Switch to Dark Side? Help me brainstorm!

boulderNardo · June 3, 2009

Geez! Another thread like this... I can't decide, I can't help it!!!! :scratch:scratch :huh:huh :dunno:dunno

So. I had never really considered a switch to Nikon until I started really needing a second body and wanting a slight upgrade from my 1DII.

I had been looking at the D3, then stumbled upon the D700. WOW! If there's a body that will make me switch it's the D700!

For about $2200 used with grip I get:
- 12MP, FX format!
- 8fps!!!
- Top notch AF system, apparently comparable to 1DIII
- Best ISO performance (comparable to 5DII?) and IQ of all Nikons.

Sounds to me like it's the perfect primary body for sports?
On top of the above, I get access to the best-in-class super wide angle (Nikkor 14-24/2.8), something I've been wanting from Canon for a long time (wider IS better: http://bernardo.smugmug.com/photos/549335235_ij4ZN-L.jpg

).

Compared to the 1DsII I lose a few MPs and some body-sturdyness, but gain AF performance, IQ, and High-ISO performance.

I'm thinking this could be my switch-line-up:
- 1x D700 as Primary Body (or 1st Body mounted with wide lens)
- 1x D300 as Backup Body (or 2nd Body mounted with tele lens)
- Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8
- Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8D AF (Cheap & Sharp - but AF slow? Other suggestions?)
- Nikkor 35 f/2
- Nikkor 50 f/1.4
- Nikkor 85 f/1.4

Priority to the D700, 14-24/2.8, and the 80-200/2.8, everything else slowly as funds allow.

Whatcha think?
_B

Moogle Pepper · June 3, 2009

If you have all that Canon gear, what really is motivating you to the D700? The 1Ds mk II is no slouch.

Tim Kamppinen · June 4, 2009

Have you considered the 5D mkII? It should give you the high ISO performance you're after... not sure about your other requirements. I'm a Nikon guy myself but you already have some great Canon glass... are there really no comparable wide lenses from Canon?

rookieshooter · June 4, 2009

Tim Kamppinen wrote:

Have you considered the 5D mkII? It should give you the high ISO performance you're after... not sure about your other requirements. I'm a Nikon guy myself but you already have some great Canon glass... are there really no comparable wide lenses from Canon?

The 5DMKII is comparable in high ISO but not in AF or FPS. You're talking 9 point AF versus 51 with 3D tracking, and 3.9fps versus 8fps with the grip.

The 5dII is a great portrait and landscape camera but is not meant for fast action.

To the OP, make sure that 80-200 isn't a DX lens or else you will get major vignetting on an FX sensor.

Tim Kamppinen · June 4, 2009

rookieshooter wrote:

The 5DMKII is comparable in high ISO but not in AF or FPS. You're talking 9 point AF versus 51 with 3D tracking, and 3.9fps versus 8fps with the grip.

The 5dII is a great portrait and landscape camera but is not meant for fast action.

To the OP, make sure that 80-200 isn't a DX lens or else you will get major vignetting on an FX sensor.

I guess Nikon really is better after all...

As for the 80-200, it's an FX lens, they've been making them since the film days. I just got mine a few days ago, though I'm using it on a DX camera (D90). I'm going to use it mainly for portraits... the AF is plenty fast for what I do, but on the D700 it will probably be even faster... for the ultimate in AF speed you'd want a 70-200 2.8 AF-S VR, but that lens has a reptuation for vignetting on FX cameras. I have no idea if it's actually an issue in real-world shots, or just the findings of measurebators... just something to look into if you end up choosing between these lenses. There's also an 80-200 AF-S that might be the best of both worlds for sports but it's out of production and used ones are going for prices that approach the 70-200.

boulderNardo · June 4, 2009

Moogle Pepper, it just seems that Nikon has a better offering than Canon for the applications I'm after. Yes, the 1DsII is no slouch, but a) it costs more than the D700, b) has half the burst speed, c) worse High-ISO performance*, d) doesn't give me access to Nikon's 14-24/2.8**.

* No, I'm not *necessarily* after High-ISO performance as the vast majority of my shots are between ISO 50-400. But, it's nice to have...

** Yes, Canon's wide-zooms don't even compare to the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 from what I can tell through reviews. Canon's 14/2.8II might come close, but it's a prime. The Nikkor's 14-24mm zoom range covers 90% of my shooting.

Canon 5DII is completely out of the question for AF & body-quality/construction reasons.

All this said, I'm still not 100% convinced about the switch

ziggy53 · June 4, 2009

boulderNardo wrote:

... Whatcha think?
_B

The Nikon D3 and the Canon 1D/1Ds AF are supposed to be very similar in AF speed and accuracy. The Nikon D700 is reported, by Nikon owners, as somewhat slower than the D3, but faster than the D300.

By the time you add (to the D700) the grip, tray and EN-EL4a battery you are not far in cost from the D3. The D3 has a much more durable shutter* and mirror section. The D3 also has 100% viewfinder coverage vs 95% for the D700. This is important for tight framing. I suggest that the Nikon D3 is probably a better fit, in the Nikon world, for active sports shooting needs.

I have not seen a D700 with grip for $2200 but that would indeed be a very good price.

(* D3 shutter rating is 300,000 actuations vs 150,000 for the D700.)

Cygnus Studios · June 4, 2009

ziggy53 wrote:

I suggest that the Nikon D3 is probably a better fit, in the Nikon world, for active sports shooting needs.

I would agree with Ziggy. The D700 is a super camera, but side by side with the D3 it is definitely behind the curve.

The 14-24mm is one of the finest Nikkor lens ever made. You will love this lens.

catspaw · June 4, 2009

*cheers*

yes, do it, do it, do it!

signed,

a Nikon GAL

Qarik · June 4, 2009

do it

Tango · June 4, 2009

which side is the darkside?... im confussed... am i a Jedi or Sith?:D

anyway, i think you will find yourself getting frustrated with two platforms...

just make sure im around if you decide to dump the Canon Glass:D

NikonsandVstroms · June 4, 2009

Do it!!

The D700 is a joy for sports work, but I did find some times I wanted more reach so a D300 back up would be a perfect set up

ban25 · June 4, 2009

The 80-200 is great for sports, but if you're looking to use it for things that don't move then I recommend the 70-200 VR for the IS.

I wouldn't buy used. The D700 is selling new from Amazon for $2331 (body only). Do you really want to get a used camera with no warranty, just to save a measly $130?

ian408 · June 4, 2009

boulderNardo wrote:

d) doesn't give me access to Nikon's 14-24/2.8**.

You might want to look here first.

rookieshooter · June 4, 2009

ziggy53 wrote:

By the time you add (to the D700) the grip, tray and EN-EL4a battery you are not far in cost from the D3.

I'm confused. The tray and grip are one unit, and all you need to bump it to 8fps is NiMH batteries. I bought 8 for about $50 I think. So it's $2300 for the body plus $350 or so for grip + batteries. You are still way under what it would cost for a D3 body. Unless my math is wrong or I am missing something.

You do not need the EN-EL4a battery for 8fps. Oh and throw in $20 for a battery recharger I guess.

boulderNardo · June 6, 2009

Yay!

I have a 1Ds MkII for the weekend to play with it and see if I like it

A very kind and generous local photographer is letting me use his. Very cool.

Taken some landscapes and few non-flashed action shots so far.
Landscapes are gorgeous. The increased resolution and FF chip just blows my mind. Sports is a whole other story. When I shoot without strobes I prefer to be in burst mode, and this body is SLOOOOW. 4fps is already killing me.

I'll be shooting action all day tomorrow with my strobes, no burst mode, see how I like the results from that.

_B

ian408 · June 6, 2009

If you're shooting burst, the 1D is a better choice. Not FF but faster.

boulderNardo · June 8, 2009

ian408 wrote:

If you're shooting burst, the 1D is a better choice. Not FF but faster.

Indeed, hence my current ownership of a 1DII ...

Soooo. After shooting the 1DsII all weekend. I'm NOT blown away.
Great filesize, good IQ, so-so High-ISO performance, awefully slow burst.

All somewhat expected.
I simply realized even though I do shoot in single-shot mode a lot when using strobes, I *need* a fast burst mode.

A lot of good pros & cons re: switching to Nikon.
Right now, with the amount of shooting I'm booked for I can't afford to waste time making a full switch and learning a new system. I'll wait till the end of the summer when my shooting volume drops off drastically, at which point Canon will most likely have leaked or released new bodies and I can make a better decision.

In the meantime, I'll get myself a second 1DII body .... :ivar

MT Stringer · June 9, 2009

Don't do it, Luke. Use the force!

I don't see how any camera can focus any faster than my 1D MK III.
Mike

ian408 · June 9, 2009

boulderNardo wrote:

I
In the meantime, I'll get myself a second 1DII body .... :ivar

Want to buy a used one?

Switch to Dark Side? Help me brainstorm!

Comments