Okay, didn't think I'd do this - especially after just recently picking up a 50D, but the work I've been seeing at high ISO with the D3 is amazing. No, I can't afford a D3 - but a D300 is maybe doable.
My current equipment is:
Canon 50D
Sigma 120-300 2.8
Canon 70-200 2.8
And the rest of the usuall stuff. What Nikon gear would you recommend? I'm a sports shooter - would you say get the Sigma 120-300 in a Nikon mount? What's the Nikon lens to replace my Canon 70-200?
Or, am I just trying to get pictures that this level of a camera is simply not going to do?
Is your 70-200mm usm or just is....if usm the nikkor 70-200mm and if it is is the 80-200mm nikkor....would be the two counterparts...
the 120-300.....that would probably translate into the same lens in nikon camp....I would tell you to pick up any of the 200mm F2 nikkors...if you do not want manual focus make sure it is AF...
Also....I have been wanting to try Canon...and might be willing to trade for some stuff...to make things work...let me know...
The D300 will focus better than the xxD series. I have used both. The 300 f/4 AF-S is great and IQ with a 1.4 TC is marvelous. The 70-200 f/2.8 VR is a great lens on the D300. I personally wouldn't want it on an FX sensor because of the vignetting and corner sharpness issues I've seen.
You've got a very good Canon body and two excellent lenses. I'd say unless you were convinced the move to Nikon is a must-do, it'd be tough to justify the loss you're going to take in selling and re-buying. On the other hand, if you can find a potential trade with someone at making the opposite move, maybe you can get lucky.
For what it's worth though, the Nikon equivalent to the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS is the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR. Same deal, similar price, similar optic (although it's been reported by some that the Nikkor is superior). There is a 120-300mm f2.8 EX Sigma in Nikon mount, so that should be an easy replacement too.
If you're TRULY looking for high ISO performance though, you'd be best to shop for a D700 instead of the D300. It's basically the D3 sensor in a D300 body if you can simplify things that much. While the D300 is likely fairly similar to the 50D in terms of low-light performance, the D700 is a step ahead, and on even ground with the D3.
Still, you'd really need to convince yourself switching brands over one generation of bodies is in your best interest. Why not get your hands on a D300 or D700 somehow for a day or two and play around with one. Even a rental of body and lens could be a worthwhile investment in your decision making ability.
Yeah I'd agree with DJ, I just sold a 50D and Mark III to pick up the D700. This camera rocks. No noise, I do miss the crop factor. I will be picking up the Sigma soon. I had it for Canon and it was an awesome lens. The 24-70 and 70-200 in the Nikon are better than the Canon equivalents, unbelievable as that sounds, and I had good copies of the Canon.
Thanx for the thoughts on the D700. It seems to me that the D700 shared alot of things in common with the Canon 5D? Going full frame isn't really my big push.
What I want is better focusing - It's been indicated the Nikon does have better focusing, especially in A1 servo. And sharpness at higher ISO (my 50D is not bad at 3200, kind of useable at 6400 - useless at 12800)
The D700 is positioned a little differently than the 5D the way I see things. In the 5D I see more of a still photography camera, with great IQ but a lesser AF system, build, handling, speed, etc. The D700 - like the D300 - shares the same basic AF system as the top-line D3 (no joke). I couldn't shoot with the 5D or 5DII for this very reason. The D700 can do 8FPS with the grip, and shares basically the same build and controls as the D300.
dj dunzie wrote:
The D700 is positioned a little differently than the 5D the way I see things. In the 5D I see more of a still photography camera, with great IQ but a lesser AF system, build, handling, speed, etc. The D700 - like the D300 - shares the same basic AF system as the top-line D3 (no joke). I couldn't shoot with the 5D or 5DII for this very reason. The D700 can do 8FPS with the grip, and shares basically the same build and controls as the D300.
I know, it's insane how fast this camera shoots with the grip, I can't imagine what the D3 is like. I know it's not, but the D700 sounds faster than my Mark III did.
I've read that b/c of the way the cross type AF points are clustered in the middle on the D3/D700, using the corner AF points can be problematic in low light / low contrast shooting.
I know all cameras stuggle to an extent, however I can say since all 19 points on my 1D MKIII are cross type, it excels in those conditions.
Any thoughts?
Been pondering about the D700 for quite some time now but this is holding me back since I do a lot of avaliable light and indoor shooting.
Nick - I do the same kind of shooting - and it's mostly HS football/basketball. Not exactly the mecca of good light. It's also why I'm considering a move.
A MKIII is out of the question, simply can't afford that big of a step up. I've been scouting MKII for awhile. I THINK that the the D700 is a good step up from the MKII for about the same $$. I'm wondering if the D300 is in that same ballpark - am I going to enjoy it more than my 50D?
What I will give VERY good reviews on the 50D is user friendliness. Finding stuff on it is a snap. I'm a little concerned having to learn a new camera.
Nick Nishizaka wrote:
I've read that b/c of the way the cross type AF points are clustered in the middle on the D3/D700, using the corner AF points can be problematic in low light / low contrast shooting.
I know all cameras stuggle to an extent, however I can say since all 19 points on my 1D MKIII are cross type, it excels in those conditions.
Any thoughts?
Been pondering about the D700 for quite some time now but this is holding me back since I do a lot of avaliable light and indoor shooting.
Last weekend, I used my D700 at an outdoor wedding of a co-worker (no, not a paid gig, just for fun, thank you). When it got dark, my D700 struggled to get the AF to work reliably. Even with the SB-800 that provided assist light, using a 24-70mm f/2.8 and ISO 1600, since it was outdoor, I got a fair share of OOF shots . And that in a single shot mode... When the availble light was still pretty good, it worked just great. I didn't have any problems with indoors, on the other hand. Somehow, it was the outdoor setting that somehow tricked the camera... Just my experience, YMMV.
I take it it was getting quite dark when the AF was struggling? It struggled even with the center AF point?
Hmm... I mean there's a limitation to everything. Even my 1D MKIII will struggle when things get dark enough :-)
But in reaosnable "darkess" it still does well, and it's pretty damn fast acquiring focus, even on non-center points, although the center point is extra sensitive and VERY fast.
Makes me think about all this...
AGeoJO wrote:
Last weekend, I used my D700 at an outdoor wedding of a co-worker (no, not a paid gig, just for fun, thank you). When it got dark, my D700 struggled to get the AF to work reliably. Even with the SB-800 that provided assist light, using a 24-70mm f/2.8 and ISO 1600, since it was outdoor, I got a fair share of OOF shots . And that in a single shot mode... When the availble light was still pretty good, it worked just great. I didn't have any problems with indoors, on the other hand. Somehow, it was the outdoor setting that somehow tricked the camera... Just my experience, YMMV....Show more →
Yes, it got dark alright when it was struggling. In one case, I took 4 shots of practically the same (posed) scene since I noticed the AF hunted; only one was in focus. Again, I tested in a reasonably big room, even it was dark, as long as there is contrast of the object, the AF assist light of the flash worked like a charm and made the camera focus properly. Just outdoor... it seems. At least, I know now what to expect. I can't tell you whether my 1Ds MkIII would struggle under the same condition, however.
I'm also considering a switch. I'm using a pair of 40D's, so there's not a lot of money tied up in bodies. Lots of glass, however... Much of what I do is indoor, music performance. Low light, some with stage lighting, otherwise in dark clubs. Higher than 1600 iso would be very nice. The d700 photos I've seen are quite impressive, and the overall utility of the camera is much more to my liking than the 5dMkII I had been waiting for. If I went to Nikon it would be with a d300 and a d700. But I've got some questions.
Is the d300 usable at iso 1600 and above, more so than a Canon 40d? Until Nikon revamps the 70-200/2.8 VR, I'd be hesitant to use it on the full frame d700 as the vignetting is pretty obvious; that means the long zoom would be on the d300. Would this be any better than the results from a 40d and the Canon 70-200/2.8 IS? The other lenses I use heavily now on the 1.6x crop camera are the 10-22, and the 17-55IS. The 24-70 isn't as useful for me on the crop cameras. On a full frame, it'd be a different story. With a d700 in the mix I'd get the 17-35 and 24-70/2.8 Nikkors; the 14-24 would come later down the road. Throw in a 50/1.4, 85/1.4, and a TC-14 and I'd be almost all set. I'll miss the 24/1.4L until Nikon releases some faster wide primes.
Nikon's long glass is more expensive than Canon's, with one exception that would be important to me: 200/2, where the Nikon is considerably less costly. I don't use anything longer than 300mm.
Like Nick, I want to know if the d300 and d700 focus more accurately than the non-1 series Canons. I rarely use the center point. Are there any aspects of the d300 and d700 that do not measure up to the xxD Canons?
James R wrote:
Not sure [the AF performance of] a D700 should be compared to an 8K 1Ds3.
But don't the D700 and the D3 have the same AF system? If so, then it seems fair to compare Nikon's flagship to Canon's (the result of which comparison usually makes the Canon look fairly overpriced!).
I think a distinction should be made between the D3/D700 and the D300 when the subject is high-ISO noise. The OP, for example, was attracted to Nikon by the low-noise performance of the D3 but then I think he said he'd be getting a D300, which from what I've seen doesn't perform noticeably better at 1600 or 3200 than the Canon counterpart (40D).
There are plenty of good reasons to switch, but to me with both the D700 and the D300, those reasons involve feature sets, design, and build quality, not significantly better performance at high ISOs than Canon offers.
As far as I know, the 1D MKIII and the 1Ds MKIII has the same AF system, so at least to me this is very helpful information! James R wrote:
Not sure a D700 should be compared to an 8K 1Ds3.
I hear you man!
I think since Nikon as 2 kick-butt FF bodies now, they will indeed eventually push out more AF-S primes. That's one area where Canon is better I think, though from what I can see the 35 2, 50 1.4, and 85 1.4 are VERY nice lenses.
Like you, I don't anticipate needing anything longer than 300mm, and it looks like the 200mm VR takes the 1.4x TC very well.
As for the 70-200VR, I don't know. I think the vignetting doesn't look that bad...certainly not anything worse than what you would get on a Canon FF, no?
I think if you are comparing the D700 to the xxD Canons, there's just no question about it. The D700 wins out. All indications are that despite all the marketing hype, the 50D is no better at high ISO than the 40D. The D700 seems to be at least as good as the upcoming 5D MKII, which puts it around 1/2 stop to a full stop better than my 1D MKIII, which is quite impressive.
But again, it comes down to the cross type AF cluster in the D700...
Jim Levitt wrote:
I'm also considering a switch. I'm using a pair of 40D's, so there's not a lot of money tied up in bodies. Lots of glass, however... Much of what I do is indoor, music performance. Low light, some with stage lighting, otherwise in dark clubs. Higher than 1600 iso would be very nice. The d700 photos I've seen are quite impressive, and the overall utility of the camera is much more to my liking than the 5dMkII I had been waiting for. If I went to Nikon it would be with a d300 and a d700. But I've got some questions.
Is the d300 usable at iso 1600 and above, more so than a Canon 40d? Until Nikon revamps the 70-200/2.8 VR, I'd be hesitant to use it on the full frame d700 as the vignetting is pretty obvious; that means the long zoom would be on the d300. Would this be any better than the results from a 40d and the Canon 70-200/2.8 IS? The other lenses I use heavily now on the 1.6x crop camera are the 10-22, and the 17-55IS. The 24-70 isn't as useful for me on the crop cameras. On a full frame, it'd be a different story. With a d700 in the mix I'd get the 17-35 and 24-70/2.8 Nikkors; the 14-24 would come later down the road. Throw in a 50/1.4, 85/1.4, and a TC-14 and I'd be almost all set. I'll miss the 24/1.4L until Nikon releases some faster wide primes.
Nikon's long glass is more expensive than Canon's, with one exception that would be important to me: 200/2, where the Nikon is considerably less costly. I don't use anything longer than 300mm.
Like Nick, I want to know if the d300 and d700 focus more accurately than the non-1 series Canons. I rarely use the center point. Are there any aspects of the d300 and d700 that do not measure up to the xxD Canons?...Show more →
I think you will notice a difference between the Nikon and Canon autofocus. The Nikons don't feel as responsive to me. The focus tends to move around a little more and spends a little more time thinking about it. For me the Canon had a snappier response time and doesn't seem as affected by objects passing in front of your subject. Nikon has different settings for this but several photographers I know have turned them off because they feel the camera focuses much faster even if it has to jump back and forth. Of course there are plenty of issues with several of the Canon Mark III's but when they work they work great.
. And that in a single shot mode... When the availble light was still pretty good, it worked just great. I didn't have any problems with indoors, on the other hand. Somehow, it was the outdoor setting that somehow tricked the camera... Just my experience, YMMV.