Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Should I switch?

Reply
Thread Tools

Should I switch?

 
 
Dervical
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2004
OK, here my situation. I am asking a serious query and would appreciate some
serious answers, this is not an attempt to start a brand war, but I am aware
that it might happen. Feel free to email me your answers to hopefully avoid
said war.

First, I shoot Nikon, always have. When I bought my first film body, F5, I
thought it felt more comfortable in my hands, and just liked it better, so I
went with Nikon(over Canon). I currently have 2 F5's and a D2h. I was only
shooting film for one company I freelance for, everybody else I shoot for
already went completely digital. The last remaining holdout is now also
completely digital, regulating my F5's to dust collectors. I have not shot a
roll of film for myself personally in about 3 years. Basically, I have
equipment that will not be used, my F5's, the flashes that are not dx, certain
lenses, etc. I have compared the output of the newer canon digitals, the 20D
and the 1D mark II. They simply blow the D2h away, especially when using a
high iso. I shoot 70-80% sports, on almost every level, and do a lot of high
iso shooting, so this is a major concern for me. I am very unhappy with the
quality, in this situation, of my D2h. I think it rocks when there is enough
light and I can shoot at iso 200-400. I really like this camera, the way it
handles and just fits in my hand, it is a joy to use. The bottom line though,
is the camera is just not getting the job done in certain situation. If I just
did studio work, I would have bought a D1x.

That background brings me to my question, do I make the switch to canon, now
that I am completely digital? I will not lose a lot of money, considering I
can sell the film equipment that I will not use and easily make up the
difference I am going to encounter to get the equivalent canon equipment.

Second choice is to wait for the D2x, and hope it proves a better low light
camera. The problem with that is once I buy it, I will be in the same boat as
when I was using film equipment. I would not switch because it would entail
too much loss of money. I have the opportunity due to the fact that I can sell
my film stuff. I couldn't do this earlier, because I was not going out and
buying both Canon film and digital bodies.

Help me, what would you do?

Mike Lynch
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gary Eickmeier
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2004
I think it is obvious that you will be happier with the Canon. I don't
know why they seem to have such a lock on the noise issue, but they sure
do a great job of reducing noise at all ISOs. And they have a series of
great lenses, and cameras at all levels. So hey.

Gary Eickmeier

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
GT40
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2004
Take this for what it is, but most professional sports and newspaper
photographers are switching to Canon. There is an interesting thread
on this same subject on www.sportsshooter.com


On 17 Oct 2004 13:30:57 GMT, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Dervical) wrote:

>OK, here my situation. I am asking a serious query and would appreciate some
>serious answers, this is not an attempt to start a brand war, but I am aware
>that it might happen. Feel free to email me your answers to hopefully avoid
>said war.
>
>First, I shoot Nikon, always have. When I bought my first film body, F5, I
>thought it felt more comfortable in my hands, and just liked it better, so I
>went with Nikon(over Canon). I currently have 2 F5's and a D2h. I was only
>shooting film for one company I freelance for, everybody else I shoot for
>already went completely digital. The last remaining holdout is now also
>completely digital, regulating my F5's to dust collectors. I have not shot a
>roll of film for myself personally in about 3 years. Basically, I have
>equipment that will not be used, my F5's, the flashes that are not dx, certain
>lenses, etc. I have compared the output of the newer canon digitals, the 20D
>and the 1D mark II. They simply blow the D2h away, especially when using a
>high iso. I shoot 70-80% sports, on almost every level, and do a lot of high
>iso shooting, so this is a major concern for me. I am very unhappy with the
>quality, in this situation, of my D2h. I think it rocks when there is enough
>light and I can shoot at iso 200-400. I really like this camera, the way it
>handles and just fits in my hand, it is a joy to use. The bottom line though,
>is the camera is just not getting the job done in certain situation. If I just
>did studio work, I would have bought a D1x.
>
>That background brings me to my question, do I make the switch to canon, now
>that I am completely digital? I will not lose a lot of money, considering I
>can sell the film equipment that I will not use and easily make up the
>difference I am going to encounter to get the equivalent canon equipment.
>
>Second choice is to wait for the D2x, and hope it proves a better low light
>camera. The problem with that is once I buy it, I will be in the same boat as
>when I was using film equipment. I would not switch because it would entail
>too much loss of money. I have the opportunity due to the fact that I can sell
>my film stuff. I couldn't do this earlier, because I was not going out and
>buying both Canon film and digital bodies.
>
>Help me, what would you do?
>
>Mike Lynch


 
Reply With Quote
 
andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2004
Dervical <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> OK, here my situation. I am asking a serious query and would appreciate some
> serious answers, this is not an attempt to start a brand war, but I am aware
> that it might happen. Feel free to email me your answers to hopefully avoid
> said war.


> First, I shoot Nikon, always have. When I bought my first film
> body, F5, I thought it felt more comfortable in my hands, and just
> liked it better, so I went with Nikon(over Canon). I currently have
> 2 F5's and a D2h. I was only shooting film for one company I
> freelance for, everybody else I shoot for already went completely
> digital. The last remaining holdout is now also completely digital,
> regulating my F5's to dust collectors. I have not shot a roll of
> film for myself personally in about 3 years. Basically, I have
> equipment that will not be used, my F5's, the flashes that are not
> dx, certain lenses, etc. I have compared the output of the newer
> canon digitals, the 20D and the 1D mark II. They simply blow the
> D2h away, especially when using a high iso.


I don't really understand this. Indpendent tests (eg
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/cano...kii/page18.asp) show the
EOS-1D mk II to have less noise than the D2H at higher ISO, but only
slightly so. I'm surprised it's so noticeable.

Andrew.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Matt Ion
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2004
Dervical wrote:

> I shoot 70-80% sports, on almost every level, and do a lot of high
> iso shooting, so this is a major concern for me.


I think this is the key, not just for the noise issue, but for that fact
that Canon's autofocus *system* has some notable advantages over Nikon's.

For one, Canon's AF lenses all have the AF motors built into the lenses,
which makes for faster response time. Also, Canon's USM (Ultrasonic
Motor) AF lenses: while I've not tried one myself, I hear nothing but
raves about how fast (focus speed) and quiet they are.

Second, the EOS lens mount was originally designed significantly larger
than most other lens mounts at the time, for the purpose of making
faster lenses possible (I believe there's an f/0.8 50mm available). The
availability of faster lenses should be important to your work.

Third, Canon's predictive servo AF is excellent for high-speed sports
work: I've done a good bit of stock-car photography in the past with my
lowly Canon RebelG (the early model with only 5 AF points) and the
predictive AF is a thing of beauty. I've never used a Nikon AF camera
(other than briefly in a camera store many years ago) so I can't give
you a valid comparison, I can only tell you that Canon's AF system is
really, really good for sports work.

Since this is your livelihood and you're likely to be dropping big bucks
into it over time, I'd suggest perhaps first borrowing or renting any
equipment you're planning on buying, making sure you're comforable with
it, that it does what you want and provides results you're happy with.
Any decent professional camera shop should be amenable to this, either
providing rental gear, or perhaps letting you take a demo model over the
weekend.
 
Reply With Quote
 
andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2004
Matt Ion <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Second, the EOS lens mount was originally designed significantly
> larger than most other lens mounts at the time, for the purpose of
> making faster lenses possible (I believe there's an f/0.8 50mm
> available). The availability of faster lenses should be important to
> your work.


For sports? I doubt it -- the f/2 and f/2.8 telephoto lenses
available from the two manufacturers are fairly similar. I'll grant
you that Nikon can't manage better than f/1.2, but lenses that fast
are extremely rare anyway.

Andrew.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Michael A. Covington
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2004
"Matt Ion" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:FTvcd.741055$M95.585198@pd7tw1no...

> For one, Canon's AF lenses all have the AF motors built into the lenses,
> which makes for faster response time.


Hmmm... I would think that this also moves a failure-prone component into
the lens, so that if it fails, you can use another lens. If so, good move.




 
Reply With Quote
 
Michael A. Covington
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2004
I am facing a similar dilemma, but the application involves a lot of
astrophotography.

The Nikon D70, Digital Rebel, and EOS 10D perform well enough, in long
exposures, to be usable for astronomy. Of these, the D70 is somewhat worse
than the Canons.

But I have invested very heavily in Nikon film cameras and lenses...

But Digital Rebels are cheap, and this Christmas, they're going to be in all
the department stores...

I hear that the zoom lens that comes with the Digital Rebel isn't very good.
(It's not used for astronomy, of course; I'd get a telescope adapter for
that. But I also want to do general picture-taking.) Comments and advice
on this, anyone?

Also, Hutech (www.hutech.com I think) is selling Digital Rebels with the
infrared filter modified to admit more deep-red light, for photographing
nebulae. In essence they convert it from having the response of Fuji slide
film (as it does out of the box) to having a response more like Elite Chrome
200. They say this doesn't throw off the color balance noticeably.

Thoughts, anyone?


--
Clear skies,

Michael A. Covington
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html


 
Reply With Quote
 
GT40
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2004
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:06:13 GMT, Matt Ion <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Dervical wrote:
>
>> I shoot 70-80% sports, on almost every level, and do a lot of high
>> iso shooting, so this is a major concern for me.

>
>I think this is the key, not just for the noise issue, but for that fact
>that Canon's autofocus *system* has some notable advantages over Nikon's.
>
>For one, Canon's AF lenses all have the AF motors built into the lenses,
>which makes for faster response time. Also, Canon's USM (Ultrasonic
>Motor) AF lenses: while I've not tried one myself, I hear nothing but
>raves about how fast (focus speed) and quiet they are.
>
>Second, the EOS lens mount was originally designed significantly larger
>than most other lens mounts at the time, for the purpose of making
>faster lenses possible (I believe there's an f/0.8 50mm available). The
>availability of faster lenses should be important to your work.


Canon used to make a 50mm 1.0 lens, but they don't anymore, they also
made a 200 1.8 but not anymore.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Fred McKenzie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2004
<< First, I shoot Nikon, always have. >>

<< I shoot 70-80% sports, on almost every level, >>

Mike-

You should consider Matt's suggestion to rent the candidate equipment to check
it out, rather than just taking our word.

Then, I think you should reconsider what you want. It seems to me that you use
your camera as a Pro, but are only looking at "advanced amateur" equipment.
Both Nikon (Kodak) and Canon have bodies with full-frame sensors that would be
better for Pro work. The Kodak/Nikon may let you use much of your existing
peripherals. However, the next generation of the Canon (1Ds Mark II) was
recently announced.

Yes, both options are expensive, but wasn't your Nikon more expensive than the
competition at the time you bought it?

Fred

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
gems should *not be case sensitive.. or should they? botp Ruby 6 10-04-2010 11:42 PM
What the FAQs should and should not contain Josef 'Jupp' SCHUGT Ruby 0 08-19-2005 01:46 PM
Should I Bridge? =?Utf-8?B?Zmx1ZmZ5IHRoZSB3b25kZXIga2l0dGVu?= Wireless Networking 1 07-21-2005 01:25 AM
taking 70-290 should i be scared? What should i expect??? Raymond Munyan MCSE 31 12-01-2004 02:34 PM
How should control images should be handled? ~~~ .NET Ed ~~~ ASP .Net Building Controls 1 11-03-2004 12:30 PM



Advertisments