Considering full price of Nikon setup vs moving to Canon

DJW

Messages
2,040
Edit My Images
Yes
Firstly I believe there is nothing between Nikon & canon in terms of quality (at my level anyway)....so no bashing please ;)

I started with Canon 300D & kit lens. Wasn't happy with kit lens so looked at better lenses. Realised it was cheaper to sell Canon & buy s/h Nikon D70 & better quality kit lens (18-70). Have since added 50mm f/1.8 to collection.

Now I've started to look at the bigger picture to include some higher class glass at wide angle zoom & longer zoom. Am I wrong in believing Canon L glass is cheaper than Nikon for same quality ? In addition I've come to believe there is more s/h Canon lenses out there , so better chance of decent prices again ?

If true I would consider reverting to Canon...probably 20D at special Currys deal/price of £620 ;)

Would be interested in peoples views ( especially if they have moved from Nikon to Canon....eg "Matt" )

For info, I'm not worried about f/2.8 glass, due to weight/cost plus with digital the higher ISO can compensate for me.

The 2 wide angles I was comparing were :-

Nikon 12-24mm F4G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor lens £729 (Microglobe)

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens - £444 (onestop)

I would look at 50mm f/1.8 again (no price difference between the 2 mfctrs)

Then looking at 70-200 range at Canon L glass level , or possibly even 100-400 .
 
The reason I changed was mainly down to having the Fuji S2,
which was a bit sloppy when it came to focusing.
I invested in the Nikon 70-200 VR, 24-120 VR lenses to help
improve the focusing speed. This didn't help.

The camera was just too slow at focusing, and I had to make
the decision to change.

Now I had a choice between Nikon (which at the time was very
expensive) and Canon (more on offer at lower prices).
Nikon didn't have a camera available that was within my budget
or that was suitable for my needs, so Canon was the root to go.
Fortunately When I sold my kit I managed to get the cash to replace
it with basically identical kit, except for pixel count, and managed
to get a longer zoom.

You have more choice now, than when I made the change.
Niceone, Tampon, and Stigma have some quality glass that can
be had for respectable prices. :shock::exit::laugh2:

I would recommend the 70-200 VR lens for quality glass, it’s a corker.
The Sigma 12-24 is supposed to be better than the Nikon version,
but I’ve not tried either so you’d have to make your own decision
on that one.

If I was making the change now, I would have stayed with Nikon,
changing the body to a D2X, and added a couple of lenses one
being the Stigma 800.
 
First off, I'd never knock Nikon, I've owned a few of them. :)

When I got rid of all my Nikon film gear I paused and looked around as I could obviously start again with any marque I chose.

In the end I chose Canon, probably because I fancied a change as much as anything else, but my choice was largely influenced too by the then new 20D being streets ahead in the specification stakes (although I avoided the kit lens) and Canon glass being mostly less expensive than the Nikon equivalent and Canon offering three sensor formats rather than Nikon's one.

The Nikon 200D looks set to dominate the market segment, at least until Canon's next model probably around next summer, but you're always going to get this see-saw effect between two competing giants.

The thing you should perhaps consider as most relevant in the long term, is sensor size and how important it is, or may become to you. Canon with the 5D have made the 1:1 sensor much more affordable and it seems to show their intention to bring the format into the mainstream in the near future. Nikon on the other hand have no intention of going that route and are sticking to their 1.5X format. Canon manufacture their own sensors whilst Nikon do not, so they have an obvious advantage there and can bring prices down, whilst Nikon have to buy elsewhere. To be fair Nikon don't see any advantage in the 1:1 format and are effectivley saying that it only exists because we think of digital in 35mm terms.

Hope that helps mate, but give it a lot of thought whatever you decide - once you're really committed it becomes very expensive to swop.
 
Cheers Guys. I must admit CT I would love a full sensor, especially after seeing example below :-
Sensorcrop.jpg


....but the price of a 5D :shock: Now if I could get a S/H one for nearer half price I would be there :D ....but from looking there is nowt out there.

I've always been an advocate of buying S/H where possible to minimise depreciation if sold on again. Would others agree there seems to be more S/H decent Canon gear for sell at reasonable prices vs Nikon in UK ?

Will have a hard think on this :ponders: :dizzy: :suspect1: :beer: :beer:
 
I've always been an advocate of buying S/H where possible to minimise depreciation if sold on again. Would others agree there seems to be more S/H decent Canon gear for sell at reasonable prices vs Nikon in UK ?


i agree,
however, have you thought why there is more Canon kit than Nikon ?

maybe because its better and peeps want to keep hold of it, or its just so expensive to start with that peeps cant afford to part with it , lol

just my thought, and at that level of quality, its like saying a Merc is better than a Beemer ( or maybe they are , lol )

MyPix;)
 
MyPix said:
i agree,
however, have you thought why there is more Canon kit than Nikon ?

maybe because its better and peeps want to keep hold of it, or its just so expensive to start with that peeps cant afford to part with it , lol

just my thought, and at that level of quality, its like saying a Merc is better than a Beemer ( or maybe they are , lol )

MyPix;)

Actually Merc build quality isnt that hot ! lol ;) Maybe Audi and BMW would be a better comparison nowadays ! lol :getmecoat
 
IanC_UK said:
Actually Merc build quality isnt that hot ! lol ;) Maybe Audi and BMW would be a better comparison nowadays ! lol :getmecoat


exactly , its like comparing apples n oranges,,,,,

pay ur money and take ur choice, every single person will give a different view on almost anything you can buy, and that deffo goes for camera's

dont buy a camera cuz its fasionable or the latest one out, buy what will meet your needs...........

MyPix:ponders:
 
MyPix said:
exactly , its like comparing apples n oranges,,,,,

pay ur money and take ur choice, every single person will give a different view on almost anything you can buy, and that deffo goes for camera's

MyPix:ponders:

Very much so

On another note, is good to see you back MyPix :)
 
thanx,

its good to be back, and am a little bored of getting cold trying to get the Jag restored on these cold nights,

i have lots of pix of her tho, lol

MyPix
 
There does seem to be a lot more Canon stuff out there than Nikon, which can be a pain in the arris, to be honest. But just how often are you planning to buy heaps of new lenses? Also, don't forget that some Sigma and Tamron lenses can be pretty damn good, a lot cheaper than Nikon - and a Nikon fit won't cost any more than a Canon fit. eg Onestop have the Sigma 12-24 going for £367

You're already got the D70, which is a great camera, and some good glass for it (the same glass as I have). I originally got a Nikon film camera setup and bit by bit have moved to digital. I got the D70 because it was always going to be compatible with my film stuff. But having said that, I have no real complaints about it. Do you really NEED to switch to Canon gear? The only reason I would switch is if I hated my Nikon...
 
Catdaddy said:
Do you really NEED to switch to Canon gear? The only reason I would switch is if I hated my Nikon...

Answer is NO if I can source same quality lenses for same/near price as Canon, but YES if considerably cheaper with Canon. I love my Nikon, but £s rule at the end of the day. Hopefully I can find the right Nikon lenses S/H at the right price :thumb:
 
DJW said:
The 2 wide angles I was comparing were :-

Nikon 12-24mm F4G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor lens £729 (Microglobe)

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens - £444 (onestop)

Now have price from onestop of £560 for Nikon, which closes gap considerably with Canon...... plus around £200 more than Tamron equivalent, which is acceptable if a keeper one guesses.
 
I see lots of Canons in the hands of 'enthusiasts' with a bit of dosh, but it goes about 25-75% in favour of Nikons when you get to Pro level.
I think at my level there's nothing to choose from in terms of image quality, but a hell of lot to choose from in terms of after-sales service.
As I've said previously, in my experience the Nikon guys cannot be faulted in this area, with free loan equipment on offer as and when I need it. Most Pros I talk to agree.
There are three other Civvy phots out here in Baghdad at the moment (more tomorrow for the elections) and so far no-one with Canons.
Even an old friend of mine from Bosnia has switched to Nikon after he was extolling the virtues of Canon last November in Camp Dogwood. His biggest gripe was that you couldn't alter the white balance by Kelvin. With the new D2X you can, so he bought one a couple of months ago and like me he's raving about it.
There's no discernable loss of quality from having a smaller chip, in fact it seems better than the Canon. It'd need a side-by-side comparison and even then I think I prefer the colour balance from the Nikon.

It comes down to individual preferences and handling characteristics at this level.
 
Arkady said:
Even an old friend of mine from Bosnia has switched to Nikon after he was extolling the virtues of Canon last November in Camp Dogwood. His biggest gripe was that you couldn't alter the white balance . With the new D2X you can, so he bought one a couple of months ago and like me he's raving about it.

Don't you mean colour temp?.
 
Chez said:
No, definitely White Balance..


So why is it that Canon use Kelvin for colour temp, and so do all the monitor calibrating devices like the Spyder?.
 
Arent they just two different terms, which in photography mean the same thing?
 
Cheers Rob. Although advice re Pro's is not relevant to me, it gives a good indication that if keeping for years it's good to know the Pro's rely & trust the kit.
 
Marcel said:
Arent they just two different terms, which in photography mean the same thing?
That's what I thought, but me thinking that doesn't fill me with confidence.
 
Yes it's the same thing. Colour temperature is altered on the camera by changing the white balance settings.

I've been using Nikons for about 25 years now and the lenses from my old F2 will fit the D2x (though with absolutely no AF or viewfinder info or aperture connectivity).
You can't just chop and change every two years at these prices, so you have to make a decision and stick with it.
Canon have had the ascendency for the past two years or so, but I think Nikon have the high ground again with the D2x. I know I'll be sticking with them when I buy my own when I leave the Army.
 
Arkady said:
Yes it's the same thing. Colour temperature is altered on the camera by changing the white balance settings.

I've been using Nikons for about 25 years now and the lenses from my old F2 will fit the D2x (though with absolutely no AF or viewfinder info or aperture connectivity).
You can't just chop and change every two years at these prices, so you have to make a decision and stick with it.
Canon have had the ascendency for the past two years or so, but I think Nikon have the high ground again with the D2x. I know I'll be sticking with them when I buy my own when I leave the Army.


I don't want to start any arguments over this, but I have my doubts about them being the same thing so I got in touch with a pro photographer and this is what he told me.

"The Kelvin scale is a measure of the light temperature, i.e. North Sky light is 7500k (blue) and at the other end of the spectrum a candle light is about 1900k (orange) A typical daylight scene is about 6500k.

Now if you look at a white piece of paper under candle light, the sheet will look orange, of course we all know it should be pure white (in theory). So if you create a white balance with your camera, it looks at the white sheet and compensate for the orange cast and produces a white balanced setting to produce the pure white, the white balance will compensate for any colour cast, not just orange. Have a go and experiment, it does work.

Studio photographers can set up an accurate workflow by just doing a quick WB, or they can make the adjustments at a later stage by shooting in RAW."

So there is a difference.
 
Just to chip in another 2p's worth.

I personally wouldn't move over to Canon in your situation. The money you might save on a few lenses is more than likley going to be cancelled out by the loss on the stuff you sell. As far as I can tell, the only reason for Nikon lenses being more expensive is economy of scale. Canon sell far more glass and by keeping it cheaper than the Nikon versions, they sell more bodies to start with and perpetuate the market advantage.

Unless you're going to be be buying lenses often, or are likey to need them in a hurry, I'd have thought some diligence and patience will find 2nd hand stuff at prices fairly similar to Canon anyway.

Also, while I love all my Canon stuff, in your shoes I really wouldn't want to change equally good kit for the more common breed. ;)
 
.. and just for info, the Canon 1D cameras have a WB by Kelvin setting. :)
 
If you look at a sheet of white paper under candlelight it appears whiter than it is because the human brain compensates for the colour cast produced by the candlelight. cameras don't do this so effectively so we do the 'thinking' for them, either by selecting a pre-set or by changing the colour temp to what we think it should be or what we want it to be in order to produce the required effect.

And for your information I'm a Pro Photographer as well. I have a BA (Hons) in Editorial Photography and 25 years experience in doing the job.

So there's no argument, is there?
 
DJW said:
Don't forget you've also got the
guns.gif
;)

yeah, hes got guns, and lots of battle hardened mates.....:p
 
EosD said:
yeah, hes got guns, and lots of battle hardened mates.....:p

Yeah he might have guns but I've got a Canon. :getmecoat :D
 
Surely Kelvin is what WB is measured in?

It's just that camera makers put names like tungsten and shade on the setting to make it more understandable to the average user?

Or have I just skim read the above posts and am just repeting what somebody has already said?
 
gandhi said:
Surely Kelvin is what WB is measured in?

It's just that camera makers put names like tungsten and shade on the setting to make it more understandable to the average user?

Or have I just skim read the above posts and am just repeting what somebody has already said?


It is a bit confusing to say the least. What I can't grasp is if colour temp (Kelvin) is the same as white balance, why do you need both on a camera?. :confused-

:eek:fftopic: sorry DJW for hijacking the thread
 
It is a bit confusing to say the least. What I can't grasp is if colour temp (Kelvin) is the same as white balance, why do you need both on a camera?


It's not that bad really.

If you have access to chose a Kelvin value for your camera you are simply doing a white balance.

Whether it's chosing a WB preset, doing an auto WB, a manual WB or setting a kelvin value it's all the same thing. Whichever method you are using it's nothing more than telling the software what colour the light is and what compensation to make so the colours we photograph are rendered as we percieve them.

Just thought I should add a bit to that....

As you know light varies in colour, from noon to sunset, florescent, tungsten or flash etc. You can buy colour temp meters that will tell you exactly what colour you are shooting in and these read in Kelvins. Camera companies could include a colour meter in the body but this would add size and a great deal of cost. A much cheaper way of getting round the problem of colour casts is to show the camera a known colour and have the software compensate for any colour cast present. The only real option for a known colour is white as it's easily accesable to us all. You could have a specific green or any other colour but then we'd all have to keep a sample of this colour (exact down to each R,G and B value) on us to show the camera every time we shoot.
 
White balance and colour temp are the same thing, but it's nice to have a choice of how you set it.

I dunno which Canon Arkady's mate was using, but you can definitely set WB by Kelvin on the 1D and the 20D. I just had to check on the 20D to be sure. Since the 20D and the 350D share the same processor, the 350D should have the option too unless it's disabled in software?

Edit

Although reading Ron's post again he might be saying Nikons didn't have the option prior to the D2X.
 
Correct - previous Nikons didn't have the option to correct WB using a Kelvin scale - the D2X does (not sure about D2H);all completely redundant if, like me you shoot everything in RAW (NEF) and correct in CS2.
I just leave it on auto all the time unless there's a specific job I need to shoot as JPEG (L). Like a passport photo of the General in the US Embassy (grrr...) - sent him the images and his ADC called asking for the rest of the ones I'd shot.
They're all pretty much the same, I told him. I shoot five or six in case the subject blinks (as you do).
No - the General wants to see all of them.
So I burned another CD for him just so he could confirm I'd chosen the best one.

Turns out he's seen the ones the US generals have on their web pages - shot using a standard three-light studio set-up and back-drop with the US flags draped either side.
Which I can do if I have a studio and three bowens lights, but not with my 'war-fighting' kit.
Honestly! I bet they're all going round saying "that photographer did a really sh1t job, you know..."

I hate doing Grip 'n' grins...

Oh and by the way, my name's Rob not Ron, CJ...:suspect1:
 
Arkady said:
rant.....

Superb. It's a but of a worry that a US General who should have plenty to be thinking about has the time to hassle you and be soooooo precious about his passport photo.

Shame you can't just tell him he's a bloody soldier not a prima balerina and to get on with the job. Although it might be one way to get a rapid head start on a civy career. ;)
 
LOL, these guys go on public speaking courses, TV interview courses, and they're all paranoid about their image. The truth is it probably has more to do with their advancement chances than whether they're any good at the job, and they know it - bit sad really.


Arkady said:
Oh and by the way, my name's Rob not Ron, CJ...:suspect1:

Well I'll be damned! Rob it shall be then. :)

CJ :laugh1:
 
Umm. Sorry to point out that the Curry's "£620" price is no longer achievable. The previous voucher codes I posted have lapsed. And, the 20D is also out of stock at Currys website. There are new codes, but less attractive.

£20 Discount - when you spend over £250 - Code - XMAS20
£40 Discount - when you spend over £500 - Code - XMAS40
£75 Discount - when you spend over £1000 - Code - XMAS75
 
Arkady said:
Even an old friend of mine from Bosnia has switched to Nikon after he was extolling the virtues of Canon last November in Camp Dogwood. His biggest gripe was that you couldn't alter the white balance by Kelvin. With the new D2X you can, so he bought one a couple of months ago and like me he's raving about it.


Well from what I can find you can alter the white balance by kelvin as far back as the 10D, so your mates Canon must have been pretty old.
 
Back
Top