Nikon to Canon rant

S

SamuelHearn

Messages
488
Name
Samuel
Edit My Images
No
So..

Basically I bought a D300s + 105mm F2.8 af-s macro a couple of months ago. I bought it because I love the way it handles, button placement etc is perfect.
I keep getting thoughts of a Canon 5D II.. I would be able to sell my Nikon stuff and get one of these badboys at a not very high cost, most probably with a 50mm 1.4.. (at the moment, the 50mm 1.8 is pretty much all I ever shoot with). It seems so tempting, as the 5D II is superior in every way with regards to image quality and COLOUR, which from my experience has been pretty bad on the D300s.

Am I mad? Is it worth going full frame?

Samuel

EDIT-P.S, I don't shoot sports or birds or any action stuff really. Mostly portraits and inanimate things.
 
Last edited:
SamuelHearn said:
So..

Basically I bought a D300s + 105mm F2.8 af-s macro a couple of months ago. I bought it because I love the way it handles, button placement etc is perfect.
I keep getting thoughts of a Canon 5D II.. I would be able to sell my Nikon stuff and get one of these badboys at a not very high cost, most probably with a 50mm 1.4.. (at the moment, the 50mm 1.8 is pretty much all I ever shoot with). It seems so tempting, as the 5D II is superior in every way with regards to image quality and COLOUR, which from my experience has been pretty bad on the D300s.

Am I mad? Is it worth going full frame?

Samuel
Click to expand...

Maybe try a D700 and the 50mm F/1.8 before considering switching? :)
 
Whilst I'm very much a Canon man I think having a look at the D700 would be a good idea too unless of course you wish desperately to jump ship.

At times it's a little tempting to consider that the grass is greener on the other side and while I'll give you that the 5D2 is an excellent FF camera, when I only had an EOS 40D I wished I had a D700. Now I'm dead pleased with my 5D2 and glad I stayed put. If you're not fussed about sticking with the brand of your first choice then the 5D2 would be very nice to have. Hard buttons apart, the only thing the D700 has over the 5D2 would IMHO be its' AF system. I personally like the ergonomics of the Canon over the Nikon but that's a personal choice. Why not try them both out at a store and see which you prefer?


Happy Christmas

a010.gif


H
a035.gif
 
Since you don't need speed, the 5DMkII would suit you perfectly...

But why swap over when you can have the D700? Unless you need 21mp and really can't stand nikon's colour rendering, the D700 would be a superb upgrade, and you have better speed over a 5DMkII should you ever need it.
At least, if you really do want to switch, make sure to try a 5DII out before doing so. You seem very happy with the ergonomics of the D300S, and you may just not like the 5DII as much. I'd imagine the D700 is fairly similar in control layout to the D300, so you certainly wouldn't have any problems with that!

Isn't there something you can do shooting RAW on the D300S to alter colour rendering? In canon's DPP, you have several pre-set colour rendering options that render colours differently, I'd be surprised if nikon didn't do something similar.

One thing, if you like your 50mm on crop, it might be worth getting an 85mm for full frame to give you the focal length you've got used to.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the feedback guys, at desperate times like this I am glad that the internet exists!

@ Rovers_Andy - I definitely will. Although to me it seems as if the main things the d700 has over the 5D II for me are the autofocus and layout, both of which aren't main factors for me. It seems like an excellent camera, and I will definitely try it before deciding, but it is also £100 more :(

@ Houston1863 - I'm not really a Canon or a Nikon guy, you are definitely right in saying that both make excellent cameras. Yeah, it seems to me as if the 5D II would be the right choice for me as opposed to the d700, I don't need the added focusing speed / I'm sure I would get used to the layout relatively quickly. Apart from that, it seems better in every area.. I will go and have a try of both at a store soon, seems like the only thing I can do to make my mind up really!

@ squishy - To me it seems that the only advantages that the D700 holds over the 5D II are the ones that I would never actually get to appreciate. The D700 is a true beast, but I think that I'd appreciate the higher resolution and image quality more than I'd get to appreciate the faster focusing of the D700. I will definitely give the 5D II a go, but really, I'm sure it would take me maybe a week tops to figure it all out on the Canon, it only seems a little bit different in practice.
With regards to the colour on the D300s, I've tried everything but it still seems all wrong. I even preferred the colour on my old D60! For some reason, the D300s seems to not be able to do dark greens that well, they come out really muddy and de-saturated. It really gets on my nerves.
And of course, in time I would be planning to get a 17-40 f4L, and 85mm f1.8 also. I find myself wanting something a bit wider usually, so I think that the 50mm will be the first that I buy. I would like to get it all at once, but sadly my schoolboy allowance doesn't cater for that kind of spending :lol:

Thanks again for the replies everyone, got me thinking a bit more about the choices that I have!
 
Last edited:
SamuelHearn said:
So..

Basically I bought a D300s + 105mm F2.8 af-s macro a couple of months ago. I bought it because I love the way it handles, button placement etc is perfect.
I keep getting thoughts of a Canon 5D II.. I would be able to sell my Nikon stuff and get one of these badboys at a not very high cost, most probably with a 50mm 1.4.. (at the moment, the 50mm 1.8 is pretty much all I ever shoot with). It seems so tempting, as the 5D II is superior in every way with regards to image quality and COLOUR, which from my experience has been pretty bad on the D300s.

Am I mad? Is it worth going full frame?

Samuel

EDIT-P.S, I don't shoot sports or birds or any action stuff really. Mostly portraits and inanimate things.
Click to expand...

Are you shooting raw or Jpeg. also how have you got the custom settings set up? I find the colours from my d300 great once I set the camera up.
 
Davec223 said:
Are you shooting raw or Jpeg. also how have you got the custom settings set up? I find the colours from my d300 great once I set the camera up.
Click to expand...

Shooting raw, played about with custom settings and have managed to get it as close as I think I can to what I'd like. It's a bit weird, my normal curves / colour balance adjustments on a full size uncompressed raw seem to be enough to crush a picture in to a pixellated mess! Bit annoying as I seemed to be able to get the look I wanted on my old camera. The D300 seems fine with basically everything except slightly shadowy / green areas, any detail is pretty easy to destroy in post :(
 
The D300 produces fantastic images in terms of both IQ and colour when compared to like crop-format cameras. You've either got a duffer (very unlikely) or you're setting very high expectations (probably) for the kit you have.

If you think the handling on a D300 is top-class, you'll find a 5D an absolute nightmare - it may be a brilliant camera in terms of IQ that will eat the D300 for breakfast when compared together, but compared to the D300 on the handling stakes you kight fidn that brilliant IQ isn't always accompanied by great handling.
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
The D300 produces fantastic images in terms of both IQ and colour when compared to like crop-format cameras. You've either got a duffer (very unlikely) or you're setting very high expectations (probably) for the kit you have.

If you think the handling on a D300 is top-class, you'll find a 5D an absolute nightmare - it may be a brilliant camera in terms of IQ that will eat the D300 for breakfast when compared together, but compared to the D300 on the handling stakes you kight fidn that brilliant IQ isn't always accompanied by great handling.
Click to expand...

Probably just me setting high standards - after all I did spend all of my money on it :lol:

I guess I'll have to give it a go and see just how different it is from the D300, many people seem to use it without any problems so it can't be that bad. Although I definitely can't see it being better than the D300, which is an absolute breeze to use!
 
specialman said:
If you think the handling on a D300 is top-class, you'll find a 5D an absolute nightmare
Click to expand...

Why?

I know people who happily switch between nikon and canon bodies, liking one doesn't mean you have to hate the other.
 
squishy said:
Why?

I know people who happily switch between nikon and canon bodies, liking one doesn't mean you have to hate the other.
Click to expand...

It's a 100% personal thing. The 5D mk II is very intuitive and fast to use. I haven't needed to refer to the manual for anything when out shooting.
 
User Name said:
It's a 100% personal thing. The 5D mk II is very intuitive and fast to use. I haven't needed to refer to the manual for anything when out shooting.
Click to expand...

Glad to hear that - just about to order mine :)
 
User Name said:
It's a 100% personal thing. The 5D mk II is very intuitive and fast to use. I haven't needed to refer to the manual for anything when out shooting.
Click to expand...

I have the 5D2, and i love it, my mate has a Nikon.... i cant get used to the layout, and we swap on a regular basis, mainly just to keep my toe in the waters of nikon! lol

He also cant get used to mine, so i do agree that its what you get used to! especially after a few years of ownership!

I'm sure you'll be happy with whichever avenue you choose mate (Or at least i hope you are! its an expensive mistake if not!!!)
 
Can you post a photograph of at least a few of your duff images or links at high res?
 
SamuelHearn said:
So..

Basically I bought a D300s + 105mm F2.8 af-s macro a couple of months ago. I bought it because I love the way it handles, button placement etc is perfect.
I keep getting thoughts of a Canon 5D II.. I would be able to sell my Nikon stuff and get one of these badboys at a not very high cost, most probably with a 50mm 1.4.. (at the moment, the 50mm 1.8 is pretty much all I ever shoot with). It seems so tempting, as the 5D II is superior in every way with regards to image quality and COLOUR, which from my experience has been pretty bad on the D300s.

Am I mad? Is it worth going full frame?

Samuel

EDIT-P.S, I don't shoot sports or birds or any action stuff really. Mostly portraits and inanimate things.
Click to expand...

Be interested to know what colour issues you have with Nikon. Default profiles for Nikon suit landscape with a deliberate small saturation shift in blues and greens, whereas Canons boost red saturation a bit which is probably why people like the skin tones on caucasian skin but I find the sky is harder to get right. However both are pretty hue accurate, it's all down to the profiles used.

I use a D700 and since using RAW have been delighted with the colour response I can achieve. I also process shots from friends Canons and can achieve very similar results, so I dont think the cameras are that different in capabilities.

Not putting you off the Canon at all, it's a great camera and a landscape monster, but I found the D700 was a better all-rounder for the kinds of mixed shooting I tend to do and it easier to push process without mushing the images.
 
squishy said:
Why?

I know people who happily switch between nikon and canon bodies, liking one doesn't mean you have to hate the other.
Click to expand...

It's totally a personal thing and I'm sure there are people who can switch between both. Fair play to them, it's something i can't do, even if Canon do have some ridiculously brilliant lenses.

I used Canons for 10 years until I got fed up of them continuously not pushing things forward in terms of body shell, handling and build. To me, in some sense, it (the 5D2) seems just like a high-MP version of a 40D, the 40D being the camera that totally ended my relationship with Canon because it just tried to impress with an improved menus system and a big screen.

SamuelHearn said:
Probably just me setting high standards - after all I did spend all of my money on it :lol:

I guess I'll have to give it a go and see just how different it is from the D300, many people seem to use it without any problems so it can't be that bad. Although I definitely can't see it being better than the D300, which is an absolute breeze to use!
Click to expand...

5D is an amazing camera in terms of the files it produces, some of the best I've ever seen.

The problem I have when I've used a mate's 5D2 on photoshoots for work is that going from a totally intuitive machine like the D200/300 body (and my usual D2X) to the 5D just left me feeling Canon could have/should have done so much more with it to put it toally out of reach of the D700 when it came; I hated the centered AF points, the AF seemed no better than my D2X (or my D200 to be fair, or even my previous 10/20/3040Ds) and it just felt like an unfinished product in that sense. I suppose my expectations were so much more because so much of a big deal was made out of it.

Combined with a 24-70mm or a 17-40mm I can't believe what it can do but for me, handling is massive and I just couldn't use one day-in, day-out. Bt I'm not you.... :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
I've used all of them and the D3 and D3s too so bear with me.

The D700 does have a trick up it's sleeve with the pop up flash, you don't get that on the 5DII and it also acts as a commander for external flashes, that's worth more than £100! You also have some good Nikon lenses already and it will cost you to get the new Canon equivalents.

Sounds to me like you just need to get the camera profiles sorted out. I have a friend who shoots on a 5DII and he applies a preset in LR to get it to look more like a Nikon! lol

Let us know a little bit more about what you do with the files from camera to final output and let us have a look at what could be improved upon. Could save you a few pennies.
 
make an appointment to see the doctor you seem to be loosing it wanting to go over to the darkside and buy a canon shame on you:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
Radiohead said:
Maybe I'm being thick, but I don't get what the sample images are supposed to be demonstrating.
Click to expand...

Glad I'm not the only one confused by this.

Samuel, you're only posting examples at a fairly high aperture, can you not post something at 5.6-8?
 
Radiohead said:
Maybe I'm being thick, but I don't get what the sample images are supposed to be demonstrating.
Click to expand...

Samples are demonstrating the transition from midtones to shadows,to me at least the dark greens always turn really muddy and pixel-y.
 
holty said:
make an appointment to see the doctor you seem to be loosing it wanting to go over to the darkside and buy a canon shame on you:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Click to expand...

You mean desert the darkside ;)

Everyone knows nikon are the darkside, what with the bodies that love low light and the quietly malevolent users :lol:
 
SamuelHearn said:
Samples are demonstrating the transition from midtones to shadows,to me at least the dark greens always turn really muddy and pixel-y.
Click to expand...

Can't see it myself, but of course all this is dependant on correct monitor calibration and whether we're all calibrated the same.

Personally, I would set up some gradients in a controlle environment wit controlled lighting and shoot these to make sure that you get a clear, unhindered view of things. That example shot could have something in the background that's very OOF that makes the tonal transition look different to how it should. :thumbs:
 
I think I can see what you mean on the 2nd sample... but be aware, I can only see it on my horrible lower res contrasty laptop screen, not on the half decent iMac screen and even on the laptop, its borders on pixel peeping. Maybe your issue isn't the camera.... :shrug:
 
Yv said:
I think I can see what you mean on the 2nd sample... but be aware, I can only see it on my horrible lower res contrasty laptop screen, not on the half decent iMac screen and even on the laptop, its borders on pixel peeping. Maybe your issue isn't the camera.... :shrug:
Click to expand...

Is that not just a result of shooting at f/3.2 though, bearing in mind the fairly close focus to the main leaf? I just can't see the issue on my Macbook Pro.
 
Dman said:
Is that not just a result of shooting at f/3.2 though, bearing in mind the fairly close focus to the main leaf? I just can't see the issue on my Macbook Pro.
Click to expand...

No, that is just the first picture I could find, it seems to happen on most gradients that go from green to dark green / black - sorry about any confusion, those were just the first examples I could find to illustrate it. I'm talking more about the quality of colour on the gradient rather than the nature of it. It is most probably me just being ridiculously picky, there is probably actually nothing wrong with it, just the tones look quite muddy to me.
 
SamuelHearn said:
No, that is just the first picture I could find, it seems to happen on most gradients that go from green to dark green / black - sorry about any confusion, those were just the first examples I could find to illustrate it. I'm talking more about the quality of colour on the gradient rather than the nature of it. It is most probably me just being ridiculously picky, there is probably actually nothing wrong with it, just the tones look quite muddy to me.
Click to expand...

On my calibrated MBP it looks fine, to be honest there's absolutely nothing there that I'd be worrying about.
 
SamuelHearn said:
No, that is just the first picture I could find, it seems to happen on most gradients that go from green to dark green / black - sorry about any confusion, those were just the first examples I could find to illustrate it. I'm talking more about the quality of colour on the gradient rather than the nature of it. It is most probably me just being ridiculously picky, there is probably actually nothing wrong with it, just the tones look quite muddy to me.
Click to expand...

They look fine to me. Just as a matter of interest what kind of graphics card and monitor are you using? I can see some noise, but sometimes colour in real life is "muddy". I can't see any pixelation though, or colour banding.

Like I said I have several hundred shots that I pp for friends from various Canon and Nikon cameras and the only difference I can see is which colours I need to desaturate for natural skin tones. Neither are completely right using default profiles, both produce excellent results with minor tweaking.

Its more of a WB issue in both cases.

The shadow noise you have in your shot is very chroma free as well. In prints this looks fine. Certainly no worse than a 7D for instance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top