The choice of the first camera system is an exciting one. Why would it not be? You get to pick the first camera to buy, the first lens, and you spend so much time reading reviews, forums and asking friends for advice. I know I did – some eight years ago, I was admiring such cameras as the Canon 30D and 40D, and was seriously eyeing the 400D which was then within the budget of a teenager me. Nikon D200 looked out of this world and the then-announced D300 was a camera of dreams. All of these models, now obsolete from a technological standpoint (much like the D700 I now own and love), were as desirable as any current equipment you can think of. Maybe even more so, since the refresh cycle was longer and digital photography in general not as widespread as it is today.
Yes, the choice of the first camera and lens is a very exciting one. But, inevitably and at some point, a different question arises for just about all of us, and one much less pleasant – should you stick with your first decision or is the grass truly greener somewhere else?
Table of Contents
The Law of Leapfrogging
One of the main reasons why someone would want to switch from one system to another (besides curiosity) is current technology that the manufacturer-in-question might have. More specifically, it could be the current camera or lens lineup and how it stacks up against competition. No two manufacturers have ever been equal in all areas at the same time, so they tend to be attractive for different reasons. Here is an obvious example: at this time, Nikon is arguably the most capable DSLR manufacturer in terms of sensor performance (and in no small part thanks to Sony’s excellent sensors). Full-frame Nikon cameras seem to deliver the best dynamic range and ISO performance at the highest resolution in the industry. However, Canon is still arguably the leader when it comes to lenses. There are more available choices and the mount itself seems to be more “future-proof” too – it is completely electronic and physically larger, so it has the potential to support lenses Nikon would really struggle with. So a Canon shooter might be tempted by the sheer image quality delivered by the Nikon D810, while a Nikon shooter might crave some of the lenses Canon has on offer, such as the EF 85mm f/1.2L or perhaps the lightweight super telephoto options such as the EF 400mm f/5.6L.
But the truth is, this situation is very much temporary. Alright, so there is no actual “Leapfrogging Law” as such, I made that up. But if you look back, you’ll notice a pattern – camera and lens makers tend to leapfrog one another every few years. If we take a look at what was happening with these two manufacturers about a decade ago, the situation was quite different. I remember Canon used to have the advantage in both image quality and lenses, while Nikon did not even have a full-frame camera in its lineup! In other words, one system may be lagging behind in one area, but the situation might flip around pretty quickly if one company leads in technology innovation or design. If Canon releases a high-resolution camera with matching dynamic range and ISO performance and Nikon releases more great lenses, differences between the two will diminish even further.
Does it mean that all Canon users should switch to Nikon just because it currently shines in image quality? On the other hand, just because Canon seems to have less issues with its products and a great lens selection, should Nikon users jump over? Of course not. The situation is temporary, and camera industry has become very dynamic over the last five years or so. All it takes is one bright individual to come up with an idea, one innovative bold move, and everything might turn upside down in an instant. Deciding to switch to another system because, at this particular time, it seems to be the “better” one, is at the very least rather hasty. I am not saying you should not switch – if you find yourself thinking about it, there is a chance, however slim (let’s be honest), that you might really be missing something important that another system is able to offer. But the current technology alone is no reason to switch most of the time. Should you decide otherwise, you may find yourself switching systems every two years or so. And this stands true for all camera systems, not just DSLRs.
The Excitement
As I have already mentioned, choosing the first camera is exciting. It is the sense of that very same excitement that often gets us thinking (or agonizing) whether we should try a new system, and a sense of our curiosity. It is also, more often than not, something to just shrug off. Don’t get me wrong, excitement is a very important feeling, one that pushes us forward; and I am not the only one to think so. A new camera, and especially one that you are yet to familiarize yourself with invites you to use it. And yet, eventually, that curiosity certainly wears off. It always does. We are excited to move into a new house, drive a new car or visit a beautiful location for the first time. But after weeks and months, that same excitement is no longer there and we simply get used to it.
Instead, search for excitement in the process of photography itself: in learning new things and not in the tools you use. If you are excited about your equipment, great. It can be a powerful engine for your creativity initially. Just don’t rely on it to stay that way for a long time…
Getting Serious About It
So what should be a good reason to switch? To answer that, it is very important to put the curiosity and excitement created by the prospect of owning something new and unfamiliar aside, and look at things objectively. Why we choose a particular system in the first place is not just because of its current technology, but a few other things as well. So, to start with, you need a clear idea of what you are looking for in a camera system and what your priorities are: what lenses and accessories you need, whether size and weight matter, what format are you looking for and so on. Start fresh, as if you don’t yet own a camera, and write it all down. Once you have done that, explore your choices, see which camera manufacturers offer that which you need, or are heading there. Find out which specific cameras would suit your needs the most. Then, see if the equipment you already own falls out of that list, maybe the reason you are considering to switch is in fact curiosity and excitement, and not an actual need? Or perhaps it is not a new system that you need, but merely an update of the tools you already have?
Once you know your potential choices, consider one final factor – comfort. Whenever I am asked by a beginner photographer which road to choose, the first advice I always give is this: hold each camera in your hand and see which one fits – both literally and figuratively – better. Just see which one is more comfortable and natural to handle. We can get used to any tool, true, but that first impression of comfort is a good start, a good indication of what to look more closely at. That is one of the reasons why I ended up with Nikon, even though I prefer some of Canon’s ergonomic choices (ISO button on the top left, Nikon?). Nikon cameras just sit perfectly in my hands.
Finally, we get back to the question of current technology. It could be a good reason, despite what I said, but not because some manufacturer might have progressed in certain areas more than others. If you feel that another manufacturer has the lenses and the cameras that suit your purpose perfectly, and it has been so for a number of years, you may not lose anything by trying your luck. But you will only truly win if your current system is actually not enough for your needs. And not the camera you own, but the whole system, the whole lineup of equipment on offer. For example, a Canon 5D Mark III is significantly better in most respects than my old D700. However, my D700 also happens to be sufficient for my uses at this time. More than that, should I outgrow that camera, the Nikon system I chose has newer and more capable equipment that leaves no reason for me to make a jump to Canon. I would say exactly the same thing if I had chosen Canon eight years ago too – it’s not really about these two specific manufacturers (I merely chose them as the most obvious and easy-to-compare examples), but camera manufacturers in general. So here is an advice: to find out whether you actually need to switch to a different manufacturer, or if the issue is somehow different and requires a different solution, stop reading about new equipment. Go out and use yours. See if there is anything that’s really missing, and not just “missing” because rivals have it.
Sentiments Matter
I never thought that tools should be just tools – my perspective has always been that even a slight personal attachment can lead to good things. Even if merely a wish to use the said tools more often. Many of you would disagree, I expect, but here is something that’s quite difficult to argue with: using tools that you actually don’t like (as in, feel something negative towards) will ruin the experience and the process. So sentiments do matter. One of the main reasons I chose Fujifilm (and I am not afraid to admit), was the design. I think the X-Pro1 is a beautiful product, as is the X100S, as is the X-E2; and I learned to appreciate beautifully designed objects. It is far from being the most important aspect of the system for me. Very far from it. And yet it is something that makes me like the gear that bit better, and enjoy using it more than I would otherwise.
On a different note, there is a certain brand I would rather not mention (to avoid potentially offending someone) that has released just one camera that I really liked. It has nothing to do with the manufacturer itself or how good and advanced the cameras are. I just never wanted to own one of those tools – they don’t click with me. There is a chance I would come up with as good of a result with this manufacturer’s cameras, since from a purely objective point of view, those are great tools. But I don’t like them, as silly as that may sound. It is not criticism, just a personal sentiment, or lack of one.
In short, focus on equipment you actually like. Don’t make affection more important than it should be – I really don’t think a sports photographer should be using one of Olympus PEN models rather than a DSLR just because they are more stylish. And yet owning and using equipment you really like will only serve as a stimulus to use it more for the purpose you bought it for in the first place, which is always a good thing.
Two Systems Is Not A Bad Thing
Compact camera systems are a breath of fresh air in the camera industry. If before the whole boom of mirrorless cameras you had a choice of different, but essentially very similar DSLR systems (which made owning two DSLR systems rather pointless in many cases), mirrorless cameras from Olympus, Sony, Fujifilm and other manufacturers offer something truly different. Not better, not worse – I don’t believe in such generalizations. But different. Mirrorless cameras have their strengths and weaknesses when compared to DSLRs. More importantly, the two systems seem to complete one another very well. One gives you diminutive size and weight, while the other delivers dependable, uncompromising performance and speed in any situation.
Now, if you only own one camera and it is enough for your needs, you’ll have to make the difficult choice – decide not only on the manufacturer, but also on the type of camera you need. So that means you will end up choosing between mirrorless and DSLR at some point. If, however, you need or plan to own two cameras and like your current DSLR system, but also think you could really use a mirrorless camera for, say travel photography, by all means go for it. I now use Fujifilm and Nikon, and I would be hard pressed to say which one is the “main” system – I find Nikon to be safer and more dependable during weddings (although that is merely an unsupported-by-facts feeling), while Fujifilm seems to be more quirky, discreet and fun to use, especially for personal and casual work. And it makes more sense for me to own a Fujifilm and a Nikon, rather than two Nikon DSLR camera bodies.
Are there any real downsides to owning two systems? The main one is the amount of bespoke accessories, batteries and chargers that can’t be interchanged, as well as the potentially increased cost. Post-processing might also be an issue, since different RAW files react differently to the same adjustments.
The Question of Price
It is a general belief that changing a system to another is expensive, and this very belief also serves as the main stop, holding so many photographers from actually doing it. Sometimes, it really is expensive. But I would still call it a myth. Why? The reason why so many tend to label switching camera systems as expensive, is because photographers usually don’t think about buying equipment used, even though the equipment they are selling is.
If you are switching to another system, you end up selling your old equipment. Now, given that your old equipment was indeed “old”, as in – used and not brand new, the logical choice would be to…buy the different system used, too. In other words, exchange used equipment of one manufacturer into used equipment of another. Which, given the same condition, class and generation of equipment, should prove to be very similar in price. It may be a little bit cheaper or a little bit more expensive, but not excessively so. But if you sell the old system and go for brand new tools, you end up spending way more. If you think about it, it is very similar to updating every single piece of gear that you own to a brand new copy. Which, too, would be expensive. Basically, in such a case, one is paying not just for changing their system, which really should not cost all that much and could potentially even refund some of the initial investment – one is also paying for receiving brand new equipment, and that is why you feel the financial impact on your wallet.
Mind you, there is a downside to purchasing used equipment. First, you can always get cheated if you are not careful (read our article about buying used cameras and buying used lenses). Second, it may take a while to find each piece of the kit that you need in good condition.
Final Words
Deciding on whether to switch to a different camera system or not is not an easy task. It takes a lot of objectivity to separate real reasons from the often false “grass is greener on the other side” feeling, as well as to tame excitement and curiosity that eventually tends to wear off. Truth be told, such a move is rarely truly necessary. And in most cases, I would simply advise one to go out and shoot. But there are exceptions, of course. If you know your reasons are real and important, regardless whether they are based on the need of better performance or pure sentiment towards a particular brand, don’t hesitate to do it. Just remember, once you have a camera and a lens mounted on it, rivals don’t matter and other systems don’t matter. What you do with the tools you own – that is what’s important. In the end, it is always the same advice: go out, shoot and most importantly learn.
What an excellent article and very insightful and articulate comments discussing the merits / dismerits of changing, very well done. As said elsewhere also accompanied by some stunning images.
I have a D700 and have owned it from new, with Nikon 17-35 f2.8, 70-200 vr1 f2.8 and a lovely 85mm f1.4d. I am today taking it all to the camera shop to trade in for Fuji gear (all second hand) as I last year bought a Fuji x100t and it changed the way I photograph. I now resent the weight and the bulk of the fx gear despite loving its image quality (which I can easily get with the Fuji) and the sheer design loveliness of the lenses (the crackle finish on the 85mm 1.4 is sublime). However times change and I will be left behind if I don’t change with them. My niece is a keen up and coming photographer and I accompanied her last weekend to a local beauty spot to shoot a waterfall, explaining the trinity of iso, aperture and shutter. I thoroughly enjoyed this but struggled with a bag load of gear and lenses, nd filter, tripod and the sheer bulk got me down. My other half recounts me standing in US immigration for several hours one year with a backpack of fx gear that affected my back so much that next time we went there I bought a small trolley to carry my gear.
I can honestly say that the Fuji is the solution for just now, maybe for good and never go back to full frame. I am buying second hand Fuji gear (x-pro1 and lenses) to continue my journey and hopefully put the enjoyment back into my shooting.
B Rgds
Graeme
Good Evening Romanas,
thanks for the very well written and thought provoking article. I am in the same boat right now as I have outgrown my Nikon starter DSLR and am looking to get better quality lenses. At the moment here in South Africa Cannon is about $1000 cheaper than an equivalent Nikon setup. I am thinking about migrating although I love Nikon. My passion is birding and wildlife photography therefore Lenses are expensive in this Field!
I currently have a D90 with the 70-300mm AF-S 4.5-5.6.
I was going to start upgrading to the new 300m F4 prime and add a TC 1.4 III with the new D7200. But after reading some reviews and seeing the problems with the 300, I am leaning more towards the Canon 7D MK2 and a 100-400 F4.5-5.6.
Would you give me some advice on what to do here? I bit unsure. Thanks! :-)
Hey Romanas, you can actually program the record button to change ISO on Nikon’s latest cameras.
The thing I am more longing after is Canon’s 70-200 2.8 II lens. The current Nikon version is not bad, but the Canon one is just better (especially since it stays a 200 at the long end at close focusing distances, while the Nikon becomes almost a 135…)
Thank you for the article. I enjoyed your article on Mirrorless vs DSLR and How to Buy a DSLR, as well. However, I am afraid that I am still lost as to which camera to purchase. :( I am looking at going top of semi-pro to low pro camera, so I feel frozen about making a decision. I currently have a Canon Rebel XSi, which is a 2008 model. I have seriously outgrown this camera. The digital noise is AWFUL at 1600 and sometimes present at 800 and the auto white balance is terrible. I am looking for a camera that performs well at in low light, higher ISO’s – low digital noise, and has descent white balance (and works INDOORS in tungsten light – my camera produces yellow images even on the tungsten setting). And very sharp images.
I am currently in the rapid learning process and taking a photography class as I also read as much information online as I can – and practice every day. I intend to go into business in the not too distant future and already have much of the equipment I will need to start out (backdrop holder, muslin backdrops, newborn poser and fabrics for backdrops, 2 impact floodlights and 2 florescents, 6 different umbrellas, a speedlight, and various other accessories). I will be shooting with a 50mm prime lens a lot as I do portraits of babies, children and families . I also love architecture and landscape. I will probably pick up a Tamron zoom and a Sigma Art prime (haven’t decided which focal length yet) after I have made enough to cover the expense.
I find that all the reviews out there tend to be subjective or don’t review the same cameras or even mention some of the things that are most important to me. I have now spent a month researching and reading articles and really don’t feel any closer to a decision. I don’t mind switching makes. I just want what is going to perform the best for what I want. It is difficult to make that decision when parting with a significant amount of money. I think I might be leaning toward the Nikon 810, but haven’t ruled out Canon 7D or mirrorless. I have specifically heard good things about Fujifilm, but don’t know how to compare them with their sensor sizes. Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
creativegenius,
As I read your post I can feel your confusion and remember when I transferred from film photography to digital. I am not from the digital age and resisted learning what I should have learned a long time ago when I had the opportunity. Having said that, I jumped into digital photography as I needed to and never looked back.
Today, there are so many more options for every photographer the decision, what to do or what to get, can be mind boggling. In trying to help you I think I can say you need to consider what kind of photography you want to make most often. Whether to go full frame, cropped sensor, or micro 4/3 should be a consideration of what you want to do with the final image you make.
As you have allocated a budget for this expense, my first recommendation to you would be to rent several different advanced cameras and see how they perform for you in the situations which interest you. This will give you information and help you decide what to do without spending the major portion of your photography budget.
Dear Mr. NARYŠKIN,
The pictures in your article “The Perks of Switching Camera Systems” are just fabulous! I would appreciate knowing which f-stop and focal length you used for them. If you don’t mind, I would really appreciate it.
Thanks,
Lee Cohen
Lakeland, FL
I second that. Exif data should be presented along with the pictures not just in this article but as a site policy.
Thank you, Elvir. You may have noticed that, most of the time with recent article, we do include EXIF information right underneath the photographs. This particular article is a rare exception to the rule, but the EXIF is still present with all images.
I can confirm the EXIF data is indeed present in the images. A simple Chrome plugin reveals the EXIF data when I hover my mouse pointer over the images. :)
Great, insightful article by the way.
Thank you for your compliments, although I must hurry and say – most of those photographs were taken by Nasim or Lola, and just one is mine. The goal was to illustrate that the result rarely depends on the equipment used.
That said, I am extremely happy that the images were noticed, it served as a reminder that a lot of people are still interested in photography and not just gear. :) EXIF data should be present on all of the above photographs!
First, congrats on the great pics!
This was a fun article for me for three reasons. First, like many photographers who came from a tech background (a looong time ago) I am a bit of a gearhead. Second, I recently added a second camera system, and third because I have been sorely tempted to switch from Nikon to Canon many times despite being a Nikon shooter for nearly 40 years.
Being a bit of a gearhead just makes it fun to play with no gear. I don’t think it improves my pictures, it’s just fun. Because I basically get nothing from it, I try not to do it…professionally, it is just wasted time.
What about adding a new system. I got tired of hauling so much heavy stuff around and wanted to go lighter. I am so glad I made this decision. It has been so much fun and adding a new system has (I repeat, has!) helped my photography. Because a micro 4/3 system works differently on many levels, I had to think about depth of field more “deeply” and add more lighting in many situations. I also had to learn to shoot with the 12-40mm 2.8 lens, which at the wide end is challenging. Overall, it’s been a great experience and its much easier on my back!
Finally…Canon vs Nikon….why have I been tempted to switch so many times. The article alluded to it…better lens selection! In the last 10 years they have had multiple lenses that I really could use. The first was the 100-400mm. For a very long time, there was nothing like this lens on the market. It simply clobbered the old 80-400 Nikon in just about every way. It was the only zoom that made sense (a lighter, hand hold-able lens) that could still deliver decent results. Nikon didn’t address this lack until 2013 when they finally replaced the old junky 80-400 with a shiny new one that actually performs. Then there is the 400mm F5.6. Sounds like a slow lens and it is…but its also sharp wide open (it needs to be), light, and cheap. Nikon has nothing like it. Finally, the new 400mm F2.8 IS II. This thing is a dream (I know it costs 10k…and it’s worth every penny) and very light for what it is.
To be fair, Nikon did add the a new 80-400 (as noted above) and recently a new, light 300mm F.4 which with TC’s will be a go to lens for many wildlife shooters. Still, I think Canon has the edge in this area. If I were starting over and not used to Nikon (and have a bunch of their pro lenses) I would be very tempted to switch.
Well, an excellent article and discussion; thank you Romanas, and great timing. I am the person of focus for this article, trying to decide now on a new camera that meets my various needs.
As an enthusiast, I have owned several systems over the years, starting with a Kodak Retina IF, Nikon F, Minolta, Nikon Coolpix 4500, Nikon D7000, and a Fuji. I still have the IF and all the Nikon F gear, and used the latter well into the digital age. Today, my needs are different and I require a very portable camera as I shoot decorative arts, architecture, and travel, and want something to do it all. Walking out the door to photograph objects in a museum/exhibit while catching some street scenes along the way etc. on a day long trip dictates, for me, one light camera. Taking two systems is simply too much and too heavy for a day-long outing.
I am still deciding, and agree with one discussant that it is best to start with a budget, but would add that the first thing to start with are the requirements for the system. Figure those out, look at the options and go for broke if you have to…you can always afford more than you think you can. Don’t eat out for 2-3 times a week and you have saved $100 toward a better system. The photos for this essay were all taken with great equipment and they are wonderful to look at, because each is spectacular for its own reasons.
My main requirements boil down to great IQ edge-to-edge, excellent dynamic range, low light capability, weather sealing, easy manual focus, great feel and access, and that the vast majority of shots be done with one lens. The system must be small enough and light enough so I do not think twice carrying it out the door. I have tended toward zooms in the past, but now think a prime is really all I need. I prefer FX, but DX will be okay. A 16MP, and for sure a 24MP, alleviates the need for a zoom 90 percent of the time…36MP is a hog and waste of time in post-processing.
So here is where I come out on the choices. A DSLR is out of the picture, with the possible exception of a v.2 Nikon Df if they continue the model. In the here and now, my choices are: Sony A7 II with a 35mm/F2 Zeiss Loxia lens, Fuji X-T1 with either a 35mm lens or the new weather sealed 16-55mm/f2.8, and a Fuji X100T. These cameras all have good low-light capability with excellent IQ. I have neither held the X-T1 nor the A7 II, so that needs to be done. The X100T seems to be a dream camera but it lacks weather sealing…maybe not as big a factor on a fixed-lens camera? The X-T1 with the new zoom also might be bordering on bulky, a la the Nikon Df.
My ‘working’ choice in the run-up to the actual purchase is the A7 II with the Zeiss 35mm/f2, as it would probably trump all others for overall performance in all situations.
Thanks again Romanas!
Richard W
I definitely see the appeal of switching systems having done it twice. But I find that for an enthusiast like me it only makes sense to have two different systems (or more) if they serve distinct purposes that don’t cross over as much. An enthusiast only has so much time to shoot and if you have too many systems you end up feeling like you have to bring everything to cover all the bases. It’s much simpler if there are clear roles for your gear. For example, I have an IR converted RX-100, a Fuji system, and an old Minolta X-700. The Fuji is my main system, the RX-100 is small enough to go with me when I’m in nature. The Minolta is for certain portraits and occasional others.
Hi Romanas,
Thanks for the article. I agree complete with you
that it is great to have 2 systems. Using my Olymus mtf camera is pleasure and fun, the lighter weight, being stealth and better control always
deliver more creative and “playfull” pictures. The IQ is still simply brilliant (yes of
course pixelpeepers, it can always be better). If the highest
quality is expected and for some subjects I use my D800 (but I hate the
bulk, that is a negative sentiment on it’s own). Using the D800 is
sometimes necessary but also often because my clients think more megapixels is better:)
I have to take issue with the fact that the D700 is “obsolete” from a technology standpoint. it is still a very capable camera and far from obsolete. it is a solid, very well built workhorse without a lot of the frivolous bells and whistles on so many of today’s cameras.
I have been with Nikon since 1974 and honestly, would not even consider moving to another system. Why would I? Nikon has served me well for over 40 years. When you are with the best, why settle for second best?
Scott,
I never said D700 is not a capable camera. Quite the contrary. And I own it, too. But it is obsolete, it’s just that old. I would also not call Nikon the best. There is no manufacturer who is “best”. Each leads in one way or another and is best for a certain person/certain goals.