I have had a Nikon setup for a while D90 with 18-200mm lens and a very nice 70-300mm I bought for an African Safari kit. This has been a great intro to DSLR but the body was showing its age and the major lens was not particularly sharp, although very versatile.

So I have agonized for ages about the full frame jump,and did it earlier this year, to a Canon 6D with the main lens a 24-105. The main reason for change was that I had a lot of buddies with Canon, and I can test and borrow their lenses.

The quality jump is huge. The lens is sharp, focus fast and the colors superb. I suspect I would have been very happy with a Nikon 750 or similar.

Both companies make great bodies and lenses, it is just what you feel comfortable with. No fan-boy partisanship here.
I can see a 100mm macro in my life real soon now.

Because a thread needs pictures, here are some from a recent US road trip. All untouched and straight from the camera

 

Excuse me? Shallow depth of field goes with the territory. Depth of field is dictated by magnification/camera to subject distance and taking aperture. It will be the same regardless of lens or manufacturer of lens.

EDIT: Angle of view will also effect the "apparent" depth of field. Wider angle lenses will appear to show a greater depth of field versus telephoto.

 

Guess I'm a dinosaur with my Nikon D5000....

 

Pictures are all about the lens. Do not spend money to get the latest and greatest body with a less than "pro" level lens ("L" level with Canon) You would be far better off buying an "L" lens and then getting a one generation older (or even 2 or 3) camera body on Craigslist.

I purchased a Canon 70-200 f/4 L lens for $500 - 12 years ago along with my Canon 20D body. Today - the Canon 20D is a paperweight, worthless and on Craigslist I could still expect to get $450 for the lens on the used market.

 

I know this thread is dealing with digital cameras, and I use digital cameras. But for years, I used Canon cameras, until I had two Canon AE-1s stolen. This was before digitals got popular, and it was back in the late 1990s. I replaced the two AE-1s with a Canon Élan II film camera. I used the Élan on a trip to England and Scotland in 2000, and it was great! But haven't used it at all since my first digital. That reminds me, I should take the battery out the Élan.

 

And my favorite from the trip. I was blown away with how beautiful the landscape is in California/Arizona/ Nevada.

And agree completely that it is (almost ) all in the lenses. Full frame and good glass where the reason for the jump, not a Canon is better than Nikon thing. They both do superb lenses

 

No need to excuse yourself. If photography was my profession or hobby I would probably have known all of that but it isn't and I didn't.
After buying my Globemaster I wanted to see how it would look up close and just stumbled into my local camera shop and allowed myself to be talked into the Micro-Nikkor instead of actually doing my homework and choosing something more suitable. Here's a good link that pretty much describes my experience:-
http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/40mm-f28.htm
“Great for everything except macro”

or this one:-
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-40mm-f2-8g-micro/6
"The biggest weakness of the Nikon 40mm f/2.8G DX, in my opinion, is its short focal length when shooting macro."

For non-macro work I'm pretty happy with it.

 

I have Nikon D7100 and love it. I will go for NIKON all day!

 

So nice he said it twice...

 

Of course there's a reason there are several focal lengths for close-up. I own the 40, the 60 and the 105. I used to have the 70-180 and access to a 200. It's called working distance. I entirely disagree with the idea the 40 isn't ideal for close-up - it depends on what you're photographing.

For copying artwork it's flat field of focus - as opposed to ordinary lenses which have a curving field of focus - it's great. Recording stamps, coins or watches there is no down side as I see it. At near focus there is around 40 mm of working distance from the front lens.

Of course if you are recording small animals a tele macro lens is needed.

They are very specific tools and not designed for general photography even though they can be. I bought the 40 strictly to put on a D90 for shooting watches in my hand or on my wrist because I found the 60 too long. For the price - I bought a used one on the 'bay for less than $150US - it's a killer little lens.

 

Nikon bodies accumulated over time:

F3
D70s
D90
D700

Shoot only the D90 and D700 these days.

For watches usually with a 105mm Micro Nikkor.

 

Do you still have some Kodachrome in the freezer?

 

I'll keep that in mind, thanks. And here I was looking all over for 40mm on this one. Duh.

 

Here are a few shots from my D90. I always forget what does what and hence decent pictures are just blind luck for me.

 

damn i just bought micro 40mm to take pictures of watches anyone have any recommendations?

 

Yeah. Use it to take pictures of watches. It works just fine for that.

 

a 40 is fine but I would have invested on a 60 or 100mm

 

which 60? can you post a link?

 

I was hoping to be able to take a macro shot over the rim of the bezel up to the center of the dial with everything in focus. Is that just wishful thinking or actually possible? What set up could achieve that?

 

Tiny aperture, long exposure, fast lens, = better depth of field.