Switching from Nikon to Canon

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by shaun_bevan, Dec 8, 2009.

  1. So I was thinking about upgrading my Nikon D80 to a D300S and also pick up a 70-200mm and a 24-70mm. I was planning on selling the D80 and a couple of other lenses I have in order to ease the price of the new equipment, but after doing some number crunching it seems cheaper if I buy the same type of equipment (or better) on the Canon side.

    Here's what I put together (all prices taken off Adorama or B&H for a general idea).

    I figure I can probably sell all my Nikon gear: D80 ($500), 18-200mm ($700), SB-900 ($400), 50mm f/1.8 ($75), 18-55mm ($100), and a 55-200mm ($100) for a total of: $1875 or say $1500 for worst case.

    Now if I were to stay with Nikon, I would keep the 18-200mm, the SB-900 and the 50mm. So that means I would only have $700 to play with.

    So the following is a price comparison:


    D300S : $1700
    70-200mm: VR II : $2400 (or VR I : $2000)
    24-70mm f/2.8 : $1800
    10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 : $800

    Total: $6700 - 700 = $6000 (w 70-200m VRII) or $5600 (70-200mm VR I)


    7D : $1700
    70-200mm : $1900 (or the prior model $1300)
    50mm 1.8: $100
    24-70mm 2.8 : $1300
    10-22mm 3.5-4.5 : $800
    580EX II Flash: $450

    Total: $6250 - $1500 = $4750

    So if I made the switch to Canon, I'd save $1250. Which leads me to think I might as well pick up the 5D MKII for $2700. So $2700 - $1700 (7D) = $1000. Add that to the total for Canon that makes it $5750, which is still cheaper than the Nikon setup!

    I don't know much about Canon gear, but does this sound like a good trade?

    Money isn't really the issue. I'm more worried about the quality of the equipment I'll be buying.
  2. I believe the d300s is actually 1534 with the in cart discounted price. But why would you want to change to canon? The 7D is great but also the d300s. If you already have nikon gear you should stick with that brand. I am sure you will not be disappointed with either.
    I have been contemplating making a partial switch myself with the new D3s. I got an opportunity to play with the nikkor 14-24, and ever since I have been lusting over the dark side. I do think nikon has better zooms(14-24, 24-70 and the new 70-200VRII), but I love the more complete lens selection canon offers along with their f1.2 primes and fast wide primes. When it comes to camera bodies, there really isn't much difference in real world, but down to paper the nikons have a slight edge. Also consider which camera is nicer to hold and operate. Nikonians rave about ergonomics.
  3. The calculation is slightly wrong.
    If you switch the 7D for a 5D-II you won't need a 10-22 anymore...
    However you might want to get a x1.4 extender or a 300mm or longer lens for your tele needs because the 5D-II is full frame which will cost you your x1.6 crop factor.
    Plus if you want UWA (I don't but maybe you do) you might not think 24mm is wide enough. (In crop terms it's only 15mm, not 10mm...) If that is the case you'd probably need a 17-40 F4L.
    If full frame 24mm to 200mm is enough the 5D-II option would be only $ 4950.
    However: handling is pretty different between Nikon and Canon. As you are imprinted on Nikon you might not like it.
    Image quality wise there's not much better at the moment than a 5D-II and nothing cropped. (If you need ISO 50.000 you're better of with a latest model D3 or 1D, but I'm thinking you don't.)
  4. It comes down to this:
    If you have a need for high megapixels, white lenses, f4 professional compact zooms, 17mm tilt shift lens and wide fast primes, go with canon. If not, there are plenty more reasons for you to stick with nikon. And by the way, the 5dmkii is not the best there is at the moment, that would be the nikon d3x or the FF leica m9.
  5. Thanks for your replies.

    To be honest, I'm not exactly partial to Nikon or Canon. The only reason I've begun to consider making the switch is because it appears that I can get a better camera setup for a cheaper price.

    It's also very appealing to think that I can grab a full frame camera with all the fixings for about $5000, whereas if I stick with Nikon, I'll be paying about $1000 more for a similar or lesser setup.

    I'm haunted by the saying "You get what you pay for". So that's why I'm a bit on edge about the differences between the Nikon and Canon lens. Is it really worth the extra $1000?

    I'm not too worried about "starting over" with Canon because I'm sure it'll all fall into place at some point.
    I guess what it comes down to is would you choose the 5DMKII set or the D300S set?
    On a side note, I'm a freelance pj and need this camera for the typical shoots (events/portraits/sports).
  6. Canon and Nikon are roughly equivalent. Individual product comparisons may go one way or the other, but usually only by a small margin. Nikon's 14-24 is legendary, but Canon has numerous lenses not available in other line ups (their T/S lenses, the 5x macro, their f/4L line). Canon really does have the best lens line up with Nikon a close second, in terms of choices. In terms of quality, it's a coin toss. (BTW, it looks like Canon is developing a 14-24 from patent filings. No idea when it will be out.)
    I've said this more times than I can count, but unless you really need the high ISO capability or will be buying lenses that require FF (i.e. Canon's excellent T/S lenses or fast wide primes), the 7D is the better value compared to the 5D mkII. That's not a knock against the 5D, but a compliment to the 7D.
    If getting a 7D kit: I would get the 70-200 f/4L IS, skip the 24-70 for the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, and consider the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 instead of the 10-22. (Nothing against the 10-22 per se, but I think the 11-16 is a competitor worth looking at.) Take the money saved and add another lens (300 f/4L IS or 100 f/2.8 macro), a backup body, or maybe take a trip.
    If getting the 5D mkII kit: I would get the 70-200 f/4L IS, and skip the 10-22 (which won't work FF) for the 17-40 f/4L. Again, use the money saved for another lens, a backup body, a trip, checking account padding, whatever.
    In both cases I recommend the 70-200 f/4L IS over the f/2.8 versions because the lost stop just isn't a big deal with the high ISOs of digital, and it's a significant cost savings. It's literally another lens in savings.
  7. You said the word "sports." Give some real thought to which of those rigs is going to have the better AF system. Nikon's very best one is on the D300s, while Canon saves theirs for bodies you're not looking at.
  8. You just figure out what we Canon users know Canon cheaper than Nikon and a great system. Specially in tough economic times.
    I would buy the 5D MKII . And buy a 400mm 5.6L used with the extra money. Since you do not need the 10-22mm 3.5-4.5 : $800 or a 50mm 1.4 and an extra 580 flash.
  9. Where are you getting your numbers from on the sale price of your existing system? A dealer quote of simply what you think you can sell them for? This might may a big difference in your bottom line. I deal with Adorama and if you call them they will email you a UPS slip to mail your equipment to them. They will then give you a price that you can accept or deny. If you deny then they will ship your equipment back - you've then paid nothing. If you accept they will apply the credit to whatever you order. I'm told they give you 70% of the "book value" of your equipment.
  10. I agree with most of what people say. Canon are significantly cheaper and have a wider range of lenses taken as a whole; with one or two useful exceptions (200-400 and 14-24 zooms come to mind), Canon has everything and more that Nikon has and at a more reasonable price. The D3X is top of the hill at the moment, but you are not in the market for this camera. Ergonomics of both is a wash in my opinion. I much prefer Canon in this regard, but Nikon users prefer theirs. It is all a matter of preference.
  11. Both your Nikon and Canon systems have a crop body with full-frame standard zoom (24-70) and full-frame telephoto lens (70-200). I say: if you're planning a whole system don't sit the fence on DX or FX. With those lenses I'd get a D700 or 5D2. Might as well go all the way.
    Alternatively, with the crop bodies I'd have a serious look at 17-55/2.8 IS (Canon). 7D and 17-55/2.8 IS were made for ane another.
  12. Personally, I would opt for a 7D long before a 5D of any flavor. According to Canon's own literature, the 7D has an improved AF & metering system (which is what caused me to switch from Canon to Nikon); better than the 5D. While I think the 7D looks like an amazing tool (as does the new 1D Mark IV, I haven't shot with either), it's not enough to make me want to switch (again). As Matt pointed out, the D300s essentially uses Nikon's best AF & metering system. All said, the 7D is Canon's long awaited answer to the D300. It seems that you have done the math and have no brand preference. So if it's going to save you money, why not do it? I am very happy with my D300. I like how Nikon handles the CWB, I like having all my controls on the camera body instead of menu driven, I prefer Nikon's battery grip, I even like that the camera tells me the life of my battery. Just a lot of little things. However if price is your main concern, then I think the 7D is a nice looking camera. And the camera isn't likely to be the weak point in the equation!
  13. I think you have over-estimated the value of your current equipment, but with your overall budget I don't think you need to worry about getting a few hundred less.
    I'd take the 5D II hands down! In my opinion the only good value DSLRs are the Nikon D90, used Nikon D2X, Nikon D3X, Canon 50D, used Canon 5D, and Canon 5D II. The single biggest reason for switching to Canon, in my opinion, is that they are still way ahead in full frame cameras for one's dollars. If you're going to make the switch then to me the 5D II is the body to go for.
  14. I would suggest the 7D because you mentioned sports. It is significantly faster than the 5D.
    Matt said "You said the word "sports." Give some real thought to which of those rigs is going to have the better AF system. Nikon's very best one is on the D300s, while Canon saves theirs for bodies you're not looking at."
    The 7D has the latest of the AF systems and is significantly improved over the 5D and has the tracking capability that will be good for sports. I am not sure if the 1D's AF is better or not, but the 7D supposed to be very good and has the new metering which can also track a subject.
    As for 7D vs. Nikon D300s, the 7D bests it on the high ISO noise based on testing by Popular Photography.
  15. If you're going to switch to Canon, I recommend seriously considering the 7D. I think it's the best all-around camera in Canon's line-up. While FF is great and will produce cleaner images at high ISOs, the 7D's performance at high ISOs is very impressive. The 5DII is indeed an incredible camera but not the best choice for action when compared to the 7D. Its AF is essentially the AF from the 20/30D with additional "helper" AF points while the 7D AF is completely new and has a whole DIGIC IV processor dedicated to it. It's most impressive and too complex to discuss in a short paragraph. The 7D is also quite good at landscapes, in spite of what some would lead you to believe. Further, if weather sealing is important to you, the 7D has slightly improved weather sealing over the 5DII, according to Chuck Westfall from Canon, although the 5DII is still very good in this respect. I can't think of a photographic situation that you can't tackle with the 7D. And it too will also tell you all about your battery, including how well it will charge and how many shutter actuations have been charged to it, among other things. The 7D is frighteningly customizable, allowing you to move a lot of the functions from the menu to whichever button you want to assign them to. All that being said though, the 7D is basically the Canon equivalent of the D300S which in itself is an outstanding and most capable camera. Consider carefully which features you need before making a big decision. I don't know that either brand has anything that would make me go through the trouble of switching since both Canon and Nikon have provided outstanding tools at every level.
  16. Did you mention anywhere, why you want to upgrade? And why not simply to the D90? What uses do you intend to put a FF camera to or a semi-pro crop with functions that most people will have a hard time trying to figure what on earth they might be useful for? That being said - or asked :) - if you're intent on spending a lot of money it might make sense to rent out a Canon system for a day or two to see if you like the ergonomics/ procedures compared to Nikon's. Could well be these differences make all your calculations negligible .
  17. Huh? You're going to spend all that money and time switching from one excellent system to another, yet still end up with an APS sized sensor? OK. Knock yourself out! As my grandparents used to say.
    I like both systems but I'm a cheapskate. I've had a D70 since new, and I recently bought a used Canon EOS 20D. Why? Not to replace the Nikon, but to use the old MF AIS lenses! Sure they fit on my D70, but I can meter with the 20D, and use German Exakta lenses & M42 mount lenses. You're interested in quality right? Well, you can't get much better than the Zeiss Jena Biotar. But it won't autofocus....
    I think if you spent as much time thinking about creative ways to use the gear you've got as buying new stuff you'd be happier. Hey, I'm as guilty of "Camera Acquisition Syndrome" as anyone. My advice is don't go there.....
  18. Oh boy, here we go :) It seems to me that the pivotal issue is the cash out. In which case Canon would "win." In the IQ and other stakes, things become pretty intricate and the playing field very even. Minor differences aside, I'm sure there aren't many here who would tell the difference between a print from either of these imaging machines. It would seem to me that you've already convinced yourself to make the switch. in which case, it then becomes an issue of which Canon body.
    <p>Much as the 7D is touted to have great AF (and I freely admit I haven't used one myself), I don't think it's that the 5D2's AF is bad. Just that the 7D's is reportedly *that* good. If sports wont be a primary photographic objective (and it would seem not), then the 5D2 is likely the better tool. You may lose out on crop factor for your long lenses, but you'd have 21MP of real-estate to do some after-the-shot cropping. And a beautiful camera for your events and portraits (and in the right hands, sports!)
  19. The word "sports" throws you to either Nikon D300s or Canon 7D or other manufacturer equivalents and you work your way up from there (in terms of autofocus and frame rate specifications). My shortest "sports" zoom is the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 (occasionally fitted with a Nikon TC-14E II 1.4x teleconverter) and it also goes up from there.
    In terms of comparative differences the Nikon 300s and the Canon 7D are now probably more closely aligned "head-to-head" than at any other time in their historical past at this tier 2 level (tier 1 representing the top of the range - Canon 1D, 1Ds Mk III and Nikon D3, D3X).
    If you stay with Nikon I would consider retaining the 18-200 which is the best"jack of all trades" lens Nikon sell. Very useful if you want to travel light (in DSLR terms) and still retain a wide choice of focal lengths with one lens. It's the shots that you can take at short notice that make this lens a winner.
  20. Personally I could not take a decision just based on numbers and technical data. Before switching system, I would go out and try handling bodies of both lines. I was really tempted to switch from Nikon to Canon a few months ago for reasons of lens availability (the lenses I need are available in the Canon line, not with Nikon, or too expensive for my budget), and I was lucky to have a friend with Canons that I could try out in real shooting. In the end I stayed with Nikon, not for IQ reasons (both Nikon and Canon deliver perfect IQ), but for handling reasons. Just switching the camera on and off is a criterium for me: turn the ring around the shutter without even looking at the camera (Nikon), or having to use your left hand for a separate switch (Canon). This and some other differences in handling had me stay with Nikon in the end (and spend the money intended for the switch on a mint Leica M2 plus lens).
    Before deciding on anything, I would go out and "feel" the systems.
    Enjoy, Holger
  21. Money isn't really the issue. I'm more worried about the quality of the equipment I'll be buying.​
    Well, money is one thing, ergonomics is another. Too few people take ergonomics into the equation. The equipment between the largest manufacturers are mainly the same, and it is often hard to see any differences in the final result. If you don't like the feel of the camera body and of the operation of the body and lenses, you will probably start questioning yourself whether to bring a camera or not.
    If you switch, you will either use your new equipment a long time, or regret you bought it after a short time, and lose money if you switch back again.
    Conclusion: Go to the store, and try the equipment you are lusting for. If you like the Canon feel, buy Canon. If you like Nikon better, buy Nikon.
  22. If you use flash a lot, I'd stay the course with Nikon. If you decide to switch, the SB-900 should sell easily.
  23. Both Nikon and Canon make some really good equipment and some not so good.
    For me - it came down to ergonomics - Canon just doesn't fit my hands like Nikon - plus on the Nikon I have the power switch right by my index finger on my right hand. Canon's is down by my thumb. Trivial? To some - yes, but to me a deciding factor.
    Just as a side note - unless you sell your stuff via Fleabay or CL - you can expect to get 50% of what you have listed for it. The prices that you have are "Retail - Used" - No store will pay you that price for used gear - well, okay they might, but they won't be in business very long. More realistic: D80 ($250), 18-200mm ($300), SB-900 ($200), 50mm f/1.8 ($25), 18-55mm ($25), and a 55-200mm ($50) - or a total of $850.00 and that's assuming that they're buying what you're selling. The only thing on your list that is "hot" is the SB900. Everything else is colder than an Alberta Clipper... People are dumping the 18-200 and the 18-55. The 55-200 is being thrown in in a lot of the D5000 / D3000 packages now. The 50 f1.8 is as common as the cold and the D80 is 2 generations old.
    But if money is not an object - then go for it.
  24. OPK


    I done that last month ;)))
    D700 with two primes was exchanged for 50D + 17-40L + 60 macro. Now equipment is MUCH lighter and theres no big IQ difference in good light conditions.
    My biggest complain on Nikon equipment was the price and weight.
  25. Money isn't really the issue. I'm more worried about the quality of the equipment I'll be buying.​
    This is the phrase that keeps sticking in my mind. If money weren't the issue, then why the long cost analysis? Quality isn't really the issue either, as noone is arguing that the D300s, 7D, or even 5Dii, or any of the pro lenses from either maker is not a quality item.
    What it comes down to is a "grass is greener" complex. You've given no reasons whatsoever to change cameras other than "So I was thinking about upgrading...". Until you can come up with a reason, don't buy anything at all. Nail one solid reason that your current setup is lacking, and you will be able to make 1 decision. I'm talking 1 camera or 1 lens only, and for 1 very good specific reason.
    There are too many people today who are willing to drop thousands and thousands of dollars on shiny new gear without any clear idea why they are doing it. This is the reason why prices are so high, and manufacturers keep releasing new "upgrades" where none are due. Currently, a product cycle is considered to be 18 months before a replacement is due. Remember when a product cycle used to be 10 years or longer? It changed because too many people are eager to act rich and throw away their money.
    Please don't jump on that wagon. Use what you have until it stops working, like reasonable people do.
  26. OPK


    ...another good point in debate. If you are satisfied with IQ then go for some more accurate lenses - that's it.
    I made a long way through Nikon equipment beginning with D70s. after several years I can frankly tell, that was really great body. there wasn't any special reason to change this camera. Just need tried something new/better. I worked on D2Hs, D300 and lastly D700. and you know what.....
    ....each one was heavier, more complex more expensive with only quality gain in higher ISO.
    now, for me important is reliability, which means cheaper pro lenses and lightness....mainly because there's no fun walking around with 2kg in hand. also....there's no fun to spend almost half of car value. variety of lenses, creativity and shooting technique is much more important than bells and whistles.
  27. Your first decision will be to decide FF or crop since the lens selection will be a little different. There isn't one camera that works for all types of shooting so think about whether you really want to do long telephoto (birding, wildlife) and fast moving sports (in which case a D300S or a 7D would be better). On the other hand if you shooting style leans more towards landscape, portrait, and wide angle, lower light situations and events, then a FF would probably be a better choice. Either camp has great selections so it really depends on your budget and what you fell more comfortable with in your hands. If you are already familiar with Nikon then it probably makes sense to stick with it. However, when I did the math a while back, I too came to the conclusion that I could save a little money going with Canon with the lenses I wanted. If you can, rent the equipment for a weekend and try before you buy.
  28. I'm not sure you really know why you want to swap - OK so the Canon may be marginally cheaper, but to me that's not the reason to buy Canon or anything else.
    either Canon or Nikon (and some other brands) will be of roughly equal quality so that's not really the issue either.
    If you take your photography seriously you will try all the alternatives, and buy whichever you feel suits you best, feels right, does the job properly etc etc.
    Surely it's best to have a good camera that you really like, and spend a bit more (or make do with one lens less) than to save a few quid and end up with something that's not really right for you ?
  29. Are you a professional photographer or an advanced amateur? If your Nikon system lets you accomplish your photographic goals, why change? In my former career I met lots of very high end audio/videophiles who lusted after gear rather than the music or theater experience. Ask yourself if you fall into that category. Are you wanting to change simply for the sake of change?
    Based on operating a gallery for five years selling my own landscape work, here are some real world truths:
    1. The public at large has no understanding of digital photography. Pixel count remains the key issue as a result of marketing techniques by the major camera manufacturers. The typical P&S, and many DSLR owners, can't even process a file in iPhoto or Picasa much less Photoshop Elements.
    2. I display moderate to large size images captured with medium and large format film, 5, 8, 10, 12, 21, 24 meg digital cameras and the public is pretty clueless as to which is which.
    3. See above. The public doesn't care what hardware was used if the image stirs something within their soul.
    4. By and large, the public at large does not pixel peep. Visitors enter my gallery and the way my displays are arranged they can view the images comfortably at the appropriate viewing distances. But when someone enters with a Nikon or Canon strap hanging around their neck, I know almost without exception they are going to walk up to the images they are interested in and view them from one or two feet away.
    I treat my photographic gear as necessary tools to accomplish my goals rather than as inanimate objects treated like a small child treats a toy or doll. Ask yourself, do you really need a new system or new toys?
  30. I second the advice: try it first. There may be small things you use all the time with your Nikon, which the Canon cameras simply do not have in the way you want it. I would not trust that you easily can get used to a Canon, if you currently use a Nikon.
    I'm a Nikonian myself, and recently borrowed some Canon gear for a long weekend - an old EOS 20D with a number of lenses. I loved it. However, there were things I use on my Nikon cameras that I could not figure out on the 20D. The result of the exercise is not that I want to switch, but that I have an urge to go both ways - buy a Canon in addition to the Nikons, and some Canon lenses, and carry both C and N around, and get exhausted from the weight, and.... In the end, I stay with Nikon, which I feel more at home with, and where I have my current glass investment.
  31. I love the Canon system, but if I was already into one system I'm not sure saving even $1000 would make me switch systems. There are all those little things and stuff. In the early digital days there were bigger reasons to switch, and 'maybe' even today if FF is the goal. I've always liked Canon ergonomics, except I think the Vertical grips in the film days could have been improved in the hand grip portion while the controls were awesome. I've not used a recent verticle grip.
    However, if you were a die-hard Nikon user you would not even be considering changing so I think you're ready to try a Canon system. Go for it!
  32. You must try the Canon ergonomics and see if they work for you. Nikon and Canon have totally different approaches.
    If money is not an object, why make elaborate pricing comparisons? Buy the stuff you like the most. You will, of course, get good quality from both brands. The factor limiting the quality of your work is not the gear, but you.
  33. Money isn't really the issue. Are your words then buy a Nikon D3s or D3x
  34. Thanks for all the replies.

    Originally, I set out to build a new Nikon system because I'm not quite satisfied with the D80, it's lacking a few items that has caused some frustration: performance in low lighting, noise in high ISO, no live view, etc. Also, something I didn't mention before, I decided that when I upgrade I would have a camera with access to the HD video features because this is something I want to begin practicing with (that's how I headed for the D300S initially).

    I was prepared to invest around $6000 into a new system, so when I say that money isn't the issue, I meant between the three systems. I could easily go for the Nikon system as well as the Canons. I was ready to go full throttle with my D300S kit, but I made the mistake of checking out Canon prices for kicks. So now I'm stuck with the idea that I could have access to a FF camera (or a Canon equivalent to the D300S) and a set of really nice lenses for a cheaper price, and that's where I'm stuck.

    The real question is why would I choose the D300S over the 5DMKII or even the 7D? This would be a easy decision if they weren't all great cameras, but alas.

    I guess I made the mistake of mentioning sports, because I wouldn't say it's a main focus of mine, but there has been on occasion when I've been asked to shoot a college football game. Mainly, I do a lot of event shooting (indoor/outdoor), portraits, and I work on some personal documentary/essay projects.

    I'm definitely going to have to get out there and get my hands on these systems to make a decision. It seems like it's the only way.
  35. You have a good camera, lenses covering 18 to 200mm, including a (very good) fast prime, and a pro flash with remote ability. Buy a nikon 10-24mm and be happy. Can we see some pictures that were ruined by your existing equipment limitations?
  36. The Nikon equipment is up to any task you are likely to need for it. So many people nowadays pay way too much attention to the actual equipment itself and far less on the skill of actually using it to produce photographs. Stick with what you have and go take some photos. Take the money you would have spent on equipment you don't need and go enroll in some photography courses at a local college or online. That will improve your photography, not the lastest equipment.
  37. >> Money isn't really the issue. I'm more worried about the quality of the equipment I'll be buying.
    Why is the whole post about money then?
  38. THEY say the best camera is the one you have. Put you money into professional lenses.
  39. Be pacient and try the new D700s or D800 in the next year. Sell the D80 and the others 2 Dx lenses.
    Keep 18-200 VR for versality, VR, easy to use.
    Keep 50/1.8 and take a 85/1.8 or 135/2 DC (old version, the new one will be expensive)
    Keep SB900, is a good flash.
    You don't need crop factor for what are you using - portraits, indoor.
    If you need someting professional take 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 VRI (is 1700$, not 2000$).
    Nikon 24-70@24 will be enough wider. Or you can use for trips 18-200. Nikon 70-200/2.8 VRI is just fine for what you need. Not worth the extra 7-800$ for VR2.
    Why D700? For ISO, good AF, better that D300, better 3D tracking. If you need crap HD from DSLR wait for D700s or D700x or D800 or...what name would be.
    Why not crop factor? You don't need it for what are you doing right now, like sport and wildlife.
    Or Canon 5D mark 2.
    16-35/2.8 or 17-40/4
    70-200/4 IS
    Good luck!
  40. And don't forget about a second flash too.
    Happy Hollydays to everybody!
  41. Two great companies. Two excellent cameras. And of course "Adorama or B&H" will be very happy no matter which you choose. :)
    I'm wondering why you need to buy all of those lenses all at once. Why not pick up the D300s and use it with your current lenses? Or get a 7d and one lens (maybe the 10-24)? Add great as you need it instead of dropping big bucks all at once.
    In my opinion, the 24-70 isn't a very good choice for a crop camera from EITHER manufacturer. Save money and weight here unless you plan to go full-frame right away.
    There are lots of opinions on the topic. Here's a little tidbit.
  42. I have both D300 with 70-200 VR ,105 AFS-VR, 17-55 AFS f/2.8 and 5D MK II with 17-40 f/4and 70-200 IS F/4. Both are great in handling. There is no difference in the image quality except for the greater resolution in 5D MK II . Even when you crop 100 % you will get sharp images in Canon which may not be the case for Nikon D300. Other wise both are great system. Canon , no pain after long shoot but for nikon my ankle pains.
  43. I read all the posts and I will only add that I turn on the camera when I get where I am going and turn it off when I get in the car.
  44. Shaun, what type of photography do you enjoy?....you will have a range coverd from 10 right through to 200mm. do you need to cover such a large range?
  45. I have been a canon user all my photography life and my dad has been a Nikon user. I love the results he gets with his Nikons (D300 and D700) and I love the results I get with my 5D MII. Do not switch sides. It will take you a lot of time to get comfortable with the new system. That will mean subtle but important differences in your pictures. and you could end up wasting some time. Iresh
  46. I can't say much about Nikon since I'm not familiarized with them as much, but there are really a few certain things you need to consider for canon when speaking of the 5DII and the 7D short of getting hands on with them.
    5dII: Excellent low light performance, Full frame shooting (not all canon lenses you mentioned would work and to get the same coverage you would spend more money), Full frame coverage will show the inadequacies of a lower quality lens much more readily
    7D: 8fps shooting, 100% viewfinder to better compose shots (especially in fast moving sports), Still above average low light shooting, control over off camera flashes without additional equipment
    And then there's price where the 7D will save you a good chunk. I know I make it look like the 7D is the better choice with more positives, but sometimes the advantages of the 5DII are much more important to the photographer. I will say this though, I shoot with a Rebel XT (new in 2005!), and while I would like better low light shooting when pumping up the ISO without having to buy a fast lens, it more than handles any other job. I have done indoor college sports with it for personal use, though, with ISO moving between 400-1600, and I don't really like the results at 1600 while 800 is acceptable.
    Also if video shooting is of any importance to you the 7D has more advantages there as well.
  47. Something else to consider is the lenses. I use a d700. When I bought Zeiss lenses for it my work improved very dramatically (except wide open, where Nikkors are better). The Zeiss lenses, I have been told, do not stop down automatically on Canons. That is why I have stayed with Nikon. So if you care most about quality, not price, maybe switch to a top of the line Nikon with Zeiss lenses.
  48. The debate continues :) BOTH systems are GREAT. Although I'm a Canon user, Nikon is just as good.
  49. Bruce
    The Zeiss lenses (ZE) are now coming on stream for Canon EOS too, so that is becoming a non-issue.
  50. "And by the way, the 5dmkii is not the best there is at the moment, that would be the nikon d3x or the FF leica m9."

    That's a good one, tell me another! If you're talking about image quality alone, I would disagree. At ISO 100 and 200 there would be little difference, at ISO 1600 there would be a clear difference. Not to mention that the D3x and M9 are 4 times the price of the 5D2.
  51. I am going to swim in a meet at Boston University tomorrow. I also am going to take pictures from the deck. What am I going to take with me. My 5D. Why? Because I get printable pictures at ISO 3200 in a very dark in places and contrasty venue. I use a 12 year old non IS 70-200 2.8 and I have been doing sports since before I got the lens. It is quite sharp. Last weekend I did a full afternoon family shoot after setting up a three light studio in the home. What did I use? The 5D because I got great pictures on a full frame at ISO 100. If I had Nikon I'd venture to say that I could do the same thing with a Nikon body and lenses. You certainly are free to buy whatever system you choose but if I looked at the final pictures I don't think I could tell the difference. I have to be honest in that I have most always shot a single properly focused frame in sports rather than using the camera like a machine gun so frame rate does not turn me on. My stuff was used a lot so I think that works ok. All this hair splitting nettles me because much of it does not translate to better photographs. I just got an Ansel Adams book for Xmas. How did he ever do what he did with what he had? Well, I guess he did good pictures and great darkroom. Maybe that says something about the photographer rather than agonizing over the nuances and subtleties of the latest versions of digital cameras and which is better.
  52. My 5D. Why? Because I get printable pictures at ISO 3200 in a very dark in places and contrasty venue. I use a 12 year old non IS 70-200 2.8 and I have been doing sports since before I got the lens. It is quite sharp. Last weekend I did a full aft​
    you are shooting with an slr and a slow lens...if you shot with a canon rangefinder and some nice fast glass, the iso 32oo becomes alot less relevant.
  53. fwiw, i'm making a similar switch from a d90 to a 5d mark ii. i was originally hoping to upgrade to a d700x/d800 sort of camera - i mostly stick to landscapes and portraits and like to make large prints. problem #1 with this setup is that the d700x does not exist, and who knows when it will? problem #2, if the d700 is any indication, is that this camera would most likely be very heavy and not fun to take hiking. with the 5d mark ii i'm getting a full frame, high resolution camera in a body no heavier than a d300.
    i've handled the 5d mark ii, and while it is certainly very different from my nikon, i really liked the feel of it. i don't anticipate there being much of a problem in getting used to the new setup.
    i should be getting my new camera early next week, so i'll try to post my impressions of it here if anyone's interested.
  54. "you are shooting with an slr and a slow lens...if you shot with a canon rangefinder and some nice fast glass, the iso 32oo becomes alot less relevant."

    He's shooting sports with a 70-200mm f2.8 lens. Which "faster "lens do you suggest? The 200mm f2 at £5000 ($8000)?
    Which Canon rangefinder would you recommend with a faster 200mm lens?
  55. I learned on an Olympus OM-1 film camera. Then I landed a job selling cameras not long ago. At the time I had no bias toward either brand, and the two cameras I was pushing was at the time the Canon 20D, and the Nikon D70. I liked everything about the Canon system better. My cousin, and brother in law shoot with Nikon, and give me a hard time all the time. I LOVE the Canon system. Everything down to the right hand threads on the lens mounts, and the intuitive big wheel on the back of the XXD series cameras and higher. Or that there is no guessing when you see a red ring on a lens you know what it is. I currently pack a 40D, and have not a bit of problems. I always hated when my brother in law would try and compare his D300 to my 40D, and act like Nikon was better. It's like dont even waste your breath cause they arent even comparable. Now that the 7D came out its perfect head to head with D300, and same for 50D, D90, and MKII, D700. Now I am very fimilar with both systems, but just prefer the Canon system.
  56. Get a D700 and a 24-70. There is 80% of your shots. Add a lower priced 85 fast prime or Tamron 90 and a Sigma zoom until you can afford the Nikon 70-200.
    About $5,500 total to start out with all new and USA warranties.
  57. For me, the biggest differences are the high ISO performance of the upper Nikon cameras. I'm thinking not of switching systems but of getting a D700 and one lens for my high ISO needs. I'm tired of waiting for Canon to catch up in that area.
    I guess another reason could be that wonderful Nikon wide zoom that Canon has no answer for.
    In the super telepho range Canon probably has the edge with the Fluorite lenses.
    Pluses and minuses, that's why I may end up with both for specialized uses. For years folks had 35mm, medium format, and large format and nobody thought it was terribly wierd or difficult to handle the handling differences. I'm about to do the same with DSLRs.
  58. For me, the biggest differences are the high ISO performance of the upper Nikon cameras. I'm thinking not of switching systems but of getting a D700 and one lens for my high ISO needs. I'm tired of waiting for Canon to catch up in that area.
    I guess another reason could be that wonderful Nikon wide zoom that Canon has no answer for.
    In the super telepho range Canon probably has the edge with the Fluorite lenses.
    Pluses and minuses, that's why I may end up with both for specialized uses. For years folks had 35mm, medium format, and large format and nobody thought it was terribly wierd or difficult to handle the handling differences. I'm about to do the same with DSLRs.​
    You make several excellent points. No one seems to make that one "perfect" system that excels in all areas, so why not select the best tool for each application?
  59. "And by the way, the 5dmkii is not the best there is at the moment, that would be the nikon d3x or the FF leica m9."

    That's a good one, tell me another! If you're talking about image quality alone, I would disagree. At ISO 100 and 200 there would be little difference, at ISO 1600 there would be a clear difference. Not to mention that the D3x and M9 are 4 times the price of the 5D2.​
    I think it's safe to say that the 5D2 provides the best bang for your full-frame buck. Sony makes the A850, but noise eliminates if from serious contention, IMO. Plus no video.

Share This Page