Nikon cameras usually benchmark better than Canon cameras. Does it matters?.

[Photon Hacker]

I have noticed that for roughly equivalent models like Canon 600D/Nikon D5100 the Nikon usually has most favorable results in benchmarks (Through, I have yet to find a benchmark site without major flaws or missing analysis in its procedure; especially DxO Mark and dpreview).

For those of you who have used or otherwise are informed to commend; what's your opinion?. Does it matters?. Has it been the other way in the past (Canon outperform Nikon on benchmarks)?. Do you think it will be the other way in the future?. For instance, regarding landscape photography, would I notice more noise in the shadows for the Canon 600D than the Nikon D7000?. I have read several times in astrophotography sites that Nikon applies a filter to its "RAW" files but I don't know if its the case for current models.

Thanks in advance.

[Colin Southern]

what's your opinion?. Does it matters?

Hi Mario,

I think that far to many people forget that cameras are designed for "taking photos in the real world" - not for "benchmarks". In my opinion its like comparing a 400km/hr Bugatti Veyron with a 350km/hr Ferrari Enzo when all the owner wants is a nice sporty car to drive around in every day; one may have slightly higher technical specifications, but in the real world (ie not on a test track) both can be considered "more than adequate".

Would you notice more shadow noise in a "model X" camera? Put it this way - most cameras have a dynamic range around 12 stops. If you take a photo of a reflective scene - without even pushing the exposure (ie so you still have about a 2 stop safety margin) - take off another 4 stops for the reflective scene - take off another 2 stops for any shadow detail that you might want to reveal - and you STILL have 4 stops of the DR that you're not using (assuming base ISO).

[Manfred M]

Ignore the benchmarks. The problem with all of the review sites is that they measure things that are easy to measure, rather than things that are important to the photographer. This industry has created a whole generation of pixel peepers.

When I bought my first DSLR a few years ago I went to a camera store and asked to try six different cameras. Three Canons and three Nikons; the top, middle and bottom model I would consider buying. I did not look at any other manufacturers for pragmatic reasons; these two companies had close to half the market share each, so I figured they would be around. The other manufacturers might not survive over the long term and did not want to invest in a line of cameras and lenses that might not be around over the long term.

Anyway, all the Canons handled more or less the same and felt the same in my hands, regardless of the size and weight differences. Same story for the Nikons. I bought based on ergonomics and would suggest any other person getting a camera do the same thing. I've taken excellent pictures with point and shoot, cross-over cameras and (D)SLRs. The photographer creates the image, the camera is just the tool to get you there.

[Colin Southern]

I bought based on ergonomics and would suggest any other person getting a camera do the same thing.

To be honest, even ergonomics aren't necessarily a big deal in my opinion. I like to relate it to buying a new car or perhaps driving a rental car; if you're used to driving a "Canon car" then a "Nikon car" is going to seem a bit awkward until you get used to the fact that the "indicator stalk is now on the other side" and the switch for the lights is in a different place etc ... but after a few days you've completely forgotten about the "Canon car" and the "Nikon car" ergonomics seem completely normal.

[Graystar]

In all the comparisons I've seen, there's a real difference in high ISO shots. So if you're shooting indoor sports then a Nikon would be better.

Personally, I go by design functionality. Other than Canon and Nikon both having M, A, S, and P modes, there's a world of difference in how the cameras operate. By this measure, I would again say that Nikon is better.

For DSLR astrophotography, however, Canon is better mostly because Canon has become the standard for DSLR photography...so there are more tools available for Canon. Although personally, if I were buying a camera for astrophotography I would buy a dedicated camera such as an SBIG.

[Donald]

No.

What does matter is how good the person behind the camera is.

[shreds]

Spot on Donald.

[Manfred M]

To be honest, even ergonomics aren't necessarily a big deal in my opinion. I like to relate it to buying a new car or perhaps driving a rental car; if you're used to driving a "Canon car" then a "Nikon car" is going to seem a bit awkward until you get used to the fact that the "indicator stalk is now on the other side" and the switch for the lights is in a different place etc ... but after a few days you've completely forgotten about the "Canon car" and the "Nikon car" ergonomics seem completely normal.

Colin, for someone who is a Nikon or Canon shooter, I would quite agree. You already have a built-in, inherent feeling for the camera and that is certainly going to go a long way in your continuing to stick with a particular manufacturer, over and above the fact that you have a lot of money tied up in lenses and other peripherals.

On the other hand, for some who is new to a particular line of cameras (or anything else), these built-in biases do not exist and you are often times better suited to figure what works and doesn't work for you. As a design engineer in my day job, it's a technique I use (very successfully) quite a often. While I do listen to experienced users, when I get inexperienced "expert" users to try out a new idea, the inexperieced will often point out issues with a prototype far better than someone who has already learned to live with a similar existing product.

In my case, I had no history with either Canon or Nikon, but was an experienced photographer. Without any question one brand really worked better in my hands and felt more instinctive to use. The balance, the layout of the controls and even the viewfinder all were more suited to me. We are all built slightly different physically, so you may as well pick something that suits you. From an end product standpoint, both companies make excellent products and unless want to be a pixel peeper, rather than a photographer, I would tend to take whatever the reviewers say with a very large grain of salt.

[thequacksoflife]

No.

What does matter is how good the person behind the camera is.

exactly. the only one it REALLY matters to are fanboys or people who want to convince themselves they have the best brand..... and luckily not seen many/any examples on CiC

[Colin Southern]

Colin, for someone who is a Nikon or Canon shooter, I would quite agree. You already have a built-in, inherent feeling for the camera and that is certainly going to go a long way in your continuing to stick with a particular manufacturer, over and above the fact that you have a lot of money tied up in lenses and other peripherals.

On the other hand, for some who is new to a particular line of cameras (or anything else), these built-in biases do not exist and you are often times better suited to figure what works and doesn't work for you. As a design engineer in my day job, it's a technique I use (very successfully) quite a often. While I do listen to experienced users, when I get inexperienced "expert" users to try out a new idea, the inexperieced will often point out issues with a prototype far better than someone who has already learned to live with a similar existing product.

In my case, I had no history with either Canon or Nikon, but was an experienced photographer. Without any question one brand really worked better in my hands and felt more instinctive to use. The balance, the layout of the controls and even the viewfinder all were more suited to me. We are all built slightly different physically, so you may as well pick something that suits you. From an end product standpoint, both companies make excellent products and unless want to be a pixel peeper, rather than a photographer, I would tend to take whatever the reviewers say with a very large grain of salt.

Manfred,

I hear what you're saying, but I still feel that in most cases it just takes a little time. Using my case as an example, if I didn't have practically a whole studio built around Canon (not just lenses, but flashes, timer, lighting etc) I'd be more than happy to shoot with a Nikon (in fact I'd look forward to the challenge of something new) ... I honestly believe that after a week or two I'd probably be just as comfortable - and surely that would be a harder thing for an experienced shooter to do than for someone who didn't already have the "Canon way" to unlearn. In my mind one isn't better than the other because for the most part they both do exactly the same things ... they just do them a little differently.

Probably a bit like languages; English is easiest for me - German is probably easiest for someone raised in Germany ... and yet each language is just as capable of communicating the same things, and each person capable of learning to be comfortable with the other's language (albeit somewhat harder to learn than a camera).

[Manfred M]

Manfred,

I hear what you're saying, but I still feel that in most cases it just takes a little time. Using my case as an example, if I didn't have practically a whole studio built around Canon (not just lenses, but flashes, timer, lighting etc) I'd be more than happy to shoot with a Nikon (in fact I'd look forward to the challenge of something new) ... I honestly believe that after a week or two I'd probably be just as comfortable - and surely that would be a harder thing for an experienced shooter to do than for someone who didn't already have the "Canon way" to unlearn. In my mind one isn't better than the other because for the most part they both do exactly the same things ... they just do them a little differently.

Probably a bit like languages; English is easiest for me - German is probably easiest for someone raised in Germany ... and yet each language is just as capable of communicating the same things, and each person capable of learning to be comfortable with the other's language (albeit somewhat harder to learn than a camera).

Colin - you are quite right in saying people will get used to it, after all cameras are made for right-handed people and left-handed ones seem to manage well enough. On the other hand, it is alway better to have something that fits and handles properly rather than something you have gotten used to. If you changed the example of the English and German languages in your example to how your shoes fit, you would get a better feeling of where I am coming from. You might get used to a pair of shoes that are a bit too loose, or a bit too wide at the heel or a bit too tight, but they would never, ever feel quite right. That statement can be made for pretty well anything that we have to maniplate and work with, from cars to cameras.

My advice to anyone (and this comes from years of leading teams that design industrial equipment), getting the ergonomics right is one of the most important things in a design work. It doesn't matter how well something works from a purely technical standpoint, if the human factors are not right, the users may compensate, but it will never work as well as it should. So my number one criterion when buying anything (after making sure that it meets the functionality I am looking for) are the ergonomic considerations.

Manfred

[Colin Southern]

Colin - you are quite right in saying people will get used to it, after all cameras are made for right-handed people and left-handed ones seem to manage well enough.

Nah -- Apparently Nikon make a left-handed version for lefties ...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/

[Dave Humphries]

Nah -- Apparently Nikon make a left-handed version for lefties ...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/

Aren't they sold as "nokiN?"

[Colin Southern]

Aren't they sold as "nokiN?"

I believe it is - although I believe there's a left-handed nonaC brand too