One of the most expensive mistakes you can make as a photographer is to change brands after being fully invested in another brand. This article explores pros and cons of each brand offering a full frame option.
As photographers, we seem especially vulnerable to GAS (gear acquisition syndrome) over the Christmas season. For those of you wanting to make the jump from compact/phone to full frame camera, this article is for you. Spoiler alert: there isn’t really a bad option.
Background
My first DSLR was the Canon 20D in 2004. At the time, there was not an affordable full frame option, but I knew I would be heading that direction, so I bought lenses that would work on full frame cameras. That 20D ended with a water housing malfunction, but this coincided with the release of the Canon 5D, the first affordable full frame camera. I gratefully took my insurance pay-out and entered the world of full frame.
An image from my early days taken with the original Canon 5D.
Over 14 years, I’ve collected a sizable number of lenses and camera accessories designed to work with Canon cameras. This makes changing systems a prohibitively expensive decision. Even so, I tried to change systems in 2016 with the Sony a7R II. As it was possible to adapt Canon lenses to the Sony camera, it meant I could experiment without having to replace my lens collection.
The guide that follows is based on my 13 years’ experience with Canon, 1 year with Sony, and 14 years of peeking over the fence at Nikon. It is full of personal bias and opinion, but hopefully contains enough useful information to inform your next purchase.
As you may have gathered, three brands offer a sustainable full frame, mainstream (which excludes Pentax and Leica) option:
1. Canon
Canon was the first brand to offer full frame. They were first to use CMOS sensors, giving Canon a significant image quality advantage over competitors at the time. They were also first to provide a usable video option with the Canon 5D Mark II. Considering how strong Canon’s position was, it’s hard to believe that any brand was able to catch up.
In my opinion, Canon chose to cash in on this position, continually offering incremental improvements on their cameras without any major innovations. In terms of image quality, Canon is no longer leading.
Pros
- Massive lens lineup, including some important specialist lenses
- An excellent flash system
- An established service center network
- Pleasing colors (subjective)
Cons
- Behind Sony and Nikon in image quality
- 4K video capture is hampered
- Recent history shows a reluctance to innovate
2. Sony
I've heard it said that the iPod should have been Sony’s achievement. Instead, it proved to be the catalyst for Apple’s domination of handheld devices. It seems Sony has taken that lesson and applied it to the camera industry. The mirrorless camera should have been Canon or Nikon’s triumph. Instead, Sony led with the first full frame mirrorless camera, which made them a real player in the industry.
When I switched to the Sony a7R II in 2016, I was blown away by the increase in image quality over my Canon 5D Mark III. The jump in resolution from 22.3 to 42.4 megapixels was significant, but the most dramatic improvement was noise performance, both in shadow detail and high ISO. Canon closed the gap with the 5D Mark IV and 1D X Mark II, but not fully, as both cameras still lag behind Sony.
This was one of the first images I created with the Sony a7R II. The above image is the original raw file with no changes. I've increased the exposure by 3 stops for the image below. Look at the trees and underpass. There is next to no noise.
Crucially, the Sony also shot 4K using the entire width of the sensor, making the Sony mirrorless cameras a real hit among video enthusiasts. At this point, Sony vindicated my decision to change over. It took a few months for the weaknesses of the system to show up.
Firstly, in a race to innovate, I had the feeling that Sony had shipped a camera that wasn't fully tested and ready. Mine would overheat numerous times a day, forcing me to stop shooting. For astrophotographers, there were also reports of Sony "star eating." Sony addressed these issues in later models like the a7R III, but it was a stark reminder that they are still new to the camera industry.
The dealbreaker came when I damaged my camera. I needed it repaired quickly for a job, and there was no repair center available in London. I had to send it away for repairs, and it was a slow process. Coming from Canon’s professional services, I found the lack of support inadequate for working photographers.
Pros
- Class-leading image quality
- Great value for money
- Adaptable to other manufacturer’s lenses
- Innovative
- Great video performance
Cons
- Colors take a bit more work than Canon before looking natural
- Cameras are rushed to market, which could be costly on a job
- Does not have a well-developed network for maintenance/repairs
3. Nikon
DSLR versus mirrorless hasn't always been the dominant discussion. Once upon a time, you couldn't put two photographers in a room together without the Canon versus Nikon discussion being thoroughly hammered out. In the early days of Canon superiority, I honestly don’t know how Nikon managed to hang on — something good to be said about brand loyalty I suppose.
Today, Nikon fits somewhere between the reliability of Canon and the innovation of Sony. In my opinion, Nikon’s most recent full frame DSLR, the D850, is the best DSLR ever made. Image quality is superb. Nikon has a long history in photography, so their cameras are well designed. They also have a well-established network of service centers for when things go wrong. Honestly, if I lost all my Canon gear and could start over, I would go with the Nikon D850 and Nikon’s excellent lens and flash system.
It would seem clear cut then that Nikon is the best system to invest in if you’re wanting a full frame camera. There is one thing that nags me about Nikon however, and this is totally subjective. Unlike Sony and Canon, Nikon is only invested in the camera industry. It does not have a stockpile of capital from printers, Playstations, and the like to call on if things go badly. Therefore, I get the feeling that every new camera that Nikon releases is the final throw of the dice for the company. So far, they have been releasing hit after hit, but what happens when their offering falls flat? Will Nikon still be around in the next decade?
Pros
- Image quality on par with Sony
- Reliability on par with Canon
- Long history in the industry
- Large support network
Cons
- Less options than Sony and Canon
- Comparatively, a much smaller company than Sony and Canon
Conclusion
Each of the three brands have excellent full frame options, all capable of delivering high quality, professional results. If you’re about to invest in a full frame system, my advice would be the following:
As a Canon user, I get around their limitations by using the Canon 5DS for architectural photography and the Canon 1D X Mark II for travel photography and video work. It frustrates me that I need to use two bodies to do what a Nikon or Sony can do with one.
- If you’re certain you will never need video and you’re going to be photographing in a genre that requires high volume, like wedding or sports photography, go with the Canon system.
- If video is an important consideration, go with a true hybrid system: Sony’s full frame mirrorless.
- If you’re unsure what type of photography you’ll be doing in the future, but you want one of the best performers, Nikon’s system is hard to beat.
Whether or not a non-native Zeiss is sharp on a Sony, the fact is that the sensor stack issue is NOT a "falsehood". It is well-documented.
Leica SL for portraits and landscapes, why buy 2 systems when one will do both better and for less money.
Sure, if you have that kind of money. Personally, I'd rather own BOTH a Nikon and a Canon, than a whole SL kit...
That is only because you have never shot with a Leica lens. When comparing images side by side, the Leica created image has a certain 3D high contrast look with much better color rendering while the Nikon looks flat and artificial in comparison. A Nikon DSLR and prime cost about the same as a Leica SL body, so the cost/ investment in not much different. Since the lenses last a lifetime if cared for properly, it's a simple case of "buy once, cry once". Many people spend as much money on a Nikon or Canon system over a ten year period as they would if they had bought a Leica.
If your Nikon images look flat and artificial, you're doing it wrong. The Leica system simply doesn't offer acceptable quality for the versatility that I require. The tiny mount diameter makes it extremely unfriendly to ultra-wide and super-telephoto focal lengths. Literally none of their fast-aperture primes are optimized for extreme corner sharpness or coma, which is something needed for astro-landscape photography. The whole system is impractical for anyone seeking maximum versatility of focal lengths and resolving power, especially for landscapes. The only thing it offers is that "je ne sais quoi" for portraits.
Tiny Mount Diameter? What are you smoking?
I have mounted my native 16mm on a tripod with my SL, I have mounted an R 280mm f/2.8 with 2x, an R 400mm alone and with 2x. So which is too short or too long to mount???
The problem is people like you with no experience using Leica making false claims.
Go to the Leica Users Forums and look in the thread labeled SL images, you will see 300 PAGES of high quality images (you can click and download full files for pixel picking you you need) shot with the SL and native lenses. Many fabulous landscapes shots with the 16-35 zoom. Many with the 24-90 zoom set at 24.
The more you criticize Leica, the more your statements show a lack of actual experience with their lenses and equipment.
There is a direct comparison of the Zeiss 15, 24, and 35 to the Leica 16-35 zoom. At 200% corner to corner pixel picking comparisons, the Leica has zero distortion and zero CA. The imaging is slightly better with the Leica zoom than the Zeiss primes.
The only lens that is better than the Leica 50mm SL is the Zeiss Otus, the Leica 50mm M is a close 3rd. Leica always has been a leader in the lens design and manufacturing business. The cameras are high quality with fewer unnecessary gizmos and doodads; if you like those gimmicks and the hassles of unfriendly UI, then enjoy them. But stop spreading false stories about Leica quality and image taking abilities.
This is my opinion only, but I think about 90% (or higher) of the comments here are from non professionals (myself included) who use these high end cameras and don't even scratch the surface of even needing this type of gear or probably even using most of the capabilities. That said and as have been said by many photographers (pros and amateurs alike), most of our clients and/or friends couldn't tell the difference between pictures taken with a Canon 5D II and a Nikon D800 or what lens was used, etc. Yes the gear does help, but most great photographers can take pretty much any DSLR and get the money shot. Oh and full disclosure, I shoot both Nikon (D850, D500 and Canon 1DX II and 5D II).
Thanks for the comment. This was written for the person who is upgrading to a better system - probably not a professional, but may want to be in the future. Your assessment is completely correct, the difference between these high end cameras is mostly not noticeable, however, as you begin to specialize in a genre, that's when you do start appreciating the difference.
I liked everything except the conclusion, which came out of nowhere.
Odd you decided to skip Pentax. It would have been interesting to read your personal bias against them.
As far as I know, they only have 1 full frame camera - not enough to make it a mainstream option.
I know Canon gets negatives for a couple of reasons, but the overall system, including the service side, makes it the best choice if you look at a system, and I emphasize the service side. They also have an unmatched refurbished line that gives a full one year warranty. I've purchased three lenses from the refurb shop and would dare anyone to find any evidence that they were used.
But, the best FF CAMERA on the market is the Nikon D850 keeping in mind that I can count on one hand how many times I've used my cameras for video. Nikon's system is second only to Canon. Their D5/D850/D500 are very well built and have a terrific lens lineup behind them.
Most cameras are better than most photographers.
Another article comparing apples to apples to apples.
I am a Nikon user and I am glad I went with Nikon. Nikkor glass is outstanding and there's a lot of it out there. I can and have picked up some outstanding full-frame lenses built in the 1990s that sold new for $1800 that I picked up used for under $300. There's an active used market for some of these legacy made-in-Japan Nikon optics that are every bit as good today as the day they were purchased and they're every bit as good as the newest lenses. And of course, the newer Nikon lenses are outstanding as well.
I started off with Sony SLRs, which I liked a lot but abandoned after I realized that Sony had largely already abandoned them and there just weren't a lot of lenses to choose from. Then I switched to Sony mirrorless which was awful. I found that the A7ii was a half-baked piece of garbage that had horrible battery life and didn't produce images that were any better than the Sony SLRs (or Nikon for that matter); furthermore, autofocus was slow and wonky and lens selection wasn't great. The secondary market for E-mount lenses was and still is pretty pathetic. New lenses for Sony mirrorless are very expensive relative to an outstanding Nikon/Canon lens that can be picked up used for a bargain.
The one thing I do like about Canon is that the bulk of their cameras are still made in Japan. Ditto that for most of the Canon lenses as well. Nikon makes their top end lenses in Japan, but their lower end equipment is made in China.
Overall, I've been tempted to move to a different manufacture at different points but the same idea keeps coming up: Assuming you have halfway decent Nikon/Canon/Sony equipment, 1.) The camera doesn't matter as much as the glass and 2.) if your pictures suck (or are great) the main culprit isn't your camera or your lens, it's you.
As for Nikon's newest products I think the plunge into mirrorless is questionable. I think Nikon would have been better off doubling down with their DSLR offerings and sticking with improving on their F-mount DSLR cameras and lenses. Nikon mirrorless cameras and Z-mount lenses suffer from the same issues as Sony and Canon mirrorless: IQ isn't noticeably better, camera performance is roughly the same, and oddly enough, size is minimally different.
Thank you for you well balanced thoughts. I agree 100% with your summary, which is why I think it is important to choose the right brand for you before investing heavily in glass.
Mirrorless is the next forward step into the future. The ground work has already been done by the smart phone industry (for more than 10 years now). Now the camera manufacturers just need to capitalize on the new technology. It is more simple (no moving parts), more durable (no moving parts), and allows the use of EVFs that surpass the best optic view finders in many ways. With EVF, you can shoot in near complete darkness, crank up the ISO to compose and SEE your subject, then shoot scenes that you could never shoot with a DSLR. Extreme slow shutter speeds are possible due to no shutter shake or mirror shake as well. There isn't a huge amount of space savings due to the heat generated by the newest sensors. The camera bodies are designed to provide cooling to the sensor and since the cooling is passive, the bodies can't be too small. This issue is just manifesting itself in the latest mega pixel FF sensors, so don't expect a FF mirrorless body to suddenly be 1/4 smaller than a DSLR.
As far as IQ, that is a function of the sensor and the lenses. Mirrorless or DSLR design does not affect IQ. Same with camera performance.
it's good that writing Not SOOC under the photos. because amateurs think the photos are sooc and cameras take the photos very nice like to photos in top!
When people say that Canon is behind Sony AND Nikon in image quality, shouldn't it just be Sony? They make the majority of Nikon sensors so it's really just Sony they're competing with.
Sort of, but Nikon interpret the information from the sensor. It is Nikon colour science.
I would be curious to see how well Nikon could manufacture their own sensor. Do you know when they stopped making their own sensors and got Sony to make them?
From what I could find they seem to always outsource the production of their sensors but design some of them.
My last full-frame Nikon was a D800, and I had a whole slew of professional Nikon lenses (you know, those gold-ringed “Nano” ones?), speed lights, etc. that I sold off to pay for college tuition and have enough money for a down payment on a small house. As I got back on my feet, I was in the market for camera again and went with Canon due to a good deal on a 5D Mark III via eBay, and the Canon lenses at the time were less expensive than Nikon's counterparts. I figured Canon was a large camera company, so they must be as good as Nikon. The first Canon lens that I bought was their 50mm f/1.4 - it was horrible and I returned it. I had to buy an expensive Canon 50mm f/1.2 to match the image quality of my old Nikon AF-S 50mm 1.4. The L series lenses are very nice, and as they have been updated actually cost more than some of the Nikon counterparts now. I just can’t win. My Canon gets the job done, but the image quality and metering are not quite there compared to the older Nikon cameras that I have used. In my experience, the Canon speedlights do not expose as consistently as Nikon’s either (I do like the radio though). I really miss my old Nikon set up. I'm in too deep with Canon now to go back. As far as Nikon being a "camera only" company, I view this as a good thing. They are solely focused on camera and lens development and sales... and binoculars, microscopes, eye glass lenses... all kinds of optical things really. But I do imagine Nikon is more focused on their mission of cameras and optics more than Canon and Sony because it’s their primary business. I would personally recommend Nikon over Canon if someone had to have a full frame set up. Edit: I have never been interested in Sony. They have very few professional lens options (that cost a fortune), and their camera bodies have terrible ergonomics. Just my opinion. That's all I have to say about that.
Yeah Nikon D-850 is an excellent camera. Even coming from D-810 I saw it as a better camera.
If it was on Crop Sensors I would pick Fuji X-T3 for sure.
If it is "semi-affordable" medium format I would choose Fuji GFX 50S ( having used that one and Pentax 645Z and Hassy X1D .. all having the same sensor but still Fuji was better ) ...
Not Affordable Medium Format : PhaseOne :D
I haven't used Leica yet, I am sure specially their lenses are excellent but haven't personally used so can't speak to that.