My "Dark Side" Experience

Yeah, Nikon bodies are something....for sure. But if you don't have the glass to match with the body, your shots won't be as good.

Ed, my mainstay before was the 1D2N with the 16-35 and 70-200 zooms. Then I got into primes, and started having issues with front focusing using the 35L. I would get tack sharp images on the 5D, but the 1D2N was grossly front-focused. I ended up sending in the 35L and 1D2N numerous times for calibration over about two months, but they always came back the same, and eventually I was offered an upgrade path on the 12DN to the 1D3. The whole thing was just taking way too long, though, so I picked up the D3 in the meantime. So now the 1D3 is pending sale, unused.
I have a feeling I would probably have been happy with the 1D3, but the D3's working for me now, so it stays. I mostly value being able to use fast primes wide open for effect on occasion, and I had a bit of fear about the 1D3 for this specific application. The 5D, 35L, and MF primes suit me perfectly a lot of the time.

I would agree with this write up, with the exception of one thing. The Nikon 17-55 is not "far superior" to the Canon 17-55, but IMO, quite the opposite. The Nikon version does not have VR, while the Canon version does. The Canon version is excellent optically, besting the 24-70 and 24-105 (again, IMO, and I have owned all three lenses) and IMO better than the Nikon 17-55. The one area that I think the Nikon 17-55 is better is the build. However, the Nikon version is also $200 more than the Canon version. The Canon 17-55 is simply a superb lens and I feel is the best in it's class.

I think the attraction to Nikon for many is their cameras. Right now, I feel that Nikon's camera lineup is better than Canon's lineup. However, as you said, finding lenses to match up to them can be frustrating. For long time Nikon owners, it may not be as frustrating, because they just gotten used to the selection. But for Canon converts, who are used to the great selection of Canon lenses, I think it is a bit of shock when they can't find their corresponding versions of their favorite Canon lenses (85L, 100-400, 300 f/4 IS)

BigBlueDodge wrote in post #7822404
I would agree with this write up, with the exception of one thing. The Nikon 17-55 is not "far superior" to the Canon 17-55, but IMO, quite the opposite. The Nikon version does not have VR, while the Canon version does. The Canon version is excellent optically, besting the 24-70 and 24-105 (again, IMO, and I have owned all three lenses) and IMO better than the Nikon 17-55. The one area that I think the Nikon 17-55 is better is the build. However, the Nikon version is also $200 more than the Canon version. The Canon 17-55 is simply a superb lens and I feel is the best in it's class.

I think the attraction to Nikon for many is their cameras. Right now, I feel that Nikon's camera lineup is better than Canon's lineup. However, as you said, finding lenses to match up to them can be frustrating. For long time Nikon owners, it may not be as frustrating, because they just gotten used to the selection. But for Canon converts, who are used to the great selection of Canon lenses, I think it is a bit of shock when they can't find their corresponding versions of their favorite Canon lenses (85L, 100-400, 300 f/4 IS)

And 2 years ago, the opposite was true (it was just as I was starting into cameras, and I couldn't hear enough about how good the Canon camera lineup was).

Canon has been falling behind a bit in bodies, but it will come back around; it always does. Besides, it is the photog behind the viewfinder that has the biggest effect on the picture.

On several occasions I leaned toward switching, and even tried the d700 and d300 several times. I just couldn't get over the cost differential to get the same kit I have now - it would cost me another $3000. I am not happy with canon's steadfast refusal to put pro AF on the 5 series, but I've been coping with it this long I think I can live with it.

Canon lenses are what brought me over from the dark side. No regrets.

It's certainly true the photog makes the shot. No doubt. The D300, imho, just provides more opportunities to make that shot. Love the AF, tho I had NO complaints about my 40D. Love the LCD, but I understand the 50D has that covered. But Canon doesn't have the Nikon CLS. I'm sorry, but I do like the ergos of Nikon a bit better right now and it's what keeps me on this side. That and the hope that any day the $1000 f4 lens lineup is coming. Yeah. right. And the Easter Bunny.

BigBlueDodge wrote in post #7822404
I would agree with this write up, with the exception of one thing. The Nikon 17-55 is not "far superior" to the Canon 17-55, but IMO, quite the opposite. The Nikon version does not have VR, while the Canon version does. The Canon version is excellent optically, besting the 24-70 and 24-105 (again, IMO, and I have owned all three lenses) and IMO better than the Nikon 17-55. The one area that I think the Nikon 17-55 is better is the build. However, the Nikon version is also $200 more than the Canon version. The Canon 17-55 is simply a superb lens and I feel is the best in it's class.

Build is better and if i remember right, the Nikon 17-55 handles flare a fair bit better

Seconded, Nikon's bodies are currently more appealing to me, but the Canon glass is what made me stay..eventually, Canon will recover and smack Nikon back a few steps with a killer body, but for now..its a little underwhelming

I did almost switch to Nikon and I am thankful I didnt, if I had, I would have been right screwed when the 150-500 didnt work out...Nikon has -no- competetor to it...the 200-400 f/4G isnt, and the 80-400 is supposed to be but its stuck with a terrible AF mechanism...

A few years ago i dumped Nikon to come Canon because I found the D70 so god-aweful that I never wanted a Nikon digital...I remember the moment i decided to switch, I was in Circuit City, and I had picked up a 20D, I was sold right there pretty much...

My 30D is old, yes, and its driving me up the wall sometimes, but I'd never trade it for a D200 or a D90...

I'm not going to go into the 17-55 debate because this thread really wasn't about the relative merits of either system, much less specifically about any one lens. I will say that, to me (and I've owned 2x24-70, 2x24-105 and 1x17-55 EF-S), the Nikon version is nicer than the Canon counterpart. I personally absolutely disliked my EF-S 17-55.

So much of liking a system or lens or body has more to do with personal preferences rather than technical specs. If every one of the pieces were exactly alike with no copy variation and the tech differences were so big that one stood out over the other, choices would be easy and clear. That's not the real world, though. We often, here on these forums, debate differences that can only be seen under severe or unrealistic circumstances (like 200% blowups on a monitor). Great photogs can get great shots with crap or so-so gear. And lousy photogs (like myself) can't get a great shot with pro gear (unless it's pure luck).

So much of what we like is personal preference and discussing those are not really the aim of my intent here on this thread. I just wanted to share what I have found jumping to the Nikon world.

To the OP, I agree with you 100%. I switched from Olympus to Canon about 1/2 year ago. And of course, I was looking at either Canon or Nikon. There were 2 things that made me switch to Canon: 1) High ISO performance seemed a bit better than a comparable Nikon and 2) the real keeper, was the 70-200 F4L. This lens was pretty much the single reason why I moved to Canon.

Ive just got to wonder why the 16-35/2.8 is matched with the 14-24 and not the 17-35/2.8
And the Nikkor 17-55 being better than the Canon? The Canon one is sharper and has IS...

When my wife and I first ventured into digital photography, we had already each become accustomed to the systems we used before we met--Canon for me and Nikon for her. Thus, to maintain our blissful relationship, we decided to keep our systems separate. We therefore bought a 10D for me and a D100 for her.

As bodies go, the 10D is better than the D100 for a lot of reasons. But both work, and both have been improved on quite a lot in the subsequent half-dozen years.

Canon has always been more market-driven, and Nikon always acted more like it was run by photographers. But the differences in the results are generally indistinguishable. I know which is less likely to go belly-up in a bad economy, though.

But, to the point of my post: I bought a 70-200/4L and a 1.4x teleconverter for my 10D. I paid about $850 for the combination. Later, I decided to buy a similar lens for my wife. We considered many options, but ended up with the high-end Nikkor 70-200/2.8 and a Nikon 1.4x extender. Yes, it has VR. Yes, it's a stop faster. No, neither of these features were considered critically important. But we had to buy those features because Nikon didn't have any top-quality glass in this range that didn't have them. Price: $2100 or thereabouts. Image quality is not superior to what I have, by any means.

Is Nikon's 1.4x extender, at over $400 (camera store price), better than the Canon 1.4x extender at $275? No.

Her lens is also heavier and bigger than mine. But it did come with a tripod ring.

Thus, I agree that Nikon has some great high-end offerings, but little to compete with the depth and price diversity of the Canon line.

Rick "whose wife now wants a D700" Denney

rdenney wrote in post #7826735
Rick "whose wife now wants a D700" Denney

And I guarantee she gets it before you get a 5DII

Actually my girlfriend shoots a D80, and I have my 30D, shes also heavily into photography and I tease her about shooting Nikon constantly, but at the same tim I personally wouldnt mind her staying Nikon for the same reason I'd stay Canon....we can both trade off and play with each others fun toys, its the best of both worlds to me

NorCalAl wrote in post #7819199
I hate Nikon lenses. Period. Why? Two reasons: selection and price.

With Nikon, you basically have two choices (three if you count manual focus models), pro level and consumer grade.

Precisely the reason I went with Canon. I have an interestingly-"mismatched" setup -- the XSi with the 17-55+70-400 f4 IS -- but there was no way I could justify another $1300 to go with the Nikon D90 and Nikkor equivalents.

If I had an unlimited budget, I probably would have gone with Nikon. I like the upgrade path of D90 -> D300 -> D700 more than I do the path of XSi -> 50D -> 5D MkII, but the reality is that the up-front cost of Nikon gave me no choice but to go with Canon. Maybe the D300 will end up being cheaper than the 50D and likewise for the D700, but that still doesn't change the immediate impact of my bank account when I bought my first gear...

tigerotor77w wrote in post #7827235
Precisely the reason I went with Canon. I have an interestingly-"mismatched" setup -- the XSi with the 17-55+70-400 f4 IS -- but there was no way I could justify another $1300 to go with the Nikon D90 and Nikkor equivalents.

If I had an unlimited budget, I probably would have gone with Nikon. I like the upgrade path of D90 -> D300 -> D700 more than I do the path of XSi -> 50D -> 5D MkII, but the reality is that the up-front cost of Nikon gave me no choice but to go with Canon. Maybe the D300 will end up being cheaper than the 50D and likewise for the D700, but that still doesn't change the immediate impact of my bank account when I bought my first gear...

But you could also go XSi to 5D Classic instead

Nikon lacks that option