So I finally got my new Nikon system consisting of a D300 and a myriad of “accessories” (I basically matched my 20D, which I will be dispatching soon).

Wasn’t able to play with it much since I was with my GF and we’d probably get into a fight about priorities if I paid too much attention to it.

Today though, in this post, I’ll be discussing the reasons why I personally prefer Nikons now.

The short of it is that both systems (Canon/Nikon) have their strengths and weaknesses; it will just boil down to how a photographer approaches his craft, and which tool maximizes his/her efficiency with his/her personal “workflow.” I have to say with all honesty, as far as my approach is concerned; I’m really really **REALLY** glad I made the switch.

There’s a good article with minimal bias; the guy’s a Nikon user ultimately so there still is a bias; but the points he raises are very sensible and may shed light into the whole debate without resorting to fanboyism. He goes as far as discussing the history of the two brands and how each leapfrogged each-other at any given time in history.

Another good one would be here. From how I understand it he’s primarily a Canon user nowadays who just invested in the D3 and D300, and intends to use both simultaneously.

DISCLAIMER

It is to be noted that the articles above are not very new, so I’ll leave it up to the readers if the points raised will be still valid for them.

Also I’m only a hobbyist. So ultimately, my opinions count for shit. But if there’s something I’m proud of, is that I was never a fanboy of any brand. So hopefully my opinions here, if anything else, can entertain you.

Intro

Just to get it out of the way; despite the switch. I am still of the opinion that as far as technology goes, I think Canon ultimately is on top. So those L lenses as expensive as they are, are still the best in my opinion. Also I believe that if they really wanted to, they could release a camera that could blow Nikon out of the water from an engineering standpoint. But the question to be asked, at least for me, has always been price/performance.

You may ask why I’m extremely pleased with the switch despite admitting Canon would be better on a tech standpoint. The answer I guess would be similar to the Intel vs. AMD debate during the late 1990s to 2005(ish).

There was no doubt Intel had the better tech, but the question back then was always “is it better enough to justify double the price?” And the answer again would be “your mileage may vary.” Some stood by intel because ultimately, even if you could only notice it in synthetic benchmarks, Intel was still better.

Today that debate is done, with the release of Intels new cores, AMD is fighting a losing battle. But on the photography front, the fight is more like a Mac vs. PC debate. That even if the PC had the dominant market share, Macs had the better “user experience” and that minority to this day remain loyal to the brand.¹

Canon is in a unique position wherein it has the dominant market share and the superior tech. – whereas Nikons only have the user experience. But that the Nikon user-base is still so strong despite that fact suggests how important that particular experience gives them. Just like Apple, Nikon seems to pay attention to how photographers use their tools and tries to make its products as intuitive as possible.

Most of the points I will raise here are very little issues, as said at the beginning of this post, both are very useable systems; and I don’t think anyone would have a hard time using Canons or Nikons; both get the job done, and both do it well.

It only gets noticeable when you look at the little things. Again, I compare it to the Apple experience… it’s the little well-thought out things that really put a smile on a Nikon user’s face. Most if not all of these little things to me are with regards to ergonomics. And these personally are magnified specifically because of how I use a DSLR. As the latter part would discuss, virtually all the complaints I had with my old Canon system have been solved by the Nikon system. And I’m not even talking about “features,” but simple usage.

I even downloaded manuals of the Canon 40D, 1D MarkII, 1DMarkIII just to be sure if it’s a legitimate point. Since I’m essentially comparing my D300 to a much older 20D; so I thought to be sure to confirm if some new stuff I noticed are also present in the newer Canon models (focusing on the 40D), and here’s what I found out:

Right hand side

• Strap Eyelets

The D300 has pivoted strap eyelets (for lack of a better term); this simply means that it’s not fixed like with all the Canons right up the 1D series. Imaging your strap tensing up, and your camera, having fixed eyelets… moving about rubbing against that single point. Chances are wear the strap area quickly. I’m sure that’s also the case with the Nikon, but I imagine it to be much less because of how it can switch the actual eyelet and keep the strap joint at the same fixed position… it’s hard to explain, you’d really have to see it to understand.

• ON/OFF switch The D300 has a much more efficient location for the ON/OFF switch – which is by the shutter button. Compared to Canon, this is noticeable in case you’re like me when I turn the camera off out of habit even if the battery is efficient. I end up pulling up the camera to take a shot, then notice it’s off, pull it out from my eye and turn the switch in the back and put it back. With the Nikon, you can still have the camera ready to shoot and just flick your finger to turn it on… and you can further jerk it to start illuminating the LCD.²

• Dedicated AF assist lamp This is one of those things where you really want to smack Canon in the head. The also have a lamp on their cams, but for some reason they only use it as a timer lamp. But for actually illuminating for focus when it’s too dark, it reverts to popping up the flash and firing annoying strobes of light. Of course you can just disable it on both systems, but I’m sure we can all find where AF assist beams are useful. The 1D series as far as the manual says doesn’t even have a way to have AF assit (other than attaching an external flash unit). Either the AF they have is that good on low light, or you’ll be out of luck. I’d sooner thing it’s the former, after all it’s pushing USD 4k, it better be able to see in the dark!

• Mode button Again, the appealing thing here is that the more expensive 1D series has this approach to changing modes. It’s always easier to have it as a button so you can change modes via the main dials, which is always at your fingertips; on lower Canon (and lowest Nikon) models, the mode is a dial which requires your other hand to tweak.

• Dial position One of the complaints I had with a Canon system is how they put their main dial on top. Of course once you get used to either system, it really doesn’t matter. But if you just take simple ergonomics, you have to admit Nikon has got it right. You use your pointer as your trigger finger. Naturally that would be the last thing you’d want to move if ever you had to. On a Canon, to adjust, unless you use your middle finger for the shutter, you’ll always have to move the index away and fiddle with the switch. It’s aggravated by the fact that the context buttons to change the function of that dial are on top as well. So often times you have to use the same finger for all; trigger the context, then adjust the dial.

On the Nikon system however, it’s your middle finger you’d use, which always made so much more sense. And should you do context adjustments only then you use the index, in conjunction with the middle – which is faster.

Also, you got a back dial as well accessible by the thumb. The Canon 40D and upwards have that big-assed jog-dial which is similarly accessible, the rear thumb dial of the Nikons are nearer, requiring less finger effort to tweak while in a shooting position.

Left hand side

Nothing special here aside from another method of presenting controls. Either Canon’s or Nikon’s work fine. There’s this “button lock” that only allows you to turn the release type dial, but I personally think if a need for some sort of locking mechanism was needed, it would be more useful on the focus mode selector since there are more chances of accidentally switching that.

I do like how they have two continuous shooting modes though (slow and fast)

• Immediate access MLU The release dial has an MLU mode included. On Canon’s you almost always have to set MLU through custom functions (and back from it… hassle!).

• Flash mode/FEC button. A similar looking icon can be found on the right side, but that’s just for EV adjustments. This particular button on the left however gives you immediate access to fine tuning your flash mode (slow-sync, etc.). I believe normally you’d have to drill down menus on the lower Canon models just to set this. Not sure how easy it is to set on the 1D series.

Grip

What I like about the D300′s grip is that you still have access to the multi-button. I use the multi button heavily to adjust focus-points on the fly, and when I go vertical, I lose that on a Canon system; having to revert to the jog-dial which is harder to use for AF point selection – since you have to cycle through the focus points, you can imagine how much of a hassle that would be on the 51 focus points the D300 offers.

Also, on a Canon grip, you lose the dedicated RBF³ button on a vertical orientation.

One thing Canon got right with their grips however, is that they force you to abandon the default battery compartment, and provide TWO slots to put your batteries in the grip. On the Nikons, you can put one on the compartment, then screw in the grip, then put another one. Or you just use one battery at a time.

Battery performance is already excellent on a DSLR system so I don’t think this is actually a problem, but it wouldn’t hurt to be able to load your camera on one go right? Plus why would anyone want to go through the hassle of taking a grip on and off?

Flash Mount

• Locking mechanism

This is hand’s down a better approach than what Canon does; no matter what anyone says. On Canon systems you have to turn until it unlocks. On a Nikon system you simply twist the switch/knob/whatever-the-hell it’s called. You literally will save seconds of performance when you need to put an external flash on and off.

Others

• Auto ISO I remember how frustrated I was when switching lighting conditions, especially because I’m partial to shooting on Aperture priority (I like control of my DOP⁴ ). Drastic changes in lighting could be a hassle on candid occasions. What if you’re on a beach trip, naturally you got your cam set for sunny days (lowest ISO) and you and your friends take pictures inside a room or restaurant that isn’t as bright? Naturally you’d have to adjust your ISO… then what if you forget to set it back when you’re out. Suddenly your shots are blown ;)

The Auto ISO feature on the D300 allows you to set a maximum ISO you’re willing to go and a minimum shutter speed to trigger a step up. So you can leave your ISO setting to the lowest (for least noise) then it will just step up to the next if it detects that you your shutter speed is too slow for the particular scene. Now if that isn’t useful I don’t know what is.

Take note that this is different from Canon’s approach, which even Canon users admit is inferior. The best explanation would be from a MarkIII user when asked what’s the difference between Nikon’s method from what Canon implemented:

Please refer to a cheap consumer grade noink produced 2/3 years back to learn how this revolutinary option is supposed to work.

The difference is that You can custom tweak it [the Nikons'] to your liking ..first of it’s independent of global settings (wow, isn’t that smart Canon??) and there is no limitations to aperture and shutter speed values. So you can set say 1/250 as minimal shutter speed in Av mode and tweak aperture to Your liking… you just flip Auto ISO off and none of Your global min/max shutter speeds are affected. Easy, simple, LOGICAL. Dark-side⁵ had it for a long time, they had it working really nice and they didn’t made a huge splash about it. I like that humble, professional approach.

• Psychological impact

While the D300 is far from the 1D MarkIII (since the D3 is probably better compared to that), I still try to compare it with the 1D series to magnify the value of the camera. It’s closely priced to the 40D line so for all intents and purposes, it should be compared to it. But alas, if you compare a 40D with a D300, might as well just compare it to a 450D; the D300 is that far ahead.

One thing I noticed when I was a Canon person is they have this way of marginalizing people on a psychological level; especially when you’re on a tight budget. L lenses are the best, but I personally couldn’t afford them, and it doesn’t help that there are sometimes two similar lenses, but with such a price difference because of the L glass. An example would be a 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS, which goes for $339 and a 24-105L f4 IS for $1k. Obviously one can probably argue that these are already too similar, only that one costs three times as much because it uses different glass.

That scenario I guess wouldn’t be applicable with a Nikon setup. This is not to say that Nikkors are better or worse than Ls (in fact I already admit they’re probably inferior). However, you can see the psychological effect; not having to worry about settling for lens X when there’s an “L” version of lens X ;) You just buy a Nikkor lens X, period. There are Nikkors that are pro quality (which are L counterparts), and proably cost as much. But again, it’s that or zilch… and no “budget” version to worry about.

Also, I like how Nikon doesn’t release models left and right… it makes their bodies last longer in value. And again, the psychological effect of knowing you’ll be using a nice body for quite a while instead of finding out it’s old news the next month is very satisfying.

And I keep on reiterating this: the greatest asset Nikon has is its systems’ ergonomics. Just hold one, and analyze how each and every control is placed in relation to the natural way you grip the camera… and you’ll know what I mean.

I guess there really is a truth to the statement in one of the articles:

A friend once said to me that Canons are the best cameras available designed by engineers, and that Nikons are the best cameras one can buy designed by photographers.

So yes, both have their strengths and weaknesses. And it doesn’t really matter which one you choose because you’ll still end up taking good pictures as long as you’ve got the chops. And for me, for my type of usage… I’m glad I made the switch!