Who has done the Canon to Nikon change
- Thread starter mho
- Start date
_belial
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 676
- Edit My Images
- No
I made the change over to Nikon from Canon a year ago, tbh, it wasn't an easy decision to make, and even initially afterwards I wondered if it was the right one, but once you get used to it, you realise the benefits of Nikon 
The software is excellent, much better custom menus, really good bracketing (not limited to 3 like my canons were), plenty more to boot.
I went from a 40D + 400D to a D300, and the features of the D300 just blow the other way, since then i've got an infrared D100 and a D50 to throw about, and planning on getting a D700 after Christmas. I am currently drooling over a friend's 7D and 5dmk2 though which almost made me switch back
The software is excellent, much better custom menus, really good bracketing (not limited to 3 like my canons were), plenty more to boot.I went from a 40D + 400D to a D300, and the features of the D300 just blow the other way, since then i've got an infrared D100 and a D50 to throw about, and planning on getting a D700 after Christmas. I am currently drooling over a friend's 7D and 5dmk2 though which almost made me switch back
Yes...it was great when new, but horribly clunky compared to newer models. Optically it's fine - it was, after all Nikon's flagship pro-spec zoom for a decade.
I have one here in the cupboard and it'll be used if I break the other 70-200 f/2.8 (already trashed one) - so i'm being bloody careful now...!!!
The current 70-200 f/2.8 VR is brilliant - ignore those who say different - it's pin-sharp - the VR works very well - if you read the effin' manual properly...and the VR MkII (out now-ish) promises to be even better...
- Messages
- 19,708
- Name
- Darren
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've just got an 80-200 f2.8. It is in really nice condition and is the normal auto focus model ie not the push pull one.
Quality of the optics is really very good but as Arkady has said it is a little clunky! When you auto focus there is a distinct clunk but this can be minimised with the focus switch which reduces the range of focus. I am really very happy with it and it does everything I could want. Yes I would love the 70-200 instead but at around £1500 for the older model or about £2000 for the new model that is a bit pie in the sky. I can't give you an actual comparison as I have luckily not used the new lens (if I had I might not like the 80-200 as much
)- Messages
- 4,395
- Name
- Lawrence
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I never heard of the D2HS being a failure?? It always seemed great despite the 4 mega pixel chip. Oh and Luke, I believe that Sony use the same sensors as Nikon - in that Sony makes them and then Nikon 'personalise' them! Indeed, from what I remember, the sensor in the A100 is the same as in the D80. Though not sure about the A300 as there is no 14 mp Nikon. Yet!
- Messages
- 3,756
- Name
- Guy
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 3,268
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Second that - I really like the vignetting on FF I think it helps draws the eye into the image.
What kind of prices does the current 70-200VR go for second hand? It doesn't appear to be for sale many places now as the VRII is the current model out as I understand.
Think i'm going to love my d700, just wish the lenses weren't so darn expensive.
Need to pick between the 17-35 2.8 and 24-70 2.8 too (leaning towards the latter if I can find a second hand model). Btw, I do press photography.
Think i'm going to love my d700, just wish the lenses weren't so darn expensive.
Need to pick between the 17-35 2.8 and 24-70 2.8 too (leaning towards the latter if I can find a second hand model). Btw, I do press photography.
Martyn...
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,821
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The older 35-70 f2.8D was the press photographers lens of choice, a used one should be around £300, although I have seen them creeping up in price lately. Nice sharp lens was the forerunner of the 28-70 / 24-70.
Having said that the 24-70 f2.8 is one fine lens.
Yeah there's no way i'd have 35mm as my widest focal length though, 24mm just about cuts it. I used the 24-70 f2.8, now my Canon's good but that thing was insane. Talk about sharp. Think it will be hard to find someone selling one though.
Martyn...
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,821
- Edit My Images
- Yes
(we really need a crying wallet smiley).
Byker28i
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 21,339
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hum, I can't see an equivilant for my 100-400 and that's one of my main lenses for sport.
Still as a canon user I'm looking forward to all the ads for second hand stuff.
Still as a canon user I'm looking forward to all the ads for second hand stuff.
desantnik
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,848
- Name
- Vlad
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The trouble that people are finding now with moving to Nikon is twofold:
1) You won't find much secondhand stuff because the market was so small (of "recent" lenses) and generally demand is increasing not decreasing.
2) Nikon's production output capacity is smaller than that of Canon's and almost certainly will remain that way even if every semi-serious amateur photographer in the world moved to Nikon. Nikon as a company are not in the spread of markets like Canon are and are much much smaller specialists.
Basically, if you want Nikon right now, you gotta be prepared to pay the price.
1) You won't find much secondhand stuff because the market was so small (of "recent" lenses) and generally demand is increasing not decreasing.
2) Nikon's production output capacity is smaller than that of Canon's and almost certainly will remain that way even if every semi-serious amateur photographer in the world moved to Nikon. Nikon as a company are not in the spread of markets like Canon are and are much much smaller specialists.
Basically, if you want Nikon right now, you gotta be prepared to pay the price.
I know it's a real PITA but not much you can do. Still want to try find a second hand 24-70 and 70-200 / 80-200 though.
Mud
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 527
- Edit My Images
- Yes
From a shop with a limited warranty that sounds about right...I got one recently person-to-person for an even £1k
I have a lot of Canon lenses, and so nearly jumped to Nikon 6 months ago, but the cost was not worth it.
I was so hoping that Canon would release a 1 series that covered a bit of everything and FF, but they still have not, although the 1D MK4 is not out yet, And I am sure it will be good, but well over priced (that will drop a lot) I am still stuck, and unhappy. IT really annoys me that canon do not make a good UWA lens for a 1.3 crop as well. or even for a FF
I just do not know what to do. I sold my 1D MK3, and using a 5D MK2, sure it is a good body, and great for Skin Tones, but I just miss other things about it, speed of focus most of all.
I dare not even go look at a D3S, let alone hold one, it will be down a lane to loads of grief and extreme cost
Though I do love Canons Primes, and Nikon fall short there, Are there alternatives?
Man I am frustrated atm
I was so hoping that Canon would release a 1 series that covered a bit of everything and FF, but they still have not, although the 1D MK4 is not out yet, And I am sure it will be good, but well over priced (that will drop a lot) I am still stuck, and unhappy. IT really annoys me that canon do not make a good UWA lens for a 1.3 crop as well. or even for a FF
I just do not know what to do. I sold my 1D MK3, and using a 5D MK2, sure it is a good body, and great for Skin Tones, but I just miss other things about it, speed of focus most of all.
I dare not even go look at a D3S, let alone hold one, it will be down a lane to loads of grief and extreme cost
Though I do love Canons Primes, and Nikon fall short there, Are there alternatives?
Man I am frustrated atm
Because on a 1.3 crop it is not that wide
Blue Eagle
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 825
- Edit My Images
- Yes
16-35mm f/2.8 L?I have a lot of Canon lenses, and so nearly jumped to Nikon 6 months ago, but the cost was not worth it.
I was so hoping that Canon would release a 1 series that covered a bit of everything and FF, but they still have not, although the 1D MK4 is not out yet, And I am sure it will be good, but well over priced (that will drop a lot) I am still stuck, and unhappy. IT really annoys me that canon do not make a good UWA lens for a 1.3 crop as well. or even for a FF
I just do not know what to do. I sold my 1D MK3, and using a 5D MK2, sure it is a good body, and great for Skin Tones, but I just miss other things about it, speed of focus most of all.
I dare not even go look at a D3S, let alone hold one, it will be down a lane to loads of grief and extreme cost
Though I do love Canons Primes, and Nikon fall short there, Are there alternatives?
Man I am frustrated atm
Nikon do seem to have the edge with high-end bodies like the D700/D3 but i couldn't put up with their glass range, or lack there of. With canon, it is nice that you can find a lens that suits your uses and wallet exactly, rather than moving up the same set of lenses that everyone has. The four 70-200's versus nikon's one 70-200....which is also dearer than the canon equivalent.
mstphoto
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 5,755
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hi guys I'm thinking about changing from Canon to Nikon.From reviews I've read, the Nikon D300 sounds good in low light conditions and the noise control sounds very good
Natasha
Yes, the D300 is a good camera but before you go jumping ship, remember the 400D is now an oldish camera by todays standards and there have been quite a few newer, better models produced by Canon. I have both the 400D and 40D and have never had serious noise problems to date with the 40D compared to the 400D which tends to be noisy above around ISO 400 as you have noticed.
desantnik
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,848
- Name
- Vlad
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thats really silly. Essentially you are talking about what - a 100-400, a 24-105 and a pile of 70-200's which anyone with a half decent body (and I mean anything over a grands worth!) will buy the most expensive one anyway.
Hardly a ridiculous shortfall is it?
If you'd decided to swap to Nikon because you wanted the best camera body on the market, why would you want to stick some iffy lenses on it?
The 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 "holy trinity" represent pretty much the finest glass anyone makes for a 35mm SLR. Where is the problem? Well, apart from that your 1500 quid camera now needs 4k's worth of glass to go with it, but a Canon would be the same, only they offer you the chance to waste your body's capabilities by sticking rubbish on it.
Sigma, Tamron and Tokina make Nikon mount glass too - you could always use that if you didn't want something as good but was cheaper?? :shrug:
HappySnapper
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,540
- Name
- Natasha Balletta
- Edit My Images
- No
Hi Thanks for the reply
, already jumped shipped 
, invested in the Nikon D300 last week 
Nigey
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 895
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have had one eye over my shoulder at Nikon for some time now. As I get more into portraits I just find the the sharpness lacking in the Canon. However. There can be no justification now, I am way too fr down the line. My choice I should just live with it. You can't help hankering though..... I have to say I do love my 70-200 2.8L IS and if I could use that all the time I would have no problems or turncoat thoughts whatsoever. Oh and tell me a Nikon lens that will beat the 85mmf1.2 L? Now that is a portrait lens. (Just as long as you have 2 hours to focus it ;-)
or 24-105mm or 4 versions of the 70-200mm that are actually affordable.........
I paid £900 for a 70-200mm f2.8IS..........I can buy that AND the f4 for the cost of the Nikon.
As for sticking junk on the front of a Canon, the 85mm f1.8 for £250 is as sharp as a tack and is actually affordable. Three versions of the 50mm several 35mm.......
17-40 OR 16-35? your choice
24-105 or 24-70? your choice
which 70-200? your choice
100-400?
The main arguement I have with all this though is who cares???
Can any of you actually tell what an image was shot with?
What you do with it in PP probably has more effect on the finished image than any amount of gear.
When it gets posted on the web about 99% of the information gets thrown away.
I've reached the conclusion that constant swapping and upgrading of gear is worth a lot less than time invested in getting the best out of it.
I could afford to go out and buy whatever camera I wanted but I choose the ones I use based on the principle that I will only upgrade when I find situations where my equipment fails me, not the other way round.
Rant over
I paid £900 for a 70-200mm f2.8IS..........I can buy that AND the f4 for the cost of the Nikon.
As for sticking junk on the front of a Canon, the 85mm f1.8 for £250 is as sharp as a tack and is actually affordable. Three versions of the 50mm several 35mm.......
17-40 OR 16-35? your choice
24-105 or 24-70? your choice
which 70-200? your choice
100-400?
The main arguement I have with all this though is who cares???
Can any of you actually tell what an image was shot with?
What you do with it in PP probably has more effect on the finished image than any amount of gear.
When it gets posted on the web about 99% of the information gets thrown away.
I've reached the conclusion that constant swapping and upgrading of gear is worth a lot less than time invested in getting the best out of it.
I could afford to go out and buy whatever camera I wanted but I choose the ones I use based on the principle that I will only upgrade when I find situations where my equipment fails me, not the other way round.
Rant over
- Messages
- 16,680
- Name
- Ebenezer McScrooge III
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I choose the ones I use based on the principle that I will only upgrade when I find situations where my equipment fails me, not the other way round.
Rant over
That's exactly why I'm considering changing right now
Just so I understand where you're coming from, are you actually suggesting that the 24-105 and 70-200F4 lenses are "rubbish"?
Regardless of my own views, a number of reviewers have suggested that the 70-200F4 lenses are some of the sharpest zoom lenses available. The fact that they're also easier to lug around and massively cheaper than the F2.8 versions seems to be irrelevant however.
I've got to ask, do you have experience comparing the affortmentioned lenses with some supposedly better glass?
desantnik
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,848
- Name
- Vlad
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes
Closest is the Nikon 85 f/1.4
http://www.europe-nikon.com/product/en_GB/products/broad/411/overview.html
To be honest, that 1/3 stop difference isn't, nor would it ever be, enough for me to consider trading down to Canon...
...same with the other lenses mentione by Ed (above)...
I can make that up by dialling-in an extra third of a stop using the ISO - seeing as how the 'low-noise with higher' ISO range is so much better with Nikon...
- Messages
- 16,666
- Name
- Ade
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Lensflare
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,156
- Name
- Simon Everett
- Edit My Images
- Yes
One point in favour of Nikon over canon is their customer loyalty.
Over the years I have worked with dozens of fellow photographers, in the earlier days (1980s) I shot motorsport on a regular basis for the main outlets and teams and major sponsors (still work for some of them).
Now, the EOS came on the scene - suddenly all the Canon shooters with their FD mount lenses had to go and re-kit themselves with complete new outfits. Their FD glass was worthless in the face of the Eos revolution.
Then the new L glass thing. I don't know Canon, but someone was contemplating this sort of move somewhere else. There are two types of canon lens out there now even....some fit some bodies but won't fit others......canon people will tell which it is.
NIKON, on th eother hand, you can still use those Ai and AIS lenses from the early 60s and 70s on your D3 derivatives. OK, you won't have autofocus, you will only have A and M camera controls - but that was all you had with these lenses ever. The new G lenses are only designed for use on modern, wheel controlled cameras, but there are still equivalent lenses for those who need an aperture ring because they are shooting F4s or other non G-lens cameras. The G lens line up is in addition, not instead of....
Nikon have never backed their owners into a corner like Canon have. The lens line up is not over subscribed, instead it is carefully thought out and designed around ease of use - and then given performance to match. The new zooms are sharper than many primes, so where is the downside of using zooms? Less lens changing, probably the same volume and weight as the prime range they replace. BUT, you can still get fantastic primes if that is the way you want to work. Nikon have just realised that the way most people work is within a focal range of between 14mm and 200mm - stick a 1.4 or 1.7 on for the odd time you need a longer lens and those 3 lenses plus the conv cover everything a working photographer needs unless a specialist - which is where the 300, 400, 500, 600 range comes in.
neither company is perfect, but I have heard some horror stories from Canon shooters about the lack of professional support. Nikon have always had excellent pro support (for REAL pros, not just people with pro spec bodies) - they know who is a full time pro and they get the pro treatment. People with pro spec bodies who are NOT pro, get slightly slower turn round. Nikon Holland actually couriered an outfit to me in Italy one year when I lost my gear from the hotel room. Sorted it out paperwork wise when I got back from the job....would canon have done that?
Performance? They are both equal, it is just that Nikon is more equal than Canon!
Over the years I have worked with dozens of fellow photographers, in the earlier days (1980s) I shot motorsport on a regular basis for the main outlets and teams and major sponsors (still work for some of them).
Now, the EOS came on the scene - suddenly all the Canon shooters with their FD mount lenses had to go and re-kit themselves with complete new outfits. Their FD glass was worthless in the face of the Eos revolution.
Then the new L glass thing. I don't know Canon, but someone was contemplating this sort of move somewhere else. There are two types of canon lens out there now even....some fit some bodies but won't fit others......canon people will tell which it is.
NIKON, on th eother hand, you can still use those Ai and AIS lenses from the early 60s and 70s on your D3 derivatives. OK, you won't have autofocus, you will only have A and M camera controls - but that was all you had with these lenses ever. The new G lenses are only designed for use on modern, wheel controlled cameras, but there are still equivalent lenses for those who need an aperture ring because they are shooting F4s or other non G-lens cameras. The G lens line up is in addition, not instead of....
Nikon have never backed their owners into a corner like Canon have. The lens line up is not over subscribed, instead it is carefully thought out and designed around ease of use - and then given performance to match. The new zooms are sharper than many primes, so where is the downside of using zooms? Less lens changing, probably the same volume and weight as the prime range they replace. BUT, you can still get fantastic primes if that is the way you want to work. Nikon have just realised that the way most people work is within a focal range of between 14mm and 200mm - stick a 1.4 or 1.7 on for the odd time you need a longer lens and those 3 lenses plus the conv cover everything a working photographer needs unless a specialist - which is where the 300, 400, 500, 600 range comes in.
neither company is perfect, but I have heard some horror stories from Canon shooters about the lack of professional support. Nikon have always had excellent pro support (for REAL pros, not just people with pro spec bodies) - they know who is a full time pro and they get the pro treatment. People with pro spec bodies who are NOT pro, get slightly slower turn round. Nikon Holland actually couriered an outfit to me in Italy one year when I lost my gear from the hotel room. Sorted it out paperwork wise when I got back from the job....would canon have done that?
Performance? They are both equal, it is just that Nikon is more equal than Canon!
Byker28i
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 21,339
- Edit My Images
- Yes
EH! The ef mount was released in 1987 - that's 22 years ago.
The EF-s in 2003, 6 years ago, as a range of lenses specially designed for the 1.6 crop market and didn't compromise the existing range of lenses, just complimented and added options for the crop market.
Hardly the big major problem you've made it out to be.:nono: More of an advantage surely.
The EF-s in 2003, 6 years ago, as a range of lenses specially designed for the 1.6 crop market and didn't compromise the existing range of lenses, just complimented and added options for the crop market.
Hardly the big major problem you've made it out to be.:nono: More of an advantage surely.
Nigey
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 895
- Edit My Images
- Yes
LOL, trading down to Canon. no, not lost on me...
Personally I don't think there is a great deal in it. I know that if we cut you half Arkady it would say "Nikon" (In Army DPM of course!) through the centre. But seriously when it comes to glass, I am not sure there is a whole lot of difference. That would make a discernible difference to your average tog.
Bodies? well that is a different story, which would be my main reason to trade Up to Nikon.
- Messages
- 4,638
- Name
- Paul Beastall
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Whilst there is always a lot of interest in gear on here and Nikon have made great strides in the ISO stakes, their advantage over Canon isn't huge. I'm a fan of the DXO Mark tests as they allow a like for like comparison on real issues such as dynamic range and signal to noise ratio.
Whilst I agree that any test criteria is arbitrary by its very nature, I think the numbers show the difference is far from huge.
Canon's best crop sensor that has yet been tested is the 40D and Nikon's is the D90. The Nikon is about half a stop better. It's worth having but not mindblowing. Even the 450D measures very similar to the 40D.
In FF, the battle is between the 5DII and the D3, with about a third stop difference. Again, worth having but not huge.
I think more interesting is the full 1 1/3 stop difference between the D3 and D90 and about the same between 5DII and 40D
So, if you are a Canon shooter and low light really matters, you get much more benefit moving to Canon FF than Nikon crop.
Sure there are reasons for changing. I think the D3 is a great camera as it offers FF and high speed AF at a reasonable price (compared to the 1Ds range) and the 200-400 lens is unique to Nikon. These were the issues I pondered when I thought about changing but for someone with comparable kit in the range, the difference isn't huge.
I think you can get too hung up on changing for the sake of it and not using the kit, enjoying yourself and getting the pictures.
I remember the days when cameras were bought for 10 years of use, now it seems more like 2. PLaying catch up and swapping bodies out all the time is good for the manufacturers and retailers but how many pictures does it actually impact in the real world? Yes, if you shoot low light indoors all the time it may matter, but not everyone does.
Bring back 400 ASA slide film!
Whilst I agree that any test criteria is arbitrary by its very nature, I think the numbers show the difference is far from huge.
Canon's best crop sensor that has yet been tested is the 40D and Nikon's is the D90. The Nikon is about half a stop better. It's worth having but not mindblowing. Even the 450D measures very similar to the 40D.
In FF, the battle is between the 5DII and the D3, with about a third stop difference. Again, worth having but not huge.
I think more interesting is the full 1 1/3 stop difference between the D3 and D90 and about the same between 5DII and 40D
So, if you are a Canon shooter and low light really matters, you get much more benefit moving to Canon FF than Nikon crop.
Sure there are reasons for changing. I think the D3 is a great camera as it offers FF and high speed AF at a reasonable price (compared to the 1Ds range) and the 200-400 lens is unique to Nikon. These were the issues I pondered when I thought about changing but for someone with comparable kit in the range, the difference isn't huge.
I think you can get too hung up on changing for the sake of it and not using the kit, enjoying yourself and getting the pictures.
I remember the days when cameras were bought for 10 years of use, now it seems more like 2. PLaying catch up and swapping bodies out all the time is good for the manufacturers and retailers but how many pictures does it actually impact in the real world? Yes, if you shoot low light indoors all the time it may matter, but not everyone does.
Bring back 400 ASA slide film!