Crazy... go Nikon?

[RS2021]

You're right, I suppose I could run out onto the football field with my f/1.4 lens .

That's the spirit.

Actually Nikon D800 plus the 14-24 can be the second coming... that is all there really is...nothing like it since sliced bread...  Canon's telephotos...superteles... f/1.2 portrait lenses...they don't matter...screw all that...but the 14-24...now you are talking... it does it all. Sharp all the way from this deluded corner to the other greener pasture. 

[charlesa]

You're right, I suppose I could run out onto the football field with my f/1.4 lens .

That's the spirit.

Actually Nikon D800 plus the 14-24 can be the second coming... that is all there really is...nothing like it since sliced bread...  Canon's telephotos...superteles... f/1.2 portrait lenses...they don't matter...screw all that...but the 14-24...now you are talking... it does it all. Sharp all the way from this deluded corner to the other greener pasture. 

Actually there is a heaven on both sides.. a D800E with a 14-24... and a 1DX with a 400 mm f/2.8 II on the other side...

[ksagomonyants]

I'm far from being a pro photographer and I definitely lack a lot of photography knowledge. But I'm quite surprised that many of you guys are ready to switch to Nikon just because of the 14-24 lens. I mean, it's a remarkable lens but it has its own flaws, such as very strong lateral chromatic aberration and strong rearward focus shift, as well as great difficulty finding a filter for it. Why wouldn't you use Zeiss, Canon's TS or Schneider PC-TS prime lenses instead of a remarkable but still a zoom lens? These days you can quite easily make panoramic images if these lenses aren't as wide.

[RS2021]

I'm far from being a pro photographer and I definitely lack a lot of photography knowledge. But I'm quite surprised that many of you guys are ready to switch to Nikon just because of the 14-24 lens. I mean, it's a remarkable lens but it has its own flaws, such as very strong lateral chromatic aberration and strong rearward focus shift, as well as great difficulty finding a filter for it. Why wouldn't you use Zeiss, Canon's TS or Schneider PC-TS prime lenses instead of a remarkable but still a zoom lens? These days you can quite easily make panoramic images if these lenses aren't as wide.

You seem pretty knowledgeable to me.

I would not say "many" are willing to switch...there is a bit of swarming by the same fanboys on topics like this. Some of the most adamant can't probably sustain two camera platforms but will still spout it as a certainity... others are well meaning and are stating a point of view.

Most sensible Canon and Nikon users that hold on to, and invest heavily in, their primary platform may not wish to dirty themselves by participating in a thread like this. While these good folk are classy, they also abandon the field to the more rabid and the committed (oh what a pun!  ) to give the impression that there are a lot of dual users out there who may eventually leave their camp in disgust, be it Canon or Nikon. 

I am sure dual users exit, but it is a fair guess that they are a small minority.

The sane recognize Nikon and Canon leap-frog eachother constantly and one will go broke if one switched everytime Nikon or Canon came up with something nice. So I wouldn't draw broad conclusions based on what one sees on this single thread.

Having said that, I will point to the fact that the title ironically, and aptly, includes the word "crazy"

[birdman]

I switched completely over to Nikon because of shadow noise and both the 16-35VR and 14-24mm. I own the 16-35 but have used the 14-24 several times. 14mm is WIDE, and not needed much. The 16-35 is much, much better than the 17-40L that i formerly owned.

You can't go wrong with Canon or Nikon. It all depends on your needs. I know the AF of the D800 (I have it) is astounding. Can't comment on the 5d3, but I'm sure it's equal or better. To me it's all about which lenses you need. If I shot a lot of telephoto, it'd be Canon for price/performance/availability. As such, with wide angles it's mostly Nikon with the advantage. And forget manual focus primes for all but the most static of situations. AF zooms are much more useful, even if they're "NOT QUITE" as sharp.

[RLPhoto]

I switched completely over to Nikon because of shadow noise and both the 16-35VR and 14-24mm. I own the 16-35 but have used the 14-24 several times. 14mm is WIDE, and not needed much. The 16-35 is much, much better than the 17-40L that i formerly owned.

You can't go wrong with Canon or Nikon. It all depends on your needs. I know the AF of the D800 (I have it) is astounding. Can't comment on the 5d3, but I'm sure it's equal or better. To me it's all about which lenses you need. If I shot a lot of telephoto, it'd be Canon for price/performance/availability. As such, with wide angles it's mostly Nikon with the advantage. And forget manual focus primes for all but the most static of situations. AF zooms are much more useful, even if they're "NOT QUITE" as sharp.

From previous experience with a D700, the 61-Point AF destroys the 51-point Nikon system. It's in a whole league of its own.

[Albi86]

I'm far from being a pro photographer and I definitely lack a lot of photography knowledge. But I'm quite surprised that many of you guys are ready to switch to Nikon just because of the 14-24 lens. I mean, it's a remarkable lens but it has its own flaws, such as very strong lateral chromatic aberration and strong rearward focus shift, as well as great difficulty finding a filter for it. Why wouldn't you use Zeiss, Canon's TS or Schneider PC-TS prime lenses instead of a remarkable but still a zoom lens? These days you can quite easily make panoramic images if these lenses aren't as wide.

You seem pretty knowledgeable to me.

I would not say "many" are willing to switch...there is a bit of swarming by the same fanboys on topics like this. Some of the most adamant can't probably sustain two camera platforms but will still spout it as a certainity... others are well meaning and are stating a point of view.

Most sensible Canon and Nikon users that hold on to, and invest heavily in, their primary platform may not wish to dirty themselves by participating in a thread like this. While these good folk are classy, they also abandon the field to the more rabid and the committed (oh what a pun!  ) to give the impression that there are a lot of dual users out there who may eventually leave their camp in disgust, be it Canon or Nikon. 

I am sure dual users exit, but it is a fair guess that they are a small minority.

The sane recognize Nikon and Canon leap-frog eachother constantly and one will go broke if one switched everytime Nikon or Canon came up with something nice. So I wouldn't draw broad conclusions based on what one sees on this single thread.

Having said that, I will point to the fact that the title ironically, and aptly, includes the word "crazy"

In all of your so fine sarcasm about shooting 2 systems being blaspheme and pussy-like, you gave yourself the answer. In the end it makes more sense to buy good products from the competition instead of products you don't like from your main brand just because they're all that's available. You know, some people like to spend their money wisely and buy the best product they can afford - and that's not always nor necessarily a canon product. But you're not one of them apparently.

[charlesa]

I did not mean to start a flame war, I just meant that although I am a dedicated Canon user well invested in L glass and make money out of my prints, I cannot keep begging Canon to fulfil my need for a high resolution body for one line of my work. I will grant you, the 1DX coupled with the 70-200 and 400 mm blows others out of the water for events, sports and wildlife, but when it comes to higher resolution and UWA lenses, I am not too happy with what Canon can offer me. So, although it might seem crazy to invest in another system, it makes sense rather than waiting for a vaporware high resolution body to MAYBE (may be never really!) appear just to sustain the one system I am used to.

[RS2021]

So, although it might seem crazy to invest in another system, it makes sense rather than waiting for a vaporware high resolution body to MAYBE (may be never really!) appear just to sustain the one system I am used to.

I will give you this though: Canon is clearly having fundamental trouble with their UWA lineup (barring their TSE lenses which are some of the best)... this is beside weather I think this is adquate reason for me to switch or even dabble across state lines (I don't)...but there has been now a long standing problem with the UWA range at Canon.

They do release competent, usable UWA's....just not stellar ones.

Most their lenses in the ultrawide range lag well behind their teles performance even factoring in the inherent difficulties that UWA designs present. As I said earlier, I just don't think this is unwillingness on the part of Canon, rather it looks more like inability to pull it off for one reason or the other. I am guessing that sacking designers may not always be a choice for them.

Proof of this is the short 6 year refresh from the original 16-35L and still managing to come up with a version II that is only marginally better than the original. Mind boggling! 14LII was upgraded after nearly 16 years, granted version II is sigificantly better than the original, but only because the original was dismal to start with by today's standards. The 14L II is actually a very good UWA if one is fair.

All said, yes Canon's UWA range is a bit weak... is it enough to frustrate me to buy a Nikon body, or to moonlight? No.

This is a fair discussion, I didn't take offense to the other poster's comments... its all good.

[Atonegro]

I did not mean to start a flame war, I just meant that although I am a dedicated Canon user well invested in L glass and make money out of my prints, I cannot keep begging Canon to fulfil my need for a high resolution body for one line of my work. I will grant you, the 1DX coupled with the 70-200 and 400 mm blows others out of the water for events, sports and wildlife, but when it comes to higher resolution and UWA lenses, I am not too happy with what Canon can offer me. So, although it might seem crazy to invest in another system, it makes sense rather than waiting for a vaporware high resolution body to MAYBE (may be never really!) appear just to sustain the one system I am used to.

I totaly agree with that, that's exactly why I bought a D800e for high-contrast and ultra-wide foto's.
And it is not a very big extra investment too, if you use the Canon for the sport- and wildlife foto's, and the Nikon for the landscape- and studiofoto's, you use different sort of lenses anyway.

Different ergonomics ?
Well, I have three computers, a Big-Mac for my foto's, a Linux for my office and so, and I am typing this on my old Windowscomputer. And I can use all of them.
I have two cars, a (somewat) recent model and one from 1952, speaking off different ergonomics....but I can drive both off them.
So, let nobody tell you that using Canon and Nikon don't work.

[Atonegro]

So, although it might seem crazy to invest in another system, it makes sense rather than waiting for a vaporware high resolution body to MAYBE (may be never really!) appear just to sustain the one system I am used to.

I will give you this though: Canon is clearly having fundamental trouble with their UWA lineup (barring their TSE lenses which are some of the best)... this is beside weather I think this is adquate reason for me to switch or even dabble across state lines (I don't)...but there has been now a long standing problem with the UWA range at Canon.

They do release competent, usable UWA's....just not stellar ones.

Most their lenses in the ultrawide range lag well behind their teles performance even factoring in the inherent difficulties that UWA designs present. As I said earlier, I just don't think this is unwillingness on the part of Canon, rather it looks more like inability to pull it off for one reason or the other. I am guessing that sacking designers may not always be a choice for them.

Proof of this is the short 6 year refresh from the original 16-35L and still managing to come up with a version II that is only marginally better than the original. Mind boggling! 14LII was upgraded after nearly 16 years, granted version II is sigificantly better than the original, but only because the original was dismal to start with by today's standards. The 14L II is actually a very good UWA if one is fair.

All said, yes Canon's UWA range is a bit weak... is it enough to frustrate me to buy a Nikon body, or to moonlight? No.

This is a fair discussion, I didn't take offense to the other poster's comments... its all good.

If you don't need the autofocus, you can try the Samyang 14mm. Great lens !
And the TS-E 24 is the lens I realy mis on my D800, the Nikon tilt-shift is not half as good.
So I hope the new Samyang tilt-shift 24mm is as good as the 14mm they make.
But I have not been able to try one, or read any reviews of it....

[Dantana]

For the OP, who is a pro and can justify spending money on 2 systems for 2 purposes, I would say this is not crazy, especially if the lenses for the two different uses don't overlap too much. Or, if the cost of the overlapping lenses is not an issue to the OP, then, well, it isn't an issue.

I'd also echo what at least one other poster said about the possibility of medium format digital as a solution. If you are going to stay with Canon for one side of your business, you have the freedom to choose something even more use specific than Nikon, if it's something that you like to use. If I had the business, and the means, I'd rent a digital MF rig and a D800E and see which I liked better as far as usability and results.

For me though, an amateur shooter that can't afford to dabble in two systems worth of glass, splitting systems does seem crazy. I would have to choose one or the other. Not that I wouldn't want to have both. I just couldn't justify it.

[Bruce Photography]

Shooting both system is a mind-opening experience.

Shoot with a Nikon camera and a good lens and you'll see for yourself. As many others have said, if you're into landscapes a D800E is the best thing you can buy.

Couldn't agree more. I'm a dual user since last year and couldn't be happier. Plus you dont really care what Canon or Nikon put on the market; one way or the other, one of them will present something that fits you. It feels good not to be tied in with one platform.

+1.  Before my Nikon D800/E experience, I thought Canon had been the revolutionary when they took the full frame 5D and made the 5DMK 2 and it was Nikon that didn't come up with an equivalent 5DMK2 version.  Then the D800 and the D800E (I perfer the E) came and Nikon became the revolutionary.  Then Canon got into pro Video which had a much higher profit percentage and the Canon revolution became a step-wise refinement company as far as still photography ( I do really like their tilt-shift lenses and the 70-300L is great).  Working with both camps may be expensive, but I know that I'm using the best available technology at the time.  This has not only been fun but a great learning experience that I wouldn't miss.

[ksagomonyants]

I'm far from being a pro photographer and I definitely lack a lot of photography knowledge. But I'm quite surprised that many of you guys are ready to switch to Nikon just because of the 14-24 lens. I mean, it's a remarkable lens but it has its own flaws, such as very strong lateral chromatic aberration and strong rearward focus shift, as well as great difficulty finding a filter for it. Why wouldn't you use Zeiss, Canon's TS or Schneider PC-TS prime lenses instead of a remarkable but still a zoom lens? These days you can quite easily make panoramic images if these lenses aren't as wide.

You seem pretty knowledgeable to me.

I would not say "many" are willing to switch...there is a bit of swarming by the same fanboys on topics like this. Some of the most adamant can't probably sustain two camera platforms but will still spout it as a certainity... others are well meaning and are stating a point of view.

Most sensible Canon and Nikon users that hold on to, and invest heavily in, their primary platform may not wish to dirty themselves by participating in a thread like this. While these good folk are classy, they also abandon the field to the more rabid and the committed (oh what a pun!  ) to give the impression that there are a lot of dual users out there who may eventually leave their camp in disgust, be it Canon or Nikon. 

I am sure dual users exit, but it is a fair guess that they are a small minority.

The sane recognize Nikon and Canon leap-frog eachother constantly and one will go broke if one switched everytime Nikon or Canon came up with something nice. So I wouldn't draw broad conclusions based on what one sees on this single thread.

Having said that, I will point to the fact that the title ironically, and aptly, includes the word "crazy"

In all of your so fine sarcasm about shooting 2 systems being blaspheme and pussy-like, you gave yourself the answer. In the end it makes more sense to buy good products from the competition instead of products you don't like from your main brand just because they're all that's available. You know, some people like to spend their money wisely and buy the best product they can afford - and that's not always nor necessarily a canon product. But you're not one of them apparently.

I think you're missing the point. Nobody really cares how you or someone else spends his own money. At the end, it's your money, and you know better how to spend it. The point I'm trying to make is that why would someone invest into another system if Canon or third-party manufacturers have products at least as good as Nikon's or even better? Have you directly compared Nikon's 14-24 to let's say Schneider PC-TS lenses? Which exact Nikon's lens is that much better than Canon's one to justify investing into it? How much more details would D800 capture over 5diii, especially under dim light? I may be wrong but I'd think very few people make money by selling their landscape work, so only one can decide if he can justify investing into a different system.

[expatinasia]

One very important reason why it would be very silly (being polite) for a pro to use both systems, is that if one of his/her cameras breaks down, s/he cannot use the glass of one brand on the other camera which is of another brand.

Do not forget NPS and CPS work very differently from one country to another - very different regulations, set up and benefits. They might offer a replacement while they fix the broken one, and that replacement might be free, or it might not. But regardless, by the time you get it to Canon you have missed the shot(s) you were trying to get.

For landscape photographers that may not be a problem (I do not know as I rarely shoot landscapes), but if you are at a sports event and your long camera dies leaving you with only a wide angle camera, you are going to have problems, very big problems. If, in this scenario, you have the same brand of camera you can swap and change your lenses to your hearts content if one dies. Might not be ideal to only use the backup but at least you do not miss the shots and potentially your job or rep.

Now, there may be some very rich pro that can buy every lens for every brand to cover such an eventuality, but most can't. And even if they could who is going to carry that much stuff to an event!!

I do not care if you use Nikon, Canon, Sony or a paint and brush, but using both is just asking for trouble. It makes no sense.