To D700 or not to D700?

[Fuuudge]

Misprint??

from the Christmas Jessops catalog, page 54.

 

[desantnik]

BTW one of the things you might also want to consider is that Nikon's (modern) lens range for FX is much smaller than Canon's. This might be seen as a hinderance, but if you think about it, its come out quite clever really... look at the lenses people are using with their D700/D3... they are all expensive pieces of glass by and large - like 1000 quid upwards.

So what do you see? You see people with stunning images - which is what you get when you mate a 1500+ quid body to a 1000 quid lens.

There is little scope for sticking consumer grade glass onto a D700/D3...

 

[User Name]

Misprint??

from the Christmas Jessops catalog, page 54.

Definitely, I paid £49 recently

 

[StewartR]

I can't help thinking that there's more to this than just the body. You've already said you can't live without your 17-40L - so what piece of Nikon glass will you replace that with? They don't really make anything comparable. Plus, Nikon don't make anything like your 24-105L. (Yes you could switch to a 24-70/2.8, but you could have done that already and you haven't, so I imagine there's a reason.)

What lenses do you currently have, and what do you propose to swap to?

 

[desantnik]

I can't help thinking that there's more to this than just the body. You've already said you can't live without your 17-40L - so what piece of Nikon glass will you replace that with? They don't really make anything comparable. Plus, Nikon don't make anything like your 24-105L. (Yes you could switch to a 24-70/2.8, but you could have done that already and you haven't, so I imagine there's a reason.)

Looking at her original post she said "The one zoom I'd lose is the 24-105 f4 but the focal lengths are all covered from 14mm to 200mm"

So that sounds like the Nikon "Holy Trinity" to me....

Oh and she probably hadn't got the 24-70 currently because I am lead to believe people have a dim view of this Canon lens - whereas the current Nikon 24-70 is widely regarded as "lush"

 

[Foggy]

Ali - JUST DO IT! You know you want to

 

[User Name]

Oh and she probably hadn't got the 24-70 currently because I am lead to believe people have a dim view of this Canon lens - whereas the current Nikon 24-70 is widely regarded as "lush"

Another one who is lead wrongly. There are hundreds of reviews on both at fredmiranda.com
The 24-70 F2.8 L is a fantastic lens which has attained legendary status, certainly more highly regarded than the 24-105L if image quality is what you crave for.

 

[Radiohead]

Another one who is lead wrongly. There are hundreds of reviews on both at fredmiranda.com
The 24-70 F2.8 L is a fantastic lens which has attained legendary status, certainly more highly regarded than the 24-105L if image quality is what you crave for.

Actually - whilst the 24-70L is a fine lens, it's also one with a poor rep for mis-focussing within the wedding world. I believe this is because it's a parfocal design. It's certainly better than the 24-105mm for outright IQ though.

And the Nikkor 24-70 certainly a better lens.

I've little doubt the Canon will be revised with a MkII this year, to sit alongside the Mk II 16-35 and 70-200 lenses.

 

[MJ Stebbings]

This is an area I do have some experience of. My 1Ds has a similar 51 point 3d tracking system to the D700 and I love it. I would not want to lose it. The 5D and 5DII have the same autofocus and I have to say.........it's not the best. Adequate is about all I can say for it but with anything moving at any kind of speed, forget it and it's not the quickest in dull conditions either. I noticed a HUGE difference with the 1Ds and I'd rather not lose that. One reason if I stay with Canon to keep the 1Ds and upgrade the 5D.

Sorry, i kinda got bored reading the posts (i'm tired and it was hurting my eyes ) so if this has already been said, then i'm sorry.

Why not upgrade to a 1DsmkIII? and keep the mkII as the second body?
That would give you the amazing AF system on both cameras, and it would probably cost you the same if you bought a low clicks (there was one for sale on here for £2800) then switching over to a whole new system.

 

[boyfalldown]

I can't help thinking that there's more to this than just the body. You've already said you can't live without your 17-40L - so what piece of Nikon glass will you replace that with? They don't really make anything comparable. Plus, Nikon don't make anything like your 24-105L. (Yes you could switch to a 24-70/2.8, but you could have done that already and you haven't, so I imagine there's a reason.)

What lenses do you currently have, and what do you propose to swap to?

er the 17-35 is pretty close to the 17-40. Easy to find a good one The 24-105 is a nice lens, but the f4 max apperture is to slow for weddings.

 

[StewartR]

er the 17-35 is pretty close to the 17-40. Easy to find a good one

Yes, but it's f/2.8, twice the size and twice the price. If the OP wanted a lens like that, surely she'd be using the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 already?

The 24-105 is a nice lens, but the f4 max apperture is to slow for weddings.

Don't tell me, tell the OP. She's the one who's been using it in preference to a 24-70mm f/2.8.

 

[StewartR]

Actually - whilst the 24-70L is a fine lens, it's also one with a poor rep for mis-focussing within the wedding world. I believe this is because it's a parfocal design.

And the Nikkor 24-70 certainly a better lens.

This is interesting. Don't the Canon and Nikon 24-70s have essentially the same design? There aren't many lenses which are longer at the wide end and shorter at the long end, but both of these are.

 

[Radiohead]

It's a comment made on DWF by Chuck Westfall - seems the parfocal design of the Canon means it can lose the AF target when adjusting focus on the fly. That's a common complaint.

 

[User Name]

This is interesting. Don't the Canon and Nikon 24-70s have essentially the same design? There aren't many lenses which are longer at the wide end and shorter at the long end, but both of these are.

I have yet to find how such a reputation has been gained despite googling.
Radiohead, do you have a link for this "common complaint"?

How come hundred of real-world reviewers haven't found it such a big problem?

 

[Radiohead]

I have yet to find how such a reputation has been gained despite googling.
Radiohead, do you have a link for this "common complaint"?

How come hundred of real-world reviewers haven't found it such a big problem?

Ooo - maybe because a lot of those reviewers are in love with the fact that it's got a red ring on it?

I can't - they take place on a closed pro-only forum. I can't post comments here. Rest assured that they are real-world pros though.

This is a start though - http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...1&ved=0CBMQBSgA&q=24-70L+backfocusing&spell=1

 

[User Name]

Ooo - maybe because a lot of those reviewers are in love with the fact that it's got a red ring on it?

I can't - they take place on a closed pro-only forum. I can't post comments here. Rest assured that they are real-world pros though.

This is a start though - http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...1&ved=0CBMQBSgA&q=24-70L+backfocusing&spell=1

Thanks for that. But if back focusing is the issue it can be corrected by the in-camera focus adjustment (per lens).

Edit: Ironically, the 5th link in your google is this http://www.amazon.com/review/RSH06JBT2OBZX
Terrible, terrible etc etc :shake:

 

[Radiohead]

To a point - and only if your camera has that feature.

This is slightly different though - it's more random and seen when shooting formals. If you have it happen you'll know.

 

[grumpybadger]

As Ali doesn't have a Canon 24-70 this debate, although interesting, is irrelevent to her decision process though. For whatever reason, she feels the 24-105 is the right lens for now and has another option that she feels will suit if she went D700.

I have to say I can see the appeal. For me, the compelling reasons to change are:

1. Two cameras the same. This is great. I used to shoot with 2x10D then 2x1DII and then 1x1DsII and a 1DII. In each case, both cameras had exactly the same interface and custom functions. This is a biggie for me. Sometimes I think I'm mad for having moved away from that myself...

2. Proper AF on a more compact sized camera. Another biggie. If Canon did a 5D with 1D AF (or even 7D at a pinch) I'd have one in a shot.

Paul

 

[ryanyboy]

Ali - suffice to say I sold my Canon 24-70 for a 24-105 because I thought the 24-70 was rubbish. I was very happy with the 24-105 as an alternative.

In Nikon land my 24-70 is the business and I love it - although my latest one is much better than the one I had stolen last month

Hopefully that cuts thru a lot of the "banter" above.

 

[User Name]

Hopefully that cuts thru a lot of the "banter" above.

...because your opinion is worth more than hundreds of other reviewers.
I think it's a great lens BTW, but will probably add a 24-105L in addition for extra reach.

Now if I'm at 200mm in a church I don't actually want the camera making that choice, I want 1/60 or 1/100 thank you. Nikon allows me to do that. Canon have tried to make it smart and instead made it dumb!

Alison, it might be worth mentioning that there is a silent shooting mode on the 5D2 which might be useful if you are in a church. I know it's not possible to have shutters snapping away all the time, so maybe it would make the difference between getting a shot and not.
There are two silent modes, but I have to point that neither of them are completely silent!

 

[PhotoTalk]

there is a silent shooting mode on the 5D2 ... There are two silent modes, but I have to point that neither of them are completely silent!

So a silent mode that isn't silent? I suppose calling it 'muffled mode' mightn't have sounded so good in the marketing blurbs

 

[ryanyboy]

...because your opinion is worth more than hundreds of other reviewers.

Not at all, but I was getting fed up with your paranoia hijacking the thread and taking the thing off-topic.

... I think it's a great lens BTW, but will probably add a 24-105L in addition for extra reach.

70-200 would live nicely with the 24-70 - no need to have both then.

 

[User Name]

So a silent mode that isn't silent? I suppose calling it 'muffled mode' mightn't have sounded so good in the marketing blurbs

If the shutter is clack clack,
Silent is click wiiiiiirr click.

Available in live view mode only though

 

[User Name]

Not at all, but I was getting fed up with your paranoia hijacking the thread and taking the thing off-topic.



70-200 would live nicely with the 24-70 - no need to have both then.

I have the 70-200 2.8L, it's just a bit conspicuous for a walk around lens.
The 24-70 is somewhat relevant though for low light as it does add an extra stop, so it's not off topic, and the reviews are good. Your personal experience is different. As I alluded to before, there is a lot of regurgitated misinformation which gets recycled as gospel when it comes to Nikon vs Canon (which is what this thread is about) e.g. the high ISO performance. So you can forgive a little paranoia when such religious topics are discussed.

 

[Radiohead]

They're just cameras.

My experiences are both personal (2 years of shooting Canon) and those of other pros.

 

[desantnik]

Alison, it might be worth mentioning that there is a silent shooting mode on the 5D2 which might be useful if you are in a church. I know it's not possible to have shutters snapping away all the time, so maybe it would make the difference between getting a shot and not

Available in live view mode only though

So next to useless in a dimly lit church then... live view only uses contrast detect focusing which is slow and inaccurate compared to phase detect and definitely struggles in poor light....

 

[ianmarsh]

I chose Canon over Nikon because the tones/contrast/colour vibrancy seem to differ noticeably between the two (and I happen to prefer the Canon-look). There are technical differences between the bodies and lenses (eg AF accuracy and ergonomics) but what about the IQ differences? I don't mean IQ of one being better than another, just that they are different. Change systems and your past work will look different to your future work (or you'll spend a long time processing to get back to where you were). That might be a good thing, of course.

 

[User Name]

So next to useless in a dimly lit church then... live view only uses contrast detect focusing which is slow and inaccurate compared to phase detect and definitely struggles in poor light....

I decided to test that! I focused on a picture (Basil Fawlty's face) at 3200 ISO, f2.8, and 1/4 second exposure. Contrast detection struggles at lower light levels than that but I can't imagine a church would ever be that dark unless it's candle lit? Can anyone work out how that compares to the light levels at your average church wedding?

 

[desantnik]

I decided to test that! I focused on a picture (Basil Fawlty's face) at 3200 ISO, f2.8, and 1/4 second exposure. Contrast detection struggles at lower light levels than that but I can't imagine a church would ever be that dark unless it's candle lit? Can anyone work out how that compares to the light levels at your average church wedding?

I have no idea, I don't do churches, but our OP does and she says:

Two or three times this year I've found myself shooting at ISO 1600 at f2 just to get anywhere near 1/100 sec.

So I guess, yes it does get that dark!

 

[bastic]

So a silent mode that isn't silent? I suppose calling it 'muffled mode' mightn't have sounded so good in the marketing blurbs

maybe bit silly question but...Does d700 have a silent mode ?

 

[User Name]

Two or three times this year I've found myself shooting at ISO 1600 at f2 just to get anywhere near 1/100 sec.

So I guess, yes it does get that dark!

So according to my unscientific experiment and dodgy mathematics, that means the contrast detect focusing of the 5D2 will operate at 4 stops lower than Alison's light level.

 

[AliB]

Sorry guys had to go out

Current lens range includes 17-40mm because when shooting wide I really don't need f2.8 because I'm either in good light or using flash at a first dance

Then I have both the 24-70(It's a Sigma) and the 24-105mm Why? Well i bought the 24-105 as a kit with the 5d and it's great as a walk about or in a studio but you are right, I needed the 2.8. nice to have both though

Then I have the 70-200mm f2.8IS which is just a corker

Primes I have 35mm f2, 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8 and 100mm macro.

I'm no Nikon expert but I was looking at 14-24mm 24-70mm and 70-200mm zooms and 50mm adn 85mm primes to match the Canon ones. I could lose the 35mm and the 100mm macro and not lose too much sleep.

Flashes, straightforward change from 2 EX580s to 2 SB900s

Going to get some pricing on that little lot and see just how feasible it is/is not.

There has to be a point of reasonableness about it though. We are, after all talking about a small percentage of what I shoot being affected by a lack of performance in low light. It's not a huge deal, it does not stop me shooting now. It just means I have a little headroom because it's got a bit tight a few times this year and I'd love the technical limitations to be slightly less than they are.

And a 1D IV is not on for the simple reason that two 1 series cameras does not offer the facility to shoot one handed which is a must for me. I often shoot off camera flash where I have to with the camera in one hand and the flash in the other. It's quick and effective.

 

[icnoble]

I upgraded from the D300 to the 700. It is a fantastic camera especially when used with a lens such as the Nikon 24-70 f2.8

 

[Radiohead]

I chose Canon over Nikon because the tones/contrast/colour vibrancy seem to differ noticeably between the two (and I happen to prefer the Canon-look). There are technical differences between the bodies and lenses (eg AF accuracy and ergonomics) but what about the IQ differences? I don't mean IQ of one being better than another, just that they are different. Change systems and your past work will look different to your future work (or you'll spend a long time processing to get back to where you were). That might be a good thing, of course.

With something like Lightroom and profiling these differences are essentially redundant now. They can be made equal very easily. It's more down to the use of light and lens choice.

 

[Radiohead]

Sorry guys had to go out

Current lens range includes 17-40mm because when shooting wide I really don't need f2.8 because I'm either in good light or using flash at a first dance

Then I have both the 24-70(It's a Sigma) and the 24-105mm Why? Well i bought the 24-105 as a kit with the 5d and it's great as a walk about or in a studio but you are right, I needed the 2.8. nice to have both though

Then I have the 70-200mm f2.8IS which is just a corker

Primes I have 35mm f2, 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8 and 100mm macro.

I'm no Nikon expert but I was looking at 14-24mm 24-70mm and 70-200mm zooms and 50mm adn 85mm primes to match the Canon ones. I could lose the 35mm and the 100mm macro and not lose too much sleep.

Flashes, straightforward change from 2 EX580s to 2 SB900s

Going to get some pricing on that little lot and see just how feasible it is/is not.

There has to be a point of reasonableness about it though. We are, after all talking about a small percentage of what I shoot being affected by a lack of performance in low light. It's not a huge deal, it does not stop me shooting now. It just means I have a little headroom because it's got a bit tight a few times this year and I'd love the technical limitations to be slightly less than they are.

And a 1D IV is not on for the simple reason that two 1 series cameras does not offer the facility to shoot one handed which is a must for me. I often shoot off camera flash where I have to with the camera in one hand and the flash in the other. It's quick and effective.

That's a sound choice of Nikon lenses (although I'd be tempted to wait until next month as there are new lenses on the way on the prime front).

I shot Canon for two years (5D's, 24-70, 70-200 2.8 IS, 35L, 50L, 85L and 135L) before moving to D3 and D700 bodies. The AF on the 5D is ancient in comparison, especially using anything other than the centre point. For me the 5D is a focus and recompose camera, and that's less than ideal using fast primes with such limited DOF. The AF, shutter lag and mirror blackout are all carried across to the 5DII - and that made that body a complete non-starter for me. Use a D700 and it's obvious.

 

[dod]

Forgot about this, My experience most of it still stands except I've moved on the D300

The more I use this system the more impressed I am with it. I still think the Canon ergonomics are slightly better and the controls are better thought out but the bit that matters, the end result, definitely belongs to the Nikon. In my opinion only obviously.

 

[desantnik]

So according to my unscientific experiment and dodgy mathematics, that means the contrast detect focusing of the 5D2 will operate at 4 stops lower than Alison's light level.

She had ISO1600 and you 3200 - so -1 stop to you
She had f2 and you f2.8 - so another -1 stop for you
She had 1/100 and you 1/4 so you had 4.5 stops more light

So overall you had 2.5 stops more light than she did

Not forgetting of course that 1/4 is no bloody use for her purpose - she isn't shooting still life

 

[AliB]

Getting a call back from Nikon on it tomorrow. Had a very nice chat with a lady at Nikon today so it's down to brass tacks tomorrow ie. pounds shillings and pence. I have a shopping list and an idea of the amount and if they can meet it I'll answer it.

It might mean me doing the same as you Dod and privately selling but depends on the front end pricing

Thanks again folks I've had some very good reasoning from you all and I thank you for your time

lol you lot post quickly! Yes I'm not shooting still life. I have tested this to the nth degree this year and you really cannot risk under 1/60 in this environment. People move. Ring exchanges, they move, vows...well they are speaking so yes, they move. In fact they move pretty much all the time and 1/60 is absolute rock bottom, lucky to get 80% sharpish shots out of it. I can shoot 1/15sec hand held but with a moving subject in the circumstances I shoot in it's 1/60.

 

[User Name]

She had ISO1600 and you 3200 - so -1 stop to you
She had f2 and you f2.8 - so another -1 stop for you
She had 1/100 and you 1/4 so you had 4.5 stops more light

So overall you had 2.5 stops more light than she did

Not forgetting of course that 1/4 is no bloody use for her purpose - she isn't shooting still life

Nope, shooting at F2 ISO 1600 is the same light level as shooting at F2.8 ISO 3200, so those cancel each other out (everything else being the same). The calculation is then based on 1/100 and 1/4.

 

[AliB]

That's all well and fine Mark but don't forget there is more to this consideration than JUST ISO performance. There is no point at all in having ISO performance if it does not get focus and I'm sorry but I have both systems at the moment in the 1 Ds and 5D and the 1Ds wins hands down. It will grab a focus a lot better and quicker and keep it than the 5D. In fact the autofocus is probably the 5D's biggest weakness. Now, having had the 1Ds autofocus system I'm not about to give it up. It has seriously impressed me. If I go for the 5DII I'm stuck with that 9 point system for my high ISO work.

Yes I know plenty of good wedding photographers who use the 5DII, Damien Lovegrove, Mark Cleghorn. Jeff Ascough, all of whom can undoubtably shoot the backsides off anything I can produce. So I am more than willing to consider the 5DII. This is all about weighing up options and working out what is best for me at this moment, Just as I did three years ago when I made the choice of Canon.