Starting over, do I switch to Nikon?

[coskun_kilinc]

<p>For various reasons I've had to sell all of my photography equipment. It was far too good for me anyway, a Canon 5D Mk II with a 50mm 1.8 lens, a flash and a few other beginner lenses. I'm a beginner photographer, I'm not very good, but I like good equipment.</p>

<p>I was never satisfied with my 5Ds focussing so that's one thing, along with what I hear are incredible lenses that has made me consider Nikon this time around.</p>

<p>I assume you're Nikon people and therefore think Nikon is better then Canon. Persuade me. What is greener on this side of the fence?</p>

<p>I'm considering getting a Nikon D7000 with a decent lens or a used 5D Mk II again. I mainly want to shoot people, charity events, social gatherings and models if I can build my skill up to it. Wildlife would be a dream too.</p>

<p>If Nikons really the better system, help save me please!</p>

[johnw63]

<p>Unfortunately, changing to Nikon won't make you better and I'm quite sure Canon has some excellent lenses. If a Nikon D7000 fits your hand better and the menus and buttons make more sense to you, then you may be happier. The one thing Nikon CAN offer is access to most of their lenses from decades ago to now. The D7000 will use just about ANY Nikon lens designated as AI or AIS on forward. They also have quite good flash systems as well.</p>

<p> </p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>I shoot Nikon, but it's clear to me that both Nikon and Canon make excellent equipment. I would go with the camera that feels best in your hands. The D7000 is a great choice for your purposes, I use two of them for shooting events, but the recent price drop and persistent rumors suggest that a replacement may be coming soon.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Agree with the above. Not sure about AF. Not too picky and I don't shoot fast stuff but even then my D2h I cannot even get the shot, many times without the shutter being pressed, and the settings a bit wrong, haha. If you are into AF, I don't think the older Nikon lenses would appeal to you that much .... Canon probably have some better gear than the original 5D. A fella at my photog club has a 5D II but also has a 7D for something faster.</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>Most cameras and lenses are better than most photographers.<br>

It doesn't matter what you use as long as it suits you. Handling and familiarity with equipment are much more important than brand.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Go to a store, try the Nikon in your hand, see how you like it, or not. While there, also try the Pentax (K5 is a pretty brilliant camera too), and a Sony too... see what fits your idea best of how a camera should handle.<br>

Nikon can be a better system than any, if your hands and head prefer it. It can also be a horrible system, for the same reason.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

I use Nikon because I generally prefer their viewfinders (there are

exceptions). Also, because I have existing investment in lenses,

accessories etc. it would be very expensive to switch. Nikon currently

has leading sensor technology (in the D800/D800E, possibly D600) but

the D800 does line skipping in live view and video, which makes

precise focusing for stills less predictable and the live view and video

image is noisier than it could be. Reportedly these issues have been

fixed in the D600 (also, the 5DIII does not have this issue).

 

While the ergonomics are important, there are still significant differences

between the lens and accessory lineups that may be important to you.

E.g. Canon has built in radio control in at least one flash, which should

be very helpful as the optical CLS system that Nikon uses is sometimes

erratic if the room has dark surfaces and direct line of sight can not be

guaranteed, as well as outdoors. Canon has 17 tilt/shift, 50/1.2, 85/1.2, a

superb 135/2, and generally lighter weight supertele primes with very

high performance. Nikon has some unique lenses as well, such as the

14-24/2.8 and 200-400/4. What bothers me is that Nikon is keen to

update their fast superteles but drags their feet with the intermediate

level lenses such as 300/4, 400/4 or 400/5.6, 80-400 etc.

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Your story parallels mine. I had to sell off my Canon gear to meet expenses during the winter and spring, and about that time Nikon was announcing some higher resolution DSLRs. The result was that, when I started rebuilding my collection of cameras and lenses this fall, I went with Nikon. I have not regretted it.</p>

<p>That said, both brands are so good that I would have to agree with others above as to what might better fit your needs and preferences: try them out and see what fits.</p>

<p>You do realize, I'm sure, that going with the D7000 after shooting a full-frame DSLR such as the 5D II is going to be a very different experience. You might want to think of the D600 to replace the 5D II if you want to keep shooting full-frame. I personally like having both full-frame and crop sensor capabilities,and so my current Nikon DSLRs are the D7000 (to replace my 50D), and the D800E, which goes far beyond my former 5D II in terms of resolution. That said, the D600 gives excellent results as well. (I shot it very, very briefly before returning it for the D800E. I also experimented with the D3200, which is a great camera for many applications--but I like the D7000 better.)</p>

<p><strong>What changing brands has meant for me has been simplification.</strong> My Canon collection just "growed" like Topsy without any coherent plan--and I had shot Canon FD since 1982 and Canon EOS since 2006. I have fewer bodies and lenses now, and I have to choose more carefully which lenses I want to buy for the two bodies which I do have. Overall, then, I have not lost money, but only because I am making do with fewer cameras and lenses, with careful decisions as to what I need and can afford. (Arguably, as a semi-retired college professor who receives no income from my photography, I can't afford any of it!)</p>

<p>Sony, Pentax, Olympus, and others are worth considering as well, depending on specific preferences which you may have. They all make fine cameras.</p>

<p>I hope that you make the decision which is right for you. There is no right answer for everyone.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[SCL]

<p>Toss two apples in the air....catch one. It is either a Nikon or Canon. Hardly matters which one...both offer fine lenses and features. One or the other won't make you a better photographer. What it usually boils down to is the ergonomics...which one feels better in your hand, and which one has the location of controls which is more consistent with how your brain and fingers work. I'm a Nikon man personally, but the Canons offer certain features which appeal to me...namely, due to shorter flange to sensor distances, permitting the use of a greater range of legacy lenses from other manufacturers.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>1. Find the body that "fits in your hand".<br>

2. Find the lenses that you most think you want.</p>

<p>If the two are from the same manufacturer, the choice is easy. Doesn't matter which. Don't forget to look at micro 4/3, too.</p>

[dan_wolfgang]

<p>I'll go against what others have said: Nikon is better, in at least three areas:</p>

<ul>

<li>Nikon zoom and focus rings turn the correct way. (For whatever reason, I simply can't get used to the backwards way of Canon and Sigma. It just doesn't "click" for me.)</li>

<li>Nikon places the power switch around or near the shutter release. (Turning the camera on is a one-handed operation, which is particularly important when you want the other hand on the lens, or if you're carrying, say, a kid in the other hand.)</li>

<li>Nikon's grip ergonomics are superior to Canon's.</li>

</ul>

<p>Ok, so these might be personal preferences, but this is exactly what it comes down to. Nikon and Canon both make great gear, but they are so very different in many ways. Being able to recognize the differences and what makes one suit you better is how you'll determine which is the best.</p>

[rossb]

<p>Nikon and Canon are both popular camera's from beginner to professional. I would just go look at them and see which feels and looks good to you. Either model would be fine. A problem with Nikon that I do not care for is they do not sell parts to small camera shops or individuals. So any service will have to be done at the Nikon factory. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>A problem with Nikon that I do not care for is they do not sell parts to small camera shops or individuals. So any service will have to be done at the Nikon factory.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a US-only problem, not sure whether the OP is actually based in the States.</p>

[m_tt_donuts]

<p>To add to Dan Wolfgang, I also favor Nikons custom white balance. With Nikon, you hold the WB button down while taking a picture of something white or pointing it at the light source and done! Couldn't be easier. Canon, you take a picture of something white (or the light source). Go through the menu's and choose custom WB, then select the image you took, then preview your images, then delete the image. Oddly, so many Canon users struggle immensly with how easy it is on Nikons. I saw so many reviews of the D800 the user videod themselves spending 5-10 minutes trying to figure out how to set the custom white balance to the image they just took (the way Canon does it)... not knowing how much easier it is. But that's how I knew it was a Canon user trying out a Nikon, they usually gave up and said setting the WB on Nikons is just too difficult. *sigh* Nikon has had the hold the WB button down while taking a picture of something white (or point it to the light) with no need for menu's to set it for about 10 years. </p>

<p>Nikon has improved the custom WB option as well (I use a D800). On the older camera's you chose the bank (D-1 to D-4) but there wasn't a way to tell which was for what. Now, you can use the old way by selecting D-1 through D-4 without menus or go through the menu system BUT using menus includes the picture taken to set it. That picture remains through formats, card changes, etc. Basically now, choosing it through the menu I see D-1 was the image of a lamp at the hotel, D-2 is snow, D-3 was in the shadow of that house, D-4 a piece of paper taken in flourescent light and I can see none of them is what I want so I'm going to overwrite D-1 with a new one as I still want D-2 through D-4. Previously, you just guessed or possibly overwrote one you didn't mean to.</p>

<p>I prefer the Nikon flash system, it works in stops, not ratios like Canon. Nikons flashes communicate both ways (camera talks to flash, flash talks to Camera) Canon is one way. The big one though is simply Nikons flashes work in stops which is something all photographers understand. </p>

<p>I love that Nikon has built-in flashes on their upper models. Anyone who says they're useless or get in the way doesn't know what they're talking about IMHO. To improve outdoor portraits, adding a catch light to the eyes is key. The built-in flash is more than capable of doing it, I usually set it to -3 EV. Otherwise, I found myself getting lazy and not attaching the hot shoe flash (for those family & friend shots) when I knew it would improve the image. It can also trigger hot-shoe flashes.</p>

<p>I like that Nikon full frames can use the DX lenses as well. I have the 18-200 DX lens I use all the time on my Nikon D800 when I want a do it all lens.</p>

 

[ariel_s1]

<p>Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax. All are good, and anyone that vehemently defends one over the others tells you more about the person than about those camera companies. </p>

<p>If the 5D was too much for you, why are you jumping straight to the top again? Get yourself a lower-end camera and take baby steps. When someone with your outlook comes to me, I always point them to other hobbies, to show them the phenomenon that only seems to happen with cameras. If you were just learning to drive, you wouldn't take your first jaunt in a Formula 1 car, and if you were just getting into cycling, you wouldn't step out and grab a Lance Armstrong replica bike, so why do that with photography? Don't get the absolute lowest-end camera, but something mid-grade. With Nikon, that would be the D5100. With Canon, the T3i, and with Sony and Pentax, the a57 or the K30. All are great cameras, all are about $400-700, just look at the lens lineup, decide what you want to move towards, and go from there. As mentioned, you might even consider micro 4/3, which is taking advantage of the fact that unlike with film, digital cameras have sensors that can be exposed to light, and in fact is advantageous in many respects, so why hide the sensor away behind a shutter and mirror most of the time? So look at the Olympus E-M5 and Panasonic G5 or GH3 (Olympus and Panasonic lenses interchange with each other on the opposite bodies without issue). I wouldn't say that Nikon has better lenses than Canon or anyone else. I am Nikon now because my father was Nikon, so I had a great deal of equipment that carried over. Honestly, if I were starting over today, the Sony alpha lineup looks most attractive to me, followed by Pentax, with the caveat that some third-party lenses are unavailable in those mounts. Go read bythom.com, as he is a Nikon-based reviewer, and much of his criticism of Nikon this past month has hit home with me.</p>

<p>As for being a professional, realize that it is a HARD market to get into. Not only are you going up against people who have decades of experience in photography, and/or people who are getting degrees in visual arts and photojournalism, but news outlets are increasingly turning to Flickr and other aggregate communities for their photojournalist needs, because so many people are all too willing to do it just to see their name in print. When I was assistant photo editor at my university's newspaper, I was getting emails all the time from people that would go something like this: "I'm an aspiring photographer, with about $30,000 or more in equipment (such as Nikon D3 or Canon 1D MkIII with full lens lineup, a D700/5D backup, etc) and I would like to volunteer for you, for free. All I want is the press pass, to be the official photographer at these NCAA football games, guest speakers such as Lance Armstrong and Condoleeza Rice, etc. Now, how is a working photographer supposed to compete with that? Plus, a photography business is only 10% photography and 90% business. So, start small, and even when you decide to eventually step up, the pittance in starter gear that you buy now will be just a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of a professional setup. Plus, if you just jump straight to the top AGAIN, you're just going to be frustrated by the equipment AGAIN, whereas if you start small, you'll be less likely to get frustrated by your equipment, and more likely to stick with photography. Spend that saved money on local courses, either through a local college/university/community college, or through your local camera shops. The good university programs don't even touch digital until your second year; your first will be using an older, all-manual film camera to learn the basics of exposure and focus. After two years of learning and working your way up the ladder, understanding WHY you need a "better" camera instead of the one you're currently using, re-assess and see if you really want to make the professional push.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>Lots of good advice. I agree that I would look into a Nikon D600 before a D7000 or used Canon 5DMII. I shot with Canon for many years before switching to Nikon. At the time we switched, I admit that we could have been using our Canon gear better, but I am glad we switched. First, I find Nikon's AF system to be more accurate. We shoot events and the number of OoF images dropped noticeably when we made the switch. The flip side is that the Nikon system seems "fussier" in that it won't take the image until it believes it has focus. The Canon system was a bit more lenient leading to more OoF images, in our experience. In other words, the Canon system favored speed, the Nikon accuracy. And for me, changing AF points on a Nikon is far more ergonomic than Canon's system. In all fairness, Canon introduced the 7D after we had switched and the 7D was to have an improved AF system. It might. But I teach a beginners photography class and I have seen a few 7d's and for the life of me I can't reason why Canon made the AF system do crazy complicated on the 7D. All I wanted to do was set the camera up to use a single focus point that the user can select. It certainly wasn't intuitive enough to do it without the manual, and it took some time to figure it out <em>with</em> the manual. Nikon's metering, again in our experience, is more accurate. When combined with a Nikon flash, this difference is compounded. We shoot with the camera in manual and the flash in TTL. With Canon we had to <em>ride</em> the flash exposure compensation. There was no consistency. Do I still need to use FEC with the Nikon's? Sure, but nothing like I had to ride it with the Canon system. And that's all dependent on the camera metering. As M Donuts points out, there is the simplicity in simply setting a custom white-balance. There is the idea that Nikon camera's from the D90 up have a dedicated dial for the aperture and a dedicated dial for the shutter. On the Canon, you have musical chair dials depending on what mode the camera is in (at least on all Canon's I have held, up to the 5DMII). And I really enjoy the attention to detail that a Nikon camera has. We tend to put grips on most of our bodies. Put a Nikon grip on a Nikon camera and it just fits. Put a grip on a Canon grip on a Canon camera and it is this "accessory" piece (but again, maybe that has changed in the last few years). I remember when we first switched, the SB800 flash had a sync port built in. That was unheard of on a Canon flash at the time. Later Canon added a sync port to the 580... and it's one way, it will only trigger the flash. On the SB800, I could use the port not only to trigger the flash but send the radio signal to trigger another flash. There was the fact that Canon used inferior radio shielding on their flashes, the whole PW Flex system work around. We use the AA battery packs for our flashes. On the Canon AA pack, every single battery "tab" was broke within a couple of uses. The pack still worked, it was just annoying how cheap it was built. We have had our Nikon packs for over 5-years now... not a single broken tab. After awhile, all of these little things just start to add up.</p>

<p>To be clear, there is no doubt that either system is capable of producing excellent results and that the knowledge of the user will be the limiting factor in most cases. But I also believe that any craftsman <em>enjoys</em> the tools he or she uses. For me, I enjoy using the Nikon system. I felt like I had to fight the Canon system... to get the same end result. That's me, your milage may vary.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>I love that Nikon has built-in flashes on their upper models. Anyone who says they're useless or get in the way doesn't know what they're talking about IMHO. To improve outdoor portraits, adding a catch light to the eyes is key.</em></p>

<p>I would be very reluctant to say "Anyone" since you clearly do not speak for everyone. Catch light produced by a small flash looks like the eye had been pierced by a needle and it is extremely ugly. What's more if one uses the pop-up to control remotes, the range is limited, the use of the pop up slows down the camera considerably (recharge), and contaminates the scene with light from the pop up (the sync flash light is always in the picture if the distance to subject is only a few meters). Finally the pop up of my D800 opens up inadvertently in the bag by itself and also sometimes in my hands. I would glue it shut permanently with epoxy if it didn't affect resale value. Proper way to add fill light and catch light is with a large, soft, light source such as umbrella or soft box, or alternatively turn the subject's face in such a direction that the natural light is flattering. Personally I would easily pay 500€ extra for the camera to be rid of the pop-up flash. (And I use flashes both in and outdoors, and in the studio for portraiture very often, it's just that I've never met a situation where direct flash or pop up flash produces an acceptable outcome). </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Sure, switching camera marques because the former one was "far too good" for you is an accepted, if often unacknowledged, reason.</p>

 

[tom_elessar]

<p>1. As others have said, the camera system probably doesn't matter much.<br>

2. Consider the Sony a65 or a77; the in-body stabilization is, to me, a really valuable feature, especially if you like inexpensive primes. The a77 has a very nice AF system, although the camera is expensive. <br>

3. Regarding the on-camera flash debate, I think most of you are talking past each other: I don't think anyone knowledgeable would reach for an on-camera flash if they had better options available. I have a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/LumiQuest-LQ-051M-SoftScreen/dp/B000B5H2BE?ie=UTF8&tag=thstsst-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957">Lumiquest soft screen</a> that I stick in a bag because it's a) very small and b) if there aren't other options, I use it. </p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p><strong>I use Nikon, Canon, Olympus, and Pentax cameras. All are very good. It is very unlikely that changing from one camera to another will make you a better photographer. </strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>If all you need is a body, a few lenses, and a flash, any of the major brands will do.</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>If you need a camera with a large selection of lenses and other accessories, limit your selection to Nikon or Canon.</strong><br>

<strong> </strong></p>

[m_tt_donuts]

<p>About the built-in flash, this is what I'm talking about. This video is a Canon user, giving a tip about using a flash (exactly the same way I use my D800 built-in flash) to improve portraits but I don't have to lug a hot-shoe to do it. <a href="

fast forward to 2:15.</p>

<p>I do that style all the time with family & kids, typically I photograph children outside playing/running so umbrella's and other eq don't work so well. I can see some have taken my comments as if I'm saying use on-camera flash for weddings, studio portrait work... Yikes!!! But.. limited range as a commander? I don't know how much range we're talking about I've not used it outdoors when sunny as a commander but otherwise haven't come across a range problem yet in 6 years indoors. Accidentally popping it up... the two camera's I have (D200 and D800) the release isn't near any buttons or fingers, if your finger is hitting it it's because you're looking for it. The release has to be pressed in to almost be flush with the camera body before it springs, and on those cameras there isn't a way to lay the camera down on a flat surface in a way to trigger it. So I don't know how it is a problem accidentally popping, I would like to know though I haven't accidentally popped one up going almost 2 years. </p>

<p>Anyway I love the built-in flash and I use it all the time for fill/catch lights for outdoor portraits in the exact manner as the video above and playing children. Indoors, I love using it as commander.</p>

[rossb]

<blockquote>

<p>This is a US-only problem, not sure whether the OP is actually based in the States.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> I did not know that. I guess it feels a bit better to me to know that it is Nikon USA that has come out against small business and not Nikon Japan. However I am feeling flat about buying NIkon products again anyway.</p>

[tallnbig68]

<p>The problem is not so much a Nikon versus something of prior ownership situation, rather you have money burning in your hand urging you ever onwards and upwards to purchase a replacement for that which was sold prior. Just do it! If you don't like or agree with your purchase, sell it as it is only money..</p>

<p> </p>

[starshooter]

<p>A camera is a tool so pick one that you have confidence in and fits the kind of work you want to do.</p>

[borgis_karl_johan1]

<p>I own a large Nikon (since the early seventies) and a small Olympus m4/3 system and really like the latter for compactness and their brilliant range of high quality prime lenses.</p>