Switching from Canon - possibly dumb question

[nathan_b]

<p>Steve,<br>

The only reasons I really see to have a crop sensor are a) Price or b) Focal Multiplier. Weight is not a substantial issue when you are using pro-quality equipment anyway.<br>

FWIW I shoot Canon, because that's what I started with and that's what the other pros I know shoot. I would add a Nikon FF setup to my bag in a minute if I had the extra cash laying around. It's increasingly common to see shooters with both systems now, because of the trade-offs involved with one or the other.<br>

But, back to your question. I firmly believe if you are accustomed to your full frame FOV, DOF, IQ, Image quality, and ISO, then you will miss it and be sorry. Skip the crop body.</p>

[User_1855600]

<p>I make my living photographing weddings. I used to shoot with two Canon 5D's and L lenses. Issues with blown / soft focus drove me crazy. I wanted to throw my 5Ds against a wall. Never had too many issues with QC..... 85 1.2 once needed repair. But my 24-70 had a 'soft' corner and liked to back focus- not a good combination. I thought long and hard about switching to Nikon. Everything I read about the 5DII auto focus left me feeling ill- Canon had not made an AF update from the 5D, and that was enough reason for me to 'jump ship'. I made a gradual move to Nikon by picking up a D700, 24-70 and 14-24 and SB-900. The percentage of sharply focused images rose dramatically. Hands down, the D700 and Nikon lenses allowed me to be much more confident at weddings and I was able to capture images that would have beef iffy with the 5D. Differences in image quality between the two (5D & D700), in normal light were non-existant, but in low light, the D700 had a distinct advantage. Yes, I missed my Canon primes..... but Nikon is slowly remedying that, their 24 1.4 and 85 1.4. On a side note, at half the price of the 85 1.4G, I decided to pick up Sigma's 85 1.4 and it is phenomenal. No focus issues on my D700 (as others have reported), and my copy is very sharp. Steve, you may want to wait and see what changes are in store for Canon and Nikon this spring, or not. You might want to make the switch sooner than later. Here's why- If you switch to Nikon, be prepared for a pretty steep learning curve that won't take over night. You'll want to get acclimated to Nikon's somewhat 'different' controls before shooting your first wedding. I found the switch from the 5D to the D700 difficult and fairly time consuming. I had to re-program my 'Canon brain' to Nikon's interface. I practiced for weeks with my D700 before shooting my first wedding. Not sure about going to a crop body..... but the D7000 sure sounds amazing. I wish you the best with whatever you decide to do.</p>

[Kent Shafer]

<p>Steve, while the focal lengths will indeed work out as you suggest, there may be more involved than that. For one thing, 24mm on DX will provide more depth of field at a given aperture than 35mm on DX, which may or may not be a good thing depending on your objectives.</p>

<p>There may also be more subtle differences that you would have to evaluate, ideally by trying out the various combinations. Nikon offers two autofocus models each in the 24mm and 35mm focal lengths—the large and costly f/1.4 versions and the much smaller and cheaper 24mm f/2.8 and 35mm f/2. Your decision might turn on which version of each you would be using and whether you care about subtle nuances or are more of the "f/8 and be there" school.</p>

[orcama60]

<p>Never used Cannon before but I have nothing to complaint about my Nikon equipment. Have a D300, 50 f/1.8, 35 f/1.8, SB-800 ( superb and never failed, never ever ), 70-300 VR, 16-85 VR. As I said, none of them have failed me ever and I am using Nikon since 1990 ( back then the N8008, 35-70, 70-200 and the SB-24 ). I will get soon the 70-200 f/2.8 VR II and probably another flash unit ( SB-900 ) and I am very sure that they will not fail me ever. If you do not feel happy ( don't have confidence ) and you depends on your equipment for living, then move on and welcome. I am very sure that you will be very happy. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>You're the professional who has to work with these. I just don't understand why are you asking <em>us</em>?<br /> I do know that Nikon's flash system is much better than Canon's--at least that's what all the Nikon people tell me.<br /> If you've expensed out all that Canon equipment, why not keep it and have <em>both</em> systems?</p>

<p>Get what you want, "full" or "crop" frame, it's your business, literally; but if you want to throw away all that L glass, I have a worthy charity that will take it off your hands. I'll even pay shipping.</p>

<p>We'll look forward to a report a year or so from now on how the switch went.</p>

<p>Oh, if you want to go to a job and be nervous about your equipment, I suggest that you look into Pentacon 6 and Kiev medium format cameras. ;)</p>

<p> </p>

[greg_peterson3]

<p>I'm a Nikon guy. Have been for 46 years.<br>

That said I think you're nuts to switch, at least from a financial standpoint.<br>

But if you do, get two full frame bodies or two half-assed bodies. You want your lenses to work equally well on both bodies. (I am, as you may have guessed, somewhat prejudiced toward full frame.)</p>

 

[stevenseelig]

<p>I'm a Nikon user, and would love to have you in my camp, but I am wondering what functional advantage you are pondering.<br>

1. Better AF?<br>

2. Better ISO?<br>

3. Both have full frame and various smaller sensors<br>

4. Better lens for you particular business needs?<br>

5. Less time in repair shops?<br>

6. More responsive technical support?<br>

7. Or??<br>

What do you hope to gain that you don't have with Canon? </p>

 

[zack_zoll]

<p>Well, the most important statement anyone can make is that if you don't see any problems, there's no reason to change. Personally I shoot Nikon, as my father also shot Nikon, and I had a ton of old lenses to port over to digital. Starting from scratch, I see it break down like this:</p>

<p>Canon:<br>

1) More stuff. More megapixels per dollar, better video, etc.<br>

2) 1.2 AF lenses.<br>

3) 70-200 f/4. I'd own this if it fit a Nikon.<br>

4) Works with ALL AF Canon lenses.</p>

<p>Nikon:<br>

1) Better 'base' features. Better weather-sealing and build in that price range, better ISO performance in that price range.<br>

2) Better flashes.<br>

3) Works with MF lenses, albeit usually without a working meter.<br>

4) Many more sealed, gasketed lenses.</p>

<p>If I were starting from scratch, I'd say that a Canon camera is more likely to 'punch above its weight', as the expression goes. I'd say that a Nikon camera is more likely to last to the 100,000 shutter actuations, or whatever it's rated for. I'm hard on my gear, so I'm sticking with Nikon. That said, I would like that 70-200 f/4, and I wouldn't mind Canon's 100 f/2 either.</p>

[nicolaiecostel]

<p>Hi, i shoot nikon full frame and i think you should reconsider the switch. While i love my D700 and the D3 i use at work sometimes, i see that 12 megapixel is often not enough for a big part of my work ( model stuff). Also, as durable as a D700 might seem, i had mine in service after 5 months of usage.<br>

Nikon's new 1.4 primes are also very good indeed, but the major hole in the nikon lineup is still the megapixel count. There are numerous rumors that next year there will be a 24 mpix replacement for the D700 (a nikon rep confirmed the rumor at an event), so i think you should wait and see what 2011 brings.<br>

Cheers.</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>

 

</p>

<p>

 

<br>

 

<p>“…I almost entirely use 35mm on one body and 85mm on the other.”<br>

　<br>

“…I'm just wondering whether to stick with fullframe or mix it up a bit.”<br>

　<br>

Prior to the digital era, like you, I used the 35mm f/1.4 and the 85mm f/1.8 lens on my 35mm SLRs to shoot 70% of my professional assignments. Wider wide angles accounted for 10%; longer telephotos accounted for 10%; and macro lenses covered the remaining 10%. When Nikon publicly stated that it would stick with the cropped sensor and not make a camera with a full-frame sensor, I had too much invested in Nikon lenses to make a switch to the Canon full-frames. Instead, I patiently waited for Nikon to succumb to market pressures and change its policy.<br>

　<br>

However, when I could no longer compete by shooting film in the newly forming digital world, I was the one forced to succumb to market pressures. I purchased a DX body.<br>

　<br>

When I bought my first DX body, the Nikon D700 and D3 FX bodies was not yet available. If it had been, I would have purchased one of them and avoided all the following problems and unnecessary added expenses I had with my DX body.<br>

　<br>

1. The crop factor changed the angle-of-view to the point where I had to replace some lenses. For example, my 35mm f/1.4 was the lens I used most often. I had to switch to the 24mm f/2 to get the same angle-of-view but the 24mm had less lens speed and less image quality.<br>

　<br>

2. The crop factor changed the angle-of-view on some lenses that simply could not be replaced. For example, my wide angle 28mm perspective control lens was worthless to me as a normal perspective control lens on the DX body. I would need an 18mm perspective control lens to replace it but such a lens does not exist.<br>

　<br>

3. The widest angle lens I used on my film cameras was an 18mm. The DX crop factor made my 18mm perform like a 28mm lens. I had to buy a wider wide angle lens just to give me the same coverage on my DX body that I had on my FX film body.<br>

　<br>

4. Manually focusing my film cameras was relatively easy. I found it very difficult to accurately focus manually on the DX body. Even with a KatzEye screen, manual focusing the DX was not as easy. I had to replace many of my manual focus prime lenses with auto focus lenses.<br>

　<br>

Bottom line, if I were in your position, I would get the Nikon FX bodies, lenses, and accessories that I needed to replace the Canon system that I had been using. Later, I would entertain the idea of getting a DX body to try.<br>

　<br>

By the way, in the spirit of full disclosure, I shoot Nikon SLRs (film and digital), I shoot Canon film rangefinders, and I shoot Canon digital compacts.</p>

<br>

.</p>

[steve george]

<p>Wow! Go away for a couple of days and come back to loads of answers. Thanks all for thoughts and comments. I really appreciate it. I'll try and answer some of the questions:</p>

<p>All those suggesting avoiding a crop body, I'm now in agreement having had a play around, so I'm sticking full frame whatever I decide to do.</p>

<p>To those asking why I'm asking...well...it's a big decision and I'm putting out feelers to see what people have done and think. Exactly the kind of feedback <strong>John Sherton</strong> gave in fact - ie. it's a learning curve but he's personally found it worth doing. I know there'll be others who regret it but it's good to get a first hand report with specific examples (and ones I can relate to).</p>

<p><strong>Steven Seelig</strong>: as per my reasons for switching number 5 is a key part of it, number 1 wouldn't go amiss either.</p>

<p>What's interesting too is the people suggesting using both systems - that's not something I'd given much thought to but might work (equally menu differences might drive me mad). I can see that having potential though as a means of slowly switching system.<br>

<br />Much to think about and thanks again all for taking the time to comment.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>If you go back a year, at the beginning of 2010, the only f1.4 Nikon AF-S lens was the 50mm. Now there are the 24mm, 35mm, and 85mm. What a difference.</p>

<p>Nither Canon nor Nikon is going to sit still. I am a bit surprised that Nikon has not replaced the D700 yet, but it should be obvious that they will put more pixels onto something similar to the D3S and D700; now even the D7000 has 16MP and still produces good high ISO results. Likewise, after the 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR and 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR, expanding that to a 70-200mm/f4 is more than obvious.</p>

<p>There should be little doubt that Canon will continue to improve as well. The 5D Mark II is over 2 years old and a replacement is due in 2011. But if you really want to switch, think about which specific Nikon lens you want and which body to get. I would avoid any camera that is near the end of its production cycle or you'll likely kick yourself soon.</p>

<p>Sony would be an unwise choice. Their focus is now on the mirrorless NEX camera. I wonder there is any future in their full-frame DSLR line. Likewise, Olympus seems to have shifted their focus onto micro 4/3 mirrorless cameras. If you are a 4/3 DSLR user and don't want mirrorless, you could well be stuck. That is why it is important to stay with market leaders.</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I just thought about it and realize I have actually never used a Nikon Camera (Ever!). So maybe I don't know what I am missing. However, I started with Sony and upgraqded to Canon and have never looked back. Currently, I am blissfully in love with my Canon 5d Mark II and think my 85 1.2L is a fabulous lens. I am now pondering the 35 1.4L or something wider like the 24. I love the ability to shoot high qualit y HD movies on my Mark II. If I really start doing serious professional work I would buy another 5D Mark II as a backup camera or so I could shoot video and stills the same time. I have never had either of my 580 EX II or EX I fire erratically, but like I said I have been with Canon a long time and know exactly how to use them. I know every feature of my Mark II and just can't immaging switching brands. I guess it's like being married and some beautiful girl just moved next door. It wouldn't make me want to switch even if my wife had a few issues.</p>

[DickArnold]

I ran a photo business for several years. I was very conscious of my bottom line. Although I own Canon I don't know which system is better nor do I care. I could have never made a business case for switching from Canon to Nikon because it would have taken too much out of the bottom line to suit me. I produced a customer acceptable product with Canon and Medium format(I owned that for about 12 years). You may be successful enough to want to disregard your investment as the accounting principle is that there is no accounting for sunk costs. However, my Canon gear is insured for a very substantial amount. IMO once you buy the rudiments of a Nikon system you will continue to want to add to that investment as time goes on. Probably most professionals have somewhere north of $10k invested. If you want to blow all that off it is certainly your money. Two questions; will you have more keepers and better pictures and will your customers be any happier? Whether when I was engaged in a forty year professional aviation career or in my later photo business I adapted to the equipment I had rather than dream about what I didn't have. My best to you. You are a professional as JDM said and you are certainly quite capable of making the right decision. I just could not make a business for switching.

[adam_kuan1]

<p>I currently have both Nikon and Canon systems. I recently added Canon 60D with 24-105 and 70-200F4IS lenses. It does take a while to get used to a new system so I would really not recommend using two separate systems on an assigment.<br>

All of my current lenses are not for cropped format (EF-S or DX) because I'm waiting for either 5D or D700 replacement to arrive to make decision on which brand I will stick although I do have much more Nikon gear now.<br>

Canon cameras seems to be getting behind as compared with the competition.<br>

My D7000 is an overall much better camera than the 60D and I will be surprised if the 5D replacement will top Nikon's D700 replacement.</p>

[photo5]

<p>For what it's worth, a good friend of mine has been a professional camera repair technician who owns and operates his own business since 1988. His favorite digital SLR camera to work on is Canon, because they are designed and put together so well. Manual focus SLR favorite is Canon AE1. Nikon cameras are great to work on too - when they come in, which is not very often. And then when they do come in and need work, they are usually either completely trashed or just need a general CLA (Clean, Lube, Adjust).<br>

I love the solid construction of Nikon cameras. The last time I checked out a Canon digital SLR, the sound of the shutter release made me laugh, it was so horrible and had a really annoying squeak sound to it. Even the lowest end Nikon digital SLR, the D40 and the D3000 that I owned for a short time, sounded good.<br>

So if you have the dough, by all means try Nikon. You might find that you love it. I know I do.</p>

[adam_kuan1]

<p>The 60D's mirror/shutter noise and vibration are terrible compared with D7000.<br>

I was really surprised by it even coming from using D700 which was one the loudest of the Nikon cameras I've owned.</p>