Nikon to Canon - Logical or Mad?

gman said:
Looking at your current kit I would stay with Nikon. You can pick up a used D3 at under £2K as your primary camera, which gives you excellent weatherproofing, dual CF slots (not mixed card types), good shutter life and it's a tried and tested camera that you can rely on. The awesome 80-200mm AF-S 2.8 can be had for less than a grand and will also give you the reach you desire. Perhaps add a 24mm 2.8 as an emergency wide angle backup and you've got a very capable setup.
Click to expand...

That's what I'd do as well. Not that I can afford to :-(
 
iamchrisphoto said:
Thanks to everyone for the range of opinions and advice. :)

I really didn’t want this to turn into a Canon vs Nikon thread, honest.

I understand what people are saying about the resolution with the D700, you are all right. There is technically nothing wrong with it. It’s an entirely personal and emotional concern on my part, that having already one D700, but to buy a second knowing full well that I’m nearing the limits for high quality albums, I don’t want to regret it later on. It’s just a feeling in my gut. I don’t want to spend my hard earned money on another D700. I think we can all agree that this bit is not logic. :p

And also, by no means am I against the D800 as a whole, it is a truly fantastic camera. I do have the money to go buy one tomorrow if I wanted to. But my gut also says no.

As others have clarified, you can only shoot at 36mp in raw on the D800. At 45mb a file, this equates to about 200shots per 16gb cf card. Multiply that by say 1500 images a wedding, that’s could be nearly 100GB of images per wedding. On the other hand, storage can be cheap. But, amount of storage isn’t the only consideration. Editing those files off a referenced hardrive will require faster connectivity, such as Firewire/USB 3 etc, which adds to the cost. Then you have double it as you need to backup all of those 100GB weddings, once if not twice for sn off site backup. Then I’m also considering 3 times more time it would take to import those images and burn to DVD on import. I want to reduce my workflow, not make it longer.

Going from here I’m either going to bite the bullet and buy another D700 and 70-200mm, or I’m going the whole hog and buying a 5D MIII /MKII and 35mm/85mm/135mm. Either way, I have until at least next year to make that decision.

I think my reservations over the D800, has for the first time made me look over the "garden fence", and I really like what I see.

Either way, it's not urgent, it's not important and I need todo more research before I make a decision anyway. :)

Thanks again
Click to expand...

what the hell are these things, they're driving me up the wall
 
Phil Young said:
Regardless, Nikon will bring out something that is at least as good fairly soon, and even if they didn't, the next camera may have somethijg the mk3 doesn't and then regret might occur...
Click to expand...

This isn't just about the camera though. The 50mm 1.2, 85mm 1.2, 135mm f2 and 200mm f2.8 and partly 70-200 f4, are lenses I would use if they were available from Nikon.
 
iamchrisphoto said:
This isn't just about the camera though. The 50mm 1.2, 85mm 1.2, 135mm f2 and 200mm f2.8 and partly 70-200 f4, are lenses I would use if they were available from Nikon.
Click to expand...

just as a point Nikon do a 50 /1.2 (manual focus admitedly), a 135 f/2 and 2 different 200mm primes
 
boyfalldown said:
just as a point Nikon do a 50 /1.2 (manual focus admitedly), a 135 f/2 and 2 different 200mm primes
Click to expand...

Yeah ones a 20 year old f4 macro you can't buy new, and the other is an unwieldy £5000 f2.0 that weighs more than I do.
 
I personally feel Canon are starting to edge their way ahead with the lens side of things. Look at the 24-70 II (if early reports are correct) and the 70-200 II, both outstanding performers.
 
Photogaz said:
I personally feel Canon are starting to edge their way ahead with the lens side of things. Look at the 24-70 II (if early reports are correct) and the 70-200 II, both outstanding performers.
Click to expand...

You might be right there the 24-70 i think has. I've not really seen any 70-200mm comparisons.
 
Last edited:
Photogaz said:
I personally feel Canon are starting to edge their way ahead with the lens side of things. Look at the 24-70 II (if early reports are correct) and the 70-200 II, both outstanding performers.
Click to expand...

Got to agree with this. I think generally Canon at least match or outperform Nikon for most like for like comparisons and go further by having some really nice lenses that Nikon simply don't offer. Only trump card Nikon seem to have is the 14-24. I used to think that Nikon edged it in the body department but I think right now things are looking very even. The D800 could be seen as a masterpiece or an irrelevance depending on who you are. The 5D3 seems to hit a better balance for me personally. Shan't be buying one though, really couldn't be bothered making a switch over and I'm too used to the Nikon interface.
 
Photogaz said:
I personally feel Canon are starting to edge their way ahead with the lens side of things. Look at the 24-70 II (if early reports are correct) and the 70-200 II, both outstanding performers.
Click to expand...

Is the 70-200 still off white?

No thanks :D
 
I'll say this.

If you can't produce stellar results with either Nikon or Canon, with the bodies and lenses available today (or think that a lens with 1/3 stop more will make all the difference), then it's not the equipment that's the problem.
 
Exactly. I know guys that take amazing images with D40/350D/old manual lens combos.

The main reason we want new gear, and I do say want, is for that little bit of extra control, resolution and re-sale value. Or some just suffer severe G.A.S
 
Cagey75 said:
Exactly. I know guys that take amazing images with D40/350D/old manual lens combos.

The main reason we want new gear, and I do say want, is for that little bit of extra control, resolution and re-sale value. Or some just suffer severe G.A.S
Click to expand...

Whilst I think this partly true and I suffer from this a lot myself, I can see that in certain professional applications, newer/better technology can give direct improvements on results and ultimately profit which is what it's all about. For a wedding photographer that might mean far cleaner images at high iso which has got be useful. Whether it's the best way to invest that extra cash is debatable of course.
 
5DII to 5DIII: understandable as the focus system can be a significant factor - being in focus or not is obviously rather important.

D700 to D800/5DIII: for wedding photography, what's the significant difference? A little extra resolution? A little better at high ISO? If you want it then that's fine, but I don't think it's something significant enough that will suddenly change your whole game.

If it's for doing a job then I'd look at the most important factors first:

1. Reliability - 5DIII and D800 are probably too new to judge - the others are tried and tested
2. Capability - D700, D3, D3s, 5DIII, 1DsIII are all equally capable
3. Durability - D3, D3s, 1DsIII will probably lead the way here

Both sides have an excellent array of lenses and any differences with the pro level stuff really is going to be unnoticable to your customers.
 
gad-westy said:
Whilst I think this partly true and I suffer from this a lot myself, I can see that in certain professional applications, newer/better technology can give direct improvements on results and ultimately profit which is what it's all about. For a wedding photographer that might mean far cleaner images at high iso which has got be useful. Whether it's the best way to invest that extra cash is debatable of course.
Click to expand...

I think most of us do. The only reason I don't have all the latest high end gear right now, is simply because I can't afford it. But that is about to change soon and I'm planning a huge G.A.S blowout :D - Not because I really need the new stuff, but because I've been drooling for 6 years without being able to buy.

My D90 is fine for general shooting, but I shoot a lot of gigs [the D90 is good to 1600 but you're pushing it above that IMO], as well as portraits and band shoots/promos. Where I'm restricted is on the ISO side, and for promo stuff I really would like to offer up the best image quality possible. I've shot 2 album covers with the D90 to date, and tonnes of promo/poster pics for local artists.

So in a way, I have good reason to jump to the latest FX models. May as well buy the latest first time. If I was shooting a D700 right now, I probably wouldn't look to a D800 yet, from what I've read they're about equal in terms of ISO performance and files from the D700 won't try to murder your laptop/desktop! I only ever shoot RAW and say, for a gig, I might shoot over 200 images. If i was to do a wedding [I have 2 upcoming, end of year and early next year - another reason for my want of upgrade] I would probably shoot 1000 or more. A new laptop might be needed to go along with.

I just wish the D4 was about 2/3 the price it is, or it would be ideal for me.

But, back on topic, a move from one great FX camera over to the other side?? Just doesn't make sense. Doesn't matter if all your mates shoot Canon and you shoot Nikon. How many times do you think you'll swap lenses?? rarely. You should look to your own needs, not anyone else's. I don't see a 5D mk III being a better move than a D800 in any way unless you shoot sports. And if you do, then a 1Dx/D4 is where you should be aiming.
 
I'm biding my time regarding moving up to FF, not not to long so i can still make some money selling my dx lenses. I don't need a big pro body or super AF and fps so the d600 and what ever budget canon FF will bring out will be fine for my need. I will take a look at the two and go from there. I do prefer how the 5d renders colours and love the 24-70's both of them, but like others in the thread really dislike the white l lenses, and love the low light performance of the Nikon.
 
Last edited:
Well FWIW I have used a D700i and D800 and eventually bought a second D700 body rather than buying the D800. The difference in image quality would probably be noticeable if you used a tripod, were very careful over your focus ( in other words were using it for still life or studio work ) and intended to make huge ( really huge ) prints and you pixel peeped !

But for weddings I bet you wouldn't notice any difference at all


As to these chaps who are saying that the noise performance of the Nikon is so superior to Canon I would strongly disagree. I haven't seen any reports of this by trusted reviewers either; if anything the reverse is true.

As to handling the Canons are different but I'd say the big wheel on the back is a really great feature and makes a breeze of controlling the camera. I reckon you'd certainly get used to it quickly.

I'm a Nikon owner but I'd say Canon got it right with the 5D mk3 and if I was starting out I'd be mighty tempted to go with them.

The thing you might miss it the Nikon flash system though, which IMHO is quite a bit better than Canon's, although this might be changing too.
 
Raymond Lin said:
If the only thing that you don't like about the D800 is the file size then shoot in a lower file size? It can do that right? Like the 5D2/3 can shoot mRaw and sRaw for smaller size.
Click to expand...


No it can't. And for reasons explained by Thom Hogan in one of his articles. The lower file size option is not really a good one in the opinion of many for reasons Thom explains. I can't find the article at the moment but if you can be bothered then you could search for it.
 
wooster said:
As to these chaps who are saying that the noise performance of the Nikon is so superior to Canon I would strongly disagree. I haven't seen any reports of this by trusted reviewers either; if anything the reverse is true.
Click to expand...

Trusted reviewers? Most reviewers out there are bias one way or the other.

DXO mark are unbias, it's all scientific scoring. The result I just posted above is very surprising. I actually expected the 5D MK III to be a lot closer, and to beat the D800 in ISO performance. But, even the most hardcore Canon head cannot argue with numbers. The D800 is just phenomenal. The more expensive 5D mk III scores the same as ... the D3200 ... an entry level dslr. That is shocking. I don't know why people are quick to jump to the defence of the 5D MK III, there doesn't seem to be any logic to it. The 5D mk II looks much better value right now.
 
To be fair DXO are in business of making software for testing and correcting lenses not fobbing off bias results. There DxO Analyzer program is used by just about every magazine and website reviewers going when testing lenses.
 
Last edited:
As I said, they are unbias, though that's not a real word :D - non bias I meant.
 
Cagey75 said:
DXO now have comparisons between the 5D MKIII & D800:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Pu...ws/Canon-5D-Mark-III-Review/Sensor-Comparison

I think that cements it. Especially factoring the £200+ [depending on where you buy from] price difference. For the price of the 5D MK III you can go one better with the D800E, the highest rated sensor [including medium format] ever on DXO mark.
Click to expand...

That's old news....
And is a classic example of why DXO results have to be taken with a huge pinch of salt.
Real world comparisons show the difference between the two cameras as far less clear.
Plus there are other tests, particularly from the videographers that show the opposite.

If we were talking the D800 sensor in the 5DIII body with the Canon lenses - Wooo!
That really really would be something!
 
Last edited:
As I posted near the start I'm a nikon shooter and looking to upgrade to a d800 or switch to a 5dmk3.

Ive spent the past week or so comparing the two and even though the likes of DXO rate the d800 higher in iso terms,from the real world shots I've seen the 5dmk3 beats it by a lot.
The d800 doesnt seem to improve on the d700 much,if any.Bar the fact that its 3 times the resolution.

Where the d800 seems to shine is the DR and handling of shadows compared to the 5d.

I know its probably silly to switch as I will loose out money and lens wise,but its an itch I've had for a while now,even before this round of cameras.
there seems to be a difference in images between the two and I find myself liking the canon ones better(this may all be in my head though,or canon shooters process images more to my liking).

The biggest issue for me is handling as I've never shot with canon(do they not have only one wheel??) and lose of lens.
my current kit is
24-70 2.8
70-200 2.8vr2
85 1.4g
50 1.8g
all nikon
I couldn't replace it exactly the same for the money I would get selling them,but canon have lens I would love to get.With the nikon versions being more expensive or not as good 35l & 135l.If I switched I could get those plus a 24-70 or 24-105 and thats about it.

I make no money from photography its just a hobby for now.
 
DuncanDisorderly said:
Plus there are other tests, particularly from the videographers that show the opposite.
Click to expand...


Links? Not that videographer's going by video capabilities should even factor in. Photographers do not buy dslrs based on video quality. And from what I've seen, they're pretty much neck and neck in that dept. anyhow.

Trust me, if the 5D MK III scored as high or even higher, I wouldn't argue with the results. My next move will be to FX from a crop sensor. It wouldn't be a massive thing for me to switch to Canon from my current gear. I've already stripped down to one body + 2 lenses. I could easily sell them on and change over to go FX from the off when the time/money comes. I'm always open. I started out on Fuji, went to Sony and from there made the choice between Nikon and Canon. I just simply preferred the Nikon ergonomics after trying out a few bodies.

I think either or will be fantastic cameras, but jumping from one to the other, when already using one FX system?? I don't get it.
 
We all know the argument of real world shooting and shooting test sheets in the lab, but to say they're bias is a little unfair i think.
 
I've seen this one before. Jump to 6:30 and he says the D800 is sharper than the Canon. And again, this is video you're looking at here, which doesn't interest me really. I honestly wouldn't be able to tell the difference between footage shot from one or the other, both look to do a great job, if you like that sort of thing [I would actually opt for a dedicated HD video cam over either if film was my main thing]
 
Last edited:
Of course the 800E is sharper, it doesn't have an AA filter. That's the whole point of it.

The downside is more chance of moire.
 
It's pretty bad at times. If I do a portrait and the subject wears [even when specifically told not to!!] a fine patterned shirt or dress.

I will probably opt for the non-E when the time comes, I could put the spare €300 or so to better use. Like a grip maybe, though I rarely use those.
 
I intended on buying a D800 until it was finally released and the rumoured 36mp became a reality. I then bought a nice new D700 before they disappeared for good.

Had Nikon stuck a 20-24mp FX sensor in the D800 I'd have bought one but they were never going to do that if the D600 rumours are true.

I'm sure the D800 is a great camera but I think it's lost alot of potential customers with the drawbacks of 36mp. For me the Canon 5DIII has the specs I would want more.
 
I agree that Nikon has the noses ahead with regard to the sensor tech. It is the next generation with regard to both how many pixels they can fit in vs noise, and to go with that a better dynamic range.

Canon seemed to have spent the last 3 years addressing the 5Dii's main shortfalls - auto focus system and forgot about the technology behind the sensor. Don't get me wrong, it is still brilliant but Nikon is just better.

No doubt this will be addressed in the mk4. Canon is playing catch up in sensor right now but have listened to their users and got the rest of the camera spot on (mostly). From the little things like moving that On/Off switch to adding in dual card slots (previously reserve for the 1D).
 
I'm amazed how many people see the 36mp as a negative. I've seen nothing on any reviews to show noise levels are any worse than the 5d3. As for memory its such a none issue with a 1gb have storage costing about 5p and 16gb class 10 sd cards costing less than £10.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top