Upgrade from Nikon/Sigma to Canon/Canon (1 Viewer)

[Cuckoo-shrike]

I'm thinking of upgrading from a Nikon D50 with Sigma 80-400OS to a Canon 40D (or 50D?) with a Canon EF 400mm f5.6 L USM.

I've read through lots of threads recently, but I would like some opinions on a simple question: how much of an improvement to my results would it be likely to make?

Thanks.

 

[GYRob]

i dont know about the d50 but the 400f5.6L is one of canons sharpest lenses with super fast AF, overall its very close to the 500f4isL .
the 50d has micro ajustment so you can even fine tune the lens so i would go for that over the 40d.
Rob.

 

[a.dancy]

All things being equal I think you would be very happy indeed with any one of the cameras though I would go for the 50D given the choice. The 400 prime lens is one of the best. Whether it is best suited to you is another matter. I like the 100-400 IS because it suits my needs but advised a pal of mine to get the 400 prime because I thought it was best for him.

 

[Highcountry]

I had a Nikon D50 for a little while then a D200 and enjoyed both of them. I switched to Canon mainly because of their lenses and started with a 40d which I liked better than the Nikon bodies. You should love your indicated combo especially with a 50d which adds some nice upgrades over the 40d. Regardless which Canon body that you choose, you will find the Canon 400mm superior to your current lens which is more important than the body. As mentioned by Darcy, check out the Canon 100-400mm also.

 

[Cuckoo-shrike]

Thanks very much folks. I would go for the prime lens. I've practically never used my Sigma at less than full zoom so there's not much point in having that facility.

From what I've read on other threads, although the D50 has an extra 5 megapixels, there seem to be some doubts about noise at higher ISOs.....unfortunately the debates have become far too technical for my primitive brain!

 

[Duke Leto]

Upgrade? that would make the assumption that its beneficial to move from Nikon to Canon:news:
You could get a Nikon D300 or 300s, the excellent 300/4 AF-S and a 1.4tc which gives more variation than the fixed 400usm, slightly longer focal length and you get to have a spare body that'll still be useful??

There both equal paths in my opinion, both offer the same benefits, but don't discount the other options

 

[hollis_f]

From what I've read on other threads, although the D50 has an extra 5 megapixels, there seem to be some doubts about noise at higher ISOs.....unfortunately the debates have become far too technical for my primitive brain!

The 50D having more noise than the 40D is CIK (Common Internet Knowledge - a piece of misinformation that becomes true by being repeated on the net). People who own both will tell you that the 50D is the same as, or slightly better than the 40D.

 

[Roy C]

The non availability of something like a 400/5.6 in Nikon was the main reason why I went with Canon in the beginning. With most DSLR's being pretty good these days I reckon the lens is the most important part as far as bird photography goes. I am sure you would not be disappointed with the 40D/50D and 400/5.6, with either camera it would be a great combo for birding.

 

[Jaff]

The 50D having more noise than the 40D is CIK (Common Internet Knowledge - a piece of misinformation that becomes true by being repeated on the net). People who own both will tell you that the 50D is the same as, or slightly better than the 40D.

Straight from the review done by DPreview:
High ISO performance worse than 40D
Reduced dynamic range in the shadow areas compared to EOS 40D
Per-pixel detail not as good as on good 10 or 12 megapixel cameras

Of course the High ISO usually means above a 1000 or so, when do you ever go that high for birds? Draw your own conclusions.

PS Steve you seemed to have strayed into enemy territory. LOL!

 

[JohnZ]

Allegedly attributed to somebody on POTN, "You will have to prise this lens from my cold dead fingers". The lens ? The Canon 400mm f5.6 of course.

 

[paul goode]

I'm thinking of upgrading from a Nikon D50 with Sigma 80-400OS to a Canon 40D (or 50D?) with a Canon EF 400mm f5.6 L USM.

I've read through lots of threads recently, but I would like some opinions on a simple question: how much of an improvement to my results would it be likely to make?

Thanks.

Any chance of seeing a few samples of your images and a little more information on what you're not happy with. Its possible that a fine tune of technique or post processing could make a big difference without having to shell out a chunk of money on changing your kit.

 

[gandytron]

Upgrade? that would make the assumption that its beneficial to move from Nikon to Canon:news:
You could get a Nikon D300 or 300s, the excellent 300/4 AF-S and a 1.4tc which gives more variation than the fixed 400usm, slightly longer focal length and you get to have a spare body that'll still be useful??

There both equal paths in my opinion, both offer the same benefits, but don't discount the other options

Steve, come back to the safety of the Nikon Forum!

Actually i'm afraid that I am rapidly coming to the same conclusion as Chuckoo-shrike, and have decided not to buy any more gear for my Nikon because I'm gonna sell up and defect to Canon.

I currently use the Nikon 300mm f4 AF-S, and it is a very nice lens, and the results with the 1.4 TC are still super sharp, but I'm afraid that I find the (relatively marginal) slow down in AF speed when using the TC to be a problem for the bird photography I do (especially fast-moving warblers). Using a "naked" lens is always going to be faster than a TC combo, and the canon 400mm f5.6 is, by all accounts very fast.

Also, you say that the relative focal length on Nikon's 300 + 1.4 TC is a little longer. Well yes it gives you a 420mm lens...BUT on a cropped sensor Nikon, the crop is only 1.5x, where as on a Canon 50D it is 1.6x...so the Nikon gives you an effective 630mm lens, but the Canon gives you a 640mm lens....and you still have the option of adding a Canon 1.4 TC for longer work, and even a canon 2x TC (my understanding is that whilst Canon's 2x TC isn't perfect, it is a heck of a lot better than Nikon's...but I might be wrong on that??).

Finally, if I was in the market for a 300mm f4 and was choosing between Nikon and Canon, Canon would win - their lens in this category has an image stabiliser (which the Nikon lacks) and is a $100 cheaper (in the US at least).

I love my Nikon, but I'll be moving over to Canon in due course.

Dave

 

[Cuckoo-shrike]

Any chance of seeing a few samples of your images and a little more information on what you're not happy with. Its possible that a fine tune of technique or post processing could make a big difference without having to shell out a chunk of money on changing your kit.

Thanks Paul but I've already ordered the lens and a 40D! Would you recommend splashing out on Photoshop rather than relying on freeware like Photofiltre?

Thanks a lot to everyone for your contributions, much appreciated. Will post some results in due course.

Andy:t:

 

[Duke Leto]

Whilst I cant find the details I have it on very good authority that professional Canon users are being lured back to Nikon by Nikon offering to buy there Canon gear to ease the transition. My pro friends have indicated a number of sports photographers are taking the Nikon shilling
Dave nothing like a bit of Canon user baiting 8-P

Andy very impressed, from thinking to ordering in 2 days, me I love to mull purchases over for a week or 2, impulsive by my standards

 

[Tim Taylor]

Whilst I cant find the details I have it on very good authority that professional Canon users are being lured back to Nikon by Nikon offering to buy there Canon gear to ease the transition. My pro friends have indicated a number of sports photographers are taking the Nikon shilling

I hear exactly the same - the net movement is Canon to Nikon at the expensive end of the scale.

 

[paul goode]

Thanks Paul but I've already ordered the lens and a 40D! Would you recommend splashing out on Photoshop rather than relying on freeware like Photofiltre?

Thanks a lot to everyone for your contributions, much appreciated. Will post some results in due course.

Andy:t:

No probs Andy and enjoy the new kit :t:

I certainly wouldn't suggest buying photoshop CS4, its obscenely expensive and many free or cheaper software packages can do virtually everything that CS4 can.
I know nothing of photofiltre but the key areas to concentrate on are image levels adjustment (the histogram), sharpening and noise reduction (if needed!)

 

[Jaff]

This all reminds me of one of those pirate battles with everyone swinging from one ship to another and then back again when it all goes wrong! :-O
I wonder how many of those Canon photographers now changing to Nikon were actually Nikon before they were Canon, I bet it's a quite a few.

I use Photoshop Elements 5 Andy and at the time it was only £60ish and covers all my needs well, incl. reading 40D RAW files. Don't know what the latest version is but Elements is a lot cheaper than the pro software and can do many of the same jobs.

 

[Helios]

I also use elements 5, with the noiseninja plugin. My processing is very basic; I don't even use the levels function. But I'm pleased with the results, as I only reduce the files to 200kb to post on the internet.

For the RAW converter, I use the Nikon Catpure NX, which I find easier to use than ARC. There's plenty of freeware raw converters around though; some are said to be better than ARC.

 

[paul goode]

I also use elements 5, with the noiseninja plugin. My processing is very basic; I don't even use the levels function. But I'm pleased with the results, as I only reduce the files to 200kb to post on the internet.

For the RAW converter, I use the Nikon Catpure NX, which I find easier to use than ARC. There's plenty of freeware raw converters around though; some are said to be better than ARC.

Please take this as constructive Helios.
I've had a look at a couple of images in your gallery and, in my opinion, they could be improved by using a levels adjust. The images are a touch flat because the black point doesn't line up with the end of the histogram. Simply moving the black point slider will give the images more punch and contrast.
Any adjustment of exposure, brightness etc does alter the histogram but by using levels (or equivalent in a raw converter) to adjust the black and white point its very easy to ensure an image has a full tonal range.

 

[Roy C]

I also use elements 5, with the noiseninja plugin. My processing is very basic; I don't even use the levels function. But I'm pleased with the results, as I only reduce the files to 200kb to post on the internet.

For the RAW converter, I use the Nikon Catpure NX, which I find easier to use than ARC. There's plenty of freeware raw converters around though; some are said to be better than ARC.

I would go along with Paul regarding levels, it is a very easy yet essential part of processing IMO.
I think that the OP should also be made aware that Nikon Capture NX would not be an option for his Canon gear.