Switching from Canon - possibly dumb question

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by steve george, Dec 13, 2010.

  1. For various reasons I'm thinking of switching to Nikon. I've built quite a collection of Canon L glass but even so know I'll make a loss if
    I switch systems and try and get like-for-like Nikon glass. I think I can live without some zooms though as I so rarely use them so I'm
    potentially willing to not do a full same-as swap.

    My possibly dumb question is: I've only ever used fullframe digital, and I almost entirely use 35mm on one body and 85mm on the
    other. Would getting one crop body and putting a 24mm FX lens on it and one full frame body and an 85mm lens on it give me a
    similar setup but with added 24mm and 135mm (or close) by swapping the lenses over?

    I know that might seem dumb to some people I'm just wondering whether to stick with fullframe or mix it up a bit. If I can lighten my
    camera bag at the same time I may as well.

    Also anyone know of anywhere in the UK that'll part-exchange Canon gear for Nikon?
     
  2. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Steve, I hope you don't mind me giving you a very straight-forward answer: if you merely want to play around with gear from different brands, obviously it is your money and you are free to buy whatever camera you want with it. However, based on your description, from a photography point of view, I think you have every reason to stay with Canon. The 24mm, 85mm and 135mm type lenses are very common and are available on Canon as well as Nikon and several other brands.
     
  3. I can't imagine anyone wanting to switch from Canon to Nikon. Canon has a better selection of lenses that cost less than Nikon. Image quality is top notch. 5DMKII is an epic camera. I'm a Nikon user simply because my father was a Nikon user and I happen to like being able to use older manual focus lenses on Nikon digital bodies. But I have tons of respect for Canon and it's the only other brand of camera that I'd consider "switching" to.
     
  4. Is there a very compelling reason for you to switch? Just wondering... As you said, you have some cash already invested on glass and you've used only full-frame bodies. Why go for a camera with a DX sensor now?

    Again, just wondering. I wish I could help about the gear exchange but I frankly have no clue about places that would do this. Take care and have fun!
     
  5. Perhaps he wants proper AF and metering^^
     
  6. in answer to the question, i personally find it quite useful -- perhaps even preferable -- to have one foot in each world: full frame and crop sensor. i use them differently than you propose, but see no reason why your application isn't equally valid. nikon's current FX and DX bodies are subject to much debate around here, with many users insisting that their DX bodies are on par in most respects they value with the FX models, while allowing as how FX bodies may have some small benefits. the point is, there's no reason to view owning and using one body of each type as being perverse or iconoclastic.
     
  7. Since Canon has APS-C (1.6x crop factor) and APS-H (1.3x crop factor) cameras, you have even more options within the Canon system; Nikon offers only a 1.5x crop factor in addition to FX.
    To answer your question though: yes, putting a 24mm lens on a Nikon DX body will give you the FOV of a 36mm lens and attaching a 85mm to it will give you the FOV of a 127.5mm lens.
     
  8. Shun: I'm a professional photographer making a living from my equipment. I started with manual focus Nikons, went to Canon for the fast primes and AF and stuck with them for digital for full frame with the lenses I had. I've always wanted to use what I consider the best tools for the job.
    Dave / Francisco: it's different strokes for different folks. The 5dmk2 is great (I use one) but I'm not liking Canon's QC and that's why I'm considering switching. This is the issues I've personally had in the past 12 months:
    35mm f1.4L a total dog as a performer
    24-70mm f2.8L loose internal element
    5D mirror fall out
    5Dmk2 totally random battery charge indicator and other random unpredictable behaviour
    Two 580ex II flashes inconsistent in firing
    Given the price of that kind of gear that's not what I'd expect.
    Of all the Canon equipment I've ever owned in the digital age the only pieces never to let me down ever are the 70-200mm f2.8L, the 85mm f1.2L and 135mm f2L.
    Friends - professional and amateur photographers alike - have been having significant issues with the 5Dmk2 and 1dmk4, and of course there were the well known issues with the 1dmk3.
    I'm replacing 2 cameras next year as part of a natural upgrade cycle. I'm wondering whether now is the time to jump ship (I see a lot less issues reported with Nikon) or to continue investing in a brand I'm not sure if I can trust. When you go to a job nervous about your equipment it's not a good feeling and despite having all the backups I need it makes me question why I'm sticking with Canon - a bride and groom only walk out of the church once and you need to know your flash is going to fire, not have in the back of your mind the times it didn't and hoping that's not going to happen again (one unit - maybe faulty...two units though...that gives no faith in design).
    The wedding I shot on Saturday was typical in being shot entirely at either 35mm or 85mm with a handful of shots at the 24mm end of the 24-70mm, hence my question. It's not a decision I'm taking lightly but one I need to think about rather than blindly follow a brand loyalty.

    William: thanks for your thoughts.
     
  9. I should add - the flash issue is well known if you search the internet for it, likewise the issue my friend is having with his 5Dmk2 is common, my 5D mirror fall out is common...these aren't isolated and again, that's a reason for concern.
     
  10. If you`re not a fussy photographer, it sounds just right. Two lenses, two cameras and four focals...
    Not for me, I`m so fussy and like to work with the very same pair.
    If you decide to buy FX pro lenses in a future, better to have two FX cameras. One with a 24-70 (or 17-35), the other with a 70-200.
     
  11. Thanks Jose. I am fussy, but as 95% of my work is with 2 focal lengths I could live more than happily with covering those. I'd have more lenses as back-up (probably a 50mm and 135mm) but that'd do me for most of what I do. Now knowing that the 2 bodies would allow me to double up on effective focal length it's quite an attractive prospect. I can cover my usual while having a bit of flexibility when I want it (which isn't often).
    I'm really not a zoom user either - my Canon 24-70 and 70-200 rarely see daylight. It's fast primes for me and 35mm and 85mm cover my "vision" of a wedding.
     
  12. The D300 and D700 are quite similar... except for the viewfinder size and a very few other little details (eyepiece, electronic rangefinder arrows, focus point map on top screen). I try to remember that menus were identical. Both looks the same, grip is almost identical. Same detachable battery grip on both. Very close image quality at base ISO on both... it is an advantage.
     
  13. FWIW, you can set the full frame Nikon bodies to crop the image for you. You could certainly accomplish the same effect in post. Of course you lose the higher pixel density of a crop sensor, but that probably isn't a huge issue for you especially if you're starting with the higher resolution D3x. You could also probably pick up a used 40D first to see if you like the format before completely jumping ship.
    If you're committed to spending a good chunk of change you could get the 35 and 85 for the full frame body and 17-55/2.8 for the crop body. It's big, expensive, and DX format only, but would give you the added flexibility of a zoom and a dedicated lens for the body.
     
  14. Steve,
    I reckon if you have lost faith then you perhaps had better change systems...and hope to god that it works out. You seem to be unlucky, but if you regain your faith in the equipment then it will be worth it.
     
  15. Would getting one crop body and putting a 24mm FX lens on it and one full frame body and an 85mm lens on it give me a similar setup​
    Steve,
    Sounds lika a plan, another idea might be to swap that around maybe to FX with 35mm and DX with 50mm / or 60mm /or 85mm something like that. . ( or just have the set of 24mm, 50mm 85mm and 135mm available, and use what fits best for the job on hand. :) )
    Just out of interest, for the FX : where you thinking D700 or D3x/s ?
     
  16. Or check out the possibility of switching to Sony: a850 FF plus a580 aps-c bodies with Carl Zeiss 24 f2 and 85 f1.4 lenses plus a pair of F58AM flashes and vertical grips will set you up quite nicely. The a580 will cover video, phase detection AF in live view, as well as sensor stabilized shots at odd angles through the tilting lcd. The a850 provides you with a massive OVF and a stabilized FF sensor. If you wanted to add a truly unique lens to your repertoire then you could also get the Sony 135 STF for extra creamy bokeh effects against crowded backgrounds.
     
  17. The apparent greenness of the grass on the far side of the fence is directly proportional to the length of time spent on the near side of the fence. Unless you're a fanboy, in which case it's inversely proportional.
     
  18. Would getting one crop body and putting a 24mm FX lens on it and one full frame body and an 85mm lens on it give me a similar setup but with added 24mm and 135mm (or close) by swapping the lenses over?​
    Nikon APS-C 'crop sensor' ('DX' in Nikonese) bodies have a sensor 2/3 the size of full-frame, which itself is very nearly identical to 35mm film (23.9 x 36mm). The inverse of 2/3 is 1.5. Therefore, to calculate the effective focal length on a Nikon DX multiply the focal length by 1.5. So, on a DX camera, a 24mm lens would give the angle of view the same as a 36mm lens on a full-frame (FX in Nikonese) DSLR, and the angle of view of an 85mm lens would appear the same as a 127.5mm lens with FX. They would, of course, provide their normal 35mm film angle of view of 24 and 85mm respectively on an FX camera.
    I don't shoot for a living, but I shoot one FX and one DX camera when I go out a-shootin'. I put the wider lens on the D700 and the longer one on the D200 to get the 'reach' advantage. Said another way, since a DX body uses the 1.5x multiplier to figure angle of view, all lenses used on a DX body will have the field of view of a longer lens. Indeed, FX bodies can be used in 'DX mode', but the resolution drops. In the case of my D700, it drops from 12mp to about 5mp when used in 'DX mode'. The only advantage over just cropping in post is that I can mount a DX lens and shoot with it cleanly (no vignetting seen in the image file). So clearly, a higher resolution DX camera has a certain 'reach' advantage with longer lenses - it's like using a 1.5x teleconverter with no optical or light loss penalty. DX cameras also 'crop off' the weaker part of full-frame lenses - the corners and edges, allowing the optically stronger part of the lens' field of view to be used.
    OTOH, FX cameras can 'see' wider, and they generally give better high ISO, low light less noise, and dynamic range results. This changes, though, with newer cameras as the technology gets better. When a killer DX sensor like the new D7000 comes out (performs about like a D700 for high ISO/low light/DR), Nikon soon ups the IQ ante with a new FX camera, especially since the flagship pro models are FX. If you switch, you will, of course, need to get used to your lenses all being black. Then again, your hands don't have to be as clean. :) Hope this helped.
     
  19. Howdy!
    As an engineer, I would advise you to expect a certain amount of failures no matter what platform you use. I don't know the exact statistics, but I suspect Nikon users have their headaches too.
    If you are used to full frame as a professional, I suspect you will be unhappy with crop frame.
    I'm a Canon guy because back in 2005, Nikon didn't have a good CMOS sensor platform. If I had it to do all over again, I might choose differently. But now that I know Canon systems, even if I won the lottery, I would probably stick with Canon. It may not be perfect, but it's what I know.
    Later,
    Paulsky
     
  20. @Steve George: You have revealed enough discontent with your Canon equipment. Logic has it that you have a desire to buy into the current Nikon offerings. It is best you do that and move on. If Nikon lives up to your minimum requirements, then you will have made the right decision. No one here can tell you what to do.
     
  21. As a user of both systems, I'll agree that the 580 EX II can misfire unpredictably. The Nikon CLS system is more reliable IMO.
    Nikon doesn't have a recent model 35 mm lens for FX. You might want to wait for a new version with nano-coatings. The new Nikon 85 mm looks great, but the lack of VR seems like a significant oversight. Yes, you could put a 24 mm lens on a crop sensor camera (DX in Nikonspeak), but are you ready to work with the puny viewfinder?
     
  22. I've used both Canons and Nikons professionally. Learned years ago on canons, then minolta, and settled on nikon. I bought a 5d, some pro glass, etc to compliment my d2x. Couldn't stand the thing, honestly. The ergos and controls didn't work for me. I worked with it long enough to get fluid with the controls but the camera always felt soulless in my hands. I truly believe that Nikon makes a more well thought out product. I'm shooting with a d3 these days and had a d300s as a back up. Sold the d300s and looking to get another fx when the d700 successor comes out. Not a fan of the crop sensors and their smaller viewfinders. Your reasoning is interesting but just remember that dx sensor doesn't change your focal length, just your angle of view and you really can get to the same point by cropping your image off the full frame sensor.
    My vote would be to pick up two d700's, a 35 and an 85 and be happy. Trust me, you can crop the 85 down to be similar to a 200mm or narrower angle of view and still have plenty to work with to make awesome prints. While I try to avoid this I regularly find myself seriously cropping my images to change their use and I'm always amazed at how well they hold up. (all D3 files)
    All this being said you better make sure you like the Nikon ergonomics and controls before you buy in. They are different from canon and plenty of people truly prefer one or the other. Good luck!
     
  23. There is a new nikon 35 f1.4
    I wish I could afford two camera, how ever I don't make a living with photography.
    I could and do shoot 95% of my photos with a 35 f2 and a 85 f1.4 on a D3, so I can see where you are coming from.
    And I think a crop body and a full frame would be nice.
    Brand choce is a personal decsion, I think both brand produce excellent gear, I do think nikon has the edge with flash.
    Good luck what ever you decide, confidence in your gear is very important.
    Dennis
     
  24. Steve,
    I've switched my system last year, from Canon to Nikon, and I've had some quite nice L lenses, too (a 50/1.2 which I still miss today....). First of all, I made a balance of how much everything is worth if I sell it, and how much it'd cost me to replace (new and/or used). Had I upgraded my Canon, I would have been forced to replace some of my other lenses not suited for full frame, so I needed to buy them regardless of the final system.
    I broke almost even in the end. Some of the lenses I bought were new, some were barely used new models like the 70-200/2.8.
    Follow your gut. If you think it's the right decision, do some accounting and go ahead. Personally, I haven't had any regrets for a minute, and I'm so much more content. Other people may not be.
    Good luck
    Monika
     
  25. Steve,
    The only reasons I really see to have a crop sensor are a) Price or b) Focal Multiplier. Weight is not a substantial issue when you are using pro-quality equipment anyway.
    FWIW I shoot Canon, because that's what I started with and that's what the other pros I know shoot. I would add a Nikon FF setup to my bag in a minute if I had the extra cash laying around. It's increasingly common to see shooters with both systems now, because of the trade-offs involved with one or the other.
    But, back to your question. I firmly believe if you are accustomed to your full frame FOV, DOF, IQ, Image quality, and ISO, then you will miss it and be sorry. Skip the crop body.
     
  26. I make my living photographing weddings. I used to shoot with two Canon 5D's and L lenses. Issues with blown / soft focus drove me crazy. I wanted to throw my 5Ds against a wall. Never had too many issues with QC..... 85 1.2 once needed repair. But my 24-70 had a 'soft' corner and liked to back focus- not a good combination. I thought long and hard about switching to Nikon. Everything I read about the 5DII auto focus left me feeling ill- Canon had not made an AF update from the 5D, and that was enough reason for me to 'jump ship'. I made a gradual move to Nikon by picking up a D700, 24-70 and 14-24 and SB-900. The percentage of sharply focused images rose dramatically. Hands down, the D700 and Nikon lenses allowed me to be much more confident at weddings and I was able to capture images that would have beef iffy with the 5D. Differences in image quality between the two (5D & D700), in normal light were non-existant, but in low light, the D700 had a distinct advantage. Yes, I missed my Canon primes..... but Nikon is slowly remedying that, their 24 1.4 and 85 1.4. On a side note, at half the price of the 85 1.4G, I decided to pick up Sigma's 85 1.4 and it is phenomenal. No focus issues on my D700 (as others have reported), and my copy is very sharp. Steve, you may want to wait and see what changes are in store for Canon and Nikon this spring, or not. You might want to make the switch sooner than later. Here's why- If you switch to Nikon, be prepared for a pretty steep learning curve that won't take over night. You'll want to get acclimated to Nikon's somewhat 'different' controls before shooting your first wedding. I found the switch from the 5D to the D700 difficult and fairly time consuming. I had to re-program my 'Canon brain' to Nikon's interface. I practiced for weeks with my D700 before shooting my first wedding. Not sure about going to a crop body..... but the D7000 sure sounds amazing. I wish you the best with whatever you decide to do.
     
  27. Steve, while the focal lengths will indeed work out as you suggest, there may be more involved than that. For one thing, 24mm on DX will provide more depth of field at a given aperture than 35mm on DX, which may or may not be a good thing depending on your objectives.
    There may also be more subtle differences that you would have to evaluate, ideally by trying out the various combinations. Nikon offers two autofocus models each in the 24mm and 35mm focal lengths—the large and costly f/1.4 versions and the much smaller and cheaper 24mm f/2.8 and 35mm f/2. Your decision might turn on which version of each you would be using and whether you care about subtle nuances or are more of the "f/8 and be there" school.
     
  28. Never used Cannon before but I have nothing to complaint about my Nikon equipment. Have a D300, 50 f/1.8, 35 f/1.8, SB-800 ( superb and never failed, never ever ), 70-300 VR, 16-85 VR. As I said, none of them have failed me ever and I am using Nikon since 1990 ( back then the N8008, 35-70, 70-200 and the SB-24 ). I will get soon the 70-200 f/2.8 VR II and probably another flash unit ( SB-900 ) and I am very sure that they will not fail me ever. If you do not feel happy ( don't have confidence ) and you depends on your equipment for living, then move on and welcome. I am very sure that you will be very happy.
     
  29. You're the professional who has to work with these. I just don't understand why are you asking us?
    I do know that Nikon's flash system is much better than Canon's--at least that's what all the Nikon people tell me.
    If you've expensed out all that Canon equipment, why not keep it and have both systems?
    Get what you want, "full" or "crop" frame, it's your business, literally; but if you want to throw away all that L glass, I have a worthy charity that will take it off your hands. I'll even pay shipping.
    We'll look forward to a report a year or so from now on how the switch went.
    Oh, if you want to go to a job and be nervous about your equipment, I suggest that you look into Pentacon 6 and Kiev medium format cameras. ;)
     
  30. I'm a Nikon guy. Have been for 46 years.
    That said I think you're nuts to switch, at least from a financial standpoint.
    But if you do, get two full frame bodies or two half-assed bodies. You want your lenses to work equally well on both bodies. (I am, as you may have guessed, somewhat prejudiced toward full frame.)
     
  31. I'm a Nikon user, and would love to have you in my camp, but I am wondering what functional advantage you are pondering.
    1. Better AF?
    2. Better ISO?
    3. Both have full frame and various smaller sensors
    4. Better lens for you particular business needs?
    5. Less time in repair shops?
    6. More responsive technical support?
    7. Or??
    What do you hope to gain that you don't have with Canon?
     
  32. Well, the most important statement anyone can make is that if you don't see any problems, there's no reason to change. Personally I shoot Nikon, as my father also shot Nikon, and I had a ton of old lenses to port over to digital. Starting from scratch, I see it break down like this:
    Canon:
    1) More stuff. More megapixels per dollar, better video, etc.
    2) 1.2 AF lenses.
    3) 70-200 f/4. I'd own this if it fit a Nikon.
    4) Works with ALL AF Canon lenses.
    Nikon:
    1) Better 'base' features. Better weather-sealing and build in that price range, better ISO performance in that price range.
    2) Better flashes.
    3) Works with MF lenses, albeit usually without a working meter.
    4) Many more sealed, gasketed lenses.
    If I were starting from scratch, I'd say that a Canon camera is more likely to 'punch above its weight', as the expression goes. I'd say that a Nikon camera is more likely to last to the 100,000 shutter actuations, or whatever it's rated for. I'm hard on my gear, so I'm sticking with Nikon. That said, I would like that 70-200 f/4, and I wouldn't mind Canon's 100 f/2 either.
     
  33. Hi, i shoot nikon full frame and i think you should reconsider the switch. While i love my D700 and the D3 i use at work sometimes, i see that 12 megapixel is often not enough for a big part of my work ( model stuff). Also, as durable as a D700 might seem, i had mine in service after 5 months of usage.
    Nikon's new 1.4 primes are also very good indeed, but the major hole in the nikon lineup is still the megapixel count. There are numerous rumors that next year there will be a 24 mpix replacement for the D700 (a nikon rep confirmed the rumor at an event), so i think you should wait and see what 2011 brings.
    Cheers.
     
  34. “…I almost entirely use 35mm on one body and 85mm on the other.”
     
    “…I'm just wondering whether to stick with fullframe or mix it up a bit.”
     
    Prior to the digital era, like you, I used the 35mm f/1.4 and the 85mm f/1.8 lens on my 35mm SLRs to shoot 70% of my professional assignments. Wider wide angles accounted for 10%; longer telephotos accounted for 10%; and macro lenses covered the remaining 10%. When Nikon publicly stated that it would stick with the cropped sensor and not make a camera with a full-frame sensor, I had too much invested in Nikon lenses to make a switch to the Canon full-frames. Instead, I patiently waited for Nikon to succumb to market pressures and change its policy.
     
    However, when I could no longer compete by shooting film in the newly forming digital world, I was the one forced to succumb to market pressures. I purchased a DX body.
     
    When I bought my first DX body, the Nikon D700 and D3 FX bodies was not yet available. If it had been, I would have purchased one of them and avoided all the following problems and unnecessary added expenses I had with my DX body.
     
    1. The crop factor changed the angle-of-view to the point where I had to replace some lenses. For example, my 35mm f/1.4 was the lens I used most often. I had to switch to the 24mm f/2 to get the same angle-of-view but the 24mm had less lens speed and less image quality.
     
    2. The crop factor changed the angle-of-view on some lenses that simply could not be replaced. For example, my wide angle 28mm perspective control lens was worthless to me as a normal perspective control lens on the DX body. I would need an 18mm perspective control lens to replace it but such a lens does not exist.
     
    3. The widest angle lens I used on my film cameras was an 18mm. The DX crop factor made my 18mm perform like a 28mm lens. I had to buy a wider wide angle lens just to give me the same coverage on my DX body that I had on my FX film body.
     
    4. Manually focusing my film cameras was relatively easy. I found it very difficult to accurately focus manually on the DX body. Even with a KatzEye screen, manual focusing the DX was not as easy. I had to replace many of my manual focus prime lenses with auto focus lenses.
     
    Bottom line, if I were in your position, I would get the Nikon FX bodies, lenses, and accessories that I needed to replace the Canon system that I had been using. Later, I would entertain the idea of getting a DX body to try.
     
    By the way, in the spirit of full disclosure, I shoot Nikon SLRs (film and digital), I shoot Canon film rangefinders, and I shoot Canon digital compacts.

    .
     
  35. Wow! Go away for a couple of days and come back to loads of answers. Thanks all for thoughts and comments. I really appreciate it. I'll try and answer some of the questions:
    All those suggesting avoiding a crop body, I'm now in agreement having had a play around, so I'm sticking full frame whatever I decide to do.
    To those asking why I'm asking...well...it's a big decision and I'm putting out feelers to see what people have done and think. Exactly the kind of feedback John Sherton gave in fact - ie. it's a learning curve but he's personally found it worth doing. I know there'll be others who regret it but it's good to get a first hand report with specific examples (and ones I can relate to).
    Steven Seelig: as per my reasons for switching number 5 is a key part of it, number 1 wouldn't go amiss either.
    What's interesting too is the people suggesting using both systems - that's not something I'd given much thought to but might work (equally menu differences might drive me mad). I can see that having potential though as a means of slowly switching system.

    Much to think about and thanks again all for taking the time to comment.
     
  36. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    If you go back a year, at the beginning of 2010, the only f1.4 Nikon AF-S lens was the 50mm. Now there are the 24mm, 35mm, and 85mm. What a difference.
    Nither Canon nor Nikon is going to sit still. I am a bit surprised that Nikon has not replaced the D700 yet, but it should be obvious that they will put more pixels onto something similar to the D3S and D700; now even the D7000 has 16MP and still produces good high ISO results. Likewise, after the 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR and 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR, expanding that to a 70-200mm/f4 is more than obvious.
    There should be little doubt that Canon will continue to improve as well. The 5D Mark II is over 2 years old and a replacement is due in 2011. But if you really want to switch, think about which specific Nikon lens you want and which body to get. I would avoid any camera that is near the end of its production cycle or you'll likely kick yourself soon.
    Sony would be an unwise choice. Their focus is now on the mirrorless NEX camera. I wonder there is any future in their full-frame DSLR line. Likewise, Olympus seems to have shifted their focus onto micro 4/3 mirrorless cameras. If you are a 4/3 DSLR user and don't want mirrorless, you could well be stuck. That is why it is important to stay with market leaders.
     
  37. I just thought about it and realize I have actually never used a Nikon Camera (Ever!). So maybe I don't know what I am missing. However, I started with Sony and upgraqded to Canon and have never looked back. Currently, I am blissfully in love with my Canon 5d Mark II and think my 85 1.2L is a fabulous lens. I am now pondering the 35 1.4L or something wider like the 24. I love the ability to shoot high qualit y HD movies on my Mark II. If I really start doing serious professional work I would buy another 5D Mark II as a backup camera or so I could shoot video and stills the same time. I have never had either of my 580 EX II or EX I fire erratically, but like I said I have been with Canon a long time and know exactly how to use them. I know every feature of my Mark II and just can't immaging switching brands. I guess it's like being married and some beautiful girl just moved next door. It wouldn't make me want to switch even if my wife had a few issues.
     
  38. I ran a photo business for several years. I was very conscious of my bottom line. Although I own Canon I don't know which system is better nor do I care. I could have never made a business case for switching from Canon to Nikon because it would have taken too much out of the bottom line to suit me. I produced a customer acceptable product with Canon and Medium format(I owned that for about 12 years). You may be successful enough to want to disregard your investment as the accounting principle is that there is no accounting for sunk costs. However, my Canon gear is insured for a very substantial amount. IMO once you buy the rudiments of a Nikon system you will continue to want to add to that investment as time goes on. Probably most professionals have somewhere north of $10k invested. If you want to blow all that off it is certainly your money. Two questions; will you have more keepers and better pictures and will your customers be any happier? Whether when I was engaged in a forty year professional aviation career or in my later photo business I adapted to the equipment I had rather than dream about what I didn't have. My best to you. You are a professional as JDM said and you are certainly quite capable of making the right decision. I just could not make a business for switching.
     
  39. I currently have both Nikon and Canon systems. I recently added Canon 60D with 24-105 and 70-200F4IS lenses. It does take a while to get used to a new system so I would really not recommend using two separate systems on an assigment.
    All of my current lenses are not for cropped format (EF-S or DX) because I'm waiting for either 5D or D700 replacement to arrive to make decision on which brand I will stick although I do have much more Nikon gear now.
    Canon cameras seems to be getting behind as compared with the competition.
    My D7000 is an overall much better camera than the 60D and I will be surprised if the 5D replacement will top Nikon's D700 replacement.
     
  40. For what it's worth, a good friend of mine has been a professional camera repair technician who owns and operates his own business since 1988. His favorite digital SLR camera to work on is Canon, because they are designed and put together so well. Manual focus SLR favorite is Canon AE1. Nikon cameras are great to work on too - when they come in, which is not very often. And then when they do come in and need work, they are usually either completely trashed or just need a general CLA (Clean, Lube, Adjust).
    I love the solid construction of Nikon cameras. The last time I checked out a Canon digital SLR, the sound of the shutter release made me laugh, it was so horrible and had a really annoying squeak sound to it. Even the lowest end Nikon digital SLR, the D40 and the D3000 that I owned for a short time, sounded good.
    So if you have the dough, by all means try Nikon. You might find that you love it. I know I do.
     
  41. The 60D's mirror/shutter noise and vibration are terrible compared with D7000.
    I was really surprised by it even coming from using D700 which was one the loudest of the Nikon cameras I've owned.
     

Share This Page