only a few seemed to understand its not brand its comfort.

To be fair, it's more than that. If you want auto-ISO, you go Nikon. If you want lower noise (generally) or full frame, you go Canon.

There are some differences beyond comfort.

only a few seemed to understand its not brand its comfort.

I bet you that if i took two identical photographs, one from a Nikon and one from a Canon, you would be unable to tell which one came from which.

I sell Cameras for a living and customers ask me, which one is better. I give them a brief demo on the the controls of each camera, then let them shoot for a few minutes with each camera. There is never a clear "winner" after they use each camera. It all depends on the feel.

Besides the average semi-serious photographer will not be able to tell the difference between lenses and sensors. They just want something that will take a good clear bright picture. And Both do that extremely well!

Nuff said.

If you think your photo's are going to be noticably any better just because you went with a specific brand your only fooling yourself.

Nobody here is saying that. But to pretend that there aren't differences between the two brands - and differences that affect people in noticeable ways - is equally as silly.

Stick a good photographer behind either one of these camera brands and your going to get great photos and prints.

If you think your photo's are going to be noticably any better just because you went with a specific brand your only fooling yourself.

But from what's on photozone.com, many of the Nikon lenses do have higher MTF numbers than their Canon counterparts. Only by chance?

This is because Nikon lenses are tested on D200 and Canon lenses on 350D. D200 has more Mpx so it can deliver more LW/PH (line widths per picture height).

So I think if you want to compare LW/PH values on Photozone.de between Canon and Nikon lenses, you have to multiply all canon MTF values by 1.079 ( = D200 MTF maximum / 350D MTF maximum).

Because we are not comparing bodies but lenses. Remember.

I've seen amazing, artistic pictures used on things like album covers (can't remember the exact example ATM sadly) taken with a crappy little Point and Shoot.

Repeat after me everyone:

It is the photographer not the equipment.
Buying more/better equipment will NOT make me a better photographer.
I do not need more equipment.

Or something like that. A couple of great quotes I've picked up over the years:

"How come no one ever looks at a Picasso and says 'Wow, he must have used a really great brush', but when they look at a great photo they say 'Wow, you must have used a really great camera'"

and

"If you worry about equipment, you're an amateur, If you worry about money, you're a professional, If you worry about the light, you're a master."

Both those came from people in the DPreview forums btw.

First, stop making silly comparisons, start making more great pictures! Let the images speak for themselves!

Which is an odd thing to say right before you launch into a laundry list of "silly" comparisons that have little to do with actually making pictures.

Especially since almost all of your comments are "pro-Nikon" and anti-Canon, even subtly. For example, you imply that Canons can't focus. You call a Nikon a "pure photographic tool." C'mon… don't say one thing and do 20 opposite things.

Here are two times when you talk about the "drawbacks" without failing to mention the positives.

ev said on March 16, 2007:

Sensor size. Some drawbacks of full-frame sensors

ev said on March 16, 2007:

A D200 is much better sealed that a Canon 5D which costs about twice as much. It is also a lot faster.

The D200 isn't even in the same class as the 5D. You're not only comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing bananas to poultry. Sure, they're still "foods," but that's where sane comparison ends.

Until Nikon actually comes out with a full-frame camera, I suppose Nikonites will have to try to force these kinds of comparisons on people. Just get the best camera for you - don't buy into the rubbish fanboy talk, particularly from someone who has only ever owned one of the two kinds of camera.

I own a Nikon D200. Before that a F801. I have owned Praktica, Cosina and many MF and AF Minolta's (X-700, 7000i, 7xi, 800si). I have made great pictures with all of them.

Learing how to operate your camera will make the difference, not the MTF-numbers or Bokeh-tests. When comparing lenses, please compare them under EXACTLY the same circumstances. And who shoots a lab test setup in real life?

All manufacturers (Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Sigma, 3rd party) produce good lenses. Not all camera's feel the same when you pick them up. For me, both the Nikon D80 and all but the most expensive Canons did not fit in my hand like the D200 did. Especially the 350D and 400D are too small to hold comfortably for me.

And the D200 has a lot of single function buttons (a Nikon trademark) compared to otherwise great Canon products. Some people are scared of the amount of buttons on a Nikon camera. For me it's a plus. That made me come to the conclusion that FOR ME a Canon is a really great camera but a Nikon is a pure photographic tool, like an extension of my arm. I expect for people with small hands it will be the other way around.

Autofocus. I have to admit that Canon autofocus is more quiet and perhaps faster. But here's the catch! You want sharp pictures, not ultrafast autofocus. A slight miss by the autofocus will ruin an otherwise great picture. I don't know. Perhaps it's neither Nikon nor Canon that scores best in this department?

Glass. Nikon kit lenses outperform Canon kit lenses. I am talking KIT lenses here. As for the other glass: read the reports and reviews. There are gems on both sides. I own one of them, a Nikkor 180/2.8 D. I have never come across a sharper lens. Canon DO optics are good, but not great. Their top lenses are better, and more heavy and less compact etc. Another point is the way a lens handles. Maybe even more important than the top optical quality is the way a lens ' feels' in your hand.

Sensor size. I am missing the wide angle versus tele discussion here. Some drawbacks of full-frame sensors: they are so good that they for sure will show ANY lens faults, which for the most parts occur in the edges of the glass. Nikons use the center part of the lens which is often the sharpest part. But do try to use full frame lenses on your DX sensor!

Build quality. For the consumer line, Nikons als better built. Does this increase their life span? Perhaps, perhaps not. it does make them a bit heavier. A D200 is much better sealed that a Canon 5D which costs about twice as much. It is also a .lot faster. Still, there are reasons to choose a 5D over a D200.

Price. Nikon glass is more expensive than Canon glass. This does not always relate to quality. Nikon raised it's prices recently here in Europe by a fair margin. When you are a frequent upgrader, maybe the price point counts. Otherwise PLEASE DO NOT ONLY LOOK AT THE PRICE TAG! Consider other factors as well. Better a camera that feels great and costed a couple of euro's/dollars more than a cheaper camera that just doesn't feel right.

Happy shooting