elkhornsun wrote:
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.
5D is not a pro level high performance full frame camera. so why compare it to D3?
I have Nikon lenses I have been using for 20 years and never have I had to send one in for calibration.
I tried switching up to 1Ds III from 5D II... I was not happy with it. The AF was not any better than the 5D II when I needed it most (dimly lit reception) - sure it's great outdoors, but I don't have trouble then with the 5D II anyways.
High ISO... not really. Not compared to 5D II.
Heavy... well, that wasn't a concern, I have grips and RRS L-Brackets on all my cameras anyways.
Made the switch last october. Couldn't be happier. I started shooting Canon initially because the studio I was assisting/2nding for was Canon. I basically went
10d -> 30d -> 1d Mk II -> 5d --> 1d Mk III -> 5d2 / 5d
I was shooting
5d2 / 5d
24 L
50 L
85 f/1.4
100 f/2
135 L
580 EX II
430 EX II x 2
SB28DX 2 x 2
PW TT5s
I decided to make the switch after careful consideration and a decent system swap on the B&S board opportunity.
I'm now shooting with
D700 / D700
D200
24-70 f/2.8
50 AF-S
60 AF-D Macro
85 AF-D 1.4
70-200 MM VR II (currently on the B&S as a trade for the VR 1 so I can get a 24g or 35g)
SB900 x 2
I've been very happy with the nikon system, having the 51 AF points is great, focusing in the dark seems better, the camera doesn't hurt my hand after shooting a wedding like the 5d2 bodies did.
24-70 is a great lens, completely useably wide open. Nikon flash exposure is usually very close, as is the metering in general.
It's a little annoying that the 24/35 primes are priced the way they are, but really the only way to get better IQ than the 24G is to get a Summilux 24 which is 6.5k so we shouldn't complain…
I'd like to upgrade one of my d700 bodies to a d3/d3s but I'm waiting to see what nikon does in the next few months as the d700 bodies do pretty much everything I need currently.
digitalbug30d wrote:
if you already have Canon glass and using a 5d mark2 why not just move up to a 1ds mark3?
high ISO
better a/f
sure its heavy so was a canon f-1
The fact that it's a $7000 body might play into the decision. The D3s outclasses the 1Ds3 at $2K less, and if you're shooting good glass you're not going to lose much in resale value, so it might still make sense to switch.
Also, you seem to be forgetting that the 1Ds3 has a max native ISO of 3200 IIRC.
DrPete wrote:
The fact that it's a $7000 body might play into the decision. The D3s outclasses the 1Ds3 at $2K less, and if you're shooting good glass you're not going to lose much in resale value, so it might still make sense to switch.
Also, you seem to be forgetting that the 1Ds3 has a max native ISO of 3200 IIRC.
Oh, and I forgot to mention how thoroughly and completely my new SB-900/SB-700 combo completely stomp the 580EX II/430EX II in terms of TTL metering performance and overall ease of use. Anyone who's tried to get a Canon flash into Slave mode will appreciate flipping the switch on a Nikon flash to "remote" and being done with it.
Also the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 for $150 bucks works reasonably well wide open on FX for a super-cheap and fun wide angle prime.
Interesting--I'm surprised to hear you get decent results on an FX sensor. I have a 35/2.0 Zeiss, though, so I think my next 35 will be the 1.4G... Just need the cash.
DrPete wrote:
Beautiful shot, but I think that argument is a non-starter, only because the Canon 24L delivers the same IQ for almost $400 less.
I thought we were talking about the $200. 35/1.8G DX.
digitalbug30d wrote:
if you already have Canon glass and using a 5d mark2 why not just move up to a 1ds mark3?
high ISO
better a/f
sure its heavy so was a canon f-1
1DS mark 3 was not going to make my 24-70 any better
I've had a 1D3 and let's just say I was not willing to play the lottery again.
Besides... if I were willing to pay for a 1DsMark 3... Nikon's 3Ds in my opinion KILLS IT in every metric THAT MATTERS TO ME , at a significantly lower price point. Hint... when Canon was about to come out with a replacement for the 5D I was expecting several improvements... NONE OF THEM had anything to do with DOUBLING the sensor's resolution.
DrPete wrote:
Beautiful shot, but I think that argument is a non-starter, only because the Canon 24L delivers the same IQ for almost $400 less.
Honestly, I don't know which is better. I was just expressing my love for the 24G IQ.
However, I did read one comparison that shows the 24G to be superior in flare control, wide open sharpness, contrast and shadow detail. But that's just one man's comparison.
$400 difference in price is ok, 'cause I have the peace of mind of a 5 year warranty
phillip ino wrote:
Honestly, I don't know which is better. I was just expressing my love for the 24G IQ.
However, I did read one comparison that shows the 24G to be superior in flare control, wide open sharpness, contrast and shadow detail. But that's just one man's comparison.
$400 difference in price is ok, 'cause I have the peace of mind of a 5 year warranty
Ultimately, that's what matters.
I will say, though, that I do miss my 50L and 35L. The 35G seems to be right up there with the 35L, but at quite the premium. I'll probably rent it at some point and give it a whirl, though.
DrPete wrote:
The fact that it's a $7000 body might play into the decision. The D3s outclasses the 1Ds3 at $2K less, and if you're shooting good glass you're not going to lose much in resale value, so it might still make sense to switch.
Also, you seem to be forgetting that the 1Ds3 has a max native ISO of 3200 IIRC.
Max native is 1600!
But: As long as every single shooter of the 11 Sports Illustrated phogs at the superbowl had a canon in his hand, as long the canon AF seems to be good enough. for the most demanding sports, at least. maybe not for weddings ....
TomKayser wrote:
Max native is 1600!
But: As long as every single shooter of the 11 Sports Illustrated phogs at the superbowl had a canon in his hand, as long the canon AF seems to be good enough. for the most demanding sports, at least. maybe not for weddings ....
Do they choose their own equipment or is it purchased for them by their employer? Serious question.
If the former then fair enough, if the later than we wouldn't know if given the choice they would consider nikon over canon.
TomKayser wrote:
As long as every single shooter of the 11 Sports Illustrated phogs at the superbowl had a canon in his hand, as long the canon AF seems to be good enough.
TomKayser wrote:
Max native is 1600!
But: As long as every single shooter of the 11 Sports Illustrated phogs at the superbowl had a canon in his hand, as long the canon AF seems to be good enough. for the most demanding sports, at least. maybe not for weddings ....
I'm guessing that every single shooter of the 11 SI photogs at the superbowl would shoot with more skill than I ever could regardless of the body they used.
That's not to mention the fact that a well-lit, brightly-colored football player at f/5.6 from 50 yards away might be easier for an AF system than a face in dim light at f/2. Or maybe I just suck. Or both.
In all seriousness, the 1D Mark III AF issue and the now-growing 1D Mark IV AF issue really don't have anything to do with sports shooting from far away in good light.
Maybe OT, but I think this video shows you that 1. These guys are in a league of their own, and 2. it would seem from the guys wearing all the Superbowl/Canon vests that there might be a dollar or two on the table influencing SI photographers' choice of camera... Even so there's a black lens or two in the mix.
