Thinking of going full-frame - Canon or Nikon?

[dhdhdh]

canon...

don't know about Nikon, haven't used it for a long time. switched to canon for autofocus way back and have moved into digital with it. presently own 2 5Ds and one 5D MkII... the new camera is a gem... so much nicer than the 5d -- higher iso's, MUCH nicer screen on the back, lots of little changes which are cool... if you want to save money, but a used 5D, they're pretty cheap right now, and make great pictures. if you need higher ISO or love the screen, go for the newer body.

there are some beautiful and inexpensive (relatively!) lenses out there. I have the 17-40 f4 which is very sharp, and the 24-105 f4 which is sharp and has IS.

the new IS 70-200 2.8 is heavy but just a super sharp, wonderful lens...

if you don't want to carry all of this weight i highly recommend the

canon 28 1.8 USM lens (not L glass but gorgeous) and the 50 1.4, as well as the 85 1.8... they make a 200 2.8 which is fairly compact, as well...


24mm and 35mm 1.4 lenses are beautiful but expensive and heavy


good luck!

 

[NEiMac]

First thing I recommend is you go and handle all the camera's your interested in and see what feels best to you, cause nothing else will matter if you hate the feel of your camera. I don't think lenses with either Canon or Nikon will matter much as both have awesome pro glass. One thing to consider that I haven't read here is you can use a vast array of Older glass with Nikon, (such as the old AI-S manual focus lenses) but not with Canon as they have changed there mounts over the years.

 

[jared_kipe]

The 5D II's autofocus system is its most criticized component, and that's from Canon people. They left it mostly intact from the original 5D because they didn't want it to cannibalize sales from the 1Ds Mark III. Yes, there were minor improvements, but its iffy at best with fast action and tracking multiple subjects in motion.

I don't doubt it. In fact, I know it. What I'm saying is that just because it is inferior to AN autofocus system doesn't mean it is inherently BAD. Just not the best.

Why not say that the D700 has inferior resolution because it has the same MP as a FF 5D from mid 2005.

EDIT:

Nonsense. The 5D II isn't up to par with the D3x, nor should it be. I read a good comparison between the two, and the D3x comes out on top.

Read: http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/PushingTheBlacks/index.html

I don't know, something seems fishy in this. Either the Canon DPP software is doing weird things, or wasn't optimized back then. I'd love to get my hands on both RAW files and use a program like Lightroom or Aperture.

There have been some firmware updates on the 5D, maybe they correct some of this. But I highly suspect the raw rendering just isn't up to ACR's standards. I have NEVER seen blotchy colors/noise like this from ISO100 shots in the shadows.

 

[luminosity]

"Back then"? Do things really change that fast? The 5D II has yet to see one year in existence.

Remember, the D3x wasn't being converted with Capture NX2, which is a much better converter for all Nikon RAW files than anything else. I'd like to see a well done shot by the D3x that's converted by NX2.

I take your word, of course, that you haven't seen anything like it in your experience. No reason to doubt it .

 

[Grimace]

As an owner of the 5D and then the 5D mark II, I can say that the autofocus systems are NOT the same. The 5D wasn't substandard by any means - it just wasn't optimized for fast-moving sports. The Mark II version is faster and (in my view) is more than sufficient for most any use.

I'll say it again -- choose your lens family, then choose your camera; both bodies are great options.

 

[akdj]

"Nonsense. The 5D II isn't up to par with the D3x, nor should it be. I read a good comparison between the two, and the D3x comes out on top.

Read: http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/Pu...cks/index.html"

Luminosity...not nonsense, it's my eyes...

Please read, or actually look at the pictures....

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D3x/

No need to be defensive. Obviously the D3x is an excellent camera, however I think you are giving the D3 a little TOO much credit Maybe taking a bit TOO much away from the Canon

Again, the D3x is phenomenal...but this is Ford vs. Chevy....and in this case, you can buy 3 Chevys....one for each shoulder and another for your neck, for the price of ONE Ford!

A true pro shooting with each model, the end results would be so close to identical, surely no one would be able to pick which was which. I am convinced of that. I have been shooting weddings for 19 years and one of my best friends is a Nikon guy. Shoots the D3x and the D300. We've played with eachother's setups and both agree...you can't go wrong with either.

Now, on the flip side, if you're shooting sports and you have a real need for speed...it's hard to beat the Nikon. That is maybe the one argument I would agree with (other than build quality...or should I say "heft"? Dunno).

I don't want to take anything from the Nikon. It's an incredible camera. But when it comes down to comparing the 700 vs 5D2 there is no comparison IMHO. The 5d2 would, with the exception of another FPS, trump the 700 in pure IQ and resolution.

J

 

[luminosity]

The 5D Mark II is a fantastic camera, and I say that as I'm still entertaining quiet little whispers about buying one (remember, I just sold my D300/17-55 2.8). Now's the time it would happen, if it ever would. Why won't I, most likely? Cost, for one thing, but more importantly, because the autofocus is a dealbreaker for me. It just isn't up to the standards I'm accustomed to.

For static shots and slow-moving subjects, the 5D (either one) is excellent, perhaps unparalleled by all 35mm-equivalent cameras not named the D3x.

The D3x provides all the D3's incredible autofocus ability and combines it with 5D IQ and better. You just lose some high ISO ability in the process. They are not equal cameras, and not just because of the price. I can shoot sports scenes that leave a 5D Mark II in the dust if I have a D3x. It was designed that way, and for over 7K, it better be that good. Further, if the 5D Mark II was also designed that way, it would be both more expensive and counterproductive for Canon, because it would steal away sales of the 1Ds. There's plenty of talk that the D700 sapped Nikon's sales of the D3.

 

[m03bius]

check this out

If you havent already, this guy Ken Rockwell reviews both cameras on his website. He was an avid Nikon shooter but has been trying out Canon gear lately. Definitely worth a read:

http://www.kenrockwell.com

and no I dont work for him I just find his site very useful.

 

[OreoCookie]

Maybe because the non-pro one is good enough. Thats what I meant by I haven't had a problem. ...
The autofocus in the 5DII is quick and accurate. It isn't less quick and less accurate because it doesn't have the 1DIII's number of points and supposed speed.

Listening to manufacturers Hype surrounding focusing systems or megapixels is still just listening to hype.

There is no need to be defensive about your camera. Nor is it hype when you say that the 1D series has a better AF system than the 5D (Mark I or II). For 1D series cameras, the AF system is designed to keep up with the high fps of the 1D model.

"It's not a `problem' per se, it's just that the D700 includes a pro-grade AF system and is a lot, lot quicker (up to 8 fps, that's as fast as previous-gen pro-grade Nikons and Canons)."

My 40D shoots almost 7fps. What's the point? Speed isn't necessarily the focus (pardon the pun) of purchasing a camera. Also, I believe the Canon is still a "Pro-Grade" AF system. It's worked excellent for me...I shoot center point most of the time though.

I also don't need 7 or 8 fps or a top-of-the-line AF system. But I'm not seeking for advice, the OP does -- and he may have different needs than you and me.

"Again, it's not a problem per se, but it's clear that the two cameras have very distinct strengths and advantages. Why Canon hasn't upgraded the AF module in the 5D Mark II is beyond me, though."

But the have Oreo. The 5D2 has a marked improvement over the classic 5D AF system. This has been mentioned numerous times. Not sure why so many believe it hasn't been updated?

… because it hasn't been mentioned in the reviews that I've seen. To my knowledge, the Mark II uses the same AF module than the Mark I, although Canon could have improved focussing speeds with software tweaks (although dpreview still calls it `pedestrian' whatever that is worth; probably still fast enough for my needs). In any case, Canon could have included a better AF system in the 5D Mark II, but decided to not do it. Presumably Canon simply has decided to position the camera differently (= marchitecture).

In any case, why is your brand loyalty getting in the way of giving advice here?

 

[wheelhot]

If you havent already, this guy Ken Rockwell reviews both cameras on his website. He was an avid Nikon shooter but has been trying out Canon gear lately. Definitely worth a read:

http://www.kenrockwell.com

and no I dont work for him I just find his site very useful.

Ouch, that hurts..but pls pls, dun recommend Ken Rockwell. It's okay to read his stuffs just must remember to remove his personal comments cause its biased anyway.

Heck, if I recall, this is what he mentioned about Nikon and Canon, Nikon for everything else (cause it has Magic AF detect) and Canon for Landscape.

Yeah, and I agree with OreoCookie, I realize some posters start being defensive about their brand. Heck I am changing from Canon to Nikon cause of my needs so yeah.

 

[jared_kipe]

I'm not trying to get defensive, what I'm trying to say is that I OWN one of the two cameras.

I don't find the autofocus deficient.

Do the people who are saying it is OWN both cameras for comparison? Or are they just parroting the marketing they have been sold.


I'd say the truly biggest problem with the autofocus is how gosh darn slow it is IN a movie. I usually focus by hand, but sometimes depending on how you started the movie, your hand isn't hear the focus controls and makes a mess trying to get there. And if you try to use the Contrast detect, the camera quickly goes to infinity and the SLOWLYYYY creeps in until it finds what it is looking for. But that has nothing to do with the autofocus system you are referring to.

 

[OreoCookie]

Heck, if I recall, this is what he mentioned about Nikon and Canon, Nikon for everything else (cause it has Magic AF detect) and Canon for Landscape.

Magic AF detect

 

[Mlobo01]

Full frame

I think you will enjoy any of those cameras, Im awaiting until october when Nikon could be releasing the rumored Nikon D700x with 24mp sensor, if it does not arrive by then I will get the D700, When I was researching cameras I was going to opt for the rbel xti but the nikon d60 or even the d40 seemed better constructed, so I bought the D60, that lasted for a couple of days until I sensed that I needed something better so I went and sold my camera and went for the D90, after 2000 pictures I think the D700 suits my budget and my photo needs, I already have the 50mm G lens so all I need is the body. I have enjoyed the Canon small point and shoot cameras very much so I got the Canon G10 and It does render quality pics due to the lower iso at 80 instead of Nikon's 200, but mentally there's a slight change due to the change in camera styles so the BWs that the G10 takes will have a photojournalist quality and its more immediate and people react to it differently vis a vis an slr, for Portraits and landscape I do recommend Nikon and thats what I shoot the most, for Sports and action Canon delivers, Nikon has been slow in the digital arena so certain functions Canon has the upper hand but the star of the show will be your lens setup so keep on researching your lenses until it provides the certitude you are looking for, any questions just email me or post back.

 

[pdxflint]

^^^

Thanks Mlobo01... Your post made me smile just a bit... thanks for the advice. Somehow I think the D700 will be pretty good for sports and photojournalism, too, and maybe even B/W...
Cheers!

 

[compuwar]

It does render quality pics due to the lower iso at 80 instead of Nikon's 200,

Just for completeness, the sensor's base ISO being lower does NOT affect the image quality like it did in film. Anything over the sensor's base will affect the dynamic range as well as noise, but you can base a sensor at 50, 100 or 200 and you can't categorically say "all ISO 50 sensors beat ISO 100 ones!" because it's the deviation from base necessitating signal amplification that makes the picture worse, not where you start at.

I realize there are ISO 100 films that beat ISO 50 films for quality (Provia 100F springs to mind with an RMS of 8, better even than Velvia's RMS of 9) but for sensors the variables are more complex than simply size of the grain, and the ISO being higher as a rule of thumb doesn't make it worse like it did for film.

 

[akdj]

"In any case, why is your brand loyalty getting in the way of giving advice here?"

Oreo, you should probably go back and read both of our posts that you quoted. I have said several times, in each of my posts, that this is Ford v Chevy. Nothing more. It has nothing to do with brand loyalty and everything to do with having used both bodies. Nothing more, nothing less. I think I have a very relatable experience to the OP as I went through the same process 6 months ago or so. I now own the 5D2 and have experience with the D3x and the D300. None with the 700, self-admittedly.

I get the idea that you, however, are NOT familiar with the two bodies, certainly the 5D. You say that you haven't read in any reviews that the AF system has been improved. Why not stop by a local shop and pick one up, snap some shots in store....certainly before offering real world advice???

OP...>I will say it again. Both Awesome cameras. The D3x is a better Pro camera, for sure. As mentioned by Luminosity, it should be, it's 7-8k! Let's wait to see what Canon's counter-punch is with the 1DIV! Incredible times to be a photographer. Both of these cameras offer more than we could get for $100,000 just 5 short years ago

Again, two pros shooting side by side, same subject, same time with their own professional experience with each camera....Not one of us could pick out which camera is which in a (Not so) Blind-Test. That's saying something for a camera that costs 1/3 as much. I think the line will be blurred a bit more when the Mark IV hits shops soon....also an updated lineup of lenses from Canon....this should make the Pro with 10k in his pocket looking to invest in a Pro body do some deep thinking.

My feeling is whoever has released the latest body has a leg up on the competition. Just the way technology works. Moore's Law. Everything in exponential in improvement. We'll all be able to buy these bodies in 3 years for a significant discount.....whenever the D3xxxx is released and the Mark X from the two manufacturers.

I do think this has turned into a valid and fruitful discussion. I don't ever want to be considered a fan boy....mainly because of my 20 years of being So freaking "Wrong" when it came to using PC's! Two years ago, making the switch to Mac has humbled me a bit. I don't know or pretend to know everything the competing manufacturer has up on my product. Hence the reason I'm considering adding a Sony EX-1 to my video lineup....with my Panny 200a and Canon 5D2. I think every product has strong and weak points....everything has a purpose. BUT, when you get to products as good as the 5D2/D700/D3x/1D4 come in to play, so does the law of diminishing returns. How well your camera is going to take pictures is SO much MORE based on your experience behind the VF, not the hardware in Front of the VF. I've seen WAY too may excellent shots taken with P&S cameras (check out photography-on-the.net for some Unbelievable shots with P&S cams, 5D and D2's, 40D's, etc, etc.). This will give you a TRUE idea of what these cams are able to do....and EVERY camera on the market is able to do...albeit with one caveat.....

That the camera is in the hands of someone that knows what they are doing

J

 

[pdxflint]

...How well your camera is going to take pictures is SO much MORE based on your experience behind the VF, not the hardware in Front of the VF. I've seen WAY too may excellent shots taken with P&S cameras (check out photography-on-the.net for some Unbelievable shots with P&S cams, 5D and D2's, 40D's, etc, etc.). This will give you a TRUE idea of what these cams are able to do....and EVERY camera on the market is able to do...albeit with one caveat.....

That the camera is in the hands of someone that knows what they are doing

J

Excellent point...! Which worries me a bit because maybe my own limitations are the issue, not the equipment... Actually, when I was a photo editor in college I tried to get my photographers to use their 'vision' and not be too obsessed with gear and lens size. I had one guy who bought an EOS 1n (35mm) which was the top Canon body at the time, and he only had a cheap non-Canon lens on it. He sure had a nice camera (body) however... I decided to hand him a manual Pentax and a 50mm 1.4 lens and send him out on an assignment. He came back with some very interesting shots, and discovered that he actually liked having to think a bit more about what he was doing... I used to always emphasize "it's not the size, it's how you use it..."

I'm going to have to spend a little time with both of these cameras in store, and maybe even see if I can borrow one or the other for a day or so. In the end it's going to be a gut decision, because I can certainly see the arguments for each of them, and realistically there aren't serious shortcomings either way.

Thanks again all for the great discussion.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Most Canon lenses are listed here:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406

 

[OreoCookie]

I'm going to have to spend a little time with both of these cameras in store, and maybe even see if I can borrow one or the other for a day or so. In the end it's going to be a gut decision, because I can certainly see the arguments for each of them, and realistically there aren't serious shortcomings either way.

Thanks again all for the great discussion.

Yup, that's really the most important thing: if you don't like your tools, your shots just won't be as good. Care to check back and tell us what you end up buying?

 

[PimpDaddy]

If I had the money to go full frame today and didn't let my current lenses limit me in the choise of brand I would totally go for the D700 over the 5D2.

I agree that the 5D2 is a really good camera. I've had the opportunity to play with one on a couple of occasions.

One thing that was a pain in the butt compared to even my 40D was the spread of the focus points. What where Canon thinking?


40D AF point spread: Not the best but pretty close to the rule of 3rds(especially compared to the 5DII

5DII AF point spread: They might as well just have made it with just a center AF point

D700 AF point spread: Now this is what you'll want in a camera in this price class!

On top of it all Canon decided to produce the 5DII with an AF system which is worse than the one in the 40/50D.
WTF?!

I shoot landscapes, sports, club events and portraits the most. And I would definitely love the AF system of the D700. Tracking moving objects(even slow ones) with the 40D is like buying a lottery ticket(OK it's not that bad but it's not something I am compelled to use when maybe I should)


A fun read on this subject is DPreview.com's interview with Canon's Masaya Maeda who is currently the head of the entire camera division, covering both DSC and the EOS DSLR system.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0810/08100302_canoninterview.asp

"One of the most common complaints we've seen about the 5D Mark II is that it still has the same AF system as the original 5D. Why is this?"

"Firstly the market's evaluation of the 5D's AF system has been very positive; there have been no complaints from users, with everyone saying it's very good. Given that, to a certain extent, we think we shouldn't change it. And also there's some limitation with size; the AF sensor in the 50D is very big; the one in the 5D is much smaller. If we wanted to have all cross-sensors in the 5D Mark II, it would mean we might have to sacrifice the compactness of the body. It's all a question of balance of features and benefits."

....

This is the worst excuse I've ever heard. Period.

Seriously this is BS x 1000. Canon just didn't have the balls or brains to either use the 1DIII AF system(and maybe giving the 5DII a bad start because of all the bad press the 1DIII AF system have been getting), improve the 1DIII AF system or create a totally new AF system with e.g. 15 AF points that would settle in between the AF system of the xxD line and the 1D line.


It looks like Nikon is the most innovative right now and seem to care alot more about customers when compared to Canon.



I would go for the D700 no doubt. But I am 'just' me and not the OP



Sorry for the rant

 

[peskaa]

It looks like Nikon is the most innovative right now and seem to care alot more about customers when compared to Canon.

And where are Nikon's Tilt-Shift lenses, a true ringflash rather than ridiculous mobile heads, and most of all, care for those people who got shafted when Nikon moved to FX after stating they wouldn't?

The sun doth not shine out of either of Canon or Nikon's rear ends.

 

[PimpDaddy]

And where are Nikon's Tilt-Shift lenses, a true ringflash rather than ridiculous mobile heads, and most of all, care for those people who got shafted when Nikon moved to FX after stating they wouldn't?

The sun doth not shine out of either of Canon or Nikon's rear ends.

Fair points.

I've never had to use a Tilt-shift lens or a ring-flash so I've never looked into Nikons offerings there and I never knew anything about what Nikon apparently promised costumers.

But lack of ring-flashes, T/S lenses and other stuff doesn't take anything away from the info in my post. 5DII still has a medieval AF system. And Maede is still full of BS... Or the most uninformed CEO of all times

 

[compuwar]

And where are Nikon's Tilt-Shift lenses, a true ringflash rather than ridiculous mobile heads, and most of all, care for those people who got shafted when Nikon moved to FX after stating they wouldn't?

The sun doth not shine out of either of Canon or Nikon's rear ends.

Nikon now has 3 T/S lenses, having added one in the last year- as many as Canon had until just recently when they added one more. Nikon has always called them Perspective Control (PC) lenses, so perhaps that's why you can't find them.

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Camera-Lenses/Manual/Perspective-Control.page

Secondly, if you'd read the interviews with Nikon's executives they actually said they'd develop DX for at least three years so they'd projected what they considered a reasonable timeframe to develop FX should the market dictate they do so, which it ultimately did.

For instance, Nikon R&D Director Tomino Naoki at Photokina 2004:

TN: Regarding 135mm full frame we are going through a study of possibility. However, full frame is definitely not cheap. How many customers are going to purchase such over 1 million Yen camera? This is a business issue. Thus we want to wait for a while. Last year we release DX lenses, now we announce the intention of "at least three year development with DX standard", that's what we are going to...

Edit: Effectively what Nikon has always said is "If you buy DX, we're not going to abandon you." That shows in the DX crop mode in the D3/D3x/D700 as well as in the announced strategy to continue to build DX bodies alongside of FX bodies. How anyone gets "We won't build FX" out of that is a mystery.

 

[sangosimo]

full frame is the way to go. If you don't shoot sports and don't want a pro body get the 5dmk2; it will be a better camera for you than the d700. If you want to shoot sports you will need the fps of the d700

 

[Cliff3]

And where are Nikon's Tilt-Shift lenses, a true ringflash rather than ridiculous mobile heads, and most of all, care for those people who got shafted when Nikon moved to FX after stating they wouldn't?

The sun doth not shine out of either of Canon or Nikon's rear ends.

Compuwar has already pointed out the existence of Nikon's perspective control lenses to you, which were introduced in January (24mm) and July (45mm and 85mm) of 2008.

I found references to Nikon executives discussing the release of full frame professional level cameras dating from Fall 2003, so while Nikon has not been too forthcoming in releasing specific product roadmaps, they have not been deceiving people either.