Considering swapping from Nikon to Canon

Dal · 28 Nov 2010

Right, no haters or pee taking please as this is a serious thought.

I currently have the following:

Nikon D300
Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
Nikon 50mm f1.8
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 HSM II
Nikon SB800 Speedlight

If I were to look at swapping over to canon to get the same range of equipment as above, then how much out of pocket do you think I'll be?

Considering the Canon 7D or possibly even the Canon 5D mkii.

Or am I being a bit crazy?

scottthehat · 28 Nov 2010

why, i see alot of people that sold the d300 for the 7d, then weeks later they have d300 again.

TCR4x4 · 28 Nov 2010

What do you think the 7D will give you the D300 cant? Or why do you think changing is a good idea?

You have a lot of good kit there, and it will cost a lot to swap it all over.
Why not upgrade your Nikon body?

It cost me several hundred quid swapping from Canon back to Nikon, and most of that gear was brand new, so I didnt loose too much. On second hand stuff you will loose more.

Dal · 28 Nov 2010

Some of my gear was bought 2nd hand so shouldn't loose to much selling them. It's more buying the other gear that will cost more.

As far as I can tell the Canon 7D is on par with the D300s but it's more the lenses that appeal to me on the canon side rather than the nikon stuff.

Things like the canon 100-400f4-5.6, the canon 135 f2 etc. Mainly all the 'L' glass.

Just interested in opinions.

What didn't you like about the canon stuff to make you swap back?

Critical I · 28 Nov 2010

Unless you really need the extra MP and video, or have a specific reason for using a Canon, you already have an excellent camera, so I dont think you gain a great deal from the swap unless you must have video right now.

Nikon will replace the D300s soon with a new camera, presumably with the D7000 sensor and full HD video, and personally I would wait for that.

In terms of lenses I preferred Nikons wide angle and standard zoom offerings, but the 135 F2 DC is also an excellent lens, as is the 300 F4. I think the lens systems trade punches pretty evenly.

squishy · 28 Nov 2010

As much as I love my canon gear, I can only echo what people have said above...

You already have a superb camera and some nice lenses.

An equivalent canon set would be:

Canon 7D
Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 or canon 10-22mm
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 or (more expensive) canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
Canon 50mm f1.8
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 HSM II or (if you don't mind losing a stop) canon 70-200mm f/4L IS
Canon 580exII Speedlight

I really like my 100-400L, but I wouldn't give myself the expense of changing systems for it. Better to make do with the optically almost as good sigma 50-500mm OS for your current set up IMO.

I wouldn't change unless you prefer canon's ergonomics or there is a canon lens that you want that has no comparable rival from nikon (or third party available for nikon), like the 70-200 f/4L's or the mpe-65mm.

Dal · 28 Nov 2010

squishy said:
As much as I love my canon gear, I can only echo what people have said above...

You already have a superb camera and some nice lenses.

An equivalent canon set would be:

Canon 7D
Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 or canon 10-22mm
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 or (more expensive) canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
Canon 50mm f1.8
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 HSM II
Canon 580exII Speedlight

I really like my 100-400L, but I wouldn't give myself the expense of changing systems for it. Better to make do with the optically almost as good sigma 50-500mm OS for your current set up IMO.

I wouldn't change unless you prefer canon's ergonomics or there is a canon lens that you want that has no comparable rival from nikon (or third party available for nikon), like the 70-200 f/4L's or the mpe-65mm.

so I am being a bit of a nutter then lol.

You think the sigma 50-500mm compares with the 100-400L then? Thats interesting.

Maybe I am being daft lol

squishy · 28 Nov 2010

Dal said:
so I am being a bit of a nutter then lol.

You think the sigma 50-500mm compares with the 100-400L then? Thats interesting.

Maybe I am being daft lol

Oh yes. It's surprisingly sharp for a 10x zoom! it's 1/3rd of a stop slower at 400mm and a bit less contrasty with it's optics (as well as actually being more expensive!), but it has that incredible 10x zoom, which actually goes slightly longer than the canon (though most users I've talked to prefer to shoot with it at 400mm ish because of the sharpness drop off at 500mm).
As a canon user, I consider the 100-400 a better choice than the 50-500 (at least while the 50-500OS is actually more expensive that the canon). But if I shot with nikon, the 50-500 would be at the top of my list for a long tele-zoom.

swag72 · 28 Nov 2010

Do Nikon not do anything like a 300/4 prime like Canon? Not ever looked at a Nikon camera, let alone a lens line up!!

scottthehat · 28 Nov 2010

Dal said:
so I am being a bit of a nutter then lol.

You think the sigma 50-500mm compares with the 100-400L then? Thats interesting.

Maybe I am being daft lol

Dal · 28 Nov 2010

squishy said:
Oh yes. It's surprisingly sharp for a 10x zoom! it's 1/3rd of a stop slower at 400mm and a bit less contrasty with it's optics (as well as actually being more expensive!), but it has that incredible 10x zoom, which actually goes slightly longer than the canon (though most users I've talked to prefer to shoot with it at 400mm ish because of the sharpness drop off at 500mm).
As a canon user, I consider the 100-400 a better choice than the 50-500 (at least while the 50-500OS is actually more expensive that the canon). But if I shot with nikon, the 50-500 would be at the top of my list for a long tele-zoom.

Ah right, I kinda thought that lens would be a bit poo because of the massive focal range. They seem very reasonable 2nd price wise.

Just had a look on flickr at some photo's with it and was impressed, even at 500mm.

swag72 said:
Do Nikon not do anything like a 300/4 prime like Canon? Not ever looked at a Nikon camera, let alone a lens line up!!

Here's the list I just found, never looked at it before and it's got some lenses on that I never knew they made. Like the Nikkor 135mm f2 which the canon version seems very good.

scottthehat · 28 Nov 2010

swag72 said:
Do Nikon not do anything like a 300/4 prime like Canon? Not ever looked at a Nikon camera, let alone a lens line up!!

yeah they do, but they dont do a 70-200mm f4.

Dal · 28 Nov 2010

scottthehat said:
i have the 50-500mm os, and its a top lens.
as for as for 500mm its more like 450mm, but wide open is sharp.
also af speed is as good as my friends 100-400l.
heres a few pics if interested.
http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/internet site 200kb pics/DSC_8905.jpg
http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/internet site 200kb pics/DSC_9501.jpg
http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/internet site 200kb pics/IMGP2516.jpg
http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/internet site 200kb pics/DSC_9473.jpg
http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/internet site 200kb pics/SB1_0159.jpg
http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/internet site 200kb pics/SB1_0239.jpg
http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/internet site 200kb pics/SB1_0140.jpg
http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/internet site 200kb pics/SJB_1265.jpg
http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/internet site 200kb pics/SJB_1250.jpg
http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/internet site 200kb pics/SB1_0275.jpg
http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/internet site 200kb pics/SB1_0238.jpg
http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/internet site 200kb pics/SB1_1338.jpg

VERY impressive shots. Are they all 450mm and lower?

The other thing, can you use a Sigma TC with that lens? I have a 1.4tc aswell.

scottthehat · 28 Nov 2010

all the shots were at 500mm(as it says on the lens) except the bird of prey portraits which were about 200mm.
it really is an awsome lens, i use mine on my d300, i think if you try one you will want one and at 50mm its great to.
also yes you can use sigma tcs i have used a 1.4x and 2x.
the 1.4x does af but very slow, also the 2x is man focus.

Dal · 28 Nov 2010

scottthehat said:
all the shots were at 500mm(as it says on the lens) except the bird of prey portraits which were about 200mm.
it really is an awsome lens, i use mine on my d300, i think if you try one you will want one and at 50mm its great to.
also yes you can use sigma tcs i have used a 1.4x and 2x.
the 1.4x does af but very slow, also the 2x is man focus.

Ah right cool. I'm on my other halfs laptop at the moment so can't check the Exif data.

It does look good. I'm guessing that the af is fairly fast as I'd use it for motorsport stuff aswell. Obviously without the tc fitted.

Dal · 28 Nov 2010

I might actually hire one for a week for some events to see what I tihnk about it. £57 is a decent price for 7 days I think

http://www.lensesforhire.co.uk/sigman-apo-50-500mm-f4-63-ex-dg-hsm-165-p.asp

TCR4x4 · 28 Nov 2010

I couldnt get on with the Canon ergonomics or the menu system. It was making me not want to use the camera, so I had to come back to what I knew.

Have you ever used a Canon? Maybe you should rent or borrow one for a bit to see if you like it. It would be a massive mistake if you sold all your gear and then realised like me you didnt get on with Canon.

Dal · 28 Nov 2010

TCR4x4 said:
I couldnt get on with the Canon ergonomics or the menu system. It was making me not want to use the camera, so I had to come back to what I knew.

Have you ever used a Canon? Maybe you should rent or borrow one for a bit to see if you like it. It would be a massive mistake if you sold all your gear and then realised like me you didnt get on with Canon.

One of my friends is coming over from New Zealand in a few weeks and we are going to head into London for some shots and he's got a Canon 5d Mkii so was gonna have a play with that.

I wouldn't sell any of my stuff until I had tried and tested the canon stuff anyway. I think going by this thread that I will probably end up sticking with nikon as It's what I understand and know.

Richard Peters · 28 Nov 2010

I wouldn't bother. Nikon and Canon will always flip flop between who has the better gear, so just stick with what you have and save the money. Unless there is something Canon provide that will make or break your photography.

Stick with Nikon...and for all the Canon shooters out there thinking of coming over to Nikon, same applies, don't bother, save your cash

scottthehat · 28 Nov 2010

Dal said:
Ah right cool. I'm on my other halfs laptop at the moment so can't check the Exif data.

It does look good. I'm guessing that the af is fairly fast as I'd use it for motorsport stuff aswell. Obviously without the tc fitted.

Tight Fart · 28 Nov 2010

I've used Canon since 1977 and would never think of changing to another make, but I would never recomend a Nikon user to change either.
They are both at the top of the game, if you think your missing something from your photography then look elswhere, a course maybe?

specialman · 28 Nov 2010

£700 for your D300
£250 for the 10-20mm
£190 for the 17-50mm
£70 for the 50mm
£450 for the 70-200mm
£175 for the SB800

TOTAL: £1835

That's probably very low estimation so let's say £1900 minimum selling it somewhere like the classifieds section

Okay, now for the swap - going as like-for-like as possible using camerapricebuster...

7D - £1060
Sigma 10-20mm (not the f/3.5) - £370
Tammy 17-50mm (non-VC) - £300
580EX II flash - £330
50mm - £80
Sigma 70-200mm (non-OS) - £600

TOTAL: £2740

That's all new prices of course so there's probably going to be a minimum £750 shortfall but you'd obviously get lower prices buying used but my have to wait longer to find the right item...

TO move systems and go new then £800-£900 is pretty good - lower than I first thought - but TBH, the only difference you're getting is the camera body and some unused glass. Is something like a 7D really that important? A 5D2 maybe, but why move systems when you could buy a D700 - if you go FF then the 17-50 will have to go and I suspect the 10-20 also, to make way for full-frame compatible lenses.

I think you're a tiny bit mad, although I have to say I thought similar about chopping in my two D2x bodies (and lenses) to go to a 1D mkII with some tasty L glass.... in the end I realised I couldn't live with the gash flash system on Canons.....

Your call though

woof woof · 28 Nov 2010

"Things like the canon 100-400f4-5.6, the canon 135 f2 etc. Mainly all the 'L' glass."

There must be something in Nikon fit that'll serve as good / near enough / even better than these?

How about a Sigma 150mm f2.8 instead of the Canon 135? I have one and think it's great.... that'd only leave the 100-400 and a replacement has been suggested above.

chip · 28 Nov 2010

I have a friend who swapped from Nikon to Canon about 5-6 years ago (quite a lot of gear) and has now swapped back to Nikon.

As far as I can tell, his photography didn't improve when he swapped in either direction and I'm still scratching my head as to why he undertook such an expensive conversion, not once, but TWICE

Jackwow · 28 Nov 2010

Dal said:
If I were to look at swapping over to canon to get the same range of equipment as above, then how much out of pocket do you think I'll be?

Considering the Canon 7D or possibly even the Canon 5D mkii.

Or am I being a bit crazy?

If u want to swap over to Canon, and can afford it, then just do it. Simple as that.

I upgrade my camera every couple of years, not because I need to or because it will make my pictures better, but because I want to. :shrug:

NikonSimon · 28 Nov 2010

I have nothing to add except for I'll now be keeping an eye on the Nikon forum of the Classifieds section..

Dal · 29 Nov 2010

Thanks everyone.

I shall stop my crazy thinking and stick with what I've got and just save up for the next Nikon camera coming along.

will have a serious look into that 50-500mm lens aswell I think. Will defo hire one out for a week.

StewartR · 30 Nov 2010

woof woof said:
"Things like the canon 100-400f4-5.6, the canon 135 f2 etc. Mainly all the 'L' glass."

There must be something in Nikon fit that'll serve as good / near enough / even better than these?

....actually, no. Luck or judgement, the OP has identified two of the absolute gems of the Canon range. The 100-400 stands head and shoulders above all its competitors in terms of ergonomics and general useability, and the 135L is incredibly good.

But I still agree that it generally makes little sense to switch systems unless you really really need a specific capability that the other doesn't offer. Switch to Canon, and you'll find yourself wishing they made a lens like Nikon's 14-24mm f/2.8.

squishy · 30 Nov 2010

StewartR said:
The 100-400 stands head and shoulders above all its competitors in terms of ergonomics and general useability

As much as I love my 100-400, I wouldn't say that. A lot of people really don't get along with the push-pull zoom, it's one of those love/hate things it seems.

madhouse · 30 Nov 2010

The grass always looks greener on the other side. Swapping all your kit to another manufacturer will always leave you out of pocket and is only really worth it if you find the other has a more prefereable system or lenses you really need that are not available on the current system. It's why that initial camera choice is so important!

You do miss out on the 100-400L which I absolutely loved when I hired it and gave me goosebumps with the results it helped me get. But then there are good things said here about Sigma's offerings too so I think you're right to look at either the 50-500 or 150-500 and stick to what you know.

Dal · 30 Nov 2010

StewartR said:
....actually, no. Luck or judgement, the OP has identified two of the absolute gems of the Canon range. The 100-400 stands head and shoulders above all its competitors in terms of ergonomics and general useability, and the 135L is incredibly good.

Not luck, seen some amazing stuff with those lenses and I've had a play with a 100-400L before on a mates Canon 40D.

Would you say it's worth considering the Sigma 50-500mm (ignoring the fact I'd hire it from you).

I did notice since posting this that Nikon make a 135mm f2 aswell, never seen one for sale though.

madhouse said:
The grass always looks greener on the other side. Swapping all your kit to another manufacturer will always leave you out of pocket and is only really worth it if you find the other has a more prefereable system or lenses you really need that are not available on the current system. It's why that initial camera choice is so important!

You do miss out on the 100-400L which I absolutely loved when I hired it and gave me goosebumps with the results it helped me get. But then there are good things said here about Sigma's offerings too so I think you're right to look at either the 50-500 or 150-500 and stick to what you know.

Cheers for the reply. I'm glad I post things like this as it stops me being a fool and wasting cash for no reason (I'm not made of money either lol).

Critical I · 30 Nov 2010

Dal said:
Not luck, seen some amazing stuff with those lenses and I've had a play with a 100-400L before on a mates Canon 40D.

Would you say it's worth considering the Sigma 50-500mm (ignoring the fact I'd hire it from you).

I did notice since posting this that Nikon make a 135mm f2 aswell, never seen one for sale though.

http://www.parkcameras.com/4323/Nikon-AF-135mm-f-2-0-D.html
http://www.srsmicrosystems.co.uk/3871/Nikon-135mm-F2D-AF-DC-Nikkor-Lens.html

If Nikon makes one, either of these two retailers will normally supply one.

There is also a cheaper (by 200) 105 F2.0 DC which is just as good.

Or, check out Sigma's 105 F2.8 macro, or 150 F2.8 macro. Both a bit slower but good optically. I can personally vouch for the former, at least on a DX sensor where its very sharp across the frame. Good macro performance as well.

rogan200 · 30 Nov 2010

As many have said think the swap would be of little benefit. I'm a Nikon man but only because thats what I happened to start with and I've seen no need to swap. Both systems are fantastic, they're pretty evenly matched overall with each stealing little victories along the way. For example Nikon are the high ISO kings at the moment.

(Though I have often been tempted by how damn sexy looking the Id series are. My D3 is UGLY by comparison!)

ChrisJ_SLH · 30 Nov 2010

TCR4x4 said:
I couldnt get on with the Canon ergonomics or the menu system. It was making me not want to use the camera, so I had to come back to what I knew.

Other than the usual healthy effects of competition, this is another reason why having market choice is such a benefit. When plumping for my first DSLR I just couldn't get on with the ergonomics of the Nikon I was looking at whereas the Canon felt quite intuitive. IMO, all personal choice and it is good we have the competing systems to choose from.

Stu Meech · 30 Nov 2010

At the moment one way of looking at it is (not a definite list of functions or cameras):

Canon: if you want high mpx at a attainable financial rate & 1080 HD (5d mk2)
Nikon: if you want amazingly good performance at high ISO & amazing AF (D700/D3s)

In 2 years it could be the other way round!

I, personally, am Nikon and will stay Nikon. The only change I'll make is to FF, eventually.

pmac · 1 Dec 2010

i have been swaying about swapping to canon from nikon also.
im looking to go FF next year so will be selling my d90 plus lenses what ever i do.
i love my d90 but theres somthing about the pictures from canon cameras i love,i cant put my finger on what it is exactly but the pictures between nikon and cannon cameras differ in some way.
my only worrie is i know nikon and have never used canon myself.
there also seems to be alot more to take in with cannon especialy regarding all the different glass(fits,L glass ,date codes ect) something i dont see when people talk about nikon glass

StewartR · 1 Dec 2010

pmac said:
i love my d90 but theres somthing about the pictures from canon cameras i love,i cant put my finger on what it is exactly but the pictures between nikon and cannon cameras differ in some way.

I bet you couldn't tell the difference in a double-blind test.

pmac said:
my only worrie is i know nikon and have never used canon myself.

Be careful. When I wanted to buy my first DSLR, I looked at the comparable Canon and Nikon models. I thought the Canon was totally inuitive and the Nikon was bizarrely nonsensical. But I know people who made exactly the same comparison and reached exactly the opposite conclusion.

pmac said:
there also seems to be alot more to take in with cannon especialy regarding all the different glass(fits,L glass ,date codes ect) something i dont see when people talk about nikon glass

Actually compatibility issues are probably easier to get to grips with in the Canon range. All Nikon lenses and cameras come with a big compatibility chart which sets out what is compatible with what. Canon just don't need that, mainly because they re-designed their entire system in the 1980s whereas Nikon still try to maintain some semblance of compatibility between new kit and 50-year-old equipment. But that's not a good enough reason to switch.

Considering swapping from Nikon to Canon

Is always right

Wishes he had a couple more Inches

Is always right

Is always right

Is always right

Is always right

Is always right

Is always right

Wishes he had a couple more Inches

Is always right

I like a nice Chianti

Is always right

Is always right