Helvegr, I am curious what lenses you tried and what AF settings? The 5D MKII is more particular than most for lens choice and AF settings in a sports/action environment (including moving animals).
Well, yes, as I said, the 5DII, the 7d, and above them, are all designed to bring into the fold the high paying multiple body toting customer. The lower on the feeding rung will take one or the other, or the Nikon.
Profs and those on their fringe already carry 2(+) bodies to facilitate the use of 2(+) lenses. It makes sense to specialise those 2(+) bodies as much as the specialist lenses on them!
This is a nice simple way of thinking of it. How does Canon figure in low light with speed? If you want to say shoot some sports in poor light (indoor gym), does the low light performance of the 7 series hold up against a full frame? Or do you have to go into the 1D series to get that kind of low light + speed performance?
I ask, because as a 5D2 owner, the 7D was my next logical body. Thus started my D700 rental. Before I have to worry about two bodies...what could just 1 do?
I've seen very useable ISO 4000 images here... not as good as the 5D2 but very very good.
As far as the other thoughts regarding Cameras' inclusive futures, can we really ever have all of the tech in one piece? I say no because sure as shootin, as soon as we get where we have all-the-above-mentioned into one body, there'll be fifteen new tech ideas out on the horizon trying to find their way into one body.
Answer: D4. 16mp, ISO about the same as D3s, 9fps, FF.
The only gap in the Nikon line-up for me is an up to date pro body with a cropped sensor. I still use my old D2Xs sometimes since I feel like it out-perform the D300.
I personally love the Nikon vs Canon posts. I am a dedicated Nikon person and have been for over twenty years, except for the D200 and D2x years, when I used Fuji. I shoot some sports and photojournalism and am around a lot of photographers who specialize in both. There has been a trend in the last year where a lot of Canon folks are switching to Nikon, just like it was about 8 years ago when the switch was from Nikon to Canon. I was talking with some NFL photographers who switched to Nikon, because the newer Canon cameras were missing shots because of the auto focus issues. The local Nashville newspaper just switched to Nikon, because of focus problems. When you consider how much money it costs to switch every photographer at a large newspaper or an NFL photographer to buy all new gear, this is a huge deal. If I owned Canon, I would defend my purchases, because I really would not want to spend the money required to switch. I shoot a lot of weddings and some of my second photographers use Canon, several different bodies, so I compare their shots with mine which are all shot in the same place and conditions. The Nikon images are sharper overall and almost all are in focus. With Canon, the focus is softer, less detail and more images are out of focus. The Canon images have a different quality, a slight magenta shift compared to Nikon, they also have a more film like look because of the softness of focus. Also the Canon images just don't work at anything over 1600 ISO, unless you convert them to B&W. With all that said they both do amazing things that were not even thought about ten years ago. The competition is good for everyone, because we get better tools to do our job. Nikon just makes better tools.
Well, yes, as I said, the 5DII, the 7d, and above them, are all designed to bring into the fold the high paying multiple body toting customer. The lower on the feeding rung will take one or the other, or the Nikon.
Profs and those on their fringe already carry 2(+) bodies to facilitate the use of 2(+) lenses. It makes sense to specialise those 2(+) bodies as much as the specialist lenses on them!
Neil
I think this is an interesting way for me to think about them. If Canon were to look at a sampling of professions, they may very well conclude this exact same idea. 1) they already carry more then one body 2) each body's lens is specialized for a purpose. So why not specialize the body as well?
However at the same time, I think this is what is causing me some problems with Canon. I'm not a professional. I don't carry two bodies. I'm enjoying the limitless possibilities while exploring photography.
If however, I suddenly became a professional, while the top end Nikon line my not offer a crop option like the Canon does, I probably wouldn't feel totally left out looking at the D3 line.
Great discussion, I like the focus on not what people "feel" is better just because its what they like, but looking at some of the design choices and customers that these companies appear to be trying to attract.
I have been following news about a D700 replacement for some time. From I have read I expect it will be announced this Summer. Not sure what the changes will be because of wide speculation but I look forward to it considering how well the D7000 looks.
I personally love the Nikon vs Canon posts. I am a dedicated Nikon person and have been for over twenty years, except for the D200 and D2x years, when I used Fuji. I shoot some sports and photojournalism and am around a lot of photographers who specialize in both. There has been a trend in the last year where a lot of Canon folks are switching to Nikon, just like it was about 8 years ago when the switch was from Nikon to Canon. I was talking with some NFL photographers who switched to Nikon, because the newer Canon cameras were missing shots because of the auto focus issues. The local Nashville newspaper just switched to Nikon, because of focus problems. When you consider how much money it costs to switch every photographer at a large newspaper or an NFL photographer to buy all new gear, this is a huge deal. If I owned Canon, I would defend my purchases, because I really would not want to spend the money required to switch. I shoot a lot of weddings and some of my second photographers use Canon, several different bodies, so I compare their shots with mine which are all shot in the same place and conditions. The Nikon images are sharper overall and almost all are in focus. With Canon, the focus is softer, less detail and more images are out of focus. The Canon images have a different quality, a slight magenta shift compared to Nikon, they also have a more film like look because of the softness of focus. Also the Canon images just don't work at anything over 1600 ISO, unless you convert them to B&W. With all that said they both do amazing things that were not even thought about ten years ago. The competition is good for everyone, because we get better tools to do our job. Nikon just makes better tools.
I really want to say you're flat out wrong or just a special case. But in my experience, at events and a couple weddings, When ever working with a second photographer that shoots Canon. This has been my experience too, at least half the time.
I still believe it's lack of experience and knowledge with the equipment. I have used the ##D and #D for a short time, they seem to work great IME.
I think this is an interesting way for me to think about them. If Canon were to look at a sampling of professions, they may very well conclude this exact same idea. 1) they already carry more then one body 2) each body's lens is specialized for a purpose. So why not specialize the body as well?
However at the same time, I think this is what is causing me some problems with Canon. I'm not a professional. I don't carry two bodies. I'm enjoying the limitless possibilities while exploring photography.
If however, I suddenly became a professional, while the top end Nikon line my not offer a crop option like the Canon does, I probably wouldn't feel totally left out looking at the D3 line.
Great discussion, I like the focus on not what people "feel" is better just because its what they like, but looking at some of the design choices and customers that these companies appear to be trying to attract.
carrying 2 bodies for example a 7D and 5dmk2...what are you shooting? birds in flight and a wedding at the same time? Folks carry a full frame and crop because they don't have/need 2 full frames for example or they want the reach of crop but all things being equal I would assume they want or need the "best" features in each. If I am shooting basketball I may carry a D700 and D300 with telephoto on one and standard zoom on another for across the court shots vs under the basket shots. But I can do this because both have great autofocus. I can't say that I would try that with 5dmk2 and 7D becasue the 5dmk2 does not have a very robust AF module.
Ideally if I am shooting a event/weddingreception or sporting event I am carrying two identical bodies with different lenses or TC's. That way I can switch seemlessly from one lens to another with out having to worry about AF performance or ISO differences or buttons placements between bodies.
Let's face it..we start off on crop cameras and often we will buy a full frame later. That becomes the default 2 camera setup....not because we planned it like that as the ideal setup for whatever we shoot but because it was the natural progression and that is what we ended up with. I fall in the same boat until I can afford the next d800 or whatever. All that said I *think* the nikon lineup presents more continuity over its lineup for those that may have the crop and ff bodies type setup (d700 and d300 mate very well, very close AF, same button layout, same file sizes, just iso zoom factor differences).
edit: this is more directed to Neil then you Helvegr
carrying 2 bodies for example a 7D and 5dmk2...what are you shooting? birds in flight and a wedding at the same time? Folks carry a full frame and crop because they don't have/need 2 full frames for example or they want the reach of crop but all things being equal I would assume they want or need the "best" features in each. If I am shooting basketball I may carry a D700 and D300 with telephoto on one and standard zoom on another for across the court shots vs under the basket shots. But I can do this because both have great autofocus. I can't say that I would try that with 5dmk2 and 7D becasue the 5dmk2 does not have a very robust AF module.
Ideally if I am shooting a event/weddingreception or sporting event I am carrying two identical bodies with different lenses or TC's. That way I can switch seemlessly from one lens to another with out having to worry about AF performance or ISO differences or buttons placements between bodies.
Let's face it..we start off on crop cameras and often we will buy a full frame later. That becomes the default 2 camera setup....not because we planned it like that as the ideal setup for whatever we shoot but because it was the natural progression and that is what we ended up with. I fall in the same boat until I can afford the next d800 or whatever. All that said I *think* the nikon lineup presents more continuity over its lineup for those that may have the crop and ff bodies type setup (d700 and d300 mate very well, very close AF, same button layout, same file sizes, just iso zoom factor differences).
edit: this is more directed to Neil then you Helvegr
carrying 2 bodies for example a 7D and 5dmk2...what are you shooting? birds in flight and a wedding at the same time? Folks carry a full frame and crop because they don't have/need 2 full frames for example or they want the reach of crop but all things being equal I would assume they want or need the "best" features in each. If I am shooting basketball I may carry a D700 and D300 with telephoto on one and standard zoom on another for across the court shots vs under the basket shots. But I can do this because both have great autofocus. I can't say that I would try that with 5dmk2 and 7D becasue the 5dmk2 does not have a very robust AF module.
Ideally if I am shooting a event/weddingreception or sporting event I am carrying two identical bodies with different lenses or TC's. That way I can switch seemlessly from one lens to another with out having to worry about AF performance or ISO differences or buttons placements between bodies.
Let's face it..we start off on crop cameras and often we will buy a full frame later. That becomes the default 2 camera setup....not because we planned it like that as the ideal setup for whatever we shoot but because it was the natural progression and that is what we ended up with. I fall in the same boat until I can afford the next d800 or whatever. All that said I *think* the nikon lineup presents more continuity over its lineup for those that may have the crop and ff bodies type setup (d700 and d300 mate very well, very close AF, same button layout, same file sizes, just iso zoom factor differences).
edit: this is more directed to Neil then you Helvegr
Fine arguments Qarik!
I would comment that the OP is interested in trends and philosophies, and not so much in the circumstances that people fall into because of their particular buying histories, though that is certainly also relevant to manufacturers, I'm sure.
I don't think we can avoid the fact that the cameras we are discussing are comparatively very expensive and aren't found in the hands of the majority of camera owners around the world. It is already a comparatively exclusive market. Since this particular market spends these big bucks regularly their likely choices need both to be anticipated and groomed for the production of these limited sales cameras to be worth continuing. I suggest that uppermost in manufacturers' interests is to retain customers' spending within their brand. This suggests that depth is needed in the brand.
Without having the demographic stats to back it up, my impression is that most photogs in and around the professional market are shooting a couple or more markets of their own. JMichaelK here is a case in point - sports and photojournalism and weddings. I think we would all agree that while as you say he would be unlikely to be shooting all three at the same time, he would be likely to have specialised gear for each which he would likely want to put his hands on instantaneously and get results with the ease and quality that only that specific purpose gear can give. This species of photographer is unlikely to be much phased by minor differences in menus, controls and buttons. Which setup, of 2(+) same bodies or 2(+) specialised bodies, is the best bet? I think the latter. From the manufacturers' point of view there has to be enough depth in their body range to accommodate the variety of specialised needs of this market in order to keep the market buying within their brand. The buyers who are a few more steps out from the edge of this market, like me, who don't have the same pressures to produce masses of a variety of material to a deadline and to the highest quality, are likely to want a single general purpose body with the greatest ease and quality, and we have less of an investment to risk by swapping brands to get that, so we will do that more readily. Losing these customers is less of a threat, though still a sizable one, to manufacturers, consequently there is that amount of "ambivalence" in the prosumer products which people like me are caught up in.
Add to all that, that the manufacturers and we are second guessing the future, and the answer to the question I already raised, is future body technology going to be most effectively contained in a single unit or several?, needs some present answer. We have already seen one alternative response make an appearance, that of the "smart lens - dumb body" where the lens has a specialised sensor and the role of the body is more general. Still again the defining factor of depth within a brand for the high spending pro and epi-pro market is at work. People like me will still be more likely to go for all purpose lenses and body, so the "ambivalence" of products to capture our money will continue. The idea of general purpose is an ambivalent one. The general customer is an ambivalent one.
carrying 2 bodies for example a 7D and 5dmk2...what are you shooting? birds in flight and a wedding at the same time? Folks carry a full frame and crop because they don't have/need 2 full frames for example or they want the reach of crop but all things being equal I would assume they want or need the "best" features in each. If I am shooting basketball I may carry a D700 and D300 with telephoto on one and standard zoom on another for across the court shots vs under the basket shots. But I can do this because both have great autofocus. I can't say that I would try that with 5dmk2 and 7D becasue the 5dmk2 does not have a very robust AF module.
Ideally if I am shooting a event/weddingreception or sporting event I am carrying two identical bodies with different lenses or TC's. That way I can switch seemlessly from one lens to another with out having to worry about AF performance or ISO differences or buttons placements between bodies.
Let's face it..we start off on crop cameras and often we will buy a full frame later. That becomes the default 2 camera setup....not because we planned it like that as the ideal setup for whatever we shoot but because it was the natural progression and that is what we ended up with. I fall in the same boat until I can afford the next d800 or whatever. All that said I *think* the nikon lineup presents more continuity over its lineup for those that may have the crop and ff bodies type setup (d700 and d300 mate very well, very close AF, same button layout, same file sizes, just iso zoom factor differences).
edit: this is more directed to Neil then you Helvegr
Great points. So if people didn't just evolve into the 1 crop and 1 FF bodies over time, what would they start out with? From Canon's point of view, would somebody end up with say a 1D for sports, carry a 7D as a second body, and then if they wanted to shoot a wedding, they'd switch out to the 5D2 and a 60D or something as a second body, so 4 bodies in total?
Then does the Nikon guy show up to both events with a D3 and a D700 and call it good? Does everybody really want that crop option for the reach, or like maybe you suggest, everybody just already had a crop option, so its what they stuck with.
Great points. So if people didn't just evolve into the 1 crop and 1 FF bodies over time, what would they start out with? From Canon's point of view, would somebody end up with say a 1D for sports, carry a 7D as a second body, and then if they wanted to shoot a wedding, they'd switch out to the 5D2 and a 60D or something as a second body, so 4 bodies in total?
Then does the Nikon guy show up to both events with a D3 and a D700 and call it good? Does everybody really want that crop option for the reach, or like maybe you suggest, everybody just already had a crop option, so its what they stuck with.
For weddings, I generally shoot with 3-4 camera bodies:
I have a pair of 1D MKII bodies that I use for: getting ready and pre-ceremony, the wedding ceremony itself, and then the receiving line if there is one.
I use a 5D MKII for the formals.
I use a 40D for the candids, reception, etc.
If I use a second shooter they either get an XT/350D or the 40D.
I appreciate the speed of the 1D bodies for when I need that speed, and I also appreciate the AF speed and accuracy. Coupled with a 580EX flash with a high-voltage power supply it's tremendously enabling.
The 5D MKII is just sooo nice for the formals where shooting speed is not so much an issue, but ultimate image quality "is" the issue. If anyone wants enlargements it's almost always from the formals so the 5D MKII fits perfectly.
Using the 40D for the candids is just for me. I used to use the 1D bodies for the candids but they really do get heavy after a while and the 40D plus the EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM makes an extremely nice combination, along with a flash that has an AF assist light. I am not left wanting.
I have also shot candids with the 5D MKII, especially one wedding where there were no formals so I had more PJ responsibility, and the 5D MKII did OK (but it really seems like overkill.)
For my traditional shooting style the separate cameras really seem to work well.
If I shot Nikon I'm not really sure what combination I would choose. Just never really thought too much about it.
When and why would all the extra resolution from Canon be a necessity?
I suppose a good answer would be, "If you needed it, youd know." But Im hopin for a bit more lol.
I use extra resolution a couple of different ways:
At base and lower ISOs the extra resolution comes in handy for post-processing and cropping. It's just easier to crop when there is a higher gross count of pixels to choose from. As the ISOs get higher, and noise becomes apparent, that ability to crop is less successful because the noise becomes more visible.
Also, with a higher pixel count, the issues and ramifications of Bayer chip technology become less of an issue. Canon and Nikon both use Bayer imagers exclusively and each photosite originates as a single color (in the RGB pallette) and a single luminance tone. During the conversion from the RAW image into the visible image the image processor, or computer processor and software, de-mosaic the RGB information into the full tones that we see in the raster image rendering of full tones and shades.
Since no singular photosite contains full color or luminance information the de-mosaicing algorithms need to make some "assumptions" and interpolations about how the available data is to be interpreted. While the results are generally awfully good, more photosites means more general accuracy concerning both color and luminance in the print (as long as noise levels are in check.) The end result is a discernible smoothness and clarity improvement to the image.
As ISO increases and noise levels increase at the pixel level the resolution advantages are eventually lost, but as long as the "normalized" values needed for the print don't degrade too much, the higher pixel count at least doesn't hurt too much versus an imager with lower net pixel count and the same "normalized" values.
In other words, the Canon 5D MKII and the Nikon D700 really do offer very similar print images at the higher ISOs, but the Canon offers both measurable and visible resolution improvements at low ISOs. It's not as much of an improvement as you might think however and the Nikon is still very nice and for most purposes the resulting images of both cameras are very similar regardless. Most people really cannot tell the difference in printed results between these 2 cameras as long as the lenses are of similar quality and used in a similar fashion. (Lenses really do make a potentially big difference in image quality, much more than cameras used.)
When and why would all the extra resolution from Canon be a necessity?
I suppose a good answer would be, "If you needed it, youd know." But Im hopin for a bit more lol.
Assumably for cropping flexibility which can be useful on occasion for any kind of shooting. But things wildlife especailly small birds I would guess would be very useful if you don,t have a 800mm lens! Also for making very large prints or high end landscape or fashion where ver fine details maybe of some relevance
For those buying two bodies, Canon is better. You get FF and res with the 5-Series, and speed and longer lenses when you need them with the 7-Series. With Nikon, you get speed (both), FF (D700), and crop (D300), but no hi-res.
It is almost perfect with a D3s and a D7000. D7000 is for resolution and crop factor (D7000 has a buffer issue though). Moreover, I found that D3s is a good (better and sharper) companion for Sigma 500 f4.5 and 800 f5.6 (better than 7D at least), where perhaps only a 1D4 with the new round Canon long lenses can match.
And actually, res and crop factor seem to be useful for me only in birding. Still a D3s with a 800mm may get the best out in terms of both reach and sharpness.
Assumably for cropping flexibility which can be useful on occasion for any kind of shooting. But things wildlife especailly small birds I would guess would be very useful if you don,t have a 800mm lens! Also for making very large prints or high end landscape or fashion where ver fine details maybe of some relevance
One unexpected advantage, when moving from 10MP 40D to the 21MP 5D2, was in straightening slightly wonky images. On the 40D it seemed to soften them quite a bit and it was noticeable, but much less so on the 21MP 5D2 images. In know, you're probably thinking just get them straight in the first place, but occasionally shit happens.
Now wouldn't it be nice if 5DII has a 1D/D700 like focus system and fps in addition to the nice image quality? In that case, would you carry less bodies for your job? I admit that I have invested quite a bit in Canon lens that makes it hard for me to switch. But I have been long on the fence waiting for a 'perfect' prosumer full frame DSLR from Canon. I am willing to pay a bit more but where is the 3D?
..... Most people really cannot tell the difference in printed results between these 2 cameras as long as the lenses are of similar quality and used in a similar fashion. (Lenses really do make a potentially big difference in image quality, much more than cameras used.)
This may be a little past its sell-by date, but I did some of the agonizing for you. Disclaimer: I now no longer own any Canon OR Nikon gear. This all happened when I was obsessed with "getting the shot" and AF performance and frame rates. A year into the D700 I stopped caring about all that.
My distillation:
Nikon has better AF chops than Canon's sub-1D cameras, I like how they trust semi-pros (D700) to have top rank AF. Nikon's ergonomics were far better for me. I missed the relatively cheaper Canon lens prices big time, though I'm one to talk now, with my one Leica lens that cost the same as all my Canon lenses put together. Nikon's bodies and lenses are too large—Canon does compact better. Canon's mode dial and custom settings detents are great and I found that tripod use with Canons was more enjoyable and faster. Live view in Canon land is better. Anyone who tells you the lenses are better across the board in either camp is full of it. Both are playing catch-up with each other and this will happen forever. Enjoy taking photographs!
carrying 2 bodies for example a 7D and 5dmk2...what are you shooting? birds in flight and a wedding at the same time? Folks carry a full frame and crop because they don't have/need 2 full frames for example or they want the reach of crop but all things being equal I would assume they want or need the "best" features in each.
Hi, I'm Joe Enthusiast. I like to shoot landscapes and sports. And this is my friend Bob, he's a pro who shoots landscapes and wildlife.
If I am shooting basketball I may carry a D700 and D300 with telephoto on one and standard zoom on another for across the court shots vs under the basket shots. But I can do this because both have great autofocus. I can't say that I would try that with 5dmk2 and 7D becasue the 5dmk2 does not have a very robust AF module.
This will be fixed with the 5D3. But for now: many people underestimate the 5D2's AF. It's really not that bad. No, it's not 1D, not even 7D, but it's fine 90% of the time. Have you used one and had slow AF problems? It would lag behind if you're shooting F1, but you'd be surprised at how many sports photogs will use their 5D2 occasionally (esp. in low light).
Ideally if I am shooting a event/weddingreception or sporting event I am carrying two identical bodies with different lenses or TC's. That way I can switch seemlessly from one lens to another with out having to worry about AF performance or ISO differences or buttons placements between bodies.
Let's face it..we start off on crop cameras and often we will buy a full frame later. That becomes the default 2 camera setup....not because we planned it like that as the ideal setup for whatever we shoot but because it was the natural progression and that is what we ended up with. I fall in the same boat until I can afford the next d800 or whatever. All that said I *think* the nikon lineup presents more continuity over its lineup for those that may have the crop and ff bodies type setup (d700 and d300 mate very well, very close AF, same button layout, same file sizes, just iso zoom factor differences).
edit: this is more directed to Neil then you Helvegr
No, for all types of photography it is good to have an FF and a 1.6. Have your main lens on the FF and a fishy, telephoto, etc. on the crop. It lets you get all those "moments" with your FF, and get those wacky shots with the crop. I'm talking in the context of weddings, but for most other shooting purposes it's also true. For sports, I'd rather have 2 D300s's or D7000's (or one of each) than one FF and one crop. If I had the money I'd get a 5D2 (and probably a 7D) and keep my 1D2. I can shoot everything, except where the 5D2 is too slow (rare). Even if there was a fast FF Canon, I'd still want to have a crop body.
This is getting over my head, these deep theoretical questions of life
Helvegr, I am curious what lenses you tried and what AF settings? The 5D MKII is more particular than most for lens choice and AF settings in a sports/action environment (including moving animals).
I'll assume that this question was missed. In particular, I see AI-Servo shooters using center AF point only and setting the Custom Function III-7: "AF point area expansion" to "Enabled", which should not matter in AI-Servo mode, but some folks swear by it as a method. AI-Servo would be my first choice for any sort of predictable motion but do remember that AI-Servo takes 1/2 second or so to calculate the motion and predict an appropriate AF correction. If you just "mash down" the shutter button you will not give the camera sufficient time for proper AI-Servo operation.
Conversely, in Single-Shot mode, the preferred settings are center AF point only and the III-7: "AF point area expansion" set to "Disabled", presumably to simplify the job that the AF section has to do.
Again, these setting suggestions mostly have to do with indoor and low-light/night sports/action photography.
As far as lenses, I can vouch for the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM and EF 135mm, f2L USM as being very nice performers in those conditions and on the 5D MKII. Some other lenses (many that I don't have) are not said to work that well for sports/action. YMMV
... I always love reading these threads. You'll find them on pretty much any subject:
PS3 vs, XBox 360
Bluray vs. HD-DVD
Mac vs. PC
iPhone vs. Android
Pepsi vs. Coke
Ford vs. Chevy Trucks
Single Life vs. Marriage
Girlfriend vs. Wife
Boxers vs. Butt Huggers
Truth is, I think you won't go wrong with either Canon or Nikon. They will both produce outstanding photos in capable hands. I shoot Nikon. I can't really tell you why I went down the Nikon road. I'd like to tell you it was based on months of research comparing companies products side-by-side, blah blah blah... but I'd be lying. I went with Nikon because it just happened to be sold at the right place and the right time. Have I regretted going with Nikon? Not for a second. Would I have been just as happy if I had got a Canon? Almost sure of it.
I think we make our decision on which brand to buy and then after the fact, we line up all kinds of reason to justify it. I often get asked which camera to buy and they will always follow up the question by adding that their cousin, brother, gardener, grocer, whoever, told them they should be x-brand because it's the best. I tell them that they should go to a store where they carry as many brands as possible, find each model in their budget range and play with them. Then make a decision. I also tell them that no matter what they decide, they will get more out of their camera if they learn how to use the damn thing than by going with x-brand over y-brand.
... I always love reading these threads. You'll find them on pretty much any subject:
PS3 vs, XBox 360
Bluray vs. HD-DVD
Mac vs. PC
iPhone vs. Android
Pepsi vs. Coke
Ford vs. Chevy Trucks
Single Life vs. Marriage
Girlfriend vs. Wife
Boxers vs. Butt Huggers
Truth is, I think you won't go wrong with either Canon or Nikon. They will both produce outstanding photos in capable hands. I shoot Nikon. I can't really tell you why I went down the Nikon road. I'd like to tell you it was based on months of research comparing companies products side-by-side, blah blah blah... but I'd be lying. I went with Nikon because it just happened to be sold at the right place and the right time. Have I regretted going with Nikon? Not for a second. Would I have been just as happy if I had got a Canon? Almost sure of it.
I think we make our decision on which brand to buy and then after the fact, we line up all kinds of reason to justify it. I often get asked which camera to buy and they will always follow up the question by adding that their cousin, brother, gardener, grocer, whoever, told them they should be x-brand because it's the best. I tell them that they should go to a store where they carry as many brands as possible, find each model in their budget range and play with them. Then make a decision. I also tell them that no matter what they decide, they will get more out of their camera if they learn how to use the damn thing than by going with x-brand over y-brand.
I think anything more is splitting hairs.
I'd agree to some extent. One isn't better then the other as a whole, but I think just like with many of the examples you gave, there are differences in how those products interact with the consumer.
You are right that many people end up choosing a camera system based on something as simple as "thats why my parents used". Fair enough. However when you look toward the investment in lenses over the years, it becomes (at least in my mind), a decision that warrants some thought and consideration.
Granted, one camera over the other isn't going to be the end of the world for anybody. Anybody could get by with what they have. Just like you say, learning to use it, will do the shooter a huge amount of good. Had I never rented the D700, I probably wouldn't have even realized the differences. I was use to the autofocus on the 5D. When the D700 was focusing perfectly in low light, and my 5D was going nuts trying to lock on to something, I got a glimpse of something that made me want to dig into things even more.
So far I think this thread has been pretty great. I like that people are staying away from a "Mac vs PC" style of argument, and simply looking at why certain bodies might fit certain people better. Its been very helpful for me at least.
Obviously my post was making light of this topic. But I agree with you in that with amount of money we spend on this stuff, this is a decision that should not be made in haste. However, I think the problem is that by the time we are knowledgeable enough to really understand the nuances between the different brands and have the capabilities as photographers to really enjoy those differences, we have already invested into a system. I think it's far and few that start off with one system, maybe a couple kit lenses, flash and body and then convert to another. Most people end up staying put and upgrading their gear slowly. Replacing a kit lens here and there for a pro lens, and then from one crop body to another.
One unexpected advantage, when moving from 10MP 40D to the 21MP 5D2, was in straightening slightly wonky images. On the 40D it seemed to soften them quite a bit and it was noticeable, but much less so on the 21MP 5D2 images. In know, you're probably thinking just get them straight in the first place, but occasionally shit happens.
That's surprising. I've had to straighten/rotate numerous times, not only whole images but selections, including in compositing, and have never detected any IQ problems, and I'm a real obsessionist about such things.
Comments
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Profs and those on their fringe already carry 2(+) bodies to facilitate the use of 2(+) lenses. It makes sense to specialise those 2(+) bodies as much as the specialist lenses on them!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I've seen very useable ISO 4000 images here... not as good as the 5D2 but very very good.
Answer: D4. 16mp, ISO about the same as D3s, 9fps, FF.
Hey, I mentioned the crop factor in my post!<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/ne_nau.gif" border="0" alt="" >
The only gap in the Nikon line-up for me is an up to date pro body with a cropped sensor. I still use my old D2Xs sometimes since I feel like it out-perform the D300.
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
Indeed you did, Mitchell - but checking your post would've shown that it wasn't the source.
pp
Flickr
http://belmontphoto.smugmug.com/
http:/weddingphotonashville.com
Nikon D700 (3 bodies), Nikon 14-24 f2.8, Nikon 24 f/1.4, Nikon 24-70 f/2.8, Nikon 50 f/1.4, Nikon 85 f/1.4, Nikon 70-200 f/2.g VRII, SB-900(2), SB-800(5)
I think this is an interesting way for me to think about them. If Canon were to look at a sampling of professions, they may very well conclude this exact same idea. 1) they already carry more then one body 2) each body's lens is specialized for a purpose. So why not specialize the body as well?
However at the same time, I think this is what is causing me some problems with Canon. I'm not a professional. I don't carry two bodies. I'm enjoying the limitless possibilities while exploring photography.
If however, I suddenly became a professional, while the top end Nikon line my not offer a crop option like the Canon does, I probably wouldn't feel totally left out looking at the D3 line.
Great discussion, I like the focus on not what people "feel" is better just because its what they like, but looking at some of the design choices and customers that these companies appear to be trying to attract.
Lenses: Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II | Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 | Nikon 50mm f/1.4
Lighting: SB-910 | SU-800
Phil
"You don't take a photograph, you make it." ~Ansel Adams
Phil
I really want to say you're flat out wrong or just a special case. But in my experience, at events and a couple weddings, When ever working with a second photographer that shoots Canon. This has been my experience too, at least half the time.
I still believe it's lack of experience and knowledge with the equipment. I have used the ##D and #D for a short time, they seem to work great IME.
Are you comparing a 12MP image to a 21MP image at 100%? That would explain the difference as you are zooming in further into the Canon images.
Are you saying the extra 9 MP are useless softies?
carrying 2 bodies for example a 7D and 5dmk2...what are you shooting? birds in flight and a wedding at the same time? Folks carry a full frame and crop because they don't have/need 2 full frames for example or they want the reach of crop but all things being equal I would assume they want or need the "best" features in each. If I am shooting basketball I may carry a D700 and D300 with telephoto on one and standard zoom on another for across the court shots vs under the basket shots. But I can do this because both have great autofocus. I can't say that I would try that with 5dmk2 and 7D becasue the 5dmk2 does not have a very robust AF module.
Ideally if I am shooting a event/weddingreception or sporting event I am carrying two identical bodies with different lenses or TC's. That way I can switch seemlessly from one lens to another with out having to worry about AF performance or ISO differences or buttons placements between bodies.
Let's face it..we start off on crop cameras and often we will buy a full frame later. That becomes the default 2 camera setup....not because we planned it like that as the ideal setup for whatever we shoot but because it was the natural progression and that is what we ended up with. I fall in the same boat until I can afford the next d800 or whatever. All that said I *think* the nikon lineup presents more continuity over its lineup for those that may have the crop and ff bodies type setup (d700 and d300 mate very well, very close AF, same button layout, same file sizes, just iso zoom factor differences).
edit: this is more directed to Neil then you Helvegr
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
First bold:
Second bold: I couldn't agree with you more.
No
Fine arguments Qarik!
I would comment that the OP is interested in trends and philosophies, and not so much in the circumstances that people fall into because of their particular buying histories, though that is certainly also relevant to manufacturers, I'm sure.
I don't think we can avoid the fact that the cameras we are discussing are comparatively very expensive and aren't found in the hands of the majority of camera owners around the world. It is already a comparatively exclusive market. Since this particular market spends these big bucks regularly their likely choices need both to be anticipated and groomed for the production of these limited sales cameras to be worth continuing. I suggest that uppermost in manufacturers' interests is to retain customers' spending within their brand. This suggests that depth is needed in the brand.
Without having the demographic stats to back it up, my impression is that most photogs in and around the professional market are shooting a couple or more markets of their own. JMichaelK here is a case in point - sports and photojournalism and weddings. I think we would all agree that while as you say he would be unlikely to be shooting all three at the same time, he would be likely to have specialised gear for each which he would likely want to put his hands on instantaneously and get results with the ease and quality that only that specific purpose gear can give. This species of photographer is unlikely to be much phased by minor differences in menus, controls and buttons. Which setup, of 2(+) same bodies or 2(+) specialised bodies, is the best bet? I think the latter. From the manufacturers' point of view there has to be enough depth in their body range to accommodate the variety of specialised needs of this market in order to keep the market buying within their brand. The buyers who are a few more steps out from the edge of this market, like me, who don't have the same pressures to produce masses of a variety of material to a deadline and to the highest quality, are likely to want a single general purpose body with the greatest ease and quality, and we have less of an investment to risk by swapping brands to get that, so we will do that more readily. Losing these customers is less of a threat, though still a sizable one, to manufacturers, consequently there is that amount of "ambivalence" in the prosumer products which people like me are caught up in.
Add to all that, that the manufacturers and we are second guessing the future, and the answer to the question I already raised, is future body technology going to be most effectively contained in a single unit or several?, needs some present answer. We have already seen one alternative response make an appearance, that of the "smart lens - dumb body" where the lens has a specialised sensor and the role of the body is more general. Still again the defining factor of depth within a brand for the high spending pro and epi-pro market is at work. People like me will still be more likely to go for all purpose lenses and body, so the "ambivalence" of products to capture our money will continue. The idea of general purpose is an ambivalent one. The general customer is an ambivalent one.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Great points. So if people didn't just evolve into the 1 crop and 1 FF bodies over time, what would they start out with? From Canon's point of view, would somebody end up with say a 1D for sports, carry a 7D as a second body, and then if they wanted to shoot a wedding, they'd switch out to the 5D2 and a 60D or something as a second body, so 4 bodies in total?
Then does the Nikon guy show up to both events with a D3 and a D700 and call it good? Does everybody really want that crop option for the reach, or like maybe you suggest, everybody just already had a crop option, so its what they stuck with.
Lenses: Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II | Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 | Nikon 50mm f/1.4
Lighting: SB-910 | SU-800
For weddings, I generally shoot with 3-4 camera bodies:
I use a 5D MKII for the formals.
I use a 40D for the candids, reception, etc.
If I use a second shooter they either get an XT/350D or the 40D.
I appreciate the speed of the 1D bodies for when I need that speed, and I also appreciate the AF speed and accuracy. Coupled with a 580EX flash with a high-voltage power supply it's tremendously enabling.
The 5D MKII is just sooo nice for the formals where shooting speed is not so much an issue, but ultimate image quality "is" the issue. If anyone wants enlargements it's almost always from the formals so the 5D MKII fits perfectly.
Using the 40D for the candids is just for me. I used to use the 1D bodies for the candids but they really do get heavy after a while and the 40D plus the EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM makes an extremely nice combination, along with a flash that has an AF assist light. I am not left wanting.
I have also shot candids with the 5D MKII, especially one wedding where there were no formals so I had more PJ responsibility, and the 5D MKII did OK (but it really seems like overkill.)
For my traditional shooting style the separate cameras really seem to work well.
If I shot Nikon I'm not really sure what combination I would choose. Just never really thought too much about it.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
When and why would all the extra resolution from Canon be a necessity?
I suppose a good answer would be, "If you needed it, youd know." But Im hopin for a bit more lol.
I use extra resolution a couple of different ways:
At base and lower ISOs the extra resolution comes in handy for post-processing and cropping. It's just easier to crop when there is a higher gross count of pixels to choose from. As the ISOs get higher, and noise becomes apparent, that ability to crop is less successful because the noise becomes more visible.
Also, with a higher pixel count, the issues and ramifications of Bayer chip technology become less of an issue. Canon and Nikon both use Bayer imagers exclusively and each photosite originates as a single color (in the RGB pallette) and a single luminance tone. During the conversion from the RAW image into the visible image the image processor, or computer processor and software, de-mosaic the RGB information into the full tones that we see in the raster image rendering of full tones and shades.
Since no singular photosite contains full color or luminance information the de-mosaicing algorithms need to make some "assumptions" and interpolations about how the available data is to be interpreted. While the results are generally awfully good, more photosites means more general accuracy concerning both color and luminance in the print (as long as noise levels are in check.) The end result is a discernible smoothness and clarity improvement to the image.
As ISO increases and noise levels increase at the pixel level the resolution advantages are eventually lost, but as long as the "normalized" values needed for the print don't degrade too much, the higher pixel count at least doesn't hurt too much versus an imager with lower net pixel count and the same "normalized" values.
In other words, the Canon 5D MKII and the Nikon D700 really do offer very similar print images at the higher ISOs, but the Canon offers both measurable and visible resolution improvements at low ISOs. It's not as much of an improvement as you might think however and the Nikon is still very nice and for most purposes the resulting images of both cameras are very similar regardless. Most people really cannot tell the difference in printed results between these 2 cameras as long as the lenses are of similar quality and used in a similar fashion. (Lenses really do make a potentially big difference in image quality, much more than cameras used.)
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Assumably for cropping flexibility which can be useful on occasion for any kind of shooting. But things wildlife especailly small birds I would guess would be very useful if you don,t have a 800mm lens! Also for making very large prints or high end landscape or fashion where ver fine details maybe of some relevance
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
It is almost perfect with a D3s and a D7000. D7000 is for resolution and crop factor (D7000 has a buffer issue though). Moreover, I found that D3s is a good (better and sharper) companion for Sigma 500 f4.5 and 800 f5.6 (better than 7D at least), where perhaps only a 1D4 with the new round Canon long lenses can match.
And actually, res and crop factor seem to be useful for me only in birding. Still a D3s with a 800mm may get the best out in terms of both reach and sharpness.
One unexpected advantage, when moving from 10MP 40D to the 21MP 5D2, was in straightening slightly wonky images. On the 40D it seemed to soften them quite a bit and it was noticeable, but much less so on the 21MP 5D2 images. In know, you're probably thinking just get them straight in the first place, but occasionally shit happens.
Now wouldn't it be nice if 5DII has a 1D/D700 like focus system and fps in addition to the nice image quality? In that case, would you carry less bodies for your job? I admit that I have invested quite a bit in Canon lens that makes it hard for me to switch. But I have been long on the fence waiting for a 'perfect' prosumer full frame DSLR from Canon. I am willing to pay a bit more but where is the 3D?
This may be a little past its sell-by date, but I did some of the agonizing for you. Disclaimer: I now no longer own any Canon OR Nikon gear. This all happened when I was obsessed with "getting the shot" and AF performance and frame rates. A year into the D700 I stopped caring about all that.
My distillation:
Nikon has better AF chops than Canon's sub-1D cameras, I like how they trust semi-pros (D700) to have top rank AF. Nikon's ergonomics were far better for me. I missed the relatively cheaper Canon lens prices big time, though I'm one to talk now, with my one Leica lens that cost the same as all my Canon lenses put together. Nikon's bodies and lenses are too large—Canon does compact better. Canon's mode dial and custom settings detents are great and I found that tripod use with Canons was more enjoyable and faster. Live view in Canon land is better. Anyone who tells you the lenses are better across the board in either camp is full of it. Both are playing catch-up with each other and this will happen forever. Enjoy taking photographs!
Hi, I'm Joe Enthusiast. I like to shoot landscapes and sports. And this is my friend Bob, he's a pro who shoots landscapes and wildlife.
This will be fixed with the 5D3. But for now: many people underestimate the 5D2's AF. It's really not that bad. No, it's not 1D, not even 7D, but it's fine 90% of the time. Have you used one and had slow AF problems? It would lag behind if you're shooting F1, but you'd be surprised at how many sports photogs will use their 5D2 occasionally (esp. in low light).
No, for all types of photography it is good to have an FF and a 1.6. Have your main lens on the FF and a fishy, telephoto, etc. on the crop. It lets you get all those "moments" with your FF, and get those wacky shots with the crop. I'm talking in the context of weddings, but for most other shooting purposes it's also true. For sports, I'd rather have 2 D300s's or D7000's (or one of each) than one FF and one crop. If I had the money I'd get a 5D2 (and probably a 7D) and keep my 1D2. I can shoot everything, except where the 5D2 is too slow (rare). Even if there was a fast FF Canon, I'd still want to have a crop body.
This is getting over my head, these deep theoretical questions of life
I'll assume that this question was missed. In particular, I see AI-Servo shooters using center AF point only and setting the Custom Function III-7: "AF point area expansion" to "Enabled", which should not matter in AI-Servo mode, but some folks swear by it as a method. AI-Servo would be my first choice for any sort of predictable motion but do remember that AI-Servo takes 1/2 second or so to calculate the motion and predict an appropriate AF correction. If you just "mash down" the shutter button you will not give the camera sufficient time for proper AI-Servo operation.
Conversely, in Single-Shot mode, the preferred settings are center AF point only and the III-7: "AF point area expansion" set to "Disabled", presumably to simplify the job that the AF section has to do.
Again, these setting suggestions mostly have to do with indoor and low-light/night sports/action photography.
As far as lenses, I can vouch for the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM and EF 135mm, f2L USM as being very nice performers in those conditions and on the 5D MKII. Some other lenses (many that I don't have) are not said to work that well for sports/action. YMMV
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Truth is, I think you won't go wrong with either Canon or Nikon. They will both produce outstanding photos in capable hands. I shoot Nikon. I can't really tell you why I went down the Nikon road. I'd like to tell you it was based on months of research comparing companies products side-by-side, blah blah blah... but I'd be lying. I went with Nikon because it just happened to be sold at the right place and the right time. Have I regretted going with Nikon? Not for a second. Would I have been just as happy if I had got a Canon? Almost sure of it.
I think we make our decision on which brand to buy and then after the fact, we line up all kinds of reason to justify it. I often get asked which camera to buy and they will always follow up the question by adding that their cousin, brother, gardener, grocer, whoever, told them they should be x-brand because it's the best. I tell them that they should go to a store where they carry as many brands as possible, find each model in their budget range and play with them. Then make a decision. I also tell them that no matter what they decide, they will get more out of their camera if they learn how to use the damn thing than by going with x-brand over y-brand.
I think anything more is splitting hairs.
Moderator of the People and Go Figure forums
My Smug Site
I'd agree to some extent. One isn't better then the other as a whole, but I think just like with many of the examples you gave, there are differences in how those products interact with the consumer.
You are right that many people end up choosing a camera system based on something as simple as "thats why my parents used". Fair enough. However when you look toward the investment in lenses over the years, it becomes (at least in my mind), a decision that warrants some thought and consideration.
Granted, one camera over the other isn't going to be the end of the world for anybody. Anybody could get by with what they have. Just like you say, learning to use it, will do the shooter a huge amount of good. Had I never rented the D700, I probably wouldn't have even realized the differences. I was use to the autofocus on the 5D. When the D700 was focusing perfectly in low light, and my 5D was going nuts trying to lock on to something, I got a glimpse of something that made me want to dig into things even more.
So far I think this thread has been pretty great. I like that people are staying away from a "Mac vs PC" style of argument, and simply looking at why certain bodies might fit certain people better. Its been very helpful for me at least.
Lenses: Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II | Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 | Nikon 50mm f/1.4
Lighting: SB-910 | SU-800
Obviously my post was making light of this topic. But I agree with you in that with amount of money we spend on this stuff, this is a decision that should not be made in haste. However, I think the problem is that by the time we are knowledgeable enough to really understand the nuances between the different brands and have the capabilities as photographers to really enjoy those differences, we have already invested into a system. I think it's far and few that start off with one system, maybe a couple kit lenses, flash and body and then convert to another. Most people end up staying put and upgrading their gear slowly. Replacing a kit lens here and there for a pro lens, and then from one crop body to another.
Moderator of the People and Go Figure forums
My Smug Site
That's surprising. I've had to straighten/rotate numerous times, not only whole images but selections, including in compositing, and have never detected any IQ problems, and I'm a real obsessionist about such things.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix