Canon versus Nikon

by Praveen Murthy

If you want to know where to buy camera equipment, read this document.

Camera Bodies

One of the most frequently asked questions by someone starting out in photography is which equipment to buy. Although all the major SLR manufacturers-Canon,Contax,Leica,Minolta,Nikon,Olympus,Pentax, and Yashica make high quality equipment, the choice inevitably comes down to Canon and Nikon because these two companies offer the best and most extensive choice of state-of-the-art, affordable equipment. In addition, they have the "glamour" of being used most often by "pros".

On the USENET newsgroups like rec.photo.equipment.35mm, every month there is flame war between Canon/Nikon, Nikon/Leica, Canon/Zeiss etc etc. It is usually started by some newbie asking:

Some Canon fan will reply that Canon has the best technology and blows Nikon away. Then some Nikon fan will point out that the F-5 is one of the fastest autofocus cameras. Someone else will point out that the F-5 costs 3000 dollars. Someone else will say that Canon is all about marketing. Someone else will list all of Canons innovations and this will go on and on till everyone is heartily sick of it. The newbie is meanwhile totally baffled and has learnt nothing. For some reason, comparisons of Nikon/Minolta or Nikon/Pentax or Canon/Pentax etc do not inspire the same slew of flammage that Canon/Nikon ones do. Even more interesting is when someone wants to compare Leica or Zeiss to Canon or Nikon. Anyway, I give on this page, my reasons for choosing the brand I did and I think it pretty much covers the union of all flame wars I have seen on the USENET regarding Canon/Nikon. The fact that there is so much flammage, with no side having a clear majority or better clarity of argument is itself an indication that you cannot go terribly wrong in the long run with whatever you choose.

It is important to emphasize that last point: Good pictures can be taken with almost any brand of camera. The opinions on this page are just that-opinions. If you are like me and want to maximize your bang for the buck, then you might find this page useful, but I repeat, a camera is for the most part a functional device where the real genius lies in the creativity and imagination of the photographer.

Also, note that technological advantages do not last for ever. Right now I would say that Canon still has the lead but Nikon is catching up and perhaps has already caught up in the high-priced pro line with their F-5 and SWM (same as Canon's USM) AF-I lenses. But Nikon is not quite at the point where a cheap Nikkor lens like the 28-70 is going to come with a USM motor.

Firstly, the following applies only to the mid-priced, "amateur" equipment that I use. By "mid-priced", I mean bodies that cost $500 or less. If you have enough money and are deciding between a Nikon F5 and Canon EOS 1n, the criteria and feature comparisons will be quite different.

Note that none of the bodies I talk about below are in production anymore. The 10s has been discontinued, the Elan replaced by the ElanII, the 6006 by N50, and the 8008s by N70. However, it is my opinion that both of the new Nikons, N50 and N70, are inferior to the cameras they replaced. In fact, most people will tell you to get a used 6006 over the N70! Why are they inferior? Well, the N70 lacks DOF-preview, and the 1/250 flash synch among other things. It does have a built-in flash though, unlike the 8008s. The N50 is roughly comparable to the Canon Rebel (although I would take the Rebel over the N50 anyday) even though it costs almost twice as much (Rebel X=$220, N50=$420). Hence, I think the discussion below is still informative, except that Nikon is going to come out looking even worse since even the N70 isn't as good as the 6006 (which in turn was the worst of the lot in the comparison below). On the other hand, the ElanII is a better camera than the Elan in many ways; there is more discussion of this after the comparisons.

I wanted to get into photography in a fairly deep way but not at any professional level. I was all set to get the Nikon 8008s (I had been planning on it since '89 at least) when someone suggested that my obsession with Nikon might be misplaced since Canon made good quality stuff as well. So I looked at the Canon line, and sure enough, found that the EOS 10s and the EOS Elan also fit my needs very well. So it came down to a choice between the 10s, Elan, 8008s, and the 6006 also since the 6006 was priced similar to the 10s and Elan. The table shows all of the features each of these cameras has. I have marked in bold the features that are significant to me.

EOS 10sEOS ElanNikon 6006Nikon 8008s
Built-in Flash39.9ft12-17m43ftNo
Focus assist lightYesYesw/SB-*w/SB-*
Fastest shutter1/40001/40001/20001/8000
Multiple exposuresupto 9upto 9NoYes
Automatic bracketing+-5 in .5x3+-2 in .5x3x3/5w/back
Metering modesEval./CW/Partial 8.5%Eval./CW/Partial 6.5%Matrix/CW/Spot 2.3%Matrix/CW/Spot 2.3%
RemoteInfra redInfra redcable releaseRF/IRbulb
Mirror lockupPseudo, 2 secPseudo, 2 secNoNo
Focus zones 3 sensors, horizontally arranged, any or all can be used. Only middle one is sensitive to horizontal and vertical lines 1 cross (sensitive to hor. and vert. lines) 1 vert. sensitive only1 vert. only
Body weight w/out battery20.3oz20.4oz23.0oz23??
Battery typeC2R5C2R5DL223A4xAA
Delay timer2 or 10 sec2 or 10 sec2 or 30sec2 or 30 sec
Exposure comp.+-5 in .5+-2 in .5+-4 in 1+-5 in .333
Flash synch. speed1/1251/1251/1251/250
Backlit lcd displayNoNoNoYes
Interval timer1sec-24hrsNoNow/back
Max. frames per sec5323.3
Shake warningYesYesYesNo
"Trap" focusNoNoNow/back
Removable backNoNoNoYes
Leader-out rewindYesNoNo but factory can reprogram to do soNo but factory can reprogram to do so
DOF previewYesYesNoYes
Battery indicator levels44good/badgood/bad
Viewfinder coverage92%90%92%94%
Interchangable focusing screensNoNoNoYes
QuietnessQuietExtremely quietNoisyNoisy
Viewfinder info.BadGoodGoodBest(has bar-graph to tell how far away from correct exposure you are in manual mode)
Price from CWO/B&H in 1993$330$340$400$500

Notes

  • In the "Metering modes" entry, the percentage refers to the amount of viewfinder area that is used in the spot or partial mode. Spot meters typically use less than 3%; hence, the Nikons have it. The Canons use 6-8%; hence, they are called "Partial" since they are not narrow enough. My personal feeling was that this wouldn't be that important and indeed it hasn't been since 95% of the time, I use evaluative metering and it works well enough for me, even on slide films. Also, if you really need a spot meter, you can buy one. I am now considering getting a flash/incidence meter. Another, albeit cumbersome, alternative is to zoom out to the longest focal length, meter, and zoom back if you are using a zoom lens and are at a shorter end. But it is definietly very convinient to have a built in spot-meter the way the Nikons do.

  • DOF Preview is quite important and the 6006 doesn't have it, and neither do the N70 and N50.

  • Mirror lockup or at least pseudo lockup is important and neither Nikon has it.

  • Multiple exposures are nice to have and 6006 lacks it.

  • The IR remote is really cool; again 6006 lacks it.

  • Focusing sensors sensitive to both horizontal and vertical lines work better and more accurately and hunt less. In the shop, the 8008s would hunt when I tried focusing on some lettering but the Elan nailed it very quickly. Of-course, you can turn the camera to get around this but it's nice to have to not think about this. Both Canons have this; the Nikons don't. The N70 might have improved AF performance over the 8008s; I am not sure.

  • Built-in flash is nice to have for "snapshot" usage mode; 8008s doesn't have it. The N70 uses Nikon's D-metering ability, which is supposed to make flash exposures better. To get this feature, you have to use a Nikon "D" lens, which is the same except that it has a chip that sends distance information to the camera. Using distance information helps when, for example, you have a person and a dark night background. Without knowing the distance, the camera will think that the massive amount of darkness requires a lot of flash, and will end up overexposing the person in the middle. But if the camera knows the distance info., it can realize that the AF sensor is on someone only 5ft away, and pump out much less flash. People who have used both systems are generally more impressed with Nikon's flash system than Canon's; with Canon you have to use more of your head to get it right, and cannot trust the camera as much. I use my potato-masher Sunpak with my Elan set on manual (f/8, 1/90) and get great results with just plain TTL (which is what everyone used before all this new automation), so has never been a big concern for me. But the N70 wins this category for advanced flash control.

    Note that even though the N50 is also "D" capable, it does not use this information for flash exposure, where it is required the most. It uses the information for non-flash exposures, where the advantage is less clear. So the N50 does not really give you any benefit of the "D" technology.

  • Viewfinder coverage: More the better here; Elan is the worst in this regard and there are occassions when I have been "surprised" to have stuff in the edges which I thought I had avoided when I took the picture. Not a big deal in B/W since you can always crop but could be a pain in slides. However, most slide mounts cover a bit of the frame to begin with so ultimately, I don't know what percentage you do see. It is probably not 100% unless it is a slide mount specifically designed to do that.

    The 8008s has the best coverage. Also, for tilt/shift lenses, it is recommended that you have 100% coverage but I have seen some pros (like Rod Planck) using a 10s with the TS-E lenses.

  • Backlit lcd display: This is really nice to have; Canons don't have it, 8008s does. I struggle a lot at nights to see the damn thing on my Elan and I wish they had included this feature instead of the &^%$# bar-code reader.

  • Higher flash synch. speed: I might feel the need for this some day but not right now; 1/125 is sufficient for my needs. 8008s wins in this category though since it goes up to 1/250.

  • Quietness: Elan is best; with USM lenses the thing is almost as silent as a Leica rangefinder :-). This is important for candid or street photography I thought but since I don't do much of that, can't say whether it is very useful. Certainly nice to have though.

  • Leader-out rewind: Good to have since you can change films mid-roll. 10s is the best in this since a custom function can be used to turn it on or off. On the Nikons, the factory can reprogram it to do so apparently but not as convinient as 10s since you can't enable/disable it easily. Elan doesn't have it but you can still get it by the following technique:

  • Viewfinder: Some people who wear glasses complain that the Canon viewfinders do not allow all of the area to be seen inside. I haven't found this to be a problem and I wear glasses. For people whom this is a problem, the 8008s might be a better choice since it seems to have a "high eyepoint" finder.

  • Lens selection: See the lens section below. Nikon will give you more choice since you can use all their manual focus lenses too, but Canons are quieter and faster.

  • Handling: A lot of people will tell you that you should really pick what fits best in your hands, what you feel comfortable holding etc. I certainly recommend doing this, although I found no real preference for one or the other. I think I could have gotten used to the 8008s just as easily I got used to the Elan, but to some people, these two cameras (and even more N70 vs Elan) are like day and night in ergonomics and is *the* deciding factor. As a matter of fact, I think I slightly preferred the 8008s size, although I am glad the Elan weighs less.
  • Finally, price: Although the 8008s lacks some features that the Canons have, a big drawback is its price-tag: it's $160 more than the Canons. The 6006 is simply overpriced since it doesn't even have half the things the Canons have. The N50 is an expensive joke at $420 bucks. The N70 is also expensive at over $500 bucks.

    So there you have it. For my needs, the Elan was the best camera body, and looking at Nikons recent additions-N50 and N70, it still is. Both the N50 and N70 are inferior to the 6006 and 8008s. The 8008s is still the best affordable Nikon AF body around. The N90s is supposed to be very nice but costs more than a grand.

    The Elan has been replaced by the ElanII now. It appears to have all of the Elan's features and has, in addition, 3 focus sensors as in the 10s, and eye-controlled focussing in one of the ElanII models. It also has the leader-out rewind, ability to use AA battery packs, and a manual metering scale in the viewfinder. All in all, the only respect in which it is inferior to the present Elan appears to be its 9.5% partial metering instead of the Elans 6.5%.

    Although I did not look at other systems seriously when I purchased my Elan, I did find the following camera features list quite useful. It is a bit dated now since it is from 3-4 years ago, but if you are contemplating buying a used body you might find the information here useful. The information here was developed by Glenn Porter, who seems to have disappeared from the USENET.

    Lenses

    Note: Below, I am only talking about current Nikon AF offerings versus Canon AF. Since Nikon is backwards compatible (you can use pretty much every Nikon lens made since 1960 on pretty much any Nikon body), there are a large number of non-AF lenses too. You can find evaluations and ratings for these in other places on the net. A good place to start would be at Bengt's page off my bookmarks page.

    Lenses are more important than the body since they are what make the image. Here, there is an advantage with going Nikon due to the large number of excellent manual focus lenses on the used market. You can get a very nice 105/2.5 AIS for $160 used for example. With Canon, you are stuck with having to buy the AF lenses and there aren't that many on the used market. Moreover, most of the pros who shoot with Canon equipment are photojournalists or sports photographers; they seem to use mainly the big "L" teles and the fast "L" zooms. So even when you see used stuff, it tends to be this high end stuff which is still expensive. Another advantage of Nikon is that almost all their lenses seem to be better constructed than Canon EF ones, especially compared to the non-L Canons. Now, this doesn't mean that the Canons will break in normal usage or anything (in fact I have hiked with mine all over the world, including Australia, the desert southwest in the USA, India, Alaska, and nothing has happened), but in the long run, for used equipment, it's not clear how they will stand up. The manual focus Nikkors have a great reputation in this regard; even fourth and fifth hand ones tend to perform flawlessly but the verdict is still out on the Canons. Who knows how these electronic wonders will be after they have changed hands half-a-dozen times.

    That said, the Canon EF lenses are the fastest and quietest focusing ones around, thanks to USM technology. Optically, they are on par with offerings from other manufacturers although one can expect lens-to-lens differences with some Canons being better and some worse. Below, I only discuss Canon lenses, with comparisons made with Nikon sometimes. This is not because these are the only two manufacturers worth considering; indeed, Sigma and Tokina are supposed to make very good lenses in some of the ranges I mention below but even if they are optically good, they will lack USM technology and USM is a major reason to go Canon. The comparison to Nikon is made for psychological reasons since almost everyone thinks of Nikon as the standard although that honor is not always waranted.

    From an amateur point of view, the following lenses are all very good and compare well with the equivalent Nikkors:

  • 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM
  • 28-80 3.5-5.6 USM

    Both of the above receive slightly higher ratings than the equivalent Nikkors (28-85AF and 28-70 AF). In addition, the Canon 28-70 II is hailed as a particularly good lens and Chasseur d' Images gave it 4 stars for performance, the only consumer zoom in this range to get such a high rating. Pricewise also, the Canons are lower than the Nikkors by about $50 dollars. Note that I am referring to the mk I version of the 28-80. I don't know what the later versions are like. I have heard anecdotal reports that the 28-80 mk II and 28-80 mk III were not that good, while the 28-80 mk IV (the current version) is good, perhaps at the same level as the 28-80 mk I or 28-105. Note that only the 28-80 mk I has a metal mount, focusing scale; the other versions (II, III, IV) are all plastic mount, no-scales type of lenses, like the cheapest Canon lenses. With my mk I 28-80 USM, 11x14s are quite sharp and nice to look at, and I even have a couple of 16x20s (color) that look very good. More than sharpness, grain is a problem on these at this enlargement (I was using Fujicolor 100).

  • 100-300 4.5-5.6 USM
  • 75-300 4.0-5.6 USM

    These lenses are very good at the short end and just ok at the long end, especially wide open. The Nikon offering in this range, the 75-300AF performs similarly to the above two. One British Mag (Practical Photography) gave the Canon 75-300 a better rating actually; the resolution curves were better at 300 for the Canon compared to the Nikon. But the difference is unlikely to be seen in normal prints or projected slides. However, for the price of the Nikkor 75-300, you can actually buy the Canon 100-300 5.6 L lens, and this lens is supposed to be quite a bit better than all of the above at 300, especially wide open. However, the 100-300L is 5.6 throughout its range and does not have a USM motor. Also, it is bigger and bulkier than the other two Canons, which makes it necessary for it to have a tripod mount (which it doesn't).

    I went for the 75-300 since it is slightly faster (you get f/4 from 75-130 and 4.5 till about 190 wheras the 100-300 becomes 5.6 very quickly), and is slightly cheaper. Optically, the difference between it and the 100-300 is very slight, and some people on the net have even reported that the 75-300 is slightly better. My own unscientific test, where I shot a distant sign at 300 wide open on both lenses, hand-held at 1/300, and printed a 11x14 BW print showed that the 75-300 resolved silghtly better but the difference was minimal. However, the 100-300 does have the faster ring-type USM motor (the 75-300 has the slower micro-USM motor) and is better built in the sense that it has a focusing scale and focusing ring. One bad thing about the 75-300 is flare control: it's bad. I don't know how good the other lenses mentioned above are in this regard. The new 75-300 IS with image stabilization is a great boon since you can now handhold at much lower shutter speeds and still get sharp shots. For example, you can get a sharp shot at 1/60 sec at 300mm handheld. Optically, the IS is supposed to be identical to the 75-300 USM.

    The Sigma 75-300APO is supposed to be a tiny bit better than both the Canon (non L xxx-300 lenses) and the Nikon. One person on the net reported that the Sigma was better than the Canon in the corners at 300. The difference was slight. The afore-mentioned British Practical Photography also gave the Sigma the highest marks. Note that with Nikon, there is a manual-focus AIS 100-300 that might be comparable to the 100-300L Canon. In general, I am not really comparing against all Nikon lenses ever made, just the current AF offerings. If you go to Bengt's page off my bookmarks page, you can find comprehensive listings and evaluations of all Nikon lenses. As I said, the only real advantage of going with Nikon IMHO is this much larger choice of glass (if you can live without AF).

    Tokina has a 100-300/4 lens out. This lens costs more than the 100-300L Canon but it isn't clear how it performs. I haven't seen any real comparisons so far, but I would put it between 1 and 2 below from what I have heard. The Tamron 200-400/5.6 performs similarly to the 3) lenses below (from what I have heard over the net).

    So the current ranking of xxx-300 lenses would be:
    1) Canon 100-300 L
    2) Sigma 75-300APO (or the newer one; I am not sure whether it is as good as the older one)
    3) Canon 75-300, 100-300, 75-300IS, Nikon 75-300
    4) Anything else (Tamron xxx-300, other non-APO Sigma xxx-300s etc)

    Some other lenses of interest to people on a budget would be:

  • 20/2.8
  • 24/2.8
  • 28/2.8
  • 35/2.0
  • 50/1.8 (I or II)
  • 50/1.4
  • 50/2.8 Macro
  • 85/1.8
  • 100/2.0
  • 100/2.8 Macro
  • 200/2.8 L

    Nikon has a nifty new lens: 24-120 3.5-5.6. This lens has recevied good reviews so far, so might be an ideal zoom lens to start out with. Can't really ask for a better zoom range than this. Canon has no equivalent. Canon has introduced a 24-85 3.5-4.5 lens, but I haven't seen detailed tests of this lens to see how it compares to the 28-105, Canon's current good standard consumer lens. My concern is that the 24-85 is meant for the APS cameras, and hence might have been designed specifically with a smaller coverage circle. So the edge sharpness and vignetting might be below average on this lens when used with a 35mm EOS.

    The other Canon "L" series lenses all cost >=$1000 mostly and are probably not of interest here although optically and mechanically they are amongst the best.

    Some other inexpensive (<$600) Canon zooms worth considering are:

  • 35-135 USM
  • 50-200 L (discontinued)
  • 70-210 3.5-4.5 USM
  • 20-35 3.5-4.5 USM
  • 35-105 3.5-4.5 (discontinued, the old model with non-USM motor and metal mount. This lens is supposed to be very good although I don't see any reason for getting it over the 28-105 unless you find it at a bargain price)
  • 35-70 3.5 (same comments as above).

    You can look at lens tests for all the above lenses (and more) to get a better idea of their comparitive performances.

    You might now want to check out my photography page since all this talk of equipment is secondary to the craft itself.
    Send me a message