Switching from Nikon to Canon

<p>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.<br /> <br /> Here's what I put together (all prices taken off Adorama or B&H for a general idea).<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> So the following is a price comparison:<br /> <br /> Nikon:<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/635645-REG/Nikon_25464_D300s_SLR_Digital_Camera.html" target="_blank">D300S</a> : $1700<br /> 70-200mm: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/644741-USA/Nikon_2185_AF_S_Zoom_Nikkor_70_200mm_f_2_8G.html" target="_blank">VR II</a> : $2400 (or <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/274780-GREY/Nikon_2139_AF_S_VR_Zoom_NIKKOR_70_200mm.html" target="_blank">VR I</a> : $2000)<br /> <a href="http://www.adorama.com/NK2470AFSU.html?searchinfo=Nikon+24-70mm" target="_blank">24-70mm f/2.8</a> : $1800<br /> <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/619515-GREY/Nikon_2181_10_24mm_f_3_5_4_5G_ED_AF_S.html" target="_blank">10-24mm f/3.5-4.5</a> : $800<br /> <br /> Total: $6700 - 700 = $6000 (w 70-200m VRII) or $5600 (70-200mm VR I)<br /> <br /> <br /> Canon:<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/646908-REG/Canon_3814B004_EOS_7D_SLR_Digital.html" target="_blank">7D</a> : $1700<br /> <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/234444-USA/Canon_7042A002_70_200mm_f_2_8L_IS_USM.html" target="_blank">70-200mm</a> : $1900 (or the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/91680-USA/Canon_2569A004_70_200mm_f_2_8L_USM_Autofocus.html" target="_blank">prior model</a> $1300)<br /> <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12142-USA/Canon_2514A002_Normal_EF_50mm_f_1_8.html" target="_blank">50mm</a> 1.8: $100<br /> <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/264304-USA/Canon_8014A002_Zoom_Wide_Angle_Telephoto_EF.html" target="_blank">24-70mm 2.8</a> : $1300<br /> <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/351542-USA/Canon_9518A002_EF_S_10_22mm_f_3_5_4_5_USM.html" target="_blank">10-22mm 3.5-4.5</a> : $800<br /> <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/486706-USA/Canon_1946B002_580EX_II_Flash.html" target="_blank">580EX II</a> Flash: $450<br /> <br /> Total: $6250 - $1500 = $4750<br /> <br /> <br /> So if I made the switch to Canon, I'd save $1250. Which leads me to think I might as well pick up the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/583953-REG/Canon_2764B003_EOS_5D_Mark_II.html" target="_blank">5D MKII</a> 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!<br /> <br /> I don't know much about Canon gear, but does this sound like a good trade? <br /> <br /> Money isn't really the issue. I'm more worried about the quality of the equipment I'll be buying.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The calculation is slightly wrong.<br>

If you switch the 7D for a 5D-II you won't need a 10-22 anymore...</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>If full frame 24mm to 200mm is enough the 5D-II option would be only $ 4950.</p>

<p>However: handling is pretty different between Nikon and Canon. As you are imprinted on Nikon you might not like it.</p>

<p>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.)</p>

<p>It comes down to this:</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Thanks for your replies.<br>

<br /> 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.<br>

<br /> 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.<br>

<br /> 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?<br>

<br /> I'm not too worried about "starting over" with Canon because I'm sure it'll all fall into place at some point.</p>

<p>I guess what it comes down to is would you choose the 5DMKII set or the D300S set?</p>

<p>On a side note, I'm a freelance pj and need this camera for the typical shoots (events/portraits/sports).</p>

<p>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.)</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>You said the word "sports." Give some <em>real</em> 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.</p>

<p>You just figure out what we Canon users know Canon cheaper than Nikon and a great system. Specially in tough economic times.<br>

I would buy the 5D MKII . And buy a 400mm 5.6L used with the extra money. Since you do not need the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/351542-USA/Canon_9518A002_EF_S_10_22mm_f_3_5_4_5_USM.html" target="_blank">10-22mm 3.5-4.5</a> : $800 or a 50mm 1.4 and an extra 580 flash.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <em>best</em> 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!</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I would suggest the 7D because you mentioned sports. It is significantly faster than the 5D.<br>

Matt said "You said the word "sports." Give some <em>real</em> 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."<br>

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. <br>

As for 7D vs. Nikon D300s, the 7D bests it on the high ISO noise based on testing by Popular Photography.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 .</p>

<p>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.<br>

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....<br>

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.....</p>

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!)

<p>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.<br />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). <br />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.</p>

<p>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). </p>

<p>Before deciding on anything, I would go out and "feel" the systems. <br>

Enjoy, Holger</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Money isn't really the issue. I'm more worried about the quality of the equipment I'll be buying.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>If you use flash a lot, I'd stay the course with Nikon. If you decide to switch, the SB-900 should sell easily.</p>

<p>Both Nikon and Canon make some really good equipment and some not so good. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>But if money is not an object - then go for it.</p>

<p>I done that last month ;)))<br>

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.<br>

My biggest complain on Nikon equipment was the price and weight.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Money isn't really the issue. I'm more worried about the quality of the equipment I'll be buying.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Please don't jump on that wagon. Use what you have until it stops working, like reasonable people do.</p>