p.2 #1 · So...about $15k to have a workable setup in Nikon...
You could also consider one D800 and a used D700. May save you about a 1000 dollars. Or maybe get two used D700's and have an extra $2K to spend it on quality lenses.
p.2 #3 · So...about $15k to have a workable setup in Nikon...
I'd wait for the 5Dx or what ever it will be called..it's bound to be better and you will take a bath on your Canon stuff. Used prices here for 5D2 are out of whack with many asking $1900 + when you can buy new from Cameta for $1999.
p.2 #5 · So...about $15k to have a workable setup in Nikon...
I just don't see why you can't buy two D700's instead of the 800's, you wrote that 12mpx is the least you want in a camera, the D700 is a full frame with the pro autofocus that YOU need. On a side note, if your bussiness is not profitable enough for you to update your equipment, I think you need to figure out why that is.
p.2 #6 · So...about $15k to have a workable setup in Nikon...
I want to switch mostly because of the autofocus and secondly because I greatly prefer "nikon noise" that looks more natural and aesthetically pleasing than "canon noise" that leaves some very nasty artifacts (like the pattern noise frequently mentioned), sometimes after very minor pulling and pushing. Third would be that I would like a camera that is well-rounded and has a better feature set at a more manageable price point than $6800! I have thought about switching my cameras over to 1Ds mark IIs but the technology is very old and some important things would be downgraded like a very slow buffer, worse noise than my 5D II, a tiny LCD, and the very large body style that I have never liked...
I am watching Canon's next moves extremely closely, and if they flub again I really may use that as a final justification to switch. The crappy autofocus has been the center of the "flub-factor" in my book. The more I tried a larger number of autofocus points on the D700, D3x, etc., at PMA/CES, and the more I played with the D700/D3x/D4, the more I really felt that the autofocus was so much better with Nikon cameras. Having more focus points within a small clustered area adds a boost in accuracy. Even in single-point mode, the D700 and D3x and D4 locked accurately and consistently. This is what Canon seems to be unable to do with any camera I have used. I don't have enough experience with 1D-series cameras, but everything newer than the 1Ds II and full frame is way out of my budget..
p.2 #7 · So...about $15k to have a workable setup in Nikon...
If you don't have anything more planned for it, you might see what you can get for your caution. Someone who knows how to use it might save as much as that $6,000 you have budgeted for those two untested Nikon bodies. Not saying they won't be terrific, of course.
Actually, you seem like you are proceeding pretty sensibly, but I couldn't resist. I am interested in that camera too. But I doubt it is going to suit my needs, because it looks like it might turn out to be optimized for flash, which I seldom use. And I don't have your heavy autofocus requirements.
p.2 #8 · So...about $15k to have a workable setup in Nikon...
The reason I don't jump to a pair of D700s is because I don't want to set my megapixels for all of my work at 12 maximum. A general proportion would do fine at that resolution, but there are some shots that would need more enlargement than I would like to have done with a 12-megapixel camera, and I want to still be able to provide that when needed. 20 is fine for 99%, and gosh 36 would be very nice for the formals and a few other bride/groom shots.
12 megapixels may be fine for many people right now doing many things, and it was fine when I bought my 5D cameras as mains, but the progression of technology and the awareness of people of the existence of bigger and better influences demand. It is nice to have technology that I won't have to upgrade for a significantly longer period of time because clients may want "more than 12 megapixels." 16 isn't a big jump and neither is 18, but they would be better. I would take a 16 megapixel Canon camera with a 5D form factor that can autofocus accurately like a Nikon.
Yes autofocus is really critically important for me. The better it works, the better I can do my work and the faster I can get done with planned/posed shots. As it is, I am now having to resort to live view to nail focus on formals because the autofocus in one-shot on my 5D II is too unreliable with any lens and I can't tell if things are in focus through the viewfinder. The camera shouldn't NEED a babysitter (live view) for focus. It takes much, much longer. Tracking moving subjects is important too, and I need accuracy. I would greatly prefer having the flexibility of good outer focus points for better composition with moving subjects and dim lighting, like church processionals, dances, etc...but these things are absent in all full frame Canon cameras except 1-series, and I haven't tried them so I can't say how accurate 1D cameras are either. Fast probably, but fast doesn't mean accurate. Just because the camera thinks it's in focus doesn't mean it is.
p.2 #10 · So...about $15k to have a workable setup in Nikon...
I wouldn't make the switch with the gear you've outlined. You end up with a much smaller lens lineup all just to get pro level AF and you have to spend money. Instead, my opinion as a wedding shooter.
D700 x2 (or D700 for main camera and a D800 for group photos & main shots)
SB-800 (if you can find them) or SB-910 x2
17-35mm f/2.8 (the 14-24mm is cool, but the 17-35 range is more useful for event coverage.)
35 f/1.4 (or 35mm f/2 if you want to save mucho money and like it's rendering)
85mm f/1.4 (or new f/1.8G if you want to save)
70-200 f/2.8 VRII (or old VR1 if you want to save money, the vignetting and edge softness aren't such an issue for people shooting)
That would save you a lot of money.
Honestly, I'm a Sigma hater. The 85mm f/1.4 is one of two sigma lenses I'd ever consider using professionally. I'm not the only one who feels that way, they got it right, I greatly prefer its OOF rending to the Nikon's. http://www.ryanbrenizer.com/2011/03/review-sigma-85mm-f1-4/
p.2 #11 · So...about $15k to have a workable setup in Nikon...
form wrote:
Well, I suppose I could go towards the D700 route...doesn't save a massive amount, but it's possible.
You can get a D700 for $1700 dollars, and that is likely to drop. That's a good size savings across two bodies vs $3000 a pop. There is absolutely nothing wrong with buying used. My equipment gets used hard and depreciates less when I buy it used vs buying it new. There's no reason to not have a D700 and a D800.
p.2 #13 · So...about $15k to have a workable setup in Nikon...
I think you should just bite the bullet get two used 1dx or whatever they're called.Because if you dont', I think a year from now canon will have something that you will want, and mean whille you will be in nikon forums bitching about everything you miss about canon, or hate about nikon. You have some solid wedding pics, I don't see how d700 or d800 will improve on them.
p.2 #14 · So...about $15k to have a workable setup in Nikon...
form wrote:
That is incredibly painful. All because Canon's AF sucks in everything but their most expensive pro cameras....which I can't afford.
I'm going through the same calculations & decision myself .. and I'm probably going to make the switch slowly instead of all in one move. Start with a D700 and a couple of Nikors and keep my 5D2 and 1 series bodies for now, then see what's available in a couple of months. For wedding work I really dislike the bulk of any 1 series body but still want full frame, which makes the D700 / D800 / 5D2 bodies about my only choices.
My computers are due an upgrade and I've been contemplating moving to Mac as well so in a few months I may be all Mac & Nikon. Expensive, but would leave me set for at least two, maybe three years.
p.2 #15 · So...about $15k to have a workable setup in Nikon...
Let me know when you want to sell your 85/1.2L II and a 580ex. On top of the improved AF, you'll love the Nikon flash system. The SB-900/910's make the 580ex's look ridiculous.
Just pray every night that you never, ever, ever, ever ever have to deal with Nikon service. CPS it definitely is not. As a busy pro, you'll likely need triplicates because when your gear is stuck in the Nikon black hole of service you will be without your backup for longer than you expect.
p.2 #16 · So...about $15k to have a workable setup in Nikon...
trevanian wrote:
I think you should just bite the bullet get two used 1dx or whatever they're called.Because if you dont', I think a year from now canon will have something that you will want, and mean whille you will be in nikon forums bitching about everything you miss about canon, or hate about nikon. You have some solid wedding pics, I don't see how d700 or d800 will improve on them.
Of course fear of regretting my decision for unforeseen reasons is one cause of my hesitation.
Better autofocus would improve on my wedding photography by allowing me to take more consistently in-focus shots, which matters for formals (makes it go faster if I don't have to use live view to manually focus), ceremony processionals and reception dancing (greater proportion of in-focus shots of moving subjects leads to fewer shots of any one angle being necessary and allows for more creativity and variety; plus good outer focus points allows for tracking with outer points for other compositions besides boring subject-in-center), fewer do-overs in any posed photos (takes less time and doesn't make me look bad), plus all of the other situations where I get shots that may or may not be in focus now...but would almost all be in focus if my cameras' autofocus didn't suck...which gives me more of the shots that I want, giving more variety of shots that are usable because they are in focus instead of defocused...
p.2 #17 · So...about $15k to have a workable setup in Nikon...
I switched from 5DII to D700s in April 2010 and am SOOOO glad I did, but right now I would wait another few months to see what the 5DII successor brings.
I have an excellent Nikon kit for weddings that only ran me $12k. Those expensive zooms you mentioned will drive the price up though.
-D3S, $4300 (used)
-D3, $3000 (used)
-20mm, $400
-35/1.4, $1700
-50/1.8G, $220
-Sigma 85, $900
-Sigma 150, $700
-3x SB800, $900
p.2 #18 · So...about $15k to have a workable setup in Nikon...
I feel like I need ultrawide for various uses, and I always need 70-200 f/2.8 with IS/VR for churches. I have read that tha 17-35 is comparatively poor in the corners...much like the Canon 16-35. A v1 70-200 would be acceptable if it is a good lens. I am extremely used to having a 85mm prime and would want it much more than a 50mm prime, since I never got used to 50mm on full frame.
p.2 #19 · So...about $15k to have a workable setup in Nikon...
If high MP is a factor, I really do think having one D800 and a D700 is a great combo. A D3s and D700 combo isn't out of the question either if high ISO performance is a heavy consideration. As of right now, a used D3s can run from 3900 to 4500 depending on the condition, while a D700 as a backup can go from 1900 to 2200.
Whatever Nikon camera you end up with, you're going to have the reliable 51 pt AF system that beats Canon prosumer cameras. The 51 pt 3D tracking is a lifesaver when recomposing during the shot since AF point selected will move to retain focus.
p.2 #20 · So...about $15k to have a workable setup in Nikon...
I could live with having a 16-18 megapixel camera as my highest resolution. My preference between extremely high resolution vs high ISO noise control goes to high ISO noise control, but the high ISO options (D4, 1Dx) are much more expensive. Furthermore, I find that I don't really "need" above ISO6400 about 99% of the time, and ISO1600-3200 is commonplace for me.
