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.
Totally agree. I find myself at the brink of that "point of no return". Before I invest in a 2nd body (7D) and a 70-200, i found double a double check to make sure I was never going to regret the additional expense. I'm also the kind of person that tends to overthink just about every big decision I have to make.
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!
If you look at these things from a one brand, one body perspective you will always feel deprived. If you look from a multiple body perspective you will always feel enabled. That's it! And it's the secret of Ziggy's contentment!D
The way of the future in the pro-semi-pro camera market is possibly into even more spread of function across bodies, more specialisation. Pricing seems to be pushing this trend too. So if the knicker knotters on both the Canon and Nikon sides are not going to knot their knickers inextricably even tighter they could consider looking over their shoulders and joining the great sea of ignorant happy poppers who with their "amateur" gear never miss a thing!rofl
Totally agree. I find myself at the brink of that "point of no return". Before I invest in a 2nd body (7D) and a 70-200, i found double a double check to make sure I was never going to regret the additional expense. I'm also the kind of person that tends to overthink just about every big decision I have to make.
Go for the 7D. Is there any shot that the 5D2 has missed? The 7D will get it with the AF, and you'll be able to shoot pretty much everything. And maybe you'll upgrade to the 5D3 someday.
hope srpings eternal! lol..oh man if/when the 5dmk3 does come out with a great AF module..even I will drink a toast for you guys! cheers!
Why? I personally couldn't care less about that. For wildlife, my 7D is perfect. The crop factor is a huge advantage for reach, and the focus system is awesome.
My 5DMKII is used for landscape, portraits, and nature shots which may include static wildlife. I have never felt limited by the 5DMKII AF, but I don't use it for action.
Almost any serious shooting scenario I can think of requires at least two bodies, and I think the areas where each of these Canon bodies excel compliment each other perfectly. I will certainly be pleased if Canon puts the 7D AF system in the 5DMKIII, but I won't run out and buy it because I'm perfectly happy with what I have now.
If you look at these things from a one brand, one body perspective you will always feel deprived. If you look from a multiple body perspective you will always feel enabled. That's it! And it's the secret of Ziggy's contentment!D
Neil
It's so true. The enemy of that is having too much redundancy, which leads to sell-offs and, worse, stagnation. You wouldn't have these feelings if these tools weren't so damn similar.
Ok, I have a d700 and it is great for all around work. I am leaning toward Medium Format for my next body though. This would be for landscape and studio work. I am looking at the pentax 645. Now this is up in the air till the next iteration of the D3x but I am leaning that way. The cost is not much more than the flagship of either cannon or Nikon.
0
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
edited February 24, 2011
As someone who at one point or another has photographed practically EVERYTHING, (okay, don't believe me? Let's see- Landscapes / macro / wildlife, (stock and gallery exhibitions) architecture, (hobby and work) corporate / commercial / product / editorial, (work) theater / gymnastics, (hobby and work) weddings / families / babies / bar/bat mitzvas, (work) ...hmm, did I leave anything out?)
Alright as I was saying, as someone who at one point or another has pretty much tried it all, ...I decided to make an effort to know BOTH systems like the back of my hand. I didn't want to be surfing forums late at night and wondering "is the grass really greener on the other side?" ...Being in a great community of photographers in Southern California has afforded me opportunities to photograph many different things on both Nikon and Canon cameras. I have photographed entire wedding jobs and other stuff on the Nikon D300, D700, and Canon 7D, 5D mk1 and mk2. And I have at one point or another handled pretty much every DSLR ever produced from Nikon and Canon, since the D1X / 1Ds...
...I have concluded that it I definitely prefer the controls and customizability / functionality of Nikon bodies. Historically, Canon has been quite consistent and predictable in their engineering and marketing: Deliver stunning image quality, but skimp a teeny tiny bit here and there, in a very calculated, tactful way, so that as many people as possible will at least "lust after" an expensive flagship. Whereas Nikon, historically, has just gone for broke and crammed as many pro features into as affordable of a camera as they possibly can. (Admittedly sometimes leaving a bit to be desired in the image quality category, namely with the D2 generation...)
Today, the D700 and the 5D mk2 are the epitome of the Canon and Nikon traditions: The 5D mk2 does deliver stunning image quality and superior resolution, without even sacrificing much low light performance. Plus the video, for those who need it. However in all other respects, the Nikon D700 is simply a more powerful, capable and reliable camera.
For most, the differences in performance are negligible enough that you can honestly just make your decision based on which buttons make sense to you. For example Canon gives you right-handed access to your ISO and other settings, while Nikon's switches and dials give you access to other settings in an equally awesome way. I happen to prefer Nikon's control layout. And I happen to shoot such a wide variety of things, that I prefer to forfeit the extra resolution in favor of the D700's well-rounded performance.
And of course, BOTH cameras are due to be replaced within the next year or so, and I'm sure the D800 and 5D mk3 will be even more neck-and-neck. And currently, lens selection is becoming more neck-and-neck as well, with Nikon's recent bout of f/1.4 pro prime releases, and patents being filed for a new 50 f/1.2 AFS-G. ;-)
Camera body performance will leapfrog back and forth till kingdom come. The one thing that is the LEAST likely to change from generation to generation is, you guessed it- ...where the buttons are. :-)
As someone who at one point or another has photographed practically EVERYTHING, (okay, don't believe me? Let's see- Landscapes / macro / wildlife, (stock and gallery exhibitions) architecture, (hobby and work) corporate / commercial / product / editorial, (work) theater / gymnastics, (hobby and work) weddings / families / babies / bar/bat mitzvas, (work) ...hmm, did I leave anything out?)
Alright as I was saying, as someone who at one point or another has pretty much tried it all, ...I decided to make an effort to know BOTH systems like the back of my hand. I didn't want to be surfing forums late at night and wondering "is the grass really greener on the other side?" ...Being in a great community of photographers in Southern California has afforded me opportunities to photograph many different things on both Nikon and Canon cameras. I have photographed entire wedding jobs and other stuff on the Nikon D300, D700, and Canon 7D, 5D mk1 and mk2. And I have at one point or another handled pretty much every DSLR ever produced from Nikon and Canon, since the D1X / 1Ds...
...I have concluded that it I definitely prefer the controls and customizability / functionality of Nikon bodies. Historically, Canon has been quite consistent and predictable in their engineering and marketing: Deliver stunning image quality, but skimp a teeny tiny bit here and there, in a very calculated, tactful way, so that as many people as possible will at least "lust after" an expensive flagship. Whereas Nikon, historically, has just gone for broke and crammed as many pro features into as affordable of a camera as they possibly can. (Admittedly sometimes leaving a bit to be desired in the image quality category, namely with the D2 generation...)
Today, the D700 and the 5D mk2 are the epitome of the Canon and Nikon traditions: The 5D mk2 does deliver stunning image quality and superior resolution, without even sacrificing much low light performance. Plus the video, for those who need it. However in all other respects, the Nikon D700 is simply a more powerful, capable and reliable camera.
For most, the differences in performance are negligible enough that you can honestly just make your decision based on which buttons make sense to you. For example Canon gives you right-handed access to your ISO and other settings, while Nikon's switches and dials give you access to other settings in an equally awesome way. I happen to prefer Nikon's control layout. And I happen to shoot such a wide variety of things, that I prefer to forfeit the extra resolution in favor of the D700's well-rounded performance.
And of course, BOTH cameras are due to be replaced within the next year or so, and I'm sure the D800 and 5D mk3 will be even more neck-and-neck. And currently, lens selection is becoming more neck-and-neck as well, with Nikon's recent bout of f/1.4 pro prime releases, and patents being filed for a new 50 f/1.2 AFS-G. ;-)
Camera body performance will leapfrog back and forth till kingdom come. The one thing that is the LEAST likely to change from generation to generation is, you guessed it- ...where the buttons are. :-)
=Matt=
Might all be true, Matt. Probably is. However, my punt is that the consumer bodies will be developed for all round performance, just as they are already creeping towards the specs of the D700 and 7D, and the prosumer and pro bodies will, along with their lenses, become more specialised. I doubt there will be much further development of the D700 as an all rounder, and I think some departure from those lines towards complementary bodies (pairs) will happen, in a similar way to how the 7D and 5DII are de facto being used by photogs today. The pro bodies will eventually be developed to replace MF, with all their advantages over MF further improved.
Might all be true, Matt. Probably is. However, my punt is that the consumer bodies will be developed for all round performance, just as they are already creeping towards the specs of the D700 and 7D, and the prosumer and pro bodies will, along with their lenses, become more specialised. I doubt there will be much further development of the D700 as an all rounder, and I think some departure from those lines towards complementary bodies (pairs) will happen, in a similar way to how the 7D and 5DII are de facto being used by photogs today. The pro bodies will eventually be developed to replace MF, with all their advantages over MF further improved.
I think a lot of people are forgetting about the 1Ds3, it's (used) a little more than a new D700. It's the 5D2 sensor, 1D AF, and 5fps. No, not as portable as the 5-Series. So? Better build than the 5-Series too.
And currently, lens selection is becoming more neck-and-neck as well, with Nikon's recent bout of f/1.4 pro prime releases, and patents being filed for a new 50 f/1.2 AFS-G. ;-)
=Matt=
I seem to remember you complaining recently that Canon were effectively conning us by making f/1.2 primes instead of more affordable f/1.4, and that this was a plus for Nikon.
I think a lot of people are forgetting about the 1Ds3, it's (used) a little more than a new D700. It's the 5D2 sensor, 1D AF, and 5fps. No, not as portable as the 5-Series. So? Better build than the 5-Series too.
Yep, and the affordability of a used 1Ds mk3 is one reason I ALWAYS encourage Canon-shooting photographers, who think the grass is greener, to give Canon's flagships a thought.
If I had to shoot Canon, I'd be getting either a 1Ds mk3 and a 7D, or a 1D mk3 and a 5D mk2. PERFECT kits for pretty much anything.
I seem to remember you complaining recently that Canon were effectively conning us by making f/1.2 primes instead of more affordable f/1.4, and that this was a plus for Nikon.
1.) Yep, I personally don't care at all for f/1.2, it makes a lens sluggish and heavy. I just mentioned that Nikon may have a new 50 1.2 for those who are interested.
2.) Indeed I strongly dislike Canon's lack of a GREAT 50 1.4, nor with the complete absence of an 85 1.4. But I usually leave that out of less in-depth discussions of Canon vs Nikon because it's such a specialized nuance of the two systems, and most people won't ever care.
3.) That, and also the fact that Sigma is entering the scene with some KILLER f/1.4 lenses, which very much levels the playing field for Canon's f/1.4 "handicap". I've shot with both the Sigma 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.4, as well as all the Nikon 85mm's and both Canon 85mm's. In my opinion, the Sigma 85 f/1.4 is the best deal out of them all for a professional, or of course both Canon and Nikon's f/1.8's are stunning as well for anyone who would rather pack a little lighter. I also predict that we'll see at least one more f/1.4 EX (pro) prime from Sigma this year, most likely a 35 f/1.4, and I expect it to be awesome yet ~50-60% of the Nikon and Canon versions.
...So all in all, I'm still pretty confident that Canon and Nikon's lens lineups are relatively similar, especially when considering Sigma's common ground.
If I had to shoot Canon, I'd be getting either a 1Ds mk3 and a 7D, or a 1D mk3 and a 5D mk2. PERFECT kits for pretty much anything.
What about the 1DIV?
2.) Indeed I strongly dislike Canon's lack of a GREAT 50 1.4, nor with the complete absence of an 85 1.4. But I usually leave that out of less in-depth discussions of Canon vs Nikon because it's such a specialized nuance of the two systems, and most people won't ever care.
I have no want at all for a Canon 85 1.4. The 1.8 is killer, unless you want 1.2 and really good IQ, but with that you're sacrificing AF speed. If I was a pro I'd gladly shoot with the 1.8. $400 lens.
1.) Yep, I personally don't care at all for f/1.2, it makes a lens sluggish and heavy. I just mentioned that Nikon may have a new 50 1.2 for those who are interested.
I already have the 50 1.2 Ais, dont use it as much as I used to. One of the reasons I went Nikon is they are more end user friendly, such as the F-mount. You can use almost any lens they have manufactured in the past. With Canon this isnt so, and this is even true within their digital line.
Nikon has not focused on MPs, instead they have worked on optimizing their sensors at the given MP level. They are getting higher ISOs from them first. They maybe slow in bumping the numbers up but, face it for what a majority of people print at, size wise, even pros dont need the higher MP. Those who do need high MPs will use MF the majority of the time, the rest print at magazine size for which 12MP is fine.
Both manufacturers make fine cameras which is good for us and that is all I care about. Actually Im saving for a 645D because I want to go back to MF. But I will also go FF and that will ofcourse be Nikon, I want both crop and FF, it is the best of both worlds.
I'd definitely go for a 1D mk4 as soon as it drops below $3000 used. If it hasn't already?
I have no want at all for a Canon 85 1.4. The 1.8 is killer, unless you want 1.2 and really good IQ, but with that you're sacrificing AF speed. If I was a pro I'd gladly shoot with the 1.8. $400 lens.
Agreed, the Canon 85 1.8 is stellar. Honestly I use the Nikon 85 1.8 all the time as well. But either way, the Sigmas are available on both formats, and that helps level the playing field when it comes to Nikon vs Canon. I would not buy into Canon just to get the 85 1.2, nor would I buy Nikon just to get the new 85 1.4.
I already have the 50 1.2 Ais, dont use it as much as I used to. One of the reasons I went Nikon is they are more end user friendly, such as the F-mount. You can use almost any lens they have manufactured in the past. With Canon this isnt so, and this is even true within their digital line.
Nikon has not focused on MPs, instead they have worked on optimizing their sensors at the given MP level. They are getting higher ISOs from them first. They maybe slow in bumping the numbers up but, face it for what a majority of people print at, size wise, even pros dont need the higher MP. Those who do need high MPs will use MF the majority of the time, the rest print at magazine size for which 12MP is fine.
Both manufacturers make fine cameras which is good for us and that is all I care about. Actually Im saving for a 645D because I want to go back to MF. But I will also go FF and that will ofcourse be Nikon, I want both crop and FF, it is the best of both worlds.
Yep, I shoot professional jobs all the time with a D700 / D300 and a couple manual focus lenses from the 80's. Sharp as heck, cheap as heck, and with a build quality that you just don't see any more these days. In fact for a lot of my casual shooting with friends, I just bring a D300 and a 24 2.8 AIS, it's a fantastic kit and the 36mm equivalent is perfect for most photojournalism. (I'd get a 35 1.4 AIS for the D700, but that just feels like overkill for personal shooting. At most, maybe some day I'll get the 24 2.0 AIS for the D300. I wish they'd make an affordable 24 2.0 AFS now that they have the pro 24 1.4 AFS, but that may never happen...
Comments
Totally agree. I find myself at the brink of that "point of no return". Before I invest in a 2nd body (7D) and a 70-200, i found double a double check to make sure I was never going to regret the additional expense. I'm also the kind of person that tends to overthink just about every big decision I have to make.
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
If you look at these things from a one brand, one body perspective you will always feel deprived. If you look from a multiple body perspective you will always feel enabled. That's it! And it's the secret of Ziggy's contentment!
The way of the future in the pro-semi-pro camera market is possibly into even more spread of function across bodies, more specialisation. Pricing seems to be pushing this trend too. So if the knicker knotters on both the Canon and Nikon sides are not going to knot their knickers inextricably even tighter they could consider looking over their shoulders and joining the great sea of ignorant happy poppers who with their "amateur" gear never miss a thing!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Go for the 7D. Is there any shot that the 5D2 has missed? The 7D will get it with the AF, and you'll be able to shoot pretty much everything. And maybe you'll upgrade to the 5D3 someday.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
My 5DMKII is used for landscape, portraits, and nature shots which may include static wildlife. I have never felt limited by the 5DMKII AF, but I don't use it for action.
Almost any serious shooting scenario I can think of requires at least two bodies, and I think the areas where each of these Canon bodies excel compliment each other perfectly. I will certainly be pleased if Canon puts the 7D AF system in the 5DMKIII, but I won't run out and buy it because I'm perfectly happy with what I have now.
Link to my Smugmug site
It's so true. The enemy of that is having too much redundancy, which leads to sell-offs and, worse, stagnation. You wouldn't have these feelings if these tools weren't so damn similar.
Alright as I was saying, as someone who at one point or another has pretty much tried it all, ...I decided to make an effort to know BOTH systems like the back of my hand. I didn't want to be surfing forums late at night and wondering "is the grass really greener on the other side?" ...Being in a great community of photographers in Southern California has afforded me opportunities to photograph many different things on both Nikon and Canon cameras. I have photographed entire wedding jobs and other stuff on the Nikon D300, D700, and Canon 7D, 5D mk1 and mk2. And I have at one point or another handled pretty much every DSLR ever produced from Nikon and Canon, since the D1X / 1Ds...
...I have concluded that it I definitely prefer the controls and customizability / functionality of Nikon bodies. Historically, Canon has been quite consistent and predictable in their engineering and marketing: Deliver stunning image quality, but skimp a teeny tiny bit here and there, in a very calculated, tactful way, so that as many people as possible will at least "lust after" an expensive flagship. Whereas Nikon, historically, has just gone for broke and crammed as many pro features into as affordable of a camera as they possibly can. (Admittedly sometimes leaving a bit to be desired in the image quality category, namely with the D2 generation...)
Today, the D700 and the 5D mk2 are the epitome of the Canon and Nikon traditions: The 5D mk2 does deliver stunning image quality and superior resolution, without even sacrificing much low light performance. Plus the video, for those who need it. However in all other respects, the Nikon D700 is simply a more powerful, capable and reliable camera.
For most, the differences in performance are negligible enough that you can honestly just make your decision based on which buttons make sense to you. For example Canon gives you right-handed access to your ISO and other settings, while Nikon's switches and dials give you access to other settings in an equally awesome way. I happen to prefer Nikon's control layout. And I happen to shoot such a wide variety of things, that I prefer to forfeit the extra resolution in favor of the D700's well-rounded performance.
And of course, BOTH cameras are due to be replaced within the next year or so, and I'm sure the D800 and 5D mk3 will be even more neck-and-neck. And currently, lens selection is becoming more neck-and-neck as well, with Nikon's recent bout of f/1.4 pro prime releases, and patents being filed for a new 50 f/1.2 AFS-G. ;-)
Camera body performance will leapfrog back and forth till kingdom come. The one thing that is the LEAST likely to change from generation to generation is, you guessed it- ...where the buttons are. :-)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Might all be true, Matt. Probably is. However, my punt is that the consumer bodies will be developed for all round performance, just as they are already creeping towards the specs of the D700 and 7D, and the prosumer and pro bodies will, along with their lenses, become more specialised. I doubt there will be much further development of the D700 as an all rounder, and I think some departure from those lines towards complementary bodies (pairs) will happen, in a similar way to how the 7D and 5DII are de facto being used by photogs today. The pro bodies will eventually be developed to replace MF, with all their advantages over MF further improved.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I seem to remember you complaining recently that Canon were effectively conning us by making f/1.2 primes instead of more affordable f/1.4, and that this was a plus for Nikon.
If I had to shoot Canon, I'd be getting either a 1Ds mk3 and a 7D, or a 1D mk3 and a 5D mk2. PERFECT kits for pretty much anything.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
2.) Indeed I strongly dislike Canon's lack of a GREAT 50 1.4, nor with the complete absence of an 85 1.4. But I usually leave that out of less in-depth discussions of Canon vs Nikon because it's such a specialized nuance of the two systems, and most people won't ever care.
3.) That, and also the fact that Sigma is entering the scene with some KILLER f/1.4 lenses, which very much levels the playing field for Canon's f/1.4 "handicap". I've shot with both the Sigma 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.4, as well as all the Nikon 85mm's and both Canon 85mm's. In my opinion, the Sigma 85 f/1.4 is the best deal out of them all for a professional, or of course both Canon and Nikon's f/1.8's are stunning as well for anyone who would rather pack a little lighter. I also predict that we'll see at least one more f/1.4 EX (pro) prime from Sigma this year, most likely a 35 f/1.4, and I expect it to be awesome yet ~50-60% of the Nikon and Canon versions.
...So all in all, I'm still pretty confident that Canon and Nikon's lens lineups are relatively similar, especially when considering Sigma's common ground.
:-)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
What about the 1DIV?
I have no want at all for a Canon 85 1.4. The 1.8 is killer, unless you want 1.2 and really good IQ, but with that you're sacrificing AF speed. If I was a pro I'd gladly shoot with the 1.8. $400 lens.
I already have the 50 1.2 Ais, dont use it as much as I used to. One of the reasons I went Nikon is they are more end user friendly, such as the F-mount. You can use almost any lens they have manufactured in the past. With Canon this isnt so, and this is even true within their digital line.
Nikon has not focused on MPs, instead they have worked on optimizing their sensors at the given MP level. They are getting higher ISOs from them first. They maybe slow in bumping the numbers up but, face it for what a majority of people print at, size wise, even pros dont need the higher MP. Those who do need high MPs will use MF the majority of the time, the rest print at magazine size for which 12MP is fine.
Both manufacturers make fine cameras which is good for us and that is all I care about. Actually Im saving for a 645D because I want to go back to MF. But I will also go FF and that will ofcourse be Nikon, I want both crop and FF, it is the best of both worlds.
http://joves.smugmug.com/
Agreed, the Canon 85 1.8 is stellar. Honestly I use the Nikon 85 1.8 all the time as well. But either way, the Sigmas are available on both formats, and that helps level the playing field when it comes to Nikon vs Canon. I would not buy into Canon just to get the 85 1.2, nor would I buy Nikon just to get the new 85 1.4.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum