jc_stark_arts

<p>when i hear the "nikon has faster AF" i always laugh because the fact that those cameras have 51 AF points doesn't mean it's faster. If anything those that have shot both (I Have - Lifelong Canon shooter - 1D, 1DII, 5DII - D700 with 24-70 2.8 for 4 months) and can be honest will tell you that the systems are just different. The Canon always feels "snappier" while the Nikon is smoother which to me always comes across as slower. Will I tell you that I wish the 5DII had the 1DII AF? YES. But I will also tell you that the market that the 5D's are aimed at and dominate don't generally need 51 points....</p>

<p>Both systems are good now - that is for sure but I will also tell you that having had a chance to play with the D3X and look at the files - Nikon has still not mastered low noise in high MP cameras to the degree that Canon has. The D3X and i assume the rumored (and denied) D700X should share a sensor that does not best the 1Ds3 in any signifigant way never mind the 5DII in terms of IQ....<br>

Almost all of the "grass is greener" crew's concepts are based on taste and perception. Has anyone proved that the nikons are more weather resistant? Heavier? YES Grips that fall off? YES More weather resistant? NO Quite the contrary the much maligned 50D has won awards for build.... People for a year said that nikon had better LCD's - Not compared to the 5D or 50D or the T1I for that matter...</p>

 

<p>I am solidly in the school of "real photographers shoot primes" but that is solidly due to the fact that I shoot Canon. I have shot both systems and sell both sytems and I think like all the rest above you are making a mistake. If you were a Canon shooter with the L primes at your disposal with their much faster apertures, contrast, color etc I would consider your plan (at about 10 times the price of your proposed plan) but with Nikon and that set up - you are making a mistake. The 24-70 2.8 may be the best zoom ever built in my opinion. It and CLS are the only things about Nikon that I missed when I made my decsion to stay with Canon. I shot the D700/24-70/SB900 set up for about 3 months when they all first came out and would say you are gaining nothing by changing to any of the lenses you have mentioned.....</p>

<p>this is a case of what is more important to you - noise or sharpness?<br>

most of us will tell you that to get a sharp shot you need to shoot the inverse of the lens...<br>

so 400mm is 1/400th of a second...<br>

this is a rule of thumb for a sharp shot of something that is NOT moving....<br>

Add sports into the fray and you need to get up to 1000th of a second to get sharpness<br>

Bite the bullet and raise the ISO - not sure what camera it is but everything newer than a 40D will be useable at 1600 - more useable than those shots</p>

 

<p>that is the light spot out of focus due to wide aperture...</p>

 

<p>i'm willing to bet that with the raise in price in canon glass he won't lose much -<br>

glass holds between 80 - 95 percent of it's value in normal times. I recently sold my 50 1.4 for more than I bought it for...</p>

 

<p>B&H never does preorders - they only sell what they have or will imminently have. The lens (along with a bunch of other Canon lenses) has been nearly impossible to get...<br>

if you include new lenses the list is like this<br>

17-40 in and out of stock<br>

50 1.4 in and mostly out of stock<br>

50 1.2 out<br>

24 and 35 1.4 out<br>

135 out<br>

200 2.8 out<br>

100 macro out<br>

even the 24-105 is mostly out....<br>

It's insane and Nikon isn't much better right now...they both are complaining about sales and claiming losses but neither has stock to sell....</p>

 

<p>problem number 1 would be that body only hasn't been shipped in the US. Not sure about world wide but the kit is only thing available....<br>

After that JDM said it all....<br>

there are a few places that everyone shops for a reason...</p>

 

<p>I guess I should have been more specific. McNally more is the one - his material is ALL Nikon and he uses CLS - not manual. In fact he is a big fan of ITTL -<br>

Thanks for all the suggestions...<br>

JC</p>

<p>Picked up the hot shoe diaries this week from a friend and while the knowledge is very helpful I am glad I didn't buy it. Not because I don't like Joe or the writing but because it is all soooooooo Nikoncentric.<br>

I've been doing pretty well playing with a 580II and a 550 and an STE2 and just got my hands on the new Pocket Wizards but every single Strobist type article I read seems to be Sb800 this or Sb900 that....<br>

Any help?<br>

thanks<br>

JC</p>

<p>that last statement about the wieght is silly since the 700 wieghs more than the 5d...<br>

As for the rest of it - the two cameras are amazing. I have owned both. It's a coke vs. pepsi thing on the color with lots of people having different preferences.</p>

 

<p>Ralph,<br>

when in M - your shutter is going to expose the background and your aperture the subject....<br>

overly simplistic but it's the easiest way to explain. The ETTL will give correct exposure on the subject up to 8000th of a second (the background would be black) or as slow as you like ...</p>

<p>send it back</p>

<p>shooting in normal daylight at f/8 with the 10-22 you should get near a 500th of a second. that should be sharp.<br>

JC</p>

<p>i found that also - I know 50 is considered the "normal" lens but it isn't that pleasing to me for anything other than documenting a person. Not a portrait and not really wide enough for what I see as street shooting. I love 35mm as a normal lens on FF. I really can't figure why the new 35 1.8 was designed for DX...silly in my opinion<br>

JC</p>

<p>@ Calvin N. - thanks. I hear you on the 16-85. It is a good range. As a Canon shooter (ducking) that shot the D700 and 24-70 2.8 for a few months while I waited for 5D2 (long story but I will say that I liked the D700 a ton) that also happens to work in a pretty well regarded camera shop and sells both Nikon and Canon every day I do think that there is a valid point all rants aside. Nikon for some reason has really dropped the ball when it comes to their pro shooters that don't want to spend 1700 dollars for a lens. No F4 (smaller and lighter and cheaper) lenses such as the (and not saying I like them - as i said above I'm a prime guy - the main reason I stayed with canon) 24-105 or 17-40. I would love to see Nikon produce a modern G version of the 24-85 2.8-4. I love that lens and most that have it do as well. It's sharp...not too heavy...has a great macro and covers a nice range (i sell plenty to d700 guys now). Nikon should do something similar with a fx version. Add 20 MM and VR and keep the price around 1000 and you have a champ....</p>

<p>count the number of people on one hand that shoot a rebel etc that used the 220...it never sold to them. It did sell on occasion to the 5D, 1D, 1Ds crowd as a way to have a small fill flash in their bags. I know I could get a 430. It's not the money. It's the size. the large red receptor is not needed to be a slave. to transmit yes...for foucs assist yes. But nikon has a tiny little round circle (about pencil sized) that reads the info on their flashes...<br>

it's not a biggie one way or the other...it just would have been nice if it had the ability to go off camera so that I could take a smaller bag with me when i want to shoot portraits in the street etc and want a little off camera flash...</p>

<p>Too short for what?<br>

I can never understand that line of reasoning....<br>

For years and years pros have used the 24(or 28) - 70 as the standard Normal zoom but now in the age of DX 18-105, 18-135, and 18-200 everyone that is moving from DX to FX thinks 70 is too short...<br>

The answer is you bought a professional tool and it needs professional tools to be used to it's maximum ability. you would not carve turkey with a swiss army knife or nail railroad ties with a tack hammer...<br>

Get the right tool for the job. make decisions as a photographer. You are creating images.<br>

Rant over...apologies</p>

<p>it irritates me to no end that it can not serve as a slave. This would have been a giant bonus to canon shooters with little cost added. Having a 580 or ste2 as master and 2 or 3 or these to serve as hairlights, back lights, etc would have been a great solution...<br>

Not to be one of the wave of Canon Bashers roaming the internet lately but it seems that whomever is doing the market research for Canon must have worked for Nikon in the late 90's - early 2000's. The same kind of "we don't really care what you want/need" attitude seems to have taken over.<br>

In any event - guess I'll just have to get some 430's then...</p>

<p>the bigger question is why you want them - extreme 3 has the same rebate program going and with the exception of the 1D3 and 1Ds3 there are no Canons that really take advantage. Even the 5DII only gives a 1 frame burst bonus (meaing that with extreme 3 it gets off about 13 raw before slowing and 14 with extreme 4 in my non scientific test) with no problemes in video capture either.<br>

The only time I can see putting the money into extreme 4 or other UDMA cards is if you are shooting giant amounts of images and are going to use a UDMA card reader and save yourself a little bit of time....</p>

<p>the 135/2 is one of canons best lenses. I think the f4 on the zoom is too slow for indoor work with or without IS.<br>

I recently sold my 70-200 2.8 IS due to the fact that when I needed that range I generally just used the 135 - it focused faster, is sharper, has better clarity and color and is about a third of the wieght (if not more). I realize the wieght is less a factor with the f/4 but you have also cut your light in half again vs. teh f/2<br>

it's a tough choice but I really feel like unless you are willing to push the ISO up the f/4 is just too slow...</p>

<p>i can't process the images i took with it in lightroom 2 so unfortunately I don't have a way to show them to you but I will say it has a nice feel - it is a bit deeper in the grip than the xsi. the screen is the same as the 5DII and the rep said it has the exact same sensor as the 50D. I can say that on the screen it looked clean at 1600 - i took pics at 1600 and 3200 and they both looked good. will try to process in PS CS4 but I'm not holding my breath...</p>

 

<p>@Puppyface...I can tell you this - I work at a large camera store and if we had it we could sell it...<br>

this whole concept that the stores are attempting to keep overhead down may be true for the small stores that have to sit on stock for months or even up to a year for certain lenses is not the case at the large retailers. Canon and Nikon are just not producing and I do think it has to do with keeping demand up.<br>

@Len - some stores such as the one you quoted are out of the 50 1.4, the 24 1.4, the 35 1.4, the 35 f2, the 135 f2, the 100 2.8, the xs etc and it's not in order to keep overhead down...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>the lens is known to be kind of crappy - i've never known anyone that had one that liked it. sorry if that sounds harsh but the time for you to asking if it is known to be sharp was before buying it...<br>

I would send it back...<br>

you didn't mention what you paid for it but it is not sharper than the 55-250 and definitely not cheaper than the 70-300 IS Non DO</p>

<p>for the price of one of those new you could get a 70-200 2.8 just about and add a 1.4 extender to get a 280 f/4 that would be sharper as well</p>

 

<p>the 2.8-4 is one of the coolest Nikon lenses out there. It is one of the few "bridge" zoom lenses in their line up. By that I mean it is not over 1200 but still offers incredible performance and gives you the added bonus of being very close to true macro (it is AF in that mode @ Peter K)<br>

It is the lens that the 16-85 should have emulated in DX<br>

Very sharp and built like a tank...in a good way. Great lens.<br>

JC</p>

<p>I can see where this lens is semi-exciting for FF folks but I really don't get the need for it on a crop. From what I've seen of the lens on Nikon mount as well as read from others it's really not that much better than the Canon 16-35 or the Nikon 17-35 and is if anything worse than the Nikon 14-24. Add in the fact that it won't AF which on a small sensor (as you've mentioned) is a pain in the heiney and I can't see any good reason to buy this lens....<br>

The tokina 11-16 or canon 10-22 shooting raw would both be better choices in my opinion for the type of shooting you are mentioning....</p>