hi Alan, i'm in the same boat as you. recently got a d700 + 50mm f/1.8. though, i've sold off almost all of my canon gear.
what reasons did you switch for? just wondering.
for me: after fighting with canon on the 1d III fiasco, i promised them i'd turf all of my gear and go to nikon . so here i am, following through on my promises. that, and i wasn't overly impressed with the 5d II.
... download a few of the optional picture controls from the Nikon website... I use the D2X Mode I-II-III controls a lot, but there's also portrait and landscape you might want to look at too.
simonella_viru wrote:
hi Alan, i'm in the same boat as you. recently got a d700 + 50mm f/1.8. though, i've sold off almost all of my canon gear.
what reasons did you switch for? just wondering.
for me: after fighting with canon on the 1d III fiasco, i promised them i'd turf all of my gear and go to nikon . so here i am, following through on my promises. that, and i wasn't overly impressed with the 5d II.
if the 5d2 would of had a pro-AF system, Im sure alot more people would be with Canon still. And many Nikon users might switch over.
BenV wrote:
if the 5d2 would of had a pro-AF system, Im sure alot more people would be with Canon still. And many Nikon users might switch over.
Ben, i agree. i was sort of implying that.
at this point in the game, there's just no way i'd accept a 9-point, tightly-clustered AF system with only one x-type point. i don't care if the camera has 1000MP. but i'm just going over the same argument that i made on the canon forum.
BenV wrote:
if the 5d2 would of had a pro-AF system, Im sure alot more people would be with Canon still. And many Nikon users might switch over.
This in combination with the amount of MP they're trying cram in there is the straw that broke the camel's back for me. Last in a line of baffling decisions Canon's made. The 50D is already showing how Canon's compromising on their history of excellent noise performance to wage a new front in the MP wars, I reckon the 5D Mark II will be more of the same.
Sam Bennett wrote:
This in combination with the amount of MP they're trying cram in there is the straw that broke the camel's back for me. Last in a line of baffling decisions Canon's made. The 50D is already showing how Canon's compromising on their history of excellent noise performance to wage a new front in the MP wars, I reckon the 5D Mark II will be more of the same.
While I agree that Canon cramped too many megapixels on the crop camera like the 50D but the 5D MkII, like the 1Ds MkIII, is a FF camera, as we all know. Noise is not an issue in the 1Ds MkIII and some people claim to be as good if not better than the D3/D700. The jury is still out although I don't necessarily agree with that notion but who knows. I don't want to discuss Canon gear here though as it is the Nikon Board . Sorry, guys!
No, noise is an issue on the 1Ds Mark III, which is why it can't go up into the higher ISOs - it wasn't designed with that in mind. It certainly isn't as bad as the 50D, but it's not as good as the D3/D700. The only reason it's acceptable is because it has enough resolution to offset the higher noise levels. It just isn't worth it, to me, to take on much bigger files to get a final result that's only as good or worse than what I can get with a camera with half the resolution and subsequently smaller files. But I shoot the majority of my work at ISO 3200 or higher.
With that said, not everyone shoots at high ISOs, so cramming pixels in there for the folks shoot at ISO 100 most of the time is fine. I hope what we'll see with Nikon is a D3x that's 20-ish MP with marginally better noise performance than the Canon's, but they won't even attempt to cram a useless ISO 12,800 in there. Hopefully what they'll do is actually go the other way - make it so it's the best low ISO camera around - including a native ISO 50. This makes sense since you'd have the D3 which is a high ISO monster for your sports and wedding shooters, and D3x as the low ISO high MP choice for commercial, landscape and studio photographers. So you don't have competing cameras, you have complementary ones.
EOS20 wrote:
Just wondering, How good/bad is the 24-120 VR Kit lens on the D700?
I'm trying to think of some kits I could start off with if I make the switch, But I will be on a limited budget until I can sell off my Canon lenses.
I'm thinking:
D700 + 28 f/2.8 + 50 f/1.8
D700 + 24-120 VR + 50 f/1.8
Or
D300 + 18-200 VR Kit
D300 + 16-85 VR + 70-300 VR
Anyone else want to suggest some good set-ups to get started off with?
The 24-120VR was my first Nikon lens. The FL and VR was very tempting.
The IQ was very disappointing. Soft distortion, you name it. I've already sold it.
For travel I use a 24-85G lens wich gives me acceptable results, it's ofcourse no match for the 24-70
I'm not a prime guy so I can't comment on that.
The 16-85VR and 70-300VR are much better than their counter part. The 18-200 is a typical all-in-one solution, a compromise for everything but certainly not bad.
I think I would opt for the D300 + 16-85VR + 70-300VR
This is a relatively cheap setup with good IQ and a large range. AF is pretty fast.
Only drawback is the variable aperture
I've poked around it, but it's hardly a definitive guide on the subject. If you look at the more objective DPReview testing, it's clear that the 1Ds Mark III is significantly noisier at higher ISOs than the D3 and D700. But compared to DPReview, your average person will get even better results in conditions such as Brainiac's example which was shot under tungsten. Noise levels are very dependent on WB used, so it's hard to just pull images out of thin air for examples relative to each other. Unfortunately I haven't been able to shoot with a 1Ds Mark III first hand yet. But even looking at that thread it's pretty dismaying to see as much banding as there is there - the 5D Mark II will only be worse, as the examples Canon has provided have already shown. That's one of the reasons I loved my 1D Mark III and now my D700's - they're very resistant to that sort of banding, which is very difficult to get rid of.
I haven't and probably never will jump ship from Canon, but maybe I won't buy any more of their gear either. It would take a significant change of attitude by Canon to win my heart and brain again. I'm sick of being Canon fodder.
My 1D2 could not focus properly but it was fixed under warranty (10 week turnaround). My new 1Ds2 then had the same problem and while it was being fixed (7 week turnaround) I bought a 40D. The 40D was a heap of shit in terms of AF - in all modes - and yet Canon insisted that it was ok (5 week turnaround for that effort). I had to sell it (back to a dealer) before I hit it with a hammer. My 1Ds2 worked great until it didn't. I put it and a 70-200 f/4 IS lens in for service thinking that there was a problem with AF tracking and the shutter also seemed to be on the verge of failure. They said both were ok in terms of what I submitted them for but the sensor on the 1Ds2 needs to be replaced because they cannot map out all of the stuck pixels. Now they recognise the shutter is not so good afterall. They want me to pay $3,700 for the sensor and $700 for the shutter. It had only taken 3,800 photos and was only one month out of warranty when I submitted it. I'd had it in my possession for less than 12 months.
They said I should join CPS to get better service but I'm clearly not eligible. I'm not a pro and do not own a business.
So far my D700 seems able to focus and produce nice images without first needing to be serviced. What a pleasant change I wish I had gone to Nikon earlier this year instead of buying my 600mm IS lens for use on the 1Ds2.
EOS20, from what I have read the 24-120VR is not the right lens to put on a D700. Too much of a quality mismatch.
. so here i am, following through on my promises. that, and i wasn't overly impressed with the 5d II.
. Sorry, guys!