Canon vs. Nikon

[chris.evans]

For my first post I thought I would bring up an old discussion that rarely has actual data to support either way.

I always thought (by way of MTF, etc) that Nikon made better lenses, and generally Canon made better cameras. However, after checking out some detailed sensor data (DXO Mark) I was amazed that Nikon sensors beat Canon in dynamic range, color, and low light ISO. In every test Nikon came out on top. (not of all brands, but on top of Canon)

[George Slusher]

That's only one comparison and may not be the most important. It's also possible that the sensor differences won't result in as much difference in the image, which also depends upon the software in the camera or the RAW converter software. If you shoot JPEG, you may lose that additional dynamic range, for example. Also, some Nikon cameras, like the D3, have 12-bit/color, while the comparable Canon 1D Mk III has 14-bit/color. That will also lose dynamic range.

There's a reason that you'll see a sea of white lenses (i.e., Canon L) at sports events: for years, Canon's autofocus system was superior (especially faster) to Nikon's. (There have been problems with some current Canon cameras.) Also, the frame rate was often higher for Canons. (The current top Canon body for sports is the 10 MP 1D Mk III, 10 fps at 1.3x. The comparable 12 MP Nikon D3 can go to 11 fps, but only at 1.5x, so you lose pixels--it drops the D3 down to 8 MP.)

Comparable Nikon bodies are usually more expensive than Canon bodies. For example:

Full frame pro cameras: Nikon D3x (24.5 MP) is $8,000; the Canon 1Ds Mk III (21 MP) is $6,380.

"Sports" cameras: Nikon D3 (12 MP @ full frame, 9 fps; 8 MP @ 1.5x, 11fps) is $5,000; the Canon 1D Mk III (10 MP @ 1.6x, 10 fps) is $3,700.

"Prosumer" full-frame cameras: Nikon D700 (12 MP) is $2,700; Canon 5D Mk II is the same price, but has 21 MP.

Prosumer 1.5x/1.6x cameras: Nikon D300s (12 MP) is $1,800; Canon 50D (15 MP) is $1,080. (I couldn't find a Nikon camera comparable to the new Canon 7D (18 MP, 1.6x) at $1,700.

Consumer cameras are harder to compare, as Nikon makes a bunch of 12 MP 1.5x cameras--e.g., the D90 @ $890 & the D5000 @ $750, plus they are usually sold with lenses. Canon's 12 MP Rebel XSi (450D) body is $570, but, again, it's usually sold with a lens.

Lenses are also hard to compare. For example, the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR is about the same price ($1,950) as the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. If you go to super telephoto lenses, though, the price differences are dramatic:

300mm f/2.8 VR/IS: Nikon $5,300; Canon $4,600

500mm f/4 VR/IS: Nikon $8,580; Canon $6,400

400mm f/2.8 VR/IS: Nikon $8,900; Canon $7,500

600mm f/4 VR/IS: Nikon $10,300; Canon $8,300

800mm f/5.6 VR/IS: Nikon--oops, Nikon doesn't have this, but Canon does, at $11,500.

A pro sports photographer would probably have the 400mm f/2.8 plus a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom, plus 24-70mm f/2.8--maybe more, plus 2 bodies:

Nikon:
D3 - $5,000 x 2
400mm f/2.8 VR - $8,900
70-200mm f/2.8 VR - $1,950
24-70mm f/2.8 - $1,800
Total - $22,650

Canon:
1D Mk III - $3,700 x 2
400mm f/2.8L IS - $7,500
70-200mm f/2.8L IS - $1,950
24-70mm f/2.8L - $1,380
Total - $!8,230

That $4,420 difference is non-trivial. (Also, the Canon bodies & lenses are weather-resistant. The Nikons are not.)

A serious wildlife/bird photographer would have a 500mm & 70-200mm (maybe f/4, as she won't need the faster f/2.8) lenses. If she went with a full-frame camera (both weather-resistant):

Nikon D700 (12 MP) - $2,700
500mm f/4 VR - $8,580
70-200mm f/2.8 VR - $1,950 (I couldn't find an f/4)
1.4x teleconverter - $470
Total - $13,700

Canon 5D (21 MP) - $2,700
500mm f/4L IS - $6,400
70-200mm f/4L IS - $1,235
1.4x extender II - $325
Total - $10,660

For a 1.5x or 1.6x prosumer camera, the totals would be

Nikon D300s (12 MP) - $12,800

Canon 50D (15 MP) - $9,040.

The difference is, again, non-trivial. The Canon user could buy more lenses, flash, etc. for what the Nikon user paid.

[David_Buzzard]

A big reason that you're seeing a lot more Nikon camera in press use is that a) Canon dropped the ball with the 1D III autofocus, while Nikon hit it out of the park with the D3, D700, and D300, and b) Nikon has been giving institutional buyers big rebates on gear, making it cheaper to buy Nikons than Canons.

For the average guy on the street, unless you're shooting stadium sports, isn't going to see a huge difference between the two brands.

David Buzzard

[Marc_Schoenholz]

The bottom line to me is that the constant one-upsmanship of both companies works to the benefit of each brand's photographers.

Marc Schoenholz

[tpsfoto]

I owned 3 MK3 bodies & all were horrible in AF...... my rebel was sharper than the 3 MK3 bodies ....sent back to Canon 3 times & they said they were the best they could be .... That is not what I wanted to hear.... went to the D3's & will never go back!