Yeah, after months of thinking about it, a few conversations @ WPPI have convinced us that we should make the switch.
FWIW the primary reasons for wanting to do this are:
1. a 24-70 that you can actually use Wide open without needing to be one of 3 people I know who have a sharp one from canon
2. pro af that supposedly can actually track subjects
3. better high ISO performance (my opinion, I'm not entertaining arguments about this)
4. lack of auto-mode-change-on-its-effing-own feature that all my canon bodies have
5. full frame + pro af - the terabucks price
6. ability to actually see if a shot is in focus, on the LCD
7. less pro shoter friends who will push me into the gear whoring prime spiral of doom
8. supposedly less expensive in terms of shipping back to manufacturer for recalibration, adjustment, correction etc.
9. available dual slot full frame high speed, monster ISO wunderbeast without 35 megapretzel resolution
Ok, so for those of you who made this switch... I'd appreciate any insight you might have as far as how you went about the switch, what issues you found, what you miss from Canon (if anything) and maybe ways you managed to save on the transition by not necessarily buying the top nikon this or that... for isntance... flashes... do we need SB800s for our OCLs as well?
lisy78 wrote:
1. a 24-70 that you can actually use Wide open without needing to be one of 3 people I know who have a sharp one from canon
True. 24-120 F4, 16-25 and 14-24 and both 70-200s are amazing. The biggest difference between Canon and Nikon is that you don't have to go prime to get awesome IQ
lisy78 wrote:
2. pro af that supposedly can actually track subjects
True - C mode works great.
lisy78 wrote:
3. better high ISO performance (my opinion, I'm not entertaining arguments about this)
Agreed. You can pull back/push so much further with no banding and the grain looks filmy instead of nasty digital crud.
lisy78 wrote:
4. lack of auto-mode-change-on-its-effing-own feature that all my canon bodies have
Agreed
lisy78 wrote:
5. full frame + pro af - the terabucks price
Agreed. Love their take on how all the bodies have the same capability and a very limited difference (i.e. - DX vs. FX, full body vs small body, etc.)
lisy78 wrote:
6. ability to actually see if a shot is in focus, on the LCD
True and awesome
lisy78 wrote:
7. less pro shoter friends who will push me into the gear whoring prime spiral of doom
I need way less Nikon stuff to get by than I did Canon stuff. Awesome.
lisy78 wrote:
8. supposedly less expensive in terms of shipping back to manufacturer for recalibration, adjustment, correction etc.
WAY NOT TRUE. This is the biggest drawback in my opinion. Granted, I have to send stuff to Nikon WAY less than I did with Canon (like sending something to Canon every month in season). But the Nikon fixes cost way more.
lisy78 wrote:
9. available dual slot full frame high speed, monster ISO wunderbeast without 35 megapretzel resolution
True
lisy78 wrote:
Ok, so for those of you who made this switch... I'd appreciate any insight you might have as far as how you went about the switch, what issues you found, what you miss from Canon (if anything) and maybe ways you managed to save on the transition by not necessarily buying the top nikon this or that... for isntance... flashes... do we need SB800s for our OCLs as well?
Sold all my Canon stuff on here in 2 days for a profit. I like the new flashes because they are so much easier to set up for OCF. The 900 trigger and master with an easy switch - I'd get a set of sb-700s (the new ones) for OCFs since they set up so fast.
you too now, Alessandro? We were talking about this the other day, I'm surprised you didn't say you were thinking about it too.
At WPPI I had a chance to spend about 30 minutes getting familiar with the D3s and some lenses. That 30 minutes was all the convincing I needed to finally give it a shot (I was strongly considering it two years ago, but didn't ever have a chance get hands-on with Nikon gear since everyone I know shoots Canon).
I just picked up a D3 with extra batteries and stuff used here on FM for $3k. (should get it in a week or two).
I was researching lenses, and after Todd suggested it, I looked into the 14-24 rather than just going with the 14 prime for architectural work... well from the review I found comparing the 14-24 with the 14L... the 14 was crap by comparison (and I'm happy with my 14L, mind you). So, I'm excited.
I'm planning to have a 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, and a 105 macro. That is ALL.
I'd be happy to chat with you once I have the camera and lenses to let you know how I like everything. I won't be selling my loads of Canon gear until I'm 200% sure I want to commit to the switch.
P.S. It's funny, I was talking with Pete last night I think on FB, and as he said, the terrible Canon 24-70L consistency (or the loose tolerances on lenses / bodies so the extremes on either end result in these problems too often) is costing Canon users. It's not the ONLY reason but it's one of the big ones. They are idiots for not releasing a new, GOOD 24-70 years ago.
considered making the switch a few seasons ago, too. was shooting a lot with a wedding photographer who wanted me to only use her gear - she's sponsored by nikon - and i really fell in love with the D3 and then the D3s.
-i liked the way it felt (ergonomically)
-it seemed to me to render colors that were just so much nicer (or more pleasing to me, i guess) than what i was getting out of my canon
-and the flash output was so much more consistent
unfortunately, hubby shoots sports, so we're heavily invested in canon glass... he wouldn't dream of moving to nikon. bla.
Really, Steve... the first nikon/canon thread in the wedding area in like... what... a year? And it's moved to the nikon boards? jeez. you know, sometimes when i'm at my goddaughter's soccer game, we discuss some things besides just soccer.
@Todd, I was not referrring to the expense of having the equipment serviced, just on the perception I've gotten from many people I've talked to who switched that the Nikon gear goes back WAY LESS OFTEN (hence my jestful comment about saving ON SHIPPING )
@Kurtis, what did you get for $3K? I know you said D3... but what lens?
I was actually thinking of getting some of the stuff new... a D700 to take advantage of the rebate that's going on ... from what i can see it means getting the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 VR 2 at used price for new (and my VISA would hook me up with an extra year of warranty. Basically I could get a D700 with 2 years warranty, and the three zooms all with 2 year warranty for the cost of a D700 new and the cost of all 3 zooms used. Not too bad.
Not even sure I'd buy a macro... unless there's one that's a ridiculously good deal... kind of regretted spending the money on canon's 100 macro when frankly I could get by with toobz.
We had a biz meeting about the switch and we approved it today... so yeah, it's now a matter of deciding HOW to go about it.
As to your question "why didn't I speak up?" well... for one... if you followed my postings you can't have missed my sarcastic comments about Canon's boneheaded 5D2 focusing, their idiotic solo megapixel race, their insistence on not fixing the damned banding when pushing...
for two...
I guess I didn't want to really put it out there until I was ready to make the switch.
For what it's worth I've also decided that the whole "offering film alongside digital" was a boneheaded decision (FOR ME, not commenting on the viability for others) and I hadn't come out about that either... so yeah... there's more than meets the eye
My Nikon zooms are fantastic and reliable but I did add the 24/50/85 for when I want to spice things up.
I agree with everything TRR said about his Nikon experience. Nonetheless, with new bodies from both manufacturers on the horizon you may just want to hold out.
TTLKurtis wrote:
Really, Steve... the first nikon/canon thread in the wedding area in like... what... a year? And it's moved to the nikon boards? jeez. you know, sometimes when i'm at my goddaughter's soccer game, we discuss some things besides just soccer.
Yeah, really. I'm not the mod over here. Report it and request it be moved back. If that happens, I promise to leave it alone.
ale, you know i'm a nikoner??
LOVE the system.
D3s and the glass makes it ridiculous. if you wanna talk, just let me know.
although, leave the physics talk at the door.
lisy78 wrote:
Basically I could get a D700 with 2 years warranty, and the three zooms all with 2 year warranty for the cost of a D700 new and the cost of all 3 zooms used. Not too bad.
Nikkor Lenses
Nikkor lenses come with a standard one year warranty and Nikon Inc. lenses sold by authorized Nikon Inc. dealers will have a Nikon Inc. Five Year Extension*.
To register for the five year extension, one copy of the included form must be mailed in as indicated. Keep the Customer copy of the form as well as the original proof of purchase (sales receipt).
hmmmm
I am heavily invested in Canon and have looked at and used Nikon stuff many times. Ergonomics IMO are not as good as canon at least for my hands.
As far as pushing and pulling files from all the high end Canon stuff compared to the high end Nikon stuff....it is a wash. Basically the same. Pushing or pulling a shot depends on much more than just the cam you use at this point you can push or pull in both systems way more than you should ever have to.
Price---Canon
Fixing---Canon everytime, and silly fast.
Here is my honest take. Nikon overtook Canon in the fully functional FF cam market a few years ago. Canon still has the take on video. Canon will take the necessary time to research and restructure their camera lines to better Nikon. I am thinking maybe two more years. When that happens everyone will be real sad they switched.
Plus I don't care what Nikon has...nothing beats a 5d + 35L picture. Sorry cannot be done.
People who switched a few years ago are fine but people who switch now are asking for big regrets I think.
I thought about switching 2 seasons ago and did. One of the best choices I made.
If you're in for saving money up front:
80-200 f/2.8 is a great lens and will get you through for a while until the true 70-200 II lust sets in. Cheap as chips used.
Sigma 105 Macro. Costs bugger all and great for a ring shot.
Nikon 85 f/1.8. When you need a prime this is a really cheap and great lens. Sure you could go with the 1.4 but for how seldom I use it, it's a great choice.
SB900's Rock.
That's in the US. Nikon Canada, and Europe, Nikon cameras get two years, IIRR
Shaun Nyc wrote:
Nikkor Lenses
Nikkor lenses come with a standard one year warranty and Nikon Inc. lenses sold by authorized Nikon Inc. dealers will have a Nikon Inc. Five Year Extension*.
To register for the five year extension, one copy of the included form must be mailed in as indicated. Keep the Customer copy of the form as well as the original proof of purchase (sales receipt).
How come nobody mentioned about the incredible amount of dynamic range and exceptionally low shadow noise that Canon could never even dream of! I had 2 5Ds and I had T2i and they didn't come close to D700 or even D5000. Though what I can say is that I must have been lucky in terms of lenses, all of the Canon lenses that I had were excellent, except back/front focusing, but that could have been the bodies. Also, Canon lenses are more affordable and they have more options. For example, I had 28-70 F2.8 that I picked up at 750 dollars, which was awesome wide open, try finding Nikon 28-70 for less than 1000 that will be perfectly sharp wide open. If you want to take full advantage of Nikon sensors you have to go with the new N type lenses. Nikon flash system is unsurpassed!
you too now, Alessandro? We were talking about this the other day, I'm surprised you didn't say you were thinking about it too. 
