Why I'm not jumping to Nikon

[roland]

There's been a lot of talk lately about how the 5Dm3 is overpriced, has poor DR, etc and how the 6D is overpriced and under-spec'ed. And the Nikon D800 and D600 look like pretty sweet cameras.

I would seem like an ideal candidate to jump to Nikon: I'm currently shooting a T1i that was my first DSLR when I got it 3+ years ago. I've shot quite a bit and learned a lot, and I feel like I'd get a lot out of a new body. But I'm not particularly tied to the Canon system for FF -- my only EF lens is the 50/1.8, and I have one 430 flash. I have a couple of EF-S lenses I'd have to replace if I got a FF body, no matter whether I went Canon or Nikon.

The D600 looks pretty nice, and I could probably talk myself into a D800 for $3K more easily than a 5Dm3 for $500 more. But I'm probably going to stick with Canon -- my next camera is probably a 6D.

Why? The lenses. First of all, the 6D kit with the 24-105 f/4 looks like a good deal, and the 24-105 seems like an ideal lens for walking around with a FF body. As far as I know, Nikon has no lens that really competes with the 24-105. The other main lens that I see myself getting is the 70-200 f/4 IS, which is great for someone only semi-serious like me to walk around with -- I've rented both the 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8, and paying half as much for a lens that is half the weight seems like a great deal to me (and coming from the crop body I shoot now, f/4 on FF would be pretty fast). Again, Nikon has nothing to match this lens -- they only have the f/2.8 version.

Even having access to the crazy stuff that I might only rent once a year like the Canon 8-15 fisheye or the 17mm TS-E matters to me.

So perhaps the D600 has better IQ, but I'm sure that (especially compared to what I shoot now) in absolute terms, the Canon 6D has excellent IQ too, and as others have said before, the Canon *system* is still enough ahead of Nikon that the Nikon bodies as not enough to entice me to switch.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

There's been a lot of talk lately about how the 5Dm3 is overpriced, has poor DR, etc and how the 6D is overpriced and under-spec'ed. And the Nikon D800 and D600 look like pretty sweet cameras.

I would seem like an ideal candidate to jump to Nikon: I'm currently shooting a T1i that was my first DSLR when I got it 3+ years ago. I've shot quite a bit and learned a lot, and I feel like I'd get a lot out of a new body. But I'm not particularly tied to the Canon system for FF -- my only EF lens is the 50/1.8, and I have one 430 flash. I have a couple of EF-S lenses I'd have to replace if I got a FF body, no matter whether I went Canon or Nikon.

The D600 looks pretty nice, and I could probably talk myself into a D800 for $3K more easily than a 5Dm3 for $500 more. But I'm probably going to stick with Canon -- my next camera is probably a 6D.

Why? The lenses. First of all, the 6D kit with the 24-105 f/4 looks like a good deal, and the 24-105 seems like an ideal lens for walking around with a FF body. As far as I know, Nikon has no lens that really competes with the 24-105. The other main lens that I see myself getting is the 70-200 f/4 IS, which is great for someone only semi-serious like me to walk around with -- I've rented both the 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8, and paying half as much for a lens that is half the weight seems like a great deal to me (and coming from the crop body I shoot now, f/4 on FF would be pretty fast). Again, Nikon has nothing to match this lens -- they only have the f/2.8 version.

Even having access to the crazy stuff that I might only rent once a year like the Canon 8-15 fisheye or the 17mm TS-E matters to me.

So perhaps the D600 has better IQ, but I'm sure that (especially compared to what I shoot now) in absolute terms, the Canon 6D has excellent IQ too, and as others have said before, the Canon *system* is still enough ahead of Nikon that the Nikon bodies as not enough to entice me to switch.

As you consider lenses --- think about the 70-200 2.8, the one without IS. Price is close to the f4 with IS. I love my 2.8 and rarely feel like IS would make or break a shot (if its dark enough that I'm shooting at 12,800 ISO and still need to go below 1/60th, well then who-ever I'm shooting for is gonna be psyched that I could even get a shot in that light!).

Running without IS at the longer end may take some getting used to, but once you do, you'll love that extra flexibility you'll get from the 2.8 aperture!

 

[Tammy]

There's been a lot of talk lately about how the 5Dm3 is overpriced, has poor DR, etc and how the 6D is overpriced and under-spec'ed. And the Nikon D800 and D600 look like pretty sweet cameras.

I would seem like an ideal candidate to jump to Nikon: I'm currently shooting a T1i that was my first DSLR when I got it 3+ years ago. I've shot quite a bit and learned a lot, and I feel like I'd get a lot out of a new body. But I'm not particularly tied to the Canon system for FF -- my only EF lens is the 50/1.8, and I have one 430 flash. I have a couple of EF-S lenses I'd have to replace if I got a FF body, no matter whether I went Canon or Nikon.

The D600 looks pretty nice, and I could probably talk myself into a D800 for $3K more easily than a 5Dm3 for $500 more. But I'm probably going to stick with Canon -- my next camera is probably a 6D.

Why? The lenses. First of all, the 6D kit with the 24-105 f/4 looks like a good deal, and the 24-105 seems like an ideal lens for walking around with a FF body. As far as I know, Nikon has no lens that really competes with the 24-105. The other main lens that I see myself getting is the 70-200 f/4 IS, which is great for someone only semi-serious like me to walk around with -- I've rented both the 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8, and paying half as much for a lens that is half the weight seems like a great deal to me (and coming from the crop body I shoot now, f/4 on FF would be pretty fast). Again, Nikon has nothing to match this lens -- they only have the f/2.8 version.

Even having access to the crazy stuff that I might only rent once a year like the Canon 8-15 fisheye or the 17mm TS-E matters to me.

So perhaps the D600 has better IQ, but I'm sure that (especially compared to what I shoot now) in absolute terms, the Canon 6D has excellent IQ too, and as others have said before, the Canon *system* is still enough ahead of Nikon that the Nikon bodies as not enough to entice me to switch.

well said.. : )

 

[jondave]

You're currently shooting with a T1i and you're torn between the IQ of a FF Canon vs Nikon body? Poor DR? You sound like an engineer, not a photographer.

If you think Canon has better glass, then that's a much better basis for you to make your decision. But seriously buddy, stop reading the body specs and just go out and shoot photos. There's no IQ or DR category in photo competitions.

 

[weekendshooter]

There's been a lot of talk lately about how the 5Dm3 is overpriced, has poor DR, etc and how the 6D is overpriced and under-spec'ed. And the Nikon D800 and D600 look like pretty sweet cameras.

I would seem like an ideal candidate to jump to Nikon: I'm currently shooting a T1i that was my first DSLR when I got it 3+ years ago. I've shot quite a bit and learned a lot, and I feel like I'd get a lot out of a new body. But I'm not particularly tied to the Canon system for FF -- my only EF lens is the 50/1.8, and I have one 430 flash. I have a couple of EF-S lenses I'd have to replace if I got a FF body, no matter whether I went Canon or Nikon.

The D600 looks pretty nice, and I could probably talk myself into a D800 for $3K more easily than a 5Dm3 for $500 more. But I'm probably going to stick with Canon -- my next camera is probably a 6D.

Why? The lenses. First of all, the 6D kit with the 24-105 f/4 looks like a good deal, and the 24-105 seems like an ideal lens for walking around with a FF body. As far as I know, Nikon has no lens that really competes with the 24-105. The other main lens that I see myself getting is the 70-200 f/4 IS, which is great for someone only semi-serious like me to walk around with -- I've rented both the 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8, and paying half as much for a lens that is half the weight seems like a great deal to me (and coming from the crop body I shoot now, f/4 on FF would be pretty fast). Again, Nikon has nothing to match this lens -- they only have the f/2.8 version.

Even having access to the crazy stuff that I might only rent once a year like the Canon 8-15 fisheye or the 17mm TS-E matters to me.

So perhaps the D600 has better IQ, but I'm sure that (especially compared to what I shoot now) in absolute terms, the Canon 6D has excellent IQ too, and as others have said before, the Canon *system* is still enough ahead of Nikon that the Nikon bodies as not enough to entice me to switch.

Cool story, bro. Speak up, I can barely hear you with your pixel-peeping face pressed so hard into your monitor.

 

[roland]

As you consider lenses --- think about the 70-200 2.8, the one without IS. Price is close to the f4 with IS. I love my 2.8 and rarely feel like IS would make or break a shot (if its dark enough that I'm shooting at 12,800 ISO and still need to go below 1/60th, well then who-ever I'm shooting for is gonna be psyched that I could even get a shot in that light!).

Running without IS at the longer end may take some getting used to, but once you do, you'll love that extra flexibility you'll get from the 2.8 aperture!

To me the key difference is 1310g for the f/2.8 vs. 760 for the f/4. I've shot both and like I said the f/2.8 is just too big and heavy for someone only semi-serious like me.

If I was OK with the size of the f/2.8 lens, then I'd be OK with the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8, and it would only be the 24-105 keeping me with Canon

 

[Albi86]

There's been a lot of talk lately about how the 5Dm3 is overpriced, has poor DR, etc and how the 6D is overpriced and under-spec'ed. And the Nikon D800 and D600 look like pretty sweet cameras.

I would seem like an ideal candidate to jump to Nikon: I'm currently shooting a T1i that was my first DSLR when I got it 3+ years ago. I've shot quite a bit and learned a lot, and I feel like I'd get a lot out of a new body. But I'm not particularly tied to the Canon system for FF -- my only EF lens is the 50/1.8, and I have one 430 flash. I have a couple of EF-S lenses I'd have to replace if I got a FF body, no matter whether I went Canon or Nikon.

The D600 looks pretty nice, and I could probably talk myself into a D800 for $3K more easily than a 5Dm3 for $500 more. But I'm probably going to stick with Canon -- my next camera is probably a 6D.

Why? The lenses. First of all, the 6D kit with the 24-105 f/4 looks like a good deal, and the 24-105 seems like an ideal lens for walking around with a FF body. As far as I know, Nikon has no lens that really competes with the 24-105. The other main lens that I see myself getting is the 70-200 f/4 IS, which is great for someone only semi-serious like me to walk around with -- I've rented both the 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8, and paying half as much for a lens that is half the weight seems like a great deal to me (and coming from the crop body I shoot now, f/4 on FF would be pretty fast). Again, Nikon has nothing to match this lens -- they only have the f/2.8 version.

Even having access to the crazy stuff that I might only rent once a year like the Canon 8-15 fisheye or the 17mm TS-E matters to me.

So perhaps the D600 has better IQ, but I'm sure that (especially compared to what I shoot now) in absolute terms, the Canon 6D has excellent IQ too, and as others have said before, the Canon *system* is still enough ahead of Nikon that the Nikon bodies as not enough to entice me to switch.

Not to crush your bubble, but Nikon 24-120mm f/4 and Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 are good alternatives.

Nikon has no 70-200 f/4 IS, agreed, but both Sigma and (within the year) Tamron have 70-200 f/2.8 IS for the same price. We can't say anything about the Tammy yet, but the Sigma is a very, very good lense. Heavier though, you have a point there.

Samyang and Sigma produce good fisheye lenses, and soon enough there will be a Samyang 24mm TS-E.

Canon's supremacy in lenses nowadays is pretty much limited to the telezoom segment. If most of your pictures are over 200mm then you are right, staying with Canon is the best choice. Otherwise Nikon and 3rd-party offer an amazing selection of glass.

 

[sandymandy]

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...

 

[roland]

You're currently shooting with a T1i and you're torn between the IQ of a FF Canon vs Nikon body? Poor DR? You sound like an engineer, not a photographer.

If you think Canon has better glass, then that's a much better basis for you to make your decision. But seriously buddy, stop reading the body specs and just go out and shoot photos. There's no IQ or DR category in photo competitions.

I think you may have missed the point of my post. I was reacting to all the other threads about how Canon sucks because Nikon is trouncing them on dxomark scores and that no one is going to buy a 6D because the D600 is so much better and that Canon should fire everyone involved in developing a product as lame as the 6D. I thought it might be interesting to give a perspective on why someone might actually choose to buy a 6D over a D600.

I have about 50,000 exposures on my T1i so I do get out and shoot occasionally. But I think I'm at the point where I'd enjoy having a nicer body, and it might even improve some of the images I get. Obviously if I'm going to drop $2K on a new body, I'd prefer to get the camera that suits me better.

However, if you go back and reread my original post, you'll realize that my whole point was that I'm not going to decide based on Nikon having higher DR or less low-ISO noise or whatever. Any FF body is so much better than what I have now that I'm going to worry about Canon's "horrible banding" and "low resolution" or whatever else the people on this forum say right before they throw all their Canon gear in the garbage and buy a D800.

The only thing I was trying to say is that the 6D overall seems a better fit than the D600 for someone like me, who likes to walk around and take pictures of people and places and *not* spend my time pixel peeping at test patterns.

 

[K3nt]

The only thing I was trying to say is that the 6D overall seems a better fit than the D600 for someone like me, who likes to walk around and take pictures of people and places and *not* spend my time pixel peeping at test patterns.

+1. Go for it. Test labs are fine but pointless unless the camera is fast to use and let's you take the shot you want, when you want. ;D

 

[Albi86]

You're currently shooting with a T1i and you're torn between the IQ of a FF Canon vs Nikon body? Poor DR? You sound like an engineer, not a photographer.

If you think Canon has better glass, then that's a much better basis for you to make your decision. But seriously buddy, stop reading the body specs and just go out and shoot photos. There's no IQ or DR category in photo competitions.

I think you may have missed the point of my post. I was reacting to all the other threads about how Canon sucks because Nikon is trouncing them on dxomark scores and that no one is going to buy a 6D because the D600 is so much better and that Canon should fire everyone involved in developing a product as lame as the 6D. I thought it might be interesting to give a perspective on why someone might actually choose to buy a 6D over a D600.

I have about 50,000 exposures on my T1i so I do get out and shoot occasionally. But I think I'm at the point where I'd enjoy having a nicer body, and it might even improve some of the images I get. Obviously if I'm going to drop $2K on a new body, I'd prefer to get the camera that suits me better.

However, if you go back and reread my original post, you'll realize that my whole point was that I'm not going to decide based on Nikon having higher DR or less low-ISO noise or whatever. Any FF body is so much better than what I have now that I'm going to worry about Canon's "horrible banding" and "low resolution" or whatever else the people on this forum say right before they throw all their Canon gear in the garbage and buy a D800.

The only thing I was trying to say is that the 6D overall seems a better fit than the D600 for someone like me, who likes to walk around and take pictures of people and places and *not* spend my time pixel peeping at test patterns.

Please read again your first post.

You're not choosing the 6D over the D600, you are choosing the entire Canon package over Nikon's, and you're doing this basing mostly on one single lens: the 70-200 f/4 IS. Buying the 6D is consequence, not a choice.

That is a disputable choice, but still a choice, so if you're happy with that the go down that way. Honestly though, given your last paragraph, I really wonder why you *must* have that lens and nothing else.

 

[cliffwang]

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.

 

[JohanCruyff]

Why? The lenses. First of all, the 6D kit with the 24-105 f/4 looks like a good deal, and the 24-105 seems like an ideal lens for walking around with a FF body. As far as I know, Nikon has no lens that really competes with the 24-105. The other main lens that I see myself getting is the 70-200 f/4 IS, which is great for someone only semi-serious like me to walk around with

Lenses! The most important part of the gear!

Never say never, but I think that I will not leave Canon unless the competitor deliver a Nikkor 70-200 F/4 "VR".
I bought a used 5D classic for less than 1000 Eur, and I hope it will last until a used 5D3 will cost more or less the same amount (in four years maybe?).
If my 5Dc crashes tomorros, I think I'll buy a used 5d2. Or a Nikon body, provided I can put my EF 70-200 F/4 L IS in its mount. I do like its sharpness, colors etc (most canon-users know what I mean).

I wonder why cigarette producers have to state that nicotine gives you dependence, whereas I didn't read the same WARNING on the box of the EF 70-200 F/4 IS when I bought it.

P.S. You can fit a Nikkor lens on a Canon body, but not vice versa.

 

[Nishi Drew]

i agree with above about the Sigma 70-200 OS, it's fantastic, and I feel that the bokeh is a lot smoother and "dreamier" then the Canon version. Though, not as sharp at 200mm, but considering I got the lens under 1K I'm very happy.

But, also with the author here, I'm still on a T1i too, and I might just get a 5Dmk2 for cheap as the 6D, though not THAT bad, doesn't look like a camera I'd shell out 2K+for and get effective use for the next 4 years or so. It has more limitations than advantages, with the only real advantage being price.... which isn't even great for what it is so let's move on.

Switching systems no matter how much equipment or experience is just unwise, not just financially, but when you jump once, then if ever the previous system provided something you'd like then you're blaming yourself for not sticking with them, and might heavily consider switching back. The grass is always greener... even though right now it may really be green, a drought could harm Nokin land soon and the game could change all over.
Though, even if great things come to those that wait, if there's a feature/piece of equipment you need that just isn't available then of course, those events/sports/weddings/stories aren't going to wait, so switch over like all those guys did with the D3. But switching systems over an "entry level"offering doesn't seem like a good decision at all,
unless the goal later is to move up and collect lenses in the meanwhile with an affordable body...

 

[Albi86]

i agree with above about the Sigma 70-200 OS, it's fantastic, and I feel that the bokeh is a lot smoother and "dreamier" then the Canon version. Though, not as sharp at 200mm, but considering I got the lens under 1K I'm very happy.

But, also with the author here, I'm still on a T1i too, and I might just get a 5Dmk2 for cheap as the 6D, though not THAT bad, doesn't look like a camera I'd shell out 2K+for and get effective use for the next 4 years or so. It has more limitations than advantages, with the only real advantage being price.... which isn't even great for what it is so let's move on.

Switching systems no matter how much equipment or experience is just unwise, not just financially, but when you jump once, then if ever the previous system provided something you'd like then you're blaming yourself for not sticking with them, and might heavily consider switching back. The grass is always greener... even though right now it may really be green, a drought could harm Nokin land soon and the game could change all over.
Though, even if great things come to those that wait, if there's a feature/piece of equipment you need that just isn't available then of course, those events/sports/weddings/stories aren't going to wait, so switch over like all those guys did with the D3. But switching systems over an "entry level"offering doesn't seem like a good decision at all,
unless the goal later is to move up and collect lenses in the meanwhile with an affordable body...

I agree with you in general terms, but there are some peculiar things to consider in this situation:

1) D600 and D800 are so well specced to be quite a good investment for the future too, especially if you're a low-iso shooter.
2) They are cheaper, which makes up for the losses of switching system. And if you upgrade from a crop, you lose your crop lenses all the same, which makes it hardly different.
3) Sigma and Tamron provide very good glass, which makes users less dependent on Canon and Nikon lenses.
4) The D600, though being entry level, is very well specced. The typical user gets 90% of a 5D3 for 60% of the price.

In this peculiar situation switching systems is particularly soft.

 

[pakosouthpark]

You're currently shooting with a T1i and you're torn between the IQ of a FF Canon vs Nikon body? Poor DR? You sound like an engineer, not a photographer.

If you think Canon has better glass, then that's a much better basis for you to make your decision. But seriously buddy, stop reading the body specs and just go out and shoot photos. There's no IQ or DR category in photo competitions.

yeah a lot of people forget that, the main thing in how to do great photography is you! not the camera!

 

[gnd]

It's worth remembering why we switched to Japanese makers in the first place. They were simply cheaper. If you got to lose a Voigtlander or a Leica in muddy action you kissed a fortune goodbye. Nikon offered a rugged camera at a fraction of the price and their lens system was good enough. Canon were the amateur's alternative until the F line came along with the fluorite synthetic crystal glass revolution. Primary objective is cost.

In the dSLR era Nikon initially took the whole idea light-hearted, "cool-pix" of sorts. No vision. Today they offer rebranded Sony sensors for their top of the line lens system. Canon pays R&D to develop their own sensors, that's where the end-pricing plays and may be Canon's undoing for the consumer. 5D Mk2 was their finest example, tremendous value for bold new capabilities. Now, that's a camera of the decade. But in the end little matters, taking a good picture remains to the photographer.

 

[IronChef]

You're currently shooting with a T1i and you're torn between the IQ of a FF Canon vs Nikon body? Poor DR? You sound like an engineer, not a photographer.

If you think Canon has better glass, then that's a much better basis for you to make your decision. But seriously buddy, stop reading the body specs and just go out and shoot photos. There's no IQ or DR category in photo competitions.

yeah a lot of people forget that, the main thing in how to do great photography is you! not the camera!

Although the camera is not the most important aspect in photography, you still want the best camera for your budget. Depending how much you're invested in canon lenses and how much you can sell it for, upgrading to a Nikon FF instead of a Canon FF might give you better value.

 

[Albi86]

You're currently shooting with a T1i and you're torn between the IQ of a FF Canon vs Nikon body? Poor DR? You sound like an engineer, not a photographer.

If you think Canon has better glass, then that's a much better basis for you to make your decision. But seriously buddy, stop reading the body specs and just go out and shoot photos. There's no IQ or DR category in photo competitions.

yeah a lot of people forget that, the main thing in how to do great photography is you! not the camera!

Although the camera is not the most important aspect in photography, you still want the best camera for your budget. Depending how much you're invested in canon lenses and how much you can sell it for, upgrading to a Nikon FF instead of a Canon FF might give you better value.

+1

I love when people posting in a gear-oriented forum and having themselves several thousands grands of gear pieces come out saying "Nah, it's not about the gear, it's about skill". It's hypocrite to no end. Especially because I often read that this is a Canon enthusiasts forum, so apparently I have to assume that skill comes in kit with Canon gear only.

I would kindly invite those people to act on their principles, sell all their expensive gear and buy a 1100D kit and a fifty nifty. Then you can come and show us "pixel-peepers" and "spec-readers" (who care about value for money of the products we buy) that our worries have nothing to do with IQ and how miserable photographers we are.

 

[ecka]

Do you really need something like 70-200/4 to pair with 24-120/4 VR? That's only 80mm extra. Just don't be fooled by cheaper and/or better Nikon bodies. Their lenses are more expensive.
People say that in reality (not lab tests, but in less than ideal conditions) D7000 AF is a real pain and it looks like D600 got the same AF system. So, think twice before you jump.