To make a long story short, I went shooting with a friend last night (D3 owner) and was stuck with gear envy ( I have a 5DMrkII). While I think the Nikon bodies have wayy too many buttons, I really like the way you can configure everything and that you have more control over the body (bracketing, time lapse, etc..).

So I am thinking about doing a switch for either a D3 or D700. Most probably D700 since I dont want to have to deal with sensor dust cleaning and the feature difference does not seem that big.

I was also thinking about reducing my lens arsenal to: 14-24, 24-70, 50, 70-200 and get something around 400.

So my question to any people who had already done the switch: what should I be expecting? What should I look for? Any possible deception regarding some points?

Thanks!

You should expect many years of happiness, your daughters/sons to marry into wealth, and a healthy crop this year

More buttons are awesome, rent a D700 & 24-70 and see how you like it first. I couldn't be happier after leaving the big C.

Jammy Straub wrote:
You should expect many years of happiness...

Jammy is pretty much right on with what you should expect. Except you will actually experience eternal bliss; way more than just "many years".

I also recommend renting gear whenever possible before taking the plunge to switch to a new system or before buying a really expensive lens.

~Ted

Thx guys, but I was expecting something a bit more partial ;-)

I played with my friend D3 a few times. While its #$%#% heavy and the zoom ring is reversed (seriously, WHY?) it is fine with me. Of course I will miss the click wheel (no, you dont need a third hand to use it!) but I can live with all these changes it it means I get all the pluses.

I am more looking at the down side. Because there are... like no 1.2 lenses and no white lenses effect. These white lenses are the most convenient way to be taken seriously by people who dont know anything about photography and that can be a big plus in some situations (yes, I know how stupid this argument is).

Just curious, you didn't mention what it was about the D3 that really grabbed you. And are f/1.2 lenses critical for your work because of the speed or the effect? As you know, the speed difference (1.2 vs. 1.4) doesn't matter so much given the phenomenal ISO performance of the D700 and D3.

~Ted

So my question to any people who had already done the switch: what should I be expecting? What should I look for?
Better colors/IQ straight out of camera.

I think Nikon and Canon are both great.

Downside Nikon 70-200 currently $2100 in Ritz, Canon $1300
Downside, You know Canon, Nikon might be a fairly big change overall
Downside, Nikon has a hole in lens lineup regarding indoor sports and fast lenses. (Although if I actually shot the comaparative Nikon/Canon lenses, I suspect the hole may not be as big as it seems to me as just a Nikon shooter and looking enviously at a few specific Canon lens specs.)

Upside, sometimes a little change is good.

I shoot Nikon and am quite happy, Unless you can demonstrate the improvements and verify them to yourself, the system change may not be worth it.

I'm not a Pro, and changing systems would be an expensive PITA that I would never be able to logically consider, even though there are a few Canon goodies I secretly covet.

I dont understand the 70-200 comparison.. here in canada:
http://www.lozeau.com/product.aspx?nav_id=1142&lang_id=F

its 1800$ but for the VR (IS?) version.. which is comparable to Canon 2.8 IS.

For me the change is mostly for the body functionalities and the 14-24. Also the ISO seems a bit (just a bit) better than my 5D.

And yes, I have noticed the lack of 1.2 lenses or long f2.

1) Probably better AF performance with the D700.

2) Less cropability than the great (sensor) of the 5Dmk2

3) The ability to flash commander

4) The ability to use an onboard flash at all.

5) iffy lens selection around the 400 range, and more expensive 500/600 options.
400mm is one of Nikon's lens weaknesses ATM unless you're talking 400/2.8.

6) A bit less VF coverage I believe (95% vs 98%)

7) The requirement to pay for your NX2 software if you decide to keep it, as well as remote control software if you want it.

8) Lens hoods for almost any lens are included

9) AutoISO that's actually useful.

To be fair, I like the skin tones from Canon better, though maybe that's a shooting/processing deficiency on my part, as many times I shoot in some difficult lighting which is hard to correct and I haven't gotten myself a Whi-bal card yet.


Both systems are great if they match your needs. Canon's ergonomics (on the 40D) and lack of a few features drove me to Nikon (real AutoISO and flash commander).

I do miss Canon's lens selection in the 70-200 and 400mm classes, I'm not a fan of white lens color, though.

yah.. all the flash control is interesting. Also ETTL seems more reliable on Nikon from what I have heard... Anyways, right now everyone is asking to buy my lenses but no one interested in trading bodies :-S

cputeq wrote:
1) Probably better AF performance with the D700.

2) Less cropability than the great (sensor) of the 5Dmk2

3) The ability to flash commander

4) The ability to use an onboard flash at all.

5) iffy lens selection around the 400 range, and more expensive 500/600 options.
400mm is one of Nikon's lens weaknesses ATM unless you're talking 400/2.8.

6) A bit less VF coverage I believe (95% vs 98%)

7) The requirement to pay for your NX2 software if you decide to keep it, as well as remote control software if you want it.

8) Lens hoods for almost any lens are included

9) AutoISO that's actually useful.

To be fair, I like the skin tones from Canon better, though maybe that's a shooting/processing deficiency on my part, as many times I shoot in some difficult lighting which is hard to correct and I haven't gotten myself a Whi-bal card yet.


Both systems are great if they match your needs. Canon's ergonomics (on the 40D) and lack of a few features drove me to Nikon (real AutoISO and flash commander).

I do miss Canon's lens selection in the 70-200 and 400mm classes, I'm not a fan of white lens color, though.



I can pretty much agree with most of this. I shoot both Canon and Nikon and with what I consider to be some of the best glass from both camps. The ergonomics advantage of the Nikon IMO is way, way overstated. They both have irritations in their UI depending on what you shoot and how you shoot it but Nikon's UI certainly isn't the panacea that people make it out to be.

Always shooting RAW I see no difference in color between the cameras themselves, only with some lenses and only when really looking for it.

IMO, unless you really need the resolution of the 5D2, the D700 is pretty much an ideal camera for most people, especially once you consider the price. You should spend more time with the Nikon though. Don't let the initial exuberance mislead you, really spend time shooting with it before you decide to jump (or shoot both side by side for a while).

^ Good points.

Also, I would like to add: You compared a Pro body Nikon vs a Pro-sumer body from Canon, which isn't exactly fair. I have to wonder if you would feel the same after using a 1D series?

I would ask yourself -- is there anything I could do with a D700 that I can't do with 5D2? Would it be worth the hassle to sell off your stuff, take the associated losses, then buy the Nikon stuff?

I would at least spend some quality time with the camera body -- if you end up hating the feel of the D700, it would mean a costly mistake on your part.

cputeq: actually, there is a lot of stuff any Nikon body can do that even D1 bodies cant: time lapse and multibracketing exposure are the two most annoying.

Please, never refer to the 5DMrkII as a pro-sumer body in a Canon crowd! It is a money machine for a lot of pros!

As for the interface, I dont really care or understand why people are so vivid about this. After 1-2 weeks you get used to it and that is it...

Thx for the advices !

Well I am not going to duplicate the very valid good points the people above have mentioned, except to say that I changed from Canon to Nikon recently, and so far I am loving the performance of the D3 and x.

However, the single most important piece of advice I can offer is to find either someone to loan you either a D700 or D3 with a lens you typically use so you can evaluate how it works for you, for what you shoot, where you shoot, either that or some dealers have a rental scheme where if you end up purchasing they will deduct some or all of the rental cost from the purchase, it's the only way to avoid a costly mistake and ensure that it isn't a case of the grass is greener.

About 2 1/2 weeks of trials of the D3 convinced me that it was right for me and that it was worthwhile to switch.

Good luck!

Well I moved from Canon and 5DMKII's 1DMKIII's to Nikon D3's ......

The Nikon just works ... image quality even against the 5DMKII is better - cleaner - the lenses are sharper ....

Yes not a popular thing to say the 5DMKII isn't the best thing since sliced bread - but at low ISO's there are some real (not perceived) image quality problems.

The D3 is just excellent at all it does ...... and the flash system is so much better it is a joke

spxxxx wrote:
Well I moved from Canon and 5DMKII's 1DMKIII's to Nikon D3's ......

The Nikon just works ... image quality even against the 5DMKII is better - cleaner - the lenses are sharper ....



+1 that is exactly my impression too, the gear just works and that is all I want from a camera body.

I switched to a D700 without having ever seen or held it and I'm pretty happy. :-) D3's next on the list now.

I switched from Canon 5D to Nikon D700. In-focus keeper rates are much higher.

Canon = 20% OOFs. Nikon = less than 1% OOF. Low-light off-center compositions with Canon 5D AF sucks hard. We're talking a difference of hundreds of saleable images per wedding here. Very frustrating and costly.

However, my wide-open heroes shot with the 35L, 50L, and 85L that WERE in focus, are more 3D-like and poppy SOOC than the images that I now do with my 35 f2.0, 50 f1.4, and 85 f1.4.

I like having a lot more sharp, focused images to choose from, but I do kinda miss the surprise of nailing those those off-the-page-blam! shots.

-m

switched from two Mk3's to a D3 and D700. Yeah simply put it works. You don't have to figure settings and dial in things like they are trying to tell the Mk3 owners. Pull it out put on the lens set it to S or A and shoot. I love the lens choice you mentioned as I have all those + the 200 2.0, 135 2.0 and the 85 1.8 for indoors and they work great.
Have to also say the SB800 is an amazing addition they seem to just work with out even trying, though I really need to read the manual for that still. I went with the 400 2.8 II with out VR as I shoot high shutter and on a monopod so that saved a bunch of money too.

Both take good pictures if you know what you are doing but I feel Nikon lets you focus on taking pictures vs setup.

Tom

cputeq wrote:
^ Good points.

Also, I would like to add: You compared a Pro body Nikon vs a Pro-sumer body from Canon, which isn't exactly fair. I have to wonder if you would feel the same after using a 1D series?



NPS recently sent me a D3, AFS Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 VR for a two week , real-world test to see if I'd consider switching back to Nikon.

From my results, I don't think it's fair to compare a Mark III to a D3. The D3 is that much better camera than the Mark III when it comes to AF performance and overall image quality.

It's pretty obvious to me that my Mark III is not right and my shipping label arrived so it's off to Canon for the AF adjustment. I also had a hard time believing that the Nikkor 24-70 was that much sharper than my Canon EF 24-70 so that lens is off to Canon for adjustment.

Before the Nikon gear arrived and I started doing my tests, I thought my Mark III and 24-70 were as good as it gets for shooting sports/action and team/senior photos but did I get a shock.

I had read alot of great things about the D3 and the 24-70 so I was anxious to see what this was all about and I now see why so many Canon pros like myself are either seriously comtemplating purchasing a D3 or have already sold off or traded in their Canon gear.

Much success,

Lee Woolery
Speedshot Photo

I am currently in the process of evaluating a move to Nikon. I have a D3, 24-70f2.8, 70-200f2.8, 1.4tc, and a SB900 flash. I would be moving from MkIIN and MKIII and a full compliment of L glass and other Canon gadgets.

So far, everything is reversed on the Nikon gear. The lens mount, cf cards, hoods, even an anti-flash confirmation . The lens mount is smaller and does not feel as robust as the Canon, and the vignetting on the 70-200 is so severe, you can see it easily in the viewfinder of an FX camera. If you like DPP, then you will have to learn a new raw converter. I am trying to learn NX2 but the software is pretty slow to update images during editing. I hope the new release will make better use of computer resources.

On the + side, pretty much what others have said is true. Image quality is outstanding, high ISO is great, the AF seems more accurate, the flash system is MUCH better, and suprisingly the 1.4 tc on the 70-200 does not appear to degarde the images much, thus making this a very usable combination. I only use the Canon 1.4tc on the 300f2.8 and the 400f2.8. It just didn't work well on the zooms.

My 2 cents so far,
Richard K.

Some useful info for you if you do switch:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/704373

I made the switch in November and couldn't be happier. I picked up a D3, and recently added a D700 to the kit. Love them, and I could never go back. My recommendation, pick up some of the carl zeiss glass that is out there if you want primes. I came from a full line up of Canon primes and I was just not happy with the Nikkor primes, but once I switched to the Zeiss... oh man... so happy. If you don't need AF in your primes, Zeiss is the way to go.

The criticism of the "white" lens only comes form those who don't understand why they are white.

White is the color used on "tele" lenses.

The reason why is because most people shooting with a tele wil be in the sun waiting for a shot.

The sun beating on the lens body can distort the glass as it heats up.

White keeps the glass cooler longer and the change , if any, is more gradual.

mantat wrote:
cputeq: actually, there is a lot of stuff any Nikon body can do that even D1 bodies cant: time lapse and multibracketing exposure are the two most annoying.

Please, never refer to the 5DMrkII as a pro-sumer body in a Canon crowd! It is a money machine for a lot of pros!



Especially in a crowd of wedding photogs.