A student considering switching Nikon for Canon.

[flightless_beaker]

You can jump brands any time. Lenses hold their value and even appreciate.
Two things to consider:
1. Prime lenses at f2 or faster. (135mm f2 is gorgeous!) Rent them for events. Check out lensrentals.com
2. An usher hunted me down in my balcony seat because the shutter on my Canon 20D was too loud. On the stage far below was a 60 piece brass band and a dozen percussion instruments. True story. I also shot an outdoor wedding at a zoo. I was far back and at 300mm and heads turned everytime I took a shot. (no flash) Nikon is quiter. Google Canon noise and shutter.

Forget what you hear from fanboys. I love my Canon for sports photography. I'll not use it again at concerts, shows, or weddings.

I'll agree with you that Nikons shutters tend to be quieter (at least on the more expensive models) but I have the 7D and its pretty quiet and have played with the 5D and 50D at work and they seem quieter as compared to some of the older models. I was actually taking some pictures at a reservoir of some people and my 7D didn't turn heads when I pressed the shutter.

 

[battletone]

Look into the functional differences between Canon and Nikon. As much as I like to save money, I think for anyone who takes photography seriously will find that there are big differences in how things work and what they will or will not do.

Go to DXOMark.com and compare the RAW image quality, SNR, dynamic range, color depth, ISO performance of comparable Nikon and Canon cameras, like the D90 compared to a T1i. DXOMark is an independent testing lab.
In fact here's a link for you. Look closely at the difference in ISO performance.

Did you know that Nikon's metering and auto focus can see in color? Canon's can't, black and white only.

You, and your clients, would be best served basing your decision on technical merit, rather than emotion.

I have see that site before. I have been amazed at some of the charts. ie: the SNR of many Nikons @200 is basically equal to many Canons @100, if not better in some cases. Things that make my own debate on switching confusing since I like many of the things Canon does from a function stand point since it is what I am used to, and is much the same as my Minolta SLR was too.

 

[chyidean]

Shutter sound isn't too much of a concern for concert photography. If the rock concerts I'm shooting are loud enough to require myself to wear earplugs when shooting my three songs, I'm sure the shutter sound is negligible. Nevertheless, chances are I'm staying with Nikon after reading this lively debate.

 

[Montana]

I wouldn't jump ship. Nikon has fantastic lenses. Most of those "expensive" Nikon lenses are better because they are a newer design than Canon's (for the most part). Obviously, this will change when Canon releases new versions, then again when Nikon releases new versions and so on. I see no real reason at all for a switch. I'd stay with what you are comfortable with and invest in the lenses you want.

 

[Derrel]

If you need cheaper lenses, Canon has plenty of them.

Canon 16-35mm v Nikon 17-35mm: Intro

Canon is (in)famous for poor wide zoom performance. Look at two comparable vintage lenses (2006) of basically identical specifications. For those wondering why many Nikon lenses cost more than comparably specified Canon L glass, this test is one of several that shows why Nikon charges more money for its wide zooms.

If one wishes to see the performance of the world's best wide angle zoom, it is compared here
Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G First Test: Introduction

against some Canon L lenses, both zoom and prime, as well as Zeiss primes. And take note: the Canon 16-35/2.8 L Mark II and Zeiss 17-35 f/2.8 lenses were cherry-picked, supreme examples: "Andrew Gough, of Planetwide, scrutinised six copies of the L before purchasing this best-of-breed sample. Similarly, the Zeiss N was chosen from a batch of five for his personal use. The Nikon is the same sample used in the other tests, adapted for use on the 1Ds III by our own adaptor."
All three lenses are compared on a single, high quality Canon pro body.

 

[chyidean]

If you need cheaper lenses, Canon has plenty of them.

Canon 16-35mm v Nikon 17-35mm: Intro

Canon is (in)famous for poor wide zoom performance. Look at two comparable vintage lenses (2006) of basically identical specifications. For those wondering why many Nikon lenses cost more than comparably specified Canon L glass, this test is one of several that shows why Nikon charges more money for its wide zooms.

If one wishes to see the performance of the world's best wide angle zoom, it is compared here
Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G First Test: Introduction

against some Canon L lenses, both zoom and prime, as well as Zeiss primes. And take note: the Canon 16-35/2.8 L Mark II and Zeiss 17-35 f/2.8 lenses were cherry-picked, supreme examples: "Andrew Gough, of Planetwide, scrutinised six copies of the L before purchasing this best-of-breed sample. Similarly, the Zeiss N was chosen from a batch of five for his personal use. The Nikon is the same sample used in the other tests, adapted for use on the 1Ds III by our own adaptor."
All three lenses are compared on a single, high quality Canon pro body.

You've definitely convinced me to stay with Nikon. Exactly the answer to the question I posed in the original post (what's the difference between Canon and Nikon f/2.8 glass).

 

[Garbz]

Just one thing to remember too when you're looking at cost, this camera should easily outlive your student years. Times are tough now but in a few years I would hope these couple of hundred dollars don't worry you too much anymore. Then you may have changed systems for nothing.

Also remember that these two companies are in direct competition. There's always bound to be one leading in quality for a certain market, and one leading in price. But things will always change too. Would you have switched back to Nikon in 5 years when the Nikkors are $500 less than Canon?

 

[inTempus]

I agree that you should probably stay with Nikon for no other reason that cost alone isn't always an ideal motivator for switching platforms when you're already invested in one.

With that said, it always cracks me up how you hear about how sucky Canon L glass is (only certain lenses like their wide angles - you won't hear too many folks ripping on their telephotos).

There are world famous photogs that can shoot with anything they want who choose to shoot with Canon. You know, people like Annie Leibovitz.

She's one of the most famous celebrity photographers on the planet.



Watch for the Canon 1D and the 24-70 in the video above.

You can see her most recent portrait of the First Family here: P090109-0127 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

...also taken with her 1Ds Mark III and crappy Canon glass.

Ironically she's been spotted with Nikon and Hasselblad in the past too but she's still quite often seen with her inferior Canon products.

As a matter of fact, there are a whole slew of working professionals who shoot Canon and their inferior glass.

You can peruse the list here.

By the way some tell it, you would be surprised Canon sells a single lens or body to anyone other than the horribly misinformed.

 

[Dao]

I will say stay with the brand you familiar with. Unless you are not able to do what you need to do with your current Nikon system. (I doubt it) Or if you are one of those who only want to use the latest and greatest technology no matter what.

For lowering the cost, you do not have to buy all Nikon lenses unless you want the best for your Nikon camera. A lot of third party lenses are also very good, if not better.

As for the images the camera created, I do not have much 1st hand experience at all (I only play with my friend's D50 and my Canon cameras), but from what I see, learned and told, not much of the different at the end. Especially for a experienced photographer.

So I will say stay with your Nikon and look for a cheaper good quality lens for now. And when you are ready, you can get your dream lenses and sell the cheaper good quality lens at that time. Most likely, you will not lose too much money especially if you buy it used.

For example, I bought a Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 lens used (like new) for $300 a year ago. And now the new one cost about $436 at Amazon. And a quick search in google "tamron 17-50mm site:*.craigslist.org". The 1st page shows the lens is selling for $280 - $385 used now. (The $280 one has a broken ring). So if money is tight, buy a used good quality 3rd party or Nikon lens now and upgrade to a better one later once you save up more.

 

[Village Idiot]

Or you could spend a retarded amount of money to switch to a canon body (7D or 5DII), and again, MORE money to get the 24-70, and you'll be using bigger cameras with slower lenses, only ONE body which gives you significantly better high ISO, that 5DII, but it's cancelled out because you'll be shooting ISO6400 when you could be at ISO 1600ish. And ISO 1600 on a D90 looks better than the 5D at 6400.

I don't quite get you here.

If he's shooting at 6400 ISO, he would get faster shutter speeds where as shooting clean on a D90 at 1600 ISO might not get him the speeds that he needs which will result in motion blur. Why would he be shooting at 6400 ISO with the 5DII and 1600 ISO with the D90? If he could shoot at 1600 ISO with the D90, he could also shoot at 1600 ISO with a 5DII and the FF camera would win out at that point. Or how about, if he was in a situation where he needed 6400 ISO, he would be SOL with the D90.

6400 ISO with a tiny bit of noise reduction looks great.

 

[inTempus]

6400 ISO with a tiny bit of noise reduction looks great.

I would agree, ISO 6400 and the 5D2 are good to go. Here's a sample I shot for another discussion about the 5D's high ISO performance.

[/thread jack]

 

[Derrel]

I agree that you should probably stay with Nikon for no other reason that cost alone isn't always an ideal motivator for switching platforms when you're already invested in one.

With that said, it always cracks me up how you hear about how sucky Canon L glass is (only certain lenses like their wide angles - you won't hear too many folks ripping on their telephotos).

There are world famous photogs that can shoot with anything they want who choose to shoot with Canon. You know, people like Annie Leibovitz.

She's one of the most famous celebrity photographers on the planet.

YouTube - Penelope Cruz, Nicole Kidman, Kate Hudson of Nine in Vogue

Watch for the Canon 1D and the 24-70 in the video above.

You can see her most recent portrait of the First Family here: P090109-0127 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

...also taken with her 1Ds Mark III and crappy Canon glass.

Ironically she's been spotted with Nikon and Hasselblad in the past too but she's still quite often seen with her inferior Canon products.

As a matter of fact, there are a whole slew of working professionals who shoot Canon and their inferior glass.

You can peruse the list here.

By the way some tell it, you would be surprised Canon sells a single lens or body to anyone other than the horribly misinformed.

Funny...when Annie she shot the advertisements for ProFoto's professional-grade studio lightign equipment in late 2008, she was using a Nikon D3 series body and professional Nikon zoom lens:

News | Profoto USA: Annie Leibovitz & Profoto Pro-8 Air - Behind the Scenes

And as far as Canon's lame wide-angle and lame wide primes, let's look at a highend stock shooter testing Cann;s "vaunted" 85mm f/1.2 L- glass against Nikon's acknowledge bokeh leader, the 85mm 1.4 AF-D, commonly called the "Cream Machine" for its smooth,creamy bokeh and the beautiful image quality it lends to its images.

Clash of the Titans – Canon 1Ds Mark III vs Nikon D3X for Stock | Yuri Arcurs

Note how un-sharp the Canon 85mm 1.2-L is in comparison to the less-expensive Nikkor lens? Note the guy's dismissal of Canon's poor wide angle lens perfroamance as well.

And of course, the multiple head-to-head comparisons of Canon,Zeiss,and Nikon glass found here. It's shocking how a 14-24mm Nikon zoom can out-shoot Canon's 24mm f/1.4-L prime lens at f/5.6.

Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G First Test: Introduction

Canon telephotos are nice lenses, provided you get one that isn't optically decentered or otherwise defective from the factory. I guess Canon prime telephotos are the reasons Robert Hanashiro switched to Nikon. And why many of the Sports Illustrated crew has switched to Nikon. Canon lenses are indeed, a good reason to switch to Nikon. We need to remember that Nikon is the company Canon contracted to make ALL the lenses for the first 13 years of Canon camera production...yeah...Canon had Nippon Kogaku aka Japan Camera aka "Nikon" make all its lenses for over the first decade of Canon's life as a camera company. Hmmm....wonder which company has the actual tradition of being a fine maker of lenses?

It's all good though. I own some Canon L-glass lenses, and they're pretty good lenses. I own more Nikon equipment though. Canin does some dumb stuff on some of its lenses, like the 70-200 f/2.8 -L, with the squared-off rear element shrouding causing horrible physical vignetting, ruining the bokeh of an otherwise fine lens, as in this shot done with that Canon L zoom

IMG_2153_EF 70-20028L-IS at f-2.8 bokeh.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com

 

[inTempus]

Derrel, I said that Annie had also shot with Nikon but still elects to shoot with her crappy 1Ds3. I know she's used other equipment, but for some reason she still loves her crappy old 1Ds3 despite all of its claimed faults.

As for sharpness tests, much like your own comments where you disregard most of what you read posted on the net in terms of reviews (remember how you were burned on a body purchase based on reviews and swore them off?), I have learned to disregard much of what I read in favor of my own tests. They're a great place to start, but in the end you have no idea how the tests were conducted or even what biases might be present. Let's not mention that the review above they admit to downsizing the D3x's image so they match the 1D's... which tends to make images look better. But that's not my point...

Here's a shot I took this morning at the office for a co-worker. He needed a pic for a pitch document.

That was shot with my 5D2 and my crappy 24-70 f/2.8L. It looks ok at full size. So let's zoom in a ridiculous amount and see how the details look.

You may think it looks like crap, but I don't. I think the resolution is amazing and the details are stunning. Even the other photogs in the office who shoot Nikon mentioned my 5D and 24-70 produce amazing images and were quite envious of these rather mundane shots.

So, where the rubber meets the road I am more than happy with all of my L glass. The day it fails to impress me is the day I switch to another platform. As it stands, my images get the attention of my peers and I am frequently asked what body I use to produce my work.

There are several reasons I've considered switching to Nikon, image quality isn't one of them.

 

[Dao]

...... You may think it looks like crap, but I don't. ......

Your equipments will make a photo look awful especially for those (ladies) who want to hide their facial defects .....

 

[inTempus]

...... You may think it looks like crap, but I don't. ......

Your equipments will make a photo look awful especially for those (ladies) who want to hide their facial defects .....

Yeah, sometimes it has just a little too much detail.