Have you moved from Nikon to Canon?

Hi,

 

I'm contemplating moving fom Nikon (25 yr owner) to Canon, and am interested

the the reasons why others have done this. To put this in context, I'd call

myself a high-end amature user. I say "high-end" because I place a very high

value on image quality and equipment quality. I'll typically wait to buy until

I can buy the best that's available. My conerns are twofold:

 

1) I think Nikon is falling further and futher behind on their bodies. I was

waiting for the D3xx with full intents of getting the D3 (not the D300), but I

m very dissappointed in the low MP count. I love everything else in the

camera, but I can't see going full frame with only 12MP, especially when Canon

is at 21MP. I also view the D3 as a step backwards in DX mode (APC frame size

with 1.5x magnification factor) from the camera I already have (D200). I was

OK with Nikon lagging 6 mo to a year behind Canon, but I'm really concerned

that it's not just a lag, but a growing gap.

 

2) That said, everything I see suggests that Nikon still has the edge on the

optical quality of their lenses. Yes, they lag on adding image stabilization,

but have it now on the big lenses which is where I care the most about it. One

example of a difference in optical quality is on the 70-200 f2.8. I've got the

Nikon, the results are spectacular, and other people's reviews are consistently

high. One the other hand, lots of people love the Canon, but a number of

people have complained about the resolution, and lab tests do indeed show a

marked difference favoring the Nikon. In looking at other tests, this

difference is pretty consistent.

 

So, I'd love to hear from high-end users who have made the switch. I'm not

interested in a Nikon/Canon rant sessions, just objective experience from

people who have used both.

 

Many thanks in advance,

 

Peter

I switched to Canon from Nikon after being a Nikon user for over 30 years. This was when I went fully digital from film use. To me Canon had the better lens design (no screw drive focus and mechanical pins and levers - Canon is all electronic), better sensor design (I have a full frame 5D), and better flash (although now Nikon also has wireless auto TTL flash I believe). To me Nikon wasn't keeping up with technology. I think Nikon is holding on to their lens mount design way too long (Canon changed a number of years ago from their FL or FD mount to the new EF mount). Nikons rationale is that you can use a 30 year old Nikkor on the latest body. I don't know how many people this applies to as I was always gradually upgrading my Nikon lens collection to the latest improved designs. Plus you would then have a new body with a lens that wouldn't auto-focus and many of the metering functions wouldn't work (if at all in some cases). I switched to Canon and have had no regrets.

I actually recently decided to switch from Canon to Nikon. I find Nikon lenses to be fantastic and MP isn't everything - resolution means a lot, as does low-light performance, to me. If a 12mp aps-c sensor performs better in low-light than a 21mp full-frame (or any size for that matter), I'd rather go with it. Just my opinion.

I shot Nikon's for over 25 years with exceptional results using slide film. However, once the decision was made to go digital, I sold all except an F90 and 60mm macro lens. I even had the D100 for a short time.

 

One of the main considerations for me was noice levels at high ISO's. Originally, I had my heart set on the Nikon D200. I shoot both of my son's ice hockey games in low light conditions at arenas. After many hands-on experimentations with various camera stores between the D200 and the Canon 30D, the decision was made. Identical focal lengths with high-end lenses were used and it seemed to me that every image above ISO 800 was far superior with the Canon.

 

I haven't looked back since. I find the Canon "L" lenses to be exceptional quality and never feel as if I am missing anything with my former Nikkors.

 

Of course, you will have to look at the complete system and make a decision from there.

This is just the feedback I'm looking for - thanks and keep it coming..

 

My primary focus is on nature, outdoors, wildlife, and macro. I also shoot occationals sports for my kids. Low light performance is nice, but not critical to me. In theory, Nikon's new models are a big step forward on that front.

 

Frames per second is nice, but not a make it or break it.

 

What I care about most is that a picture of a landscape or of a bird is crystal clear and sharp as a tack. Much of this is accomplished by technique, which I am always working to improve, but much is the equipment. With film it was all about the lens and the body was much less important (I used an FM and later F3's). Now with digital the body is at least as important as the lens.

 

I'd like to ultimately move to FF so I can get back the super-wide angle perspective, and to improve low light performance (nice, but not critical). But to me a FF sensor needs to have proportionally more pixels than a DX sensor, or I'm compromising image resolution.

Bodies are always improving. Nikon is finally back in the game now, and will no doubt make future improvements, as will Canon. What you should look at are the lens systems, flash systems, and prices of such, and decide what suits you best for your particular preferences. If Nikon has a good enough selection of lenses for what you shoot, and you are not put off by their higher lens prices, I see no reason to switch to Canon, as Nikon digitals will take your current lenses (as will Canons, with an adapter).

 

Personally, I would really like to shoot Nikon just for the D3, for the auto flashes, and for the ultimate in lens compatibility. On specs alone, if I were to get a D3, I don't see myself ever wanting another digital body, as long as the high ISOs are clean. However, Canon has several lenses available which are sort of making this a hard thought to actually want to go through with. For instance, the 24mm 1.4, the 35mm 1.4, the 50mm 1.2 (and 1.0 maybe some day), the 85mm 1.2, and the 24mm T/S. 1/2 stop does make a difference to me in the 50mm and 85mm lenses, and Nikon doesn't even have anything close to the 24 and the 35. Not to mention that their lenses, especially the teles, are a whole lot cheaper than the Nikon equivalents. Will Nikon develop these competitive super-fast primes? I doubt it...

 

But that is an issue for the way I shoot. May not be the case for you. If you are only going to use zooms, I'd stick with Nikon, as both companies have comparable products.

 

Keith

With the next set of bodies (D3,D300,D3x?), I think nikon is going to leap frog canon

somewhat. However, if you'll only be satisified by the 21mp of the 1ds Mark III there's

nothing in the nikon camp that can compare for the near future.

 

A high res, D3x body is almost certainly going to be released to challenge the 1ds3 m3

but that won't be for several months or longer. If you get the m3 now, you'll have that long

a time period where all your pictures are 21mp instead of 12.

 

If and when nikon releases a superior body, you can always switch back. Of course, this

strategy depends on how much money you have, how many lenses you need, and your

ability to sell on ebay. Personally, I've noticed that with popular lenses such as the 12-24,

you can sell them for very little loss compared to new.

 

Regarding lens comparisons, I'm very skeptical of evidence I see on the net about which

manufacturer's lenses are better or worse. Often most reviewers look at just a single

sample and there is no measurement of variability or of manufacturing dates. If you are

this concerned, I would rent or borrow a friends canon and see for yourself.

"My name is JDM and I'm a Nikonian. I haven't used a Nikon in four years."

 

I had earlier Nikons and non-AI lenses, so my lens investment was worth zilch on the newer Nikon digital cameras. I went to Canon, despite having mercilessly ribbed my Canon-using friends in former years. It was a tough psychological break, but then, and now, it seems to me that Nikon just became satisfied with their control of the professional market and stopped being the innovator driving the market. By grasping the nettle firmly, the introduction of the EOS cameras set Canon on the path toward their eventual dominance of the market, both professional and amateur. Look how long it took Nikon to respond to the Image Stabilization feature. Only now, are they getting their ducks in a row on that. Furthermore, notwithstanding the premium for L lenses (but isn't it nice to know that they are there if you can afford them?), Canon provides a very nice set of excellent affordable lenses, many of them with IS on them.

 

And to top it all off, all my old non-AI lenses work beautifully on my two Canon bodies with inexpensive adapters. Thus, with only the 'inconvenience' of MF, my f/1.2 and PC Nikkors work jes' fine. If you want to play around with old M42, or most other old-type lens mount lenses, adapters are available. Even the newer lenses work in manual mode. Here's a recent photo taken at Edfu with the latest Nikon fisheye which I borrowed for a few moments.

 

Actually, I have discovered that I don't have to do total abstinence from Nikon, so I still shoot my old Nikon equipment with film and actually have even bought some new, old Nikon lenses for both my Nikons and Canons. It is possible to Nikon socially.<div></div>

A few years ago I swirched from Nikon AI manual focus film gear to Canon EF autofocus digital. However when I wanted top quality in film work I used 4x5 or MF. I chose Canon mostly on the cost of the body and lenses as Nikon were more expensive. Today I look enviously at Nikon's lens quality especially at the wide end as on balance they seem to have the edge here. However I have got used to the Canon 5D full frame body and can't see anything in the Nikon line up that I would want to swap it for. But if Nikon made a body that was competitive I would seriously think of returning to them. I agree with Stephen that the cost of swapping back is not as high as you might think if you use ebay as good quality lenses retain a high second hand value.

Rumor has it that Nikon will introduce a 24 MPixel body in a few months. They've already proven they can manufacture a proper FF sensor, there's no reason to think they can't cram a few more pixels on it. Six months, say?

 

Your second point doesn't have much basis. Canon has a much broader base customer base than Nikon, with the same or greater portion of complainers. While the Nikon 70-200/2.8 is an excellent bit of kit, the Canon version is just as good. All five Canon versions.

 

The resolution chart numbers have more to do with the AA filter covering the sensor than any inherent difference in lens quality. By numbers alone, Pentax mops the floor with both Canon and Nikon.

 

DI

I switched from Nikon to Canon when the EOS3 was first introduced. I had been thinking about switching for some time.

 

Though both make excellent glass (I do prefer Canon glass though) I was more interested (at first) at better ergonomics. I really feel comfortable with the EOS system bodies. Everything falls under my fingers and is very intuitive to use.

I used Nikons from 1973 until 1999. Fifteen plus years of that was shooting for a daily newspaper, some of it was freelance. Nikons were dependable, available everywhere and the lenses were sharp and I was happy with them. As a non-professional, I switched to Canon when I wanted to go to autofocus gear. As a non-professional, I decided I didn't need top-of-the-line cameras that were indestructible and the comparable Canon EOS bodies and lenses were less costly than Nikons so I switched.

 

After almost nine years, I'm satisfied with Canon but have nothing against Nikon and I'm sure I would be just as satisfied with Nikon. People demand more of cameras today than they did in 1973. Some people want the most current technology and feel inferior unless they have cameras with the newest features. They are in a race to keep up with what's new. It's a race they can't win--unless we blow ourselves back into the stone age, there will always be something new in technology. Between Nikon and Canon, the choice is personal preference.

"I was waiting for the D3xx with full intents of getting the D3 (not the D300), but I m very

dissappointed in the low MP count. I love everything else in the camera, but I can't see going

full frame with only 12MP, especially when Canon is at 21MP. "

 

If having only "12MP" is your main reason to switch, methinks you're about to miss the boat.

12MP is plenty for any mere mortal.

"I was waiting for the D3xx with full intents of getting the D3 (not the D300), but I m very dissappointed in the low MP count. I love everything else in the camera, but I can't see going full frame with only 12MP, especially when Canon is at 21MP. "

 

It seems to me that the D3 is the successor to the D2H, and is designed for the fast camera (1D) market. The high resolution model will no doubt follow. It will probably be to the D3 what the D2x is to the D2H.

 

If you want fast primes, you've got to go Canon. Otherwise, I see no reason to switch.

 

Keith

I'm curious to know what test you saw that suggests the Nikon 70-200 out performs the Canon equivalent. I've never read anything but the highest praise for Canon's 70-200 zooms, all of them, and my 70-200 f/4L is my sharpest and most productive lens.

I own Canon personally and shoot Nikon everyday at work. Honesty, Peter, I think you're

thinking about this in the wrong way. Counting megapixels is not a useful way to judge a

DSLR. I've shot extensively with both a 5 MP D1X and 8 MP 20D. At all but ISO 1600

conditions, the D1X makes a nicer file. If you haven't yet, check out tests by Bjorn Rorslett

and Michael Clark. Below ISO 800 the D2x is on par with the 1Ds MkII.

 

Nikon botched the D2H badly and were slow to recover, but they seem to have learned

from that mistake. If it were me, I'd wait a few months and see what the D3 files look like.

before deciding.

 

The thing I hate about Nikon is the mechanically-linked aperture. Drives me nuts to think

a multi-thousand dollar lens relies a crappy little piece of stamped metal and a weak

spring to function properly. On the other hand, Nikon does a nice job of providing a range

of high-spec bodies. Canon forces the buyer to pony up for, and carry, a huge heavy,

expensive 1-series if you want nice build quality and a decent viewfinder. There really is

no Canon-equivalent for the D200 or D300. Construction of the 30D is not of similar

quality.

 

-B

I've been aNikon user for a long time, not as long as most of posters here but still over 15 years.

 

I starts D-SLR with a Canon 20D and liked it. I didn't pick Nikon because I didn't like their plastic case (not enough cash for the D1 and D2 series).

 

I got a D200 when it was realesed and a few ED glasses, including the 18-200 and the 70-200 f2,8.

 

I was a bit disappointed with the noise level so I switched back to Canon with a 30D and a 5D, and a few L lenses.

 

Guess what? When I'm happy with the noise level and the big dial of the Canon, I missed the functionalities of the Nikon system, and the sealings.

 

Believe it or not, for my own experience, Nikon AF system is better than Canon (from my equipments).

 

I also have a 70-200 f2,8L IS and my Nikon 70-200 f2,8 AFS VR performs better, sharper, better bokeh in similar shooting conditions.

 

So Canon or Nikon?

 

I shoot both (30D, 5D and D200).

I also have a few adapters that my Nikon (D versions) lenses can sit on the Canon bodies.

 

I've been in line for a 1D mkIII but the list is too long and from the announcement of new Nikon bodies, I cancelled the order of the 1D mkIII for a D3.

 

I beleive that Nikon, with the use of CMOS, and the first feedbacks, can now compete with Canon in high ISO field.

 

My dream camera? A D3 with a big Canon dial.

 

Btw, the 5D "only" have 12 MP and it is incredibly enough for the quality and details. Higher pixels density would introduce other trade-off.

 

The 1Ds mkIII has the same pixel density as the 20D/30D: if you crop a lot, why not get a 30D? :)

 

Cheers

As some has pointed out, MP is not everything, especially if we're ameteurs. How often are we going to enlarge beyond 16x24? Actually, I'm rather dissapointed with Canon. FF/crop factor aside, comparing Nikon D300 to Canon 5D body, Nikon has a lot of advantages that I envy.

I just sold my Nikon gear and am currently in the process of switching to Canon. They both make great cameras, lenses and accessories there is no doubt. It really becomes a personal choice at this point just as it was with the film cameras. Pixel count is not really everything. Canon, however, is an electronics company and this has become an electronics world (unfortunately sometimes!). To me they will always have an edge on the electronics portion of the cameras and related equipment. Nikon is creating great cameras also, but IMHO are not in the same ballpark. I am glad to see the D3, it is a great camera. This industry needs the camera competition to remain, otherwise no one will continue to improve their cameras.

<i>I've been in line for a 1D mkIII but the list is too long</i><p>I got one in two days through a small professional retail shop. All the lists were too long, but it worked.<p><i> and from the announcement of new Nikon bodies, I cancelled the order of the 1D mkIII for a D3.</i><p>What is Nikon's track record on availability of new bodies. And you cancelled for a new product that isn't even shipping for a few months?<p>Speaking as a photographer rather than an equipment fetishist, I can't see changing unless I have zero investment in something. I could really care less about Nikon vs Canon, and I did make the switch from Nikon to Canon, but I sure care about buying something that I can use now for work to buying something that might be available at the end of the year.

I'm waiting for the Nikon D3x, Then I will switch........... To Canon 7D.

The thing I hate about Nikon is the mechanically-linked aperture."

 

To me, this is one of the strong points of Nikons.

 

"Drives me nuts to think a multi-thousand dollar lens relies a crappy little piece of stamped metal and a weak spring to function properly."

 

True, an electronic backup would be smart, but how can you argue with backward lens compatibility?

 

Also, if I remember correctly, lots of multi-thousand-dollar lenses and cameras have utilized a mechanically triggered aperture. I can think of a few [almost] 40-year-old examples in my house right now that still work perfectly.

 

Keith

I switched from a Nikon FM2 to a Canon 10D. Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages; what I'd really like is a D200/D300 style APS-H body I could put the equivalent of Canon f/4 L and TS-E glass on. I switched to Canon when I went digital because Nikon has no proper equivalent of Canon's f/4 L lens lineup and Canon had better body options at the time. The D30/D60/10D/20D/30D/300D/350D/400D viewfinders all blow compared to the D200, but I'm not willing to incur the cost and weight of a 1 series body since I have a budget and backpack with the camera. Just like I'm not willing to incur the cost and weight of Nikon (or Canon) f/2.8 zooms. While used Nikon lens availability is much higher than Canon's due to the F mount's backward compatibility, used Canon bodies are much easier to find; on balance, Canon came out as the lower cost system for my needs. Some additional advantages Canon has for me are greater IS availability (handy on several day backcountry trips where the weight of a tripod becomes problematic) and the TS-Es, which are more capable than Nikon's PC lenses at much lower cost.

 

To Nikon's credit they've done an excellent job of positioning the D200/300 between the 30/40D and 5D, closing the APS-C sensor performance gap, and backing it up with a decent viewfinder. I have some nostalgia for my 25-50 f/4 and 400 f/3.5 AI-S lenses. But the 25-50 wouldn't be much use on an APS-C body and I find the 300 f/4 IS more useful in practice.

After 23 years with Nikon,I made the Canon switch for their Long IS lenses and inexpensive ultrasonic focus motors in almost all of their lenses. You pay quite a premium for the few Nikons fast focusing "S" lenses. Nikon is a much smaller company so it takes years to see a product become available. Canon came out with their 400mm F5.6 AF lens in the early 90's which is superb for birds in flight. Fourteen years later, Nikon still does not have this type of lens. Their closest lens is the Nikon 70-400 VR lens which has been, and still is, a dog with it's slow AF motor. Nikon's ace in the hole is their 200~400 F4 Nikkor. I had the manual version and still miss its capabilities today. Canon's 100~400 F5.6 lens is an expensive, mediocre performer that acts like a bellows to pull in dust and throw it back on your sensor. The cry to Canon for a F4 200~400 lens has been long and loud. Canon has not been listening. Overall, I am happy with my change over to Canon.

<I>Rumor has it that Nikon will introduce a 24 MPixel body in a few months. They've already proven they can manufacture a proper FF sensor</i><P>

 

To my knowledge, Nikon does not manufacture sensors at all. I believe they have, in the past, relied on Sony for their sensors.<P>

 

Canon, on the other hand, does have its own chip fabrication plant and does manufacture most of its digital camera sensors - with the exception of some digicams.