Nikon or Canon, something else or nothing?

[jeadows]

Afternoon everyone.

I've been thinking about upgrading my Nikon D3200 at some point (not the immediate future, I need time to save and do homework) and mostly shoot and enjoy wildlife, especially macro. Primarily I'd like advice and recommendations for a camera that would be best suited for wildlife and macro with my budget sitting around £700 - £800 although I'd consider increasing my budget it it was for something considerably better.

I was also wondering before I commit to anything and whilst the amount of gear I have currently is quite minimal if there are any advantages that Canon or another brand might have over Nikon that would bet better suited or more capable for macro and wildlife? I'd only consider switching now whilst what I have is minimal and I haven't invested too much in to lenses or anything else yet.

I don't have any issue with Nikon, my D3200 have been brilliant, I'm just interested to know if another brand would be any better specifically for what I want to photograph or not. I do realise though, that the most important thing about any camera that I buy is the 12 inches behind it!

Thanks very much!

 

[john.margetts]

I wouldn't bother swapping makes. The differences between all the main makers are minute once you step away from the marketing sheets. They will all produce better results than 99% of photographers can. As I know nothing about Nikon, I can add no more.

 

[Designer]

.. best suited for wildlife and macro..

Greetings, and welcome!

For wildlife and macro I think the "crop sensor" Nikon (as is your D3200) is going to be what you want.

You did not mention what lenses you currently own. With your budget, you can either move up to a D7xxx series camera body, and you'll probably be in the price range for a lightly used example in excellent condition.

This is assuming you don't need any lenses. What lenses do you currently own?

The better choice might be to concentrate on your lens stable and tripod, if you aren't already adequately prepared.

 

[dunfly]

You didn't indicate what lenses you have. If you don't have a least a 300mm lens, that is the first place I would look. In your situation, the only body I would seriously consider is a Nikon D7200. It has the same sensor, but has a much better autofocus system and better controls.

 

[TCampbell]

There are performance boosts you can get for wildlife by moving to a camera body with a high-end focus system and faster burst rate, etc., etc.... Of course these high-end camera bodies blow the budget (for the price of the camera body alone).

I suspect your best path is to look at lens options that work with your current camera body. What lenses do you already own?

Both Sigma and Tamron make a couple of 150-600mm zooms which are pretty popular choices. For example... I see Amazon in the UK lists the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG HSM Contemporary for Nikon mount at £789.

 

[jeadows]

I'm currently have a Nikon 55-200 DX NIKKOR (which I realised fairly quickly wasn't adequate enough for what I wanted) and a Sigma 105mm macro lens. A 300mm lens (maybe even a 400mm plus, i'm not sure but entirely open to consideration) has been something I've been thinking about quite a bit recently as the 200mm hasn't been enough... at all.

 

[petrochemist]

I find there are significant differences in how different brands feel to use. I struggle with the set up of both Canon & Nikon cameras while I have few issues with Pentax ones. I'm sure much of this is dependent on what you're used to. If you are used to using a Nikon switching to another brand will have you needing to learn a new interface...

There are very few applications that can't be managed with ease with a wide range of modern cameras. For extreme macro Canon have an advantage their MP-E65 is still in a league of it's own if you need between 1x & 5x life-size images. Very much a niche application, and there are other techniques allowing similar magnifications to be reached using other systems.

I find mirrorless cameras offer a few advantages over DSLRs but this is mainly down to me playing with adapted lenses & infra red. For normal photographers there's no great difference these days. Some people are convinced the EVF is inferior it certainly was once, now it's more a swings & roundabout situation, neither is automatically better they're just different.

 

[Overread]

A few thoughts

1) There is nothing one brand can do that the others can't in general terms of photography. some might do it a bit easier or a little better in side by side tests, but there are great photos made by both Canon and Nikon every day.

2) About the only bonus to switching to canon would be if you were really very serious on macro and wanted to do high magnification photography. Subjects such as springtails or other very tiny subjects which require greater magnifications than the sigma macro you already have.
Canon has the MPE 65mm which goes from 1:1 to 5:1. However its one of the hardest lenses to use and only does macro. Also there are multiple other ways to get high magnification, some optically superior to the MPE so nothing stops you dong it with Nikon. Canon just makes it easier with the lens.

3) Used to be that canon had a lot more choice for longer lenses in the rough pricebracket you are in (well few hundred more). The 400mm f5.6 L, 300mm f4 IS L and 100-400mm. However as said above, there are several decent 3rd party options now on the market that go up to the 500mm and 600mm reaches and do a very decent job. Wildlife gets expensive very fast and at the top end both canon and nikon have comparable high value optics.


So honestly I'd say stick with Nikon - currently Nikon also has better sensor performance in terms of ISO and noise control so unless macro is a burning interest for you there's no real pressure to switch brands.

I'd also echo that you'll see a bigger gain in investing in better lenses now instead of going for a new body. A new body will give you improvement in performance, but your 200mm is still going to be a 200mm. So instead I would consider looking at some of those zooms suggested earlier and the longer range options. You will probably need to save a bit longer and increase your budget, but its well worth it for a marked improvement in optical performance.

 

[jeadows]

High magnification macro is something I'd be interested in - I love macro but realistically I have other priorities such as a better long lens to look at first as I have been feeling more limited by the 200mm the more I've used it. I've been more than happy with what my Sigma has delivered so far as well. The 5:1 does sound brilliant though!

I'll take a look at the Sigma 150-600mm and a few others because that's been a bit of a priority for a while and like you say, a 200mm will still be a 200mm regardless of the body it is on

 

[ac12]

A 200mm lens on a DX body is equivalent to a 300mm lens on a FX body, about 6x magnification.
In the film days, a 300mm lens was considered LONG, and many could not handhold a 300 steady.
With VR shooting a longer lens hand held becomes practical.
The problem with going beyond 200mm, is that the price $$$$ goes up fast. And bulk and weight.
A 70-300 is a short jump into the longer lenses, but IMHO going from 200 to 300 is not buying you much magnification increase. I consider a 2x increase the minimum increase that will make a difference. So for you a 400mm lens, or a zoom with 400mm within its zoom range.

However, also consider that the longer the lens, the more you will need a good tripod, and maybe a gimbal head.
I cannot hand hold and easily track moving subjects with a 300 or 500mm lens on my DX body. I wobble too much for the magnification. But those are non-VR lenses. I use a gimbal head on my tripod for the 500.
A heavy/bulky lens almost demands a gimbal on a tripod.

If you go longer than 200, make sure it has VR.
Many manufacturers make 2 versions of the same lens, one with VR and one without VR. The one without VR is so that they can advertize it at a lower price point, IOW marketing. In practice today, you really do not want a long lens without VR. Take it from a guy who shot years without VR, and still shoots some non-VR lenses, VR makes a difference.

 

[beagle100]

Afternoon everyone.

I've been thinking about upgrading my Nikon D3200 at some point (not the immediate future, I need time to save and do homework) and mostly shoot and enjoy wildlife, especially macro. Primarily I'd like advice and recommendations for a camera that would be best suited for wildlife and macro with my budget sitting around £700 - £800 although I'd consider increasing my budget it it was for something considerably better.

I was also wondering before I commit to anything and whilst the amount of gear I have currently is quite minimal if there are any advantages that Canon or another brand might have over Nikon that would bet better suited or more capable for macro and wildlife? I'd only consider switching now whilst what I have is minimal and I haven't invested too much in to lenses or anything else yet.

I don't have any issue with Nikon, my D3200 have been brilliant, I'm just interested to know if another brand would be any better specifically for what I want to photograph or not. I do realise though, that the most important thing about any camera that I buy is the 12 inches behind it!
Thanks very much!

I agree with some of the other posters, Canon may have a better selection of lens for wildlife but Tamron and Sigma

High magnification macro is something I'd be interested in - I love macro but realistically I have other priorities such as a better long lens to look at first as I have been feeling more limited by the 200mm the more I've used it. I've been more than happy with what my Sigma has delivered so far as well. The 5:1 does sound brilliant though!

I'll take a look at the Sigma 150-600mm and a few others because that's been a bit of a priority for a while and like you say, a 200mm will still be a 200mm regardless of the body it is on

correct, Canon may be better for wildlife but the Sigma 150-600 is very good (for value, not macro)
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[TCampbell]

Afternoon everyone.

I've been thinking about upgrading my Nikon D3200 at some point (not the immediate future, I need time to save and do homework) and mostly shoot and enjoy wildlife, especially macro. Primarily I'd like advice and recommendations for a camera that would be best suited for wildlife and macro with my budget sitting around £700 - £800 although I'd consider increasing my budget it it was for something considerably better.

I was also wondering before I commit to anything and whilst the amount of gear I have currently is quite minimal if there are any advantages that Canon or another brand might have over Nikon that would bet better suited or more capable for macro and wildlife? I'd only consider switching now whilst what I have is minimal and I haven't invested too much in to lenses or anything else yet.

I don't have any issue with Nikon, my D3200 have been brilliant, I'm just interested to know if another brand would be any better specifically for what I want to photograph or not. I do realise though, that the most important thing about any camera that I buy is the 12 inches behind it!
Thanks very much!

I agree with some of the other posters, Canon may have a better selection of lens for wildlife but Tamron and Sigma

High magnification macro is something I'd be interested in - I love macro but realistically I have other priorities such as a better long lens to look at first as I have been feeling more limited by the 200mm the more I've used it. I've been more than happy with what my Sigma has delivered so far as well. The 5:1 does sound brilliant though!

I'll take a look at the Sigma 150-600mm and a few others because that's been a bit of a priority for a while and like you say, a 200mm will still be a 200mm regardless of the body it is on

correct, Canon may be better for wildlife but the Sigma 150-600 is very good (for value, not macro)
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

Canon has their EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM II (about $2k for that lens). It’s a fantastic lens... it really is. In it’s range, nothing competes with it. But it’s 100-400... not 150-600. You can add the Canon Extender 1.4x III and that makes it an effective 140-560mm f/6.3-8.

Reviews claim that the Canon lens & extender is so sharp that even with the 1.4x extender it still beats the best that Sigma and Tamron can offer. But ... you are really going to have to squint to see that difference. It’s not like someone is going to walk up, look at your photo, and declare that they can tell which lens you used.

But there’s another issue... when you use the Canon 100-400 combined with the extender so you can reach the 560mm end... the Canon lens’ best focal ratio is now f/8. Two things happen. #1... you lose 2/3rds of a stop of light. #2... most camera bodies can’t do phase-detect AF at f/8 and even the bodies that can limit you to a handful of focus points near the center of the frame. And lastly, there’s a deliberate reduction in auto-focus speed when using f/8.

So while you *can* use the Canon combo and technically your photos would be just a touch sharper (if you squint), you’ll be limited to which camera bodies you can use, AF will happen a bit slower, and you’ll lose 2/3rds of a stop of light.

For this reason... I’d *probably* nudge in the direction of getting the Sigma. Sigma makes 2 different 150-600 lenses... they call the less-expensive version the “Classic” and the more expensive version is the “Sport”. The reviews claim the sport is maybe a bit sharper (this is one of those “squint really hard and maybe maybe you can tell the difference) and maybe there’s some difference in auto-focus speed and/or image stabilization effectiveness. Not sure. Tamron now has two lenses as well... they had their original 150-600, but now have a lens with “G2” (I think that’s probably Generation 2). I haven’t actually seen any reviews of the G2 version. The reviews comparing the two Sigma versions to the (at the time) Tamron version were giving the nod to the Sigma (the pecking order was Sigma Sport followed by Sigma Classic, followed by the Tamron.). I don’t know where the Tamron G2 falls in the pecking order these days.

But the Sigma Sport is considerably more expensive than the Sigma Classic. The Tamron G2 is a bit more than the cost of the Sigma Classic, but not as much as the Sigma Sport version.

 

[LWW]

A new camera system in itself won’t make you a better photographer any more than a set of PING clubs will alone make you a better golfer or a BALABUSHKA cue alone will manor you a better pool player.

To quote an old racing term, if you can’t go around the track fast with 90 horsepower, 900 won’t help.

CANON/NIKON both make complete and competent systems. High quality photography can be done with both as well as other brands.

IMHO the monies would be better spent on some photography book/DVD sets and/or some classes sponsored by a local camera store and/or community college.

The moral of the story is that a beginner DSLR and kit lenses is far more capable than most beginner to beginner+ shooters.

Master what you have and then if you do change you can base it on solid knowledge of your skills and interests ... and never dismiss the ergonomics of a camera body, which can feel different to different hands.

 

[petrochemist]

High magnification macro is something I'd be interested in - I love macro but realistically I have other priorities such as a better long lens to look at first as I have been feeling more limited by the 200mm the more I've used it. I've been more than happy with what my Sigma has delivered so far as well. The 5:1 does sound brilliant though!

I'll take a look at the Sigma 150-600mm and a few others because that's been a bit of a priority for a while and like you say, a 200mm will still be a 200mm regardless of the body it is on

If your interested in high magnifications take a look at www.extreme-macro.co.uk I think it has all the options covered, & works whatever brand of camera you shoot.

 

[keen.observer]

Nikon, and Canon, have the most complete systems, with the most lenses, etc. Sony cameras have an extra feature, or two, which Canon / Nikon lack, but there are fewer lenses in the Sony lineup, and batteries for Sony cameras don't last as long as do those for Nikon / Canon cameras. Third party lenses / etc-Tamron, Sigma, etc-are more numerous for Nikon / Canon than for Sony, Olympus, etc. Having a Canon, or Nikon, system, with a few third party lenses for it, is probably your best bet. You could go mirrorless, and so get by with a smaller, lighter, system...but then you have fewer lenses, etc, to choose from. Any upgrade from your current system is a personal choice, and must suit your needs. I upgraded from a Nikon D3300 to a Nikon D7200, getting more features / capabilities while being able to keep using the lenses, speedlights, etc, I already had. I have several Nikon lenses, but have also purchased several Tamron, and Sigma, lenses, which have VC / OS-Vibration Compensation / Optical Stabilization-while their nearest Nikon counterparts lack VR-Vibration Reduction. I chose what works for me. You need to choose what works best for you. What are YOUR requirements? Do you value small size, and light weight, more...or value greater lens / accessory selection more? Is cost more important, or do particular features mean more to you? I prefer the control layout on Nikons, more than that on Canons, so that factored into my decisions. Modern Nikon cameras can still use much older Nikon AF, Ai, Ai-s, and AF-D, lenses...which are available at low cost. Modern Canon cameras will NOT take much older Canon lenses, as Canon changed it's mount. Do some research, and some thinking, and come to a decision.