Convince Me To Jump-Ship...?

I'm hoping at least one person can be bothered to read such a convoluted load of ramble (pronounced bullsh*t)...and help me...

But let's get to it, shall we?

I'm a Nikon user. Have been since I got into photography 18 months ago. My parents bought a D70 which I took over, and then eventually purchased myself a D300 when they first came out in November last year. I have 4 lenses, listed in my signature, only one of which is decent (the 10.5 fish). I'm rather obsessed with full-frame, and would like more decent lenses (24-70/70-200) to shoot both glamour/portraiture and action sport (mountain biking, mainly). Nikon gear is relatively expensive, compared to Canon, with example comparisons such as the 24-70 f/2.8 going for $AU1869 for the Canon and $AU2579 for the Nikon (where I shop).

I've been thinking a lot lately about shifting systems, because although it'd cost a reasonable amount for the moment (initial outlay), it'd be cheaper in the long run (lenses wise), plus Canon have an extremely decent range of glass. Lenses i'd like to purchase in the future include either the 300 f/2.8 or 400 f/2.8, 16-35 f/2.8, and 85 f/1.2, all cheaper than the Nikon alternatives...(well, not the 85, but it'd be great to own)...

At first i'd considered simply selling the D300 for a 50D, and purchasing a 70-200 with the money I may get for the glass I currently own, to use for portraiture and riding photography, however with the release of the 5D2 i'm in a total haze about which body to save for. Obviously the 5D2 is of much higher quality (plus i'm damn keen on the video capabilities (have you seen Reverie?!?)), however i'm not sure what the Aus price will be..i'm guessing a little above my intended budget. I can sell my liver if it's THAT pricey, I guess...

If I were to stay Nikon this would be my future plans (over the next 18 months): (All prices in $AUS, from my local store)

- D700 = $3285
- 24-70 f/2.8 = $2579
- 70-200 f/2.8VR = $2389
- 16 f/2.8fish = $959
- Total = $9212

If I were to shift to Canon this would be my future plans.

- 5D2 OR 50D = $3200 (roughly, hopefully) or $1750 respectively
- 24-70 f/2.8 = $1869
- 70-200 f/2.8 = $1469
- 15 f/2.8fish = $899
- Total = $7433 or $5983

Obviously this doesn't take into account the prices of products dropping in the coming months, however you can see there is a moderate price difference, as well as the fact i'd make up some of it by selling my current gear. Plus other lenses I haven't listed for fear of being unrealistic (for the moment).

So, in reality, i'm not actually quite sure what I hope to gain through this mega-thread, apart from a little support, or input, from anyone who might have had the balls not to press the backspace button the moment they saw the size of this post. I can see, monetarily, there are savings to be had, I just don't know whether shifting my entire system is a good idea (oh yeah, did I mention my grandfather shot Nikon as a medical photographer and passed down some reasonable glass which I guess is one argument for keeping Nikon...).

Got an opinion? Don't be shy...

Thanks in advance,
Tristan

I think this is really a "to each his own" kind of question.

I really like Canon, and haven't had a product yet be disappointing- even point and shoot.

You should read some reviews on Tameron lenses for Canon- I have a wide angle that I'm real happy with.

Thats a significant price difference.

I'd say rent a 5D/40D/50D with a suitable lens, 24-70 etc. and see how you find the ergonomics for a week.

One thing you'll hear from folks here is that at the advanced amateur level and above, you're investing more in a system than in particular parts or pieces...

You need to look at a bigger picture when you reach a point where the choices begin to boil down to minutae like f/2.8 over f/4, or IS/VR Vs Non, etc...

Given the specific lenses you want to own, I guess the 5D2 is probably going to be the best choice. Already you have the 5D2 kit at $7433 vs. the equivalent D700 kit at $9212. I don't see the D700 kit justifying the extra $1779.

Later if you add the 400/2.8 the Canon advantage is even greater. Nikon pricing of the supertelephoto range is always significantly higher than Canon.

Is the video feature really that big of a deal to you? I would just think that since you mention price, you'd get the best bang for your buck in getting a 1DII or the like. It's not quite full frame, but since you're considering a 50D, it's right there in the middle. Its burst rate and 45 point AF would really be awesome for your mountain biking shots.

I'd not get a 50D, BTW. At what you are considering spending the D300 should be the minimum.

I think this is clearly a 5D2 vs. D700 race regarding lenses.

You could even fit a mark 3 in your budget if you wanted to, come on, you know you want the 10 fps,

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #6468413
One thing you'll hear from folks here is that at the advanced amateur level and above, you're investing more in a system than in particular parts or pieces...

The concept of "investing" in a system is fine, however if the system costs too much relative to the return, then one starts to have second thoughts about the investment.

Had no idea that the costs would be so different.

Thanks for the responses guys.

KAD wrote in post #6468392
You should read some reviews on Tameron lenses for Canon- I have a wide angle that I'm real happy with.

Perhaps this is stupidly close-minded of me, but i'm not all that keen on buying non-Canon or non-Nikon glass. Although i'm sure Sigma, Tamron or Tokina all make great glass i'd prefer to buy the body-brand alternative.

Pete-eos wrote in post #6468412
Thats a significant price difference.

I'd say rent a 5D/40D/50D with a suitable lens, 24-70 etc. and see how you find the ergonomics for a week.

This is a good suggestion. I travelled with a friend who owned a 40D for 2 months and got to play around with his camera a fair bit (24-70 and 135 f/2 lenses too), and actually got quite used to the controls. Certain aspects were strange (the on/off and zoom buttons), but apart from that I found I actually had no gripes whatsoever.

JeffreyG wrote in post #6468422
Given the specific lenses you want to own, I guess the 5D2 is probably going to be the best choice. Already you have the 5D2 kit at $7433 vs. the equivalent D700 kit at $9212. I don't see the D700 kit justifying the extra $1779.

Later if you add the 400/2.8 the Canon advantage is even greater. Nikon pricing of the supertelephoto range is always significantly higher than Canon.

You're correct. Nikon glass is significantly more expensive through the whole range, and when it comes down to a $2k+ difference on the supertele's I know which system i'd be wanting to be a part of.

TaDa wrote in post #6468423
Is the video feature really that big of a deal to you? I would just think that since you mention price, you'd get the best bang for your buck in getting a 1DII or the like. It's not quite full frame, but since you're considering a 50D, it's right there in the middle. Its burst rate and 45 point AF would really be awesome for your mountain biking shots.

To be honest the video feature is almost a deciding factor. I've dabbled in film in the past and if I had the money for a reasonable HD camera i'd probably own one. Having high quality video capabilities on a camera with interchangeable lenses is like a dream come true. Even though I never expected it.

I have thought vaguely about a 1D2, and have even had a play around with a few, I just find i'm one of those people who's keen on the latest and greatest, not just for the fact it's the newest thing out, but for the fact things like noise-handling, screen size and a digic-4 processor are all far superior to any previous Canon bodies (well, that can be argued, but i'm pretty sure they all surpass any previous makes).

Strictly speaking the gear you are discussing, you are hard pressed to find any major differences in terms of IQ.

That said, I think lens cost is a perfectly legitimate reason to switch. Canon does offer more granularity as far as levels of quality are concerned.

For example, you'll find a very desireable constant f4 lens lineup that includes the 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200L, 300L, and so on. You also get fast primes with Canon's USM AF motor.

Those are the things that would prevent me from switching to Nikon.

The D700 certainly is a formidable body. The 5D MKII is looking like a great body as well. Only time will tell. Your other options include the 5D MKI and 50D.

You can't go wrong either way, but I agree that Canon lenses are more economical in that it seems to offer something for everyone.

The Nikon D700 is a sweet camera, and If I didn't own 9 Canon lenses it would be more appealing to me.

OTOH, for the lenses you want to own the Canon line is a lot cheaper. Toss in the video capability of the 5D2 (which is a draw to you) and I think the choice for Canon makes the most sense.

TristanCardew wrote in post #6468519
To be honest the video feature is almost a deciding factor. I've dabbled in film in the past and if I had the money for a reasonable HD camera i'd probably own one. Having high quality video capabilities on a camera with interchangeable lenses is like a dream come true. Even though I never expected it.

I have thought vaguely about a 1D2, and have even had a play around with a few, I just find i'm one of those people who's keen on the latest and greatest, not just for the fact it's the newest thing out, but for the fact things like noise-handling, screen size and a digic-4 processor are all far superior to any previous Canon bodies (well, that can be argued, but i'm pretty sure they all surpass any previous makes).

If it's a deal breaker for you, then your choices slim down considerably to the 5D2 or the 50D. Between the two, you will have one that is full frame, the other that can handle the sports shooting that you said that you do.

TristanCardew wrote in post #6468356
- D700 = $3285
- 24-70 f/2.8 = $2579
- 70-200 f/2.8VR = $2389
- 16 f/2.8fish = $959
- Total = $9212

If I were to shift to Canon this would be my future plans.

- 5D2 OR 50D = $3200 (roughly, hopefully) or $1750 respectively
- 24-70 f/2.8 = $1869
- 70-200 f/2.8 = $1469
- 15 f/2.8fish = $899
- Total = $7433 or $5983

I'm in the UK, but it looks as if you're comparing the Nikon 70-200f/2.8VR with the Canon 70-200f/2.8 Non-IS. The IS version should cost significantly more than the 24-70. Certainly here in the UK the stabilised versions of the 70-200f/2.8 cost roughly the same from either Canon or Nikon. That will alter your cost comparison quite a lot. A quick check shows that Nikon has a non-stabilised 80-200f/2.8 that goes for around the same as the Canon lens.

[edit]As far as video goes - don't forget that LaForet shot 'Reverie' with a ton of mounting/lighting equipment and a team of assistants .

charlesking wrote in post #6468985
I'm in the UK, but it looks as if you're comparing the Nikon 70-200f/2.8VR with the Canon 70-200f/2.8 Non-IS. The IS version should cost significantly more than the 24-70. Certainly here in the UK the stabilised versions of the 70-200f/2.8 cost roughly the same from either Canon or Nikon. That will alter your cost comparison quite a lot. A quick check shows that Nikon has a non-stabilised 80-200f/2.8 that goes for around the same as the Canon lens.

[edit]As far as video goes - don't forget that LaForet shot 'Reverie' with a ton of mounting/lighting equipment and a team of assistants .

At B&H the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is ~$1700, whereas the non-IS is ~$1200.