Nikon FX Vs Canon 1.3+FF

Nikon has FF with 24Mp but it costs rather a lot.

EDIT:
will the IQ be $5000 better then my 5D? rather no.

There's something to be said about the extra DOF from framing with a 1.3 cropper...

I meant for D700 replacement.

Mastamarek wrote in post #9510742
Nikon has FF with 24Mp but it costs rather a lot.

EDIT:
will the IQ be $5000 better then my 5D? rather no.

Mr. Clean wrote in post #9510748
There's something to be said about the extra DOF from framing with a 1.3 cropper...

also the extra reach. the shots i crop the most are sports and wildlife. i couldn't imagine shooting either with a 12 mp FF camera. wait a second i can imagine because i used to own the 5d.........

ed rader

Mr. Clean wrote in post #9509678
This is one of the argued points from everything I read. A lot of people say the D700 renders more accurate skin tones...

How many of those people have shot with both side by side over and over again in all lighting conditions for two years?

I'll say this... the skin tones are a wash between the 40D and the D700. But compared to the 1Ds3, it's a definite advantage in the 1Ds3's court.

Here's an example of what I just cannot get perfect with the D700. I can get it close but just not quite as neutral and natural as the following 1Ds3 shot:

None side by side But a few canon to nikon transplants.
Why keep the Nikon system then Lloyd?

picturecrazy wrote in post #9511234
How many of those people have shot with both side by side over and over again in all lighting conditions for two years?

I'm one...have used both extensively in the last 2 years. I prefer the less red skin tones and more natural awb. If you aren't using auto though, you can get a good look from both camps. And I did/do feel that the D700's outer points are more accurate than any of my canon cameras were.

However, I think mostly that it's a matter of preference. I also like to not have to menu surf too...so I guess mostly I like the nikon interface. (though that switching iso thing you mentioned is irritating).

Lovely shot though.

edit: we kept both camps for a while but ended up finally selling the rest of the canon gear.

Mr. Clean wrote in post #9513404
None side by side But a few canon to nikon transplants.
Why keep the Nikon system then Lloyd?

i have em side by side.

Mr. Clean wrote in post #9509678
But how much time do we really spend in the menu? For me, hardly at all

That's just one of my beefs with the Nikon system and it's a rather minor one. Until Canon introduces a better AF in the prosumer FF line I'm going to stick with my current setup.

Mr. Clean wrote in post #9506335
Plus I'm hearing different stories Canon to Nikon = good, Nikon to Canon = good...D700 outer points are good, D700 outer points are bad...Menu stinks, menu doesn't stink, gripped d700 good, gripped d700 not so good. The one constant is that Nikon's CLS is the real deal.

The 1.3 crop is a good compromise of everything too though, assuming working order. The MarkIV looks incredible - but way out of my price range unless I can get great used prices on the 5DII and Mark III. Again, back to one camera. Just not smart.

1. Canon->Nikon = Good for me. Much happier with the pictures straight from the camera. Ive never had a camera that I was literally fine with the pictures SOOC until I shot a D3 and D700.
2. Nikon->Canon = Its good if youre all about fast primes. If you like zooms, nobody makes them better than Nikon (14-24,24-70,70-200,200-400...). There are also strong rumors of Nikon stepping up to the fast prime market so this point may not be around much longer.
3. D700 outer points for me seem to be about as reliable as my 1DMkIII were. Theyll hunt more than the CFP but I wouldnt expect anything different. TBH, If you just change it to 11 (I only used 19 on my MkIII), you only use the more accurate points to begin with and it makes life easier when switching from point to point. 3D tracking will still use all 51 but it makes it easier to start from only 11.
4. The menu is...different. Its much more complex only because Nikon bodies are much more complex. There is soooo much more you can do in the body of a Nikon than you can do in the body of a Canon. Eventually you learn it and use it just like anything else.
5. Gripped D700 is the bee's knees man. Its a D3 with CLS for a lot less money. The only possible negatives would be that is does make the camera big (its actually a hair larger than the D3) and it does make it kinda heavy. I got the MBD10 with the ENEL4 batteries so I get better life and 8fps in continuous drive mode.
6. CLS I havent used all that much but I can say that their metering and flash metering is definitely the real deal. Better than Canon's thats for sure (And besides, even if its not by default, you can FINE TUNE IT!)

K6AZ wrote in post #9513478
That's just one of my beefs with the Nikon system and it's a rather minor one. Until Canon introduces a better AF in the prosumer FF line I'm going to stick with my current setup.

What is possibly wrong with the menu system?

Mr. Clean wrote in post #9509678
But how much time do we really spend in the menu? For me, hardly at all.

This is one of the argued points from everything I read. A lot of people say the D700 renders more accurate skin tones...

When I first switched to the D700 I had problems adjusting to the differences in the tone curve and colors. After working with Nikon for awhile I'm torn and lean slightly towards the Nikon rendition.

The color and tone curve from either system looks a bit weird when you're used to the other.

AdamLewis wrote in post #9515309
What is possibly wrong with the menu system?

What's wrong with it is that it has too many sub-menus. I've shot Nikons (that have had menus) for eight years and I have yet to see one I liked. I like the Canon menu layout much better.

I was a long time Nikon user and I still think Canon colors and tones are better than Nikon.

Bob_A wrote in post #9515342
When I first switched to the D700 I had problems adjusting to the differences in the tone curve and colors. After working with Nikon for awhile I'm torn and lean slightly towards the Nikon rendition.

The color and tone curve from either system looks a bit weird when you're used to the other.

maverick678 wrote in post #9516235
I was a long time Nikon user and I still think Canon colors and tones are better than Nikon.

I think you can make either look any way you want.