Switching from Canon to Nikon

<p>So after doing an enormous amount of research, and talking with peers in my market, I've decided to make the big switch from Canon to Nikon. My current camera is a 5d Mark ii, which I'm happy with, but after being in this game for over 10 years now... I really think the Nikon market is more my game. All you Nikonians.... what would you suggest as a great crossover from the Mark ii? </p>

<p>If I was shooting that camera, and knew it, I wouldn't switch. It's a fantastic full-frame camera.</p>

<p>Why do you want to switch to Nikon?</p>

<p>I made the switch from Canon to Nikon... but I did so when all I had was a 300D, I was waiting for the 5D2 to launch, and my most expensive lens was a 70-300. I was about to go on holiday and invest in glass, so decided that if I was going to switch, now was the time - and that I happened to prefer the Nikon lens range.<br />

<br />

As Peter says, it depends why you're switching. The obvious current options are the D800 (or D800e), D610, D4 and (shortly) Df. If you want speed, the D4 is by far the fastest. If you want resolution, the D800 (probably -e unless you do a lot of fashion or architecture) is the most obvious choice. The most direct match to a 5D2 is a D610 (it's the smallest resolution jump and has the weakest autofocus), but it's also the smallest update. The Df is a low light and esoteric interface specialist.<br />

<br />

I suppose pointing out that the 5D3 is an upgrade in pretty much all areas on the 5D2 isn't welcome? I'm not going to second-guess you, and I assume you have good reasons for switching. If you elaborate, we might be able to advise better.<br />

<br />

Otherwise, without more information, I'd say a D800. It is, to the 5D3, what the 5D2 was to the D700: slower and with (somewhat) less good autofocus, but with more resolution (and dynamic range). But do handle it first - the Nikon control layout is very different from the Canon spinny wheel thing, and the last time I handled a 5D3 it felt really weird in comparison.</p>

<p>I think that the only people who can answer this are people who have used both systems.<br /> I personally think it's a mistake to go jumping back and forth, chasing some momentary advantage in one or another technology.</p>

<p>However, if you've decided to switch, usually that is motivated by some particular lens or feature that is currently "ahead" of the other major marque's offering. That's what makes your question a little peculiar. Usually it would be because you have <em>already</em> seen the alternative camera as better than what you have now.</p>

<p>But perhaps you are merely more comfortable with cameras with a capital N ? Myself, I've always been happy with most cameras that have 2 ns in the name.</p>

<p><br /> If you have the money, you can buy anything you feel like buying. Otherwise, I'd pause a bit for a rethink, but it's your own business, not mine.</p>

<p>It always seemed to me (as a former Nikonista, now gone renegade/apostate), that to find an equivalent Nikon FX body to a given Canon body, you merely add $1000 to the Canon list price, and there you are. Or am I wrong?<br /> The Nikon D600 and the comparable Canon 6D may have found equivalence, at least in price?<br /> No doubt someone will chime in, though there can't be too many who have tried both more than for a few minutes at the camera counter.</p>

<p>Well, I do have a buyer- but from what I've been hearing and learning, Nikon is better for nature, landscapes... Canon is better for low-light/less noise. (i.e. weddings) I'm NOT into weddings, ever. So.... was starting my personal research to see if the switch now (instead of upgrading to Mark iii, etc...) would be beneficial. From what I'm hearing from you lovely people is that it might not necessarily be the best decision... I am thinking in the long range, though, as in 10/20 years and don't want to regret a case full of glass for a series that I should have switched long ago. So, though if I was going to step into Nikon territory, might as well be now. :D :D :D You have given me much food for thought! I'm going to re-read your posts and research this further. </p>

<p>Alicia, have you handled a Nikon? That also might help you decide which system is right for you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon is better for nature, landscapes... Canon is better for low-light/less noise.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very, very strange. As I was once asked</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Who you-all been listening to, bwah?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For many years Canon's whole advertising was in nature photography (a sponsor of <em>Nature</em> on PBS, for example), and the dominance of the Canon system came from their gaining control of the sports and event photo market shooters (even today, count the white lenses in the journalists area at such events).<br /> <strong>Specific cameras/lenses</strong> may or may not temporarily offer some advantage in this or that technology (e.g., if you want a tilt/shift 17mm lens right now you'd have to get Canon), but you can hardly compare <strong>whole marques</strong> in this way.</p>

<p><em>Both</em> Nikon and Canon (not to mention Pentax and others) offer a full range of cameras that serve the needs of different kinds of users. Some have faster focus, others, better low noise, faster shooting speeds, and so on.</p>

<p>You've got to handle them both. I went to buy Nikon years ago, but much preferred Canon when I picked them up and compared, but you may indeed feel differently.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon is better for nature, landscapes... Canon is better for low-light/less noise</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is just way too simplistic. If you must have 36MP then obviously you must get a Nikon, but it won't always be like this, the brands leap frog each other. Also you could get a Sony A7R (36MP) and still keep your Canon lenses. I don't really see why you want to change if you are happy with your 5DII - because your friends have Nikon? If so, that is a poor reason to me. Not sure why having had Canon for 10 years makes any difference either. Is there some rule that suggests one should change every decade?</p>

<p>After all, sometimes the grass is NOT greener on the other side of the fence. ;)</p><div></div>

<p>Alicia, if you have any money to speak of tied up in Canon lenses and accessories, it'll be the most foolish move you ever made.<br>

"My current camera is a 5d Mark ii, which I'm happy with ..." - There you go! You've said it all for yourself.</p>

<p>"I really think the Nikon market is more my game." - The only 'game' is marketing twits playing with your head and, by the sound of it, peer pressure. Both Nikon and Canon make fine cameras and lenses capable of making entirely professional quality, saleable images. Unless there's an <em>absolutely compelling</em> reason to swap, and you're thereby guaranteed to gain financially, then why bother?</p>

<p>Alicia, only you can make the decision. As others have mentioned either Nikon or Canon will provide you with excellent equipment for whatever you decide to shoot. I am a Nikon user and have been for over 30 years but I sometimes recommend Canon as well. I actually think Canon investment into the pro photography market several years ago was the best thing that could have happened to Nikon users... it forced Nikon to be more proactive and speed up his R&D in order to keep up. I remember the frustrating years when Nikon was badly trailing in the AF technology side.</p>

<p>Today both companies are top notch and offer a wide variety of amazing cameras. Saying that one is better than the other in nature, or in wedding is darn stupid. Don't listen to the paid spinners or to the fake reviewers protecting their own investments.</p>

<p>First thing you have to consider is how the cameras feel on your hands and how easily you can access the controls without looking at them.<br>

Then you have to look at the controls and software interface. Which one seems the more intuitive to you? After using a Canon jumping to a Nikon may involve a learning curve. Are you ready for that?<br>

Thirdly user interface may be different from a line of product to another within the same brand. As an example Nikon D610 and D800 have very different controls. The former is like other consumer line bodies such as the D7100, the latter is like the pro bodies.<br>

Then you have to consider the monetary issue. If you have a lot of expensive Canon lenses it might not be very wise to switch.<br>

Lastly be aware that a brand being behind on a particular feature may become the leader in the next batch of products. In the digital age the lenses are the most important investments, bodies are now like computers, they very quickly become obsolete. That doesn't mean they have to go to the trash but the technical progresses have been very quick and profound in the last few years. As in computers that progress will slow down but there's still room to grow.</p>

<p>If you decide to switch the logical choice would be the D800 or D800e. For nature photography the combination of dynamic range and high resolution is tough to beat. The second choice would be the D610 if you are not after big prints and prefer a lighter product.</p>

 

<p>Camera bodies come and go, but most of my money is in lenses. After four years of Quantitative Easing, it would cost twice as much to replace them.</p>

<p>Dynamic range and sharpness are the primary reasons to switch to Nikon. If you are after the sharpness of the wide-angle Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G just know that you can get an adapter to put that lens on your Canon. Yes, the aperture will work too (though not the same as with the lens mounted on a Nikon camera). If you are looking for the sharpness of the Nikon D800, then you have your answer . . . get a D800. (I suggest not worrying about getting the D800 E.)<br>

If you are looking for the dynamic range, then you can get the D600. It is faster than the D800 and considerably cheaper, though it lacks some of the more professional features of the D800.<br>

<br />I like the D5200, but coming from a more professional camera, like the Canon 5D, I am guessing you are not interested in the fold-out screen or a smaller sensor.</p>

<p>I have been doing the switch thing lately (the past few years). I have shot with Nikon, Sony, and Sigma cameras since I stopped shooting with Canon cameras (including the 20 D, 5 D, and Rebel T2i). Today I shoot with an old Sigma, and if I had the option to get anything I want, I would get a Sigma SD1 Merrill with a bunch of new, kick-ass Sigma lenses. I LOVE the Foveon look and sharpness. But I would get a Sony A77 and a Nikon D5200 too. The Sony would be my speedy camera and the Nikon would be my wide-angle camera (with the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye).</p>

<p>Quick comparisons based on ownership and use of the following DSLR bodies in both brands:<br>

Current: Nikon D800E, Canon EOS 5D Mark II, 5D Mark III<br>

Former: Nikon D800, D700, D200, Canon EOS 7D<br>

<br>

<strong>Nikon Pros:</strong></p>

<ol>

<li>Higher Dynamic Range</li>

<li>Auto exposure is more accurate than Canon (in general)</li>

<li>Cleaner shadows (less noise in the dark areas of the image)</li>

<li>The resolution of the D800 series is unmatched by Canon today</li>

<li>New 80-400mm lens</li>

<li>Better lens caps and lens hoods</li>

</ol>

<p> <br>

<strong>Nikon Cons:</strong></p>

<ol>

<li>LCD screen color accuracy</li>

<li>LCD screen resolution (e.g. difficult to focus in Live View in dark environments)</li>

<li>Tilt-Shift (PC-E) lens design - They are optically good but they configuration is more restrictive, and build quality could be better.</li>

</ol>

<p><strong>Canon Pros:</strong></p>

<ol>

<li>Autofocus (particularly the 5D3 and 1DX) is markedly superior to that of comparable Nikon products - if you plan to do weddings, concert, or events, this could be significant.</li>

<li>Better LCD screen resolution and color</li>

<li>24-105 f/4L IS (There's no Nikon version of this lens, but Sigma is coming out with one, so maybe it's a push).</li>

<li>Outstanding tilt/shift lens design</li>

</ol>

<p><strong>Canon Cons:</strong></p>

<ol>

<li>Shadow noise</li>

<li>Limited dynamic range</li>

<li>Sensitive auto exposure can be fooled into underexposing frequently. This is compounded by their lack of dynamic range, because recover in post could be noisy.</li>

<li>Old 100-400mm lens</li>

<li>Flimsy lens caps and hoods</li>

</ol>

<p>If it's landscapes that are grabbing you, it does sound as though resolution and dynamic range are the big issues. It's true that most current Nikons (mostly the ones with Sony sensors - so excluding, to some extent, the D3200, D4 and Df) have <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/795%7C0/(brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/814%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon">a significant dynamic range advantage at low ISO</a>, meaning that if you're shooting at ISO 100 you may be better able to recover shadows - but both cameras are still resolving about 11 stops of dynamic range (averaged to 8MP, by DxO's count) at ISO 1600 settings, so it won't affect JPEGs much. However, please bear in mind that the Magic Lantern team have <a href="http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=7139.0">trick</a> that has the potential to recover much of the dynamic range disadvantage of the higher-end Canons (at the potential cost of a bit of resolution), and the advantage has pretty much gone by ISO 400. The D800 does have a numerical advantage in resolution over a 5D3, but please bear in mind it's not huge (about 25%, linearly). I'm sure Canon are working on both remedying the dynamic range situation and increasing sensor resolution, just as I'm sure Nikon are working on their high-end autofocus (which is far from bad, by the way); whether the performance of the current camera is enough to influence you compared with what may come, only you can decide. Canon may get around to allowing auto-ISO to work properly in manual mode at some point, which would currently be what rules out considering a switch to Canon for me no matter how much white glass envy I get (that and the money, of course). Nikon might eventually let you do AF adjustments on lenses as flexibly as Canon (or Sigma).<br />

<br />

On the systems, there are a few exclusives in each system. Notably, Canon have the f/1.2 50mm and 85mm (there are f/1.2 manual focus Nikkors, but that's not really the same thing). Canon have a history of better tilt-shifts (though Nikon at least have learnt what tilt is for, recently), and the 17mm seems to be remarkable. Canon haven't matched the 14-24 yet (though don't believe that lens is perfect, it's just very good for a wide-angle). Canon's 135 f/2 is a sharp conventional lens; Nikon's 135 f/2 DC is a bokeh-control specialist (which I like, but found the lens otherwise compromised). Nikon have refreshed their f/1.8 and f/1.4 primes more recently than Canon, for the most part, and have better performance as a result; Canon have refreshed their 24-70, 70-200 f/2.8 IS and big telephotos more recently than Nikon (notably the 200-400 f/4) and the newer lenses seem to perform better, though they also cost a lot more. There's a perpetual leap-frog here - it wasn't many years ago that Nikon had the much better options, especially in the 24-70 and 70-200 range. Give it time and the other manufacturer will have the edge. Nikon used to have a significant edge in flash metering; that's probably now balanced out. Nikon have the advantage that old Nikkor lenses still mostly work (depending on which camera you've got); Canon have the advantage that everything made since 1987 works <i>perfectly</i>, and that you can adapt other lenses to the Canon system more easily - but the same is true of mirrorless systems.<br />

<br />

I would say that the thing that is unlikely to change much over new cameras is the handling - though the appearance of the Df casts a bit of doubt over that. Nikon are unlikely to get rid of the "two dials you can move while you keep a finger on the shutter" interface. Canon are unlikely to get rid of the "dial under the index finger, 360 degree spinny thing under the thumb" interface. If you really prefer one to the other, that's a reason to stick to a system. Otherwise, I'd give it time and anything you envy is likely to come to the system you're on.<br />

<br />

But you'll have missed some shots in that time, so that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't switch!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>24-105 f/4L IS (There's no Nikon version of this lens, but Sigma is coming out with one, so maybe it's a push).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is a 24-120/4 AF-S VR though - has been for more than 3 years ;-)</p>

<p>At this point, the two companies' cameras are so close in performance that you really ought to hold both in your hands, see where the controls are, how it actually "fits" in your hand (yes, they are so similar that imho this should be a top consideration), and probably most importantly... if there is a particular lens you need that the other company has and your company does not, then I see a switch as a possibility.</p>

<p>But there's not much of that anymore. I think you'll end up sticking with Canon, which is great.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon is better for nature, landscapes... Canon is better for low-light/less noise.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I hear these kind of broad sweeping allegations all too often, including my favourite "Canon colours are better, but Nikon has better.... something else". Just think a bit: I can change colours in camera already, so what does better mean, really? What would make a Nikon better at landscapes? Better f/16 lenses with sharpness optimised for infinity, or a better tripod screwhole? Canon's lead in low light performance which was true in 2006 but ever since, it's been a wash between the two - as any camera review site can show you? It's all too easy to debunk these claims. Be critical. The internet and the internet's advice is full of nonsens. That obviously includes this very posting.</p>

<p>Even those (2013-accurate) Dynamic Range claims - true, Nikon measures more. The real question is: does it really affect your photos to the extend it is worth switching? Is the measurable significant difference also actually significant in <em>your</em> real-world use? Your style of photography comes into play here, the lists of pros and cons of Dan are a good guideline, but not without considering what matters to you, and your style of photography (and for the record, I know Dan did not imply otherwise at all).</p>

<p>I agree with Peter's last post. There is no Nikon game. There is you, photographer, with your style, habits, needs and wants. Get the tools that best match that. Any modern DSLR will work pretty brilliant, in the end the only thing that matters is what works brilliant in your hands.</p>

<p>IMHO, it's about the lenses. For macro, Nikon holds the cards. Long glass, Canon, Prosumer zooms, Canon, but Nikon has upped its game. Individual primes, it's a pick and choose game. That said, I really like the new 28 & 35 mm Canon IS primes, and that 24-105/4 USM IS. A couple years ago, the Canon 70-200/4 IS was the bee's knees, but Nikon one-upped then with it's excellent 70-200/4 VR.</p>

<p>I dunno, flip a coin...</p>

<p>First, I am not an expert or professional photographer but an avid enthusiast. My comments are not based on lab experiments or technical information, but merely my personal experiences with both Canon and Nikon camera systems. My perspective is skewed based on MY personal style of photography and my needs and may not be applicable to you, but since I have worked with both systems equally I will share my experiences.<br>

I started DSLR photography with Canon, having owned the 30D, Rebel Ti2 and 5D. The lenses that I had used with these cameras included the 18-55 (kit), 17-55 (great lens), Sigma 30 f1.4, Canon 50 f1.4, 17-40 f4, and the 70-200 f4. The latter 2 L-lenses were remarkable, especially when considering the cost.<br>

My Nikon experiences are with the D7000 and D600. The lenses for Nikon included 18-105 (kit), 55-300, 28 f1.8G, and 50 f1.8G, with a 85 f1.8G in the near future.<br>

For me, I prefer Nikon's menus and ergonomics, and the reason I have settled in this camp; however, Nikon doesn't offer some of the quality L-lenses like Canon does at bargain prices. I will continue by listing what I like from each offering and hope that some of my personal experiences can help you in your decision making.<br>

CANON: I really like the L-lens series, unfortunately, I do this as a hobby and cannot spend the type of money that I would like to build the L-lens collection of my dream. It seemed to me that Canon produced better looking portraits out of the camera than Nikon does, where I prefer the skin tones and colors. I miss my wide angle 17-40 and realized this when I looked back at some pictures from Bryce Canyon where I utilized the 17mm length on FF. For outdoor portrait work the Canon 70-200 f4 lens was by far my favorite lens, and I have had to adjust my style of shooting with my new lens collection by getting closer to my subjects than I did before. Catching people in a natural state (them not knowing I was taking their picture) provided some of my best portrait shots and really expressed their personality.<br>

NIKON: I tried to replace the Canon 70-200 f4 with Nikon 55-300 f3.5-5.6 but there was no comparison. The Canon lens blew the Nikon out of the water. Nikon has recently released a 70-200 f4 BUT it is over double the cost of the Canon L-Lens, and part of the reason that I have moved to Prime Lens. That being said, I really liked the choices of Prime lenses in the Nikon line-up, where you can get decent (intermediate level) lens at a good price. I don't need the build quality of the L-lensed, but these latest Primes from Nikon have remarkable quality at a very good price point. Dynamic range on both Nikons is FAR beyond any of the Canon cameras that I had owned; however, I never gave Canon a chance with 5DII or 5DIII so I cannot comment if that gap has been bridged now. When I first purchased the D7000 for $1200 (including the 18-105 kit), I received an intermediate level camera with advanced features, especially compared to Canon at that time, which included the 39 point auto-focus, great resolution, good low-light ISO capabilities, and dual memory card slots. These features used to only appear in the next level cameras which were more than double the price (at the time).<br>

Of the two systems my favorite cameras are the Canon 5D and the Nikon D600. For me, FF sensors definitely show an advantage in IQ and especially in low-light higher ISO settings. I am able to shoot my D600 at ISO 6400 easily with relatively low noise, and after doing corrections in PP with software, hardly any noticeable noise, even in the shadow areas.<br>

In summary it has been a give and take, where each venture will end up costing you some. Overall, I am happy with the Nikon system for its ergonomics, menus and features. If I had the Ca$h, I would definitely own BOTH systems because I feel that each have strengths in certain areas. Anyway, this has been my personal experience using both systems, so I hope that what I have shared something that might help you in your decision making.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>from what I've been hearing and learning, Nikon is better for nature, landscapes... Canon is better for low-light/less noise. (i.e. weddings)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Search out some of the photographs that most appeal to you, the ones that are of the sort you want to make yourself. Then find out what kind of camera was used to make them. My bet is that you won't find one brand dominating the other. The differences between the brands are in specific products and tend to lie at the far edges of photographic technology that don't matter to 99% of the photographs taken -- and those differences change over time as new products are released.</p>

 

<p>Hi Alicia,<br>

I do not care why you're ready to switch from Canon to Nikon. This is something you know better and if that makes you happy, for whatever reason, go ahead! This is not what you asked after all!<br>

My suggestion, as other already mention, is a Nikon D800 paired with a 14-24 f/2.8 Nikon AF-S Zoom. This combination for landscaping shooting you're interested in, is the ultimate you can get right now. The only thing is the total weight. If you're shooting mainly with the help of a tripod, then, it might not be that important. Otherwise you may visit your nearest shop and try them out to see it by yourself. A friend of mine and member of PhotoNet, <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=5166534">Alf Bailey</a>, is having the same combo along with the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 and he's very, very pleased with the results. He's primarily in landscape shooting. I am sure he's very willing to answer any questions you might have. Good luck with your purchase! Cheers!</p>

<p>Nikon has better ergonomics than Canon, IMO (the on/off switch being one of them), and Nikon's 3-D AF tracking makes it superior for shooting fast action. </p>

<p>I'm a recent convert to Nikon, not from Canon but Olympus E-3 and Leica M8 - the game changer for me was D800. Many of my judgments are very subjective, up until D800 I felt Nikons in general produced rather mean and cold pics while Canon had a slightly brownish glowing warmth. Nikon mean image style became clean and fresh with D800. To maximise my chances of getting the kind of images I want I've stuck to shooting with primes only.</p>

<p>Whilst none of my Nikon lenses come close to Leica, my Nikon 45 PC-E + the resolution of D800 (for print size) will get me better results every time.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...from what I've been hearing and learning, Nikon is better for nature, landscapes...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>"Better" in what way? Seriously, I'm genuinely curious. My own opinion is that when you're into the high end DSLR field, the playing field is pretty level. </p>

<p>The camera is a tool. It's how you <em>use</em> it that makes your photos "better", no matter what the genre. Some little new bell and whistle's not going to make any difference. </p>

<p>Regarding equipment, I try to follow Thoreau's advice: Simplify. Give me a good full frame camera and a few f/2.8 L IS lenses (Canon), and a top shelf dedicated flash, and that's all I want or need.</p>

<p>It really sounds as if you want to switch just to be switching.</p>