Canon or Nikon DSLRs?

Which one do you prefer? Which one do you shoot? What lenses do you like?

I have a bunch of Canon lenses and a 5D mark 2, and it is a great camera. The 6D was released today, which adds the GPS feature that I am interested in, but I don't think I can upgrade just for that. I might have to spend $600 to add that feature to my camera though. I have the 16-35mm and on a full frame, 21MP camera, it does take some great photos.

The only Nikon camera that I like is the D800. But the controls just feel too busy it me. Maybe the settings are quickly adjustable one you get the hang of it. I like the high resolution sensor (and am wondering what Canon is holding back).

 

I use a Nikon D200 with a 17-55 1:2.8 as my go-to lens. I don't have any opinion in the Nikon vs Canon debates. My wife owns a small fortune in Nikon glass, it would be stupid for me to consider anything else. I don't see any compelling reason to upgrade at this point, the camera is certainly more competent than it's user.

 

Pardon me if I repeat myself here from that one thread that I am not going to hunt down.
I started with a Canon G2 back in 2002 and have been in the Canon camp ever since. My current best camera is a Rebel T3i with an "adequate" 18-55mm lens and what I consider entry level, a very nice 50mm F/1.4 that I should be getting back on Saturday from the repair center. It did not respond well to a 3 foot drop or so onto the carpet.
Now I want to get an 85mm lens, the 85mm F/1.8 looks like a decent balance to me on the cost/feature scale.
My "budget macro" is the Canon Powershot that does not get much use from me. Shooting in JPG rather than RAW ranks up there with using that cheap 18-55mm "kit lens" as things I avoid usually. But the "closeup mode" is damn good for a sub $100 (with employee discount almost a year ago) point and shoot so I typically use it for those shots or quick snapshots of the kids. A real macro lens is high on my wish list but I already know I want to spring for the L series when I buy one and that will set me back somewhere around $1000+ if my memory serves.

 

My German friend back in Australia would literally bitschslap the crap out of you, if you choose a Canon DSLR over a Nikon one.

 

I have a Canon Rebel, and just bought a Tamron 18-270 len which is sweet so far.

 

I've shot with both, though admittedly the lower end cameras. My general feeling is that the specific features of of the camera you're considering are much more important than which brand it is. If anyone had too strong of an opinion either way I'd be suspicious of fanboyism.

Since you already have the glass and changing it would be a major expense, I'd just get another Canon.

 

Applies to me as well. My experience and success so far with night photography is especially appalling to me but I plan on working on that. I have seen some amazing shots of the stars with the lens I have and want to figure out how to take that kind of thing myself.

 

It depends on what kind of shot you are trying to get. ISO level of 800 and 10 sec to get stars that are dots (and use f/1.2, f/1.4, f/1.8). ISO800 and 30 seconds, you will start to get streaks. ISO 400 and 180 and there will be streaks, but less noise. ISO100 and 60 minutes should be long streaks. And 3-4 hours ISO 100 with an ND filter over the lens will be pretty cool. I need to do some experimentation with the hour(s) long ones to make sure that they work before I try them out in the field where I only have one shot on one night.

I'll also add that airplanes, satellites, car headlights, and meteoroids all ruin the shot. Or they have to be taken out in post. Except if you stack the images in post, that is also another technique I would like to try.

 

Interesting. I plan on trying to get a feel for these kind of things firsthand when my lens gets back and I get an opportunity at night. That second part is the harder one for me as I have two nights off normally but otherwise have to ready for work by 9ish normally.

 

If you're handy with maths and a know a bit about your camera you can actually calculate the exact length of time you can leave your shutter open, with a given lens without getting trailing. I did this for a Nikon D50 once upon a time and it worked beautifully.

Sometimes satellites can be the whole point. An Iridium flare:



This was taken in (obviously) light polluted skies, very close to the horizon, though I still kind of like the way it turned out.

 

I don't think 3rd gen camera are quite there yet. Yes, for 90% of the shots you won't be able to tell, but there are some that you need the features of a DSLR.

Amazon.com: RAINBOWIMAGING Canon EOS EF Lens to Micro 4/3 Four Thirds System Camera Mount Adapter, Olympus PEN E-P1 E-P2, Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1, GH1, G1, MSRP USD27.99: Camera & Photo

There are a few Canon lenses that would work well with that size camera while traveling. It is the biggest debate I have with myself. I want the pictures, but I have 25 lbs of camera & lenses now, plus the tripod is big and hard to carry. I really would like to go with a small camera again, but the fast prime lenses I use would still weigh the same. And fast lenses really help, and why it would be interesting to get an adapter so you can use a fast lens while sharing it with a Canon or Nikon camera.
--- merged: Sep 20, 2012 4:12 AM ---
Here is an example of what happens when you spend three hours.


I've done something like this three times, but never got anything that good.
Circling the Dead photo by Marsel van Oosten from Flickr at Lurvely

He says he stacked a bunch of 4 minute exposures of the star trails, and I have taken right after sunset photos to get the foreground detail and color. You could have done a 188 minute exposure of the sky, but it might wash out. But, pay attention to where the North star is. It looks weird if it isn't near the middle or it has to be in a totally different direction. Also you will need to have a remote trigger that works, and a few batteries.

 

I have a nice Nikon D7000, and I've found the kit 18-105 lens to be a good, versatile walking-around lens. I do mostly distance/sports photography, and I have a nice 70-200 f/2.8 Sigma lens that I use for that. It's fast enough to use inside a gym and still get some good shots. I have no skill as a photographer and try to make up for that with some good equipment.

As for the preference, I've spoken to professionals who use both Canon and Nikon, and they all seem to agree that the choice is a matter of personal preference. Canon may have an edge in optics (they debate that but seem to slightly to the Canon side), but that Nikon tends to win on features and durability. Since I am in the same boat as others in that the camera far outstrips my ability and knowledge, I went with Nikon because a close friend is a Nikon professional, and I can get help from him when I want a particular effect. My camera takes some very nice photographs, I have nothing to do with it./

 

I never appreciated just what a difference a quality lens makes until I upgraded to the T3i and finally bought that nifty fifty. Three years of my using my 18-55mm lens produced some nice images but terms like 'bokah' are hard to appreciate until you have something that can show you what you are missing.

 

I haven't been paying too much attention to them, so I'm not an expert by any means. To me a camera either fits into a pocket or it doesn't. And when you put a good lens on any camera, unless I'm wearing my winter jacket, it won't fit into my pockets.

Here is a good website to compare cameras:


Side-by-side camera comparison: Digital Photography Review



First thing to look for is sensor size and resolution. The Canon EOS M has the same sensor as the Canon 60D for instance. But the Canon 5D m3/m2 have full frame sensors. A full frame camera will make your lenses not as 'zoomed in', so you will need to get a higher number telephoto lens to get the same picture that a cheaper lens would get you on a cropped sensor. So, this full frame camera is a bad thing if you are a paparazzi. The full frame camera comes in handy when you have a ultra wide lens and aren't able to back up. Let's say you are on top of a sky scraper and want to get a shot of the city skyline, the full frame camera would get ~20% more using the same lens. And the high megapixels just helps in resolving the details. Now, if you only take pictures of people or haven't thought, 'I wish I could get more of this bridge in the shot, but I can't back up' then it doesn't matter much. There are arguments to be made about shallow depth of field and low light abilities of full frame over crop sensors, but I think it is about the same with the current generation of cameras if you can get a fast (f/2 or lower) lens. The resolution of the micro 4/3 and APS-C cameras that have come out now are about the same resolution. But the Nikon D800 and the mythical Canon High MP camera (Medium Format?) that pushes 45+ megapixels might mean that there is an obvious quality difference between pictures again in terms of detail.

Lenses are the big thing with me. The Canon EOS M allows you to use the EF mount lenses that cost more than the camera. And by using those lenses, it helps a lot to get pictures are good shutter speeds and ISO levels.

I would want to make sure that you can have a very long exposure image. Where you can keep the shutter open as long as the remote is pushed. Nighttime photos with low ISO vales and fast prime lenses are the other thing I would want to use it for, and they should be fine doing those pictures now.

Most of the new 3rd gen cameras do let you control the shutter speed and f/stop in a manual mode. I would want the camera to take multiple exposures and make a HDR image right when I take it, or have a great sensor that has a real big dynamic range. That is a big one and why what you see isn't what the image is when you get home.

Battery life is a minor thing, but when you are hiking in a national park, it is hard to recharge a battery sometimes.

And finally, the most important part is the person taking the picture more than any equipment. Art Wolfe could take a better photo with an iPhone than I can with my DSLR.

If I had to go on a trip around the world, I might really look into buying a smaller camera, and I would say that there is a 70% chance my next camera will be a small interchangeable lens one. 20% it will be the Canon G15, and 10% it will be a 45MP DSLR. But, it won't be anytime soon unless I win the lottery.

 

I've got a Nikon D-5100. Had a D-5000 until a recent break in. I must have liked the Nikon because I replaced it with another Nikon. Need to spend more time learning all the tricks it will do. Somehow being retired doesn't mean you have more time. No idea how that works.

 

I have an old Canon Rebel (I don't know the american label, in Europe is 400D) with a bunch of lenses.
The ones I use most are Canon 28-135 IS, Sigma 15-30, Canon 70-200 F/4 (not the L version, the previous good-non-L). When I want to get good stuff Leica 180 Elmarit-R (really heavy and manual focus, but I literally love the bokeh and colors) and Zeiss Planar 50/1.7 over the Canon zoom and the Canon 50mm F/1.8.

Nikon is fine too, I like the new bodies (D-XXXX and after), but I prefer canon lenses: more midrange and used good stuff. Back when I bought the 400D the Nikon rival was the poor D40/D60, there was no-game. Now Nikon is back on track indeed.

Then I recently get stuffed with the weight and clumsy of the dSLR and use a lot Sony NEX-5, with its pancake 16mm F/2.8 but mostly with the real steal of Voigtlander 40/1.4 (cheap, lightweight, and great great great rendition), sometimes when I need long I have a Leica Elmarit-M 90/2.8 collapsible (great lens and love the collapsible, but really waaaay prone to flare, even in too much light without the hood the rendition is poor. It gets the best portrait but its delicate to use properly) and a more versatile Jupiter-11 135mm F/4.
With this outfit I can go shooting with lenses in pocket and camera in hand, or going to trek without feeling weighted down, and plus no-one believes it's a "real photographer" stuff, and the candid are much more candid, and streets photography works as a charm.

Canon M is something I did not understood. No reason to prefer over Sony, except last-minute adaptation in a clumsy Frankesteinian contraption of 500g-5cm EF lenses over a 200g-2cm body.

 

There are two factor that go into choosing a brand: which one feels best in your hand, and which one your friends shoot so you can borrow lenses from them.

You can do the math if you really want to, but t=500/f for any focal length is generally good enough

 

I'm not sure I follow, but 500 seconds would be way too much time to avoid trailing on a stationary camera mount.