Why Nikon?

[qwerty436]

First of all, I love my Nikon. Wouldn't trade it for anything else. I've used Canon SLR before but nothing beats holding a Nikon. The shutter release sound makes me imagine they are made by photos fairies clapping everytime I take a photo.

Anyway one friend asked for my recommendations for his first dslr. I tried to give him an unbiased view of both brands. Of course I couldn't resist ending with Nikon. In the end he got a 600D, which is sweet because that's the camera that suits him.

But when i was listing down the pros and cons of both brands, I find myself a little inadequate to list the pros of Nikon beside the fact it suits me. So it got me thinking. And I thought this is a good topic to discuss here on a lazy Sunday.

This is what I said:
Canon - generally cheaper, model to model it usualy have higher specs, cheaper lenses, seems to have more lenses to choose from, lighter But usually very plastic builds, very plastic shutter release, very plastic lenses.

Nikon - very solid builds, good lenses...heavy...not too good for small hands..UI works for me..expensive lenses...

As you can see, I could hardly list more than three unbiased pros of Nikon. So maybe you guys can share views.
Note: above is just my generally observation as a consumer. Didn't use canon long enough to really justify the truth. Also did not compare after service as I'm fortunate enough to not require going for nsc. Yet.

Fire away!

 

[shutter death]

Nikon rocks!

 

[fmeeran]

I can see a flame war starting in the not too far future.
Having said that Nikon is not necessarily lower in specs to equivalently priced Canon. Lower megapixel yes, but not lower specs.

 

[qwerty436]

I can see a flame war starting in the not too far future.
Having said that Nikon is not necessarily lower in specs to equivalently priced Canon. Lower megapixel yes, but not lower specs.

Haha I understand the trouble I might find myself into. But hey, I'm already a proud owner of a Nikon D90 and a couple of good Nikon glass so I'm not just "looking for a DSLR but dunno which brand" thing. No one need to convince me Nikon is a superior system anymore. yes it's biased but I'm on the dark side what do you want me to say?

I'm just seeking for some more objective views of the good things about Nikon, as a brand, as a camera and perhaps as an after-sales service. Perhaps people who was on Canon can also help to debunk some of the pros and cons I've listed. Hopefully we can all, in the end, provide a more unbiased, more objective views of the brands...of course with a slight inclination to Nikon

I mentioned the word 'usually'. So it does not mean all. Yes megapix in particular which can seem quite attractive to the new owners. And it may not hold true on the highest end of cameras as I read D3 is a very respected camera.

 

[Irvine]

This is what I said:
Canon - generally cheaper, model to model it usualy have higher specs, cheaper lenses, seems to have more lenses to choose from, lighter But usually very plastic builds, very plastic shutter release, very plastic lenses.

now this is where u r wrong. canon L lenses are solid n built like tanks. not all non-L lenses r wad u call "very plasticky" too.

not all canon bodies haf very plastic builds also. for 60D, no doubt it's a plastic body, it feels pretty solid in the hands. 7d onwards r like tanks. as for the shutter, i can't really comment on that but i prefer nikon's shutter sound.

the main reason i went nikon was because my father was a nikon user in the past n i wan to be able to use his old gear (only a lens n a flash though). i've used canon bodies before but i still prefer's nikon's ergonomics n user interface. this is just me, i'm sure others who went for other brands because they find that the ergonomics n UI of other brand cameras suit them as well.

cameras r just tools. wad suits the user's needs n preferences r more important.

 

[qwerty436]

now this is where u r wrong. canon L lenses are solid n built like tanks. not all non-L lenses r wad u call "very plasticky" too.

not all canon bodies haf very plastic builds also. for 60D, no doubt it's a plastic body, it feels pretty solid in the hands. 7d onwards r like tanks. as for the shutter, i can't really comment on that but i prefer nikon's shutter sound.

the main reason i went nikon was because my father was a nikon user in the past n i wan to be able to use his old gear (only a lens n a flash though). i've used canon bodies before but i still prefer's nikon's ergonomics n user interface. this is just me, i'm sure others who went for other brands because they find that the ergonomics n UI of other brand cameras suit them as well.

cameras r just tools. wad suits the user's needs n preferences r more important.

Hi Irvine, as mentioned, I used the word 'usually', which I think means what I said does not hold true 100% of the time. Cameras are just tools but it's interesting to note some choose hammer A over hammer B. And sometimes it's not just need and preferences because most novice would not know what futures needs they would have. Especially the fact DSLR are so accessible now, so user-friendly and affordable that just about anyone can pick one up.

 

[FoxyBrown]

User interface on Nikon does it for me.

I don't really mind this business with plasticky body. As long as its solid enough and not too heavy, that will do.

I think both are good. I just seem to have more friends with canons though.

 

[daredevil123]

Remember one thing... the equipment is just a tool. In the end, you are the one who shoots the pictures. That said, I am very used to Nikon's interface. And I started with Nikon not of my own choice, but it works out for me.

 

[qwerty436]

@FoxyBrown

Well personally anything plasticky like lenses, phones, cars irks me. It's just me.

It's a strange thing I noticed too. Although both are equally good most of my friends are on Canon system too.

@Shutter death: No doubt about it!

 

[qwerty436]

Again, let me emphasize on the objective of this topic. It is not about personally preferences to either systems due to personal or familiarity. I'm looking for more tangible, more objective views on the systems. Pros or cons, which I assume in the Nikon section I should be getting more about Nikon.

To help the discussion on the right track, let me post some questions to the floor to steer it to the right direction but don't let the questions restrict the discussion:

1. Does Nikon have better aftersale service?
2. Does Nikon have quality over quantity in terms of lenses.
3. What about firmware/software support?
4. Better resale value?
5. More durable under extreme conditions?
6. More shops selling?
7. Salemen more willing to give discounts for Nikon?

The above may not hold true. I'm just listing them out to steer this towards a more objective direction. Debunk them if you like.

 

[pinholecam]

This is what I said:
Canon - generally cheaper, model to model it usualy have higher specs, cheaper lenses, seems to have more lenses to choose from, lighter But usually very plastic builds, very plastic shutter release, very plastic lenses.

Very much inaccurate I'm afraid. Plasticky bodies are only true for low end Canon bodies, namely 1000D and D600 series.
Specs are not really higher. Maybe only for the higher mp sensors they use.
Price point is rather similar actually. Meaning, you get almost similar functions/options/build with the same money (Eg. D5100 and D600; 60D cheaper but a few features less than D7K, 7D more expensive, but more functions/build than D7k, etc)
The expensive lenses and the 'L' series are well built to rival any Nikon lens.
Both have more than enough lenses for the enthusiast with real life limitations on money.
Comparing which brand has fast lens and big guns is not relevant in most cases unless one has the need and money to get them.

There are some niche differences.
Interface; price points; default colors from camera; various lenses (Eg.200/2; 24/1.4, etc) that set each brand apart.
What every person can do is to look over what he/she wants in the system and buy accordingly.

For example.
Canon 550D; 35/1.8, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 is really a nice setup and relatively cheap for an enthusiast who wants to shoot primes.
A Nikon equivalent only starts from a 12mp D90 or more expensive (though better featured) D7k. Since rivaling AF lenses cannot be used with AF on lower end bodies.

 

[theRenaissance]

1) Prefer the design and general built quality (At that point in time was considering between 450D and D90)

2) Legacy compatibility - I knew I was going to dabble in Nikon F and its 50 years worth of legendary optics and SLRs, it gave me a huge plus point in getting a Nikon DSLR as I can switch glasses between both bodies, besides my dad already had some mf nikkors - AIS & AFD

3) Nikon CLS, heard alot about this, another huge plus point for me

 

[wakaowalao]

Only problem with Nikon is that one has to fork out extra money for the Nikon Capture Pro. The rest are almost... perfect. Of course no harm for D700 replacement with >20+ mp with clean high iso as the D3s.

 

[alantkh]

currently it seems that the latest sony sensor (which nikon uses in their latest APSC DSLRs) is significantly better than canon's. There was a time a couple of years back when canon's proprietary sensor was better than the rest of the world but not it seems that the situation is reversed.

 

[bethpapa74]

Nikon Nikon Nikon Nikon Nikon Nikon Nikon Nikon Nikon Nikon Nikon !!!

 

[qwerty436]

Nikon CLS is a good point.

 

[Omega23]

Nikon CLS is one major plus point another would be nikon much more accurate af and metering systems. This 2 alone are enough reasons. Although many are saying canon lenses are cheaper then Nikon.. I dun think so some lenses nikon are more ex some canon are more ex..

 

[nightwolf75]

we have closed such threads before, simply becos it is kindle to a flame war. i don't see why we should not close this too.