From Canon to Nikon

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by VI™, Dec 8, 2014.

  1. VI™ macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Location:
    Shepherdsturd, WV
    #1
    Well I did it, I switched. As of today everything but three of my Canon lenses are sold. I sold my body, other lenses, and my flashes. They went pretty quick and I got what I wanted from them. So what did I sell? A 5D MKII, an 85 f/1.8, 17-40 f/4L, 24-70 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 580 EXII, and 2 430 EX II flashes. I now have a Nikon D750, 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 VR II. I’ll be picking up the 16-35 f/4, a Nikon speedlight, and at least two Yong Nuo speedlights for off camera work.

    I purchased my 5D MKII within a month of it being for sale and have had it since then which is maybe about four years if my calculations are correct. When I first purchased it I had just gotten in to photography as a business and most of my business and personal shoots were just portrait type photos. The 5D MKII paired with the lenses listed above was awesome. There wasn’t much out at the time that could compete with a 21MP FF sensor that had that good of ISO performance, but as all things do it aged. The 5D MKIII was eventually released with improved AF, improved features, and an improved price; it was $600 more than the MKII was when it was released. Although many people loved their MKII’s, they still criticized Canon for using a slow and often inaccurate focusing system with one cross type AF point that often limited photographers to focusing and recomposing then fine tuning manual focus to achieve the results they were looking for. It was pretty much the modus operandi of 5D MKII shooters.

    Eventually I got in to shooting a wedding here or there, maybe one or two a year. That has been steadily picking up and with shooting events and weddings, the focus and recompose isn’t working. At one point I had looked at Nikon, but I do shoot video as well and the D700 didn’t have the video capabilities that I needed. But after my last wedding and having photos that went to the trash because of missed focus (and this wasn’t the first time), I started looking again. Nikon has recently released the D750 and after seeing some amazing examples of the DR that the camera has along with the AF system and the bells and whistles, I did one of the scariest things in a long time, I put up all my Canon equipment for sale and purchased a D750 with a limited set of gear. All this in the middle of having photography obligations. Also, the $1,000 price difference between the 2 year old 5D MKII and brand new D750 was a pretty good incentive.

    I’ve been shooting with the D750 over the past week and I’m loving it so far. The noise (when there is any) is just beautiful and looks like film grain. It’s a far cry from the banding and chroma noise that shows when you’re trying to recover shadows with the 5D MKIII. So far I’ve shot one paid job and a birthday party for a friend’s kids and have a baptism, promotional video, and nightclub owner’s birthday coming up that I’m shooting and I’m really looking forward to it.

    Yesterday I was in Harpers Ferry, WV and one of the shots I got was to test out this amazing DR I kept hearing so much about. I exposed for the sky which gave me this photo:
    [​IMG]

    After loading it in to Lightroom I boosted the shadows slider all the way and bumped the shadows curve a little more then adjust the contrast to get this image below. After finally getting the ACR 8.7 plug-in installed, I did import it in the Photoshop and boosted it way up there. The noise that was apparent wasn’t bad at all and you could make out details like the decorative wood pieces on the doorway to the front of the church. You probably can’t see it there, but maybe you can if you squint.
    [​IMG]

    The 6.5 FPS is nice too. The 5D MKII had 4 FPS, IIRC, which is no slouch, but now I have to get used to being quicker with the shutter button so I don’t take two photos when I mean to only take one. There was a firing demonstration yesterday as well and I caught this one:
    [​IMG]
     
  2. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #2
    Thank you for sharing and welcome to the dark side. :cool:
     
  3. juanm, Dec 8, 2014
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2014

    juanm macrumors 65816

    juanm

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Location:
    Fury 161
    #3
    Good to see some people attending to reason and not following blindly a brand just because.

    Me, I started with Nikon almost fifteen years ago with a Nikon F80. I've jumped brands several times, but I've always kept my Nikon glass, which thanks to its flange distance and mechanical iris can be adapted to pretty much any body. I've used Canon extensively for video, and now I have a Blackmagic camera and a Panasonic GH4, but I still use Nikon lenses I bought 10+ years ago. I also have a tiny EOST3i for family pictures. To add insult to injury I might even add a Sony camera later on.

    My personal choice:
    Nikon bodies for stills. All the way. The ergonomy is just better than Canon's.
    Panasonic for a do everything little camera (the GH4, of course)
    Sony for dedicated video cameras. Canon C300 are just way too expensive for what they are, and Canon decided to cripple their 5D cameras to try to get us into buying their cinema cameras.
    Blackmagic for features and image quality, but they lack in ergonomy. Their future models will hopefully correct that issue.

    If Nikon made some hypothetical N300/N500 series like Canon did with their C300 with the ergonomy I like so much, I might be tempted to buy one.
     
  4. VI™ thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Location:
    Shepherdsturd, WV
    #4
    I’ve never been one to be a brand whore. I mean, I own a Mac, but I also own several windows computers. I use what works. Especially when it concerns whether or not my clients will get the photos they expect.

    That being said, sometimes it’s hard to justify switching to another brand regardless of the benefits because of the cost. Fortunately, it worked out in my favor this time. There are some things I like about the Canon bodies better like the AF select joystick and the scroll wheel on the back, but it’s something I’ll just have to get used to. Not to mention, D810 refurbs are going for about $2,600. :D
     
  5. Cheese&Apple macrumors 68000

    Cheese&Apple

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    Location:
    Toronto
    #5
    Just a suggestion...think about the new Nikon 20mm f/1.8. It's less expensive than the 16-35 f/4 but outperforms it in terms of optical quality - if you can live without a bit of zoom and the VR.

    I tried the 16-35 but the distortion was pretty crazy in the 16 to 24mm range. I now have the 20mm and it's outstanding - very little distortion and super sharp even wide open. It's a gem.

    ~ Peter
     
  6. Apple fanboy macrumors Core

    Apple fanboy

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Location:
    Behind the Lens, UK
    #6
    Personally I'd go with the 14-24 f 2.8 if you can afford it. One of my favourite lenses.
     
  7. mofunk macrumors 68000

    mofunk

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Location:
    Americas
    #7
    WOW congrats. I've seen people switch from Canon to Nikon to Canon etc. The main thing I like is that you are photographer no matter what you use because you still need to know how to operate the camera and frame the shot.


    Congrats and happy shooting.
     
  8. VI™ thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Location:
    Shepherdsturd, WV
    #8
    Too late. I bought a used 16-35 yesterday. The Canon 17-40 got a lot of use on my 5D MKII. I was going to hold off, but a friend of mine that owns a local bar has had me shoot his party the day after Christmas every year and called me up again to do it this year. It's pretty tight in some places and I've always done a group shot.

    The nice thing is, the 17-40 was decently fixable in post when I needed to and I used the distortion in doing certain photos and portraits. The birthday party will help pay for the lens too, so it's not a bad trade off.

    One day when I have more money. This switch was kind of done on a budget.
     
  9. Apple fanboy macrumors Core

    Apple fanboy

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Location:
    Behind the Lens, UK
    #9
    Lol. Not that much of a budget!
     
  10. VI™ thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Location:
    Shepherdsturd, WV
    #10
    It really was. What I did spend out of pocket I'm recouping mostly from the Canon gear I've sold and the Christmas portraits, prints, and other jobs I've done this month, I haven't spent much out of pocket. The only lens I bought new was the 70-200 and only because it was $400 and almost the price of most used 70-200's. I only have the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS, Canon 85 f/1.8, and Nikon 24-120 left.
     
  11. upbraid macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    #11
    i love nikon but i've heard their customer support is abysmal, bodies/lenses that takes months to get fixed and sometime come back in worse conditions, hopefully nikon gets their act together
     
  12. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #12
    :eek: how did you get a Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VRII for $400?
     
  13. VI™ thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Location:
    Shepherdsturd, WV
    #13
    Oops. $400 off. I wish it was $400. :D
     
  14. nburwell macrumors 68040

    nburwell

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Location:
    PHL
    #14
    Welcome to the darkside indeed. I made the switch to Nikon as well about 8-9 months ago and have not looked back. Not the the 5DII was a slouch (since I provided me some great images). But the DR of the D750 just blows anything Canon has out of the water. I was amazed how much shadows I could recover in my D800E files without any noise. I certainly could not do that with my 5DII or 5DIII.

    Enjoy the camera!
     
  15. MiniD3 macrumors 6502a

    MiniD3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Location:
    Australia
    #15
    16-35........great choice!

    I have the 14-24 and love it but the 16-35 is more flexible, and very sharp
    In any case, distortion is fixable now days,
    And the 16-35 is a whole lot lighter and takes filters easy,
    You can get a filter holder for the 14-24 but no big stopper is made for it
    I know of one pro who uses both

    Everybody banged on about the 24-120 f4 as well but a lot depends how you
    use it, also a very sharp lens and Lightroom fixes in one click
    ........Gary
     
  16. nburwell macrumors 68040

    nburwell

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Location:
    PHL
    #16
    I own all three lenses. The 24-120mm gets flack from a lot of people. Although it's probably my least used lens, when I do actually use it, it doesn't let me down.

    The 14-24, well I think it speaks for itself. It's probably my favorite lens (especially for astrophotography work).

    I bought the 16-35 since it accepts filers (even though the 14-24 does as well). It's my workhorse landscape lens that is glued to my D800E the majority of the time. Any distortion can be easily corrected in PS or LR.
     
  17. codymac macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    #17
    No issue with a recent body repair here - in fact, it was a surprisingly good experience.
     

Share This Page