Are you thinking of switching brands? Please read first.

The reason I went Canon when I finally went digital 4 years ago was FF. I bought a 5D because it was FF. Some other things I prefer in the Canon line up are the 85L which is superior to nikons 85 1.4 as is the 200 2L to the Nikon 200 2. The 35L is also a real gem!!!

airfrogusmc wrote in post #9120347
The reason I went Canon when I finally went digital 4 years ago was FF. I bought a 5D because it was FF. Some other things I prefer in the Canon line up are the 85L which is superior to nikons 85 1.4 as is the 200 2L to the Nikon 200 2. The 35L is also a real gem!!!

That is also my reason, Canon had the only FF bodies (Nikon was adamant that it was not in their future) and the 5D was not so large and costly as had been the previous case. Although if the M9 had existed then I would have probably gone rangefinder since I have the lenses and prefer that style of camera. Now that I have gotten used to TS-E lenses I am glad to have gone SLR though. Not that a smaller simpler camera does not have its appeal.

Thanks everyone for weighing in on this.

Mastermarek, I did have a really nice lens line up. It's okay though. My lenses are functional. I miss the L primes but believe it or not, I miss my 70-200 F4IS more. It (and the 300 2.8IS...which was the $ loss I took to convert) are the only lenses I feel like I'm lacking.

Bob_A wrote in post #9119148
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.

I'm glad you weighed in, Bob. Since you still shoot both. I was wondering if you ever shot both at the same shoot (I used to but I got confused by the controls and eventually just moved over).

What's funny is that I almost solely shot zooms when I moved (except for the 135 & 300) but since I switched over, I've been gravitating towards primes. The zeiss 100 is a very nice option to replace the 135 (but it's mf) and as you guys mentioned anything prime (200mm and up) that is 2.8 has a very high price tag over there.

I also picked up the 70-300 vr. It seems nice but the vr went out on it (I bought it used) so I have to have it repaired.

Quad wrote in post #9120767
That is also my reason, Canon had the only FF bodies (Nikon was adamant that it was not in their future) and the 5D was not so large and costly as had been the previous case. Although if the M9 had existed then I would have probably gone rangefinder since I have the lenses and prefer that style of camera. Now that I have gotten used to TS-E lenses I am glad to have gone SLR though. Not that a smaller simpler camera does not have its appeal.

Yeah if the M9 was available I would have probably gone that route too but I'm very happy with my 5Ds. I'm sure if Nikon would have had full frame at the time I went digital I would have took a long hard look at them. I shoot all manual and always have (F-1s and 500 C/Ms for YEARS). I really wish Canon would have made a digital body like the old F-1 or maybe a digital back for the F-1. I still have some great old FD glass.

Permagrin wrote in post #9109976

1. The flash system, imo, is superior. Though, initially, much less user friendly. It's taken quite a while for me to learn it. LOL

Lisa can you explain this in a little more detail? Does Nikon use ettl?

Chet wrote in post #9121694
Lisa can you explain this in a little more detail? Does Nikon use ettl?

nikon does use ttl & I'm not a flash guru so I'll tell you what I've noticed.

It appears that you have a lot more control (conversely learning how to do the basic things on the flash, like put it into slave mode...took me some time) directly on the flash or from your camera. I can set up two flashes and control them without pocket wizards from quite a distance with either my popup flash (which I can turn off) or my sb800. Pretty much making the need for strobes (which they do) or pocket wizards moot. Setting up two sb600's, on light stands w/umbrellas, to work with my sb800 is a so nice. I never use my spiderlite anymore. It's fast and easy (once you learn the system). And all syncs together either ttl or however I set it.

I'm sure there are other differences (and remember that I only had the 580ex, not version 2 so I don't know if there are any improvements) but I can only tell you what I've used.

Permagrin wrote in post #9121753
nikon does use ttl & I'm not a flash guru so I'll tell you what I've noticed.

It appears that you have a lot more control (conversely learning how to do the basic things on the flash, like put it into slave mode...took me some time) directly on the flash or from your camera. I can set up two flashes and control them without pocket wizards from quite a distance with either my popup flash (which I can turn off) or my sb800. Pretty much making the need for strobes (which they do) or pocket wizards moot. Setting up two sb600's, on light stands w/umbrellas, to work with my sb800 is a so nice. I never use my spiderlite anymore. It's fast and easy (once you learn the system). And all syncs together either ttl or however I set it.

I'm sure there are other differences (and remember that I only had the 580ex, not version 2 so I don't know if there are any improvements) but I can only tell you what I've used.

Thanks Lisa for the explanation.

It's odd, I took a Canon flash seminar at Calumet in Chicago offered by Canon. They even admitted that flash is a black art, and even the Canon reps couldn't easily explain how to use their flashes with ease. They said your best bet is to try and learn how to use the flashes in manual, as ettl could be hit or miss between shots. They tried to explain (poorly I might add) using multiple speedlite's and making the adjustments with the camera. I was very disappointed, and was not the only person left feeling more confused about flash.

My dad (commercial photographer 5d and 1dsmkIII) is thinking about "The Switch" and you've offered some interesting points.

I'm not a huge fan of Canon flashes. I have a 580 and I prefer my Metz 58.

To the OP---I admire your frankness and your ability to switch systems. I'm surprised you lost money in switching systems. I recently switched to full frame and made money selling my glass. I've always felt that Nikon made better bodies and Canon better glass, but to me its what I'm used to. Whenever I pick up a Nikon they just feel so foreign in my hand that I don't think I could ever shoot one. Thanks again for the reviews.

Permagrin wrote in post #9121203
Thanks everyone for weighing in on this.

Mastermarek, I did have a really nice lens line up. It's okay though. My lenses are functional. I miss the L primes but believe it or not, I miss my 70-200 F4IS more. It (and the 300 2.8IS...which was the $ loss I took to convert) are the only lenses I feel like I'm lacking.

I'm glad you weighed in, Bob. Since you still shoot both. I was wondering if you ever shot both at the same shoot (I used to but I got confused by the controls and eventually just moved over).

What's funny is that I almost solely shot zooms when I moved (except for the 135 & 300) but since I switched over, I've been gravitating towards primes. The zeiss 100 is a very nice option to replace the 135 (but it's mf) and as you guys mentioned anything prime (200mm and up) that is 2.8 has a very high price tag over there.

I also picked up the 70-300 vr. It seems nice but the vr went out on it (I bought it used) so I have to have it repaired.

I still shoot a bit with the 20D (have it right beside me now ), but more often I've been using it to teach my oldest daughter how to use an SLR ... so I guess in a way I sometimes use them both at the same time, me with my D700 helping her with the settings on the 20D. I don't let her carry it around with the brick though 'cause she'd probably tip over

Great write up! I was a Nikon fanboy in the MF days. My strategy back then was the same as it is now. Cheap bodies and good glass. I used Nikormats then FE's and had an assortment of primes. I used to think zooms were a novelty lens. How things change. I really think it is a shame that Nikon leaves the low end bodies out in the cold by not fitting them with an AF motor. For my style of shooting I sure like having a cheap sensor box and good glass. To bad this setup has limitations with Nikon.

friz wrote in post #9125558
Great write up! I was a Nikon fanboy in the MF days. My strategy back then was the same as it is now. Cheap bodies and good glass. I used Nikormats then FE's and had an assortment of primes. I used to think zooms were a novelty lens. How things change. I really think it is a shame that Nikon leaves the low end bodies out in the cold by not fitting them with an AF motor. For my style of shooting I sure like having a cheap sensor box and good glass. To bad this setup has limitations with Nikon.

Yup, but the Nikon low end bodies are still CCD instead of CMOS and don't compete with Canon with regards to IQ IMO. Nikon only wins the advertising battle for this market segment