Switching to Canon from Nikon?

[umd]

If you don't have any clue about how the competetion goes in this market, you consider switching from one brand to other frequently and this is the exact thing the monopoly is after. Guys, there is no competetion between Nikon and Canon; there is one big Japanese monopoly, which boosts revenues expoloiting that.

 

In a cut throat multi-national competetive market (eg. the automotive industry) Canon would have been dead long ago, after their decision of changing lens mount and disappointing customers who trusted and invented on their gear. Real competetive rivals wouldn't drag their feet so long in making an F5, faster focus and IS lenses. Here note that IS is first used in a camera by Nikon; first pro AF camera (F3AF) and lenses with af motors in them (80mm and 200mm AF) were built by Nikon. But, how come, turned to money by the competetor and no there is not any significant patent issues at these.

 

If there were a real competetion you would have better built Canon bodies with high eye point finders and lenses that provide distance information; and would see a pro digital body earlier. So would be the situation on the other side.

 

Switching? From Nikon to Canon? Too late. Canon doesn't have the edge in AF anymore. If it is worth for the IS big glass do it. Swithcing from Canon to Nikon? too late too! Nikon doesn't have the edge in digital anymore, and they show the sign of obseleting their AF lenses without integral motors, by their latest lens announcements. I predict in 5 years they are going to release more afs lenses AND then cameras WITHOUT a motor to drive non afs lenses which will make your non afs af lenses obselete. I can see their justification for that; 'price' and 'weight' as have been.

[umd]

oops, 'invented' must be 'invested'.

[vandit]

In response to Shun Cheung's comment about IS not being needed for wildlife due to high shutter speed requirements - I'm going to have to disagree.

 

You can often capture moderate-speed action at 1/250 (animals walking, interacting, etc) - and that's a shutter speed where having IS helps a lot. You can take that handheld with a 100-400 quite easily.

 

Furthermore, it is also possible to take animal portraits at low shutter speeds - it is just a matter of timing the animals movements and clicking at the right moment. I am attaching a photo of a kudu taken at 1/4 second (not exactly a great shot or a great scan, but illustrates the point). The blur you see at the bottom R of the frame is another kudu that walked by while I was taking the shot. This particular shot was taken on a tripod, but it illustrates that you dont always need fast shutter speeds to shoot wildlife.

 

I have another handheld shot of a lioness using a piece of log as a pillow - taken at 1/10 *handheld* (braced against a tree). The 4x6 is quite ok (equiv to a P&S photo). That wouldnt have happened without IS.

 

My 2 cents,

Vandit<div></div>

[jason_elsworth3]

One real reason for me thinking about switching is that a Canon 600 F4 Non-IS is cheaper secondhand than an Nikon 600 F4 AFS. This I presume is because when IS came in people started to off load their "old" 600 F4s, but for Nikon AFS is still top of the line. Also 500 F4.5 is much cheaper than 500 AFS. I can't afford IS so that's not an issue, but I would like to have AF.

 

Jason

www.jasonelsworth.co.nz

[cham_saranasuriya]

These are some questions for wild life shooters that use Nikon super tele lenses:-

 

1) Do you actually need VR in lenses for eg 500/4 when teleconverters are used?

 

2) Even we Nikon users eventually get VR super teles, we would not be able to use the tripod as the VR apparently not work properly when ball head locked?

 

3) If we get VR super teles (by the looks of things not too far away, especially Nikon wants to keep their customers from switching to Canon!!!) are we going to sell our ald gear to get these lenses with VR?

 

Interesting to find the answers???

[ShunCheung]

Vandit, your answer clearly highlights our differences. If you like to handhold your camera, are going after 4x6 prints and are willing to shoot at 1/10 sec or 1/4 sec for wildlife, IS/VR could be of great help to you.

 

I don't shoot wildlife at those slow shutter speeds because the animal has to be extremely still to get sharp images. Moreover, if you need such slow shutter speeds, it means the light is dim so that typically you don't get good images. (For landscape, on the other hand, I would use slow shutter speeds such as 1/15 or 1/30 sec because I use Velvia and apertures such as f16 for the depth of field in medium format. For wildlife, it is a totally different story.)

 

And I usually use proper lens support, either a tripod or bean bag, or at least a monopod. With proper support, 1/250 sec or even 1/125 sec is sufficient without VR on a 500mm lens as far as camera shake goes.

 

By no means I am suggesting that IS/VR is not useful, it is just not useful to me as it world for some others.

[kinesisphotogear]

Let's see, how many teleconverters does Nikon make? 5, 6 or 7? Canon offers just

two, that work with all decent telephoto lenses.

For a more exhaustive review of Canon vs. Nikon visit the links on <A

HREF="http://www.kinesisgear.com/links.html#canonnikon"> this page.</A>

[flatlander]

I just looked at B+H at the price of a Nikkor 600/f4 AF-S II vs. a Canon EF 600/f4 IS USM.

 

Nikkor - $8,999 (AF-S II but no VR)

Canon - $7,199 (USM and IS)

 

I am "assuming" they are equivalent optically. If anyone knows differently, please let me know.

 

This seems to be a significant difference.

 

Charlie

[vandit]

Hi Shun -

 

I think you are oversimplifying the situation (or putting words in my mouth). Your argument seems to imply that there are only two camps - those that shoot on a tripod with high shutter speeds (say 1/500 for a 400 lens), and those that shoot handheld at very low shutter speeds, with the sole goal of 4x6 prints.

 

There are a lot of situations which fall in the middle, where one is restricted to slower shutter speeds and/or no tripod - elephant back safaris (the best way to photograph tigers), high-altitude trips (at 4500m-6000m, spare underwear is too heavy, forget about a tripod), walking safaris, etc.

 

So restate my point:

- as my example illustrated, it is possible to get sharp shots of animals at lower shutter speeds than indicated by the inverse focal length rule (there is a wide range of shutter speeds between 1/4 and 1/500 - I have *sharp* 11x14s from handheld/braced shots at 1/125 and 1/180)

- there are many situations where a tripod is not feasible

- in these situations, IS comes galloping to the rescue.

 

Obviously, a tripod is better (and with the superteles, a tripod + IS is even better). But with IS, it is possible to get sharp enlargeable shots the absence of a tripod, with low shutter speeds. The wildlife photographer needs to anticipate the animal's movements and pick a good time to click.

 

Regards,

Vandit

[ilkka_nissila]

It seems to me that publishable quality shots of wildlife taken at slow shutter speeds are rare. IS provides the possibility of obtaining hand-held shots down to maybe 1/125 with a 400 mm lens. However, at least I have a hard time composing a shot precisely when hand-holding a 400 mm. Take a series of shots, and they'll all have different framing. I find this frustrating. So a tripod would be better in many cases, giving more security in terms of sharpness, less arm fatigue and easier composition. Plus the fact that non-IS lenses have fewer elements, providing higher quality in some high-contrast environments. And with a tripod, at least you have the option of using a fast lens.

[vandit]

Hi Ilkka -

 

At the risk of sounding like an IS shill, which I am not, I think your "either-or" approach doesnt do justice to the issue here. IS + Tripod is, IMO, better than just IS or just tripod: more flexibility to cover a broader range of situations.

 

If your shooting situation is such that you are able to lug a tripod around and compose your wildlife shot carefully, then great. But there are a lot of wildlife shooting situations where that is NOT the case. Ability to compose carefully is a luxury with a lot of wildlife. Ability to be in a position to set up a tripod is another luxury in other cases. Ability to have a high shutter speed is yet another fond dream.

 

You can then either choose not to shoot, or you can handhold and shoot. If you do the latter, you need IS (and with the big gun, non-handholdable prime teles, you need the IS on a tripod as well).

 

Further, I disagree about the quality of "publishable" shots that can be taken with a 100-400 (the only lens I can speak of from personal experience), handheld. Obviously, this is somewhat of a subjective call as what is "publishable" varies from person to person, as does ability to handhold. If I brace myself, I can get very sharp 11x14s at 1/125, and reasonably sharp 11x14s at 1/90.

 

Regards,

Vandit

[leif_goodwin8]

<P>

Why do some Canon users feel the need to shout so much about how good their kit is?

</P>

 

<P>

The only argument above that appeals to me is price since both manufacturers make quality kit. In the UK official Canon and Nikon are roughly on a par. As an amateur I love:

</P>

 

<P>

<UL>

<LI>

Old used manual Nikon lenses available at good prices and with good performance.

</LI>

<LI>

Good well laid out bodies and good lenses with good build quality and optics bar the cheaper ones.

</LI>

<LI>

Excellent metering and flash.

</LI>

<LI>

Excellent micro lenses including the wonderful 60mm F2.8 AF and 200mm F4 AIS.

</LI>

</UL>

 

<P>

I dislike:

</P>

 

<UL>

<LI>

The lack of a wide tilt-shift lens.

</LI>

<LI>

The lack of AF 400mm F5.6 and quality 70-210 F4 AF lens.

</LI>

<LI>

The lack of metering with non-cpu lenses: even stop down metering would do me and would cost so little to implement that it must be a policy decision to force people to buy new lenses.

</LI>

<LI>

The snobby side of Nikon seen in adverts and Grays of Westminster.

</LI>

<LI>

Smug Canon users (a subset of the whole).

</LI>

</UL>

 

<P>

I have no doubt that if I were to use Canon I would find things I like and dislike (such as the absense of an affordable 200mm micro). I couldn't care less what well known nature photographers use. Cameras and lenses are tools to solve a problem and their problems are not the same as mine. And I couldn't care less about IS/VR since I always use a tripod. My photography is limited by the wetware between my ears and not the hardware in my bag. Admittedly I am continuously upgrading the wetware.

</P>

[ShunCheung]

Vandit, let me give you a very simple answer. I rarely shoot in conditions where I cannot use a tripod or at least a monopod. That is why the points you keep making don't apply to me. And you are just making up situations. If you do hike up to 4500 meters and cannot even bring spare underware, why would you want to carry a relatively heavy long IS lens anyway?

 

To me, there are two useful IS/VR lenses. 1. is a 500mm/f4 because IS lets me add a 2x TC easily and 2. is a 200mm/f4 macro because camera shake is magnified in macro situations, but nobody makes any macro IS lens yet.

 

IS/VR really isn't a Canon vs. Nikon issue any more. Nikon is introducing its share of VR lenses and there is no doubt that more will come. But that doesn't change the usefulness of IS/VR.

 

I think the more interesting issue is cost. When the Canon 600mm/f4 IS was first introduced, it was close to $10000 and clearly more expensive than the Nikon 600mm/f4 AF-S (without VR), but Canon lens prices have come down quite a bit in the last 2, 3 years. I seriously doubt that there is any significant quality difference; at least not something you can easily observe. So the cheaper Canon lenses are a major advantage.

 

Another important issue is digital bodies. Canon has the 1Ds which is great for large enlargements but very expensive and has a slow frame rate. The older 1D is good for action shots. Nikon's D1x and D1h are almost two years old and replacements are simply overdue. Let's see what happens in the PMA show soon.

 

On the lower end Canon's D60 was introduced and discontinued all in less than a year, and they had a hard time delivering them months after its introduction. I would imagine that whoever has bought a D60 is a bit frustrated that Canon needs to provide a better model so quickly. Nikon has the advantage that both Fuji and Kodak are making Nikon mount DSLRs so that there are more choices. The Fuji S2 is very well received and a lot of people consider it even better than the Nikon D100.

[bobatkins]

I think you have to look not only at what is available today, but try to predict what will be available in the future (since presumably you won't be chosing different systems very often!).

 

On those grounds I'd say Canon seems to have an advantage, since they typically seem to bringing in innovative technology several years before Nikon.

 

I don't think there's any difference in ultimate image or equipment quality. Both systems get an excellent rating.

[larry n.]

Being a Nikon user, I sometimes suffer from "it's greener on the other side syndrome." But I've decided this is really the result of knowing the Nikon system fairly well, hence I know its shortcomings better.

 

The two areas of concern for me have been (1) Canon seems to have a wider selection of AF lenses and (2) Nikon seems a little bit pricier.

 

But upon closer inspection, many of the differences go away. For example, Canon has a 400/4 lens, but it costs an arm and a leg. For that kind of money, I'd sooner get a 400/2.8.

 

Overall, these concerns are balanced by Nikon's advantages which are, for me: (1) wide selection of inexpensive, high quality MF lenses and (2) clean, uncluttered pro body (F100), as well as nice used MF bodies.

 

On the IS/VR subject, that is a non-issue for me since I tend to agree that it's not too helpful for the big lenses that require a tripod. Where it matters Nikon has it or soon will. I would like to see more Nikon AF-S lenses for sure, but those seem to be on the way too.

[alex_lofquist]

While I don't have either IS or VR lenses, I have thought of this capability as being an "electronic tripod".

 

Alex

[ilkka_nissila]

It's true that Canon in general brings out technical advancements before Nikon does, but there are some things that Nikon has the edge in. For example, Nikon has had 200/180 mm macro lenses available for a longer time than Canon. They also have a tilt-shift macro lens, and a zoom lens specifically for close-up photography. Also, they have bodies which rely very little on electrical power.

 

I'm not after every possible photographic opportunity. Hand-holding an IS zoom lens is probably the right approach if I wanted a photograph of every animal that I met. I'm sure that if I were interested primarily in animals, that's what I'd do. But I'd really like to get is visually beautiful images of natural subjects. IS may be the ticket with super-teles, which I don't use. But a tripod and no IS is probably still the best way up to 300 mm.

[ShunCheung]

There is no doubt that Canon brings out new innovations a lot more quickly. Some work out very well such as in-lens AF motors, IS, etc. Some work out less well such as eye-control AF points. The downside is that as a user, you become the test bed of new technology.

 

There is also a lot of advertistment $$ to promote these new technology to create demand. Just a few years ago Canon had a well known nature photographer advertise how important eye-control was. Soon after that, eye control has been absent from all new top-of-the-line Canon bodies, such as the EOS-1v, 1D, and 1Ds.

 

As usual, we spend way too much time on discussing equipment and too little time on actually taking pictures. I currently use Nikon and Contax 645, but I think I can take equally good (or bad) images with Canon, Mamiya 645 or the Hasselblad H1. To me, the real argument for Canon is the lower cost in certain important lenses.

[lee_shively]

I was a 20+ year Nikon user until 1999 when I bought my first EOS A2E. My experience with Nikon equipment was all in the manual focus stuff. When I became interested in autofocus equipment, the first place I looked was at Nikon. I really am not a techie. I don't have any use for IS or VR and, at the time, I didn't know squat about USM or fulltime manual focus capability. What I did quickly find distressing about Nikon's AF equipment was that you needed a scorecard to figure out what lens had what functions with what camera on what day of the week. Canon was simple: EF lenses fit EOS cameras. Period. When I considered that plus the higher cost of Nikon equipment to Canon's comparable equipment, Nikon lost me.

[leif_goodwin8]

As someone who uses Nikon and is happy with the kit, I have to admit that they make some deranged decisions. I care little for VR/IS but who on earth decided to bring out top of the range lenses that won't work with bodies from a mere couple of years ago? They are effectively changing the mounting without explicitly telling people.

[ShunCheung]

Lee and Leif, there is no doubt that Nikon has been making changes and will continue to do so, or they would have been really behind modern times. But it is not all that complex. Essentially, ever since Nikon introduced modern AF in the mid 1980's, all Nikon AF lenses work on all Nikon AF bodies. There are some restrictions that VR only works on newer bodies with 5 AF points, etc., but you can still take pictures in those combinations.

 

The more severe incompatibilities come from mixing AF and older MF, like the recent G lenses without an aperture ring cannot work on MF bodies that cannot control aperture from the body at all. Other brands don't have that problem because you simply cannot mix AF and MF, period.

 

Canon has its share of incompatibilities also. If you add a 1.4x TC on a 500mm/f4.5, you lose AF on bodies prior to the EOS3. From the EOS3 on, you can only AF with the center AF point. You cannot put a 1.4x TC on the old 80-200mm/f2.8 ....

 

Canon's incompatibility issues are not as severe because they changed their lens mount completely and started fresh in the late 1980's. But as things continue to change, I have no doubt that new incompatibilities will gradually appear, on any brand. That is just a fact in life.

[john_macpherson]

Charlie -I dumped most of my Nikon gear (20mm to 500mm f4p)

after using a 35-350 Canon zoom, and realising I didnt need to

carry the 35-135, 80-200, 300 and tc1.4 Nikkors and extension

tube set I had been carrying, and that the big Canon zoom would

do cover all this and AF quickly, accurately and quietly. Also, and

a huge plus for me, I could set exposures from a Sekonic meter

on the EOS body and they were accurate, not having to do the

variable-aperture-nikkor messing about - opening up or closing

down a stop depending on where in the zoom range I was using

the nikkor.

<P>

Is the big Canon zoom as sharp overall as the 80-200 or 300

Nikkor, probably not if MTF'd, but my agent hasn't complained nor

the hundreds of other users who have selected the 35-350

images for various uses and whose money paid for the lens in a

short time after I bought it.

<P>

I also now have IS and that has made a big difference to the way

I can capture natural history images with lenses ike the 100-400.

<P>

As a bigger bonus the EOS lenses fit nicely on the Canon digital

XL1 video I aimed to get to be able to nature video work, and now

they will also fit neatly on the D series canon digital bodies.

<P>

There are other slightly less easily quantified 'benefits' for me - I

like the colour rendition of Canon lenses, and I think (purely from

a non-scientfic viewpoint) that the Canon lenses and Tc's

combination are 'sharper' than the results I got from the

equivalent nikkors. But that just my opinion not a fact. And I liked

the EOS 'body-set' aperture info which means I can quickly

change lenses and the new lens is immediately set to the

working aperture.

<P>

What do I hate about Canon? Some of the controls are really

hard to use - mirror lockup as mentioned above is a complete

pain. The F4 nikon was IMHO one of the most ergonomically

pleasant and most USABLE bodies I have ever owned - I could

reach ALL the major controls with the fingers of my right hand

without taking my eye from the viewfinder - film advance speeds,

metering modes, dof preview, exposure lock, etc etc etc. No

other camera has come close to that in my opinion.

<P>

When I want light and tough and eminently controllable bodies I

can 100% rely on in rain, or other appalling conditions and which

I can dry out with a hairdryer.....I use the old beatup FM2's I kept

and still have, with a couple of old Nikon primes I could not bear

to part with. Work just fine for me.

<P>

Each brand has its strengths and weaknesses, and those users

whose needs will dictate using one brand or t'other. I switched

for practical reasons, am happy I did, and discovered other

benefits that Canon offered I had not been aware of prior.

<P>

At the end of the day if you can get the image in the bag that's

really all that matters.

<P>

Now.....as to which brand's AF and TTL flash combo would be

best to catch a bunch of angels dancing on the head of a pin.....if

anyone finds out would they let me know please.................

<P>

www.john-macpherson-photography.com

[vandit]

Shun -

 

I dont dispute that *you* dont need IS. I was disputing your assertion that seemed to imply that IS was not useful for wildlife. If I misunderstood your assertion, and you were saying that *some* people dont need IS, then we do not disagree at all.

 

Re. why one would go to high-altitude with a long/heavy lens - that isnt a made-up example, actually. If you want to photograph the high-altitude critters (or even some of the awesome scenery) of the Himalayas, you NEED a long lens (I'll happily hump a 600/4 around, if someone wants to gift me one) more than you need fresh underwear and socks. Without going too much into a tangent, I think you and I can both agree that there are a lot of situations where a tripod is not necessary.

 

The other part - whether the drop-off in quality between handheld and a tripod is acceptable - is a personal decision and there is not much to be gained there. I'm happy with my 11x14 handhelds at 1/125, and that is what I care about.

 

Regards,

Vandit

[leif_goodwin8]

Shun. My point was that top of the line G lenses will not work on some recent AF bodies which must surely pee off many a user. I am sure many many users have an F80/F100/F5 + old non G compatible AF bodies ((bought new a couple of years ago) as backups and to allow use of more than 1 film at once.

 

Some of the incompatibility is surely for marketing and business reasons. Can it really be that hard to include stop down metering with MF lenses on an F80? Or even a custom function to select the aperture to assume when an MF lens is attached? I doubt it.

 

And why no autofocus extension tubes? Third party ones are available but are of poor build and design. Why no general use auto-focus TC's? Those that exist are for specific lenses only. Third party ones exist but are not very high quality.

 

It seems to me that Nikon are shooting themselves in the feet by not making these small changes to greatly improve the system. They claim compatibility but it is getting worse not better.

[vandit]

An addendum to my earlier post - I am not arguing about the benefit of IS from a Canon vs Nikon standpoint. That whole argument is pointless (IMO). For wildlife photography, knowledge of the subject, time spent waiting for the right moment and a good dose of luck are far more important than IS or VR.

 

Was just looking at a book of award-winning wildlife photos - one of the best photos there was taken with a 24-85/3.5-4.5 lens. For the vast majority of us - myself most definitely included - it isnt the equipment that is the limiting factor.

 

Regards,

Vandit