Has anyone moved from Canon to Nikon?

L

London Headshots

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,340
Name
John
Edit My Images
No
Hi guys,

Wondering if anyone can help me out here, as I'm in a bit of a dilemma as to a new camera.

Next year I'm going to be upgrading to a Hassleblad H4D-40, with the intention of keeping a full frame DSLR on hand for any shots where medium format just isn't convenient.

At the moment, I'm using a 5D2, but the new Nikon D800 has very similar resolution to the H4D, which will make my job a little bit easier. I plan to use the H4D for studio work, and take the DSLR out on location with me when I'm shooting backgrounds and other bits and pieces to composite into the studio shots.

What I'm worried about is the jump from Canon to Nikon. I'm going to be selling all of my Canon stuff to swap for the exact equivalent in the Nikon lineup, but my problem is that I know absolutely nothing about Nikon.

The only thing I do know is that I no longer want to shoot with Canon, and the Nikon is perfect as a long term partner to the Hasselblad.

If anyone has moved from Canon to Nikon, or has experience of both, would you mind outlining exactly what you preferred about Nikon, or things you missed having once you moved.

My main concerns are camera noise, because the 5D2 is terrible, even at ISO100, and the lens quality of Nikon is apparently slightly inferior... Is this true?

So yeah, any personal experiences shared would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance :)
 
Nikon lens quality inferior?!?! ....not a chance...

I haven't swapped from canon but my brother's photography business is canon and they are moving over to nikon to have better optics.

It's well known that many canon users buy an adapter ring to take nikon glass...
 
Phil Young said:
It's well known that many canon users buy an adapter ring to take nikon glass...
Click to expand...

That's a bit far from the truth.

Plenty of EOS users make use of the adaptability of the mount to use nice old manual glass from all various mounts, including some lovely nikon F lenses, but it's far from a mainstream thing and I've not come across anyone who does it with the express purpose of just being able to use predominantly nikon lenses instead of canon ones (if you want to do that you'd just buy a nikon DSLR and save the trouble of manual focus/diaphragm).


If the OP wants a good opinion of the glass he'd be getting switching to nikon, I think we'd need to know the specific lenses he currently owns so we can compare like for like with nikkor equivalents, since you just can't generalise that one is inferior on all counts.
 
Last edited:
London Headshots said:
and the lens quality of Nikon is apparently slightly inferior... Is this true?
Click to expand...

Apparently yes, I often wonder how I manage to get anything close to resembling a recognisable image from my inferior kit, after a lot of thought I put it down to ability, so in a nutshell only consider Nikon if you know what you are doing with a camera, if not you are best sticking with Canon ... :naughty: :D

(Sorry there was no tongue in cheek smiley)
 
squishy said:
That's a bit far from the truth.

Plenty of EOS users make use of the adaptability of the mount to use nice old manual glass from all various mounts, including some lovely nikon F lenses, but it's far from a mainstream thing and I've not come across anyone who does it with the express purpose of just being able to use predominantly nikon lenses instead of canon ones (if you want to do that you'd just buy a nikon DSLR and save the trouble of manual focus/diaphragm).


If the OP wants a good opinion of the glass he'd be getting switching to nikon, I think we'd need to know the specific lenses he currently owns so we can compare like for like with nikkor equivalents, since you just can't generalise that one is inferior on all counts.
Click to expand...

Hi dude, thanks-I'll be moving over to the following kit:

24-70 2.8
85 1.4
135 f2

Maybe I was mistaken about the glass being inferior? I remember reading once that Nikons primes were excellent, but their zooms were a bit inferior to Canon?

I don't have any allegiance to a consumer product, so just want to know if it's the truth.
 
London Headshots said:
Hi dude, thanks-I'll be moving over to the following kit:

24-70 2.8
85 1.4
135 f2

Maybe I was mistaken about the glass being inferior? I remember reading once that Nikons primes were excellent, but their zooms were a bit inferior to Canon?

I don't have any allegiance to a consumer product, so just want to know if it's the truth.
Click to expand...

I don't think you'd feel short changed by Nikon's 24-70 or 85mm 1.4. I don't know a lot about the Canon 135 but Nikon's offering is no slouch.

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/225-nikkor-af-135mm-f2-d-dc-review--test-report?start=2
 
If you are pro, then go to a nikon pro shop and they will willing upgrade all of your canon gear to nikon...
 
I made the change from 40D to D300.

I like the direct controls on Nikon as opposed to Canon, but that's purely personal. The controls on the D300 give more scope for customization to.

Having said that I do miss the big wheel on the back of the Canon which is awesome for scrolling through preview images on the lcd. Although on the D300 this function can be assigned to the back conetol wheel.

I don't know where you're getting the impression that the 5Dmkii is bad though, its ISO performance is one of its strengths.
 
London Headshots said:
My main concerns are camera noise, because the 5D2 is terrible, even at ISO100, and the lens quality of Nikon is apparently slightly inferior... Is this true?
Click to expand...

If the noise on your 5D mk2 is bad at 100 then there must be something wrong with yours, i barely notice noise until 1600 on mine.

The pro lenses are going to be very similar, hardly any difference between them. The Canon 85mm f1.2 is slower than the Nikon 85mm f1.4 however
 
Could you show us an example of a noisy shot at ISO 100 please. There must be something VERY wrong if this is happening.
 
Phil, your first link has the wrong Canon lens selected (select the right one and they look very similar) and your second link is comparing a much newer Nikon to the older Canon 24-70. There is a new version of the Canon out very soon.
 
London Headshots said:
Hi guys,
My main concerns are camera noise, because the 5D2 is terrible, even at ISO100
Click to expand...

The only time I've 'seen' this happen is due to Lightroom's harsh sharpening and default conversion settings, are you sure some aspect of PP isn't causing you issues, because I've always been very impressed with the 5D2's low ISO ability, although I admit that's the best performing level of camera I've had the opportunity to play with..

On the Nikon/Canon front, there is no overriding lens quality difference IME, more that as with all manufacturers, certain lenses can differ in performance slightly between manufacturers or there are 'holes' in each others line ups that mean you end up with inferior lens as the only direct equivalent..
 
The top end Nikon glass stuff is just as good, the consumer stuff is just as good... what Nikon miss historically is the "prosumer" bit in the middle, but they are fixing that.

The three lenses most often moaned about as missing are:

100-400 f4-f5.6
70-200 f4 and the ability to buy with or without IS for the penny concious
24-105

You can probably add to that list the 400 f5.6

However the 24-105 is now here with a reasonable Nikon 24-120 - certainly its as good as the Canon 24-105, which to be honest apart from being a useful focal length never was "stellar".

The 400 5.6 is achievable with as good quality with a Nikon 300 f4 and a 1.4x TC - if anything this is actually better.

The 70-200 family Canon have... well, thats only a money thing, the 70-200 f2.8 VRII is excellent.

Maybe also the lack of a 85 1.2? Maybe...

I'd personally like a 135 f2 AFS, but thats a bit special really. I live without it everyday for the last 3 years!

Anyway, as for what I found in the move... well, for me its a sub 4k body with lightning AF and little shutter lag. Canon racked me off with only offering this in the 1DMkIII. Thats why I moved and thats why I stay.

Nikon AF is fast, accurate and best of all has few complex parameters to play with - its really easy to change from one type of shot to another - and quickly and with the confidence you will get it right.

ISO noise/IQ/Colours... not really an Canon vs Nikon issue.

Negatives - the Nikon F mount is not as robust a design compared to Canon EF. Have I broken one? Nope, but it just feels like it might.
 
Phil Young said:
It's well known that many canon users buy an adapter ring to take nikon glass...
Click to expand...

Until I saw the replies I thought you had made that up as a joke beause I didnt even know one existed.. I bet if you did a pole on TP with thousands of photogrpahers on here..most also wouldnt know it exists..

"well known that canon users use and adaptor to take nikon lens"? even though i now know the adaptor exists I would still say the statement is a joke..
 
grum said:
Phil, your first link has the wrong Canon lens selected (select the right one and they look very similar) and your second link is comparing a much newer Nikon to the older Canon 24-70. There is a new version of the Canon out very soon.
Click to expand...

The third is irrelevant as the OP was looking to replace the 85/1.4 not the 85/1.2

The new version of that Canon 24-70 is a snip at £2300 :D (what planet are they on with their recent pricing), bet there is still nothing between them in real world shooting anyway, as is the case with most of the kit.
 
desantnik - I'm led to believe there are a few T/S lenses missing from Nikons lineup too but they are quite specialist.

I think there quite a few people who use old Nikon MF glass for video on Canon DSLRs, mainly because they adapt better than Canon FD onto EOS cameras. They also have manual aperture controls and some argue better ergonomics for focussing manually.
 
Last edited:
KIPAX said:
Until I saw the replies I thought you had made that up as a joke beause I didnt even know one existed.. I bet if you did a pole on TP with thousands of photogrpahers on here..most also wouldnt know it exists..

"well known that canon users use and adaptor to take nikon lens"? even though i now know the adaptor exists I would still say the statement is a joke..
Click to expand...

Probably more popular in the US Tony, but they are out there with Nikkor 14-24's mounted on Canon bodies, along with the manual focus/alt lens guys who quite happily shoot with whatever they can get to mount on the body.

Going back a few years the Nikkor 17-35/2.8 was also a popular one to use on a Canon body.

Due to it's shorter register the Canon bodies are quite popular amongst the alternative gear users as it is possible to use a wide range of lenses via adaptors, Nikkor Ai and Ais, Cosina, Leica to name a few.
 
KIPAX said:
Until I saw the replies I thought you had made that up as a joke beause I didnt even know one existed.. I bet if you did a pole on TP with thousands of photogrpahers on here..most also wouldnt know it exists..

"well known that canon users use and adaptor to take nikon lens"? even though i now know the adaptor exists I would still say the statement is a joke..
Click to expand...

Oh come on. You're all at it! You just don't like to talk about it. ;)
 
grum said:
desantnik - I'm led to believe there are a few T/S lenses missing from Nikons lineup too but they are quite specialist.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think you are right - that and the amazing Canon MPE-65mm macro lens - that is an amazing piece of kit.

But again, very specialist.

If I wanted to do macro as my main subject, Canon is the beast.
 
KIPAX said:
Until I saw the replies I thought you had made that up as a joke beause I didnt even know one existed.. I bet if you did a pole on TP with thousands of photogrpahers on here..most also wouldnt know it exists..

"well known that canon users use and adaptor to take nikon lens"? even though i now know the adaptor exists I would still say the statement is a joke..
Click to expand...
I mentioned it in a talk sport thread a couple of weeks ago but it went ignored, i know of several Canon pros who use it for the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 alone
 
Last edited:
Aperture sell Nikon to EOS adapters for £50, they are usually sold out of them though but have some stock in just now. As mentioned the 14-24mm seems a popular candidate for it.
 
Ok, forget I mentioned anything about noise, its just a personal thing. It's well k own that the 5D2 has a problem with pattern noise in underexposed areas, and I shoot commercially for high-end clients, where this kind of issue is unacceptable. Hence the jump next year to medium format. It's really nothing more than that.

If I'm shooting Headshots, it doesn't bother me, but when I'm shooting for a commercial client, everything needs to be perfect.

The long and short is that I never expected my career to take off like it did, and as a result, I'm realising that for the particular kind of work I now do, I should be shooting with something better suited for the job. Which is why I moved my lights over to Profoto. Alienbees were fine for most work, but larger jobs started coming in and suddenly I needed more control and peace of mind.

That's all really, if I was shooting smaller jobs, I wouldn't give a hoot about something that's barely visible 99% of the time.

Hope this clears things up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
desantnik said:
The top end Nikon glass stuff is just as good, the consumer stuff is just as good... what Nikon miss historically is the "prosumer" bit in the middle, but they are fixing that.

The three lenses most often moaned about as missing are:

100-400 f4-f5.6
70-200 f4 and the ability to buy with or without IS for the penny concious
24-105

You can probably add to that list the 400 f5.6

However the 24-105 is now here with a reasonable Nikon 24-120 - certainly its as good as the Canon 24-105, which to be honest apart from being a useful focal length never was "stellar".

The 400 5.6 is achievable with as good quality with a Nikon 300 f4 and a 1.4x TC - if anything this is actually better.

The 70-200 family Canon have... well, thats only a money thing, the 70-200 f2.8 VRII is excellent.

Maybe also the lack of a 85 1.2? Maybe...

I'd personally like a 135 f2 AFS, but thats a bit special really. I live without it everyday for the last 3 years!

Anyway, as for what I found in the move... well, for me its a sub 4k body with lightning AF and little shutter lag. Canon racked me off with only offering this in the 1DMkIII. Thats why I moved and thats why I stay.

Nikon AF is fast, accurate and best of all has few complex parameters to play with - its really easy to change from one type of shot to another - and quickly and with the confidence you will get it right.

ISO noise/IQ/Colours... not really an Canon vs Nikon issue.

Negatives - the Nikon F mount is not as robust a design compared to Canon EF. Have I broken one? Nope, but it just feels like it might.
Click to expand...

Hey thanks for replying dude, this is exactly the kind of reply I was hoping for. Glad you mentioned the decent autofocus, I'd forgot to list that as a another main gripe about the 5D2

Thanks again :)
 
If you have to push the fill light/exposure to extreme amounts it does have banding issues. Not normally an issue though. Is this actually a problem you've had or something you've read about? There's (IMO) massively exaggerated whining about it on certain forums.
 
Last edited:
The nikon 14-24 is a pretty amazing lens with no equivalent EOS fitment IMHO so I can understand that one, but not really any others unless you want a MF lens for video but then there is a massive amount of cracking M42 stuff for less for that.
 
grum said:
If you have to push the fill light/exposure to extreme amounts it does have banding issues. Not normally an issue though. Is this actually a problem you've had or something you've read about? There's (IMO) massively exaggerated whining about it on certain forums.
Click to expand...

I get it a lot when blending composites and having to push the exposure a bit. If I get it right in camera, it's fine, but when I don't, the 5D2 seems to bite me in the rear.

Maybe Nikon suffers the same, that's what I'm really trying to find out.
 
Phil Young said:
Here are the paper tests:

135mm: Nikon superior

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

24-70mm - Nikon superior

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2

85mm 1.2 vs 85mm 1.4 - nikon sharper throughout the frame but suffers a bit from magenta colour fringing at wide apertures.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

Hope that helps!
Click to expand...

Ah, awesome, thanks dude :)
 
Phil Young said:
Nikon lens quality inferior?!?! ....not a chance...

I haven't swapped from canon but my brother's photography business is canon and they are moving over to nikon to have better optics.

It's well known that many canon users buy an adapter ring to take nikon glass...
Click to expand...

May be I should link that Reuter's Best 100 photographs in 2011 again :p

From my limited read around here in the past 2 weeks, you have come across as a MASSIVE Nikon fan boy, and couldn't be any bigger even if you are a shareholder.

So whilst I would read the links but I wouldn't actually believe the wild assumptions you make on Canon and Nikon lenses, not with the limited experience you have with them (in the context of how many are out there). I make no statement as to the quality of Nikon's optics, I am sure they are superb, the way you come across with Canon gear you'd think they make them out of frosted glass and smeared with butter.

Yet, if it was so bad...there wouldn't be that many working press photographers uses Canon gear.

Both make excellent gear, it's horses for courses. Although Canon do have more courses (or lenses).
 
Last edited:
Flamez said:
If you are pro, then go to a nikon pro shop and they will willing upgrade all of your canon gear to nikon...
Click to expand...

London Headshots said:
Really? Do you have any more information on this? Sounds a bit unfeasible to me
Click to expand...

no they won't unless you pay them to do it.

However, at certain event, particularly sporting ones Nikon has provided Canon photographers with like for like gear to make the move very attractive to them its not an everyday occurrence
 
boyfalldown said:
no they won't unless you pay them to do it.

However, at certain event, particularly sporting ones Nikon has provided Canon photographers with like for like gear to make the move very attractive to them its not an everyday occurrence
Click to expand...

Sounded a bit ridiculous. Thanks :)
 
Irritable_Rabbit said:
In which case, if I was wondering the same, I'd rent some Nikon gear courtesy of my business account and try it out for exactly the sort of work I think I need it for.

It's the only way to be sure. ;)
Click to expand...

I've tried that before, and it doesn't always work out that way. You use something once, you don't really get a feel for it. There's loads of things I both love and hate about the 5D2 that only revealed themselves after days and weeks of use.
 
You could always get a Pentax 645D or a Leica S2 which means you'd have medium format quality and still be able to keep it portable like a DSLR. As for Canon to Nikon, there's nothing really in it as far as the quality of the lenses go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top