An upgrade issue

Digifrog

Digifrog

Messages
1,069
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
No
Hi

This has been discussed many times I think, but some advice here would be useful. I currently use a Nikon D80 and would like to upgrade to ff sometime soon. I shoot landscapes (sometimes in low light) and long exposures (upto five minutes at a time).

I am trying to choose between Canon (5DMkii) and Nikon (D700, possibly D700x) and associated lenses. :bang:

My choice is for Nikon, (at the moment) the D700 + the 16-35mm f/4, and for Canon, the 5D Mkii + 17-40 L. Other lenses are being considered (Canon 16-35 f/2.8, Nikon 17-35 f/2.8 and Zeiss 18mm)

I'm looking for the best compatability between lens and body. Any suggestions?

The 5DMkii I like because of the resolution, the D700 I like for the functionality and ergonomics.

Thank you.
 
Digifrog said:
The 5DMkii I like because of the resolution, the D700 I like for the functionality and ergonomics.
Click to expand...
have you tried a Sony A850/A900?
It strikes me that it's probably a good blend of those & whilst it won't beat them for high ISO I don't think that it's really that far behind there (especially if you are doing 5 minute exposures then a few seconds more surly isn't much?).
Sounds like a Zeiss 16-35/2.8 would match nicely for you.
 
heidfirst said:
have you tried a Sony A850/A900?
It strikes me that it's probably a good blend of those & whilst it won't beat them for high ISO I don't think that it's really that far behind there (especially if you are doing 5 minute exposures then a few seconds more surly isn't much?).
Sounds like a Zeiss 16-35/2.8 would match nicely for you.
Click to expand...

Hi.

Thanks. I did consider the A900 but it fairs poorly over iso400 when it comes to noise. I am concerned that I would incur noise shooting long exposures (sometimes in low light), even at iso100, whereas the 5D2 or D700 will behave much better.

I may be wrong but at this kind of money need to be sure. I could rent one I guess, but unless I get solid reassurance that it is noise free at iso100 on a 4 minute exposure it will not be a contender.

Apparently it has the nicest viewfinder on the market.

Scott

ps That Zeiss 16-35 looks very nice too.
 
I'd go for the D700 and a good 2nd-hand 17-35mm f/2.8 - these have apparently been re-issued in limited numbers by Nikon Japan and can be found in Hong Kong dealer's inventories - your personal feelings on buying from HK will dictate whether you go down that road or not.
The 'old' Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 would on paper seem to be a better bet than the 16-35 f/4, as would the newer 14-24 f/2.8

For landscapes and low-light work, you really need the best lens you can afford, so rather than scrimp on things, maybe you should think about getting a good lens now and worry about upgrading the camera later?

But my opinion? If you have the budget for both then go for the D700 and Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 now...
 
Arkady said:
I'd go for the D700 and a good 2nd-hand 17-35mm f/2.8 - these have apparently been re-issued in limited numbers by Nikon Japan and can be found in Hong Kong dealer's inventories - your personal feelings on buying from HK will dictate whether you go down that road or not.
The 'old' Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 would on paper seem to be a better bet than the 16-35 f/4, as would the newer 14-24 f/2.8

For landscapes and low-light work, you really need the best lens you can afford, so rather than scrimp on things, maybe you should think about getting a good lens now and worry about upgrading the camera later?

But my opinion? If you have the budget for both then go for the D700 and Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 now...
Click to expand...

Aye, the D700 + 17-35 is a top contender, though I am waiting to see if Nikon bring out the D700X and at what price. My only gripe at the moment is 12 mpx just isn't enough.

It leaves a small issue of comparing glass. The Nikon 17-35 compared to the Canon 17-40 L compared to the Canon 16-35 Lii compared to the Nikon 16-35 ED VRii compared to a Zeiss w/a lens. I don't want to be in a position where I am out-resolving anything.

I think Zeiss have a cut a niche in the superior. Even though I shoot landscapes, I would prefer an AF system, as I'm still relatively inexperienced.

Scott
 
An AF system is no almost use whatsoever when shooting considered landscapes I'd have thought, as the point of focus will depend entirely on the scene and upon what aperture you select - use of hyperfocal distance would almost certainly be necessary in order to maintain the correct amount of depth of field...and that's alot easier to manage using manual focus.

The Nikon 17-35 f/2.8 and Canon 17-40L should be comparable in terms of quality - Canon's L-lenses are very good.
The others you mention, I'm not familiar with so cannot offer any guidance there.

Why is 12Mp not enough? What size are you enlarging your images to? I cannot tell any difference between my shots taken on a D3 (12Mp) or my D3x (24Mp) on a computer screen or prints up to A3...
 
what about prints over A3, is there much of a difference r is it minor, i seen a photo on dpreviews one time and it compared the d3 and d3x and at 100% there was a small difference but not much, then they did it with a phase one(no nothing about them) and it was outstanding, never seen anything like it. cheers
 
I used to print A1 and A0 from a D1x and it looked good enough back in 2001 - I think with careful P&P there's no reason a flawless photo-quality A0 print isn't do-able from a D3, which would be indistinguishable from one taken on a D3x - it's when you get to double-poster size you start to notice.
D3x is primarily designed for portrait and studio work (though it can be used very well as a general-purpose camera) where ultra-large output is required - billboards, posters etc.

For outdoor work a D3 would be sufficient - though if you can afford a D3x, by all means go for it - I hopefully won't be selling mine any time soon, even if it doesn't get used so much these days...
 
Thanks Rob

Interesting that image quality between the Nikon 17-35 and the Canon 17-40 L is comparable. What is more interesting is that one costs £1250 and the other £650 (respectively)

On image quality between the D700 and the Canon 5Dii, I can definately tell the difference, though it is negligable at small size, but yes I would like the option of blowing prints up as large as I can without any loss of image quality. I currently print at 15"x10" and would like to print at twice that ratio. I think it is not an easy choice to make. The 5DMkii's 21 mpx certainly helps. *** it's AF system is sadly lacking. Images I've seen from the 5DMkii certainly grab me, though obviously it has a lot to do with the person behind the lens too.

Zeiss is nice!
 
Sorry - I was thinking of the Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8 L MKII USM Lens, not the 17-40 f/4 - I only twigged when you mentioned the price...lol

I've printed 30" x 60" from my D3 with no problems - remember, at that size you should be viewing from nearly six feet away (hold an A4 peice of paper at arm's length to determine correct viewing distances - the A4 sheet should cover 'more or less' the image you're viewing at the correct distance).

Which reminds me of when I saw Testino's exhibition at the V&A a few years ago - the viewing distance were so short with some of the images, you had to crane your neck to look at them - stupid - if galleries cannot get it right what hope for the rest of us?
 
Arkady said:
Sorry - I was thinking of the Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8 L MKII USM Lens, not the 17-40 f/4 - I only twigged when you mentioned the price...lol

I've printed 30" x 60" from my D3 with no problems - remember, at that size you should be viewing from nearly six feet away (hold an A4 peice of paper at arm's length to determine correct viewing distances - the A4 sheet should cover 'more or less' the image you're viewing at the correct distance).

Which reminds me of when I saw Testino's exhibition at the V&A a few years ago - the viewing distance were so short with some of the images, you had to crane your neck to look at them - stupid - if galleries cannot get it right what hope for the rest of us?
Click to expand...

Ah yes. But the price difference is only down to the extra glass etc needed to make it f/2.8 as opposed to f/4 I guess. The new Nikon 16-35 f/4 ED VRii is still £1100 and that's pretty expensive for an f/4, probably due to the VR.

It still leaves the question of image quailty. To be honest I can do without the extra stop, but if for example the Nikon 17-35 f/2.8 is sharper than the new Nikon 16-35 f/4 then I'll have the 17-35 without thought. Same goes for the Canon 17-40 L f/4 and the Canon 16-35 f/2.8.

Any Canon shooters care to part with some info on this matter?

Scott
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top