Is this why Nikon costs more than Canon?

Joined
Mar 25, 2011
Messages
241
Location
atlanta ga
I have been on the canon forums perusing images for a long time, months, and only recently found this forum. I have not ceased to be amazed at the image quality of the shots on here. Even the D70 is amazingly crisp and clear. Are Nikon optics really that much better than Canon? I know it's a Nikon forum but unless every photographer on Nikon is better than Canon I can't help but think the Nikon is vastly superior despite what I read elsewhere (that they're really the same.)

And yes I have seen some amazing images on the Canon. It's more sporadic there though.
 
Joined
Mar 25, 2011
Messages
241
Location
atlanta ga
Is this a trick?

:m69:
No. I just couldn't believe the difference. All I hear is the mantra not the camera it's the photographer stupid. And I understand that. It is true. But I'm talking about the optical quality. To me it is like night and day. I mean there are good pictures on the Canon side, not doubt great images. I'm talking about the IQ.

edit: all I also hear is about how the camera and lenses are all the same. Not from what I see here. Maybe you all are just exceptional.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
1,959
Location
Australia
Are Nikon optics really that much better than Canon?
personally, i firmly believe that Nikon glass is superior to Canon glass.

way back in ~1997, my F5 and associated gear was stolen, thank god for insurance.

at the time, i figured i should at least check out the Canon offerings. Canon Pro Services in Australia loaned me an EOS1, flashgun, 70-210 f2.8L and a 17-35 f2.8L to test drive.

i took my film into the lab the paper i was working for used, not telling the operator that my kit had been stolen.

when i went back to pick up the pix, he asked me: "What happened to your F5?"

me: What makes you think something happened to my F5?

him: well, these sure didn't come out of the camera you've been using.

me: why do you say that?

him: well, your exposures are all over the show when they used to be 100% spot on for every frame. And the pictures are nowhere near as sharp as the ones you brought me last week.

me: yeah, well, i've been using this *pull out EOS1*.

him: aha, that would explain it.

that was just one of the nails in the Canon coffin for me. i didn't like the ergos or controls compared to the F5 and i didn't like the 'infinity to the right' focus pattern. the final straw was when the lens release button busted, locking the 17-35 on the body in the middle of a job, the second day i had the gear.

i confess, i did like the AF point light-up function (which the F5 lacked) and i found the rear command dial to be very funky.

i took it all straight back to Canon, said "thank you very much" and headed down to NPS to borrow a 'real camera' (an F4s)

all of that said. i do believe that Canon makes a very high quality product and i rekon that any salesman trying to push you in one direction or the other is probably getting a bigger commission on that brand.
 
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
2,115
Location
Nowhereland
Well it is really hard to say. Maybe there are more of us old timers using Nikon gear. :biggrin:
But seriously if other forums I have hear complaints from Canon users about the AF being off or finicky, their lower end glass being trash and, that you cant use such and such a lens on this body or that one. The whole not being able to use a lens I have with one body I may want is enough to keep me from Canon. This is true even with their digitals. This type of manufacturing always screams customer rape to me.
I was a Pentax film shooter because the lens mounts always stayed the same so I had a good choice across the line, the same with Nikon. Had Pentax not screwed the pooch on making a Dslr when I wanted one then I would have still been a Pnetax shooter. When I looked at Nikon I saw that you could pretty much use almost every lens they ever made, so I was sold.
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
4,039
Location
Missouri
Nikon costs more than Canon, in general, because of the higher quality materials used, and the higher standard of glass. This does not, however, produce better pictures.
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
3,164
Location
Toronto, CANADA
I don't buy it necessarily. I mean, I'm with Nikon for a reason. I believe in their gear, and also that in most general of possible terms, Nikon is on top of the game right now in many ways. Low light for example seems to be a Nikon forte right at the moment.

However, despite not wanting to add to your distaste for the "mantra"... you give a good photographer any brand of gear and they'll be able to make some incredible images. Try browsing the Fred Miranda "Best of Canon" thread sometime. Last time I checked there were images in there that would make your head spin.

Still, I will say this... there's absolutely no enticing reason for me to ponder a switch to Canon. Seems to me they don't seem willing to put their best into their bodies. You get a great sensor in the 5D2 with a somewhat handicapped AF system. You get an incredible AF system in the 1D4, but not a full frame sensor. With Nikon, both the D700 and D3 and the D3S offer what most pros would need. And what sets Nikon apart is that the D300 and D300s get the same AF system even at that much lower price point. They didn't handicap the D700 in providing a smaller-body less-expensive option to the D3 the way Canon seems to want to.

However, nothing wrong with the plethora of fast primes available to Canon users...

Truth is, both companies are better because of the other. Healthy competition is good.
 
Joined
Mar 25, 2011
Messages
241
Location
atlanta ga
Nikon costs more than Canon, in general, because of the higher quality materials used, and the higher standard of glass. This does not, however, produce better pictures.
That's true but again I'm not talking about pictures in the abstract sense. I know a good photographer can make a good "picture" with just about any camera. I'm talking solely about the IQ, clarity of the images and the like. I wouldn't want to see a super clear picture of a poor photograph choice but would love a not so high IQ but interesting picture. part of it here is indeed the subject matter and composition.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
305
Location
CANADA
I actually visit POTN just as often; and the pictures seem just as good to me here as they are on there. :)
 
P

photographer 1234567890

Guest
...Are Nikon optics really that much better than Canon?...
1. Of all the pixel peeping that I've done (a lot) I can honestly say Nikon has more lenses that are slightly sharper than the Canon equivalent. However, Canon have some lenses that are overall nicer than the Nikon equivalent, so it depends upon which lens.

2. The people who take the time to post on Nikoncafe are a group of dedicated photographers. Sort of like a camera club. This is to say that the collection of photos here, are a sampling of pictures that are more technically accurate than what I have seen on Canon forums, or Nikon on flickr.

3. (Most important point:) Nikon has an overall better and more digitally sharpened JPEG than Canon. Since most people shoot JPEG, that gives Nikon a distinct advantage. If you shoot Canon and want the best IQ, then you have to shoot RAW and process it yourself. These days it is easy to do, and Apple iphoto now comes with basic RAW to JPEG development, that does the work for you. Regarding your question, this is a huge reason for the difference in posted pictures. Also (to contradict myself), here on the cafe, a lot of posters do take the time to shoot RAW and process it themselves. Sometimes over processing (100% subjective comment), but many times really getting a fantastic image. From what I've seen on flickr very few shots are more than JPEGs from the Canon posters.

4. (Already said but worth repeating) Nikon has more consistent focus and very accurate metering. Canon not so much. Canon has been a leader in new technologies (they where first with motors in the lenses and image stabilization and full 1080p video), but for some reason have not put as much into the basics of what is needed to produce a good image. With more accurate focus and exposure, combined with sharper JPEGs, gives Nikon a distinct advantage. Even shooting RAW on both cameras, the camera that starts off with the superior image, will end up with the superior image in the end.

5. If you really take your time, you can get a great image from Canon; but in the real world, picture opportunities come and go very quickly. Nikon has a distinct advantage over Canon; to take the picture quickly and with minimal fuss. If you want a camera for still life use and have lots of time and enough light, Canon with higher megapixles has the advantage.

There are pros and cons to both camera systems, but overall Nikon is a better camera. In the case of digital, the camera effects the image quality almost as much as the lens. Even with film, if you are fighting your camera, that will hamper the end result!

With APSc, Canon's 18mp sensor has nicer colours than Nikon's APSc. This should be fixable with Nikon in post or in camera customizing of JPEGs.

Lastly it should also be noted that although Nikon is not without quality control issues, Canon is significantly worse. Same with service and tech support. Nikon is overall superior to Canon in these areas.

Personally, I like the articulate screen on Canon 60D (and their 15-85 is nicer than the Nikkor 16-85). I have been thinking of getting one for video and to have a smaller mid range zoom option (vs D700 and 24-70), but since writing this, I think I'll let it go. Too bad Nikon does not have a flip screen on a 1080p video camera. I really like that feature, especially for video. With all the other issues mentioned here it probably isn't worth it. Nikon D7000 is a better camera, with a superior focusing system than Canon 60D. Canon 7D is closer to Nikon D7000 than the 60D is, but no flip screen. So to buy a Canon 60D to get an articulate LCD, is at the cost of a lot. Canon has some cool features, but the bread and butter is still superior on the Nikon. I guess (reluctantly) I'll let the 60D go, and get a D7000 for video. After all, 60D is manual focus for video, where D7000 has auto focus for video (even if it is not perfect, it is better than nothing).

Thanks for asking the question. I hope this helps.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
8,447
Location
Wilmington, NC
I went from Canon to Nikon and noticed a difference in sharpness. However, I never once owned an L lens. I'm sure those are good.
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Messages
1,677
Location
Littleton, CO
Photos at POTN are just as good as here. Its just that POTN has 10x more visitors so you get a lot of scrubs there thinking they are pros just because they picked up a new Rebel (not to say Nikon doesn't have the same problem) and post crappy pics up. Just look at their photos pages. Especially the wedding forum. Half of them are outstanding, the others are basic snapshots.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom