Considering a switch - Insanity check?

[davewolfs]

I currently own a Nikon D700 and am considering a switch to Canon.

My reasons are basically that I am at a point now where I'd like to start using some good quality telephotos and am not interested in paying for exotics such as the 200-400 or carrying extra weight with the 70-200 f/2.8.

Both the 70-200 f/4 and 100-400 would be on my list, one of which Nikon does not offer, the other I've read needs an update in the AF department.

Between my lenses - 24-70, 17-35 and 105VR I could probably sell my gear and move over to Canon without any loss.  As for the type of photography I shoot, high ISO and Pro AF are not absolute requirements - although the D700 does EXCELLENT in both of these aspects.

So basically what I am deciding now is do I move over and get all the lenses that I want - 21MP would be an added bonus.  Or do I go ahead and try out the 70-300VR and hope that Nikon brings some updates to the table.

As for the ergos, obviously I am a fan of Nikon, but I've handled several Canons before and with time I'm sure that the controls would become second nature.

Thoughts anyone, what would you do?

[BernardLanguillier]

http://www.bythom.com/desertislandkit.htm

Have you at all considered the Nikkor 70-300 VR?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Rob C]

And should we face life moored to a tripod?

I bought a 2.8/24-70mm G Nikkor a couple of weeks ago and had only used it on a Gitzo which I can hardly lift. Yesterday, there was a bit of a stramash going on with firefighting helicopters raiding a local swimming pool for water to put out a brush fire on the mountains beside me. This happens a lot out here, but usually they use planes which dip into the local bay and scoop up water from there. The tourist season has just started, so perhaps they didn´t want to risk the annual jokes about swimmers being found up in the trees.

Anyway, to the point: I though hey, why not give the new zoom a go, so I went up to the top floor and stuck it on the long limit - 70mm, about 105mm in normal 35mm language and ran off a few shots of the pair of choppers having life-threatening fun. I discovered very quickly two things: the combination can be held relatively steady up till the moment of releasing the shutter, at which stage it goes AWOL in my hand, all by itself.

I was on a 1000th of a sec at 2.8 and the base 100 ISO, expecting that should be more than enough to freeze motion. Some time later I discovered my mistake. I didn´t need 100% to see it. What, using a normal 105mm lens would have been a piece of cake turned, with a zoom, into a piece of crap. I can´t really decide if it is just shake or whether the lens at 2.8 just can´t cut it, but one way or the other, far from being the universal panacea that the makers all claim these things to be, it is the worst of all worlds, confirming how right I had been all my professional life never to have bought a zoom. Ever. Wish I hadn´t allowed fear of getting dust onto the sensor to overcome my better judgement, the ONLY reason for my buying a zoom in the first place.

Solution? Perhaps a tripod welded to my feet? No thanks. There are better ways to "enjoy" photography.

Rob C

[EdRosch]

And should we face life moored to a tripod?

................. I discovered very quickly two things: the combination can be held relatively steady up till the moment of releasing the shutter, at which stage it goes AWOL in my hand, all by itself.

I was on a 1000th of a sec at 2.8 and the base 100 ISO, expecting that should be more than enough to freeze motion. Some time later I discovered my mistake. I didn´t need 100% to see it. What, using a normal 105mm lens would have been a piece of cake turned, with a zoom, into a piece of crap. I can´t really decide if it is just shake or whether the lens at 2.8 just can´t cut it, but one way or the other, far from being the universal panacea that the makers all claim these things to be, it is the worst of all worlds, confirming how right I had been all my professional life never to have bought a zoom. Ever. Wish I hadn´t allowed fear of getting dust onto the sensor to overcome my better judgement, the ONLY reason for my buying a zoom in the first place.

Solution? Perhaps a tripod welded to my feet? No thanks. There are better ways to "enjoy" photography.

Rob C

Hi Rob,

Not to hijack this thread, but this is really odd.  Would you mind starting a new thread about this and posting a shot or two?  I know that the old 1/FL formula to get sharp shots has been modified to twice the focal length in our brave new digital world, but a thousandth with your lens, even figuring the crop factor is more like ten times the focal length- it should have been tack sharp assuming you weren't jumping up and down when you tripped the shutter     Have you taken pictures off your tripod using the same settings to compare?

And to Dave,  I'm a Canon user and it's fine, but occasionally I look with envy across the fence at Nikon.....grass is greener and all that.  No reason to be in a hurry, visit the various forums and really think over the advantages and disadvantages to each system before jumping ship.  I will say that the 70-200 f/4 IS is a truly amazing lens.

Ed

[Geoff Wittig]

I currently own a Nikon D700 and am considering a switch to Canon.

My reasons are basically that I am at a point now where I'd like to start using some good quality telephotos and am not interested in paying for exotics such as the 200-400 or carrying extra weight with the 70-200 f/2.8.

Both the 70-200 f/4 and 100-400 would be on my list, one of which Nikon does not offer, the other I've read needs an update in the AF department.

Between my lenses - 24-70, 17-35 and 105VR I could probably sell my gear and move over to Canon without any loss.  As for the type of photography I shoot, high ISO and Pro AF are not absolute requirements - although the D700 does EXCELLENT in both of these aspects.

So basically what I am deciding now is do I move over and get all the lenses that I want - 21MP would be an added bonus.  Or do I go ahead and try out the 70-300VR and hope that Nikon brings some updates to the table.

As for the ergos, obviously I am a fan of Nikon, but I've handled several Canons before and with time I'm sure that the controls would become second nature.

Thoughts anyone, what would you do?

Don't do it, pal. And I say this as a Canon owner. You already own an excellent camera, and Nikon makes some great lenses. No point in swapping systems without a real reason. Canon's 70-200 f:4 and f:2.8 lenses are truly excellent, and better than Nikon's equivalent. However, Canon's 100-400 is pretty mediocre, and well overdue for replacement. Full-frame sensors definitely highlight its deficiencies. Nikon has much better wide glass than Canon, and there is no Canon equivalent to Nikon's excellent 200-400 f:4, I'd buy it in a heart beat if they did. In another year or two Nikon is sure to release a 24.5 megapixel version of the D700, and you may regret swapping at that point.

[davewolfs]

And should we face life moored to a tripod?

I bought a 2.8/24-70mm G Nikkor a couple of weeks ago and had only used it on a Gitzo which I can hardly lift. Yesterday, there was a bit of a stramash going on with firefighting helicopters raiding a local swimming pool for water to put out a brush fire on the mountains beside me. This happens a lot out here, but usually they use planes which dip into the local bay and scoop up water from there. The tourist season has just started, so perhaps they didn´t want to risk the annual jokes about swimmers being found up in the trees.

Anyway, to the point: I though hey, why not give the new zoom a go, so I went up to the top floor and stuck it on the long limit - 70mm, about 105mm in normal 35mm language and ran off a few shots of the pair of choppers having life-threatening fun. I discovered very quickly two things: the combination can be held relatively steady up till the moment of releasing the shutter, at which stage it goes AWOL in my hand, all by itself.

I was on a 1000th of a sec at 2.8 and the base 100 ISO, expecting that should be more than enough to freeze motion. Some time later I discovered my mistake. I didn´t need 100% to see it. What, using a normal 105mm lens would have been a piece of cake turned, with a zoom, into a piece of crap. I can´t really decide if it is just shake or whether the lens at 2.8 just can´t cut it, but one way or the other, far from being the universal panacea that the makers all claim these things to be, it is the worst of all worlds, confirming how right I had been all my professional life never to have bought a zoom. Ever. Wish I hadn´t allowed fear of getting dust onto the sensor to overcome my better judgement, the ONLY reason for my buying a zoom in the first place.

Solution? Perhaps a tripod welded to my feet? No thanks. There are better ways to "enjoy" photography.

Rob C

Thanks for helping me with my Post   As for your lens, if you are not happy with it I suggest you send it to Nikon to have it calibrated, I've done the same and lenses have come back completely different beasts.  The 24-70 is excellent in every way.  You can't blame the lens for not being long enough.

[davewolfs]

Don't do it, pal. And I say this as a Canon owner. You already own an excellent camera, and Nikon makes some great lenses. No point in swapping systems without a real reason. Canon's 70-200 f:4 and f:2.8 lenses are truly excellent, and better than Nikon's equivalent. However, Canon's 100-400 is pretty mediocre, and well overdue for replacement. Full-frame sensors definitely highlight its deficiencies. Nikon has much better wide glass than Canon, and there is no Canon equivalent to Nikon's excellent 200-400 f:4, I'd buy it in a heart beat if they did. In another year or two Nikon is sure to release a 24.5 megapixel version of the D700, and you may regret swapping at that point.

Aside from the 14-24, really how much better is the 17-35 then the 16-35Mk II or 17-40 when stopped down?  I've seen some excellent shots taken with the 16-35 MkII.

[Geoff Wittig]

Aside from the 14-24, really how much better is the 17-35 then the 16-35Mk II or 17-40 when stopped down?  I've seen some excellent shots taken with the 16-35 MkII.

It depends on how picky you are. One of the 'drawbacks' of the higher megapixel full frame cameras is the way they ruthlessly reveal any shortcomings of the lenses placed in front of them. Canon's original 16-35 f:2.8 was pretty decent on the original 11 mp Eos-1Ds at modest apertures, but quite soft with lots of color fringing in the corners at 16 mp and up. The newer 16-36 f:2.8 II is definitely better in the corners, and I've taken some good images with it. Distortion is quite well controlled and it's pretty good at f:8 or so, but it still can't meet the demands of the sensor. And stopping down lenses this wide very quickly runs into the diffraction wall; resolution deteriorates faster than the depth of field improves past about f:10 or so. It's quite good for single frame captures you don't plan on enlarging very much, but I find myself stitching frames from the 24-70 f:2.8 L when I know I'll be printing big.

The Nikon 14-24 by wide agreement is significantly sharper than Canon's 16-35 II. Canon's 14 mm L lens is by most reports better than the previous model, but still not up to the job with the 1Ds III. And I didn't want to spend >$1,000 to find out personally.

[davewolfs]

It depends on how picky you are. One of the 'drawbacks' of the higher megapixel full frame cameras is the way they ruthlessly reveal any shortcomings of the lenses placed in front of them. Canon's original 16-35 f:2.8 was pretty decent on the original 11 mp Eos-1Ds at modest apertures, but quite soft with lots of color fringing in the corners at 16 mp and up. The newer 16-36 f:2.8 II is definitely better in the corners, and I've taken some good images with it. Distortion is quite well controlled and it's pretty good at f:8 or so, but it still can't meet the demands of the sensor. And stopping down lenses this wide very quickly runs into the diffraction wall; resolution deteriorates faster than the depth of field improves past about f:10 or so. It's quite good for single frame captures you don't plan on enlarging very much, but I find myself stitching frames from the 24-70 f:2.8 L when I know I'll be printing big.

The Nikon 14-24 by wide agreement is significantly sharper than Canon's 16-35 II. Canon's 14 mm L lens is by most reports better than the previous model, but still not up to the job with the 1Ds III. And I didn't want to spend >$1,000 to find out personally.

As great as the 14-24 is I've never added it to my bag simply for the fact that filter support does not exist.  So I guess my apples to apples comparison would be the Nikkor 17-35 and the Canon 16-35mm.

Also, any comments on the 70-300VR?  Can it keep up when stopped down to Canons 70-200 f/4?

Finally, 21MP and a weaker anti alias filter is a nice to have.  Canons live view implementation is also better given that the mirror is in a locked state when the shutter is released.

[Craig Lamson]

As great as the 14-24 is I've never added it to my bag simply for the fact that filter support does not exist.  So I guess my apples to apples comparison would be the Nikkor 17-35 and the Canon 16-35mm.

Also, any comments on the 70-300VR?  Can it keep up when stopped down to Canons 70-200 f/4?

Finally, 21MP and a weaker anti alias filter is a nice to have.  Canons live view implementation is also better given that the mirror is in a locked state when the shutter is released.

Here is a test I did some time ago, Canon 16-35L, 17-40l, Nikon 17-35 and Sigma 15-30 on a Canon 1DsMKIII. I was interested in wide at the time as as such the test only covers 17mm.

http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/wide_zoom_test

[davewolfs]

Here is a test I did some time ago, Canon 16-35L, 17-40l, Nikon 17-35 and Sigma 15-30 on a Canon 1DsMKIII. I was interested in wide at the time as as such the test only covers 17mm.

http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/wide_zoom_test

Thanks for posting this, the 17-35mm to my eyes looks a tad shaper, but it's hard to tell with the change in WB.

[Craig Lamson]

Thanks for posting this, the 17-35mm to my eyes looks a tad shaper, but it's hard to tell with the change in WB.

What section of the test are you looking at?  Did you view the files at original size?  All the files were processed at the same WB etc.

To my eyes the real winner overall was the 17-40.  I expected greater things from the Nikon.  YMMV.

[Geoff Wittig]

As great as the 14-24 is I've never added it to my bag simply for the fact that filter support does not exist.  So I guess my apples to apples comparison would be the Nikkor 17-35 and the Canon 16-35mm.

Also, any comments on the 70-300VR?  Can it keep up when stopped down to Canons 70-200 f/4?

Finally, 21MP and a weaker anti alias filter is a nice to have.  Canons live view implementation is also better given that the mirror is in a locked state when the shutter is released.

I'm a bit of a curmudgeon on the subject; I'm embarrassed to admit I've never used the live view function despite owning the 1Ds III for about a year. I'm too acustomed to composing through the standard viewfinder. And Canon has never been accused of having a weak anti-aliasing filter; if anything, the AA filters in the 1Ds III and 5D II are way too strong for anyone who's not shooting fabrics or other moiré-prone subjects.

Finally, I see filter compatibility as a non-issue for lenses reaching 14-16 mm at the wide end. The field of view is so wide a polarizer just isn't very useful; the 'graduated polarization' you get is very difficult to correct in Photoshop. And I've found blended exposures or full-blown HDR a lot more useful than graduated neutral density filters. Of course, that's just me; I hate the look of an obviously filtered sky with tell-tale darkened trees and mountain-tops.

[davewolfs]

I'm a bit of a curmudgeon on the subject; I'm embarrassed to admit I've never used the live view function despite owning the 1Ds III for about a year. I'm too acustomed to composing through the standard viewfinder. And Canon has never been accused of having a weak anti-aliasing filter; if anything, the AA filters in the 1Ds III and 5D II are way too strong for anyone who's not shooting fabrics or other moiré-prone subjects.

Finally, I see filter compatibility as a non-issue for lenses reaching 14-16 mm at the wide end. The field of view is so wide a polarizer just isn't very useful; the 'graduated polarization' you get is very difficult to correct in Photoshop. And I've found blended exposures or full-blown HDR a lot more useful than graduated neutral density filters. Of course, that's just me; I hate the look of an obviously filtered sky with tell-tale darkened trees and mountain-tops.

By weaker anti alias filter, I mean a filter that allows for greater detail, which is the same thing you said except you are calling it stronger.  Filters are really a must for seascapes where the light and sea is fast changing, although there are definitely moments where I haven't bothered with them and what you are describing are perfect examples.  Polarizers aren't the only filters I used either, I frequently use neutral densities.

[Plekto]

If you really want a telephoto, consider a small telescope and an adaptor - same quality but less money.  Or get a couple of teleconverter/multipliers and push the settings a couple of stops.  I honestly never found much use for anything over 200mm when I had a 35mm camera anyways.   That said, though, a good mid-range zoom is a nice thing to have.  But you probably already have that...

As for the camera, in-camera image stabilization is a good thing.  If anything, I'd consider the A900 because this and the low body cost, plus the ability to use older Minolta primes.  Which, even though they will be *used* for the most part, are nonetheless serious contenders.

I guess part of it is that Canon is overdue for their MK4, which would be worth getting when/if it comes out.

[slide]

And should we face life moored to a tripod?

I bought a 2.8/24-70mm G Nikkor a couple of weeks ago and had only used it on a Gitzo which I can hardly lift. Yesterday, there was a bit of a stramash going on with firefighting helicopters raiding a local swimming pool for water to put out a brush fire on the mountains beside me. This happens a lot out here, but usually they use planes which dip into the local bay and scoop up water from there. The tourist season has just started, so perhaps they didn´t want to risk the annual jokes about swimmers being found up in the trees.

Anyway, to the point: I though hey, why not give the new zoom a go, so I went up to the top floor and stuck it on the long limit - 70mm, about 105mm in normal 35mm language and ran off a few shots of the pair of choppers having life-threatening fun. I discovered very quickly two things: the combination can be held relatively steady up till the moment of releasing the shutter, at which stage it goes AWOL in my hand, all by itself.

I was on a 1000th of a sec at 2.8 and the base 100 ISO, expecting that should be more than enough to freeze motion. Some time later I discovered my mistake. I didn´t need 100% to see it. What, using a normal 105mm lens would have been a piece of cake turned, with a zoom, into a piece of crap. I can´t really decide if it is just shake or whether the lens at 2.8 just can´t cut it, but one way or the other, far from being the universal panacea that the makers all claim these things to be, it is the worst of all worlds, confirming how right I had been all my professional life never to have bought a zoom. Ever. Wish I hadn´t allowed fear of getting dust onto the sensor to overcome my better judgement, the ONLY reason for my buying a zoom in the first place.

Solution? Perhaps a tripod welded to my feet? No thanks. There are better ways to "enjoy" photography.

Rob C

Please do start a new thread. This issue is an interesting one. There is a science to a free hand hold and proper shutter release which if unknown or unheeded, can put paid to any rules of thumb such as 1/lens length.

[skid00skid00]

Another Canon owner here.  Keep the Nikon equipement!

Get a crop Canon (40d, 50d, even a 1D variant, if you need 10 fps) and the 400 5.6.  If you really need super-tele zoom, get the 100-400.  Contrary to what was posted here, new copies are very good.

Best of both worlds.

[Geoff Wittig]

Another Canon owner here.  Keep the Nikon equipement!

Get a crop Canon (40d, 50d, even a 1D variant, if you need 10 fps) and the 400 5.6.  If you really need super-tele zoom, get the 100-400.  Contrary to what was posted here, new copies are very good.

Best of both worlds.

Can't agree regarding the 100-400 if you're using a full frame camera. It's pretty good on the APS-C sensor cameras, but corners go pretty soft at almost any aperture on full-frame. It's tolerable at f:8, better at f:11, but then you're struggling with shutter speed or dialing up the ISO and dealing with noise. The IS function is first-generation and nowhere near as good as more recent lenses. Finally despite the tripod mount on the lens it's basically impossible to crank it down tightly enough to prevent unwanted movement on a tripod head, so getting sharp landscape shots at slower shutter speeds is extremely problematic.

[Dan Wells]

Can't agree regarding the 100-400 if you're using a full frame camera. It's pretty good on the APS-C sensor cameras, but corners go pretty soft at almost any aperture on full-frame. It's tolerable at f:8, better at f:11, but then you're struggling with shutter speed or dialing up the ISO and dealing with noise. The IS function is first-generation and nowhere near as good as more recent lenses. Finally despite the tripod mount on the lens it's basically impossible to crank it down tightly enough to prevent unwanted movement on a tripod head, so getting sharp landscape shots at slower shutter speeds is extremely problematic.

Has anyone tried the new Sony 100-400 on an A900? I'm interested to know whether that range is achievable on high-resolution full-frame? Nikon's version is an ancient, far from wonderful lens that isn't really D3 (let alone D3x) compatible. Canon shooters here seem to say the same about their lens. The Sony lens is the only modern design out there. How does it work on the A900?

            -Dan

[ErikKaffehr]

Dan,

I think it's 70-400. There is a test on www.slrgear.com .

I did consider it but I happen to be a happy owner of a Minolta 400/4.5 so I decided to pass.

Best regards
Erik

Has anyone tried the new Sony 100-400 on an A900? I'm interested to know whether that range is achievable on high-resolution full-frame? Nikon's version is an ancient, far from wonderful lens that isn't really D3 (let alone D3x) compatible. Canon shooters here seem to say the same about their lens. The Sony lens is the only modern design out there. How does it work on the A900?

            -Dan