Disclaimer: I have experience with the Nikon D2x, D200 and Canon 10D, 20D, 5D, 1DII, 1Ds and 1DsII. Don't assume than any of this is applicable to any other cameras because I have no first hand experience with them.
expeditionswest said:
I have never met a professional photographer (outdoor, wildlife, expedition) that shoots with Nikon. Are there any on this board?
I work with several and came very close to moving to Nikon, but ultimately decided Leica was a better solution for what I wanted. I only had one real complaint about the current Nikon cameras, but it was a deal breaker for me.
What would be the advantage of using a Nikon over a Canon.
Nikon flash system is still worlds better than Canon, Nikon offers pro-level bodies in much smaller, lighter packages, the ergonomics are much, much better than Canon (though the 1DIII looks better), the bodies are much less expensive and you have an option for real manual focus lenses that work seamlessly with the camera as opposed to requiring stop down metering like is required using manual focus lenses on a Canon.
Also, I think Nikon files are nicer straight out of the camera and require less work than Canon files. There are lots of reasons but it comes down to personal preference. Generally, if light weight with durability, flash system, ergonomics and bang for the buck in a pro-level camera are what you need, Nikon wins.
My concern is that nearly everyone I travel with shoots Canon DSLR, so if I need a memory card, or a charger, or a battery, or a wide angle, or a macro someone will likely have it.
I'm not sure that memory cards count, but everything else you listed seems like a pretty valid reason for YOU to shoot Canon. Heck, the ability to borrow lenses would be enough of a reason for me.
Nothing againts Nikon, but I have never read a review or researched lens performance where the Nikon had any advantage. How does Nikon handle weather proofing, cold/wet weather performance, seals on the lenses, etc.?
Is it just a Nissan vs. Toyota thing; both good and comes down to personal preference or cost?
Well, that line pretty well sums it up. I would trust a Nikon D2x in any condition that I would trust a 1-series Canon. The D200 is not quite at that level, but definitely better than the consumer level Canons (10D, 20D, 30D, 5D, etc.). From what I have been told the top plate is sealed, but not hte back.
Where does Nikon have an advantage? The files out of the camera are better and need much less work, flash performance, ergonomics and speed/ease of use, Nikon cameras are smaller and lighter while still being virtually bomb proof (the D200 will survive a fall from tripod height to concrete). Nikon's 10.5 mm fish eye is a gem of a lens, very small and inexpensive. I think the cameras are more transparent to use than Canons.
What's wrong with Nikon? To me the biggest issue is I don't like how easily Nikons blow highlights and I think they are ugly when they go and the transitions are not smooth. The worst is localized overexposure, when only one channel is clipped, like when the red clips on someone face and the result is big yellow blotches. Sorry, I expect more. The D2x sensor has very small and dense pixels, in simple terms it really beats up lenses. It can make a great lens like the 180 f2 or 70-200 VR f2.8 really sing, but the 12-24 is virtually worthless. None of the Nikon lenses have external rubber seals, but none of my Canon lenses did either and I never had a problem even in some very extreme conditions. Also, while Nikon's VR technology is great, it is only on a couple lenses.
I'll keep my Canon comments brief as you are pretty familiar with them:
Pro:
- There is a lot of information in the files, even if it takes a lot of work to get it all.
- Weather sealing
- Drive and focus speed of the 1D series (not the 1Ds)
- Telephoto lenses are excellent by any standard
Con:
- Files require a lot of post processing work to really make them sing due to a combination of the Digic-II processor (can't wait to see what the new Digic-III does, the Digic-1 was great) and the very heavy anti-aliasing filter.
- Weather sealing is irrelevant if construction quality is poor.
- Canon ignores the issues that result better pictures for numbers that make for better marketing.
- Fast AF is irrelevant if I can't get the camera to focus on what *I* want to be in focus.
I could go on for pages about both systems, but I think this enough to give you some ideas. The truth is they are just tools, both systems overall have strengths and weaknesses and despite the fact that some people view the choice like a religion (similar to Campy and Shimano in the cycling world) they are more alike than different.
