Why the 5D (Canon) over a Nikon equivalent?

A

AdobeCS

Active member
I don't own either a Canon or a Nikon camera. But I'm legitimately curious as to why there are so many photographers with a Canon (5D MK3 specifically) over a Nikon equivalent? It seems to me when I'm looking it up, specs-wise, the Nikon just seems to be all around better. For example on http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...-D3300-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III___928_795, even the lowly Nikon D3300 ranks about the same as the Canon 5D MK3. So why does everyone seem to have a Canon DSLR :huh:? (Or maybe I'm just around a lot of Canon people)
Is it just because of ergonomics/controls maybe? The Canon is just better to use? But is it really true that the Nikons are better-performing (according to the specs) ?
 
For stills, Nikon has better DR across the board, and more megapixels in some models. That may or may not be what you're looking for. Lots of people care more about things like a UI they are used to.
 
Better marketing probably. Maybe Canon color science if it comes to rendering skin for magazines. Maybe AF and sensor dust problems Nikon really messed up on with the D800 and D600. Generally, Canon lenses are faster than the Nikon equivalent so they can achieve a "look" Nikon can't. Or just because more people have Canon, the resale value of lenses are better as demand is higher, so not something to do with better cameras. I personally don't understand it myself as I rate dynamic range above everything else, but that's my priority.
 
I went with a 5D3 for raw video but love taking photos as well. I'm sure the 5D2 rocked the photojournalism world with when I came out which lead to its popularity.

But for photos the choice is really arbitrary. Both are great cameras and can get the job done with minor pluses and minuses. I have a feeling Canon has a better resale value so am glad I went with the ubiquitous 5D3.

I also feel that Canon EF glass has a tremendously higher resale value VS Nikon glass. Video shooters just use the Canon. Nikon, not so much.
 
Last edited:
Well before they shot video I bought a Canon DSLR because I didn't like the red detail on the Nikon's. Canon also had white L lenses that all the surf photographers used and if they used them I better too. Before that I was a Contax man because I loved the Zeiss lenses.
 
Nikon Sensor technology is currently leading in dynamic range, canons low light performance is still very impressive. Regardless, it wasn't always that way and soon Canon will have a comeback. This will go back and forth.

3 Big area that Canon consistently has over Nikon are resale value, UI (which nikon has always lacked), and super telephoto lens selection.
 
From what I read, don't remember where, Canon took over a big chunk of the SLR market when they designed a new AF system that was much better than Nikon's in the 80's.
 
If you think the D3300 is better than the 5D mk III because DXO mark says the numbers are higher, you're mistaken. Canon is not lagging behind in making stills cameras at all, actually, they're making the best photographic cameras in the market along with Nikon. Canon has an unparalleled lens collection and they are all top notch, from the cheapest EF-S to highest-end Cinema glass. Canon also makes arguably the best autofocus systems and are currently the leader when it comes to engineering achievements with their 1Dx that shoots 12 frames per second with full mirror and mechanical shutter and autofocus and metering, that camera alone is dominating the sports and photojournalism industry.

Canon and Nikon are very similar, and for every Nikon camera there's an equivalent Canon camera, and they're almost all in the same league most of the time. So it's not as simple as Nikon being "much better" because if they were, Canon would not have made their name and our choice would have been much easier.

Canon has always been a leader in image quality particularly, but right now at this moment, Nikon is the leader, but that's just for the past 1-2 years. And even now, some may argue Canon has superior color science and tonal range and in low-light performance.

Canon is a company that has been producing a vast collection of quality lenses for the past 60 years, and professionals have been relying on them since these days. The quality of their cameras have been always the best on the market, they've been put by professionals through volcanos and thunderstorms and are still shooting for tens of years. They also provide class-leading after-sale service.

We don't change systems every time another company makes a camera with slightly superior image quality, we would be jumping ships every year, twice... but no we stick with the system we're committed to and invested in because there isn't big differences in quality anyway, and when a company goes down for a year or two in the competition, we can always count on it coming back up again, and they always do, Nikon or Canon.

Canon on top of that has made their name in the video market with the the 5D mk II and 7D and 550D, they were making full frame and S35 video cameras with interchangeable lenses, 1080p 24p, 720p 60p, log profiles, full manual control, and the image out of these three cameras single-handedly started the video revolution and democratized filmmaking in a way. So they do have brand appeal right now, and people associate Canon with "video", even if in the past year or two Nikon has been making superior video DSLRs.

It also helps them with video that they make the dominating cameras in the broadcast/news/sports industry, the C100 and C300.

To answer the question, it's not as simple as that, Nikon is not better than Canon, and Canon is not better than Nikon, they both make very high quality products and both are used by professionals around the world everyday, you choose one over the other for personal preference of UI, of image quality characteristics, lenses you're invested in, and many more... But not one is better than the other in absolute terms.

We have to admit that Nikon are making better video DSLRs right now, but I would imagine it wouldn't take Canon by the end of the year to make something that's competitive to the market, you can count on it ;)
 
I've always found Nikons to be noisy and clunky. I was on a fashion photo/video shoot using the 5Km3. There was another photog with a Nikon and man was that noisy. I don't know if there's an option to turn off the shutter or what, but everyone was annoyed by the sound, especially since they were also recording video and audio for behind-the-scenes. Story 2: Same thing, this time shooting nature photos. Nikons noises scared the wildlife away! I don't know much about Nikons but this is what happened with me.
 
I've been a videographer for many years but these days make my living doing about 50% stills/50% filmmaking. I had the 5d2 (as well as many, many other cameras including RED) and loved that for run and gun lovely video, then the 5d3. And I loved both of those for stills as well. Large assortment of Canon (and Zeiss) glass as well as all my old Nikkor legacy glass.

Then I made a terrible mistake. I borrowed my friend's D800 for a weekend. To sum it up, the sensor on the D800 was so far advanced it literally made the shadows of of my 5d2/3 look like the cameras were broken comparatively. The latitude of the D810 (which I now have as well as a D800) is literally over 3 STOPS better than the 5d3. For a lot of day to day shooting most people won't notice, but when you need it, it's so nice to be able to dig deep into the Nikon raw and dig out those blacks and highlights. To make matters worse for Canon, the Nikon D810 is now shooting really nicely detailed 1080 60p with virtually no aliasing. Years ago I was a Nikon guy. I was then a Canon guy. I'm now a Nikon guy again, spending more money than I should be on lenses for the new bodies to match the old Canon kit. This kind of fierce competition between brands has one big winner, the consumer. Thank you Nikon and Canon, and keep fighting!
 
Why but a Dodge over a Chevy?

It all comes down to personal preference.

Truth is… If you can't make pretty pictures with one of the many modern cameras available today, it's likely not the camera's fault.
 
David W. Jones said:
Why but a Dodge over a Chevy?

It all comes down to personal preference.

Truth is… If you can't make pretty pictures with one of the many modern cameras available today, it's likely not the camera's fault.
Click to expand...

No doubt on anything you say. But Canon does have a better glass program IMHO, and also I believe Canon glass holds its value better. I have Canon glass I purchased 5-7 years ago that is worth now, more than I paid for it. Not in all cases, but several.

Grant
 
I don't know if Canon's glass is overall better (what is their answer to the 14-24 f2.8 for example?), but at least the friggin focus ring turns the correct direction! Nikon... not so much.
 
Perhaps many people have chosen the MKIII for the same reasons I have:

When the original 5D came out, it was a very big deal. It brought full frame/short DoF/grat low-light to a larger group of enthusiasts and beginner professionals, so many people adopted it. A similar thing happened with the video capabilities of the Mark II.

Now you have all of these people who have invested in Canon glass, grown accustomed to the workflow, and just irrationally become attached to the 5D name. Naturally, they don't want to jump ship when the Mark III comes out just for a small bump in tech specs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top