Ive been debating on switching to nikon latley. I wanted to hear some reasons why Canon guys switch to Nikon. Specially Sports photogs.

Thanks

Mmm... I don't want to start another Canon vs Nikon-debat but I can give you some reasons..

1) they want a camera that takes pictures which are IN FOCUS
2) they want a camera that doesn't make the color red hurting your eyes
3) they want a camera that gives pictures without a 'plastic' finish
4) they want a camera that gives a usable user-interface
5) they want a camera with a logical button-layout

Please feel free to add other items to this list

I typed "canon" in the topic search and this in what I found in just the first page. Info is out there, you just have to look for it.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/774807/0?keyword=canon#7098859
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/755957/0?keyword=canon#6896792
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/755161/0?keyword=canon#6889265
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/750554/0?keyword=canon#6838059
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/749356/0?keyword=canon#6824795
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/747636/0?keyword=canon#6806370
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/725487/0?keyword=canon#6564172

105 f/2 dc

The 14–24/2.8 zoom. I ordered a D3 on the basis of the incredible MTF charts of this lens. I was using a duo of 1DsMk I/5D using Zeiss and Leica lenses manual focus (every length from 14mm to 180mm; what I needed particularly was the wides).

But once Nikon brought that zoom out, I switched, and the low-light benefit was just icing on the cake.

HTH, kl

1D performance in smaller size and lower price
high iso performance

14-24 and 24-70 are unequalled in Canon line

If, as your name implies, you shoot surfers you'd lose the f/4 long glass that Canon has.

I also believe the focus issues on some Canon bodies have been corrected.

I think you should do some handholding with both brands to asses your preference.

Not so helpful I guess

The 200-400f4,
A flash system that is easy to use and reliable,
A higher keeper rate in AI Servo,

I used the camera (D3) before switching, something I recommend you do, and was impressed with the performance vs my MKIII.


Richard K.

The main reasons I switched:

-The Nikon user interface (ergonomics, button layout, etc) was much more natural to me. It made taking photos more fun because I spent less time fumbling with settings.

-The flash system. Not that Canon's was bad, but Nikon's is sooooo much better and flexible.

I miss some of the Canon lenses, and my 20D But, if Canon's interface feels intuitive to you, and flash isn't a big concern, I don't see how switching will benefit you. Like others have mentioned...there's some Nikon lenses that don't have an equal on the Canon side, so that's another consideration.

I switched about 3 months ago from a 1D3 and 1Ds3 to a Nikon D3 and D3x, am loving it so far, it just works.

Here is my thread on the topic : http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/742429/0?keyword=d3,move#6749001

My advice would be to seriously make a list of what you are not achieving with your Canon rig first and then second approach a local Nikon dealer or NPS directly and ask for some loan kit. It's not cheap to switch so you don't want to be throwing away hard earned $s for nothing. My main motivator to move was a loss of faith in the 1D3 AF for sport, motorsport and aviation. I got some Nikon kit on eval and loved it. Cost me a few (4) thousand quid but it was well worth it.

Hope this helps.

Alistair

I used a 40D and 5D with good "L" glass. My keeper rate, is much higher and less post processing needed. Flash is much better too.

I currently use D700, 24-70 2.8, and 80-200 2.8 I have no regrets.

Mocca wrote:
If, as your name implies, you shoot surfers you'd lose the f/4 long glass that Canon has.

I also believe the focus issues on some Canon bodies have been corrected.

I think you should do some handholding with both brands to asses your preference.

Not so helpful I guess


oh you mean like the 500 f4 and the 600 f4 and oops the 200-400 f4 , hmmm, oh yeah

zamorasurfboards wrote:
Ive been debating on switching to nikon latley. I wanted to hear some reasons why Canon guys switch to Nikon. Specially Sports photogs.

Thanks

I shoot tons of sports and the main reason I switched was the poor AF tracking of the Mark III.

I didn't realize how bad my particular Mark III was until Nikon Professional Services sent me a D3, 24-70 and 70-200 to use on assignments for a couple of weeks.

The better focus and high ISO of the D3/D700 plus the superior image quality of the Nikkor AFS 24-70 f/2.8 made it very dificult to stay completely with Canon.

Also...the SB 900 is a great flash and the exposures....especially in sunlight...are amazing.

I traded in some of my Canon 1 series bodies and a few L lenses on the Nikon gear and am waiting to get a Mark III back from Canon repair to see if I'll keep it or go with another D700 or D3.

Much success,

Lee Woolery
Speedshot Photo

zamorasurfboards wrote:
Ive been debating on switching to nikon latley. I wanted to hear some reasons why Canon guys switch to Nikon. Specially Sports photogs.

Thanks

The thought has crossed my mind lately as well. I recently purchased a Nikkor 14-24 2.8 for use on my 5D2 and the IQ on that lens is amazing. If the IQ on the new Nikkor 24-70 is similar, that sure is starting to give some pretty good incentive to switch. However, I don't know how much you already have invested in Canon Gear, but if you are like me I have a small fortune already commited and don't really want to start over again from scratch. So I just had a novel idea. Why not just add a Nikon body to my lineup and shoot both systems? Just pick the best lens based on IQ from either system that fits the need for the particular situation, then shoot with the body to match.

For sports photography, if you've got the money to make the switch, I'd say go for it. The D3, D3x, D700 and D300 (which all share the the AF system) seem to track better in good light than the Canon 1-series. In fact I'd go as far as to say that body wise, Nikon right now pretty much has Canon licked in almost all areas (low light focus is an area where I haven't had the superlative experience of others and where my 1Ds3 is without doubt the preferred tool of choice).

Lenses wise, its a little trickier. With Nikon's recent price hikes (considerably more than Canon has raised prices) and relative unavailability of their super teles it gets more difficult to recommend just jumping in without careful planning. However, if you are cool with the mega $$$ you'll spend (or you don't need the super teles) and/or have a way of getting them, then go for it. If you have a desire for recently designed fast, expensive primes at a variety of focal lengths, then stick with Canon (though if sports is what you shoot, you probably won't care about those primes).

Ivo Heshusius wrote:
Mmm... I don't want to start another Canon vs Nikon-debat but I can give you some reasons..

1) they want a camera that takes pictures which are IN FOCUS
2) they want a camera that doesn't make the color red hurting your eyes
3) they want a camera that gives pictures without a 'plastic' finish
4) they want a camera that gives a usable user-interface
5) they want a camera with a logical button-layout

Please feel free to add other items to this list


That's funny... I got the same experience with Nikon stuff

FYI I have shot and still shoot both brands

Have you already made the switch? I notice you have been pretty active on the B&S forum. The 200-400 is a great, versatile lens that I use to shoot surfing and wildlife. You'll need over 10K for the 500 or 600--I'd love to have the 600, but can't justify the purchase.

I've been with Nikon for 30 years. Last week I made my first visit to Nikon Service due to an SB 900 failure. That track record has kept me in their camp. The used 200-400 I bought is worth more today than I paid for it. The big glass holds its value, unfortunately, most people who own them don't sell them.

Good luck.

zamorasurfboards wrote:
Ive been debating on switching to nikon latley. I wanted to hear some reasons why Canon guys switch to Nikon. Specially Sports photogs.

Thanks
1) Bodies- The 1d mark III gives great image quality but can't focus on crap.
D3 is near perfect, even better high ISO quality...

I can also pick up a D700 and D300 and not have vital functions compromised severely unlike Canon, which cripples its lower end bodies. The AF system of the D700 is the same as the D3, and the D300 is not far behind. Excellent weather-sealing on all bodies- these are features that pro photogs need in a backup body.

2) Lenses- 200-400mm - the best lens I have used for sports, period. Excellent not just in image quality, but in flexibility- this has changed the shots I can get, especially when the players move close all of a sudden.

3) Flash system- Nikon CLS is far more superior if you use TTL- the ability to customize all slave flashes from one master is also very convenient.

Cons:
Prohibitively expensive 400/2.8 and 500/4. 70-200 2.8 not that great in the corners on FX wide open... but it's not a huge hindrance given that you generally aren't focusing in the corners when you are shooting wide open.

I switched from Canon a few months ago for the D700 and will move back again when new 1DS comes out . Not impressed by D700 or Nikon glass

What will you gain by moving back to Canon? Just curious (and I'm sincere about that). Seems like an expensive thing to do twice in a short period of time.