Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Canon vs. Nikon: No Comparison

Across the line, in every body and lens model, I've struggled to find a review where someone said that a Nikon DSLR was better than a Canon. The 5D Mark II easily squashes the D700 and challenges the (more than twice as expensive) D3x (which doesn't do video at all). Even the Rebel line trumps Nikon's entry-level SLR line- the T1i has higher resolution and does full HD (1080P) video, and costs less than a similar Nikon D90 with no video and the D5000. And the Canon 7D is faster higher ISO and resolution than the D300s- which doesn't even do HD video. Why would you buy a Nikon?? Beats me.

Resolution: Nikon cameras have poor resolution when compared to the competition. Not only do they not make their own image sensors (Sony does- so why not buy a Sony camera) but Nikon only offers 1 DSLR model that is over 12.5 megapixels. And if you want it you'd better be rich- it's $7500. Canon offers 8 different models with more than 12.5 megapixels, starting at just $899 including a lens kit (1D Mark IV, 1Ds Mark III, 5D, 5D mark II, 7D, 50D, 500D [Rebel] and 1Ds Mark II). How do you like them apples?

Price: Canon's 5D Mark II outperforms Nikon's price-equivalent D700 in every way possible (higher resolution, full HD video, better image quality). The brand new D300S is no match for the comparably priced 7D both in resolution, ISO, speed and HD video. And Canon's rebel line has more features and capabilities when compared to Nikon's entry level DSLRs. It's not leapfrog, it's catch-up. Nikon has never released a superior digital model to Canon. Ever.

Video: None of Nikon's cameras offer 1080P (true HD) video recording. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Canon offers 4 models with 1080P video recording- 5D mark II, 7D, Rebel T1i and the 1D mark IV. Come on Nikon, where you at?

Lenses: Camera companies are lens companies, there's no other way to look at them. Bodies become antiquated quickly (especially in Nikon's case) Canon's lenses out perform Nikon's lenses for ALL applications that I use them for. Here are some examples:

70-200 F/2.8L IS USM (Canon) vs. AF-S VR 70-200mm F2.8G (Nikon)
dpreview.com calls Canon's 70-200 lens, "the most all-round accomplished full-frame 35mm fast telezoom currently available." That means better than Nikon. Better than Sony. Better than anyone. They explain that the Nikon has "significantly higher distortion, vignetting and chromatic aberration, plus extremely soft corners." on full-frame bodies. Why pay $1800 for that?

85mm F/1.2L (Canon)- Nikon doesn't even make an 85mm F/1.2- but if they did it wouldn't compare to what the-digital-picture.com calls, "the best wedding lens available" and the "definitive portraiture lens" Ever heard of any Nikon lens being called "the best wedding lens available"? Me either.

Wide angle: Canon's updated 16-35mm F/2.8L II outperform's Nikon's equivelant 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S in terms of sharpness, contrast and color. What else would you want?

The bottom line: if you have enough for a Nikon DSLR, there is a better, higher resolution Canon DSLR out there for the same or less money.