Finally made the move from Canon to Nikon

realspeed said:
Pros only use Canon gear because they are so badly paid they can't afford the more up market and expensive better Nikon products
Click to expand...

I suspect this answer was tongue in cheek but the truth is sports photographers are very well paid - much better than most people. Next time you watch a football match look at the sports photographers. They will almost all be using very expensive Canon white lenses.

As a Canon user I suspect the truth may well be that Nikon bodies are better but Canon lenses rule. And as we all know the lens is what really makes the difference between a good photo and a great one.

Whether a Canon user or Nikon user we are always going to support the manufacturer we use. No-one wants to admit they got it wrong.
 
Last edited:
Grumps1974 said:
I suspect this answer was tongue in cheek but the truth is sports photographers are very well paid - much better than most people. Next time you watch a football match look at the sports photographers. They will almost all be using very expensive Canon white lenses.

As a Canon user I suspect the truth may well be that Nikon bodies are better but Canon lenses rule. And as we all know the lens is what really makes the difference between a good photo and a great one.

Whether a Canon user or Nikon user we are always going to support the manufacturer we use. No-one wants to admit they got it wrong.
Click to expand...
I take it you dont know a single sports photographer then, only a small percentage are paid well, the vast majority earn below the national average wage, a lot of those guys you see pitchside at the big football matches swinging those big white lenses actually have some or even all of their gear supplied by agancies, some are staffers for local and regional papers, again these guys usually take their gear from a pool, its actually the lower paid guys who scrimp and scrape to buy their own gear which is usually secondhand
 
Last edited:
Grumps1974 said:
Specs are irrelevant - it is all about the person holding the camera. The best speced kit in a poor photographer's hands will still produce rubbish. Moderate equipment in the hands of a gifted photographer will produce stunning photos.
Click to expand...
It was clearly tongue in cheek hence the emoji ;)

But I disagree with your comment, specs are definitely not irrelevant (assuming you have the knowledge and skill to use them)
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
It was clearly tongue in cheek hence the emoji ;)

But I disagree with your comment, specs are definitely not irrelevant (assuming you have the knowledge and skill to use them)
Click to expand...

If specs were irrelevant I could shoot birds in flight with my Panasonic G1 plus 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 at 500mm and f0.95 at ISO 25,600.

I'll give it a try!
 
woof woof said:
If specs were irrelevant I could shoot birds in flight with my Panasonic G1 plus 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 at 500mm and f0.95 at ISO 25,600.

I'll give it a try!
Click to expand...

Got to be a crow. tbh I think youll get the shot.
 
Nikon cameras have always been very robust. That's why they have been and still used by the armed forces (photographic units) and most police forces (forensic units) as the camera of choice. There are a few exceptions to this.
 
mark richards said:
didn't i read somewhere that the new 200-500 was on par with the 200-400 f4?
Click to expand...

jetpackjack said:
If that's the case I'll be very interested...this 200-400mm weighs an absolute ton!
Click to expand...

From what I've read it isn't. Have you a link to where you read that?The 200-500 f5.6 AF is quite slow (i tested them quickly side by side on a D750 at a nikon event) and it's f5.6 too between 200-400. I asked the nikon guy at the event what the differences were too. The 200-500 may be better at 400-500mm compared the 200-400 f4 with 1.4 TC (it doesn't like TCs that much) but between 200-400 the 200-400 f4 with give better IQ, AF performance, a wider f4 aperture, nano coatings, build quality and weather sealing. The issue of far off subjects with the 200-400 f4 is well know but you don't buy a 200-400 for long distance as a 500 or 600 f4 would be better. Nikon is not going to produce a cheap f5.6 zoom lens that beats their pro range lenses. The 200-500 f5.6 is on par with similar tamaron/sigma offerings from the reviews I've read. When the light drops you will want a f4 or f2.8 lens rather than a f5.6 lens.
 
Last edited:
Canikon tend to leapfrog each other, so I think switching brand is an incredibly expensive way to keep ahead of the curve vs just waiting a bit longer.
 
frod said:
Canikon tend to leapfrog each other, so I think switching brand is an incredibly expensive way to keep ahead of the curve vs just waiting a bit longer.
Click to expand...

Of course they do, that's what direct competitors do.

The thread isn't to do with keeping ahead of the curve it's to do with what one brand can offer over another.

I disagree with it being incredibly expensive, if I stayed with Canon and purchased a 200-400mm f4 I'd be a hell of a lot worse off.
 
rob-nikon said:
From what I've read it isn't. Have you a link to where you read that?The 200-500 f5.6 AF is quite slow (i tested them quickly side by side on a D750 at a nikon event) and it's f5.6 too between 200-400. I asked the nikon guy at the event what the differences were too. The 200-500 may be better at 400-500mm compared the 200-400 f4 with 1.4 TC (it doesn't like TCs that much) but between 200-400 the 200-400 f4 with give better IQ, AF performance, a wider f4 aperture, nano coatings, build quality and weather sealing. The issue of far off subjects with the 200-400 f4 is well know but you don't buy a 200-400 for long distance as a 500 or 600 f4 would be better. Nikon is not going to produce a cheap f5.6 zoom lens that beats their pro range lenses. The 200-500 f5.6 is on par with similar tamaron/sigma offerings from the reviews I've read. When the light drops you will want a f4 or f2.8 lens rather than a f5.6 lens.
Click to expand...
Tests I've seen suggest the 200-500 is better than the 150-600 Tamron and Sigma C and more in line with the Sigma Sport.
 
Lately, I have also been considering switching, if anything due to the increased MP sensor (now that I use a 4K monitor especially), increased level of detail and DR.

It's a bold move to switch now I would say though, the 5dmkiv is surely not too much further away now.
 
Rixy said:
Lately, I have also been considering switching, if anything due to the increased MP sensor (now that I use a 4K monitor especially), increased level of detail and DR.

It's a bold move to switch now I would say though, the 5dmkiv is surely not too much further away now.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong (it's not unheard of!) but is a 4K monitor not about 8mp? I can't imagine it making any difference.
 
jetpackjack said:
Of course they do, that's what direct competitors do.

The thread isn't to do with keeping ahead of the curve it's to do with what one brand can offer over another.

I disagree with it being incredibly expensive, if I stayed with Canon and purchased a 200-400mm f4 I'd be a hell of a lot worse off.
Click to expand...


Yes you would be worse off financially but you would have a hell of a lot better lens.
 
Rixy said:
Lately, I have also been considering switching, if anything due to the increased MP sensor (now that I use a 4K monitor especially), increased level of detail and DR.

It's a bold move to switch now I would say though, the 5dmkiv is surely not too much further away now.
Click to expand...
A 4K monitor still won't even be able to display the resolution of even most phone cameras, as above, it'll only display the equivalent of 8.3 mp.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
A 4K monitor still won't even be able to display the resolution of even most phone cameras :)
Click to expand...
^^^^this. 4k screens are 8.3MP, this means that with my 24mp camera I'd be throwing away near enough 16MP. I'm lucky enough to have the iMac 5K screen which is 14.7mp, but I'm still throwing away nearly 10mp.
 
snerkler said:
^^^^this. 4k screens are 8.3MP, this means that with my 24mp camera I'd be throwing away near enough 16MP. I'm lucky enough to have the iMac 5K screen which is 14.7mp, but I'm still throwing away nearly 10mp.
Click to expand...

Off topic. But my mum has a 5k imac. I uploaded some photos from my camera into lightroom and was confused as to why 1:1 view barely seemed to zoom in. Took a while to twig why.
 
gad-westy said:
Off topic. But my mum has a 5k imac. I uploaded some photos from my camera into lightroom and was confused as to why 1:1 view barely seemed to zoom in. Took a while to twig why.
Click to expand...
:ROFLMAO: ;)

Has she calibrated it? Mine was awful straight out of the box, blacks were massively crushed. I also found it's better set to Gamma 1.8 rather than 2.2.
 
Gary Coyle said:
I take it you dont know a single sports photographer then, only a small percentage are paid well, the vast majority earn below the national average wage, a lot of those guys you see pitchside at the big football matches swinging those big white lenses actually have some or even all of their gear supplied by agancies, some are staffers for local and regional papers, again these guys usually take their gear from a pool, its actually the lower paid guys who scrimp and scrape to buy their own gear which is usually secondhand
Click to expand...

I have around 20k of gear and I use that to produce a minimum wage... I didn't go out and spend 20k.. I started with the camera in my avatar.. traded it in for a bargain dslr... every upgrade from then the photogrpahy paid for but still trade ins for second hand until the last few years where i traded for new.. My gear are my tools like anyone else.. self employed van driver isn't rich but spent thousands on his van.... I scrape a living from sports photography... long hrs small pay...... But love every single minute of it :)
 
snerkler said:
:ROFLMAO: ;)

Has she calibrated it? Mine was awful straight out of the box, blacks were massively crushed. I also found it's better set to Gamma 1.8 rather than 2.2.
Click to expand...

I suspect she's calibrated it but I'll mention that.
 
odd jim said:
A 4K monitor still won't even be able to display the resolution of even most phone cameras, as above, it'll only display the equivalent of 8.3 mp.
Click to expand...

I think what I meant to say was by not being able to zoom in quite as much on a 4k monitor, it comes as a bit of a shock. By default you are able to see more optical imperfections at a closer view, it's turned me in to a bit of pixel peeper. I definitely wouldn't like to natively be able to view the photo at 1:1 - pixel peeping disease guaranteed!

Sorry for going off topic!
 
KIPAX said:
I have around 20k of gear and I use that to produce a minimum wage... I didn't go out and spend 20k.. I started with the camera in my avatar.. traded it in for a bargain dslr... every upgrade from then the photogrpahy paid for but still trade ins for second hand until the last few years where i traded for new.. My gear are my tools like anyone else.. self employed van driver isn't rich but spent thousands on his van.... I scrape a living from sports photography... long hrs small pay...... But love every single minute of it :)
Click to expand...

If you love your job, you'll never do a days work in your life!!! (forgot who said that!) :)
 
jetpackjack said:
Reporting back after a few days use and pleased to say I'm not disappointed with the move at all. The zoom has given lots more versatility and the quality of the shots I'm capturing are detailed and clean.
Click to expand...
This thread has helped me decide to pull my 200-400 sales thread. I've got a trip planned in a few weeks so I'm going to push myself to use it more. I just need to get used to the weight and hand holding. Looking back in Lightroom the images I've got with the 200-400 are quite nice with great isolation.

@jetpackjack how are you getting on with the weight? Were these images hand held or on a tripod?
 
rob-nikon said:
This thread has helped me decide to pull my 200-400 sales thread. I've got a trip planned in a few weeks so I'm going to push myself to use it more. I just need to get used to the weight and hand holding. Looking back in Lightroom the images I've got with the 200-400 are quite nice with great isolation.

@jetpackjack how are you getting on with the weight? Were these images hand held or on a tripod?
Click to expand...

Glad to hear it Rob. The lens is heavy but I see more as a challenge than a hinderance. I've got a cheap amazon monopod with a monfrotto head on it that I use and has been very useful if I'm on the move as it's super lightweight. If I'm more stationary then I'll use my monfrotto tripod, same head as the mono so no faffing with the attachment. I also get down on the floor quite a bit or if I need to I'll sit and tuck my elbow in to my stomach for support.

You'll be surprised how long you can hand hold if 'the shot' is in sight.
 
jetpackjack said:
Glad to hear it Rob. The lens is heavy but I see more as a challenge than a hinderance. I've got a cheap amazon monopod with a monfrotto head on it that I use and has been very useful if I'm on the move as it's super lightweight. If I'm more stationary then I'll use my monfrotto tripod, same head as the mono so no faffing with the attachment. I also get down on the floor quite a bit or if I need to I'll sit and tuck my elbow in to my stomach for support.

You'll be surprised how long you can hand hold if 'the shot' is in sight.
Click to expand...
I mainly use a tripod but have tried a monopod with limited success. I tuck the elbows in when standing up when had holding. I think I need to try the strap for carrying as it gets heavy holding it if out all day. I think it's a case of getting out and using it, it's not like it's a rubbish lens. Like you say it's more of a challenge.
 
Grumps1974 said:
Interesting that a recent survey showed that a substantial majority of professional sports photographers use Canon. The two common factors between wildlife photography and sports photography are shooting at a distance and often shooting moving objects. Professionals rarely get the choice of what equipment to use wrong as their livelihood depends on it. So I will stick with the pros.
Click to expand...

I read similar a week ago, may have been Ken Rockwell saying along the lines of "and thats why every pro sports photographer switched to Canon in the 90s and has never looked back" ... I don't know how Nikon rates though, what's so special about the D810 ?
 
snerkler said:
^^^^this. 4k screens are 8.3MP, this means that with my 24mp camera I'd be throwing away near enough 16MP. I'm lucky enough to have the iMac 5K screen which is 14.7mp, but I'm still throwing away nearly 10mp.
Click to expand...
so if you are only viewing on that monitor and not printing,would it be not noticeable if you had a lesser camera?
 
Grumps1974 said:
Interesting that a recent survey showed that a substantial majority of professional sports photographers use Canon. The two common factors between wildlife photography and sports photography are shooting at a distance and often shooting moving objects. Professionals rarely get the choice of what equipment to use wrong as their livelihood depends on it. So I will stick with the pros.
Click to expand...
I believe it's more to do with Canon's pro support than the equipment being better. Added to that many are already heavily invested into Canon and unlikely to switch brands. Canon have the Lion's share of the market (forgot exactly but sure it was something like 70% with all the other brands sharing the rest). It's going to take a long time, if at all, for enough people to switch to effect this. And why would they switch, when you get up to the pro bodies you're really splitting hairs between performance. For example on paper the D5 arguably looks a better camera than the 1Dx-II but if that does prove to be the case it's hardly by enough for folk to dump all of their lenses and pro support.
 
smr said:
I read similar a week ago, may have been Ken Rockwell saying along the lines of "and thats why every pro sports photographer switched to Canon in the 90s and has never looked back" ... I don't know how Nikon rates though, what's so special about the D810 ?
Click to expand...
There have been several reasons for pros to switch back and forth over the years, most of which have been down to camera models not working like they should. Where pros rely on equipment it matters to them for making a living. For many enthusiasts it's what makes you happy and gets you out there that matters. If it was Ken Rockwell who said it I would take it with a massive pinch of salt as sometimes he seems to be trying to drive traffic to his site. Have a read of Gary's comments in the thread as he was a pro sports photographer so knows better than the rest of us.
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
so if you are only viewing on that monitor and not printing,would it be not noticeable if you had a lesser camera?
Click to expand...
Lesser camera or less MP? ;)

I ran some tests on my 1680 x 1050 (1.7mp) laptop viewing a 50mp Canon 5DRS file, and then the same file downsized to 2MP. I went back and forth and could not see any difference. I did the same in my 5k screen but downsized to 15MP rather than 2MP and couldn't see any difference.

Some people say they've seen the odd difference doing this such as a power line in the distance might be slightly smoother on one, but I think it depends on how it's been down sampled rather than it showing more detail per se. A 2mp screen can only show 2mp of detail ;)
 
snerkler said:
Lesser camera or less MP? ;)

I ran some tests on my 1680 x 1050 (1.7mp) laptop viewing a 50mp Canon 5DRS file, and then the same file downsized to 2MP. I went back and forth and could not see any difference. I did the same in my 5k screen but downsized to 15MP rather than 2MP and couldn't see any difference.

Some people say they've seen the odd difference doing this such as a power line in the distance might be slightly smoother on one, but I think it depends on how it's been down sampled rather than it showing more detail per se. A 2mp screen can only show 2mp of detail ;)
Click to expand...
so isn't it pointless to use an expensive camera then?
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
so isn't it pointless to use an expensive camera then?
Click to expand...
Nope, depends on how much cropping you do and what medium you're viewing on. My point was for the majority of people MP's doesn't really matter, 8MP is probably more than ample ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top