should I switch from Canon to Nikon?

I currently have a 20D, a kit lens, and a 50 f/1.8. I want to get it out of the way and say that I am 16,

and that I'm serious about photograph. This wouldn't just be a toy, but rather a tool for a serious

hobby. So anyway, I'm leap year, and my real birthday is coming up soon. My parents said they might

be able to get me an hdtv for my room. I've been thinking lately, though, that something for

photography would be smarter. I've been very hesitant to buy any glass for myself, because there's

been a nagging question at the back of my mind. Should I switch? I didn't want to invest in a lot of

glass and then realize 2 years down the road that I want to switch, and not have the money to. I'd

rather switch and have to rebuy a 70 dollar 50 prime than have to rebuy a substantial investment in

glass. I feel like it's been holding me back from doing what I want to do.

 

My initial impression was to buy Nikon back when I was searching for my first DSLR. I had decided on

teh D70, but then I started wanting to do sports photography, not realizing how much it would cost,

and that I really don't like it that much anyway. I wanted to use the two FD primes I already have (which

look like crap with the adapter I had to buy for it, so it didn't matter anyway). I was also persuaded by

the fact that the lenses had an "L" label, since I was younger and more...dumb. So I bought the 20D,

solely for it's 5 Fps, and Canon's advantage in low light performance.

 

Now I feel like I'd be happier if I switched and bought glass for a nikon mount. Ergonomics are

important to me, and I like the auto ISO on Nikons. I like how the zoom rings and focus rings would be

uniform with those on 3rd party lenses. The 18-200 VR looks really nice. I'd be losing the potential to

buy the 10-22, but I'm sure the Sigma 10-22 and the 12-24 Nikkor are just as good. I've been pissed

at the consistent green tint coming out of my 20D that I always have to adjust for in lightroom, and

focusing issues galore. I wish canon would come out with an 18-200. I've been angry with canon for

focusing far too much on their Pro glass. It seems like my only option for a walkaround is the 17-85IS,

or the outrageously expensive 17-55IS, that I couldn't even use on a future camera if I ever decided to

upgrade (I like Nikon's idea on handling DX lenses on a FF body, it's pretty nice.) I feel like Canon

wants you to think in FF even if you're on an aps-c body, even if its inconvenient. It doesn't seem like

they want to come out with a good 1.6 crop lens, but rather you to buy 3 different L series 35mm frame

lenses to do the same thing that 1 digital lens would do. Plus, I feel like Nikon's consumer glass is just

better than Canon's comparable stuff. I feel like their consumer glass is crap. Do you get this

impression? Some of this is just my feelings rather than hard fact, but it feels like Canon only wants

you to buy one lens, and then think about the next lens until you have an L, without actually taking

pictures. I feel like it's a waste to buy into the canon brand to only buy 3rd party glass that fits my

needs better than any of Canon's offerings.

 

On top of that, I'm trying to start a photo club at school. My friends have Nikon DSLRs, so it would be

helpful to be able to use each other's lenses interchangeably (and I've always liked the feel of my

friend's cameras). I always thought Nikon's looked more aesthetically pleasing too, but that's not

something to base a purchase decision on.

 

If I got a D80, it would be smaller than my 20D, so I guess I'd have to adjust to that. I have 400 dollars

saved, and I figure I can get about 500-600 off of ebay for the 20D, maybe a touch more if I include

the 50 and the extra battery I have. but I think that's kind of counterproductive, considering I said I

wanted to stop holding myself back from doing what I love. Maybe I could give the money from the

20D to my parents for a d300, and spend the remainder of my savings on glass, like a Tamron 17-50

f/2.8? Otherwise I could wait for the successor to the D80.

 

So should I switch? Are there any downsides to Nikon that I'm not aware of? Alot of the reason that I

bought into canon was that people seemed to love them so much. Does canon really have a larger user

base, or are canon users more likely to go on forums and talk about lenses? Is canon still leaps and

bounds above nikon in noise and low light performance? Are there any other concerns? What are your

personal opinions? What do you think that I should do?

 

Thanks for your help in advance; I know that was a bit long :)

No, you should not switch. Canon makes fine cameras and are every bit Nikon's equal. You already own some Canon glass just stick with it. Let me tell you a secret, the camera does NOT matter. It's the person holding the camera that makes the difference.

I now own both. I'm a devoted Nikon finatic, but I needed some faster lenses for fashion work I do, so I bought a Canon. If you're not planning to drop a minimum of $1400 each on numerous lenses, there's probably not a good reason to switch. The bottom line is what do you need to take the photos you want to take. They're just tools, despite all the glitzy advertising.

If you indeed have a lot of friends who all use Nikon equipment, that seems to be a good enough reason to switch. But don't expect miracles; both brands have plenty of good cameras and lenses, especially at the consumer/prosumer level. It is unlikely that your images will improve based on camera brand alone. And it will be somewhat costly to switch.

if i were to stay with canon, i could always get glass for my birthday, or just buy the tamron

with my money and have that nice hdtv :) I won't be able to use my friends' lenses, but to be

honest, they're not any better than what I have. I hate the fact that I get softer images right

out of camera, but I guess I'll have to high pass sharpen everything with Photoshop. That's life

I guess.

 

I think what was worrying me most about staying with Canon is that I'm going to be buying all

these lenses designed for aps-c sized sensors, and then in the future when i decide to buy a

new camera, I'm going to be screwed. Nikon's option using only the center of the sensor

looked nice, as did all the knobs and things on the D300. The final image obviously is more

important, but I felt like the road getting there could be a little less rocky. I just wish I had

some more $ so I could afford to make some purchase mistakes.

 

So you think I should just drop some money on a new lens and not look back?

No (uless you just want to).

 

I have both and will not make a total switch again (already done that once from Nikon film to Canon digital).

 

If I were you, I would get glass or the 5d.

 

OTOH, I love the Nikon ergonomics and the later bodies are much better on ISO than they were.

<i>"I think what was worrying me most about staying with Canon is that I'm going to be buying all these lenses designed for aps-c sized sensors, and then in the future when i decide to buy a new camera, I'm going to be screwed."</i>

<p>

If you buy EF lenses instead of EF-S lenses this won't be an issue. It's only the EF-S lenses that are specific to some of the 1.6 crop factor bodies.

My 2 cents. Step 1 in switching is stop blaming the equipment for its limitation. It is only then you can have a clear head and buy the right equipment for the next step :-)

@richard

well as i previously said, there aren't any ef lenses that suit my needs.

You find me a 17-85IS EF equivalent and I'll eat my words.

I could get a 28-135IS and a 10-22, but that would be twice the price

i'll just have to buy all over again is all

i'll deal with that I guess.

10-22, tammy 17-50, and maybe an 85 prime or a 70-x00 zoom, maybe the f/4L once i get

the funds

 

then i'll replace the 17-50 with a 24-105 or a 24-70 if I ever go full

or something like that.

Since you don't have much invested switch if you like the feel of the Nikon better. Each time I thought about buying a film Canon I picked up the equivalent Nikon and liked it better. I was tempted to switch for the better noise characteristics of the Canon, but stuck with a D100 because I had Nikon lenses. I'm now glad I waited as the D300 has the best of both worlds.

 

I would get a decent body and put the rest of your money into glass. Get a D300 if you can afford it and a good lens or two. If that is too much go for a used D200 or D80 and good glass.

Switching from Canon to Nikon or vice versa won't result in better pictures. It will deplete your pocketbook, however.

i might not say much since everyone has said it. The Canon vs Nikon is a very heated debate. I chose Nikon for ergonomics and the fact that their lenses are a bit cheaper and high quality.

 

But outside that, they are as good as they can be. Is like saying Mercury Grand Marquis or Lincoln Town Car. They are both the same darn thing, with the exception of extra things from one to another. But none the less the same.

 

I used to shoot with a canon point and shoot and i could get the same results as my Nikon D80. If glass is your worry, as i said in my profile, it wasn't Picasso's brushes that made him famous, or Santana's guitar. Its the way they use the tools. Santana can play the same thing in ANY guitar as Picasso was able to use any bush and canvas and come up with something THAT HE LIKED.

 

Canon is very comercial, in fact people tell me that it might go out of business some day. But Nikon is a very reputable glass makes. They make mircoscopes, glasses that you wear, nano crystals for other optical solutions. And Canon does but mostly imaging, so don't worry.

 

If you like Nikon, and want one you can get and extra one and have both. Then you can explore both and decide. But if i was you, and want high FPS get the D300, that thing is beast to tackle anything. and you can use old Nikkor lenses on the new bodies too and with canon you cant if the are before the 80s. But it is you that makes the picture not the camera despite what you hear, been there done that. So just follow what you want more comfortable using and that will learn how to use all the features to help you produce the best results.

 

there is no loosing which ever you choose

 

Herman Jr

It sounds like you WANT to switch from C to N and you have some fairly good reasons, the need for a lens like 18-200, friends with Nikon lenses, wish for sharper results/less PP. I suggest you switch now before getting too involved in the Canon system, harder to justify a switch then. But don't make the mistake of thinking it will make you a better photographer. It just sounds like the tools Nikon has are more suited to you. Bob.

If you're going to make the switch, don't do it for a lens like the 18-200. Although it's a decent lens, it's certainly not one of Nikon's best.

 

Frankly, if you were to compare the images from the same class of Canon and Nikon bodies and lenses, you'd be hard pressed to see a difference. As has already been said, it's the person behind the camera that makes the biggest difference in image quality.

 

I've been a Nikon shooter going on 40 years and chose Nikon for digital as I had legacy lenses to use. I could just as easily have decided on Canon otherwise. There is very little difference in quality between equal bodies/lenses.

 

What I'd suggest doing is going to a camera shop that sells both brands and get your hands on the two competing models. Whichever feels better to you is the one that you should probably choose.

 

Personally, if I had a Canon 20D, I'd just save up some money and upgrade my lenses. Other than for some improvement in high ISO performance, the newer Canons and Nikons are not that much better than a 20D.

 

Switching back and forth between brands can only guaranty you an empty wallet with little to show for it.

Greg Palermo wrote:

<br>> I like how the zoom rings and focus rings would be uniform

<br>> with those on 3rd party lenses.

<br>

<br>That really depends on which 3rd party lens you're looking at. My Sigma 18-50/2.8 zooms in the opposite direction as my Nikon and Tokina zooms.

<br>

<br>> The 18-200 VR looks really nice. I'd be losing the potential

<br>> to buy the 10-22, but I'm sure the Sigma 10-22 and the 12-24

<br>> Nikkor are just as good.

<br>

<br>There's also the Tokina 12-24/4 and Tokina 11-16/2.8.

<br>

<br>[snip]

<br>> for in lightroom, and focusing issues galore. I wish canon

<br>> would come out with an 18-200. I've been angry with canon

<br>> for focusing far too much on their Pro glass. It seems like

<br>> my only option for a walkaround is the 17-85IS, or the

<br>> outrageously expensive 17-55IS, that I couldn't even use on

<br>

<br>Well, there's the Sigma 18-200 OS lens that'll work on your Canon.

<br>

<br>[snip]

<br>> do the same thing that 1 digital lens would do. Plus, I feel

<br>> like Nikon's consumer glass is just better than Canon's

<br>> comparable stuff. I feel like their consumer glass is crap.

<br>> Do you get this impression?

<br>

<br>I don't own any Canon gear but I'd be quite surprised if all their consumer glass was "crap." Can that many happy Canon users be so mislead?

<br>

<br>> Some of this is just my feelings

<br>> rather than hard fact, but it feels like Canon only wants

<br>> you to buy one lens, and then think about the next lens

<br>> until you have an L, without actually taking pictures. I

<br>> feel like it's a waste to buy into the canon brand to only

<br>> buy 3rd party glass that fits my needs better than any of

<br>> Canon's offerings.

<br>

<br>Some Nikon owners complain that Nikon doesn't have a high quality mid-range level like Canon's f/4 range of lenses. They say that Nikon only has low-end and high-end with nothing inbetween. Might be a case of the grass being greener in the neighbour's yard...that might be your problem, too. ;-)

<br>

<br>But if you've got clearly defined lens desires and Nikon currently satisfies them, then that's a legit reason for switching.

<br>

<br>> On top of that, I'm trying to start a photo club at school.

<br>> My friends have Nikon DSLRs, so it would be helpful to be

<br>> able to use each other's lenses interchangeably

<br>

<br>Oh boy, I wouldn't get involved in something like that. Can you reimburse your friend if you drop their $1000 lens, and vice versa?

<br>

<br>> If I got a D80, it would be smaller than my 20D, so I guess

<br>> I'd have to adjust to that. I have 400 dollars saved, and I

<br>> figure I can get about 500-600 off of ebay for the 20D,

<br>> maybe a touch more if I include the 50 and the extra battery

<br>> I have. but I think that's kind of counterproductive,

<br>> considering I said I wanted to stop holding myself back from

<br>> doing what I love. Maybe I could give the money from the 20D

<br>> to my parents for a d300, and spend the remainder of my

<br>> savings on glass, like a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8? Otherwise I

<br>> could wait for the successor to the D80.

<br>

<br>The D300 is an awesome camera but if it came to the D300 + 17-50/2.8 and a D80 + 17-50/2.8 + Tokina 12-24/4 + SB800, I'd opt for the latter *unless* I was going to be doing a lot of low-light shooting.

<br>

<br>> So should I switch? Are there any downsides to Nikon that

<br>> I'm not aware of?

<br>

<br>Make sure the lens selection meets your requirements. Given your budget, I would wait to buy the successor to the D90 because it will very likely have the same sensor as the D300, which is absolutely fantastic for low light. I shoot at ISO3200 often and love the results.

<br>

<br>> Alot of the reason that I bought into

<br>> canon was that people seemed to love them so much. Does

<br>> canon really have a larger user base, or are canon users

<br>> more likely to go on forums and talk about lenses?

<br>

<br>I'd assume Canon has a larger user base. How large a user base do you need when deciding?

<br>

<br>> Is canon still leaps and bounds above nikon in noise and low

<br>> light performance?

<br>

<br>With the high-end cameras, not at all. With the mid-range (D80 vs 40D), I'd say yes, although not "leaps and bounds." Low-end? Hard to say since I haven't seen tests of the new entry level Canon.

<br>

<br>> Are there any other concerns? What are your

<br>> personal opinions? What do you think that I should do?

<br>

<br>Nikon has the better flash system, imo. Canon has a greater variety of IS-equipped lenses. For high ISO shooting, the 40D is a better camera than the D80. My guess would be by about 1 to 1.5 stops based on my experience with a D40. I would expect the Nikon D80's successor to match the 40D.

<br>

<br>Read this for advice on a beginner system:

<br>http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/08/chips-glass-and-light-assembling.html

<br>

<br>You really can't go wrong with either brand unless you have some very particular requirements that one brands serves better than the other.

<br>

<br>larsbc

Yes, go ahead and switch. While you're at it ask your parents for the hdtv also. Life is about getting all you can out, get it while you can...you only have doting parents for so long...;)

just making sure... since it seems this way... Canon dslrs do require more PP than a nikon

because of the stronger AA filters correct?

 

It seems like my friend's out of camera pictures are much sharper than mine. Originally I

thought the nikon kit was just a better quality lens, but it even occurs with the 50 f/1.8.

Could it be more of a focusing issue (front/back focus)?

 

I think I'll just stay with Canon, maybe buy the 17-50 and the sigma 50-150 2.8 or

something similar, or even that birthday money on a 24-105L. Whoever said about

Nikon's lack of a midrange of f/4 lenses is absolutely right; that's exactly what I meant

when I requested potential downsides I had overlooked or didn't notice. A middle of the

road is important to me, so I think I'll just stay with Canon, as long as I can figure out how

to do away with the softness issue.

 

I take it, the lines aren't distinct. I sharpen it in photoshop. Perfect. I upload it to flickr, it

oversharpens it. Ugh.