FAO those who jumped from Canon to Nikon

F

fastworldimages

Messages
998
Name
Ryan
Edit My Images
No
Tried to have a quick search nothing came out conclusive. Now those wanting to troll im not interested in the usual canon vs nikon bandwagon type posts just opinions/info from those who have used both systems extensively.

Now obviously I can go test/rent a camera for a day or weekend but thats not really a long period to get to know a system fully in my opinion. So just basically looking for peoples input on how they got on with the new system and if theres things to look out for when I do give it a test run.

So those who switched, are there things you have found a bit of a pain/missing from the canon system etc.. did you regret switching and felt there were things you did miss?

Reason I am considering jumping ship is due to canons new pricing strategy on glass and just generally I am part of those wondering if the grass is greener on the other side. I shoot mostly music and so high iso/fast and good low light AF/razor sharp files are important to me.

Hope this helps and apologies for those who may have answered questions like this before.
 
I looked at a Nikon in Jessops the other day and have only one bit of advice to offer. The lenses clip on in the opposite direction! Don't get caught out standing there looking like a chump who can't get a cap off like I did.
 
I switchwed and never regretted it, however, the Nikon mount system is the most horrible piece of crap ever invented.
 
Gary Coyle said:
I switchwed and never regretted it, however, the Nikon mount system is the most horrible piece of crap ever invented.
Click to expand...

Out of interest,why Gary?
 
fracster said:
Out of interest,why Gary?
Click to expand...

Too many little sticky out bits of metal to get stuck, bent or twisted on the lens/camera mount, ie the aperture levers, read the thread on talk equipment forum to see what i mean, ive had mine stuck on several occasions and had an old D3 and D300 have broken/bent levers on the cameras, Nikon fixed them under warranty and told me to be more careful.
 
Gary Coyle said:
Too many little sticky out bits of metal to get stuck, bent or twisted on the lens/camera mount, ie the aperture levers, read the thread on talk equipment forum to see what i mean, ive had mine stuck on several occasions and had an old D3 and D300 have broken/bent levers on the cameras, Nikon fixed them under warranty and told me to be more careful.
Click to expand...
So, the fact is that your a clumsy **** rather than the mount being bad............:D
 
I've not regretted it one bit. I love the Nikon AF system and the quality of the D700 is fantastic. It took a couple of days to get used to it and I find it a lot more intuitive for most things than the Canon system.

1 thing I do miss is the auto ISO doesn't take the focal length into consideration like it did on the 7D.
 
Gary Coyle said:
I switchwed and never regretted it, however, the Nikon mount system is the most horrible piece of crap ever invented.
Click to expand...

Toggerman said:
I've not regretted it one bit. I love the Nikon AF system and the quality of the D700 is fantastic. It took a couple of days to get used to it and I find it a lot more intuitive for most things than the Canon system.

1 thing I do miss is the auto ISO doesn't take the focal length into consideration like it did on the 7D.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the replys guys, I did think a few more had switched I guess they dont want to admit to it :bonk:

Going to nab a lower end nikon set up off a friend to just have a proper nose about the system and that mount you love Gary.

Then will see about switching out for the 14-24,24-70 and 70-200 as these are the lenses I use/need the most for my work.
 
fastworldimages said:
Thanks for the replys guys, I did think a few more had switched I guess they dont want to admit to it :bonk:

Going to nab a lower end nikon set up off a friend to just have a proper nose about the system and that mount you love Gary.

Then will see about switching out for the 14-24,24-70 and 70-200 as these are the lenses I use/need the most for my work.
Click to expand...
Dont forget that Nikon lenses mount in the other direction.
 
I recently went from a Canon 550D to a Nikon D3100 and am loving the Nikon. When taking pics with the 550D you can hear the cheap plastic gears whiring away but the Nikon has a comforting clunk. It's like the VW Golf advert........Sounds like a golf! I prefer the lens selection from Canon but at the moment i'm just using the Nikkor 35mm f1.8 which does me a treat!
 
I moved from a 40D to a D300 (now a D700) last year. I mainly moved for curiosity, and also any time I'd used a Nikon I just preferred the ergonomics.

I like having a dedicated button for all the major settings (although if I was the guy in charge of Nikon id swap the mode and ISO buttons around, or at least offer this as a customisable option). I do miss Canons lovely big control wheel though!

When I was making the move to full frame I very nearly went back to Canon and got a 5dmkii, seeing as the image quality is so lovely, but the poor AF ( at least in comparison with the D300/D700) and the fact that I'm used to how a Nikon works, meant I went for a D700 instead and I haven't regretted it one bit.
 
Funnily enough I went the other way from a D300 to a Canon 40d via a GF1 and have to say I far prefer the Canon set up :D

I find it far more easy to navigate round, and the ease of use so much more simple than the Nikon ever was, I also far prefer the feel of it in hand too. Maybe I'm missing something. :shrug:

I've been thinking about FF for a while now and the 5DII is the goal, although the D700 keeps popping up in my thoughts. Then I think about the Nikon, what if :suspect:
 
I've just sold my 40d and lenses and bought a d7000. Have to say, the Nikon is lighter, less bulky and image quality wise, stunning.

Wanting to get the tokina 100mm next as this is a pin sharp macro. Only thing i have had issues with is the AF on the d7000. A 39 point system is certainly more sensitive than what the 40d had.
 
I used Canon EOS for about 10 years, from the original 650 film body, through to digital bodies like the 40D. They all worked, no problems there. What convinced me to move to Nikon was, when parting with my own money, I knew I had to have something that fitted me. The 40D onwards just seemed to be revolving more around in-menu options than actual physical buttons and I'm a bit of a luddite in reality so buttons were better than computerised menu systems.

I've just got a D7000 and compared to my D2x that I've used for the past two years, it's like comparing an iPhone to a piece of string with two cups on the end. I suppose I have to accept that with the improvements in tech, there are only so many buttons you can fit on a camera body so menus are a must, but I do still think that Nikons (especially the semi-pro bodies upwards) have a more utilitarian feel.
 
It depends at what point in the system you're going to dip into. I hate the entry level Nikons with a passion, although I find the more pro models acceptable. Just silly little things like having no ISO button and having to go into the menus to find it. But not even just that. I was helping a friend of mine with lighting in the studio the other day and she wanted to use her D5000 rather than my 50D. I put the camera into manual and tried setting the lights up but whatever I did, the picture was too bright and starting to lose quality. I double checked that I had the ISO on the quick menu set to Low 0.3 (or whatever it is that Nikon use rather than a simple ISO value) and it was still doing it. I had to go deeper into the menus and turn off auto ISO for me to be able to finally get the exposure how I wanted it. Now what part of that system is logical in any way? I set an ISO value and it still over rode it, even in manual mode! The Canon system is a million times better where auto ISO is at the bottom of the ISO scale, accessible by pressing a dedicated ISO button - on pretty much every single Canon DSLR. Any auto ISO settings are adjusted deeper in the menu, but being able to turn it on and off with a single button press and spin of a dial is incredibly important to me as I flick between auto ISO and set ISO a lot.

It's things like this - not simply a difference between systems, but one being vastly inferior and even illogical compared to the other, that keep me with Canon.

Also to consider is that while Canon angered a huge percentage of their market when they changed from the FD to the EF mount, they set a precedent for lens mounts for the future. Now, if you pick up a Canon DSLR and an EF lens, you know that it will fit and have full functionality. This is not something that could be said for the Nikon system, which while it's kept the same physical mount over the years, has had to twist it this way and that to try to keep and ancient mount up to date with modern technology, losing compatibility in the process.
 
Nuffles said:
It depends at what point in the system you're going to dip into. I hate the entry level Nikons with a passion, although I find the more pro models acceptable. Just silly little things like having no ISO button and having to go into the menus to find it. But not even just that. I was helping a friend of mine with lighting in the studio the other day and she wanted to use her D5000 rather than my 50D. I put the camera into manual and tried setting the lights up but whatever I did, the picture was too bright and starting to lose quality. I double checked that I had the ISO on the quick menu set to Low 0.3 (or whatever it is that Nikon use rather than a simple ISO value) and it was still doing it. I had to go deeper into the menus and turn off auto ISO for me to be able to finally get the exposure how I wanted it. Now what part of that system is logical in any way? I set an ISO value and it still over rode it, even in manual mode! The Canon system is a million times better where auto ISO is at the bottom of the ISO scale, accessible by pressing a dedicated ISO button - on pretty much every single Canon DSLR. Any auto ISO settings are adjusted deeper in the menu, but being able to turn it on and off with a single button press and spin of a dial is incredibly important to me as I flick between auto ISO and set ISO a lot.

It's things like this - not simply a difference between systems, but one being vastly inferior and even illogical compared to the other, that keep me with Canon.

Also to consider is that while Canon angered a huge percentage of their market when they changed from the FD to the EF mount, they set a precedent for lens mounts for the future. Now, if you pick up a Canon DSLR and an EF lens, you know that it will fit and have full functionality. This is not something that could be said for the Nikon system, which while it's kept the same physical mount over the years, has had to twist it this way and that to try to keep and ancient mount up to date with modern technology, losing compatibility in the process.
Click to expand...

To be honest, reading this just shows unfamiliarity with the Nikon system rather than there being anything wrong with it per se. For example, all of the base model Nikons that I have used have a button that can be programmed as an iso button so you do have an iso button if you want it. The auto iso feature that you describe is actually a superb system to use in manual mode because it allows you to have full control of the shutter speed and the aperture (i.e the things you care about) whilst still letting the camera balance the exposure with the iso. Any exposure compensation can be dialled in as normal and the camera picks up the slack with the iso. It's clever and works brilliantly but I personally wouldn't use auto iso in a studio type environment. I do agree that auto iso should be accessible on the iso dial though, such a simple thing.

Low 0.3 is not Nikon speak for an iso level. It is an artificial iso level that really isn't worth using. Base ISO on a D5000 is 200 and is displayed as such.
 
Thanks to those replying. Nice to see that the thread hasnt turned into the whole usual warfare.

For the record If I change the way it would be would be for the higher end cameras, D800 but more than likely a D4 and d3s combo with 14-24/24-70/70-200.

I currently have canons similar versions but I was looking to upgrade both, and im just finding the prices of the mkii canon lenses is getting silly. Lets not even get into the pricing of the long primes.

I know that the gear doesnt make you a better photographer before someone chirps up with that old chesnut, but I am shooting alot of important stuff and just finding at the moment I am second guessing the canon system (1d mkiii AF I think has had enough reviews). I had toyed with getting a DX but im getting fed up of delay after delay on this front and as said canons pricing strategy so this is why the dark side is something I am considering quite seriously.
 
I switched in December 2008. pretty much 7-8 months after upgrading my 1D MKII/n bodies with the 1D MKIII, but I'd have gone in September had there been a window of opportunity amongst weddings. I endured 6 months of speculation, hardware replacements, firmware upgrades and re-calibration by CPS before eventually giving up in frustration with the unpredictable focus issues. Whilst I never failed to deliver a job I certainly had to shoot differently, and throw a lot away to maintain my quality level.

Giving up on 20 years of Canon SLR usage was not something I did lightly.

In two weeks over Christmas I shifted my entire estate of Canon gear collected over those 20 years, replacing it with 2 x D3 bodies and most of the equivalent lenses, flash-guns etc. I didn't go down the Nikon assisted switch route which was available to me at the time because I managed to make more money privately and eventually I got myself back to a full complement of Nikon gear around late 2009. When I switched I bought my core kit new, and picked up non-critical items used where possible to help with the transition costs.

It did take 2-3 weeks of use to get myself completely familiar with the "reversed" lens mount and focus but it soon became second nature - I wouldn't hold back because of some of those differences. I am completely enamoured with the way in which Nikon is engineering led rather than marketing led in the design of it's gear.

The obvious benefits were the completely reliable and accurate focus and resulting images which were sharper, along with the better high ISO performance. AF was slower in the D3 than the 1D MKIII but once locked on never failed. I'd say the D4 focusses back to Canon levels of speed but with stunning accuracy. If the 1Dx is faster still then that's more of a bonus for those that stick with Canon - if the AF performs.

Had there been a 1D MKIV in the roadmap I might not have switched, but there wasn't a pro-body with twin card slots out that wasn't fallible (the 1Ds MKIII was better but still inaccurate). If I was Canon now then I probably wouldn't switch to Nikon, I also wouldn't switch back to Canon now - I'm very happy. It took a fault in the system to make me switch.

I can see the price difference at the moment between Canon and Nikon glass, and I'm a little shocked at the prices of the long primes, and the new 24-70. That said Nikon just upped the D4 to price match the delayed 1Dx (why sell something for less when there isn't a Canon model to buy the shops !), and I could see new Nikon glass being higher priced in the future - particularly if they go down the lighter weight route Canon has.

If you are planning a massive upgrade across the piece then it might make financial sense to switch - you'll know the numbers. You won't regret it on quality of the equipment or images. Expect it to take a short while to adjust to the buttons etc but at the end of the day it is a camera, and like driving a car most of it is similar and intuitive.

Good luck with it.
 
Last edited:
fastworldimages said:
Tried to have a quick search nothing came out conclusive. Now those wanting to troll im not interested in the usual canon vs nikon bandwagon type posts just opinions/info from those who have used both systems extensively.

Now obviously I can go test/rent a camera for a day or weekend but thats not really a long period to get to know a system fully in my opinion. So just basically looking for peoples input on how they got on with the new system and if theres things to look out for when I do give it a test run.

So those who switched, are there things you have found a bit of a pain/missing from the canon system etc.. did you regret switching and felt there were things you did miss?

Reason I am considering jumping ship is due to canons new pricing strategy on glass and just generally I am part of those wondering if the grass is greener on the other side. I shoot mostly music and so high iso/fast and good low light AF/razor sharp files are important to me.

Hope this helps and apologies for those who may have answered questions like this before.
Click to expand...

Without comparing actual cameras just asking about switching has no meaning.
 
POAH said:
Without comparing actual cameras just asking about switching has no meaning.
Click to expand...

The main question was to have peoples opinions on the overall system. Hence things that they have noticed they either missed or found better.

If im renting some kit for a day then any things people have said for me to look out for obviously gives me more of a wider scope to get a better idea on if it works for me or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top