It's decision time

EMA747

EMA747

Messages
2,070
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
After several threads I have now narrowed down the choice for a rather large investment and I just want some final thoughts.
The two options are:

1) - A Nikon D3s, Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR1 (used), Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and maybe a converter. Aprox. £5650

2a) - A Canon 1DmkIV, Canon 70-200 f2.8 mkII, Canon 24-70 f2.8. Aprox. £6000

2b) - Used 1DmkIV, Canon 70-200 f2.8 mkII, Canon 24-70 f2.8, Canon 100-400 used. Aprox. £6100

All kind of same ballpark price.

To my mind the D3s seems the best body of the two and would be the one of choice but not by much. The snag with the D3s package is that 200mm on FF might be a bit short sometimes and it seems there isn't really anything like the 100-400 for Nikon bodies. I shoot some aviation so it is a slight concern.

I have actually owned all the items in package 2a before so know what they are capable of.

Both systems seem very close in quality and it's just these little details that I want to make sure I am getting right before parting with such a large amount of cash.

[edit] I should add that with the Nikon setup a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 would be an option for a later date.
 
Last edited:
i'd go with option 1.

not just saying that as i use a Nikon myself but i have shot a D3 (not an S tho) with that lens & a 1dmkIV with the same lens you listed.
both took great photos but there was just something "more" gathered by the full frame sensor. the images just seemed richer (for want of a better word) :)

the canon was fast to focus & had a good frame rate but just seemed a tad cack handed.
the Nikon was like "yeah, now thats what i'm talkin about"
just felt so right (but then i shoot a pro sized Nikon myself anyway):shrug:

if you've used both systems you'll already know how they both handle & work but there just seems to be something "extra" in the D3 images

but then you could probably add that in pp :shrug:

can't go wrong either way i guess :thumbs:
 
I haven't used canon so can't comment there, other than to say that I am often impressed by some of the canon pics posted here.
On the Nikon front and thinking cash/products, do you really need a new D3s, would even a D3 suffice?
No question that the 's' is a good camera but is it worth the serious extra it would cost, i.e. do you need it?
Nikon have the 200-400 but of course that is serious money but the 300mm f4 is a quality lens with AF-S for well sub £1000 new and the Sigma 50-500 HSM is around £1200 new with OS or around £699 without, granted it's not 2.8 - 4.5-5.6 IIRC but well spoken of.
 
Argh this descision is so hard! My shooting style and range of subjects is just about in the middle so there is no clear pointer to FF or the 1.3x crop. Will the D3s have enough reach or will the extra IQ etc make it worth the slight compromise. Will the fact that over 200mm for Nikon is very expensive come back to haunt me (and my wallet).

@ Tirpitz - I got the same impression after having a try of a D700 a while back. The mkIV is really nice to hold but the Nikons just seem to have something extra.
How fast is focus on the Nikon 70-200 vr1? The Canon mkII version I had was just fantastic in every way. Not sure how much IQ and focus etc I would lose by having the Nikon vr1 given that it's older. I'm guessing probably not enough to influence the choice of body?

@ gramps - I have thought about the D3 but to be honest I think I can justify the extra cash of the D3s. I do shoot a fair bit of video and although I have two pro grade video cameras I can see having it on a DSLR for when I need low DOF enough of a useful feature to justify the D3s.
 
As a Nikonite, option 1 is a good set-up - very reliable and you know you're getting a brilliant combination of body and lenses.

Of the two Canon options, option 3 looks tasty, although you have two lenses 70-200 + 100-400) that overlap greatly but obviously will play different parts.

You've mentioned the 120-300 - very good option - and there's also the 300mm AF-S, which is brilliant wide open.

I really wouldn't be surprised to see at some point in the next year, a 100-400mm equivalent that improves massively on the so-so 80-400mm VR. Nikon really needs to sort a lens like this for the amateurs and budget-conscious.
 
scottthehat said:
and for nikon have you not thought about the siggma 50-500mm os, use mine on my d700 and it performs wonderfull. and my self i would go the nikon route.
Click to expand...
I've not research it much to be honest. I've mainly just looked at the Canon vs Nikon lineup of lenses rather than third party ones. After reading a review of the Sigma 120-300 I might have to take a closer look at their range as it appears they do make good lenses despite making some bad ones.

As I said the extra reach would really be for aviation which I don't plan on making any cash on so an absolutely top of the range lens is not really necessary. If I can get some more sports work a 400 f2.8 might be nice but at the moment that would be open wallet surgery from which I wouldn't pull through. :D
 
specialman said:
I really wouldn't be surprised to see at some point in the next year, a 100-400mm equivalent that improves massively on the so-so 80-400mm VR. Nikon really needs to sort a lens like this for the amateurs and budget-conscious.
Click to expand...
I think they are missing a trick by not having an equivalent to the Canon 100-400. That lens can be soft at time but when I owned one I loved it's versatility. It is very popular in the aviation photography community and I have heard quite a number of people saying they are put off Nikon purely because they don't have an equivalent lens.
 
EMA747 said:
I've not research it much to be honest. I've mainly just looked at the Canon vs Nikon lineup of lenses rather than third party ones. After reading a review of the Sigma 120-300 I might have to take a closer look at their range as it appears they do make good lenses despite making some bad ones.

As I said the extra reach would really be for aviation which I don't plan on making any cash on so an absolutely top of the range lens is not really necessary. If I can get some more sports work a 400 f2.8 might be nice but at the moment that would be open wallet surgery from which I wouldn't pull through. :D
Click to expand...

well the 50-500mm os is defo worth a look at, as is the new 120-300mm os,got pleanty of pics taken with the 50-500mm os so if you need any samples give us a shout, but its defo upto aviation and the pic quality is very very good, af speed is quick and quiet, and the os is the best i have used.
 
Last edited:
Each of these options will take fabulous pictures so there is no 'best' answer. When laying out this sort of cash you really must get down to your local photo shop and try them all to see which feels right.
 
You need to ask yourself what you shoot....

If you need the extra stop of ISO with very useable noise levels then the D3s...

If you don't then it's Canon all the way....

New or Used MKiv.... Used gets you another lens, New doesn't ....

If you know the first user and they look after their kit, then go and trial it...If it's up your street from a well looked after point of view then go for it ...

The other thing with the D3s and MKiv argument is the full frame v Cropped....
This is something that only you can decide upon as only you know your shooting style.

Its a nice problem to have and I'm sure 90% of TP users would envy your situation at the moment
 
Hi Andy

I say go route 2b but would drop the 1d4 out of the equation.I would pick up a used 7D instead.There's nearly a £2000 price difference between the 2 on the 2nd hand market.There's absolutly no doubting that the 1D4 is a better camera but having fired off over 40,000 pics on both models for me personally I don't think the £2000 premium is worth it.
The 1Dx is on pre order at £5200 and will drop by quite a lot within 3 months of being released.I would wait for that and just put up with the 7D until then.

Cheers
Gary
 
I haven't owned either body but as others have said already I wouldn't buy new. You walk out the shop and the value has depreciated immediately!

I would much rather have another lens than a new body.
 
It seems to be swinging from one to the other each time I check back on this thread. :D

For used mkIV in question is this one http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=359974

vulcan2912 said:
Hi Andy

I say go route 2b but would drop the 1d4 out of the equation.I would pick up a used 7D instead.There's nearly a £2000 price difference between the 2 on the 2nd hand market.There's absolutly no doubting that the 1D4 is a better camera but having fired off over 40,000 pics on both models for me personally I don't think the £2000 premium is worth it.
The 1Dx is on pre order at £5200 and will drop by quite a lot within 3 months of being released.I would wait for that and just put up with the 7D until then.

Cheers
Gary
Click to expand...
That's a very interesting thought Gary. I wonder if I got the mkIV above for £2575 how much it is likely to lose once the 1DX is out? I am kind of wary of making a plan get a 7D then jump to the 1DX as I can imagine what it has over the mkIV are things I am unlikely to use in 99.9% of my photography.
 
Andy,
I've owned option 1). I'll share some thoughts.

I went from DX to FX for the high ISO. Since my paycheck didn't rely on high ISO and the performance of a D3s, it tended to become more of a want (lust) than a need. If I had to do it all over again I would have bought a D700, kept my D300s and grip. It is quite a formidable and less expensive combination. More bang for your buck than a single D3s.

I just sold all of my big expensive stuff and kept my D700. The only time the D3s felt like I needed it was shooting a sporting event where I was doing the old spray and pray for some horse jumping and indoor dressage. D3s was the best of all the cameras from performance to handling. Other than that, it was overkill for me.

Since I'm on the subject of crop bodies and less expensive options, Gary's idea on option 2b) might get you the most bang for your buck. The 7D is great and you would have a 100-400 (I agree Nikon is missing it in this area). The question is, can you do with out FF?


Hope that confused you some more. :D:lol:
 
Last edited:
I think you have to have a real need for either the 1D4 or D3s to purchase either.A lot of people get bogged down in all this high iso hysteria.In the last 7 years I think I've shot above iso 3200 once and above iso 1600 on only a few ocassions.Both of those cameras eat those iso's for breakfast.
If you are a pro and must get the shot you have the need for the 1D4/D3S.If you are just an amateur is it actually woth the extra money over thy D700/5DMK2/7D for a camera that you might needs once in a blue moon and wouldn't exactly be the end of the world is you got a slightly "worse" picture.

Gary
 
vulcan2912 said:
I think you have to have a real need for either the 1D4 or D3s to purchase either.A lot of people get bogged down in all this high iso hysteria.In the last 7 years I think I've shot above iso 3200 once and above iso 1600 on only a few ocassions.Both of those cameras eat those iso's for breakfast.
If you are a pro and must get the shot you have the need for the 1D4/D3S.If you are just an amateur is it actually woth the extra money over thy D700/5DMK2/7D for a camera that you might needs once in a blue moon and wouldn't exactly be the end of the world is you got a slightly "worse" picture.

Gary
Click to expand...
I have used ISO 1600 and over a fair bit. I did a marathon least year and pretty much all the photos where at 1600 or more. This was on the mkIV and 70-200 mkII and they are amazingly sharp and noise free. If I had shot them on a 7D the noise would have been much worse. I owned a 7D for a brief period and I couldn't get on with the noise, especially at low ISO.
My brother shoots some video for a mountain bike series and I think I will have some good income from doing some photography for them which they have asked for. I am not really into mountain biking but my brother said most of it is in forests etc and would likely need high ISO to get good sharp images as they go fast on their bikes.
Of course it doesn't have any real bearing on the actual images but having used a few pro bodies I am wary of going back to a smaller camera. I just like the feel of the bigger camera and the side grip controls I would find hard to live without after getting used to them.
Having said all that whether that is enough to justify the extra money of the mkIV or D3s is hard to say. I never used the 7D for sports so I only know what it's capable of in fairly "easy" situations.
 
Hi Andy

I've used virtually every Canon camera that's been produced since the 300D and the one thing I know is that they don't make a one camera does it all solution(probably on purpose!).
I love the 1D4 but it didn't work for me.I shoot everything from landscapes to aviation.The 1D4 wasn't able to go wide enough for me with Canon's current line up of lenses and I found that I always had the tcon attatched to my 400mm or 70-200 MK2 for the aviation stuff.That's when I decided I would rather have 2 "affordable" cameras than 1 very expensive camera.The 7D is more than adequate for any motorsport/aviation stuff and everything else will be taken care of with the 5DMk3 when it comes out.
Getting a bit off track here-
I would look at the lenses you want and pick the camera based on that.I thought long and hard about moving to Nikon when I got rid of the 1DMK4 but Canon won out in the end.I really wanted the Nikon 14-24 and 24-70 over the Canon 16-35,24-70 but it gets a bit complicated after that.The Nikon 70-200 MK2 has issues which the Canon model doesn't and the lack of a F4 version by Nikon was also a deciding factor for me.The dated 300 F4,80-400 and lack of 400 F5.6 are what eventually made me stay with Canon.
The thing is that if you buy second hand and buy well you can chop and change things without losing much money.

I agree about the noise on the 7D.At low iso's it is terrible(especially in the blue channel) but around the iso 800/1600 area it is not too bad.

Cheers
Gary
 
I still favour either a D3s or mkIV.

Here is a question. Can anyone hazard a guess at which will be the better OVERALL combination IQ wise. Either D3s with Nikon 70-200 vr1, or mkIV with Canon 70-200 mkII? I see it that the D3s has the edge over the mkIV but the canon mkII lens has the edge over the Nikon vr1.

I think I will go and have a play with a D3s in Jacobs today if they will let me!
 
Right I have spent pretty much all day after the F1 trying to work out the merits of all the above and the comments posted. The end result? I have no idea what to get. I've literally been round in circles so many times. I might try a different question and see what results I get.

I have a budget of around £5500, could go to £6000 but it would have to be really really worthwhile to spend the extra. Of course I don't have to spend it all either. What would you all recommend I get given I am starting from scratch?
These are my main areas of photography.
I shoot about 50% travel, documentary (work as part time tog for a regional wildlife charity covering events mainly), 25% sports (sometime indoor badminton), 25% aviation. I do shoot some other odds and ends. So whatever I get would have to cover all those.

[edit] Doesn't necessarily need to be one of the option I said at the start of this post. Can be from literally anything.
 
Last edited:
Not very constructive but any of the options are going to be better at taking pics than a pile of cash (I say this but I'm the worst at making decisions)
 
EMA747 said:
I think they are missing a trick by not having an equivalent to the Canon 100-400. That lens can be soft at time but when I owned one I loved it's versatility. It is very popular in the aviation photography community and I have heard quite a number of people saying they are put off Nikon purely because they don't have an equivalent lens.
Click to expand...

70-200 vr and the new TC20 III....sorted
 
I think after reading everything again I would vote for option 1 but I would instead go 70-200VRII and get a 1.4x and 1.7x converter to go with it. It might "breathe" and be a little short stand alone but it takes 1.7x much better for the longer stuff you might want to try and cover like the aviation.

You can address the tele lens later when you come up with some more cash or rent something really long if you need it. It's hard to justify something roughly a 1/4 to a 1/3 of the total worth of all your equipment for just 25% of your shooting. In the meantime a 1.7x converter will have to do. Or, as I just saw in the above post, the 2.0x III works well with the VRII. I know the 1.7x is noticeable on the VRI so not sure the 2.0x III would do well on it.
 
Last edited:
vulcan2912 said:
Noise wise i would take the d3s.iq wise i would take the 16mp of the 1d4 and the 70-200 mk2.
Unless you can afford some big glass for the full frame nikon the 1d4 is the better option imo taking into consideration you like to shoot aviation.
Click to expand...
12mp to 16 is nothing
people bang on about the 5d mk11 over the d700
can you see nearlly twice the detail
E5D2INBI00100.jpg

crop
E5D2INBI00100c-1.jpg

d700
D700INBI00100.jpg

crop upsclaed to match the 5dmk11
D700INBI00100c.jpg

so 12 to 16 is nothing.
 
EMA747 said:
Do you mean vr1 or vr2? Do they work well with TC20 as I have always dismissed 2x converters but I have only paid attention to Canon in the past.
Click to expand...

I've never been a fan of tcs, but a chap on here gave me a shot of one at Taronga Zoo in Sydney and I was so impressed I bought one when I got home.

I use it with the vrI and the 300 f/2.8 Af-S.
 
If the 2x converter works well on the vrII I could justify the extra cost over the vr1 plus the price of the converter. Also I would be less worried about the breathing. That way I would have a 70-200 plus be able to go up to 400mm when needed.
 
easy peasy lemon squeezy

2nd Hand
1DMK4-£2600
24-70-£875
70-200 F2.8MK2-£1475
400 F5.6L-£750
1.4Tcon Kenko Pro-£80

£5780 and enough left for a flash

Only thing missing would be a really wide angle.The Sigma12-24 is actually a pretty good buy for the 1D4 so you could replace the flash with one of those and still come in around the £6000 mark.

Virtually the set up I've just sold(replace the Sigma with a 16-35 MK2 though).

Cheers
Gary

I've used the 70-200MK2 extensively with a 2X tcon and it is ok but a 100-400 is better.
 
vulcan2912 said:
easy peasy lemon squeezy

2nd Hand
1DMK4-£2600
24-70-£875
70-200 F2.8MK2-£1475
400 F5.6L-£750
1.4Tcon Kenko Pro-£80

£5780 and enough left for a flash

Only thing missing would be a really wide angle.The Sigma12-24 is actually a pretty good buy for the 1D4 so you could replace the flash with one of those and still come in around the £6000 mark.

Virtually the set up I've just sold(replace the Sigma with a 16-35 MK2 though).

Cheers
Gary

I've used the 70-200MK2 extensively with a 2X tcon and it is ok but a 100-400 is better.
Click to expand...
I quite like the sounds of that. Only downside I can see is getting hold of the 70-200 mkII second hand. They are rare beasts on these forums. Kerso does them now for around £1650 I think.
Would a used 100-400 be better than the 400 f5.6 or not? I have used the 100-400 but not the 400 prime.

Can I ask what you replaced your setup with Gary and why?
 
Hi Andy

You can get the 70-200 a bit cheaper if you try Simply Electronics etc.I sold mine which was only a few months old and immaculate for £1475 the other week so they are out there.

If you are going for the 70-200Mk2 I would pick up a 1.4 Tcon and a 400 F5.6 rather than the 100-400.The 100-400 is an ok lens but the 400 F5.6 renders nicer images when the weather starts to get a bit murky.In perfect light there's very little between them.They both take a 1.4 pretty well when bolted onto a 1D4.The 100-400 is considerably slower to focus than the 400mm though-especially with a tcon attatched.

As you know there were a few things about the 1d4 that I didn't like and after shooting lots of pics with that and a 7D I came to the conclusion that unless you were a pro who needed to get the shot to be able to eat the slight improvements from the 7D to 1D4 were not worth the £2000 premium.That £2000 could be much better spent on pieces of glass.Unless you can afford the 1D4 and a full frame body I think a 7D/5DMk2 combo is a cheaper and better solution for the majority of shooters(not everyone).

Having given the 70-200Mk2 a good try over a couple of months I decided that the extra weight and size was not worth the hassle for a very minor iq improvement over the F4Lis.I don't really need the F2.8 and it's just nit picking to look at iq differences between the 2 lenses.I picked up a less than 1 year old F4is for an excellent price and with the difference I could pick up a 100L macro and 50 f1.4 if I wanted.

I have slowly got rid of all the "want" equipment out of my bag and replaced it with "need" equipment.I've also stuck £4000 in the bank in the process.That can sit there until the 5DMK3 and hopefully a nice new 14-? or 17-40MK2 comes out.

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