Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Swithcing to Nikon, advice on new gear and setup

R

Razeus

macrumors 603
Original poster
I'm so sick of my Canon 50D's banding issue at High ISO. Heck, sometimes I get it with ISO 400. It's ridculous and I'm fed up with it. And since Canon refuses to come out with the 60D and apparently wants me to get a more expensive 7D (the Rebel series is not an option as they are too small and toy like), I'm forced to start looking at Nikon.

My gear is in my sig. What do you recommend for going to Nikon. Frankly, all I need a body, 2 lenses (1 walk around, 1 telephoto zoom) and a good flash (I have Canon's 430 EXII).
 
Razeus said:
And since Canon refuses to come out with the 60D
Click to expand...

The x0D series of cameras are typically on an 18 month cycle. Occasionally they'll replace them 12 months, but looks like the 50D is 18 months. So chances are it might be replaced soon.

Lets hope in 12 months time you don't find something that annoys you on Nikon.
 
I'm a Nikon shooter.

This is silly. Why jump ship with ONE case in a million of low ISO Banding. I'm pretty sure your next Canon won't have that. I've used the Rebel Xsi here at work, and the ISO 1600 is nearly flawless when exposed properly.
 
leandroc76 said:
I'm a Nikon shooter.

This is silly. Why jump ship with ONE case in a million of low ISO Banding. I'm pretty sure your next Canon won't have that. I've used the Rebel Xsi here at work, and the ISO 1600 is nearly flawless when exposed properly.
Click to expand...

It's not 1 in a million. The problem is well known in Canon circles.
 
seedster2 said:
D300s or D90 18-200mm VRII and 70-200mm 2.8 VRI
Click to expand...

Great options.... though I have reason to beleive that 18-105 is better optical option (optically) than the 18-200.... I haven't used the latter, but heard bad things about its performance at the ends. 18-105 seems to be a marginally better walk-around.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

OP, if you decide to go with Nikon, this would be a solid starting point. Good Luck!!
 
Doylem said:
You've got to do what a camera manufacturer tells you?



Oh, I see, they've got your arm twisted up your back...
Click to expand...



Very helpful advice!!! Bravo!!!

If you can't help someone, no reason to mock him/her. And I've heard better wit from 10 year-olds 🙂
 
Doylem said:
You've got to do what a camera manufacturer tells you?



Oh, I see, they've got your arm twisted up your back...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are saying. I have an issue with the current model. They don't offer a better option at the price level I need to be at. No they are not twisting my arm, but let's analyze: if I need something at $1200 dollars that they don't have, aren't I forced to get their $1800 model or go to their competition. Do you understand logic?
 
What is the Nikon equal to Canon's L lenses. I really like the constant F-stop of Canon's L glass.
 
if you have the money to switch to Nikon, you likely have the money to get a 7D.

Razeus said:
It's not 1 in a million. The problem is well known in Canon circles.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any complaints about it in a year.

witness said:
The new 550D seems like a pretty tempting option to me. There's nothing wrong with small, that's the way of technological progress.
Click to expand...

the 550D is not "technological progress." it's still a consumer-level camera. it has a cheaper construction, inferior viewfinder, inferior AF layout, inferior AF algorithm, and lacks a multicontoller, quick control dial, and upper LCD, among other things.

Razeus said:
What is the Nikon equal to Canon's L lenses. I really like the constant F-stop of Canon's L glass.
Click to expand...

you could always just look at Nikon's lens list.

Nikon doesn't conveniently label their pro lenses, though some have things like "ED" tacked onto the name.
 
Razeus said:
What is the Nikon equal to Canon's L lenses. I really like the constant F-stop of Canon's L glass.
Click to expand...
Newer Nikon pro glass has a gold ring, although many older pro lenses don't. Nikon didn't market pro lenses the way Canon did. Most of the time, you'd know when you get a Nikon pro lens. Usually the price tag is a very good indicator as to whether it's a pro lens or not 😉

I'd suggest you get
(1) a 17-55 mm f/2.8 Nikkor,
(2) a 50-135/150 mm f/2.8 by either Tokina or Sigma and
(3) an SB-600.

If you insist on having getting a Nikon tele zoom, have a look at the 80-200 mm f/2.8 for ~$900: it's fast, the optics is excellent and its built quality is superb (it's a gold ring lens).

If you want more of a walk-around lens, have a look at Nikon's 16-85 mm lens. It's not a pro lens, but it's sturdily made and has very, very good optics.

Regarding the flash, the SB-600 is very capable. You can use it off-camera without having to buy any extra things, your camera (assuming you get a D90 or better) can act as a master. The built-in flash then acts as a smart trigger. I say smart, because you can group several flashes, set exposure details manually for each group, etc.
 
You're gonna loose a lot of money switching to Nikon. I don't think Nikon has any constant f/4 aperture pro-level zoom lenses so you'll have to go for their f/2.8 ones ...
How about a used 7D?
Maybe it's time to switch to Pentax 😉
 
Razeus said:
I'm not sure what you are saying. I have an issue with the current model. They don't offer a better option at the price level I need to be at. No they are not twisting my arm, but let's analyze: if I need something at $1200 dollars that they don't have, aren't I forced to get their $1800 model or go to their competition. Do you understand logic?
Click to expand...

But that doesn't include the significant cost of buying new Nikon lenses. If you don't like the camera body you have, you'd be better off going with another Canon that meets your needs. By the time you replace the Canon with a Nikon and get new lenses, you're talking a lot more money than just buying a better Canon body.

Seems kind of silly to me. But hey, it's your cash so do what you like.
 
toxic said:
the 550D is not "technological progress." it's still a consumer-level camera. it has a cheaper construction, inferior viewfinder, inferior AF layout, inferior AF algorithm, and lacks a multicontoller, quick control dial, and upper LCD, among other things.
Click to expand...
I agree.
My hands don't like small either. And my eyes very much appreciate decently-sized viewfinders. If I were a Canon guy, that would disqualify all xxx models right away.
toxic said:
Nikon doesn't conveniently label their pro lenses, though some have things like "ED" tacked onto the name.
Click to expand...
ED stands for extra-low dispersion and lots of non-pro lenses have ED glass.

However, I agree that it's harder to spot Nikon pro glass.
 
The others seem to be right that, in money terms, you're better off staying with canon, not having to sell/buy lenses and just getting the 7D. If you insist for emotional reasons in switching then the D300s and D700 are grand.

It's worth noting that nikon cameras have had 'banding issues' too.
 
Razeus, were you satisfied not going wider than 24mm on your existing 1.6x crop camera (just looking at lenses listed in your sig)? That's not very wide for a lot of stuff.

Your choice of walk-around lens will of course need to balance convenience with quality. The 18-200 is very convenient, and while for what it is the optical quality is very good - it's not going to match your Canon 24-105 L glass so I think you'd be disappointed. Either the newer 16-85 or older 18-70 would probably be better choices. Combining either one of these with the 70-300 VR would work pretty well and give you good quality.

If you don't use features like mirror lockup, the D300 may be overkill (and heavier than necessary). But since you seem to be very picky about perceived build quality, though, you should probably go into a camera store and handle all the bodies you're considering. But it's hard to recommend a specific one without knowing more about how you shoot.

Nikon's got some very nice flashes, and a number of their cameras offer you the ability to control remote flashes wirelessly from the camera ("commander" mode). People who are really serious about flash will have whole off dedicated systems of course, but being able to control several remote flashes with just the flashes themselves plus the camera may appeal to you. That'd be an argument for a camera like the D300.

Normally I'd argue against switching between systems, but you seem pretty fed up so I figured I'd try to give you a useful answer. 😀 But be aware that just as Canon is not perfect, neither is Nikon (nor any other company). I'm not aware of any current issues with Nikon cameras along the lines of what is happening to your 50D, but things like that have happened in the past. So in making your switch, if a new camera comes out in the meantime - AVOID it. Stick with one of the existing models that has a track record.

Also note that Nikon cameras tend to have stronger anti-alias filters in front of the sensor than Canon's, which has advantages and disadvantages. For example, straight out-of-camera shots on a Nikon sometimes need slightly stronger sharpening than you might be used to. If you're the sort of person who just shoots jpeg and doesn't do post-processing, based on discussions I've heard before you're probably going to notice this at some point or another.
 
I would think based on what you are saying the D300s is the camera you are wanting. The D90 is going to feel a bit like the Rebel series I would think, maybe a bit more robust but still small and plastic in comparison. The D300's' over the D300 for the high ISO, though i've found the D300 to be more than fine up to 1600.

As far as lenses.
Thom Hogan's Site Has some of the best and Nikon reviews around.

I would think looking at your current set-up you could pick up either the Nikon or Sigma 50 f/1.8 or go with the f/1.4.
80-200mm AF-D f/2.8 one of the best pieces of older glass in the nikon line up. You could spend the extra cash on the 70-200mm VR AFS for even faster focusing, but without knowing what you are shooting it is size, weight and money wasted when the 80-200mm is as good as it is. (hope that last part didn't sound too Ken Rockwellish).
24-85 AFS G is very well liked by Thom. Basically the epitome of a walk around lens. I don't have any personal experience with it, I have a 24-85 f/2-4 and like it quite a bit as a walk around thought it has had mediocre reviews.

I'm not sure if Cannon has a 'G' equivilant, but I actaully have to agree with what Ken Rockwell says about them, but everyone has their own opinions.
 
H2Ockey said:
I'm not sure if Cannon has a 'G' equivilant, but I actaully have to agree with what Ken Rockwell says about them, but everyone has their own opinions.
Click to expand...

All Canon lenses are 'G' equivalent. The 'G' designation on Nikon lenses means they have no aperture ring. No Canon EOS lenses have aperture rings.

Nikon doesn't have a well defined Pro line of glass. But everything outside their very entry level stuff is L or near L quality. Some of it even better than the L equivalent. For example, the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 is much better than the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L.


SLC
 
Pak^Man said:
Great options.... though I have reason to beleive that 18-105 is better optical option (optically) than the 18-200.... I haven't used the latter, but heard bad things about its performance at the ends. 18-105 seems to be a marginally better walk-around.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

OP, if you decide to go with Nikon, this would be a solid starting point. Good Luck!!
Click to expand...

I dont have experience with either of them.

I have only purchased 2.8 glass or faster, but have always heard how convenient and surprisingly acceptable the 18-200 produced.

I was trying to match his zoom range and budget. It may be cheaper for him to just go with a 7D though
 
It's one generation older, but if you get a used 40D? It would "cheaply" tide you over until a 60D came out, at which point you could verify that it is problem free and upgrade.

I agree that switching systems due to a faulty camera body (design) is a bit impetuous, especially if you have a reasonable investment in the system. I also agree with others that while you may be able to sell your L lenses at a good price, you are going to lose money on it- and it may be more expensive to change to Nikon than just buying the 7D.

Don't forget that (in general) Nikon's high end lenses are more expensive than Canon, so that puts you even further behind. You will have to settle for either less gear or spending more money, which goes back around to the 7D thing.

If you're really set on Nikon though, you will probably find the D90 to be an acceptable alternative. IMO the D90 competes very closely to the xxD series of Canons in terms of features and build. I'd say the D90 is just a little below the xxD level, whereas the D300s is above it (more on the 7D level). Not to mention the cost of the D300s is closer to the 7D- bringing your budget back into the equation.

Speaking of which, if this is a known problem can you send your camera to Canon to have it repaired? Is it a warranty issue, or a design flaw that they will not fix (like Nikon and the matrix metering on the D80).

Ruahrc
 
I shoot with a D300, and a D50 before that--never had any "sharpness" issues at all.

BTW to the OP: yes, you'll probably lose money making the switch, but you can be smart about it and not lose as much by choosing the right stuff. I'd recommend a gently used D300 body, which should save you a few hundred off a D300s. Or you could get a factory refurbished D300s. Either one of them would be a very solid choice with. If you consider used market, look at a Tokina 12-24 f/4 ($325 mint); Nikkor 17-55f/2.8 ($850-950 mint); Nikkor 80-200f/2.8 ($700-800 exc.-mint.) Every one is sharp, solid pro-built, and fast constant aperture.
 
I'd also reccommend going all used, with a D300, 17-55 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8 and perhaps a 50 mm f/1.4 (Sigma or Nikkor) thrown in.

You will almost certainly lose money, Nikon is a higher value product these days meaning you spend more both new and used but also retain more value over the long haul. The lens lineup I've pointed out is all pro quality gear, the D300 is almost like a DX version of the D700, and the lenses are top quality Nikkors.

There are advantages to going Nikon over Canon, so spending a little money while hopefully remedying your current problem isn't all a waste. Nikon for example, has a much better flash system, and in general sells better bodies for the price. You'll spend nearly the same amount on EOS 50D as D300, but D300 is miles above the 50D.

SLC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back