Any reason to switch from Canon to Nikon at this point?

[Solarflare]

You hear a lot of people are switching to Fuji because its a great camera system, not because its a mirrorless.

The main game that Fuji won vs Canon and Nikon is that their lenses are on average better.

The advantage you perceive an Nikon's now may appear to be Canon's in a year or two.

Thats the core issue with switching between the two companies: very likely their eternal rivalry will continue and next chance Canon will be ahead.

 

[Frank F.]

Yes. Fuji has very good lenses, very good ergonomics and the new bodies have an EVF that really challenges an OVF.

That is why I am waiting in awe for the GFX.

 

[goodguy]

Yes. Fuji has very good lenses, very good ergonomics and the new bodies have an EVF that really challenges an OVF.

That is why I am waiting in awe for the GFX.

Only problem with Fuji is lack of FF cameras

 

[Advanced Photo]

I hear a lot of people switching to Fuji.

Nikon sales are down as are Canon sales, the whole DSLR business is going down the drain.

For me (I am heavily invested in Nikon gear D3, D600, D500 and a lot of glass) I do not see the point to switch right now.

All the more I am tempted by the industry leading new lens 1.4/105E.

Nikon is late to deliver a new body in the D810-line which I and many others are waiting for.

The D5 & D500 are game changers in the Nikon lineup when in comes to AF, WB, ISO & color consistency over a huge range of ISO and Light Sources.

The D500 delivers usable shots at 20k ISO
The D5 delivers usable shots at 100k ISO
You can buy three D500 for one D5

I would not go for a fourth generation body (D8xx/750/610/600) today, even think about getting a second D500, because I am sick of waiting.

Actually, it dropped a lot all at once because everyone that wanted a digital camera all jumped on at the same time and super saturated the market so sales naturally dropped a lot shortly thereafter. It has since leveled off after a veritable free fall for a couple years and sales move up and down withing a window as was expected.

 

[pixmedic]

I hesitate to make this post because I know brand-wars and fan boy threads are annoying. So even if you are a die-hard Canon or Nikon user, I'm just looking for some balanced and thoughtful input here.

I'm going to be upgrading my 6D here in a month or so, and I was planning on the 5D Mark IV. I mainly shoot portraiture and landscape/travel (I'm getting heavy into landscape right now). I figure that once I invest in a $3,500 body, it would definitely be cost prohibitive to switch at that point, so I'm researching the "possible switch" right now. (I should add that I would like to have a backup body for overseas trips just in case, so I would be keeping the 6D).

The Canon lenses/accessories I own:
1) 16-35 f/4L
2) 24-70 2.8L (mark 1)
3) 70-200 2.8L IS II
4) 50mm 1.4
5) 85mm 1.8
6) 580 EXII Speedlite
7) Singh-Ray 77mm polarizer, 3-stop and 10-stop 77mm graduated filters

It seems like I read detailed reviews from places like DPReview and they will often say things like "in regards to exposure latitude... the 5D Mark IV is not at the level of the current industry leader the Nikon D810". This is obviously just one remark, but it seems like lately I read a lot of things saying that a certain Canon product isn't up to par with it's Nikon equivalent. I've also been buying books and subscribing to things like Improve Photography Plus, and it seems like a majority of the pro landscape photographers I am learning from use Nikon.

Am I overthinking all of this?

overthinking? no.
underthinking? yes. very yes.

you have a great lens lineup for canon, and unless you got them all at a fantastic used price, you will take an absolute beating when you sell them. theres nothing you can do with nikon that you cant do with canon...
all the scuttlebutt about benchmark numbers being better in this area or that are just that...numbers. numbers that dont really mean much in real world applications. the differences are minuscule at best, and misleading advertising hype at worst.
switching systems is a pain. a royal pain. why would you want to subject yourself to that?
the answer is: you dont want to. so dont. just dont. very dont. dont do it man.
grab the next canon upgrade and go shoot.

 

[Advanced Photo]

I have switched brands several times and now I have several brands of equipment for different needs. Having more options is a good thing, A very good thing. I do not regret it one bit.

 

[fmw]

I hesitate to make this post because I know brand-wars and fan boy threads are annoying. So even if you are a die-hard Canon or Nikon user, I'm just looking for some balanced and thoughtful input here.

I'm going to be upgrading my 6D here in a month or so, and I was planning on the 5D Mark IV. I mainly shoot portraiture and landscape/travel (I'm getting heavy into landscape right now). I figure that once I invest in a $3,500 body, it would definitely be cost prohibitive to switch at that point, so I'm researching the "possible switch" right now. (I should add that I would like to have a backup body for overseas trips just in case, so I would be keeping the 6D).

The Canon lenses/accessories I own:
1) 16-35 f/4L
2) 24-70 2.8L (mark 1)
3) 70-200 2.8L IS II
4) 50mm 1.4
5) 85mm 1.8
6) 580 EXII Speedlite
7) Singh-Ray 77mm polarizer, 3-stop and 10-stop 77mm graduated filters

It seems like I read detailed reviews from places like DPReview and they will often say things like "in regards to exposure latitude... the 5D Mark IV is not at the level of the current industry leader the Nikon D810". This is obviously just one remark, but it seems like lately I read a lot of things saying that a certain Canon product isn't up to par with it's Nikon equivalent. I've also been buying books and subscribing to things like Improve Photography Plus, and it seems like a majority of the pro landscape photographers I am learning from use Nikon.

Am I overthinking all of this?

Not only are you overthinking it but you haven't even defined what benefit you would expect from a brand change. Since you have an investment in Canon gear there is no logical reason to change. Perhaps you should determine a goal before you overthink it any further.

 

[goodguy]

Another VERY important reason to move from Canon to Nikon is the first letter, yes C vs N

C is just a bad letter like - crippled, common, critical, careless
While N has such a wonderful positive association to it like - Nirvana, Neat, Nice, Namaste

So for this only reason its already worth moving from Canon to Nikon

Make sense right ?
Right ?

 

[Frank F.]

Only problem with Fuji is lack of FF cameras

From a business standpoint it seems to be a good idea not to enter a market that already has 4 companies suffering to gain share and make money.

33x44 is good. Any bigger format is good. Does it have to be 24x36? Why?

 

[Advanced Photo]

We use 24 x 35 (actually 24 x 36 with margins) because Oskar Barnak was too weak and small to lug around the large format glass negative camera equipment of his day and wanted to be able to take pictures. He came up with the idea of smaller negatives and enlargers to make prints from the movies being shown on large screens from film that was 18 x 24. He thought the size was too small to make good still prints and so doubled that size to 24 x 36 and ran the film horizontally through his camera. If Oskar was a bigger man it might have never happened and we would still be using large negatives today.

 

[Solarflare]

Why, thanks for the history excourse that probably everybody here already knows.

If I remember correctly, Barnak wasnt actually the first person with the idea to use movie film for stills, and even less the first to magnify smaller negatives for larger print, because the later was already going on since quite some time with medium format.

And I would assume that even if Leica never had happened, we would still use some sort of format in that general area of size today, simply because it makes sense. For general photography one needs about the range of 20-300mm (full frame equiv), and thats a bit hard to do with 645 or higher.

The main legacy of Barnak is really more the 3:2 aspect ratio and the useage of a focal plane shutter.

 

[Advanced Photo]

It was an answer to a question, perhaps you missed that.

33x44 is good. Any bigger format is good. Does it have to be 24x36? Why?

 

[greybeard]

The only really good reason is that the switch will improve your pictures. But, if you are bored with you Canon stuff and want something different, go for it. I personally use Nikon for my more serious stuff and I use my Sony A6000 as my carry around because it is so small and produces some remarkable results. It does however, lack the versatility of my Nikon gear.