Switching from Nikon to Canon

[OPK]

<p>...another good point in debate. If you are satisfied with IQ then go for some more accurate lenses - that's it.<br>

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.....<br>

....each one was heavier, more complex more expensive with only quality gain in higher ISO.<br>

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.</p>

[mike_whalen]

<p>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.</p>

[chris_letts]

<P>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.</P>

<P>either Canon or Nikon (and some other brands) will be of roughly equal quality so that's not really the issue either.</P>

<P>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.</P>

<P>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 ?</P>

[charles_wood]

<p>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?<br /> Based on operating a gallery for five years selling my own landscape work, here are some real world truths:<br /> 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.<br /> 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.<br /> 3. See above. The public doesn't care what hardware was used if the image stirs something within their soul.<br /> 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.<br /> 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?</p>

[anders_andersson2]

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>

[jake_cole]

<p>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.</p>

<p><strong>However</strong>, 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. <strong>Go for it!</strong></p>

[sven_felsby]

<p>You must try the Canon ergonomics and see if they work for you. Nikon and Canon have totally different approaches.<br>

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.</p>

[buster douglas]

<p>Money isn't really the issue. Are your words then buy a Nikon D3s or D3x</p>

[shaun_bevan]

<p>Thanks for all the replies.<br /> <br /> 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).<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br>

<br /> 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.</p>

[stanleys]

<p>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?</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>The Nikon equipment is up to any task you are likely to need for it. So many people nowadays pay <em>way too much attention to the actual equipment itself</em> and far less on the skill of <em>actually using it</em> to produce photographs. <em>Stick with what you have and go take some photos</em>. 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.</p>

[igor_smirnoff]

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

Why is the whole post about money then?</p>

[buster douglas]

<p>THEY say the best camera is the one you have. Put you money into professional lenses.</p>

[mirceaciuca]

<p>Be pacient and try the new D700s or D800 in the next year. Sell the D80 and the others 2 Dx lenses.<br>

Keep 18-200 VR for versality, VR, easy to use.<br>

Keep 50/1.8 and take a 85/1.8 or 135/2 DC (old version, the new one will be expensive)<br>

Keep SB900, is a good flash.<br>

You don't need crop factor for what are you using - portraits, indoor.<br>

If you need someting professional take 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 VRI (is 1700$, not 2000$).<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

Why not crop factor? You don't need it for what are you doing right now, like sport and wildlife.</p>

<p>Or Canon 5D mark 2.<br>

16-35/2.8 or 17-40/4<br>

24-70/2.8<br>

70-200/4 IS<br>

135/2.<br>

Good luck!</p>

<p> </p>

[mirceaciuca]

<p>And don't forget about a second flash too.<br>

Happy Hollydays to everybody!</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Two great companies. Two excellent cameras. And of course "Adorama or B&H" will be very happy no matter which you choose. :)</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>There are lots of opinions on the topic. Here's a little tidbit.</p>

<p>http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/</p>

 

[ntv666]

<p>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.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>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.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>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?</p>

[iresh_zaker]

<p>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</p>

[andrew_espinosa]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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</p>

<p>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</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Also if video shooting is of any importance to you the 7D has more advantages there as well.</p>

[brucecahn]

<p>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.</p>

[alin_daju]

<p>The debate continues :) BOTH systems are GREAT. Although I'm a Canon user, Nikon is just as good.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Bruce</p>

<p>The Zeiss lenses (ZE) are now coming on stream for Canon EOS too, so that is becoming a non-issue.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p><strong><em>"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."</em></strong><br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

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.</p>