Canon or Nikon in DSLR?

[w2pranav]

Hey,

I am looking forward to buy a DSLR but I am confused about the brand to go for, should it be Nikon or Canon?

What do you recommend? The points you should know before considering:

1. I have never used a DSLR before. But I do not want an entry level DSLR and I can learn the use of buttons on the camera
2. the camera I'll buy will be for long term, I do not want to invest again and again So I am looking for a camera at the middle range or professional range
3. I may not be an avid photographer but yes I do love taking good quality pictures.

My own preference is to go for Canon 7D but I am still open for suggestions? Also, if you can tell me which is better Canon 7D or Nikon D7000

Thanks,
Pranav

[Colin Southern]

Both manufacturers have entry-level, pro-sumer, and professional models, each with a HUGE overlap in functionality. So in reality, it really doesn't matter which you go for.

With regards to "which is better, the Canon 7D or Nikon D7000", you'd have to define "better" -- better for what kinds of photography?

[w2pranav]

Thanks Colin

For type of photography, let us see: Portraits, Landscape, Macro and Animals

Basically Everything!!!

[Polar01]

Welcome to CIC, I Would suggest that you go back into settings were you entered w2pranav, and put your real name and where you are as these would be of help to other members. You see if you do not no one will remember your name or where you are from.
Now to the questions at hand
1 you want to learn good
2 glass is for the long run, camera is not
3 miss leading statement how do you know that the images you are taking now are good quality, do you believe that good glass and a pro-consumer body will make you a better photographer? It will not, people on this site shoot all over the place as per camera for the top of the line DSLR to spot and shot, it is what the person does with the camera that is important, how they see, the camera is only a tool and a small one at that. It is also their vision of the image before and after capturing it, then comes the post production. Do you think any of the images you see posted here just come out of the camera looking like what you see here. Pranav I am being very blunt because you sound from you posting that you want someone to suggest which camera to buy that will take good quality pictures, well it is not the camera it is the person behind the camera that takes the good quality pictures not the camera. As for the cameras both are very good quality cameras for most of the people here it is the feel of the camera in our hands that leads us to one or the other brand, suggest if possible to get your hands on them and see which one feels right. Once you decide which one then, then come the fun part as I know that these cameras can take good quality pictures, it comes now to if the person behind the camera can take a good quality picture.

Allan

[Geoff F]

Possibly try to actually handle the cameras before purchase and see which option feels best in your hands. Also consider which one is easiest for you regarding quick adjustments while shooting.

There isn't really any specific answer. But once you do make a choice you will then have to purchase lenses which are solely designed for that brand and that will mean you remaining with that brand for life; or face an expensive full equipment change.

I have a Canon 7D and it would certainly do all that you ask; but there are other equally viable options.

Some people get rather fanatical about their chosen brand. For example, a friend still assures me that his old 3 MP Nikon is far better than anything which Canon will ever produce!

I did point out that most of the top images produced by Reuteurs photographers last year were taken with Canon equipment. But he simply replied that you wouldn't take your best camera to a war zone or substantial natural disaster.

[inkista]

... 2. the camera I'll buy will be for long term, I do not want to invest again and again So I am looking for a camera at the middle range or professional range

Uh, this is just my opinion, but dSLRs are not like film SLRs. They are not mostly-mechanical devices that can be used for decades. dSLRs are digital electronics. While some folks can keep and use them for a very long time, on average, most folks tend to want to upgrade or their cameras break down in 3-5 years. The lenses, support gear, filters, and lighting gear are likely to last you longer than a camera body. And if you don't want to keep buying and buying and buying--then maybe a system camera's not the tool for you. Because to use a system camera, you kinda need to buy pieces of the system. The body is only half the camera. Your lenses are the other half.

To my mind, higher end cameras don't last longer. They simply give you more features to play with while you have them.

Get a prosumer or pro camera if you need those features, the build quality, or the handling. But don't get it because you think it'll last longer and never need replacing. It basically doesn't work that way. You'll get all set with a 7D and then the 7DMkII comes out, or you want to go full-frame with a 6D or 5DMkIII.... Look at the cameras that are three years old, and honestly ask yourself if you want any of them, knowing about what the current generation of cameras can do now. Then flip that feeling and project forward three years as you own a three-year-old camera that's being outdone by all the latest/greatest models. Will you really be content? What about five years? Ten?

Look at how long you own cellphones and computers--that may be something of a guide to how long you're liable to keep your camera.

[revi]

But one difference between film and digital is that film was a mature technology, i.e. all real major developments were done, and there were no more big basic improvements in the image quality. In digital, there's still progress in image quality, notably in control of noise in RAW data. And we are already way beyond what was possible with film.

Even in digital, I think we are at a point that for most users the improvements come in the 'nice to have' category, where the improvements are probably invisible in 90+% of their images (I know that's the case for me, and my camera is close to 4 years old). And I don't think there's any difference between the major brands in that respect (including Sony, Pentax, ...). Of course, there can be improvements in other areas, like in-camera processing, video, more automation, etc.

The difference with computers is that an older computer doesn't have the capacity to handle (in a decent time) the new algorithms that are available (things like panorama stitching, deconvolution sharpening, etc), especially when dealing with large images. As for cell phones, they can be used a lot longer, and for a simple phone call there's no reason to upgrade your phone.

Part of the 'change every 3 years' is a cultural evolution: we're trained to see older stuff as obsolete, even when it still does its primary job as well as the newest models.

Of course, there's the 'personal evolution' part as well: if you get deeper into photography, there might be a point where your equipment becomes the limiting factor (but that happens a lot later than most seem to think ). But that's not specific to photography, and even there it was usual already in the 'silver' era.

For choosing between brands: have a good look at what a full kit would cost. That would be a camera body with a selection of 3-4 lenses adapted to what you want to do, and one or two flashes, to stick with brand-specific equipment. After that you'll want a good tripod, and probably some other kit not related to your camera/lens brand (ND filters and such). As has been said, the body is one thing, you'll need lenses to go with it, and they will gobble up most of the budget. Especially if you really want to go into all four areas you listed: for portraits you'll quickly want flashes and light modifiers, but those are much less useful for landscape (where you might want ND filters) and wildlife (long tele lenses).

[AB26]

"Canonians" will tell you Canon and "Nikonians" will tell you Nikon. Go with your gut feel and buy what you prefer.
If you really wish to use it for a long time buy a new model with as many features as you can find for the budget you have to invest.

With features I really mean as many bells and whistles as you can get for your money.

[Colin Southern]

I should add too that the camera itself is only 1 expense -- on top of that you'll quickly need to also consider another lens or two - tripod - flash (or two) - filters / remote releases / post-processing software / Monitor calibration & profiling equipment ...

... the list goes on.

[Venser]

As for the cameras both are very good quality cameras for most of the people here it is the feel of the camera in our hands that leads us to one or the other brand, suggest if possible to get your hands on them and see which one feels right.

This is how I choose to head down the Nikon road. It simply felt better in my hands than the equivalent Canon model.

One other consideration if the feel of the camera is irrelevant, what do most of your friends shoot with? The ability to borrow equipment could be a consideration.

[Colin Southern]

This is how I choose to head down the Nikon road. It simply felt better in my hands than the equivalent Canon model.

Personally, I don't give the "feel" too much weight because as I see it, it's a lot like getting a new car; because it's not the same as your old one it feels unfamiliar and strange for a couple of days until you adapt to it -- then after than it feels completely normal.

One other consideration if the feel of the camera is irrelevant, what do most of your friends shoot with? The ability to borrow equipment could be a consideration.

I used to loan out gear, but not any more -- too much risk for zero gain. Not sure how others feel about it these days, but I suspect many would be less than keen on the idea.

[William W]

. . . I am looking forward to buy a DSLR but I am confused about the brand to go for, should it be Nikon or Canon?
What do you recommend? The points you should know before considering:
1. I have never used a DSLR before. But I do not want an entry level DSLR and I can learn the use of buttons on the camera
2. the camera I'll buy will be for long term, I do not want to invest again and again So I am looking for a camera at the middle range or professional range
3. I may not be an avid photographer but yes I do love taking good quality pictures.
My own preference is to go for Canon 7D but I am still open for suggestions? Also, if you can tell me which is better Canon 7D or Nikon D7000
For type of photography, let us see: Portraits, Landscape, Macro and Animals

For the criteria that you have, I could make more arguments for a 5DMkIII or similar NON APS-C Format Nikon camera, rather than arguing the attributes of Canon vs. Nikon generally.

Some examples of these arguments are:
1. Greater availability of fast and wider lenses
2. More capacity for a Shallower DoF Field, at any given aperture
3. Better and more flexible use of TS-E Lenses
4. Broader range of quality and diversity of more FL appropriate inexpensive but high quality Prosumer Prime Lenses.

***

As to your question about Canon vs. Nikon – I suggest you look at the menu system and the functionality of each manufacturer’s camera (that means actually using them).

Also consider how each tool feels and works in your hands.

Note that within the lineage of ranges within the two manufacturers, there will be different functionalities – as one example: Canon EOS xxxD and EOSxxxxD series are different in layout and functionality to EOSxxD and EOSxD Series cameras.

Also consider the lens ranges of each manufacturer, they are similar in range of options, but there are notable differences – as examples two differences are: Canon APS-C Lenses will not mount to all Canon Cameras; Nikon have different AF systems to consider.

WW

[DanK]

William, I think this is a first. I don't think I have ever before disagreed with one of your posts. But I do disagree with recommending a 5DMkIII, or something similar, to a newbie unless s/he has something specific that makes the much greater expense worth it. And I say that as someone who has a 5D MkIII and absolutely loves it.

I could add additional arguments for full frame, but taking your reasons:

1. Greater availability of fast and wider lenses

yes, but you can use these same lenses on an APS-C, of course losing the width but not losing the speed. And if you are interested in width and use zooms, there are reasonable APS-C choices, such as the Canon 10-22. (Anyone want one? Now that I have a FF camera, I am selling mine.)

2. More capacity for a Shallower DoF Field, at any given aperture

yes, but sometimes people want deeper depth of field, depending on what they are shooting, and in any case, one can adjust by changing aperture. I see this primarily as an issue of the minimum DOF one can attain given the maximum aperture of the lens.

3. Better and more flexible use of TS-E Lenses

Of all the people I shoot with or know from photo clubs, I think not more than a handful use TS-E lenses. I don't, and I have owned SLRs since 1968.

4. Broader range of quality and diversity of more FL appropriate inexpensive but high quality Prosumer Prime Lenses.

I agree with this one, but it is not relevant to the majority of users who use primarily or entirely zooms.

The drawbacks for a newbie are big:

1. greater cost. The extra money could go into other equipment that a newcomer will need, such as lenses, a flash, or a tripod.

2. Larger size and greater weight.

3. It the person's style of shooting requires telephotos, FF means longer, heavier, more expensive lenses.

4. If they are trying to minimize the extra cost by buying full frame, they will end up giving up other features that for some of them will be worth more. Consider the tradeoffs between the 7D and 6D.

So, my approach has been to suggest that newcomers buy modestly-priced equipment until they know more what they will do and what will benefit them. Sometimes they know enough that it seems reasonably clear what choices make most sense, but often not.

Dan

[William W]

William, I think this is a first. I don't think I have ever before disagreed with one of your posts. But I do disagree with recommending a 5DMkIII, or something similar, to a newbie unless s/he has something specific that makes the much greater expense worth it. And I say that as someone who has a 5D MkIII and absolutely loves it.

Ah there's a first for everything!

***

OK: more seriously I have re-read what I have written and more importantly I have read closely what you have written.

This bit here:

I do disagree with recommending a 5DMkIII, or something similar, to a newbie unless s/he has something specific that makes the much greater expense worth it.

What has happened, I think, is I have not been precise in my EMPHASIS of the MEANING of my OVERALL MEASSAGE to the OP.

I meant as my general point that he should choose a Nikon or Canon - it doesn't really matter

. . . but if he has real EMPHASIS about his criteria (primarily): "Portraits", "Landscapes", "a camera for the long term" . . . I used the fact that I could make many more arguments for him to get a FF Camera, rather than APS-C as an indication of how unimportant it really is regarding choosing Nikon or Canon against the CRITERIA that he listed


I hope that makes better sense of my meaning - it was my fault I should have been briefer and directly to the point: thanks for pointing it out.


WW

[DanK]

WW,

Indeed it does, and I agree. I especially agree that it makes no difference which brand he picks.

Dan

[xpatUSA]

Hello Pranav,

I suggest that you write down a big list of all the must-haves for your desired camera. If you only want to choose between Nikon and Canon then so be it. And you could bear in mind that many forum posts are written as if no other manufacturer than Canon exists. They say "7D" - not "Canon 7D" like you did in the OP. Then head to a site like, for example, dpReview.com which has very extensive camera reviews, page after page for each model. Pick the Nikon camera that matches your list and similarly pick the Canon. Then use the sites comparison function to assist your choice - perhaps awarding points to each of the items on your list for compliance.

Sometimes, it's easier to list must-not-haves - which is why I have a couple of Sigmas. It was the no-Bayer rule that did it, along with no JPEG and no scene modes

[GrahamS]

It's all in the feel. Go into a shop that has both and feel, sniff, taste, hold both brands and decide which you prefer.

[Adrian]

My take:

1 Make sure you want to cary a DSLR system about. Larger lenses are heavy. If you find the system cumbersome consider a 4/3 system where excellent quality is also available
2 Make sure you like the menu system: as with mobile phones, some operating systems suit individual preferences more than others. This was one reason why I preferred Canon - fewer and more logical menu steps (for me).
3 Buy the lens system not the camera. All camera bodes these days are much of a muchness: some just have more tricks than others. Camera is just a light box holding a sensor instead of film. You pay extra for more tricks and robustness. if you are not a pro and not careless, robustness may not matter.
4 I agree with William, if you really want this to be a long term decision, consider full frame. See point 3 re lenses...
5 If you are happy with a crop and 7D is on your list, so should Canon 70D. Very modern technology and user friendly with touch screen, wi-fi etc. More than good enough for most serious amateurs, as long as you are happy with crop.

Nikon v Canon is pretty irrelevant in my view. Both good, both have strong points and weaknesses that are very individual to your preferences. At similar body and lens quality there is not a great deal in it price wise. Sony also worth looking at.

Good luck, Adrian

[Loose Canon]

In the beginning, when I was first looking at the Canon/Nikon choice I quickly found that either would make a good system.

I knew at the time that I would be going for more equipment (i.e. lenses, etc.) and I knew there was eventually going to be a considerable outlay of money. I also knew that I would be going for top line equipment first thing instead of buying twice.

What made the decision for me was that at the time Canon’s high-end lenses were somewhat less expensive than Nikon’s. Enough so that I thought eventually, with all the outlay, it would result in some savings.

Since either is of comparable quality I pulled the Canon trigger based on this and never looked back.

Certainly no regrets.

[paldon]

After a long research to decide which brand to get, I chose Nikon because I like the look of it! I didn't care much of the feel as whatever it is I know I will get used to it. I'm left handed, unless someone is making one for left handed people, I will definitely go for that.