Swapping from Nikon

<p>For various reasons, primarily because Nikon overcharge too much here in NZ, I am thinking of switching wholesale to Canon. A 1Ds 3 here is some NZ$5,000 cheaper than a D3x, for example.</p>

<p>My present kit is</p>

<p>D3<br>

D200<br>

F5<br>

24-70 2.8<br>

70-200 2.8 VR<br>

200-400 4.0 VR<br>

105 2.8 Macro<br>

SB800 speedlight</p>

<p>Body-wise I would probably go with a 1D 3 (not 's') and a 5D mk2 - I am a professional and need at least one very fast body for sports and action and high MP's would be useful for portrait and landscape stuff. I do not really need to replace the film body. I do love the high ISO capability of the Nikon D3, which I use a good deal shooting indoor sports.</p>

<p>Not being familiar with Canon lenses (I did have an AE1 Program in about 1984 though..!) I would be interested to see what choices people might recommend to cover the sort of range I have in Nikon. The 200-400 is a very expensive lens and I would actually prefer a 300mm 2.8 tele instead - but that is hardly cheaper.<br>

I am talking with Canon about borrowing some gear for a while from CPS, but will take all the advice I can get (even "don't do it!" if you have a good reason!)<br>

Ta</p>

<p>Well, if I were already as committed to a marque as you are to Nikon, I can't see how switching to another, incompatible system could be cheaper than just biting the bullet and upgrading where you are. Surely all new lenses and everything else is going to be more costly than the NZ$5000 you mention. You've already spent most of the money, haven't you? Just a new body would have to be cheaper than a whole new system from top to bottom, wouldn't it?</p>

<p>You don't need Canon. Just get a D700 Nikon to replace your D200 and be happy. The D3X is a bomb, too many megapixels that you don't need for any kind of commercial or personal work, and way too much money. JMNHO of course.</p>

<p>I'm a Canon shooter, but would advise you not to give up your D3 until Canon produces a sensor and DSLR which can match its low light performance.</p>

<p>For sports in dark arenas, wildlife near dawn or dusk, or concert, dance, and theatrical settings no Canon DSLR comes close to equalling the noise-free images delivered by the D3 at 3200 ISO and beyond. </p>

<p>Add to this Nikon's auto-ISO feature, and you can shoot in variable light conditions, seldom having to change settings and never using an ISO higher than necessary. </p>

<p>I would wait a year to see whether Canon can meet the challenge, then switch away if they can produce a winner.</p>

<p>The primary reason for changing is an on-going cost issue.</p>

<p>Nikon prices in NZ are unreasonable - always too much. For example</p>

<p>D3x NZ$17,500<br>

1 Ds Mk3 NZ$12,150</p>

<p>D3 NZ$9,590<br>

1D Mk 3 NZ$6,850</p>

<p>D700 NZ$6,850<br>

5D Mk2 NZ$4,590</p>

<p>Thus, every time I want to upgrade my bodies, I need to find at least 30% extra cash if I stay with Nikon. Photography is not an easy way to make a living and is hardly the best paid occupation one might pick - so the cost is a very serious consideration.<br>

There are also some other valid reasons I think:</p>

<p>CPS - Nikon offers no additional pro support here, Canon do<br>

Availability of hire gear - Canon is more widely available worldwide</p>

<p>Given that DSLR's are evolving at a rate where they are obsolete within 2 to 3 years (at current rates, I predict a 50MP DSLR by 2015 at the latest) it is just more sensible to save the equivalent cash of a new lens or a new Mac each time you upgrade the body. I think! <br>

The D3 is a brilliant machine - the battery life is stunning and when it works well it is awesome. Nikon's ergonomics trump Canon's too, I think. After all - what on earth would an alien think a "Tv" setting on a camera was for?!</p>

<p>I do agree that Canon need to play catch up a bit - and I am sure that they will fairly soon; I look forward to seeing that product and hope it will be priced right.<br>

I might start with a 5D Mk2 and one lens and see how I go....</p>

<p>Hi Marcus,<br>

I understand how you feel, prices here in NZ are ridiculous! Not only those of Nikon, but many others as well. I find no explanation to this phenomenon, and why some things are so overpriced here. But after the price difference on the 3Dx that you are mentioning, I would certainly feel the need to abandon the brand.<br>

On the other hand, you have a very good Nikon kit, changing brands will only be more expensive. I would only dare to recommend the change of brands to someone who is getting started in photography and have only a couple of cheap lenses. </p>

<p>The only alternative is to buy overseas - and Nikon only have themselves to blame if we all start doing that. Their draconian warranty terms try and prevent this by only covering DSLR bodies in the country of purchase rather than worldwide, so they are obviously aware of what they are doing. They still cover film bodies world-wide, rather strangely.<br>

In the USA, Nikon stuff gets a 5 year warranty - in NZ, 12 months. Even the pro bodies are not internationally covered, so if your gear fails whilst overseas on a shoot, you are just stuffed.<br>

Not really very good service.</p>

<p>Sounds like you are pretty convinced of changing to Canon... I am a canon shooter, and I was going to advise as everyone else that you stick with Nikon. Having read the comments above, I believe you have a point.. so in answer to you original questions... which Lenses?<br>

Canon do a very similar range to Nikon for the lens range you currently have</p>

<p>I can easily recommend the 70-200 f2.8 IS L lens, also either of the 24-70 f2.5 L or the 24-105 f4 IS L depending on your preference... both great choices</p>

<p>I would also consider more Primes if you are heading into the 21MP range. maybe the 35mm f1.4 and the 300mm.. both get great reviews</p>

<p>Thanks Scot.<br>

I actually would prefer not to - but I am starting to question whether I can afford not to in the long term view. Buying 3 1Ds Mk3 level bodies at current pricing over the next 10 years would save me over NZ$15,000 in comparison to the D3x.<br>

That is enough to buy a Canon 800mm, another body or a new Mac! Or even a new car!</p>

<p>It seems like you have good reaons to want to switch, and you might be right about getting out before investing any more into a system that will cost you more then it should every time. I'm a Nikon shooter at the moment, and I'm slowly selling my gear to switch to canon, not for money, but for some of the lens' and the Canon 5D (old one)... I'm not sure what condition your current gear is in but you might be able to sell it without taking too big a loss. If you want to equate your current kit, go ahead with the 1D MKIII (although the 1D MKIIn is a steal right now on the used market) and a 5D MKII. Canon has a 24-70 f2.8, four versions of the 70-200 including the equivalent to the Nikon, the 70-200 f2.8 IS. They have a 100mm macro f2.8 that is wxcellent and as good speedlights. <br>

In order to transition, i would suggest you grab a 5D MKII and whatever lens you use most and bring that along with your Nikon gear.<br>

I'm with you when it comes to Nikon's support worldwide, it sucks. I was in Paris and wanted to get the screen replaced for my D200 and they wouldn't do it, i had scratched the screen over time, i mean it's not as if it was a fix, or a repair... They did however sell me a new seal for my F100 and tuned my shutter speeds and cleaned out the prism for free, all in 1/2 hour. It makes no sense... I know that Canon doesn't deal with customers that way, they see it as: "Here is a guy who spent thousnands of dollars on our gear, he trusts this equipmet to make a living, lets make sure he's happy and stays with us!" A single shooter represents thousands of dollars over time, lens', flashes, cameras every 2.5 years, accessories...<br>

You'll also find that canon does have a larger choice of lens' then Nikon although the one exception i can think of is the 14-24 f2.8 which stands apart from all lens'. Canon updates it's lens' often, new versions come out and for any focal length, their is ususally a cheaper, one stop slower version of the same lens. (16-35/f2.8 & 17-40/f4, 70-200 f2.8 & 70-200 f4, 70-200 f2.8 IS & 70-200 f4 IS, 24-70 f2.8 & 24-105 f4 IS) They have a larger selection of modern primes and i find them to be (usually) 15% cheaper to buy then the equivalent Nikon lens.</p>

<p>Good luck :)</p>

<p>

<p>You have been in Nikon for years. Can you wait one more month? Maybe PMA will have something interesting for you.</p>

<p>Currently I think you're on the right track. 1D Mk III, 5D Mk II, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 IS, 300/2.8 IS, 100/2.8 macro (no VR), 580EX are a comparable kit to what you have.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

</p>

<p>I didn't realize Nikon was that expensive in NZ, that sucks. Usually I wouldn't recommend anyone switching systems with that much invested, but after seeing the price differences maybe it is a smart choice. I have always liked Nikon bodies in terms of design, but Canon's aren't bad either and you quickly get used to them. Biggest reason I have stayed with Canon is like you mention, PRICE$$. I found that usually Nikon prices were always higher than the equivalent Canon gear. Also as Sam mentioned I like their lens selection better. Nikon lenses to get a pro grade build and quality glass you have to get larger heavier lenses only usually offered in a f/2.8 version. Where as with Canon if you don't need that fast of lenses they they offer smaller, one stop slower versions like 70-200 f/4 IS, 24-105 f/4 IS and so forth. As a landscape shooter that hardly ever shoots below f/8 that is really a nice option to have and saves me chunk of change as well. Something else to think about is waiting toward end of the year to switch because with Photokina in fall of 2009 there are lot rumors starting to surface with Canon replacing the 1DIII and new Nikon rumors as well. Just something to think about.<br>

But only you know better than anyone else on this forum what is the best business decision for you as a professional and if it was me I would personally make my decision on that, not what others on this forum say. I'm sure what ever you decide will be the right move for you..</p>

<p>Marcus, search the archives a bit and you'll find Canon shooters who want to switch to Nikon. If you're serious about switching, you shouldn't have a difficult time finding someone who will swap kits outright.</p>

<p>I'm currently a Canon user, but with the expensive and very fine Nikon gear you already own I find it hard to see how the switch would benefit <em>you</em> . In the end it really doesn't matter much at all to your photography which brand you use, and while one company may sometimes "pull ahead" of the other a bit the tables will likely be turned soon.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

24-70 2.8 -> 24-70L f2.8

 

70-200 2.8 VR -> 70-200L f2.8 IS

 

200-400 4.0 VR -> As you say, a 300L f2.8 is expensive. Maybe a 300L f4.0?

 

105 2.8 Macro -> 100mm f2.8 Macro

 

SB800 speedlight -> Speedlite 580EX II

<p>I was going to hop on the "don't switch" bandwagon, but I'm frankly astonished at the premium you must pay for Nikon gear. I guess you do have good reasons to switch. For all it's worth, though, if you're not the only one with these thoughts, Nikon will be dropping its prices to maintain market share and/or Canon raising its prices to expand margins. However, if that is true, you can sell your Nikon gear now while it still commands a premium and buy Canon gear now before prices rise. At least that's how a savvy investor would buy/sell the gear if it were shares of stock.</p>

<p>Yakim's equipment list would pretty much suit your objectives, but I'll add my support for the f/4 optics, which are quite good for many photographers. They are a bit better optimized for medium apertures and tend to be a bit sharper than the 2.8 optics overall (but not by much). I love my 17-40 (which is non-IS) and my 24-105 IS. The 24-105 has mixed reviews, but my own copy seems much better than the reviews and test data would suggest. I decided to buy the 24-105 IS, rather than the 24-70/2.8, because of my heavy reliance on IS in natural light photography. I was prepared to sacrifice just a bit of sharpness in the bargain. However, I'm not the least bit disappointed with the lens in any area. I will add that it's a great walkaround lens, owning to its comfortable fl range and lighter weight. That may not be as important to what you are doing, but it makes a big difference to me.</p>

<p>Canon doesn't have a good equivalent to Nikon's 200-400. The 100-400L has corner softness issues. However, the 300/2.8 should be fine.</p>

<p>Good luck with your swap!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Your easiest solution is to find a source to buy Nikon equipment outside of New Zealand. I have friends in Australia, and they regularly order from B&H in New York. Otherwise, you may or may not like Canon equipment and therefore risk switching back and forth. For example, Canon simply does not make any lens like the Nikon 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR, which is one of my favorites.<br />At a minimum, I would rent some Canon body and lens to play around with for a couple of days and see whether you like them or not.</p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>If you choose to switch, and it sounds like you have some good reasons to consider it, I think you'll find the 1D MkIII will match your cameras for speed, function and quality quite well, although you might miss the D3's nice, bright LCD when shooting out of doors.</p>

<p>This is purely speculative, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear of a 1D MkIII"N" or Mark IV in the not-to-distant future. It's a pretty good bet the 1Ds will be upgraded soon, too, since the 5D MkII now matches it in many respects (plus has video!) and Canon's lost their megapixel crown to the D3x and A900. I doubt Canon will let that stand for very long, even though both the current 1D models aren't all that old.</p>

<p>New versions of the 1D cameras will no doubt see an upgraded LCD to keep up with the competition (and Canon's own models).</p>

<p>I think it probably the 1D MkIIIN or Mk IV would see a bump in megapixels, from the current 10MP. It won't be huge, though, since they will still be looking to produce 9 or 10 frames per second with the camera. Higher ISO (up from the current 6400) is a pretty good guess, too.</p>

<p>Who knows what else the new 1-series will get, but a new AF system is a possibility (and that they have one in development is something Canon execs have actually hinted at, so this is a little less speculative than most rumors... it's more just a matter whether it's ready for the real world yet).</p>

<p>But, then again, who's to say just how well any new AF system will work? Look at how well that worked out for them with the Mk III! (More than a few still like the 1D MkIIN AF system better than the 1D MkIII's... but that's a pretty well documented topic).</p>

<p>The 5D Mk II will be slower handling than any of your cameras, AF and frame rate.... But, hey, it's got video mode! (What were they thinking?!)</p>

<p>Some of the lenses are pretty easy. I agree that Canon's 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 IS and 100/2.8 USM macro are all pretty equal to their most similar Nikkor counterparts.</p>

<p>Canon doesn't offer any thing exactly equivalent to the pricey 200-400/4. There is the 100-400 IS Canon, but that's not really in the same class optically and is f5.6 out at the long end.</p>

<p>But, thanks to the 1.3X APS-H sensor of the 1D with either a 300/4 or 300/2.8 you will be seeing roughly the same reach as that lens, even if it's not the convenience of a zoom instead. Both of these are IS lenses, although the IS system in the f4 lens is the "early" version you have to turn off manually on a tripod.</p>

<p>Some people like the Nikon flash system better. To me the Canon system is just fine too. 580EX I will be the swap for your SB800.</p>

<p>If you wished, even a film camera swap would be pretty easy, I think. pick up a used EOS-3 or 1V. There are great deals around on both of these.</p>

<p>If it were me, I'd wait until PMA just to see if a new 1D gets announced, with improved features and sending Mark III prices downward. If that happens, you could then either buy the older model for less money or the newer model for it's new features if they appeal to you. It probably won't have video... But, hey, you never know!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks all. Yes, Sarah - I too am astonished! However, Nikon prices have just gone up at least 10% in the last 2 months and they have rarely if ever fallen. I just think that the market here is so small that Nikon are prepared to take whatever they can get on the grounds that it is not worth the marketing effort to secure more customers - there are, after all, only 4 million people living here and probably only a fraction of a percent of those are in the professional body buying segment.<br>

I agree with Shun that buying from the US or Canada is not a bad plan - until your camera goes wrong and you have to send it there for repair due to the protectionist warranty system Nikon have. With no NPS in NZ, there is no gear to borrow whilst yours is repaired and so on. If Nikon had a positive attitude to the customers outside the USA who buy their gear - offering 5 year warranties and NPS, that would obviously be a plus point for them.<br>

One of the dealers here has sold their entire allocation of D3x's already, which amazes me given the price.<br>

For me it is becoming an issue of price. I can't be the first person in NZ to think this, as Canon NZ actually have a dedicated staff member to assist photographers thinking of switching!<br>

Part of the problem may be that there is no "Nikon NZ" - it is all done through a distributor. Australia does have Nikon Australia and I know that gear is cheaper there.<br>

When the D3x was announced, the price in NZ was NZ$21,500 until it was pointed out to them that we could buy it in Australia for NZ$15,500! It is still way too high as an ongoing commitment though, I think.</p>

<p>Maybe you can sell your Nikon stuff on eBay you might get a better deal than trying to trade it in. I had a friend who took out a loan several years ago so that he could buy some Canon gear and do some wedding work with it. When the Nikon D200 came out he was awe struck by the hype and the capabilites of this camera. He traded all his Canon equipment in before he even finished paying for the loan. His original equipment I think consisted of a Canon 20D several lenses, flash and a printer. I don't think he got more than a thousand dollars for it. </p>

<p>I wonder what the threadstarter meant. Selling such a kit (that lowly amateurs can only dream of) means a huge loss, no matter how good a deal you make. Canon cannot be that cheap.</p>

<p>I beleive that Marcus wants to get out of a system that is costing him more over time. Selling his current equipment and the would have been cost of staying with Nikon are much higher then the one time cost of switching systems... Whether or not that is accurate, i don't know since i can't speak for the used market in NZ or the condition of his gear, however judging from the price info he has posted, quick math makes it that 2-3 new nikon bodies cover the additional cost of switching systems... I would say go fo it. Rent or borow from CPS a body and lens and make sure you won' miss somthign with the new system, apart from getting used to new menus and button layout, i think you should be fine.</p>

<p>Don't do anything. Canon is about to upgrade the 1D3 in response to the leakage of 000's of pro's from Canon. The Canon is an ergo nightmare compared to the D3. You have the platinum collection of Nikon FX lenses. You made your investment. The body is just a scanner.<br>

Comparing to the D3x?...is the D3 not enough? You will only notice the possible difference in a print that's A0 size or bigger. The 12mp sensor already out resolves most of the gold ring Nikon lenses, as does the 5D2 with Canons L series. In fact, Canon have to go to 21Mp to match the D700 in resolution, but with more noise, why upgrade?<br>

The D3x is inferior to the D3 in low light, hi ISO situations. Thats the price you pay for more sensor cells.<br>

If you are so fussed about price, buy yourself a return airfare to Hong Kong and you can have the D3x much cheaper than in NZ. Or you can buy it in Sydney at A$12300 (US$7500). Nikon is waiting to see how many orders they get at the introduction price before they lower it. I'm told its plenty. Its on back order. They are also being cagey about dropping the price with the 1D4(?)coming soon. I also hear that the Canon 1D3 successor this year will be at the Nikon 3Dx price.<br>

Neither manufacturer can afford to be too far away from each others list price as the pro end of the market is intensely competitive.</p>

<p>Sam has the right idea.</p>

<p>In essence, once this stuff becomes tools for making a living, you have to adjust your view of it. I do not dream of one badge or another - I can take pictures for my clients with either and frankly both produce stunning results in 90% of situations, with perhaps one having a slight edge over the other in the other 10% of situations. Both are built well and are reliable.</p>

<p>The question is very much a long term cost one: If I buy one Nikon pro body every 3 years for say the next 21 years, at current prices I will pay between NZ$66,000 and NZ$122,000. (using D3 and D3x prices)<br>

The same Canon bodies (ignoring the EOS5D Mk2) would cost between NZ$48,000 and NZ$85,000. (EOS 1D Mk3 and EOS 1Ds Mk3)<br>

Switching now to Canon would therefore save between NZ$18,000 and NZ$37,000 over that 21 year period.</p>

<p>Of course, I have ignored pricing and technology changes over the 21 years - but I have no way to account for those! Based on current pricing, you can see that Canon is much cheaper to buy, will run just as well and take just as good images.<br>

Yes, I will loose money (which can be written off as a business cost) when I sell or trade the gear (which is in great order, btw) but what I am wrestling with now is a long term business decision as much as it is anything else.</p>

<p>Marcus, you should experiment with the Canon system before deciding on whether or not you should or even have a legitimate reason to abandon Nikon. For a very long time, Canon had consistently appeared to be the better system for me on paper. More choices: both better and cheaper choices; and a generally more well-rounded system with everything up to date (as far as lenses, especially f/4 pro zooms, primes, and telephotos). But for the few times I got to really use Canon, the actual shooting experience (controls, feel), and the end result (down to the RAW files, and out of camera twicked JPEGs) just feel and look different. For reasons that are not exactly black and white but yet obvious, I like how Nikon's products feel. So despite the fact that I'm paying more for Nikon gears (yes, this is even the case in the US), I decided to stick with it.</p>

<p>As far as lenses goes, you should realize you have quite a few lenses that Canon doesn't really have an equivalent of. The 200-400 f/4 VR is one obvious exclusive product. (although it's true Canon's 300 f/2.8L IS is cheaper than Nikon's 300 f/2.8 VR, and they also make a good 300 f/4 with IS) Canon's 100 micro lacks VR/IS, and it's a mid-grade non-L lens (Nikon's 105 VR is gold-ringed). Nikon's 24-70 is a newer lens than Canon's 24-70 f/2.8L. Both are said to have good optics (I use the nikkor, and I know it sure does), but the Nikon does feature better egronomics (most significantly a skinner, more handholdable body with a reasonable wide zoom ring).</p>

<p>I think chances are the switch itself might cost you more than the amount you can save from switching...</p>