Moving to FF. Nikon or Canon

i actually have a pretty full set up of both, although i plan to sell off one brand soon. Had some spare cash and bought mostly second hand.

Already had a couple of canon 5d3 with 35 1.4, 16-35, 85 1.2, 24-70ii, sigma 50 1.4, 135 f2 but really fancied trying nikon's stuff again.

so i bought a d810 and have actually gradually been accumulating lenses even though i really shouldn't have.

My opinions:

body wise, the nikon wins. And yes, it really is mainly due to the VASTLY superior dynamic range. It can make a massive difference when editing raw files, giving far more leeway.

lens wise...tough one. The nikon 24-70 is great, and very sharp. I also love the look and feel of it, and love that when the hood is on, the lens doesn't visibly extend (call me picky, but i hate that in lenses, although i know it's silly) . The canon 24-70 version 2 though is definitely sharper...like really really sharp across the entire frame even wide open. My nikon can't compete with it wide open in the corners, though i don't necessarily think that matters too much. Build quality wise, the canon is way more plastic feeling though, and the hood is tiny so the lens visibly extends a fair bit (boo).

My canon 35 1.4 is really good and again, a sharp copy. But i love my sub £300 nikon 1.8 35mm fx lens, which is uber sharp and i'm happy to sacrifice the 1.4 for now.

The canon 85 1.2 is great, and mine is very accurate and reliable focus wise, but very slow to focus. I think i just about JUST about prefer my nikon 1.4g 85mm. The colours seem a tad more natural to my eye and it's much faster to focus.

The nikon 14-24 is awesome and very sharp...but the bulbous front element is a pain. My canon 16-35 f4 is lighter and has VR and is also really sharp, but looses a whole stop of light...

overall I'm torn...i know i have to ultimately sell off one kit but i'm tempted to see what the canon 5d mark IV has up it's sleeve. I truly value the dynamic range that the nikon body offers and the quality of the files. (ISO 64 another lovely bonus). I'm actually kind of hoping that when the 5dmark 4 does surface, it still has the same mediocre DR so that i can justify finally selling all my canon kit! I'll have a very tough choice to make if somehow canon's sensor tech catches up with nikon's.

we shall see...
 
Steve M said:
So what did you get in the end Jono?
Click to expand...

I went for the D750 :) I think if I'd stayed with Canon I'd want a 6D and a 7DmkII. The D750 seems to be the ideal camera for me right now.

But now I'm hankering after a prime lens of some kind and a 70-200mm f/2.8.
 
yup - the 1.8g nikon is really good. Better than the 1.4 version which is rather soft. Can be had for under 100 second hand and produces lovely images. Small and light as well. Worth having in the kit bag for sure.
 
jasonsony735 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I went from a EOS 400D to EOS 7D as my 400D struggled with slow AF and ISO range. I have also used a Nikon D700 and yes I will agree the IQ and dynamic range is very impressive indeed.
However I did not like the controls, the menu and this is what I will have to live with if I own the Nikon.
The SONY sensor in the Nikons is just amazing and I am wondering why the might of Canon can not creat a sensor as good. Why Canon have not addressed this issue to date is the question. Either create a sensor as good as the SONY or just buy in SONY sensors for Canon bodies !
 
Yeah I think the Nikon controls will take some getting used to. They aren't as intuitive as Canon ones, that's for sure, but they do work. And once I get accustomed to it I'm sure it'll be as good if not better :)
 
When I purchased my EOS 400D it was on offer in Jessops with a Tamron tele zoom half price.
However if the offer was on a Nikon I would have purchased that camera. It was the purchase offer that was the deciding factor not the make.
Since owning the 400D and 7D I have bought in to canon lens, speedlites, etc.

I would like to own a Nikon just so I can swap and change DSLR's for what my need may be for a shoot.
 
Nikon: more rugged, manual, better dynamic range
Canon: more shiny, battery draining, may have no true manual focus, better tech for remote shooting, better video
 
Put my D7100 on ebay last night. Will be putting the money from the sale (they go for around £400) towards a D750.

Already sold my 35mm f1.8 DX lens and replaced it with the 50mm f1.8g in preparation for the new FF camera.

Sat here wondering whether the £600 cost of upgrading will be worth it, but will deffo be going full frame.
 
Jono said:
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?
Click to expand...

wait for teh d850. about to drop sometime within the next 6months.

dont bother with a canon. they are lagging behind
 
Steve M said:
Put my D7100 on ebay last night. Will be putting the money from the sale (they go for around £400) towards a D750.

Already sold my 35mm f1.8 DX lens and replaced it with the 50mm f1.8g in preparation for the new FF camera.

Sat here wondering whether the £600 cost of upgrading will be worth it, but will deffo be going full frame.
Click to expand...

I started with the D7100 (The Mrs uses it now)

Got a D750 few months back and we love it! Most of my work is studio work, Just got a 85mm 1.8 for Christmas. I'm in love lol.

Was using my 50mm 1.8 before that.

We haven't regretted the purchase one bit.
 
juno_first said:
Nikon: more rugged, manual, better dynamic range
Canon: more shiny, battery draining, may have no true manual focus, better tech for remote shooting, better video
Click to expand...

I would say canon image is more natural balance than the nikon, better lay out of controls, AF is now much improved if not slightly better than nikon, better lens selection. :)
 
Tysonator said:
from the images I have seen canon is more netural / natural look about them.
TBH I have not compared higher end Nikon or Canon models.

I will agree Nikon IQ is pretty sharpe !
Click to expand...

Surely even if this were true, it could simply be adjusted in post?
 
ZG002 said:
Surely even if this were true, it could simply be adjusted in post?
Click to expand...

No idea what he is talking about but it can only refer to out of camera jpegs which is not very relevant. Canon jpgs tend to be warmer, have.more noise reduction and sharpening applied so can look nicer but if anything are less neutral than nikon jpegs. But who cares about ooc jpgs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom