How many DSLR users here?

[stargold]

Just to throw a spanner in the works: You should go and try handling a Nikon D700. Despite our slightly unsuccessful first attempt at Jessops, it's definitely worth a look before splurging even further on the Canon system. Not many cameras can give you a usable ISO12,800!

It's not like there's a lack of interest in your existing Canon gear... shame he doesn't want to actually pay for it

[haf]

I have a 5D Mark I. Would be likely to get a Mark II in a few weeks unless anyone can convince me a 1D is lots lots better. Second body is a 400D for the moment. I thought the Mark II would be good since the higher MP would give a better image with cropping.

Various wide and mid-range lenses. The only rather longish lens I have at the moment is a 70-200mm F2.8. We have a 75 to 300mm which we hardly use and which I don't really like.

For wildlife, I'm thinking of getting a 100-400mm. It's got a wide range and it's lightish. Initially I thought I might get a 500mm for the second body. But am now getting slightly worried about the weight and logistic issues. The only compromise I could think of was to use a 300mm with a x2. I'm just thinking by the time I fiddle with adjusting the 500mm, the birds would have flown away! Would be worse at races, I'd be tied down to one spot if the equipment was too bulky and heavy.

Ah sorry I got confused. I thought your primary was a 40D... we have the same camera!

The 5D Mk I is brilliant frankly. I can only suggest stepping up to the Mk II for the larger screen, usable ISO @ 3200, and of course other enhancements like the 21 MP for super quality. The 1D is not worth it...if you're already on a FF sensor. Unless you were thinking the 1Ds?

Sure, the 5D Mk II does HD video but are you really going to go down that path? Will your computer be strong enough to process video? etc, etc...

But frankly, I'm not sold on upgrading to the Mk II yet. The current 13.3 MP in Mk I is already quite a bit to work with. Exactly how large do you need to print if you are worried about cropping? The other issue I have with the Mk II is that it may require me to upgrade my fleet of L lenses to the type II variants. There's another high cost.

I keep bouncing back and forth. Thinking I'd get it and use my Mk 1 body with a seperate lens (I use prime lenses a lot and don't like to keep switching lenses) at the same time for something like a wedding shoot.

But I'm geeky enough...that would probably push me overboard...

[Nick C]

What I'd really like to do, has anyone seen amateurs walking around with a 100-400mm attached to one body, and a 500mm or 300mmx2 attached to another. Can they actually physically move about easily? I'm sorry if I sound like a broken record but the decision between a 500mm and 300mm is bugging me!

For wildlife, I'm thinking of getting a 100-400mm. It's got a wide range and it's lightish. Initially I thought I might get a 500mm for the second body. But am now getting slightly worried about the weight and logistic issues. The only compromise I could think of was to use a 300mm with a x2. I'm just thinking by the time I fiddle with adjusting the 500mm, the birds would have flown away! Would be worse at races, I'd be tied down to one spot if the equipment was too bulky and heavy.

If you are going for wildlife, I would go for the the 300mm with a 1.4/2x is a better choice. The push pull action on the 100-400mm will scare away most birds. except the metal ones.

The 1dmk3 is a good buy especially with it's 10fps. The 1dsmk3 is not worth the dough unless you will be smashing your body into walls and pavements to get your shots. The 5dmk2 is more worth it.

You should take up stargold's suggestion and consider moving to the darkside and go for the D700.

[phaleesy]

Just to throw a spanner in the works: You should go and try handling a Nikon D700. Despite our slightly unsuccessful first attempt at Jessops, it's definitely worth a look before splurging even further on the Canon system. Not many cameras can give you a usable ISO12,800!

It's not like there's a lack of interest in your existing Canon gear... shame he doesn't want to actually pay for it

You are absolutely right. My affair with Canon is no more! The Nikon layout is so much easier and practical. I've always had problems with the focus points on the Canon 5D (area too small and moving from one point to the next is such a tedious retarded process!). Tried out somebody's Nikon this morning and wow, it was so easy! Is it too late for me to cut my losses?

Extract from the following review confirmed what I hated about the Canon 5D. Eh!
http://gizmodo.com/5160540/canon-5d-...view-shoot+out
Shooting Features
Here's one area where there is a definitive leader, and it's the D700. Its Multi-Cam 3500 auto-focus processor has 51 AF points, compared the the 5D Mark II's nine (it inherited the same autofocus system from the original 5D, which was itself a bit outdated). It is decidedly better at tracking moving objects with all of these focus points, and also tends to lock in to the correct focus considerably faster.

Even without shooting, it's easy enough to spot the difference by looking through the viewfinders. The 5D Mark II's focus points are concentrated mostly in the center of the frame in a diamond shape, whereas the D700's central points cover far more ground, and zone points cover the outer areas of the frame. So with autofocus, this is cut and dry: Although the 5D Mark II's AF is quite competent, the D700 wins if you frequently shoot fast-moving kids, animals (same thing?) or sports. The D700 does have a focus-assist lamp (the 5D Mark II doesn't) to help get this level of detail in low-light, but you can shut it off.

[stargold]

I'm pretty sure that D700 shares the focus module with its bigger brother, D3.

Although there may be relatively minor differences in real-world performance, the overall focus performance of D3 should - for all intents and purposes - be the same as D3, which is a true sports pro body.

Whichever way you look at it, the D700 body is a steal (as long as you don't need 21MP). Same image quality, nearly the same body quality, and half the price.

Now, just need to find a buyer for your Canon gear...

[phaleesy]

I played with the D3 today and it isn't that big or heavy actually!

Could someone be so kind to list out all the good things about Canon, and all the cons about Nikon, so that I could be in love with Canon again? I'm not very happy at the moment!

[jhm]

It doesn't answer your question but this article is interesting:

http://www.arcurs.com/clash-of-the-t...-d3x-for-stock

Conclusion
The Canon has lower noise levels and the lenses perform generally better, but what does this matter if your images are more out of focus, if the camera is much harder to work with on a daily basis and if you can get the same results form a Nikon by just choosing the right lenses and get another 3 mega pixel on top?

...

If Canon is to stay competitive then they have to start listening to their photographer’s needs and they also have to come up with a new top model within the next six months or so. We will probably see a full frame 28MP just around the corner. I predict Canon will supplement this new camera with a new lineup of two or three central range lenses with their new glass, which will create impressively sharp images even at this resolution.

...

[stargold]

I played with the D3 today and it isn't that big or heavy actually!

Could someone be so kind to list out all the good things about Canon, and all the cons about Nikon, so that I could be in love with Canon again? I'm not very happy at the moment!

Pros of Canon: You can sell their gear easily

Cons of Nikon: Expensive to dump all the Canon gear and switch to Nikon



Are we going to see a D3-owner in the near future? I can't imagine you hand-holding a D3 with a long lens!! The combination will probably weigh more than you

[jhm]

Pros of Canon: You can sell their gear easily

I know someone who'll take all the Canon gear off phaleesy for a very nice price (for him).

But seriously, I think the Canon vs Nikon debate is something which varies over time. I remember in the past Canon had an advantage with their USM focusing but then Nikon caught up and - it seems - Nikon is ahead at the moment.

[stargold]

I know someone who'll take all the Canon gear off phaleesy for a very nice price (for him).

Somehow, it might be a challenge to convince phaleesy that it is in fact a very nice price

But seriously, I think the Canon vs Nikon debate is something which varies over time. I remember in the past Canon had an advantage with their USM focusing but then Nikon caught up and - it seems - Nikon is ahead at the moment.

For me, it wasn't really the usual C v N debate - in my case, it was the simple fact that the Nikon body design and menu structure made complete sense for me, whereas Canon bodies always felt clumsy and convoluted to navigate. I have no doubt that there will be others who find the exact opposite.

Fact is, in terms of image quality you really can't go wrong with either. They are only ever one step ahead or behind each other, after all. But if one holds a Canon or Nikon body and has the same sort of realisation as I did when I held the Nikon D70 for the first time, that's the body to buy.

[SQflyergirl]

I notice Canon vs Nikon arguments tend to take on Airbus vs Boeing type proportions.

Thing is - for someone to switch from either side - it'd take one or more of the following circumstances to occur:

1) Either side makes a monumental leap in quality
2) User has plenty of money

Otherwise, people just tend to justify why they're using their brand because they're committed to remaining with the program after having spent heaps of money.

The real difference, i suspect, isn't quite as wide as we make it out to be

[haf]

SQflyergirl has a good point here.

Being a Canon user, I've never noticed problems with menu layout, controls, or even focus points. IMO, I don't need 51 focus points. I can do everything with 9. I think my pics speak for themselves here. Not trying to shove my ego in here! I just think that the problems aren't universally applicable to all users.

My gripe with the 5D is the extra switch to use the rotator wheel at the back - but they fixed that in the Mk II

But this weekend, I went to the track in Sepang to shoot and I found another gripe - the shutter mirror fell of the mount! This body is 2 years old but only has 9,000 impressions! That's a very low number considering it's rated for 100,000 shots. Off to the service center today hopefully for a quick repair....it seems easy to fix at least.

[phaleesy]

Being a Canon user, I've never noticed problems with menu layout, controls, or even focus points. IMO, I don't need 51 focus points. I can do everything with 9. I think my pics speak for themselves here. Not trying to shove my ego in here! I just think that the problems aren't universally applicable to all users.

I've been using the Canon EOS 5 (pre-digital) on and off for the past 11 years and have not noticed the problems. Or rather, I may not be entirely happy with certain features but I just made do. I did not know there was something so much better out there until I tried the D3 and realised it was doing everything I always wanted.

I did not say I required 51 focus points. My two main concerns:
1. 9 focus points are fine so long as they are spaced out. At the moment, they're just a lump of points right smack in the middle of the frame. What happens to my subjects which are off-centre (which is often the case)? Focus, then reframe? That takes time.
2. Just moving from one focus point to the next takes time. Turning the dial is so fiddly. Takes time again.

The D3 has focus points over a larger area. You move from focus point to focus point without going through the whole circle, much like a joystick. So much quicker.

You don't notice such problems if you're on a high F stop. But if you're using a low depth of field and only want to focus on specific things, such as the eyes of a wasp, or a butterfly (which are not in the centre of the frame), you'd start running into problems. The birds and the bees ain't waiting for you to fiddle with the knobs and recompose the pic. (resorted to manual focus in the end)

Maybe I'm not using the camera right, since I've never bothered to read the menu. Though some of these reviews have stated the same problems that I've mentioned, so I don't think it's a complaint unique to me. If anyone can offer a solution to the problems above, I'd be very grateful.

Or maybe the Canon 1D has a solution to the problem? Perhaps the 1D users can comment.

I do not wish to switch to Nikon at all. I'm used to it and I've invested a lot in the lenses, filters, tripod plates, etc. Canon lenses are also lots better than Nikon ones. Someone should come up with a Canon lens on Nikon body converter!

[haf]

It's an interesting discussion really. What is a right way to use that camera b/c I will admit I haven't really read the manual either?! I just shoot manual mode except I leave on AF and switch focus points.

For me, if you look at my lens fleet, I shoot over 75% of my photos at apertures 1.0 > 3.2 mostly. This means I have a very short range of focus to work with so my focus point better be spot on! Even so, this doesn't seem to be a problem for me regardless of where the focus points lie, or how I choose them.

I wish I had an answer for you!

Yes others may defnitely experience the same issues as you, but I'm just saying for me personally, it hasn't been a problem at all. Maybe it's a case of if you don't know what else is out there, you can't compare it to something better? I've never picked up Nikon so I don't know what they provide.

[9V-JKL]

A mate of mine is selling his D700. Let me know if you're keen, I'll connect.