Sorry,
Can't help you. Never been foolish enough to by anything Canon makes.
Most satisfying nonpurchase I ever made.
All I know is there are an awful lot of useless Canon lenses out there that will no longer work on their current cameras, and history has a way of repeating itself.
What? That's silly. Canon makes fine cameras and glass (the 135L is a phenomenal lens), and it's highly unlikely that they would ever change their lens mount again. Further, they were a perennial also-ran under the FD mount and had the collective cajones to take a risk and change everything. The risk paid off and then some.
More companies (like, say, car companies) should be willing to do that.
The last FD product was made almost 20 years ago... as stated above, there are tons of great lenses, bodies, and whatnots from Canon. Very few people miss being able to use the FD mount, especially since everything has essentially been replaced.
I switched for a few key features, and to be permitted the use of a couple of special lenses... the other lenses I use are more or less equivalent. There is nothing foolish about buying into either system.
Luminosity: 'cajones' are 'drawers', the Spanish word you are looking for is 'cojones'
ponderosabob wrote:
Sorry,
Can't help you. Never been foolish enough to by anything Canon makes.
Most satisfying nonpurchase I ever made.
All I know is there are an awful lot of useless Canon lenses out there that will no longer work on their current cameras, and history has a way of repeating itself.
I think thats a pretty darn silly argument bob. I was a Canon shooter for about 7 years, from when I first went digital with the original 1D.
There was never once a time when I was upset I couldnt use the old manual focus FD lenses, and I highly doubt many other Canon shooters are as well.
Now sure, its all well and good that Nikon did make them still able to physically mount, but they are all and all a bit useless for most shooters these days. How many consumers really want a manual focus lens with no metering and outdated optical designs ?
Now yes, there are some decent ones in the AI/AI-S lineup, but those just appeal to a small group of people.
I bought the 35mm f1.4 AI-S and it cost me about $650. It was a horrible lens with a very outdated design, purple fringing and abberations galore and manual focus. Simply not worth $600 in my book.
Only reason I think anyone likes them is because Nikon hasn't made any new fast primes.
Canon did, they've got a worldclass 35mm f1.4 EF. Razor sharp even wide open and modern USM AF.
No one was whining about not being able to use FD with great glass like the 35 1.4, 85 1.2, 135 f2 etc
If Nikon comes out with some new G series primes with nanocoating such as a new 28mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, etc, I'm pretty sure no one is going to be willing to pay $3000 and up for the old AF-D 28mm f1.4
Skyehigh wrote:
Kit , I knew almost immediately that this camera was not for me after I had to send the first one back !
---
i have hardly used the D700 since I got it
www.jerrymoffatt.co.uk all shot with Canon !
Sounds like a heckuva shake-out you gave Nikon. And this is supposed to be helpful,
just to have an opinion, with this basis (not even a www... Some shots of Canon vs. Nikon)?!
millsart wrote:
...snip...
Its not like every shot was bad, it got its keepers, but on a touchdown run for example, I'd get something like OOF, sharp, sharp, OOF, sharp, OOF etc
Sometimes that OOF frame was the one that would of been the best position of the player, defender etc.
with the D3 its more like sharp, sharp, sharp, sharp, sharp lol
That's was exactly my experience with 1D3s, though I finally lost my patience and switched, a week before the latest Canon fix which everyone is raving about. Oh well, it didn't cost me that much, about the same price as a new body, and I am very pleased with my new Nikon rig. So all things considered, I am a very happy Nikon shooter who and am enjoying my photography alot more.
2+ years and multiple "fixes" and even a few that were raved about. i saw beyond the fog of the canon crazed and went back for product reliability and function.
A Canon user's perspective. I SERIOUSLY considered switching, even had the buy and sell ad typed up. What was luring me to Nikon was the D700. That is the PERFECT camera for what I do (family documentary and some high school sports).
Here is why I did not switch: FAST PRIMES. I primarily shoot with a 24L, 35L, and 85L (at the time on a 5D). I convinced myself that the Nikon 85 1.4 would be able to replace the 85L and I was in talks with an owner of a Nikon 28 1.4. But to be honest, I wasnt seriously impressed with the 28. Yes, it was good, but not as good as my 24L and 35L and it was THREE times the cost!
So in the end, I opted for the 5D2 and I am happy. I think the focusing issues of the 5D2 are WAY overblown.
Just my thoughts. I still maintain that the D700 is near perfection...now where are the 24 1.4 and/or 35 1.4!?
Here is why I did not switch: FAST PRIMES. I primarily shoot with a 24L, 35L, and 85L (at the time on a 5D). I convinced myself that the Nikon 85 1.4 would be able to replace the 85L and I was in talks with an owner of a Nikon 28 1.4. But to be honest, I wasnt seriously impressed with the 28. Yes, it was good, but not as good as my 24L and 35L and it was THREE times the cost!
S
The better iso performance of the D700 over anything Canon has somewhat mitigates the issue
of Canons 24/1.4L and 35/1.4L.
Then on the remaining focal lengths that Nikon does have fast primes, you would be even that much more ahead of the Canons.
ponderosabob wrote:
The better iso performance of the D700 over anything Canon has somewhat mitigates the issue
of Canons 24/1.4L and 35/1.4L.
Possibly in terms of light gathering, but high ISO is not a 'replacement' for fast apertures.
It's another approach, you can gather the same amount of light in theory, but you are giving up one level of light control for another... robbing Peter to pay Paul as it were.
In a perfect world, we have both at our disposals (enabling even MORE light gathering) and can use determined quantities of either to our likings.
Yes, but neither of those lenses are all that great at 1.4 anyway. What would you really be giving up?
And why does everybody think they need autofocus for everything. My God!
Nikon has some great large aperture AI-S lenses in those lengths.
I suppose none of Leica's M's ever could take a decent photo because they were so hamstrung by lesser quality manual focus lenses.
Canon's cameras might as well be manual focus anyway.
ponderosabob wrote:
Yes, but neither of those lenses are all that great at 1.4 anyway. What would you really be giving up?
And why does everybody think they need autofocus for everything. My God!
Nikon has some great large aperture AI-S lenses in those lengths.
I suppose none of Leica's M's ever could take a decent photo because they were so hamstrung by lesser quality manual focus lenses.
Canon's cameras might as well be manual focus anyway.
Ivo Heshusius wrote:
Mmm... I don't want to start another Canon vs Nikon-debat but I can give you some reasons..
1) they want a camera that takes pictures which are IN FOCUS
2) they want a camera that doesn't make the color red hurting your eyes
3) they want a camera that gives pictures without a 'plastic' finish
4) they want a camera that gives a usable user-interface
5) they want a camera with a logical button-layout
Please feel free to add other items to this list
As a former Canon sports shooter, I cannot agree with any of the above. I mainly shoot indoors, so the focusing issues weren't very evident. The 1D3's system is still better than Nikon's in some situations - particularly if you need to use the peripheral points in situations where its cross-type sensors are the only thing that will get the job done. As for processing - I use Lightroom for everything anyway, so it's a moot point. As for UI? Sorry, I think Nikon's UI is a mess and its camera ergonomics aren't much better - ultimately all of that comes down to preference anyway.
Anyway... my main reason for moving from the combination of Canon 1D Mark III and a 40D was that I wanted to be able to shoot at 6400 without thinking twice about it. This would allow me to shoot with f/2.8 zooms in all the conditions I find myself in without sacrificing quality unduly and losing sales. The 1D3's noise performance is pretty damn good and can get by at 6400, but it's still a stop or two behind the D700/D3. I can now shoot at 6400 and easily get the results I would regularly get at 3200 with the 1D3.
Beyond that, I really didn't like the way I saw Canon going by jumping back into the megapixel race. After Nikon caught up using CMOS and getting great noise performance it looked like Canon sort of threw up their hands and said "Fuck it! We'll just start throwing in more pixels and rely on noise reduction to save us". I really wasn't happy with the quality I was getting at high ISOs with the 40D and so after I saw the trend continue with the 50D and then the 5D Mark II and no trend towards making a broader "suite" of pro-level cameras like you saw with the D300, D700 and D3 (and now the D3x) I made the jump. I now have two D700's instead, so no matter what conditions I'm in I know that I'm going to get the quality I need. I'm now part of the Nikon pro "system" and when using the grips I have 4 cameras that all use the same battery system. With the D700, I have the flexibility to shoot with or without a grip according to my needs for a given shoot.
Canon just sort of lost the way, unfortunately. It's a shame. I loved my 1D3 and will still admit it's the best camera I ever owned and likely will ever own. But as a whole, I'm happier with the Nikon system.
One thing that is pretty cool is the battery that comes with a D700 will work in 8 other Nikon Camera bodies. (D300, D80, D70, D70s, D50, D200, D90, D100)
This helps keep the cost of batteries down. There are a few third party battery suppliers that produce excellent copies of this battery.
Sean Mills wrote:
Possibly in terms of light gathering, but high ISO is not a 'replacement' for fast apertures.
It's another approach, you can gather the same amount of light in theory, but you are giving up one level of light control for another... robbing Peter to pay Paul as it were.
It is also true that your DOF could be too shallow going down to say F1.4, isn't it?
codeninja wrote:
It is also true that your DOF could be too shallow going down to say F1.4, isn't it?
To shallow for what?
It's an option, it has it's applications. No, you don't generally want to shoot a landscape at f1.4... nor do you want to shoot it at ISO 3200 even if some rabid fanboys call it 'clean'.
All these things are vehicles to arrive at the destination of the image. What that image is, and how you get there is what it's all about.
There are plenty of applications where f1.4, 1.2, or even 1.0 are not 'too shallow'... and vicea versa where f8 is too deep.
I have at least a half dozen lenses that I could have taken that photo with.
Most likely in much less light.
What are YOU saying - that Nikon equipment would not be capable of that photo?
Puhleeez
For the record, I said they weren't that great, and yes they have great central sharpness, but are very soft away from center. Which is not always a bad thing. Depends on what you are going for. Shallow DOF can be used to great benefit. Close them up a couple stops and they sharpen up, but then you are still at the same f-stop where the Nikkors AF lenses are already sharp.
Check out photozones reviews of the 2 lenses, and you'll see I'm not alone in my opinion.
So ..... What about that photo requires autofocus?
