Camera Wars

The photographer is better. A good one can take any camera and produce great shots. A poor one will take a great camera and produce poor shots, blaming it on the camera.

All kidding aside, this is actually a very good question, and one that needs to be expanded.

Which is better, Canon or Nikon, depends on what sort of photography you are doing, and which individual model, and which lens you plan to use. There are also other brands that may be better still for certain things.

I use Canon and Leica. For Canon I own four bodies (two film, two digital) and five lenses. Body for body, lens for lens, Nikon has (or in the case of the film bodies, had) equivalent models that sold for similar prices and had similar features. Lets look at one of the bodies and one of the lenses for an example of why its just to possible to pick a "winner", but why each individual photographer can easily pick a winner.

My favorite digital body is actually the cheaper of my two, the Canon 6D (currently sells for about $1500). The 6D is the least expensive full-frame DSLR on the market today and is also among the smallest and lightest (mirrorless is smaller and lighter still). The 6D was introduced way back in 2012 and is due to be replaced in the very near future. In every way except price, the 6D is thoroughly outclassed by Nikon's equivalent, which is the D610. The 6D has only 11 autofocus points and has a 20 megapixel sensor. It has only one SD card slot and its viewfinder only shows 97% of the frame. Nikon's D610 has a 100% viewfinder, two SD card slots and 39 autofocus points, not to mention a 24 megapixel sensor with better dynamic range (highlight to shadow before clipping). Both cameras cost the same, though rebates on them vary from month to month. The Nikon is also a year newer, but is essentially the same spec-wise as the D600 that it replaced (due to a faulty shutter mechanism).

So with the Nikon clearly superior in all specifications, why did I buy the Canon, and why is the Canon my favorite DSLR (I also own the higher-end 5D Mark III and like the 6D better, though each has different uses)? Simply, the 6D is better for what I like to do with a DSLR, which is shooting fast prime lenses in very low light. While the Nikon's sensor can record a wider range from highlight to shadow, the 6D is close enough to not matter much (about a half stop), but more important to me than any of the features is that the 6D, while it has a much simpler focusing system, will focus accurately in 1/4 as much light (EV-3 compared to EV-1). The 6D also has interchangeable focusing screens allowing easier focusing of manual-focus lenses. Finally, the 6D, while lower resolution, has less noise at very high ISO, allowing me to get clean images in extremely low light that would be noisy on just about any other camera (Sony A7s is better still).

Then there are lenses, and photographers can easily pick certain lenses from Nikon's and Canon's lineups that are better than the other. My favorite lens on any camera system is a 35mm f/1.4 prime lens, and Canon's current model is better than any other except perhaps Leica. Its even better than the exotic Carl Zeiss Distagon. Nikon's 35mm f/1.4 isn't bad and was very comparable to Canon's previous generation lens, but the new Canon is on a whole other level.

As a serious photographer, I place far more importance on lenses than bodies, and so when I decided to add a full-frame DSLR outfit alongside my Leica rangefinder kit (don't go there if you value your bank balance), I started by researching the very best 35mm f/1.4 autofocus lens I could get, and that lens research told me I was going to invest in the Canon rather than the Nikon, Sony or any other system. I don't regret it at all.

I am both impressed and depressed.