Cannon vs Nikon

[chameleon]

Right now I'm using a Cannon Rebel on my outdoor trips. I used to really respect Nikon too...however I can't tell you how annoyed I'm getting with Nikon's ridiculous Ashton Kusher ads. If they're having to pay a goof like that to sell cameras, there products must be getting fairly inferior. It's too bad they don't put the money they're paying him into improving their camera designs.

Compare those adds to Canon's ads - which are usually celebrity-less, talking about how they are dedicated to helping aspiring photographers capture the natural world. At least in their advertising the companies represent two completely different paradigms. One of them respects the intelligence of their potential market (Canon), and one of them (Nikon) seeks to court superficial, easily manipulated impulse buyers. Not that serious photographers buy cameras based upon ads, but it really makes me wonder who on earth would purchase a Nikon because they see an imbecile like Kusher using one. They seem to be gearing their products toward trendy high school girls rather than photographers. The only celebrity I know of that Canon supports is Art Wolfe - in terms of his program on PBS, and at least he is an inspired photographer (if not a teeny bopper magnet).

I'm wondering what others are using, and what your feelings are on how the camera companies are evaluating our intelligence levels and reasons for purchasing a camera? Any Kusher fans vs Wolfe fans or vice versa?
-Zach

[pyles_94]

i have used both and i'd say canon is much better for the price. for instance. you could get the canon xt for the same price as a nikon d40.. and the canon is undoubtedly a better camera.....

i use a canon 40d, upgraded from nikon d40. canon has more lenses too.... they seem to keep inventing them while i havent heard of a nikon new lens in quite a while.

however- nikon makes there lcd screens better as well as the viewfinder... but canon generally outdoes nikon with lower noise levels.

[Sore Feet]

Actually I think in the long run, Canon has probably used more celebrities to sell their products than Nikon has. First it was Andre Agassi, now its Maria Sharapova. They seem to have some fixation with tennis players (at least Sharapova is better looking). Think of it as two different companies within each company. You've got the Point and Shoot division, which moves MUCH larger numbers of product and is a much more competitive market, then the DSLR division, which they tone down the celebrity testimonials for.

I agree that Kutcher is a large, annoying waste of air (the same could potentially be said about Wolfe, but at least he's talented at what he does), but basing your camera needs on TV commercials is dumb and probably precisely what they want you to do. I shoot Canon because the first DSLR I bought was a Canon, was the only affordable one at the time (the original Digital Rebel) and I retained some of the lenses for my additional bodies. I have no plans on switching to Nikon when I go to full frame mainly because the Canon body I want (5D Mark II) is way cheaper than Nikon's equivalent. That said, if I was starting from absolute scratch, I would definitely give Nikon a very long hard look.

[pdxgene]

I like Pentax. They don't seem to feel the need to run all those ads and they're stuff is pretty darn good.

[nyxlily]

I have always used Canon. I am not a mega photography hobbyist, but am into it enough to use more than the standard point-and-shoots, and I have yet to be disappointed by their quality in both the body and images.

Actually, I think I'm just brand loyal because my father used Canon. My earliest memories of photography has been my dad using the really old school SLR taking pictures of me and my sibling and doing all these nifty things with his filters and lenses..

And, okay, don't judge me, but I find those Kutcher ads kinda funny.. at least it amused me and he's not that bad to look at!

[kelkev]

It amuses me that these companies spend so much money on "image". I remember the old Andre Agassi commercials from my younger years - - funny how those impressions stick in your mind. But I think for most people, the outlay of some serious pocket change requires (hopefully) some vision beyond the ads, the celebrities, and the hype. I've seen some incredible photos from Canon and Nikon. But I've seen some incredible ones from Pentax, Olympus, and Fuji as well. But I don't remember any ad campaigns from those companies...

[Stevefromdodge]

I'm going to rant for half a second, then go back to being politely content.

I've spent what seems like a lifetime in railroad photography using film and now a second lifetime of hiking photography in the digital age. The question always seems to be the same: "What camera do you use?", or it's brand name variant "What brand of camera is the best?"

The reality is that the difference between a Canon and a Nikon of the same price range is negligible. Other brands make quality products, as well. They have subtle control differences and tiny feature differences that no one uses. Any modern camera in a given niche (Pro SLR, Budget SLR, High End Point and Shoot, Cheap Charlie Generic, Disposable) will do what all of the other cameras in the same niche will do. Newer is usually better. A state of the art Canon, Nikon, Pentax or Olympus will do everything any of us wants to do.

In my (not so) humble opinion, we can just dispense with "What camera should I buy?" question altogether. Buy a camera in the highest market niche that fits your budget. Buy a "point and shoot" if you want to stuff it in your pocket. Buy an SLR if you want to have the most options. Buy a disposable if you only want to use it once. They're all good products in their given niche. They're all comparable if you stay in the same price range.

The key to the equation isn't the camera; it's the photographer. There are some great photographers on this site and they're very friendly and willing to share their skills. Every time we start talking about cameras, we're missing what makes the photographs great and we're ignoring our real asset, the skilled and helpful photographers.

<End rant here> (Thanks for your polite patience)

[chameleon]

Amen to that Steve. Well put. Great photos are generally the result of a great photographer, and definately not the camera. Anytime I put my money into a company though, I like to feel I have no bones with them. The Ashton Kusher ads throw a monkey wrench into a purchase for me, irrational or not, because I resent the fact that a percentage of the profits they're making on me are going towards those ads. I'm sure Nikons in the same price range of Canons are very well made. Its just the way the company courts my dollar that puts me in one camp or the other.

Like you said, several companies without big ads produce wonderful cameras, including Pentax and Kodak. I've even had a lot of luck at my work with animals with very cheap Samsung and Fuji cameras. I do have to admit though, that some digitals are "built to last," while some are built to "last only 6 months." My favorite camera so far I used at work was a Canon G9. I accidentally dropped it onto pavement without a case, from 4 ft up not once, but twice!! and it still works beautifully! That was an absolute shock to me - as I've accidentally killed a number of cheap cameras on Gorge trips with far less impact. That so impressed me that this year I sold that camera and purchased the next model up - the Canon G10. Which to any hiker out there, I'd definately recommend. It's @ $450, 14.7 mp, small, built rock solid, and even has the option to add filters (such as a circular polarizer). It was a bit pricy for my blood,(and I'm still paying it back), but it is built to last and is reliable.

Steve, once again well put though. Great images come from photographers, rarely cameras.

-Zach

[David and Karen]

I agree that it's the photographer & not the camera BODY but don't underestimate the importance of a quality lens.

The difference between a f2.8 lens and a kit lens is striking.

[Waffle Stomper]

I agree with the posts it's the photographer not the camera. Even a pinhole camera which is nothing more than a box with a hole in it can produce a great image. (search flickr groups for pinhole camera)

This is sort of like asking which is better a Ford or a Toyota. They'll both get you there just the same.