Switching to Canon from Nikon?

I am a Nikon user and have been for years. I currently have quite a

few manual and AF bodies including the F5 and now D1 and D100 digital

bodies. I look forward to Nikon releasing a full-frame digital body

(some day?) I also have a full suite of good Nikkor glass from 17mm

up to 500/f4, both MF, AF and AF-S. My primary shooting (not my

primary profession) is nature/wildlife and lots of other things in

between including sports and family. 90% of my shooting is now

digital.

 

I haved seen multiple posts for Nikon gear that people are selling

saying they are moving to Canon.

 

I have never looked at Canon very closely (except way back in the TL

days) and haven't kept up with all the advancements in bodies and

lenses. I know Canon has a good range of IS + USM glass and just

recently released the 1DS body (full frame CCD) and believe it sells

for around $8K?

 

Without starting a brand war, what are the primary reasons for so

many folks moving to Canon? Is it cost? Quality? Features?

Customer service? A combination?

 

If you have switched, why? If you are contemplating switching, why?

I would hate to think of selling all my Nikon gear and replacing it

with Canon. There must be some good reasons for folks doing it,

though.

 

Thanks,

 

Charlie

It's because Canon lens caps are better than Nikon lens caps!

 

But seriously, I'd say a couple big factors are the IS lenses and "affordable" DSLRs like the D30/D60.

I think the question you need to ask yourself is what can't your

Nikon do for you that a Canon can. If you actually come up with

something then you need to decide if that feature is worth

unloading all of your gear and starting over. If I were in your

shoes there would be no way that I could justify switching. (And

that comes from a Canon shooter! )

I am not necessarily considering switching - I'd be hard pressed to do so unless there was a significant benefit or if the newer Canon IS-USM lenses were significantly less espensive than the Nikon equivalents.

 

I am mainly interested in hearing from those that have switched or are seriously considering it to find out their reasons.

 

Thanks again,

 

Charlie

Is it cost? NO (overall they seem about equal)

 

Quality? NO (overall they seem about equal)

 

Features? YES - Image Stabilization is terrific, as is USM on pretty much all their lenses - plus Nikon doesn't offer anything with IS and USM together (yet)

 

 

Customer service? YES - Canon ranks right up amoung the best of any companies on any products in terms of customer service (and i've dealt with a lot of companies).

I have no idea. If you need to posess the latest technology, I guess it makes sense to own Canon at this time. I don't think anyone at this time can claim that switching is a sensible investment, unless you have a very specific need. This obviously doesn't apply to you, Charlie, if you need to ask this kind of questions. OTOH, if you have $8000 for one body and probably a similar sum to get your lenses replaced, then why not? After all, it may take something like 6-12 months before Nikon makes a 15 MP body. Be quick to switch, so that you have some time to enjoy being at the cutting edge. Because such things don't last.

Nikon just announced a 24-120 with AFS and VR, so presumably G-series lenses with both features and of all shapes and sizes are just around the corner:

 

See this link on DPReview:

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0302/03021801nikon24120afsvr.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/news/0302/03021801nikon24120afsvr.asp

</a>

 

Meant to be "out" mid-year. I believe they also have a 70-200 AFS/VR.

Please don't switch, keep up the competition so prices don't skyrocket.

A lot of the people who switched did so because Canon seems to lead Nikon by 2-3 years in bringing in new features like IS lenses, eye controlled focus, full time manual focusing of AF lenses, USM motors, actually having working AF TCs etc. Nikon may eventually get there, but by that time Canon has moved on.

 

Whether or not you NEED these features is up to you, but that's a big reason why many people switched.

 

I'd agree that Canon customer service (once you get past the people on the "consumer cameras" desk) is very good.

I would imagine that for most people both systems are in practice equally good. Presumably for some long lens users the AF TCs and IS could give them a competitive advantage and mean a real increase in income. Maybe the same is true of some photo-journalists. I am neither so I can't say authoritatively.

 

There was a nice letter in a UK magazine recently about a pro photographer who sat next to a camera club member at a meal. The camera club member slagged off the pro for his using 6 old FM cameras and a handful of old primes. The pro, who had recently had an exhibition of his pictures, pointed out that the FM is supremely reliable, and the primes cannot be beaten. He referred to the nerd as an 'advertising victim' and said he was tempted to shove his manual focus 300mm F2.8 lens where the sun don't shine.

Matthew,Bob + Leif - thanks for the constructive feedback. That is what I was looking for.

 

I don't need to switch at this time - my primary bread + butter is not with photography and I am generally happy with my equipment. I'll continue to upgrade over time.

 

I can understand how certain features such as the TC's and IS could make a difference.

 

At the same time, some of my most prized shots have been with my FM2n and AIS glass.

 

Others?

 

Regards,

 

Charlie

Most of the people I know who've switched were bird photographers after either the 500mm IS or 600mm IS lenses. Right now, the lead on who has the "best" digital body seems to switch every six months when they come out with new ones. And don't forget that the excellent Fuji S2 and the new Kodak DCS use Nikon lenses. Nikon is still thought to be ahead in meter and flash technology. Things are changing so fast and prices are dropping as capabilities rise. It's tough to know if staying or jumping will prove to have been wise two years from now. In the meantime, Nikon does finally seem to have come up with three VR lenses. I have the 80-400mm VR and love it. I hardly ever use my 80-200mm f2.8 anymore. Maybe I should dump it and get the new 24-120 VR.

 

 

Kent in SD

Kent - I, too, have the 80-400 VR and use it a lot. I sold my 80-200 AF. I sure wish the 80-400 was AF-S, though.

 

There is the new 70-200 G AF-S VR ED IF (abcdefg...)lens out. And a new 12-24 lens coming. They are on the Nikonusa.com web site. Bjorn R. has a review of the 70-200 on his site at http://www.naturfotograf.com

 

Thanks, Charlie

Charlie,

 

I heard a rumor that Nikon is working on a body that incorporates IS. If this is true, hold onto your Nikon gear. Problem is, it's a rumor and there may be no truth to it. If I were you, with that extensive a Nikon setup, I would make sure the rumor was false before considering any change.

 

Also, since Nikon has begun to release some IS (or VR) lenses, I would wait to see what additional lenses will be incorporating the new VR feature. It's alot less expensive to pick up one or two lenses, then to convert an entire system.

 

Some pros did convert, but they had some economic reasons for doing so. They also had extensive lens collections, and they could replace several lenses with one or two high quality zooms. They could make the shift from Nikon to Canon without incurring the expense of replacing every lens in their inventory (see Joe McDonald's story on his www.hoothollow.com website).

 

Kevin Ferris

A Nikon rep told a friend of mine they may not release a full frame digital SLR just increase the MP of the smaller chip becasue it was more cost effective for big lenses. You get a 450 2.8 for the price of a 300 2.8. Wide lenses are much less expensive.

I switched to Canon when they were the only ones offering

a stabilized lens, five years ago.

This lens made it possible for me to get

people pictures with a good DOF in low light that I wouldn't

have been able to make otherwise (Isee the photos of Asia

on <a href = "http://www.terragalleria.com">terragalleria.com</a>

. I know it's not nature. If it was just landscape, I would never

have switched). At that time, is was not even clear whether Nikon

were going

to have a similar feature. It seems that it is only at the time

they introduced the F5 that they began to catch up

technologically. Now it seems clear they are committed to

keeping up with technology, and if I was a Nikon shooter

I would certainly wait. However there was a period of a

few years (between the F4 and the F5) were this wasn't clear

at all.

Let me say that I use Nikon, but in many ways I wish I had a Canon. The reason? No it is not technology. Heck, I dont even use autofocus and could care less about IS USM and digital(did you hear about velvia 100!!!!!) Anywho the reason is simple, cost! It may not seem like much to you guys but the prices are cheaper on the canon side. The cost difference is almost $200 in some lenses. Thats just my two cents.

Canon and Nikon are both good brands, much like Acura and Infiniti are good brands too. If you really want something different and still shoot film, then goto a medium format system like the Mamiya, Pentax or Hassie 645 autofocus systems. Almost all the stuff you can get in 35mm but a 270% increase in picture size. One look at a medium format slide (that will blow away any 35mm) and you will wonder what all the Nikon-Canon fuss is about.

 

Just a thought

I guess I should do a comparison of new and used lenses between Nikon and Canon to see how that comes out.

 

Another question - does Canon have the same USA vs. Gray market issues of service like Nikon does? My understanding is that Nikon repair centers in the USA will not repair non-USA warranty items.

 

Does Canon have the equivalent the Nikon Professional Services (NPS)?

Canon does have a professional service I from what I hear they are much easier to get into then the nikon one.

I am only going to say this : As an amateur/hobbyist, the best thing that EVER happened to me was Nikon bringing out the D1 body. Pro's and publications were dumping canon gear on the market at an amazing rate, and when the market was flooded, prices went into freefall.

In one year i picked up a 300 f2.8L, 20-35L, 28-70L and an eos-1 body with booster for a grand total of just under $3500 (!!!).

 

I for one am hoping Nikon revolutionizes the digital SLR market again one of these days !

 

(don't get me started about the whole smaller sensor and "you get a 450mm for the price of a 300" speech, thats dilluted thinking !)

I have just purchased the Canon EOS 1v HS, 500/4 IS, 1.4xII, and 2.0x II teleconverters after selling my Nikkor manual 500mm/4 P lens and TC-14b teleconverter. At this point I am holding onto my F5 solely for landscape photography and macro work (I currently use the 200/4 AF Micro Nikkor, 105 Micro Nikkor, and the PB-6 bellows with the 50mm/2 and 24/2.8 reverse mounted). The only advantage to Canon for the type of diverse shooting I do (everything from insects at 12x lifesize to hawks and owls at the nest and on the limb) was in the implemetation of IS in their heavy artillery. I can shoot in windy conditions, on bouncy boardwalks, with 2x and stacked 1.4x/2x teleconverters etc. etc. Yes IS does work. Yes, the EOS 1v HS is every bit as rugged as my F5. And yes, it is much more intuitive to use and much better ergonomically designed than my F5. But would I give up my F5? Not yet. Nikon's fixed wide angle primes are brilliant. The 200 mm Micro Nikkor is far and away the sharpest macro in this focal length, and finally, the versatility of the bellows for those interested in serious macro photography are unmatched by any other manufacturer. And I am still a strong proponent for mechanical mirror lock-up. There have been many instances where I will have the mirror mechanically locked up for a minute or two before I am able to shoot, usually because I am waiting for wind to calm. Once the wind is still, I can rapidly fire off three autobracketed frames or more with the F5. Try this on the EOS 1v which uses electronic mirror lock-up. Custom function 12 must first be set to 1 (a pain in the neck when wearing gloves). Then, the first release of the shutter locks the mirror. You then have 30 seconds to trip the shutter with the next press of the release or the mirror flips back down. Hello Canon. What if I want to wait longer than 30 seconds for the wind to stop blowing? Even if I want to trip the shutter before the 30 second time frame expires, once the mirror is locked up, it is best to wait 1 to 2 sec for the vibration created by the mirror slap to stop. Then you can fire off a single frame. However, after that frame is fired, the mirror flips back down and you must start the sequence over. What if you only have a lull for a fraction of a second? Forget autobracketing. In fact you might even have to forget using the mirror lockup altogether. Now I could go on with the pros and cons of both systems, but at the end of the day it is important to remember that these are just tools. It is the captured image that is important. Simply use the right tool for the job. Macro and landscape-Nikon. Heavy artillery-Canon.

Charlie, I'm no way a pro, and I'm a Canon user...

 

The other day I was given a F5, N80, 80-400 VR, 80-200/2.8D(non-AFS), and 105/2 DF lenses to try out. And OMG, that thing is slow! And loud! (makes me wonder how they do sports photography with Nikon) No full-time MF, I had to turn the ring to MF. However, I've not tried AFS...

I feel like most of the amatueres switched are people who're never satisfied with their gear. This is an addictive hobby. People like me, like to play with their equipment. When they see some beautiful pictures taken with this camera or lens they will consider getting this.

Another big reason is IS. For wild life IS is cery critical. Now I'm struggling to find out the best 200 speed film. Velvia is my alltime favourite . If I can shoot birds with velvia, that's a big reason to switch. I didn't do that only because none of the canon long teles are my reach(IS). Full frame CCD?? It's only for pros who'll get a camera from the company. Otherwise who can afford to sped $8000 every year?

I never quite understand why IS is so important for wildlife. To me, wildlife often moves, and you need a fast shutter speed to freeze the action. IS is no help at all with subject movement.

 

IS is helpful if you shoot small birds that don't move much. In that case you can put a 2x TC on your 500mm or 600mm/f4 to get to 1000/1200mm and IS will help stabilize your image, but it is very important that your subject doesn't move.

Michael, I'm sure a lot of people will disagree.