I need someone to spell out for me in technical terms the difference between an image made with a canon compared to a nikon. What is better about a canon image? People keep talking about how sweet their canons are and I'd like to actually see some side by side images taken with both systems.

+1

I'm by no means an expert, but I've heard some say canon lenses are better than nikon lenses. Don't know if that's true or not. Image quality wise, my impression is that canon is better in terms of noise, but there may be a difference in how colors are represented due to sensor differences. That's all I can think of. If you go to photo.net or somewhere similar with camera reviews, you may be able to pull up different cameras and compare sample images.

the difference is the person pushing the shutter.

exactly what Queen B said.

I think Nikon tends to have more noise at high ISO, a problem with Auto White Balance. and color seems to be a bit orange across the board. Nikon also does not have a FF sensor solution, which I for one am a HUGE fan of because it enables me to get closer to the subject with longer lenses, resulting in a shorter DOF. The inverse, I think Nikon has a bit TTL better flash performance

In regards to glass, I don't think you can say that Nikon doesn't have good glass.

All THAT said, at the end of the day it is a tool, a preference.. If you like it, can make good images, etc.. then it is the right tool for you

Yeah, the only real reason I have canon is cuz I got a canon to begin with, and at the time I wasn't particularly passionate about any features, I barely knew anything about cameras (surprisingly, my buddy was an established nikon guy and he didn't try and steer me that way). I'm sure if I shot nikon I'd like it just the same.

+1.
Less noise issues to fix+ better color/contrast/saturation out of the camera=less processing time=more freedom.
But it is still a too preference.

Same here. And while I do find noise problems with high ISO's on Nikon, there are other benefits to shooting Nikon (like speed, right? ). And, yes--Nikon has great glass.

At the end of the day, you just have to pick one & commit to it, I think.

I'm tempted to head to the camera store & get my hands on some Canons every day (not b/c I don't like Nikon but b/c I hear good things from the other "camp"), but I don't want to learn a new system all over again.

Both Nikon and Canon tend to produce consistent high quality images. I like nikons button layout, how expressive the the viewfinder is, the way the camera is weighted, the way the buttons feel when i press them, the way that the lenses twist on and off of the body. It's about the feeling the experience of using the camera. It's about how well the camera fits you. Sure nikon has a minor advantage with it's flash system, canon has a bit of a plus with noise to iso ratio. But these are all small things that aren't a reason to spend thousands on a new body and new lenses. I know that I could take the same images with a nikon, canon, pentax, olympus, or any other SLR, they all have the same general capability, it's what you do with it that's most important.

And yes before you canon folk go on and on about how amazing a full frame sensor is... I just want to say that personally it doesn't interest me. Not saying that it's not a fantastic tool when used correctly and an amazing way to boost dynamic range etc. it just doesn't interest me.

Just pick the system that feels more comfortable to you, and if one doesn't feel more comfortable than the other see what your friends are using, and pick that so you can borrow lenses and gear, and if they don't have anything flip a coin. You can't really go wrong with either.

Hope this was somewhat helpful.

Best Regards,
Bryce

+1000 totally true, I have the exact same feels just with the Canon gear in this case.

Hey John,
I know that when we shot together, the files from your camera had a different tone and more noise. Traditionally that has been the case with any assistant that I've had shooting Nikon, where the file was cleaner on the canon at about 2/3 to one full stop higher ISO. The D2H was really bad, but I solved that by changing them all to b&w, where the noise made for beautiful, grainy b&w images. It's a sweet camera in the hand, though. Another thing people rarely talk about is that the posted ISO on Nikon is 1/3 to 1/2 a stop slower than on the Canon. So, in reality, when you are shooting with both at 1600, the canon is sucking in 1/3 to 1/2 a stop more light, or a 2000 ISO. AND producing a cleaner file. Nikon generally has better AF and more accurate flash.

Does all that stuff matter? No. I'd choose a photographer based on the images THEY produce rather than the camera they are using to produce it.
Cory

Canon has more than a little advantage as far as high ISO noise goes, in my experience. To me, that's the biggest benefit.

Whether or not full-frame interests you, it's incredible. It's not for everyone, but if it's for you, you'll love it. Personally, I like being able to use lenses like the 35 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.2 and have the correct perspective when using them. I also like the shallower DOF.

Some people like Nikon's colors better ... I much prefer Canon's.

I like Canon's control layout ... I know Nikon shooter's love theirs.

Both companies make good bodies and both make great glass. Personally, I want to see Nikon be really successful and make awesome cameras ... because that means Canon will have to try to outdo them, and then vice versa. Then we all win

As long as you're comfortable with your gear, that's the most important.

I like that sentiment, Cory.

Thanks Cory,
Thats really what I needed to hear. Just for the record the images from that event were produced from my good ol' D50. I am assuming that newer cameras like the d200 have better noise reduction.

The reason I ask this is that sometimes I see an image and think to myself, "I bet that was taken with a canon". Something about the image just strikes me like that. Oh well, I agree with Robin and Cory that it is about your style, skill, and ability to interact with people that will increase your image quality greater than everything else.

Thanks everyone for your help.

Bryce and everyone out there, I wouldn't knock it until you have really tried it. I loved my 20Ds and thought they were awesome. Since I bought a 5D they are no longer acceptable and I won't be using them anymore unless I really have to. The files that come out of the 5D are unreal and have no competition.

Here's my take. Nikon is not quite as sharp or as accurately tonal as Canon. But I don't care about that. I'm like Ian McKay of Fugazi. He only used an Epiphone SG guitar. He just wanted to stretch the thing to its limits. To me, it's like using a favorite film. Using a Nikon just has character. If you want sharp, perfect little images, use a friggin canon. If you want to stretch things and discover yourself, use a Nikon.

Shane, Shane, Shane, I got too laugh man, but me thinks maybe a little to much coffee today or something.

Peace brother, "try" to be a little nice though

what? that was nice... not too much coffee... trust me. that's the least of my problems...

Ditto. My assistant sometimes uses Nikon (D200) and images are about a stop higher in noise.

oh - no way man - my penis is like sooo much bigger than yours dude.



ok maybe not, but it works just the same as everyone elses . . .

if you want side-by-side comparisons... I JUST switched to Canon.

Nikon wedding photos: http://www.bybobbi.com/blog/?p=472
Canon wedding photos: http://www.bybobbi.com/blog/?p=532

I'm not so sure this is a way to compare... as I only put the ABSOLUTE most sharp images from the Nikon wedding. You can also click through my old blogspot to see more Nikon images. http://bybobbi.blogspot.com

To be honest, I'm kind of sick of the... it's not the camera, it's the photographer stuff... Yeah, that's true, but we all need the proper tools to produce great work. Bottom line I'm the SAME photographer I was three weeks ago.. and my images have improved substantially. Canon's images are MUCH sharper and have MUCH better color. I was WAYYYY over the orange, noisy and soft CRAP coming out of my D200.

Not sure how helpful my response is...

~Bobbi

I started with Canon film and just kept going. Had the d30, then a 10d tehn up from there. Then once I wanted to go to pro gear, well Nikon just doesn't have anything to compete with a 1d2, let alone the new 1d3 coming out. I needed speed for PJ work, and Nikon's answer just isn't there.

If I was new to the game or didn't have much invested, I'd strongly look at a d200 or even more so the Fuji s5.

The 1d3 carries a high price tag for many, but man its hard to overlook not only what it can do, but the promise of what Canon is doing for its future. They semed to have gotten past the idea that they can just up the MP and call it a new model.

I shot one wedding with my friend's Canons (5D) when I sent my Nikons for a tune-up... I loved them... those images are on my website, can you tell which ones they are?... you probably can because the difference is abysmal

Since we seem to be talking mostly about the lower-end bodies - buy an S5 and you'll have the best body and the best sensor under $3K.

It doesn't do any good to have a great sensor in a second-rate body.

And Canon and Nikon have never competed with each other for the pro market - they split it. The only meaningful competition is coming at the low end.

keep that up and you are gonna owe me that $50 back. Amanda did a test/practice shoot yesterday with two other girls. They worked on LR and raw. One girl had a 5d and the other two came home depressed.

Yeah Rudy!! You gonna be switchin over now??

Can't wait to shoot together again!

Bobbi, while I'm glad to see you're having success with your switch to Canon I'll have to respectfully disagree with your take on the clichéd "It's not the camera..."

There are too many photographers getting high-quality images out of the Nikon bodies and lenses to simply write off the brand as inferior. I'd guess that some of your issues could have been related to a confluence of equipment issues. The QC on the D200 is just not the same as the QC on the D2X(s). I'd imagine a lot of that is by design considering the D200 is a $1700 prosumer camera and the D2X(s) is Nikon's flagship professional body.

Did you have two bodies or one? What lenses were you using? Did you have filters on them? I've always found Nikon images to come out a little cool versus orange, so it sounds like you may have had a bad sample.

But comparing the D200 to the Canon 5D enters the land of apples and oranges. While there are numerous professionals having lots of success with the D200, the D2X compares more favorably (or less poorly if you're looking for an argument) to the 5D. The 5D has a much better sensor but at almost twice the price of the D200 -- not to mention the cost of switching systems.

We purchased a D200 the week it came out to serve as a backup to a D2X. One month into its useful life the mirror locked during a wedding reception and I had to pull the D70 out to finish my assistant duties. After a trip to Nikon service for a "Major" repair we decided to relegate the D200 to 3rd body status and purchased another D2X.

PS > All of that being said I would choose Canon over Nikon today if I were starting new because of the increased number of body choices and market leader status. I could take or leave the "full frame" thing.

I have never shot a canon, but I have shot with an S3 and a medium format pentax in my days...I just purchased the S5 and I can honestly say that the images that come SOOC out of that thing....knock my freaking socks off...I love Nikon color and I love Nikon glass...for those of you that shoot Nikon, you have got to check out the S5

I see where you're coming from... it's not fair to compare a prosumer with a professional camera.

Thanks for the reply!

~Bobbi

Hehe

Marie, would you say that the S5 is better than the D200? I'm considering dumping our D200 for an S5 since they share the same body and focusing module.

Damon- dump it and get the S5...you will be so happy. Now, I saying this from my pint of view...I have only played with a D200, but from those that have both...they love the SOOC images, but say it's a little slower...I noticed it getting a little slow when I put it in film simulation mode...otherwise-it's perfect