Long time Canon shooter, primarily motorsport, sport and aviation. Plus the odd wedding and bit of studio work.

Currently I shoot with a 1D3 and a 1D2N, the rest of the gear is in my sig. 2 weeks ago the shutter went bang on my (last and oldest) N, and to make matters worse it appears the sensor is damaged as well, so all in all not an economical repair.

So this afternoon I went down to my local dealer and got onto the topic of a replacement. Never really got on with the x0D bodies, they are not hard wearing enough and not sealed as well as a 1D series. Ideally I would also like to run 2 bodies of the same type, body handling and batteries being the primary reason.

The obvious choice is another 1D Mark 3. However, I was one of the first to receive one in the UK when it was released and suffered 9 months of heated discussions with both my dealer and Canon, until it was universally acknowledged there was a problem. While I have a good one now, I have never trusted it as much as my Ns, which apart from the odd hardware failure, never ever let me down, not once, not ever in any conditions. I am a bit loathe to buy another Mark 3.

Anyway, for fear of rambling.....

The topic of Nikon came up. I have shot Canon for so long and have lots of gear and never really considered a move for financial reasons. Apparently, at least in the UK, Nikon are on a bit of a mission to tempt Canon pros away, and while I don't (yet) have any information on how much my current lenses are worth for a trade in, I have asked for this info to be prepared, thus a move to the D3 becomes a possibility.

I have also requested a D3 and 300/2.8 VR to evaluate for a few weeks.

Hopefully, you will all see this as a valid request for information/feedback, and yes, I have searched FM and Google too.

1. How many people moved from Canon (maybe 1D series) to the D3? What are your thoughts? Positive and negative appreciated.

2. While I have no practical hands on experience with the D3, the demo will change that, but from talking to fellow pros, the 1D3 achieves focus faster, but the D3 tracks better. Would this be a fair assessment? My own opinion is that when not using AF expand the 1D3 doesn't track very well (compared to the N) and sometimes expand causes problems where subjects are very close together.

3. Lens wise, to start with, I would look at the 70-200, 300/2.8 VR and 500/4 VR. I have read various things on vignetting with the 70-200. How true is this? Is this because it is not an FX lens or have I got things the wrong way round?

4. Workflow. I currently do everything in Photoshop CS4 and use automation as much as possible. If I don't use Capture NX, how much worse will the results out of CS4 be?

Also, would anybody care to let me have a couple of D3 NEFs where the subject is motorsport or aviation?

Thanks in advance.

Alistair

I made the switch over a year ago and it's been a good one. Each system really has it merits - Canon has glass Nikon doesn't have and Nikon has glass Canon doesn't have. Also, Nikon's glass seems sharper to me and I haven't had to send any lenses back for calibration like I did with Canon. Nikon glass is also more expensive, and getting worse. Nikon's flash system is better (and I think it pretty much always has been)

I personally like Nikon's ergonomics better. I think the layout is easier to deal with when the action is fast. I also like the fact that, for the most part, if the D3 says something is in focus it really is. My MKIII was really unreliable and I missed a LOT of photos because of it. Frankly, my main reason for the switch was because I simply didn't trust the camera anymore. I couldn't stand wondering / worrying if I got the shot every time I pressed the shutter (out of focus landscapes were the last straw).

The MKIII did seem to acquire focus slightly faster (again I use the word "focus" loosely here), but man, the D3 locks on and and won't let go!

I don't have the 300 2.8, but the 500 F4 is sharper than my Canon was (and that was a kick A** lens too). The Nikon 70-200 will vignette a little at the corners (esp wide open) and it is a little soft in those same corners. In my opinion, the Canon lens is better. I am eagerly awaiting a new version of the lens, but I may end up just getting an old 80-200 instead - hardly use the VR anyway.

Finally, don't dismiss NX2. I only use PS now for the few things I can't do in NX. NX does a great job with color and it's fast to work with too. I also have a set a filters for it from Nik called "Color FX" that I really like. 90% of them are kind of useless for me, but there's a few I use on almost every image (skylight is one of them - nice subtle warmth if used properly). I have a friend who is thinking of switching to Nikon and the ease of use with NX is one of the reasons (although, you can import Tiffs into it).

Overall, I'm glad I made the move. About the only lenses I wish Nikon would add that Canon already has would be a 300 F4 IS (no vr on the current Nikon 300 F4) and that 400 5.6 IS would be nice for some applications where you need a long, sharp, yet lightweight lens.

Hope that helps. It's not a cheap switch, and both system are going to deliver. Just a matter of what you shoot, how you shoot, and what suites you best.

Steve

a few comments:
both Canon and Nikon make excellent tools and at that level, differences are often a matter of taste. One thing you don't mention is that you lose the crop factor by moving from a 1d to an FX (full frame) camera.

1) I have always shot Nikon (digital), but I see a lot of people switching around. I have done an assignment earlier this week with 6 photojournalists and we were 6 to use a Nikon combo (D3s, D3/D700 with the classical lenses: 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200VR as a basic kit), only one of them still used a 1D2. Last week during a National Basketball match, there was a Canon shooter and we were 4 photographers with Nikon gear... what I am trying to say is that such a situation was just science fiction a few years ago... I didn't hear anybody complaining, only Canon shooters saying that AF is so much faster on a Canon, but I leave this to others, I cannot judge myself.
2) about the AF system, I regret that the sensors are spread in the middle, not enough to the border, but this is common to a lot of cameras. AF acquisition is not really the problem, but you need some experience to find the appropriate tracking options. It took me quite some time to find the right combination for my kind of shooting.
3) the lenses you are mentioning are all excellent. There is a vignetting issue with the 70-200VR, but this can be corrected with the camera firmware, the other issue is that the corners are not as sharp as the center and that cannot really be corrected. In practice, I never had a problem with that for portrait or sports, the corner sharpness does not matter at all usually.
4) NX2 is the way to go if you want all you in camera settings taken into account. I use active D-lighting, D-lighting relatively often and one of the problems is that not all the parameters can be interpreted by Adobe (either they are not public, or Adobe did not do reverse engineering). I use Lightroom for my normal workflow, with PSE or CS3 only when I need more sophisticated PP. This is not ideal but it works for me. When a picture is really important (we are talking about a few pics a week maximum), I use NX because it is still the best way to get the best picture out of a raw file.

and a last comment, I have a friend who does motorsport photography for a living and he is using D300's... looking at his results, I would assume that the D3 wouldn't be a problem at all.

Guy

Alistair,

I'm a little surprised to hear you ask, I've followed the forums for a while and I know you've plenty of gear.

I can speak from someone who has been with Canon for awhile and never thought about making any transition until I walked into a store and the sales guy (who is an FM'er) had one in his hands and said, "go on, hold this". And hence, that's where it started.

I have a 1Dn and a 40D and recently purchased the 5dII. Great kit. These are all used solely in the studio now. The 40D is almost sold. The 1dn is my favourite. The 5DII is there kinda because I have too , in a way. I am always having problems with the 40D. The 1Dn is on loan to an acquaintance because his mirror on his new 5DII fell out of his camera.

I now also have a Nikon D3, D300 and D700 which generally is used for everything else (there's other stuff in sig too).

The transition for me was simple enough. Getting used to the controls actually started making sense before I bought it. The rest was reprogramming the mind to learn the new camera. I love the Nikons. Not that the 1Dn couldn't do anything or was a slough, but as I've said plenty of times, the cameras are a sum of their parts.

It is very personal though. I'm not one to willy nilly just tell people get the D3 because I like it. You are doing the right thing by using one first. I will say this though, please have a very open mind and understand that you'll be the limiting factor until you can master the way of thinking on these new cameras.

For instance, initial focus acquisition is just oh so very slightly quicker (under some situations and lenses) on the 1Dn. You may or may not personally see a difference depending on you own situation. But that's where it ends. The Nikon is more consistent to actually achieve focus, and locking and tracking is a new league. Believe everyting you read here, it's true.

There is a "D3 professional technical guide" you can download from Nikons website which will discuss settings to use for focusing under different circumstances.

As a side note, I sometimes also use the E3 and this thing is faster than both in initial focusing. I know it freaks people out to say I use it at a sports event, but I enjoy the camera.

I can't answer the question about the Nikkor 70-200, but a fellow shooter who has the combo looked at me blankly when I asked him about it. Vignetting can be removed either in post or in camera, so I just think this issue gets really overblown.

I tend to borrow some lenses as I need them including the 300mm and 400mm. They are superb, but so were the Canons. I do have a slight preference for the 400mm Nikkor over the Canon.

If that's an indication, then I'd say if nothing else the 500 and 600 are the equiv. to their Canon counterparts.

I use both CS3 and NX. I don't have any problems with the output image quality from either. Both bits of software have their plus and minus'.

Good luck
Antonio

Well I like you was a cutting edge bleeder on the Mk3. I could never trust them like my Mk2's. I had only ever shot Canon never even picking up a nikon.

My first thoughts: god how am I going to get up to speed fast enough, well it is easy just the opposite of Canon. The way the lens attaches, zoom rings and some others but it is old hat now. Ergonomics are very different but again it is just different but I actually like it better. I can honestly say I don't miss my canon stuff at all. It took a lot to get me to switch ( all surrounding the Mk3 issues) and I likely will not ever switch for the latest and greatest. I am sure canon will come out with some great stuff but then Nikon will trump that. What made me jump was not the gear but the company itself, I was let down.

As for hands on, I have to say I am amazed. The D3 or D700 are amazing for focus and ease of use. If the canon is faster I don't see it. What good is fast to focus if it is not sharp. Right out of the box having no clue on set up my shots were spot on like my Mk2. I got tired of people saying it was me not the Mk3 when I was perfectly happy with my Mk2. Hate to use a car analogy but really it is like driving a M3 vs CLK63. Both are insane but both have strength and weaknesses you just adapt to it.

Your lens choice remember your now FF and that I did see on the pitch. My 400 seemed a touch shorter. Now extra MP let me crop fine but I have been using the 1.4 & 1.7 as needed and those are great. The 70-200 is a very nice lens and because I crop never noticed the vigenetting. I would like to see a new 85 1.8 and something like a 135 2.0 for indoors but I think that will happen soon.

I did most my lens and body change on here and in the end cost me very little which added to my joy of the decision.

Bottom line if you can make it work... Go for it.

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

Thanks for the comments so far.

Antonio, to be honest, I am surprised I am asking such questions as well. If you've read my posts then you know I have always been an ardent supporter of Canon products and service, but I must confess, even now, having used various 1D3s over the past 2 years, and despite their many strengths, I have never trusted them in the same way I trusted my 1D2Ns. That's not to say I don't like the 1D3, I do, alot, and I have sold many many images from it and seen the results printed big and they look stunning - even if I do say so myself.

I had always resisted the idea of a major move between brands, mostly for financial reasons, and that may still turn out to be the case and I will stay put, but if the numbers are right and I am happy with my demo of the D3 then I will move.

I am here right now because of a body failure and because the ultimate replacement is another 1D3 and I find myself resisting that idea. I admit I was hoping Canon would release a replacement at PMA then I would jump with both feet and buy a pair. But even then, having been a first adopter once and got bitten in a major way I am reluctant to be so again. So I am in a quandary.

The glass point is a good one, but given the vast majority of my work is done with the 70-200, 300 and 500 focal lengths, I don't think there is that much to choose between the Canon and Nikon variants. From being an FM'er for a while, I know there are lenses each camp wishes the other made, there will always be that now and in the future.

If I do end up switching, then from the comments, it sounds like Capture NX is worth a look. Sounds like I am going to have to relearn a great deal of things as my workflow to date in CS has always been quickly reviewing, sorting and processing a couple of thousand images at a time, and 50% of the time with a keen eye on speed to getting the images out.

Wickedfn4u wrote:
...
As for hands on, I have to say I am amazed. The D3 or D700 are amazing for focus and ease of use. If the canon is faster I don't see it. What good is fast to focus if it is not sharp. Right out of the box having no clue on set up my shots were spot on like my Mk2. I got tired of people saying it was me not the Mk3 when I was perfectly happy with my Mk2
...


I fully agree. I guess once I know exactly what it will cost me if I do move, then I can decide. But everything I have read and everything you guys are saying here is that the D3 is consistent. I do love photography, always have, always will, but the one lesson I have learnt over the last year is that consistency of the gear is the most important thing to me, as is trust in your gear. The skill of the photographer is paramount but a photographer must be able to trust his gear.

I didn't expect you overhere Alistair.
I switched a year ago and have no regrets sofar.
My main reasons where the 1DMkIII disaster and the fight with Canon to get it right and QC problems on lenses as well.

A lot of things are already said about the 70-200VR. For me vignetting is a non-issue, you can correct it very easily in-camera for JPG's or in PP with the RAW's. It IS soft in the corners but this is mainly a problem for landscape fotographers. In the centre it's at least as sharp as Canon's counterpart. You could opt for the AF-S 80-200 but this lens is discontinued and hard to find second hand.

For the big lenses there's not much difference, I think the Nikon's are a little better they are newer and have the nano coatings. Perhaps the 200-400 (no nano coating but still very good) is an option for you.

There's no Nikon counterpart for the 35L (yet) but on FF this would be 50mm and there's a new Nikon 50/1.4G. It's not as good as the 35L but it's not bad either.

I miss the cross hair AF spread of the 1dMkIII (escpecially with portraits during weddings) and I miss the easy handstrap connection. My workflow is the same but I can do it in far less time because the files don't need much PP. Nikon's CLS (flash system) is right on target for 95%


The switch will hurt your wallet though (at least it did mine )

Thanks Chris, I did not expect to be here either! I appreciate the honest feedback of you and everyone.

The next step for me is to get hold of the D3 and 300/2.8 VR on eval and to do some proper shooting with it and get my head around the different control system. Once I have the prices for trade in then at least I can make an informed decision on how much 'wallet pain' I will have to endure.

Alistair,

Stop blaming the gear and get out and take some photos

Alex let me play with his D3 and 24-70 this morning, it's lovely! I'll be buying mine in the next few months (when my clients pay me!!!!!!)

Chris

Chris Beaumont wrote:
Alistair,

Stop blaming the gear and get out and take some photos

Alex let me play with his D3 and 24-70 this morning, it's lovely! I'll be buying mine in the next few months (when my clients pay me!!!!!!)

Chris

Thanks for that vote of confidence Chris, I was wondering when someone was going to mention that as it certainly seems rather a standard response over on the Canon board!!

It is good to know I am not the only one considering the switch though and I am trying to approach it the right way as I have never considered this before.

I think there's a lot of people would switch if the lens lineups were identical. It does concern me some of the gaps in the lineup, but there's more than enough good Nikon glass to "make do" so to speak, whereas there's not a single Canon body at the moment that does what I want (except the 1Ds III which is too expensive to be a practical, and commercially sensible, choice)

i had a long chain in 5 years with Canon Digital. i went from the 1Ds to 1D2 to 1Ds2 to 1D3 along with a 40D. of all of them the 1Ds2 and 40D were my favorites. the 1Ds2 had to be replaced by Canon 1.5 months into ownership by canon. the 1Ds arrived DOA. we are all aware of the 1D3 history though mine was not too unreasonable. the D3 and D700 do the jobs i need right now without any real pain. in addition for me there is less post work to be done too

lenses owned all f2.8. wide is not canons forte
14-24 nikons exclusive. i kinda doubt canon is going to match it
the 16-35 and 16-35 II. still trying to figure out what they "improved" from one to the other overall. the Nikon 17-35 more then replaces either in quality
24-70 canon. a good fat lens but it is trumped by the nikon again. no competition
70-200 canon. this lens has yet to be matched by nikon. as was said the nikon has issues with vignetting where canons performance is better overall
300 haven't used mine enough to relate it to the canon i had and that was one really outstanding lens.
the sigma 150 macro. this lens performed slow but good on the canon bodies but it is more usable on the nikon ones. faster focus operation and great images.

All I wanna add to this thread Alistair is this... you are really doing this the right way, getting your hands on some of the gear and - while weighing in others' opinions - making your own decision based on actual seat time.

Oh, and let me add, if the D3 and 300mm f2.8 VR combo doesn't convince you to make the switch, it isn't due to not using top gear. Both the D3 and 300/f2.8 VR in my mind are about as good as it can get in the Nikon camp. They're phenominal. It sure isn't going to be like you're trying out mid-range stuff to help make your decision.

So I wish you luck, and as always I recommend you are truly convinced before you jump ship as I'm sure you realize there will be some trade-off of losses in the switch. Keep us posted on your thoughts!

Alistair, this was the article that caused the clouds to part and the light to shine on what was bugging me. How many shots have you taken that look like that first one (the pitcher). After reading it and seeing it wasn't me and all this was doing was causing anxiety after each shoot or frustration I decided to go for it. Didn't even do what your doing (testing). I just knew I was fed up with the stories from Canon and fearful that I was going to be left holding the bag as they said "all is good now" and I felt it wasn't.

Take a read on this

Wickedfn4u, I remember reading this back during the 1D3 problems, an interesting read, thanks for digging it out.

dj dunzie, thanks for the support. This is a big decision for me and I can't afford to make the wrong one, especially with the economy the way it is. Everyone here are the experts on Nikon gear and it appears quite a number of you have already done what I am contemplating and this is invaluable experience.

It looks like the week ahead is going to be an interesting one. I have just downloaded the D3 manual so I will have a read of this in preparation for my demo.

If anyone could send me a couple of motorsport/sport/airshow NEFs from a D3 I would appreciate it. Email is the same domain as shown in my www link.

Hey Alistair,
Your work I have seen over on the "City, Still Life & Abstract" page just takes my breath away. Thankyou
What ever choice you make I hope it is the right one for you and you continue to prospr and post.
Tim

First of all I have to excuse my english writing, but here are some things I want to share:

I moved from Canon 1Ds Mk3 and 5D to Nikon D3x and D3 two weeks ago. I work for some Lifestyle Magazines and shoot food and interior in luxury hotels worldwide. The main reason to switch to Nikon was that I missed a realy good Canon wideangle and a good 24mm shift/PC lens. I know things changed now, but three weeks ago I phoned the German Canon CPS and asked them about new PC lenses and they couldn't give me any information.

The thing I like really about the Nikon is the viewfinder (wearing glasses) its easy to see all the information and also in bright sunlight I can see all the information wich was impossible with the 1Ds. For me its more pleasure looking all day through the Nikon viewfinder than with the Canon. I use manuel focusing and a tripod for 95% of my work. The other problem with Canon 1Ds was that with long exposures I had about 35 dead pixels.
I had also more dust problems with the Canons, when they where new, than with the Nikons.

After some month working with the Canon I did not use any Canon glass anymore (except the 90TS, for me, that is Canons best lens) I started to buy some used Leica R lenses. (28, 28pc, 35, 60, 90, 100apo, 135, 180apo) and they worked fine. The files were very sharp and clean, but I was still looking for some good lenses in the 14-18mm range. I did some test with the 14mm L II and the Zeiss 18 ZF but the results where not as I expected.

Two weeks ago I tried the Nikon D3x with 14-24 and 24 pc lenses and bought it, the image quality was amazing. Now I'll try to convert some of my Leica lenses to with the Leitax adapter. Image quality is just a bit better with the D3x compared to 1Ds and D3 compared to 5D. the Nikon files shows more tiny details, but you have to use the very best glass for it.

The only thing which is much better with Canon is there DPP raw converter, Nikon
Capture NX2 is a joke, very, very slow and it looks like designed 20 years ago.
I downloaded Lightroom 2.3 and it works very fine with the NEF files. The
workflow with lightroom is much also better than with NX2 and I dont see much difference
in the results. Next month I'll see some work done (double pages) with the D3x printed in a magazine and I'm sure the results will be great and that is what counts.

So I'm very happy now with my D3x and D3 as a backup camera.
And who knows I'll buy a Canon 1Ds mk4 with the 17mm TS lens in some months.

I should note that one developer that does an exceptional job on Nikon files is Raw Developer. Doesn't have the flex of NX2, CS3-4, but extracts amazing detail from D3x/D3/D700 files and is exceptionally fast even on a modest Mac. Don't know what secret sauce the software designer uses, but it works.

I think that not many of jumped ship from Canon to Nikon - we were flogged and thrown overboard just before they shot a few holes into the hull With the D3 Nikon finally had something that matched or bettered the Canon offerings and made a switch viable at a time when the 1D3 was still suspect and in my case none of my Canon cameras were reliable (1D2, 1Ds2, 40D).

Here in Australia the Nikon super tele lenses are something like 25% dearer than the Canons. That's a big difference on a big price. You do have the option of keeping some of your Canon gear and only replacing part of it with Nikon gear, but that could get confusing as you use two very different cameras. If the D3 was a left handed camera then everything would be the opposite of the Canons

I'm not a pro and I was not ready to throw money at a D3 because I was reaching a stage when everything I bought seemed to be going wrong. However, the D700 has impressed me a lot. It can even focus on static subjects in continuous focus mode - something my Canons up to the 1Ds2 could not do reliably.

The Nikkor 70-200 is an FX (full frame) lens built at a time when Nikon had no full frame DSLR. Given the lovely lenses they have released in the past year or so I would expect an update before long.

I have found that both NX2 and DPP produce slightly different results from what LR2 can produce with its beta 2 camera profiles. Adobe just haven't quite matched the camera manufacturers' output yet. Without the profiles LR is way off the mark. I don't have the latest PS and so I cannot use the latest ACR for raw conversions. NX2 is slower than DPP but it is worth having to let me know what Nikon reckon the images should look like, just as DPP is for Canon images. NX2 cannot utilise multi-core computers at all; just one core doing one thing at a time. And unlike DPP it has to be purchased.

I'll also second the comment that the Nikon viewfinder is easier to use for people wearing eye glasses - and add that the eye cup doesn't fall off because if you do get an accessory eye piece it screws on instead of clips on.


Nikon VR is a mixed bag for me. It knows whether or not you are panning and needs no switch between modes to handle it. That's good. However, it is less stable in the pre-shoot period supposedly to make you feel less giddy with the floating effect in the viewfinder. Load of cobblers of you ask me - it just seems like it is not working properly. It also re-centres itself just before the picture is captured but that has to shift the image slightly. I wonder what's the point of a 100% viewfinder on the D3 (which I do not have on my D700) if the lens VR is going to shift the image while the mirror goes up ? Still, it seems to work in the final result.

I do like the Nikon flash system. In part I think that it is better because it utilises a superior camera metering system - 1005 equal metering zones instead of 21 or 35 or 63 zones of various sizes and shapes. That metering system is also colour-aware and the AF system can use that colour info in the 51-point 3D mode when tracking moving subjects, but not in the other modes.


It's just a bummer that nothing but your screw-on lens filters are interchangeable between the two systems. If you really like the Canon 100-400 or 400 f/5.6 then keep a Canon camera. Nikon has no equivalents. Yet. They'll get a few more converts when they produce these lenses.

- Alan

Thanks Tim! I got into low level aviation photography at the beginning of last year and am loving it, such a rush when a military jet comes sweeping across the valley floor at 200 ft and 500 knots.

Ysol, welcome to FM! Looks like you are another recent convert by the look of it as well, and no need to apologise about your English, it is far better than my German!

Raw Developer? I will have to have a look at that.

Alan, I know you have had exceptionally bad luck with both your 1D2 and 1Ds2 and it is good to hear you are enjoying your D700 and maybe starting to worry less about your gear and enjoy taking more photos.
Interesting comments about the VR, I will pay attention to this once I have my D3 and 300 VR demo.

I think it has to be an all or nothing switch for me, realistically I couldn't keep one foot in the Canon camp and one in the Nikon one, primarily because nearly everything I shoot is related, ie I need long fast lenses with fast moving subjects. If I shot half sports and half say weddings then it would be a different matter but that isn't the case.

Thanks again for all your comments everyone, I really appreciate the time you have taken to write these often long posts.

i was in the same boat as Preston Mack was. I switched to Nikon after using two 1Dmk2s and an 5D. I have never been as happy as I'am now. Two D3s and a D300 and the control layouts are so much better than the Canon 1D's. Come to the dark side!!!!

Alistair,
I have been a Canon shooter for >30 years. I didn't have any issues with my film Canon gear and more recently, nor with my DSLR gear. However, I bought a D700, my very first Nikon camera, last year mainly because I enjoyed the Nikkor 14-24mm lens for landscape. I also received a 200mm VR as a partial trade for my 1Ds MarkII. So, I started using Nikon with the two lenses and they didn't disappoint. I have been on both camps since. I started buying more and more Nikkor lenses and now, I am at a point of no return. I have three zoom lenses, 14-24, 24-70 and 70-300VR that perform splendidly. However, Nikkor prime lenses (105 f/2, 135 f/2, 300mm f/4, among others) do not turn me on. The lack of fast Nikkor prime lenses in the wide angle range leaves something to be desired as well. At this point, Canon clearly has the upper hand in that arena. Plus, I still enjoy my Canon long white teles. Since I never used long Nikkor lenses, I cannot say which one would be better in terms of IQ but for sure, Canon is better, pricewise that is.

In summary, if you like zoom lenses, Nikkor 14-24 and 24-70 are excellent. Canon doesn't have a 200-400 f/4 but Nikon doesn't offer a great and lightweight, 24-105 f/4 IS and 70-200 f/4 IS; Nikkor's f/2.8VR in that zoom range... oh, well. If you like fast prime lenses from wide angle to mid-tele, Canon's offering is definitely better. Both Canon and Nikon 200mm f/2 are equally outstanding, BTW. On the long end, they seem to be a wash but you have to fork out more dough for the Nikkors.

Cameras come and go but lenses stay longer.... Whatever you decide to do, good luck!

Joshua

I didn't move but added (I use the D3 and 1Ds Mk III). The D3 is a much better general purpose camera than the Mk III I sold. The Nikon flash system is better too. But the Mk III still has the edge for sports because it's more specialized. There the 1.274 crop, smaller files and faster fps work for you.

I have the 3 Nikkor pro zooms but use the new Canon 200mm F2.0 with edge of the art IS (I can get 40/60% keepers handheld @ 1/5 sec) on my 1Ds Mk III. And, obviously, Canon has the best inventory of primes by a wide margin.

Canon must soon announce a Mk IV while Nikon has shot their wad for quite some time. So don't get faked out of your shoes by switching completely to Nikon.