Why I'm not jumping to Nikon

[birdman]

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.

[Albi86]

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.

[ecka]

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.

[birdman]

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.

[daniemare]

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

[nightbreath]

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.

[weekendshooter]

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.

[RLPhoto]

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.

[friedmud]

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....

[weekendshooter]

Lol @ nikons prime selection. Its has nothing on canon, And that's the reason Im still here.

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.

[dilbert]

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

So we're only allowed to mention lenses that Canon has and Nikon doesn't have? Seems like a rather one sided discussion in that case. The Nikon 14-24 is most definitely a lens that someone would put on a D800 and that someone would want to put a Canon equivalent of on a 5D3 but can't.

[RLPhoto]

Lol @ nikons prime selection. Its has nothing on canon, And that's the reason Im still here.

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.

[MarioMachado]

to live a life with no regrets stay with canon... otherwise you will regret the change to nikon...

[Dylan777]

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?

[weekendshooter]

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.