Is it necessary to convert to canon?

rajul · August 3, 2007

Hi!

I am not sure whether this is good question to ask.

I am a Nikon user for 2 years now, i used entry level Nikon d50, 28-200, sb600 speed light and other basic accessories.

I have usd8000 to spend and thinking of upgrading to d200, 70-200mm f2.8, 17-55mm f2.8, sb800 and other accessories. The main reason is to have spare body (useful for wedding), speedlight and etc as well as good lens for esp low-light situation e.g wedding.

But now i have mix decision whether to upgrade or to covert to canon system all together. This is because i have seen my friends using canon at iso 1600 with very low noise image, v. good contrast and sharpness. I have no experiece with high-end nikon lens so i have no means of comparing them. But for sure the low-noise image really impressed me alot.

Your advice is highly appreciated.

claudermilk · August 3, 2007

Resistance is futile! You will be assimilated! :s85

But seriously, in general no. If you are after the best quality, high-ISO images there really is no alternative to Canon (sorry, but it's the truth).

When choosing my DSLR system I waffled between Nikon and Canon for a while before finally seeing the low noise produced. That was very important, so my choice was made--the easy availability of loaner & rental equipment helped as well. For once I went with the crowd, because this time IMHO the crowd was right.

z_28 · August 3, 2007

I used Nikons for 20 years and finally switched to Canon few years ago

But you can keep Nikon line, don't look at others, Nikons are good too !
Lenses are somewhat more expensive, little less wide choice, white Nikons too

rajul · August 3, 2007

z_28 wrote:

I used Nikons for 20 years and finally switched to Canon few years ago
But you can keep Nikon line, don't look at others, Nikons are good too !
Lenses are somewhat more expensive, little less wide choice, white Nikons too

what are things that you missed from nikon??

Many forum mention about its design button, ergonomic, creative flash etc etc ...

z_28 · August 3, 2007

My first dSLR was Nikon D100 - and it was total failure

Pics was extremely noisy and even grainy !!!
Sold ASAP and bought competition miracle - Canon 10D.
Now it's hard to switch again, maybe someday

P.S. dpreview quotation from the past -
"The D100 enters that new segment of the digital camera market which was created when Canon released the EOS-D30. It's the middle ground between the high end $1,000 prosumer digital cameras and professional D-SLR's. This years PMA saw the announcement of no less than four new D-SLR's all aimed at that $2,000-$3,000 segment. It's still pretty amazing to think that you can now pick up a six megapixel D-SLR for around $2,000."

sirsloop · August 3, 2007

Have you looked at Fuji SLR's? They are nikon mount...

rajul · August 4, 2007

sirsloop wrote:

Have you looked at Fuji SLR's? They are nikon mount...

Thanks for the suggestion ..

I heard about fuji slr but i am not interested .... i am only looking for these two brands only ...

Vizhon · August 4, 2007

My recommendation is the normal for questions like this:

Consider the oddball in your decisions. If it's just the ISO 1600+ of Cannon you like and otherwise are happy with Nikon, go with a Nikon/FujiFilm S5Pro combination of cameras, and have them share most accessories and lenses. The FujiFilm S5Pro HAS the usable 1600 - 3200 range, uses the D200 body, can use all the same accessories and lenses as the D200 with the exception of the Wi-Fi link and last but far from least, it has a dynamic range that no other DSLR or lesser camera can compete with. The only thing that the S5Pro lacks is high resolution, but with the right lenses and if you use FujiFilms own hyper-utility, it is equivalent to a 10mp camera when naturalised. Not planning to ever put any of my images on a high resolution bulletin board or across the whole wall of a museam, I have been more than happy with the results I get just post processing my RAWs with ACR and Photoshop CS3.

entropysedge · August 4, 2007

Vizhon wrote:

My recommendation is the normal for questions like this:

Consider the oddball in your decisions. If it's just the ISO 1600+ of Cannon you like and otherwise are happy with Nikon, go with a Nikon/FujiFilm S5Pro combination of cameras, and have them share most accessories and lenses. The FujiFilm S5Pro HAS the usable 1600 - 3200 range, uses the D200 body, can use all the same accessories and lenses as the D200 with the exception of the Wi-Fi link and last but far from least, it has a dynamic range that no other DSLR or lesser camera can compete with. The only thing that the S5Pro lacks is high resolution, but with the right lenses and if you use FujiFilms own hyper-utility, it is equivalent to a 10mp camera when naturalised. Not planning to ever put any of my images on a high resolution bulletin board or across the whole wall of a museam, I have been more than happy with the results I get just post processing my RAWs with ACR and Photoshop CS3.

+1
I have been very happy with my Fuji/Nikon combo

GREAPER · August 4, 2007

The Nikon D2Xs has the same sensor type as canons and performs very well at higher ISOs and with longer ezposures

KRFamiliar · August 4, 2007

Buy an s5, you wont be able to tell the difference.

rajul wrote:

Hi!

I am not sure whether this is good question to ask.

I am a Nikon user for 2 years now, i used entry level Nikon d50, 28-200, sb600 speed light and other basic accessories.

I have usd8000 to spend and thinking of upgrading to d200, 70-200mm f2.8, 17-55mm f2.8, sb800 and other accessories. The main reason is to have spare body (useful for wedding), speedlight and etc as well as good lens for esp low-light situation e.g wedding.

But now i have mix decision whether to upgrade or to covert to canon system all together. This is because i have seen my friends using canon at iso 1600 with very low noise image, v. good contrast and sharpness. I have no experiece with high-end nikon lens so i have no means of comparing them. But for sure the low-noise image really impressed me alot.

Your advice is highly appreciated.

mr peas · August 4, 2007

I'm sure Nikon will come out w/ better high iso handling sensors and software. I could have sworn the new D80 works great w/ iso1600. Try out the new bodies first before switching over. They only get better and not worse. Seriously look into other bodies before fully selling your gear and losing money. Borrow people's cameras, go to a store, bring your own card and perform your own tests. I'm sure you just got stuck with a body that wasn't meant for you.

ziggy53 · August 4, 2007

The Fujifilm S5 Pro is really a camera with a mixed personality.

It does have a rather incredible dynamic range, but only fully exploited in 12 MPix (interpolated) mode, and the RAW files are ginormous. The buffer fills quickly and write speeds to the card can be a real problem in a "candid" or photojournalist application, where the action can be fast and furious.

Now you can switch modes and gain better performance, but not that much better, and you no longer have the dynamic range.

I think it would make some sense to reserve the S5 Pro for studio work and "formal" wedding photography, where the pace is more predictable.

The D200 is a very competent camera on its own, and has both rapid and accurate focus, which is extremely important for wedding work. The 5 FPS and rapid buffer and write speeds make it very resonsive to use, and the control layout is very easy to get accustomed to.

A lot is said about the High-ISO grain of the D200, and it's true that the Canon 30D (for instance) is better, but the grain of the Nikon D200 is fairly "natural" looking, and largely correctable with noise reduction software.

I think you would appreciate the faster throughput of the D200 more than you would appreciate the larger dynamic range of the Fuji S5 Pro, IMHO.

Neither would be a totally bad choice.

The Canon 30D is very popular as a wedding shooter's camera, as was the 20D before it. Fast handling, with accurate focus and splendid 1600 ISO are among the reasons why it is so popular.

My preference is the Canon 1D MKII. Superb shooting speed and amazingly good ISO 1600, with great dynamic range, dual and redundant media storage and long battery life are some of the highlights. The MKIIN and MKIII just build on the original with even more refinements and enhancements.

I do agree that the Nikon D2X/D2Xs is also awfully nice for wedding work, but now your budget is really getting stretched. Sports Illustrated rates the Nikon D2X at ISO 1250 as similar to the Canon 1D MKII/MKIIN at ISO 1600, so pretty similar for high ISO work.

sirsloop · August 4, 2007

If I was a canon wedding photog I'd get a 5D. Skin tone out of the box is up there with the Fuji. I guess the intended use is really not known, but you did mention weddings in the original post.

jak2 · August 4, 2007

Necessary??? Of course not. You do not have all that much invested... your 18-200 would move on the used market pretty easy so this is a reasonable time to consider change. Ultimately though, you lose the least cash staying with Nikon. Long-run, both are fine systems (each has their strengths and neither has enough of an advantage in any sense to make a difference between whether you become a renouned photographer or not IMHO). Six months from now Nikon may have the best high ISO noise control bodies on the market... who really knows? Who really shoots much ISO 1600 anyway? The good news is that the competition between Canon and Nikon keeps both companies intensely involved in innovation. My advice would be to get whichever system you are most comfortable with and then just forget about the latest greatest camera spec front page news and just go out and shoot great images. Plenty of examples of great shots out there captured by Canon equipment... plenty of examples out there of great shots captured by Nikon equipment... focus 100% on the image at hand and leave the ever-changing specs race to the restless techie types.

rajul · August 5, 2007

Wow!!

Thank you guys for the overwhelming responses. Very helpful posters around here

From the feedback, it gives me direction towards sticking to what i have invested i.e nikon gear ... i felt relief now

but at the same time felt unsure

with the S5 suggestion. I will learn about it more in detail.

Btw, i am not only shooting on wedding but also enjoyed other themes as shown in my website. My side income-generating will be wedding photography ... at least so far.

I would appreciate if there is more opinions from you guys.

thegridrunner · August 5, 2007

Nikon's 70-200 f/2.8 VR lens has better resolutions and was rated a better overall lenses than the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM. Since this is a must have lense for the wedding photographer, lense selection for your shooting style should be a big factor in making your decision.

check out these lens reviews
www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_28is/index.htm
www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_70200_28vr/index.htm

also compare the ratings of the others lens you plan to buy.

Vizhon · August 5, 2007

S5Pro Reviews

rajul wrote:

Wow!!
From the feedback, it gives me direction towards sticking to what i have invested i.e nikon gear ... i felt relief now but at the same time felt unsure with the S5 suggestion. I will learn about it more in detail.

Let me help you out in the research with a few review links:

DPReview's : http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06092502fujifilms5pro.asp

CNet's : http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/fujifilm-finepix-s5-pro/4505-6501_7-32082363.html

PhotographyBlog's : http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_fujifilm_s5_pro.php

Trusted Reviews: http://www.trustedreviews.com/digital-cameras/review/2007/04/30/Fujifilm-S5-Pro/p1

and my favorite review and the one that sold the camera on me:

Think Camera's: http://www.thinkcamera.com/news/article/mps/UAN/450/v/1/sp/

Between those, you should get a good idea of the strong and the weak in those reviews and they are all pretty consistant on what they do and don't like, but vary on how much weight they put on the different aspects in forming their conclusions.

I would write my own review, but by the time I'm done, it would be an article and not a forum posting.

Awais Yaqub · August 5, 2007

I am not dslr guy but I want to share what I think
It is all how you define your necessity if you are losing contracts because of noise then I think you should bear this loss and go for canon equipment. On other hand if you are shooting for learning or for fun Nikon is not that bad ! may be they will come up with something that will blow all canons away ! as Nikon wants to stay in market.

Thanks and good luck for right decision

sirsloop · August 5, 2007

thegridrunner wrote:

Nikon's 70-200 f/2.8 VR lens has better resolutions and was rated a better overall lenses than the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM. Since this is a must have lense for the wedding photographer, lense selection for your shooting style should be a big factor in making your decision.

check out these lens reviews
www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_28is/index.htm
www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_70200_28vr/index.htm

also compare the ratings of the others lens you plan to buy.

Don't believe everyting you read. Well... maybe believe what you read cause they mentioned that the test results are not platform comparible. The resolution figures for the Nikon and Canon 70-200's are not on the same scale. Now it very well be the case that they are sharper, but photozone.de even says that you cannot compare the two. Besides, its likely that the 70-200 will out-resolve a 350d in ideal conditions...

" Note: The results are NOT cross-system comparable due to the differences between the image systems (low-pass filter + sensor + A/D + in-camera post-processing + RAW converter profile)."

Seefutlung · August 5, 2007

I used to be a press photog way back in the film only days ... from below zero of the Artic Circle to the humid Tropical Rain Forests to hot and dusty deserts I never had a Nikon fail during on assignment (the odd piece of shrapnel wedged in a shutter notwithstanding ... but that was my fault not the cameras.) Nikon was my best friend.

Today, as a hobby, I still shoot mostly with available light and higher ISO ... I shoot Canon because of the better Image Quality at higher ISOs. (I dumped my best friend.)

A friend of mine, a professional wedding photographer, recently tossed his D200 and Fuji S5, replaced them with the 5D Canon for the better IQ. It was painful as he also has to purchase new lenses.

Check his stuff at:
http://www.dukeimages.com/

Gary

rajul · August 6, 2007

Seefutlung wrote:

I used to be a press photog way back in the film only days ... from below zero of the Artic Circle to the humid Tropical Rain Forests to hot and dusty deserts I never had a Nikon fail during on assignment (the odd piece of shrapnel wedged in a shutter notwithstanding ... but that was my fault not the cameras.) Nikon was my best friend.

Today, as a hobby, I still shoot mostly with available light and higher ISO ... I shoot Canon because of the better Image Quality at higher ISOs. (I dumped my best friend.)

A friend of mine, a professional wedding photographer, recently tossed his D200 and Fuji S5, replaced them with the 5D Canon for the better IQ. It was painful as he also has to purchase new lenses.

Check his stuff at:
http://www.dukeimages.com/

Gary

aahhhh gary you made me thinking again!!!

scratch

claudermilk · August 6, 2007

jak2 wrote:

Six months from now Nikon may have the best high ISO noise control bodies on the market... who really knows?

Highly unlikely...though stranger things have happened.

Who really shoots much ISO 1600 anyway?

Umm....Me for one. A shooting buddy of mine whoi tends to shoot the same kinds of events--and shoots Canon, a few others around here. Just because you don't shoot at high-ISO frequently, don't make the false assumption others do the same. :nono The OP specifically mentioned high-ISO shooting, so the urge to switch is a valid one IMHO.

Oh, BTW, not only am I at 1600 frequently, but more often I'm at 3200 & pushing the envelope with the lens wide open.

I cannot argue with the rest of the post, though.

Basically what this discussion is all boiling down to is to take stock of your own shooting habits and see if Canon's offerings meet the needs better than what Nikon has to offer. If there is enough compelling improvement to switch to Canon, now is a good time as the investment in Nikon gear is still relatively low. Once several lenses, flashes, and other system-specific accessories are in the bag it become progressively more painful to make the switch.

I'll have to go find some samples of D2Xs and Fuji S5 images to see how they compare against Canon--looks like it might be time to start revising the simple "you want high ISO performance, look at Canon. Period." line. Could be part of why the Mk III offers clean ISO 6400. Competition is good.

Seefutlung · August 6, 2007

raju-

For me ... it is the image that counts ... and that is all that counts. If you plan to shoot at higher ISOs ... then Canon is a clear and easy choice. When comparing similar size sensors and under ISO 800 ... you won't be able to differentiate between a Nikon image and a Canon image (and this is probably true for a Sony, Pentax, et al.) Both Nikon and Canon are equally capable cameras and both are backed by a system of lenses and accessories which should satisified the needs of 90% of all professional photographers using dSLR's.

Nikon does have a much better flash interface/capabilities than Canon. Nikon seems to be more comfortable to hold ... but buying into a camera system because it feels good is poppycock ... you should buy a camera based upon what it can delivery not because it feels good. (Feeling good is way down my list of reasons to buy into a camera system.) The design of all/most dSLR's is so similar that one can easily adapt to/from camera to camera. Once one's eye hits the viewfinder one forgets all about how a camera feels ... the only feelings you have is in the shutter release finger and your eye. (I think that Nikon's are still a lot more sexy looking than the bulbous Canon's ... nothing like a red stripe and red accents on a trim body to say "bold" to the ladies ... but I digress.)

Remember that as of today Canon has that unique combo of firmware/hardware which results in the best IQ at high ISO ... doesn't mean that tomorrow Nikon won't leap ahead. But what I can tell Nikon seems to be concentrating on entry level cameras and lenses while Canon seems to be concentrating on pro equipment. Additionally, Canon isn't standing still, the MKIII seems to be making another big leap with its DIGIC III processor making ISO 3200 usable and ISO 6400 available when necessary. Meanwhile, we await the D300 ...

Once again, if you shoot mainly with ISO under 800 ... Nikon does a great job, but if you shoot regularly and rountinely at 800 or above ... then you just gotta go Canon. I am not a wedding photog ... but email Duke and ask him directly why he switched to Canon.

Gary

Harryb · August 6, 2007

The best response to the Canon v Nikon v any camera question that I've seen came from Ron Reznick when he wrote:

"there are folks producing superb work shooting both Canon and Nikon. What really makes all the difference when it comes to bird (or any other action, for that matter) is whether the ergonomic design and the thinking pattern that the camera body forces you to work within fits the way you think and work well enough to allow the camera to disappear, so to speak.

You have to be able to make systemic changes very quickly when shooting action, (e.g. EV, WB, aperture, mode, etc.) and many changes must be made while you are tracking the action, with your eye in the viewfinder. If you find that one system just feels 'right' to you and the other doesn't, that will decide the brand. Then, select the model that allows you to do what you want to do, within (or maybe just above) your budget, and allows you room to grow as your technical skills improve. The vast majority of people outgrow their camera body's capabilities before the body wears out, lose money selling it, and get into that vicious cycle we all know so well (same holds true for a lot of other things, BTW)."

Seefutlung · August 6, 2007

Harryb wrote:

The best response to the Canon v Nikon v any camera question that I've seen came from Ron Reznick when he wrote:

"there are folks producing superb work shooting both Canon and Nikon. What really makes all the difference when it comes to bird (or any other action, for that matter) is whether the ergonomic design and the thinking pattern that the camera body forces you to work within fits the way you think and work well enough to allow the camera to disappear, so to speak.

You have to be able to make systemic changes very quickly when shooting action, (e.g. EV, WB, aperture, mode, etc.) and many changes must be made while you are tracking the action, with your eye in the viewfinder. If you find that one system just feels 'right' to you and the other doesn't, that will decide the brand. Then, select the model that allows you to do what you want to do, within (or maybe just above) your budget, and allows you room to grow as your technical skills improve. The vast majority of people outgrow their camera body's capabilities before the body wears out, lose money selling it, and get into that vicious cycle we all know so well (same holds true for a lot of other things, BTW)."

Just another opinion ... I found that adaption worked well for me and the photo journalists that I used to work with.

Gary

thegridrunner · August 6, 2007

sirsloop wrote:

Don't believe everyting you read. Well... maybe believe what you read cause they mentioned that the test results are not platform comparible. The resolution figures for the Nikon and Canon 70-200's are not on the same scale. Now it very well be the case that they are sharper, but photozone.de even says that you cannot compare the two. Besides, its likely that the 70-200 will out-resolve a 350d in ideal conditions...

" Note: The results are NOT cross-system comparable due to the differences between the image systems (low-pass filter + sensor + A/D + in-camera post-processing + RAW converter profile)."

It is true what you say Sirloop but consider, the technician was saying that for the price, it didn't deliver exceptional results. So if you use this lense on a canon camera (really, what other camera can it fit on?), you are not going to get stellar performance for this high priced ($1650) "L" series lense. The camera or the image stablization doesn't make up for the optics.
Also, as for the results, it is true you can't believe everything but I'd have to see other conflicting lab reports to move me to distrust these results otherwise we'd have to go by unreliable ancedotal evidence.

sirsloop · August 6, 2007

I shoot 1000-2000 shots a weekend on my 70-200/2.8L (non-is). Its a fantastic lens, I'm 100% sold on it, and for $1100 bucks I wouldn't think twice about buying one again if something happened to this one. I'm not sure about the low ball test results the IS lenses get, but there is more to go wrong in a lens like that. I personally don't have a need for IS on it cause I intend to shooting sports with it. Really anything under 1/500th and I start getting subject blur... IS is pointless for me. It just chews up batteries. If you wanted this for a walk around... thats one hell of a heavy walk around!! The 70-200/4L (IS) is MUCH MUCH MUCH more user friendly even with a stop less aperture!!

I guess this goes back to the ol nikon vs canon debate. Its tough to converse about cause I obviously already did my research and chose Canon. Some other people did their research and chose Nikon. I'm happy with my bodies and lenses... I hope Nikon users are happy with their stuff too cause it keeps prices down

ziggy53 · August 6, 2007

thegridrunner wrote:

It is true what you say Sirloop but consider, the technician was saying that for the price, it didn't deliver exceptional results. So if you use this lense on a canon camera (really, what other camera can it fit on?), you are not going to get stellar performance for this high priced ($1650) "L" series lense. The camera or the image stablization doesn't make up for the optics.

While I normally think that photozone does an excellent job in testing and evaluating equipment, I think in this case that they either got a bad lens (it can happen) or they had a problem with testing (it can happen).

While the IS version of the Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8 is slightly less sharp than the non-IS version, it is very slight indeed. I have not found "any" other review of the IS version of that lens that found it less than stellar. I regard them as largely interchangeable, even though I have the non-IS version.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/70-200is.shtml
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://photo.net/equipment/canon/70-200
http://www.photodo.com/topic_15.html

I know a local photographer who shot a year of his son's sports with the IS version, and I was able to compare his (full resolution) images with mine, and I found no substantial difference between the two. I am talking many hundreds of images to compare.

At the time he was shooting with a 20D, and I had the 350D/XT. Last year (2006), I started shooting with the 1D MKII, but I still have his images to compare, and they still compare very well.

I also had a chance to see the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor ED-IF coupled with the Nikon D2H camera, and it too is splendid and comparable, from the very few high-res images I saw.

claudermilk · August 7, 2007

Since we're talking about the 70-200/2.8L's now, I'll pipe up again. I think (and it seems to be general consensus) that the photozone tests on the IS version are quite odd and he probably got a bad lens (or actually two). I have personally used about five separate copies of the 2.8L IS, and every one of them has been wonderful; nice and sharp even wide open (where I used thme 99% of the time). Due to budget constraints the 70-200/2.8L in my bag is the non-IS. If anything it's even more sharp (enough that I have taken notice and feel I must have gotten one of those primo happy accident ones). I've also used the 300/2.8L IS and seen the results of the 135/2L and the 70-200's don't give up much to those magic lenses. Like sirsloop, if I ad to purchase another EOS lens in this range, I'd jump on one of the 70-200 L's without a second thought.

Oh, and I have not seen that the IS makes any noticeable impact on my battery life with any of the lenses I've used.

Harry's quote is in general a good one. However, with the specifics on the origianl question (ISO 1600+ performance), this particular instance is a little different and IMHO Canon does indeed have a decided edge.

rajul · August 9, 2007

After considering the situation, i am facing this dilemma ...

if i consider buying nikon again, i would buy d80 (highly likely) or d200. The good thing is i have 2 bodies, lens collection, spare flash, using same SD memory cards, compatible remote, same battery and etc...

If I consider buying canon, may be i will go for 30d (or 40d if i'm willing to wait) and start over (new lenses, 2 new flashes, new CF cards and etc etc). I will sell my nikon set-up and buy another canon body ... still not decided which one.

I don't know who will buy my nikon and obviously i will lose $$ due to that. What i will do, i will calculate the price of selling my nikon set-up, inform my friends, and see how much they willing to buy after negotiating the price. If nobody interested i will have to maintain with nikon then.

Any idea how to price used items???

Hopefully my wife will approve whatever my decision will be

Is it necessary to convert to canon?

Comments