[Jawbone54]

Usually these types of threads open up with a polite petition for civility between users. That is not what I am asking for. I am asking for a fight. That's right...I want you to make your case on why you use your Nikon or Canon. I want you to trash the other side. I want you to convince me that your side is better.

I want to know what you don't like about either side. Lenses, bodies, prices, whatever.

Why this plea? Because I'm at a crossroads. I alluded to this a few months ago if I'm not mistaken, but if I'm going to switch sides (to Nikon from Canon), I'm going to have to do it now. My gear is as follows:

Canon XTi
28mm f/1.8
85mm f/1.8

That's all! I'm not so heavily invested in lenses that I can't switch, but if I do it, it has to be now. I can't afford to switch a year or two down the road, where massive lens swaps would be involved.

The reason I'm considering doing this is simple: the D300. It seems to be the most highly-regarded prosumer DSLR on the market according to the dozens of reviews I've gone through. I've seen it referred to as a "mini D3" on a number of occasions (high praise indeed), and apparently the noise at high ISOs is notably better than the Canon 40D.

I know someone is going to say, "It's not the camera; it's the photographer," or "It's not the body; it's the lens." They're right, of course. But if there IS a reason to switch over, I need to hear someone's case. I'm just curious how you guys feel.

I've been delving into portrait photography, and my future gear will be used primarily for this little side business I have going. I've found a buyer for my XTi, and I'm either getting a 40D or a D300 within the next few weeks.

Dispense with the pleasantries and civility. I'd like to see some honesty.

[- - e r i k - -]

There is no reason to switch from either.

Hey. I'm happy with my Olympus

[Jawbone54]

Yeah, I saw you were an Olympus shooter in the notes of your recent ocean shots. My friend seems to like his Olympus as well.

My problem is that I was perfectly happy with Canon until I picked up a few stupid photography magazines while skipping physics one day. If only I'd gone to class, I'd have never read those stupid "Camera of the Year" articles.

I was absolutely sold on going Nikon earlier this week, but then started feeling like all I really needed was the Canon 40D and a 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens to round out my lens collection and keep me on this side until the 5D's eventual successor drops in price. While lying in bed tonight, I started leaning D300 again...

I agonize over the dumbest things, I swear.

[cszar2001]

I have the Nikon D300 and absolutely love it.

Compared to the 40D I would say that they are almost "identical" - it's the small details that matter:
- Ergonomics - Nikon is better suited for "larger" hands
- Menu setup: Nikon beats Canon hands-down
- Nikon: CLS - you can trigger off camera flashes with the built in infrared trigger (very handy)
- Nikon: 8fps with battery grip
- Nikon: same Autofocus system as the D3
- Nikon: all lenses deliver good results while some of the cheaper Canon lenses simply suck
- Nikon: if you absolutely positively have to shoot jpegs it delivers more vibrant images (better saturation, warmer colors)

Like I said - it's the small things that decide which way to go.
And for me the ability to trigger remote flashes with CLS is one of the main selling points.

[angelmb]

[Goldfinger]

I'm a Nikon guy mainly because of the lenses I already owned.

Other reasons are the superior flash system and Nikon's superior ergonomics*. The ergonomics on Canons are horrible. Especially the low end cameras (heck, the 5D is pretty bad as well). And you can use old Nikkors.
And, but that's less objective, I think that Nikkors are just plain better than Canon lenses. But that's highly debateable and subjective.

*AFAIK Canon does not support rear curtain sync through the X-sync contacts. Which is a big no no for me. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

[OreoCookie]

I'm a Nikon guy and I prefer Nikon purely on the basis of ergonomics. I'm not so much interested in some theoretical arguments about lenses I cannot hope to afford anyway. The D300 is one hell of a camera, although I find all brands but Canon to have an intuitive user interface. Since this is purely subjective and personal preference, try a D300 in your local camera shop of choice.

[design219]

Ultimately the camera doesn't matter that much. But that said, I've been a Nikon guy for over 30 years and have been very, very pleased.

[RAILhead]

I've used Leica, Panasonic, Olympus and Nikon — and my quest ended when I got my Canon 40D. I can't think of anything I wish the Canon could do that it can't already, and Canon's lenses are freaking awesome, hands-down.

I'd suggest trying to find a shop that sells these high-end DSLRs so you can feel heir size, etc., as the 40D is a pretty big body (but I like it and it feels great in my hands).

[cjrivera]

Anybody have any info on the new Canon XSi?

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by cjrivera 

Anybody have any info on the new Canon XSi?

It's comparable to the Canon 40D, though doesn't sport as many high-end features. I'll now more at the end of April (around April 27), because my Dad just pre-ordered it.

[paul w]

As far as dslrs are concerned, I'd go canon. But I don't use dslrs anymore, and I'm not quite ready to invest in a digital Leica.

So I shoot with a Ricoh. And I love it.

[starman]

When I was struggling with which to go with, I settled on the Canon EOS20D and I've been very, VERY happy with it. My friend got the Nikon and she loves it to death. We traded cameras one day for an hour or so and the fact is that they're both very similar. Yes, they're ergonomically different, but not THAT different. In the end, we both liked each other's cameras but not so much that either of us said "boy, I should have gone with the other one".

[peeb]

What is it that you are unhappy with about your Xti?

[MacosNerd]

I'm a Nikon guy myself but I think the choice is more personal preference.

Get the camera who's specifications, cost, look and feel along with lens selection are best for you. I don't believe there's any right or wrong answer to personal choice and taste.

[Railroader]

Canon and Nikon seem to leap frog each other with releases. Last year it was mostly Canon with the better tech and it seems this year it is Nikon. I use, and will stick with Canon, because I only have one friend who uses Nikon and everyone else uses Canon. We swap lenses whenever someone has a need for a certain shoot. Last week I did a wedding and borrowed a couple lenses from friends to cover the event. If I shot Nikon I'd have had to rent the lenses.

The differences between Canon and Nikon are minute enough that it really doesn't matter. The guy at topleftpixel network was still using a 6MP Canon XT when everyone else had much better cameras. Alas, now he is using a 5D, but it doesn't make much difference in his shots from when he was using the XT.

I'd use the money you would lose selling all your stuff and buy a new lens. Sounds like you just have a little tech-envy going on.

But if you want nasty mean stuff... My 70-200mm f/2.8 kicks A$$!!! Nikors dr00l.

[Eug]

I'm a Canon guy based on ergonomics. I always found Nikon's system more complicated and it didn't "feel" right to me. Plus, at the time I made the choice, Nikon had no lens stabilization capabilities.

However, back in the old days I preferred Nikon's flash accuracy. However, I have not tested their flash stuff recently so I can't comment on that.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Be like me. Go Minolta.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by peeb 

What is it that you are unhappy with about your Xti?

I'm not really unhappy with my XTi; I'd just like to move up a bit.

The 40D offers:
1. A better body and navigation system for switching stuff on the fly without taking my eye away from the viewfinder.
2. Less noise at higher ISOs (not a huge leap, but enough, considering that I'll be doing some wedding receptions, and would like to use ISO 1600 without fearing major grain).
3. Better AF (I've had some issues with the XTi in this regard).
4. That nice 3" screen.
5. DIGIC III processor and 14-bit RAW captures.

RR is right; what I'm dealing with here is simply tech-envy. The D300 is getting high praises right now, and I've been on track to be suckered in by good marketing.

I kind of figured that this discussion would be as civil as it has been. Basically I'm not going to be gaining much in the switch to Nikon, especially since Canon might be leap-frogging them the next year or two. I'll just be happy with my Canon gear.

Additionally, after scouring through the lens selection, Canon seems to have a bit of an edge in prime lenses, which is what I usually prefer. So instead of the brand switch, the plan for the future is...

40D
70-200mm f/2.8L IS
10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
100mm f/2.8 macro

[RAILhead]

Just be aware that the 3-inch screen is only used for preview and info -- not while shooting (unless you use Live View). Of course, I never shoot with the screen when I'm using my point and shoots, but some people do.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Be like me. Go Minolta.

Doesn't exist.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Just be aware that the 3-inch screen is only used for preview and info -- not while shooting (unless you use Live View). Of course, I never shoot with the screen when I'm using my point and shoots, but some people do.

The only thing that is really seductive about the live view on an slr is that some photographers have a style of interacting with people that depends on them having eye contact, and distracting them from the camera - can be especially effective with kids.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Doesn't exist.

And once again my point is driven home with brute force

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Just be aware that the 3-inch screen is only used for preview and info -- not while shooting (unless you use Live View). Of course, I never shoot with the screen when I'm using my point and shoots, but some people do.

No worries. I'm mostly concerned with the histogram.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by peeb 

The only thing that is really seductive about the live view on an slr is that some photographers have a style of interacting with people that depends on them having eye contact, and distracting them from the camera - can be especially effective with kids.

I've always used triggers in those situations. I have used Live View when shooting some macro shots, though, but I typically use a trigger or timer.

[Timo]

Sharp Shooters: Four Fantastic Prosumer DSLR Cams, Tested and Rated

I shoot with the K20D

[cszar2001]

Have you guys noticed that this hasn't turned into a shouting match yet?
That's unheard of when it comes to such important matters as Canon vs. Nikon vs. The Rest.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Timo 

Sharp Shooters: Four Fantastic Prosumer DSLR Cams, Tested and Rated

I shoot with the K20D

I've got the predecessor, the K10D. Fantastic cameras.

[design219]

Originally Posted by cszar2001 

Have you guys noticed that this hasn't turned into a shouting match yet?
That's unheard of when it comes to such important matters as Canon vs. Nikon vs. The Rest.

The grownups have taken over the forum.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

RR is right; what I'm dealing with here is simply tech-envy. The D300 is getting high praises right now, and I've been on track to be suckered in by good marketing.

Which is why I highly recommend patiently waiting it out. Think of what cameras are going to be like in a year or two! Right now you're talking a baby-step in regards to advancement. But from your XTi to what will be available in a year or so will be a pretty big step. You'd be amazed at the junk cameras some wedding photographers use to get pretty good pictures with. I saw a guy using a Pentax K1000 35mm with a 50mm lens doing a wedding last year. I only saw the proofs, but they were excellent.

My free* advice: Wait it out.







*worth every penny.

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

You want honesty?
Pick a camera. Learn how to be a photographer. Then it won't matter which you use.

[Timo]

^ so true

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Pentax K1000

That was a great camera. Very simple, no frills at all, but a reliable, sturdy workhorse of a camera.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by angelmb 

Oh yes... screw Nikon and Canon...

Leica all the way baby

[Mithras]

Mac, PC, what's the difference.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Mithras 

Mac, PC, what's the difference.

After Boot Camp? Not a heck of a lot.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

That was a great camera. Very simple, no frills at all, but a reliable, sturdy workhorse of a camera.

Indeed. It's the only 35mm I still own.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Silky Voice of The Gorn 

You want honesty?
Pick a camera. Learn how to be a photographer. Then it won't matter which you use.

Pretty much, unless you have some very specific needs that only some models are suitable for - in which case you already know what you need. If you are a generalist photographer the differences between Nikon and Canon at any given price-point are small, debatable, and likely to switch from year to year.

[glideslope]

I've shot Canon and Nikon over the past 30 years. It's really subjective. Photography is really subjective. I have friends who would never pick up a Canon or a Nikon for their own personal, subjective reasons. "One Man's Junk is an others Treasure."

My opinion: I have been back with Nikon since the D70 and currently shoot a D300. Why?

1) Metering
2) AF
3) Ergonomics

IMO Nikon's Metering and Ergonomics are #1 by a mile. Canon has a better selection of wide glass IMO. Both make great glass, good glass, and so-so glass.

So, join the Dark Side.

[chris v]

I didn't compare Nikon to Canon -- I compared Nikon to Pentax because the *ist series could have ostensibly used my lenses from my K-1000, and I bought the Nikon because of ergonomics and simplicity. Plus, it just felt a bit more solid.

Ultimately, digital SLRs are all going to take good pictures, in capable hands. It comes down to reliability and personal preference. The kit lens will be lacking on whatever body you buy, though.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

That was a great camera. Very simple, no frills at all, but a reliable, sturdy workhorse of a camera.

QFT. I took my K-1000 into more than 100 caves, tossed it down pits "PACK! oops, my camera was in there." kicked the tripod over in the dark, got mud all over it, and that thing trooped on and on for 15 years. However, I am DONE with film.

[paul w]

I still miss film. And yes, my k1000 was my first camera (basically in photo class our teacher told us to go and buy one with a 50mm lens). I miss it way more than its replacement - a slick Nikon FM2. How I'd love to just hold one in my hands again.

[- - e r i k - -]

Kit lenses are actually pretty good on the Olympus side. Just sayin'.

[Jawbone54]

The XTi kit lens was pitiful compared to everything else I've tried on it.

Anyone else ever tried the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8? (Railhead uses it, and I like the shots he's pulled from it).

[powerbook867]

JB, there is a new version of the 18-55 w/ IS that gets pretty good reviews...

FM Reviews - EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

Granted, it's not perfect, but for the price, it is a nice piece of glass..

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by powerbook867 

JB, there is a new version of the 18-55 w/ IS that gets pretty good reviews...

FM Reviews - EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

Granted, it's not perfect, but for the price, it is a nice piece of glass..

Yeah, they're bundling that with the new XSi, right? If I was going for a "do-it-all" lens, I'd still probably steer well clear of it.

[powerbook867]

I think so. I made a bad mistake w/ my gear recently and am now paying for it dearly (actually, it was the first stupid mistake I've made in the photography realm)..

I switched away from Canon (not to Nikon) based on a feature set rather than image quality and sold off all my gear. I don't want to mention the manufacturer and derail the thread, but one of them has a major banding issue on underexposed shots. Learned the hard way that Canon (at least in my opinion) puts image quality before all else.. Now instead of my 17-40 that gave me outstanding IQ, I bought the 18-55 IS as a temporary fix. I had to re-purchase my 70-200 2.8 and I didn't have enough $$ to get a new 17-40 at the moment...

Hopefully a bonus is coming down the pipe where I can buy another copy of the 17-40..

I think that Nikon or Canon would suit almost anyones needs. Both awesome systems that get the job done.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Anyone else ever tried the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8? (Railhead uses it, and I like the shots he's pulled from it).

I just read his blog post about this lens and it is now at the top of my list of lenses to buy.

Great review Railhead!

[RAILhead]

Thanks. It's not totally comprehensive, but it settled it for me.

[placebo1969]

Up until a few years ago, I only had used various point and shoots (Olympus and Sony). When I decided to do DSLR, it was between Canon and Nikon. I think it was about the time of the original Rebel Digital was out. Honestly, it felt kind of cheap in my hand. I ended up with the Nikon D50. The lens that I got at the time was the 28-80 which wasn't very good. I ended up getting the 18-200VR and just got the 50 1.4. Now if only I knew what I was doing.