Should I switch brands?

[Derrel]

SNIP>don't feel a need or reality-based reason to upgrade every time a better sensor comes along, let alone switch brands completely.

Canon released five different APS-C cameras between 2009 and 2014, using the same sensor. The SAME sensor.

Canon's DIGIC system cannot do on-chip noise reduction, but the sensors made by Nikon, Sony, Toshiba, and Aptina can.

Canon has serious issues with both pattern noise, and chroma noise. Freedom from both pattern and chroma noise is why Nikon and Sony and Pentax camera have two, to two and a half more EV worth of usable dynamic range.

On exposures that are made as much as five full EV below the recommended metering, a fully-modern sensor can handle strong backlighting, or underexposure, with only a couple clicks of the sliders in Lightroom. This is the reason so many Nikon and Sony users are so happy with what they have: simply staggering exposure recovery capabilities, without images falling apart. Higher image quality. Better color. No major loss of detail due to the need to de-noise everything,

It's not a matter of when a better sensor comes along: we're talking about a sea change that happened when Sony premiered the EXMOR generation sensor technology. That's an EIGHT-YEAR time frame, in which Canon has been unable or unwilling to re-design its sensor fabrication technology. Eight years. 2007 was the year Nikon/Sony moved past Canon's sensor tech.

Canon makes some gorgeous cameras, and great lenses. But there are better sensors in cameras made by other companies. A camera and lens system is not just a sensor. You can drive a Kia or a Mercedes. They're both cars.

 

[fjrabon]

The lack of dynamic range in canon is a minor issue. The whole point to get high quality or professional looking photographs is to get the right exposure and less tweaking in post processing. Therefore, you don't have to worry about noises in shadows or in dark areas.

eh, maybe, but I have seen images that Nikons can take, particularly at weddings, that Canon simply can't. Want a backlit shot down the aisle, but still to have some shadow detail of the bride and groom? You're going to want every single scrap of dynamic range you can muster. That way you can expose to not blow the highlights, and then in post you can compress the extremes so you get a film like compression of the highlights, but retain shadow detail. Sure, that's one shot, but it's a shot you simply can't get as well with a Canon.

And again, isn't the point of a camera body to give yourself every possible advantage? I just plain don't understand the response of "well, one of the few things that are actually important when it comes to bodies, dynamic range, isn't really *that* big of a deal."

I mean at that point, why don't we just advise the OP to buy a used D90 rig. You *can* still shoot a great wedding with a D90. Or why don't we advise that they shoot with a 5D classic? None of the Canon people seem to be advising that. But you can still shoot a great wedding if you really know what you're doing with a 5D classic. Heck, you could shoot a great wedding with Rebel and a kit lens if you're truly a great photographer, why don't we advise the OP to just buy an entry level body and a kit lens?

 

[tecboy]

The lack of dynamic range in canon is a minor issue. The whole point to get high quality or professional looking photographs is to get the right exposure and less tweaking in post processing. Therefore, you don't have to worry about noises in shadows or in dark areas.

eh, maybe, but I have seen images that Nikons can take, particularly at weddings, that Canon simply can't. Want a backlit shot down the aisle, but still to have some shadow detail of the bride and groom? You're going to want every single scrap of dynamic range you can muster. That way you can expose to not blow the highlights, and then in post you can compress the extremes so you get a film like compression of the highlights, but retain shadow detail. Sure, that's one shot, but it's a shot you simply can't get as well with a Canon.

And again, isn't the point of a camera body to give yourself every possible advantage? I just plain don't understand the response of "well, one of the few things that are actually important when it comes to bodies, dynamic range, isn't really *that* big of a deal."

I mean at that point, why don't we just advise the OP to buy a used D90 rig. You *can* still shoot a great wedding with a D90. Or why don't we advise that they shoot with a 5D classic? None of the Canon people seem to be advising that. But you can still shoot a great wedding if you really know what you're doing with a 5D classic. Heck, you could shoot a great wedding with Rebel and a kit lens if you're truly a great photographer, why don't we advise the OP to just buy an entry level body and a kit lens?

Well, I disagree. I have met top professional photographers in person who made stunning photos with 5Dm3 and 5Dm2. They don't have a single complaint about dynamic range.

 

[fjrabon]

The lack of dynamic range in canon is a minor issue. The whole point to get high quality or professional looking photographs is to get the right exposure and less tweaking in post processing. Therefore, you don't have to worry about noises in shadows or in dark areas.

eh, maybe, but I have seen images that Nikons can take, particularly at weddings, that Canon simply can't. Want a backlit shot down the aisle, but still to have some shadow detail of the bride and groom? You're going to want every single scrap of dynamic range you can muster. That way you can expose to not blow the highlights, and then in post you can compress the extremes so you get a film like compression of the highlights, but retain shadow detail. Sure, that's one shot, but it's a shot you simply can't get as well with a Canon.

And again, isn't the point of a camera body to give yourself every possible advantage? I just plain don't understand the response of "well, one of the few things that are actually important when it comes to bodies, dynamic range, isn't really *that* big of a deal."

I mean at that point, why don't we just advise the OP to buy a used D90 rig. You *can* still shoot a great wedding with a D90. Or why don't we advise that they shoot with a 5D classic? None of the Canon people seem to be advising that. But you can still shoot a great wedding if you really know what you're doing with a 5D classic. Heck, you could shoot a great wedding with Rebel and a kit lens if you're truly a great photographer, why don't we advise the OP to just buy an entry level body and a kit lens?

Well, I disagree. I have met top professional photographers in person who made stunning photos with 5Dm3 and 5Dm2. They don't have a single complaint about dynamic range.

You disagree with what? You disagree that Nikon has an advantage in dynamic range? You disagree that dynamic range matters?

I worked in a Canon studio for 3 years and own both Canon and Nikon gear personally.

 

[Derrel]

Somebody (Fjrabon!) mentioned lenses...Nikon's new 300mm f/4 VR-E lens looks promising as a new lens development...exceptionally compact for a 300mm, the world's smallest and lightest. Might be one of the biggest "new system selling points" for the person who wants a 300mm prime that's super-compact. I know Tony Northrup keeps harping about how Canon's biggest lens advantages are 1)its cheap 50mm f/1.8 and 2)the very nice 400mm f/5.6 prime. I would rather have the ultra-compact 300mm E and a 1.4x than a 400mm that locks me into f/5.6.

Nikon's upgraded 80-400mm AF-S VR-G zoom, and its fast focusing with the new D7200 when using the 1.4x TC-E III converter look pretty good to me as new lenses. Canon just updated their ancient 100-400 trombone to a newer version. The 150-600mm 3rd party lenses have revolutionized long-tele on a budget shooting...the new affordable Tamron looks pretty good from what I have seen.

Fuji has just taken steps to move into the long tele-zoom field. The lens is pretty good sized.

In Canon, the 24-70 Mk II is better than Nikon's 24-70, and same with Canon's 70-200 Mk II...better than Nikon in both of those zooms. However, Tamron's 70-200 VC seems to be..amazing....so, everybody wins on that one. Sigma's 50mm and 35mm ART lenses seem better than both Canon and Nikon lenses in each of those f/1.4 categories....so, again...

Have you considered buying all-new lenses and ditching that Canon 28-135? The 85/1.8 is a solid Canon prime, I owned one for 7 years, really liked it. Not as sharp as Nikon's newer 85/1,.8 G series, which is up in the super-tele sharpness range, which is...amazing for the $400 price.

Bottom line though: the lens battleground issues for Canon/Nikon are mostly, but not exclusively, centered around what each company makes for for FF camera models...the small-sensor lenses Canon has will not even FIT ON ANY of their FF cameras....in Nikon, the DX Nikkor lenses will fit on and will shoot on all the Nikon d-slrs, both APS-C and FX bodies.

Canon does have a couple neat, affordable pancake primes too, both fairly new...the 24mm and the 40mm, very affordable, very compact. $199-range prime lenses, like Nikons 35/1.8 DX, or the new Canon 24mm pancake have a lot of appeal to people who have limited budgets and who want to experiment a bit; the $1699 prime lens prices for high-end Canon and Nikkor glass is a bit steep for many people, and now the mid-level glass is in the $700 range much of the time.

 

[PJL]

Somebody (Fjrabon!) mentioned lenses...Nikon's new 300mm f/4 VR-E lens looks promising as a new lens development...exceptionally compact for a 300mm, the world's smallest and lightest. Might be one of the biggest "new system selling points" for the person who wants a 300mm prime that's super-compact. I know Tony Northrup keeps harping about how Canon's biggest lens advantages are 1)its cheap 50mm f/1.8 and 2)the very nice 400mm f/5.6 prime. I would rather have the ultra-compact 300mm E and a 1.4x than a 400mm that locks me into f/5.6.

Nikon's upgraded 80-400mm AF-S VR-G zoom, and its fast focusing with the new D7200 when using the 1.4x TC-E III converter look pretty good to me as new lenses. Canon just updated their ancient 100-400 trombone to a newer version. The 150-600mm 3rd party lenses have revolutionized long-tele on a budget shooting...the new affordable Tamron looks pretty good from what I have seen.

Fuji has just taken steps to move into the long tele-zoom field. The lens is pretty good sized.

In Canon, the 24-70 Mk II is better than Nikon's 24-70, and same with Canon's 70-200 Mk II...better than Nikon in both of those zooms. However, Tamron's 70-200 VC seems to be..amazing....so, everybody wins on that one. Sigma's 50mm and 35mm ART lenses seem better than both Canon and Nikon lenses in each of those f/1.4 categories....so, again...

Have you considered buying all-new lenses and ditching that Canon 28-135? The 85/1.8 is a solid Canon prime, I owned one for 7 years, really liked it. Not as sharp as Nikon's newer 85/1,.8 G series, which is up in the super-tele sharpness range, which is...amazing for the $400 price.

Bottom line though: the lens battleground issues for Canon/Nikon are mostly, but not exclusively, centered around what each company makes for for FF camera models...the small-sensor lenses Canon has will not even FIT ON ANY of their FF cameras....in Nikon, the DX Nikkor lenses will fit on and will shoot on all the Nikon d-slrs, both APS-C and FX bodies.

Canon does have a couple neat, affordable pancake primes too, both fairly new...the 24mm and the 40mm, very affordable, very compact. $199-range prime lenses, like Nikons 35/1.8 DX, or the new Canon 24mm pancake have a lot of appeal to people who have limited budgets and who want to experiment a bit; the $1699 prime lens prices for high-end Canon and Nikkor glass is a bit steep for many people, and now the mid-level glass is in the $700 range much of the time.

I watched one of Northrop's videos on why he didn't want to switch from Canon to Nikon, and he basically said one of the few things holding him back was the lacklustre performance of the 70-200, and that it wasn't close to actual 200mm focal length on the long end, which he placed a lot of importance on.

I already have the 85 f/1.8 and I love it. I get some chromatic aberration wide open, but it seems to go away when it's stopped down to 2.0 (taking shots of the moon, especially as a narrow crescent, turn electric purple). I do want to step up to better zooms (I like primes but also like the zoom versatility), which is why I'm trying to sort out which system overall I want to go with. And I've heard the same thing about the Tamrom 70-200, which seems to be a good equalizer between the two systems.

 

[runnah]

I am a firm believer in good glass trumping any body advantage.

 

[Vtec44]

I am a firm believer in good glass trumping any body advantage.

This is why I have all of Nikon f1.4 primes Now if they update the 135 f2 then my life is complete.

 

[PJL]

I am a firm believer in good glass trumping any body advantage.

OK, but when I'm doing prime focal photography using a 1200mm reflector scope, there is literally no glass involved -- just the camera sensor and two mirrors. Sometimes I'll throw a filter or a Barlow in there, but it's still not a "lens" as the regular photographer conceives of it. A body's ability to handle contrast, noise, and cropping is paramount.

 

[waday]

 

[runnah]

I do like the way canon has designed their lenses by having everything on the lens rather than in the body.

I read that it made things like pancakes and primes easier to design.

 

[gsgary]

Wait a few months for the new full frame Pentax it could be a big surprise I really hope it shuts up all the Nikon shooters

 

[Buckster]

SNIP>don't feel a need or reality-based reason to upgrade every time a better sensor comes along, let alone switch brands completely.

Canon released five different APS-C cameras between 2009 and 2014, using the same sensor. The SAME sensor.

I didn't realize that a preponderance of wedding shooters are using APS-C. Learn something new every day, I guess.

Snip - justification for Sonikon sensors - /Snip

I don't disagree with any of that, but you're missing my point, which is:

Wedding photographers have been and still DO get great images, let me repeat that, GREAT IMAGES using camera systems that are NOT the latest greatest thing. They were getting great images last year, 2 years ago, 3 years ago, 4 years ago, 5 years ago, 6 years ago, 7 years ago (you get the point, I hope). They have and do get them using systems that are by today's cutting edge and your obvious estimations nothing short of ancient and obsolete. And YET, they STILL WORK to get great images of weddings around the world, just as good as they did when THEY were the cutting edge.

Get down into the weeds of sensors, and you are certainly, absolutely right. Of course, that could change overnight with the next big announcement from some camera manufacturer.

But either way, wedding photographers don't need to crop down from a shot of the whole wedding party with the dog wandering by, in order to get the image of a flea on the dog's ass, and ensure that it won't have issues. The shot of the wedding party will be fine, assuming the photographer is competent, and that's true no matter what decent gear they're using. It isn't going to make a HUGE difference if it's not the cutting edge sensor technology or if it's yesteryear's technology that is STILL IN USE TODAY by countless wedding photographers who see no real-world reason TO upgrade. And THAT, my friend, actually says something, IMHO.

As for MY recommendation to the OP, I've made none, and have no intention of making one. I honestly don't care what camera brand system he decides to go with, either way. He doesn't have all that much invested at this point, so it's as good a time as any to go with any system / manufacturer he happens to like best, and that can obviously hinge on several factors, I think all of which have been covered in this thread, so no sense in me doing it all yet again here.

In the end, he's got to weigh all those factors himself and decide what's really important to HIM, not what's important to me, nor you, nor anyone else chiming in.

He's got the information, and you're no longer a camera salesman trying to get a commission, so relax.

 

[gsgary]

SNIP>don't feel a need or reality-based reason to upgrade every time a better sensor comes along, let alone switch brands completely.

Snip - justification for Sonikon sensors - /Snip

I don't disagree with any of that, but you're missing my point, which is:

Wedding photographers have been and still DO get great images, let me repeat that, GREAT IMAGES using camera systems that are NOT the latest greatest thing. They were getting great images last year, 2 years ago, 3 years ago, 4 years ago, 5 years ago, 6 years ago, 7 years ago (you get the point, I hope). They have and do get them using systems that by today's cutting edge and your obvious estimations nothing short of ancient and obsolete. And YET, they STILL WORK to get great images of weddings around the world, just as good as they did when THEY were the cutting edge.

Get down into the weeds of sensors, and you are certainly, absolutely right. Of course, that could change overnight with the next big announcement from some camera manufacturer.

But either way, wedding photographers don't need to crop down from a shot of the whole wedding party with the dog wandering by, in order to get the image of a flea on the dog's ass, and ensure that it won't have issues. The shot of the wedding party will be fine, assuming the photographer is competent, and that's true no matter what decent gear they're using. It isn't going to make a HUGE difference if it's not the cutting edge sensor technology or if it's yesteryear's technology that is STILL IN USE TODAY by countless wedding photographers who see no real-world reason TO upgrade. And THAT, my friend, actually says something, IMHO.

As for MY recommendation to the OP, I've made none, and have no intention of making one. I honestly don't care what camera brand system he decides to go with, either way. He doesn't have all that much invested at this point, so it's as good a time as any to go with any system / manufacturer he happens to like best, and that can obviously hinge on several factors, I think all of which have been covered in this thread, so no sense in me doing it all yet again here.

In the end, he's got to weigh all those factors himself and decide what's really important to HIM, not what's important to me, nor you, nor anyone else chiming in.

He's got the information, and you're no longer a camera salesman trying to get a commission, so relax.

If I had a camera salesman spouting all that crap he wouldn't get a sale from me

 

[pixmedic]

im always a little surprised when I see these "looking to switch teams" threads.
Sure, Nikon is a little better here, and Canon is a little better there...but overall, the differences
are more on paper as pixel peeping specs that anything else. Its a game of digital leapfrog each time a different camera manufacturer releases a new model.

Now, im not going to tell you how to spend your money. If your gear is all in your signature list, your not heavily invested in cameras and lenses, so it might not be a huge deal. however, if one camera setup was "Da Best" for some particular situation, you wouldn't see pros using anything else but that gear.

Im a big fan of buying used.
if you go the Nikon route, I highly recommend getting a model that has an in body focus motor.
It will let you autofocus older AF and AF-D lenses, meaning you can get older pro glass for about the same price as new consumer glass. I would take a D7000 over a D3300 or D5300 7 days a week. twice on Sunday.

if you go Canon....
I dont really know much about canon. they have been putting AF motors in their lenses since they made the switch from FD mounts so AF lenses arent an issue there. ironically, I think that's also the amount of time they have been using the same sensor in their cameras. I see plenty of pros using Canon, so I assume that they do the job adequately.

honestly, you might also consider looking at Sony and Pentax since your not heavily invested in any system yet.