Canon vs Nikon in terms of Lens, Equipement, UI, Support

[skitron]

I'll only comment on the video use part of the question.

For my uses, the biggest fly in the ointment for video is camera shake and DSLR IS systems are not the best answer in my opinion. That said, a Sony CX550 is an excellent choice for videocam due to its "no-contest better" anti-shake...I went for one of those for video and was amazed that chasing around a 14 month old toddler in a gym with camera held right by his ear looked almost like it was shot on a dolly the anti-shake was so good. Virtually none of the "reset jerks" you get with DSLR IS or other videocams. But the big downside is that you don't get the options for shallow depth of field and low light like you get with DSLR video. So consider what is most important or just get both tools to use accordingly .

[KyleSTL]

...silly autofocus compatibility issues that the Nikons do with their lower level bodies
...Unless you're planning to go with *at least* a Nikon D90 or a D7000 which gives you full AF compatibility with all of their lenses, I say don't even bother with Nikon...

I totally agree with SP's points.  The ability to use Nikon's good MF lenses from decades ago is nice, but it also means the older AF lenses are MF as well.  I prefer Canon's all-electronic EOS system over the F mount since I can get on eBay and pick up a mid-level 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM for <$200 (instead of the modern equivalent - either the $400 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 USM or $1000 24-105mm f/4L USM).  There are several older zoom lenses that are steals on the used market: 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, 24-85mm, 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, and 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM.  Let alone the numerous affordable primes Canon offers over the Nikon lenses that are only MF lenses on the lower-end Nikon bodies.

I don't have a lot of money to spend on my hobby, but the ability to pick up a 50mm f/1.8 II cheaply and a 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 on the used market is definitely a perk to me.  With Nikon, I would have been forced to either MF or spend hundreds more.  I could even pick up an older 80-200mm f/2.8 or 28-70mm f/2.8 and have it be a fully-functioning 2.8 zoom for about half the price of the current 2.8's.

[S P]

Just wanted to add that even if one did go with a Nikon D90/7000 level body for AF compatibility with the older style AF lenses, to not be expecting anything resembling fast autofocus.  It's fine for most things, but if you're chasing kids around or shooting sports or action it probably will be a bit lacking.  The screwdrive motor they put in the D90/7k bodies isn't all that powerful.  If you step up to a pro level body though (D300 or higher) they speed up nicely with the beefier AF motors.  Just as a reference point, the Canon 50mm f/1.8 II considered to be a quite "slow" focusing lens in the Canon system, is still faster than most screwdriven AF Nikon lenses on a non-pro body.

So if fast autofocus is a concern and a reasonable budget is desired, Canon has a clear edge.

[djjohnr]

I've owned both systems.  So far a Nikon D50, D200 and a Canon 5D Mark 1.  I bought the 5D because it was cheaper for me to buy used then a used D700, and I needed full frame for tilt-shift lenses.  The biggest downside to Nikon for me is they don't have a 20+ MP semi-pro body (yet).  If you need a big sensor (printing large landscapes for instance) you need to cough up $5k+ for a D3x. 

Outside of that however, I prefer Nikon.  The AF system was much better (even my D50 had a much faster/more accurate AF system); in response to the poster above, my D50 with a screwdriver 80-200 was faster/more accurate then my 5D with a 50mm f/1.4.  The D200 was even faster.  Additionally I had a lot more control over how the AF system worked. 

The build of the 5D is similar to my old entry-level D50, the D200's build was much more substantial.  From a UI perspective my Nikon's were much more intuitive to use, although I do like Canon's implementation of the little joy-stick better then Nikon's larger D-pad on the D200 which is too easy to accidentally hit with your face.  My Nikon's gave me much more control over all sorts of settings, and had dedicated buttons on the body for each function that were easy to use when looking through the viewfinder.  Canon's overloaded button system with non-ergo placement isn't nearly as friendly for me.

Anyways, I recently bought a 4x5 for landscape, so once the price on used D700s comes down I'll probably go back to Nikon (I've gotten way to used to the benefits of FF to go back to crop sensors).

[S P]

Outside of that however, I prefer Nikon.  The AF system was much better (even my D50 had a much faster/more accurate AF system); in response to the poster above, my D50 with a screwdriver 80-200 was faster/more accurate then my 5D with a 50mm f/1.4.  The D200 was even faster.  Additionally I had a lot more control over how the AF system worked.

Well that's kinda an apples to oranges comparison because most 1.4 lenses are on the slow side for focusing.    They tend to gear them down for precision because of the microscopically thin DOF those lenses are capable of producing, which is what makes them slow.  Guarantee you that if you put any of Canon's 70-200 USM telephoto zooms on the 5D and it'll smoke the screwdriven Nikon 80-200/2.8 AF-D as far as AF speed and accuracy.

The CAM1000 AF system implementation on the D90 and D200 (owned both) is indeed a bit smarter and gives you more control (esp D200) than the 5DmkII's AF system which is a bit dim-witted, but I can manually control the AF system a lot easier, get it in and out of full-auto or single point select a lot quicker, and instantly select the AF point I want a whole lot faster on the 5DmkII than with any of the Nikons.  So for how I shoot, I strongly prefer the Canon.  No need to screw around with switches or menus, and can do everything I need to do without even altering my hand position or removing my eye from the viewfinder.  I strongly prefer the 'shared' buttons all clumped on the right side as opposed to Nikon's fully dedicated ones all over the camera also, just because it allows for full one-handed operation and shooting.  ie I can change up settings on the camera with one hand, while continuing to push one of my kids on a swing with the other.  Can't do that with Nikon. 

A lot of this is subjective and just personal preference obviously.

[djjohnr]

Well that's kinda an apples to oranges comparison because most 1.4 lenses are on the slow side for focusing.    They tend to gear them down for precision because of the microscopically thin DOF those lenses are capable of producing, which is what makes them slow.  Guarantee you that if you put any of Canon's 70-200 USM telephoto zooms on the 5D and it'll smoke the screwdriven Nikon 80-200/2.8 AF-D as far as AF speed and accuracy.

The CAM1000 AF system implementation on the D90 and D200 (owned both) is indeed a bit smarter and gives you more control (esp D200) than the 5DmkII's AF system which is a bit dim-witted, but I can manually control the AF system a lot easier, get it in and out of full-auto or single point select a lot quicker, and instantly select the AF point I want a whole lot faster on the 5DmkII than with any of the Nikons.  So for how I shoot, I strongly prefer the Canon.  No need to screw around with switches or menus, and can do everything I need to do without even altering my hand position or removing my eye from the viewfinder.  I strongly prefer the 'shared' buttons all clumped on the right side as opposed to Nikon's fully dedicated ones all over the camera also, just because it allows for full one-handed operation and shooting.  ie I can change up settings on the camera with one hand, while continuing to push one of my kids on a swing with the other.  Can't do that with Nikon. 

A lot of this is subjective and just personal preference obviously.

Agreed, it's subjective. 

I used the 80-200 reference because it was the slowest focusing lens I ever ran across with a Nikon.  The Nikon 50 1.4 was faster.  Long story short, shooting moving objects without panning (mountain bike races, my daughter moving around)  with both Nikons  yielded better results for me than with the 5d.  However, I haven't tried a 7d which should be much better - no FF though.

[S P]

*shrug*

I chase my 2 and 4yr old kids around with my 5DmkII and 50/1.8 lens from time to time and still haven't had any trouble getting a good keeper rate as far as in-focus shots.  I think the 50/1.8 is considered to be one of Canon's slower focusing lenses too, or at least it's the slowest focusing one that I have personally.  Uses the cheaper micromotor and not a USM.  I know the AF hardware is basically the same between the 5D and 5D2, but maybe the 'smarts' and response time is a bit faster in the mkII?  No clue.  Have never shot with the original but haven't had any trouble with AF speed or accuracy in my mkII ever.

[unruled]

I work in ergonomics and usability, and have years of experience as a user with both products.

I'd say that the entry level nikons have superior ergonomics and design (but lesser button mappings), however on mid-higher range canon equals if not tops nikon.

In terms of menu systems, canons UI system easily trumps nikon in ease of learning/use.

That said, its all a matter of what one is used to, and its a subjective choice in the end.
Choose what feels right in the hand, not what looks right on paper. Same budget (generally) gets you the same amount of camera from either camp.