Eternal Canon vs. Nikon debate - Full frame body?

boulderNardo

Used to be a Canon photographer. 20D, 40D, 1DII, and a whole series of L lenses.
Recently had to get out of professional photography for a while and sold most of my gear, but am planning on getting back into it soon as finance allow. My main area is sports action photography, landscapes, and some portraiture.

Loved Canon's bodies' quality, L-lens quality, the speed of the 1DII (drive and AF), precision of the AF.
Problems?
-> Lack of real high quality wide lens (like Nikon's 14-24/2.8)
-> Lack of sport-specific & FAST full frame body.
-> Canon keeps coming out with cameras with higher pixel numbers for marketing purposes, rather than working on a killer FF sensor and DSP option.

Nikon's D700 is a killer camera and I've been considering jumping into Nikon because of it.
My plan would be to start off with a D90 or D300, build up a quiver of FX capable lenses, and move into D700 and/or D3 in the long run.

Just wondering what people's thoughts are. Is Canon coming out with something D700 like for professional sports photographers, or am I better off going Nikon?

Harryb

You can't lose either way. I shoot Nikon but would be quite happy with a Canon kit. If I was already invested in one I would be very hesitant to switch to the other.

catspaw

Do the D300, since the battery grip you can get with it will work on the D700 as well, and boosts the fps.

presuming you go the most awesome Nikon route

borrowlenses.com

Canon most likely will not come out with a FF sports body. They have already stated the 1D series is for sports and shooters need the extra reach. That said I agree with catspaw -- start with the D300 and the G/AF-S lenses.

Qarik

another vote for the D300

NeilL

To be making a comparison with the status quo, such as that Canon don't have a ff sports body, is to be stuck in the past, with those limitations. You are trying to guess the future, and that is tricky. For the kind of use you describe, fast sports, the *trend* is to extract stills from hd video. You can do this with the 5DII now. Which manufacturer is going to expand the applications of video capture from ff dslr bodies is not at all clear at the moment.

Neil

boulderNardo

Glad to see so many pro Nikon opinions, I'm leaning very much towards Nikon myself.

I got to play with a D700 a while ago for a few days and must say the UI & handling isn't as intuitive as Canon, but the body feels solid and on-par with Canon's flagships imho.

The 'reach' debate is valid, I guess, but more so for 'spectator' sports like football, basketball, etc.. I find myself looking for wider and wider lenses when hanging off a wall shooting an extreme solo climber, tucking under a cliff shooting a ski base jumper, or hiding behind a dirt mound shooting a biker.

NeilL wrote: »

To be making a comparison with the status quo, such as that Canon don't have a ff sports body, is to be stuck in the past, with those limitations. You are trying to guess the future, and that is tricky. For the kind of use you describe, fast sports, the *trend* is to extract stills from hd video. You can do this with the 5DII now. Which manufacturer is going to expand the applications of video capture from ff dslr bodies is not at all clear at the moment.

Neil

This is very interesting. I shoot primarily ski, mountain bike / downhill / dirt, and haven't noticed this stills-from-HD trend yet, but then again I've been out of the loop for almost a year.

angevin1

NeilL wrote: »

To be making a comparison with the status quo, such as that Canon don't have a ff sports body, is to be stuck in the past, with those limitations. You are trying to guess the future, and that is tricky. For the kind of use you describe, fast sports, the *trend* is to extract stills from hd video. You can do this with the 5DII now. Which manufacturer is going to expand the applications of video capture from ff dslr bodies is not at all clear at the moment.

Neil

Yes, you can, but they are tiny! I haven't found a way to make them useful outside of re-using them back into the Video.

As for Canon/Nikon. I own both. I am a predom Nikon 'shooter' so the Nikon system is more familiar with me. The Canon 5DMK2 is a fine, just superb camera. But thinking sports and action, I'd say Nikon.

NikonsandVstroms

I would go Nikon if you want full frame, the simple way to look at it is the D700 is a much better camera as in the body/AF/FPS etc., for sensors the 5D mkII gives you more MP and video with a small loss in sensitivity.

Due to the price of the 5D mkII unless they found a way to greatly reduce the cost of the sensor I don't see them releasing a D700 type camera since that would push the price well north of 3,000.

SamirD

boulderNardo wrote: »

I got to play with a D700 a while ago for a few days and must say the UI & handling isn't as intuitive as Canon, but the body feels solid and on-par with Canon's flagships imho.

This is the only reason I'm a Canon guy (if I could afford one). Both manufacturers make great products, but my hands just love the Canon UI. I feel like I'm fighting the camera with a Nikon.

studio1972

NikonsandVstroms wrote: »

I would go Nikon if you want full frame, the simple way to look at it is the D700 is a much better camera as in the body/AF/FPS etc., for sensors the 5D mkII gives you more MP and video with a small loss in sensitivity.

Due to the price of the 5D mkII unless they found a way to greatly reduce the cost of the sensor I don't see them releasing a D700 type camera since that would push the price well north of 3,000.

If you are choosing which system to go with, simply comparing the 2 bodies may not be the best way to do it. You also need to consider the cost and performance of the respective lenses that you might expect to buy. To me it seems like Nikon is better value on the bodies and Canon on the Lenses, but that is a generalisation of course, and there may be a specific feature of one of the bodies or lenses that you really want.

racer

hmm, I always thought it was all the photographer, not the camera , but maybe I am wrong

Anyway, the only reason I chose Canon over Nikon, was because Nikon dosnt have a 400mm prime that I could afford. My 50d, 400mm 5.6, and everything else I own, including my car, combine, still cost less then the Nikon 400mm 2.8 , there cheapest 400mm. If Nikon had a cheaper solution, I would have went with them

boulderNardo

GREAT replies, thanks so much everybody!

Primary reason for wanting full frame is wide angle use. Even 1.3x crop is annoying if you're trying to go REALLY wide! Secondary reason is IQ and sensitivity/ISO. I was blown away by the D700's IQ. Then again, the 5DII is probably right up there, is an excellent portrait/wedding body, and the 1D3/1D4 would make an excellent sports body despite the crop.

Canon does have the more affordable lens line-up. Maybe they'll even come out with a good wide-angle (the 16-35 does NOT compare to Nikon's 14-24).

Tough choices