jolahern Offline Image Upload: Off
|
p.1 #6 · Considering a D3 move | |
Moved from a 5D and 1D MKIIN to a D3 and D700, reason for moving is I wanted to have a better set up for weddings.
LIKES;
High ISO performance, in side by side tests with the 1D MKIII I found then identical up to 1600, after that I would have to use noise ninja on the MKIII files to get similar results.
The D700 is a great back up to the D3, control are near identical, sensor and AF are the same and the D700 can use the D3's battery bringing the frame rate up to 8 fps.
Nikon flash system is way ahead, very accurate and consistent results. You can use the D700 in commander mode to fire off remote flashes and control every thing from the back of the screen, frees up a flash unit and saves having to buy and expensive accessory to do this.
AF seems great to me, better than the 1D MKIIN
Controls on Nikons bodies is excellent, the only time I go into the menu is to turn auto-ISO off, after my first few seconds with the D3 I was able to shoot away, the 1D MKIII cause an initial few problems for me when I first start off, and I was coming from the 1D MKIIN
Full frame and speed, my ideal camera was a combination of the 5D and 1D MKIIN, and the D3 is that and more.
Auto ISO, great feature, just set the minimum shutter speed and maximum ISO and forget about it, as the Nikon metering and high ISO is so good you can just forget about ISO.
SB-900, love the way nikon give you and excellent carry case with diffuser, gel filters and a holder these.
DISLIKES
No 16-35mm II equivalent, the 17-35mm is very hard to get, I got the 14-24mm, brilliant optical quality but you can't use filters, a pain for somebody like myself who shots landscape, I can see myself getting the 17-35mm because of this.
No 35mm f/1.4, I got the 85mm f/1.4 and love it (a lot cheaper than getting the Canon 85mm f/1.2), would love a equal fast wider lens.
Skin tones in photoshop, I found the Canon skin tones better when processing through Adobe Camera RAW, the Nikon files seem more yellow, the new profiles you can select helps a lot, I use the Nikon Neutral profile and find it helps not only on skin tones but also on landscapes so the green and blues don't look too plastic.
I had the Canon 300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4 at one time, wished I could have carried both of them at once. I sold the 300mm because I could not afford to keep it, and during the switch the 500mm funded the switch. I'm looking to pick up the 200-400mm down the line as a replacement, I used this lens briefly once and loved it, another reason why I switched.
I don't find the Nikon 70-200 to be as good as the Canon version, there is slight vignetting but nothing a bit post processing can take care off, it is more a sharpness thing, I notice is more in landscape shots, but not in portraits. I would rate the Nikon 8/10, the Canon 9/10 (10/10 would be for the 300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4). It won't cost you money and people won't notice the difference in prints.
John
|