Why I'm not jumping to Nikon

[pakosouthpark]

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!

[gnd]

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.

[IronChef]

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.

[Albi86]

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.

[ecka]

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.

[rahkshi007]

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..

[Fishnose]

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....

[Jason Beiko]

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....

[Bennymiata]

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.

[bdunbar79]

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.

[psolberg]

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.

[Albi86]

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.

[daniemare]

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.

[Fishnose]

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.

[Albi86]

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.