Changing from Canon to Nikon

An Exception · 2 Sep 2013 at 21:06

mrk said:
Anyway, focus on the images, not the gear.

For allot of people (including me) gear is all part of the fun.

I don't know why people keep implying the two are mutually exclusive, can a person not care equally about both?

Even if a person is all about gear and nothing else what does it matter?
It's not what you do, it's what it does to you, and it's not for anyone else to tell people how they should enjoy their life, which I assume is the reason everyone here picks up a camera in the first place...

I don't agree with the Op from a logical perspective, but emotion is anything but logical.
I would still be arguing with the op now if it wasn't for the below sentence.

buzzlightweight said:
I understand going from FF to DX is backwards and i know swapping my kit is backwards but its what will make me happy.

D.P. · 2 Sep 2013 at 21:08

al4x said:
i still havent got my 70D, im normally indecisive and at the weekend thought i was going to get it, but i just cant get over the general view of how good the d7100 is

The D7100 is one of the greatest cameras around at the moment assuming you don't need high speed or a FF sensor.

I really can't believe how good the D7100 is for the money. Pro-grade autofocus at that price point is unreal.

413x · 2 Sep 2013 at 21:11

D.P. said:
On the camera front they are extremely competitive since around 2007 but it is nothing magical about Nikon really. Sony and Pentax also make fantastic DSLRs with state of the art sensors and often loaded with higher end features.

Also Nikon aims to do more is use high end features in lower end bodies where possible and that is in part due to saving R&D in developing a cheaper more consumer version. Canon also have more of a tendency to artificially limit their lower end bodies, either through firmware or design choices in order to make stronger differentiation. E.g., the canon 5Dmk3 should really have the sensor from the 1DX. These differences aren't big but slowly add up.

I think one thing that is definitely more noticeable is canon is increasing their price points of cameras and lenses so they are less competitive at the smae price points, e.g, 5Dmk3 is more expensive than the D800 but on paper one would expect it to be a chunk cheaper. All recent canon lenses have had a big jump in prices. Nikons prices went up, but no where near the same amount. This is especially true at the high end, canon supertelephotos are just a ripoff relative to Nikon counterparts at this point in time.

Yes although i dont know much it really seems canon are always one price point too high. I dont want to get into a system where i have to spend much more for the same tier of kit.

Im mainly interested in macro so far and i noted that you mentioned nikon have the upper hand here?

If i could find more info about sony id love to get one, they hold in my hand so well but was under the impression thier lens line up wasnt as good as the top 2

just seen the extra post on the d7100, cheaper than the 70D as well

An Exception · 2 Sep 2013 at 21:13

D.P. said:
The D7100 is one of the greatest cameras around at the moment assuming you don't need high speed or a FF sensor.

I really can't believe how good the D7100 is for the money. Pro-grade autofocus at that price point is unreal.

I also look at it like Nikon should have upgraded their 'pro grade' AF in their high end bodies.

buzzlightweight · 2 Sep 2013 at 21:14

I haven't seen a healthy discussion about these two in such a long time

D.P. · 2 Sep 2013 at 21:15

An Exception said:
I also look at it like Nikon should have upgraded their 'pro grade' AF in their high end bodies.

They did, AF at f/8 for starters, faster, better tracking. Just because the number of focus points are the same doesn't mean things haven't changed radically.

An Exception · 2 Sep 2013 at 21:20

al4x said:
If i could find more info about sony id love to get one, they hold in my hand so well but was under the impression thier lens line up wasnt as good as the top 2

I wouldn't get Sony just yet, and yes their lens collection is more limited compared to the top two.

The only reason I'm looking at them is because Sigma/Sony/Zeiss make all the lenses I personally would need, but Sony could potentially release some revolutionary camera bodies by adding in some of Olympus's tech (contrast detect AF, 5 axis stabilisation).
Also I'm looking forward to DSLR's that are actually almost silent due to being completely mirrorless.

D.P. · 2 Sep 2013 at 21:21

al4x said:
Yes although i dont know much it really seems canon are always one price point too high. I dont want to get into a system where i have to spend much more for the same tier of kit.

Im mainly interested in macro so far and i noted that you mentioned nikon have the upper hand here?

If i could find more info about sony id love to get one, they hold in my hand so well but was under the impression thier lens line up wasnt as good as the top 2

just seen the extra post on the d7100, cheaper than the 70D as well

If macro is your thing you might not even want a DSLR, depending on budget and expectations. E.g., with a View camera you can stop down far more before getting diffraction, you can control the focus plane angle precisely, have very good manual focus ability and get tones of resolution. But in a big heavy awkward box and you need to process the film.

All DSLrs are much the same for macro, things like Autofocus aren't that important. Have a look at lenses, e.g canon sell the amazing 65mm 5:1 macro, Nikon has no such lens but you can get the same effect using tubes on a standard macro lens.

An Exception · 2 Sep 2013 at 21:23

D.P. said:
They did, AF at f/8 for starters, faster, better tracking. Just because the number of focus points are the same doesn't mean things haven't changed radically.

I can guarantee they haven't changed it radically. My D800's are not noticeably different from my D700's from a performance perspective whatsoever if you're just using the standard spot/manually selected AF (haven't compared tracking etc.).

jonneymendoza · 2 Sep 2013 at 21:28

buzzlightweight said:
true statement but having the right gear helps!

you already have the right gear

413x · 2 Sep 2013 at 21:30

D.P. said:
If macro is your thing you might not even want a DSLR, depending on budget and expectations. E.g., with a View camera you can stop down far more before getting diffraction, you can control the focus plane angle precisely, have very good manual focus ability and get tones of resolution. But in a big heavy awkward box and you need to process the film.

All DSLrs are much the same for macro, things like Autofocus aren't that important. Have a look at lenses, e.g canon sell the amazing 65mm 5:1 macro, Nikon has no such lens but you can get the same effect using tubes on a standard macro lens.

Awkward would probably take away the fun

Yes the 65mm is something id like to get if it is worth it. I like macro as i have always been very interested in nature and macro gives me something i cant just 'see' with the eye .. there must be a benifit of the 65mm 5x compared to tubes surely?

as ive said in before the other main thing im interested in is birds where 300 or 400mm lenses are required.. i need to look at the cost of these two photography areas i feel in respect to the camera manufacturers

42zx · 2 Sep 2013 at 21:36

I had a Nikon D7000 for a year (coming from a 50D) it took nice pictures but the whole time it felt alien to me, dials went the wrong way, lenses attached the wrong way, zoom rings whent the wrong way etc. I came back because of ergonomics and Canon's prime line up.

Raymond Lin · 2 Sep 2013 at 21:39

42zx said:
I had a Nikon D7000 for a year (coming from a 50D) it took nice pictures but the whole time it felt alien to me, dials went the wrong way, lenses attached the wrong way, zoom rings whent the wrong way etc. I came back because of ergonomics and Canon's prime line up.

haha, I have a Sigma 70-200 (my only non-Canon lens) and it zooms the "wrong" way....it catches me out every time !

mrk · 2 Sep 2013 at 21:41

An Exception said:
For allot of people (including me) gear is all part of the fun.

I don't know why people keep implying the two are mutually exclusive, can a person not care equally about both?

Even if a person is all about gear and nothing else what does it matter?
It's not what you do, it's what it does to you, and it's not for anyone else to tell people how they should enjoy their life, which I assume is the reason everyone here picks up a camera in the first place...

Ah I think you have misunderstood what some of us were trying to put forward.

Plenty of times on photo forums you see people come and go and it's usually always gear talk. How much this lens is needed or that flash is needed and so on. Most of the time there's more gear talk than actual discussion about the images themselves. Of course there's every reason to discuss the pros and cons of lenses and bodies and stuff from time to time, nobody is denying that!

This has nothing to do with op at all but since you asked I will post my thoughts.

My point is this, we've come to a point in time where expensive kit is far more accessible now than it ever has been and too many people have become fixated with it and forgetting that it's just a tool. Some of those people will produce incredible images with that kit which is great to see but others (usually most) won't and will continue to not develop their shooting but instead develop the gear instead.

You will see this happen every other month on the bigger photo forums, no names need to be mentioned but anyone can just take a browse of the big ones to see this is the case the majority of the time.

My sentence you've quoted was short and to the point but had a deeper meaning; I was hoping I didn't need to explain it it on this forum really but there you go

buzzlightweight · 2 Sep 2013 at 21:56

jonneymendoza said:
you already have the right gear

your missing the point

An Exception · 2 Sep 2013 at 22:00

mrk said:
My sentence you've quoted was short and to the point but had a deeper meaning; I was hoping I didn't need to explain it it on this forum really but there you go

I understood but disagreed.
I think you misunderstood my point "It's not what you do, it's what it does to you"

mrk said:
My point is this, we've come to a point in time where expensive kit is far more accessible now than it ever has been and too many people have become fixated with it and forgetting that it's just a tool. Some of those people will produce incredible images with that kit which is great to see but others (usually most) won't and will continue to not develop their shooting but instead develop the gear instead.

My point is this...
Pickup a camera - learn the craft - create amazing pictures + have fun = All that matters
Pickup a camera - try to learn the craft - pickup another camera - take some mediocre pictures + have fun = All that matters
Pickup a camera - take picture of test chart - pickup another camera - pickup another lens - take terrible picture of cat + have fun = All that matters

Basically it's not the final picture that's important, it's whether you enjoy the process, and skill and talent isn't a prerequisite. Besides not everyone can be great photographers, else there would be no great photographers.

Disclaimer:
The above assumes the person is a hobbyist and not shooting for a living where the final product does matter.

mrk · 2 Sep 2013 at 22:08

An Exception said:
Disclaimer:
The above assumes the person is a hobbyist and not shooting for a living where the final product does matter.

Enjoying the process is one thing but your point 2

Pickup a camera - try to learn the craft - pickup another camera - take some mediocre pictures + have fun = All that matters

I respectfully disagree with you to a point there because the way you're saying it I get the impression you mean it's not important to improve as a hobbyist as long as you have fun.

That's the point where I disagree. I agree that everyone should have fun and change gear as many times as you want until you find what works for you but if you're spending well earned money on these tools then anyone with a reasonable mind would be wanting to improve their images while having the fun.

And that's where my point comes in, many people lose track of that and have their mind set on the next body or the next lens and forget about improving their work because they think the next model up will improve their work. It won't.

I've been through that phase before which is why I can relate to it and share my view of it.

An Exception · 2 Sep 2013 at 22:28

mrk said:
That's the point where I disagree. I agree that everyone should have fun and change gear as many times as you want until you find what works for you but if you're spending well earned money on these tools then anyone with a reasonable mind would be wanting to improve their images while having the fun.

Their pictures will improve. If they buy a camera with better ISO then their pictures will have less noise. If they buy a camera with better focus, more pictures will be in focus. Will they be a more talented photographer? No.. If they are still happy doing what they are doing does it matter though? No!

The real issue/frustration comes from those that set themselves high standards and think they can buy talent, not those that are simply camera geeks.

mrk · 2 Sep 2013 at 22:31

Sadly you've misunderstood again. I know you'll say you haven't and that's fine but I'll leave it at that.

An Exception · 2 Sep 2013 at 22:36

^^^
I'm just looking at it through a wide angle, not a telephoto.