Did you switch brands when going DSLR

B

Bobonli

Well-known member
I'm wondering how many people who shot stills with a brand-x camera and then got a 7d or 5dMkII for video eventually dumped their stills rig altogether.

I'm a longtime Nikon shooter with a small collection of lenses, flashes and accessories.Got a 7d for video to supplement an EX-1 and like it for video but prefer the Nikon for stills, primarily because I have the lenses. I use the Nikon glass on the 7d, so no AF or metering.

I'm doing my yearly "Do I need all this stuff" survey and curious as to whether others in a similar situation dumped their Nikon gear and went all-in with Canon based on the video capabilities of the 7d/5dMkII.

Thanks
 
I am lifelong Nikon user who finally gave up on them catching up in the video DSLR game. Gave in and bought a 7D but I will never give up all the Nikon glass.
 
switching brands of DSLR's, so far I've owned and shot with gh1 (3 months), then to the 7d (5 months) and now t2i, all with nikon ais manual lenses
 
Yup that would be me. Been shooting Nikon since the 70s. All Nikon glass/film cameras. Went digital with the D300. Bought the 5dmkii when I saw what the video looked like. Now use all of my old fast Nikon primes with both the 5dmkii as well as the 7d.

As far as I'm concerned, Nikon has a long way to go before they show me that they are serious about video on their dslr platform.
 
mcgeedigital said:
As far as I'm concerned, Nikon has a long way to go before they show me that they are serious about video on their dslr platform.
Click to expand...

didn't the D3s have a lot of improvements as far as manual controls and jello? although i think it's still 720p, but it could hint that their video technology is getting better.

edit: although the D3s is around $5k.
 
I've always been mostly a Canon user for stills, so no. But I would have switched if I weren't. Brand loyalty is never something I've been crazy about, especially when lenses can be adapted.
 
My first SLRs were Canons, but I moved to Nikon when I went "pro". Canon abandoned all their older users by changing mounts and left me stuck with a bunch of glass I couldn't use. I bought 1 EOS camera, and had a couple lenses, but decided to go Nikon instead. The T2i has brought me back to Canon.

To be honest, I could care less who's name is on the camera, as long as it does what I need at a price I want. I shoot the T2i, EX1, and occasionally I'll dust off the DVX100. Whatever the application calls for.
 
So you all ditched your nikon bodies in favor of canon and shoot both video and stills with the canon?
 
Fahad said:
didn't the D3s have a lot of improvements as far as manual controls and jello? although i think it's still 720p, but it could hint that their video technology is getting better.

edit: although the D3s is around $5k.
Click to expand...

Their mjpeg codec implementation is a non starter.

yes I compared it to the 5d/7d.

It wasn't even close.
 
Bobonli said:
So you all ditched your nikon bodies in favor of canon and shoot both video and stills with the canon?
Click to expand...


Yes, although I still use ALL my old Niikkor glass on the Canon bodies:

7d.jpg



50-300mm manual Nikkor on the 7d.
 
My only move was from Canon FD to Canon EF (With much swearing at Canon) when I decided to get serious about digital stills a few years ago (bought a 5D). Now shooting movies with a 550D and a bucketful of old manual glass (Including some nice Leica glass) which I can also use on my 5D.
I'll buy a better DSLR if / when Canon gets it right.
Dave
 
Scalar said:
Did you intentionally step down from the 7D to the T2i for a reason?
Click to expand...

yes. IMO camera market is in freefall and I don't want that much money tied up in a rapidly depreciating DSLR. For me the differences do not warrant the investment but this may not be true for others, especially for those that shoot stills for a living
 
J Davis said:
yes. IMO camera market is in freefall and I don't want that much money tied up in a rapidly depreciating DSLR. For me the differences do not warrant the investment but this may not be true for others, especially for those that shoot stills for a living
Click to expand...
Ok I understand that, am interested in your input since you're one of the few I've seen who talked about downgrading.

I was thinking the 7D would be a more sound investment to keep around as a b-cam later as well as for potential stills usage. Basically thinking the rebel wouldn't be the one I wouldn't keep around so the 7D is a 'better investment' since recouping investment over time with it's build quality/longevity trumps resale value. I do understand the T2i offers identical output & the majority of the features but build quality & the dual dsp's in the 7D have me swaying back & forth. I've got some stock material I'll be shooting and have decided to go with ND filter/filterbox and primes plus kit lense for general shooting regardless which camera I get.

Basically regardless which I go for I'll still need added glass which will have to be financed separately. So I'm still tempted to go 7D as either will be a fixed payment for the next year (no interest), making the difference between $899 and $1600-1800 less across 12 months than it is at sticker cost. I'll still need glass after that but the only thing that financing covers is glass that exceeds the bounds of the finance limit unless I dropped the camera, which is just silly (though i suppose it would be one way to get into an L-lense immediately and just stick the T2i on a personal CC I don't think I actually need an L lense to begin with making that whole line of thought pointless.)

So cost aside what does the T2i offer that the 7D doesn't?
 
Last edited:
Scalar said:
Ok I understand that, am interested in your input since you're one of the few I've seen who talked about downgrading.
Click to expand...

I don't see the T2i as much of a downgrade. If at all.

Scalar said:
I was thinking the 7D would be a more sound investment to keep around as a b-cam later as well as for potential stills usage. Basically thinking the rebel wouldn't be the one I wouldn't keep around so the 7D is a 'better investment' since recouping investment over time with it's build quality/longevity trumps resale value. I do understand the T2i offers identical output & the majority of the features but build quality & the dual dsp's in the 7D have me swaying back & forth. I've got some stock material I'll be shooting and have decided to go with ND filter/filterbox and primes plus kit lense for general shooting regardless which camera I get.
Click to expand...

I keep seeing this word "investment" pop up. A camera is no more an investment than a hammer or a saw. When I invest in something I expect it to appreciate in value. Or at least hold it's value. A camera depreciates like a car. The second you remove it from the plastic, it's lost a significant portion of it's value.

And while people keep saying the 7D is better for stills because of it's DSP, I'd invite anyone to take both cameras out in daylight, shoot a RAW still of both, and have them printed. I'd bet money on an 8x10, you couldn't tell one from the other.

Yes, the build quality of the 7D is better. No question. Is that worth an extra $600? Maybe to some. I'd wager not to most.

Scalar said:
Basically regardless which I go for I'll still need added glass which will have to be financed separately. So I'm still tempted to go 7D as either will be a fixed payment for the next year (no interest), making the difference between $899 and $1600-1800 less across 12 months than it is at sticker cost. I'll still need glass after that but the only thing that financing covers is glass that exceeds the bounds of the finance limit unless I dropped the camera, which is just silly (though i suppose it would be one way to get into an L-lense immediately and just stick the T2i on a personal CC I don't think I actually need an L lense to begin with making that whole line of thought pointless.)
Click to expand...

Again, I fail to see what "L" glass is going to buy you over say, used Nikon ED glass. Maybe the "IS" feature is important to you, and if so, I understand. But if not, you're paying a boatload for autofocus you can't use shooting video. If it's a stills issue, then I get it.

Scalar said:
So cost aside what does the T2i offer that the 7D doesn't?
Click to expand...

Better screen. Lighter weight, SDHC media (which locks) versus Compact Flash which is more expensive and doesn't lock, cheaper accessories (grip/batteries/etc.), Magic Lantern firmware pending...
 
PerroneFord said:
I don't see the T2i as much of a downgrade. If at all.
Click to expand...
Certainly seen plenty of confirmation of that for video.

PerroneFord said:
I keep seeing this word "investment" pop up. A camera is no more an investment than a hammer or a saw. When I invest in something I expect it to appreciate in value. Or at least hold it's value. A camera depreciates like a car. The second you remove it from the plastic, it's lost a significant portion of it's value.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure you caught my point. The term investment came from someone else btw. For me rather than thinking in terms of resale value, I'm wondering which will stay with me down the line (or last under duress etc.)

PerroneFord said:
And while people keep saying the 7D is better for stills because of it's DSP, I'd invite anyone to take both cameras out in daylight, shoot a RAW still of both, and have them printed. I'd bet money on an 8x10, you couldn't tell one from the other.
Click to expand...
Fine but for video the dsp enables more monitoring options doesn't it? Is the viewfinder still accessible? (Saw lots of mentions that it's not on the 550D/T2i but not much on the 7D.) Operationally for video what's actually different..? I'm not a sports or beach photographer by any means...

PerroneFord said:
Yes, the build quality of the 7D is better. No question. Is that worth an extra $600? Maybe to some. I'd wager not to most.
Click to expand...
The $600 cost difference across 12 months is only $50/mo. Not that big of a deal compared to which will be more useful down the line. So in 2 years the difference of $50/mo won't matter...

PerroneFord said:
Again, I fail to see what "L" glass is going to buy you over say, used Nikon ED glass. Maybe the "IS" feature is important to you, and if so, I understand. But if not, you're paying a boatload for autofocus you can't use shooting video. If it's a stills issue, then I get it.
Click to expand...
I just mentioned L lenses because the no interest contract would cover that too and certain people elsewhere seemed to think L glass was the 'best place to put your money'. Ie, get a good lense and get the T2i on the cheap elsewhere... BI don't agree with that though, was just trying to head that particular suggestion off ahead of time as it seems to come up when I mention the no interest financing. Personally I'll just go seek out some old russian hardware or something similarly compelling and go for 'vintage look' or something for now. Lots of good deals on craigslist and in my local pawn shops, not a huge market for video here.

PerroneFord said:
Better screen. Lighter weight, SDHC media (which locks) versus Compact Flash which is more expensive and doesn't lock, cheaper accessories (grip/batteries/etc.), Magic Lantern firmware pending...
Click to expand...
Good input on the last bit, I did catch the automatic gain fix is apparently in etc with Magic Lantern. All good news...

Accessories are a bit more so but there isn't THAT huge of a gulf. Knockoff grips & etc do still exist. I will concede there does seem to be more for the T2i due to I'm sure a larger body of users for 3rd parties to prune.
 
Last edited:
Anyway on reread it now reads like maybe I'm debating something that I'm not. Hearing someone downgrade piqued my interest because I've been recently thinking about doing the upgrade since I don't think I'd be *losing* anything. The firmware hack is one obvious one...but what does the T2i have that I'd actually miss on the 7D otherwise?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top