Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canon-Nikon: Which One Would You Go For?  
User currently offlineMightyFalcon From Oman, joined Jun 2001, 384 posts, RR: 9
Posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7119 times:

Hello everyone,


After 7 years of intense use of my Canon EOS 100, I decided it was time for me to get a new camera. I had first to make up my mind: Was I going digital (D60 for instance) or sticking to the good "old" SLR? It took me some time but I’ve finally decided to stick with a SLR, as I shoot slides mostly.

I get now to select a camera; this is where I would need some advice from you guys!
First of all, I have to say that I get a comfortable budget even though a SLR like a Canon 1V would be far too expensive for me. I’ve been using Canon for about 20 years now: I started with an AE-1, followed by an EOS 1000 (Fn, as far as I remember) to end up with an EOS 100.

Therefore, my choice was naturally going to be a Canon, and particularly the EOS 3: I could get one for 4,570 EUR, including 2 lenses (Canon EF 28-135 mm f:3.5-5.6 IS USM + Canon EF 100-400 mm f:4.5-5.6 L IS USM).

On another hand, I could get a Nikon F-100 (which I think would be the equivalent to the EOS 3, please correct if I’m wrong) for 3,280 EUR, including as well 2 lenses (Nikon AF 24-85 mm f:2.8-4 + Nikon AF 70-300 mm f:4-5.6 D ED).

The Nikon selection would be a bit cheaper but I get a 100-400 mm lens with the Canon one. Both brands definitely have very good products but which one would you elect as the best? I heard several times that Nikon lenses are of better quality; is that true? What would be your own choice if you had to select one of these?

Your comments and advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.


Regards
MightyFalcon



The sky has no limit...
33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7098 times:

Have you also considered the Pentax line?

It's quite extensive ranging from a very basic manual SLR (the ZX-M) all the way to the pro MZ-S full of many features.

Canon and Nikon are great. I'm not telling you not to go with them.

I'm simply reminding you that there is also another good SLR brand out there.  Smile

Minolta is very good also.

I have a Pentax ZX-7 and I'm very happy with it.

Good luck.

Regards



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7099 times:

By the way.

If you're concerned about good quality lenses. You can rely on Pentax.

Pentax is known for having some of the best lenses available in the market, although a bit pricey.

I'm sure some claim Nikon lenses are better than Canon lenses.

That's very difficult to say really.

Regards



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineMightyFalcon From Oman, joined Jun 2001, 384 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7097 times:

Thanks BA !


I have to say that I've never considered buying anything but Canon or Nikon. To be honest, I do not know ANYTHING about Pentax and Minolta SLRs.

What about lenses from these brands? Are they of good quality as well or is it better to go for some from Sigma, for instance?

Thanks again for your comments, I'll browse the internet to get some more info on these brands.

Kind regards  Smile
MightyFalcon



The sky has no limit...
User currently offlineMightyFalcon From Oman, joined Jun 2001, 384 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 7096 times:

BA, you've been quick to guess my next question! Are you a psychic?

Regards



The sky has no limit...
User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 7091 times:

Nikon lenses are I am sure excelent. They're known to have some of the highest quality lenses out in the market, so Nikon isn't something to worry about much.

However, I've heard there are a few Canon lenses that are of extremely low quality. Not sure the exact model, but Canon's cheapest 75-300MM lens I heard is just plain bad. I've heard it does a lot of vignetting (dark corners), colors turn out too contrasty and saturated, and produces soft images.

However, I've heard Canon's more expensive 75-300MM lense (I think 2 different lenses) are excelent. So it really depends.

I would avoid Sigma and the other 3rd party lens manufactuers unless you read on a particular lens which is supposed to be very good and at a lower price than the main brands. Simply put, some Sigma's are great, and others are just plain bad.

You have to be more cautious when looking into the other brand lenses.

Regards



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineLGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 7090 times:

Canon or who?

Go with the Canon

LGW


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 7094 times:

Nikon lenses are I am sure excelent. They're known to have some of the highest quality lenses out in the market, so Nikon isn't something to worry about much.
True, Nikon has some excellent lenses, but so does Canon and the others.

However, I've heard there are a few Canon lenses that are of extremely low quality. Not sure the exact model, but Canon's cheapest 75-300MM lens I heard is just plain bad. I've heard it does a lot of vignetting (dark corners), colors turn out too contrasty and saturated, and produces soft images.
True, but so do other brands. There is not one brand that produces ONLY good or ONLY bad lenses (even Tamron is rumoured to have one or two good lenses).

I would avoid Sigma and the other 3rd party lens manufactuers unless you read on a particular lens which is supposed to be very good and at a lower price than the main brands. Simply put, some Sigma's are great, and others are just plain bad.
Tokina is excellent. Often better than Sigma. I'd go for the Tokina or Sigma professional lines anytime, especially if there is a big difference in price with the Nikon lens that is its equivalent.

You have to be more cautious when looking into the other brand lenses.
Not really, as with everything you have to do your research. Best is to ask people using the lens what they think of it, reviews in magazines and websites are often tainted by commercial interests.

You can't go wrong with either Nikon or Canon. Minolta and Pentax are also good. Sigma ain't bad either (though maybe not yet AS good as the high end Nikons).
Best 35mm SLRs by a long stretch are probably Leica, and they certainly make the very best lenses. But expect to pay a lot for them.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineOH-LZA From Finland, joined Jun 2001, 1000 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 7089 times:

The Canon 100-400mm and Nikkor 70-300mm can't be compared, the Nikkor is an entry level lens, and the Canon is a higher quality lens. If you get a Nikon you should look at the Nikkor AF VR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED as a comparision to the Canon 100-400mm.

Alex


User currently offlineMUC_Spotter From Cayman Islands, joined Apr 2002, 156 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 7089 times:

the Canon set seems to be a good deal. I have a EOS 30 (and a D30) with the same lenses and they are doing their job (although I've had some problems with the autofocus after less than 2 years with the 100-400)

MUC_Spotter


User currently offlineMightyFalcon From Oman, joined Jun 2001, 384 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 7084 times:

Sorry, I was away for a moment!

Thanks to all for your comments. I've got your point: Some lenses are good quality ones, some others aren't... I read in this forum some very good comments about the Canon 100-400 L and I had found in several occasions (airshows, for instance) my own 75-300 USM... a bit short, therefore my selection.

Although I'm a Canon long-time user, I wouldn't buying another brand. OH-LZA talked about the Nikkor AF VR80-400 mm f/4.5-5.6D ED. Has anyone any idea of the price of this lens.

Correct me if I'm wrong, the D lenses from Nikkor are the new, high-quality ones, aren't they?

Regards
MightyFalcon



The sky has no limit...
User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 45
Reply 11, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 7082 times:

I think it all comes down to personal preferences.

I am amazed that this topic has not turned into another N/C war!
With your kind of budget you could go pretty much everywhere.

If you have about EUR 5000.00 to spare, hard to say what I would do!

Do you still own Canon lenses? If yes, naturally I would go with Canon!

If not, then I would go to your local photo shop and check out the F100 plus the equivalent Canon body get the lenses and go out and do some shooting!

The first time I went to my local shop I had to do the same decision, although my budget was probably 10% of yours at that time.

Anyway for some reason the Nikon body did appeal to me more than the Canon and ever since I am shooting Nikon.

I started with some Quantaray lens, totally crap in retrorespect, I guess I came a long way since then.

Besides the 24-85mm you might consider getting the 70-200 (C) or 80-200 f2.8 (N) as well.

The 80-200 is really popular among aviation photographers or should I say all photographers.

Fast, tack sharp everything you need.......

Ask youself this, do I really need 400mm?

As for myself, well I made the decision a long time ago and went for range!
Nowadays I am mostly shooting @ 800mm and don't want to go back.

Good luck
Vasco G.






User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 45
Reply 12, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 7079 times:

The 80-400 VR goes for about 1600 EUR, +- 150 EUR, depends were you buy it. Ask Peter Unmuth he has one at home.





User currently offlineNscaler From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 243 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 7067 times:

It's not the camera its the photographer who shoots the pictures...

With that said, the camera is a tool and good tools always help. I personally shoot Nikon, not because its better than Canon (well... yeah it is, but that's another story) but if you purchase either line's pro lenses you will be happy. If you purchase their consumer lenses then you might as well have bought into Pentax or Minolta.

And most importantly, remember to have fun! Too many on this board nowadays shoot only for a.net and if they get rejected they think it is the end of the world...

'nuff ranting for now...  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Saul
PHX/TUS


User currently offlineMightyFalcon From Oman, joined Jun 2001, 384 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 7060 times:

AKE0404AR,

Indeed, I do use Canon lenses: EF 35-80 mm f/4-5.6 USM + EF 75-300 mm f/4-5.6 USM. Although I'm pretty satisfied with the 35-80 mm, the 75-300 mm produces some vignetting and kind of soft pictures. I'm would like to use my 300 mm more often: I like shooting portraits, but living in a Muslim country, it's not that easy, almost impossible I should say. I like photographing birds as well. That's why I'm interested in a 100-400 mm.

As for going to the local photoshop... Forget about it! Although I live in a terrific and very photogenic country (try it once guys, it's worth the trip!) it's hard to find good equipment. When I went to the Canon retailer, the best camera they could produce was an EOS 5. In Nikon's, the F-55 and 65 only were available.

I going to Europe for one month within a couple of weeks but I'll be on the move all the time; I only have 5 days available to buy my new equipment. Pretty short! So I went on several website, trying to get the specs but still rely on you all for some good advice.



The sky has no limit...
User currently offlineNscaler From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 243 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 7060 times:

Since you already own Canon lenses, the choice should be much simpler - go with Canon. They'll work on your new body and allow you time to really invest in some A+ glass.

Saul
A proud Nikon owner


User currently offlineMightyFalcon From Oman, joined Jun 2001, 384 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 7063 times:

No worries, Nscaler, I'm having a lot of fun... outside A.net! In order to give you some idea of how much I enjoy photographing, I would tell you that during a 3 week trip in Vietnam last February, I shot almost 1,200 slides. Not too bad.

Pro line: Does it include the Canon 28-135 mm IS USM, the EF 100-400 mm L IS USM and the Nikkor D ED lenses?

Thanks



The sky has no limit...
User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 45
Reply 17, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 7061 times:

How about a fixed prime lens, such as the 300mm f2.8 or f4.

Would that be something you might be interested as well?
Using the f2.8 you could buy yourself a 1.4 and or 2 x teleconverter.

Vasco G.


User currently offlineMightyFalcon From Oman, joined Jun 2001, 384 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 7047 times:

Vasco,

I thought about it for a while: quality wise, this would be the best solution but far too restrictive. With a zoom, you're loosing some quality but it replaces a whole range of lenses.

I've just spend some time browsing the Nikon website, checking at the specs of the Nikkor AF VR80-400mm: Looks pretty good too.

I want to replace my EOS 100, which I'll keep as a second camera, but I definitely want a better lens than my Canon 75-300mm. It's not an easy choice to make as I usually keep my cameras for a long time and use them a lot.

MightyFalcon



The sky has no limit...
User currently offlineJormy From Finland, joined Jan 2000, 231 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 7043 times:

Where did you get the price for that Canon set up (EOS3 + 28-135IS + 100-400IS) ?

At least from German netshops you can buy that set up for about € 3300,-

-Janne


User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 45
Reply 20, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 7022 times:

MF,

Just my personal opinion. It just does not make sense to have 2 bodies from
2 different manufacturers.

Either Canon or Nikon!

I am a Nikon shooter and back about 3 months, since I wanted to go digital I was thinking about selling my 3 Sigma lenses (Nikon mount) plus the body and go with the Canon D60 and buy some lenses for that one as well.

My first opinion was to keep the Nikon set up and buy a Canon D60 plus lens.
Maybe I was smoking dope at that time, common sense did prevail and I did not do it!

Nowadays I am shooting Nikon all the way, 80-200 f2.8 D ED, plus 400 f2.8 and I am happy with my decision.
Still thinking about going Digital, but as for now I don't have any money left!

Vasco G.


User currently offlineMightyFalcon From Oman, joined Jun 2001, 384 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 7025 times:

Hi Jormy,

I've got the price for this Canon set from FNAC, which is a major retailer in France.

The price you mentioned made me check again their website as there is a "slight difference" and, here it is:

EOS 3 + 28-135 IS = 2,132 EUR (exactly)
100-400 L IS = 2,440 EUR so, yep that's making 4,572 EUR!

I'll try to check this price on some other photo retailers' website. Thanks for your comment, it could save me some EUR!  Big thumbs up

Would anybody else have some retail price for that equipment?

MightyFalcon



The sky has no limit...
User currently offlineMightyFalcon From Oman, joined Jun 2001, 384 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 7028 times:

Vasco,

I see what you mean and I have to say that, except for my 75-300mm, I've always been happy with Canon. Buying another one would make sense commonality wise and I'm know pretty used to Canon, that's for sure.

The thing is that I always get that little voice telling me that Nikon is better..! And I cannot get rid of it!

MightyFalcon



The sky has no limit...
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 7029 times:

Therefore, my choice was naturally going to be a Canon, and particularly the EOS 3: I could get one for 4,570 EUR, including 2 lenses (Canon EF 28-135 mm f:3.5-5.6 IS USM + Canon EF 100-400 mm f:4.5-5.6 L IS USM).

This is precisely the 35mm set up I now use, and I would have no hesitation in recommending it to anyone else, except perhaps that I actually slightly prefer the cheaper 28-105 lens to the 28-135IS - I used to have the 28-105 but sold it because the EOS-3 came as a package with the 28-135. I marginally regret that decision.

I don't think you can really go wrong with either Canon or Nikon, and indeed Minolta and Pentax will probably offer a credible solution too. One caution perhaps over Pentax is whether you might in the future go digital - at present, unlike Nikon and Canon, Pentax doesn't seem to have a realistic digital SLR on offer, whilst Canon and Nikon offer you the opportunity to move to digital in the future and still use the same lenses.

One thing that might weigh in favour of the 100-400L IS is that it can be used with Canon extenders, whereas the cheaper lenses in the Canon range cannot. The 100-400L IS + 1.4x extender (which I got free from Canon as a special offer with the EOS-3) produces some very good results, and would stretch your reach up to 560mm, or the 2x extender would stretch it yet furter - the IS can make hand holding at these lengths possible, and the 100-400 + 1.4x on the EOS-3 also offers autofocus whereas on other cameras the autofocus will disengage below F8. I'm not suggesting you buy an extender now, but its worthy of consideration for the future.

Until very recently I also had the cheap Canon 75-300 lens that some people here have wasted no time in trashing. Almost all my pictures (726) on this site were taken with this lens and as long as people understand its a different proposition to the 100-400L IS, then even the lowly 75-300 is a good lens that produces nice results as long as you try to steer clear of wide open at 300mm.

Andy


User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 45
Reply 24, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 7022 times:

Here is my price from my favorite store

http://www.bhphotovideo.com

EOS 3 USD 889.95
28-135mm USD 419.95
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USD 1409.00
--------------
USD 2718.90 plus shipping


25 Post contains images Gerardo : Hi MightyFalcon First of all - and that's perhaps something very personal - I would take both cameras in the hand and try to figure out, how they will
26 Post contains links and images Cfalk : I've had the Canon 100-400mm L IS lens for over a year, and it is a terrific lens. It is very sharp (almost as sharp as the 70-200 2.8 L), the stabili
27 Wietse : I've got a small remark here, I really do not think the 75-300mm USM is a soft, vignetting lens. I have compared images taken with that lens to some s
28 Post contains links Staffan : http://www.internet-foto.de/ Canon EOS3 + EF28-135 €1.575,00 Canon EF100-400 €1.797,00 That adds up to €3372,00 Staffan
29 Post contains images AKE0404AR : Staffan, no one beats B&H in price and service Wietse wrote: "I am biased towards Canon, I like the design and lenses better..." I think it is because
30 Staffan : Vasco, well, maybe not in price, but AC-Foto (the link I posted) have probably the best service I've ever had. They are great, and they usually have m
31 Post contains images MightyFalcon : Hi guys, Gee..! Thanks for all the comments! I left for a few hours (I slept all afternoon as I'm between 2 night shifts) and during that time, you ke
32 Post contains links Jwenting : Another excellent German supplier is http://www.technikdirekt.de. Don't be put off by the fact that they don't sell only cameras, they carry almost ev
33 Staffan : MightyFalcon, Prices in Germany are alot lower than the ones in Belgium, the link I gave you is to a shop in Aachen, Germany, only a 1 hour drive from
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Which Lenses Do You Recommend For A Canon 5D posted Mon Mar 6 2006 23:27:54 by Parsival
Would A.net Go For This Motive? posted Sun Jul 16 2006 14:03:08 by Sulman
Which Telezoom Do You Recommend For A D200 posted Sun Mar 5 2006 17:14:52 by Parsival
Would You Pay For Extra Rejection Info? posted Fri Nov 11 2005 22:00:48 by UnattendedBag
Which One Do You Think Might Get Accepted? posted Fri Dec 28 2001 22:18:33 by Dlx737200
Which One Should I Go For Next? posted Mon Nov 6 2006 00:39:17 by San747
Canon D60 Or Nikon D100, Which One? posted Thu Apr 11 2002 17:26:38 by AKE0404AR
Would You Buy A NIkon D50/70 From This Seller? posted Thu Jun 1 2006 15:01:46 by Airevents
Which MD-11 Would You Choose? posted Wed Aug 24 2005 03:18:17 by Edoca
Would You Recommend The Nikon D70? posted Tue Aug 2 2005 14:02:48 by Airevents