# Switching to Full Frame



## grey4 (Nov 23, 2014)

Ok, so I've been shooting a 7D since May of 2012, and it's come to the point where I'm ready to upgrade my camera. I've been shooting semi professionally and am looking to shoot full time by next summer. 

I currently have a 7D, 10-22, 28 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8, and 24-70 f/2.8 L mk. 1. 

I do not like the 24-70. The sharpness, AF speed and light transmission at 70mm is simply not the quality of a 1,000 dollar lens. 

With a Full Frame jump I will also be getting rid of the 10-22. 

So this leaves me with about 700 bucks worth of canon glass. 

I'm looking to upgrade the 7d - the 6d is not an upgrade in terms of AF points, AF speed, Buffer depth - the only logical step up is the 5d mk. III. 

However, the Nikon D750 sells at 1,000$ cheaper than the 5d mk. iii - Same AF points - similar AF speed - Better ISO performance and DR - just looking at the samples i've seen online. The D750 is 2 years newer, it's going to be better. 

Basically, for you 5d iii shooters - is there anything in the 5d iii that makes it 1,000 dollars better than the d750? 

Why should I stay with Canon / not switch to Nikon?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 24, 2014)

Key Questions:

You make what types of photography?
Low light?
Fast moving objects?
Paper prints larger than 1 meter?
know the Nikon lenses that could replace your current?


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Nov 24, 2014)

I like the intuitive interface. That was what made me change my plans of buying a Nikon d800 to buying a Canon 5d3.

Other than that, hopefully there are people here who have used both.

I'm happy with my 5D3. If I had to do it all over again, and I knew what I know now about Canon's business model (teeny tiny improvements released years and years apart), I MIGHT have gone with the Nikon.... BUT that's just a "MIGHT" (read: I'm not really sure, I'd have to really think about it because my Canon is 100% reliable - and it just feels like a camera that will work until the day the shutter mechanism dies from overuse).


----------



## Photoman101 (Nov 24, 2014)

grey4 said:


> I do not like the 24-70. The sharpness, AF speed and light transmission at 70mm is simply not the quality of a 1,000 dollar lens.



Less the switch to Nikon, I was where you are currently, give or take. Had (have) the 7D and the 24-70. Was never really happy with this combo or the focus. I would dial in the lens at 24 and 70 would be out, or vise versa. Dialing in at the mid-point didn't really help either.

As I have a complement of other lenses, had plans to sell the 24-70 to help finance my 5D3. In hindsight, sure glad that I didn't.

Two comments -- the 24-70 hardly ever leaves my 5D3 as the focal length just works for me. Also, unlike the 7D, the AFMA on the 5D3 is capable of dialing in the wide and tele ends of the zoom lens range. This feature alone saved my sanity with the 24-70, and to this day has kept it in my bag.

You have a bit of overlap with your primes, so your decision may be different regarding the 24-70. With regard to going full frame -- you will not be disappointed from an image quality or low noise standpoint.

Switching from Canon to Nikon -- I have way too much invested in glass and regardless, have never seen the need.

Good luck!


----------



## danski0224 (Nov 24, 2014)

On a bit of a tangent, the 1DIV seems to be selling for less than a new 5DIII...

Does Nikon have the lenses you want to use?


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Nov 24, 2014)

Quick Answer: Canon's Lens Lineup is 2nd to NONE.

That decides it for most without any other questions.

However, without knowing more... You are 'semi-pro' now and plan to be 'pro' in 6-9 months? If that's the case, why not have 2 bodies? Why not keep the 7D and add another Canon body that shares lenses? OR, sell almost everything (maybe keep the 28 and 85 primes) and get a 7D2 that is very well reviewed and also a 5D3 which is also very well reviewed? Then get a 24-70 v2 + 70-200 v2. Buy the bags, insurance, flashes, memory cards and computer/software necessary to be a 'pro'.

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to mock your post. But since you don't say what you shoot or how, no one here can effectively answer the question. So I answered with a general purpose answer that makes sense for ANY pro. With a 7D2 and 5D3, you can shoot weddings, sports, candid, journalism, etc. And many pros have sold many of their primes in favor of the convenience and equivalent IQ of the two lenses I mentioned. And either of those bodies stand well on their own as a single body. (I'd go with the 5D3 as a single body first though.)

Hope that helps.


----------



## candc (Nov 24, 2014)

i would go for the 1div. i checked the product literature and

"The Canon EOS 16.1 MP camera is a professional portable body only and is created for people who want to experiment with photography. Be the envy of your friends with this Canon EOS 1D Mark IV digital camera and its stylish black body"

sounds pretty damn good!


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 24, 2014)

Try out the D750. You don't have any specific Canon lens that you must stick with, both the f/1.8 primes have excellent Nikon equivalents, and the Nikon standard zoom is well regarded. So if it is not an interface issue (which it was for me when I bought my first dSLR, in spite of my learning SLR photography on a Nikon FM10), then you should jump ship, by all means.
Having said that, I don't know where you are located, but if you shop around then you can get a 5DIII for about $ 300 more than a D750 at this time. Is it still worth paying more for an older camera? Only you can decide.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Nov 24, 2014)

grey4 said:


> I currently have a 7D, 10-22, 28 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8, and 24-70 f/2.8 L mk. 1.
> I do not like the 24-70. The sharpness, AF speed and light transmission at 70mm is simply not the quality of a 1,000 dollar lens. the only logical step up is the 5d mk. III.
> Basically, for you 5d iii shooters - is there anything in the 5d iii that makes it 1,000 dollars better than the d750?
> 
> Why should I stay with Canon / not switch to Nikon?


The only thing I Can tell you is that both Canon and Nikon deliver excellent cameras. I chose Canon because I wass referred by a friend and started to build my lens line-up and now I have spent some $k in lenses and equipment.
Nikon FF cameras are reported to deliver better DR, higher MP and better (less) noise at high ISO settings.
On the other hand, Canon has generally more diverse and larger lens line-up and several of them are better that Nikon counterparts, except with few lenses where Nikon really shines. 
I have the 24-70L Mark 1 and was also planning to sell it when I sold my 7D but, I cannot be happier I didn't do it. This lens in my Canon 5D3 offers way better results than those on my 7D and stay on my 5D3 much more time. When I need a do-it-all lens I don't hesitate to take it. I know the Mark 2 is much better but for the price and for what I do it is difficult to justify, as I am just a hobbyist. 
Price for the 5d3 has dropped substantially and can be found around for $2,5K which is not much above the price for the D750.
At the end, it is your decision. The only thing I can tell you is that I am very happy with my 5D3. No regrets at all.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 24, 2014)

grey4 said:


> I do not like the 24-70. The sharpness, AF speed and light transmission at 70mm is simply not the quality of a 1,000 dollar lens.



If you're prone to this kind of value calculation, I see you not being a very happy Canon camper. Btw the 24-70L1 isn't meant to be used as a crop lens.



grey4 said:


> Why should I stay with Canon / not switch to Nikon?



Given the situation of not being able to buy Canon's very best gear and when you're in the process of exchanging lenses anyway: I probably wouldn't.

Unless you can really make use of Canon's excellent lens lineup, i.e. spend $10000+, the d750 is a newer camera than the 5d3 with a better sensor. You can use 3rd party lenses and flashes with both systems, so one question is if there's any Canon lens the Nikon system doesn't have. The other question is if you want to use Magic Lantern (raw video). With the switch to Nikon, you have to be ok with changed ergnonomics though.


----------



## sweebee (Nov 24, 2014)

I think its stupid to switch to Nikon. Are you really gonna take better pictures with Nikon? I don't think so.

If your a Nikon user, stay with Nikon. If your a Canon user, stay with Canon.

Don't switch because of the sensors. If you switch because of the lenses (because Canon/Nikon don't simply have the lenses you need), yes than you can switch.


----------



## Sportsgal501 (Nov 24, 2014)

What has Canon done for you lately? 
If you feel that you've outgrown your Canon don't only look at Nikon but check out Sony as well.


----------



## allanP (Nov 24, 2014)

grey4 said:


> Why should I stay with Canon / not switch to Nikon?



I dont'n know, why switch to Nikon...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Vz94bdlVVlc

and hier form "Nikon's" point of view

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgbYM-s-2qY&spfreload=10


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 24, 2014)

sweebee said:


> I think its stupid to switch to Nikon.



Reading something like this really makes you wonder why discussions tend to get heated around here ...



sweebee said:


> Don't switch because of the sensors. If you switch because of the lenses (because Canon/Nikon don't simply have the lenses you need), yes than you can switch.



Do switch because of the future outlook though. Nikon is pursuing a more aggressive pricing policy, and their features vs. price ("value") tends to be better nowadays. If you have the opportunity now and about to exchange lenses anyway, the newer d750 seems to be a very competitive vs. the older 5d3.

Canon has Magic Lantern, but unless you want/need that most 3rd party flashes and lenses are available for the major systems - and there is a growing amount of excellent off-brand gear from Tamron, Sigma, ...


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 24, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Quick Answer: Canon's Lens Lineup is 2nd to NONE.



Depends. Canon has an excellent line-up of "full-frame" zoom lenses. The "full-frame" primes are for the most part overkill and for the balance rather mediocre, e.g. the 50mm f/1.2 lens is both. The "EF-S" line-up, well, plainly sucks. And the "EF-M" range is stalled at, what, three lenses?



grey4 said:


> Ok, so I've been shooting a 7D since May of 2012, and it's come to the point where I'm ready to upgrade my camera. I've been shooting semi professionally and am looking to shoot full time by next summer.
> 
> I currently have a 7D, 10-22, 28 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8, and 24-70 f/2.8 L mk. 1.
> 
> ...



Also look at FUJIFILM, Panasonic and Olympus. "Full-frame" isn't the everything of photography anymore ...


----------



## allanP (Nov 24, 2014)

It is always the same with the C & N - up and down. 
Sometimes is one a step ahead, sometimes another.
Both are close to each other.
Changes caused only cost, but does not improve Your images


----------



## Arctic Photo (Nov 24, 2014)

Seems to me you've made up your mind so it would be better for you to switch.

I have a 5D MkIII and a set of L-lenses and som other stuff, I have nothing to complain about. But if you feel you will take better pictures with the Nikon, then go ahead. It will be better for you.


----------



## symmar22 (Nov 24, 2014)

Agreed, the D750 offers more for the money than the 5D3. Though IMO the built quality is likely slightly better with the 5D3. Both Canon an Nikon are the main pro camera brands for small format. Both are fine, but you should not decide on the price of a body only. If you go full pro, you lens range will be the most important investment, the one that lasts. 

The 24-70 v1 is indeed a very disappointing lens, but the v2 is a huge improvement, and much better than the Nikon equivalent. I am not saying you should not buy Nikon, it's an excellent brand and I worked with them until I switched to Canon with the 5D2. 

If you go full time pro, you should first consider the brand that offers the lens range that will suit your needs, and then choose a camera.

If you like primes, the Nikon recent range of f1.8 lenses, offer a lot for the money. As a pro, the most expensive is not always the best, it's a tool to make money, not a toy to parade in society.

Nowadays days it's clear the Canon sensors are behind the concurrence, and no one knows if they will catch up. But their lens range is for me the most important, since they have the best TS-E lenses. I wish however, I could replace my ageing 5D2s and the 5D3 is no improvement for my style of photography, so I am a bit stuck as well.

Finally, one important consideration is ergonomics. Most pros are very conservative with their equipment, since when it took years to use your gear instinctively, it is sometimes difficult to switch to another brand. Sometimes I still manual focus the lens the wrong way, since I used Nikons for 20 years, Canon for only 7 years. that's the kind of important detail when you actually work.

In the end, the switch is of course possible, cameras are only tools, and you should use the ones you want. Brands are just brands, not religions. But in any case I would highly advise that you rent or borrow a Nikon for a while, to see if you like the ergonomics, and plan your lens range carefully.


----------



## tayassu (Nov 24, 2014)

The AF of the 5DIII is way ahead of the D750.
I, personally like the handling of Canon's SLR's (including the 5DIII) much better than the Nikon one.
The 5DIII is way more rugged, robust and targeted at pros.
The IQ difference should be marginal, unless you care about DR and nothing else; I have used RAW files from this camera and they are absolutely amazing.
With the Nikon you get small accessoires like a tilty-flippy-screen or a built-in flash, which I do not consider to be very important. 
But with the Canon you buy into an incredible lens system! The Nikkor 24-70 is not much better than the Canon version I, the 70-200/2.8 suffers from huge focus breathing and their supertele lineup is as outdated as their 1.4 primes. 
I'd go with the Canon.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 24, 2014)

You might want to rent one or more Nikon cameras and see if it offers something that is a benefit to your individual style of photography.

It is not a question of which system is the best, but which system is best for you. Only you can make that determination. It is great to review other people's opinions... Photgraphers are great at sharing their opinions. 

But in the end, you are an individual photographer with an individual style. If you are considering switching systems, you might want to consider systems other than Canikkon. There is more to photography then Canon and Nikon so don't automatically limit your options to only one of those two. 

You might also want to relook at your decision to move to Full Frame. With the crop cameras getting really good these days, the decision to go crop or FF is not as evident as it used to be. Sure all the cool kids shoot full frame, but is full frame really a benefit to your individual style of photography?

You are in a really good situation. You have the ability to choose your new system with little legacy costs. Don't make this decision too quickly. Once you start rebuilding your lens kit, it makes it harder to switch in the future. 

Take your time and look at ALL of the options. Pentax, Sony, Samsung..... and Canon/Nikon. Find the camera that is right for you. Not one that is right for someone else.

Good luck with this.


----------



## Sportsgal501 (Nov 24, 2014)

sweebee said:


> I think its stupid to switch to Nikon. Are you really gonna take better pictures with Nikon? I don't think so.
> 
> If your a Nikon user, stay with Nikon. If your a Canon user, stay with Canon.
> 
> Don't switch because of the sensors. If you switch because of the lenses (because Canon/Nikon don't simply have the lenses you need), yes than you can switch.



Why not switch?
If the current system is no longer working for him, why stay? Out of some sort of loyalty? What has Canon done for him lately? I've been also looking at other brands and I've been using Canon since 1998 starting with film.
I expect to have a new and different (lighter) crop sensor camera by this weekend and looking at Sony for my first full frame next year.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Nov 24, 2014)

Sportsgal501 said:


> sweebee said:
> 
> 
> > I think its stupid to switch to Nikon. Are you really gonna take better pictures with Nikon? I don't think so.
> ...



I totally agree that if a switch is desired, CONSIDER ALL OTHER BRANDS, not just Nikon. The Pentax K-3 has been tempting me for a long time due to its interesting feature set and super rugged design.

And then there is the new Samsung NX-1 that is about to be available.


----------



## Sportsgal501 (Nov 24, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Sportsgal501 said:
> 
> 
> > sweebee said:
> ...



Pentax K-3 or K-5ii I will be picking up on Black Friday.

Their weather resistance lens and (light weight)rugged body appeals to me and watching an (youtube) Army soldier in Afghanistan pour sand on it, than throw it in the shower and start snapping pictures afterwards sealed the deal.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Nov 24, 2014)

Sportsgal501 said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > Sportsgal501 said:
> ...



Yep. I saw that too a couple years ago. Impressive! I do a lot of outdoor stuff along with hiking a bit too. If I eventually destroy a Canon DSLR in the outdoors I am going to be thinking how badly I should have purchased the K-3.

So far however, I just haven't been able to bring myself to make the investment necessary to get the body, at least a couple lenses, a flash, extra batteries, etc. A whole other system. And then the 7D2 came out which isn't likely as tough as the K-3 but is a step that direction. Sigh....


----------



## allanP (Nov 24, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> I totally agree that if a switch is desired, CONSIDER ALL OTHER BRANDS, not just Nikon. The Pentax K-3 has been tempting me for a long time due to its interesting feature set and super rugged design.
> 
> And then there is the new Samsung NX-1 that is about to be available.



Nothing against other brands, but are K-3 and NX-1 a Full Frames???
THe Subject here is "Switching to Full Frame"


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Nov 24, 2014)

allkar said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > I totally agree that if a switch is desired, CONSIDER ALL OTHER BRANDS, not just Nikon. The Pentax K-3 has been tempting me for a long time due to its interesting feature set and super rugged design.
> ...



No, they aren't full frames but I think the general advice is that when switching to another system entirely, consider all options before making the jump. Also, I think many here already own both full frame and crop and see other manufacturers' products as good alternatives that might have been purchased instead, had they been available at the time.


----------



## Sportsgal501 (Nov 24, 2014)

allkar said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > I totally agree that if a switch is desired, CONSIDER ALL OTHER BRANDS, not just Nikon. The Pentax K-3 has been tempting me for a long time due to its interesting feature set and super rugged design.
> ...



I'm looking at getting a Sony a7 (also) next year...it's a Full Frame camera.


----------



## wtlloyd (Nov 24, 2014)

Judging by your statements, you don't have particularly deep pockets. For this reason alone I wouldn't consider anyone but Canon. 
A Pro has business needs completely different than an enthusiasts. Canon has a range of bodies and glass that far outstrips all competitors, allowing you to assemble a main kit AND a lessor but crucial secondary kit that will function as backup.

No other manufacturer compares in support and service to Canon. Can you afford to replace a broken camera or lens out of pocket on short notice so as to not miss a shoot? Nikon has a downright lousy reputation for their repair service, Canon are stellar in this regard and often generous in their warranty repair. Nikon isn't alone in mediocre performance, no one is in the same ballpark as Canon.
Join CPS, get a 2 day turnaround on your repairs, and never look back.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Nov 24, 2014)

wtlloyd said:


> Judging by your statements, you don't have particularly deep pockets. For this reason alone I wouldn't consider anyone but Canon.
> A Pro has business needs completely different than an enthusiasts. Canon has a range of bodies and glass that far outstrips all competitors, allowing you to assemble a main kit AND a lessor but crucial secondary kit that will function as backup.
> 
> No other manufacturer compares in support and service to Canon. Can you afford to replace a broken camera or lens out of pocket on short notice so as to not miss a shoot? Nikon has a downright lousy reputation for their repair service, Canon are stellar in this regard and often generous in their warranty repair. Nikon isn't alone in mediocre performance, no one is in the same ballpark as Canon.
> Join CPS, get a 2 day turnaround on your repairs, and never look back.



Totally agree with *wtlloyd*! Great points!

Pros are (or should be if they're smart) much more frugal and pragmatic with their equipment purchases. The gear needs to be sufficient to satisfy the needs of the business and nothing more. (Where enthusiasts buy stuff because the _want_ it, a pro buys only what they _truly need_.) Running a business is more about the balance sheet, not about the photographer. The photographer (whether it's you or an employee) is merely part of the business mechanism. The business of photography is more about marketing, sales, customer service/services offered and reputation. No one cares about the camera gear except the person holding it. And every item purchased, even if it's just a memory card, takes away from the profit of the business.

Good luck with your upcoming business venture! Just please realize it's a long, hard, slow process to profitability.


----------

