Nikon User to Canon help me I'm slipping...

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Richard Favinger, Jr., Apr 21, 2005.

  1. Hi all,
    I have been a Nikon user since my first SLR an N70 (Film), I am a semi pro
    photographer. My main body now is the Nikon F100. I am looking to make the
    switch to digital. Not being digital is killing my business.

    I have some Nikon pro glass, 24 2.8; 50 1.4; 60 2.8 Macro; 85 1.8; 80-200
    2.8 S... I am prepared to eat it, as it where, and switch to Canon Digital.
    So are there any Nikon users out there that have made the switch to Canon
    and are happy for it, and would do it again? Hey, I switched to Mac, and now
    could care less about M$.

    I can't help but feel that with even the release of the D2X, Nikon is STILL
    behind Canon, and the D2X didn't even get off the ground right. What are
    your thoughts on this?

    Am I going to burn switching to Canon, or am I really better off just riding
    it out with Nikon. Going to Digital, Canon or Nikon, will be a major
    investment for me. So I'd like thoughts on people who may have switched.

    Richard Favinger, Jr., Apr 21, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Richard Favinger, Jr.

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    It's hard to find indications that the D2x isn't *better* than the Canon 1ds2
    in almost every respect, other than high ISO noise.

    UPS says my D2x is out for delivery and arriving sometime today. I'm not
    interested in switching; as a personal preference I like Nikon cameras better.
    Though I do have more glass than you listed, used Nikon glass commands
    excellent prices on eBay, so it wouldn't be *that* much of a loss (I see
    lenses regularly sell for only slightly under the new price), but I can't
    see any reason to switch -- unless you really do want Canon's high-paced
    product release schedule. I'm willing to wait for Nikon, since they tend
    to get it right when they finally get around to it.
    Jeremy Nixon, Apr 21, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Richard Favinger, Jr.

    Todd H. Guest

    As a Canon user since I started, with the glass you have, there's no
    way I'd advise you to jump over to Canon.

    Get thee a 20D and get busy!

    Best Regards,
    Todd H., Apr 21, 2005
  4. Richard Favinger, Jr.

    RSD99 Guest

    "Richard Favinger, Jr." asked:
    I can't help but feel that with even the release of the D2X, Nikon is STILL
    behind Canon, and the D2X didn't even get off the ground right. What are
    your thoughts on this?

    Nikon buys it's sensors from (I think) Sony. Sony is a large, diverse
    supplier of electronic components, and ... as such ... Nikon will *not*
    have a hugh amount of product leverage with them.

    Canon has made the investment in the (very expensive) technology and
    semiconductor processing equipment, and makes their own sensors. Since they
    own the sensor plant, Canon's camera group will have a hugh amount of
    product leverage.

    IMHO: This is a *big* one ... what it means is Nikon is dependent on Sony
    (or some other vendor), while Canon controls their own destiny. The end
    result, Canon just seems to be "a generation ahead" of Nikon in the key
    component ... the image sensor. This probably will not change in the near

    Canon figured out twenty years ago that their existing manual lens mount
    would not be adequate for the coming generation(s) of cameras ... cameras
    that include autofocus, image stabilization, and all of the other really
    neat things we all now want. They "bit the bullet" and completely
    redesigned the lens and lens mounting system to be what they thought they
    would need. They suffered "in the marketplace" for a while, but have
    introduced cameras and lenses that many consider to be the best ever
    available, and now are on a marketing high point because of making the
    change twenty years ago.

    Nikon is still trying to patch-together a workable modern lens and lens
    mounting system. This probably will not change in the near future.

    Nikon is a (relatively) small optics and photographic company. They have
    made many excellent to superb products throughout the last fifty years or
    so. However, the company's resources and assets are (relatively) limited.

    Canon is a hugh conglomerate, and manufacturers many products. By
    comparison to Nikon, the company has very substantial resources and assets.
    Included in those assets are several "cash cow" product lines that can
    internally provide the financing for developing better cameras, sensors,
    and lenses.

    "Richard Favinger, Jr." then asked:

    Am I going to burn switching to Canon, or am I really better off just
    it out with Nikon. Going to Digital, Canon or Nikon, will be a major
    investment for me.

    IMHO: Canon is the better bet ... both short term or long term.

    RSD99, Apr 21, 2005
  5. Richard Favinger, Jr.

    andrew29 Guest

    I don't know why you believe that "the D2X didn't even get off the
    ground right." It's a superb piece of machinery. It's been very well
    reviewed. What's not to like? Are you worried about 12 vs 16 Mpix,
    sensor size, or what?
    Why would you want to switch? I don't get it.

    andrew29, Apr 21, 2005
  6. Richard Favinger, Jr.

    Diane Wilson Guest

    For all the advocacy for/against each brand, they are both excellent
    cameras and the differences tend to be fairly minor, unless there's
    a specific feature you want that only one of them provides--which is

    You have a lot of good glass. Why switch? Specifically, what is
    it that Nikon's products don't give you?

    Diane Wilson, Apr 21, 2005
  7. Richard Favinger, Jr.

    Sheldon Guest

    I have to agree. With all that great glass how much would you lose making
    the switch vs. what you would gain?
    Sheldon, Apr 21, 2005
  8. Richard Favinger, Jr.

    Todd H. Guest

    Err, I meant D70. Doh!

    Todd H., Apr 21, 2005
  9. Richard Favinger, Jr.

    Douglas Guest

    I was totally Mamiya and Nikon in 2002. I bought my first DSLR in 2003 (A
    Fuji - Nikon in drag). I bought this because of the lens compatableity but I
    kept using film because the output sucked from this camera. A friend loaned
    me his 10D the second week after they were released and I bought one a few
    days later. The rest is history.

    I now own Canon DSLRs exclusively. By far the nicest is the 1D Mk II but I
    use a 20D a lot too. To be honest, I can't tell much difference between the
    "L" series Canon lenses and my old Nikon stuff but I can tell a huge
    difference in the quality of my work. Would I do it again?

    Given the results I've seen from my client's Nikon cameras... I'd go Canon
    again in a hearbeat. My one regret is that I bought Sigma glass to save
    money. When I sold it on the way to 'L' glass, it was worthless. By far the
    most useful lens I have is a 24~70 f2.8 'L' series. Not quite prime stuff
    but with the right RAW converter, no one would ever know.

    Douglas, Apr 21, 2005
  10. Richard Favinger, Jr.

    RichA Guest

    Oh, Freud....
    RichA, Apr 21, 2005
  11. Richard Favinger, Jr.

    George Guest

    Of course Sony wants to be a big player in the digital camera arena and
    supplies more than just Nikon, Konica/Minolta, Pentax and themselves...I
    think they (Sony) already have any necessary incentive.
    This one has always puzzled me. Nikon MANUFACTURES semiconductor processing
    equipment (is that whose stuff Canon bought <wink>), yet they don't get into
    the manufacture of the sensors. Heck, 80% of the world's "semiconductor
    manufacturers" don't have their own foundries...they sub-contract that out.
    Yet, Nikon seems content to watch from the sidelines...
    This could be a big downside too. It means that the cost of the equipment
    has to be paid for by the sales of one company's digital camera sensor sales
    and you DO know that semiconductor manufacturing equipment becomes obsolete
    every 18-24 months, don't you? So, what is an asset today is a millstone in
    two years.
    Nikon's lens mount is working just fine and I use all my Nikon lenses (even
    back to 1973) on my D70. Canon users got screwed with the EF/FD change and
    then again on the FD/EOS change. Also, all the various sized sensors in the
    various dslr's doesn't make it too easy to put together a coherent selection
    lenses. On the plus side for Canon, they DO have a much better selection of
    long telephoto lenses, a few faster lenses, and more image stabilized
    lenses. However, Nikon has a better selection of wide angle lenses, a DX
    fisheye, and the software to make their DX fisheye rectilinear when desired.
    And manufacturer of semiconductor manufacturing equipment such as wafer
    steppers. Also (I'm asking), isn't Nikon one of the three largest optical
    glass companies in the world? I think I recall reading that somewhere.
    Canon is into several areas (copiers, printers, cameras) that come
    immediately to mind. Others? One possible problem, aren't all the products
    that Canon makes in the "commodity" category, i.e., they have severely
    eroded profit margins (unlike industrial equipment)?
    George, Apr 22, 2005
  12. Richard Favinger, Jr.

    George Guest

    So, what is the "right" RAW converter for Canon? Enquiring minds want to
    know...<g>, and know why!

    George, Apr 22, 2005
  13. Richard Favinger, Jr.

    UrbanVoyeur Guest

    But not yet the skill to make a truly affordable full frame sensor. or
    we would have seen it by now.

    There a big difference between making semi-conductor "machine tools"
    (laser etching, wafer slicers, etc) and designing & making chips.
    Entirely different expertise.

    Canon can afford to design and manufacture is own chips because it can
    use that expertise to across several other industries - copiers, video
    cameras, printers, etc.

    Designs become obsolete, but these days the technology gets pushed down
    to cheaper chips. So the machinery what was used to make cutting edge PC
    CPU's five years ago is now used to make cell phone brains. Nothing ever
    really "dies" it just gets resold...

    And light sensors don't appear to be as complex or as densely packed as
    CPU's, so I suspect issues involved in making higher res sensors are not
    directly tied to fitting more circuits on a chip or more chips on a
    wafer. IMO improvements in micro lens design, sensor patterns, light
    sensitivity, noise, heat dissipation, and quality control are having a
    bigger impact on driving down large sensor cost than simple circuit on
    silicon advances.

    Yeah, but Zeiss, by comparison, is a *massive* optical company, and
    still doesn't have the resources to compete in the camera market without
    help. That Nikon does is remarkable,

    Not really. Canon is fairly diversified company that competes well in a
    large number of imaging markets (optics, office copiers, commercial &
    pro printers, video lenses and cameras). They also get tremendous
    residual income from maintenance contracts and leases worldwide.

    That gives them the ability to occasionally take the long view, and
    underwrite developing their own CMOS chip at time when conventional
    wisdom said buy CCD from a 3rd party. It worked, but if it had failed,
    they could have still bought the Sony chips like everyone else.
    UrbanVoyeur, Apr 22, 2005
  14. Richard Favinger, Jr.

    Douglas Guest

    Many people seem to think "L" series Canon lenses mean no image errors but
    this is not the case at all. Also the errors of many other, often cheap
    lenses can be predicted - Software can therefore be used to correct them

    It is surprisingly easy to use a Canon 18~55 kit lens without regard for the
    aberrations, colour mismatch and distortions it produces and shoot RAW. Use
    the "right" RAW converter and all the faults this lens has disappear. No one
    could have been more surprised than me the first time I used DxO to do just

    The fabled 24~70 f2.8 "L" series Canon lens is not all it's cracked up to be
    either but DxO corrects it's faults during conversion as it does to an ever
    increasing range of lenses for many lenses used on DSLRs. Not just Canon but
    several Sigma lenses suddenly start to take on "L" series capabilities when
    their flaws are corrected.

    The data contained in a Camera RAW file is not an image as such, it is raw
    data which needs to be processed into an image. Provided you have the right
    prediction of what errors will likely be present in a given camera RAW file,
    it is possible to automatically correct those errors based on known optical
    science. I'd go so far as to say that the future may well see many plastic
    element lenses which rely on software like DxO (maybe in camera) to fix the
    image after shooting. Something we can expect from digital which was never
    possible with film.

    The only RAW converter I have used which automatically corrects specific
    lens faults during conversion of camera data to image data without user
    input is DxO. This remarkable software corrects the faults in many Canon
    (and other make) lenses during conversion to editable image files.

    It is so good, several of my professional customers with 20Ds refused to
    believe the example portraits I have on display, were taken with the "crappy
    plastic" lens which comes with 20Ds in Australia until they saw the ACR
    converted file and the DxO converted file side by side. Try it yourself,
    they give out a demo with one lens module. Pick your worst lens which has a
    module and try it, don't take my word for it. Put your enquiring mind to

    Douglas, Apr 22, 2005
  15. Richard Favinger, Jr.

    Douglas Guest

    Nikon cameras - actually Sony Sensors have very poor low light or high ISO
    noise suppression. These sensors are also quite prone to producing moiré
    patterns when shooting diagonal lines like on roofs.

    Canon sensors can demonstrably operate at higher ISO or in poorer light and
    not produce the same noise levels as a Sony sensor. Otherwise your argument
    that Nikon are good cameras is entirely correct right up to the point of
    digital image collection instead of film image.

    Somewhere past the point Nikon decided not to get involved in sensor
    development, Nikon lost the plot and now rely on sensor development by Sony
    who seem to be more intent on developing the next generation television
    cameras than sensors for digital still cameras.

    Working professional photographers cannot afford to compromise on these
    factors *IF* their business relies on absolute quality images. Some don't so
    for them, changing to Canon may have no benefit but a wedding photographer
    trying to avoid flash inside a church, late in the afternoon would be at a
    distinct disadvantage with a Nikon DSLR camera compared to someone with a
    Canon 20D for example *IF* the final photos were to be enlarged and what
    would be the purpose of paying a photographer if you didn't want

    The OP hasn't asked for advise specific to his line of photography, just for
    input as to why other have changed. Presumably he has decided to weigh up
    replies and make his own decision. This is good. Just having "good glass" is
    not in itself any valid reason for being brand loyal when the brand has done
    a disservice to their supporters by deciding NOT to develop world class
    Digital cameras and instead, opted to "badge engineer" a substitute which is
    rapidly going backwards to the opposition.

    Douglas, Apr 22, 2005
  16. Richard Favinger, Jr.

    andrew29 Guest

    No, that's not true. The high ISO noise suppression performs fine,
    and there is little moire on cameras other than the low-end D70. But
    that seems to be a feature of low-end cameras in general: low-pass
    filtering is reduced to increase sharpness.
    Well, demonstrably or not, the reviews I've seem haven't noticed this

    Let's be clear about this: the only disadvantage of the D2x is its
    high sensor pitch. The design decision beings with it good and bad
    features, and which of those dominates depends on what the user wants
    to do with the camera.
    Well, hold on now. Sony fab the Sensors for Nikon. That doesn't mean
    anything other than, well, they own the fab. It doesn't say anything
    about development, other than that it's not purely done by Nikon
    themselves. But this isn't a factor in the decision about what camera
    to buy.
    Hold on. You are telling us that a Canon 20D, a low-end prosumer job,
    is better than all Nikon cameras. And you expect us to believe that.
    We are comparing cameras made by the world's leading camera
    manufacturers who are at the top of their game. The reviews that have
    compared the top end cameras have *not* always declared Canon the
    Well, if the D2x is badge engineered, I guess all those people on the
    waiting lists can go and get one from one of the other suppliers.

    andrew29, Apr 22, 2005
  17. Richard Favinger, Jr.

    Douglas Guest

    Few people will be able to successfully argue your points Andrew. It doesn't
    matter either, which camera brand they are arguing for or against. You could
    superimpose Canon for Nikon in this sort of argument and it would always
    turn out the same.

    My writings are based entirely on my experiences. I am not expecting any
    dyed in the wool Nikonian to accept any of what I say. Most are so loyal
    they'll still be shooting 4 MP when the real world is at 16 MP and loyally
    defending the brand and it's shortcomings to all and sundry.

    I once owned 4 Nikon and 3 Mamiya cameras along with a plethora of lenses
    for both brands. I made a good living using them and if I though for one
    minute I could earn as much as I do now using Canon cameras I would never
    have spent money buying Canon and dumping Nikon.

    At first I bought a "Fuji" Nikon for no other reason than I had the glass
    and was bitterly disappointed with the results. It wasn't until a customer
    lent me their Canon 10D digital that I realised what I had seen as faults in
    digital photography were actually flaws in Nikon digital cameras.

    I have several customers at my digital print centre who are full time paid,
    newspaper photographers. They always arrive with more gear than I've ever
    had... Such is the value of using your boss's gear and the cameras are Nikon
    DSLRs - Company policy dictates the brand and that they are replaced 2

    I have the most difficulty getting noise out of the shadows when I make
    enlargements from Nikon files shot at 400 ISO (the newspaper's requirements)
    and the least difficulty with files from Canon 10D, 20D and my own 1D Mk II
    at ISO as high as 1600. I have yet to experience moiré ruining a Canon
    picture but have several examples from Nikon DSLRs which have.

    You can question my statements all you like but at the end of the argument,
    I see more files from different cameras in a week than most people see in
    several years. The part I find so quaint about people who defend Nikon DSLRs
    is that nearly all of the pluses they argue would be highly valid were we
    talking about film cameras. Way back when the T90 was released, a reputable
    magazine editor was recorded as saying: "If only this bloody thing took
    Nikon lenses". It says it all. Nikon lenses on Canon bodies = the best of
    the best.

    I have no issues with Nikon lenses. With Nikon scanners - of which I have 2
    and I have no issues with anything to do with any Nikon film camera except
    maybe the plastic ones. I have real issues with the problems Professional
    photographers who use my service experience every day with Nikon DSLRs. Why
    do you suppose there are so many white lenses at sports meetings? I know...
    It's the Nikon owners painting the lenses so they won't feel left out and

    Read my email addy.
    Douglas, Apr 22, 2005
  18. Richard Favinger, Jr.

    andrew29 Guest

    Okay. I guess that's true of others too.
    I don't understand the relevance of "4Mp" in all of this.
    Well, we already know that the D70 has an inadequate anti-aliasing
    filter, but plenty of available tests indicate that so do some other
    manufacturers' cameras and no manufacturer is blameless in this area.
    It's foolish to extend it to all Nikons though.
    Well, without any actual arguments other than "I say so because in my
    experience it is so" there's not much to question, is there?
    Because many sports photographers use Canon cameras. Duh.

    andrew29, Apr 22, 2005
  19. I could show you a few shots from my 20D with moiré. Aliasing too.
    Yes, I understand it's Spanish for "of ugly cipleo", but what is (are?)
    Ben Rosengart, Apr 22, 2005
  20. Sony looks at it from the perspective of the TAM for full-frame sensors,
    which is relatively small. They are not going to expend a lot of resources
    on a component that they can only sell maybe 15,000 pieces a year of. Canon
    looks at it from the perspective of needing the full frame sensor to build a
    product that will generate sales of other products, such as professional

    Something's gotta give here. Sony is losing market share in digital cameras
    as digital SLRs become a larger part of the market, but they don't have any
    expertise in SLRs or full systems. With the failure of 4:3, they can't
    bootstrap onto an existing standard either. Nikon is losing market share at
    the high-end, because they are sensor-limited. Maybe the two companies could
    get together somehow.
    Steven M. Scharf, Apr 22, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.