Going to the dark side

So, after many years of shooting Canon (32 to be exact), I'm moving to Nikon. Over on FM, it's like a stampede. Given that Canon certainly has a superior selection of lenses, and bodies come and go, many people are asking why the change.

For me, it was two main things: 1) the mkIII issues and 'fixes', 40D and 50D introduction issues and; 2) Nikon upgrading cameras through firmware. Now, you might think that's not really enough to jump ship. However, those two reasons lead to other things.

My eyes have really gone downhill over the past few years. Really at a scary pace. The LCD on the 40D, while nice and large, isn't anything like the 50D or D300. I really wanted that. But I felt uncomfortable moving to the 50D. After all the issues the 40D had - which caused me to wait almost nine months before buying one - I would have thought Canon would address QC. The 50D comes out to a hail of errors as well. I'm NOT attacking Canon here. It's just the way it is. The lack of really positive reviews of the 50D didn't help.

On top of the issues surrounding the bodies is the constant stream of complaints about L lens QC. You shouldn't pay $1000 or more to then have to send your lens in for service to make it right. Or have to test multiple copies. Or return lens after lens. When you spend that kind of money, you should have a pretty good feeling that it will be as good as promised, right out of the box. How many times have you read of soft or decentered 24-70's and 100-400's? Too many. Even with the 'internet complaint' syndrome, it's too many.

What really made me change, however, was the introduction of firmware fixes for both the 50D and the D300. The 50D essentially fixed the issues people were having. In other words, it made the 50D work like it was supposed to in the first place. The D300 firmware, on the other hand, introduced fixes and new functionality. I then looked to see if Canon had ever released new functionality with a firmware release. With only a couple exceptions - and those could be construed themselves as fixes - the answer was no.

I love Canon. I went this past weekend to Best Buy (the only place with actual bodies within 100 miles of my house) and held both the D300 and the 50D. Man, I actually like the 50D better in my hand. So solid. So familiar! And what a screen! The 50D had batteries and a lens, so it felt different than the D300 which had neither. But my mind is made up.

I know getting the lenses with the focal ranges I have had under Canon is impossible. There is no 100-400 in Nikon. There's a $5k 200-400, but I'm not getting one! And their 70-200/2.8 is even MORE expensive than the Canon model! The 24-70 is about $400 more. Man. But I'm still moving.

So there it is. You can attack me, try to discredit what I've said here or just call me a moron. It's ok. I've been going over this in my head for better than a month now and there's nothing you can say I haven't already thought. On top of that is the rut the used market is in right now, meaning I'll get even less for my stuff than most other times. So be it.

I'm still gonna hang out here, tho. The people here are nicer and seem more knowledgeable than most other forums. They answer questions quickly and offer more help. This is the best place on the net for photographers, or even guys who are just gearheads, like me.

Yeah, there's no point to all this, just saying my piece.

Sounds like you've though it through. Good luck on your new setup.

The important thing is that you keep shooting pictures... that's REALLY what it's all about. Enjoy the new camera when you get it!

NorCalAl wrote in post #6713715
So, after many years of shooting Canon (32 to be exact), I'm moving to Nikon. Over on FM, it's like a stampede. Given that Canon certainly has a superior selection of lenses, and bodies come and go, many people are asking why the change.

For me, it was two main things: 1) the mkIII issues and 'fixes', 40D and 50D introduction issues and; 2) Nikon upgrading cameras through firmware. Now, you might think that's not really enough to jump ship. However, those two reasons lead to other things.

My eyes have really gone downhill over the past few years. Really at a scary pace. The LCD on the 40D, while nice and large, isn't anything like the 50D or D300. I really wanted that. But I felt uncomfortable moving to the 50D. After all the issues the 40D had - which caused me to wait almost nine months before buying one - I would have thought Canon would address QC. The 50D comes out to a hail of errors as well. I'm NOT attacking Canon here. It's just the way it is. The lack of really positive reviews of the 50D didn't help.

On top of the issues surrounding the bodies is the constant stream of complaints about L lens QC. You shouldn't pay $1000 or more to then have to send your lens in for service to make it right. Or have to test multiple copies. Or return lens after lens. When you spend that kind of money, you should have a pretty good feeling that it will be as good as promised, right out of the box. How many times have you read of soft or decentered 24-70's and 100-400's? Too many. Even with the 'internet complaint' syndrome, it's too many.

What really made me change, however, was the introduction of firmware fixes for both the 50D and the D300. The 50D essentially fixed the issues people were having. In other words, it made the 50D work like it was supposed to in the first place. The D300 firmware, on the other hand, introduced fixes and new functionality. I then looked to see if Canon had ever released new functionality with a firmware release. With only a couple exceptions - and those could be construed themselves as fixes - the answer was no.

I love Canon. I went this past weekend to Best Buy (the only place with actual bodies within 100 miles of my house) and held both the D300 and the 50D. Man, I actually like the 50D better in my hand. So solid. So familiar! And what a screen! The 50D had batteries and a lens, so it felt different than the D300 which had neither. But my mind is made up.

I know getting the lenses with the focal ranges I have had under Canon is impossible. There is no 100-400 in Nikon. There's a $5k 200-400, but I'm not getting one! And their 70-200/2.8 is even MORE expensive than the Canon model! The 24-70 is about $400 more. Man. But I'm still moving.

So there it is. You can attack me, try to discredit what I've said here or just call me a moron. It's ok. I've been going over this in my head for better than a month now and there's nothing you can say I haven't already thought. On top of that is the rut the used market is in right now, meaning I'll get even less for my stuff than most other times. So be it.

I'm still gonna hang out here, tho. The people here are nicer and seem more knowledgeable than most other forums. They answer questions quickly and offer more help. This is the best place on the net for photographers, or even guys who are just gearheads, like me.

Yeah, there's no point to all this, just saying my piece.

Ok. I started with Nikon, switched to Canon, switched back to Nikon (for business purposes), now I'm back with Canon! It doesn't matter what you're using. It's whatever works for you period. And if you're looking for a great Nikon forum, go to NikonCafe.com. There are tons of great people over there - just like here - who are extremely helpful and friendly. Don't forget to stop by here once in awhile to say hello. Enjoy!

NorCalAl wrote in post #6713715
On top of the issues surrounding the bodies is the constant stream of complaints about L lens QC. You shouldn't pay $1000 or more to then have to send your lens in for service to make it right. Or have to test multiple copies. Or return lens after lens. When you spend that kind of money, you should have a pretty good feeling that it will be as good as promised, right out of the box. How many times have you read of soft or decentered 24-70's and 100-400's? Too many. Even with the 'internet complaint' syndrome, it's too many.

My sentiments exactly. I hope Canon read your post.

Mike

NorCalAl wrote in post #6713715
The LCD on the 40D, while nice and large, isn't anything like the 50D or D300. I really wanted that.

Yup, it's a vital part of being able to take a good photo. Not.

NorCalAl wrote in post #6713715
But I felt uncomfortable moving to the 50D. After all the issues the 40D had - which caused me to wait almost nine months before buying one -

Er, what issues? I bought one the week it came out, hours before taking it to Africa - where it performed like a dream. I've had no problems with it at all in the last year.

I agree that the 1D MkIII debacle has caused loads of Pro users to switch, and a few amateur users of the high-end equipment have followed. But there are no problems with the 40D. Are you sure you're not suffering from 'new camera envy' - where your, previously well-performing, camera suddenly isn't good enough to do what you need a camera to do?

NorCalAL, your post mirrors my oen situation very closely. I too am considering Nikon and a D700. I never thought I'd say it but the D700 seems to be exactly what I wanted the 5DII to be and more. I've preordereda 5DII but I can't see myself keeping it.

Shame it's come to this but Canon seem intent on MPs and sod the rest.

hollis_f wrote in post #6716696
Yup, it's a vital part of being able to take a good photo. Not.

Not sure what style you shoot, but there are lots of instances where a large, high-res LCD can help you know if you've nailed focus on the shot or not (I'm thinking f/2 or less, or macro). Also, the pre-50D xxD LCD screens are notoriously difficult to see in bright light.

Glad that yours has given you no problems, but a quick search for "err99" should reveal that there have definitely been issues with it.

Ook wrote in post #6717605
Glad that yours has given you no problems, but a quick search for "err99" should reveal that there have definitely been issues with it.

Well, here on Planet Earth I don't recall any such issues. If you're talking about the 50D then you're correct. But there were no issues with the 40D.

For the past two years, Consumer Reports has reported the incidence of dSLR repairs of different brands, as reported by its subscriber members...Nikon has higher rate of repairs than Canon, and is near the bottom of the rankings compared to all brands!

As for relative size of viewfinders...

I don't think it's a big deal at all. Photography is about capturing the image. Your composition, technique, and proper selection of tools and processing makes the most difference.

Nikon has some good stuff and if their bodies fit your needs better, there is nothing wrong with that. What matters is that you shoot.

If you feel more comfortable with Nikon then that is what you should be using. The camera equipment does not make the photographer but a good photographer can make just about any camera shine.

However don't think that Nikon doesn't have any problems. My brother decided to finally join the DSLR ranks and purchased a D200 about 2 years ago. He never could get the camera to focus consistently and had heard, from where I don't know, that the D200 was a problematic camera for Nikon. He has since purchased a D3 and so far is extremely happy with it. He had been using Nikon film equipment for about 30 years but the D200 had him thinking he should have switched to Canon for digital.

It makes no difference what brand of equipment you buy there will always be a certain number of items that give trouble. The important thing is that you use something that fits you and your style of shooting and something that meets your needs.

hollis_f wrote in post #6717697
Well, here on Planet Earth I don't recall any such issues. If you're talking about the 50D then you're correct. But there were no issues with the 40D.

Perhaps I remember this partly because I was researching the 40D on the forums here before buying one, but a quick search should reveal quite a lot of 40D-related error threads.

I find it interesting that people switch SLR brands because of the LCD screen on the back of their camera.

I use my LCD screen to check, not often, the extents of what was recorded (edges), to show people photos occassionallhy, and to format my CF card and change custom functions and that's all. My photography skill is enough to know whether I focused properly in my subject so zooming in to check for recorded image sharpness isn't an issue for me.

It's sort of like someone liking a friend's computer "better" because of a larger computer monitor when it's really the guts inside that is the computer.

HappySnapper90 wrote in post #6721210
I find it interesting that people switch SLR brands because of the LCD screen on the back of their camera....

I think that it's more the entire package and not one isolated feature.