Why I'm not jumping to Nikon

[rahkshi007]

I am the one that jump from nikon to 5dm2 2 years ago.. the main reason i choose canon :

1) nikon dslr tend capture more yellowish colour photo.. i know it can be fixed in raw,but from my experience it is easy to fix if you shoot scenery,but not for potrait. , i am an asian and mostly i shot asian people potrait too, we asian tend to have a brown-yellowish skin and nikon camera will make it worst..

2) because of L lens..

 

[Fishnose]

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.

If the lenses are the only thing keeping you to Canon - think again. The Nikkor 24-120 F/4 VR is an absolutely exceptional lens. Ideal in fact even for the D800, not only the D600.
Nikkor lenses as a whole are just as good as Canon. And then we have alternatives from Tamron, Sigma, Tokina etc....

 

[Jason Beiko]

If I was starting again I would definitely go with Nikon. Why? because the new sensors are absolutely fantastic and now IMHO approach MF quality at a reasonable price point (for me). BTW I think you are under-estimating Nikon's and alternative companies current glass offerings.

The reason I haven't switched is because I am already invested in Canon gear and quite frankly my 7D is currently serving me quite well. However for my next camera I am undecided about which company to buy from.

I will purchase the 6D if it has similar DR performance to the D600/D800 (it likely will not). Or I will buy the new "big mega-pixel" camera if it is reasonably priced and the DR approaches that of Nikon.

BTW I mostly shoot landscapes at low ISO which heavily factors into my opinions....

 

[Bennymiata]

The grass is NOT greener on the other side.
It may look like it from a distance, but when you get there, you can often find it is only painted on.

Friends of mine with D800's complain bitterly about their greenish coloured screens, the poor auto focussing, especially when you pick a point on ther left side as well as other problems.
I have a 5D3 (as well as a 60D with around 150,000 shutter actuations), and I've never had a problem with them at all. In fact, I am still amazed at what a great all-around camera the 5D3 is.
It really isn't lacking anything.

While the spec sheets and DXO tests may say otherwise, in side to side testing, you'd be very hard pressed to see any differences between the D800 and 5D3.
I shoot everthing from weddings, to parties, carpets, products,interiors, portraits, landscapes - you name it, and the 5D3 always does a great job.
I initially went with the Canon system, because of the their lenses and their lower costs compared to Nikons.
The quality is maybe slightly better with Canon, but as most of us spend more on lenses than we do on bodies, the variety, quality and cost of the lenses is what really swayed me to go Canon, and why I stay with Canon.

 

[bdunbar79]

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.

+1 to that. Sorry folks, in today's world, gear matters.

 

[psolberg]

I switched to Nikon on release of the D800 and haven't looked back. People make a bigger deal than it actually is. If even I have to switch to sony or canon, I will.

this isn't marriage. they are just tools. get over it.

 

[Albi86]

The grass is NOT greener on the other side.
It may look like it from a distance, but when you get there, you can often find it is only painted on.

Friends of mine with D800's complain bitterly about their greenish coloured screens, the poor auto focussing, especially when you pick a point on ther left side as well as other problems.
I have a 5D3 (as well as a 60D with around 150,000 shutter actuations), and I've never had a problem with them at all. In fact, I am still amazed at what a great all-around camera the 5D3 is.
It really isn't lacking anything.

While the spec sheets and DXO tests may say otherwise, in side to side testing, you'd be very hard pressed to see any differences between the D800 and 5D3.
I shoot everthing from weddings, to parties, carpets, products,interiors, portraits, landscapes - you name it, and the 5D3 always does a great job.
I initially went with the Canon system, because of the their lenses and their lower costs compared to Nikons.
The quality is maybe slightly better with Canon, but as most of us spend more on lenses than we do on bodies, the variety, quality and cost of the lenses is what really swayed me to go Canon, and why I stay with Canon.

The D800 - as 99% of products - had some problems on release that were fixed later. Early users are often beta-testers.

This thing of D7000 and D800 having a poor AF is a legend. It's just less noob-friendly or noob-proof than most Canon models, but they work great.

No one says the 5D3 is not a capable camera, but the D600 looks pretty much like 90% of it for 60% of the price. If you shoot low-iso you even have some serious advantage.

And Canon lenser are not always better and always cheaper, by the way. When Nikon is not good in some segment, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc come in to help you.

I switched to Nikon on release of the D800 and haven't looked back. People make a bigger deal than it actually is. If even I have to switch to sony or canon, I will.

this isn't marriage. they are just tools. get over it.

Wise words.

 

[daniemare]

I understand the OP's point. The new 6D kit gives you L glass for $2900 at launch. Getting the D600 with their 24-120 VR, whether or not it is as good as the L, will set you back $3400 (BH prices). So that is $500 right there.

I see the 6D mainly for the F4 target market due to price. Canon can help you at wide zoom (17-40) normal zoom (24-105) and tele zoom (70-200/100-400/70-300) tele prime 300mm IS or 400mm F5.6 quite nicely in L fashion.

With Nikon you would have to go 3rd party for most to get the price fit (except for their 24-120 (more expensive) and 80-400 (same price)). Nothing wrong with Third Party but worth considerating

Even a speedlite EX430II is much cheaper than a Nikon equivalent. Also, my experience show that the used market is also far more extensive for Canon than Nikon (OEM or Thrid Party).

So for overall value - one needs lenses with a camera regardless how gear heavy you want to be - I think the Canon 6D offers the best value. But I stand corrected.

 

[Fishnose]

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.

Their lenses are NOT 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.

People do NOT say the D7000 has AF troubles. You thought that one up yourself buddy.

 

[Albi86]

I understand the OP's point. The new 6D kit gives you L glass for $2900 at launch. Getting the D600 with their 24-120 VR, whether or not it is as good as the L, will set you back $3400 (BH prices). So that is $500 right there.

I see the 6D mainly for the F4 target market due to price. Canon can help you at wide zoom (17-40) normal zoom (24-105) and tele zoom (70-200/100-400/70-300) tele prime 300mm IS or 400mm F5.6 quite nicely in L fashion.

With Nikon you would have to go 3rd party for most to get the price fit (except for their 24-120 (more expensive) and 80-400 (same price)). Nothing wrong with Third Party but worth considerating

Even a speedlite EX430II is much cheaper than a Nikon equivalent. Also, my experience show that the used market is also far more extensive for Canon than Nikon (OEM or Thrid Party).

So for overall value - one needs lenses with a camera regardless how gear heavy you want to be - I think the Canon 6D offers the best value. But I stand corrected.

This is hard to tell.

Nikon offers a value option with the 24-85mm. I agree that it's nothing like the 24-105L, but even that needs to be stopped down at least to f/5.6 to be really sharp edge to edge, and it struggles a bit on the long end. With sensor resolution growing up quickly, it's hard to tell right now how it would behave on a 30-40 MP sensor. It's an hazardous investment in this perspective.

 

[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.

Their lenses are NOT more expensive.

Just go check the prices...

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM - $200 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II
Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM - $300 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 II USM - $200 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM - $350 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR
Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM - $350 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED

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.

People do NOT say the D7000 has AF troubles. You thought that one up yourself buddy.

No comments. Google it.

 

[DB]

I read a review of the new Sony A99 today in a magazine and it looked at first like a possible threat to Canon or Nikon, but then you see there is no AFMA and a restricted lens lineup...and all the new features then seem pointless.

 

[Lawliet]

upgrading to a Nikon FF instead of a Canon FF might give you better value.

Even sidegrading can lead to black numbers - A D800+24-70/70-200 is much cheaper then buying enough Ws to get a similar picture with a 5D3. The 1Dx approximatly (re)equalizes that, what remains is the free choice depending on the assignment.

 

[daniemare]

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.

Their lenses are NOT more expensive.

Just go check the prices...

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM - $200 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II
Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM - $300 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 II USM - $200 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM - $350 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR
Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM - $350 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED

And that is mostly a listing of lenses what I think go with a 5DIII or 1DX based on price (if you can afford those you can afford the bodies). For a new entrant into the FF realm - to whom I think the 6D is aimed at - I think the following will be more representative (based on BH prices excl rebates and US model). I am leaving out 3rd party alternatives as it is available in both mounts.

Canon Nikon
17-40L - $740 None
24-105L - $970 ($800 kit) 24-120 - $1,300
70-200LF4 nonIS - $670 none
70-200LF4 IS - $1,350 none
100-400 - $1,700 80-400 - $1,680
28mm 1.8 - $510 28 1.8G - $700
50mm 1.4 - $400 50mm 1.4G - $440
300mm F4 IS - $1,350 300mm F4 IS - $1,370 (No VR)
430EXII - $300 SB-700 - $330

One can debate the ability of each item individually, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Canon as a whole is cheaper and Nikon's lenses ARE MORE EXPENSIVE

 

[K-amps]

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.

+1000

 

[roland]

And that is mostly a listing of lenses what I think go with a 5DIII or 1DX based on price (if you can afford those you can afford the bodies). For a new entrant into the FF realm - to whom I think the 6D is aimed at - I think the following will be more representative (based on BH prices excl rebates and US model). I am leaving out 3rd party alternatives as it is available in both mounts.

Canon Nikon
17-40L - $740 None
24-105L - $970 ($800 kit) 24-120 - $1,300
70-200LF4 nonIS - $670 none
70-200LF4 IS - $1,350 none
100-400 - $1,700 80-400 - $1,680
28mm 1.8 - $510 28 1.8G - $700
50mm 1.4 - $400 50mm 1.4G - $440
300mm F4 IS - $1,350 300mm F4 IS - $1,370 (No VR)
430EXII - $300 SB-700 - $330

One can debate the ability of each item individually, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Canon as a whole is cheaper and Nikon's lenses ARE MORE EXPENSIVE

And even more significant are the rows where you put "none."

Also (although I've never shot it personally) from what I read, even disregarding price, the Nikon 24-120 doesn't stack up to the Canon 24-105. And that's a pretty useful walkaround lens for a FF body.

 

[Razor2012]

Why not just let people live with their choices? Canon and Nikon are both great systems and by going with either one you've made a great choice. These systems take fantastic photographs and whether or not you have the highest resolution or the highest ISO, it really doesn't matter. It's the person behind these tools that matters.

 

[jthomson]

One lens, the 400mm f5.6L nikon just doesn't have anything comparable in the same price range.

The sensor is only one part of the IQ.
I'm also on a T1i . Waiting to see what the 7D mark 2 looks like.

One lens that might tempt me to go to the dark side is the Nikon 200-400mm. If the price rumors about the Canon 200-400mm 1.4x are correct then the Nikon would start to look very attractive.

 

[ecka]

All of these lens comparisons forgot one thing...

Nikon 14-24/2.8 $1749
Canon nothing.

The thing is that we can use any Nikon lens on Canon body

 

[jondave]

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.

Whoa, being extreme at its finest. Hold your horses, we're not comparing a 1DX / D4 vs a 1100D here.

The OP was mulling between a D600 and a 6D. Now tell me, how will choosing one camera over the other make you a much better photographer?