Nikon Shooters - Would you switch to another brand (or have you?)

[O]

Probably the D6 (and D5 prior to that) with the a9ii an incredibly close second. However, don't mistake favorite for "best" either. When I was just shooting DSLRs, the D850 was probably the smartest choice, but I liked the D5/6 better. Sort of like the 500PF is my favorite lens, but the 600mm F/4 glass is what I use most of the time.

Hey I like it, calling the D850 the smarter choice, the D850 is a parking station for me just now till the Z9 emerges, and the Canon Sony dog fights are over, I have down sized significantly to be positioned for 2022, also I feel there is a change in the air, for other than wild life my taste is moving from 35mm to MF Fuji.......

Oz down under

 

[O]

I wasn't planning on it a first, but the more I use the camera, the more I'm included to do a review. Probably won't be for a couple months, but I think I may do one. There is a lot to love about it and I think it may be my favorite camera of all time - well, so far

What about comparing the EOS R5 to the A1 in a real world test, the R5 is a much more affordable camera and I recall has better ISO and defiantly better colour ?

Only and Opinion Oz down Under

 

[RAN]

I bought my first Nikon body and lens in 1964 and have had NUMEROUS bodies and lenses since. I have had the Z6 since it's first day on the market. I have loved all of my Nikon equipment. BUT, I'm not sure what is going on with the company's production/distribution in the last 6 months! I ordered a Z6ii before the release date last November, and still have not received it. I'm not sure what that means for the long term survival of the company, but it has been disappointing!

 

[dcop]

Years ago I was a Canon fan, because of the price. I always wanted a nikon but could not afford to switch. When the D50 came out I bought one and have been a Nikon fan ever since. I have owned approx. 12 different Nikon bodies and have enjoyed each one. I currently own a D5100, D7100, D850 and the Z7ii along with several lens including the Sig 60-600 which has out preformed the Nikkor 200 to 500 by far. I shot the D850 alot still and will continue to use it. I also enjoy the Z7ii and I do not see any reason why I should switch at this point in my life.

 

[Roy]

This is for the current and former Nikon shooters. I'm kind of curious. I get a lot of people asking me about switching to Sony or Canon and I'm wondering how many Nikon shooters would consider it or have already done so. It feels like there are a lot of people on the fence with this and I' curious to get an idea of the percentages. Also, if you have a moment, I'd love to hear why either way. Inquiring minds want to know!

I respect Canon but I've always shot Nikon and Hasselblad.
I bought A Sony A7 - it died just out of warranty and Sony couldnt/wouldnt fix it = Paperweight.
I bought a Fuji XT-2 and the viewscreen died the next day.
The Z Nikons aren't perfect but they seem reliable and they do the job.
Now I use Z cameras for fun and D850 D5 and hasselblad H cameras for work...

 

[O]

I respect Canon but I've always shot Nikon and Hasselblad.
I bought A Sony A7 - it died just out of warranty and Sony couldnt/wouldnt fix it = Paperweight.
I bought a Fuji XT-2 and the viewscreen died the next day.
The Z Nikons aren't perfect but they seem reliable and they do the job.
Now I use Z cameras for fun and D850 D5 and hasselblad H cameras for work...

Like it........... you know your stuff.

Sony is innovative creative and dynamic, transient, don't laugh that's just one of the reasons I don't like them, also try getting parts for some earlier models.
I love the technology Sony delivers and the fact they got the other two of their buts but investing in a system long term. with them........no thankyou, by the time you get your Sony home you find out their is a updated or new version announced, also I don't like the Sony colours or files.

Nikon service and support for me personally has stood up unbelievably every time. I prey it doesn't change.

Oz down under

 

[O]

I get asked sometimes
"Why do we need 30 FPS, dose the human eye see 30-60fps ??
Most experts have a tough time agreeing on an exact number, but the conclusion is that most humans can see at a rate of 30 to 60 frames per second. There are two schools of thought on visual perception. One is absolute that the human eye cannot process visual data any faster than 60 frames per second.

At 30 fps, I mean how big a card do we then need, I know its to provide split second focus speed
Oz down under

 

[flyguy]

Have been a Nikon film shooter for about twenty years. My first digital was a Nikon point and shoot. For kicks and giggles and compactness, bought a Canon point and shoot. WOW! Never saw picks with that much distortion ever. Had that Canon on the waterfront in Baltimore, MD; those shots made the Leaning Tower of Pisa look straight! I know it was a very small sample size yet that was it for me and Canon. My first DSLR was a Nikon D70s, then a D80, next a D300 (which I really liked), got tired of waiting for the D300's replacement, so got a D7100. From there made the jump to Nikon full frame when I got a D850. Lately have had the opportunity to play with a D780. Part of my reason(s) for not changing brands....all those F mount primes from film days all work nicely on the Nikon DSLRs especially the D850 and D780. At the same time I am acquainted with a few Canon owners and find them beyond obnoxious and very condescending. Staying with Nikon. Would try a Sony mirrorless to see what all the hype is about and to say "I tried mirrorless." Case closed for me.

 

[mmateyko]

I get asked sometimes
"Why do we need 30 FPS, dose the human eye see 30-60fps ??
Most experts have a tough time agreeing on an exact number, but the conclusion is that most humans can see at a rate of 30 to 60 frames per second. There are two schools of thought on visual perception. One is absolute that the human eye cannot process visual data any faster than 60 frames per second.

At 30 fps, I mean how big a card do we then need, I know its to provide split second focus speed
Oz down under

Quite a lot of research has been done on human vision, and most people can certainly tell the difference between 30-60FPS. It's a little difficult to nail down an 'exact' number because our vision doesn't correlate perfectly to discrete frame / time values; we have an effect called persistence of vision to deal with there, not to mention an awful lot of signal processing done by the brain to fill in the gaps, and the tendency of the eye to require different stimulus to reach critical fusion frequency in different lighting conditions (faster stimulus in bright light).

Here's a simple 60-30-15hz test you can look at. https://www.testufo.com/

Follow the UFO and you'll probably notice how 'blurry' the 30hz sample is compared to the 60hz sample. Your brain is receiving half the motion information, after all.

Many people can pretty easily tell the difference between 60hz and 120hz displays, but it gets kind of fuzzy around the 144-240hz range. Contemporary VR headsets, for instance, use at a minimum 80-90-120hz displays. Anything below that and you generally end up with awful visual artifacting and nausea, further evidence that the human visual system ingests information above 60hz. If you want a life-like EVF you probably need around 120hz before serious diminishing returns are felt.

For image capture, well, the larger range the better, right? If you have a 1,000 FPS x 100MP camera system the real problems are just signal-to-noise for the photographer to sift through after the fact and storage capacity for the images in the first place. Those are more logistical issues than biological ones.

 

[O]

Quite a lot of research has been done on human vision, and most people can certainly tell the difference between 30-60FPS. It's a little difficult to nail down an 'exact' number because our vision doesn't correlate perfectly to discrete frame / time values; we have an effect called persistence of vision to deal with there, not to mention an awful lot of signal processing done by the brain to fill in the gaps, and the tendency of the eye to require different stimulus to reach critical fusion frequency in different lighting conditions (faster stimulus in bright light).

Here's a simple 60-30-15hz test you can look at. https://www.testufo.com/

Follow the UFO and you'll probably notice how 'blurry' the 30hz sample is compared to the 60hz sample. Your brain is receiving half the motion information, after all.

Many people can pretty easily tell the difference between 60hz and 120hz displays, but it gets kind of fuzzy around the 144-240hz range. Contemporary VR headsets, for instance, use at a minimum 80-90-120hz displays. Anything below that and you generally end up with awful visual artifacting and nausea, further evidence that the human visual system ingests information above 60hz. If you want a life-like EVF you probably need around 120hz before serious diminishing returns are felt.

For image capture, well, the larger range the better, right? If you have a 1,000 FPS x 100MP camera system the real problems are just signal-to-noise for the photographer to sift through after the fact and storage capacity for the images in the first place. Those are more logistical issues than biological ones.

I understand what your saying and thankyou for the reply, its very helpful.

The camera industry is moving to higher resolution and faster frames per second, in fact there is talk of 100 mp images and 60 fps, how dose this relate to still photography.
The higher the resolution on 35mm means the pixel density must be getting very high, is stacking images like Samsung prepressed 600mp sensor going top alleviate this.
Nikon is talking about it has a 1000 mp sensor...........I may as well go on holiday to Tahiti again for a year or two and sit this all out till it all happens.
Is Nikon going to break away form 35mm with its larger lens mount and put in a 100mp sensor that has respectable iso performance. Alawa super Z9 ??? that may not be 35mm anymore, it will need the new Z exotic glass, another big shell out for a new system but a leap over the other two big players ................radical but not unrealistic.

OZ down under

 

[RichF]

I have switched twice. First from Nikon to Canon circa 2000 when Canon had IS lens and Nikon did not. I missed my F5 but learned to live with the EOS 3 and 1. If Nikon had IS/VR lenses I would have purchased them.

About 2-3 years ago I moved back to Nikon due to their very strong D850 which exceed the Canon 1Dx II. The D850 is a great camera which I really enjoy

The reason I switched was that the competitor had technological advances that were not matched by my current brand. If the current brand had them I would have upgraded.

Now with ML Nikon seems to be asleep again. I plan to give Nikon around a year or so before I decide. I want to compare the Z9 to the R3. I have tried Sony years ago and found their ergonomics to different (polite way of saying weird) for me to use. Like to see Nikon add animal eye focus to Z6/Z7 II as well as Z9 plus introduce the new lenses on their roadmap. When Nikon develop products they tend to do them well, just right now they behind releasing products.

 

[Garfield]

I get asked sometimes
"Why do we need 30 FPS, dose the human eye see 30-60fps ??
Most experts have a tough time agreeing on an exact number, but the conclusion is that most humans can see at a rate of 30 to 60 frames per second. There are two schools of thought on visual perception. One is absolute that the human eye cannot process visual data any faster than 60 frames per second.

At 30 fps, I mean how big a card do we then need, I know its to provide split second focus speed
Oz down under

Obviously no one is shooting 30 FPS stills with intention of actually using all of them -- video is better suited for that. It's being able to choose the perfect stop-action pose of a fast moving subject. And after a couple of days shooting ordinary Eastern Bluebirds in flight at 30FPS I wish I had 100 FPS!

 

[Tiago C]

At 30 fps, I mean how big a card do we then need, I know its to provide split second focus speed
Oz down under

On my X-T4 I shoot at 20fps and sometimes at 30fps. I use a 64GB card and it's fine for my kind of use. While waiting for subjects during a long day I often lock the best images in camera and ask the camera to delete all the others to keep the card clear.

 

[ccirelli]

As long as Nikon is making cameras & lenses, I don't see myself ever leaving the platform. Unless they monumentally screw up, or change their lineup with gear that doesn't suit my needs. I still maintain the image quality that comes out of their bodies is second to none. I also feel the bodies & lenses they produce offer the most value for the money. The Z6II is the best camera I've ever owned by far, and Z lenses continue to exceed my expectations.

The features that are important to my photography in Nikon gear absolutely outweigh some of the more advanced AF features of Canon and Sony. And those AF features are impressive - but not at the expense of so many other qualities I've come to appreciate and rely on. Even more so now that I'm in the Z system. Image quality is king of the hill for me.

If I had to switch - Canon would be the no-brainer for me. From what I see they're incredibly innovative, they're in a very healthy place financially, and I don't think you can go wrong buying into their system (which is always an important factor). Great gear options too (minus some affordable wide RF glass).

 

[NineBlades]

I voted "probably won't switch" for mainly two reasons. For one, as long as my own capabilities as a photographer are not limited by and do not exceed the capabilities of my gear, why switch? In another area - PCs, laptops, and smart phones - I have given up long ago to chase the latest technology, since I find that what I buy needs to be amortized before I get the new stuff. Same here, just because the technology in other brands may be more advanced (but may be in an area that I cannot yet use productively), there is no reason to switch. For two, switching requires renewed investment, and my discretionary funds are limited With retirement funds still building up, and family responsibilities not going away, I am a big fan of budgeting, and as long as reason (1) is still there, I cannot responsibly advocate the spend.

 

[Letolen]

I was Canon for such a long time.
Then I moved to Nikon, bought the D750. Now I waiting for the right price to buy the D850. Australia our prices are very high still, unless you buy grey.
I still miss Canon & see the mark 5 is a very nice price now but I will stay with Nikon, yet think the d850 will be my last.
I will use a camera till it comes to the end of its life. My canon T70 I used for over 15 years definitely don't get those years out of digital.

 

[markymark]

This is for the current and former Nikon shooters. I'm kind of curious. I get a lot of people asking me about switching to Sony or Canon and I'm wondering how many Nikon shooters would consider it or have already done so. It feels like there are a lot of people on the fence with this and I' curious to get an idea of the percentages. Also, if you have a moment, I'd love to hear why either way. Inquiring minds want to know!

I've been a loyal Nikon shooter since the start as love their equipment & easy to use menus on the DSLR's & as I'll be 61 on my next birthday don't see me switching.

 

[Chiguy]

I'm looking to go mirrorless not impressed with Nikons Z6 & 7ii line waiting for the Z9 to see if it will match Sony offerings not that I would pay that price they will want. I'm thinking they will do like the D850 offer some feature on the D500 which I have and love. If they do as rumored a Z8 I'm very interested will only have to buy adapter for the Nikon mount lenses I have

 

[Alex]

I made the switch to Leica for a couple of reasons. I was quite happy with a D850 and F mount glass primes (105 f/1.4, 200 f/2.0, 300 PF, and 500 PF). I also bought a Z7 and I found that camera a major disappointment although the 24-70 f/4 and f2.8 were very good lenses. For me, I lost interest in wildlife and particularly BIF and found my interests moving towards portraits, street, urban landscapes, and architecture all wrapped up in travel photography. I picked up a Leica SL2, a Q2 Monochrom, and an assortment of Leica and Sigma lenses. The usability of the Leica cameras is orders of magnitude better than Nikon, Canon, and Sony. While the Leica lenses are very good, the Sigma stuff is amazing when you factor in the prices. I feel that Nikon has lost its way, that it delayed too long in getting into mirrorless (ironic since it invested heavily in the Nikon 1 line), and that either it cannot or, for reasons unknown, will not get caught up with Canon and Sony. A really good source for insight into Nikon is Thom Hogan.

There is a Nikon museum at the company head office in Tokyo that is an astounding display of incredible technology and engineering. I got a chance to tour it in 2018 and the single strongest impression I left with is that Nikon is a very solid engineering company. I am puzzled that it finds itself in its current circumstances.

 

[O]

As long as Nikon is making cameras & lenses, I don't see myself ever leaving the platform. Unless they monumentally screw up, or change their lineup with gear that doesn't suit my needs. I still maintain the image quality that comes out of their bodies is second to none. I also feel the bodies & lenses they produce offer the most value for the money. The Z6II is the best camera I've ever owned by far, and Z lenses continue to exceed my expectations.

The features that are important to my photography in Nikon gear absolutely outweigh some of the more advanced AF features of Canon and Sony. And those AF features are impressive - but not at the expense of so many other qualities I've come to appreciate and rely on. Even more so now that I'm in the Z system. Image quality is king of the hill for me.

If I had to switch - Canon would be the no-brainer for me. From what I see they're incredibly innovative, they're in a very healthy place financially, and I don't think you can go wrong buying into their system (which is always an important factor). Great gear options too (minus some affordable wide RF glass).

Yes image quality is what its all about other wise why do it. That's all I look for and Nikon has it, I don't like Sony for their image quality nor the company.
Agree Canon is by far the better alternative............here is hoping that Nikon can pull another D850 miracle out of their hat. I hope Nikon delivers on the Z9 and its not just another anticlimax.

I feel Nikon cant adapt to change as quickly, Canon and Sony are more vertically integrated and don't have sole shareholder obligations all the time like Nikon. Also Canon and Sony already have a big hand in the video arena which is the future growth area, Nikon has to buy that component as its a long costly road to develop for them.

The world is now totally dependent and driven by the internet, the younger generation harpooned from 20/30 years ago have been well and truly conditioned to adapt and embrace change, the move to 5 G and 5 g II will transform the way we all do things, the need for manufactures to keep up new innovations to meet the demands of a globally addicted society is going to be fast and furious now 5G 5G ii is here.

I have always said its not the large and powerful that always survive its the adaptable.

Interesting times ahead, one thing is for certain their will always be change.

Only an opinion as always

Oz down under

 

[Steve]

What about comparing the EOS R5 to the A1 in a real world test, the R5 is a much more affordable camera and I recall has better ISO and defiantly better colour ?

Only and Opinion Oz down Under

I may, but I have to rent an R5 for a couple weeks to do it. Not sure if I'm interested enough to drop several hundred (or nearly 1K I'll bet) on the R5 and a lens to rent.

 

[Butlerkid]

Currently I shoot both a D5 and D850. I photograph wildlife, architecture, travel. My lenses are 600m/f4, 300 PF, 500 PF, 80-400 AF-S, 70-200, 24-70, 14-24, Sig15mm linear fisheye , and 105mm/2.8 micro.

I love my gear and it does what I need and want. I also consider the Nikon gear to be tools - not cherished items to be loved and kept based on sentimental reasons.

HOWEVER, I assume that when I go mirrorless, I will also invest in new lenses. Therefore, I feel free to consider Nikon, Canon and Sony in that order.

If we decide to travel in Europe I will consider either a Canon or Nikon mirrorless system.

After schlepping my 600mm/f4 tripod and gimbal around Yellowstone for a week, I realize I'm not getting any younger or stronger. IF I were to go mirrorless for wildlife right now, I'd test the Canon system, since a good friend is a Canon pro and in their Photographers of Light program. While Sony seems to be the best right now, I'd rather not go the Sony route. Thus, I'm hoping that Nikon can catch up with Sony re: focus acquisition and tracking.

 

[O]

Obviously no one is shooting 30 FPS stills with intention of actually using all of them -- video is better suited for that. It's being able to choose the perfect stop-action pose of a fast moving subject. And after a couple of days shooting ordinary Eastern Bluebirds in flight at 30FPS I wish I had 100 FPS!

WOW.....you have opened my eyes, thankyou.

So that means we need fast accurate tracking to stay on the birds at 30 60 100 fps I assume.

I may, but I have to rent an R5 for a couple weeks to do it. Not sure if I'm interested enough to drop several hundred (or nearly 1K I'll bet) on the R5 and a lens to rent.

Good point
Oz down Under

 

[Deleted member 115]

The examples I have seen from Sony are incredible not sure why the image quality is in question at all

 

[O]

I made the switch to Leica for a couple of reasons. I was quite happy with a D850 and F mount glass primes (105 f/1.4, 200 f/2.0, 300 PF, and 500 PF). I also bought a Z7 and I found that camera a major disappointment although the 24-70 f/4 and f2.8 were very good lenses. For me, I lost interest in wildlife and particularly BIF and found my interests moving towards portraits, street, urban landscapes, and architecture all wrapped up in travel photography. I picked up a Leica SL2, a Q2 Monochrom, and an assortment of Leica and Sigma lenses. The usability of the Leica cameras is orders of magnitude better than Nikon, Canon, and Sony. While the Leica lenses are very good, the Sigma stuff is amazing when you factor in the prices. I feel that Nikon has lost its way, that it delayed too long in getting into mirrorless (ironic since it invested heavily in the Nikon 1 line), and that either it cannot or, for reasons unknown, will not get caught up with Canon and Sony. A really good source for insight into Nikon is Thom Hogan.

There is a Nikon museum at the company head office in Tokyo that is an astounding display of incredible technology and engineering. I got a chance to tour it in 2018 and the single strongest impression I left with is that Nikon is a very solid engineering company. I am puzzled that it finds itself in its current circumstances.

Hypothesis............ Nikon at the very very top I feel is run by a very different breed of people obligated to deliver returns first at any cost, now how can you meet the demands of your customers needs in a rapidly changing and demanding market when you have a plethora of so many different investors keeping a blow torch on your but to deliver ROI.

Its almost like managing a government department, you have to please so many different political heads, its a long hard road to call for more funding for new developments, hence it takes a long time to deliver the needs of customers who come second, a tragic mistake.

Any company in this situation is vulnerable to competitors who deliver lots of innovative change, hence Sony saw this opportunity and vulnerability to capture market share and growth which they did, Well done.

The saving grace Nikon has is its image quality and loyal customer base mostly comprising of more mature or aged clients most with deep pockets, Nikon has lost the connection to the younger generation and is forced to focus on margin rather than volume, in my area young people in schools are mostly all using Sony, they leave school tied to that branding and experience, young people either have Apple or Android phones..........this culture or connection is missing with Nikon and to some part Canon. Sony seems to have the harpoon into this generation offering constant refreshed innovative tweaked models be they perception or otherwise.

• 50% owned by various Japanese banks
• 30% owned by foreign shareholders
• 10% owned by Japanese shareholders (individuals and non-banking)
• 10% owned by other Japanese companies and financial instrument firms

Nikon will survive, Nikon needs to go slow and carefully as it has to many heads to please of its owners before it can please the market.
Nikon of late has been delivering some results for its owners and has recently been given more funding, this is to allow Nikon to compete, or its a way of the owners keeping things going till a suiter is found ............as Nikons only real asset is it Branding.
Based on the D850 D6 and FL glass....above all image file quality I am with Nikon, my alternative is Canon looking better every day.

As to street photography, love it, and bold move, hats of to you................

As always only an opinion

Oz Down Under