Why would you switch brand?

Selling off ALL my gear would be painful, time consuming, and expensive. Unless I sold everything as a kit, but thats not going to happen. I love the feel of my Canon cameras and have played around with my friends Nikons before and they never felt as good in the hands.

Will you be okay w/ the loss in "reach"? (You'll lose your 1.6x TC, and you would lose out on the 1.3x if you were to go with the 1D4). 12mp FF in DX (crop mode) is like 5.33mp equivalent.

If 5.33 is sufficient and/or you can compensate with different focal length glass, then the switch sounds like it makes some sense (assuming you don't need the FPS).

I wonder if auto mechanics think like some "photographers" do...

"oohh, look at that new Snap-On hammer! That's way better than my hammer! I'm going to sell all my wrenches, pliers, and hammer and only buy Snap-On from now on!"

I have been contemplating A switch. At least a partial switch.

Why? Sony is really starting to look like a serious contender, that could end up stealing market shares in the near future.
For me, it's mainly the fact that they dare to try new things. And the lenses. They do have some really nice glass.

Edit to ad:
If Fuji got of their arses and started making DSLR's, I'm pretty sure I would be sending my money that way in the future. With what the X100 is and the X-Pro1 promises to be, I could see myself leaving canon for them, if they make a DSLR that lives up to that.

Not from a 7D to a D700, lol. (Way less pixels and pixel density, no good) Change that D700 to a D800 and I would say maybe yes if I was not as invested in Canon as I currently am. I would wait to see how the new 5D3 is

SMP_Homer wrote in post #13952183
I wonder if auto mechanics think like some "photographers" do...

"oohh, look at that new Snap-On hammer! That's way better than my hammer! I'm going to sell all my wrenches, pliers, and hammer and only buy Snap-On from now on!"

In my case the d700 or Mk IV would deliver a better result so yes a mechanic would change tools if it yielded a more desireable result. That's why the truck rolls around weekly...

I haven't done it yet, but the gears are turning as more of my photo time is high ISO...

I would switch if one manufacturer established itself as the clear leader in the industry and by that I don't mean sales.

Right now Nikon is trending up and Canon seems to be holding steady but if the latest batch of FF cameras from Canon don't impress, they would IMO be trending downward, regardless of what the sales numbers say.

Nikon wins in DR, high ISO, and features per dollar while Canon leads in, well, video. I said in the other thread, Canon is a far larger company with far greater resources yet they can't seem to exceed the DR or high ISO capabilities of the Sony sensors. If I'm going to spend this kind of cash on my hobby, I'm going with the best. Since we've yet to see any real shots from Canon's FF sensors, I'm giving Canon a chance to prove themselves.

Loyalty to any manufacturer is foolish...

To get the high fps you'll need to shoot sports you'll need the battery drive with the d700. Did you factor that into your costs?

When and if my current gear Canon) is no longer capable of handeling my photographic needs and/or desires and if current manufacturer cannot provide the equipment to handle my needs. Other than that, it would be a huge waste in money considering amount invested in a system.

Stone 13 wrote in post #13952856
I would switch if one manufacturer established itself as the clear leader in the industry and by that I don't mean sales.

Right now Nikon is trending up and Canon seems to be holding steady but if the latest batch of FF cameras from Canon don't impress, they would IMO be trending downward, regardless of what the sales numbers say.

Nikon wins in DR, high ISO, and features per dollar while Canon leads in, well, video. I said in the other thread, Canon is a far larger company with far greater resources yet they can't seem to exceed the DR or high ISO capabilities of the Sony sensors. If I'm going to spend this kind of cash on my hobby, I'm going with the best. Since we've yet to see any real shots from Canon's FF sensors, I'm giving Canon a chance to prove themselves.

Loyalty to any manufacturer is foolish...

Agreed


It seems people care less about the image (printed or otherwise) and more about
1.how expensive it would be to switch
2.how much work it would be to switch
3.now I'm forced to switch because my company went belly up 4.I'm loyal to one brand
5.the files are too big (my fav) etc...etc EVERYTHING but the image.

I personally love a printed image. So perhaps it does'nt matter as much if one's images are only viewed on a monitor. Since I can't always get close enough

or afford $10,000 lenses the ability to crop away HALF an image and still get large detailed prints REALLY appeals to me!

Leapfrog on a small scale is to be expected but I take notice of SUBSTANTIAL advances.

Jon_Doh wrote in post #13952972
To get the high fps you'll need to shoot sports you'll need the battery drive with the d700. Did you factor that into your costs?

Yes. Although the 5 fps is fine I don't burst a ton with the 7d. I'd still rather figure a way to the mk IV.

If I sell my 7d - probably net out about $1000
get a mk iv ($5000)

down $4000

sell 70-200 probably net $875
d700 ($2700) grip ($240) plus sig 70-200 ($1400) $4340
down $2465

DuBarry wrote in post #13953390
Agreed

EVERYTHING but the image.

Because that's probably the bit that changes the least for most people if you change to a comparable camera. Yes, I think 21MP of the 5DII is a better compromise of resolution and ISO/DR for me than a D700. But for my printed landscapes, I don't think it would make one hoot of a difference.

If Canon doesn't offer a high MP camera, I'm sure many will change, primarily for the image, although I'm not sure many will really notice the difference. Funny though that the D800 would be considered for 'landscapes', where you're probably not going to crop 1/2 the image. Personally I'm very unlikely to crop 1/2 an image of one I'm going to print bigger than 8x10.

If the IQ was so different that prints came out vastly superior with one brand over another, nearly everyone would be using that brand (or at least the pros selling prints). I guess most people are a lot better at printing, because I find the biggest beef I have with my prints are just about everything but resolution. I still have more trouble getting the color, contrast, tonal variation and sharpness exactly where I want it, than looking at even a 25 inch print and thinking Uggg, if only I had 50MP instead of 20MP, it would look so much better.

Ok, if you don't get the shot, you get nothing, and I'm sure many people choose Nikon because of the AF on their sub-$3000 cameras, but it doesn't seem to be enough for everyone to switch.

Would have to be significant if I have a few lens'. I borrowed a D3s at a basketball tourny and it smoked my 7d, but once I added up the change - the 7d was ok for what I do. Evaluate your own situation and go from there, both systems are really good. In the end it's your no matter what the homers from either side say. 7d, d700, Mk IV, D3s etc''' all can do a great job, some just a little better than others, all things being equal.

Hey a subject I can speak on

I am currently on complete system switch #10 or so - it's fun, but does cost money in the end. Oh well, I am not rich but I usually buy used and sell at FM so things aren't too expensive and I get to see the capabilities of lots of systems..I grow tired of it now though and probably am stopping at my A77 setup.

The perfect system - It does not exist! My perfect system would be as follows - Canon's glass choices, Nikon's bodies, with Sony/Olympus/Pentax features in the body.

For the OP - what are you not liking about ISO6400 7D files? I have never owned the camera, only a short rental, so I've never done enormous comparisons.

However I owned the D700 three different times - very good camera, high ISO is pretty darn good but even at ISO 6400 things start turning a bit bleh, though not nearly as bad as crop cameras.

However, I have to wonder if you would downsample the 7D after some mild NR, would it help the files?

Are you printing or pixel peeping the shots? Just curious.

Also, I would be very hesitant to buy Sigma OS 70-200 when a Nikon VR 1 can be had used for about the same price (yes I would take a VR1 used over the Sigma OS new).

Consider the D700 maybe a stop, stop and a half above the 7D or so, this is before downsizing. Is it worth the hassle for you?

I think only you can answer this question - I love the D700, awesome great camera overall but it is pretty low pixel density, which may or may not matter depending on your output.
I don't like Nikon skin rendering, but an X-rite can help things a lot in this area.

Also, D700 has fairly strong AA filter so you have to sharpen a bit more than some other cameras (no big deal, but something to be aware of).

Good luck!

SMP_Homer wrote in post #13952183
I wonder if auto mechanics think like some "photographers" do...

"oohh, look at that new Snap-On hammer! That's way better than my hammer! I'm going to sell all my wrenches, pliers, and hammer and only buy Snap-On from now on!"

lol

thats a horrible analogy... being a car guy and i work on my cars a lot. using tools to work on your car is completely different than camera gear used to take pics. they are tools and help you do something... but no...

but to the OP... i would switch if its something that would benefit me in the end. i dont know if you you make money off of photography, but if you do then thats more reason to.