Canon, Nikon, Nikon, Canon...?

StuntMonkey

StuntMonkey

Suspended / Banned
Messages
561
Name
Alex Burge
Edit My Images
Yes
i have noticed that there have been a few members recently who have made the swap from Canon to Nikon.

I dont want this to turn into a 'which is better' arguement but genuinely i was wondering why? what was the deciding factor?
what was the reason for this decision, especially if you had alot of kit?? :shrug:

of course i would like to hear if you have gone from Nikon to Canon too.

I look forward to some enlightenment :bonk:
 
I guess the grass is greener with Nikon if you've got a Canon and vice versa :D
 
i know what you mean. i was having a conversation with a friend last night and found myself saying that i wish i had listened to him years ago and gone on the Nikon direction... i dont know why though! :bang:
 
I haven't changed , but I do know that Nikon have definitely raised their game over recent years, after a few years of catch up, their range of DSLR's are competing at every level with Canon.

Which is good for the industry-it keeps Nikon and Canon on their toes, with a possible price competitiveness.

Not so good if you are just starting (or considering changing), the choices between the systems can be real difficult.
 
petemc said:
I think its been thoroughly discussed here and here. But lets do it one more time :p
Click to expand...


cheers Pete.

i did use the search before i posted too :bonk:

obviously not searching for the right thing :lol:
 
I swapped from Nikon to Canon recently (about 6 months ago), as I wanted full-frame but found the D3 too large and heavy for my needs (great camera though). Had I known a D700 was just around the corner I would have waited and stuck with my D200 a little longer.

I bought a 5D and some L glass and was very happy with them, I have now upgraded to a 5D MkII and like what I have seen so far from it. Although I am still getting used to it.

Which is better? Daddy or Chips? Marmite or not?

I personally liked the ergonomics of the Nikons, I found them more intuitive, the build quality seemed better, the AF was faster on my D200 than the 5D and the controls fell to hand easier, but after having used the 5D for a few months, I have grown to love it, and I am now getting to know my MkII and the improvements for me make it even better.

I love the live view for macro work, especially the option to magnify the image by 5x or 10x for focusing accuracy, love the option to be able to use the 'set' button to give you a full screen option to adjust and change all the control settings easily and from one point.

So, would I change again? possibly, if another manufacturer offered something that I felt I required, but to be honest I doubt it, it cost a lot more than I imagined the last time.
 
My brother shoots a Canon, so I HAD to get a Nikon. :lol: We've had these discussions many times. I know he takes some photos that I envy...and he's admitted that a few of mine are "pretty good." It really boils down to what you want, like and what "feels right" to you.

I opted for Nikon because of the ergonomics and firmware. But my brother will say the same thing about his Canon.

Both camera lines will do the job...and both have many excellent lenses to choose among.
 
I used an old Canon many years ago but, for some reason, picked up a Nikon and just loved the feel of it.

I now use Nikon exclusively.

I agree with posters above that Canon was ahead up until recently. The new Nikon offerings such as the Nikon D3 and now the Nikon D3X have hit the 'pro' market with critical acclaim. The Nikon D700 and lower end models are competing with Canon. Look at the forums now compared with a couple of years ago; I could almost count on one hand who used Nikon. The split is now evening (although still more on the Canon side at the moment I think). IIRC during one of the TP events a year or so ago I was the only one with a Nikon (much to the laughter and friendly banter of others).

I've seen quite a few threads across forums about people switching from Canon to Nikon. I think the high ISO performance of the Nikon D3 has really helped sway people.

Will be interesting to see what the future holds. Each to their own. Both are great systems. It's the photographers' skills at the end of the day that makes a shot. Look at Pete's shots with Canon and his recent ones with Nikon...all excellent.
 
I went Canon 30D to Nikon D300... I wanted by AF performance for motorsport and Canon reserve their best efforts for the 1D only, making zero effort to improve with the 50D....

So a 2.5k 1D MkIII, a 1.5k 1D MkIIN or a swap to Nikon... not having much gear to swap, I did it.
 
Two reasons why pro sports and wildlife photographers have switched from Canon to Nikon.

Frustration specifically with the Canon 1DMk3 focusing issues, and Nikon simultaneously introducing the stunning D3, then D700, then D300, then D90, and now D3x. Canon make great cameras (I've got a couple) and have held the lead for a long time, but right now Nikon has got the DSLR market very well covered indeed :)

I expect the Canon 1DMk3 replacement (shortly) to be an absolute belter, and for Canon to raise their game throughout their range soon. If they don't, more people will enter the DSLR market with Nikon, and at the top end they will continue to lose a few people who can either afford to change, or are forced to change because they are missing the shots that Nikon users are now getting.

I thought digital technology was beginning to level off a bit. I was wrong! Some amazing new kit now on the market, and more to follow from compacts right through to top end pro. Exciting times for techno lovers - PMA show is in Feb, I think :D

Richard.
 
I dunno about the 1D MkIV Hoppy, I think one of the problems Canon face is that their model range is tied to feature sets and they seem incapable of breaking out of that mould - unlike Nikon who seem to be more than happy to offer a full pro body or a cheaper prosumer body with virtually the same internals.

And that is basically it, most of us are fed up with the latest modern technology being the preserve of the 2500 quid camera, and Nikon have addressed it.
 
I have come to the conclusion that there are 3 types of user, the die hard brand huggers and the brand floaters. The brand huggers stick no matter how crap their brand fall behind the others, that's me :lol: and the brand floater will change for another 200 pixels or a new button that make the green look greener or thinking that the change will make them a better photographer.
Oh yeh #3 is the fashion brigade so insignificant they just slipped my mind :lol:
This is meant as fun not to be taken too seriously ;)
 
I'm still with Canon, neither of my cameras is a current model now. (1DsII and 5D) but I won't even be upgrading my Canon for another Canon never mind chucking a whole system to change to Nikon. Why?

Well it's quite simple, so long as I'm getting the shots I need why do I need to pour money into features I don't really need. OK it's acknowledged that the D3 has stunning high ISO and that's one feature that I could be tempted by but then I look at the performance I get out of the Canon f1.2 and f1.4 lenses and quickly realise that it's about the system and not just one small part of it.

When I start missing shots because of a technical limitation I'll go and raid the piggy bank. :)
 
Well I'm afraid I don't fit into any of those three categories.

A sound piece of advice is know your requirements, what do you need from your equipment? Are there limitations that could potentially cause your business difficulties or serious problems if they aren't addressed otr considered?

During the summer my career was taking some much better turns, my existing 30D and 1DmkI were doing a good job apart from they were both on their way out of this life, the 30D had already suffered a blown PCB board and the shutter was also showing signs of wear, the 1D was over 7 years old and despite the low mileage, was indeed a fine camera, but as I say, my work was getting far more demanding and I needed to upgrade to something which had a much larger file output.

Canon's choice at that time was insufficient. I needed speed, full frame and the high ISO capability. Features which Canon were not offering in the same body and still don't either (in a single body).

If I had stayed with Canon I would using a 1DmkIII and a 5D as my main bodies, not including back ups (4 bodies in total), a route that I'm very happy I didn't take.
I have a lot of sports shooter colleagues who have been left in the lurch due to the defective components in earlier revisions of the mkIII. Indeed these issues are solved but at the time I wasn't gambling and will never gamble that recklessly when it comes to my business either.
When you consider that 2K plus body is not 100% reliable when I personally have to rely on my camera 100% for a living = go figure.
Plus it isn't a full frame body, I work for a variety of clients, all have completely different requirements, one of which demands full frame.

Canon weren't offering someone like me any choice. I considered every option and all of them were quite ridiculous compared to jumping ship. Too costly or too unpractical.

I am not a fanboy but also I don't suffer from brand loyalty or sentimentality, if endorsements were on the horizon then sure I can be 'loyal', the stuff is discounted and more available for a start!

My loyalties are my business, my family and my survival, what works is what wins, what's efficient is what wins, what's simple is what wins.

Canon were none of the above at the time I needed the above.
 
I switched from Canon to Nikon because I reached that point where it was time for an upgrade. Since I wasn't in a hurry I could wait and see what Canon would release next, and neither the 50D nor the 5DMkII were really for me. I wanted great low light performance in a small package and the ability to shoot at a high fps as well. Naturally the D700 fit the bill. Furthermore, I took advantage of the fact that I didn't really invest in too many lenses so switching systems wouldn't be too much of a hassle either. If I had acquired more Canon lenses though I most likely wouldn't have switched camps.
 
Was in the Canon / Nikon dilemma myself in November for my first DSLR.

I chose the D90.

Just felt right.
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
Well I'm afraid I don't fit into any of those three categories.

.
Click to expand...

Thomas I think you make some excellent (and relevant points), and provides a different slant on the issues raised.

Four years ago, I invested heavily in Canon , particularly a 1Ds MKII, I didn't even consider Nikon at the time, not only in respect of basic processing power, I was looking for something that operated well at low ISO, an area until recently Nikon have been weak in (i.e. their low ISO was ISO200), when I needed ISO50.

It would be a different story if I was considering the choice today, particularly the canon reliability issues mentioned in your post.

Also, I have a camera body which is 4 years old, positively ancient in DSLR terms, but still is as good as most DSLR's around.

I read with interest another thread in which the high ISO capabilities of the 5D MKII were considered and discussed, so I took a shot at ISO3200 on my 1DSMKII (something I rarely do), and it compared very well with a shot taken at ISO6400 on the 5D MKII, to me it showed that although Canon had made some strides in this area, the progress over 4 years was not so great, an issue Nikon have taken seriously, and have generally come up trumps.

An interesting (although as Pete pointed out-a repeated) discussion.
 
Just been looking at Nikon's offerings and i have to say i can see why people have been changing. I've been considering a FF upgrade from my 40D and the Canon route is very expensive, either the 5DII or 1DsIII new, or 5D or 1DsII 2'nd hand. I would be looking at 2.5k for either of Canons current FF offerings, whereas i can get a D700 for 1.5k, and it has 51-point AF which only the 1D's can match.

I havent got too much kit to sell if i swap over so im definately considering it now.

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top