08-13-2013, 06:30 AM
I also have heard a lot of things 
First, you're generalising.
Second, it's stuff that doesn't have to do with your new cam necessarily.
Third, you didn't mention the kind of photos you're up to create with it.
So, is it helpful to read our opinion of issues that appear to be fixed?
As Nikon user I was only shakin' my head over the dumb behaviour of Nikon in the oil spot affair. Canon on their 5D III also had a problem with light of the LCD illumination influencing the exposure meter in some cases (at night photographs or long time exposures in general. Switching off the illumination was also a possibility to fix it.
They checked, admitted and fixed it.
Nikon and the oil spots were a sample for bad communication culture, for stubborn management and obviously not working QC. Did I forgot something? There's no way to collect more and bigger bonus points than to treat your customers right when there's an issue.
These days the oil spots are no longer a question, I guess. They just do the couple of some thousand shots before the bodies leave the manufacture unit.
If you want to have inbuilt GPS and WiFi connection in camera, it's Canon. Nikon needs for all this external stuff and sells it for steep prices, okay, for WLAN the made a cheap connector, which only works on some of their bodies. If you want to do landscape and night shots wit a huge dynamic range, it's Nikon, as well if you want to use 2 SD cards (1 as backup or RAW and JPG on different cards). If you plan to shoot movies, hands off Nikon.
Now, as to the lenses. Define "better"! Do you plan to buy the whole L-line? Or do you select some lenses for your purposes? Each manufacturer has weak ones and really strong glass. I know Canon shooters adapting 14-24 Nikkor on their EOS, which is possible. Vice versa, you can't adapt one of the excellent Canon tele-lenses to a Nikon. Better you become clear for yourself what you want to do and which lenses you need, then you go. The last Canon lenses for full frame always became a lot more expensive compared to their predecessors, so you better have big pockets.
My opinion: Nikon is delivering traditional, solid tools and Canon sometimes takes a risk with new technologies. I like much more the way my Nikons render colors than I've seen it from Canon but that's a question of taste. Sometimes I was suspecting, they secretly develop their lenses together :/ but that I can't prove. Canon usually has less focus points in the finder which are more difficult to access. In that case, it's 39 to 11 focus points which looks like a disadvantage to Canon. But the AF module of the Nikon comes out of the 3 year old D7000 and I read some complaints the AF points are too far away from the borders. So one can question all this number games.
Why don't you go to a dealer, grab one of each and see which feels better for you? Outstanding pictures both are capable to do, depending on the person behind the finder.
First, you're generalising.
Second, it's stuff that doesn't have to do with your new cam necessarily.
Third, you didn't mention the kind of photos you're up to create with it.
So, is it helpful to read our opinion of issues that appear to be fixed?
As Nikon user I was only shakin' my head over the dumb behaviour of Nikon in the oil spot affair. Canon on their 5D III also had a problem with light of the LCD illumination influencing the exposure meter in some cases (at night photographs or long time exposures in general. Switching off the illumination was also a possibility to fix it.
They checked, admitted and fixed it.
Nikon and the oil spots were a sample for bad communication culture, for stubborn management and obviously not working QC. Did I forgot something? There's no way to collect more and bigger bonus points than to treat your customers right when there's an issue.
These days the oil spots are no longer a question, I guess. They just do the couple of some thousand shots before the bodies leave the manufacture unit.
If you want to have inbuilt GPS and WiFi connection in camera, it's Canon. Nikon needs for all this external stuff and sells it for steep prices, okay, for WLAN the made a cheap connector, which only works on some of their bodies. If you want to do landscape and night shots wit a huge dynamic range, it's Nikon, as well if you want to use 2 SD cards (1 as backup or RAW and JPG on different cards). If you plan to shoot movies, hands off Nikon.
Now, as to the lenses. Define "better"! Do you plan to buy the whole L-line? Or do you select some lenses for your purposes? Each manufacturer has weak ones and really strong glass. I know Canon shooters adapting 14-24 Nikkor on their EOS, which is possible. Vice versa, you can't adapt one of the excellent Canon tele-lenses to a Nikon. Better you become clear for yourself what you want to do and which lenses you need, then you go. The last Canon lenses for full frame always became a lot more expensive compared to their predecessors, so you better have big pockets.
My opinion: Nikon is delivering traditional, solid tools and Canon sometimes takes a risk with new technologies. I like much more the way my Nikons render colors than I've seen it from Canon but that's a question of taste. Sometimes I was suspecting, they secretly develop their lenses together :/ but that I can't prove. Canon usually has less focus points in the finder which are more difficult to access. In that case, it's 39 to 11 focus points which looks like a disadvantage to Canon. But the AF module of the Nikon comes out of the 3 year old D7000 and I read some complaints the AF points are too far away from the borders. So one can question all this number games.
Why don't you go to a dealer, grab one of each and see which feels better for you? Outstanding pictures both are capable to do, depending on the person behind the finder.