Changing from Nikon

[Tom Steele]

Hi all firstly Id like to say great forums

I have had a d2x and an 80-400mm vr and d70s for a few months now but coming from a canon background I just cant get used to it so ive decided to get rid and come back to canon the only canon gear ive got left is a 300d and a sigma 10-20mm so I guess I will spend about £3,300 thats including any money I recoupe from the sale of my nikon gear so can u help me spend my money I mainly shoot wildlife and am going on to do a ba hons in whildlife photography this fall

Im going to be looking at a new body and some L glass

Thanks for your help and advice

 

[Stan Jirman]

The obvious budget choice is the 100-400LIS lens, even though its IS is not quite up to today's standards (when compared say to the newest white IS lens, the 28-300LIS). The 100-400 is versatile and if you don't mind a pump zoom, it's a great compromise. From my personal observations it's comparable to, or a wee bit better than the Nikon 80-400 VR that you have. You may also consider the 300/2.8LIS, and TCs; books of praise have been written about that lens.

On the wider end I have found the 24-105L to be excellent; I now use my 24-70L only indoors when I need the extra light for AF reasons and don't really need the reach, anyway.

As for a body for wildlife, I think the basic choices are the 1D2 or the 30D. All 1-series bodies are built like a tank and can take a lot of abuse, but they cost a lot more than the 30D. I haven't added it up in my head, but you may have just enough to get the 1D2 (used), 100-400 and 24-105L.

 

[Tom Steele]

Thanks for the reply

I am definatley going to get the 100-400mm L is

Just cant decide wether to get the 30D + grip or a second hand 1d mark II

 

[Stan Jirman]

Well, the 1-series is really different in feel and quality. Both cameras have about same resolution but one is 1.3x crop; for most people that would be a plus, but you get more pixels per duck with the 30D as they say.

I have owned (way too) many Canon bodies and the 1-series is definitely the way to go if you are serious, you can afford it and don't mind the size / weight.

 

[Frank Werner]

but you get more pixels per duck with the 30D as they say.

thats the nicest expression for the advantages of a multiplier for nature photographers I ever read rotflmao!!!!

Frank

 

[Frank Werner]

but you get more pixels per duck with the 30D as they say.

thats the nicest expression for the advantages of a multiplier for nature photographers I ever read rotflmao!!!!

I always suggest that if you need the 1.6 crop and you don't need the features of the 1 series (build like a tank, waterresitance, features) the D20/30 is absolutely a great camera. But if you ever oned a 1 series camera there is no way back.

Frank

 

[Tom Steele]

but you get more pixels per duck with the 30D as they say.

great explenation

here's what im thinkin of gettin

30D Body

+ Grip

100-400mm L IS

24-70 mm L

Eventualy 70-200mm f2.8 for low light conditions

Thanks again

 

[Daniel Harrison]

hmmm, For some reason if I were in your shoes and I shot wildlife alot I might consider the 400mm prime. Alot of people rave about it. I personally would love a 1D mark II over a 20D any day, And coming from a D2x to a 20D is going to be very hard. In fact, why are you switching??? for wildlife a D2x sounds pretty good and I hear the lens you have is good. why not keep at it. Sell you 300D and your 10-20 and buy some more Nikon glass.

Ahhhh, what am I saying... I shoot Canon.

 

[Stan Jirman]

Which 400 prime? The 5.6 is too slow for many purposes and has no IS. The 400 DO (which I own) is too expensive for many, definitely out of the OP's budget. And the 400/2.8 is even more so.

 

[Daniel Harrison]

the 400mm f/5.6 is no slower than the 100-400. It does not have IS so you will need some support in low light. It is alot sharper than the 100-400 and I believe focusses faster as well. It may also be lighter. It also does well with a 1.4x TC where the 100-400 would probably fall over. The deal breaker for some is the lack of IS, but if you can do without its a great lens.


Check out these photos all long shots with the 400mm prime. http://www.pbase.com/zylen

She has almost a hate for IS lenses - not sure why!!!

 

[BobSmith]

I'm a very recent convert to Canon after years of Nikon use... and I rarely shoot much telephoto work so take this for what its worth. But unless you really need the 100-400 capability in a single lens, consider the 70-200 f2.8L IS and a 2x convertor. I bought exactly that with my initial assortment of Canon gear and I positively love that combo on a 30D with a battery pack. The 70-200 is spectacular by itself and gives you the advantage of added speed. It still performs well with the teleconvertor when you need the extra reach.

 

[Daniel Harrison]

He did say that his main interest is in wildlife so I am assuming thats his priority. Hence the suggestions for the 400mm. the 70-200mm is a great lens but with a 2x TC it wouldn't hold up to the 400mm f/5.6. I am glad it works for you though, that 70-200mm is an AMAZING lens!

I am still wondering the reason's behind the switch. Switches cost allot of money, so I wouldn't want to make a habit of it

 

[Stan Jirman]

On the other hand, note that if you do need 400mm, the 100-400 will give you much better results than the 70-200 with 2x TC. I had that combo in the Amazon a couple of years ago and it turned out to be clearly the wrong set. I have since bought the 400DO lens which however is outside of the OP's price range.

 

[BobSmith]

I am still wondering the reason's behind the switch. Switches cost allot of money, so I wouldn't want to make a habit of it

I've shot a variety of Kodak digitals since '97. While I've loved Nikon cameras and glass... I started shooting with them in the early 70's... I've never been very fond of any of their digital offerings... more because of software, support and basic company philosopy issues than because of equipment quality. Since Kodak is dead, I had to go somewhere. Pinning more hopes on Nikon just didn't seem like a wise choice. The vast majority of other pros in this area shoot Canon. If a piece of gear goes down or I need something special, chances are good that I can find it among friends.

The cost of switching was not nearly as great as I would have thought. The system I bought consists of 5D, 30D, battery packs, 16-35, 24-105, 70-200, 100 macro, 2x convertor, two flashes and all the little cords, straps and gizmos that make it all work. After rebates, the whole setup is about $10.5k. That's one heck of a versatile system for the money. I spent almost that much on my first Kodak system... a whopping 1.5MP DCS410 with a 20-35 Nikkor zoom and some accessories. Even at pennies on the dollar, I should be able to sell a thirty year collection of Nikon gear for enough to offset a good chunk of that cost. I'm a VERY happy camper with this new setup.

 

[Daniel Harrison]

Hi Bob,
I understand your switching, I am wondering about the OP. It seems he shot canon, then changed to nikon and is now looking at canon again. Which is fine, just wondering his reasons as it is not a cheap game to play.

I am glad you enjoy your camera, If I started over again I would still choose canon.