An Any Ex Nikon shooters now using a 1DS III or 5D Mark II?

[davewolfs]

Hello everyone,

I'm currently a Nikon D700 shooter who is considering a 5D Mark II or used Mark III.  My reasons for switching are primarily for the option to use lighter f/4 lenses.  Also, as great as the high ISO capabilities of my D700 are I don't really need them for my type of photography.  The additional resolution would only be a an added benefit.  I'm not to keen on the 5D ergonomics but I figure that I could probably manage.  I'd like to hear some feed back specifically about IQ and your experiences from those who have switched or use both systems for their landscape work.

Thanks,

Dave

[Dan Wells]

I made the opposite switch (Canon to D3x), and I'm very happy with both the ergonomics and the IQ of the Nikon. At least between the 1Ds mkII (older) and the D3x, the resolution jump is more than expected, because of Nikon's superb AA filtration. The f4 lenses are a real Canon advantage, but remember that the difference in weight between a D700 and a 1Ds mk III is AT LEAST the difference between a 24-105 f4 and a 24-70 f2.8 (and the Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 is a significantly sharper lens than the Canon 24-105 f4, although without the reach). The 70-200 f4 is a VERY sharp Canon lens, and my message to Nikon on that one is: COPY IT ALREADY!!! Longer Canon lenses tend to be better than the Nikkors (better selection, some lenses are sharper), while Nikkor wides are often better than Canon.
     In terms of the 5D mkII in particular (the 1Ds mk III is MUCH closer, and superior to the D700 in some major areas), remember that you're taking a big downgrade from the D700 in build quality, metering and focus. The 5D mkII has a lot in common (other than the sensor) with a nearly 5 year old EOS 20D, because the original 5D was built on a modified 20D body, and the mk II is mostly a sensor transplant (plus a new screen and some processing upgrades on the digital side, but not much to camera features). In particular, the 20D focusing and metering systems are pretty much intact. The D700 has brand-new, professional D3 heritage instead of 4+ year old cheaper camera.
     I also don't personally like Canon ergonomics nearly as much as Nikon - the "modern Nikon interface" we first saw on the F5 is just a great way to control a camera. If I were you, I'd stick with your D700, and hope for some f4 Nikkors (hint, hint, Nikon). Both systems have some great camera bodies and lenses, while neither one has everything you might want. Nikon has a habit of "getting stuck" at one resolution for a long time - they released four years worth of variations on a 6 mp theme until they doubled that with the D2x, then they did the same at 12mp until the D3x came out, while Canon tends to upgrade sensors much more frequently, but not offer their best metering, focus or build quality outside of the
EOS-1 line.

                         -Dan

[davewolfs]

That is a good point about the Mark III weight vs the D700.  The difference in weight between the 24-70 and 24-105 is 230 grams while the difference between the bodies is 215 grams.

Considering that this camera would be primarily for landscape I was hoping that I would be able to get by with the crippled AF and metering, but ideally I would need to try the camera in the field.  Unfortunately I can't justify the purchase of a D3x as this time.

Out of curiosity what lenses are you using to cover your 70-200 range?  Have you tried the 70-300 VR?

I made the opposite switch (Canon to D3x), and I'm very happy with both the ergonomics and the IQ of the Nikon. At least between the 1Ds mkII (older) and the D3x, the resolution jump is more than expected, because of Nikon's superb AA filtration. The f4 lenses are a real Canon advantage, but remember that the difference in weight between a D700 and a 1Ds mk III is AT LEAST the difference between a 24-105 f4 and a 24-70 f2.8 (and the Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 is a significantly sharper lens than the Canon 24-105 f4, although without the reach). The 70-200 f4 is a VERY sharp Canon lens, and my message to Nikon on that one is: COPY IT ALREADY!!! Longer Canon lenses tend to be better than the Nikkors (better selection, some lenses are sharper), while Nikkor wides are often better than Canon.
     In terms of the 5D mkII in particular (the 1Ds mk III is MUCH closer, and superior to the D700 in some major areas), remember that you're taking a big downgrade from the D700 in build quality, metering and focus. The 5D mkII has a lot in common (other than the sensor) with a nearly 5 year old EOS 20D, because the original 5D was built on a modified 20D body, and the mk II is mostly a sensor transplant (plus a new screen and some processing upgrades on the digital side, but not much to camera features). In particular, the 20D focusing and metering systems are pretty much intact. The D700 has brand-new, professional D3 heritage instead of 4+ year old cheaper camera.
     I also don't personally like Canon ergonomics nearly as much as Nikon - the "modern Nikon interface" we first saw on the F5 is just a great way to control a camera. If I were you, I'd stick with your D700, and hope for some f4 Nikkors (hint, hint, Nikon). Both systems have some great camera bodies and lenses, while neither one has everything you might want. Nikon has a habit of "getting stuck" at one resolution for a long time - they released four years worth of variations on a 6 mp theme until they doubled that with the D2x, then they did the same at 12mp until the D3x came out, while Canon tends to upgrade sensors much more frequently, but not offer their best metering, focus or build quality outside of the
EOS-1 line.

                         -Dan

[NigelC]

I made the opposite switch (Canon to D3x), and I'm very happy with both the ergonomics and the IQ of the Nikon. At least between the 1Ds mkII (older) and the D3x, the resolution jump is more than expected, because of Nikon's superb AA filtration. The f4 lenses are a real Canon advantage, but remember that the difference in weight between a D700 and a 1Ds mk III is AT LEAST the difference between a 24-105 f4 and a 24-70 f2.8 (and the Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 is a significantly sharper lens than the Canon 24-105 f4, although without the reach). The 70-200 f4 is a VERY sharp Canon lens, and my message to Nikon on that one is: COPY IT ALREADY!!! Longer Canon lenses tend to be better than the Nikkors (better selection, some lenses are sharper), while Nikkor wides are often better than Canon.
     In terms of the 5D mkII in particular (the 1Ds mk III is MUCH closer, and superior to the D700 in some major areas), remember that you're taking a big downgrade from the D700 in build quality, metering and focus. The 5D mkII has a lot in common (other than the sensor) with a nearly 5 year old EOS 20D, because the original 5D was built on a modified 20D body, and the mk II is mostly a sensor transplant (plus a new screen and some processing upgrades on the digital side, but not much to camera features). In particular, the 20D focusing and metering systems are pretty much intact. The D700 has brand-new, professional D3 heritage instead of 4+ year old cheaper camera.
     I also don't personally like Canon ergonomics nearly as much as Nikon - the "modern Nikon interface" we first saw on the F5 is just a great way to control a camera. If I were you, I'd stick with your D700, and hope for some f4 Nikkors (hint, hint, Nikon). Both systems have some great camera bodies and lenses, while neither one has everything you might want. Nikon has a habit of "getting stuck" at one resolution for a long time - they released four years worth of variations on a 6 mp theme until they doubled that with the D2x, then they did the same at 12mp until the D3x came out, while Canon tends to upgrade sensors much more frequently, but not offer their best metering, focus or build quality outside of the
EOS-1 line.

                         -Dan

I'll take your word for it on the focus as I don't put much demands on it, but I would question whether the D700 metering is a "big upgrade" from the 5D2 - metering is one area where I don't think the original 5D comes up short; having examined both cameras fairly carefully, I don't actually believe there is much difference in build quality. Nikon is very clever in its cosmetic design the way it creates the perception of solidity/density - and it is indeed a couple of hundred grammes heavier, but that is a negative for me. I think there is an interesting area for discussion re. designing an object to satisfy customer expectations in a tactile sense and satiisfying a performance brief

[eronald]

I don't actually believe there is much difference in build quality. Nikon is very clever in its cosmetic design the way it creates the perception of solidity/density - and it is indeed a couple of hundred grammes heavier, but that is a negative for me. I think there is an interesting area for discussion re. designing an object to satisfy customer expectations in a tactile sense and satiisfying a performance brief

This is the central art of design. Do you make the customer happy by selling him something that works, or by selling him something that makes him feel that it works long enough for him to drive it out the shop?

Edmund

[Dan Wells]

I'm waiting on the long end of the range right now - I don't find 200 on a full-frame body to be long enough, and am hoping Nikon updates the 80-400 VR to a more modern design - it really needs AF-S and some of Nikon's recent aspheric expertise!
     The 20D/5D/5DmkII metering isn't bad, but it can't hold a candle to Nikon's 3D Color Matrix system in their better bodies. Even the 1Ds mk II does not meter as well as a modern Nikon (I don't know about the 1D mk III or 1Ds mk III) . Canon usually has a lead over Nikon in sensor technology at the high end (not right now, but the unanswered D3x is an unusual situation), because they release new sensors much more frequently, while Nikon comes up with a great sensor then uses it until it's a bit stale (the classic case of this was the 6 mp sensor that first showed up in the D100, and was the mainstay of Nikon's line until the D2x and D200, AFTER Canon had affordable 10 mp bodies AND a 16 mp body), BUT Nikon usually has a lead in body technology, and that seems to be true right now.
    As for the build quality, look at Michael's report on the performance of the 5D mkII in Antarctica. Canon has withheld their best build quality from all except the EOS-1 line (those cameras are TANKS and every bit the equal of anything Nikon builds), to protect EOS-1 sales, while Nikon has offered great build quality on a wide range of cameras - the first lower-end Nikon with enhanced build quality was the D200, and they've done the same (near D1/D2/D3 quality) with the D300 and especially the D700.

                              -Dan

[NigelC]

I'm waiting on the long end of the range right now - I don't find 200 on a full-frame body to be long enough, and am hoping Nikon updates the 80-400 VR to a more modern design - it really needs AF-S and some of Nikon's recent aspheric expertise!
     The 20D/5D/5DmkII metering isn't bad, but it can't hold a candle to Nikon's 3D Color Matrix system in their better bodies. Even the 1Ds mk II does not meter as well as a modern Nikon (I don't know about the 1D mk III or 1Ds mk III) . Canon usually has a lead over Nikon in sensor technology at the high end (not right now, but the unanswered D3x is an unusual situation), because they release new sensors much more frequently, while Nikon comes up with a great sensor then uses it until it's a bit stale (the classic case of this was the 6 mp sensor that first showed up in the D100, and was the mainstay of Nikon's line until the D2x and D200, AFTER Canon had affordable 10 mp bodies AND a 16 mp body), BUT Nikon usually has a lead in body technology, and that seems to be true right now.
    As for the build quality, look at Michael's report on the performance of the 5D mkII in Antarctica. Canon has withheld their best build quality from all except the EOS-1 line (those cameras are TANKS and every bit the equal of anything Nikon builds), to protect EOS-1 sales, while Nikon has offered great build quality on a wide range of cameras - the first lower-end Nikon with enhanced build quality was the D200, and they've done the same (near D1/D2/D3 quality) with the D300 and especially the D700.

                              -Dan

Sorry to prolong this - while no-one argues that D3/1D types are built to be bulletproof (don't know if you have heard of war and documentary photographer Don McCullin, now in his 70s, but an F2 did genuinely stop a bullet in Vietnam), I still believe Nikon  have been able to make their Dxxx  line of bodies appear to be more solid than the equivalent canons - I know people with D200s and over 3 years i don't believe my 5D is less robust. This is all reminiscent of the compliants about plastic versus metal cameras, whereas a materials scientist (which I am not!) would might just look at the dimensional stability. abrason resistance, deformability etc. across a range of conditions. BTW one engineering advantage of EOS bodies is the much larger diameter of the EF mount compared to Nikon's F mount. This has two advantages - a)  the lens/body join is stronger (other aspects of the body/lens mount being equal) and  its possible to mount Nikon lenses on an EOS body with an adaptor, but not vice versa (before you jump down my throat I know the latter quality is also down to mount to sensor/film plane distance)

[eronald]

I have  D3x. Canon was so kind as to let me shoot a 5D2 this afternoon. At first glance, I can't tell the two cameras apart on the screen as far as detail is concerned.  Shooting is a different issue of course. As far as images are concerned, both cameras are clearly now in the territory where MF was a few years ago, with very good skin texture, although they are very different from each other as regards color rendition. Both cameras can be spun up to higher ISO indoors without losing their wonderful file quality. I've clearly made my own choice here,  but I believe that anyone going for a studio camera should give the 5D2 a chance. By the way, I think the 5D2 is closer to the original 5D than to the 1Ds3 in the way files look. And no, I wouldn't swap the D3x for a 5DII: The D3x is what the 1Ds3 should have been.

Edmund

[NigelC]

I have  D3x. Canon was so kind as to let me shoot a 5D2 this afternoon. At first glance, I can't tell the two cameras apart on the screen as far as detail is concerned.  Shooting is a different issue of course. As far as images are concerned, both cameras are clearly now in the territory where MF was a few years ago, with very good skin texture, although they are very different from each other as regards color rendition. Both cameras can be spun up to higher ISO indoors without losing their wonderful file quality. I've clearly made my own choice here,  but I believe that anyone going for a studio camera should give the 5D2 a chance. By the way, I think the 5D2 is closer to the original 5D than to the 1Ds3 in the way files look. And no, I wouldn't swap the D3x for a 5DII: The D3x is what the 1Ds3 should have been.

Edmund

Well I guess there will be a 1Ds4 by the autumn or maybe spring next year. And then the game of leapfrog goes on..........

[Professional]

Well I guess there will be a 1Ds4 by the autumn or maybe spring next year. And then the game of leapfrog goes on..........

Trust me, it will never end.

[eronald]

Trust me, it will never end.

Aren't we all glad about that ?

But the speed up seems to be turning into a slow down. The lens collections of the big guys are obsolescing too, which is discouraging them from driving the resolution race even faster. I think we should expect the next big advances to come from the convergence of video and still - it's clear that much of the takeup of the 5DII is video-related.

Edmund

[Alistair]

Hello everyone,

I'm currently a Nikon D700 shooter who is considering a 5D Mark II or used Mark III.  My reasons for switching are primarily for the option to use lighter f/4 lenses.  Also, as great as the high ISO capabilities of my D700 are I don't really need them for my type of photography.  The additional resolution would only be a an added benefit.  I'm not to keen on the 5D ergonomics but I figure that I could probably manage.  I'd like to hear some feed back specifically about IQ and your experiences from those who have switched or use both systems for their landscape work.

Thanks,

Dave

You may get used to the Canon ergos. I did and now l get it I love it. The big wheel is great.

I also really like (unlike many!) Canon's MLU implementation. The combo of 2 sec timer, MLU and 'C' settings is fantastic.

Build quality of the 5 d's is just right for me. These digicams are all redundant far sooner than any of them wear out. How many perfectly functional 1d and 2DH bodies are out there and never now get used? Spending on build quality just adds unecessary cost and weight. I use my original 5d's in very inclement conditions without concern. I do understand some 5DII's had issues in the Antarctic and I feel that needs an explanation from Canon.

I do not agree with other comments here about the 5d AF being based on the 20d. I have owned both and the 5d AF is way way ahead of the 20d.

Having said all that, I am sure Nikon must have a lower priced hi-res model coming soon (D700x?) and if that is to the D3x what the D700 is to the D3 then it is surely worth waiting for.

[Gemmtech]

History will repeat itself and we will be using cameras for 5-10 years without trading them in.  Back in the day we'd get many years out of a film camera and then digital came along and we needed to upgrade every year or two because they are computers and as we all know "Moore's Law".  In computing the hard drives haven't kept pace with the cpu and with cameras it's now becoming apparent that lenses aren't keeping up with the bodies (at the very high end) How did we ever take great photographs with anything other than a 24mp camera?  There will always be something better, but it seems we are getting very close to "Good Enough" with cameras and printers; 12mp shooting at 8fps seems pretty decent to me.  I'm staying put for a while, I have a D300 and D700 and I doubt I'll upgrade within the next 5 years, I doubt most people will be upgrading after the next year or two unless some revolutionary technology appears.  Cameras, printers and even cars, we don't NEED the latest and greatest to get us to where we are going.  Pull out some photos taken with your "dinosaur" F5 and then take the identical photos with your D3x (or whatever) and see how much difference there is.  Print both with your Epson 1280 and 3800 and see just how far we have come.

[davewolfs]

I have  D3x. Canon was so kind as to let me shoot a 5D2 this afternoon. At first glance, I can't tell the two cameras apart on the screen as far as detail is concerned.  Shooting is a different issue of course. As far as images are concerned, both cameras are clearly now in the territory where MF was a few years ago, with very good skin texture, although they are very different from each other as regards color rendition. Both cameras can be spun up to higher ISO indoors without losing their wonderful file quality. I've clearly made my own choice here,  but I believe that anyone going for a studio camera should give the 5D2 a chance. By the way, I think the 5D2 is closer to the original 5D than to the 1Ds3 in the way files look. And no, I wouldn't swap the D3x for a 5DII: The D3x is what the 1Ds3 should have been.

Edmund

Thanks for the info.  Any issues with Noise?  DigLloyd has published in his DAP articles some comparisons of shadow noise on the Mark II vs the D3x and the results are quite significant in Nikons favor.  Although, I'm not sure how much of an issue this would be for properly exposed images.