Canon or Nikon?

Not trying to start a flame war, just looking for educated opinions.

So, I'm planning a road trip to go to (hopefully) northern New Mexico within 2 to 3 months from now. It will be a 1,200 mile drive, but luckily I have some vacation time accrued. Not flying as I calculated it will be cheaper to drive. My goal is to take pics at world heritage sites, scenary, nature, etc (not planning on any portrait shots).

My question comes down to equipment. I don't want to spend money on buying new gear, so please don't recommend me buying another camera, lens, etc. This is what I currently own (yes, I actually do own these and it's a long story):

A) Canon 6dmk2 with EF 28mm f1.8 USM, EF 50mm f1.8 STM, EF 35mm f2.0 IS, EF 85mm f1.8 USM and 70-200mm f2.8L (non IS).

B) Nikon D750 with 24mm f2.8 AF-D, 35mm f2.0 AF-D, 50mm f1.8 AF-D, 85mm f1.8 AF-D and 80-200mm f2.8 AF-D (2 ring, non IS).


Which of the two would you take, choice A or choice B, and why?

p.s. Both bodies are less than a year old, both have less than 5000 shutter clicks, the Canon lenses are all less than a year old, Nikon lenses are older but purchased new several years ago. Also, I have 3 new batteries for each camera body.

Way too close in gear and specs, no real edge in resolution or focal lengths, so I guess I would say take whatever you are most familiar with. It isn't going to really matter. The biggest delta in your collection is the 24mm vs 28mm, 2Mpx resulting differences aren't anything to talk about.

If you decide to part with cash before the trip to really make a difference in your focal length in total, consider a 2x TC, with the consideration your 200mm lenses don't have IS. 400mm might come in handy.

Thanks! Both are somewhat similar, but the underlying question would be which one would perform better with the older technology primes I own in each system?

In terms of familiarity, the edge goes to Nikon because I have been using Nikon for many years (since my F100 film days). On the other hand, whenever I use my Canon gear it forces me to think, to mentally focus as I am shooting.

It seems you've already made up your mind. You're indicating you like the Nikon interface. Seems you can have a similar lens selection with Canon vs Nikon. If you find the Nikon system more intuitive, and the D750 is better at DR with base ISO vs 6D2 (a spec potentially important for landscapes), seems already decided.

Personally, I am a Canon shooter since I have been invested in glass since Canon had the first competitive FF DSLR. I do find it odd that Canon has been catching up with sensor performance compared to Sony/Nikon except for the 6D2. Of course a good photographer will know how to shoot with smaller DR....but with your situation, you are seriously indicating Nikon anyway.

snegron wrote in post #19074616
Thanks! Both are somewhat similar, but the underlying question would be which one would perform better with the older technology primes I own in each system?

In terms of familiarity, the edge goes to Nikon because I have been using Nikon for many years (since my F100 film days). On the other hand, whenever I use my Canon gear it forces me to think, to mentally focus as I am shooting.

Well then as I called out, I would select which I would use more efficiently or like better. I don't think there will be that much difference in optics regardless of age between the lenses. I could be wrong, I haven't run the lenses through any kind of measurement site, but often even if lens a is better than lens b, it is almost always difficult to see the differences in real world shooting and normal viewing distances.

I don't think its weird to have different systems like that, you never know when you can find a good lens with a useful focal length for less money having both systems. It is much like owning a crop body and ff, you have more selection of lenses at different price points this way if you shoot lots of different things.

You should probably sell your Canon gear. That would certainly pay for your trip. No?

snegron wrote in post #19074467
Not trying to start a flame war, just looking for educated opinions.

So, I'm planning a road trip to go to (hopefully) northern New Mexico within 2 to 3 months from now. It will be a 1,200 mile drive, but luckily I have some vacation time accrued. Not flying as I calculated it will be cheaper to drive. My goal is to take pics at world heritage sites, scenary, nature, etc (not planning on any portrait shots).

My question comes down to equipment. I don't want to spend money on buying new gear, so please don't recommend me buying another camera, lens, etc. This is what I currently own (yes, I actually do own these and it's a long story):

A) Canon 6dmk2 with EF 28mm f1.8 USM, EF 50mm f1.8 STM, EF 35mm f2.0 IS, EF 85mm f1.8 USM and 70-200mm f2.8L (non IS).

B) Nikon D750 with 24mm f2.8 AF-D, 35mm f2.0 AF-D, 50mm f1.8 AF-D, 85mm f1.8 AF-D and 80-200mm f2.8 AF-D (2 ring, non IS).


Which of the two would you take, choice A or choice B, and why?

p.s. Both bodies are less than a year old, both have less than 5000 shutter clicks, the Canon lenses are all less than a year old, Nikon lenses are older but purchased new several years ago. Also, I have 3 new batteries for each camera body.

I'm not even going to read the comments from others until after I post.

My immediate reaction is to recommend you take whichever kit is the more natural for you. Which one can you hold better? Which has the better menus for you? Which one gets in your way less?

Personally I would choose A. I'd take the Canon, but that's because I shoot Canon. If I had reason to have both kits like you, it would really still come down to which one worked easier and/or better for me, whether out shooting or in post processing.

Third thought is that if your gear is insured and you're good with bringing both with you, bring both, albeit with a caveat. Put a shorter lens on one body and a longer lens on the other. See something interesting at a distance? Body with 200mm. Oh, going inside a small building? Body with fast, wider angle lens.

Final thought. With choice A, I'd probably bring just the 35mm and the 70-200mm. I have that 35mm, and it is a great little street lens. For the 70-200, I have the f/4 IS version, also a great lens, and I've done street photography with that, too. The 35 gets a nice wide view and gets you into tight places, while not being annoyingly wide. If I want to show something about where I've been, it's probably going to be the 35mm as the main lens. The 70-200 is perfect if you need reach but still want to get some tighter shots. I hate wasting my time switching lenses. If I need 200mm, I'll accept the price at the 70mm end where I can't go very wide.

There you go. Hope this helps! (Now lets see if this is going to be one of those "popcorn" smiley moments... )

Well you basically repeated what has already been stated, so there you go.

I actually tried selling off the 6dmk2 and the 16-35mm f4.0L three months after I purchased it new, but the only offers I was getting were for 1/2 of what I paid for it! In my opinion it was not worth losing 1/2 of what I paid for only having owned it flr 3 months, so I decided to keep it. At that point I purchased the 3 primes as they were on sale (28mm, 35mm and 85mm). I even went as far as purchasing the Canon Carepak 2 year warranty for the 6dmk2 thinking I was going to use it as a beater camera.

At this point I plan on keeping both systems. Some day I might find a great deal on either a 5dmk4 or a Nikon 24-70mm f2.8. Of course, with my luck boths of my systems will be obsolete within a year or so with all the mirrorless technology being introduced....

mathogre wrote in post #19074858
I'm not even going to read the comments from others until after I post.

My immediate reaction is to recommend you take whichever kit is the more natural for you. Which one can you hold better? Which has the better menus for you? Which one gets in your way less?

Personally I would choose A. I'd take the Canon, but that's because I shoot Canon. If I had reason to have both kits like you, it would really still come down to which one worked easier and/or better for me, whether out shooting or in post processing.

Third thought is that if your gear is insured and you're good with bringing both with you, bring both, albeit with a caveat. Put a shorter lens on one body and a longer lens on the other. See something interesting at a distance? Body with 200mm. Oh, going inside a small building? Body with fast, wider angle lens.

Final thought. With choice A, I'd probably bring just the 35mm and the 70-200mm. I have that 35mm, and it is a great little street lens. For the 70-200, I have the f/4 IS version, also a great lens, and I've done street photography with that, too. The 35 gets a nice wide view and gets you into tight places, while not being annoyingly wide. If I want to show something about where I've been, it's probably going to be the 35mm as the main lens. The 70-200 is perfect if you need reach but still want to get some tighter shots. I hate wasting my time switching lenses. If I need 200mm, I'll accept the price at the 70mm end where I can't go very wide.

There you go. Hope this helps! (Now lets see if this is going to be one of those "popcorn" smiley moments... )

Thanks!

Interesting thing is that the 6dmk2 feels amazing in my hands! Not sure how to describe it, but its smooth shape, weight and size feels like a work of art in my hands! On the other hand, my D750 feels more like an angular, no frills, no nonsense tool; not much of a joy to hold, but all the controls are where I know them to be.

Also, I don't really think it's a brand issue but an individual body design issue in my case. I shoot some sports with my 7dmk2 and all of it's functions (especially the focus selection process) is easy to access. It feels almost identical to my D750. My only constant pet peeve is the location of the power button on the 7dmk2; I always forget that it's on the left side of the camera instead of on the shutter release button like on my Nikons. The controls on my 6dmk2 are not as intuitive as they are on my 7dmk2 or my Nikons. That unfamiliarity forces me to pause and think about how to capture the image I'm about to take. It is a slower process for me, but not an unpleasant one.

If I had to grab a camera to take a fast pic of something (tornado, asteroid hurdling toward Earth, a condor swooping down to prey on a bald eagle, Bigfoot running across the freeway, etc.), I would immediately grab either my D750 or my 7dmk2, not my 6dmk2. If I want to savor the moment, take my time to enjoy a golden hour sunset image, meditate on the poetic marvel of nature while taking a picture, then I feel my 6dmk2 would be best suited for that Zen-like experience.

After having lived in the southwest and west all of my adult life I think you just answered your question.
I lived in northern New Mexico for over ten years and it's definitely a Zen kind of feeling out there. Not
trying to get all "woo woo", but if it were me I would go for something that slows you down.

I would pack the 6DII with the 16-35 and maybe a mid range prime of choice. I would also bring a definite
high quality zoom.

You are driving into big, wide open country and if you've never been there before and you are coming from Florida
it's a whole other world of photography than the east. I'm originally from down south not quite as far east as you,
but I know green and hills and humidity and what you'll be experiencing in the southwest has nothing to do with where
you've been.

I would think wide, and primes for some close up work and any things special that you want to get into, but I would definitely
pack something that will bring that wide open enchanted country right up close and personal.

I like Canon. I used to shoot with Minolta back in the day, film and the beginning of digital, then Sony when they bought out
Minolta's camera division. I went to Canon due to the fact that Sony dragged their heels and wouldn't produce a professional
camera for many years.
My son introduced me to Canon's gear and I went with it purely due to ergonomics. I have partial paralysis in my right hand and with
some add-on modifications I can use their gear with out much pain or awkwardness.
Canon gear is smooth. They get where things need to be and how the hand works, at least on their cameras.

I tried Nikon through a neighbor before deciding on Canon and the feel of the camera was very utilitarian, but I just couldn't get
the body to work well in my injured hand. I secretly wanted to get into Nikon. I mean it's always been so cool, Nikon was what
all of the pros used back in the day when I used Minolta, but I fell in love with the Minolta Glass and now it's the same with the
Canon glass.

I think the best tools we can use are the ones that make us fall in love with what we do and the subjects we see.
After all, it's photographers that are helping to protect and save almost everything of value.
Enough of waxing poetic.

I know that no matter what gear you use it will all come down to a great trip! Enjoy and remember to share those photos
when you get the chance. We'll be waiting to see what you decided and how that decision panned out.

Thanks!! I'm really excited about this trip! The farthest north I have ever been to in New Mexico was Taos Pueblo. It was such a beautiful, magical, spiritual place that left me so awestruck I could barely take any pictures! I'm used to working in high stress environments and have no trouble taking pictures under all sorts of conditions. However, while at Taos Pueblo it felt like I was on ancient ancestral sacred ground! Very difficult to put into words.

I was only there for a day, however that feeling has remained with me ever since. I'm really looking forward to spending more time there and exploring other Pueblos and heritage sites north and west of Taos.

mathogre wrote in post #19074858
I'm not even going to read the comments from others until after I post.

Bit of a strange way to join a discussion

It really is an enchanted place, New Mexico. I lived there for many years and I understand what you are
trying to explain. There really is no place like it. The native lands drift right into you just like the sand drifts
on the surface of hard pack caliche and sandstone bluffs. There's no grasping at it. The photos that we take
of those areas are just ghosts of the reality that we see with all of our being.

I miss that sense of place as I ride out the waves of Covid while caring for my mother down in the dark green
humidity of the southeast.

I'm really looking forward to going back home as soon as possible.
You have reminded me how much I miss the west and why I love photographing it and it's people.

Thank you and I look forward to seeing those photos.

Update:

Went on the road trip and I ended up taking the following:

Nikon D750, 24mm f2.8 AF-D, 35mm f2.0 AF-D 50mm f1.8 AF-D and 180mm f2.8 AF-ED.

Canon 6dmk2 with 16-35mm f4.0L

Camera I used the most on this trip = D750 with 24mm f2.8 (90% of the time) followed by the 6dmk2 (10% of the time). The 6dmk2 w/16-35 was used in P mode as a quick point and shoot for when my D750 was unavailable.

Unfortunately, I never made it to Utah or New Mexico as I originally planned. The coronavirus ended up shutting down many places in New Mexico I had planned on visiting, so I ended up doing a loop through mostly southern states (Florida, Tennessee, Kansas, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi then back to Florida - I didn't include Georgia or Oklahoma as I only stopped for gas at those two states).