What Nikon didn't do for me

[krzysztof_hanusiak]

<p>

For the past 12 years I was a Nikon guy. I love the cameras and the lenses. Having used Nikon 35mm, then upgrading to D70, I now wanted to upgrade to a full frame DSLR. My only choice was the D700 which for some reason did not impress me; I could not justify spending $5K for the D3 models as I wanted to also get new lenses. I decided to get the D300s, the 10-24mm DX lens. But then I thought I was not "future-proofing" with my lens selection or buying what I really wanted: the full frame with the great ISO and low light performance and other advantages of the full frame.

 

For over a month, I researched, talked with my photo friends, bookmarked all the Nikon websites, read people's reviews, but I was always not completely satisfied with Nikon's offerings. I then met new friends over a dinner party, I got to talk with this couple about their photo trips all over the world and when I asked what cameras they use, they told me about their Canon equipment. I then thought to research the Canon stuff. On Friday I posted on <a href="http://www.photo.net/" target="_blank">photo.net</a> a question to recommend full frame options in the $2,500 budget. By Monday I had many great comments: everyone suggested the Canon 5D Mark II. I thought if the first presidential digital photo was taken with this camera, it must not be bad. I went to a local photo store and in front of me I put three cameras: Nikon D700, D300s and Canon 5D MII with their kit lenses.

 

All seemed to be equally well built and similar size. (I always thought Canon built plastic boxes that they called cameras LOL). The salesman was wonderful and patient and I had spent an hour fiddling with the Canon and comparing to D300s and D700. I really liked the Canon and its features. I started reading more about the specs and people's comments/complaints, and I was drawn more toward the 5DMII. Where it took me over a month to buy the D300s, it took me 2 days to purchase the 5DMII.

 

This is my personal experience and you may ask what my point is.

 

Buying this camera took me longer than buying my last three cars. What I want to share is my hopes of what Nikon should be doing in order to win me with the equipment. I think they need to step up the offering for the enthusiasts like me, who can't justify spending $5-8K on a camera body with a full frame sensor. The D700 is alright, but not quite the best there is at the moment. Most comments I was getting about the Nikon's full frame were just mere wishes for the not-yet released D800. It seemed everyone wished for the D800 and nobody tried to sell the D700.

 

So now I will be upgrading my lenses. Thankfully I have two older Nikon lenses that I wanted to replace anyway. I had sold the DX 10-24mm on ebay with just $30 loss and returned the D300s.

 

I don't want to brag about which camera is better, I just wanted to share my comments and wonder if others had similar experience. After all I still have my Nikon 35mm and plan to keep my D70 for backup or rugged travel.

</p><div></div>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>sadly, each manufacturer will not be able to please everyone. people have different benchmarks and categories, as well as desires. not to mention their purposes in having a dslr.</p>

[michael_huizenga]

<p> Just out of curiosity, you did buy from the salesperson that spent so much time with you, right?</p>

[constance_cook]

<p>Have I had similar experiences? Nope. Was I sitting arround waiting for the D800? Nope. I bought the D700 to go with my D300. I'm happy.<br>

Conni</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>In previous recent discussions about this very same comparison, Shun and a few other people have specified the differences between the D700 and 5D MII, which go beyond megapickles. If you don't need those features and benefits offered in the D700, the Canon is certainly an attractive value. Just depends on your particular needs.</p>

[anthony_bez]

<p>All that effort and you ended up buying the wrong camera? ;-)</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>I'll just add that a no. of amateurs have bought a Canon 5DII at my camera club. From what I have seen, many don't do low light photog that much, most of the work is available light where very high ISO is not a factor. They can retake more shots if they are into sports or wildlife. It's juts a hobby. If they went to a sports game, it would be the highlight of their weekend .....</p>

<p>IMO, I think in the hobbyist market, Canon is a advantage for them. Probably IMO why most hobbyist have a Canon.</p>

<p>I mean sure we may reason with ourselves that pixels don't matter and how perfect the D700 or D3 is but as time goes on, I bet many of us here woudl upgrade and won't look back.</p>

<p>One can argue all they want but there are pro's who shoot low light event photog with a Canon, while there might be an advantage with the Nikon, there won't be many who would switch over. </p>

[steve_phillipps]

<p>I agree, as do many others, that Nikon does have a little gap which they should really fill - namely a 24mp or so full frame camera (ie like the D3x) in the £2,000 price range like the 5dmkII. I have the D3 and love it to pieces, and the images are great, and for my needs (sports) the extra speed and sensitivity are more important than more pixels. But for those doing landscapes and other subject they want to blow up big then you'd want as many pixels as possible. BUT the leap to the D3x is massive. I'm sure it's coming, but this gap cannot be filled too soon to keep Nikonians happy I think.<br>

Steve</p>

 

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Sometimes Krysztof we just are ready for change and to move along into something else to spark our creative energy. I have no intentions of switching from Nikon, but I used Bronca SQa cameras for over 10 years, they were great, I had no problems, but when I was ready for new cameras I switched to Hasselblads. I just felt I was ready to use something different. I was shooting every day and just needed a change to get me energized. The features were different, they had just introduced the 50mm fle and had the great 180mm, I wanted that too. So I see your point completely and you'll probably feel refreshed and somewhat more inspired while shooting. That being said, will there be any big image difference between the 5D and the fantastic D700, I doubt it, but you'll think so, and it will make you feel better.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Canon does indeed have an attractive stable of lenses, but I've been a Nikon user since day one and am not planning to abandon ship any time soon. The D300 does everything I want it to and more. I had a D700 and liked some of it, didn't like other parts of it, and ultimately ended up selling it and went back to the D300. I've used tons of different cameras, medium and large format, 35mm and digital, so I've changed many many times, but I've always had a Nikon with me since day one. And I always will. But I know one pro who switched to Canon from Nikon when he sold his Fuji S2 Pro and was looking for a new Nikon digital body. He tried the D80 and just wasn't happy with it, and sold off all his Nikon gear and got into a 40D with a few lenses and is very happy with it. I have a lot of manual focus lenses along with an F100 and F3HP and plan to stay with those cameras for as long as film is still available.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Just curious exactly what features you feel the D700 is lacking and what features the MKII has that convinced you to make the switch?</p>

 

[matt_smith24]

<p>The Canon 5D MkII is a fantastic camera. It doesn't feel as solid in it's construction as the D700 but there's no denying that the images it produces with a good lens are excellent.<br>

I have a D3 and used to own a D700. Nothing to do with image quality and I love the Nikon camera bodies but I've never been that keen on the feel of the newer generation of Nikon pro lenses. The Canon equivilent lenses have, IMO only, a much nicer texture and feel to the finish and the red ring looks classy compared to the tacky gold Nikon one on the pro lenses.<br>

Interesting was a recent documentary on Nat Geographic's most recent top ten cover pics taken by their pro photogs. 8 out of the top 10 images they chose were made with Canons.</p>

<p> </p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>I want a d700SS. SS= Super Small. Okay...perhaps the same size as a d40 with no upgrade...</p>

<p> </p>

[mark liddell]

The 5Dmk2 is a totally different camera to the D700 despite being in the same price bracket: there is no "best out there" there is only "best for what you do".

 

If you need weather sealing, excellent AF performance, excellent high iso, ability to use all old manual focus lenses, use wireless flash with no other gear and can live with the gaps in Nikon's lens lineup, but don't need 20+ MP the D700 is the camera for you. It's a press/sports/wedding camera.

 

If you want 20+ MP and can live without the above then buy the 5Dmk2. It's a studio/landscape/portrait camera. I'd rather buy a sony 850 or 900 for this though ;)

[eric_arnold]

<p>kryz, your wahmbulance is on the way!!!</p>

<p>i'm not sure why you felt the need to complain that you want "the best there is" on an enthusiast budget. but if the 5dmkII suits your needs, that's great. just dont whine about AF accuracy or frame rate, ok?</p>

<p>what this point didnt do for me: make me care about spoiled crybabies with unrealistic expectations.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>There must be some residual feelings here to prompt so long a rationalization.</p>

<p>You've done it, so enjoy. Just don't expect the Catholics to tell you it's OK to become a Protestant!</p>

[steve_phillipps]

<p>That's a bit strong Eric, the guy's only asking for opinions and advice - not sure your post contributes too much.<br />Steve</p>

 

[photo5]

<p>Leslie, I second your call for a D700SS! The size of a D40 would be perfect, I'd buy one in a heartbeat.</p>

[jimmckinnon]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5930215">Krzysztof Hanusiak</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Mar 29, 2010; 01:14 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I just bought at BH Photo...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So much for all the time that the salesman spent with you.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>...and you may ask what my point is.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've read through the OP twice, and I'm still asking that! So the end result is you personally liked the Canon better, and now you have it after screwing that salesman out of a bunch of his time. Instead of wasting time here trying to get others to reassure you, get out there and use it.</p>

<p> </p>

 

[steve_phillipps]

<p>That's a bit strong Eric, the guy's only asking for opinions and advice - not sure your post contributes too much.<br />Steve</p>

 

[tobycline]

<p>Threads like this crack me up.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>OK, so the 5DMKII suits you better - your entire post doesn't give any indication about why though. You state that the D700 is alright but not the best there is - I am certain the same statement can be made about the 5DMKII, considering that these are very different cameras. So, what IS your point?</p>

<p>BTW, the question you posted wasn't about full frame options - it was specifically asking for <strong>Canon </strong>full frame options. And since there are only two - one of which is up there in price with the D3X - what answers did you expect? Except for a debate over 5D vs 5DMKII?</p>

[steve_phillipps]

<p>I think the Op's post is perfectly clear. He wants 20+ megapixels at around $2500 and Nikon don't do it but Canon do. As do some other manufacturers. Simple as that. There is a niche which Nikon is not filling, and it's losing a certain amount of customers because of it. Enough customers for them to fill the gap? Only they can say.<br>

Steve</p>

 

[RaymondC]

<p>I think many people in the real world would prefer the Canon. Most people are amateurs, they just need a camera that AF, not fast, not sports, not honing a radar to fulfil their hobby work, for the odd good shot print 8x10 or 16x10 and submit to their club.</p>

<p>This has been witnessed at my camera club. A number of them have a Canon 5DII, and more people have Canons than Nikons, most of them just have the entry models. If people were to ask me, I would suggest Canon to them, for hobby work, Canon provide more bang for your dollar.</p>

<p>Even I am tempted to get a 5DII and 2 or 3 primes and do my static images on a tripod like I do with my D70. For those images, Canon is more a worth it. But I am not, going to larger formats and continue transparency film, lol and be a loner ..</p>

<p>Most would not care about manual focus lenses. They would of replaced them with all AF lenses. I also know a number who have gone to Canon but that was in the 20D days and he probably now have a 5DII, he was formerly shooting a F5 and a Mamiya 645 AFD. </p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>So, amateurs need 20+ MP to do 8x10 and 16x20??? </p>

<p> </p>