OK, time for new body :)

[Ernest]

I just sold my Canon EOS 400D.
Now i am thinking quite hard about the replacement. I thought about 40/50D and also 1D mkIIN/mkIII. But today i just talked with a Nikon user (he's got D3), he had Canon 1D mkIII before, and told me Nikon D3 is better for couple things (sharper images than 1D mkIII, very good ISO up to 2000, but also quite good on higher values, good AF - 51pts, and so on...). He told me also that 1D mkIII is producing softer images (it's some problem with camera's software). Even mkIIN was producing sharper images than mkIII. In this moment i REALLY don't know what to choose. I realised that buying now 40/50D is a go to nowhere because i will need to change it some day. I need a camera that will last with me for a LONG period. Especially that i am making now more pro photography, i mean i started living from it. 1D mkIII or mkIIN as i am old Canon user, they are standing near me very hard and don't wanna leave my mind alone... OR maybe listen to this guy and go into Nikon?? D700 is really good camera, quite cheap + [Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8] OR [Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 & Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8] (this "body + lens kit" will costs around the same as just body of 1D mkIII and the D3). D700 is a Full Frame! Just as 5D mkII which is totally expensive HD video, slow burst bullshit and costs much more than D700...
D3 is too expensive that's what i know for now - because i do not have any lenses for Nikon, so i need to eventually buy one with the camera if i decide on Nikon.

My mind tell me - Nikon, my heart tell me - Canon :lol:
What you think? I need to make my decision till the end of the year and i am buying new camera, as i don't have any now and need to have!
Cheers

[eob]

Well, Ernie, the difference between professional models of Canon and Nikon is so minimal that it really doesn't matter. It's not nearly as significant as the difference between your old Sony compact and the EOS 400D.

"Sharper images" is a very subjective term. First of all, sharpness depends more on your shooting technique than on the lens/camera. In my personal view, that is of totally no consequence to the quality of photograph. Many photographers use all kinds of techniques - during shooting and in post-production - to lower the sharpness. Many situations require a motion blur for expressing all kinds of ideas. On very rare occasions you will feel the need for a maximum sharpness.

Other parameters you mention (ISO, AF, noise, etc.) change for better from one release of the model to the next. Today Canon may be a leader in one of those criteria, tomorrow Nikon, and day after that Canon may be a leader again. You will never be able to keep up with those changes.

If I were in your position, I wouldn't even think about changing the system from Canon to Nikon. If I was to buy my first camera/system, then perhaps I would consider Nikon. Remember that the best camera in the world is the one you own and know how to use to achieve necessary results. Don't be fooled into thinking that your photos will be better if you buy a different camera - even if that new camera would be positively better than the one you own.

[Ernest]

No no, but see the guy with who i talked about Nikon stuff, had Canon 1D mkIII before he changed it to Nikon D3 - because he realised that there is some software problem with 1D. He did normal test photos, so he saw the difference. He was using something like 4 different copies of 1D mkIII, every has the same issue. And i feel the need for maximum sharpness Really.
I did some photos last time with 1D also. And i also realised today that what he told is right.
Of course situation changes all the time, there are new models each year, but i'm looking on how it is in this moment, because i need to buy a camera now, not in next 12 months or so. So i am interested into the best choice for now
I really don't wanted to change the system, but i started to think deeper about technical details & possibilities of both C & N. Still, i do not have too much of the Canon equipment, so it will not be really much "pain" for me. I just heard too much opinions about new Nikon cameras, and comparing this to everything what Canon makes nowadays (50D, 5DmkII) i see some bigger postives on Nikon side. Still i have to meet with my friend who have D3 to play with this camera, and see if i even like the Nikon's feeling.

But, first of all, let's compare 'pro' models from both Canon & Nikon. I leave D3 because it's too expensive anyways for me (i don't have any Nikon lens so it should be necessary to buy also the lens, so with D3 it will be horrendous money).
Canon 1D mkIII - cropped sensor, problems with sharpness, even mkIIN is sharper. 10fps, VERY good AF, ISO up to 3200 (useful). $3,800

Canon 5D mkII - Full frame, average AF (in darker places - can be really bad), sharp images but depends on lenses, because this body have too much MPix, very slow burst. And for god's sake - why HD movies?? $3,000

Nikon D700 - Full frame(!), very good AF (but in darker places can be a little bit slower), useful ISO up to 2000, 8fps(!), very sharp images(!). $2,500 with battery-grip. (+ some two Sigma's or Tamron's which give me the range of 15/16mm to 200mm for the beginning. It would everything cost the same as the body only of 1D mkIII).
D3 is nearly the same as D700, but bigger & heavier, sensor is VERY similiar. And it have two CF card slots instead of one slot in D700. And cost similiar to 1D mkIII ($3,800 body only).

[habakuk]

I can only add I recently decided to go for the Canon EOS 50D and I did not find anything in the more advanced/expensive models that really would provide me with anything that is worth the money. Imho of course. The 50D is a very handsome, clever and well done piece of photo technology. I am not a techno fuzzy, so I can't say much about the details. Only that I love to have the 15 MP at hand, being able to switch to 7 and even less for moments where I know I won't be producing 160x120cm posters...

Going for anything beyond that, would have made me buy all new lenses and stuff. So, the 50D was the biggest jump I could reasonably argue for. And I think the switch was very nice. I only sometimes miss the tiny size and light weight of the EOS 350D...

cheers
®

[Ernest]

Well, 50D is surely quite ok camera. But it's crop. I don't like x1.6 too much. I'd love to own fast FF camera with great AF, that's why i choosed D700.
If the sensor size wasn't very big issue for me, i would also get 50D. But it's actually more "hobby" camera, than working camera. Sure it's nice to have it as a backup body for your work, and someday i will get another body (cropped) as a backup, especially to use with telephoto lenses. But my flagship would be Full frame.
Cheers!

[habakuk]

I'd say you are a victim of the advertising departments if you think that only fullframe chip cameras are professional cameras...


cheers
®

[Ernest]

I don't think so... If you don't see the difference between crop & ff then it's no more to say in this subject
Ok maybe in different way... Tell this to 1298798479 professional photojournalists & studio-photographers. Why they are going for BETTER cameras? They should work on less-funcional bodies

[habakuk]

I see the difference, of course. However, it's like with the tooth brush... 95% of the real effect comes from the proper craft, the brushing technique. The other 5% is the effect of the toothpaste. The advertising then states: the new toothpaste is 25% better than the old one. Which is true, maybe. But it's 25% of 5%... and you gonna pay a lot more for that AND you need to pay really good, expensive lenses to actually enjoy those 1.25%... AND you need to produce HUGE prints to see a substantial difference from the better lpi etc.

The technology aspect in photography is imho totally overrated.

cheers
®

[Ernest]

It's overrated somehow, but still, i see big difference in crop and in FF even on lcd. The feeling, image plasticity, tones, and so on...

[eob]

Ernie, there's no doubt that full frame format gives you better tonality, color and sharpness, but that matters mainly to perfectionists and purely technical photographers. For weddings, photojournalism and even catalog work, the difference in quality is negligible, while the difference in costs (body AND lenses) and in slower performance is a substantial one.

I know you are into the kind of work that really does not need full frame and at the same time what you really need is a more speedy camera. All "crop" cameras perform much faster than any full framer - even the most expensive one. It surely would be nice to have a full-frame camera, but I think that in your situation it just would be a waste of money. Especially, that you probably have access to a full-frame EOS at work...

[Ernest]

At work i have 1D mkIII, it's APS-H crop - x1.3
But at my work i will do some weddings + studio, so these ARE subjects for which the FF camera is perfect. See how many wedding photographers use even old 5D. I would say that full frame is made for this kind of photography. Yes it is a big money spending, but this camera will work on it.For photojournalism it's also great camera, it have great AF, 8fps, great ISO-control...

[jlmoriarty]

"The technology aspect in photography is imho totally overrated."
cheers"®

A sentiment with which I totally agree.

I recall, many years ago — maybe back in the early 70s — that two guys took disposable cameras, no, brownies (now I can't remember), anyhow something *really* basic and traveled across country. The wonderful results became a book. A successful one as I recall, although certain recreational opportunities of the time have dimmed my memory somewhat of those turbulent days. Anyhow you get my point. Very low tech was trumped by skill.

Just before taking a difficult final exam a teacher of mine announced, "Gentlemen, it is working within limits that the genius reveals himself."

John