Nikon DSLR & Lenses equal in speed to Canon

<p>Hello all....I was looking for some help with Nikon products, 2 of my local dealers seemed to be awfully uniformed about the product so I'll ask here! I've been shooting motorsports for ages and currently have a Canon 40D with 3 lenses with USM focus motors. The results are excellent, both camera and lenses easily keeping up with cars moving as fast as 200 mph. The 10.1 mp of the 40D is also just right. What does Nikon offer that can focus just as fast and give me the results I'm getting now? My current focal length lenses are 15-85, 70-200 F/4, and a 300 F/4. Thanks in advance!</p>

<p>Why are you considering switching, if everything is too your liking? Many cameras both Nikon and Canon can surpass the autofocus of the 40D, and if you do change to one of the 16-24 MP crop bodies you will be very pleased by the difference in resolution.</p>

<p>As for lenses, as long as the Nikon has AF-S you are likely set to go. My minimum preference for sports would be a used Nikon 80-200/2.8 ED AF-S and 300/4 AF-S. I used the 80-200/2.8 AF-S for two years on the D2X, and now use a Canon 300/4 L on a 5D II. I have used my Nikon 400/2.8 manual focus lens on both cameras and also with 1.4x converters.</p>

<p>As with Canon, Nikon too makes cameras with good AF and better AF so you just have to do your homework. The stand out crop bodies I guess at this time are the Canon 7D, Nikon D7000, Canon T4i, and Nikon D5200. I assume you are not considering any pro bodies. I always start my research at dpreview.com Same thing goes for lenses as well Canon and Nikon both make ones that are not so fast. USM and AF-S do not help in all cases.</p>

<p>If the Canon 40D is working fine for you, I wonder why you are even considering Nikon? IMO you are much better off staying with Canon and perhaps upgrade to a newer body with good AF such as the Canon 7D, which is not all that new itself.</p>

<p>Nikon does have 16-85mm/f3.5-4.6 AF-S VR, 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR, and 300mm/f4 AF-S lenses, similar to the equivalent Canons. The 70-200mm/f4 VR is brand new, and Nikon should start shipping it this week or next. The Nikon D7000 camera body also should work well for you. However, if you change camera brands, be prepared to spend a fair amount of money and get essentially the same good results.</p>

<p>System time out caused a double post. Sorry. PS. I agree with Shun.</p>

Richard, you already have a few good lenses and a good body. I agree, just buy a newer, better body (life should be so

easy, lol) and use your other as a second with another lens or just keep as a spare. Seriously, unless there is some

drastic "major fail" reason you don't like the Canon, just stick with your system.

On the other hand, if you want to drop some cash, here's what I found with free shipping at one of the big well known NY

stores. $2295.95 will get you a keen D7000 prosumer body and a pre order on the brand new Nikkor 70-200 f4 (wow,

looks nice ;-))). 1845.95 will get you the same lens with a D5100 consumer body. (They both have the same sensor)

<p>Since the OP is photographing cars going at 200 mph, I would not buy the Nikon D5100. IMO its AF system is not good enough for auto sports. However, the OP has been using a Canon 40D, whose AF isn't exactly top notch either.</p>

<p>IMO, the OP is much better off staying with Canon and upgrade the body, maybe wait for the successor to the 7D. However, should he indeed switch to Nikon for whatever reason, I would at a minimum get a D7000 body.</p>

<p>Richard - </p>

<p>For a cropped sensor - I'd suggest the D300 or D7000 <br>

Full Frame - D600 or D700. </p>

<p>Lenses - 18-105 kit, 70-200 f4 or f2.8 (if money isn't an object) and 300 f4</p>

<p>But I like many others am confused as to why switch brands? If you're used to the Canon menu, buttons, and feel, the Nikon will throw you for a loop. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>My very slow focusing 80-400 could easely track a F16 and cars on the highway and it more your focusing technics than the lens/cam combination, but is not point and shoot.</p>

<p>My very slow focusing 80-400 could easely track a F16 and cars on the highway and it more your focusing technics than the lens/cam combination, but is not point and shoot.</p>

<p>D300s or possibly a D7000 for crop. If you want full frame a D700 with MBD-10 or D3s,D4<br>

18-105 70-200 AFS f/2.8 or f/4 if you want to wait 300 f/4.</p>

<p>I don't shoot a lot of motor sports but I do shoot sports and a lot of what I end up doing is pre-focusing in the area that I know the action is going to happen in.<br>

Seriously if you are looking for better AF and such why not just go for a 1D3 or 1D4. Last I talked to my friends who shoot Canon the AF problems had been sorted out.</p>

"Back in the day" 87-93, I used to shoot custom racing motors, carburators, and other engine stuff for drag racing that

used to be published in some of the well known Drag Mags. At the track the cars I needed to shoot would finish up

around 170-180 mph, the track shots were all manual focus and zone focus. I have shot a bunch of stuff more recently

with the D200s and the D5100 is actually faster to use, so, I think it would be OK, but you can't bang it around too much,

that would be a bigger concern. I would have a thick aluminum plate machined for the bottom and fasten it into the tripod

socket (old trick). Nikon actually made one that was a "tripod adapter" for the old N2000, 2001AF, it was a heavy

aluminum plate and you could "plunk" the cameras down on the ground (concrete) while working low without worrying.

Today, the bottoms are thin, so, have someone make a plate, even on the 300/700/800 series. My old set was a pair of

FM2s, one with a customized fast motor put in by Nikon in the NY repair shop, and an N90 that always had the 85mm AF

1.8 on it. On my big lenses I would rubber band a thick piece of foam to the bottom of the lens front so if I layed the

camera flat, the bottom of the lens front was protected, plus I could stick it on top of a fence or concrete wall to use as a

brace ;-)))) Enjoy!!

P.S. Also, sometimes the best choice was the Bronica SQam 6x6 with 65mm and zone focus, then I could just crop and print whatever I wanted off the big neg.

So, Canon, Nikon, Bronica, whatever works is the best choice.

<p>I'm a Nikon fanboi, but I think I'd highly recommend a Canon 40D with a 15-85, 70-200 F/4, and a 300 F/4. That'd be a great combo. ;-P</p>

<p>Dave,</p>

<p>I love your post. Very evocative, and good to be reminded it was also possible to get the shot even without AF or digital etc.</p>

<p>Thanks all for your input. I'm not considering a switch at the moment but I'm looking down the road at possible options. As I said in my original post my results have been excellent. I feel no need for more megapixels, and the AF is as good as it gets with the 40D, its never an issue at any racing event I've been to. The 2 bodies that I have are getting up there in shutter count, the 300mm is from 1997 and Canon no longer has parts should it break down, so my question is basically research. No better source of info then the people that have the cameras and lenses in there hands, right!? I'm sure I'll have to do something at the end of next season, no better time then the present to learn and give me time to think about what to do.</p>

<p>I'm a 30 year Nikon owner but your outfit is in no way inferior. Stick with what you know.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Dave,<br>

I love your post. Very evocative, and good to be reminded it was also possible to get the shot even without AF or digital etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually that kind of post is fairly misleading. It is like saying 1000 years ago (or whatever many years ago), warriors used nothing more than bows and arrows, swards, etc. for fighting major wars. Therefore, machine guns, missiles, and fighter jets are not necessary.</p>

<p>Lightwise, back in the late 1980's, essentially nobody had AF or AF was very primitive. Every professional sports photographer was still using manual focus and zone focus. Nobody had anything better and therefore some mediocre images and somewhat out-of-focus ones (in today's standards) were acceptable. Once Canon started introducing fairly good AF in the early 1990's, pro sports and news photographers switched from Nikon to Canon in huge numbers. You could no longer compete in the pro market if you didn't have good AF, just like bringing no more than a sward to the battlefield today; you would be killed in no time, literally.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The 2 bodies that I have are getting up there in shutter count, the 300mm is from 1997 and Canon no longer has parts should it break down</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Your 300mm has not broken down yet, so why worry about it? If it indeed breaks down some day, you have used it for 15 years and get your money worth. If you cannot get it fixed, just buy another Canon 300mm with IS. I still don't see why you need to switch to Nikon. Nikon's 300mm/f4 AF-S was introduced in the early 2000's and has no VR. If you can buy a Nikon 300mm as replacement, why can't you buy a Canon 300mm as replacement?</p>

<p>And if your 40D bodies are getting old, why can't you get one newer Canon body such as a 7D?</p>

Yes, Shun is correct, however I also wasn't trying to be intentionally misleading in any way, just stating it like it was, that

we could get shots, and you still can get shots with lesser equipment and more effort, and error. That being said, the

blistering Canon EOS 1D X and a pro lens such as 300mm 2.8 USM can be grabbed for about a cool $16,000 and will pit

you right in the mix ;-)))

There are very positive posts but I have

used d700 with nikkor 24-70 Af-s and the

focus was much slower than my 7d.

If you are doing well with what you have,

use it till it goes obsolete. By that time there

will be dozen of cameras in the market that

are much better that what we are talking

about now

<p>Shun, from reading your many comments previously I'm surprised at the above! Firstly that you bothered to 'correct' what was a completely generous comment from me to a fellow poster. Thanks for that - I'm sure we're all grateful that you are keeping our sentiments in check! And secondly I'm surprised because you have misread what was a very very short post from me, and thus your response is way off. The comment was written in the past tense! I never suggested to the OP that what Dave described was a viable alternative to the gear he is considering. I didn't even address the OP. I merely inferred something that should be obvious to anybody but the most naive, i.e. that the acceptability of results is relative to the means available. In it's day, the techniques Dave described produced acceptable results, and with a level of ingenuity I enjoyed hearing recalled. People were not hanging around wishing if only they had a D800, a D600 or whatever latest greatest camera it is you are hung up on for the moment. Misleading? If your intention is to stick religuously to the topic then start by reading one sentence posts properly, save us the red herring historical analogies, and try to recognise a simple generous comment when its posted.</p>

Gerard, in the process of whatever dialogue was transpiring here, I failed to acknowledge you for your initial kind remark

above. I appreciated it very much and thank you for expressing it to me. As for Shun's comment, I really just took it in

stride as collegiate dialogue and moved right along. I have a tendency to step in the side door, so my opinions are seldom

going to be in the mainstream, thus a little silt stirred up now and then ;-))) Best regards.

<p>Gerard, in any web forum discussion, the context (i.e. the main topic of the thread) is important. Here on this thread, the OP Richard Martin is asking about <strong>modern</strong> Nikon equipment to replace his Canon 40D and AF lenses.</p>

<p>If this thread were about the history of photography, i.e. what photographers used 20 years ago, 40 ago, etc., then discussing pro sports photographers' technique and equipment in the 1980's, which was over 20 years ago, would have been appropriate. However, on a thread about current equipment, Dave Wilson's post discussing the history out of the blue was unfortunately off topic; most likely that was not his intention, but I do find his post misleading.</p>

<p>Speaking of the 1980's, back then, I used to have a Nikon 500mm/f8 mirror lens, and I found it very difficult to use. Therefore, when the topic of mirror lenses comes up, I usually recommend against one. However, <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=445831">Jay Hector</a> is an advocate of mirror lenses and kept telling people that he used a mirror lens to shoot auto racing and those images were published by the Road and Track magazine. What Jay Hector did not disclose and I subsequently found out was that those publications were in the 1970's when nobody had AF, and I find such argument misleading: <a href="006xJv">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/006xJv</a></p>

<p>Shun, Dave, and anybody else listening - excuse me if my response seemed harsh. I've enjoyed dipping in and out of Photo.net since about 2000, and Shun I found your posts re: the D800e very useful before I purchased one myself. But I think you're response to my post here was OTT. Sorry but I have to call it as I see it. I've posted often enough, and read enough forums here to know that a benign, actually a generous comment like mine, does not deserve the rebuke you gave it. And to describe it as misleading, is well, ethically misleading. The OP asked very direct questions about information on camera specs. If the forum is about strictly answering the OP's questions then a simple link or two to technical data on modern Nikon camera's would have answered the question as clearly as possible. Done. The fact that there was numerous 'opinions' posted before mine, without rebuke, would indicate that the forum serves a more nuanced function than the simple provision of technical data. And lets face it, photography is about more than technical specs - to capture motor car racing demands technique, let alone 'art' or 'craft' etc. Dave's original comment was directed precisely to the role of 'technique' in the production of photographs. That's not misleading, and neither was my reply. What is misleading is to think that you can make successful photographs of motor racing cars or anything else, if only you have the 'right' camera. Sorry to be stubborn about this, but its the truth. Over on the LF forum where I have been a reader most of these years, photographers talk a little less about hardware, and a bit more about technique. I'm a bit taken aback by the apparent difference here. I'm done now.</p>

The OP has. 40D, 10.1 MP and 9AF points etc. The D200 which I still use all the time for differnt things is also 10.1 and

has 11AF points, and probably has a better AF performance than the 40D. The D5100 has the same AF, but 16 MP and

to my testing using 2 of them pretty often now is that they seem to work faster than the D200 in general, plus a big boost

in IQ with the better sensor. The D7000, the next step of course has the 50+ point AF and other goodies. I think that my

answer, while it included a few practical and nostalgaic points, of interest or nit, was not that off point. Love and Peace,

Dave

<blockquote>

<p>I've posted often enough, and read enough forums here to know that a benign, actually a generous comment like mine, does not deserve the rebuke you gave it. And to describe it as misleading, is well, ethically misleading.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Gerard, the post I find misleading and out of context is Dave Wilson's from Nov 25, 2012; 12:44 p.m. Your posts are not misleading, but I disagree with your praise of Dave Wilson's post.</p>

<p>It is human nature that we all have different opinions, and I don't hesitate to point out my disagreement on forums such as this one. There is nothing personal; those are honest differences of opinions. In fact, I seriously dislike those false "I agree with you" comments.</p>

<p>If you have problems with people disagreeing with you, that is just too bad.</p>

<p>On the other hand, Dave Wilson has some excellent points:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Richard, you already have a few good lenses and a good body. I agree, just buy a newer, better body (life should be so easy, lol) and use your other as a second with another lens or just keep as a spare.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is something I toally agree with and Richard the OP is better off staying with Canon. Now, the OP could be very unhappy since we are talking him out of buying Nikon equipment. It is not my objective to make sure that everybody is happy. I am only providing opinions on what I think is best for the OP, who may or may not agree. Ultimately, it will be his choice and equipment he will be using. not I'll be using. Richard's opinion is the only one that really counts.</p>