December 07, 2016, 07:24:59 PM

Author Topic: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon  (Read 30090 times)

birdman

  • Rebel T6i
  • ****
  • Posts: 122
Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #45 on: September 22, 2012, 03:14:34 PM »
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.
5d2; 17-40L; 35L; 50/1.8 Mk. 1; 70-300 IS; 100mm/2.8

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #45 on: September 22, 2012, 03:14:34 PM »

daniemare

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #46 on: September 24, 2012, 11:14:54 AM »
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
Canon 6D, Canon 24-105 F4L IS, Canon 70-200 F4L, Canon 100 F2.8L IS macro, Canon 50 F1.4, Canon 28 F1.8

nightbreath

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 454
    • Свадебный фотограф в Днепропетровске
Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #47 on: September 24, 2012, 02:43:40 PM »
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.
Wedding photography. My personal website: http://luxuryphoto.com.ua

weekendshooter

  • Guest
Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #48 on: September 24, 2012, 03:26:54 PM »
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

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3789
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • My Portfolio
Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #49 on: September 24, 2012, 04:41:17 PM »
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. 8)

friedmud

  • EOS M3
  • ****
  • Posts: 217
Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #50 on: September 24, 2012, 04:49:50 PM »
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

  • Guest
Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #51 on: September 24, 2012, 05:23:27 PM »
Lol @ nikons prime selection. Its has nothing on canon, And that's the reason Im still here. 8)

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.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #51 on: September 24, 2012, 05:23:27 PM »

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3789
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • My Portfolio
Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #52 on: September 24, 2012, 06:41:36 PM »
Lol @ nikons prime selection. Its has nothing on canon, And that's the reason Im still here. 8)

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

  • Guest
Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #53 on: September 24, 2012, 06:46:29 PM »
to live a life with no regrets stay with canon... otherwise you will regret the change to nikon...

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5277
Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #54 on: September 24, 2012, 06:46:43 PM »
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?
ML: A7R II & A7s -- FE35f1.4 -- FE35f2.8 -- FE55 -- FE85GM -- FE2470GM -- FE70200GM
DSLR: 1Dx + 200L f2 IS  -- sadly replaced this combo with a7s + 70200GM

weekendshooter

  • Guest
Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #55 on: September 24, 2012, 07:12:22 PM »
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.

simonxu11

  • EOS M3
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #56 on: September 24, 2012, 07:39:52 PM »

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. ::)
28/1.8 ~17 years old, 50/1.4~19 years old, 100/2~21 years old
compare to
28/1.8G~5 months old, 50/1.4G~4 years old, 85/1.8G~8 months old
No, thanks~

7 year old 5D compare to D600??
No thanks~

Tammy

  • Rebel T6i
  • ****
  • Posts: 105
Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #57 on: September 24, 2012, 07:55:48 PM »
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.

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.


If you are unaware you should not spread ignorance. There are autofocuses issues (reported by Nikon users) with the Nikon D7000, D800 and D4. Google D800 autofocus issues or search on youtube. There IS a definite and undeniable problem and it is not a few random isolated owners. There are numerous threads on nikon or photography forums. There are countless D800 owners whose D800's have been sent to the nearest Nikon service center for the issue, some multiple times, with many coming back the same as if they were never touched or in worse condition. Imagine you pay $3,000 for a camera or any piece of equipment and it malfunctions in a way that honestly hinders the purpose you bought it for. You would be more than quite a bit upset about the matter.

Here is a well respected Nikon photographer who documents in detail his supposedly fictionary account of his problems with his D800. Photos of what his camera was taking etc. What is even sadder is he sent his camera to Nikon services, they "fixed" it and it came back with the left autofocus points being somewhat accurate but having zero accuracy in the center and right!

In the second link, he does research on the matter and he is finding that approximately HALF the Nikon D800 bodies he has been inspecting etc may be afflicted with AF issues.

http://mansurovs.com/anatomy-of-a-nikon-d800-fix

http://mansurovs.com/nikon-d800-asymmetric-focus-issue

I go to photography school and one of my best friends happens to shoot with a D7000. He is currently affected by the legend-ary D7000 autofocus issues. He is not a noob who should be blamed for obvious user error. His camera misfocuses and misfocuses quite frequently. He mainly shoots portraits, for a living as his occupation, and when he intends to lock focus on the closest eye and achieves focus confirmation, his shots may come out inches out of focus. He does not find this funny one bit. This is already after he has applied AFMA etc. He sent his camera to Nikon services, where they inspected it, claimed they fixed it, and returned it to him. He says it is ever so slightly better but he currently descirbes his beloved camera as one equipped with 39 autofocus points that help him capture 16 megapixels of blurriness! He laughs about the matter, only because right now there's not much else he can do. He will be sending his camera back to Nikon in hopes that maybe they will fix it, if they can, before his warranty expires. He now has a vastly greater appreciation for the basic things like autofocus. A camera that autofocuses properly is a priority in the next camera he purchases. We all don't fully appreciate things until we don't have them anymore.

On another note, I also have another friend who shoots with a D7000 who reports inconsistent focus issues.

So, please, do not spread false information. It misleads others into disbelieving those who are experiencing the reported problems, as if they were liars.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 08:03:02 PM by Tammy »
5D Mk III - 24-70L Mk II - 24L Mk II - 100L - 135L - 50mm F/1.4

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #57 on: September 24, 2012, 07:55:48 PM »

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3789
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • My Portfolio
Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #58 on: September 24, 2012, 08:09:04 PM »
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.

I would just lol at your d600 body and no lenses while i Cruse about with a solid body and a set of solid primes that I've used firsthand. It's funny because it took Nikon 20 years to Finally put out decent primes.

Don't be so naive in believing bodies are more important that a set of good lenses.  ::)

weekendshooter

  • Guest
Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #59 on: September 24, 2012, 08:37:24 PM »
I would just lol at your d600 body and no lenses while i Cruse about with a solid body and a set of solid primes that I've used firsthand. It's funny because it took Nikon 20 years to Finally put out decent primes.

Don't be so naive in believing bodies are more important that a set of good lenses.  ::)

What?? Jesus, it's like you're reading something else entirely and just responding with whatever springs to mind. When did I say I wanted to pick a body and no lenses? The only time I've heard of people shooting with their lens caps on was on this very forum during the 5D3 light leak debacle. The ENTIRE point that I'm trying to get across is that Nikon has a fantastic range of well-priced NEW primes that put great results within reach of someone who isn't willing to spend $2k per lens, unlike Canon's decrepit offerings in this segment. Thanks for the entertainment though; it was nice to hear that you can't come up with a single relevant point in your favor  ::)

If anyone else would like to put this train back on its tracks and have a civil discussion, I'd love to offer a perspective from the "dark side"  :)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #59 on: September 24, 2012, 08:37:24 PM »