Thoughts/advice please on upgrading

[Krug]

I would appreciate some thoughts and advice from the more expert/experienced please.

Situation : Retired a couple of years ago with more time to spend on photographic interests.
                Previously a Minolta user - Maxxum 7.
                Therefore instinctively went for Minolta 7D when it came out
                   - enjoyed it and learned a lot from/with it.
                Got much of the best Minolta glass.
               
Problem : Now want to move on to stretch and challenge my photography further.
               No immediate/reasonable term prospect of Sony bringing out a "pro" camera to use
                 existing glass.
               Want to avoid another false start (like the 7D - though that is good and may well
                 stay as a back up with some of its glass).

Parameters : I know somebody will say "It all depends on what your interests are".
                Currently they are - landscape,portraits(human+other animals) and macro flowers
                  and some wildlife.
                BUT I do not want to limit development of new interests unduly.
                Budget - OK but does not run to MF digital backs or 1DsII given need to get new glass.

Options : D2X looks good and gives flexibility for current/new interests.
              5D similar but less flexible perhaps but FF good for landscapes and older viewfinding
               eyes.

Any help please? Any other suggestions??
For example how would a used 1Ds (MkI) rate alongside these. I think I read MR somewhere describe it as first and possibly still the only DSLR to match MF performance (presumably this was before the MkII). Have the subsequent developments embodied in the 5D overtaken that?

Sorry for long post and I know similar questions have been asked before but ( and this is not just "flannel" ) I have learnt so much from this site that I thought it worth asking in this specific way.

[jdemott]

I'm sure you'll find lots of useful reviews and comparisons on the web.  Be sure to read Bjorn Rorslett's review of the D2X and comparison with the 1DsII.  I'll just add a few notes from my personal experience as a D2X user.  Notwithstanding my bias as a Nikon owner, I'll say that truthfully you will be delighted with whatever you chose.

As you note, the big difference between the Nikon and the two Canons you mention is sensor size.  For my needs, which involves quite a bit of landscape shooting, the Nikon 12-24mm lens solves the problem at the wide end.  I suppose one could say "I would prefer an f/2.8 rather than f/4" but it really hasn't been an issue.  Most of the time I'm more likely to be stopped down to f/8 or f/11 for depth of field anyway.  Anyway, I find that whatever compromises result from lack of full frame are more than compensated for by the "multiplication factor" and the ability to have better edge to edge sharpness, avoiding the soft corners that can affect some lenses.  For wildlife shots in particular, the multiplication factor can be a big plus, giving you some more affordable options for a lens with really long reach.

In the field, the D2X is a delight to use.  It fits my hands comfortably and the controls are logically laid out and easy to use.  The camera is incredibly responsive--the first time you press the shutter, you'll be astounded by how short the mirror black out is, even if you're accustomed to using a pro camera.  The viewfinder is big and bright--I wear eyeglasses and have no problem--and I don't see any difference in the viewfinder from that in full frame pro Nikon film bodies in the past.

Image quality is great with very accurate color and good dynamic range.  I know there are lots of debates about how this or that camera compares to medium format, etc.  I know that for my purposes ( with a usual maximum print size of 13 x 19) I have no trouble getting prints that I regard as clearly superior to what I could do with 35 mm film.

As someone whose first serious camera was fully manual (an OM-1), I find the range of features on all of today's cameras quite wonderful.  I just feel happy to be able to use such a fine camera as the D2X and don't spend much time worrying about comparisons.  Good luck with your search.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Options : D2X looks good and gives flexibility for current/new interests.
              5D similar but less flexible perhaps but FF good for landscapes and older viewfinding eyes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72236\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I suspect you will be fine for a long time with either Nikon or Canon (the "Apple" and "Microsoft" of the camera world). My first digital was a Canon 10D, which has done very well for me. Having bought into the Canon camp, I recently upgraded to a 5D, and the overriding concern for me was the larger optical viewfinder for my own "older viewfinding eyes." My 10D (at 6.3 megapixels) does fine for prints up to 10x15" (my "normal" size) and occasionally up to 13x19". The 5D will make these sizes a bit easier.

I would handle the D2X and 5D in a store, try all the controls, and take a few pictures with each. I think that what feels right in your hands is a very important consideration.  

Good luck with the switch.

Eric

[Krug]

Thanks some useful thoughts and the ref to the Bjorn Rorslett review was helpful as I had not seen that before.
I wonder if anybody has any ideas about the 1Ds mkI suggestion and how it might stack up against subsequent models such as the 5D ??

[danag42]

If you have a lot of Maxum lenses, try the new Sony camera.  It will take all your Minolta lenses, so you are spared the agony of buying all new glass.

It has a 10 megapixel sensor and has gotten some good reviews.

[Krug]

Thanks Danag42 - but no thanks.

The new SonyA100 is an interesting entry level DSLR which, I think, is already putting some pressure on the established DSLR players to raise the marketing specs of their entry contributions - witness the new 10mp Nikon D100 which is just being announced.

Adding an increased size sensor which is already in production to an existing body is an easy hit as far as marketing goes - unfortunately it does not necessarily improve image-making performance as an whole.

This is what Sony have done with the A100 - taken the entry level Minolta 5D ( at least half a step lower than the 7D on which I have just served an 18 month "apprenticeship")  and made cosmetic and pixelcount changes but little more. Like its predecessor it will have no vertical grip and will only be a marginal improvement, if at all, on the 7D performance.

Certainly it is possible that Sony will bring out something better in the future - indeed if they are to get anywhere near their stated target of 25% of the DSLR market they will have to. I may keep my Minolta G lenses against just that possibility.

However as I am in my late 60's waiting in vague hope is a low value option I want NOW or at least pretty soon if I am going maintain my upward learning curve, satisfy myself and, who knows, maybe show the youngsters something!!

[Julian Love]

As a long time 1Ds owner, I have written a brief comparison with the 5D (after playing with one at a shop - not real world use) here. You may find it of interest.

Julian

[Krug]

Julian,

many thanks  - that is exactly the sort of advice I thought I might get from somebody on this site.

It is particularly valid from someone who has used the 1Ds regularly - it confirms where I had got to  i.e. that technology has moved on quite a bit between the 1Ds and the 5D especially with regard to non-flash low light options and that the weight of the 1Ds requires real plusses to make it preferable to the much lighter (but for general use acceptable) 5D body.

However what you did (i.e. buying the 1Ds just after the MkII came out) sounds a good strategy.  If, as the rumours would have us believe, a MkIII appears in the autumn then a well cared for MkII at a sensible price would likely trump other options.
Ah well! Decisions,decisions. What fun!!

Thank you again for an interesting and useful link.

[stever]

let me give you the classic Canon argument (which i believe0

Canon Corp's sales, profits, development resources, and manufacturing capability dwarf's Nikon.  As a consequence, Canon can develop and manufacture it's own dedicated microprocessors and CMOS sensors (where Nikon has to buy CCD from Sony, Kodak, etc).  This capability gives Canon a profit advantage over Nikon at equivalent price points - a virtous cycle for both Canon and users.

We can expect to see Canon developing and producing CMOS technology that is a generation ahead of Nikon (unless Sony get's really serious, but then Nikon's camera division would exist on Sony's sufferance).

As it is now Canon cameras have a 1-2 stop advantage over Nikon at high ISO -- this is not just a low light advantage, but an action stopping advantage in moderate light.  And Canon has the choice of full or APS size sensors.

Certainly, professionals aren't moving from Nikon to Canon as they were in the 90's, but Nikon has not encroached on Canon's owerwhelming acceptance by professional nature and sports photographer's either.

In making a system investment, it's not the latest camera features (or ease of use, where Nilon users have legitimate arguments) but the long term support and development of the system.

I'm 8 years into my Canon investment and very well satisfied with the present and prospects for the future.

let the Nikon arguments commence

[Slough]

let me give you the classic Canon argument (which i believe0

[snip]

As it is now Canon cameras have a 1-2 stop advantage over Nikon at high ISO -- this is not just a low light advantage, but an action stopping advantage in moderate light.  And Canon has the choice of full or APS size sensors.

[snip]

let the Nikon arguments commence
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73331\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That might be the marketing argument, but I'll give an alternative perspective on the high ISO noise.  

The D200 and 30D are by all accounts close in terms of noise, with the 30D outdoing the D200 by a small amount at high ISO. I expect the D2xs has a bit more noise than the D200. There are tests online, at places like dpreview, where you can find more objective information.

The 5D and 1DsII do indeed have noticeably less noise than the D2x, D200 and 30D. The main reason for this is basic physics rather than any inherent superiority of Canon. The 5D has a larger sensor, and so the area per sensor is greater, which gives a better signal to noise ratio. I suspect this only really matter above ISO 400. Again online reviews can give hard information.

However, do you really care about high ISO performance? I suspect not.

The D2xs excels at high speed shooting, and it is built like a tank. From your interests it does not look like you care too much about these things.

In fact it looks like you would do well with a 5D. By all accounts it is a lovely camera, well suited to landscapes etc.

FYI I will add that I use Nikon (D70 followed by D200) so you can see my bias if any.

Leif