Going Canon

I've got the chance to sell my current Nikon gear at a good price, and with the current lack of new releases from Nikon that suit underwater photography I am seriously considering a move to Canon - either 7D or 5DII

The disadvantages of Canon that I am aware of are -

Teleconverters will not autofocus with a number of Canon lenses including macros

There seems to be less of a range of lenses to choose from when compared to Nikon, but hopefully enough to make up a set

Can anyone think of any other disadvantages - I have heard that Nikons record better colour and have less noise than Canon but I don't know if that is true or not.

Any input would be welcome before I make the move.

I don't think there is any visible big disanvatage between Canon and Nikon. both cameras can make greats photos.

It is always say that Nikon is better for fast focus photography, such as sport/birds.

I would still prefer Canon for underwater, for the 21mpixel, the new 100mm, the first rumors on the 1D mk IV (32mpx, 100.000 ISO, APS-H).

And, if you like super macro, Canon does have the MP-E 65mm that nobody else have. Just an awesome lense, but not usable underwater without custom port.

About colors, spectrum test often give the gold to Canon, having a wider range of colors. But, it's not like if anybody could see it.

To resume, I think as long as you have the same range-prices, you would just be happy with any camera, and your brain will make the necessary to be sure you'll believe you just made the best choice

What gear do you own currently and why change?

I shoot Canon but like Nikon too.

What gear do you own currently and why change?

I shoot Canon but like Nikon too.

Currently D90, however I now have a need to maximise image quality for very large prints for gallery sale - 6 x 4 feet or possibly even bigger

I've never forgiven Canon for not letting me use Rear Curtain Sync in my 40d - it's only possible in combination with the top Canon flash units, certainly not with U/W strobes or even with my expensive Canon flash that they arbitrarily decided wasn't 'good enough'.

I'm about to move up to a full-sized sensor SLR, and I'm slow to even consider staying with Canon even though I have 6 EOS lenses.

Hot chicks prefer guys with Nikon.

Hot chicks prefer guys with Nikon.

Hot chicks prefer guys with a byline and bylines don't ask which camera you use. The UW rear sync thing is a bummer with Canon. And Nikon does currently have the upper hand high ISO wise. Wait, so why do I shoot Canon? Seriously, if you need great high ISO results I'd look at Nikon. If you need/want great HD video in your still camera I'd look at Canon.

Hot chicks prefer guys with Nikon.

Ican vouche for that.

Currently D90, however I now have a need to maximise image quality for very large prints for gallery sale - 6 x 4 feet or possibly even bigger

I agree there is rough parity between Nikon and Canon; there is also lens envy going both ways.

I do not think switching systems is necessarily going to meet your specific needs.

6 x 4 feet = 72 x 48 inches. If you want 180ppi resolution (you need to specify otherwise), then you need 12,960 by 8,640 pixels. One of the best out of camera resolution camera and housing combos available TODAY is the Nikon D3X, which is 6048 x 4032 pixels. By comparison the P65+ medium format back is 8984 x 6732 pixels. One may be able to adapt this back to existing medium format cameras and housings available secondhand.

The bottom line is regardless of camera you will need to uprez by quite a bit.

Have you worked with uprezzing your D90 files?

For example, my D2H files (4MP) uprezzed to 17" wide (short dimension) at 300ppi using Genuine Fractals look pretty good to me.

If the D90 does not look good enough to you uprezzed you might be better off going to a D3X than switching; this entails quite a bit of expense. It may be that the Canon DsMk4 (note the s) will be > 30MP as might be the Nikon D4X. They will likely be ≥$8K cameras with expensive housings; all not yet available.

Tom

The Nikon flash system is better. Canon needs 6 conductors to do TTL and Nikon only uses 5. Most bulkheads have 5 pins...

Nikon will also easily do rear curtain sync w/ just about every flash. Canon doesn't do it well, even if you have a $2,000 Seacam flash :-(

Canon has a good tele-zoom the 100-400L IS. Nikon has nothing to match. Canon exotic primes are cheaper - if you're looking for a 400mm or 500mm.

The macro lenses are equal. Both have a good 100mm stabilized lens. Both have good wideangle zooms and primes. Canon has an awesome 24mm f1.4

The bodies are pretty much the same. The D3x is the MP leader at 24 but that's for 8 grand. Canon will give you 21 megapixels AND HD video in the 5DII for $2,500...nuff said.

Cheers

James

The Nikon flash system is better. Canon needs 6 conductors to do TTL and Nikon only uses 5. Most bulkheads have 5 pins...

 

Nikon will also easily do rear curtain sync w/ just about every flash. Canon doesn't do it well, even if you have a $2,000 Seacam flash :-(

I was planning on using Inon strobes with fibre optics to eliminate the connection problem but then I realised that the 5DII had no inbuilt flash - damn.

The bodies are pretty much the same. The D3x is the MP leader at 24 but that's for 8 grand. Canon will give you 21 megapixels AND HD video in the 5DII for $2,500...nuff said.

That pretty much sums it up - Canon also give you the option of 18mp on DX. I was hanging on for the hoped-for announcement of the 24.5mp version of the D700 but it didn't come Nikon must be getting slaughtered in the serious amateur/semi-pro DSLR market segments at the moment but they don't seem to be making any effort at all to compete.

Nikon does seem stuck in 12 mega-pixel-land.

If you want to up-size your images, you might try qimage pro.

http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/