Canon to Nikon - Am I mad??

mrboswell

Ok here goes....I'm a canon man and I'm thinking of abandoning the Canon ship for Nikon. I'm seriously thinking of trading in but I suspect I'd get more by selling individually.

I currently have:
Canon 50D
Canon 40D (both with battery grips and both cameras with 3 batteries)
EMERGENCY backup Canon 350D
Canon EF 300mm 2.8L IS
Canon EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS
Canon EF 28-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF-S 17-55mm 3.5-5.6 II
Sigma 17-35mm 2.8-4 (Rarely used)
10mm f/2.8 Diagonal Fisheye Lens (Used once)
Canon EF 1.4X Extender II (Used 3 times)
Canon 580EX II Speedlight (Rarely Used)
All equipment stored with silica gel and transported in Storm case. Aqua shield covers used in wet conditions.


I'm thinking of replacing the above with:
Nikon 14-24mm F2.8G ED AF-S
Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 G AF-S ED
Nikon 300mm F2.8 G AF-S VR IF-ED Lens
Nikon TC-14E II AF-S TELECONVERTER
NIKON SB900
Cameras will be at least one D3 and an other....

Basically I'm looking for peoples opinions..... on the change and if yes better to sell individually or sell as a kit?

On another note, while considering this change I did notice that a particular shop off Wicklow Street was ridiculously overpriced (as they all are but in this case compared with other stores) - i don't know how people shop there....

AnCatDubh

Can you elaborate a bit more on the why part of the equation? The question as posed probably will have nikon fans going 'yay' and canon fans saying 'nay', and the rest of us just scratching the head.

What's up with your Canon kit or is it just a follie?

melekalikimaka

yay

<nikon fan>

Ricky91t

I've heard alot of photographers doing this due to the bad MKIII canon professional camera,Was speaking to a pro recently at the local bike races,He was saying how much he regrets upgrading from his MKII to a MKIII and how his sigma 120-300 f/2.8 was very un-sharp on the MKIII compared to it's top class Image quality on the MKII,I asked(just being nosey)why he hadn't switched to the D3,He said he's planning to but has very little time(travelling to and from the country every weekend),He then said he could either wait for a canon 1D MKIV or get a D3 which is basically a Canon 1D and 1DS MKIII

I think i may have convinced him to stick with canon

mrboswell

Looks like I might be working with someone who doesn't like Canon....

Besides I think the black lens are a bit more subtle.

PaulW and Kensutz can verify the excellent condition of my equipment.

Ricky91t

mrboswell wrote: »

Looks like I might be working with someone who doesn't like Canon....

Besides I think the black lens are a bit more subtle.

PaulW and Kensutz can verify the excellent condition of my equipment.

Why do we need to know that?

Seems like you're trying to get potential buyers?

melekalikimaka

get this too, really go all out

mrboswell

Ricky91t wrote: »

I've heard alot of photographers doing this due to the bad MKIII canon professional camera,Was speaking to a pro recently at the local bike races,He was saying how much he regrets upgrading from his MKII to a MKIII and how his sigma 120-300 f/2.8 was very un-sharp on the MKIII compared to it's top class Image quality on the MKII,I asked(just being nosey)why he hadn't switched to the D3,He said he's planning to but has very little time(travelling to and from the country every weekend),He then said he could either wait for a canon 1D MKIV or get a D3 which is basically a Canon 1D and 1DS MKIII

I think i may have convinced him to stick with canon

This was something I have heard as well. I didn't have the budget for the 1D mkIII when I was buying the equipment this time last year. Almost all of my equipment is less than a year old, but thinking of changing now due to this silly recession.
Just not sure if I should stick to my guns and wait for the 1D mkIV myself....

kensutz

I've been in the Canon to Nikon switch camp for a long time. I'm only waiting to bite the bullet to make the change

mrboswell

Ricky91t wrote: »

Why do we need to know that?

Seems like you're trying to get potential buyers?

AnCatDubh's question was "What's up with your Canon kit or is it just a follie?"

So I'm just stating that there is nothing wrong with my equipment....:rolleyes:

But if I do decide to change kit I'll obviously be trying to get potential buyers.
One of my questions was should I sell as a kit or individually. I was also just pointing out that I wouldn't be selling it as a kit to hide a weaker item - thats why I mentioned KenSutz and PaulW.

Happy now??

mrboswell

kensutz wrote: »

I've been in the Canon to Nikon switch camp for a long time. I'm only waiting to bite the bullet to make the change

Its a big change alright.
Familiarity is a Bit*h... Oh and the cost

Crispin

I shoot neither hence I am totally unbias:

Why bother, switching seems like a total waste of time to me! wait for a MkIV.

melekalikimaka

mrboswell wrote: »

Its a big change alright.
Familiarity is a Bit*h... Oh and the cost

nikon system is pretty simple, from a netural point, alot quicker to pick up, less menu fiddling and the like on the nikons

mrboswell

Crispin wrote: »

I shoot neither hence I am totally unbias:

Why bother, switching seems like a total waste of time to me! wait for a MkIV.

I just have an inkling that Nikon have an advantage with higher ISO and thats important under floodlights (particularly bad ones)

Crispin

mrboswell wrote: »

I just have an inkling that Nikon have an advantage with higher ISO and thats important under floodlights (particularly bad ones)

In that case, if it's only an inkling, rent/borrow one to shoot a game under flood lights? Seems a bit mad (to use your word ) to switch based on an inkling. Although tbh if I could afford it, a D3 would be an attractive prospect.

mrboswell

Crispin wrote: »

In that case, if it's only an inkling, rent/borrow one to shoot a game under flood lights? Seems a bit mad (to use your word ) to switch based on an inkling. Although tbh if I could afford it, a D3 would be an attractive prospect.

Ok - Inkling probably wrong word to use. Speaking to a few of the Sportsfile lads and a few Scottish photographers that use Nikon and between what they say and some criticism from Canon users including Inpho say I'm fairly convinced.

Have used a D3 but not extensively enough to form a proper opinion...

melekalikimaka

mrboswell wrote: »

Ok - Inkling probably wrong word to use. Speaking to a few of the Sportsfile lads and a few Scottish photographers that use Nikon and between what they say and some criticism from Canon users including Inpho say I'm fairly convinced.

Have used a D3 but not extensively enough to form a proper opinion...

with the d3x out, a few silly punters are upgrading, d3 seconds are quite good at the mo

mrboswell

melekalikimaka wrote: »

with the d3x out, a few silly punters are upgrading, d3 seconds are quite good at the mo

Thats true...hadn't actually thought of that...

Ballyman

mrboswell wrote: »

Looks like I might be working with someone who doesn't like Canon....

You been hired by them as well?? There is another lad on here who is doing a lot more for them recently as well.

ttcomet

I really don't think there is any substantial difference between Nikon and Canon. I shoot Canon personally but would be just as happy shooting Nikon they make gear as good as and in some cases better then Canon.

Is there anything in particular that the 3 series Nikon has that a 1 Series Canon doesn't and is it an absolute must have for you?

If you were to get yourself a 1D Mark 2 or 3 body I don't think that there is any shot you could get with Nikon that you could not get with Canon. Why not try rent a Nikon D3 and a Canon 1D for the one event and see which works better for you?

The other issue is how much money you will loose on the sale of your gear, of what you have listed only the L's will really keep their value. You will take a hit on everything else. The only person that is going to profit from this will be your camera dealer. I would also recommend selling your gear separately I think it would raise more cash or maybe try trade in some of the cheaper lens off the price of the Nikon stuff.



P.S. dibs on the 300

Borderfox

Tough call but from what you are saying you have made your mind up, the only thing is you havent used the 1d bodies which are a world away in quality terms from any of the prosumer bodies.

I couldnt see myself ever changing as most of my work is in low light and I get plenty of use out of my f1.2 (Sorry Nikon)

Also you will need a 400 f2.8 with the Nikon gear as they are in full frame too..

MagicMarker

Honestly, will you really see much of a difference?

You're going to lose a lot of money switching over, personally I can't see how it's worth it.

But if you do decide to switch, I get first dibs on the speedlight and fisheye:D

pixbyjohn

As a Nikon user I would say you are mad to think about changing. Buy a professional Canon and use the glass you have. You won't get enough for your gear if you sell it or trade it in to change over completely to Nikon. You can eventually buy more full frame lens too for your new Canon when you get it. Maybe sell off the 40D and 50D to partially fund new camera

mrboswell

Ballyman wrote: »

You been hired by them as well?? There is another lad on here who is doing a lot more for them recently as well.

We might have our wires crossed there..

mrboswell

ttcomet wrote: »

I really don't think there is any substantial difference between Nikon and Canon. I shoot Canon personally but would be just as happy shooting Nikon they make gear as good as and in some cases better then Canon.

Is there anything in particular that the 3 series Nikon has that a 1 Series Canon doesn't and is it an absolute must have for you?

If you were to get yourself a 1D Mark 2 or 3 body I don't think that there is any shot you could get with Nikon that you could not get with Canon. Why not try rent a Nikon D3 and a Canon 1D for the one event and see which works better for you?

The other issue is how much money you will loose on the sale of your gear, of what you have listed only the L's will really keep their value. You will take a hit on everything else. The only person that is going to profit from this will be your camera dealer. I would also recommend selling your gear separately I think it would raise more cash or maybe try trade in some of the cheaper lens off the price of the Nikon stuff.



P.S. dibs on the 300

I know there will be a loss involved but I have you ever had a brand of car that you always drove and then decided that you fancied another manufacturer???

Borderfox wrote: »

Tough call but from what you are saying you have made your mind up, the only thing is you havent used the 1d bodies which are a world away in quality terms from any of the prosumer bodies.

I couldnt see myself ever changing as most of my work is in low light and I get plenty of use out of my f1.2 (Sorry Nikon)

Also you will need a 400 f2.8 with the Nikon gear as they are in full frame too..

I'm not fully decided - If I was the gear would already be for sale. I wanted to see what people reckoned re the two brands.
Re the 400 I'd be happy with the 1.4 extender on the 300.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Honestly, will you really see much of a difference?

You're going to lose a lot of money switching over, personally I can't see how it's worth it.

But if you do decide to switch, I get first dibs on the speedlight and fisheye:D

From what I gather, not by my own experience, Nikon is FAR better for noise in low light. I may just wait to see what the upgrade for the 1D mkIII is like.

pixbyjohn wrote: »

As a Nikon user I would say you are mad to think about changing. Buy a professional Canon and use the glass you have. You won't get enough for your gear if you sell it or trade it in to change over completely to Nikon. You can eventually buy more full frame lens too for your new Canon when you get it. Maybe sell off the 40D and 50D to partially fund new camera

The reason I ended up with the 40D and 50D was that I wanted to spend the money on glass and then I heard about the issues with the 1d mkIII and although I know a few guys who have them - I'm still not convinced....


Think I'll hold out and see what happens.

AnimalRights

mrboswell wrote: »

From what I gather, not by my own experience, Nikon is FAR better for noise in low light. I may just wait to see what the upgrade for the 1D mkIII is like.

This is incorrect and has been discussed on these boards many times.

Borderfox

I have seen shots from both in the same situations and the Mk3 is better, the Nikons when shooting Jpeg have a much more agressive look to the shots (I know this can be turned down but then you lose what you gain) I have put plenty of research into the art of low light shooting as its my business.

mrboswell

AnimalRights wrote: »

This is incorrect and has been discussed on these boards many times.

Borderfox wrote: »

I have seen shots from both in the same situations and the Mk3 is better, the Nikons when shooting Jpeg have a much more agressive look to the shots (I know this can be turned down but then you lose what you gain) I have put plenty of research into the art of low light shooting as its my business.

So it seems that it depends on who you talk to you get a different opinion....

As I said I'll probably wait and see what Canon come out with next.

Thanks for the input!

Masada

Seems like a hell of an expencive switchover, im a nikon user myself and love them, I tried canon but using them is just a pain in the hole. I find nikon easier to use without having to think about what you are doing.

SBPhoto

mrboswell wrote: »

I just have an inkling that Nikon have an advantage with higher ISO and thats important under floodlights (particularly bad ones)

I shoot with a Canon 1D MKIII and have had no problems with it. Have used 6400ISO for flood light GAA Matches with great results. I know of 4 other photographers who use the MKIII with no problems. I feel the problems with the MK III are bit overstated. My Opinion. Action shot was taken at 6400ISO with ID MKIII

kumate_champ07

mrboswell wrote: »

This was something I have heard as well. I didn't have the budget for the 1D mkIII when I was buying the equipment this time last year. Almost all of my equipment is less than a year old, but thinking of changing now due to this silly recession.
Just not sure if I should stick to my guns and wait for the 1D mkIV myself....

pick up a 1d mkII, thats what I did. Ill wait a few years before I get a new pro body. They fixed the autofocus issue on the mkIII. Id love a d3 but made by canon so i can use their lenses!


Im not a canon or nikon fan. I use canon because its what I needed for my photography. I left olympus but Id love another olympus dslr with 25mm f2 for traveling with. Id love a d700 or d90, both have awesome IQ and high iso ability. a clean iso3200 would be very nice for gig photograhy.

I dont think theres any reason to switch from canon to nikon or visa versa if you already have a big enough kit. they are both amazing systems

Borderfox

mrboswell wrote: »

Ok - Inkling probably wrong word to use. Speaking to a few of the Sportsfile lads and a few Scottish photographers that use Nikon and between what they say and some criticism from Canon users including Inpho say I'm fairly convinced.

Have used a D3 but not extensively enough to form a proper opinion...

Most of these lads dont even own a camera, its all work gear

mrboswell

Borderfox wrote: »

Most of these lads dont even own a camera, its all work gear

Thats true but since they use the gear quite a lot they're opinions are as valid as anyone else's...

Borderfox

I dont know about that

Ricky91t

mrboswell wrote: »

AnCatDubh's question was "What's up with your Canon kit or is it just a follie?"

So I'm just stating that there is nothing wrong with my equipment....:rolleyes:

But if I do decide to change kit I'll obviously be trying to get potential buyers.
One of my questions was should I sell as a kit or individually. I was also just pointing out that I wouldn't be selling it as a kit to hide a weaker item - thats why I mentioned KenSutz and PaulW.

Happy now??

Sorry about that,Didn't see ACD's post :eek:

MagicMarker

Personally I think you'd be better off selling individually. It might take longer but if I had the cash to buy all of that then I would just get a 5D.

Plus I want the speedlight and fisheye, the 70-200L would be nice also.

Actually, on second thoughts, I suggest you switch.... ahem:)

CabanSail

It seems that Nikon & Canon play leap frog for the premier position & switch quite regularly. If I were in your situation I would stick it out, as it's a hell of a change over due to a perception of slightly better noise. You are likely to find that after you take the hit & switch that Canon will release their new body & it will lead the market for noise for a while.

I have been using Nikon gear since the 70's & so am almost rusted into their system. The reason to switch over should be more for design philosophy rather than the performance of a certain body. What I do like about Nikon over Canon is the ergonomics of their gear. You genereally don't have to go through menus to find the important things. Another person I was speaking to who is well into Canon likes their system for the opposite reason as he doesn't like too many buttons.

Borderfox

CabanSail wrote: »

It seems that Nikon & Canon play leap frog for the premier position & switch quite regularly. If I were in your situation I would stick it out, as it's a hell of a change over due to a perception of slightly better noise. You are likely to find that after you take the hit & switch that Canon will release their new body & it will lead the market for noise for a while.

I have been using Nikon gear since the 70's & so am almost rusted into their system. The reason to switch over should be more for design philosophy rather than the performance of a certain body. What I do like about Nikon over Canon is the ergonomics of their gear. You genereally don't have to go through menus to find the important things. Another person I was speaking to who is well into Canon likes their system for the opposite reason as he doesn't like too many buttons.

Quite true

mrboswell

CabanSail wrote: »

It seems that Nikon & Canon play leap frog for the premier position & switch quite regularly. If I were in your situation I would stick it out, as it's a hell of a change over due to a perception of slightly better noise. You are likely to find that after you take the hit & switch that Canon will release their new body & it will lead the market for noise for a while.

I have been using Nikon gear since the 70's & so am almost rusted into their system. The reason to switch over should be more for design philosophy rather than the performance of a certain body. What I do like about Nikon over Canon is the ergonomics of their gear. You genereally don't have to go through menus to find the important things. Another person I was speaking to who is well into Canon likes their system for the opposite reason as he doesn't like too many buttons.

Good points, the cameras do look nicer to be honest.

Have to say full frame with fast frame rate is good but if you need distance it can be fairly expensive for bigger glass. Thats a big issue if there is to be a trade..

Borderfox

Number one complaint from all the Nikon shooters I met at Badminton Horse trials last year, Nikon brought out a new 400 f2.8 just after the D3 with an even higher price tag than the old version. Most of the guys there had to go from the 300 f2.8 to the 400 f2.8

mrboswell

Borderfox wrote: »

Number one complaint from all the Nikon shooters I met at Badminton Horse trials last year, Nikon brought out a new 400 f2.8 just after the D3 with an even higher price tag than the old version. Most of the guys there had to go from the 300 f2.8 to the 400 f2.8

Think my best bet is to start playing the lotto again - that way - when I win I'll be able to get them both and I'll share them with everyone!

KarmaGarda

mrboswell wrote: »

Canon to Nikon - Am I mad??

Yes


p.s. while you're in this frame of insanity... any chance of buying a Nikon D3X for me instead?

ValueInIreland

All things being equall I would go the Nikon route as Canon have made a complete mess of their current Pro line up, but with the investment you have in Canon I think you would be mad to change now! I would wait and see if Canon can match the D3 - if not then it's time to bail. I admit to being a NIKON head, but also the fact that Canon usually lead the technology race, it is just beyond me that they produced two lemons and have taken longer than normal to produce new models.
Regarding your Nikon choices: The 24-70 is fnatastic, but why not anything between 70 and 300mm??

Mike...

Yes I do believe your mad.....

Love my 40D....
Nikons feel tacky...Canon feels perfect

mrboswell

ValueInIreland wrote: »

All things being equall I would go the Nikon route as Canon have made a complete mess of their current Pro line up, but with the investment you have in Canon I think you would be mad to change now! I would wait and see if Canon can match the D3 - if not then it's time to bail. I admit to being a NIKON head, but also the fact that Canon usually lead the technology race, it is just beyond me that they produced two lemons and have taken longer than normal to produce new models.
Regarding your Nikon choices: The 24-70 is fnatastic, but why not anything between 70 and 300mm??

Sorry forgot to include the 70-200mm...

padi89

Mike... wrote: »

Yes I do believe your mad.....

Love my 40D....
Nikons feel tacky...Canon feels perfect

Read the OP properly, a D3 tacky ? LOL

kgpixels

Go to the doc straight away, I'd say you have a fever!
Why are you switching? Been using canons for 6yrs and they are great

mrboswell

Just totted up the cost of changing this week and it aint cheap!!

SBPhoto

I think you would be mad, both systems are excellent and both have their strong and weak points, If you have all the Canon gear i don't see any advantage in changing over, and Canon primes are brilliant.