form wrote:
I never left Canon, I just tried the other side by testing the lenses I would personally use the most on one of the best Nikon cameras out there that I could afford. I don't see anything wrong or stupid about that decision, it was just fairly expensive.
It's a decision often made by Canon and Nikon shooters. They just don't make a big announcement about it.
form wrote:
How much would it have cost me to rent all the pieces every time I needed them? Camera, two lenses...at least $280 each rental
No ... you put the equipment through its paces on one rental period. Shooting one or two weddings with the gear plus doing additional tests around your home and then looking closely at the resultant files and you would have uncovered all the main problems you found.
After reading through all of this... I'm tempted to just tell you outright, you bought the wrong body for the type of shooting you had planned on, AND, you shot it in some cases in a really bad choice of combinations.
You were way better off with a either a D3s or D4 given your described issues and scenarios. I too shot Canon for what seems like a millennium. Starting off with a manual body up to my F1. Your concerns over service/quality I can assure you are not bound to the Nikon brand.
But any way you want to justify making a move to whatever body system you choose is great. Disgruntled hardware people make the worst pictures.
And lastly, your methods of proving ANY system leave a crater of room for error and speculation. All these pixel morons throughout the web that pucker up daily to examine each and every flaw and oversight made by the manufacturers and report ad nauseaum... They're as full of it as your initial assessment.
form wrote:
Sony doesn't have a big enough selection and their sensors are also IMO unacceptable (in other ways r/t noise handling). I am dissatisfied with Canon's autofocus performance overall, BUT I am more satisfied with their one-shot center point accuracy than with Nikon's with backlit subjects. I am also not very satisfied with Canon sensors, but I am very satisfied with their customer service, I am more satisfied with their live view than with Nikon's, I am more satisfied with their ergonomics than with Nikon's (ability to change ISO, white balance, etc., with one hand instead of needing two, plus I like that silly wheel on the back of Canon cameras), and I am definitely more satisfied with both the aesthetics and function of the Canon prime lenses from 35mm through 135mm (although my personal experience with 24, 50 and 135 are only on the Canon side, these are also focal lengths I don't use often).
I am still disgusted and appalled at how comparatively little camera Canon gives for the cost of $3300 as compared to what Nikon gives for $2800...because the Nikon gives much better dynamic range up to ISO1600, more resolution and detail retention, a generally more complete useful feature set including active-point spot metering and exposure compensation with Auto ISO, and a nice eyepiece magnifier...while the 5d3's only real advantages are 2 fps faster max burst (full frame) and some cross-type outer focus points.
Basically, the 5d3 is 2/3 stop better noise control than the 5d2 and has more focus points...and the price is literally more than doubled just for those two features (while taking away changeable focus screens and making the focus points not light up right)...and this move in itself really encouraged me to try Nikon. If Canon had set the price for this camera at $2700 OR gave great dynamic range with no pattern noise, then I would say the camera is a great value...
Not very nice of you to edit your post and remove the "10" sentence. I could not understand some answers but luckily FM foum allows you to see the previous and original post.
The 85 1.8G's bokeh is "horrid" because it's perfect ? That's the point where I stopped taking this post seriously. He's not happy with Canon or Nikon. Well there's lots of other companies to go through, at least one of them must be up to the OP's level of discrimination.
Good luck with that.
"Photographers", and I am using the term loosely, seem to waste too much time on immaterial BS like this. I too get caught up in it as well. Pick a tool, learn every conceivable nuance of it, and stick with it. It appears that the manufacturers have done a great job of programming us!
form wrote:
Basically, the 5d3 is 2/3 stop better noise control than the 5d2 and has more focus points...and the price is literally more than doubled just for those two features (while taking away changeable focus screens and making the focus points not light up right)...and this move in itself really encouraged me to try Nikon. If Canon had set the price for this camera at $2700 OR gave great dynamic range with no pattern noise, then I would say the camera is a great value...
Basically, you either did not try a 5d3, or the one you did try was broke! Basically, the 5d series went from a somewhat inferior body with what could easily be described as an inferior ability to focus with anything but the center point to a body that retained a similar sensor(which was a pretty decent thing)and combined it with a more robust body and a focus system that is literally leaps and bounds better than its predecessor.
Anyway, if you have not tried the x, I would suggest that as your next stop. It really can't miss with those very lenses you are going home to, or for that matter about any lens you stick on the end of it!
Greg...Show more →
Personally I don't consider a troll someone who writes out detailed reasons for making a choice. A troll would be saying, "Nikons suck!" without any reasoning just to get reactions. Clearly this person has reasons for making a decision about one specific camera and two specific lenses whether anyone may agree with them or not. Oh well.. it doesn't really affect any of us and I don't really see any good reason for insults, hurt feewings or waving your member around. Though I also don't see the need for the OP to create two separate threads about it. I think one would suffice.
MikeW wrote:
You are shooting weddings with a camera that has 36mp with prime lenses wide open & you are surprised at the result.
Why don't you rent a D700, D3 or a D4 & try again with those lenses. Bad combo to declare nikon lenses blow imo.
I'd consider canon if the cameras weren't so damn ugly, yes I'm vain :P
It's not just the image quality, it's more so the focus. 36mp or 12mp wouldn't affect the focus. It's not that the lenses blow, I just 1. don't like the 85's bokeh (although I like the 35's bokeh), 2. the 35 focuses too slow in all environments for me since I am accustomed to the Canon 35L's much faster focusing and I missed a number of shots with the 35g specifically because of slow focus, 3. both lenses seemed to have some difficulty with subjects near hyperfocal distance (frequently misfocusing slightly in front or back but not as often right on target), 4. both lenses pretty consistently backfocused on backlit subjects in many situations where my Canon stuff did not exhibit the same problem.
Maybe different technique would yield better results (I have a history of difficulty with getting reliable focus out of cameras that have options for AF tracking acquisition and retention, maybe their sensors are made differently), but I guess I have "canon 5d2" technique...it's possible that I might even have focus problems with a 5d3 that I don't currently have with my 5d2 because of certain habits I grew accustomed to over years.
I shoot nearly wide open often because 1. I deal with lots of dark environments, 2. I like the look of selective focus that reduces the distracting nature of other objects in the frame and makes it easier for the eyes to lock onto the intended point of interest...as long as that point of interest is in focus.
And I'm not passing full judgment on all lenses by any means...I just use 35 and 85 about 95% of the time, so those are naturally the two focal lengths I would be most critically assessing (and also the two I would try out first).
I can well understand that the Nikon interface is problematic for Canon users. Cameras are more like computer or smart phones these days. I have used a friends D800 for a couple of months now, when I ask him what he is doing with these funny Abcd menus he is just scratching his head
BenV wrote:
I stopped reading at "First off, the 85 f/1.8g's background blur is just horrid...because it's perfect, it's uninteresting, it's blah."
Enjoy whatever system you leave to. You won't be missed.
I pretty clearly pointed out that bokeh appeal is subjective. I like imperfect bokeh. In some cases I even like bokeh most people would consider ugly...although I don't like Canon 50 f/1.4 bokeh.
