Nikon to Canon

<p>Lamb to the slaughter. Here goes just a quick question? Has anyone in this forum gone from nikon d700 to canon 5dmk2?<br>

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</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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:</p>

<p>- better low noise performance (not an issue anymore, but it used to be!)</p>

<p>- 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)</p>

<p>- more accessible lenses in my area</p>

<p>- I liked the ergonomics better</p>

<p>As mentioned above, video seems (to me) to be more of a novelty. I don't think it's worth changing entire systems over.</p>

<p>Ok Guys Thanks for the valid points all of which will be taken note of Thanks again.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Check this link out for some samples, on the Canon EOS website:</p>

<p>http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetProductArticlesAct&productID=249&articleTypeID=225</p>

<p>Just sayin', the HD video mode on the 5DMk2 is nothing like the video clips you get from most point-and-shoot digital cameras.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>What I am guessing is that the ethological concept of "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_(psychology)">imprinting</a> " 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.....</p>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Having learned on the Nikon, you may well find the Canon awkward, so see if you can tolerate it before you decide to switch.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.<br>

And as JDM von Weinberg states - this is subjective judgement and not necessarily a real issue of ergonomics.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>David, are you dissatisfied with something specific with the D700?</p>

<p>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).</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Lamb to the slaughter. Here goes just a quick question? Has anyone in this forum gone from nikon d700 to canon 5dmk2?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, someone has. He/she did not give me a specific reason why though.</p>

<p>There are serious limitations to the 5DMk2 video:<br>

No power zoom<br>

Short clips<br>

Lossy codec<br>

No audio control, even with external mic<br>

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)<br>

Or wait a week and see if Nikon catch up. which they probably will.<br>

I am biased. I respect Nikon, but I am a canon user through and through. I am also a professional cameraman.<br>

I wouldn't touch the 5DMk2 for video.<br>

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.</p>

<p>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.<br>

When the Mk3 gets it right I will probably get one. The potential for tilt shift video is really appealing.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Lamb to the slaughter. Here goes just a quick question? Has anyone in this forum gone from nikon d700 to canon 5dmk2?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, someone has. He/she did not give a specific reason why though.</p>

<p>David,<br>

You are about to make a great mistake. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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).</p>

<p>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...</p>

<p>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?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>David,<br />You are about to make a great mistake.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Care to elaborate?</p>

<blockquote>

<p> <br />You are about to make a great mistake.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know the mistake I made made last week. Sure won't make it 12 months from now. (<;</p>

<p>Nikon D700: class leading autofocus, frame rate and high ISO performance. Very rugged body.<br>

Canon 5DII: Higher resolution, greater selection of lenses, especially fast wide angles and semi pro f/4 zooms.</p>

<p>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.<br>

I'm sure you'll have better luck.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Thomas,<br />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.<br /><br /><strong>D700 pros</strong></p>

<ul>

<li>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.</li>

<li>Highest performance at ISO 3200 and 6400, no noise reduction needed. </li>

<li>Shortest shutter lag of any SLR I have used, quick and agile very good AF, many many custom functions.</li>

<li>Best metering I have ever seen.</li>

<li>Virtual horizon programmable to the front func button means straight photos no need for annoying rotations</li>

<li>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.</li>

</ul>

<p><strong>D700 cons</strong></p>

<ul>

<li>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 <a href="http://www.pbase.com/speedmaster20d/image/108829068">http://www.pbase.com/speedmaster20d/image/108829068</a> which lacks the micro-detail I like to see. </li>

<li>some Nikon system accessories are more expensive/harder to find than that of Canon. </li>

<li>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. </li>

</ul>

<p><strong>5D Mark II pros</strong></p>

<ul>

<li>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 <a href="http://www.stanford.edu/~ahazeghi/Photos/NEF/IMG_0403.JPG">http://www.stanford.edu/~ahazeghi/Photos/NEF/IMG_0403.JPG</a></li>

<li>Very accurate color and white balance, neither over saturated nor muted.</li>

<li>nice finder with 98% coverage, great LCD (readable in very harsh light), better battery performance than Nikon</li>

<li>more compact and lighter than D700</li>

<li>Full HD video, very usable and great quality if you have the creativity to use it correctly.</li>

</ul>

<p><strong>5D MKII cons</strong></p>

<ul>

<li>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</li>

<li>Response time not as good as D700</li>

<li>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. </li>

<li>Only 3.9 fps (but buffer is good I can get 17 RAWs with UDMA card)</li>

<li>Body feels cheap and not professional, my CF door is already squeaking after less than a week. </li>

<li>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. </li>

</ul>

<p>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.<br />Best regards,</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.)</p>

<p>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?).</p>

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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.</p>