Canon to Nikon change advice

[agent006]

I'm pondering a change from Canon to Nikon. I'm having huge battery life problems with my 1Dmk1, with no obvious upgrade path out of it other than a 1Dmk3 which is out of budget (1dMK2 uses the same ni-mh crap as my mk1).

I'm after some advice on what Nikon (specifically Nikkor) kit is the equivalent of my current Canon kit. I'm particularly struggling to find Nikkor's equivalent of Canon's L range.

As said, i currently have a 1Dmk1, and it seems i'd be best going to a D2H,X, or XS. This seems fairly clear cut.

Short lens is a 24-105L F4. Complete dross and not worth even half the £600 i paid for it. Similar focal length with lower F number but without IS (VR?) would be better.

Long lens is a 70-300 F4.5-5.6 IS USM. Canon's top end non-pro lens from what i can tell. Suits me fine, almost exclusively motorsport use so slightly quicker focus would be nice. I'm hearing talk here of a Nikkor 70-300, details?


Basically I'm asking how to tell a decent Nikkor from an average one, as I'm drowning in a sea of acronyms and model initials.

Ta

[stigmundfreud]

interesting you find the 24-105 utter dross, care to expand on that? I always get bemused why anyone would spend XXX on a brand only to lose Y and upgrade to another brand at a cost of ZZZ

Why do you feel you have to stick with 1d? Why do canon not have anything else you are after?

what is your problem with battery life?

[RobDickinson]

Have you tried new batteries charged properly?

Nikon dont have an equivelant 24-105, and dont have an f4 pro range.

There is a 70-300VR AFS which is probably better than the canons equivelant.

Why not look at a 7D which should pretty well crucify a 1DmkI? (and get 1000+ shots on one battery)

[jon-]

For sports shooting I'd say the 7d is probably the camera to have at the moment. Nikon make some fantastic glass but their long lenses are fairly expensive compared to canon.

I've mulled the switch to Nikon a fair few times now but even with my limited glass and flashes, it will still cost me about £3k to get where I want. If I stick with Canon I can just buy a used 1d mk3 for half that.

[Don]

Battery life is a problem with all camera brands. I'm not sure a move to Nikon is going to solve that for you.

Have you considered just getting some generic compatible batteries? I've bought a couple from 7dayshop and simply carry them along with my original Nikon battery. I've never failed to get through a day's walking/shooting with that lot at my disposal - AND I'm running a GPS device connected to the camera to location-stamp my images off the camera's power...

£17 a time vs £99 for a genuine Nikon job.

Some batteries have got to be a cheaper solution than changing brand!

Having said this I'm thoroughly enjoying using my D2X..

[KarlosFandango]

Well, it's only for me to say first dibs on the £300 24-105 ;)

[tog]

agent006 said:

1dMK2 uses the same ni-mh crap as my mk1

Yes, but it gets a hell of a lot more use out of them. I went from Mk1 to Mk2 (not N) and was amazed at how much longer the same batteries lasted in the newer camera, which has vastly improved power management. Also if you are still using the original batteries from when the Mk1 was new, bear in mind they will almost certainly be knackered by now. It is possibly to find aftermarket batteries that are 2200mAh capacity for less than the price of the genuine Canon 1650mAh ones.

This is what one press snapper thought of them a few years ago when they first came available.

[Mr Whippy]

For lenses, yeah, the Nikon kit is hard to fathom wrt to quality levels. ED is meant to be better glass, and AF is meant to be quieter motors for AF iirc, VR is meant to be good too (and is fairly good vs early IS, not used the latest of each to know how they compare)

I am tempted to move to Canon, and the main reason for that is that I find them nicer in the 7D/50D/5D kinda segment where I'll buy, but also the lenses ARE marked and priced well. The L series are just a good target to aim for. With the Nikon I just have no idea what to buy because the naming/structure/selection just make no sense.

Having used good lenses on Nikon and Canon, the Canon selection just feels to make sense

24-105, 24-70, 16-35, 50mm 1.8, 100mm f4, all very nice lenses, all reasonably priced and you just know you won't want to change them ever, while the mid-range Nikon lenses kinda feel replaceable... hmmmmm


I once met a guy with a great Nikon kit, and he said it was the best after much collecting over the years, BUT, he had every prime they did in the best glass... I'm sure the Nikon stuff gets feeling good eventually, but it's when the prices are really high. Nikon also feel better at kit prices under £1000... but for mere mortals in the £1000-£3000 kinda money range Canon feel better to me. I'd stick with them unless you know the Nikon lenses you want.

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Thursday 22 October 11:17

[GetCarter]

I wouldn't particularly recommend the D2X - it's very noisy over 400 ISO.

I have no idea what Canon battery life is like but the Nikon EL4a battery is astonishing. I use my camera most days and charge it about once a month.

[Don]

GetCarter said:

I wouldn't particularly recommend the D2X - it's very noisy over 400 ISO.

It's old technology by now. I love mine and am thoroughly enjoying using it but the low-light, high ISO performance of the new sensors is VASTLY superior. I think one would have to recommend a D300 over a D2X (assuming DX-size sensor).

GetCarter said:

I have no idea what Canon battery life is like but the Nikon EL4a battery is astonishing. I use my camera most days and charge it about once a month.

I don't get the same life. But I attach a power consumptive GPS doodad that sucks the life out of the thing.

[Ed_P]

GetCarter said:

I have no idea what Canon battery life is like but the Nikon EL4a battery is astonishing. I use my camera most days and charge it about once a month.

I shoot with a 5D and 40D. Both use the same battery type. Canon rates the battery in the 40D for 1100 shots with no flash. That's my experience. I often take well over 1000 shots at day-long equestrian events and often need to swap batteries towards the end. I always keep the spare(s) in my trouser pocket to keep them warm! There is a considerable reduction in battery life when shooting outdoors on cold days.

[GetCarter]

Good grief, I think I must get 10 times that. Last week I went out took about 600 shots, downloaded via the camera to the computer - as I always do (raw plus JPG), forgot and left the camera on all night, next morning it's still reading full...and I had last charged it about a week before. As I look it's now on 3/4 full - I won't need to look at it for another week.

With my D1 I had to take 3 batteries out every day and would bleed them all dry before tea.

Just been reading up and D300 users say only between 2000 and 3000 shots per charge... maybe it's a D3 thing - Just for fun, I'll charge it today, see how many shots I get. (Watch this space)

Edited by GetCarter on Thursday 22 October 12:33

[Ed_P]

GetCarter said:

Good grief, I think I must get 10 times that.

11,000 shots from a single charge would do nicely. Unfortunately, the EL4a won't fit in my cameras!

Will be interesting to see the outcome from your experiment.

Ed ...

[Simpo Two]

GetCarter said:

Just been reading up and D300 users say only between 2000 and 3000 shots per charge... maybe it's a D3 thing - Just for fun, I'll charge it today, see how many shots I get.

Try a D200! In the space of a wedding (say 600 photos plus lots of chimping) I'll get through almost 4 Nikon EN-EL3 batteries. And according to the 'fuel gauge', the batteries are in A1 condition.

The 70-300VR is discussed here: www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=10...

The Nikon acronyms can be broken down for easy digestion, although I agree it's still impossible for a newbie to quanitfy 'Extra Dispersion'. I would say that the simplest arbiter of lens performance is the price - the more it costs, the better it will be.

Edited by Simpo Two on Thursday 22 October 13:57

[CVP]

GetCarter said:

Good grief, I think I must get 10 times that.

Wow, that's some life. I reckon on the D3 I get about 2,000 images between recharges and it seems to cope with being out in the cold very well. With the D2x I am gettign about 1,000 images between charges.

With regards to the OP's question about transferring from Canon to Nikon, it will be an expensive move for sure. You will get biffed on trade-in for sure. I think Rob's suggestion of going to the 7D and geeting current lenses, maybe replacing your 70-300 with a 100-400L is probably your best bet. Could it be that the old batteries are getting towards the end of their life, they are likely to have been recharged many many times by now. Are they getting close to the original specs?

If you do go Nikon then D2x gets very noisy over ISO 400. Yes the battery life is fantastic and build quality great but it's getting old tech now. D300 better imaging quality esp in low light but uses smaller batteries. D3 would be great but expensive. D700 gets the benefits of the D3 sensor but again you're stuck with smaller batteries.

For lenses to replace your 24-105 there is no direct Nikon equivalent. There is the 28-70 f2.8 which I am told is superb but is very expensive. On the DX sensor Nikons you could use the 17-55 f2.8, again very good but expensive. The other options are lenses such as the 24-85 but that is f5.6 at the long end.

For motorsport work Nikon do have a 70-300 f5.6 with VR and AFS which is a nice small fast focussing lens but you could be hampered by the f5.6 at the longer end. 80-400VR is not AFS at the moment and is slow to focus / track moving objects so I would not recommend that. The only other zoom is of course the fantastic 200-400 f4 but that is mega money.

Chris

[GetCarter]

CVP said:

GetCarter said:

Good grief, I think I must get 10 times that.

Wow, that's some life. I reckon on the D3 I get about 2,000 images between recharges

That is so wierd.

First up, people told me I didn't need to 'Educate' the battery when I got it (as they have no 'memory') but I did anyway. Did you?

(Charge and fully dispell three times before using. I'm sure you know but others may not - This was a MUST do 10 years ago, as the battery would never fully charge unless you did (as little as 65% I read) - but these were Ni not Li batteries)... but I did it anyway. Old habits.

I'm tempted to just go out and take 10,000 shots, as I'm sure the camera would breeze it... but that would be stupid wouldn't it. I'll keep a record and get back.

[Mr Whippy]

Simpo Two said:

the more it costs, the better it will be

Well you would hope... I find the ED and VR lenses don't always mean they are good, but all the L series stuff I've used is really top notch!

What comes above ED in the Nikon stuff?!

Dave

[CVP]

GetCarter said:

CVP said:

GetCarter said:

Good grief, I think I must get 10 times that.

Wow, that's some life. I reckon on the D3 I get about 2,000 images between recharges

That is so wierd.

First up, people told me I didn't need to 'Educate' the battery when I got it (as they have no 'memory') but I did anyway. Did you?

(Charge and fully dispell three times before using. I'm sure you know but others may not - This was a MUST do 10 years ago, as the battery would never fully charge unless you did (as little as 65% I read) - but these were Ni not Li batteries)... but I did it anyway. Old habits.

I'm tempted to just go out and take 10,000 shots, as I'm sure the camera would breeze it... but that would be stupid wouldn't it. I'll keep a record and get back.

I must admit I didn't do the whole charge and drain thing on the D3 as it's not the old style batteries.

Revising my estimate for the D3, I've had it since May last year and taken 8240 images and recharged three times since then and it's currently showing 65% remaining. So maybe 2,500 images between charges plus a lot of just sitting there waiting to be used. Whatever way you slice it, this new battery is pretty amazing. I remember Dad's first "good" digital, one of the old Nikon Coolpix's and that used to die regularly thoughtout the day. He'd carry 3 batteries to get through one day!

Might be worth you doing another one of the 24 timelapse routines to see how long the battery lasts

Chris

[CVP]

Mr Whippy said:

Simpo Two said:

the more it costs, the better it will be

Well you would hope... I find the ED and VR lenses don't always mean they are good, but all the L series stuff I've used is really top notch!

What comes above ED in the Nikon stuff?!

Dave

Nothing. ED is Nikon's eqivalent of the Canon L glass but the key thing here is the number of element of ED glass used in a lens. If Nikon put one element in they call it ED but that does not make it directly comparable to an L lens.

I've never been disappointed with one of the top of the range Nikkors whether or not they have ED elements in. For instance the 80-400 has ED elements in but I was never 100% happy with my images from that. However the 200-400 also has ED elements in and that is a beautiful lens.

Chris

[Simpo Two]

CVP said:

Mr Whippy said:

Simpo Two said:

the more it costs, the better it will be

Well you would hope... I find the ED and VR lenses don't always mean they are good, but all the L series stuff I've used is really top notch!

What comes above ED in the Nikon stuff?!

Dave

Nothing. ED is Nikon's eqivalent of the Canon L glass but the key thing here is the number of element of ED glass used in a lens. If Nikon put one element in they call it ED but that does not make it directly comparable to an L lens.

Certainly not - I had a 70-300ED and whilst I thought it was good at the time (1999) as I got more demanding I realised it was soft at 300mm and had lots of CA (chromatic aberration). The VR version is far better.

That's why I say go by price, not letters for their own sake.