Possibly switching to Nikon

JeffreyG wrote in post #11225666
If you buy the best that Canon has to offer you won't be disappointed either though you know?

I'm one of the people who bitched relentlessly when the 5D Mark II was released with the same crappy AF system as the 5D. But I managed to solve that problem with a 1D Mark IV.

But seriously - each camera from these two makers has some good points and bad points. I'm a stills-only photographer and if I was really in the market for what the 5D Mark II and D700 represent I would go with the D700.

But I would not sell off a bunch of Canon gear just to make that switch. Trading systems costs too much in transaction friction.

No need to roll your eyes bud. You are taking what I said way out of context. If you read my previous post, you'll understand that it wasn't a flame on Canon.

Again...with Nikon, it's feast or famine, though they are slowly beginning to crawl out of that. With Canon, things are more granular, particularly with their lenses.

Ironically, it was the 1DMKIV that made me switch to Nikon. Just didn't work out for me. Wish it did. I would still be shooting Canon right now.

nicksan wrote in post #11225762
No need to roll your eyes bud. You are taking what I said way out of context. If you read my previous post, you'll understand that it wasn't a flame on Canon.

That was supposed to be a lighthearted

But if you read what you said - it paraphrases as if you can't afford much get the cheap Canon stuff but if you have the money Nikon is the best.

har har.

Once upon a time Canon users pointed to the 17-40L, 24-105L and 70-200/4L IS as that kind of high quality middle ground that Nikon lacked.

Nikon has since introduced the answer to two of the three above, though the price on the 24-120/4VR is a lot more than the 24-105L.

And Canon's new 70-200/2.8 II is if anything better than the Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR II, but it is not especially cheaper.

I've got zero complaints with mine so I have no answer for you. The 1D Mark IV is the best camera I've ever used and that comparison includes a D700 and D3s (though it was really, really close against the D3s).

I prefer Canon ergonomics, but that is probably mostly due to familiarity.

JeffreyG wrote in post #11225993
That was supposed to be a lighthearted

But if you read what you said - it paraphrases as if you can't afford much get the cheap Canon stuff but if you have the money Nikon is the best.

har har.

Yes, if you read just that one post. Reading my first post should clear things up nicely.

JeffreyG wrote in post #11225993
Once upon a time Canon users pointed to the 17-40L, 24-105L and 70-200/4L IS as that kind of high quality middle ground that Nikon lacked.

Nikon has since introduced the answer to two of the three above, though the price on the 24-120/4VR is a lot more than the 24-105L.

And Canon's new 70-200/2.8 II is if anything better than the Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR II, but it is not especially cheaper.

Yeah, Canon had the market cornered with their f4 L lenses and they still do to a certain degree, especially with the pricing. They also got a head start on most of these lenses, so lenses like the 24L, 16-35, 50L, 85L for example are on their second versions. Nikon is just coming up to speed on the primes like the 24G, 35G, 85G for instance.

With regards to the 70-200 II's, I think they might as well be a wash. I am sure the pricing will equalize between the 2 brands eventually.

JeffreyG wrote in post #11225993
I've got zero complaints with mine so I have no answer for you. The 1D Mark IV is the best camera I've ever used and that comparison includes a D700 and D3s (though it was really, really close against the D3s).

I prefer Canon ergonomics, but that is probably mostly due to familiarity.

Yeah, I was one of the fortunate ones that got to enjoy a nicely functioning 1DMKIII so it was kind of ironic that the 1DMKIV got me to switch. Just needed a camera that just worked. I'm sure the 1DMKIV is great for you. It just wasn't for me. Such is life...

Guys whats the must have lens for a d700? How is the Nikon 24-70? Is it sharp?

I was also looking at the 35 1.4, is this a pretty good prime?

yes it is sharp. even at 2.8

How important are the 70-200/4 zooms for you? Nikon has NONE of these at the moment. Your choices are:

1. an archaic 80-200 2.8 push-pull zoom ($500 used)
2. an antique 80-200 2.8 AF-D screwdriver ($1000 new)
3. a heavy 80-200 2.8 AF-S with no IS/VR ($1300 used)
4. a heavy 70-200 2.8 VR that vignettes/has soft corners on FX ($1500 used)
5. a super affordable 70-200 2.8 VRII that focus breathes ($2200 new)
6. a plastic 70-300 VR 4.5-5.6 ($550 new)

Something to think about..

JGI wrote in post #11230386
How important are the 70-200/4 zooms for you? Nikon has NONE of these at the moment. Your choices are:

5. a super affordable 70-200 2.8 VRII that focus breathes ($2200 new)
6. a plastic 70-300 VR 4.5-5.6 ($550 new)

Sure, if the 70-200 f4 lenses are critical to your work, you better stick with Canon.

Focus breathing in the 70-200VRII is waaaay overstated. The reality is, it doesn't affect most people. I am not discounting it. It's there. All zooms focus breath to a certain degree. The VRII does this more. I haven't paid attention to it. I shoot my 70-200VRII the same way I used to shoot the Canon one I used to own. Not sure what you mean by "super affordable". Are you being sarcastic? It's just as "affordable" as the Canon version.

Hmm...70-300...that one should be compared to Canon's non-L version. Price is similar too. So let's stick with comparing Apples to Apples.

The pool of lenses that "Nikon doesn't have" is getting smaller by the month isn't it?

Take a look at how many lenses they released in 2010. These are exciting times for Nikon even if they are merely playing catch up to Canon in terms of lens offerings. Hey, as long as they catch up, I don't really care!