Would you jump ship.

Diego Garcia

Diego Garcia

Messages
3,238
Edit My Images
Yes
Have been thinking about jumping ship from Canon to Nikon of late.

Couple of reasons - the main one being that all of the other snappers I tend to roll with from job to job all shot with Nikon, which gives me some serious lens envy. Example, shooting Bristol Rugby on Tues night Gary asks Martin for his 600 2.8 beast and he pulls it out of his bag 'here you go mate!'.

Now they all love my 100 - 400 push and pull baby but jumping ship - I mean, its a big thing financially isnt it and I would not get what I would hope for my Canon outfit so more cash would be required.

I also love the new Nixon software having played with it in the office.

Oh what to do eh? Still, I love my gear and my 24 - 70mm L is gorgeous so it may well stay and I shall look at the N models later in the year.

Anyone here jumped ship?

Diego.

(oh and I have realised that its cool to shoot Nikon - but thats bewteen us) :LOL:
 
I seriously considered it when I was working with only the 20D and Nikon launched the D200, lovely camera and feels really well balanced.

However I was able to pick up a good used 1D MkII and the cost of that was less than I'd have lost transferring everything over so a no brainer really.
 
I really don't see the point in changing systems.
Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus etc etc are all working to different product release schedules so if one brings a new camera that's leagues ahead chances are it'll only be 6 months before everyone else does the same.

For example the Nikon D200 has a more attractive feature list than the Canon 20/30D so you decide to switch systems and a buy a D200. Then this year Canon announces a much improved new xxx, what do you do then, switch back !?!?!

Also, it's more about systems than camera bodies and for me Canon has a much better choice of lenses, flash units, extenders etc etc

Diego Garcia said:
Example, shooting Bristol Rugby on Tues night Gary asks Martin for his 600 2.8 beast and he pulls it out of his bag 'here you go mate!'.
Click to expand...
You mean the 600mm F4 ;)
 
Hmm I currently experience it the other way round: many of the Fleet Street and Agency Pro's that I bump in to out in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to use Canon. I reckon it's about 70% Canon actually.
I wouldn't go there for the simple reason that I've pretty much grown-up with Nikons - I tried a couple of the newer Canons a while back and they felt impossibly bulky and box-like compared to the D1/D2 cameras. The D2X I currently use is probably the most comfortable camera I've ever held.
At this level, image quality is less of an issue - all the current Pro-Spec cameras render an image capable of being used at A2 or larger at Photo-Quality - unless you're going to enlarge to the size of a house, anything better is overkill.
Also all the Pros I've worked with shoot JPEG-High instead of RAW, meaning they throw about 1/3 of the potential information away before they've even started.
 
Good advice all. Thanks. As I said, kind of a moot point but thinking as you do. Likely stay with Canon and invest in a new body and keep my L glass/expand it.

Thanks :)
 
Arkady said:
Hmm I currently experience it the other way round: many of the Fleet Street and Agency Pro's that I bump in to out in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to use Canon. I reckon it's about 70% Canon actually.
I wouldn't go there for the simple reason that I've pretty much grown-up with Nikons - I tried a couple of the newer Canons a while back and they felt impossibly bulky and box-like compared to the D1/D2 cameras. The D2X I currently use is probably the most comfortable camera I've ever held.
At this level, image quality is less of an issue - all the current Pro-Spec cameras render an image capable of being used at A2 or larger at Photo-Quality - unless you're going to enlarge to the size of a house, anything better is overkill.
Also all the Pros I've worked with shoot JPEG-High instead of RAW, meaning they throw about 1/3 of the potential information away before they've even started.
Click to expand...

Spent the day with a guy yesterday who stated the exact seem thoughts with reference to Nikon and the D2X - wow , what a machine.
 
It's funny you mention this. As someone just starting out in the photography field (ie trying to make a semi living from it!) I've been thinking the same thing, and I'm a Nikon man. I've just got me the D200, having already got a D70. I have to say I am absolutely loving the D200. Nothing earth shatteringly different over the D70, but just feels so much better/ more 'grown up' overall. Sounds sad but it's true. I also got the battery grip which makes it feel like the daddy :LOL:

But, the other photographers I've met recently along the way (not loads if honest) seem to be Canon users, and every program you see on TV where you notice the photographers - they all seem to have the big grey Canon L lenses. Lens envy, is it a documented condition does anyone know?
 
whilst at the moment I wouldn't consider shifting from Nikon to Canon (love my kit & my upgrade paths) I'm not sure if it's gonna be worth you moving over from Canon to Nikon... Simply because of the financial outlay.
the money you'd lose in the process aside, the Nikon equivalents to your high end Canon glass are really expensive. That's not to say they aren't lovely, but your wallet is going to be screaming!

As an example, your 24-70 L costs about £850 at warehouse express
The closest equivalent, the Nikkor 28-70 costs a stinging £1100

Now of course the Nikkor 28-70 may be nicer than the 24-70 L, but do you need that extra nicey-ness... Because whether you do or you don't, the lens is going to hit your wallet hard and there is no middle ground. That's the case with most Nikkors ~ it jumps from "low end" lenses (most of which are exceptionally lovely) straight to the mega-bucks high end stuff... No middle ground.
 
Think I'll stick with canon, again for the shear cost of getting new lenses etc., joking aside canon v nikon, I'm not biased either way, it was I just picked up the 350d first and thought that'll do. Like no end of people have said it doesn't need great equipment to take great shots........
 
why would i want to jump ship to nikon... canon is far better for what i want, everywhere i look whereever im shooting in a crowd of photogs i see canon, be it in the pit at a gig, or at a motorsport event, its a sea of canon! :)


canon rules, nikon sucks :p
 
whitewash said:
why would i want to jump ship to nikon... canon is far better for what i want, everywhere i look whereever im shooting in a crowd of photogs i see canon, be it in the pit at a gig, or at a motorsport event, its a sea of canon! :)
Click to expand...

Just because everyone else has Canon, that does not mean it is the best system for you. Its almost like a sheep mentality. And this is what is causing Nikon headaches imo. It's the required critical mass. :)
 
Joe T said:
Just because everyone else has Canon, that does not mean it is the best system for you. Its almost like a sheep mentality. And this is what is causing Nikon headaches imo. It's the required critical mass. :)
Click to expand...


canon nail nikon for image quality (noise etc) at high iso's, thus = the best for me as alot of my work is low light. maybe lots of people know this and use canon gear in this field..... thats not a sheep mentality at all.
 
If the day came when I felt Canon were relying on their brand rather than the quality of their products and R&D, then I may jump ship - hope it never happens as Im very happy with the limited amount of Canon gear I own so far.

However I also believe in "never say never" - afterall I used to appreciate Sony equipment (HiFi's, TV's, portable audio) and to be honest these days most of their stuff is cheap crap or over priced for what you get, who hope their name will sell their products instead of developing good quality devices. While in the mean time others are doing it better and cheaper.
 
I have used both Nikon & Canon and up until recently had a Nikon D100 D2H D2Hs & Canon 1DMKII in my kit bag.

I can understand you wondering what it is like over the other side.
 
whitewash said:
canon nail nikon for image quality (noise etc) at high iso's, thus = the best for me as alot of my work is low light. maybe lots of people know this and use canon gear in this field..... thats not a sheep mentality at all.
Click to expand...

Equally, some of us use nikon because we love the slightly dirty edge that the high iso gives us. Clean and pin sharp is an obsession not worth pursuing unless you print all your shots at a2 or bigger.

I had a feeling this thread might degenerate into a 'mines better than yours' playground type thing.

If Nikon were ****, nobody would buy them. Both cameras have their strengths and weaknesses eg the 350 was apparently made for girls with tiny hands.

Yes it's a girls camera.

A camera, for girls.

and you own it, you 350d girlcam owners!


See? It can get quite childish? I'm not picking on you particularly Jamie, I just get a bit fed up with all the hype. Recently, I've been trying to spend more time taking pictures than discussing the merits of various cameras etc. And you know what? My photography's getting better because of it.

/rant off.

Diego, I would only consider swapping systems if canon doesn't provide what you need or starts to limit your creative ability. I think this is gonna be unlikely as I don't think there's photographer out there who isn't limited by their equipment in some respect, and they all manage to work around it and take fantastic shots all the same.
 
Gandhi said:
the 350 was apparently made for girls with tiny hands.

Yes it's a girls camera.

A camera, for girls.

and you own it, you 350d girlcam owners!
Click to expand...

the thing is your absolutely spot on, although ive heard tge d50 is a camera designed around the needs of limp wristed folks...:nuts:
 
I've used loads of Nikons and loads of Canons, and I can honestly say it's never detracted from the stuff I produce regardless of which camera/brand I've used. I've never improved as a result of swapping either, which should tell me something? :thinking:
 
Going back to the original question.....

Couple of reasons - the main one being that all of the other snappers I tend to roll with from job to job all shot with Nikon, which gives me some serious lens envy. Example, shooting Bristol Rugby on Tues night Gary asks Martin for his 600 2.8 beast and he pulls it out of his bag 'here you go mate!'.
Click to expand...

If that kind of thing would actually happen often enough to make a real difference to your work, then it would be well worth joining the collective and getting shot of your canon stuff.

If your camera kit is just a collection of work tools you cant really afford to have an emotional connection to any brand and need to be open to a change if it improves your quality, oportunities or workflow. In most cases the differences bewteen canon and nikon are way too small to justify the cost and mainly down to personal taste anyway.....

.. but this could be an exception.
 
I've just bought this week a Nikon D50, this is my first DSLR, it won against the Canon 350D purely on price.....it was a hundred quid cheaper...

Had it a day now and I'm loving it too...
 
Hoodi said:
whilst at the moment I wouldn't consider shifting from Nikon to Canon (love my kit & my upgrade paths) I'm not sure if it's gonna be worth you moving over from Canon to Nikon... Simply because of the financial outlay.
the money you'd lose in the process aside, the Nikon equivalents to your high end Canon glass are really expensive. That's not to say they aren't lovely, but your wallet is going to be screaming!

As an example, your 24-70 L costs about £850 at warehouse express
The closest equivalent, the Nikkor 28-70 costs a stinging £1100

Now of course the Nikkor 28-70 may be nicer than the 24-70 L, but do you need that extra nicey-ness... Because whether you do or you don't, the lens is going to hit your wallet hard and there is no middle ground. That's the case with most Nikkors ~ it jumps from "low end" lenses (most of which are exceptionally lovely) straight to the mega-bucks high end stuff... No middle ground.
Click to expand...

I quite agree. It pains me that my 17-55 f/2.8 Nikkor was a grand and yet the equivalent Canon 17-55 f/2.8 retails for under £700.
 
SW4peter said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandhi

Yes it's a girls camera.

A camera, for girls.

and you own it, you 350d girlcam owners!





quality stuff :D - this is the level of discussions I appreciate
Click to expand...

Made me laugh too :)

On a serious note: Yes I'd 'jump ship' if i thought there was something worthwhile to be gained. I go with the 'tools for the job' argument not brand loyalty.
 
In a word - no. I've always used Canon - even my original "proper" compact was a Canon - so I guess to an extent it's what you get used to. For some reason their cameras just seem to fit my hands though. Having not long ago aquired a Samsung digital camera this is even more noticeable now - nice as the Samsung is, it's not a patch on any Canon I've handled for ease of use.

Speedway photographers use almost exclusively Canon in my experience - not sure whether there is any real reason for this or whether that's just the way it's turned out - certainly the 1D MkII & 1DsMkII are ideal "tools for the job" in our environment, and at the mid-range level the 30D is spot on.
 
I seem to get quite wound up when I hear people arguing the Nikon Vs Canon debate. Whichever is most comfortable and suited to your needs is the one you should own. I'll respect a photographer (if he/she produces good work) regardless of what equipment he/she owns. The thing is here and it may sound obvious but its the person behind the camera that is capable of the photo, the camera just helps you achieve the results you intended to capture.

I currently own Nikon equipement and well I'll never ever change to Canon unless I felt there was a strong need to do so. The Nikon for me fits better in my hands and I just feel comfortable shooting and thats whats most important to me. If you sit there feeling uncomfortable you won't be concentrating on the job, i.e composing.

Yes you see at lots of events people shooting with Canon? Infact its like sea of Canons everywhere! But do I let this bother me? No! Is the answer. All I'm interested is "The environment" and getting my camera setup to cope in the situation.

Dad used to shoot for Magazines, newspapers et all and there were photographers that used to frown upon him using Pentax equipment? It didn't bother him one bit and why should it? Afterall he was getting his works published and perhaps the other photographers did to? but he was there to do a job and succeded not because of the brand, because he knew his equipment like the back of his hand and felt comfortable which is much more important.

Sorry if I went on there but its just all imo thats all......

Ed :)
 
I don't honestly think I'd 'jump ship' to Canon - when I first bought my first SLR a couple of years ago, I tried the Canon EOS300 and Nikon F65 - the Nikon just felt a bit better to hold, so I bought based on that. I was told that the kit lenses were pretty much the same standard.

My only regret of going with Nikon is the apparent lack of Nikon mid-range lenses available. If only there was an AF converter to enable use of a Canon lens on a Nikon body... (Tamron used to do the Adaptall, but as far as I'm aware it was only for MF)
 
the obvious choice to me would be to pick up a £10 Nikon-EOS adapter on ebay, and then you can use the Nikon lenses in MF, stopped down metering mode. Obviously you lose AF, but you can still use their lenses...

Stick with Canon - it would be too much to switch.
 
Stick with Canon... you'll never have to lend your gear ;)

seriously, i don't think there's enough of an advantage to switch given the cost of doing so. Canon has a good reputation and the largest market share, and probably the happiest customers.
 
neos said:
Canon has a good reputation and the largest market share, and probably the happiest customers.
Click to expand...

Not quite sure you can even start to qualify that statement ... unless they all drink Carlsberg ;)

I know for absolute certainty that I'd never jump brands to Canon as I feel the 'out of the camera' image is overprocessed and lacks the subtlety of tone Nikon gives.

I used to find the same with film as well... the Canon lenses were too contrasty (for me) and there continues, to this day, the tell-tale 'edge halo' Canon optics give.

I'm not here to knock companies or bash the brand loyalties drum. It's quite pointless! Horses for courses, if what is delvered is what a user wants then that's fine by me. It's completely subjective, as is all art.

It's the divide betwixt subjectivity and objectivity that gets confused, so it just remains a plain personal choice and preference. If it sits OK in your hand then it becomes a comfortable tool and lets you get on with the job without encumberance.

Anyhow, isn't it good that we've got a choice? We could all be arguing/discussing the merits and demerits of Stanley chisels on our engraving blocks.... which wood do you use by the way? ;)
 
Gandhi said:
I had a feeling this thread might degenerate into a 'mines better than yours' playground type thing.
Click to expand...

rubbish...

ok, we all know canon's far better though :p
 
i'll add a more sensible reply in that so many systems offer solutions for image capture that we're oftn spoilt for choice. when it comes down to it its a race between canon and nikon. nikon are pretty crafty in their pitch and have, with the success of their d70, really made a good position for themselves along comes the d200 as a not-too-far-hop for the d70 owners to upgrade along as the d80 now rolls out to satisfy new users. not forgetting the d50 thats an excellent 'budget' dslr...
canon on the other hand, at present, does have a slight mis-match to nikon's offerings in abilities and price. the 20D was massively succesful, better than the d70? I can't say but the 30D being so similar suggests canon is slowing down in that direction - "if it ain't broke" approach. the 5D was a groundbreaking machine being a 'more' affordable full frame body, it was only hampered at the start of its life by the ridiculously high price tag. Now its available around £1600... again, expensive - worth it? at the other end of the scale the 350D beats off the competition with a stick, the downside is its silly size!
its difficult to compare the two makes directly as features in each camera differ, nikon have stated full frame technology is not something they're going to go for for example. whether this is important to you may sway your descision, makes good sense to me though cause you can get one set of lenses and use them across a whole range of digital bodies - canon's ef-s lenses only work on the 20/30/350D 'cropped' sensor bodies, not 5d or 1 series.
and is it me or is canon a teeny bit more expensive for the equivelent than nikon?
 
shiato storm said:
nikon are pretty crafty in their pitch
Click to expand...

Probably just throwaway wording, but Nikon are fairly lacking in their pitch if you ask me - while Canon seem to have a large budget for advertising and pushing their new products through, Nikon seem to do virtually sod all. They just expect people to embrace the products with no pushing at their end... Canon seem to have the better idea.

shiato storm said:
and is it me or is canon a teeny bit more expensive for the equivelent than nikon?
Click to expand...

Lenses or bodies? Bodies you could argue till you're blue in the face, but the fact is no Canon // Nikon bodies really compare directly.. So one mans cheaper is anothers more expensive.

As for lenses, I'd say it's undoubtedly the other way around. The Nikkor equivalent almost always has a substantially higher price tag than the Canon, as per the example above.
Nikon also seem to be getting progressively less innovative with their lenses - although that may just be me looking at their history (which I have no first hand experience of) with rose tinted glasses. Still. I want a 6mm fisheye!
 
Does everybody know this :shrug:

I didn't and I've just bought a Nikon D50:bonk:

:lol :lol
 
My bad, it's the high end glass that is where there are large price disparities. It's not all bad, there are some good mid range Nikkors (depends on what you're after!) and even if you can't find exactly what you need from Nikon in the middle ground, the third party manufacturers usually have something to fit the bill.
The "low end" Nikkors are pretty much all rather good. Not so much on the telephoto side of things, though.
 
It's the tyranny of choice Diego, we're bombarded by marketing day in day out. 50 diff types of cereal, as many washing powders, New improved fairy, the best ever!! Sounds funny to compare but both canon and Nikon treat us no differently then Tesco treat housewife's.

Don't get on that Merry-go-round
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top