# What I'd give up if I switched to Nikon



## Mitch.Conner (Aug 21, 2015)

To be clear - I'm only thinking about switching hypothetically as I'm only invested about ~$4k in Canon accessories so far (a lot of money to be sure, but very little considering how expensive glass is). The story right now on the front page regarding the 5Dsr vs D810 review got me thinking about this.

I am curious - if I switched from full-frame Canon to full-frame Nikon, what would I be losing?

So far, here's what comes to mind:
- The 600 series speedlight with it's current-gen radio control
- The intuitive Canon interface/menu system
- F/1.2 primes (although I've heard Nikon used to have at least one f/1.2 lens)
- Magic Lantern (I haven't used this, but have always wanted to try it)
- Not having to pay extra for tethered shooting software
- CPS
- Build quality (every Nikon I've held so far has felt flimsy)

What else would I be losing that I am not thinking of? I posted this in Canon general as I'm not focused on just body features or lenses, or any one aspect- but am focused rather on the entire system.

Thanks!


----------



## arthurbikemad (Aug 21, 2015)

Tough call, as a canon user I also love Nikon, used both but own and still buy heavily into Canon, it's always a trade off, what you gain with one you loose with another, in the end I stopped worrying about it and got on with my photography, Canon has such a great range of glass, in my case most of the range inc the new 11-24 and up, I also use the RT speedlights with transmitter, tbh I can't wait to get the new 430iii to go with my 600s, I love the speedlights, for those reasons I am glad I still shoot Canon... but then fellow mates come along in the Nikon camp and I start to wonder once again if the grass is any greener haha

No help from me just adding to the chat


----------



## Eldar (Aug 21, 2015)

The simple truth is that you can live happily (and frustratingly) with both. I prefer Canon, primarily because of their lenses. Most of them have their equivalent in the Nikon lineup, but some are quality wise less attractive and some does not exist. Of the latter; 8-15mm, 11-24, 200-400 with built in extender and the 17 and 24 tilt&shift lenses are the important ones to me. Some, like the 70-200 f2.8L IS II is also supperior to its Nikon counterpart. I do not know of a single lense (apart from the new 800mm/5.6, which I do not want) where Nikon beats Canon and I don't have a Zeiss alternative, which beats both.

Next is Canon build quality and quality of service (CPS) and third is the flash system. Nikon cannot match that. The size of the second hand market is also an interesting thing to consider. There are much more Canon stuff available than Nikon, at least where I live.

The only thing Nikon has that has made me envious, is the 36MP sensor, but with the 5DSR, thatis no longer an issue.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 21, 2015)

What would you give up by switching to Nikon?

You would give up being able to slam Nikon because you would learn to use their system and find out that both Canon and Nikon make good systems. Each with advantages and disadvantages that may apply to an individual photographer.

Seriously, i don't get this "competition" thing. There is no best... only what is best for the individual photographer. 

If you like Canon, shoot Canon
If you like Nikon, shoot Nikon
If you like them both, shoot with both.

It is really up to the individual to choose which system works best for them and their individual style of photography.


----------



## zim (Aug 21, 2015)

Pancakes and CR (you wouldn't be allowed back) ;D


----------



## JohanCruyff (Aug 21, 2015)

Mitch.Conner said:


> I am curious - if I switched from full-frame Canon to full-frame Nikon, what would I be losing?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Considering that Canon developed a 24-105 IS STM Lens, we can expect that some of the future Full Frame Canon bodies will have DPAF.
So, you would/will be losing DPAF & STM Lenses.


----------



## steepjay (Aug 21, 2015)

I've been back and forth on this a few times over the years... lol Started photography with Nikon FM manual cameras and manual lenses. Went Canon with a 20D and then a 5D. Bought a D700 solely based on the pretty great 14-24 and made the move back to Nikon. Really missed the white glass so bought a 5D3 and bought back some of my whites. I'm pretty happy with my setup now, my gear is split at 65mm, long stuff is all Canon and wide stuff is all Nikon. Having said all that, the new Nikon FL long lenses are REALLY nice and now cover the whole range from 400-800mm.

Your point about systems as a whole is very accurate, I've always cared more about lenses than bodies, I usually buy "last gen" or at least used bodies off eBay, they change so fast. 

One point from your original list - build quality; at the D810 level, Nikons are built like tanks, wouldn't worry one bit about Nikon toughness.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 21, 2015)

In real terms it very much depends on what you shoot, what lenses you need and their functionality, a few system differences, and what you do with your files once you have them.

Many years ago I wanted to buy my first computer, I had no axe to grind or interest in any system, as a blank sheet I was advised by many to get an Apple, this was because my interests were primarily visual and at that time Apple did have a distinct hardware and software advantage. 

Starting from a blank page it is easy for tech heads to point people to an optimal camera choice, if you are already invested in a maker it becomes much more complex. For instance how difficult is it, personally, to change user interface (I really struggle whenever I pick up a Nikon but I am slow to learn).

Lenses are an important factor for some specialists, for instance the 17TS-E is often quoted, but the 24TS-E is leaps and bounds ahead of the 24PC-E too and it has separate tilt and swivel orientations. But if you don't use TS lenses that is moot, same with the MP-E 65, the handholdable 600 f4 etc etc. Nikon might not have the AF f1.2 primes, but their f1.8 primes have many fans and faster focusing than the Canon f1.2's, indeed they are much nicer general purpose lenses the f1.2's are very focused on a look and make massive compromises to get it.

Flashes, well Canon have Nikon beat for the RT system, but there are third party flashes that do the same thing on Nikon. And many people consider the Nikon system to give 'better' exposures than the Canon system, I don't, but I understand exactly what the Canon system is trying to do exposure wise so I know when to adjust or override it.

The differences go on and on. If you can give us a better understanding of what you shoot, the lenses and the gear you currently use we can be much more helpful.


----------



## Mancubus (Aug 21, 2015)

There is a video by Tony Northrup on youtube, he tests Canon vs Nikon and his biggest Nikon issue was the 70-200mm 2.8.

It's not as sharp as the Canon version, and despite being advertised as 70-200mm is actually around 70-130mm.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Aug 21, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> What would you give up by switching to Nikon?
> 
> You would give up being able to slam Nikon because you would learn to use their system and find out that both Canon and Nikon make good systems. Each with advantages and disadvantages that may apply to an individual photographer.
> 
> ...



This is what I was afraid would happen if I asked this question.

1. I'm not slamming Nikon.
2. I'm not making this a competition. It's just a question.

I'm genuinely asking what features I would give up if I switched to using Nikon as opposed to Canon. I don't have the money to maintain two systems.


----------



## dak723 (Aug 21, 2015)

Before switching, make sure you actually try a Nikon. The fact that the zoom (and I believe the focus) rings turn in the opposite direction are enough to keep me from considering Nikon. For some it doesn't matter, but it really would bother me.


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Aug 21, 2015)

Mitch.Conner said:


> I'm genuinely asking what features I would give up if I switched to using Nikon as opposed to Canon. I don't have the money to maintain two systems.


I think a better question is "What are you not getting from Canon that you feel you need?" And "because I feel like it" is a perfectly decent answer.

Both systems provide excellent cameras and lenses. Each with strengths and weaknesses for different applications and both capable of excellent pictures in all conditions if used with the proper technique.

Some people have specific requirements that simply can't be filled by one or the other, so that leads back to my original question.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Aug 21, 2015)

Just my 2p!
I think it is all down to your personal requirements and budget!
Both systems are VERY good but have their strengths and weaknesses. Most would consider Canon lenses to be better (with some exceptions) and most would agree that Nikon sensors have advantages. Having tried a number of Nikon cameras (I am a Canon user) I have been very impressed with their low to mid range bodies and feel that they have a significant edge over the Canon equivalents. Against that (at the more expensive end) I don't see a Nikon with versatility of the 5D3 or the speed of the 1DX. Canon make some stellar zoom lenses that are significantly better than the Nikon offerings - but the Nikon zooms are FAR from rubbish and they make some VERY tasty primes that aren't silly money.
My interests are primarily wildlife so the combination of the Canon 1DX and their SuperTele lenses is the better option for me. If my subjects were different then my decision may well be very different! For quite a while I was considering a Nikon FF body and their excellent 14-24mm lens for landscape work. Luckily for me Canon came out with the 16-35 F4 L IS (wide and fast enough for me) which was a much cheaper option - though not necessarily better.
It's all swings and roundabouts! One really needs to extensively try out the respective systems in the light of what YOU need rather than what I or someone else needs!


----------



## Zeidora (Aug 22, 2015)

1) MPE65, for which there is no equivalent, not even third party. And I use it a lot.
2) Old Zeiss/CY lenses (now just the F-Distagon 16 mm) because they cannot be mounted on Nikon.

I do not like that canon lenses have no mechanical f-stop ring on lens barrel, but I equally dislike the "wrong" direction the Nikon ring turns. I once owned a F3HP, so have tried it.

What I really want is a Contax RTSIV-D. Loved the RTSIII. Had all the essentials, but none of the unnecessary baggage.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Aug 24, 2015)

arthurbikemad said:


> ... it's always a trade off, what you gain with one you loose with another...



Exactly. I realized the other day that when I think "what if I switched to Nikon" I always concentrate on what Nikon has that I want, but I decided I should really carefully consider what I'd be giving up by switching to the Nikon system. The last thing I'd want is to sell my Canon gear, getting much less for it than I paid, and then after buying into Nikon realize that I wish I had my Canon gear again.



Eldar said:


> The simple truth is that you can live happily (and frustratingly) with both.



I don't have the cash to maintain two systems. One day if I have the cash I probably will try to have two systems.



zim said:


> Pancakes and CR (you wouldn't be allowed back) ;D



Pancakes are a good one. I didn't think about them. Thanks.

I don't know that you're right about CR banning me. 



JohanCruyff said:


> Considering that Canon developed a 24-105 IS STM Lens, we can expect that some of the future Full Frame Canon bodies will have DPAF.
> So, you would/will be losing DPAF & STM Lenses.



DPAF! Good one. Thanks. I haven't gotten to try it yet, but it sounds awesome.



steepjay said:


> One point from your original list - build quality; at the D810 level, Nikons are built like tanks, wouldn't worry one bit about Nikon toughness.



I went to Best Buy today and they had a D810 for people to hold and "try". Unfortunately, I couldn't turn it on and "try" it because they had no ability to power it up, they didn't even know where the batteries were... and they had no lens to put on it, nor could I put the lens on the adjacent d610 on d810 because they've permanently affixed it to the d610 to ensure it doesn't get stolen. How am I supposed to get a feel for whether I like the camera if I all I can do is admire how _purty _it is? I did get a feel for the build quality though, and you're right. It's much better than the other Nikon's I've held, which were comparatively lower end.



privatebydesign said:


> ...if you are already invested in a maker it becomes much more complex. For instance how difficult is it, personally, to change user interface...
> 
> ...But if you don't use TS lenses that is moot, same with the MP-E 65, the handholdable 600 f4 etc etc. Nikon might not have the AF f1.2 primes, but their f1.8 primes have many fans and faster focusing than the Canon f1.2's, indeed they are much nicer general purpose lenses the f1.2's are very focused on a look and make massive compromises to get it.
> 
> ...



I agree about it being more difficult to switch the more invested you get in a company. This is why I'm entertaining this hypothetical now. I'm at a point where I could switch now (it would be painful, and I'd lose a few thousand dollars, but it could be much much worse), but if I get more invested I doubt I'd switch unless things got really bad with the Canon brand.

I don't use Tilt-shift... yet. The MP-E 65 has been on my list of things to buy, but I've wondered why it wasn't listed on the 5Ds recommended lenses. Did I miss it on that list? It seems like we're shifting to higher MP, and I figure I should only buy lenses that will remain useful as that shift occurs.

As for the flash systems, I was not aware of the Nikon vs Canon discussion in regards to exposure. I've been reading up on that lately to better understand it.



Mancubus said:


> There is a video by Tony Northrup on youtube, he tests Canon vs Nikon and his biggest Nikon issue was the 70-200mm 2.8.
> 
> It's not as sharp as the Canon version, and despite being advertised as 70-200mm is actually around 70-130mm.



I remember reading this a while back: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/09/just-the-lenses-canon-vs-nikon-zooms-at-70mm

It seemed to say that they were roughly equivalent.



dak723 said:


> Before switching, make sure you actually try a Nikon. The fact that the zoom (and I believe the focus) rings turn in the opposite direction are enough to keep me from considering Nikon. For some it doesn't matter, but it really would bother me.



I tried to do that today at Best Buy. I wasn't able to unfortunately. I mentioned it in more detail above.



GmwDarkroom said:


> I think a better question is "What are you not getting from Canon that you feel you need?" And "because I feel like it" is a perfectly decent answer.
> 
> Both systems provide excellent cameras and lenses. Each with strengths and weaknesses for different applications and both capable of excellent pictures in all conditions if used with the proper technique.
> 
> Some people have specific requirements that simply can't be filled by one or the other, so that leads back to my original question.



You're right - that's a good question. Honestly, I can't say that there is anything that my Canon can't do that I've needed it to do. If there was, I'd probably have just switched already rather than put the thought into whether I should - or whether I'm just feeling like the grass is greener on the other side when it may or may not actually be.



Zeidora said:


> 1) MPE65, for which there is no equivalent, not even third party. And I use it a lot.
> 2) Old Zeiss/CY lenses (now just the F-Distagon 16 mm) because they cannot be mounted on Nikon.
> 
> I do not like that canon lenses have no mechanical f-stop ring on lens barrel, but I equally dislike the "wrong" direction the Nikon ring turns. I once owned a F3HP, so have tried it.



The MPE65 is a good one. I too wish there was an f-stop ring. I know Canon used to have them, because I've got an old manual focus Canon FD mount 50mm f/1.8 with an aperture ring.

I'm not sure if the direction of the rings would matter to me or not.



johnf3f said:


> Most would consider Canon lenses to be better (with some exceptions)



I recently posted a thread asking about Canon vs Nikon lenses. I didn't explicitly state it, but I was questioning this generally accepted position about Canon vs Nikon glass. The impression I've gotten recently is that it used to be that Canon glass was generally superior, but Nikon has caught up and now they run neck and neck for the most part. Am I wrong here?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 24, 2015)

In terms of hardware, the over balance is pretty good. You will spend more for lenses, repair turn around times are poor, but your photography will lose nothing.

For me, when I bought a D800, the lack of decent live view was a big issue. The camera has liveview, but you have to purchase Nikon software to tether it, and even then, I found it to be a bad joke. The screen refresh time is so slow that you must wait and wait, trying to manually focus using liveview is a chore.

The other Issue is the high CA's with some of their lenses, like the 24-70mm f/2.8 G. Hopefully, the replacement will be better.

The last issue is finding good used lenses. Very few pro level lenses are found locally, and then, they have silly high prices. They can be found, but it can be a 2 year search.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 24, 2015)

You could just flip a coin and pick a system. Either system will do just fine.


----------



## chromophore (Aug 24, 2015)

What would I have to give up if I switched?

[list type=decimal]
[*]*My EF 85/1.2L II.* That would be the most painful sacrifice. I love this lens, as challenging as it is to use.
[*]*Flagship-level AF at less than flagship level prices.* The 5D3 can be had at very reasonable prices now, and the autofocusing system is remarkable.
[*]*Canon's UI.* Here I'm referring to body ergonomics as well as menu structure and layout. Given almost any EOS body, I can figure out 95% of the functions within 15 minutes, even if I've never handled it before. I don't know if Nikon's interface is better, but I do know that I would have to relearn a lot of things if I were to switch.
[*]*Relatively affordable lenses.* My comparison of lenses in Nikon's lineup compared to Canon's offerings has me concluding that it would cost more to have equivalent lenses, where such equivalents exist (see the 85/1.2L above).
[*]*Customer service from CPS.* This is speculative, but I have heard the horror stories of Nikon's repair service. I know I can just drive to Canon's repair facility, drop off my gear, and I've never have had to worry about being treated badly.
[/list]

Now, would there be things I would gain from switching? Yes. But do they balance out the above? No.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 24, 2015)

Acutance
Something that I always notice. Your signature "I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light" ends in a tautology: "refraction" has by definition to involve "transmission". Perhaps "I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and focusses light" would be more to the point?


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Aug 24, 2015)

Mitch.Conner said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > Most would consider Canon lenses to be better (with some exceptions)
> ...



Yes and no. Like Canon, Nikon make some very good lenses - some are better some are not as good. 
The bulk of my uses are for 300mm + lenses and the few Nikon lenses that I have tried have left me a bit underwhelmed - or could it have been the cameras? It really doesn't matter which as it is the system that counts!
I believe that many of the current Nikon offerings are excellent though some are not - much the same applies to any manufacturer. If the better ones fill your needs then Nikon may well be a better option. Unfortunately I have been disappointed with the Nikon system for my needs though that situation could easily be reversed if my needs were different!


----------



## jblake (Aug 24, 2015)

chromophore said:


> What would I have to give up if I switched?
> 
> [list type=decimal]
> [*]*My EF 85/1.2L II.* That would be the most painful sacrifice. I love this lens, as challenging as it is to use.


From what I have seen with online blur charts, ISO charts and bar graphs, the Nikon 85 1.4G is much sharper, from f/1.4 thru f/11, than the Canon 85 1.2L II lens. It focuses faster and is sharper in the corners at f/8 and f/11 than the Canon 85 1.2l II is in the center at those apertures.

I have owned the Canon 85 1.2L II and loved it too.[/list]


----------



## chromophore (Aug 25, 2015)

jblake said:


> chromophore said:
> 
> 
> > What would I have to give up if I switched?
> ...



I don't doubt those claims (although "much" sharper seems likely to be an exaggeration). But I don't *use* the 85L for its sharpness, or for that matter, its performance at f/8-11; if I wanted something to use stopped down, I'd use my 100/2.8L macro IS which is in the same focal length range, plus has the benefit of being able to focus very closely if I needed it, and has IS.

I'd say that 99% of my use of the 85L is at f/1.2 to f/1.8; 90% is at f/1.2, in low-contrast situations where sagittal flare is not a concern. I treat it as the specialist lens that it is: as much as I love to use it, I don't try to use it for every photograph I make.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Aug 25, 2015)

Mancubus said:


> There is a video by Tony Northrup on youtube, he tests Canon vs Nikon and his biggest Nikon issue was the 70-200mm 2.8.
> 
> It's not as sharp as the Canon version, and despite being advertised as 70-200mm is actually around 70-130mm.


Birders will miss also the 400mm 5.6L and the new 100-400mmL IS II with the new 7D2.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 25, 2015)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> Mancubus said:
> 
> 
> > There is a video by Tony Northrup on youtube, he tests Canon vs Nikon and his biggest Nikon issue was the 70-200mm 2.8.
> ...



Missing the 400mm 5.6L will be nostalgia - superb for 1993 technology. The 100-400mm II is another matter. Lensrentals has just posted its MTFs. Not only are they simply outstanding, they have just about the lowest variation from copy to copy. Just read:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/08/canon-100-400-is-ii-mtf-and-variation-tests


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 25, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Acutance
> Something that I always notice. Your signature "I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light" ends in a tautology: "refraction" has by definition to involve "transmission". Perhaps "I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and focusses light" would be more to the point?



Good point, I will look into that.


----------

