Nikon to Canon - Logical or Mad?

gad-westy said:
Must admit, I was surprised by this bit too as I cannot imagine a wedding print of any description that would test the resolution of a D700. Maybe something massively cropped but that seems unlikely.

That said, the other criteria, video, dual memory cards etc are more fundamental, it's a shame the D4 isn't much cheaper! The 5DIII genuinely sounds like the most suitable camera, D800 included.
Click to expand...

My album supplier, folio albums, requires 300 dpi spreads, and for a single full page image on a 12 inch album, I get pixelation. Spreads are between 3000 - 3600 pixels high.

You can get away with a lower DPI for general prints, and large wall prints. But for close up inspection of high quality photo books, you need resolution.
 
iamchrisphoto said:
My album supplier, folio albums, requires 300 dpi spreads, and for a single full page image on a 12 inch album, I get pixelation. Spreads are between 3000 - 3600 pixels high.

You can get away with a lower DPI for general prints, and large wall prints. But for close up inspection of high quality photo books, you need resolution.
Click to expand...

I have double page spreads on the largest Graphi albums available and there is no pixelation.
 
iamchrisphoto said:
My album supplier, folio albums, requires 300 dpi spreads, and for a single full page image on a 12 inch album, I get pixelation. Spreads are between 3000 - 3600 pixels high.

You can get away with a lower DPI for general prints, and large wall prints. But for close up inspection of high quality photo books, you need resolution.
Click to expand...

Understand that side. So in theory, a D700 is good for approx 14" print at 300 dpi, I guess you're talking about a double page so potentially 24" across? In my experience, even the smallest amount of up scaling in photoshop or by the printer themselves would produce a lovely crisp image at that sort of size or even quite a bit bigger. In fact, although it isn't my work, I have a 6mp print at home that must be getting on for that size and it's pretty damn good.
 
Last edited:
PsiFox said:
I have double page spreads on the largest Graphi albums available and there is no pixelation.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Never had any problems with D700. In fact I carry 2 all day for weddings with 24-70 on one and 70-200 on other. Absolutely no problem with this kit.
 
PSILVERMAN said:
Totally agree. Never had any problems with D700. In fact I carry 2 all day for weddings with 24-70 on one and 70-200 on other. Absolutely no problem with this kit.
Click to expand...

Yes ok, but what will you be upgrading to in the future. 2 x D800's? Nothing wrong with the D700, but it won't be around forever. You'll have to upgrade one day, and right now I don't think Nikon offer anything to goto. Im just looking at the other options out there, before I become too invested in one system.
 
iamchrisphoto said:
Yes ok, but what will you be upgrading to in the future. 2 x D800's? Nothing wrong with the D700, but it won't be around forever. You'll have to upgrade one day, and right now I don't think Nikon offer anything to goto. Im just looking at the other options out there, before I become too invested in one system.
Click to expand...

I TOTALLY disagree with this point of investment in systems. If you're getting paid for work and look after your kit even a little it will probably fetch 75% of what you paid for it, excluding the bodies. Lenses sometimes even sell for more in future years. Never mind the profit the kit generates. Investment in systems topic is more applicable to someone that generates little or no £££ from their kit and even at that there wouldn't be much of a loss.
 
Last edited:
iamchrisphoto said:
See, now that's something I hadn't considered. Putting the 105mm on the D800 in DX crop would give me the focal length I need, plus VR. I'll look into it. Thanks!
Click to expand...

It's af is poor though.
 
I really do not understand your problem with the d800 resolution? I would understand if the extra res was affecting iso performance and noise levels, but this doesn't seem to be the case. Out performing all the 5d's in iso performance. With 36mp to play with you could in theory just shoot with a 24-70 all day long and nothing else then crop in half giving you the focal length you need and still be left with 18mp. It has the dual slots you want as well. A 1tb hardrive is about £50 its peanuts.

I think the general feeling of this threads participants is utter bemusement!:)
 
Last edited:
rjbell said:
I really do not understand your problem with the d800 resolution? I would understand if the extra res was affecting iso performance and noise levels, but this doesn't seem to be the case. Out performing all the 5d's in iso performance. With 36mp to play with you could in theory just shoot with a 24-70 all day long and nothing else then crop in half giving you the focal you need and still be left with 18mp. It has the dual slots you want as well. A 1tb hardrive is about £50 its peanuts.
Click to expand...

I agree. On top of this you have a much better flash system with Nikon. It seems like another case of gear-itis to me.
 
If you made the move to the 5D3 I don't think that you would regret it and I believe that a few people have made that jump since the D800 came on the scene that said that have been those that have gone from Canon to Nikon, at the end of the day it's a tool so you get what works for you :thumbs: personally I love the 5D3 :D


johnny8977 said:
OK, let me admit that I don;t have Nikon and shot a 550D, so not even full frame. But..........

I work with a couple of blokes who have Nikon. One is very serious when it comes to photography and will do it professionally when he retires next year. He's just bought a D800 from the D700 and the other chap has a D700. What they both say, which might be relevant for your style of shooting, is the ISO performance of the Nikon's is far and away better than the Canon.

And like several people have mentioned - the D600 is a week or two away from launch. Should come in at about £1000 and 24Mp.
Click to expand...

That was true in the past, but Canon have really stepped up to the mark on recent models :thumbs: and are now matching and even beating on ISO performance on Pro bodies :thumbs:

Matt
 
iamchrisphoto said:
My album supplier, folio albums, requires 300 dpi spreads, and for a single full page image on a 12 inch album, I get pixelation. Spreads are between 3000 - 3600 pixels high.

You can get away with a lower DPI for general prints, and large wall prints. But for close up inspection of high quality photo books, you need resolution.
Click to expand...

Something's wrong here. I've used much bigger Queensberry's with full page bleeds with D700 files and no problem at all. There's no way a 12" page should present that problem.

I've also seen plenty of Folios with the same camera with no problems at all.

I'd also lay good odds on a 135/2 AF-S early 2013.
 
MWHCVT said:
Matt
Click to expand...
Beating? What pro models would that be? From dxo figures the mk3 is only matching the d700's iso performance now a 4 yr old camera.
 
Last edited:
As an aside, there's always a danger of these threads turning into the tedious Nikon vs Canon debates.

They're a waste of everyone's time. Pick one and wring its neck. Make sure you've reached the limits of what the camera and lens can do before you spend profit. There's nothing wrong with switching, just be sure that you're doing it for a genuine reason rather than scratching an itch (in which case hire for a week). You'll need to re-learn a system, adjust your PP workflow and so on. But again, there's nothing wrong with doing it. No-one has to stay with one make for life.

IMO the smart money buys mint, used bodies and people rush to the latest and greatest in search of the photographic holy grail that doesn't exist.

Me - I've not been happier since I learnt to stop chasing kit and concentrate on maximising what I have. 2 bodies, 5 lenses.
 
I called it.

:lol:

Your choice is clearly an emotional one (99% of our camera choices are tbh). The only thing is that I'd suggest not trying to justify them with 'logic' because a lot of it is inconsistent or downright fabrication. It is entertaining though! Buy a 5D3 and be happy.
 
I did the same sort of thing but on a smaller scale (D300 to 5DC).. been shooting Nikon for 7 years, wanted a FF body so bought a 5D classic, had it a week.. Couldn't be on with it at all and sold it.. Then saved and bought a D700.. I would hire one and see how you get on..
 
Radiohead said:
Me - I've not been happier since I learnt to stop chasing kit and concentrate on maximising what I have. 2 bodies, 5 lenses.
Click to expand...


I'd be over the moon too if I had 2 x D3s and 5 lenses to compliment them.
 
Just because a D800 can produce 36mp files doesn't mean you have to. It has numerous RAW modes that reduce the MP count to smaller sizes, which are still bigger than the D700 I might add, but gives you more versatility. When I go to a D800, I'd only use 36mp for studio work or macro shots, with the smaller RAW file settings for pretty much everything else to save space.
 
iamchrisphoto said:
Yes ok, but what will you be upgrading to in the future. 2 x D800's? Nothing wrong with the D700, but it won't be around forever. You'll have to upgrade one day, and right now I don't think Nikon offer anything to goto. Im just looking at the other options out there, before I become too invested in one system.
Click to expand...

I will upgrade only when the D700 no longer performs to my required standard. Just because a newer model comes along it doesn't follow that the preceding one becomes bad. I honestly don't know what you expect people to say to you.
Buy it if you want, and don't if you don't want. It's a bit like an arms race, the other side rapidly catches up and surpasses the other thus promoting improvements all round. Unless there's a killer spec that you must have or you don't get on with the ergonomics then it's a hell of a waste of money to chop and change systems.
 
James J said:
Just because a D800 can produce 36mp files doesn't mean you have to. It has numerous RAW modes that reduce the MP count to smaller sizes, which are still bigger than the D700 I might add, but gives you more versatility. When I go to a D800, I'd only use 36mp for studio work or macro shots, with the smaller RAW file settings for pretty much everything else to save space.
Click to expand...

mine doesn't.......it has a few bit depth and compression options but thats it, and nothing that reduces the MP count :shrug:
 
As mentioned before, if you are shooting weddings, most would suggest a back up camera. Which means if you got another Nikon your really only playing out for one new camera. If you moved to any other system (Canon,Sony etc), you are going to need to buy 2 new cameras, lenses, flashes, triggers etc. Seems a bit extreme for possibly unneeded resolution?

I'd be saying the same from someone thinking of going from Canon to Nikon!
 
boyfalldown said:
mine doesn't.......it has a few bit depth and compression options but thats it, and nothing that reduces the MP count :shrug:
Click to expand...

I imagine they mean file size, in mb. You can choose 12 bit over 14 to reduce file size, but there is no other way to reduce RAW size. There is no small, medium, large options as you would have with Jpeg.
 
Even as a Canon user I don't see the limitation on the Nikon side personally. The D700 is more than capable got wedding work and the lenses that compliment it are more than good enough.

Radiohead, what are your 5 lenses?

24/1.4
35/1.4
85/1.4

...?
 
Cagey75 said:
I imagine they mean file size, in mb. You can choose 12 bit over 14 to reduce file size, but there is no other way to reduce RAW size. There is no small, medium, large options as you would have with Jpeg.
Click to expand...

I imagine you're right, but they specifically said reducing MP count............
 
Thanks to everyone for the range of opinions and advice. :)

I really didn’t want this to turn into a Canon vs Nikon thread, honest.

I understand what people are saying about the resolution with the D700, you are all right. There is technically nothing wrong with it. It’s an entirely personal and emotional concern on my part, that having already one D700, but to buy a second knowing full well that I’m nearing the limits for high quality albums, I don’t want to regret it later on. It’s just a feeling in my gut. I don’t want to spend my hard earned money on another D700. I think we can all agree that this bit is not logic. :P

And also, by no means am I against the D800 as a whole, it is a truly fantastic camera. I do have the money to go buy one tomorrow if I wanted to. But my gut also says no.

As others have clarified, you can only shoot at 36mp in raw on the D800. At 45mb a file, this equates to about 200shots per 16gb cf card. Multiply that by say 1500 images a wedding, that’s could be nearly 100GB of images per wedding. On the other hand, storage can be cheap. But, amount of storage isn’t the only consideration. Editing those files off a referenced hardrive will require faster connectivity, such as Firewire/USB 3 etc, which adds to the cost. Then you have double it as you need to backup all of those 100GB weddings, once if not twice for sn off site backup. Then I’m also considering 3 times more time it would take to import those images and burn to DVD on import. I want to reduce my workflow, not make it longer.

Going from here I’m either going to bite the bullet and buy another D700 and 70-200mm, or I’m going the whole hog and buying a 5D MIII /MKII and 35mm/85mm/135mm. Either way, I have until at least next year to make that decision.

I think my reservations over the D800, has for the first time made me look over the "garden fence", and I really like what I see.

Either way, it's not urgent, it's not important and I need todo more research before I make a decision anyway. :)

Thanks again
 
I should add, if I were starting out today, with the ranges as they stand right now, I'd probably buy 2 5D3's.
 
If the only thing that you don't like about the D800 is the file size then shoot in a lower file size? It can do that right? Like the 5D2/3 can shoot mRaw and sRaw for smaller size.
 
I'm going through exactly the same debate in my head at the moment and this thread has been very interesting reading. I'm still undecided as to what to do.

I'm considering the move from:

D700
D7000
Sigma 12-24
Nikon 24-70
Nikon 70-200
Nikon 35 1.8
Nikon 85 1.4
Nikon 135 2.0 DC

and moving to:

5D MkIII
5D I
Canon 24-70 mkI
Canon 70-200 mkI
Canon 35 1.4
Sigma 85 1.4
Canon 135 f2

Almost a like for like change but one of the reasons I am tempted is because my mate who I shoot with all the time shoots with Canon. He has a 5DIII and 5D and a range of good lenses. Shooting together with us both having Canon would make a lot of sense. We can borrow lenses and flashes and work together a lot better than we do now.

Am I as mad as the OP or does it make more sense with the extra incentive of aligning with a shooting partner?
 
Raymond Lin said:
If the only thing that you don't like about the D800 is the file size then shoot in a lower file size? It can do that right? Like the 5D2/3 can shoot mRaw and sRaw for smaller size.
Click to expand...

Unfortunatly not. It's jpeg or 36mp RAW. Or a DX crop mode, but then my fx primes are a little pointless.
 
Raymond Lin said:
If the only thing that you don't like about the D800 is the file size then shoot in a lower file size? It can do that right? Like the 5D2/3 can shoot mRaw and sRaw for smaller size.
Click to expand...

nope you have the jpeg, 12 or 14 bit and RAW compression options. No sRAW though.

I do have to admit though, I am a little surprised people see the file size from the d800 as limiting so much. It takes me no longer to process a wedding using a d800 then it does using a d3s.
 
Last edited:
-Rob- said:
I'm going through exactly the same debate in my head at the moment and this thread has been very interesting reading. I'm still undecided as to what to do.

I'm considering the move from:

D700
D7000
Sigma 12-24
Nikon 24-70
Nikon 70-200
Nikon 35 1.8
Nikon 85 1.4
Nikon 135 2.0 DC

and moving to:

5D MkIII
5D I
Canon 24-70 mkI
Canon 70-200 mkI
Canon 35 1.4
Sigma 85 1.4
Canon 135 f2

Almost a like for like change but one of the reasons I am tempted is because my mate who I shoot with all the time shoots with Canon. He has a 5DIII and 5D and a range of good lenses. Shooting together with us both having Canon would make a lot of sense. We can borrow lenses and flashes and work together a lot better than we do now.

Am I as mad as the OP or does it make more sense with the extra incentive of aligning with a shooting partner?
Click to expand...


You're as mad!:) You look well covered to me i can't see you needing to borrow anything. If you think you do, it would be cheaper you buying that extra lens or flash than replacing all your gear!? I see no logic at all.
 
rjbell said:
You're as mad!:) You look well covered to me i can't see you needing to borrow anything. If you think you do, it would be cheaper you buying that extra lens or flash than replacing all your gear!? I see no logic at all.
Click to expand...
x2 I don't see the logic. If you do make the move you'd have to get:
5D III
5D II
Canon 24-70 II
Canon 70-200 II
Canon 35 1.4
Canon 85 1.2
Canon 135 F2
;)
 
I don't get anyone switching after building up a good bit of gear. No matter which way, I wouldn't understand someone moving from Canon to Nikon either.

There was a reason you chose the route you did in the first place. Because you preferred the ergonomics, the style and feel overall or one make over the rest. Whether it's Sony, Pentax, Olympus ... or one of the major two. I think the phrase "the grass is always greener" is at play mostly when people get these urges. You could be sorry a few months down the line.

Looking at both Canon and Nikon I see NO reason to jump from either side to the other. Both of them match for match when it comes to bodies and lenses. I'm not envious of anything in the Canon line up whatsoever. And if I was shooting with their gear, I'd not be envious of anything on the Nikon side of things.

You made your choice when it mattered, when you were starting out.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
I don't get anyone switching after building up a good bit of gear. No matter which way, I wouldn't understand someone moving from Canon to Nikon either.

There was a reason you chose the route you did in the first place. Because you preferred the ergonomics, the style and feel overall or one make over the rest. Whether it's Sony, Pentax, Olympus ... or one of the major two. I think the phrase "the grass is always greener" is at play mostly when people get these urges. You could be sorry a few months down the line.

Looking at both Canon and Nikon I see NO reason to jump from either side to the other. Both of them match for match when it comes to bodies and lenses. I'm not envious of anything in the Canon line up whatsoever. And if I was shooting with their gear, I'd not be envious of anything on the Nikon side of things.

You made your choice when it mattered, when you were starting out.
Click to expand...

I'm with him!

I really don't understand either?

So...you like the 5D3?...Nikon will have one out soon enough with a similar body and then you'll be thinking you like that one...
 
Phil Young said:
So...you like the 5D3?...Nikon will have one out soon enough with a similar body and then you'll be thinking you like that one...
Click to expand...

why, they've never competed head to head anywhere else in the range
 
Last edited:
Looking at your current kit I would stay with Nikon. You can pick up a used D3 at under £2K as your primary camera, which gives you excellent weatherproofing, dual CF slots (not mixed card types), good shutter life and it's a tried and tested camera that you can rely on. The awesome 80-200mm AF-S 2.8 can be had for less than a grand and will also give you the reach you desire. Perhaps add a 24mm 2.8 as an emergency wide angle backup and you've got a very capable setup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top