I am a Canon shooter; have been all my digital days (late 2003). I have been happy with my gear for the most part, but a recent trip with challenging conditions has given me reason to reassess my kit. As I am considering a significant long term investment in glass and possibly a body upgrade, I am trying to leave no stone unturned in plotting my course.
I don't know how realistic selling my Canon gear and moving to Nikon is (financially), but what a friend showed me with the D800 has me at least exploring it. Canon was always considered the MP king while Nikon was viewed as having better noise management (not surprising with lower MP) and auto focus.
To move from the 1.6 crop of the 7D to a full frame camera would require about 46MP to get the equivalent result. Canon has nothing close to that while the D800 is at least in the ball park at 36MP. My friend showed me a beautiful shot that had been cropped about 80%! That got my attention. The 300 2.8 is also about $1000 cheaper than Canon's.
I currently have a Simga 10-20 (seldom use), Canon 17-55 2.8, 24-105L 4.0 and 100-400L 4.5 - 5.6. I shoot about 70% wildlife, some landscape and getting a bit into macro (but only with extension tubes). My 100-400 seems to get used mostly in the 360-400 range.
So here are my questions:
1. The D800e has 'Low Pass Filter w/ Anti-Aliasing Removed' What are the pros and cons of that vs. the D800?
2. How high can you go with the ISO and still get solid IQ? With the Canon 7D and a little tweek with LR 3.6 NR I am happy with 1600 ISO (the 7D goes to 6400 with a H setting of 12800).
3. What is the dynamic range like on the D800/D800e and when does drop off occur? I have seen two analysis on the 7D; one says 8.3 stops while the other says 9.3 stops (RAW, ISO 100). Significant drop off seems to start around 1600 ISO, according to the analysis.
4. I find the Canon 24-105L f4.0 to be a very nice walk around/vacation lens; although on rare occasion a little tight on the 1.6 crop body. Nikon doesn't seem to have a comparable walk-around lens for full frame cameras. I see a 24-70 2.8 (15-44 equivalent for the 7D), 24-120 4.0 (15-75) and 70-200 2.8 (44-125, but definitely in a different class for weight). What do Nikon shooters generally use for a good FF walk-around lens?
5. What is the IQ like on the Nikon 300 2.8? With a 1.4x TC? With a 2.0x TC?
I would be interested in hearing any objective key points I should consider when weighing the value proposition of a switch to Nikon.
1. The D800e has 'Low Pass Filter w/ Anti-Aliasing Removed' What are the pros and cons of that vs. the D800?
2. How high can you go with the ISO and still get solid IQ? With the Canon 7D and a little tweek with LR 3.6 NR I am happy with 1600 ISO (the 7D goes to 6400 with a H setting of 12800).
3. What is the dynamic range like on the D800/D800e and when does drop off occur? I have seen two analysis on the 7D; one says 8.3 stops while the other says 9.3 stops (RAW, ISO 100). Significant drop off seems to start around 1600 ISO, according to the analysis.
4. I find the Canon 24-105L f4.0 to be a very nice walk around/vacation lens; although on rare occasion a little tight on the 1.6 crop body. Nikon doesn't seem to have a comparable walk-around lens for full frame cameras. I see a 24-70 2.8 (15-44 equivalent for the 7D), 24-120 4.0 (15-75) and 70-200 2.8 (44-125, but definitely in a different class for weight). What do Nikon shooters generally use for a good FF walk-around lens?
5. What is the IQ like on the Nikon 300 2.8? With a 1.4x TC? With a 2.0x TC?
I would be interested in hearing any objective key points I should consider when weighing the value proposition of a switch to Nikon.
1. The only con with the D800E vs. the D800 is the price; the pro is slightly better rendering of fine details in your images; IMHO, the D800E is well worth the extra money.
2. If you think ISO 1600 on the 7D is acceptable, you should have no trouble at all with the D800/D800E at ISO 6400 and higher.
3. There really isn't much comparison between the 7D and the D800E - the Nikon is vastly better.
4. I really like the Canon EF 24-105 f4L, but the Nikon 24-120 f4 VR is starting to grow on me. The Canon is a bit sharper, but not by a lot.
5. The last Nikon 300 f2.8 I owned (two copies) was the first AF-S version, but it was not in the same league as the Canon EF 300 f2.8L IS; the Nikon needed to be stopped down to f5.6 to match the Canon wide open at f2.8. Nikon keeps revising this lens, so hopefully the current model is a much better performer. I don't recall how the Nikon TC's performed with this lens at the time, but the new Nikon TC-20E III is very good.
Interesting topic as I am going through the exact same consideration. I have had a 7D since it came out. I don't have any real concern with the 18MP (24MP would probably be more of a sweet spot) but 36 is ok too. I shot some senior portraits this weekend on both the 7D and the 800e. Even though I don't have it set up correctly yet (those were my first shots except for MA testing), I can say that I love the camera so far. A couple of things that I noticed. The 7D seems more tolerant of shooting close to clipping. The 800e seems to prefer shooting at or a bit under exposure in a wide dynamic range scene. It is very tolerant of shadow lifting as many on this forum have noted. Also the colors are a bit more muted and have more of a green shade on the Nikon than the 7D. Not a big deal to me as you are probably going to have a post process routine anyway.
I actually had my 800e incorrectly set up for JPEG only instead of raw plus JPG and I could still process the files more with the 800e. This only exception was a high ISO shot that wouldn't process as well (Lightroom 3.6). I am sure the RAW version would have been fine, but I didn't have it. Also I am handicaping the 800e as I have not worked with Capture NX2 yet. You do need some time for the learning curve. These are complicated machines.
I only have a Sigma 85 1.4, and a Nikon 28-300 currently on the Nikon side as I am/was still in decision mode. I have a 60 macro, 17-55, 35L, Sigma 85, and a 70-200 2.8 MK2 on the canon side. As many have said, glass is the tough issue when considering swap. I had a Nikon 50 1.8 but returned it and ordered a Sigma 50 1.4. I just didn't like the Nikon 50. I have been more impressed with the 28-300 and actually used it for some of the session.
I have pretty well decided to go ahead and do the switch to Nikon. I do recommend Darrell Young's book Mastering the Nikon D800. I can't say whether the 800e is that much better than the 800 but I went for the 800e. My motivation was that I wanted to move to full frame. The 5D3 and the 800e are both an excellent cameras and if you can't get a good photo out of them, it is really going to be more of an operator error issue. I will be sticking with this for a long time (no matter what new Canon, Nikon, etc comes out). I was looking to make the right choice, one time, at this particular time. For me, in my situation, I think it is the Nikon.
Guari, thanks for the link (and the warning about the need for a chair!). About 2.8 stops more range than the 7D at 100 ISO is very impressive, as is the 2 stop extra range through most of the ISO range. The one thing I find concerning about that link is I could find nothing about who did the analysis. I am always a bit skeptical about bought or influenced comparative analysis.
Molson, I have got very good shots with the 7D at 1600, but there is less margin for error on exposure and more work to process (NR). I would be happier at 800 and below, but I am not gun shy about using 1600. I am above that though; more so after my most recent experience.
Neuf_owner, it is great to hear from somebody going through the same thing but a little further along the path. I am surprised that your observations are that the 7D seems more tolerrant of shooting close to clipping. I would have thought the exact opposite. Of course, with the extra DR of the 800e, there should be less need to be pushing the highlights.
My decision might be easier if Canon came out with a 7D Mk2 that improved noise management, dynamic range and AF, but they are strangely quite on this front; even three years after the 7D's release.
As a 1DSIII landscape shooter which normally shoots at ISO 200 with a tripod, the Nikon D800E images are a great improvement. My problem with Nikon is the whole setup which is backward and awkward for me. The D800E will hold me until Canon releases a high MP camera than I will dump the Nikon.
Paul
I really didn't want to chime in because I have limited experience with Canon and my response would be biased. What I can say is that the d800 is a superbly capable machine. I'm still in awe about mine!
Ayhow, that DR info comes from the people at sensorgen. They are reliable.
Guari, thanks for the info about sensorgen. It seems reasonable. I noticed it mentioned another (separate) source - DxOMark. The pro photographer on the photo tour I took spoke quite negatively about them in terms of a strong bias to Nikon (and he is a pure Nikon guy).
It is interesting the terribly wide disparities in DR reported by different sites. Sensorgen reports an optimal DR of 11.2 for the Canon 7D while another site (link provided by earlier in this thread to a comcast site) reported it as 8.65. At 100 ISO the disparity is still 2.8 but drops to a 1 stop difference for the most part rather than the 2 stop difference described at the comcast site. Who's to say which one is right, but this type of thing always muddies the waters and makes decision making more challenging.
