Nikon vs Canon

Right now, we're only talking about SLRs. Not 'point and shoots'. That's another discussion I don't really care for.

Let me start this note with one simple fact. It's not the camera that makes great pictures. It's the photographer. A good photographer can take better pictures with a point and shoot than an idiot with the best SLR money can buy. But if you did want to buy a camera, which one would you finally shell out money for?

I've asked this question to a lot of people myself. Some swear by Nikon. Others use 'Nikon' as a swear word. You fuckin' "Nikon". 

The fact is this. They're both more or less equally good. It's like this. You're not going to create a tantrum at a restaurant if the waiter gives you a Pepsi when you ordered a Coke. It just doesn't matter. But then again a camera is a high involvement purchase. I don't care if you say you're stinking rich but you'd still want to contemplate a little before deciding which side of the fence you want to sit on. Oh and it's a tall fence to climb once you do take a call. 

You see, if it's an SLR and if you don't have money to throw away you would probably just make this decision ONCE. Why? Because once you buy a camera body, you automatically start adding lenses to your kit. So lets assume that after a couple of years, you still love shooting. You've probably added one prime lens for portraiture, one wide angle for landscapes and one tele just because it feels great to hold something that long. And now you suddenly decide you want to switch to a Nikon or the other way around. You're screwed. Why? Simply because when you switch over, you not only have to sell your camera body but you also have to get rid of every Nikkor (Nikon) or Canon lens you bought. Now that brings me to something else that is very interesting. I once heard that you could make Nikkor lenses work on a Canon by adding an adaptor. You'd have to spend close to 400$ on the adapter though. But you just cant make Canon lenses work on a Nikon body.  

Even if the adaptor thingy was possible, I wouldn't use an adaptor to bring in compatibility. Why? I don't really know. It just seems like a compromise. Doesn't it? 

So that still leaves the age old question. Nikon or Canon? I think it really depends on you. I would never touch a Canon for the following reasons:

- I hate getting into "My Canon is bigger than your Canon" debates. 

- I already have a good number of Nikkor lenses which will not work on a Canon. 

- I hate the way they fit in my hand. But your hands are different and a Canon would probably be just as nice. Ergonomically speaking i.e. 

- It takes longer for me to change basic settings on a Canon than a Nikon. What were they thinking?

- I hate having to focus first and then compose. I always compose first and then shoot which is possible on my Nikon. It's a personal thing really. Whatever works for you. I personally find the focus a little dicey on a Canon. It's not as intuitive as my Nikon. And this is Canon's biggest flaw. Let me explain this a little better. On the Canon, you need to focus first, hold down the focus lock key, move your viewfinder to compose your subject within the frame and then finally click. If your subject moves a little when you're doing all of that, your subject will be out of focus. You can use the same method shooting with a Nikon, but with the Nikon there's one more thing you can do. You can set your focus by using one of the many focus points on your viewfinder. Half click to focus and then shoot. If your subject moves when you're doing all of that, half click again and shoot. Simpler? Use both and see.

Warning: Please note that the above is just an opinion. I don't get paid by Nikon for writing any of it. As you already might have guessed, Canon doesn't pay me either.