Thinking of changing to Nikon...
It is just a thought in my head these days, but I have tryed a Nikon last week and I loved the fact that I was able to managed everything with my right hand, I also love the multiple exposure option as I used it a lot with film. I have a Mark II and a 300mm F4 with a 1.4TC plus other accessories as flashes, etc, etc... wich Nikon model would be the equivalent to these? I apreciate your help, very much.
The top of the Nikon line for pros is the D3 but the D700 or D300 work well and are considerably less expensive. Keep in mind that the D3 and D700 are full frame while the D300 is a cropped frame. The top of the line flash is the SB900.
Hope this helps
Hi Ramon,
As far as camera - the obvious answer would be either the D3 or D700 (with grip). The downside is that you loose the 1.3x on the 1D. The other option is the D300 with Grip which gives you 1.5x. As far as image quality they are all much the same up to about ISO 800 - then the D3 and D700 show their stuff - which is awesome for low light work. As far as handling all 3 are fairly similar, though the D300 and D700 with the grip (which gives you 8 fps) is a little heavier option than the D3. Control wise all are close. I used a D700 for a while, but then bought a D300 and am happier with the reach the 1.5x gives me, so the D700 may go - hate to give up the High ISO though!
As far as lenses - the Nikon 300mm AF-S F/4 is a really great lens and works very well with both the 1.4x and 1.7x TC's. No VR though if you wanted that. The 300mm F/2.8 has VR and is absolutely stellar - but expensive. The 200-400mm VR likewise. The Sigma 150-500mm is a very good lens up to @ 400mm (then softens a bit) but has VR and HSM making it pretty quick. Good price for this option.
Nikon's flash system is a little better feature wise than Canon's - the SB800 is great.
Hope that helps.
Kevin
How you physically interact with your camera is a very personal thing, but critical to obtaining consistently good results. I have used both systems and have to say that I would not trade the jog-wheel on the back of higher-end Canons for "all the tea in China" as they say. Ultimately it comes down to what you are comfortable with and what you are used to. My in-camera double exposures are done ex-camera which is a much less hit-or-miss process.
Ramon:
I have both a D300 and D700. I use the D700 whenever possible because of its great high ISO performance, dynamic range. The reach of the D300 is great when needed, and it is certainly respectable, but the full frame Nikons have a certain feel to the images that puts them in a different class for me. I have not shot Canons, so can't really give you any comparison.
The combination I often use is the D700 on 500 f/4, with or without the 1.4, and the D300 on a 70-200 f/2.8. The later combination is very useful when shooting larger birds in Florida for example.
Cheers
Randy
Ramon, I took a quick trip back to Canon that lasted a week. Back to Nikon.
Judging by what you told me your shooting style is when you were here, you may need the extra reach of the D300, which will be an upgrade in ISO from the 1d2. You can buy a decent used one for over $1,000. Nikon's 300/4 was Alfred's favorite hand-holding lens, again available used for under 1k, new for $1,300.
Nikon ergonomics was the first thing I missed when I tried the 50D.
Luckily, I was able to get two of my cameras and my beloved 3/2.8 back.
Welcome to the dark side!
I have been going through the same thought procees and research on a possible switch in my on going quest for the best equiptment.
Here is a thread and test I found that may help.
http://www.photographybay.com/2008/1...so-comparison/
Good Luck
Welcome Jess! I am sure that you will find a wealth of information here and a warm and friendly community.
Not to reject your first post here, but the link provided is not really a good comparison at all. There are many more better produced comparisons around the internet. Vastly different cameras and a poorly done review. This does nothing to compare the Nikon's strengths - vastly superior AF and FPS rate etc vs the 5D II. Just a resolution and a very poorly done IQ comparison. Amongst other things his white balance on the D700 pics is way off. Using a Nikon 50mm F/1.8 against a Canon 50mm F/1.4 is a very poor choice when it comes to comparing images. No wonder the images compare as they do.
Both cameras (and camera systems) are outstanding. Anyone who buys either will be assured of more camera than they can use. Lenses are far more important than bodies (which are really kind of disposable over the years). A great lens will last many, many years. Lens choice often influences people to switch far more than bodies - which have a remarkable way of becoming very even over the course of a generation.
Hope that helps.
Last edited by kevinmat; 03-14-2009 at 12:16 PM. Reason: error
Welcome back cousin. I may have a 70-200VR for sale if you want one. :)
Kevin,
I would love to see links for some of those test.
Thanks
Jess
Google is your friend :)
http://www.google.com/search?q=5d+Mkii+vs+D700
Here is a good place to start:
http://www.dpnotes.com/canon-5d-mark...d700-compared/
For properly setup image comparisons at different ISO's for most cams go to imaging-resource
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
Hope that helps
Here is another one everyone may be interested in. It sold me and I couldn't be happier.
Go to Luminous Landscape/product reviews/Nikon/D3-D300 compared to Canon, by a Canon guy.
Join the Darkside -
Last edited by Bill McCrystyn; 03-15-2009 at 07:54 AM.
Thanks again,
I love the apples and oranges Nikon/Canon test.
I guess we just can't have it all. I think the conclusion sums it up well. If you need fast auto focus and the best metering Nikon wins. If you want high resolution and low noise Canon wins.
In my workshops I see plenty of both cameras and great images taken under the same condition by both. I was actually thinking about using the 700 with the great 14-24 for some of my landscapes but I think I will be better off with the 14-24 and adapter for my 1Ds MKlll unless I can find a better solution.
That's interesting Jess. That's the biggest reason I left Canon was because I got tired of cleaning the shadow croma noise out of all my images which I understand the D50 still has a problem with. I use to turn the filter up on my 40D and it slowed the fps down so much I might as well have been shooting single frame. Now I understand the 50D won't AF at f/8. I guess the big boys can compare but at the medium DX range Nikon seems to blow them out.
Last edited by Bill McCrystyn; 03-14-2009 at 03:52 PM.
No one beats the IQ and high ISO capability of the D3.
:D The Dark Side, loved that expression!
I apreciate you help and info on this matter, as I said, this is still just an idea... but as regarding optics and IQ I would believe both Brands are great I am really tempted by the fact that with Nikon I can control everything with just one hand, also the multiple exposure is something I have missed since I moved to digital, and although I know I could do that during the PP, I like it better whern I do such thing with the camera :)
I will keep reserching and listinging to your opinions and suggestions. Thank you all!
Actually, it is the D3x now, arguably the best DSLR not called a medium-format.Originally Posted by Bob Ettinger
Just some reality checks.....
(First, I think both systems can do really well photographically, some exceptions, and there are ways around them on both sides. More below.)
D300:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/page13.asp
12.2 Mpixels: 6.1 frames/sec 12-bit NEF.
increases to 8.0 frames/sec with battery grip.
D700:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond700/page13.asp
12.0 Mpixels: 5.0 frames/sec 12-bit NEF.
increases to 8.0frames/sec with battery grip.
D3:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3/page13.asp
Camera rated at 11 frames/second, but in reality:
12.0 Mpixels: 8.9 frames/second 12-bit NEF full (12 MPix) FX frame mode.
5.1 Mpixels: 10.9 frames/second 12-bit NEF cropped DX frame mode, without AF tracking.
10 frames/second 5.1 megapixels with AF tracking.
D3X, full frame = FX = 6048 x 4032 =24.4 Mpixels,
crop frame = DX = 3906 x 2640 =10.3 MPixels
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3x/page13.asp
24.0 Mpixels: 2.0 frames/second 14-bit NEF full FX frame mode.
24.0 Mpixels: 5.0 frames/second 12-bit NEF full FX frame mode.
10.3 Mpixels: 7.0 frames/second 12-bit NEF full DX frame mode.
10.3 Mpixels: 2.8 frames/second 14-bit NEF full DX frame mode.
So to get a full 14-bit raw, the D3X is actually slower than the Canon 5DII:
5DII: 5616 x 3744 = 21.0 Mpixels
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/cano...kii/page14.asp
21.0 Mpixels: 3.8 frames/second 14-bit full frame, all modes.
1DII 3504 x 2336 pixels, 1.3x crop sensor.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/cano...kii/page12.asp
8.2 Mpixels: 8.3 frames/second 12-bit in high speed mode.
In terms of frames/second, the higher megapixels of the D700 and D300 may not be worth the loss in speed for the small megapixel gain over the canon 1DII (or III).
In the large pixel size area, for full frame 14-bit imaging, the canon 5D2 is faster (3.8 frames/sec versus 2.0 for the D3X).
Light gathering and high ISO performance is related to two main factors: the size and efficiency of a pixel and uniformity and low noise of the electronics for the low intensity end.
The pixels sizes are (and the order of high ISO performance per pixel):
D3: 8.46 micron pixel spacing
D700: 8.46
1DII: 8.2
1DIII: 7.2
5DII: 6.4
D3x: 5.9
D300: 5.5
But for the same size print, the higher megapixel count of a same sized sensor will produce an equal or better image. The 1DII and D3 have similar high ISO performance. At the low intensity end (e.g. shadows), the 5DII is the current low noise leader with almost half the read noise of the D3 and D300. Even the 1DII has lower read noise. More details at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...rmance.summary
The D3 and D700 have such great high ISO performance not by some improved technology, but mainly due to the large pixels (there is not magic; just simple physics).
Issues in high ISO performance:
1DII the background is not uniform. Solution: take a few dark frames and subtract them. Examples here:
http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo...ht.photography
Nikon cameras (at least all I've tested r read about): for low level night photography the cameras force a noise reduction step that applies a median filter to the raw data. This has led people to invent "mode 3" which is turning off the camera before the dark frame can be recorded and thus prevents the application of the median filter. The median filter deletes details, like stars. Second problem: at the low end, Nikon chooses to cut off the bottom of the histogram, compromising shadow detail (canon adds a bias to the data so no information is lost below zero). For high iso low work, there is no solution for fast shutter speeds. For long exposures the solution is to go long enough (minutes?) so dark
current raises the signal enough so no data are truncated at zero. This is a significant factor in night photography, especially of stars.
Summary:
Both systems are very good but not perfect. There really is no greener grass on either side regarding the above technical aspects, just small differences in my opinion.
Personal note:
How the camera feels operates in your hands is probably more important than the above specs.
There is a lot on the net about this being better than that (e.g. AF) one versus the other. I have yet to see a real scientific test so it is mostly anecdotal. On that idea, I will say for the 1DII versus 5DII, for which I both took to Africa in January: after 3 days it became very obvious to me that the 5DII was so superior in image quality and accuracy of focus for what I was imaging, that the 5DII became my primary camera and the 1DII was backup. There are some 1DII images I wish I did on the 5DII (leopards).
[quote=rnclark;227654]Just some reality checks.....
Personal note:
How the camera feels operates in your hands is probably more important than the above specs.
Roger we are in complete agreement here and why I offered the article by Michael Reichmann at Luminous Landscape/Product Reviews/Nikon D3-D300 vs. Canon - by a Canon guy.
Last edited by Bill McCrystyn; 03-15-2009 at 03:13 PM.
Lots of good points in the discussion. Both systems have their good and not so good points, you need to add the plusses and see what suits you best !!
I just came back to Canon and makes sense for my purposes. I'm happy with my decision and getting great results !!
I've never been a Nikon shooter, but I will say that the Canon equipment works well for me. One thing that you should factor into your decision is the cost of gear. The big Canon supertelephoto lenses are much cheaper than equivalent offerings from Nikon. Here are the current prices for the Canon and Nikon 500 and 600 f/4 lenses (obtained from B&H).
Canon 500mm: $5,800 Nikon 500mm: $8,310 Difference: $2,510
Canon 600mm: $7,600 Nikon 600mm: $9,700 Difference: $2,100
I don't see how Nikon can charge so much more, but they do.
Upcoming Workshops: Bosque del Apache 2019, Ecuador 2020 (details coming soon)
Website - Facebook - 500px
I'm no pro on the topic. But it I like the Nikon high end cameras and the Canon glass and glass prices. I think Nikon really needs to update some lenses, but I think they've been a leg up since the release of the D3 and D300.
And looking at the Nikon website, the D300 and D700 have 14 bit/12 bit option.
Last edited by Chad Griggs; 03-15-2009 at 10:10 PM.
So much energy has been expended on this subject over the years; if harnessed, a small city could be powered for a year! Personally, I like Roger's approach- just the facts. After all, what we do is an application of physics, not alchemy.
The other big deciding factor (other than the facts) is monetary inertia driven by investment in glass. Ergonomics is important and quite different on each system but muscle memory is pretty easy to change.
The right system is what feels right in your hands and is manageable for you. A good photographer will know how to get the image he/she wants with any system.
It's the eye behind the camera that's important Both Canon and Nikon are great, I use one, my husband the other, and both of us achieve the same results. Don't rush to change, the pendulum swings between canon and nikon every few years. Just enjoy taking pictures and learn how to make the most of whatever you use.
Just my humble 2 cents worth....:)
Well said!!
"I loved the fact that I was able to managed everything with my right hand"
So do I.
I can do everything I need to without taking my finger off the shutter release.
I've used Artie's Mark III (Using center sensor AF) with the 400 DO lens and made sharp well exposed images.
The Nikon and Canon meters seem to be about 2/3 of a stop different. Easy to adjust to.
Bottom line. Both systems will produce great images in the hands of the right photographer.
Ergonomics not economics are why I switched from the EOS 1N to the F5 many years ago.
If due to my shooting style, my camera's ergonomics helps me capture marketable images that I might have otherwise missed, well I guess that would be an economic consideration.
I went to the dark-side (Many call me Darth for that reason) and never looked back (OK the D2H made me glance back).
I have also been thinking about moving towards Nikon, though in my case it has been the unreliability of the Canon bodies I have. During each of last two trips I had one of my bodies die due to the dreaded Error 99 and nothing brought it back to life. At Bosque it was the 1D3 (but Artie was a gem and allowed me to borrow one) and then more latterly with the 1dsMk3 in Japan. It also happened a couple of years back in Namibia with the 1dsMk2. Maybe I am just a jinx but...
Not so concerned about the Nikon vs Canon feature debate as each has it plus points (even if for the moment Nikon is slightly ahead), I just want reliable kit!!!
Canon did increase too.
For me, I started out with my 40D wondering why on earth Nikon was so much more. Then I compared features and design and that gave me the answer - you get what you pay for.
One good example is Canon creates MTF based on their theoretical equations while Nikon actually test their lenses for real measured MTF results.
Who is the high ISO noise winner - both DX and FX - Nikon, and why?
As Roger stated - it's not magic - "just simple physics". There bigger. Why do they cost more - go figure.
You can always make something that cost less to produce - be cheaper. Steel will always cost more than plastic ;)
Last edited by Bill McCrystyn; 03-16-2009 at 11:07 PM.
Same old,same old !
I shot Nikon film cameras and hated the F4 but loved the F5. Great metering !
I have always thought Nikon metering was better than Canon.
I changed to Canon because I wanted A super telephoto with IS and Nikon was dragging there feet. I bought a 600mm IS lens and have been happy. Of course metering was and is a problem with Canon ,but I have adapted and now we live happily ever after. I will not change because of the 600mm ,since it makes no sense.
I f you have a complete group of Canon or Nikon lenses I feel it makes no sense to change to the other.
As every one has said great images are made by each.
If you can afford to jump around between brands then give it a go ,but either can make you happy.
Chas.
Hey Charles, is that a Nikon rockin' chair your sitting in? :D
Actually that is a Yellowstone Ntl Pk $500.00(can you believe that) rocker that can rock either way(Nikon or Canon).
Chas
Well, if that don't beat all - :)
Bill
And what do you think of the Nikon D2x?
Noise levels may not be as clean as the new ones.
I understand, but would you go with a D300 or D700 over the D2X? The thing is that Nikon in Argentina is stupidly expensive, for example, the D3 (not D3X) here costs over 5000 USD! A little too much IMHO. I still think Nikon can offer me what I need, so I am trying to find other good options other than the new bodies.
Ramon, I would take advantage of the new bodies. That is where the improvements have been made. If you could find a used body here at BPN or a new one from B&H Photo N.Y. on the web the price would not be determined by Argentina. No?
You're right Bill, but if I do that, the Argentina's Official Nikon Service will NOT take my gear if I need to get it fixed... I have to buy it from one specific guy and if I don't, I can't count with the official service... I think that's just terrible and makes no sense but that's how it is sadly...
Ramon I don't think you will be happy with a D2X !!!!
IF you have a problem, you can always return it to B&H. I have found them to be trustworthy and reliable. I have to agree with Alfred on the D2X. I have a D300 with a 200-400VR and 1.4X. For what I shoot this works real, real well.
Ramon,
I use a D2x for my studio work; in the field you will see me with my D200 or one of my D70s...:D It's THE DARK SIDE for me...hands down...no more, no less...:cool:
Great guys, your being very helpfull!! I apreciate it so much! I'll keep searching and asking you if that's OK.
Thanks!!!
I have two friends who used to shoot with the D2x. With plenty of light, you get some nice images. But don't even think about an ISO greater than 400. Both bodies are gathering dust; they both prefer the D300.
Upcoming Workshops: Bosque del Apache 2019, Ecuador 2020 (details coming soon)
Website - Facebook - 500px
Good to know Doug, thanks!
My D2x hasn't been used since I got my D300. It's still a fine camera and I've kept it for back-up but the D300 is terrific.
Ramón- My lightly used work D2x developed a problem out of the blue which turned out to be a bad sensor. Nikon quoted $2400 to fix. I replaced it with the D300. It was a very expensive camera when it came out and is now positively primitive compared to the modern Nikon bodies.
I don't like the sounds of your description of Nikon service in Argentina and having to buy from just one supplier to qualify. I would run away from that.
Thank you all, I don't think I will be able to change brands soon, but I would love to, in the mean time, I'll just keep looking for as much info I can. You are all being so helpfull that I can't thank you enought.
Hi ramón,
If you don't want to buy the new bodies and want a real pro camera the D2Hs (not the D2H) is unbeatable for RAW speed, AF performance and high ISO noise. It's an excellent camera for birding. And with its small RAW files you don't need to upgrade your computer and/or your Nikon software, unlike with the D3, D300 and D700.
For the last 3 years, I've been shooting with two D2Hs and am very happy with what this camera can offer me. So far, I've never felt the need to upgrade to the new bodies even after having tried the D300 and the D700.
So I can save money and buy high performance glasses...
Good luck on your choice !
Cheers,
Sar
Ramon,
Just curious, which Nikon did you borrow in the first week of March? Is renting Nikon equipment an attractive option?
I wouldn't know if Nikon is renting Scott, I just tryed one from a friend of mine.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
