Nikon D90 to Canon 5D MK II... the perfect 'upgrade' for me?

[marko_mijailovic]

<p>Before I even begin, I'd like for you all to take note and accept that I'm not one of those "Nikon vs. Canon" guys, nor am I one to keep up with the latest technologies and get hung up on what I shoot with.<br>

Now that <em>that's </em>out of the way, I'd like to start.<br>

The Nikon D90 was my first DSLR; given to me as a gift in the fall of 2009 by my mother. I remember how I used to shoot anything and everything around me after getting it with the 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. Then I got the 50mm f/1.8 shortly after and would shoot everything at 1.8, thinking the lower the number the better the picture. Fast forward to summer 2010 and I was at this point pretty 'serious' about photography, having dropped out of my second year of business school to pursuit it- heck, I even got accepted to Speos Photographic Institute in Paris. It was around this time I bought a D700, loved it, and very soon after, returned it (for stupid reasons not related to photography), and went back to a D90.<br>

I've shot 99.9% of my work on the D90 and have really loved that camera, but despite my not caring about getting a 'better' camera, I've began to see the limitations, only now.<br>

For starters, the noise performance is nothing special, IMO- I see quite noticeable grain at anything over ISO 400. The D700 was a champ when it came to ISO performance. Often shot at up to 6400 with minimal noise. The resolution. I never thought I'd ever need more than the 12.3 megapixels that the D90 offered, but over time I realized I did. When cropping, which I do quite often, it makes a world of difference having a camera like that 5D MK II that has almost 10 more megapixels. I need to retain as much resolution as possible. Then there's the whole "a 50 is a 50" on it thing. In other words, you get the focal length you're meant to... No dealing with multiplications of 1.5/1.6 and getting a 75mm focal length when all you wanted was a 50mm. Shooting at a 'true' focal length of 50mm is beautiful!... and while I've gotten used to the 1.5x of the D90, I'd still prefer the real thing and then to have an 85mm lens for the 5D. At the 75mm I was getting it always left me either having to back way up or go more in, as it was never either wide enough or tight enough. Those three things then are the biggest factors making me want to make the switch.<br>

Am I late to the game? Probably... I already see rumors pertaining to the MK III and D800, but being a 'starving artist', I've nowhere near enough money (nor patience) for either of these. At $1999 for the body (a drastic mark down from what it was just a few months ago), the 5D MK II seems like a pretty good buy. I'd be selling my 70-200 to finance it, which I think will be well worth it.<br>

So what's my question? Seems like my mind's made up, right? Well here it is...<br>

In your opinion, is the 5D MK II really <em>it </em>for me? I'm primarily a fashion, portrait and occasional land/cityscape photographer who shoots both in natural light, as well as studio lighting. I like to crop my photos to taste and dabble in video.<br>

While I realize that the D800 and 5D MK III are probably just around the corner and will offer even more (and better) features, I won't be able to afford either and am left wondering if I'll ever really 'need' more than the 21mp offered by the Canon.<br>

To be honest, I thought of just sticking with the D90 for a while longer, getting a Contax 645, shooting more medium format (already have a Mamiya RZ 67) and saving up with my photography money for a D800/MK III for when it comes out... but then I thought of all the advantages the MK II has over my D90 that I'd actually utilize and thought it might be a good move for me.<br>

Apologies for the long post, I just wanted to voice my reasons and ask if everyone thinks this is the right move for me. One thing's for sure, I'll really miss some of the Nikon glass (I really think it's top quality), but I'm really just shooting in three different focal lengths mainly (24 or 35, 50 and 85), so am sure the Canon equivalents will be just as good. Would be lying if I said I'm not looking forward to owning the 85 1.2 :)<br>

Thanks in advance!<br>

Best,<br>

Marko M.<br>

www.mrkmfoto.com</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>What lenses do you have on the Nikon, and what lenses would you buy for the Canon? The EOS 5D Mk. II certainly is attractive priced at the moment, but you'll need to replace all your lenses too, or get an adapter to use Nikkors (which takes away a lot of the automation - far from ideal). You will loose money on selling your Nikkors, and most Canon lenses are not vastly cheaper than the Nikon equivalents.So, the bill will run considerably higher than $2000. More than a second hand Nikon 70-200VR will cover.<br>

Ever used a 5D? Ergonomics of Canon bodies are different, make sure you actually like how the camera feels and handles.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>If you are still in school and not in it for the business, why not stick with the D90, or maybe upgrade to a higher pixel Nikon.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>In the fall I sold my D2X and 1Ds (version 1) to get the 5D II for $1999 CDN. I was prepared to go another two years without the 5D II but for the price I could not resist. Like you I knew I could not afford a D800 or 5D III, which will likely be over $3000 USD. Up until the 5D II I had bought all of my digital bodies used to match my budget.</p>

<p>My main focus for photography is landscapes and architecture, hence my desire for full frame. In the "affordable" range of full frame bodies Canon is still ahead of Nikon and the price drop of the 5D II from $2800 CDN to $1999 CDN makes it <em>the</em> bargain in FX bodies. The D700 and D3 may be better at high ISO but I shoot at ISO 100 99% of the time and want the inherent image quality that almost double the MP provides. Both Nikons are much more expensive too. </p>

<p>It will help you to know that you can use your Nikon lenses on the 5D II using cheap mechanical adapers, at least until you feel the need to replace them. You have to shoot in stopped-down-metering mode but the 5D II will meter with them. For more money you can get autofocus confirmation adapters. I use adapters for my Nikon 8mm f2.8 AIS, Nikon 400mm f2.8 AIS, and Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 ED D AF.</p>

<p>Last spring I sold my 4x5 equipment as well as Nikon 28mm and 50mm lenses to buy a used Canon 17 TS-E. I sold my Nikon 14mm f2.8 and Nikon 80-200/2.8 AF-S as well as my two DSLRs to pay for the 5D II, a used Canon EF 300mm f4 L, and used Nikon 80-200/2.8 AF. Every lens that I have bought over the past 23 years has been used. I highly recommend doing the same in order to maximize value for your budget, especially if you do make the switch and start buying Canon lenses.</p>

<p>After six years, and four previous DSLRs, the image quality from the 5D II is finally what I have been looking for to meet or exceed results from Kodachrome 25, Velvia 50, and Ektar 25. Stitched image results from the 17 TS-E rival the 6x6 Velvia 50 that I shot 20 years ago. Stitching with the 17 is far easier and just as impactful as the 4x5 that I had.</p>

<p>I will miss the D2X for sports. It is much faster than the 5D II but I have already done a car race with the 5D II and with some patience and effort I will be able to equal the image results from the D2X in the coming race season. I do plan on adding a used crop body in the next two years in order to outperform the D2X and 5D II for sports. My last three DSLRs have been pro bodies and I do miss the build quality and extra body controls.</p>

<p>For the moment Canon and Nikon with the 1Dx and D4 have stalled with respect to MP, so although I do expect 30 MP cameras from each, I know the 5D II is still an incredible deal and a camera that will last me at least five more years if not longer! Overall I have no regrets buying the 5D II and image results are stunning.</p>

<p>I have dabbled with HD video using the 300/4 L and I can see that results are amazing, however I will have to upgrade my five year old laptop if I want to be able to view and edit them properly. I am still researching a short term fix for this problem. You cannot use autofocus for videos so I am hoping to take advantage of the single touch Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 zoom for my daughter's soccer games. Single touch will make zooming and focusing at the same time possible, while following the action.</p>

<p>Hopefully I have provided some insight for you to make your choice. Good luck.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I have 5D2s, and I love them, but if getting the $2k will force you to sell your decent glass, then how are you going to afford lenses? A 5D2 is only as good as the glass you mount on the front, despite what it says on the box (and in the forums :-) ). Do you have a plan for that?</p>

<p> </p>

[robertbody]

<p>Switching from/to Nikon/Canon can be quite a change, and is best after at least a few minutes spent hands on either in a store or from a private seller. I switched from D300 to 5D2 (after 10 years with Nikon: F5, F100, D200, D300 in that order, 1 at a time) and 5D2's image quality wasn't enough for me to get used to it and I returned it after a week. Mostly the 9 focusing points only, and the way of changing settings were the reason. I did find 1D Mark IV to my liking but otherwise I was ready to return to Nikon: D700, D3 or D300. No matter the experience of others, it's best to get your hands on a camera before committing to it, to see what you'll be losing. </p>

[dan_south]

<p>I used Nikon cameras for over a decade: F100, N80, D70, D200, D700.</p>

<p>Frustrated by the lack of a reasonably-priced high-MP body from Nikon (Sony and Canon offered them), I decided to try a 5D Mark II. From Day One I was delighted with the image quality and numerous ergonomic and operational features. Eventually. I sold my D700 and most of my Nikon lenses with no regrets.</p>

<p>The 5D2 does have some limitations.</p>

 

<ol>

<li>It shoots only three frames per second.</li>

<li>Noise in shadows can be a problem, particularly when shooting people (e.g. the shadow side of someone's arm).</li>

<li>The body is not nearly as rugged as the D700's body.</li>

<li>No built-in interval timer (requires an accessory).</li>

<li>Nikon's Creative Lighting System is superior (as of this moment).</li>

<li>AF is not as fancy or feature-laden, but my experience is that the center point is extremely accurate (and more consistently accurate than the D700).</li>

<li>No on-demand grid lines.</li>

<li>Canon zoom lenses have more distortion than their Nikon counterparts (although this is easily corrected in software, e.g. Lightroom 3).</li>

</ol>

<p>On the other hand, the 5D2 and Canon have many features that I have come to appreciate.</p>

 

<ol>

<li>Resolution/price ratio.</li>

<li>Better Live View implementation.</li>

<li>Sharper Live View image in the LCD, i.e. better for manual focusing.</li>

<li>The ability to combine Live View, Mirror Lockup, and Release Delay (exclusive on Nikons).</li>

<li>f/4 lenses with IS.</li>

<li>The focusing ring on Canon AF lenses responds better for manual focusing IMO.</li>

<li>More flexible Tilt-Shift lens design and no issues using these lenses with a built-in flash (the 5D2 doesn't have one).</li>

<li>The 5D2's center AF point is very accurate and reliable.</li>

<li>Canon's wheel design makes it easier to operate the camera while wearing gloves.</li>

</ol>

<p>Everyone has different needs. Is the 5D Mark II for you? That depends on many factors. It has strengths and weaknesses. Think carefully how each of the points that I've listed might help or hinder your own photography projects. And definitely spend some time with the body in your hands before making a decision. You're going to need to invest in new lenses, so the transition will not be inexpensive.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>This ís the Canon forum...</p>

<p>I'm happy with my 5Dii but I've never shot Nikon, so I'm not the most reliable source.</p>

<p>Why I write this short note is this: you mention shooting a D700 and liking it's high ISO performance.<br>

Pixel for pixel the D700 beats the 5Dii. However de 5Dii has a lot more of those.<br>

The D700 files will look better at 100%. When scaled (or printed) to the same size that difference disappears to most observers.</p>

<p>I agree with the advice of handholding one before buying.<br>

Everyone has different hands and everyone has different opinions on ergonomics.</p>

<p>In the end it should also be a choice from the heart. In my experience I take the best pictures when I feel confident in myself and forget my camera. (well the technical stuff, if I totally forget the camera I'll probably come home without any shots...)</p>

<p>Have fun shooting, Matthijs.</p>

[marko_mijailovic]

<p>Thanks, everyone, for the great replies.<br>

I just sold my Nikon 70-200, which was my biggest 'investment' in Nikon gear. I never got caught up in buying all the best/fastest lenses and shot 99% of my stuff on the cheap Nikon 50mm f/1.8, which is, in my opinion, fantastic. I even prefer it to the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 that I have (which I'll also be selling). I'm not even sure why I got the 70-200 in the first place- I'm a prime guy. Aside from those two 50's, I've got basically nothing tied up in Nikon (other than a flash), so it's not like I'm taking a big loss (I did quite well on the 70-200 sale)...<br>

I plan on getting a 50mm for the 5D MK II and shooting with just that until I can get the 85 1.2, which won't be too far ahead in the future... I never shoot wider or tighter than that, respectively, so those two will be perfect for me. Might later on add either a 24 or 35, but that'd be it. <br>

I've held a 5D MK II before and while I didn't find it as 'intuitive' as either my D90 or old D700, I could definitely get used to it and would hardly let the ergonomics of it get in the way of all the other advantages. Again, I could really do with the extra megapixels due to cropping and the whole full frame advantage. Not to mention the ISO performance.</p>

 

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>I've never shot Nikon, so I'm not the most reliable source.<br>

Why I write this short note is this: you mention shooting a D700 and liking it's high ISO performance.<br />Pixel for pixel the D700 beats the 5Dii. However de 5Dii has a lot more of those.<br />The D700 files will look better at 100%. When scaled (or printed) to the same size that difference disappears to most observers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I *HAVE* shot with both of these cameras extensively, and I do NOT agree with this assessment. </p>

<p>I'll grant that the D700 has (a) better dynamic range, and (b) less noise in the shadows. But in general - and again I speak from a lot of experience in this area - the handling of High ISO noise is just about exactly equivalent between these two bodies. </p>

<p>Pixel for pixel comparisons depend on many factors. The most important is sharpness, and I give the Canon the edge there given the excellent Live View functionality for critical focusing. </p>

[matthijs]

Dan, I stand corrected.

 

M.

[scott_ferris]

Dan,

 

So, seeing as how both you and Matthijs actually agree what, specifically, is it about his comment that you disagree wit?

Because from my point of view, making regular prints at 14x21 from both cameras I'd say both your observations are

correct.

 

D700 files do look better at 100%, but that is because they are much smaller. At the same size on screen or in print the

difference in noise is negligible. Which is just the same as your saying they both handle high iso noise about the same!

[dan_south]

For images where shadow noise is an issue, such as a person photographed in bright sunlight, I would agree that the

D700 would look better at 100 percent if lens and focus sharpness is comparable. For images where shadow noise and

greater DR are not a factor, the 5D2 looks every bit as good (or bad, depending on your viewpoint) pixel for pixel. In both

cases there's some texture in skies that needs to be smoothed out, for instance. Both cameras produce lovely, creamy-

smooth, noise-free blacks. D700 DR is definitely superior, and retrieved shadow detail will look cleaner, but neither

camera is immune from blowing highlights, especially in the red channel.