Should I switch brands?

[PJL]

Hey everyone.

I've been a Canon shooter all of my life, starting with film and now digital. I generally get my stuff used and have never focused on having brand new equipment, so I probably have right around $1,000 invested in my current setup, which is obviously a pittance when it comes to photography gear.

My pursuit of photography has grown more serious over the last few years, and now I'm starting to do engagement shoots for friends and have my first wedding lined up for early next year, so I'm starting to give serious consideration to taking that next step toward better gear, especially lenses. My photographic interests generally are portraits, landscapes, and astrophotography.

As far as camera bodies go, the stats (especially from DxO Mark) indicate that the Nikon line has better color depth and exposure range. Canon also seems to just be catching up with Nikon technology regarding AF technology with the 7Dm2 and the 5DS. I guess my question is, will the difference between the actual image output of, say, a D750 really be that much better than a 5D Mark III or a 6D? Or am I just picking nits and should stick with the brand I know?

 

[goooner]

Which lenses/flashes do you have? If you want to be a wedding photog you will need at least 2 bodies. A couple of people on here have switched recently, and I'm still deciding. Financially I can't afford it this year, so I will wait and see what Pentax does with their full frame when it debuts at the end of the year. I like the idea of in camera stabilization, but I'm not sure the off brand lenses are compatible with pentax. Will cross that bridge when I get there.

Will be interesting to see what the 5dMkIV offers, and maybe a 6D mk II. But Canon has been behind Nikon in DR for quite some time.

 

[PJL]

My investment so far has been minimal. I have an old 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 and an 85 f/1.8. My flash is a 430 EX II, for which I have a couple cheap E-TTL radio triggers. So either system, I'd be starting from the ground up (perhaps only marginally less so with Canon). Planning on getting a body and probably a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 24-70 f/2.8 for whatever brand I go with (don't necessarily know whether I'll be going with third party versions of those lenses).

 

[astroNikon]

recently a couple of wedding photogs switched to Nikon .. I'll search to try and remember who those were. Then you could have a chat with them. I think one went to the d750 the other to a d8x0.

 

[JoeW]

Let me start out by stating my background--I've been shooting for decades (since the 1960's). I've used a range of different brands (Canon is really the only thing I haven't shot with). I've been using Nikon exclusively for the past two decades now.

That stated....I think switching is silly. I love Nikon, don't get me wrong. But unless you feel the ergonomics on a Canon body just don't work for you. Or unless you have a very specific need (like an articulated view finder), the differences you're talking about are ones that a good photographer can compensate for by how you shoot, your settings, your lens. You may not have spent a lot of money on your equipment but unless you think it's all trash and want to junk it all, you still have stuff that--if you didn't keep--you'd have to spend money on to replace. Maybe none of it would be your primary/"go to" stuff....a fisheye lens, an old tilt shift lens for architectural or interior work, a backup body, a speed light for your brand...whatever. The point is, to start over means to replace all of that stuff that you'd use (even as a backup). And if you're going to do photojournalism, sports, weddings...a second body really is critical.

Let me give you an analogy...I drive a Honda Accord. Not just a Honda Accord, a 2001 Honda Accord. There are clearly other cars out there with better technology, better rides, heck--there are other makes of cars (probably Ferrari and Porsche) with better and more advanced technology (maybe) than Honda. But for my purposes, I don't need that. I don't even need the most technologically advanced Honda.

I love Nikon. I wouldn't switch from Nikon--mostly b/c I'm used to the body and dial/menu arrangement, and I've got a dozen lens that fit a Nikon body. Technological advances go from one company to another, that's the thing with competition. If you want to always stay with who's "best" then you're likely going to be switching gear back and forth over time.

If this helps, don't view it as "switch." Instead, if you feel like you've got minimal "carry-over" gear than make this about which body feels "right" and best suits your needs and then go with that.

 

[Gary A.]

Generally, I think that what little differences there are in color depth, dynamic range, et al are insignificant when compared to image impact. The slight edge that Nikon gives isn't going to make you better photog or make your images significantly better. You always take a big hit when you switch. But, the big but, if I was starting out clean, I'd use better sensor/firmware technology as part of my equation to determine which brand to buy. Remember, the grass is always greener ...

 

[Designer]

.. I probably have right around $1,000 invested in my current setup, which is obviously a pittance when it comes to photography gear.

Do you have lights, stands, modifiers? Do you have the required cash to spend on a complete new system?

 

[runnah]

Let me give you an analogy...I drive a Honda Accord. Not just a Honda Accord, a 2001 Honda Accord. There are clearly other cars out there with better technology, better rides, heck--there are other makes of cars (probably Ferrari and Porsche) with better and more advanced technology (maybe) than Honda. But for my purposes, I don't need that. I don't even need the most technologically advanced Honda.

Well keeping with the cars theme I'll say this: Camera are like cars in the sense that all cars will do 70 mph on the highway, most will handle high speed corners and fast stopping. In fact you really have to push a car to the ragged edge to find it's limits, this is where sports cars excel. The same is true for cameras. all cameras are great for 90% of the time, it's just when you get into the low light/high speed action situations where you really benefit from the added performance.

And like cars a good driver can make a crappy car go faster than a bad driver in a good car.

 

[KmH]

I second what Gary A. has said, in that the differences in dynamic range, color depth, and ISO performance are small and if you switch you will not see much, if any, difference in your photos.

For better photos upgrade your use of composition, lighting, subject selection, and keep the gear you already have.

 

[sashbar]

Generally, I think that what little differences there are in color depth, dynamic range, et al are insignificant when compared to image impact. The slight edge that Nikon gives isn't going to make you better photog or make your images significantly better. You always take a big hit when you switch. But, the big but, if I was starting out clean, I'd use better sensor/firmware technology as part of my equation to determine which brand to buy. Remember, the grass is always greener ...

Image impact. Yes, that is the word(s). It will be determined by you, not by the difference between Canon and Nikon.

 

[JustJazzie]

This is the true semi-abridged story of a girl who has jumped camera ship twice already: Skip to the bolded lessons for the short version.

I started with entry level canon gear. 2 years ish later I met someone with a sony NEX system, and I was blown away at the quality difference. There was a HUGE difference between the two. So I jumped on the sonymirror-less train, sold my gear for a fraction of what it was worth, not thinking of needing a "backup" My photography improved INSTANTLY. In hindsight, my canon was having issues with back-focusing the tamarin lens I had to go with them (I didnt know what back focusing was back then) and I think there was also a cheep UV filter at play in degrading the image quality.

Anyways, my sony was having some issues and REALLY should have gone in under warranty. When I heard sony's warranty work would take up to 6 weeks, I PANICKED and refused to send it in. I am a year+ later and it still glitches.
Lesson 1) You NEED backup gear. Even if you aren't a pro, being camera-less is a sad state to dwell. If you jump, keep your backup.

Lesson # 2- If your camera is THAT bad, it is likely "user error" (I could have had it serviced to not back-focus lens' or taken off that darn filter.

So I was happy with my NEX7 for a bit. The image quality was such a jump, that I tried to make myself LOVE it. (I believe one of my first posts on this forum was something like "help me love my new camera, please") Having a new camera inspired me to shoot more, carry it more, etc.

It did fine, until I realized that the autofocus could NOT handle my kids during sports. Even to get a normal portrait of them, I was saying "Hold still so my AF can catch you!" Sports just wasn't an option and it wasn't anything that my mirror-less could overcome. So I realized that I NEEDED a new camera to keep up with the kids.

Again, it was time to jump ship! I ended up choosing a Nikon that fit my hand best. Because it was FF and newer than the sony I was shooting with, I really expected it to "blow me away" with image quality the same way the switch from canon to sony did. guess what?! Yes, the nikon does PHENOMENAL in low light, but in good/decent light with similar lens' I can not tell the difference in a blind test. (at first, now I am more familiar with the color rendering and whatnot so I can, but not at first) My photography has improved since I got that camera, Yes I get more in focus shots. But mostly, its because I shoot with it more. I don't get frustrated with the AF. I know my camera is "limitless" if there IS an issue, I CAN NOT blame my camera anymore.
Lesson 3) Switch when you have a legitimate NEED to switch. When your camera has an issue that limits you and can not be over come.

lesson 4) New gear helps you improve, because you take the time to LEARN your new gear. You shoot more, because its a fun new toy. Unless your shooting with a terribly outdated sensor, mediocre images are due to mediocre shooting conditions.-its the time you put into learning your new gear that will imporve your shots.

So, now I look at my sony and I just think about how I spent $2,000 on it. I wont invest in anymore sony lens's because I wont keep it when it breaks and I will get another nikon backup. I wish I would have invested that same $2,000+ into lens', lighting, extra SD cards, PRINTING my pictures instead of keeping them on a hard drive. Anything.
Final lesson 5) I will never jump ship again. Its better to invest in knowledge and accessories than in in the latest technological advancements. One will take you steps, the latter will carry you miles and miles .

 

[curtyoungblood]

You're getting good general advice here, but I think your situation may be a little different. It sounds like you're getting ready to spend at least 5-10k on camera equipment, and have a few hundred dollars worth of useable equipment. I think you are at the point where you are deciding what system to invest heavily in, not adding to your current system.

I would suggest doing a lot of research, renting some cameras, consider the full cost of the whole system you're interested in (will the cost of all your bodies, flashes, lenses differ significantly between brands?), and make a decision from there. I'd think that your current Canom gear should only play a minimal role in your decision.

You should probably also at least look in to a mirrorless system to see if it would meet your needs.

 

[Derrel]

Here's a good video comparing roughly where state of the art lies with the two brands and their higher-end models. Maybe this will help you get a sense for why the DxO Mark numbers are different.
0:00 Introduction
2:40 Handheld Landscapes
4:30 Tripod Landscapes
6:00 Portraits
6:48 Face Metering
10:40 Sports/Action
12:07 Studio/Commercial
14:46 Night Photography
16:31 Summary

 

[mattpayne11]

I'm a hard-core Nikon shooter myself - I do a ton of astrophotography and it is really hard to beat the Nikon 14-24 for that pursuit; however, have you considered the new Sony Mirrorless bodies, such as the A7, A7R and the new A72 and the A9 coming soon? They are better than Nikon in many ways (lighter, smaller) and you can use any lens set-up you want (manual focus only though, which is fine for astrophotography and landscapes).

I personally am holding out for the A9 and some better glass from Sony, but it is worth considering.

Lastly, Nikon bodies are way better than Canon for landscape work due to the dynamic range offered, it really is a huge difference; however, you can use both systems just fine and create fantastic images either way. In the end, I think it comes down to certain preferences more than anything else. Also, Canon has better telephoto glass; however, Nikon's landscape glass is superior, in my opinion.

 

[TCampbell]

The QUALITY of the gear (particularly the lenses) makes a difference.
The BRAND of the gear... not so much.

Don't put too much stock in DxO Mark. They show "scores" -- not "data". Go look at sites that show sample images and it becomes very hard to tell the difference. Skill, lighting, and owning good glass will make a far bigger difference than anything else.

Assuming the camera is being used by a knowledgeable / skilled operator, you would get highly satisfactory results regardless of gear brand. DSLRs have come far in a few short years. Pretty much everything currently being manufactured and marketed has an amazing sensor compared to just a few short years ago.

Switching gears from camera platform decisions and lets talk about reviews. Since you mentioned that this consideration is the result of your looking at scores at DxO, let me give you my opinion of DxO.

I a pretty hard-core science fan. I love science. I love physics. And I love seeing "real" data.

With that in mind, watch this video segment (about 1 minute long)



While DxO claims to evaluate products, I evaluate my opinion of DxO and their expertise. And herein lies the problem. DxO doesn't reveal how they come up with these "scores" -- they keep that a secret. But if we start with the premise that their scores correlate to performance data, then we could assert that the consequence of getting a higher "score" is that the product will have better performance and a lower score will have weaker performance. We can then go perform experiments ... or even look at the experiments done by other reviews.

We can compare what actually happens in the real world. But when we do that, we find conflicts and the camera sensors do not perform as DxO scores would have predicted.

Consider again what Richard Feynman says... "If it disagrees with experiment... it's wrong."

Candidly... I find DxO to be an insult to the intelligence of a photographer. They don't show "data" or sample images. They show "scores". Other publications that perform evaluations and publish reviews typically include numerous sample images and data. I'm not actually aware of any reviewer who does not publish sample images or data... other than DxO. And yet when I look at the results from other reviews, they disagree with DxO. And since they publish data and show sample images, but DxO does not... I can only conclude that DxO is wrong.

I used to look at DxO test scores. I don't anymore... and you shouldn't either. If you want to know how a camera sensor performs... go read and compare at least two or three different, independent reviews... which actually show sample images and data.