Options
Help guide me. Warning, long post.
Forgive the long post, and while at first it may not seem appropriate for the Camera forum, it is my goal to get some help with a camera dilemma. However I'd like to take you on a short journey through photographic history thus far, so that you will have some insight into the questions that plague me, and my natural indecisiveness.
Its only been a couple of years ago that I really started to get into photography as a hobby. My venture to a DSLR was going down to my local Costco and picking up a Nikon D90 kit, that included a couple lenses and a bag I think.
Only a few days after though, I was talking to some friends and it seemed that at least locally I was surrounded by Canon shooters. I trip into Best Buy introduced me to the Canon 50D, which I immediately loved. It felt larger and fit in my hand nicely, and it felt sturdier then the Nikon D90. Plus I could borrow some lenses from friends! I took advantage of the Costco return policy and returned the D90 and ordered the Canon 50D.
Fast forward about a year and I found myself drawn to landscape photography more then anything. I really wanted to be able to do nice landscapes and hopefully get a few shots up on the wall. Research led me to to looking at full frame cameras and something with a higher resolution. Naturally I came upon the Canon 5D Mark II. I sold my 50D to my friend, and ordered the 5D M2. Wow! I immediately fell in love with the full frame camera. ISO performance was amazing compared to what i was use to. The big bright viewfinder showed me a whole new world!
Between these two camera bodies I had also ended up purchasing a 10-22 lens, the 85 1.2, the 100mm macro, even the ring light!
This is the part, that you'll probably laugh at me, but it was shortly after this that I came to a realization. I was going through gear, but still really didn't know what the heck I was doing. There were so many photographers with lower end gear producing images I could only dream of. I really needed more skill and learning.
I started to digest books and subscribed to kelbytraining.com as I really enjoyed the photography books by Scott Kelby. It is through his online trainings that I discovered some other really great photographers, like Moose Peterson and Joe McNally. One thing started to bug me though...just about every professional photographer I was introduced to, was shooting Nikon. At first I didn't think much of it, but then I really started to see the amazing versatility of the Nikon D3. They were shooting portraits, landscapes, and at 9FPS could turn around and do action sports photography! Watch a training on concert photography? BAM, there was that Nikon again with its raved about ISO performance.
So here, I am with a camera that I do enjoy, but was purchased for a different purpose then really what I'm now looking for. As a design methodology I find myself liking that Nikon makes a full frame camera (like the D700) that can also shoot fast. I've yet to photograph something that needs the resolution of the 5D Mark 2, and find myself having trouble with its slow speed when simply trying to shoot my dogs playing in the back yard. So I thought, well... maybe pick up a 7D for more of those action type of shots.
Anyway, I find myself looking for a reality check. I've got gear that I purchased that I don't use frequently because I didn't (and still don't) know what I'm doing. My ring light and 85mm 1.2 sit on a shelf. I'm still loving photography and am enjoying the learning process, but feel almost like I went down a road too quickly.
But if you are still reading, here is the question to you all. Do you think I'd find value by selling the gear I have, and maybe investing in a Nikon D700, with the battery grip, and a simple Nikon 28-300 lens. Something that would keep me full-frame, but give me the versatility of a camera that I can better grow in to. The 8fps (with the grip) would probably help me expose myself to shooting dogs in the park, or some local sports. While the full-frame would still let me enjoy wider angles for nice landscapes.
Well, there you have it. I'm not sure if anybody will read this big brain dump, or simply think I'm losing my mind. Thanks in advance to anybody who reads this and can provide me their thoughts.
Its only been a couple of years ago that I really started to get into photography as a hobby. My venture to a DSLR was going down to my local Costco and picking up a Nikon D90 kit, that included a couple lenses and a bag I think.
Only a few days after though, I was talking to some friends and it seemed that at least locally I was surrounded by Canon shooters. I trip into Best Buy introduced me to the Canon 50D, which I immediately loved. It felt larger and fit in my hand nicely, and it felt sturdier then the Nikon D90. Plus I could borrow some lenses from friends! I took advantage of the Costco return policy and returned the D90 and ordered the Canon 50D.
Fast forward about a year and I found myself drawn to landscape photography more then anything. I really wanted to be able to do nice landscapes and hopefully get a few shots up on the wall. Research led me to to looking at full frame cameras and something with a higher resolution. Naturally I came upon the Canon 5D Mark II. I sold my 50D to my friend, and ordered the 5D M2. Wow! I immediately fell in love with the full frame camera. ISO performance was amazing compared to what i was use to. The big bright viewfinder showed me a whole new world!
Between these two camera bodies I had also ended up purchasing a 10-22 lens, the 85 1.2, the 100mm macro, even the ring light!
This is the part, that you'll probably laugh at me, but it was shortly after this that I came to a realization. I was going through gear, but still really didn't know what the heck I was doing. There were so many photographers with lower end gear producing images I could only dream of. I really needed more skill and learning.
I started to digest books and subscribed to kelbytraining.com as I really enjoyed the photography books by Scott Kelby. It is through his online trainings that I discovered some other really great photographers, like Moose Peterson and Joe McNally. One thing started to bug me though...just about every professional photographer I was introduced to, was shooting Nikon. At first I didn't think much of it, but then I really started to see the amazing versatility of the Nikon D3. They were shooting portraits, landscapes, and at 9FPS could turn around and do action sports photography! Watch a training on concert photography? BAM, there was that Nikon again with its raved about ISO performance.
So here, I am with a camera that I do enjoy, but was purchased for a different purpose then really what I'm now looking for. As a design methodology I find myself liking that Nikon makes a full frame camera (like the D700) that can also shoot fast. I've yet to photograph something that needs the resolution of the 5D Mark 2, and find myself having trouble with its slow speed when simply trying to shoot my dogs playing in the back yard. So I thought, well... maybe pick up a 7D for more of those action type of shots.
Anyway, I find myself looking for a reality check. I've got gear that I purchased that I don't use frequently because I didn't (and still don't) know what I'm doing. My ring light and 85mm 1.2 sit on a shelf. I'm still loving photography and am enjoying the learning process, but feel almost like I went down a road too quickly.
But if you are still reading, here is the question to you all. Do you think I'd find value by selling the gear I have, and maybe investing in a Nikon D700, with the battery grip, and a simple Nikon 28-300 lens. Something that would keep me full-frame, but give me the versatility of a camera that I can better grow in to. The 8fps (with the grip) would probably help me expose myself to shooting dogs in the park, or some local sports. While the full-frame would still let me enjoy wider angles for nice landscapes.
Well, there you have it. I'm not sure if anybody will read this big brain dump, or simply think I'm losing my mind. Thanks in advance to anybody who reads this and can provide me their thoughts.
Camera: Nikon D4
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
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
0
Comments
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I came to Canon 7-8 years ago and will be staying there, not because I don't admire Nikon, I do. The D3, D700 are both fantastic cameras, but what you learn after a while is that the camera is not really that important, but the knowledge and skill of the head behind the viewfinder is really where it is at, and I already have a stable of Canon glass.
I assure you Joe McNally could make a fine living shooting Canon cameras. Or Marc Muench could just as easily shoot Nikon.
Once you own a first rate camera, like a 1DMk4, you find you no longer have any excuses for poor images.....
If you are happy with your 5DMKii, consider adding the 7D - it is a dynamite camera, really great at sports and wildlife, with fast AF and low noise up to ISO 1600 or higher. The Canon 24-105 is a great lens, I use one almost all the time. Your ring light is useful for shooting macros, and copying flat subject material, but as you have learned, not really that useful for anything but certain macro shots. Most any EOS flash with an off camera cord can be used for macro work with a simple bracket.
The 85 f1.2 is a prime piece of glass, I own one too, but I usually end up taking my 85 f1.8 because it is smaller, lighter, and faster to focus. But for really shallow DOF, f1.2 is lovely, but I rarely need to shoot at f1.2 for all my images. There is one wedding shooter who that is the only optic they use for the whole ceremony. Lots of faith in the autofocus system, to have your whole days work depend on that precise focusing. Sigma makes an 85 f1.4 and so does Zeiss.
28-300 zooms are handy, but usually not the best optics as zooms with a 10-1 ratio are major optical compromises. Even for Nikon. Stick with primes, and your images will be that much better for it.
Buy a good tripod and learn to use it, and a cable release. Your lenses will be ever so much sharper. And a good tripod will be with you long after your present camera body has bit the dust.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
If I had just given the quick answer it would have been simply...you have great gear, learn it well...all of it....it is not the camera that makes wonderful images it is the knowledge of the user and his sight.......knowledge in equipment, knowledge about his subject, and his ability to translate all of that into a good image......
but if you do not take the time to learn your gear, you will never be able to take wonderfully consistent good pictures to hang on a wall.........many years ago there was a pro photojournalist in the middle east and all he shoot with was a pair of Olympus point and shoot camera...1 wide angle and one on the tele side and that was it and he was winning awards for his photos and making lots of money....
No kidding! My wife is a little funny when i want to rent something. All she can think about is that if I decide to buy it, the cost of the rental goes above and beyond what I would have paid to buy it.
You are right though, this type of change warrants the rental cost.
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
But, only switch systems if you prefer the CONTROLS, in my opinion. Bodies will come and go, Canon and Nikon will leapfrog each other and I'm sure the 5D mk3 will be nice and fast. Dunno if it will hit 8 FPS like the D700 does when using a grip, but then again I've never needed 8 FPS since I don't shoot sports much.
But I digress. Again- it's all about controls, when it comes to deciding on a system. Thanks to Nikon's recent flurry of lens releases, I don't really think either has an advantage aside from Nikon's stunning 14-24 and the fact that you can hit 8 FPS on full-frame. If you shoot "in-your-face" sports, that's the system for you! But anyways, the lenses are pretty similar, the bodies will always leapfrog each other, etc. So, only switch if you really don't get along with the controls.
Personally, I do prefer Nikon controls, for many reasons.
But if Canon's controls work for you, then all you need to do is take a deep breath and go find your roots. Don't go with a 28-300, that will only water down your artistic direction and compositional discipline. (in my opinion)
If you like landscapes, go buy a 28 or 35 prime and hit the trail with a tripod.
If you like portraits, maybe put that 85 L on the shelf for a while and go pick up a used 85 1.8 or 100 f/2.
Just focus on one thing at a time, and forget about other people's cameras for a while. Develop your style!
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
No. The gain you would get in burst speed with a D700 would be more than offset by the loss of quality you would see by using an ultra-zoom lens, compared to your existing kit. If burst speed is really that important, add a 7D to your collection and carry on. But consider that if you improve your own technique regarding timing your shots, you won't need so much burst speed.
Look, the D700 is probably the best camera in its class today, but all that could change overnight as technology advances. And it will. Remember that (ignoring film for the moment) your 5DII is probably more capable than any professional grade camera available, say, five or six years ago. But somehow, the pros back then and earlier managed to get stupendous results. I suggest that you stop looking over your shoulder at what others are using and concentrate on improving your technique first. Then invest in top quality glass as needed. If and when you really and truly need a different body, you will know why--it won't be just a nagging feeling that the grass is greener.
Reading your post and looking at your gear, I wonder if you might also think about your style/technique. You say you never use the 5D resolution, but it is great for cropping and this technique might help you catch the action instead of trying to frame things with your zoom. None of the lenses you have are made for sports, so that is another idea maybe. I don't know the 24-105 personally but you might find it fun to have a simple 50mm f1.4 prime for the backyard shots - your other lenses are highly specialized and I can imagine you don't use them much unless you have that special need.
Perhaps an idea to show some of your photos on one of the boards if you don't already. I bet you get a lot of better advice how to improve your shooting with the mouth watering gear you have already.
Btw - there are at least 2 ppl there that use a 5d2 (to good effect) for BIF shots - in spite of its supposed shortcomings ...
pp
Flickr
The difference between a good and bad photograph is the photographer. As has been said already, learn, learn and learn again how to use your kit to its maximum before taking any decisions regarding change.
A good photographer will produce eye catching images using a pinhole camera or the latest all singing, all dancing, fastest, lightest, most expensve kit around.
Look back at some of the most iconic images of our time, ask yourself if your images are better than those especially considering the far superior kit you (and us all) have at our disposal or if there is more to learn?
This post isn't intended as a dig at you personally, it is just that all of us have a little bit of the "If they can take better images than me, if I get the same camera as they use I will be able to take shots of their quality as well" instead of us pushing ourselves and the kit we have to its limits.
Carpy
Do you know exposure? You need to. And composition, and camera controls. Inside and out. I guarantee you Scott Kelby and everyone you watched knows their camera and everything it can do. That's why they're so good. Their images would be 99% as good if they were using a D90 kit. Seriously, think about that. You have better gear. Learning photography will make your images WAY better.
I do suggest getting a 7D and selling your lenses that you don't use. I bet a 7D and an 85 1.8 (not the 1.2) would be a great combo for shooting dogs. You can get most of that money by selling you 85 1.2.
The grass is always greener. Like Matt said, Canon will come out with a better camera than the D3. The D4 will probably be better than Canon's. See a pattern?
You went to Canon because you wanted to borrow lenses of your friends. Are you doing that? I'd love to know some people who shoot Canon but unfortuately I don't have many photographer-friends:D. Borrow someone's 7D and lend them your 5D2. I think lots of people would go for that. Try your 24-105 with the dogs, on the 7D. If that doesn't work then you need to improve your technique.
OK, landscapes and dogs. You have half of that figured out. You have a great landscape setup. Post some pics in the landscape forum! The critique will make you a better photographer.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Grass is always greener on the other side.
That's of course til I discovered things like Capture one, which gave me better skin tones, color, and WB controls that surpass Canons. Nikon announcing the 24-120mm f/4 Vr totally kept me from switching.
You see, I have learned time and time again. The you need to find the things that work for you and only you. You might just be spreading yourself and your focus too thin.
How long have you been in photography (actually taking photos)? A couple of years I assume? I been taking photos on and off professionally and mostly for myself now for over 5 years. And I still see many people simply blow my stuff away.
Let's see some of your stuff, I can give you a honest opinion.
If anyone laughed at that, it was probably with a friendly sense of recognition. Everyone seems to start out looking for the best gear and eventually realizes that gear is not really what matters, and that expensive gear is no substitute for having a good eye, a good sense of timing, and good skill at making the most of whatever gear you have.
As for your main question, I agree with Matthew: only switch brands if there's something about the fundamental design of the two companies' products that makes a big difference to you. Not resolution, not shooting speed, but something like how the camera fits into your hand or how the controls are arranged.
While the 5D Mark II is not generally considered the ideal camera for fast-action sports photography, it is really not all that slow except in continuous-mode fps. Autofocus is fast enough for the vast majority of purposes if you have suitable lenses. You mention the EF 85mm f/1.2L, which is not an AF speed demon. If AF speed matters to you, read reviews to find out which lenses combine excellent optical performance with fast AF.
Personally, I never use continuous shooting even for sports, so I don't care if the 5D2 is slow in that regard. Continuous mode is basically like shooting a very slow movie and then picking individual frames out afterward; it's the exact opposite of waiting for the decisive moment.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
I used to despise the notion that people with money could just go out and buy all the expensive gear, or "both systems", even if they were still learning. But I realized hey, this is a hobby, and money is for spending, so if you work hard enough and photography is your greatest passion, I see no reason not to buy into any / every system you so desire!
I'm not yet *that* well off, but I do shoot regularly with both Canon and Nikon cameras, and I have to say that if I made just a little bit more money, I'd most likely just buy and sell gear just for fun. As long as I don't lose sight of the true passion behind the technology, there's nothing wrong with indulging in a little bit of tech acquisition syndrome!
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I am a bit wayward maybe, but I think that for all that it's true, as others here rightly argue, you have to love the one you're with if you're going to get off the starting blocks and down the tracks - for all that, I think it is a very real fact that different/more advanced tech can lead and inspire and open doors that otherwise would not happen.
So sometimes the really interesting issue is not comparing gear, but asking of any gear what new places it might take you. It seems to me that the differences between the top echelons of Canon and Nikon - bodies and lenses - are in the current state of play uninteresting. All that gear is equally challenging and of equal potential, which I for one have come nowhere near exhausting.
That would not be the case if you were considering medium frame over full frame or crop frame, for example. Or video.
If money is irrelevant you don't have a question. If money is relevant then look at your present gear and ask what is the potential in it that I haven't exhausted? You would be in the same place asking that question of Nikon or Canon gear. Changing from one to the other is not going to change where you are in relation to either system. When either system is uninteresting to you, then you must look around.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix