Ivo Heshusius wrote:
Mmm... I don't want to start another Canon vs Nikon-debat but I can give you some reasons..

1) they want a camera that takes pictures which are IN FOCUS
2) they want a camera that doesn't make the color red hurting your eyes
3) they want a camera that gives pictures without a 'plastic' finish
4) they want a camera that gives a usable user-interface
5) they want a camera with a logical button-layout

Please feel free to add other items to this list


As a former Canon sports shooter, I cannot agree with any of the above. I mainly shoot indoors, so the focusing issues weren't very evident. The 1D3's system is still better than Nikon's in some situations - particularly if you need to use the peripheral points in situations where its cross-type sensors are the only thing that will get the job done. As for processing - I use Lightroom for everything anyway, so it's a moot point. As for UI? Sorry, I think Nikon's UI is a mess and its camera ergonomics aren't much better - ultimately all of that comes down to preference anyway.

Anyway... my main reason for moving from the combination of Canon 1D Mark III and a 40D was that I wanted to be able to shoot at 6400 without thinking twice about it. This would allow me to shoot with f/2.8 zooms in all the conditions I find myself in without sacrificing quality unduly and losing sales. The 1D3's noise performance is pretty damn good and can get by at 6400, but it's still a stop or two behind the D700/D3. I can now shoot at 6400 and easily get the results I would regularly get at 3200 with the 1D3.

Beyond that, I really didn't like the way I saw Canon going by jumping back into the megapixel race. After Nikon caught up using CMOS and getting great noise performance it looked like Canon sort of threw up their hands and said "Fuck it! We'll just start throwing in more pixels and rely on noise reduction to save us". I really wasn't happy with the quality I was getting at high ISOs with the 40D and so after I saw the trend continue with the 50D and then the 5D Mark II and no trend towards making a broader "suite" of pro-level cameras like you saw with the D300, D700 and D3 (and now the D3x) I made the jump. I now have two D700's instead, so no matter what conditions I'm in I know that I'm going to get the quality I need. I'm now part of the Nikon pro "system" and when using the grips I have 4 cameras that all use the same battery system. With the D700, I have the flexibility to shoot with or without a grip according to my needs for a given shoot.

Canon just sort of lost the way, unfortunately. It's a shame. I loved my 1D3 and will still admit it's the best camera I ever owned and likely will ever own. But as a whole, I'm happier with the Nikon system.

One thing that is pretty cool is the battery that comes with a D700 will work in 8 other Nikon Camera bodies. (D300, D80, D70, D70s, D50, D200, D90, D100)

This helps keep the cost of batteries down. There are a few third party battery suppliers that produce excellent copies of this battery.

Sean Mills wrote:
ponderosabob wrote:

The better iso performance of the D700 over anything Canon has somewhat mitigates the issue
of Canons 24/1.4L and 35/1.4L.

Possibly in terms of light gathering, but high ISO is not a 'replacement' for fast apertures.
It's another approach, you can gather the same amount of light in theory, but you are giving up one level of light control for another... robbing Peter to pay Paul as it were.

It is also true that your DOF could be too shallow going down to say F1.4, isn't it?

codeninja wrote:
It is also true that your DOF could be too shallow going down to say F1.4, isn't it?

To shallow for what?
It's an option, it has it's applications. No, you don't generally want to shoot a landscape at f1.4... nor do you want to shoot it at ISO 3200 even if some rabid fanboys call it 'clean'.

All these things are vehicles to arrive at the destination of the image. What that image is, and how you get there is what it's all about.

There are plenty of applications where f1.4, 1.2, or even 1.0 are not 'too shallow'... and vicea versa where f8 is too deep.

I have at least a half dozen lenses that I could have taken that photo with.
Most likely in much less light.
What are YOU saying - that Nikon equipment would not be capable of that photo?

Puhleeez

For the record, I said they weren't that great, and yes they have great central sharpness, but are very soft away from center. Which is not always a bad thing. Depends on what you are going for. Shallow DOF can be used to great benefit. Close them up a couple stops and they sharpen up, but then you are still at the same f-stop where the Nikkors AF lenses are already sharp.
Check out photozones reviews of the 2 lenses, and you'll see I'm not alone in my opinion.

So ..... What about that photo requires autofocus?

Bob man, you are such a fanboy!

Avi B wrote:
Bob man, you are such a fanboy!



Whatever, señor cliché.

ponderosabob wrote:
For the record, I said they weren't that great, and yes they have great central sharpness, but are very soft away from center. Which is not always a bad thing. Depends on what you are going for. Shallow DOF can be used to great benefit. Close them up a couple stops and they sharpen up, but then you are still at the same f-stop where the Nikkors AF lenses are already sharp.

Why are you so focused on "sharpness"? The 35L was my favorite lens because its great color reproduction, fantastic bokeh in addition to its sharpness as well as its sturdy build, etc. I think anyone who's actually used the 35L extensively would be a fan - have you actually used one? I love my Nikon stuff, but the Canon 35L is a really fantastic lens that simply doesn't have a peer in the Nikon camp.

ponderosabob wrote:
I have at least a half dozen lenses that I could have taken that photo with.
Most likely in much less light.
What are YOU saying - that Nikon equipment would not be capable of that photo?

Puhleeez

For the record, I said they weren't that great, and yes they have great central sharpness, but are very soft away from center. Which is not always a bad thing. Depends on what you are going for. Shallow DOF can be used to great benefit. Close them up a couple stops and they sharpen up, but then you are still at the same f-stop where the Nikkors AF lenses are already sharp.
Check out photozones reviews of the 2 lenses, and you'll see I'm not alone in my opinion.

So ..... What about that photo requires autofocus?


Haha, I like you, bob!

I'll play along because I am more bored than the glove salesman at michael jackson's favorite glove shop.

For starters, I'm curious which Nikon lenses you own that could do that at that aperture? Maybe I will buy a d700 afterall!

Secondly, I wasnt saying that a Nikon couldnt take that shot, I was simply debunking the nonsense you were spewing. And I think I did so with one snapshot. As the kids are saying these days 'you've been served'.

Certainly, a Nikon could take that shot, but you would have to compromise:

1. Shoot it with the stellar Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 (or any other 35mm f/2.8 offering) but then you'd need to shoot it at ISO 25000 to make up the two stops lost in aperture.
2. Buy the 28 f/1.4 @ $3k.
3. Use the Sigma 30 f/1.4 (good luck with that), but then I think you'd have to shoot on crop mode (could be wrong about that).

For ME, but I'm crazy, I'll take the 5d2 + 35L option for shots like this.

Oh, and autofocus was not required...so why did I use it on this dimly lit shot? Because it works!

Does anyone think that Nikon and Canon dominate the DSLR market by producing lousy pro glass? Both companies take a different approach to their lens line-up, each having its strengths and weaknesses.

The PhotoZone review of the 35L f/1.4 looks much better than Nikon's 35 f/2. Many here wish Nikon would rework their fixed lens line-up. I prefer zooms, with a few fixed lenses mixed in, but that's me. For Canerios' shot, I would use Nikon's manual focus 35 f/1.4--a great lens in the 70's.

Not much to be gained putting down other manufacturers. We should be arguing about KR.

ponderosabob wrote:
Avi B wrote:
Bob man, you are such a fanboy!



Whatever, señor cliché.

Wow, you got a serious chip on your shoulder buddy. I was just kidding around, and you took it way too serious... Chill out man.

Slug69 wrote:
One thing that is pretty cool is the battery that comes with a D700 will work in 8 other Nikon Camera bodies. (D300, D80, D70, D70s, D50, D200, D90, D100)

This helps keep the cost of batteries down. There are a few third party battery suppliers that produce excellent copies of this battery.

Yup, coming from the D80, I had two batteries, and now that I got the D700 I bought another battery, and so have 4 original Nikon batteries.

James R wrote:
Does anyone think that Nikon and Canon dominate the DSLR market by producing lousy pro glass? Both companies take a different approach to their lens line-up, each having its strengths and weaknesses.

The PhotoZone review of the 35L f/1.4 looks much better than Nikon's 35 f/2. Many here wish Nikon would rework their fixed lens line-up. I prefer zooms, with a few fixed lenses mixed in, but that's me. For Canerios' shot, I would use Nikon's manual focus 35 f/1.4--a great lens in the 70's.

Not much to be gained putting down other manufacturers. We should be arguing about KR.

The 35L should be much better glass, as it's a L-lens and is a newer design. The Nikon lens is good, but is older now and also was not made with the same build quality as the Canon 35 1.4.

I do wish Nikon would update their primes across the board.