Shot with Nikon today...

I had the chance to use a Nikon D80 and it was a nice camera, with that said I prefer Canon by a margin.

Bob_A wrote in post #7365521
The Nikon grip is certainly different to Canon's. For the D700 there is a depression for your fingertips so that the camera feels very secure in your hand. It almost gives you confidence that you can dangle the camera just by the fingertips and not worry about dropping it. Frankly I prefer it but can understand why some would like the smoother Canon grip.

..that's the same grip design as the 5D. And, coincidentally, I do dangle my 5D from the fingertips.

Anyways, I thought the D90 is comparable to the 450D, and the D300 to the 40D...

aside: I hate Nikon's naming convention. Took me forever to figure it out.

toxic wrote in post #7365645
..that's the same grip design as the 5D. And, coincidentally, I do dangle my 5D from the fingertips.

Anyways, I thought the D90 is comparable to the 450D, and the D300 to the 40D...

aside: I hate Nikon's naming convention. Took me forever to figure it out.

The D700 just has a small extra ridge that your fingertips can wrap into a bit than the 20D doesn't have, which I found after a few weeks of use to be a nice touch. Don't get me wrong, they're both good, and frankly the extra ridge felt strange at first.

I still haven't figured their naming convention out

I would agree with that. Many "pros" use XD, not everybody needs to be able to shoot a tazmanian devil in the rain.

SF Lights wrote in post #7363950
No, it's actually like this:

PS consumer: Canon XXXXD, Nikon D40, D60
consumer: Canon XXXD, Nikon D40X
prosumer: Canon XXD, Nikon D70-D90
Upper end prosumer: Nikon DXXX
professional: Canon XD, Nikon DX

jacobsen1 wrote in post #7363592
it's the knobs and switches, some people hate them, some love them.

If you have a knob, button, switch fetish ...


I spent a day with a new D700 / 70-200 2.8 VR / 14-24 VR / SB900 courtesy of Nikon.
I was impressed. But I told them it was too heavy for a long day of shooting and I typically carry a gripped 30D/100-400 + gripped 5D/24-105 combo all day long, in the field.
I wouldn't even entertain doing a similar Nikon D700 + D300 comparable lens combo from the Nikon world in the same situations.

And re: the controls layout/menus...too many, too complicated.
You could learn 'em...but I can produce the same with less of both from my Canon gear. And...the rigs are cheaper in the Canon world.

But if you grow up Nikon and are comfortable with it...there is _nothing_ wrong that I could see in _real_ world shooting with the D700.

Which, to me is why Canon should be scared sh_tless. IMHO their marketing people must be smoking some seriously good evil weed when they meetup.
The paradigm shift where the world was dominated by Canon in performance has already passed by ...way by. Time to kick ass and quickly.

What Canon has announced just prior to this years PMA ... is lame. With all their R&D capability they could do much, much better. Seems like a weak 410 gauge "shotgun" approach. Not even a 12 gauge effort let alone a surgical strike at high return targets in the market of folks willing to spend some bucks.

I think it's kind of hard to make huge technological strides in IQ quality. In the next couple of years we're going to see the FF sensor reach maximum microlens density, much like the 1.6x sensor has with the 50D. What next?

Do we expect a major innovation in microlens technology? I don't.

About the most they can do in fiddle with video, maybe wring a little better ISO performance out of the sensors... improve the software and add a few more features here and there.

I think we're coming close to reaching that plateau where major advancements in technology are going to be few and far between.

I expect Canon to go from the 1.6x sensor to a 1.3x sensor in the next generation of xxD cameras. If they are silly enough to try and pack 21MP onto a 1.6 I think I'll jump ship to a manufacturer with a better grip on reality, that or go FF.

tharmsen wrote in post #7368256
add a few more features here and there.

Yeah, like decent low light AF, decent ETTL metering, wireless flash control from the camera, true mirror lockup (maybe by a reprogrammable (dare I say it?) direct print button), good auto ISO. Stuff like that

If it wasnt that I invested thousands on canon lenses, I would jump on the D700 right now. That thing just simply amazes me.

René Damkot wrote in post #7368541
Yeah, like decent low light AF, decent ETTL metering, wireless flash control from the camera, true mirror lockup (maybe by a reprogrammable (dare I say it?) direct print button), good auto ISO. Stuff like that

Hehe, yeah - that stuff.

SpicyTofu wrote in post #7368567
If it wasnt that I invested thousands on canon lenses, I would jump on the D700 right now. That thing just simply amazes me.

Fortunately for you there is a great market for used Canon lenses. Sell your stuff and buy a Nikon setup.

SpicyTofu wrote in post #7368567
If it wasnt that I invested thousands on canon lenses, I would jump on the D700 right now. That thing just simply amazes me.

I played with D700 a few times but I didn't find anything special about it. It is a good camera but almost every feature has been seen before on some other Nikon or Canon body. The only Nikon equipment I miss is SB-800 flash.

I so wish canon would just put the wireless ETTL control in the camera. That'd be one less thing to carry around, and the ST-E2 looks like an ancient piece of equipment, with its blocky buttons.

drPheta wrote in post #7363454
That's the thing, they're supposed to be compared to the Canon xxD models. But the Canons felt so much better built. I felt like the Nikon Dxx models were comparable to the Rebel's build. The images were nice off of the camera, though. Just didn't like the handling.

Well, the D90 is intended to compete with the Rebel.

The D300 is intended to compete with the 40D, and the D700 with the 5D. I have played with a D700, and it competes with the 5D fair and square.

That said, I still prefer the Canon user interface. When I have to do things on my wife's Nikon D100 (which was the equivalent of my Canon 10D at the time), I grumble a lot. It's not the quality, it's just the different user interface that seems less intuitive to me.

Rick "a Canon UI user since the T90" Denney

rdenney wrote in post #7371198
Well, the D90 is intended to compete with the Rebel.

The D300 is intended to compete with the 40D, and the D700 with the 5D. I have played with a D700, and it competes with the 5D fair and square.

That said, I still prefer the Canon user interface. When I have to do things on my wife's Nikon D100 (which was the equivalent of my Canon 10D at the time), I grumble a lot. It's not the quality, it's just the different user interface that seems less intuitive to me.

Rick "a Canon UI user since the T90" Denney

Grumbling is no good There's certainly no enjoyment in using a camera that doesn't feel right. Both brands have great UI's, but once you have used to one for a long time it really feels strange to switch, and for some people it's just not worth the new learning curve.

It took me about a week of steady use, but I'm pretty comfortable with either system now, which is good, because I don't plan on selling my 20D.

I shot Nikon in the past (EM, FG, FM, F301, F801s and F2 and F3)
I still think the F4s is one of the best camera's ever made.

Only thing I don't like on current Nikons is the position of the front dial: I have to move my entire hand to rotate it, unlike with Canon. That's rather a biggie, and the sole reason I prefer Canon.

Friend of mine shoots Nikon, and apparently holds his camera different, or has smaller hands, and he feels exactly the other way around (he has to move his hand to reach the Canon front dial). So YMMV.