canon to nikon

[Anorakus]

So you can afford to splash out on a 5D Mark II but you can't afford a sub-£100 1TB harddrive for storage, or a couple of hundred quid on a new computer processor...? Very strange. My old desktop pc handles 21mp Raw files fine and it hasn't been upgraded inthe last 4 years. It was hardly bleeding edge back then either.

I've got a 1tb drive - filling up fast! - and I back up my RAW files on to DVDs. I'm running a 2 1/2 yr old Dell Inspiron laptop, the bottom of the range as was then but with 4gb RAM (so glad now that I added more memory when I ordered it!) and which I downgraded from Vista to XP and then later upgraded to Windows 7. I can manipulate the files in Photoshop, but the file sizes are starting to get unwieldy.. a 15mb 21mp RAW file translates to a 50-something mb Photoshop file. It takes a few seconds to open and save files and run filters - it's useable at present, but if I was to start manipulating 30mp files I'd need a faster laptop.

A.

 

[goldenlight]

I've got a 1tb drive - filling up fast! - and I back up my RAW files on to DVDs. I'm running a 2 1/2 yr old Dell Inspiron laptop, the bottom of the range as was then but with 4gb RAM (so glad now that I added more memory when I ordered it!) and which I downgraded from Vista to XP and then later upgraded to Windows 7. I can manipulate the files in Photoshop, but the file sizes are starting to get unwieldy.. a 15mb 21mp RAW file translates to a 50-something mb Photoshop file. It takes a few seconds to open and save files and run filters - it's useable at present, but if I was to start manipulating 30mp files I'd need a faster laptop.

A.

Try working on medium format trannies that you've scanned too big!

 

[LongLensPhotography]

On the other hand, if Canon were to release the 5D3, and it was pretty much an upgraded 5D2 in a 7D body - that is, 30mp, class leading ISO, best AF, and running 8fps etc etc - then maybe you'd wish you hadn't

I'd put money on the 5D2's replacement being that good. Can't say when though

I have to agree with that. 5DII is already the very best thing out there for landscape and portrait work. Even the aged and now affordable 1Ds mkII outclasses D700 and D3 in these areas (D3x is well out of reach for most people that rather have an extra few pro lenses or save cash).

5D3 is unlikely to have 8 fps, 5 would be plenty for what it is for. I am very much hoping for 7D AF though. We shall find out as it seems some time next year.

 

[kennycanon]

It always amazes me just how many Canon and Nikon owners, even of the greatest and latest full frame pro cameras, seem to be unhappy with their gear - to the point where they take a significant financial hit swapping to the other "side." And then some of them even swap back to what they were previously unhappy with. :shrug:

Makes me glad I own Olympus. I don't have to constantly agonize over whether I've got the very best gear money can buy or whether I'm getting the best IQ possible, because I know I haven't and I'm not. Still thrilled with the handling though and more than happy with the pictures. Mind you, it's fortunate that my E-3 comes with such a great photographer as an optional accessory. And at least when I'm using digital Zuikos I know that I'm using the very best glass in any given price range, bar none. Well, there has to be some reason for using Olympus!

I have an olympus pen in the car all the time ...very good

 

[kennycanon]

Try working on medium format trannies that you've scanned too big!

been there ... i still have a load from my SQA....

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I back up my RAW files on to DVDs.

What DVDs do you get? All of mine and dad's ended up in the bin sooner or later. That includes most of the cheaper and expensive ones. They all become corrupt very quickly. And they are carefully stored in their cases. The first CDs used to be near bullet proof, and then it got worse and worse.

I seriously don't trust any optical recordable media any more and wouldn't recommend anyone. Perhaps cheap and slow SD cards are a better way?

 

[goldenlight]

been there ... i still have a load from my SQA....

Ah, mine's an ETRSi.

 

[Anorakus]

What DVDs do you get? All of mine and dad's ended up in the bin sooner or later. That includes most of the cheaper and expensive ones. They all become corrupt very quickly. And they are carefully stored in their cases. The first CDs used to be near bullet proof, and then it got worse and worse.

I seriously don't trust any optical recordable media any more and wouldn't recommend anyone. Perhaps cheap and slow SD cards are a better way?

I used to back up on to CD-R's, which are supposed to be the safer option - however getting the 5D2 put paid to that, I was only getting 25 or so shots on a disc - so I switched to DVDs.

I've been using Verbatim DVD+R's. Verbatim is supposed to be one of the better makes, and their AZO dye is meant to be stable. +R has better error correction than -R.

I go back and test my oldest discs every now and again - in fact thanks for reminding me The first DVDs I recorded must be coming up for about a year old now, time to give them a spin while I still have good copies on hard disk. I'll report back here with results..

A.

 

[goldenlight]

I used to back up on to CD-R's, which are supposed to be the safer option - however getting the 5D2 put paid to that, I was only getting 25 or so shots on a disc - so I switched to DVDs.

I've been using Verbatim DVD+R's. Verbatim is supposed to be one of the better makes, and their AZO dye is meant to be stable. +R has better error correction than -R.

I go back and test my oldest discs every now and again - in fact thanks for reminding me The first DVDs I recorded must be coming up for about a year old now, time to give them a spin while I still have good copies on hard disk. I'll report back here with results..

A.

Is anything as stable and permanent as Kodachrome?

 

[kennycanon]

Ah, mine's an ETRSi.

ah a 645 oh the good old days weren't they.
lightmeters ..
a metz flash
benbo mk1 .

a look were I am now :bonk:

 

[kmlc]

I'm about to do the same thing, for pretty much the same reasons. im going for the d3s

 

[kennycanon]

I'm about to do the same thing, for pretty much the same reasons. im going for the d3s

yep d3s main d700 (mini d3) as backup.

 

[kmlc]

yep d3s main d700 (mini d3) as backup.

yup, snap!!
although, getting the d700 in new year as a back up. getting d3s in about a few weeks time. i am so excited!!

 

[py6km]

I think it's six of one half a dozen of the other really, and at a certain point (when you're looking at the top end stuff) just boils down to user preference as to what feels right. I don't have an axe to grind, as I've had numerous Canon and Nikon bodies and lenses all the way up to a 1D Mark III and D700.

There are certain things about the Nikon I preferred over Canon, and vice versa. If I were being perfectly honest though, I would say that the Nikon pro bodies and lenses are 'better'. However, there is something that I can't quantify about the Canon bodies and lenses that has me using a 5D Mark II now.

If you've lots of expensive L's, wouldn't you be better off getting a 5D2 for weddings? Compared to my D700, I can't see a difference in the AF for the types of things it should be used for (although the provision of lots more AF points in the Nikons is nicer, as they felt spread out a little more in the frame).

 

[kennycanon]

I think it's six of one half a dozen of the other really, and at a certain point (when you're looking at the top end stuff) just boils down to user preference as to what feels right. I don't have an axe to grind, as I've had numerous Canon and Nikon bodies and lenses all the way up to a 1D Mark III and D700.

There are certain things about the Nikon I preferred over Canon, and vice versa. If I were being perfectly honest though, I would say that the Nikon pro bodies and lenses are 'better'. However, there is something that I can't quantify about the Canon bodies and lenses that has me using a 5D Mark II now.

If you've lots of expensive L's, wouldn't you be better off getting a 5D2 for weddings? Compared to my D700, I can't see a difference in the AF for the types of things it should be used for (although the provision of lots more AF points in the Nikons is nicer, as they felt spread out a little more in the frame).

if it was just about shooting weddings I would stay with canon. but I shoot wildlife most of the year ...

 

[py6km]

I'm a fine one to talk because I've chopped and changed lots in the past, although it does give you a good appreciation of the foibles of each system. I expect the D3s has the AF capabilities and low light performance which means it will excel at both (if my experience with the D700 is anything to go by). If I had lots of Canon glass though (and I don't know what you have so it may be moot) I'd probably get a 1D Mark IV - isn't that supposed to have at least one stop better high iso noise performance than the 1D3 with superior af to boot? (think that would mean that 6400 would probably be ok to use).

 

[menthel]

My only question is what can you blame when you can get the shots with the nikon kit as well?

 

[kennycanon]

My only question is what can you blame when you can get the shots with the nikon kit as well?

myself....
is that what you wanted to hear.....ha ha

but I dont the same shots with the Nikons we have then in the studio and that what I've based the change on.

 

[menthel]

myself....
is that what you wanted to hear.....ha ha

but I dont the same shots with the Nikons we have then in the studio and that what I've based the change on.

Fair enough, it was all in jest anyways! I could upgrade all I wanted, I still would take the same badly exposed, out of focus piccies every day of the week!

 

[kennycanon]

I'm a fine one to talk because I've chopped and changed lots in the past, although it does give you a good appreciation of the foibles of each system. I expect the D3s has the AF capabilities and low light performance which means it will excel at both (if my experience with the D700 is anything to go by). If I had lots of Canon glass though (and I don't know what you have so it may be moot) I'd probably get a 1D Mark IV - isn't that supposed to have at least one stop better high iso noise performance than the 1D3 with superior af to boot? (think that would mean that 6400 would probably be ok to use).

I see were your coming from but I stayed with canon because of all the things the 1dmk3 was supposed to be and if I buy the mk4 and its the same
what then ....?
23 years of canon.
and nikon at work .
Dark side here I come

this dispute can go on and on so I will end by saying thank you all for you opinions you have all been great .
I just think its time for a change .... cheers all Ian

 

[kennycanon]

Fair enough, it was all in jest anyways! I could upgrade all I wanted, I still would take the same badly exposed, out of focus piccies every day of the week!

im with you there .
boys and toys

 

[Vertigo1]

Interesting thread this, as I'm seeing a lot of people selling up to switch systems lately.

What really baffles me is why Canon has no answer to the D700. They've positioned the 5Dmk2 as the natural competitor but frankly I'm not seeing it. The 5D is purely a studio camera and, with it's slow 9-point AF and low FPS, not at all suited for action. The D700 however, offers the same full-frame advantages as the 5D but with fast 51-point AF and, if you add the grip, 8fps shooting, making it equally at home with action as it is studio/portraiture.

Yes, the D700 has a much lower pixel density than the 5D but, in reality, how often do you actually need 21mp!? If you can make do with the 12mp of the D700, the payback here seems to be stunning high-ISO performance of the like first seen in the D3 and which exceeds even that of the 5D. The video options/performance of the 5D look better than the Nikon but, frankly, I can't see anyone choosing one DSLR system over another on video performance as, if this is that important, you'd have a dedicated video recorder anyway.

I think the D700 is a frankly stunning piece of kit (this is from a Canon user remember) and I wish Canon would stop chasing megapixels and producing market-led junk like the 60D and create a proper competitor for it.

 

[kennycanon]

Interesting thread this, as I'm seeing a lot of people selling up to switch systems lately.

What really baffles me is why Canon has no answer to the D700. They've positioned the 5Dmk2 as the natural competitor but frankly I'm not seeing it. The 5D is purely a studio camera and, with it's slow 9-point AF and low FPS, not at all suited for action. The D700 however, offers the same full-frame advantages as the 5D but with fast 51-point AF and, if you add the grip, 8fps shooting, making it equally at home with action as it is studio/portraiture.

Yes, the D700 has a much lower pixel density than the 5D but, in reality, how often do you actually need 21mp!? If you can make do with the 12mp of the D700, the payback here seems to be stunning high-ISO performance of the like first seen in the D3 and which exceeds even that of the 5D. The video options/performance of the 5D look better than the Nikon but, frankly, I can't see anyone choosing one DSLR system over another on video performance as, if this is that important, you'd have a dedicated video recorder anyway.

I think the D700 is a frankly stunning piece of kit (this is from a Canon user remember) and I wish Canon would stop chasing megapixels and producing market-led junk like the 60D and create a proper competitor for it.

well said an impressive responce

 

[woof woof]

Vertigo1, I was with you all the way until you dismissed the 60D as market-led junk.

It might be worth remembering that no one here has handled a production 60D let alone taken and reviewed any pictures with one.

 

[Vertigo1]

Ok maybe "junk" is a bit strong but it actually angers me a bit that they concentrate on products like that instead of competing with the likes of the D700 properly

 

[woof woof]

I agree.

If Canon made a D700 I'd probably buy one tomorrow but sadly they don't and I think that it'll be many years before they do. The D700 just doesn't seem to be the direction that Canon wants to go in.

I actually started out as a Nikon user but when I bought my first DSLR everyone said "Get a Canon" and I did. I have considered changing to Nikon but I have 9 Canon lenses and the thought of selling them all and starting again isn't an attractive one for me.

 

[gingerweasel]

Over the past few weeks I've come to realise just how much the 5DMKII is rated in the film/tv industry. The video is stunning and unmatched at this price point.

It's a bit strange to think that a huge chunk of 5D owners aren't actually into photography

From my perspective the D700 and the 5D are not directed at the same people. The D700 is a more versatile body capable of jumping between subjects quite easily. The 5D is clearly a studio or landscape camera.



.

 

[py6km]

I think the bottom line is that you can't go wrong with either. Any of us can come up with convincing arguments to add credence to our choice. For example, having come from a D700, I'm quite frankly amazed that I can get the same high iso performance with my 5D2 but with almost twice the resolution. I'm not noticing a difference in real world AF performance either - it's true that there are less focus points and that they are clustered more centrally than on the corresponding Nikon, but that doesn't mean that the algorithm that drives the af is the same as the previous generation does it.

I know the grass always seems greener, but having had a sojourn in both camps I can happily say that at this kind of level everyone should be happy and not worry that something else is better, because, in all honesty, it really isn't.

 

[HoppyUK]

I agree.

If Canon made a D700 I'd probably buy one tomorrow but sadly they don't and I think that it'll be many years before they do. The D700 just doesn't seem to be the direction that Canon wants to go in.

I actually started out as a Nikon user but when I bought my first DSLR everyone said "Get a Canon" and I did. I have considered changing to Nikon but I have 9 Canon lenses and the thought of selling them all and starting again isn't an attractive one for me.

When you bought your 20D, what were the options available from Nikon? In those days, quite a long time ago in digital terms, Nikon were a rather poor second best to Canon right across the range. They didn't even have a full frame camera at all for years after Canon.

Sure, the D3 and a string of excellent cameras after that have restored the balance but to say that you'd upgrade to a 'Canon D700' when you already have available options like the quite superb 7D and 5D2 - both of which are light years ahead of a 20D, and cheaper than a D700, sounds a bit strange.

I think the bottom line is that you can't go wrong with either. Any of us can come up with convincing arguments to add credence to our choice. For example, having come from a D700, I'm quite frankly amazed that I can get the same high iso performance with my 5D2 but with almost twice the resolution. I'm not noticing a difference in real world AF performance either - it's true that there are less focus points and that they are clustered more centrally than on the corresponding Nikon, but that doesn't mean that the algorithm that drives the af is the same as the previous generation does it.

I know the grass always seems greener, but having had a sojourn in both camps I can happily say that at this kind of level everyone should be happy and not worry that something else is better, because, in all honesty, it really isn't.

Excellent post!

Image quality from the 5D2 is absolutely second to none - it's actually better than the Canon 1Ds3! I'm not sure it actually beats a D700 on ISO, but it's neck and neck and in terms of resolution it's clearly a one horse race. That's why I bought one.

Not dissing Nikon for a second, but the 5D2's AF has never let me down and is actually far better than I ever imagined from the stuff you read. And how often do you need more than 4fps? :shrug:

And if I wanted a long lens/action camera, I would take a 7D or 1D4 over the equivalent Nikons.

 

[User Name]

Interesting thread this, as I'm seeing a lot of people selling up to switch systems lately.

and if you look on potn or fredmiranda you'll find people moving from nikon to canon too...

The 5D is purely a studio camera and, with it's slow 9-point AF and low FPS,

The AF is not slow, cerainly not the centre point anyway. It is fast and very accurate.
Take a look at nikongear.com and you'll read people complaining about D700 slow focus..
http://nikongear.com/smf/index.php?topic=22075.0

Yes, the D700 has a much lower pixel density than the 5D but, in reality, how often do you actually need 21mp!? If you can make do with the 12mp of the D700, the payback here seems to be stunning high-ISO performance

There is a lot of detail and clarity in a 5D2 image which I would never want to give up. The high ISO of the 5D2 is very impressive, you certainly aren't losing out there, it's very similar to the D700.

I wouldn't swap my 5D2 for a D700. No way.

 

[squishy]

People seem to think the D700 is far ahead of the 5DII in noise performance. I think this is because internet comparisons show images at 100%. When you view 5D files at a percentage so the size of the image would be equal to that when viewing a D700 file at 100%, they look very similar! The 5D seems to have a bit more chroma, but I consider that irrelevant as chroma is so easy to remove.

I only point this out because I've seen a few people comparing the two cameras on other forums and leaping to the conclusion that the D700 is miles ahead in ISO performance after looking at 100% crops.


I very much agree with py6km. Excellent post. (And I would say exactly the same thing if I owned a nikon )

 

[Martyn...]

People seem to think the D700 is far ahead of the 5DII in noise performance. I think this is because internet comparisons show images at 100%. When you view 5D files at a percentage so the size of the image would be equal to that when viewing a D700 file at 100%, they look very similar!

I only point this out because I've seen a few people comparing the two cameras on other forums and leaping to the conclusion that the D700 is miles ahead in ISO performance after looking at 100% crops.

I have seen image manipulation used to try and say "well actually they are similar", bit like saying my car is faster than a F1 racer, provided that you remove 8 of its 12 spark plugs, so it has the same number as my car.

Only comparison that means anything is by taking an image of the same subject, with the same focal length lens and compare. The moment any manipulation comes into play to even out the fact that one has more pixels than the other, the results are flawed.

 

[ianmarsh]

I think the bottom line is that you can't go wrong with either. ...
I know the grass always seems greener, but having had a sojourn in both camps I can happily say that at this kind of level everyone should be happy and not worry that something else is better, because, in all honesty, it really isn't.

Spot on. Maybe some people here are getting top quality every shot (and I have my eyes on Aleksandras Babi, Blinkerz and a couple of others when I say this) but the variability in the quality of my photography is vastly greater than the variability between camera brands. When I am at the stage of getting excellent quality every time I fire the shutter, maybe I will value the tiny edge that one company might have over another (and so buy a Hasselblad!).

 

[cowasaki]

If all your camera gear was stolen and you were handed all the money is cash then with no brand loyalty and an objective head you could pick either depending on what you photograph.

The D700's high ISO performance IS better but this is because of the fewer pixels in the same space, having fewer pixels means that you get less noise.

The Canon has more pixels and if you are shooting at 100,200 ISO in a studio with controlled light or on a tripod doing a landscape then that would give you more scope for a larger image or tighter crop.

The reality is that they are not really the same thing and either company could have both of them in its line up quite happily.

Both are great cameras and both will do all the things that the other will do it is just that one is a little bit MORE great at certain things and the other a little bit MORE great at other things.

Why argue about it, it's just a ****** camera ! Just go out and use the things

 

[HoppyUK]

I have seen image manipulation used to try and say "well actually they are similar", bit like saying my car is faster than a F1 racer, provided that you remove 8 of its 12 spark plugs, so it has the same number as my car.

Only comparison that means anything is by taking an image of the same subject, with the same focal length lens and compare. The moment any manipulation comes into play to even out the fact that one has more pixels than the other, the results are flawed.

I think that's exactly what Adam is saying. Viewing at 100% effectively 'manipulates' the two images differently.

A 100% image from a 5D2, pixel for pixel, is going to be twice as big as the same from a D700 due to the 5D2 having almost double the pixel count. So if you output the two at the same phyiscal size, as you would in reality, the substantially reduced size of the 5D2 would look much better.

BTW, F1 cars are all 2.4L V8 these days

 

[menthel]

Lots of sense....

I can't help but agree and it also sounds like Kenny has tried the Nikons and has a valid reason for changing! We can banter all we want but if you need a tool for a job and find that for you one is more suited than the other, then get the one that works for you! Us non pros, however, need to work out whether its gear lust or a real need. And I know that I have no real need for any of it!

 

[Martyn...]

BTW, F1 cars are all 2.4L V8 these days

Showing my age there Hoppy

 

[malla1962]

If all your camera gear was stolen and you were handed all the money is cash then with no brand loyalty and an objective head you could pick either depending on what you photograph.

The D700's high ISO performance IS better but this is because of the fewer pixels in the same space, having fewer pixels means that you get less noise.

The Canon has more pixels and if you are shooting at 100,200 ISO in a studio with controlled light or on a tripod doing a landscape then that would give you more scope for a larger image or tighter crop.

The reality is that they are not really the same thing and either company could have both of them in its line up quite happily.

Both are great cameras and both will do all the things that the other will do it is just that one is a little bit MORE great at certain things and the other a little bit MORE great at other things.

Why argue about it, it's just a ****** camera ! Just go out and use the things

Good post! if all my gear was stolen and I ended up with just cash I would still be with canon, I very rarely use high ISO's so nikon gives me no advantage there, 90% of what I do involves long lenses so 1.3 and 1.6 crop bodys work well for what I do, for everything else the 5d2 does a nice job for me, if the D3 was a 1.5 crop body I may have gone for one 2 year ago before I opted for the mk3, 12mp full frame is not for me.

 

[goldenlight]

Isn't all the nit-picking over relatively minor differences between two great manufacturers rather pointless? In fact, isn't it great that they offer something different from each other in so many ways? That way there is more choice for photographers and more chance they will be able to fulfill their specific requirements. Just imagine what it would be like if the products from every manufacturer were absolutely identical, with the only difference being the logo on the pentaprism?

Nikon and Canon are both as good as each other, neither is better, just different. And the same goes for Olympus, Pentax and Sony. Arguably these three will never match the top two in terms of pure technical specification but each services the needs of a niche market where, for more photographers than you might think, they actually meet needs based on price point, design, handling, features, available lenses and size/weight better than Nikon or Canon. If the truth be told, many photographers who automatically follow the established route of the big two, only to spend their time moving back and forth between them without ever really being happy, might be better served if they looked more closely at what the lesser brands have to offer.

The only thing that might prise my E-3 out of my hands is an E-5. Many may find this hard to understand but I am actually happy with my system and so grateful that I chose it. Likewise, I find it hard to comprehend that anyone could feel less than satisfied with a top of the range Nikon or Canon, unless they made a fundemental error in choosing a system based on hype rather than their own specific needs. Sure, there will be times that one brand has a slight theoretical advantage over the other but this is often due to product cycles and is liable to alternate frequently, but in the grand scheme of things does it really matter?

 

[nero99]

Isn't all the nit-picking over relatively minor differences between two great manufacturers rather pointless? In fact, isn't it great that they offer something different from each other in so many ways? That way there is more choice for photographers and more chance they will be able to fulfill their specific requirements. Just imagine what it would be like if the products from every manufacturer were absolutely identical, with the only difference being the logo on the pentaprism?

Nikon and Canon are both as good as each other, neither is better, just different. And the same goes for Olympus, Pentax and Sony. Arguably these three will never match the top two in terms of pure technical specification but each services the needs of a niche market where, for more photographers than you might think, they actually meet needs based on price point, design, handling, features, available lenses and size/weight better than Nikon or Canon. If the truth be told, many photographers who automatically follow the established route of the big two, only to spend their time moving back and forth between them without ever really being happy, might be better served if they looked more closely at what the lesser brands have to offer.

The only thing that might prise my E-3 out of my hands is an E-5. Many may find this hard to understand but I am actually happy with my system and so grateful that I chose it. Likewise, I find it hard to comprehend that anyone could feel less than satisfied with a top of the range Nikon or Canon, unless they made a fundemental error in choosing a system based on hype rather than their own specific needs. Sure, there will be times that one brand has a slight theoretical advantage over the other but this is often due to product cycles and is liable to alternate frequently, but in the grand scheme of things does it really matter?

Point well made