canon or nikon?

A few friends on the forum would be aware of the fact that I currently own and use a canon 60D and a canon 100-400 L IS USM as my primary equipment. Now that I've made up my mind to get myself a longer lens, the canon 500 f4 L IS USM II seems to me the logical choice. However, the relatively high price of the lens brings in a second thought.

It is to be noted that when the canon lens starts shipping, it will retail at close to 10,500 USD, while the nikon 500 f4 AF-S ED VR sells at a little over 8000 USD. Would it be right to stick to canon despite the 2000 USD odd price differenece, or keeping in mind that I really do not have enough canon equipment to say that I have kind of been tied up to canon forever, sell off the canon goods and shift to nikon? Please keep in mind the weight difference between the canon and nikon goods while making a sugggestion (in case of the 500 f4, this is close to 650 grams).

Regards

One can't go wrong with either of these two brands. Both Canon and Nikon will produce fantastic results in the right hands. A few points for you to consider:

1. Ease of shifting to Nikon for you:

For a person who has been using Canon for years and can set/change settings in the blink of an eye - like more of an involuntary reaction - shifting to another brand of equipment will take lot of practice to reach that level where the camera acts as an extension of his/her body. Since you have started using Canon fairly recently, shifting to Nikon will not be a major problem.

2. Less no. of Canon lenses: Since you have only one 100-400 lens to sell along with a Canon 60D body, you are not likely to lose much. So again this makes it easy to shift to Nikon.

3. Price: Having said that, the only reason for you to contemplate shifting to Nikon is the approximate price of the Canon 500mm f4 L IS II USM lens which is yet to hit the store shelves. If you look at the prices in B&H store in USA, the Nikon 500mm f4 G ED VR II AF lens is 8399 USD and is unavailable. The Canon 500mm F4 L IS II USM lens is likely to be available in April and the tentative price is 10,499 USD. Only after the lens is available freely, one will really know the price point where it settles down.

5. Difference in the Canon and Nikon lenses:
Generally Nikon equipment are priced higher. Perhaps, this is the first time I see Canon equipment at a higher price than Nikon. Of course, Canon superteles are recent developments. How good the coatings on the lens elements vis-a-vis Nikon and their overall impact is yet to be seen. The construction of both the 500mm lenses of Canon and Nikon are different with Canon having more elements.

Canon also has better minimum focusing distance.

And for filming, Canon supertele lenses are better due to their smooth focus throw.

6. Weight:
680 grams less weight of Canon 500 supertele vs Nikon 500mm is huge. When ever you go on trek, you will realise the importance.

Also, if you are handholding, that is a big difference. For someone who wants to click birds in flight and handhold, this is a big difference as well.
A slightly different analogy: People ask me as to why I have the 4x4 option in my SUV. It costed slightly more than a lakh when I had bought it and it is not used often. However, whenever it is required, you feel like paying much more than whatever is the extra cost of the 4 wheel drive.*

I would suggest that you stick to Canon, retain the 100-400, buy the supertele and hone your craft.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

Sabyasachi,

Thank you for the very informative reply. What you suggest sounds convincing for the most part. However, at the back of my mind, I have a feeling that when shooting mammals far away, like in Corbett (to where I have travelled twice :) ), be it a 500mm or a 400mm would result in habitat images, albeit with some difference in the amount of habitat included. So, I am willing to almost ignore this scenario. Now, talking to a few photographers who happen to shoot with big glass, here's what I have been suggested by various friends:


1. canon 400 f2.8 L IS II USM: but I'm not sure how useful this focal length might be. Would using a 400mm fixed focal length mean getting stuck in between where you can't make a habitat shot nor can you make a "mugshot"?

2. canon 300 f2.8 L IS II USM along with a 70-200 f2.8 L IS: Of course, the two TCs will have be bought along with this. Seems like a fairly decent combination,probably give all the right focal lengths, but I'd love to hear from you on how convenient it would be to be switching the extenders on the field, at least occassionally. I'm quite okay with this upgrade personally, givven reports that the 2nd gen lenses from canon perform extremely well with TCs.

3. canon 500 f4 L IS II USM: This is the more tempting option, but as always, I have my reservations on the real usefulness of a 500mm fixed focal length on safaris. I'm more interested in shooting mammals and birds will come in only incidentally. Also, price remains a sticking point like with the 400 2.8..

4. A few of them urge me to sell off the canon goods I have, and jump into the nikon bandwagon! In that case, what I think I would do is buy a D7000 along with a 200-400 f4 VR II or a 500 f4 ED VR & a 70-200 f2.8 VR II.
If I decide to do this shift, I think I will be able to buy a D7000 with a 500 f4 first up retaining the canon 60D with 100-400, and as an =d when the nikon D400 comes out, I will sell the canon and buy a D400 along with a 70-200. I remember that you have already suggested me to stick to canon, but I'm mentioning this as I have got this suggestion from a few good friends.

Look forward to hear your take on this.

Regards

No lens is perfect for all the scenarios. So you have to take a decision either based on your present needs or on your future requirements. You have to have a combination of camera and lenses to cover the scenarios. While buying the long tele lens, you should buy a focal length which is used more at its native focal length.

Cameras and lenses don't make images. They are needed, however, it is ultimately the person behind the camera who matters the most.

If you have reservations about the 500mm focal length in safaris while using Canon, how do you believe that is not a problem in Nikon?

Or is it because you think shifting to Nikon will give you better images.

Since you and Praveen have shot from the same safari jeep, you can check his uncropped images to get an idea about the effectiveness of the 500mm focal length in safaris for shooting mammals (atleast in bandipur). I have never seen any image from you from Corbett. So didn't know that you had traveled to Corbett.

Along with 500mm, I would definitely suggest you to have either a 70-200 or your present 100-400. I have used the 100-400 a lot during my filming, and I would highly recommend you to retain it.

I have not used D7000, and hence would refrain from commenting. However, If Nikon, then I would prefer their D3S or yet to be released in the market D4.

At the moment, Nikon doesn't have a 100-400 lens. Canon doesn't have a 200-400 f4 lens available in the market. Canon's 200-400 f4 L IS USM will have a built in 1.4x and hence it would have no equal in the market place. The range would be formidable. However, it is not hitting the shelves soon.

Equipment buying is a very personal decision. It is better that you, with access to all the advises from your friends and acquaintances, take a decision yourself. I can only provide the pros and cons.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi
PS: How is the service centre facility of Nikon in India?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sabyasachi Patra

How is the service centre facility of Nikon in India?

---

Bhargava and Sabyasachi,
I have heard from a few Nikon-using photographer friends that Nikon bodies are sturdier than the Canon ones. No idea about the technicalities they base this claim on, but they (inexplicably) seem to prefer Nikon to Canon when photographing in potentially rough & dusty situations (often found in wildlife photography). I, personally, feel this might be something psychological :p.
The same people, however, admit that Canon has better service facilities in the country. Also, they tell me that when upgrading, Nikon equipment is harder to lay hands on, and with higher end gear like telephoto lenses, it requires a few months' waiting, unlike Canon gear which is bought off the shelf.

Please note that I'm no person to advise on this matter as I have never ventured into the prospect of upgrading my equipment, nor have I used Nikon equipment for long enough to give you an account. Just sharing some points that I have heard from others.

As a post-script, I should mention (sorry if this confuses you Bhargava :001_unsure:) that one friend of mine started off with a Nikon kit, at some point happened to use a Canon, and now owns a range of Canon gear... with the original Nikon kit still lying at the back of his drawer. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abhishek Jamalabad

As a post-script, I should mention (sorry if this confuses you Bhargava :001_unsure:) that one friend of mine started off with a Nikon kit, at some point happened to use a Canon, and now owns a range of Canon gear... with the original Nikon kit still lying at the back of his drawer. :p

---

Hi Bhargava,
Even I started off into photography with a Nikon D80 and an 18-135mm lens. Not that it was ever a complaint. In fact, I used the same combo as a backup wide angle combo during my recent trip to Bhitarkanika. I feel it might be wise as suggested to retain the 100-400 and get a longer tele ie the 500mm. At the end of it we see award winning images from both equipment labels. You mentioned you would primarily be using the lens for Mammals, for which the 500mm focal length is long enough. In the odd case you do wish to be clicking birds, you have the advantage of Canon over Nikon due to the 1.6 crop factor instead of the 1.5 crop factor of Nikon.

PS: My Major reason for shifting to Canon was the array of lens options and their availability.

Thank you Sabyasachi, Abhishek and Bibhav for the informative participation in the discussion :)

I have heard from a few friends too that nikon bodies and lenses allow more rugged use. Also, I have been seeing more and more serious photographers jumping into the nikon bandwagon off late, but I am not sure why. While it is almost clear that canon has a wider range of lenses and better service in India, I have been hearing from nikon users that the company's service has significantly improved and is fast catching up with canon. Similarly, the availability of nikon telephoto lenses is fairly easy these days, I gather. In fact, acquiring a nikon tele/super telephoto seems to be easier than getting a canon, thanks to canon officially discontinuing production of their 1st gen telephoto lenses and not being able to start full fledged production of the new lenses. For the first time ever, nikon equipment is cheaper (significantly) as well!! As for the 1.5x vs 1.6x crop factor, when looking at 800mm on a canon body and 750mm on a nikon body, wouldn't the difference (approx. 6.5% field of view) be almost negligibe?

These are things that make me inclined to move to nikon and buy a 500 f4 AF-S ED VR, but I'd love to hear from you again on whether it would be a wise move or not.

Regards

Bhargava,
I was forced to respond point by point, as your response had too many points and some off the cuff remarks which should not be used while decision making.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bhargava Srivari

Thank you Sabyasachi, Abhishek and Bibhav for the informative participation in the discussion :)

I have heard from a few friends too that nikon bodies and lenses allow more rugged use.

---

Pretty subjective comment. I have used my Canon equipment in pouring rain and it has come out unscathed. I have no idea how to quantify the statement that Nikon bodies and lenses allow more rugged use. I have had lenses and TCs dropping from my jacket pocket without any problem. I would like to hear what kind of lenses people have dropped and from what height etc. Ask someone to drop a lens for your benefit. :D Only then one can make a reasoned assessment of this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bhargava Srivari

Also, I have been seeing more and more serious photographers jumping into the nikon bandwagon off late, but I am not sure why.

---

I am not sure, nor do I track who uses what equipment. Even if this were true, I would not be bothered. No point in giving in to the herd mentality in any situation, whether it is photography or anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bhargava Srivari

I have been hearing from nikon users that the company's service has significantly improved and is fast catching up with canon.

---

If that is true, then you need to hope that by the time you get your equipment, the service centre is upto your satisfaction. Else, it is like buying equipment from grey market which doesn't give you any benefit of service.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bhargava Srivari

Similarly, the availability of nikon telephoto lenses is fairly easy these days, I gather. In fact, acquiring a nikon tele/super telephoto seems to be easier than getting a canon, thanks to canon officially discontinuing production of their 1st gen telephoto lenses and not being able to start full fledged production of the new lenses.

---

Tsunami, floods in thailand has impacted everybody. Nikon's SLR cameras and some lenses are manufactured in thailand as opposed to Canon's compact cameras. I would not agree to Nikon's all the equipment being in better supply than Canon's. I would urge you to do your homework.

If you are comparing to Canon's telephoto lenses which are yet to hit the market, then it is not a fair argument. Please check the availability of the Nikon's existing telephoto lenses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bhargava Srivari

For the first time ever, nikon equipment is cheaper (significantly) as well!!

---

This is a pretty generalised comment. In the previous post we have talked about the 500mm. Are you saying that all the cameras and lenses of Nikon are cheaper than Canon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bhargava Srivari

As for the 1.5x vs 1.6x crop factor, when looking at 800mm on a canon body and 750mm on a nikon body, wouldn't the difference (approx. 6.5% field of view) be almost negligibe?

---

What do you mean by 6.5% field of view?

Are you saying that 750 mm vs 800mm is just 50mm which amounts to an increase of only 6.5% over a 750mm?

If so, your calculation is completely wrong.

We normally think that increase in 50 mm over a 750mm focal length means an increase of (50/750)*100 = 6.5%

However, the image size is a function of square of the focal length used.

So the difference between 800 mm and 750 mm is {(Square of 800 – Square of 750)/Sq. of 750} * 100
= {[(800 *800) – (750*750)]/(750*750)}*100 = 13.77 %

Whether 13.77% is significant enough for you or not, is another matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bhargava Srivari

These are things that make me inclined to move to nikon and buy a 500 f4 AF-S ED VR, but I'd love to hear from you again on whether it would be a wise move or not.

Regards

---

As I have said earlier, Canon or Nikon will not just make someone a great photographer. The difference between GOOD and GREAT is not just IQ of the equipment. It is the IQ one inch behind the camera viewfinder ie. it is the IQ of the photographer which makes the major difference. Else, both Canon and Nikon are top notch companies with some fine equipment.

Sabyasachi,

Many thanks for the in-depth response.

The comment about nikon equipment allowing rugged use was not intended to say that canon equipment cannot be used that way. I only wanted to state that like canon, nikon equipment too can be used in harsh conditions. My fault that I hadn't worded it properly.

I have just checked with a dealer in hyderabad who handles both canon and nikon equipment, and he says that none of the canon telephoto primes excepting the 300 2.8 IS II and 400 2.8 IS II are available. The list of unavailable lenses includes the 500 f4 L IS USM (1st gen), 300 f4 L IS as well. On the other hand, he has told me that one can get hold of almost any nikon telephoto lens in about a couple of weeks, on order. I haven't checked about other shorter lenses, but I don't need them anyway.

Now, the pricing of the equipment. As of today, based on the quotes I gathered verbally from Jayesh who again deals both canon and nikon in Bengaluru, the canon 300 2.8 L IS II USM costs more than the nikon 300 2.8 ED VR II, the canon 400 2.8 L IS II USM costs more than the nikon 400 2.8 ED VR II and the canon 500 f4 L IS II USM (yet to be available) is expected to be pricier than the nikon 500 f4 ED VR. Again, from the little I have gathered, even the nikon lenses feature the same 4-stop advantage image stabilisers as in the new canon lenses and are optically very much comparable to canon's. However, the canon 70-200 2.8 L IS II and nikon 70-200 2.8 VR II sell at almost the same price, with canon having a slight edge. Again, I haven't checked about other lenes because I haven't intended to buy any of them anytime yet.

Again, thank you for correcting me on the field of view. I am not experienced enough to judge whether 13.77 % is significant or not. I would be glad if you present your take on it.

While I agree with you that herd mentality isn't advisable, I have seen friends claim that they had valid reasons for shifting to nikon that could be generalised, and all of them I know of are happy with the nikon systems as well as with the service in India. However, even if I decide in favour of nikon, I now know that I have to cross check very carefully on a few things before taking the plunge.

Regards