Nikon Vs Canon Debate.

fraggle101

fraggle101

Not a mermaid
Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,648
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
OK, here we are again with the whole Dark Vs light again. Im sure im not alone at the moment thinking my options through and wondering if it would be good to move from one to the other, with all the new camera's comming out its getting harder to decide which i would be better suited to..

So, I'm with Canon, i have the 1D MkIII for my work stuff, for those that dont know, i do events and celebrity stuff.. not in a big way! but thats what i do work wise (In photography). Im also very keen on various other aspects too, Lanscapes ect.. Ideally id like to get a studio up and running and maybe move in to weddings. I have the 5D for the Landscapes and any studio stuff i may do..

The thing is, the 5D is a great camera, but its lacking in the AF area for me.. the MkII is lacking in the MP and frame rate area's.. so, id like to be met in the middle. that could take the form of the D700! but i like the look and feel of the D3, all the bells and whistles on that one!! very nice.. BUT!! its a lot of camera, with only 12mp!! Now, i dont really want this to turn into a debate on whether or not you need this many or that many pixles.. its enough for me to know that for work id rather have MORE that LESS.. :thumbs: So, then theres the 5D MkII.. the thing is, the AF is good, but its not what the 1D is.. will it track an object then hand it over to the next focus point? i doubt it.. is it as fast and accurate as a Nikon to AF in low light?? i doubt it (Not the latest Nikons anyway). Then theres the faults the Canon are allowing to slip through the Quality Control!! already theres problems with the 5D MkII with dark spots on highlights!! OK, i know theres a way around that! BUT, for a camera worth 2K it should be perfect.. Didnt they learn with the MkIII mess??

The 5D MkII is close to the 1Ds now! and the price is miles apart!! its like a budget Ds Or a Ds Lite.. (a little Nintendo joke..) but there just isnt the same..

So, iv been thinking about what to do.. do i sell my 5D and get the MkII.. or do i try the Nikon?? of course it would have to be the D3 to cover more or less the things i do, but its only got half the pixles of the MkII.. 21Mp is quite a draw!! full frame goodness too, but in a lesser body, with a potential to have teething trouble!!

Anyway, I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks.. not about MY thoughts or what iv managed to get wrong in the spec details as im sure iv got some bits wrong.. but YOUR idaes on the whys and why not's of changing from one to the other..

Right, I'm off to Jacobs and the London Camera Exchange to see what i can get... :thumbs:
 
Well, consider the event photography elements...

- Moving subjects
- Unknown light 'quality'
- Use of images

Moving subjects require good, fast AF for consistent results. You have to be able to trust the camera here. This also includes learning to work around any AF issues, which you would need to do with the 5D I/II. Focus and re-compose is fine with slower apertures, but risky with faster apertures. I do not need to comment on the D700/D3 AF, everyone knows it's excellent.

Quality of light depends on your shooting style. Do you use a bounced or diffused flash the majority of the time? If so, high ISO performance isn't as essential. Love natural light, then the high ISO performance of the D700/D3 or 5D II is perfect.

Use of images... where do you make your money? Magazine prints, posters, digital? If the majority of your work is for web and/or magazines, the D700/D3 sensor is excellent. In the rare occasion you need a huge file, extrapolation software (especially Genuine Fractals), makes this a non-issue. If your income comes from large posters and/or billboards, the 5D II will be of benefit.

If you situation is low light, fast moving subjects and magazine prints, I'd personally go for the D700/D3.
 
these are the points that make me look 'Over the fence!' but, i know a great Pap.. he uses a 5D MkI and consistantly nails great shots!! he's one of the best imo..

That aside, if you need a huge print of file, is interpoation just as good as having a bigger file straight from the camera? i know next to nothing on this subject so that wasnt a rhetorical question..

Petemc has just announced his jump from Canon to Nikon.. he DID have extenuating cirumstances that have somewhat helped his decision, but what are the REAL benifits of the brands.. pete posted a couple of test shots and they LOOK Nikon to me!! as do most Nikon pictures.. there seems to be something about them.. the Bokeh looks different too.. am i imagining this?? i dont think so, there are other Nikon users on here and their images all have that FEEL to them.. Maybe Canon images are more faithfull in their reproduction?

Im just interested in how people look at the subject..

My work atm is in the fast moving dodgy lighting events and parties.. but its not really where i want to be.. so id need to be able to transfer easily to another style or type without too much fuss equipment wise..

Perhaps i should keep the MkII and get the 5D MkII and be done with it.. but there is something about Nikon that interests me.. i cant put my finger on it.. maybe its a greener grass.. or cleaner glass..;)

So, come on guys.. whats your thoughts on subject.. the fors and againsts..
 
RDH is bang on the money there.... but you say you have a 1D MkIII already??

Why not carry on using that? Bar the debatable AF issues it still has pretty much a state of the art AF system... you could say Nikon's latest AF system on the D300/700/3 is almost neigh on as good, but...

If you can afford the ninja glass to go with the 1D MkIII (or probably already have it), stick with it. I don't think you are going to get much extra out of swapping...

Canon just seem to be a little out of touch with their recent new model feature lists, or at least struggling with maintaining their product range stability. My only reason for moving over from them was because I didn't have the money to up my game to the 1D and put the expensive glass it needs for motorsport in front of it. If the price had been the same for the Nikon vs the 1D MkIII, I'd have stuck with Canon.... and I think therein lies the main reason for people swapping - for features Canon call "top end" for prices that are more like semi-pro... Obviously the D3X blows that out the water, but the D300/700/3 and the forthcoming 700x/800x have slain Canon big time.

Fraggle - you are right, Canon do by and large produce an image I am more happy with. Whether this is genuine scientific fact or just my own personal tastes is another matter.... I am still struggling to get my development settings right
 
rdh said:
This also includes learning to work around any AF issues, which you would need to do with the 5D I/II. Focus and re-compose is fine with slower apertures, but risky with faster apertures. I do not need to comment on the D700/D3 AF, everyone knows it's excellent.
Click to expand...

This is probably the most important, and least-considered, aspect. The 5D is a focus and recompose camera. The Nikons aren't.
 
Radiohead said:
This is probably the most important, and least-considered, aspect. The 5D is a focus and recompose camera. The Nikons aren't.
Click to expand...


not sure what you mean by this can you explain in basic for me mate
 
just that the 5D servo mode isn't very good, by all accounts.
 
The centre AF point on the 5D and 5D II is fine - nice and quick. The outer points are a) far too close together and b) lousy in low light.

Use fast primes at f1.4-f2 as you'd want to be in low light and the outer points are a major headache meaning the centre point is used. Combine that with the very shallow DOF you'll have and it's a recipe for out of focus shots.
 
Thinking a little deeper, I don't really see the big jump that you'd get from moving from a 1D3 to the D3/700. All of them are rated for their IQ, AF, high ISO performance and they have similar resolution. Yes you get full frame with the D3/700 and I understand the implications of that, but I struggle to believe that the change to depth of field is worth all the dosh.
 
Isnt the actual pixel density less on the 1D MkIII?

The D700/D3 sensor is 36 x 23.9mm yielding 12.1mp

The 1D MkIII sensor is 28.1mm x 18. 10mp giving 10mp

Or have I got that wrong? My brain is fried, so it could be wrong!
 
Go try one out. If you like it and think you can live with the design / interface changes then look at what lenses the other side offers. If you can afford to then go for it. No point sticking around waiting for Canon to maybe make the gear you want when Nikon have. Man, what is it today. Must be something in the water :)
 
you say your mate has the 5d mk1

and nails the shots all the time..

one of the best you know . you say...;)


so if i read between the lines ;)


learn how to use you canon better :suspect:


md:shrug:
 
whats the % of members on here for nikon/canon/other do we know has there ever been a poll ??

Steve (nikon)
 
pearce_jj said:
just that the 5D servo mode isn't very good, by all accounts.
Click to expand...

Its not that bad, its just its center point!! the rest suck!! also with the pro bodies the af will hand over the focus to another point if your subject moves.. quite handy eh!!



..MD.. said:
you say your mate has the 5d mk1

and nails the shots all the time..

one of the best you know . you say...;)


so if i read between the lines ;)


learn how to use you canon better :suspect:


md:shrug:
Click to expand...


:lol: Very true MD.. very true, but i think he tapes his lens so the focus isn't an issue, its just the speed at which he fires is different.. also, he's a cheeky little ****er so gets a good position in scrums ALL the time!! lol..






petemc said:
Easily Canon majority.
Click to expand...

For how long?? hehe..
 
don't do it fraggle...., i bought my 5d after talking to you and I can't afford to change it!!!

Re Servo mode - doesn't it need F/2.8 glass to enable the high-precision centre point on the 5D (and hence better servo?)?
 
Also with the D3 you get essentially an equivalent to the 1Ds MkIII for near the price of a 5D MkII!!

If Nikon can produce a camera like that for that price then why cant/wont Canon?? (We all know why!)

The D3 is equal (To me anyway) to the 5D with the uprated AF and weather proofing! BUT with lots of extra toys! I like the idea of a built in spirit level and a colour view finder!! and dont forget the frame rate! I have the 1D and i love it! i only wish my 5D was in a Pro body..

But i didn't start this thread to ralk about MY views.. i want to hear about everyone else's! i knew Pete had gone Pete Tong.. :lol: and we know why.. a valid reason and im sure he made the right decision too..

What about everyone else? how do you guys see it?
 
I worked for newspapers, local and national for ten years. This was before digital, before fancy stuff on cameras. I was fortunate, it was 35mm. One of my senior staff photographers when I started as a youngster had spent years photographing football on a twin lens reflex Rollei lol

Anyway in those days we predicted where the action was going to happen, focussed on that and then followed the action, constantly prediciting/changing prediction etc etc. - we wagged the camera rather than the other way around lol lol
 
pearce_jj said:
don't do it fraggle...., i bought my 5d after talking to you and I can't afford to change it!!!

Re Servo mode - doesn't it need F/2.8 glass to enable the high-precision centre point on the 5D (and hence better servo?)?
Click to expand...

Im not sure mate!! i dont think so, i think the center point is a cross type and works as it should regardless!! i could be wrong though! lol..

Im probably going to sell my 5D and accessories to get the MkII, but im very interested in the whole Nikon/Canon thing..
 
hmm so reading the manual... http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/starbattery/EOS5Dmanual.pdf

...it seems the centre point is always cross-type, but only "high precision" with 2.8 glass. And that AI Servo will only work with the centre point (as you said) but will at least transfer around the 6 invisible assist points around it once locked, but not to the others. Seems odd, I'm sure I could select a focus point in servo mode.., obviously not!
 
Thanks for that James, i didnt think it would pass it around at all.. but the 1D will pass it all over the viewfinder.. handing from one point to the next.. it would be great if the new MkII could do it..
 
I bet a lot of what it can and can't do is controlled by marketting - they need to leave people a few reasons to spend the mega-bucks on a 1D!

A lot of the IT equipment I work with is charged predominately on software components. So a phone system might only be £300 but then it's £500 for this license and £500 for that license etc etc until you've spent £7k on it all of a sudden.

I wonder if the same will happen with cameras now the sensor technology seems to be maturing - just two bodies in the range (weather sealed or not) and various charged-for software providing different functionality like enhanced AI-Servo (£1000), full-frame (£500), high-speed shooting (£1500) etc etc.
 
I think you have to be honest with yourself here.

Does it really come down to wanting a new toy to play with or hoping you'll get better shots because of it?

Pete's change to Nikon was partly the busted 30D but I think that gave him the excuse he'd been wanting for a while and I think the D700 is probably the right camera for him.

Switching would be a big step and have a learning curve. It might be a case that you'd be better off with 2 bodies. the mkIII for pap work with the better AF, fps, etc. and then pick up a cheap 5D for other type of work where you get the full frame advantage, high pixel count, etc.

From a work point of view how is the mkIII letting you down and would the D700 address those issue? Same question but from a leisure/hobby/fun point of view?

Think hard about those questions and hopefully you'll know what to do - keep the mkIII and get a 2nd body for other stuff or sell up and get a D700.

Personally I'd love to have a D700 and bunch of glass to go with it. But my business head says the mkIII does the job and that's the one I listen to ;)
 
Leaving aside the teething troubles with the 5D MkII and the difference in handling, wouldn't a complete system change be quite an expensive undertaking?
 
I already have the 5D, and its great but isn't a 1D..


I love the MkII and would be in heaven if i could afford the Ds to go with it..


Im most likley to sell the 5D and get the MkII and stay with Canon.. but with the way Nikon have placed the 700 and the D3 its put Canon to shame really.. im not talking about resolution or IQ as they are both very similar.. its more to do with functions and build FPS ect..

The 5D MkII look fantastic, but for similar price you can get the D3 with the awsome AF and Pro build ect..

As i said earlier, it not about MY wants really.. im interested in the debate with the fors and against.. it been going on for longer than the life of the D3 or the 5D.. so what has the main reasons for this on going conundrum?

In the past i worked in a Commercial Lab.. they used Nikon.. WHY???
 
For me, twice the price of the 5D2 but I have that in Canon lenses.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Leaving aside the teething troubles with the 5D MkII and the difference in handling, wouldn't a complete system change be quite an expensive undertaking?
Click to expand...

It would for a little player like me, but id go for just one body and 3 len's.. a wide a standard zoom and a 70- 200 or similar..
 
I am already convinced that if money wasn't an object I would make the switch. I think:thinking:
 
This is a classic 'Grass is always greener' issue. I'm with Canon (50D) and I'll probably stick with it as I have 4 lenses and a bunch of equipment. That's not to say that I'm always happy - AI Focus and Servo is pretty damn poor in my opinion...if not simply non-functional at times. Still, I know that if I bought Nikon then I'd find complaints in other areas.

Canon has a more diverse business model...whether this puts it at more risk in todays climate or not I don't know.

If I had to make the choice over again with the info I know I'd probably go Canon again....but I'd really be trying to find reasons to go for Nikon.
 
Hi Fraggle,
The AF in the 5d mk11 is the same as the mk1 (according to the canon guy I spoke to). As you know I had issues with my canon 11n and considered switching to Nikon. I went for the mk111 partly as there was no nikon 24-70 f2.8 glass about which I wanted, and I needed the new body by a certain date. I'm pleased with my mk111 image quality from a RAW file is great. the file upsize nicely to the specs required for one of my agencies (35mb tiff). If you go to Nikon, who much will it cost when you add the new glass, probably the same as a new 1ds 111.

Also remember the pap you mention doesn't use the AF, he does it manually. If I was you, I'd look again when you photography requirements change. At the moment, they may not.
 
Whats wrong with the idea of a second hand 1ds mk II?
 
Forgive me for being round the twist but as I see it would you sale you 3 bed house and buy the 3bed house next door because the number on the door is better? Living in either house isn't a great deal different but the aggravation of changing all your services and telling all your friends is a pain. The moral to this story is there is a nats ****skin in different in quality between Canon and Nikon and the upheaval I think is greater than the reward gained if any. I vote for stay with what you got, learn to use it to the best of your ability and don't line the pockets of the multinationals if you don't need to. But hey what do I know :lol: :lol:
 
1800 quid... 16.7mp ff, ninja Canon 1D AF system... same lenses as you have for work... familiar system...

Only downside is the ISO performance is not up to either the MkIII or the D700/D3... not by a long way.
 
desantnik said:
1800 quid... 16.7mp ff, ninja Canon 1D AF system... same lenses as you have for work... familiar system...

Only downside is the ISO performance is not up to either the MkIII or the D700/D3... not by a long way.
Click to expand...

Ok, so ISo performance might not be as good as the new bodies out, but its still pretty damn good isnt it?

At least the AF system will wee all over the 5dmkii's supposed AF issues :lol:
 
Well, having seen the 1DMkIIN ISO performance, I'd probably say ISO400 is about as far you want to take it unless you are really careful with your exposures.

And I think therein we have the Canon vs Nikon problem - you can pick and choose your desired features but if you want good AF, good ISO performance, full frame and no problems the actual camera you want is a D700/D3. Oh and not at the price of a 1DS MkIII (or IV)

Me, I would actually have prefered a "Canon D300" or in this posters situation a "Canon D700/D3" - and many, many people seem to be of the same mindset...

That is Canon's marketing people with their head's up their backsides...
 
Years ago I worked with a guy who had more money than sense and was constantly changing gear as the latest reviews came out in the camera mags,in the 5 years I worked with him he had Minolta,Canon and Pentax for no reason other than it was somebody's opinion that one was better than the other.
Lets face it there is no such thing as a bad camera nowadays and its personal taste as to whether the Nikon is better than Canon or Sony or Pentax etc etc,I have seen articles saying that the 350D is crap for action photography well it must be a different 350D to the one I use for Football every Saturday
So guys lets accept that some are Canonites some Nikonites some Olympusites and talk about things more interesting than the camera equivalent of

My dads bigger than your dad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top