135ish and a zoom mentioned below. Also carried a Mamiya RB67 (I think, after all it was the 70's ) for the studio shots. The question was the same then. Canon or Nikon!

Great advice on picking the body already handed out. Glass is the key. Never been a big fan of zooms but I've always had a 70ish to 200ish for the "candid shots".

Still have the TL, F1, and I've picked up a Rebel. Was disappointed all my F1 glass was not useable. I've pretty much duplicated the previously mentioned lens collection.

Buy good glass. All that said, I find the point and shoot being picked up more and more often these days!!!

I'm a Nikon guy My father in law ( who is a great photographer) is a Canon guy. we have had this debate for 20+years but back when they were film its my understanding that Canon used nylon gears and Nikon used aluminum??? hence press photographers used Nikon??? Anyway whatever the case I love my older D50.Either way we have a lot of memories from both cameras. Put it like this they beat the smart phone cameras

thewelshm

Nikon Vs Canon

I am a longtime Nikon user. I agree that either brand will do well and produce good images.
Ergonomics and camera "feel" is important. You are buying into a lens system, so price and availability might be a consideration. Nikon has done a better job, IMHO, on backwards compatibility and almost any lens will fit newer cameras, although possibly not supporting all features.
Don't discount the "family". I am a freelance photographer with multiple cameras and lenses. My family and friends are nearly 100% Nikon, as they know they will get coaching and have the ability to borrow and try other gear.
Also know that while you will get good images out of the camera, most images from digitals will benefit from some amount of post processing. Reasonably priced , user friendly software is available for either computer format, it is worth learning to use one.
On full frame sensors... I would not concern myself with this excellent and costly format until I truly believed I could not get the quality I need from a "cropped" sensor. They have advantages, but come with a higher price tag on equipment and storage space for images.
I think the biggest plus to the "higher end" cameras, from either manufacturer, is low light performance. Low light performance allows room for many more "great" photos and fewer missed opportunities, also allows reasonable priced lenses to do a more creditable job.
You cant really go wrong, but shoot a lot, analyze the good and bad images so you can get more of the good ones. Practice and familiarity will show up in better images.