Nikon to Canon

<p>I'm considering going back to Canon. I currently have a D300, 17-35 F2.8, 24-70 F2.8, 70-200 F2.8, 300 F4 (all Nikon). I realize this is a very nice setup. But, everything weights a ton. I really miss the Canon 24-105 F4 and the 100-400 L Zoom. The Canon egonomics and that wheel just felt great to me. If I sell my Nikon stuff (70% retail), I could go to full frame with the 5D MII with 17-40 F4, 24-105 F4, and the 100-400 L Zoom and still have about $400 left to put towards a 50D for my bird shots. I know I'll lose money in the switch, but I will have my favorite lenses back and the Canon just feels better in my hands. I shoot mostly landscape and some birds. Any thoughts or interest ... Ray.</p>

<p>"The Canon ergonomics and that wheel just felt great" it sounds like you have chosen already, and the 5D MII is an excellent camera. Go for it !<br>

I'm a Nikon user for the same reason you want to switch to Canon: How it feels.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I currently have a D300, 17-35 F2.8, 24-70 F2.8, 70-200 F2.8, 300 F4 (all Nikon).<br>

I could go to full frame with the 5D MII with 17-40 F4, 24-105 F4, and the 100-400 L Zoom</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ray, you are comparing apples and oranges. In your Nikon setup, you have three high-end constant f2.8 zooms and of course they weight a ton. Canon has some very similar f2.8 zooms and those also weight a ton.</p>

<p>If weight is a concern to you and you don't need f2.8, apparently you bought the wrong Nikon lenses. The Canon lenses you have in mind are all f4 or slower. Naturally they are lighter. Nikon does not make a sice 24-105mm/f4 as Canon does, but Nikon has some slower zoom too and those lenses would have saved you some weight.</p>

<p>Hi Shun ... I'm comparing apples to oranges because Nikon doesn't offer any F4 lenses at the same range. I can't compare apples to apples. I didn't buy the wrong lenses. In my option, they were the only option for top quality lenses. Thanks ... Ray.</p>

<p>Churn much?<br>

If you have too much discretionary income, I can think of some people and or causes you could help out.</p>

<p>Try the von Weinberg Family Foundation, a not-for-profit (we didn't plan it that way) organization. ;)</p>

<p>Actually, you are just revealing why Nikon users should never switch to Canon or vice versa. Once you're imprinted on the first one you use, you'll never be happy with the other one.</p>

<ol>

<li>"Any thoughts " - seems like you just want to change, or got older or sick and the "everything weights a ton" - for you now ? </li>

<li>When you were getting the heavy Nikon gear, what was your objective?, and what changed since then ?</li>

<li>"I'm considering going back to Canon" - so you already were with Canon ? - what made you switch to Nikon at that time ? - was Canon ergonomics at that time bad for you? - and how much that changed ?</li>

</ol>

<p> </p>

<p>Ray, Nikon has a very good 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5, various mid-range zooms, and a 80-400mm/f4.5-5.6. In particular, since your D300 is a DX-format body, there are the 10-24mm/f3.5-4.5 DX, 12-24mm/f4 DX, and 17-55mm/f2.8 DX to cover your wider ends.</p>

<p>If you don't need f2.8 and light weight is important to you, I wonder why you bought the 17-35mm/f2.8 and 24-70mm/f2.8. For example, the 17-55mm/f2.8 can easily replace those two, and thare are numerous slower Nikon 18-xxx lenses for DX.</p>

<p>What are missing on Nikon's line up are the 24-105mm/f4 and 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR. However, still, it is not Nikon's fault that Ray ends up with very heavy lenses.</p>

<p>Shun ... I was preparing for fullframe. That's why I bought the lenses I did. As you know the 17-55 F2.8 is a wonderful lens, but will not work with FX. Also, you are supposed to be a moderator not a wise ass. Yes, I realize I'm not the expert and maybe made a couple of questionable decisions. But, there is no need for your condescending attitude. PS: I never said it was Nikon's fault!</p>

<p>I would lighten my bag up by just leaving something at home. However it's your money and if all new stuff is what you want then just go for it. Don't spend your kids college money on it.</p>

<p>Ray, while I fully understand that nobody likes to be pointed out that he/she has made some poor choices, especially in public, I was merely being blunt to state the obvious that it is nobody else's fault. If you don't like my direct talk, that is understandable; in my book, that is not at all being condescending.</p>

<p>Canon makes a lot of excellent cameras and lenses. Other than losing some money selling and buying, I am sure you'll end up with some good Canon products. However, just keep in mind that full 35mm frame (FX in Nikon terminology) requires bigger and longer lenses to get the same angle of coverage. Therefore, there are some inherent conflicts between having light weight and full frame. I would suggest to think that through carefully this time.</p>

<p>Lighten up on Ray. He has a valid point. Nikon is somewhere short of Canon on offering telephoto options. This is one of my favorite beefs. I keep hoping that Nikon will wisen up.</p>

<p>Geez, since you have the money to bounce back and forth, keep your Nikon and buy the Canon. Next time you get dissatisfied with the Canon, you can take the Nikon gear out of the closet. Then after that you can switch back to the Canon, then back to the Nikon... :-)</p>

<p>Shun. In my book, you're still condescending sometimes. You're not playing fair! Robbie ... not a bad idea.</p>

<p>Ray -</p>

<p>I will agree with you on the weight of the Nikon Lenses and the lack of the same coverage area as Canon.</p>

<p>When I first was getting into digital, I looked at both a Canon and Nikon. For me the choice came down to ergonomics and usability. I went with Nikon. Now when I have to shoot a Canon for whatever reason, I'm like a 2 year old. I have no clue how anything works, where controls are, etc...</p>

<p>In the end - you have to make your choices and I'm assuming that you have sufficient means to make the switch back. Myself - I'm happy with Nikon and sticking with them.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>Maybe I'm missing something here...I see some very useful information coming as pertaining to your question. Sounds like you have thought this out and want to go with the Canon gear. Nothing wrong with that, but I'm wondering if maybe there is a physical limitation that has you wanting lighter gear and if so you might also check out some other camera models as well.</p>

<p>I would go for it Ray, you are going from a good system to another good system. The 5DMII is probably the best camera you can buy for the money. Let us know what you decide. I don't think Shun is being condescending, he just bleeds Nikon through and through and can't comprehend why you would give up your truly outstanding 2.8 lenses.</p>

<p>Pentax.</p>

<p>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/5DIIreview.shtml The author's comments under the heading 'Resolution' are interesting reading.</p>

<p>In June, I decided to go ff. It was down to the D700 and 5DII. My Nikkor lenses were all DX save one, which was not enough of a reason for me to not change brands, so I had nothing holding me to Nikon. The 5DII and fast Canon L zoom is definitely lighter than my D700 and fast Nikkor zoom. Ergonomics (especially the on/off switch), less menu-diving for what I do, glass, and Nikon's AEB swayed me. I darn near switched, though. It was that close.</p>

<p>I think in the end it's about the kind of shooting you do and what you're comfortable with...make yourself happy.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... Shun ..., he just bleeds Nikon through and through and can't comprehend why you would give up your truly outstanding 2.8 lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tim, that is not at all the reason. Not everybody needs those big and heavy f2.8 zooms. That is why both Canon and Nikon have slower and lighter alternatives.</p>

<p>Moreover, on photo.net, I always tell people that Canon makes excellent cameras and lenses. I use Nikon today because I switched from Minolta to Nikon back in 1977 and stay. Back 32 years ago, Canon was a much smaller and inferior player in the SLR market so that Nikon was the obvious choice then. Today, both would be excellent choices.</p>

<p>As close as I can figure, your current Nikon kit is about four and a half pounds heavier than the Canon kit you've described. If you traded in the 70-200 and the 300 for an 80-400VR, you'd have something a lot more like the Canon setup you've described, and the weight difference would be down to about a pound. If you were really bothered by that, trading in the 17-35 for an 18-35 would get the difference down to about a quarter pound.</p>

<p>For lenses, the Nikon setup would have a gap from 70 to 80mm, which I'd consider inconsequential, but be a full stop faster from 24 to 70mm, which I'd consider a substantial gain.</p>

<p>For bodies, that would be a crop-frame Nikon vs. a full-frame Canon, but it appears that in the long term, you probably want both formats regardless of brand, so it seems to be a fairly minor issue.</p>

<p>That leaves a question of ergonomics vs. money -- switching to Canon will almost certainly cost more than switching lenses in the Nikon line. Personally, I can't imagine anybody actually <strong>liking</strong> Canon's ergonomics, but I'll admit it's a matter of taste (and, in fairness, I think Nikon's are almost as bad).</p>

<p>There are, of course a few other choices. One big question would be how set you are on having a full-frame body. If you can live without that, Pentax has great ergonomics, very nice lenses, and will almost certainly come out lighter than Nikon or Canon. Since there is no full-frame body, it's open to at least a little question which lenses you'd want -- you'd probably want to place more emphasis on the shorter focal lengths, but it's a bit hard to guess exactly what you'd do.</p>

<p>If you are set on a full-frame body, the only other choice is Sony. The matching kit here would be:<br>

Alpha 900<br>

CZ 16-35/2.8<br>

CZ 24-70/2.8<br>

70-400G/4-5.6</p>

<p>Compared to your current Nikon kit, this would save a couple of pounds, increase your range out to 400mm instead of 300mm, and eliminate your current gap from 200 to 300 mm. It would be 1-1.5 stops slower from 70-200, but about the same sharpness (the Nikkor is a bit better at the center, the Sony a bit better at the edges). At 300mm, it's one stop slower, and (again) the Nikkor is a bit better at the center, but the Sony is a bit better at the edges.</p>

<p>Compared to the kit using the 80-400VR instead of the 70-200/2.8 and the 300/4, the Sony be about a pound heavier, but would eliminate the (trivial) gap from 70-80mm and be substantially sharper throughout the 70-400mm range. Of course, it would also be a full-frame 24 MP body instead of a crop-frame 12 MP body. If we compared weights using the Sony Alpha 700 (a 12 MP crop-frame body), the weight would be closer.</p>

<p>Compared to the Canon kit, the Sony would be about 1.8 pounds heavier but substantially sharper throughout essentially the entire range. The Sony would give better image quality in good light, but the Canon would do better in poorer light.</p>

<p>In case anybody cares, my comments about sharpness are based primarily on tests on photozone.de, though these also seem to match up reasonably well with results in real use.</p>

<p>Thanks to all. Actually, I have not already made up my mind. Most likely, I'll stay with Nikon as the results are outstanding. The D700 is just too good. I'll have to live with the weight of the 2.8s and stay on the tripod. But, I do like the feel of the Canon 5D MII and the 50D in my hands with the 24-105 F4. Probably would stay on 80% of the time. Lots of valid points in the comments. Jeff ... I did try the 80-400 VR, but was way too slow for birds. The 300 F4 with the 1.4 extender is much better in my case. D.B. ... very interesting review. I probably would use the 100-400 with a 50D. Ray ... no limitations, just getting older and love to hike. Also, I don't have a lot of money, I'm retired. But, photography is my vice. Shun ... I didn't mean to rough you up. </p>

<p>Shaun makes a lot of good points. And the lenses that you purchased weighed just as much when they were sitting in the store before you bought them. Besides, Nikon makes a lot of nice prime lenses. You don't have to cover every possible focal length! But, hey, it's your money.</p>

<p>To reduce weight, you could also consider getting a few more primes. The 180/2.8, 85/1.4, 35/2 are nice lenses which allow you to be more selective in what you pack in the bag; for example, if you expect to be using the 300/4, you could pack the 180 and 24-70 with it to reduce the weight and when you need the 70-200, pack just that, and the 35/2 for shorter shots and you'd have a lightweight bag.</p>

<p>If you go for the 24-105 and 100-400 the quality of the optics isn't the same as with the faster zooms or the primes. If you are happy with the quality of these lenses and don't need the speed then you may indeed be better off with the Canon kit, but at least for me wide apertures and shallow DOF, and the ability to shoot in really low light are critical.</p>

<p>I am a canon user 1d 3 and had a lot of problems with focusing. My friend who used to use canon had identical problems - he switched to nikon. A lot of folks complain about certain camera models focusing system. Make a researach before you switch.<br>

<b>Signature URL removed, not allowed per photo.net guidelines.</b></p>