Rock and Hard place Nikon/Canon

[shakes]

Slightly different from your normal Nikon/Canon argument. (I hope this is the right place to put this topic and sorry for the long winded story)

I currently primarily use a Canon EOS400d with the canon 50mm f1.8 prime lens. I've also got a Tamron 11-18 wide angle. And two kit lenses 18-55 and 70-200 which I haven't really used either since I purchased the 50mm. I also use an old Nikon f4 with an 80-200 f4.5 and an even older Pentax s1a.

I'm very much an amateur and don't want to destroy my hobby by trying to make a business out of it. I shoot a pretty varied mix of family portrait stuff of mine and my friends young family's, slow speed 4x4 events, cycling events, and general street art and landscape stuff. I was about to buy a couple of accessories for the Canon (battery grip and flash) and next Xmas was planning on treating myself and buying a nice lens... most likely the 24-70 f2.8L (I slightly understand the cropping element and from my research a lens in that range will be close to what I want)

Recently a mate planted a seed in my head that I should get rid of the Canon, and purchase and equivalent Nikon... Which is ~ $300-$500 from my diggings and all going well I should be able to sell my Canon for a similar if not slightly less price. I'm not attached to any brand, Nikon if anything feels slightly sturdier to me which I like but that's it. Ergonomics of the two I have no preference. I'm not likely to buy a high end body any time in the for-see able future. But would like to make my decision soon before I end up with too many brand specific accessories.

So is it worth the effort of selling and buying new gear for the ability being able to share the lenses between my film and dSLR's? The more I stew on it, the more I think it probably is. What are other peoples thoughts on this?

[ameerat42]

...Recently a mate planted a seed in my head that I should get rid of the Canon, and purchase and equivalent Nikon... Which is ~ $300-$500 from my diggings and all going well I should be able to sell my Canon for a similar if not slightly less price. I'm not attached to any brand, Nikon if anything feels slightly sturdier to me which I like but that's it...

And that's it?
Am.

[Scotty72]

You'll hear a lot of crap about this subject but, the reality of it is: it pretty much makes zero difference.

But, changing (without a compelling reason) can be an expensive business for little benefit.

[ricktas]

Why? What is the Nikon going to do better than your Canon. This Canon/Nikon rivalry is nothing other than a bit of fun, taken to seriously by some.

Learn to use the gear you have, and the results you can get and forget about which brand might be better for one model over another

[mechawombat]

just get rid of both and get a Sony

[Wayne]

It makes sense to invest in Nikon gear if you plan to continue shooting the Nikon body you already have. Nikon lenses are usually all F-mount and interchangeable between bodies from many moons back. Otherwise you have Canon lenses and accessories, and a separate kit for that Nikon body, which costs twice as much and offers no benefit.

[kiwi]

Nikon is a LOT better than Canon.

Canon is a LOT better than Nikon

Only ONE of these statements came from a Nikon owner

[Speedway]

I have a 400D with over 50,000 actuations and have never had a problem with it, so I can't see any problem with the build quality. I cant see any point in changing brands. Re using a mates lenses while out shooting, you will most likely wanting to use similar lenses so you are left with nothing so you would end up buying similar lenses anyway.
Keith.

[jim]

You don't seem to have made a really huge investment in either system, so if you want to rationalise so that you can use all your lenses on all your bodies (and I can see the point of doing so) there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason not to.

If you want to do it, and want to keep using film you will have to settle on Nikon. And luckily in that case you have in the F4 one of the world's best film cameras.

[peterb666]

Well we all know that Nikon is better than Canon and so is Olympus and Sony.

The largest variable in photography is the person in control of the camara. It doesn't make much difference what gear you have as long as what you DO have suits the intended purpose.

As others have said, unless there is a compelling reason to change over, why?

The Nikon F4 was a great camera and thee 80-200 f/4.5 a classic zoom lens of its era.

The Canon gear you have is all standard stuff and quite adequate for the needs of most people.

Rather than buy extra accessories for the EOS400D or replace it with a Nikon, if you are generally astisfied with the lenses you have for the Canon, why not save up for a 60D or 600D?

[jim]

If you want to do it, and want to keep using film you will have to settle on Nikon...

Oops, not actually true. There are some good EOS film cameras too.

[arthurking83]

You'll hear a lot of crap about this subject but, the reality of it is: it pretty much makes zero difference.

......

We've seen many members over the years with the same thoughts, and on the whole, the difference to their photography level, both skill and creativity has been either zero, negligible, or a backward step

I can understand if you were to do this for a specific reason.. ie. cheaper wireless flash, specific lens types, or even something as simple as gear sharing.. such as with mates or family .. or whatever other reason.

But as for this 'sturdiness'.. I don't think one or the other brand is any more sturdy, unless you also go up a level.. ie. D7000 is probably more sturdy than a 60D(magnesium body vs plastic body).

80-200/4.5 is not a bad lens, but not a great lens either.. so it begs the question as to whether it's worth an expensive migration to another system for what in the end is a medium-low priced lens??

You'd be better advised to sell all of the 'redundant gear' and look to getting a few nice bits and pieces like 70-200/4 IS's and suchlike, instead.

[Xenedis]

You'll hear a lot of crap about this subject but, the reality of it is: it pretty much makes zero difference.

Exactly.

It comes down to personal preference.

Both systems are incredibly good, and the resulting image is influenced far more by the photographer than the camera.

[Lance B]

The best thing for you to do is to try both equivalent cameras and then decide which one fits your style best. Some people like Canon ergonomics and functionality and some like Nikon's ergonomics and functionality.

At the end of the day they are both superb systems and it comes down to which suits you best with regards to what I mentioned above. If you buy into the Nikon system and you don't like, or can't get used to, the way the ergonomics and functionality of the Nikon system works, then you will be less likely to go out and use it and won't enjoy the experience. You have to be able to enjoy the equipment in order for you to want to use it or it becomes an expensive paper weight. The same goes for Canon.

So, I urge you to try them all out, preferably with someone who knows both systems, so that you can gauge which suits you best.

[kiwi]

Ok, well, I actually think that Nikon have the best overall systems for sport and event work with high iso fast shooting bodies and superior pro grade zooms and canon have better bodies in terms ok skin rendering and mp and better prime mid range choices for editorial, commercial and fashion

Everything else is even

[shakes]

I very much understand nikon Vs Canon debate will forever go around in circles.

I'm debating wether having interchangability between the f4 and what ever I end up with. Is worth selling my gear and buying new stuff before I have too much money invested one way or another and it will make financial sense to stick with that brand.

Thanks for the replys so far. I think it probably is worth my time.

[claytonchatham]

Nikon has much better glass. However if you're going to be using sigma nag other after market lenses then it doesn't matter one little bit. But if youre going sub zero temperatures then you'll definitely want nikon pro gear.

[peterb666]

Well you only have one lens for the F4 and do you intend to continue using it? Nikon only seem to be making new 'G' type lenses without apertures so that restricts what you can use on the F4.

To be honest, your investment in both systems is not extensive so that shouldn't be a huge problem about changing brands. The Nikon gear belongs to a time past alough you can still use the lens with something like the D300S and still have metering. It should also fit on any other current Nikon body but may be of limited use. I don't tink there is much to hold on to there unless you are intending to by some of the Nikon D lenses with whatever Nikon camera you have in mind (e.g. D7000, D300S etc).

The Canon gear you have is entry level stuff. The kit gives you a very useful range of focal lengths and you can use the lenses with any current Canon camera with no loss of functionality. Even so, none of the lenses you have are expensive lenses. The option of going for the 24-70 f2.8L seems reasonable. On the cropped sensor, it gives you from slightly wider than standard to a good portrait telephoto and the f/2.8 aperture will be useful. On the other hand, you don't really need it either as you have the 50mm f/1.8 however the zoom is a little more versatile.

If you really want a new camera, then try out the likely contenders and then make a decision. We cannot make the decision for you.

[jafin]

Sorry, I'm not really adding to the conversion that much just waffling a bit.

wasn't there a guy who shot Sports Illustrated Swimsuit models with a point and shoot. Did Ansel Adams shoot 35mm? Did Chase Charvis write a book about shooting with an iPhone (the best camera is the one with you!). Mayby what I mean is the camera really is only part of the equation, a fair size part but still... a part.
Many very successful people have shot both Canon and Nikon and a bazillion other brands, possibly even box brownies...

As others have said, you haven't invested heavily yet, so your choice is still wide open.

like peterb666 said, if you can get your hands on your shortlist gear and try it out. Sometimes once you get test the gear out, you may get an appreciation for what you like or what produces better results.

Also did you get an reason for dropping the Canon over the Nikon from your friend? Too expensive? Slow AF? Lens quality sucks? Build quality? Images lack punch? It would be good to identify the problems you might be currently experiencing (if any?)

I do hope you seek clarify in your choice and get back to shooting (which is the mistake I made, too much research/forum trolling not enough clicking!)

[N*A*M]

simon

my answer is it's not worth the effort for gear compatibility based on your current equipment set. but you should use my N gear at sedgwick and i bet you'll get NAS. especially for sports.