Help Seriously Considering Nikon :eek:

nphsbuckeye wrote in post #8582532
I honestly wouldn't know these pictures from a D700 or a D40, all thing equal. Not a knock against you photographs, but unless you're delving into 3200+, I don't think there's a huge difference in new cameras.

I concur. As a former Nikon user who recently switched, the pictures in all honestly look very P&S (not being rude, so I apologize in advance for being a little strong in my statement). If you go onto NikonCafe (my former playground) you can find thousands of D700 pictures, a very high percentage of which are not IMHO very impressive from a color and detail standpoint. The D200 which I recently replaced delivered a better image @ base ISO (but was horrible at high ISO). I think the D200/D2X were among the best Nikon's at low ISO, but the new tech just doesn't impress me.

Nikon's newer EXPEED processor and CMOS sensor produce rather soft looking images with a very artificial color palette, one reason I left the Nikon camp.

Ya, but the OP has a lower end Canon system.. and I don't think a single piece of L glass.

And to jump ship, swap to Nikon and then.. start buying Nikons super expensive glass?

PP is a huge play on some images and then others are just great images.
It's amazing how a normal picture can look a LOT better after a few minutes in CS4/LR/etc...

Fender/Gibson, PC/MAC, Intel/AMD, Democrat/Republican….w​ell maybe a bad choice there lol…. but u get my point. Is either better than the other? If you’re talking same price range it’s hard to tell. Bottom line is what best suits your needs? I doubt you see very many photos anywhere that have not benefitted from some post production. So you switch to Nikon… what happens when you see a breathtaking photo shot with a Canon? I don’t think it’s so much the tools as the artist who uses them.

The camera has so little to do with the image. If Flickr, or some other photo site makes a user switch, well then, that just speaks volumes.

drdiesel1 wrote in post #8582544
Look here.

It was this post where he mentioned the D3 and D300.

i didnt read his second post because the first was enough to make me think how ridiculous it was to switch systems over images on flickr.

Looks like he needs a D3X! I rented this camera to amuse myself and I didn't see anything that my 1Ds MK III can do. If were to switch today, I'd go with a D3 instead. I'm not a big fan of girly gripless cameras. Looks like you need to decide that for yourself in the end.

05Xrunner wrote in post #8582616
i didnt read his second post because the first was enough to make me think how ridiculous it was to switch systems over images on flickr.

Yeah...It`s easy to get ahead of yourself by pointing out others post when you don`t read everything and make misinformed statements.

I ussaly try to put it in gear before I pop the clutch, so to speak..

drdiesel1 wrote in post #8582553
Well...I own both and I can tell you first hand..........There is, and it`s huge IMO.
The sharp and clear IQ of the D700 is fantastic. It`s dynamic Range is also better than the 5DMKII IMO. Not to mention it`s far superior A/F system.
Better high ISO noise control too.

I'm talking about on screen. The OP said he can tell Nikon is better based off flickr, which I think is thinking there is something where there isn't (except, like I mentioned, high ISO).

I know the D700 is superior, but not really IQ wise on flickr.

iamatrix wrote in post #8582568
I concur. As a former Nikon user who recently switched, the pictures in all honestly look very P&S (not being rude, so I apologize in advance for being a little strong in my statement). If you go onto NikonCafe (my former playground) you can find thousands of D700 pictures, a very high percentage of which are not IMHO very impressive from a color and detail standpoint. The D200 which I recently replaced delivered a better image @ base ISO (but was horrible at high ISO). I think the D200/D2X were among the best Nikon's at low ISO, but the new tech just doesn't impress me.

Nikon's newer EXPEED processor and CMOS sensor produce rather soft looking images with a very artificial color palette, one reason I left the Nikon camp.

The D700 will/should produce better pictures, but it's not too noticeable online.

I looked at your gear list and I am not sure if you can afford either the Canon or N*kon cameras you actually want. But in truth, learn the gear you already have and make up the difference in talent. Even though I think gear has so much to do with success in photography, how you use it and process the images is the true test. You don't have a terrible gear list, but more stuff than most. If you are not happy with what you are getting, go out and find out how to get better at it. I know I got the 10D and thought, I wasn't getting what I needed. That was true, my skills improved, so I needed a camera with more speed. Now, after 4 years, I have lots of gear and shoot pro. But I often look at my work and say, I can do better, not "If I get the other brand, I would be a better photographer." That's a cop-out. You should see what I get from my little P&S these days.

SuzyView wrote in post #8582676
I looked at your gear list and I am not sure if you can afford either the Canon or N*kon cameras you actually want. But in truth, learn the gear you already have and make up the difference in talent. Even though I think gear has so much to do with success in photography, how you use it and process the images is the true test. You don't have a terrible gear list, but more stuff than most. If you are not happy with what you are getting, go out and find out how to get better at it. I know I got the 10D and thought, I wasn't getting what I needed. That was true, my skills improved, so I needed a camera with more speed. Now, after 4 years, I have lots of gear and shoot pro. But I often look at my work and say, I can do better, not "If I get the other brand, I would be a better photographer." That's a cop-out. You should see what I get from my little P&S these days.

Suzy, I think your statement on gear and success is absurd. I know plenty of people who shoot with XXXD series and simply embarrass people with XD series cameras.

www.ClintDavis.net - shoots 40D - pro photographer & editor
www.DevinLefevere.net - Shoots 40D - pro photographer
www.DMFoto.nu - Shoots 400D - pro photographer

Skill > Gear any day, sorry. Of course a better camera will yield with better ISO, and some other stuff. But in the end, if you have AMAZING skill, plenty of cameras will do you fine. Of course some cams are better than others.

Orlandoech wrote in post #8582692
Suzy, I think your statement on gear and success is absurd. I know plenty of people who shoot with XXXD series and simply embarrass people with XD series cameras.

www.ClintDavis.net - shoots 40D - pro photographer & editor
www.DevinLefevere.net - Shoots 40D - pro photographer
www.DMFoto.nu - Shoots 400D - pro photographer

Skill > Gear any day, sorry. Of coarse a better camera will yield with better ISO, and some other stuff. But in the end, if you have AMAZING skill, plenty of cameras will do you fine. Of coarse some cams are better than others.

But OP is making assumptions about the Canon SYSTEM when OP doesn't own some of the better offerings from Canon.

If the OP continues that trend with Nikon, OP will probably be unhappy still...

Switching to Nikon will NOT make you a better photographer. Each camp has good enough gear that is good enough.

Orlandoech wrote in post #8582692
Suzy, I think your statement on gear and success is absurd. I know plenty of people who shoot with XXXD series and simply embarrass people with XD series cameras.

www.ClintDavis.net - shoots 40D - pro photographer & editor
www.DevinLefevere.net - Shoots 40D - pro photographer
www.DMFoto.nu - Shoots 400D - pro photographer

Skill > Gear any day, sorry. Of course a better camera will yield with better ISO, and some other stuff. But in the end, if you have AMAZING skill, plenty of cameras will do you fine. Of course some cams are better than others.

^^ +1

canonfaithfulforever,

As mentioned in another thread I visited your flickr gallery. Many images appear to be underexposed and dull. I don't think it's the camera. Seems like you need to work on getting the proper exposure and work on post processing. You can't base your move to Nikon, based on a few Nikon images on flickr. Work on your photographic skills first before you decide which camera system is right for you.

Orlandoech wrote in post #8582692
Suzy, I think your statement on gear and success is absurd. I know plenty of people who shoot with XXXD series and simply embarrass people with XD series cameras.

www.ClintDavis.net - shoots 40D - pro photographer & editor
www.DevinLefevere.net - Shoots 40D - pro photographer
www.DMFoto.nu - Shoots 400D - pro photographer

Skill > Gear any day, sorry. Of course a better camera will yield with better ISO, and some other stuff. But in the end, if you have AMAZING skill, plenty of cameras will do you fine. Of course some cams are better than others.

Point taken. I agree with Nick, though. I think semi-pro or pro gear makes a difference. Not to say if you are a good photographer, you are better with expensive gear, but for me and many of the people I shoot with, gear is important. I know my 70-200 2.8 IS is going to kick someone's 70-300 kit tele for soccer for instance. I was one of those soccer moms who bought a tele thinking it would do the job. The parents on my sons' teams have nice DSLR's but with kit lenses. I put my 70-200 or 100-400 on their XSi's and they are shocked at the difference. Then they drool and ask how much that big white lens is. I am a pro, I can afford it. Makes the work easier, the PP faster and I took the time to learn the gear. To the OP, learn the gear!

nicksan wrote in post #8582713
But OP is making assumptions about the Canon SYSTEM when OP doesn't own some of the better offerings from Canon.

If the OP continues that trend with Nikon, OP will probably be unhappy still...

Switching to Nikon will NOT make you a better photographer. Each camp has good enough gear that is good enough.

I understand that, but she is she better gear makes you better when that is hardly, if at all the case.

Same with switching from Canon to Nikon to PhaseOne making you a better photographer, thats simply as idiotic as this thread lol.