Considering switching to Nikon

[friedmud]

Why woudl you want to do that NOW?

Canon's 24-70 II and 70-200 II L DESTROYED Nikon's counterparts, at least based on 5 professional reviews.
5d3 beats D800 and 1DX beats D4, based on 3 professional reviews!

All depends on what you're doing.  If you're mainly doing landscapes then the above is definitely not true.  The Low ISO performance of the D600 and D800 are superior...

Then you have to take into account price.  A D600 and Nikon 24-70 is significantly cheaper than a 5DMkIII and 24-70 II (about $2000 from reputable dealers).  If this is just a hobby... that can be significant.

For instance... there was my situation.  I had a 7D and a 70-200 f/4L IS.  I also had a bunch of smaller gear and older gear (XSi, old plastic lenses) and a broken 17-55 f/2.8.  Let's analyze.

If I were going to move up to a 5DMkIII I would be selling my 7D.  That ended up netting me $1200.  The rest of my gear wouldn't give me that much cash (maybe ~$800).  So now I have $2k to spend.

If I go get a 5DMkIII body from Amazon (not that I would get it there, just convenient to talk about) it costs me $3,200... so I'm out of pocket $1,200.  That's ok, because I've been saving for a camera upgrade and have some cash.  But now what?  Oh, I need to get a 24-70 II as well (it's my preferred range and a damn fine lens).  So now I'm out of pocket another $2100... for a total out of pocket cost of $3200.

The nice thing about this is that I still get to use my 70-200 f/4.  The downside is that I'm out of pocket $3200.... which would make my wife fairly unhappy...

Now let's look at switching.  I would have the $2k I had before... plus I could sell my 70-200 f/4 (which I got $1000 for) so now I have $3000.  A D600 and 24-70 together cost $4000... so I'm out of pocket $1000.

This has the very real drawback of not having my 70-200 f/4 afterward... but I don't need it right away (again, mainly landscapes and travel photogging).  I can save up for it and snag it later (Nikon just came out with one for $1400)

So for $1000 out of pocket I have a D600 which is awesome for landscape photography and a really great 24-70 (can't say it's better or worse than a 24-70 II myself... but it is really good either way).  That is much easier for my wife to deal with... and I'm getting excellent IQ (orders of magnitude better than the 7D... but that's expected.  Can't say how much better than a 5DMkIII).

Yes, I could have gone for a 5DMkII... but I would have sorely missed having good AF (I don't _only_ shoot landscapes!) and still wouldn't have the low ISO DR and IQ that the D600 does.  Nor would I have access to the excellent Nikon 14-24 (Canon ultra-wides are really not great - I bought a 16-35 this year... and went through two copies before returning it all together because of lack of resolution at the edges... even on my 7D!)

Personally, if Canon would have come out with a serviceable 6D I would have stayed.  But there were just too many features missing for the price (might still be a fine camera, but I feel like I got more for my money from a D600).

Basically, this whole thing is just trying to let some of you see that there are reasons to switch.  The world is not black & white.  There are many people in all sorts of different situations and with different needs and in different financial circumstances.  It's not as easy as "X reviews better than Y!"... there are more variables...

[jocau]

Why woudl you want to do that NOW?

Canon's 24-70 II and 70-200 II L DESTROYED Nikon's counterparts, at least based on 5 professional reviews.
5d3 beats D800 and 1DX beats D4, based on 3 professional reviews!

Not a good idea now.  Maybe next year.

Finally, even Nikon fascist Ken Rockwell has finally swtiched to Canon after 28 years of using it!

Easy answer in fact.

1) Better sensor (Sony EXMOR)
2) Better metering system
3) Better flash exposure

Out of those 3 points only point 1 really bothers me. As for Nikon: I don't love the company, nor do I hate it. I don't feel a connection with the brand, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't buy one. I appreciate their cameras and what they are achieving with them. As for Canon, I do feel a "connection" since I've had a lot of Canon devices in the past. As for their DSLR's... I like the looks, the ergonomics, the glass, but I don't like their sensors because they are lagging behind the competition by a big margin. I hope they will be back one day to crush the competition but I have my doubts right now. If they keep lagging behind a switch to e.g. Nikon might be inevitable...

[AmbientLight]

You are mistaken if you think that Canon's lagging behind Sony in sensor technology by a wide margin. Those sensors do show differences and that's fine, because we are seeing some competition here.

Sony is certainly ahead in some areas, but it is unlikely to stay like that. The best we can hope for is a development where Canon and Sony get the upper hand at some times, so that the current competitive situation will continue for a long time.

Of course I expect you have not used a 1D-X. On that level Canon simply delivers more except for some extra DR, but if you look at the overall comparison it is possible to live with that (at least I can). Overall according to many reviews the Canon product is better at this level.

Nikon simply has a niche to own with the D800, but that's it. At times Canon had its own niches (such as with the 5D Mark II), but you shouldn't just assume that a competitor is significantly behind the other, just because of such sweet spots.

Just as Nikon delivered D3 and D3s during the time of Canon's 5D Mark II successes, the situation is now in part reversed.

[jocau]

I call having more than 2 stops extra DR at low ISO values a big difference.

[acafinecon]

depends.  most websites show that the 1dx has higher dr than d4, except dxo!
flash exposure is about the same now (see ken rockwell).

[AlSand]

Hi, have been reading these forums for a while.
After reading topics like this, i cant give in to the thought that my 5D mark II is overclassed by the D800.
Today i was in the opportunity to take some comparison shots in and outside of a store.
I had my zeiss 21, the nikon the 14-24; both respected lenses.
The nikon salesman asked for 400 iso, so we shot at moderate iso.
I didn't expect it, but no way the d800 showed better DR.
Sharpness is better on the zeiss/canon combo. Resolution of course the d800.
I learned my lesson today, i'll stick with my 5D for the next couple of years...

[kraats]

Are you depressed? Go shoot some pica and stop crying.

[friedmud]

Hi, have been reading these forums for a while.
After reading topics like this, i cant give in to the thought that my 5D mark II is overclassed by the D800.
Today i was in the opportunity to take some comparison shots in and outside of a store.
I had my zeiss 21, the nikon the 14-24; both respected lenses.
The nikon salesman asked for 400 iso, so we shot at moderate iso.
I didn't expect it, but no way the d800 showed better DR.
Sharpness is better on the zeiss/canon combo. Resolution of course the d800.
I learned my lesson today, i'll stick with my 5D for the next couple of years...

Ummm - I don't really understand.... why were you shooting wide angles outside at ISO 400?  I hate to say it, but you missed an opportunity by not going down to ISO 100... that's where the Nikon's shine.

If you look at the tests the current Canon sensors basically "top out" at ISO 400... not offering anything extra going down toward 100... but the Nikon's keep adding DR and dropping noise.

Also this doesn't make sense: "Sharpness is better on the zeiss/canon combo. Resolution of course the d800."

What is sharpness to you if not resolution?  How can the D800 have better resolution but worse sharpness?  Is it because you're comparing 100% at their native resolutions or are you comparing how "sharp" jpegs are?  You should downsample the D800 shots to the same resolution as your 5D and do that comparison again.

Not trying to be argumentative here... I just thought your test scenario and outcomes were a bit odd.

[tnargs]

...Basically, this whole thing is just trying to let some of you see that there are reasons to switch.  The world is not black & white.  There are many people in all sorts of different situations and with different needs and in different financial circumstances.  It's not as easy as "X reviews better than Y!"... there are more variables...

So..........
There are reasons to switch and reasons to stay,
So make a choice and go away.

tadaaaaaa!

Seriously, guys.

[friedmud]

So..........
There are reasons to switch and reasons to stay,
So make a choice and go away.

tadaaaaaa!

Seriously, guys.

Well we have talk about _something_ instead of actually shooting photographs ;-)

But seriously... when I was thinking of switching these types of threads were extremely valuable... they let you see all the different lines of thinking that can be taken into consideration when making this type of decision.  For many of us multi-thousand dollar decisions with no RoI other than great photos are difficult, prolonged decisions with many variables to factor in....

[verysimplejason]

...Basically, this whole thing is just trying to let some of you see that there are reasons to switch.  The world is not black & white.  There are many people in all sorts of different situations and with different needs and in different financial circumstances.  It's not as easy as "X reviews better than Y!"... there are more variables...

So..........
There are reasons to switch and reasons to stay,
So make a choice and go away.

tadaaaaaa!

Seriously, guys.

Actually it's good to have somebody who can look at the other side of things.  Perspectives like these should always be welcome.  Being knowledgeable isn't bad and competition is also good.  End users like us will always benefit from competition.  I like Canon primarily their lenses and ergonomics and I'm hoping to have a better camera body in the future. 

[johnf3f]

Hi folks - new to this forum - but not photography or Forums. 85 replies and no answer from the OP - does he live under a bridge? (see troll stories).
If the current Nikon cameras are so good then why does Andy Rouse beg or borrow 1 DX's and 5D3's as well as Canon lenses when he has a D4 and D800 + plus a pile of Nikkor glass in his house?
If you can't take good shots with your chosen brand the it's you not the kit.
I must be sad as I actually researched this thread!

[marekjoz]

Hi folks - new to this forum - but not photography or Forums. 85 replies and no answer from the OP - does he live under a bridge? (see troll stories).
(...)

Maybe he finally switched?

[johnf3f]

Hi folks - new to this forum - but not photography or Forums. 85 replies and no answer from the OP - does he live under a bridge? (see troll stories).
(...)

Maybe he finally switched?

Maybe so.

[RGF]

I would like to have a serious discussion.  I am not going switch in haste, I am justing thinking about this issues.  So please, no flames, etc.  Well thought out comments are welcomed.

Comparing Nikon and Canon bodies here are my thoughts

5D M3 no match
D800 no match, when/if Canon comes out with a high MP body, it is likely to be expensive.

Canon 1.3 crop in a 1 series body is great, Nikon's FX/DX lacks this feature.  The 1.3 crop makes my 500 a bit longer

Not sure how I would compare the 1D X versus D4 (correct body?), but not terribly important since the 1D X is out of my price range.

Canon vs Nikon lenses

Nikon wins in wide angle.
Canon and NIkon both have great mid range lenses (24-70, 70-200).  Canon's 24-105 is probably better than Nikons 24-120.

On the long end, similar quality though with the new super telephotos Canon may have an edge in optical quality and definitely on weight.  But at what cost?

Nikon has 200-400, Canon has an interested lens in development, not out yet, costs $3000 (?) than Nikon's.

Speciality lenses - Tilt shift I think Canon wins at least for wide angles.  Macro - both are great.

Conclusions

Canon - more expensive, lighter weight Super telephotos, weak in the wide angles expect for Tilt Shift
Nikon - less expense, stronger in wide angles,

Anything else?

Thanks for everyone for their serious thoughts.

Since my passion is wildlife, I will be sticking (at least for the moment) with Canon.

Reasoning:

- New 200-400 is rumored to be great, built-in 1.4x converter may allow me to get the shot I would lose will taking the lens off the camera and adding the converter.  Plus I have heard that Canon's version will be lighter than Nikon's.  Definitely more expensive, though with the weakending Yen, perhaps the lens will not be that pricey.

- With a 200-400, I will sell my 500 F4 and get a 600F4.  Again here Canon wins on weight, if not sharpness.

- In the mid-ranges (24-70 and 70-200) the version II Canon lenses are superb.

- Nikon beat Canons in wide angle lens/

- Bodies: AF Nikon wins but Canon is doing better.

I will make my final decision after the 200-400 is introduced.

Thanks again for all the discussion.