First time in my life thinking about switch to Nik...

<p>Hey Madza, I have the same attitude before switching to Nikon. Now I think different.</p>

<p><strong>Assumptions and choices</strong></p>

<p>A lot of the comments here assume that Nikon's in the driver's seat right now because some Canon pro/1DIII-users apparently switched to Nikon when the D3 came out so that they could get FF 9fps, while other Canon shooters who want professional-grade bodies more than megapixels find the D700 more appealing than the 5DII.</p>

<p>But what if you're a landscape shooter who likes to make large prints but who uses Nikon and can't spend $8000 on a body? You can't get more than 12mp for under $8000; that's plenty of pixellage for some but not ideal for others.</p>

<p>Thus Nikon faces its own bind: Nikon can [1] let those high-mp-seeking photographers twist in the wind, waiting for used D3x's to fall in price; Nikon can [2] introduce a "D700x" with D3x-like build quality but priced $1000-2000 higher than the competing Canon 5DII; or Nikon can [3] make this "D700x" with a D90-grade body and price it like the 5DII --but then they'll suffer the criticisms heard about the 5DII: that it's not "professional grade." Choice #2 and especially #3 are also likely to seriously cut into the profits from their cash cow, the D3x.</p>

<p>I'm not sure which way is best, but each of the three choices risks losing Nikon shooters to Canon.</p>

<p>Eric, my suggestion is that you are wasting your brain power overanalyzing this stuff, as I see no practical advantage going over to Nikon. All I see is the prospect of you wasting a lot of money. If you really want to change and need affirmation, then go ahead. In that case I suggest you look at the Sony A900 which has a lot going for it - Zeiss AF optics, 20+ MP, professional build.</p>

<p>Hi Eric-I'm a Nikon user and have been for 25 years and love their cameras and lenses but I have to tell you that what Rene' Villela said a few posts back is entirely true. I really like Nikon but I just don't think that you will be any further ahead and,in fact, if you sell your current equipment you'll take a hit financially and be further behind. cb</p>

<p>I'll agree to this quickly: Canon's 50D still leaves me thinking.. Why? WTF was that one all about so soon after the 40D? INSANE the 50D is.</p>

<p>Isn't it good to question your brand from time to time? Hard questions just might make the manufacturers listen and try harder. Brand loyalty shouldn't be blind.<br>

Yes, equipment does not the photographer, make. BUT there is also no substitute for quality tools. One can be creative with any tool, but you will have a much harder time getting precise results with the wrong tool. My instructor in college took beautiful 4x5 neg B&W photographs. He also used the Holga for some very interesting, moody shots. The intents and results were very different. <br>

I bought a Canon 40D and a 70- 200 mm L series lens around a year and a half ago. While my little Olympus C4040 is a great little point and shoot camera, I just couldn't do what I wanted to with it. At least not very well. There's no way I can take the same quality action photograph with that camera that I can with the set up I have now.<br>

With that said, I'm having trouble getting images in focus when tracking. Now, I first put responsibility on myself. I have realized this week that I don't think I sufficiently understand how the Canon AF system works, so I'm doing my homework. But, I've also learned that the Nikon D300 has 45 tracking points to Canon's 9. (If I understood that correctly.) I wonder a little if I didn't make the wrong choice for my level of photography, but I'm hoping the investment I've made in a good lens will allow me to upgrade my body later and hopefully Canon will have risen to the challenge posed by Nikon and made some improvements. </p>

<p>There is a simple answer to this: just buy a used Ds Mark II. You can easily buy one from $2,100 to $2,800 and you'll get a better, faster camera than the 5D with better build than the 5D MarkII. Even if you have to buy two of them, it's a better and cheaper way to go than switching. You're going to spend a fortune on the new glass if you switch.</p>

<p>Bob Atkins wrote:<br>

> ... doing dessert combat photography ...<br>

Dessert combat, do you mean pie in the face? Seems to call for a high fps rate...</p>

<p>Paul Feresten's suggestion of a used 1DsII is an <strong><em>excellent </em> </strong> one for the OP's stated needs (<em>"I don’t need 21mp, I don’t need my camera to shoot video. All I need are: good low light performance, quick and accurate focus, easy and flexible exposure control, good weather seal, good solid metal body for real life battles")</em> .</p>

<p>Definitely a good option, and at less than the 5DII, perhaps the best professional-grade bargain available to Canon shooters right now.</p>

<p>I was momentarily wobbling towards the Nikon D700 and nano-coated Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8, but as I have the EF 24-70 f/2.8 L and bunch of other L-series glass I guess the 5DII is better for me.<br>

There will be a 5DIII or something similar and more SWC-coated L-series optics from Canon before long and then I'd be kicking myself in the rear for changing to Nikon, had such a change been made.<br>

My only qualm about the 5DII is whether prices will go down given the messed-up international monetary system, as I usually can wait for the latest toys for a year or more and only buy a body on a 4-5 yerar interval.</p>

<p>Although I have no intention of getting a new camera soon I have likewise had concerns about the state of canon's lineup. I think its a pity that the 5d mk ii was not closer in features to the D700. I'm not complaining about build quality here since I agree most people don't need it. What I do find missing in the 5d mk 1 and 2 that would be very useful for event, wedding, or low-light photography would be more focus points in the outer part of the frame (say, at the intersection of thirds). Focus and recompose doesn't work when you're shooting low-light at f/1.4 and have no depth of field. Likewise it would be nice to have more fps and less shutter lag so you could take several shots at a low shutter speed in the hope of getting a "decisive moment" or to avoid camera/subject motion. Also its silly that nikon and canon don't have in-body stabilization since this would be nice with short primes. All of these things are actaully important for real low-light event photography. <br>

I always thought it would be useful if canon users made it clear they're interested in something like a 3d or a 7d but from the responses here perhaps that's not the case? <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=834746"><br /> </a></p>

<p>Can you rent a D700 and try it out? That should you give some idea of how it is to use a D700 and Nikon lenses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I get the same brutal answers as you did from some people. In my opinion most of them are blindly attached to Canon, hobysts who don.t understand the needs of a pro. .</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p> Pros don't have all this hand wringing over gear.</p>

<p>Paul...I switched from Nikon...never look back</p>

<p>Blah Blah Blah Blah, <br>

I'm getting tired of all the "Should I or Shouldn't I switch" post. <br>

This is not a life changing issue. <br>

Why are you so emotionally invested? It's a camera!<br>

If you got the money, no problem. You can expense and depreciate the purchase.<br>

I agree with T. Hardy. Stop all this handwringing. It's getting silly</p>

<p>Finally, you are a photographer, a professional photographer.<br>

The camera for a professional is no more than a tool. <br>

You make money producing pictures.<br>

Will switching make you more money?<br>

If it does. Make the switch.</p>

 

<p>When I had my business I once shot an entire wedding with one ETRSi body, a 75mm lens and a Vivitar 283. That included dressing, ceremony, formals, reception and dancing and eating. The operation was almost all manual except exposure. The pictures were as good as I have ever done to this date and made my customer quite happy with the pictures. This is just by way of saying that equipment, features, bells and whistles, megapixels, etc account for a small per centage of the success at a wedding. It is the picture you give the customer. BTW I had all the rest of my gear standing by but never needed it. I am an ex-professional. What that means to me is that with reasonable quality of equipment I was expected to produce a professional product. I have a 5D and I think it is far more adequate to the task than my Bronica was. However, if you think that hair splitting differences in equipment performance are goiing to give you better wedding products I would have to disagree with you. I had a friend who said the "best is the enemy of the good" and the real problem with the best is that buying it cuts into profits.</p>

<p>Switch if you want to but the lens cost to change will hurt. I agree the 5DII is not a pro body (nor was the EOS 3) but it is a very durable camera and is likely to last in professional use until it is obsolete. It does have higher image quality than the 700 and the AF is good enough for most uses (as is 3.9 fps). My big issue with the new digital pro construction bodies is their cost. In the film days I never minded paying it as cameras had a long life. My two New F1s, EOS 1NRS, and two EOS1Vs are still going strong after much abuse. Even though the 1Ds have great build quality the digital body has weak spots (screen, card slot and cable interfaces) and is obsolete within about 2 years. Thus why pay for the "professional build" unless you really need it. To me the main gap in the canon line up is a lower price full frame body for sports use (faster fps and AF). If you wre a sports shooter I could see why the Nikon 700 appeals but for weddings the 5DII (or 5D) are both great cameras. Think about the cost to change - lenses last a very long time but thanks to digital bodies last about 5 years as they tend to become obsolete.</p>

<p>I understand how Eric feels.<br>

I use the 5D Mark 1 and a 40D together with the 17-40, 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 100 2.0, and 24-70.<br>

I love the 5D, but as a part time wedding photographer there were 2 improvements I wanted to see.<br>

1) even better low light performance which it seems they accomplished<br>

2) 1D autofocus<br>

Even with brides slowly walking down the aisle in a low lit church, I have a hard time keeping focus on them with the 5D. Incidentally, I have no problems using the 1D mark 1.<br>

The problem then is that in the Nikon D3 they have a full frame camera with pro level autofocus, awesome low light performance with dual card slots (which by the way are both compact flash. I never understood why Canon had to use a compact flash and an SD in theirs). And in the D700 the EOS 3 that we never got.<br>

With all that said, I still would not change over, however, since I love Canon primes especially the 35 1.4.</p>

 

<p>Excellent analysis. Thanks.</p>

<p>" I should remind you how horrible the Nikon track record is? D200 with its horrible iso? Seriously, the D3 and D700 are winners... but past nikon digital cameras have paled in competition with canon... think about that."<br>

<br /><br>

Kenny C, why would it ever matter? That's the past. Over the past year and a half they've released the best bodies in their digital history--the D300 blows the D200 out of the water in terms of high ISO performance, not to mention the D90, D700 and D3/X.</p>

<p>I am a Nikon shooter but I agree with the others. Keep your gear. You're in too deep and there would be no real difference anyway.</p>

<p>Switching brands doesn't sound like a good business decision. There's a lot of utility in the equipment you describe--use it up till it doesn't work anymore. </p>

<p>Canon and Nikon are as good as each other. They are different, but just as good. Canon and Nikon or both excellent manufacturer of camera equipment with strong and weak points. Different cameras have different capacities and advantages. What is most important is not the camera, but the person operating it.</p>

<p>I understand that you'd like to work with Nikon equipment <b>now</b>. But you already own Canon. I don't know what your badget is, but assume that since you are a (semi)professional you care about cost.<br>

I suggest you stay with what you already have, since changing equipment will add to your cost. Think that in the near future Canon may release something that you might want a lot. Or something that would give other competitive photographers an advantage. Then you might want to switch back. That would add to the cost too.<br>

If you don't care about finance as much as you care about the satisfaction you receive during working, then go ahead. <br>

Hope I helped.</p>

<p><a href="http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/canon-where-is-your-edge/">http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/canon-where-is-your-edge/</a></p>