Should I switch my brand to Nikon?

[tal_sarih]

<p>Hello everybody!<br /> So I just got some cash, around $750, and I was thinking.. I always regreted not buying Nikon.. And now I have some cash. So I thought, should I sell my 600D, 18-55, 55-250 and 50 1.8 and buy the D7000, 18-55, 70-300 and 50 1.8?<br /> Or should I stay with Canon?<br /> I already have some lenses I want to buy and I read reviews on them too, and I go all out on Nikon while knowing nothing about them.<br /> Reasons to upgrade to D7000<br /> 1: Faster FPS <br /> 2: Better ISO <br /> 3: More Dynamic Range<br /> 4: Better AF<br /> 5: Has low light focus assist<br /> 6: Has weather sealing<br /> 7: has 2 wheels instead of one<br /> 8: Has AF in movies<br /> 9: longer battery life<br /> 10: Larger ViewFinder<br /> 11: it has 2 card slots<br /> 12: Has 1/8000, not 1/4000<br /> 13: Sync speed of 1/250, unlike 1/200<br>

14: Lenses, boddies, everything, looks MUCH better than canon's<br>

15: Better Ergonomics<br>

Only reason to think of not to upgrade is Canon is abit cheaper when it comes to lenses, I already did my research on them, I would lose some of the money I spent on the Canon gear since I will sell it second hand, and that I am used to the menues, buttons, etc. Oh and the X1.6 factor, instead of X1.5 'coz I use long telephotos normally...</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Since you already have Canon equipment, unless you have a compelling reason to switch, I suggest you stick with Canon. Switching brands will cost you money with no clear benefits with the level of equipment you are into.</p>

<p>If you need to upgrade the body, the 7D is a good choice as you already know: <a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00a1he">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00a1he</a></p>

[wogears]

<p>What do you shoot? What problems do you have with your Canon? What isn't it doing that you need it to do? Without seeing your images, and without any description of what you need a camera to do, any advice we give will be meaningless. Most of the time, it is the photographer, not the equipment that needs changing or upgrading.</p>

[tal_sarih]

<p>Les,<br>

I shoot wildlife, macro (flowers), portraits and lighting. I hate my Canon's focusing, little viewfinder, no abillity to focus on low light due to no af assist light, which I do need alot since I do alot of night work.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>I don't know that any nikon is going to focus better in low light or no light than a Canon - so that is an even -</p>

<p>Canon has newer models which have faster AF - If I were in your shoes, I'd check those out first - before dumping all of my gear and then learning a completely new and different system. </p>

<p>(and I'm a Nikon shooter) </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[wogears]

<p>Tal: Try this first. Go to flickr.com and do a tag search on 'Canon 600D' or 'T3i'. Browse through the images you see. If they look better then what you are doing, concentrate on technique and vision instead of gear. Look at your work six months from now. You will then know better whether you need to change equipment. My bet is that you will go for better lenses, not better camera body.</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Tal,<br>

You've got good advice already to first explore what Canon can offer you. Having said that if you already are regretting for not buying Nikon and your list of reasons for looking at D7000 includes "only" 15 items I think that sooner or later you will do the switch. Sooner is better IMHO in terms of costs. But nobody can guarantee you'll be a happy Nikon camper. Most people I know that did the switch were happy but I know some that weren't.</p>

<p>If you do the switch I'd recommend to look for some better lenses to do justice to D7000. Nikkor 16-85 VR is a good start... Later you can add 70-300 VR and 35 or 50mm f/1.8 AF-S.</p>

<p>Good luck with your decision!</p>

[tal_sarih]

<p>Nikon has a little focus assist lamp on the front which gives light, allowing better focusing.<br>

I know I need better lenses but I think I love the bodies of nikon better overall...</p>

[Two23]

<p>Lenses first; tripods second; cameras third.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[robertbody]

<p>As a Placibo, a new camera (in the more extreme case switching brands) can be motivating, but eventually you will understand the importance of lenses, tripods and bodies in that order. When you get used to waiting for the right light, visualizing things happening before they do (in composition) and walking away without taking pictures sometimes (or very few) because there were no pictures worthy taking [wrong time, day]. Usually switching camera/brands doesn't make you better but it can motivate you to do some things in a more focused way.</p>

[Rob F.]

<blockquote>

<p>Since you already have Canon equipment, unless you have a compelling reason to switch, I suggest you stick with Canon. </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>He gave 15+ reasons to switch. Assuming all of them, or most of them, are well researched, and important for what he does, isn't that compelling enough?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>As a Placibo (sic), a new camera (in the more extreme case switching brands) can be motivating, but eventually you will understand the importance of lenses, tripods and bodies in that order.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>A camera is not a placebo. The differences between the two cameras are real, not imaginary. He doesn't just believe the Nikon is better, he gave reasons why he knows it's better for his needs, in the specific ways he listed. How do you know he doesn't understand the importance of lenses, tripods, and bodies?</p>

<p>Tal: If you still feel you'd rather have the Nikon, this might be a good time to switch, before you accumulate so much much Canon gear that you really can't switch. I watched a professional walk into the local camera store and trade all his Canon gear for Nikon. He had a lot of Canon gear, two bodies and at least 12 lenses, and he thought it was worth it. One reason I can think of to keep the Canon is that you can use lenses of other brands, such as Leica, on it, with an adapter. If that's not important to you, then you have my permission to switch. ( ;<))</p>

[jyoungman]

<p>While I'm not planning to switch away from Nikon I do find the lens prices tend to favour Canon except for the exotic lenses I'll probably never buy (prices for US lenses from Adorama):</p>

<p>Canon 35mm f/2: $329.95<br>

Nikon 35mm f/2:$364.95</p>

<p>Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro: $569.00<br>

Nikon 105mm f/2.8 macro: $869.95<br>

<br /><br>

Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR: $2,396.95<br>

Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS: $2,299.00<br>

<br /><br>

Nikon 300mm f/4: $1,431.32 (no VR!)<br>

Canon 300mm f/4 IS: $1,359.00 <br>

<br /><br>

Nikon 400mm f/2.8 VR: $8,999.00<br>

Canon 40mm f/2.8 IS: $11,499.00<br>

<br /><br>

<br /></p>

 

[elliot1]

<p>The D7000 is Nikon's best value in camera bodies right now. You have chosen an excellent time to make the switch and an excellent body to switch to. All your reasons are good ones - reason #15 is reason enough alone to warrant the switch IMHO. Enjoy your new camera! You won't be disappointed.</p>

<p> </p>

[cwphoto]

<p>Photography is 10% camera, 90% behind the camera.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>He gave 15+ reasons to switch. Assuming all of them, or most of them, are well researched, and important for what he does, isn't that compelling enough?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On this thread, the OP is asking about switching to a Nikon D7000, which is at best a semi higher-end consumer DSLR, but that is still a consumer camera. The OP did not give 15+ reasons to switch; he merely listed a bunch of features that are on the D7000 that are not on his current lower-end 600D. One can always go to a higher-end Canon DSLR to get most, if not all of such features. You don't have to switch brands.</p>

<p>If one must have 36MP on a small-format DSLR or the 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S for certain applications, switching to Nikon may be the only option as no other brand provides thost capabilities at this time. At the consumer level, any brand can meet one's needs.</p>

<p>I should have made it clearer that the OP has a simultaneous thread on the Canon EOS Forum: <a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00a1he">I just got some cash and I would like your guy's help to spending it!</a> I merely posted a link in my earlier follow up.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now... The 7D... My friend has one and I really like it. I like it's focus and viewfinder, and the shutter, and everything...<br />But that will mean I will have to stay with my current lenses untill I can upgrade again. I am (only) 14, I'm working a couple of times a week, usually I make about $50 a week.<br />Can anyone give me an advice please, I am lost?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would say forget about all the lens first stuff and Canon vs. Nikon vs. whoever. Photography is mainly about what is behind the camera as Curt Weinhold points out. When one is starting out as a 14-year-old young photographer, I would say it is much better to learn that (and find out how to improve what is behind) instead of developing gear lust from the very beginning.</p>

 

[simon_hickie1]

<p>As a teenager, I can remember lusting after various hi-fi items. I now have a decent valve based system, but I cannot say I enjoy music any more than I did then. In my 20s, when deciding on which cameras to buy I got hung up on fluff which had minimal impact on my photographs. I switched from Praktica to Pentax to Minolta and finally Nikon. Had I started with, and stuck with, one system, I'd have wasted far less money. Of course, had that system been Canon FD, I'd have been a bit stuck!</p>

<p>You have a perfectly decent camera body. However, if you do not have a significant investment in lenses or other accessories and are determined to make a switch, do it once and once only. However, I'd also recommend joining a camera club or photographic society. Doing this has had far more impact on my photography than any hardware investment.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>If I had gone Canon instead of Nikon and the cameras fit in my hand and I was used to them, no way would I switch brands.</p>

<p>This is "gear acquisition syndrome", I fear. Nothing less.</p>

<p>Look at the nicer Canon bodies.</p>

[andylynn]

Personally I find many Canons ugly and would buy Nikons because they look better, but...

 

A lot of what the OP is describing are just differences between a consumer and a high-consumer body. A 600D is

Canon's D5100 comparable. A D7000 compares to a 60D or 7D. (But I know a lot of Canon users weren't blown away

by the 60D and think its a step back in some ways for differentiation in the market with the 7D.)

 

My advice: take a close look at those better Canon models and see if they meet your needs. They have better

viewfinders and body construction and AF sensors etc. If not, the D7000 is an excellent choice, and the OP's Canon

kit isn't so huge that he can't pull out now. BUT, don't expect miracles - this is a camera we're talking about, not a

magic wand. If a D7000 is a bit better in low light and has a bit more DR, for example, that just means you'll get a bit

better technical IQ in low light and a bit more flexibility when manipulating images with a large DR, it doesn't mean

you'll be taking better photos.

[raczoliver]

<p>Like some people pointed out, you are comparing two cameras falling into different categories, so it is not really a fair Nikon vs. Canon comparison. You would have similarly compelling reasons to switch from Nikon to Canon if you were comparing the Nikon D3100 to the Canon 7D.</p>

<p>If you know you want to upgrade, compare the D7000 with a similarly priced Canon, and see if there are still any compelling reasons to go with one over the other. If you still think the Nikon is better for whatever reason, consider whether it's worth the money that you could save by not switching systems. If it is, by all means, go for it.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Buy a little LED flashlight. Focus assist sorted!</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>I've now owned enough cameras to say that, within certain limiations, the camera that you use is irrelevant. Granted, sub-$1000 cameras have fairly poor autofocus, so I'd put them at the bottom of the list for sports. Smaller Nikons tend to clip highlights. Most Sony consumer models are built like junk. And so on.</p>

<p>But the fact is that no matter what your camera is, if it isn't <em>genuinely lacking</em> in an area that is <strong>of great importance to you</strong>, replacing it with a more expensive model <strong>WILL NOT</strong> improve your photos. I would liken a camera not to an artist's paint or his skillset, but to his brushes. If you want big paint daubs, you simply cannot use the same fine sable brush that you use to make flawless oil painting. If you simply cannot take the photo that you want to take, it is the camera's fault. If you're using a good-quality camera (and you are), and you don't like the results, it's not the camera's fault. Period. Look elsewhere.</p>

<p>The only exceptions to this that I am aware of are high-ISO graininess, and massive print sizes. But most people don't honestly need those things as much as the marketing guys say they do. Your camera has a high-enough resolution to make a 16x20 print that, if made on a pro-quality printer by someone that knows what they are doing, can look tack sharp, even from a foot away. Really, how often are you going to make prints bigger than that?</p>

<p>The two cameras I use most right now are the Sony NEX-7 and the Nikon D7000. Aside from megapixels and movies, the Nikon is miles ahead in every conceivable way. And yet I prefer it much less. Why? Because I rarely need to shoot at a high ISO, the Sony is smaller, and it can be adapted to work with my old Minolta MF lenses, many of which render the image in a way that I personally prefer. Even if the NEX had only half the resolution it does, I'd still prefer it to the Nikon.</p>

<p>Thanks to Shun's recommendation, I am the proud owner of a D7000 and a 70-200 VR. And you know what? It mostly sits in the case. I'm glad I own it when I need to shoot sports or weddings, but it turns out that most of the 'improvements' over my previous cameras are unnecessary.</p>

<p>Plus there's the fact that you're using the cheapest lenses Canon makes. You might not need pro quality (most <em>pros</em> don't need 'pro quality'), but it's unfair to expect fantastic performance from the cheapest <em>anything</em> that a consumer company makes, whether it's a camera, a hammer, cookware, or anything else.</p>

[travismcgee]

<p>I shoot Canon and my girlfriend shoots Nikon. Every time I think about switching I just use her Nikon for awhile and I come to my senses. There is no reason to switch.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>In my experience (nearly 60 years of buying an owning cameras) there really are only two reasons for replacing a camera. The old one is worn out and beyond repair. There is an advance in technology with a new camera that fills a need you already have, but your present equipment does not fill. Very few, if any of us, get everything out of the equipment we own or have ever owned. All of us could get more out of our equipment by learning how to use it better. A good photographer produces good work regardless of the camera/lens. Placing a pin-hole camera in the hands of an artist is more likely to produce an exception instrument than the best Nikon or Canon in the hands of the average user.</p>

[roman_thorn1]

<p>No! This may sound a little harsh, but my thoughts are…spend more time focussing on your photography, put the money in the bank and sit on it for a while. Nikon and Canon are such competing brands, they're always trumping one another. So give it some time and when you know exactly what you need and why, I'm certain you will be able to find the right piece of equipment in the Canon line up. I my self am guilty of wanting to do the same thing from time to time. Eventually I come to my senses, stop worrying about what lens or camera might make me a better photographer and just shoot. In my opinion, the camera industry prey on people like you and me, in all fairness to survive. Do your self a favour, don't buy into all that marketing hype, you'l be much better off!</p>

[tal_sarih]

<p>Ok so quite a few peopole told me to compare 7D and D7k. So I'm gonna do that now.<br>

Focus: 19 (all cross type) vs 39 (9 cross type) which both cover around the same area of focus on the screen.<br>

FPS: 8 vs 6. canon wins. Canon 1-nikon 0<br>

Iso: 7D has lower ISO preformance, about the same as my 600D. D7Khas better boost iso and better preformance. D7k wins. Canon 1 nikon 1<br>

DR: 7D has 2.2 f stops LOWER DR than D7k. Canon 1 Nikon 2.<br>

Low light focus assist: Nikon has it, Canon dosent. Canon 1 Nikon 3<br>

2 wheels vs one. C 1 N 4<br>

Has AF in movies, but movies are lesser than C's. Equal :)<br>

7D has a little bigger viewfinder (1x vs 0.94x on N's.) C 2 N 4<br>

Two card slots. C2 N5<br>

Canon has 1/200 sync speed, Nikon is 1/250. About equal so lets skip.<br>

Canon is ugly, nikon looks better. Basic lenses of Nikon's looks WAY better than Canon's but higher end (L lenses) look about the same so let's give it an equal.<br>

Nikon has better ergonomics than Canon's. C2 N6...<br>

Nikon are optics only, but they buy theyr sensors from Sony.<br>

Canon are a bigger company which makes more than just optics. They ALSO make optics... But they make theyr own sensors<br>

Also, last thing, I am not so sure about, that I read somewhere on the internet. 7D's 1/3 ISO stops are actually 1 stop under (or over) exposed by 1/3 for each stop. So ISO 2000 is actually ISO 3200 with 2/3 stops underexposed... Is this correct?<br>

Are those real reasons to upgrade?<br>

I really dont know... I already got used to canon's stuff, I guess. But whenever I use my friend's D7k I have so much fun......</p>