The main reason I'm thinking about switching is because a good friend of mine that I've known forever, is all Nikon.
Obviously, if one of us switch, we could borrow each others lenses/bodies.

Currently I own:
1D MarkII
50 f/1.8
70-200 f/2.8 IS mkI
300 f/2.8 Non-IS
580exII

My question is to anyone that's made the switch, what would I be able to trade for that would be comparable to my current setup?

-Mike

I've been looking at the d3, 70-200 vr 1 and 14-24. I'm going to need something in between though. maybe a 35 or a 50.

Suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

D700
50 1.8G
70-200 VR II (the I is good, but tends to vignette and lose sharpness at the edges compared to the II, on FX. On DX it's not nearly as noticable)
300 2.8 AF-S II, or the newer VR or VR II
SB-910 (just announced) or 900.

Pretty much the same system you have, only it would be full frame, though with the 12mp vs 8pm, at 1.3x crop, the D700 would crop down from 12 to 8mp, so you would have the same effective resolution.

Just my thoughts. FYI, I've owned pretty much every lens you mentioned having when I was a Canon shooter, and own everything I mentioned or better as a Nikon shooter (except the D700, I have a D3)

Max

PShizzy wrote:
D700
50 1.8G
70-200 VR II (the I is good, but tends to vignette and lose sharpness at the edges compared to the II, on FX. On DX it's not nearly as noticable)
300 2.8 AF-S II, or the newer VR or VR II
SB-910 (just announced) or 900.

Pretty much the same system you have, only it would be full frame, though with the 12mp vs 8pm, at 1.3x crop, the D700 would crop down from 12 to 8mp, so you would have the same effective resolution.

Just my thoughts. FYI, I've owned pretty much every lens you mentioned having when I was a Canon shooter, and own everything I mentioned or better as a Nikon shooter (except the D700, I have a D3)

Max
Thanks Max!
I did hear about the vignetting on the Version 1. I guess I should have mentioned that all the money I can put towards Nikon gear, is coming from selling off all of my Canon gear that I listed above. So things like going for the version 1 over the 2, leaves me with more money to put towards other lenses and whatnot.
My friend has the D700. I have looked too much into it and I guess I should. But from a quick search, the D3 and D700, I found that they are relatively priced around the same. What differentiates the two? Why strive for the D700 when the D3 is priced the same?

mowensphotogra wrote:
PShizzy wrote:
D700
50 1.8G
70-200 VR II (the I is good, but tends to vignette and lose sharpness at the edges compared to the II, on FX. On DX it's not nearly as noticable)
300 2.8 AF-S II, or the newer VR or VR II
SB-910 (just announced) or 900.

Pretty much the same system you have, only it would be full frame, though with the 12mp vs 8pm, at 1.3x crop, the D700 would crop down from 12 to 8mp, so you would have the same effective resolution.

Just my thoughts. FYI, I've owned pretty much every lens you mentioned having when I was a Canon shooter, and own everything I mentioned or better as a Nikon shooter (except the D700, I have a D3)

Max
Thanks Max!
I did hear about the vignetting on the Version 1. I guess I should have mentioned that all the money I can put towards Nikon gear, is coming from selling off all of my Canon gear that I listed above. So things like going for the version 1 over the 2, leaves me with more money to put towards other lenses and whatnot.
My friend has the D700. I have looked too much into it and I guess I should. But from a quick search, the D3 and D700, I found that they are relatively priced around the same. What differentiates the two? Why strive for the D700 when the D3 is priced the same?

PLEASE tell me where you can get a D3 for the price of a D700 !

FWIW, I had the D3 and sold it to go to the D700. I simply like the smaller form factor and the weight savings and do not need right now the frame rate of the D3 vs the D700

J

mowensphotogra wrote:
PShizzy wrote:
D700
50 1.8G
70-200 VR II (the I is good, but tends to vignette and lose sharpness at the edges compared to the II, on FX. On DX it's not nearly as noticable)
300 2.8 AF-S II, or the newer VR or VR II
SB-910 (just announced) or 900.

Pretty much the same system you have, only it would be full frame, though with the 12mp vs 8pm, at 1.3x crop, the D700 would crop down from 12 to 8mp, so you would have the same effective resolution.

Just my thoughts. FYI, I've owned pretty much every lens you mentioned having when I was a Canon shooter, and own everything I mentioned or better as a Nikon shooter (except the D700, I have a D3)

Max
Thanks Max!
I did hear about the vignetting on the Version 1. I guess I should have mentioned that all the money I can put towards Nikon gear, is coming from selling off all of my Canon gear that I listed above. So things like going for the version 1 over the 2, leaves me with more money to put towards other lenses and whatnot.
My friend has the D700. I have looked too much into it and I guess I should. But from a quick search, the D3 and D700, I found that they are relatively priced around the same. What differentiates the two? Why strive for the D700 when the D3 is priced the same?

Mainly because of size and weight. A huge plus with the D3 is the button layout...much much better IMO. I really don't like the ISO button on the D700 but if you don't have to have a grip attached all the time I would look into the D700 w/ a battery grip.

What are you going to be shooting? Any specific needs?

I haven't really kept track of pricing between the D700 and D3, I meant to say I HAD a d3, now have a D3s.

I would read up on the differences, as neither one is the magic bullet in your case, but one may lean to your liking more given its feature set. For example, I like the full size body of a D3/D3s, but the case is made for a half size body that's light and can go in a smaller space in a bag.

Don't get me wrong on the 70-200 VR I. I had one when I first moved over, and I didn't really mind the vignette or sharpness at the edges. Again, depends on what you shoot with and what you shoot. I have the VR II now and while I feel it's a better lens, I upgraded mostly because it was part of a horse trade with someone who was going to DX, so the opportunity made sense.

If you have any more questions, please feel free to contact me, as I was in your situation a few years back, and don't mind offering more help.

Oh another thing: If you decide to go D700, a D300/s is a nice backup, and both share the same grip, which could be pretty useful. I'd say the D300 isn't as good noise wise as the 1D II, but it's pretty good given that they're going for under 1k right now. Also built really well, and similar button layout to a D700.

mowensphotogra wrote:

I did hear about the vignetting on the Version 1. I guess I should have mentioned that all the money I can put towards Nikon gear, is coming from selling off all of my Canon gear that I listed above. So things like going for the version 1 over the 2, leaves me with more money to put towards other lenses and whatnot.


My two cents about the 70-200; vignetting is the least of the problems of the v.1.
Unless you intend to crop most images, the smeared corners of v.1 really makes it a poor choice for FF Nikons. Notwithstanding the devotion of some, v.1 was designed at a time when there was nothing but crop sensor cameras and it shows this design weakness in spades. The v.2 brilliantly corrects this problem. If cost is an issue, better off with two primes, like an 85/1.4 or 105/2,5 AIS and a 180/2,8 AFD.

@mowensphotogra

My opinion is that never change because of what your friends uses or own, own what you need and can afford.

Only change if your present system is not meeting your requirements.

If you change expect a substantial loss in capital and might not be able to get back a system that you already own from the resale value.

I am just like one of the so many here a convert from Canon to Nikon, or should I say from Nikon to Canon back to Nikon.
My first convertion here between the 2 brands was because Nikon does not provide me an option to use my existing collection of 30 years of FF lenses. My second convertion here was due to my unhappiness in the quality of my Canon products (Note: Recently Canon has improve on their quality and their egonomic design were always better than Nikon).
So I bit the bullet and trade in all my Canon gear to come back to Nikon. Like I said there was a loss associated with it, but I was able to overcome it because I got a lot more Nikon gears than I had with Canon.

So, you have to make your own decission if you want to switch, if you do you'll have to consider all those conditions and expect to spend a lot more to recover your system because Canon resale values are always lower than Nikon, and Nikon gears are always more expensive than Canon.

There is always a shinning path for Nikon users and that is there are so many old lenses that are just as good as the latest. Just to name one that fall within your range is the Nikkor AF 70-210mm f4-5.6 D which cost about $200 used, well not really a f/2.8 though but focuses just as fast as the AF-S and just as sharp with un-noticeable distortion except maybe at 135mm.

I was a Canon man and had the 5D mk2 with the 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 ISf2.8L, 100-400L, 17-40 f4L which I sold up and now have the following:

D7000
14-24 f2.8
70-200 f2.8 vr2
85 f1.4
24 f1.4
35 f1.8
16-85 f3.5/5.6

I would not go back to Canon. I seriously enjoy the Nikon system because of the way I can setup the camera much more quickly then I could on the Canon bodies. The Nikon 'way' just seems slicker and more thought out, and I LOVE Nikon lenses. They tend to come up a little more expensive on like for like against Canon, but they are superb.

I will stay with Nikon

mowensphotogra wrote:
...I guess I should have mentioned that all the money I can put towards Nikon gear, is coming from selling off all of my Canon gear that I listed above. So things like going for the version 1 over the 2, leaves me with more money to put towards other lenses and whatnot...

That is important information to note since the kit you create with Nikon is limited by the value of the gear you'll be letting go of. I'm sure you appreciate that you won't be able to make a trade with that gear. I'm sure all of it is serviceable but I can't imagine a Nikon shooter longing for a Canon 1D MarkII.

I don't follow the market for used Canon gear but I'm guessing you have perhaps a bit over four thousand dollars worth of gear in your kit. If you go with the D700 you'll commit more than half of that. The D7000 will commit a quarter. You won't go very far buying Nikon's top of the line G lenses since they start at around $1,500 and go up, so one lens is possible and two would be a stretch. However, there are some lovely lenses at more modest prices like the 50 f/1.8G, and 70-300 VR that are well regarded. Obviously, these choices have everything to do with how you shoot.

As noted above, you also have the option of playing a bit with Nikon's amazing collection of manual focus lenses that can be bought for a song. My 80-200 f/4.5 AI cost me $76. In its day it was the top of the line zoom, considered a marvel among Nikon shooters. It is still a great lens, though it requires one to turn the focusing ring which doubles as a zoom ring. The possibilities are rather endless.

Have fun! I made the switch about a year and a half ago, though I had a bit more robust Canon kit and funds liberated from selling it has fully financed my Nikon adventure. Of course, I went the manual focus route so those dollars stretched a VERY long way...

Thanks for all of the replies everyone! I truly appreciate it!

Another reason for the idea of switching is that I believe the button layone on the Nikon, although different, is superior. With my 1D to change certain settings, I have to take my eye off of the viewfinder. Just simple yet frustrating things that I believe with diminish if I switch over. No doubt my friend having Nikon is a plus, it's not the only thing.

As for the Nikon equipment, I plan to buy all used. A quick search of the D700 and D3. I found a D700 for 2100, and a D3 for 2600. Both were in good condition.

I plan on getting around 5 grand for all of my equipment. It seems like the switch will make me suffer a bit. The main investment will be for the new body I suppose.

The majority of what I shoot is sports (which completely rules out manuel focus lenses) and portraits.

Although I shoot sports, I've been thinking about getting rid of my 300 for 2 prime lenses which would leave me with a 24L, 50L and a 70-200.

I'm not too entirely keen on Nikon gear YET but I do know that Canon has tons of older versions that to me, are affordable that can get the job done while maintaining AF. For example, the 24L. I would get the version 1.

I would probably have to sell all of my gear first and be camera-less until I find what I need. Although it would suck for that time period, I'm still in school so it's not like I NEED a camera. So I guess I'd be considered an avid hobbyist at the moment but am planning on doing something with photography as a career.

mowensphotogra wrote:
I would probably have to sell all of my gear first and be camera-less until I find what I need. Although it would suck for that time period, I'm still in school so it's not like I NEED a camera. So I guess I'd be considered an avid hobbyist at the moment but am planning on doing something with photography as a career.

...you could always rent in the meantime and in doing so, find out which equipment really does appeal to you.

Very true but that requires money that I don't have =/

I'm working it out so I can buy what I want when I sell.

Decided to go with the D700, 70-200 VR1(for now), gotta do more research on the 50 1.8 vs. 1.4, then need a wide and maybe a flash.

Just remember that if shooting sports is your thing, a DX camera will give you an advantage, especially a newer camera like the D7000 that has a larger sensor. I love my D700 but for some things a DX camera is advantageous. Add a grip to that camera and it should handle longer lenses easily. And, as has been noted, the 70-200 VR 1 resides happily on a cropped sensor that eliminates its soft edges. Not all bad...

Good luck.

CGrindahl wrote:
Just remember that if shooting sports is your thing, a DX camera will give you an advantage, especially a newer camera like the D7000 that has a larger sensor. I love my D700 but for some things a DX camera is advantageous. Add a grip to that camera and it should handle longer lenses easily. And, as has been noted, the 70-200 VR 1 resides happily on a cropped sensor that eliminates its soft edges. Not all bad...

Good luck.
Very true. I will def update to the Version 2 when I have the money but I need a 70-200!

Sold my Canon gear a few years ago and never looked back, Now my photos are much sharper and in-focus! Nikon wides are far better 14-24 2.8 is killer! D700 is a great FF camera with motor drive speed for a fair price! Two things I do miss from canon are the 70-200 f4 IS and what seemed to be cheaper pricing on lenses.

If I were you, I would either switch to the D3s + "Holy Trinity" 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 used
or wait for the 1Dx.