Why switch to Nikon?

[westernminnguy]

I'm reading several posts re: I might switch to Nikon because of the MKIII or whatever.

(1) If you have a lot of $$$ invested in Canon glass...seems to me switching to Nikon for the average photographer(who can't afford two systems)is a mute point.

(2) Most forums I've read seem to point to the fact that glass is more important than the camera anyway.

So help me out here....

What exactly is the point of discussing Nikon here?

Thanks

And no, I'm not trying to start a flame war...just a practical question.

[zeva]

I think people are just not happy with the new 5d Mk II i think most people saying they will switch probably will not...

[bsaber]

The 1DIII had focus problems and Canon's handling of the situation didn't really help so many thought about switching to Nikon's D3 as a quick solution. I could be completely wrong of course.

[zeva]

Honestly i think only people that would change are professionals that need their bodies to be top of the line.... personally it doesnt really matter to me! as long as it works!

[L1TTLEgreenMAN]

^^ exactly!! alot of people just have to have the newest and the best. right now some nikon bodies are a little better, so naturally some people will jump ship and run to the other side.

[bacchanal]

I am still on the fence about possibly going to Nikon. For me, the D700 is kind of a game changer in that it is sort of like a baby D3 at half the price. In some ways it is more practical for what I do than the 5DmkII will be. The main thing keeping me with Canon is wide to normal primes and the theoretically stellar IQ of the 5DmkII.

Primary use: low light/performing arts

Canon kit:
5DmkII (pre-order $2700)
30D ($500 resale value)
17-40L ($500 resale value)
35L ($900 resale value)
85 1.8 ($300 resale value incl hood)
135L ($800 resale value)

$5700

Potential Nikon kit:
D700 ($2700)
17-35 f/2.8 ($1500)
50 f/1.4 AF-S ($450)
80-200 f/2.8 ($900)

$5550

[weka2000]

Well lets be honest. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages.

There are 3 Nikon lens that I would be more than happy to have at the moment as canons equivelent dont really get a look in. Yet for what I do canon works.

There are a few people that do have both systems so they get the best of both worlds.

A complete switch is not an option for me........ having both is

[zeva]

As it goes you can have all things two of the three
Fast
Cheap
Good condition

everyting is a compromise

[mikeassk]

I am still on the fence about possibly going to Nikon. For me, the D700 is kind of a game changer in that it is sort of like a baby D3 at half the price. In some ways it is more practical for what I do than the 5DmkII will be. The main thing keeping me with Canon is wide to normal primes and the theoretically stellar IQ of the 5DmkII.

Primary use: low light/performing arts

Canon kit:
5DmkII (pre-order $2700)
30D ($500 resale value)
17-40L ($500 resale value)
35L ($900 resale value)
85 1.8 ($300 resale value incl hood)
135L ($800 resale value)

$5700

Potential Nikon kit:
D700 ($2700)
17-35 f/2.8 ($1500)
50 f/1.4 AF-S ($450)
80-200 f/2.8 ($900)

$5550

For lowlight wouldn't you want the 16-35 2.8?

I don't think either of those (magnificent systems) combinations will be any different. Seems like a huge headache to switch if you ask me.

I have a Mark III and would trade it for a D3 in a heart beat.

[nightlife-shooter]

As someone that has used both systems I can say that they are both great. I do like the Nikon bodies for the quick and simple layouts. The latest line is a true winner. The lenses are top notch as well. The Canons are not as well laid out in my opinion but that is something that you get used to and becomes second nature. I do think a companies cure to problems shows how much they care about us consumers. Still hearing about problems in Canons top notch body is a disappointment. They do rule the market in lenses though in my eyes.
I am a Canon shooter at heart but feel that Nikon has listened to the photographers and they also build a body for photographers. They may have been slow to the game but they came on strong and brought what many wanted. Marketing makes large companies go round but at some point Canon is going to have to play catch up. The competition is great for us since we benefit from the end result. Look how long those Nikon shooters waited for a lineup that could run with the big boys.:) You can't be a champion and never have to defend your position. Canon will come back strong. They just have to listen and learn. I see good things for the 5D MII while the 50D was just a body to keep people interested in the brand and lessen the gap from the D300. The 50D did give us the features that are well overdue and needed to stay competitive. Even though that print button will never go away.:confused:

At the end of the day Nikon does deserve credit for the recent lineup. I can't remember a time when so many people thought about switching. Usually is was the other way around. Canon will come back. Just have to wait it out.
I love my Snap On tools but a Craftsmen will get the job done too. Just have to use them for what they offer. Choose the tool that fits you best. Happy shooting!

[bacchanal]

For lowlight wouldn't you want the 16-35 2.8?

I don't think either of those (magnificent systems) combinations will be any different. Seems like a huge headache to switch if you ask me.

I have a Mark III and would trade it for a D3 in a heart beat.

Yes, I'm not saying that Canon kit is ideal, it is simply what I own at the moment (well, besides the 5DII).

My main reason for wanting to switch is that I rely heavily on the off-center focus points in low light, and I'm not a fan of focus and recompose. But you're right...I seriously doubt that I'll end up switching, because it would be a lot of hassle for what would probably be a minimal net trade off. Also, from what I hear the 17-35 is notorious for QC issues.

[theveed]

As someone that has used both systems I can say that they are both great. I do like the Nikon bodies for the quick and simple layouts. The latest line is a true winner. The lenses are top notch as well. The Canons are not as well laid out in my opinion but that is something that you get used to and becomes second nature. I do think a companies cure to problems shows how much they care about us consumers. Still hearing about problems in Canons top notch body is a disappointment. They do rule the market in lenses though in my eyes.
I am a Canon shooter at heart but feel that Nikon has listened to the photographers and they also build a body for photographers. They may have been slow to the game but they came on strong and brought what many wanted. Marketing makes large companies go round but at some point Canon is going to have to play catch up. The competition is great for us since we benefit from the end result. Look how long those Nikon shooters waited for a lineup that could run with the big boys.:) You can't be a champion and never have to defend your position. Canon will come back strong. They just have to listen and learn. I see good things for the 5D MII while the 50D was just a body to keep people interested in the brand and lessen the gap from the D300. The 50D did give us the features that are well overdue and needed to stay competitive. Even though that print button will never go away.:confused:

At the end of the day Nikon does deserve credit for the recent lineup. I can't remember a time when so many people thought about switching. Usually is was the other way around. Canon will come back. Just have to wait it out.
I love my Snap On tools but a Craftsmen will get the job done too. Just have to use them for what they offer. Choose the tool that fits you best. Happy shooting!

*clap* *clap* *clap*

Precisely.

Besides, it's just a brand, unless I own shares or sell these things, I could care less what brand I use...

[dave kadolph]

You're absolutely right--there is no point for the average photographer.

But for the working pro who has to deliver every time----the Mk III has been the best salesman Nikon ever had--for a multitude of reasons.

[weka2000]

But for the working pro who has to deliver every time----the Mk III has been the best salesman Nikon ever had--for a multitude of reasons.


Yes thank goodness the 1Ds3 wasnt plauged with issues.

[midnight_rider]

I do not have a 1D mk3 nor do I have a 5D. I have not been awaiting the 5D mk2 but I have been thinking about changing over to Nikon. I have a 40D and I have been thinking about the D300. I feel like Nikon has put more into their cameras at that level than Canon. For instance. 51 point AF vs 9, a 100% viewfinder Vs 95%, A help button in the custom settings menu, and an external MLU switch. I like Canon and will more than likely stay with them. The allure of Nikon is strong for me but I suppose some where at this moment on a Nikon forum there is a post about Nikon users going over to Canon. I think as long as you are choosing between Canon and Nikon you are going to make a great choice .

[dave92270]

Just curious - what is the issue with the upcoming 5D MkII?

...I didn't read the forums much recently... and , I considered to upgrade to 5DMkII kit (with 24-105) at some point, maybe after Christmas.

[Brad Remick]

Just curious - what is the issue with the upcoming 5D MkII?

...I didn't read the forums much recently... and , I considered to upgrade to 5DMkII kit (with 24-105) at some point, maybe after Christmas.

I'm not sure what the "issue" is with the 5D Mk II. There seems to be lots of criticism of a camera most of us have never seen, shot with or even touched. Doesn't make too much sense to me. The camera sounds great. I love my current 5D and am optimistic the Mk II will be great. But, like criticism, praise of a camera I've never seen, touched or shot with will have to wait until I do. Despite what the reviewer say, what the on line photos look like, ultimately, It's my money so I'll make the final decision. At this point, I have too much of my money wrapped up in Canon to make the switch. I just like taking pictures. If I don't buy the Mk II, I'll go and get some more glass for my 5D and then go outside and take more pictures.

[canon rookie]

I can tell you that I'm seriously considering switching to Nikon. Did you pick up the D300 yet? Everytime I go into the camera store and play with one I want it!!! It does seem better than the new 50D at high ISO'S.
To me Nikon is kicking Canon's rear right now but I'd bet that since the 50D isn't getting such great ratings and press that the 60D will be very good.
rookie

[erure]

Just curious - what is the issue with the upcoming 5D MkII?

...I didn't read the forums much recently... and , I considered to upgrade to 5DMkII kit (with 24-105) at some point, maybe after Christmas.
I don't know either. I've heard a lot of criticism about the price? But compared to the price when the 5D was introduced, it's a lot lower... Maybe people just like their 5D too much. I really miss my 5D.

[bacchanal]

Just curious - what is the issue with the upcoming 5D MkII?

...I didn't read the forums much recently... and , I considered to upgrade to 5DMkII kit (with 24-105) at some point, maybe after Christmas.

Nikon releases a baby D3 (aka the D700) and Canon releases a camera with 21MP and a 3 year old* AF system. Personally, 21MP does nothing for my photography, and I'll probably be shooting the 5DII in sRAW a fair amount of the time. A more robust AF system would have been very welcome. In fact, a D700 clone with an EF mount would have been just fine.

*debatable

To be honest, what Nikon has done with the D700 is pretty crazy. In many ways it is in the same class as Nikon's current flagship D3 at almost half the price. The 5DII may be a great camera, but no one is going to say that it is in the same class as a 1 series. It's hard not to imagine what Canon would have come up with if they had decided to play the same game as Nikon did with the D700. Even then...it is unprecedented at the current market pace to go three years without making significant changes to a camera line's AF system. The fact that the AF system was left alone also opens up some additional uncertainty about the current state of Canon's AF troubles with the mkIII. That is the issue with the 5DII.;)

[dave92270]

...it is unprecedented at the current market pace to go three years without making significant changes to a camera line's AF system. The fact that the AF system was left alone also opens up some additional uncertainty about the current state of Canon's AF troubles with the mkIII. That is the issue with the 5DII.;)

I see...thanks!

I'll keep an eye on AF accuracy and related things reports once the camera is available...

[bestfromnw]

i've shot nikon for last year and switched back to canon; what i do miss is the layout and ergonomics! also my d200 was built like a tank! iq wise i dont really think that any nikon body under 4+k comes close.

[MLphoto]

When i go around the internet checking out photographs i can tell if its from Canon or Nikon, and when i check the EXIF data i am always always right. Its just that Nikon has more rich color and more detail in the pictures, i can't explain with great detail but when i like Nikon pictures perfect as in when i look at canon pictures I always say there can be room for improvment....

My plan was to upgrade to Canon 50D then buying a 70-300 and 10-22
NOW things are swiching over because i keep telling my self (nikon is better) even that i am a Canon user and i just might buy my self a Nikon D300 with Tamron 18-270 and 10-22.

[Brett]

When i go around the internet checking out photographs i can tell if its from Canon or Nikon, and when i check the EXIF data i am always always right. Its just that Nikon has more rich color and more detail in the pictures, i can't explain with great detail but when i like Nikon pictures perfect as in when i look at canon pictures I always say there can be room for improvment....

My plan was to upgrade to Canon 50D then buying a 70-300 and 10-22
NOW things are swiching over because i keep telling my self (nikon is better) even that i am a Canon user and i just might buy my self a Nikon D300 with Tamron 18-270 and 10-22.

Bump up the saturation and contrast in-camera. Landscape with a +2 contrast and +2 saturation will produce images that look Nikon-like, at least in my experience. Nikon cameras tend to produce a more saturated, contrasty image. It's all in processing (or lenses, but that's another matter :))

[Calzinger]

When i go around the internet checking out photographs i can tell if its from Canon or Nikon, and when i check the EXIF data i am always always right. Its just that Nikon has more rich color and more detail in the pictures, i can't explain with great detail but when i like Nikon pictures perfect as in when i look at canon pictures I always say there can be room for improvment....
That's a ridiculous load of nonsense. There is absolutely no shot from a Nikon that a shot from a Canon couldn't be pushed to.

The only comparable IQ difference between the systems is noise handling, and in all honesty, that's even a stretch. All other IQ differences are so miniscule that arguing so would be pointless bickering.

Switching for ergonomics is one thing. But for IQ? Oh please...

[zeva]

When i go around the internet checking out photographs i can tell if its from Canon or Nikon, and when i check the EXIF data i am always always right. Its just that Nikon has more rich color and more detail in the pictures, i can't explain with great detail but when i like Nikon pictures perfect as in when i look at canon pictures I always say there can be room for improvment....

My plan was to upgrade to Canon 50D then buying a 70-300 and 10-22
NOW things are swiching over because i keep telling my self (nikon is better) even that i am a Canon user and i just might buy my self a Nikon D300 with Tamron 18-270 and 10-22.


lol i think we should test this! :P if not then its a load of crap

[coolshot]

I already made the switch. My stuff arrives on friday. I have very little invested in canon as I was just getting into photography. Nikon has the body with features I like, the glass I like (midrange zooms) and a flash system I like (CLS). So there you have it.

[mikeassk]

When i go around the internet checking out photographs i can tell if its from Canon or Nikon, and when i check the EXIF data i am always always right. Its just that Nikon has more rich color and more detail in the pictures, i can't explain with great detail but when i like Nikon pictures perfect as in when i look at canon pictures I always say there can be room for improvment....

My plan was to upgrade to Canon 50D then buying a 70-300 and 10-22
NOW things are swiching over because i keep telling my self (nikon is better) even that i am a Canon user and i just might buy my self a Nikon D300 with Tamron 18-270 and 10-22.

More detail and more richness in a web sized image... :confused:
Conclusions...

[SlowBlink]

A lot of people shot Nikon and were loyal users until Canon took the market away from them with digital. Now that Nikon is back in the race I think more old shooters will be going back. They're great cameras.

[pgulati]

That's a ridiculous load of nonsense. There is absolutely no shot from a Nikon that a shot from a Canon couldn't be pushed to.

The only comparable IQ difference between the systems is noise handling, and in all honesty, that's even a stretch. All other IQ differences are so miniscule that arguing so would be pointless bickering.

Switching for ergonomics is one thing. But for IQ? Oh please...


And, I thought I was the only one going crazy, who could tell 80% of the time, a Nikon pic from a Canon. Yes, I can also tell (I am right more times, than I am wrong).

[Jimlevitt]

I'm another who is seriously considering making the switch. I used Nikons until 15 or 20 years ago (can't remember when I made the jump!) but, like many others, moved to Canon when autofocus cameras came along. The reason sporting event sidelines have been dominated by white Canon lenses goes back to the superior AF Canon brought to the table. The Canon sensors have been better for many years too.

All of this gives the lie to the "it's all about the glass" statements repeated here quite frequently. That's conventional wisdom from the days of film. Cameras were light-tight boxes with a shutter and (at least as long as I've been around) a metering system. Better film produced better results. Better glass produced better results. Other than that, the differences came down to ergonomics and metering. There was little reason to upgrade camera bodies very frequently. Heck, I used a pair of A2's for ten years or more.

Digital throws a lot more into the mix. The camera body now is the film. The camera body now, to a great extent, determines how good the autofocus will be. It's no longer all about the glass! Nikon made a startling comeback in the very recent past. They finally developed or sourced sensors that match or exceed those of Canon; and their autofocus system may now be better too. The newest Nikkor lenses (14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8, to name just two) are stunningly good. Most of their other professional level glass is comparable to Canon's.

I'm using a pair of 40D bodies, shooting mostly low-light music performance, much like an earlier contributor to this thread. The d700 is the camera I wish Canon would make - but it doesn't look to be in their plans at all. Good autofocus, really good high iso, good frame rate. For my needs (not the same for every photographer!) the 5d MkII is overkill on resolution but comes up short otherwise. It's more a focus-recompose camera, not very useful when one needs to keep a focus point on a moving performer. The video capabilities are of no use to me. For people doing landscapes and some other sorts of photography, the 5DMkII will be an amazing camera. The 50D, based on all the reviews and comments I've seen so far, doesn't mark much if any improvement over the 40D for the work I do. The next step up, to the 1 Series, is a big jump in price. Nikon puts more high-level goodies in their mid-level cameras.

Lens cost is pretty comparable, until the long telephotos come into the equation. I don't need longer than 300mm, so that's not an issue for me. The 200/2 lens is actually far less expensive on the Nikon side! At the moment the Nikon lens lineup is missing some vital primes. A few image-stabilized f/4 lenses are needed too. Based on the past couple of years, odds are Nikon will fill the holes in their lens stable before Canon will offer us a good all-around camera akin to the d700.

Switching systems is costly, and I won't make the move casually. But I sure wish Canon would get its act together to produce a competitor to the d700.

On the other series of comments going on here: claiming to be able to tell a Nikon image from a Canon image, without knowing what post-processing was applied, sounds unbelievable.

[pgulati]

On the other series of comments going on here: claiming to be able to tell a Nikon image from a Canon image, without knowing what post-processing was applied, sounds unbelievable.

A lot of things sound unbelievable but are feasible. There is some attribute peculiar about each of the camera's output which draws attention. To name some, I think colors are more saturated in Nikons (no you cannot duplicate the feel of those colors in PP). And no, I am not saying one is better than the other.

Sharpness is another thing, which is by default at a level, which I like in Nikons. Yes, this can be adjusted in the camera body in Canons too.

I think, someone mentioned clarity. Yes, it is most of the time more in Nikon pics. Sometimes I do mixup Nikons and Canons, especially when looking at sharpness, especially with 1D series cameras. Yes, that means, IMHO Nikons do produce sharp (and detailed) pics (same as Canon 1D series). And IMHO non 1D series do produce soft pics. Not all of them, but most of them.

But again, this is my own very personal view, formed by using Canon equipments over the years.

It's free world after all.

[muscleflex]

if you list all those who say they'll switch... probably 1% will. most people who say that are all talk! :rolleyes:

[Terrywoodenpic]

I have no loyalty to any make of camera. Throughout my working life I have switched format and makes many times. To day I am perfectly happy with my 40D, but who knows what tomorrow will bring.

We all use what we consider is the most suitable tool at the price we can justify.

At least Photographers are not like construction builders who cost in and replace their kit at the start of every contract.

I have known Lithographic printers who have done the same on large contract work.

Photographers are strange beasts who seem to have an un-natural attachment and "loyalty" to their working kit.

[weka2000]

if you list all those who say they'll switch... probably 1% will. most people who say that are all talk! :rolleyes:


Im just waiting for a full AF nikon to canon lens mount :lol:

[chardinej]

Reason is simple- Nikon has finally produced some bodies that compete with Canon's. Before the Nikon D3, D300 and D700, there was the D2x, D200, D70 etc. Enough said.

And yes, I owned a D70 and have a D2x at work.

[amfoto1]

Reasons to switch:

1. So you can gripe about the Nikon system's shortcomings on Nikon-related blogs.

2. You are impressed by 51 AF points (Really can't help but wonder how many people will actually use them all... I never used all 45 on my EOS-3s and 1V. These days I mostly use the center point alone.)

3. Because the D300 and D700 are beautifully matched cameras, sharing accessories and control layout/functions much better than 50D/5D2. (Only important if planning to use two formats together to compliment each other. Note: 30D and original 5D are pretty similar, but still have some different accessories: grips, focus screens for example.)

4. So you can buy a 200/2 VR for far less than a 200/2 IS.

5. So you can pay more for a 24-70/2.8, 300/2.8 VR, 500/4 VR, or a whole lot more for a tilt shift lens.

6. Because Nikon actually builds pro quality APS-C cameras.

7a. Because Nikon puts gimmicks like video on their lower end cameras, not their more advanced models (Opinions will vary on the usefulness of video, I'm sure).

7b. So you can have certain other gimmicks like wireless flash and GPS.

8. Because you like the feel and function of Nikon better.

9. Because you really, really want a 14-24/2.8 lens.

10. Because you hate white telephoto lenses, prefer black.

11. Because sheer megapixels just don't impress you, other things are more important to you and you feel 12MP is plenty... for now.

12. So both your FX and DX bodies are able to shoot at 8 frames per second.

13. Because you really don't need a $12,000 (US) 800/5.6 IS lens, or any f1.2 lenses. Nor f1.4 24mm or 35mm lenses. And you don't need a choice of four different but excellent 70-200 lenses.

14. Because you really like to try new things and don't mind selling low, buying high.

15. Because Canon cameras don't have that cool red stripe on the grip. (But remember that some of Canon's lenses do have a red stripe! Or a green one.)

Note: I'll leave it up to you to decide which of the above points are tongue in cheek, which are not.

[ryanyboy]

I read this thread this morning and it prompted me to do something I never thought I would never do. I went to try out a D700!! Sorry.

I've pre-ordered my 5D mk II but the thing is - I'm beginning to formulate these doubts:-

1) Does the 21mp of the 5D II mean my current lenses will under perform in terms of resolution. I keep hearing about the resolving power of certain lenses.

2) I know I don't need 21mp but will the huge files sizes play havoc with my PC

3) Is it worth the price? The 5D II is £2300 body only. The D700 is £1850 WITH a 24-120 kit lens.

4) Is the D700 the better all-round camera in terms of AF, AF points and faster frame rate?

Overall - is the D700 what I really wanted the 5D II to be?

I really would like to hear your thoughts on this. I nearly bought the D700 there and then today but does running two systems work?

Questions, questions............

:(

Ryan

[Bill Roberts]

I'm another who is seriously considering making the switch. I used Nikons until 15 or 20 years ago (can't remember when I made the jump!) but, like many others, moved to Canon when autofocus cameras came along. The reason sporting event sidelines have been dominated by white Canon lenses goes back to the superior AF Canon brought to the table. The Canon sensors have been better for many years too.

All of this gives the lie to the "it's all about the glass" statements repeated here quite frequently. That's conventional wisdom from the days of film. Cameras were light-tight boxes with a shutter and (at least as long as I've been around) a metering system. Better film produced better results. Better glass produced better results. Other than that, the differences came down to ergonomics and metering. There was little reason to upgrade camera bodies very frequently. Heck, I used a pair of A2's for ten years or more.

Digital throws a lot more into the mix. The camera body now is the film. The camera body now, to a great extent, determines how good the autofocus will be. It's no longer all about the glass! Nikon made a startling comeback in the very recent past. They finally developed or sourced sensors that match or exceed those of Canon; and their autofocus system may now be better too. The newest Nikkor lenses (14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8, to name just two) are stunningly good. Most of their other professional level glass is comparable to Canon's.

I'm using a pair of 40D bodies, shooting mostly low-light music performance, much like an earlier contributor to this thread. The d700 is the camera I wish Canon would make - but it doesn't look to be in their plans at all. Good autofocus, really good high iso, good frame rate. For my needs (not the same for every photographer!) the 5d MkII is overkill on resolution but comes up short otherwise. It's more a focus-recompose camera, not very useful when one needs to keep a focus point on a moving performer. The video capabilities are of no use to me. For people doing landscapes and some other sorts of photography, the 5DMkII will be an amazing camera. The 50D, based on all the reviews and comments I've seen so far, doesn't mark much if any improvement over the 40D for the work I do. The next step up, to the 1 Series, is a big jump in price. Nikon puts more high-level goodies in their mid-level cameras.

Lens cost is pretty comparable, until the long telephotos come into the equation. I don't need longer than 300mm, so that's not an issue for me. The 200/2 lens is actually far less expensive on the Nikon side! At the moment the Nikon lens lineup is missing some vital primes. A few image-stabilized f/4 lenses are needed too. Based on the past couple of years, odds are Nikon will fill the holes in their lens stable before Canon will offer us a good all-around camera akin to the d700.

Switching systems is costly, and I won't make the move casually. But I sure wish Canon would get its act together to produce a competitor to the d700.

On the other series of comments going on here: claiming to be able to tell a Nikon image from a Canon image, without knowing what post-processing was applied, sounds unbelievable.

I think Jim's appraisal is pretty much spot on and by far, one of the most sensible and reasoned appraisals I've seen in the thread so far. Personally I've no intention of switching to Nikon and I actually prefer the ergonomics of the Canon. But I do think that Canon have become a little complacent in recent years and have tended to just drip feed us with marginal improvements in the models they produce.

After the debacle of the 1D mark III AF and the possibly less than tremendous response to the 5D mark II (even though I don't understand that one, as most of us have never even held one yet), you can bet that Canon are intending to move up a gear and respond to a renewed Nikon threat in future models.

All in all some real competition can only benefit us as consumers.

[amfoto1]

I read this thread this morning and it prompted me to do something I never thought I would never do. I went to try out a D700!! Sorry.

I've pre-ordered my 5D mk II but the thing is - I'm beginning to formulate these doubts:-

1) Does the 21mp of the 5D II mean my current lenses will under perform in terms of resolution. I keep hearing about the resolving power of certain lenses.

No one can possibly know. The 5D2 isn't available yet so there have been no real tests. (Note: I did have an email exchange with someone shooting with one of the prototypes, but he wouldn't tell me much more than "it's a wonderful camera", probably honoring a non-disclosure agreement.) 2) I know I don't need 21mp but will the huge files sizes play havoc with my PC

Only you can answer that one. Yes, you are going to need more file space than you did with smaller MP cameras. But, I noticed yesterday that 1 TB hard disks were on sale for $149 (US) in the newspaper ad of one of my local suppliers. I've added two 750 GB drives within the past month. An internal one cost under $100 and an external eSata cost $120. Storage space has never been cheaper, and will just keep going down in price... unless you really need new and expensive technology like a solid state drive.

3) Is it worth the price? The 5D II is £2300 body only. The D700 is £1850 WITH a 24-120 kit lens.

That's odd. Here in the US they are the same price ($2700), barring any promotional pricing. Are you sure one is not shown with VAT included and the other without? Have you shopped around? Are both from reputable suppliers? (www.resellerratings.com)

4) Is the D700 the better all-round camera in terms of AF, AF points and faster frame rate?

Well, since no one has tested the 5D2 yet, it's still impossible to say if one AF system is truly or noticeably superior to the other. Supposedly the 5D2 AF sensors and array the same as the 5D, but there is a new processor and - I'm sure - new software running the system, so it may be different than the original 5D.

On paper 51 AF points sounds impressive, but I've no use for all of them. My EOS-3 have 45 AF points, but I've had them set via custom function to only use 11 of them for as long as I can remember. So, 51 points serves no purpose for me. It's just a bigger number.

Also, I looked at a D700 the other day and felt the 51 AF points were pretty tightly clustered in the center of the viewfinder and very close to each other. That centering appears to be the case with the 5D2, too, from examples I've seen, so that might be a tie between the Canon and Nikon. The 50D has a more spread out array. I haven't compared any of them with the D300, though, so can't say about it.

Still, even a fairly centered array of AF points doesn't worry me very much. More often than not, I'm only using the center AF point anyway.

Frame rate numbers also don't do much for me. I seldom use anything other than single shot, preferring to time my shots and not have a huge pile of editing to do after a session. If you are worried about file storage space now, just imagine what it would be like if you shoot 8 fps!

I've managed to take photos with cameras where I manually advanced the film, and others with winders that didn't give much more than 2 fps. So, 5 fps, 6.5 fps, 8 fps or 10 fps don't really matter very much to me. Nice to have, I'm sure... Occasionally. Something I'd base a decision on? Not!

Overall - is the D700 what I really wanted the 5D II to be?

I really would like to hear your thoughts on this. I nearly bought the D700 there and then today but does running two systems work?
Running two systems nearly doubles your investment, if you want each system to be able to do all or at least most of the things the other can, so you don't have to lug two sets of equipment around.

Ryan, you have a serious, serious case of buyer's remorse. ;)

Assuming you already have a Canon kit, you should probably just be patient, get the 5D2 in hand and try it out for yourself, then decide if it's worth switching.

Don't let me talk you out of it though. That's not my intention.

You might be able to rent a D700 and a couple lenses to give it a test drive, before making a major switch.

If you have no system, then you may want to look closer are setting up one around the D700, so long as Nikon offers the lenses and accessories you want and need, all at prices you can live with.

A friend has just traded her D300s for D700s (which she rented and test drove first), so I'll hear a lot more in the future. She's still in that honeymoon stage and completely enamored with the cameras at this point.

[amfoto1]

All in all some real competition can only benefit us as consumers.

True!

But I also recall hearing a heck of a lot of bitching and moaning not all that long ago, digital tech was moving way too fast and the incremental improvements were so big from model to model that it was cost prohibitive to try to keep up!

So, which is it?

A new model that you just gotta have every year or 18 months? (Hmmmm... A $2700 disposable camera? Manufacturers are bound to love that!)

Or, a good, solid working camera you can carry and keep getting pictures with for a decade or two (EOS-3ish), without starting to feel like you are missing out on something in terms of image quality and the camera is limiting you in some way?

:)

[ryanyboy]

That's odd. Here in the US they are the same price ($2700), barring any promotional pricing. Are you sure one is not shown with VAT included and the other without? Have you shopped around? Are both from reputable suppliers? (www.resellerratings.com) (http://www.resellerratings.com))

Hi Amfoto. Thanks sooo much - great reply, well thought out and very helpful. I think you're right about waiting. I certainly do have plenty of Canon kit so a change isn't to be taken lightly.

With regards your point about pricing - those prices are dead right, both from the most well know hight street camera retailer in the UK - Jessops. It's a big difference isn't it!!#

Thanks again.

Ryan

[DeepShadows]

I can't believe he just called wireless flashy a ''gimmick'' :o

[Bill Roberts]

True!

But I also recall hearing a heck of a lot of bitching and moaning not all that long ago, digital tech was moving way too fast and the incremental improvements were so big from model to model that it was cost prohibitive to try to keep up!

So, which is it?

A new model that you just gotta have every year or 18 months? (Hmmmm... A $2700 disposable camera? Manufacturers are bound to love that!)

Or, a good, solid working camera you can carry and keep getting pictures with for a decade or two (EOS-3ish), without starting to feel like you are missing out on something in terms of image quality and the camera is limiting you in some way?

:)


I do take the point Alan, I can remember back to my OM1n and Canon A1 days and indeed my Hasselblad 500CM and I had no incentive then to change the body at all. They were intended to (and indeed did) last for years.

Of course the same still applies, just because a new model comes out it doesn't mean that your current one suddenly takes worse pictures! But Jim's point about the camera body playing a much greater part is true too.

who knows?

cheers

[bacchanal]

Hi Amfoto. Thanks sooo much - great reply, well thought out and very helpful. I think you're right about waiting. I certainly do have plenty of Canon kit so a change isn't to be taken lightly.

With regards your point about pricing - those prices are dead right, both from the most well know hight street camera retailer in the UK - Jessops. It's a big difference isn't it!!#

Thanks again.

Ryan

Yeah, if the US prices for the 5DmkII were like that I would seriously consider switching...to a used 1DmkIII!

[primoz]

(1) If you have a lot of $$$ invested in Canon glass...seems to me switching to Nikon for the average photographer(who can't afford two systems)is a mute point.

(2) Most forums I've read seem to point to the fact that glass is more important than the camera anyway.

For normal person, who doesn't make living out of photography it's only one thing... new toy.
For someone making living out of photography... point 2 doesn't stand if camera can't focus right. Glass might be good, but if you can't deliver sharp photos to your clients, you change... even if it costs a lot, and for agencies like AFP who switched more then 60% of their gear to Nikon, numbers goes to millions of euros (or dollars whatever fits you better). But on the other side, lost income is high too if you stick with non-working gear.

[ryanyboy]

For normal person, who doesn't make living out of photography it's only one thing... new toy.
For someone making living out of photography... point 2 doesn't stand if camera can't focus right. Glass might be good, but if you can't deliver sharp photos to your clients, you change... even if it costs a lot, and for agencies like AFP who switched more then 60% of their gear to Nikon, numbers goes to millions of euros (or dollars whatever fits you better). But on the other side, lost income is high too if you stick with non-working gear.


I take it you're still shooting Canon Primoz?

[coolshot]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v473/coolshot/photography%20gear/athome0001.jpg

yay just got my stuff 10 minutes ago.

[ryanyboy]

yay just got my stuff 10 minutes ago.

Congrats on your new gear but why'd you go to Nikon?

[hofajoab]

^ congrats, nice stuff and the best colour of boxes :) lol

[coolshot]

Congrats on your new gear but why'd you go to Nikon?

I already made the switch. My stuff arrives on friday. I have very little invested in canon as I was just getting into photography. Nikon has the body with features I like, the glass I like (midrange zooms) and a flash system I like (CLS). So there you have it.

To me, looking ahead a d700 looks more appealing to me than a 5dMKII.

[MLphoto]

lol i think we should test this! :P if not then its a load of crap

Let the test begin, throw what you got at me :cool:

[MLphoto]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v473/coolshot/photography%20gear/athome0001.jpg

yay just got my stuff 10 minutes ago.

congrats, D300... I want one, or 50D ;)

[primoz]

I take it you're still shooting Canon Primoz?
Yes we are all still on Canon (1dmk2(n)), and noone of us has any problems with them. But there are different problems we are slowly starting to experience... like need for new/additional cameras. But I wrote about this few times, and there's still no solution, so it's useless to spend time writing about this again :)

[Mum2J&M]

LOL, just switched back to Canon from Nikon. It depends a lot on your wallet and what you want to do. There was no way in h*ll I could afford a D700, so I purchased a used 5D. It is absolutely what either camp has that works for you at that period of time. I had the Nikon gear because my company required it. We moved, now I have no requirement. I've wanted the 5D forever, so I'm giving it a shot. I also miss the L's, but can't afford them again yet. I do really like the Nikon layout, but affording their gear is crazy for me. I also found a lot of their lenses recently were out of stock everywhere. It was weird. There are pros and cons to both and having both would be great. But most people aren't exactly rolling in the dough these days... I know we're not.

[MLphoto]

Okay hear me out here guys...

Lets say both Canon 50D and Nikon D300 came out just today with these specs they have. Lets say the bodies cost 1200 each, and you have no investment in canon or nikon gear... you dont have any gear at all...

Which one would you buy?

[Mum2J&M]

I am not that familiar with either - but isn't the 50D more comparable with the D90 than the D300? Guess I've lost track of all these different "levels" of bodies.

[MLphoto]

I am not that familiar with either - but isn't the 50D more comparable with the D90 than the D300? Guess I've lost track of all these different "levels" of bodies.

If 50D was comparable to the D90, then the D300 would have nothing to have compare to with canon which means Nikon is ahead of canon.

[Mum2J&M]

Oh, um, okay.

[JeffreyG]

To me, looking ahead a d700 looks more appealing to me than a 5dMKII.

They must have made a mistake in the shipping....that box says D300.

[JeffreyG]

I am not that familiar with either - but isn't the 50D more comparable with the D90 than the D300? Guess I've lost track of all these different "levels" of bodies.

Above the entry level dSLRs Canon and Nikon do not go strictly head to head.

The D90 is a little cheaper and lower content than the 50D. The D300 is more expensive and has higher content then the 50D.

The D700 is higher content and a little more expensive than the 5D2, though D700 prices are coming down.

[nphsbuckeye]

If 50D was comparable to the D90, then the D300 would have nothing to have compare to with canon which means Nikon is ahead of canon.
Well, their pro bodies have never been head - to - head either...

[MLphoto]

Oh, um, okay.

;). . .

[wem]

And, I thought I was the only one going crazy, who could tell 80% of the time, a Nikon pic from a Canon. Yes, I can also tell (I am right more times, than I am wrong).

Just a note, but this actually means nothing. It all depends on the distribution of canon versus nikon pictures. Suppose you always say 'canon' and that 65% of pictures you review are from canon. Then you would say that you could discern between canon and nikon in more than 50% of the cases, but actually you can see 0%.

I don't mean to attack your statement, but statistically it is very difficult to say anything sensible, because in a binary choice a 'dumb' method (like always saying the same thing) can give 'good' results. It does not say anything about discernible difference between canon and nikon photos.

[Perry Ge]

Reasons to switch:

7b. So you can have certain other gimmicks like wireless flash and GPS.

11. Because sheer megapixels just don't impress you, other things are more important to you and you feel 12MP is plenty... for now.

Note: I'll leave it up to you to decide which of the above points are tongue in cheek, which are not.
I don't know if you were being tongue and cheek with these two, but wireless flash is not a gimmick, it's awesome, and the point about megapixels is the biggest thing turning me off of Canon's new bodies. The D700 is just terrific in every way. Doesn't mean I'm gonna sell my 5D, but it does mean that I won't be buying a 50D or 5DII anytime soon, if ever.