Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 76,001
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
7D durability, its quite insane !
Body pondering
- Thread starter ElDude
- Start date
I think Nikon can get away with it. If they have a UBER high MP count camera like the D800 and then a lower MP count camera which is rumoured to be in the D600 then I don't see much of a problem. People who want high MP will buy D800 and others will save some cash and get the D600.
Where do Canon go though to separate the range and not cannibalise sales of 1 of their flagship cameras.
On topic though, i think the dynamic range and colour depth of Nikon/Sony sensors is really nice. They're a lot more forgiving in post from my experience and Dodging/Burning yields better results. Coming back to Canon on a 5Dii from a A77 I realise i was quite spoiled with DR/CD...but not with ISO...
Last edited:
It gets a lot harder when having to carry all your kit on your back and only store it when it's at home...
The "easy" thing about wedding photography is you don't have to worry about weight or how many lenses you have. Not quite so difficult when you're already carrying 10-15kg on your back and know that if your kit gets wet it could be days before you can dry it out a bit.
On the other hand you have to deal with people... I hate people...
If only Canon released a 7D that was significantly smaller, with a more modern sensor I would be all over it...
I don't really want to argue but thought I would point out somethings after rechecking some websites to get my facts straight.
the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF-S G is much sharper than the canon, has much less vignetting (1.5 stops vs 3 ! stops wide open) and has far, far nicer Bokeh, it is also much better made. Similarly, The Nikon 85mm f/1.8G is much sharper than the Canon, and has better Bokeh.
The 28mm f/1.8 is a Full frame lens of very high quality that has only just been released = higher prices. The 35mm f/1.8 is a DX/APS-C consumer lens. Compared to the canon 28mm f/1.8, there is just no comparison at all with the image quality, the Canon version is pitiful, so bad it should be removed from the lineup, unless Canon intend for it to be used as a paper weight. On FF, the extreme corners of the Nikon is sharper than the very center of the Canon!
What makes a better comparison is the new Canon 24mm and 28mm f/2.8 IS lenses, at least they compete together optically. They are much the same prices, the Canon are a little more but come with IS. However, the Canon lenses are 1 & 1/3rd stop slower than the Nikon. The Nikon 28mm f/1.8 is an absolute bargain compared to these new Canon primes.
So you see, you have to be careful with these comparisons, Nikon is clearly ahead here.
Oh I agree, however for me the majority of lenses I have looked at have been more expensive on the Nikon system, except the ones ones Nikon don't have.
Canon do seem to have significantly more "prosumer" lenses, an area Nikon didn't seem to want to compete in, with either the basic lenses or the Professional series, very little in between.
Due to be... but I'm buying now (and Canon have had their 300 f/4 IS out for almost 15 years).
The 70-300 VR is as good as the 70-300 f/4-5.6. The 70-300L is the next step up, although like most of the +100mm area they have significantly more choice than Nikon.
For example:
Canon EF 70-200mm f4L USM £500
Canon EF 70-200mm f4L IS USM £900
Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L USM £980
Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II £1800
Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM £350
Canon EF 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 DO IS USM £1000
Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III (non USM) £200
Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 USM III £200
Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6L IS USM £1150
Nikon have
Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II £1600
Nikon AF-S VR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED £1700
Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR £400
There are obviously gaps in both systems (like Canon not having a 200-400 and Nikon not having an 800 or the mythical 1200) but overall Canon are normally seen as the better option for longer lens choice.
As for the 80-200 f/2.8. I know they were the precursor to the 70-200 f/2.8 they have now, however I can't find it on Nikons site (sure I saw it the other day...) and none of the big stores I just looked at actually sell it. It is also not going to match the £500 of the 70-200 f/4.
I'd disagree a bit with that, although it's not as well built as the Nikon it is leagues ahead of the third party options in this sector. The point was however that I'm just grumpy because Nikon don't make the lenses I currently rely on with Canon, making any jump significantly harder to justify...
(Yes I am taking your advice from the other thread, but will probably end up with the 70-300 f/4.5-5-6 rather than a used 70-200 f/2.8 because the latter is just too big to justify for travelling, whereas the 70-200 f/4 is perfect with a TC.)
Quite a lot to answer here so here a few random points, in no real order.
Look at reviews of the Nikon 70-300VR and the Canon 70-300L, the Nikon is basically the same lens but far far cheaper, there is very little IQ difference.
Canon do have a huge lineup of lenses and tend to update them more rapidly, no one really disagrees with that. What people don't realize is the total lineup of Nikon lenses is actually larger than canon, this is primarily because Nikon has kept the same mount for well over 50 years allowing older designs to still function. Nikon still manufactures as news and sells as new many older lenses. As I said, you can still buy a brand new 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D, you can also buy a manual focus 50mm f/1.2, even the older 50mm AF-D lens you can buy new. Your typical high street shop and small online store wont stock such lenses, bigger more specialist websites do. i can buy such lenses quite easily. I purchased my 80-00mm f/2.8 new about 4 years ago. I don't know what you mean about it not matching the Canon 70-200 f/4.0, the Nikon 80-200 cost me about 550 quid and is every bit as sharp as the newer 70-200 VR version. Actually, I upgraded the 80-200 to the 70-200VRI, but the 70-200 is not as sharp a 200mm as the 80-200 and I am really annoyed I swapped these lenses over. It is of course a little heavier.
There is next to no difference in the long lens line up between the 2 companies. No one will choose a Canon setup because they want the Canon 400mm or 600mm etc. The lenses are basically identical and matched at all focus lengths. Yes Canon have an 800mm f/5.6, Nikon used to have such a lens but stopped production because there was so little demand It was only in 2005 when Nikon stopped production. But hang on, Nikon will be releasing a new 800mm f/5.6 in the next months,
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/07/05/nikon-to-announce-a-new-af-s-800mm-f5-6-vr-lens.aspx/
What is starting to make people choose a nikon setup over a Canon is the high Canon prices of their long lenses:
Canon 600mm f/4 £10999.00
Nikon AF-S 600mm f/4G ED VR £6949.0
Canon 500mm f4L IS II USM £8449.00
Nikon AF-S 500mm f/4G ED VR £5864.99
Canon EF 400mm f2.8L IS II USM £8795.00
Nikon AF-S 400mm f/2.8G ED VR £6629.00
Canon EF 300mm f2.8L IS II USM £5399.00
Nikon AF-S 300mm f/2.8 G ED VR II £3999.95
Canon EF 200mm f2.0 L IS USM £4799.00
Nikon AF-S 200mm f/2G ED VR II £4299.00
Heck, buy 1 or 2 Nikon long lenses and you get a Nikon D4 "for free" relative to investing in Canon.
The Nikon 500mm f/4 VR is the lens I will buy in the next years, that is the best part of an extra 3 grand, the cost of of a D800 and a nice 28mm prime.
5-7 years ago and things were very different. Many of Nikon's lenses were getting old and they didn't have AF primes like the 35mm f/1.4, their sensor were also struggling to keep up with Canon. Now things have really changed. The lens lineup is almost entirely revamped at most of the critical places, a couple missing pro lenses which will definitely be released in the next years or so (800mm f/5.6 as an example), 80-400 replacement has had endless patents, expected at photokina.
There is a need for some intermediate prosumer lenses, notably a 70-200 f/4.0 to have as a checkbox lens. Some more DX wide primes, but even here Nikon is ahead of Canon in serving crop camera users (where is the Canon 35mm EF-S, Canon users have a lack luster f/2.0 version, a very good but very expensive f/1.4 or have to buy a Sigma, the sigma is much worse than the Nikon optically). The crop lens line up on both systems needs a lot of new additions, 16mm prime, something like a 16-80mm f/4 (there is a rumor Nikon will release such a lens this year).
What Nikon doesn't need is a load of VR and Non-VR versions of lenses, extortionately prices DO lenses, etc. I see no need for Canon's choices here.
Nikon also need to update their PC/TS lenses and get a 17mm f/4 TS like the canon (again, there are patents and strong rumors)
Last edited:
the Problem is the D600 would compete very well against the Canon 5DMKIII, perhaps a slightly better sensor for slightly worse AF. The kicker is it could be 40-50% the price of the 5DMKIII.
Canon should have put the sensor in the 1D-X into the 5DMKIII instead of purposely crippling it with a a sensor that is not keeping up. The same old 5dMKII sensor or the 5dMKIII sensor could then be used in a lower end product to compete against the D600. Something like a 7D body and AF system with 5dMKIII sensor.
That would create a nice line of 3 bodies:
Pro body with built in grip, insane FPS, buffering, ultimate AF, weather sealing, pro use, built like a tank, best battery life. Sports, photojournalism, expedition, some wedding
top prosumer body 5dMKIII, the same sensor at the 1d-X, smaller body, not so fast, not as strong or weather sealed, no built in grip. Wedding photographers lens. Perhaps orientated towards video as well.
7dMKII/Nikon D600 equivalent: entry level FF, Inferior sensor to the above, slightly pulled back AF performance. Smaller body, not so well weather sealed.
All this Canon bashing...it's just a tool for the job
5D3 - Amazing
35L - Amazing
85L - Amazing
All I need.
I pretty much ignore everything else these days, I am lucky that i am in a position to fund my kit from my work so I am not really concerned about what replaces the 60D, it is of no consequence to me. What I have been waiting for in the form of the 5D3 has materialised so that's that. Lenses wise I am pretty much covered there as well. They do a good job and even if the Nikon 24-70 is better, so what? I am primarily a prime shooter and already got a sharp copy of a 24-70 so even the Canon's mk2 effort doesn't mean much to me either, nor do the 70-200 variants.
I am past caring about what the other side of the fence are getting up to, more concentrating on what I can do with what I am given. And on that front, it aren't too bad
Clearly, the only difference between 1 photographer with top end Canon gear and another with top end Nikon is purely the skill of the photographer, which has a much larger impact than the small technical differences.
I don't really want to argue but thought I would point out somethings after rechecking some websites to get my facts straight.
the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF-S G is much sharper than the canon, has much less vignetting (1.5 stops vs 3 ! stops wide open) and has far, far nicer Bokeh, it is also much better made. Similarly, The Nikon 85mm f/1.8G is much sharper than the Canon, and has better Bokeh.
The 28mm f/1.8 is a Full frame lens of very high quality that has only just been released = higher prices. The 35mm f/1.8 is a DX/APS-C consumer lens. Compared to the canon 28mm f/1.8, there is just no comparison at all with the image quality, the Canon version is pitiful, so bad it should be removed from the lineup, unless Canon intend for it to be used as a paper weight. On FF, the extreme corners of the Nikon is sharper than the very center of the Canon!
What makes a better comparison is the new Canon 24mm and 28mm f/2.8 IS lenses, at least they compete together optically. They are much the same prices, the Canon are a little more but come with IS. However, the Canon lenses are 1 & 1/3rd stop slower than the Nikon. The Nikon 28mm f/1.8 is an absolute bargain compared to these new Canon primes.
So you see, you have to be careful with these comparisons, Nikon is clearly ahead here.
Quite a lot to answer here so here a few random points, in no real order.
Look at reviews of the Nikon 70-300VR and the Canon 70-300L, the Nikon is basically the same lens but far far cheaper, there is very little IQ difference.
Canon do have a huge lineup of lenses and tend to update them more rapidly, no one really disagrees with that. What people don't realize is the total lineup of Nikon lenses is actually larger than canon, this is primarily because Nikon has kept the same mount for well over 50 years allowing older designs to still function. Nikon still manufactures as news and sells as new many older lenses. As I said, you can still buy a brand new 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D, you can also buy a manual focus 50mm f/1.2, even the older 50mm AF-D lens you can buy new. Your typical high street shop and small online store wont stock such lenses, bigger more specialist websites do. i can buy such lenses quite easily. I purchased my 80-00mm f/2.8 new about 4 years ago. I don't know what you mean about it not matching the Canon 70-200 f/4.0, the Nikon 80-200 cost me about 550 quid and is every bit as sharp as the newer 70-200 VR version. Actually, I upgraded the 80-200 to the 70-200VRI, but the 70-200 is not as sharp a 200mm as the 80-200 and I am really annoyed I swapped these lenses over. It is of course a little heavier.
There is next to no difference in the long lens line up between the 2 companies. No one will choose a Canon setup because they want the Canon 400mm or 600mm etc. The lenses are basically identical and matched at all focus lengths. Yes Canon have an 800mm f/5.6, Nikon used to have such a lens but stopped production because there was so little demand It was only in 2005 when Nikon stopped production. But hang on, Nikon will be releasing a new 800mm f/5.6 in the next months,
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/07/05/nikon-to-announce-a-new-af-s-800mm-f5-6-vr-lens.aspx/
What is starting to make people choose a nikon setup over a Canon is the high Canon prices of their long lenses:
Canon 600mm f/4 £10999.00
Nikon AF-S 600mm f/4G ED VR £6949.0
Canon 500mm f4L IS II USM £8449.00
Nikon AF-S 500mm f/4G ED VR £5864.99
Canon EF 400mm f2.8L IS II USM £8795.00
Nikon AF-S 400mm f/2.8G ED VR £6629.00
Canon EF 300mm f2.8L IS II USM £5399.00
Nikon AF-S 300mm f/2.8 G ED VR II £3999.95
Canon EF 200mm f2.0 L IS USM £4799.00
Nikon AF-S 200mm f/2G ED VR II £4299.00
Heck, buy 1 or 2 Nikon long lenses and you get a Nikon D4 "for free" relative to investing in Canon.
The Nikon 500mm f/4 VR is the lens I will buy in the next years, that is the best part of an extra 3 grand, the cost of of a D800 and a nice 28mm prime.
5-7 years ago and things were very different. Many of Nikon's lenses were getting old and they didn't have AF primes like the 35mm f/1.4, their sensor were also struggling to keep up with Canon. Now things have really changed. The lens lineup is almost entirely revamped at most of the critical places, a couple missing pro lenses which will definitely be released in the next years or so (800mm f/5.6 as an example), 80-400 replacement has had endless patents, expected at photokina.
There is a need for some intermediate prosumer lenses, notably a 70-200 f/4.0 to have as a checkbox lens. Some more DX wide primes, but even here Nikon is ahead of Canon in serving crop camera users (where is the Canon 35mm EF-S, Canon users have a lack luster f/2.0 version, a very good but very expensive f/1.4 or have to buy a Sigma, the sigma is much worse than the Nikon optically). The crop lens line up on both systems needs a lot of new additions, 16mm prime, something like a 16-80mm f/4 (there is a rumor Nikon will release such a lens this year).
What Nikon doesn't need is a load of VR and Non-VR versions of lenses, extortionately prices DO lenses, etc. I see no need for Canon's choices here.
Nikon also need to update their PC/TS lenses and get a 17mm f/4 TS like the canon (again, there are patents and strong rumors)
Well we've obviously been reading different reviews is all I can say. As for the Nikon 70-300 being the same as the 70-300L, well, aside from the slightly faster glass, the weather sealing, the much better build and the faster focus it's also tests sharper than both the Canon 70-300 IS, Nikon 70-300 VR and Tamron 70-300 VC (which incidentally seems be be the better buy of the two on the Nikon mount)... I have to admit I don't "get" the 70-300L when it was released either however since then the threads on places like TP really show why it was released, faster, sharper, better, weather proofed telephoto lens. If you use the 70-200 f/4 with a TC you may as well get the 70-300L instead (although you will lose a little bit of light at the bottom end).
As for the 80-200 f/2.8, it was discontinued a year or two ago, the only place I could find one new was from a third party seller on the Jungle place. And as for the older Nikon lenses, unfortunately technology has moved on, a lot are still nice, however a lot are now duds, including a number that were always seen as superb (this isn't just a Nikon problem...) And there was you slating the 28 f/1.8, which at the centre out resolves the 5D II sensor... (although I'll admit the edges leave things to be desired, but then so does the Sigma 30mm f/1.4).
Gotta admit I didn't realise the Mk2 500 and 600mm were so expensive, the Mk1's were around £4 and £6k each. I think what that does prove (with the new 70-200 f/2.8s and the 28 f/1.8 from Nikon is that we are looking at significantly more expensive lenses in the future unfortunately.
There seems to be a significant number of new Lenses Nikon are launching very soon then. So far the 70-200 f/4, the VR of the 300 f/4, 80-400, 800 f/5.6, 16-80 f/4 etc.... That is a lot of lenses for one launch...? As for missing an EF-S version of the 35 f/2, there isn't really that much need.
The current f/2 is actually very good, even compared to the new EF-S Nikon f/1.8. It's ever so slightly slower but the IQ is practically the same (the Canon has less distortion and vignetting at everything but wide open). The size and weight is identical so it's not like you'll gain anything from making it EF-S in that area, the only negative is the focus is slightly slower (but not a problem in real world usage I've found, you're not exactly shooting motorsports or wildlife are you) and a bit noisier. Overall (having tested the Nikon 35 f/1.8 today and currently owning the Canon 35 f/2) I'd happily swap either way depending on the system my camera was in. The above conclusions are all for the EF-S format as that was what you mentioned.
So the main points... New lens are massively more expensive than the ones they are replacing
and for me the Nikon system doesn't seem to have the lens assortment I can get with the Canon system (see below).As for the actual topic...! I actually tried the D7000 out today with the 35 f/1.8 and the 17-55 f/2.8. Both very nice lenses but the 17-55 is blooming heavy (weight is important). The 35 f/1.8 is a worthy alternative to the 35 f/2 I currently use, just a shame they don't make a slightly smaller, slightly cheaper 28 f/1.8 which I think is a better focal length for most APS-C cameras, although with Nikon having a slightly larger sensor in their APS-C cameras 35mm may actually be better suited for them... What somehow didn't realise until today though was that the Nikon 17-55 doesn't have VR..! A rather large omission considering it's price relative to the Canon one (and the third party options, even if it is weather sealed).
The camera was very nice as well, although I think it will take me a while to get used to them, much lighter than the 7D which was also nice... Just hope D.P.s lens predictions come true, and that the prices aren't exorbitant compared to Canons current line up (which I'm doubting considering the price of almost all new released lenses).
Last edited:
Well, Just bought a D7000 and 70-300 VR so will be able to compare it directly with the 70-200 f/4 and 70-300 IS...
Now just need to wait until I can find a 17-55 at a reasonable price and then a nice little macro lens... Then swap out the 70-300 for a 70-200 f/2.8 for when I'm not travelling...
Now just need to wait until I can find a 17-55 at a reasonable price and then a nice little macro lens... Then swap out the 70-300 for a 70-200 f/2.8 for when I'm not travelling...
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
How are you finding the 70-300VR?