Hello everyone,

This may come as a shock for a few of you, but I am considering switching from Nikon to Canon (*Gasp*). I posted in the off-topic section to try to minimize bias, and to help me decide if I should or not.

Reasons for switching? Mainly, Canon has more professional glass and at cheaper prices. It may not be as good as Nikons, but it is plenty good for me. I've also heard that Canon's are better for sports, which will/is my main focus of photography. In addition, while browsing around on other forums looking for gear, it seems that there is alot more used Canon gear than Nikon.

What is bad about switching? I would most likely lose money, and I don't even know what my current gear could get me, or if anybody wants an old D50 body (probably not). Another downside is that my family are Nikon people. My brother is set on buying a D90, and my mom thinks that I'm handing down my D50 to her when I buy a new body, and she was also the one who bought me the 18-200 VR for my birthday (thanks Mom ).

Looking around on the buy and sell, it seems that I could buy a used 40D body $600-700. That seems like a great price to me for a great body.

Thoughts? I know it is a huge step to switch systems, but now would really be my only chance to as I don't have that much Nikon gear yet.

If you're going to buy one, perhaps you might want to wait for Canon's usual August announcement. If Canon follows their yearly update, and I think they will, specially with Nikon releasing two new bodies, the 60D is gonna be announced sometime in the next few weeks and when that happens, the 40D price will likely fall even further.

Heh... You're like one of those cars going home from work at 8am while everybody else is going into work. IE, you're headed in the opposite direction that most are.

I've been Canon for several years - shooting exclusively sports. Have acumulated plenty of glass and overall heavily invested in Canon (5 bodies, mostly L glass, etc) and like other common sports shooters in the sports forum (Blue Reptile, Powerphoto, Paul A.) they have fallen in to the Nikon camp from years of Canon. And yes, gave up lots of money for the re-investment. I don't say they 'lost' money, because they are quickly reaping the benefits:
- Accurate AF
- Low Noise at HighER ISO
- dead on colors out of the box
I've shot with a Nikon a couple times, and there is ABSOLUTELY NO post processing needed. Images are ready to print out of the camera.

But I'm talking about the high end - Mark3 vs D3 - for sports. If you're only looking at consumer bodies, there may be less dramatic differences?

I have experience with Canon equipment but not with Nikon since the film days.

When I was moving into the digital realm, I chose Canon for two reasons. Firstly, because at that time, they were far ahead of Nikon, at least in terms of bodies. Nikon has since caught up but the differences between bodies aren't that great, frankly. Nikon will be better in one area, Canon in another.

The second reason and for me the deciding factor was the lens choice. Canon offered pro level glass at f4.0 and f2.8 and Nikon didn't. Canon is therefore offering quality glass I can afford and that I can comfortably carry around. Canon has fabulous choices in fast primes, much better than Nikon, at least at that time. I believe Canon is still ahead in terms of lenses, although I understand Nikon is making strides in this area.

Frankly, you can make great images with either system. If, according to some, Nikon is ahead right now and is producing magically good images, take this with a grain of salt and rest assured that Canon will catch up and forge ahead, then Nikon will and so on.

One of the other things I noted about Nikon is that it's incredibly complicated to figure out which lenses will work properly with which bodies. Someone on FM said recently that you need an actuarial table and a secret decoder ring to figure it out

Or you could go and buy a used D2H which does have professional focussing... Sure, it's only 4.1MP but for sports, it's plenty...

Also, what glass do you have? And what sports are you thinking of shooting??

Sorry, but the 18-200 is not a sports lens in anything but bright daylight...

In the end, going to Canon may be a good idea for you. I don't know. But you've not really given sufficient details here.

The biggest thing for me is that Nikon's pro-glass is more expensive than Canon's. For example, like you said, Canon has the 4 different versions of the 70-200, whereas Nikon only has the one version.

Since I am a student, its hard for me to afford Nikons glass, and Canon is more appealing because they have different options depending on your budget.

Yes, but not really Because fast telephotos cost a lot of money regardless of systems. Yes, Canon's is cheaper but F4 glass won't cut it indoors.

Nikon has 70-200VR, AFS 80-200, AFD 80-200 (which AFs very nicely on a D1 or D2 series body D300/D700)

So, what sports?

You can make a 50/1.8 do basketball just fine. It can do hockey well too if you got positioning. I give an example here. So what sports?

Most of my sports would be outdoors. Rugby, Soccer, Paintball, Skiing, surfing. The only sport that I could think of shooting indoors would be hockey, but that wouldn't be often, and I've managed to shoot some hockey with my D50 and 18-200 VR at 1600 ISO. I'm sure a 40D/D300 could do much better at 3200 ISO.

Canon should be coming out with new glass and cameras shortly. It may be worthwhile to wait to see what those new products will be like.

In my view, you could not go wrong with either system. As other posters have remarked, both Canon and Nikon make excellent gear; and you will be able to make terrific images with either system.

From the early 1980s until 2002, I used Nikon film equipment. My cameras were F3HPs and ultimately an F4s, and my lenses included a Nikon 300 F2.8 EDIF and an 80-200 F2.8 EDIF. In 2002, I decided to buy some new gear. At that point, the digital revolution was just about to explode with respect to 35mm slr cameras, and I switched to Canon. The decisive factors for me in making that switch were: (A) the superior technology of Canon's 35mm dslr cameras at that time; and (B) the broader range of high quality lenses.

Having made that switch, I prefer Canon gear. Nonetheless, it is undeniable that you can make spectacular images with either Nikon or Canon gear, and that both vendors have high quality systems. This is literally a fielder's choice.
Good luck with your selection.

Roman

EDPPhoto --

Now knowing what you're currently shooting with, you've come close to settling your own case. You need a better performance in frame-rate and hi-ISO as a starting point. With a more advanced body, your 18-200 VR would be a surprise performer. I can say this because I use this glass on a Nikon D300 and, occasionally, on a D700.

Then, instead of fretting over Nikon lens prices, you need to investigate the following:
Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 DG Macro
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 DG Macro

I use the above glass very happily and at far less cost than Nikon. I compared the Sigma 70-200 with the Nikon equivalent on a D700 at the store where I was dealing and the focus performance difference in AI-servo while tracking cars in the area was barely discernable. But the price difference was not barely discernable!

I'll not labor the point any further on this thread. And, yes, I'm heavily invested in both the Canon and Nikon camps.

Best regards,
Don M

I'm sure I would be happy with either system, its just which one

When will Canon's new gear be announced? Because I would be switching, my funds are slightly limited... If I were to switch I was just simply thinking of selling/trading my gear for a 40D body (6.5fps, good build, live view, would be a big step up over my D50)... and then I'm not sure what lenses would compliment that.

I totaled up all of my Nikon gear, and I figured I could probably get $1500 for it if I sold it used... not much by any stretch. By the way, my current gear is:

Nikon D50
18-200 VR
60mm f/2.8
50 f/1.8
18-55

It's not likely that anybody would want to trade for a D50 body...

I agree that generally speaking, whichever camp (Nikon or Canon) that has the latest gear out, has the edge. For the longest time, it has always been Canon on top with Nikon coming out with a new model to slightly top Canon's previous offering....only for Canon to come out very shortly after with their newest flagship.

The last trump by Canon was pre-Mark3. They flopped with AF issues and not so much improvement on ISO. Nikon has dominated them with the D3 for quite some time with no answer. The Mark4 had better be see forum rule #1 impressive in EVERY way to keep alot of Canonites in camp.

Normally I wouldn't say this and write it off - but Canon is lagging way too far behind this time.

Hold on there. You say that you are in college. Is sports photography your vocation or avocation? If it's your hobby then you probably have other things that you can help pay for. If you use your camera to help pay for school then this might be a different story. Do you really want better glass because Canon lenses, especiallly the L lenses these folks are writing about, still pack a pretty high price tag especially in today's economy? Could you use a better body that will afford you use of higher ISO and better focusing? I am a Canon user but I worry more about how to use the equipment I have and not their specs. What about finding a better body and, as Avi B says, better position yourself for the images you want to obtain. I know that all of us on this board feel that newer is better and often it is how much better and at what cost? Maybe you should think about upgrading the body, keep the lenses you have perhaps either borrowing, renting or, if necessary, purchasing off brand lenses until you have completed your education. Then, when you're rolling in the big bucks, you can go out and spend on the system of your dreams. Whatever you do....good luck.

I made the switch! 1972 Baby!

E

Thanks WINN,

I could benefit from both a better body, and new glass. If I remained Nikon, I would probably upgrade to a D300, but that would leave no room to get better glass. If I sold my gear and got Canon stuff, I could buy a 40D, and still have a bit of money for maybe a 70-200 f/4 or possibly even an f/2.8

So you should sell your D50, get maybe around 250-300 for it. Sell 18-200VR, get 650-750 for it. Gives you 900 at low end, and 1050 at high end to add to your 500. So that gives you a budget of roughly 1500 to play with. Buy the D300 used when the D300s hits shelves. With the rest, find a AFD 80-200. No VR and no AFS. But on a D300, it will be plenty fast. Then set about learning the AF system of the camera.

This is how I'd go about it. This way, you can keep your 18-55 for the wider angle, the 50/1.8 is always good to have and is good for indoor sports with correct positioning, and your 60/2.8 is also a great lens to keep - assuming you shoot macros or portraits or landscapes

Thanks Avi,

I love my 18-200 to death though

That lens won't be leaving me anytime soon.

I used to shot Nikon back in the film day, I switched to Canon when I went in 2001. For me it was the best gear move i've ever done love those white lens

I was thinking that I would sell off all of my gear except for my 18-200, then trade that for a body, or a canon lens.

I use to shoot Cannon in my early film days, FTBn's, F1's, and one AE-1. When I made the switch to AF, I switched to Nikon, because I was pissed at Cannon for changing lens mounts and rendering all my hard earned glass obsolete. You can still use Nikon glass from the 70's on their modern cameras. Any way, when I went to digital I knew Cannon had superior imaging and AF systems at the time but I also knew Nikon would catch up. And I loved my Nikon glass. My advice to you at this point is off the D-50, try to make the leap to a used D300 and look for used 80-200 2.8 AF. You can find a used AF-D (two ring) for 650-900 (I just got one for 750 here that was like new) or a used AF version (push pull) I've seen them as cheap 500 in great shape. The old Nikon lenses are great lenses. With the high ISO ability of the D300 you will get acceptable images at 3200 ISO, especially if your satisfied with the 1600 ISO images of the D50. The D300 is a different league.

As far as the 18-200, I kept mine. It is a great lens in situations where I'm not shooting for National Geographic (which is most every day) And I pull out the "big guns", 18-55 2.8, 80-200 2.8 when I know my clients are more critical.