Switching to Nikon

[Edwin Herdman]

I'll just hop on the train to say that, regardless of the many helpful replies given on the first page and throughout, KeithR is onto something in that the OP seems either not to be exactly sure about what they need, or they haven't explained exactly what their problem is. On top of that, there is still a general rule on the web that you need to be careful and have a thick skin when asking questions in places that you might reasonably expect to receive them coldly (like going to a Microsoft Xbox related site and asking about how those Nintendo systems are...going to a Ford site and asking about Chevrolet...etc.)

On that first page I saw some helpful comparisons between Nikon and Canon in cameras and service, so maybe somebody posted something elsewhere that set the OP off. Well, you just have to have a thick skin about such things - after all the OP themselves were apparently prepared that might just happen, so why the outrage?

To give my own thoughts about the situation...this looks like a possibly pivotal moment in photography, with all the widespread confusion about ISO and resolution, balanced against the very real need of many photographers to keep filesizes to a minimum and shot counts (and speed) high. From what I have seen, Canon has not impressed with their AF on the absolutely cheapest bodies, but the bargain basement DSLRs are full of compromises anyway.

I too am hoping for something good to be announced just over the horizon (i.e. before the end of the year) but I will watch and wait. It seems that the EF mount is not a special benefit to the OP, but for me it is.

 

[lady]

I don't think there's anything wrong with being curious about switching. Nikon makes fantastic cameras. If it were financially possibly I would carry both Nikons and Canons. I used a Nikon years back (the d40) and loved it. It's all about personal preference. You could be using the best, most expensive camera in the world but if its layout doesn't work with your hands you're going to hate it and take terrible pictures.

I find that Nikons have a much better button layout, however, their camera ergonomics are lacking. Canon has great ergonomics down to a "T". For me this is important because I have tiny hands and weak wrists. Other people may not notice the difference so much. Good ergonomics is the difference between my arms getting tired and shaking, and me taking a good picture without getting exhausted in a few minutes.

Nikons, as somebody else mentioned, have less megapixels in their cameras. I'm not sure if there's any data to back up Nikon having larger pixels, but generally when you raise cameras to very high megapixel counts you make the pixels smaller to cram a larger number in there. This decreases the quality of an image. I know people who would swear on whatever holy book they follow that Nikons have better coloring/image quality. I have noticed it as well, but I haven't found an unbiased side by side comparison of the two yet.

For me, ergonomics and a lower price point is how canon won me over. For you, all you need to do is rent both, try them out, and see which one fits you more. If you're still unsure, then don't switch.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

I don't think there's anything wrong with being curious about switching. Nikon makes fantastic cameras. If it were financially possibly I would carry both Nikons and Canons. I used a Nikon years back (the d40) and loved it. It's all about personal preference. You could be using the best, most expensive camera in the world but if its layout doesn't work with your hands you're going to hate it and take terrible pictures.

I agree with all of that.

I find that Nikons have a much better button layout, however, their camera ergonomics are lacking. Canon has great ergonomics down to a "T". For me this is important because I have tiny hands and weak wrists. Other people may not notice the difference so much. Good ergonomics is the difference between my arms getting tired and shaking, and me taking a good picture without getting exhausted in a few minutes.

This is also an interesting point - for me, where Nikon falls down is the absolutely terrible, barely readable font (aping the eight segment LCD displays of years past) and generally cluttered layout of their back LCD. On a really cheap camera like the D3000, which I have used a bit, it's nothing that prevents me from taking a good picture, and I suppose the animated graphic of the lens aperture may be useful - though I imagine many people would find it condescending and silly. I personally just found it to be a waste of space. My T1i, on the other hand, is so good at presenting data and with its button layout that I almost dread having to go to a multiple control dial layout, when I can currently do everything control-wise with my right hand. Only mode switches and the occasional unusual feature (mirror lock up) require moving a hand (in the case of MLU, it sadly requires digging into a menu, but it's still easy to find).

Nikons, as somebody else mentioned, have less megapixels in their cameras. I'm not sure if there's any data to back up Nikon having larger pixels, but generally when you raise cameras to very high megapixel counts you make the pixels smaller to cram a larger number in there. This decreases the quality of an image. I know people who would swear on whatever holy book they follow that Nikons have better coloring/image quality. I have noticed it as well, but I haven't found an unbiased side by side comparison of the two yet.

I don't want to beat the dead horse about this but this is not necessarily a point in Nikon's favor. More pixels mean that despite how good each individual Nikon pixel may look, you are getting more data points with a higher-density sensor - which is not just more resolution, but also more data for reducing noise. If you get a hot pixel on a lower-density sensor, you stand to lose more details.

There have been some heated debates on DPR Forums about the suitability of using some units for discussing pixel density over others. Some have pointed out that "pixel density" is a derived unit, and thus harder to gain insight from, when pixel pitch is a perfectly suitable measurement.

It does seem plausible to me that there are some improvements in ISO sensitivity possible with larger pixels - after all Nikon cameras seem to have achieved this - and of course we don't live in a world where throwing more pixels at a problem makes it go away; ISO-centered cameras are still important. But, barring ISO critical photography (and even there, much of the time), if you had a binary choice between improving lowering noise or increasing resolution (which seems a false, oversimplified binary choice), for now increasing resolution gives benefits for noise as well.

One final random note: For a while I took it as gospel that Nikon's use of Sony sensors meant that Canon was in a much better position for the future as it did sensor development in-house. But lately some reading about new Sony sensors has led me to wonder if the old paradigm is not assured and that Sony, with the current "also ran" status of the Alpha series, will enter the top tier with newer cameras. Their line seems to be lacking in some important areas (lenses, marketing, website details, possibly more but I can't comment on service etc. having not used it) but I would not count this big (biggest) developer of DSLR camera sensors out yet. From Canon's point, I wonder if they will be able to match some of the developments Sony has made to stay competitive.

 

[dr croubie]

I find that Nikons have a much better button layout, however, their camera ergonomics are lacking. Canon has great ergonomics down to a "T". For me this is important because I have tiny hands and weak wrists. Other people may not notice the difference so much. Good ergonomics is the difference between my arms getting tired and shaking, and me taking a good picture without getting exhausted in a few minutes.

This point doesn't even have to be about Canon vs Nikon, it goes for Canon vs Canon as well. I've got a 7D, main lens 15-85. I've got the custom buttons set up how I like (like top-dial does Aperture in Av and M mode, joystick does AF point select (i leave it on 5-spot most of the time). I take most of my shots without moving my eye from the viewfinder, except thos MLU shots (which i MF on live-view anyway).
After owning it for 6 months & 10,000 shots, i tried my sister's 550D with 18-55IS kit lens, and I couldn't get used to it at all. no wheel, no joystick, nothing was where i wanted or expected it to be. but she's had it also about 6 months, and can take photos just as fast as I can without moving her eye from the viewfinder.
Ergonomics is just something you get used to, imho. but my sis has tiny hands compared to me (she's only 5'3" or something, i'm 6'0). 550D fits her hands, 7D fits mine. I've never tried a nikon for more than 20 minutes, but i'm sure there's a model that fits my hands somewhere, the rest of it may take getting used to, but it'll happen if you want it to (and as long as the functions exist 'somewhere' in a menu, you'll get fast enough at activating them).

 

[motorhead]

It's interesting how we all differ in our preferences.

I detest the Canon method of hiding things away in the Custom Menu. I can never remember the correct sequence of fiddly little buttons to press , much preferring a dedicated button for one or maybe two jobs even if it makes the body seem "cluttered". It's OK to hide things in the CF list that might never be used, but routine adjustments need to be immediately accessible. I'd happily choose to ban the CF menu for ever.

I well remember trying to explain to a died-in-the-wool Nikon user how I select mirror-lock-up on my 30D. He was amazed when he was able to press one button.

 

[Flake]

Canon Cameras are designed to be operable with just one hand, you might not like that, but then they've done their marketing and other people find it a huge benefit. Mirror lock up is selectable with just one button on the 5D MkII it's called live view.

 

[WarStreet]

Live view is better than mirror-lockup for vibration reduction, and you have the benefit to have the frame visible on the lcd when enabled rather than nothing.


check this out for the vibration reduction difference :

http://krebsmicro.com/Canon_EFSC/index.html

 

[Loswr]

I detest the Canon method of hiding things away in the Custom Menu. I can never remember the correct sequence of fiddly little buttons to press , much preferring a dedicated button for one or maybe two jobs even if it makes the body seem "cluttered". It's OK to hide things in the CF list that might never be used, but routine adjustments need to be immediately accessible.

Ok, for you MLU is a 'routine adjustment'. For my friend, Bob, it's not. My cousin Mary likes to use AEB much of the time - so, where's her button for that? For me, Flash sync speed in Av mode is something I change quite frequently - so, Canon should put a dedicated button on the back for that, right?

Obviously, the point is that one person's 'routine adjustment' is something another person may never use. As an example, there's a dedicated WB button, which I suppose makes sense, but since I shoot in RAW and apply a custom WB in post, that button is useless as far as I am concerned. But maybe you use it all the time.

Here's a question - have you set up the My Menu function? You can register several settings to My Menu, sort them as you like, and then set Display from My Menu to Enable, which means when you press the Menu button the My Menu comes up (regardless of the menu where you last left off). That way, you can quickly select whatever is a routine adjustment for you, without needing a fiddly sequence of button presses.

 

[motorhead]

neuroanatomist,

My aging 30D has none of the bells and whistles of the more recent bodies and it does not offer "My Menu".

But as you say, we are all different, so why not offer a round half dozen buttons that can be pre-programmed to do whatever the user should decide? Sounds perfectly feasable to me.

But I was fascinated to read that live-view does not use the full focal plane shutter! Is that its standard operating procedure or something that can only be accessed via the CF functions?

 

[Loswr]

But I was fascinated to read that live-view does not use the full focal plane shutter! Is that its standard operating procedure or something that can only be accessed via the CF functions?

Via C.Fn on Live View-capable xxD and xD bodies (and you need to set Mode 2 for electronic first curtain). It's used by default (and cannot be disabled) for Live View in xxxD/Rebel bodies.

 

[WarStreet]

But I was fascinated to read that live-view does not use the full focal plane shutter! Is that its standard operating procedure or something that can only be accessed via the CF functions?

I forgot you have the 30D, which from the mail of Chuck Westfall, it seems that it lacks this feature.

Try to look at it in a positive way, when you get the 5DIII, you know you can use this feature and you can do so with a dedicated button

EDIT: Although the live-view is better, with smaller magnifications, the difference will be smaller. I did some fast rough test with a 1500mm telescope and during that period I believed it was better (but it could be that I have imagined it !)

 

[RuneL]

I know this is possibly not the perfect place to discuss this, but I've had such bad experience with cps and and sick of the focus issues with my 5d mark ii that I've seriously thought about switching to nikon.

I own 2 x 5D mark ii's, 16-35 2.8ii, 24-105, 70-200 2.8 ISii, 50 1.2 and 24 1.4.

As you can see I'm pretty deep into the canon family, but I'm finally becoming sick of the poor focus, small spread of focus points and the bad service of gear.

I borrowed a mark iv on my platinum cps, and although I was initially impressed, my conclusion was not amazed, and the color profile of the camera is odd compared to 5d's.

What do other people think. Has anyone made the switch, or looked into it seriously. What's the user experience with the nikons. Color profiles? Focus?

Well, by all means, do it. Or get a 1Ds if you want proper focus. the 5D is crappy regarding that.

 

[Loswr]

the 5D is crappy regarding that.

Wow. The 5D is crappy. You've also said that the 24-70 and 24-105 are pieces of crap. How do we ever manage to take a decent picture?

 

[UncleFester]

I like to see a dedicated button for preset shutter speeds which would work particularly well for telephoto lenses.
Something where I could rock back and forth between low for pans and high for stopping motion. That way I could just leave the Set button for quality and not have to bump around and re-select in that menu.

 

[recon photography]

the 5D is crappy regarding that.

Wow. The 5D is crappy. You've also said that the 24-70 and 24-105 are pieces of crap. How do we ever manage to take a decent picture?

i think he was referring to the auto focus

 

[bikersbeard]

Theres for's and against on each system, you say about auto focus on the 5DII being crap, i had a go on a D3 in a studio and found my 7D focused way quicker and the other night inside my 5DII locked on better than my 7D, 7D was hunting were as the 5DII got it 1st time, im happy with the 5D focus.. ;-)

Have to admit i was thinking of switching but TBH if you've invested in a load of gear i dont see the point, youll get great results from either camera / system.. one of my best photos ive ever taken was on a disposable 35mm £5.99 camera...

Speaking to some Pro's the only reason they have switched from canon to nikon is for the ISO performance of the pro nikons for wedding photography.. one said if his subject was sports, he'd switch to canon at an instant..

Get what your needs are for...

 

[Edwin Herdman]

Theres for's and against on each system, you say about auto focus on the 5DII being crap, i had a go on a D3 in a studio and found my 7D focused way quicker and the other night inside my 5DII locked on better than my 7D, 7D was hunting were as the 5DII got it 1st time, im happy with the 5D focus.. ;-)

With the same lens?

 

[bikersbeard]

no, it wasnt.. the 5DII had the 100mm2.8L and the 7D had 15-85mm, not saying the 5DII is as good as 7D but was expecting a bit worse the way peeps go on about the 5D, was really surprised how slow the D3 was though..

 

[Haydn1971]

Surely the f2.8 lens attached to the 5D would be make focusing better than the 15-85mm which if a similar focal length of about 62.5mm would be at f5.6 ?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Surely the f2.8 lens attached to the 5D would be make focusing better than the 15-85mm which if a similar focal length of about 62.5mm would be at f5.6 ?

The complaint about autofocusing with the 5D is the tracking speed for swiftly moving objects. It takes a advanced AF system to deal with that. The outer focus points do not work as well as sports cameras either.

The 5d using the center point, is extremely accurate, and very good in low light. So you have a camera designed for one purpose and those who think it should have been designed for a different type of use.

I use my 1D MK III for sports, and am still evaluating my 7D, but it looks good for sports as well. I've used my 5D for sports and had no issues, but that is not its best use. I just happened to have it with me when we visited by Niece and found the was in a track meet, so I took a few photos with my 5D MK II and 70-200mm f/4 IS. It tracked the runners coming toward me just fine.


5D MK II with 70-200mm f/4 IS

Here is a 1:1 section of the above image.