Would you make the switch?

Antithesis · Apr 21, 2008

From Nikon to Canon?

I'm about to drop a lot of money on a good professional level kit. I was thinking initially that I would go for a d300, 17-55, SB-800 and then a 70-200 down the road. I'd be using my d80 as a backup, with my most used lens on the d300.

The big question: if you had the chance, would you drop it all before you got to invested, and go Canon? For the same price, I could sell my d80, get a used 40d, used 5D, a 17-40, 70-200 f4 and 50mm f1.8. The 40D tickles the performance of the d300 in terms of low light and just about everything else, and the 5D pretty much kills it and is full frame. A lot of Canon people are dropping their gear at a lower price to go for Nikon stuff, and in the long run I will be working with a lot of people that use Canon gear. I.e. the workflow will be Canon based.

Anyways, from both Canon guys' and Nikonians, would you make the switch and start learning the platform now?

Alex_B · Apr 21, 2008

Since you probably got use to the handling of your current system, I would think twice before switching (any direction).

But it is true that you get some used Canon gear out there at a pretty affordable price at the moment.

Antithesis · Apr 21, 2008

Not counting manual film bodies, I've only had 2 digitial Nikon bodies. I don't feel that I'm too entrenched, and that's why I'm considering the switch. Nikon finally just surpassed Canon, but not by that far. And Canon's next power move will put them on top, and it's bound to come soon.

JimmyO · Apr 21, 2008

I wouldnt base your decesion on anything but what you prefer to shoot with.

Antithesis · Apr 21, 2008

I suppose I should go to the local camera shop and play with some Canons. I mainly plan to do event photography, weddings and whatever else I can get my hands on. I'm still discovering my strengths, but I just feel like switching to Canon is going to be expected of me at some point in the future.

Trenton Romulox · Apr 21, 2008

It's going to be a leapfrog between the two companies, Nikon and Canon forever, so if you're always gonna want the best you'll be switching camps every year or every other year. And besides, the 40D does not tickle the low-light performance of the D300, and the 5D doesn't beat the D300 low-light either, even though the 5D is full-frame. There's nothing wrong with Canon, there's nothing wrong with Nikon, so why switch?

lostprophet · Apr 21, 2008

I would switch FROM Canon to Nikon if I didn't have so much big glass.

Canon are becoming the Microsoft of the camera world. They just release gear and let the public find all the faults with it.

Trenton Romulox · Apr 21, 2008

lostprophet said:
I would switch FROM Canon to Nikon if I didn't have so much big glass.

Canon are becoming the Microsoft of the camera world. They just release gear and let the public find all the faults with it.

HAHAHA. Smartest thing I've heard all day!

The only thing about Canon that I like is that their super telephotos are cheaper than Nikon's, or at least that's what I've seen, it might be different now, dunno. But I hate the whole gray lens thing, I think that's stupid. Haha.

Antithesis · Apr 21, 2008

I'm just considering the price of gold-ring lenses versus L glass. L glass seems to be a bit less expensive for similar quality, and some of the focal lengths seem a bit better. For example, the 24-70L is about a grand and the Nikon 24-70 is 1700. The 17-40 on the 5D would be the equivalent of the 12-24 on a DX format, and costs $400 less for a better lens.

I'm just weighing the options, because I have the chance to make the switch now if it is a valid option.

Also, the few comparisons I've seen, the 5D seems to have less noise and less noise reduction image-butchering than the D300.

lostprophet · Apr 21, 2008

they are only cheaper because they are getting on for about 7 years old and have very old IS units (2stops) that said the new 200mm F2 and 800mm F5.6 will have 5 stops of IS

The reason the colour is white is because it reflects the heat when your sat in the sun all day. In the past long lenses have suffered from over heating and the metal expands and the glass is then out of alignment. Its very rare but it can cause soft images. That said if you want soft images just buy a 1D mkIII :lol:

We have a sweepstake going at work on what the faults will be with the 5D replacement :lol:

Seefutlung · Apr 21, 2008

lostprophet said:
... The reason the colour is white is because it reflects the heat when your sat in the sun all day. In the past long lenses have suffered from over heating and the metal expands and the glass is then out of alignment. Its very rare but it can cause soft images. That said if you want soft images just buy a 1D mkIII

We have a sweepstake going at work on what the faults will be with the 5D replacement

It is my understanding that it's not so much the metal and glass but rather the Fluorite elements which are very sensitive to heat. Not all L lenses have Fluorite elements ... but big white lenses makes for a pretty good marketing tool.

Gary

Antithesis · Apr 21, 2008

Yeah, I can't remember where I read it, but white lenses have a much less significant impact on the heat absorbtion of a lens than Canon would like people to know. That being said, if I were on Safari in Africa in extreme heat, I would prefer a white lens, because I imagine in a scenario like that, it might make a difference. But, living in the temperate northwest US, I don't think it will ever be an issue.

"White lenses" would not be at all why I would switch. Plus, the one lens I am really looking for on a d300 would be the 17-55, which was released quite a while ago. I think with the introduction of the D1 and D100.

I'm starting out with Wedding photography, and whatever other event photography I can get in this summer. That's the big reason for some pro glass and a nicer body then my d80. I'm just trying to decide if the switch will be beneficial in the long run.

keith204 · Apr 21, 2008

I am a Canon 40D & 20D shooter. The ISO and other features of the D300 leave me drooling.

However, with my recent purchase of the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, I am very thrilled to be a Canon shooter. Also, I prefer the feel and controls of a 40D over the D300.

You'll always go both ways, especially with the introduction of new stuff. Find what feels best for you, and go for it.

SpeedTrap · Apr 21, 2008

I am a Nikon D300 Shooter and I can say my friends that are shooting with the D40 and 5D always complain because in low light they can't touch the ISO Performace of the D300. With that said, Glass is a bit more, but you will not be replacing glass all the time. so if you consider if a lens is $500 more it is just a better wirite off at tax time.

soylentgreen · Apr 21, 2008

You should base your decision on the basis of what are you upgrading for? Does Canon's line-up have something that Nikon does not have for you? I chose Canon for the ergonomics and still do. Tried out the D300 and D3, great performers but a hassle to navigate controls. I used a D70 prior to my first Canon purchase, the 20D, and have no regrets. Also a factor was lens line-up and price. I mostly shoot wildlife so the super-telephotos were in my sight eventually. That said, Nikon only makes 1 70-200mm lens. The f/2.8 VR which runs $1700+ and is never in stock. A superb lens, but not evryone can afford it out of the box. Canon makes 4 versions. f/4, f/4 IS, f/2.8 & f/2.8 IS. All L's and to fit anyone's budget. I was able to get an excellent 70-200 f/4L, use it for a bit and upgrade later to thef/2.8L IS. Same goes for the other telephotos, 300mm & 400mm.
I would never make a switch based on the current body line-up and feature. They change every year. D3 and D300 now, but what about Canon's next release, or Nikon's follow-up. Tit for tat. Kinda like PC processors and cars. Once the new ones come out, everything else is yesterday's news.