Printable View
As the title hints, ALL of my camera gear was stolen on Easter Sunday. It's insured, but I'm looking to replace everything. I thought I'd get some opinions about the benefits of one brand vs another. I would probably be looking at the 7d or 5dMK2 in Canon or the equivalent in Nikon. I mostly shoot portraits/weddings, but my heart is in wildlife/landscapes. What do you all think??? Thanks for the opinions.
First off, sorry about the loss of your equipment..
Second, I think your replies are going to fall along party lines (pun). I, personally, would favor Canon as that is what I use. A 7D with a couple of good lens, such as a 18-135, a 100-400L and a 500/4/L should pretty well cover your needs.
That being said, I have a friend that uses Nikon and he is extremely happy with his setup also.. If I were you, and I was happy with what I had, I would stick with that brand and not try to learn a whole new system..
You cannot go wrong with either Canon or Nikon..
JMHO
Dave
I think the only way to make that decision is to determine which physical parameters matter most to you and also which offers you better ergonomics and usability (button position, menu sensibility, etc.). I like Nikons but chose a 7D because of the 1080/24p video capability.
If I were to start over then I'd rent systems from both camps for a few weeks and compare. JR
Good advise above and like the ideal of trying both. Consider the existing knowledge base you have developed too. Sorry about the loss and glad you were insured. Let us know what you end up doing.
Yeah, I'm wondering, "What is he coming from?" I'm deep into Canon, but know a number of people that get excellent results with Nikon.
Regarding 7D vs. 5D MkII, I own both and use the 7D for wildlife and the 5D2 for everything else. The 7D has faster AF and much higher burst rate, but those things are only really important to me in my bird and wildlife photography. If I were making my living with weddings, portraits and people stuff and I could only have one body, then it'd be the 5D2.
Unfortunately for your wildlife photography, if you pick the 5D2, you'll need longer, more expensive telephotos. Still, if you're going to get real serious about wildlife you'll probably be buying a $5000+ lens anyway that would work with either body. Of course, Nikon has the same crop-sensor vs. full-frame issues.
I'm thinking that you should start with the 5D2 and the lenses you need for your living and then consider adding a 7D later for wildlife. I love the two-body setup. I take my 7D with the EF 500mm f/4L IS mounted on the tripod and gimbal and keep the 5D2 around my neck with a 24-105mm mounted to grab scenics or a herd or flock too big for the tele. When I travel and don't plan any wildlife excursions, then I take only the 5D2.
Maybe you should put together a proposed system, complete with all lenses, flashes, etc., using Canon and Nikon to see the total cost. I wouldn't be surprised if the Canon system doesn't have cushion in it to pay for a 2d body.
David has some good points. I thought I read that Artie said he would not purchase a FF sensor for bird photography but for weddings that could be perfect. Something to think about. Of course the new MKIV has a 1.3 crop maybe a compromise.
Thanks for your thoughts! It seems I still have plenty of time to research. The insurance adjuster is being difficult. She made me drive back to where it was "stolen" (The Security Forces informed me that it is not actually theft if it is left unsecured:( I said, did it belong to them? No, then it's still stealing. We have chosen to respectfully disagree:cool:)and make a "statement." That's 8-10 hours of my life gone forever. (We were on holiday when it was taken.)
Anyhow, I like the idea of renting a few systems and giving them a go. I never really thought I'd ever change from Canon because all my money was invested in Canon glass, but now the whole world of choices is open to me again, and it can be overwhelming.
What is the prevailing consensus about IQ? My 30D seemed to have a lot of noise issues that drove me nuts, and frequently my images were not as tack sharp as I would hope. Most likely user error, but it would make me happier to blame the gear:D
Like everyone above, I am very sorry that you are having to deal with this issue.
I started out with Canon (40D, 70-200f2.8, 300f2.8). I got frustrated with noise and other things and decided to switch to Nikon. I am very pleased with my decision and love the d700. I shoot wildlife/nature and so I usually have to choose the spot and subject more carefully because of FF. But the lack of noise at high ISOs is wonderful. It's taken awhile for me to use the higher ISOs (because of the higher noise level in the 40D) but it has opened up more opportunties because I can get higher shutter speeds with smaller apertures.
Attached is a saw-whet owl I found one night. The ISO was set at 3200 (I was using a D3s). Shot thru tree branches.
However, like everyone above, I really think it is a personal choice (trying out both systems is a great idea) and whatever camera you choose - if you are confident in the equipment it will go a long way to confidence in the images.
The 40D is three generations old. Someone buying today needs to compare current generation to current generation.
40D is not only older it was $1300 new as compared with the D700 at about $2400. I am sure it is a very good camera but it is also in a different class.
Bill
Very difficult decision. Within the last year I switched from Canon to Nikon and am somewhat regretting the switch and would have no problem changing back. Firstly, the cost of replacing Nikon lenses is much higher than Canon. I prefer the focusing of Nikon which overall, in my hands, gives me more consistent results than Canon and really is quick. (note this is for focus tracking only, otherwise they're equivalent). The quality of wide angle taken with Nikon prime lenses is great (but at a price both cost and weight if you factor carrying a 14-24 and 24-28).
But, for wildlife there is an almost 3D quality with a Canon shot when the focusing is on target. I also prefer the color rendition, although I shoot RAW the Nikon tones have an almost metallic appearance. Handling...it's what feels best in your hands.
So, there is no absolute best. Handle both and then choose the one that feels most natural to you.
Well, should be an easy decision: Canon it is for its image quality and price tag :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Deborah Harrison
And here a mostly wedding photo who said:
"Nikon vs, Canon guys? Oh come on, it's not even remotely close and anyone who says that, is just being politically correct, either that, or they don't know the difference, or care. The 5d to D700 is Ford to Ferrari, it's a plain Donut to Chocolate Éclair for crying out loud."
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=35117720
And the debate continues :):)
