CANON OR NIKON..... opinions wanted (1 Viewer)

[Russ Jones]

Hi everyone,

I did a search of this subject and didn't find what I want. I notice a large majority of nature photographers (pro and amature) use Canon cameras. I was wondering if Canons are better for any particular reason. Is it because Canon tend to lean towards nature photography more in their advertising?

I'm currently looking for a DSLR setup and don't know whether to go with Canon or Nikon. Are the lenses equal? Price wise are they similar? ANY opinions or comments would be greatly appreciated, especially by those who can compare both unbiased. Thanks in advance, Russ Jones

 

[Andy Bright]

A lot of it has to do with the fact that I.S./VR is a very important asset for a wildlife photography... Canon's big lenses have I.S. fiitted, Nikons do no as yet (someone said 18 months away from that), on the smaller lenses Canon seems to incorperate I.S. a lot cheaper than Nikon manages with it's VR.
Otherwise there's not much to choose... Canon has a larger advertising budget as it's a far bigger company than Nikon, that may also allow them to be a bit more agressive in it's pricing.

Another prevailing feeling is that Canon excel at lens design where-as Nikon tend to make cameras with a better design layout and feel to them.

Oddly enough, I was at a small birdfair last week and I was very surprised to see that, of the visitors carrying dslr equipment, Nikon was more evident than Canon.

cheers,
Andy

 

[madmike]

Wot camera!

Hi Russ,
Hope this may help! Both cameras are good, BUT, if you can afford the Canon 20D it has several things that help with wildlife photography. Two main aspects are that it fires up very quickly when you switch it one, and likewise when you press the button on standby! You should be able to get a 20D with a wide angle lens for about £1100 at jessops IF they have any! They will also match any prices on the net etc.
I'm hoping to get the Canon 75-300 IS lens this week as I generally prefer to shoot hand held. At just £330 it's pretty good value although hard to get hold off at that price.
I tested the Canon 100-400 IS lens last week and the results were superb when using it hand held at 400mm (actually about 600+) BUT, I think it's too big to carry around and use quickly.
I have seen very good results also from the Nikon D70 that is going at very good prices now.
Although of course the Digital cameras cost a lot more, it is really great to be able to fire away, as with wildlife photos a high percentage of shots are wasted.
If/when I get the IS lens I'll post my thoughts about it on BF.
Oh, one other thing about the Canon 20D, the new battery lasts FOR EVER!!

Good luck,

madmike

 

[rezMole]

I was a "canon man" for years (Canon A1) - when everyone else was saying Nikon was best. When i went DSLR i switched to a Nikon D70 (much better handling than Canon 300D). Recent Canon models seem less robust (at the cheaper end - 300D and 350D).

I can't afford top of the range Canon OR Nikon lenses - i use Tamron 200-500mm mostly, which of course costs the same whichever fitting used.

To be honest, don't think it makes much difference. Canon users will usually tell you Canon and Nikon uses will say Nikon are best.

 

[Leif]

Hi everyone,

I did a search of this subject and didn't find what I want. I notice a large majority of nature photographers (pro and amature) use Canon cameras. I was wondering if Canons are better for any particular reason. Is it because Canon tend to lean towards nature photography more in their advertising?

I'm currently looking for a DSLR setup and don't know whether to go with Canon or Nikon. Are the lenses equal? Price wise are they similar? ANY opinions or comments would be greatly appreciated, especially by those who can compare both unbiased. Thanks in advance, Russ Jones

Optically they are similar. However in terms of technology Canon seem to have the lead by a fair few years. As mentioned Canon are probably favoured by sports and nature pros due to IS. Nikon are slowly adding VR to their lenses, but most of the big ones do not have it. The new DO optics are a Canon innovation not matched by anyone else, though not really of interest to most amateurs. In terms of digital, Nikon have only just released something (2Dx) that can compete with the Canon 1Ds, which has been out for years, and has recently gone from 12MP to 16.7. I suspect many photographers changed to Canon just to use the Canon 1Ds body. The 1Ds is full frame so you can use normal wide angle lenses. Canon also have three 8MP models. By all indications noise is much lower from Canon DSLRs at high ISOs which is important when pictures generate income.

Lastly Canon make their own chips which probably gives them an advantage in that they can design exactly what their produce designers want rather than have to wait for a third party to produce a chip.

Regarding the 20D comment, the Nikon D70 is ready for use as soon as it is turned on so in that sense it is as good.

As a Nikon owner, I reckon that Canon is the best long term bet.

However, some years ago Nikon were well ahead in DLSRs, with Canon trailing behind a poor second ... The market is not stable.

Leif

 

[christineredgate]

For a low price DSLR ,the 300d is hard to beat.Very user friendly ,and excellent for amateurs.It is lightweight,even with the 100-400 lens attached.No cam expertise needed to take a decent pic.

 

[led_snapper]

Yes it's fair to say photographers who use their cameras a lot either fall in to one or two camps. I bought Nikon a few years ago and have stuck to them - you tend to when you build up a system. I prefer the Nikon lense over Canon mainly on the build quality - I end up bumping them in the course of working and talking to my camera repairer, Canon lenses (yes even pro spec ones) though tending to be fast on AF, have been known to be held together with self tapping screws even for critical bits such as the mounting ring to the lens body - this makes them hard to repair and prone to damage first of all. It do try and look after my equipment but they do get knocked whilst working it's a fact of life.

 

[greypoint]

Having used both Canon and Nikon film cameras I had no preference. I bought a Canon 300D last year with an old D30 as back up - like alot of 300D owners I rather fancied a 10D and aquired a nearly new one to replace the 300D and D30 last September. Having used the 10D through the winter the one disadvantage was it's relative slowness when trying to capture flying birds etc. - you need to wait for it to wake up and it has to play catch up after a few shots and freezes you out. Looking at all the reviews and seeing what it produces the 20D was the obvious choice but with the price of the Nikon D70 dropping [and with cashback] I thought it was worth a look. Had a word with someone who had used both a 20D and D70 and decided that was the way to go [it did help having no expensive Canon glass of course!]. Now I'm sure the 20D beats the D70 in lots of ways and is currently the best buy if you can afford it - and of course you get the option of Canons IS lenses etc. - but if you're on a budget the D70 is a great camera for bird photography. Not least because of it's ability to just keep taking shots - you see something happening fire off 10 shots and then something happens behind you etc. and you can just keep on shooting - and of course it's ready the moment you switch on. And the battery life is fantastic - the problem is you forget about charging it! The other point of course is that so many people buy Sigma 50-500mm or the equivalent Tamron for bird shots that the lens availability is less of an issue for many. I've got the Sigma 135-400mm which I'm more than happy with.
So I think I'd say if you can afford it and want the Canon lenses the 20D must be the way to go - but in terms of handling, features, and price the D70 takes some beating.

 

[rezMole]

Basically, if you are going to be spending thousands on camera and lenses, then Canon is perhaps the best way to go. But, if you're only looking at spending less than £2000, then perhaps the Nikon D70 is the best buy. For functionality, ease of use, start-up time (instant), build quality, it easily beats the Canon 300D, and probably is still better than the newer 350D.

A friend of mine upgraded her 300D to 350D and to be honest, i couldn't see that there was a lot of improvement.

I for one am glad i switched over to Nikon - but then again, i am never going to be in a position where i'll be able to afford very expensive Nikon or Canon lenses!

 

[Andy Bright]

Basically, if you are going to be spending thousands on camera and lenses, then Canon is perhaps the best way to go. QUOTE]

I'd have agreed with that a while ago, but with long Nikon VR primes arriving in 18 months or so and the fact that the D2x is probably a slightly better bird photography camera than the full frame Canons, then it's not quite so clear cut.

 

[rezMole]

So, the pendulum continues to swing.

Whichever you go for - you'll always wonder whether you chose the right option! Just pick one (the one you think looks and feels best to you) and don't worry about it!!

 

[Andy Bright]

Yep, the reality is that almost all cameras and lenses are more capable than the person using them

 

[nigelblake]

I think that to answer the question re what camera is best for wildlife photography the simple answer is any camera, all of the kit mentioned above will in the right hands and with the right approach to the subject, deliver the results. none have a 'great nature images' mode, that is down to knowing the subject. With a small amount of effort and experience in the field, you can get great shots with cheap gear as well as expensive gear.
Interestingly I was given a quite rare book at the weekend, it is ' Masterpieces of bird photography' by Ralph Chislett published in 1947, on page 119 there is a shot of a Swallow in flight taken in 1929, it was taken with a 'mahogany box' that had bellows focusing and used six ounces of flash powder to supply the light, the photographer had to coat the glass plate and then process it in the field!

Any of the modern DSLRs with a lens in the 300-500mm range will get you on the way....

 

[ghocking]

In my opinon its the lens that matters, then buy the body to suit. Look at most of the pros around, you will see off white telephoto lenses and the rest have the red ring. These are Canon L lenses and there are very sharp.
Therefore I would go for the 20D or 350D unless you can afford better, and then save for L lenses. Don't bother buying loads of mid price lenses, as once you see the results from L's you never use them again. (I made this mistake, and I am now saveing to get L's)

Geoff Hocking
Canon 20D
Canon 350D
EF S 10-22
EF 28-135 IS
EF 75-300 IS
EF 100-400 L IS
EF 24-70 L

 

[Chuck A. Walla]

I would only caution that if you choose Canon, at least get the 350 XT, mostly due to rapid start up time. If you go Nikon, at least get the latest D70 "S" version. It has the wired cable release, very handy for a variety of birding and general photography projects. Otherwise, forget the tech stuff and worry about technique. If you check the gallery you will still find some great shots with P&S cameras. It's justs easier with a DSLR.

 

[Keith Reeder]

Hi Chuck,

why is the wired cable release an advantage over the wireless remote control the D70 uses?

 

[Chuck A. Walla]

Hi Chuck,

why is the wired cable release an advantage over the wireless remote control the D70 uses?

(1) Reliablity, wireless remotes don't always work in daylight.

(2) Wireless remotes are iffy from behind, they are mainly used for taking your own picture.

(3) Long lenses require special techniques. Mirror lock up prior to shutter is often useful.

(4) BushHawk rifle type stocks help with long lenses. Wireless remotes virtually useless for this.

(5) Digiscoping with spotting scope far simpler with wired remote. Simplicity is better with birding IMO.

(6) Wired remote not essential but certainly worth the extra money IMO. This is all personal opinion on my part.

 

[citrinella]

(1) Reliablity, wireless remotes don't always work in daylight.

(2) Wireless remotes are iffy from behind, they are mainly used for taking your own picture.

(3) Long lenses require special techniques. Mirror lock up prior to shutter is often useful.

(4) BushHawk rifle type stocks help with long lenses. Wireless remotes virtually useless for this.

(5) Digiscoping with spotting scope far simpler with wired remote. Simplicity is better with birding IMO.

(6) Wired remote not essential but certainly worth the extra money IMO. This is all personal opinion on my part.

I like a rifle grip too. I have been thinking about getting a 20D. Can you get a wired remote for a 20D ?

Mike.

 

[Adey Baker]

I like a rifle grip too. I have been thinking about getting a 20D. Can you get a wired remote for a 20D ?

Mike.

Yes. RS-80N3 usually about £36 (a bit much for what's basically a switch and a length of wire and a little jack plug!)

 

[Keith Reeder]

Thank you kindly Chuck.

I've never thought about remote controls (wired or wireless), and I can see now why the wired type would have clear benefits in many circumstances.