Are you thinking of switching brands? Please read first.

It's been one year since I switched to nikon, after shooting canon for many years. I thought I would list the benefits that I've found, as well as the negatives for each side. I'm not brand loyal, as many of you already know, and I don't receive any kickbacks from either side

First, why did I sell my canon gear at a loss and spend so much more money to buy nikon? There were three reasons.

1. the 1dm3. It was the last canon camera I bought new. I had the repairs done (I sold it before the 2nd and 3rd recall information happened) and it worked much better after the repairs but, I am a wedding photographer...the camera just did not track whites as well as it's brother (the 1ds2 that I owned) in aiservo, when a bride walked down the aisle. As far as I knew at the time, it was repaired and still did not track as well as the older camera. The 1ds2 was very good at AF but not so great at very high iso.

2. After the research I had done, and my previous experience with the M3, I decided I did not want to be an early adopter of the 5Dmk2 and there were no other canon cameras that I felt like would:

1. achieve good lowlight af
   
2. have excellent high iso in low light capabilities

1. Both the D300 and the D700 have great AF abilities.
   
2. The D700 is the best lowlight/high iso camera I've ever used personally.
   
3. The D300 does not perform quite as well as the D700 in high iso. However it does have very good AF in lowlight, as does the D700.
   
4. Being able to add a grip to get fast FPS (to both these cameras) and yet remove it when one wants a light weight kit is such a bonus.
   
5. The weather sealing on these cameras works. So does the in camera sensor cleaning. First time for me that I've had a camera a whole year and not had to clean it with even a rocket blower.
   
6. The ability to use mf lenses from days gone by.
   
7. The flash system, imo, is superior. Though, initially, much less user friendly. It's taken quite a while for me to learn it. LOL

1. The 14-24 & the 24-70 are the best (IQ wise) zooms I've ever used.

1. Cost. Nikon lenses are significantly higher priced that canon lenses. And except for the 14-24 and the 24-70, none that I own are better (or in some cases, even equal to) their canon counterparts.
   
2. Abysmal selection of quality primes under 200mm.
   
3. While I listed the ability to use old MF primes as a positive, it is also a negative. Because of this compatibility, nikon has not updated their primes. They have nothing for AF FX at 1.2. Their 85 1.4 is their "cream machine" and truly is their best prime below 200mm. The other primes truly suffer from "nervous bokeh" and other than their 60 2.8 macro, I won't buy them.
   
4. HEAVY HEAVY HEAVY lenses. There are no lightweight lens options. At least not with quality glass. If one wants a lightweight kit, you have to purchase 3rd party lenses or use manual focus.
   
5. The 5D2 does give amazing cropping abilities. Because the D700 stops at 12mp and the only option for upgrading mp is the D3x (at a stiff $7500) that does seem a lack in the nikon camp (imo...while I know mp's aren't everything...printing large could be useful in certain circumstances).

That's a great review!

If I were starting from scratch, it would be a difficult decision with the D300 and D700 which were not around at the time I bought my XTi and was looking towards getting a 30d/40d in the future.

Which is "better" will switch back and forth as long as DSLR technology basically stays the same format. If Canon's 1Dmk4, 1DsMk4 are as good as they SHOULD be, a future 5dMK3 which should have significant upgrades aside from a better sensor, and with the 7D arguably being the new king of APS-C there might be more Canon's at the next Olympics. If they make a new 24-70 f/2.8 with IS, that would be a real hit too.

But aside from playing with Nikons in the store (and being utterly confused by the button layout) my oppinions are just regurgitated from info I read on the internet. I really would love to try Nikon for a month given the opportinity!

Thanks

I know I didn't cover xxd cameras (in canon or nikon) and there are pluses and minuses there as well...but I've never used any of nikon's other cameras so I'll stick with what I know.

In any case I'm hoping it will be useful to someone who's on the fence.

When the 5DII was announced I thought really hard about getting a D700. In the end I picked up a used 1D3 instead and I have no qualms about it's performance at all.

Looking at the Nikon stuff at the time I concluded that I would become an all zoom shooter within the Nikon system. I'd stop using my 135L for indoor sports and use the 70-200VR. That means I need a stop better ISO performance to break even.

I'd also be sorely tempted by Nikons 200-400/4 VR, which is why going to Nikon for me would yield a better setup for sports (that 200-400 is about perfect for field sports) at a higher total system cost.

In the end the switch could not be justified, and since I'm thrilled with the 1D3 it's all for the best anyway.

Thanks, very clear write up.


Looks like I was correct in steering my BIL to a D700 sounds like I will not make any enemies in the family (whew). All the pluses favor his uses/lens decisions. As for me well I have far too much Canon glass to even contemplate a switch. I think Canon's TSes are better than the Nikon's alternative and they are my go to lenses as well.

Generally I have to agree with the sentiment often expressed here Nikon for bodies (and auto-flash system) Canon for lenses. You seem to confirm this view.

Great post not only for people considering to switch but, also for those that are deciding one what their first may be. Hopefully however, both brands will use the next few years to close the gap between the two. Everyone wins when one system has advantages because the other will (I should hope) push to improve.

Thanks for posting. I am quite content w/ my current gear lineup. I would like to pick up a 1DsMkII, however. I don't think switching to Nikon would benefit me much. At least not at this time. Thanks again for the reviews.

Part of the reason for this post is to keep people happy with what they've got.

Part of it is to show a reasonable expectation of what they will find on the other side.

In any case, if you are happy, that's totally cool. And if you aren't, then there's a good chance you may be by switching.

Yep its all just ways to capture your vision. Find stuff that works and don't worry about what brand it is. I'm probably not going to switch or dump my Canon equipment anytime soon but there is probably an M9 in my future (next summer).

Permagrin wrote in post #9114192
Part of the reason for this post is to keep people happy with what they've got.

Part of it is to show a reasonable expectation of what they will find on the other side.

In any case, if you are happy, that's totally cool. And if you aren't, then there's a good chance you may be by switching.

I think you summed everything up very well. And as JeffryG commented, Nikon is probably a decent choice for a zoom shooter. For that group the 14-24 (or 17-35), 24-70, 70-200 and 200-400 make up a pretty good lens collection.

The only thing Nikon was missing for me (as a zoom shooter) was a 70-200f/4 VR. But I bought a 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR as a light-weight travel zoom and was impressed with how well it performs.

A fine package of lenses for sure, but that's gonna be a pretty small group. If you are comparing to a similar Canon zoom collection, there is no real comparison IMHO. The Nikon 200-400 is a $5000 lens & weighs in at over 7 lbs. I'd be happy with Canon's 100-400 anyday

for me, lens always comes first!!! Canon sooner or later will figure out how to make a good body. well, its not like like canon cameras are bad but anything above $3500 rage, belongs to nikon. For all that $$ you ve spent on going to nikon, you could have an amazing lens line up, that would put a smile on your face everyday. lol. Overall, canon wins for me. I like their layout better, better lens, better prices. Nikon bodies are better but its not the camera that takes a picture. And as I said, its easier to come up with a new camera then refresh all of your lens line up!! lol. 50L f1.2 and 85L f1.2 FTW!!

blueM wrote in post #9120033
A fine package of lenses for sure, but that's gonna be a pretty small group. If you are comparing to a similar Canon zoom collection, there is no real comparison IMHO. The Nikon 200-400 is a $5000 lens & weighs in at over 7 lbs. I'd be happy with Canon's 100-400 anyday

No doubt that the leap from 200mm upwards gets pretty pricey and heavy.

Very objective and probably spot on. As you mentioned, low-light performance is your key requirement and it appears you made the best gear choice to meet it.

I'm happy to hear you're not looking back and wondering why you made the change. Nice to hear something positive, either way!

dave

Great info, it's nice to hear people's stories. I would love to have a Nikon for a month (I might borrow someone's D300..).

I'm at a point where I've invested quite a bit of money (no where NEAR the amount of money invested by most of the people here, though) and it wouldn't be prudent to switch to Nikon.. I just want to see what it's like on the other side.