Nikon or Canon??

I use two cameras to take my doll pictures, i use my full frame canon 6d and for the close face pictures i use canon 600d with a macro lens which is amazing for close ups, the pictures i have got are just fantastic. Ive grown up with canon so ive just stuck with it but like people say its all down to personal preference

 

I really think it's more about the person behind the camera (skill, preference, etc), the lens, and the camera body itself, in that order. I learned playing with my grandfather's then old model canons and yashicas, and when I was building my own "bag" it was pentax, but I favour(ed) the dreaminess of the shots taken with an old german SLR with its one 50mm lens. Then Fuji came out with a nikon-mount DSLR that was supposed to be great for portraits and deliver usable .jpegs, I switched to digital. That was the start of my Nikon "bag". Being budget conscious, I think the ability to use older lens (superb glass, cheapish used) and using the old nikon film body with old/new lens is awesome. But unless I want the effect of a specific lens or when I'm doing client-facing work, I generally just stick to my various non-nikon/canon fixed lens/point and shoots.

 

Pretty much this.

I'm a loyal Nikon shooter in the DSLR world. Nothing against Canon, but it's all over the internet on various measurement sites and comparison sites, that the potential of RAWs out of Nikon cameras is higher than their Canon counterparts. If you're shooting RAW and want the most wiggle room to pull information from the shadows, shoot Nikon. If you have an interest in video then I think Canon is worth a closer look.

But in the end, there are people that take good looking doll photos with point and shoots. If the exposure is in the neighborhood of correct, you're not going to notice a difference between either brand given the same lenses / settings. If you're just starting out, here are the biggest decision helpers I think (in order):

1) What do your friends shoot? If you have a friend that shoots one brand, then that means you have access to their help with the system and can probably borrow their lenses. That can potentially be a really big help when you're new.

2) What interface do you like? Go to a camera store and play with them to find this out.

3) Price? Both brands blow out older models with some really good kit prices. It's worth looking at that to get into it with a lower entry cost.

Between those three factors, new shooters should be able to make a good decision! Either brand will be fine in the end.

 

This should be a header or something in this forum, because it's so true!!! I think anyone looking to buy a camera of any type should think of what exactly they plan to use it for, and what they don't like about their current camera that's inspiring them to get a new one. Then research all their options, and if at all possible actually handle the ones still on the list after they've narrowed it down a bit.

I shoot Olympus, at the moment. I currently can't justify the costs of a full frame DSLR and good glass for it, and my research showed me that the crop sensor DSLRs I could afford weren't actually going to be much (if any) better quality than the micro 4/3 cameras I was also looking at... and they were way bigger and much heavier making me less likely to actually keep them with me and use them regularly. So I went with the Olympus Pen - teeny tiny, very good quality for the shots I want to take, and a good range of interchangeable lenses available from both Olympus and Panasonic (and recently some third parties like Rokinon). If I had the cash, I'd also get a full frame (probably a Nikon) to use for "serious" shooting, but for carrying in my purse daily and for taking doll and vacation photos? I love the little E-PL5 I have now. One of my photos from it has even been printed over 5' x 3' and apparently turned out great (though I've not seen it in person yet to check) so it's plenty good enough for my purposes!

Brand doesn't matter much. What matters is that the camera fits your needs, your budget, and suits the way you plan to use it.

 

I have older Canons, the most recent is the G11. It has the larger sensor for taking dimmer-light pics, but I think I'm getting to the age where a little optical stabilization function wouldn't hurt. The big thing, though, is that it has a fully swing-out/rotate viewing screen. For taking pix of dolls on tables or floors or when only the camera but not all of me can get a straight-line position, I love it.

Do any of the latest Canons, DSLR or not, or the Nikons have that, or are all the current viewers built-into the back wall of the cameras?

 

My 60D has a vari-angle LCD screen. I suspect all Canon DSLRs do now, possibly some of the compacts. like your PowerShot.

And image stabilisation comes with the lens not the camera body. So, if you are buying a DSLR, just look out for the lenses with IS. There are an increasing number of them and they are getting increasingly better.

 

A lot of the Canon bodies have the swivel screen and the Nikon D5x00 series has them as well. I keep a D5300 as my backup body / smaller body for doing non-important work and the screen comes in handy for sure.

 

I know this might not be relevant since this is a Nikon/Canon thread, but just putting it out there that the Olympus OM-D and Pens all have the IS in the body of the camera (which makes for smaller/lighter lenses, since it's a smaller system). Could be useful info for someone down the road!

 

i have tried many different brands of cameras, and i think that it does depend on the person rather then the camera. most of the time the brand doesnt matter, you can get cameras that do the same thing from either brand. i would say look more at what features the camera has, how it feels in your hands, how easy is it to use, and what price range you want. go with what feels right for you, for me personally i like my canon, but i have a friend who swears by her nikon.

 

I have a Nikon, though my aunty who is a professional photographer prefers Canon. To be honest I think it doesn't matter that much which one you get.

 

this is so very, very true. my friends and I swap lens for specific shots that normally would require rental, we share tips and tricks, and test out each other's lens before we buy. it's also nice to have the option to buy/sell from a friend as you know how they treat their gear and you can always borrow back the thing you sold.

 

I have a Canon 60D and I love it. The photos look great. I'm hoping to get a new lens soon since I only have the kit lens.
In my opinion, you should definitely do your own research if you're buying a Nikon or Canon DSLR. Both work very well but I prefer Canon.

 

Generally, I prefer Nikon... I take photos with my Nikon d3000 and it's nice !
I've also a Canon, but it's a little camera...

 

I agree 100% with you. Some people tend to think that a great camera automatically makes for great photos, but it really depends who is using the camera first and foremost. I've never owned a Nikon, but I've been happy with the Canons I have.

 

Originally I had recommended Nikon over Canon. Now I have come full circle. I love the color that Nikon DSLRs have and the image quality(The newest cameras have outstanding capabilities.), but Canon has an assortment of lens that Nikon has no answer to. I have now had very good service from Canon. While they still don't like to sell some parts for a user to install they will do repairs for minimal cost. Canons finally starting to catch up to the Sony sensors used in the Nikons. The new 7D Mark II is very close to the Nikons. Canon and Sony are the only 2 big companies to make sensors in house. I fully expect the 5D Mark 4 to have a new competitive sensor and the new 7D Mark 2 auto focus system. The 5D Mark 4 may be called something new. The 50 MP 5DS and 5DR that are just becoming available may be the answer to Nikon and Sony for Canon. Its still a bit early to know.

Bobby

 

Love my canon, it is an awesome camera!

 

I have a Nikon D3100 and I'm really happy with the quality i get. By now D3200 is affordable as well and it has 10Mpxl more ^^

 

They both have brand-specific pros and cons, and probably always will. Right now, Nikon has the raw sensor edge over Canon, in terms of dynamic range and resolution. But sensors are dense enough now that they outresolve even what the sharpest, most highly-corrected lens can deliver to them. In practice, the greater dynamic range mostly comes into play when you screw up and have to try to save an underexposed shot of a moment you can't recreate--a very real scenario for a wedding photographer, not so much for a doll photographer who is ultimately producing photos for the web and their own enjoyment. The difference in sensor resolution between the brands is there, but unless you have the very best lenses available, it's unlikely to be the limiting factor. If you're shrinking your end results down to a few megapixels to post on Flickr, the whole issue is moot. The only people I would say right now should definitely pick Nikon over Canon because of the sensor advantage, are those wishing to do astrophotography with the best lenses available. For everyone else, things like ergonomics and lens selection will matter more.

Lens selection and price have historically been the biggest reasons people just getting into DSLR photography choose Canon over Nikon. At the low-end, Canon has a $125 50mm f/1.8 lens that is autofocus on even their lowest-end rebel bodies. Nikon has a price-comparable 50mm, but it's manual-focus only on most of their entry-level bodies, and the one with the AF motor is more like $215. Entry DSLRs don't have the focus screens to manually focus an f/1.8 lens through the viewfinder, and while it can be done on the LCD, this isn't an ideal solution outdoors. Availability of affordable fast primes is important, because both company's kit zooms have small, variable apertures which tend to disappoint those who expected going to a DSLR is going to get them the shallow DoF selective-focus shots they associate with DSLR photography. Since entry-level DSLRs are APS-C sensor size, 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 gives results (in terms of field of view and depth of field) equivalent to roughly what 28-85mm at f/5.6-8.0 would look like from a 35mm film or full-frame DSLR camera. There is a world of difference between what 50mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/5.6 look like. Canon's sweetened the deal further in the last few years with the introduction of their 24mm and 40mm pancake lenses which are both really well-built, top-performing autofocus primes that are each $150. Their 40mm f/2.8 is quite possibly the best lens value across all of DSLR photography.

 

I use Nikon D90 and I'm very happy with my camera
I believe that not the camera what makes a beautiful photos but the person who hold it, so Nikon or Canon all could give amazing results

 

I tried a Nikon D5300 just a couple months ago and although I could take some pretty awesome pics with it I didn't like that it was difficult to use and not very user friendly at all, especially if your new to dslr's. I ended up selling and all my equipment and bought a Canon t6s and oh what a difference!!! It's such a pleasure to take photos with! But yes, it's all a matter of individual preference. Each takes good photos. It's all a matter of what you prefer to put up with. Canon has a more intuitive interface and Nikon has the better hardware.

 

At the moment I own a Canon T3i, and I love it, so therefor i'm kind of biased.

Though before this camera I owned a Nikon (don't remember what kind though, oops) and it was perfect for what I was wanting to do, it took clear pictures and had a nice battery life (though, I had to use actual batteries, it didn't have a rechargeable one)

I would say price aside, totally go for the the Canon, I've taken some of the best pictures I've ever taken with that camera.

But totally do your research and find out which one checks off all your boxes.

 

I've used a few Nikon DSLRs and a few Canon DSLRs and I really liked both kinds.
My favorite in terms of feeling was the Canon 60D (with a Sigma lens, I think it was the 70-300mm but am not entirely sure), it wasn't too heavy and took pretty nice pictures. But I think that I prefer the Nikon D3100 overall, it was a little heavy but it took nicer photos. In camera, the photos looked equally as nice on both Nikon and Canon cameras (and I have to admit that I preferred the Canon in terms of video quality but that's not really relevant here) but looking at the pictures that I took on a computer the Canon cameras had a soft focus that I don't really like while the Nikon cameras generally produced photos with more crisp details.

So I think that when I get a DSLR of my own (all the ones that I've played with were borrowed from friends/family/school) that I will go with a Nikon but I would like to own one of each someday.

 

Why would you want one of each?
Nothing interchanges.
My first DSLR was actually an Olympus E-3 and when I migrated to
the Nikon system I had to replicate the lenses, get a new flash unit,
new remote shutter trip, ...
If you want a second body then get a second from the same manufacturer.
I presently use 2 Nikons, A D700 and a D5200. I love the low light performance
of the D700 which shoots magnificently in available darkness and I love the
swing/tilt viewfinder on the D5200. All my lenses work on both bodies so I
don't need to duplicate any of them.

 

Last year I bought a Canon T5i, I don´t know a lot about cameras so I used a lot of internet reviews to choose between Canon and Nikon (almost the same prize...)
Finally I choosed Canon because a youtube´s review comparing this camera with the nikon camera. The review shows the same photo picked with both cameras, same light, same parameters.

Comparing results I choose more photos shooted by the canon than the nikon one. So finally Canon!!
For someone like me that nows nothing about cameras was the better way to choose.

 

Two sides of the same coin. Both are great..

 

I'm a photographer and say, without any doubt, that it's the lenses one should focus on!
Body's ... see which operating system suits you, ask and look around.
Spend a decent amount on your body, but really invest in some good glass to put in front of it!

 

I've been a Nikon girl for 20 years now, and I just recently got the Nikon D3300. I love it! Haven't had much time to play with all it's features but I'm slowly working my way through.

 

Personally, I love Nikon! I bought my husband a Nikon camera for Christmas a few years ago, but I think I use it slightly more often than he does because my dollies love attention...

 

I have been Canon for a number of years. I would look at a used T2i before a used 40D or a 400D. The prices are nearly the same and its worlds above and photo quality for Doll photos is as good as a T5i. I have a T2i and a T5i and the sensors are very close. For most situations the photos are identical. Canon tends to have a better lens selection than Nikon and that's what has kept me in the Canon system so far, however Nikon has a richer color than Canon. Out of camera jpgs will show that. But remember that each one can also take raw. Raw will give you lots of freedom in what the final jpg looks like. For Canon the CD that comes with the camera will have a Raw processor that is easy to learn and fast to use. Not as good as light room, but its free. I think Nikon has an equivalent.

 

I have a Canon and I'm really happy with it. I like the interface and they have the lenses I want at price points that don't make me wince (which is definitely something to consider before you go all in on a particular model).

 

The question does not make sense. Photographer is person, not the camera.
I prefer Nikon, but many great photographer have Canon, Olympus, Pentax and many others camera. The main - you are pleasure of the shots.