Should I get the D750 when no longer 'fixed' to Canon?

I definitely need a FF SLR by may 10th for a paid assignment I could no pass up on. Worked with a A6000 until now, but I need lenses and speed that's not there yet on the Sony's. So I'm thinking about either re-buying the 5D3 + 24-105L (kit) or the Nikon D750 + 24-120. Both lenses should perform about the same for regular use, and I'll rent a 70-200 for the reach I need. I loved my 5D3 which I had in the past, but specs-wise it seems to be surpassed by the Nikon. Since I no longer own any Canon stuff, would it be a reasonable thing to go for the Nikon. I have about a month to learn the camera which should be enough.

I'm just a bit worried if the Nikon brand stacks up to Canon, especially in lens-quality. Any opinions on this? Also keep in mind that the Nikon would cost me about 150 euro less.

How challenging of a shoot are you contracted to do, and how familiar are you with either body? Last thing I personally would want to do on any job site is sit there twiddling with my tools because they're totally new to me.

What kind of work are you looking to do, and what tools do you actually need to achieve them?

How spaced out are your jobs, and is it potentially worth it to simply rent all the gear for them when they come up? (I know of a few photographers who rent medium format gear for the three or four jobs a year they take that need it, and shoot with cheaper gear for everything else.)

Different tools are suitable for different tasks, and the newer generations of digital cameras are all very stunning tools. (And as awesome as lots of people keep saying Nikons cameras with their amazing sensors are, I personally know a photographer using one who admits he gets jealous of my lowly old 7D's frame rate and buffer when we're shooting sports next to each other, and I'm standing there wishing my sensor was more like the one in his camera.)

To be honest, adapting to a new system is something that does worry me a bit. But at the same time I must admit I'm not making that much money from my hobby to justify spending thousands of euros on it. Did that before, and sold the gear because honestly it was in the bag almost all the time except for those paid shoots. Which is kinda silly. If I can pull myself from the idea that I 'need' FF, I'm even thinking about getting a 70D. Seems like a very capable camera which my wife could use too, and the money I'd save would allow me to get some nice glass instead of spending it all on a body and keeping only the kitlens on it becuase there's no money left.

The main thing my a6000 would not suffice for the things I need to do, is reach and AF speed (in lower light). For that, the 70D might be better no? I suppose the 70D with the 18-135 kit or even the 70-200/F4 should be plenty fast for the assignments (mostly communions in church). I even would consider a Fuji X-T1 but not sure this is fast enough. Mind I have over a month to 'learn' the camera. And while I do have the money available, I somehow have a hard time convincing myself to spend that much on a FF + decent glass.

I know I sound like someone who needs to make up his mind before getting into the 'buying game', but it's always nice to hear opinions. The a6000 is very nice for travel and family outings, but it lacks in lowlight AF and (especially) lens selection. Fuji is a bit better, and has very good glass but not sure it's fast. Then the 70D comes into play. Cheaper, great glass and should perform well. The 7D2 would be possible too, but not sure I need the ultra advanced AF and from what I've read, sensor is about the same 70D vs 7D2 and the 70D does have some nice extras.

D750 is an awesome camera, get it with a Nikon 24-70, similar quality to Canon L. It does take a while to learn a new system though - when I moved from Canon to Nikon it took a year until I was 100% comfortable - which to me is using any function in the dark. I did use it at a wedding alongside Canon the week after I bought it, but I had the Canon if I needed weird things. If your shoot is in daylight and doesn't need a lot of custom settings or strange settings, and you're prepared to put in plenty of time in advance to learn it, go for it.

There are little differences and tricks with Nikon. With Nikon FEC is additive with EC : so if you set EC1 and FEC1 your effective FEC is 2, whereas with Canon they're independent. Dials and lens mount are backwards, which you get used to quickly. Button position is different. All in all Canon ergonomics are better, but Nikon has a better focus system, image sharpness, robustness, etc.

tim wrote in post #17521644
D750 is an awesome camera, get it with a Nikon 24-70, similar quality to Canon L. It does take a while to learn a new system though - when I moved from Canon to Nikon it took a year until I was 100% comfortable - which to me is using any function in the dark. I did use it at a wedding alongside Canon the week after I bought it, but I had the Canon if I needed weird things. If your shoot is in daylight and doesn't need a lot of custom settings or strange settings, and you're prepared to put in plenty of time in advance to learn it, go for it.

Agree with that. The 24-70 f/2.8G is my vote, but if on a smaller budget, skip the 24-120mm even if there's a great sale on it and get a 35mm f/1.8G (Full frame version) and 85mm f/1.8G for roughly the same price as the 24-120 zoom combo after savings. 20mm f/1.8G if you've got a 24-70mm f/2.8G budget but want wider apertures and more ultra wide / telephoto coverage. From my memory, small primes were a lot easier to use one body than big primes, which I currently use (not listed in my sig) and basically require two camera setups.

Basically, if I wasn't so invested in 5D3's nor working with other photographers who shoot Canon gear, I'd go with the D750's. Seems like a great camera, especially compared to the mirrorless type and consumer cameras where limitations to 1/4000 of a second and touchscreen/non-pro controls already exist anyways.

Would it be a consideration to rent the 5DIII and lens/es for this assignment term?

Yeah, reminds me, there's a caveat for the Nikon system - the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II focus breaths, so when you focus on something close at 200mm, the framing becomes something like a 135mm. It doesn't really matter for sports so much as weddings and small events. If that affects your shooting, consider sticking to Canon. Lenswise otherwise, they're neck and neck with a few differences. The sensor really is the largest difference. Nikon has more DR and less accurate WB, while Canon has less DR and more accurate colors (at least in my experience). Nikon's f/1.8 lenses have mostly been updated with a few exceptions and they have a 60mm macro for full frame. Canon has a better 16-35mm f/4 IS/VR, Nikon has a 14-24mm f/2.8G and Canon has an 11-24mm f/4L. Nikon's 24-70mm f/2.8G is metal and heavier, Canon's 24-70mm f/2.8L II is industry grade polycarbonate but sturdier (the Nikon is more likely to break and the rubber wrapping on the focus rings loosen under the same extreme conditions, but they are both quite sturdy). I actually prefer the 24-70mm f/2.8G for its closer focus and manlier lens hood. So really, the biggest difference is probably the new nano-coated f/1.8G primes from Nikon and the 70-200 focus breathing issue.

And the 5D3 is in a different league than the D750 in terms of autofocus coverage. The focus points cover a larger area and have a greater amount of cross type (41). The Nikon D750 has 15 cross type, but they're specced to lower light, and I've heard good things about the low-light AF. The 5D3 AF array, like the 7D and 1DX is black, while I think most of the Nikons focus and display focus continuously in red, so they're easier to see the AF points in pitch black without a seizure from the flashing AF red AF arrays in servo under the 7DII and 1DX.

If you use the AF-on button for back button focus, the 5D3 has one in the right location, whereas the D750, you'll have to reprogram the AF Lock button which is farther from the thumb to replace AF-on. This doesn't affect me too much, as I've recently moved away from back button focus. The top LCD screen might display less information than the 5D3.

Hope that helps your decision further.

What is you guys opinion on the Nikon D7200 vs Canon 70D. These would be two choices I would consider when not going FF and just spending quite a bit less money on bodies and lenses. For the same money of the 5D3/D750 kits, I can get both APS-C cameras with a nice kitlens (18-135 Canon or 18-140 Nikon) and get a nice prime or 70-200/F4 zoom for it. Still leaning a bit to Canon because I love their lenses so much, but the D7200 does look pretty damn good on paper.

Why do you keep thinking of superzoom kits? If focusing is your priority, you'll want f/2.8 and wider capable lenses to make the most use of either camera's focusing systems. My vote is for D610 because you can prob get it as cheap or nearly as cheap as the D7200. Nikon has some decent mid range primes that compare favorably to their $2000 offerings (20mm f/1.8G sharper or as sharp as 14-24mm f/2.8, 60mm f/2.8G is sharper than the 100 and 105 VR macros from Canon and Nikon, the 85mm f/1.8G is as sharp as the 85mm f/1.4G), while Canon's best lenses for the money below $1000 are the 35mm f/2 IS, the 24 EF-S STM, the 40 STM, the 85mm f/1.8 USM (cheaper than the Nikon, not as modern either, but still very good compared to most lenses from its age), and most notably the 70-200 f/4L non-is, which is around or less than half the price of Nikon's 70-200 f/4 VR at the cost of VR and newer coatings, but still very good for its price). If I had to choose between the Nikon D7200 or the 70D, I'd choose the D7200 based on the dual card slots and the AF system which is close to or better than (since it's a newer version) the D300/D300s system, which I absolutely adored from back in the day (51 total af points, 15 cross type). I think the major downside to the 70D is the single card slot for me. At the dpad control on the dial, while the D90/D7000/D7100/D7200 dpad isn't so bad. If you back button focus, just note that that Nikon series mentioned doesn't have a dedicated af-on button, so you'll have to reprogram the autoexposure lock.

I'm thinking about getting a kit-zoom with it mainly because of price, because it gets me a 'start' set and because I can always sell the lens afterwards. Mind that I would be buying the 70D/D7200 as a 'bridge' while waiting for the 5D4. So I'm not that inclined to invest in more expensive glass for the moment. I'll probably be able to rent/be allowed to use a 70-200 from a friend for the paid shoots, and a 50mm or 85mm prime is not that much of a cost to add.

I kinda look at it like this: I need an SLR for the speed/af capability and (somewhat) reach, and the money I'll be getting from 3 assignments beginning of may, will be about the same of the cost of a 70D+kit+85mm or a D7200+kit+85mm. So I'm not exactly earning money with the assignments, but I would get a nice SLR for about nothing. Not a bad deal imo. But it would be kinda silly to invest +3.000 euro on a FF+lens kit to "earn" 1.250 euro with it.

the path of least resistance would be an LA-EA4 + minolta 70-200F2.8

TS, since you're kinda all over the place, maybe you've just got huge gear lust...

I guess the 18-135mm STM is alright. Not so sure about the Nikon zoom, as I'm not familiar with that. I'm guessing the STM is sharper, but that's just purely a guess. Exactly why do you need these cameras for these shoots? What type of shoots are they? Which 70-200 will your friend lend you? Nikon or Canon?

Charlie wrote in post #17522218
TS, since you're kinda all over the place, maybe you've just got huge gear lust...

I agree, you kind of are all over the place. Probably best place to start is exactly what are you shooting and what do you need? Autofocus in low-light? Reach? High-ISO? Like you need to address your shooting parameters instead of guessing at what latest equipment you want to buy.

I know it seems I'm all over the place, but it's frankly quite simple: sold my 5D3 + L lenses since I only used it for paid shoots which were quite rare (which I wanted). So I got into mirrorless with the a6000 which is fine for personal use and travel, except indoors with kids. Turns out some people kinda count on me to do three communions to which I cannot say 'no'. I have no camera which is good enough for this, and I can't rent one either (too costly over here and too difficult to do).

So for the money these people are willing to pay me (after all, they've been happy with my work for over 10 years), I can get a camera around € 2.000 (I make about € 1.000 euro with the shoots, and won't mind adding € 1.000 of my own). So I'm looking for a setup that's 'good enough' for these 3 assignments, but that will also complement my mirrorless especially for (low light) AF speed and reach. So that's why I'm considering getting an APS-C slr.

The Nikon D7200 looks appealing to me due to the new AF system, good sensor and low light AF. The kitlens seems pretty good and a nice prime does not cost much. The Canon 70D is even cheaper, but from what I've read the sensor is not up to par to the Nikon, neither is the AF system. Not sure this is true but that's why I'm asking right

I might stretch the budget a little to get the 6D + 27-70/F4 but I'm not sure the 6D will be fast enough for what I do (mind I'm talking about 20 6yr olds in church that are not that happy to sit still). I know quite a few people with Canon and Nikon glass, so lending a 70-200 should not be that hard.

Hope this clears things up a little.