Calling all Canon -> Nikon -> Canon shooters

So I have seen it here alot. People have moved from Canon to Nikon, then a while later back to Canon. Maybe some become brain wired to the Canon's or Nikon's way, but certainly others make the change for reasons that significantly improve their pictures, handling or operation.

One example I have seen is Canon 5D to Nikon D700 to Canon 5DMII. I certainly understand the 5D to D700 with all those delicious AF points and low noise. But back to the 5DMII. There must be more I don't understand.

So tell us your story of using Canon then moving to Nikon. What you liked and didn't like. Then of course moving back to Canon. Why did you do it? What can we learn from your experiences?

If someone moved from the D700 to the 5Dii then it must be for lens choice or video. I can't think of another serious reason.

Trixster! wrote in post #11863341
If someone moved from the D700 to the 5Dii then it must be for lens choice or video. I can't think of another serious reason.

Did you make the move? I'm looking for people how actually did it.

That sounds like me.

Here's my journey since late 2009.

1DMKIII + 5dMKII -> 1DMKIV + 5DMKII -> D3 + D700 -> D700 + D700 -> D3s + D700 -> 1DMKIII + 5DMKII

Hate to repeat this again, but the 1DMKIV didn't serve me well in low light, low contrast situations. This was back in Feb/Mar 2010. So it was either go back to the 1DMKIII + 5DMKII or switch to Nikon, so I switched. While the Nikon cameras served me well, the low light, low contrast focusing was still a bit underwhelming. However they did tons better than the 1DMKIV. I was able to get the job done but it was becoming increasingly clear that the 1DMKIII was really the best camera for low light, low contrast shooting. This is obviously something I couldn't have found out unless I tried Nikon gear. I think Nikon did a fine job in releasing lots of lenses in a one year span so other than the 135L, I wasn't missing any of my L lenses I had prior to switching. The D3s is certainly an impressing High ISO camera. REALLY impressive and as much as I want/need high ISO performance, the bottom line is AF in low light and low contrast.

So it was the middle of winter and pretty quiet as far as shooting was concerned, so I decided to return to Canon...pretty much back to 2009! 1DMKIII + 5DMKII.

Trixster! wrote in post #11863341
If someone moved from the D700 to the 5Dii then it must be for lens choice or video. I can't think of another serious reason.

davidfig wrote in post #11863400
Did you make the move? I'm looking for people how actually did it.

The D700 is a heck of a camera. 8fps with the grip. Nice AF system. Nice build. Similar level high ISO. And despite the fact that the crosstype AF points are clustered in the center columns (there are 15 such points), it's still tons better than the 5DMKII. That being said, the center AF point on the 5DMKII is as good as any. The thing kept on going when the 1DMKIV failed in low light weddings receptions. I was shocked, but it seems like I have company now in that regard.

I don't know about you, but I never use the center AF point(s) when shooting people. I'm always using the outer points. So while the D700 may have more points, in fact MUCH more points, the outer points are just as weak as the 5DMKII. So I don't know...The D700 is certainly the more versatile camera, that's for certain.

I think the only thing that the 5DMKII's got going for it is the video and the resolution.

nicksan wrote in post #11863407
Here's my journey since late 2009....pretty much back to 2009! 1DMKIII + 5DMKII.

Wow! that must have been an expensive journey/ lessons learned. Which is why I'm asking. The Nikon bodies look awful inviting, but then there are the lenses.

You used to have a 300D. I remember when my friend got a D70 and I got the 300D. It seemed like the D70 was a much better camera, but I was all about IQ and I was always able to get better shots than he. But then that may not be the camera.

davidfig wrote in post #11863445
Wow! that must have been an expensive journey/ lessons learned. Which is why I'm asking. The Nikon bodies look awful inviting, but then there are the lenses.

You used to have a 300D. I remember when my friend got a D70 and I got the 300D. It seemed like the D70 was a much better camera, but I was all about IQ and I was always able to get better shots than he. But then that may not be the camera.

Expensive? That's all relative. You'll see that these were incremental moves and what you don't see are the moves I made with lenses. I ditched the 200L f2 prime in favor of shorter primes and that gave me some funds to upgrade cameras, not to mention the money I make shooting, etc.

I think the whole lens situation with Nikon is a moot point for many folks. They have some great lenses now. They released so many lenses in the past year or so that they have pretty much everything covered except a few here and there. Lenses might matter more to those who can't afford the best from Nikon. In that regard, Canon has the more granular lineup.

Nikon zooms are there. The primes? I still give an edge to Canon primes. They focus faster, they can be had for cheaper, and the previous generation lenses already have USM AF motors in them.

Other than the 135L, the lens lineup was never an issue for me with Nikon.

nicksan wrote in post #11863439
?.. That being said, the center AF point on the 5DMKII is as good as any...

I agree and I've never understood the appeal of the 50 af points. Seems like marketing to make you spend 7k on a camera. Give me 9 points in a rectangle on the 'thirds' that are equivalent to the 5d2 center point.

[QUOTE=Drozz119;118635​29]

nicksan wrote in post #11863439
?.. That being said, the center AF point on the 5DMKII is as good as any..../QUOTE]

I agree and I've never understood the appeal of the 50 af points. Seems like marketing to make you spend 7k on a camera. Give me 9 points in a rectangle on the 'thirds' that are equivalent to the 5d2 center point.

I wasn't exactly saying that! I like the more robust AF systems no doubt, however the way Nikon has arranged theirs is questionable. Not sure having 15 crosstype points clustered in the center is the smartest arrangement. I mean, it's better than having just 1, but I almost never use the points around the center so...

I like the 1DMKIII/MKIV AF layout though. You have crosstype points spread out throughout the VF. Pretty awesome.

I think I fit into this category, but I've shot more than just Canon and Nikon.

In three years, my system has been:

Pentax (K20D, K200D)
Canon (40D)
Nikon (D300)
Sony/Nikon (A850/D90)
Nikon (D700/D90)
Olympus/Nikon (E-5/D90)
Nikon (D700/D90)
and soon Canon again (1D3) and maybe a full jump to Canon, replacing my D90 with 60D.

There were various reasons for all my switches - I'm fickle, I'm curious, some things bug me and eventually cause me to switch.

For this latest switch, I'm trading a D700 setup for a very similar 1D3 setup, and I'm curious to see how the 1D3 handles (supposedly it doesn't have AF issues).

For my latest switch (still awaiting the 1D3), it's because of lenses only.

Nikon doesn't make a good 400 that I can afford, nor do they offer a cheap 70-200. The 400mm issue has bugged me for quite a while - I thought I had it licked with the Sony A850 + 70-400G combo, but eventually I just didn't like how the A850 handled faster action conditions. (70-400, while a bit slow focusing, was great).

So my plan is to ultimately get the 1D3, pray it has great AF, and set myself up with a 100-400L, 70-200 f/4 non-IS, and maybe keep the 28-70L I'm getting with the trade, though I might sell/trade that for a 24-105 or something.

My conundrum is the ultrawide, which kinda sucks for the 1.3x - I've read the Canon 10-22 works if you remove the back (from about 13mm or so), I'll have to find the thread on the 'net, but they had some pretty good suggestions.


To clarify, my D700 is outstanding and I'll miss it (though maybe not skin tones), but I don't have lenses from Nikon that I want (at least, not at the prices I want). As for focus points, they're pretty accurate in my experience. And low-light focusing is very good. On my lowly Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and D700, it was able to lock (in AF-C) on a subject in my bathroom at ISO6400, 1/4 second. I literally couldn't see what it was, but the camera could.

nicksan wrote in post #11863439
I don't know about you, but I never use the center AF point(s) when shooting people. I'm always using the outer points.

I'm the same way, I use my outer points all the time in weddings. I can make my 5D work. But I keep thinking there are better options. I'm sure others are thinking the same thing. So we might think the D700 is a great upgrade, but maybe the 1DsMII or 1DMIII is better.

I hope other people can benefit from your journey.

Oh! I know another wedding photog that has a 1DsMII and he says there are times when the 5D gets a lock better then the 1Ds.'

cputeq07 wrote in post #11863547
There were various reasons for all my switches - I'm fickle, I'm curious, some things bug me and eventually cause me to switch.

Now thats a different. Do you think you are settled now?

davidfig wrote in post #11863558
I'm the same way, I use my outer points all the time in weddings. I can make my 5D work. But I keep thinking there are better options. I'm sure others are thinking the same thing. So we might think the D700 is a great upgrade, but maybe the 1DsMII or 1DMIII is better.

I hope other people can benefit from your journey.

Oh! I know another wedding photog that has a 1DsMII and he says there are times when the 5D gets a lock better then the 1Ds.

My journey was specific to me, so I'm not at all saying that the same will happen to others. Quite obviously there are wedding photographers out there happily shooting Nikons, 1DMKIVs, etc, etc. Things just didn't work out for me that's all. I just know that the 1DMKIII I used to work never gave me any issues. Logically, I thought the 1DMKIV would take things to a higher level, but that was not the case.

davidfig wrote in post #11863558
But I keep thinking there are better options. I'm sure others are thinking the same thing.

The grass is always greener on the other side

Drozz119 wrote in post #11863529
I agree and I've never understood the appeal of the 50 af points.

Well the main appeal for me is the 3D Matrix focus. I would use that some times in my work.

The appeal of more points will get into the firestorm arguement of cross points better than non-cross. As if the non-cross points are useless and do nothing. I'm more interested in people experiences.

Although a 5D with the 7D AF would be cool. Its what I originally hoped the 5DII would be. I guess thats why I have the older 5D still.

manfesto wrote in post #11863607
The grass is always greener on the other side

But when you get on the other side and look down, its still the patchy grass you had before.