Considering changing sides

[Turn7]

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....

[Turn7]

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.

[Turn7]

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 know suspect you are correct Simpo, part of me wants to eliminate the "what if its better" factor.....

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........

[Turn7]

Biggest problem is lack of patience tbh..

If I had the spare cash, Id buy a D500 now and probably not even consider it.

However - what if I find Canon works better for me ?

Catch 22 I guess.

Just starting to feel my D300 is a tad long in the tooth.

[Turn7]

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 ?

[Turn7]

will add tomo as late now...

[Turn7]

This the type of "snap" that Im talking about.
I know its as much PP as kit, but I havnt yet managed to replicate this kind of thing. (this isnt the best example maybe,it was a quick flikr raid)but its super sharp at a good size on the screen.

Cal Crutchlow - Honda by Jonny Henchman, on Flickr

One of mine for comparison.
I know Im losing IQ because im having to crop heavily....

Dani by Mark P, on Flickr

In addition, its only just this year I started to use LR10 and find it much better than my previous Elements 8.


Current glass line up :

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-nikon-70-300mm-...

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-nikon-16-85mm-f...

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-tamron-90mm-f2-...

I have considered FF as Ive been told they produce much higer IQ ,but Ive seen some amazing shots from both 7DII and D500.....


Feeling lost right now.

[Turn7]

Thanks Rob, usefull info.

Im sure Id get better results in LR than with PSE so may revisit some of those pics.

This years Motogp Ive hired the Siggy 105-600 and will shoot RAW as opposed to Jpeg, so fingers crossed.

[Turn7]

Dogsey,thanks for the reply.

I know the linked image was taken with better glass, but as I said, it was a quick grab to illustrate a point.

My question(s) now is/are :

How do you rate my glass in terms of Nikkor quality ?

What would you recommend as an upgrade ? IE, I have half an eye on the new AFS 80-400 Nikkor

RAW shooting - best file size to use - I have three options .....

[Turn7]

Thanks Pidsy, but not for me.

I thought your other half had just bought a new one ?

[Turn7]

Thanks again Rob.

So, using the 150-600, shoot wide open, biggest RAW, lowest ISO and enought shutter speed to blur if panning.

Sadly,shooting low isnt always an option as Silverstone appears to hate photographers.

[Turn7]

pidsy said:

Turn7 said:

Thanks Pidsy, but not for me.

I thought your other half had just bought a new one ?

She has but if she can't take pictures in Chernobyl I'll be in a world of pain. It's not quite the romantic trip she had in mind!

Not sure what the new camera was, but the dog pics looked great ?

[Turn7]

Simpo Two said:

Turn7 said:

So, using the 150-600, shoot wide open... lowest ISO and enought shutter speed to blur if panning.

You can't fix all three parameters unless they happen to make the correct exposure. The shutter speed will be critical so I'd set that first. Then aperture, and ISO will have to be what it needs to be to make the exposure right.

Sounds so simple !

[Turn7]

Still on topic....

Had a day at the Wildlife Heritage Centre in Kent on Thursday. Been on my list for a while, and would thoroughly recommend the day to any togs.

Anyway,I took over 800 and the first sort gave me 225.

Heres one that Im prepared to share :

DSC_2540 by Mark P, on Flickr

Let me know what your thought please gents.

Current thoughts are to try the D7200 as as stepping stone to the D500, mainly because Im still not over happy with the details.

[Turn7]

Cheers YB.

Ive upped the anti slightly, as now added a D500 to the hire.....

[Turn7]

Hmm.
A few thoughts post Silverstone...

Having hired the Sigma 150-600 S for length I figured I may as well add a D500 to the order for a field test....

Id like your opinions on my shots (D500) and the final shot (7DII) , BOTH with the same glass, both shot RAW and both processed by me in LR.....


PPD-5 by Mark P, on Flickr

PPD-4 by Mark P, on Flickr



And, the Canon shot...

jl7d (1 of 1) by Mark P, on Flickr


I still feel Canon edge it on IQ and punch...
Also, and Im no sheep....I noticed at one corner there were 8 Canons to 2 Nikon....