Does swapping systems improve your work?

jon ryan

jon ryan

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,845
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
I've noticed a couple of people recently saying that they're swapping from one make to another.

I used to use Nikon when I was on film for no reason other than I was offered a good deal when setting out. I went to Canon when I swapped to digital because the camera came with the job. Swapping now would mean getting the hang of an unfamiliar system as well as the cost of replacing a fair bit of expensive gear.

So, why swap? Has anyone who's done this found it made an appreciable difference in the quality of their work?
 
its a bit like saying a mac is better for processing photos over a windows based machine. or an audi is better than a bmw. shooting manual will make you a better photographer over the assisted modes.. etc etc.

its more of a what "feels" right thing.
 
Nope. Doesn't mean you can't give it a try.
 
And if it makes you feel better about it......why not?
 
I can only think that they are changing because either the other system offers features that their own system doesn't or they have been taken in by the advertising hype.
 
I'll bite on this.

It can make a difference if you are after a particular feature or if you are after a level of performance that your current brand only offers by buying their flagship product.

The "big two" don't offer many products where they compete for the same piece of turf - that would be foolish. So the two product ranges are interleaved.

Therefore there can be financial advantages to play the differences if your pile of money won't reach to whichever model your current manufacturer pitches at the top.

I used this option to get what I needed for a fraction of the price of what I really wanted.

I don't understand the whole fanbois mentality really, my loyalty is only to whoever can make what I want for the price I can afford to pay for it.
 
Yeah i don't think people will think it will make them a better tog. Usually for reasons explained above. If i go full frame i will most likely be moving to Canon for the 17-40, which nikon do not do.
 
the 17-40 aint a great lens onthe current line up of canon FF cameras lol
 
When I switched it was purely budgetary.

I had a D3, I wanted two bodies and for one if then to be FF. I could not afford a D700 plus another body so went Canon and got a 1D2 and a 5D1.
 
So the people with 16-35s or neither will tell you.

I had one, I loved it.
 
For many people, the grass always looks greener on the other side.


I changed from Nikon entry level to Canon full frame. Main reason is I wanted to retain ability to record video rather than Nikon's disappointing D700, and also I love all the added features of Magic Lantern.

I bought into Nikon DX system, so when going full frame, there is zero brand loyalty as it's like starting from new.

Now, I won't even consider a system switch as there is too much invested.

rjbell said:
Yeah i don't think people will think it will make them a better tog. Usually for reasons explained above. If i go full frame i will most likely be moving to Canon for the 17-40, which nikon do not do.
Click to expand...
Nikon are releasing a new 18-35 that's lighter than Canon's 17-40, it's looking great.
 
Last edited:
rjbell said:
Yeah i don't think people will think it will make them a better tog. Usually for reasons explained above. If i go full frame i will most likely be moving to Canon for the 17-40, which nikon do not do.
Click to expand...

Not a lens worth changing systems for. Nikon do a 14-24, 16-35 VR, 17-35 and the new 18-35 I'd look at well ahead of a Canon 17-40.
 
Well swopping systems may mean you'll make more mistakes at first untill you get used to the new different setup. Whether you'll find your photography improves will depend on whether you find the new make easier to use or more suitably for your type of photography (maybe better autofcus for sport etc) just swopping from say canon to nikon shouldn't really make much difference to the quality, both makes can take excelent photographs.
 
Dont know about swapping systems,but in my film days use to try diffrent formats,that can be quite good.

And sometimes will take out an FF DSLR,others miro 4/3 :)
 
Although I didn't own my Canon digital equipment, when it did come round to buying a set-up of my own from day one I knew I'd made the right decision to move to Nikon because the handling suited me better and the flash system was superior. Although I didn't lose any money, I'd invested a lot of time into the EOS system over the years (starting with a 650) but that trade-off was worth it. These days when I pick up an equivalent Canon, I can use it but I just don't get the same feeling...

I did toy with swapping over to the 1D series last year, albeit to older models (1Dmk2/1Dsmk2) to take advantage of what seemed like a wider selection of used lenses at lower prices than I was seeing the equivalent (if there was one) in the Nikon range. But I knew two things would never be the same - the lack of a correctly-positioned rear command dial, and a reliable off-camera flash system that was easy to control and make adjustments to.

I can see the attraction of swapping systems - to many there's always a sense that they're missing out on something and that in itself is the root cause of IMO of 'upgraditis' - but in reality, I can see major changes to a person's photography happening unless the move ushers in technology that wasn't available to them before, or wasn't as readily available or accessible.
 
I haven't changed systems, I'm still using the D800, but I have bought a Fuji X-pro1 and lenses, and find that has been good for my photography. The Fuji system is so small and light that it is easy to carry, and produces excellent results, meaning that I generally have a camera with me a lot more of the time.

I also find myself taking more care with set-up of shots with the Fuji, as I do with the D800 than I ever did with the D300 and D200 before it.

When I only had the Nikons, I often went out without a camera, as a D800 and a couple of f2.8 zooms was just too much weight for a day in the mountains or a ten-mile plus walk.
 
Nobody heard of the placebo effect?
 
Not swapped systems but have downsized as it were! Haven't used the DSLR kit much since the op but have been taking a fair few photos with a set of Fujis. Not sure they've improved my photography but they have restored some enthusiasm for the hobby.
 
jon ryan said:
I've noticed a couple of people recently saying that they're swapping from one make to another.

So, why swap? Has anyone who's done this found it made an appreciable difference in the quality of their work?
Click to expand...

I think that if you are pushing the limits of ISO and dynamic range there's little doubt (arguably :D) that Canon lags behind Nikon at the mo. Other than that the lens line ups of Canon and Nikon both offer adavantages depending upon where you look and what you're interested in.

If you're not pushing the limits or looking at the specialist lenses that could influence the choice then I don't think it matters, does it?

Looking at what I've owned... 300D, 10D, 20D, 5D... the only improvement in IQ has been at the higher ISO's, other than that there's next to no difference at normal print sizes and under normal viewing, IMVHO. Even my MFT... GF1 and G1 seem to be able to keep up with my 5D at low to middling ISO's at reasonable print sizes when viewed normally so my personal opinion is that swapping camera bodies doesn't get you better results unless you are pushing what the kit can do to the limit.
 
rjbell said:
Is it not?
Click to expand...

It's a great lens, pretty much 100% of my landscapes are done with it (on 5D3) - never seen an issue with it that's enough to push me to spend twice as much on the 16-35
 
gramps said:
Nobody heard of the placebo effect?
Click to expand...

How would that work in the camera world gramps?

I'm guessing individuals just want to change systems to try something different. Also the big two tend do offer something slightly different on each of their competing models. It's what suits the individual.

I got given a 550D as a gift and recently upgraded, I doubt I'll change as I'm used to the current system.

If it was a Nikon camera I had been given initially I would have stayed with that one.
 
If it enables you to do something you previously couldn't then yes it could improve your work. Something that's impossible to generalise on really though, everyone has different end goals and there are several viable means of reaching them.
 
jon ryan said:
So, why swap? Has anyone who's done this found it made an appreciable difference in the quality of their work?
Click to expand...

You may swap because there's some feature one system has that another doesn't... fair enough.. there might be real reasons, but whatever the reasons, it will not improve your work much. If it's a purely technical matter, such as one system having a much better AF system, then yes, your hit rate may improve if you shoot sports a great deal.

It won't help you creatively one iota.. no.
 
buckas said:
It's a great lens, pretty much 100% of my landscapes are done with it (on 5D3) - never seen an issue with it that's enough to push me to spend twice as much on the 16-35
Click to expand...

Clearly your wrong and all your photos are rubish and soft, or thats what some on here would have you believe!

While the 17-40mm L isn't a good reason to swap there maybe other compelling arguments for example for a while the nikon d700 was a compelling reason as the canon equivalent was mega bucks the Canon MPE 5x larger than life lens is another reason if you were to need such a thing as nikon don't make one!

For most of us though there is very little reason to swap but then weve all purchased a lens or body we didn't need, I know my current camera far outstrips my ability but I'm happy with it!
 
I sold my DLSR equipment as I couldn't lug the 5D2 and lenses about anymore and bought a GX1 and its been an absolute godsend as it means I get to continue my hobby but at a fraction of the weight.

Oh, and I had the 16-35 II over the 17-40 for the f2.8 for shooting at night. :)
 
Yes.
The instant you change systems, all the dull flat light disappears and you're surrounded by salmon pink sunsets and gorgeous scantily clad models riding tigers.

Seriously - if a different system offers something that you need and can't get in your current system - it's a no brainer. But any other reason is just a waste of money.
 
Yes.
The instant you change systems, all the dull flat light disappears and you're surrounded by salmon pink sunsets and gorgeous scantily clad models riding tigers.
Click to expand...

Yep, same thing happened to me......

I was Canon for since EOS came to fashion in 88 until four years ago.
I then went to Fuji and Nikon. Fuji cameras were all nikon insides at the time.

Canon are NOT big on working with 3rd party software or third party companies. If it will work buy sticking it on the outside some whaere then so be it. Nikon are far across the other side and work with anyone to provide a wider client base.

Schools took off big for us and now take all my time. all the sofware to connect worked with nikon and other brands but not so well with Canon.

now we shoot all kids to their names and admin numbers and we dont want tobe tethered to a PC/lappy top. so we use barcode readers that fit like a camera grip. also using QR coding now too. The fuji had software menus in the camer to allow this as does the Nikons. so we had to change for all the extras functions that other allow and provide. Canon have only one body to do all these extras but it's only sold in the States.

With a sad heart we had to change. But in the end a camera is a camera.....

Unless it's a Pentax. Then it's history
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top