What are the general differences between Nikon and Canon camera products?

The answer changes depending on the category: Point and shoots: When you look at point and shoots, Canon cameras consistently rank amongst the top from respected camera review websites (i.e. http://dpreview.com), while Nikon cameras are usually quite average and forgettable. Recommendation: Canon over Nikon for P&Ss. Consumer/prosumer DSLR lenses: these are your standard 18-55 zooms, 55-200 zooms, 18-200 superzooms, etc. The optics of these lenses are slightly above average for the most part, and Canon/Nikon both have comparable counterparts for all the standard ranges. One notable exception where Nikon has a slight edge over Canon is their Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 prime lens offering, which is designed specifically for cropped frame cameras (basically all consumer/prosumer DSLRS), and yields a focal length equivalent of the standard 50mm. Because it's for cropped lenses, it's more affordable and much lighter. Canon has nothing in that category (the standard Nikon/Canon 50mm f/1.8 lenses are too narrow for cropped frames, makes for a good half-body portrait lenses though) Recommendation: either one (very very slight edge for Nikon) Consumer/prosumer DSLR bodies: because camera body technology changes quickly, Canon/Nikon offerings leapfrog each other every year. Which company offers a better camera depends on which company at that moment just released a brand new camera. When Nikon's D90 first came out, it ruled its category for over a year. Since then, Canon's came out with the T1i and T2i that has considerably narrowed the gap, if not leapfrogged the D90 in certain categories. So at this moment in time, Canon is "better" because the T2i is a 3 month old design, and the D90 is a 2 year old design. But when D90 gets replaced by its successor, Nikon will be "better" once again. Recommendation: I think beginner DSLR users will be happy with either Canon or Nikon. In fact, I think a lot of it comes down to brand perception and whether their friends use Nikon or Canon. I usually recommend the brand he/she's most comfortable with, or (if the user is brand agnostic) the company that just released a brand new camera in the targeted price range, so the user can ride the product cycle for as long as possible. Professional DSLR bodies/lenses: there's a much longer answer for this category, and it doesn't seem like this is within the scope of the question. For the sake of completeness, I'll include short recommendations with no explanations here. It depends if the user: shoots sports photography (Nikon D3s) shoots wedding photography (Canon 5D Mk-II) shoots fashion/studio photography (Nikon D3x) shoots wildwife photography (Nikon D3s) shoots a lot of video (Canon 5D Mk-II) needs a robust lineup of fast and sharp prime lenses (Canon) needs tack sharp and accurate focus that tracks moving objects (Nikon) needs affordable high megapixel images (Canon 5D Mk-II) needs decent pro-level f/4 zooms (Canon) needs sharp ultra-wide angle focal length (Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8) needs good quality at very high ISOs (Nikon D700/D3s) Disclaimer: I used to own a Nikon D90 but I recently purchased a D700 and use it full-time. I've played with the 5D Mk-II.

I agree with everything everyone has said- just would add a few points as a person who switched to Nikon from Canon. Both are great, and if you have a substantial investment in lenses, switching systems wouldn't be worthwhile.  Canon seems to have an edge in full frame DSLR's, the 5D Mark II in particular appearing to be in a class of its own for its combination of video and still capability. Canon seems to be more shrewd in terms of their product offering and segmentation- each progression in the model sequence has a clear benefit over the lower model.  This was what frustrated me a few years ago, when I had a first generation Digital Rebel that had its spot meter and extra AF modes disabled in software so as not to compete with the higher end models.  Fortunately for camera lovers everywhere, the Nikon D70, which cannibalized sales of the higher end D100 by offering a better camera at a lower price, forced Canon to enable more cameras on their consumer line.  (also, some enterprising russians created a bootleg firmware update that restored some functionality) I switched to Nikon because their midrange offerings tend to offer the best technology with little regard for product segmentation- for instance, the D90 has a glass prism whereas Canon doesn't have any rebels that use a glass prism instead of a mirror-based one, resulting in a dimmer and smaller viewfinder.  This is a clear differentiator between Canon's rebels and their higher end cameras. Also, since Nikon makes more cropped-sensor cameras, there are more DX lenses than EF-S ones.Options like the Nikon 30/1.8 DX AF-S for $200 are unmatched by anything Canon has in that price range.  Overall, I think Nikon tries to do the best they can at each price point, whereas Canon seems to hold back a bit.  Canon probably has better technology, as they're pretty much the only player that makes both the silicon and the glass. Seriously though, you really can't go wrong with either system. For compact cameras, avoid Nikon.  Nikon makes terrible compact cameras- this is where Canon's prowess with electronics really shows.  Canon makes great point and shoots, and the S90 is a good camera that you can take everywhere without the bulk of an SLR. 

Agree with most of the stuff that's already been said. I'll add a few things, and make a few corrections: * I agree that even today, Canon makes the best P&S's, and that Nikon is a bit behind. But they used to be behind, A LOT, and today, they've made a lot of progress. Take a closer look at today's P&S's by Nikon and you may like a few. That said, Canon P&S's are my favorite. * On DSLR's, they really are both amazing tools. Today, Canon has the edge with the 5DmkII, where Nikon doesn't have an answer for it. The D700 isn't as good, and neither does it shoot full HD movies, like the 5DmkII. The Nikon D3s is better than the 5DmkII, but costs 2X ($5000 MSRP). So for the mid-range DSLR's, today, Canon has the edge. Nikon will catch up soon, and be in the lead, and then Canon will release something new, and this will keep going forever :-) * Nikon has 1 major advantage, IMO, over Canon, and that's their implementation of auto-ISO. When you set it correctly, Nikon DSLR's can be totally brain-dead to operate, and you will get amazing images, indoor or outdoor. The camera will set the ISO automatically, and will only increase it as much as it needs to, to get the image. Further, if the the strobe (flash) can't reach far enough, the ISO will be increased. Lastly, when using bounce-flash, again, if the power from the strobe isn't going to reach, the ISO will be increased. So you really just need to point and shoot, and the camera does everything for you. Yes, Canon can do it too, but it doesn't do nearly as good of a job with it. * Canon has the upper hand with more lens offerings. Their L lenses are amazing, but cost a lost of money. If you're looking to just get into DSLR's, take a look at the new segment of hybrids. These are smaller than DSLR's, but have the same image quality, yet, are more convenient to carry. My favorite is the new SONY NEX-5. It shoots full panoramas that are automatically stitched in the camera, shoots full 1080p HD video, you can swap lenses, it can shoot in low-light, etc...

I think the only definitive answer to this question that will stand the test of time is the one Rob gave in the end, which is that for the vast majority of users the differences aren't meaningful. The reason it is so hard to give concrete answers is that the technology is rapidly developing, so things change, and at the same time both companies are working towards well established goals, which aren't likely to change. At different times, there is a very different answer depending on the metric you care most about. Nikon had better lenses for a long time (since they started out in optics), but I think Canon has closed the gap and made it essentially a dead heat by now with each having a few lenses better than the other depending on the category. Canon had better electronics for a long time, including better performing sensors with better color reproduction. This flipped recently and Nikon took the lead for a few generations. Currently, I would say Canon has the edge especially with their superior performance in video. I would be willing to bet Nikon retakes the lead later this year and so on and so forth. Even on cost of ownership, the two don't appreciably differ in the limit. My advice is to go to a store and check out the latest models of each. Whichever feels more natural or more appealing to you, go for it and stick with it the rest of your career. For me, it was Nikon. For someone else, Canon. I don't really think it matters.

Very difficult question to answer, and a very complex answer even if there is an answer. First up, ill declare that i am a Nikon owner and thus, might have a biased opinion. But, ill try to be as unbiased as possible. I will state the differences of Nikon and Canon point wise. They are- 1. Graphical Interface I strongly feel Nikon GUI helps a user understand the concepts aperture, shutter better. The below image shows that. For the aperture interface, it can be seen how easily a user can understand just by looking that 5.6 implies the aperture is quite wide open. Canon still sticks to its age old user interface and hasn't upgraded. 2. Hardware I found that especially in amateur and intermediate SLR's, the hardware that Canon provides isn't that great and update as fast as Nikon is updating. I have a D5200 with me and i will consider that as an example. i. My camera has a 39 point based auto focusing system, which no Canon camera even in a slightly higher price range provides. ii. My camera has a 2046 pixel based metering system, which is very high as compared to that in Canon models. Metering is solely responsible for the Auto functionalities in a SLR. So, the Auto modes and the priority modes suffer if metering system is not proper. iii. Nikon cameras are providing higher pixels, mine being 24.1MP which is more than that in most Canon cameras. iv. The sensor quality is way better in Nikon than in Canon models. My D5200 sensor fares better than even a Canon 70D with respect to the quality of the image, which is a far costlier camera. The details regarding this is provided in the below link: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Ratings Many such surveys suggest the same. v. Not to mention the constant updates Nikon are providing to the range of their cameras. In a span of months, Nikon updated their D3200, D5200 and D7000 cameras which is quite impressive. Regular updates means faster processor and latest software, and thus meaning faster shooting. Having said all this, i found the video quality of Nikon to be quite poor. My cameras focus in video mode is pretty slow (I dont use video mode ever though, so no complains there) and ive heard and seen Canon cameras to perform great in Video shooting. Im not sure the reason why though. So all those video shooters out there, Canon is the way to go. But generally, for all photographers alike, i think Nikon is a better choice looking at all things overall.

They're both good and both companies have been leap-frogging each other for decades. Canon has a slight edge when it comes to pro-sumer and professional grade bodies and lenses I believe. In terms of which company is doing better, I recently read a statistic that shows Nikon has been gradually losing more and more market share to Canon, on top of what it's already lost. Currently Canon has 44.5% of the market as opposed to Nikon's to 29.8%. It also really depends on what lenses you have invested in. If you have thousands of dollars, or even tens of thousands of dollars invested in lenses, switching brands is out of the question without losing a lot of money and dealing with the hassle of selling your lenses to buy the other brand's.

Well according to me, Canon is "Jack of all trades, master of none" whereas Nikon is built only for photographers. Canon always focus on ease of photography whereas Nikon focus on quality of photography for e.g. Canon was  >>>first to provide back button focus, >>>Hybrid auto focus for better live view auto focus >>>first to provide dual pixel technology helps in faster LIVE VIEW auto focus, >>>first to introduce vari angle LCD + touchscreen monitor in DSLR and >>>wifi for remote shooting and controlling. >>>STM lens for noise free auto focus, good for videography >>> EF,EF-S, EF-M lens specifically designed for full frame, crop frame and mirrorless camera. >>> Large buffer for more photo burst and faster clicks. >>> more choices for beginners 1200D cheapest or 100D smallest or 650D for accessibility compare to D3300 or D5300 >>>Cheaper and more variety of lenses in DSLR only >>> Free photography sessions Whereas Nikon gives you larger sensor with more pixels >>> upto 36 MP compare to 22MP of Canon, >>> 22.2×14.8 of canon compare to 23.7×15.8 nikon i.e. upto 14% more area on sensor >>> no anti-aliasing filter or low pass filter in Nikon for more sharper image >>>All lenses for all nikon cameras no difference >>> More variety of lenses for mirrorless also >>> Better build quality >>> some confusion in buttons like Auto focus switch is on both lens and body

When you're focussing manually, Canon and Nikon SLR  lenses have to be turned in opposite directions.  At one point this was a major problem for would-be switchers with ingrained habits. One famous newspaper photographer had to switch back to Nikon, because he just couldn't get used to the change. With the increasing popularity of auto-focus though,  it's not regarded as such a big problem these days.

I am currently a Canon DSLR user, but have a bit of experience with a Nikon as well, and this to me is what seemed significantly different: 1. If what you're looking for is a point-and-shoot camera, both have great choices, pick one in your price range with good reviews and you're good But if you're going a DSLR then; 2. If you're going to shoot mostly in JPEG (images that are processed for you by the camera) and not in RAW (unprocessed images requiring you to edit them using software such as Adobe Lightroom) then I would recommend a Canon. It has more vibrant and pleasing images from the get go, whereas Nikon's lack some sharpness and are a bit dull in JPEG. If you're going to shoot in RAW that difference can be virtually eliminated when you edit your images. 2. If  you're going to be doing lots of low-light photography then I'd recommend the Nikon, it has a slightly bigger sensor and a better one when it comes to taking clear pictures even at higher ISO levels that produce grainy pictures wit the Canon. This difference is much less noticeable when you move to more expensive models. At the professional level price-point the difference I think is non-existent. 3. If you're going to be doing lots videography then I'd say the Canon is better because of better controls. 4. Ergonomics wise Canon has a better layout, though I think think this should sway anyone as what's important is knowing your camera, and no matter the Ergonomics if you don't use it regularly you won't be able to make the most of your camera's features. Both cameras are of good quality with a wide lens range, and other manufacturers make lenses for them, so you won't be without if you have the money to spend. Hope this helps. :-)