Canon verse Nikon Should I stay or should I go ?

[Lepus]

Hello all , I know I can not be alone here , I am currently using Canon Gear and have for years and years . I have built up quite an armoury of expensive high end gear over the years . I been reading and looking and drooling at the quality of images Nikon bodies seem to be producing . It seems Canon has been under par in this area generally for years . I recently been looking at the Nikon D500 , which looks an absolute dream of a camera . Wildlife is my bag generally . The high iso performance seems almost hard to believe . I am very very tempted to jump ship , I am by no means at all loaded with money , it takes me years to save up for such things , but I am seriously contemplating getting a 2nd hand Nikon D500 and a Sigma 600 zoom sport , just to compare for my self . It`s really the high iso performance and what seem to be cleaner sharper looking images out of camera that is pulling me . The D500 is not using a certain filter on the sensor that most Canons do , and it seems to give it quite an edge . I shoot in low light quite a lot . My wife will likely go nuts if I do it , and I might be getting it totally wrong . If I don`t jump ship I am also on the verge of splashing out on the Canon 1-400 mkll , I know this is a super lens , it`s make ya mind up time really . Has anyone swapped from Canon to Nikon in the last couple of years , was it mediocre or were you blown away by Nikon ?

 

[Retune]

I use Nikon and in your position I wouldn't switch. It's not really about the camera. Both companies make very high quality gear that can be used to take stunning images. As you like wildlife photography, take a look at this gallery:

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/2018/adult.html

Each image has data on the camera and lens used. Can you tell whether Canon, Nikon or something else was used to take these shots without looking at the data?

 

[snerkler]

The Canon vs Nikon debate will probably last forever, and whilst it's true the comparable Nikon generally has better DR and high ISO performance than the Canon equivalent (except the 1DX-II and maybe 5D4) I really don't think the tiny difference that you may see in some images is worth losing a large chunk of money moving from one manufacturer to the other. Add to this that some say some of the Canon lenses are better than Nikon and vice versa I'm not sure how you'd justify it.

Now if it's purely GAS and/or curiosity then this is a different matter and only you can decide whether you want to go that route.

 

[gramps]

Sometimes I love the output from my Nikons ... and sometimes I hate it!
It would be the same if I used Canon and I venture to suggest it would probably be the same for you.

 

[Peter123]

They are both very good. Nikon sensors seem to be ahead at the moment, canon lenses are very good.
Will be expensive to change.

 

[Lepus]

Yes the price has really made me think on it , if it were more balanced I think I would of switched already , had there been not so much to lose . I do love my Canon Cameras , and yes sometimes I am very happy , and sometimes not . I don`t like taking my 7Dmkll over iso 1600 , or my 5Dmklll over iso3200 , the images look a bit messy to me , I am by no means a photoshop wizard perhaps some more training in enhancements would benefit . I am … my Misses will be glad your advising me against so far , as will my wallet . I will take a look at that link Retune , thanks , and thanks for the comments so far , I really appreciate your views on it .

 

[johnf3f]

I think it depends on your individual needs and uses.

I have been impressed with Nikon's IQ and they do make a number of rather nice lenses. However, for my personal needs, AF is the most important factor as my priority is long lens wildlife photography. From my experience Canon scores highly here (I have yet to find any system to compare) but that is for my, fairly specialised, needs.

For more general photography the Nikon cameras offer some advantages as well as having a nice suite of lenses. Perhaps Canon make some better lenses but many of their cameras are not quite as good to the generalist - so swings and roundabouts.

If you ask 100 photographers this question you will probably get 100 different replies! Changing systems will not make you a better photographer - learning how to get the most out of what you already have is FAR more important!

Just my thoughts.

 

[KIPAX]

I been reading and looking and drooling at the quality of images Nikon bodies seem to be producing

I had a really good meal at a friends house... I am now buying a cooker like theres..........

 

[Lemaildetom]

I went from canon 80D (cropped) with a 100-400 canon lens to a nikon 750 (full frame) with a 150-600 sigma contemporary. The later was much much better as you said iso was so much better, some shot at iso 10000 i was happy with when with the cropped sensor canon I would do my best to stay under iso 1000. But then maybe if i had got a 6D (full frame too) i would have seen the same improvement.

Interrestingly enough i now have a panasonic GX9 (MFT) but i have now learn that I can live without the need to shoot at iso 10000. I wouldn't have had it with me. But i've not had much chance to do much wildlife with my new camera.

 

[redhed17]

I would try to hire/borrow a D500 and lens to see if the grass is indeed greener.

For me the D500 is the best crop sensor DSLR available, and has been since it was released. It is better than the 7DII in probably every way, but only you could judge whether overall it would be worth changing. The main improvements over the 7DII are AF, Dynamic Range and Buffer depth imho. High ISO performance may not be significant improvement.

Canon also have the 90D coming out soon that could see some improvements over the 7DII that may satisfy you.

 

[Lepus]

A lot of My photography is done at Dusk with a 300mm and 2x converter , it`s why better high iso performance would help improve my photos … I think . With this in mind I could shoot at higher iso`s and shutter speeds but still get good quality images , or stay out an hour longer … that would go down well with her indoors . Yep I could get a 500 f4 , but that's an even bigger investment I think .

I had a really good meal at a friends house... I am now buying a cooker like theres..........

I was waiting for such comments , I am not expecting a new camera to make me take better photos , but I do believe a camera with a better sensor can make my photos look better , make sense ?

I agree Jumping from cropped sensor cameras to full frame , you can clearly see a difference , I done that with my 7D and 5D mklll , a big difference in quality even if the full frame camera has not made you a better photographer , we all agreed on that surely ? It`s not unlike I suppose the difference from 35mm to medium format 120 film was it ? The quality improves yes ? It`s fairly safe to say the Nikon sensors have an edge till you go to really the really high end Canon bodies , and they have particularly , made the Canon cropped body sensors look a little weak to date . That`s my feelings and is why I am considering a move . Maybe the 90D will change my mind ......

 

[KIPAX]

I was waiting for such comments , I am not expecting a new camera to make me take better photos , but I do believe a camera with a better sensor can make my photos look better , make sense ?
.

No.. Ask yourself why poeple jump from Nikon to Canon ?

everyones looking for a magical blah blah

personally i find nikon colours to be wishy washy BTW

 

[Lepus]

I think your right about that Magical blah blah KIPAX , the general opinion is though that Nikons is that little bit more Magical than Canons , I am quite surprised to read that most seem to feel the gap is not as big as I thought though .

 

[Mike.P]

I had a 7D MKI and 80D and still have a Canon M5 (which is basically the same sensor as the 7D MKII I believe). I recently bought a used Nikon D500 on here and use that mainly with a Sigma 150-600mm sport and yes the sensor is a little better (not massively) but the D500 AF tracking is something else. Personally I would not get one for the sensor alone but the camera itself is very very good.

The 100-400mm MKII is exceptional btw.

 

[snerkler]

I think it depends on your individual needs and uses.

I have been impressed with Nikon's IQ and they do make a number of rather nice lenses. However, for my personal needs, AF is the most important factor as my priority is long lens wildlife photography. From my experience Canon scores highly here (I have yet to find any system to compare) but that is for my, fairly specialised, needs.



Just my thoughts.

Canon certainly do score highly, however I don't think there is a an APS-C body whose AF can match the Nikon D500

A lot of My photography is done at Dusk with a 300mm and 2x converter , it`s why better high iso performance would help improve my photos … I think . With this in mind I could shoot at higher iso`s and shutter speeds but still get good quality images , or stay out an hour longer … that would go down well with her indoors . Yep I could get a 500 f4 , but that's an even bigger investment I think .

If ISO is your concern then IF you want to swap bodies then FF would be the answer.

No.. Ask yourself why poeple jump from Nikon to Canon ?

everyones looking for a magical blah blah

personally i find nikon colours to be wishy washy BTW

Obviously very personal. The newer Nikon cameras have plenty of punch in terms of colour and I personally prefer them over any camera, to my eyes they are more true to life than Canon. It's all about perspective/opinion

 

[KIPAX]

I think your right about that Magical blah blah KIPAX , the general opinion is though that Nikons is that little bit more Magical than Canons , .

haha OK .... Just remember to save this convo for perusal when your swapping back

 

[rob-nikon]

Having made a swap away from Nikon recently to Sony I would personally say it’s a massive upheaval and something you need to think long and hard about before making the jump. Both canon and Nikon are very good. There isn’t much between them between for DSLRs. One might have a slight advantage one year then the other the next. Personally I wouldn’t swap because I thought one manufacturer had a better sensor that gave a slight performance increase. Post processing can potentially do a lot to bring out a photo.

The reason I made a swap (Nikon to Sony) was because I had decided to downsize the wildlife lens as I was sick of carting around 7.5kg of camera, lens (200-400 f4) and tripod. I looked at Nikon’s offering in the 80-400 and felt it wasn’t worth £2K and not in the same league as canons 100-400. Swapping from Nikon dslr to canon salt didn’t make much sense to me as mirrorless will be the future now both canon and Nikon have released their mirrorless range. Sony had a 100-400 mirrorless lens so I read up about it and decided that mirrorless could potentially be ok for what I do. I’m now carting around 3kg and as it’s a hobby I feel better and more willing to get out and cover some distance. There is course the loss of a stop of aperture but generally it’s ok for me. There have been some good gains (higher FPS, silent shutter, animal eye AF, manual focus assistance) but some loses too (worst weather sealing, slower AF). T

See if you can pick out the Nikon and Sony shots from below:
1.

2.
3.

 

[rob-nikon]

A few more:
4.
5.

6.
(All of the photos are screenshots on my phone otherwise the file names would give it away )

 

[Lepus]

Doesn't Nikon use Sony sensors in most their Cameras ? I would expect similar results if that is so . I am going mainly on comparisons and reviews , and what seems to be a general consensus . With the advice and opinions I got here though , it does not sound like it`s worth moving . Which has surprised me some . I will be getting the Canon 1-400 mkll …….. I think .

 

[redhed17]

personally i find nikon colours to be wishy washy BTW

Obviously very personal. The newer Nikon cameras have plenty of punch in terms of colour and I personally prefer them over any camera, to my eyes they are more true to life than Canon. It's all about perspective/opinion

Are you talking about Jpegs out of camera? I don't use that in camera, but Jpegs can be altered via the Picture Style/Control to some degree if needed. Apart from Pro's like KIPAX, I think a lot of people will be using RAW, and then the Photographer is in control of the final Jpegs.

Having made a swap away from Nikon recently to Sony I would personally say it’s a massive upheaval and something you need to think long and hard about before making the jump. Both canon and Nikon are very good. There isn’t much between them between for DSLRs. One might have a slight advantage one year then the other the next. Personally I wouldn’t swap because I thought one manufacturer had a better sensor that gave a slight performance increase. Post processing can potentially do a lot to bring out a photo.

Changing is always going to be expensive, as one may be changing camera(s) and multiple lenses, and is not a decision to be taken lightly.

At the top (D5/1DXII) I don't think there is much between Canon and Nikon for Sensor and AF, but generally Nikon (because of, for the most part, Sony sensors) have had a slight Sensor advantage for a number of years. The Nikon 51 point AF is/was very good for the mid/top crop sensor DSLR's, and the current 153 point AF of the D500, with the extended coverage of the scene compared to previous crop DSLR's is brilliant imho. Whether these little things add up to a justification to change is why I mentioned trying it out in some way first.

 

[Russdaz1]

Yes the price has really made me think on it , if it were more balanced I think I would of switched already , had there been not so much to lose . I do love my Canon Cameras , and yes sometimes I am very happy , and sometimes not . I don`t like taking my 7Dmkll over iso 1600 , or my 5Dmklll over iso3200 , the images look a bit messy to me , I am by no means a photoshop wizard perhaps some more training in enhancements would benefit . I am … my Misses will be glad your advising me against so far , as will my wallet . I will take a look at that link Retune , thanks , and thanks for the comments so far , I really appreciate your views on it .

Then an investment in to getting second hand 1dx mk2 maybe, iso is better then those two and maybe cheaper then a complete switch.

 

[SFTPhotography]

personally i find nikon colours to be wishy washy BTW

They are in RAW format- but this is something that ultimately can be fixed in post production as IMHO it's best to start with a fairly flat file with ideally some room either side of the histogram (in luminance and ideally R, G and B) and go from there. The dynamic range of these Sony Sensors is incredible but my own experience of Nikon bodies is they don't like being pushed much beyond base ISO

 

[snerkler]

Doesn't Nikon use Sony sensors in most their Cameras ? I would expect similar results if that is so . I am going mainly on comparisons and reviews , and what seems to be a general consensus . With the advice and opinions I got here though , it does not sound like it`s worth moving . Which has surprised me some . I will be getting the Canon 1-400 mkll …….. I think .

Nikon use Sony sensors but apply their own processing and colour science

Are you talking about Jpegs out of camera? I don't use that in camera, but Jpegs can be altered via the Picture Style/Control to some degree if needed. Apart from Pro's like KIPAX, I think a lot of people will be using RAW, and then the Photographer is in control of the final Jpegs.

RAW.

They are in RAW format- but this is something that ultimately can be fixed in post production as IMHO it's best to start with a fairly flat file with ideally some room either side of the histogram (in luminance and ideally R, G and B) and go from there. The dynamic range of these Sony Sensors is incredible but my own experience of Nikon bodies is they don't like being pushed much beyond base ISO

I find adobe camera profiles in LR are a bit flat/muted, but choosing camera standard gives the files instant punch and vibrancy. I just apply that on import now.

 

[vulcan2912]

I was a Canon user for 30 years and swapped over to Nikon last December. At the time I was using a 5D4/7D2 with a canon 16-35 f4, 24-70 f2.8 mk2, 70-200 f2.8 mk2, 50 f1.8, 100-400 mk2 and a 500 f4 mk2. I have used a large amount of canon lenses and bodies over the including everything from 1DSmk3 to 1Dmk4's to virtually every xxD and xD camera. Also lenses to inc things like the 17mm tilt shift right through a lot of the f2.8 zooms . I changed to a D850/D500 combo with a nikon 24-70 F2.8, 70-200 F2.8, 200-500 , 500 f5.6 PF and a Tamron 15-30 G2.
My recommendation is to stay with your Canon's and look at maybe getting the 100-400 mk2 .The 5DMk4 is also superb.
Gary

 

[johnf3f]

Canon certainly do score highly, however I don't think there is a an APS-C body whose AF can match the Nikon D500
If ISO is your concern then IF you want to swap bodies then FF would be the answer.

I cannot comment on the D500 as I have yet to give one a good wring out. However I was underwhelmed by the Nikon "SuperTeles" on the D4/D4S and D5 bodies. Given that my most used lens is my Canon 800 F5.6 L IS (I do not use the IS) and obsolete (?) 1DX/7D2 I found the Nikon offerings pretty hopeless in the AF department. AF acquisition speed and accuracy are my priority - I will worry about IQ later. After all if it ain't in focus the best camera/lens/sensor is junk compared to one that is in focus.
I am sure the D500 is a great camera but what lens do I put on it? I was let down by the Nikon 400 F2.8/500F4/600F4 and 800 F5.6 on Nikon FF Pro bodies, though the 300 F2.8 wasn't bad - but AF was well below my Canon 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1.

Just my observations and experiences.

 

[snerkler]

I cannot comment on the D500 as I have yet to give one a good wring out. However I was underwhelmed by the Nikon "SuperTeles" on the D4/D4S and D5 bodies. Given that my most used lens is my Canon 800 F5.6 L IS (I do not use the IS) and obsolete (?) 1DX/7D2 I found the Nikon offerings pretty hopeless in the AF department. AF acquisition speed and accuracy are my priority - I will worry about IQ later. After all if it ain't in focus the best camera/lens/sensor is junk compared to one that is in focus.
I am sure the D500 is a great camera but what lens do I put on it? I was let down by the Nikon 400 F2.8/500F4/600F4 and 800 F5.6 on Nikon FF Pro bodies, though the 300 F2.8 wasn't bad - but AF was well below my Canon 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1.

Just my observations and experiences.

Exactly why you need to buy according to your needs, not every camera/lens combo is right for everyone.

 

[gramps]

I am sure the D500 is a great camera but what lens do I put on it? I was let down by the Nikon 400 F2.8/500F4/600F4 and 800 F5.6 on Nikon FF Pro bodies,

Any of those lenses will be superb on the D500, no excuses!

 

[Lepus]

I was a Canon user for 30 years and swapped over to Nikon last December. At the time I was using a 5D4/7D2 with a canon 16-35 f4, 24-70 f2.8 mk2, 70-200 f2.8 mk2, 50 f1.8, 100-400 mk2 and a 500 f4 mk2. I have used a large amount of canon lenses and bodies over the including everything from 1DSmk3 to 1Dmk4's to virtually every xxD and xD camera. Also lenses to inc things like the 17mm tilt shift right through a lot of the f2.8 zooms . I changed to a D850/D500 combo with a nikon 24-70 F2.8, 70-200 F2.8, 200-500 , 500 f5.6 PF and a Tamron 15-30 G2.
My recommendation is to stay with your Canon's and look at maybe getting the 100-400 mk2 .The 5DMk4 is also superb.
Gary

Why did you swap ? Did you think the grass was greener too ? Your exactly the kind of person I wanted replies from , been their done it , and this is what I think . Thank you .

 

[vulcan2912]

Why did you swap ? Did you think the grass was greener too ? Your exactly the kind of person I wanted replies from , been their done it , and this is what I think . Thank you .

I was having terrible problems with my elbow and couldn't even lift the 500 f4 off the ground so when Nikon announced the 500 f5.6 PF that was the excuse that I needed to make the change ( I had also lusted after a Nikon full frame from when the D800 came out ).
It's been a mixed bag for me since doing the change. I found the Nikon 24-70 and 16-35 to not even be on the same page as the Canon equivalents when it comes to image quality. The 24-70 being a real disappointment and the minute something comes along that matches the Canon I'll be changing that lens out. I have also found the IS on Nikon lenses to be well below the standard of my old Canon lenses (and some Tamron lenses I have also tried). The 2 Nikon bodies are really nice but not ground breakingly better than the last 2 Canon's I had. I much prefer the high iso shots out of the 5D4 over the D850. The D850 is a beast of a camera though, especially with the battery pack and larger battery connected. The D500 is a lot better than the 7D Mk2 and I much prefer that. The other main gripe I have with the Nikons is the poor live view AF. I use that all the time when shooting landscapes. The Nikon struggles when contrast is low and sometimes just totally cocks it up. I now check every picture after it's taken to make sure it nailed the AF. That never happened with the Canon's. They always nailed live view AF and generally did it a lot quicker than the Nikons. I've only just got the 500 PF after waiting approx. 7 months for one to come in stock. That lens is superb and I think I will also add the 300 PF to the bag. The Nikon 200-500 is also a decent lens and I assume one that is on your radar if you do move. It is bloody heavy though compared to a Canon 100-400. The Nikon 200-500 is also garbage with anything that moves if you add the 1.4 Mk3 tcon on it. The Canon 100-400 Mk2 + 1.4X Mk3 tcon always worked well for me when needed. Lastly I owned a Sigma 150-600 sport when I had Canon had got rid of it after 10 months .The AF just wasn't consistent. I would get 1 shot in focus ,1 shot out, 1 shot in etc. The lens might work better on a D500 though.

Cheers
Gary

 

[johnf3f]

Any of those lenses will be superb on the D500, no excuses!

Well they were not good in my experience (for AF) on Nikon's pro bodies, so would they be better on their lower spec bodies? Is the D500 going to drive 500 mm + better than a D5? I think not.

 

[Bobsyeruncle]

I was having terrible problems with my elbow and couldn't even lift the 500 f4 off the ground so when Nikon announced the 500 f5.6 PF that was the excuse that I needed to make the change ( I had also lusted after a Nikon full frame from when the D800 came out ).
It's been a mixed bag for me since doing the change. I found the Nikon 24-70 and 16-35 to not even be on the same page as the Canon equivalents when it comes to image quality. The 24-70 being a real disappointment and the minute something comes along that matches the Canon I'll be changing that lens out. I have also found the IS on Nikon lenses to be well below the standard of my old Canon lenses (and some Tamron lenses I have also tried). The 2 Nikon bodies are really nice but not ground breakingly better than the last 2 Canon's I had. I much prefer the high iso shots out of the 5D4 over the D850. The D850 is a beast of a camera though, especially with the battery pack and larger battery connected. The D500 is a lot better than the 7D Mk2 and I much prefer that. The other main gripe I have with the Nikons is the poor live view AF. I use that all the time when shooting landscapes. The Nikon struggles when contrast is low and sometimes just totally cocks it up. I now check every picture after it's taken to make sure it nailed the AF. That never happened with the Canon's. They always nailed live view AF and generally did it a lot quicker than the Nikons. I've only just got the 500 PF after waiting approx. 7 months for one to come in stock. That lens is superb and I think I will also add the 300 PF to the bag. The Nikon 200-500 is also a decent lens and I assume one that is on your radar if you do move. It is bloody heavy though compared to a Canon 100-400. The Nikon 200-500 is also garbage with anything that moves if you add the 1.4 Mk3 tcon on it. The Canon 100-400 Mk2 + 1.4X Mk3 tcon always worked well for me when needed. Lastly I owned a Sigma 150-600 sport when I had Canon had got rid of it after 10 months .The AF just wasn't consistent. I would get 1 shot in focus ,1 shot out, 1 shot in etc. The lens might work better on a D500 though.

Cheers
Gary

Sounds like you should change back.

 

[gramps]

Well they were not good in my experience (for AF) on Nikon's pro bodies, so would they be better on their lower spec bodies? Is the D500 going to drive 500 mm + better than a D5? I think not.

I think your experience must be an isolated one.
I have used the 400 f2.8 and 500 f4 as well as other manufacturers offerings up to 800mm and would say that Nikon FF (D810/D4s for example) had absolutely fine AF but the D500 is IMO in a class of its own. Of course with the D500/D5 Nikon made some subtle changes to the actual operation of AF and it did catch some people out as it did not perform exactly as had previously been expected.

 

[gerry s]

I think your experience must be an isolated one.
I have used the 400 f2.8 and 500 f4 as well as other manufacturers offerings up to 800mm and would say that Nikon FF (D810/D4s for example) had absolutely fine AF but the D500 is IMO in a class of its own. Of course with the D500/D5 Nikon made some subtle changes to the actual operation of AF and it did catch some people out as it did not perform exactly as had previously been expected.

not being awkward but do you have canon experience to make comparisons.

 

[Craig_85]

Nikon D500 has the best autofocus of any camera full stop.

It’s RAW files are better than any canon including full frame camera from a malleable dynamic range point of view, and sharp as there is no anti aliasing filter.

I don’t think you will like the noise though. When you learn how to sharpen and reduce it nicely it’s fine but the only way to get much cleaner files than your 7dii is to go full frame and get larger pixels with better signal to noise ratio.

But then once you’ve cropped back in again, and arguably shot at smaller apertures to get the necessary depth of field, and then enlarged for print to match your dense crop sensor output there won’t be anything in it.

My advice as someone who has extensively used Canon and Nikon is stick with your 7dii for the time being, but really learn to nail the exposure. Read up on ETTR, exposing to the right as hard as possible to the point the jpeg blinkies are flashing and the picture is washed out. Shoot RAW in the neutral picture mode and live by your histogram. Don’t actually blow the highlights but get them stacked on the right hand edge of the histogram.

Then when you take this file into DPP, you will be able to darken it before making any adjustments. The canon sensors show shadow noise in pushed areas the most. By shooting a stop brighter than where you want your mid tones (without blowing raw highlights), if you darken the shot in post by a stop but then push the shadows up by a stop, they are actually back to the recorded values so you will not increase noise at all. The highlights you are making darker so no issues there either.

7dii is good when you get it right, I’d stick with it as canon lenses are great.

 

[Mike.P]

not being awkward but do you have canon experience to make comparisons.

I do and the D500 autofocus/tracking is superior to any Canon crop camera presently available.

 

[gerry s]

Thanks for that.... any idea how it compares to 5d3 or 4 ?

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I would personally not contemplate going from dslr to dslr at this point unless you are planning to be happy with it for a few years. The shift is on towards mirrorless even if we don't want it so I suggest thinking carefully and delaying any purchasing decision until you can make the right pick for the future.

 

[snerkler]

I would personally not contemplate going from dslr to dslr at this point unless you are planning to be happy with it for a few years. The shift is on towards mirrorless even if we don't want it so I suggest thinking carefully and delaying any purchasing decision until you can make the right pick for the future.

I agree with this. Going from Canon to Nikon DSLR is going too give you very little to no difference in the final image, plus you would be investing into a system that is going to have less and less input from the manufacturer.

IMO Sony is the only FF mirrorless system that can truly match DSLR in terms of performance, however they have their own issues for some such as ergonomics, menus, and colour science. The Nikon FF bodies are great, but AF isn't quite as good as the top DSLRs and frame rate is below par for a lot of sports and wildlife shooters.

The other issue with the new FF mirrorless systems is the lack of native lenses (except Sony), and the lack of budget and mid range lenses (as I've mentioned previously) meaning that the systems as a whole are VERY expensive.

 

[MartMan1]

I use Nikon and in your position I wouldn't switch. It's not really about the camera. Both companies make very high quality gear that can be used to take stunning images. As you like wildlife photography, take a look at this gallery:

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/2018/adult.html

Each image has data on the camera and lens used. Can you tell whether Canon, Nikon or something else was used to take these shots without looking at the data?

Great images, your right about the gear, as they say "the grass is always greener on the other side"

 

[Lepus]

Thanks everyone who joined in and gave your advice and views , it`s been very educating and interesting . I am going to stick with what I got for now , and will very likely invest in that Canon 1-400 mkll . My feelings are that the D500 would of been a great camera for me , and it`s still quite obvious the Nikon bodies output is better , but the gap in quality gains are not as far apart as I first thought , I think I can claw some more back by trying to increase my enhancement skills , but I don`t learn such things easy , so will take some time . It all stayed quite friendly too , which is good .