Should I Enter the FF DSLR World with a 5div or a D850?

[BeBu Lamar]

Because you want Nikon to feel under pressure to cut prices, or because (like me) you want a D850 and want to avoid another person on the waiting list?

 

(On the other hand, the more Nikon sell, the lower their production costs are, which might make for price drops... it's so tricky!)

 

 

 

The talk of sport and low light would make me hesitate - the 5DsR is a resolution monster, but it's about a stop behind the others in noise handling, and it's not blazingly fast (though neither is my D810).

 

No because I don't want to appear simply recommend what I use or like. Besides nobody can really recommend anything at this level because the OP isn't a novice who knows nothing. Only the OP can know which is best because for me it's neither. I don't want a Canon and I don't want a Thai's camera. It's just me don't flame me or ask why as I never asked which I should buy.

[ben_hutcherson]

Core message seems: "D850 is the first Nikon worth mentioning for somewhat serious video capability."

Make up your mind about what you are planning to do in the video realm. - Getting a magnifying hood for your rear screen seems a good and inexpensive idea. You'll also need some external monitor solution. - Is it a dedicated one or will a tablet do? - If I'll ever start vlogging, I'll rely on smartphone and tablet to operate the 5D. I am not dreaming about running around with a huge FF DSLR on a gimbal; less camera should be more fun.

 

I'm a photographer and not a videographer. My D800 was my first video-capable DSLR(I got a cheap D300s not to long ago and have a couple more untested ones coming from the same source and I think those can do video, but I really don't care) and in all honesty I'm terribly unimpressed. In particular, focusing is clunky.

 

Most of my uses of video are for my own reference or just to demonstrate something for someone else. I'll occasionally record driving videos in my MG, but that is infrequent and most of the rest are things like "this is what I did to take this apart so I can remember how to put it back together" or showing a friend "this is how you do this." My iPhone is more than adequate for that kind of stuff, and if I ever wanted to get more serious I honestly think something like a cheap GoPro or equivalent would probably serve me better.

[Gary Naka]

In general, either will do fine.

The difference is if you have a specific need for a particular lens that only one has, or other external reason (like having access to a LOT of Canon or Nikon gear from someone else).

 

In a few years Canon and Nikon will come out with different cameras and lenses that will make the details of this discussion obsolete. So don't make the decision based purely on current gear. Except for the previously mentioned specific lenses.

 

Canon and Nikon have been fighting each other since the 1960s.

When one gets a lead, the other catches up. And it goes back and forth.

I've seen reviews/recommendation for specific lenses (such as 80-200/2.8) that change from one company to the other, when a new piece of gear comes out. And that will continue to happen.

 

Get either get one and use its system or as Shun said, get both (if you can afford both systems).

 

I could have gone Canon, but I've been using Nikon since the 1970s, and saw no reason to switch.

Besides I can and do use some of my older Nikon film camera lenses on my DSLR.

[Mary Doo]

I wonder how D850's video capability is, is it not usable or usable, i.e poor or good?

 

Canon is traditionally better for videos than Nikon. Hwvr, Nikon D850 has made new strides into this area (see reviews and video below).

 

But if video is your big concern - and given the price of each camera, think you may be better off sticking with Canon 5D Mark IV for the "pro" features - some of which D850 still lacks, i.e., if you are that serious about video production. Otherwise D850 has tons of other virtues.

Reviews (click on links):

• Nikon Gets Serious About 4K DSLR Video with New Nikon D850
  
• D850 Video
  

Edited December 2, 2017 by Mary Doo

[mark_stephan2]

If it were me I'd buy the camera based on the lenses you already have or plan to purchase. Most of Canon's L lenses are cheaper than the equivalent Nikon's.

[ilkka_nissila]

Mary, with all respect, those links do not point to reviews. A review is where someone uses the camera for a while and then writes their impressions.

[hussain_al_lawati]

 

When it comes down to it, the only real reason I see to select one of the big two over the other is if there's a PARTICULAR special purpose lens that one doesn't make or is clearly better in one system than the other. If you fall into that category, choose the system that serves you best with regard to that lens(or lenses).

 

Otherwise, for the major lenses-fast midrange and tele zooms and mid-range fast primes, as I said I'd consider them effectively equal.

 

Fortunately, all the lenses i have kept in mind are available with both manufacturers

 

The thing that made me to ask "is the canon lens out stands its nikon counter part / or vice versa " is because when people talk (maybe in my photo community only ) they count the red line L-series as if it is something superior to other brands.

[hussain_al_lawati]

To me, Nikon currently have an advantage in dynamic range (and resolution) at low ISO (for landscape), and Canon have a video advantage due to PDOS. They're both extremely capable cameras. The handling philosophy is somewhat different - but then so is the handling difference between the Canon consumer (such as Eos 650D and my old 300D) and pro (e.g. 5D series) bodies (and between the Nikon D3x00/D5x00 series, D7x00/D6x0/D750 series, D300/D500/D700/D8x0 series and the single-digit Nikons). I, too, switched from a consumer camera knowing the handling was going to change anyway (in Canon's case, gaining the vertical rear wheel).

 

The Canon vertical wheel always seemed more logical to me, but when I've tried it it slightly dislocates my thumb. I'm sure I'd get used to it. I prefer the Nikon "index finger on the shutter, middle finger for the front dial" approach, but as I described in another recent thread, I believe Canon's design lets you make changes faster, but Nikon's lets you change them without moving away from your shooting position. Take your pick.

 

(Sorry, now seen the more recent post.)

 

Nikon's current 70-200 f/2.8 ED is probably the best 70-200 on the market, but Canon are very close with the previous generation. Canon's 200-400 is probably better (but much more expensive) than the Nikkor version. The differences aren't huge - though I'm vaguely considering upgrading my 70-200 for better performance at f/2.8. Nikon's 14-24, which was an amazing lens at launch, is getting on a bit now (compared, slightly, to the Canon 12-24 f/4) - but any lens that's significantly behind the competition is likely to be high on the list for a revamp. I'm not especially sold on the Nikkor 24-70, but the Tamron versions are pretty good anyway.

 

Canon can do autofocus f/1.2 lenses, if that bothers you. They're not usually optically all that good, however.

 

I'm obliged to mention the Sony A7RIII. Sony are getting there with their lens selection, and at a reduced frame rate can use Eos lenses via an adaptor. There are things it can do that the D850 can't (sensor-shift resolution enhancement, phase detect video autofocus) and it's a bit better at high ISO. The D850, by reports, is a bit more responsive, writes data faster, may track autofocus better (but has less coverage and is much worse in video), has a tiny edge at ISO64, etc. There are arguments both ways on the EVF vs OVF debate. I'm still looking at a D850 upgrade for my D810, but I'm going to see a friend who's considering switching from his Eos 350D ("because my TV is higher resolution than my photos") and my advice to him would mostly be between the D850 and A7RIII - unless he has a good reason to go with the 5DIV.

 

You have to try to have a bad system these days, and you'd expect significant changes in all the line-ups over time (though Canon have gone a long time with a bit less low-ISO dynamic range than Nikony). We might expect Canon and Nikon to produce high-end mirrorless cameras within the next few years, so bear that in mind if you're buying into a system - although it also won't suddenly turn a good camera into a bad one.

 

That probably doesn't help. :)

 

 

Same here, the change between the 650d and 5d series in button layout is big, and it took me time to get used to it. TBH I liked the Nikon's D8xx button layout way more than the 5D series.

 

 

I am not bothered about f1.2 lenses at all.

 

And for sony, I have read and discussed tons, but am not convinced with sony. Thanks tho for mentioning it

[Dieter Schaefer]

TBH I liked the Nikon's D8xx button layout way more than the 5D series.

Looks like you are no closer to making a decision between the D850 and the 5DMKIV than you were before you started this thread. Moreover, from you first post I got the impression that you liked the Canon control layout better, now it seems that is not the case. I can't get a sense of what is and isn't important to you or whether anything of what has been mentioned by others has swayed you one way or another or is even important to you (for example, video). Having said that, I feel I need to withdraw my vote for the 5DMkIV which was mostly based on my obviously wrong reading of what is important to you and the fact that you have already some Canon gear.

 

At B&H, the 5DMkIV, 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 costs $6897.

The D850, 24-70, 70-200 costs $8491. Maybe the differential is less or even reversed where you live. If it is equally substantial as here in the US, then at least I would need to find a good reason to justify paying that much more.

 

they count the red line L-series as if it is something superior to other brands

My take on Canon people talking was always that they consider L-lenses superior to non-L lenses but not necessarily to other brands; the red ring separates good from bad in Canon land. Similar to the G Master vs G lens split in Sony land. Nikon has the gold ring lenses but honestly, I couldn't even tell you which of my lenses have it and which ones don't; it has never played any role in my purchase decision and I never got the notion that Nikon users make the same deal of it as Canon users do over the red ring or Sony users over the G Master moniker.

Edited December 2, 2017 by Dieter Schaefer

[hussain_al_lawati]

None of us have a crystal ball here. We do not know what the future will bring. Some will argue mirrorless is the future, but one can also argue that DSLRs will stick around for quite some time. And do you know your own future needs? Things do change over time, and so will your needs.

So, you cannot really plan for the future, and most certainly that planning will not depend on the camera you buy today, because next year something better will come out, and the year after somebody else may again raise the bar, etc. etc.

 

If you have no reason to switch brands, don't. And for all you've described, you've got no reason to switch brands.

 

Agree. But by studying both companies' history/past, we could understand their visions and make up an idea what can come next (just some anticipations)

 

 

Actually i don't count my situation as "switching brands". Its rather "entering to FF" since the investment i have is really minor and can be neglected.

[hussain_al_lawati]

You're overthinking this. You already cleared one hurdle in the process as you seem to be fine with either control layout and ergonomics. Rodeo_joe's and Ben's remarks on optical performance of the lenses you are considering initially should clear another: there are differences but they hardly matter.

 

I completely agree that i am overthinking! But I see this as a major big step in my photography life, and i should overthink, to choose a system that i am really convinced in, so that even if the grass looks greener at the other side of the fence, i should not care ;)

[hussain_al_lawati]

Hossein: Have you? I only read the other thread belatedly, but it wasn't clear to me that you'd given up on the idea. That one seems to be discussing frame rate and low light performance, at which point we should start talking D5 (or 1Dx-II), but it's not really a landscape camera.

 

I agree that, given the rate of advances, the reasons for switching system have to be really good reasons. But I'm afraid I'm going to be with Hossein that having a relatively budget camera and one moderately cheap full-frame lens doesn't - by the standards we're talking about - really constitute "being in a system", especially given how much the ergonomics will change between those cameras. I'd start from scratch EXCEPT that Hossein has expressed an attachment to Canon. Which says to me that switching might always leave a nagging feeling of doubt. In contrast, by the time I'd switched systems from Canon, Canon had annoyed me so much with the artificially crippled firmware on the 300D (compared with 10D) and their delay in releasing a 5D2 that I was prepared to switch just to spite them!

.

 

Yes, I have made up my mind not to think about sony, and that made the decision much more easier!

As you said, i also dont consider what i currently have as a "system"

and for the "attachment to canon" its not a big deal!

[hussain_al_lawati]

Andrew:

As u said

" I get that there's a lot of money resting on it and you want the best you can get, but it's like choosing between a Ferrari and a Lamborghini - they're very different, but owning either will make you happier than sitting around trying to make a decision."

This best describes the current situation!

 

 

 

Heimnrandt:

I have not considered the 5Dsr because i see that 5ps isnt enough for my needs

[hussain_al_lawati]

Dieter Schaefer:

 

 

"Looks like you are no closer to making a decision between the D850 and the 5DMKIV than you were before you started this thread."

I agree

 

 

 

 

"Moreover, from you first post I got the impression that you liked the Canon control layout better, now it seems that is not the case."

The case is that, I am used to Canon control layout, ofcourse because i have been using it for years, but i dont see it better than Nikon controls.

 

 

 

"I can't get a sense of what is and isn't important to you or whether anything of what has been mentioned by others has swayed you one way or another or is even important to you (for example, video)."

 

TBH, the main concern making me overthink currently is the future, and the video :)

For the future, its almost impossible to say what might happen.

I am worried how Nikon's video would be. Would it be awful, or good but not excellant. (I won't do a lot of video, but some occasional video shoots.)

[hussain_al_lawati]

Easiest solution, buy one each of 5D Mark 4 and D850, and use both for a while to see which one you prefer. :)

 

IMO there is no better way to come up with an answer. And in case you still can't decide, keep both.

Get me the $$ and I will do so :)

[heimbrandt]

What is it that you think will make your photos and videos better with:

A Canon

B Nikon?

 

Answer that (only you can) and you are ready to order. Either way will work out just fine. Really.

[Wouter Willemse]

But I see this as a major big step in my photography life

 

Hussain, frankly, getting new/better gear is NOT a major big step in photography. It's just getting the tools to do the job needed. If you think gear is what makes a photographer, or gear makes good photos, I think you will be very disappointed no matter what you buy.

If you want to make major big steps: buy books, go to photo exhibitions, study the works of others and yourself, attend a workshop or courses. Learn, learn, learn. Gear is just there to make your vision happen.

So, really, don't overthink it, because it'll only drive you up the wall, and it won't improve your photography much.

[Dieter Schaefer]

TBH, the main concern making me overthink currently is the future, and the video

In the future, and maybe as early as next year, Nikon is expected to enter the DX/FX mirrorless market. Not sure I would want to be an early adopter and initially the native lens system might be quite limited (unless Nikon chooses to stick with the current mount) but there should be options to adapt current lenses (with whatever limitation that carries). Canon has already entered the mirrorless market - I just haven't heard anything about FF plans though (then again, I don't follow Canon all that closely).

 

But by studying both companies' history/past, we could understand their visions and make up an idea what can come next (just some anticipations)

In light of both companies apparently committing to mirrorless at least to some as of yet unknown extent and with Sony's increasing traction in that market; I don't think there is much to learn from studying Nikon's and Canon's past. At least from my point of view, there has been a rather steady evolution within the Canon DSLR system with some whiffs of stagnancy. For a while Nikon played catch-up with Canon, then leaped ahead. While it was possible with some certainty to predict what the D810 successor would look like (and the D850 is a very nice evolution of the D810 with a few surprises), at least I wouldn't want to predict what the D850 successor might look like (or if there even is going to be one).

 

Checking out the Sony A7 system over the last few years, I committed myself to mostly stick with Nikon for the time being. At the time I made the decision, a camera like the Sony A9 was unimaginable to me and even the evolution from the A7 to the A7 MkII series gave little indication of what appeared as MkIII in form of the A7RIII. Had that camera and two lenses released/announced this year (12-24, 24-105) been available when I tried to figure out what to do, the decision might well have worked out differently than it did.

 

Can't help at all with video as I don't use it. From what I gather, the main issue with video on Nikon DSLRs is that AF is contrast detect only while the competitors offer better AF performance due to the incorporation of phase-detection onto the sensor. Would expect though that the upcoming mirrorless would do better than the current DSLRs in that regard.

Edited December 2, 2017 by Dieter Schaefer

[Jochen_S]

I'm a photographer and not a videographer.

And I stated to unlike you, have zero video experience.

if video is your big concern (...) you may be better off sticking with Canon 5D Mark IV for the "pro" features - some of which D850 still lacks

According to Mary's links the D850 offers Zebras, focus peaking and 120FPS at 1080p. It looks questionable if Magic Lantern will ever hack the 5D IV and it weren't Canon who offered the nice to have features to their previous models' customers.

What is missing in the Nikon? N-log for graded recording, while you can get C-log for 100Euro/$?

Or are we wondering with which fishy AF a videographer would be more likely to sometimes get away? - The 5D IV has only 1080P monitor output, so manual focusing should be hard.

To my limited understanding professional movie production is still done with lots of manpower and crude gear. DSLRs can get (ab)used in that field, true. A lot of folks seem to bet on MFT for video. Maybe FF has no really usable advantages in that field? Why do professional camcorders tend to bet on super35 sensors?

It is up to Hussain to state what he is planning to produce.

IMHO it is already risky and foolish to rely on one single camera for stills. With video things get tougher: If you want to film 2 people talking, you better place at least 3 cameras, one showing both and another framing each person, keep them running and edit. - If you plan to team up with friends for productions, figure out in advance if the editor will be able to blend different brands' footage together. Otherwise you might hear: "yeah your footage looks great, but look, we have 3 *insert brand*s rolling and if we take you on the boat, the customer might notice how crappy they are..." I've seen stuff printed where people put differently edited photos side by side without attempting to blend them with each other. It looked awful. They would have gotten away with sticking to any of the involved styles. I think shooting stills as a mixed team is possible, if Xrite's color checker and Lightroom get used. - Does similar exist for footage?

 

I know little about L and not L lenses. It seems only L are an entry to CPS benefits? - I'm quite new to Canon and my RL encounters shooting the brand don't buy into L glass. Considering that I pocketed a huge discount due to Canon#s 30th EOS anniversary I want to stress: Not everything ever made in EF mount is likely to shine brightly, compared to 2018's best offers.

While pondering the purchase of something wide I couldn't get convinced to desire any 35mm f1.4L. - They look way too big for my taste, I am perfectly unhappy with the absence of DOF provided by a wide open Konica f2 on my Leica and if available light desperadoism catches me again, I'd very much prefer the ultra compact Mandler Summilux. So after reading reviews I am more tempted to buy the 35/2 IS (non L), if at all. - (Hard for me to wrap my mind around a complete Canikon system. - Easier to imagine getting a lens at a time with a matching body. A 35mm would, unlike some TSE lens, require another 5d IV (or V...) i.e. contrast range and decent AF, to make switching systems feel worth it.)

[Andrew Garrard]

The video situation is, as ever, confusing. The D850 can do full frame 4k with almost no crop, which gives you better use of wider lenses; I'm aware of a criticism that in this mode you don't get some resampling, although I'm not quite clear whether you're getting every pixel's worth of light capture as with the A7s. You don't, I believe, get focus peaking in 4k. For video the Sony solutions probably are better; Canon's better video autofocus may or may not matter depending on how you use it.

 

Log recording may well matter, although other cameras with higher bit depth output helps too. I've always figured the Blackmagic PCC to be the sensible budget option for video (in that it can record raw internally), but it only does up to 1080p30. I never got around to getting one, but it's more tempting than trying to optimise SLR output for me.

 

A long reach is often important to video, whereas low light is less so (usually); smaller sensors make sense for this. But it also corresponded to smaller and much cheaper film stock, so I suspect the industry has a bit of tradition with smaller coverage. Some pro film cameras are getting bigger sensors these days.

 

I'm afraid we're still generally not helping much with the big decision - saying "just pick one" doesn't make the choice easier. Mirrorless may shake up both in the relatively near future, but I don't either system will die in a hurry.

 

Nikon's current lens set may be more expensive than Canon's, but then they're mostly more recent, and at least for the 70-200, a bit better; the same is true of the 200-400L vs the Nikkor. They'll charge what they can get people to pay - bearing in mind that off-brand lenses for both are also very good (again, Tamron 24-70 owner here). Next time Canon iterates the f/2.8 zooms, expect them to charge more than Nikon.

 

The slight handling preference for the Nikon scheme (which has persisted across generations) makes me push you that way. But not very hard. There's plenty I don't like about the handling of either system!

 

Summary: good luck. But when you bite, whichever system you choose, just go and take good photos - looking back leads to insanity.

[ben_hutcherson]

Fortunately, all the lenses i have kept in mind are available with both manufacturers

 

The thing that made me to ask "is the canon lens out stands its nikon counter part / or vice versa " is because when people talk (maybe in my photo community only ) they count the red line L-series as if it is something superior to other brands.

 

Originally, back in the 1970s, Canon started using "special" glass on some specialized lenses. Ultra-fast lenses got aspherical elements to reduce spherical abberation, and fast super-teles got fluorite elements to help control chromatic abbereation. Lenses so fitted received a green band.

 

In the early 1980s, Canon completely revamped the cosmetics of their lens line-up(and also made some optical tweaks or complete redesigns on some lenses). At the same time, they ditched the green band and the specific designation as to the glass type. It was instead replaced by a red band and a generic "L" designation.

 

Around the same time, Nikon developed ED(extra low dispersion) glass to solve the same problems as fluorite elements in fast teles. They designated this with a gold band around the lens barrel.

 

30 years later, zoom lenses from both brands are loaded with all kinds of optical "trick" glass regardless of the price point. You see aspherical elements(often either molded or hybrid-where asperic pieces are glued onto a conventional spherical element) and low dispersion glasses used even on the $100 kit zooms from both makers.

 

So, fundamentally what it comes down to is that Canon has now designated their "professional" lenses as L lenses. In addition to excellent optics, they often have things like weather sealing and an overall better build standard than less expensive lenses.

 

Nikon too uses special glass on their low end lenses, but their best lenses are still where they pull out all the stops so to speak. They too are well built and have weather sealing. Also, the gold band hasn't gone away-you can think of it as sort of being the Nikon equivalent of the red band, but it's a fair bit more subtle. Some less expensive lenses have the band painted on, while the better lenses(such as the 14-24 2.8 I have sitting beside me) have what is presumably low karat gold formed into a ring and fixed into a groove around the lens. IMO, "gold band" NIkon lenses can be put in the same class as Canon L lenses-Nikon just hasn't put the effort into marketing the gold band the way Canon has the red band.

[Andrew Garrard]

Technically Nikon did differentiate their lens ranges at one point - arguably they would consider Nikkor as the equivalent of L glass, with the Nikon (not Nikkor) E lenses from the early 80s being the budget option. Of course it's not that simple, and, back in the days I shot Canon, my 70-300 IS was often better regarded than the DO "L" version.

 

Time matters, too. The Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 AF was a "pro" lens, but I'd not consider it that today. The reason Canon used to have IS and non-IS versions of the 70-200 lenses is that the IS versions weren't optically very good. By modern standards, the 50mm and 85mm primes from either manufacturer are quite compromised, whatever their speed (compare to Sigma Art or Zeiss Otus). Technology moves on - better to compare specific lenses, especially now Nikon are actually using fluorite too.

[Sandy Vongries]

A second thread three pages long on the same issue - the gentleman just needs to "finally decide" as the old song goes, and buy something, or not. Any quality camera with a decent range of lenses 16MP or better will do the job.

[Andrew Garrard]

Sandy: I agree, but I can also see that there's a lot of money being spent and we haven't managed to help with the decision.

 

I think we can all agree that the only way you'll regret buying either of these cameras is if you obsess about minor differences after the fact. They each have strengths and weaknesses, but 99% of the time they're going to be just as capable. I don't think any of us can know how much of that last 1% is better with the Canon and how much with the Nikon - and, until he's got one, not can Hussain.

 

There's no way to know, and I think we've exhausted most of the reasonable ways to guess I'm advance. From what's been discussed I'd suggest a very slight lean towards the D850, but then I may be biased because of my own preferences.

 

Here's a tie breaker: given current availability, I suspect it's much easier to buy and start shooting with a 5D4 than with a D850, for which you'll be on a waiting list. That could be the time in which you get your once in a lifetime shot. Unless you have other reasons to wait (and I realise this has taken time already), get the 5D4, go out and shoot, and don't look back.

 

If you need to wait anyway (gathering funds, say) or you find a D850 in stock, get it. And similarly, don't look back.

[ilkka_nissila]

I believe the D850 is now in stock at some retailers without going on a waiting list (Grays of Westminster announced general availability which to me suggests their waiting lists have been fulfilled; I suppose it could also mean non-NPS members can get them?). In Finland there are still long lists it seems.