Considering change from Nikon to Canon. Need advice.

stro

TPF Noob!
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Location
CA
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
Hey all,
Currently I'm debating whether or not to change over to Canon. I need to purchase a full frame camera and have a back up camera so this is why I'm considering the change. I've been dissappointed with my Nikon D7000 and my client base is changing and Canon is looking more and more enticing. I get a lot of my business from small businesses doing product photography, fashion photography, head shots, portraits and event photography, and many of my clients are now asking for video work as well. I originally went with Nikon because I wanted to be a wedding photographer, but I have not had any wedding work in some time, but would still like pursue wedding photography. Now I don't know much about Canon so that's why I'm here.

Here's my current gear list:
D7000
80-200mm 2.8
50mm 1.8
35mm 1.8
18-105mm 3-5.6
105mm 2.8 Macro
Sb-700
SB-600

Here's my issues. I've had my D7000 serviced for AF issues along with lenses purchased brand new and still am having AF issues and photos are not tack sharp when they should be. The only lens I get consistent sharp photos with is my kit 18-105mm lens, but I would like to have something more reliable with a lower aperture for low light that also doesn't have horrid lens distortion. So my main lens is my kit lens. I can't even use the 80-200 because the AF is so off that I get a sharp image 1/15 shots. They look amazing when it does focus but it just isn't reliable enough to use on a paid gig. I've tried auto tuning the auto focus on each lens and even when shooting on a tripod, flash, and cable release shooting the images are off. I do like the high frame rate of the D7000 and the video is decent, but I need something full frame that does awsome video.

Now I was hoping the D800 would be just an upgrade of the D700 but the lack of frame rate really concerns me and it is going to be far more expensive than say the 5d Mark II. The advantages I see are that the lenses with Canon are far less expensive than with Canon, for example the 70-200 f/4 is only $600 and I don't need the lower aperture and nikon doesn't have a comparable lens from what I have seen. Also, the full frame 5D MKII is much less expensive than the D700 and the higher megapixels and superior video quality is definitely a plus. I would probably buy the 5D Mk II and the 60D as back up to make up for the lack of frame rate on the MK II. I still want to move towards high end wedding and candid portrait photography, but I'm wondering if this would be a good configuration for what I'm doing now and what I want to do in the future. I don't have the money to lay down for a D3 (unless maybe used), D3s, D3x or a D4.

So here is what I'm looking at changing to:
Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Canon EOS 60D
Canon Telephoto EF 100mm f/2.8 USM
Canon Normal EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens
Canon 430EX II Speedlite x2

So here's my questions. Would this be a good set up for what I'm doing and what I want to do in the future? Would it be worth saving for a D3 or another full frame camera? Will I see improved image quality overall with this set up? Will the 5D MKII full frame camera work well at high ISO compared to Nikon's full frame DSLRs? Whats the best way of going about trading in gear with out getting lowballed on my current equipment with minimal time with out a camera(Adorama was offering me far less than what I could sell private party)?

Thanks for your help in advance!

-stro.
 
Hmmm....from what I've seen others do, it's not to take a big hit when switching system, unless you're buying used gear to replace your gear.

The first thing I'd suggest, would be to really track down and try to solve your AF issue. If having it serviced isn't working, maybe try/rent another body, just to see if you can isolate the problem. I'd hate to think so, but from what I see on the forums, these issues are quite often user error, so try to rule that out as well.

The 5DmkII is a pretty good camera. Great image quality and really nice at high ISO....but it's slow and the AF sucks (for a $2000 camera anyway). I've always been under the impression that the Nikon D700 was a better body, faster and with better AF...but maybe not as good in terms of image quality (but still really good).
 
It seems hard to believe that your original post is legitimate. There are some very dubious, odd "comments" in it. Like the price difference between the 5D-II and the D700... You wrote: "Now I was hoping the D800 would be just an upgrade of the D700 but the lack of frame rate really concerns me and it is going to be far more expensive than say the 5d Mark II. The advantages I see are that the lenses with Canon are far less expensive than with Canon, for example the 70-200 f/4 is only $600 and I don't need the lower aperture and nikon doesn't have a comparable lens from what I have seen"

1) The price difference is non-existent,really. The D700 and the 5D-II are priced basically almost identically. We do not even KNOW what the D800's price will be, nor do we really "know" much, if anything, what the feature set will be. However, judging by the new advances in video that the Nikon D4 is going to unleash in less than two months' time, we can "predict" much improved video functions from Nikon, especially in the area of sound levels, and input, as well as HUGE increases in video quality, and also, possibly the same multi-FOV (multi crop-factor) option for both stills, and video. NIkon has made multiple cameras that offer instant switching of capture area and FOV in the past, and is doing it in the D3 and D4 cameras also.

As regards the old, 67mm filter thread Canon 70-200 f/4 L for $600. Yeah. Nikon doesn't make a lens like that. Why? They did years ago, it's available used for $250, and it's from the AF-D days. I do not really understand why the old 67mm version is called an L-series, except for the build. I've shot it. It's pretty pedestrian, and it's an f/4 lens.

2) You say you're looking at the "Canon Telephoto EF 100mm f/2.8 USM". You mean the macro 100mm? Or do you mean the 100mm f/2? The Csanon macro is an okay lens, but the OOF highlights look clunky, the focus is somewaht slow, and it's a lousy lens for events or portraiture. I own it, and have tried it for both events and portraits...the focus, as with soooo many macro lenses, is EXCEPTIONALLY hair-trigger at indoor ranges...it's easy to miss focus by 3 inches to 1 foot, and the AF system will call it "good enough" at say, 20 feet...at 10,12 feet with the 100 EF-Macro the slightest turn of the focusing ring will move the focus point 6 inches to three feet. I'm not kidding. Want focus on the "eyes" with the 100/2.8 macro??? The clunky AF system in my 5D cannot reliably achieve it with focus-and-recompose at close ranges...the lens is truly a macro specialty tool...it's "okay" for portraits and events, but it will, I guarantee you, MISS focus enough times that you will be kill-filing photos that a TRUE, "field telephoto" like the Canon 135/2-L or the Nikkor 105 f/2 or 135/2 Defocus COntrol "portrait/fashion" lenses would have NAILED focus on almost every time...

The difference between a field telephoto or a portrait/fashion lens like the Nikon 105 and 135 f/2 lenses lies in WHERE the focusing range is optimized to perform best at.

2)You say you want to work in high-end weddings, and yet, you want to worry about a $600 , used 70-200 f/4 lens that is too slow to really leverage? You sound very under-capitalized. You need to save some money until you can afford better gear, and figure out a way to get what you have working right. Sorry to be so blunt, but that is my POV.

3)"the full frame 5D MKII is much less expensive than the D700 and the higher megapixels and superior video quality" Again, what are you talking about? Price is equal,more or less. The higher megapixels--for wedding use, you ought to invest in a camera that can deliver GREAT image quality in POOR light...right now, that means Nikon D3s at the top of the heap, followed by the Nikon D3 and D700, and then the Canon 5D-II in 3rd place...LOWER, BETTER pixel count is what you need. Not higher MP count and worse high-ISO performance, combined with a camera that has a weak AF module, like the 5D or 5D-II...

Video? Are you aware of how to shoot video? Do you understand anything about cinematography? I think the "video advantage" the 5D-II has is going to be literally blown out of the water by the new Nikon D4. And quite possibly, the next D700 replacement, the D800 or whatever, will be better than the 5D-II is at video, in multiple metrics.

Anyway, it sounds like you're trying to rationalize a move to Canon using some very dubious,erroneous assumptions. Like the Canon 50/1.8 Mark II...are you aware of how LOUD that thing is when it focuses??? It is CHEAP and LOUD!!! It's a POS lens mechanically, and there is no other eway to put it: pictures made with it look substandard because the lens is a crap optical design, with a 5-bladed diaphragm. For video, or wedding group shot uses, it would be an absolute joke to use the 50/II. It's crap. I gave mine away. It's a junk lens, compared to many,many other 50's, and you seem to have it as a critical part of a kit for weddings and video....uh-uh...it is entirely unfit for professional use in anything except smooth-paper background shots...the OOF bokeh is simply dreadful.

The 430 EX speedlight x2??? Again...no...

Like Big Mike said, you need to figure out your AF issue. It sounds to me like there's operator error involved, or the body is malfunctioning. Perhaps you can get a capable photographer friend to help you figure out what's wrong with the D7000 you already own. RIGHT NOW is a poor time to make a switch....a very,very poor time...I expect used D3s bodies for $2700-$3,000 any day now...why not buy the BEST high-ISO camera ever made???
 
It seems hard to believe that your original post is legitimate. There are some very dubious, odd "comments" in it. Like the price difference between the 5D-II and the D700... You wrote: "Now I was hoping the D800 would be just an upgrade of the D700 but the lack of frame rate really concerns me and it is going to be far more expensive than say the 5d Mark II. The advantages I see are that the lenses with Canon are far less expensive than with Canon, for example the 70-200 f/4 is only $600 and I don't need the lower aperture and nikon doesn't have a comparable lens from what I have seen"

1) The price difference is non-existent,really. The D700 and the 5D-II are priced basically almost identically. We do not even KNOW what the D800's price will be, nor do we really "know" much, if anything, what the feature set will be. However, judging by the new advances in video that the Nikon D4 is going to unleash in less than two months' time, we can "predict" much improved video functions from Nikon, especially in the area of sound levels, and input, as well as HUGE increases in video quality, and also, possibly the same multi-FOV (multi crop-factor) option for both stills, and video. NIkon has made multiple cameras that offer instant switching of capture area and FOV in the past, and is doing it in the D3 and D4 cameras also.

As regards the old, 67mm filter thread Canon 70-200 f/4 L for $600. Yeah. Nikon doesn't make a lens like that. Why? They did years ago, it's available used for $250, and it's from the AF-D days. I do not really understand why the old 67mm version is called an L-series, except for the build. I've shot it. It's pretty pedestrian, and it's an f/4 lens.

2) You say you're looking at the "Canon Telephoto EF 100mm f/2.8 USM". You mean the macro 100mm? Or do you mean the 100mm f/2? The Csanon macro is an okay lens, but the OOF highlights look clunky, the focus is somewaht slow, and it's a lousy lens for events or portraiture. I own it, and have tried it for both events and portraits...the focus, as with soooo many macro lenses, is EXCEPTIONALLY hair-trigger at indoor ranges...it's easy to miss focus by 3 inches to 1 foot, and the AF system will call it "good enough" at say, 20 feet...at 10,12 feet with the 100 EF-Macro the slightest turn of the focusing ring will move the focus point 6 inches to three feet. I'm not kidding. Want focus on the "eyes" with the 100/2.8 macro??? The clunky AF system in my 5D cannot reliably achieve it with focus-and-recompose at close ranges...the lens is truly a macro specialty tool...it's "okay" for portraits and events, but it will, I guarantee you, MISS focus enough times that you will be kill-filing photos that a TRUE, "field telephoto" like the Canon 135/2-L or the Nikkor 105 f/2 or 135/2 Defocus COntrol "portrait/fashion" lenses would have NAILED focus on almost every time...

The difference between a field telephoto or a portrait/fashion lens like the Nikon 105 and 135 f/2 lenses lies in WHERE the focusing range is optimized to perform best at.

2)You say you want to work in high-end weddings, and yet, you want to worry about a $600 , used 70-200 f/4 lens that is too slow to really leverage? You sound very under-capitalized. You need to save some money until you can afford better gear, and figure out a way to get what you have working right. Sorry to be so blunt, but that is my POV.

3)"the full frame 5D MKII is much less expensive than the D700 and the higher megapixels and superior video quality" Again, what are you talking about? Price is equal,more or less. The higher megapixels--for wedding use, you ought to invest in a camera that can deliver GREAT image quality in POOR light...right now, that means Nikon D3s at the top of the heap, followed by the Nikon D3 and D700, and then the Canon 5D-II in 3rd place...LOWER, BETTER pixel count is what you need. Not higher MP count and worse high-ISO performance, combined with a camera that has a weak AF module, like the 5D or 5D-II...

Video? Are you aware of how to shoot video? Do you understand anything about cinematography? I think the "video advantage" the 5D-II has is going to be literally blown out of the water by the new Nikon D4. And quite possibly, the next D700 replacement, the D800 or whatever, will be better than the 5D-II is at video, in multiple metrics.

Anyway, it sounds like you're trying to rationalize a move to Canon using some very dubious,erroneous assumptions. Like the Canon 50/1.8 Mark II...are you aware of how LOUD that thing is when it focuses??? It is CHEAP and LOUD!!! It's a POS lens mechanically, and there is no other eway to put it: pictures made with it look substandard because the lens is a crap optical design, with a 5-bladed diaphragm. For video, or wedding group shot uses, it would be an absolute joke to use the 50/II. It's crap. I gave mine away. It's a junk lens, compared to many,many other 50's, and you seem to have it as a critical part of a kit for weddings and video....uh-uh...it is entirely unfit for professional use in anything except smooth-paper background shots...the OOF bokeh is simply dreadful.

The 430 EX speedlight x2??? Again...no...

Like Big Mike said, you need to figure out your AF issue. It sounds to me like there's operator error involved, or the body is malfunctioning. Perhaps you can get a capable photographer friend to help you figure out what's wrong with the D7000 you already own. RIGHT NOW is a poor time to make a switch....a very,very poor time...I expect used D3s bodies for $2700-$3,000 any day now...why not buy the BEST high-ISO camera ever made???

I'm not a Nikon shooter, yet. I'll liken you to the Spock of lenses/body equipment here. The cadet's logic is sound.
 
The only lens I get consistent sharp photos with is my kit 18-105mm lens, but I would like to have something more reliable with a lower aperture for low light that also doesn't have horrid lens distortion.

I may be wrong here, but the fact that you get consistently sharp photos with the 18-105 makes me think it isn't a body AF problem. The fact that any lens you have trouble achieving focus with likely (base on what you're saying) has a larger aperture than the kit lens. I'm also guessing that you're probably trying to shoot wide open all the time which is why YOU are missing focus. It is very difficult to nail the focus when you are shooting wide open. It can be especially difficult if the combination of focal length and the distance from your subject are causing an exceptionally shallow DOF. I think the problem lies within the operator, not the equipment.
 
I appreciate the help. Like I said, I literally know nothing about Canon, which is why I am here for help. My only experience with Canon was when I bought a 50D as a graduation present for myself a while ago and got it home and it was broken brand new right out of the box so I returned it and exchanged it for Nikon hours later. About 6 months ago I left my crap job to pursue a career in photography after saving enough to buy some of the basic equipment. I started getting decent paying gigs over the past few months that are paying enough to scrape by paying bills alone, so no I don't have much money to drop on the best equipment, but I'm trying to slowly invest in better gear to deliver better images for clients, and the next step I want to take is to get a second body as a back up, because I don't want to show up to a job and have no camera to work with. I have a strong portfolio but lack funds to invest in advertising and what not right now to help boost my income and my pricing. My advertising right now is word of mouth, facebook business page and the majority of it is sadly on craigslist and everyone on craigslist is simply looking for a deal and not willing to pay a real photographer's rate.

I'm just considering my options as far as whats best for me and the work I am regularly hired for. Like I said, my repeat clients are for product photography, but that's not what I want to do in the end, I'm simply doing it to make ends meet until I attract enough business to do what I really like, and I thought this might be a probable solution to save some money. The new cameras from Nikon do look amazing, but I just simply cannot afford them. Seeing how the D700 was released around $3000 I cant imagine it being much lower than that. After researching many speculate that it will be in the $3000-3500 price range, so that is what I am going on until the release. The price of the D700 body only right now is at $2700 (maybe it will go down after the D800 is released) and the 5D MKII body only is priced at $2175. It may not be to you but for me that is a big price difference, which sparked my interest in the first place. All things considered and the input given, I think I'm going to stick to Nikon and possibly pick up a D3s if prices drop as significantly as you think and if not, I'll go with a D700.

Thanks for the input. I appreciate your help!
 
The only lens I get consistent sharp photos with is my kit 18-105mm lens, but I would like to have something more reliable with a lower aperture for low light that also doesn't have horrid lens distortion.

I may be wrong here, but the fact that you get consistently sharp photos with the 18-105 makes me think it isn't a body AF problem. The fact that any lens you have trouble achieving focus with likely (base on what you're saying) has a larger aperture than the kit lens. I'm also guessing that you're probably trying to shoot wide open all the time which is why YOU are missing focus. It is very difficult to nail the focus when you are shooting wide open. It can be especially difficult if the combination of focal length and the distance from your subject are causing an exceptionally shallow DOF. I think the problem lies within the operator, not the equipment.

I forgot to mention the issues with the 50mm and the 35mm are fixed after having the body serviced by Nikon. I don't shoot with them wide open very often. I usually shoot around the f4 range. Before sending the body to nikon for service I had had a fellow photographer also test the lenses on a d7000 and d300s and didn't have any issues with the 35mm or the 50mm. The 80-200 has some focusing issues with his but not nearly as bad as what I have, so I am in the process of getting that to Nikon to fix as well. The only reason I was doubting nikon was because I've had to send equipment there more times than I think I should, but maybe that's just my luck :/
 
Right now you have four "professionally capable" Nikkor lenses. A 50/1.8, a 35/1.8,the 105mm macro, and an 80-200 f/2.8. And SB-600 and an SB-700. Dude--what more do you need? Well, except for an 85mm 1.8 AF-D I mean??? Not much more is needed. Pick up a used Nikon body as a back-up. You're almost entirely set. You also have the 18-105, which is actually quite sharp when stopped down to f/8. The D7000 is one of the best "image quality" APS-C d-slrs on the market at any price.

You ought to be able to shoot "most" jobs with that kit. Seriously. There is a LOT to leverage there!!! The 80-200, the 105 macro, the 50mm,the 35mm, the two TTL capable flashes...

I hope you can iron out the focusing issue. I hate to say it, but it does kind of sound like a wetware issue, rather than a hardware or software issue. If money is at a premium, then just stick with what you have; you have four GOOD lenses, one versatile extended-range kit lens, and two good flash units...I mean....man...you've got enough stuff to photograph most things. Perhaps some actual HELP, from a knowledgeable friend or store clerk could help figure out why there's an AF issue...
 
Are you needing to go full frame?
 
Considering change from Nikon to Canon. Need advice.
Let the Force be with you young Skywalker.

You have a good kit as is.
 
I think you would be way ahead to go with a new D4 or wait for the D800. The D4 has anything and everything you could possibly want for still and video, is a top of the line professional camera, and probably won't cost much more than you will have replacing all your Nikon gear with Canon.
 
;)
Begining and unskilled photographers think it's all about the camera.
Intermediate photographers think it's all about the composition.
Advanced photographers know it's all about the light.
;)
 
;)
Begining and unskilled photographers think it's all about the camera.
Intermediate photographers think it's all about the composition.
Advanced photographers know it's all about the light.
;)
And the truly skilled photographer knows it's all about the paycheque!

:p
 
;)
Begining and unskilled photographers think it's all about the camera.
Intermediate photographers think it's all about the composition.
Advanced photographers know it's all about the light.
;)
And the truly skilled photographer knows it's all about the paycheque!

:p
Cha - Ching $$$$$$$
 

Most reactions

Back
Top