Seriously thinking about moving to nikon

Hi,
I currently have a canon 6d and I want to make an upgrade.
I was thinking about the canon 5d mark iv but it is really expensive.
I really want a camera with far better DR, auto focus system, more FPS and MP will be nice too.
Since the 5d mark iv costs so much I was thinking about moving to Nikon, the only problem with that is changing my whole canon lens collection, and I'm not sure if theres a Nikon equivalent lens for every canon lens i have.
Canon 16-35mm f\4 IS - this is the best lens I own, I just love it and I'm not familiar with a Nikon equivalent ( - 14-24mm doesn't take filters)
Tamron 24-70 2.8 is (I'm not pleased with this lens anyway)
Canon 50mm 1.8 (wanted to upgrade to sigma 50mm art 1.4 anyway)
canon 100mm f2.8 macro
Samyang 85mm 1.4
canon 70-200mm f4

I was thinking about Nikon D750 or d810.

Any advice?

You're going to jettison all that equipment because you don't want to spend 2 grand to get a 5D4? Not sure that makes sense TBH.

Far better DR,autofocus system,more FPS and MP, sounds like the Nikon D750 is right up your alley.I should know because as a long time Canon shooter they too were my requirements and I bought the Nikon D750.Alot cheaper than a 5dMKIV and BETTER DR,FPS and MP and autofocus were a wash IMHO.I bought a D750,Nikon 85 F1.8,and 35 F1.8 all for less money than a 5DMKIV and still have some savings to go to a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 G2.I've been very happy with my decision...shoot both systems now.

Have you used the D750 or D810? Does it's really give you everything you're asking for? Thought about anything you'll lose by switching, aside from lenses?

I'm with Sam on this one, seems more expensive and time consuming to get rid of your Canon gear to rebuild with Nikon than just buying the 5DIV. Assuming the 5DIV is what you want? Considered the 5DIII at all? Not the resolution bump you're wanting but a huge boost in AF.

How many people to whom you have shown your pictures have observed the following?

1. Wow, man a Nikon would have given your vastly better dynamic range.
   
2. Too bad your camera's autofocus was so slow. You would have gotten that shot.
   
3. Too bad you missed the key moment of that pass reception. More frames per second in a Nikon would have nailed it.
   
4. I'd really like to print that picture large and hang it in Grand Central Station, but 20mp just isn't going to cut it.
   

TheNewLegend wrote in post #18301813
Hi,

I really want a camera with far better DR, auto focus system, more FPS and MP will be nice too.


Any advice?

Sony A99ii, of course!

For a landscape shooter your Canon 16-35 f/4Is is such a fantastic lens!!!

What are you lacking? DR or more responsive AF?

If you buy a 5dmk4 you'll be assured you can cure "upgraditis" for a long time. You'll have the benefits of a new sensor and an all rounder when it comes to performance.

Selling your current 6d will fetch you some money and $3500USD is a tad more affordable.

In my case I've upgraded my Fuji body for "fun" and gained more enjoyment in shooting.....

Try spending $4500 for a Canadian buying a 5dmk4 in Canada. US folks paying 3500USD in the US is a grand cheaper!!

I can see the benefits of more DR but IQ wise if you calculate the "cheap" awesome Canon 16-35 f/4IS I think you'd need to pay alot more for a Nikon equivalent lens.

If you have joy in jumping...go for it!!! I'm actually liking my crop sensor fuji files over my Canon 5dmk3 for landscape/cityscape photos.

Pick you poison!!!

joedlh wrote in post #18301857
How many people to whom you have shown your pictures have observed the following?

1. Wow, man a Nikon would have given your vastly better dynamic range.
   
2. Too bad your camera's autofocus was so slow. You would have gotten that shot.
   
3. Too bad you missed the key moment of that pass reception. More frames per second in a Nikon would have nailed it.
   
4. I'd really like to print that picture large and hang it in Grand Central Station, but 20mp just isn't going to cut it.
   

If you're bored with Canon and want to go over to Nikon, then go for it. But any inferiority of the gear you have compared to a Nikon is marginal at best. The differences are apparent only on paper -- and I don't mean print paper. Pixel peeping is the road to madness and empty wallets.

I never understand these kinds of responses.

A viewer can't tell the DR of the camera from the finished image, but the shooter knows what images were allowed or not due to the capabilities or limitations of his sensor.
A viewer can't tell which shots were missed because of AF limitations, but the shooter will know which shots were OOF and which shots they couldn't even take.
There's nothing like being able to print large scale images in fine detail, or better yet, being able to take several different crops from an image and still be able to print them.

. . . . and beyond all that, it's really the prerogative of the photographer to determine what they want or need. I know I haven't shot an HDR since I got my Sony.

joedlh wrote in post #18301857
How many people to whom you have shown your pictures have observed the following?

1. Wow, man a Nikon would have given your vastly better dynamic range.
   
2. Too bad your camera's autofocus was so slow. You would have gotten that shot.
   
3. Too bad you missed the key moment of that pass reception. More frames per second in a Nikon would have nailed it.
   
4. I'd really like to print that picture large and hang it in Grand Central Station, but 20mp just isn't going to cut it.
   

If you're bored with Canon and want to go over to Nikon, then go for it. But any inferiority of the gear you have compared to a Nikon is marginal at best. The differences are apparent only on paper -- and I don't mean print paper. Pixel peeping is the road to madness and empty wallets.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #18301917
I never understand these kinds of responses.

A viewer can't tell the DR of the camera from the finished image, but the shooter knows what images were allowed or not due to the capabilities or limitations of his sensor.
A viewer can't tell which shots were missed because of AF limitations, but the shooter will know which shots were OOF and which shots they couldn't even take.
There's nothing like being able to print large scale images in fine detail, or better yet, being able to take several different crops from an image and still be able to print them.

. . . . and beyond all that, it's really the prerogative of the photographer to determine what they want or need. I know I haven't shot an HDR since I got my Sony.

I think the point he was making is what I've highlighted in red. The differences in performance are small and only really noticeable at pixel peeping level.

I do concede that if you haven't got enough pixels to work with for cropping then that is a hard limitation.

The cost of going to Nikon and finding a lens as good as the 16-35 f4 may very well be almost as much as upgrading to the 5D4 when you factor in selling his 6D.

I know what I'd do.

On the same note you can argue that the viewer wont be able to tell the difference between a a 6d, 5d3 or a 5d4 so why bother upgrading.

The sony a99ii is probably the best camera in its price range by a good margin.
Pnphotography seems to be the only one wit hands on experience so i defer to what he says with the additional recommendation to consider the a99ii.

Having switched from the D750, I can tell you this in comparison to the 5D4:

1. Dynamic range is better, but the 5D4 isn't that bad
2. AF system is not better under any circumstances in the D750
3. The FPS are pretty even
4. The 5D4 has more megapixels

Personally, I wouldn't switch and instead, sell the lenses you don't use or like and then replace them with better.

I shoot Nikon and I always wonder about Nikon focusing system.
For example; my camera has 51 focusing points and only 15 of them are cross-type and they are squashed in the middle of the viewfinder. By the way; Nikon is repeating this focusing module from the year D300 came out and was not able to do something better in all those years.
Yes, D500 has new module but this module won't find the place in D7300 or whatever new body follows D7200.

So, Nikon users manual clearly says that those linear (non cross-type) focusing points are not as good (sensitive) as cross-type and in some situations will have hard time to lock on target. I know that from my experiences. In some situations I must use cross-type points because linear focusing points just don't want to lock on and hold focus.

So let me continue… I think Nikon cross-type focusing points are not better then Canon cross-type focusing points. Agree?
I can also say Nikon linear focusing points are worse then Canon cross-type focusing points. Agree?

The conclusion: Canon focusing system (all cross-type) is better then Nikon focusing system (only 15 or less cross-type).
Would anyone who don't agree with me willing to explain to me why he thinks Nikon focus is better then Canon focus.

I use a D750 at work and shoot with a 6D at home (work and personal stuff). At ISO 100 the Nikon does have noticeably more exposure latitude but as ISO increases, any advantage disappears quickly.

Frankly, despite having read a little about it in the past, I was surprised to see for myself how quickly noise creeps into the Nikon files. ISO 200 is indistinguishable from 100 on my 6D and I use it often without giving it any thought of harming the files at all. 400 is very, very, close. On the Nikon I can see the difference between 100 and 200 with just minor shadow pushing.

I regularly shoot the 6D at 800, 1600 and 3200, I don't have a lot of opportunity to do so on the Nikon but the files I have shot that high are no better, probably worse at the higher end than the Canon. What I have noticed is that the colors and DR suffer badly with the Nikon while the Canon quality does not fall off nearly as fast.

So if you only shoot at or below ISO 200 you will see an improvement in image quality. If you are like the vast majority of photographers today, the better quality from the Canon files cancel out any benefit, on average. If you look around I think you will find others saying the same.

The thought of switching has never even entered my mind.

Now to get away from facts and into some speculation and opinion. The new 6D will be out later this year. The Nikon is fairly old tech, just as the original 6D. Regardless of whether you jump to Nikon or not, I would wait to see what each of their replacements look like.

Oh yeah, like others have said, I originally chose Canon because of better native glass. I still feel I made the right choice in that respect.

[QUOTE=Left Handed Brisket;18302316]Oh yeah, like others have said, I originally chose Canon because of better native glass. I still feel I made the right choice in that respect.[/QUOTE
Owning both I somewhat agree with your statement. I feel at 6400 the noise levels on both cameras (6d and D750) are pretty equal , as you get higher the NIkon pulls ahead. My point is the the IQ on the d750 at all ISO levels are going to be at least equal or better than the 5dmkiv for half the price. now if 4k or PDAF means anything to you then that's a different story.