Canon verse Nikon Should I stay or should I go ?

[johnf3f]

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.

Well my experiences were at the NEC on the Nikon stand, so I had Nikon "experts" on hand in case I was doing anything wrong - which is quite possible! Anyway the first year that I tried them out they were hooked up to D4 cameras - I did get the rep to check as I was getting poor AF performance, oh dear this was just not getting anywhere near a 1D4 and 600 F4 L IS Mk1 (let alone a 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1). The next time the cameras were D4S models - better but still pretty poor, I had now upgraded to a 1DX, there was simply no comparison in the AF department. The next time the cameras were D5 models, much better - but still no cigar. Remember I am comparing these to Mk1 Canon lenses and (now) obsolete cameras. I have also used the D4/D800/D810 in the "Field" with 300 F2.8 VR and 500 F4 Vr2 lenses - not adequate AF for my needs or near to what I already have.

The Nikon system does have some definite advantages in DR etc, but my priority is AF and I have tried most systems and have found nothing to compare to Canon as far as AF is concerned. Certainly Canon is lacking in some areas - but if it ain't in focus then it is not relevant to me.

Just what I have found after trying LOTS of gear and annoying lots of Reps!

 

[snerkler]

Well my experiences were at the NEC on the Nikon stand, so I had Nikon "experts" on hand in case I was doing anything wrong - which is quite possible! Anyway the first year that I tried them out they were hooked up to D4 cameras - I did get the rep to check as I was getting poor AF performance, oh dear this was just not getting anywhere near a 1D4 and 600 F4 L IS Mk1 (let alone a 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1). The next time the cameras were D4S models - better but still pretty poor, I had now upgraded to a 1DX, there was simply no comparison in the AF department. The next time the cameras were D5 models, much better - but still no cigar. Remember I am comparing these to Mk1 Canon lenses and (now) obsolete cameras. I have also used the D4/D800/D810 in the "Field" with 300 F2.8 VR and 500 F4 Vr2 lenses - not adequate AF for my needs or near to what I already have.

The Nikon system does have some definite advantages in DR etc, but my priority is AF and I have tried most systems and have found nothing to compare to Canon as far as AF is concerned. Certainly Canon is lacking in some areas - but if it ain't in focus then it is not relevant to me.

Just what I have found after trying LOTS of gear and annoying lots of Reps!

Obviously you have to go with what you find best, and I can't really have an opinion not trying both but now that you mention trying the Nikons at a show I can now understand why you're finding the differences that you are. The reason that I'm saying this is that your findings go against every review I've read or watched which I found odd. Every review I've seen pitch the D5 as either equal or a hair in front of the Canon 1Dx-II in terms of AF, but you're splitting hairs.

I'd love to be able to try both to see for myself but this is highly unlikely. I have been lucky enough to own the D500 and try a D5 and tbh I'd struggle to see how anything can beat the D5, it seems to be telepathic

 

[johnf3f]

Obviously you have to go with what you find best, and I can't really have an opinion not trying both but now that you mention trying the Nikons at a show I can now understand why you're finding the differences that you are. The reason that I'm saying this is that your findings go against every review I've read or watched which I found odd. Every review I've seen pitch the D5 as either equal or a hair in front of the Canon 1Dx-II in terms of AF, but you're splitting hairs.

I'd love to be able to try both to see for myself but this is highly unlikely. I have been lucky enough to own the D500 and try a D5 and tbh I'd struggle to see how anything can beat the D5, it seems to be telepathic

Well "at the show" the canon cameras/lenses focused without issue and gave sharp results on the same piece of grey carpet at, a guesstimate, of 6-7 times the distance. The Nikon's just could not, remember I had the Nikon Rep handy and asked him if there was something wrong (on the last two visits) and he said they were working fine so I must take his word for it. So 1D4, 1DX + 1DX 2 no AF issues vs D4, D4s pretty hopeless and D5 starting to get there. Admittedly the light was crap - but I read that Nikon cameras focused better in low light than Canon cameras - Err no.

A to the plays in the field, the lenses were a Nokon 300 F2.8 VR and a Nikon 500 F4 Vr2 with D4 and a couple of D800 series cameras. We had a play with each other's gear and I was happy (I hadn't bought Nikon) and they had their socks blown off by the AF on my 1DX (Mk1) and (then) 600 F4 L IS MK1 (which, frankly, isn't that good).

I am not saying that Nikon cameras are junk - that would be idiotic to say the least! I am just saying that I have yet to try a high end Nikon camera + lens combination that fits my (wildlife) needs. Could the D500 be a Magic Bullet? I don't know as I have yet to use one, the D4/D5 certainly isn't in my experience. Now at the cheaper end Nikon make far better DSLR bodies IMO.

Pity you live so far away (I am in South Wales) as we could have a good squabble whilst getting some nice Kingfisher shots.

P.S. Don't read reviews - try the cameras and lenses together for yourself, then you will see which best fulfils your needs.

 

[snerkler]

Well "at the show" the canon cameras/lenses focused without issue and gave sharp results on the same piece of grey carpet at, a guesstimate, of 6-7 times the distance. The Nikon's just could not, remember I had the Nikon Rep handy and asked him if there was something wrong (on the last two visits) and he said they were working fine so I must take his word for it. So 1D4, 1DX + 1DX 2 no AF issues vs D4, D4s pretty hopeless and D5 starting to get there. Admittedly the light was crap - but I read that Nikon cameras focused better in low light than Canon cameras - Err no.

A to the plays in the field, the lenses were a Nokon 300 F2.8 VR and a Nikon 500 F4 Vr2 with D4 and a couple of D800 series cameras. We had a play with each other's gear and I was happy (I hadn't bought Nikon) and they had their socks blown off by the AF on my 1DX (Mk1) and (then) 600 F4 L IS MK1 (which, frankly, isn't that good).

I am not saying that Nikon cameras are junk - that would be idiotic to say the least! I am just saying that I have yet to try a high end Nikon camera + lens combination that fits my (wildlife) needs. Could the D500 be a Magic Bullet? I don't know as I have yet to use one, the D4/D5 certainly isn't in my experience. Now at the cheaper end Nikon make far better DSLR bodies IMO.

Pity you live so far away (I am in South Wales) as we could have a good squabble whilst getting some nice Kingfisher shots.

P.S. Don't read reviews - try the cameras and lenses together for yourself, then you will see which best fulfils your needs.

As I said, I don't really have the right to comment it's just that your 'review' was the first time I'd heard this and contradicted everything else I've seen so was a bit confused. I'm not trying to sway your opinion in the slightest, you've obviously tried them first hand and decided for yourself which is absolutely the right thing to do.

For what it's worth though, don't expect camera reps to know how to get the best from the cameras, from my experience many aren't even that into photography and are just 'salesmen'

 

[MartMan1]

Spend the money you saved on a training course.

 

[johnf3f]

As I said, I don't really have the right to comment it's just that your 'review' was the first time I'd heard this and contradicted everything else I've seen so was a bit confused. I'm not trying to sway your opinion in the slightest, you've obviously tried them first hand and decided for yourself which is absolutely the right thing to do.

For what it's worth though, don't expect camera reps to know how to get the best from the cameras, from my experience many aren't even that into photography and are just 'salesmen'

As far as "Other Brand" cameras are concerned I would expect the Reps to know more than me - which is not a challenge!

I too had read the reviews from "Experts" and converts which is why I was eager to try the Nikon s out. Many photographers with vastly more experience/knowledge than I have tell me that they are better - but the camera bodies and lenses that I have tried have been mediocre (at best for my uses) so I am certainly not going to spend £16,600+ on a lens that I have used and had pretty hopeless AF performance under less than ideal but far from hopeless conditions where my existing setup is just fine - I didn't even bother turning on the stabiliser. Remember my 1DX and 800 F5.6 L IS cost half of that let alone putting a camera on the back of it.

If, as I read, Nikon can give me better AF then I am more than eager to try it out and switch systems if/when they do. However I have tried quite a bit of their gear and found it to be severely lacking. This is just what the Nikon cameras and lenses that I have tried (both at shows and in the field) have delivered, so why would I even consider buying them?

I have no brand loyalty (though I do prefer Canon controls) I just speak as I have found.

 

[hunnymonster]

I have been using one manufacturer for decades - when I use a camera from the other at work, the whole ethos of the workings of the camera feels wrong...

The quality of the image depends on the lens, the sensor (so body), the subject and the lighting (in my mind the most important). Some of it can be fixed in post processing, but I'm old fashioned came from film, still shoot film and would rather take the picture "naturally"