Oh boy, I'm probably opening a can o worms here. It's not my intention to start a war about us vs them, I'd just like to know what others are thinking.
I'm considering the jump because:
I'd like a tilt/shift lens.
I've found, by testing, the sweet spots in my Nikon glass to be narrow with regards to aperture.
What keeps me from the jump:
Cost of conversion.
Have heard that the multi-flash system is not as good as Nikon SB.
Not sure about software for tethering and shooting into Lightroom.
Location: Regina SK canada/Big White BC/Melbourne OZ
Posts: 849
Re: Jump to Canon
I too have looked at a switch over the years, but find it is 6 of one half dozen of the other.
For me the money is not a consideration, but other factors for me are, so here goes.
So here is my critera, in order of importance to my business:
#1 useability. Nikon are the clear leader here.
#2 build quality. Both are equal, so no reson to switch.
#3 image quality. Both great, no reason to switch.
#4 file size. Nikon clear winner (D2h)
#5 focus speed. Canon just ahead.
#6 low light performance. Canon clear winner.
#7 Lense sharpness. no clear winner.
#8 flash perforance. Nikon clear winner
#9 exposure. Nikon just ahead.
#10 value. Nikon just ahead.
#11 service. both bad.
So at the end of the day for me Nikon is still my tool of choice, their ergonomics/ exposure and flash advantage overwelm Canon's better high ISO and slight AF speed advantages.
I would consider a switch if I still did alot of indoor sports, but it is just not my gig anymore.
All in all they are just tools and the way you use them matters. Canon people have to overcome the flash shortcomeings and illogical ergonomics and Nikon users must get their exposures spot on over 800 asa.
When it comes to glass, I find both have some great lenses, but I still buy third party glass if Nikkor don't make what I need ie Sigma 120-300 f2.8, also Nikon have slight advantage for me with their amazing 18-200, which is becomeing our 'go to' lense for my 14 photogs.
Gav
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Last edited by gavin_crawford; 08-18-2007 at 01:51 PM.
I know many that have switched from Nikon to Canon, because of the vast superiority of the Canons in low light and higher ISO performance. When a Canon Mark 3 shoot at iso 3200 is a lot less grainy than a D2X shot at iso 800, that is a huge differnce. Actually the 3200 is similar to the 400 ISO in a d200.
Useability is show above as a clear leader for Nikon, but with the HUGE limits in the use of it in lower light settings or high speed useage w/out bright sunlight, I have to say, the Canon blows Nikon Away. Not to mention the FULL FRAME sensor you can get in the 5D or the 1DS Mark 2. Fille size, not sure there is really much different, Data is data, and unless you want it compressed more for more loss of info, that should not be a concern. If you want a quality image you got to pay for it, and that includes a larger file size. I agree with Lens sharpness, when you get the GOOD pro quality glass, the Nikon an d Canon are about the same. Flashes, thats a toss up. How many use a nikon flash, if you are doing weddings or portaits? Most will be smart and use a company that specializes in lighting so they get the best perfrormance they can, and most likely use something liek a Pocket Wizard to trigger it. And If you compare the sb-800 to the 580 EX II what are the differences? Granted the Canon is sealed and weather/dust resistant and has a solid and stable metal foot, but most will want remote lights. Value, sorry but I think Canon is the winner there. Nikon has taken a big hit when they were making consumer models with very limited ISO ranges, like 200-800 only, and that hurt the image. Granted they FINALLY started to have ISO 100 on some models, but if you look at the resale market, the Canons hold the value better and seem to be in a much higher demand. And then add in the amount of extra time spent on editing images because of the extra grain if you are not shooting at or below 400 iso on most-basically all the models, and that adds a lot of extra cost to using Nikon products. To me my time is worth a lot, and the less time I have to spend doing touch up or working to be able to blow an image up and not have grain or noise to be an issue is important.
My advice is to make some large prints from your files, and then figure if the Canon would do a better job. I see guys checking their photos by putting them on high quality monitors, blowing them up to 200%, and then bring their faces right up to the screen. Canon's are better in some places like high ISO and autofocus, which is why they dominate the sports and photojournalism fields. For what I do, weddings, corporate events, and editorial portraiture, I have no issues with the Nikons. I think decisions like this come down more to how you feel about the equipment, than how well it works on paper, so I'm not going to tell one is better than the other.
BTW - I use the SB-800 flashes wirelessly with the SU-800 controller all the time for weddings and commercial shoots. I have a large battery powered flash system that I can fire by radio slave, but but the SB-800 set up is soooo much easier and faster to use, that I hardly ever use the Metz anymore. About the only place I don't use the SB-800 is for large group shots, in the studio, or when I need a large softbox outside. If Nikon would 'supersize' an SB-800 so that it would go into a softbox, I would probably just sell off the Metz altogether. You can see some of the lighting stuff on my blog.
I would disagree on the comment that Canon is better in autofocus. Having done a lot of shooting on the sidelines of NASCAR, NFL, and MLB games, there are PLENTY of us NIKON shooters. Most of the gear provided sports shooters is dependent on their employer-- must of us don't all own our personal 400mm f/2.8, but borrow the departments copy.
Many people jump ship to Canon, IMO, because of "the grass is greener" syndrome. I have seen many poeple jump back because of a lack of CLS, ergonomics, a realization the problem was the photographer (not the camera), and various reasons.
The truth is, there isn't a pancea camera. There are problems with Canon's too. Those who jump ship will find that out.
With the move to digital, I have noticed that buying gear is much more of an issue with all of us. If you remember the 1990s we all had to buy new computers every year to keep up with the software demands and all the new technology. Something similar is happening now with camera gear. Most us are chasing after some ideal camera that doesn't exist yet. And when they invent it, that video camera I keep reading about (that shoots each frame as a 12MP camera) will be on the market and we will all have to turn video jockey.
If you want to switch to Canon, do it because it makes you happier to take a camera out of the bag and shoot.. Don't do it because you think it will magically make your images that much better-- because it will just make you miserable to discover that only the photographer makes the pictures perfect: not the camera.
Is Canon better? I have to agree with Joshua in the post above. It depends on you, what you do and what you consider acceptable results. . . In other words it's a whole lot of opinion. Some might say an overexposed, soft focus photo of uncle John is a great photo. Why? Because it is technically excellent or is it because it is the only time in 35 years the old guy has smiled . . . I echo the one truth in Joshua’s end comment . . . A great photographer will always take a better picture than most people no matter what the camera.
James Haba
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
......I'm considering the jump because:
I'd like a tilt/shift lens.
.......
Curt, I love TILT/SHIFT lens too, but ever since I go digital, my 28PC is the first lens I've sold, since I can easily correct any distortion with a software, Photoshop & plug-ins
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Linear Mode
