Is the grass greener on the other side? (Canon or Nikon)

This video clip is always relevant to this kind of discussion

jdizzle wrote in post #15931816
I got the joke. Hence the eye wink emoticon. Sheesh!

Sorry, was on my phone, emoticons only show up as '?' on the browser I use

Downs Photography wrote in post #15927611
Good afternoon! I thought it would be a pretty cool idea from a reference point of view about people who switched to Nikon or Canon. You can explain how your story went. This could be very educational to many. As far as success and unsuccessful stories. The do's and dont's etc. go ahead and share your stories! Enjoy.

I was dragged, kicking and screaming, into the Nikon world from the Canon world.

Actually, I wasn't, but it sounds better that way.

My friend that I've known ever since high school bought me a D600 + 24-85 for Christmas. He knew full well that I had a Canon setup, but also knew that I could afford to feed a Nikon camera with lenses if I "had" to. And I have. I suspect he has evil, ulterior motives, namely to be able to borrow lenses from me from time to time.

Anyway, I've adapted to the Nikon system after a while. The Canons feel better in my hands, but the D600 doesn't feel bad or anything, and it is nice and compact. The D600 + 24-85 makes for a nice, light, and amazingly versatile full frame setup, very similar to a high-quality crop setup. Put a prime on it like the 85 f/1.8G on it, though, and it becomes an ultra-shallow-depth-of-field machine, just as you'd expect from a full-frame setup.

I find the autofocus system to be excellent. It doesn't track movement as well as the 7D does, but it does a respectable job of it. Use it to focus on something that isn't moving fast, though, and the autofocus system is quite reliable, more so than even the 7D's. I've learned to trust the autofocus system to actually hit what I focus on, and it's been rare that it's let me down even in low light (and I have the focus assist lamp turned off):

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/n2185x/87408447​70/

I've only been doing photography for a short time when compared to many here so take this with a grain of salt.
I started with a D5100. This was a fantastic entry level camera for me but I had ongoing issues with it. Mainly these were user error. For instance, no dial lock. When traveling I would constantly bump the dial and change the AF point which left any quick snapshot I took focused on the wrong target. There were other issues as well like using the HDR feature was by no means user friendly.

After using the D5100 a while and figuring out which direction I wanted to go with my photography I decided FF was the obvious next step. The D600 having sensor dust issues so that was out. Which left the D800 as my only alternative, or so I thought. I went to BestBuy to use one in person however their D800 display model was throwing an error. The sales person had a brand new 5D3 on the counter so I picked it up and took a few shots. It was love at first click. The way it felt, the sound the shutter made, the ease of the menu, the placement of the buttons. Especially the ISO button! (I really dislike the ISO button placement on the D800, D600, D7000 etc) After doing some research I found out that the company I work for has a significant corporate discount with Canon. Seemed like a no brainer. Even if I was unhappy with the Canon I could get what I paid out of it.

So now I'm a happy 5D3 owner but not a "very" happy one. There are many features about Canon that I find superior however the banding has got me back on the fence and on the path to admitting I made a mistake. I noticed this on my first attempt at night photography with the 5D3 and originally thought that maybe I had a lemon. After quite a bit of digging however I found information discussing this issue so I guess it is what it is. I can't say with any certainty that I'll stick with Canon. I've made a significant investment in L glass but will not be making any further purchases until I have decided what to do. I can live without the extra 2 EV but the banding has left me with buyers remorse.

DBB wrote in post #15933678
So now I'm a happy 5D3 owner but not a "very" happy one. There are many features about Canon that I find superior however the banding has got me back on the fence and on the path to admitting I made a mistake. I noticed this on my first attempt at night photography with the 5D3 and originally thought that maybe I had a lemon. After quite a bit of digging however I found information discussing this issue so I guess it is what it is. I can't say with any certainty that I'll stick with Canon. I've made a significant investment in L glass but will not be making any further purchases until I have decided what to do. I can live without the extra 2 EV but the banding has left me with buyers remorse.

No camera appears to be "perfect" in this respect, that I've seen. They all have some sort of sensor-related flaw that shows up.

The D600 exhibits horizontal banding in the shadows at very high ISO. It's a more random sort of banding, the same sort that you'd get with the earlier Canon bodies, so it tends to show itself a bit less when you downsize the image, but it's there nonetheless. It'll also appear in the very lowest stop or two of the shadows at low ISO if you push its shadows hard enough (but you have to push really hard for that, because you'll be pushing the lowest couple of stops that should be darned near black, even after pushing, into neutral gray territory, so in reality you wouldn't have an issue with this at all).

To get rid of banding, get Nik Software's DFine. It's awesome for removing the banding. Not perfect, mind you, but it still yields amazingly good results.


The vertical banding in the deep shadows is the only flaw the 5D3 has to my knowledge. It appears to be excellent in every other respect. Don't have buyer's remorse about it. If you're not limited by the dynamic range of the camera then the vertical banding should have little effect on you, and you'll be able to make stupendously good imagery with your 5D. So don't sweat it. Instead, get out there and start using it to the best of your abilities!

The d7000 competes with the xxD line such as the 60D or the 50D whereas the 7D competed against the discontinued D300s D200 series. On the market pricing scale, one is newer than the other and so on a discounted basis, they are similarly priced. Same as comparing the current price of a 6d to a 5d2.

MikeFairbanks wrote in post #15929321
I switched to Nikon a few months ago, and here's what I learned:

1. Both systems are great.

2. Neither will make you a better photographer.

3. It's extremely easy and intuitive to get horrible results from both.

4. It takes learning, patience and practice to be a good photographer.

5. Neither comes with a creativity setting. If it did, I'd have mine turned to 11.

-----

In all seriousness, I started with a Rebel XS. Great camera. Really. But it was very limited (max 1600 ISO with auto ISO to 800). It shot slowly and sounded like R2D2.

Then I upgraded to the T2i. It did much better on going higher ISO, but it didn't get better results than the XS in equal light really. My photography was no better, I never used the video, and the biggest problem for me was the same problem as the XS: very loud shutter. Don't get me wrong: It makes a cool sound, but it's loud and there's nothing you can do about it. I knew I'd had enough of that when I was in the Yale Library in Connecticut and took a photo. Every head looked up at me from that one picture. The shutter makes this sound: CHACHINK.

One day I was messing around with cameras at Best Buy and the Nikons were so quiet. Plus, the lenses on the entry level and mid-level models were snug (as opposed to the standard lens that comes with the 7D is the flimsy, lens-creeping 28-135...OLD lens, and the little lenses on the rebels are cheap plastic...sharp....but cheap...not much better than the nifty fifty).


So, anyway, I was looking at the 7D (hoping it might be quieter), but those Nikons were so quiet. I couldn't figure them out on-the-spot, however, and the salesperson couldn't help me get the settings I wanted. Another customer helped me and said, "the D7000 is going on sale on Black Friday."

So I sold my T2i, with the 28-135 and the nifty fifty. I got 650 bucks for it, then bought the Nikon D7000 for $999 from Amazon, no shipping, no sales tax. It came with the 18-105 lens (IS, fast AF, etc.) and I haven't regretted it for a second. It's an amazing camera. Plus, it came with a lot more than Canon gives. Full manual, lens hoods, a couple straps, two battery charging options, a bag for the lens, and a couple other things I'm forgetting (plus the hot shoe has a cap, as does the rear screen). You get a lot more in the box. The D7000 is very heavy for such a compact unit. I like that. In my mind heavy means quality...true or not.

It did take me a long time to figure out how to get everything right (settings) and Nikons give you much deeper menu options (or perhaps it was the D7000---Nikon's version of the 7D). So many options for exposure, white balance, and all auto features can be customized. It's a lot of camera for the money. I also picked up, for $199, the 35mm 1.8g, which is much, much sturdier and hardy than the nifty fifty was.

So, the grass is greener for me. I now have the white balance figured out, autofocus is fast, and I'm happy with the low light capabilities, color, dynamic range, and more. But what do I really love the most? THE QUIET SHUTTER. I can take a picture almost anywhere and it barely makes a noise. Just a faint click. Man, I love that. Super fast focus and very quiet click.


However: When I go full frame I fully expect to go Canon. Even after six months of shooting with my Nikon, I'm still used to Canon. Plus, Canon's DPP software that comes with the cameras is absolutely outstanding software compared to the utter crap Nikon gives with their cameras. Don't even try to use their software to convert raw files. It's like watching a snail cross the yard. I had to buy Lightroom (which is great software anyway) to convert raw files.

My dream camera is the Canon 6D, which I'm debating going after in the near future. Why?

Low light.

If you go to www.dpreview.com and go to their studio comparison tool you will see that nothing on the market right now can beat that 6D in low light, high ISO noise. I had it cranked up to somewhere around 24,000 ISO and the 6D was still keeping it together. Amazing. My D7000 was junk by then and the full frame Nikons were no match either. That also goes for the 5D2 and even the 5D3.

I'm telling you, that 6D might not be for sports, but it absolutely kills every single full frame camera on the market when it comes to fighting noise at high ISOs while maintaining detail. It's truly remarkable what they've done with that camera. http://www.dpreview.co​m/reviews/studio-compare

But I'll never buy another entry-level or mid-level Canon again until they get the shutters totally silent, the sensors a little bigger (Nikon's crop sensors are 10% larger than Canon's), and stop making those flimsy entry-level lenses. It's crazy that they are still selling that 28-135 USM IS lens. That thing is a dinosaur and I hope I never see it again.

Just my opinion.

And keep in mind what I said before: Both systems are equally capable of bad photos. My portfolio is proof.

kcbrown wrote in post #15933581
I was dragged, kicking and screaming, into the Nikon world from the Canon world.

Actually, I wasn't, but it sounds better that way.

My friend that I've known ever since high school bought me a D600 + 24-85 for Christmas. He knew full well that I had a Canon setup, but also knew that I could afford to feed a Nikon camera with lenses if I "had" to. And I have. I suspect he has evil, ulterior motives, namely to be able to borrow lenses from me from time to time.

Anyway, I've adapted to the Nikon system after a while. The Canons feel better in my hands, but the D600 doesn't feel bad or anything, and it is nice and compact. The D600 + 24-85 makes for a nice, light, and amazingly versatile full frame setup, very similar to a high-quality crop setup. Put a prime on it like the 85 f/1.8G on it, though, and it becomes an ultra-shallow-depth-of-field machine, just as you'd expect from a full-frame setup.

I find the autofocus system to be excellent. It doesn't track movement as well as the 7D does, but it does a respectable job of it. Use it to focus on something that isn't moving fast, though, and the autofocus system is quite reliable, more so than even the 7D's. I've learned to trust the autofocus system to actually hit what I focus on, and it's been rare that it's let me down even in low light (and I have the focus assist lamp turned off):

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/n2185x/87408447​70/
DSC_2162-1.jpg by n2185x, on Flickr

(1/60th of a second, ISO 6400, 50mm at f/1.8, pushed another 1.5 stops with the darks pushed even more to bring the face out while the blacks have been pulled back to add some contrast. Face has probably been pushed a total of 2.5 stops or so. This image has been manipulated rather a lot in terms of the tone curve to get it to look like this. Point here is that the light was quite low but the autofocus system worked well anyway)


All in all, I quite like the D600. About the only thing I think could stand some improvement is the autofocus spread in the frame. The horizontal spread is fine, but it needs more vertical spread to cover the rule of thirds locations. That's not quite as much of an issue as I thought it would be -- the current system gets reasonably close to those locations already, but if you want to be exact about it then you'll need more vertical spread.

If I had to choose between my 7D and my D600, it would be a hard choice. I'd probably go with the D600 for its full frame versatility, but if I had to make the choice based on cost (i.e., bang for the buck), the 7D would win for sure.

Nice story! This should be very helpful for members thinking of switching

kcbrown wrote in post #15933803
No camera appears to be "perfect" in this respect, that I've seen. They all have some sort of sensor-related flaw that shows up.

The D600 exhibits horizontal banding in the shadows at very high ISO. It's a more random sort of banding, the same sort that you'd get with the earlier Canon bodies, so it tends to show itself a bit less when you downsize the image, but it's there nonetheless. It'll also appear in the very lowest stop or two of the shadows at low ISO if you push its shadows hard enough (but you have to push really hard for that, because you'll be pushing the lowest couple of stops that should be darned near black, even after pushing, into neutral gray territory, so in reality you wouldn't have an issue with this at all).

To get rid of banding, get Nik Software's DFine. It's awesome for removing the banding. Not perfect, mind you, but it still yields amazingly good results.


The vertical banding in the deep shadows is the only flaw the 5D3 has to my knowledge. It appears to be excellent in every other respect. Don't have buyer's remorse about it. If you're not limited by the dynamic range of the camera then the vertical banding should have little effect on you, and you'll be able to make stupendously good imagery with your 5D. So don't sweat it. Instead, get out there and start using it to the best of your abilities!

Thats some helpful insight. Thank you for taking the time to reply.