Er, is there a section for "Cheating on Canon?" I have a dual inventory system using the hi ISO D3 with her 3 pro zooms. I'm waiting for Canon's Mk IVs to smoke the D3.
Since starting this thread my 1DMKIII went through a great period where it was nearly perfect.
I did look for a D3 but bought a 5D instead. I use that now with few complaints.
I took up radio scanning and devolved an AIS sharing in my area, see when I don't have to be messing around with stupid gear, I get me job done and have time for other hobbies.
I've bought a Bushnell reflector and I've immersed myself in the various eyepieces available and experimented with Astro photography ~~ I need a bigger telescope but must work a bit more to afford one.
To that end, I've also gone back to using my 1DMKIIn too for sport so as to avoid the heartache.
When I get my bigger telescope the 1DMKIII will be fierce handy as the live view and close focusing abilities are really stunning when matched to a good eyepiece.
I'm negotiating with my neighbour to string a HF antenna between out houses, just about the right distance .... I've discovered a new wine ....
Gil_W wrote:
+1 Noticed the OP hasn't got back into his own thread. Guess he went back with his buds over at DPR.
Nutshell. At one time Nikon were perceived to be the best.
Then an arrogant upstart gave it a gift of customers as Canon made the EOS and alienated everyone. They moved to Nikon, all five of them at that time ....
But Canon were not playing games and soon it emerged that they in fact had the real deal .... so everyone, the kitchen sink and grandma moved to Canon. It was unprecedented in shock n awe as well are real damage ... blew Nikon back to the stone age [comparatively speaking]
I was one of those who moved and my career was made by that move and I had major, major advantages ....
I'm just a bit miffed that I actually have to do some work now, my camera advantage is gone ..... {(
maverick666 wrote:
I'm just observing from dpreview, potn, and this website that people that have moved to Nikon still so much interested in Canon forum, regardless what they've said about Canon. Why is that ?
simonella_viru wrote:
well, not long ago i sold off a lot of my canon lenses and my 1d III. the only canon stuff that i have left is 1 lens and a 5d. recently, i bought a d700 and the 50mm f/1.8. i must say that i'm incredibly impressed with the camera (IQ, AF, build, interface) and in no ways has it let me down so far.
with that said, i will soon be selling the 5d and the lens (after i shoot my next wedding). the move (away from canon) was partially motivated by the "eosfun" i had with the 1d III, and partially because i like how nikon has recently positioned itself. i also got a good deal on the d700... so that really pushed me over the edge.
is nikon perfect? no- actually, i think their lens lineup is lacking in many areas where canon is doing well (35L, 85L, 135L). but, i also see nikon as having a bright energetic future, being the one who is playing catch-up. canon, on the other hand, has rested on its laurels a little too long, in an endless loop of iterative design and nickle-and-diming its customers for every little feature....Show more →
Congrats on your new D700
I have been tempering with switching (partly) to Nikon as well. But in the end I love my 1Ds3 and Canon lenses too much. For a suitable back-up I have abandoned the D700 idea for it is not very pratical having a dual system. Right now I am contemplating of buying a 5D back or go with the much hyped 5D2...
I have been tempering with switching (partly) to Nikon as well. But in the end I love my 1Ds3 and Canon lenses too much. For a suitable back-up I have abandoned the D700 idea for it is not very pratical having a dual system. Right now I am contemplating of buying a 5D back or go with the much hyped 5D2...
thanks, Daan.
the reason the switch works for me is i've already sold off most of my canon lenses (for other reasons). also, i got a really good deal on the d700. it was one of those deals where if i sold my 5d and peripherals, i could get really close to what i bought the d700 for.
as for canon lenses, i think that they have nikon beat on 35, 85 and 135L offerings. nikon is really behind in that respect. however, nikon's latest offerings (14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 200 f/2) have demonstrated great results.
thus, if one has the money to throw around (which i don't), it is possible to wield both systems because they do complement each other nicely. it's a matter of picking the right lenses for each respective system.
I almost switched yesterday The Nikon D700 is too good to resist.......However, the Canon primes I own (35/85) are just too good to pass up.......so right now I'm dying to pop that 35/85 on a new 5DII!!!
treebeard wrote:
I read the post and thought I was at dpreview for a moment.
With thinking like that in a way you are at dpreview and always will be. Not the real dpreview but the imaginary one that allows you to sit in snide judgement upon the silliness of others.
How does the high ISO noise compare between the D700 and 5D?
I've been shooting weddings with 20Ds for a few years and this year added a 40D (with which I've been really pleased). Unfortunately, a friend has let me borrow his D700 for a few days and I was blown away by the high ISO performance. I thought the **D series were good in this respect, but the D700 is something else - clean images at 3200iso would really let me take the shots I want in dark churches during ceremonies.
I could just about scrape together enough for a D700 and the lenses I need if I ditch the Canon gear. A used 5D would be a much cheaper option though, and would let me keep the lenses I like using (and my 40D).
simonella_viru wrote:
thus, if one has the money to throw around (which i don't), it is possible to wield both systems because they do complement each other nicely. it's a matter of picking the right lenses for each respective system.
Well, a D700 plus a lens like the Nikkor 24-70mm would set me back for 3500,00 euros. A 5D costs 1400,00 euros (while they are still around) and the 5D2 should go for about 2250,00 euros. Since it is only for back-up duty I think the D700 option is a bit too expensive. But it is a mighty fine cam for sure
Daan: again, i picked the d700 up for a good (used) price. i wouldn't pay full price for it, as i don't think it's worth full price (all cameras are overpriced).
orangebug: from what i've seen so far, without doing a rigorous systematic analysis, i'd say the d700 has at least a one-stop advantage over the 5d, when taking NR and detail preservation into account. i can safely shoot with the d700 at ISO1600, which is territory i would NOT venture into with the 5d.
speaking of which, i'd like to do a systematic analysis of both cameras. the problem is that i don't have the same lens i can throw on both cameras. however, i could probably track down the canon 50 f/1.8 from a friend, which should be roughly equivalent to the nikkor 50 f/1.8 that i currently own. shooting both at f/8 should produce some solid data, especially since both cameras are roughly the same MP and no crop-factor.
If you're shooting RAW and processing in ACR the 5D and D700 are more similar than different at high ISOs. When you're really pushing things that's where you start to see practical differences. The bottom line is that you can shoot at 6400 without thinking twice about it - there the performance is at least as good as the 5D at 3200, if not better. If you push the 5D up to 6400 through software, forget it.
But if you're a JPEG shooter, there's no comparison - the D700's onboard NR processing creams the 5D and it is a fundamentally better tool in that role. I'm a RAW guy though, so I don't really care.
simonella_viru wrote:
Daan: again, i picked the d700 up for a good (used) price. i wouldn't pay full price for it, as i don't think it's worth full price (all cameras are overpriced).
simonella_viru wrote:
orangebug: from what i've seen so far, without doing a rigorous systematic analysis, i'd say the d700 has at least a one-stop advantage over the 5d, when taking NR and detail preservation into account. i can safely shoot with the d700 at ISO1600, which is territory i would NOT venture into with the 5d.
.
I must say I am kind of lost at why you can`t get good results at 1600 with a 5D. I get amazing results and many many other pro photographers I know and read about also do. Looking at your site you are shooting nothing unusual . Are you exposing correctly or what is it you are shooting that you can not get good results at 1600
RikWriter wrote:
I would have, but Nikon still hasn't updated the 80-400 VR or come out with anything else that can rival the 100-400L or the 400 f5.6L, and I can't afford to buy Nikon's big professional telephoto lenses.
+1
The change for me would have been costless as I had to replace my gear with an insurance pay out. I went with 5D, 1DmkIII, 17-40, 24-70, 90 macro, 100-400 & I still have $1500 AU to spend which would not be the case had I gone Nikon.
Peter Le wrote:
I must say I am kind of lost at why you can`t get good results at 1600 with a 5D. I get amazing results and many many other pro photographers I know and read about also do. Looking at your site you are shooting nothing unusual . Are you exposing correctly or what is it you are shooting that you can not get good results at 1600
Yea.. I've sold 16x24in prints at iso 1600 cropped from my 20D.. in fact I'd say the majority of the prints I've sold from that camera were iso 1600. And the 5D is even better. For a detailed landscape I'd try to stay at 800 or below, but if necessary iso 1600 exposed spot on really is quite good.
Sam Bennett wrote:
If you're shooting RAW and processing in ACR the 5D and D700 are more similar than different at high ISOs. When you're really pushing things that's where you start to see practical differences. The bottom line is that you can shoot at 6400 without thinking twice about it - there the performance is at least as good as the 5D at 3200, if not better. If you push the 5D up to 6400 through software, forget it.
But if you're a JPEG shooter, there's no comparison - the D700's onboard NR processing creams the 5D and it is a fundamentally better tool in that role. I'm a RAW guy though, so I don't really care....Show more →
see, and i found that at ISO1600, when shooting in RAW, i could see a significant difference. i know there are a lot of variables, hence why i'd like to do some more controlled testing.
Peter Le wrote:
I must say I am kind of lost at why you can`t get good results at 1600 with a 5D. I get amazing results and many many other pro photographers I know and read about also do. Looking at your site you are shooting nothing unusual . Are you exposing correctly or what is it you are shooting that you can not get good results at 1600
it depends on what one's expectations are. everyone has different requirements. mine happen to be that i don't like the way ISO1600 looks from a 5d- simple as that. it's a very subjective assessment and yes i am exposing properly.
now whether the d700 is better/ worse/ who cares in the longrun. it's all up to one's personal preference, from personal experience. i've now had experience with both cameras, so i can make my own informed decision on if it works for me and what i use my cameras for.
It really does depend on a lot of variables. One of the interesting things about the tests that they do at DPReview is that they're shot under daylight-balanced WB - likely strobes of some sort. In these conditions I've noticed that the D700 performs worse than under tungsten WB. This is likely due to the varied dependence on the R, G and B channels (with the Red and Blue channels being the noisiest).
D700, ISO 12,800 no NR or Sharpening, Tungsten on the Left, Daylight on Right Oct 29, 2008 at 03:54 PM
Oct 29, 2008 at 03:54 PM