Change from Canon to Nikon?

[Derrel]

I wish there were more brick and mortar stores my way. Unless I'm missing something, there's only one and they don't have anything close to those prices. Darn Fairfield county.

Well, do what we used to do: go to a newsstand, or big grocery store with a good magazine section, and buy a copy of Shutterbug Magazine. In it are advertisements from hundreds of smaller photo dealers and shops all across the entire USA. There are stores in Portland, Seattle, Santa Barbara, Iowa City, Minneapolis-St, Paul, Dubuque, Buffalo, Pittsburg, Ft. Lauderdale, Miami, Kansas City, Omaha, Boise, and so on. Set up your own web-cruising list of URLs and start sending e-mails to these dealers who work in the real world, not New Yawwwwk City or Flea Bay.

In smaller markets, business is done by selling gear for hobbyists on CONSIGMENT much of the time; the store takes 15 to 21 percent of the selling price, with NO COST to them to take the item into store inventory. With smaller advertising budgets, and selling the gear of real,regular, everyday schmoes and hobbyists, well... walk-in retail prices are much lower than the prices commanded by The Big Five web stores. A store that takes 21 percent of $2,250 earns $535 in PROFIT off the sale of ONE, single D3s body--more-lucrative than NEW camera sales,and with ZERO cost to inventory. See how that works?

Two weeks ago, PPS here in town had a nice Nikon 200-400 AF-S VR Nikkor for $3,500 asking price. That's what? $1,000 below the New York City price at one of the "big Two" dealers? Last year, PPS had a nice 400/2.8 AFS with the big Wimberly head for $5,500 asking price.

 

[Steve5D]

Is there a reason you feel you need, to change?

Wondering the same...

 

[Blair387]

From everything I've read the Nikons have way better dynamic range and better low light performance. Especially on dxomark.com according to them the nikon d600 kills the 5d mark iii in image quality and dynamic range. Plus their lenses are way way cheaper for the same zooms. And the 14-24 f2.8 from Nikon is supposed to be way better than the 16-35 from canon. Plus the nikon uses 77mm filters on that lens instead of 82mm.

 

[Juga]

From everything I've read the Nikons have way better dynamic range and better low light performance. Especially on dxomark.com according to them the nikon d600 kills the 5d mark iii in image quality and dynamic range. Plus their lenses are way way cheaper for the same zooms. And the 14-24 f2.8 from Nikon is supposed to be way better than the 16-35 from canon. Plus the nikon uses 77mm filters on that lens instead of 82mm.

Derrel will ultimately disagree with this statement but I personally don't find the dxomark charts 100% accurate. When I was shopping for a full frame a couple of months ago I personally found that the D600 had very nice images, focused fast, etc until about 6400 ISO then it started to get really mushy from all the noise. The 5DIII and the 6D were about the same with the 6D providing maybe a slight difference with higher ISO performance and has recently given me usable images in the 20000 ISO range. With an assist beam from a speedlite or the ST-E2 the 6D's center focus point locked on much faster than the 5DIII and D600. The 5DIII's egronomics are incredible...it fits the hand like a glove that doesn't want to come off but ultimately price made it too much for me. So my decision came down to the D600 and 6D and each camera has its advantages and disadvantages but for me the 6D won out because it produced better high ISO images, the wifi, and the egronomics felt really good compared to the D600. With all that being said and when you start getting up in this range of camera I don't think either brand has a clear cut advantage over the other. Also some others said that it comes down to the person behind the camera and not the camera itself...that is true. I suck at photography but I still went full frame because that is what I wanted. If you already have money invested in Canon...I personally don't think it is worth the jump. Especially based on dxo charts.

 

[Blair387]

Thanks Joe. I havent looked into the 6d much. So you would take that over the 5d mark iii? the mark iii auto focus is crazy good from what I seen? they basically took that from the flagship model 1dx

and I know I've heard some people say the same thing about dxomark and similar websites. I hear they are pretty full of crap cause they run their tests on lab equipment I guess instead of doing real world tests

 

[Juga]

Thanks Joe. I havent looked into the 6d much. So you would take that over the 5d mark iii? the mark iii auto focus is crazy good from what I seen? they basically took that from the flagship model 1dx

I would definitely take the 5DIII over the 6D. The AF system IS that much better not to mention other little advantages such as dual memory card slots, better weather sealing, faster shutter speeds...etc. That being said I love my 6D. I just couldn't justify the cost for the 5DIII and personally didn't like the feel of the Nikon. Camera perference is subjective but everyone has an opinion. Like I said before I don't know how much you have invested in Canon but if you already do have some dime thrown down on Canon equipment it might not be worth losing all that value just for what dxo charts are saying as higher dynamic range or whatever. Just my thoughts.

 

[Derrel]

Plenty of reasons to make the switch. The last link is kind of amusing. It's from noted Canonista Syl Arena. Arena's article on how he thinks Canon should modernize its flash system was an insta-classic when it appeared a few years back. His answers to all the issues Canon flash systems have, in most cases? "Give up, and do it the way NIKON does it." He is the Joe McNally of the Canon world.

Blog @ BorrowLenses


Canon vs Nikon flash systems (revisited) | Timothy Armes' Blog


Why I switched from Canon to Nikon « Blog Tristan Shu


My Canon Speedlite Wishlist | PixSylated | Syl Arena's Honestly-Biased Insights on Photography

 

[Juga]

I knew you would be along soon.

Now where is gavjenks?

 

[Derrel]

I knew you would be along soon.

Now where is gavjenks?

I just Googled the topic and those things came up. I dunno...a few years back, I plunked down about $10,000 for a Canon system that had two bodies, a 20D and a 5D,both with Canon battery grips, Sigma 18-125mm DC, and had the following Canon lenses. 50/1.8, 50/1.4,85/1.8,100 2.8 EF Macro, 135-2-L, 135 2.8 soft Focus, 70-200 L IS USM, 24-105 4-L IS USM, 580 EX-II flash, Sigma 80-400 OS. I shot the Canon 5D for about five years, along side my D2x Nikon system.

I've actually put my money where MY MOUTH IS, unlike the huge majority of people here. Last year, I bought a good used D3x, and the Canon lenses for the most part, went on extended loan to a TPF forum buddy of mine. The D3x's image files, focus speed, build, viewfinder quality, viewfinder brightness in ALL light, 29-frame buffer, and almost 14-stop Dynamic Range blow the Canon 5D Classic away in the real world. Not to mention the better flash metering the Nikon can do.

I FULLY understand some of the issues Canon has. There are a number of reasons why one system can be found to be better than the other. A guy who buys a Nikon D3-series camera is buying one of the finest cameras ever made. Unless you've owned one, you really have little idea of how well-made they are.

 

[Gavjenks]

From everything I've read the Nikons have way better dynamic range and better low light performance. Especially on dxomark.com according to them the nikon d600 kills the 5d mark iii in image quality and dynamic range. Plus their lenses are way way cheaper for the same zooms. And the 14-24 f2.8 from Nikon is supposed to be way better than the 16-35 from canon. Plus the nikon uses 77mm filters on that lens instead of 82mm.

Filter threads: That's a terrible reason to sell all of your gear and switch brands. Seriously?

Cheaper lenses: Your own example breaks this rule: the 14-24 2.8 is several hundred dollars more expensive than the 16-35 2.8. Usually their prices are almost identical though. For example, the nikon 70-200 2.8 VR and the canon 70-200 2.8 IS are both almost exactly $2400. Both companies also sell a 50mm 1.8 for about $100. I don't know where you're getting this from.

Dynamic range: Nikons do tend to be significantly better at ISO 100-200, but equal or in a couple cases worse at ISO 800+ Since you mentioned the D600, here is the comparison for dynamic range from DxO Mark. As you can see, the two models swap places right around ISO 800.


And here's the comparison for noise at different ISOs. Pretty much identical, not even 1/3 of a stop difference at any point:



None of those things represent any major difference, and this sort of thing isn't worth switching brands for. You can lose a lot of money switching brands in either direction, especially if you do it all at once and possibly settle for less-than-ideal resale prices on stuff you're dumping.

Switching to full frame from crop frame will make a MUCH MUCH bigger difference than brands will.

 

[Juga]

I knew you would be along soon.

Now where is gavjenks?

I just Googled the topic and those things came up. I dunno...a few years back, I plunked down about $10,000 for a Canon system that had two bodies, a 20D and a 5D,both with Canon battery grips, Sigma 18-125mm DC, and had the following Canon lenses. 50/1.8, 50/1.4,85/1.8,100 2.8 EF Macro, 135-2-L, 135 2.8 soft Focus, 70-200 L IS USM, 24-105 4-L IS USM, 580 EX-II flash, Sigma 80-400 OS. I shot the Canon 5D for about five years, along side my D2x Nikon system.

I've actually put my money where MY MOUTH IS, unlike the huge majority of people here. Last year, I bought a good used D3x, and the Canon lenses for the most part, went on extended loan to a TPF forum buddy of mine. The D3x's image files, focus speed, build, viewfinder quality, viewfinder brightness in ALL light, 29-frame buffer, and almost 14-stop Dynamic Range blow the Canon 5D Classic away in the real world. Not to mention the better flash metering the Nikon can do.

I FULLY understand some of the issues Canon has. There are a number of reasons why one system can be found to be better than the other. A guy who buys a Nikon D3-series camera is buying one of the finest cameras ever made. Unless you've owned one, you really have little idea of how well-made they are.

I have not owned one and can't dog any system...which I haven't. I am well aware of your experience level...I pay attention. I was kidding with my statement there...not trying to be the 'all-knowing noob' that most people try to be. I shared my experience when I was shopping around. I liked the 6D over the D600. Plain and simple...and it is my opinion.

 

[Gavjenks]

I knew you would be along soon.

Now where is gavjenks?

Lol you posted that while I was typing! Nice.

 

[Gavjenks]

The D3x's image files, focus speed, build, viewfinder quality, viewfinder brightness in ALL light, 29-frame buffer, and almost 14-stop Dynamic Range blow the Canon 5D Classic away in the real world.

Why are you comparing a flagship model to a sub-tier model 3 years older that costs a fraction as much and isn't designed for the same market? That doesn't really mean much.

The obvious comparison is the 1D Mk IV.

 

[Blair387]

Hey why don't you take a look at overstock.com the nikon 24-70 is $1489 vs $2299 Canon. And the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 vrii is $1879 vs 2499 canon lens. So you're trying to tell me that they are priced similar? You should just shut the hell up, I know what I'm talking about. I'm not making those prices up. Yes the 14-24 nikon is quite a bit more expensive, but its 2mm wider and doesn't have any overlap. Sorry I've just heard it was the best wide angle zoom you can get. But I guess I'm wrong.

 

[Juga]

OP, why not just rent whatever you are interested in?