Considering Switching from Nikon to Canon

<p>I'd rather not debate the issue of Nikon Vs. Canon in this post, but to keep it simple, I am considering the switch because the cirlce of friends I shoot with are ALL Canon users.<br>

<br />I can probably sell my Nikon DSLR and lenses for about $10,000. My question to you is what would you purchase for $10,000?<br>

<br />BTW, I shot with a Nikon D3. It was a full frame 12.1 MP, 9 FPS body, hence the reason for choosing the Mark IV as its replacement.<br>

<br />My list:<br />Mark IV<br />35mm f1.4<br />85mm f1.2<br />135mm f2.0<br />One of the flashes, I havent figured this one out yet.<br />--------------------------------<br>

<br />Before the flash, my total purchase price is about $8,900. Is there anything I am missing, anything I am overlooking?</p>

<p>Doing it because your friends are doing it....makes real good sense. If you fall to that type of logic, sorry I can't offer any helpful ideas on replacement, except maybe ask your friends what they would do.</p>

<p>If your answer is going to suck as much as it just did, Stephen, why did you post it?</p>

<p>I shoot Canon and I switched four years ago because my boyfriend shot Canon, I loved his camera, and we could swap gear. The last commenter clearly didn't read your preface that you are "keeping it simple" not telling us the whole story. Hey, you want to switch; that's all I need to know.<br>

My first question is: Are you a professional? If so, I'd say:<br>

--Buy two Mark IIs (ALWAYS have a backup)<br>

--35/1.4<br>

--50/1.4<br>

--135/f2<br>

--85/1.2 (if you still have money left over, otherwise, rent it for a while)<br>

Eventually, you might want the versatile 24-70 (for a zoom, it's excellent), but those are the best primes. I love my Mark IIs and don't seen the need for Mark IVs, really. But if that's what you're leaning toward, go for it!<br>

Good luck!</p>

<p>I see in your portfolio that you are shooting sports--wouldn't you need a longer lens than 135 mm? I think the only reason to switch is if you want to use a lens that the other manufacturer does not offer. If you want to use a specific Canon lens that your friends own, e.g. 500 or 600 mm, I would consider getting a Canon body for this purpose, without selling your Nikon gear, e.g. the 7D. In any case, I would spend more money on lenses and less on the body than what you propose.</p>

<p>Thanks for your more considerate answer, Jackie!</p>

<p>My roommate has been asking me to make the switch for years. He works for a true pro who owns a studio, etc... I have about four other serious users and they're all Canon users. I see the benefits of being able to use the studio and swap gear with friends to outweigh the transitioning costs. Half of the Nikon lenses I own are rarely used, so there wont be much that I miss from the Nikon side of things. Macro lens and a fisheye are about it, but that equates to about 5% of the image I take. The images in my portfolio are VERY OLD. I have not updated them in years...</p>

<p>I do like the option of two Mark IIs which I will consider. My single reason for going with a Mark IV is the 10 FPS just because I was spoiled with a 9FPS speed with the Nikon and I really think I will miss that for sporting events. It's a tough call though, and I will have a lot to consider. Children also move around a lot and shooting at a fast frame rate allows me to get the images I want. As you probably know, there is a huge difference between 3.9 FPS and 10FPS. It may be hard for me to turn back, however, adding a Mark II in the near future (OR BORROWING ONE) is a possibility, which is kind of my point.</p>

<p>I am not a professional, but I am very particular when it comes to photography and it is a second source of income. I focus primarily on portraits, but I also shoot wedding and sports. Photography is a hobby of mine. It just so happens that I have high standards for the equipment I choose.</p>

<p>I would also appreciate it if you didn't question my reasons for making the switch. As I indicated in my original post, I am considering making the switch and the beneifts that may come out of it. My question was simply, if you had $10K, what gear would you purchase with it?</p>

<p>My biggest debate is choosing primes over zooms such as a 24-70 or a 70-200. I was hoping someone could tell me what primes were "simply amazing" or "simply not worth the price."</p>

<p>This brings up a few thoughts....</p>

<ol>

<li>I happen to shoot Canon but I shoot with folks who shoot Nikon (and medium format digital and even LF) all the time, and I think that the variety is a good thing - not a problem.</li>

<li>Unless you have some very special and compelling need that can only be met by a special piece of gear available from one company and not the other... it is pretty much irrelevant whether you use Nikon or Canon. Great photographers use both and great photography comes from both. I'd keep what I have if I were you. Seriously.</li>

<li>If you really think you need to switch, generally just look for analogs to gear that is currently successful for you in the other brand's line-up - or use this as an opportunity to get alternatives or fill gaps. </li>

<li>Also if you switch, think carefully about what body you need. If you need FF primarily for resolution in very large prints, the 5D2 can be an excellent choice at a much lower cost. </li>

</ol>

<p>Dan </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would also appreciate it if you didn't question my reasons for making the switch ... My question was simply, if you had $10K, what gear would you purchase with it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can't get good advice about what gear to switch <em>to</em> without an understanding of what's wrong with what you're using now. Surely you see that. You're not commenting on how you'd use the alternate gear, which makes it impossible to comment on what's appropriate. The only qualitative thing you've mentioned is that your friends use a different brand. You can understand why that would stick out like a sore thumb, in the absence of your being specific about any actual gear-related issues/priorities that are driving your thought process.<br /><br />Which primes are "simply amazing" depends on how you'll be using them. The very same lens will be simply amazing for one person, and a colossal waste of money for the next, depending on how it will be used ... which you're not getting into, for some reason.</p>

 

<p>Your lens choices is good, no need the zooms. The rest of money should spend on a strongest Metz flash that you can afford. The Canon and Nikon are usually weak and may burn if you try to fire them very fast. Your 10fps will be useless if your flash is 3 sec per frame or slower</p>

David I did high school sports for a paper for several years. At night on high school fields and some college fields the light is highly variable and it can be pretty dim. I have used a 70-200 2.8L for almost fourteen years in these conditions. Were I to start now I would buy the new 70-200 2.8 IS Mark II. I like zooms for this because sometimes you shoot from five feet and other times at forty feet. It is difficult to run from the thundering herd on an end run while trying to change lenses. I have used a number of bodies. I would get a 1D MK IV or III if you can afford it. Get a used xxd for backup. I have always used back up gear but from my business standpoint it does not have to be the expensive same as primary gear. I have rarely had to go to backup but it must be there. An xxd will work just fine for closer work with an appropriate EF-s lens. I just found over a number of years that the 70-200 2.8, at least for me is indispensable. I have a 100-400 4.5-5.6 which is good in good light but I have used the 70-200 in my studio for portraits, for weddings, for journalistic work, and a number of other things. You have a number of choices for the most used range of 24-70 to104. I use the 24-105. The same is true of for wide angle. Canon makes two good WA zooms and a number of fixed focus. Get two of the latest Canon 580 flash. I debated between the 24-70 2.8 L and the 24-105 f4L but bought the 24-105 because it is lighter and I don't like to change lenses at 70mm. I also have a 85mm 1.8 which is an excellent lens for low light at a very nominal cost. I have done weddings with medium format fixed focus lenses and with full frame zooms and I prefer the zooms. I have a full frame and a crop body. I usually put a long lens on the 1.6 crop and shorter lenses on the full frame when I use both bodies. I am not saying any of this is what you have to do I am just sharing some of my experience. I would also consider the the 5D Mark II body as a more economical full frame choice or a 7D if you are primarily into sports.

<p>Be aware that the 1d4 has a 1.3x crop. Which is going to make the 35/1.4 seem more like a 50. I'd go with the 24/1.4. (I have both the 24/1.4 and 35/1.4. Both are great. The 24 gets more use on my 1d4. The 35 gets more use on full frame, but that's me.</p>

<p>I'd rent the 85/1.2 before buying one. I have the 85/1.8. Bought it before the 85/1.2 II was available. The first version was a lot slower to focus. I believe the 85/1.8 still beats the 85/1.2 II in focus speed, but it is a lot closer now.</p>

<p>135/2 is a great lens.</p>

<p>When I travel light, I take the 1d4, 24-105/4, and 24/1.4. Those are my most used lenses.</p>

<p>I'd avoid the 50/1.4. It's my least favorite lens. Uses an older autofocus mechanism and isn't always reliable.</p>

<p>If I were to buy one flash, it would be the 430ex. Two flashes, I'd add a 580ex. Three? Add another 580. In fact, that's the order in which I bought mine. If I were going to add a fourth, it would be a 430ex. For the first flash, I decided I didn't need the extra bulk/weight/cost of the 580. For the second flash, I wanted to buy a master one. For the third, I wanted it to be able to function as a backup to either of the first two.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

Nobody mentioned this, so I will: are you aware that the IV is an aps-h crop of x1.3?

 

That makes your widest choice (the 35) a 46mm.

 

You'll be missing a wide lens.

 

Maybe you'd like a macro?

 

Maybe start with a 5D-ii and see if you want high FPS later?

 

Anyway, have fun cooperating with your friends, which I deem a very valid reason for switching brands. (swapping

gear, technical tips and experiences is pricesless)

 

Matthijs.

<p>Hey David,<br>

A buddy of mine has a Nikon DSLR and I always salivate over the features he's got and the flexibility it offers him: e.g. low-noise high ISO, high fps, etc. I'll also say that his Nikon is terribly complicated too. His manual looks like a phone book! I've got a Canon 5D (no MKII) that I like and have no plans on changing to Nikon. But, I am hoping that Canon comes out with a full frame, higher-fps-rate (6fps+) and high ISO/low noise (higher than 3200) model that's a bit cheaper than the 1Ds. I looked at the specs for the 1D Mark IV and you won't be getting full frame like you were with your Nikon. I'd also ask you to rethink your decision of changing camera systems. I'm not a pro or anything. But, if what you have works for <strong>YOU</strong>, you should stick with it. If you have systemic/flexibility reasons for changing, that's fine. But, I wouldn't change systems just to be with my buddies.</p>

<p>In terms of body - based on what Canon has available today..... </p>

<ul>

<li>I recommend a full frame sensor over the smaller APS-H</li>

<li>This means you have the option of the 5D MII or the 1DS MIII</li>

<li>The 1DS MIII is an older camera, I was hoping Canon would have announced a new version available by now</li>

</ul>

<p>So between the 1DS MIII and the 5D MII, I would recommend the 5D MII - a combination of cost, video capability, weight issues</p>

<p>Lenses that I have</p>

<ul>

<li>70-200 F2.8L IS USM II - excellent lens, zero complaints</li>

<li>24-105 F4L IS USM - another excellent lens - my walk around lens - matches the zoom of the flashes</li>

<li>16-35 F2.8L USM II - great for those wide shots - with this lens, make sure you use filters with a very thin ring - otherwise you'll end up with some pronounced vignettin</li>

</ul>

<p>Other items</p>

<ul>

<li>pair of 580EX II flashes - this is a great flash - zoom of 24-105 that is automatic - can light up a very large room</li>

<li>TC-80N3 - remote trigger, timer, intervalometer</li>

</ul>

<p>Now, what to do with the remaining money...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I am aware of the x1.3 crop factor with the Mark IV and because of that, going with a 24mm vs. a 35mm is probably a good idea.</p>

<p>I have done a few side by side comparisons in different shooting situations, and I have always been more impressed with Canon's images straight from the camera. I have talked to former Nikon users that made the switch to Canon and both of them indepenantly said they are glad they made the switch and would never look back. From what I can tell, the image quality from Canon has never been inferior to Nikon and if I could swap my D3 for a Mark IV, I would be happy.</p>

<p>Aside from the quality aspect, it is frusterating working around so many Canon users for the simple fact of me not being able to share equipment. It is EXPENSIVE to run around with a variety of great lenses. It is also very HEAVY to carry around a full lineup of lenses. For all the reasons above, it would be worth a switch to me. If I can carry around less, have the opportunity to borrow and share with others, and slightly upgrade the quality of my equipment, it's worth it to me.</p>

<p>As far as lenses go, I think I am set on the 24-70, 85 f1.2, and 135 f2.0. The 24-70 will be my event photography workhorse. I figure I can skip on the 24 f1.4 (for now) if I pick up the 24-70 zoom. The 85 will be my primary portrait lens. I don't think I could survive without this lens. The 135 seems to be a good value to me. Fast, fairly long (especially with the x1.3 factor). I love my Nikon 135 for event candids, sports, and as a secondary portrait lens. After purchasing my nikon 135 I rarely use my 70-200VR. There is a huge difference in performance and I'd much rather sacrifice the lack of zoom for better IQ.</p>

<p>I hope everyone will have some respect as to why I am CONSIDERING the switch. As I mentioned before, I am not here to debate why or why not with anyone. The biggest factor for me is how much I will sacrifice and how the transition will effect (hopefully improve) my performance. The goal of this post was to get an idea from others which lenses performed well together. Thank you all for your comments.</p>

<p>If you're concerned about frame rate (and that's your only real concern) you might consider getting both a 5D Mk II and a 7D instead. Both bodies together will cost about the same as a 1D Mk IV. Then you'll have the benefit of high ISO performance and FF of the 5D Mk II and you'll have the higher frame rate and the extra "reach" of the 7D when you need it. Plus you'll have two bodies so you'll already have a backup if one goes down.</p>

<p>I made that switch about a year ago and am sure it was a good move. I got a pair of 5D2 bodies, the 85 f1.2, which is a great lens, the 24 f1.4, also a great lens, and the Zeiss 50mm macro, which is extraordinary. I can recommend them all. I am thinking about a 70-200 L, mostly to get the 70mm capability. Your list sounds good, but there is no backup body, and the 24mm is a great lens for the street, and for special situations, including getting a different look.</p>

The 5D-ii plus 7D combo will be very hard to beat. Flexible and a backup body to boot!

 

Have fun, Matthijs.

<p>David King wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I hope everyone will have some respect as to why I am CONSIDERING the switch. As I mentioned before, I am not here to debate why or why not with anyone. The biggest factor for me is how much I will sacrifice and how the transition will effect (hopefully improve) my performance. The goal of this post was to get an idea from others which lenses performed well together. Thank you all for your comments.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is precisely what is confusing about your post. You did write that you were doing it <em>because your friends shoot Canon</em>, but your post raises all kinds of other issues. For example, you mention a desire for full frame, but then you say that you are purchasing a camera that is not full frame. You give us a list of lenses about which you want feedback, but no idea about what you shoot, of what lenses you currently shoot with, and whether you are trying to replicate that set or something else. If you are simply asking if those L lenses are good lenses... you hardly need us to tell you that they are fine lenses. If you are wondering if they are the best choices for the kind of photography you do... it would be useful to provide some information about that.</p>

<p>Of course, you did conclude your original post with: "Is there <em>anything</em> I am <em>missing</em>, <em>anything</em> I am <em>overlooking</em>?" (Emphasis added.)</p>

<p>Before I make my next point, let me acknowledge that you might be a very experienced photographer who has thought this through very carefully and has come to decisions about brand, camera body, and lens selection in a very thoughtful and competent way. <em>If so, the following list and the summary that follows is not relevant to you, so accept my apology in advance</em>. However... your <em>original post</em> carries a number of the markers of a person who may be about to make some very expensive mistakes:</p>

<ul>

<li>switching brands in hopes of some significant change in the quality of ones work ("...the transition will effect (hopefully improve) my performance.")</li>

<li>an assumption that only L primes are "good enough" - doubly odd for someone who needs to borrow lenses from friends... - when other options might be more appropriate.</li>

<li>confusion about models and sensor format (interested in full frame but getting a non-full frame camera?)</li>

<li>no information about what an how you shoot or about what you do with the photographs.</li>

<li>a request that people not comment on your general idea... coupled with some confusion about that very idea.</li>

<li>using current budget as the primary boundary - and not offering sequence of purchase and future acquisitions as part of the thought process. </li>

<li>and more.</li>

</ul>

<p>Many of use pause when we see a post like that one and think, "This person seems to be missing some important issues here and could use a bit of advice about how to think this through... but this person may well not want to hear what I'll say." <em>If</em> you have made up your mind and you are <em>not really interested in feedback</em> that might help you in your decision, it is perhaps best to not post and ask for feedback in a discussion forum.</p>

<p>To answer your original questions: <em>The lenses on your list are fine lenses, though they may or may not be the best choices depending on what and how you shoot. It would help to know what lenses you shoot now and what you are trying to accomplish with that particular set. I'm perplexed by your comments about full frame bodies coupled with your idea of buying a 1.3x cropped sensor camera - and this body may or may not be your best choice, again depending a lot of what/how you shoot.</em></p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Is it possible that David has set up a number of lenses that he thinks are appropriate for his needs now, and these are lenses that his friends do not have. Maybe there are more lenses that he needs but for the time being for any reasons, such as budget frame or other, he can rely on his friends and use theirs. Maybe the whole switch is attributed to this, ie. he needs, or may need some lenses that at this time he can only borrow from his friends.<br />To cut my long complicated story. Say three friends all have different focal lengths or types of lenses, together they have a wide range of lenses, which would cost a fortune to buy alone. So rather than each part buys a number of lenses they share and the expense is divided. Its not that bad idea in reality. The one who has, shares with the one that does not have.<br>

Just my thoughts,<br>

Simon.</p>

<p>If so, a) it would sure be useful for him to tell us that, and b) why would he ask if these are good lenses if they are the only ones that his friends don't have and he is going to get them anyway?</p>

<p>Good point Dan.</p>

<p>David - your initial post was lacking in both reason and details. My response was merely to help you see it (hopefully with an eye toward humor) with the hopes you could elaborate, once you realized none of us are mind readers. I apologize if it offended you. I see now you have provided a little more info and are getting more meaningful responses. I do think, however, that Dan Mitchell more diplomatically put his finger on the pulse of the issue...and why we are having some difficulty answering the questions directly.</p>

<p>I apologize for not being as thorough as I should have in my original post and explaining some of the things that were on my mind. Simon T said it best. Between the three users that I would have access to their equipment, they have the majority of L lenses. As someone that primarily focuses on portraiture, I need (would like) to own my own portrait lens, the 85. There are a few other practical lenses for me to own such as a 24-70 for any event type photography. The 135 is reasonably priced and would supplement the two above as my telephoto lens. The macro, fisheye, and 70-200 are all lenses I would be able to borrow if the job demanded it. I should have been more specific and asked for feedback on the lenses I chose such as the internal AF speed, lens performance while shooting directly into the sun, etc...Neither of the Canon users I know own the 24 or the 135. In relation to say the 85, how do these two lenses compare?</p>

<p>I also did not mean to imply I needed a FF sensor. What I was trying to say was that I chose the Mark IV because of the 9FPS on the Nikon I currently use. Yes, the x1.3 factor is something to consider, but it's not as important to me as some may have thought.</p>

<p>And I am not switching simply "because my friends shoot with Canon." Many of you made it sound like I was switching for the brand name...for example, it would be like me saying I was selling my Prince tennis racket and switching to Wilson because Roger Federer uses Wilson and it will make me a better player. A better analogy (as to why I am considering moving from Nikon to Canon) is that I am switching from XBOX to a Playstation 3. If I did make that switch, I would then be able to swap games with friends and when we have game night I am not trying to learn a new system and figure out new controller option every time we get together. I'm not saying the analogy is perfect, but it does explain my rational for considering the move. And no, I do not think Canon equipment will make me a better photographer. In fact, there will be a learning curve factor that I will have to overcome at first. However, in time this may prove to be a better decision based on my ability to share equipment and collectively grow as photographers (with my friends, not alone).</p>

<p> </p>