Considering changing sides....

Hertsman

Hertsman

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,243
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Ive been shooting Nikon for nearly ten years.

Ive always liked the "heft" of my Nikons in my hand, the way they felt and all the button placements.

My journey has been D70S - D200 - D300

I dont have a huge amount of kit in teerms of glass ect, so I am considering chaning teams.

The main reason Im considering this is primarily IQ.

I see a LOT of pics from Canon shooters that just seem to have a far higher "glossiness" and generally look way better than anything Ive ever offered on here.

Ive always been reasonably happy with my output, but Im starting to doubt my gear and hence considering the swap.

Im sure this about the 9 millionth post on the subject but the search hasnt really helped me.

Main items I have that would need changing are ;

D300 body
16-85 walkabout
90mm or similar Macro - Tamron currently
70-300 - this may be swapped out for something bigger in the future
SB600
Several CF cards....

If I did decide it was the correct route, any recommendations on kit ?>

TIA.
 
Before jumping see what you can do in post, I've been watching a few Lightroom vids recently and while I'm no beginner I obviously have a lot to learn.

If it helps at all I came from Canon 5D3 to D750 and feel it was the right move
 
The D300 was released in about 2007, if memory serves, so you'd have to draw a comparison with the Canon 40D and I doubt you'd notice any difference in IQ from both.

If you really feel IQ is suffering then why not upgrade your D300 ?

I've owned a few D300's over the years and I'd still quite happily shoot with one.

Simply switching to Canon to improve IQ isn't the answer, only an excuse to switch ;)
 
I went mirrorless so the Canon v Nikon rivalry is behind me now and I don't really follow developments but aren't Nikon generally accepted to have the edge on Canon for image quality these days?

Another thing, when I feel that I'm not getting the best from my kit I look at what other people are doing with the same kit and that usually tells me that the problem isn't my kit.
 
Having owned and used both ,lots of various models and lenses ,your on a hiding to nowhere ,whether you go to the latest canon of Nikon you will also need better glass ,you don't state what you major on subject wise but a decent camera is 1/3rd a decent lens system is another 1/3rd and the remainder comes from good p/p and a proper workflow ,no good turning out one superb shot then not remembering how you achieved it .
Put it all together as a package and you have it cracked .

Although re-reading your post if your doubting your gear then it might well be a confidence booster to change .
 
Firstly as above, camera craft and artistic talent are worth more than any gear, 2ndly decent lenses are worth more than camera bodies....

Lastly, canon are definitely running 2nd best for IQ currently.

(From a canon shooter)
 
Hertsman said:
Main items I have that would need changing are ;
D300 body
16-85 walkabout..........................
Click to expand...

i realise the 16-85 gets good write-ups but some have niggles
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/28044269

have you tried a lens which has a reputation for sharpness

I have a 35mm/1.8 AF-S DX on my D300
with Picture Controls set to VIVID..............and love the results
 
Recently I've been talking to a number of Canon users who prefer the way Canon look, and vice versa. TBH I do wonder if it's a case of the grass is always greener, or whether it could be 'justification' of why you're not getting the images you want.

Personally I think it comes down to a few key things, technique, light, glass and PP skills.

I've been going through a similar thing recently with software. I use Lightroom a lot and recently all the pics I've been 'wowed' by have been processed in Photoshop and I keep meaning to get around to learning PS. However, the reality is that whilst I understand how to use Lightroom from a technical point of view I don't think I do from an 'artistic' point of view and no exactly how and which bits to enhance to give it that 'wow' factor, in which case I'm not going to know this in PS either and I won't be any better off.

Sorry, bit of a tangent but hopefully you get the drift ;)
 
Borrow / hire a top quality Nikon lens (Check out the reviews on some of the £1000+ lenses). See if you notice any difference. If so... there is your answer.

But as others have said, be critical of yourself first rather than your kit, especially as camera bodies from different manufacturers are usually not the issue.
 
Ignore for a moment camera bodies,decide what your main interests are and look at manufactures lenses for those subjects,if its say wildlife compare a Nikon 400mm with the Canon,i was always Nikon until i changed to m4/3 but my main subject was wildlife so if buying again i think Canon would get my money.
 
shreds said:
Borrow / hire a top quality Nikon lens (Check out the reviews on some of the £1000+ lenses). See if you notice any difference. If so... there is your answer.

But as others have said, be critical of yourself first rather than your kit, especially as camera bodies from different manufacturers are usually not the issue.
Click to expand...

Im doing all three days at Silverstone Motogp at the end of the month.
Im hiring the Sigma 150-600 sports for some extra length and different angles.

However - my main reason is that my brother will be with me on Saturday - and he shoots canon with the sigma lens.
I plan to shoot the same corner with both setups so I can then see if there is a difference.

I cant put into words quite what I mean about IQ, just that the Canon msport stuff seems to have that "glassy" sharpeness that just seems to pop.


Anyways, Im off to Biggleswade now to shoot some Hot Rods with my nasty old Nikon and iffy 16-85..... lol
 
Hertsman said:
Im doing all three days at Silverstone Motogp at the end of the month.
Im hiring the Sigma 150-600 sports for some extra length and different angles.

However - my main reason is that my brother will be with me on Saturday - and he shoots canon with the sigma lens.
I plan to shoot the same corner with both setups so I can then see if there is a difference.

I cant put into words quite what I mean about IQ, just that the Canon msport stuff seems to have that "glassy" sharpeness that just seems to pop.


Anyways, Im off to Biggleswade now to shoot some Hot Rods with my nasty old Nikon and iffy 16-85..... lol
Click to expand...
You'll be disappointed if you turn up at Silverstone at the end of the month hoping to see the Moto GP ;) :p
 
Hertsman said:
I cant put into words quite what I mean about IQ, just that the Canon msport stuff seems to have that "glassy" sharpeness that just seems to pop.
Click to expand...
Whatever it is that you're seeing, I'd be willing to bet big money that it is NOT the difference between Canon and Nikon equipment.

But I could be wrong. I would be VERY interesting to see the results of your back-to-back testing.
 
If I shot one thing with my Canon 6d and processed in my usual way, then switched to say a Nikon D750 and shot the same thing (light being the same etc) with the equivalent lens and same settings, then processed - they'd look identical!

There honestly isn't a "Canon Look", or "Nikon Look".
 
It sounds like a combination of GAS and delusion TBH. There is as much difference between different models of the same brand than there is between Canon and Nikon (and that's bu99er all) unless you're comparing full-frame against APS-C.

If you want a genuine lift in image quality, then a full-frame camera with best quality lenses will beat a D300 for sure, though on the other hand, if long lens work and sport/wildlife is a priority, APS-C is probably the better overall choice unless you have £10k to spend per lens and don't mind humping them around.
 
The D300 sensor is very old tech now and although it's quite capable it does need some post work because the files lack a little colour punch. Switching to Canon without trying a more modern Nikon offering makes no sense though.
 
odd jim said:
If I shot one thing with my Canon 6d and processed in my usual way, then switched to say a Nikon D750 and shot the same thing (light being the same etc) with the equivalent lens and same settings, then processed - they'd look identical!

There honestly isn't a "Canon Look", or "Nikon Look".
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree with this, it was such a test between the Canon 5D3 and D750 that made me choose the D750, the colours are more natural to my eyes. Plus there are differences in DR, but how much of this you 'see' in an image is debatable ;)

I'm not sure what the OP means about glossiness though but certainly as I've mentioned above, technique, light, lenses and processing are what make the biggest differences in images, sensor characteristics are far far more subtle IMO.
 
Spend it on glass. Those glossy canon images will be shot on pro L lenses all yours are consumer lenses. I find Nikon's awb is a tad on the cool green side. You can tweak this however.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Not sure I agree with this, it was such a test between the Canon 5D3 and D750 that made me choose the D750, the colours are more natural to my eyes. Plus there are differences in DR, but how much of this you 'see' in an image is debatable ;)

I'm not sure what the OP means about glossiness though but certainly as I've mentioned above, technique, light, lenses and processing are what make the biggest differences in images, sensor characteristics are far far more subtle IMO.
Click to expand...

True, but shooting raw you're pretty much in control of the colours. But of course we're not considering the fine detail, just the "look" of a photograph.
 
Last edited:
rjbell said:
Spend it on glass. Those glossy canon images will be shot on pro L lenses all yours are consumer lenses. I find Nikon's awb is a tad on the cool green side. You can tweak this however.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Some might be on Sigmas, fast non L primes (50mm f/1.8, 35mm f/2 or say an 85mm f/1.8), decent EFS glass such as the 17-55, 10-22, etc etc, It's not all about L lenses.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Not necessarily. Some might be on Sigmas, fast non L primes (50mm f/1.8, 35mm f/2 or say an 85mm f/1.8), decent EFS glass such as the 17-55, 10-22, etc etc, It's not all about L lenses.
Click to expand...
Yep, some of the art lenses sigma are churning out are stunning. Can't wait for the 85mm art.
 
@Hertsman Whereabouts are you? (From your nickname I'm guessing Herts !)
Depending on your location it might be an idea to see if there is anyone near you with some good glass and/or different bodies for you to try out.
If you are near me, I'd happily meet up so you could have a go with some of mine.
Worth a thought.
 
snerkler said:
Not sure I agree with this, it was such a test between the Canon 5D3 and D750 that made me choose the D750, the colours are more natural to my eyes.
Click to expand...
I still wouldn't consider it a "brand difference"... more like a sensor/lens difference. You can get the same kind of variance comparing different sensors of the same brand (especially of different generations), and when comparing different lenses.

I do think Nikon has better sensors in general (kind of went backwards a bit w/ the D5).
 
sk66 said:
I still wouldn't consider it a "brand difference"... more like a sensor/lens difference. You can get the same kind of variance comparing different sensors of the same brand (especially of different generations), and when comparing different lenses.

I do think Nikon has better sensors in general (kind of went backwards a bit w/ the D5).
Click to expand...
Yep, I didn't mean to imply it was purely a brand thing. I think there is more of a difference from brand to brand rather than generation to generation though, but as already mentioned most of these difference can be changed in post. Always better if you like the colours SOOC though as changing in post can be a pain ;)
 
snerkler said:
Yep, I didn't mean to imply it was purely a brand thing. I think there is more of a difference from brand to brand rather than generation to generation though, but as already mentioned most of these difference can be changed in post. Always better if you like the colours SOOC though as changing in post can be a pain ;)
Click to expand...
Especially if shooting jpegs... and *then* I think there is a general brand difference with the default settings.
 
StewartR said:
Whatever it is that you're seeing, I'd be willing to bet big money that it is NOT the difference between Canon and Nikon equipment.

But I could be wrong. I would be VERY interesting to see the results of your back-to-back testing.
Click to expand...

Hence the reason for doing it....

rjbell said:
Spend it on glass. Those glossy canon images will be shot on pro L lenses all yours are consumer lenses. I find Nikon's awb is a tad on the cool green side. You can tweak this however.
Click to expand...

One of the things I dislike with Nikon is the smaller range of glass. Im not sure I could get better glass in the lengths I own/use ?

GHP said:
@Hertsman Whereabouts are you? (From your nickname I'm guessing Herts !)
Depending on your location it might be an idea to see if there is anyone near you with some good glass and/or different bodies for you to try out.
If you are near me, I'd happily meet up so you could have a go with some of mine.
Worth a thought.
Click to expand...

Live in Tring Gary.

Jase said:
Then that is not a reason to switch, you'd be better of spending the money on finding out what you are doing wrong.
Click to expand...

You may well be right tbf...

Id actually be happy to be proved it was me so I dont waste a load of cash.



As an example of what I meant in terms of IQ, have a look at this set; shot by TP member Graphix501

https://www.flickr.com/photos/fireproof_art/sets/72157655674660744/with/21057232792/

All sharp as and really pop.

Then compare my offerings :
https://www.flickr.com/photos/30938108@N02/sets/72157647322745892

I accept that my 70-300 is never going to compare to a 100-400 L, however.....
 
From The examples you linked to I can see where you are coming from, but as far as the "pop" is concerned, there is nothing in your shots which couldn't be made to pop more, just by a few tweaks in LR.
The sharpness, as you are aware, is more of an equipment thing. Good glass is not cheap, and it does make a difference.
But good glass is good glass, regardless of who makes it.
 
GHP said:
From The examples you linked to I can see where you are coming from, but as far as the "pop" is concerned, there is nothing in your shots which couldn't be made to pop more, just by a few tweaks in LR.
The sharpness, as you are aware, is more of an equipment thing. Good glass is not cheap, and it does make a difference.
But good glass is good glass, regardless of who makes it.
Click to expand...

I understand about good glass, but in the lengths I own, they are all Nikkor ED so about the best I can get ? (I believe)
 
Hertsman said:
One of the things I dislike with Nikon is the smaller range of glass. Im not sure I could get better glass in the lengths I own/use ?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that the current Nikon range is smaller is it? Nikon list 90 lenses on their site, whereas Canon has about 80 odd. You can certainly get better in the shorter zoom section. Admittedly Nikon only have the one offering in the 70-300mm length, but there's plenty of others like the truly superb 70-200mm f2.8 VRII.


You may well be right tbf...

Id actually be happy to be proved it was me so I dont waste a load of cash.



As an example of what I meant in terms of IQ, have a look at this set; shot by TP member Graphix501

https://www.flickr.com/photos/fireproof_art/sets/72157655674660744/with/21057232792/

All sharp as and really pop.

Then compare my offerings :
https://www.flickr.com/photos/30938108@N02/sets/72157647322745892

I accept that my 70-300 is never going to compare to a 100-400 L, however.....
Click to expand...
TBH the processing of the first set is not to my taste, the shadows look to have been lifted quite a lot giving an almost HDR look. Personal taste and all that. No offence, but looking at your shots I'd certainly be more concerned with working on technique rather than spending lots of cash as there's a number of shots that are quite soft. Which 70-300mm do you have as the Nikon 70-300mm VR is capable of producing sharp shots? (I'm not professing to be a brilliant tog btw ;))
 
Last edited:
The photos which you prefer are taken with a Canon 5D3 and a 400mm prime. Try a Nikon D750/D810 and a 400mm prime then compare apples with apples.
 
Last edited:
Hertsman said:
I understand about good glass, but in the lengths I own, they are all Nikkor ED so about the best I can get ? (I believe)
Click to expand...


ED = extra-low dispersion and as far as I am aware all nikon lenses it have it in varying forms.
Your 70-300 whilst being a reasonable lens is not in top range and a lot slower on focus then the top
lenses, plus the D300 is getting old now in body terms.
I have an 18-300 as a walk about lens for which it is fine at local events etc, but for fast moving
subjects such as wildlife ot motor sport it would stay at home in favour of the afore mentioned
70-200 and 80-400 ,
 
Hertsman said:
As an example of what I meant in terms of IQ, have a look at this set; shot by TP member Graphix501

https://www.flickr.com/photos/fireproof_art/sets/72157655674660744/with/21057232792/

All sharp as and really pop.

Then compare my offerings :
https://www.flickr.com/photos/30938108@N02/sets/72157647322745892

I accept that my 70-300 is never going to compare to a 100-400 L, however.....
Click to expand...


OK well in your shots a lot would appear to be your technique unfortunately, the ones where you nailed the focus/panning look better than the ones where your didn't and that's a good hint.

As a result it seems like you're trying to make up for it in post.

You are also not comparing like for like, the 5D MKIII is a FF sensor and he's using an L prime lens.

There are many factors as to why yours look different but switching brands is not one of the issues.
 
Gremlin said:
ED = extra-low dispersion and as far as I am aware all nikon lenses it have it in varying forms.
Your 70-300 whilst being a reasonable lens is not in top range and a lot slower on focus then the top
lenses, plus the D300 is getting old now in body terms.
I have an 18-300 as a walk about lens for which it is fine at local events etc, but for fast moving
subjects such as wildlife ot motor sport it would stay at home in favour of the afore mentioned
70-200 and 80-400 ,
Click to expand...

Can you define a top lens please ?
70/200 is too short for most of my use and the 80/400 is on my radar, but I think I get a Sigma for about the same money which would be longer as well.



Jase said:
OK well in your shots a lot would appear to be your technique unfortunately, the ones where you nailed the focus/panning look better than the ones where your didn't and that's a good hint.

As a result it seems like you're trying to make up for it in post.

You are also not comparing like for like, the 5D MKIII is a FF sensor and he's using an L prime lens.

There are many factors as to why yours look different but switching brands is not one of the issues.
Click to expand...

I suspect this is nearere the truth.
I dont get out as much as I used to for one thing, so tend to be rusty.

Even to this day, one of my best ever shots was taken with a D70S......
 
Your present 70-300 is, if l am correct in a similar price range to my 18-300 around the £450 range
cheap end of the market, ok lens but not the best.
The 70-200 and 80-400 around the £1700+ so highend i my view, both very quick to focus and pin sharp.
With lenses you get what you pay for
 
Last edited:
Gremlin said:
Your present 70-300 is, if l am correct in a similar price range to my 18-300 around the £450 range
cheap end of the market, ok lens but not the best.
The 70-200 and 80-400 around the £1700+ so highend i my view, both very quick to focus and pin sharp.
With lenses youg
get what you pay for
Click to expand...
I would choose the Tamron/Sigma C over the 80-400 personally. Less than half the price, longer reach and depending on which reviews and test scores/charts you read, arguably sharper at the long end.
 
Hertsman said:
You may well be right tbf...

Id actually be happy to be proved it was me so I dont waste a load of cash.
Click to expand...
In terms of "pop" it's mostly editing (w/b points) which might also relate to monitor calibration.
In terms of sharpness/IQ it's technique and lens. I won't say that the D300 isn't a bit of a hinderance compared to newer sensors/FF, but I would put it at the bottom of the list of concerns.

Without exif it's hard to say, but it looks to me like you're pushing lower SS's than optimal in many of the images. And it also looks like you had much flatter/weaker lighting in many cases, and that will have a big impact as well.
 
snerkler said:
I would choose the Tamron/Sigma C over the 80-400 personally. Less than half the price, longer reach and depending on which reviews and test scores/charts you read, arguably sharper at the long end.
Click to expand...

Won't argue with you as l have no experience of either of those lenses but perfectly happy withe the 80-400 :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top