I shot with Canon film cameras for over 35 years then took a 15 year break. I decided I wanted to get a DSLR and haunted the photo forums for about 6 months, reading about the problems with Canon and Nikon equipment. While Nikon has it's problems, they are nowhere as serious or as many as the Canon DSLRs. I bought Nikon and have never looked back. I now have a D90 and couldn't be happier. Nikon gear may cost more but it's worth every penny IMO.
The best advice I can give is buy the best glass you can afford. Then go out and shoot, shoot, and shoot some more.
I recently sold my 40d and got a D300, and I am most impressed. I only have a 18-200 and a 50mm 1.8 and the pictures are amazingly different. I had a 24-105L and thought the photos were great, but not until I got this D300 did I really see the difference.
Maybe it is my shooting style, or something else, but I actually love to see the photos that come out of this camera.
Codeninja, I seem to recall answering a thread yesterday when you reported that your pictures with your Canon 70-200 non IS were not sharp. You got all kinds of suggestions as to how to proceed, beginning with posting samples of said soft shots.
What is the point, if what you want is to go over to Nikon? My opinion is that, if you are hoping for the switch to "take care" of softness issues, you are (sadly) over-optimistic.
If you are looking to justify the switch, you don't have to. All of us are free to do whatever we want with our money, including both clever and stupid uses, so suit yourself, and enjoy. But I can only repeat what I wrote yesterday, Canon 70-200 is a super-sharp lens. If your shots are soft, unless your copy happens to be a bad one, and there are not too many of those around, that is unlikely to "go away" with a switch to another brand. Just my $0.02
codeninja wrote:
And comparable lens comparison would also be appreciated. I have some ideas like 16-85 or 70-300, but I don't know how/where they would compare to Canon counterparts.
I came over to the Nikon D300 from the 50D. I also had the Canon's 20, 30,40D's and the Digital Rebel. I got the D300 with the 18-200 as a kit. (I eally like the 18-200). I also got the 16-85 and the 70-300. All thre lenses have VR.
Canon can't touch the 16-85. The 70-300's are the same and quite good. The D300 just flat out ROCKS! After 7 months, this camera still amazes me with the image results!
Gasitman wrote:
I recently sold my 40d and got a D300, and I am most impressed. I only have a 18-200 and a 50mm 1.8 and the pictures are amazingly different. I had a 24-105L and thought the photos were great, but not until I got this D300 did I really see the difference.
Maybe it is my shooting style, or something else, but I actually love to see the photos that come out of this camera.
I'm practically in the same situation and really curious about the difference that you have noticed. I have 24-105L and like it a lot. Isn't 18-200 rather a downgrade from it?
philber wrote:
Codeninja, I seem to recall answering a thread yesterday when you reported that your pictures with your Canon 70-200 non IS were not sharp. You got all kinds of suggestions as to how to proceed, beginning with posting samples of said soft shots.
What is the point, if what you want is to go over to Nikon? My opinion is that, if you are hoping for the switch to "take care" of softness issues, you are (sadly) over-optimistic.
If you are looking to justify the switch, you don't have to. All of us are free to do whatever we want with our money, including both clever and stupid uses, so suit yourself, and enjoy. But I can only repeat what I wrote yesterday, Canon 70-200 is a super-sharp lens. If your shots are soft, unless your copy happens to be a bad one, and there are not too many of those around, that is unlikely to "go away" with a switch to another brand. Just my $0.02...Show more →
Thank you for the advice. I'm not considering switching because of softness. In fact, my main lens is 24-105L which I don't have much issue with. However, having sold my 20D waiting for 60D or whatever, I wanted to check other possibility. Also, I heard about Nikon having better metering and D300's AF being leaps and bound better than 50D. I'm sold on D300, but feel uncertain about the lens choices compared to my current Canon L lens.
Thank you for the advice. I'm not considering switching because of softness. In fact, my main lens is 24-105L which I don't have much issue with. However, having sold my 20D waiting for 60D or whatever, I wanted to check other possibility. Also, I heard about Nikon having better metering and D300's AF being leaps and bound better than 50D. I'm sold on D300, but feel uncertain about the lens choices compared to my current Canon L lens.
While the D300 is very nice (the AF system is much more responsive than canon's XXD cameras)...you will be disappointed in the lenses (compared to what you have) unless you are prepared to spend a lot more money.
Your 24-105L is an excellent all around lens. Nikon has nothing to compare to it (price for quality or F4 aperture). Now I'm not saying nikon doesn't have great zooms. They do. The 24-70 2.8 that I own really does beat my old canon 24-70 in IQ (we still have it though). But there's a big gap btw. the IQ of the lesser expensive lenses and the "my pocketbook is killing me lenses" that nikon offers.
I switched over in Dec. I like the D700 a lot. The D300 reminds me a lot of my old 40D (I had the 1d2s, 1dM3 & 40D when I switched) with a M2n (used to own that too) AF capabilities & (with grip) fast fps. The D700 (imo) is not overrated, I love it. It reminds me a lot of the 1ds2 (with better iso handling).
The things that I don't like have already been mentioned...as far as good AF primes go, nikon lenses are really lacking. You can buy less expensive MF older primes and some of them are really good...but you have to be okay with MF lenses. The zooms are great. I wish they had F4 zooms though. Just because the 70-200 2.8 is one heavy lens for carrying around for hours. The 70-300 VR is a decent option IQ wise but slower to AF and slower aperture than your F4 zooms.
The things I really like are the flash system, the AF system and the zooms I own. The things I miss: my 70-200 F4IS, the 135 & 85L and the prices....because nikon's carry a hefty price hike for comparable canon lenses.
Would I have switched over, knowing now what I do? I don't know. I kept hoping for a new canon body that would make me happy and really none of them did. My favorites by far were the old 5D and the old 1ds2. I'm extremely happy with the nikon bodies. Just not the prices I had to pay for everything.
Yes some lenses are more money, but when you compare a 16-85 that costs around $650 to a canon L lens, your spending much more for their L lens. I am not a pro like most on here, but for us noobs, a 16-85, 70-300, and a nice 50 or 85mm prime will suit most all our needs without spending $1000's of dollars. I agree, some of the Nikon lenses are outdated and they need to beef up their lens options. Also if any of these companies figured out a way to drop their lens prices instead of raising them every 5 seconds, they may actually start selling more lenses.
true but the OP could pick up a 17-40L for $700 new and have better IQ and a constant aperture.
I see what you are saying, if one already owns the nikon. But for someone with good lenses already on the canon side, it's definitely worth researching everything out before switching.
I made the switch from Canon to Nikon. But given that Nikon lineup had lenses that I wanted that were too expensive or did not offer the lenses I wanted, I ended up using both systems.
5D+24-70+70-200mm is replaced with D700+24-70+80-200AF-S. Quite frankly, I prefer the Nikon D700 over the 5D (or 5D Mk II) anyday. Personal preference. The Nikon 14-24 & 24-70 are much better than the Canon 16-35 and 24-70L. The Canon 70-200mm f2.8 is about the same as the Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AF-S with the slight edge going to the Canon. The other big advantage Canon has is the f1.2 lenses and the 24mm f1.4 and 35mm f1.4L (something not available with Nikon AF). The Canon 35mm f1.4 L is one of the best 35mm large aperture primes I have ever used. The 24L is excellent.
In my case, the Canon system works for sports and nature while the Nikon system covers everything else. Nikon flash system is superior to what Canon has to offer and their Matrix metering is a lot easier to handle. Finally, the colors are very nice on the Nikon - again - for my tastes.
Permagrin wrote:
true but the OP could pick up a 17-40L for $700 new and have better IQ and a constant aperture.
I see what you are saying, if one already owns the nikon. But for someone with good lenses already on the canon side, it's definitely worth researching everything out before switching.
That is only half the range of the 16-85. And it is still more expensive.
the thing that impressed me the most was built quality and autofocus precision and speed. That alone was reason enough to switch, the new pro-grade lenses also are quite a lot better (untill canon catches up again; or it might have something to with focusprecision).
