I have been getting a lot of questions from our readers about whether they should choose a Nikon, Canon, or Sony camera. These inquiries are only increasing over time, so I decided to post an article on what I think about these different camera systems. There are tons of Nikon vs Canon vs Sony debates online, so hopefully my personal thoughts on this subject will clarify things for you!
Pretty much all of my gear is from Nikon – it’s the system of choice for me. Why don’t I shoot Canon or Sony? Is Nikon superior than these brands? No, not really. Read on to understand why.
Lola and I used to have some debates on camera gear in the past. She was very impressed by the beautiful imagery from wedding and portrait photographers that shot with Canon, pushing her to think that our choice of Nikon was inferior. It took me a while to convince her that it was not the case. Here is how I explained everything to her, which I hope will help our readers understand this topic in detail and answer questions about different camera systems.
Table of Contents
Some Differences
Although Nikon, Canon, and Sony all have well-developed mirrorless systems, there are some significant differences between each one. In this section, I will describe some unique features of each system.
Nikon
Nikon took a little longer to enter the mirrorless world than Sony, but they also have many strengths as well. They have a wide range of full-frame cameras from the very affordable Nikon Z5 to the flagship Nikon Z9.
Nikon also dominates in high-end telephoto primes. Their phase-fresnel Z 800mm f/6.3 VR is the most affordable way to reach 800mm reliably. They also have a compact 400mm f/4.5, along with a high-quality 100-400mm zoom.
At the top of the telephoto range, Nikon now has a 400mm f/2.8 and a 600mm f/4. And although Canon and Sony also have such lenses, Nikon’s versions have a huge advantage: a built-in 1.4X teleconverter, that makes these lenses even more versatile when shooting wildlife. Canon and Sony users must take off the lens and add a teleconverter manually, which may result in lost shots. I have already heard many bird photographers of other systems jealously eye the Nikon Z 600 f/4 for this useful addition.
In terms of commonly-used focal lengths, it’s interesting to compare Nikon and Canon. Nikon took a more middle-of-the-road approach, offering very well-performing f/1.8 lenses at 50mm and 85mm for example. Canon on the other hand released a much cheaper 50mm f/1.8 with lower optical performance, and its more premium lens is a much more expensive 50mm f/1.2 prime. Nikon has an amazing selection of amazing f/1.8 primes for the Z system that far surpass their F-mount counterparts.
As well as having a nice selection of Z-mount lenses, Nikon mirrorless cameras can also use the huge lens lineup for their DSLR F-mount, which still has some lenses like tilt-shift lenses that do not have first-party counterparts in the world of Sony.
Canon
Canon has traditionally been one of the strongest camera companies and they have developed a fascinating mirrorless system as well. Although Canon has fewer lenses than Nikon and Sony, they have some strengths as well.
For example, consider cameras suitable for action and wildlife. Nikon has the amazing Z9 and Sony has the A9II and A1, but those cameras are quite expensive. On the other hand, Canon has the Canon R6 II. The R6 II is certainly the best-performing mirrorless full-frame camera in its price range, and although it may lack a few features of the Sony A9II, it is also $2000 cheaper.
Canon has a 100mm macro lens and Nikon has a 105mm macro lens, but Canon’s has a 1.4x magnification, whereas Nikon’s is just 1x. As someone who shoots macros, I often find a magnification of slightly greater than 1x very useful. This macro lens isn’t the only unusual lens released by Canon. They also have f/11 lenses in the 600mm and 800mm focal lengths under $1000, which are a relatively cheap way to try out wildlife photography.
The Canon R5, while being a little older than the Sony A1 and Nikon Z9, still has comparable autofocus, and it is also the cheapest of the three. And while the Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 is a bit slower than Sony’s 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 superzoom, it is much lighter and thus makes one of the lightest higher-end wildlife setups on the market.
Unlike Sony and especially Nikon, Canon also has the only high-performance APS-C camera, the Canon R7. For $1500, it is more affordable than any full-frame action-oriented camera.
Sony
Sony has had the longest time to develop their mirrorless system, and so in some ways, they are the most advanced. They also opened their lens mount protocol so that third parties can make lenses for the Sony E mount, whereas Canon sometimes actively discourages this.
Thus, the Sony E-mount system has accumulated nearly 200 third-party lenses, giving users more choices compared to Canon and Nikon. For example, Sigma has a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens in their highly-regarded Art line of lenses, which is about half the price of the respective first-party 24-70mm f/2.8 zooms for Sony, Nikon, and Canon!
As a result of their head-start into their mirrorless system, they also have some lenses that the others are still developing. Unlike Canon and Nikon, they have a superzoom that reaches 600mm, the Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3. Canon has the Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 whereas Nikon has yet to release a superzoom that surpasses 500mm.
Sony also has a few lines of cameras that Canon and Nikon lack. Landscape shooters will appreciate Sony’s A7R series. The latest A7R V camera is 61MP, which is much higher than the resolution of Canon or Nikon high-megapixel full-frame cameras. On the video front, they have the A7S series, which has a special 12MP sensor and many video tools and options not present in other cameras.
Which System Should You Choose?
Before you think one system is significantly better than another, keep in mind that most people will be able to find what they need with any system, and in the future manufacturers will just release more cameras and lenses to reduce comparative advantages. But although all three systems offer most of what everyone needs, specific shooters should still look more closely into the differences that may give them a few extra small conveniences.
Let’s consider a few examples. If I were shooting mostly portraits and events it would be hard to ignore Sony. Not only are their mid-range cameras very capable, but there are so many lenses to choose from, many of which would be cheaper third-party lenses from Tamron and Sigma.
If I wanted a medium-range but not overly expensive wildlife setup with a zoom lens, my first thought between these three brands would be the Canon R7 with the Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1. This camera and lens combination is cheaper than the Sony a9ii alone and would face very few limitations for general wildlife.
On the other hand, if I wanted to constantly shoot at 800mm I would take a strong look at Nikon first because they have the 800mm f/6.3 at a price far cheaper than a 600mm f/4 and teleconverter, and except for bokeh, such a combination would not have much of an advantage over the 800mm f/6.3!
In other words, if you make a list of your requirements and figure out how you want to grow as a photographer, I believe one or two features of these three brands will stand out to you, and that will help you choose between them. On the other hand…
A camera is just a tool
But what happens if you give the best set of painting tools to someone who does not know how to paint, and an ordinary, much inferior set of tools to a good painter? Who is going to have a better painting? The same rhetorical question is valid for photography – if you get a better camera, does it necessarily mean that you will take better pictures? No, I do not want to bring up another “camera does not matter” debate, since we are all getting tired of it.
You know what, on the other hand, let’s discuss it for a second…does the camera truly matter? It does and it doesn’t. For most people who use a camera for family snapshots, the camera does not matter. For an amateur photographer or hobbyist, it does. For a professional photographer who makes a living out of photography, it matters big time.
When somebody hands the wrong camera to a good photographer, they will most likely be able to utilize it fully and capture great pictures. Similar to how a good painter can work on a painting with a low-quality set of tools. However, no photographer would want to continue working with inappropriate gear and no painter would want to use low-quality tools for the rest of their lives, since they know that the good tools do help them tremendously in achieving the best results that differentiate them from the rest of the competition. Ansel Adams loved to work with the best gear for a reason – he knew how to push it to its limits and get the best possible results.
A camera is just a tool in a photographer’s bag. Without the photographer’s skill set, patience, vision, creativity, planning, timing, lighting and post-processing, even the best camera in the world will not be able to create a good picture.
At the end of the day, the question you should be asking yourself is, how much better would your pictures get if you picked one brand over another (or switched from one brand to another)? Most likely, the change would be very insignificant. You gain one thing and lose another. What if one brand comes up with a breakthrough product tomorrow? Are you going to switch or regret your purchase decision?
It is all about you
Think of your camera as your tool for the job. Without good technical skills and creativity, no matter what camera system you use, you will never be able to capture anything good. Don’t become a gearhead and buy more and more useless stuff you do not need. Once you become a better photographer, you will know exactly what you need to get the best results, and then you will be able to really use the subtle advantages of each system.
Good luck! If you have any questions or would like to leave some feedback, please do so in the comments section below.
I am a huge Nikon fan . I have a ton of f mount glass and 3 of their dslrs, 5 film bodies and a partridge in a pear tree.
That said I’ve been shooting a couple of Sony a7siii’s and love the experience. The mirrorless system is more of my style of shooting. I have always wanted a better way to “flow” with the camera and make better pictures. Capture the moment in time . With a dslr you “see” the moment and “feel” the moment better in real time through the lens . It’s the capturing the moments and framing them for great autofocus accuracy that the shortcoming of the slr system.
I will be moving to a Nikon Z system along with the Sony . I shoot more video than photography these days . My system is going to consist of the Nikon and Sony cameras. The Nikon Z9 is next the probably a Sony fx6 . I do use and need that high iso of 12,800 for video. I use it a lot for my live music (documentary) style work . It is indispensable for low light work .
Each camera system has its strengths and to say one is better than the other is just too specific of a generalization.
It’s best to guide a person to the system that benefits their shooting needs .
I saw a lot of mentions about Sony and Nikon. With 15 years of experience with Canon 400D and 700D and later switched to Sony A7Rii out of the hype. Sony is fast, very detailed and gives good colours. But I realised that the peope pictures out of the camera are too analytically colourful and detailed. I’m not sure how Canon does it ,but even the Canon 700D does skintones,and overall skies much pleasing way than being too analytically detailed. I decided on upgrading to Sony when I was so pleased by the photos I was getting from Canon. But I was eventually frustrated about Sony imaging. It’s just not right. Even after lot of work Sony pictures don’t have the glamourous look of what Canon gives.
Great Article!! Your point about a camera being a tool is important for beginners to see. When I jumped into art, I thought that if I had better art supplies, I would make better art. It took me a while to realize this simply wasn’t true.
I was deluding myself because I wanted to jump the line. I wanted to get better as fast as possible and I assumed that better gear would do that for me.
Some of my favorite art has been on a napkin at a bar, or at a restaurant with crayons on a kids’ menu. Now I have a Nikon D750 from my D3400, and having learned my lesson with art, I won’t let myself buy a new body for some good time.
Thanks again for a thought provoking article!
As professional i don’t want to follow all the brands because I am concentrating in Nikon as my profile it has less problem comparing to other brands and an excellent picture quality from which I can expect
Valuable article. It is yet another decision asking process and like any decision, one has to make a choice oneself given the guidelines here. It is not hurt the camera but the skills that go behind it. No one can say if today’s best choice will remain so in the future. Camera buying is a serious decision and each one has to evaluate his needs. If that can’t be done, then the time to buy a professional grade camera can be moved to a time when that decision can be made.
Hi
I was read ur article and I am very much agree that camera is just a tool and actual photography depends upon the skills of the user but still I want to know in mirrorless cameras which company is better sony, nikon and canon.
It’s the glass that counts!…Julian
You still don’t get it. It’s all about the human brain. Thirty years ago I thought by using a artistic program would make me an artist. I discovered you have to be an artist to begin with. The program is just an extension of your existing skills.
Yes I believe it’s more about the creative experience or being a creative. We learn and adapt to making the art with the tool at hand . We will adapt to what we have and the art will come from that .
As for cameras like any tool it starts to become part of us . A mind to body connection and the art will come from that . Too much is put into the technical details instead of developing an artistic connection to the tool in hand .
I am the first one to be the tech nerd and buy the latest gadget to make something “better “ when I should have saved the money and been more creative.
Please help. I am not experienced. Sony Alpha A7 ii OR Nikon D7500?
Sony $998 w/28-70mm lens Nikon $1249 has AF-P DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR Lens & AF-P DX 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED Lens
I have no camera stores with me and One big box store doesn’t carry either.
$1200 Nikon z50 is probably better to compare because they’re both mirrorless. Nikon Z50 Compact Mirrorless Digital Camera with Flip Under “Selfie/Vlogger” LCD | 2 Zoom Lens Kit Includes: NIKKOR Z DX 16-50mm f/3.5-6.3 VR & NIKKOR Z DX 50-250mm F/4.5-6.3 VR
I want it to mostly take pictures of family and when we travel
D7500 would be better than A7 II. It is about 5 years newer. 4K video, better AF, faster processor, tilting touchscreen, and excellent low light and dynamic range for a crop sensor. Also, crop sensor lenses for the D7500 are much more available and cheaper than A7II. The D7500 with a $150 35mm f1.8 will outperform the Sony with the kit lens, or any lens that isn’t f/2.8. The full frame cameras are about 1 to 1.3 f stop better in low light, but the D7500 has the best low light crop sensor ever made, and with a fast 1.8 or 1.4 lens you can close that gap.
I recommend D7500, but if you want to consider Sony, at least consider the A7 III with the a Sony EF 50mm 1.8 but together will cost about $2k.
From the view point of colour production which is best ?
That entirely depends on the camera. Some crop sensors produce “better” colors than others but it’s all subjective and based on personal opinion. Technically full frame is supposed to give you better dynamic range, but newer crop sensor cameras out perform full frame from 7 or more years ago.
I agree that a tool is a tool and depending on who is using it will make more difference than the tool itself.
I am a Painter and yes great brushes make it easier but the finished result looks no different whether I use a $10 brush or a $70 brush :)
My gripe is this stupidity of people using mobile phones to take photographs, mobile phone Companies are convincing people that a mobile phone will create beautiful high quality images.
On their tiny mobile phone screen it may look great, once you open the image on your laptop or computer monitor you can then see the difference between virtually any point and click and better camera.
I use to repair glass plate negatives as well as film and Photographs for a living and did it for one Government Department as well as three major Universities and my worry is that in the near future when children grow up and want a decent image to use for their family history or just as keepsakes not only will so many thousands of images have been lost from a broken phone or lost phone as well as from people forgetting to save the images to a PC or storage device.
I am also an A++ Technician and as I am retired I repair and recover data from mobiles for friends and family, people walk about with 20+GB of images and videos on their mobiles that have never been backed up and they are all taken with a tiny crappy cheap sensor 1/3 sized sensor with a pinhole sized aperture and barely any lens to talk of.
I try to help these images for larger prints but there isn’t much you can do with them and don’t get me started on the older point and shoot 1.5MP cameras.
Children today are not looking to the future, they see great images in Museums or art houses and maybe even at school or their University, the trouble is those were all taken with real cameras that used mostly film and over the last few years more and more full frame or at least large sensor DSLR cameras.
I used to prefer my Pentax over any other brand as it was my favourite and it was a great camera, reliable and people always raved how great the images were, I did spend a few dollars on a few very good lenses and of course I used film, I didn’t go to digital until they had matured enough and dropped to a reasonable price :)
I think there are going to be many millions of people in the future very disappointed in Mobile phone manufacturers for pushing people into crappy cameras as people for the msot part are lazy and the easier it is the better they like it and be damned the end result.
I wish more people would explain or do articles to explain and show some simple images taken with a mobile phone and then a cheap point and click as well as a cheap DSLR and so on so that people can see as well as understand the huge mistakes they are all making.
A camera everyone will have a couple memory cards and swap and save as it becomes a normal habit, this doesn’t happen with a mobile as it doesn’t need to be connected to a PC of any kind to charge or look at the images.
You are right cannon nikon and sony are really doing good in market but i suugest one should go with camera he is comfortable with the one using nikon wouldn’t be able to capture the same in cannon so firstly try all3 brands try to rent different cameras or borrow from ones you know and check on which camera you are comfortable