# Considering switching to Nikon



## RGF (Oct 9, 2012)

I would like to have a serious discussion. I am not going switch in haste, I am justing thinking about this issues. So please, no flames, etc. Well thought out comments are welcomed.

Comparing Nikon and Canon bodies here are my thoughts

5D M3 no match
D800 no match, when/if Canon comes out with a high MP body, it is likely to be expensive.

Canon 1.3 crop in a 1 series body is great, Nikon's FX/DX lacks this feature. The 1.3 crop makes my 500 a bit longer

Not sure how I would compare the 1D X versus D4 (correct body?), but not terribly important since the 1D X is out of my price range.

Canon vs Nikon lenses

Nikon wins in wide angle.
Canon and NIkon both have great mid range lenses (24-70, 70-200). Canon's 24-105 is probably better than Nikons 24-120.

On the long end, similar quality though with the new super telephotos Canon may have an edge in optical quality and definitely on weight. But at what cost?

Nikon has 200-400, Canon has an interested lens in development, not out yet, costs $3000 (?) than Nikon's.

Speciality lenses - Tilt shift I think Canon wins at least for wide angles. Macro - both are great.

Conclusions

Canon - more expensive, lighter weight Super telephotos, weak in the wide angles expect for Tilt Shift
Nikon - less expense, stronger in wide angles, 

Anything else?


----------



## picturesbyme (Oct 9, 2012)

???
What is your point? I mean what do you shoot? 
Maybe more specifics like a website with your work would help ppl here to give you better - well thought out - comments..
I know pro photographers in both camps so I am fairly sure there is a perfect setup for everyone w/Canon or Nikon.
Not many people who I heard of had been held up by the gear and was forced to switch... 
So the question is what is it that you cannot shoot with Canon's (current) offering?


----------



## tnargs (Oct 9, 2012)

You seem to have an inflated opinion of Nikon lens IQ and an inflated opinion of Canon lens prices.

"Canon's 24-105 is probably better than Nikons 24-120." _Probably??_ The Nikon is widely regarded as a terrible lens.

You deliberately put this on a Canon forum so I will give the only fair comment: _Don't Do It!_ ;D

If you want a serious discussion why not post what 2 kits you are thinking of buying and what kit you have now, and what your photographic aim is.

Picturesbyme is right: you don't have to switch camps to get great photos. So why do it?


----------



## Menace (Oct 9, 2012)

Could you please tell us what issues are hold you back from achieving your desired results. Thanks


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 9, 2012)

Just my 2 ct.

Body:
The IQ variability between different sensors (from different companies) of the same size doesn't vary too much if the photographer exposes correctly, he and the subject are steady enought and the light is good.
Useability is much more important to set up the camera (as tool) fast and accurate ... to make a photograph which is close to the idea you previsualized in your brain with a minimum of handling efforts.

IF YOU DECIDED FOR A CANON BODY:
Lenses:
If you see a lack of good wide angles from Canon - think about the possibility to adapt Nikon lenses on an EOS body (shure, you know that). If you think, a Canon body is the optimum solution.

Further options:
If you see a 1.3 CROP ideal for your purposes it might be an option to use a secondary body with APS-C sensor and the EF 10-22 which is really o.k. in terms of image quality (reasonable sharpness, good contrast, good flare resistance). Than you have a body which makes a 800mm from your 500mm lens. 


IF YOU DECIDED FOR A NIKON BODY:
If Nikon has the lenses you need for your purposes, you have to switch.

+++

I know that these decisions are hard. I have given up the idea to have one body for everything - 40D is much much better for photographing than the 600D, but the 600D has useable video and especially the 3x-digital zoom (which cuts out 1920x1080 from the center area of the sensor, converting my 70-200 to a equiv 110-300 + 330-900mm f/4 zoom !!!). Or one 100mm lens for all purposes - the f/2.0 is very compact, has 1 stop advantage in low light while the f/2.8 macro has 1:1 max. reproduction ratio.
At the moment I don't see any reason to switch - just upgrading to FF is not a strong wish except ... the 6D has an outstanding advantage in IQ and comes down to roughly 1500 $/€.u

Best - Michael


----------



## marekjoz (Oct 9, 2012)

You went smoothly through almost the whole upper and pro bodies and lenses range. As others pointed: what do you intend to do with this gear? Do you want to buy all best they have in lenses like 24 TS-E, 24-70 II, 24-105, 70-200 II, 85 1.2, 135 2.0, 100 2.8 L Macro, 300 2,8, 400 2.8 II, 600 f4 etc. and 1d4, 5d3, future 7d2, count the price, put on shelf and be happy that you have better gear than Nikon or you intend to shoot something with it?

In my opinion:
Landscape - as for now - go Nikon
Events - go Canon
Architecture - go Canon
Sports - go Canon
Wildlife - go Canon
Macro - a bit better Canon (MP 65, 100 2.8 L) although with Zeiss lenses both are great
Birthday with grandma - go Nikon (gold finishing may make better impression)

Looking from a distance at the shelf, I think both look pretty good, but white lenses make another impression than Nikon teles so you have to consider the difference.

Seriously - what will you shoot with it? What conditions? Pro or hobby? Do you make money on it? Do you have to rely on the support? How much money do you have to spend? What are your skills? Do you shoot video? And finally: have you read Ken?


----------



## PavelR (Oct 9, 2012)

I did upgrade from D2x to 1DIV and found:
* 50/1.4, 85/1.8 - Nikkors are much better
* crop 17-55/2.8 - Canon have IS, sharper, cheaper
* flash exposure calculation is better on Nikon side in changing lightning on the stage
* flash recycle time is better on Nikon with 5 batteries (I need flash battery pack on Canon)
* full size body + 70-200/2.8 + flash - noticeably lighter on the Nikon side
* 70-200/4 IS nice option of the only Canon side
* Canon 300/4 with IS
* Canon 400/5.6
* Canon does not display several things in viewfinder and top display - selected AF point (on both places), selected mode, exposure compensation is not indicated by number, switched off camera do not show on the top display free space on the card - very handy - it is anytime known that battery and card are in the camera, card free space on Canon is always < 2000, ...
* custom button function "do not use flash" on Nikon


----------



## Ivan Muller (Oct 9, 2012)

Personally i think you should just go out an shoot and make images...no matter what system you are using, you will only be limited by your own capabilities and your own vision or lack there of...ask yourself this question if after you have switched systems are you going to keep on switching as each new manufacturer brings out something 'better' and if your answer is yes then by all means switch and keep on switching...but then ask yourself are you interested in making images or in mastering and owning toys...nothing wrong with the latter, i know many people who collect cameras and lenses and that always have the latest and the greatest...nothing wrong with that, but then does it really matter which toy is a bit better or a bit faster, just go for the one that you want, you wont have it for long when something 'better' comes along...the pinnacle of 'male jewellery' ownership would seem to be a Leica M and glass, the undisputed king of 'the best that money can buy'...

On the other hand if you want to be a photographer get rid of all your lenses, chooce one lens and one camera and shoot with that for at least a year..at the end of it you will be a much better photographer and you will know exactly what you want in a camera...you wont need or want to ask a bunch of faceless guys on the internet to recommend bodies and lenses...look here to see what one can do with a fixed lens camera only....http://www.ivanmuller.co.za/blog-item/centurion-weppenerthe-journey-begins.


----------



## marekjoz (Oct 9, 2012)

Ivan Muller said:


> Personally i think you should just go out an shoot and make images...no matter what system you are using, you will only be limited by your own capabilities and your own vision or lack there of...ask yourself this question if after you have switched systems are you going to keep on switching as each new manufacturer brings out something 'better' and if your answer is yes then by all means switch and keep on switching...but then ask yourself are you interested in making images or in mastering and owning toys...nothing wrong with the latter, i know many people who collect cameras and lenses and that always have the latest and the greatest...nothing wrong with that, but then does it really matter which toy is a bit better or a bit faster, just go for the one that you want, you wont have it for long when something 'better' comes along...the pinnacle of 'male jewellery' ownership would seem to be a Leica M and glass, the undisputed king of 'the best that money can buy'...
> 
> On the other hand if you want to be a photographer get rid of all your lenses, chooce one lens and one camera and shoot with that for at least a year..at the end of it you will be a much better photographer and you will know exactly what you want in a camera...you wont need or want to ask a bunch of faceless guys on the internet to recommend bodies and lenses...look here to see what one can do with a fixed lens camera only....http://www.ivanmuller.co.za/blog-item/centurion-weppenerthe-journey-begins.



Correct link: http://www.ivanmuller.co.za/blog-item/centurion-weppenerthe-journey-begins


----------



## photogolf (Oct 9, 2012)

Hi guys,
I'm surely biased by the fact that I just got my new MKIII after long consideration about which side of the world I wanted to live in, Canon or Nikon.
I choose Canon basically for 3 reasons: sturdy body, warm colors, more than enough Mpixels (36? come on! who needs that?)
I would have gone to the MKII if it were not a 4 years old project: 4 years in technology is like two different geological eras in real life.
Lenses: 
There might be a slight edge for Nikon in wides, but I'm planning to cover it with a Zeiss 3,5/18; everything else in Canon is just awesome.

But once the techno stuff is taken care of, the real deal is in your soul and eye.


----------



## Maui5150 (Oct 9, 2012)

I have been debating this. 

If and BIG IF... I could go to 1DX I think I would be happy stepping up from my 5DMKII

Have been considering the 5DMKIII for a little better ISO and a lot better AF, but seeing more and more commentary about the body finish wearing off has me deeply concerned. The 5DMKII has so far worn like a tank and while I treat my bodies very well and baby them, their is barely any sign of wear on my MKII with a ton of use, and if I plan on selling this next body 3 years down the line, having all the plastic wearing off, the metal under body showing through... well that is deconserting.

I tend to prefer Canon lenses and the canon color, but have been thinking of the D800 as a cheaper alternative to the 5DMKIII as well as seems to do a little better ISO. Would probably be a no brainer for me if the resolution was smaller. I would be much happier in the 24 - 30 MP range. 36 is just overkill for me. As a whole I am pretty happy with the 5DMKII image size, just want a little more ISO performance and much better AF.

Love a couple of the Canon lenses, but Canon's pricing and quality making it harder to stay


----------



## Vikmnilu (Oct 9, 2012)

In my honest opinion, I am among the ones that think that you should not change the system, once you are and have been with a that system for a long time, having lenses and accessories for (in this case) Canon.

Sometimes I feel åeople talk too much about gear and what could he be doing with the other brand. Well, then you will switch and will think what you couldnt do with your current that you could do with the one you had. Because no brand is perfect.... although Canon is close 

So I think you should stay in canon....


----------



## marekjoz (Oct 9, 2012)

Vikmnilu said:


> (...)
> 
> So I think you should stay in canon....



... or sell your gear for the good price. What do you have? (*):(*)


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 9, 2012)

It's quite easy...get the coin out and flip it


----------



## vintagedan23 (Oct 9, 2012)

I have a Canon 5D MKIII and a Nikon D800e.

IMO the AF on Canon 5D MKIII excels over the Nikon D800.

The Dynamic Range on the D800e is unreal and in my opinion better than the Canon 5D MKIII.

And the detail on a 36MP image is also something to marvel at.

But at the end of the day 36MP does not look that great if you miss half the shots due to a poor AF system. And you really cant beat Canon L glass. With the D800 you need the best of the best glass to maximize the resolution potential.

I only use the D800e for product photography and Landscape shots. For everything else i prefer the Canon 5D MKIII.

So it really depends on what you shoot. But for an all around camera - you cant beat the Canon.


----------



## etg9 (Oct 9, 2012)

vintagedan23 said:


> I have a Canon 5D MKIII and a Nikon D800e.
> 
> IMO the AF on Canon 5D MKIII excels over the Nikon D800.
> 
> ...



I agree with this a ton, I have a 5dIII and have used the D800 plenty to know that the Canon is a much better camera to have in my bag everyday for what I shoot. If I'm in a dimly lit bar or a really quick out of bag to street photo the Nikon doesn't do it for me. If I captured landscapes I would be tempted by the D800 but I'm not sure a 24" or 30" print would be all that much different out of either camera.

As for the should I switch, try both, shoot with what matches the way your brain works. I like the canon way of doing things, maybe you're a Nikon or Sony.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 9, 2012)

etg9 said:


> ...maybe you're a Nikon or Sony.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 9, 2012)

I tried a Nikon, and invested about 10 K in a D800 and top lenses. The D800 is great at low ISO, but you have to be extremely careful with it. I think its a great landscape body. Lenses that match the body really don't exist, as I painfully found out, and there is nothing close to the quality of the 24-105mmL, the 135mmL, or the 100-400mmL that are some of my most used lenses.
I sold it all, and bought a new Canon body along with a new16-35mm L The only images I really liked from the D800 were the low ISO images, 400 or lower. The DR of the D800 at ISO 100 was amazing, so for bright light landscape use, it is fantastic.


----------



## bornshooter (Oct 9, 2012)

go to nikon and pm with the details of the gear you are selling  i promise when you buy nikon your photography will be so much better lol


----------



## PackLight (Oct 9, 2012)

RGF said:


> I would like to have a serious discussion. I am not going switch in haste, I am justing thinking about this issues. So please, no flames, etc. Well thought out comments are welcomed.
> 
> Comparing Nikon and Canon bodies here are my thoughts
> 
> ...



It is true Nikon has some strong wide angle lenses available.

Of course they are all made be Zeiss.


----------



## TriGGy (Oct 9, 2012)

I'm already comfortable with the Canon system, and while I would like to learn how to operate Nikon cameras, getting rid of all my Canon stuff just because I perceive Nikon as having better MP's, etc, is counter intuitive. Same as for people who want to switch to Canon. Know your weapon


----------



## AdamJ (Oct 12, 2012)

Don't forget this...







...and of course this.


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 12, 2012)

If DR is your primary concern, go Nikon. If you are going to stay with Canon and get a 5DIII, I doubt you'll find a more versatile body in existance. I can't really say my composition, creativity, etc are better with the MKIII (just like they wouldn't be better if I got a D800), but I can say that there are a whole bunch of shots I couldn't get on my older bodies that I can get on the new one because of its low light ability, and that between the focus system and higher frame rate than older FF bodies, this one camera easily does the job of my two older ones (5d and 40D). 

Spec sheets are deceiving. Its easy to make the grass look greener on paper. My guess is a lot of people who switch systems either way will find, after all their horse trading, that the end result isn't that much different. There are a few people who do so with good reason and really take advantage of the true differences in the system (like maybe tilt-shift availability, supertelephoto availablity for canon, or the few people who really NEED the extra DR of Nikon). And there are a few people who will do so and pull up every shadow 4 stops just because they can, and be happy. The rest...will be just where they were when they started. 

-Brian


----------



## sdsr (Oct 12, 2012)

Since you don't say why you're thinking of switching, don't describe the Canon equipment you own, don't say whether you've considered and ruled out an upgrade within Canon, and don't say what you can afford, I don't think it's possible to answer your question. I would suggest, though, that if you're really serious about switching, you should rent for a week the Nikon body you're considering, along with one or more of Nikon's better lenses in the range(s) you use the most and see if you prefer the experience and results. If you're also considering upgrading within Canon, do the same thing in addition to renting Nikon equipment and compare the Nikon vs Canon you own vs Canon upgrade. Depending on what you shoot and how, the differences could range from non-existent through trivial to important, and not necessarily in the ways you hope or expect.


----------



## V8Beast (Oct 12, 2012)

At the risk of repeating what has already been said a gazillion times, both systems are highly capable if used for the purpose of creating art. If you want to use your gear as tools to create art, there's no point in switching systems. 

However, as bizarre as it seems to me, some people genuinely enjoy testing the technical limitations of their hardware for the sole purpose of testing the technical limitations of their hardware. Intentionally underexposing an image to see how much shadow detail a sensor captures, or blowing up an image 100% that will never be printed at 100%, just to see how much detail the sensor captures, seems to be the rage these days. It's taken me a long time to accept this, but some people enjoy this aspect of photography more than they enjoy creating beautiful images with their gear. And you know what? There's nothing wrong with that. It's none of my business how people choose to spend their money, even if what they do with their expensive camera gear seems silly to me. If you're one of those guys, by all means switch to Nikon and be done with it. The D800 trumps anything Canon offers in terms of DR and resolution - and even their crop bodies have extremely capable sensors - so if that's what's important to you, Nikon is the way to go.


----------



## And-Rew (Oct 12, 2012)

RGF said:


> I would like to have a serious discussion. I am not going switch in haste, I am justing thinking about this issues. So please, no flames, etc. Well thought out comments are welcomed.
> 
> Anything else?



Yes, what actually is the purpose of the thread?


We know nothing about what you photograph
We know nothing about your future intentions with photography
We know nothing about what kit you already have
We know nothing about you photographic abilities or knowledge


So - from the title, you talk about switching to Nikon and want an informed discussion - but you give us only the usual facts presented in any of these types of discussions.

You can not have an informed discussion without a decent premise - and so far, you have not given us one.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Oct 12, 2012)

canon, nikon or any other dslr cameras all outcome good images with post process... if you cannot have a good image, do not complain about your camera. for example: yervant zanazanian is still using his canon 20d for his wedding photography and it is still perfect after post process. so, get to know your camera and get around with it... and keep in mind that everything has its own limitations, no exception rule imo....

however, congrat. on your new camera 

note: this comments come from a dslr newbie...


----------



## picturesbyme (Oct 12, 2012)

AdamJ said:


> Don't forget this...



Haha... 
That's just a built in TS feature/effect and the LCD clearly shows that Nikon's field is greener 

Of course Canon has it's problems too, however this reminds me... This thread became pretty one sided too...
Interesting, because the One who wanted to start (a never heard before) conversation about switching to Nikon haven't said a word yet.. (although was probably reading based on the activity log...)

I switched a couple times before and I can confidently say there is no perfect system. One might suit a person better but the "other" brand eventually leapfrog over yours and then suddenly everything gets greener over there... Like the others said, go rent first.


----------



## friedmud (Oct 18, 2012)

Just bought a D600 today (with just the 50mm f/1.8G so far). Sold my 7D and 70-200 f/4L IS to pay for it.

As some of you know I recently rented it and just LOVED the IQ at low ISO.

My hobby is Landscapes... so it is just a perfect fit for me.

I've started with the 50mm because I haven't decided on my workhorse lens yet. I'm leaning toward the 24-70 f/2.8G. I liked it when I rented it.

I took thousands upon thousands of great photos with Canon gear... but ultimately the low ISO IQ of the D600 and the ability to go full-frame for a reasonable price (the 6D is a non-starter... too many missing features) brought me over.

My advice: If you're unhappy with IQ on the Canon side... do the switch. I can't think of any other reason to really switch. If the IQ is fine for you on Canon and you have something invested, I would just stay there... you'll really get great photos out of either system if your technique is good.


----------



## tnargs (Oct 18, 2012)

yes, where is RGF? So much for starting a thread with the words "I want a serious discussion". :-X

As for friedmud, congratulations on your purchase mate, I hope you have great pleasure in this great hobby with your new kit. ;D

However, looking at your reasons, you had better be prepared to switch straight back to Canon again the day their products match your needs better -- which could get expensive. And you have just walked away from the best lens kit in the land -- which can easily affect one's photo IQ.

My advice: if you are unhappy with IQ on the Canon side... try Sony! At least they make their own senors, so their product is fully integrated like Canon. And they have a range of AF Zeiss lenses to appreciate. But be prepared for your hobby investment to start spiralling. 

Canon is still the best long term investment in terms of total system value and results, looking beyond the short-term leap-frogging of individual camera releases.


----------



## Simba (Oct 18, 2012)

tnargs said:


> yes, where is RGF? So much for starting a thread with the words "I want a serious discussion". :-X
> 
> As for friedmud, congratulations on your purchase mate, I hope you have great pleasure in this great hobby with your new kit. ;D
> 
> ...



You can easily find parts which are made from different vendors in a device, such as PC, iPhone, or car. Nikon uses some sensors designed by Sony and some designed by themselves but manufactured by Sony. I use both Canon and Nikon, and I would say they have their own strength and weaknesses but they are comparable. However, I can't say Canon is the best long term investment, especially they really raised the price for the new pro bodies and lenses this year, but retailers significantly drop the prices, such 5d3, and sell them on eBay at big discount probably due to overstock or demand/supply issues. We are not married to a brand. Choose the equipment that fits your needs.


----------



## hippoeater (Oct 18, 2012)

I actually just sold and switched systems. 

I had a Canon 5DMK3 and I just converted to a Nikon D600, 50mm 1.2 ai-s and 28mm 2.8 ai-s.

There are certain things I am loving and hating so far. It's change and there is always growing pains with change.

I would say I prefer the 5DMK3 body - I don't believe however that Nikon was aiming to compete in build quality or styling with the 5D.

I think the Menu system for Canon is easier to navigate and use quickly - tho I'm sure Nikon users would say the same about their system vs. Canon. It's one of those things that will make sense in time - I think it's like trying to adopt a different language and you're trying to figure out what words mean what and remember it that way, so it becomes confusing.

I'm loving the picture quality I'm getting out of the D600 so far. Colors are amazing straight out of the camera and the images are unbelievably contrasty and sharp - extremely sharp.

I'm also loving the two lenses I picked up as well - tho that's a more personal choice - I love manual focus and these two are built like Zeiss - that old world metal feeling that just feels good in your hands. 

Overall it was an easy decision for me to switch - my dad owns a D700 and every major lens that Nikon makes. It makes it easy for me to share without having to invest a ton of money.

Overall I'm pretty smitten with the D600, I miss certain aspects of the MK3 but it's an excellent switch.

Not sure how much that helps you, but that's where I'm at right now with switching over.


----------



## Tayvin (Oct 19, 2012)

Why not just use both brands?


----------



## hippoeater (Oct 19, 2012)

lol because it's not possible for everyone to afford to commit to the costs of two high end pro dslr bodies and lens systems?


----------



## carlc (Oct 19, 2012)

Hey RGF (OP), why don't you spend some money on becoming a better photographer and not chasing gear. I am getting tired of people coming on CR to worship Nikon and degrade Canon. Why don't you post some of your recent photos and we will be able to advise you better. My bet is your problems are not with your camera and lenses. Now get off the computer and study more and go practice what you have just learned. Then you can justify better equipment.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 19, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> The D800 trumps anything Canon offers in terms of DR and resolution - and even their crop bodies have extremely capable sensors - so if that's what's important to you, Nikon is the way to go.


 
One thing to consider though, is that a body is only a small part of the investment you will be making, and it will be outdated in 3 years or so.
So study the lenses and make a list of what you will want. You may find that You will have to settle for less capable lenses at a higher price.
Then, there is service. Nikon is notorious for the lack of service. If your equipment dies, you may have to use a backup for a month or two.
So, look at the whole package before you leap, it might be a perfect match, or a expensive mistake, depending on what you want to photograph.


----------



## tnargs (Oct 19, 2012)

carlc said:


> ... I am getting tired of people coming on CR to worship Nikon and degrade Canon. ...



Yes, exactly! Just Nikon-off, you guys.

Come here to help people learn and grow as photographers using their Canon gear.


----------



## tnargs (Oct 19, 2012)

hippoeater said:


> ...I'm loving the picture quality I'm getting out of the D600 so far. Colors are amazing straight out of the camera and the images are unbelievably contrasty and sharp - extremely sharp....



So you are shooting in jpeg?


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Oct 19, 2012)

No need to write a note saying that you're considering it, if you really wanted to jump you would have done it already.


----------



## akclimber (Oct 19, 2012)

I currently shoot with a 5D2, 5D3 & D800E.

First & foremost, at ISO 100 & 200 the image quality of the D800E blows the Canons out of the water - plain & simple. DR and detail are stunning. If you shoot a lot at these low ISOs you can't get better than the D800E's sensor. At those low ISOs, in a high DR scene, a shot that only needs one exposure with the D800 might very well need 2 with the Canon to capture clean shadows. At ISOs 400-800 the DR and IQ are generally about equal with the exception of more details for the D800E. At above ISO 800 the 5D3 starts to pull ahead in DR and maybe noise but I find the noise of the D800E files easier to deal with.

As for AF, I agree with others that the 5D3 has an edge. 

As for ergonomics/shooting comfort overall I prefer Canon but not by much. The one design feature the D800E has that's inexplicably missing in the 5D series is a built-in viewfinder curtain. What is Canon thinking? And why neither cam has a flip out, tilting LCD screen is a real mystery.

Oh, and Canons liveview is way, way better than Nikon's.

As for build quality, the 5d3 is better. Same too for shutter noise/feel.

As for frame rate, I kinda like the D800 option of using a 1.2 crop to get 5-6 fps (resulting in a 24MP file) but it takes practice to mentally switch from a full frame POV to a smaller crop.

As for lenses, I've seen a lot of 24-105 vs 24-120 talk in the thread with folks saying the 24-105 is a lot better. I don't agree. I have & love them both for their usability and IQ and find them comparable. As for overall lens line-up, I prefer Canon for its amazing TSE lenses and L quality mid zooms like the 70-300 and 100-400 and 70-200 f/4 IS (but it looks like Nikon is about to announce its own 70-200 f/4 VR). On the wide end, Nikon has the wildly good 14-24 and useful 16-35 f/4 VR. I've rented a 14-24 to use on my 5D2 and wow, it's nice. I opted for a Zeiss 21 f/2.8 for the D800E but am still considering the 14-24 or 16-35 VR since I really like AF and handheld stuff.

As others have pointed out, your choice of body has everything to do with how you shoot and what you enjoy shooting. For ISO 100-200 use, the D800 smokes Canon for image quality and it's about equal up to ISO 800. The 5D3 might be a slightly better general use DSLR but not by much and only if you use higher ISOs and need a little better fullframe frame rate or slightly better low light AF.

If you can, rent one and find out for yourself how it'll work for your needs.

Good luck!

Oh, and BTW, my D800E does unfortunately have the left side AF problem (still need to send it in for repair). But on the other hand, my 5D3 exhibits wild light leak thru the viewfinder when I'm using liveview (really bad - not using the annoying/stupid external curtain isn't an option). Sigh, nothing's perfect.


----------



## sanj (Oct 19, 2012)

akclimber said:


> I currently shoot with a 5D2, 5D3 & D800E.
> 
> First & foremost, at ISO 100 & 200 the image quality of the D800E blows the Canons out of the water - plain & simple. DR and detail are stunning. If you shoot a lot at these low ISOs you can't get better than the D800E's sensor. At those low ISOs, in a high DR scene, a shot that only needs one exposure with the D800 might very well need 2 with the Canon to capture clean shadows. At ISOs 400-800 the DR and IQ are generally about equal with the exception of more details for the D800E. At above ISO 800 the 5D3 starts to pull ahead in DR and maybe noise but I find the noise of the D800E files easier to deal with.
> 
> ...



Thanks for all the information. Appreciate it.


----------



## akclimber (Oct 19, 2012)

sanj said:


> Thanks for all the information. Appreciate it.



My pleasure. 

Another observation is that for whatever reason, maybe the added DR, the D800E seems to produce nicer B&W files than the Canons (I shoot RAW/NEF, convert in ACR and use mostly Nik Silver Efex for B&W but sometimes onOne software too). My wife can actually tell my Nikon BWs from my Canon BWs. I've also seen this mentioned on other forums so I'm fairly sure I'm not seeing things. Anyway, if you're in to B&W it's something to check if you rent one.

Cheers!


----------



## sanj (Oct 19, 2012)

I very close buddy of mine, a professional photographer was an ARDENT Canon fan. He tested a 800E. Overnight he sold his Canon gear and went Nikon. I met him two days ago and how does he feel about the switch and if he recommends this to anyone? His reply "Everyone should switch to Nikon." This is of course his opinion for the type of photography he does - commercial.
I do wildlife and travel so am very happy with my X and 3.


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 19, 2012)

Previously, I've also thought of switching to Nikon but lenses are still more important than the body and would stay that way for years to come. Of course if there's a Nikon lens that I crave such as the 14-24, there'll be no problem for me since I can still use it with my Canon body. How about if you're on Nikon and you want to use MP-E 65 or TS-E lenses? Besides, the technology of the body will always shift from one manufacturer to another as better technology is available. A lot of good photographers are still using 5D and even 20D but until now, I'm still amazed at their photos. So, are the Nikon bodies really enough reason for me to switch?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 19, 2012)

Chosenbydestiny said:


> No need to write a note saying that you're considering it, if you really wanted to jump you would have done it already.



LOL ;D Glad I wasn't drinking a sip of coffee just then.

I wonder if there's a crisis support line for this sort of thing, 1-800-NO-NIKON.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 19, 2012)

Don't forget that Canon primes are the best around. ;D That's why I'm still here.


----------



## Simba (Oct 19, 2012)

akclimber said:


> I currently shoot with a 5D2, 5D3 & D800E.
> 
> First & foremost, at ISO 100 & 200 the image quality of the D800E blows the Canons out of the water - plain & simple. DR and detail are stunning. If you shoot a lot at these low ISOs you can't get better than the D800E's sensor. At those low ISOs, in a high DR scene, a shot that only needs one exposure with the D800 might very well need 2 with the Canon to capture clean shadows. At ISOs 400-800 the DR and IQ are generally about equal with the exception of more details for the D800E. At above ISO 800 the 5D3 starts to pull ahead in DR and maybe noise but I find the noise of the D800E files easier to deal with.
> 
> ...



Great and fair review. We need more of this.


----------



## tnargs (Oct 22, 2012)

sanj said:


> I very close buddy of mine, a professional photographer was an ARDENT Canon fan. He tested a 800E. Overnight he sold his Canon gear and went Nikon. I met him two days ago and how does he feel about the switch and if he recommends this to anyone? His reply "Everyone should switch to Nikon." ....



And they had better switch quick-quick, before Canon brings out a camera he likes more than Nikons, 'cos then this guy will be 'overnight' back with Canon. And all the switchers will be crying in their beers because they can't afford to keep up with Overnight Jones. LOL


----------



## friedmud (Oct 23, 2012)

tnargs said:


> And they had better switch quick-quick, before Canon brings out a camera he likes more than Nikons, 'cos then this guy will be 'overnight' back with Canon. And all the switchers will be crying in their beers because they can't afford to keep up with Overnight Jones. LOL



As a switcher that just sold all his stuff to get a D600... it really wouldn't matter to me AT ALL if Canon came out with a better camera. The camera I now have is _awesome_... and I won't have a need to upgrade again for years.

At that point I will survey the field and take note of my own financial position and once again try to get the best setup for the money for my type of photography. If that happens to be Canon... I could very well switch back.

My final thought: There is no way there is a Canon camera on the horizon to challenge the D600 for landscape photography. The 6D is missing too many features and anything better than the 6D costs an arm and a leg...

But who knows what the future might hold...


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 23, 2012)

friedmud said:


> tnargs said:
> 
> 
> > And they had better switch quick-quick, before Canon brings out a camera he likes more than Nikons, 'cos then this guy will be 'overnight' back with Canon. And all the switchers will be crying in their beers because they can't afford to keep up with Overnight Jones. LOL
> ...



what lenses did you get?
I missed the Nikkor 50 f1.4 G and the 105 f2.8 Micro when i switched to canon from nikon
both are nicer lenses than the canon 50 f1.4 and even the 100 f2.8L


----------



## nicku (Oct 23, 2012)

picturesbyme said:


> ???
> *What is your point? I mean what do you shoot? *



I believe the point is.... that Canon is not anymore what it used to be... Other manufactures are catching up and some ( like Nikon ) are in front. I really, really don't want to change the brand but if Canon does nothing beside standing put and taking blow after blow ( Nikon D800 and D600)... than definitely i will change the brand.

I stopped long time ago thinking with my heart... I'm more pragmatic now.


----------



## AmbientLight (Oct 23, 2012)

nicku said:


> I stopped long time ago thinking with my heart... I'm more pragmatic now.



Now that's a strong statement. Are you in love with Canon as a company? 

For me my heart doesn't feature in the equation regarding which gear I use. Historically Nikon or Canon have been better in some areas at some times, Sony may become better than the others in the future or maybe not. 

I don't care so much for the company behind it, but whether the product suits me or not.


----------



## jocau (Oct 23, 2012)

To be honest, I've tought about switching to Nikon too. It almost drives me insane that it seems like Canon isn't doing anything about their (heavily) inferior sensors. With every release of a new DSLR you see Canon getting beated to death by Nikon and Sony when it comes down to DR. The same goes for noise performance at high ISO when you compare similar sensors (megapixels & sensor size) e.g. D7000 vs 7D.

I have bought many Canon products in the past (Printers: i560, MP450, MF8030Cn; Digital Cameras: Powershot A40, EOS 550D) and essentially was happy with all of them. However I'm frequently wondering why I choose Canon for my first DSLR (550D/T2i) and not Nikon because they use the superior Sony EXMOR sensors. I also want to buy a fullframe DSLR and the 5D Mark III and D800 are too expensive for me. So I'm looking at the D600 and 6D. I'll probably go with the 6D just because I wouldn't have to sell my gear first (550D, EF-S 18-55 F/3.5-5.6 IS, EF 50 F/1.8 II, EF 70-200 F/4L IS and Speedlite 580EX II).

It's also a bit of a sentimental thing. While I don't really have anything against Nikon, I find their bodies rather ugly (shape and red triangle) and I also find it harder to understand their lens lineup compared to the lens lineup from Canon (e.g. I can't tell which lenses are really top of the bill, except for their 70-200 F/2.8 VRII). The thing that bothers me the most about Canon, is their mentality. They produce inferior sensors so one would assume that therefore their bodies would be cheaper than a similar Nikon model. Nope. At least as expensive or even more expensive. They keep on milking their customers e.g. the totally stripped down 6D (compared to 5D3) is priced about the same as a D600 which has MUCH better specs and a MUCH better sensor.


----------



## Simba (Oct 23, 2012)

jocau said:


> To be honest, I've tought about switching to Nikon too. It almost drives me insane that it seems like Canon isn't doing anything about their (heavily) inferior sensors. With every release of a new DSLR you see Canon getting beated to death by Nikon and Sony when it comes down to DR. The same goes for noise performance at high ISO when you compare similar sensors (megapixels & sensor size) e.g. D7000 vs 7D.
> 
> I have bought many Canon products in the past (Printers: i560, MP450, MF8030Cn; Digital Cameras: Powershot A40, EOS 550D) and essentially was happy with all of them. However I'm frequently wondering why I choose Canon for my first DSLR (550D/T2i) and not Nikon because they use the superior Sony EXMOR sensors. I also want to buy a fullframe DSLR and the 5D Mark III and D800 are too expensive for me. So I'm looking at the D600 and 6D. I'll probably go with the 6D just because I wouldn't have to sell my gear first (550D, EF-S 18-55 F/3.5-5.6 IS, EF 50 F/1.8 II, EF 70-200 F/4L IS and Speedlite 580EX II).
> 
> It's also a bit of a sentimental thing. While I don't really have anything against Nikon, I find their bodies rather ugly (shape and red triangle) and I also find it harder to understand their lense lineup compared to the lens lineup from Canon (e.g. I can't tell which lenses are really top of the bill, except for their 70-200 F/2.8 VRII). The thing that bothers me the most about Canon, is their mentality. They produce inferior sensors so one would assume that therefore their bodies would be cheaper than a similar Nikon model. Nope. At least as expensive or even more expensive. They keep on milking their customers e.g. the totally stripped down 6D (compared to 5D3) is priced about the same as a D600 which has MUCH better specs and a MUCH better sensor.



Canon and Nikon have similar lens lineup. The following translation might help.
IS -> VR
USM -> AFS
EF -> FX
EFS -> DX
L -> ED

D is the older series, which has an aperture ring.
G is the current series, which is usually sharper and has no aperture ring.


----------



## weekendshooter (Oct 23, 2012)

jocau said:


> To be honest, I've tought about switching to Nikon too. It almost drives me insane that it seems like Canon isn't doing anything about their (heavily) inferior sensors. With every release of a new DSLR you see Canon getting beated to death by Nikon and Sony when it comes down to DR. The same goes for noise performance at high ISO when you compare similar sensors (megapixels & sensor size) e.g. D7000 vs 7D.
> 
> It's also a bit of a sentimental thing. While I don't really have anything against Nikon, I find their bodies rather ugly (shape and red triangle) and I also find it harder to understand their lense lineup compared to the lens lineup from Canon (e.g. I can't tell which lenses are really top of the bill, except for their 70-200 F/2.8 VRII).



It is harder to distinguish between Nikon's lenses because they classify by the type of lens (basically how new it is) rather than the perceived quality, such as Canon's L line. AF-D lenses are the older type - they have aperture rings and focus via an in-body motor-driven screw. AF-S G lenses are the newest and have Nikon's ultrasonic motor (SWM - silent wave motor) and do not have an aperture ring. There are some that straddle the line between the two, but those are the two main groups.

Top of the line Nikon lenses have a gold ring around the front of the barrel: 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 85/1.4. There might be a few more but you get the idea. These lenses are quite similar to the Canon equivalents, with the exception of the 85 being f/1.4 instead of f/1.2. Nikon also doesn't have a 50L competitor; the 50/1.4G is slightly better optically and much better built than Canon's 50/1.4, but nobody would ever confuse it with a 50L.

One step below that is the new f/1.8 lenses: 28/1.8G, 50/1.8G, 85/1.8G, which are really phenomenal and quite reasonably priced. The 85 in particular is my favorite lens and performs extremely well for $500.

Also note that Nikon just today announced a 70-200/4 with a new 5-stop VR (IS for Canon folks). I'm excited! This is one of the two lenses that Nikon hasn't had, along with a good 135/2, that almost made me not switch. Looks like it's one down, one to go


----------



## Simba (Oct 23, 2012)

weekendshooter said:


> jocau said:
> 
> 
> > To be honest, I've tought about switching to Nikon too. It almost drives me insane that it seems like Canon isn't doing anything about their (heavily) inferior sensors. With every release of a new DSLR you see Canon getting beated to death by Nikon and Sony when it comes down to DR. The same goes for noise performance at high ISO when you compare similar sensors (megapixels & sensor size) e.g. D7000 vs 7D.
> ...



Nikon does have the 135/2 DC. I have not had a chance to try it, and don't know how it compares to Canon's. Many people listed the Nikon 135 the best portrait lens, while some don't have good control about the DC, which you don't have to use.


----------



## jocau (Oct 23, 2012)

weekendshooter said:


> jocau said:
> 
> 
> > To be honest, I've tought about switching to Nikon too. It almost drives me insane that it seems like Canon isn't doing anything about their (heavily) inferior sensors. With every release of a new DSLR you see Canon getting beated to death by Nikon and Sony when it comes down to DR. The same goes for noise performance at high ISO when you compare similar sensors (megapixels & sensor size) e.g. D7000 vs 7D.
> ...



I know the difference between AF-D and AF-S lenses, but beyond that I still find it hard. Also the fastest focusing Canon lenses are the ones with an Ultrasonic Motor (USM). Which are the fastest ones in the Nikon lens lineup? Lenses with a SWM? With Canon it's much easier. Most of the time L glass = high-end glass. And besides that there are some gems like e.g. the EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 IS or the EF 85mm F/1.8. Yeah I've heard about the Nikon 70-200mm F/4. If it's as good as the Canon variant, they have 'disabled' one of the advantages of Canon. However there are still no (decent) equivalents of the 65mm MP-E and the various TS-E lenses. Nikon also doesn't have a pancake lens?


----------



## weekendshooter (Oct 23, 2012)

jocau said:


> weekendshooter said:
> 
> 
> > jocau said:
> ...



As far as focusing speed, you have to look up reviews of individual lenses, which are pretty easy to find. There are focusing speed demos of lots of lenses on youtube. Even with SWM, the speed varies greatly. For example, the 50/1.8 focuses much faster than the 1.4 despite them both being SWM. EDIT: some of the D lenses focus more quickly than their newer G counterparts, especially on pro bodies due to their powerful in-body motors. These focus very noisily and are considered by some to be quicker but less accurate. I don't own any D lenses and really wouldn't consider buying one due to the advancements in coatings and optical design found in the new G's.

Nikon has an "L"-like designation too - the gold ring. It's really easy to tell the build quality difference between gold and non-gold lenses. 

The new 85/1.8G is better in every way than the Canon 85/1.8, though it is slightly more expensive. It focuses just as quickly while having much better bokeh and is extremely sharp all the way across full frame by f/2.8 (bitingly sharp in the center wide open).

Nikon's 17-55 f/2.8 is not as good as Canon's - it doesn't have IS but does have gold ring build quality; it is a slightly smaller 24-70. Nikonrumors reported that Nikon will soon release a new set of DX lenses, so presumably an updated 17-55 would be among those.

There is no pancake but the 50/1.8G is extremely good. Nikon also has an amazing 14-24 and a quite good 16-35/4 VR, along with the new G primes that Canon hasn't answered yet. Both systems are fantastic, and each one has its perks that the other can't quite match. You really do have to research individual lenses to see if they appeal to you; it's no different from Canon in this regard.

As for the 135 DC, I have read very mixed things. It's older, very heavy, and very expensive, and that alone dissuades me from considering it. A 135/1.8 VR has been long rumored, so we'll see if that ever pans out. In the meantime, my 85/1.8G is phenomenal and very affordable.


----------



## picturesbyme (Oct 23, 2012)

nicku said:


> picturesbyme said:
> 
> 
> > ??? *What is your point? I mean what do you shoot? *
> ...



:
The Point? His point? Yours? Seems like you were focusing on all those points and couldn't get mine... 
I simply asked *what does he shoot that his current (5D3 I guess) gear holds his talent and creative process back.* Then we could look on the net and see that *NONE* shot that before successfully with the same gear and pat him on the back, providing emotional support for the switch..  
Why don't people just change? 
Do they need someone's approval? Honestly anyone could use any current modern crop or FF body to produce awesome photography.
Pick any current body or lens from any current manufacturer and you'll find amazing photos taken with it.
OR see some of these and see what they were shot with...

http://www.pbase.com/galleries?view=popular_photos&period=all

http://fotozz.hu/fotok_listaja?ri=5c


----------



## jocau (Oct 23, 2012)

weekendshooter said:


> jocau said:
> 
> 
> > weekendshooter said:
> ...



Yeah I read that the AF-S 85mm F/1.8G is brilliant.  The new EF 24mm F/2.8 IS USM and EF 28mm F/2.8 IS USM lenses also seem to be really good optically (and IS on a wide angle prime for the 1st time?), but sadly enough they are way overpriced.


----------



## weekendshooter (Oct 23, 2012)

jocau said:


> Yeah I read that the AF-S 85mm F/1.8G is brilliant.  The new EF 24mm F/2.8 IS USM and EF 28mm F/2.8 IS USM lenses also seem to be really good optically (and IS on a wide angle prime for the 1st time?), but sadly enough they are way overpriced.



I absolutely adore my 85G. It was my second lens after shooting with just the 50/1.4G for about 3 months. It performs just about as well as the 85/1.4G and is in fact sharper wide open than that one is at f/1.8, while being much lighter and easier to handle (yay for well-made plastic lenses).

Nikon's new 28/1.8G is very appealing as an alternative to the new Canon IS primes, but I think I'd rather wait for a cheaper 35 since I'd rather replace my 50 with a new walkaround prime rather than have one normal and one wider than normal but not ultrawide prime.

I've been waiting for the 70-200/4 since I bought into the system. My older brother has had a 7D since the day his preorder was delivered and his 70-200/4 IS is his most-used lens. I've always been jealous but now I'll be able to have one of my own, and with a next-gen VR system to boot


----------



## akclimber (Oct 23, 2012)

weekendshooter said:


> jocau said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah I read that the AF-S 85mm F/1.8G is brilliant.  The new EF 24mm F/2.8 IS USM and EF 28mm F/2.8 IS USM lenses also seem to be really good optically (and IS on a wide angle prime for the 1st time?), but sadly enough they are way overpriced.
> ...



I use both the 85 f/.8 and 28 f/1.8 on the D800e. I agree that the 85 does indeed rock. I'm on the fence about my copy of the 28 however. It's very nice stopped down but wide open. it really suffers from fringing - disappointingly so. I know to expect some fringing on fast, wide open wide primes but the 28 (my copy anyway) seems pretty poor in this respect.

Cheers!


----------



## jocau (Oct 23, 2012)

weekendshooter said:


> jocau said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah I read that the AF-S 85mm F/1.8G is brilliant.  The new EF 24mm F/2.8 IS USM and EF 28mm F/2.8 IS USM lenses also seem to be really good optically (and IS on a wide angle prime for the 1st time?), but sadly enough they are way overpriced.
> ...



I really love my EF 70-200mm F/4L IS USM (probably the biggest reason to stick with Canon), but I hardly use it because I don't like the focal length on a cropped sensor DSLR. That's also one of the reasons why I want a 6D.


----------



## tnargs (Oct 24, 2012)

jocau said:


> To be honest, I've tought about switching to Nikon too. It almost drives me insane that it seems like Canon isn't doing anything about their (heavily) inferior sensors. With every release of a new DSLR you see Canon getting beated to death by Nikon and Sony when it comes down to DR....



DR is one of about 30 important attributes of a good camera, and even that one is not important in many shooting situations, and its usefulness in ANY situation is highly debated -- in this very forum on other threads. (Show me a print with more than 7 stops of DR).

Settle down. There is no need to go insane over a minor detail. 'HEAVILY inferior'?? Sorry mate, it seems you've bought the hype.


----------



## tnargs (Oct 24, 2012)

friedmud said:


> ....There is no way there is a Canon camera on the horizon to challenge the D600 for landscape photography. The 6D is missing too many features and anything better than the 6D costs an arm and a leg...



The 5D3 costs, what, $800 more than the D600? (shop around). Less than the cost of 1 decent lens and you get a better all round camera. Switchers are better to get a 5D3 than an inferior D600 and lose money on lenses, they might even win financially as well as camera-wise.


----------



## distant.star (Oct 24, 2012)

tnargs said:


> jocau said:
> 
> 
> > To be honest, I've tought about switching to Nikon too. It almost drives me insane that it seems like Canon isn't doing anything about their (heavily) inferior sensors. With every release of a new DSLR you see Canon getting beated to death by Nikon and Sony when it comes down to DR....
> ...



Thanks. I was thinking the same thing. Personally, I think this is all as silly as saying you're going to Nikon because they make their cameras blacker on the outside than Canon. I believe well over 99% of people using DSLR cameras today don't get anywhere near needing the theoretical DR that gets debated around here as if it were the damn holy grail!


----------



## akclimber (Oct 24, 2012)

distant.star said:


> tnargs said:
> 
> 
> > jocau said:
> ...



Here's the thing: at ISOs 100-200 the sensor on the D800e is clearly, demonstratively superior in both DR and detail. These are not minor details. In a high DR scene there are times when I can capture the DR one on frame with the D800 that'd take 2 frames with my 5D2 or 5D3. That is not a minor consideration for some of us and could be considered a huge advantage (but I guess that's up to the photographer to decide). Regarding DR being a holy grail, well, at the point we are now with DSLR FF sensors in the 24-36 MP range already bumping up against reasonable diffraction (and processing) limits and with very, very good high ISO capabilities, AFAIC DR is now the holy grail (to be honest, it's been my holy grail since the 5D2 didn't much improve on the 5Dc & the 5D3 didn't improve at all on the 5D2, hence my foray into Nikon-Land). As for the argument (made above someplace) that nobody prints more the 7 (or whatever) stops of DR, tell me which file will make a better print: 1) one with very clean, detailed, noise and band free shadows and correctly exposed highlights or 2) one with muddy, noisey/pixilated and banded shadows and correctly exposed highlights? (caveat - that's a harsh description of under exposed Canon shadows but it is a situation that could occur in the same scene shot by the D800 and 5D3).

Now, at ISOs higher than the base 100-200 of the D800, the DR advantage is gradually lost until the 5D3 trumps the D800 (my experience seems to reflect the DXO Mark sensor test scores in this regard). So, if shooting at high ISO is a priority then sure, the 5D3 may be the better sensor to use. But don't discount the DR advantages of the D800 at low ISOs - they're real. And the detail advantages are real pretty much through out the ISO range when using non-diffraction limited apertures. 

And before anyone dismisses me as a Nikon fanboy, I've owned the following Canon DSLRs: 10D, 5Dc, 1D2n, 7D & currently own a 5D2, 5D3 and IR converted T3i. And altho I own a D800e, I don't really see myself as a Nikon shooter and sincerely hope Canon gets its act together and develops new sensor tech to compete with the new generation of Sony/Nikon sensors so that I can go back to being a one brand shooter. 

Cheers.


----------



## cheeseheadsaint (Oct 24, 2012)

I agree with what TriGGy said. If you have been using Canon for a while, I wouldn't switch. Currently I have to use my school's Nikon D300s 's for sports assignments and I'm just worried over the little things. Everything is opposite! zoom, putting lens in..etc.. And it's infuriating to worry over the small things and relearn them! Yeah, eventually you'll get used to it by why bother if you don't have to? Spend that time shooting!


----------



## UrbanImages (Oct 24, 2012)

Soooooo... Where is "RGF" and his contributions to the thread he/she started???


----------



## tnargs (Oct 24, 2012)

UrbanImages said:


> Soooooo... Where is "RGF" and his contributions to the thread he/she started???



Same question I asked a week ago. Can you spell t-r-o-l-l?


----------



## tnargs (Oct 24, 2012)

akclimber said:


> ...As for the argument (made above someplace) that _nobody prints more the 7 (or whatever) stops of DR_, tell me which file will make a better print: 1) one with very clean, detailed, noise and band free shadows and correctly exposed highlights or 2) one with muddy, noisey/pixilated and banded shadows and correctly exposed highlights? ...



Neither - because of the highlighted part of your post above.

Storm, meet teacup.

PS do you really own a D800e, 5D2 and 5D3? Impressive.... I think.


----------



## jocau (Oct 24, 2012)

tnargs said:


> jocau said:
> 
> 
> > To be honest, I've tought about switching to Nikon too. It almost drives me insane that it seems like Canon isn't doing anything about their (heavily) inferior sensors. With every release of a new DSLR you see Canon getting beated to death by Nikon and Sony when it comes down to DR....
> ...



I know that many scenes don't require a very high DR capable camera, but having a very high DR capable camera comes with another advantage. You can underexpose your shots to get a faster shutter speed and thus are able to freeze motion easier. You then just lift the shadows in post-processing. If Canon was, let's say, trailing behind Nikon/Sony by 1 stop, I wouldn't mind so much. But the difference is more than 2 stops!


----------



## akclimber (Oct 24, 2012)

tnargs said:


> akclimber said:
> 
> 
> > ...As for the argument (made above someplace) that _nobody prints more the 7 (or whatever) stops of DR_, tell me which file will make a better print: 1) one with very clean, detailed, noise and band free shadows and correctly exposed highlights or 2) one with muddy, noisey/pixilated and banded shadows and correctly exposed highlights? ...
> ...



"Neither" is the wrong answer at least for the prints I make but I guess we'll just disagree about that.

And yes, I do own a D800e, 5D2 and 5D3. Do you own a D800/e? If not, I suggest you rent or borrow one, use it for a while, shoot a bunch of DR and detail challenging scenes at ISOs 100 & 200 side-by-side with a 5D2 or 5D3 or 7D or 6D or 1Dx. You'll be impressed with the D800/E's sensor....I think.

Cheers.


----------



## jocau (Oct 26, 2012)

I went to the local hypermarket today to get some champagne and saw that they also sell DSLR's. They were just sitting there and you could easily hold them in your hands if you wanted to. I saw a Nikon D3200, a Nikon D5100, a Nikon D90 and a Nikon D7000 and wanted to know if I would like the ergonomics since I held a Canon 60D in my hands a few months ago. I only held the D5100 and D3200 briefly since they were really too small. I especially checked out the D7000 for a longer time and I must say it felt pretty awful in my hands. The grip was too small for me. Especially near the bottom of the camera where my pinky was. It felt very uncomfortable even after holding it for about 30 seconds. I bet I would get cramps if I held it for 5 minutes. My experience with the D90 was pretty similar. I wonder if the D600 has the same bad grip. Canon may be lagging behind a lot on sensor technology, but ergonomics wise they are way ahead of Nikon for me.


----------



## acafinecon (Oct 26, 2012)

Why woudl you want to do that NOW?

Canon's 24-70 II and 70-200 II L DESTROYED Nikon's counterparts, at least based on 5 professional reviews.
5d3 beats D800 and 1DX beats D4, based on 3 professional reviews!

Not a good idea now. Maybe next year.

Finally, even Nikon fascist Ken Rockwell has finally swtiched to Canon after 28 years of using it!


----------



## friedmud (Oct 26, 2012)

acafinecon said:


> Why woudl you want to do that NOW?
> 
> Canon's 24-70 II and 70-200 II L DESTROYED Nikon's counterparts, at least based on 5 professional reviews.
> 5d3 beats D800 and 1DX beats D4, based on 3 professional reviews!



All depends on what you're doing. If you're mainly doing landscapes then the above is definitely not true. The Low ISO performance of the D600 and D800 are superior...

Then you have to take into account price. A D600 and Nikon 24-70 is significantly cheaper than a 5DMkIII and 24-70 II (about $2000 from reputable dealers). If this is just a hobby... that can be significant.

For instance... there was my situation. I had a 7D and a 70-200 f/4L IS. I also had a bunch of smaller gear and older gear (XSi, old plastic lenses) and a broken 17-55 f/2.8. Let's analyze.

If I were going to move up to a 5DMkIII I would be selling my 7D. That ended up netting me $1200. The rest of my gear wouldn't give me that much cash (maybe ~$800). So now I have $2k to spend.

If I go get a 5DMkIII body from Amazon (not that I would get it there, just convenient to talk about) it costs me $3,200... so I'm out of pocket $1,200. That's ok, because I've been saving for a camera upgrade and have some cash. But now what? Oh, I need to get a 24-70 II as well (it's my preferred range and a damn fine lens). So now I'm out of pocket another $2100... for a total out of pocket cost of $3200.

The nice thing about this is that I still get to use my 70-200 f/4. The downside is that I'm out of pocket $3200.... which would make my wife fairly unhappy...

Now let's look at switching. I would have the $2k I had before... plus I could sell my 70-200 f/4 (which I got $1000 for) so now I have $3000. A D600 and 24-70 together cost $4000... so I'm out of pocket $1000.

This has the very real drawback of not having my 70-200 f/4 afterward... but I don't need it right away (again, mainly landscapes and travel photogging). I can save up for it and snag it later (Nikon just came out with one for $1400)

So for $1000 out of pocket I have a D600 which is awesome for landscape photography and a really great 24-70 (can't say it's better or worse than a 24-70 II myself... but it is really good either way). That is much easier for my wife to deal with... and I'm getting excellent IQ (orders of magnitude better than the 7D... but that's expected. Can't say how much better than a 5DMkIII).

Yes, I could have gone for a 5DMkII... but I would have sorely missed having good AF (I don't _only_ shoot landscapes!) and still wouldn't have the low ISO DR and IQ that the D600 does. Nor would I have access to the excellent Nikon 14-24 (Canon ultra-wides are really not great - I bought a 16-35 this year... and went through two copies before returning it all together because of lack of resolution at the edges... even on my 7D!)

Personally, if Canon would have come out with a serviceable 6D I would have stayed. But there were just too many features missing for the price (might still be a fine camera, but I feel like I got more for my money from a D600).

Basically, this whole thing is just trying to let some of you see that there are reasons to switch. The world is not black & white. There are many people in all sorts of different situations and with different needs and in different financial circumstances. It's not as easy as "X reviews better than Y!"... there are more variables...


----------



## jocau (Oct 27, 2012)

acafinecon said:


> Why woudl you want to do that NOW?
> 
> Canon's 24-70 II and 70-200 II L DESTROYED Nikon's counterparts, at least based on 5 professional reviews.
> 5d3 beats D800 and 1DX beats D4, based on 3 professional reviews!
> ...



Easy answer in fact.

1) Better sensor (Sony EXMOR)
2) Better metering system
3) Better flash exposure

Out of those 3 points only point 1 really bothers me. As for Nikon: I don't love the company, nor do I hate it. I don't feel a connection with the brand, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't buy one. I appreciate their cameras and what they are achieving with them. As for Canon, I do feel a "connection" since I've had a lot of Canon devices in the past. As for their DSLR's... I like the looks, the ergonomics, the glass, but I don't like their sensors because they are lagging behind the competition by a big margin. I hope they will be back one day to crush the competition but I have my doubts right now. If they keep lagging behind a switch to e.g. Nikon might be inevitable...


----------



## AmbientLight (Oct 27, 2012)

You are mistaken if you think that Canon's lagging behind Sony in sensor technology by a wide margin. Those sensors do show differences and that's fine, because we are seeing some competition here.

Sony is certainly ahead in some areas, but it is unlikely to stay like that. The best we can hope for is a development where Canon and Sony get the upper hand at some times, so that the current competitive situation will continue for a long time.

Of course I expect you have not used a 1D-X. On that level Canon simply delivers more except for some extra DR, but if you look at the overall comparison it is possible to live with that (at least I can). Overall according to many reviews the Canon product is better at this level.

Nikon simply has a niche to own with the D800, but that's it. At times Canon had its own niches (such as with the 5D Mark II), but you shouldn't just assume that a competitor is significantly behind the other, just because of such sweet spots.

Just as Nikon delivered D3 and D3s during the time of Canon's 5D Mark II successes, the situation is now in part reversed.


----------



## jocau (Oct 27, 2012)

I call having more than 2 stops extra DR at low ISO values a big difference.


----------



## acafinecon (Oct 27, 2012)

depends. most websites show that the 1dx has higher dr than d4, except dxo!
flash exposure is about the same now (see ken rockwell).


----------



## AlSand (Oct 27, 2012)

Hi, have been reading these forums for a while.
After reading topics like this, i cant give in to the thought that my 5D mark II is overclassed by the D800.
Today i was in the opportunity to take some comparison shots in and outside of a store.
I had my zeiss 21, the nikon the 14-24; both respected lenses.
The nikon salesman asked for 400 iso, so we shot at moderate iso.
I didn't expect it, but no way the d800 showed better DR.
Sharpness is better on the zeiss/canon combo. Resolution of course the d800.
I learned my lesson today, i'll stick with my 5D for the next couple of years...


----------



## friedmud (Oct 28, 2012)

AlSand said:


> Hi, have been reading these forums for a while.
> After reading topics like this, i cant give in to the thought that my 5D mark II is overclassed by the D800.
> Today i was in the opportunity to take some comparison shots in and outside of a store.
> I had my zeiss 21, the nikon the 14-24; both respected lenses.
> ...



Ummm - I don't really understand.... why were you shooting wide angles outside at ISO 400? I hate to say it, but you missed an opportunity by not going down to ISO 100... that's where the Nikon's shine.

If you look at the tests the current Canon sensors basically "top out" at ISO 400... not offering anything extra going down toward 100... but the Nikon's keep adding DR and dropping noise.

Also this doesn't make sense: "Sharpness is better on the zeiss/canon combo. Resolution of course the d800."

What is sharpness to you if not resolution? How can the D800 have better resolution but worse sharpness? Is it because you're comparing 100% at their native resolutions or are you comparing how "sharp" jpegs are? You should downsample the D800 shots to the same resolution as your 5D and do that comparison again.

Not trying to be argumentative here... I just thought your test scenario and outcomes were a bit odd.


----------



## tnargs (Oct 28, 2012)

friedmud said:


> ...Basically, this whole thing is just trying to let some of you see that there are reasons to switch. The world is not black & white. There are many people in all sorts of different situations and with different needs and in different financial circumstances. It's not as easy as "X reviews better than Y!"... there are more variables...



So..........
There are reasons to switch and reasons to stay,
So make a choice and go away.

tadaaaaaa!

Seriously, guys.


----------



## friedmud (Oct 28, 2012)

tnargs said:


> So..........
> There are reasons to switch and reasons to stay,
> So make a choice and go away.
> 
> ...



Well we have talk about _something_ instead of actually shooting photographs ;-)

But seriously... when I was thinking of switching these types of threads were extremely valuable... they let you see all the different lines of thinking that can be taken into consideration when making this type of decision. For many of us multi-thousand dollar decisions with no RoI other than great photos are difficult, prolonged decisions with many variables to factor in....


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 29, 2012)

tnargs said:


> friedmud said:
> 
> 
> > ...Basically, this whole thing is just trying to let some of you see that there are reasons to switch. The world is not black & white. There are many people in all sorts of different situations and with different needs and in different financial circumstances. It's not as easy as "X reviews better than Y!"... there are more variables...
> ...



Actually it's good to have somebody who can look at the other side of things. Perspectives like these should always be welcome. Being knowledgeable isn't bad and competition is also good. End users like us will always benefit from competition. I like Canon primarily their lenses and ergonomics and I'm hoping to have a better camera body in the future.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Nov 1, 2012)

Hi folks - new to this forum - but not photography or Forums. 85 replies and no answer from the OP - does he live under a bridge? (see troll stories).
If the current Nikon cameras are so good then why does Andy Rouse beg or borrow 1 DX's and 5D3's as well as Canon lenses when he has a D4 and D800 + plus a pile of Nikkor glass in his house?
If you can't take good shots with your chosen brand the it's you not the kit.
I must be sad as I actually researched this thread!


----------



## marekjoz (Nov 1, 2012)

johnf3f said:


> Hi folks - new to this forum - but not photography or Forums. 85 replies and no answer from the OP - does he live under a bridge? (see troll stories).
> (...)



Maybe he finally switched?


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Nov 1, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > Hi folks - new to this forum - but not photography or Forums. 85 replies and no answer from the OP - does he live under a bridge? (see troll stories).
> ...



Maybe so.


----------



## RGF (Feb 24, 2013)

RGF said:


> I would like to have a serious discussion. I am not going switch in haste, I am justing thinking about this issues. So please, no flames, etc. Well thought out comments are welcomed.
> 
> Comparing Nikon and Canon bodies here are my thoughts
> 
> ...



Thanks for everyone for their serious thoughts.

Since my passion is wildlife, I will be sticking (at least for the moment) with Canon.

Reasoning:

- New 200-400 is rumored to be great, built-in 1.4x converter may allow me to get the shot I would lose will taking the lens off the camera and adding the converter. Plus I have heard that Canon's version will be lighter than Nikon's. Definitely more expensive, though with the weakending Yen, perhaps the lens will not be that pricey.

- With a 200-400, I will sell my 500 F4 and get a 600F4. Again here Canon wins on weight, if not sharpness.

- In the mid-ranges (24-70 and 70-200) the version II Canon lenses are superb.

- Nikon beat Canons in wide angle lens/

- Bodies: AF Nikon wins but Canon is doing better.

I will make my final decision after the 200-400 is introduced.

Thanks again for all the discussion.


----------

