Should I switch?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dervical, Oct 17, 2004.

  1. Dervical

    Dervical Guest

    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
     
    Dervical, Oct 17, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Oct 17, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dervical

    GT40 Guest

    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, (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
     
    GT40, Oct 17, 2004
    #3
  4. Dervical

    Guest

    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 don't really understand this. Indpendent tests (eg
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmkii/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.
     
    , Oct 17, 2004
    #4
  5. Dervical

    Matt Ion Guest

    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.
     
    Matt Ion, Oct 17, 2004
    #5
  6. Dervical

    Guest

    Matt Ion <> 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.
     
    , Oct 17, 2004
    #6
  7. "Matt Ion" <> 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.
     
    Michael A. Covington, Oct 17, 2004
    #7
  8. 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
     
    Michael A. Covington, Oct 17, 2004
    #8
  9. Dervical

    GT40 Guest

    On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:06:13 GMT, Matt Ion <>
    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.
     
    GT40, Oct 17, 2004
    #9
  10. << 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
     
    Fred McKenzie, Oct 17, 2004
    #10
  11. Dervical

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Michael A. Covington wrote:

    > 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.


    Actually the 18-55 lens is very adequate as a 3x zoom. I and others
    have gotten good results considering it is a $100 lens.

    Phil
     
    Phil Wheeler, Oct 17, 2004
    #11
  12. Dervical

    GT40 Guest

    On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 11:33:34 -0400, "Michael A. Covington"
    <> wrote:

    >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?


    Got an extra $80k with nothing to do? You can order a 1200mm lens
    from Canon :)
     
    GT40, Oct 17, 2004
    #12
  13. In article <>,
    (Dervical) writes:

    >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.


    My experience is that offered prices for used photographic
    equipment [exceptions(?): Hasselblad and Leica] are disappointing.

    We are in an interesting photographic market. Consumer grade
    digital camera capabilities are improving rapidly. Months from
    now, you might get the same capabilities in a lower grade camera
    for much less money.

    IMO keeping your current equipment combined with judicious
    shopping/waiting is the best strategy.

    An unbidden comment: I am not a fan of on-digital-camera zoom --
    optical zoom or digital zoom. Inexpensive zoom lenses revolutionized
    slide film photography -- you could crop when you took the picture.
    But digital photography offers the option for computer postprocessing
    -- cropping when you take the picture is not necessary.

    IMO a good resolution point-and-shoot digital camera combined
    with computer postprocessing offers cost and/or weight advantages
    over digital zoom/optical zoom digital cameras.

    "All Rights Reserved"?
    If I 'right' must I reserve?

    I gut know problems.
    Other people gut problems.
    00: 18+ _8 02 03/35 06 09

    Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
    --
    Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
    Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
    Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg
     
    Richard Ballard, Oct 17, 2004
    #13
  14. Dervical

    Skip M Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Matt Ion <> 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.


    That's ok, the Canon f1.0 50mm is out of production, now, any way, leaving
    them with the 85mm f1.2 as their fastest lens.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Oct 17, 2004
    #14
  15. (Dervical) writes:

    > 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.


    That's a question only you can answer. After years of using one brand, will
    the switch make you less competent as you relearn another user interface
    and control system? If so, how long to regain your competence. My
    suggestion is, if you live somewhere near a rental outlet, rent a Canon for
    a week or a weekend, depending on your budget, and see who you like the new
    body and controls.
    --
    Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
    Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
    http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.
     
    Phil Stripling, Oct 17, 2004
    #15
  16. Dervical

    Matt Ion Guest

    GT40 wrote:

    > On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:06:13 GMT, Matt Ion <>
    > 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.


    The point remains, the EOS design uses a wider lens mount that allows
    for the design and use of faster lenses.
     
    Matt Ion, Oct 17, 2004
    #16
  17. Dervical

    Matt Ion Guest

    Michael A. Covington wrote:


    > 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?


    Actually, I've found the Digital Rebel's 18-55mm zoom to be a very good
    lens, for what it is (a low-end bundled kit lens). It's worlds better
    than the sloppy, clunky 28-90mm that came with my RebelG film body.
     
    Matt Ion, Oct 17, 2004
    #17
  18. Dervical

    Matt Ion Guest

    Phil Stripling wrote:

    > (Dervical) writes:
    >
    >
    >>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.

    >
    >
    > That's a question only you can answer. After years of using one brand, will
    > the switch make you less competent as you relearn another user interface
    > and control system? If so, how long to regain your competence. My
    > suggestion is, if you live somewhere near a rental outlet, rent a Canon for
    > a week or a weekend, depending on your budget, and see who you like the new
    > body and controls.


    Going from film to digital, the only part of the interface that's going
    to be familiar is the control dial and the shutter button anyway,
    regardless of brand.
     
    Matt Ion, Oct 17, 2004
    #18
  19. I have no doubt that when Nikon finally introduces a full-frame
    digital that it will be better than the Canon - in many ways. However,
    right now, I think that Nikon is getting stomped.

    I'm an amateur photographer who shoots 35mm through 8x10" and own an
    F4. I still shoot only film, so I can wait until Nikon introduces a
    pro camera with a full-frame imager for about $3,000. I thought of
    selling my nikon stuff, but what would I get? I priced my stuff out
    and might get $1,500 for what I payed over $6,000 for. That wouldn't
    even scratch at the 1DS. So, I'll sit tight.

    If I were in your shoes, I'd ebay my film stuff quickly and order a
    1DS Mark II, and a backup. Then I'd off the Nikon digital as you
    pickup the new bodies and glass. As a pro, I don't think you can let
    your competition get the upper hand with better equipment and
    resulting images.

    The sensor in the D2X is supposedly made by Sony, and has a very high
    density factor. Considering that Sony has noise issues with its 8MP
    sensor on consumer digicams, I'd think that the D2X will have similar
    issues. You could wait to see what the reviews say, but if they aren't
    flattering, you'll be that much further behind.
     
    George Stewart, Oct 17, 2004
    #19
  20. Matt Ion <> writes:

    > Going from film to digital, the only part of the interface that's going
    > to be familiar is the control dial and the shutter button anyway,
    > regardless of brand.


    Not so. The consumer digital Nikon is built on the N80, which I use. Going
    from an N80 to that digital camera won't mean re-learning the controls
    which are common -- and there are many.
    --
    Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
    Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
    http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.
     
    Phil Stripling, Oct 17, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Raymond Munyan
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,346
    =?Windows-1252?Q?Frisbee=AE?=
    Dec 1, 2004
  2. Au79

    Linux: should you make the switch

    Au79, Nov 14, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    499
    J.S.Fronyio
    Jun 24, 2007
  3. Jamie Kahn Genet

    Should I switch from Actrix to Worldnet?

    Jamie Kahn Genet, Oct 9, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    836
    Jamie Kahn Genet
    Oct 12, 2007
  4. chris
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    441
    chris
    May 17, 2004
  5. RichA

    Nikon should (should have) made the D9300 40MP

    RichA, May 16, 2014, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    57
    Views:
    1,026
    PeterN
    May 23, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page