Thinking of switching from Nikon to Canon...

jojo90

jojo90

Suspended / Banned
Messages
540
Edit My Images
No
OK so this isn't really a Nikon v Canon debate, more a 'I fancy going full frame, but don't want to spend more money'.

So now I have:
Nikon d7000
Nikon d90
SB-600
Samyang 8.5 mm f3.5
35mm f1.8 DX
50mm f1.4G
85mm f1.8 (new one).
17-55 f2.8 Nikon
80-200 f2.8 Nikon

Mostly shoot with Primes over zooms.

I fancy going full frame because I think the 'look' of full frame is better to my eyes. A 50mm on FF is really a 50mm and a 35mm on DX is really a 35mm. Sounds odd but it makes sense to me and I can discern the aesthetic differences in images.

I thought about selling the D90 & D7000 and picking up a D700 (selling my DX lenses on the way) but D700s are so damn expensive. If I'd started with Canon I could be picking up an old 5D or even 1D Mark x and playing with full frame today! Sorta wish I had now but the decision at the time was 'Nikon had a rebate so why not'.

Only thing holding me back is I feel I've got good copies of the 35mm DX, 50mm f1.4, and deffo the 17-55mm f2.8. Guess I might just need to chance it if I go Canon. Having said that I love primes and will likely go for a pure prime selection of lenses. 5Ds are about £600 so with selling my Nikon kit I could pick up a very nice selection of lenses... and lenses are the most important thing... also my dad shoots Canon so sure I could steal his lenses :).

Am I being silly :)? Should I just go for the D700 and stick with Nikon?
 
In your shoes I'd just save for the D700.

(And I'm assuming "1D mark x" is referring to the original 1Ds "classic"? The 1DX is the newest canon flagship pro-body (equivalent to the D4))
 
Last edited:
jojo90 said:
OK so this isn't really a Nikon v Canon debate, more a 'I fancy going full frame, but don't want to spend more money'.

So now I have:
Nikon d7000
Nikon d90
SB-600
Samyang 8.5 mm f3.5
35mm f1.8 DX
50mm f1.4G
85mm f1.8 (new one).
17-55 f2.8 Nikon
80-200 f2.8 Nikon

Mostly shoot with Primes over zooms.

I fancy going full frame because I think the 'look' of full frame is better to my eyes. A 50mm on FF is really a 50mm and a 35mm on DX is really a 35mm. Sounds odd but it makes sense to me and I can discern the aesthetic differences in images.

I thought about selling the D90 & D7000 and picking up a D700 (selling my DX lenses on the way) but D700s are so damn expensive. If I'd started with Canon I could be picking up an old 5D or even 1D Mark x and playing with full frame today! Sorta wish I had now but the decision at the time was 'Nikon had a rebate so why not'.

Only thing holding me back is I feel I've got good copies of the 35mm DX, 50mm f1.4, and deffo the 17-55mm f2.8. Guess I might just need to chance it if I go Canon. Having said that I love primes and will likely go for a pure prime selection of lenses. 5Ds are about £600 so with selling my Nikon kit I could pick up a very nice selection of lenses... and lenses are the most important thing... also my dad shoots Canon so sure I could steal his lenses :).

Am I being silly :)? Should I just go for the D700 and stick with Nikon?
Click to expand...

You've got some very capable kit. I'm struggling to see why you NEED to change at all. But, at the end of the day, it's your money. :thinking:
 
squishy said:
In your shoes I'd just save for the D700

(And I'm assuming "1D mark x" is referring to the original 1Ds "classic"? The 1DX is the newest canon flagship pro-body (equivalent to the D4))
Click to expand...


1DX RRP will be £5300 and you'll have to pre-order.


JoJo

Your dad bring a Canon man would be a good source of glass as you build up your own collection. I think both companies make excellent equipment. When I was looking to go the DSLR route, Nikon was my first choice but I ended up with Canon because of their ergonomics suit me better. Back then too my choices of either a D80 or 40D came down firmly on the side of the 40D because it had live view. You could try out your dad's gear and see how they suit you.
 
D700, there should be a D800 out in the near future, by then the D700 drops in price and you have time to save up the money.

I'd rather have a D700 over a 5D any day.
 
If you were to sell your cameras and dx lenses, there is more than enough cash there to swap to a d700.
 
Last edited:
Personally I think that the superior "look" of full frame shots is largely imagined.

I've been reasonably happy using a 20D and upon picking up a 5D I expected to see an improvement in image quality but to be honest I was underwhelmed. The 5D is better at higher ISO's and the 5D files seem to hold together better under noise reduction but apart from that the only real difference I've noticed is that the 5D can display vignetting which was never an issue with the 20D and due to the closer camera to subject distances with the 5D to maintain the field of view depth of field is reduced or I have to use smaller apertures.

In all but poor light and higher ISO's when viewing on screen or print I honestly see little if any significant difference between my full frame 5D, my APS-C 20D and my micro four thirds cameras when using good lenses.

I'd urge anyone thinking of changing camera bodies or formats to think carefully about the reasons why and to maybe if at all possible to try before you buy.
 
I had a similar idea a while back, I had a d90, 50mm 1.4, 35mm, etc. bought a 5D with a sigma 50mm 1.4 and lasted about a week, could get used to it at all.. So sold it and kept with Nikon. I currently have a D300 and will someday hopefully get a D700. The option of selling my lenses and body and getting a D700 with my 50mm 1.4 go through my head daily. Sell the extra kit and get a D700, they go for about £1200 now on eBay.. You would probably get around 1k for your 2 bodies then also sell the 17-55mm and buy a Tamron 24-70 2.8.
 
Last edited:
There is nothing wrong with the kit I have and I'm more than pleased with the D7000/D90 shots :).

I'm sorta edging, as Silent-Sam suggested, to wait for the D800 then pick up D700 when they lose value. Could buy another prime with the cash saved!

Perhaps it's just me but I notice subtle differences on FX versus DX that I find more aesthetically appealing, it's as simple as that. Take my 50mm for example, love it, but I love the focal length of 35mm more on DX, but I like the image quality more on the 50mm, and I actually like the images I see on FX where the whole 50mm lens is used.

Put it this way, I have a GF1 and think the 20mm f1.7 is a great prime, but it's a 20mm f1.7, I'll get better bokeh and 'telephotoness' for the same 'picture' on a FX 40mm f1.7 (OK bad example I know but makes sense to me).

The end image matters more to me than the gear hence not really caring if it's Canon, Nikon, D700, 5D, etc. What defines a good end image is personal preference :). I'm not into 'this has 0.0005 stops ISO advantage and 0.1 on the Nyquist scale more sharpness' debates.

FX to me is end image feel with a given lens combination over the technology...
 
Last edited:
technics100 said:
I had a similar idea a while back, I had a d90, 50mm 1.4, 35mm, etc. bought a 5D with a sigma 50mm 1.4 and lasted about a week, could get used to it at all.. So sold it and kept with Nikon. I currently have a D300 and will someday hopefully get a D700. The option of selling my lenses and body and getting a D700 with my 50mm 1.4 go through my head daily. Sell the extra kit and get a D700, they go for about £1200 now on eBay.. You would probably get around 1k for your 2 bodies then also sell the 17-55mm and buy a Tamron 24-70 2.8.
Click to expand...

I'm tempted to go this route and perhaps keep the fisheye and buy say an old Nikon D50 for fisheye fun! Good to hear from someone who made the switch! I am used to the Nikon control structure after all...
 
Last edited:
I did like the dof, better ISO of the 5d over my D90 at the time but I just couldn't use the bloody thing. Too many years of nikon. It was also all the wee things, flash triggers, right angle viewers, batteries etc. I've just been scoping out D700's on eBay.. Although I think I would only be left with my 50mm F1.4 AF-S if I jumped to FF
 
woof woof said:
Personally I think that the superior "look" of full frame shots is largely imagined.

I've been reasonably happy using a 20D and upon picking up a 5D I expected to see an improvement in image quality but to be honest I was underwhelmed. The 5D is better at higher ISO's and the 5D files seem to hold together better under noise reduction but apart from that the only real difference I've noticed is that the 5D can display vignetting which was never an issue with the 20D and due to the closer camera to subject distances with the 5D to maintain the field of view depth of field is reduced or I have to use smaller apertures.

In all but poor light and higher ISO's when viewing on screen or print I honestly see little if any significant difference between my full frame 5D, my APS-C 20D and my micro four thirds cameras when using good lenses.

I'd urge anyone thinking of changing camera bodies or formats to think carefully about the reasons why and to maybe if at all possible to try before you buy.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but today I've been playing on flickriver.com (trying to pick next prime) and looked @ 50mm f1.4 G shots... out of the 50+ I liked, and hence opened into Flickr, about 90% were shot on FX. It's hard to define but FX 50mm uses the edge of the lens and the bokeh is kinda one big circle round the edge of the image 'tunnelling' smoothly to the focus point. DX cuts that off. I like the aesthetic appeal of that, others might not, but I do :).
 
Last edited:
technics100 said:
I did like the dof, better ISO of the 5d over my D90 at the time but I just couldn't use the bloody thing. Too many years of nikon. It was also all the wee things, flash triggers, right angle viewers, batteries etc. I've just been scoping out D700's on eBay.. Although I think I would only be left with my 50mm F1.4 AF-S if I jumped to FF
Click to expand...

That's all the lens you need ;).
 
just reading up and that KenRockwell guy reckons older lenses perform better on FX than DX (makes sense I guess as pixels are more 'spread out' across the lens). I love old lenses (in fact it's a 135mm f2.8 manual focus I'm after next!).
 
jojo90 said:
That's all the lens you need ;).
Click to expand...

Don't you start. I actually keep my 35mm f1.8 on most of the time now, which is 52mm equiv on FF.. Had my 50mm on my dad's D3 for the weekend and loved it..
 
I shoot now with a combo of D700 / D7000. I can't say that I prefer more the images from D700 than those from D7000... Both are stunning performers. Depending on the situation I may prefer one over the other body.

If I'd be in your shoes, especially because you said that you do not use so much some of your glass, I'll sell every lens that I'm not using often or I'm not completely happy with it and I'll concentrate my kit only to several outstanding lenses. I have some very expensive lenses... but believe me that one of the most outstanding lenses on my D7000 is the old manual focus Nikon 105/2.5 AI-S. I used it shooting concerts in available light and offered me great images wide open at up to ISO 5000.
 
I had a similar dilema eighteen months ago, bought a D700 and still couldn't part with the D300 which is a lovely camera in it's own right. The D700 has it's own abilities and is a better camera overall, but the D300 has the extra reach so for example your 80-200 effecitively working as a 300mm at f2.8 is pretty impressive. I just eneded up with more kit!

Some of the decision may depend on what photography you do to tailor your equipment to suit the need within your own budget e.g sports, nature, to replicate the fast, long reach of DX is expensive to do in full frame - and a lot heavier.

D700's are gradually dropping in price. In many instances well exposed images are barely different between the two cameras in average daylight. One big advantage is the D700 viewfinder is closer to the 35mm film SLR's, and not as pokely as DX format.
 
jojo90 said:
Only thing holding me back is I feel I've got good copies of the 35mm DX, 50mm f1.4, and deffo the 17-55mm f2.8.

QUOTE]

Good copies? Far as i`m aware there isn`t any bad copies of these lenses after all they are nikon glass?

I think to be honest your set on changing to canon to go full frame so dont think about it anymore just do it, however i`ve looked at images on flickr and landscapes do seem to be better colours and shapness with the Canon 5D mk2 until of course i came across this fella on flickr he uses DX and his images i would say are outstanding!! http://www.flickr.com/photos/joshuacripps/
Click to expand...
 
I don't think you need to sell any lens at all, they all seems perfectly fine to cover most stuff.

I say save up for a D700 and sell one of your DX body.

If you sell everything and buy a canon, you may end up with a few lens but then you still want more ..... so might as well work on the stuff you got.

D700 is fnatastic on ISO performance.

I'm getting one too and keep my D7000 as second body
 
Hi,

Thanks for the advice everyone :).

What I've decided to do is sell the D90 then wait for the D800 to come out and pick up one of the D700s that will no doubt flood eBay! As for my photographic style... I don't really have one and it's just I have an image in my head so I go out and try and capture it. Mostly lean towards travel & portraits but that's just because it's the only real time I have to indulge in this hobby.

I do like a good bokeh mind you :).
 
jojo90 said:
Hi,

Thanks for the advice everyone :).

What I've decided to do is sell the D90 then wait for the D800 to come out and pick up one of the D700s that will no doubt flood eBay! As for my photographic style... I don't really have one and it's just I have an image in my head so I go out and try and capture it. Mostly lean towards travel & portraits but that's just because it's the only real time I have to indulge in this hobby.

I do like a good bokeh mind you :).
Click to expand...

This won't really pan out like this IMHO. The D800 is not currently rumoured to be a replacement for the D700 and will not therefore lead directly to more D700s being replaced. In fact, if the current specs for the D800 are true then the 36MP sensor will mean a more restricted functional ISO range and may even lead to people keeping hold of the D700s because it would be the last affordable Nikon FX model that is good in low light.

Also, worth considering that a new camera (even a direct replacement) very rarely leads to a price drop of the older model due to the fact that the retail pricing naturally lowers throughout the lifetime of a camera, meaning that the new model will already be at a premium compared to the older model and therefore not really in direct competition.
 
Gary Coyle said:
Now that's funny :lol:
Click to expand...

I own MFT, APS-C and full frame cameras with some good lenses and I've shot the same scenes with each and examined them on screen and in print and it's my opinion that other than at the highest ISO's there's little to choose between them in final prints or on screen images. We've seen examples here on this site too when people have found it very difficult to tell what camera has been used to take what shot.

If you think differently then why not post some examples taken with different formats that show that full frame is obviously better?
 
I can't see the market being flooded by used D700s when the D800 does eventually arrive, but that's another story.

In regard to thinking the D700 is expensive, compared to the Canon full frame bodies you're considering (classic 5D and old 1Ds bodies, and this is not Canon bashing, those bodies are years behind what newer bodies like the D700 and the 5D2 can provide, hence the higher price. the key thing about Nikon is that it's not been doing FX for that long, not in comparison to Canon anyway, so prices reflect this and reflect the fact that Nikon has some class-leading full-frame offerings.

I see you've opted to ditch the D90 (the older of your two bodies) but is the D7000 really that different to an FX body? It has excellent high ISO capabilities and good video (don't know if that interest you) and DX does still represent the best of both worlds - more bang for your buck when it comes to long lenses and there are plenty of brilliant wider options available.

Plus, the cost to change is going to be nasty - doing a like-for-like swap for lenses won't happen (i doubt) in some cases and Canon's flash system is pants compared to what Nikon offers.
 
D7000s aren't all that great, mine back focuses (all my lenses are set to between -10 & -20 with my 80-200 @ -20 pretty useless @ f2.8 over 135mm) and I've got oily spots all over the sensor (common problem, don't shoot at f22, but it's there). In fact that's why I bought the D7000 because the D90 didn't have micro focus adjust and sorely needed it.

I can still capture great shots, because I know how to use it (even if that means manual focus sometimes... or live view for razor accurate DoF... thank god I've got good eyes!)... but still... it's going back to Nikon for a clean/service.

As an aside I'm sure it's not past Nikon's technical ability to introduce some selectable-hybrid-optical-contrast-detect-system.
 
Last edited:
jojo90 said:
D7000s aren't all that great, mine back focuses (all my lenses are set to between -10 & -20 with my 80-200 @ -20 pretty useless @ f2.8 over 135mm) and I've got oily spots all over the sensor (common problem, don't shoot at f22, but it's there).
Click to expand...

Can you not get that fixed under warranty? Do you need two bodies, you should just sell the D7k, D90 and 35mm (as it won't work on FF) and buy a D700 now.. DO IT..
 
jojo90 said:
D7000s aren't all that great, mine back focuses (all my lenses are set to between -10 & -20 with my 80-200 @ -20 pretty useless @ f2.8 over 135mm) and I've got oily spots all over the sensor (common problem, don't shoot at f22, but it's there).

I can still capture great shots, because I know how to use it (even if that means manual focus sometimes... thank god I've got good eyes!)... but still... it's going back to Nikon for a clean/service.
Click to expand...

The 80-200mm isn't great at f/2.8 anyway at more than about 135mm - passable but miles better at f/4. It'll be no different on FX....
 
technics100 said:
Can you not get that fixed under warranty? Do you need two bodies, you should just sell the D7k, D90 and 35mm (as it won't work on FF) and buy a D700 now.. DO IT..
Click to expand...

I'm glad you said that :) for some reason I thought it would be out of warranty! Looking at Lightroom oddly enough it might not be... will dig out the receipt. Wouldn't sell it without getting it fixed first.

I think a D700 is on the way before my next trip to Thailand in March :).
 
specialman said:
The 80-200mm isn't great at f/2.8 anyway at more than about 135mm - passable but miles better at f/4. It'll be no different on FX....
Click to expand...

I agree, and it needs the right kind of light (not too bright, not too dark), but when I shoot @ 200mm f2.8 with manual focus or live-view I get more keepers than with AF.
 
jojo90 said:
I agree, and it needs the right kind of light (not too bright, not too dark), but when I shoot @ 200mm f2.8 with manual focus or live-view I get more keepers than with AF.
Click to expand...

I used to find MF better (don't have live view on my D2x). Same applies to my 70-200mm.... sometimes it just needs a tweak in MF to neail it at the long end. Stop down to f/4 and it's good. Suppose we do ask a lot from these long, fast zooms... :)
 
Been reading this thread with interest.
I just got my D7000 back from Nikon Service as it too was back focussing badly. My Nikon 24-70 2.8 would still back focus when set to -20 but since I sent it back and they recalibrated it under warranty its bang on now.
If yours is under warranty they should also sort out the oil problem as well - I've heard they fit a modified mirror box or something. Mine was OK for this as I think its only the older ones that suffered from this.
Now my D7000 is back I'm more than happy with it now as I was never really convinced it was right until now. Never had a problem with my old D90 at all
 
Is this a worthy upgrade from a D300 to the D7000, For the ISO improvement alone?
 
Last edited:
jojo90 said:
So now I have:
Nikon d7000
Nikon d90
SB-600
Samyang 8.5 mm f3.5
35mm f1.8 DX
50mm f1.4G
85mm f1.8 (new one).
17-55 f2.8 Nikon
80-200 f2.8 Nikon
Click to expand...

Do you really use the 80-200 much? Unless you have a reason to lug that behemoth around I doubt it sees much action?

I have the 50mm 1.4 and the 85 1.8, I can't see that much difference in them tbh, the 85 is just the 50 but 3 paces closer, if you don't mind being so close to your subject for portraits (and I actually like it because I think you can 'feel' the connection in the final image) then i'd get rid of the 85.

so what i'd do is keep the d90 or the d7000, sell the 85, sell the 80-200 and the 35, keep the 17-55 as a walkabout on DX, and the 8.5 as a wide angle DX. Get a d700 and use the 50mm as your normal, use it on DX for portraits, get a 35mm f2 to replace the 35dx and use it on crop and FX

Silent-Sam said:
I'd rather have a D700 over a 5D any day.
Click to expand...

me too- the d700 is the d3 but 3x cheaper, the 5d is the 1d but 3x cheaper and 3x intentionally crippled- I think about changing to a d700 every day

jojo90 said:
Perhaps, but today I've been playing on flickriver.com (trying to pick next prime) and looked @ 50mm f1.4 G shots... out of the 50+ I liked, and hence opened into Flickr, about 90% were shot on FX. It's hard to define but FX 50mm uses the edge of the lens and the bokeh is kinda one big circle round the edge of the image 'tunnelling' smoothly to the focus point. DX cuts that off. I like the aesthetic appeal of that, others might not, but I do :).
Click to expand...

I think this might be the case that people have an SLR, they start to get good and then they upgrade to the best camera they can afford- not many good photographers will shoot with a d3100, so you make the error of thinking that it's the fx camera that makes the shots great, when actually its the photograher who's great- believe me i've seen enough crap shots on FX and great shots on DX to know that both are very capable in the right hands

woof woof said:
I own MFT, APS-C and full frame cameras with some good lenses and I've shot the same scenes with each and examined them on screen and in print and it's my opinion that other than at the highest ISO's there's little to choose between them in final prints or on screen images. We've seen examples here on this site too when people have found it very difficult to tell what camera has been used to take what shot.
Click to expand...

The thing I like about full frame is that fast wide angle primes stay wide, the 24mm 1.4 is a fantastic lens and is unmatched on crop. If you're not shooting f1.4/f2 then fx isn't going to look any better as the difference is in the sharpness/depth of field ratio. Shoot dx with a 30mm 1.4 and then shoot the same image on fx with a 50mm 1.4, the depth of field is less which may or may not be to your liking but for me the advantage is that I can now shoot that 50mm lens at f2 instead of 1.4, where it will have the same depth of field as the 30mm 1.4 dx shot but much much sharper, m4/3 can do the same with the voigtlander 25mm 0.95 but is not sharp at all. The you go the other way and jump to medium format, 80mm f2.8 and you have the same depth of field but even sharper still. Full frame makes sense for fast wide angle primes and fast normal/tele lenses, for all other purposes APS-C is actually better, and in some cases m4/3 is more appropriate as I can't get front to back focus on full frame with a wide angle even at f8, and f8 needs quite a lot of light so I have to ramp up the iso- countering the effect of full frame, if I was shooting events i'd rather shoot 18mm iso 400 f5.6 than 24mm iso 800 f8

technics100 said:
Is this a worthy upgrade from a D300 to the D7000, For the ISO improvement alone?
Click to expand...

i'd say yes, the d300 is pretty bad at iso 1600 and above- the d7000 will kill it, but it depends on your usage- both have pro's and cons
 
Martyn... said:
D300 + 300f4 + 1.7TC @ f7.1 ... ISO3200

Click to expand...

A) we can't see it at 100%
B) it appears that there's still good light and the only reason the iso is so high is to compensate for the light loss of the teleconverter- in good light cameras do look good at high iso, butt when the light drops and you're working on the edge of your iso, struggling to be properly exposed- maybe having to add a little bit of fill light in post- that's when the newer sensors will start to break away
I have night shots with the d300 which look bad at iso 800

it's a proven fact that the newer sensors are 1fstop better than the old ones, look at the switch from the pentax k7 to the k7, massive difference, and the same with the d300 to d7000
not that i'm a technical freak or anything, I still shoot on film...
fwiw my 1dmk3 is a stop better than the d300


but don't let me put you off the d300- I still use one...
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Personally I think that the superior "look" of full frame shots is largely imagined.

I've been reasonably happy using a 20D and upon picking up a 5D I expected to see an improvement in image quality but to be honest I was underwhelmed. The 5D is better at higher ISO's and the 5D files seem to hold together better under noise reduction but apart from that the only real difference I've noticed is that the 5D can display vignetting which was never an issue with the 20D and due to the closer camera to subject distances with the 5D to maintain the field of view depth of field is reduced or I have to use smaller apertures.

In all but poor light and higher ISO's when viewing on screen or print I honestly see little if any significant difference between my full frame 5D, my APS-C 20D and my micro four thirds cameras when using good lenses.
Click to expand...

Gary Coyle said:
Now that's funny :lol:
Click to expand...

Ok perhaps not so bluntly, but I compared my collegues 30D, to my 40D to another colleagues 5D (who then sold it and bought a 5D mk2) using the same L lenses. The 40D was much better than the 30D, but I was amazed by how the 'crispness' of the 5D just stood out. Same when we compared the 5D mk2 with my 50D.

Mind you I have another chap at work with a 5D mk2 who shoots auto ISO, green square mode on everything and wonders why his shots aren't as good as mine at the same occasions.

woof woof said:
Now I don't know nikon stuff, but this is good advice. Swapping manufacturers is always an expensive change and you never realise quite how much kit you have. Upgrading to full frame or sticking to cropped means there's always a compromise somewhere, it just depends on what/how you shoot.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top