Considering changing sides
Discussion
Ive been shooting Nikon for nearly ten years.
Ive always liked the "heft" of my Nikons in my hand, the way they felt and all the button placements.
My journey has been D70S - D200 - D300
I dont have a huge amount of kit in teerms of glass ect, so I am considering chaning teams.
The main reason Im considering this is primarily IQ.
I see a LOT of pics from Canon shooters that just seem to have a far higher "glossiness" and generally look way better than anything Ive ever offered on here.
Ive always been reasonably happy with my output, but Im starting to doubt my gear and hence considering the swap.
Im sure this about the 9 millionth post on the subject but the search hasnt really helped me.
Handled a 7200 today and didnt like it tbh. 500 feels like home after the 200 and 300. But is expensive.
Ive spent the whole day on the web today researching things and looking at the options.
I really do like the spec and look of the 7D II.
Ive been toying with trying Canon for more than a few months - maybe as long as Ive had Nikons - I guess there is a large question of "what if I never tried it?"
7dii is at least £500 cheaper, so allows for a decent lens to start,
Ive always thought Canons lens range better than Nikon and that there seems to be a larger used market as well.
There is very possibly a large bit of GAS going on here, but also I do want to try the other side...
Its only money, right ?
And if the only difference is that it makes me use my camera more often, then its still a success isnt it ?
Im sure a number of people will read this and
So, to those that do, I apologise....
We've all been here Im sure.
Im awaiting the usual shredding of any logic and also sensibilities....
Ive always liked the "heft" of my Nikons in my hand, the way they felt and all the button placements.
My journey has been D70S - D200 - D300
I dont have a huge amount of kit in teerms of glass ect, so I am considering chaning teams.
The main reason Im considering this is primarily IQ.
I see a LOT of pics from Canon shooters that just seem to have a far higher "glossiness" and generally look way better than anything Ive ever offered on here.
Ive always been reasonably happy with my output, but Im starting to doubt my gear and hence considering the swap.
Im sure this about the 9 millionth post on the subject but the search hasnt really helped me.
Handled a 7200 today and didnt like it tbh. 500 feels like home after the 200 and 300. But is expensive.
Ive spent the whole day on the web today researching things and looking at the options.
I really do like the spec and look of the 7D II.
Ive been toying with trying Canon for more than a few months - maybe as long as Ive had Nikons - I guess there is a large question of "what if I never tried it?"
7dii is at least £500 cheaper, so allows for a decent lens to start,
Ive always thought Canons lens range better than Nikon and that there seems to be a larger used market as well.
There is very possibly a large bit of GAS going on here, but also I do want to try the other side...
Its only money, right ?
And if the only difference is that it makes me use my camera more often, then its still a success isnt it ?
Im sure a number of people will read this and
So, to those that do, I apologise....
We've all been here Im sure.
Im awaiting the usual shredding of any logic and also sensibilities....
They are essentially the same. Only you can decide if one kit suits you better.
So few people will have full experience with both, though may claim to do, you are going to find this question very difficult to get answered. Especially when considering what you will be doing, your experience and how you will be using it.
Something to consider is that Nikons have used the same lens mount back to the 1960s, so you can use lots of old glass on a Nikon. Canon changed theirs with the introduction of autofocus in the 1980s.
Ford vs Vauxhall.
Mazda vs Nissan.
Honda vs Yahama.
Digestives vs Rich Tea.
So few people will have full experience with both, though may claim to do, you are going to find this question very difficult to get answered. Especially when considering what you will be doing, your experience and how you will be using it.
Something to consider is that Nikons have used the same lens mount back to the 1960s, so you can use lots of old glass on a Nikon. Canon changed theirs with the introduction of autofocus in the 1980s.
Ford vs Vauxhall.
Mazda vs Nissan.
Honda vs Yahama.
Digestives vs Rich Tea.
Glass is another reason Im considering the change tbh.
Canon seem to have a bigger selction, and I find it easier to understand where the lens stands in quality heirarchy.
Also,seems to be a bigger used market too.
Im well aware the whole thing is totally subjective, and Im not looking for a yes/no answer, just some debate.
Canon seem to have a bigger selction, and I find it easier to understand where the lens stands in quality heirarchy.
Also,seems to be a bigger used market too.
Im well aware the whole thing is totally subjective, and Im not looking for a yes/no answer, just some debate.
Theres nothing magical about canon vs nikon.
Technically in most aspects nikon sensors are superior at the moment.
What you are seeing is a mix of good glass, good technique (shooting and processing) and likely a full frame image.
care to post some examples so we can see what you are talking about?
Technically in most aspects nikon sensors are superior at the moment.
What you are seeing is a mix of good glass, good technique (shooting and processing) and likely a full frame image.
care to post some examples so we can see what you are talking about?
Shot both and work on group shoots with togs using both - sensor for sensor there is cockall difference! Its all in technique and post processing skills. Strip the metadata and I defy anyone to spot the difference. Don't be deluded by advertising or (paid for) endorsements. Switching is a fools errand. Spend the money on getting better. The biggest tomfoolery of all is switching to smaller physical sensors.
ETA - go and rent what you have in mind and you'll see the weakest link in most camera equipment is us, the operator!
ETA - go and rent what you have in mind and you'll see the weakest link in most camera equipment is us, the operator!
Edited by ian in lancs on Sunday 21st August 09:33
Turn7 said:
The main reason Im considering this is primarily IQ.
I see a LOT of pics from Canon shooters that just seem to have a far higher "glossiness" and generally look way better than anything Ive ever offered on here.
'IQ' really means nothing without an example. I suspect processing is the biggest part of it. Or it could be lighting or lens. I can't think the camera has anything inherently to do with it; if it was that simple everyone would use Canons.I see a LOT of pics from Canon shooters that just seem to have a far higher "glossiness" and generally look way better than anything Ive ever offered on here.
Tony1963 said:
Do you shoot raw and spend a little time editing to give your photos their best look? Many images straight from the camera are flat.
Dont always, but do when its "proper" photography.ian in lancs said:
ETA - go and rent what you have in mind and you'll see the weakest link in most camera equipment is us, the operator!
Have rented a Siggy 150-600 Sport for Silverstone Motogp, at the same event I should get to also shoot 7dii and 70d with same lens for comparison.Simpo Two said:
'IQ' really means nothing without an example. I suspect processing is the biggest part of it. Or it could be lighting or lens. I can't think the camera has anything inherently to do with it; if it was that simple everyone would use Canons.
Whilst I If Im honest, Im pretty sure Im getting overly hung up on the lower quality of my Motogp pics shot at Silverstone - somewhere not known for being easy to shoot with basic kit.
Plus, Im beggining to gel with LR10 after using PSE8 for many years - that alone makes a big difference.
Add in a big dose of GAS........
OP, thank you should do this because you seem committed to trying the grass on the other side.
Everything I have read suggests there is little if any difference between the two makes, I only bought Nikon after trying the two in my hand and decided it felt better - purely subjective.
Of interest about quality, Karl Taylor is adamant that cameras make little difference to the picture, it's the user that counts. He did a video demonstrating his assertion by using an iPhone. The photos were superb.
Everything I have read suggests there is little if any difference between the two makes, I only bought Nikon after trying the two in my hand and decided it felt better - purely subjective.
Of interest about quality, Karl Taylor is adamant that cameras make little difference to the picture, it's the user that counts. He did a video demonstrating his assertion by using an iPhone. The photos were superb.
ian in lancs said:
I defy anyone to spot the difference.
I've shot just about everything and frankly without the raw file and some easy tell tales I certainly couldnt, especially web sized.Turn7 said:
Just starting to feel my D300 is a tad long in the tooth.
Truth is it is. Its quite an old sensor design and you have to work that camera very hard to get good results, exposure (ERRT) is vital with it, so much so a friend who used one used uniWB all the time to make sure he was getting as much usable data as possible. Still something new wont miraculously turn you into a genius, sometimes it does help (AF, dynamic range etc) but if you dont have the core skills work on those too
Rob, a new body WILL NOT, turn me into a genius, regardless of cost!
That I am fully aware.
I think its about trying to get the best possible capture available subject to balancing equipment, cash, and skill .
In my eyes, better gear would, hopefully, make a small compensation for lower skill.
Im never going to be a great tog, but as long as Im producing a quality level that Im happy with, I'll continue taking pics.
If that makes sense ?
That I am fully aware.
I think its about trying to get the best possible capture available subject to balancing equipment, cash, and skill .
In my eyes, better gear would, hopefully, make a small compensation for lower skill.
Im never going to be a great tog, but as long as Im producing a quality level that Im happy with, I'll continue taking pics.
If that makes sense ?
RobDickinson said:
ian in lancs said:
I defy anyone to spot the difference.
I've shot just about everything and frankly without the raw file and some easy tell tales I certainly couldnt, especially web sized.Turn7 said:
Just starting to feel my D300 is a tad long in the tooth.
Truth is it is. Its quite an old sensor design and you have to work that camera very hard to get good results, exposure (ERRT) is vital with it, so much so a friend who used one used uniWB all the time to make sure he was getting as much usable data as possible. Still something new wont miraculously turn you into a genius, sometimes it does help (AF, dynamic range etc) but if you dont have the core skills work on those too
OP, i expect you would see the biggest difference in "quality" by spending that money on lenses rather than bodies. If you give a a cheap, fast 50mm prime lens to someone who has only used their kit lens before, they will suddenly be able to produce more "professional" looking images, ones they have mastered the shallower DOF.
I remember this image from a years ago that was a "runner up" in the Wildlife Photographer of the year competition. Shot with a D300
The lens that was used wasn't an expensive one either to be fair.
I remember this image from a years ago that was a "runner up" in the Wildlife Photographer of the year competition. Shot with a D300
The lens that was used wasn't an expensive one either to be fair.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff