Canon 60D 17-55 2.8 is USM vs Nikon D700 28-105

fatmarley

fatmarley

Messages
480
Name
Matt
Edit My Images
Yes
What do you recon? Cheap, but new, crop, Canon 60d with top notch lens vs second hand Nikon D700 full frame and cheapo lens?

I'm not interested in the 5d Mk2 because of the AF issues.
 
I realise I'm biased because I shoot with a D700, but I would personally say that if you don't want the video capabilities, or the reach given by the crop factor of the 60D then the D700 would be the better choice. The D700 may be older, but it's a gem of a camera, and certainly better built than the Canon

If you can stretch your lens budget by about £100 you could pick up a Tamron 28-75 2.8 instead of the 28-105, which is a great lens for the price and gives you a constant aperture.

The 60D isn't a bad camera by any means, and does have a couple of advantages which I have mentioned, but in my eyes the D700 would be the better choice.
 
My own experience is that APS-C with a good lens beats FF with ho-hum lens.

As I may have mentioned here about 1,000 times before :lol: I once compared my 20D (now sold) with Siggy 50mm f1.4 to someone else with a 5DII+L f4 zoom and the 5DII user was rather gutted at the results.
 
EspressoJunkie said:
I realise I'm biased because I shoot with a D700, but I would personally say that if you don't want the video capabilities, or the reach given by the crop factor of the 60D then the D700 would be the better choice. The D700 may be older, but it's a gem of a camera, and certainly better built than the Canon

If you can stretch your lens budget by about £100 you could pick up a Tamron 28-75 2.8 instead of the 28-105, which is a great lens for the price and gives you a constant aperture.

The 60D isn't a bad camera by any means, and does have a couple of advantages which I have mentioned, but in my eyes the D700 would be the better choice.
Click to expand...

Video would be nice but it's not important.

I bought a bad'ish copy of a Tamron lens recently and it's put me off after market lenses for good. Once bitten and all that...

I know i've only mentioned zoom lenses but I quite fancy the Nikon 50mm F1.8g. It should give image quality at least as good as the Canon 17-55 but with better low light ability. The cheap 28-105 would be good for days out, where the lens could be stopped down a bit.
 
woof woof said:
My own experience is that APS-C with a good lens beats FF with ho-hum lens.

As I may have mentioned here about 1,000 times before :lol: I once compared my 20D (now sold) with Siggy 50mm f1.4 to someone else with a 5DII+L f4 zoom and the 5DII user was rather gutted at the results.
Click to expand...

I've just seen some comparison photos of the 450d and 5d mk2 with the same lens and I couldn't tell them apart.

From what I understand, you can see a difference in low-light, high ISOs, but I don't really do any low-light photography.
 
Could always go D7000 and Nikon 17-55..? Better all round camera than the 60D and a similar quality lens to the canon one.
 
fatmarley said:
Video would be nice but it's not important.

I bought a bad'ish copy of a Tamron lens recently and it's put me off after market lenses for good. Once bitten and all that...

I know i've only mentioned zoom lenses but I quite fancy the Nikon 50mm F1.8g. It should give image quality at least as good as the Canon 17-55 but with better low light ability. The cheap 28-105 would be good for days out, where the lens could be stopped down a bit.
Click to expand...

That's true about the Tamron, sometimes that can be an issue, it took me 3 copies to find a good one!

My 50mm 1.4D is one of my favourite lenses ever and was a bargain second hand.

Realistically you'll not go wrong with either camera, but to me, especially long term, the D700 is still the better choice.
 
Amp34 said:
Could always go D7000 and Nikon 17-55..? Better all round camera than the 60D and a similar quality lens to the canon one.
Click to expand...

I was tempted by the D7000 but I tried one in Jessops and found it struggled to focus. The light was low but not that low. I also read that it over exposes in high contrast conditions.

If I switch to Nikon I want quite a large improvement because i'd have to sell all my gear and learn a new system.
 
The other slight concern is something that i'm a little reluctant to bring up, for fear of causing arguments.

I've seen photo comparisons of Canon vs Nikon and Canon seem to produce more realistic colours. Here's an example CANON VS NIKON If you fast forward to 18 mins you can see the results.
I remember getting friendly with a Nikon fan years ago (35mm film days) and he told me then that Nikon typically had a colder or cooler colour than other makes (can't remember what he was comparing to)
 
Hmmm.. those shots in the vid you linked to are all taken under what appear to be metal halide of mercury vapour lamps... so any difference here is purely a auto white balance issue, and not something inherent with the two camera's abilities to render colour correctly in general. Plus.. they were shot in JPEG for that test, so there was less ability to correct such things. If you're shooting in RAW none of this is an issue. In real life, no one looks at comparative tests side by side.

Buy the camera that best suits your needs, and stop worrying about it.

You already have Canon lenses? Get the 60D. Why get the Nikon and then put a crap lens on it? Its the lens that forms the image, not the camera. That would just be a stupid, stupid thing to do.

Far too much emphasis is put on a camera's "Pro" status. It's not jewellery you're hanging around your neck, it's a tool to do a job. If you want "pro" status, then fine, get the D700 but no one cares when they're looking at your images.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Hmmm.. those shots in the vid you linked to are all taken under what appear to be metal halide of mercury vapour lamps... so any difference here is purely a auto white balance issue, and not something inherent with the two camera's abilities to render colour correctly in general. Plus.. they were shot in JPEG for that test, so there was less ability to correct such things. If you're shooting in RAW none of this is an issue. In real life, no one looks at comparative tests side by side.
Click to expand...

I've seen daylight images that looked the same. I know it could be fixed easily if shot in RAW but it's nice to have the white balance right in the first place.


Pookeyhead said:
You already have Canon lenses? Get the 60D. Why get the Nikon and then put a crap lens on it? Its the lens that forms the image, not the camera. That would just be a stupid, stupid thing to do.
Click to expand...

From what i've read the 28-105mm isn't a crap lens. It's cheap but sharp apparently. You obviously lose some low-light ability over the 17-55 2.8 though. The 50mm that I also mentioned is cheap but supposed to be very good.

Pookeyhead said:
Far too much emphasis is put on a camera's "Pro" status. It's not jewellery you're hanging around your neck, it's a tool to do a job. If you want "pro" status, then fine, get the D700 but no one cares when they're looking at your images.
Click to expand...

Being a pro camera i'd expect AF speed, accuracy and metering to be better then the 60d. That means the keeper rate would be higher. It's got nothing to do with showing off.
 
Personally I won't what to compare a full frame camera v crop, they're intended to be used in different ways. As for lenses, well put a cr&p lens on a decent body, you'll get cr&p images, but put a decent lens on an average body = decent images.

The D700 ergonomics would be entirely different to what you're use to with your canon 450D, no auto modes, you really need to know what you're doing and how to setup the camera, there's been many a thread on TP saying they're taking rubbish images when basically they've bought a camera way to advanced for their needs, or never read the manual that came with the camera.

As for autofocus issues on the 5DMKII, ok for the top notch pro that livelihood depends on that shot, it doesn't come up to the mark, the average tog who knew what he was doing and understood the limitations could still get fantastic shots out of the 5DMKII, poor workmen blame their tools.

If you want autofocus accuracy, then 1D series (or nikon's equivalent) is the only way to go, but it really depends what you want to photograph and what lenses you have.

If you haven't invested a great deal in canon, then perhaps the change is worth it, lots of factors changing systems.
 
fatmarley said:
I've just seen some comparison photos of the 450d and 5d mk2 with the same lens and I couldn't tell them apart.

From what I understand, you can see a difference in low-light, high ISOs, but I don't really do any low-light photography.
Click to expand...

Personally I think you're right. I think that if you forget about the highest ISO settings and pixel peeping at 200%+ on screen there's next to no difference when viewing images at reasonable print or screen sizes.

This is one of the reasons why I use a Micro Four Thirds camera more than my full frame DSLR, in good light (low to medium ISO settings) you can't really tell a Micro Four Thirds image from a full frame DSLR image but the Micro Four thirds camera and lens combination is much smaller and lighter.
 
fatmarley said:
...

I'm not interested in the 5d Mk2 because of the AF issues.
Click to expand...

There is an awful lot of rubbish spouted about the AF on the mkII.

The millions of satisfied amateurs and working pro's who have used and are still using the mkII successfully should evidence this.

Like anything, the AF on mkII has its limitations, but it does what it claims to do very well and issue free.
 
Last edited:
fatmarley said:
I was tempted by the D7000 but I tried one in Jessops and found it struggled to focus. The light was low but not that low. I also read that it over exposes in high contrast conditions.

If I switch to Nikon I want quite a large improvement because i'd have to sell all my gear and learn a new system.
Click to expand...

Gotta say I have no issue focussing with mine and I've heard about the over exposure issue however with mine, if anything, it actually underexposes slightly.

What gear do you have? I had three lenses with the 400D and a few other bits and pieces but just sold most of it on here and replaced them with used stuff from here as well. I've basically broken even. On the other hand the Nikon lens selection can be a little bit of a let down over the Canon selection depending on what you want/need, however jumping from a 400D (had for 4ish years) to a D7000 is easy, although I guess it depends on how tech literate you are.
 
Rather than comparing two different formats from two different manufacturers - I think I'd first be sitting down and deciding which was best for my needs - crop or full frame.

I'd then compare like for like from both manufacturers also taking into account (especially if you go down the full frame route) the lenses that each manufacturer have - not just in keeping with your upgrade budget but in terms of moving forwards.
 
Last edited:
CSB said:
The 5D mkII actually has a better af system than the 60D because it also has 6 assist points which the 60D doesn't have.
Click to expand...

:thumbs:

Ive been regularly hiring the 5D2 for years and never had an issue - also what about the 7D or the 5D3 , or a second hand 1D or 1DS series

or equally a cheaper nikon like the D300s ?

it seems a bit daft to just compare 2 random cameras from different ranges.

However in general a moderate body from either range with good glass will outperform a top notch body from either range with naff glass - because all the prosumer bodies are relatively capable whereas the difference between budget and top end lenses is much more pronounced
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top