D3 vs (5d MKII & 7d)

J

jon-

Suspended / Banned
Messages
102
Name
jonathan
Edit My Images
Yes
Sorry if I waffle a bit, or if it's been covered before (I searched) but there is a point to all this :)

Like a lot of you I'm a Canon shooter, and have been wrestling with the need to move to Nikon for many months. The obvious draw back with the move is glass, both existing and new. I like my primes (100mm L, Mmm) and IMHO the Canon range of glass is more accessible both in value and performance (a debate for another thread)

Initially I wanted to move for strobist reasons, but with the advent to the mini/flexTTL from pocket wizard, and the fact I mostly strobe in manual, CLS wouldn't be as much benefit any more (Canons ETTL really isn't that bad if you can get your head around ratios and don't mind the lack of rear curtain sync.)

Then I got the d3 lust. I think we've all been through it. I mostly like to shoot portraits, so I wanted to move to a full frame sensor, but as I sometimes shoot motor events and wildlife I didn't want to "limit" myself with the 5d MKII's auto focus (yet another debate entirely).

I've been close to buying a used 1d MKIII a couple of times, but I really don't know how I'll get on with the 1.3crop in portrait work which has led me to this...

For the cost of switching to a half decent Nikon setup (d700+grip or used d3) I could almost get a 5d MKII AND a 7d and not have to go through the chore, and money losses of switching lenses and flashes to Nikon (I don't think my dropped 430exII's will have held their value well!)

Now, I've been almost willing myself to go for a D3 recently but I can't think of many situations where a single D3, even with all it's awesomeness would outperform owning both a 5d MKII and a 7d.

Portrait work for sheer IQ and DR the d3 would have the edge, but the 5d MKII has a lot of MP in it's favour so for the level I'm shooting at (not pro) it's not a deciding factor.

Switch to a sports event / wildlife and the d3 would kill the 5d MKII, but the 7d could probably put up a good fight with it's "extra reach", more pixels and fancy new AF.

There's only 2 scenarios I think the d3 would be a clear winner. One would involve low light sports / wildlife shooting as the d3 has much better high iso performance (hell, the d3s has night vision), and the other would be in if a card failed in the field (the d3 can write to dual cards)

My belated question is, am I missing anything? :thinking:
 
You answered it yourself, the 5DII is perffect for your portrait work. The 7D would be a nice second body.
 
two questions
how much canon glass do you have
are the alternative nikkor lenses that bad?
and have you seen the Nikon sponsored upgrade threads? arkardy this I think
 
DizMatt said:
two questions
how much canon glass do you have
are the alternative nikkor lenses that bad?
and have you seen the Nikon sponsored upgrade threads? arkardy this I think
Click to expand...

I've enough Canon bits (not just glass) to make the switch expensive. Glass won't have lost much value, my sigma 10-20 will have as will my Canon speedlites.

The alternative nikkor lenses aren't "bad" at all, just more expensive, plus it's a little of the unknown (eg, i don't know if the Nikon AF-S 105mm f/2.8 or Nikon AF DC 135mm f/2 etc are any good.) Additionally, the Canon 70-200 f2.8IS is good glass for £1200, but I understand the original Nikon 70-200 is soft wide open on full frame in the corners so I'd have to go for the VRII, which is the best part of £800 more.

I've seen the Nikon sponsored upgrade threads but thought they only apply to pros, which I'm not.

One other advantage I've thought of the D3 over the 5d MKII / 7d. It looks much cooler :naughty:
 
jon- said:
and IMHO the Canon range of glass is more accessible both in value and performance (a debate for another thread)
Click to expand...

If you really believe that, you would always be questioning if the Nikkor optics were on par with what you could achieve with Canon glass, having a seed of doubt in your mind would always distract from the job in hand, taking photo's.

I am with adam, I think that you answered your own question, stick with what you have and know, and carry on enjoying taking photo's :thumbs:
 
Martyn... said:
If you really believe that, you would always be questioning if the Nikkor optics were on par with what you could achieve with Canon glass, having a seed of doubt in your mind would always distract from the job in hand, taking photo's.

I am with adam, I think that you answered your own question, stick with what you have and know, and carry on enjoying taking photo's :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I think I got my wording wrong. I know good Nikkor glass is pin sharp, and dream about shooting with the 70-200 vrII, 200-400, or 400mm f/2.8G but given the prices of these lenses, it ain't gonna be any time soon! Canon seem to have the edge in primes and mid range glass (there's quite a lot of affordable L glass) but then that could just be because I don't know enough about Nikkor optics :bonk:
 
jon- said:
I think I got my wording wrong. I know good Nikkor glass is pin sharp, and dream about shooting with the 70-200 vrII, 200-400, or 400mm f/2.8G but given the prices of these lenses, it ain't gonna be any time soon! Canon seem to have the edge in primes and mid range glass (there's quite a lot of affordable L glass) but then that could just be because I don't know enough about Nikkor optics :bonk:
Click to expand...

No you're right :p
 
Ah, what I would give to have this problem....

My ¢2, stick with Canon and the system, glass and flashes that you know.
 
jon- said:
I think I got my wording wrong. I know good Nikkor glass is pin sharp, and dream about shooting with the 70-200 vrII, 200-400, or 400mm f/2.8G but given the prices of these lenses, it ain't gonna be any time soon! Canon seem to have the edge in primes and mid range glass (there's quite a lot of affordable L glass) but then that could just be because I don't know enough about Nikkor optics
Click to expand...

If you were earning a living from your photography, changing would be an option to consider, if you felt that one brand would help you achieve what the other could not.

Even with my limited knowledge of Canon stuff, I fail to see what a 5d and 7D could not achieve for you.
 
Photo Pro Magazine have a review of the 7D this month. Comes out with flying colours as a good studio camera... a serious backup body to the 5d2.
 
Chaz Photos said:
My question is: What can not do with your kit you got now?
What is it you need to do that you can not do now?
Or is it you just want to change?
Click to expand...

My current kit is limited by the old body as I've been putting all my money into lighting / glass, so it's time for a body upgrade. I WANT to switch, but I don't think I need to which is why I posted this just to make sure I wasn't missing anything.

As someone said on another thread, if you keep switching to the brand who has the current lead you'll be wasting money every few years as the pendulum swings.
 
how about the 5DII and the D3 backup :D :lol:
 
If you're not shooting professionally do you even need a backup?

7D looks the business..
 
For straight IQ and usefullness for the roles you mention, the Canon combo would make a lot of sense. I'd expect a 5D2 to outperform a D3 for portrait work and the reach of the 7D should be useful during motorsport. Additionally, both are substantially lighter, which you may or may not find a good thing.

The only drawbacks that I can see are:
- The D3 has a built in grip, which again you may or may not like. Having owned a 1D, I enjoyed the extra comfort, but didn't like the weight penalty (or at least the missus didn't)
- I would guess the D3 is better weatherproofed
- The D3 will have dual card slots, thus helping to prevent loss of data if you ever have a card corruption
- You might find yourself out for a weekend shooting both portraits and motorsport. Would you then take both Canon bodies? The D3 could do both. Guess that works both ways, as you'd at least have a spare body if you took both Canon cameras
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
For straight IQ and usefullness for the roles you mention, the Canon combo would make a lot of sense. I'd expect a 5D2 to outperform a D3 for portrait work and the reach of the 7D should be useful during motorsport. Additionally, both are substantially lighter, which you may or may not find a good thing.

The only drawbacks that I can see are:
- The D3 has a built in grip, which again you may or may not like. Having owned a 1D, I enjoyed the extra comfort, but didn't like the weight penalty (or at least the missus didn't)
- I would guess the D3 is better weatherproofed
- The D3 will have dual card slots, thus helping to prevent loss of data if you ever have a card corruption
- You might find yourself out for a weekend shooting both portraits and motorsport. Would you then take both Canon bodies? The D3 could do both. Guess that works both ways, as you'd at least have a spare body if you took both Canon cameras
Click to expand...

You've pretty summed up my thinking. I've 2 camera bags so I wouldn't have any issues taking 2 bodies on the very rare occasions the need arises.

I've decided to get a 5d MKII, battery grip and the 100mm f2.8 IS L and already emailed Stuart at Digital Depot :D

EdinburghGary said:
D3 FTW. The end.
Click to expand...

hehe there's always one :gag: Heart says d3 :love: Head says stick with Canon as if I swap, i'll probably be posting something very similar in 2 years about how the 1d MKV spanks the world.
 
The key feature of the D3 you won't get from the 5D/7D combo is AF performance.

The 7D is good but its no 1-series so I guess its no D3 either...
 
I was under the impression the 7d can track as well, if not better than the 1d MKIII (not that the 1d MKIII is known for it's stellar AF ;))
 
jon- said:
I was under the impression the 7d can track as well, if not better than the 1d MKIII (not that the 1d MKIII is known for it's stellar AF ;))
Click to expand...

I don't know. I have a 1DsII and used a 1DII for a long time and either would be my preference for birds in flight (don't know about motorsport) over the 7D...
 
The D700 has now ceased production which means very likely a D700s coming very soon....D3s baby bro.

Add that to the D4 rumour based on reported field trials:

“Initial Information I received from a senior Nikon position in the USA, that Nikon D4 is already under primary field trial .FF sensor with 18 million pixels, Full HD-quality video as in Canon.
Frame Rate Of 10 images per second, 102,400 Asa quality similar to what today is Asa 25,600 in Nikon D3S. Improving the quality of the existing D3s by two stops.
Most important information: a completely new Autofocus sensor that will
enable outstanding autofocus performance. From what I understand, this is a real breakthrough Technology.
I was not told when the camera is expected to reach the market and what will be its price.”

So far this year Nikon has released 4 DSLRs and 5 lenses They are on a mission.

The point is 6mnths down the line you might wish you had waited:D there is always this type of dilema...hehe.

Oh just to add.....NIKON PRO GLASS IS AWESOME!
 
Interesting. Been tempted by the 1Ds MKII a few times but I'm not sure I'd get on with the screen. What I really need is for a cheap used 1ds MKIII to appear ;)
 
jon- said:
I was under the impression the 7d can track as well, if not better than the 1d MKIII (not that the 1d MKIII is known for it's stellar AF ;))
Click to expand...

Quite a few pro and serious amateur bird photographers have expressed the view that the 7D is as good if not better than current 1 Series cameras for BIF shots. Canon themselves rather guardedly say that the AF system in the 7D is better than the 1DMK3 "In some respects". Should we really be surprised if that's the case? The AF system is a completely new plain paper project from the ground up - not a tweaked existing system. I'm not sure the 7D has been out long enough for anyone to really ascertain it's true worth against a 1 Series body they're familiar with and have used for years.

Many people seem to be of the opinion that Canon wouldn't produce a camera like the 7D which equalled or bettered a 1 Series body - the 1D MK2 and 1DMK2S often being quoted as an example. Why on earth would Canon give a flying ferret if the 7D equalled or bettered a camera which they stopped making years ago? If they were talking about a current model then I could see that argument, and the 1DMK4 is an unknown quatity as yet, but you'd certainly expect it to be better, being current and incorporating the latest technology.
 
CT said:
Quite a few pro and serious amateur bird photographers have expressed the view that the 7D is as good if not better than current 1 Series cameras for BIF shots.
Click to expand...

Can you provide a link to that please Cedric as I am still really struggling to nail it with mine...
 
grumpybadger said:
Can you provide a link to that please Cedric as I am still really struggling to nail it with mine...
Click to expand...

To what comment Paul ? - the Canon comment was in one of their early press releases or may have been on the CPN site. The comments from actual users are from forums, many on POTN and the bird forum - a search will turn them up. I think the problem is that the 7D needs a lot of understanding and setting up the AF system - which was a problem many users had initially with the 1DMK3. A lot of the issues reported were no doubt due to user error, although the camera did transpire to have AF issues for some users at least.
 
I still haven't had a chance to seriously have a go at BIF shots, but these were taken literally just after first light on a really drab grey morning as you can probably see. They're 1600 ISO and shot from a hide off a tripod with the usual height restrictions which those viewing slits impose.

4137475527_74c05514bb_o.jpg


4138239408_328b62c25a_o.jpg


4138239454_a53f53f9b6_o.jpg


Certainly not brilliant shots by any means- just test shots in less than ideal conditions with just the centre AF point. I'm not sure now, but I think it was servo and single shot mode. I rarely shoot sequences and when I do use the full frame rate it's just a burst of two or three shots.

I'm more than happy so far with the AF system especially in these very poor conditions.
 
It was the pro wildlife photographer reviews/comments that they rate it above the 1DIII. The bit of your response I quoted. I am aware of the Canon bit but they are going to say that aren't they.

I am keen to read the photographers take. It's always a bit tough as Brutus Ostling raved about the 50D being faster to focus than his 1DIII but we all know its not as good at tracking.

I'm really looking for tips on settings to try and other peoples experiences. I have no doubt that it is better than the xxD but have not seen any comments from experiences from people who have access to both 1-series and 7d. Although I don't frequent the other forums you mention. I hardly have time for this one without adding to it!

I'd really like to read a field review from a working pro on the 7D. So if you have a link, that would be great.

All I know is that I am struggling and Sue came back from Gigrin Farm having tried it reckoning it wasn't much better than her 40D.

Big slow birds are fine. I tried it at Welney on swans and it tracked them 20 minutes after sunset, ISO1600 1/15s and it was fine. Its the kites and smaller birds, where the camera appears to have a propensity to "grab" focus on the background if it isn't sky. There was a link posted from here previously that raised the same issue.
 
I saw that review Paul. It doesn't matter what camera you choose though - you're always going to see varying opinions. There's a guy who posts on the bird forum who also posts here producing good work, and he says he's relegating his 1D3 to backup as any slight advantage in AF (which he reckons is debatable) is out-weighed for him by the added reach of the 7D. I can't think of his name - 'ROB' summat or other I think? Perhaps he'll see tbis and post.

Part of the problem is BIF shots are never going to be easy anyway, and it's all too easy to condemn the tool when you fail. I know I have the greatest difficulty keeping a single AF point on the head of a fast moving bird, and I certainly don't get enough practice at it.
 
I think my point Cedric is its not just reviews, its my experience. And I've done a lot of BIF. I'm not condemning the tool I'm saying I'm obviously not getting it right and others are. I just don't know how to fix it.

It I could, the 1Ds would be relegated purely to a landscape camera and the 7D would become my main. As it is, I'm yet to be convinced fully - if I was, I think the 1Ds would go and be swapped for another 7D. I love the lightweight and with my 400DO, it's a great sub 3 kilo kit (vs >5kg for the 1Ds and 500)
 
So hang on, the OP is asking whether a absolute flagship product from one manufacturer is worth as much as two prosumer products from another?

Why not have just one camera and make do with it rather than tying yourself up in knots?

Whats your budget is the big question.....
 
Well I haven't done enough to give you any hints mate, but my take so far is that shooting birds against a nice plain sky you should be able to enable more than one AF point up to and including all of them with no background detail for the system to switch to and lock onto. There's always the possibility of the system locking onto a wing leading edge (with incomers) with the wing being so close to the head, but provided you've set slow tracking the system should overcome those minor losses of the AF point. The problem is getting that original focus lock on the head with the active AF point.

Shooting against a busy background is always going to be difficult, and a centre expanded AF point or single AF point is probably the safest option. That's just my thoughts but it's early days yet.
 
desantnik said:
So hang on, the OP is asking whether a absolute flagship product from one manufacturer is worth as much as two prosumer products from another?

Why not have just one camera and make do with it rather than tying yourself up in knots?

Whats your budget is the big question.....
Click to expand...

Technically the flagship would be the d3x ;)

I'll answer your question with a question. Why make do with one camera when you can have 2, more specialised ones? You wouldn't expect the same car to take you competitive track racing AND to be comfortable for miles of offroading, you'd buy a race car and a 4x4.

I'm asking about 2 very different situations (studio work and action work) and wondering whether 1 camera can be better than 2. Now I've spent a while thinking about it, I doubt it.
 
Ok, right then, yes a D3 can do both the things you want to do.

Can it do it with one 10-500mm f1.8 lens from Sigma (for 300 quid)... no.
 
Radiohead said:
Is that certain though? I'd seen something on Nikon Rumours.
Click to expand...

Thats where I picked up the production info...so who knows.

Its likely though given that the timings are consistant and that nikon wont see the point in producing 2 different 12mp sensors, the a D700s is aboslutely the most likely release as nikon have pretty much said no to mega pixel version and they only have to manu one 12mp sensor type....its just a matter of time.......and I suspect it wont be that far off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top