Switch from Nikon to Canon

[Alok]

I never thought I would say this, but I am seriously considering switching from Nikon to Canon. Thoughts?

[the Interceptor]

Originally Posted by Alok

Thoughts?

Yes!

1. don't!
2. why?

[Cobol74]

Why? Nikon playing you up or something? The next upgrade step from Nikon too expensive and the Canon offering better price, perhaps? I understand that the Canon software and user interface is supposed to be better too.

/EDIT Damn, Interceptor beat me to it!

[Solberg]

What advantages would switching to Canon be over your Nikon gear?

[Mr_T]

I don't really see the difference to be honest. It won't make your photography any better or worse. Both Nikon and Canon are the leaders in this game by far and they both make fantastic cameras. It's just personal choice. To be honest I think most people choose one over the other because they like the feel of one or the other better. I personally keep with Nikon because that's all I have used and I'm perfectly happy with what I get out of it. I also think the layout of the Nikon cameras make a little more sense (A: aperture priority S: shutter speed priority P: your are a penis M: manual). I wouldn't change for the sake of changing though, it's expensive.

[mautzel]

Originally Posted by Alok

I never thought I would say this, but I am seriously considering switching from Nikon to Canon. Thoughts?

Do what you have to do.

[MXM]

Originally Posted by Alok

I never thought I would say this, but I am seriously considering switching from Nikon to Canon. Thoughts?

Thoughts? No. Questions? YES!

[Alok]

I used a 1Ds Mk III today in a very vulnerable moment, and I am starting to believe that the canon's optics are better than Nikon's, I am talking about the lenses here. I got the chance to see the differences between a 1,4 50mm canon and a nikkor lens on my d300 and the 1ds, and the canon pic was supersharp, whereas mine was rather soft when it came to the details.

I might be wrong. Canon users?

[BerserkerCatSplat]

The 1Ds MkIII is a 22MP powerhouse that costs $8,000, using one of Canon's sharpest lenses. Did you seriously expect your 12MP, $1700 D200 to have the same resolving power? Also, what lens were you using?

Bottom line, unless you're getting paid to make the switch, don't bother. You'll be taking a huge hit, not to mention you're looking at at least $10,000 for the most basic of hardware with that body.

[Alok]

Originally Posted by BerserkerCatSplat

The 1Ds MkIII is a 22MP powerhouse that costs $8,000, using one of Canon's sharpest lenses. Did you seriously expect your 12MP, $1700 D200 to have the same resolving power? Also, what lens were you using?

Bottom line, unless you're getting paid to make the switch, don't bother. You'll be taking a huge hit, not to mention you're looking at at least $10,000 for the most basic of hardware with that body.

Hmm, now that I come to my senses, it could be the extra pixel count. But still, I would dearly love the person who could give me some solid facts about how Canon lenses fair with respect to Nikon ones in terms of sharpness. I mean does Nikon have an equivalent of the L range of lenses that I am unaware of.

And just in case this question might come up again, the switch wont cost me anything as usual (hopefully if all goes as planned). I am not really concerned about the differences in the body, but purely about the optics.

EDIT: we were both using 50mm 1.4 versions of either brands

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Well, you can't just say Brand X has sharper lenses than Brand Y. Some Nikons are better, some Canons are better. The difference is usually pretty negligible, but the 22MP count on that FF sensor pays dividends.

If you want pure sharpness, you should be shooting MFD with a Phase One back.

[LeVeL]

Canon lenses are generally said to be better.
When you say the switch wont cost you anything, are you taking about switching to the 1D? If so then definately go for it... also tell me how you're getting it lol

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally Posted by LeVeL

Canon lenses are generally said to be better.

Only by somebody getting paid commission or brand whores. Find me a Canon wide as sharp as the Nikon 14-24. Remember the sharpness issues with the Canon 70-200 f/2.8?

The bottom line is that both companies have huge R&D divisions that make fantastic lenses. There is no global "better", there is no global "worse." That extends past Canikon to the other manufacturers as well - Sony has the 135mm STF lens that is just incredible. Pentax makes insanely sharp primes. Olympus has f/2 long zooms. Hell, IMO the best lenses in the world are the Zeiss ZM lenses for the Ikon rangefinders.

As with anything camera, it's all preference, and each manufacturer gets leapfrogged on a regular basis.

[Raparperi]

The thing is, lenses are all individual, and even though Nikon and Canon might have better quality control than, say, Sigma, there are still better samples and not so good samples out there. My friend has several Canon bodies (film and digital) and he has complained many times that his 50/1.4 USM is focusing wrong or giving soft results. Apparently the USM motor in the lens isn't one of canon's finest examples, so it has it's problems.

On the other hand, I've had a Nikon 50/1.8 and I currently own a 50/1.4 and to be honest, the 50/1.8 was the sharper of the two. Might be that my 50/1.4 is in need of some maintenance / tightening the screws etc. but at the moment, it's a bit soft wide open. And I've heard from the current owner that the D1X I had earlier has a little tendency to backfocus, so even the camera bodies aren't bomb proof.

So my 2 cents are: if you think you're not getting the results you should from your equipment, get them checked / calibrated or at least compare with different lenses / bodies. I have a friend who bought a D3 and a 70-200/2.8 VR and they both needed some adjustment with the AF, after the job was done (under warranty) they've been working like a dream and the results are stunning.

[Alok]

You guys, what would I do without you....

Thanks a lot for all your contributions. I think I will stick with Nikon for now. It just sort of bothers me trying to find the real reason why every pro I know of uses a Canon.

[Cobol74]

ALOK - Do not be a Sheep!
If it is working then do not break it - stuff I have seen at least makes me so jealous of you natural ability and capability to deliver. This is why I posted my first post in this thread.

If you are serious about upgrading then may be you can look again at your options otherwise realise that you have a fine set up that works well for now.

[jayhawk]

Originally Posted by Alok

It just sort of bothers me trying to find the real reason why every pro I know of uses a Canon.

The same reason why everyone uses Nikon here. The reason I use Nikon and bought a DSLR is because of BCS; subconsciously, I must have thought I could get the same results by using the same camera.
I must say though, I tried a Canon comparable to my D50 and it just felt...weird in my hands. Foreign.

But, if you switch to Canon, I'll still love you.

Kinda.

[NooDle]

Originally Posted by Alok

You guys, what would I do without you....

Thanks a lot for all your contributions. I think I will stick with Nikon for now. It just sort of bothers me trying to find the real reason why every pro I know of uses a Canon.

Because among pro's, they're the best you can get.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally Posted by Raparperi

On the other hand, I've had a Nikon 50/1.8 and I currently own a 50/1.4 and to be honest, the 50/1.8 was the sharper of the two.

Actually, that's a known weakness of the 1.4. Both the 1.8 and 1.4 were based on the Series E optical formula fro some reason, and thus the 1.4 lost its performance advantage.

Originally Posted by Alok

You guys, what would I do without you....

Thanks a lot for all your contributions. I think I will stick with Nikon for now. It just sort of bothers me trying to find the real reason why every pro I know of uses a Canon.

The reason a lot of pros shoot Canon is twofold - first, Nikon was slow off the starting block with updating their pro bodies. Canon opened up a big gap in the pro market and the majority of working pros went with the better Canon bodies. Secondly, a lot of pros wanted "full-frame" bodies and the 1Ds was the only game in town. Now, with the D3 and D300, we're seeing the pro market (especially the lucrative sports market) evening out again. Canon's known autofocus problems with the 1DMkIII (and to a lesser extent, the 1DsIII) hurt them badly in the the sports market, and Nikon was there at just the right time with the D3. Many sports guys switched to the D3 with Nikon's new VR superteles rather than go back to the older 1DMkIIN, which still AF's better than the 1DIII. The ISO performance of the D3 and D300 have also pulled over many wedding shooters who often have to shoot in dimly lit reception halls and churches.

So, what happened? The playing field leveled, basically. Pros now have more excellent bodies to choose from and don't hesitate to switch brands if they feel it gets the job done better. Canon's market dominance in the early 2000's started from the pro bodies and worked downwards - Nikon's retaking of majority market share came from the bottom up. Either way, we've entered a new era of increased manufacturer competition, leading to one unassailable truth - we're getting some amazing cameras for incredibly cheap prices, and we have more selection than ever before.

Originally Posted by NooDle

Because among pro's, they're the best you can get.

Sorry, I'd take an H3D/Phase One over any Canon ever made - or any Nikon, for that matter. 35mm format and 35mm optical formulas will only get you so far. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you're not a pro of any kind.