Considering switching to Nikon
- Thread starter RGF
- Start date
- Status
sanj said:
My pleasure.
Another observation is that for whatever reason, maybe the added DR, the D800E seems to produce nicer B&W files than the Canons (I shoot RAW/NEF, convert in ACR and use mostly Nik Silver Efex for B&W but sometimes onOne software too). My wife can actually tell my Nikon BWs from my Canon BWs. I've also seen this mentioned on other forums so I'm fairly sure I'm not seeing things. Anyway, if you're in to B&W it's something to check if you rent one.
Cheers!
Upvote
0
I very close buddy of mine, a professional photographer was an ARDENT Canon fan. He tested a 800E. Overnight he sold his Canon gear and went Nikon. I met him two days ago and how does he feel about the switch and if he recommends this to anyone? His reply "Everyone should switch to Nikon." This is of course his opinion for the type of photography he does - commercial.
I do wildlife and travel so am very happy with my X and 3.
I do wildlife and travel so am very happy with my X and 3.
Upvote
0
Previously, I've also thought of switching to Nikon but lenses are still more important than the body and would stay that way for years to come. Of course if there's a Nikon lens that I crave such as the 14-24, there'll be no problem for me since I can still use it with my Canon body. How about if you're on Nikon and you want to use MP-E 65 or TS-E lenses? Besides, the technology of the body will always shift from one manufacturer to another as better technology is available. A lot of good photographers are still using 5D and even 20D but until now, I'm still amazed at their photos. So, are the Nikon bodies really enough reason for me to switch?
Upvote
0
sanj said:
And they had better switch quick-quick, before Canon brings out a camera he likes more than Nikons, 'cos then this guy will be 'overnight' back with Canon. And all the switchers will be crying in their beers because they can't afford to keep up with Overnight Jones. LOL
Upvote
0
tnargs said:
As a switcher that just sold all his stuff to get a D600... it really wouldn't matter to me AT ALL if Canon came out with a better camera. The camera I now have is _awesome_... and I won't have a need to upgrade again for years.
At that point I will survey the field and take note of my own financial position and once again try to get the best setup for the money for my type of photography. If that happens to be Canon... I could very well switch back.
My final thought: There is no way there is a Canon camera on the horizon to challenge the D600 for landscape photography. The 6D is missing too many features and anything better than the 6D costs an arm and a leg...
But who knows what the future might hold...
Upvote
0
friedmud said:
what lenses did you get?
I missed the Nikkor 50 f1.4 G and the 105 f2.8 Micro when i switched to canon from nikon
both are nicer lenses than the canon 50 f1.4 and even the 100 f2.8L
Upvote
0
picturesbyme said:
I believe the point is.... that Canon is not anymore what it used to be... Other manufactures are catching up and some ( like Nikon ) are in front. I really, really don't want to change the brand but if Canon does nothing beside standing put and taking blow after blow ( Nikon D800 and D600)... than definitely i will change the brand.
I stopped long time ago thinking with my heart... I'm more pragmatic now.
Upvote
0
nicku said:
Now that's a strong statement. Are you in love with Canon as a company?
For me my heart doesn't feature in the equation regarding which gear I use. Historically Nikon or Canon have been better in some areas at some times, Sony may become better than the others in the future or maybe not.
I don't care so much for the company behind it, but whether the product suits me or not.
Upvote
0
To be honest, I've tought about switching to Nikon too. It almost drives me insane that it seems like Canon isn't doing anything about their (heavily) inferior sensors. With every release of a new DSLR you see Canon getting beated to death by Nikon and Sony when it comes down to DR. The same goes for noise performance at high ISO when you compare similar sensors (megapixels & sensor size) e.g. D7000 vs 7D.
I have bought many Canon products in the past (Printers: i560, MP450, MF8030Cn; Digital Cameras: Powershot A40, EOS 550D) and essentially was happy with all of them. However I'm frequently wondering why I choose Canon for my first DSLR (550D/T2i) and not Nikon because they use the superior Sony EXMOR sensors. I also want to buy a fullframe DSLR and the 5D Mark III and D800 are too expensive for me. So I'm looking at the D600 and 6D. I'll probably go with the 6D just because I wouldn't have to sell my gear first (550D, EF-S 18-55 F/3.5-5.6 IS, EF 50 F/1.8 II, EF 70-200 F/4L IS and Speedlite 580EX II).
It's also a bit of a sentimental thing. While I don't really have anything against Nikon, I find their bodies rather ugly (shape and red triangle) and I also find it harder to understand their lens lineup compared to the lens lineup from Canon (e.g. I can't tell which lenses are really top of the bill, except for their 70-200 F/2.8 VRII). The thing that bothers me the most about Canon, is their mentality. They produce inferior sensors so one would assume that therefore their bodies would be cheaper than a similar Nikon model. Nope. At least as expensive or even more expensive. They keep on milking their customers e.g. the totally stripped down 6D (compared to 5D3) is priced about the same as a D600 which has MUCH better specs and a MUCH better sensor.
I have bought many Canon products in the past (Printers: i560, MP450, MF8030Cn; Digital Cameras: Powershot A40, EOS 550D) and essentially was happy with all of them. However I'm frequently wondering why I choose Canon for my first DSLR (550D/T2i) and not Nikon because they use the superior Sony EXMOR sensors. I also want to buy a fullframe DSLR and the 5D Mark III and D800 are too expensive for me. So I'm looking at the D600 and 6D. I'll probably go with the 6D just because I wouldn't have to sell my gear first (550D, EF-S 18-55 F/3.5-5.6 IS, EF 50 F/1.8 II, EF 70-200 F/4L IS and Speedlite 580EX II).
It's also a bit of a sentimental thing. While I don't really have anything against Nikon, I find their bodies rather ugly (shape and red triangle) and I also find it harder to understand their lens lineup compared to the lens lineup from Canon (e.g. I can't tell which lenses are really top of the bill, except for their 70-200 F/2.8 VRII). The thing that bothers me the most about Canon, is their mentality. They produce inferior sensors so one would assume that therefore their bodies would be cheaper than a similar Nikon model. Nope. At least as expensive or even more expensive. They keep on milking their customers e.g. the totally stripped down 6D (compared to 5D3) is priced about the same as a D600 which has MUCH better specs and a MUCH better sensor.
Upvote
0
jocau said:
Canon and Nikon have similar lens lineup. The following translation might help.
IS -> VR
USM -> AFS
EF -> FX
EFS -> DX
L -> ED
D is the older series, which has an aperture ring.
G is the current series, which is usually sharper and has no aperture ring.
Upvote
0
W
weekendshooter
Guest
jocau said:
It is harder to distinguish between Nikon's lenses because they classify by the type of lens (basically how new it is) rather than the perceived quality, such as Canon's L line. AF-D lenses are the older type - they have aperture rings and focus via an in-body motor-driven screw. AF-S G lenses are the newest and have Nikon's ultrasonic motor (SWM - silent wave motor) and do not have an aperture ring. There are some that straddle the line between the two, but those are the two main groups.
Top of the line Nikon lenses have a gold ring around the front of the barrel: 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 85/1.4. There might be a few more but you get the idea. These lenses are quite similar to the Canon equivalents, with the exception of the 85 being f/1.4 instead of f/1.2. Nikon also doesn't have a 50L competitor; the 50/1.4G is slightly better optically and much better built than Canon's 50/1.4, but nobody would ever confuse it with a 50L.
One step below that is the new f/1.8 lenses: 28/1.8G, 50/1.8G, 85/1.8G, which are really phenomenal and quite reasonably priced. The 85 in particular is my favorite lens and performs extremely well for $500.
Also note that Nikon just today announced a 70-200/4 with a new 5-stop VR (IS for Canon folks). I'm excited! This is one of the two lenses that Nikon hasn't had, along with a good 135/2, that almost made me not switch. Looks like it's one down, one to go
Upvote
0
weekendshooter said:jocau said:
It is harder to distinguish between Nikon's lenses because they classify by the type of lens (basically how new it is) rather than the perceived quality, such as Canon's L line. AF-D lenses are the older type - they have aperture rings and focus via an in-body motor-driven screw. AF-S G lenses are the newest and have Nikon's ultrasonic motor (SWM - silent wave motor) and do not have an aperture ring. There are some that straddle the line between the two, but those are the two main groups.
Top of the line Nikon lenses have a gold ring around the front of the barrel: 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 85/1.4. There might be a few more but you get the idea. These lenses are quite similar to the Canon equivalents, with the exception of the 85 being f/1.4 instead of f/1.2. Nikon also doesn't have a 50L competitor; the 50/1.4G is slightly better optically and much better built than Canon's 50/1.4, but nobody would ever confuse it with a 50L.
One step below that is the new f/1.8 lenses: 28/1.8G, 50/1.8G, 85/1.8G, which are really phenomenal and quite reasonably priced. The 85 in particular is my favorite lens and performs extremely well for $500.
Also note that Nikon just today announced a 70-200/4 with a new 5-stop VR (IS for Canon folks). I'm excited! This is one of the two lenses that Nikon hasn't had, along with a good 135/2, that almost made me not switch. Looks like it's one down, one to go
Nikon does have the 135/2 DC. I have not had a chance to try it, and don't know how it compares to Canon's. Many people listed the Nikon 135 the best portrait lens, while some don't have good control about the DC, which you don't have to use.
Upvote
0
weekendshooter said:jocau said:
It is harder to distinguish between Nikon's lenses because they classify by the type of lens (basically how new it is) rather than the perceived quality, such as Canon's L line. AF-D lenses are the older type - they have aperture rings and focus via an in-body motor-driven screw. AF-S G lenses are the newest and have Nikon's ultrasonic motor (SWM - silent wave motor) and do not have an aperture ring. There are some that straddle the line between the two, but those are the two main groups.
Top of the line Nikon lenses have a gold ring around the front of the barrel: 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 85/1.4. There might be a few more but you get the idea. These lenses are quite similar to the Canon equivalents, with the exception of the 85 being f/1.4 instead of f/1.2. Nikon also doesn't have a 50L competitor; the 50/1.4G is slightly better optically and much better built than Canon's 50/1.4, but nobody would ever confuse it with a 50L.
One step below that is the new f/1.8 lenses: 28/1.8G, 50/1.8G, 85/1.8G, which are really phenomenal and quite reasonably priced. The 85 in particular is my favorite lens and performs extremely well for $500.
Also note that Nikon just today announced a 70-200/4 with a new 5-stop VR (IS for Canon folks). I'm excited! This is one of the two lenses that Nikon hasn't had, along with a good 135/2, that almost made me not switch. Looks like it's one down, one to go
I know the difference between AF-D and AF-S lenses, but beyond that I still find it hard. Also the fastest focusing Canon lenses are the ones with an Ultrasonic Motor (USM). Which are the fastest ones in the Nikon lens lineup? Lenses with a SWM? With Canon it's much easier. Most of the time L glass = high-end glass. And besides that there are some gems like e.g. the EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 IS or the EF 85mm F/1.8. Yeah I've heard about the Nikon 70-200mm F/4. If it's as good as the Canon variant, they have 'disabled' one of the advantages of Canon. However there are still no (decent) equivalents of the 65mm MP-E and the various TS-E lenses. Nikon also doesn't have a pancake lens?
Upvote
0
W
weekendshooter
Guest
jocau said:weekendshooter said:jocau said:
It is harder to distinguish between Nikon's lenses because they classify by the type of lens (basically how new it is) rather than the perceived quality, such as Canon's L line. AF-D lenses are the older type - they have aperture rings and focus via an in-body motor-driven screw. AF-S G lenses are the newest and have Nikon's ultrasonic motor (SWM - silent wave motor) and do not have an aperture ring. There are some that straddle the line between the two, but those are the two main groups.
Top of the line Nikon lenses have a gold ring around the front of the barrel: 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 85/1.4. There might be a few more but you get the idea. These lenses are quite similar to the Canon equivalents, with the exception of the 85 being f/1.4 instead of f/1.2. Nikon also doesn't have a 50L competitor; the 50/1.4G is slightly better optically and much better built than Canon's 50/1.4, but nobody would ever confuse it with a 50L.
One step below that is the new f/1.8 lenses: 28/1.8G, 50/1.8G, 85/1.8G, which are really phenomenal and quite reasonably priced. The 85 in particular is my favorite lens and performs extremely well for $500.
Also note that Nikon just today announced a 70-200/4 with a new 5-stop VR (IS for Canon folks). I'm excited! This is one of the two lenses that Nikon hasn't had, along with a good 135/2, that almost made me not switch. Looks like it's one down, one to go
I know the difference between AF-D and AF-S lenses, but beyond that I still find it hard. Also the fastest focusing Canon lenses are the ones with an Ultrasonic Motor (USM). Which are the fastest ones in the Nikon lens lineup? Lenses with a SWM? With Canon it's much easier. Most of the time L glass = high-end glass. And besides that there are some gems like e.g. the EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 IS or the EF 85mm F/1.8. Yeah I've heard about the Nikon 70-200mm F/4. If it's as good as the Canon variant, they have 'disabled' one of the advantages of Canon. However there are still no (decent) equivalents of the 65mm MP-E and the various TS-E lenses. Nikon also doesn't have a pancake lens?
As far as focusing speed, you have to look up reviews of individual lenses, which are pretty easy to find. There are focusing speed demos of lots of lenses on youtube. Even with SWM, the speed varies greatly. For example, the 50/1.8 focuses much faster than the 1.4 despite them both being SWM. EDIT: some of the D lenses focus more quickly than their newer G counterparts, especially on pro bodies due to their powerful in-body motors. These focus very noisily and are considered by some to be quicker but less accurate. I don't own any D lenses and really wouldn't consider buying one due to the advancements in coatings and optical design found in the new G's.
Nikon has an "L"-like designation too - the gold ring. It's really easy to tell the build quality difference between gold and non-gold lenses.
The new 85/1.8G is better in every way than the Canon 85/1.8, though it is slightly more expensive. It focuses just as quickly while having much better bokeh and is extremely sharp all the way across full frame by f/2.8 (bitingly sharp in the center wide open).
Nikon's 17-55 f/2.8 is not as good as Canon's - it doesn't have IS but does have gold ring build quality; it is a slightly smaller 24-70. Nikonrumors reported that Nikon will soon release a new set of DX lenses, so presumably an updated 17-55 would be among those.
There is no pancake but the 50/1.8G is extremely good. Nikon also has an amazing 14-24 and a quite good 16-35/4 VR, along with the new G primes that Canon hasn't answered yet. Both systems are fantastic, and each one has its perks that the other can't quite match. You really do have to research individual lenses to see if they appeal to you; it's no different from Canon in this regard.
As for the 135 DC, I have read very mixed things. It's older, very heavy, and very expensive, and that alone dissuades me from considering it. A 135/1.8 VR has been long rumored, so we'll see if that ever pans out. In the meantime, my 85/1.8G is phenomenal and very affordable.
Upvote
0
nicku said:
:
The Point? His point? Yours? Seems like you were focusing on all those points and couldn't get mine...
I simply asked what does he shoot that his current (5D3 I guess) gear holds his talent and creative process back. Then we could look on the net and see that NONE shot that before successfully with the same gear and pat him on the back, providing emotional support for the switch..
Why don't people just change?
Do they need someone's approval? Honestly anyone could use any current modern crop or FF body to produce awesome photography.
Pick any current body or lens from any current manufacturer and you'll find amazing photos taken with it.
OR see some of these and see what they were shot with...
http://www.pbase.com/galleries?view=popular_photos&period=all
http://fotozz.hu/fotok_listaja?ri=5c
Upvote
0
weekendshooter said:jocau said:weekendshooter said:jocau said:
It is harder to distinguish between Nikon's lenses because they classify by the type of lens (basically how new it is) rather than the perceived quality, such as Canon's L line. AF-D lenses are the older type - they have aperture rings and focus via an in-body motor-driven screw. AF-S G lenses are the newest and have Nikon's ultrasonic motor (SWM - silent wave motor) and do not have an aperture ring. There are some that straddle the line between the two, but those are the two main groups.
Top of the line Nikon lenses have a gold ring around the front of the barrel: 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 85/1.4. There might be a few more but you get the idea. These lenses are quite similar to the Canon equivalents, with the exception of the 85 being f/1.4 instead of f/1.2. Nikon also doesn't have a 50L competitor; the 50/1.4G is slightly better optically and much better built than Canon's 50/1.4, but nobody would ever confuse it with a 50L.
One step below that is the new f/1.8 lenses: 28/1.8G, 50/1.8G, 85/1.8G, which are really phenomenal and quite reasonably priced. The 85 in particular is my favorite lens and performs extremely well for $500.
Also note that Nikon just today announced a 70-200/4 with a new 5-stop VR (IS for Canon folks). I'm excited! This is one of the two lenses that Nikon hasn't had, along with a good 135/2, that almost made me not switch. Looks like it's one down, one to go
I know the difference between AF-D and AF-S lenses, but beyond that I still find it hard. Also the fastest focusing Canon lenses are the ones with an Ultrasonic Motor (USM). Which are the fastest ones in the Nikon lens lineup? Lenses with a SWM? With Canon it's much easier. Most of the time L glass = high-end glass. And besides that there are some gems like e.g. the EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 IS or the EF 85mm F/1.8. Yeah I've heard about the Nikon 70-200mm F/4. If it's as good as the Canon variant, they have 'disabled' one of the advantages of Canon. However there are still no (decent) equivalents of the 65mm MP-E and the various TS-E lenses. Nikon also doesn't have a pancake lens?
As far as focusing speed, you have to look up reviews of individual lenses, which are pretty easy to find. There are focusing speed demos of lots of lenses on youtube. Even with SWM, the speed varies greatly. For example, the 50/1.8 focuses much faster than the 1.4 despite them both being SWM. EDIT: some of the D lenses focus more quickly than their newer G counterparts, especially on pro bodies due to their powerful in-body motors. These focus very noisily and are considered by some to be quicker but less accurate. I don't own any D lenses and really wouldn't consider buying one due to the advancements in coatings and optical design found in the new G's.
Nikon has an "L"-like designation too - the gold ring. It's really easy to tell the build quality difference between gold and non-gold lenses.
The new 85/1.8G is better in every way than the Canon 85/1.8, though it is slightly more expensive. It focuses just as quickly while having much better bokeh and is extremely sharp all the way across full frame by f/2.8 (bitingly sharp in the center wide open).
Nikon's 17-55 f/2.8 is not as good as Canon's - it doesn't have IS but does have gold ring build quality; it is a slightly smaller 24-70. Nikonrumors reported that Nikon will soon release a new set of DX lenses, so presumably an updated 17-55 would be among those.
There is no pancake but the 50/1.8G is extremely good. Nikon also has an amazing 14-24 and a quite good 16-35/4 VR, along with the new G primes that Canon hasn't answered yet. Both systems are fantastic, and each one has its perks that the other can't quite match. You really do have to research individual lenses to see if they appeal to you; it's no different from Canon in this regard.
As for the 135 DC, I have read very mixed things. It's older, very heavy, and very expensive, and that alone dissuades me from considering it. A 135/1.8 VR has been long rumored, so we'll see if that ever pans out. In the meantime, my 85/1.8G is phenomenal and very affordable.
Yeah I read that the AF-S 85mm F/1.8G is brilliant.
The new EF 24mm F/2.8 IS USM and EF 28mm F/2.8 IS USM lenses also seem to be really good optically (and IS on a wide angle prime for the 1st time?), but sadly enough they are way overpriced.
Upvote
0
- Status
