How many DSLR users here?

[N_Architect]

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.

Agree on the 1DsMkIII, 5D II is very good value but it's certainly not 1D.

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

Disagree. Personally I wouldn't go to a D700 from a 5D. But I would consider switching camp depending on future developments. There are so many good things on the 'darkside' as well...


N_Architect on the phone; April 2004.

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!

Here you go:

Interesting discussion. As always, Canon vs. Nikon is a hot debate.

I started off back in 1992 with a film SLR, Nikon F801. Very nice camera indeed. It was paired at the time with a Sigma 35-135 lens (my parents had bought it for me in S’pore).

In 2002 I bought another Canon film body, the EOS 50E (or Elan IIE as it is called in the U.S.) with a grip. It was very good indeed, typical ‘serious’ amateur gear (like getting a digital Canon 50D today). It was paired with the 28-135 IS and the 20/2.8 lens.

Then in 2005 I decided to make the switch to Olympus, who at the time had shaken up things in the market with their E-1 ‘pro’ digital SLR. It was built like a tank and the ergonomics were truly much better than Canon’s (at least the Canon bodies I had tried till that time). The Oly gear, being the new 4/3 format, is a system built right from the start from digital, and this has considerable advantages. It has a small sensor though (half the size of a modern 35mm dSLR sensor and this created the problem of excessive noise (grain) at high ISOs (anything above ISO 400 is not really usable unless you use Photoshop or whatever else and eliminate it, trading in dynamic range from the excessive noise reduction filtering application). The Oly 4/3 gear is also very light and compact, compared to traditional 35mm dSLR gear.




All my attitude towards gear (which by the way has nothing to do with real photography – attitudes with gear do not really exhibit one’s true interest for taking pictures; it is the photographer that counts, not the gear) was about to change, though. In 2005 I visited an annual photography show and made the mistake (read on and you’ll see why) of putting my hands on a Canon 1D. It was the Mark II N, which at the time was Canon’s flagship with the APS-H sensor (x1.3 crop factor), following the full frame 1Ds which was even more expensive.

I am flying to FRA today and tomorrow morning to JFK, and initially this trip was in order to buy photo gear in NY. Don’t know what I’ll end up buying, though, as I heard that Aug 19th there is a Canon press conference and they may announce the 1D Mark IV. So at the moment, with all the 5D IIs and TS-E 17mm out of stock from B&H and Adorama in NYC, I’m holding on (just in case I can manage to avoid myself throwing out $6.5k to get the 1Ds or $3.5k for the 1D Mk III). Anyway, to come back to what I was getting on to say, I was reading the forums and reviews couple of days ago on these two current 1D models, and I remember a guy saying “once you have owned a 1D body you never go back.” True indeed.

As soon as I had touched and felt that 1D Mark II N body four years ago, I set myself of buying such a body sooner or later. The lens range Canon had suited my style of photography as well better. Believe me, the 1D makes such a difference in one’s hands. Of course it comes with a hefty price, but as others have already mentioned you don’t necessarily have to get the top of the line 1Ds. These bodies are literally built like tanks, and the shutter is guaranteed to take 200,000 actuations (or 300k in the latest one? I don’t remember…) Of course their main target group is professional photographers.



As someone else has pointed out already, Canon vs. Nikon is not much of a difference, quality-wise. For phaleesy, let me point out some pros and cons of Canon, in my subjective opinion of course:

Canon positives:

- Very good and extensive array of lenses in all ranges, especially telephoto and tilt-shift;
- L series lens range (weatherproof, some of those lenses are a real work of art);
- 1D body shutter sound and ergonomics (try one and you’ll see what I mean);
- 1D fast body (i.e. x1.3 crop Mark II N or Mark III) mind-blowing and extremely accurate/fast AF performance (though read on for the negatives as well);
- Models available in the market usually right as soon as they are publicly announced;
- IS: a Canon patent that was licensed to Nikon many years ago (although Nikon now has a new ‘IS’ [VR] system which I don’t know if it is another Canon patent development or a new and Nikon-devised design).



Canon negatives:

- Not as vibrant colors (straight off the camera) as Nikon. Olympus’ colors are even more vibrant than Nikon’s by the way;
- Change of mount in the early 80s, from FD to EF. Means all your ‘old’ lenses needed an adaptor to be used with any new body. Now they have EF-S as well. Nikon has remained solidly on DX, and they recently introduced FX (full-frame) mount.
- 5D is a real ‘dust magnet’;
- 1D fast body (Mark III) AF problems upon release, 400D/450D banding problems, etc.; it is unacceptable for a company like Canon to release new and expensive products and have the consumers paying for them and actually being the ‘beta testers’ of those products. Has happened repeatedly and Canon really needs to look seriously into this;
- Big bodies and white tele lenses (e.g. EF 70-200/2.8L IS) attract serious attention;
- Very expensive bodies and lenses (especially the high end ones).

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

Agree.

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!

Comparing the 5D II to a Nikon D3 is like comparing a Mercedes E320 to a Porsche 911. Try comparing the D3 to it's real competitor, the 1D. The number of focus points these beasts have and their 'hunting' behavior towards anything that moves fast is sensational. The 5D II is a fantastic camera but more oriented towards lanscapes and not action.

And if all these seem expensive, never forget that Canon or Nikon gear is almost half the price of Leica gear...

[haf]

Good stuff! Always like to see some thoughts from someone who has owned both.

[Nick C]

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!

If you are into portraiture, go for Canon. Skin tones are very much WYSIWYG due to the standard and neutral algorithms that produce colours that are accurate and representative of 'true' colours.

For landscape and travel photography, Nikon gives vibrant and punchier colours but then again colour preferences are very subjective to the end user.

The colour issue can be very easily worked around if you shoot in RAW but would you want to spend hours in front of the screen going through each individual vacation photo and tweaking?

[haf]

Nick,

I shoot RAW, and every photo I take goes through some minor post processing, and I do stress, minor. I will say, tools like Adobe Camera RAW certainly make it super easy and fast to edit lots of pics. I don't spend hours doing it, but in some cases if I do, it's quite enjoyable to see what the end results can be. And in some cases, colour isn't always the desired effect. Reduced saturation or b/w has its own look.

[andySYD]

I bought the Olympus EP-1 (Digital Pen) this weekend and have been quite impressed with the results. It also happens to be featured in SQ mag this month. Coming from Canon DSLRs I can see myself moving to this format.

[phaleesy]

know what I’ll end up buying, though, as I heard that Aug 19th there is a Canon press conference and they may announce the 1D Mark IV.

I'm so excited! I hope the AF system would be improved and be at least on par to the D3 in performance.

I think there would be a few new lenses as well! I'm holding out for a new hybrid IS macro lens. SQfg might be able to get her new hybrid 24-70mm L lenses too. Worth the wait!

Agree on the 1DsMkIII, 5D II is very good value but it's certainly not 1D.

Have you used the 5D before? Just wondering if you had the opportunity to compare the AF system on both cameras - If the 1D was as difficult to use as the 5D? Just focusing a wee little wasp requires at least three pushes/turn of the button/dial on the 5D.

the 5D II to a Nikon D3 is like comparing a Mercedes E320 to a Porsche 911. Try comparing the D3 to it's real competitor, the 1D. The number of focus points these beasts have and their 'hunting' behavior towards anything that moves fast is sensational. The 5D II is a fantastic camera but more oriented towards lanscapes and not action.

Thanks so much for your input, N_Architect. Your advice is always very
helpful. You're right, I was comparing a macadamia nut with a walnut.

Would you know if the focus area on the 1D is larger compared to the 5D?
How does the focus area compare with the D3?

I find the D3 so fast and so easy to use. It just feels so 'intuitive'.

[phaleesy]

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.

If you want to stay happy and contented always, don't pick up the D3!
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3-d700-5d.htm


Apparently, image quality is always better on the Canon. No surprise there. The D3 is used primarily for sports and action. 5D for landscapes.

Where does the 1D fit in?! Landscapes too? If it can't focus as well as the D3, and the 5D can already deliver the goods for landscapes and other static objects, what does the 1D actually do? Would the 1D have the advantage of taking better focused fast moving animals and insects over the 5D?

[stargold]

I find the D3 so fast and so easy to use. It just feels so 'intuitive'.

I would suggest that you stop playing with the D3, unless you're going to take up the offer from a certain another SQTalker to buy all your Canon gear for a "very nice price" (apparently)

Some people find Canon interface easy and intuitive, while others bond instantly with the Nikon interface. The two are very different in terms of method of handling and changing parameters. Unless you have particular requirements that only one side can fulfill, I really think that overall image quality difference between the two systems is negligible, especially if you splash out on the top-line lenses.

All C v N arguments aside, if the D3 feels so good and intuitive in your hands, perhaps that alone is a good reason for giving it a serious consideration... Sometimes, you just pick up a piece of equipment and know instantly that it is the one for you.

[haf]

Stargold makes a good point. The issue is the cost to switch at this point!

But regarding image quality, while the technical details out of the camera may favour Nikon, I personally find this a little irrelevant as I shoot RAW and can modify accordingly. As long as my clients are still paying me I don't really mind!

[jhm]

I would suggest that you stop playing with the D3, unless you're going to take up the offer from a certain another SQTalker to buy all your Canon gear for a "very nice price" (apparently)

No chance of that I'm afraid! I believe phaleesy is waiting to see whether the 1DS mk IV will be announced today. All this for a few snaps of plane interiors and airline food!

She started with Canon because she "borrowed" my film 5QD many years ago. I bought that because the relative who took me to the camera shop in Mong Kok, Hong Kong (best to go with a local to avoid being ripped off) was a Canon user so that was that. And it had the function of imprinting the date on my holiday snaps!

[Nick C]

Nick,

I shoot RAW, and every photo I take goes through some minor post processing, and I do stress, minor. I will say, tools like Adobe Camera RAW certainly make it super easy and fast to edit lots of pics. I don't spend hours doing it, but in some cases if I do, it's quite enjoyable to see what the end results can be. And in some cases, colour isn't always the desired effect. Reduced saturation or b/w has its own look.

You should consider moving the LR2. CR is too basic and limited.

Most of my portraiture stuff has to be printed so the colour has to really match the printer's colour profile.

Then for my travel shots, it's out of habit that I want consistency throughout the entire series. Very worthwhile when the photos from a trip gets compiled into its own album.

[haf]

Ah, you see we just have completely different expectations of our pictures. Good to know that there are different options for different photographers!

[stargold]

Lightroom is as much a workflow management software as it is a RAW editor, so if you don't already use a different program to organise and sort out all your photos then it could be a useful option.

[Kyo]

Must say I'm quite happy with Lightroom (using 2.4)... not even taken from a fancy DSLR

Here's one from an upcoming future TR...

[jhm]

I only just realised that Lightroom on a Mac does not run in 64-bit mode by default! It just takes 10 seconds to switch it over ("Get Info" on the application in the Finder; and deselect open in 32-bit mode) and even if you don't have > 4G of memory, I understand it still speeds up by around 10%.