eric_chiu2

<p>Well, I am a D700 user. To me, its the best camera I ever used. Its a pure professional camera like D3 but in a even more flexible package. D300s is a very good camera but from what you are taking, look like a D700 would fit your need better.<br>

1. You already have all lens for FX<br>

2. Its better to shoot landscape with full frame. Most best quality wide angle lenses are full frame.<br>

3. For portraits, you get better DOF with full frame.<br>

4. For sport photography (bicycle racing). D700 have the best AF system same as D3. Even comparable with Canon's 1D's AF speed which both D3 and Canon's 1D are professional sport camera. What is better than that?<br>

5. Better low light performance.<br>

6. Professional body as D3's control, customization and handling.<br>

Well, again, D300s may still fit your need as you mentioned you are not a pro and you don't really care what I list above. And for D300s, you could have the option to take video. But, 1. do you really going to take video with your DSLR? 2. I personally think that video capacity still not that well developed in Nikon's DSLR, IMHO. <br>

Bottom line is, D700 itself is a better camera than D300s and I think its better fit what you are going to use it.</p>

 

<p>Why you need a back up? I would totally sell your D80 asap when its still worth something to get the lens you want. I am a part time wedding photographer. I only have one body D700 but many lenses. When I have a job, I go near by camera store to rent a 2nd body. </p>

<p>50mm f1.0<br>

85mm f1.2<br>

24-135mm f4 N VR would be a nice travel lens. I think Canon's 24-105mm, 105 still little short for travel. Their 28-300mm is just little too crazily big for carry.</p>

<p>Its not marketing reason but technical reason. I recommend you stick with min ISO 200, don't go -1 because from lab test result I read from some magazine that if you push down the ISO to -1, the dynamic range will dramatically reduce. You will not get the detail back from locations are over exposed. If its too bright to use ISO 200, use a smaller apeture. Remeber the old time when using film, we stick with the ISO anyway.</p>

<p>I never really tried the lens with such white bright sky. All my pictures with blue skies, I don't see that problem. I have to try and see. If I found the same problem. I will still love the lens but I have to use the lens more carefully.</p>

<p>Thanks Hiro, I always thought that the Sigma 12-24mm is a APS lens. Just did some research and found its actually a full frame lens with almost zero distortion. I think this is the lens I am going to get. Only draw back is that it can't use any filter, but i guess I could live with it. f4.5 is little slow, but with D700's ISO performance, that should be ok. I guess this is the lens I am looking for. Vignetting is so easy fix in lightroom or any other software (sometime I even think the vignetting make the picture looks better). However, distortion is harder to fix.</p>

<p>I have the same lens and I swear this is the sharpest lens I ever used in my life. From my experience, its even sharper than the Canon 50mm f1.2. Focus is little slow even with HSM though. I love the lens very much.<br>

Just from the picture you take, I can't tell if its the problem of the lens or any lens or the sensor. From all reviews, there is no different optically between 50mm 1.4D or 1.4G. If you just want to test it out, you could test the 1.4D. Again, optically, its no way either Nikon 50mm 1.4D or G can compare with Sigma 50mm f1.4.</p>

<p>I have the same lens and I swear this is the sharpest lens I ever used in my life. From my experience, its even sharper than the Canon 50mm f1.2. Focus is little slow even with HSM though. I love the lens very much.<br>

Just from the picture you take, I can't tell if its the problem of the lens or any lens or the sensor. From all reviews, there is no different optically between 50mm 1.4D or 1.4G. If you just want to test it out, you could test the 1.4D. Again, optically, its no way either Nikon 50mm 1.4D or G can compare with Sigma 50mm f1.4.</p>

<p>I see some distortion in you picture but still better than my Nikon 18-35mm. Look at this:<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3355/3448877929_76f47d42b2_o.jpg" alt="" width="448" height="298" /><br>

I understand its better to have a prime lens, but zoom lens is a lot more flexible. Anyway, since the Tamron 17-35mm is so cheap, I am buy it and compare it with my Nikon. Than I will just keep the one I think is better than.</p>

<p>I am a new member to Nikon. I have a Nikon 18-35mm for my architectural assigment shooting and I found it just have too much distortion at the wide end and quite disapointed to the pictures. I understand that the Nikon 17-35mm F2.8 has a lot lower distortion but its $1700, man! Talking about I just invested in the D700, 24-70mm f2.8, 70-200 VR and a new sigma 50mm f1.4. To get another $1700 lens is killing me (even used one cost $1400-1500...).<br>

I thought about switch to a used 20-35mm f2.8 but its almost stupid to do that because I have already owned a 24-70mm f2.8 Its such small different between 20mm and 24mm. And also, I do need wider for my architectural shooting.<br>

Here I found the Tamron 17-35mm. It has pretty good reviews online. Its affortable. From some web site's reviews, look like it has less distortion than the Nikon 18-35mm (but not as good as the 17-35mm f2.8). I am wondering if anyone have experience on the Tamron. How is it compare to the Nikon 18-35mm? How is the build quality? How is focus speed?</p>

<p>Dave, I found the way you mention doesn't work. I thought you mean after I switch to manual mode and change the shutter setting, it become the min. shutter speed even I switch back to other mode. But it doesn't do that. I think you mean just set a speed in manual mode with auto ISO, so that I could only control the apeture. However, this way is worst. That means I have no control over the exposure compensation because the auto ISO will jump to whatever the camera think its the right exposure.<br>

I will try the memory bank to see how it work... Thanks though.</p>

<p>Thanks Dave, I will try that to see how good it works that way. Better than go all the way back to menu to look for that. <br>

I personally like the auto ISO idea, which only good in a camera that give a wide range of low noise ISO performance. Now I set the min. speed to 1/60. Its always ok for wide and usually acceptable with my 70-200mm VR. But I will be happier if I have more control with it. Thanks.</p>

<p>Just successfully switch from my 20-years Canon experience to Nikon. I don't understand why every controls, turns... have to be revese between Canon and Nikon. Really need sometime to get used to.<br>

Anyway, I am not starting a topic about differents between them. I have a question on setup of "my menu" in the D700. The first thing I put into "My Menu" is the Auto ISO setting. So that I could turn it on and off as I want to. The second big thing that I want to put into "My Menu" is the min. shutter speed for Auto ISO because for difference angle lens I use, I want to have a different setting. e.g for wide angle, I could have the min. shutter speed at 1/30 or slower, but with tele lens, I want it at least 1/90 or higher. But somehow my D700 won't let me to put the min. shutter speed control into "My Menu". Why is that? Is there anyway that I could do to put that in? To access that without "My Menu" need to go into Menu/shooting/ISO setting/min. shutter speed/..... so many steps.<br>

If anybody know how, please let me know. Thanks.</p>

<p>I am almost crying to see someone understand what I was saying. Again, I have no meaning that all Canon's cameras now have any problem to take great pictures, even Xti. What I want to said is that Canon have to change their marketing direction on their professional line of Cameras or they will loss many customers, like myself. <br>

From very begining of my original post, I just want to express my feeling about Canon. Not to get approval for switch system, not to convence any other to switch system. In fact, I am still using my ID11n for wedding with no complaint (both myself and clients). But in the very near future, I may have to make a decision to switch, for a better tool and reasonable price.</p>

<p>I agree with everyone of you. Honesty, I would like to be swapped so that I have reasons to stay with Canon. If I tell you 5D body is as good as 1D, I am lying. I never said 5D don't made good pictures, I said I never really like it compare to my 1D. Because it is not design for pro, but 1D is, its fact.<br>

Again, I am happy and making good pictures with my 1D and 5D now. But for a planning upgrade now and near future, from 1D to 5D, I don't see its a "upgrade". From 1D IIn to 1DIII, not really, I guess I made my point. From 1DIIN to 1DsIII, can't afford.<br>

Smaller body is also one of the reason I am thinking about D700, small but still a professional body. <br>

Well, I am not here to convince anyone to switch gear with me. I just try to state what I see and feel about Canon.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong, I still love my 1D mkIIn. If I only take vacation pictures and family pictures with it, I will be happy forever. However, as a professional photographer, its a responsbility that to give my clients the best I could. Make sure my equipments up to date is one of it.<br>

With only a part time job as a photographer, I can't afford a 1Ds mkIII. I have to watch the cost of my spending on equipments also. For now and new future, I don't see what in Canon I could goes with. That's why i feel stuck. I love to stay with Canon and that's why I feel little upset.</p>

<p>I want to express my feeling of disappointment for Canon's current DSLR direction. I am a part time wedding and event photographer. I would call myself a semiprofessional. I was a happy Canon user since my high school years from Canon 650, 10s, 1N, 1V, 1D and current 1D IIN that I upgraded 1.5 years ago. And currently I have 17-40mm F4, 24-70mm F2.8, 70-200mm F2.8 IS, 50mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2. You can tell how much I love Canon.<br>

Now I am looking for a upgrade and I found that I am stuck. The worst is that I found that Canon is stuck. Well, at least in a near future. Again, its only my point of view.<br>

My 1D IIN with 8mp, if I got lucky, I can sell it for $1600-$1800. It almost make no sense to me that to spend another $2000 to get a 1Dmk3 with 10mp, and such minor changes e.g live view, 3200ISO (only one stop over mk IIn), dust remove, a little larger LCD... Well, here comes the NEW 5D mkII, yeah! Hey, I am sorry, if you are a 1D user, you will know what I mean, 5D's body and features just not design for professional. For all my events shooting, I rent a 5D for a second body and never fall in love with it. Sorry to say that, 5D II look the same to me as 5D. It is just a Honda Civic with a Accord's engine. I don't mean its bad, but honestly, as a wedding and event photographer, I don’t need 21mp, I don’t need my camera to shoot video. All I need are: good low light performance, quick and accurate focus, easy and flexible exposure control, good weather seal, good solid metal body for real life battles... Nikon D700, for $2400, give me all. Why Nikon!<br>

Well, may be I could wait, but for what? Because of D700, 1D mk3 look meaningless. For $1000 more, you get less pixel, worse ISO performance, worse LCD resolution, non-full frame. Therefore, Canon may force to have 1D mk 4 come out quick, but what could they do? More pixel?, better ISO? faster cont frame rate? and lower the price? Ok, than you may have a $3000 ID mk 4 with similar specs to 5D and a 1.3 crop with faster cont. frame rate. Still, its a more expensive D700 with higher mp but with 1.3x crop. I don’t know if that’s what I want.<br>

On the other hand, Canon could have a 2D or 3D in between 1D mk3 and 5D with full frame and professional body and price it around 5D II's price and lower 5D II's current price. But this will defiantly hurt the feeling of customers who lately bought 5D II or 1Dmk3.<br>

Instead, I want more flexible exposure control, better flash, build in flash transmitter, better manual focus control, which comes with all Nikon. But Canon never listen. They just keep playing around the specs.<br>

As you see that I mean that Canon is kind of stuck in the near future. In a long run, of course they could totally change their marketing direction. But we don't know yet. For the time now, I am seriously thinking switch to Nikon. I will miss my 50mm f1.2...</p>

<p> </p>

Thanks everyone, I will look into both cameras and just see which one comes with a good deal first.

I saw some used Mark II N around $3000-$3200. not new ones. New ones at B&H is now only around $3400.

I have been using my 4mp 1D for quite a while since 2003. I am ready for upgrade to Mark II.

Now this is my question:

 

A used 1D mark II now would be around $2500-$2900 depends on condition. A used or new Mark II N

would be around $3000-$3400. Is it worth for spend that $500-$900 for the Mark II N?

 

I checked dpreview.com and kind of know the different between them which is not much. The best thing

is to have a bigger 2.5" screen. Look like both camera have the same sensor and digi II chip. It sounds

500-900 is a lot of money for a bigger screen. Or there is other good upgrade of Mark II N I missed?

 

Should I go for Mark II N or just but a used mark II? Thanks everybody.

I totally agree that D200 should compare with 20D/30D. But I can see why dpreview

compare D200 with 5D instead. A simple reason is that they must think D200 if not as

good, its is closer to 5D. If you look at the table here: http://www.dpreview.com/

reviews/nikond200/page25.asp Its almost nothing 20D take a advantage from D200.

 

Bottom line is, A person with no lens with around $1500 budget. What do you choose?

D200 or 30D. Yes, I know its better noise control in 30D as 20D. Do you think they could

tell from that little screen in store? 30D just should have to do better. Again, not only

counts of pixels, but overall design... Come on, for $1600, D200 even give you a weather

sealed body. I want at least some weather seal if not as good as 1 serise. How about

screen protection? I don't need no direct-print from my DSLR. Canon just have to be more

thoughtful. Again, I love photography, I love Canon. That's why I feel this way. I don't

mean to argue with anybody at all. And I don't think 30D is bad. Its just as good as 20D,

not much better enough.

 

Or another thought, traditionally, the higher the number of EOS, the lower model it is.

May be 30D is a lower model.. Later may be a much better 20Dn or 20D mark II comes

out with

surprise. ;->

Well, we already have a lot of dicussion on this topic. First, its true that basically in

dpreview, they compared D200 more to 5D than 20D. And feature wise, it should. Cost

wise, 5D is double the cost of D200. Of course 5D is the winner. We are talking about a

$3400 camera compare with a $1700 camera!

 

We have to look at a camera as a whole, not only by pixel, sensor, noise..(yes, I know these

are

important). I personally little disappointed by 30D not because of not increase of pixel or

don't have this or that. Its the afford to make a better tool of photography. From 10D to

20D, yes, we see the afford. 20D to 30D? sorry, I don't see it. Like people said, little

improvement here and there? Call it a 20Dn, 20D mark II. Don't called it like a new model.

Its not the name, its the afford they put in the improvement.

 

Look at D200, from D100 or D70 to D200, you really see Nikon's afford for impovement.

Not only pixel, noise issues.. but over all design as a photography tool. Look at D200's

impovement on meeting system, multiple exposures, build in remove flash, mirror lock

up, location of buttons..... they really think about what a professional photographers

needs when they are in the field. And see how they set the price? Its more than

reasonable.

 

Anyway, as a Canon user, I should say I love to see competition. Again, if Canon's sale

drops, its either they have to do better R&D on product or better price. Its our benefit. 5D

is great, if the price could at least go below $2400 (about $1000 less?), it sure a weapon

with D200.

Anyway, the camera should take whatever size and type of CF card you have. I don't think its

a problem.

I think its a very good discussion here. Every one have their good point of view. I guess

there are no absolute right or wrong.

 

There is one thing I can't agree is that instead of 30D vs D200, we should see 5D vs D200.

If you look at the price range, 5D is double the price of D200. How can this be targeting

the same group of people? Its like someone looking for a Honda Civic and may be he will

buy a BMW instead? Look back to the 30D which is only $100-200 different.

 

If you say the D200 is almost as good as the 5D feature wise. Than, Canon really have to

be careful. Its either D200 is a super good deal or 5D is super over price.

 

Well, as some body said, I shouldn't that worry for Canon. If 30D can't sell, they will lower

the price. I am waiting the same thing happen to 5D also. Btw, enjoy whatever you have a

take a lot of pictures :-)

When I first start this topic, I don't mean 30D is a bad camera at all. Also, I don't mean to complain about what 30D don't have. What I want to say is, 30D is not good enough for 20D user to upgrade. (which may be a good news for 20D user) But its still go for those Digital Rebel User.

For the past years, this is the first time I feel a Nikon DSLR catch up with Canon. That's all.

1. is spot meter good enough for 20D people to upgrade to 30D?

 

2. D200 also have spot meter. Can't be a selling point any more.