OK, color me impressed. As a former Canon user, I'm in the process of waiting/switching to the Nikon D300. I've been keeping my Canon stuff, and quietly acquiring some Nikon lenses and such.
One lens I got was a used 70-200 VR, and I had to try it. So, I picked up a simple D40 and gave it a try at my son's football game on Sunday, not expecting much from such a cheap body. Was I ever wrong.
I've tried a lot of Canon cameras for sports... have shot the D30, 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D, 1D, 1DMk2N all with the 70-200L (both f4 IS and f2.8 non-IS). And nothing gave me results like this... even the high-priced 1D bodies. I'm sure it was mostly the lens, but I didn't expect to be this impressed with the difference.
I've always been a little frustrated with Canon. Using their best glass and their best pro bodies, I should have gotten better results. The detail just hasn't been there. On vacations shooting RAW, I've tried to get my images to look like what I saw in the viewfinder. Something has always been missing. Eventually, the specs of the D300 autofocus and the better flash system (Canon's flash exposure is random and awful) caused me to pull the trigger and switch.
I've shot the same way on all systems. Canon had AI-Servo with the center point active. Same with the D40. I got more keepers with the D40 than I did with the 1D bodies. How is that possible?
The best part was the detail. Try as I may, I couln't get facial expressions or the crisp details with the Canons, but I saw it immediately with the Nikon. All images have that Velvia-like film quality that I couldn't get with the Canon... or couldn't discover in PP.
Here are a few notable samples from the weekend using the D40 and the 70-200 VR at f2.8:
My Canon 70-200L I had to turn down to f3.5 or f4 to get the sharpness I wanted. The f4 IS, I shot wide open. Still not as good with facial details and always got blown highlights/dark shadows that were hard to clean up in PP.
Here's the best of the 40D shots in similar conditions, similar lens (40D with 70-200 f4 IS):
And of course, the 40D didn't have as many "keepers." Thinking the sun conditions might have hurt me in the past, I shot with the Nikon on both the sun and shade sides of the field, and got really good ones both places. With the Canon, if you shoot on the shade side, you get no faces at all... just a mask of shadow.
Anyway, initially I felt kinda bad dumping Canon, but the results I'm seeing in the images I'm getting have convinced me that I made the right move.
I enjoyed reading about your experience with the D40 because I have one coming tomorrow. I plan on putting my 200mm f/2 VR lens on it...talk about a mis-match But I figure it's worth a shot especially since my 200mm lens has AF-S.
I'll give it a whirl this week in a dimly lit gym. Hope I get similar results as you did there with your field shots.
Lisa have you seen this around the web yet. I think this picture is the bomb! What a combo. Im getting closer to this lovely piece of glass. I have to wait and see what my budget says after I finish building my studio/office. Hopefully in a month I should know. Post some pics. I still love my 70-200, but know the 200VR will be a breath of fresh air with focus speed.
Oh my! The little D40 looks like the end cap for that lens! Too funny! I'm going to still give it a whirl though, can't wait. I'll post some pics if I get some keepers.
Hi Cubfan
I just did the same thing switching from Canon 5D 20D 10D 70-200 L IS 85 1.2 and so on.............Sold it all
Nikon D300 here I come
I could never place the reason in my mind but when you said Velvia-like film quality......That is why I am going to Nikon you just cant get that film like quality from Canon.
grosema wrote:
I could never place the reason in my mind but when you said Velvia-like film quality......That is why I am going to Nikon you just cant get that film like quality from Canon.
I can't tell you how many times in shooting a wedding and getting underexposed or blown out shots back-to-back of the same subject that I cursed the flash system. Had to shoot RAW just to adjust exposure. At the same time, Nikon friends get spot-on exposure every time.
In the Canon and Nikon forums, Canon users point at Nikon shots since the D100 and call the color and IQ "flat." I would say, dang... looks real to me. Like film.
Then I took my Canons on a big trip to Maui, and still can't get the RAW processed to look like what I saw in the camera. Bugs the heck out of me... incredible images that I can't get to look like I want.
One week with the cheapest Nikon now available, and I'm sold. Color, dynamic range, highlights not blown, exposure consistent, and rock solid flash exposure (though recycle time and battery performance not as good), and the glass is stellar. I can shoot JPG again.
Still feels "icky" because I always saw Nikons and Nikon-users as snobby-snots (no offense, please, since I'm one now). Have used Canons since the AE1 and A1 with the old FD mount when I was a kid. I've shot for newspapers and magazines with Canons. And I see all the white lenses at ballgames.
I'll be OK, though. I do have a fellow FMer who is going to trade his white/grey 70-200 VR for mine so I can feel better.
I am glad after selling my three canon bodies, instead of buying a D5 I bought a D 200. My D 20 could'nt do better than my Olypus P/S. I get a kick when someone on this board tells a prospecive canon switcher " oh both companies make good cameras and its only a tool and you can make good images with either....yah right." I find so many nikon advantages to list all. Sharp sharp ...images, ergnomics, dust free with similar usage, superlative kit lenses and on and on....
I don't wanna totally trash Canon. I've gotten some stellar images over the years. I just couldn't consistently get the color the way I like things. Maybe if I were better in the PP department, I'd have been able to stay. But I think it might have something to do with the AA filter.
Here's one good one I got with the 20D in Maui on the Road to Hana (Tokina 12-24). The Canon's work much better in the shade or when the sun is behind thin clouds. Don't ask me why. Hard sunlight blows it every time for me. This one I got lucky that the sun diminished a bit...
the only thing that annoys me is the lag of the D40. it seems like it is very slow to change aperture or shutter speeds. when you rotate the wheel, it seems to take a second to react, and that bothers me a lot.
next to a few other nikon stuff i also have a D40 and i love it. Somehow the IQ seems to be spectaculair and the camera works like a charm. Only downside for me is the lacking top lcd. I hate to see those go. But apart from that i love the little camera. You'll have a blast mounting a 28-70 on it too here in europe you can get that one in white/grey too!
Clubfan, great shots regardless of camera. That waterfall too is a terrific shot.
Did you not find the AF system on the D40 was too slow for football? I have toyed with the idea of buying my wife a D40, but if the 3-zone AF is usable for sports would make a fun lightweight 2nd or 3rd body at the games...
You know though, you very rarely hear much negative about that little D40... although it's certainly not a higher-end sports body like the 40D...
dj dunzie wrote:
Did you not find the AF system on the D40 was too slow for football?...
I thought it wouldn't be able to keep up, but it really did fine. In fact, as I think I said, it outdid the 40D I had used earlier... and did better than every XXD Canon model I've owned. Of course, I think most of it was the lens working quickly, and would depend on using a pretty fast AF-S lens.
R. Francois wrote:
You'll have a blast mounting a 28-70 on it too. Here in europe you can get that one in white/grey too!
Wish I could afford it. Nikon glass is expensive... about 30% more expensive than Canon, I would say. I actually wanna go lighter this time. Though I had the 24-70L on the Canon, I didn't like the weight. For the Nikon, I've got the Tamron 28-75, and don't think I'll miss much in sharpness and performance.
Of course, the autofocus on that lens won't work on my D40, but I can wait. Got the kit lens until my D300 is ready.
But I figure it's worth a shot especially since my 200mm lens has AF-S.
here in europe you can get that one in white/grey too!