The next camera is the big one -help needed

simonfw

simonfw

Messages
187
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
I am currently using a Canon 40d and have been happy with it. I have a selection of lens but looking to sell a couple.

I shoot all sorts of photography but I am being let down with low light stuff (noise above ISO 800). I fear the only way round this is to go full frame. This then begs the question stick with Canon and go for the 5d mk2 or jump ship to the Nikon D700?

I do a lot of sports stuff (horse racing in partic.) and the low light stuff will be concerts. People say the Nikon is currently far better in terms of AF with moving objects(horses!)

I know it will be a big step up financially so need to get it right. Ive tried both cameras in terms of weight, layout, build etc and I am comfortable with both.

What should I do or is there something better on the horizon in the next 3- 4 months?
 
It appears that the Nikon would do a better job with the sports stuff. Anyone any news on forthcoming cameras as in some ways it would be easier to stop with Canon ??!!
 
If your worried about the noise on the pictures there are alternatives to full frame

Several programs can actually help reduce noise in the photos i cannot remeber the names of them all but i know one is called noise ninja, from what i have seen its rather effective and worth looking into and wont cost half as much as a new camera
 
I would go with the Nikon D700 as, as you say, the noise capabilities are fantastic. Also, if you ever upgrade from your D700, the D3 and D3X seem to be (IMO) the best cameras about at the moment for noise and the images quality is fantastic.
Let me know which way you go :D

btw, what lenses would you be buying for motorsports if you changed brands. Remember that if you switch to full frame, the lenses will appera shorter as you are used to cameras with a crop factor.

There have been lots of rumours about a Nikon D400 and Nikon D750, so that will push prices down. Just google either of them and you should get lots of results.

Oscar ;)
 
id wait and see if there is D800, i tihnk there will be soon. I personally have a 40d and dont think its worth upgrading to either the 5dmark2 (just doesnt seem good enough for the price difference) or the d700 as its probably going to be replaced soon enough.

id really wait till the next gen comes out. not enough of a leap from the 40d for the price i dont think.
 
I'd stick with Canon and get a 2nd hand 1D personally. The vast majority of sports shooters use them for a reason. :)
 
AliB said:
I'd stick with Canon and get a 2nd hand 1D personally. The vast majority of sports shooters use them for a reason. :)
Click to expand...

I think that (IMO) a lot of shorts shooters will switch to the Nikon D3 soon as the nose capabilities are far better than those of the 1D series and although the 1D Mk3 can do 10 fps, the Nikon D3 can do 9 so it's not a big difference. The picture quality of the D3 is rumoured to be fantastic.
 
You used the right word there "Rumoured" Go and have a look at the DXO test labs results. The D3 only just pipped the 1Ds MkII at high ISO performance.

9 and 10fps, you are right, not a lot of difference.

The real difference is in the system of lenses where Canon still have far more chioce and at often at more than one price point. One good reason not to be too hasty in jumping ship.
 
AliB said:
You used the right word there "Rumoured" Go and have a look at the DXO test labs results. The D3 only just pipped the 1Ds MkII at high ISO performance.

9 and 10fps, you are right, not a lot of difference.

The real difference is in the system of lenses where Canon still have far more chioce and at often at more than one price point. One good reason not to be too hasty in jumping ship.
Click to expand...

Sorry about that mistake Ali. But remember the 1Ds Mk2 only does 4fps. Do you know how the 1D Mk3 did against the D3? I was just thinking that but in your opinion, what lenses do Canon have that Nikon don't. Do you mean affordable, mid-range lenses; eg. 100-400mm IS and 70-200mm f4?
 
As ever on here plenty of really useful feedback - and not just another stupid Canon is better than Nikon or vice versa slanging match.

As I thought it is not an easy decision and maybe hanging on for the next new range is best.

Why did I bother returning to this "hobby" of photography in the first place - I must be mad!

Many thanks for all the advice so far...
 
simonfw said:
As ever on here plenty of really useful feedback - and not just another stupid Canon is better than Nikon or vice versa slanging match.

As I thought it is not an easy decision and maybe hanging on for the next new range is best.

Why did I bother returning to this "hobby" of photography in the first place - I must be mad!

Many thanks for all the advice so far...
Click to expand...

I'm sure there will be lots more to come :D
 
I'm also thinking of the cracking 300mm 400mm and 500mm and 600mm as well as the zooms. If you look at the whole system Canon still has the bulk of the market for just that reason.

The point I'm making is that there is more to getting good shots than the body you are currently using.
 
Aren't Nikon's super-telephotos as good? Also, are they the kind of lenses one would be using for concerts at night and horse racing? Maybe 300, but surely not 400, 500 or 600mm. Sorry if I'm wrong. ;)
 
What lenses are you using?
 
Using sigma 24-60mm and canon 70-200mm quite a bit. Just got a 85mm Canon - love this lens.
 
BirderOzzie said:
Aren't Nikon's super-telephotos as good? Also, are they the kind of lenses one would be using for concerts at night and horse racing? Maybe 300, but surely not 400, 500 or 600mm. Sorry if I'm wrong. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes they are good, but you might find a number of options around the same price point with canon, but nikon will have one obvious choice.
 
This camera looks to have most of the answers but what lenses for portrait, product and sports?
 
My point exactly. It's got more to do with the overall package than just the body and for all three I suspect if you do some detailed comparisons of focal lengths, apertures and prices you'd find out that you might be better off with a Canon. It's the sole reason I have not switched I have eight Canon lenses and if I were to try to match them with Nikon's it would cost me a fortune. Often Canon have more than one variant of a lens. The 85mm is a good example, you can have it in f1.8 @£300 or you can bust the bank and get the f1.2 @£1500. At least you have the choice. A lot of the Nikons you have one choice, buy it or not. 35mm, 50mm, 85mm. Two macros at 60mm and 100mm, three tilt shifts,choices of 4 70-200's. Nikon just don't offer that kind of flexibility IMHO.
 
AliB said:
My point exactly. It's got more to do with the overall package than just the body and for all three I suspect if you do some detailed comparisons of focal lengths, apertures and prices you'd find out that you might be better off with a Canon. It's the sole reason I have not switched I have eight Canon lenses and if I were to try to match them with Nikon's it would cost me a fortune. Often Canon have more than one variant of a lens. The 85mm is a good example, you can have it in f1.8 @£300 or you can bust the bank and get the f1.2 @£1500. At least you have the choice. A lot of the Nikons you have one choice, buy it or not. 35mm, 50mm, 85mm. Two macros at 60mm and 100mm, three tilt shifts,choices of 4 70-200's. Nikon just don't offer that kind of flexibility IMHO.
Click to expand...
I agree with your general thrust Ali - Canon do seem to have a wider range than Nikon. Unfortunately the 85mm prime isn't a good example - Nikon offer the f/1.8 for £300 and the f/1.4 for £900.

I'd say the Canon range scores over Nikon's in five areas:
(1) quality hand-holdable telephotos - 300mm f/4 IS, 400mm f/5.6, 100-400mm IS
(2) ultra-fast primes - 24mm f/1/4, 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.2, 85mm f/1.2
(3) pro quality f/4 zooms - 17-40mm, 24-105mm, 70-200mm
(4) options for 70-200mm - f/2.8 or f/4, with or without IS
(5) tilt-shift lenses that are actually usable

Whether or not these are relevant to the OP is another question.
 
AliB said:
. Often Canon have more than one variant of a lens. The 85mm is a good example, you can have it in f1.8 @£300 or you can bust the bank and get the f1.2 @£1500. At least you have the choice. A lot of the Nikons you have one choice, buy it or not. 35mm, 50mm, 85mm. Two macros at 60mm and 100mm, three tilt shifts,choices of 4 70-200's. Nikon just don't offer that kind of flexibility IMHO.
Click to expand...

In fairness to Nikon - there are choices in the focal lengths you've mentioned - theres 1.4 and 1.8 variants of the 50 and 85 for example. You're right generally though - Nikon do a great range of sub £500 lenses and a great range of £1000 + lenses with little inbetween.

I'm always hard pushed to see the wisdom of a system change, especially when one is heavily invested in a system alrady for the sake of a body which will be superseeded within the next couple of years

Cheers

Hugh
 
I've seen nikon D3 shots at 6000iso or so and they are fantastic. the glass range on canon is better imho.

to the OP...to be honest, what low light are you shooting??? you have the 17-85 and want to shoot anything other than very static things then you are using the wrong lens.

some examples would be handy
I use the 40D at 1600ISO with a 3rd party lens at f2.8 and I'm quite pleased with it.
the 50D would be better and the D700 even better still perhaps but that's not something i can consider.
what settings are you using on the camera? RAW? sharpening, in camera noise reduction etC?
 
BirderOzzie said:
Sorry about that mistake Ali. But remember the 1Ds Mk2 only does 4fps. Do you know how the 1D Mk3 did against the D3? I was just thinking that but in your opinion, what lenses do Canon have that Nikon don't. Do you mean affordable, mid-range lenses; eg. 100-400mm IS and 70-200mm f4?
Click to expand...

The "affordable" 100-400mm and 70-200mm f/4 series zooms are certainly not the best in the bag of a sports photographer.

The 400mm f/2.8L on a monopod and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS on a strap for hand holding when a shorter lens is needed are the epitome of sports lenses.

Here is a video tutorial regarding the handling of multiple bodies in a sports environment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMgZ13X_pr4

I would also look into a noise reduction program such as NOISE NINJA. However, I personally like the capabilities of TOPAZ ADJUST V3.2 for noise reduction as well as many other post processing capabilities.

Here is the Topaz Adjust Noise Reduction Tutorial

http://www.topazlabs.com/tutorials/adjust/noise.html
 
If you are set in changing body`s then so be it.......however you say 'I have been happy with the 40D,' what reason would you therfore have for moving over to Nikon (Nikon by the way make fantastic camera`s and glass). If you are happy with your current gear but wan`t better performance why not stick to the brand that you know?
For me you would be better looking at the 1Dmk3 it will provide the AF an good ISO perfomance needed.


The "affordable" 100-400mm and 70-200mm f/4 series zooms are certainly not the best in the bag of a sports photographer
Click to expand...

And yet I have seen fantastic shots with both of them......it just goes to show that it is the skill of the photographer that will enable him/her to get the shot, sure they arn`t the best but neither lens should be looked down upon.
 
Some fair points made. I have used the 70-200m f4 to good effect so maybe I should stay with Canon. I also take the point that new bodies come along and up the game each time. It does appear though that the Nikon AF is someway better for sport.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top