Anyone own both Canon and Nikon

[SiliconVoid]

This is late (I do not get to sit down at a computer as often) but if you are simply after resolution and hate shadows in your images, I would suggest as some others have done - which is something like the A7R. Purely as a 'digital back' for whatever lenses you wish to use.

As for lenses, I would strongly suggest a couple of Canon's TS lenses before the Nikon's, simply because many of Nikon's lenses of recent years rely a good deal on in-camera corrections, which has allowed Nikon to slack on physical IQ in the lenses. This means that when not used on a Nikon body the lenses do not perform as well. Canon on the other hand, which only recently included/support lens correction in-camera on the very latest bodies, have had to maintain a little higher physical IQ in the lenses.

Sure, most pp software provides lens correction, but not on off-brand combinations.. so you will not get the proper corrections on something like the 14-24mm when used on the Sony body as you would on a Nikon body, and the same goes for the 17mm or 24mm TS on the Sony body, but the Canon's would need less correction to begin with.

Rental of your proposed setup will provide the best information regardless..

To give you an idea on what benefit in-camera corrections can make, DxO has the opportunity to test lenses on an independent body - a real measure of how a lens is designed, built, and performs - by testing on something like the A7R (as it has the same resolution that DxO says makes all the difference in the world) but stated that most people purchasing something like a Nikon lens would be using it on a Nikon body, and therefore any compensated benefits to be had in that combination are relevant to the lenses performance scores.
(Even though in-camera corrections mask the lenses physical design and performance)

 

[Skulker]

As usual, this query garners fervent rhetoric from those faithfully wedded to Canon.

I just re-read the entire thread and didn't see any "fervent rhetoric;" would you mind pointing it out? What I see are measured, thoughtful responses about different offerings.

Hi orangutan, just look at the post from Aglet. You will soon see plentiful amounts of fervour.
but I'm so glad he has pointed out all that banding in my images. Just imaging all this time all these photos and I've never noticed it. I must be a rubbish photographer. I must rush out and become a fervently passionate Nikon owner.

 

[quod]

Does anyone shoot both Canon and Nikon - Canon for long lens and Nikon for wide angles? Experience? Thoughts?

I owned the 14-24mm, which I only shot on my 5D3 (I sold it recently). The lens is really big and heavy, and takes a LOT of space in the bag. I found it to be about as sharp as my TS-E 17mm, and the sharpness is edge-to-edge, with little distortion. Since I was shooting manually via an adapter, I suspect that it would be sharper on a Nikon body. It has a fair amount of chromatic aberration. It has little coma. It can flair, but it did not flair as much as I thought it would. I use filters quite a bit and missed them when using this lens. There are kits that you can buy, but they are expensive and take up a lot of space in the bag. The lens renders beautifully. More than any lens in my kit, images from this lens had a painterly look to them and a subtle 3D pop; a little like HDR, but without the HDR.

My general impression is that it is a great lens, but the price you pay is an exposed front element, massive size, and chromatic aberration. Since I use it exclusively for landscape, I found that I did not need the f/2.8 aperture, and as a result, the 16-35 f/4 makes a lot more sense for my type of shooting since I rarely venture from f/5.6 to f/11 or so. Hope this helps.

 

[RGF]

This is late (I do not get to sit down at a computer as often) but if you are simply after resolution and hate shadows in your images, I would suggest as some others have done - which is something like the A7R. Purely as a 'digital back' for whatever lenses you wish to use.

As for lenses, I would strongly suggest a couple of Canon's TS lenses before the Nikon's, simply because many of Nikon's lenses of recent years rely a good deal on in-camera corrections, which has allowed Nikon to slack on physical IQ in the lenses. This means that when not used on a Nikon body the lenses do not perform as well. Canon on the other hand, which only recently included/support lens correction in-camera on the very latest bodies, have had to maintain a little higher physical IQ in the lenses.

Sure, most pp software provides lens correction, but not on off-brand combinations.. so you will not get the proper corrections on something like the 14-24mm when used on the Sony body as you would on a Nikon body, and the same goes for the 17mm or 24mm TS on the Sony body, but the Canon's would need less correction to begin with.

Rental of your proposed setup will provide the best information regardless..

To give you an idea on what benefit in-camera corrections can make, DxO has the opportunity to test lenses on an independent body - a real measure of how a lens is designed, built, and performs - by testing on something like the A7R (as it has the same resolution that DxO says makes all the difference in the world) but stated that most people purchasing something like a Nikon lens would be using it on a Nikon body, and therefore any compensated benefits to be had in that combination are relevant to the lenses performance scores.
(Even though in-camera corrections mask the lenses physical design and performance)

Interesting comments about Nikon lens and in camera corrections. I had not heard that but I know little of Nikon. That is one of the reasons I started this thread.

I go back and forth on the A7R. Great camera but wonder if I could use a camera without an optical viewfinder.

Now only Canon would introduce a 5D M4 with dual pixels to dramatically increase DR

 

[Aglet]

As usual, this query garners fervent rhetoric from those faithfully wedded to Canon.

I just re-read the entire thread and didn't see any "fervent rhetoric;" would you mind pointing it out? What I see are measured, thoughtful responses about different offerings.

Hi orangutan, just look at the post from Aglet. You will soon see plentiful amounts of fervour.
but I'm so glad he has pointed out all that banding in my images. Just imaging all this time all these photos and I've never noticed it. I must be a rubbish photographer. I must rush out and become a fervently passionate Nikon owner.

banding's for birds
ease off on the unsharp mask too, halos are for angels. ;D /dig
actually, I like some of the shots you've posted.

 

[RLPhoto]

Before the 5D3, I was strongly Considering selling all my canon kit at the time to jump for the d700 for the AF and nikons superb flash system. Then that all changed when with the 5D3 + 600RT combo.

I tried the d800 for a weekend and it felt like nikon lost what made the d700 so good. It felt clunkier, less comfortable in the hand, the left AF focusing issue did consistently show it's face, and to top it all off, the AF was slower with primes than my canon.

The files had some more detail and the shadows recovered nicely but who cares? It hurt my hand, and frustrated me when I had to return to using pocketwizards for flash. The d700 was a general purpose camera that could do most anything well and the d800 is a special purpose camera that does one thing exceptionally at the cost of everything else. Maybe they fixed the issues with later models but it doesn't change the bad ergos and the now inferior flash system.

Perhaps not buying a d700 was the best decision I could have made because I'd be stuck with nikon at this time.

 

[sdsr]

Sure, most pp software provides lens correction, but not on off-brand combinations.. so you will not get the proper corrections on something like the 14-24mm when used on the Sony body as you would on a Nikon body, and the same goes for the 17mm or 24mm TS on the Sony body, but the Canon's would need less correction to begin with.

I don't think you're right about off-brand combinations. In LR, I can use a profile for any lens I attach to my Sony A7r & a6000 (provided they have one for that lens in the first place, of course); with my Canon lenses, the corrections seem to work exactly the same way regardless of whether they're on my Sony or Canon bodies. The only difference is that with off-brand lenses you have to take an additional step and manually select the lens - you can't just check a box and have the corrections applied automatically.

As for Nikon, do their dslr in-camera corrections apply to RAW files as well to jpegs? That seems to be the case with m43 cameras (at least when using LR), but is it true of Nikon dslrs too?

 

[Aglet]

@RLP

OTOH, my D800s I find very comfortable to hold and carry for long periods, never use any kind of strap, they balance nicely with mid-weight zooms and AF (landscape) with great precision at every point even in very low light and low contrast subjects.
I never used a D700 but do hear plenty of raves about it. FWIW, out of over 80 DSLR camera bodies (some duplicates of course) I've used in my database, I find the d800 to be the most enjoyable with the d5100/5300 being my preferred consumer crop bodies. 7D, 40-50-60D, 5D2 and 5D3 I also like the fit and feel of but I sometimes need to really stretch the limits of a raw file and the Nik's help me out there better than the Canon goods can.

I also regularly use various Pentax bodies and enjoy the fit and feel of them but they have a few minor ergonomic issues and poor placement of some controls that get in the way at times.

The only bad feel, hurt my hands cameras I've ever grabbed are the D7x00 and D6x0 series Nikons; I find them just plain aweful. Bought a second d800 because the d600 was such an uncomfortable thing to use as a 2nd body.

 

[Dave Williams]

I was all Nikon.. I had a D200,D300s plus 500mmf4,70-200f2.8,300mmf2.8, all three TC's, and an 18-70.
For wildlife photography reach is usually a priority so when someone offered me a Canon 1DMk11 plus a 600mmf4 IS L at an incredible price I had to take it. I soon traded the 1D11 for a 1D1V and suddenly my best body and lens were both Canon. For a while I continued with both but you soon realise it's not practical. Lenses might last for a long time but keeping up with technological changes in bodies would be ridiculously expensive if you updated both systems on a regular basis because bodies loose value far too quickly.
I'm now firmly in Canon's camp having replaced everything I had on an almost like for like basis.
I think there is little to separate the two for most of the time. Canon probably have a bigger market for their telephoto lenses so there are more rapid innovations, and more second hand availability than for Nikon's gear.
I did think perhaps that Nikon had the edge on bodies for a while but I'm delighted with my 5D111 and 1DX.
I think too many sing the praises of their kit without knowledge of how other brands compare as they haven't used them. Things like feel and layout are fairly irrelevant as you soon get the hang of each brand after using for a while and lets face it there are changes between bodies within the brands too.

 

[dshipley]

I've owned/shot both system professionally. Either system is plenty capable and really the biggest factor for landscapes between the two really comes down to Nikon having the 14-24 f/2.8 and the Exmor 36mp sensor while Canon has more TS-E lens options.

Now, if you're only shooting landscapes the 14-24 f/2.8 isn't a huge deal as Canon bodies can use the lens with a lens adapter (I did this many times back when I owned a 5D2 and the 14-24 f/2.8).

So ask yourself the following...

1. How much does the difference between the two sensors matter to you?
2. Do you plan to/would you like to use TS-E lenses? (If so Canon might be the better choice)
3. Do you have any family, close friends, etc that are already invested into one system? (It's always nice have the option to be able to borrow/try out gear if they'll let you).
4. Will you only be shooting landscapes? (If not the 5D3 is, in my opinion, a more well-rounded camera body than the D800/810)

 

[MLfan3]

In particular I am considering the new D810 with 14-24 and 24-70 for landscapes.

The Canon 16-35 F4 is good but the 14-24 is great!

I do not agree here , the 16-35mm f4 is much more practical lens and even optically a bit better than the aged Nikon 14-24. the 14-24 is the most overrated Nikon lens, imho.

The 5DM3 is a nice camera but lacks the DR of the D810.

I do not think the 5D3 is a good camera , the D810 is a good one but it is just a REFINED D800E, I have both D800E and D810 and every time I compared them with the Zeiss 25mm f2 ZF2 or 135mm f2 APO , the results were always same identical.
In Jpeg, the D810 is about stop better as promised, but hey who will shoot this type of cameras jpeg?
I got the D810 for the new better ergonomics , the new AF , the new quiet shutter and the better LV , not for the new sensor.
But I found ISO64 is very very handy shooting long exposure.

The 5D3 ,in comparison, is already dated camera that no rational people buy at this point. it has a poor quality sensor , no need to compare it to the Nikons or Sonys , but even Canon's own low end camera the 6D kills it in terms of DR and over all IQ.

Hate to spend the extra $ for another body and duplicate lenses.

Then get the A7R ,which I just sold due to the shutter issue but for landscape type of work , you can use some adapter and heavy tripod with your Canon lenses. So it is much cheaper and much more logical to go Sony + Canon than Canon + Nikon.

Does anyone shoot both Canon and Nikon - Canon for long lens and Nikon for wide angles? Experience? Thoughts?

I shoot Canon Sony Nikon Panasonic , but I do seldom use them side by side. I have the GH4 for video and for street work, IMO for street , the m43 IQ is more than good enough and I use it very often.
I have Sony A7s for extreme lowlight handheld work and video, the A7s has excellent lowlight AF and I think it is much more accurate than the D4s ,which I compared to my A7s in real world several times before I returning it to Nikon.

I have D800E /D810 for all around use, and they are great for that.
I also have Canon EOS6D for TSE and a set of great small IS primes of Canon.

I think I use my gh4 more often than anything else , but I just prefer feel and size of my 6D with its incredible lowlight capability, so I think I use that one a lot more than my heavier D810 or D800E.

To be honest , after I got my D810 , I've never liked my D800E because the D810has much better quiet shutter and its grip is much better than the grip of the D800E, and I think the D810 is about 100g lighter than the D800E, also the D810 LV mode is much more refined, not as good or noiseless as my 6D or A7s but close.

Oh I also have A6000 and this is my always in my work bag kind of camera, I've never left it at home , it's been always in my work bag. I also keep my NEX5n in my car.
Anyway, I think all cameras are great but work great for different apps.


I am not trolling nor trying to start a flame war, but look for well thought out positions based upon experience.

Oly extreme fanboys care about brands and fight over whatever they prefer or happen to own.
So ignore them and go dual or even more mount kits if your wallet or bank allows you.
Really there is no one good brand solution for now, honestly if I can afford it I will also have Phase One backs for my high resolution work(for me the D800E or D810 is a big compromise but a good one, indeed).

Thanks

Rich

 

[RLPhoto]

@RLP

OTOH, my D800s I find very comfortable to hold and carry for long periods, never use any kind of strap, they balance nicely with mid-weight zooms and AF (landscape) with great precision at every point even in very low light and low contrast subjects.
I never used a D700 but do hear plenty of raves about it. FWIW, out of over 80 DSLR camera bodies (some duplicates of course) I've used in my database, I find the d800 to be the most enjoyable with the d5100/5300 being my preferred consumer crop bodies. 7D, 40-50-60D, 5D2 and 5D3 I also like the fit and feel of but I sometimes need to really stretch the limits of a raw file and the Nik's help me out there better than the Canon goods can.

I also regularly use various Pentax bodies and enjoy the fit and feel of them but they have a few minor ergonomic issues and poor placement of some controls that get in the way at times.

The only bad feel, hurt my hands cameras I've ever grabbed are the D7x00 and D6x0 series Nikons; I find them just plain aweful. Bought a second d800 because the d600 was such an uncomfortable thing to use as a 2nd body.

No doubt the D810 did address the bad ergos on the d800. The D800 has the superior IQ to any 35mm camera for landscapes and arguably older MF systems. It's just it wasn't really a D700 replacement as the 5D3 was and the 600RT was just too good to pass up.

 

[MLfan3]

I think my previous reply to the OP was very confusing.
So try to rewrite it here:

1 N 14-24 vs C 16-35. I think they are about identical in resolving power and the 16-35f4 IS has a bit lower CA and distortion. So they are optically of similar quality.

So I think the N 14-24 is the most overrated lens ever and it is already a bit too long in the tooth.
The 16-35f4 IS is a very sharp zoom and it is very versatile with the super effective IS(works on the A7R too) and very strong FL coating.
The 16-35mm f4IS seldom flares , the 14-24 N is extremely prone to flare in comparison.

2 A7R vs D810.
the D810 is indeed a bit better with a bit lower color noise throughout their ISO range , but in print it is invisible or at least indistinguishable, so if you want to save a lot of money(and weight) and want reuse your Canon lenses get the A7R. I often use my 16-35f4IS, 35mm f1.4 Sigma, 135mm f2 and 200mm f2 on my A7R and A7s.

You can not use your Canon lenses or Sony lenses on the Nikon, so unless you absolutely want to go dual mount with many specialized Zeiss and Nikon primes, you do not want to get the D810.
3 if your only reason to get or want to try a Nikon 36mp sensor is the sensor itself , then go for the D800E and save some big money, or even better the A7R.
The D810 is indeed a better more refined body but the RAW IQ is the same as the D800E, or at least very identical that no one can see the difference in print.

I have the D810 but I got it for better AF, better LV with EFC and better ergonomics not for the newer 36mp sensor, and I've already got many many Nikon and Zeiss lenses for it.

And going dual mount or more mount system is nothing wrong, and in fact it is the only realistic solution for people shooting both video and stills or more than one type of app.

The 5D3 is useless , the sensor is really bad , I never thought it was actually as bad as some Nikon die-hard fanboys say about it at DPR or many fora ,but unfortunately, it is as bad as the mk2 was or even worse.
I confirmed it by testing it against my 6D , 5D2, A7R, A7 and D810.
So do not get the 5D3 unless you absolutely need the 61 AF with 41 cross type sensors.
For me it did not work regardless of the super AF or super high quality body, and I am sure the upcoming 5D4 will get at least as good sensor as the one in the 6D with more pixels.

So I am looking forward to visiting Germany in this Sept for the Photokina.
If Canon cannot get out a great 5D3 replacement , I think they will seriously have hard time competing against Nikon in the high resolution high end 35mm D-SLR market(especially old guys with a set of Leica R or Zeiss Otus kind love it).

The D810 is a great camera and if you only want to own one camera, then it is the camera for you(at least for now). But in your case , I think the A7R is a bit more rational choice since you can re-use your Canon EF lenses on that body.

I personally do not think D-SLRs of any kind is exciting , even as good as the D810 is kind of boring compared to Sony A7 or Pana GH4. The mirrorless is the future and I think Nikon is investing wrong kind of money on wrong kind of market. I hope Canon will make 5D3 replacement camera without mirror (with EVF), it will need 4k , clean LV and great EVF at least to be even competitive to the next gen Sony A7 series or Panasonic GH4.

Nikon is too timid to go there, and like all other old tech makers in this industry, it will eventually be forced to go out of this market just like Minolta. And their shareholders know it so Nikon stocks devalued and their trust status degraded by 32 percent in the last 13 days.
So while Nikon seems to have been doing everything so well in this particular market , it has been like Minolta in its last few years of its life it has been investing too much money into wrong old dying technology, e.g , the D-SLR(OVF tech), therefore it's stock hit hard and the company is doomed.

BTW, Nikon lost about 13 percent of market share in last year and now it is the no3 in this game.
I think it will be Sony vs Canon , not Nikon vs Canon any more.
I guess what I have been trying to say is to invest too much money on the dying system is too risky, and unless you already have expensive Nikon glass or Zeiss or Leica R glass for it , it is not worth going for it.
Just keep what you've got and get a Sony A7R or a A7 in addition to your current camera.
In many ways the Sony A7R is not as refined as the D810 is , but it is a lot less risky and also much cheaper to get.

And if you do shoot only landscapes or studio set up work , then there is no difference between the D810 and the A7R.

 

[RGF]

I think my previous reply to the OP was very confusing.
So try to rewrite it here:

IIn many ways the Sony A7R is not as refined as the D810 is , but it is a lot less risky and also much cheaper to get.

And if you do shoot only landscapes or studio set up work , then there is no difference between the D810 and the A7R.

MLFan3

Thanks for the great reply. I primarily shoot wildlife with a bit of landscapes (would like to do more) and some macro.

For wildlife I will stick, without a single thought of changing, with Canon.

Until the new 16-35 F4 came out, I was very disappointed with Canon WA zoom. The 16-35 F4 is a real winner. If Canon came up with a 5D M4 (or ...) that had significant improvement in DR I would be a happy camper. 36 MP would be nice but also will increase workflow (larger files, more disk space, longer processing times, ...)

The Sony A7R looks like a great alternative and need to try it soon.

Thanks again for the thoughts

 

[Atonegro]

I think my previous reply to the OP was very confusing.
So try to rewrite it here:

IIn many ways the Sony A7R is not as refined as the D810 is , but it is a lot less risky and also much cheaper to get.

And if you do shoot only landscapes or studio set up work , then there is no difference between the D810 and the A7R.

36 MP would be nice but also will increase workflow (larger files, more disk space, longer processing times, ...)

Don't worry about that, it is not true.
My first digital camera was a 1.3 megapixel one (a Canon/Kodak DCS 3C).
Now I have a 36 megapixel one, and imageprocessing is about a 1000 times faster.

The rate that computers are becoming faster, (and the harddisks are becoming bigger) is much greater than the rate the camera's get more pixels.

 

[RGF]

I think my previous reply to the OP was very confusing.
So try to rewrite it here:

IIn many ways the Sony A7R is not as refined as the D810 is , but it is a lot less risky and also much cheaper to get.

And if you do shoot only landscapes or studio set up work , then there is no difference between the D810 and the A7R.

36 MP would be nice but also will increase workflow (larger files, more disk space, longer processing times, ...)

Don't worry about that, it is not true.
My first digital camera was a 1.3 megapixel one (a Canon/Kodak DCS 3C).
Now I have a 36 megapixel one, and imageprocessing is about a 1000 times faster.

The rate that computers are becoming faster, (and the harddisks are becoming bigger) is much greater than the rate the camera's get more pixels.

computers are faster, disks and cards are much cheaper. Today I can buy a solid, but not the best, SanDisk or Lexar card for the 5DM3 for less than $3 / 36 exposure (the equivalent of a roll film which use to cost $10-15 with processing).

 

[FEBS]

computers are faster, disks and cards are much cheaper. Today I can buy a solid, but not the best, SanDisk or Lexar card for the 5DM3 for less than $3 / 36 exposure (the equivalent of a roll film which use to cost $10-15 with processing).

My profession is developing and implementing business software. So, the IT branche its what I'am living in.

Computers don"t get faster in the same rate during the last few years compared to the "90's. The speed increase did stop. They combine more cores in one CPU. That's great for computing power. However your images do need to swap from internal memory to drives and vice versa. The data exchange speed between internal memory and harddrives did not increase that much as purely computer power. This means that the harddrives are becoming the real bottleneck in the system. That's one of the reasons they build stripes with harddrives to increase the overall speed. I know that SSD might increase this, and you will notice this if you do exchange your traditional harddrive with a Solid State drive. However, the interface to exchange data with internal memory is still the same SATA. If you then want to improve your photo by photoshoplayers (10, 20 , 30 ??), you will notice the difference in speed between a 18 or 36 Mb picture, even with current hardware. I mostly use LR, do a lot of sports and wildlife, but when I get back with 1000 photo's it takes quite a long time to upload my raws, to modify but also to export even that I have a very performant PC (quad core i7, 16Gb, 2 SSD drives, high end graphic card)

 

[Jack Douglas]

FEBS, that's right on and if folks give it some thought they'll realize. A crook took me for a fool on a "brand new 486 with a huge 100 Meg HD for $3000". By the time I got him to court a year later there were pentiums for half the price that blew that one away and the speeds took off. As frequencies get too high every conductor becomes and antenna and signals get lost so ..... Those were the days!

It is a pain waiting for RAW photos to fully load from my 6D compared to the 40D for example, so I'm with you on this one.

Jack

 

[jdramirez]

I thought about buying a mirror less Nikon for around a hundred bucks... but then I didn't think I would ever use it so I didn't bother.