I like Nikon, I bought into Nikon last year but used Canon for many years. I like the nice rounded "fits in the hands" feel of Nikon, canon feels more square with corners and edges.
The one thing I wont do is knock either if these great manufacturers in a "one is better than the other" argument they each have their strengths and weaknesses.
That's just not true anymore. A D700 will easily match what my old F2 could do for 13X9 prints and a D3x is pretty much on par. But the AF systems on better DSLRs are so good that you get more shots with a DSLR. With the LCD's and on the spot post you simply can get more done in most cases. I sold my expensive film bodies 3 years ago and never looked back.
lol... Nikon fanboy... and so what if the Nikon has better high ISO noise... high ISO sucks so... or so... be it 5% less... still sucks...
and it wasn´t really a VS.... you just went on and delivered all the 40d flaws... 12bit not a big deal? that you need an extra pricey battery grip to have max. fps and with low quality?
comparing the d90 to the 7D is just ridonkulous... the 7D vs D300s is a hard one to call, but d90? Idiot..... compare some photos before you speak dumb... jackass...
There are many comparison shots online showing the the 40D and D300 have about the same image quality with a small edge for the D300 in low light. But the focusing of the D300 is far more advanced and that's going to make the biggest difference. The 7D is not doing well in tests, showing about the same dynamic range as a old D60. That's because they've jammed too many pixels on a small sensor. The D90 is also better in DR, and so the D90 is going go have better image quality.
you read too much ken rockwell shit and believe blindly in what DXo numbers really mean = absolutely nothing. Oh yeah, the D300 beats the 7D because it has .12% more dynamic range that the 7D. What a kind of geaks get into this? maybe the ones that enjoy ginving ken rockwell a blowjob
Try shooting the D300s and 7D on a paid job and you'll quickly understand why the D300 is still the best pro DX model around. It will out-focus the 7d and get more shots in focus. This has been observed by a lot of users. As a family camera, the 7D is fine.
Except that the D300 still beats the 7D for dynamic range which is pretty important. So IQ on the D300 and ISO is better overall. The 7D would have been superior, but they tried to add to many MP to the sensor.
You should never decide on a brand based on a camera body. Bodies come and go, but if you've bought 5 Canon lenses (or Nikon) you're going to want to stick with that brand.
Nikon tends to be more in front on technology, but more expensive. Canon will have this years cutting technology next year, but at a better price. It's a judgment call.
Bad news. The 7D, which is now not being ranked well even in Canon forums, just got ranked as barely better than the old Nikon D60 in DXOlab's testing. Adding all that resolution to a crop sensor had to give somewhere, and it's a penalty in noise and dynamic range.
@perimeterwire your right people are paying for a brand if its going to be like that they might aswell throw away there money iv been looking around at cameras and so far neither nikon or cannon have come near to what i personaly think would suit me like the pentax
Hello! Sir, which one of the DSLR's would you chose for wide angle(Landscape), Portrait work and Low light photography. The Canon 40D, Canon 50D and the Nikon D90??? Please kindly explain why, you will choose that specific camera. Thanks a lot in advance, waiting for you reply as soon as possible!!!
Hello! FotoLord, I am a full-time student and I Love photography as a Hobby. I am looking to buy my first DSLR. I am stuck in between the Canon EOS 50D and the Nikon D90, because those are the two camera bodies in Canon and Nikon that I can afford right now. The Prices are £750 for 50D and £650 for D90. I am based in London. I can only afford one..... Please give me your best advice on these two DSLRs.
I honestly like both a lot, but the D90 does have less noise at higher ISO and a bit better color, so I'd have to lean towards that over the 50D, especially if the D90 is cheaper. Nikon also has better low cost zooms, but Canon has more primes. Either has great lenses.
Thank you for posting this but please get your facts right first.
1. The D300 shoots at 6fps which is BELOW the 40d's 6.5 fps and NOT at 8 fps as you WRONGLY pointed out TWICE!
2. The 14bit conversion DOES indeed make a difference (gives slightly more dynamic range) which is obvious to someone who knows what they are talking about (in high contrast shots)
The D300 reaches 8 FPS with the grip. The 40D does not reach 6,5 FPS. In tests it was closer to 5.2 or 5.3. This has been widely discussed. The D300 switchable bit mode allowed a lot of people to try the same shot in 12 & 14 bit. Every online test determined that the differences were virtually non-existent. Still, the D300 lets you shoot studio work at 14 or FAR FASTER than the 40D for other work at 12. PS: Printers can't even print the difference!
Emm Canon DOES shoot 6.5fps on 1/8000s and one shot focus mode. it shoots ~5fps if servo is on. What a difference between 14bit and 12bit? hmm no less than 2^14 - 2^12 per colour. if the result 12288 tones per colour is nothing - buy Nikon. Of course if you have twice more money ;) As for me Nikon make absolutely the best optics, but bodies by Canon are still better than Nikon's ones
You can't print the 14 bit difference, nor does it add up to anything visible unless you blow it up 300%. The Nikon D300 shoots faster FPS 12 bit and can ALSO shoot 14 bit. So how does that make the Canon better when the Nikon does more? I now own a 14 bit D700 and maintain that 12 bit shots from my old gear are the same.
Well nice chatting with you guys. I'm off to bed and in the end as long as you are happy with what you have that is the main thing. Long live Nikon and Canon! Cheers!
The way that I see it, Canon has no need for a lens challenge. Since they know that their market is for photographers that know their lenses do not make for a better picture if they buy the latest and greatest. Nikon on the other hand knows their market is willing and ready to purchase anything they throw at them, or so they hope. Whats next? By 2012 we'll see a 12-300 f1.0 vr the way you are painting it.
I'm Canon's market. I, along with virtually every working pro I know, am always looking for ways to improve my work and do it with less strain. The old 70-200 from Canon & Nikon were soft in the corners and had issues with flare. If you think photographers aren't interested in fixing that, then you must know about a very unique group the rest of us never heard of. Lenses are 95% of the game. Canon better upgrade their lenses (and of course I know they are) soon.
I'm certainly not a Nikon Basher and they do make awesome gear. I come from the old school of manual focus take my time setup the shot for good composition ect. Nikons Manual focus range of lenses was truely awesome!
In addition, from an economic stand point. It makes absolutely no sense for Nikon to come out with the D400. I don't know about the numerous rumored specs. But Nikon would kill sales from the new D300s and probably the D700 and D3s. It makes no sense to me. Unless they pack a D3x sensor in an affordable body with swivel touch screen, and all the bells and whistles. Nikon will just commit suicide. But anyway, I hope one day to win the lottery and be able to own the best of both worlds.
Well, I'm certainly not going to burn bridges by posting info on it. But the D3s is not planned for a long stay. It's little more than a stop-gap until the D400 is fully ready. The D3 is gone and the D700 will follow shortly. Even the D3x will see a big change shortly. As my friend from Canon likes to say these days, "Nikon is out for blood in the DSLR market." In spite of my preference for Nikon, I still use and love Canon as well. In the real world they are nearly the same!
The only reason anyone would be out for blood is because they were seriously hurt and are out for vendetta. Canon's grab of the pro video production broadcast market, has hurt Nikon, Sony and Panasonic.
Nikon has lost no market share. None. Canon is holding steady as well. Pick between a D700 or 5D MK2, you basically choose a camera with video and higher MP, vs a camera that's much faster and has class leading ISO range. Guess which one sells better? And the D700/D300 series is OLD now, so why even talk about them! Now that Sony is working with Nikon lookout! They will really rock the boat. Don't you see that Canon is barely holding their own against OLD Nikon models?
Then why is the 5d mkII still selling even with its price increase to 2715, and the d700 down to 2400? Its due to the new market that Canon discovered and Nikon along with sony are teaming up desperately to catch up. The Los Angeles Film School now has a 3 unit class covering the production in avchd with final cut, using nothing but rigged up 5DmkII models. These cameras are selling very hot and every now and then the kit model appears back ordered on B&H.
The D700 price is based on it being quite close to being dropped, just like the D3. Not long ago it climbed back to 2799.00 after being down to 2300 for a while. In some markets overseas Nikon gear is double the price. Doesn't mean much. If I want a small video camera, I'd look to use the 5D 2, but I'm kinda into still work. Maybe Canon should just focus their DSLRs on video since they can't make a better still model?
The fact that they can't make a better still model(according to you and most nikonians) means nothing in the global market. The fact that one camera is only slightly better than the other is not going to make any pro photog a worst photog. Evidence is clear, and suggest that Canon has found a strong market for video. Just read Popular Science December 09 issue.
You say it means nothing to a global market and yet Nikon has caught up to Canon and beat them in pro DSLR sales. Nikon will add HD video and then they'll still have the best DSLR. Not sure how it helps Canon to have a a great video DSLR that's second best to Nikon for stills.
The D700 is the only Camera I recommend to friends interested in the Nikon line that is worth buying. The D700 gives the D3S a real good run for the money. As for me the 7D paired with my 5d II this would give me an awesome system. One for High detailed whatever to fast shooting fast Af ect all for the price of less that ether companies Flagships. This would be a very versatile system.
The can't suggest any Canon now to anyone, unless price is a major consideration. I'm an older shooter with friends who shoot pro. Most of us shifted to NIkon. We'll switch back if Canon get's their thunder back. But if you want the best of the best, Nikon has it....at a price. They have the best zooms, best DSLR overall, best P&J DSLR and the best low-light DSLR. When the D400 hits they will have the best DX camera as well with a single try.
My problem with the 7D is that when we used it to shoot a stage show, it's FPS dropped below 5 FPS. The focus module slows it down. It's IN THE MANUAL for the camera. 3D tracking was also weak compared to the ancient D300. And then there's the lens thing. Better to get the D300 along with the better glass, IF you can afford it. Buy the 7D and you'll be buying OLD glass which is soon to be put out to pasture.
Have you actually shot a stage show with a 7D? Because I actually own one and it is true that the FPS drops by almost half in almost absolute darkness, but I have been shooting concert gigs with the 50mm f1.2L at iso 3200 with 1/320 and it shoots full 8fps, not that I need it low light gigs, but what person in their right mind shoots in high shutter speed in almost absolute darkness? even my 5DmkII max drive burst mode is good enough for low light gigs.
We shot with the 7D at a martial arts demo, which was pretty dark. 8 FPS was needed to shoot sequences. At several key moments it slowed down. We got frustrated and used the D3 and my friend actually did better with the 40D over the 7D.
And by the way, why would the new 70-200 be "leaps over" the canon? You would expect it to be light years away given the HUGE price diff. But lets wait and see what the real credible, legit and unbiased reviewers have to say about that. I honestly believe the old version was just as good as my old 70-200 f2.8(payed 1050 new five years ago, now I can sell 100 more thanks to yen and dollar) for crop sensors. But the FX really shows its flaws. I cant say the same about my 5DII+ef70-200f2.8.
Ummmm....Bjørn Rørslett has already posted his tests with the new 70-200 at Nikongear. You can't get much more credible than that. The 70-200 2.8 was soft wide open (just like DPreview says) on my old 5D. I've also rented the lens to know it was not quite up to matching the Nikon version. Of course this is all moot. Nikon now has the best 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 going and the best FX DSLR in the D3x along with the best ISO machine in the D3s, which I just tested.
Wrong. The old 70-200 was very sharp wide open on DX and now the new version is deadly sharp wide open on FX. The 24-70 is also tack sharp wide open as is the 200mm F2 and 200-400mm. The wide open sharpness is why I abandoned Canon for Nikon.
No one ever said the 70-200 was soft wide open anywhere but at the edges. Read the conclusion page. It says soft corners. It can't be sharp in the center on DX and then soft on a FX!
But what's your point. The new 70-200 beats everything. Will you keep talking about OLD lenses and not discuss the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 II....which are all being called best of the best?
There are about a million samples showing that the OLD 70-200 was sharp (except the edges) wide open. But now the new Nikon 70-200 II samples are showing it's a match for the 200mm prime! That's impressive stuff. So far my sample is easily out classing my old version on FX. The 14-25, 24-70 and new 70-200 are the only zooms that can hang with a good prime wide open.
Why anyone would want to put that gorgeous 14-24mm on a non full frame body is beyond me. As for the 24-70, after reading the many reviews there is no difference visibly between the Canon or Nikon versions. The only difference I see is Nikon taking another $500.00 out of peoples pockets.
Ummm..because it then becomes the best 21-36mm on the planet. I actually prefer using it on a D90 at times. But you make me laugh. Virtually every review says it's the best 24-70 made. In tests it beats PRIMES at the same FL and f-Stop, but you think the Canon version (which I owned) is better? Yikes. If that were true Canon would not be working on trying to match all 3 of Nikon's new zooms at this very moment. Their 70-200 will probably be 1st.
You must dread watching sports on TV well guess what most of what you see are broadcast through Canon Zoom lenses. Canon knows how to make good optics don't kid yourself.
At the most recent Olympic games it was noted on Canon and Nikon boards that the D3 had become the top camera, mainly due to it's amazing ISO range. I also now see Nikon at most pro boxing matches, basketball an so on. Even with Nikon selling more pro DSLRs than anyone, it will still take years to overtake all the Canon gear still in use.
You have a good point, just with the NFL endorsement on its own says a lot about who gets the most mullah. Would you think that Ashton Kutcher is a bigger ad than the muti billion dollar NFL? I think not.
Canon "owns" big park games for the most part. Nikon has a long road ahead to catch Canon in that area since Canon clearly dominated Nikon for YEARS prior to the D3/D300 models. This is new ground for Nikon.
If you analyze the market, anyone with out a degree in economics can clearly see nikon is loosing ground. Canon is a much bigger company and the global economic woes hit smaller companies the hardest. Just check B&H prices, ALL nikon bodies have gone down in price, even the new d300s from 1799-1574 usd. I can purchase a D3s right now and have it shipped right away after its release. I cant say the same about the 1D mkIV, and the 5D has actually gone up. D700? gone down.
I work with a Canon employee. Let's just put things exactly as they are. Before the D300/D3 release, Canon had a nearly 11% lead in the DSLR market. Today it's just about dead even and Nikon leads in pro DSLR sales. That's a fact, which was just part of the Nikon campaign in China. As for the prices, the D300 and D700 series is at the end of it's life cycle. Canon will not regain their lead if they stay this course. Nikon and Sony work together against Canon, which is a BIG problem to overcome.
Well it may be true that Nikon was in the lead two years ago until now, and evidence is clear. Canon has grabbed a whole new market, that Nikon and the rest are struggling to catch up. The professional video production in full HD. Just look at Nikon's desperate attempt to catch up, they came up with a d300s and d3s, both with subpar broadcast quality HD. Those cameras don't even have full manual control, unless the lenses have an aperture ring. Nikon video capture also suffers from artifacts.
What evidence is that? Both companies continue to be neck and neck, with each company averaging 35% of the market overall, and Nikon leading in pro sales. I own broadcast quality 3 chip cameras and it's laughable to even consider using a 5D MK2 against it. But the D400 is going to change the game, just like the D3 did.
What more evidence do you need than taking a moment and analyze what Nikon is doing in its desperate attempt to release the D300s and D3s with video, also its desperate plea for help from sony. Just search youtube or vimeo for pro quality video productions from a canon and nikon dslr. Guess which one outnumbers the other by a wide margin. I also have a canon XH-A1 3ccd HD cam, I have sample video on my profile, my 5DmkII in regards to image quality beats it hands down.
You ought to read the pro forums and see that most pros aren't interested in video on a still camera. That said Nikon has their own on the way. There's no desperation since as STILL cameras, the old D700 has yet to be matched by Canon. They might as well add a can opener to the Canon, but they need a better STILL camera.
The 1Ds MK3 does not focus like a D3x, nor does it equal it's ISO ability. Great camera, but it needed a more worthy replacement against the D3x and D3s.
The af-s 70-200 f2.8 vr is known to be soft at the edges with fx bodies, can you guess why you dished out 2400 for that lens? that is 500 more the first version and 800 more than the canon equivalent. Think about it.
Sold my old 70-200 for 50 dollars more than I paid! It was always sharper than my Canon version at the center, which is all I cared about for portrait and sports shooting. The new version is better by leaps over the Canon. If money was the issue I'd go Canon. It's not so now I own the best 70-200 money can buy. BTW, it's stunning on DX as well. Canon is in serious need of catching up to Nikon's zooms. Nikon's new primes are on the way, so why is Canon waiting? To lose more market share?
I read the reviews at Dpreview. the older version of nikons 70-200 certainly had issues. The macro or close range test was appauling. The current Canob 28 IS is still a very good performer according to Dpreview. Its been a "workhorse" of a pro lens for many years and is still working.
There is no macro or close range on the old 70-200. It was tack sharp on DX and FX and only soft at the edges. It's been replaced. You seem fixated in comparing current Canon gear against old Nikon Gear. The NEW 70-200 is out. What is Canon's answer to that??? It's so good that sample images from it are a close match for the 200mm F2 at 2.8!!!! Do you realize how good that is?
Why not boast about the current Canon 2.8 Is lens. Its been around since 2001 and is still regarded as an excellent lens. With 8 years of pro use the Canon lens is doing quite well. If they do come out with another that is better I'll trade up. The new Nikon lens sure its wonderful but I'd have to spend a ton of cash to see that lens perform. Currently the only camera to see that lens shine is the D3X
The difference between you and I is that I use both systems and make money with BOTH. The Canon 70-200 was always a very good, but not great lens, just like their 24-70. Nikon has upped the game. Canon needs to respond. Pro's buy SYSTEMS. Most of these DSLR's are very close in IQ. It's the lenses that count. In addition to that new zoom, Nikon has a 100-500 AF-S VR coming, and the 85mm 1.4 VR and two wide fast primes. That's a heck of an updated system. Canon needs to play hard here.
Damn, you must be a top level nikon executive to have that kind of info. I can only imagine how huge the 85 VR will be, also in price. And a 100-500! wow, dont tell me, it will be a f2.0. That one might just need its own battery. You are serious when you say they are out for blood. Just hope their market predictions are dead on.
The 100-500 will replace the 80-400. It would have to be HUGE to be 2.8, so it will be variable just like the current 80-400 models from both companies. The 85 1.4 and 135 F2 portrait lens updates have been on the drawing boards for a while. Oh...and also this spring: the 16-35 F4 VR, which will set a new standard for a mid-cost semi-pro product. You'll know soon enough if this is all true.
There goes Nikon again with the overlapping of lenses. You just talked about the 200-400 now there going to come out with a 100-500. Who are they going to target that 100-500mm lens for? Serious wildlife and long distance shooters will go for the primes first for speed and there great performance.
The 100-500 will be an easy-to-hold small zoom with very good quality for around 1800.00. The 200-400 is a pro constant F4 zoom built like a bazooka. They have little in common. Nikon is offering the most comprehensive list of zooms ever...and show no sign of slowing down. In two years Canon has yet to do a thing to answer the lens challenge. Most pros understand that lenses are a tad more important than bodies, which come and go like the wind.
I agree that lenses are more important but with the ever increasing desire we are almost able to see what our lenses are capable of. Like a good pair of binoculars the binoculars are only as good as our own eyescan see. BTW Canon makes way better binoculars then Nikon. lol thought I'd throw that in :P
And by the way...Nikon beat Canon DSLR sales in Japan after lagging 8% there, then beat them in the UK, where they also lagged two years prior. As I said, since the D300/D700 hit the market, it's been all Nikon. The new zooms have sealed a lot of deals. Wait until you see the D400 and D700x. They are amazing, even compared to the D3s. Nikon is simply throwing their full weight (with Sony to help) at the pro market...and it's paid big.
Nikon needs to slow down a bit or they will piss off their customers that just purchased a d300s or a new D700. I know I'd be pissed if I bought a new D300s and Nikon comes out with a better version. lol
You may have a point. I can tell you for a fact that some of the Canon big-wigs feel Nikon is "overstimulated" and pushing too hard. I just tested the D3s and the ISO range may be a full two stops better than the D3. Canon has absolutely nothing that can do this. But the D3/D700 were already class leading, yet Nikon is basically competing with themselves now. Canon looks to marketing with more MP or nich selling with a 1.3 pro model.
You keep going on about the mp marketing thing. If google earth was photographed with Nikons 12mp cameras verses nikons 24 mp + camrea how much fun would it be? I go of the highest detail in my photos I have the 5dmrk II and it is nearly 1/3 the price of the flagship Nikon. In test done by Cameralabs The 5D is just a hair behing the flagship Nikon in IQ. If I was a sports photographer, the 7D would be an awesome Camera.
Right...and the next time I get a job on a spaceship, I'll bring the 5D Mk2. Otherwise I need cameras with pro focus modules and fast FPS rates. The 7D is a great camera, but it's hard to bother with it against FX. I'd see better use as a wildlife camera.
yeah, the 14-24 still has me lusting over a d3s, or maybe d400(if its true). But the others have nothing over the canon equivalents. For dx or aps-c canons 17-55 is is better, for full frame the 24-70 are equal and for the 70-200 even the old 2.8 non is was better than nikkor vr 2.8, lets see how the new holds up.
You're probably the first person, even a Canon owner to suggest that the Canon 70-200 2.8 was better than the Nikon version. But that's old news because the new 70-200 VR II is out and it's amazing. I paid 2400 for mine and it's better than anything previously or current from either camp. I owned the Canon 24-70 and it was very good, but again, everyone knows that the new Nikon version is much sharper.
So....the D300 bested the 40D, then Canon responded with the 50D, which still fell short. Now, Canon has the new 7D. It BEATS the old D300 for resolution and matches it's ISO ability. It still can't match the D300 3D tracking focus or 8 FPS in poor light. Any REAL shooter would be well served by either camera, but if you can afford lenses like the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 II, then go with Nikon! D400 is on the way!
With the camera and those 3 lenses I'd figure after taxes $11,000 in my Neck of the woods.
This year alone I have purchased 5Dmk II/24-105 lens, 17mm TS-E, 70-200f2.8 IS, 100mm F2.8 macro, 300mm f2.8L IS, battery grip, 580 ex II flash unit, angle finder and lens filters.
Photo gear can add up quickly,
Camera gear is always evolving and its amazing what we can achieve these days.
Whatever your endeavor is in photography, have fun creating beautiful work.. :)
I agree! I could work with either system and be VERY happy. I think Nikon has a small edge, but it ebbs and flows. I still use and love Canon gear, but as a working pro I own Nikon and rent Canon.
May I add the DX sensor is in fact larger than the canon aps-c and with less pixels packed. Yet, you would expect the dx to be ahead of the canon's aps-c cameras in terms of image quality. But the 7D, according to DPreview, shows more effective resolition(sharper images) and less noise. I would love to see how an 18mp DX sensor compares to the 7D.
Let's be honest here. DPreview said there was effectively no difference at high ISO's. Oh, and you fail to mention that the 7D has less dynamic range than a D300. Not too impressive against a Camera that's two years old. Again, the problem here is that it took Canon over 2 years and 2 cameras just to catch up to the D300, and it's about to be replaced. Nikon is out for blood. I've seen the D400 and it's a BIG leap forward, just like the D300 was.
I use a Canon 5D MK2 frequently on jobs and it's a great camera. I can use Canon or NIkon and the results for clients will be the same. The differences between DSLRs gets smaller and smaller every year. I prefer Nikon because of zooms like the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 II.
Furthermore, the d300 is not equal in image to the 7D, given that canon has been able to jam more pixels in a dx format and get away with less noise than the nikon 12mp, says a lot about the overall quality of a canon APS-C sensor vs DX sensors. Are we waiting for another 12mp d400? most likely.
Why would you think the D400 would be 12mp. I assure you that it's not. Nor did the 7D beat the D300s in RAW high ISO tests. The D300s also maintains it's full 8 FPS in low light and the 7D drops to 4 FPS. And it's well known that the D300 still tracks better for focus. The 7D is a GREAT camera. The problem is that it came WAY too late. And Nikon still has no fast FX camera to compete with the discontinued D3. It's bad times for Canon when they can't keep up with discontinued stuff.
It took Canon two tries to come out with a Camera that bests the D300 in some areas, but the D300 is now two years old. It still looks like the D300's AF module is more accurate as well. But the D300 doesn't "dance circles" around even a 30D. Sadly, the D400 is already being field tested, so the 7D's moment of small glory will be short.
The 7D is about equal in overall IQ to the D300, but it has more resolution and nearly the same ISO ability. It doesn't quite match the D300 AF ability, but it's VERY good all the same. The main problem with the 7D is that it's a year too late. NIkon is now about to retire the D300 series and the D400 will be an even better camera. Canon continues to lag with their flagship cameras.
It looks like the 7D is a bit better than the D300, but if you look at tests, the IQ is very close and the D300 is still considered by many to be the best all-around DX camera. I suggest choosing based on lenses. If you want wide primes, go Canon. If you want pro zooms, go Nikon. It's that simple.
Nikon field testers are under a non disclosure agreement. How do you know about the d400, since its supposed to be a successor to the d300s, which barely came out. By the way, the 19 point all cross hair points of the 7D are way more accurate than the 15 of the d300s. Before the d300s, I was lusting over a 14-24 af-s and a d3, the lust is now gone since I rented a ts-e 17mm and now own a 7D. The only desirable feature of the d300s would be the dual sd and CF memory. But cant even compare video
The D400 is being field tested and that's about all I can say, except that the 7D's moment on top is going to be short. Some things you don't seem to know about the 7D are that it will not track as well as the D300s for focus. Even Canon owners have reported this. It's focus acquisition time is faster, but less accurate. 7D frame rate drops to 4 FPS under poor lighting and that's in the 7D manual. It's a solid camera, but not the big leap 50D owners were hoping for.
It's a biased review from a Canon basher. Look at all his comments below. A very prejudiced comparison. Seriously, who can call 70-200 f/2.8 'a pretty bad lens'?
Who? Someone who's used the superior F4 IS version and Nikon 70-200 VR II, that's who. By the way, Nikonrumor just reported that Nikon pro DSLRs are outselling Canon by a large margin. Ephotozine also just reported that the new D3s bests the D700 by a significant margin in low light performance. How will the 1D MK4 compete?
In my opinion the D300 is still the best DX format camera you can buy. The handling is great, I tried my friends Canon 50D and the controls are not intuitive at all. The 50D from memory still only uses a 9 point autofocus, which is nowhere near as good as the D300s version. The D300 has ALL the functions you need in normal shooting are directly accessible on the body, great! Sure the D50 has more MPs but you are not gaining much over 12MP. Great review.
I own a 5Dmk2 and had the mk1. Great cameras, but SLOW and the AF module is poor. I like the 5dmk2 for landscapes. It's best for that. For anything that moves, even a D300 will focus far better. The D300 has the same focus module used in the D3 and D700. Nikon doesn't cripple it's cameras like Canon does. If the 5dmk2 had a pro AF module it would be an amazing camera, instead of just a niche model.
you just don´t get, it´s obvious that the 5dmk2 has a slow af, even slower that the 40d one, but the camera is not for speed subjects, it´s all about still subjects like fashion landscapes photojournalism etc,,,
I don't get it? I own the camera! What you fail to realize is that Nikon NEVER cripples AF on their high end cameras. Only Canon has done that again and again. Meanwhile Nikon put their best AF module in the D300, D700 and so on. Again, that's why Canon has lost so much share in two years.
Crippled af my A**! Ttonight I took 185 photos of our nieghborhood Xmass parade. All with availible light (street lights). 5D mkII/EF300mmf2.8L IS mono pod for support. Camera was set to ap f2.8 auto iso continuous servo focus. I noted the camera was shooting 3200 iso with shutter speeds going down to 1/8 at times. Everything I captured was as sharp as if I had photographed this event in the daylight. I images are amazing. AF crippled ? NOT!
No one said you can't take good pictures with ANY of these cameras. People are out there making killer shots with old D70's and 20D's, but we're talking about pro applications and versatility. Try a 7D or D3 in a challenging situation and you'll understand why the 5D MK2 is NOT a top pick for things that move. If you've used those cameras, then you know already why the industry prefers the focus modules on that level.
Also coming from Nikon: 14mm & 24mm F2 lenses optimized for FX. A 16-35mm F4 VR will also be released in the spring. Along with their FX zooms, Nikon will have the largest selection of state of the art lenses going. And Canon is a GIANT company compared to the tiny Nikon. I don't see how they let this happen.
Nikon has no 800mm yet, correct. They have THREE perspective control lenses, two of which are macro. They also STILL make the 50mm 1.2 as it turns out. The new 85mm 1.4 VR and 100-500 VR are due to be announced.
Nikon has more lenses in that range. Canon offers the same old two lenses with or without image stabilization for a total of 4 and the 2.8 is not very sharp at all. Like I said, it's just TWO lenses with IS as an option. Nikon offers 3 very different choices: The 80-200 2.8 ED is sharper edge to edge than either of the Canon's. The 70-200 vr 1, best on DX and the all new 70-200 VR II which is state of the art for FX, Canon has NOTHING to compete wit it.
well i find my 70 200 f2,8 IS to be a extremely exorbitant sharp lens, (maybe i have a awesome copy).... The nikon 80 200 does not has vr.
By the way.. there is no lens by canon or nikon that is more sharper than the Canon 300mm f2,8 Is, that lens is so so so sharp at every aperture, it´s just outstanding, is one of the best lens of canon.
The canon 70 200 f4 IS is the most sharp of the four lens...
Lenses without VR will be sharper because they are a more pure optical formula. That's why Nikon has the best 24-70 on the planet. The 70-200 IS 2.8 is an okay lens, but owners who switched to Nikon will tell you how much better the VR version is. And now Nikon has the FX optimized version which further leaves Canon behind. I had the F4 IS. It was nice, but F4 is slow glass and not useful for serious event work. Canon needs a new fast 70-200 badly. I don't even bother with that range on the 5DII
Canon is my budget choice, but Nikon is the artistic one. Most Photographic Pulitzer prizes were won with Nikon gear, not Canon. Both systems are excellent, but as a Canon user I have to admit that Nikon has taken a lead and the market has shifted. I feel that Nikon tries harder to make a camera that is "correct" as a tool, while Canon focuses on marketing 1st. Either system is great, but I'm frustrated with Canon's fall from grace.
Canon Nikon Olympus Pentax etc all have one thing in common, all are made in Japan. I salute Japan for there great technical ability to producing such fine and fun photographic equipment. :)
I've seen more Nikon TV commercials than Canon commercials. Whats wrong with marketing? All businesses rely on marketing in order to sell their products. Certainly you as a pro photographer would market yourself.
By marketing I was not refering to TV spots. I'm talking about making a camera so that it appears better on paper, while actually hurting performance. The Canon 50D with it's overcrowded sensor was a good example. So was the G10. Canon improves specs they feel will catch the eye of less educated shooters. My Canon 5D MK2 is a great example...lots of resolution and a consumer grade focus module. They made it HALF a camera, while Nikon rounds out each model more fully. A D700 does everything well.
I have successfully captured many fast moving subjects with my 5d Mark II. Although I don't have high fps I have to rely more on my skill for capturing peak action.
I also have caught fast subjects with the Canon, but the D700 is far better. Combine your skill with a truly fast Canon or NIkon camera and a lot of doors open photographically.
Lame just plain lame. Any half decent photographer pro or not can take any camera and create beautiful "artistic" work. Please, I'm curious to know what do you photograph with your Nikon equipment that can not be photographed with any other type of camera???
Portraits, weddings and auction (antique) catalog work. Wedding are often demanding of the very best ISO range and if you're honest, you know full well that the D3/D700 and now the D3s have pretty much stolen that market. My buddy shoots pro boxing with a pair of D3's, but he remembers when he'd be at a match and see mostly Canon. The D3 changed that so fast it make Canon spin. By the way, the amazing new 70-200 AF-S VR II is shipping...I can't wait!
Canon is coming out with a revised 70-200 f/2.8 is in the next few months. Also who would expect a $1000 telephoto zoom to be used for "serious event work". Seriously.
Nikon's new 70-200 VR II will be in my hands shortly. I had the chance to try one and samples are also out on a few sites. The lens rounds out the 14-24, 24-70 in a trio collection that has Canon working to catch up. Remember when Canon was 1st with these releases? Now Canon chases Nikon's market lead. Oh, and I own and love my Canon gear. But I also am realistic about how Canon has slowed down recently.
I certainly agree with you about the sharpness of the 70-200mm f2.8 for sharpness. I have done my own test for sharpness at /2.8 5Dmk II and its picks out details beyond what my eyes can see.
Currently for any Nikon user to get the most out of Nikon glass you would have to have the DX3 a very expensive camera. All Nikon cameras below the DX3 WILL NOT BENEFIT using Nikon's fine glass. The 5D MII atm is just slightly behind the DX3 IQ wise and is way more affordable than the DX3.
I'm sorry, but this statement you've made is far from educated. Resolution is what amateurs seek and the 14-24 is stellar on a cheaper camera like a D40. No other lens comes close on ANY body. You can't see the resolution difference unless you compose badly and need to crop. I could shoot with the D40 and D3x, make 8X10 prints and they'd look pretty much the same. MP count is not important. Look at gorgeous 13x19 prints made from 4MP D2Hs and see for yourself.
I have on my wall a 24 X 54" panoramic photograph of a covered bridge. 5D mkII 2 Ef 17mm f4L TS-images PS photomerge Angle of view = to a 10mm lens. Up close and personal this photo is stunning. You say you have the 5Dmark II then you know the IQ it is capible of. I also know what a 5 mp camera is no match for a 21.1 mp camera. I tested a D40X and my 5Dmrk II and the 10mp cameras image fell apart long before the 5D II You don't think mp matters, who is kidding who here? lol.
Uh huh. And how many people are making 24-54 pannys? I own the 5D MK2 because I needed higher res for a single job and I'm waiting for the D700x to be released. Then I'll sell the Canon. It's very nice, but 90% of the time I'll get more done with a D700 due to the speed and superior AF.
The panny was just for my own interest, being I just purchased my new ef 17mmf4L TS-E. The people at the print shop were put off by the 100mb tiff. It took there printer almost an hour to print.
Besides pannys, most studios display large photos of there work. 60X40 and larger are very common.
I visit a LOT of studios as I'm in Manhattan often. Most studios and galleries do NOT have 60X40 from even 35mm. I work with people who do make prints that size and NONE use anything less than medium format. They wouldn't TOUCH a D3x for such work.
Ever hear of the Leica 300mm f2.8? I read a comment once that said this lens makes the Canon and the Nikon lens look cheap lol. The leica 300mm is very expensive but the Canon and Nikon are awesome lenses indeed.
anyway the canon 1dmk4 is the fastest camera at the moment capable of delivering 14 bit full size raw files at 10fps... (just like the 1dmk3 , but with the bit of more resolution)
It's fastest crop sensor camera, yes. But the D3s shoots 9 FPS FULL FRAME and 11 FPS in crop mode. Canon has overstated the FPS rate on the 40D, 50D and a few others. Nikon usually beats their advertised frame rate. You can look that up easily.
it´s 1,3 fovcf, it´s a mid term between 1,6 and 1x. 1,3 crop factor cameras (canon) has outstanding image quality, 1,3x is not that big of a deal, it is still faster than the d3s. too bad that the d3s " the fastest full frame camera" was only processing 12mp image nef files at 9 fps while the 1dmk4 was processing 10fps 16mp raw 14bit files at 10fps. (if you switch the d3s to cropped mode to get the 11fps the corp factor was 1,5 and it is still 12mp
You are in love with specs, but seem to have no idea why Nikon has rolled over Canon in the last 2 years. The D3/D700 have all of the resolution needed for sports shooting and the best ISO range. Then Nikon designed 3 NEW lenses for FX. It's a complete system and Canon needs the glass AND the bodies. No one is going to trade back to Canon when Nikon leads in ISO range and zooms. That's why a crop sensor also HURTS, because it will effect ISO range.
The fast autofocus the big resolution the 10fps at 14bit raw files at full resolution, makes the 1dsmk4 the best camera for sports photographers.
Ok, the camera is 1,3 fovcf, Thats not a bad thing, it´s a mid term between the full frame and the 1,6 crop factor, by the way sports photographers are looking for reach so if they can have the best of two worlds , great.
You don't seem to understand that Nikon has the three best pro zooms in the 14-24, 24-70 & 70200 II all designed for FX. Canon has no new lenses. And the D3s will still lead in ISO ability. That's not going going make the 1dsmk4 best at anything. Canon went with the 1.3 because they have no FX purpose built pro
Great video. Thanks for the good input. BTW, is that a Pelican case? which model? Thanks.
oceannomads 1 year ago 19
Pelican 1600 I think
FotoLord42 1 year ago 3
i like the thumbwheel's on the back of the canon camera.............
perimeterwire 1 year ago 11
loved mt d300 so much, was my second camera after a d70, but now im all good i got d700 woot!
iveroon 1 year ago
Hardly a review .....but good as far as it goes.
I like Nikon, I bought into Nikon last year but used Canon for many years. I like the nice rounded "fits in the hands" feel of Nikon, canon feels more square with corners and edges.
The one thing I wont do is knock either if these great manufacturers in a "one is better than the other" argument they each have their strengths and weaknesses.
pedalman 1 year ago 4
yes nikon cannon even pentax have good dslrs but they will neva beet the quality you get with a 35mm slr with a good lens
XDattitudez 1 year ago
That's just not true anymore. A D700 will easily match what my old F2 could do for 13X9 prints and a D3x is pretty much on par. But the AF systems on better DSLRs are so good that you get more shots with a DSLR. With the LCD's and on the spot post you simply can get more done in most cases. I sold my expensive film bodies 3 years ago and never looked back.
FotoLord42 1 year ago
Nikon D300 da best maaaan.
gereltod007 1 year ago
I like how you compare two cameras but don't even include the other camera you're comparing it too, but instead you include a shot of all your gear.
Saysana13B 1 year ago
lol... Nikon fanboy... and so what if the Nikon has better high ISO noise... high ISO sucks so... or so... be it 5% less... still sucks...
and it wasn´t really a VS.... you just went on and delivered all the 40d flaws... 12bit not a big deal? that you need an extra pricey battery grip to have max. fps and with low quality?
comparing the d90 to the 7D is just ridonkulous... the 7D vs D300s is a hard one to call, but d90? Idiot..... compare some photos before you speak dumb... jackass...
Nrojc 1 year ago
There are many comparison shots online showing the the 40D and D300 have about the same image quality with a small edge for the D300 in low light. But the focusing of the D300 is far more advanced and that's going to make the biggest difference. The 7D is not doing well in tests, showing about the same dynamic range as a old D60. That's because they've jammed too many pixels on a small sensor. The D90 is also better in DR, and so the D90 is going go have better image quality.
FotoLord42 1 year ago
you read too much ken rockwell shit and believe blindly in what DXo numbers really mean = absolutely nothing. Oh yeah, the D300 beats the 7D because it has .12% more dynamic range that the 7D. What a kind of geaks get into this? maybe the ones that enjoy ginving ken rockwell a blowjob
ElindioNeza 1 year ago 16
Try shooting the D300s and 7D on a paid job and you'll quickly understand why the D300 is still the best pro DX model around. It will out-focus the 7d and get more shots in focus. This has been observed by a lot of users. As a family camera, the 7D is fine.
FotoLord42 1 year ago
hmmm... canon fanboy
300blocctildeath 1 year ago
I don't think you can compare the D90 to a 7D either...the 7D floors it. Not sure you can compare the 40D to the D300 though.
SlapandDash 1 year ago 4
d300s is suitable to compare with 7D. and the 7D are so totally win over the nikon d300s in many aspect
Xyb3rTeCh 1 year ago 14
Except that the D300 still beats the 7D for dynamic range which is pretty important. So IQ on the D300 and ISO is better overall. The 7D would have been superior, but they tried to add to many MP to the sensor.
FotoLord42 1 year ago 5
You should never decide on a brand based on a camera body. Bodies come and go, but if you've bought 5 Canon lenses (or Nikon) you're going to want to stick with that brand.
Nikon tends to be more in front on technology, but more expensive. Canon will have this years cutting technology next year, but at a better price. It's a judgment call.
ManicEightBall 1 year ago
MADE IN JAPAN.........
perimeterwire 1 year ago
agreed hehe
scottishrailfan123 1 year ago
anyone having really crap sharpness? on the 40d?
matteuklol 2 years ago
i choose 40d!
perimeterwire 2 years ago
Fotolord great Video. I was wondering what size is that Pelican Case? You have it set up really nice.
jim293 2 years ago
Brand wars are for bitches.....stop wasting time over which is better and just go out and shoot!
KEBokeh 2 years ago 75
7D bitch!
ghpatriot 2 years ago
Bad news. The 7D, which is now not being ranked well even in Canon forums, just got ranked as barely better than the old Nikon D60 in DXOlab's testing. Adding all that resolution to a crop sensor had to give somewhere, and it's a penalty in noise and dynamic range.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
it is the photographer, not the camera.....canon vs nikon...nikon vs canon....bla2.....it is only brand war...........
perimeterwire 2 years ago 49
@perimeterwire your right people are paying for a brand if its going to be like that they might aswell throw away there money iv been looking around at cameras and so far neither nikon or cannon have come near to what i personaly think would suit me like the pentax
XDattitudez 1 year ago
Pentax trails Nikon and Canon in almost every respect. Nikon and Canon's focus modules are FAR better and so are the lenses.
FotoLord42 1 year ago
Hello! Sir, which one of the DSLR's would you chose for wide angle(Landscape), Portrait work and Low light photography. The Canon 40D, Canon 50D and the Nikon D90??? Please kindly explain why, you will choose that specific camera. Thanks a lot in advance, waiting for you reply as soon as possible!!!
nicklaw8 2 years ago
Hello! FotoLord, I am a full-time student and I Love photography as a Hobby. I am looking to buy my first DSLR. I am stuck in between the Canon EOS 50D and the Nikon D90, because those are the two camera bodies in Canon and Nikon that I can afford right now. The Prices are £750 for 50D and £650 for D90. I am based in London. I can only afford one..... Please give me your best advice on these two DSLRs.
nicklaw8 2 years ago
I honestly like both a lot, but the D90 does have less noise at higher ISO and a bit better color, so I'd have to lean towards that over the 50D, especially if the D90 is cheaper. Nikon also has better low cost zooms, but Canon has more primes. Either has great lenses.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
nice case
hellomanscoffe 2 years ago
And yes, the 40D does autofocus in live-view...
mpetrovi 2 years ago
@mpetrovi are u sure about that ??? mine doesnt
rollafatonedude 2 years ago
Were did you Get that case?
boneman3000 2 years ago
shop
smanzaman 2 years ago
i shoot with a 50d and...i ever used a nikon but...it s
not the polyvalence of a Canon
sweethouze28 2 years ago
i love that case, who mfgs that??
jazzpur 2 years ago
Pelican
FotoLord42 2 years ago
I own and use both cameras.
My advise is not to spend too much on just the one system but invest frugally in BOTH systems!
For me, Canon is for action with little regard for faithfull color. Who wants to see rosy cheeks on an athlete?
Nikon is for great color rendition and still life and great for weddings.
It's like owning 2 different exotic sports cars. You pick the one for certain occasions...
Cheers.
5 *****
EasyRaoul 2 years ago 7
CANON ALL THE WAY!!!
kenfrancis74 2 years ago 3
GOOD INPUT!!!
kenfrancis74 1 year ago
Thank you for posting this but please get your facts right first.
1. The D300 shoots at 6fps which is BELOW the 40d's 6.5 fps and NOT at 8 fps as you WRONGLY pointed out TWICE!
2. The 14bit conversion DOES indeed make a difference (gives slightly more dynamic range) which is obvious to someone who knows what they are talking about (in high contrast shots)
tabi1379 2 years ago
The D300 reaches 8 FPS with the grip. The 40D does not reach 6,5 FPS. In tests it was closer to 5.2 or 5.3. This has been widely discussed. The D300 switchable bit mode allowed a lot of people to try the same shot in 12 & 14 bit. Every online test determined that the differences were virtually non-existent. Still, the D300 lets you shoot studio work at 14 or FAR FASTER than the 40D for other work at 12. PS: Printers can't even print the difference!
FotoLord42 2 years ago
Emm Canon DOES shoot 6.5fps on 1/8000s and one shot focus mode. it shoots ~5fps if servo is on. What a difference between 14bit and 12bit? hmm no less than 2^14 - 2^12 per colour. if the result 12288 tones per colour is nothing - buy Nikon. Of course if you have twice more money ;) As for me Nikon make absolutely the best optics, but bodies by Canon are still better than Nikon's ones
i0wa88 2 years ago
You can't print the 14 bit difference, nor does it add up to anything visible unless you blow it up 300%. The Nikon D300 shoots faster FPS 12 bit and can ALSO shoot 14 bit. So how does that make the Canon better when the Nikon does more? I now own a 14 bit D700 and maintain that 12 bit shots from my old gear are the same.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
Comment removed
iandeaville 2 years ago
Trent Reznor ?
tmartmartin 2 years ago
LOL!
FotoLord42 2 years ago
Well nice chatting with you guys. I'm off to bed and in the end as long as you are happy with what you have that is the main thing. Long live Nikon and Canon! Cheers!
Whatthatguysaid 2 years ago
Right you are! Without BOTH companies we would not have such great cameras!
FotoLord42 2 years ago
The way that I see it, Canon has no need for a lens challenge. Since they know that their market is for photographers that know their lenses do not make for a better picture if they buy the latest and greatest. Nikon on the other hand knows their market is willing and ready to purchase anything they throw at them, or so they hope. Whats next? By 2012 we'll see a 12-300 f1.0 vr the way you are painting it.
Ab82photog 2 years ago
I'm Canon's market. I, along with virtually every working pro I know, am always looking for ways to improve my work and do it with less strain. The old 70-200 from Canon & Nikon were soft in the corners and had issues with flare. If you think photographers aren't interested in fixing that, then you must know about a very unique group the rest of us never heard of. Lenses are 95% of the game. Canon better upgrade their lenses (and of course I know they are) soon.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
I'm certainly not a Nikon Basher and they do make awesome gear. I come from the old school of manual focus take my time setup the shot for good composition ect. Nikons Manual focus range of lenses was truely awesome!
Whatthatguysaid 2 years ago
In addition, from an economic stand point. It makes absolutely no sense for Nikon to come out with the D400. I don't know about the numerous rumored specs. But Nikon would kill sales from the new D300s and probably the D700 and D3s. It makes no sense to me. Unless they pack a D3x sensor in an affordable body with swivel touch screen, and all the bells and whistles. Nikon will just commit suicide. But anyway, I hope one day to win the lottery and be able to own the best of both worlds.
Ab82photog 2 years ago
Well, I'm certainly not going to burn bridges by posting info on it. But the D3s is not planned for a long stay. It's little more than a stop-gap until the D400 is fully ready. The D3 is gone and the D700 will follow shortly. Even the D3x will see a big change shortly. As my friend from Canon likes to say these days, "Nikon is out for blood in the DSLR market." In spite of my preference for Nikon, I still use and love Canon as well. In the real world they are nearly the same!
FotoLord42 2 years ago
The only reason anyone would be out for blood is because they were seriously hurt and are out for vendetta. Canon's grab of the pro video production broadcast market, has hurt Nikon, Sony and Panasonic.
Ab82photog 2 years ago
Nikon has lost no market share. None. Canon is holding steady as well. Pick between a D700 or 5D MK2, you basically choose a camera with video and higher MP, vs a camera that's much faster and has class leading ISO range. Guess which one sells better? And the D700/D300 series is OLD now, so why even talk about them! Now that Sony is working with Nikon lookout! They will really rock the boat. Don't you see that Canon is barely holding their own against OLD Nikon models?
FotoLord42 2 years ago
Then why is the 5d mkII still selling even with its price increase to 2715, and the d700 down to 2400? Its due to the new market that Canon discovered and Nikon along with sony are teaming up desperately to catch up. The Los Angeles Film School now has a 3 unit class covering the production in avchd with final cut, using nothing but rigged up 5DmkII models. These cameras are selling very hot and every now and then the kit model appears back ordered on B&H.
Ab82photog 2 years ago
The D700 price is based on it being quite close to being dropped, just like the D3. Not long ago it climbed back to 2799.00 after being down to 2300 for a while. In some markets overseas Nikon gear is double the price. Doesn't mean much. If I want a small video camera, I'd look to use the 5D 2, but I'm kinda into still work. Maybe Canon should just focus their DSLRs on video since they can't make a better still model?
FotoLord42 2 years ago
The fact that they can't make a better still model(according to you and most nikonians) means nothing in the global market. The fact that one camera is only slightly better than the other is not going to make any pro photog a worst photog. Evidence is clear, and suggest that Canon has found a strong market for video. Just read Popular Science December 09 issue.
Ab82photog 2 years ago
You say it means nothing to a global market and yet Nikon has caught up to Canon and beat them in pro DSLR sales. Nikon will add HD video and then they'll still have the best DSLR. Not sure how it helps Canon to have a a great video DSLR that's second best to Nikon for stills.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
The D700 is the only Camera I recommend to friends interested in the Nikon line that is worth buying. The D700 gives the D3S a real good run for the money. As for me the 7D paired with my 5d II this would give me an awesome system. One for High detailed whatever to fast shooting fast Af ect all for the price of less that ether companies Flagships. This would be a very versatile system.
Whatthatguysaid 2 years ago
The can't suggest any Canon now to anyone, unless price is a major consideration. I'm an older shooter with friends who shoot pro. Most of us shifted to NIkon. We'll switch back if Canon get's their thunder back. But if you want the best of the best, Nikon has it....at a price. They have the best zooms, best DSLR overall, best P&J DSLR and the best low-light DSLR. When the D400 hits they will have the best DX camera as well with a single try.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
You wouldn't even suggest a 7D even though it outperforms the D300S, you are a one sided man but I do respect your opinion and loyalty to Nikon.. :)
Whatthatguysaid 2 years ago
My problem with the 7D is that when we used it to shoot a stage show, it's FPS dropped below 5 FPS. The focus module slows it down. It's IN THE MANUAL for the camera. 3D tracking was also weak compared to the ancient D300. And then there's the lens thing. Better to get the D300 along with the better glass, IF you can afford it. Buy the 7D and you'll be buying OLD glass which is soon to be put out to pasture.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
Have you actually shot a stage show with a 7D? Because I actually own one and it is true that the FPS drops by almost half in almost absolute darkness, but I have been shooting concert gigs with the 50mm f1.2L at iso 3200 with 1/320 and it shoots full 8fps, not that I need it low light gigs, but what person in their right mind shoots in high shutter speed in almost absolute darkness? even my 5DmkII max drive burst mode is good enough for low light gigs.
Ab82photog 2 years ago
We shot with the 7D at a martial arts demo, which was pretty dark. 8 FPS was needed to shoot sequences. At several key moments it slowed down. We got frustrated and used the D3 and my friend actually did better with the 40D over the 7D.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
And by the way, why would the new 70-200 be "leaps over" the canon? You would expect it to be light years away given the HUGE price diff. But lets wait and see what the real credible, legit and unbiased reviewers have to say about that. I honestly believe the old version was just as good as my old 70-200 f2.8(payed 1050 new five years ago, now I can sell 100 more thanks to yen and dollar) for crop sensors. But the FX really shows its flaws. I cant say the same about my 5DII+ef70-200f2.8.
Ab82photog 2 years ago
Ummmm....Bjørn Rørslett has already posted his tests with the new 70-200 at Nikongear. You can't get much more credible than that. The 70-200 2.8 was soft wide open (just like DPreview says) on my old 5D. I've also rented the lens to know it was not quite up to matching the Nikon version. Of course this is all moot. Nikon now has the best 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 going and the best FX DSLR in the D3x along with the best ISO machine in the D3s, which I just tested.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
Every lens made is somewhat soft wide open. Even the softness of my 300mm 2.8 wide open, would rip apart any 70-200mm lens Nikon Included
Whatthatguysaid 2 years ago
Wrong. The old 70-200 was very sharp wide open on DX and now the new version is deadly sharp wide open on FX. The 24-70 is also tack sharp wide open as is the 200mm F2 and 200-400mm. The wide open sharpness is why I abandoned Canon for Nikon.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
Oh the people at Dpreview must have lied abotu the softness issue of the previous nikor 70-200 is that it ok :)
Whatthatguysaid 2 years ago
No one ever said the 70-200 was soft wide open anywhere but at the edges. Read the conclusion page. It says soft corners. It can't be sharp in the center on DX and then soft on a FX!
But what's your point. The new 70-200 beats everything. Will you keep talking about OLD lenses and not discuss the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 II....which are all being called best of the best?
FotoLord42 2 years ago
I would certaily expect (and they are) the 200 f2 and the 200-400 to be sharp wide open as they are very expensive optics.
Whatthatguysaid 2 years ago
There are about a million samples showing that the OLD 70-200 was sharp (except the edges) wide open. But now the new Nikon 70-200 II samples are showing it's a match for the 200mm prime! That's impressive stuff. So far my sample is easily out classing my old version on FX. The 14-25, 24-70 and new 70-200 are the only zooms that can hang with a good prime wide open.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
Why anyone would want to put that gorgeous 14-24mm on a non full frame body is beyond me. As for the 24-70, after reading the many reviews there is no difference visibly between the Canon or Nikon versions. The only difference I see is Nikon taking another $500.00 out of peoples pockets.
Whatthatguysaid 2 years ago
Ummm..because it then becomes the best 21-36mm on the planet. I actually prefer using it on a D90 at times. But you make me laugh. Virtually every review says it's the best 24-70 made. In tests it beats PRIMES at the same FL and f-Stop, but you think the Canon version (which I owned) is better? Yikes. If that were true Canon would not be working on trying to match all 3 of Nikon's new zooms at this very moment. Their 70-200 will probably be 1st.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
You must dread watching sports on TV well guess what most of what you see are broadcast through Canon Zoom lenses. Canon knows how to make good optics don't kid yourself.
Whatthatguysaid 2 years ago
At the most recent Olympic games it was noted on Canon and Nikon boards that the D3 had become the top camera, mainly due to it's amazing ISO range. I also now see Nikon at most pro boxing matches, basketball an so on. Even with Nikon selling more pro DSLRs than anyone, it will still take years to overtake all the Canon gear still in use.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
You have a good point, just with the NFL endorsement on its own says a lot about who gets the most mullah. Would you think that Ashton Kutcher is a bigger ad than the muti billion dollar NFL? I think not.
Ab82photog 2 years ago
Canon "owns" big park games for the most part. Nikon has a long road ahead to catch Canon in that area since Canon clearly dominated Nikon for YEARS prior to the D3/D300 models. This is new ground for Nikon.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
If you analyze the market, anyone with out a degree in economics can clearly see nikon is loosing ground. Canon is a much bigger company and the global economic woes hit smaller companies the hardest. Just check B&H prices, ALL nikon bodies have gone down in price, even the new d300s from 1799-1574 usd. I can purchase a D3s right now and have it shipped right away after its release. I cant say the same about the 1D mkIV, and the 5D has actually gone up. D700? gone down.
Ab82photog 2 years ago
I work with a Canon employee. Let's just put things exactly as they are. Before the D300/D3 release, Canon had a nearly 11% lead in the DSLR market. Today it's just about dead even and Nikon leads in pro DSLR sales. That's a fact, which was just part of the Nikon campaign in China. As for the prices, the D300 and D700 series is at the end of it's life cycle. Canon will not regain their lead if they stay this course. Nikon and Sony work together against Canon, which is a BIG problem to overcome.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
Well it may be true that Nikon was in the lead two years ago until now, and evidence is clear. Canon has grabbed a whole new market, that Nikon and the rest are struggling to catch up. The professional video production in full HD. Just look at Nikon's desperate attempt to catch up, they came up with a d300s and d3s, both with subpar broadcast quality HD. Those cameras don't even have full manual control, unless the lenses have an aperture ring. Nikon video capture also suffers from artifacts.
Ab82photog 2 years ago
What evidence is that? Both companies continue to be neck and neck, with each company averaging 35% of the market overall, and Nikon leading in pro sales. I own broadcast quality 3 chip cameras and it's laughable to even consider using a 5D MK2 against it. But the D400 is going to change the game, just like the D3 did.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
I read somewhere Ion the net that SNL filmed part of their brodcast with 5DmkII's and 7D cameras. I think it maybe on tonight.
Whatthatguysaid 2 years ago
What more evidence do you need than taking a moment and analyze what Nikon is doing in its desperate attempt to release the D300s and D3s with video, also its desperate plea for help from sony. Just search youtube or vimeo for pro quality video productions from a canon and nikon dslr. Guess which one outnumbers the other by a wide margin. I also have a canon XH-A1 3ccd HD cam, I have sample video on my profile, my 5DmkII in regards to image quality beats it hands down.
Ab82photog 2 years ago
You ought to read the pro forums and see that most pros aren't interested in video on a still camera. That said Nikon has their own on the way. There's no desperation since as STILL cameras, the old D700 has yet to be matched by Canon. They might as well add a can opener to the Canon, but they need a better STILL camera.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
This is so true. The 1ds mkIII is on par with the nikon flagship and the 5DmrkII has gone up 200 dollars and is selling like hot cakes.
Whatthatguysaid 2 years ago
The 1Ds MK3 does not focus like a D3x, nor does it equal it's ISO ability. Great camera, but it needed a more worthy replacement against the D3x and D3s.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
The af-s 70-200 f2.8 vr is known to be soft at the edges with fx bodies, can you guess why you dished out 2400 for that lens? that is 500 more the first version and 800 more than the canon equivalent. Think about it.
Ab82photog 2 years ago
Sold my old 70-200 for 50 dollars more than I paid! It was always sharper than my Canon version at the center, which is all I cared about for portrait and sports shooting. The new version is better by leaps over the Canon. If money was the issue I'd go Canon. It's not so now I own the best 70-200 money can buy. BTW, it's stunning on DX as well. Canon is in serious need of catching up to Nikon's zooms. Nikon's new primes are on the way, so why is Canon waiting? To lose more market share?
FotoLord42 2 years ago
I read the reviews at Dpreview. the older version of nikons 70-200 certainly had issues. The macro or close range test was appauling. The current Canob 28 IS is still a very good performer according to Dpreview. Its been a "workhorse" of a pro lens for many years and is still working.
Whatthatguysaid 2 years ago
There is no macro or close range on the old 70-200. It was tack sharp on DX and FX and only soft at the edges. It's been replaced. You seem fixated in comparing current Canon gear against old Nikon Gear. The NEW 70-200 is out. What is Canon's answer to that??? It's so good that sample images from it are a close match for the 200mm F2 at 2.8!!!! Do you realize how good that is?
FotoLord42 2 years ago
Why not boast about the current Canon 2.8 Is lens. Its been around since 2001 and is still regarded as an excellent lens. With 8 years of pro use the Canon lens is doing quite well. If they do come out with another that is better I'll trade up. The new Nikon lens sure its wonderful but I'd have to spend a ton of cash to see that lens perform. Currently the only camera to see that lens shine is the D3X
Whatthatguysaid 2 years ago
The difference between you and I is that I use both systems and make money with BOTH. The Canon 70-200 was always a very good, but not great lens, just like their 24-70. Nikon has upped the game. Canon needs to respond. Pro's buy SYSTEMS. Most of these DSLR's are very close in IQ. It's the lenses that count. In addition to that new zoom, Nikon has a 100-500 AF-S VR coming, and the 85mm 1.4 VR and two wide fast primes. That's a heck of an updated system. Canon needs to play hard here.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
Damn, you must be a top level nikon executive to have that kind of info. I can only imagine how huge the 85 VR will be, also in price. And a 100-500! wow, dont tell me, it will be a f2.0. That one might just need its own battery. You are serious when you say they are out for blood. Just hope their market predictions are dead on.
Ab82photog 2 years ago
The 100-500 will replace the 80-400. It would have to be HUGE to be 2.8, so it will be variable just like the current 80-400 models from both companies. The 85 1.4 and 135 F2 portrait lens updates have been on the drawing boards for a while. Oh...and also this spring: the 16-35 F4 VR, which will set a new standard for a mid-cost semi-pro product. You'll know soon enough if this is all true.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
There goes Nikon again with the overlapping of lenses. You just talked about the 200-400 now there going to come out with a 100-500. Who are they going to target that 100-500mm lens for? Serious wildlife and long distance shooters will go for the primes first for speed and there great performance.
Whatthatguysaid 2 years ago
The 100-500 will be an easy-to-hold small zoom with very good quality for around 1800.00. The 200-400 is a pro constant F4 zoom built like a bazooka. They have little in common. Nikon is offering the most comprehensive list of zooms ever...and show no sign of slowing down. In two years Canon has yet to do a thing to answer the lens challenge. Most pros understand that lenses are a tad more important than bodies, which come and go like the wind.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
I agree that lenses are more important but with the ever increasing desire we are almost able to see what our lenses are capable of. Like a good pair of binoculars the binoculars are only as good as our own eyescan see. BTW Canon makes way better binoculars then Nikon. lol thought I'd throw that in :P
Whatthatguysaid 2 years ago
I'm a sailor and amateur astronomer. Canon and Nikon binoculars are pretty bad compared to my Fugi's and Stieners.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
And by the way...Nikon beat Canon DSLR sales in Japan after lagging 8% there, then beat them in the UK, where they also lagged two years prior. As I said, since the D300/D700 hit the market, it's been all Nikon. The new zooms have sealed a lot of deals. Wait until you see the D400 and D700x. They are amazing, even compared to the D3s. Nikon is simply throwing their full weight (with Sony to help) at the pro market...and it's paid big.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
Nikon needs to slow down a bit or they will piss off their customers that just purchased a d300s or a new D700. I know I'd be pissed if I bought a new D300s and Nikon comes out with a better version. lol
Whatthatguysaid 2 years ago
You may have a point. I can tell you for a fact that some of the Canon big-wigs feel Nikon is "overstimulated" and pushing too hard. I just tested the D3s and the ISO range may be a full two stops better than the D3. Canon has absolutely nothing that can do this. But the D3/D700 were already class leading, yet Nikon is basically competing with themselves now. Canon looks to marketing with more MP or nich selling with a 1.3 pro model.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
You keep going on about the mp marketing thing. If google earth was photographed with Nikons 12mp cameras verses nikons 24 mp + camrea how much fun would it be? I go of the highest detail in my photos I have the 5dmrk II and it is nearly 1/3 the price of the flagship Nikon. In test done by Cameralabs The 5D is just a hair behing the flagship Nikon in IQ. If I was a sports photographer, the 7D would be an awesome Camera.
Whatthatguysaid 2 years ago
Right...and the next time I get a job on a spaceship, I'll bring the 5D Mk2. Otherwise I need cameras with pro focus modules and fast FPS rates. The 7D is a great camera, but it's hard to bother with it against FX. I'd see better use as a wildlife camera.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
yeah, the 14-24 still has me lusting over a d3s, or maybe d400(if its true). But the others have nothing over the canon equivalents. For dx or aps-c canons 17-55 is is better, for full frame the 24-70 are equal and for the 70-200 even the old 2.8 non is was better than nikkor vr 2.8, lets see how the new holds up.
Ab82photog 2 years ago
You're probably the first person, even a Canon owner to suggest that the Canon 70-200 2.8 was better than the Nikon version. But that's old news because the new 70-200 VR II is out and it's amazing. I paid 2400 for mine and it's better than anything previously or current from either camp. I owned the Canon 24-70 and it was very good, but again, everyone knows that the new Nikon version is much sharper.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
So....the D300 bested the 40D, then Canon responded with the 50D, which still fell short. Now, Canon has the new 7D. It BEATS the old D300 for resolution and matches it's ISO ability. It still can't match the D300 3D tracking focus or 8 FPS in poor light. Any REAL shooter would be well served by either camera, but if you can afford lenses like the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 II, then go with Nikon! D400 is on the way!
FotoLord42 2 years ago
With the camera and those 3 lenses I'd figure after taxes $11,000 in my Neck of the woods.
This year alone I have purchased 5Dmk II/24-105 lens, 17mm TS-E, 70-200f2.8 IS, 100mm F2.8 macro, 300mm f2.8L IS, battery grip, 580 ex II flash unit, angle finder and lens filters.
Photo gear can add up quickly,
Camera gear is always evolving and its amazing what we can achieve these days.
Whatever your endeavor is in photography, have fun creating beautiful work.. :)
Whatthatguysaid 2 years ago
I agree! I could work with either system and be VERY happy. I think Nikon has a small edge, but it ebbs and flows. I still use and love Canon gear, but as a working pro I own Nikon and rent Canon.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
May I add the DX sensor is in fact larger than the canon aps-c and with less pixels packed. Yet, you would expect the dx to be ahead of the canon's aps-c cameras in terms of image quality. But the 7D, according to DPreview, shows more effective resolition(sharper images) and less noise. I would love to see how an 18mp DX sensor compares to the 7D.
Ab82photog 2 years ago
Let's be honest here. DPreview said there was effectively no difference at high ISO's. Oh, and you fail to mention that the 7D has less dynamic range than a D300. Not too impressive against a Camera that's two years old. Again, the problem here is that it took Canon over 2 years and 2 cameras just to catch up to the D300, and it's about to be replaced. Nikon is out for blood. I've seen the D400 and it's a BIG leap forward, just like the D300 was.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
5 stars my friend! :)
urmatoru 2 years ago
Its obviouse your bias towards Nikon, nothign wrong wit hthat but if your going to make a video, make it equal.
tismevance1 2 years ago
I use a Canon 5D MK2 frequently on jobs and it's a great camera. I can use Canon or NIkon and the results for clients will be the same. The differences between DSLRs gets smaller and smaller every year. I prefer Nikon because of zooms like the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 II.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
Furthermore, the d300 is not equal in image to the 7D, given that canon has been able to jam more pixels in a dx format and get away with less noise than the nikon 12mp, says a lot about the overall quality of a canon APS-C sensor vs DX sensors. Are we waiting for another 12mp d400? most likely.
Ab82photog 2 years ago
Why would you think the D400 would be 12mp. I assure you that it's not. Nor did the 7D beat the D300s in RAW high ISO tests. The D300s also maintains it's full 8 FPS in low light and the 7D drops to 4 FPS. And it's well known that the D300 still tracks better for focus. The 7D is a GREAT camera. The problem is that it came WAY too late. And Nikon still has no fast FX camera to compete with the discontinued D3. It's bad times for Canon when they can't keep up with discontinued stuff.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
why are my comments not appearing?
Ab82photog 2 years ago
My new 7D dances circles around the d300s.
Ab82photog 2 years ago 3
It took Canon two tries to come out with a Camera that bests the D300 in some areas, but the D300 is now two years old. It still looks like the D300's AF module is more accurate as well. But the D300 doesn't "dance circles" around even a 30D. Sadly, the D400 is already being field tested, so the 7D's moment of small glory will be short.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
there is no way in hell a 7D would "Dance Circles" around a d300s
19point af vs 51point af
better iso performance
the only think it has up is 1080p video(canon) compared to the 720(nikon) but you dont buy a pro slr to shoot video
gono1512 2 years ago
The 7D is about equal in overall IQ to the D300, but it has more resolution and nearly the same ISO ability. It doesn't quite match the D300 AF ability, but it's VERY good all the same. The main problem with the 7D is that it's a year too late. NIkon is now about to retire the D300 series and the D400 will be an even better camera. Canon continues to lag with their flagship cameras.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
d300s or 7d?
kdidddddy 2 years ago
It looks like the 7D is a bit better than the D300, but if you look at tests, the IQ is very close and the D300 is still considered by many to be the best all-around DX camera. I suggest choosing based on lenses. If you want wide primes, go Canon. If you want pro zooms, go Nikon. It's that simple.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
Nikon field testers are under a non disclosure agreement. How do you know about the d400, since its supposed to be a successor to the d300s, which barely came out. By the way, the 19 point all cross hair points of the 7D are way more accurate than the 15 of the d300s. Before the d300s, I was lusting over a 14-24 af-s and a d3, the lust is now gone since I rented a ts-e 17mm and now own a 7D. The only desirable feature of the d300s would be the dual sd and CF memory. But cant even compare video
Ab82photog 2 years ago
The D400 is being field tested and that's about all I can say, except that the 7D's moment on top is going to be short. Some things you don't seem to know about the 7D are that it will not track as well as the D300s for focus. Even Canon owners have reported this. It's focus acquisition time is faster, but less accurate. 7D frame rate drops to 4 FPS under poor lighting and that's in the 7D manual. It's a solid camera, but not the big leap 50D owners were hoping for.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
u have a nice case
sardo97 2 years ago
It's a biased review from a Canon basher. Look at all his comments below. A very prejudiced comparison. Seriously, who can call 70-200 f/2.8 'a pretty bad lens'?
SHAILUtheINDRA 2 years ago
Who? Someone who's used the superior F4 IS version and Nikon 70-200 VR II, that's who. By the way, Nikonrumor just reported that Nikon pro DSLRs are outselling Canon by a large margin. Ephotozine also just reported that the new D3s bests the D700 by a significant margin in low light performance. How will the 1D MK4 compete?
FotoLord42 2 years ago
In my opinion the D300 is still the best DX format camera you can buy. The handling is great, I tried my friends Canon 50D and the controls are not intuitive at all. The 50D from memory still only uses a 9 point autofocus, which is nowhere near as good as the D300s version. The D300 has ALL the functions you need in normal shooting are directly accessible on the body, great! Sure the D50 has more MPs but you are not gaining much over 12MP. Great review.
witherm01 2 years ago
Can you put some link to a site where your photos are???
I wonna wee your photos with your equipment pls.
roviman11 2 years ago
(cont.)
if they are looking for image quality (for fashion or product photography) they still have enough money to easily buy a 5dmk2 , which is full frame.
mixmaxdix 2 years ago
I own a 5Dmk2 and had the mk1. Great cameras, but SLOW and the AF module is poor. I like the 5dmk2 for landscapes. It's best for that. For anything that moves, even a D300 will focus far better. The D300 has the same focus module used in the D3 and D700. Nikon doesn't cripple it's cameras like Canon does. If the 5dmk2 had a pro AF module it would be an amazing camera, instead of just a niche model.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
you just don´t get, it´s obvious that the 5dmk2 has a slow af, even slower that the 40d one, but the camera is not for speed subjects, it´s all about still subjects like fashion landscapes photojournalism etc,,,
If you want speed use a 1dmk4.
mixmaxdix 2 years ago
I don't get it? I own the camera! What you fail to realize is that Nikon NEVER cripples AF on their high end cameras. Only Canon has done that again and again. Meanwhile Nikon put their best AF module in the D300, D700 and so on. Again, that's why Canon has lost so much share in two years.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
Photojournalism doesn't quite exactly involve still subjects...
nfaguade 2 years ago
Crippled af my A**! Ttonight I took 185 photos of our nieghborhood Xmass parade. All with availible light (street lights). 5D mkII/EF300mmf2.8L IS mono pod for support. Camera was set to ap f2.8 auto iso continuous servo focus. I noted the camera was shooting 3200 iso with shutter speeds going down to 1/8 at times. Everything I captured was as sharp as if I had photographed this event in the daylight. I images are amazing. AF crippled ? NOT!
Whatthatguysaid 2 years ago
No one said you can't take good pictures with ANY of these cameras. People are out there making killer shots with old D70's and 20D's, but we're talking about pro applications and versatility. Try a 7D or D3 in a challenging situation and you'll understand why the 5D MK2 is NOT a top pick for things that move. If you've used those cameras, then you know already why the industry prefers the focus modules on that level.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
Also coming from Nikon: 14mm & 24mm F2 lenses optimized for FX. A 16-35mm F4 VR will also be released in the spring. Along with their FX zooms, Nikon will have the largest selection of state of the art lenses going. And Canon is a GIANT company compared to the tiny Nikon. I don't see how they let this happen.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
Nikon is needing to realize a 800mm lens, they dont have one...like another tilt shift lens they only have one...
mixmaxdix 2 years ago
Nikon has no 800mm yet, correct. They have THREE perspective control lenses, two of which are macro. They also STILL make the 50mm 1.2 as it turns out. The new 85mm 1.4 VR and 100-500 VR are due to be announced.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
they don´t have 4 versions of the 70 200 L
mixmaxdix 2 years ago
Nikon has more lenses in that range. Canon offers the same old two lenses with or without image stabilization for a total of 4 and the 2.8 is not very sharp at all. Like I said, it's just TWO lenses with IS as an option. Nikon offers 3 very different choices: The 80-200 2.8 ED is sharper edge to edge than either of the Canon's. The 70-200 vr 1, best on DX and the all new 70-200 VR II which is state of the art for FX, Canon has NOTHING to compete wit it.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
well i find my 70 200 f2,8 IS to be a extremely exorbitant sharp lens, (maybe i have a awesome copy).... The nikon 80 200 does not has vr.
By the way.. there is no lens by canon or nikon that is more sharper than the Canon 300mm f2,8 Is, that lens is so so so sharp at every aperture, it´s just outstanding, is one of the best lens of canon.
The canon 70 200 f4 IS is the most sharp of the four lens...
mixmaxdix 2 years ago
Lenses without VR will be sharper because they are a more pure optical formula. That's why Nikon has the best 24-70 on the planet. The 70-200 IS 2.8 is an okay lens, but owners who switched to Nikon will tell you how much better the VR version is. And now Nikon has the FX optimized version which further leaves Canon behind. I had the F4 IS. It was nice, but F4 is slow glass and not useful for serious event work. Canon needs a new fast 70-200 badly. I don't even bother with that range on the 5DII
FotoLord42 2 years ago
ok you win Nikon is better... just not for me and the leading professionals photographers who is using canon.
Most of professional photographers still use canon...
mixmaxdix 2 years ago
Canon is my budget choice, but Nikon is the artistic one. Most Photographic Pulitzer prizes were won with Nikon gear, not Canon. Both systems are excellent, but as a Canon user I have to admit that Nikon has taken a lead and the market has shifted. I feel that Nikon tries harder to make a camera that is "correct" as a tool, while Canon focuses on marketing 1st. Either system is great, but I'm frustrated with Canon's fall from grace.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
Canon Nikon Olympus Pentax etc all have one thing in common, all are made in Japan. I salute Japan for there great technical ability to producing such fine and fun photographic equipment. :)
Whatthatguysaid 2 years ago
I've seen more Nikon TV commercials than Canon commercials. Whats wrong with marketing? All businesses rely on marketing in order to sell their products. Certainly you as a pro photographer would market yourself.
Whatthatguysaid 2 years ago
By marketing I was not refering to TV spots. I'm talking about making a camera so that it appears better on paper, while actually hurting performance. The Canon 50D with it's overcrowded sensor was a good example. So was the G10. Canon improves specs they feel will catch the eye of less educated shooters. My Canon 5D MK2 is a great example...lots of resolution and a consumer grade focus module. They made it HALF a camera, while Nikon rounds out each model more fully. A D700 does everything well.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
I have successfully captured many fast moving subjects with my 5d Mark II. Although I don't have high fps I have to rely more on my skill for capturing peak action.
Whatthatguysaid 2 years ago
I also have caught fast subjects with the Canon, but the D700 is far better. Combine your skill with a truly fast Canon or NIkon camera and a lot of doors open photographically.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
Lame just plain lame. Any half decent photographer pro or not can take any camera and create beautiful "artistic" work. Please, I'm curious to know what do you photograph with your Nikon equipment that can not be photographed with any other type of camera???
Whatthatguysaid 2 years ago
Portraits, weddings and auction (antique) catalog work. Wedding are often demanding of the very best ISO range and if you're honest, you know full well that the D3/D700 and now the D3s have pretty much stolen that market. My buddy shoots pro boxing with a pair of D3's, but he remembers when he'd be at a match and see mostly Canon. The D3 changed that so fast it make Canon spin. By the way, the amazing new 70-200 AF-S VR II is shipping...I can't wait!
FotoLord42 2 years ago
Canon is coming out with a revised 70-200 f/2.8 is in the next few months. Also who would expect a $1000 telephoto zoom to be used for "serious event work". Seriously.
nicknpo 2 years ago
Nikon's new 70-200 VR II will be in my hands shortly. I had the chance to try one and samples are also out on a few sites. The lens rounds out the 14-24, 24-70 in a trio collection that has Canon working to catch up. Remember when Canon was 1st with these releases? Now Canon chases Nikon's market lead. Oh, and I own and love my Canon gear. But I also am realistic about how Canon has slowed down recently.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
I certainly agree with you about the sharpness of the 70-200mm f2.8 for sharpness. I have done my own test for sharpness at /2.8 5Dmk II and its picks out details beyond what my eyes can see.
Currently for any Nikon user to get the most out of Nikon glass you would have to have the DX3 a very expensive camera. All Nikon cameras below the DX3 WILL NOT BENEFIT using Nikon's fine glass. The 5D MII atm is just slightly behind the DX3 IQ wise and is way more affordable than the DX3.
Whatthatguysaid 2 years ago
I'm sorry, but this statement you've made is far from educated. Resolution is what amateurs seek and the 14-24 is stellar on a cheaper camera like a D40. No other lens comes close on ANY body. You can't see the resolution difference unless you compose badly and need to crop. I could shoot with the D40 and D3x, make 8X10 prints and they'd look pretty much the same. MP count is not important. Look at gorgeous 13x19 prints made from 4MP D2Hs and see for yourself.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
13 X 19 eh lol
I have on my wall a 24 X 54" panoramic photograph of a covered bridge. 5D mkII 2 Ef 17mm f4L TS-images PS photomerge Angle of view = to a 10mm lens. Up close and personal this photo is stunning. You say you have the 5Dmark II then you know the IQ it is capible of. I also know what a 5 mp camera is no match for a 21.1 mp camera. I tested a D40X and my 5Dmrk II and the 10mp cameras image fell apart long before the 5D II You don't think mp matters, who is kidding who here? lol.
Whatthatguysaid 2 years ago
Uh huh. And how many people are making 24-54 pannys? I own the 5D MK2 because I needed higher res for a single job and I'm waiting for the D700x to be released. Then I'll sell the Canon. It's very nice, but 90% of the time I'll get more done with a D700 due to the speed and superior AF.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
The panny was just for my own interest, being I just purchased my new ef 17mmf4L TS-E. The people at the print shop were put off by the 100mb tiff. It took there printer almost an hour to print.
Besides pannys, most studios display large photos of there work. 60X40 and larger are very common.
Whatthatguysaid 2 years ago
I visit a LOT of studios as I'm in Manhattan often. Most studios and galleries do NOT have 60X40 from even 35mm. I work with people who do make prints that size and NONE use anything less than medium format. They wouldn't TOUCH a D3x for such work.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
Ever hear of the Leica 300mm f2.8? I read a comment once that said this lens makes the Canon and the Nikon lens look cheap lol. The leica 300mm is very expensive but the Canon and Nikon are awesome lenses indeed.
Whatthatguysaid 2 years ago
anyway the canon 1dmk4 is the fastest camera at the moment capable of delivering 14 bit full size raw files at 10fps... (just like the 1dmk3 , but with the bit of more resolution)
mixmaxdix 2 years ago
It's fastest crop sensor camera, yes. But the D3s shoots 9 FPS FULL FRAME and 11 FPS in crop mode. Canon has overstated the FPS rate on the 40D, 50D and a few others. Nikon usually beats their advertised frame rate. You can look that up easily.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
it´s 1,3 fovcf, it´s a mid term between 1,6 and 1x. 1,3 crop factor cameras (canon) has outstanding image quality, 1,3x is not that big of a deal, it is still faster than the d3s. too bad that the d3s " the fastest full frame camera" was only processing 12mp image nef files at 9 fps while the 1dmk4 was processing 10fps 16mp raw 14bit files at 10fps. (if you switch the d3s to cropped mode to get the 11fps the corp factor was 1,5 and it is still 12mp
Sooo. i guess canon is better in this field
mixmaxdix 2 years ago
You are in love with specs, but seem to have no idea why Nikon has rolled over Canon in the last 2 years. The D3/D700 have all of the resolution needed for sports shooting and the best ISO range. Then Nikon designed 3 NEW lenses for FX. It's a complete system and Canon needs the glass AND the bodies. No one is going to trade back to Canon when Nikon leads in ISO range and zooms. That's why a crop sensor also HURTS, because it will effect ISO range.
FotoLord42 2 years ago
The fast autofocus the big resolution the 10fps at 14bit raw files at full resolution, makes the 1dsmk4 the best camera for sports photographers.
Ok, the camera is 1,3 fovcf, Thats not a bad thing, it´s a mid term between the full frame and the 1,6 crop factor, by the way sports photographers are looking for reach so if they can have the best of two worlds , great.
(cont.)
mixmaxdix 2 years ago
You don't seem to understand that Nikon has the three best pro zooms in the 14-24, 24-70 & 70200 II all designed for FX. Canon has no new lenses. And the D3s will still lead in ISO ability. That's not going going make the 1dsmk4 best at anything. Canon went with the 1.3 because they have no FX purpose built pro