I have been asked by a friend to help him purchase some new equipment for shooting football. If it weren't for the the two unreliable MkIII's I own it would be an easy decision.I purchased a used MkII for this football season and have been hoping Canon will get another solution to the AF problems. Now a MkIV is coming out and my friends that have changed to Nikon say they don't worry about OFF any more. Advice will be appreciated.

*Shrug*

Six of this - half a dozen of another. Both systems do a good job. Both systems occasionally have issues with bodies...

I always recommend several things:

1) Play with both systems - see which one "fits" better - the menues, the layout, the balance, the way it feels in your hands.

2) If all else is equal, look strongly at the system which is used by your friends - that way you can borrow lenses

Cheers!
Ken

Well, last month I switched from Canon to Nikon, and I don't think the systems are even remotely comparable. Hopefully, Canon's Mark IV will fix all the issues.

But, my Nikon D3 has been an amazing camera for shooting football. The D700 with Grip has performed equally well. The Canon Mark III was a horrible camera for me, and though the color and noise at High-ISO was much better than the Mark II, the auto-focus was so unreliable, I started taking three to five frames of EVERYTHING, to make sure I had a couple of sharp frames to choose from. This made it very difficult to capture peak moments, when you are just hoping for in focus shots.

Since, I've switched, I've shot a few Arizona Fall League games, a couple of NHL Hockey games, a couple of days of PGA Tour golf, four days of US Figure Skating, and NCAA Football. The D3 and D700 have performed amazingly well up to ISO6400, the lenses and files are super sharp and the color is wonderful. Auto-White Balance works very well. And, the auto-focus? In the first three days, I shot over 3000 frames I had less than two dozen out of focus. During FIgure Skating, I photographed about 75 skaters, less than 10% of the 20000 frames were out of focus (which is an amazing percentage for me considering how fast they are spinning and jumping around). The Football? Totally amazing. I shot a night game at ISO4000 in one end zone, with a 200-400/F4 and a fumble in the end zone was spot on...and the zoom was amazing too, it may be the best sports lens ever made. There would have been no way for me to make those frames when I was shooting Canon.

But, Ken makes one great point. Nikon in the sports world is NOT as ubiquitous as Canon has been. So, where before if I didn't bring the right lens, or I forgot my extra batteries or something like that, I would have been able to borrow something from friends working the same events. It's more difficult to find people with extra gear shooting Nikon. (It could be because it seems like Nikon's prices are slightly higher on everything except the bodies.)

Canon = softer subjects



Nikon = sharper backgrounds

I completely agree with Ken. I've always preferred the feeling of a Canon body in my hands and the button layout, menus, etc. just make more sense to me.

It's gotten to the point where it's no longer about image quality between Canon and Nikon, it's about everything else.

And as a side note, I used to shoot sports (motorcycle racing and college-level football, hockey, swimming, rugby, etc.) with a 20D. Not exactly the best AF, but I learned to anticipate plays and almost "plan" my shots, which in the end made me a better sports shooter and taught me that I don't need to rely on perfect auto-focus tracking algorithms to make good pictures.

A new shooter will quickly learn to like either one.

Thanks for the help

a friend is going to walk the foothills of everest base camp. his brother who i was working with wanted me to give him ideas of a system. i suggested canon, as iam a canon guy,
well what we didnt know was his brother had already bought a D700+50mm 1.4
since then, he has learnt that nikon glass is very expensive compared to canons F4 range! nikon glass costs, and that should be factored in.

my man in question is going in two weeks. as of yet he has no second lens as he cant afford any other decent nikon lens!

be warned

s

NickyD wrote:
Well, last month I switched from Canon to Nikon, and I don't think the systems are even remotely comparable. Hopefully, Canon's Mark IV will fix all the issues.

But, my Nikon D3 has been an amazing camera for shooting football. The D700 with Grip has performed equally well. The Canon Mark III was a horrible camera for me, and though the color and noise at High-ISO was much better than the Mark II, the auto-focus was so unreliable, I started taking three to five frames of EVERYTHING, to make sure I had a couple of sharp frames to choose from. This made it very difficult to capture peak moments, when you are just hoping for in focus shots.

Since, I've switched, I've shot a few Arizona Fall League games, a couple of NHL Hockey games, a couple of days of PGA Tour golf, four days of US Figure Skating, and NCAA Football. The D3 and D700 have performed amazingly well up to ISO6400, the lenses and files are super sharp and the color is wonderful. Auto-White Balance works very well. And, the auto-focus? In the first three days, I shot over 3000 frames I had less than two dozen out of focus. During FIgure Skating, I photographed about 75 skaters, less than 10% of the 20000 frames were out of focus (which is an amazing percentage for me considering how fast they are spinning and jumping around). The Football? Totally amazing. I shot a night game at ISO4000 in one end zone, with a 200-400/F4 and a fumble in the end zone was spot on...and the zoom was amazing too, it may be the best sports lens ever made. There would have been no way for me to make those frames when I was shooting Canon.

But, Ken makes one great point. Nikon in the sports world is NOT as ubiquitous as Canon has been. So, where before if I didn't bring the right lens, or I forgot my extra batteries or something like that, I would have been able to borrow something from friends working the same events. It's more difficult to find people with extra gear shooting Nikon. (It could be because it seems like Nikon's prices are slightly higher on everything except the bodies.)

Something I was looking at, (for no particular reason) was the price of lens hoods. While Nikon's 400 f/2.8 is more than Canon's, the lens hood for Nikon is cheaper to replace.

Either system will make a camera someone will like. Buy what you can afford.

Of course on the lens cost thing... keep in mind you get a 5 year warranty with the Nikon lenses, a 1 year with the Canons. If you do have an issue with a Nikon lens and they can't fix it within 3 tries, they give you a brand new lens...

daskibum wrote:
Of course on the lens cost thing... keep in mind you get a 5 year warranty with the Nikon lenses, a 1 year with the Canons. If you do have an issue with a Nikon lens and they can't fix it within 3 tries, they give you a brand new lens...

Seriously? That's worth some additional cost.

If you have 10 dozen friends who have quality nikon glass and they are free with allowing the occasional borrow... go nikon if you have the same with canon, then go canon. This is why i began with canon, and several years later I'm the guy with the lenses...

Canon's better.

lol..hic

based only on feedback from the 2 pro dealers in my town, Nikon has considerably better QC and overall reliability over time than does Canon. With that said I was a Canon user for 4 generations of DSLR's and never had ONE problem. On the other hand finding a perfect piece of L glass was a real crap shoot and took multiple copies to get a so called good one. This has NOT been my experience with Nikon glass. I've gotten several and all were perfect right out of the box. I do prefer the ergonomics of the Nikon for fast intuitive adjustments. Most pros won't argue that Nikon has been a leader in this area for years. Now they are the High ISO kings as well. So if you are considering shooting in lower light scenarios Nikon may be a better fit. Canon seems to be big on buttons/features while Nikon is more interested in the "Results". I would urge you to try both and judge for yourself. The good news is in the end you'll be just fine either way.

If you have talent then either one won't stop you. If you don't have talent then either one won't produce miracles.

traveler wrote:
Most pros won't argue that Nikon has been a leader in this area for years. Now they are the High ISO kings as well. So if you are considering shooting in lower light scenarios Nikon may be a better fit. Canon seems to be big on buttons/features while Nikon is more interested in the "Results". I would urge you to try both and judge for yourself. .


lol. Nice fanboi pitch!


Seriously though, just rent each cam you want to use for a day (or least go play with theme in the store). Which ever one feels more intuitive and comfortable to you go with it as long as it has the features you want.

The quality differences on pro level gear are pedantic these days and BOTH nikon and canon have some QC issues.

Tom K. wrote:
If you have talent then either one won't stop you. If you don't have talent then either one won't produce miracles.