Switching From Nikon To Canon

Suzy McKnockers

Suzy McKnockers

Messages
477
Name
Jason
Edit My Images
Yes
So, that same old question! Which is better?? The question normally arises when people are starting out from what I've seen. I see this pop up on various sites from time to time and it always comes down to the usual same old answers.... Blaa blaa we've heard it all before right??

Being a Nikon shooter for the past couple of years I recently loaned a d5mk2 and I was blown away with its low light performance and accompanied with the 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's it was a great combo.

I'm now seriously considering to switch.... I like the usability of the later Nikon models however I found the 5dmk2 to be a little fiddly to use.... So thinking to myself the mk3 surley has my concerns fixed.

After watching a few vids it appears as though they have..... So, am I about to ditch Nikon and buy a 5dmk3..... ?? Quite possibly. Has anyone else made the switch?? How did you find it?
 
Firstly, what Nikon are you comparing against the 5d2 to think the Canon is that much better?
 
Last edited:
Are you comparing like for like? Are you currently using Nikons 24-70 and 70-200? What body do you have?
Ultimately it is a personal choice.
 
I switched the other way back in 2008. But only because of the focussing issues with the 1D MKIII, and no near term roadmap for a 1D MkIV to replace it. Now I wouldn't switch back even with the likely slight advantage that the 1Dx gives over the D4s - for 99.9% of camera users the human part of the system will always be the limiting factor. It was a massive hassle selling off an entire system and selecting what to buy from Nikon with the smaller pot of money than the value I had in Canon. Switching mounts, and buttons took less than two weeks to burn into muscle memory and IMVHO isn't the big issue everyone thinks it is if you use kit regularly.

But I'd echo the questions above, what are you comparing the 5DMKII and MKIII with (what body are you currently shooting with), and which lenses and what aspect of your photography pushes the camera system to the limit that is making you think you need to switch ?
 
Speaking as someone who has been through more cameras and systems in the last few years than I care to remember, in my opinion it's usually a huge waste of time/money. It's fun switching, and you have the whole 'new system' buzz for a while, and you will always gain/loose different things when you change, but when it boils down to it, unless you specifically need a feature of a certain camera, it really makes no difference to your actual photography one bit.

There will be things that will influence you, such as colours SOOC might be better from one brand, low light might be better from another, focussing better on yet another. Only you can weigh up whether these and other aspects are enough of a reason to justify a switch

I'm not saying don't do it, that would be hugely hypocritical of me seeing as I've done it a good few times, and the fact that I'm currently switching from Nikon to Fuji ( albeit more of a financial requirement rather than a choice, but I've picked Fuji because I like the way Fuji handles colour, which is a prime example of what I was talking about) but if you are going to do it, make sure you think it through, and make sure you can afford it.
 
thanks for all your input comments are taken on board - the d750 is the other Nikon Camera.

I dont know, maybe its just me - or maybe im looking at more images taken with canon's (as their more widely used) but not just the images ive taken - other peoples Canon images just look better too (i dont mean from a compositional standpoint) just better quality :/
 
Suzy McKnockers said:
thanks for all your input comments are taken on board - the d750 is the other Nikon Camera.

I dont know, maybe its just me - or maybe im looking at more images taken with canon's (as their more widely used) but not just the images ive taken - other peoples Canon images just look better too (i dont mean from a compositional standpoint) just better quality :/
Click to expand...

More images straight out of the camera, or more images that have been post-processed. Because if it is the latter then the issue is not between the D750 and the 5DMkII but in your post-processing - quantity or quality of.

I can tell you hand on heart that after normalising the differences in colour etc that the two different brands make off the sensor you can achieve pretty much the same image from either brand with modern kit like that.
 
You compared a D750 to a 5DII and think that the Canon blew it away? Did I misread that?

Edit: I did. Okay, well, the 5DIII is a great camera, but the only way to be sure is to go and have a play with both with comparable lenses.
 
Last edited:
minnnt said:
Uh oh... I can hear the D750 cage opening as we speak... They'll be with you shortly. :D
Click to expand...
•
+1
I don't see how the canon you tried could outperform the D750 in low light.
Altogether, I would recommend you take the time to intimately learn the
basics of your gear and save the money.
 
Suzy McKnockers said:
thanks for all your input comments are taken on board - the d750 is the other Nikon Camera.

I dont know, maybe its just me - or maybe im looking at more images taken with canon's (as their more widely used) but not just the images ive taken - other peoples Canon images just look better too (i dont mean from a compositional standpoint) just better quality :/
Click to expand...

You're right. The D750 is pants compared to the Canon in every department.

Being so awful they have no resale value, so as a favour I'll take it off your hands for the cost of postage.

HTH :)
 
Maybe I'm just easily please and and maybe its more in the way of the mk2 exceeding expectations for a camera that is almost 8 years old now. you may have seen these images on another feed - Other than than photographer compositional errors on a couple - i think the quality in low light is great - So the mk3 must me amazing right?

11.jpg


5.jpg


4.jpg


11.jpg
 
Again, I tried this a few years back.. lasted one week and sold the canon stuff.. not sure what you will be gaining.. maybe keep your lenses and get a D750 or a D610.. it's all horses for courses though..
 
Those pictures (the ones I can see the exif for) are at pretty low ISOs for low light shooting - 640 and 1600. Let's see some at 8000.
Suzy McKnockers said:
Maybe I'm just easily please and and maybe its more in the way of the mk2 exceeding expectations for a camera that is almost 8 years old now. you may have seen these images on another feed - Other than than photographer compositional errors on a couple - i think the quality in low light is great - So the mk3 must me amazing right?

11.jpg



5.jpg


4.jpg



11.jpg
Click to expand...

The two I can read the exif for are not at what I'd consider high ISO (640 and 1600) if it's low light performance you are considering. I'd be more interested in how a camera performs at ISO 8000.

Crap photos, but you get the idea > https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/nikon-d750.557831/page-191#post-7146776
 
Those images stand out because of the quality of the light, not the quantity.....
 
It is not the camera but the person 6 inches behind it that takes a good picture
 
@Suzy McKnockers I think you have a case of "the grass is always greener" tbh. I made the move to FF a year ago and the Canon 5DIII had been on the top of my hitlist for a very long time, but then the D750 came out and it is all round a better camera than the 5DIII and so I bought this instead, and haven't regretted it for one second. I couldn't deny the specs (see below re sensor performance), but I thought I'd always preferred the images from Canon. However, this video helped me to make my mind up. If you fast forward to 19.12 it asks you to choose between a series of images and then at the end tells you which camera took which, and to my surprise every shot I preferred was from the Nikon. This sealed it for me.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsZtUZvoeO0




If you're finding that lowlight shooting is better with the 5DII than the D750 then it's down to technique, and or not comparing comparable lenses. As you can see here with these samples at 6400 ISO the D750 is a lot better than the 5DII, a bit better than the 5DIII and is even better than the 5DII at 3200 ISO.

Screen%20Shot%202015-12-04%20at%2012.09.32_zps4wrdxdpg.png



Screen%20Shot%202015-12-04%20at%2012.48.25_zpsnehegjdy.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
snerkler said:
In that thread you posted he puts the D750 and D3s side by side, the D3s dwarfs the D750 ;)
Click to expand...

I had a feeling you hadn't read the update well into the review, where he compares the D750 files vs the 5d3;)..... Seriously though, that review got me wanting and a lot of others, you could just see how good the camera is and his review in the thread helped a lot of people to buy.
 
A lot is down to accurate metering /exposure in the first place plus good glass and how you process the files and your P.P. Skills
I run both Canon and Nikon Systems but presently adding the Fuji X system with a view to selling off the Canon and some of the Nikon old age and disabilities make it difficult carry and use large and heavy gear these days for me.
Oh although I use both systems I alway find the Canon a little more fiddly to use but that's probably just me!
 
Last edited:
I had a Nikon D3200 and D7000, sold the D3200 and bought a secondhand Canon 5D2. This was at the height of the D600 self oiling and debris loving sensor issues and before the 'upgrade' to the D610. Logically, it would have made sense to upgrade to a D600, but the inadequate and severely delayed response to the issue of fixing D600s by Nikon meant I lost faith in the Company and jumped ship. The Canon is mainly used for studio work and the D7000 was relegated to back up duties, rarely used and now up for sale elsewhere. I do prefer the ergonomics on my Canon, it fits my hand better and I find the button layout much better for a left eyed shooter, the D7000 back focus button is too close to my right eye. Others of course prefer the Nikon layout, it really is an individual preference with no right or wrong.
The last couple of studio shoots have been with my Lumix GH3 which I find also has excellent handling and provides sharp well focused images. I tend not to be shooting moving images at high speed in low light conditions and so the weaknesses of the M4/3 system matter much less to me. So I might just have bought my last DSLR, I look at the list of capabilities and features available on a newly acquired Lumix G7 and note that both my DSLRs have been left a long way behind except for autofocus and high ISO capabilities.
 
snerkler said:
the D3s dwarfs the D750
Click to expand...
•
What ever is said, My D3S has the largest pixels on a FF sensor… and
that makes it very photon hungry!

Better ISO/noise reduction may come out but they do only with 50% more
pixels and, nevertheless, it just won't add up!
 
•
I wanted to illustrate my post #36 and just realized that these shots, taken
at ISO 6,400, were not from my D3S but from my D3X which has 24MP:

2323%20XDpp.jpg


2328%20XDpp.jpg
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•
I wanted to illustrate my post #36 and just realized that these shots, taken
at ISO 6,400, were not from my D3S but from my D3X which has 24MP:

2323%20XDpp.jpg


2328%20XDpp.jpg
Click to expand...
Love the scalextric track, very impressive (y)

This was at ISO 9000
DSC_3567 by TDG-77, on Flickr

This was at 12800 ISO. You can tell how dark it was as it was f2.8, 1/40 and still needed 12800 ISO
DSC_3959 2 by TDG-77, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top