Nikon to Canon

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by davey h, Mar 12, 2009.

  1. Lamb to the slaughter. Here goes just a quick question? Has anyone in this forum gone from nikon d700 to canon 5dmk2?
    I know the question has probably been done to death but the ability to use hd video at times would be of huge help. I wouldnt be changing for the pixel advantage but changing systems is scary Thanks
     
  2. We went the other way, Canon to Nikon. For us, video on a camera is more of a novelty. If I was hired to do photography, do I really want to stop using my camera to takes still so that I can capture something on video? Probably not. I will need my camera for all the really important stuff. That said, I typically shoot with a D300/90 combination. I did do a wedding where the bridesmaids broke out in an impromptu dance in the coat room prior to the grand march.... I did use the D90 to capture a bit of video (less than 60 seconds). To truly capture video you need a dedicated system. Otherwise, it's just a novelty; at which point I don't think I would want to give up a D700 (and all that entails such as switching to Canon lenses etc) for the video feature of a Mark II. It would be easier and probably not any more expensive to get a D90.
     
  3. I'm on the canon side of things and I can't see how video would be enough of an advantage to make the switch. On the other hand, here are some other advantages which made me choose Canon over Nikon in the first place:
    - better low noise performance (not an issue anymore, but it used to be!)
    - compatibility with M42 lenses for cheap alternatives to Canon lenses (also compatible with some other lenses that can't focus to infinity on Nikon systems)
    - more accessible lenses in my area
    - I liked the ergonomics better
    As mentioned above, video seems (to me) to be more of a novelty. I don't think it's worth changing entire systems over.
     
  4. Ok Guys Thanks for the valid points all of which will be taken note of Thanks again.
     
  5. Having seen some of the videos produced by the 5DMk2, I would beg to differ that it's just novelty. You can produce outstanding clips with it, and I can see how it would be a versatile tool.
    Check this link out for some samples, on the Canon EOS website:
    http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetProductArticlesAct&productID=249&articleTypeID=225
    Just sayin', the HD video mode on the 5DMk2 is nothing like the video clips you get from most point-and-shoot digital cameras.
     
  6. One constant in the discussion over the years has been the almost invariable notation by Canon owners that they find the ergonomics of the Canon cameras superior to the Nikon. Another constant has been the observation by the Nikon owners that they find the ergonomics of the Nikon superior to that of the Canon.
    What I am guessing is that the ethological concept of "imprinting " or something analogous to it is at work here. Whichever camera you use first and learn to use, the more "natural" that camera seems in relation to another using a different user "interface". Having learned on the Nikon, you may well find the Canon awkward, so see if you can tolerate it before you decide to switch.
    I know of absolutely zero scientific evidence that either camera family is more or less ergonomic than the other-- this is a subjective judgment, not a "fact"-based one.
    Of course, I personally grew up on the Nikon F family, so even today on my EOS cameras my hands want to twist the aperture ring back and forth to index the lens.....
     
  7. Wait another year or so and Nikon will have the same video feature as well. Or get a D90 in the meantime - could be a cheaper solution than changing systems.
    Having learned on the Nikon, you may well find the Canon awkward, so see if you can tolerate it before you decide to switch.​
    I can only second that. I have been in the store to try out a 40D with 400/5.6L - and I had one heck of a time to navigate the camera (I shoot Nikon since 1979 and can pretty much start shooting with any Nikon model right away). I even went back home, downloaded and read the manual of the 40D - and to date can only shake my head over how Canon choose to implement certain features. And I am sure that many Canon user will think exactly the same thing about Nikon cameras.
    And as JDM von Weinberg states - this is subjective judgement and not necessarily a real issue of ergonomics.
     
  8. I have both (well the D3 which give the exact same IQ as the D700). While both cameras can give basically the same result after post processing in general I prefer the IQ of the 5D. Someone in the Canon form recently described the 'look' of the images from the 5D and Mark II as 'slide like'. I agree.
    David, are you dissatisfied with something specific with the D700?
     
  9. Spend less $$$ on a digital video camera if you really need/want the video. It makes no sense to jump manufacturers (unless you don't have many lenses, of course).
     
  10. You can't judge a camera by the demos on the manufacturer web site. If you could, you'd be using a Nikon P&S for professional work (did you see the sample shots?! nevermind that they were shot in a studio on ISO 50). Give Vincent LaForet a Handycam from the early 90s and he'll still blow your mind - it's not the camera that made that video.
    If you really want video capability, consider a D90 (because there's very, very little you can do with 1080p video that you can't do with 720p) and waiting for the second generation to do things like autofocus while taking video.
     
  11. Lamb to the slaughter. Here goes just a quick question? Has anyone in this forum gone from nikon d700 to canon 5dmk2?​
    Yes, someone has. He/she did not give me a specific reason why though.
     
  12. There are serious limitations to the 5DMk2 video:
    No power zoom
    Short clips
    Lossy codec
    No audio control, even with external mic
    If you need video and like your nikon gear (& why shouldn't you) then get a cheap pocket camcorder. Will outperform the 5DMK2 in terms of control (over video footage)
    Or wait a week and see if Nikon catch up. which they probably will.
    I am biased. I respect Nikon, but I am a canon user through and through. I am also a professional cameraman.
    I wouldn't touch the 5DMk2 for video.
    I appreciate that my circumstances are not everyones, but at this stage I really think that folk buying the 5Dmk2 for video are going to be a little disapointed.
    The 5DMk2 feels like a great camera, if the video was up to my standards (disclosure, I usually shoot on Sony Digi790s and a DSR570, occassionally a Z1) I'd have one in a second.
    When the Mk3 gets it right I will probably get one. The potential for tilt shift video is really appealing.
    Why change system for a half thought out feature? All health to keep using your nikon gear, all wealth to keep buying gear that is right for the job. I will get shot down, but in my book the 5Dmk2 video capability is only a taster of things to come. A video camera is better. For now.
     
  13. Lamb to the slaughter. Here goes just a quick question? Has anyone in this forum gone from nikon d700 to canon 5dmk2?​
    Yes, someone has. He/she did not give a specific reason why though.
     
  14. David,
    You are about to make a great mistake.
     
  15. I totally agree with the consensus here - that the video capabilities of the 5D MkII are absolutely not a reason to jump ship from Nikon to Canon. It's a pretty basic video system - sure the shallow DOF and lens choice capabilities are cool, but it's very limited functionally compared to a cheap video camera, and maybe Nikon will close that gap first anyway.
    Switching systems means losing money as you sell or trade your gear to buy new again. Also, while you are buying into some of Canon's advantages, you definitely lose some of Nikon's own advantages along the way (better flash control and the excellent Nikon 14-24mm lens, to name just two).
    Both are excellent camera systems and will continue to leapfrog each other technically. I think the next Nikon iteration will probably have better video capabilities than the 5D MkII - would you want to be switching back at that point? I'd buy a small video camera for a fraction of what you'd stand to lose - stay with Nikon and see what the future brings...
     
  16. The Canon 5DMKII is a really nice camera. Canon makes great fast primes. Reasons to give up D700 for Canon = zero. If you do want to do that...wait until Nikon puts out a competitive still/video camera so you can compare. Why blow a bunch of money unless the 5D will do something for you that will make you a ton of money?
     
  17. David,
    You are about to make a great mistake.​
    Care to elaborate?
     

  18. You are about to make a great mistake.​
    I know the mistake I made made last week. Sure won't make it 12 months from now. (<;
     
  19. Nikon D700: class leading autofocus, frame rate and high ISO performance. Very rugged body.
    Canon 5DII: Higher resolution, greater selection of lenses, especially fast wide angles and semi pro f/4 zooms.
     
  20. I switched from Canon to Nikon because none of the Canon bodies I owned (consumer to pro) had very accurate AF. They nailed the shot about 70% of the time. Ever since I switched to Nikon bodies, I've had AF success about 95% of my shots. I used Canon bodies all my life btw. On one instance when I picked up my Canon system (lenses and bodies) from Canon's service, the printed receipt/invoice said, "The 5D occasionally misfocused and cannot find the reason despite recalibration. All other items cleaned and recalibrated." I paid a considerable amount of money to get my entire system checked and serviced.
    I'm sure you'll have better luck.
     
  21. Jump brand lines for video? I'm a Canon owner, but wouldn't jump over a curb to add video to my DSLR. I did add a small, compact HD Camcorder to my pile of toys last spring. Just get an extra quick-release plate for your tripod, and you can swap back and forth with little effort at all.
     
  22. Thomas,
    I am afraid this is going to start a Canon vs Nikon debate, I believe that you can make amazing award-winning photographs using either brand, it all depends on the photographer, IMO both cameras have their advantages and disadvantages and it is more a matter of Nikon vs Canon system not just two bodies. Since you had asked before I quickly mention a few points I learned while shooting with both bodies, these are my findings other users might have different findings.

    D700 pros
    • Extremely low noise and high dynamic range NEF files, lots lots of headroom in post, the lowest shadow noise from any CMOS sensor I have seen so far.
    • Highest performance at ISO 3200 and 6400, no noise reduction needed.
    • Shortest shutter lag of any SLR I have used, quick and agile very good AF, many many custom functions.
    • Best metering I have ever seen.
    • Virtual horizon programmable to the front func button means straight photos no need for annoying rotations
    • Excellent Nikon 14-24 (the best wide-angle ever made) and 24-70, the difference between these two lenses and Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II (I sold this lens) and 24-70 f/2.8L is day and night IMO.
    D700 cons
    • The optical low pass filter or the AA filter is too strong, micro-detail is not as good as Canon cameras, fine/distant detail such as branches or text is not rendered, as a result very large prints will lack very fine detail. Here is a full size sample from an otherwise perfect shot http://www.pbase.com/speedmaster20d/image/108829068 which lacks the micro-detail I like to see.
    • some Nikon system accessories are more expensive/harder to find than that of Canon.
    • Nikon has no serious telephoto lens under $4000, nothing that compares with my Canon 70-200 f/4 IS or 400 f/5.6L or 100-400 L IS, nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR is a very disappointing lens for telephoto landscape/architecture.
    5D Mark II pros
    • Highest resolution and detail you can get from any 35mm DLSR today *when used with a sharp lens and Canon DPP RAW conversion sw which comes free with the camera*, see this example http://www.stanford.edu/~ahazeghi/Photos/NEF/IMG_0403.JPG
    • Very accurate color and white balance, neither over saturated nor muted.
    • nice finder with 98% coverage, great LCD (readable in very harsh light), better battery performance than Nikon
    • more compact and lighter than D700
    • Full HD video, very usable and great quality if you have the creativity to use it correctly.
    5D MKII cons
    • Dynamic range not as good as D700, shadow noise higher, banding in extreme cases, in general you have to be careful with exposure as there is not as much headroom in RAW
    • Response time not as good as D700
    • Peripheral AF points cannot lock in low light or low contrast situations, center tracking point OK for predictable movements, not good for subjects like birds in flight, my BIF keeper ratio is low.
    • Only 3.9 fps (but buffer is good I can get 17 RAWs with UDMA card)
    • Body feels cheap and not professional, my CF door is already squeaking after less than a week.
    • Canon wide-angle L lenses, there is only one word for them, disappointing, corner softness and chromatic aberrations are way high defeating the advantage of the 21 million pixel sensor, below 70mm I would not recommend any Canon zoom lens compared to Nikon.
    So you have to make a compromise, my advice is to stick to whatever system you have and try to exploit the advantages to your benefit, as I said you can produce excellent images with both.
    Best regards,
     
  23. Have you read the thread about the failures of the Canon equipment in Antarctica? Stick with Nikon. I know a pro sports shooter or two who drank the white lens Kool-aid and now wish they had stayed with Nikon, especially for the low-light advantages. This advantage is great for wedding-style shooting where a flash would be intrusive and stop people from being themselves. Good luck.
     
  24. Yeah, Mark is right; that one incident on that one trip has caused tens of thousands of 5DII owners - almost all of us, really - to put our cameras on craigslist and sell them for $500 or less. The 5DII is just a worthless piece of junk; the second a cloud rolls into the sky, 5DII owners start dashing indoors.
    OK, I love mine, and most other owners do too. But those who don't have one like to criticize them. (Btw, most tests say that Canon and Nikon are within 1/3 stop of each other or so in low-light noise performance, so take the "wedding photographers like Nikon" line with a grain of salt. For years "low-light shooting" has been synonymous with "Canon," and only in the past year or two has Nikon caught up. In fact, I'm guessing that a lot more low-light shooting without an "intrusive flash" has been done with Canons than with Nikons, but nobody can say for sure.)
    That said, I agree with almost everyone else here: I wouldn't switch for the video. I prefer the 5DII to the D700, but I still wouldn't switch from the Nikon to the Canon just for the video capability (besides, the D700's successor will almost certainly have video built in; are you going to want to switch back then?).
     
  25. I also went from Canon to Nikon. I had Olympus then Nikon for my film cameras for pleasure, but made the change to Canon for digital for work. Last year I went to Nikon D300 and now D700 for pleasure and work.
    At the last Premiers press conference here yesterday, there were 5 Canon to over 20 Nikon. Half the Nikons were D300/700 the other half were D3. The word with the photogs is that the Canon 1Dxxx is now just too cumbersome, and most were waiting for the more compact D700x. Canon have a lot of work to do. If the 5D2's body and menu system was as good as the D700, then the tables would turn again.
    Interestingly, MP count is not the issue, as these guys all have a 300dpi Jpeg file size limit when they send in their images. Its reliability, durability, ease of use, connectivity. Lens range is also overblown for the pros. Nikon have enough good 2.8 zoom choice to keep them happy.
    This is such a subjective and emotional issue. Go to the shop and buy what feels right. There'll be no difference in the images.
     
  26. God these flame wars are getting old. Why would anyone ask this question? These are two different cameras. The Nikon is a camera is far better suited to the working pro. It is a weather sealed mag-alloy body. Not ABS plastic. It is faster. You do not have to wait for menu buttons to work. The 5D Mark II shoots at 3.9 fps. This is not insignificant. With the battery grip the D700 shoots at 8 fps. The autofocus system on the D700 is better. Even the Canon fan-boys admit that. There is no real difference in low-light ability. People make up really esoteric tests to determine high ISO performance. The fact is that in the real world few regularly push the envelope.
    So I can think of no reason for you to take a step backward for some tricked out video function. As so many folks have said; if you need video slip a real video camera in your pocket and you will have FAR better results.
    So to flame on a bit more.....Someone earlier mentioned as an advantage that there are inexpensive lenses available for the D5 Mar II. News flash. There are inexpensive lenses available for both cameras. But if you want to really see how usefull that time-vampire 21 megapixels is try hanging a cheap lens on it. Then post the pics here. They will make nice lens reviews.
    There are a some folks who 'might' be able to justify the 5D Mark II. Most of them because they already have an armada of good Canon lenses. There may be a reason for Canon putting the 5D series in plastic bodies without weatherproofing. That is that very few working pros who need the toughness of a professional body will see much use for this camera. And when they do they can take it out, use it for awhile and go back to their solid everyday shooter.
    There is absolutely no good reason for going from a D700 (far more capable camera) to the Canon especially if it is for the video. And sell your Nikon lenses and D700 at used prices? Who wants to do that? There are a few folks out there who could make a case for 21 MP over 12.1 but very few.
    So I will join the group. If you already have Canon stuff buy the 5D Mark II for the full frame stuff. (Or buy a used 5D and use the rest of the money for a good lens or two.) If you are a Nikon user buy the D700. If you want to take occasional HD movies slip a camcorder in your pocket. It will serve you far better.
    Flame off.
     
  27. If I had an investment in Nikon glass I would wait for a Nikon full frame with video. The systems are fairly evenly matched and once you have glass there's just not much reason to go one way or the other. That said...
    It is a weather sealed mag-alloy body. Not ABS plastic.
    Where does this plastic nonsense come from? I've seen this in a couple "system versus system" type threads. Who started this rumor on the Nikon side, and why don't any Nikon people look it up? Only the Canon Rebels are plastic. Everything else in the Canon digital line up is a combination of stainless steel and magnesium alloy. This has been true since the 10D. Neither the 40D, nor the 50D, nor the 5D mkII is "ABS plastic".
    The 50D and 5D mkII have significant sealing. I'm not going to get into a long winded debate about whether it's better or wose than another brand. Without independent review this cannot be known. I have yet to see a single manufacturer submit their SLRs to a 1 ATM over pressure test, the minimum that is required for a watch to legally claim resistance to rain and splashes. Until such minimum tests are performed, everything is second guessing and hypothetical.
    The 5D Mark II shoots at 3.9 fps. This is not insignificant. With the battery grip the D700 shoots at 8 fps.
    It is insignficant for most subject matter.
    The autofocus system on the D700 is better. Even the Canon fan-boys admit that.
    Again insignficiant for most subject matter. It all depends on what you're doing. 8 fps and 51 AF points won't mean anything to a wedding or landscape photographer. They will prefer 21 MP and video. (Or at least the wedding photographer will prefer the video.)
    There is no real difference in low-light ability. People make up really esoteric tests to determine high ISO performance. The fact is that in the real world few regularly push the envelope.
    Same could be said for fps and AF.
    There may be a reason for Canon putting the 5D series in plastic bodies without weatherproofing.
    There may be a reason for Google not working on your PC: http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/03.html#03
    That is that very few working pros who need the toughness of a professional body will see much use for this camera. And when they do they can take it out, use it for awhile and go back to their solid everyday shooter.
    Nonsense. Many thousands of 5D mkII bodies will be put through the rigors of professional use and do just fine. Just like the 5D. And the 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D, etc. You could have said that it's probably not worth the hassle of switching without acting like a Nikon fanboy.
     
  28. Well said, Rick, but Daniel won't give up....Daniel, go to Luminous Landscape and read the 5D2 failure report and come back down to earth. You'd be spewing too.
    The body on the 5D2 is not what you can expect for a $4k camera. Its crap. End of story. And thats disappointing. Anyone can go to the shop and put one in their hand. Then have a feel of a D700. There is no comparison. And to show I'm fair I'll say this: Its like comparing a Nikon 50/1.8 AIS build quality to the same in AF. Yes, the latest works really well, but the durability and quality of the AF is not the same. The 5D2 is like this. Its point and shoot quality, wrapping around a great sensor and mediocre AF system. It would not last a day with me in the dust and dirt. Nikons have always been better in "one below the pro level" bodies. That why the 5D2 is cheaper than a D700. You do get what you pay for. But not everyone needs a good body. Thats ok too.
    If Canon had released the 5D2 with the same quality of the body and AF of the 1Dxxx, it would have stopped 1Dxxx overnight. It was a marketing decision to keep them apart.
    The D300/700 is the same as the D3...rubber covered magnesium. The best AF in the busdiness and a less than stellar range of AF lenses. We all acknowledge it and so do Canon. Heck, the shutter 5D2 rusts out even if you put it in a plastic bag in the rain! And o rings on every opening. Read the reviews and the pain of these people who have returned their 5D2s to the shop. Canon are scrambling to cover the returns...trust me. I'd be screaming! Our big dealer in the city here won't sell you one. He'll tell you to buy a Sony A900 or wait for the next iteration of the 1Dxxx. But thats another story.
     
  29. Thanks for the replies guys. Elliot asked is there something i,m dissatisfied with on the Nikon? no not really I maybe should of read more about both systems. I only have the 24-70 2.8 lens at the moment and with the price of lenses I could get a good price for both bits of kit.
    So as you can see before I go and give the Bank manager a nervous breakdown to buy more gear I have to be sure I am going in the right direction regards the system.
     
  30. The body on the 5D2 is not what you can expect for a $4k camera. Its crap. End of story.​
    Good thing it only costs $2700!
    I see that B&H still can't keep the 5DII in stock, four months after it started shipping. That must be some kind of a record, and it just shows how naive and foolish all of those Canon fanboys are who keep buying such a completely worthless, "crap" camera.
    Not that the Nikon fanboys wouldn't like a 20-plus megapixel FF SLR (with video) from Nikon for under $3K (where is that D700x, anyway?). Considering that Nikon introduced its first 12mp, sub-$3K FF SLR a mere three years after Canon did, they may have to wait a little bit longer. In the meantime I'll keep naively enjoying every one of those 21 million beautiful pixels on my "crap" 5DII....
     
  31. What is this, an attempt to get even for the Hitler video? It's fine to like your Nikons guys, but you could do a lot better on your research on Canon--it'd be interesting to see what Nikon blogs you found this at, and the absence of any links to neutral sources is notable.
    Our big dealer in the city here won't sell you one. He'll tell you to buy a Sony A900 or wait for the next iteration of the 1Dxxx. But thats another story.​
    Hmm. I'm guessing that "big dealer" doesn't have any Canon 5Ds to sell. I have yet to meet a "big dealer" who would refuse to sell you something if he had it in stock. I have met lots of dealers who would tell you how much better something they have an overstock of is than what you asked for.
     
  32. Ok Rick Thanks I only asked! Calm down
     
  33. I love needling the Canon guys. They react so well!
    But you see I'm allowed to because I have Canon and Nikon. But here endeth the flaming! Give me Canons L series lenses in F mount and we would all be happy.
    I'm off for a pizza.
     
  34. Sigh! If Nikon would just get off of their duffs and give us the D700x that we've all been craving, we ever-patient nikonoids wouldn't be tempted by Canon and Sony.
    Must...remain...loyal!
    :)
     
  35. Well said, Rick, but Daniel won't give up....Daniel, go to Luminous Landscape and read the 5D2 failure report and come back down to earth.
    Go to this site and read about the D3 failures and come back to Earth: http://alittlenewsphoto.com/?p=311
    I won't bother responding to the rest of your post because I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic.
    If you were serious, congratulations, you are the oldest fanboy I've ever met. Which should cause you heart wrenching shame.
    If you were trying to be funny...try harder.
     
  36. There is no point in switching as in real terms there is essentially little difference between the two - now that Nikon has closed the long standing digital gap that existed they will leapfrog over each other continuously in terms of bodies, new lenses etc. If you are already invested in Nikon then switching is just an exercise in burning banknotes.
    I went from Canon to Nikon three years ago when that constituted a real downgrade in digital capabilities - but I did it because of my continuing interest in 35mm film which is still sort-of served by Nikon but has been thoroughly marginalisedd by Canon. Most people wouldn't care about such considerations I have to admit.
     
  37. This is now so dull and nothing to do with the question.
    A lot of you guys need to stop peeking over the fence and get out and use your own camera, to TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS.
    I gave advice earlier which seems consistent with the sensible ANSWERS to the QUESTION.
    Nobody asked for a Nikon vs Canon debate, and I'm sure most adult sensible folk who know their own taste and trust their own judgement don't need or want one either.
    The nonsense and petty point scoring that these kind of hijacked threads spawn really puts me off photography sometimes.
    The first camera club I went to I was in the door 10 seconds and asked what kind of camera I used, not my name, not whose photography I admired, not what kind of subjects I liked, not 'do you have any photos to show us' but some fat sweaty middle aged anorak wearing fanboy waiting to sneer at my choice of kit.
    "Oh you can't take decent photographs with a...." And that sentiment has irked me ever since.
    Grow up.
     
  38. should i switch my d90 for a 50d? will i take better photographs? i'll gain a stop of iso. and i'll have a metal body rather than the plastic of my d90. does the 50d render color better than the d90?
     
  39. Stephen im with you. Daniel really does like to dissect people's opinion in writing. He certainly reacts very well! All i would like to say at this point is that the reason why Canon produce white tele-photo lenses is because i think they ran out of professional black paint. Nikon has outstanding optics not choosing to go for the very bright white paint that would not only frighten wildlife but require a clean after every use! In other words white must have been in fashion like those horrendous coloured bathroom suites of the past. This is just one of the reasons not to change from Nikon to Canon! ;o) Arash Hazaghi sums up both camera's very well and you need only look at his points above.
     
  40. You are making a big mistake choosing Nikon or Canon based on a single model, enough said.
     
  41. I wish there was a way to unsubscribe from threads.
    This is like Middle School - this kind of childish nonsense just drags down the site. Who has the time for this crap?
    Stephen Asprey [​IMG], Mar 13, 2009; 03:13 a.m.
    I love needling the Canon guys. They react so well!
     
  42. I wish there was a way to unsubscribe from threads.​
    If you mean that you are getting e-mail reminders, you can delete that choice in your workshop. If you mean deleting your comments, no way to do that, but you can just go away and stay away.
     
  43. Thanks JDM - I will delete the e-mail reminders for this thread in my workspace (I didn't realize I could do that) - it's clogging up my e-mail with a bunch of angry nonsense. I see no reason to "go away and stay away" - there is a lot of really useful information and some very good threads generally.
    Cheers, John
     
  44. I meant from the particular thread when I was speaking of "going away." Who in their right mind would want to quit Photo.net? ;)
    Although, there has to be a sort of sadness that some who are not in their right mind do not go away (present company excepted, of course).
     
  45. I'm not tell you Canon or NIKON but you consider to change all system to one because HD VIDEO like you said . the best choice to buy HD CAMCORDER is better &cheaper and quarlity for video purpose or stilt image to print out
     
  46. From Nikon D700 to Canon, . . . . . just for the video ! ? . . . . . . . . it is insane. If I Wanted to take a video images I would buy a video camera. It is a stupid sales gimmick, to have a video in your DSLR camera. I even hate the stupid pop-up flash on my D700, D300, totally useless gimmick too. I always cary my little SB-400 for a small work, mach better, not that amateuris, useless pop-up flash. It has no value for me, only for Nikon, so, they can charge more for the camera. Video . . . . ?! Why not phone, music player, and GPS, and some other game.
    How much you loosing to go from Nikon to Canon, you can buy a video camera, witch would be better then the DSLR for that.!
     
  47. I don't think I am adding much to this conversation that hasn't been said but I would agree it probably isn't a good plan to make video the reason for changing systems. It is a gimmick to sell more cameras and you would be better served investing in a relativly cheap cam corder. They have gotten so small now it barely takes any extra space in your kit bag and would likely get better videos.
    You might have lots of reasons to change or not but video is probably lowest on the list.
     
  48. God these flame wars are getting old.
    Flame off.​
    Sounds like someone is lost on usenet.
     
  49. The hostility shown by some on this list to the onboard flash found on pro grade bodies dumbfounds me. I have SB800 and SB600s. I personally like using them off camera and controlling from the camera. The idea that it is somehow bad or amateurish to control those flashes off camera by using the onboard flash rather than an extra costly device teetering on top of the body seems just plain silly from where I stand. The onboard flash adds capability to the body. Were the onboard flash not there, then one has to shell out spare dollars, a lot of them, just to purchase an extra SB 800 or SB900 or SU800 for the purpose of controlling off body flashes. One poster even suggests that the onboard flash drives the price of the body up. Hmmm what does the lack of an onboard flash do to the price of an otherwise unneeded flash control device? Methinks appearances or false ego props are more important to some than a more capable body.
     
  50. Thank you Michael...Now Daniel is accusing me of being the oldest Nikon fan on here. I am not a fan. My cameras...Nikon, Canon and Linhoff are tools and I am a ruthless consumer advocate for overpricing and poor quality products...no matter what they are.
    I'll condemn Canon for poor quality prosumer bodies and dreadful menu systems. I'll condemn Nikon for trash cases on their non gold ring lenses and the omission of an aperture ring on their G lenses, and I'll have a go at Linhoff for extortion on Schneider lenses. But I still buy them and use them.
    Back to the topic...HD Video on an SLR. Its rubbish and a sales gimmick for the Jo Blow consumer. If the D700x comes out with it I'll be surprised, as lots and lots of pros I know are planning on using the D700x for non sport type photography. I've even seen some of my news colleagues back trade from the 1Dxxx to the 50D with a battery grip, as its all they actually need. None would consider using dslr video. They all carry small cams now anyway.
    Its worth remembering that the Japanese domestic consumer market is huge. The average punter up there makes buying decisions from brochures and the fatter the spec, the more they like it. If Canon and Nikon want to add HD Video, then ok, do it. But not at the expense of more critical features or quality. They have a completely different attitude to the market than say Leica or Hasselblad. The difference in quality in some cases can be quite small, but only in the top end. Leica (like Olympus) makes most of its profits from medical and industrial GPS equipment, and other optical products. Guess what lens is in the Predator unmanned Recon plane? Leica. But they persist with their camera line as it gives them great branding. They always over spec on quality as it rubs off right across their other products.
    I'm off now. See you on another forum if I can be bothered.
     
  51. Phew. Thought he'd never leave! The mistruths being spouted here were just getting out of hand. Canons cause cancer. Canon dealers eat children. Canon lenses emit toxic gases that have killed thousands of photographers. Fortunately the ridiculousness of the claims is negated by Canon's popularity; if Canon was as bad as some here say it is, they'd be out of business instead of a being market leader.
    Go with what works, I say. In this case if you're already shooting Nikon I see no reason to switch.
     
  52. I feel the need to remind folks who seem only to be counting pixles that the 5D isn't "Twice" as good even though it seems to have twice the "Mega Pixles" (whatever those are).
    it's actually only a 32% improvement in resolution.
    At the cost of dynamic range, Low Light performance, and frame rate.
    That said... Right now, Canon has way better full-frame glass.
     
  53. Well, I thought what was raised were legitimate issues. And Ralph, he was being denigrated by Daniel. It is a forum after all. And Daniel, you should be throwing stones from your glass house.
    But I'm not buying into it. I chose neither. I have an A900 with three Zeiss lenses, and its brilliant. Its better than both the D700 and the 5DMkII. Almost the same specs as a D3x but a fraction of the price. None failed in LL Antarctica.
    I personally would forget about video on your DSLR. You should all get off your computers and do more shooting.
     
  54. "Have you read the thread about the failures of the Canon equipment in Antarctica? Stick with Nikon."
    My God, I am a Nikon shooter but I honestly thought you were kidding... aren't you though
    Like countless others have said... stick with Nikon. The old saying--"bodies come and go"--is all too true. Next thing you know the D800 will come out with the best video system of any DSLR and you'll be scrambling to sell your 5D2 + L's. Now, if you were saying you wanted more modern and faster primes because you shoot portraits for a living, by all means, switch. But that doesn't apply here. Nikon has its strengths and Canon does too. I wouldn't include "video" in either list. Pick up a nice Canon camcorder and you're set.
     
  55. " I chose neither. I have an A900 with three Zeiss lenses, and its brilliant. Its better than both the D700 and the 5DMkII. "


    :Rolls Eyes:
    For YOU, it's better. For ME, a D700 is better. Saying things like this is just silly. I am surprised this is coming from Photo.net, which is usually a very helpful forum. This thread is just a mess.
     
  56. Oh my. It seems you guys just proved once again that Internet Is Serious Business . lol.
     
  57. your pictures will look the same with either camera. keep what you have. people are quick to spend other people money.
     
  58. I wish my refrigerator had an internal camcorder so I could see who ate the left over pizza. Just thought I would toss that in..Don't know if somebody should buy another camera or not...Just look inside the wallet and if it is bulging then buy what you want. If the D700 had ISO 100 and no live view and that pesky vibrator thing I would wish for that but I would not buy one because my wallet looks kind of skinny. Besides I need a camcorder for my refrigerator so I can catch a 25y/o mouse in action. (for those of you with OCD I am just kidding about it all)
     
  59. Canon Fanboy: My 5d2 has bigger penis than your d700.
    Nikon Fanboy: Yea well my d700 doesn't sell itself for crack......
     
  60. This will never end. They are two different system totally. Choose a system and mater it. You can get equally good shots with any of the cameras. I use D3 for outdoor and fast shots, 5DII for studio and people photos (accurate skin tone). Switching takes time because they have different design coz they want to look different. Anyway, the competition is good for us.
     
  61. All this "my camera is better than yours" crap is very tiring. Can someone explain to me why Nikon users routinely troll in Canon forums? I see this everywhere I go. Do Canon users do that in Nikon forums? I wouldn't know, because I have only Canon equipment and, thus, no use for Nikon forums. Are Nikon owners afraid that someone, somewhere, may be dissing their camera? C'mon, guys, get a life!
    To answer the question, don't switch systems for video. Get an HD camcorder.
     
  62. I find that interesting my self so many insecure nikon users on Canon forum it is amazing.
    It is like they are trying to convert us. LOL
     
  63. I was using D200, D300, D50 in 2006-2007, D80 in 2008, D90 in 2008-2009 & D40 (2008-present), but two months ago i sold my D90 & bought canon 5D mark II.
    I love both cameras (nikon & canon), but each of camera has its own color/spec/anything u want to include here & for sure every fotographer (pro & amateur) has their own preference about it. So for me, as long as u happy with ur gear, it's the most important.
    best regards,
    gita
    NIKON D40, AFS 17-55/2.8, AFS 35/1.8
    CANON 5D MARK II, CANON 50D, EF 17-40/4 L USM, EF 70-200/4 L IS USM, EF 50/1.4, EF 85/1.8
     
  64. Personally, as a Canon fanboy, I am really glad Nikon has stepped up their game with their more recent cameras. It makes things better for everyone.
     
  65. You know, you'd think that if the differences between the two systems were so patently obvious and so terribly significant to the process of making photographs that by now:
    1. every photographer would have figured it out and switched to the better system.
    2. the evidence of "camera wonderfulness" or "camera awfulness" would be immediately apparent to viewers of photographs made with the two systems.
    3. one company would be out of business because of the shoddy nature of its products.
    Of course, none of that has happened and it is extraordinarily unlikely that it will happen.
    I use Canon, but I am absolutely convinced that if I suddenly found myself with a Nikon kit I would make essentially the same photographs I now produce with Canon. Neither system would make my photography better or worse.
    Both companies make really, really fine photographic systems, excellent photographers around the world make use of brands, and outstanding photographs (some that are by now iconic) have come from both camera brands.
    Pick one. Make photographs.
    Dan
     
  66. Wow, and I thought the dpreview forums were bad...
    I really like Dan's analysis of this tempest in a teapot, so kudos to you. Always astounding to me how people can get this riled up just about camera equipment. I wonder if there are deep-seated insecurities that feed such brand fanaticism.
    Having used both systems during the past 20+ years, I would say neither is perfect but both get the job done very nicely. I actually encourage people to switch over (or add a body from the "other side") for long enough so that they can experience for themselves the pros and cons of both sides rather than just listening to the fanatics.
     
  67. I wonder if there are deep-seated insecurities that feed such brand fanaticism.​
    At the risk of over analyzing this, I see this exact same thing with reference to Ford / Chevy arguments, Windows / Mac, Republican / Democrat and a host of other issues. In all cases the people who shout loudest are those who fail to see the shades of gray and want to believe that everything is black and white, right and wrong.
    A need to see the world in simple black and white terms is indeed a sign of insecurity and also of mental laziness. You want your choices and decisions validated, to be on the "right side" of an argument and not be confused by the complexities of nuance, compromise or facts. To anyone who is actually interested in images it is clear that the brand of camera is of minor, if any, importance at all. A writer's work is not altered or defined by the word processing program he uses.
    Dan is of course totally correct in his summation of the realities of using either Nikon or Canon - however, it's not a sexy, antagonistic, partizan or aggressively divisive point of view - it's just the truth, and as such not as interesting or provocative.
     
  68. After reading all the very interesting posts (interesting in that they have a wide range of different kinds of info, as well as rhetorical takes) I am embarrassed to ask:
    What is an Anorak?
    What is a fanboy ?
    (I know I have been buried in old media way too long . . . . :)
     

Share This Page