Canon vs. Nikon

[ctcook]

I searched for a thread about this, but was unable to find one. I currently shoot with a Nikon D40, and I'm looking to upgrade my equipment. I've been happy with my Nikon, but I'm not apposed to going to Canon considering that I don't have a lot of gear for the Nikon. So, my question is simply this:

Which is better, Nikon or Canon?

p.s. Let's keep this professional and not use this thread to start a flame war.

[flomaster]

Ford or Chevy?

Red or blue?

Black or white?

Home Depot or Lowes?

ETC.. you get the point.


you started a war thread.

they are BOTH great companies with quality products. since you already have Nikon and are familiar with the camera and settings I'd recommend a D3 or a D90.

I bought Nikon based on the way the camera felt in my hands and to top LCD display. I went to the camera store and handled canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony. and ended up with Nikon and haven't looked back.

-=Jason=-

[kirbinster]

Its all in the eye of the beholder - they are both good.

[Doug Pardee]

Originally Posted by ctcook

I currently shoot with a Nikon D40, and I'm looking to upgrade my equipment.

Why upgrade? What limitations of the D40 are getting in your way?

That's the important question. We can't possibly tell you what you should upgrade to (if anything) without knowing what it is that you need. All of the entry-level DSLRs, including the D40, are quite usable for most amateur photography. The higher-level cameras meet specific needs. What are your specific needs?

Which is better, Nikon or Canon?

Neither. Both produce excellent equipment. For certain types of photographic uses, one might be better suited than the other. The same can be said for Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, Samsung, Sigma, and Sony. And for non-DSLR equipment from Leica, Hasselblad, etc. (apologies if I missed anyone).

[Big Nick]

They are both top notch, if you are thinking about moving to canon, barrow or rent some Canon equipment and see if YOU like it more.

[ctcook]

Originally Posted by Doug Pardee

Why upgrade? What limitations of the D40 are getting in your way?

That's the important question. We can't possibly tell you what you should upgrade to (if anything) without knowing what it is that you need. All of the entry-level DSLRs, including the D40, are quite usable for most amateur photography. The higher-level cameras meet specific needs. What are your specific needs?

I want to upgrade for a few reasons:

1. Higher megapixel, for cropping.
2. More auto-focus points
3. More frames per second

I'm currently shooting mostly nature shots, but I'm looking to start doing some portraits so I can earn some money to fund my photography hobby.

[Doug Pardee]

Originally Posted by ctcook

1. Higher megapixel, for cropping.
2. More auto-focus points
3. More frames per second

Almost anything modern will be more than your current 6 megapixels. Bear in mind, though, that cropping is like using a smaller sensor. It'll increase the overall noise in the picture. The Nikon D90 and D300 have 12 megapixel sensors, the Canon 50D has 15 megapixels, and the Canon 7D has 18 megapixels.

Almost anything modern will be faster than your current 2.5 fps burst mode. The Nikon D90 is only 4.5 fps, while the Nikon D300 and Canon 50D both are about 6-7 frames per second. Canon's 7D is 8 frames per second, while the 1DmkIV is 10 frames per second.

The autofocus point issue leaves me scratching my head. That's usually a marketing thing, not a photographer thing. Most of the Canon folks on the forums where I hang out use only the center AF point and most of them never use any of the other AF points.

If you're looking for better overall AF performance, I suspect that will tilt toward Nikon. For Canon you really need to get to the 7D or the 1-series before you get AF that's significantly better than on their entry-level cameras.

If money isn't a big concern, the Canon 7D is going to meet your list the best. 18 megapixels, 8 frames per second, and an almost-pro grade autofocus system. It's not cheap, but it's a fair bit less expensive than the Nikon D300.

If money is a concern, then you're probably going to be picking between the Nikon D90 and Canon 50D (note: the 50D is widely expected to be replaced by a "60D" in February). The Nikon would probably win on autofocus and price (by about $100 US), while the Canon would win on megapixels (barely) and on frames per second.

If you're planning on staying entry-level, then you should also look at what the other manufacturers are putting out. The new Pentax K-x (12 Mpix) is getting great reviews and seems to be a real bargain; Sony offers some faster frames per second: up to 7fps for the A550 (14 Mpix) with focus and exposure locked.

[ctcook]

This is all really good information. The reason I include the AF points is because no matter how hard I try when I'm in manual focus I always get out of focus images. Perhaps it's just a matter of practice.

[inkista]

Are you sure it's a focus issue, and not camera shake blur? Sure you're not shooting wide open (lens performance is softer) or using too small of an aperture (diffraction effect)?

• How to Hold a Digital Camera
  
• How to Tell the Difference between Camera Shake or Poor Focussing?
  
• How to Take Sharp Digital Images

[ctcook]

Originally Posted by inkista

Are you sure it's a focus issue, and not camera shake blur? Sure you're not shooting wide open (lens performance is softer) or using too small of an aperture (diffraction effect)?

• How to Hold a Digital Camera
  
• How to Tell the Difference between Camera Shake or Poor Focussing?
  
• How to Take Sharp Digital Images

It may very well be. I usually have been shooting portraits with the smallest aperture possible to obtain the DOF. I will have to try and increase it to see if that makes a difference. This is very good information to have thank you for posting it.