Railfan Technology > Anyone jumped from Canon to Nikon?

Subject line really says it all, what were your reasons and why ? I swear I see many Nikon images that just this extra edge to them , yet some of the Canons are silky smooth. Overall who has better "budget" priced lenses? Like in the 18-135 range. Seems Nikon does to me. Curious to hear all your thoughts and opinions many thanks fellow TO shooters !

I changed to Nikon [D80 then D300s] when I went digital and do not regret it, also got a coolpix AW110 for quick shots, the images this produces are quite spectacular and it can be thrown about left in the rain etc etc, my daughter has a canon digital slr and it just seems clunky to use. She studied photography at university and they used canons but in her 3rd year changed to nikons, she was top dog because she knew how the menus worked.
I also feel the nikon sits better in my hand.
Best bet is to go to the camera store and try holding both and playing with menus etc.

Alexander

Canon probably has the better marketing, or the spend more money on it.

Nikkor lenses will fit a Canon, but not the other way around.

I've used Nikkor lenses for over 50 years. I'm probably biased ;-)

If it fits your hand and the menus work for you, it's what you want.

John.

I do not think Nikon and Canon mounts are compatible. Perhaps with an adapter of some type.
Canon EF lenses will fit any Canon interchangable lens camera. Canon EF-S lenses can only work on Canon APS-c cameras. APS-C lenses do not have a large enough image circle to cover a 'full frame' sensor.

Jumping brands can be expensive dependent upon what you have invested. I recently changed from Nikon
(after some forty years, and an original F) to Fujifilm XT-1. (Prior to Nikon was screw-mount Pentax and through my employment years in education a Hasselblad 500 C/M). Numerous reasons, biggest because the Fuji has features which neither Canon nor Nikon have and as I age the big camera case gets heavier each year. My photography has drastically changed as well. Now I don't desire to capture much of anything, so the included with the purchase 18-135mm lens covers virtually all of what I require. Might mention an 18-105 on the digital Nikon did most of my photography as it did on the F100 (which is now a shelf display) and the F3 and F2 prior.

In this digital age the camera itself is dated before you purchase same. So spend your money on the lenses.
Then too there are "other" brands out there. Fujifilms, Olympus, Sony (was Minolta), as well as many others in the so-called point and shoot devices. I'd suggest you look not so much at your gear, rather what you have been photographing in the last say three years and how much photography you're doing. Also depending upon your physical age, see an optometrist to find if your vision has or is not changing. Sometimes it is not always the hardware, maybe the photographer
requires changes.

Bryce Lee
Burlington, Ontario

Started with a Miranda (1968) (thank you Ted Ellis) but soon had a Nikon F (1970) and stayed with Nikon film cameras until October 2004. Then bought a Nikon D70 and went totally digital. The next month went to Inner Mongolia with this one Nikon camera and received outstanding results, much to the consternation of all my film buddies, but it wasn't long before they switched too. Stayed with Nikon through the D200 and D300. These cameras felt good in the hand, but they lacked something that was missing all along; a full frame sensor and the corresponding sized RAW file. It wasn't long before most all the Nikon equipment was sold and the Canon 5D Mk II was in hand and again it felt right. For the last 8 years everything has been happy with the Canon and it has taken Nikon this long to catch up. If Nikon would have had what I wanted at the decision time, I might well have stayed with them. Five to Seven thousand dollar cameras were not an option when choosing. The one thing that John mentioned was if it feels right, then buy it. I agree. I will say that on one outing, a well known journalist asked how I liked my new Canon 5D Mk II and my response was, I will warn you that if you hold it, you will want one. The next week an email came saying he had bought one! It gets worse/better. A bit later, in Deshler, another friend asked how I liked my Mk II and again he received the warning that if he holds it, he will have to buy one. The next day he sent me an email advising that he was selling all his equipment so he could order his Mk II. All of this just goes back to this; if it feels right, then it probably is.

One thing to remember about comparing results from cameras, is that some folks only shoot in jpeg format and their results are quickly determined right in the camera. If that is what you want, then it may be useless to consider an SLR that shoots RAW. Most folks I know that shoot SLR type cameras shoot a combination of jpeg and RAW so they can manipulate their image later, but have a jpeg (processed in the camera) for sending email photos immediately. It all shouldn't be too hard. Budget determines most of it. Always buy the best lens you can afford. Have fun with it!

Not sure when they started but Nikon is using 'NEF' as their RAW file. Each manufacturer seems to have their own version of RAW, each model of camera seems to require an update.

The D5000 I chose is set to record a JPEG and also a NEF. There's also options to record an f-stop over and under, three all together. There's also some 'Active D-Lighting', which is some magic act with the data between the sensor and the file level. Lots of interesting stuff, lots and lots of menus and options, but in the end all I want a pretty picture full of trains.

http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00OYaw

Good point about the overall light sensor vs spot sensors, I do remember that from the film days as well, Canon vs Minolta vs Pentrex vs Nikon for example. Once again, the later Nikons will step through a selection of spot sensors to let you choose, or go through the selection again. It seems to find the shadows and hot spots in the frame, not sure how that works but it lets me think about the composition for a moment more. You can also blow off the options by exposing on the first selection which uses more sensors. There's also some hocus-pocus-auto-focus going on, but I can't figure out how that stuff works. Using Auto-focus is one thing but hit the wrong, or right, selection in the menu and the thing goes into some pretty fancy modes.

I stick with iso 400, aperture priority and push the button. Maybe someday I'll finish reading the manual, or find a digital Nikon F to work with my manual lenses.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/17/14 17:01 by TCnR.

Yes, each manufacturer has a proprietary RAW format. I think this is left over from the days they wanted to be software companies as well. They quickly learned they were ill equipped to come close to matching what Adobe and others were doing. I am not sure the camera companies make their raw files available to Adobe for Photoshop or if it is reverse engineer it but some form of peace has been reached.

Posted from Windows Phone OS 7

I changed from Canon to Nikon in the 1980's while still shooting film. I kept seeing photos taken with Canon lenses that were super sharp but I could never achieve those results with my Canons. I was at the point of acquiring additional lenses i.e., wide angle, telephoto, fisheye, and didn't want to go down a dark path that I would have to retrace at a later date. So, I made the decision to switch to Nikon and I've never looked back nor regretted doing so.

I think Canon hypes their lenses but can't walk the walk when it comes to sharpness and flexibility. Just my opinion but based on my actual experience. By the way, Nikon is still my choice now that I've fully endorsed digital.

Both Canon and Nikon make some of best lenses in the world. The biggest difference that I see between Canon and Nikon lenses is that it easy do know which Canon lenses are the best that Canon makes, the L series lenses. Where as it is harder to know which Nikon lenses are the best that Nikon makes other than the price, testing lenses you buy, and reading reviews. I have been using Canon L series lenses for years even before I went digital and the photos are excellent. I would be happy to show you but to see how good the photos are you need to see the photos in the raw format large size files on a 27 inch or bigger computer screen sized at least 2520 by 1440.

Yes, L series lenses are not cheap but then neither are the best Nikon lenses but they are worth it. Also note that once you go down the road of using the best lenses from either Canon or Nikon you know what camera you will be using and buying in the future.

Lastly, camera choice is always personal based on the things you like in a camera. Regardless of the camera brand you should always use a full frame camera. Yes, full frame camera cost more but using a full frame camera allows you to see how great a lenses truly is.

For me I use two Canon 5D MKIII full frame cameras and I would not trade them for any other camera currently made in the world including the top of the line Canon EOS-1 latest MK.

I used Pentax digital camera for years after shooting Pentax film cameras because the lenses were compatible. Eventually I became fed up with what I found to be less than good results so I sold all of my Pentax gear and went to Canon. Initially with a T-3i body and EF-S lenses, but eventually went to a 5d MkII body and several "L" lenses. Not cheap but I've never regretted the change.

James Nelson
Thornton, CO
www.flickr.com/mojaveflyer

I went the other way, geez, eight years ago now when I went to digital.

Had been shooting with a pair of Nikon FMs for 20 + years, but at the time I switched it seemed that Canon was one product cycle ahead of Nikon, and lens compatibility wasn't an issue since none of my film camera lenses were going to work anyway.

I've since upgraded within the Canon line and am perfectly happy where I am. But I don't see any consistent advantage for either manufacturer.

Should have mentioned that the Consumer grade Nikon's have the 'digitial' format, or slightly less than the 24x36mm format. The lenses built for the digital series are not the same as the full frame lenses, the price is a lot less as well. For 'most' work the smaller format is acceptable, going for the Kardashian butt shot would scream for the full format cameras which have an extra digit on their prices... as well.

Had to work that one in somehow.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/19/14 16:18 by TCnR.

Is that because the Kardashian butt shot requires a wide angle lens, and therefore is best on a full frame SLR?

Reading this thread sounds a lot like a Ford - GM argument; or, in the case of Australia, Ford - Holden.

Rick

No

Canon until I die

Porkchop, to answer your question on the Western Board about what camera. Using Canon 40D and 24-105is repaired lens, same as always.

I shoot Canon and the wife shoots Nikon. I swear you can adjust the Canon while running and the wife has to stop and fiddle with hers to do the same thing. I have L glass and she has Nikon equivalent. Both take great pictures. Mine weighs a ton. Hers doesn't. Hers fits her small hands better.
Hers is a D90 because some dumbass at Nikon couldn't make up his mind how to focus a lens. It runs all the ddifferent variations.
I do see why action shooters prefer Canon.

Posted from Android