lisy78 wrote:
2. pro af that supposedly can actually track subjects
If you get the D700 then the AF is not quite as fast as on the D3 or D3s. Functionally it is the same.
3. better high ISO performance (my opinion, I'm not entertaining arguments about this)
especially true for the D3s, which is at least a stop better than the D3 and D700 in terms of usable dynamic range at middle and higher ISOs. The Canon 1D4 closed the ISO gap a bit after the D3 was released but the D3s remains the best at high ISO.
4. lack of auto-mode-change-on-its-effing-own feature that all my canon bodies have
Hardly relevant - you can choose less automated modes or even manual.
9. available dual slot full frame high speed, monster ISO wunderbeast without 35 megapretzel resolution
Not entirely true for the D700. The D3 and D3s have dual CF slots but the D700 does not.
Ok, so for those of you who made this switch... I'd appreciate any insight you might have as far as how you went about the switch, what issues you found, what you miss from Canon (if anything) and maybe ways you managed to save on the transition by not necessarily buying the top nikon this or that... for isntance... flashes... do we need SB800s for our OCLs as well?
Having the bigger off-camera lights is beneficial if you use them for bounced or diffused lighting. SB900 has better user interface than SB800.
The Nikon camera and lens controls tend to work in the opposite directions to the Canon controls; it takes a bit of getting used to.
Viewfinder dioptric adjustment is changed in steps on the Nikons rather than a continuous adjustment on the Canons. I prefer continuous.
Not as many pixels on the Nikons. Presently 12 MPx for the full frame cameras.
The D700 has built-in viewfinder grid display that is not available on D3s (or D3?). This saves having to get a different focus screen.
No multi-spot metering feature on the Nikons. It's a nice Canon 1-series feature.
The metering on the high-end Nikon cameras is superior in resolution to any Canon camera.
The ability of the Nikons to combine colour info from the metering system with focus info can be very useful in tracking some subjects. This is the Nikon "3D" focus system.
On the D3s you have the option of using exposure compensation when using auto ISO in manual mode. Great feature sadly lacking on the Canon 1D4.
Nikon Capture NX2 is not free and not fast. You'll probably want Lr or similar anyway to handle images from both Canon and Nikon.
The D3 does not have sensor cleaning but the D700 and D3s do have it. This feature alone would (and did) stop me getting a D3.
Nikon gear is expensive but Canon is trying to catch up with their new lens releases.
The Nikon AF system does not have a widespread use of cross-type sensors like the new Canons do.
The Nikon AF is rated at f/5.6 or brighter. It doesn't just shut off at f/8 but you can expect it to be slower and/or less accurate. Also, there is no high-precision AF like there is on Canon 1-series cross-type AF sensors.
The D3s AF just seems to work even in low light. Seems to be more reliable than my 1D4 in low light (as in it will focus, albeit slowly, on stuff that I can't even see properly in the viewfinder).
Exposure bracketing on the Nikons happens in steps of 1 stop or less. If you want +/- 2 stops then you need say 5 shots per bracket at 1 stop intervals. Canon (at least the 1-series) will allow greater than 1 stop per step.
The D3s is noticeably superior to the D700 in the most important respects (e.g. faster AF speed, better sensor IQ at higher ISO) but the D700 is still a good camera and especially good in terms of value for money. The merit of the D3s over the D700 varies according to how and what you shoot; at base ISO for slow or static subjects the D700 is just as good and a lot cheaper.
1. I don't care what anyone says, the 5D2 is THE current king of IQ (although I haven't tried a D3x). But the difference is minimal enough to outweigh the disadvantages (like wasting that beauty on out of focus shots).
How do you define IQ?
Here's how I define IQ:
Camera A has better IQ than Camera B if all three of the following are true:
1. Shot at ISO 100 and printed as a 16x20 Camera A's shot looks better than Camera B's shot to the average bride
2. Shot at ISO 6400 and printed as a 16x20 Camera A's shot looks better than Camera B's shot to the average bride
3. Shot at ISO 25600 and printed as a 16x20 Camera A's shot looks better than Camera B's shot to the average bride
Somehow I woudl find it astonishing if the 5D2 does better than the D3S in this test.
Now if you're talking "ability to resolve more blades of glass on a hyperfocal shot taken on a tripod... at iso 200... then whatever"
Either way... my guess...
NO WAY IN HELL a client would ever notice my Higher IQ images over a comparable D3S image.
99% of CLIENTS (basically all my non-blind clients) will notice the amazing focusing tricks my 5D2 can do when used by me (no doubt better men and women than me could make my camera sing) ...Show more →
I define IQ as ANY difference in quality of a picture, regardless of whether or not "laypeople" notice it or not.
That said, I completely agree with your thought process, thus the "difference is minimal enough to outweigh the disadvantages" clause at the end of that point.
You're post on the first page here is one of the best I've read for a while. Whether any one agrees or not, it was honest, down to earth, real, no bullshit, no sugar coating, no political correctness chatter.
I won't go through the whole switch thing again, since I've said it a few times, but I too switched after picking up a D3 in a shop. I was speaking to the guy that works in the shop about my Canon stuff, and he gives me D3 to hold.
We whack on a lens, and start talking and shooting. Taking pictures of people coming down escalators of all things. I wasn't thinking about a Nikon, but I was in love. This is what I was looking for.
Time escapes me how long we were talking about it, but I ended up buying the thing. I couldn't believe it. I still use Canon, since not everything I want is here yet, but that's alright.
I must be a crazy person then, having swapped from my D700 setup to a 1D3 setup very recently I mostly did it for the lenses I wanted that Nikon just doesn't offer, but I'll admit after a few days of practice the camera feels really good - I really miss my wireless commander though!
Ruahrc wrote:
Those prices must have changed recently, or you must be shopping at the super secret B+H, because here is what I see:
Canon 16-35L II: $1600
Nikon 14-24: $1800
Canon 24-70L: $1300
Nikon 24-70: $1700
Canon 70-200 IS II: $2300
Nikon 70-200 VR II: $2200
These are for the standard USA prices, not grey market/imported
Norman
Edit: I realized you were factoring in the rebates now, which is fair but a bit of a misleading argument because if you already own a Nikon body, the prices would not really be as you reported.
It's kind of funny because I almost have Canon envy due to the availability of a high MP body at a reasonable cost (5dmk2), and from what I hear, far better tilt/shift lenses. But I like shooting landscapes so this changes what gear abilities I look for... ...Show more →
When you're ready to switch you can buy my 45 T/SE ... it's fantastic
My 2 cents...After years of shooting Canon as a staff photographer at a major newspaper I switched to Nikon when it came time to open my own studio. My reasons have already been stated by others but the biggies were: 1) reliability - tired as hell of the error messages and gear which quit at the more unfortunate times, 2) 5D2 autofocus recycled from xxD series cameras - one of the biggest epic fails in the history of cameras, 3) absolutely terrible service from CPS, 4) Nikon zooms >>>Canon zooms (at the time I made the switch), 5) better dynamic range and cleaner files at high ISO.
After the switch I began to move from zooms to primes and for a while was suffering some pretty bad prime envy (35L and 85L are obviously very potent photographic weapons). Now that Nikon has come out with high quality primes of their own, and Sigma has proven that they can build equivalent quality primes too, all is well .
My two caveats about switching would be: 1) their is no possible way that Canon is stupid enough not to replace the autofocus of the 5D2 with something a lot better in the 5d3 and it looks likely that the 5D3 is less than a year away, 2) the new 70-200L looks to be every bit as good, if not better, than the Nikon AND a new 24-70L is long overdue so if zooms are your thing I think Canon and Nikon will soon be equal.
You're post on the first page here is one of the best I've read for a while. Whether any one agrees or not, it was honest, down to earth, real, no bullshit, no sugar coating, no political correctness chatter.
I won't go through the whole switch thing again, since I've said it a few times, but I too switched after picking up a D3 in a shop. I was speaking to the guy that works in the shop about my Canon stuff, and he gives me D3 to hold.
We whack on a lens, and start talking and shooting. Taking pictures of people coming down escalators of all things. I wasn't thinking about a Nikon, but I was in love. This is what I was looking for.
Time escapes me how long we were talking about it, but I ended up buying the thing. I couldn't believe it. I still use Canon, since not everything I want is here yet, but that's alright.
I'm not a fanboy of either system. I've owned Canon gear for seemingly forever. I could list benefits of the Canons that are lacking in the Nikons.
However I am running a business, and my business suffers when shots are out of focus, when mode dials get magically changed just by the camera rubbing against my leg (Canon acknowledged the issue by offering a replacement LOCKABLE mode switch that they charge you for) and when 2.8 Zooms are either barely usable at 2.8 or inconsistent enough to drive me nuts.
If i were an enthusiast taking photos for fun, I would probably never in a million years consider the switch... but my business prefers a system that is maybe a tad more expensive, but more CONSISTENT in terms of reliability and with better checks and balances. My feelings about my Canon gear took a very sharp turn south when after processing a very important family portrait session (with members from out of town that hadn't seen each other together in ages) I found that my 5D2's AF had let me down, and the LCD had cunningly hidden the issue from me. Had either of the two worked the way it ideall should, there would have been no problem. With a Nikon that allows me to see what the raw sharpness is, I imagine I could see the problem and go to "shoot 5 shots while focus bracketing in MF mode" WHEN the AF fails.
So yeah... you probably liked my post because I'm not trying to put Canon down or whatever... there are a couple of things that are FATAL FLAWS for me.
And I'm fully aware that in different hands my Canon gear would probably shine EVERY TIME. I suppose that maybe Sam Hassass or Tony Hoffer... who shoot sessions more often than I take showers are so much in tune with their cameras that they'd be able to detect a problem just by noticing that the "fake" LCD view is somewhat off. I don't shoot nearly as often and the odds that I'd develop those kind of muscle-memory etc. are slim to none... so I guess I need the junk to actually work as advertised
Alessandro,
Your text above is basically adding weight to what I have been trying not to acknowledge for a while now. I cant help feeling like I have bought into a lottery.
martinezphoto wrote:
My 2 cents...After years of shooting Canon as a staff photographer at a major newspaper I switched to Nikon when it came time to open my own studio. My reasons have already been stated by others but the biggies were: 1) reliability - tired as hell of the error messages and gear which quit at the more unfortunate times, 2) 5D2 autofocus recycled from xxD series cameras - one of the biggest epic fails in the history of cameras, 3) absolutely terrible service from CPS, 4) Nikon zooms >>>Canon zooms (at the time I made the switch), 5) better dynamic range and cleaner files at high ISO.
After the switch I began to move from zooms to primes and for a while was suffering some pretty bad prime envy (35L and 85L are obviously very potent photographic weapons). Now that Nikon has come out with high quality primes of their own, and Sigma has proven that they can build equivalent quality primes too, all is well .
My two caveats about switching would be: 1) their is no possible way that Canon is stupid enough not to replace the autofocus of the 5D2 with something a lot better in the 5d3 and it looks likely that the 5D3 is less than a year away, 2) the new 70-200L looks to be every bit as good, if not better, than the Nikon AND a new 24-70L is long overdue so if zooms are your thing I think Canon and Nikon will soon be equal.
1. the time to let go of the "let's see if we can sell a full frame camera to these people, so let's keep it cheap and put the af from the XXD series in it" approach was when they were designing the 5D2, not now.
2. My business (tries) to sell photography to clients using currently available gear. Canon "shoulda coulda woulda" vaporware due in 8 months will not result in me worrying less about gear during my March 19th wedding.
3. While I may end up buying a used D3 rather than D3S (haven't made the final ruling on that) as my main body ... from everything I've read the D3S resolves every single issue I have with my 5D canon series and does everything else at least as well (save for resolution, which is a non-issue for me ... I'm perfectly fine with my 5D's resolution that is virtually identical to a D700,D3,D3S) bottom line... I'm much more likely to not envy Canon users their spectacular 5D3 once I switch if, as I expect, the D3 will basically get out of my way and let me work.
4. Moreover... if Canon were to come out with a tack sharp at 2.8 24-70 and maybe even a tack sharp at 2.8 16-35 L 3 (maybe it's just me but my 16-35 L is not reliable @2.8 on the 5D2) and bodies that fix the issues I have with theirs... that would just depress the used value of my gear as I swtich to "NEW CANON" ... I'd much rather switch to Nikon and hopefully do better on the sales
morganb4 wrote:
Alessandro,
Your text above is basically adding weight to what I have been trying not to acknowledge for a while now. I cant help feeling like I have bought into a lottery.
Sounds like you've already made up your mind.
Just do it. Both systems have pros/cons.
You have to go with the one you feel most comfortable with
And will give you the results you need and want.
That said, the D700 rebate thing sounds like a great deal.
It's a good camera. However, having used every digital camera from nikon,
The D3s better be on your list to buy in the near future.
It's absolutely incredible. And I feel any serious wedding photographer should invest in it.
The combination of it and the insanely awesome glass is ridiculous.
uhm.....posts like this make things more difficult
I am actually thinking to go the other way(5DII and 550D class) , and I have stopped investing significant Nikon purchase for a while (16-35, 24-120 f4, 135f2 DC are high on my list but not that I am going to get them all at one time).
One reason being unjustified, much higher lens price (like 100/105 f2, 135 f2, I am in Hong Kong so 5 yrs warranty does not apply to me) and a itch that might not bother everyone here (135 f2 DC cannot AF on lowest end DX body which I REALLY love to use when I don't shoot FX, or as backup/2nd travel camera).
The ability to use many 3rd lens is also attractive (just found that used Leica R lens are at quite good price, 135 f2.8 is cheaper than various Nikon 105 lens).
PS. i am not a pro photog so camera can hardly give me ROI.
Oh, I trust Nikon flash, not sure I could trust flash from other brands (at least not Panasonic)
Oh, I trust Nikon flash, not sure I could trust flash from other brands (at least not Panasonic)
Having used Canon, Olympus and Sony flash setups, Nikon's is by far the best implemented and most consistent. They really make it almost fail-proof. I think it's an issue of great flash operation and consistent (for the most part) camera exposure to begin with.
If you're a *really* big flash user, you might want to stay with Nikon. I enjoy strobing, but I also enjoy using different systems so they're not insurmountable problems, but they all have their minor "things" that annoy me.
1) Canon, at least my 1D3, doesn't have a settable minimum allowable shutter speed like Nikon does, when using flash. Not sure if this is true on the later bodies. It's either "slow sync" (in Nikon speech) or it's a fixed speed, usually 1/250s or 1/300s, when in Av mode, which is what I shoot 90% of the time.
This means half the time I just go into manual mode on the camera. I'm still working to tame the exposure/flash beast, but the 1D3 is known to be finicky and it's a new system to me, so we'll see. Not nearly as easy as Nikon though.
2) Olympus has the tendency to completely overexpose close-range shots with flash. (E-5, FL-50R) Also, the camera's onboard flash can't contribute to the exposure when used as a flash commander (how annoying is that?)
3) Sony's A850, OTOH, went insane trying to save even the smallest of specular highlights, which would cause my photos to look great on the rear LCD of the camera, but WAY freaking underexposed on my computer. I wrestled with this for weeks before I sold off the system - I couldn't figure out why the hell it was doing that, and I tried everything.
Lisy78, FWIW: I made the switch from Canon (5D Mark II) to Nikon (D700) half a year ago. These are my observations so far:
In terms of ergonomics (all functions readily available outside menus) Nikon beats Canon hands down.
In terms of ISO performances, I prefer the Nikon film grain look and the lack of banding when pushing shadows.
In terms of AF performance, the Nikon is *worlds* apart from Canon. With the 5DII, I exclusively used single center point AF, and would refocus-shoot between every single shot. Keeper rate about one in three on something that moves.
BUT:
21 Megapixels is nice to have for cropping a portrait out of a landscape and still have way enough res for a large print without the need for upressing.
35mmL 1.4 50mmL 1.2 and 50mm 1.4, 80mm 1.2 and 80mm 1.8, 135L, 400mm 5.6 are fantastic lenses. The Nikon equivalents (as far as they exist) are pretty good, but not on-par. On the other side you get state-of-the-art zooms with Nikon.
At the end of the day both manufacturers produce wonderful tools that are not too far away from each other. Really depends on your shooting style, your lens needs, and you present investment in gear on either side. When I switched, I recovered about 80% value of the original investments - not too shabby for 2 years usage. Personally, I am very satisfied so far with my switch but am still keeping an eye on the developments of the upcoming 5D Mark III body.
I made the switch 3 years ago from 1DIII to D3 (and now D3S + D700), so I don't want to say much about AF.
For weddings I use 24-70/2.8 and 70-200VRII and it never let me down.
One big bonus was the Nikon CLS flash system; much more reliable and predictable than Canon's.
It took me a few months to get used to the lenses as everything is in the other way.
The ergonomics are much better on the Nikons and I love the extra buttons.
Canon's lens line-up is still better than Nikon's but last year Nikon closed that gap pretty well.
According to a lot of reviewers the 24G, 35G and 85G are on par (or better?) than the Canon's
One lens I still miss is the 135L, i tried Nikon's but did not liked it.
Initially I had the 14-24 but replaced it for the 16-35VR because of the filter thread. The 14-24 is an awesome lens though.
When I bought a new Canon lens I first had to sent it out for calibration. With Nikon not up to now.
If possible get a D3s and SB900, they are the best at the moment.
It's not only the high ISO possibilities of the D3S but the colors are much contrastier and vibrant at high ISO.
lisy78 wrote:
Yeah, after months of thinking about it, a few conversations @ WPPI have convinced us that we should make the switch.
FWIW the primary reasons for wanting to do this are:
1. a 24-70 that you can actually use Wide open without needing to be one of 3 people I know who have a sharp one from canon
2. pro af that supposedly can actually track subjects
3. better high ISO performance (my opinion, I'm not entertaining arguments about this)
4. lack of auto-mode-change-on-its-effing-own feature that all my canon bodies have
5. full frame + pro af - the terabucks price
6. ability to actually see if a shot is in focus, on the LCD
7. less pro shoter friends who will push me into the gear whoring prime spiral of doom
8. supposedly less expensive in terms of shipping back to manufacturer for recalibration, adjustment, correction etc.
9. available dual slot full frame high speed, monster ISO wunderbeast without 35 megapretzel resolution
Ok, so for those of you who made this switch... I'd appreciate any insight you might have as far as how you went about the switch, what issues you found, what you miss from Canon (if anything) and maybe ways you managed to save on the transition by not necessarily buying the top nikon this or that... for isntance... flashes... do we need SB800s for our OCLs as well?
Sure, there's something magical about L primes, but since very few of my subjects are static, that f/1.2 magic wears off quickly with an OOF subject.
AF is impressive on the D700. Shooting my 2-year-old with the 51-point 3D tracking is enough to make me forget my 5D2.
I also prefer the high ISO feel of the Nikon's images, and the images clean up far better, show less noise when pushed, etc.
The 70-200 VR II and the Canon 70-200 IS II are equals as far as I can tell.
The Nikon 24-70 is so far superior to the Canon equivalent that I don't really need those primes so much anyway.
Oh, and Sigma lenses actually seem to have some shred of reliability on Nikon bodies. I returned every sigma I ever bought for my Canon.
Yeah, i know the game of leapfrog will continue, but the D700 has my entire wishlist of features I'd have wanted in the 5D3.
The extra resolution that Canon offers is nice for heavy cropping, but I didn't find myself cropping images all that heavily anyway, and it's a rare day I print bigger than 8x10.
I made the switch from Nikon to Canon due to problems with Nikon's high ISO performance and then back to Nikon to get a pro level high performance full frame camera. Compare a 5D to a D3 and it is easy to see why the switch. I use the 1D Mark III cameras which were excellent in most regards other than mixed lighting exposure accuracy but had the 1.25 crop factor that is not supported by Canon or anyone else. Good for sports and wildlife but terrible for wedding photography.
With the Nikon I was happy to get back to zooms and know they are going to provide excellent image quality, reliable autofocus accuracy, and durability. I covered the range with the 14-24mm f2.8, 24-70mm f2.8, and 70-200mm f2.8 VR lenses. I had no need for a prime to shoot weddings. I later added the Nikon 105mm f2 DC lens (no Canon equivalent) which provides me with a better working distance with a full frame camera than the 85mm lens and it has the DC which is great for portraits of brides and couples.
The SB800 was the flash I picked up but the SB900 is actually better for low light photography as its IR autofocus assist provides double the coverage of the SB800 and triple that of the SB700. Add a SD9 battery pack and you get fast recycle times all day and night without changing out batteries.
If you shoot with telephotos Nikon provides three different teleconverters with 1.4x, 1.7x and 2x magnification, and a loss of 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 stops of light.
I have Nikon lenses I have been using for 20 years and never have I had to send one in for calibration. The only lenses I have sent in for repair were an underwater lens that developed a seal leak and a lens that had been badly abused by its prior owner.
I would not hesitate to buy a well cared for Nikon pro grade zoom lens or a prime which saves money. With Canon I always bought new and with the 16-35mm f2.8 I had to send the first 3 copies back to the retailer and the 4th copy went to Canon CPS for adjustment. Also Nikon provides a full 5-year warranty on a lens you buy in the USA through a legit dealer. Not the gray market or so called "import" lenses, as all the lenses are imported, but the gray are overstock from other countries that get re-routed to the USA which Nikon tries to discourage with the warranty policy.
With Nikon everything just works so you can focus on your photography and ignore the gear aspects.
Lots of really detailed thoughts that make a lot of sense... Good to see I'm not crazy for thinking all the same things...
I ended up getting a D3 (used) for $3k, because I couldn't justify the price of the D3s for $5,200. Granted... with rebate from 14-24, 24-70, 70-200... it's $4,100... Decisions, decisions.
I'll be doing my taxes tomorrow so depending on how that goes my decision will be made for me. I may still be able to get the D3s too.
I mostly did it for the lenses I wanted that Nikon just doesn't offer, but I'll admit after a few days of practice the camera feels really good - I really miss my wireless commander though!