Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: davewolfs on May 11, 2009, 12:34:57 am
-
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?
-
http://www.bythom.com/desertislandkit.htm (http://www.bythom.com/desertislandkit.htm)
Have you at all considered the Nikkor 70-300 VR?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/wide_zoom_test)
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/lenses.php (http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/lenses.php)
As you can see, the Sony and older Minolta lenses pretty much only have a different name on them.
http://photo.net/equipment/minolta/100-400 (http://photo.net/equipment/minolta/100-400)
The consensus seems to be to get a 300mm instead.
-
http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/lenses.php (http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/lenses.php)
As you can see, the Sony and older Minolta lenses pretty much only have a different name on them.
http://photo.net/equipment/minolta/100-400 (http://photo.net/equipment/minolta/100-400)
The consensus seems to be to get a 300mm instead.
Plekto, that's the ancient, designed for film, Minolta 100-400 APO you're talking about:
(http://static.lensbuyingguide.com/img/800/149.jpg)
People are interested in the brand new Sony 70-400G:
(http://www.cameramoon.com/uploads/2009/01/sony-70-400mm-f4-56-g-ssm-on-ceb1900.jpg)
The SLR-Gear review is the only 'formal' full frame review of this so far, although Photozone has done an APS-C review and there's a very good thread comparing the 70-400 with the 400 4.5 G if you search the lens talk forum on www.dyxum.com.
-
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?
Dave,
If you do decide to switch, let me know, I'm considering selling my brand new (almost) 5D Mk2 and 24-105 to buy a second
D700. BTW, check out what Jay Maisel is using.
Good luck.
Michael
-
Bernard, are you using the little 70-300 VR on your D3x? Is that lens actually sharp enough for the body? If it is, I'll run out and get one for mine (even if only as a stopgap until Nikon releases the lens we're all talking about here, and as a travel lens later on). I had noticed that lens recommended in this thread before, but I hadn't noticed that the poster was a fellow D3x shooter.
Nikon could release any one of the following lenses that would provide a reasonable FX telephoto option between the 70-300 and the exotics: I'd assume that any one would sell for between $1500 and $2500, weigh the same as or less than the 70-200 f2.8 AF-S VRII, and have AF-S, VRII, G and N designations, so I won't repeat the alphabet soup on each lens. I would hope that the new lens would be designed with the D3x in mind (as the 24-70, 14-24 and other recent Nikkors clearly are), so it would stand up to very high resolution full frame.
70-200 f2.8 really FX (replacing the present "DX" lens that is one of the best lenses made on DX bodies, but soft in the corners on FX)
70-200 f4 (smaller, lighter, cheaper and very sharp)
100-300 f4 (nobody but Sigma makes one right now, but theirs is very sharp, although not stabilized)
80-400 f4-5.6 (the slow aperture at the long end is a requirement of the laws of physics unless you want a lens the size of the 200-400, but it could certainly be made in an AF-S version, and sharpened up significantly with more modern optics)
300 f4 (I'd rather see any of the zooms, because they'd be more versatile, and a 300 f4 still leaves a hole between 135 or so and 300 unless an updated 70-200 was released at the same time)
Dave, I wouldn't switch, although the telephoto hole is really annoying - to get your D700's AF and build quality in a Canon, you're looking at a MUCH bigger and heavier body, and about $5000 (and much inferior ergonomics). Nikon WILL release the lens you (and everyone else) want - it's just a question of when. Canon has refused for many years to release any non 1-series body with high-end AF. Canon owned the DSLR market for many years, but seem to be resting on their laurels lately, and letting Nikon take more and more market segments.
Right now:
Ultra high resolution pro full frame:
D3x over 1Ds mk III - image quality, ergonomics, AF
High speed pro sports
D3 over 1D mk III - high ISO, AF, full frame instead of intermediate frame size that isn't FF, but won't take EF-S lenses either
Smaller full frame
Tossup between D700, 5D mk II and Alpha 900 - D700 has best AF, high ISO and ergonomics, Alpha 900 has best low ISO image quality and body image stabilization, 5D mk II has high MP in an established system and video.
High end crop frame
D300 over 50D - AF, build quality, ergonomics
Midrange crop frame -
D90 or D5000 over 40D (old) or high end Rebel - image quality, ergonomics, build quality (over Rebel, not over 40D)
Entry-level (D40, lower-end Rebels, lots of Sonys, Olympi, etc...)
Nikon is probably behind here, due to the D40's low resolution (especially if the D60 really is discontinued, rather than just out of stock).
As I see it, Nikon has the best body lineup out there, especially at the higher end (few D700 owners are looking at switching to a Rebel) right now, and we're probably closer to a 24 mp D700x than we are to a Canon with D700 level AF in a smaller body. I have more confidence in Nikon to release a great telephoto between the 70-300 and the 200-400 than I do in Canon to counter the 14-24, because the Nikkor is only a revision of an existing lens (unless they do a 100-300 f4, which is still a fairly simple design), while the Canon would be an entirely new lens and a massively tricky design.
-Dan
-
Bernard, are you using the little 70-300 VR on your D3x? Is that lens actually sharp enough for the body? If it is, I'll run out and get one for mine (even if only as a stopgap until Nikon releases the lens we're all talking about here, and as a travel lens later on). I had noticed that lens recommended in this thread before, but I hadn't noticed that the poster was a fellow D3x shooter.
Nikon could release any one of the following lenses that would provide a reasonable FX telephoto option between the 70-300 and the exotics: I'd assume that any one would sell for between $1500 and $2500, weigh the same as or less than the 70-200 f2.8 AF-S VRII, and have AF-S, VRII, G and N designations, so I won't repeat the alphabet soup on each lens. I would hope that the new lens would be designed with the D3x in mind (as the 24-70, 14-24 and other recent Nikkors clearly are), so it would stand up to very high resolution full frame.
70-200 f2.8 really FX (replacing the present "DX" lens that is one of the best lenses made on DX bodies, but soft in the corners on FX)
70-200 f4 (smaller, lighter, cheaper and very sharp)
100-300 f4 (nobody but Sigma makes one right now, but theirs is very sharp, although not stabilized)
80-400 f4-5.6 (the slow aperture at the long end is a requirement of the laws of physics unless you want a lens the size of the 200-400, but it could certainly be made in an AF-S version, and sharpened up significantly with more modern optics)
300 f4 (I'd rather see any of the zooms, because they'd be more versatile, and a 300 f4 still leaves a hole between 135 or so and 300 unless an updated 70-200 was released at the same time)
Dave, I wouldn't switch, although the telephoto hole is really annoying - to get your D700's AF and build quality in a Canon, you're looking at a MUCH bigger and heavier body, and about $5000 (and much inferior ergonomics). Nikon WILL release the lens you (and everyone else) want - it's just a question of when. Canon has refused for many years to release any non 1-series body with high-end AF. Canon owned the DSLR market for many years, but seem to be resting on their laurels lately, and letting Nikon take more and more market segments.
Right now:
Ultra high resolution pro full frame:
D3x over 1Ds mk III - image quality, ergonomics, AF
High speed pro sports
D3 over 1D mk III - high ISO, AF, full frame instead of intermediate frame size that isn't FF, but won't take EF-S lenses either
Smaller full frame
Tossup between D700, 5D mk II and Alpha 900 - D700 has best AF, high ISO and ergonomics, Alpha 900 has best low ISO image quality and body image stabilization, 5D mk II has high MP in an established system and video.
High end crop frame
D300 over 50D - AF, build quality, ergonomics
Midrange crop frame -
D90 or D5000 over 40D (old) or high end Rebel - image quality, ergonomics, build quality (over Rebel, not over 40D)
Entry-level (D40, lower-end Rebels, lots of Sonys, Olympi, etc...)
Nikon is probably behind here, due to the D40's low resolution (especially if the D60 really is discontinued, rather than just out of stock).
As I see it, Nikon has the best body lineup out there, especially at the higher end (few D700 owners are looking at switching to a Rebel) right now, and we're probably closer to a 24 mp D700x than we are to a Canon with D700 level AF in a smaller body. I have more confidence in Nikon to release a great telephoto between the 70-300 and the 200-400 than I do in Canon to counter the 14-24, because the Nikkor is only a revision of an existing lens (unless they do a 100-300 f4, which is still a fairly simple design), while the Canon would be an entirely new lens and a massively tricky design.
-Dan
I appreciate your response Dan. Here are my current thoughts. As great as an all round Camera the D700 is, I can deal without the ISO and AF for my purposes. The ergonomic, they are great but I can learn to live without them (wow did I just say that).
Bottom line is, there are some holes in the lens lineup and I am tired of waiting, there really are no holes in Canons lineup except for possibly the 200-400 f/4 and I am sure they will add that in soon enough. People continually say Canon has troubles with their wides, I disagree the 16-35mm does very well and I am sure the 17mm and 24mm TS-E's will as well.
I guess I just need to decide what to do.
One thing for sure, the D3x is superior in handling low iso noise in the shadows over the Mark II and 1Ds III, but I've printed both of these and the results are pretty difficult to tell.
-
The SLR-Gear review is the only 'formal' full frame review of this so far, although Photozone has done an APS-C review and there's a very good thread comparing the 70-400 with the 400 4.5 G if you search the lens talk forum on www.dyxum.com.
Thanks. I didn't know that this lens was out yet. I assumed that he was talking about the 100-400.
The 70-400 4.5 G looks to be a killer lens. Sony/Minolta isn't dead - just has a bit of catching up to do is all, since it fell out of favor by not offering a full frame model for too long.
-
Canon has holes , too - they're just in different places (and there probably isn't any single hole as gaping as no real FX telephoto between the consumer 70-300 and the exotic 200-400). Although you've mentioned that you don't like the 14-24 due to its lack of filter compatibility, it significantly outperforms any Canon wide - even at 16-17 mm (no other Nikon wide is as spectacular as the 14-24, either) - the only comparisons I've seen are to Zeiss and Leica primes. The second lens Nikon has that Canon doesn't is the 105 Micro VR. The VR isn't much use at 1:1, but it is marvelously useful in the near-macro range. I find the Canon 100 macro not to be any use handheld below about 1/200 of a second (except as a portrait lens), while I can take the Nikkor down to 1/60 or so. I end up using the VR capability on the macro lens a tremendous amount, for subjects in the range of 1/5 life size to 1/2 life size (working at 1:1 STILL requires a tripod and a good deal of patience with wind)!.
If one of your highest priorities is that telephoto zoom, have you considered the Alpha 900? The wide and normal zooms are Carl Zeiss, and the 70-400 is a decade newer than Canon's OR Nikon's entries. From what I've read, it's a significantly nicer body than the 5D mkII (although not as nice as a D700). Remember that in moving from a D700 to a 5D mkII, you're going from the best AF system presently made to an AF system taken almost directly from a $1500 consumer SLR introduced in 2004 (the EOS 20D) - they didn't even update to the 50D AF, but kept the old 5D system, which was stolen from the 20D. Of course, if you're moving to an EOS-1 series body, the AF is pretty darned close to as good as the D700.
The second thing I would do before switching is to take a really close look at some well-printed output from a D3x. While the D3x is very expensive, a D700x will be out before too long. I have never shot a 1Ds mkIII or a 5D mkII, but I have extensive experience with the 1Ds mkII, and there is NO comparison. The D3x has approximately twice the real resolution of the 1Ds mkII, even though its spec sheet says 150%. I can print 24x36 inches from the D3x (with good technique) with slightly MORE detail per square inch than the 1Ds mkII gave at 16x24. This is probably due to the anti-aliasing filter design (Nikon's is weaker, and may be some sort of special or unusual design). The dynamic range of the D3x is also much better than the older Canon - there's another full stop (mostly in the shadows) or more of range. The 1Ds mkII has a usable dynamic range somewhere around 9-9.5 stops, while the D3x at least approaches a truly usable 11.
Yet another option is to add a crop Sony body to your arsenal, specifically to host the new 70-400, keeping your Nikon for everything else. I don't know Sony's line well, but they have some nice cameras (I'd think this is a better option than adding a crop Canon with the decade-old 100-400). The Sony will handle more like a Nikon, making switching back and forth easier, and the RAW files are closer as well, helping with your processing.
-Dan
-Dan
-
Canon has holes , too - they're just in different places (and there probably isn't any single hole as gaping as no real FX telephoto between the consumer 70-300 and the exotic 200-400). Although you've mentioned that you don't like the 14-24 due to its lack of filter compatibility, it significantly outperforms any Canon wide - even at 16-17 mm (no other Nikon wide is as spectacular as the 14-24, either) - the only comparisons I've seen are to Zeiss and Leica primes. The second lens Nikon has that Canon doesn't is the 105 Micro VR. The VR isn't much use at 1:1, but it is marvelously useful in the near-macro range. I find the Canon 100 macro not to be any use handheld below about 1/200 of a second (except as a portrait lens), while I can take the Nikkor down to 1/60 or so. I end up using the VR capability on the macro lens a tremendous amount, for subjects in the range of 1/5 life size to 1/2 life size (working at 1:1 STILL requires a tripod and a good deal of patience with wind)!.
If one of your highest priorities is that telephoto zoom, have you considered the Alpha 900? The wide and normal zooms are Carl Zeiss, and the 70-400 is a decade newer than Canon's OR Nikon's entries. From what I've read, it's a significantly nicer body than the 5D mkII (although not as nice as a D700). Remember that in moving from a D700 to a 5D mkII, you're going from the best AF system presently made to an AF system taken almost directly from a $1500 consumer SLR introduced in 2004 (the EOS 20D) - they didn't even update to the 50D AF, but kept the old 5D system, which was stolen from the 20D. Of course, if you're moving to an EOS-1 series body, the AF is pretty darned close to as good as the D700.
The second thing I would do before switching is to take a really close look at some well-printed output from a D3x. While the D3x is very expensive, a D700x will be out before too long. I have never shot a 1Ds mkIII or a 5D mkII, but I have extensive experience with the 1Ds mkII, and there is NO comparison. The D3x has approximately twice the real resolution of the 1Ds mkII, even though its spec sheet says 150%. I can print 24x36 inches from the D3x (with good technique) with slightly MORE detail per square inch than the 1Ds mkII gave at 16x24. This is probably due to the anti-aliasing filter design (Nikon's is weaker, and may be some sort of special or unusual design). The dynamic range of the D3x is also much better than the older Canon - there's another full stop (mostly in the shadows) or more of range. The 1Ds mkII has a usable dynamic range somewhere around 9-9.5 stops, while the D3x at least approaches a truly usable 11.
Yet another option is to add a crop Sony body to your arsenal, specifically to host the new 70-400, keeping your Nikon for everything else. I don't know Sony's line well, but they have some nice cameras (I'd think this is a better option than adding a crop Canon with the decade-old 100-400). The Sony will handle more like a Nikon, making switching back and forth easier, and the RAW files are closer as well, helping with your processing.
-Dan
-Dan
I think my biggest fear moving over to a system like Sony would be getting caught into a niche system, the Canon system is mature and developed. As for the D700x, I'm sure it will be a great camera but right now unfortunately it still does not exist.
Going from the 1ds Mark II to the D3x was a 21% resolution increase. Going from a D700 to Mark II would be a 32% increase, going from a Mark II to D3x would be a 7% increase. So the jump would be fairly substantial either way. I've seen test shots of the D3, D3x, 1Ds Mark III and 5D Mark II. The Nikons really shine in the shadows, they look like film where as the Canons have more chroma noise. Again though, this is hard to see in prints.
I'd love a D3x and 14-24 But that is too rich for my blood. If you get a chance to shoot with the 70-300 I'd like to hear your feedback.
-
I think my biggest fear moving over to a system like Sony would be getting caught into a niche system, the Canon system is mature and developed. As for the D700x, I'm sure it will be a great camera but right now unfortunately it still does not exist.
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp (http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp)
It's not a niche system, it just suffered from Sony dropping the ball after they changed the name from Monolta to Sony. Same lenses, same factory. The old lenses still work on the new bodies, though it isn't apparent due to Sony's idiotic marketing and no mention of Minolta anywhere. That said, I love used lenses and deals are easy to find as it's not as visible a player as Canon or Nikon.
The new Zeiss lenses are superb - it's nice to see them finally coming out with new lenses.
Of course, you can always ignore OEM lenses. Sigma makes a few good lenses, for instance, that while they aren't pro quality/are crushed by the $1500 high end stuff), are sometimes better than the middle tier OEM stuff(which is what 90%+ of us buy, barring that one or two dedicated lenses we cough up big money for). The Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG HSM (whew - they love long names!) is a great choice, for instance. About $500 street price.
Chose a mount of your choice for most of them. Tokina also has a few standouts as well.
Nikon is more of a 80-90% OEM setup and Canon is probably 75-80% covered by OEM lenses. Minolta/Sony is about 50% OEM and the rest are third party choices - a bit more of a hodge-podge, but nothing that will cripple you in any way.
-
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
You did something wrong, I have the 24-70 F2.8 mounted to either a D300 or D700 and it's sharp as can be, 1/1000 of a second and not sharp? Either defective lens or user error. Something is wrong. And the Nikon 70-200 F2.8 mounted on the D700 is giving me excellent results. Try Nikon NX2 for processing it does make a difference.