Considering switching to Nikon

[weekendshooter]

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.

I absolutely adore my 85G. It was my second lens after shooting with just the 50/1.4G for about 3 months. It performs just about as well as the 85/1.4G and is in fact sharper wide open than that one is at f/1.8, while being much lighter and easier to handle (yay for well-made plastic lenses).

Nikon's new 28/1.8G is very appealing as an alternative to the new Canon IS primes, but I think I'd rather wait for a cheaper 35 since I'd rather replace my 50 with a new walkaround prime rather than have one normal and one wider than normal but not ultrawide prime.

I've been waiting for the 70-200/4 since I bought into the system. My older brother has had a 7D since the day his preorder was delivered and his 70-200/4 IS is his most-used lens. I've always been jealous but now I'll be able to have one of my own, and with a next-gen VR system to boot

 

[akclimber]

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.

I absolutely adore my 85G. It was my second lens after shooting with just the 50/1.4G for about 3 months. It performs just about as well as the 85/1.4G and is in fact sharper wide open than that one is at f/1.8, while being much lighter and easier to handle (yay for well-made plastic lenses).

Nikon's new 28/1.8G is very appealing as an alternative to the new Canon IS primes, but I think I'd rather wait for a cheaper 35 since I'd rather replace my 50 with a new walkaround prime rather than have one normal and one wider than normal but not ultrawide prime.

I've been waiting for the 70-200/4 since I bought into the system. My older brother has had a 7D since the day his preorder was delivered and his 70-200/4 IS is his most-used lens. I've always been jealous but now I'll be able to have one of my own, and with a next-gen VR system to boot

I use both the 85 f/.8 and 28 f/1.8 on the D800e. I agree that the 85 does indeed rock. I'm on the fence about my copy of the 28 however. It's very nice stopped down but wide open. it really suffers from fringing - disappointingly so. I know to expect some fringing on fast, wide open wide primes but the 28 (my copy anyway) seems pretty poor in this respect.

Cheers!

 

[jocau]

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.

I absolutely adore my 85G. It was my second lens after shooting with just the 50/1.4G for about 3 months. It performs just about as well as the 85/1.4G and is in fact sharper wide open than that one is at f/1.8, while being much lighter and easier to handle (yay for well-made plastic lenses).

Nikon's new 28/1.8G is very appealing as an alternative to the new Canon IS primes, but I think I'd rather wait for a cheaper 35 since I'd rather replace my 50 with a new walkaround prime rather than have one normal and one wider than normal but not ultrawide prime.

I've been waiting for the 70-200/4 since I bought into the system. My older brother has had a 7D since the day his preorder was delivered and his 70-200/4 IS is his most-used lens. I've always been jealous but now I'll be able to have one of my own, and with a next-gen VR system to boot

I really love my EF 70-200mm F/4L IS USM (probably the biggest reason to stick with Canon), but I hardly use it because I don't like the focal length on a cropped sensor DSLR. That's also one of the reasons why I want a 6D.

 

[tnargs]

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....

DR is one of about 30 important attributes of a good camera, and even that one is not important in many shooting situations, and its usefulness in ANY situation is highly debated -- in this very forum on other threads. (Show me a print with more than 7 stops of DR).

Settle down. There is no need to go insane over a minor detail. 'HEAVILY inferior'?? Sorry mate, it seems you've bought the hype.

 

[tnargs]

....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...

The 5D3 costs, what, $800 more than the D600? (shop around). Less than the cost of 1 decent lens and you get a better all round camera. Switchers are better to get a 5D3 than an inferior D600 and lose money on lenses, they might even win financially as well as camera-wise.

 

[distant.star]

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....

Settle down. There is no need to go insane over a minor detail. 'HEAVILY inferior'?? Sorry mate, it seems you've bought the hype.

Thanks. I was thinking the same thing. Personally, I think this is all as silly as saying you're going to Nikon because they make their cameras blacker on the outside than Canon. I believe well over 99% of people using DSLR cameras today don't get anywhere near needing the theoretical DR that gets debated around here as if it were the damn holy grail!

 

[akclimber]

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....

Settle down. There is no need to go insane over a minor detail. 'HEAVILY inferior'?? Sorry mate, it seems you've bought the hype.

Thanks. I was thinking the same thing. Personally, I think this is all as silly as saying you're going to Nikon because they make their cameras blacker on the outside than Canon. I believe well over 99% of people using DSLR cameras today don't get anywhere near needing the theoretical DR that gets debated around here as if it were the damn holy grail!

Here's the thing: at ISOs 100-200 the sensor on the D800e is clearly, demonstratively superior in both DR and detail. These are not minor details. In a high DR scene there are times when I can capture the DR one on frame with the D800 that'd take 2 frames with my 5D2 or 5D3. That is not a minor consideration for some of us and could be considered a huge advantage (but I guess that's up to the photographer to decide). Regarding DR being a holy grail, well, at the point we are now with DSLR FF sensors in the 24-36 MP range already bumping up against reasonable diffraction (and processing) limits and with very, very good high ISO capabilities, AFAIC DR is now the holy grail (to be honest, it's been my holy grail since the 5D2 didn't much improve on the 5Dc & the 5D3 didn't improve at all on the 5D2, hence my foray into Nikon-Land). As for the argument (made above someplace) that nobody prints more the 7 (or whatever) stops of DR, tell me which file will make a better print: 1) one with very clean, detailed, noise and band free shadows and correctly exposed highlights or 2) one with muddy, noisey/pixilated and banded shadows and correctly exposed highlights? (caveat - that's a harsh description of under exposed Canon shadows but it is a situation that could occur in the same scene shot by the D800 and 5D3).

Now, at ISOs higher than the base 100-200 of the D800, the DR advantage is gradually lost until the 5D3 trumps the D800 (my experience seems to reflect the DXO Mark sensor test scores in this regard). So, if shooting at high ISO is a priority then sure, the 5D3 may be the better sensor to use. But don't discount the DR advantages of the D800 at low ISOs - they're real. And the detail advantages are real pretty much through out the ISO range when using non-diffraction limited apertures.

And before anyone dismisses me as a Nikon fanboy, I've owned the following Canon DSLRs: 10D, 5Dc, 1D2n, 7D & currently own a 5D2, 5D3 and IR converted T3i. And altho I own a D800e, I don't really see myself as a Nikon shooter and sincerely hope Canon gets its act together and develops new sensor tech to compete with the new generation of Sony/Nikon sensors so that I can go back to being a one brand shooter.

Cheers.

 

[cheeseheadsaint]

I agree with what TriGGy said. If you have been using Canon for a while, I wouldn't switch. Currently I have to use my school's Nikon D300s 's for sports assignments and I'm just worried over the little things. Everything is opposite! zoom, putting lens in..etc.. And it's infuriating to worry over the small things and relearn them! Yeah, eventually you'll get used to it by why bother if you don't have to? Spend that time shooting!

 

[UrbanImages]

Soooooo... Where is "RGF" and his contributions to the thread he/she started???

 

[tnargs]

Soooooo... Where is "RGF" and his contributions to the thread he/she started???

Same question I asked a week ago. Can you spell t-r-o-l-l?

 

[tnargs]

...As for the argument (made above someplace) that nobody prints more the 7 (or whatever) stops of DR, tell me which file will make a better print: 1) one with very clean, detailed, noise and band free shadows and correctly exposed highlights or 2) one with muddy, noisey/pixilated and banded shadows and correctly exposed highlights? ...

Neither - because of the highlighted part of your post above.

Storm, meet teacup.

PS do you really own a D800e, 5D2 and 5D3? Impressive.... I think.

 

[jocau]

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....

DR is one of about 30 important attributes of a good camera, and even that one is not important in many shooting situations, and its usefulness in ANY situation is highly debated -- in this very forum on other threads. (Show me a print with more than 7 stops of DR).

Settle down. There is no need to go insane over a minor detail. 'HEAVILY inferior'?? Sorry mate, it seems you've bought the hype.

I know that many scenes don't require a very high DR capable camera, but having a very high DR capable camera comes with another advantage. You can underexpose your shots to get a faster shutter speed and thus are able to freeze motion easier. You then just lift the shadows in post-processing. If Canon was, let's say, trailing behind Nikon/Sony by 1 stop, I wouldn't mind so much. But the difference is more than 2 stops!

 

[akclimber]

...As for the argument (made above someplace) that nobody prints more the 7 (or whatever) stops of DR, tell me which file will make a better print: 1) one with very clean, detailed, noise and band free shadows and correctly exposed highlights or 2) one with muddy, noisey/pixilated and banded shadows and correctly exposed highlights? ...

Neither - because of the highlighted part of your post above.

Storm, meet teacup.

PS do you really own a D800e, 5D2 and 5D3? Impressive.... I think.

"Neither" is the wrong answer at least for the prints I make but I guess we'll just disagree about that.

And yes, I do own a D800e, 5D2 and 5D3. Do you own a D800/e? If not, I suggest you rent or borrow one, use it for a while, shoot a bunch of DR and detail challenging scenes at ISOs 100 & 200 side-by-side with a 5D2 or 5D3 or 7D or 6D or 1Dx. You'll be impressed with the D800/E's sensor....I think.

Cheers.

 

[jocau]

I went to the local hypermarket today to get some champagne and saw that they also sell DSLR's. They were just sitting there and you could easily hold them in your hands if you wanted to. I saw a Nikon D3200, a Nikon D5100, a Nikon D90 and a Nikon D7000 and wanted to know if I would like the ergonomics since I held a Canon 60D in my hands a few months ago. I only held the D5100 and D3200 briefly since they were really too small. I especially checked out the D7000 for a longer time and I must say it felt pretty awful in my hands. The grip was too small for me. Especially near the bottom of the camera where my pinky was. It felt very uncomfortable even after holding it for about 30 seconds. I bet I would get cramps if I held it for 5 minutes. My experience with the D90 was pretty similar. I wonder if the D600 has the same bad grip. Canon may be lagging behind a lot on sensor technology, but ergonomics wise they are way ahead of Nikon for me.

 

[acafinecon]

Why woudl you want to do that NOW?

Canon's 24-70 II and 70-200 II L DESTROYED Nikon's counterparts, at least based on 5 professional reviews.
5d3 beats D800 and 1DX beats D4, based on 3 professional reviews!

Not a good idea now. Maybe next year.

Finally, even Nikon fascist Ken Rockwell has finally swtiched to Canon after 28 years of using it!

 

[friedmud]

Why woudl you want to do that NOW?

Canon's 24-70 II and 70-200 II L DESTROYED Nikon's counterparts, at least based on 5 professional reviews.
5d3 beats D800 and 1DX beats D4, based on 3 professional reviews!

All depends on what you're doing. If you're mainly doing landscapes then the above is definitely not true. The Low ISO performance of the D600 and D800 are superior...

Then you have to take into account price. A D600 and Nikon 24-70 is significantly cheaper than a 5DMkIII and 24-70 II (about $2000 from reputable dealers). If this is just a hobby... that can be significant.

For instance... there was my situation. I had a 7D and a 70-200 f/4L IS. I also had a bunch of smaller gear and older gear (XSi, old plastic lenses) and a broken 17-55 f/2.8. Let's analyze.

If I were going to move up to a 5DMkIII I would be selling my 7D. That ended up netting me $1200. The rest of my gear wouldn't give me that much cash (maybe ~$800). So now I have $2k to spend.

If I go get a 5DMkIII body from Amazon (not that I would get it there, just convenient to talk about) it costs me $3,200... so I'm out of pocket $1,200. That's ok, because I've been saving for a camera upgrade and have some cash. But now what? Oh, I need to get a 24-70 II as well (it's my preferred range and a damn fine lens). So now I'm out of pocket another $2100... for a total out of pocket cost of $3200.

The nice thing about this is that I still get to use my 70-200 f/4. The downside is that I'm out of pocket $3200.... which would make my wife fairly unhappy...

Now let's look at switching. I would have the $2k I had before... plus I could sell my 70-200 f/4 (which I got $1000 for) so now I have $3000. A D600 and 24-70 together cost $4000... so I'm out of pocket $1000.

This has the very real drawback of not having my 70-200 f/4 afterward... but I don't need it right away (again, mainly landscapes and travel photogging). I can save up for it and snag it later (Nikon just came out with one for $1400)

So for $1000 out of pocket I have a D600 which is awesome for landscape photography and a really great 24-70 (can't say it's better or worse than a 24-70 II myself... but it is really good either way). That is much easier for my wife to deal with... and I'm getting excellent IQ (orders of magnitude better than the 7D... but that's expected. Can't say how much better than a 5DMkIII).

Yes, I could have gone for a 5DMkII... but I would have sorely missed having good AF (I don't _only_ shoot landscapes!) and still wouldn't have the low ISO DR and IQ that the D600 does. Nor would I have access to the excellent Nikon 14-24 (Canon ultra-wides are really not great - I bought a 16-35 this year... and went through two copies before returning it all together because of lack of resolution at the edges... even on my 7D!)

Personally, if Canon would have come out with a serviceable 6D I would have stayed. But there were just too many features missing for the price (might still be a fine camera, but I feel like I got more for my money from a D600).

Basically, this whole thing is just trying to let some of you see that there are reasons to switch. The world is not black & white. There are many people in all sorts of different situations and with different needs and in different financial circumstances. It's not as easy as "X reviews better than Y!"... there are more variables...

 

[jocau]

Why woudl you want to do that NOW?

Canon's 24-70 II and 70-200 II L DESTROYED Nikon's counterparts, at least based on 5 professional reviews.
5d3 beats D800 and 1DX beats D4, based on 3 professional reviews!

Not a good idea now. Maybe next year.

Finally, even Nikon fascist Ken Rockwell has finally swtiched to Canon after 28 years of using it!

Easy answer in fact.

1) Better sensor (Sony EXMOR)
2) Better metering system
3) Better flash exposure

Out of those 3 points only point 1 really bothers me. As for Nikon: I don't love the company, nor do I hate it. I don't feel a connection with the brand, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't buy one. I appreciate their cameras and what they are achieving with them. As for Canon, I do feel a "connection" since I've had a lot of Canon devices in the past. As for their DSLR's... I like the looks, the ergonomics, the glass, but I don't like their sensors because they are lagging behind the competition by a big margin. I hope they will be back one day to crush the competition but I have my doubts right now. If they keep lagging behind a switch to e.g. Nikon might be inevitable...

 

[AmbientLight]

You are mistaken if you think that Canon's lagging behind Sony in sensor technology by a wide margin. Those sensors do show differences and that's fine, because we are seeing some competition here.

Sony is certainly ahead in some areas, but it is unlikely to stay like that. The best we can hope for is a development where Canon and Sony get the upper hand at some times, so that the current competitive situation will continue for a long time.

Of course I expect you have not used a 1D-X. On that level Canon simply delivers more except for some extra DR, but if you look at the overall comparison it is possible to live with that (at least I can). Overall according to many reviews the Canon product is better at this level.

Nikon simply has a niche to own with the D800, but that's it. At times Canon had its own niches (such as with the 5D Mark II), but you shouldn't just assume that a competitor is significantly behind the other, just because of such sweet spots.

Just as Nikon delivered D3 and D3s during the time of Canon's 5D Mark II successes, the situation is now in part reversed.

 

[jocau]

I call having more than 2 stops extra DR at low ISO values a big difference.

 

[acafinecon]

depends. most websites show that the 1dx has higher dr than d4, except dxo!
flash exposure is about the same now (see ken rockwell).