arthurbikemad said:
... it's always a trade off, what you gain with one you loose with another...
Exactly. I realized the other day that when I think "what if I switched to Nikon" I always concentrate on what Nikon has that I want, but I decided I should really carefully consider what I'd be giving up by switching to the Nikon system. The last thing I'd want is to sell my Canon gear, getting much less for it than I paid, and then after buying into Nikon realize that I wish I had my Canon gear again.
Eldar said:
The simple truth is that you can live happily (and frustratingly) with both.
I don't have the cash to maintain two systems. One day if I have the cash I probably will try to have two systems.
zim said:
Pancakes and CR (you wouldn't be allowed back) ;D
Pancakes are a good one. I didn't think about them. Thanks.
I don't know that you're right about CR banning me.
JohanCruyff said:
Considering that Canon developed a 24-105 IS STM Lens, we can expect that some of the future Full Frame Canon bodies will have DPAF.
So, you would/will be losing DPAF & STM Lenses.
DPAF! Good one. Thanks. I haven't gotten to try it yet, but it sounds awesome.
steepjay said:
One point from your original list - build quality; at the D810 level, Nikons are built like tanks, wouldn't worry one bit about Nikon toughness.
I went to Best Buy today and they had a D810 for people to hold and "try". Unfortunately, I couldn't turn it on and "try" it because they had no ability to power it up, they didn't even know where the batteries were... and they had no lens to put on it, nor could I put the lens on the adjacent d610 on d810 because they've permanently affixed it to the d610 to ensure it doesn't get stolen. How am I supposed to get a feel for whether I like the camera if I all I can do is admire how
purty it is? I did get a feel for the build quality though, and you're right. It's much better than the other Nikon's I've held, which were comparatively lower end.
privatebydesign said:
...if you are already invested in a maker it becomes much more complex. For instance how difficult is it, personally, to change user interface...
...But if you don't use TS lenses that is moot, same with the MP-E 65, the handholdable 600 f4 etc etc. Nikon might not have the AF f1.2 primes, but their f1.8 primes have many fans and faster focusing than the Canon f1.2's, indeed they are much nicer general purpose lenses the f1.2's are very focused on a look and make massive compromises to get it.
Flashes, well Canon have Nikon beat for the RT system, but there are third party flashes that do the same thing on Nikon. And many people consider the Nikon system to give 'better' exposures than the Canon system, I don't, but I understand exactly what the Canon system is trying to do exposure wise so I know when to adjust or override it.
The differences go on and on. If you can give us a better understanding of what you shoot, the lenses and the gear you currently use we can be much more helpful.
I agree about it being more difficult to switch the more invested you get in a company. This is why I'm entertaining this hypothetical now. I'm at a point where I could switch now (it would be painful, and I'd lose a few thousand dollars, but it could be much much worse), but if I get more invested I doubt I'd switch unless things got really bad with the Canon brand.
I don't use Tilt-shift... yet. The MP-E 65 has been on my list of things to buy, but I've wondered why it wasn't listed on the 5Ds recommended lenses. Did I miss it on that list? It seems like we're shifting to higher MP, and I figure I should only buy lenses that will remain useful as that shift occurs.
As for the flash systems, I was not aware of the Nikon vs Canon discussion in regards to exposure. I've been reading up on that lately to better understand it.
Mancubus said:
There is a video by Tony Northrup on youtube, he tests Canon vs Nikon and his biggest Nikon issue was the 70-200mm 2.8.
It's not as sharp as the Canon version, and despite being advertised as 70-200mm is actually around 70-130mm.
I remember reading this a while back: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/09/just-the-lenses-canon-vs-nikon-zooms-at-70mm
It seemed to say that they were roughly equivalent.
dak723 said:
Before switching, make sure you actually try a Nikon. The fact that the zoom (and I believe the focus) rings turn in the opposite direction are enough to keep me from considering Nikon. For some it doesn't matter, but it really would bother me.
I tried to do that today at Best Buy. I wasn't able to unfortunately. I mentioned it in more detail above.
GmwDarkroom said:
I think a better question is "What are you not getting from Canon that you feel you need?" And "because I feel like it" is a perfectly decent answer.
Both systems provide excellent cameras and lenses. Each with strengths and weaknesses for different applications and both capable of excellent pictures in all conditions if used with the proper technique.
Some people have specific requirements that simply can't be filled by one or the other, so that leads back to my original question.
You're right - that's a good question. Honestly, I can't say that there is anything that my Canon can't do that I've needed it to do. If there was, I'd probably have just switched already rather than put the thought into whether I should - or whether I'm just feeling like the grass is greener on the other side when it may or may not actually be.
Zeidora said:
1) MPE65, for which there is no equivalent, not even third party. And I use it a lot.
2) Old Zeiss/CY lenses (now just the F-Distagon 16 mm) because they cannot be mounted on Nikon.
I do not like that canon lenses have no mechanical f-stop ring on lens barrel, but I equally dislike the "wrong" direction the Nikon ring turns. I once owned a F3HP, so have tried it.
The MPE65 is a good one. I too wish there was an f-stop ring. I know Canon used to have them, because I've got an old manual focus Canon FD mount 50mm f/1.8 with an aperture ring.
I'm not sure if the direction of the rings would matter to me or not.
johnf3f said:
Most would consider Canon lenses to be better (with some exceptions)
I recently posted a thread asking about Canon vs Nikon lenses. I didn't explicitly state it, but I was questioning this generally accepted position about Canon vs Nikon glass. The impression I've gotten recently is that it used to be that Canon glass was generally superior, but Nikon has caught up and now they run neck and neck for the most part. Am I wrong here?
