Author | Thread |
|
11/16/2008 11:35:25 AM · #26 |
Love my 5D. But the day the 5D Mark II was announced, I put my order in. My reasons:
1) Higher resolution - I really want it for the large family portraits.
2) Better high ISO performance - for wedding receptions and the like
3) Cleaner sensor - I am forced to clean my 5D's sensor far more frequently than my 1D3 which has built in cleaning (I still have to clean it, just not as much).
4) Larger LCD for reviewing my shots - the 1D3 has several improvements in this area that I miss when shooting the 5D
5) Better menu system (ditto about 1D3 improvements)
I love my 5D for full frame shots. Large family portraits. Super wide angles. But it's just feeling "old" in comparison to my 1D3. I use both of them - regularly - but I find that for the sheer joy of shooting, I'm favoring the 1D3 too much - that there are shots where the 5D is really the best choice and yet I choose the 1D3 out of preference instead of logic. So that is why I ordered the 5D2 - to put it on equal footing with my 1D3, so that I'll once again use a high resolution FF solution where one is called for and stick to using the 1D3 in less demanding situations.
P.S.
I have no personal experience of this, but a friend of mine who shoots both Canon and Nikon prefers the Canon when shooting Full Frame because of the lenses that are available. His comment to me was that Nikon's selection of lenses, that will work without vignetting a FF image, are limited. I pass this along only because he uses both and so I thought his opinion might be worth more than just "an opinion". But like I said, I have no personal experience with Nikon so I can't speak for myself.
|
|
|
11/16/2008 12:43:58 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by jettyimages: Before judging my photos... |
I did not judge your photos; maybe I should not have said "...improve your photography skills", and instead, I should have said "...change your shooting and/or post-processing technique to achieve the look/style you seek". I was only responding to your claim that you could not get images with clarity, luminescence and beautiful colors with the Nikon equipment you currently use, and switching to full frame and very expensive lenses (Either Nikon or Canon) would suddenly change that.
Originally posted by jettyimages: There is a luminescence in its light handling that I love. Its aesthetics |
That must be something like the "Leica Glow", which only the hard-core leicaphiles can ever see.
Anyway, I didn't mean to burst your bubble or anything. I merely stated a personal opinion on a general, broad technical issue without judging you or your work. |
|
|
11/16/2008 01:07:09 PM · #28 |
Fps, Noise at High ISO, Focus system. Even with all that I'd still by another one because when you nail a picture with the 5D you can hear angels sing. |
|
|
11/16/2008 01:10:02 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by jtf6agent: Fps, Noise at High ISO, Focus system. Even with all that I'd still by another one because when you nail a picture with the 5D you can hear angels sing. |
Pfft, I hear angels sing when I nail a picture with my camera phone. |
|
|
11/16/2008 01:23:56 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy: Originally posted by jtf6agent: Fps, Noise at High ISO, Focus system. Even with all that I'd still by another one because when you nail a picture with the 5D you can hear angels sing. |
Pfft, I hear angels sing when I nail a picture with my camera phone. |
Those are the accountants at your provider. |
|
|
11/16/2008 01:47:34 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy: Originally posted by jtf6agent: Fps, Noise at High ISO, Focus system. Even with all that I'd still by another one because when you nail a picture with the 5D you can hear angels sing. |
Pfft, I hear angels sing when I nail a picture with my camera phone. |
Verizon?
Do you have 300 people following you around all the time? |
|
|
11/16/2008 01:54:10 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Intelli:
Do you have 300 people following you around all the time? |
Yes. Not everybody can see them though.
Message edited by author 2008-11-16 13:54:49.
|
|
|
11/16/2008 02:03:57 PM · #33 |
The 5Ds built in "sensor dust magnet" is a feature I could do without. A maybe 5 FPS would of been better.. Other than that, great cam, still prefer it over my main camera for low light situations. |
|
|
11/16/2008 07:24:44 PM · #34 |
Wow, thanks guys for all your comments. Whoever it was who said that its a matter of personal taste, you're probably spot on. I'm not trying to switch out of vanity or simply because I have too much money to know what to do. Far from it! My personal taste does seem to go to the Canon - take a look at this comparison between the D700, D300 and 5D. Taking into account that its a very close crop of a distant subject, i still really prefer what the Canon can do in terms of colour, life, light, and detail. The Nikon shots in that particular test look way too saturated and almost like a painting to me - they lack real clarity to me. Thats ONLY personal taste. I should also say that I'm happy with many of the shots I've taken and really enjoy using my D300 in terms of accessibility (I do think that the control placements, menus and weatherproofing are superior to the 5D), but if I want to go full frame and have problems with the lenses I have (my beautiful 17-55 has a crack in the casing, and its my only really top notch lens), and if going up to a D700 or D3 involves having to ditch all my lenses except the 50mm, then the choice needs to be made carefully and why not look at the Canon?
From what you've been saying, and listening to the 1D people, I'm wishing I were rich. Anyway, sadly the whole issue is going to have to be put aside for the moment - my husband just lost his job, right before Xmas, so I'm going to have to make do for the time being.
Thanks everyone for all your input, I really appreciate it! |
|
|
11/16/2008 08:42:24 PM · #35 |
I am not a 5d owner. Being at RIT, though, i have access to many cameras and have tried it as well as the d700 and d3. I am in the market for a new camera, and after alot of thought i have decided to go 5d mark II. I came very close to deciding on the d700 because it combines 8 frames per second with high iso capability, a full frame, and superb autofocus. But, I would really wish for a 1ds mark iii, and i think the 5d II will come close. it seems to only differ in poorer autofocus and a 2 fps reduction in speed. This site shows the comparisons of image quality of the d3 versus 5d versus 1ds III. The 1ds iii is better than the 5d, which is better than the d3. My understanding is canon has nikon as far as image quality, but as far as pure speed and ease of shooting, nikon seems to have canon beat with the d300 and d700. I am sixth on my school's waiting list for a 5d II because i am beginning to think it will provide image quality similar to the 1ds III; the best 35mm DSLR on the market as far as image quality. The differences in image quality between the original 5d and the d700 and d300 are fairly minimal, but i think the 5d ii will be a huge leap forward, erasing the "personal taste" part of the equation. Before this quarter in college, i shot almost exclusively sports, and i still will go with the 5d II because it is worth it for the spectacular image quality i expect it to provide. At the end, what comes out of the camera is most important, even if there are other tools that make capturing easier.
Message edited by author 2008-11-16 20:46:35. |
|
|
11/17/2008 02:06:40 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by robshookphoto: The 1ds iii is better than the 5d, which is better than the d3. My understanding is canon has nikon as far as image quality |
I guess that may be the case if you normally view images from 3-4 inches away. Sure, you get the detail, but do you really see the image that the photographer was trying to present? Hmmm. Even on Kenny-boy says "standing 10 feet (3m) away the Nikon would look the sharpest." That's on a print that is almost 5 feet wide. It sure would be hard to see the image with your nose touching the print, wouldn't it?
Its all about preference. Period.
|
|
|
11/17/2008 02:16:02 AM · #37 |
So sorry about your husband and work. Hope it works out and that he'll be back in business lickety split.
But I'm sure you'll be okay with the Nikon for now. Remember that Cameras don't take pictures; people do... :) |
|
|
11/17/2008 04:10:03 PM · #38 |
I used a 5D for a class once. Then I spent the next week cloning sensor dust off the images I took with it. In the year I've had the D300, I've only had to clean the sensor once.
The 5D is an excellent camera, and I'm sure you'll be happy with it. Considering the prices on the used market, it may be the best deal out there. The D300, however, is a generation newer, and has a lot of modern conveniences, like the sensor cleaner, bigger sharper LCD, live view, faster burst mode, 51 pt autofocus, etc. Before you make your decision, be sure you ask yourself if you're willing to give those things up. |
|
|
11/17/2008 05:00:51 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by ericwoo: Even on Kenny-boy says "standing 10 feet (3m) away the Nikon would look the sharpest." That's on a print that is almost 5 feet wide. |
This is the other extreme. On a 5 foot wide print, the sharper image has more to do with who did a better job preparing the upsized print.
eta: There's nothing I find wanting in my 5D. That said, I would not trade down from a modern camera body to it. It's just a chassis, and if you're jonesing for FF wait for the mk2.
Message edited by author 2008-11-17 17:01:40. |
|
|
11/18/2008 02:34:24 AM · #40 |
Strangely enough I think I've decided to stay with the Nikon equipment I have, sell the Sigma lenses and perhaps the 17-55, and get a D700 with the 24-70 and 70-200. I'm not going to be able to do it for a while, we still need to sort out my husband's job situation, but there's plenty of work coming in for me so hopefully things will improve enough to upgrade next year. Thanks everyone for your help, I appreciate your input. In the meantime, I've just put up a post about Santa photography lighting......it never ends, does it! |
|
|
11/19/2008 08:53:46 AM · #41 |
I still say your just suffering from Judy envy.
|
|
|
11/19/2008 02:42:57 PM · #42 |
Go into the camera database and look at the images from both, you will probably find that the users who get the most from their cameras are able to get results that are very, very closely matched, and the only thing between the two cameras at the end of the day is the person behind the view finder pressing the button.
It's also important to remember that no matter whether you buy a £100 point and shoot or a £2000 dSLR, it's going to take weeks, if not months before you start producing images that you can really say *I love this* about. Perseverance is a large part of camera ownership. |
|
|
11/19/2008 02:51:14 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Tycho: You'll probably hate me for saying this but it has to be said: If you're not getting excellent quality images from a Nikon D300 + 17-55 combo (or any one of the other lenses you own, for that matter), you will not get them with any other camera and lens including digitial medium format systems. That's to say that you need to improve your photography skills first, if you want to improve the quality of your photographs. That will save you a lot of frustration and headache, not to mention a good deal of money. But if you insist on upgrading your equipment to the so-called "pro level" hoping that that will make a significant difference, my recommendation would be Nikon D3/D700, the new Nikon 14-24 and 24-70 plus 105 and/or 135 DC lenses for portraiture. |
I wish I had a crystal ball and had waited to get the D700 but I got the D300 last November and I love it but I really want the ff. I envy the 17-55 lens but knowing it won't work on a ff I went with the 24-70 and thoroughly am enjoying that. I have the 70-300VR until I can upgrade to the 70-200VR and the 105 is on my Christmas list along with the 85 1.4. So - I am hanging in there learning all I can so I can maximize all that it can and I won't have so much to learn - plus, who knows the D3 may drop in price and I'll just go with that by the time I am ready and have freed up the proverbial funds.
**edit to change 84 to 85 - had 4 on the brain :-)
Message edited by author 2008-11-19 14:58:41. |
|
|
11/19/2008 02:59:50 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by dd1989: Go into the camera database and look at the images from both, you will probably find that the users who get the most from their cameras are able to get results that are very, very closely matched, and the only thing between the two cameras at the end of the day is the person behind the view finder pressing the button.
It's also important to remember that no matter whether you buy a £100 point and shoot or a £2000 dSLR, it's going to take weeks, if not months before you start producing images that you can really say *I love this* about. Perseverance is a large part of camera ownership. |
I totally agree I loved what I could make my D80 do and didn't anticipate so much of a change with the D300 but it was/is at times. |
|
|
11/19/2008 03:42:47 PM · #45 |
I'm afraid I also have focused waaay too much on the gear instead of learning how to take better pictures (I love gear!! :) ). There are several photographers both here and on other sites that consistently take much better pictures than me but that have equipment with a price tag sometimes less than a 10th of what I paid for mine.... Embarrassing but true!
Cameras and lenses don't take pictures; people do. |
|
|
11/20/2008 02:18:59 AM · #46 |
Another person mentioned Nikon's CLS, and I think that's an important thing to point out. The beauty of the flash on the Nikon D300/700 is not that it in and of itself is worth a damn- it's that you can use it as a built in commander. Sure, you can buy a SU-800, but that's another 240 bucks. Yes, there are better methods of triggering out there but they cost a lot more. If cost isn't a question, then there isn't a reason not to get a 1ds3 or a D3, but the ability to easily set up lighting quickly and efficiently out of the box with an off camera flash is definitely a very good selling point, IMO. |
|
|
11/20/2008 02:24:58 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula: Another person mentioned Nikon's CLS, and I think that's an important thing to point out. The beauty of the flash on the Nikon D300/700 is not that it in and of itself is worth a damn- it's that you can use it as a built in commander. Sure, you can buy a SU-800, but that's another 240 bucks. Yes, there are better methods of triggering out there but they cost a lot more. If cost isn't a question, then there isn't a reason not to get a 1ds3 or a D3, but the ability to easily set up lighting quickly and efficiently out of the box with an off camera flash is definitely a very good selling point, IMO. |
Interesting that you should bring that up now....I have just ordered an SB800 to add to my SB600, solved my lighting problem completely, and decided to buy a D700, keep my D300 as my second body, and stay Nikon. You're absolutely right, its a good system, much less hassle than other lighting systems, and as others here have pointed out, even rival the alien bees, especially in terms of portability and ease of use, let alone light quality.
So, dear Nikonians, I'm staying with you. Sorry Canonians, I LOVE the picture quality, but I'm staying where i am until I'm rich enough to have both :-) |
|