$1700: D300, 70-200 f2.8 VR, or Canon 5D

Valerie,

 

Here's a site that uses different lenses on mostly crop bodies from both nikon and

canon. Hope this helps with your creative eye. :)

 

http://www.motleypixel.com/reviews/index.htm

 

Shun, i appreciate your view, however, the 5D may look ancient, but the IQ it

produces is timeless and without peer for the price in 35mm format. And the

images will only improve as RAW converters improve as well. I think ai-servo

needs both good fps and great AF to be successful. As you may know, in ai-

servo mode most cameras focus from the center first , then branch out from

there.

Well, the 5D has 7 focus pts in the center (3 are cross type - 6 are invisible) as

the 40D has one cross in the center to "lock" with. Next the 5D has 8 more to

track around the 7 for a total of 15 points vs the 40D's 9. So, you're correct, there

is no comparsion. And the 40D has issues in ai-servo mode that has been

mentioned here on photo.net. Once a person understands how to interpret light by

using the Sunny 16 rule, or zone system, they may just put their fully automatic

camera in MANUAL mode, like I do. Do we really want the camera to make every

image 18% gray, or choose our af point automatically. Are we that brain dead as

a society now?

I had the same comparison several months ago..

 

I settled on the D300 because of the features and accessories. I purchased the

D300, a 24-70 2.8 VR ED, a 70 -200 2.8 VR ED, Lensbaby 3G, 18 -55 5.6, and a

55 - 200 5.6. and I am insanely happy with my choices.. the 5.6 lenses are

mainly for teleconverter possibilities..

 

I also outfitted my home studio with a 3 light Photo Basics Strobe Lite Plus

system and Manfroto tripods and Supierour Seamless, Studio Dynamics, and

Westcott backgrounds. I settled with a Sekonic 358 light meter and Pocket

Wizard Plus's

 

After choosing the D300 .. all equipment choices from there fell into place.... Nikon

took forever to get the 2 - 2.8 lenses.. like 6 weeks but it was worth the wait.

 

Best of Luck to you..

"Elliot: d50 limitations are that portrait clients are wanting to make prints at 16x20 and larger and yes, it's limiting because I have to nail the exposure and composition or they look bad. And yes, the frame rate does limit me. If you've taken pictures of a group of people with kids, it's a BIG benefit to leave your finger on the shutter as a child can move a lot even between those burst frames. "

 

16x20: You WILL see an improvement with the 5D over crop-sensor cameras, even good ones like the D300 or 40D.

 

Frame rate: 3fps in the 5D, faster in other, less expensive crop-sensor bodies.

 

Pick your priorities.

Dear Correct Exposure and Robert,

 

Not quite. I just stated that for this particular application, with a DX camera and an

85mm at f/2.8 at 2 meters from you subject, you get the exact same DOF as you

get on FF with a 105mm at f/2.8 at 2 meters from your subject. It just happens to

work out that way with these two lenses.

 

If you take a 50 f/2 on DX and an 80 f/2 on FF, this does not work anymore. You

would need to go to about f/1.4 on the 50mm and the DX camera to get the same

depth of field (6cm versus 7cm). But this is NOT what we are talking about here.

Were are evaluating Valerie's case, and in her case the DOF argument just doesn't

fly. Besides as was pointed out, in this particular case you could go all the way to

80/1.8 (or even f/1.4 if you have the $$$).

 

The issue here is that with the right lens, you can get an image with a high end DX

camera that is as good as that with a FF camera. OK, at high ISO you need a FF for

the reduction in noise, with a f/5.6 zoom you will have limited depth of field. But

those are not really the issues here.

 

Neither would I recommend "spot metering" with available light and children, the light

changes too much. Nor do I think a tripod will do you much good, you'll miss every

shot. Nikon has a great flash system, but if you stay with available light, which

makes these images so great, I think, since they don't look so "studio shot", that

makes no difference either.

 

In the end, it comes down to a D300 with a 85/2 or for autofocus, spend the $500 on

the 85/1.8 AF-D, or a 5D and a 105/2.8. Really, when it comes down to this, does it

make a difference? Either will give incredible prints at 16x20 and technique, focus,

and exposure will be by far the more important factors in how good the final image

will be than the camera it was taken with.

 

Go with what feels most comfortable in your hand (and pocket book) and you will

have a system that you can use for years to come (yes, even the older 5D will be

still be great).

 

Cheers.

Thanks again, everyone. Tachion, thanks for your clarifying comments to apply to my situation, as you are indeed correct about missing shots and angles with a tripod. Versatility in movement and speed are what have carried me through, as I just follow these kids around at times.

 

You cleared up one question I had as I was wondering if people were really suggesting that a 16x20 on the d50 6mp would be the same (as good) as with a 12 mp d300.

 

I'm a bit confused about one thing, though...my 85mm AF autofocuses on my d50, I understand that it wouldn't on a d60, but it surely would on a d300, right? Guess I could check it out myself, but there have been a few comments that were written as if this were an MF lens.

 

Anyway, thanks so much. I'm leaning against the big lens, for the versatility of movement reasons mentioned above, but still not sure between the 5D or the D300 and need to check out the other portrait lenses that have been mentioned. I'm thinking about renting the 5D w/ the Canon 85mm and D300 and seeing what they feel like to me.

 

Still open to any more input if people have more to say...whew!

Keep the D50, wait for a proper full frame camera from Nikon in a prosumer body, and pull the trigger on the 70-200. You will not see that much of an improvement with a D300 over your D50 but the 70-200 for an outdoor portrait lens will create some great opportunities for you. High ISO is not important for portrait work and for better image processing just shoot raw and use your PC/Mac to handle that in CameraRaw or Lightroom.

Well, here is my 2 cents; I am a Nikon film guy, who has decided to go digital. My first reaction was to go with Nikon D300 since it will AF my existing lenses; then I started to look at the options, as a film guy I'm used to shooting full frame, an 85 is an 85, not a 135; Then I started to internet search what the wedding guys- gals are using, and almost always its canon full frame with L lenses. Then I thought back to my canon Manual F days, and realized my SSC coated lenses produced better images, without a doubt. So i think this is what it comes down to; at the non L lens images, canon and nikon are the same, so the D 300 wins because at small sensor size, its ahead of canon. The canon L lenses are way way ahead of nikon glass, the 85 1.2 in particular, but acoss the board ; If you can pay the price for L lenses, Canon is the body- now its down to 5d 0r 40 D.

The 5D is behind the curve, and priced accordingly. The 40 D is ahead of the curve , with the limitation being the sensor size and the 1.6 that goes with it ; So, what makes a great image- the camera or the photographer ? Yes, the 5 D Mk II will be a " better " body, with a much higher cost; does that diminish the great images being made now with the 5 D ? I. E. see karen Lippowith- will these images be " better " with the new 5 D- I don't think so Tim.

That pretty much sums it up.

Ok, maybe there's an elephant in the room: Are the Canon L lenses that much better than the Nikon equivalents for this particular usage? I was reading Ken Rockwell's site where he says that for fast lenses, "Nikon owes us big time," saying, among other things, that Nikon hasn't really kept up with Canon in this one area. Obviously, Nikon makes amazing lenses, and I really like Nikon, as it's the only thing I've known. But really, the most amazing portraits I've seen for bokeh and just that general "oooh" factor are from those Canon lenses.

 

Is it worth opening the can of worms here?

There is no can to open, The L lenses are exactly what you see, Nikon does not

make " amazing " lenses.

Valerie, for a given aperture or focal length, one brand or another might be better. In general, however, both Canon and Nikon (among others) make some spectacularly good lenses. It is usually not about brand, but about dollars. The top lenses are going to cost, no matter who makes them. There are, however, some real bargains that perform quite well.

 

Since you are interested in comparing only Canon and Nikon, proceed with the system that you want, secure that you can get very, very good lenses from both companies.

 

Most of my lenses are now Canon since I switched to Canon in 2006 to take advantage of full-frame cameras. I still miss some of the Nikon glass that I got rid of, but the Canon glass has been fine. You typically get what you pay for. They are both so good that most of us cannot tell the difference, but do read the reviews for a particular lens and a particular application.

 

--Lannie

Valerie,

<p>

Don't bite. Some of this is the "Canon is way better" folks (not you Landrum). <i>Nikon does

not make

"amazing lenses"</i>. You may as well say, "Joe McNally doesn't know how to take

photos, and neither does Anne Leibowitz". Or perhaps someone can chime in with,

"You really should consider a second mortgage and go all Leica, since everyone

knows that Leica is the only company that can make amazing lenses."

</p><p>

It is generally recognized that both companies (add Zeiss and Leica to the list too)

make "amazing lenses" and "amazing cameras". The L lenses are the Canon

expensive pro line. These are indeed excellent and they are expensive. Nikon has

it's own set of expensive lenses. Why would anyone buy a converter to put a Nikon

lens on a Canon body (and only get manual focus) if Nikon does not make excellent

lenses? (Or if Canon does not make excellent bodies, for that matter.)

<p>

Don't go the "this brand versus that brand" route. You can take awesome photos

with a Minolta, or Pentax. I think you have a good plan to rent some equipment and

try out what you like best. Ultimately, some people will strongly prefer one brand

over the other because of how it feels in their hands. Some prefer one brand, some

the other. But in the end, you will be using the equipment, and you will be the one

that needs to use it.

<p>

By the way, it seems that Mr Ken Rockwell has his own way of attracting traffic to

his site. He seems to claim that a cheap point and shoot is just as good as a $2000

DSLR. Yet, he uses the DSL (actually a D3, which is even more) exclusively for his

own photos. Don't take everything literally.

<p>

If someone said "Canon gives you more choice because they have a larger lineup

and bring out new stuff faster", I would not disagree with that. They were also first in

the full frame area, which lost Nikon some customers. Generally, Nikon will be a

little slower to bring out the latest technology. Generally Nikon will be more

backwards compatible. That really gorgeous AIS lens from the 70's will still work on

a current model. Try that with a Canon lens from the 70s. But none of this is

relevant for your situation.

<p>

If you feel that only Canon equipment has made portraits that you like, go with

Canon! I don't feel that way though. Check out McNally's photos, or Steve McCurry's

work, or any other top photographer using Nikon.

<p>

Cheers

Fair enough...I'm going to compare them for myself and see. It'll probably be a little while, as the place that rents the equipment is a bit of a drive, but when I do, I'll post...

 

Thanks, everyone!

There's so much disinformation here it'll be a miracle if Valerie ever makes up her mind.

 

Bokeh and sensor size? Bokeh and sensor size have zero influence on each other. Bokeh is strictly related to the lens. Even then it's a voodoo topic at best. You're cluttering up the issues of sensor size and depth of field under the nonsense rubric of "bokeh."

 

A larger viewfinder doesn't necessarily equal a better viewfinder. Again, misinformed clutter. My FM2N has a "full frame" viewfinder. So what? My D2H has a better viewfinder - brighter, crisper, better suited to manual focusing even in dim light, without any need for split-image or microprism collar focusing aids.

 

More than relying on shallow DOF, "bokeh," fast framerates and autofocus, you'll probably gain more from getting control of your photographic conditions than from any new equipment. Relying on shallow DOF and "bokeh" are often poor techniques. Careful choice of backgrounds and lighting are better techniques. If 3 fps isn't fast enough, the problem is shot selection, not faster framerates. Practice manual focusing for those inevitable occasions when even the best AF will let you down.

 

My advice? Get into the stores and handle the cameras and lenses you're considering. Rent 'em if possible. Nobody here can tell you what works best for your preferences. All this piling on of misguided good intentions has just created a mess of disinformation, misinformation and cognitive dissonance. For every person who offers reasonable sounding advice two people will come along with equally reasonable conclusions about why everyone else is wrong.

 

Including me.

Do read Ken Rockwell, Valerie, but always be sure that the switch for your CpDr (crap detector) is in the "On" position.

 

--Lannie

"A larger viewfinder doesn't necessarily equal a better viewfinder."

 

But it usually does. Especially when it is almost 50% larger and both are using modern technology.

 

"Again, misinformed clutter." And your comparrison of a 30 yr old budget camera with a top-of-the-line current professional camera, neither of which are relevant to the issue, is not somewhat obscuring?

 

It's hardly rocket science. All Valerie needs to do is go into a shop and compare the viewfinders with the same speed lenses giving the same field of view. She should then be able to compare the squinty little D300 APS viewfinder, that looks like you're looking down a tunnel, and the larger, brighter FF viewfinder of the 5D. My experience is that the 5D is also much easier to manual focus quickly and accurately. This is on top of being able to see things like subtle lighting changes and expressions so much more easily. This matters when lighting is low.

 

The viewfinder on the 5D is ok, but, of course, there are other film cameras with considerably better viewfinders (Leicaflex, Pentax LX, Nikon F3, F6 Pentax 645 and 67) Given the other features of the 5D though, and the benefits of FF digital, the viewfinder is just about good enough.

I use both systems. For the type of work you want to do a 5D is probably the best choice outside of a D3...which is total overkill. The full frame and the dof advantage is what you seek.

<p>

As others like to point out, the 5D is a bit outdated, feature wise...but still at the top in picture quality.

I've looked at your work . It is promising. While a better camera and or lens is always a fu nway to spend money I thin k spendign it on a good portrait workshop is a better way. You also do not appear to be charging enough. For your $100 portrait package, how much time are you spending. Not just oot time , but also deciding which are the best ones to present to the client (editing/culling) , presenting to the client (selling) , and then processign the selected ones? How much money have you spent on equipment and software so far? How much are you budgeting for into the future? what are your goals? In other words: will buying a new camera or lens actually help you make more money?

Robert, there is zero correlation between viewfinder size and ease of use. Zero.

 

Ever used a view camera? Huge finder and focusing screen. PITA to use. How 'bout a Rollei 2.8C TLR with original focusing screen? Or almost any TLR with the original focusing screen? Huge. And like looking through a dirty window.

 

A bigger viewfinder is bigger, period. The FM2N finder is very good. Good enough that I've used it successfully many times for nighttime street photography, always with manual focus of course. Dismissing it as a "30 yr old budget camera" is more ill-informed nonsense. But it's not as good as the D2H finder, which is every bit the equal to my F3HP finder. And it has zero, nothing, nada, to do with viewfinder size.

 

The nonsense about using a DX or comparable sized viewfinder being like peering down a tunnel is ridiculous. Might as well say that looking through a view camera or Yashica TLR finder is like looking down a huge cavern. The size has absolutely nothing to do with brightness, clarity and utility.

 

This addiction to the concept that the 35mm paradigm as the "fool frame" be-all, end-all of photography has literally blinded people to reality. OTOH, it's produced some amusing illogical conclusions.

Lex, you are overstating your case ... dramatically.

 

What part of - "But it usually does. Especially when it is almost 50% larger and both are using modern technology." do you not get?

 

Why do you again bring up irrelevant comparisons - the almost 60 year old technology of the Rolleiflex C2.8 TLR? Put a new screen in there, a Maxwell screen from the last few years and the D300 is laughably wretched, squinty and awful when compared - albeit the right way round.

 

The case in question is a comparrison of modern cameras using comparable technology - D300/5D.

 

The D300 viewfinder is AWFUL compared to many other cameras. (Some of the oldies I named). You only have to compare them side by side with comparable lenses. The case in point, relevant to Valerie's question, is the 5D. As I said she only has to compare them to settle the issue for herself.

 

"The nonsense about using a DX or comparable sized viewfinder being like peering down a tunnel is ridiculous." Why not just jump up and down and shout! This is my experience when I compare it to other viewfinders - even to old technology like an LX with an SC69 screen or a Leicaflex - and many others have said the same, whether you agree or not. It is squinty, narrow, small, distant and uncomfortable to work with, and certainly not optimal for portrait work.

 

Just look through a Leicaflex (or a Canon 5d) with an 80/1.4 and then a D300 and a 50/1.4. See a new world open up.

 

The Nikon F3HP is a case in point - this is for sports work, for working quickly and at a slight distance from the camera - good also for people with glasses - also giving a tunnel effect, deliberately narrowed so that it's all visible from a distance - so yes it does, slightly, compare to a DX camera. But why choose that for portrait work, or any work where you can take your time and actually notice things through the viewfinder. For that the plain F3 is larger and clearer.

WOW!

<p>

A great deal of misinformation is being presented above by a few posters!

<p>

Valerie!

<p>

Just get a small loan and buy a Nikon D3 and be done with it. It is definitely state-of-the-art today in the sub-$10,000 range and does an outstanding job for portraits, weddings (low-light), sports (9-11 FPS), and just about anything else you can imagine.

<p>

I have posted this image from a recent wedding in a few other threads - but it does illustrate what is possible with the D3 and the 85mm f/1.8 lens: (very similar to your 85mm f/2.0 lens)

<p>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3098/2556010370_c54c138a73.jpg?v=0">

Wow Russ,

 

The D3 is awesome for sure, but 5K body only is a reach when you can spend it on a Canon 5D + 85 f/1.2L + 135 f/2L or 70-200L for portrait work. :) But we are in agreement that she should look into a full frame body if only to know what else is out there.

She doesn't need to buy the other lenses. She already has the Nikon 85mm f/2.0 lens for her portrait work.

 

And once you work with the Nikon D3, you will never consider the slower, older, plastic Canon 5D.

 

After all - Valerie does this professionally and the investment in the D3 will be well worth it. We purchased our D3 about a month ago - one of the best investments in equipment we have ever made! (Added to our D300 and D200 bodies.)

Russ, we are not at odds in our view of full frame image quality for portraits. But

for the price, a 5D and 85L 1.2 is awesome for under 4K. The only thing Nikon

has to match that is a D3 and 85 1.4 for over 6K. Even then the Canon setup has

a faster lens with ultrasonic motor for 2K less.

 

If she takes a loan out, she's better off with a Mamiya ZD medium format digital for

less than 10K that will smoke anything were're talking about for portraits with BIG

prints. Her clientale will skyrocket for sure when she shows off a 20x24 print with

that baby. :)

 

However, she has 1,700 to spend, and there is no better camera under 2K for

portraits than the 5D. That's why it has not been replaced. No one can match

it...yet. :) And yes, I think the D3 is excellent in everyway. But it's IQ is not 3K

better than a 5D. In fact, the 5D has been said to have sharper images than the

D3.

 

You have both a D300 and D3..for portraits, which would you choose? If you say

D3, then for the same price as a D300 (a camera she is looking into) she can have

a full frame 5D that can surpass even your D3 as I have mentioned earlier.

 

We need to look at cameras as tools for the job. Forget brand loyalty. Heck, I'm

looking into a Mamiya ZD b/c 35mm cannot match it for portraits. :)