billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I am sorry, but you did not answer my question, please list the "WRONG CAMERA'S." You have made a statement, please OWN it, and stop writing in riddles.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Nothing is as obnoxious as other people's camera brands.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Sorry, this is no longer and give and take discussion. Good day.

hrblaine

I went from a Nikon 35mm to a Canon 5Dc with no problem. Of course, I'm smsrter than the average bear. YMMV Harry PS Were you concerned with the learning curve when you got the Nikon? If it took you a month or two to figure it out, BE WORRIED!

texaseve Loc: TX, NC and NH

I love both Nikon and Canon, though favor Nikon since I have more of it. The SONY menus are what boggle my brain!

Krcouch

Check your spelling. Canon is the correct for the company and their photo gear.
Cannon refers to artillery

pego101

Start here. https://www.target.com/c/bath-towels-home/cannon/-/N-5xtv9Zq643le35c3g?Nao=0

baron_silverton Loc: Los Angeles, CA

I agree with CHG_CANON on this one - surely there are benefits to Canon (as he listed) and there are also benefits to Nikon (that he did not list), but most importantly his point at the end is good - why are you switching really - especially if you are already in the Nikon ecosystem.

If you have been shooting Nikon for 20 years then surely you have many lenses - its true your older lenses (with the screw drive AF) will not auto focus with the FTZ but they work perfectly in every other way, and surely if you have really been with Nikon for 20+ years you have many G and E series lenses that work perfectly (if not better) on the Z mount cameras with the FTZ adaptor - I can tell you that the 105mm 1.4 E and the 58mm 1.4 G are two lenses that I still use on the Z mount cameras via the FTZ even though I have long since sold my last DSLR and those lenses are performing better than they ever did on the DSLRs. They now enjoy edge to edge focusing points and also benefit from 3 axis stabilization whereas before they had none.

If your reason is that the Nikon Z cameras are not as good as the others, then I would ask why not? Are you basing this purely on auto focus - which is the only area that the Nikons are still weaker than the others, and not by much. At this point, if you know what you are doing you can shoot perfectly with the Z6/7II's in just about any situation using the latest firmware.

This does not take into account that the Z9 (to be released in the next 2-3 months) will have state of the art AF that is as good as Sony and Canon (maybe better - we'll have to wait and see). This technology will be trickling down right away to all future Nikon releases and even via firmware to the Z6/7II - there is a rumored firmware update coming in September that is supposed to add 'watered down' AF tech to the Z6/7II from the upcoming Z9 - if this is true then my guess is that Z6/7II will, from a practical stand point, be as good as Canon and Sony in AF starting next month.

From the perspective of build quality, Nikon is still the better of the three. For ergonomics, its is a tie between Canon and Nikon depending what you are used to - clearly better than Sony. Menus - its a toss up between Canon and Nikon - Canon people always think their menus are the best and the same is true of Nikon people but really they are both fine once you use them - much better than Sony until recently (I am not familiar with the new Sony menus so I cant speak to that). Nikon RAW files are still the best in the business from a DR and color perspective - taking both into consideration at the same time. Some people like Canon color better but it is just preference - I can say that Nikon RAW files have more leeway in post than do Canon's but the gap is decreasing here with the latest Canon's - although it has not fully closed. Sony files have good DR as well but a more digital look to the images - all of this is somewhat subjective admittedly.

If you are a long time Nikon shooter this is NOT the time to be switching - maybe 2-3 years ago might have been but now Nikon is on the verge of offering fully developed mirrorless camera that will rival any brand, and their Z S line glass is second to none. If you have many Nikon lenses I am sure you have many that will work flawlessly on the Z via FTZ.

Switching actually sounds pretty foolish. You should definitely consider this more as CHG_CANON (Paul) suggests.

Good luck.

drlomo Loc: Sweden/ West Virginia

WRONG! It definitely will. Okay, I go back to mid sixties. I was a teenager then. I used two Leica M bodies and three original Leitz lenses. I could make enlargements like 50x60 cm^2 super sharp with a wonderful brilliance and contrast range. I used Ilford film and developer. I had a Leitz Focotar enlarger lens. A very skilled seller talked me into Nikon. I went to the seller with my father and I got two Nikon F bodies and three Nikkor lenses. I started again with my B&W experiments. No brilliance in my prints. I looked for errors in my procedures. I experimented for a rather long time. I found nothing wrong. I went to my father who was somewhat pissed on the salesman. We went there and got two Leica M and three Leitz lenses again. Next roll of Ilford film gave me immediately the brilliance and contrast range I had before my "Nikon Period".

However, I was satisfied with my color slides from the Nikon. The main reason was that the "Photomic" add-on was very good and gave very correct exposure for the critical Ektachrome X. But for B&W, never Nikon again. I found that my friends who had Canon FD lenses got better brilliance than I got with my Nikon. Okay, this was around 55 yrs ago!

Today I use Canon EOS6D, 60D, 1D Mk. II for digital, my (now) old Leica M4, a Hasselblad 500ELM and, a Kiev 60 hand-held, for B&W.

baron_silverton Loc: Los Angeles, CA

Not sure about your experiences and they are certainly valid.

That said, I owned and used a darkroom for almost 20 years. With respect to black and white contrast - this was not a function of the camera at all - this is a function in part of the lens and in large part in how you processed the film and printed it in post.

To say that Nikon's did not get good contrast in B&W is a strange comment indeed, and without being rude I can only say that it is your opinion to which you are entitled - my experience and that of many I know is vastly different.

twb930s Loc: Aldie, Virginia

I've been a Nikon user since 1968. From film to digital. I also came across a Canon EOS-1Ds MKII and have been using it quite a bit along with several EF F2.8 lenses. It's nice, but older, and I can see why some switched to Canon from Nikon in the early 2000's. But this is 2021, and Nikon today isn't what they were in 2005. The D2 was not full frame, so Canon had an advantage then, but not now. I've looked at the Canon mirrorless and the Nikon version and I plan to upgrade to the Nikon Z-7 II. I suggest you look at the various Nikon mirrorless models before you jump ship. There are many advantages to staying with Nikon. Most AIS and up lenses will work with the adapter and the Nikon mirrorless has the largest lens mount opening on the market. In the end, however, its what you like. Both Ford and Chevy and Porsche and Ferrari win races, they just do it in a different way. In the end it is the eye of the photographer that makes the difference, not the glass he is looking through. As long as you have good equipment, it really doesn't matter who made it - at least until you need factory help and service.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Canon is known for being hugely user friendly to learn and use compared to other systems.
Should be very quick and easy.
Perhaps an hour or less to be totally competent.

Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Enjoy going from Cadillac to a GMC. ;)

sholland98 Loc: Benbrook, Texas

If I chose to switch, I’d probably bypass Canon for Sony. Just sayin!

drlomo Loc: Sweden/ West Virginia

I have/had no bone to pick with Nikon. I just mention my experiences. I used EXACTLY the same chemicals, film, enlarger lens, enlarger paper chemicals in both cases. This was an almost one yr long unintended experiment. I know what I saw. My observations are real.