I might be converting back to Canon

<p>I bought a Nikon N80 back in the early 1990s and have been a serious amateur Nikon user ever since. In the Digital Era I've graduated only up to the D7000, but recently had a revelation/crisis that convinced me to look closely at my backup body as a primary. The extra size and weight of the D7000 just didn't feel worth it all of a sudden and I'm ready to upgrade. I found that the D3100 was equal to the D7000 in some ways and superior in enough to convince me to sell the D7000. Until it occurred to me that the D3100 won't support AF on my 80-200/2.8 or 80-400 VR.<br>

After looking in to the possibilities, I found that ignoring Canon for 25 years may have been a mistake. While the DSLR bodies are too similar to make a difference (to me), the lenses are quite attractive. While the medium telephoto zooms are very close to Nikon's versions, the sub-$300 10-18mm is really attractive.<br>

Shooting travel documentation is not very demanding as my output is usually my HDTV or prints on canvas. I have found that even my older D70 images are adequate (to my eye) for prints in my office and home. The most demanding work I do is indoor tennis where the 80-200/2.8 really shines. Sharpness is good enough for me at ISO 2200 on a monopod.<br>

I don't see myself dropping $2K on the 100-400 IS II, but considering what I've been happy with in the past several years, I wonder if a consumer zoom like the 55-250 STM, the 70-300 IS or the 70-200/4 with a DSLR body that produces image quality two stops faster than my generations old D7000 might do the trick.</p>

<p>Whatever floats your bokeh. No idea why you came here to say this....vs just doing it ? That said, have you tried the full frame rig or perhaps renting it ? Have nothing against Canon...both manuf offer excellent products.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p>Of course, the proud the.. should go with Canon (or was that the Marines??).</p>

<p>Are you sure about the problems with the Nikons? All the Nikon people around me always tell me how great their cameras are. Changing after 25 years isn't exactly being 'flighty' but you may be pretty well trained to the Nikon way by now.<br>

I shot Pentax M42 from 1959 to 1971, changed to Nikon F mount from 1971 to 2005, and have been with Canon ever since. They all worked for their time and place.</p>

 

<p>The 10-18 is a pretty attractive lens. My brother recently bought one, and I have heard nothing bad about it. That said, with a 80-200/2.8 and 80-400 VR, you seem to be well invested in Nikon. It would take more than one lens like the 10-18 to make me want to change systems from that position! The <a href="https://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-nikkor-10-24mm-f-3-5-4-5g-ed-af-s-dx-ultra-wide-angle-zoom-lens.html">Nikon 10-24</a> is a lot dearer, but bound to be still cheaper than changing systems. Or how about something like a <a href="https://www.keh.com/shop/tamron-10-24mm-f-3-5-4-5-aspherical-di-ii-if-sp-8-pin-b001-autofocus-lens-for-nikon-aps-c-sensor-dslrs-77.html">Tamron 10-24</a>?</p>

<p>It's completely up to you whether you should switch. Aside from that . . .</p>

<blockquote>

<p>a DSLR body that produces image quality two stops faster than my generations old D7000 might do the trick.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The old D7000 sensor is a couple of generations old, and limited to 16MP, but I don't think you will find a crop sensor camera that is two stops faster, in Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. Think of it. That would mean that a current crop sensor would have to produce, at 6400 ISO, the quality the D7000 produced at 1600.</p>

<p>i don't see how weight of the body comes into play when you have those lenses mounted. Get the cheapest 24 MP Nikon crop body with focus motor. A good Canon body will be the same weight. I shoot full frame Canon with several Nikon and Canon lenses and eventually replaced my Nikon D2X with a D3200 for sports. Nikon bodies are always a step ahead of Canon for sports. </p>

<p>Another consideration is AF. A f/2.8 lens will give the AF system a lot more light to play with. Getting higher ISOs won't change this. AF module of the D7000 may not be the best, but it's far from bad either. Personally, I think the 70D has always posed some great value for money (and probably the 80D continues that tradition, but I haven't caught up), but I doubt it will beat a D7000 or even D3100 with f/2.8 in indoor sports, when used with a f/5.6 lens. So, for indoor tennis - make sure you compare apples to apples.<br>

Apart from that, well.... switching always ends up costing money, and do check up front how much you like the ergonomics of the various bodies, and how much your muscle memory is trained with the nikon-direction of zooming/focussing versus the canon-direction, things like that. Both systems can do what you need.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon bodies are always a step ahead of Canon for sports.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Didn't I say that Nikon people are always telling us how great their cameras are? ;)</p>

<p>http://s370.photobucket.com/user/cgrif42/media/blog/SeaofCanons.jpg.html </p>

<p>Why don't you just Throw the towel in and take up knitting. Sometimes....Sometimes....Sometimes these questions on this and other forums are very trying.</p>

<p>Sorry for taking up the six seconds it took you to think up the snarky answer, Jim.</p>

<p>I suspect the sensor in the T6s produces image quality for internet use and 720p display at 6400 as acceptable as the D7000 does at 1600. Does anyone have evidence to the contrary?</p>

<p>Vince: I'm very pleased with the images at ISO 3200 with my D7000. Many of them are here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/110390046@N06/</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I suspect the sensor in the T6s produces image quality for internet use and 720p display at 6400 as acceptable as the D7000 does at 1600. Does anyone have evidence to the contrary?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Looking at <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-760d-rebel-t6s/8">comparison shots on DPReview</a>: I'd take the D7000 at ISO1600 or ISO3200 over a T6s at ISO6400. ISO6400 on the T6s looks very decent, but not awesome. It is better than the D7000 at ISO6400, as could be expected. <br /> And that is still ignoring the point about AF being simply better with f/2.8 (on any given SLR), which for indoor tennis sure will play its part. It simply isn't only about better high ISO, a f/5.6 lens will be slower to autofocus, slower to acquire focus and in low light AF tracking will be a no-no.</p>

<p>Image quality as 720p - any camera can produce a good looking image at that size, that's more a case of using decent software to suppress noise, and the reduction in size will take care of the rest. If that's your goal, any camera will do the trick, just get the one you like best.</p>

<p>I have also been very pleased with my D7000 at 3200 and even 6400. And I also studied the DP Review comparison tool. One could certainly do worse than keeping an aging body for shooting indoor sports and use a smaller, lightweight body for outdoor and travel work. That is where I am today, but it feels like two generations old is the right time to sell my aging DSLR bodies and upgrade to the current SOTA. The main thing I'm looking for in upgrading is low light performance. Perhaps I'm making too much of this and should take up knitting, but I have waited too long to sell lesser cameras and in the Digital Era, they quickly lose their value.</p>

<p>When it comes to the final image its hard to beat Canon...</p>

<p>I suspect that, after so many years using Nikon, you'd find a switch to Canon not as easy (or as cheap) as you imagine. I used Olympus film cameras for 30 years before finally being converted to Canon DSLRs, and even now after ten years when I need to zoom or focus body memory still wants to turn the zoom or focus ring the wrong way (Olympus and Nikon zooming and focusing being the opposite way to Canon).</p>

<p>If you're considering this seriously, why not rent some Canon gear for a couple of weeks and see how it suits?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>a DSLR body that produces image quality two stops faster than my generations old D7000 might do the trick.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why not just update your body to the D500? It's about three-generations newer than you 7000. The Nikonistas are raving about the AF and high-ISO performance. <br>

<br>

You seem to want a wide zoom for some reason. Surely Nikon, Sigma or Tamron make something that would be excellent on a Nikon body. To me, the reason to go with Canon is their super-tele lenses and you state that you wouldn't buy a 100-400mm, so there's no reason given that's strong enough to suggest changing system.</p>

<p>I love my D7000. It only has 55,000 actuations on it -- far from worn out, but I do find that I would like a better AF system and a larger buffer. I think the D500 will be the next body, but only after the prices come down and there are some used ones or refurbished ones on the market.</p>

<p>After several days of consideration, I have a different approach to the Canon 100-400 IS II. Very versatile lens from all accounts and despite the slower aperture, it seems like a worthy compromise with a fast 2.8 zoom on a new body and an ideal replacement for my 80-400 VR (which is also slow and <em>far</em> slower to focus).</p>

<p>I love my D7000 too. And my D3100 for that matter. I only entered the debate because I'm looking for something smaller and lighter, and it feels like it's time to upgrade while the aging bodies are worth something. Hadn't considered a D500 or any full frame because I like the 1.5x impact on telephoto reach, although much of my work has become far more wide angled in recent years.</p>

<p>Nikon does offer a nice 10-24, but it cost nearly three times as much as the Canon 10-18, is substantially bigger than the Canon and weighs twice as much. After digesting all this, the 10-18 and 100-144 have become important variables in the decision. Hence the Canon lens forum.</p>

<p>I'm in the minority here, but I like heavier cameras and attach battery packs to all my cameras. While lighter may be easier to carry around, heavier are more stable because of more inertia. I find that I get one stop/shutter setting advantage with my camera with the extra weight over without the battery grip. While weight is a consideration I lean toward better results rather than convenience. I plan my shooting carefully and then take all the gear needed. I never compromise my shooting because I want to reduce the load I haul around -- and I'm 74 years old!</p>

<p>E.J., I'm with you. I feel no need to add battery packs, because my 500mm lens and 70-200mm, on two bodies is enough mass. Plus, the IS on the Series II lenses is stunning.</p>

<p>I'm shooting tomorrow morning with a buddy in his late 30s. He just got his 7D MkII/100-400mm rig last night and he's complaining about its weight. I'll let him hold my 500mm/7D2 rig a minute. I'm 68.</p>

<p>With Nikon bodies generally having a greater dynamic range in image files than Canon - why switch?<br>

Shoot with what you like holding and using. Both brands produce good results.<br>

If you really are unsure, get a body and lens comparable to what you have and shoot the same scene with both cameras. Have a good exhibition quality print made from each. Mat and mount them and set up in a good viewing area and live with them for awhile. See if you can actually see a difference in quality. Most likely you won't. If you do - go for the camera that gives it.</p>

I went on a digital course not long ago and the course leader made a comment that was good advice. He said that good images are not so

much the small differences in the equipment as the creativity of the photographer. To illustrate he had two A1 sized prints on the wall

of the seminar room we used for day 1. He said that one was produced by a early Canon 5D with a 50 1.8, the other was from a Canon 5D-3

with the same lens. Honestly, you would be hard pressed to tell the difference from a metre away. He also said that you could interchange

these two images with those from Nikon or Sony and it would be the same result.

I fell for the new tech seduction once before. Never again.

<p>Looking at detail in two well exposed A1 prints, it will be hard to see differences; however, noise and dynamic range are easily perceived. Compressed dynamic range is most easily seen in that size.</p>

<p>Of course, many people want to print larger, such as 50" to 72" on the long side. In those cases, you can see detail differences and pixelation from lower resolution bodies, such as a 30D vs. a 5DSR. The 5D and the 5D3 don't have radically different pixel densities, but the xxD and Rebels, etc. of old will have issues at A1 sizes.</p>

<p>Also, many of us our now viewing our images at 4k on 65" TVs. Within 10-feet, you can see differences, but it gets really hard beyond that.</p>

<p>Stephen's point is to know how you'll use your pixels. In general, most people shouldn't be buying based on pixel-count. AF functioning, video capability, frames per second, etc. are things that may or may not be more important to specific users. </p>

<p>OTOH, Getty pays more for larger files, up to a point.</p>