Deciding whether to switch to Nikon

I know this type of thread has been beaten to death, however, I feel like I need to make one for me. Basically, I have a Canon 40d, a 50d, 100L, 70-300L, and 15-85 IS. I really like my cameras and all of my lenses are extremely sharp on them, no issues. I mainly shoot landscapes as well as macros/flowers/insects​.

The question is whether getting either a Nikon D600 (I know it's untested) or D7000 would benefit me with my type of shooting by helping specifically with dynamic range? If I sell all of my gear and added a bit of money, I could have about $3500 to spend. That would get me a D600 + Nikkor 24-85mm + 105mm Nikkor VR Macro (over by a few bucks.) Alternatively, I could get the D7000 + Nikkor 16-85mm + 105mm VR Macro + Nikkor 70-300.

Now I know either Nikon will allow more shadow recovery (and I'm assuming more highlight detail as well) but I wonder if the lenses on those cameras will be as good an overall package as my current package. I have my 70-300L on my 50d and my 15-85 on my 40d on most outings, with the macro available. This way I have the whole focal range of 15-300mm covered with very high quality lenses.

Additionally, I like the Canon ergonomics a lot (it's why I got the 50d, same layout as 40d.) So, in your opinion, is the potential additional dynamic range and shadow recovery worth it for a landscape/nature photographer given the hassle of changing systems and getting potentially lower quality lenses (Ie Canon 70-300L is superior to any Nikon 70-300?)
If it were YOU deciding, which option would you pick?

1) 40d+50d+100L+70-300L+15-85IS
2) D7000+Nikkor 16-85VR+ Nikkor 100mm macro VR+ nikkor 70-300
3) D600 + Nikkor 24-85mm + 100 Macro VR

I understand that this is a very individual thing, but given my interests, which setup makes the most sense? Thanks a lot.

I would not hesitate for one moment: d600. If it's anything like the d800 (and I suspect it is) you will get the best bang for buck there. If you have a heavy investment in Canon lenses the options are far more challenging. In essence I would be writing Canon if in fact you feel you need more than what the latest offerings posses. Many are completely satisfied now.

Well, my investment in Canon lenses and bodies are simply what I've listed. The two bodies and three lenses, all of which will be relatively easy to sell.

So you are saying as long as I don't miss the 70-300L too much, that the D600 will be more what I am looking for?

Nikon's are great cameras... I've been 2nd shooting weddings with a D700 and I like it, the ability to change from Full frame to crop is a pretty awesome setting. The ISO may be a bit cleaner, but not a deal breaker. Although I envy the 14-24, it still can be mounted to a Canon with special adapter, I'm too familiar to Canon at this point to even consider the thought of switching (much like the argument of PC to MAC)

Well, ask yourself this: are your current bodies limiting you? do you find that they're lacking in the DR department? if the answer is "no", or "not so much", then I'd say it's not really worth the hassle of the jump.

If the answer is "yes", then yeah, go ahead and jump over to Nikon, as currently, they're the ones with better DR. I'd say go for the D600, being newer tech, as well as it seems to have better high ISO than the D7000, if that interests you.

Personally, the difference in DR wasn't worth the hassle of jumping ship for me.

I do feel dynamic range is the limiting factor of my nature photography. All of my lenses produce plenty of sharpness for me. I find myself having to bracket exposures to get all of the range, and oftentimes HDR's just don't look very good to me. So if the D600 can help me get more dynamic range without resorting to HDR, I would be happy. However, I am still unsure about an FX nikon walk around lenses that wouldn't limit the sensor. Is the 24-85mm a good match? Thanks for the resplies so far.

My switch involved lens adapters since I stopped shooting canon glass on canon bodies several years ago. Lenses come and go like the seasons in some kits. What I am saying is that the d600 (if anything like the d800 which it appears to be a little brother) is a kick ass camera and I wouldn't let lens ownership restrict me from making the switch. At all. Now you may have other requirements like fast acquisition, insane high ISO requirements, legacy lenses, use dependence (much easier to rely on the known than the unknown) etc. I have no such needs. I shoot Leica, Zeiss, and Nikon (Noct). The Zeiss and Leica produce quality at 36mp.

Then it seems like Nikon is the brand for you.

For walkaround on FX, a lot of my friends use the 24-120 F4 VR lens, which they seem to love.

jizzzared wrote in post #15019572
I do feel dynamic range is the limiting factor of my nature photography. All of my lenses produce plenty of sharpness for me. I find myself having to bracket exposures to get all of the range, and oftentimes HDR's just don't look very good to me. So if the D600 can help me get more dynamic range without resorting to HDR, I would be happy. However, I am still unsure about an FX nikon walk around lenses that wouldn't limit the sensor. Is the 24-85mm a good match? Thanks for the resplies so far.

I bought a used 24-85mm f/2.8-4 D that I was going to use for a "walk around lens" and was very impressed with it. Sold it when I switched back to Canon.

It's interesting that a lot of people are recommending the D600 given my circumstances. Most of the time people claim to buy glass before bodies, and I would not have as good glass initially with the Nikon, unless the 24-85 VR is really good, despite reviews putting it short of that.

Because of the disparity of dynamic range between my 40d and the Nikon D600, it would seem people feel this overshadows my superior lenses. Wouldn't the D600 fall in resale far faster and far more than my lenses ever would? One of the last things I've been considering; Nikon has a 5 year warranty on cameras and lenses, correct? That, by itself, could make the difference. Thanks for the comments people, I'd love to hear more.

Make sure those who you listen to (esp. those recommending the newly announced D600) have actually USED the camera they are recommending rather than just responding based on assumptions, web-board "everybody knows"-isms, and spec sheets.

Sure, why not give it a try. I didn't switch - totally, I kept my 7D but did get rid of a 5D, 5D2 and a lot of L lenses to try a Nikon. So far, I don't have a large number of Nikon lenses, but I got the 14-24, 70-200 II, 105 and the 50 f1.8G and in a day or two I should have the 24-70 here. These have proven to be exceptional. It's fun to try new stuff.

RTPVid wrote in post #15019922
Make sure those who you listen to (esp. those recommending the newly announced D600) have actually USED the camera they are recommending rather than just responding based on assumptions, web-board "everybody knows"-isms, and spec sheets.

Well, at this point I would imagine very few have tried the camera on this forum. I guess my questions were more hypothetical at this point, assuming that the D600's sensor is similar to the D800 (minus 12mp) based on the DX0 ratings.

rick_reno wrote in post #15019940
Sure, why not give it a try. I didn't switch - totally, I kept my 7D but did get rid of a 5D, 5D2 and a lot of L lenses to try a Nikon. So far, I don't have a large number of Nikon lenses, but I got the 14-24, 70-200 II, 105 and the 50 f1.8G and in a day or two I should have the 24-70 here. These have proven to be exceptional. It's fun to try new stuff.

Agreed, trying something new is certainly a part of wanting to try the D600 out. The issue I'm having at this point is finding a sharp standard zoom that doesn't cost what the 24-70 costs. That would be optimal, but really just too much money. The 24-85mm seems like it could be good, but I've saw one review with pretty soft corners. What about the new Tamron 24-70, could that be a viable option?

This is my own opinion, what I have chosen to do and may or may not apply to you. I have chosen to stick with my current gear though I am a little more deeply invested that you but that is not why. I have seen these two companies battle it out for quite some time, going back to the film days. Right now Nikon is the clear sensor performance champ but a year from now when Nikon is milking the Exmore technology and Canon comes out with their new sensor it could well be the other way around. In either case, for me personally it was not worth the hassle of selling everything and then re-buying for 2 stops of DR.

Ultimately the choice is your. Clearly the D600/D800 offer IQ that Canon can't quite match at the moment and the next opportunity for them to do so in a FF format is maybe 3 years away (assuming Canon sticks to their long established release cycle) So it very well may be a good move for you to make.