Do you ever want to jump ship and switch brands?

Do you ever feel like "the other brand" has more to offer? Do you ever think, if I would switch, I'd get better results?

Let me be frank, I am thinking a lot about the Xsi, and I am wondering how I would be doing with that camera, if the Live View would make any difference, or the apparently larger lense line-up, or their better ISO performance, or their brighter colours (btw, is this all true or not?). I just think too much, I guess. Then again, I look at their lenses, and I think they're more expensive and don't cover the same range as the Nikons, especially in my price range (low to bottom! LOL)

Please don't flame me! I'm not really worried, or seriously thinking about switching, I'm just pondering - and wondering if anyone else feels like that sometimes, and I think you guys are really nice and maybe can share some thoughts with me...

--
Karin At Work

It's called the grass is greener on the other side. I bet canon, sony, ect... users feel the same way. They might think they will get better results if they switch to nikon.

Hi Karin!

Nope! I have never felt that... not even close to...

REASON:

1. Nikons D-lightning feature that reduce P-P so much...

2. Nikons Auto-ISO opportunity.

There are many more reasons but these two are the most important to me.

Chris
---------------------------

karinatwork said:

Do you ever feel like "the other brand" has more to offer? Do you
ever think, if I would switch, I'd get better results?

Let me be frank, I am thinking a lot about the Xsi, and I am
wondering how I would be doing with that camera, if the Live View
would make any difference, or the apparently larger lense line-up, or
their better ISO performance, or their brighter colours (btw, is this
all true or not?). I just think too much, I guess. Then again, I look
at their lenses, and I think they're more expensive and don't cover
the same range as the Nikons, especially in my price range (low to
bottom! LOL)

Please don't flame me! I'm not really worried, or seriously thinking
about switching, I'm just pondering - and wondering if anyone else
feels like that sometimes, and I think you guys are really nice and
maybe can share some thoughts with me...

--
Karin At Work

Click to expand...

I recently did just that ( jump ship to other brand )

After a couple of months I realize that one may want to rent the gear first before jumping. It's a costly move. Another thing is purchasing local. You get better prices online, but if you have a problem, the costs/time involved in shipping product back and forth eats up any savings.

I have a Nikon d40, got the Canon 30d. I got the 17-55 2.8 is, and the 70-200 f4 is. My expectations for the lenses were quite high, so I ended up trying 2 sets of both lenses. Now I am returning the lenses totally. ( The 2nd set of lenses had worse problems than the first - In retrospect the first set was probably fine - I should have stuck with them, but the second set had issues - one lens didn't work properly, and the other one was not nearly as sharp as the first) So, now I still have the d40 - which I like, but I really wanted to upgrade - the selling of this camera is taking longer than I thought. I have the 30d which I like, but with the 28-135 lens which is decent, but not great for what I want. I have 2 partial camera setups and neither is exactly what I want.

I tried very hard to be careful - playing a lot with different at various stores, but I would definitely want to try the EXACT lens I am buying when spending $ 1000 per lens. When you spend a couple of hundred you don't have the same high expectations.

I am not knocking Canon at all - I really like their stuff - and if you get a good copy of those 2 lenses ( 17-55 2.8, and 70-200 f4 is ) you have a fantastic start much cheaper than the Nikon similar offerings. I also got a Fantastic price for the 30d kit - $ 730 .

Anyway, I could have probably just swapped lenses again, and the 3rd time's the charm, but I was tired of the time / cost involved. I'll reevaluate my lens decision later.

I was much more impressed with the 30d than the d80. Esp. feel and build. I liked the d300 better than the 40d, but 1800 for the body, then the pro Nikon glass is like 1500 / lens.

I compared the d300 with 70-300vr and the 30d with 70-200 f4 is, and the canon lens here wins. ( I know not apples to apples, but similar pricing)

I briefly tried the Nikon 16-85 and thought it was very nice.

I am really hoping Nikon comes out with the D90 with some of the features of the d300, but more affordable.

And, while I really like the Canon 30d ( and 40d for that matter) - it lets me get some sports shots I couldn't get with the Nikon d40, - I certainly didn't start producing better pictures! I did spend way too much time worrying about bs, instead of having fun!

It's tough. The d300 is so fantastic it's unreal. But the cost is brutal.

The Nikon pro glass - same thing.

The Canon 40d is great, and a decent price.

The Canon glass is really nice - my problems not withstanding.

I liked the Nikon 70-300vr better than the Canon 70-300 is.

The new Nikon 16-85 looks very good, and the price should come down. ( I know a local shop that has this for 610 already)

The flash operation and exposure definitely takes time getting used to, Canon definitely different than Nikon.

AnyAnyAnyway, my 17 cents...

Chris

This is an honest reply. I have always known I wanted to shoot Nikon and never wished I could use anything else. I have used Canon in the past starting with film cameras and while they make nice images the ergonomics never matched what I found in Nikon. When I moved to digital I made my selection based on which Nikon fit my needs without looking at another brand. Sometimes a brand just makes a good impression with a person and keeps the person content with what they have.

I will say though, Nikon is not for everyone and when people ask my opinion on a brand I tell em' to try them all and find the camera that fits best with what they want to use it for. It makes using it much more fun. My family shoots Canon and that's fine with me. You just wont see me with one.
--
Nikon D80 w/18-135, 18-200VR, 50 1.8, SB600.
http://pdbruce.zenfolio.com

There are some things worth considering when thinking of brands, and high ISO performance and fps are a couple of them. Having said that, I've seen stunning photographs taken by marvelous photographers with all different brands of cameras/lenses. You either have the light (and the eye) or you don't...

Just my 2 cents...

--
Jim
Proud FCAS Member #121, DSLR Division
CATS Member #74 > ^..^
WSSA member#57

as I've said before, if I was making the decision today, I'm not sure I would choose the D80 over the Xsi.

I would point out, however, that it's the photographer, not the camera, that makes the photo. And Nikon has the superior flash system. Canon may have more lenses, but how many can I have or do I need, and how many Canon lenses are as affordable as the Nikons I have purchased?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Test everything; hold on to the good.



D80 photos: http://esuastegui.esmartweb.com/D80

Why go through a new learning curve when the ultimate result will be almost the same. Both Nikon and Canon are the industry leaders and in my opinion one should choose one or the other system. Learn to use your equipment and get on with the business of taking pics and improving your abilities. I chose Nikon and have never regretted it. Yes there have been times when I have been frustrated with Nikon as a Company but never disappointed in their products only in the fact that they don't always meet my personal requirements as swiftly as I would like.

People who can't get the results they want out of a camera have usually not taken the trouble to learn how to use it or don't understand the limitations of Digital Photography. They are looking for a point and shoot expecting that will do all the work for them but like the image of being seen with a DSLR.
Claude

Another thought or 2 or 3...,

Canon picture styles more flexible than Nikon custom tone curve ( Not sure about the d300 in this dept.) You have many styles to choose from, and can customize them greatly.

I think overall I liked the Canon color a bit better than the Nikon.

But some things here are funny - I may like one aspect of the color better than another. ex Canon = The skin looks better, but now lips look different, or the sky / grass look better but ...
With picture styles, you can even adjust how individual colors look.

Nikon - this red looks too amped up or too orange , this blue-green tone comes out in the sky too strongly.

I think overall, you just have to get used to the camera colors, and you can boost both if you want brighter colors. ( esp with d300 - just ask Ken R. !!! - he likes his amp on 11 !!! - )

Nikon auto iso kills the canon auto iso.

Nikon glass in low $$ is outstanding - 18-55 vr and 55-200 vr are great !

but now Canon has it's 18-55 is, and 55-250 is also and I read they are nice also.
Nikon 50mm 1.8 better than Canon version.

D40 is nice at high iso, 30d is a bit better ( better than 40d too)

d3oo is better than all of em !!! at high iso - it may lose a little detail, but the noise is great !

Live view - Doesn't do anything for ME, ymmv. (( if they ever get movie mode in a dslr - I'd LOVE that - many times I want a little clip, and don't want to carry video camera or even my other cam just for that)

Nikon wireless flash built in - haven't used it ( d40 ...), but I think it would be fantastic.

Chris

You won't be any happier with the XSi than you are with the D60. The Canon will cost you more for the body and comparable lenses. The only benefit you might get is a little cleaner images at high ISO. That really isn't a critical factor since they both produce noise at those levels anyway which can be dealt with through post processing. The LIve View is a marketing feature more than anything else, rationalizations for it notwithstanding. Without an articulated LCD it is virtually useless in the field. At other times it is just a power consumer and slows reaction times down. You can do anything with the viewfinder that the LCD would do anyway. It may have some value while using a tripod but even there it is redundant. Compact cameras without viewfinders needed the live view but SLR's don't.

I didn't switch since, as well as the Nikon D60, still own and use a 20D with "L" lenses - one of wihich is the aforementioned 70-200 f4. There's no doubt that it is an excellent lense but is more costly than the kit 55-200 VR Nikon VR lens which is an excellent value and quite decent lens as well. It's difficult to compare glass directly between the two brands but both offer consumer grade and pro grade and both are good. Generally speaking you get what you pay for, however, I think the less expensive Nikon lenses are a better value.

What it basically boils down to is what system do you want to concentrate on, unless you want to invest in several systems, naturally. I started with Canon so my major inventory is with that brand. The D60 was chosen for it's size and weight, kit lense choice, price, and features to be used as a travel camera. I prefer it to the entry level Canon cameras and lenses. The XSi might be a decent camera but it will still be in the entry level genre, however more expensive than a comparable Nikon.

Stick with your Nikon. It should serve you well.

This isn't unlike choosing a car. Manufacturers will always offer similar values at different price levels. Features won't be identical but they won't be all that different either. They might look a little different, feel a little different, and handle a little differently, but they all basically do the same thing. Just be happy with what you have and once you committed yourself to a particular brand - don't look back.

I know I went on and on,

I am not a fan-boy of any system. I like 'em both. I don't really care what the camera strap says ( nikon / canon / pentax / oly ...) I think that after using anything for a while, you get used to it and can navigate through buttons / menus etc.

I like the feel of the d40, the d80 even more, I dont like the feel of the 400d - But, I have to admit - after using the 30d, the d40 and even d80 to a lesser extent feel like toys - this is just a feel thing - the d300 and 40d just feel so robust

and the 40d display is very nice , but the d300 display is so darn good !

I just tried to convey some of my thoughts over the last few months of debating this exact thing.

I have to say one thing, the d300 is so nice I wish I never saw one ( $$$ )

If Nikon comes out with d90 with d300 screen, af, and sensor for like $1200 - holy moly Batman !!!

Some of my favorite pictures ever were taken with an old Kodak when I didn't worry about the minute details or pixel peep - I just carried the camera everywhere I went and shot things that looked cool !

Now I over analyze pictures at 100 % - and it drives me crazy !

Ok,

enough from me...I burned out MANY braincells with this stuff over the last year...

Chris

I don't really believe in brand loyalty.

I do, however, have fond memories of Nikon since I used the FM2N.

That said, it really all started with the Pentax K1000, and I'm not shooting Pentax now, so there you go.

I did have a Canon rebel in the film days, (swiped it from my dad), and the circuitry burned out in about 2 months, camera fried, warranty expired...done deal...so that left a bad taste in my mouth.

Then I got a Nikon d70 and the memories I made with that camera propel me forward to working with Nikon gear in the present and future.

Nikon has been good to me, so, why switch?

Currently enjoying the amazing D300.

Then I remember why I went with Nikon.

The lens selection suited me better..
Auto iso
The camera felt much better in my hands etc.etc.

I currently have the D40. The XSi sounds very nice but sooner or later the D90 will come out and kick butt. Or maybe even a D60x with the D300 sensor. So if I ever decide I do need to upgrade, well.....whatever it will be... it will at, the very least, match the XSi

Darin

Hi Karin..

Yes, I have thought alot about changing brand...and finally I did it. I have only had my new little "baby" for 3 days, so I didnt had much time to get to know it..

But I think I love it...and maybe it will learn to love me too - little by little..;-)

But the thing is....that actually I changed from Olympus to Nikon ;-)...and this is my first appearance in this forum..;-)

karin you know as well as i do that after all is said and done the top brands all have good equipment.

after that its down to personal needs, budget and fetishes

Phil

Not to flame much, but I think you'd be miserable

First, switching systems should be mostly about lenses than bodies - that's what costs more money in a long term. That said, the body (esp. for amateur usually with one) is also very important and in that case, D60 might be the best choice for you regarding egonomics and easy handling with great image results.

Also for someone, who's not getting into the "higher level" with expensive lenses (everything f/2.8 from Nikon, Canon) the Nikon has great advantage over competitors with it's consumer DX zoom lenses - 18-70/18-135/18-200 and now 16-85. All of them are quite allright, you get used to the choice you have and when you switch to Canon you'll realize, there's no Canon alternative, you'll get Sigma lens eventually or F/4 L Canon lens for more money.

Also there's already mentioned Auto ISO Nikon function, not available on Canons - this single function makes a lot of difference for you, since it allows you to customize the noise/speed logic for greatest possible images.

Last but not least - i fyou like NIkon design (bodies, lenses), Canons has quite different feeling, you might not like it at all.

Klappa
----------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/klappa

Hmm, you are saying a different camera may improve your photography, but you can't afford better lenses.

These two statements don't match up. If you have money to spend, the general consensus is that better lenses = better optical quality. But this doesn't mean better photographs.

However, better photographs is the result of better subjects, better composition and better pp. I've followed the progress of many a photographer on this forum who have upgraded to higher spec nikons - some have presented better images, but without exception this has been due to natural progression, not one upgraded an instantly stepped up a rung. There was a thread a while back where a group admitted to picking up their D70 again and finding it every bit competent.

Take, for example, Roman Johnson. He has yet to post a 'better' image than his autumnal maple or that groovy bend in a big green river at the bottom of a gorge. He has comparable images, but if I were to invest in his work the maple would win every time, regardless of what digital antique was used to capture it.

A side-grade step may benefit you if live view is everything you want it to be, but I'd look into that aspect carefully as from what I've seen live view does not function in the way I'd expect.

I have no brand loyalty and would happily toss a coin to decide between nikon and canon if starting over, but at this stage I have a couple of extra nikon lenses so canon would have to offer some unbelievable option to tempt me - and I don't believe they will do that.

Spend money to ditch my current functioning data capture device for a different one? There would be advantages in updating to any of the current generation of chips, but none of them tempt me, the cost doesn't make sense at all.

Its all the lure of marketing hype, the dream and self image. If you have the money, then go crazy, why not?

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leechypics/

No, simple as that. To move up (lenses, body - yes). New models are feature richer and it is just a matter of moment when you compare your existing cam with the "other side". In film days I shot 35mm mainly with Nikon, starting with F's, then FE, FM, jumpped to Minolta without abandoning Nikon (including Konica if anyone remembers FS and TC models). When digital came, started with small Fuji MX600, bought Olympus E20 as the first "serious" DC - it failed beyond repair 16 months after purchase, Oly service was very very unhelpfull, leaving the bad taste in my mouth for years (bear in mind, E20 costed more than D300 today). After living with almost every Fuji bridge DC went back to Nikon. Why? Trust , if nothing else.

cheers

i really think when it comes down to the final image that you would see little difference between the camera you have now and a different brand.

I can understand if a camera does not feel right in your hand or the operation of the camera doesn't suit you, but with so many models released all the time it's very easy to think the grass is greener and to question your purchase.
--
http://illy.smugmug.com

you do have to understand that the "grass often looks greener on the other side." As one who shoots with a wide variety of digital cameras - heck, I could be considered the original international camera slut - I've tried most of them. And it's fun and educational to be able to use a wide variety of brands extensively.

Having said that, you will come to miss certain aspects about your current camera - whether it be the way it renders colors, certain features, and even the way it may feel in your hands.

The two system brands that I've come to respect, cherish, and use quite extensively are Nikon and Olympus. Don't get me wrong, the Canon brand is superb (all brands have wonderful cameras) - and I have the likes of the G9, S5 IS, G6, and A640 on their digicam side of the house. But as for the Rebel - I had two copies and personally didn't care for them (when compared to a wide variety of cameras). But that's just me and nothing else - and you have to be the judge on that one.

So there is certainly nothing wrong in experimenting. Heck, I'm no camera snob as my profile suggests - but in the end, you tend to narrow your system choices down to what you feel works best for you. Now on the digicam side of the house, the sky's the limit really.

Good luck in your quest...
--
As always - good shooting....

Ben