Any idiot that thinks cramming more pixels onto the same size sensor makes it a better camera, clearly knows nothing about photography.

For over a year I have been torn between Nikon & Canon. By the end of the day its the longterm benefits out of a brand rather than benefits out of the particular purchase which matters.

I was confused over which brand to go with regarding lenses and overall. I had come down to 2 bodies, D7000 vs 7D. I know 7D is better but hell expensive too compared. And for a serious amateur like me is it worth it? And again the long term benefit confusion.

I read a million articles and reviews. It’s after reading your’s that I was finally satisfied with Nikon. I’m so glad to have come across your views.

Thank you so much

The article is too biased for my taste; it should be a “comment” instead.

1. Lens build quality—Very evident in the older D lenses, less so when comparing Nikon Gold rings to Canon L series. Overall, Nikon’s lenses just seem to feel more solid, more reliable, have better focus throw, tighter tolerance and better sealing. After Nikon’s stunning 11-lens release in 2010, their primes are back on top and on-par with Canon—far fewer line-up holes overall. Professionally, I think the 10-24, 24-70 and 70-200 lenses are tough to beat. That covers most of what most (non-sports) photographers need. And Nikon kit lenses are definitely better than their Canon counterparts. Canon lenses are cheaper for a reason. Still, most of us are not good enough photographers to actually SHOW the discrepancy. An L lens in a capable photographer’s hands is still a great tool.

If I had to sum it up in terms of lenses, I’d say this. Canon has far more lenses that try to do far more things than Nikon. This is a good and a bad thing. It’s good because there’s an available lens for just about every need. And because they’re less obsessive about certain quality aspects, they’re more willing to take risks, or settle for lenses that do one thing well, and other things less well. Nikon for example refuses to build a modern 1.2. They just don’t think they can do it without making too many sacrifices. Canon realizes the highly specialized purpose a 1.2 can meet, and goes for it, understanding that softer corners and heavy vignetting are acceptable in a lens like this. And their 1.2 lenses are amazing, if fairly esoteric, wonder-beasts. The bad part of this is, of course, Canon can produce some pretty stunning duds, and they use quite a bit of plastic on most all their lenses.

2. Nikon’s commitment to their legacy lenses—I thought this spoke volumes about Nikon’s dedication to their loyal customer base. Where Canon threw up a big middle finger and made their faithful convert to a whole new system, Nikon’s oldest lenses can still be used effectively on their newest bodies. This made converting from film to digital as a poor designer much more doable. It is worth noting, though, that most Nikon lenses can now be used on Canon bodies (with an adaptor), but not vice versa.

3. Body ergonomics and build quality—Most folks agree on this. Stronger, more reliable bodies that feel better in your hands. Well laid-out controls. More accurate Auto Focus with more AF cross points. Better flashes both onboard and in terms of the phenomenal Nikon CLS system. Yes, Nikon costs more at most every stage, but I feel I’m getting something for that money. I’ve had the D70, D80, D700, and all are still actuating away. Never in the shop. That’s worth a 5-12% price difference to me.

But it’s not all rosy. Nikon is a smaller company, and can move at a glacial pace on occasion. Lately, Nikon’s slow response to the 5D Mark II has been a concern of mine. The new D800 should provide a formidable competitor (tsunamis notwithstanding), but it took far too long. Nikon is still learning video in their DSLRs too. For my job, it would be incredibly helpful to have both in one kit. And in fact, we purchased Mk II bodies with adapter lenses for our Nikon gear because we could not wait. The Mk II is a nice little body which produces great video in the right hands. The D3s is just too expensive and cannot produce video of high enough quality for these purposes. Having said this, two of the five Mk II’s have had trips to the shop in the last 18 months, and when used for stills, the AF can inexplicably miss focus more than Nikon. I’d say about 15% more. Not crucial for what we do, but for photojournalism or other “one shot and it’s gone” needs, I would feel much better with a Nikon. It’s AF is amazing, especially in low-light.

Having said all this, either system is highly capable. As I said before, most of us are not good enough to take real-world shots that would demonstrate the slim differences from each system. And it mostly comes down to everyday use. Need awesome video? Go with Canon. Need a great still cam AND very good video? Nikon. Need incredible low-light? Nikon. Shooting mostly fast-action sports and need crazy-fast, long lenses? Canon—although Nikon has caught up dramatically in the last few years. Need a tough, durable body and weather sealing for extreme shooting conditions? Nikon. Need uber-reliable AF for a job that you can’t afford to miss the shot? Nikon. Need great, big-aperture lenses for portraiture? Canon or Nikon.

Anyway, as has been said, this is a good discussion on an over-blown topic. We all have been here, so it’s helpful to still have these around. Just starting out? Go and hold the models you’re thinking about. Go to Best Buy and spend 10-15 minutes with each one. Is it comfortable? Does it feel solid to you? Buttons where you expect them to be? Then be honest about yourself. Do you beat on your camera? Are you going to use it outside a lot? Or are you a careful, meticulous indoor shooter? Then do a little (emphasis on little) research. At the end of the day, either will do. And if you don’t like one, you can switch systems much more easily than you used to, thanks to eBay. You could even go Pentax, Sony or Olympus! At the end of the day, it’s the eyeball and brain behind the body and lens that make images we love.