Switching from Canon to Nikon-what am I in for?

Haven't decided to do it yet, but very tempted to go from Canon 7DII+100=400II , to Nikon D500+  300VR. Maybe add a TC.  Frustrated with weight problems and have never been totally happy with autofocus on 7DII. I am bewildered by all the focus functions on that camera as well. Love the versatility of the 100-400, but it really is heavy for me. 

I'd probably have sell most all of my Canon gear if I made the switch. Still have my old 1DIV, but it's heavy too...I used to be happy with that and my old 400 5.6. 

(I  would probably keep Panny GH3 and lenses for a lightweight video camera. Good enough.)

So- big learning curve if I switch, Cannot Nikon? Similarities?  Differences? Good reference/guide books for the Nikon? 

I'll probably rent the Nikon camera and lens before I make the leap into a black hole, so to speak. .  

My main focus is still mostly birds- little ones way up there in the stratosphere. I know I'll never get those 500/600 lens type pictures, but I'd be happy with something close to what my Canon set-up can do. I'm seeing on this forum that that is a possibility with the Nikon combo.

Thanks, as always, for your thoughts.

Hi

I looked up the weights of the two lenses and also the Nikon 200-500, just because I have had several 300 2.8's and now this 200-500, which is lighter than the 2.8's:

300 2.8        2900 grams
100-400 II   1640 grams
200-500       2300 grams

I have to admit that I am missing something; i.e. you say that you are "frustrated with weight problems", but the Nikon 300 2.8 weighs 6.4 pounds while your 100-400 II weighs about 3.4.    The Nikon 300 2.8 weighs more than your lens.

Is the 7DII that much heavier than the D500?

Robert King

you say that you are "frustrated with weight problems", but the Nikon 300 2.8 weighs 6.4 pounds

I doubt she's referring to the 300 f/2.8. She's probably considering the new 300 f/4 which, at 755g, is half the weight of the Canon 100-400.

John

The fundamentals of photography are the same, the only thing you will need to learn is a different control layout and menu structure.   It's not that big of a deal.  In summary, a Canon camera is much more menu driven and a Nikon camera is more direct control driven.  You can learn it in a day if you dedicate yourself to learning it.

John Guastella wrote:

you say that you are "frustrated with weight problems", but the Nikon 300 2.8 weighs 6.4 pounds

I doubt she's referring to the 300 f/2.8. She's probably considering the new 300 f/4 which, at 755g, is half the weight of the Canon 100-400.

John

Yes, the f/4, not 2.8!

The way I see it is not the getting to use the Nikon camera/lens but all the pain associated with selling all your Canon equipment unless you know a way to avoid all the frustration with the process.
It is probably much easier in US than here in Canada.

Karl Egressy wrote:The way I see it is not the getting to use the Nikon camera/lens but all the pain associated with selling all your Canon equipment unless you know a way to avoid all the frustration with the process.
It is probably much easier in US than here in Canada.

Canon gear is way easier to sell in the US than Nikon gear is.  You can usually sell it right here on NSN - I estimate somewhere around 70-80% of the sites regulars use Canon.

If you are frustrated by the AF function on a 7DII how can you be sure that the Nikon functions will be any easier? Nikon have also introduced the Accel/Deccel options in addition to other AI Servo functions. I had a duff 7DII twice out of the box and gave up so can understand a little but a complete change of system seems drastic?

As for the Nikon 300 PF lens, seems to be a gem just not sure I would switch systems for it? I am however a naturally "over thinking" person

Cynthia, changing systems is pretty drastic...something I'm reluctant to recommend. That said, if your goal is to shoot a DSLR with more reliable/better AF with "reasonable" reach (~400mm @ f5.6), the D500+300PF+TC14EIII is a very capable compact package that is almost shockingly lightweight. That's not to say Nikon is perfect of course, it certainly isn't, but then neither is Canon or any other brand. I'd suggest getting your hands on a D500 and play with it...a lot. Some folks can handle the brand transition more easily than others. My experience is that it can be harder when shooting action due to the need to make quick setting changes on the fly, which takes some "muscle memory" training.

I'd suggest Thom Hogan's guidebooks, especially for anyone coming from another brand....highly recommended.

Good luck!

+1 with Gary on Hogan's guidebook on Nikon. But changing system based on focusing issue for a particular model and 700gm to 800 GM weight advantage need slight reconsideration IMHO. Say a new model with better autofocus system may come within 2-3 month, if that happen then I at least will definitely regret not having those excellent Canon glass.

I made the switch two years ago and have no regrets... though I would not want to do it again. I shoot every weekend and throughout the summer (I am a teacher and can devote my summers to photography). It took me a few months before the gear became intuitive. Little things like the direction lenses mount, focus or zoom are opposites. While annoying at times, these differences can be frustrating when you are trying to work fast and in the cold.

Might I suggest the following... if you do make the switch, you might want to customize the shutter and aperture dials to match your canon gear. For example, my rear dial on my Nikons have been programmed to control aperture while the front dial controls shutter. This is opposite to the way Nikon ships the cameras, but matches the Canon placement. By programming your Nikon to be Canon-like, you will not do silly things like change apertures when you intend to change shutter.

Be aware, the Nikon AF is better in some respects and worse in others. I find that the Nikons track moving subjects... perpendicular and moving towards and way from you much better than my Canon's ever did. On the other hand, I am forever frustrated by the Nikon's capacity to accurately focus on low-contrast subjects like brown wet fur in the shade or morning light... in the end, there is no substitute for understanding both the strengths and limitations of your cameras.

good luck

Cynthia I think your biggest problem adjusting to Nikon bodies will be getting used to the ccw direction of the lens mount, which I believe is opposite of Canon's.
In addition to the ideas already shared, I also think your intention to rent or at least try out the D500 and the 300 PF VR is going to tell you a lot about your ergonomic comfort with the camera body and it's controls.

I personally have shot Nikon, then switched to Canon for awhile, and now am back to Nikon because I like the camera controls better on Nikon. I suspect that's true for others whether they shoot Nikon or Canon.

Steve Perry has some very good video and written points on the D500, including his recommended AF settings for wildlife photography which may help speed up your learning curve if you decide to go this route.
http://www.backcountrygallery.com/photography_tips/nikon-d500-review/ 

Good luck!

I have never used Canon equipment so I cannot make any comparisons. I do believe that a Nikon owner has to understand how the AF systems on its cameras work and what you have to do and set on the camera to get them to work best for you depending on what you are shooting. IMO Nikon cameras manuals are poor ways to learn AF basics. These links below provide some better advice on AF matters. I would check these out and use this info if you decide to rent a Nikon body to try it out. Some are from Nikon. I really like the clear writing style of Mike Hagen. He has a couple of books out on Nikon AF. I believe his website is something like Creative Live.

Remember that the D500's AF is pretty much the same as the D5's. So if you do an internet search, search under D5 too.

http://nps.nikonimaging.com/technical_s ... _settings/

http://nps.nikonimaging.com/technical_s ... area_mode/

http://nikonrumors.com/2015/05/13/nikon ... ined.aspx/


https://www.creativelive.com/courses/us ... fgod_OACUA

Joe

Cynthia Crawford wrote:

John Guastella wrote:

you say that you are "frustrated with weight problems", but the Nikon 300 2.8 weighs 6.4 pounds

I doubt she's referring to the 300 f/2.8. She's probably considering the new 300 f/4 which, at 755g, is half the weight of the Canon 100-400.

John

Yes, the f/4, not 2.8!

Hope I am not posting this twice.  

Great choice I think Cynthia.  I cannot find anything I really do not like about this D500, except that the files are not FX quality.  Nothing wrong with them at all.  It is just that excepting reach..... the FX sensor has much more potential.


That 300 f4 PF is in my future for sure.  From all I have read, even when the 1.4 is added, it is still very sharp.  So that is over 600mm "effective".  Then, with a Canon 500D, or with a narrow Kenko auto tube,  it also can double as a super good close-up lens.  You have ll that working distance too.

Having much trouble even finishing this post. Computer problems.

Hi Cynthia . . . . . . Like Joe I have never shot with Canon either, but I do own the new Nikon 300 f4 VR PF lens. I am very happy with the lens and it does work fairly well for bird photography as well. I just edited this link so that all images there were taken with the 300 PF and the TC-14E III  http://www.zuropak.com/photogallery/new/index.html   These were all hand held out in the ocean from my kayak. The lens is so small and light and a beauty to hand hold. It works well with the 1.4x, but is noticeably slightly better without the TC. It also works very well as a semi-macro lens for subjects like dragonflies, butterflies, flowers, etc.

It appears that your major concern, and similar to mine, is the size and weight factor. I am sure the D500 is a nice body, but don't rule out the D7200  It is smaller and lighter than the D500 and about half the cost. I love my D7200 and have no complaints at all about it. It also offers a 24 MP sensor over the 20 MP sensor in the D500. Those extra 4 MP are valuable (for me).

Just took a look at your gallery Tim.  You are putting me over the edge for this lens.  Those shots are all great and a few are spectacular:  The Oystercatcher (whoa!), a couple of the seals.  the River Otter....WOW!  The lighting is great, the shots are super crisp and I can envision how nice it is in that kayak (all so lightweight and unencumbered)  on that rock-bound coastline......especially now, this time of year.  I am going out in my estuary a couple of times this week.  The loons have left for the ocean.  I missed the chick's maiden flight this year.  They went to the ocean I know.

I would agree; i.e. the D7200 is just as good in those respects we measure by.....maybe even better files.   It is not fast though.  Well, not compared to this D500!  I'll say again.....I really do like the D7200.  Kind of miss it.  But nikon should have gotten it right the first time; i.e. the buffer.  If they had made that buffer at least near acceptable (from my perspective only), I probably would still have that camera.   It's a real good one.

And there is another point Cynthia; i.e. if you have small hands, you might really like the D7200.  It is compact.  

Cynthia, I have to tell you this.  

There is one thing I do not like about Nikon.  It may the same with Canon.  I do not know.    In my opinion, Nikon service leaves me wanting much, much more.  And that is putting very lightly.

Ok, I am going to tell it like it is right now.

The latest mess with them is that they have had my 80-400 for about 5 weeks now!!  

And that is AFTER I begged them to please make sure they had the part in stock it was obvious that it needed.  NOPE!!  They said that they had to have the lens to determine that it needed that particular part.   I know it needed the part and told them it needed that part.  And asked them repeatedly, over and over to PLEASE make sure you have that part in stock before I send this.  NOPE!

I have had to spend nearly $500 on rental fees because they have had my lens on hold for the last 4-5 weeks.....WAITING FOR A PART THAT I KNEW THEY NEEDED IN THE FIRST PLACE.  

My point is this:  There are folks who are members of NPS and they get treated differently.  I am not!  

It is my strong opinion, that unless you are NPS....Nikon Melville service S_CKS!

There are those here who are going to come to Melville's defense.  I do not care to read what they have to say.  I KNOW how it goes down for me in that place.
I cannot continue to think about how angry that place makes me.  This is not the way to treat customers.  I do not care what anyone says who comes to their defense.  So beware.  You have been warned.  

Blck-shouldered Kite wrote:Just took a look at your gallery Tim.  You are putting me over the edge for this lens.  Those shots are all great and a few are spectacular:  The Oystercatcher (whoa!), a couple of the seals.  the River Otter....WOW!  The lighting is great, the shots are super crisp and I can envision how nice it is in that kayak (all so lightweight and unencumbered)  on that rock-bound coastline......especially now, this time of year.  I am going out in my estuary a couple of times this week.  The loons have left for the ocean.  I missed the chick's maiden flight this year.  They went to the ocean I know.

I would agree; i.e. the D7200 is just as good in those respects we measure by.....maybe even better files.   It is not fast though.  Well, not compared to this D500!  I'll say again.....I really do like the D7200.  Kind of miss it.  But nikon should have gotten it right the first time; i.e. the buffer.  If they had made that buffer at least near acceptable (from my perspective only), I probably would still have that camera.   It's a real good one.

And there is another point Cynthia; i.e. if you have small hands, you might really like the D7200.  It is compact.  

Thanks all! Great feedback!
 
I thought the faster FPS on the D500 would be a no-brainer for birds, over the D7200. But, Tim, I'm listening.......

Robert is it?  Not sure what this means: 
:
That 300 f4 PF is in my future for sure.  From all I have read, even when the 1.4 is added, it is still very sharp.  So that is over 600mm "effective". Then, with a Canon 500D, or with a narrow Kenko auto tube,  it also can double as a super good close-up lens.  You have ll that working distance too.    ????

I have heard that Nikon service can be really bad. Your story reminds me of a similar nightmare I had with Panasonic. Sobering thoughts!

Tim. your gallery is stunning!  Do you have any pictures with this combo of smaller birds at a greater distance? Looks like you used the TC with most?


As to weight issues-yes, I want a lighter rig. And somehting more balanced. The Canon 7DII with 100-400II is heavy in front, and I never liked the thumb placement on that camera. Even though my 1DIV is heavier, it always felt good in my hands, and counterbalanced my lenses better. Loved that old workhorse.  But it's heavy too. No perfect answers here.

Appreciate all the advice about manuals, etc. I'm a slow learner- definitely need a lot of hand-holding.

absu wrote:+1 with Gary on Hogan's guidebook on Nikon. But changing system based on focusing issue for a particular model and 700gm to 800 GM weight advantage need slight reconsideration IMHO. Say a new model with better autofocus system may come within 2-3 month, if that happen then I at least will definitely regret not having those excellent Canon glass.

Hmm- not seeing a new model lightweight Canon on the horizon, if that is what you mean. But...this will not be a hasty decision. And you are right- not a HUGE difference in weight, but perhaps in the way camera and lens balance. Will have to try this on to find out.

1.  Reference the 300 PF:  It is just a matter of time before I buy my copy of this lens.  this is a VERY exciting lens.    

Clarification of my comment Cynthia:  I meant that the Canon 500D close-up lens (in 77mm) (or the Kendo auto extension tubes) can be used to decrease the MFD, making the 300 PF an even closer-focusing lens than it already is.  Add VR  AND the greater working distance that a 300mm lens inherently has, and it seems me that this lens would make a cracking good (handheld) close up lens.  Also, easy on one's back when focusing in those wildflower gardens...simply because of the lightweight package.  Oh, also add that it is very, very sharp.

With all you said, I think that you are hitting the bull-eye with this choice Cynthia.  But again, that D7200 is all we said it is.  It is a beauty too.

2.  Reference my rant about Nikon service.  I called them after that post.  They had told me that the part would be in October 4.  Well, they shipped today.  I do not have the tracking number yet.  I say that they did not adjust the zoom so that it was back to what it was when I got it.  If I am wrong, I will gladly apologize.   

Gladly

I do not want to dislike Melville.  I want to have a good working relationship with them.  I will say more on this later.    Thank you much for listening.