Skyehigh wrote:
I switched from Canon a few months ago for the D700 and will move back again when new 1DS comes out . Not impressed by D700 or Nikon glass
Personally, after switching brands, I would give it longer than a few months and actually learn the system/camera. The results in your gallery can easily be replicated using Nikon or Canon. Pulling it out of box, shooting a few shots and writing it off without giving it much time seems pretty retarded.
parsons wrote:
as a canon shooter, i find these examples hideous of the canon brand, especially the first gallery of scotland.
that sort of tat can be created with a point and shoot, if you have swicthed from canon to nikon and going back again, save some serious money, get a P&S and get some photography lessons
simon
canon shooter with a nikon 14-24
Simon, naughty naughty..... but kind of exactly what I was thinking. They are not what I'd be showing as examples of why I switched.
I'm surprised by the comments from Skye... "I am convinced my photos look better from a Canon camera , i have hardly used the D700 since I got it , lost any enthusiasm I had since I bought Nikon and I know it will be costly but I prefer it"
Seriously, you might think your images are better on the Canon and they very well might be... but "have hardly used the D700".
Shot a series of Canon DSLRs since 2003; 10D, Rebels, 20D, 1D, 1D MKII. Used the best L lenses. Have put 30K shots through a D700, also using top glass. No doubt in my mind, I prefer the Nikon and very glad I moved in this direction.
Not to be provocative, but it might be interesting (for comparisons sake) to post a variant of this on the Canon board - asking why people who were considering a shift to Nikon ultimately choose not to (not to mention getting input from ex-Nikon shooters). Might get a more nuanced evaluation that way - posting here alone kind of gaurantees a pro-Nikon result.
orangefirefish wrote:
1) Bodies- The 1d mark III gives great image quality but can't focus on crap.
Horsesh1t and you know it - you might not be able to get it to focus, but most folk seem to do just fine...
The AF system of the D700 is the same as the D3, and the D300 is not far behind.
And yet the 40D's AF is every bit as good in the Real World as (and in some ways better than) that of the D300 - so maybe the gap between the best Nikon can do and Canon's AF isn't as big as some would like us to believe...
keithreeder wrote:
Horsesh1t and you know it - you might not be able to get it to focus, but most folk seem to do just fine...
You must of never owned a 1D mkIII then. I went through 3 of them. First two where when they came out and before the sub mirror fix was done. Useless out of the box. 3rd one was later and useable but still not very consistant. 1D mkII worked much better overall.
Of course you don't have to take my word for it, theres always Rob Galbraiths in depth write up of focus issues, the fact that theres been a ton of other sports shooters who have all switched, including USA Today, Sports Illustrated etc, the thousands of threads you can find about the AF issues or the very fact that Canon itself is still issuing service bulletins about the AF performance.
So where are the "most folks" that seem to belive it works fine
Every Canon shooting peer I know isn't thrilled with the camera, admits its got some issues, and are all just waiting to see what Canon brings out next because not everyone has the luxury to be able to afford a switch to Nikon.
Lots of people have though, and often at great cost, myself included, and trust me, thats not a move people took lightly. I didn't switch because it would be fun or I wanted to rebuy all my glass in the Nikon mount, I did it because the D3 simply worked better.
Tried a D3 against my 1D mk3 at the same events, side by side and the D3 produced far more in focus shots with better exposure and less noise, and by a large enough margin I couldnt be happy shooting Canon anymore.
millsart wrote:
Every Canon shooting peer I know isn't thrilled with the camera, admits its got some issues, and are all just waiting to see what Canon brings out next because not everyone has the luxury to be able to afford a switch to Nikon.
Lots of people have though, and often at great cost, myself included, and trust me, thats not a move people took lightly. I didn't switch because it would be fun or I wanted to rebuy all my glass in the Nikon mount, I did it because the D3 simply worked better.
Tried a D3 against my 1D mk3 at the same events, side by side and the D3 produced far more in focus shots with better exposure and less noise, and by a large enough margin I couldnt be happy shooting Canon anymore....Show more →
I agree with everything you say here.
I did get my Mark III back from Canon for the last fix on Thursday and will try and test but cannot trust it for a figure skating competition this weekend, July 10-12 so I'll be using a D3 and D700 to cover this event.
Will try the Mark III and 300 f/2.8 for practice and warm-ups but I just can't take a chance on the Canon AF performing at the same level of the D3.
just thinking about the comments above regarding the mk3 canon,
whilst watching wimbledon this week and todays final, from about 60 photogs on the side lines and in the upper areas,
id say 85% where canon super teles atached to the mk3. with a few black nikons in between!
so iam guessing that focus issues arent a real problem any more
Actually, I am one of those folks who now feels his 1D III works fine. I think it's significant that those who insist that the 1D III is irretrieveably screwed as a camera are people who haven't had (or didn't wait around for) the most recent AF fix. Don't get me wrong, I can completely understand why one would get frustrated & give up - especially if professional reputation is at stake. But I do find it strange that many of those same people seem to be incapable of accepting that some people - people who are not fools, incompetents, or uncritical fanboys - have been pleased with the results of the latest AF fix.
globalkiwi wrote:
Actually, I am one of those folks who now feels his 1D III works fine. I think it's significant that those who insist that the 1D III is irretrieveably screwed as a camera are people who haven't had (or didn't wait around for) the most recent AF fix. Don't get me wrong, I can completely understand why one would get frustrated & give up - especially if professional reputation is at stake. But I do find it strange that many of those same people seem to be incapable of accepting that some people - people who are not fools, incompetents, or uncritical fanboys - have been pleased with the results of the latest AF fix. ...Show more →
I'd very glad to hear that its improved with the recent firmwares. Its a fine camera had it been able to focus a bit better.
However, how long of process was it to get it to the point where it was usable ? I simply couldnt shoot all of last years football season with gear that didnt perform. I switched to Nikon before the season started and got the best results ever.
A working 1D mkIII would of done the job as well, dont get me wrong, but the D3 would still have the edge in terms of high ISO performance for night games etc
For those that could stick with their Canon gear as I said, I'm very happy to hear your now satisfied, but you have to understand that some people simply couldn't put up with gear that didnt work correctly for over a year while Canon tried and tried to sort out the bugs
parsons wrote:
just thinking about the comments above regarding the mk3 canon,
whilst watching wimbledon this week and todays final, from about 60 photogs on the side lines and in the upper areas,
id say 85% where canon super teles atached to the mk3. with a few black nikons in between!
so iam guessing that focus issues arent a real problem any more
s
Where you in the media room though seeing how many slightly OOF frames those shooters were getting ?
I used a mkIII for a full year of sports before going to the D3. Even with its issues it got the job done, just gave me way more missed frames that I would of liked. Its not like every shot was bad, it got its keepers, but on a touchdown run for example, I'd get something like OOF, sharp, sharp, OOF, sharp, OOF etc
Sometimes that OOF frame was the one that would of been the best position of the player, defender etc.
with the D3 its more like sharp, sharp, sharp, sharp, sharp lol
As I said before, switching to the D3 from Canon was a luxury not everyone can do. Lots of people have to suck it up and use what they've got.
Given the newspaper industry do you really think that many papers that are laying off 30% of staff are really going to switch to all new Nikon gear ?
Places like SI of course had that luxury.
Just because you see people still using something doesn't mean its the best. I know people at smaller papers who still shoot with Nikon D100's. A pretty bad camera overall, and far inferior to whats on the market now but its all the more some people got.
We'd all love the latest and greatest but aren't all in a position to justify it.
millsart wrote:
For those that could stick with their Canon gear as I said, I'm very happy to hear your now satisfied, but you have to understand that some people simply couldn't put up with gear that didnt work correctly for over a year while Canon tried and tried to sort out the bugs
Entirely agree (which is why I wrote "I can completely understand why one would get frustrated & give up - especially if professional reputation is at stake"). It was a frustratingly long time coming.
My post was more aimed at those who for whatever reason seem compelled to insist that a fix has not been achieved & that those of us who are happy with our 1DIII's are somehow delusional. We aren't.
I had made the switch before the 1D problems arose, just for the UWA zoom, but honestly I felt sorry for the apparently many Canon shooters having problems, and Canon's seeming intransigence in fixing these problems.
And as most big companies' legal staff won't let them openly admit errors (and this could have been Nikon too, under different circumstances) the apparent intransigence becomes entrenched. We should all make thanks for the internet and sites like this and Rob's.
Last point is that I don't expect this non-disclosure tendency to go away, either: it is characteristic of al big business whose primary responsibility is to protect shareholders (one of the big downsides in listed companies). Just a thought.
Does Canon's relative size vs. Nikon have anything to do with how it handles things? Canon's reach goes well beyond photography, while Nikon is primarily known for its photography equipment (I know they have other branches, but it's photography that most people know them for). Someone can be very familiar with Canon without ever having picked up a camera body.
If Canon has a problem with a camera body, their other divisions are completely unaffected by this. If Nikon has a problem with a pro-level camera body, it seems like it could be a bigger deal. If Nikon's not selling camera bodies and glass, what do they have left to sell to mainstream consumers?
millsart wrote:
Where you in the media room though seeing how many slightly OOF frames those shooters were getting ?
I used a mkIII for a full year of sports before going to the D3. Even with its issues it got the job done, just gave me way more missed frames that I would of liked. Its not like every shot was bad, it got its keepers, but on a touchdown run for example, I'd get something like OOF, sharp, sharp, OOF, sharp, OOF etc
Sometimes that OOF frame was the one that would of been the best position of the player, defender etc.
with the D3 its more like sharp, sharp, sharp, sharp, sharp lol
As I said before, switching to the D3 from Canon was a luxury not everyone can do. Lots of people have to suck it up and use what they've got.
Given the newspaper industry do you really think that many papers that are laying off 30% of staff are really going to switch to all new Nikon gear ?
Places like SI of course had that luxury.
Just because you see people still using something doesn't mean its the best. I know people at smaller papers who still shoot with Nikon D100's. A pretty bad camera overall, and far inferior to whats on the market now but its all the more some people got.
We'd all love the latest and greatest but aren't all in a position to justify it.
well, no i wasnt there, sitting cheaply on my sofa watching, so no i cant comment on the ooooof shots perhaps, but why would so many photog`s take that risk at such a large event with sub standard equipment?
i havent owend a mk3 either nor intend to as i my mk2`s do just fine.
parsons wrote:
well, no i wasnt there, sitting cheaply on my sofa watching, so no i cant comment on the ooooof shots perhaps, but why would so many photog`s take that risk at such a large event with sub standard equipment?
i havent owend a mk3 either nor intend to as i my mk2`s do just fine.
simon
Because it gets the job done, with a keeper rate that isn't as high, and it doesn't make sense to an agency that has a whole canon super tele linup, to swap to Nikon, for the sake of a few oof shots. As others have said, if you haven't invested in the canon, or can afford the swap, then those who can, will.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Still it is very hard to resist the 5D II, despite the same old AF, which BTW is really only crappy in AI servo; it's fine in one shot mode.
I found the 5D2 AI Servo not bad at all... especially with the 6 assist points activated.
They are not what I'd be showing as examples of why I switched.
