I asked why a new SLR buyer should choose Nikon, and actually didn’t get many good answers. But here are some reasons why Nikon is preferable, from the answers:
- garrettross cited the high quality of Nikon’s ultrawide 14-24mm f/2.8 and the in-body ability to control external flashes. Both are solid advantages — Canon users need an external flash on the body to control other flashes, and Nikon’s 14-24mm f/2.8 lens truly looks better than Canon’s offerings in that range.
- 2arrs2ells and garrettross cited the versatility of Nikon’s 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR (image-stabilized) lens. But the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS looks like it has the same general performance and flaws for about the same price, with the notable difference that Nikon’s has a better autofocus motor (but costs $100 more). I consider this a wash — their features are close enough, and they’re both so optically terrible that I wouldn’t consider their presence to be a huge advantage to either side’s lineup for serious consideration.
- jsj and whileyouweregone linked to this and this. It’s hard to get an objective result from these articles, but it sounds like Nikon’s autofocus system in the cameras is preferable to Canon’s for many people.
Beyond that, most answers were invalid or purely subjective. So I’m still not convinced that a new SLR buyer (especially one spending less than $2000 on a body) should go with Nikon, although it seems close enough or advantageous in enough categories that it isn’t a downright terrible idea. But my biggest fear was, for the most part, confirmed: beyond a few bright spots like the 14-24mm f/2.8, their lens lineup has many disadvantages and gaps compared to Canon’s.