Advice from those who moved from 1 series to D700

The23rdman

The23rdman

Messages
13,582
Name
Dean
Edit My Images
No
I'm seriously considering a D700 as a switch from my 1DsII. I love the camera, but the small screen and moderate iso performance is bugging me. I shoot as many children/baby jobs with available light as flash now and hate the noise at 1600 iso. Those kids move FAST and I really need something I can crank the iso up to get higher shutter speeds for more keepers.

I have considered the 5DII, of course, but the AF system just doesn't cut it.

I also know ZERO about Nikon lenses - seems so complicated. what am I looking at prime wise? I will likely want something fast in 50mm and maybe 30ish that wont break the bank. Does the Nikon nifty fifty suffer with AF issues like the Canon or does the famed Nikon body AF deal with it?
 
Thought you were keeping schtum?? In the spirit of your request, you can have a play with the 50mm f1.4 to see how that feels. Only other prime I have to play with is the 105mm f2.8 Micro VRII which may be a little long for the baby shots?? Also, would you want something as wide as 35mm on the FX body?
 
Last edited:
One other thought, if it is low light performace you crave, the D7000 on paper offers the same ISO range - although I've not seen one in the flesh yet.
 
I went from 1D3 to D700 - noise clearly better at higher ISO values, and a great camera all told. Prime wise, I think you couldn't go far wrong with the Nikkor 50 1.4 G, and the 85 1/4 (new or old version). I had theer 35mm f2 for a while too, and that was a seriously underated little lens for the price.

However, I now have a 5D2, and the AF is no problem at all - it tracks things fine and has no problem keeping up, so if you're invested in a lot of Canon glass I think it would make sense to go for that. Noise at higher ISO is on a par with the D700, but with more MPs. However, the Auto ISO function of the Canon cameras below the 1 series is noddy compared to Nikon.
 
You won't have any problems with tracking kids with a 5D2. It does perfectly well tracking my black dogs and they'd outrun any child. :)

No problems with high ISO noise either.
Do you have good lenses at the moment?
 
Have you had a go with a 5DII? In my opinion the AF gets a far too harsh review, I've been regularly doing sports with mine, and the only time it struggles is fast moving, indoor sports (basketball!). Even then I still got plenty of keepers, but the hit rate was lower.

If you ever find yourself up here you can have a go with mine and see what you think!
 
Last edited:
braddersmd said:
Thought you were keeping schtum?? In the spirit of your request, you can have a play with the 50mm f1.4 to see how that feels. Only other prime I have to play with is the 105mm f2.8 Micro VRII which may be a little long for the baby shots?? Also, would you want something as wide as 35mm on the FX body?
Click to expand...

Cheers, mate. 35mm is perfect for families in tight spaces.

braddersmd said:
One other thought, if it is low light performace you crave, the D7000 on paper offers the same ISO range - although I've not seen one in the flesh yet.
Click to expand...

i'll check it out.
 
py6km said:
I went from 1D3 to D700 - noise clearly better at higher ISO values, and a great camera all told. Prime wise, I think you couldn't go far wrong with the Nikkor 50 1.4 G, and the 85 1/4 (new or old version). I had theer 35mm f2 for a while too, and that was a seriously underated little lens for the price.

However, I now have a 5D2, and the AF is no problem at all - it tracks things fine and has no problem keeping up, so if you're invested in a lot of Canon glass I think it would make sense to go for that. Noise at higher ISO is on a par with the D700, but with more MPs. However, the Auto ISO function of the Canon cameras below the 1 series is noddy compared to Nikon.
Click to expand...

User Name said:
You won't have any problems with tracking kids with a 5D2. It does perfectly well tracking my black dogs and they'd outrun any child. :)

No problems with high ISO noise either.
Do you have good lenses at the moment?
Click to expand...

chris321 said:
Have you had a go with a 5DII? In my opinion the AF gets a far too harsh review, I've been regularly doing sports with mine, and the only time it struggles is fast moving, indoor sports (basketball!). Even then I still got plenty of keepers, but the hit rate was lower.

If you ever find yourself up here you can have a go with mine and see what you think!
Click to expand...

It's low light focus that bothers me. I had a hell of a time with the 40D and thought they shared AF systems.

Chris, thank you. I have access to one to try. I think I'll give it a go before making the big switch.

RE lenses. I know my nifty fifty is a weak link AF wise, but I also know I'd rather get better IQ before upgrading that. I've considered the Sigma 50 f/1.4, but don't want to invest in decent primes with a body that doesn't allow micro-adjustments.
 
Last edited:
I had a 5DMKII and changed to nikon as the D700 is simply better, more featured and has far more options before you even think about the AF.

The lenses seemed strange to me at first but i now have got use to it, a 50MM F1.4G will bring a smile to your face on a D700.

If you have an itch scratch it, as it never goes away!
 
GRECIAN said:
I had a 5DMKII and changed to nikon as the D700 is simply better, more featured and has far more options before you even think about the AF.

The lenses seemed strange to me at first but i now have got use to it, a 50MM F1.4G will bring a smile to your face on a D700.

If you have an itch scratch it, as it never goes away!
Click to expand...

It's not an itch so much as a desire to have the best tools I can afford for my work. ;)
 
The23rdman said:
It's not an itch so much as a desire to have the best tools I can afford for my work. ;)
Click to expand...

Yep, no point having a D700 and cheap glass.

I have been using it with the 50/1.4G for a while, but that invariably leads to an unbearable craving for a 70-200mm VRII :bonk:
 
GRECIAN said:
The lenses seemed strange to me at first but i now have got use to it, a 50MM F1.4G will bring a smile to your face on a D700.
Click to expand...
... until you use it at f/1.4, presumably, and find yourself wishing you'd bought the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 instead?
 
StewartR said:
... until you use it at f/1.4, presumably, and find yourself wishing you'd bought the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 instead?
Click to expand...

having tried both, I'm not wishing I'd kept the Sigma. I'm not sure about the reported advantages at 1.4 over the Nikon, but the usual Sigma QC issues that meant I returned the 2 copies they sent me meant I never found out.

The Nikon is ace at 1.4 (and everywhere else)
 
I went from 1DsII to D700 and most certainly don't regret it.

The 5DII AF IS pants when you compare it to the AF system in your 1DsII. If it is all you know and you get keepers with it then fair enough but I was not willing to compromise on it after using the 1DsII. The D700 has a very similar 51 point AF system so you certainly won't be disappointed.

The high ISO performance is stunning and the one concern I had was the slight drop in resolution.

But that is more than overcome by the sheer quality of the Nikon lenses. I get sharper images on the lower resolution D700 simply because the lenses are capable of it. Eyelashes at 200%.....not a problem.

At 4256 x 2832 pixels you will get 17 x 11 inch prints at 240ppi and 15 x 10 at 300ppi. So if the majority of your prints are under those sizes then the D700 is actually overperforming to your requirements.

I got the 50mm, 85mm f1.4s and the 105mm macro because I like primes and they also give good cover for my zooms should anything go wrong on a wedding. The 85mm is one of my absolute favourite lenses ever. :)
 
I was hoping you'd see this, Ali, as I knew you were someone who'd moved with a 1 series body.

I do get quite a few 18x12's and canvases larger. I'm happy to upsize if it's necessary. I guess I'll have a play with both bodies and see how I feel.
 
Pm me your email addy Dean and I'll happily send you a couple of files to play with. :)
 
I'd be very surprised if there isnt an upgrade 1Ds coming along very soon and if you have invested heavily in Canon lenses/system it might be worth hanging on, either that or a 5D3?
Would it be worth looking at a 1Dmk4 - high Iso is supposed to be good with that or even a 7D.
Interesting that people are saying no problem with 5D2 Af as I understood it was essentially no different from the one in the Mk1 body, which a lot of people decry.


Matt
 
MatBin said:
I'd be very surprised if there isnt an upgrade 1Ds coming along very soon and if you have invested heavily in Canon lenses/system it might be worth hanging on, either that or a 5D3?
Would it be worth looking at a 1Dmk4 - high Iso is supposed to be good with that or even a 7D.
Interesting that people are saying no problem with 5D2 Af as I understood it was essentially no different from the one in the Mk1 body, which a lot of people decry.


Matt
Click to expand...

I have no massive glass investment, Matt. The only place to go in the Canon range is the 5DII or 1DsIII and I don't have the money for the latter. I'll try the 5DII and D700 and see how I feel. I've seen the 7D at 1600 and it's no better than the 1DsII. :)
 
You looking at new or used D700s?
Because new D700 money would probably get you a used D3.
 
I use a 5D2 for studio/portrait work and whilst the vast majority of the images I print are 24x16 or less there are times when being able to crop a full frame image give a great result.

The 5D2 is all about the sensor. It is without a doubt weak in other areas especially AF, but the sensor is just gorgeous and I love it !
 
Hodders said:
I use a 5D2 for studio/portrait work and whilst the vast majority of the images I print are 24x16 or less there are times when being able to crop a full frame image give a great result.

The 5D2 is all about the sensor. It is without a doubt weak in other areas especially AF, but the sensor is just gorgeous and I love it !
Click to expand...

Yep, the sensor is a big plus, but I need AF I can trust too as I work with natural (not very much) light and high iso too now. The 40D AF was terrible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top