Switching from Nikon to Canon

[DickArnold]

<p>I am going to swim in a meet at Boston University tomorrow. I also am going to take pictures from the deck. What am I going to take with me. My 5D. Why? Because I get printable pictures at ISO 3200 in a very dark in places and contrasty venue. I use a 12 year old non IS 70-200 2.8 and I have been doing sports since before I got the lens. It is quite sharp. Last weekend I did a full afternoon family shoot after setting up a three light studio in the home. What did I use? The 5D because I got great pictures on a full frame at ISO 100. If I had Nikon I'd venture to say that I could do the same thing with a Nikon body and lenses. You certainly are free to buy whatever system you choose but if I looked at the final pictures I don't think I could tell the difference. I have to be honest in that I have most always shot a single properly focused frame in sports rather than using the camera like a machine gun so frame rate does not turn me on. My stuff was used a lot so I think that works ok. All this hair splitting nettles me because much of it does not translate to better photographs. I just got an Ansel Adams book for Xmas. How did he ever do what he did with what he had? Well, I guess he did good pictures and great darkroom. Maybe that says something about the photographer rather than agonizing over the nuances and subtleties of the latest versions of digital cameras and which is better. </p>

[ty_mickan]

<blockquote>

<p>My 5D. Why? Because I get printable pictures at ISO 3200 in a very dark in places and contrasty venue. I use a 12 year old non IS 70-200 2.8 and I have been doing sports since before I got the lens. It is quite sharp. Last weekend I did a full aft</p>

</blockquote>

<p>you are shooting with an slr and a slow lens...if you shot with a canon rangefinder and some nice fast glass, the iso 32oo becomes alot less relevant.</p>

[jonsjons]

<p>fwiw, i'm making a similar switch from a d90 to a 5d mark ii. i was originally hoping to upgrade to a d700x/d800 sort of camera - i mostly stick to landscapes and portraits and like to make large prints. problem #1 with this setup is that the d700x does not exist, and who knows when it will? problem #2, if the d700 is any indication, is that this camera would most likely be very heavy and not fun to take hiking. with the 5d mark ii i'm getting a full frame, high resolution camera in a body no heavier than a d300.</p>

<p>i've handled the 5d mark ii, and while it is certainly very different from my nikon, i really liked the feel of it. i don't anticipate there being much of a problem in getting used to the new setup.</p>

<p>i should be getting my new camera early next week, so i'll try to post my impressions of it here if anyone's interested.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p><em><strong>"you are shooting with an slr and a slow lens...if you shot with a canon rangefinder and some nice fast glass, the iso 32oo becomes alot less relevant."</strong></em><br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

He's shooting sports with a 70-200mm f2.8 lens. Which "faster "lens do you suggest? The 200mm f2 at £5000 ($8000)?</p>

<p>Which Canon rangefinder would you recommend with a faster 200mm lens?</p>

[mike_swardson]

<p>I learned on an Olympus OM-1 film camera. Then I landed a job selling cameras not long ago. At the time I had no bias toward either brand, and the two cameras I was pushing was at the time the Canon 20D, and the Nikon D70. I liked everything about the Canon system better. My cousin, and brother in law shoot with Nikon, and give me a hard time all the time. I LOVE the Canon system. Everything down to the right hand threads on the lens mounts, and the intuitive big wheel on the back of the XXD series cameras and higher. Or that there is no guessing when you see a red ring on a lens you know what it is. I currently pack a 40D, and have not a bit of problems. I always hated when my brother in law would try and compare his D300 to my 40D, and act like Nikon was better. It's like dont even waste your breath cause they arent even comparable. Now that the 7D came out its perfect head to head with D300, and same for 50D, D90, and MKII, D700. Now I am very fimilar with both systems, but just prefer the Canon system.</p>

[photom]

<p>Get a D700 and a 24-70. There is 80% of your shots. Add a lower priced 85 fast prime or Tamron 90 and a Sigma zoom until you can afford the Nikon 70-200.</p>

<p>About $5,500 total to start out with all new and USA warranties.</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<p>For me, the biggest differences are the high ISO performance of the upper Nikon cameras. I'm thinking not of switching systems but of getting a D700 and one lens for my high ISO needs. I'm tired of waiting for Canon to catch up in that area. <br>

I guess another reason could be that wonderful Nikon wide zoom that Canon has no answer for. <br>

In the super telepho range Canon probably has the edge with the Fluorite lenses.<br>

Pluses and minuses, that's why I may end up with both for specialized uses. For years folks had 35mm, medium format, and large format and nobody thought it was terribly wierd or difficult to handle the handling differences. I'm about to do the same with DSLRs. </p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>For me, the biggest differences are the high ISO performance of the upper Nikon cameras. I'm thinking not of switching systems but of getting a D700 and one lens for my high ISO needs. I'm tired of waiting for Canon to catch up in that area. <br />I guess another reason could be that wonderful Nikon wide zoom that Canon has no answer for. <br />In the super telepho range Canon probably has the edge with the Fluorite lenses.<br />Pluses and minuses, that's why I may end up with both for specialized uses. For years folks had 35mm, medium format, and large format and nobody thought it was terribly wierd or difficult to handle the handling differences. I'm about to do the same with DSLRs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You make several excellent points. No one seems to make that one "perfect" system that excels in all areas, so why not select the best tool for each application?</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>"And by the way, the 5dmkii is not the best there is at the moment, that would be the nikon d3x or the FF leica m9."</em></strong><br /><strong><em></em></strong><br />That's a good one, tell me another! If you're talking about image quality alone, I would disagree. At ISO 100 and 200 there would be little difference, at ISO 1600 there would be a clear difference. Not to mention that the D3x and M9 are 4 times the price of the 5D2.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think it's safe to say that the 5D2 provides the best bang for your full-frame buck. Sony makes the A850, but noise eliminates if from serious contention, IMO. Plus no video.</p>