Thinking of switching Canon to Nikon.

Brocks

Brocks

Suspended / Banned
Messages
760
Edit My Images
Yes
My current kit list is:

EOS 400D
EF-s 18-55 kit lens
EF90-300 Lens
EF 50 f/1.8
EF 24-105 L IS
EF 100-400L
EX580 MkII Flash gun

I want a full frame body. I was going to get a 5D but waited for the release of the 5dII which I actually don't think will suit my needs or budget.

I tried my brother in law's Nikon on holiday. I think it's either a D300 or D700. I have to say the image quality of the photos and the LCD were far superior. I wasn't sure about the menus but that is just me being used to the Canon.

I find a lot of my 400D shots are soft and lacking punch but the Niken seamed fantastic. I like the reach of my 400mm. A quick look at the Nikon lens list doesn't seam to have a direct comparison. The Auto-focus of the Nikon spanked my Canon.

I know the Nikon is probably a higher spec than my 400D but compared to the 5D I tried, I still favour the Nikon.

Is it worth my while or not do we think?
 
You've got some good lenses there, so either they're out of calibration or its something in your workflow process - sharpening etc or technique that is giving soft images.

Maybe you need to try another canon body - the 50D has the hi-res screen that the Nikons have but is x1.6. Otherwise its 5D2. The 5D has the lower res screen which everyone was perfectly happy with until Sony upped the ante with their hi-res screen.
 
maybe worth while, maybe not. What lens was on the Nikon when you were comparing it unless it's of an equivalent level then comparing the images is a bit pointless.
 
I did a direct comparison, I took two shots of the wife reading a book, My 400D with a 24-105L and his Nikon with i think an Nikon 18-135mm. The Nikon spanked the Canon hands down.
 
a1ex2001 said:
maybe worth while, maybe not. What lens was on the Nikon when you were comparing it unless it's of an equivalent level then comparing the images is a bit pointless.
Click to expand...

:agree:

It's probably not the best comparison and you do have quite a bit invested in some decent Canon lenses. In your test, it may be more down to the body than the lens.

I suppose it depends on what you want to shoot and at what level. If full frame is necessary, then it might be worth going down the Nikon route.

And if the green-eyed gear monster has you in it's grasp, there's not much anyone can say to stop you 'turning' :)

If you do, does that mean you're selling that nice 24-105? :D *cough*
 
Brocks said:
I like the reach of my 400mm. A quick look at the Nikon lens list doesn't seam to have a direct comparison.
Click to expand...

Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6D

Only thing is, you say you want a full frame camera? I don't know for certain, but are there any bar the D3? The Canon 5D is really good.

I'm not sure I'd change all my gear, don't know quite what it would achieve. Canon will eventually bring out something better, and you'll be back where you started.
 
Just for the record, I went from a Canon 350D (which was a fantastic camera) to the D700. I'm loving the D700 in terms of usability and ability - people do rant about how Nikon's are easier to use, and I have to say I agree.

You'd get used to any camera you bought, whether it's Canon or Nikon. The D700/300 are so customisable however, and that's what makes the difference (to me). I've got it set-up perfectly for my needs.

An example: Shooting banks. You can have certain functions/buttons and settings assigned for different 'banks'. Banks are designed for different uses, i.e. wedding / studio / point and shoot.

A great example of this is how you can assign certain buttons. One is on your index finger tip when you hold the camera, another is on the middle finger tip, and the third on the thumb.

When I'm in the studio, i.e. using flash, the index finger button launches straight into the Commander mode, which lets me control lights remotely from camera. Images are captures in 14 Bit uncompressed RAW also. When in wedding mode (non flash), the same button goes to the Auto ISO feature (which I must say, is bloody invaluable in low light scenarios). Images are saved in 12 Bit RAW. The other two buttons are assigned to different (bank-related) functions too.

Plus, the AF in low light is incredible (on AF-S lenses).

Having said all that, you'll be happy whatever you buy. I still think the 350D is an ace piece of kit.
 
Shooting banks, is that like the 3 custom modes on the 40D?
 
Basically you have three (2 on a 50D) distinct setups. So you can have a AI servo, 1/320, shutter priority mode, low ISO on one, a One-shot focus, 1/60, flash wb, f2.8 aperture priority on another and a third setup if required.

Each can be tweaked if required, and if you need to reset to the original recorded settings you can easily.
 
Mike Hoyer said:
Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6D

Only thing is, you say you want a full frame camera? I don't know for certain, but are there any bar the D3? The Canon 5D is really good.

I'm not sure I'd change all my gear, don't know quite what it would achieve. Canon will eventually bring out something better, and you'll be back where you started.
Click to expand...

Yes the D700, D3 and D3x are full frame.

The D300 is a crop sensor.
 
I love these "should I change?" threads....as soon as someone says they are thinking of going from Canon to Nikon (or vice versa) the thread fills up with owners of the current brand desperately trying to persuade them not to :lol:

Interesting if it was the 18-135 on the D300 as that's a £165 consumer lens and not a terribly good one at that, so I would have put my money on the images from the Canon being superior...
 
Probably nearer the MKII, but with a lot less of those mega pixie things everyone talks about
 
Brocks said:
I want a full frame body.

I like the reach of my 400mm. A quick look at the Nikon lens list doesn't seam to have a direct comparison.
Click to expand...
Two important points here.

Firstly, going full frame will nullify the reach of your telephoto. If you like the reach of your 400 then you'll need 640mm to get the same reach with full frame. Except of course you won't be able to hand-hold it, and may not be able to afford it.

Secondly this is an area (and maybe the only one) where Canon's offerings are considerably superior to Nikon's. If you've used a 100-400L then you will not be able to bring yourself to buy a Nikon 80-400VR; it's a positive embarrassment by comparison. In addition Canon offers the 300mm f/4 L IS - Nikon's equivalent doesn't have IS/VR - and the unique 400mm f/5.6 L.
Brocks said:
I find a lot of my 400D shots are soft and lacking punch but the Nikon seamed fantastic.
Click to expand...
Brocks said:
I did a direct comparison, I took two shots of the wife reading a book, My 400D with a 24-105L and his Nikon with i think an Nikon 18-135mm. The Nikon spanked the Canon hands down.
Click to expand...
Either your 24-105L has a problem, or you haven't got your 400D set up as well as your brother in law has set up his Nikon, or there is something wrong with your processing workflow. Other things being equal, the 400D/24-105L should deliver better pictures any day of the week.


I'm really not seeing anything here that tells me that switching to full-frame and/or switching to Nikon would be good decisions for you.
 
StewartR said:
Firstly, going full frame will nullify the reach of your telephoto. If you like the reach of your 400 then you'll need 640mm to get the same reach with full frame. Except of course you won't be able to hand-hold it, and may not be able to afford it.
Click to expand...

It won't nullify the reach of the telephoto it is just the Field of View that changes so he may have to crop more, it is a still 400mm lens
 
ppp said:
It won't nullify the reach of the telephoto it is just the Field of View that changes so he may have to crop more, it is a still 400mm lens
Click to expand...
You know what I mean. If he's filling the frame with that duck/aircraft/whatever (which is what I think most people mean when they talk about reach) then he'll need 640mm to achieve the same composition on full-frame.

Yes, he could just crop, but he'll end up with lower resolution. For instance if you crop a Nikon D700 to the same field of view as his Canon 400D, you'll only have 5 megapixels left.
 
You've got some decent glass in your collection. Some of which I have as well. To be honest the 24-105 isn't a bad lens at all. In fact it's pretty good.

I don't have a 400D but I have a 300D that I had years ago and to be honest despite the 6Mp chip it produced some cracking results. I've got some 20 x 30 digital ( Silver, not Ink) prints that are outstanding. OK not with the kit lens, but others.

Now before you dash out and spend a load of cash on Nikon kit, I would look at why you are unhappy with the results you are getting.

I would first of all confirm what camera your are comparing it with. Then try to evaluate the Canon camera nearest to it.

I would also not compare the images on the back of the camera. However good the screen may be it's not going to stand up to a good computer screen.

Best way to evaluate, is to take similar shots with similar lenses. I would suggest you use the 50mm or the 24-105 on your Canon. If you can use the same processing software to evaluate the images, and if you can shoot RAW in both cases.

One thing to remember is that you may be comparing chalk and cheese. Upgrading to a Canon 50D may be all you need to do to get the results you need.

Spending a little time finding the cause to the problem may save you money in the long run. It would be so frustrating to convert to Nikon and then find you are still unhappy with the results
 
The Auto-focus of the Nikon spanked my Canon.
Click to expand...


I`m not surprised....your compairing a camera thats a couple of years newer and 3 or 4 times more expensive, I would expect the autofocus to be better. What type of photography is it you are mainly doing, if you lik ethe reach of the 100-400 then as Stewart said its probably wildlife or motorsport, in which case maybe the 50D would suit your needs better and would mean you keep your lenses, or you could for not much more go for a secondhand MK2n or maybe even the MK3?
 
don't come to nikon, it's hard enough for us to get hold of the pro lenses as it ls, let alone with another person trying to snatch them up.
 
To get as close to like for like as you can, you would have to sell all your Canon kit, and try and get Nikon equivalent, you may struggle to find buyers, or to get prices anything like what you are expecting, and, there are price rises popping up on new kit, so it may give you more hassle that you was expecting.

Why not try one of your lenses and a memory card in something like a 50D, get the pic home, and see how the IQ fares once you see it on your computer.

And talking of computers, I built myself a new PC just after x***, and the change in spec (previous PC was about 5yrs old) has shown a lot more brightness and clarity in my pics, so investigate all avenues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top