Hey everybody
In the last few days I have been really thinking about making the switch form Nikon to Canon, and I would be intrigued to find out other people’s opinions on it. And to make sure I’m making a logical decision.
I have shot two weddings this year, some second shooting lined up, with 3 more booked next year with hopefully more on the way. I know a lot of people say it, but this is something I seriously want to pursue. I have never had as much fun with a camera in my hand then while shooting a wedding!
I have only ever owned a single DSLR, my current D700 since Jan last year. I went straight to the camera (at the time) that was the best all rounder and I would grow into. In terms of lenses, I use only a 35mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 and a couple of SB900’s now and then. And I adore this setup for weddings and portraits so far.
As I’m shooting weddings, I of course need to invest in a second body, but I just can’t bring myself to buy another D700. As well as being discontinued by Nikon, it doesn’t offer me the resolution I need for the larger full page photo books that I want to provide to clients, and doesn’t offer dual memory card slots I want for that extra insurance on the day. I have no problem with the image quality or autofocus of the D700.
My upgrade path here seems to be either another D700 or a D800. And I want neither. The D800 is just too much resolution, and I don’t have the funds to improve my storage / computer to deal with the files, particularly at this early stage of my photography business. After using a D800 briefly, it is also a very different camera to the D700, in terms or ergonomics so would be more difficult to shoot together, not to mention the 3x difference in resolution. It just doesn’t make sense for weddings imho.
Finally, and this is the big one for me, is that Nikon offer very limited options for fast primes above 150mm. I like to shoot light, and a 70-200 isn’t an option. I’ve tried, it just isn’t for me. But I do need a longer lens for doing the speeches and ceremony, as this is where I have struggled so far. The AFD 135mm is an option, but it’s not long enough, I’m put off by the noisy AF, and the potential quality on the demanding D800.
But on the other hand. Canon have made my ideal camera in the form of the 5D MKIII. It’s the same price as the D800, but hits the sweet spot for AF, High ISO, duel card slots and just enough extra resolution without eating up loads of storage. My initial research seems to suggest that the Canon 35mm f1.4 is comparable to the Nikon, albeit with faster autofocus. The Canon 85mm is f1.2, also has great reviews so I assume could be a actually better than the Nikon. And finally, Canon offer a 200mm f2.8, for very little outlay that looks to be sharp, small and light with quick AF, which sounds perfect for me. I’m also keen on the fact that the 5D MkII and MkIII share the same battery, have similar resolution and button layout, making a MkII a good backup body/second body to use until I have earned enough to justify another mkIII. (as long as I have the work coming in to justify it)
Sorry for the long post, but I’m trying to approach this as logically as I can. As hobbyist, I don’t really care either way. But this is a lot of money/investment and going forward I don’t want to regret my decisions, and one that could affect the start-up of my business and ability to take on more wedding and portrait work.
So am I mad? Or does this make perfect sense? Does it even matter?
Love to hear your thoughts.
. I'm a lot closer to 'the average wedding photographer' than Guy is, I can happily shoot with a film camera, which I'd guess a lot of younger guys couldn't, but the outcome is still the same. Shooting weddings on film creates a completely different product, one that certainly could be marketed, but would almost certainly be a worse product VFM wise. There's merit in trying to create a unique product and carving out a market for it, but it's a riskier business proposition than competing in an established market with the current established products.