canon rumors FORUM

Rumors => EOS Bodies => Topic started by: roland on September 21, 2012, 12:27:05 AM

Title: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: roland on September 21, 2012, 12:27:05 AM
There's been a lot of talk lately about how the 5Dm3 is overpriced, has poor DR, etc and how the 6D is overpriced and under-spec'ed.  And the Nikon D800 and D600 look like pretty sweet cameras.

I would seem like an ideal candidate to jump to Nikon: I'm currently shooting a T1i that was my first DSLR when I got it 3+ years ago.  I've shot quite a bit and learned a lot, and I feel like I'd get a lot out of a new body.  But I'm not particularly tied to the Canon system for FF -- my only EF lens is the 50/1.8, and I have one 430 flash.  I have a couple of EF-S lenses I'd have to replace if I got a FF body, no matter whether I went Canon or Nikon.

The D600 looks pretty nice, and I could probably talk myself into a D800 for $3K more easily than a 5Dm3 for $500 more.  But I'm probably going to stick with Canon -- my next camera is probably a 6D.

Why?  The lenses.  First of all, the 6D kit with the 24-105 f/4 looks like a good deal, and the 24-105 seems like an ideal lens for walking around with a FF body.  As far as I know, Nikon has no lens that really competes with the 24-105.  The other main lens that I see myself getting is the 70-200 f/4 IS, which is great for someone only semi-serious like me to walk around with -- I've rented both the 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8, and paying half as much for a lens that is half the weight seems like a great deal to me (and coming from the crop body I shoot now, f/4 on FF would be pretty fast).  Again, Nikon has nothing to match this lens -- they only have the f/2.8 version.

Even having access to the crazy stuff that I might only rent once a year like the Canon 8-15 fisheye or the 17mm TS-E matters to me.

So perhaps the D600 has better IQ, but I'm sure that (especially compared to what I shoot now) in absolute terms, the Canon 6D has excellent IQ too, and as others have said before, the Canon *system* is still enough ahead of Nikon that the Nikon bodies as not enough to entice me to switch.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: Chuck Alaimo on September 21, 2012, 01:15:58 AM
There's been a lot of talk lately about how the 5Dm3 is overpriced, has poor DR, etc and how the 6D is overpriced and under-spec'ed.  And the Nikon D800 and D600 look like pretty sweet cameras.

I would seem like an ideal candidate to jump to Nikon: I'm currently shooting a T1i that was my first DSLR when I got it 3+ years ago.  I've shot quite a bit and learned a lot, and I feel like I'd get a lot out of a new body.  But I'm not particularly tied to the Canon system for FF -- my only EF lens is the 50/1.8, and I have one 430 flash.  I have a couple of EF-S lenses I'd have to replace if I got a FF body, no matter whether I went Canon or Nikon.

The D600 looks pretty nice, and I could probably talk myself into a D800 for $3K more easily than a 5Dm3 for $500 more.  But I'm probably going to stick with Canon -- my next camera is probably a 6D.

Why?  The lenses.  First of all, the 6D kit with the 24-105 f/4 looks like a good deal, and the 24-105 seems like an ideal lens for walking around with a FF body.  As far as I know, Nikon has no lens that really competes with the 24-105.  The other main lens that I see myself getting is the 70-200 f/4 IS, which is great for someone only semi-serious like me to walk around with -- I've rented both the 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8, and paying half as much for a lens that is half the weight seems like a great deal to me (and coming from the crop body I shoot now, f/4 on FF would be pretty fast).  Again, Nikon has nothing to match this lens -- they only have the f/2.8 version.

Even having access to the crazy stuff that I might only rent once a year like the Canon 8-15 fisheye or the 17mm TS-E matters to me.

So perhaps the D600 has better IQ, but I'm sure that (especially compared to what I shoot now) in absolute terms, the Canon 6D has excellent IQ too, and as others have said before, the Canon *system* is still enough ahead of Nikon that the Nikon bodies as not enough to entice me to switch.

As you consider lenses --- think about the 70-200 2.8, the one without IS. Price is close to the f4 with IS.  I love my 2.8 and rarely feel like IS would make or break a shot (if its dark enough that I'm shooting at 12,800 ISO and still need to go below 1/60th, well then who-ever I'm shooting for is gonna be psyched that I could even get a shot in that light!).   

Running without IS at the longer end may take some getting used to, but once you do, you'll love that extra flexibility you'll get from the 2.8 aperture!
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: Tammy on September 21, 2012, 01:40:11 AM
There's been a lot of talk lately about how the 5Dm3 is overpriced, has poor DR, etc and how the 6D is overpriced and under-spec'ed.  And the Nikon D800 and D600 look like pretty sweet cameras.

I would seem like an ideal candidate to jump to Nikon: I'm currently shooting a T1i that was my first DSLR when I got it 3+ years ago.  I've shot quite a bit and learned a lot, and I feel like I'd get a lot out of a new body.  But I'm not particularly tied to the Canon system for FF -- my only EF lens is the 50/1.8, and I have one 430 flash.  I have a couple of EF-S lenses I'd have to replace if I got a FF body, no matter whether I went Canon or Nikon.

The D600 looks pretty nice, and I could probably talk myself into a D800 for $3K more easily than a 5Dm3 for $500 more.  But I'm probably going to stick with Canon -- my next camera is probably a 6D.

Why?  The lenses.  First of all, the 6D kit with the 24-105 f/4 looks like a good deal, and the 24-105 seems like an ideal lens for walking around with a FF body.  As far as I know, Nikon has no lens that really competes with the 24-105.  The other main lens that I see myself getting is the 70-200 f/4 IS, which is great for someone only semi-serious like me to walk around with -- I've rented both the 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8, and paying half as much for a lens that is half the weight seems like a great deal to me (and coming from the crop body I shoot now, f/4 on FF would be pretty fast).  Again, Nikon has nothing to match this lens -- they only have the f/2.8 version.

Even having access to the crazy stuff that I might only rent once a year like the Canon 8-15 fisheye or the 17mm TS-E matters to me.

So perhaps the D600 has better IQ, but I'm sure that (especially compared to what I shoot now) in absolute terms, the Canon 6D has excellent IQ too, and as others have said before, the Canon *system* is still enough ahead of Nikon that the Nikon bodies as not enough to entice me to switch.

well said.. : )
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: jondave on September 21, 2012, 01:43:28 AM
You're currently shooting with a T1i and you're torn between the IQ of a FF Canon vs Nikon body? Poor DR? You sound like an engineer, not a photographer.

If you think Canon has better glass, then that's a much better basis for you to make your decision. But seriously buddy, stop reading the body specs and just go out and shoot photos. There's no IQ or DR category in photo competitions.

Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: weekendshooter on September 21, 2012, 02:04:18 AM
There's been a lot of talk lately about how the 5Dm3 is overpriced, has poor DR, etc and how the 6D is overpriced and under-spec'ed.  And the Nikon D800 and D600 look like pretty sweet cameras.

I would seem like an ideal candidate to jump to Nikon: I'm currently shooting a T1i that was my first DSLR when I got it 3+ years ago.  I've shot quite a bit and learned a lot, and I feel like I'd get a lot out of a new body.  But I'm not particularly tied to the Canon system for FF -- my only EF lens is the 50/1.8, and I have one 430 flash.  I have a couple of EF-S lenses I'd have to replace if I got a FF body, no matter whether I went Canon or Nikon.

The D600 looks pretty nice, and I could probably talk myself into a D800 for $3K more easily than a 5Dm3 for $500 more.  But I'm probably going to stick with Canon -- my next camera is probably a 6D.

Why?  The lenses.  First of all, the 6D kit with the 24-105 f/4 looks like a good deal, and the 24-105 seems like an ideal lens for walking around with a FF body.  As far as I know, Nikon has no lens that really competes with the 24-105.  The other main lens that I see myself getting is the 70-200 f/4 IS, which is great for someone only semi-serious like me to walk around with -- I've rented both the 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8, and paying half as much for a lens that is half the weight seems like a great deal to me (and coming from the crop body I shoot now, f/4 on FF would be pretty fast).  Again, Nikon has nothing to match this lens -- they only have the f/2.8 version.

Even having access to the crazy stuff that I might only rent once a year like the Canon 8-15 fisheye or the 17mm TS-E matters to me.

So perhaps the D600 has better IQ, but I'm sure that (especially compared to what I shoot now) in absolute terms, the Canon 6D has excellent IQ too, and as others have said before, the Canon *system* is still enough ahead of Nikon that the Nikon bodies as not enough to entice me to switch.

Cool story, bro. Speak up, I can barely hear you with your pixel-peeping face pressed so hard into your monitor.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: roland on September 21, 2012, 02:21:49 AM
As you consider lenses --- think about the 70-200 2.8, the one without IS. Price is close to the f4 with IS.  I love my 2.8 and rarely feel like IS would make or break a shot (if its dark enough that I'm shooting at 12,800 ISO and still need to go below 1/60th, well then who-ever I'm shooting for is gonna be psyched that I could even get a shot in that light!).   

Running without IS at the longer end may take some getting used to, but once you do, you'll love that extra flexibility you'll get from the 2.8 aperture!

To me the key difference is 1310g for the f/2.8 vs. 760 for the f/4.  I've shot both and like I said the f/2.8 is just too big and heavy for someone only semi-serious like me.

If I was OK with the size of the f/2.8 lens, then I'd be OK with the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8, and it would only be the 24-105 keeping me with Canon ;)
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: Albi86 on September 21, 2012, 02:29:15 AM
There's been a lot of talk lately about how the 5Dm3 is overpriced, has poor DR, etc and how the 6D is overpriced and under-spec'ed.  And the Nikon D800 and D600 look like pretty sweet cameras.

I would seem like an ideal candidate to jump to Nikon: I'm currently shooting a T1i that was my first DSLR when I got it 3+ years ago.  I've shot quite a bit and learned a lot, and I feel like I'd get a lot out of a new body.  But I'm not particularly tied to the Canon system for FF -- my only EF lens is the 50/1.8, and I have one 430 flash.  I have a couple of EF-S lenses I'd have to replace if I got a FF body, no matter whether I went Canon or Nikon.

The D600 looks pretty nice, and I could probably talk myself into a D800 for $3K more easily than a 5Dm3 for $500 more.  But I'm probably going to stick with Canon -- my next camera is probably a 6D.

Why?  The lenses.  First of all, the 6D kit with the 24-105 f/4 looks like a good deal, and the 24-105 seems like an ideal lens for walking around with a FF body.  As far as I know, Nikon has no lens that really competes with the 24-105.  The other main lens that I see myself getting is the 70-200 f/4 IS, which is great for someone only semi-serious like me to walk around with -- I've rented both the 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8, and paying half as much for a lens that is half the weight seems like a great deal to me (and coming from the crop body I shoot now, f/4 on FF would be pretty fast).  Again, Nikon has nothing to match this lens -- they only have the f/2.8 version.

Even having access to the crazy stuff that I might only rent once a year like the Canon 8-15 fisheye or the 17mm TS-E matters to me.

So perhaps the D600 has better IQ, but I'm sure that (especially compared to what I shoot now) in absolute terms, the Canon 6D has excellent IQ too, and as others have said before, the Canon *system* is still enough ahead of Nikon that the Nikon bodies as not enough to entice me to switch.

Not to crush your bubble, but Nikon 24-120mm f/4 and Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 are good alternatives.

Nikon has no 70-200 f/4 IS, agreed, but both Sigma and (within the year) Tamron have 70-200 f/2.8 IS for the same price. We can't say anything about the Tammy yet, but the Sigma is a very, very good lense. Heavier though, you have a point there.

Samyang and Sigma produce good fisheye lenses, and soon enough there will be a Samyang 24mm TS-E.

Canon's supremacy in lenses nowadays is pretty much limited to the telezoom segment. If most of your pictures are over 200mm then you are right, staying with Canon is the best choice. Otherwise Nikon and 3rd-party offer an amazing selection of glass.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: sandymandy on September 21, 2012, 02:36:16 AM
I also thought about getting the 6D but I thought if im already gonna pay that much for a body probably I will just save more money and get a 5D mk3. It will be the body with all the features I can wish for and i will use it so many years. The 6D lacks some options...
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: roland on September 21, 2012, 02:37:10 AM
You're currently shooting with a T1i and you're torn between the IQ of a FF Canon vs Nikon body? Poor DR? You sound like an engineer, not a photographer.

If you think Canon has better glass, then that's a much better basis for you to make your decision. But seriously buddy, stop reading the body specs and just go out and shoot photos. There's no IQ or DR category in photo competitions.

I think you may have missed the point of my post.  I was reacting to all the other threads about how Canon sucks because Nikon is trouncing them on dxomark scores and that no one is going to buy a 6D because the D600 is so much better and that Canon should fire everyone involved in developing a product as lame as the 6D.  I thought it might be interesting to give a perspective on why someone might actually choose to buy a 6D over a D600.

I have about 50,000 exposures on my T1i so I do get out and shoot occasionally.  But I think I'm at the point where I'd enjoy having a nicer body, and it might even improve some of the images I get.  Obviously if I'm going to drop $2K on a new body, I'd prefer to get the camera that suits me better.

However, if you go back and reread my original post, you'll realize that my whole point was that I'm not going to decide based on Nikon having higher DR or less low-ISO noise or whatever.  Any FF body is so much better than what I have now that I'm going to worry about Canon's "horrible banding" and "low resolution" or whatever else the people on this forum say right before they throw all their Canon gear in the garbage and buy a D800.

The only thing I was trying to say is that the 6D overall seems a better fit than the D600 for someone like me, who likes to walk around and take pictures of people and places and *not* spend my time pixel peeping at test patterns.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: K3nt on September 21, 2012, 02:44:52 AM
The only thing I was trying to say is that the 6D overall seems a better fit than the D600 for someone like me, who likes to walk around and take pictures of people and places and *not* spend my time pixel peeping at test patterns.

+1. Go for it. Test labs are fine but pointless unless the camera is fast to use and let's you take the shot you want, when you want.  ;D
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: Albi86 on September 21, 2012, 02:47:50 AM
You're currently shooting with a T1i and you're torn between the IQ of a FF Canon vs Nikon body? Poor DR? You sound like an engineer, not a photographer.

If you think Canon has better glass, then that's a much better basis for you to make your decision. But seriously buddy, stop reading the body specs and just go out and shoot photos. There's no IQ or DR category in photo competitions.

I think you may have missed the point of my post.  I was reacting to all the other threads about how Canon sucks because Nikon is trouncing them on dxomark scores and that no one is going to buy a 6D because the D600 is so much better and that Canon should fire everyone involved in developing a product as lame as the 6D.  I thought it might be interesting to give a perspective on why someone might actually choose to buy a 6D over a D600.

I have about 50,000 exposures on my T1i so I do get out and shoot occasionally.  But I think I'm at the point where I'd enjoy having a nicer body, and it might even improve some of the images I get.  Obviously if I'm going to drop $2K on a new body, I'd prefer to get the camera that suits me better.

However, if you go back and reread my original post, you'll realize that my whole point was that I'm not going to decide based on Nikon having higher DR or less low-ISO noise or whatever.  Any FF body is so much better than what I have now that I'm going to worry about Canon's "horrible banding" and "low resolution" or whatever else the people on this forum say right before they throw all their Canon gear in the garbage and buy a D800.

The only thing I was trying to say is that the 6D overall seems a better fit than the D600 for someone like me, who likes to walk around and take pictures of people and places and *not* spend my time pixel peeping at test patterns.

Please read again your first post.

You're not choosing the 6D over the D600, you are choosing the entire Canon package over Nikon's, and you're doing this basing mostly on one single lens: the 70-200 f/4 IS. Buying the 6D is consequence, not a choice.

That is a disputable choice, but still a choice, so if you're happy with that the go down that way. Honestly though, given your last paragraph, I really wonder why you *must* have that lens and nothing else.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: cliffwang on September 21, 2012, 02:48:34 AM
I also thought about getting the 6D but I thought if im already gonna pay that much for a body probably I will just save more money and get a 5D mk3. It will be the body with all the features I can wish for and i will use it so many years. The 6D lacks some options...

+1
I stay with Canon also because of lenses.  However, I will either buy 5D2 and save money for lenses or go with 5D3.  If I had limit budget and not invested in L lens yet, I would just switch to Nikon D600 and buy 24-120mm.  I don't see the point to buy 6D.  For me choosing 6D based on 24-105mm and 70-200 F/4 is not a very logical idea.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: JohanCruyff on September 21, 2012, 03:06:40 AM
Why?  The lenses.  First of all, the 6D kit with the 24-105 f/4 looks like a good deal, and the 24-105 seems like an ideal lens for walking around with a FF body.  As far as I know, Nikon has no lens that really competes with the 24-105.  The other main lens that I see myself getting is the 70-200 f/4 IS, which is great for someone only semi-serious like me to walk around with

Lenses! The most important part of the gear!

Never say never, but I think that I will not leave Canon unless the competitor deliver a Nikkor 70-200 F/4 "VR".
I bought a used 5D classic for less than 1000 Eur, and I hope it will last until a used 5D3 will cost more or less the same amount (in four years maybe?).
If my 5Dc crashes tomorros, I think I'll buy a used 5d2. Or a Nikon body, provided I can put my EF 70-200 F/4 L IS in its mount. I do like its sharpness, colors etc (most canon-users know what I mean).

I wonder why cigarette producers have to state that nicotine gives you dependence, whereas I didn't read  the same WARNING on the box of the EF 70-200 F/4 IS when I bought it.

P.S. You can fit a Nikkor lens on a Canon body, but not vice versa.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: Nishi Drew on September 21, 2012, 03:52:16 AM
i agree with above about the Sigma 70-200 OS, it's fantastic, and I feel that the bokeh is a lot smoother and "dreamier" then the Canon version. Though, not as sharp at 200mm, but considering I got the lens under 1K I'm very happy.

But, also with the author here, I'm still on a T1i too, and I might just get a 5Dmk2 for cheap as the 6D, though not THAT bad, doesn't look like a camera I'd shell out 2K+for and get effective use for the next 4 years or so. It has more limitations than advantages, with the only real advantage being price.... which isn't even great for what it is so let's move on.

Switching systems no matter how much equipment or experience is just unwise, not just financially, but when you jump once, then if ever the previous system provided something you'd like then you're blaming yourself for not sticking with them, and might heavily consider switching back. The grass is always greener... even though right now it may really be green, a drought could harm Nokin land soon and the game could change all over.
Though, even if great things come to those that wait, if there's a feature/piece of equipment you need that just isn't available then of course, those events/sports/weddings/stories aren't going to wait, so switch over like all those guys did with the D3. But switching systems over an "entry level"offering doesn't seem like a good decision at all,
unless the goal later is to move up and collect lenses in the meanwhile with an affordable body...
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: Albi86 on September 21, 2012, 04:03:07 AM
i agree with above about the Sigma 70-200 OS, it's fantastic, and I feel that the bokeh is a lot smoother and "dreamier" then the Canon version. Though, not as sharp at 200mm, but considering I got the lens under 1K I'm very happy.

But, also with the author here, I'm still on a T1i too, and I might just get a 5Dmk2 for cheap as the 6D, though not THAT bad, doesn't look like a camera I'd shell out 2K+for and get effective use for the next 4 years or so. It has more limitations than advantages, with the only real advantage being price.... which isn't even great for what it is so let's move on.

Switching systems no matter how much equipment or experience is just unwise, not just financially, but when you jump once, then if ever the previous system provided something you'd like then you're blaming yourself for not sticking with them, and might heavily consider switching back. The grass is always greener... even though right now it may really be green, a drought could harm Nokin land soon and the game could change all over.
Though, even if great things come to those that wait, if there's a feature/piece of equipment you need that just isn't available then of course, those events/sports/weddings/stories aren't going to wait, so switch over like all those guys did with the D3. But switching systems over an "entry level"offering doesn't seem like a good decision at all,
unless the goal later is to move up and collect lenses in the meanwhile with an affordable body...

I agree with you in general terms, but there are some peculiar things to consider in this situation:

1) D600 and D800 are so well specced to be quite a good investment for the future too, especially if you're a low-iso shooter.
2) They are cheaper, which makes up for the losses of switching system. And if you upgrade from a crop, you lose your crop lenses all the same, which makes it hardly different.
3) Sigma and Tamron provide very good glass, which makes users less dependent on Canon and Nikon lenses.
4) The D600, though being entry level, is very well specced. The typical user gets 90% of a 5D3 for 60% of the price.

In this peculiar situation switching systems is particularly soft.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: pakosouthpark on September 21, 2012, 04:20:25 AM
You're currently shooting with a T1i and you're torn between the IQ of a FF Canon vs Nikon body? Poor DR? You sound like an engineer, not a photographer.

If you think Canon has better glass, then that's a much better basis for you to make your decision. But seriously buddy, stop reading the body specs and just go out and shoot photos. There's no IQ or DR category in photo competitions.
yeah a lot of people forget that, the main thing in how to do great photography is you! not the camera!
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: gnd on September 21, 2012, 04:31:13 AM
It's worth remembering why we switched to Japanese makers in the first place. They were simply cheaper. If you got to lose a Voigtlander or a Leica in muddy action you kissed a fortune goodbye. Nikon offered a rugged camera at a fraction of the price and their lens system was good enough. Canon were the amateur's alternative until the F line came along with the fluorite synthetic crystal glass revolution. Primary objective is cost. 

In the dSLR era Nikon initially took the whole idea light-hearted, "cool-pix" of sorts. No vision. Today they offer rebranded Sony sensors for their top of the line lens system. Canon pays R&D to develop their own sensors, that's where the end-pricing plays and may be Canon's undoing for the consumer. 5D Mk2 was their finest example, tremendous value for bold new capabilities. Now, that's a camera of the decade. But in the end little matters, taking a good picture remains to the photographer.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: IronChef on September 21, 2012, 04:32:58 AM
You're currently shooting with a T1i and you're torn between the IQ of a FF Canon vs Nikon body? Poor DR? You sound like an engineer, not a photographer.

If you think Canon has better glass, then that's a much better basis for you to make your decision. But seriously buddy, stop reading the body specs and just go out and shoot photos. There's no IQ or DR category in photo competitions.
yeah a lot of people forget that, the main thing in how to do great photography is you! not the camera!

Although the camera is not the most important aspect in photography, you still want the best camera for your budget. Depending how much you're invested in canon lenses and how much you can sell it for, upgrading to a Nikon FF instead of a Canon FF might give you better value.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: Albi86 on September 21, 2012, 04:51:41 AM
You're currently shooting with a T1i and you're torn between the IQ of a FF Canon vs Nikon body? Poor DR? You sound like an engineer, not a photographer.

If you think Canon has better glass, then that's a much better basis for you to make your decision. But seriously buddy, stop reading the body specs and just go out and shoot photos. There's no IQ or DR category in photo competitions.
yeah a lot of people forget that, the main thing in how to do great photography is you! not the camera!

Although the camera is not the most important aspect in photography, you still want the best camera for your budget. Depending how much you're invested in canon lenses and how much you can sell it for, upgrading to a Nikon FF instead of a Canon FF might give you better value.

+1

I love when people posting in a gear-oriented forum and having themselves several thousands grands of gear pieces come out saying "Nah, it's not about the gear, it's about skill". It's hypocrite to no end. Especially because I often read that this is a Canon enthusiasts forum, so apparently I have to assume that skill comes in kit with Canon gear only.

I would kindly invite those people to act on their principles, sell all their expensive gear and buy a 1100D kit and a fifty nifty. Then you can come and show us "pixel-peepers" and "spec-readers" (who care about value for money of the products we buy) that our worries have nothing to do with IQ and how miserable photographers we are.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: ecka on September 21, 2012, 04:53:30 AM
Do you really need something like 70-200/4 to pair with 24-120/4 VR? That's only 80mm extra. Just don't be fooled by cheaper and/or better Nikon bodies. Their lenses are more expensive.
People say that in reality (not lab tests, but in less than ideal conditions) D7000 AF is a real pain and it looks like D600 got the same AF system. So, think twice before you jump.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: rahkshi007 on September 21, 2012, 06:08:17 AM
I am the one that jump from nikon to 5dm2 2 years ago..  the main reason i choose canon :

1) nikon dslr tend capture more yellowish colour photo.. i know it can be fixed in raw,but from my experience it is easy to fix if you shoot scenery,but not for potrait. , i am an asian and mostly i shot asian people potrait too, we asian tend to have a brown-yellowish skin and nikon camera will make it worst..

2) because of L lens..
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: Fishnose on September 21, 2012, 06:35:30 AM
The only thing I was trying to say is that the 6D overall seems a better fit than the D600 for someone like me, who likes to walk around and take pictures of people and places and *not* spend my time pixel peeping at test patterns.

If the lenses are the only thing keeping you to Canon - think again. The Nikkor 24-120 F/4 VR is an absolutely exceptional lens. Ideal in fact even for the D800, not only the D600.
Nikkor lenses as a whole are just as good as Canon. And then we have alternatives from Tamron, Sigma, Tokina etc....
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: Jason Beiko on September 21, 2012, 06:52:38 AM
If I was starting again I would definitely go with Nikon.  Why?  because the new sensors are absolutely fantastic and now IMHO approach MF quality at a reasonable price point (for me).  BTW I think you are under-estimating Nikon's and alternative companies current glass offerings. 

The reason I haven't switched is because I am already invested in Canon gear and quite frankly my 7D is currently serving me quite well.  However for my next camera I am undecided about which company to buy from.

I will purchase the 6D if it has similar DR performance to the D600/D800 (it likely will not).  Or I will buy the new "big mega-pixel" camera if it is reasonably priced and the DR approaches that of Nikon.

BTW I mostly shoot landscapes at low ISO which heavily factors into my opinions....


Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: Bennymiata on September 21, 2012, 08:52:56 AM
The grass is NOT greener on the other side.
It may look like it from a distance, but when you get there, you can often find it is only painted on.

Friends of mine with D800's complain bitterly about their greenish coloured screens, the poor auto focussing, especially when you pick a point on ther left side as well as other problems.
I have a 5D3 (as well as a 60D with around 150,000 shutter actuations), and I've never had a problem with them at all. In fact, I am still amazed at what a great all-around camera the 5D3 is.
It really isn't lacking anything.

While the spec sheets and DXO tests may say otherwise, in side to side testing, you'd be very hard pressed to see any differences between the D800 and 5D3.
I shoot everthing from weddings, to parties, carpets, products,interiors, portraits, landscapes - you name it, and the 5D3 always does a great job.
I initially went with the Canon system, because of the their lenses and their lower costs compared to Nikons.
The quality is maybe slightly better with Canon, but as most of us spend more on lenses than we do on bodies, the variety, quality and cost of the lenses is what really swayed me to go Canon, and why I stay with Canon.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: bdunbar79 on September 21, 2012, 09:27:33 AM
You're currently shooting with a T1i and you're torn between the IQ of a FF Canon vs Nikon body? Poor DR? You sound like an engineer, not a photographer.

If you think Canon has better glass, then that's a much better basis for you to make your decision. But seriously buddy, stop reading the body specs and just go out and shoot photos. There's no IQ or DR category in photo competitions.
yeah a lot of people forget that, the main thing in how to do great photography is you! not the camera!

Although the camera is not the most important aspect in photography, you still want the best camera for your budget. Depending how much you're invested in canon lenses and how much you can sell it for, upgrading to a Nikon FF instead of a Canon FF might give you better value.

+1

I love when people posting in a gear-oriented forum and having themselves several thousands grands of gear pieces come out saying "Nah, it's not about the gear, it's about skill". It's hypocrite to no end. Especially because I often read that this is a Canon enthusiasts forum, so apparently I have to assume that skill comes in kit with Canon gear only.

I would kindly invite those people to act on their principles, sell all their expensive gear and buy a 1100D kit and a fifty nifty. Then you can come and show us "pixel-peepers" and "spec-readers" (who care about value for money of the products we buy) that our worries have nothing to do with IQ and how miserable photographers we are.

+1 to that.  Sorry folks, in today's world, gear matters.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: psolberg on September 21, 2012, 10:13:38 AM
I switched to Nikon on release of the D800 and haven't looked back. People make a bigger deal than it actually is. If even I have to switch to sony or canon, I will.

this isn't marriage. they are just tools. get over it.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: Albi86 on September 21, 2012, 10:32:35 AM
The grass is NOT greener on the other side.
It may look like it from a distance, but when you get there, you can often find it is only painted on.

Friends of mine with D800's complain bitterly about their greenish coloured screens, the poor auto focussing, especially when you pick a point on ther left side as well as other problems.
I have a 5D3 (as well as a 60D with around 150,000 shutter actuations), and I've never had a problem with them at all. In fact, I am still amazed at what a great all-around camera the 5D3 is.
It really isn't lacking anything.

While the spec sheets and DXO tests may say otherwise, in side to side testing, you'd be very hard pressed to see any differences between the D800 and 5D3.
I shoot everthing from weddings, to parties, carpets, products,interiors, portraits, landscapes - you name it, and the 5D3 always does a great job.
I initially went with the Canon system, because of the their lenses and their lower costs compared to Nikons.
The quality is maybe slightly better with Canon, but as most of us spend more on lenses than we do on bodies, the variety, quality and cost of the lenses is what really swayed me to go Canon, and why I stay with Canon.

The D800 - as 99% of products - had some problems on release that were fixed later. Early users are often beta-testers.

This thing of D7000 and D800 having a poor AF is a legend. It's just less noob-friendly or noob-proof than most Canon models, but they work great.

No one says the 5D3 is not a capable camera, but the D600 looks pretty much like 90% of it for 60% of the price. If you shoot low-iso you even have some serious advantage.

And Canon lenser are not always better and always cheaper, by the way. When Nikon is not good in some segment, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc come in to help you.


I switched to Nikon on release of the D800 and haven't looked back. People make a bigger deal than it actually is. If even I have to switch to sony or canon, I will.

this isn't marriage. they are just tools. get over it.

Wise words.

Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: daniemare on September 21, 2012, 12:20:52 PM
I understand the OP's point.  The new 6D kit gives you L glass for $2900 at launch.  Getting the D600 with their 24-120 VR, whether or not it is as good as the L, will set you back $3400 (BH prices). So that is $500 right there.

I see the 6D mainly for the F4 target market due to price.  Canon can help you at wide zoom (17-40) normal zoom (24-105) and tele zoom (70-200/100-400/70-300) tele prime 300mm IS or 400mm F5.6 quite nicely in L fashion.

With Nikon you would have to go 3rd party for most to get the price fit (except for their 24-120 (more expensive) and 80-400 (same price)). Nothing wrong with Third Party but worth considerating

Even a speedlite EX430II is much cheaper than a Nikon equivalent. Also, my experience show that the used market is also far more extensive for Canon than Nikon (OEM or Thrid Party).

So for overall value - one needs lenses with a camera regardless how gear heavy you want to be - I think the Canon 6D offers the best value. But I stand corrected.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: Fishnose on September 21, 2012, 12:46:23 PM
Do you really need something like 70-200/4 to pair with 24-120/4 VR? That's only 80mm extra. Just don't be fooled by cheaper and/or better Nikon bodies. Their lenses are more expensive.

Their lenses are NOT more expensive.

People say that in reality (not lab tests, but in less than ideal conditions) D7000 AF is a real pain and it looks like D600 got the same AF system. So, think twice before you jump.

People do NOT say the D7000 has AF troubles. You thought that one up yourself buddy.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: Albi86 on September 21, 2012, 12:49:56 PM
I understand the OP's point.  The new 6D kit gives you L glass for $2900 at launch.  Getting the D600 with their 24-120 VR, whether or not it is as good as the L, will set you back $3400 (BH prices). So that is $500 right there.

I see the 6D mainly for the F4 target market due to price.  Canon can help you at wide zoom (17-40) normal zoom (24-105) and tele zoom (70-200/100-400/70-300) tele prime 300mm IS or 400mm F5.6 quite nicely in L fashion.

With Nikon you would have to go 3rd party for most to get the price fit (except for their 24-120 (more expensive) and 80-400 (same price)). Nothing wrong with Third Party but worth considerating

Even a speedlite EX430II is much cheaper than a Nikon equivalent. Also, my experience show that the used market is also far more extensive for Canon than Nikon (OEM or Thrid Party).

So for overall value - one needs lenses with a camera regardless how gear heavy you want to be - I think the Canon 6D offers the best value. But I stand corrected.

This is hard to tell.

Nikon offers a value option with the 24-85mm. I agree that it's nothing like the 24-105L, but even that needs to be stopped down at least to f/5.6 to be really sharp edge to edge, and it struggles a bit on the long end. With sensor resolution growing up quickly, it's hard to tell right now how it would behave on a 30-40 MP sensor. It's an hazardous investment in this perspective.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: ecka on September 21, 2012, 01:26:05 PM
Do you really need something like 70-200/4 to pair with 24-120/4 VR? That's only 80mm extra. Just don't be fooled by cheaper and/or better Nikon bodies. Their lenses are more expensive.

Their lenses are NOT more expensive.

Just go check the prices...

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM - $200 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II
Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM - $300 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 II USM - $200 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM - $350 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR
Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM - $350 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED

Quote
People say that in reality (not lab tests, but in less than ideal conditions) D7000 AF is a real pain and it looks like D600 got the same AF system. So, think twice before you jump.

People do NOT say the D7000 has AF troubles. You thought that one up yourself buddy.
No comments. Google it.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: DB on September 21, 2012, 02:48:48 PM
I read a review of the new Sony A99 today in a magazine and it looked at first like a possible threat to Canon or Nikon, but then you see there is no AFMA and a restricted lens lineup...and all the new features then seem pointless.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: Lawliet on September 21, 2012, 03:47:54 PM
upgrading to a Nikon FF instead of a Canon FF might give you better value.

Even sidegrading can lead to black numbers - A D800+24-70/70-200 is much cheaper then buying enough Ws to get a similar picture with a 5D3. The 1Dx approximatly (re)equalizes that, what remains is the free choice depending on the assignment.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: daniemare on September 21, 2012, 04:24:49 PM
Do you really need something like 70-200/4 to pair with 24-120/4 VR? That's only 80mm extra. Just don't be fooled by cheaper and/or better Nikon bodies. Their lenses are more expensive.

Their lenses are NOT more expensive.

Just go check the prices...

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM - $200 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II
Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM - $300 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 II USM - $200 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM - $350 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR
Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM - $350 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED

And that is mostly a listing of lenses what I think go with a 5DIII or 1DX based on price (if you can afford those you can afford the bodies).  For a new entrant into the FF realm - to whom I think the 6D is aimed at - I think the following will be more representative (based on BH prices excl rebates and US model). I am leaving out 3rd party alternatives as it is available in both mounts.

Canon                                   Nikon                                 
17-40L   - $740                      None                                 
24-105L - $970 ($800 kit)       24-120 - $1,300   
70-200LF4 nonIS - $670          none                           
70-200LF4 IS - $1,350             none                   
100-400 - $1,700                   80-400 - $1,680
28mm 1.8 - $510                    28 1.8G - $700
50mm 1.4 - $400                    50mm 1.4G - $440
300mm F4 IS - $1,350           300mm F4 IS - $1,370 (No VR)
430EXII - $300                      SB-700 - $330

One can debate the ability of each item individually, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Canon as a whole is cheaper and Nikon's lenses ARE MORE EXPENSIVE
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: K-amps on September 21, 2012, 04:44:40 PM
You're currently shooting with a T1i and you're torn between the IQ of a FF Canon vs Nikon body? Poor DR? You sound like an engineer, not a photographer.

If you think Canon has better glass, then that's a much better basis for you to make your decision. But seriously buddy, stop reading the body specs and just go out and shoot photos. There's no IQ or DR category in photo competitions.
yeah a lot of people forget that, the main thing in how to do great photography is you! not the camera!

Although the camera is not the most important aspect in photography, you still want the best camera for your budget. Depending how much you're invested in canon lenses and how much you can sell it for, upgrading to a Nikon FF instead of a Canon FF might give you better value.

+1

I love when people posting in a gear-oriented forum and having themselves several thousands grands of gear pieces come out saying "Nah, it's not about the gear, it's about skill". It's hypocrite to no end. Especially because I often read that this is a Canon enthusiasts forum, so apparently I have to assume that skill comes in kit with Canon gear only.

I would kindly invite those people to act on their principles, sell all their expensive gear and buy a 1100D kit and a fifty nifty. Then you can come and show us "pixel-peepers" and "spec-readers" (who care about value for money of the products we buy) that our worries have nothing to do with IQ and how miserable photographers we are.

+1000  :)

Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: roland on September 21, 2012, 05:10:00 PM
And that is mostly a listing of lenses what I think go with a 5DIII or 1DX based on price (if you can afford those you can afford the bodies).  For a new entrant into the FF realm - to whom I think the 6D is aimed at - I think the following will be more representative (based on BH prices excl rebates and US model). I am leaving out 3rd party alternatives as it is available in both mounts.

Canon                                   Nikon                                 
17-40L   - $740                      None                                 
24-105L - $970 ($800 kit)       24-120 - $1,300   
70-200LF4 nonIS - $670          none                           
70-200LF4 IS - $1,350             none                   
100-400 - $1,700                   80-400 - $1,680
28mm 1.8 - $510                    28 1.8G - $700
50mm 1.4 - $400                    50mm 1.4G - $440
300mm F4 IS - $1,350           300mm F4 IS - $1,370 (No VR)
430EXII - $300                      SB-700 - $330

One can debate the ability of each item individually, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Canon as a whole is cheaper and Nikon's lenses ARE MORE EXPENSIVE

And even more significant are the rows where you put "none."

Also (although I've never shot it personally) from what I read, even disregarding price, the Nikon 24-120 doesn't stack up to the Canon 24-105.  And that's a pretty useful walkaround lens for a FF body.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: Razor2012 on September 21, 2012, 05:22:47 PM
Why not just let people live with their choices?  Canon and Nikon are both great systems and by going with either one you've made a great choice.  These systems take fantastic photographs and whether or not you have the highest resolution or the highest ISO, it really doesn't matter.  It's the person behind these tools that matters. 
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: jthomson on September 21, 2012, 05:33:34 PM
One lens, the  400mm f5.6L  nikon just doesn't have anything comparable in the same price range.

The sensor is only one part of the IQ.
I'm also on a T1i .  Waiting to see what the 7D  mark 2 looks like.   

One lens that might tempt me to go to the dark side is the Nikon 200-400mm.   If the price  rumors about the Canon 200-400mm 1.4x are correct then the  Nikon would start to look very attractive.

   
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: ecka on September 21, 2012, 06:12:20 PM
All of these lens comparisons forgot one thing...

Nikon 14-24/2.8 $1749
Canon nothing.

The thing is that we can use any Nikon lens on Canon body ;)
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: jondave on September 21, 2012, 06:28:59 PM
I love when people posting in a gear-oriented forum and having themselves several thousands grands of gear pieces come out saying "Nah, it's not about the gear, it's about skill". It's hypocrite to no end. Especially because I often read that this is a Canon enthusiasts forum, so apparently I have to assume that skill comes in kit with Canon gear only.

I would kindly invite those people to act on their principles, sell all their expensive gear and buy a 1100D kit and a fifty nifty. Then you can come and show us "pixel-peepers" and "spec-readers" (who care about value for money of the products we buy) that our worries have nothing to do with IQ and how miserable photographers we are.

Whoa, being extreme at its finest. Hold your horses, we're not comparing a 1DX / D4 vs a 1100D here.

The OP was mulling between a D600 and a 6D. Now tell me, how will choosing one camera over the other make you a much better photographer?
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: rh81photo on September 21, 2012, 06:33:34 PM
You're currently shooting with a T1i and you're torn between the IQ of a FF Canon vs Nikon body? Poor DR? You sound like an engineer, not a photographer.

If you think Canon has better glass, then that's a much better basis for you to make your decision. But seriously buddy, stop reading the body specs and just go out and shoot photos. There's no IQ or DR category in photo competitions.
yeah a lot of people forget that, the main thing in how to do great photography is you! not the camera!

Although the camera is not the most important aspect in photography, you still want the best camera for your budget. Depending how much you're invested in canon lenses and how much you can sell it for, upgrading to a Nikon FF instead of a Canon FF might give you better value.

+1

I love when people posting in a gear-oriented forum and having themselves several thousands grands of gear pieces come out saying "Nah, it's not about the gear, it's about skill". It's hypocrite to no end. Especially because I often read that this is a Canon enthusiasts forum, so apparently I have to assume that skill comes in kit with Canon gear only.

I would kindly invite those people to act on their principles, sell all their expensive gear and buy a 1100D kit and a fifty nifty. Then you can come and show us "pixel-peepers" and "spec-readers" (who care about value for money of the products we buy) that our worries have nothing to do with IQ and how miserable photographers we are.

+1

this also cracks me up. but there's even more to it. certain types of photography are simply horribly ineffective with the wrong gear. try to learn how to shoot sports without the right equipment...takes really long and the learning curve is quite flat for a looong time.

yes yes, people learnt it before, even in analogue times and without the glass we have today, but it took them a professional career to do so.
today even I (non professional hobbyist) can shoot sports with a lens(70-200L f2.8 USM) that is fast enough to focus and a camera(40D) that has a good enough AF to lock focus and a decent framerate(~6.3fps). so YES it IS the gear that enables me to learn and succeed at photographing certain themes at a decent quality.

and SINCE I am a hobbyist I cannot justify any price for a camera, so naturally I look for value/price ratio. and at the moment the offerings from canon have a not-so-nice v/p-ratio. I have to express this, and reading the forums makes me feel that i'm not totally off with my view of the situation.

I am really torn apart here, because I see the arguments staying in the canon system. but the offerings for the bodies available from canon are either too pricey(5DmkIII) or do not offer enough features to even call it an upgrade (6D). I have about 2000EUR to spend for a camera, but see no point in spending it for something that doesn't fit my needs. BUT the D600 is only an entry into a world-of-lenses-to-be-bought, so a body alone purchase is also a no go.
I probably will go for a 7D now and have some spare cash. thats nice for me. but a week ago even a 7D was unattractive because ML wasn't possible, now that looks different :D exciting times!

just my 2cents
cheer up everyone, we have a nice job/hobby  ;)
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: cliffwang on September 21, 2012, 06:33:49 PM
With Nikon you would have to go 3rd party for most to get the price fit\

And if you read the latest blog entry on lensrentals about lens repairs, Tamron are seriously whipping Canon/Nikon ass.

I guess that's why Tamron gives 6 year warranty, but Canon gives only one year warranty.  Since I bought Tamron 24-70mm VC, I have changed my image of Tamron.  I will like to try more Tamron lenses in the future.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: birdman on September 22, 2012, 01:51:18 AM
I'm a former 5d2 owner, and these comments/arguments crack me the hell up. I love this site, but there are TOO MANY FOLKS on here compared to NikonRumors. You know why? Canon loyalists are too frustrated fighting amongst themselves.

For the record, I own the D800 and have none of the left AF/greenish-LCD problems that are overblown. It's FAR from perfect, as well, and frankly I really miss the sheer simplicity of the 5d2. That said, Nikon's UWA lenses are far better and that was my reason for switching. I tried out the D600 at Best Buy today for a long, long time. It's a extremely good DSLR. I wish I'd waited on it and saved myself about $850. Is it 90% of 5d3? I don't even know what in the holy hell that means. It is PHENOMENAL for $2,099!!!! That, my friends, is a fact.

Now let's move on to lenses: We can say the new 24-70/2.8 II is $400-500 more expensive than Nikon's equivalent. But it's also a better lens. So people, to be honest we have to play fair. The 24-120/4.0 VR is every but as good as the 24-105, only...well....it's a better, newer lens. That's why it's higher. Because it covers more range and screw Ken Rockwell. I know that's where most of you people get your info. The reason the following lens from Nikon are MORE EXPENSIVE is because they are NEWER AND BETTER GLASS than Canon's equivalent:

Nikon 50/1.4g or 50/1.8g (VERY GOOD BTW)
85/1.8g (very good BTW)
28/1.8g (very good BTW)
24/1.4g (amazing BTW)
16-35/4.0vr (amazing BTW)

--Nikon will make a 70-200/4.0VR eventually, just like Canon will make a very good UWA eventually. I had the 17-40L, and while good....it was soft in the corners and had other issues. It's funny how no one mentions the very solid Nikon 28-300VR that sells for about $800-900 used. What does Canon's cost???

Be real and enjoy what you own. Don't let these childish squabbles get in the way of enjoying your camera.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: Albi86 on September 22, 2012, 03:36:00 AM
I'm a former 5d2 owner, and these comments/arguments crack me the hell up. I love this site, but there are TOO MANY FOLKS on here compared to NikonRumors. You know why? Canon loyalists are too frustrated fighting amongst themselves.

For the record, I own the D800 and have none of the left AF/greenish-LCD problems that are overblown. It's FAR from perfect, as well, and frankly I really miss the sheer simplicity of the 5d2. That said, Nikon's UWA lenses are far better and that was my reason for switching. I tried out the D600 at Best Buy today for a long, long time. It's a extremely good DSLR. I wish I'd waited on it and saved myself about $850. Is it 90% of 5d3? I don't even know what in the holy hell that means. It is PHENOMENAL for $2,099!!!! That, my friends, is a fact.

Now let's move on to lenses: We can say the new 24-70/2.8 II is $400-500 more expensive than Nikon's equivalent. But it's also a better lens. So people, to be honest we have to play fair. The 24-120/4.0 VR is every but as good as the 24-105, only...well....it's a better, newer lens. That's why it's higher. Because it covers more range and screw Ken Rockwell. I know that's where most of you people get your info. The reason the following lens from Nikon are MORE EXPENSIVE is because they are NEWER AND BETTER GLASS than Canon's equivalent:

Nikon 50/1.4g or 50/1.8g (VERY GOOD BTW)
85/1.8g (very good BTW)
28/1.8g (very good BTW)
24/1.4g (amazing BTW)
16-35/4.0vr (amazing BTW)

--Nikon will make a 70-200/4.0VR eventually, just like Canon will make a very good UWA eventually. I had the 17-40L, and while good....it was soft in the corners and had other issues. It's funny how no one mentions the very solid Nikon 28-300VR that sells for about $800-900 used. What does Canon's cost???

Be real and enjoy what you own. Don't let these childish squabbles get in the way of enjoying your camera.

+100

I meant that it offers 90% of 5D3's functionalities ;)

Anyway I totally agree with your analysis. Switching systems is nothing like the tragedy some people think it is. I think Canon has still the lead on telezooms, and if anyone shoots mostly in the +200mm range, then probably Canon is the best choice. Below that, and especially below 100mm, it's quite another story.

I think many legends concernig Nikon gear start from Canon guys who try them and perceive a different system as wrong and unfriendly, while in 99% of cases it's just different.

Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: ecka on September 22, 2012, 04:17:40 AM
I'm a former 5d2 owner, and these comments/arguments crack me the hell up. I love this site, but there are TOO MANY FOLKS on here compared to NikonRumors. You know why? Canon loyalists are too frustrated fighting amongst themselves.

For the record, I own the D800 and have none of the left AF/greenish-LCD problems that are overblown. It's FAR from perfect, as well, and frankly I really miss the sheer simplicity of the 5d2. That said, Nikon's UWA lenses are far better and that was my reason for switching. I tried out the D600 at Best Buy today for a long, long time. It's a extremely good DSLR. I wish I'd waited on it and saved myself about $850. Is it 90% of 5d3? I don't even know what in the holy hell that means. It is PHENOMENAL for $2,099!!!! That, my friends, is a fact.

Now let's move on to lenses: We can say the new 24-70/2.8 II is $400-500 more expensive than Nikon's equivalent. But it's also a better lens. So people, to be honest we have to play fair. The 24-120/4.0 VR is every but as good as the 24-105, only...well....it's a better, newer lens. That's why it's higher. Because it covers more range and screw Ken Rockwell. I know that's where most of you people get your info. The reason the following lens from Nikon are MORE EXPENSIVE is because they are NEWER AND BETTER GLASS than Canon's equivalent:

Nikon 50/1.4g or 50/1.8g (VERY GOOD BTW)
85/1.8g (very good BTW)
28/1.8g (very good BTW)
24/1.4g (amazing BTW)
16-35/4.0vr (amazing BTW)

--Nikon will make a 70-200/4.0VR eventually, just like Canon will make a very good UWA eventually. I had the 17-40L, and while good....it was soft in the corners and had other issues. It's funny how no one mentions the very solid Nikon 28-300VR that sells for about $800-900 used. What does Canon's cost???

Be real and enjoy what you own. Don't let these childish squabbles get in the way of enjoying your camera.

I thought that the purpose of the forum is to discuss, share opinions, ask, learn, advice, comment, argue, critique ... all in polite way of course ;). I know many people are not critical about their gear and they cannot give an objective advice for someone asking for it. "Buy whatever camera from whatever manufacturer and pay whatever they ask for their lenses, because they all are awesome" - doesn't help. "Want a FF camera with great UWA lens? - pick something with a Nikon 14-24/2.8G on it" - is much better. No need to tell everybody to shut up. :D
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: birdman on September 22, 2012, 03:14:34 PM
It was never my intention to tell people to "shut up". I enjoy honest, objective reviews as well. What swayed me towards Canon to begin with?? Well, their prime lens lineup that NIKON did NOT HAVE! Specifically, i bought the 35L and 5d2 ($4,000 investment) as my first FF offering. My first digital camera was a powershot S30 from 2002. In fact, it's the only digital camera I haven't sold. I love it, and even at 10 yrs old and with 3MP it puts out beautiful images!! These are all the DSLRs I've owned: 40d, Rebel XS, D70, D80, 7d, D700, 5d2, and currently D800. Whew! I always liked Canon's colors straight out of the camera; in fact, they still have best colors in the world IMHO.

I had the 28-135 IS from my 40d days. It was my first IS lens, and an excellent value as long as you use it under 100mm. I've had the 100/2.8 (non-L), 35L, 70-300IS (non-L), 17-40L, Tokina 12-24/4.0 (1st version and awesome glass!!), 35-70/3.5-4.5(great value!!), 28-105, 10-22mm, 18-55 IS (sleeper kit lens), and 50/1.8 Mk 1 (still own and haven't sold yet if anyone is interested PM me!). I feel qualified to state an opinion. I love both systems, and in an ideal world would still OWN BOTH SYSTEMS. I miss my 40D which I learned primarily with. I miss me 35L, and my 5d2 has given me some jaw-dropping images! Nikon has stepped up their prime lens selection as I've said. These are the FF lenses that Nikon has put out in the last 4 years: 28/1.8, 85/1.8, 35/1.4, 24/1.4, 85/1.4, 50/1.4, 50/1.8. Seven (7) very good - excellent prime lens offerings in the same amount of time Canon has really only introduced one: the excellent 40/2.8. Not a new 50mm. Not a new affordable 85mm. Not a new 28mm. I'll let them slide on an improved 35L because the current one is a DIAMOND!!!

When Nikon announced the 16-35VR, 24-120VR, 24/1.4, and 35/1.4 there were less reasons to stay with Canon. For my style, I use mostly landscape lenses and kept waiting on Canon to announce something newer, something better. I don't need 36MP, and frankly I may "downgrade" to the D600 and pocket the difference. But I'm eagerly awaiting my 16-35VR!! In the future, I'll probably pick up a used 7d and a 70-300L or 300/4.0 IS. Nobody needs to be so brand-loyal that they make compromises. I love both systems, and pick what is best for your style of shooting. If you like shorter primes or UWA, I seriously think Nikon is the better option. If you like telephoto zooms or telephoto primes (135L, 200/2.8L, 300/4.0) Canon rules the roost -- no questions asked.

If you want higher, cleaner ISO and faster buffer/frame rates, then Canon is better. If you shoot landscapes (me, me, me) and need cleaner, artifact-free images Nikon CURRENTLY is the better option. For portraits/wedding, either is as good as the other. I like the fact that Canon has so many more used lens options on Ebay. Happy shooting and sorry if i offended anyone.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: daniemare on September 24, 2012, 11:14:54 AM
All of these lens comparisons forgot one thing...

Nikon 14-24/2.8 $1749
Canon nothing.

Again, I do not see that lens as part of the argument when the OP started the discussion about value and the 6D.  This lens is for a D800 vs 5DIII argument
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: nightbreath on September 24, 2012, 02:43:40 PM
Personally I'm not going to switch, because camera became part of my workflow and I feel how the resulted image could look like a second before I press the shutter release button. And also I don't believe Nikon can deliver that portrait dreamy color I get from Canon lenses / bodies, however I'm tempted to try D800 RAW files to see the difference by myself.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: weekendshooter on September 24, 2012, 03:26:54 PM
I'm a former 5d2 owner, and these comments/arguments crack me the hell up. I love this site, but there are TOO MANY FOLKS on here compared to NikonRumors. You know why? Canon loyalists are too frustrated fighting amongst themselves.

For the record, I own the D800 and have none of the left AF/greenish-LCD problems that are overblown. It's FAR from perfect, as well, and frankly I really miss the sheer simplicity of the 5d2. That said, Nikon's UWA lenses are far better and that was my reason for switching. I tried out the D600 at Best Buy today for a long, long time. It's a extremely good DSLR. I wish I'd waited on it and saved myself about $850. Is it 90% of 5d3? I don't even know what in the holy hell that means. It is PHENOMENAL for $2,099!!!! That, my friends, is a fact.

Now let's move on to lenses: We can say the new 24-70/2.8 II is $400-500 more expensive than Nikon's equivalent. But it's also a better lens. So people, to be honest we have to play fair. The 24-120/4.0 VR is every but as good as the 24-105, only...well....it's a better, newer lens. That's why it's higher. Because it covers more range and screw Ken Rockwell. I know that's where most of you people get your info. The reason the following lens from Nikon are MORE EXPENSIVE is because they are NEWER AND BETTER GLASS than Canon's equivalent:

Nikon 50/1.4g or 50/1.8g (VERY GOOD BTW)
85/1.8g (very good BTW)
28/1.8g (very good BTW)
24/1.4g (amazing BTW)
16-35/4.0vr (amazing BTW)

--Nikon will make a 70-200/4.0VR eventually, just like Canon will make a very good UWA eventually. I had the 17-40L, and while good....it was soft in the corners and had other issues. It's funny how no one mentions the very solid Nikon 28-300VR that sells for about $800-900 used. What does Canon's cost???

Be real and enjoy what you own. Don't let these childish squabbles get in the way of enjoying your camera.


+100000 right here!

I went from a 450D to a D700 because of Nikon's fantastic midrange prime selection. I currently have a 50/1.4G and 85/1.8G and they're both tremendous lenses. Canon's competitors in this area are outdated and, while cheaper, are not serious lenses for someone investing in full frame. With Nikon I can have a full range of modern, fantastic primes that perform well above their price for the cost of one L lens, and that was worth switching for me.

That said, it doesn't really matter what you shoot! DR this, handling that, blah blah blah. Both sides have things that the other doesn't, and both make cameras whose capabilities vastly outmatch the photography chops of the average forum poster.

For me, the areas in which Nikon excels (normal primes, UWA) are more interesting than Canon's specialties, and I found the D700 to be sufficiently better/more robust than a 5D2 for my money when I was comparing brands. Having handled a D600 this weekend, I'm very glad I jumped on a new D700 at $2200, as the D600 feels VERY plasticky. It would be great for someone coming from a Rebel-type camera, but I can't imagine holding a camera like that again after putting almost 15k shots on my tank-like D700 in these past 6 months.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: RLPhoto on September 24, 2012, 04:41:17 PM
I'm a former 5d2 owner, and these comments/arguments crack me the hell up. I love this site, but there are TOO MANY FOLKS on here compared to NikonRumors. You know why? Canon loyalists are too frustrated fighting amongst themselves.

For the record, I own the D800 and have none of the left AF/greenish-LCD problems that are overblown. It's FAR from perfect, as well, and frankly I really miss the sheer simplicity of the 5d2. That said, Nikon's UWA lenses are far better and that was my reason for switching. I tried out the D600 at Best Buy today for a long, long time. It's a extremely good DSLR. I wish I'd waited on it and saved myself about $850. Is it 90% of 5d3? I don't even know what in the holy hell that means. It is PHENOMENAL for $2,099!!!! That, my friends, is a fact.

Now let's move on to lenses: We can say the new 24-70/2.8 II is $400-500 more expensive than Nikon's equivalent. But it's also a better lens. So people, to be honest we have to play fair. The 24-120/4.0 VR is every but as good as the 24-105, only...well....it's a better, newer lens. That's why it's higher. Because it covers more range and screw Ken Rockwell. I know that's where most of you people get your info. The reason the following lens from Nikon are MORE EXPENSIVE is because they are NEWER AND BETTER GLASS than Canon's equivalent:

Nikon 50/1.4g or 50/1.8g (VERY GOOD BTW)
85/1.8g (very good BTW)
28/1.8g (very good BTW)
24/1.4g (amazing BTW)
16-35/4.0vr (amazing BTW)

--Nikon will make a 70-200/4.0VR eventually, just like Canon will make a very good UWA eventually. I had the 17-40L, and while good....it was soft in the corners and had other issues. It's funny how no one mentions the very solid Nikon 28-300VR that sells for about $800-900 used. What does Canon's cost???

Be real and enjoy what you own. Don't let these childish squabbles get in the way of enjoying your camera.


+100000 right here!

I went from a 450D to a D700 because of Nikon's fantastic midrange prime selection. I currently have a 50/1.4G and 85/1.8G and they're both tremendous lenses. Canon's competitors in this area are outdated and, while cheaper, are not serious lenses for someone investing in full frame. With Nikon I can have a full range of modern, fantastic primes that perform well above their price for the cost of one L lens, and that was worth switching for me.

That said, it doesn't really matter what you shoot! DR this, handling that, blah blah blah. Both sides have things that the other doesn't, and both make cameras whose capabilities vastly outmatch the photography chops of the average forum poster.

For me, the areas in which Nikon excels (normal primes, UWA) are more interesting than Canon's specialties, and I found the D700 to be sufficiently better/more robust than a 5D2 for my money when I was comparing brands. Having handled a D600 this weekend, I'm very glad I jumped on a new D700 at $2200, as the D600 feels VERY plasticky. It would be great for someone coming from a Rebel-type camera, but I can't imagine holding a camera like that again after putting almost 15k shots on my tank-like D700 in these past 6 months.

Lol @ nikons prime selection. Its has nothing on canon, And that's the reason Im still here. 8)
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: friedmud on September 24, 2012, 04:49:50 PM
I just ordered up a D600 and 24-70 from LensRentals.  It will be here in Thursday and I'm going to have it into next week.

If I like it... I'm switching.  I already have Canon friends of mine lined up to gobble up my gear.

This is a personal decision.  I'm not mad at Canon... I just feel like Nikon is providing more for my particular segment of photography: Advanced Hobbyist Landscaper.  It's a fairly narrow niche of people that want to spend a medium amount of money and get really great DR and low ISO performance at wide angles.

Canon's wide angle offerings are one of the things driving me away (not just the bodies / sensors)... I bought a 16-35 and tried two copies before I gave up.  The 17-40 is even worse (while being much more cost effective).  Nikon's 14-24 is (by all accounts) _amazing_.  Their 24-70 is really good (although probably not as good as the Canon 24-70 II).

Couple this with the excellent DR and great low ISO of Nikon's sensors... and it is pretty easy to start to think about switching.

I definitely have reservations... and I'm definitely losing quite a bit to make the move (going down from 4 main lenses to _1_ for a while) but projecting out for the next few years it looks like Nikon is putting more effort into my particular area....
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: weekendshooter on September 24, 2012, 05:23:27 PM
Lol @ nikons prime selection. Its has nothing on canon, And that's the reason Im still here. 8)

nobody is talking about L primes here, or 1.4G lenses for that matter. When Canon refreshes their entire lineup of sub-$1k primes then I'll look at them again, but until then I'm quite happy with the results I'm getting from Nikon's new G primes. Being able to have a 28/1.8, 50/1.4, and 85/1.8 for the price of one L prime is perfect for me as a hobbyist who dislikes zooms.

If I made money from my work, I'm sure I would think like you, but not everyone is in a position to spend $1500-2000 per prime. Until I strike it rich, I'd rather have a few very very good lenses than one superlative one.

As it stands, Nikon's lens lineup is better suited to the "entry-level" full frame hobbyist, which is what I am and what a lot of my fellow posters are, as well. More power to you for being able to afford your L glass, though! Maybe in another lifetime for me.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: RLPhoto on September 24, 2012, 06:41:36 PM
Lol @ nikons prime selection. Its has nothing on canon, And that's the reason Im still here. 8)

nobody is talking about L primes here, or 1.4G lenses for that matter. When Canon refreshes their entire lineup of sub-$1k primes then I'll look at them again, but until then I'm quite happy with the results I'm getting from Nikon's new G primes. Being able to have a 28/1.8, 50/1.4, and 85/1.8 for the price of one L prime is perfect for me as a hobbyist who dislikes zooms.

If I made money from my work, I'm sure I would think like you, but not everyone is in a position to spend $1500-2000 per prime. Until I strike it rich, I'd rather have a few very very good lenses than one superlative one.

As it stands, Nikon's lens lineup is better suited to the "entry-level" full frame hobbyist, which is what I am and what a lot of my fellow posters are, as well. More power to you for being able to afford your L glass, though! Maybe in another lifetime for me.

Thats funny you mentioned entry level FF users, as i can get a 28 1.8, 50mm 1.4, 100 f/2 & a 5Dc for close to the price you'll be paying for just the D600. ::)
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: MarioMachado on September 24, 2012, 06:46:29 PM
to live a life with no regrets stay with canon... otherwise you will regret the change to nikon...
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: Dylan777 on September 24, 2012, 06:46:43 PM
I also thought about getting the 6D but I thought if im already gonna pay that much for a body probably I will just save more money and get a 5D mk3. It will be the body with all the features I can wish for and i will use it so many years. The 6D lacks some options...

+1
I stay with Canon also because of lenses.  However, I will either buy 5D2 and save money for lenses or go with 5D3.  If I had limit budget and not invested in L lens yet, I would just switch to Nikon D600 and buy 24-120mm.  I don't see the point to buy 6D.  For me choosing 6D based on 24-105mm and 70-200 F/4 is not a very logical idea.

+1....I wouldn't buy camera gear just because of price factor. How many time do you hear people says 70-200 f.4 is a GREAT lens(lighter & cheaper) but then switch back to f2.8 IS?
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: weekendshooter on September 24, 2012, 07:12:22 PM
Thats funny you mentioned entry level FF users, as i can get a 28 1.8, 50mm 1.4, 100 f/2 & a 5Dc for close to the price you'll be paying for just the D600. ::)

Nice try comparing an ancient, used camera to a brand new one.

You could also get a used d700 and get 51-point, highly capable AF and a bulletproof body for around $1500 nowadays... The 5Dc is a venerable camera for sure and produces stunning files in the right conditions but it's definitely not enough to be a versatile camera in this day and age. Some of us like using points other than the center, etc. Even the D600, despite being too plastic for my tastes, has that sexy sony sensor goodness everyone around here is going gaga over.

Also the canon 28/1.8 is not very good, the 50/1.4 is very fragile (AF motor issues, anyone?) and loses lots of contrast at/near wide open, and the 100/2 is ancient (straight aperture blades, busy bokeh, etc).

If you want to compare to those lenses, then look at Nikon's AF-D line, which is still widely available new for the same or lower prices than the canon equivalents you mentioned. The D lenses were made around the same time as Canon's current midrange primes and are very similar; it's just that Canon has not updated theirs yet and Nikon has since replaced many of them with new G lenses, which is my entire point as to why Nikon's lineup is great for me.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: simonxu11 on September 24, 2012, 07:39:52 PM

Thats funny you mentioned entry level FF users, as i can get a 28 1.8, 50mm 1.4, 100 f/2 & a 5Dc for close to the price you'll be paying for just the D600. ::)
28/1.8 ~17 years old, 50/1.4~19 years old, 100/2~21 years old
compare to
28/1.8G~5 months old, 50/1.4G~4 years old, 85/1.8G~8 months old
No, thanks~

7 year old 5D compare to D600??
No thanks~
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: Tammy on September 24, 2012, 07:55:48 PM
The grass is NOT greener on the other side.
It may look like it from a distance, but when you get there, you can often find it is only painted on.

Friends of mine with D800's complain bitterly about their greenish coloured screens, the poor auto focussing, especially when you pick a point on ther left side as well as other problems.
I have a 5D3 (as well as a 60D with around 150,000 shutter actuations), and I've never had a problem with them at all. In fact, I am still amazed at what a great all-around camera the 5D3 is.
It really isn't lacking anything.

While the spec sheets and DXO tests may say otherwise, in side to side testing, you'd be very hard pressed to see any differences between the D800 and 5D3.
I shoot everthing from weddings, to parties, carpets, products,interiors, portraits, landscapes - you name it, and the 5D3 always does a great job.
I initially went with the Canon system, because of the their lenses and their lower costs compared to Nikons.
The quality is maybe slightly better with Canon, but as most of us spend more on lenses than we do on bodies, the variety, quality and cost of the lenses is what really swayed me to go Canon, and why I stay with Canon.

This thing of D7000 and D800 having a poor AF is a legend. It's just less noob-friendly or noob-proof than most Canon models, but they work great.

No one says the 5D3 is not a capable camera, but the D600 looks pretty much like 90% of it for 60% of the price. If you shoot low-iso you even have some serious advantage.


If you are unaware you should not spread ignorance. There are autofocuses issues (reported by Nikon users) with the Nikon D7000, D800 and D4. Google D800 autofocus issues or search on youtube. There IS a definite and undeniable problem and it is not a few random isolated owners. There are numerous threads on nikon or photography forums. There are countless D800 owners whose D800's have been sent to the nearest Nikon service center for the issue, some multiple times, with many coming back the same as if they were never touched or in worse condition. Imagine you pay $3,000 for a camera or any piece of equipment and it malfunctions in a way that honestly hinders the purpose you bought it for. You would be more than quite a bit upset about the matter.

Here is a well respected Nikon photographer who documents in detail his supposedly fictionary account of his problems with his D800. Photos of what his camera was taking etc. What is even sadder is he sent his camera to Nikon services, they "fixed" it and it came back with the left autofocus points being somewhat accurate but having zero accuracy in the center and right!

In the second link, he does research on the matter and he is finding that approximately HALF the Nikon D800 bodies he has been inspecting etc may be afflicted with AF issues.

http://mansurovs.com/anatomy-of-a-nikon-d800-fix (http://mansurovs.com/anatomy-of-a-nikon-d800-fix)

http://mansurovs.com/nikon-d800-asymmetric-focus-issue (http://mansurovs.com/nikon-d800-asymmetric-focus-issue)

I go to photography school and one of my best friends happens to shoot with a D7000. He is currently affected by the legend-ary D7000 autofocus issues. He is not a noob who should be blamed for obvious user error. His camera misfocuses and misfocuses quite frequently. He mainly shoots portraits, for a living as his occupation, and when he intends to lock focus on the closest eye and achieves focus confirmation, his shots may come out inches out of focus. He does not find this funny one bit. This is already after he has applied AFMA etc. He sent his camera to Nikon services, where they inspected it, claimed they fixed it, and returned it to him. He says it is ever so slightly better but he currently descirbes his beloved camera as one equipped with 39 autofocus points that help him capture 16 megapixels of blurriness! He laughs about the matter, only because right now there's not much else he can do. He will be sending his camera back to Nikon in hopes that maybe they will fix it, if they can, before his warranty expires. He now has a vastly greater appreciation for the basic things like autofocus. A camera that autofocuses properly is a priority in the next camera he purchases. We all don't fully appreciate things until we don't have them anymore.

On another note, I also have another friend who shoots with a D7000 who reports inconsistent focus issues.

So, please, do not spread false information. It misleads others into disbelieving those who are experiencing the reported problems, as if they were liars.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: RLPhoto on September 24, 2012, 08:09:04 PM
Thats funny you mentioned entry level FF users, as i can get a 28 1.8, 50mm 1.4, 100 f/2 & a 5Dc for close to the price you'll be paying for just the D600. ::)

Nice try comparing an ancient, used camera to a brand new one.

You could also get a used d700 and get 51-point, highly capable AF and a bulletproof body for around $1500 nowadays... The 5Dc is a venerable camera for sure and produces stunning files in the right conditions but it's definitely not enough to be a versatile camera in this day and age. Some of us like using points other than the center, etc. Even the D600, despite being too plastic for my tastes, has that sexy sony sensor goodness everyone around here is going gaga over.

Also the canon 28/1.8 is not very good, the 50/1.4 is very fragile (AF motor issues, anyone?) and loses lots of contrast at/near wide open, and the 100/2 is ancient (straight aperture blades, busy bokeh, etc).

If you want to compare to those lenses, then look at Nikon's AF-D line, which is still widely available new for the same or lower prices than the canon equivalents you mentioned. The D lenses were made around the same time as Canon's current midrange primes and are very similar; it's just that Canon has not updated theirs yet and Nikon has since replaced many of them with new G lenses, which is my entire point as to why Nikon's lineup is great for me.

I would just lol at your d600 body and no lenses while i Cruse about with a solid body and a set of solid primes that I've used firsthand. It's funny because it took Nikon 20 years to Finally put out decent primes.

Don't be so naive in believing bodies are more important that a set of good lenses.  ::)
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: weekendshooter on September 24, 2012, 08:37:24 PM
I would just lol at your d600 body and no lenses while i Cruse about with a solid body and a set of solid primes that I've used firsthand. It's funny because it took Nikon 20 years to Finally put out decent primes.

Don't be so naive in believing bodies are more important that a set of good lenses.  ::)

What?? Jesus, it's like you're reading something else entirely and just responding with whatever springs to mind. When did I say I wanted to pick a body and no lenses? The only time I've heard of people shooting with their lens caps on was on this very forum during the 5D3 light leak debacle. The ENTIRE point that I'm trying to get across is that Nikon has a fantastic range of well-priced NEW primes that put great results within reach of someone who isn't willing to spend $2k per lens, unlike Canon's decrepit offerings in this segment. Thanks for the entertainment though; it was nice to hear that you can't come up with a single relevant point in your favor  ::)

If anyone else would like to put this train back on its tracks and have a civil discussion, I'd love to offer a perspective from the "dark side"  :)
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: RLPhoto on September 24, 2012, 09:10:03 PM
I would just lol at your d600 body and no lenses while i Cruse about with a solid body and a set of solid primes that I've used firsthand. It's funny because it took Nikon 20 years to Finally put out decent primes.

Don't be so naive in believing bodies are more important that a set of good lenses.  ::)

What?? Jesus, it's like you're reading something else entirely and just responding with whatever springs to mind. When did I say I wanted to pick a body and no lenses? The only time I've heard of people shooting with their lens caps on was on this very forum during the 5D3 light leak debacle. The ENTIRE point that I'm trying to get across is that Nikon has a fantastic range of well-priced NEW primes that put great results within reach of someone who isn't willing to spend $2k per lens, unlike Canon's decrepit offerings in this segment. Thanks for the entertainment though; it was nice to hear that you can't come up with a single relevant point in your favor  ::)

If anyone else would like to put this train back on its tracks and have a civil discussion, I'd love to offer a perspective from the "dark side"  :)

Entry level FF nikon options only include d600 & 700. Which both are around 1500-2000$. With that same cash i could buy an entire canon FF kit for that price. I mean afterall, it wasnt me who mentioned entry level FF value.  ::)

Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: simonxu11 on September 24, 2012, 09:43:09 PM
It's funny because it took Nikon 20 years to Finally put out decent primes.
What a fanboi~~
LOL(http://forum.xitek.com/static/image/smiley/xitek/roll.gif)(http://forum.xitek.com/static/image/smiley/xitek/roll.gif)(http://forum.xitek.com/static/image/smiley/xitek/roll.gif)
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: RLPhoto on September 25, 2012, 09:58:09 AM
It's funny because it took Nikon 20 years to Finally put out decent primes.
What a fanboi~~
LOL(http://forum.xitek.com/static/image/smiley/xitek/roll.gif)(http://forum.xitek.com/static/image/smiley/xitek/roll.gif)(http://forum.xitek.com/static/image/smiley/xitek/roll.gif)

Thats a pity as I assumed that you would have the mental capacity to do the research by youself but since that is beyond your grasp, I stand behind my statement.

The Nikon 28 1.8G, 50mm 1.4G, and 85mm 1.8G are good lenses, But they are 20 years late to the party.
While IQ is important, its not as important as getting the shot in the first place. Canon has had these very useful features while nikon was still fiddling with screws in there bodies.

1. Full Time manual Over-ride - Also Not having to fiddle with AF-MF switch and leave my hands clear of the focus wheel.
2. Silent & Fast USM Focusing
3. Complete compatability with all EOS bodies, Even Rebels AF with all lenses. Not just the ones with screws. ::)
4. Pricing

Canon 28mm 1.8 - released with all these features in 1995 - Nikons 1.8G was released in 2012
Canon 50mm 1.4 - released with all these features in 1993 - Nikons 1.4G was released in 2008
Canon 85mm 1.8 - released with all these features in 1992 - Nikons 1.8G was released in 2012
Canon 100mm F/2 - Released with all these features in 1992 - Nikon has not matched.

Nikon didn't have a fast 28mm period in the budget range until now and its only marginally better than the canon.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=253&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=802&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=253&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=802&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0)

Nikon's 50mm 1.4G barely surpasses the canon 1.4 in IQ, and that lens is from the 90's.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=636&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=636&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0)

Nikons 85mm 1.8G is the same story, Infact it has more CA's than the old canon.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=106&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=791&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=106&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=791&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0)

Canon's 100mm F/2 is still better than any nikon budget tele-prime.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=118&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=791&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=118&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=791&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0)

If you look at the nikon AF-D series which competed against canons prime's up until the recent nikon primes, they're just horrid little lenses.

As for fanboyism, I'm anything but that. I agreed that Nikon's current bodies are better but they're prime lens selection isn't even fully caught up to canon yet. I even held a poll showing that alot of users agree with this.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9212.msg165848#msg165848 (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9212.msg165848#msg165848)

If nikon has better primes, I wouldn't be shooting canon.  ::)


Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: simonxu11 on September 25, 2012, 11:11:02 AM
It's funny because it took Nikon 20 years to Finally put out decent primes.
What a fanboi~~
LOL(http://forum.xitek.com/static/image/smiley/xitek/roll.gif)(http://forum.xitek.com/static/image/smiley/xitek/roll.gif)(http://forum.xitek.com/static/image/smiley/xitek/roll.gif)

Thats a pity as I assumed that you would have the mental capacity to do the research by youself but since that is beyond your grasp, I stand behind my statement.

The Nikon 28 1.8G, 50mm 1.4G, and 85mm 1.8G are good lenses, But they are 20 years late to the party.
While IQ is important, its not as important as getting the shot in the first place. Canon has had these very useful features while nikon was still fiddling with screws in there bodies.

1. Full Time manual Over-ride - Also Not having to fiddle with AF-MF switch and leave my hands clear of the focus wheel.
2. Silent & Fast USM Focusing
3. Complete compatability with all EOS bodies, Even Rebels AF with all lenses. Not just the ones with screws. ::)
4. Pricing

Canon 28mm 1.8 - released with all these features in 1995 - Nikons 1.8G was released in 2012
Canon 50mm 1.4 - released with all these features in 1993 - Nikons 1.4G was released in 2008
Canon 85mm 1.8 - released with all these features in 1992 - Nikons 1.8G was released in 2012
Canon 100mm F/2 - Released with all these features in 1992 - Nikon has not matched.

Nikon didn't have a fast 28mm period in the budget range until now and its only marginally better than the canon.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=253&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=802&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=253&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=802&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0)

Nikon's 50mm 1.4G barely surpasses the canon 1.4 in IQ, and that lens is from the 90's.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=636&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=636&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0)

Nikons 85mm 1.8G is the same story, Infact it has more CA's than the old canon.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=106&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=791&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=106&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=791&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0)

Canon's 100mm F/2 is still better than any nikon budget tele-prime.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=118&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=791&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=118&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=791&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0)

If you look at the nikon AF-D series which competed against canons prime's up until the recent nikon primes, they're just horrid little lenses.

As for fanboyism, I'm anything but that. I agreed that Nikon's current bodies are better but they're prime lens selection isn't even fully caught up to canon yet. I even held a poll showing that alot of users agree with this.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9212.msg165848#msg165848 (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9212.msg165848#msg165848)

If nikon has better primes, I wouldn't be shooting canon.  ::)
Whatever~fanboi always win(http://forum.xitek.com/static/image/smiley/xitek/zhuoji.gif)(http://forum.xitek.com/static/image/smiley/xitek/hahaha.gif)
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: bdunbar79 on September 25, 2012, 11:13:26 AM
Nikon may have better bodies overall, except the 1DX, which whips the crap out of any DSLR right now.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: RLPhoto on September 25, 2012, 11:26:06 AM
It's funny because it took Nikon 20 years to Finally put out decent primes.
What a fanboi~~
LOL(http://forum.xitek.com/static/image/smiley/xitek/roll.gif)(http://forum.xitek.com/static/image/smiley/xitek/roll.gif)(http://forum.xitek.com/static/image/smiley/xitek/roll.gif)

Thats a pity as I assumed that you would have the mental capacity to do the research by youself but since that is beyond your grasp, I stand behind my statement.

The Nikon 28 1.8G, 50mm 1.4G, and 85mm 1.8G are good lenses, But they are 20 years late to the party.
While IQ is important, its not as important as getting the shot in the first place. Canon has had these very useful features while nikon was still fiddling with screws in there bodies.

1. Full Time manual Over-ride - Also Not having to fiddle with AF-MF switch and leave my hands clear of the focus wheel.
2. Silent & Fast USM Focusing
3. Complete compatability with all EOS bodies, Even Rebels AF with all lenses. Not just the ones with screws. ::)
4. Pricing

Canon 28mm 1.8 - released with all these features in 1995 - Nikons 1.8G was released in 2012
Canon 50mm 1.4 - released with all these features in 1993 - Nikons 1.4G was released in 2008
Canon 85mm 1.8 - released with all these features in 1992 - Nikons 1.8G was released in 2012
Canon 100mm F/2 - Released with all these features in 1992 - Nikon has not matched.

Nikon didn't have a fast 28mm period in the budget range until now and its only marginally better than the canon.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=253&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=802&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=253&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=802&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0)

Nikon's 50mm 1.4G barely surpasses the canon 1.4 in IQ, and that lens is from the 90's.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=636&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=636&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0)

Nikons 85mm 1.8G is the same story, Infact it has more CA's than the old canon.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=106&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=791&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=106&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=791&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0)

Canon's 100mm F/2 is still better than any nikon budget tele-prime.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=118&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=791&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=118&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=791&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0)

If you look at the nikon AF-D series which competed against canons prime's up until the recent nikon primes, they're just horrid little lenses.

As for fanboyism, I'm anything but that. I agreed that Nikon's current bodies are better but they're prime lens selection isn't even fully caught up to canon yet. I even held a poll showing that alot of users agree with this.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9212.msg165848#msg165848 (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9212.msg165848#msg165848)

If nikon has better primes, I wouldn't be shooting canon.  ::)
Whatever~fanboi always win(http://forum.xitek.com/static/image/smiley/xitek/zhuoji.gif)(http://forum.xitek.com/static/image/smiley/xitek/hahaha.gif)

Haterz Gonna Hate.  ::)
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: AmbientLight on September 25, 2012, 02:31:09 PM
Ramon, in my humble opinion you are quite correct, but this appears to be a pretty one-sided conversation.

Is it just me or is someone in this forum only to spread funny looking emoticons?
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: simonxu11 on September 25, 2012, 02:51:11 PM
Nikon's cheaper primes are not better because they are too late to the party? So this party has closed? Any new comer will always be considered not as good as canon because they are too late? That's why canon don't update these primes because their loyal followers still think they are the best even one of them has some QC issues for a long time.

I also chose canon in your poll because their long white L lenses. We are talking about cheap prime lenses for budget users here, so your poll results is meaningless.

BTW, please don't post your self portrait ;D
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: CatfishSoupFTW on September 25, 2012, 03:36:18 PM
imo, both companies make great stuff and I dont think you would be disappointed with either. for me, I just happened to pick up canon first.
Title: Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
Post by: RLPhoto on September 25, 2012, 03:52:10 PM
Nikon's cheaper primes are not better because they are too late to the party? So this party has closed? Any new comer will always be considered not as good as canon because they are too late? That's why canon don't update these primes because their loyal followers still think they are the best even one of them has some QC issues for a long time.

I also chose canon in your poll because their long white L lenses. We are talking about cheap prime lenses for budget users here, so your poll results is meaningless.

BTW, please don't post your self portrait ;D