Have You Moved From Nikon To Canon?

ianbarber

ianbarber

Messages
882
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm not looking to start one of those Cano vs Nikon threads here.

Having read alot of articles and seen youtube videos of Landscape Photographers, I cant help noticing that Canon Gear seems to be the brand they use especially the 5D Mk II.

I know the 5D Mk II is about 24 mega pixels and the Nikon D3s which I use is 12 Megapixels so that could be one reason or does the Canon have more facilities than the Nikon.

I was just curious to hear any comments from anyone that has moved over to Canon from Nikon and the reasons why.
 
I moved from Nikon to Canon just before the D700 was announced as I wanted a FF camera.

Am I happy? Yes.

Would I have done it if I had known a new FF body was on the cards from Nikon? Probably not.
 
Don't know about the Canon having more facilities than a Nikon. Apart from being able to adjust ISO/shutter speed/aperture, having a bit of glass on the front and a sensor to record the image, which I think most digital cameras have, what else do you need to take pictures of a landscape?

Having said all that, the 5DII does have a fair reputation as being a good landscape camera, which is probably down to overall image quality that it can produce when used by a competent photographer.
 
Scarecrow said:
Having said all that, the 5DII does have a fair reputation as being
a good landscape camera, which is probably down to overall image quality that it can produce when used by a competent photographer.
Click to expand...

What on earth is a 'good lanscape camera'?

Any camera is a good landscape camera.....it's the person holding said camera that counts.

D in W
 
So that'll be... One person then...?


:lol::lol::lol:

Compared to the 100's that have come across to the Dark Side...?


:lol::lol::lol:
 
Dave in Wales said:
What on earth is a 'good lanscape camera'?

Any camera is a good landscape camera.....it's the person holding said camera that counts.

D in W
Click to expand...

A good landscape camera has excellent image quality, minimal noise and is capable of resolving massive amounts of detail.

It's called having the right tool for the job - the right person can do the job with any camera - but surely they would be better to use the best tool for the job in hand. :shrug:
 
I'd agree that a "good landscape camera" could be anything pretty much. You're typically on a tripod so no need for mega ISOs, you're shooting anywhere f/11-22 and so don't need full frame to get that shallow DOF portraiture requires etc, and you're shooting single frames so no requirement for fast burst rates.

Bearing that in mind, the 5DII only confers a megapixel advantage over the D3s which would only come in useful if you were planning on blowing up your images to huge sizes. For other aspects of general photography the D3s has the upper hand.
 
Indeed. Obviously the "fair" comparison would be D700 vs 5DII, or 1DsIII vs D3s/x, but that's not what the OP was wondering about.

BTW although I've recently migrated to Nikon, I've been a happy Canon shooter for years and have no brand axe to grind.
 
If I was shooting landscapes I certainly would not discount the 5DII. Lots of MP, full frame and no need for fast AF or high FPS. It's exactly the kind of application it excels at.

It's lighter to carry up hills, the small batteries pop in a pocket and you don't need flash.

Pop some decent glass on it and it's pretty much perfect. :)

So yes, for landscapes it would get my vote.
 
Arkady2 said:
Quite often with photography, 'the right tool for the job' isn't the same thing as 'what I can afford easily'...

A cheap hobby it aint...
Click to expand...

And as the OP asked about a landscape camera the 5D2 is probably the right tool for the job. ;)
 
Dave in Wales said:
What on earth is a 'good lanscape camera'?

Any camera is a good landscape camera.....it's the person holding said camera that counts.

D in W
Click to expand...

True but I think he's also referring to the fact that a lot of people turned to a 5D2 because at the time, it was the only real choice for high-MP, full-frame in a lightweight body. Gripped bodies aren't always neccessary when it's on a tripod in landscape rotation so why spend a couple of grand more for the top-end bodies? Yep, there's the D700 also to consider these days in terms of un-gripped bodies but it doesn't have the megapixel count (which is important to some people, rightly or wrongly) and there are the two Sonys, which don't have the overall lens selection of the Canon.

Personally you'd have to drag me kicking and screaming back over to Canon. There are probably only one or two reasons why I'd move back over (and they're a couple of telephoto lenses); crap handling, pansy build quality on the mid-range models and a flash system that's several years behind Nikon's are just a few of the things that makes me feel i made the right decision moving to Nikon.
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
True but I think he's also referring to the fact that a lot of people turned to a 5D2 because at the time, it was the only real choice for high-MP, full-frame in a lightweight body. Gripped bodies aren't always neccessary when it's on a tripod in landscape rotation so why spend a couple of grand more for the top-end bodies? Yep, there's the D700 also to consider these days in terms of un-gripped bodies but it doesn't have the megapixel count (which is important to some people, rightly or wrongly) and there are the two Sonys, which don't have the overall lens selection of the Canon.

Personally you'd have to drag me kicking and screaming back over to Canon. There are probably only one or two reasons why I'd move back over (and they're a couple of telephoto lenses); crap handling, pansy build quality on the mid-range models and a flash system that's several years behind Nikon's are just a few of the things that makes me feel i made the right decision moving to Nikon.
Click to expand...


Good photocopiers though - credit where it's due...:thumbs:
 
nikon make some nice confocal microscopes too.

camera is a camera its pretty much irrelavent for most applications these days.
 
So do Olympus :) I used to sell them :)

Good optics are good optics and there is a lot of experience in Nikon, Olympus, Leica and Zeiss that is pretty much at the cutting edge of optics. :)
 
If you had said wildlife reckon a move to Canon would be a good bet for the range of lenses, but not so sure it makes much difference for Landscape
 
In years past Canon have been king of the telephoto - but I'm no longer sure this is the case.

OK, it is - but in the lower priced offerings. Canon have more stuff in the ~1k range for telephoto however above that Nikon are pretty much level - with the exception of their excellent 200-400mm F4

I am pretty sure when I'm finally in the market for a 5/600mm F4 I will be taking a good look at the Nikon and Canon offerings to see which will be better for me.
 
As someone who does primarily landscape photography, and currently shoots with a Nikon but constantly wonders whether to move to a Canon setup I can't help but stick in my 2p.

When I go out (landscape) shooting, the camera I come across other people using is almost always a 5D mk2. So if your starting from a complete scratch setup then I would agree that a 5D mk2 and something like a L 17-40/4 and a L 70-200/4 would be a great start, with some Lee Filters. But if you already shoot Nikon and aren't a full time pro then I really do struggle to see the theory of changing brands every 5 minutes to purchase whatever is in vogue at that moment.

Discounting the cost of the camera, you also have to consider the cost of buying new Canon glass, remotes, accessories etc, software to the cost of the changeover. You may not get back what you paid for your Nikon camera (likely) or Nikon glass (would hold it's value better) so anything new would have to be topped up from your own pocket. If your a pro making a full time living then fair enough, you could justify the cost. But in my instance, I make some money from photography but not nearly enough to justify shelling out £2k+ on a new system.

The other thing worth remembering, in my opinion, is that before the 5D mk2 toddled along there were plenty of pros shooting on 12mpx or lower setups and making a healthy living from the prints etc. I suppose it's only natural to strive for the very best equipment perhaps.

Anyway for what it's worth, I'm happy with my D300s setup and it's never stopped me selling an image.

(Just random mullings to pass the time, not trying to prove a point with anyone or their preferences etc)
 
Im moving from sony to canon if that counts? Funny enough im getting a 5D Mk II as well, but then again sony'f FF's are kak anyway so no need to stay with them :(
 
ive been tempted to move rom canon to nikon but not sure it is worth it as they are much of a muchness
 
I personally am going to see where this year takes me with the 1D.

As much as I love my 1D the D3 just seems to always catch my eye. FF, keeps up with the 1D in FPS, it takes that lovely 14-24mm f/2.8 Nikkor etc. The change would cost a lot more than getting a second 1D and more L glass though.

I'm hoping, I'll revitalize my love for the 1D next year and just get another to back it up (probably just before the MkV comes out :D ).


It's probably inevitable, you buy into one manufacturer and down the line you look at the other and think the grass is greener on the other side. You switch and don't really get much more out of it... I've been there with PC > Mac > PC, so in my case I should probably just stick where I am with Canon; worry less about the equipment and more about the pictures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top