# Have you considered joining the dark side?...



## Scott (Apr 20, 2012)

I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about dumping all my Canon gear and joining the Nikon camp but after crunching all the numbers its simply isn't worth it for me. I have a 5dii, a collection of lenses and speedlites that i've amassed over the years and to sell it all and start again just seems crazy. 

I know a lot of people on here are hurt to have to admit that Nikon has a "better" camera in the D800 but really, what would you do with that camera that you can't already do with your 5dii or iii? 

What brought me back down from my i'm jumping to Nikon high was the fact that i have all the gear i need right now to cover (pretty much) every situation i encounter on my photographic endeavours. 

I will be upgrading to a 5diii in the future (simply for the AF) when the price is right but for now, just because cameras like the D800 or 5Diii exist doesn't mean that my 5dii stops taking photos...

... now where's my 35mm 1.4L ii? ;D


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 20, 2012)

I ordered a Nikon D800 from a local Dealer this morning. I have a ton of Canon Cameras and Gear, so I'll be replacing some lenses with Nikkor, but keeping my favorite ones to use with my 7D. I had sold my 5D MK II to finance something new, and tried a 5D MK III. Its a great camera, but I din't use most of the new features and returned it. I'm going to try landscape photography with the new Nikkor 14-24mm lens I ordered with it. My 7D will still be for product photoraphy and focal length limited use, and, of course, I could not part with my 35mmL, 100mmL, 135mmL or 100-400mmL. My other lenses, flash, TC's, etc will go on the block.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 20, 2012)

I own Nikon gear as well for the rental gig. I can honestly say I never pick up a Nikon in favour of a Canon.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 20, 2012)

I am getting tired of Yoda so the temptation to command a death star is very great

However, after consulting the Wookieepedia I decided to remain with Princess Leia


----------



## Viggo (Apr 20, 2012)

No I have never considered. And that has nothing to do with IQ, nor will it ever be.

It's about how you handle a Nikon, I can spent 30 minutes writing about how I dislike the placements of buttons and how you operate, for example changing ISO's on a D4 with your left hand under a 70-200. Or the usless very high top right scroll whhel, but I'm not gonna. 

I think they also have a massive confusion in lenses. Some lenses costs more than anything and they look, and are VERY old, they have no consistensy and clear cut difference between pro and non-pro lenses. 

Besides , the bungy-stretchy files from Canon and they're useability with the small scroller wheel, big scroller wheel and joystick is the best thing invented since the steeringwheel.


----------



## xROELOFx (Apr 20, 2012)

nope, i'm happy with my canon equipment


----------



## TAR (Apr 20, 2012)

yes , ill be moving to nikon once its widely available . i can buy D800 + new AF-S 28 f1.8 G for the price of canon 5d3 ..


----------



## NotABunny (Apr 20, 2012)

Absolutely. But I would not have to "switch". I would simply buy another body. Whether Canon or Nikon, it's another purchase. I also want another lens. So regardless of brand, it's still another purchase. But with Canon would be simpler for me to switch lenses. Besides, I would also have two cameras, two systems for backup and future proofing.

From a software perspective, I use Lightroom, so I would not have to use the binary-noise-called-software that Nikon packs with the camera (though the Nik plug-in is very nice).

I still haven't seen the kind of RAW images that I want to see from 5D3 and D800 (same scene at high ISO)... and of course compared at a normalized resolution. And also how the auto-exposure behaves with back-lit portrait shots.

But... when I come here and see all the Nikon trolls (claiming to be Canon shooters), I'm simply getting SICK of Nikon.


----------



## Terrano (Apr 20, 2012)

I have considered it , as i shoot both my 5D MK2 , and a Leaf Aptus 75 which i use for my retail
food photography the results from the Aptus are fantastic incredibly sharp great colour.
But the Aptus on my Hasselblad is not a nice camera to use , i need the extra resolution before
i can consider giving up the Aptus , and i thought the 5D MK 3 was going to give me that it has 
instead given me things that i do not need as much.
I switched to the Canon from Nikon because at one stage Nikon were being very stubborn about
resolution telling everybody it is not necessary , the switch was not difficult so i will wait and see
what i need is a higher res Canon at the D800 price point.
Bit worried Canon looks like they are very much focused on Video over stills.
Rgds
http://www.terencehogben.co.za


----------



## docsavage123 (Apr 20, 2012)

Never thought about it. Makes me smile when Im out and loads of white glass and red camera straps shooting wildlife and nature. They outnumber the nikonians around 8 to 2 on a day out. The only time I see more nikon stuff is at weddings and I dont mean the photographer its the people with the D3100's and kit lens set on auto and pop up flash turned on for every shot.

I have no intention of switching at all well happy with my kit and looking forward to to buying more when I can afford it (5D3 is still the one for me) 8)


----------



## Jettatore (Apr 20, 2012)

If I had no equipment at all and a fresh pile of cash I'd buy Canon all over again.


----------



## Martin (Apr 20, 2012)

I own 5 canon lensed including 24-70, 70-200 II L and 135 L, 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 and to be honest after a lot of thinking I am probably going to switch. Nikon was my 1st camera, I owned 2 nikons and I prefer Nikon in general. After judgment of photos of 5d3 and d800 there is a strong evidence of Dxo's score adventage. The image quality of d800 is outstanding. I really regret that I came to canon camp once upon a time. I am not 100% sure if I switch, but If had a chance to start from scratch I would buy d800 for my studio and I am sure about it.


----------



## tomscott (Apr 20, 2012)

I have to say no.

Im still a crop shooter looking to go full frame so I am going to have to sell 50% of my lenses to switch.

I really love both cameras TBH. I dont think either win they are both fantastic but aimed differently. The DR and noise difference is minimal if you ask me in real world terms. If you are a good photographer DR should be less of an issue and the 5D MKIII has the edge in noise.

The D800 is also slow, 4fps is poor although needed because of the huge files! 6fps gives you a great range for everyday to sports shooting. The 5D MKIII best all round camera out of the two and the file size is perfect! I dont understand the crave for more! Soon as it gets printed which lets be honest photography is all about, the images will be indistinguishable up to A2 (which is bigger than 50% people with these cameras will print). If you dont print especially with beautiful cameras like these whats the point in having one?

This discussion of changing is an old one, and what happens if canon bring out a industry changer again next time round? We will have the same discussion again. Taking it from a pros perspective the camera is a tool not a museum piece my camera is wrecked, it has gafa tape all over it the rear LCD is cracked but still takes cracking pics. I use crop because I am a sports shooter and like the range. Also the newspapers I shoot for dont demand extreme quality but still fancy the 5D MKIII. 

IMO a perfect camera a supercharged 40D which has been my favourite all round canon camera to date. Fast, good IQ, value for money. 

Canon cant compete pixel to pixel at the moment but if you need that resolution the pentax 645 or hasselblad H40 is the way forward, most pros wont worry about the cost because its their bread and butter they make their living from it and most of the time it may sound fickle but other people will have 5Ds or Nikon equivalents on the shoots and they need to have the best of the best to give confidence to the clients.

Most people here who are complaining arent pros which is the problem half of you are dreamers and dont shoot professionally. Pros are not hung up on gear as much as the subject, its just a tool! We are at a point where most cameras give incredible quality its what you fill the frame with, how you light it and the print thats important.

The gear thing is getting far too heated IMO. So go out and shoot and enjoy yourselves instead of getting frustrated.


----------



## Autocall (Apr 20, 2012)

From the moment I knew that NIkon's RAW wasn't true Raw but has some degree of compression, I took my decision. 
And never regreted it
Now i'm learning that Nikon doesn't build it's own sensor...


----------



## Stu_bert (Apr 20, 2012)

Yup, still watching events unfold this year... If I change, then I will follow the same route as Mt Spokane ie grab a body & a lens or two and run them in parallel. After a year of using both, decide which fits my needs...

For me, hiring for a weekend or week is not enough, I think I would prefer to buy & sell 2nd hand if it does not work out. Similarly, I have no problems in picking up 2nd hand Nikon or Canon.

What worries me more about Canon currently is their apparent shift to charging more for equipment, which appears to fly in the face of a lot of tech companies who tend to give you more value than the previous generation but maintain the price. It is a longer term game for me. I am currently picking over what my likely spend would be in equipment over the next 3 to 4 years across all facets and deciding which is likely to fit my needs. But I don't think I will decide until the end of the year at the earliest.

Till then, I will be spending my money on mostly photographic trips and perhaps a couple of 2nd hand items to fill a couple of gaps.


----------



## smirkypants (Apr 20, 2012)

I've already switched... partially. I'm shooting a D800 and a 200-400/f4 and getting the kinds of results that I have only dreamed of in the past. I use the 5D3 + 70-200/2.8 II for events but I can't tell you how amazing the shots are with the Nikon combo.


----------



## dr croubie (Apr 20, 2012)

Depends what Dark Side you're talking about, does film count?

I've already got a lot of Pentacon Six mount lenses used via adapter on my 7D, so instead of going for a 5D3 or D8000, I'm contemplating a $500 Hartblei 1006 M and a few 645 backs, for the other $3000 I can buy a *lot* of rolls of Velvia and maybe a nice film-scanner to boot...


----------



## mws (Apr 20, 2012)

Nope. Both Canon and Nikon and can take great pictures, Nikon might get better results under lab conditions, but in my case, (and probably a lot of other peoples) the quality is ultimatley limited by the user. While I'm not the worlds worst photographer, I'm also not the next Ansel Adams. I probably wouldn't notice a difference if my end results with either one.

Many years ago when I bought my first film SLR (Elan IIe) Iwent to the store, tried both the Canon and the Nikon, and like the wau the Canon felt in my hands, the button placement etc, and have beeb with Canon ever since.

Its no different then Ford vs. Chevy. Some people will only drive one or the other untill the day they die, while others just need a truck and will drive what ever they happen to like better when they buy one.


----------



## Chewy734 (Apr 20, 2012)

Hell no. Both camera systems produce amazing shots. It's more about the photographer than the camera... in fact, I have yet to learn everything about the 5D2 body, let alone the more complicated 5D3. I've been with Canon since the AE-1, and invested a lot in Canon glass since then. It makes no sense for me to switch to Nikon.


----------



## CanineCandidsByL (Apr 20, 2012)

IMO, anyone who hasn't considered it isn't serious about their hardware. In fact, I'd point out that there aren't just two sides. I consider the smaller brands too.

But, not only do I have a glass investment with Canon, I also have a personal familarity with it, not that it woudln't translate into a reasonable familiarity with any brand, but I have never picked up a Canon SLR and felt out of place. Sure, some buttons are missing, there might be a new button here and there, and certain placement varies a little, but when I pick up a friend's Nikon (yes, I'm friends with Nikon owners), there is a different philosophy in place which is reflected in the buttons/switches, their functions, and their layouts. Its not amazingly different, but its different enough. There are times I like the Nikon philosophy better, but not usually.

I think if I had started with Nikon, I'd prefer it, just as I prefer Canon since I started with them. There is the old saying about "the grass is always greener". Sometimes the grass is actually greener, but that usually means more maneur. People starting off have a great chance to invest in the manufacture that best fits their hands and their minds. I wish all experienced people would push newbies into trying both/all cameras equally and getting them a great fit, instead of pushing them into their own choice.


----------



## JR (Apr 20, 2012)

Yes i did think about it, however in the end i could not part with the L lens i love so much and the ergonomic of the Canon bodies. More importantly, while some of the new Nikon bodies look appealing in terms of specs, i dont beleive i would see any difference in the final product for the use i have. So i would be spending a lot of money to be left likely disaapointed. Not because Nikon is not good, but because the difference do not justify a change. If i was starting from scratch, might be different.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 20, 2012)

I'm considering it seriously. Glass is not an issue and I know I can sell it easily. Plus Nikon has released a ton of much needed primes to the point where switching is painless for me. I'll probably go for two D800 bodies. 14-24, 70-200 Vr2, 16-35 vr, and 24, 35, 85 fast primes, 24 t/s, and 24-120. Going from the 5Dmk2 to the D800 is going to be exiting. I'll stay with my current setup for now side the demand for the D800 is breaking records and people's patience.. If I could get one now, I'd sell all my canon gear tomorrow.


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 20, 2012)

It's always an idea I keep in my mind. And indeed there are a number of things I like better about Nikon's designs. Certainly not the ergonomics but I do like all the physical switches and dials Nikons have rather than Canon's which seem to be mostly software driven. And of course you gotta love the low light abilities of the D3s. But Canon also has many advantages over Nikon.

But at the end of the day if I thought any of these things would make me a better photographer I'd switch. We all worry too much about the gear. As much as I loooove gear it's just not about the gear. I always wonder sometimes if people really think switching to Nikon or Canon will magically make their photography better. I often think about how much I completely suck compared to famous photographers from 30-40 years ago who didn't have 1/100 of the technology that I have in my bag. We are very spoiled.


----------



## jamesdylangoldstein (Apr 20, 2012)

I would definitely switch but I love my Mark II and am short on money. The Mark II is an amazing camera (the Mark III is too, but more expensive than the newer, better tech) and I'm really happy with it. I don't shoot professionally, just for fun and to showcase what we do at my work. The D800 is great for a variety of reasons.

1) It's cheaper than the Mark III.
2) They offer a sharper AA-less model. Moire can now be fixed easily in Lightroom 4.
3) The resolution allows you to bring a great lens that is still affordable to a professional game and get great shots. I have to crop my 70-200 a lot (50-75%) to get OK shots at a Yankees game on my Mark II. Having the extra resolution would make my shots much shaper. It's like being able to afford a 400mm f/2.8 (and they don't let lenses bigger than a 70-200 into the games). You can't get closer without a press pass or $1,000 seats.
4) The dynamic range allows you to fix a lot of shots in Lightroom. I love to bring out detail hidden in highlights and shadows.
5) I have done a few really large 36in prints for my work. Being able to get higher DPI would be great. I would like to go even bigger.
6) It will force Canon to lower the Mark III price and rush out a comparably priced 3D. Since I don't have the money to switch now, I might have the option of the 3D when I do in the future.
7) It seems that the RGB metering does a better job pairing with the smart newer AF systems.
8) Nikon's UW lenses are much sharper than Canon's.

If I had the money I'd buy a D800e, 70-200 f/2.8, 14-24mm, 50 f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, and 105mm Macro.


----------



## Caps18 (Apr 20, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> But at the end of the day if I thought any of these things would make me a better photographer I'd switch. We all worry too much about the gear. As much as I loooove gear it's just not about the gear. I always wonder sometimes if people really think switching to Nikon or Canon will magically make their photography better. I often think about how much I completely suck compared to famous photographers from 30-40 years ago who didn't have 1/100 of the technology that I have in my bag. We are very spoiled.



That is it.

Yeah, the new cameras make taking better pictures easier, but you still have to be in the right place at the right time. Plus, have an eye for composition and light.

But, Canon needs to come up with a landscape camera... If you were just starting out, it would be hard to convince someone to pick Canon if money wasn't a problem. The 5Dm2 is still a great deal.


----------



## jalbfb (Apr 20, 2012)

Never considered it. I have a lot invested in Canon gear and still prefer the Canon menu system and Canon lenses. The Force is with me.


----------



## AmbientLight (Apr 20, 2012)

Actually I have never considered switching to Nikon, although some of my friends are Nikonians. I rather wait for Canon's 200-400mm instead of adding a second system with different menus and controls only to use one lens (although that is one tempting lens). Regarding the D800 and it's extra MPs I simply don't need that for what I do.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 20, 2012)

I have considered many times. 

Last time I was just about to pull the trigger, was when I upgraded from Rebel to 40D. If Nikon would have had a 17-55 with IS, equivalent or better than the Canon 17-55 IS, I would have switched.

When the 7D came out, I preordered .. first time in my life and have not regretted it. While my itch for FFis still very mild right now, I will eventually get a FF body. For that I find very little fail with the 5D 3. It has enough resoultion and speed for my phtographic interests. Overall, it is just about everything the 5D 2 should have been from the start. It is just the pricing which is really off. I could afford it, but refuse to give Canon more money than a better offer from Nikon would cost. As I am in no hurry, I will wait and see how long it takes until the 5D III costs less than the D800 (the day will come, maybe sooner than expected). 

As an amateur, who does not shoot on a daily basis, I do not want gear from 2 brands in parallel. I am glad if I master one brand and its intricacies! I want an APS-C and a FF body from the same maker, one user interface, one set of lenses and flashes. I was looking forward to radio controlled ETTL and Canon has delivered and pulled ahead of Nikon on that one. Again, introductory price is ridiculous, but I'll also wait on this one. 

In terms of lenses Canon has got everything I want, except a f/2.8 UW-zoom [eg. 14-24] matching Nikon.


----------



## tron (Apr 20, 2012)

I use Canon since 1988. My first Canon camera was an EOS620. I have bought many lenses (and less cameras) since then. I am used to this system and I like it although I admit it is not perfect. Although an amateur interested mostly in landscapes I still do not care about D800 and do not need the extra mpixels. 

My 5DII is more than enough and I prefer to get lenses when I can spend some money. I am only impressed by Canon L glass some of which I have and some of which I do not (cannot afford).


----------



## smirkypants (Apr 20, 2012)

Brand loyalty is silly. "I love my Chevy and will never own a Ford" is for simpletons. If you have a need and rely upon your gear, you buy the best gear for the job. Period. As of right now, Nikon is giving me better gear for what I need to do at a better price. In the last generation I chose Canon because Nikon just couldn't compete for what I wanted. Now the roles are reversed. The 200-400mm/f4 is the absolute best lens that I am physically capable of hand-holding for extended periods of time and the D800 gives me a HUGE reach advantage over anything that Canon offers.

I really do hope Canon is running scared. I really wanted to stay with Canon. I don't even know how to pronounce "Nikon" and those bastards violate the sacred "lefty loosy, righty tighty" rule. But hey. Canon needs to get their asses in gear, make better products and, for the love of God, stop trying to milk us for every dollar we have!


----------



## akiskev (Apr 20, 2012)

Is Sony Nex considered to be Dark Side? I'm asking because I want a Nex-5N so badly!!!


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 20, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> Brand loyalty is silly. "I love my Chevy and will never own a Ford" is for simpletons. If you have a need and rely upon your gear, you buy the best gear for the job.



That example is of course invalid because buying a truck doesn't involve massive amounts of other parts that only work with a Chevy.

You say it's for simpletons. Partially true. But it's more for people without s*** tons of money to waste switching brands every generations. :


----------



## AmbientLight (Apr 20, 2012)

I don't think brand loyalty is such a bad thing.

In many industries it is simply impossible to find trustworthy product comparisons, because one or another vendor is doing more business with the people doing the testing, thus resulting in a bias governed simply by the amount of money spend by a vendor to endear themselves. That is a simple factor and completely ruins any hopes by naive consumers that for example the next car of the year maybe something better than the rest. I trust more in the experiences of colleagues and friends actually using Canon, Nikon or Sony gear than I have faith in many of the self-styled independent test providers.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 20, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> I own Nikon gear as well for the rental gig. I can honestly say I never pick up a Nikon in favour of a Canon.


 
I may be sorry, But I'm giving it a try. If I don't like the D800, I'll be able to sell it pretty easily, and by then pick up a 1D MK 4 or a 1D X.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Apr 20, 2012)

I too have orders for the D800 as well as the D800E. I've also just invested in a minimum number of Nikon lenes that I use a novafles adapter on. With the exception of the 14-24 I'm not impressed with the Nikon glass over the same lenes on the Canon side but I'll wait and see until I actually get a Nikon body before I can say anything for sure. I really like most of my Canon glass and some of it I love (like the 135 F2 - wow!).


----------



## smirkypants (Apr 20, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> That example is of course invalid because buying a truck doesn't involve massive amounts of other parts that only work with a Chevy.


Buying a Chevy locks you into a dealer network. It locks you into where you can service your vehicle. I decided not to buy a particular brand because the service center was too far. You're also buying into that brand's repair costs.

Let's face it, buying a Nikon isn't like buying "Brand X." It's a known quantity with lots of followers. I would have to say that for the majority of people, and I tell this to nearly everyone asking me camera buying advice, the brand is of little difference. For some people with very particular needs, it makes sense. For me it makes huge sense. To someone who does serious landscape work, 36MP + dynamic range that kills the 5D3, it makes perfect sense.

If you are a wedding/event photographer, it makes no sense at all. None. Switching brands is idiocy. Likewise, if you don't make a living from your gear, it doesn't make a lot of sense to switch. I still contend that blind allegiance to a brand is irrational and that an informed buyer makes decisions based upon the full breadth of information available and a careful analysis of needs and what meets those needs.


----------



## lonelywhitelights (Apr 20, 2012)

why call it "the dark side" all of this snobbery and fanboy crap is annoying. Nikon make perfectly excellent products that are no better or inferior to Canon. I personally use canon because when I made the move to digital it was the first product I tried - I have used my friends Nikon D700 and a bunch of his Nikon gear and i have no complaints - it's not easier to use or worse. Canon & Nikon make amazing products - If I could afford it I would have gear from both companies


----------



## AmbientLight (Apr 20, 2012)

Why would we not call it the dark side? Canon's long L lenses are white, Nikon's are black. That is not to say one is better than the other, they just use different colours. The Star Wars reference is simply for fun. Don't you like Darth Vader? That's my favourite character in those movies, although it's not a goody two-shoes character by any stretch of the imagination. So I don't think there are any bad vibes in our light or dark sides of photography.


----------



## Stu_bert (Apr 20, 2012)

would be interested in some mid-term views from those who have picked up a D800, once you've got used to the camera and have a good feel on how to get the best from it...


----------



## AmbientLight (Apr 20, 2012)

Count me in on that. I also prefer to read about actual real life experiences and results by real photographers instead of some marketing people trying to manipulate the market in more or less complete ignorance of what is actually possible with the products they write about.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 20, 2012)

AmbientLight said:


> Why would we not call it the dark side? Canon's long L lenses are white, Nikon's are black. That is not to say one is better than the other, they just use different colours. The Star Wars reference is simply for fun. Don't you like Darth Vader? That's my favourite character in those movies, although it's not a goody two-shoes character by any stretch of the imagination. So I don't think there are any bad vibes in our light or dark sides of photography.



The fact that the CEO of Nikon is Mr Palpatine is a mere coincidence


----------



## pdirestajr (Apr 20, 2012)

What will all the "system switchers" do when Canon leapfrogs with it's next camera? Sell your 2-3yr old equipment again and switch back?

Call me crazy, and this has nothing to do with brand loyalty, but isn't the point of investing in a system to save money? Your lenses can last a lifetime. There must be a lot of very successful and rich professional photographers on this forum.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 20, 2012)

Let's see. Switching to the D800 will gain me 14MP, some more DR, a pop up flash and easy access to the great 12-24.
If I do that I lose some high ISO capabilities, 2fps, the use of the irreplaceable 50 1.2, 85 1.2 and MPE65, ergonomics and workflow that I vastly prefer, that certain subjective look of Canon images that I love and potential access to Magic Lantern. 

For me the choice was easy. For me whatever advantages the Nikon *body* offers are dwarfed by the advantages the Canon *system* offers.


----------



## IWLP (Apr 20, 2012)

Yes, I have considered it - my plan was to buy a used D700 once prices dropped a bit when everyone has their D800. I considered the idea because I have 5 AI and AI-S Nikkor lenses I use with my FM2n and I find them quite enjoyable to use. However, I enjoy the focal lengths without a crop factor. I never have considered switching, though - just adding a Nikon body.

At this point in time, however, I'm thinking a $100 lens adapter on my 60D is much more economically pleasing to my wife.


----------



## FunkyCamera (Apr 20, 2012)

I always thought Nikon users tend to be more creepy, I'll be staying with Canon. 8)


----------



## Canihaspicture (Apr 20, 2012)

AHHH I find it so frustrating... I want the resolution of a MF camera (which I cannot afford), I want Canon colors, Canon lenses, Canon controls, and Canon high ISO quality. Why can't Canon deliver... I would literally sell my right kidney on the black market for such a camera.


----------



## Kamera Obscura (Apr 20, 2012)

No!


----------



## JR (Apr 20, 2012)

Canihaspicture said:


> AHHH I find it so frustrating... I want the resolution of a MF camera (which I cannot afford), I want Canon colors, Canon lenses, Canon controls, and Canon high ISO quality. Why can't Canon deliver... I would literally sell my right kidney on the black market for such a camera.



Only a matter of time before the mp come for canon as well.


----------



## bornshooter (Apr 20, 2012)

never im invested in canon the difference between both system's is minimal its really all about the photographer!


----------



## birdman (Apr 20, 2012)

Yes, I have been back and forth many times (3 times exactly) most recently from D700 to 5d2. I got a killer used deal on the D700 and sold for nearly $1,000 profit to fund 5d2 and my glass. The only premium glass I own for my 5d2 is the 35L...unless you consider the 17-40L to be premium. HAHA. Just kidding its merely mid-range at best. 

As I've beaten to death on this site, I do have the D800 on order. I still have some decent AF Nikon primes (50/1.8 and 85/1.8 AF-Ds) as well as the Tokina 28-70/2.6-2.8. When my camera ships, I am going to RENT a 16-35VR and Nikon to Canon adapters from Lensrentals.com to test both cameras extensively. I will also shoot my Canon 17-40L on the 5d2 against the Nikon 16-35VR on the D800 body. Stopped down to f/8-11 this will tell me corner to corner sharpness differences at comparable FL (18mm,21mm,24mm,28,35mm). Lastly, I will test the Canon 50/1.8 mk. 1 vs. the Nikon 50/1.8 AF-D,each on their respective bodies. After running through lightroom 4, and many tweaks, and absolutely ZERO DOWNSAMPLING, this will tell me real-world results. 

I expect the D800 and 5d2 to be very close at 3200 and 6400 at Full Resolution. I am not buying the D800 to use at 21MP, or 18MP, or 12MP. I want to see its ISO performance at 36MP. Can't wait to test these out!!


----------



## traveller (Apr 20, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> You say it's for simpletons. Partially true. But it's more for people without s*** tons of money to waste switching brands every generations. :



Like all the Nikon users that switched to Canon for the 5D MkII's resolution advantage... Switching is for professionals who believe it will give them a competitive advantage or for rich people who have run out of ideas for what to spend their money on! To quote Thom Hogan: 

_"I just don't understand the brand switchers. We've had at least four measurable migrations in 13 years, and really only the first two had enough difference in the other factors to be remotely justified. If you're switching brands now, it's because you're switching brands, period. "_

I think that it's a bit pointless switching brands now, if you're after the latest and greatest and have the money to spend switching each generation then it's your decision. For most of the rest of us, we may have to make that expensive and difficult choice in our lives and this usually occurs at a point when a majorly disruptive technology comes along. By 'majorly disruptive', I mean like SLRs (mostly) replacing rangefinders, autofocus, or the biggest of them all, digital (mostly) replacing film. For most people, changing brand with each generation of CMOS sensor is lunacy. 

That's not to say if I were starting from scratch I wouldn't consider a switch, as for my needs I feel that the current Nikon bodies have an advantage. That said, the D800 vs. 5D MkIII DXO Mark results that everyone in getting so wound up about, mirror the situation between the D7000 and the 7D and I've not really seen any photos that demonstrate a meaningful real world difference between those cameras...


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 20, 2012)

Not sure I can afford selling my large whites plus all the other Ls, speedlights etc and buy the Nikkor equivalent

I have 6 x 580 speedlights - think how much they would cost alone to replace.

Brand loyalty? - no, financial sanity


----------



## Bob Howland (Apr 20, 2012)

If the Canon 200-400 price is higher than the combined price of the Nikon 200-400, 1.4X TC and a D800 body, I'd seriously consider it. Even better would be a 16MP, 10FPS DX D400 for $1000 less than a D800.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 20, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> Let's see. Switching to the D800 will gain me 14MP, some more DR, a pop up flash and easy access to the great 12-24.
> If I do that I lose some high ISO capabilities, 2fps, the use of the irreplaceable 50 1.2, 85 1.2 and MPE65, ergonomics and workflow that I vastly prefer, that certain subjective look of Canon images that I love and potential access to Magic Lantern.
> 
> For me the choice was easy. For me whatever advantages the Nikon *body* offers are dwarfed by the advantages the Canon *system* offers.



1/3 of a stop ain't all That much you're painting it to be. Barrely noticeable. Specially given the horrible CA issues at f1.2 and slow af which makes me wish canon would have decent 1.4 versions instead (cheaper and lighter too). If fps was an issue, I'd get a D700 which does 8fps for less than 1900 dollars used or go D4. You're just greatly exaggerating the pluses of a couple of lenses. I've though this thru and if the canon system was all that, I wouldn't do it. Clearly we all have different goals and I don't argue that the 5DIII may be the better camera for *some* people. Canon was the leader of the last decade. But things have changed a lot and I feel comfortable with Nikon's lineup to miss nothing in the canon line.



> What will all the "system switchers" do when Canon leapfrogs with it's next camera? Sell your 2-3yr old equipment again and switch back?
> 
> Call me crazy, and this has nothing to do with brand loyalty, but isn't the point of investing in a system to save money? Your lenses can last a lifetime. There must be a lot of very successful and rich professional photographers on this forum.



I'd switch back if the leap is significant or the price is lower but yield better quality (what the D800 is to the 5DmkIII now). I just don't see a single reason why I'd spend more to get less of what I can get elsewhere. The 5Dmk4 won't be out for another 4 years. That's 4 years of images with the D800 I'm going to enjoy a lot. And we'll see where the D900 goes too.


----------



## Chris Geiger (Apr 20, 2012)

15 year Nikon shooter here. Mostly event/product/wedding photography. I've never been a fan of super high resolution and 12mp was enough most of the time. I need clean low light images more than I need megapixels. I switched from shooting D3S and D700 to a pair of 5D3's. I am able to use the images up to 12,800 ISO. I find the images from the 5D3 to be as clean as the D3S was but the images are 22MP so that gives me much more flexibility for cropping. I love the 600EX-RT flashes (I have three so far). I was using Pocket Wizard triggers but having the wireless is the best thing to come along in photography in along time. I am hoping they will add a smaller version with the radio wireless control. For weddings I don't need much light, it's mostly for ascents and just a tad of light on faces. 

I have no need or desire to work with and store larger files. I also want to be able to shoot all day without changing cards while still having a backup. With a pair of 64G cards in the 5D3 I am all set for the day. For me the image files of the D800 are just too much.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 20, 2012)

psolberg said:


> 1/3 of a stop ain't all That much you're painting it to be. Barrely noticeable. Specially given the horrible CA issues at f1.2 and slow af which makes me wish canon would have decent 1.4 versions instead (cheaper and lighter too). If fps was an issue, I'd get a D700 which does 8fps for less than 1900 dollars used or go D4. You're just greatly exaggerating the pluses of a couple of lenses.



I wasn't listing the 50 and 85 because they are faster. They both posses a certain quality that is a combination of color rendition, contrast and oof quality that personally I don't find in any of the alternatives. That is why I purchased them in the first place and certainly I don't find the D800 offering anything substantial enough to warrant using lesser offerings instead.
Also, my post was a personal observation based on what I usually shoot but there are also other segments in which Canon offers better lenses. Super teles and tilt shifts on the wide end for example.


----------



## Fotofanten (Apr 20, 2012)

I did consider it, especially since the D800 is considerably cheaper than the 5D3, but the D800 thumb rest design essentially put me off. Also, I had the NEX-5N for a while, and as much as I adored the size/weight to performance - ratio and the brilliant focus peaking mode, I never grew comfortable with the skin tone rendition from the sensor, as I felt that it brought a yellowish tone to nordic skin no matter what the white balance. I don't know if that is the case with all Nikon cameras with Sony sensors in them, but why risk it when I have grown accustomed to Canon color rendition. The 5D III seems to be everything I wanted it to be, except for the rather hefty price, but honestly I don't care and I will pony up the cash anyway. DxO measurements speaks to the rational mind, even though many of us and myself included are skeptical as to the real world relevance of the recent results. Canon primes speak to my heart, and that, in the end, is the real deciding factor, and the reason as to why I will not be joining the dark side, even if they do have a bit more DR and pixels to play with. And maybe even cookies.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 20, 2012)

Lots of people are switching. D800 is back ordered. My 5D3 is a great cam too...


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 20, 2012)

prestonpalmer said:


> Lots of people are switching. D800 is back ordered. My 5D3 is a great cam too...



Let them switch - that way the used market place will have plenty of top lens at knockdown prices


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 20, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> prestonpalmer said:
> 
> 
> > Lots of people are switching. D800 is back ordered. My 5D3 is a great cam too...
> ...



No intention of selling my canon gear though


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 20, 2012)

prestonpalmer said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > prestonpalmer said:
> ...



Couldn't afford to switch without selling some kit - I have 3 large whites for example


----------



## tron (Apr 20, 2012)

Bob Howland said:


> If the Canon 200-400 price is higher than the combined price of the Nikon 200-400, 1.4X TC and a D800 body, I'd seriously consider it.


Although I am not interested (I am an amateur, I do not need it and I cannot afford it at the same time)
this is the first reasonable explanation why someone should get a Nikon combination. A possible other combination could be a D800 with a 14-24 but still I would get a TSE-17mm instead (to complement my TSE-24mm II)


----------



## Aglet (Apr 21, 2012)

JOINING is the correct word. I can't justifiably contemplate a complete switch; too many accessories and lenses to consider.
I recently added a little D5100 to my collection, and a few lenses suitable for crop or FF. Good for getting familiar with a different way of doing things.

DARK SIDE it also appropriate. The N camp records "dark" better than the C camp can. 

Looking forward to another learning curve when my D800 arrives. Meanwhile, now that I better know the specific shortcomings of the various EOS bodies I use, I should be able to avoid any massive IQ disappointments in challenging conditions.

Right tool for the job - it's good to have a choice.


----------



## cliffwang (Apr 21, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Couldn't afford to switch without selling some kit - I have 3 large whites for example


on the same boat


----------



## LostTraveler47 (Apr 21, 2012)

At this point I'm so frustrated with the state of all things tech, I might sell everything, buy a Leica M7 with a 24mm lens, and actually enjoy photography for a change.


----------



## Lawliet (Apr 21, 2012)

Wouldn't I use both systems anyway I would - summer is coming, time for outdoor flash, and the D800 can be used with flash at about one stop faster shutter speeds(the data sheets play the actual difference down).
Which means not only twice the shots from a battery pack, but also faster t0.1-duration paired with shorter ambient exposure for better motion freezing.


----------



## smirkypants (Apr 21, 2012)

Bob Howland said:


> If the Canon 200-400 price is higher than the combined price of the Nikon 200-400, 1.4X TC and a D800 body, I'd seriously consider it. Even better would be a 16MP, 10FPS DX D400 for $1000 less than a D800.


This is exactly why I bought a Nikon. EXACTLY. The 200-400 lives on the d800. I consider that a separate unit. I still shoot Canon for everything else.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 21, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > 1/3 of a stop ain't all That much you're painting it to be. Barrely noticeable. Specially given the horrible CA issues at f1.2 and slow af which makes me wish canon would have decent 1.4 versions instead (cheaper and lighter too). If fps was an issue, I'd get a D700 which does 8fps for less than 1900 dollars used or go D4. You're just greatly exaggerating the pluses of a couple of lenses.
> ...



I agree canon has a better selection of telephotos (which aren't of my concern), but I see nikon has all the essentials covered which tend to the the fast 2.8 and f4 versions up to 600mm. T/S are very specialized and the only one I see nikon lacking for now is the 17mm. Again, a very specialty item which I wouldn't buy even from canon. So yes, there are particular models on both sides which are unique in both character and purpose, but it is a far cry from 10 years ago when nikon literally had nothing that was decades old and a severe lack of USM primes. Luckly for me, and I realize others may not share this, but nikon's lineup has same or equivalent versions of everything I need, and I even get to try that 14-24 everybody raves about 8)

Anyways, I've placed my D800 order. Now the waiting begins. I won't get rid of my canon gear until I have a few weeks to play with the D800. But given all the glowing reviews, I suspect this is it for me and canon, at least until the next generation arrives.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 21, 2012)

I am thinking of getting a 5D classic as a walkabout body


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 22, 2012)

psolberg said:


> Anyways, I've placed my D800 order. Now the waiting begins. I won't get rid of my canon gear until I have a few weeks to play with the D800. But given all the glowing reviews, I suspect this is it for me and canon, at least until the next generation arrives.



Not sure Nikon will actually fulfill all current orders by the time the next generation comes. ;D

j/k I am sure you will be more than happy with the D800


----------



## bycostello (Apr 24, 2012)

Scott said:


> I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about dumping all my Canon gear and joining the Nikon camp but after crunching all the numbers its simply isn't worth it for me. I have a 5dii, a collection of lenses and speedlites that i've amassed over the years and to sell it all and start again just seems crazy.
> 
> I know a lot of people on here are hurt to have to admit that Nikon has a "better" camera in the D800 but really, what would you do with that camera that you can't already do with your 5dii or iii?
> 
> ...



hate to say but a bad workman blames his tools.....


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 24, 2012)

Scott said:


> I know a lot of people on here are hurt to have to admit that Nikon has a "better" camera in the D800 but really, what would you do with that camera that you can't already do with your 5dii or iii?



Is it a better camera or just a camera with more mp?


----------



## psolberg (May 2, 2012)

I just took delivery of my D800. I'm evaluating it and will decide if I sell the canon gear. IMO switching isn't such a big deal if you don't do it every 6 months.


----------



## bycostello (May 15, 2012)

nah, cost way too much to change for not enough if any gain...


----------



## psolberg (May 15, 2012)

another week with the D800 and looks like I'm keeping it for good. 

highlights:
The dynamic range on this camera is beyond my expecations. shadows are recoverable to levels which no canon camera I've owened is capable of, and detail on the recovered areas is very very clean. You can also bring highlights from the dead in LR4. This is the first camera I've owned where a single still can effectively serve as a good HDR image by itself. I still need to bracket for extreme scenes and to retain color, but it is maknig me re-think what was possible before from a single image.

getting the most out of the resolution is relatively trivial with good nikon glass. This is after all the same pixel pitch as a 16MP APS-C body, not even 7D territory much less D3200. As with the 5DmkII, good support and technique is needed to maximize the gains.

Video is very detailed as I'd hoped. Much improved over the 5DmkIII waxy soft look on detailed textures. However like the MkIII, the codec just doesnt' deal with motion very well. Foturnately the atomos ninja 2 will be soon part of my rig to address that and I'll be recording from the clean HDMI out. Lastly, the mosaic engineering AA filter seems to address the moire issue (although it isn't anywhere nearly as bad as with the 5DmkII). I may get it just as an insurance piece of gear but nothing I've shot has had moire issues. I admitedly don't shoot a lot near brick walls or large horizontal patterns so YMMV.

I'm 90% sold on it. Just need to test it with more nikon glass. Btw, 14-24 nikkor. OMG. what a lens.


----------



## brwphotoinc (May 15, 2012)

I too am testing the d800. As a very happy 5d II & III owner, along with a Pentax 645D system, the D800 is more than intriguing to me. 

Looking to dump the 645D as its processing time is unbelievably pathetic. 6+ seconds to see a preview... Clients get annoyed really quickly.

I did do a 3 camera test with the pentax 645D, 5D III, & D800. Nothing super fancy. Just checking sharpness at 100%. 

They ranked in the order as listed above. Unfortunately. I really wanted to dump the 645D. The D 800 was soft. So soft I mounted the camera on a tripod, used mirror lock up, etc. the shots were at 160thof a second at f9. Clearly no need to use MU AT 160. But I had to rule it out. I took the samples to my local shop, knowing my 20 year pro career, they were baffled as user error was not going to be an issue . As they have seen strong results from the D800, they believe this is a "bad camera" as we swapped multiple lenses and copies of those lenses at the store. Same result. Soft!!! Perfect. On a camera you can not get your hands on, I need another copy to test. Ugh!!!

The 645D was sharp as sharp could be. Reason enough to put up with its dog slow performance. Don't get me wrong the 5D III rocks. I love it. It will remain in my bag. Hopefully making room for a 30+ MP camera from canon soon.


----------



## areservear (May 15, 2012)

I'd just like to quote something Nobuyoshi Araki, one of Japan's greatest contemporary photographers, said about Daido Moriyama, another photographer considered one of the greatest in Japan. Just some food for thought.


“The photographer has been a slave to the camera for a long time. Good camera, good lens, Leica, etc – these were the masters of the photographers. But in a way, Daido Moriyama is a photographer who started to make the camera his slave. Photography is not about the camera.Of course we need the camera. If you want to write a romantic love letter, we need some tool to write it with. 

But anything – a pencil or ballpoint pen – is fine.” 

-Nobuyoshi Araki


----------



## 7enderbender (May 17, 2012)

Scott said:


> I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about dumping all my Canon gear and joining the Nikon camp but after crunching all the numbers its simply isn't worth it for me. I have a 5dii, a collection of lenses and speedlites that i've amassed over the years and to sell it all and start again just seems crazy.
> 
> I know a lot of people on here are hurt to have to admit that Nikon has a "better" camera in the D800 but really, what would you do with that camera that you can't already do with your 5dii or iii?
> 
> ...



Potato - pot-ah-to. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages. After picking one system and learning how to deal with certain issues I wouldn't make a switch in either direction. Either company will always come out with something that looks desirable (like the D800e, or the new Canon speedlites). Usually the other competitor will follow soon after. 

I can only see going to something entirely different, like the Leica rangefinders or medium format - if I win the lottery that is.

Canon or Nikon is only worth considering if you have to start over anyway - like when I moved from film (Canon FD) to digital.


----------



## yulia (May 18, 2012)

i am soooo tempted to get d800! I used to have nikon but then 2 years ago i switched from d700 to mark ii and was SO happy - AF, controls, colors - everything was better on Mark ii! i don't mind switching gears once in a while...i love how much detail you can get on d800...I mostly photograph kids and newborns (wouldn't it be great to see EVERY little detail on those little feet?), using natural light most of the time... So i need good AF, kids run run run....As i understand AF is better on Mark III....Colors are better in canon but it is fixable.....Should i think about switching? i can't decide!!


would you get d800E for portraits and people or just d800?


----------



## briansquibb (May 18, 2012)

yulia said:


> i am soooo tempted to get d800! I used to have nikon but then 2 years ago i switched from d700 to mark ii and was SO happy - AF, controls, colors - everything was better on Mark ii! i don't mind switching gears once in a while...i love how much detail you can get on d800...I mostly photograph kids and newborns (wouldn't it be great to see EVERY little detail on those little feet?), using natural light most of the time... So i need good AF, kids run run run....As i understand AF is better on Mark III....Colors are better in canon but it is fixable.....Should i think about switching? i can't decide!!
> 
> 
> would you get d800E for portraits and people or just d800?



Ask the same question on NR and you will get a different answer - oh hang on a moment, most of NR are trolling on here already :


----------



## FunkyCamera (Jun 30, 2012)

Never. Nikon isn't a pro camera company any more, and no professional takes them seriously.

All they do is put more and more pixels in, trying to compete with Nokia, and they can't even do that properly. lol

Like every single professional in the world I am sticking with Canon, where you have image quality instead of megapixels and L glass instead of 2nd rate recycled glass coke bottles. lol


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 30, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I ordered a Nikon D800 from a local Dealer this morning. I have a ton of Canon Cameras and Gear, so I'll be replacing some lenses with Nikkor, but keeping my favorite ones to use with my 7D. I had sold my 5D MK II to finance something new, and tried a 5D MK III. Its a great camera, but I din't use most of the new features and returned it. I'm going to try landscape photography with the new Nikkor 14-24mm lens I ordered with it. My 7D will still be for product photoraphy and focal length limited use, and, of course, I could not part with my 35mmL, 100mmL, 135mmL or 100-400mmL. My other lenses, flash, TC's, etc will go on the block.


 
Well, the D800 idea went bust.

It was a nice camera, and to start I bought some decent glass, 24-70mm f/2.8G, 80-200mm f/2.8D, 50mm f/1.8D, 200-400mm f/4 AIS.

The camera was excellent, and the DR at low ISO was amazing. However, when I went to print a large image from the 24-70mm, I found a lot of CA near the edges, so much that it could not all be removed in post. It was ugly. Naturally, I assumed a defective lens, but checked the reviews and found others commenting about the very high CA. I also found the AF had more accuracy variation than my Canon lenses, and it was neigh impossible to get the sharpest possible images unless I was in bright light at extreme shutter speeds, or on a tripod. Since I do low light photography, a super high shutter speed is not possible.

So, I sold the lenses, and the body went to a new owner yesterday. I think that someone who uses it in a studio or is very deliberate and has good light will love the camera, but for low light usage, its no better than my 1D MK IV and maybe no better than my 5D MK II. I also found that time to post process the huge images was excessive. Sure, I could downsize them to 21mp or 16 mp, but then I end up with a 5D MK III equivalent and still am unhappy with lens performance.

I ordered a refurb 5D MK II thru the Canon CLP program yesterday for $1400 and I'll wait and see what the trusted reviews say about the 1D X before I buy another new body. I used my 5D MK II for 4 years before selling it to buy a new one, and its a great camera, particularly at the $1400 price.


----------



## Kernuak (Jul 4, 2012)

I considered it before the 7D was released, mainly because Nikon had a definite advantage at the time for autofocus in the type of bodies I was interested in. The 7D narrowed that gap and I pre-oredered it, then got a 300 f/2.8, so it would now be too expensive (although I only lost around £60 on the100-400 I just sold, before the eBay and Paypal fees and would probably make a good profit on my 300 f/2,8). The 5D MkIII is closer to my requirements than the D800 though, as I also shoot quite a bit of low light stuff and the better AF over both the MkII and the 7D would come in handy.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 4, 2012)

FunkyCamera said:


> Never. Nikon isn't a pro camera company any more, and no professional takes them seriously.
> 
> All they do is put more and more pixels in, trying to compete with Nokia, and they can't even do that properly. lol
> 
> Like every single professional in the world I am sticking with Canon, where you have image quality instead of megapixels and L glass instead of 2nd rate recycled glass coke bottles. lol



Well I wouldn't go that far to say nikon isnt a pro company. They have a system just a good as canon, and better in some aspects.

My first SLR was a minolta and my first DSLR was a canon. Go figure.

Canon just has those unique primes that keep me here. Otherwise, I'd probably switch.


----------



## Tayvin (Jul 5, 2012)

brwphotoinc said:


> The 645D was sharp as sharp could be.



How could Pentax make a MF camera without tethering?! They would've sold SO many copies, otherwise!

Anywho - this whole conversation is funny ;D


----------



## gary samples (Jul 5, 2012)

ford or Chevy you get a good fast one

then it's all about the driver !!!


----------



## drjlo (Jul 5, 2012)

yulia said:


> I mostly photograph kids and newborns (wouldn't it be great to see EVERY little detail on those little feet?), using natural light most of the time... So i need good AF, kids run run run....As i understand AF is better on Mark III....Colors are better in canon but it is fixable.....Should i think about switching? i can't decide!!
> 
> would you get d800E for portraits and people or just d800?



If you shoot mostly kids and newborns, I just don't see why on earth you would use D800/E over 5D III. You already see "every little detail on those little feet" with 5D III (or II). If your kids are running, then 5D III's advantage in FPS is huge over D800. 

If you shoot landscape with lots of shadow details or need huge prints, willing to use sturdy tripods and immaculate technique, then by all means, get the D800E. I would..


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 5, 2012)

yulia said:


> i am soooo tempted to get d800! I used to have nikon but then 2 years ago i switched from d700 to mark ii and was SO happy - AF, controls, colors - everything was better on Mark ii! i don't mind switching gears once in a while...i love how much detail you can get on d800...I mostly photograph kids and newborns (wouldn't it be great to see EVERY little detail on those little feet?), using natural light most of the time... So i need good AF, kids run run run....As i understand AF is better on Mark III....Colors are better in canon but it is fixable.....Should i think about switching? i can't decide!!
> 
> 
> would you get d800E for portraits and people or just d800?



1DS3 is the obvious solution - still IMO has the best rendition of skin colours


----------



## RuneL (Jul 5, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I ordered a Nikon D800 from a local Dealer this morning. I have a ton of Canon Cameras and Gear, so I'll be replacing some lenses with Nikkor, but keeping my favorite ones to use with my 7D. I had sold my 5D MK II to finance something new, and tried a 5D MK III. Its a great camera, but I din't use most of the new features and returned it. I'm going to try landscape photography with the new Nikkor 14-24mm lens I ordered with it. My 7D will still be for product photoraphy and focal length limited use, and, of course, I could not part with my 35mmL, 100mmL, 135mmL or 100-400mmL. My other lenses, flash, TC's, etc will go on the block.



7D for products, why.gifnefjpeg?


----------



## FunkyCamera (Jul 5, 2012)

brwphotoinc said:


> I too am testing the d800. As a very happy 5d II & III owner, along with a Pentax 645D system, the D800 is more than intriguing to me.
> 
> Looking to dump the 645D as its processing time is unbelievably pathetic. 6+ seconds to see a preview... Clients get annoyed really quickly.
> 
> ...


That's just how it is. High resolution smudges. Not that putting different 2nd rate glass in front of it would help either.


----------



## charlesa (Jul 5, 2012)

Start to ponder the D800, then I look at the 400 mm f/2.8 glass sitting on my desk and I smile and all black thoughts evaporate ;D


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 5, 2012)

I have bought a D60 so you wont know which side I am snapping for ;D ;D ;D


----------



## psolberg (Jul 6, 2012)

brwphotoinc said:


> I too am testing the d800. As a very happy 5d II & III owner, along with a Pentax 645D system, the D800 is more than intriguing to me.
> 
> Looking to dump the 645D as its processing time is unbelievably pathetic. 6+ seconds to see a preview... Clients get annoyed really quickly.
> 
> ...



I don't know about your experience but I'm finding the D800 fantastic. Seems nikon QA on the D800 has been less than stellar though. hopefully you'll get a good one to experience the bliss 



> Never. Nikon isn't a pro camera company any more, and no professional takes them seriously.


lol frustrated fanboy alert. : you need to look up stockholm syndrome. you got a bad case of canon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome



> i am soooo tempted to get d800! I used to have nikon but then 2 years ago i switched from d700 to mark ii and was SO happy - AF, controls, colors - everything was better on Mark ii! i don't mind switching gears once in a while...i love how much detail you can get on d800...I mostly photograph kids and newborns (wouldn't it be great to see EVERY little detail on those little feet?), using natural light most of the time... So i need good AF, kids run run run....As i understand AF is better on Mark III....Colors are better in canon but it is fixable.....Should i think about switching? i can't decide!!
> 
> 
> would you get d800E for portraits and people or just d800?


curious that you think the MKII's toy AF could beat the 51point AF on the D700, but regardless, the D800 focuses to f/8 which the 5DIII lost. The 5DIII has a few more cross points but lacks the sophisticated metering/face recognition. I'd say neither camera really beats the other AF wise.

the D800 has much better color depth and dynamic range. it is really not even a close contents on this area. but with so many software out there aimed at skin tones alone, the choice is really irrelevant in this day and age. 

I'd only advise not switching if you need 6fps. but if you're happy with the 5dMKII then the D800 is actually faster than that camera.

ultimately the extra detail is worth it IMO. But you can always stick around with canon when they inevitably follow nikon with their own big MP body. 5Dmk4 or something.



> If you shoot mostly kids and newborns, I just don't see why on earth you would use D800/E over 5D III. You already see "every little detail on those little feet" with 5D III (or II). If your kids are running, then 5D III's advantage in FPS is huge over D800.



2ps is not HUGE. it is modest at best, if at all noticeable and will not really get you that much better results. For it to make a difference it would have to be 8fps+. Both cameras are "slow" and not really suited for fast action...not that newborns are that fast. Running kids should be extremely easy with even the slower 5DmkII. If you need speed on a budget, the D700 remains king at 8fps full frame.

As for detail, I think a 12MP still is enough for most people, but the question is, is the 5DIII better? the answer is no. so if OP wants the added versatility of crops or very big prints then the money is better spend on the D800 since there isn't anything that 22MP does that 36 can't, but having that extra 33% many pixels provides a lot more versatility than lacking them. 



> Potato - pot-ah-to. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages. After picking one system and learning how to deal with certain issues I wouldn't make a switch in either direction. Either company will always come out with something that looks desirable (like the D800e, or the new Canon speedlites). Usually the other competitor will follow soon after.



yup. both have pluses and cons and both systems are FAR from perfect. Canon lacks where nikon rules and vice versa. in my case, nikon had more pluses so it made sense for ME to switch. I don't get why people take this so seriously as if the fact I don't find a single canon dslr body to be on par with my D800's results means their camera is bad. I don't care about brands, I care about results and I'm loving my decision so far.


----------



## julescar (Jul 6, 2012)

I own both the D800 and 5D mk III and they are both fantastic cameras, each has advantages depending on the type of photography you wish to do. The D800 has very good resolution and very good dynamic range especially in bringing out detail in shadow/darker areas. The 5D has a much better focus system (with the lenses i use) and it also has a far more natural default (AWB) colour balance. I use the D800 for product photograph/very large print jobs in a studio environment, it is as an alternative to a large format camera. If i leave the studio, I always take the 5D mkIII. I think the 5D mk iii is a much better all round camera (on the go) with a much better build quality, it feels more solid/robust. In the end this is only my opinion, I really think which ever camera you buy you won't be disappointed, if you wish to use them as camera's to take great photos or a tool for a specific purpose. There are plenty of good articles that compare the usefulness of both in a balanced way, the articles that are balanced are far more useful and much closer to reality that the various rants you will also find.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 6, 2012)

julescar said:


> I own both the D800 and 5D mk III and they are both fantastic cameras, each has advantages depending on the type of photography you wish to do. The D800 has very good resolution and very good dynamic range especially in bringing out detail in shadow/darker areas. The 5D has a much better focus system (with the lenses i use) and it also has a far more natural default (AWB) colour balance. I use the D800 for product photograph/very large print jobs in a studio environment, it is as an alternative to a large format camera. If i leave the studio, I always take the 5D mkIII. I think the 5D mk iii is a much better all round camera (on the go) with a much better build quality, it feels more solid/robust. In the end this is only my opinion, I really think which ever camera you buy you won't be disappointed, if you wish to use them as camera's to take great photos or a tool for a specific purpose. There are plenty of good articles that compare the usefulness of both in a balanced way, the articles that are balanced are far more useful and much closer to reality that the various rants you will also find.



I wouldn't consider the D800 as a replacement for Large format but definitely a change for low MP medium format backs.


----------



## AprilForever (Jul 6, 2012)

docsavage123 said:


> Never thought about it. Makes me smile when Im out and loads of white glass and red camera straps shooting wildlife and nature. They outnumber the nikonians around 8 to 2 on a day out. The only time I see more nikon stuff is at weddings and I dont mean the photographer its the people with the D3100's and kit lens set on auto and pop up flash turned on for every shot.
> 
> I have no intention of switching at all well happy with my kit and looking forward to to buying more when I can afford it (5D3 is still the one for me) 8)



Indeed...


----------



## Aglet (Jul 6, 2012)

I've only shot a couple thousand images with my new Nikons so far but I can already form some strong subjective opinions about using them.

I've added (even more) Nikon gear to my collection and find I'm using it more often than Canon for the picky stuff I like to shoot. A D800 with old Nikkor MF primes gives me high detail shots I can process however I like without the dreadful red channel noise in the shadows that plagues Canon cameras. This camera has the kind of features I want when working on macros, landscape or other slow-paced shooting. An 800e is on the way and I'm wondering if I'll keep the standard D800 body or sell it.

2 D5100s have also taken over from most of my crop sensor Canons for similar slower paced work because, like the D800, their low ISO IQ blows the Canon results out of the water in difficult HDR scenes. Some decent glass on them and they also do great IQ landscapes for small to moderate size prints.

I still like using my Canons for low HDR scenes, controlled lighting shoots where shadows aren't an issue and shooting when people are the subjects; possibly because I'm just still more familiar with being able to use the Canon gear very quickly in changing situations. I also still prefer the "look" of Canon images and processing with DPP when it comes to skin tones and WB altho there's nothing stopping me from making custom color processing for the Nikons to match. It's just easier for me to use the best camera for the scene and subject.

I'm finding overall handling of the D800 far superior to the older 5D2. If I had the 5D3 this could be a different outcome but I didn't buy a 5D3 because I needed cameras with excellent low ISO performance, not more of the same IQ with features I wouldn't utilize.

One other thing I prefer over Canon equipment too. Sensor dust is virtually a non-issue so far on my Nikon bodies. They collect as much or more dust than than Canons, it seems, if you look at the AA filter surface. But the dust is just not showing up on the images to the same extent as it does on my Canon cameras. I think this may be because of the difference in spacing between the front AA filter surface and the sensor surface between the 2 company's products. 
The net effect is I can swap lenses much more comfortably on the Nikons without worrying I'm going to get a different pattern of sensor dust I'll have to PP out later. That translates to taking few cameras and more lenses on a shoot instead of my usual tactic of dedicating a Canon body to a specific lens and leaving it attached so as not to have to hassle with sensor dust.
I can also stop-down somewhat farther for deeper DoF without worrying I'll be casting dust shadows on the sensor. 
My more recent Canon bodies, like the 7D and newer, don't suffer from sensor dust issues as badly as the older ones did but I find the Nikons have given me even fewer issues.

Once vexing thing I found about the D5100s tho, 4 out of 5 bodies I tested have an issue where their sensor and viewfinders are a bit rotated with respect to each other. If I align a horizontal line across the outer AF points in the viewfinder, the resulting image is tilted CW nearly 1 degree! I don't like having to remember to recompose a shot to take this into account. I'll likely be sending one of them in to Nikon to see if they can correct it. Close examination of the optical components of the camera have not shown any one big "Ah-hah!" culprit but possibly minor misalignment of the sensor and the main mirror contributing to the overall tilt.

If I'm running out the door in a hurry tho, I still prefer to grab my Canon 60D with the 15-85mm zoom as an excellent all-rounder with great IQ and handling for quick and casual shooting. Its metering and WB are nearly faultless; I can leave it on Evaluative and Auto and rarely have to tweak it in post. And its battery life is also fantastic, I can shoot all day unless I'm using live-view a lot. Does a decent job of video too.

It's nice to have the options. If I had to keep just ONE camera tho, no longer is it much of a contest. D800 does most of what -I- need better than any DSLR I've used before.

YOUR mileage may vary.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 6, 2012)

AprilForever said:


> docsavage123 said:
> 
> 
> > Never thought about it. Makes me smile when Im out and loads of white glass and red camera straps shooting wildlife and nature. They outnumber the nikonians around 8 to 2 on a day out. The only time I see more nikon stuff is at weddings and I dont mean the photographer its the people with the D3100's and kit lens set on auto and pop up flash turned on for every shot.
> ...


----------



## unfocused (Jul 6, 2012)

I never thought I'd consider switching brands, as I've been a Canon user for nearly 40 years. 

But, if I ever switch it will not be because of bodies, but because of lens prices. I chose Canon many years ago because their prices were lower for comparable lenses. I am afraid they are losing that edge. Bodies will come and go, but lenses are the long-term and larger investment. If Canon cannot remain competitive in its lens pricing I may have to rethink my investment.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 6, 2012)

Has any body compare the color (in camera jpeg) between the newer Nikon and Canon. Two week ago, I have a chance to compare the pictures of D80 and 40D ( I know, both of them are out dated camera) by shooting an event side by side with a friend. This is my take: 1. 40D have a much better and more accurate color rendition. 2. People's facial color are a lot more pleasant. 3. picture of 40D has more "depth". D80 looks flat. 3. The white balance of D80 for tungsten light is slightly on the "cold' side, but it is much better than the 40D. The 40D is too"warm".


----------



## preppyak (Jul 6, 2012)

unfocused said:


> I never thought I'd consider switching brands, as I've been a Canon user for nearly 40 years.
> 
> But, if I ever switch it will not be because of bodies, but because of lens prices. I chose Canon many years ago because their prices were lower for comparable lenses. I am afraid they are losing that edge. Bodies will come and go, but lenses are the long-term and larger investment. If Canon cannot remain competitive in its lens pricing I may have to rethink my investment.


I think part of what kept Canon competitive in lens pricing was the fact that many of their primes were older. Sure, they made them right and they are good, but, until the 24mm and 28mm, there wasn't a non-L prime that was made in the 2000's. It's easy to keep prices low when you aren't updating lenses for 20 years.

I think you have good reason to be worried for the future. The pancake 40mm is the only lens Canon has put out <$1000 that seems to match its price. Also, if Canon's non-L strategy is to go f/2.8 and IS, instead of f/1.8. Because Nikon and Canon's recent 28mm offerings are similarly priced, but Nikon does f/1.8, and Canon does f/2.8IS


----------



## julescar (Jul 6, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> julescar said:
> 
> 
> > I own both the D800 and 5D mk III and they are both fantastic cameras, each has advantages depending on the type of photography you wish to do. The D800 has very good resolution and very good dynamic range especially in bringing out detail in shadow/darker areas. The 5D has a much better focus system (with the lenses i use) and it also has a far more natural default (AWB) colour balance. I use the D800 for product photograph/very large print jobs in a studio environment, it is as an alternative to a large format camera. If i leave the studio, I always take the 5D mkIII. I think the 5D mk iii is a much better all round camera (on the go) with a much better build quality, it feels more solid/robust. In the end this is only my opinion, I really think which ever camera you buy you won't be disappointed, if you wish to use them as camera's to take great photos or a tool for a specific purpose. There are plenty of good articles that compare the usefulness of both in a balanced way, the articles that are balanced are far more useful and much closer to reality that the various rants you will also find.
> ...



I agree totally, as a replacement to a 25mp - 30 mp medium format.... Is what I specifically meant, thanks for clarifying my statement.


----------



## adamdoesmovies (Jul 7, 2012)

preppyak said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I never thought I'd consider switching brands, as I've been a Canon user for nearly 40 years.
> ...



I was really excited for the 24/28 until I found out their prices. It's kind of pointless to spend 700+ on a non-L prime. Something tells me they could make them cheaper, but won't.


----------



## Sycotek (Jul 7, 2012)

Assuming the d600 has a similar sensor to the d800 in terms of dr - i'll be adding that to my kit. Alternatively if Nikon wise up and add a sRaw and mRaw to the d800 then I'd just grab that for a studio camera. I don't need or want 36MP as it is 18 on my 1DX is plenty for most applications.

If canon actually release a large MP sensor then obviously my money will go there assuming it doesn't have any of the 5 series sensor flaws.


----------



## Dean (Jul 7, 2012)

I went Nikon D800 around 10 days ago. I bought the 24-70 F2.8, 70-200 F2.8 VRII, 85mm and 50mm 1.8G's.

The 24-70 is excellent and better than the Canon 1 version, but not sure about the 2, as it might not be released in my lifetime, like too many Canon products lately 

I have photographs to take, not pre orders to wait a lifetime for. I've cut my losses and they are huge, but you do what you have to do.

The 70-200 2.8 VRII is on par with the Canon, but the 50mm and 85mm 1.8G's are definitely better, maybe by virtue of the age of Canon's non L offerings, which are very old indeed. Even their L 50mm 1.2 is knocking on now.

Who needs an L when you've got the 1.8G's or 1.4 G's?

Since then the D800 has continued to impress in IQ again and again. 5x4 modes, 1.2 crop, DX, and there's simply no question, the D800 sensor blows the Mk3 away.

Here's some test on Facebook I left public. http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.387084584687378.91065.100001575187556&type=3

I keep pulling in shadow detail just to see it happen on the D800. It's such fun to see complete black turn into smooth detail, and not a green blotchy vertically banded mess like the Mk3. How they spent 3.5 years on this camera and didn't solve that, I do not know. 

That was the last straw for me and Canon I'm afraid. Then they want to charge an extra $500 for it? I'm the fool, I actually paid it, in trust that they had actually done some work in 3.5 years. 

Apparently they went home a lot earlier than Sony/Nikon engineers.

I had the Canon film cams, the D60, the 400D, the 5D Mk1, the Mk2, and when I got the Mk3, I was so underwhelmed with image improvements, that I started reading up on the D800, and looking at Nikon for the first time in 21 years of DSLR ownership, of which the the last 5 are as a professional.

The shadows in the D800 are on another planet, and the highlights hold their fine detail way better.

The fantastic resolution comes without an ISO penalty, and add to that 2-3 stops wider DR, and it's not if the D800 beats the Mk3, but more, how on earth did Sony/Nikon manage to triple the D3s/D700 res, increase DR, and produce clean, non blotchy shadow details with no vertical banding or sensor patterns?

Those guys have performed miracles.

In the end I gave up caring and took the plunge, laid down $9500 and made the move. 6 shoots later, I'm more impressed than ever.

Today I was asked, for the first time in ages, to shoot 5/4. No problem on the D800.

Instead of having to guess the crop, as I would on my Mk2, or Mk3, I switched to 5/4 crop, which is still a 30 meg, 14 stop DR file.

I have the 1.2 crop, and the DX crop for sports or concerts, where reach becomes important and 15 meg DX mode is fine.

It's a very flexible and logical approach, rather than the Mk3's 22 meg, no crop, you get what's in the viewfinder approach.

We have digital flexibility, let's use it. sRaw is ok, but crops are where it's at.

It took a little while to adapt to Nikon's way of doing things, and as I do, the qualities of the camera improve. 

The anti clockwise mount was an odd one, and I'm getting used to the menu structure, and less than inspiring placement of the buttons.

And surprise of surprises, after thinking the rate button was useless beofre the Mk3 release, I ended up using it a lot between shoot setups to sort files for the 6 weeks I used the Mk3, and now on the Nikon, I really miss it.

My simplistic view is that Canon simply cannot develop a modern sensor, with a clean noise floor at 22 meg, let alone 36, and the lack f DR, by 2-3 stops is alarming for someone like Canon.

I waited 3.5 years for the Mk3, and barely saw much improvement, if you don't shoot at 3200 often. 

A great focus system and a few button changes are really all they seemed to add. But then nikon;s have had a great focus system for 3 years on the D3/D700, and I'm tired of pretending that they didn't.

I supported Canon, but I drew the line at fanboy talk. They simply under specced the Mk2 in the focus area and patter noise, then under specced the Mk3 in IQ.

And upon researching the Nikon system, it became obvious how old the Canon glass was becoming. I had no idea been a Canon man.

They key Nikon lenses I bought are all less than 3 years old in release, and there's no doubt, where I needed L on Canon (50mm 1.2, 85mm 1.2 etc) the $250 50mm 1.8G and $500 85mm 1.8G (don't need the 1.2, but need the optical quality) are superb lenses, far superior to Canon's non L 1.8 and 1.4, and pretty much on par with the L's for most usage.

The D800 has been used on 6 shoots now, and the following is something I wrote for friends a week ago on Facebook after only one.

I've been Canon for 20 years or so, but really, I don't care about logos. 

The D800 is the biggest leap forward in many a year. I simply don't think Canon even have the know how to beat it, or they prefer making cinema cameras, but for whatever reason, the D800 sensor has embarrassed Canon immensely imho. 

If the tech guys at Canon have looked at he D800 output, they must be feeling pretty low right about now.

I wrote the following, as I said, a week ago, but most still stands, and if anything, I'm more impressed now than I was then. 


My Facebook review from a week ago just for reference:

For anyone interested in my 5D Mk3 to D800 transition, I've just finished the first proper shoot with the D800.

The 24-70 F2.8 Nikon lens is so sharp you could cut yourself on it. Better than the Canon 24-70, but likely the same as the new Canon 24-70 ii.

The 50mm F1.8G is superb and just about the bargain of the photography world.

The D800 is not as ergonomic as the Mk3, which is a beautiful camera to use. The Nikon just doesn't 'feel' like an extension of your hands like the Mk3 does.

The image review zoom, colour rendition on the lcd screen, etc is pretty poor on the Nikon, while the Mk3 is superb.

Focus is good on the Nikon, but it can't compare to the Mk3's amazing ability to focus in almost blackness. They are a long way apart, and even more so on the non cross Nikon points, which is all of the side points, making me go back to focus and slide, which I'd stopped doing since getting the Mk3.

Custom white balance is better on the Nikon with tint options as well as colour temp.

For fun I let it do auto white balance and it seems better than the Canon, which can change from shot to shot, even when the camera hasn't moved, and nothings changed.

Again for fun I let it auto expose daylight scenes and it feels more consistent than the mk3.

Of course, for most of us, that stuff is neither there nor there, as we manual everything.

The lcd screen has a green tint, which Nikon is claiming is more accurate.

It's not, it's bloody horrible and doesn't match a calibrated screen or a print. It makes skin look ridiculous.

That's a major mess up I hope they put right in firmware.

Image quality? This is as good as it gets before Medium format, and really, it's closed the gap to MF significantly.

Certainly looks like a Pentax 645D, maybe not the 60 meg or 80 meg Phase one's but it's a major quality leap for DSLR's.

If they leap again like this in 3 years, MF will be dead in the water, and you'd really, really need MF now, to justify not going D800.

It's killed my MF desires for now.

Crop modes? Being 36 meg FF, it's like having a 7D built in, as you have 16 meg or so in cropped DX mode, if you need zoom reach, or are shooting products and want more DOF.

So a 200mm becomes a 300mm, and so forth.

Being able to shoot with a 50mm from waist to top of hair, then crop to the face, and still have 15-20 meg is something that makes the camera spectacularly flexible.

A 50mm in DX is 75mm, a 100mm is 150mm and so on, and of course you can just shoot in FX and crop later, leaving choices till later.

That flexibility becomes a very powerful tool if you use it.

ISO? People say the Mk3 and D800 are similar. They are if you scale the D800 from 36 meg to 22, which might be the fairest method.

At 1:1, the D800 has more noise, but it's not colour noise, and looks nicely film like, but in truth, by the time you've printed it, even at 20x30inch, I doubt if you'd see any noise in a print from a 3200-6400 D800 file, as it's just so fine.

Best cam? I think the Mk3 is the best all round camera out there. It can do anything, and is a jack of all trades, and master of some, but for me, and it's just me, it lacks in the specific areas I do 90% of my work.

Premium quality studio work? The D800 hands down.

IQ in highlights and shadows is simply unparallelled, but if you're shooting weddings, you likely won't care, as the ISO, focus, comfy 22 meg files, and spectacular focus system and ergonomics of the Mk3 make it a joy to use for that.

I don't shoot weddings, and I rarely go over 1600 ISO, so a lot of the excellent advantages the Mk3 has, I don't need.

The perfect 2012 camera would be:

D800 sensor.

Mk3 screen, ergonomics, focus system, hi ISO performance, video quality.

I have to say, I think the 50mm and 85mm F1.4 and F1.8 Nikon lenses kill the Canon's.

Canon need the sub $1000 lenses improving with new releases. The Nikon's push the Canon L's and cost a third of the L's.

The 70-200 F2.8's are the same on both systems, just amazing, and the 24-70 F2.8 are about the same ONCE Canon release the ii version.

Hope someone found this useful


----------



## odie (Jul 7, 2012)

I already have after selling the mark III + 35.4L and jumping over the D3S side. 

Although I still have a mark II and the 70-200IIL, my main body is the D3S with 35G, 85G and the 105DC. 

I am however not 100% happy with the change no matter how much better I think the lenses are etc simply because of one thing I just found out about... 

The HK Nikon Customer Services suck big time compared to Canon. 

To cut a long story short, I bought a brand new 85.4G and there was a speck of something inside so in it went to the repair dept... 2 weeks later the large speck had gone but it was replaced by 4 smaller specks and a smudge (seems like they wiped it with a dirty cloth or something) and it's spread over different lens elements! The CS didn't even see what I was trying to point out at the time too cos he was holding it up to a bright light source all the time with the light oversaturating the zillions of tiny specks of particles.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 7, 2012)

This is a nice post. The only reason I'm not switching is nikons primes lack any uniqueness in their rendering. 

I've shot primes all my life, from many different manufacturers from MF hasselblads, contax/zeiss, yashica, Minolta and of course canon. 

Nikons 24mm f1.4G took ages to be released and once it was. It was more expensive than canons offering. 

Nikons 50mm's has horrendous bokeh and no f/1.2 offering. 

Nikon doesn't make a modern 135mm f/2. It's DC version is horrible compared to the canon. 

Otherwise, sure I'd be with Nikon, but there primes lack character.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 7, 2012)

Dean said:


> I went Nikon D800 around 10 days ago. I bought the 24-70 F2.8, 70-200 F2.8 VRII, 85mm and 50mm 1.8G's.
> 
> ... snip ....
> Hope someone found this useful



A well written, objective post. 8) 8) 8)


----------



## hhelmbold (Jul 7, 2012)

I have thought many times of jumping ship. I have been waiting over 2 years for the new Canon flagship camera to be launched and when the 1D X was announced I was ecstatic! But this is also where all my doubts started... Delays upon delays just frustrated me and now the way Canon is handling the camera distribution is really annoying me and truth be told... I am not happy with Canon at the moment.

But I also know dumping a top brand you need something better to jump to and in this regard I have absolutely nowhere to go. Doesn't help jumping ship if you will just land in the water - you need something to jump to. The only way I will drop Canon at the moment is if I give up my photographic profession completely... and I have more of a passion for the art than I have a grudge against Canon


----------



## weekendshooter (Jul 8, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> This is a nice post. The only reason I'm not switching is nikons primes lack any uniqueness in their rendering.
> 
> I've shot primes all my life, from many different manufacturers from MF hasselblads, contax/zeiss, yashica, Minolta and of course canon.
> 
> ...



Not sure where you're getting the info about Nikon primes. The newer G primes blow Canon's mid-price offerings out of the water. I'm not made of money so I can't comment on the lack of a 50/1.2, but my 50/1.4G is much better than my old Canon 50/1.4, both in build quality and sharpness/bokeh below f/2. The 85/1.8G is mindblowingly good for the price; supremely sharp in the center straight from wide open, sharp across the frame by f/2.8, with very smooth bokeh and very fast AF. Canon does not have a portrait lens even remotely close in the $500 ballpark.

The fact that Nikon is updating their consumer primes without inflating the price is great news for non-professionals like myself. 

As for the "horrendous bokeh" of nikon's 50, I don't think these look to bad to me  http://500px.com/photo/8157866, http://500px.com/photo/8157779


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 8, 2012)

weekendshooter said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > This is a nice post. The only reason I'm not switching is nikons primes lack any uniqueness in their rendering.
> ...



Ok, Lets begin...

Canon 24L II - 1629$
Nikon 24G 1.4 - 1899$
Done.

Canons 1.4 and Nikons 1.4 50MM's have almost identical performance. Feel free to check it here.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=636&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

Here an example of the 50mm 1.2L stunning bokeh that looks awesome swirling around the subject. Nothing i've ever seen besides the leica 50mm's and MF 80mm's zeiss F/2.8

Canons 85mm 1.8 and canons 100mm F/2 both provide excellent performance wide open and have been around for ages with USM. All for Sub-500$ 8)

As for the Canon 135 F2L and the Nikkor 135mm f/2 DC, Feel free to see the stunning amount of CA's in the nikkor here and compare.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=646&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I Know my primes very well, and Like I said earlier, If the nikon primes were better, I'd be shooting Nikon.


----------



## dr croubie (Jul 8, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> I Know my primes very well, and Like I said earlier, If the nikon primes were better, I'd be shooting Nikon.



Depends what you shoot, of course.
How about compare the Nikkor 85/1.4 D to the Sigma 85/1.4, Zeiss Planar, and the EF 85/1.2L and Samyang 85/1.4.
And then take a look at Nikon's latest 85/1.4 G. Out of all of them, it's the one i'd pick (if I had a nikon camera, or a G-EF adapter, apparently they're available somewhere).


And how did this go from film to yet-another-5D3-vs-d800 thread?
Should I be buying a Mamiya 645 (with all its history and lens availability), or the Contax 645 (with its nice zeiss glass), or a Pentax 645 (with no interchangeable backs, one main reason i'm thinking of MF at all)?


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 8, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I Know my primes very well, and Like I said earlier, If the nikon primes were better, I'd be shooting Nikon.
> ...



I'd get the 85L personally, Its sharp wide-open and is the GOLDEN STANDARD in which every other 85mm is compared to and wishes it could be. 8) It comes back to my Original post of nikkors glass not having something unique to it.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=397&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=732&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The nikkor 85G would be a second choice if the 85L wasn't available. I cannot deny it is a cream machine.


----------



## weekendshooter (Jul 8, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> weekendshooter said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



The Canon 85/1.8 and 100/2 are outdated designs with flimsy build quality, straight aperture blades, "horrendous bokeh," and huge amounts of purple fringing. Likewise for the fragile, old 50/1.4. Nikon's 50/1.4G is built like a tank and handles considerably better than Canon's 1.4. I wouldn't shoot either of them at f/1.4, but my experience has been that the Nikon can be left at f/1.8 for center-focused shots, while the Canon should be stopped down further for acceptable contrast.

You've been comparing apples to oranges throughout this whole thread. I'm aware Nikon doesn't make a 50/1.2. I wouldn't buy one if they did; the bokeh in that picture looks terribly distracting and ruins the shot for me.

I'm not a professional photographer, but I do take pride in my hobby and I look for good value in my lenses. Canon does not offer anything worthwhile for me right now, as I am not in the market to spend $1500-2000 on each of my primes. The first two new sub-L primes in ages (24 and 28) are f/2.8 and extremely expensive for what they offer. For my money, I'd much rather buy Nikon's new primes, which are competitive on price with Canon's old midrange primes while featuring new designs and coatings.

I'm not looking to argue, just pointing out that we have different perspectives and that there is really something for everyone in each camp. If i could afford to get a set of 35/50/85/135L primes then I would be shooting Canon, but as it stands the Nikon G primes far exceed the performance of Canon's midrange lineup. I also noticed you pointed out that the Nikon 24G lens is priced higher than the Canon equivalent. You should consider that Canon is planning a $2300 24-70 and two $800 f/2.8 wide primes, along with a $3500 5D3. Nikon's 24-70 is $1800 and they just released a 28/1.8 for $700 to pair with a $3000 D800. I'm scared to think what will happen to prices when Canon decides to update the rest of their aging lineup.


----------



## Northstar (Jul 8, 2012)

weekendshooter said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > weekendshooter said:
> ...



You both make some good points...Three points I would add, just my opinion:

1. The new Nikon 85 1.8g is a much better lens compared to the canon 85 1.8 or 100 f2 for roughly the same money and focal length. The Nikon 1.8g is so good that if Canon had it/made it, it would make it seem silly to buy the 85L.

2. The 50's are very comparable at the sub $500 price range...the canon 50 1.2 isn't worth the extra money.

3. Canon clearly has Nikon beat starting at 135 and then again with the 200 2.8. Nikon has no good answer for these, especially when you consider their price, speed, and IQ.

4. For the money, (and I know I'm early in writing this) the Nikon 24-70 is already legendary and priced several hundred below the new canon 24-70 ii....we'll see soon, but I doubt the canon is any better.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 8, 2012)

weekendshooter said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > weekendshooter said:
> ...



I Loled when you mentioned canon using "Outdated Designs". Nikon still makes lenses that AF with a screw in the Body! How outdated are we again? 

Don't forget that nikon barely made their 85 1.8G while us canon prime users have had the just as good 85mm 1.8 and the even better performing 100mm F/2 since the 80's WITH USM! Check the tests here for yourself and heres a photo of the 100mm's superb creamy bokeh. The Nikon has terrible CA.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=118&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=791&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Back to 50mm's, Nikon and canon non-pro grade 1.4 lenses have the same build quality. Posh plastics with metal mounts but it took nikon ages to finally make a 50mm with Full time manual focus override. (AF-D series anyone?) While canon has had this for decades. 

The 50L has the best bokeh available in an 35mm SLR system from that focal length, Period. It's a lens that has character in which i've never seen in any of nikons 50mm's, which is the whole point. CHARACTER.

Canon has had a 28mm 1.8 for ages again and nikon finally released one a decade later that has full-time manual override. Its 300$ more expensive! Does it perform better? Maybe, but its alittle too late. 

The 24 & 28 2.8 IS primes cannot be compared to anything at the moment because frankly, There is nothing to compete against them from any manufacturer. First Wide-Angle IS primes ever.

The Canon 24-70II or Nikon version has no relevance to the subject of Primes. Bodies have no relevance either. I wrote my opinion on canon primes based on solid evidence, Fact's and first hand experience.

As for nikon blowing canons prime offerings out of the water, you are sadly mistaken.

D30 - 100mm F/2 @ F/2


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 8, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> As for nikon blowing canons prime offerings out of the water, you are sadly mistaken.



Can I just mention the TSEs and the 8-15L fisheye?


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 8, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > As for nikon blowing canons prime offerings out of the water, you are sadly mistaken.
> ...



+1 8)


----------



## Northstar (Jul 8, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> weekendshooter said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...


----------



## gary samples (Jul 8, 2012)

18000 k in white lens NO I have not !!


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 8, 2012)

Northstar said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > weekendshooter said:
> ...



99% of people don't even know what f/stop is, let alone tell the difference. When I look at my photos, I tell the difference. Thats what matters.

The discerning photographer will choose his lenses carefully on a particular look he/she wants. Some are willing pay more, some aren't willing to do so, nothing new. Name some 50mm F/1.2 lenses or faster that are or we're cheap when released? 

That's right, None, because these ultra-speed lenses develop character in there compromises in design to get such insane speeds.

The nikon 85mm 1.8G DOES NOT surpass the 100mm F/2 canon. NOT ONE BIT, and its a very old design. Why fix what ain't broke? Did you even look at the crops? Nikon barely caught up but still has tons of CA's.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=118&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=791&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 9, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> The nikon 85mm 1.8G DOES NOT surpass the 100mm F/2 canon. NOT ONE BIT, and its a very old design. Why fix what ain't broke? Did you even look at the crops? Nikon barely caught up but still has tons of CA's.



As a owner and user of the EF 100/2.0 I must say, that CA are really BAD on that lens. Not only wide open but quite visible all the way up to f/5.6. Especially purple fringing (loCAs). Of course, that will not show an black and white portraits of dogs. ;-) The bokeh is not bad, but suffers from cornered bokeh highlights due to non-rounded aperture blades. 

So, yes - the 100/2.0 is a very decent 1980's lens and I like it qquite a bit. I use it frequently for concerts, because it is very sharp, has very fast Ring-USM AF and is 1 stop faster and way more compact than the 70-200 2.8. But, it certainly is due for a Mark II makeover! Give it 9 nicely rounded aperture blades and super spectra (sub wvaelength) coating on front lens and rear lens and an IS ... but keep the price reasonable and it would be fit for the next 30 years! 

While I have not tried the Nikon 85/1.8 myself, looking at the specs and at sample pics from one of my Nikon pals ... it is superior to the 100/2.0. 

Here 3 samples with 7D and 100/2.0: first @f/2.2, second @ f/2.0 and last one @ f/3.5 (see octagonal bokeh highlights!).


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 9, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > The nikon 85mm 1.8G DOES NOT surpass the 100mm F/2 canon. NOT ONE BIT, and its a very old design. Why fix what ain't broke? Did you even look at the crops? Nikon barely caught up but still has tons of CA's.
> ...



I never said the 85mm 1.8G was a bad lens. All I said is that Nikon barely caught up and to claim that is vastly superior to either the Canon 85mm 1.8 or 100mm f/2 is non-sense. Especially as the canon alternatives are 100$ cheaper and they provide equal performance to the ALL NEW NIKON 85mm 1.8G!    Fancy!

As for black & white portraits not showing CA's, I had a beer and took a photo. I don't see any CA's at f/2.8, so I don't see this remark of CA's at F/5.6 being solid. If your shooting tree branches all day into the afternoon sun, show me a lens that doesn't show CA's. 

D30 - 100mm F/2 @ 2.8


----------



## canon816 (Jul 9, 2012)

Many of us have thought about it. But my investment in Canon glass makes it really tough to make the jump. Also, you won't really be gaining any advantage to jump to Nikon. Or from Nikon to Canon for that matter.

Both companies make excellent products that perform exceptionally well. 

If I were to be just getting into photography I would make the decision the same way I made it 5 years ago.... Which brand felt more ergonomic in my hand. The Canon seemed to fit like a glove and the Nikon just wasn't quite right. 

I get a kick out of the venom that is spit from one camp to the other... but the reality is... if you are in either canon or nikon... you made the right choice. ;D


----------



## Northstar (Jul 9, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



RL...after further consideration, I take back what I said about the nikon 1.8g being much better than the canon 85 1.8 and 100 f2...it's only minimally better IMO..and I'm mostly referring to the 85. I'm not trying to offend you and I offer my apologies, I realize now that the 100 f2 must be a favorite of yours, and you're right about it being a great lens. 

I shot with the nikon 85 1.8g on my d7000 earlier this year before my switch to the canon system. It was very sharp wide open and produced exceptional images. I reluctantly returned it(grace period) when I decided to switch systems. Here's a review of the lens on the d7000 at slr gear, note how sharp the lens is on a d7000 (maybe the reason for my strong opinion of it)

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1480/cat/12


----------



## tron (Jul 10, 2012)

I do like my Canon gear a lot. I realize that there is room for improvement but ... I am satisfied and used to it.

Also having about 15 lenses and ... 1 digital body (5DmkII) it would be funny to switch! (Actually I am not interested. I use Canon since 1988!)
However, I am an amateur. I can chose whatever I like! I would not judge someone if he/she wanted to switch.

I do not think though that Nikon would surpass my:
17TS-E L, 24TS-E L II, 35 1.4 L(this is just ordered actually!), 135 f/2L, 300 f/4L (non-IS) 70-200 f/4L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L II

On the other hand Canon price policy is outrageous. When a next version is being introduced instead of keeping the price almost the same or at least a little higher to cover for R&D they increase it A LOT! As a result the previous version lenses cannot be found at reasonable prices. So most probably the 35mm 1.4 L will not be followed by another lens for a long time... (especially a new long white one... )

I believe Canon probably deserves a lesson purely for pricing reasons. Now by saying pricing reasons I do not mean the 500$ difference in prices of 5DmkIII and D800. I have read once in this forum a member got a body and a Nikon 200-400 for a price much less than Canon would charge for the lens alone! I am talking that big!

Digital quality wise maybe Canon is lagging a little behind if we are to believe the tests. I do not own Nikon to compare but I believe the tests. However I wonder. A few years ago professionals used Canon and Nikon gear to produce excellent results. The fact that newer and better models are made does not negate the work that has been done up to now. It is still good and professional. 

So the tendency to always have the latest and greatest is half necessity and half ... desire (or maybe 100% desire?)


----------



## drummstikk (Jul 10, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> You say it's for simpletons. Partially true. But it's more for people without s*** tons of money to waste switching brands every generations. :



I was waiting for someone to say it. One sure way to tell the hobbyists from the people making a "living" from photography is to monitor how often a system switch occurs. If you are a dentist who birds on the weekend, you may just be with Canon the even-numbered years and Nikon the rest. If your actual livelihood is contracts with Universities, businesses, publications, and wire services, a system switch would cost about half of last year's profits, and thus ain't happening anytime soon. 

The only time I even think about Nikon is when I see a manual focus 400mm 2.8 go unsold on eBay for sub $2500.00. I'm old, and therefore manual focus has been second nature to me for decades. D3's are pretty reasonable on the used market now. The idea of kitting up with a 300mm 2.8, 400mm 2.8, (MF) and a couple of D3's for under 10K is pretty tempting. Well, except for the "re-learning to focus backwards again" part. (My last system switch was Nikon FM-2's to Canon EOS-1 in 1990, and it took 6 months for manual focus to get back to "auto.")


----------



## dr croubie (Jul 10, 2012)

drummstikk said:


> The only time I even think about Nikon is when I see a manual focus 400mm 2.8 go unsold on eBay for sub $2500.00. I'm old, and therefore manual focus has been second nature to me for decades. D3's are pretty reasonable on the used market now. The idea of kitting up with a 300mm 2.8, 400mm 2.8, (MF) and a couple of D3's for under 10K is pretty tempting. Well, except for the "re-learning to focus backwards again" part. (My last system switch was Nikon FM-2's to Canon EOS-1 in 1990, and it took 6 months for manual focus to get back to "auto.")



Well, you'll always have better luck sticking old Nikkor glass on a Canon Body than on the newest Digital Nikon bodies.
There's also FD lenses and Ed Mika's adapters (which let you infinity-focus on EOS bodies with no extra glass), they go very rarely on ebay but when they do i've seen FD 300/2.8 and 500/4 go for sub-$2k...


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 10, 2012)

drummstikk said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > You say it's for simpletons. Partially true. But it's more for people without s*** tons of money to waste switching brands every generations. :
> ...



As a hobbyist then I guess I break the rule as I have been with Canon over 20 years now.

As a full time worker for most of that time I couldn't spare the time to play at switching - if I was lucky I might get 1 day a week off and after 70+ hours of irregular working hours, to relax with something familiar was about as much as I wanted.

I dont see why people try to differentiate between pros and hobbyists


----------



## FunkyCamera (Jul 12, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> I never said the 85mm 1.8G was a bad lens. All I said is that Nikon barely caught up and to claim that is vastly superior to either the Canon 85mm 1.8 or 100mm f/2 is non-sense. Especially as the canon alternatives are 100$ cheaper and they provide equal performance to the ALL NEW NIKON 85mm 1.8G!    Fancy!
> 
> As for black & white portraits not showing CA's, I had a beer and took a photo. I don't see any CA's at f/2.8, so I don't see this remark of CA's at F/5.6 being solid. If your shooting tree branches all day into the afternoon sun, show me a lens that doesn't show CA's.
> 
> D30 - 100mm F/2 @ 2.8


Funny thing is, that beer bottle is optically better than the Nikon 85mm


----------



## vuilang (Jul 12, 2012)

for what i do.. Nikon D800 doesnt have ISO 25600 for video, or sRAW, mRAW... So, NO WAY


----------



## psolberg (Jul 13, 2012)

> I do not think though that Nikon would surpass my:
> 17TS-E L, 24TS-E L II, 35 1.4 L(this is just ordered actually!), 135 f/2L, 300 f/4L (non-IS) 70-200 f/4L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L II



having used both, I'll comment on it:
17TS nikon version is coming per the leaks and patents, but for now canon has the edge, although I prefer the 14-24 anyday over the 17TS personaly but that's because I really don't find 17mm anywhere near wide enough for anything I shoot.

24TS-E nikon has one, only it is older and doesn't do independant Tilt/shift axis configurations, but optically it is just as good. After my switch, I don't miss the canon. what can I say. 

351.4L nikon wins hands down. the canon is way old and way worse. I actually wouldn't use the canon because it was so bad compared to the 24L. 

135 f/2. Both suck. no really. Nikon has one with defocus control which produces superb bokeh. Much nicer than the L canon, but the canon has faster AF and less CA, but both lack VR. In terms of which one I'd get, it would be the sony Zeiss 135 f/1.8 which wipes the floor with both both optically and spec wise. I wish I had that instead.

300 f/4 non IS (the nikon version is superb) Unless you neede IS, it's a tie.

70-200 f/4. Nikon lacks it for now so definitively a win for canon. Although I'd never use that lens on any system as I prefer shallow DOF.

70-200 f/2.8II. The nikon version nearly identical performance wise with the canon have a slight edge and better MFD. But unlike something like the 17TS, or the fisheye zoom, there just isn't all that much practical difference.

The only canon glass I would consider worth sticking for it is the 65mm macro, the DO line, and the 800mm prime...but Nikon just announced theirs so it is down to very very little. Compare that to a decade ago when it wasn't even close. And all the better for having two systems to choose from means cheaper and better gear for everybody. I'm glad canon has been in a slide for the last decade losing share to nikon/sony because otherwise we'd be shooting 5DmkI's with ancient canon gear. 

Lenses I prefer on nikon:

14-24 f/2.8 (since canon lacks it, I compare it to the 14mm prime which gets spanked)
24 f/1.4
35 f/1.4
85 f/1.4 (better optically at 1.4 and beyond, cheaper lighter).
16-35 f/4 (it's no that but the canon 17-35 is way worse and lacks IS)

Lenses I found to not matter which one you have:
24-70 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8
50 f/1.4 vs f/1.2
24 PCE vs TS
45 PCE vs TS

Lenses I used to prefer on canon, or would consider as being unique enough to the system to have no equivalent in nikon land.

fisheye zoom. It is a useless feature to have zoom on it but the nikon fisheye is very old. 
65 macro (although with tubes that may be a different story but the canon is more convenient with its 5X magnification)
I'm not listing the 17TS because I honestly wouldn't care unless it was a 14mm TS. 



> The nikon 85mm 1.8G DOES NOT surpass the 100mm F/2 canon.



I don't know but thats a silly comparison. who cares really. Neither lens is really interesting. I could believe some would pick systems because of the 14-24, or 17TS. But for the 100 f/2. that's a joke. 



> Well, you'll always have better luck sticking old Nikkor glass on a Canon Body than on the newest Digital Nikon bodies.


When I switched I tried that. But I found modern nikon glass destroys the old nikkor glass without exception. So I don't know how what you say makes any sense. I guess if you didn't care about image quality that would be the case....I'll keep my newly aquired nano coated nikkors thanks.



> You say it's for simpletons. Partially true. But it's more for people without s*** tons of money to waste switching brands every generations.


switching brands is relatively painless these days if your gear is in good shape. 10 years ago it wasn't. this isn't wife swapping. Take it from somebody who did it.



> for what i do.. Nikon D800 doesnt have ISO 25600 for video, or sRAW, mRAW... So, NO WAY


that's right. the nikon isn't for low resolution shooters or people that want to shoot in very dark conditions. there are better cameras suited for that such as the D4 or 1DX. 



> Digital quality wise maybe Canon is lagging a little behind if we are to believe the tests. I do not own Nikon to compare but I believe the tests. However I wonder. A few years ago professionals used Canon and Nikon gear to produce excellent results. The fact that newer and better models are made does not negate the work that has been done up to now. It is still good and professional.


I switched because the nikon glass is just as good for all my needs, and Nikon's high resolution offerings suite my goals better. I couldn't care less if it was nikon or canon or sony that I had to purchase. If I'm going to spend so much money, it will be the system that fits me the best. I'd encourage everybody to do the same instead of suffering from stockholm syndrome...canon or nikon version. These are just tools.


----------



## tron (Jul 13, 2012)

psolberg said:


> having used both, I'll comment on it:
> I prefer the 14-24 anyday over the 17TS personaly but that's because I really don't find 17mm anywhere near wide enough for anything I shoot.


Of course if someone needs 14mm so be it but comparing 14-24 to 17TS-E is like comparing apples to oranges since if you need the TS functionality the 14mm zoom setting does not help.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 13, 2012)

changing from nikon to canon the lens I miss the most is the 50 f1.4G
canon has nothing that touches this lens, the 1.2L is massive and 4 time the price
the nikkor 1.4G is the same price as the ancient canon 1.4 and kicks its arse 

the other lens psolberg didnt mention which is unbelievably good is the nikkor 105 f2.8 Micro
it is build like a tank and I think its even better than the 100 f2.8L IS macro (which is a brilliant lens)

the 105 is an awesome portrait lens and wicked sharp its a bit wierd when you are actually shooting macro in that is adjusts the aperture value to the actual light so for very very close up stuff it will actually only hit a max aperture of say f4.5 due to the reduced light entering the lens. no big deal really

Nikon doesnt have APS-H either though


----------



## vuilang (Jul 13, 2012)

psolberg said:


> > I
> 
> 
> Find me an F1.2 Lens on Nikon then switching will be in slight consideration..


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 13, 2012)

psolberg said:


> I switched because the nikon glass is just as good for all my needs, and Nikon's high resolution offerings suite my goals better. I couldn't care less if it was nikon or canon or sony that I had to purchase. If I'm going to spend so much money, it will be the system that fits me the best. I'd encourage everybody to do the same instead of suffering from stockholm syndrome...canon or nikon version. These are just tools.



I just love the way that you elaborate when Nikon glass is better and dismiss the Canon offerings when they are better 8) 8) 8)


----------



## drummstikk (Jul 13, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> drummstikk said:
> 
> 
> > One sure way to tell the hobbyists from the people making a "living" from photography is to monitor how often a system switch occurs. If you are a dentist who birds on the weekend, you may just be with Canon the even-numbered years and Nikon the rest. If your actual livelihood is contracts with Universities, businesses, publications, and wire services, a system switch would cost about half of last year's profits, and thus ain't happening anytime soon.
> ...



I didn't mean to differentiate. Nor did I intend to suggest pros have more "soul" than those who photograph for the love of it. (if anything, the opposite may well be true.)

What I meant to comment on is the increasingly common phenomenon where the best equipped photographer on the scene is an amateur. I'll be on a job with my 7d and my 5D mark nothing and my 70-200 IS mark nothing and my other 4-plus year old lenses, and up walks a guy with a 1d markIV and a 5D mark III 70-200 IS II and a 2 or 3 L fixed lenses and maybe a big white. Is this new competition I need to worry about? Usually not. It's most likely a tax attorney with a fat line on his visa card who, while very nicely equipped, is just out having some fun. He or she might get some great pictures, but due to lack of depth in experience, would most likely leave substantial gaps in the coverage my client needs. 

One photographer I see doing volunteer work at the annual Komen for the cure event has been from Nikon to Canon back to Nikon on three consecutive years. That's something you will almost never see a working photographer do, only hobbyists with six-figure jobs or rich spouses. On a job you need the kind of "do it with your eyes closed" familiarity with equipment that will simply not develop if you switch systems often. I'd have to justify a system switch to my accountant, and perhaps more importantly, to my wife. Mostly I can't even justify it to myself. (And believe me, back when the D3 was new and I compared images from it to what I was getting with my 40D, I *really* tried.)

Plus, not to burst any bubbles out there, but except for a very small minority of photographers who not only have exceptional photo skills AND great talent for marketing and self-promotion (that's what I suck at), photography is simply not lucrative enough to support a system switch more than once a decade at most. 

If I sound like I'm bitching, I'm not. I make most of my income doing what I love. But, as I write this, I'm on my lunch break from the third shift custodian job I do to earn health insurance and supplemental income. That's my reality and I'm OK with it.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 13, 2012)

psolberg said:


> > I do not think though that Nikon would surpass my:
> > 17TS-E L, 24TS-E L II, 35 1.4 L(this is just ordered actually!), 135 f/2L, 300 f/4L (non-IS) 70-200 f/4L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L II
> 
> 
> ...



I lost all respect for this post when you mentioned "135mm F/2L Sucks".


----------



## Northstar (Jul 13, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > > I do not think though that Nikon would surpass my:
> ...



RL...totally agree with you on this one.

psolberg...regarding the 135 - nearly EVERYONE thinks highly of this lens. To say that it "sucks" is simply crazy.

i think i'll pour a little gas on this particular fire....quote from a famous review guy: (wink)

"The Canon 135mm f/2 L is extraordinarily good optically". "Don't take my word for it, ask anyone else who owns this lens and he'll tell you it's one of Canon's best lenses of all time. Great lenses like this are why so many people shoot Canon cameras; Nikon simply has nothing that competes with this"


----------



## tron (Jul 14, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> I lost all respect for this post when you mentioned "135mm F/2L Sucks".



+1: The Canon 135mm f/2L is superb


----------



## julescar (Jul 14, 2012)

I own a dozen Canon/Nikon/Sigma/Zeiss lenses, a great many of them primes and without any doubt the 135 f/2L is perfect, my favourite glass,
The contrast/sharpness and colour i get from it is flawless even wide open.


----------



## KevinB (Jul 14, 2012)

I did I bought Canon !!


----------



## infared (Jul 14, 2012)

WOW! I cannot believe the 10 pages of drama.
If the image is well composed, well lit, technically solid and post processed well...it REALLY doesn't matter which system you use (5D or D800)...except the one that your feel the most connected too. 99.9% of the viewers will not care either. 
TRULY. (I sleep quite well, thank you).


----------



## Richard8971 (Jul 14, 2012)

Never. By saying that, I mean that I will never, ever, buy, shoot with or even be seen with a Nikon product.

Does that mean I think they make an inferior product? No. I just don't happen to agree with the way they make/program their cameras!

I happen to know of a woman who used Nikon exclusively. She was using the D3100 and bought an external flash and it WOULD NOT "HIGH SPEED" sync with her camera!!!

See http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=36083355

Go figure, to enable "high speed sync" (over 1/250s, or abouts, with certain NIKONS!) you HAVE to HAVE a higher-end Nikon!!! (or certain semi-pro bodies) Not to mention that enabling the feature in Nikon is a complected menu process that changes from camera to camera. She ended up having to buy the D7000 to use "high speed" sync with her new flash. (DOH!) Needless to say, she was plenty pissed. 

ALL of my external flashes (yes I own more than one, some old, some new) work with EVERY SINGLE Canon body I own and it is with a push of a single button that I enable "sigh speed sync" with the flash and it works with my lowly XT to my 5D2!!!  (1/4000 ~ 1/8000)

You can keep your Nikons... really. Keep em!

D


----------



## kdsand (Jul 14, 2012)

"Humm" and I was thinking my A.D.D. was bad.


----------



## Richard8971 (Jul 14, 2012)

infared said:


> WOW! I cannot believe the 10 pages of drama.
> 
> (I sleep quite well, thank you).



Stay asleep.  (J/K)

The issues I have with Nikon (see my post before this one) can only be addressed if Nikon makes a serious marketing/body progamming change. Will it happen? Who knows...

D


----------



## D_Rochat (Jul 14, 2012)

I'd be happy to switch sides if Nikon decides to pay for my gear from here on out.


----------



## Richard8971 (Jul 14, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> I'd be happy to switch sides if Nikon decides to pay for my gear from here on out.



Yeah, maybe, um no. 

D


----------



## And-Rew (Jul 14, 2012)

Nothing like a morning wake up to a read designed to create controversy 

Both sides of the fence have good and bad points, lenses or features the other wants.
I've looked at the Nikon stuff a few times whilst in the shops - but I just don't get on with the lay out of the equipment on the bodies.

Nikon does have the one thing i would like - the 14-24 lens. I do love the options this lens provides in picture creation, but one lens is not enough to justify a swap.

That said, i am busy selling a whole load of kit because i realised i had become guilty of buying too much at once. Once i've finished selling all the kit, i will stick with a single 5D3, 50mm f1.2 L and 430 EXII flash for a while.

As has been said on more than one occasion, knowing how to use your kit is much more important than owning all of Canon's catalogue and not knowing how to use it!

Nikon? Most of my friends shoot with Nikon - but most were envious of my 5D2 and 24-105 f4 L!


----------



## underjammer (Jul 14, 2012)

Interestingly, I was just considering joining yesterday.. : D

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-P-22-2-7x32-Matte-BDC150/dp/B006YVT1JU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342301665&sr=8-1&keywords=nikon+p22+2-7x32


----------



## odie (Jul 21, 2012)

Arrrrghggh!!!!! ...continuing from my last post about joining the dark side and realising that the Nikon Services is a bunch of shambles, I finally got my lens back. 

Short story:

Lens has a speck of something inside (there since purchase I think 2 weeks ago) and took it to clean
Initially they wanted to charge me HK$500 for it but got it down to $0 after a long argument. 
2 weeks down the line I was told it's fixed but they managed to introduce 100 more inside after close inspection so back it went. 

2 weeks later (yesterday) I got another call and this time the lens is totally clean... YAHEY!! 

Today I took it out for a photoshoot and then..... the dreaded grinding sound appeared from nowhere. It sounded as if there was grit on the focus ring between the barrel or something? or more like gears clicking on rotation!!!! 

This cannot be normal right? How can a company as big as this not check the lens (twice) after servicing? it's not a 50.8... it cost me over HK$12000!!! I dread what to think if I take it in again tomorrow. Maybe the next time I'll get it back without the nanocoating or a missing lens element. 

DO NOT GO OVER TO THE DARK SIDE!!! I'll switch back when the 1DX is in abundance.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Jul 21, 2012)

And-Rew said:


> Nothing like a morning wake up to a read designed to create controversy
> 
> Both sides of the fence have good and bad points, lenses or features the other wants.
> I've looked at the Nikon stuff a few times whilst in the shops - but I just don't get on with the lay out of the equipment on the bodies.
> ...



Good for you! There is something to be said for having a small kit and really knowing each flocal length and each F stop so well that you see your equipment in your sleep. Now to respond: Yes the 14-24 is quite a lens. I shoot Canon and Nikon and with a Novoflex adapter I can easily use the 14-24 on a Canon as well as my Nikon D800E as long as I don't need autofocus. I'm mostly a landscape photographer so this switch works for me. However the resolution jump means that my Canon sits out when I want to use the 14-24. I do bring it out when I use the 17 and 24 tse lenes from Canon with their dual axis control. I'm trying to warm up to the Nikon 24 pc-e but it just doesn't hold up to the mark II version of the 24tse Canon. I still want a Canon 40mp camera body or for Nikon to make a 24 (a 20 or 22 would be better) mark II version pc-e with dual axis without having to send the lens back to Nikon for them to take it apart and put shift and tilt on the same axis. 

I don't know what your Nikon friends have to shoot with but if they have the D800 or the D800E with the 24-120 there should be no reason for any envious feeling. Both are F4 lens and the real world testing that I've done shows to me that they are very similar (except that Nikon goes just alittle further).


----------



## 7enderbender (Jul 22, 2012)

Have used Canon since I was a kid. The stuff is good enough and I'm used to the conventions. If my dad had had Nikon instead it might be different.

If money was no object I'd very likely have Leica and Canon gear. I'd probably be carrying around an M9 with a fast 50mm lens 90% of the time. And I don't think that qualifies as the dark side. So, no - no dark side for me.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Jul 22, 2012)

imo, both canon and nikon are good brands and they both produce good images. however, i only switch brand as if i have to such as if i have to; otherwise, prefer to keep the same brand... (note: for point and shoot, i rather buy canon than nikon...)


----------



## Aglet (Jul 22, 2012)

I need to do some head-to-head shooting with my 5D2 and D800 but from the disparate shots I've already done the D800 at low ISO totally kicks the 5D2 into the woods. The more I review 5D2 images the more its shadow banding noise flaws show up.
I recently shot a bunch of family portraits for a friend, using the 5D2.
outdoors, cloudy day, flash fill; 3 people wore pants of varying shades of dark gray.

When prepping the files for print it was grossly obvious ON SCREEN how much banding there was visible on the darkest clothing with a lesser degree visible on the next lighter shade. Everything else looked fabulous. Fortunately, at the small sizes they wanted printed they won't see the noise on those dark gray pants. But it would be obvious if it was a 20x30" print.

When I shoot scenes with even much greater DR, I can pull far more shadow detail from the D800's raw file without any concern for pattern noise, or any real noise at all at low ISO settings!

I'm sold, the Nik's a worthy addition to my collection. I'll use it whenever I need to record scenes that have anything dark in them. The DARK side indeed!


----------



## PhotoCat (Jul 22, 2012)

Aglet said:


> I need to do some head-to-head shooting with my 5D2 and D800 but from the disparate shots I've already done the D800 at low ISO totally kicks the 5D2 into the woods. The more I review 5D2 images the more its shadow banding noise flaws show up.
> I recently shot a bunch of family portraits for a friend, using the 5D2.
> outdoors, cloudy day, flash fill; 3 people wore pants of varying shades of dark gray.
> 
> ...



Same experience here with 5D2 with raw capture  It is just a "normal" shoot of a model in black dress outdoor at ISO100.
The red colour noise is so visible on the black dress without noise reduction! Had to dialup NR in LR so much that some detail of the dress is lost to completely remove the color noise... Sigh... if Canon can't do it at ISO100, forget about those ISO800 shots!
It is such a basic requirement!


----------



## Aglet (Jul 23, 2012)

PhotoCat said:


> Same experience here with 5D2 with raw capture  It is just a "normal" shoot of a model in black dress outdoor at ISO100.
> The red colour noise is so visible on the black dress without noise reduction! Had to dialup NR in LR so much that some detail of the dress is lost to completely remove the color noise... Sigh... if Canon can't do it at ISO100, forget about those ISO800 shots!
> It is such a basic requirement!



When I first got my 5D2 I was so excited to finally play with what everyone was raving about.
:-\ I was not impressed from the first shot. 

Raw noise levels were worse than my 40D and I had visible banding right smack in the MIDtones at low ISO! That was with the earlier firmware, 1.something, a version or 2 after they fixed the black-dot issue.
I should have sent the camera back but instead I parked it for about a year until, finally, later firmware versions mitigated the midtone banding and the camera was at least usable. If the shot didn't contain anything really dark the results really were actually impressive at that point and I used it for a lot of landscape and some low-light indoor event shooting. It was a pretty decent performer in its early days but it certainly left me disappointed in many ways.

Today I was out on a short hike and took only one camera; a D5100 and a few lenses, tripod and small white reflector to use when doing some close-up and macro shots on wildflowers and similar. I almost took the D800 as well but decided to try travel light and I really didn't think I'd need the extra rez. Mostly used a 105mm macro and mounted the cheapo 55-200mm kit zoom a couple shots where I needed some extra reach.
I could have just as easily taken a Canon Rebel, 100mm macro and something like their 55-2X0 lens or even their fairly good 18-200mm superzoom. But I now know better.
Since it was a bright sunny day and I was going to be shooting in the open and possibly in the wooded areas with a mix of sunlight and deep shadow there was no way I was going to use a camera that could not handle the dynamics of such a scene. The Canons stayed at home and the new puppy came along for the walk. 
It performed admirably and obediently and I took 132 shots with raw files I can tweak as much as I'd like without any worry of pattern noise showing up to ruin the effect and I don't have to worry about using any NR and risk losing some detail. 
That's what I want from a camera and I found some that can finally deliver.
It's just too bad I had to alter my mfr allegiance to do so.


----------



## peederj (Jul 23, 2012)

I don't know if Sony is considered The Dark Side along with Nikon, but I ordered an RX100. My first non-Canon in over 10 years.

Canon is not in a good way right now. My 5D3 makes me happy enough, but it could have been a lot more video-wise. I went to Sony for 1080p/60fps which Canon simply could not manage to provide me at any price.

#Fail.


----------



## MARKOE PHOTOE (Aug 2, 2012)

I'm surprised anyone would do this given the change in design and leadership roles in the past 5 year, or even the past 5 minutes. What happens when Canon introduces the 'super' high res DSLR that simply blows away the others? Sell the 'others' and return to Canon?

We are all gear heads to some degree but gear is secondary to design, controlling the light and your artistic ability. Look at what the masters have done in the past with limited technology.

Wish you all the best. Gee, what Canon glass you have up for sale?


----------



## canon816 (Aug 3, 2012)

MARKOE PHOTOE said:


> I'm surprised anyone would do this given the change in design and leadership roles in the past 5 year, or even the past 5 minutes. What happens when Canon introduces the 'super' high res DSLR that simply blows away the others? Sell the 'others' and return to Canon?
> 
> We are all gear heads to some degree but gear is secondary to design, controlling the light and your artistic ability. Look at what the masters have done in the past with limited technology.
> 
> Wish you all the best. Gee, what Canon glass you have up for sale?



Agreed. Honestly, you can't go wrong with any of the top brands of DSLR's. They all have the capacity to make magnificent images. It's nice when the tools have all the bells and whistles... but specs don't take great images...


----------



## akiskev (Aug 3, 2012)

Aglet said:


> When I first got my 5D2 I was so excited to finally play with what everyone was raving about.
> :-\ I was not impressed from the first shot.
> 
> Raw noise levels were worse than my 40D and I had visible banding right smack in the MIDtones at low ISO!


QFT. not.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 3, 2012)

canon816 said:


> Agreed. Honestly, you can't go wrong with any of the top brands of DSLR's. They all have the capacity to make magnificent images. It's nice when the tools have all the bells and whistles... but specs don't take great images...



some more than others
_specs_ define the limits of what you can do with the captured image and some of us can tell you, after shooting other systems, Canon's images are a bit more limiting in post. We're not talkin' snapshots here. And you can't always_ control the light_.


----------



## hhelmbold (Aug 14, 2012)

As mentioned before it has crossed my mind and it is not because I think the dark side is better, but I think Canon is losing the plot in terms of getting their products out to the clients.

But to change the topic a BIT... Would you advise someone else to rather join the dark side looking at the entry level DSLR cameras and current availability?


----------



## Aglet (Aug 14, 2012)

hhelmbold said:


> But to change the topic a BIT... Would you advise someone else to rather join the dark side looking at the entry level DSLR cameras and current availability?



I used to recommend Canon entry level DSLRs without hesitation for newbies.
Now I have to temper that with, "What kind of shooting will you be doing?" Because the D5100 and now the D3200 can fit slightly more advanced novices who intend to do some post-processing and will have some appreciation for the cleaner raw files from the sonikon bodies.

Canon's Rebels are, of course, still a good choice too. but anyone aspiring to grow beyond this as a first camera has a bit more to think about now. it's good to have options, confusing tho it can be.


----------



## hhelmbold (Aug 15, 2012)

Aglet said:


> I used to recommend Canon entry level DSLRs without hesitation for newbies.
> Now I have to temper that with, "What kind of shooting will you be doing?" Because the D5100 and now the D3200 can fit slightly more advanced novices who intend to do some post-processing and will have some appreciation for the cleaner raw files from the sonikon bodies.
> 
> Canon's Rebels are, of course, still a good choice too. but anyone aspiring to grow beyond this as a first camera has a bit more to think about now. it's good to have options, confusing tho it can be.



This is exactly my feeling and deliberately just threw out the question without my opinion to see if others are feeling the same  I think Canon has quite a gap to fill in some areas


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Aug 25, 2012)

Stu_bert said:


> What worries me more about Canon currently is their apparent shift to charging more for equipment,


I shifted from the dark side in 2009 ... but I still had my Nikon D80 and a 4 lenses till last month.
What people don't realize is that Nikkor glass costs a lot more than the equivalent Canon glass e.g. Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 = $1886 vs Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 = $1400.
Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS costs $1060 vs Nikon's 17-55 f/2.8 (NO VR/IS) costs $1400
So whatever one thinks they saved / lost in buying camera or lenses will soon realize that "Dark side" or the "Light side" they both work out the same (in terms of price). I've always liked Nikon & Canon cameras and lenses ... if I had enough money I would buy D800e (plus some good FX glass) and still use my 5D MK III as well as the D800e.


----------

