Who has done the Canon to Nikon change

lol I've just popped some 400 ASA in a X-pan :)

I DO shoot quite a lot in low light indoors. December weddings are not fabulous for light, just look out the window today. Would you really be wanting to try to shoot a wedding today? :)

I may be looking to upgrade in terms of ISO performance just for days like today but realistically it's only about 3% of what I do. Often something like moving a lamp in the room beforehand can pay more dividends.;) (I did just that at a wedding in Dec last year)

I'll be looking at the 5DII and the 7D to see just what they would give me that I don't have already. I have found though that proper exposure goes a long way to minimising noise at ISO's of 1600 and 3200 and I can get some quite acceptable results with what I have right now.
 
I think a lot of people are far too obsessed with kit and the technology of it. How many of us, in all honesty, use our existing kit to its maximum potential? Not many I would imagine.

Learn how to use what you have, and when your kit is limiting you,rather than you limiting your kit, that is the time to look for better kit.
 
AliB said:
lol I've just popped some 400 ASA in a X-pan :)

I DO shoot quite a lot in low light indoors. December weddings are not fabulous for light, just look out the window today. Would you really be wanting to try to shoot a wedding today? :)
Click to expand...

I think there are a few examples, weddings being one of them but high-ISO has become the must have for a lot of people and a lot don't need it. The other thing is that the differences, whilst there, aren't massive. It's not like you can get 2 stops improvement.

And no, I wouldn't want to be shooting a wedding today. Or anyday in fact. I can't think of anything personally to kill my love of photography quicker than doing weddings... But, that is a personal view.

Didn't know you had an X-Pan. Keep hankering after one myself...
 
fracster said:
I think a lot of people are far too obsessed with kit and the technology of it. How many of us, in all honesty, use our existing kit to its maximum potential? Not many I would imagine.

Learn how to use what you have, and when your kit is limiting you,rather than you limiting your kit, that is the time to look for better kit.
Click to expand...


Excellent advice. I realised I normally use short prime lenses, aperture priority exposure and mainly missed photos because my camera kit was so heavy and geeky-looking, so I'm simplifying from Canon -> Leica.

Gulp.
 
grumpybadger said:
So, if you are a Canon shooter and low light really matters, you get much more benefit moving to Canon FF than Nikon crop.
Click to expand...

and at the same time lose the benefit of the crop factor, lower FPS, inbuilt vertical grip, possibly/arguably the best autofocus system about, the ability to choose 5:4 etc.

I'm still having a difficult time making my mind up but I certainly wouldn't include the canon full frame in the list of options.
 
Yes, but the bottom line is that if you see crop as a benefit, then no APS-C camera will give you ISO performance to match even the 5D classic. You can choose 5:4 on any camera - it's called cropping.

Oh, and Canon have made 3 FF models with arguably the best AF system and an inbuilt grip. Yes, frame rate is a touch slower but 5 fps is still quite a lot...
 
I made the switch from Canon to Nikon and I am so glad I did. The Nikon just performs so much better and the build quality is amazing. I have used a 5D as well as my D700 and the 5D just feels cheap in comparison (imo that is). I love the high ISO performance of the D700 and the general "feel" of it, just suits me perfectly.
 
The grass is always greener on the other side!!

It doesn't matter what system you use, there is always a button on someone elses camera that you wish you had on yours.

I was Nikon from the D1 through till Canon released the 1D3, then with Canon until they messed me about with the 1D3 for two years, and swapped back to Nikon for the D3X three months ago.

For me, the main advantages of swapping to Canon at the time were:
The fact that the EOS bayonette had no moving parts to damage (I change lenses 20+ times a day and used to damage Nikons regularly)
The colours were better on the 1D series when I swapped from the D2 range.
Higher resolution at the time.
There is a wider range of lenses with Canon so you can get exactly the focal length vs aperture that you need for general use.

The reason that I moved back were:
After 12 attempts, Canon could not give me a 1D3 that worked correctly.
The D3x has a 10mp crop mode that means I can press a button to change the focal length without swapping lenses.
When I am shooting a burst of shots, I don't have to stop shooting to change the shutter speed with the Nikon, the rear command dial accepts input from your thumb during a burst, with Canon you have to take your finger off the trigger, change settings, then carry on, resulting in missed shots.
ISO performance.
That fact that, although I feel the Nikon takes a fraction longer to aquire focus, it does actually focus when the sun is out!!
The Nikon cross type AF sensors work at f5.6, not f2.8 with Canon (An avantage when working with a 600 f4 or a 400 2.8 with 1.4x)

The bits that I miss from Canon:
A modified 10-22 on a 1D3 is much lighter than a 14-24 on a D3x.
The exposure when using flash seemed more consisent.
The 580ex was easier and quicker to use than the SB900
The 24-105 f4.
The 400 2.8.
One peice lens hoods on the long fast fast primes.
IS is slightly better than VR.
The wider spread of the AF sensors.
I still think the colours are more accurate on the Canon


Things I would miss if I ever leave Nikon (which won't happen):
The 200 f2
The 14-24
The 400 f2.8
The 1.7 convertor
Better ergonomics
Crop mode
ISO
Active D-lighting

Anyway, different people need different things from their cameras and will find certain features more or less useful. These are just my experiences / opinions based on my use, needs and what I consider to be priorities.
 
Interesting post :) some food for thought. I think for me if the 1DMKIV doesnt come up with the goods and outperform the D3 then i could be swayed
 
I also wonder how the heck anyone ever managed to shoot anything decent on a Hasselblad. Shocking lack of specification :)

No autofocus, you have to fiddle with the lens for goodness sake, no metering, never mind spot vs matrix, so a lot of sctatching of heads ensues, film advance is by a handle that you have to turn yourself!....

Shocking I tell you! :)
 
AliB said:
lol I've just popped some 400 ASA in a X-pan :)

I DO shoot quite a lot in low light indoors. December weddings are not fabulous for light, just look out the window today. Would you really be wanting to try to shoot a wedding today? :)

.
Click to expand...

I would.
Glorious sunshine here today, and quite mild with it and hardly a breath of wind.
Boy, Its great to live in NE Scotland :lol::lol:
 
Rovers_Andy said:
Interesting post :) some food for thought. I think for me if the 1DMKIV doesnt come up with the goods and outperform the D3 then i could be swayed
Click to expand...

I have a business to run and ditching half my pictures every day wasn't doing me any favours. I wasn't prepared to be lied to any longer, and wait and see what might or might not happen. Swapping back was the only option at the time, and if I am honest with myself, I should have done it after the first 3 attemps to rectify the problems, but I gave Canon over 2 years of the benifit of my doubt - that will teach me to be so trusting!
 
AliB said:
I also wonder how the heck anyone ever managed to shoot anything decent on a Hasselblad
Click to expand...

It's funny, in 15 years shooting trackside, I can honestly say that I haven't seen one single photographer with a Hasselblad in his hands, maybe your are onto something!!! ;)
 
Good point :)

For me there isn't going to be much difference in the quality of the 400 f/2.8's and i've seen results from both and Nikon seem to have got the 70-200 right for sports especially with the new model coming out, where as the Canon 70-200 i was never happy with so dumped it in favour of the 135 f/2

soooooooo it would come down to the bodies for me. I think its interesting that a lot of the footy guys that were shooting canon when i started last season now have Nikon.....
 
fatphotographer said:
It's funny, in 15 years shooting trackside, I can honestly say that I haven't seen one single photographer with a Hasselblad in his hands, maybe your are onto something!!! ;)
Click to expand...

See! that's what I mean, think outside of the box, what's the matter with the lot of you!:naughty:
 
The amount of excellent images I have seen on this forum and any other forum for that matter makes me wonder if this is a case of "bad workmen blaming their tools"
I have seen some amazing images taken with entry level cameras of all makes and some bl**dy awful ones taken with top of the range cameras.
To be honest, I don't think theres a camera out there capable of taking duff photos.
They are all pretty amazing bits of kit.

For as long as I have been into photography theres always been this "whats best, Canon or Nikon" mentallity whereas the Minolta and Olympus snappers just got on with doing what we all should be doing - getting out there and enjoying what we like doing best be it wildlife, landscape or whatever.
 
I think alot of people view equipment from the wrong angle.

Whatever system you get, you have to look at the body as the weakest link, as it has a limited lifespan, whereas a second hand lens, especially the faster glass, will be an investment. The lenses will nearly allways return a similar amount of money when you come to sell or upgrade them. eg, compare the price of a used 400 2.8 IS bought at the same time as a classic 1D body. You could have swapped the body 4 times loosing thousands each time, and still have one of the finest pieces of glass in your hands that is likely to be worth the same now as the day you bought it.

If you have a budget to spend on your hobby, only a percentage of it should be spent on the body.
 
AliB said:
See! that's what I mean, think outside of the box, what's the matter with the lot of you!:naughty:
Click to expand...

Have you ever tried panning a vehicle 140mph from left to right, when the image in the viewfinder is doing 140mph from right to left!!!:lol:

I will stick to my SLR thanks!!
 
See, I'm a girlie, I can multitask :)

Think of it as a challenge! lol
 
I went from a D40 to 450D to D60 to 500D! I could never quite find the camera that I was happy with (as you can tell!) and ended up with Olly!
 
It is true, girls can multitask. The other day, I saw a blonde chewing gum whilst she walked.:p

Both Canon and Nikon have technicians working on their products night and day. These are some of the finest optical engineering brains in the world. Between them they have now come up with a camera, with a shutter speed so fast, it can capture a picture of a woman with her mouth shut. :love:

All you Canon folks looking at the new 5D mk 74 (in Roman numerals that would be 5D mk LXXIV) and comparing to the D3X....think again, you must now start to compare it to the D3S with its staggering ISO of 102,500. USABLE ISO too.

Standard ISO with no high speed noise is 12,800........that means bears in the predawn blue light can be shot at 1/500th f2.8 and you can see the bark on the tree and grass stems...a bit f fringing, but not to render it bin fodder - library worth. 12,800 I tell you.

Muddy field sports photographers.....12,800 would make life on the touchline a bit easier!
 
Lensflare said:
Both Canon and Nikon have technicians working on their products night and day. These are some of the finest optical engineering brains in the world. Between them they have now come up with a camera, with a shutter speed so fast, it can capture a picture of a woman with her mouth shut. :love:
Click to expand...

or a man thinking? Nahhhh it's not that quick yet :D

5DMkII @ £1700 vs D3s at how much was that again??????

Sorry different ballpark, The D3S will be up against the 1DsIV when it is released. The 5D is not designed for that particular playpark but more like the D300.
 
AliB said:
Sorry different ballpark, The D3S will be up against the 1DsIV when it is released. The 5D is not designed for that particular playpark but more like the D300.
Click to expand...

I think you are wrong on both counts if you get out there and see what people are shooting (at race circuits anyway).

I never would have thought motorsport togs would have moved to FX, but they have. Maybe thats because Nikon haven't made a pro-bodied DX but there are a lot of D3's out there now.

People are using the D3 for action sport in their droves now. I don't think you will find a single 1DS being used like that.

How have they done the jump to FX? By using longer lenses (pro motorsport togs don't want to crop anything in photoshop, its got to be right off the card and straight into the sports desk). So your 70-200 gets replaced with a 200-400 and the 300 gets replaced with a 400 or a 500. Its only money :help:

As for the 5D being like a D300... errm how? Same colour I suppose, both are SLR's but other than that, nothing like it.

You can't compare directly any of Canon or Nikon's semi-pro or pro ranges directly, they (deliberately) have not fielded the same products - except maybe with the D3x vs the 1DS MkIII.
 
D3S chip is a totally new sensor.

Other tweaks but the same chassis - when you have a classy chassis, why change it? (Ask Katie Price....can't understand anyone doing that to themselves.)
 
mstphoto said:
Not 100% sure but wouldn't the 5D Mk2 be up against the D700 as they are both FF?
Click to expand...

Kind of, but other than that one point and that both are non-pro bodied, they are quite different beasts as the 5D is a high pixel count but with retro AF and the D700 is relatively low pixel count and a ninja D3 style AF system.

Oh maybe also both come in black :thumbs:
 
fatphotographer said:
I think alot of people view equipment from the wrong angle.

Whatever system you get, you have to look at the body as the weakest link, as it has a limited lifespan, whereas a second hand lens, especially the faster glass, will be an investment. The lenses will nearly allways return a similar amount of money when you come to sell or upgrade them. eg, compare the price of a used 400 2.8 IS bought at the same time as a classic 1D body. You could have swapped the body 4 times loosing thousands each time, and still have one of the finest pieces of glass in your hands that is likely to be worth the same now as the day you bought it.

If you have a budget to spend on your hobby, only a percentage of it should be spent on the body.
Click to expand...

Exactly my sentiment which is why I won't change system. My main camera body was launched over five years ago and still performs as well as it did then (it also still can hold its head high with most of the modern stuff most of the time)

I bought it second hand for £2000 about 2 years ago - the guy who owned it from new had paid £4800 2 years before. I've just bought another one for £1000.

I've raised this point on this forum before. In the old days you bought an F5 or an EOS-1V and it lasted about 8 years between refreshes and cost (about) £1000 - therefore costing about £100 to £150 per year to own. Now, you buy a D3x or a 1DsIII and they are basically £4500 or so and replaced every three years, costing around £1500 per year (or ten times as much!)

People always go on about film and processing but I don't think many amateurs spent £1400 a year on film!

By not trying to keep up with all the latest stuff (e.g. not buying a 1DsIII or a 1DIII - it was an active choice) I've just picked up a 400 f/4 to add to my 300/4 and 500/4 primes. I'm convinced this will be a better tool for years to come than a new shiny body.

Will I "upgrade"? Yes, when the time is right. But, I'm still not sure the current stuff on the market offers enough value to swap out the 1DsII yet. If the 1DIV had been full frame (and therefore effectively a 1DsII but faster and better ISO performance) I would have been tempted but I'm not sure I am right now, and I'm certainly not at the price!

Paul
 
grumpybadger said:
I've raised this point on this forum before. In the old days you bought an F5 or an EOS-1V and it lasted about 8 years between refreshes and cost (about) £1000 - therefore costing about £100 to £150 per year to own. Now, you buy a D3x or a 1DsIII and they are basically £4500 or so and replaced every three years, costing around £1500 per year (or ten times as much!)

People always go on about film and processing but I don't think many amateurs spent £1400 a year on film!
Click to expand...

You would spend that much if you wanted to develop your own films to any degree - ie enlarging, cropping, masking, editing. How much would all that kit cost to produce professional results?

Thats a bit like saying a computer with a desktop publishing application on it is the same as your old typewriter - its not at all.

Technology enhances your ability to do things, but at a cost - it is more expensive (well, until the particular elements flow down to consumer/disposable level but state of the art always costs)
 
Nope. Roll of slide film, changing bag, dev tank. About £20.

Masking took time not money.

I'm not saying the world should stand still, just that the camera manufacturers have done a fantastic job at cutting product lifecycle and massively increasing product cost. When features and performance were increasing at a pace, it seemed worth paying for, but now it seems like we are into the evolution and not revolution phase and so the previous comment about lenses rather than bodies being the focus is right
 
grumpybadger said:
Yes, but the bottom line is that if you see crop as a benefit, then no APS-C camera will give you ISO performance to match even the 5D classic. You can choose 5:4 on any camera - it's called cropping.

Oh, and Canon have made 3 FF models with arguably the best AF system and an inbuilt grip. Yes, frame rate is a touch slower but 5 fps is still quite a lot...
Click to expand...

Point is though it's not cropping I see as a benefit, it's the crop factor, or the fact I can choose it in camera. Cropping 1000-2000 images individually to get them onto the webby before the competition does is a non starter.

I'm not being anti Canon or pro Nikon here, I've got a MkII and MkIII with a bag full of L glass. I'm trying to take an objective look at the performance and features of the two brands before I decide what I'm going to do. As it stands, the D3 looks like a very attractive option; gives me the crop factor(s) when I want it, full frame if I don't, great high ISO performance (better than the MkIII) and it's all in one body at less cost than a 1Ds MkIII.

The new Mk IV looks like it could actually be a D3 beater though, especially in terms of ISO performance. The issue I have with that is that to buy a body only at this stage will actually cost me about the same, if not more, than it will to replace my entire kit if I'm careful about the purchases.
 
And if doing a comparison, shouldn't you be comparing the new Canon with the new Nikon?

If so, your Mk IV is actually up against the D3S.........unless you are only comparing prices.

I think there is a cut off where the extra in the camera is lost in the usage stage. The resolution of the D3 is perfectly good enough for ANY use. For publishing there is overkill already - so why kill with more? I think with the D3 (and whichever of Canons complicated numerical line up) is now at F5 stage, in that it will do more than I need for many years.
 
If you are comparing prices it's still D3s and 1D4 - the latter being more expensive now anyway.
 
dod said:
Point is though it's not cropping I see as a benefit, it's the crop factor, or the fact I can choose it in camera. Cropping 1000-2000 images individually to get them onto the webby before the competition does is a non starter.

I'm not being anti Canon or pro Nikon here, I've got a MkII and MkIII with a bag full of L glass. I'm trying to take an objective look at the performance and features of the two brands before I decide what I'm going to do. As it stands, the D3 looks like a very attractive option; gives me the crop factor(s) when I want it, full frame if I don't, great high ISO performance (better than the MkIII) and it's all in one body at less cost than a 1Ds MkIII.

The new Mk IV looks like it could actually be a D3 beater though, especially in terms of ISO performance. The issue I have with that is that to buy a body only at this stage will actually cost me about the same, if not more, than it will to replace my entire kit if I'm careful about the purchases.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point that a FF sensor offers better ISO performance. Therefore as well as a "benefit" of the crop factor, there is a "downside" of higher high-ISO noise. This is just down to physics. Obviously technology improves as time goes by but my 7D will won't match my 1DsII at ISO1600.

A cropped D3 picture printed at A4 will be noisier than a full frame as you have less information available. Of course if you are only shooting for web, it's possibly a moot point. The crop is only there to allow DX lenses surely?

Really don't get the 5:4 issue. Why would you have to individually crop rather than an action? If you have the images framed correctly then you can replicate what the 5:4 mode does really easily. In fact, I'd bet money the D3 still records in 3:2 and there is a bit of metadata that says its 5:4.

If you want extra perceived reach, then you £4000+ for a D3s or a 1DIV could possibly be better spent on a more suitable lens?

And by the way, I'm not pro Canon or anti Nikon either. I moved to Canon when Olympus withdrew from the SLR market for no other reason that I liked the feel better. If I was starting now, I'd be sporting a D3 or possible a D700 along with a D300 and 200-400/4 and 500/4. However, I couldn't swap now without taking a massive hit on the lenses and I don't think the Canon cameras are bad, just that Nikon currently have the edge.
 
grumpybadger said:
Really don't get the 5:4 issue. Why would you have to individually crop rather than an action? If you have the images framed correctly then you can replicate what the 5:4 mode does really easily. In fact, I'd bet money the D3 still records in 3:2 and there is a bit of metadata that says its 5:4.
Click to expand...

It's aimed squarely at event and social photographers shooting tethered and wanting immediate 10x8 prints...
 
AliB said:
I also wonder how the heck anyone ever managed to shoot anything decent on a Hasselblad. Shocking lack of specification :)

No autofocus, you have to fiddle with the lens for goodness sake, no metering, never mind spot vs matrix, so a lot of sctatching of heads ensues, film advance is by a handle that you have to turn yourself!....

Shocking I tell you! :)
Click to expand...

My Grandad shot weddings for 25 years with Hasselblads - he's insanely jealous of what he have now and the sort of thing that a decent wedding photographer can achieve. They didn't stand a chance of doing that.

It's a specious argument that's trotted out IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top