Have you considered joining the dark side?...

[vuilang]

I

Find me an F1.2 Lens on Nikon then switching will be in slight consideration..

[briansquibb]

I switched because the nikon glass is just as good for all my needs, and Nikon's high resolution offerings suite my goals better. I couldn't care less if it was nikon or canon or sony that I had to purchase. If I'm going to spend so much money, it will be the system that fits me the best. I'd encourage everybody to do the same instead of suffering from stockholm syndrome...canon or nikon version. These are just tools.

I just love the way that you elaborate when Nikon glass is better and dismiss  the Canon offerings when they are better 

[drummstikk]

One sure way to tell the hobbyists from the people making a "living" from photography is to monitor how often a system switch occurs. If you are a dentist who birds on the weekend, you may just be with Canon the even-numbered years and Nikon the rest. If your actual livelihood is contracts with Universities, businesses, publications, and wire services, a system switch would cost about half of last year's profits, and thus ain't happening anytime soon.

As a hobbyist then I guess I break the rule as I have been with Canon over 20 years now.

As a full time worker for most of that time I couldn't spare the time to play at switching - if I was lucky I might get 1 day a week off and after 70+ hours of irregular working hours, to relax with something familiar was about as much as I wanted.

I dont see why people try to differentiate between pros and hobbyists

I didn't mean to differentiate. Nor did I intend to suggest pros have more "soul" than those who photograph for the love of it. (if anything, the opposite may well be true.)

What I meant to comment on is the increasingly common phenomenon where the best equipped photographer on the scene is an amateur. I'll be on a job with my 7d and my 5D mark nothing and my 70-200 IS mark nothing and my other 4-plus year old lenses, and up walks a guy with a 1d markIV and a 5D mark III 70-200 IS II and a 2 or 3 L fixed lenses and maybe a big white. Is this new competition I need to worry about? Usually not. It's most likely a tax attorney with a fat line on his visa card who, while very nicely equipped, is just out having some fun. He or she might get some great pictures, but due to lack of depth in experience, would most likely leave substantial gaps in the coverage my client needs.

One photographer I see doing volunteer work at the annual Komen for the cure event has been from Nikon to Canon back to Nikon on three consecutive years. That's something you will almost never see a working photographer do, only hobbyists with six-figure jobs or rich spouses. On a job you need the kind of "do it with your eyes closed" familiarity with equipment that will simply not develop if you switch systems often. I'd have to justify a system switch to my accountant, and perhaps more importantly, to my wife. Mostly I can't even justify it to myself. (And believe me, back when the D3 was new and I compared images from it to what I was getting with my 40D, I *really* tried.)

Plus, not to burst any bubbles out there, but except for a very small minority of photographers who not only have exceptional photo skills AND great talent for marketing and self-promotion (that's what I suck at), photography is simply not lucrative enough to support a system switch more than once a decade at most.

If I sound like I'm bitching, I'm not. I make most of my income doing what I love. But, as I write this, I'm on my lunch break from the third shift custodian job I do to earn health insurance and supplemental income. That's my reality and I'm OK with it.

[RLPhoto]

I do not think though that Nikon would surpass my:
17TS-E L, 24TS-E L II, 35 1.4 L(this is just ordered actually!), 135 f/2L, 300 f/4L (non-IS) 70-200 f/4L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L II

having used both, I'll comment on it:
17TS nikon version is coming per the leaks and patents, but for now canon has the edge, although I prefer the 14-24 anyday over the 17TS personaly but that's because I really don't find 17mm anywhere near wide enough for anything I shoot.

24TS-E nikon has one, only it is older and doesn't do independant Tilt/shift axis configurations, but optically it is just as good. After my switch, I don't miss the canon. what can I say.

351.4L nikon wins hands down. the canon is way old and way worse. I actually wouldn't use the canon because it was so bad compared to the 24L.

135 f/2. Both suck. no really. Nikon has one with defocus control which produces superb bokeh. Much nicer than the L canon, but the canon has faster AF and less CA, but both lack VR. In terms of which one I'd get, it would be the sony Zeiss 135 f/1.8 which wipes the floor with both both optically and spec wise. I wish I had that instead.

300 f/4 non IS (the nikon version is superb) Unless you neede IS, it's a tie.

70-200 f/4. Nikon lacks it for now so definitively a win for canon. Although I'd never use that lens on any system as I prefer shallow DOF.

70-200 f/2.8II. The nikon version nearly identical performance wise with the canon have a slight edge and better MFD. But unlike something like the 17TS, or the fisheye zoom, there just isn't all that much practical difference.

The only canon glass I would consider worth sticking for it is the 65mm macro, the DO line, and the 800mm prime...but Nikon just announced theirs so it is down to very very little. Compare that to a decade ago when it wasn't even close. And all the better for having two systems to choose from means cheaper and better gear for everybody. I'm glad canon has been in a slide for the last decade losing share to nikon/sony because otherwise we'd be shooting 5DmkI's with ancient canon gear.

Lenses I prefer on nikon:

14-24 f/2.8 (since canon lacks it, I compare it to the 14mm prime which gets spanked)
24 f/1.4
35 f/1.4
85 f/1.4 (better optically at 1.4 and beyond, cheaper lighter).
16-35 f/4 (it's no that but the canon 17-35 is way worse and lacks IS)

Lenses I found to not matter which one you have:
24-70 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8
50 f/1.4 vs f/1.2
24 PCE vs TS
45 PCE vs TS

Lenses I used to prefer on canon, or would consider as being unique enough to the system to have no equivalent in nikon land.

fisheye zoom. It is a useless feature to have zoom on it but the nikon fisheye is very old.
65 macro (although with tubes that may be a different story but the canon is more convenient with its 5X magnification)
I'm not listing the 17TS because I honestly wouldn't care unless it was a 14mm TS.

The nikon 85mm 1.8G DOES NOT surpass the 100mm F/2 canon.

I don't know but thats a silly comparison. who cares really. Neither lens is really interesting. I could believe some would pick systems because of the 14-24, or 17TS. But for the 100 f/2. that's a joke.

Well, you'll always have better luck sticking old Nikkor glass on a Canon Body than on the newest Digital Nikon bodies.

When I switched I tried that. But I found modern nikon glass destroys the old nikkor glass without exception. So I don't know how what you say makes any sense. I guess if you didn't care about image quality that would be the case....I'll keep my newly aquired nano coated nikkors thanks.

You say it's for simpletons. Partially true. But it's more for people without s*** tons of money to waste switching brands every generations. 

switching brands is relatively painless these days if your gear is in good shape. 10 years ago it wasn't. this isn't wife swapping. Take it from somebody who did it.

for what i do.. Nikon D800 doesnt have ISO 25600 for video, or sRAW, mRAW... So, NO WAY

that's right. the nikon isn't for low resolution shooters or people that want to shoot in very dark conditions. there are better cameras suited for that such as the D4 or 1DX.

Digital quality wise maybe Canon is lagging a little behind if we are to believe the tests. I do not own Nikon to compare but I believe the tests. However I wonder. A few years ago professionals used Canon and Nikon gear to produce excellent results. The fact that newer and better models are made does not negate the work that has been done up to now. It is still good and professional.

I switched because the nikon glass is just as good for all my needs, and Nikon's high resolution offerings suite my goals better. I couldn't care less if it was nikon or canon or sony that I had to purchase. If I'm going to spend so much money, it will be the system that fits me the best. I'd encourage everybody to do the same instead of suffering from stockholm syndrome...canon or nikon version. These are just tools.

I lost all respect for this post when you mentioned "135mm F/2L Sucks".

[Northstar]

I do not think though that Nikon would surpass my:
17TS-E L, 24TS-E L II, 35 1.4 L(this is just ordered actually!), 135 f/2L, 300 f/4L (non-IS) 70-200 f/4L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L II

having used both, I'll comment on it:
17TS nikon version is coming per the leaks and patents, but for now canon has the edge, although I prefer the 14-24 anyday over the 17TS personaly but that's because I really don't find 17mm anywhere near wide enough for anything I shoot.

24TS-E nikon has one, only it is older and doesn't do independant Tilt/shift axis configurations, but optically it is just as good. After my switch, I don't miss the canon. what can I say.

351.4L nikon wins hands down. the canon is way old and way worse. I actually wouldn't use the canon because it was so bad compared to the 24L.

135 f/2. Both suck. no really. Nikon has one with defocus control which produces superb bokeh. Much nicer than the L canon, but the canon has faster AF and less CA, but both lack VR. In terms of which one I'd get, it would be the sony Zeiss 135 f/1.8 which wipes the floor with both both optically and spec wise. I wish I had that instead.

300 f/4 non IS (the nikon version is superb) Unless you neede IS, it's a tie.

70-200 f/4. Nikon lacks it for now so definitively a win for canon. Although I'd never use that lens on any system as I prefer shallow DOF.

70-200 f/2.8II. The nikon version nearly identical performance wise with the canon have a slight edge and better MFD. But unlike something like the 17TS, or the fisheye zoom, there just isn't all that much practical difference.

The only canon glass I would consider worth sticking for it is the 65mm macro, the DO line, and the 800mm prime...but Nikon just announced theirs so it is down to very very little. Compare that to a decade ago when it wasn't even close. And all the better for having two systems to choose from means cheaper and better gear for everybody. I'm glad canon has been in a slide for the last decade losing share to nikon/sony because otherwise we'd be shooting 5DmkI's with ancient canon gear.

Lenses I prefer on nikon:

14-24 f/2.8 (since canon lacks it, I compare it to the 14mm prime which gets spanked)
24 f/1.4
35 f/1.4
85 f/1.4 (better optically at 1.4 and beyond, cheaper lighter).
16-35 f/4 (it's no that but the canon 17-35 is way worse and lacks IS)

Lenses I found to not matter which one you have:
24-70 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8
50 f/1.4 vs f/1.2
24 PCE vs TS
45 PCE vs TS

Lenses I used to prefer on canon, or would consider as being unique enough to the system to have no equivalent in nikon land.

fisheye zoom. It is a useless feature to have zoom on it but the nikon fisheye is very old.
65 macro (although with tubes that may be a different story but the canon is more convenient with its 5X magnification)
I'm not listing the 17TS because I honestly wouldn't care unless it was a 14mm TS.

The nikon 85mm 1.8G DOES NOT surpass the 100mm F/2 canon.

I don't know but thats a silly comparison. who cares really. Neither lens is really interesting. I could believe some would pick systems because of the 14-24, or 17TS. But for the 100 f/2. that's a joke.

Well, you'll always have better luck sticking old Nikkor glass on a Canon Body than on the newest Digital Nikon bodies.

When I switched I tried that. But I found modern nikon glass destroys the old nikkor glass without exception. So I don't know how what you say makes any sense. I guess if you didn't care about image quality that would be the case....I'll keep my newly aquired nano coated nikkors thanks.

You say it's for simpletons. Partially true. But it's more for people without s*** tons of money to waste switching brands every generations. 

switching brands is relatively painless these days if your gear is in good shape. 10 years ago it wasn't. this isn't wife swapping. Take it from somebody who did it.

for what i do.. Nikon D800 doesnt have ISO 25600 for video, or sRAW, mRAW... So, NO WAY

that's right. the nikon isn't for low resolution shooters or people that want to shoot in very dark conditions. there are better cameras suited for that such as the D4 or 1DX.

Digital quality wise maybe Canon is lagging a little behind if we are to believe the tests. I do not own Nikon to compare but I believe the tests. However I wonder. A few years ago professionals used Canon and Nikon gear to produce excellent results. The fact that newer and better models are made does not negate the work that has been done up to now. It is still good and professional.

I switched because the nikon glass is just as good for all my needs, and Nikon's high resolution offerings suite my goals better. I couldn't care less if it was nikon or canon or sony that I had to purchase. If I'm going to spend so much money, it will be the system that fits me the best. I'd encourage everybody to do the same instead of suffering from stockholm syndrome...canon or nikon version. These are just tools.

I lost all respect for this post when you mentioned "135mm F/2L Sucks".

RL...totally agree with you on this one.

psolberg...regarding the 135 - nearly EVERYONE thinks highly of this lens.  To say that it "sucks" is simply crazy.

i think i'll pour a little gas on this particular fire....quote from a famous review guy: (wink)

"The Canon 135mm f/2 L is extraordinarily good optically".  "Don't take my word for it, ask anyone else who owns this lens and he'll tell you it's one of Canon's best lenses of all time. Great lenses like this are why so many people shoot Canon cameras; Nikon simply has nothing that competes with this"

[tron]

I lost all respect for this post when you mentioned "135mm F/2L Sucks".

+1: The Canon 135mm f/2L is superb

[julescar]

I own a dozen Canon/Nikon/Sigma/Zeiss lenses, a great many of them primes and without any doubt the 135 f/2L is perfect, my favourite glass,
The contrast/sharpness and colour i get from it is flawless even wide open.

[KevinB]

I did I bought Canon !!

[infared]

WOW! I cannot believe the 10 pages of drama.
If the image is well composed, well lit, technically solid and post processed well...it REALLY doesn't matter which system you use (5D or D800)...except the one that your feel the most connected too. 99.9%  of the viewers will not care either.
TRULY. (I sleep quite well, thank you).

[Richard8971]

Never. By saying that, I mean that I will never, ever, buy, shoot with or even be seen with a Nikon product.

Does that mean I think they make an inferior product? No. I just don't happen to agree with the way they make/program their cameras!

I happen to know of a woman who used Nikon exclusively. She was using the D3100 and bought an external flash and it WOULD NOT "HIGH SPEED" sync with her camera!!!

See http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=36083355

Go figure, to enable "high speed sync" (over 1/250s, or abouts, with certain NIKONS!) you HAVE to HAVE a higher-end Nikon!!! (or certain semi-pro bodies) Not to mention that enabling the feature in Nikon is a complected menu  process that changes from camera to camera. She ended up having to buy the D7000 to use "high speed" sync with her new flash. (DOH!) Needless to say, she was plenty pissed.
 
ALL of my external flashes (yes I own more than one, some old, some new) work with EVERY SINGLE Canon body I own and it is with a push of a single button that I enable "sigh speed sync" with the flash and it works with my lowly XT to my 5D2!!! (1/4000 ~ 1/8000)

You can keep your Nikons... really. Keep em!

D

[kdsand]

"Humm"  and I was thinking my A.D.D. was bad. 

[Richard8971]

WOW! I cannot believe the 10 pages of drama.

(I sleep quite well, thank you).

Stay asleep. (J/K)

The issues I have with Nikon (see my post before this one) can only be addressed if Nikon makes a serious marketing/body progamming change. Will it happen? Who knows...

D

[D_Rochat]

I'd be happy to switch sides if Nikon decides to pay for my gear from here on out.

[Richard8971]

I'd be happy to switch sides if Nikon decides to pay for my gear from here on out.

Yeah, maybe, um no.

D

[And-Rew]

Nothing like a morning wake up to a read designed to create controversy 

Both sides of the fence have good and bad points, lenses or features the other wants.
I've looked at the Nikon stuff a few times whilst in the shops - but I just don't get on with the lay out of the equipment on the bodies.

Nikon does have the one thing i would like - the 14-24 lens. I do love the options this lens provides in picture creation, but one lens is not enough to justify a swap.

That said, i am busy selling a whole load of kit because i realised i had become guilty of buying too much at once. Once i've finished selling all the kit, i will stick with a single 5D3, 50mm f1.2 L and 430 EXII flash for a while.

As has been said on more than one occasion, knowing how to use your kit is much more important than owning all of Canon's catalogue and not knowing how to use it!

Nikon? Most of my friends shoot with Nikon - but most were envious of my 5D2 and 24-105 f4 L!