I am convinced my photos look better from a Canon camera , i have hardly used the D700 since I got it , lost any enthusiasm I had since I bought Nikon and I know it will be costly but I prefer it
I don't want to get into a pissing contest between sides but as a Canon shooter I feel compelled to provide the OP with a few possible reasons NOT to switch...
I won't get into the AF issue but I will say my MKIII focuses excellently, after the latest fix of course In all both systems offer great products--specifically since the release of the D3/x, D700, and the D300 along with some great Nikkor glass (24-70, 14-24, 200-400/4). Pick the system that fits your shooting style best, but remember the grass is always greener.
High-end bodies and glass from either camp make great images and much of the final effect is in the PP. I don't believe that anyone can know a system thoroughly in only a couple (or three) months.
OTOH, if you are "convinced" that your images look better from a Canon, that may well affect how you work. Good luck.
Kit , I knew almost immediately that this camera was not for me after I had to send the first one back ! The guy asked a question , I answered honestly , as for my work , I thought I was doing ok till I bought Nikon .
Skyehigh wrote:
Kit , I knew almost immediately that this camera was not for me after I had to send the first one back ! The guy asked a question , I answered honestly , as for my work , I thought I was doing ok till I bought Nikon .
www.jerrymoffatt.co.uk all shot with Canon !
This is a subjective comment, but, almost all your pics look over saturated--at least on my computer. I would assume you could get that look with a Nikon, if you worked on the setup. KR likes that saturated look and gets it with Nikon gear, as well as Canon stuff. BTW, this isn't a knock on KR or his photography. It is all a matter of choice.
Recent convert here... overall I am happy with the result. I could list bad things about both, but here is my takes on the good stuff.
Things I miss dearly:
The GLASS (24L 35L 50L, no reasonable equivalents)
The WHEEL... I so miss the canon thumbwheel, I'm getting over it, but it would be so nice to have back. It seems to hinder my ability to control the camera a bit without it.
21mp (had previously owned a 1ds3 and 5dmk2, can't afford the D3x at the moment, I love pixels almost as much as pictures, so this part hurts)
Adaptability, though the 14-24 on an adapter got me here in the first place.
Things I embrace:
The GLASS (24-70g and 14-24g, no reasonable equivalents, nothing even close)
The BUTTONS, after a quick adjustment phase, you realize all those buttons are there for a reason, it makes shooting more fun to control most everything manually without menus on the LCD
The PERFORMANCE... the D700 functions every bit as good as my old 1ds3 in terms of metering, focus, and feature availability, in a small body for (relatively) peanuts.
Glass, and user dependent, the IQ is just about the same. Neither is better, and I do see myself picking up a used 1ds2 here later this year so I can have fun with some L primes.
There is no reason to have allegiance to a brand name, nor is there a reason to switch if your current gear is treating you well... if you are missing out on something, do your research about what you have to give up to get it... both have their high and low notes
Skyehigh wrote:
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
Man...you must have high standards if you're not impressed with the D700 and Nikon lenses.
Why would you switch from one make to another without thoroughly testing the same equipment from both manufacturers? It cost me thousands to purchase new Nikon gear in the last month but I wouldn't have even considered that unless I did some real-world comparisons with similiar lenses and camera bodies.
After my two-week trial with the D3, D700 and a few Nikkor lenses, it was pretty obvious to me that Nikon products would serve my business better and I haven't looked back.
Trust me...I wouldn't have made the partial switch unless I had compared the results.
Nikon Professional Services will loan out camera gear to legitmate professionals who are not current NPS members for evaluation. Why not take advantage of that program since it only costs you freight charges.
I don't know if Canon Professional Services offers the same deal to non-members but they do that for Canon pros. I still have enough Canon gear to qualify for CPS membership and they're sending me a 300 f/2.8 for an event next week.
Skyehigh, thanks. And nothing is more confidence-sapping than a failure (especially in the field, with the client breathing down your neck!). At the end of the day, you have to go with what inspires confidence.
Switched about 9m ago and due to lack of response (they tried but did not work) to the focus issues on my MK3's. Out of the box my shots were on target and looked great. I believe both high end glass and bodies will produce great results, but going from my MK2 to 3's just took a major step back wards.
Controls is subjective I cant say I like one over the other just left and right hand. Once you learn one the other seems awkward.
Glass For what I shoot there was not big gap, other than learning all the letters and what they stood for. Miss a few, 85 1.8 and 135 2.0 for focus speed but sharpness is tit for tat. (hope these will be upgraded to "s" models soon) The Holy Grail of 2.8 zooms is amazing and add the 2-400 and wow.
Not a flash expert but man stick on a Sb-8 or 900 and you can get some amazing shots.
When I switched I bought used glass I sold used glass and the switch was not that painful. I am sure when the MK4 comes out I will drool but it won't get me to switch as I am sure not far behind will be the D4.
James R wrote:
This is a subjective comment, but, almost all your pics look over saturated--at least on my computer. I would assume you could get that look with a Nikon, if you worked on the setup. KR likes that saturated look and gets it with Nikon gear, as well as Canon stuff. BTW, this isn't a knock on KR or his photography. It is all a matter of choice.
+1, my eyes hurt after looking at the pictures. Everyone has their own preference I guess.
Easy to get that color in Nikon, shoot Vivid mode and bump saturation +2, per KR instructions.
1. I had a 40D and liked it, however, I had a hard time believing that Canon's point and shoot LCD screens were so much better than their DSLRs! When Nikon debuted its D300 and Sony its A700, I waited...waited...and waited for Canon to respond. Nothing. I hate to admit it, but the ability to review a shot and judge critical focus simply made shooting more enjoyable. 50D was a bit too late, that's what the 40D should have been.
2. Also, as much as I tried, I would occasionally experience odd exposures with the Canon flashes, much less so with the Nikon.
3. Lastly, I really like that I can zoom in on the photo I just took without having to press the play button first (and I can delete the image with two presses of the delete button--easy!
I (largely) switched to Nikon last year. Reasons include a flash system that works, AF that works, D300 build quality in that price range, and the awesome 17-55/2.8 DX. I truly detested the two-handed operation of the Canon 1 Series (and Canon now agrees ). I do prefer the Canon grip and back wheel, but Nikon controls rule otherwise. I continue to use the Canon 1Ds in the studio, mostly with alternative glass (Zeiss, Yashica, Leica).
Skyehigh wrote:
Kit , I knew almost immediately that this camera was not for me after I had to send the first one back ! The guy asked a question , I answered honestly , as for my work , I thought I was doing ok till I bought Nikon .
www.jerrymoffatt.co.uk all shot with Canon !
No offence intended, but this is exactly the reason why I urge anyone considering switching to get an evaluation or rental body + glass from either a pro dealer or directly from Nikon and use it as you normally would for a couple of weeks. In addition, any working photographer, I think, would be very very careful in approaching a brand switch, or even a significant body upgrade of the same brand, to avoid disruption to client results etc., I personally know a pro sports photographer in the UK who sold his 2 1D2Ns and a 1D2 48 hours before 3 new 1D3s arrived. He business suffered greatly because of all the AF issues and essentially he had 3 nice new paperweights valued at £10,000 and in the end he had to buy 2 used 1D2Ns to continue producing the results his clients needed.
To me it's kinda like test driving a car before I buy it and avoiding a costly mistake.
Anyway, hope you feel happier again whenever the new 1Ds x is announced.
Plenty of pros and cons to both systems, but at the moment the prohibitive cost of the Nikon superteles, lack of f/4 lenses, f/1.4 UWA/WA primes, no 400 f/5.6, and a 1x-5x macro stops me from a wholesale change. I would consider a dual setup. However, Canon is now addressing weakeness in the UWA primes and the new TS-E lenses are another reason I would stay. The major weakness is a lack of a D700 FF equivalent. I'd like to see a 3D with say 16MP, 1D II AF, 7fps, pro sealing, inbuilt gps and flash control. Still it is very hard to resist the 5D II, despite the same old AF, which BTW is really only crappy in AI servo; it's fine in one shot mode.
If the 60D does not address the AF weakeness of the 50D, and Nikon does deliver a new 80-400 AF-S VR and/or 400 f/5.6 VR, I might jump on a D300s and also grab one of the superb Nikon macro lenses.
So for me Canon the glass line-up is overall better and the superteles much cheaper, but Nikons non-pro camera lineup is better but mainly in the AF area and sealing, as Canon has slowly caught up in other areas.
hmmm, funny that I also felt like Skyehigh with my D700; it just seemed to require a lot more work than my previous Canons to get equal images. I switched to NIKON to get a better image as I felt the Canons were giving me "flat" photos, but I did not get what I was expecting.
Since you asked about sports, I have shot quite a bit of water racing and white water sports and honestly I could not find a difference between Canon and Nikon AF for my use. Certainly not the reason I would switch between brands.
I switched after a long time getting told by CPS that the focus issue was my fault cause their camera just had a more advanced focus system than I was used to using.
After recalls and trips to service and continuing focus problems, little help from CPS and using a D3 and a 500 f/4 for five minutes next to my MkIII and 500, the answer was obvious as the Nikon was almost 100% in focus while the canon was 33% on a good day.
The secondary reasons/benefits were the better flash system, better ergonomics and short/wide zooms that blow away their Canon counterparts.
Not sorry I did the switch at all, though I have heard the latest recall (announced after my switch) has fixed much of the MkIII problems. But that said, the Nikon works better than any 1D body I have owned and I owned them all.
Skyehigh wrote:
Kit , I knew almost immediately that this camera was not for me after I had to send the first one back ! The guy asked a question , I answered honestly , as for my work , I thought I was doing ok till I bought Nikon .
www.jerrymoffatt.co.uk all shot with Canon !
as a canon shooter, i find these examples hideous of the canon brand, especially the first gallery of scotland.
that sort of tat can be created with a point and shoot, if you have swicthed from canon to nikon and going back again, save some serious money, get a P&S and get some photography lessons
Focus, focusing/keeper rate was the magic bullet. 1DIII focusing was a sham blah blah blah, you know the story.
D3 is a P&S camera, you point it at the subject shoot job done. No machine gunning in the hope of getting one or two in focus.
I liked canon IQ, 1 series ergonomics plus the 85 and 135 L's ( IDSII and 1D111 superfix drive you potty blue dotty
In all both systems offer great products--specifically since the release of the D3/x, D700, and the D300 along with some great Nikkor glass (24-70, 14-24, 200-400/4). Pick the system that fits your shooting style best, but remember the grass is always greener.
. Peace of mind goes a long way toward a good finished product, no matter the profession.