Intro:

Reading the postings in the forums like dpreview it seems that this is almost a religious thing. You either use Canon or Nikon and that is that. There is nothing in between. It seems that each group thinks that their manufacturer is by far superior to the other brand and the only way to get a decent shot is to use one specific brand.

Of course that´s rubbish! While each brand has it´s strengths they are actually very close and you can´t go wrong with one of them.

I used Nikon cameras for almost 20 years. It was the first SLR I bought myself after using the old cameras of my father. An old Exakta VX1000 ( full manual not even a built in meter ) or a Pentax ME2. It was a F801 and it was great. After that I got a F100 which was even better and after that I got my first DSLR in January 2002, a used D1, which was amazing. I also owned a D2H and than a D200 which got stolen a couple of months ago together with almost all of my lenses. I have owned a lot of Nikon lenses too and so I can say that I know a thing or two about the Nikon program.

Before I replaced my camera gear I used the opportunity to check all offerings on the market because for the first time I haven´t got any lenses or flashes and I therefore wasn´t bound to a system. My dealer let me try out a Canon 5D over the weekend and I really liked the images I got with it. But the main reasons beside the full frame sensor were three lenses: 24-105/4 IS L, the 70-200/4 IS L and the 50/1.4. Meanwhile I also got the 17-40/4L, the 100/2.8 Macro and the 135/2L.

How do they compare?

But before I get into the lenses I want to compare the cameras. I only can comment on something that I have used. And when I say used I mean that I have shot a several thousands frames with the camera - not just holding it in a shop. So I can only compare my Nikons: D1, D2H and D200 with the Canon 5D. I have played around with a 30D but took only a couple of dozens shots but the 30D is very similar to the 5D regarding ergonomics.

What striked me first was the quality of built. It is clearly behind the three Nikons I have owned but above a D70 or D80. I think it has to do with the rubber covering that Nikon uses. It is softer and almost sticky which gives you the impression that it fits like a leather glove. But this can be also just a matter of taste. What´s clear is that all displays and the viewfinder are better on the Nikons. The Top-LCD looks nicer and holds more information even if the camera is turned off. The rear LCD of the D200 is lightyears ahead of the rear LCD of the 5D which is dim and unsharp, very hard to read outdoors at all and it´s impossible to judge sharpness of the shots in the field. It´s a pain that the DSLR which produces still one of the best images in the market today has a rear LCD which is inferior to the LCDs of almost all modern cameras including compact cameras. I would love to exchange it with the screen of my Panasonic FX100 or even with the one in my Fuji F31. Enough rant but this is one of the two big issues of the 5D.

The viewfinder is a mixed bag. On one hand it is large and bright ( full frame ) like in the good old days on the other hand it holds almost no information. Sometimes I have the impression that Canon´s designers think that too much information would confuse the user and therefore the reduce them. An Ixus shows you almost nothing not even the current shutterspeed. A Panasonic FX gives you all that plus Live-Histogramms. The main problem with the 5D viewfinder is that it does not show the ISO-setting. I can live with that it doesn´t show the Mode or WB or image counter but the lack of ISO info hurts. More than once I left it on ISO800 or even ISO1600 in bright daylight for a couple of shots.

I´m not sure if I´m already entitled to judge the ergonomics because I use the Canon 5D for only 2 months now but there are one or two things that I have to say. The complete left part of the camera is wasted for a large mode dial. As I shot 80% in A-Mode and the rest in M-Mode I do not use this dial very often. There is a dedicated directprint-knob which only 2 people in the whole world might find usefull but ISO, AF, WB and Drive buttons have a 2nd function. For mirror up you need the menu and even worse in M-Mode you have to use the back wheel to change the aperture. The frontwheel now changes the shutterspeed. Just weird!

Regarding battery managment I have only one phrase: As sophisticated as the one in an Ixus. It´s pathetic.

Well could be worse!

Exposure Meter and Autofocus:

The body is not on par with the Nikons but don´t judge a book by it´s cover as they say. Above I mentioned that the camera has two big issues. Well here is number two: Canons Matrix Metering is at least one generation behind Nikon. The last time a struggled with auto exposure at such a level was with my Nikon F801 ( a camera that came out in 1989! ). With the F100 the Matrix metering was almost perfect but with the D2H and D200 generation it is in fact perfect. It almost never fails. It is extremely reliable even in challenging situations and it is especially competent in high contrast scenes. Well the same kind of metering in the 5D in short is not. I got the camera right before our two weeks vacation in Ireland and while I found no problems in even lit scenes on sunny days at home I soon discovered a lot of problems in images that includes a lot of shadows or in backlit scenes. Both situations lead to massive over exposure. Massive means up to 2 stops! Something you can not heal even in the best raw converter. In such situations it´s best to either change to Manual exposure or to go for the lightest part of the image, store exposure and reframe.

I think it is not that Canon is just incompetent and unable to create a reliable matrix metering I think it is a completely different approach to Nikon. Canon goes for shadow detail and is not shy to burn some highlights while Nikon tries to protect the detail in the highlights and sacrifies some shadow detail. The later is easier to correct in post processing and it is more suitable for landscape photography while the Canon approach is better indoors and for portraits.

Finally this is something that has to be considered. You can override it but I would go so far to say that Nikon is the better travel photography and landscape camera while Canon is the better "social" and portrait camera for people that are not willing to learn more about exposure and want to rely on the camera all the time. Seems that Canon adresses this problem in the new 40D by introducing a highlight prevention option.

So the Canon 5D is not built like a Nikon D200 or D2, the display is poor, there is no ISO in the viewfinder and the metering is unreliable. What else? Well it is rather slow compared to the Nikons regarding frame rate but even more important it has a really substantial shutter lag. Almost like a digital compact camera. The D200 is fast, the D2H is blazing fast and it seems that the D300 will be even better with just 40ms which is faster than the new Canon action flagship 1DmkIII. But then: the Canon 5D is not an action camera at all.

AF-perfomance: While the metering issue was a big surprise to me I´m pleased with the AF-performance. Maybe because I expected a downgrade there but AF really works. It´s fast and reliable. I think it is definitely on par with the D200 if not better. But I don´t have the D200 anymore so I can´t compare. I never was really happy with it because the D2H was so much better regarding AF I mentioned it as one of the few issues with the D200 in my review. So AF-wise the 5D was a pleasant surprise and after almost 3500 images taken with the 5D I have to say that it is reliable and that I don´t miss the AF-ON button at least not for landscapes and portraits.

Image Quality:

Up to now it is not even close between the Canon 5D and the Nikon´s I have used over the years. The Nikon´s are better in every respect. So if we would still shooting film - how to say it gently - a Canon body would not be the wisest decision on earth.

But nowadays the image is recorded on a sensor and here is where the Canon 5D really shines. I have changed to digital in January 2002 by bying a used Nikon D1. I also used a D2H and for the last two years a D200. The level of improvement regarding the quality of the image always amazed me but the Canon 5D really smokes my past cameras when it comes to image quality. It is on a different level altogether. And I don´t talk about ISO400 and above only.

The image is just beautiful! I guess that the large photosites ( as large as on a 6MP cropped sensor ) and a very weak AA-filter are the main reasons why the image is so sharp and crisp. It guess it is also because of the low pixel density that the 5D is no as critically as a D200 regarding a sloppy shooting style ( shooting without a tripod at shuttespeeds slightly longer or equal to 1/focal length ).

There is a 50ASA setting which helps for long time exposures because you don´t need a neutral grey filter for these shots. There is a HI-1 means 3200ASA setting which might be usefull sometimes but more important to me is that I´m able to use 100ASA to 400ASA with no loss in quality at all and 800ASA and 1000ASA with only a slight degradtion of the image. 1600ASA is still very useable and there is no Nikon camera today ( that might change in 2 months from now ) that delivers a comparable image at such a setting. Before the digital age I shot slide film. Either Ektachrome 100 or Fuji Velvia the first ment 100ASA the second 50ASA but to get proper exposed slides you had to set your camera to 40ASA for the Velvia. With DSLRs 200ASA became the base setting and I liked it especially for bird photography where you need fast shutterspeeds. Now it seems that 400ASA becomes a setting you can use as well and even 800ASA isn´t a problem too. It seems that some people are anoid that there is still some noise in an 1600ASA image. Relax! Ten years ago a 1600ASA film produced so much noise that you hardly see the image behind it. In a couple of years you will be able to take images in almost complete darkness. Will it improve the photographs? In some areas yes: Wildlife and Bird photography will profit from the new cameras but they will do little for Landscape and Portrait photography.

But the sensor alone would be not enough to choose Canon over Nikon because with every new Nikon the gap gets closer and we have to wait to see how the D300 and especially the D3 will perform. Maybe there is no gap there at all or Nikon even managed to overtake Canon on there home ground.

If you are still reading you might think that I´m not very happy that I now use a Canon camera but that´s not the case because the most important thing in a camera system is not the camera but the lenses and the lens options you have.

Lenses:

First: Canon dropped their lens mount in the late 80´s. While it was a very tough move back then I think it was smart on the long run. The simply don´t have the limit now and they don´t have to put in additional parts to ensure backward compatibility. Now 20 years ago Canon benefits from this brave moove back then. Not only do the save some money and even more precious space in every camera the produce because they don´t have to put in a motor to drive the focus on older lenses. All lenses are USM and that is great. I started to hate gear motor lenses after I used to first AF-S lens. Since then it was very hard to buy a lens without a ultrasonic motor inside. The last lens that survifed was the Tamron 90mm Macro. I loved it for it image quality but hated to slow focus when used for portraits. All other lenses I owned had AF-S or HSM ( Sigma for ultrasonic motor ). It´s old fashioned AF was the main reason why I never got the 1.4/85 Nikkor which is one of the best portrait lenses available.

With Canon I simply don´t have this problem. But there is even more. I also regretted that Nikon has either a cheap zoom lens with variable speed or a pro quality, pro built and pro priced f2.8 lens. So you either can buy a cheap zoom or you have to dig in deep into your pockets for a AF-S 2.8/70-200VR. Don´t get me wrong. I loved the 70-200VR it was my favourite lens and it is an absolutely amazing tool but it is also very expensive ( but that hurts only once ) and even worse - it´s big and heavy. So big and heavy that I decided to leave it at home on my 2 weeks vacation in Northern Spain and used only a borrowed 18-200VR instead. Wait a second: I bought a lens that costs over 2.000.-EUROs and than I left it at home because it burdens me down while travelling? I haven´t got a perfect protrait lens because of it´s focus system. The reason why I haven´t got a 50mm lens from Nikon either.

Canon´s f4 semi-pro line:

So when I looked at Canon from time to time the grass seemed a little greener regarding lens choice. Canon also has the pro quality, pro built and heavy f2.8 zooms. They also have the cheap zooms for the masses but Canon has a third lens line that sits right in between. A nice selection of pro quality, pro built but lighter and cheaper f4 zooms. I always loved that approach because I think that these lenses are superb value for the money and the help to keep the weight of the equipment at a reasonable level. As I consequence I now own them all: I got the 4/24-105L IS together with the 5D and I love it. It is the first standard lens I really like because 24mm is really wide on a full frame and an usable f4 on 105mm makes it a good portrait lens too. It is an IS ( image stabilisation ), has a constant aperture which is great for manual work and most of all it is very good optically.

Even more impressive to me is the 4/70-200L IS. I can´t tell how much I love this lens. Optically it is superb, mechanically it is as good as the F2.8 versions and the IS now is able to give you a 4 stop advantage which makes it as good as the f2.8 version in low light for static subjects. With ever improving high ISO capabilities I think that these kind of lenses are the future and f2.8 versions become less important. The 4/70-200L IS has exactly half the weight of my 70-200VR it saves over 700gramms! A truly great lens.

Last but not least there is also a 4/17-40L. It costs less than half of the 2.8/16-35 and it also a lot cheaper than the 4/12-24DX from Nikon I used on my D200. It is a very good performer if stopped down and it is also very well built. The only thing I would change if possible is the lens hood which is a monster. Otherwise no regrets.

Canon´s prime lenses:

In case you missed it - I love these f4 zooms but it´s getting even better. All Canon lenses are USM that means there are a lot of very nice primes that all have a fast and quiet focus. In the Nikon programm only the very finest new primes are AF-S like the 105VR Macro or the 2/200VR or all the super teles. Everthing else is old fashion. In the Canon programm you got three versions of a 50mm prime: the 1.2/50L, the 1.4/50 and the 1.8/50. It´s similar for wide angle primes: you got a 1.4/24L and a 1.4/35L and a very cheap 1.8/28 inbetween. You have 4 portrait lenses to choose from: 1.2/85L, 1.8/85, 2/100 and 2/135L - of course all are USM. You also have 3 tilt shift lenses and 3 macros. Plenty of choice and really great for a more creative style of photography with a limited depth of field.

Right now I habe the following lenses:

The 1.4/50 is really great. It is cheap and light. AF is fast and silent and Bokeh is great. There is a lot of vignetting wide open on the 5D but stopped down to f2.2 it is almost gone and sharpness and contrast also improve vastly. It is great for the price but if you think you need the very best you also have the option to go for the 1.2/50L. I like it and I plan to use it for indoor portraits where I want to include the surroundings like I used the Sigma 1.4/30 on my Nikon D200.

Macro lenses are great. Usually there optical quality is superb and they are very versatile as the 90 or 100mm versions can be used for portraits as well. I used the latest version of the 90mm Tamron on Nikons for portraits and it worked great except the slow AF which almost drived me crazy on the D200. It was less a problem on the D2H because of it´s beefy AF. The AF of the 2.8/100 USM Macro on the 5D is blazing fast and very reliable. It also has a focus limmiter and that means that you can use this lens for action as well. I was able to track my nephew playing soccer! Try that with the Tamron 90mm on a D200. Sure there is a great 105VR now which has a new AF but the lens is a monster, very expensive, very big and very heavy. The Canon Macro is sharp wide open and Bokeh is very nice which makes it a very good lens for portraitures.

The perfect portrait lens. I always wanted the 1.4/85 from Nikon because of it´s quality and it´s Bokeh. I never got one because I was always afraid that right after my purchase an AF-S version of the lens would come out. With Canon it´s different. I soon found out that the 100mm Macro is too short for portraits because I prefer a little more distance to my modell. I got used to the 90mm Tamron on my D200 which equals in 135mm on a full frame camera. I wanted - err I needed the 2/135L. What a lens! This lens only comes second to my AF-S 2.8/300 ED Nikkor ( first version ) that I still own because it was in a different backpack and therefore was not stolen together with my other equipment. The 2/135L is really a dream. It is sharp wide open but for close portraits I prefer to use it at f2.8 where it´s sharpness is impressive and there is still a steep drop off in the sharpness because of the limited depth of field which gives portraits that special something. It not easy to get both eyes in focus and the keeper rate it lower than if you shoot with a lens stopped down at f11 and two strobes but for me the results are worth the extra effort.

Conclusion:

Which one to buy? As I said at the beginning. You can´t go wrong with either camera. Nikon clearly has the edge regarding camera ergonomics and I think that they will close the gap or get in the lead regarding image quality as well with the new cameras. If money is not an issue I think the 2/200VR ( for concert shooters ) and the 200-400VR ( for wildlife shooters ) are just amazing options especially on a very fast 1.5 crop D300 with Pro AF. The 2.8/14-24 will be absolutely great on the new full frame D3.

On the other hand there are a lot of missing lenses if you like to shoot primes. No AF-S versions of the portrait lenses and no AF-S 50mm lens. No real fast wide angle primes except the 1.4/28 which was extremely expensive and is no longer available. There are no f4 semi-pro zooms. There is no substitute for a 24-105L on neither the D300 nor on the D3. There is no f4 version of the 70-200VR. The AF-S 4/300ED, though very good optically, lacks VR while the 80-400VR lacks AF-S. There is no 5.6/400 prime with fast AF.

You should consider all of that before you choose your camera. Buying a D-SLR is buying into a system and not buying a single camera.

Me? I´m out of the Canon vs Nikon game as I will have both in the future. I mentioned my AF-S 2.8/300 ED before. I will get a Nikon D300 to be able to use this lens again. If the D300 lives up with the spec it will be the best option for bird and wildlife photography as it combines a 1.5 crop with a very high resolution and Pro AF. For me that is cheaper than getting the Canon 2.8/300 plus the Canon 40D and sell my Nikon tele and finally I will get the best of both worlds.