Talk me into Nikon...

BlueHoseJacket

I have been using Canon for the last 10 years...today that could change. My truck was broken into this morning...camera bag gone, Canon EOS 1D Mark II-N gone, Sigma 70-200mm,f/2.8 gone, Canon 10-22mm gone, Canon 50mm fantastic plastic gone. Briefcase gone, 3tb external hard drive gone, 1.5tb external hard drive gone.....

Pretty crappy day, but now all of my Canon gear is gone...if I am going to ever go to Nikon now is the time. Tell me why...

I shoot mostly sports...football, lacrosse, baseball...

What would you recommend on the Nikon line up?

idiotabroad

Off topic. Check craigslist for your stuff. Anything I've misplaced always ends up there.

TonyCooper

I'm a Nikon user, but I'm dry. I really can't see how the brand of camera
makes all that much difference. Especially the body. Lens, only when
it's a lower tier lens.

Have you ever looked at an image you liked and thought that it must have
been taken with a (brand name) camera?

mbonocore

Moving this to Camera Gear--->Cameras, as the Flea Market is for the buying and selling of equipment in hand only.

Thanks!

Michael

lightyear

Nikon vs,. Canon
The easiest way to decide if you prefer one brand or another is to visit a camera store and handle, focus, etc. the different camera models or brands you are considering. You will feel more comfortable using one than the other, since the pricing and features will be similar. The local dealer (now closed) urged me to get Canon, with very attractive pricing, but I felt more comfortable( focusing, handling controls, etc.) with Nikon, and still use it. Hope this helps.

Ferguson

BlueHoseJacket wrote: »

Pretty crappy day, but now all of my Canon gear is gone...if I am going to ever go to Nikon now is the time. Tell me why...

I've often wondered about a similar scenario, and not to make light of your terrible situation, I imagined something similar and a certain element of freedom. I mean -- with a lot of Nikon glass, I'm just not going to one day wake up and decide to switch to Canon. But if it were all gone... ?

I've shot Nikon since the early 70's. I'm happy with it in general, but like any venue I'm unhappy at times and with certain things. My impression (and I worked for some years in a camera store) is that first one excels, then the other. There's no clear "better". For specific applications (and especially at a specific time) one may be better.

I really think it is like auto brands. There's some really poor ones you shouldn't consider, but let's say you were looking at BMW vs. Lexus. There's no "bad", it's more about style and taste and what you like.

I like Nikon, you will eventually be happy if you switch, but there's no big win here. Will you be more enamored with new and fun discoveries ("I like how they did THAT a lot better") or annoyed by the differences ("I keep turning the ring to the right instead of left -- why are they backwards!").

Seriously, if you are going to put a big investment in, before you do (if you are thinking about it seriously), go rent a similar camera for a week, and shoot a bit. See how it goes. Not a day -- too short. A week of pretty steady use, get past the "what do you mean it turns that way" and "what the heck is AF-C" and see how it drives... I mean shoots.

I don't think you'll go wrong either way.

PS. Having moved to Florida, here's my "which is better" theory -- if you are shooting in cold weather go Nikon; if in bright, hot sun, go Canon. It's as easy as Black vs. White and how hot/cold the camera is to handle. Plus if you drop a Nikon in the snow it's easier to see.

mbonocore

Another thing to consider (and VERY important for me) is the Professional Services. I have heard MANY negative things about Nikon Professional Services....But of course, never used them since I am Canon. But, my experience with CPS has been a grand slam every time. I have literally "totaled" my Mark III and 70-200 f/2.8. Both fell 6 feet onto a rock. Everything shattered. Sent them in, had them back in my hands in 72 hours brand spanking new looking, for only $300. This is one of countless excellent interactions I have had with them.

perroneford

BlueHoseJacket wrote: »

I have been using Canon for the last 10 years...today that could change. My truck was broken into this morning...camera bag gone, Canon EOS 1D Mark II-N gone, Sigma 70-200mm,f/2.8 gone, Canon 10-22mm gone, Canon 50mm fantastic plastic gone. Briefcase gone, 3tb external hard drive gone, 1.5tb external hard drive gone.....

Pretty crappy day, but now all of my Canon gear is gone...if I am going to ever go to Nikon now is the time. Tell me why...

I shoot mostly sports...football, lacrosse, baseball...

What would you recommend on the Nikon line up?

There have been some fairly interesting answers here. I'll offer my thoughts as a sports shooter, and a shooter of both systems (and owner of both systems though at very different levels).

A HUGE consideration is at what price level you are going to jump in. If you are going to jump in at the 7D level, things are a bit muddy. As both the Canon and Nikon offerings are very long in the tooth. If you are going to jump in at the sports flagship level (Nikon D4 vs Canon 1Dx) then the 1Dx offers some advantages. If you want a hogh MP camera, the Nikon D800 trumps all. And I shoot a LOT of sports work on that just as many on the Canon side shot the 1DsMkx.

For me, all the Canon's feel cheap and plasticy save for the full size pro bodies. Pick up a T3i and a D5100. Pick up a 7D and a D7100. Nikon's menu system is more logical to me.

Lets get to the practical applications. In general, Nikon's full frame lineup is stronger. They've been at it longer. Canon spent a TON of time with the 5DMkx carrying the full frame flag. The 1Dx is their first real departure from that in the sports bodies.

Nikon offers better ISO performance nearly across the range at all price points. The 1Dx is a notable exception, and the 5D3 is "similar" to the D600 though shooting side by side with a 5D3 shooter I felt the D600 was a bit better.

The AF on the 1DMk4 is excellent. The 1Dx is as well. The D3s would not lock as fast as or as accurately as the 1DMk4. I cannot speak to the 1Dx vs the D4 as have not shot the 1Dx.

I feel the DR of the Nikon's is superior. The noise reduction in camera of the Canon's is better if you have to submit JPGs out of camera. I shoot RAW only so this is no concern to me.

Canon's new "L" glass offerings are a bit more pricey than Nikon's similar offerings and similar in quantity. Nikon's 200-400/F4 has been a spectacular offering and Canon has had no equivalent. Canon's fast 135 and 24-105 have no Nikon equivalents and I would kill to have both.

Nikon glass CAN be used on Canon's with a $15 adapter though they will not AF. This can be immensely helpful if you find yourself in a tight spot at a game and a Nikon friend has a piece of glass you want to use. Say for a remote. I keep a couple of adapters in my bag all the time to help Canon guys out.

The whole "dial spins the wrong way" thing is easily mitigated in any Nikon over $900 as you can change the directions of the dials in the menus. Takes a minute or two.

My dealings with NPS have been fine, though I have not had to use them for any broken gear. There are thousands of pros who use both NPS and CPS. I take anyone's words with a grain of salt that assail one or the other. I know and have worked with two of the big NPS guys on the US (east and west coast) and they've been fabulous.

I started a new system from scratch a couple years ago and could have gone either way. I started on Canon many years ago, switched to Nikon with the F4s, and picked up Canon again for DSLR video. I chose to build up Nikon for stills work as they just feel better to me. Personal choice but it has served me well.

ziggy53

perroneford wrote: »

... In general, Nikon's full frame lineup is stronger. They've been at it longer. Canon spent a TON of time with the 5DMkx carrying the full frame flag. The 1Dx is their first real departure from that in the sports bodies.

...

A couple of clarifications. First, I presume that you intended to qualify your remark,

"... Nikon's full frame lineup is stronger. They've been at it longer. Canon spent a TON of time with the 5DMkx carrying the full frame flag. The 1Dx is their first real departure from that in the sports bodies."

..., to include "only" sports/action bodies. (Granted, you did seem to qualify at the end of the statement.)

However, just as the Nikon D700 has been used by many sports photographers, so too have "all" of the Canon Full Frame (FF/FX) bodies.

Indeed, the Canon FF professional bodies, starting with the original 1Ds, have been seen at major sporting events. I agree that the frame rate may not have always been best for sports/action, but in other measures of responsiveness they certainly were capable. (Again, I am specifically mentioning the 1Ds, 1Ds MKII and 1Ds MKIII.)

perroneford wrote: »

... Nikon glass CAN be used on Canon's with a $15 adapter though they will not AF. This can be immensely helpful if you find yourself in a tight spot at a game and a Nikon friend has a piece of glass you want to use. Say for a remote. I keep a couple of adapters in my bag all the time to help Canon guys out.

...

Again, this is just a clarification, not a point of contention.

Both Nikon F-mount and Pentax Universal-Screw-mount (manual focus) lenses can mount on Canon bodies using an adapter. If you purchase the adapter with an appropriate "chip" they can also provide "focus confirmation" with manual focus lenses. For a sports application this can make for some interesting purchases.

For instance, and in keeping with the "sports" theme, I purchased 2 Pentax 500mm, f4.5, screwmount manual focus lenses, plus one Vivitar 500mm, f6.3 (I got it cheap and didn't expect much).

Both of the Pentax lenses have some fungus, and I keep meaning to disassemble and clean them. (Lifus interruptus.) They are unsuitable for anything, at this time (but if they were clean they can produce wonderful images).

The Vivitar, however, is both clean and pretty sharp:





(Apologies for the poor image processing. This from 2006. )

form

I've got one reason to go to Nikon: Shadow noise. 3 more years of shadow noise.

I use my cameras for work. I often have to deal with dynamic range limitations of sensors, and I also deal with both extremely bright and very dark situations all the time. As a long-time Canon user, my main cameras are currently a 5d3 and several 5d2s. Before I got the 5d3, I tried a D800. I liked the camera, but I didn't like the lenses - something about the bokeh didn't appeal to me, and I was having some autofocus "growing pains." Plus the live view is sluggish in comparison to Canon. But the shadows had so much detail and I could push them with only the faintest amount of noise showing up...it was a godsend for my line of work. All the same, the other dissatisfactions resulted in me selling the D800 because I felt that Canon glass was more important and I wasn't getting the reliability I thought I would from Nikon AF.

So now I sit with the 5d2s and a 5d3...and the 5d3's focusing system - though it isn't dismal - is painful in low light (although very good in good light). People brag and praise the focus system of the 5d3, but I personally don't feel that it's much more accurate than my 5d2s in good light, and it's roughly on par or worse in low light.

The 5d3 also got a really annoying AF trait where, with or without AF assist, in dark/lower contrast environments and subjects, it focuses....PAUSES....then focuses more, then locks. This whole process often takes several seconds. If the subject was some static object, this wouldn't matter. However, my subjects are people slapping backs, laughing, hugging, whispering to each other, making abrupt motions, etc...and by the time the 5d3 locks, it's too late. Even when it locks, the accuracy in low light drops to about 25-50% misses, center and outer points...center point may be more accurate than outer points. In comparison, the 5d2 is much faster to lock (and more consistently accurate) in similarly low light with AF assist. My 5d2s are simply better at capturing sudden movements and very short-lived actions than the 5d3.

And the shadow noise, dear sweet chroma and luminance noise so obscene when the shadows are pushed even 1 stop in ISO1600+ or 2 stops in ISO100-800. Why, the images are mostly noise by then. The 5d3 retains a semblance of greater dynamic range in the shadows at high ISOs than the 5d2, but not a huge difference. The shadow noise really obliterates so much detail anyway...

Canon's sensors are not up to the latest Nikon/Sony sensor designs when it comes to shadows and digital image flexibility. There's no comparison. Even the 1dx doesn't compare. There is so much data in Nikon shadows and it pushes so cleanly and with so little noise that it almost makes sense to shoot the D800 in ISO100-200 most of the time and then just push later...or simply set autoISO with exposure compensation of -1 and boost things later.

So that's the one reason...why I will probably be RE-buying a D800.

BlueHoseJacket

Thanks for all of the input. Right now I have no idea what I am going to do if anything in the near future. I was informed by my insurance adjuster that because I at times used the camera for work and that since the equipment was not taken from my residence that all they could pay was $2500 ???? I have e-mailed the adjuster back and indicated that my use of the camera is 95% personal and 5% work. I use a company purchased Canon 10-22mm to shoot completed construction projects for the company web site. I have had to use my old Canon XTi when using the Canon 10-22mm since the lens does not fit on the Canon EOS 1-D MArk II n body. So...the only piece of equipment that was stolen and was used for business purposes was the was the wide angle lens...the Canon XTi has been broken for about a year and was not in my bag. The Mark II, Sigma 70-200mm several other lenses were all in the bag that was stolen...none of this equipment was ever used for business purposes. I have some work to do with the insurance adjuster...otherwise I will be out of photography for a while...

ziggy53

form wrote: »

...

The 5d3 also got a really annoying AF trait where, with or without AF assist, in dark/lower contrast environments and subjects, it focuses....PAUSES....then focuses more, then locks. This whole process often takes several seconds. If the subject was some static object, this wouldn't matter. However, my subjects are people slapping backs, laughing, hugging, whispering to each other, making abrupt motions, etc...and by the time the 5d3 locks, it's too late. Even when it locks, the accuracy in low light drops to about 25-50% misses, center and outer points...center point may be more accurate than outer points. In comparison, the 5d2 is much faster to lock (and more consistently accurate) in similarly low light with AF assist. My 5d2s are simply better at capturing sudden movements and very short-lived actions than the 5d3.

...

For the Canon 5D MKIII and low-light focus issues, you may wish to update to Firmware Version 1.2.1, if you haven't already. This allows AF with an f8 lens equivalence, and some users report better low-light AF as well. If you use DPP then an update to DPP 3.13.0 is required as well.

See this thread: [thread=234313]What's your experience with the 1.2.1 Canon 5D3 firmware update?[/thread]

I do recommend the use of one of the better Canon flashes with a focus-assist patterned light, with the 580EX or 580EX II reportedly better for the 5D MKIII body than the 600EX-RT.

I am getting best noise signatures for Canon cameras using either Canon DPP or Phase One Capture One 6 or 7. Raw Therapee is fine for small numbers of images. Adobe ACR is much worse in my testing, including versions through Camera Raw 8.1. Problems with ACR include a very noticeable pattern noise, which is greatly reduced in DPP, Capture One and RAW Therapee. Capture One is also delivering the best tonality at default settings.

I agree that Nikon is delivering very nice dynamic range with the last 2 - generations of imagers.

ziggy53

BlueHoseJacket wrote: »

Thanks for all of the input. Right now I have no idea what I am going to do if anything in the near future. I was informed by my insurance adjuster that because I at times used the camera for work and that since the equipment was not taken from my residence that all they could pay was $2500 ???? I have e-mailed the adjuster back and indicated that my use of the camera is 95% personal and 5% work. I use a company purchased Canon 10-22mm to shoot completed construction projects for the company web site. I have had to use my old Canon XTi when using the Canon 10-22mm since the lens does not fit on the Canon EOS 1-D MArk II n body. So...the only piece of equipment that was stolen and was used for business purposes was the was the wide angle lens...the Canon XTi has been broken for about a year and was not in my bag. The Mark II, Sigma 70-200mm several other lenses were all in the bag that was stolen...none of this equipment was ever used for business purposes. I have some work to do with the insurance adjuster...otherwise I will be out of photography for a while...

Does your company have their own insurance to cover the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM theft?

wildviper

BlueHoseJacket wrote: »

I was informed by my insurance adjuster that because I at times used the camera for work and that since the equipment was not taken from my residence that all they could pay was $2500 ???? I have e-mailed the adjuster back and indicated that my use of the camera is 95% personal and 5% work. I use a company purchased Canon 10-22mm to shoot completed construction projects for the company web site. I have had to use my old Canon XTi when using the Canon 10-22mm since the lens does not fit on the Canon EOS 1-D MArk II n body. So...the only piece of equipment that was stolen and was used for business purposes was the was the wide angle lens...the Canon XTi has been broken for about a year and was not in my bag. The Mark II, Sigma 70-200mm several other lenses were all in the bag that was stolen...none of this equipment was ever used for business purposes. I have some work to do with the insurance adjuster...otherwise I will be out of photography for a while...

I guess my question to you is...which company did you have this coverage from? State Farm/Farmers and such? Or a company specifically covering photographers?

Tough to say, but when it comes to claims, they are going to refer you to their policy conditions...and most home based policies specifically do not cover business use.

As for your initial question of Nikon vs. Canon - I would say that ergonomics and numerous customization of buttons to cater to your shooting needs is why I picked Nikon.

For example, to Format a card, I can use two button combo in Nikon and its done. In Canon, as far as I have seen...you have to go into menu! Sometimes when I am shooting fast, I depend on this. I do not format my cards until I want to shoot with them due to an "extra" backup safety I get.

ziggy53

I will add that our own Andy Williams and Marc Muench have converted their dSLR systems over to Nikon (IIRC), based mostly on image advantages (I believe).

http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=223343

http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=1860163#post1860163

jmphotocraft

Honestly for sports I can't come up with a reason to switch to Nikon. Landscape or weddings maybe, but not sports. I wouldn't want to deal with 36mp, and 16mp is a little low, and I wouldn't want to use the D800's goofy crop mode. Plus, customers recognize the big white Canon lenses. Give me a 5D3 or 1DX any day.

Harryb

jmphotocraft wrote: »

Honestly for sports I can't come up with a reason to switch to Nikon. Landscape or weddings maybe, but not sports. I wouldn't want to deal with 36mp, and 16mp is a little low, and I wouldn't want to use the D800's goofy crop mode. Plus, customers recognize the big white Canon lenses. Give me a 5D3 or 1DX any day.

I have taken thousands of captures with the 800E and have not had any problems dealing with 36mp.

puzzledpaul

jmphotocraft wrote: »

...customers recognize the big white Canon lenses.

First thing I do is to cover up that 'white' with as much naff looking stuff as possible - especially with the big ones ... it's a right pita imo.

pp

TobiasW

First off sorry you lost you stuff. I have an off topic question. I was reading in earlier posts about adapter rings for different lenses. I have a Nikon D7000 and several "older" Pentax lenses, some from a super program SLR and some from an older still, SLR that uses screw on lenses. Is there some sort of adapter for this combo?

ziggy53

TobiasW wrote: »

First off sorry you lost you stuff. I have an off topic question. I was reading in earlier posts about adapter rings for different lenses. I have a Nikon D7000 and several "older" Pentax lenses, some from a super program SLR and some from an older still, SLR that uses screw on lenses. Is there some sort of adapter for this combo?

Sadly, Nikon bodies do not tend to be good hosts for other manufacturers' lenses. Part of the problem is the long flange-focus distance for Nikon bodies, a property shared by Pentax. This means that there is no room for a simple adapter.

Canon dSLR cameras have a relatively short flange-focus distance, meaning that there "is" room for a simple adapter to fit between the body and both Nikon "F" mount and Pentax "K" mount and M42/Screw/Univesal thread mount (and some others too).

For a Nikon body you might try to sell those Pentax mount lenses and purchase some older Nikon "F" mount, manual focus lenses. You'll probably have to add some cash to the deal, but it can still be a good way to expand your lens choices. Just make sure to get AI lenses. (I don't believe that pre-AI lenses will safely mount to the Nikon D7000 body.)

Alternately, you could purchase an old Pentax dSLR body just to use the old Pentax mount lenses. Pentax dSLRs use a form of the "K" mount that is compatible with the old manual focus "K" mount lenses. You can also get a simple adapter to use the screw-mount lenses too.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=97561&is=REG&A=details&Q=
http://www.adorama.com/CZPUPKA.html

TobiasW

ziggy53 wrote: »

Sadly, Nikon bodies do not tend to be good hosts for other manufacturers' lenses. Part of the problem is the long flange-focus distance for Nikon bodies, a property shared by Pentax. This means that there is no room for a simple adapter.

Canon dSLR cameras have a relatively short flange-focus distance, meaning that there "is" room for a simple adapter to fit between the body and both Nikon "F" mount and Pentax "K" mount and M42/Screw/Univesal thread mount (and some others too).

For a Nikon body you might try to sell those Pentax mount lenses and purchase some older Nikon "F" mount, manual focus lenses. You'll probably have to add some cash to the deal, but it can still be a good way to expand your lens choices. Just make sure to get AI lenses. (I don't believe that pre-AI lenses will safely mount to the Nikon D7000 body.)

Alternately, you could purchase an old Pentax dSLR body just to use the old Pentax mount lenses. Pentax dSLRs use a form of the "K" mount that is compatible with the old manual focus "K" mount lenses. You can also get a simple adapter to use the screw-mount lenses too.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=97561&is=REG&A=details&Q=
http://www.adorama.com/CZPUPKA.html

Thanks for the info! I just did a search and came up with the same. I do like the idea of selling them and looking for older Nikon stuff..

Thanks again

jmphotocraft

TobiasW wrote: »

Thanks for the info! I just did a search and came up with the same. I do like the idea of selling them and looking for older Nikon stuff..

Thanks again

Or you could part with about $100 and get a Pentax film body on ebay. K1000 is an easy choice, or the MX is a little sleeker with a few extra features. I love shooting film once in a while for a change of pace.

TobiasW

jmphotocraft wrote: »

Or you could part with about $100 and get a Pentax film body on ebay. K1000 is an easy choice, or the MX is a little sleeker with a few extra features. I love shooting film once in a while for a change of pace.

Thought about that. I actually still have the camera's as well. Super Program and what seems to be an early 70's model. Neither work and I'm afraid the cost of fixing them will be way more than buying another.

jmphotocraft

TobiasW wrote: »

Thought about that. I actually still have the camera's as well. Super Program and what seems to be an early 70's model. Neither work and I'm afraid the cost of fixing them will be way more than buying another.

I'm sure it would. Check out the MX on ebay. Avoid retailers selling them for several hundred, they are just fishing for the ignorant. You should be able to find one for about $100.

Moogle Pepper

Sucks that your gear got stolen.

But to be honest, it is splitting hairs. The grass will be greener on the other side on any camp of camera brands. Just pick one and shoot on.