Changing Platforms?

<p>I have been on the Canon platform since the first Digital Rebel came out. Before that I had a Nikon 8008 with an SB-24 flash and a few lenses. I went with the Canon because Nikon had not yet come out with a consumer DSLR. Since then, I have had several Rebels. I had a IIsi before recently upgrading to the 70D. I also have a few lenses and a 580 EXII flash.<br>

I've never really been happy with the Canon flash. I had a 420 before and thought upgrading would be helpful, but nothing ever came close to the Nikon SB-24.<br>

Recently, I had an opportunity to buy a Nikon d3200, the entry level DSLR, at a very good price. I thought it would give me a chance to use my old lenses as well as the SB-24, although manually.<br>

Here's the problem. When I got the 3200, I was bowled over by the picture quality, accuracy of focus and ease of use. In addition, the lenses all worked automatically with it. I did have to use the flash manually, but the quality of the output, IMHO, was far superior to the Canon. Now I've got a $1,200 camera, with flash and lenses and I don't think gives me images as good as a less than $400 camera with 30 year old flash and lenses.<br>

What do I do? I know feature for feature I'm not comparing apples to apples, but still, when you look at the bottom line - the images - they look superior to me. So do I sell the Canon and switch platforms? <br>

What do you think?</p>

 

<p>Yes, you should sell all your Canon stuff. This is the Nikon board, after all.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

+1 for what Kent said, but in all seriousness Canon makes some really good stuff. Perhaps you haven't made it to the

higher quality Canon gear.

<p>Canon and Nikon tend to play leap frog with developments. It's too expensive to track this contest by switching platforms each time one pulls ahead. Canon is currently on a megapixel rage while Nikon is either sleeping or improving dynamic range.</p>

<p>If you're interested in high quality video, Canon is the clear leader. Nikon is sound asleep but Sony is more than a newcomer in video, which is finding its way into their mirrorless cameras in a big way. I just shot a 2 hour concert in 4,2,2 HD video, using an A7Rii, among other cameras, restarting every 20-30 minutes due to the 29 minute cap.</p>

<p>In the digital age, it's really all about lenses. Bodies come and go every few years, but lenses endure. They also represent a lot of cash. Roughly speaking, I have about three times as much invested in lenses than in working bodies at any one time. Fortunately they have at least three times the useful life (some go back to 1964).</p>

<p>I am not sure which lenses you have for the N8008 but I think most lenses of that period don't AF on the D3200. I think you can use the SB-24 on the Canon in manual and non-TTL auto mode (A mode) as well. Never used a Canon DSLR so I can't say but they are selling more cameras than Nikon so they must be good.<br>

Any way I am a Nikon user so switch to Nikon. </p>

<p>You were amazed by the autofocus on a D3200? With the greatest respect to it (it's a perfectly decent camera), that's Nikon's lowest-end autofocus system, and it's not being helped out by the high-res meter on the higher-end Nikons. It's perfectly capable, but I'm surprised it's behaving better than a 70D. Likewise, while there's a small resolution advantage, I'm surprised it's visible (and the D3200 still has an AA filter, IIRC, so I wouldn't even expect much of a per-pixel advantage). The D3200 does have some low-ISO dynamic range benefits (Canon's weak point), but unless you're specifically after that (and I <em>do</em> make heavy use of it), it's of dubious benefit.</p>

<p>As for "all the lenses worked automatically"... there's a lot of small print about that unless you're a real fan of manual focus (and exposure). Unless you have lenses from pre-1987, I'd say Canon tend to have an "everything just works" advantage these days. Yes, you can stick (almost) any F-mount lens on a D3200, but if they're not AF-S (or AF-I) then they'll not work as well as they did on the camera for which they were designed. For better support you have to go up to the D7x00 series, these days. Of course, if <em>your</em> lenses work, that's what matters.</p>

<p>While I'm happy (for Nikon and you) that you're finding the D3200 and improvement, I'm just surprised, and wondered if there's anything in the improvement that could be achieved more cheaply for you by changing settings on the Canon. If you prefer the handling (and I do think it's a preference), by all means switch to Nikon - though bear in mind the handling is different on the D3x00/D5x00 series and the two-dial D7x00/D6x0/D750 bodies (and again on the D700/D8x0, and again on the single-digit pro bodies). This is also true of the low-end Canons of course, with the missing rear dial on the Rebel range. If you've found you're happier with Nikon, switch - I did, long ago, and I'm happy - but neither system is perfect, and bear in mind you'll be changing one set of oddities for another.</p>

<p>Edward: Nikon (and Sony, and Pentax) have had a low-ISO dynamic range advantage since the D7000 vintage. I assume there's either a patent issue or a design philosophy problem that's stopping Canon catching up. It's generally a wash from about ISO 400 up, and it's irrelevant unless you're post-processing. I'm not sure Nikon are pushing this, as such. As for resolution, Canon have been behind Nikon for several years (after having the lead with the 1Ds, then 1Ds2, 1Ds3 and 5D2). They've finally got some - not all - bodies up to 24MP, matching the Nikons, but excluding the 5Ds (and the 120MP nonsense) I still wouldn't say they're on a megapixel race just yet. I'd also say it doesn't really matter.</p>

<p>As for video, neither Canon nor Nikon have deigned to support 4K video in a DSLR (except for the 1Dx). Canon have more of a video camera background, and still sell high-end video cameras, but it's still the Nikons that can do 1080p60. Meanwhile Sony, Panasonic and even Samsung can handle 4K video. As can a GoPro, a Blackmagic and a lot of cell phones and quadcopters, of course. Canon might do filtering slightly better and the on-sensor PDAF is an advantage over the contrast detect in the Nikon, but I'd not call either of them cutting-edge on the video front. You could argue that the EF lens aperture system is more reliable than Nikon's camera-driven lever approach, but that may be changing with E lenses. If you want a camera that can do video well, currently the Canikon DSLRs aren't the way to go.</p>

<p>Frankly, either system is full of good cameras and lenses. If you can't take a photo you like with either, it's unlikely to be the camera's fault. The quality differences are generally small, and only relevant to rarer images. They're absolutely still there - I wouldn't have spent a lot of money on Nikon kit if there was no gain from it - but if you're seeing a big difference from a low-end camera and there's no huge generational difference (yes, a D3200 will spank my Eos 300D thoroughly), it's probably something you can fix in the settings or post-processing.</p>

<p>Good luck if you do come to the dark side, though!</p>

<p>At the Canon Rebel, Nikon D3000 series level, changing brands is just a waste of time and money. You can include Pentax. They all have similar cameras and lenses and produce similar results.</p>

<p>I generally agree with the above sentiments. On the other hand, I had a chance to play with my mother-in-laws D3200 and kit lenses (trying to teach her a little bit while I was visiting. I was pretty shocked at the quality of both the camera and the lenses. It's a great little camera. I have been recommending mirrorless to some casual shooters lately thinking the low end Nikons were little more than toys. Wrong. You can get very good stuff from them.</p>

You know, those are both good cameras and in general I'd rate the 70D a couple of notches higher in terms of

capabilities, but if you like the D3200 who's to say you're wrong? Stick with the Nikon if you prefer them.

<blockquote>

<p>Now I've got a $1,200 camera, with flash and lenses and I don't think gives me images as good as a less than $400 camera with 30 year old flash and lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

You must be doing something wrong. Post some photos with the EXIF info. Changing brands never helped anyone's photography unless it included a multi-generation jump or met some specific needs. It does help the camera companies, they like the sales.</p>

I worry that we sound a bit unwelcoming to the Nikon fold. John: It's just that, for most uses,

the big two manufacturers (and, where they intersect, also Sony, Pentax and Samsung) are so

closely matched that "better" is often more to do with position in a range than manufacturer.

So it's unusual to hear a report of someone preferring a low-end Nikon to a higher-end Canon -

not that the 70D is top of the line. When I switched, it was from an Eos 300D (original digital

rebel) to a D700 - a huge change, but as much from camera position and generation as

manufacturer.

 

For that reason, it would be nice to work out why you're not happier with your more expensive

Canon gear, because it really ought to keep up with the D3200 in most respects. We don't like

to tell people to do expensive things unnecessarily, unlike some forums.

 

But still, the important thing is that you're happy with the kit you use. If you're happier with a

D3200 (or a higher-end Nikon) than your Canon system, welcome aboard, and none of us

should tell you otherwise.

<p>The D3200 has a 24 megapixel sensor in it so image quality is up there, almost as good as any newer Nikon DX camera regardless of price.</p>

<p>It scores 81 score points on Dxomarks sensor image quality while the Canon 70D only has a score of 68. So yes, the $400 camera should look better than the $1200 camera.</p>

<p>And then if you are looking at images straight from the camera Nikon and Canon don't look the same. One person might prefer one brands look over the other even if they are technically equivalent. Same thing with ergonomics.</p>

<p>We are almost at the same point as in the film days when image quality had nothing to do with the camera body. What you paid for was build quality and features, like fast autofocus performance.</p>

<p>You have both cameras so only you can decide what you want to do. Changing things around is fun too actually and photography is a hobby for most, so it's not a business decision. Go with your gut feeling.</p>

<p>Technically, I see no reason why it wouldn't be possible to obtain at least as good photos from a 70D (and for some tasks, I'd rate it well above the D3200); without knowing if you shoot JPEG or raw, and how (or if) you process your files, comments on "image quality" are a bit difficult to assess. But as said above, the 'default rendering' of images isn't identical between brands, and possibly you prefer the Nikon approach. It's perfectly doable to mimick that look on Canon (and vice versa).</p>

<p>But it sounds like photography is your hobby, so it should be fun. Use the gear you've got the most fun with, and that gives you the results you are happy with. If you find yourself prefering the Nikon, go with the Nikon. If you really want to make the Canon work, be more specific (example photos from both cameras, outlining what you like/dislike) and then we probably can give some pointers how to make things work.</p>

<p>+1 to saying that there was no need to change brands to get your old SB-24 back into operation. Nikon flashes can be quite safely used on Canon bodies, and vice-versa. The additional 3 Nikon and 4 Canon TTL contacts don't coincide with each other and take no part in firing the flash. Just put the camera into manual mode with AA set on the flash and the same aperture set on the lens and away you go. Oh yes, camera and flash ISO speed settings have to match as well, obviously.</p>

<p>While Auto Aperture mode is perfectly usable with an SB-24 and a Canon DSLR, I don't think Canon offer any flash with an Auto Aperture mode that can be used independently of a Canon camera body. And I recently learned that Canon's Wireless Flash system doesn't allow the use of rear-curtain synch on slave flashes. I think it's because it's implemented on the flash rather than on the camera-body the way Nikon do.</p>

<p>I appreciate Pete S.'s DXO info. I probably should've looked at that first. And I also agree with Andrew that I didn't get the warm fuzzies from the answers.<br>

Maybe I framed my observations the wrong way. I wasn't so much complaining about the 70D as I was expressing surprise at the image quality of the d3200. There is no feature parity. For example, the d3200 will not allow me to bracket exposures, and the 70D has auto focus for the video which is one of the reasons i bought it in the first place.<br>

I started out in photography in 1976 with a Canon Ftb. I switched to a Nikon 8008 in the 80's when I went automatic. As I said I switched back to Canon with the 300D. I shoot in RAW and do my post processing in LR. I've been using Photoshop since 1994 so I have more than a passing familiarity with manipulating images - and I know a good one when I see it.<br>

So I guess what I'm asking is, if you can get this kind of a result from the entry level model in the Nikon line, maybe I should be looking at switching to Nikon and upgrading within that line. Or is really true that they're all the same?</p>

<p>Post some images, if it's that obvious, we should be able to see it. Also, post the EXIF with the images.</p>

Nice, informed, and relaxed discussion above! It

is what makes photo.net that pleasant place. :-)

 

Pete's remark a little upwards got me thinking

again: "We are almost at the same point as in the

film days when image quality had nothing to do

with the camera body. What you paid for was

build quality and features, like fast autofocus

performance." .. while I just thought that the

'lenses are everything' adagium just wasn't true

anymore in the age of rapidly improving bodies.

Thanks for making me re-think!

<p>John: We're a nice bunch really - honest. :-) You just confused us. (And I still have my 300D, alongside my Nikon kit.) I'm still a little surprised that you found the autofocus on the D3200 to be able to keep up with a 70D, but on Nikon's behalf, I'll take the win!<br />

<br />

Regarding image quality, I generally wouldn't expect to see a huge difference between the brands except at the lowest end of the ISO range and when doing a lot of post-processing, where Canon's lack of dynamic range can really hurt them. If you're shooting raw and adjusting a lot (as I do), I certainly won't argue against them. You get a few more bits of data to work with higher up the Nikon range too. While the difference tends to disappear at higher ISOs, I would generally take a Nikon (or Sony) sensor over the Canon ones - I just dismiss it because most people won't notice, and the Canon sensors aren't exactly <i>bad</i>. At least, I think - my 300D isn't exactly representative, and I've not tried doing much with newer Canon images myself.<br />

<br />

Still, the main thing is that you're happy with what you got from the D3200. If you think it's good for you, and you're aware of the hit you'll take if you ditch and replace all your Canon gear, you'll probably be happy. Canon and Nikon each have a few holes in their ranges (some filled by Sigma and Zeiss), but for 99% of uses, you'd be fine. (But as Jeff says, it wouldn't hurt to see if we can work out why you're seeing a larger difference than we might expect!)<br />

<br />

Albin: In DX, you're right. The difference in sensor output between the D3x00 range and the D7x00 range is pretty minimal, especially if you're not working in 14-bit raw - you pay for speed, flexibility, metering and, yes, autofocus. The sensors are a bit more of a differentiator in FX. Ironically, Sony have the exact opposite range - the A7, A7R and A7S (and the -ii versions) are all very similar in terms of handling and features, except for the sensors.</p>