I'm sure you will do well. (I had thought you might be shooting in "auto" white balance--which washes out in some shooting conditions, especially sunsets, etc.). I assume you traded in your gear when you got your Canon stuff. If not, I might be interested in the D700 body. I have a friend who is a much better photographer than I am, and shoots Nikon. So when I have problems, I can always call him to find out what I am doing wrong. Another thing I have learned to "sharpen" my focus is to shoot with a higher f-stop. I was shooting wide open. I found it was better to up my ISO. And my camera does not seem to have any issues as long as I stay below 6400.
Most of my shooting is in Aperture priority. So I just decide what depth of field I need, and then crank my ISO to get the shutter speed I need. Good luck!

Hi Cheryl, I have had some of the same feelings. I am shooting with the same camera and most of your same lenses. However, I have felt the D700 exposure was a little more accurate and could handle noise much better than my Canon friends. Part of it for me was to learn my camera more. And gradually I have been able to get better shots. I am shooting nature, primarily birds. Perhaps you could find a fellow Nikon shooter that is more advanced that would be willing to share tips. I download my RAW files into Lightroom, and do a little tweaking on exposure, but do not do anything in Photoshop. It seems my Canon buddies seem to do a lot with their images in PS. I think that Nikon and Canon take turns getting the upper hand on each other. I do not think you need to switch brands.

hi, i read your post and thought it very interesting.
let's see, if i can add a little perspective for you. first, both Canon and Nikon make excellent digital imaging devices (compared to my F6, of course, nowhere as good, Heh-heh).
both have extensive lens lines. some lenses are better than others within their respective lines. the Nikon 16mm f2.8 looks like an absolute dog when compared to the Minolta Rokkor lens of same. that's just the way it goes. and why i have 8 million cameras and lens combinations.

Canon lenses tend to be, and this is a really, really general statement a little warmer, and Nikon a little cooler. this has nothing to do with the glass, but with the coatings each manufacturer uses. given the settings on your digital device, i believe you can achieve any result you wish.

perhaps what you ran into at your seminar had more to do with marketing than "superior product". being ancient, i hearken to my youth in europe. every pro, damn near, in England used Pentax spotmatics. few Nikon and even fewer Canons. we, in the U.S. used Nikon F. same in medium format. here, we use(d) Hasselblad, in europe, it was Rollei.

why, back in Hartford, we even had a guy using Topcon RE cameras - talk about weird!

popularity of one brand over another does not mean one is "better" than the other. so, i wouldn't worry about that. Canon, Nikon make excellent digital devices. Leica makes way better and their lenses will last forever and are better than anything either Canon or Nikon make. but... there are far, far fewer offerings in their lens lineup.

in closing, let me quote my old, slightly marxist teacher, the great Neil Macy "you pays your money, you takes your choices".

enjoy your Nikon(s) and your lens selection looks to be fine, considering they are zooms. good luck with your images!

Some post processing is done to every image to be able to view it, since the sensor data is not in a format which a LCD screen, monitor, or printer can use. The jpeg from the camera is the same as the image shown on the camera's LCD, with the post processing settings applied, including the picture controls on the D700 (D700 manual p 160). These settings are not applied to the raw image. Since the instructors tethered their cameras to their laptops, they were using some software to transfer and display the images. If they were using jpegs from the camera, the processing settings of the camera were applied before transferring the picture. If they were using raw, the sensor data was post processed by the software before displaying it. While each image was not individually edited, preset processing was applied, and the instructor certainly made sure the preset was optimized for the lighting and other condition in the room.

---

If you change your gear, you are mainly changing the lenses, the sensor, and the camera's operation. Canon and Nikon f/2.8 lenses are very comparable in terms of sharpness and clarity, in some cases the Canon is better, in others the Nikon is, and as a set, I think it's mostly a wash. Operationally, they are very similar and being comfortable with what you are using is more relevant than any specific differences, unless you have a single type of photography which one camera has advantages for. With the sensors, it's all about how much light it can record and how well it can "split it up". On the lab testing side, this involves things like dynamic range, high ISO performance, color depth, and overall image quality. Between the D700 and 5D Mark II or 5D Mark III sensor, it's basically a tie, but the D800 sensor is better than all three (snapsort 5D Mark III/D800 link). Even with that, if you had said you had a 5DMkII and asked about switching to the D800, my response would have been, "the 5DMkIII probably makes more sense." Once you have the sensor, the actual colors you see depend more on the post processing, the data is in all the raw files.

---

Canon did great marketing in the 1990s with the Rebel, and it had a full frame DSLR since 2002 (1Ds line, plus the 5D). The first Nikon FX DSLR was the D3 in 2007. That's five years of people picking Canon more often than Nikon and getting invested in the Canon system. Since the D3 came out, I think it's been equal overall, but Canon still has a head start. But that doesn't make today's Canon DSLRs better or worse than today's Nikon DSLRs.

I just don't think you will accomplish what you want by switching.

Yes, you are confused. That lens does not crop the picture - there is some vignetting, but that is easily removed with the photoshop setting for the lens. I have been using the original 70-200 VR1 since 2003 on my D2H, D2X, D3, D7000, D800 and it works perfectly on all of them.

It is true that the new 70-200 is a good upgrade - no vignetting, even sharper (so I am told, but hard to believe it could be better), VR is one stop better, etc..I may even upgrade and sell the original. ;-)

Really, if you want to switch, by all means do so, but you may find that upgrading the body to the D800 or D4 will get you the latest camera tech at a MUCH more reasonable price than brand switching.

Anand, by the time she rents two cameras and a lens for the Canon, plus shipping, she will have $500 wrapped up in just rentals. It would be cheaper to buy the camera of her choice. If she's not happy, sell it and buy the other, she will still be money ahead.
She can return a Canon, in like new condition, within 15 days, no questions asked, at Canon. I imagine Nikon is the same.
Personally, I would never rent something unless it was for a job and the cost was built into the invoice. ;-)
SS
Edit: but that's just me, I don't speak for anyone else.

Not really sarcastic, simply a cheap attempt at supporting a weak argument while operating under a lack of real proof. If it was a “Canon convention” then the random samples the OP saw would not constitute any kind of basis for speculation. So calling it a “Canon convention” was a low attempt at undermining the OP’s argument, or more accurately the question itself.

However, it appears that a wide range of professionals attend this convention. As a result what was seen there should raise a question in the mind of any intelligent observer. And, looking at the OP’s remarks over this thread, the conclusion that the “the OP has made up her mind to waste a pile of money to replace equipment she already has rather than take the time to learn proper PP” is absurd on its face. The OP has gone back and forth and really seems to be trying to gather information to resove what was observed at the convention.

Catty remarks like yours do not advance that effort.