My "Dark Side" Experience

I'm both pleased and amazed at how few posts in this thread are attempting to try to get others riled up or defensive. I've tried not to say one is better than the other and I'm really not going to answer any argumentative questions.

If there's anything I've learned from all this it's that there's no 'best' or 'right' system - except the one that's right or best for you. There is no one-size-fits-all.

I really have enjoyed being back here - I missed a lot of you guys. It's the one place I feel at home.

NorCalAl wrote in post #7846509
...If there's anything I've learned from all this it's that there's no 'best' or 'right' system - except the one that's right or best for you. There is no one-size-fits-all....

That's exactly it. Pretty much everything in photography is a compromise of some sort. Your style and choice of subject matter determines what's the best fit when it comes to lenses.

As an aside, sometimes it's not just about the aperture. Size, weight and cost are also factors. Again, compromises.

NorCalAl wrote in post #7846509
I'm both pleased and amazed at how few posts in this thread are attempting to try to get others riled up or defensive. I've tried not to say one is better than the other and I'm really not going to answer any argumentative questions.

If there's anything I've learned from all this it's that there's no 'best' or 'right' system - except the one that's right or best for you. There is no one-size-fits-all.

I really have enjoyed being back here - I missed a lot of you guys. It's the one place I feel at home.

Actually, before the D200 (or 100, not sure) many Nikon owners WERE riled up that the only Nikon bod they could use their MF Nikkors on was the 40D...while better Canon bods were being made available to them...I didn't know that until I came to Canon...it solidified my commitment to Canon...
...and that commitment recommitted me to MF Nikkors...figure that...

I'm late to this post but it was Nikon's superior Lighting system (CLS) and their Bodies that sent me to the dark side. The fact that I can use lenses from 1978 on my D300 is awesome. I remember how it happened like yesterday. I went into BH to try out a 3rd party lens for my then 20D and they only had it for Nikon mount; I was only interested in the lens but they put it on a D70 body and I depressed the shutter and said "oooooo"


The rest was history!

There is one shot taken with a 200/1.8... who makes one ?

Visuals wrote in post #7847176
I'm late to this post but it was Nikon's superior Lighting system (CLS) and their Bodies that sent me to the dark side. The fact that I can use lenses from 1978 on my D300 is awesome. I remember how it happened like yesterday. I went into BH to try out a 3rd party lens for my then 20D and they only had it for Nikon mount; I was only interested in the lens but they put it on a D70 body and I depressed the shutter and said "oooooo"


The rest was history!

For me it was the opposite, I owned a D70 and went into circuit city, played with a 20D and the 18-55 and went "Holy crap that focuses quick AND accurate..and I like this body" and I went home and decided I wanted to be serious with my photography, and the best system for me was Canon's...

Bought a EOS-3 later that year and so far havnt turned back

I shot my F5 for along time along with a D2h and D70s for a while, I like Nikon stuff, I like Canon stuff.... I hate the pricks at Canon Canada and the BS which seems to pass as the new corporate SOP and the fact that they seem to spend their days thinking up new ways to abuse customers.

Simple as that.

I have to admit, this D300 feels very nice, and has a good weight. We'll see how the journey down the 'dark' road goes, we'll see....

MyCatsAnnoyingMe wrote in post #7849939
I shot my F5 for along time along with a D2h and D70s for a while, I like Nikon stuff, I like Canon stuff.... I hate the pricks at Canon Canada and the BS which seems to pass as the new corporate SOP and the fact that they seem to spend their days thinking up new ways to abuse customers.

Simple as that.

I have to admit, this D300 feels very nice, and has a good weight. We'll see how the journey down the 'dark' road goes, we'll see....

To be honest, if I had a D300? I'd defend Nikon to the death despite the compromises

MDJAK wrote in post #7841162
One thing that hasn't been mentioned here, I don't think, is that Nikon in the past two or so years came out with their big guns totally redone with VR, the 400 f2.8, 500 and 600 f4. While these lenses are as expensive as a used car, they are absolutely amazing quality. All one need do is hold them in comparison to their Canon counterparts to see the incredible quality, from the bags they come with to the carbon fiber hoods, etc.

And let's not lightly dismiss the 200-400. It's an absolutely incredible offering in spite of its price.

Before the recent spate of price increases, the Canon 200 f2 was over a thousand dollars more expensive than the Nikon f2.

I completely agree about Nikon's lack of f4 glass. I prefer f2.8, however, so it doesn't really matter to me.

As to IQ of the 70-200, with the exception of the edges of the frame, which I don't discount the importance of, the lenses are equal. If one uses the Nikon version on a crop format, it's an amazing lens.

The new Nikon 24-70 is superior to the Brick in many ways, IQ, weight, build quality, etc. Neither have IS nor need it.

Please don't mention the 17-40 or 16-35 in the same sentence as the 14-24. The 14-24 is probably the best wide angle zoom ever produced, period, end of story.

Is the Nikon offerings in some instances obscenely expensive? Yep. But if you can't pay, don't play. Price don't bother me; never has, never will.

I was originally a Canon shooter with the AE-1 Program, switched to the D100, then back to Canon with the 10D, 20D, 1DsMKII, 1DMKIII, 1DsMKIII.

Dumped them all when I realized how much more accurate and consistent the D3's focus is.

And let's not forget the far superior flash system of Nikon. That's an established fact. And their new SB900, with it's variability from wide to normal to narrow beam, and it's zoom range, is unmatched by any current Canon offering.

me

I'd agree pretty much with what you have said. I do have a 70-200 f/2.8 VR though and frankly the only issue I've seen with it is that it vignettes a fair bit when wide open, pretty much the same as many Canon lenses do on FF. For both Canon and Nikon this is pretty easy to fix in post.

The Nikon flash system is very well thought out and off camera flash is pretty simple with CLS. While for 90% of my shooting I feel Nikon i-TTL does a better job than E-TTL II, Canon seems to be much better at distances less than 3 feet. Also, while the SB900 is functionally a better/easier to use flash than a 580EX II, I personally feel the 580EX II is slightly better built. And the 430EX II is a much nicer flash than my SB600 build wise.

I'm pretty happy with my move to Nikon because the D700 is a good fit for my shooting style and my 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 VR are superb pieces of glass. Once I add a T-Con I doubt I'll be buying much more glass, although I've been considering a 70-300 VR as a light travel lens since it's a great bang for the buck. The images I've seen from it are excellent up to 200mm and decent from that point to 300mm. Heck, even Condyk (Dave) is impressed with his copy

My biggest issue after moving to Nikon was that the images looked quite a bit different to what I was used to with Canon. Not necessarily better, but different. The D700 RAW files processed as "Standard" are too punchy for my taste, and Nikon tends to like a tone curve that delivers pretty dark shadow areas and lots of contrast. It's taken me a couple of months tweaking my approach with ACR to finally get the output I want. I took me quite awhile to get my 20D images to the point where I was happy too (they were too "flat" SOOC), but I guess I'm not as patient as I was a few years ago

Bob, thanks for that reply. It's rare people agree with me as I'm just the village idiot around here.

I say this now with all sincerity. I only wish I had a critical eye, both for taking and later viewing pictures, as I have no idea what you are referring to by the pics looking different. I wouldn't notice that if you slapped me ova the head with it.

me

Hey, Permie,

I don't know if you got any kids or grandkids, but if you do, after taking a gander at your present and former gear list, you've definitely spent their inheritance. GOOD FOR YOU!!!!

me

I'm worried that folks who dumped whole systems to change from, say, a 5D to a D700 might have to dump that system and come back if the next Canon is fractionally better at one thing or another. Making that sort of change is working at margins, but with a huge financial impact that may obscure factors more important.

I have recently come to a different conclusion. I seriously doubt that any objective (read: doesn't know beforehand) observer would be able to pick out a D700 image from a 5D image. But anybody with eyes can see the difference between either one of those and an image made using large format. Seeing those big prints with detail beyond any possible result of small-format digital forced me to a reckoning.

I immediately pulled the Cambo out of the closet. I started with a Cambo SC/Calumet 45 (same camera), and had a 47mm Super Angulon that was too short to focus on that camera, 90 and 121mm Super Angulons, a cheapie 150mm Geronar, and a "vintage" 8-1/2" Ilex Paragon. I also had rollfilm backs for 6x7 and 6x9. I wanted to use roll-film backs, and you all know how much I like wide-angle lenses, so not being able to focus the 47 was a severe problem.

So, here's my dark-side excursion of the last month or so:

Sinar F+ 4x5 view camera
Bag bellows
Standard bellows (two sets)
Bellows clips to use the bellows as a compendium shade
12" basic rail
6" extension rail
65mm Super Angulon in Copal shutter
180mm Symmar Convertible in Compur shutter
Lens boards for all of the above, plus a couple of extras
Fresnel insert (bought before realizing that the camera had a Fresnel included--probably unknown to the seller).
Shen-Hao 6x12 back
Horseman 6x9 back (works a little better than my current MPP 6x9 back)

I spent less than half the price of a D700 body for all of that. And the Sinar F is the "field" model of a high-end Swiss camera maker, not a budget model like the Cambo. The lenses are in some cases old but are or were absolutely the state of the art when they were made. And the resulting image quality will plainly blow away anything done in small format.

That's my dark-side story.

(But I'm still keeping my Canon stuff, and all the rest of my collection. The view camera offers no compromise in image quality, or in convenience and portability. But ultimately it's cheaper--when one is buying film by the acre, one is careful about exposure and subject.)

Rick "taking revolutionary, not evolutionary steps" Denney

^ Very nice! An excellent setup.

I too made the leap into larger format, though not large... Medium. Picked up a Mamiya 7II and a handful of glass. Pixel peeping DSLR shots seems silly after looking at a nice scan from the Mamiya and say, Velvia. The amount of detail in there is way, way beyond anything the 35mm format can currently do, FF or not, IMO. I recently scanned a 6x7 B&W negative (forgot which film, maybe Ilford Pan F+ or Tri-X) and made an 11x14 print. To say the print is beyond sharp is even an understatement. I was floored when it dropped into the printer tray.

These aren't mine, but take a look at some of these (really random) samples from the Mamiya 7/7II Flickr group:

http://www.flickr.com …s/l/in/pool-29973262@N00/
http://www.flickr.com …s/l/in/pool-29973262@N00/
http://www.flickr.com …s/l/in/pool-29973262@N00/
http://www.flickr.com …s/l/in/pool-29973262@N00/
http://www.flickr.com …s/l/in/pool-29973262@N00/
http://www.flickr.com …s/l/in/pool-29973262@N00/

shomat wrote in post #7847897
The 200mm f/1.8 is a discontinued Canon lens. Here's a picture of it. Here's another.

Hoyl crap at that guys gear in the first link.. @.@

And I'm very tempted to get a nice MF camera sometimes to shoot film on some subjects

Mark

and..does anyone process this type of film anymore? I was looking at an old camera (no idea what it's called but it shoots 6x6 mf 120 film...I'm afraid my film experience is only with 110 and 35mm) I just wondered if one would have to develop these themselves.