Moving to FF. Nikon or Canon

Jono

Jono

Jono

Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
13,262
Location
Northallerton/Harrogate
I currently have a Canon 600D. It's been ok, but it's very noisy above (and including, really) 400 ISO.
I'll lose nothing, really in switching to Nikon as I won't be able to use any of my lenses with a 6D, or at least I'd want to replace them for better ones in time.

6D is what I'm considering but I am a bit put off by the limited autofocus capabilities of it. It's better than what I currently have, but only just.

The other thing I'm considering is a D750. That seems to have much better AF, and although it doesn't match the resolution of a D810, it's also much cheaper. Still more expensive than a 6D.

I like the fact it has a tilty screen. I'll miss that from my 600, but it doesn't swivel too... which is sometimes useful but mostly I just swing it out the way then tilt it, so perhaps it'll be good enough.

I don't know what difference it having an AA filter would make, compared to a D810.
My main use will be for landscape stuff, split probably 70/30 or 60/40 with nature stuff or animals. Dogs running around, horses jumping around and possibly kids titting about (nephews).

I hired a 6D for a few days and unless the subject was right in the middle, it didn't always get it in focus... and didn't really do tracking moving subjects very well at all.

My camera really struggles with low light and rescuing detail from shadows - i.e. it can't. If I try to push it too far, I just get a bunch of hatch-patterned noise. I COULD do different exposures and combine them, but I don't want to do that.

I was sent a raw file from a D810 and the amount of detail I could rescue from a massively underexposed image - it was mostly almost black - was incredible. And very little if any noise.
I don't know if the D750 can get close to it, but it does have the same sensor, and image processor(?).

I have had some good results from a 6D in a similar situation but from what I remember there's no real comparison - it was visibly noisy if pushed all the way... way better than my camera but not as good as the D810.

Then there's lens options. I know I'd get a 16-35 F4 L... and I'd probably want either a 24-70 (too expensive) or 24-105 as a kinda walkabout lens... then 70-200 or something.

Not sure what the best/decent Nikon fit options there are out there?

Given the choice of those two cameras... what do you think would be best for what I want it for?
 
D750. Dynamic range from the Sony sensor it uses is unreal. I have one, and don't getting it in the slightest. Tested the D810 for a couple of days, beast in terms of resolution but also in terms of weight and size. D750 was the obvious choice for me.
 
The D750 is more of a competitor to the Canon 5Dmk3 so it isn't really a fair comparison to the 6D. Against the 5DMKIII the D750 has a superior sensor for landscape work.

The D750 has a different sensor to the D810, hence the resolution difference. Saying that the D750 sensor performs similarly although the D810 still has an edge in Dynamic range, but you ould really have to be pushign things to the extrmee to notice so the fun you had with he D810 raw pushing shadows mostly appleis to the D750 as well. The AA filter is not a massive deal breaker, they are fairly useless things so it is nice to have a camera that isn't artificially limiting detail but in reality your lens will be acting as an AA filter a lot of the time. I think the best use case scenario is shooting wildlife with a very high quality prime when the aperture is fully wide open. This gives massive amount of feather/fur detail For landscape work when you want max detail you tend to be diffraction limited so having no AA filter has less value than you would expect, but a TS/PC lens is if very useful to adjust the focal-plane and avoid stopping down too far.

Lenses are mostly very similar.
Nikon has released a new 24-70mm f/2.8 with VR (IS) but the older one is available very cheaply and is extremely good, it is similar to the new canon model. the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 is very much like the Canon 24-105mm. It's performance at 105mm is less than the canon but it is sharper at 120mm. Nikon has a few nice advantages I think, e.g. or the 70-200mm f/2,8 type lens Nikon still sells as new an older 80-200mm f/2.8 which is just as sharp as the latest and greatest but much cheaper. Also the Nikon f/1.8 rimes are in a different league to the Canon version, you have a complete line up of top performing up to date lenses from 20mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm at f/1.8.
(Canon does have some nice f/2.0 IS primes but not a complete set, yet).



Something else to consider is the Nikon D800, it is way cheaper than the D810 but i mostly the same camera. It is slightly slower continuous shooting and buffer size but hasn't bothered me in the slightest. I shoot BiF just fine and haven't lost a shot. The spray and pray machine gunners would likely be annoyed but you are always better off preempting subject movement (require practice, patience and technique) unless you shot at 50-100FPS and guarantee the shot.
 
I think with the Cameras you'll have to go with what you feel comfortable with.

I moved from Canon (5DMKII) to Nikon with the D800 as it suited me better, I preferred the feel, the interface and the results when I tried it. I then changed to a D810 and that camera has impressed me so much. My friend now has a Canon 5DSR and based on real world results I think the D810 is much better. As you've already noticed the dynamic range and the ability to rescue detail on the Nikon is amazing, way better than Canon imo so if that's important for you then Nikon all the way.

Either camera is going to be good though, just go with what feels best or go with your heart failing that.

The lens choice you have listed is pretty much ideal, when I started I went for the same but choose the 24-70 2.8 over the 24-105.. I think if I was looking at a 24-105 then I'd go for the Sigma, if you go down the canon route don't get the canon 24-105L as it's rubbish, certainly not L quality.
 
Just to throw another spanner in the works, pentax will have their full frame out next year which I for one am tempted.
 
Nikon D750 hands down, Canon is good as well but no point going down 5Diii route as future upgrade should hopefully be out within the next 6 months ;)
 
get a nice 50mm f/1.8 fx prime lens for £60-£100 to start with I went from a d7100 to d750 for full frame and better low light performance, the d750 buffer is a bit slow if your considering allot of wildlife photography.
 
sid-180 said:
Nikon D750 hands down, Canon is good as well but no point going down 5Diii route as future upgrade should hopefully be out within the next 6 months ;)
Click to expand...

I thought that and was waiting and waiting forever for a 5D3 replacement. The leap from a crop is so vast that I have decided to stay 1 gen behind for what I use my camera for. After all I have been struggling with the crop for years now. The prices on the 5D3 are tumbling, I would switch but cannot be bothered to start again and sell up everything. After xmas I will either wait and month or two to see if there is an announcement or just pick a 5D3 up for relative peanuts. Then just stay one camera behind and keep picking them up for £1200-1300.

As I say the leap from my crop will be huge anyway.
 
dannyjo22 said:
The leap from a crop is so vast...
Click to expand...

Depends on the crop sensor camera you're leaping from really..
I have a D7100 and i'm eyeing a D750. Thing is though, I don't shoot at high ISO or in low light so i'm thinking is it worth it, as my D7100 with my 35mm f1.8 prime delivers stunning image quality..
 
Last edited:
Steve M said:
Depends on the crop sensor camera you're leaping from really..
I have a D7100 and i'm eyeing a D750. Thing is though, I don't shoot at high ISO or in low light so i'm thinking is it worth it, as my D7100 with my 35mm f1.8 prime delivers stunning image quality..
Click to expand...

There certainly isn't a huge difference if you go from a modern crop sensor. You gain 1 sop DR at base ISO, and you will have 1 stop more DoF to play with if that takes your fancy. there are some nice subtleties, like the big viewfinder. there is also some downsides, if you shoot wildlife, sports or aviation you will really miss the pixel density.
 
I started like you with canon 600D and then moved up to Nikon D90 and guess what ? the images = fantastic , but I hated the Nikon controls ! everything about the menu and the dials sucked big time so when I had the chance I upgraded to canon 6D and I have never looked back.
 
MichaelAwkward said:
Do you live by specifications? It must get boring.

The 600D is just as capable of producing "fantastic" images as the D90.
Click to expand...

You didn't say that the 600D was just as capable of producing fantastic images as the D90, and I certianly didn't argue that point.

Your said :
produce basically the same quality of images.
Click to expand...
, Which is not at all the case as I point out.


So what point are you trying to make, or are you just twisting your story and trying to put word in my mouth?





And no, i don't live by specification, I live by real world image usage. You may not care about the photographs you produce, must be very boring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom