Should I switch from Canon to Nikon for weddings?

[jamesm1961]

<p>James' concern is people who speak of themselves in third-person singular on their websites. James thinks that to be a little scary.</p>

[john_hazelton]

<p>Every few years, the grass grows differently. Right now, the grass looks greener on the Nikon side. Try a Nikon D3s with a 24-70 lens. You won't be disappointed.<br>

John</p>

[linh dinh]

<p>Switching from Nikon to Canon<br>

http://forums.finalgear.com/photography/switch-from-nikon-to-canon-28006/<br>

http://www.opendigitalphotography.com/Featured-Photographers/Bird-Photography/why-switching-from-Nikon-digital-camera-to-Canon-equipment-for-birding-wildlife-nature-photography.html</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Keith:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Then you could just swap gear with one of the people who have recently posted...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's actually a great idea, Keith, although how to work out equivalencies would be tough aside from the standards such as 18-55, etc. Perhaps new price for the others?</p>

<p>If this were worked out properly, then a person could switch every time a new announcement was made. The only lag would be shipping time. Perhaps frequent shifters could work out a sort of round robin of persons who have similar taste in focal lengths and the like. Sort of "camera swingers" ! :0</p>

<p>Of course, you'd never be quite sure which operating system you were using, but those of us who are Mac mujihadin have had to make a similar gearshift everytime we went up to the job where Windoze computers were used, so it is possible, to work on two not-quite-the-same systems, and probably easier with cameras than with computers.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>Yes, switch as soon as you can. I used to suffer from the "it must be me, not the equipment's at fault" syndrome, but I snapped out of it and realised it really is the equipment's fault.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>I have used, and continue to use, Nikon cameras practically since I started doing photography way back in 1974. No one has more brand loyalty to Nikon than I do. But Canon makes some very fine stuff as well and I hardly think you would be able to tell the difference, at least in digital, (which I am not particularly fond of anyway), but that is a discussion for another day. Remember the old saying, it's always the bad carpenter who blames his tools? I remember an ad for tennis rackets back in the 1970's that basically said......."Mats Wilander could win Wimbledon with a <em>frying pan</em>, but he choses Yonex rackets instead" or something to that effect.</p>

<p>The bottom line is, use what you have and and work on your skills, rather than chucking your current equipment because of some perceived difference in quality, which is not there to begin with.</p>

 

[greg_kowalczewski]

<p>Otto, at this level the equipment in either camp (Canon or Nikon) will not be the problem and the Canon 85mm 1.2L is one reason why I would want to shoot with Canon.<br>

Rule out any system faults by using the set-up that you use to shoot weddings with a simple axial focus test. Keep in mind that using the 85mm 1.2L wide open is challenging – but very rewarding when <em>you</em> get it right.<br />If the equipment checks out OK then you need to rule yourself out as the problem.</p><div></div>

[ty_mickan]

<p>you could certainly change from canon to nikon but your images won't improve. all digicam slr's produce roughly the same images at normal iso's (1600 and below), and with decent glass, there isn't really a need to go above this. now if you upgraded to film.........................</p>

[fotolopithecus]

<p>I think your photography is very good, but for the fact that many of the images seem a little unsharp. Perhaps you need to see what the cause of that is. As far as camera brand, I switched from Canon to Nikon myself, but I don't think that has as much to do with you're wanting to jump ship as you think. Sometimes change is good if you can afford it, Nikons are very good, but then so are Canons. pith</p>

[ken_thalheimer]

<p>Go back to sleep. It's not the equipment</p>

[jackaldridge]

<p>You should switch immediately!</p>

[lesterphoto]

<p>If it'll make you happy, then 'yes'.<br /> Will it make you a better photographer? Probably not.<br>

Buy a Leica and become a snob!</p>

[david_seelig]

<p>If you look at the lenses you use Nikon has no 35 1.4 there 85 1.4 is inferior to the canon 85 f1.2 L and until the new nikon 70-200 gets tested there current 70-200 is a dog wide open so for you I would not switch but get your lenses calibrated and work on technique. David</p>

[seancrane]

<p>The Nikon 70-200 is hardly "a dog wide open." Still won't necessarily give you better photos over the equivalent Canon but it's a great lens.</p>

[tomsnook]

<p>Before you jump...I just bought the EOS 7D... Oh my goodness the joy of an amazing camera once again!<br>

I remember when Canon used to be "THE" digital camera. Then Nikon jumped into the game. Honestly I was a died-in-the wool Nikonian with film cameras for years and had a slew of great lenses for press photography etc. Then a colleague let me borrow a Canon (this was back when Nikon was still using someone else's camera body for their digital camera). I fell in love with it. <br>

Now I own Canon gear... Couple of point and shoot, the Rebel, 3D, 4D, 5D AND NOW 7D. Canon really got it right with the 7D. I have also gone outside of the Canon lens line and have acquired some great Tamron and Sigma lenses that give superb results. Though I still stick with the top end Canon for long lenses and still love my 70-200 mm 2.8 (I just love fast lenses anyway) I would not go back to Nikon at this point (and not just because I sold or gave away about 40k in Nikon lenses either).</p>

<p> </p>

[adrian_byng_clarke]

<p>I don't think it really matters. I happen to be a Nikon user, in part because I was a Nikon film SLR user and had lenses. Nikon CLS is nice but Canon's have their strengths as well.</p>

[john_morris4]

<blockquote>

<p>Only Carl Zeiss ZF Lenses will outperform Japanese optics...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>(Shhh. Those Carl Zeiss ZF lenses <em>are</em> Japanese optics. At least, mine says "made in Japan" on it.) Don't let that stop you from enjoying them, though.</p>

[boinkphoto]

<p>Personally unless you're going to buy a Fuji S5, well I'd say no - and I am a Nikon user (D300 and S5 user). Both Canon and Nikon make great systems and if you're in one and not hopelessly tribalistic, then the grass normally seems "greener" on the other side. Happens to me too with wanting Canon equipment.</p>

<p>Personally I do think Canon is more neutral in its rendition, and Nikon tends to have a "look" (I call it the "Nikon Browns"). Problem is that "look" sometimes makes the image more constraining and will probably ultimately go out of style. Using RAW though you have a lot more options.</p>

<p>In the end though, I would be very hard pressed to recommend anyone change in either direction. Both have their advantages, and zealots aside, they are both fantastic systems.</p>

[mt4x4]

<blockquote>

<p>this was back when Nikon was still using someone else's camera body for their digital camera</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually it was Kodak putting their electronics into Nikon bodies. F5 and N80. Kodak sensor, Nikon F mount. Not a bad combination really as you could get a full frame 14 megapixel sensor (the DSC 14n based on the N80 used the same CMOS sensor as the Canon 1DS). This was in 2002. They are actually still decent cameras, aside from the tiny LCD, horrid battery consumption, and slow frame rate.</p>

<p>@Greg; using storm troopers for focusing tests? I'm thinking maybe I need to break out the G.I. Joes!</p>

[weddings]

<p>Why do we always blame on the equiptment? We are the artist. IT'S THE MAN BEHIND THE LENS.</p>

[scott_gardner1]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=826173">B G</a> typed:</p>

 

<p>I looked at your site, and you shoot a often with very shallow depth of field. I think you need to use only the center focus point, focus and reposition for the best focus.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Not so much. In fact, I'd suggest that is <strong><em>exactly what you do NOT want to do</em></strong> especially when shooting at a very wide aperture.</p>

<p>A rather blunt summary (not mine) why:<br>

<a href="http://visual-vacations.com/Photography/focus-recompose_sucks.htm">http://visual-vacations.com/Photography/focus-recompose_sucks.htm</a></p>

<p>Consistent with my experience. YMMV.</p>

[fujimike]

<p>Yes you should definately change to NIKON from CANON. Nikon make far superior and robust bodies and although they dont make as many amateur lenses they do make superior professional lenses. If you were to purchase a good Nikon body eg D700 or wait for the D800 (i'm waiting! :o)) and purchase the Nikon 70-200 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 14-24 f2.8 you would have a system that is far superior to the Canon. You would be able to create sharper and more dreamy looking pics with more punch and true colour. Canon's colour looks rather insipid to me and unnatural looking.<br>

Good luck with your new system. You won't regret it ;o)</p>

[yeux tortu]

<p>All wrong.<br>

Get an M9 and valium for your subjects so they will hold still.</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I agree you should definetely switch to Nikon. They make a way better product in every aspect. And because I really want to help you switch I will buy all that old crappy Canon stuff from you starting with that 85 1.2L and the 70-200 F2.8 :-). I will gladly give you .50 on the dollar. Seriously, I occasionally shoot with both. I have a Canon 5D Mark II my best friend shoots with a Nikon D3. I can make excellent photos with each. I also use both a Mac and a PC depending on what I am creating. Personally, I prefer Canon just because the controls are easier for me. The Nikons have too many buttons too much stuff to think about. I think you could benift for the Live View focusing of the Canon 5D Mark II this has helped me a lot.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Are those Nikon guys for real? I figure they must be joking. But without emoticons it is hard to tell. </p>

<p>I suppose they could simply be very parochial, if they really think they can characterize a whole line of lenses and cameras in such sweeping and biased terms.</p>