I switched from Canon to Nikon this past summer because I wasn't quite satisfied with the new 5D MKII.

So now I'm shooting a D700, and it's a great camera and everything, but I always felt kind of "dirty" on the darkside. I guess I'm a Canon guy at heart. No offense to the Nikonians out there.

Anyway, a friend picked up a used 1D MKI on Ebay for $300, and I shot it last night. Wow!!! Even this old beat up camera blew my mind.

Now I'm thinking of switching to a 1D MKIII since I can sell all my Nikon gear and do the switch for basically no money.

Can anyone give me a valid reason to stay with the D700 over the MKIII?

FYI: I shoot pretty much anything and everything.

This is a tough decision and I hope you guys can help guide me through it.

Crazy how things work out lol
I am a die hard Canon user and have never looked at the Nikon side. Have a 5D MKII and 1D MKIII...Just sold the MKIII and kind of regret it but I just started looking at the Nikon D3s and D700 wondering what they would be like to use. I may hit up Midwest and try them out in the shop to get the feel. But I do have a pre order of the MKIV so I am trying to decide which direction i'm going also lol

The grass is always greener...

Well, the D700 is full frame, smaller, and has a little more resolution. All of which I am sure you know. If you don't care about any of those, by all means come on back to the Canon camp.

It depends on the lenses more than anything else.
The 14-24 is a compelling reason to stick with Nikon but the 85L and 135L are compelling reasons for Canon

Ian.Dobinson wrote:
It depends on the lenses more than anything else.
The 14-24 is a compelling reason to stick with Nikon but the 85L and 135L are compelling reasons for Canon

And those are two lenses that I'll be picking up if I switch back

and 24L II, and 35L, and 50L

Chad S wrote:
Can anyone give me a valid reason to stay with the D700 over the MKIII?

I rented a D3 and D700 before I bought my 5D Mark IIs, so I wouldn't have made the switch originally, but I can see you how you got there.

In my case, I was hoping that the 5D Mark II would be a more action-oriented camera, with a higher framerate and reduced mirror blackout. I didn't really want or need 21Mp. The camera I really wanted was more or less like the D700 in fact.

But after using the the Nikon full-frame cameras, I realized that as good as those cameras are, I just: a) preferred Canon ergonomics; b) preferred Canon lenses; and c) preferred Canon files.

These kinds of preferences cannot always be objectively justified. Lots of Nikon switchers never got used to (complaining about) Canon ergonomics and were happy to switch back once Nikon delivered high ISO performance.

So it sounds to me that you are in somewhat the same boat: you just prefer Canon. The 1DsIII is an amazing camera; the only thing it really lacks (beyond a compact form factor and video) is the high resolution rear LCD. I'd say rent or borrow one for a day or two and see how it feels.

As for switching back being a risk: it's hard to see how staying with either Nikon or Canon would be a bad call. Both companies are building some amazingly good products, and seem to leapfrog each other frequently. I doubt that either company would build up a commanding, sustainable lead, so it comes down to what brand you are more comfortable shooting, sometimes for intangible reasons.

garyvot wrote:
Chad S wrote:
Can anyone give me a valid reason to stay with the D700 over the MKIII?

I rented a D3 and D700 before I bought my 5D Mark IIs, so I wouldn't have made the switch originally, but I can see you how you got there.

In my case, I was hoping that the 5D Mark II would be a more action-oriented camera, with a higher framerate and reduced mirror blackout. I didn't really want or need 21Mp. The camera I really wanted was more or less like the D700 in fact.

But after using the the Nikon full-frame cameras, I realized that as good as those cameras are, I just: a) preferred Canon ergonomics; b) preferred Canon lenses; and c) preferred Canon files.

These kinds of preferences cannot always be objectively justified. Lots of Nikon switchers never got used to (complaining about) Canon ergonomics and were happy to switch back once Nikon delivered high ISO performance.

So it sounds to me that you are in somewhat the same boat: you just prefer Canon. The 1DsIII is an amazing camera; the only thing it really lacks (beyond a compact form factor and video) is the high resolution rear LCD. I'd say rent or borrow one for a day or two and see how it feels.

As for switching back being a risk: it's hard to see how staying with either Nikon or Canon would be a bad call. Both companies are building some amazingly good products, and seem to leapfrog each other frequently. I doubt that either company would build up a commanding, sustainable lead, so it comes down to what brand you are more comfortable shooting, sometimes for intangible reasons.

Wow, you really "get me". You said exactly what I feel.

Tough call. I shot my D3 and 1D3 side by side for awhile. Sold the 1D3 and picked up more glass and a D700 backup
with the money. Of course I'm heavily invested with fast Nikkor lenses so it was an easy decision. GL with the move.

The only actual "problem" I have with Nikon is the software. I literally despise NX2, and the same files look dull and lifeless in CS3, so I'm kinda stuck with their software.

The workflow in NX2 stinks, and it requires a monster computer to run efficiently. I've actually been shooting in JPEG a lot lately just so I can use DPP.

I have to shoot a fashion show tonight called Mass Appeal, and I'm dreading doing the processing.

First of all you really can't compare a D700 with a Mark III, it's like comparing apples to oranges. A more appropriate comparison would be the D3 to the Mark III. Secondly, the reasons why you would choose one over the other are purely subjective. Which camera body and lens line-up best fit your needs.

After shooting nothing but Nikon (film and digital) for my entire photographic life, I switched to Canon. At that time the MK II gave me better options as a sports shooter than the D2Hs' I was using. I eventually moved up to the MK III again because it really fit my needs. Once the D3 was introduced I decided to try it out and haven't looked back since. I also picked up a D700 so that I would have a smaller, lighter backup body that would still give me the same quality images as the D3.

Did I like the Canon's? Yes, they served me well for several years but I did always miss the ergonomics of the Nikon pro bodies. But as stated, that's subjective. Some will tell you that they like the 1.3x crop factor of the 1d-series, me I'm much happier shooting full-frame. Again, subjective. Were files from the MK II and III good? Absolutely, but I just like the look of the Nikon files better. Someone else will tell you the opposite.

No one can really tell you which is the best camera for you, that's a decision you need to make on your own, based on your own personal needs, likes, and dislikes.

I definitely prefer full frame, and if I do the switch, it will be my objective to move up to a 1Ds MKIII after a year or so.

Chad S wrote:
The only actual "problem" I have with Nikon is the software. I literally despise NX2, and the same files look dull and lifeless in CS3, so I'm kinda stuck with their software.

The workflow in NX2 stinks, and it requires a monster computer to run efficiently. I've actually been shooting in JPEG a lot lately just so I can use DPP.

I have to shoot a fashion show tonight called Mass Appeal, and I'm dreading doing the processing.

It's well documented that Nikon's NX2 is a dog. I took a look at it several years ago and while it had some great features, it was pretty much a resource hog so I never bothered.

As far as Nikon files looking dull and lifeless, if you're shooting RAW that's to be expected. All RAW files look flat whether they're coming from Nikon or Canon. However, I shoot the majority of my images in JPEG format and I can say that the files coming out of the D3 are simply much better than those that were coming from my Mark III. But to someone else's eyes, the situation is probably reversed.

auto focus?

When I initially switched to Nikon, I was very impressed with how the files from my D700 looked straight out of the camera compared to my 5D classic.

I just hope that I'm equally as impressed with the 1D MKIII files.

I would personally advise against switching regardless of which way it goes (C->N or N->C). The grass will always look greener on the other side. Furthermore it doesn't sound like you have a really compelling reason to switch, so I'd stay pat.

Like I said, I've felt like I was more of a "Canon guy". I've been a little homesick since I switched to the other side. And something about that 1D just feels right.

Chad S wrote:
I definitely prefer full frame, and if I do the switch, it will be my objective to move up to a 1Ds MKIII after a year or so.

How about a 1Dsmk2 now? Its got everything except the 3" screen

Ian.Dobinson wrote:
Chad S wrote:
I definitely prefer full frame, and if I do the switch, it will be my objective to move up to a 1Ds MKIII after a year or so.

How about a 1Dsmk2 now? Its got everything except the 3" screen


If the MKII had Live View I'd be all over it like stink on a monkey. Kinda got hooked on that feature for studio and landscape stuff.

Chad S wrote:
Can anyone give me a valid reason to stay with the D700 over the MKIII?

And you are asking this on a Canon forum and expect a non-biased answer?