The (un)official I'm switching to Nikon thread

[Ellen Schmidtee]

Always the case....

The situation along the Egypt-Israel border is similar, as can be seen in satellite photos.

The reason is that Bedouin on the Egyptian side of the border are allowed to let their goats to graze freely, while Bedouin on the Israeli side of the border are not. That makes the land on the Israeli side of the border greener.

 

[biggles_no1]

It seems that, for the guy on the left, the grass really is greener on the other side.

 

[Maui5150]

To insure the grass is green on both sides of the fence.... you have to pee on both sides...

 

[smirkypants]

Why is it that everytime I've asked (not on here) about advice on what 'the best' camera/lens is for a given situation I always ALWAYS get the "The camera doesn't matter, a good photographer can take great pictures with any camera... blah blah blah... it's more about to locations and blah blah brag..." But then when we are excited about a new camera it's always "RABBLEABBLERABBLEPOPUPFLASHGIGAPIXELSANDFAIRIES!!!! I can't do my job with this!!!! It's Crap!!! RABBLERABBLERABBLEFILMCAMERAPROFESSIONALSBUNRTHEMALIVE!!!!"

It depends upon the kinds of photos you want to take. If you want to take street photos on a sunny day, an iPhone camera is great. If you're taking photos of fast-moving horses that range from 25 to 300 yards away in good and bad weather, you needs fast glass, flexible focal length, good dynamic range for both intense sun and shaded areas, good ISO performance for hitting quadruple digit shutter speeds on drizzly days, high FPS, weather sealing, durability...

Can you do that with a Rebel and a 75-300?

 

[traveller]

To insure the grass is green on both sides of the fence.... you have to pee on both sides...

Just be careful if they're separated by an electric fence! ;D

 

[Rockets95]

I want to switch from Nikon, because i do not like the D800
My question: Is this the right thread for me?

Let's establish the protocol - That would be the Nikon rumors website!

 

[Joellll]

Why is it that everytime I've asked (not on here) about advice on what 'the best' camera/lens is for a given situation I always ALWAYS get the "The camera doesn't matter, a good photographer can take great pictures with any camera... blah blah blah... it's more about to locations and blah blah brag..." But then when we are excited about a new camera it's always "RABBLEABBLERABBLEPOPUPFLASHGIGAPIXELSANDFAIRIES!!!! I can't do my job with this!!!! It's Crap!!! RABBLERABBLERABBLEFILMCAMERAPROFESSIONALSBUNRTHEMALIVE!!!!"

It depends upon the kinds of photos you want to take. If you want to take street photos on a sunny day, an iPhone camera is great. If you're taking photos of fast-moving horses that range from 25 to 300 yards away in good and bad weather, you needs fast glass, flexible focal length, good dynamic range for both intense sun and shaded areas, good ISO performance for hitting quadruple digit shutter speeds on drizzly days, high FPS, weather sealing, durability...

Can you do that with a Rebel and a 75-300?

As a proud user of a 500D and a 70-200 F4L IS, I am sorry to say that it is not possible to nail the perfect shot.

Which is why I'm waiting for 5D3. I don't think 5D2's AF is going to help.

 

[TheBodyRubber]

Nikon USA provides terrible support and has bad ratings with the BBB unlike Canon.

And they eat children!!!

Not only that, but they're Democrats too!! Or Republicans.....I forget who's the bad guys these days.

;D

I think the correct quote should be... Not only that, but they are politicians too...!!! ;D

 

[gecko]

Seems there is no dedicated 'direct print' button.

I'll be jumping ship to Nikon immediately.

 

[psolberg]

But I'll never part from the 85Lii

Funny. Different strokes for different folks, as the 85/1.4 Nikon is another reason I'd consider a switch... The ergonomics of the 85/1.2, which I own, are silly. If you take the lens off extended, you can't un-extend it, since it needs to power the motor to retract. Watch out for that rear glass element that sticks all the way out; you don't want to scratch it/hit it as you're mounting it to your body.

Furthermore, the CA on the sides is bad enough to make even in-focus objects on the sides appear soft. Then the 8-blade aperture means that out of focus highlights are no longer a pleasing circle at apertures smaller than f/1.6 (yes-- they're only really circular at f/1.2-f/1.4). Canon knows 9-blades is the way to go -- something they updated in their new 24-70 zoom. It gives you more circular OOF highlights AND 18 point sunstars... seems win-win to me. Yet all their professional primes only have 8-blades.

At f/1.2 though, it does let in a LOT of light. For any given f-stop, it actually appears to let in 1/3 stop more light than any equivalent aperture on the Sigma 85/1.4. Also has shallower DOF for any given f-stop than the Sigma, hinting at the possibility that it actually just opens up wider at any given f-stop in comparison to the Sigma. These are really its only redeeming factors, IMHO. But it is in sore need of an update.

As often with a special lens with extreme aperture there are shortcomings, rather big ones in consideration of the price tag, but wow, until now many of the shots and that aperture are worth every penny, it makes the Nikon cream machine look like an ice crusher (wide open) (tongue in cheek). I actually only took one single photo above 1.4, for more DOF I think the 70-200 is the way to go indeed. Sometimes a certain love cannot be explained....

I don't think there is that much a difference visually speaking specially with the new 85 1.4 nikon which pixel peepers like Lloyd Chambers hail as the greatest 85mm made (over the canon version). IMO, you have to be looking to notice bokeh differences and that to me is the sign that 1.2 vs 1.4 is a pixel peeper debate. I'd pick the 1.2 over the 1.4 because that's what canon gives me, but I'd much rather have the better lens that only shoots at f/1.4 than the a lens that shoots at f/1.2 but it is not better below that to justfy the size/cost. As the OP said, CA at 1.2 is a huge issue. I'd stop down to 1.4 or 1.8 to try and avoid it. but that's my 2cents. I'm obviously not a person that sweats a third of a stop.

I agree that as far as shallow DOF and bokeh goes, 70-200 is much pleasing because of the compression at the long end.

 

[sarangiman]

I actually only took one single photo above 1.4, for more DOF I think the 70-200 is the way to go indeed. Sometimes a certain love cannot be explained....

Sometimes I like to go smaller than f/1.4 just to ensure I nail focus on off-center compositions, b/c the 5D Mark II AF severely underperforms. And in those cases, I'm stuck with non-circular OOF highlights.

As the OP said, CA at 1.2 is a huge issue. I'd stop down to 1.4 or 1.8 to try and avoid it. but that's my 2cents.

Actually, I've found CA to persist & soften a subject on the side of the frame so much that I have to go to f/2 to equivalent sharpness compared to the Sigma 85/1.4 at f/1.4 (which, to be fair, is more like f/1.6 on the Canon lens).

 

[briansquibb]

I actually only took one single photo above 1.4, for more DOF I think the 70-200 is the way to go indeed. Sometimes a certain love cannot be explained....

Sometimes I like to go smaller than f/1.4 just to ensure I nail focus on off-center compositions, b/c the 5D Mark II AF severely underperforms. And in those cases, I'm stuck with non-circular OOF highlights.

As the OP said, CA at 1.2 is a huge issue. I'd stop down to 1.4 or 1.8 to try and avoid it. but that's my 2cents.

Actually, I've found CA to persist & soften a subject on the side of the frame so much that I have to go to f/2 to equivalent sharpness compared to the Sigma 85/1.4 at f/1.4 (which, to be fair, is more like f/1.6 on the Canon lens).

Breaking news - 5DII AF forces tog to move to Nikon...

 

[sarangiman]

Breaking news - 5DII AF forces tog to move to Nikon...

Not really... I could've just as well upgraded to a 1D series Canon body. But chose to wait for the revamp of the lines first. Which is why today is so exciting

 

[jrista]

D800 has more or less it all that I wanted for a 5D2 replacement. Will I switch? I don't think so. Its to expensive to switch system and in next generation it maybe Canon who has the most interesting Camera.
Also we havent seen the performance of 5D3 yet. Maybe it will beat our expectations?

Probably I stay with 5D2 untill Canon releases a medium resolution FF hopefully >50MP.

Why would you call >50mp "medium resolution"?? That would be the highest resolution ever seen in a DSLR. That would pretty much qualify hands down as high resolution FF in my book...

 

[ScottyP]

D800 has more or less it all that I wanted for a 5D2 replacement. Will I switch? I don't think so. Its to expensive to switch system and in next generation it maybe Canon who has the most interesting Camera.
Also we havent seen the performance of 5D3 yet. Maybe it will beat our expectations?

Probably I stay with 5D2 untill Canon releases a medium resolution FF hopefully >50MP.

Why would you call >50mp "medium resolution"?? That would be the highest resolution ever seen in a DSLR. That would pretty much qualify hands down as high resolution FF in my book...

Cool. Maybe he's logging in from the future, and it's hard to avoid slipping with a few telltale historical anachronisms.

 

[ScottyP]

I figured I'd save everybody some time and valuable internet space by going ahead and opening up this thread.

Beginning tomorrow night all those who are disappointed because Canon did not create a 5DIII to their personal specifications and offer it at $1,500 can lodge their complaints here, on one handy thread, instead of having to start their own personal complaint thread.

By opening this thread now, it will also allow persons to begin the whining before the Mark III is officially announced.

On Saturday, this can be followed by the "Should I buy the Mark III or Wait for the Mark IV?" thread.

Well they did completely ignore my suggestion that it include a cup holder.

 

[SeanL]

If the 5D3 ends up having a 36MP sensor then there will be far too much noise for a FF sensor, but if it's announced that it has a 22MP sensor then the D800 is the way to go because it will offer higher resolution.

There, good thing I preordered my camera..

Wait a minute...

 

[takoman46]

If the 5D3 ends up having a 36MP sensor then there will be far too much noise for a FF sensor, but if it's announced that it has a 22MP sensor then the D800 is the way to go because it will offer higher resolution.

There, good thing I preordered my camera..

Wait a minute...

I don't understand your point about 36mp being to noisy for a FF sensor. Isn't the D800 FF too?

 

[EchoLocation]

I am not a professional and have been wanting to upgrade from a 5DC to a 5DIII for a couple of years now. The 5DII never interested me too much because of the poor AF and it's specialization being weddings/portrait work(where I want a better camera for travel/all around.) I travel a lot and would like something semi quick, with great low light capabilities and not too expensive. 2000 dollars is a lot of money for me, but I finally decided i'd upgrade to the 5DIII if it was around 2500 dollars. Today, I am really disappointed as 3500 dollars is just wayyy too much to feel comfortable spending on a "hobby," especially when I've been wanting the 24-70 2.8 and the price has just nearly doubled. Unfortunately now, for my needs/wants, I think the D700 is the best choice for an upgrade. I can save some money on the body to put towards glass and I know the AF and low light is top notch.
Canon attracted a lot of buyers by having reasonably priced bodies and glass(compared to Nikon,) but that now seems to be changing. I just don't see how the 5DIII is worth 15% more than the D800. I don't care, and in fact, don't want 36mp, but to me, these cameras seem rather equal in different ways and i'm just not understanding the 500 dollar premium by Canon.
I know the 5DIII will be a huge seller and wildly popular, but from my perspective the 5DIII sounds like it fixed the shortcomings of the 5DII, and didn't wildly exceed the previous camera. I don't see why there should be a 700-1000 dollar price increase on this camera.
I think a lot of people who aren't pros will have to think really really hard before spending over 3000 dollars on a camera. I think Canon really missed the boat by not offering this camera at a price closer to the 2500 dollar range. While the extra money is not huge for people making money off this camera, I think that extra money on the price will prohibit a huge number of people from mindlessly clicking "buy" and upgrading(which I would have done at $2500)

 

[BornNearDaBayou]

I am not a professional and have been wanting to upgrade from a 5DC to a 5DIII for a couple of years now. The 5DII never interested me too much because of the poor AF and it's specialization being weddings/portrait work(where I want a better camera for travel/all around.) I travel a lot and would like something semi quick, with great low light capabilities and not too expensive. 2000 dollars is a lot of money for me, but I finally decided i'd upgrade to the 5DIII if it was around 2500 dollars. Today, I am really disappointed as 3500 dollars is just wayyy too much to feel comfortable spending on a "hobby," especially when I've been wanting the 24-70 2.8 and the price has just nearly doubled. Unfortunately now, for my needs/wants, I think the D700 is the best choice for an upgrade. I can save some money on the body to put towards glass and I know the AF and low light is top notch.
Canon attracted a lot of buyers by having reasonably priced bodies and glass(compared to Nikon,) but that now seems to be changing. I just don't see how the 5DIII is worth 15% more than the D800. I don't care, and in fact, don't want 36mp, but to me, these cameras seem rather equal in different ways and i'm just not understanding the 500 dollar premium by Canon.
I know the 5DIII will be a huge seller and wildly popular, but from my perspective the 5DIII sounds like it fixed the shortcomings of the 5DII, and didn't wildly exceed the previous camera. I don't see why there should be a 700-1000 dollar price increase on this camera.
I think a lot of people who aren't pros will have to think really really hard before spending over 3000 dollars on a camera. I think Canon really missed the boat by not offering this camera at a price closer to the 2500 dollar range. While the extra money is not huge for people making money off this camera, I think that extra money on the price will prohibit a huge number of people from mindlessly clicking "buy" and upgrading(which I would have done at $2500)

It's simple: Canon knows a lot of loyal customers invested in their bodies and glass AROUND THE FREAKING PLANET would not jump ship because of an inferior camera. There, I said it. They figure, hey, "these guys wanted 1d AF, half of 1D speed, AND good noise performance under $6,000. Okay, we'll make it. But you will pay almost exactly greater than 1/2 for it, because our flagship is $6,800 right now." It's called good old Japanese greed. The same principle applies to Nikon's flagship 3DX of yesteryear for an astonishing $8,000.

Good old Japanese greed. You gotta love it. For examples, see Toyota Sequioua (spelling??), Honda Passport, or Nissan Armada. Then try to relate it to your next camera purchase. Grossly overpriced. And grossly profit machines. The 1DX....is.....somewhat understandable.....with its new AF and metering......and lower MP......

The 5d3......not so much. i hope its a 26-28MP surprise. They can have $4,000 of my dollars if its 28MP and delivers astonishing ISO performance. I'll even send them sushi and saki so they can smack their ridiculously greedy lips after pigging out on their gawdy sales prices. Good Old Japanese greed. You gotta love it!!