Railfan Technology > To Change or Not to Change Brands of Cameras.

For what reason did you purchase the brand of photographic gear (Camera/lenses)
you are now utilizing for railway photography?

And have you contemplated changing brands and hence the style, weight,  design
of a new to you brand and possible side effects of the change?

And finally if you have changed/skipped /abandoned your previous                                                          camera system)
for the new system; were thee any teething problems and more so do you regret the change?

I started out with a Csnon A2E II film camera. 

The reason seemed simple then - it was less money then
a similar Nikon but had more /better features - specifically,
"eye-control" focus.  And it worked VERY well.  Odd that
they dropped the feature from the digital line up that followed.

Image quality - well, back then, it was the film you used.

I think (as of "now"), Nikon offers the better camera and price
range - specifically, they use a Sony made sensor which offers
much better image quality in terms of dynamic range (being
able to capture the darkest darks simultaneously capturing
the brightest brights - without clipping or introducing noise).
Canon's in general are 11.7 while Nikon's are well over 14.
This makes quite a difference in the shadows the the lattitued
you have in editing. 

Too heavily invested in Canon to switch now - fingers crossed,
rumor has it a new sensor /better software will be announced
with the 5D Mark IV in mid-April.

/Mitch

When I got the Nikon D70, I didn't know that Cannon existed;
long story not worth telling. I got the Nikon because of the
glass, which is interchangeable if you buy FX lenses, and a
very old history with Nikkor lenses.

Frankly, I cannot tell the difference by looking at shots. Both
are good brands with pluses and minuses.

What you really need to do is get out and use what you have :-)

John.

jkh2cpu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When I got the Nikon D70, I didn't know that
> Cannon existed;
> long story not worth telling. I got the Nikon
> because of the
> glass, which is interchangeable if you buy FX
> lenses, and a
> very old history with Nikkor lenses.
>
> Frankly, I cannot tell the difference by looking
> at shots. Both
> are good brands with pluses and minuses.
>
> What you really need to do is get out and use what
> you have :-)
>
> John.

As for many did only colour slides, then E-6 after Kodachrome was executed,
and then went digital more or less
as there are no reasonable priced E-6 labs that do slides in this part of Canada.
Dealing with a lab in Montreal Quebec can be fraught with problems (major language
barrier). Or a lab in a foreign country (USA) with customs fees, monetary exchange
and expensive postal charges.

Had experimented with both Canon Point and Shoots (gifted G3 in 2002) and various
Nikon Digital from the D40 onwards.
Like you, ignored Canon. A friend who was with Uncle Sam's Canoe Club
showed me the first Canon I had seen when I visited him in the USA during
the Vietnam war.. (Dick Stearns, where are you?)
Canon is Johnny-come-late here in Canada. Nikon has always been there;
now my D750 (and before that the D600 which had oil n the wrong location)
has been back to Nikon Canada now
three times in nine months. Makes me think if and when the D750 returns
I go to Canadian Tire and purchase a can of yellow spray paint
and respray the camera body, yellow!

I only do JPEG, I do not share my images with others for various
reasons; and much prefer full-frame as with the still
functioning Nikon F100  and F6.

Am thinking it might be time to change to Canon; their small point and shoots are
easy to operate and understand; I purchase mine used
and ensure they operate on AA batteries, much like the F100 noted above.

A friend shall has allowed me to borrow his redundant (to him) Canon Rebel
to see if I like the operation of same. Find the Meuse and many detailed
sub-menus on the Nikon system "very"  confusing.
The once 5D MkIII I had in my hand appeared to me to be more logical
in the menus. Then too my very large hands did not encounter
many different buttons on the Canon body, unlike the Nikon where an
accidental flip of the finger can cancel and often turn off the Nikon camera.

Bryce Lee

Changing camera brands can be easy or problematic, cheap or expensive, a fantastic choice or a nightmare, depending upon from what to what you are changing.

If you've been using permanently attached lens cameras such as point and shoot cameras to higher end simple-solution cameras, then brands and/or going to a DSLR is not a problem.  You won't have to replace your tripod (if any), studio lights (if any), or camera bag (unless you buy physically larger equipment.  If changing brands, you'll likely have to replace your external flash, if you have one, or, relegate it to remotely triggered.  If you had an array of filters, those MAY be usable on a new camera, depending on filter-ring size, methods of attachment, and applicability (color correction filters for film are useless with digital).  Presuming you bought a then-new higher-end compact attached-lens camera - years ago for perhaps $500, you would spend about the same amount again to get a similar camera with far superior capability, regardless of manufacturer.  On the other hand, going from the same compact camera to a DSLR, $500 will get you a nice 'starter' body and one lens, typically an 18-55 zoom or something similar.

Switching brands from one DSLR to another gets expensive quickly.  Going from a $500 'starter setup' to another 'starter' of a different brand has no advantages.  On the other hand, if you've stayed with that starter setup and not added much to it, changing brands will still be reasonably painless, except that your lenses, flash(es), extra batteries and charges will all be casualties, in addition to the camera body.  And I've read from multiple sources the difference in the menu screens between Canon and Nikon are significant.  I don't know that first hand, as I've shot nothing but Canon gear since 1975.

Why did I 'stay the course' with Canon?  Because there equipment is readily available anywhere and was fully compatible with later gear, except the change to electronic focusing (EF) lenses about 1992 or so.  I upgraded bodies twice in the film days, and had 7-8 lenses that was compatible with all those cameras.  After getting my feet wet in digital photography with a Canon G1 compact camera, my upgrade path of DSLRs retained compatibility with EF-S lenses, until I moved to full frame.  Oh...and the external flash I used with my G1 worked flawlessly on all my DSLRs!  As it worked out, after a year or so with my last crop-sensor 60D camera, I slowly upgraded lenses to several full frame lenses, that were fully reverse compatible with the 60D camera.  So, when it came time to sell the 60D and go full frame, only the camera body was replaced!  

And, as I mentioned about menu screens, staying within the Canon family of digital cameras, each later camera was an 'expansion' of menu items I knew, not a start over from scratch.  That made learning and becoming proficient with the new cameras far easier. 

As one of the local furniture retailers advertises on TV regarding his low ..."Hey...It's your money!"  If you want to start at ground zero with a new brand of cameras, that's up to you.  Just recognize that everything except your filters, tripod, and camera bag will have to be replaced.  I can tell you from experience, it's far easier making a series of small changes in gear rather than 'bite the bullet' making drastic changes all at once.   

When I switched from film to digital (over 15 years ago--ouch!), I went from Nikon to Canon.  I switched mainly because I felt that the Canons were easier to use and I liked the Canon IS system.  I've been through three Canon DSLR bodies--I use a 7D now, but I still have the other two should I ever need a backup.  Several years ago, I bought an SX230 HS point and shoot Canon for those times that I need a camera that will take good photos, but will fit in my pocket.  More and more, I find myself only taking it with me, unless I know that I'm going to be on a trek where I want absolute control and quality of photos.  For most other stuff, the SX230 meets my needs.  If I upgrade either my DSLR or point-and-shoot, it likely would be another Canon.  I know how their menus work, etc. and, in the case of the DSLR, I already have the glass for it.  Right now, unless something really marvelous comes along, I probably won't be upgrading.  The older I get, the more I find myself taking pictures with my "mental camera," rather than a photo camera.  As far as overall camera and lens quality goes, as far as I'm concerned it's Canon or Nikon, then everybody else.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/16 10:35 by WW.

I didn't make the switch to digital until a couple of years ago, when it seemed like the writing was on the wall for film.  No more Kodachrome, Fuji didn't scan well (for me, at least) and slide processing seemed to be a lost art.  When I had started taking pictures, I had two Olympus OM-1's, and frankly, if Olympus hadn't lost its way, I'd still be with that brand.  I switched to NIkon, starting with a N70 and then a F100.  I loved them both along with Nikon lenses.  When it was time to make the leap to digital, I wanted to go full frame.  I bought a D600 based on reviews and testing the camera myself.  I had the oil issue, too, but that was repaired under warranty, and the camera has been problem free ever since.  I bought a D3200 to have as a backup, though I use it quite a bit, more than I anticipated.  I like the feel of it, and the menus are very similar to the D600's, plus it has the same great 24 mega-pixel sensor.  I really have no complaints with Canon; I just chose the Nikon because it seemed more logical to me and easy to use, plus having an excellent sensor.  If you have alot of money tied up in your lenses, then I would stay with that brand.  You really can't go wrong with either brand, as well with Sony.

i started with a pentax k1000 then a few others p30 mzs than a digital k100  till now i use a k5 all my lenses work from the film days to digital

I got my first "good" camera in 1995 when I picked up a Minolta Maxxim 3xi for a good sale price. (Nobody bothered to tell me the lens were oddball)  I shot that camera with good results (mostly), for years, but found poor developing was REALLY sinking my work.  (I'm probably no better a photographer now than I was then, but after going through a couple thousand pictures in my photo albums, I realized that 90% were just awful, mostly too dark or poorly cropped). In 2009, I gave in and bought a new Sony A330 DSLR.  I went Sony so that I could use my Minolta lenses and flash, and becuase my experience with Sony products has been that they are rugged and trouble free.  I LOVE that camera, and 11,000 shots later, I decided I wanted a little more capability and the ability to shoot video, so I got a new Sony A58 bare unit for a nice price.  I love this camera even more, and I am still using my old 75-300 Minolta lens, although I'm using the Sony 18-55 lens that came with the A330, and my old flash (which I seldom used), will not fit the A58 without an adapter, which some say doesn't work very well.  I cannot make any comments about Nikon and Cannon, becuse I have no real experience with them, but a quirk of fate put me in the Sony camp, and and I have no regrets at all. I will most likely stick with Sony  until I am given some reason NOT to.  I'm pretty sure that ANY percheived shortcomings in my photography are the operator's fault, not the camera. If you are not wedded to one of the other brands, I suggest you at least check them out before you decide on any new equipment.  Sony is has also gotten heavily into E-mount lens camersa, which would make switching a bit easier for some of you that have a previous investment.

I started shooting for many years with Pentax or Pentax compatible cameras (Ricoh). I progressed to a Mamiya 645 system that was fabulous but with the coming of digital photography, I looked at what was available. A digital back for the 645 was way too expensive. I still had Pentax lenses so I went through several iterations of Pentax digital bodies. One day I was out shooting jets at a near by Air Force Base standing next to a guy who was shooting Canon. I looked at my stuff and looked at what he had posted on a website. My shots looked like I was shooting through wax paper compared to his... That was the day I decided to dump my Pentax equipment and go to Canon.

I had several friends shooting both Canon and Nikon stuff, my choice was based largely on the best price for getting in to a new system. I got in to a started Canon system - a T3i and a couple of starter lenses in a kit I got from Sam's Club. Today I use a 5D Mark II with several "L" lenses that I bought both used (think KEH.com) and new. I've never regretted my decision. As to whether Nikon or Canon is better, do you think Chevy, Ford or Dodge is better? It boils down to the same line of thinking... Both lines of photography produce excellent equipment. 

Go to www.dpreview.com to look at reviews of whatever equipment you are thinking about and go with what fits your budget for what you intend to shoot. Good luck!

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

I'm a Canon man. I went digital in about 2003 with a good Canon compact/bridge camera (afer reading some good reviews) and instantly liked their menus/controls etc., i.e. i found them generally very intuitive. I then decided to get a dslr about 8 years ago when i met another railfan who had a Canon. Knowing i already liked the operating systems, looking at the images on the railfan's camera and reading reviews on dpreview.com i plumped for a Canon 450D.
I've upgraded to an EOS 70D since then and changed/added lenses a few times. In summary i really like using it and the images it allows me to capture i'm really very happy with. I only shoot JPEG but i've had a couple of magazine shots published so the image quality must be half-decent. 
I hear from numerous sources about how superior Nikon's (Sony) sensors supposedly are... and yet if you watch the news/sports on tv you still see a majority of professionals using Canons.

In my opinion this supposed superiority (which seems to be mainly in the form of increased 'dynamic range') is simply not discernible to the human eye in the vast majority of photographic situations. I did consider changing away from canon when reading some of these reviews but after making my own judgement i decided to stick with Canon.

Therefore, i think that in truth Canon, Nikon and possibly one or two other manufacturers produce fantastic imaging equipment. The best one to go for?....The one that suits you best in terms of the image quality you're happy with and which allows you to take plenty of good photos in the situations you like to shoot in. How to decide that?....Read good reviews, look at photos taken by other photographers and if possible try out some kit belonging to other railfans/at camera shops.

It's never been a better time to buy cameras in my opinion; the convenience of digital, the image quality and the choice available amongst the various digital camera manufacturers is just amazing.

By the way, i have a decent little canon compact for 'emergency' situations but i'm thinking of changing that to a Panasonic TZ100, but i'm waiting to see what the reviews say about it first.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/16 16:02 by exhaustED.