joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

I have owned some high end Nikon and Canon cameras and vacillate between them on which has the better IQ.

Light and lens has as much to do with it as does the sensor. The images are slightly different and both are capable of excellence.

The Canon top of the line lenses seem sharper than the Nikon equivalents, but there is much more to a lens than sharpness. That is not to say that Nikon lenses are not sharp.

I prefer the Nikon bodies over Canon because they have more adjustments and most have built in flashes. The Nikon flash system is as good as it gets.

When it comes to resale value both brands rank among the best.

Dennis King Loc: Mount Shasta, Ca.

Hey Joe, That`s about as sensible a critique as I`ve seen in this forum. I have recently upgraded my Nikon, and thought about going to Cannon, but with the investment in lenses it didn`t seem practical. Judging from your insight it`s a toss up. Thanks, Dennis

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

I have never used Nikon but I've got plenty of friends that use Nikon. I sometimes shoot with a guy named Skip that shoots Canon and he's always ragging on the Nikon shooters especially if there happen to be more Canon shooters in the group than Nikon shooters. Frankly, I'm quite sick of hearing it every time I see him. I know that both platforms, including Sony and Pentax are quite excellent. It is simply a matter of choice like buying a car.

At the time I chose Canon I chose it because I knew someone that owned a Canon and because, at the time, Canon accessories seemed to be a little less expensive. A couple of days ago I did a cost comparison of lenses and Canon is now at least 10% more money for just about everything. This probably wont last long though. As soon as Nikon comes out with a new lineup of lenses they will probably cost more than Canon.

chuckgibbs

Thanks for the objective comments. I'm now comparing the Nikon d600/610 and the Canon Mark II to replace a D80. Since the D80 is really old (lacking features mostly compared to today's cameras), I'm definitely influenced by the features of a full frame camera. Since the 600/610 has had a lot of negative comments lately (dust/oil) I'm considering the Canon. I have only two lenses (the kit 18-135 mm tele and an inexpensive 50 mm 1.8 for inside family portraits). So I don't think I'm going too far backwards by starting over with Canon lenses. My concern is Nikon's future development of lenses mentioned above (that I would miss out on). The only feature on the Canon (and it appears in a lot of their more expensive cameras) is the lack of a built in flash. Mine works pretty well up to 11' inside on the 80. I've rented a lens (24-120mm f/4) for Thanksgiving to compare it with my tele. I know that lens would be better used on full frame cameras, but was "shorted" on the D80. So my question in this blog would be: is it too risky to buy the new 600/610 with it's oil/dust problems and are there more features (than the 600/610) I'm missing out on in the Canon? I read Ken Rockwell as well as other review sites: DPreview, CNET, etc. so I think I'm pretty well informed. However, I'd like some comments from users. Thanks

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

So far no evidence that the D610 has oil problems. I'd avoid the D600 just to be safe but I know some here have more confidence in it than I do.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

The Nikon D600 had some problems with the oil spots on the sensor, but Nikon is taking care of the problem by replacing the whole shutter assembly. I'd probably get the D610 if you want to go with the Nikon. If you buy a factory refurbished Nikon D600 you will probably be okay. Nikon probably replaces all the shutter assemblies before selling them as refurbished. As for the Canon, go for the mark III. Even though it doesn't have a build in pop up flash, it's got one of the finest sensors made. Pop up flashes are not good for anything except snap shots and should never be used if you want a quality image. If this is your intention, then by all means, purchase one of the consumer cameras with the pop up flash but expect less quality.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

This subject has been beaten to death by zillions of people for years; it's more a religious war akin to "which is better - Mac vs PC" than meaningful in any real way.

Both companies have been making excellent (and not so excellent) gear for years. At a given price point, they both offer the same basic capabilities. TO say one is better than the other because "it takes great pictures at ISO 102,000 and can use the 1200MM lens!" is, frankly, stupid.

And many pros switch back and forth depending on what company is giving them freebies - many will tell you they sway one way or the other over the years and it's rarely due to some technical superiority. Back in the day, Nikon had indeed technical superiority - better built bodies (ask the Nat Geo guys in the 70's and 80's) and better glass as well. Nikon (Nippon Kogaku) has a background in technological engineering; they also make microscopes and the stepper units that chip manufacturers use on the factory floor to make electronic chips. Canon had more of a marketing background and makes movie camera and printers (as well as other things), but got serious about photography and has made some significant advancements (like IS, which Nikon licenses and calls VR) along the way. But Nikon isn't slouching; even though they use CCD chips manufactured by Sony they seem to be able to squeeze better image quality of of them than Sony does in their line of cameras. But again, who cares?

The choice of what camera to get should be based on ergonomics more than anything else, unless you plan on taking photos of brick walls using your tripod and enlarging them to 4x6 foot sizes. How a camera balances in YOUR hand, how well the controls fall under YOUR fingers and how easy or difficult it is to read the torrent of information thrown at you through the viewfinder are all infinitely more important than the fact that "that brand has 1 more megapixel" or whatever.

If you are buying a camera to impress your friends, get a Leica (who themselves make pretty decent gear). If you plan on actually using your camera to take photos and improve your craft, get the one that feels best - because that's the one you will be more likely to use (or, at least, less likely to stop using because it's too heavy/clumsy/etc.)

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Very biased. Do know about the Commander feature on Nikon cameras? I'd take a D800E over the 5D III any day.

DXO rates the D800E at 96 vs the 5D III at 81..not even close.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Joel, now your starting the whole thing over again.
The average shooter, can shoot anything they want to shoot, with any brand camera they have, and it will never make one iota of difference. As they graduate to more specialized or advaneced shooting, and their gear is becoming restrictive, they can then decide if they need to make a change, and that change will be mitigated by their circumstances.
In the meantime, just "run what you brung", and most will be fine, regardless of brand. Their restrictions will be their own abilities, or is that inabilities, not their cameras or who makes it.
Shoot only keepers
SS

amehta Loc: Boston

Only the Nikon D600 had the oil spot issue, and when Nikon figured out the solution, they quickly came out with the D610 to have a "clean" model.

When you say Canon Mark II, do you mean the 5DMkII? That is, without a doubt, a fantastic camera. But it is also nearly 5 years old. It is more appropriate to compare the Nikon D610 with the Canon 6D.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9HlxWqcG5Y

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Chuck, I shoot the mkll, and I'm glad to help with your query later tonite. Unfortunately, I have to get back to work!!
Do re-read my earlier post.
Later
SS

chuckgibbs

I will, thanks.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

This is not biased and not ever close to "very biased". I made statements about Nikon first if that was what he might have his mind made for.

dtparker Loc: Small Town, NC

To me, it is all about feel and learned memory. I have been shooting Nikon since the mid 70s, and I can pick up a modern Nikon and basically know where the controls are.

I've tried a Canon or two, and there is no question they make great stuff. But it does not feel natural in MY hands.
So I stick with Nikon. I have friends who make wonderful images with Canons.

Helps, also, that I have a good cadre of Nikon lenses, but that is NOT a major issue - the lenses hold value, and I could probably get what I put into them back out.

chuckgibbs

Thanks, DT.

I thought little of a new learning curve for a Canon. Your description of "feel" can make a huge difference.

Thanks