Upgrading.... Canon or Nikon?

[Britt.]

Hello everybody!

I am new to this site, so sorry if I've posted in the wrong area.

Basically, I'm looking to upgrade, I've been doing quite a bit of research and have been trying to talk to different people to get opinions rather than just facts on what each camera has. I was recommended by a guy at the camera house store to actually look at forums, so here I am.

Currently, I own a Canon 1100d. I adore my camera. But I've decided to upgrade before spending the money on underwater housing, so when I upgrade after I wouldn't have to buy another housing/spend excess money.

I am completely addicted to underwater photography, where I am from is a coastal town so I live in the ocean, but I'm over using digital cameras, there are too many limitations. I've wanted to get underwater housing for many years now.

At first I wasn't sure what I wanted to upgrade too...and was naturally looking at Canon because its what I am used to, but was told to probably make the full leap and go to a 6D, rather than upgrade slower over time. The Nikon comparison is the D600...and it seems to be slightly better according to reviews?

Besides underwater photography, I'm into landscapes, horse and dog photography. And apparently Nikon is better sports-wise, as well as having better megapixel rating.

I'm only 18, so not a whole heap of life experience with cameras.
What are your opinions in between the Canon 6D and Nikon D600?
Or am I going too far over my head and should I be looking at the next one down, such as 7D?

The guy at the camera house store talked loads about the Canon 6D, which was great, but didn't want to really talk comparative with the Nikon. In the end it felt like I was offending him when I brought up Nikon at all...
I need to know what option is best for me. Although I did agree with him when he said I will already be used to the Canon set up.

Any opinions are welcome, I really want my research down pact when I make this decision!

Internet people, tell me where to spend my savings!!!

And thank you in advance!

 

[GDHLEWIS]

Your best bet is if at all possible is to rent both cameras and have a play around with them see if you take to either naturally. In the end both cameras will do the same job just as well as each other. But also look at the housing and flash costs you will probably find that they will cost different depending on camera make then you have to look at the countless accessories that may be needed to complete your diving rig. Depending on what type of underwater photography you are in to may also dictate weather it is worth going full sized sensor of cropped, if you can afford full sized it does give an extra degree of flexibility. The biggest thing your going to want to look at when it comes to the camera system it's self is how the camera handles iso snapping under water I have learned requires that your iso setting needed to be boosted. I would say get an intermediate dslr such as a Nikon d7100 or Cannon EOS 60D, that way you will have more money on the massive expense that is underwater rigs.
Good luck with your search

 

[iolair]

I would have thought that for sports the Canon 7D or 5D Mk III would be better, having superior autofocus systems (many elements of which are also in the brand new 70D).

Nikon have sensors that have a significant edge over Canon in terms of performance in good light (better retention of colour and brightness detail), and a slight edge over performance in poor light (high ISO settings).

Canon and Pentax cameras are generally more user friendly to use than Nikon.

There is more availability of some specialist lenses for Canon cameras - particularly tilt-shift lenses.

Canon has a slightly better range of general purpose lenses compared to Nikon, but both Canon and Nikon are miles ahead of the opposition in this regard.

ALL D-SLR manufacturers produce very competent bodies and lenses, however, unless you have very particular demands you're unlikely to make a disastrous choice. I agree with the suggestion above to either try in a shop or rent both/all bodies you're considering to make sure you like the feel of them and their menus/ergonomics.

 

[Britt.]

Thank you both,
I have just been having a look at and comparing the 70D, 60D and 7D - it would probably be a smarter option, cost wise and because I don't need full frame photography yet.
I was more worried about taking the full leap so that if I wanted to eventually improve in the future, I'd still have underwater housing and diving gear specific to the model.
But the expense is going to be crazy, investing in the accessories such as the strobe and everything
Completely worth it though!

 

[Gavjenks]

* The 5D Mk III and 7D do have a superior autofocus to either the 6D or the D600.
* The D600 has a superior sensor to any of them at low ISOs (bright light, studios)
* The 6D has a superior sensor to any of them at high ISOs (very low light, ISO 1000 and more or so)
* FPS is significantly higher on the 7D than on the others. 6D is the slowest. I doubt this matters for underwater all that particularly much, you still have 4.5 at the very least with any of them.
* The 7D and 6D both cost about the same (and 70D is only a bit less), so unless you need 8 FPS and really good multipoint autofocus, buy the 6D if you're on a budget. Full frame is absurdly worth it at only a couple hundred dollars more. The D600 is about $300 above the 6D, and the 5D Mk III is stupidly priced in the $3000s
* Megapixels probably won't matter much, especially with a bunch of water in between you and your subject and using lenses not designed for that (or optically corrected), you will probably not reliably achieve the difference in resolution that a few extra megapixels provide. There is equipment that is made just for that and might resolve best underwater, but if you are hesitating to even invest in full frame, it's probably not for you anyway just yet.

All in all, they are all fairly similar overall, except for the very substantial difference between full frame in any brand versus crop in any brand. Different models do different specific things better, but you can't go horribly wrong.

I recommend full frame if you can possibly afford it, which you probably can if you're considering 7Ds and a water housing. And I suggest sticking with Canon if you have lots of Canon lenses, because you will probably lose more on selling them and rebuying than any difference between brands is worth. if you don't have much glass, or it's all crop frame and you want to buy full frame, then any brand, whatever.



Here's a photo comparison side by side for the 6D, D600, 7D, and your current 1100D:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/stu...ikon_d600&slot3Sample=dsc_4524_03.acr&x=0&y=0

 

[Derrel]

I WOULD NOT BUY a 7D...a camera designed in 2008 and built in 2009. The sensor is already five years behind the times, and the 7D has a pretty fair amount of noise at anything much above base ISO, and its color richness drops off very rapidly as ISO levels go up. Using the "old" sensor technology and on-chip noise reduction that it does, Canon's APS-C 7D was never a really good camera in terms of color richness, even when it was new. it was in fact, a camera that held true to the old "more megapixels, worse the noise is going to be" theory that held sway back in 2009 and before.

The 6D and the Nikon D600 are similar size and are both entry-level full frame bodies. The D600 has a built-in flash, the 6D has built-in Wi-Fi.

The difference between the two image wise? The Nikon has two full EV better dynamic range at base ISO, and richer color up to around ISO 1,000. The two full stops' worth of added dynamic range is really the strength NIkon cameras offer over basically any Canon camera. At NO POINT in its entire ISO range can the Canon 6D better the Nikon D600 in dynamic range. Same way with the Canon 70D and the Nikon D7100. Why? Canon uses old sensor fabrication technology and on-chip noise reduction, and refuses to spend the money to upgrade its sensor fabrication technology. Canon still uses outdated .50 micron sensor fabrication technology: Sony long ago upgraded to newer, more-modern .18 micron sensor fabrication technology.


If you want an upgrade, buy a Nikon. Or, you can stick with Canon. And just buy a new camera. Either way, I'd want a FF model for underwater shooting. As far as the investment potential, an underwater housing would be better if it were for a higher-end camera I think, something "above" either the 6D or D600 models. But you need it for your own use, so you'll just have to buy it, use it, and not worry about resale too much.

 

[Gavjenks]

Oh hey Derrel and I both responded to a thread that involved Canon and Nikon full frame camera comparisons without arguing. We should just, like, link to this forever more so that that becomes the status quo =P

 

[JacaRanda]

What's happening after the two lines intersect at about 1200 iso?

 

[Britt.]

If it were between only the 7D and 70D, I think I'm looking at the 70D? As the 7D is outdated? Camera prices in Australia, 7D seems to be a lot cheaper than the 6D, definitely not equal! The 6D is $2200 aussie dollars in the Camera House store I visited. If I stick with Canon, I'd be good to keep my lens but if I go into full frame I'd have to get new lens anyway. So the question is shoouuuuuld I take it that step further?
I'm not too worried about resale, as my used cameras are tending to stay in the family.
If I decide to go into full frame, I'm thinking the Nikon D600 but if not, perhaps the Canon 70D, after I check out a few reviews. I understand that it hasn't been out long and there aren't a lot of people opinions yeeeetttttt.
I'm trying to save as much money as I can, so I can naturally and ironically spend this saved money on more camera equipment

 

[Derrel]

I would expect the 7D to be lower-priced than most newer models. I am aware that Australian camera prices are higher than in many segments of the world market, due to distribution practices. The 70D's sensor performance is only marginally better than that of the 60D...there has been basically no "significant" improvement on any of Canon's APS-C cameras since 2009: Canon has been re-issuing new APS-C camera models that make use of the same 18 megapixel sensor, since 2009; the 70D has had approximately two million additional photodiodes added, as a way to offer a new form of continuous autofocusing that is supposed to make video AF better.

In Nikon, their reduced image circle lenses are called "DX" lenses, and they fit, mount, meter, and shoot on ALL, as in ALL, Nikon digital SLR cameras. Canon's EF-S lenses are basically useless on full-frame cameras. Some, not all, DX wide-angle zoom lenses can "fill" the full image size of the full-frame of FX Nikon bodies at their middle- to upper focal length ranges. Same with Tokina's brand new 12-28mm f/4 lens; although made for DX cameras, the new Tokina wide zoom can fill the FX frame area from 18mm up to the 28mm top-end. This one new lens is an exciting 3rd-party lens, for sure. Tokina 12-28mm Review

Yes, Canon built its EF-S lens mount in a stupid fashion, and created lenses which are utterly useless on full-frame cameras. Nikon's DX lenses actually will MOUNT, focus, meter, and shoot, either in automatic DX crop mode; in 5:4 or 8x10 crop mode on the full-frame cameras that offer that mode, or, in some cases, even cover the entire full 24x36mm area. But you know what? You need to buy a camera that **you** want to own. Sales guys will often "push" whatever makes them the highest "spiff" from the manufacturer, or whatever their bosses tell them needs to be "pushed" that quarter, or that month, or that week. Sales pressure is easy to apply to a newcomer, or to younger customers. Buy whatever you want or like. You need to buy a camera you "like" in some way, or just buy one, and get used to it. The 6D seems like a nice camera. The D600 seems like a nice camera. The 70D is very new to the market, and I have not had the chance to even lay eyes on one this summer...it's been "out" less than a week in most markets around the world. Whatever you get, I hope you have FUN with it and make some great photos!

 

[JacaRanda]

Here is one review. Canon 70D review | Cameralabs

We just purchased the 70d for my wife last Friday. It was an upgrade from a T3I, primarily for the continuous shooting at 7fps and the better AF system features. We shoot mostly birds/wildlife so it made sense.

If we did not start out with Canon, the Nikon D7100 would have been the choice.

 

[Gavjenks]

What's happening after the two lines intersect at about 1200 iso?

It means that
When you're shooting at ISO 100, the Nikon has much better dynamic range.
When you're shooting at ISO 3200, the Canon has better dynamic range.

If you do a lot of landscapes on tripods, or studio work with flashes, or whatnot, you probably want the Nikon all else equal. If you shoot sports at super fast shutter speeds and compensate with higher ISOs, or if you shoot at night or in dark concerts, you probably want the Canon all else equal.

 

[Gavjenks]

Yes, Canon built its EF-S lens mount in a stupid fashion, and created lenses which are utterly useless on full-frame cameras. Nikon's DX lenses actually will MOUNT, focus, meter, and shoot, either in automatic DX crop mode

Many EF-S lenses will mount, focus, meter, and shoot on full frame canon bodies. You would then have to just crop the image yourself in photoshop to remove any vignetting (not any technically different from "DX mode" other than convenience, and if you make yourself a photoshop batch action, not even that).

You can tell which ones by just physically inspecting the lens to see if it has any bits that stick out behind the prongs of the bayonet mount. If not, it will work on a full frame.

And there is an advantage to those lenses which do not mount on full frame: by having the lens elements closer to the sensor, they are optically higher quality than if glass is forced the full distance away, for less money (less of a retrofocus design, which is bad). Same goes for lenses that do not cover much more than the sensor size they were designed for: less glass = lighter weight and cheaper for the same quality on the intended system.

 

[Derrel]

What's happening after the two lines intersect at about 1200 iso?

It means that
When you're shooting at ISO 100, the Nikon has much better dynamic range.
When you're shooting at ISO 3200, the Canon has better dynamic range.

If you do a lot of landscapes on tripods, or studio work with flashes, or whatnot, you probably want the Nikon all else equal. If you shoot sports at super fast shutter speeds and compensate with higher ISOs, or if you shoot at night or in dark concerts, you probably want the Canon all else equal.

It means that at Base ISO, the Nikon's Dynamic Range is 14.24 EV; the Canon's DR at Base ISO is 12.11 EV. A difference of 2.13 EV in favor of the Nikon. An actual, significant "advantage".Something you'll actually notice day in, day out, every time the lighting is at all tricky.

It means that at a measured ISO of 2,400, which Canon calls ISO 3200, the Canon's DR is 10.44 EV.
It means that at a measured ISO of 2,355, which Nikon calls ISO 3200, the Nikon's DR is 10.17 EV.

A DR "advantage" for Canon of 0.27 EV. Wow! A whole 1/3 of an f/stop! Woo-hoo!

 

[astroNikon]

If I read correctly you want to do Underwater Photography

I am completely addicted to underwater photography, where I am from is a coastal town so I live in the ocean, but I'm over using digital cameras, there are too many limitations. I've wanted to get underwater housing for many years now.

Thus the first thing I would research is who makes waterproof cases and accessories for which model & make cameras.
That would be the first limiting factor. I don't think a big ziploc would do much good for a Canon 5dm3 or a Nikon D600 or any film camera.

If I recall Nikon used to ? make underwater lenses - it has some big knobs on them for glove use.
like this EX Nikon UW Nikkor 20mm F2 8 Under Water Lens for Nikonos with Cap Japan | eBay

But start searching for underwater housing
Amazon.com: Meike underwater housing: Electronics

and set a budget and see what you can get for that budget