Switch to Nikon? Would it be worth it?
I have a Rebel XT (I know; not much of a body), with the 70-200 f2.8L and 24-105 L lenses and the 580EX first generation flash. I've been wanting to upgrade the body for obvious reasons. The lenses and flash are virtually new, with fewer than a couple hundred shots on each.
I have a friend who's a Nikon pro in Norway (see http://www.scanout.com/), and we work together several times a year (I work with a company that hires him extensively). We've traded the usual Nikon v. Canon barbs over glasses of wine and scotch, but last time we were together, he pushed it one further. He's suggesting that instead of upgrading my Canon body, I get the new D700 and start outfitting myself with Nikon. I'm not that deep into Canon yet, and the benefits of having a Nikon Ambassador as a mentor are obvious.
Is it worth the switch? I know I'll take a bath on the Canon lenses, but it really isn't that much in the grand sceme of things.
:ear
Thanks.
I have a friend who's a Nikon pro in Norway (see http://www.scanout.com/), and we work together several times a year (I work with a company that hires him extensively). We've traded the usual Nikon v. Canon barbs over glasses of wine and scotch, but last time we were together, he pushed it one further. He's suggesting that instead of upgrading my Canon body, I get the new D700 and start outfitting myself with Nikon. I'm not that deep into Canon yet, and the benefits of having a Nikon Ambassador as a mentor are obvious.
Is it worth the switch? I know I'll take a bath on the Canon lenses, but it really isn't that much in the grand sceme of things.
:ear
Thanks.
0
Comments
I shoot Nikon, reason for not choosing Canon back then (when i got my first DSLR, the D70) was the fact that the Canon 300D was noticable smaller in my hand, more plastic and had to use the Flash to light up the scene to gain focus. Now when canon has their 40D and 5D and of course their even more expensive 1 series, then difference between the two brands are not that big.
When i get the question about which brand to buy for first time users I often suggest them two things.
1. Check which camera they handle best, that is such an important feature, if you never like how the camera feels or function, then you will never be satisfied either.
2. Check what your friends and family might be using. An good thing about getting the same stuff/brand as family/friends have is the possibility to loan their stuff and vice versa. That might give you the possibility to handle and shoot with lenses and accessories that you might now have the money for yourself, the same goes for your friends that might loadn your stuff.
If the money are not that big of a deal for you to switch, then I would go into an store and pick up an D300 and D3 to see how they are to handle.
The D300 are similar in size and weight to the D700 and has virtually the same buttons.
The D3 will let you try out the bigger viewfinder and sensor that the D700 will have.
I do not know if this is any help, but I hope so.
At the price dissference between the D700 (brand new technology) and the Canon 5D (really old technology)....I would opt for the D700........
Good luck.
If you only have "... fewer than a couple hundred shots on each." of your lenses then I know what the problem is, you have not yet been inspired.
If you think that a complete switch to another system will inspire you, and if it does inspire you, then it is money well spent.
The truth is that a "true" pro can take any equipment and use it to their advantage.
Last night some relatives, some of whom I haven't seen in ages, all converged on my parents' house for a visit. I brought over my travel kit, which includes the Canon 40D, EF 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM and Sigma EF 500 DG Super flash. That's my "goto" combination for indoor event photography. I added a "scoop" modifier to the flash and, after those that know me explained to those that don't what was to happen (ziggy is going to do "his thing") I started shooting.
At one point, my father asked me to take some pictures with his Nikon D70. I grabbed that camera, which I had to find because it wasn't where it usually is, grabbed my Sunpak 383 Super flash to put on it, switched the camera to manual mode, 1/200th, f4 and set the flash to auto mode f5.6 and started shooting.
I didn't have a modifier with me for the Sunpak, so I used bounce flash and bounced "feathered" flash, with my hand behind the flash head to provide some fill.
Later on my father was commenting what a great job the Nikon had done, but I assure you, if I has used the onboard flash as he usually does, the results wouldn't have been nearly as satisfying. The proper use of external flash can make all the difference.
I have some wonderful images using one of 2 Canon XT/350D camera bodies that I own. I have used them professionally. (For a while it's all I had to use.) Used properly, they are capable of greatness.
Likewise, the Nikon D700 can produce perfectly mediocre results if used improperly.
My point is that unless you are up against the limits of the technology of the equipment you own, and that means unusual applications and circumstances in the case of the Canon XT, an upgrade in equipment is not going to help.
Immerse yourself in what you have first. Find the boundaries of "your" capabilities first, then the boundaries of your equipment will follow.
If you should decide that the Nikon D700 is "the" camera for you and you want to sell off the XT and lenses, the XT body is the only part of your system which will have significantly devalued. The lenses and flash still have a ready used market and will command a pretty decent percentage of original cost.
There is no dispute that the Nikon D700 is an amazing camera. It's capable of incredible low light shots and the full frame design allows the use, and intended field-of-view, of Nikon's best FX glass. The upgrade alone will not make a significant improvement in the vast majority of situations which don't require its magnificence.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I would personally compare this potential camera to the d700 before making a switch, since you've already got two wicked lenses that are designed upside down and backwards for full frame.
But I also know that toy fever can be a powerful driver of camera purchases, and as ziggy said, if the d700 is what's going to grab you, go for it.
Not sure where this comes from but I'll bite. Most popular processing tools deal with raw files transparently. Whether it's converting them to dng or jpeg or tiff files, as long as you're working with source material your post software deals with, this is of no concern.
As to what's the better system? Nikon is Canon spelled backwards. I mean that effectively, they are the same but different. Brad, you may never need the features so why switch?
I would argue that taking a bath is one good reason not to switch. And you're already familiar with Canon too. Think about the first time you tried to fly. It'll be like that when you switch
If he's truly your friend, you will continue to trade barbs and he'll teach you regardless of your brand allegiance.
What puzzles me though is that you seem to be basing your decision on the availability of a mentor rather than on the specific limitations of the camera itself. You haven't said anything about what kind of shooting interests you, so it's hard to say; maybe all you need is a Canon 40D. If you tell us specifically how the XT is letting you down, it would help clarify the problem and the choices.
Cheers,
Take some time and research both systems inclduing their lens line-up, flash system, pricing, etc and thendecide which is a better fit for the photography you want to do.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Some people are just anal enuff that they just do not want 2 or 3 different file types for any shoot they are doing.....My preference is for any 2nd shooter of mine to be using the same type of brand of camera as I do......that is just a preference and yes I understand that all modern version of pp software should work seamlessly on any rawfile run thru it:D....
I was stating I could understand the WHY of this and the Friend in Norway may have no preferences at all.......that is all................
If you shoot regularly with your friend in Norway, then the obvious swapping and borrowing of glass would be a lot easier if you shot the same brand. I have several friends start with one brand because the mentor they choose, shot that brand, then switch later on to what felt comfortable in their hands.
IMHO if you have a ready source of lenses to borrow from, then the switch would be worth it. But as Andy said " a pro can take any equipment and make it work". You honestly should buy what feels good in your hands.
Me personally, I shoot Nikon, but that is what fits me ergonomically and mentally. One of my shooting buddies uses canon and another uses olympus. We all shot weddings, sport and other functions together. PP isn't a problem as we all process our own files. We just make sure that we use the same processes and that our monitors are calibrated correctly using "Eye one-match"; which works well for us.
Good luck with your choice, either way you go!
Corrected you there, cause Ziggy said that in this thread.
www.tednghiem.com
I prefer not to, thanks - far too embarrassing :ivar
Thanks for all the replies, guys.
So the part I didn't mention was that I bought a D3 a while back. I still have my Canon gear and I don't think I'll be getting rid of it anytime soon. But I will say the D3 is a marvelous piece of gear
I want to be you when I grow up.
Backstory: I have several Canon bodies and enough L glass to break my back if I carry it all at once. But there are SEVERAL GOOD reasons to look at Nikon very seriously, many related to the D3 and D700 (two years ago, I would have laughed at the mere suggestion of switching brands):
* Their 3D matrix metering rocks. Absolutely perfect. Can't fool the bloody thing. Manual setting purists, please go elsewhere; if I pay that much for a camera body, it should make breakfast for me, or at least give me the competitive edge so I can pay someone to make my breakfast.
* Nikon's i-TTL flash metering kicks ass. It's a known fact that their flash metering is far superior to E-TTL II - and to rub salt in the wound, comes the SB-900 flash unit which has some really nice features, including a zoom head to 200mm so I'm not wasting all that flash power.
* Nikon finally have a full frame sensor - and for IQ, this thing bests everything else at 12 megapixel, with the exception of the 1Ds III (but I'm not pixel peeping here). I'd put it at 1 and 1/3rd stop better than the 5D at least.
* 9 frames a second at full frame - there simply is no faster full frame body - watch out for those nicely isolated subjects in telephoto shots from the Games this year. Very useful when covering events. 11 fames per second in DX crop mode...
* The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 lens beats the Canon 14L II *PRIME* even when used in manual focus with a mount adaptor on the 1Ds III. What gives?
* Usability. Canon finally caught up - in some areas.
* the Nikkor f/2 VR is two thirds the price of Canon's 200 f/2L IS.
* the VGA resolution LCD with 1:1 pixel zoom on the D3 is a great way to woo a client and to check to see whether your photo is accurately sharp!
However, Nikon need to do a few things for me to swtich:
* Release a 35mm AF-S f/1.4 prime. This is a 100% deal-breaker for me, however I suspect Nikon will address this ASAP.
* sRAW. I have been saying how cool it would be for a camera like my 1Ds II to produce a half-size RAW given that I don't always need the resolution but still wish to retain the flexibility of RAW. Mind you, the D3 cranks out near-prefect jpegs anyway....
If Canon want to keep me:
* Fix the aforementioned good-things in their next pro body, that is, higher ISO sensitivity, introduce a new metering system, improve their flash exposure - and - it would be nice to see a 14-24 out of Canon but given their 14L II still isn't perfect and was only just relesaed, I'm guessing that won't ever happen. Otherwise, I might just buy a D700 and a 14-24 for my wides and keep the Canon kit for everything else.
YYMV, but Nikon have some very compelling reasons to switch right now. The simple fact is, for those upgrading to the D3, they now have the competitive edge. Don't get me wrong, Canon have plenty of good things about their system (the high res 1Ds III, many lenses including their F/4 lineup, their 100-400L which beats the 80-400VR hands down, the better 70-200 2.8 IS when on full-frame.
Zardoz, welcome to the "Digital Grin".
Is there some source of definitive measure, like a recognized authority or at least examples, for the rather ambitious claims of:
"Their 3D matrix metering rocks. Absolutely perfect. Can't fool the bloody thing."
... and "Nikon's i-TTL flash metering kicks ass. It's a known fact that their flash metering is far superior to E-TTL II ..."
... and "Nikon ... full frame sensor ... IQ, this thing bests everything else at 12 megapixel, with the exception of the 1Ds III (but I'm not pixel peeping here). I'd put it at 1 and 1/3rd stop better than the 5D at least. ..."
I love your enthusiasm but I prefer to deal with facts.
Understand that I am a "camera" lover and I am always looking for definitive and conclusive evidence whenever possible.
I am currently using the Canon system but my original plan was going to be Nikon. I agree with much of what you said, but the degree surprises me as that is not my experience.
My father is a Nikon shooter and I do shoot with his equipment. I "do" prefer the Nikon 3D Matrix metering but the matrix metering of the Canon 1D series is very close.
I do prefer the i-TTL over E-TTL II in general circumstances but I have come to appreciate the flash/ambient control that Canon products have with the different camera modes, including "Manual". I have not had any major issues with the E-TTL II system since I came to understand how it all works.
The claim that the Nikon FX sensors in the D3 and D700 is 1 and 1/3 stops better than the Canon 5D sensor in sensitivity is particularly intriguing and I haven't seen that demonstrated. I would be very interested in that comparison.
Please folks, no flame wars. You all know I hate flaming in this forum.
Facts and examples are what I desire.
Thanks,
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
The above would be all I would need to make the jump to Nikon.....you have someone to help you learn what you need to learn, friend, mentor/teacher.
Make the switch, you will not regret it
Now I just have to remember to screw the lenses and stuff on backward
www.tednghiem.com
For those who stumble across this thread, I hope that they read the first post by Ziggy #5 in this thread. What wonderful advice.
Website
I have 3 items on my hit list for 2009 in this order
1. SB-900
2. 105mm nikon macro lens
3. 70-200mm f2.8 vr.
I am sure that you will be happy with your nikon. I was going to buy a cheaper nikon to start out, but my mentor shoots with the D300. What better way to learn, having the same camera as your teacher.
Have fun!!!!
I presume you are talking about your, "... D700 with the 24-70 f2.8 Überglass, the 70-200VR f2.8, a 2x and an SB900."
Yes, that should be the "good stuff".
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
www.tednghiem.com