ok i can't believe that I haven't looked into their catalog before this but....
Nikon has no really fast primes!
No 24mm f1.4, no 35mm f1.4, no 85mm f1.2!
Just 24mm f2.8, a 35mm f2, and 85mm 1.4.
Won't work for me. Flash, no matter how much more reliable, is still flash. I want to shoot available. So ordering another clunky 1d2 tomorrow. Good luck you all and thanks for the thread.
Maurice, there is the 30 f 1.4 sigma. It's a 45 on the nikons and a 48 on the canons and the first reviews are impressive. The Nikon 1.4 is arguably a better lens than the 1.2 canon in that you don't pay a penalty in the focus speed anywhere near as much and the difference of 1/3 stop is nothing really. I can't help but plug this here, but if you love fast - take a look at Olympus when later this year their lenses hit the street. They have a 14-35 f 2.0 and a lens I am dying to try out - a 35-100 f 2.0 - which with their multiplier gives their users a 70-200 f 2.0! They should have a new body about the same time and rumours have it with in camera anti-shake like the Minolta. My problem with both Olympus and Nikon is that the long telephotos are expensive - but you only live once, right? Who needs a house and car anyway!
mauriceramirez wrote:
ok i can't believe that I haven't looked into their catalog before this but....
Nikon has no really fast primes!
No 24mm f1.4, no 35mm f1.4, no 85mm f1.2!
Just 24mm f2.8, a 35mm f2, and 85mm 1.4.
Won't work for me. Flash, no matter how much more reliable, is still flash. I want to shoot available. So ordering another clunky 1d2 tomorrow. Good luck you all and thanks for the thread.
-m
There is the 28mm f/1.4, and a 35mm f/1.4 if you dont mind manual focus
Mike: Cameras and lenses are tools. Although Nikon could have the edge in flash photography Canon remains as a very good system too.
I primarily shoot Nikon because I have been doing that since 1963. When digital began to take the market and I bought my first digital SLR obviously I had the lenses and I went Nikon again.
If you are happy with Canon and its lenses why not a new flash? Metz makes excellent units and you should find one that will fit your needs. Switching to Nikon will cost a bundle when all you need is a new flash. If you are not happy with the 10D the 20D will do better and it is a small investment compared to going the Nikon system.
Just my opinion.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
Since I actually own both Canon and Nikon systems I can speak from years of experience with both:
Canon's edge on Nikon has always been lens selection with some very exotic and not-found-anywhere-else lenses such as my favorite 85mm f/1.2 L which I've used in both the FD and EOS mount. Canon has always treated me very well as a CPS member with quick repairs and "borrowing" some glass that I'd never purchase - at one time I actually "rented" the 1200mm f/5.6 L from CPS. Unless you're part of the "in" crowd with Nikon (which I've never been) you'd almost never get that opportunity.
However, Canons weaknesses are exactly Nikons strengths: a much better, more accurate TTL system (I don't care what any Canon rep says, the Nikon 3D Color Matrix system is as good as an in-camera meter can possibly get, and the new F6 has improved on that even further !). Nikon also has the wonderful ability to use *almost* any of it's older manual focus lenses on any of it's autofocus bodies. Can you imagine mounting the rare 8mm fisheye on a D2X? Now that's some serious fun, my boy!
My biggest and most recent beef with Canon was when I purchased the 1Ds MkII only to immediately learn that the firmware had some serious problems causing lost images, camera lock-ups - all the crap that is well documented not only here in the FM site but web-wide. How can a multi-billion dollar company release a new product, ask for such a premium sale tag and the damned thing not work reliably out of the box? That still angers me to this day.
My biggest complaint about the Nikon system is the crop factor and having precious few ED glass options to cover the extra wide angle views. My most prized Nikon wide lens, the 14mm f/2.8 EDIF mounted on a D2X won't ever give me the 114 degrees of view - that bites. The only option is the 10.5mm fisheye - which doesn't replace the 14mm which is rectilinear! Hey Nikon, wake up on that one, OK?
The bottom line is, both systems work very well - recent Canon goof-ups notwithstanding. However, if I were in the position of having to decide on which system to stick with, I'd go with Nikon and here's why:
- The 1Ds Mk II has poor and unacceptable wide angle performance - well documented and proven even here on the FM forums. To "fix" this you'd have to invest in a manual adapter and use hard to get and expensive Contax or Leica lenses. Hey Canon, if I wanted to use a non-Canon lens on my 8-thousand dollar EOS body I'd just buy that other system!
- Canon's flash performance has always been second rate ever since Nikon introduced the F4S, and Nikon's latest revision of the 3D matrix metering system is just... amazing.
- Although I hate the crop on the D2X, eventually Nikon will fill the gap in the ultra-wide primes that currently exists - and it won't suffer from the softness that the 1Ds MkII does.
For what you're doing and the direction your photography is taking, you are best staying with Nikon.
Nikon View software has built in ability to convert 10.5 mm images to rectilinear format. There are also other software packages that will remove fisheye, barrel, concave, as well as varios other types of distortion from many lenses, as well as dealing with various other artifacts such as chormatic aberration. PTLens is a free Photoshop plugin that works very well for these types of corrections.
KABeach wrote:
The first question is, have you looked at the pro line of canon... or at least the 20D. Comparing the D1/D2 line of Nikon to a 10D is hardly a fair comparison. Maybe you should rent a Canon 1D series camera and see if it fits the bill.
Personally I feel that all equipment has advantages and disadvantages. Unless the disadvantages in a particular line of equipment have become unsurmountable, you are propbably better off with what you are already used to.
HAving owned both brands andothers I can tell you without reservation that I rather have the D2X body to the 1DSII any day. The rgo, meetering and performance in my opinion out do the Canon. H O W E V E R, I would end up buying the Canon. Why, I think both Canon and Nikon lenses cannot perform well especially in the wide angle range. Even the highly coveted nikon 17-35 in my opinion and tests shows to be a poor performer even on a 1.5 crop. Having said that, If I buy the Canon, I can mount a Zeiss or Leica on the Canon body and cannot on the Nikon. When all is done and said it comes down to one simple factor. The lens. You could have the best camera in the world. Putr a crappy lens on it and its meaningless.
jtorral wrote:
I think both Canon and Nikon lenses cannot perform well especially in the wide angle range. .
Nice theories,...but I have also done similar tests, and if you're going to be forced to use MF lenses, many of the Nikons are equivilent, and in some cases superior, to the lenses you list. The 28mm 2.8 AIS, 28mm 2, 105 mm 2.5, the 85mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2 and 50mm 1.8,...and some that have no equals from Zeiss or Leica. (16mm 3.5 Fisheye, 85mm 2.8 PC, 19mm 2.8 Macro)
Having shot medium format Rollei's for many years, the Schneiders were always much sharper and contrasty than the Zeiss lenses. Having seen actual prints from Salgado (Leica R's) and Lindbergh (Nikon), I can tell you the Nikon prints were much sharper in the larger sizes. You see, photographs that mean anything have to end up in some form of medium that is touchable,...feelable,...real. And it is only then that you can talk about the superiority of one facet of image making from one brand to another. Staring at pixels on a screen has almost no relevance to the final outcome. And I'm not even talking about commercial media. (line screens, CMYK, etc.) You can print a 35mm image in a newspaper at 85 line screen 8 inches high and it will look the same as an 8 x 10 chrome printed the same size at the same line screen.
However, if all these machinations float your boat,...well, more power to you. But bottom line is Nikon doesn't need to be equipped to take other brand lenses,...because if you're going to include the MF lenses, there are no lenses that would be better than the Nikkors,....not even Leica or Zeiss.
I won't comment on the 17-35mm, as I've never owned one. But I have seen (film) large Ciba prints from this lens and it compares very favorably to equivilent large Cibas from a Leica. (go to Clone-A-Chrome in NYC,...they're hanging on the wall)
I have both the Canon 1DII and the D2X. Just spent 1 month on location shooting wildlife.
The AF and ergonomics of the D2X is superior to the 1DII Canon. I had better ratio of keepers (but fewer pictures overall due to 5fps vs 8fps). Metering on the Nikon is also slight better, giving better exposed pics in A mode than the Canon Av mode. The 200-400 VR is loads better than the 100-400L, but 70-200VR is slightly slower than the L version in AF and IS.
Basically it comes down to my choice of the Canon for 3 important features that Canon rules over Nikon:
1. Better weather sealing: I was on a boat with splash and the 1DII with 70-200L was soaked with salt stains all over and didn't miss a beat. The D2x body looks as well sealed but the 70-200VR is not the 70-200L in sealing. No 3"/min soaking ability with Nikon.
2. FPS: The nikon's HSC is useless due to the smaller focus area which makes tracking subjects more difficult. The AF points are spread out all over the pic and precise tracking of subject is difficult compared to the big VF of the Canon. Then there is 8+ fps vs 5 fps. Some people claim 6+fps on the canon but I've had shots of action vs Nikon. I've also got more OOF shots with the inferior AF system but overall, the Canon gets the shots due to speed.
3. Continued shooting: 2 memory cards with a total of up to 10GB(8GB CF +2GB SD) if necessary without even opening the camera. That's a great thing if you're shooting wildlife in inclement conditions and cannot change cards.
Nikon over Canon for many other kinds of shooting but my primary shooting is wildlife. Your mileage may vary.
How do you like the DMR? I saw one when Leica was demonstrating it in Amsterdam but I wasn't impressed by the prints. I won't buy one but I hope Leica do well with it so the company can stick around.
I would disagree with the poster above about the HSC being worthless (as would a lot of other shooters I know). It beats the heck out of cropping in PP later, it gives me smaller raw files, and you get 8fps. win, win, and win in my book.
I've also shot with my 70-200/d2x in the rain with no issues. The weather sealing isn't advertised like the Canon's, but it is there.
I also prefer the 1.5 vs the 1.3 mag factor...especially for wildlife. I can get away with a shorter, lighter lens. It's not that much difference, but every little bit helps.
IMO, the next D series camera will unite the H and X into one camera. So maybe we'll get 8 fps full size shots, 12mp, and maybe 16bit. Another nice feature would be a 2x crop with a larger shot buffer. I also expect nikon to give us the option for a secondary SD card.
I used to live within driving distance of Nikon in Mellville, NY and now live within driving distance of Nikon Torrance. I have used both service centers about 6 times during the last 6 years and both centers have been great. Recently I took a lens to Torrance that was way out of warranty, but had been serviced under warranty for the same problem, the service manager offered to repair it at no cost.
I am very demanding of customer service, it takes good service to make me happy and when I don't get it I speak loudly, so you can imagine that to write the above Nikon must be doing good by me.
