Shall I convert to the Full-Frame Darkside?

AndyBorzi

AndyBorzi

Suspended / Banned
Messages
985
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a Canon 5D MKII on pre-order but got to thinking, as I will have to sell the some of my gear anyway, what if I go for a Nikon D700 instead?

I currently have a 40D, a grip and 2 ef-s lenses (canon 10-22 & sigma 17-70) which I will have to sell if I stay with Canon.

If I go Nikon, I will also have to sell 2x Canon flashes(580EX & 430EX mk1), nifty-fifty, canon 100 macro, canon ef 28-135IS & ef 75-300 mkIII (unfortunately not all of this kit is mine and some money would goto my wife!).

If I stay with Canon, my eventual setup would be something like the 17-40L, 50F1.8, 85f1.8, 100 macro & one of the 70-200L lenses. (If I had the extra money I would go for the 24-70L but don't really see that happening in the next couple of years)

If I go with Nikon, what equivalent setup would you suggest to cover the above range? I guess my initial lens budget would be around £600.

What are the Nikon equivalent of the Canon 'L' range of lenses?

Cheers

AB
 
In the words of Yoda: “Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

Haha stick with your new 5d mkII I'm sure you won't be disapointed ;)
 
Ajophotog said:
In the words of Yoda: “Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

Haha stick with your new 5d mkII I'm sure you won't be disapointed ;)
Click to expand...


All the things that turn Canon users to Nikon then:):p

Seriously only you know if it is worth doing.
 
Were seeing alot of these sort of threads at the minute and the general consensus for me seems to be that it's not worth the effort.

The more intresting thing for me is that when I first joined hese forums about a year ago there was much more talk of people moving the other way which indicates just how far Nikon have come back in the last 12 months. I'm sure Canon will respond and the two will continue to swap places on the scale over time so if you do jump ship now be prepared to do the same in 12 months time!
 
AndyBorzi said:
If I stay with Canon, my eventual setup would be something like the 17-40L, 50F1.8, 85f1.8, 100 macro & one of the 70-200L lenses. (If I had the extra money I would go for the 24-70L but don't really see that happening in the next couple of years)

If I go with Nikon, what equivalent setup would you suggest to cover the above range? I guess my initial lens budget would be around £600.

What are the Nikon equivalent of the Canon 'L' range of lenses?
Click to expand...
You've got some fun ahead if you do switch....

  • Firstly, Nikon don't really offer anything comparable to Canon's 17-40L.
  • Secondly, Nikon's 85mm f/1.8 isn't AF-S.
  • Thirdly, Nikon only offer you one 70-200 (f/2.8 VR) rather than Canon's four.
  • Fourthly, there's no equivalent of Canon's "L" range. Nikon put gold rings on their professional lenses, but there is simply no way of telling from its nomenclature.
 
Another thing is that when the Nikon D700 was launched, all the mags rushed in for tests against the 5D, which it beat..., by a small margin. Now the 5D2 is here I would guess it's head-and-shoulders above the D700.

Not, I'm sure, that the D700 is anything less than brilliant itself.

Another option would be to track down a run-out 5D and use the change for some of that glass you're after :)
 
pearce_jj said:
Now the 5D2 is here I would guess it's head-and-shoulders above the D700.
Click to expand...

You guessed wrong then ;)

They're very different cameras aimed at quite different markets, but the days of Canon just releasing a new body to 'blow Nikon away' are long gone.
 
I don't really see the point in swapping gear as both manufacturers have practically equal abilities and any differences aren't that major, and the ball is in the others court every 6 months to a year anyway so it seems pointless, to me at least. It's never long before one manufacturer can do something they currently can't.
 
Andy

I would be interested to know why you're thinking of switching. I'm a happy Nikon user (D200) but all the reviews I read suggest the 5DMk11 is a great camera and it would seem twice the rez of the D700.

Enlighten us please

Peter
 
StewartR said:
You've got some fun ahead if you do switch....

  • Firstly, Nikon don't really offer anything comparable to Canon's 17-40L.
  • Secondly, Nikon's 85mm f/1.8 isn't AF-S.
  • Thirdly, Nikon only offer you one 70-200 (f/2.8 VR) rather than Canon's four.
  • Fourthly, there's no equivalent of Canon's "L" range. Nikon put gold rings on their professional lenses, but there is simply no way of telling from its nomenclature.
Click to expand...

Quite a few people have considered making the change, and a couple of members actually have.

Just going to point out a couple of things in the quote above.

Nikon don't do any f/4 zooms. This is a gap they don't seem to want to address any time soon.
It doesn't really matter that the 85mm f/1.8 isn't AF-S. Apart from the fact that there's no full time manual override and it doesn't AF on the D40/D60, there's no real downside, there aren't necessarily speed issues without HSM/USM on Nikon bodies. It's pretty quick to switch from AF to MF and back if you want to.
Nikon have 2 mid-long telephoto zooms in production, the 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR and the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D.
And no, Nikon don't have "L" lenses, but you can tell just from the price and whether or not it's ED and N. "L" is a completely arbitrary distinction anyway. I can't really tell why so many Canon users are hung up on it. Personally I buy lenses based on whether or not I need a lens in that focal length, I find the picture quality acceptable and I can afford it. I don't put any weight behind which letters Nikon has put after the lens.
 
StewartR said:
You've got some fun ahead if you do switch....

  • Firstly, Nikon don't really offer anything comparable to Canon's 17-40L.
  • Secondly, Nikon's 85mm f/1.8 isn't AF-S.
  • Thirdly, Nikon only offer you one 70-200 (f/2.8 VR) rather than Canon's four.
  • Fourthly, there's no equivalent of Canon's "L" range. Nikon put gold rings on their professional lenses, but there is simply no way of telling from its nomenclature.
Click to expand...

Fifth, Nikon don't have black dots next to the highlights. :lol: Wayne
 
Why would you want to go through the agro of changing then doing it all again when you think the other has a nicer newer weapon up their sleeve.

I chose the Canon because it felt right and now I intend to stick with them as I'm comfortable with their cameras. It would have been the same if the Nikon had felt right.

The difference between the 2 is not that huge and I doubt if it ever will be. Pros use both so they cannot be that bad.

Choccy...
 
If the Nikon is going to give you the capability to shoot vastly superior images, then sure go ahead. If not why bother? The equipment is only a means to an end its the shots themselves which are important. I suspect that all manufacturers are really on a pretty even setting...............stick with what youve got.
 
Read my thoughts on it as I just did. While I would have got the 17-40L on Canon there wasn't really much choice with Nikon so I splashed out on the 14-24. I have the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS and I will be getting the Nikon version. 85mm f/1.8 would be nice. There's no USM on the Canon 50mm f/1.8 and its fine.
 
Peter said:
Andy

I would be interested to know why you're thinking of switching. I'm a happy Nikon user (D200) but all the reviews I read suggest the 5DMk11 is a great camera and it would seem twice the rez of the D700.

Enlighten us please

Peter
Click to expand...

It wasn't really a serious thought, it came to mind suddenly this morning when I checked my Amazon pre-order for the MKII "This item will not be delivered before the 25th" :bang: . My other pre-order will be delivered on the 16th Dec though :woot:

It was just a 'what if' type thought.

StewartR has hit the nail on the head for me though, the lens range seems better for Canon.

I have summed everything up regards selling the canon stuff to fund Nikon and found that I would most definately be worse off initially, less glass, no flash etc.

FPS doesn't bother me in the slightest, neither does having x number of AF points - I only ever use the centre one anyway. My intention was always to go for a 5D if I every got the money together, and now someone else is part paying I can go for a MKII! :D

I see Pete has gone for the D700, sounds like more out of frustration than anything :lol: but he does make a living out of togging, and Canon weren't fast enough for his needs....this time.....:p .....he will be back.

My decision is made, Canon 5DMKII...just need a huuuuuge hard-drive now! :bang:
 
AndyBorzi said:
It was just a 'what if' type thought.
Click to expand...

I had that Monday morning. A sudden moment of clarity. It took me about an hour to come to terms with the possability of it all.

I see Pete has gone for the D700, sounds like more out of frustration than anything :lol: but he does make a living out of togging, and Canon weren't fast enough for his needs....this time.....:p .....he will be back.
Click to expand...

Partly out of frustration. I did want 5fps. I did want a better AF. But I did pre-order the 5d2 on the 24th of September and I was really looking forward to it. I have 0 regrets about doing this and I love this D700. Its better in every way really. Its not just a "Aw to hell with Canon" purchase. It really does seem like the better setup for me. If Canon have the lenses then stick with them. Hope you get the 5d2 someday :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top