Nikon Switchover - Help needed

[D.P.]

I'm a fulltime photographer but also have a Wedding Photography business with a good friend of mine. Up until now we have mostly pinched kit from my families photography studio (I work there in the week). The idea behind that was to build up our Weddings, get future booking and save up to have all of our own kit.

Kit we currently own :

Canon 5DIII + 24-70mm f2.8 + Sigma 35mm f1.4 ART

In December/January this year we will be going out and getting every single bit of wedding photography equipment we need. Currently this comes to around £6500-£7500 at a rough guess.

Don't really want to get into a debate of Canon vs Nikon, will leave that to the fanboys. We will be going with Nikon from this moment on. (I think it's fair to say that if most of you were starting out right now, Nikon's latest sensors would probably push you over to them) As we are essentially starting out from scratch and want to go with full primes, we may aswell sell up the small amount of kit we have/or keep as a backup.


Kit on the to buy list :

2x Nikon D750 - £3000-3500
Nikon AF-S 24mm f/1.4 G - £1400
Sigma 35mm f1.4 ART - (straight swap for our canon fit)
Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.4 G - £280 or Sigma 50mm ART - £600
Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.4G - £1100


Flashes -
3x SB-910 OR Yongnuo equivalent - £900 or £400


I just have a few questions..

Any issues with the above lens? For example, with Canon the 85mm was dog slow at focusing. I'll have to do some reading but would be nice to have first hand experience.

Is the 50mm up to the job when compared to the others? I notice there is no 50mm f1.2 in the line up so not sure whether we should go for the new Sigma 50mm ART.

Re Flashes : We use flash very rarely for fill in during formal groups. Generally in AV/TV with FEC. Also we use flash at night, usually with on camera TTL + 2 off camera flashes on manual.

I've only ever used Canon flashes and generally quite happy (apart from the off camera flash being unable to fire rear-curtain). Are the Yongnuo for Nikon a genuine replacement or should we just go done the Nikon SB-910 route?

Also would have really like a 135mm but the Nikon lineup doesn't look great at that length? Any idea if that is being addressed or is the old 135mm f2 still up to the job?

The lenses are all very good. In general fast prime lenses focus slower than the pro zooms - that is just the nature of dealing with very small DoF you need more accuracy and different gear ratios. The Nikon 85mm f/1.4 focuses fast enough for the type of lens and use expected of it, no one complains but you will certainly get better performance from a 24-70mm for example. You could also consider saving money and buying the 85mm f/1.8G, it is basically just as good. The Nikon 50mm f/1.4G is also good, again you can save money with the f/1.8G version - these lenses are very different to the Canon counterparts. Better build, better focusing and better optics.



The Nikon 135mm f/2.0 DC is a legendary lens and is one of the main reasons to use Nikon over Canon if you are into portraits. The Defocus control is fairly unique, nothing Canon offers can do such magic. The lens is very sharp (most people say almost as sharp as the Canon 135, even if it isn't quite there wide open for portraits this isn't an issue, and the nikon can make the out of focs areas softer due to the DC feature so the the apparent sharpness of the in focus eyes etc can be greater). However like most lenses of the era contrast wide open is reduced compared to modern lenses, again for portraits that is not an issue in general. Focus is fast and accurate, although the Canon 135 is slightly faster and slightly quieter to focus. The Nikon 135 has legendary bokeh and the ability to control how the bokeh appears. Overall the canon will stand up to pixel peeping a bit better, the Nikon will be objectively excellent but will render more beautifully and with unique bokeh characteristics that you can personalize for each photo.

Nikon will likely update the 135mm f/2.0 in the near future but it is not expected that they will keep the DC feature (it adds cost and design complexity for a niche market). this means the current 135mm DC will likely increase in value and be even more sought after.



For the cameras I would look at buying a D800 (or D810) and a D750. The D800s are more pro orientated and have a better sensor ad the files are a joy to work with. The extra ability to crop allows much improved compositions when trying to catch the action.

 

[D.P.]

I'm not speaking from experience but from what I've read - in a lot of places - is that the 50mm f/1.4 G isn't up to much. Apparently the f/1.8 is "better" when considering value, and the f/1.4 has some focusing issues wide-open. I'd certainly like to hear first-hand experience on this though.

I think the issue people have is the 1.4G is much more expensive than the 1.8G but objectively no better. I don't think there are any genuine focus issues, beyond that fact that the fancy modern silent ultrasonic focusing system focuses slower that the old screwdriver focusing (which is common, the screwdrive system was very very good).

I believe the 1.4G is sharper when comparing equal apertures but the 1.8G is sharper at 1.8 than the 1.4 is at 1.4, again something which is fairly common. The 1.4G might actually be sharper than the 1.8 when stopped down to f/4.0 etc, I can''t quite remember.

Personally, I would always buy the 1.8G version, same with the 35mm and 85mm.

The extra aperture is mainly for DoF purposes, digital sensors don't respond very well to very wide apertures and there is rapid diminishing returns wider than f/2.0. Personally I find f/2.8 already extremely shallow and difficult to work with on FF, f/1.8 is very difficult to work with to avoid focus issues or simply getting a boring lifeless photo.

 

[D.P.]

i would take that 24mm out and replace with 14-24mm. heavier/bigger, but for wide shots, especially indoors, having a zoom is important.

(have you closely looked into skin tones from nikon? it does take a lot of tweaking for asian skintones...i.e. more hours in post = more cost)

The skin tones thing is only true for jpeg. When shooting RAW there is no real difference. This is a myth that arose in the early years of DSLRs. The our of camera jpegs form Canon camera were supposedly fine tuned for Japanese skin tones, while Nikon optimized for white skin tones. I don't know if that is really true but it certainly has no bearing on modern RAW shooting.

As with most things the Adobe raw converter has some presets that not everyone likes.You can do a bit of one time tweaking to your personal tastes in LR or whatever RAW importer you use and then forever more your imported RAWs will have skin tones the way you want.

 

[mr tommo]

The lenses are all very good. In general fast prime lenses focus slower than the pro zooms - that is just the nature of dealing with very small DoF you need more accuracy and different gear ratios. The Nikon 85mm f/1.4 focuses fast enough for the type of lens and use expected of it, no one complains but you will certainly get better performance from a 24-70mm for example. You could also consider saving money and buying the 85mm f/1.8G, it is basically just as good (that's interesting and certainly quite a saving! - No noticeable focus issues or IQ?). The Nikon 50mm f/1.4G is also good, again you can save money with the f/1.8G version - these lenses are very different to the Canon counterparts. Better build, better focusing and better optics.



The Nikon 135mm f/2.0 DC is a legendary lens and is one of the main reasons to use Nikon over Canon if you are into portraits. The Defocus control is fairly unique, nothing Canon offers can do such magic. The lens is very sharp (most people say almost as sharp as the Canon 135, even if it isn't quite there wide open for portraits this isn't an issue, and the nikon can make the out of focs areas softer due to the DC feature so the the apparent sharpness of the in focus eyes etc can be greater). However like most lenses of the era contrast wide open is reduced compared to modern lenses, again for portraits that is not an issue in general. Focus is fast and accurate, although the Canon 135 is slightly faster and slightly quieter to focus. The Nikon 135 has legendary bokeh and the ability to control how the bokeh appears. Overall the canon will stand up to pixel peeping a bit better, the Nikon will be objectively excellent but will render more beautifully and with unique bokeh characteristics that you can personalize for each photo.

Nikon will likely update the 135mm f/2.0 in the near future but it is not expected that they will keep the DC feature (it adds cost and design complexity for a niche market). this means the current 135mm DC will likely increase in value and be even more sought after.

Excellent info, thanks for that


For the cameras I would look at buying a D800 (or D810) and a D750. The D800s are more pro orientated and have a better sensor ad the files are a joy to work with. The extra ability to crop allows much improved compositions when trying to catch the action. We did consider the D810 but the ability of the D750 has really caught our eye. Ideally we would live 2 of the same body. The ability to crop does seem great but I've got to admit its very rare when I've wanted to crop that much. I think that's where having 2 of us shooting helps a lot during the portraits. One of us shooting with a 35mm and the other 24-70/70-200. I will look into this though before pulling the trigger. If we downgrade a couple of the above lenses then it will leave some money burning a hole in our pockets

I think the issue people have is the 1.4G is much more expensive than the 1.8G but objectively no better. I don't think there are any genuine focus issues, beyond that fact that the fancy modern silent ultrasonic focusing system focuses slower that the old screwdriver focusing (which is common, the screwdrive system was very very good).

I believe the 1.4G is sharper when comparing equal apertures but the 1.8G is sharper at 1.8 than the 1.4 is at 1.4, again something which is fairly common. The 1.4G might actually be sharper than the 1.8 when stopped down to f/4.0 etc, I can''t quite remember.

Personally, I would always buy the 1.8G version, same with the 35mm and 85mm.

The extra aperture is mainly for DoF purposes, digital sensors don't respond very well to very wide apertures and there is rapid diminishing returns wider than f/2.0. Personally I find f/2.8 already extremely shallow and difficult to work with on FF, f/1.8 is very difficult to work with to avoid focus issues or simply getting a boring lifeless photo. I know what you mean, 1.4 and 1.8 is very unforgiving when the focus isn't spot on. We genuinely use it on details, ceremony and the morning prep.

Thank's for your very detailed response, really give us something to think about.

 

[D.P.]

You can compare the 85 f/1.4G and 1.8G here:
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1357/cat/12
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1480/cat/12

The 1.8G is sharper is anything. some people prefer the Bokeh from the 1.4G version, that is a very personal thing so I would try to search Flickr and make your own adjustments. The Bokeh from the 1.8G is perfectly pleasant, smooth and inoffensive (no sharp ringing ec.). So it is mostly a question of whether the 1.4G has something special in your eyes in the out of focus areas. You can always start with the 1.8G version and in he future upgrade to the 1.4G (*or a new sigma Art 85 etc.). The 1.8G could be kept as a backup.


What is it about he D750 that really caught your eye? It does nothing that the D810 doesn't do better, and pretty much the same for the D800 (D800 is better in almost all regards except speed). The D750 has some how garned a lot of attention but it is not at all clear why because the D800 is superior in pretty much every aspect.
The D600 and D610 are also worth a look out due to their crazy cheap price, it is the same sensor as the D750, focus performance is almost as good but not quite and the D610 is almost as fast. The D750 is an excellent camera by all means, but the D8X0 are better but pricy, the D6x0 almost as good and way cheaper. I tend to get drawn in either direction but you might find the D750 is the perfect porridge.

The cropping is useful if say, your partner has a 35mm and you have an 85mm but you see some action a little further away. Swapping out to the 70-200mm is not feasible in time so you do your best to capture with the 85mm - the D800 gives you a solid advantage here. You can also frame looser and shoot wider with the ability to choose compositions in post, yes, that isn't an ideal situation but it can greatly improve the final product and acts as a great safety net. It also facilitates changing the aspect ratio or even orientation. E.g. you can better crop the 3:2 image to a 5:4 to fit magazine cover, or go wider for a panoramic, or turn that landscape into a portrait photo so it fits into the wedding album front page. One of these things that of course you can live without but it gives plenty of nice advantages and rescue ability down the line. Not forgetting that if you do make a particularly special photo you can print it much larger. There is a few subtleties as well, e.g. noise tends to end up being a finer grain and less than with larger pixels.

Really you can' go wrong with any of the Nikon FF cameras at the moment. It is definitely an advantage to have 2 identical bodies so the D750 may allow this under budget,

 

[mr tommo]

It's mainly a budget thing to be honest.

Ideally we wanted this purchase to be around £5k. Obviously that wasn't going to happen

The D750 appeals due to its price. I can afford more than the D610, but not quite afford the D810. However, once more research has been done on the lenses, if the 1.8's are up the job as you suggest, we may sneak in a couple of D810's

Our current filesizes out of the Canon 5D3 are around 35mb, I understand the D810 is around 60-70mb?

 

[D.P.]

It's mainly a budget thing to be honest.

Ideally we wanted this purchase to be around £5k. Obviously that wasn't going to happen

The D750 appeals due to its price. I can afford more than the D610, but not quite afford the D810. However, once more research has been done on the lenses, if the 1.8's are up the job as you suggest, we may sneak in a couple of D810's

Our current filesizes out of the Canon 5D3 are around 35mb, I understand the D810 is around 60-70mb?

There is a lot of myths spread about the D800 file sizes.
The standard lossless compressed 14bit RAWs are around 39-41MB.
12bit lossless compressed are 30-32MB and give almost indistinguishable quality to the 14bit files (only noticeable difference is extreme highlight and shadow recovery, and I mean extreme, and the difference is subtle).


There are also 12 and 14bit lossy compressed modes, these have a very slightly loss (kind of like Jpeg saved at 95% etc.). If you really want small files the 12bit lossy compressed are about 28MB. Personally it is not worth using this mode.


The almost all uses the 12 bit lossless compressed RAWS at 30-32MB each are perfect. if shooting landscapes and you want to get the absolute best possible shadow and highlight recovery then the 14 bit lossless compressed at 40MB is the one to go for. For weddings use the 12 bit.

People tend to be lazy and leave the RAW settings at default 14bit lossless. The 14 bit lossless on the D750 is 29-31MB file size, so D800 will give the same file sizes with 30 seconds of menu options and provide higher quality images with a higher resolution. Of course on the D750 you could also choose 12 bit lossless and get 23MB files.



The 70MB file people talk about are from an entirely uncompressed 14bit RAW, which is entirely pointless since by definition there is no visual difference to the lossless compressed RAWs. It is mostly canon shooters that talk about 70Mb images. I'm averaging about 30MB an image in 12bit mode.

 

[mr tommo]

Thanks, I had read a few people say that 12 bit lossless would be the one to go for on the D750.

I presume the D810 has a better processor and it performs as good as the D750 buffer?

 

[D.P.]

The D810 has a much bigger buffer:
https://photographylife.com/nikon-d750-buffer-capacity

D750 (12 bit) : 25 photos and filling in 3.8 seconds,
D810 (12 bit): 47 photos and filling in 9.4 seconds.

faster cards will extend the D810 lead, and the D810 has a CF slot so there are some very fast cards available. The D610 performs very similarly to the D750

 

[squerble]

I doubt this will sway you at all - but any D610 cameras bought from 30th October to 5th Feb get a free MB-D14 Battery Grip direct from Nikon. They seem to retail at around £210-230 from a retailer so that's kinda nice. (Same applies to D7100 if anyone happens to be buying)

Edit: Only one per person but you can easily buy the bodies in separate orders to claim on both.

 

[D.P.]

I doubt this will sway you at all - but any D610 cameras bought from 30th October to 5th Feb get a free MB-D14 Battery Grip direct from Nikon. They seem to retail at around £210-230 from a retailer so that's kinda nice. (Same applies to D7100 if anyone happens to be buying)

Edit: Only one per person but you can easily buy the bodies in separate orders to claim on both.

Just makes the D610 even more appealing, it is basically 95% of a D750 at much less cost. D810 is cleary better but costs a lot more.

 

[a1ex2001]

You need more kit you are one body problem away from one of you being camera less and I'd want something longer in the bag ready for the church where the vicar won't let you past the back row!

 

[mr tommo]

The D810 has a much bigger buffer:
https://photographylife.com/nikon-d750-buffer-capacity

D750 (12 bit) : 25 photos and filling in 3.8 seconds,
D810 (12 bit): 47 photos and filling in 9.4 seconds.

faster cards will extend the D810 lead, and the D810 has a CF slot so there are some very fast cards available. The D610 performs very similarly to the D750

Sweet!

You need more kit you are one body problem away from one of you being camera less and I'd want something longer in the bag ready for the church where the vicar won't let you past the back row!

I didn't really make much sense in my OP with reagrds to this. We will always have one Canon spare body with us - (can borrow pretty much anything from the studio) - So we a should have either a 5DIII (if we decide to keep it) or a 6D, plus a 24-70mm F2.8 + 70-200mm F2.8.

I doubt this will sway you at all - but any D610 cameras bought from 30th October to 5th Feb get a free MB-D14 Battery Grip direct from Nikon. They seem to retail at around £210-230 from a retailer so that's kinda nice. (Same applies to D7100 if anyone happens to be buying)

Edit: Only one per person but you can easily buy the bodies in separate orders to claim on both.

Quite interesting, we will be ordering in the next 1-2 weeks thanks

 

[a1ex2001]

I wouldn't want to switch Nikon to canon mid wedding but that's your call!

 

[Abraxaz1]

Just to throw a spanner into the works but I was asked to (my girlfriend friend knows I do a bit of photography, funny how this happens) come take additional photographs but heres the kicker, she wanted me to take film photos, for that retro feel. So lent my exs fathers Pentax 67 (man I want this but need to do a lot more weight lifting, heavy is a understatement). used it to take posed pictures outside and used the DSLR inside due to flexible ISO and faster shutters speeds.
She Loved the retro feel of the images and so did her friends.

Not saying you should invest solely in film but I would if I was setting up have it as a option as a lot of brides want a vintage feel to their wedding.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Just to throw a spanner into the works but I was asked to (my girlfriend friend knows I do a bit of photography, funny how this happens) come take additional photographs but heres the kicker, she wanted me to take film photos, for that retro feel. So lent my exs fathers Pentax 67 (man I want this but need to do a lot more weight lifting, heavy is a understatement). used it to take posed pictures outside and used the DSLR inside due to flexible ISO and faster shutters speeds.
She Loved the retro feel of the images and so did her friends.

Not saying you should invest solely in film but I would if I was setting up have it as a option as a lot of brides want a vintage feel to their wedding.

Completely different kettle of fish of what is being discussed here.

If a client wants a certain style of wedding photography that differs to mine, I wouldn't want to shoot her wedding and do something completely different to suit her. Why?

1 - I wouldn't be doing my best because it would be something i am unfamiliar with.
2 - They would not be getting the best photo possible compared to someone who shoots and experience in those style.

What they are is that they are not my client, it's not that I don't want to photograph their wedding, its in the interest of both parties. They are better with someone else that they like their work, as they are.

 

[a1ex2001]

Completely different kettle of fish of what is being discussed here.

If a client wants a certain style of wedding photography that differs to mine, I wouldn't want to shoot her wedding and do something completely different to suit her. Why?

1 - I wouldn't be doing my best because it would be something i am unfamiliar with.
2 - They would not be getting the best photo possible compared to someone who shoots and experience in those style.

What they are is that they are not my client, it's not that I don't want to photograph their wedding, its in the interest of both parties. They are better with someone else that they like their work, as they are.

Nicely put! We went to see photographers who's style suited what we wanted and while we did make a few special requests for particular shots (our church has a balcony view that was unmissable among others) we would never have dreamed of asking them to change their style as we might as well have chosen a different photographer!

 

[At The Gates]

If any of his clients wanted a 'vintage' look he can just get a cheap Nikon F body and use all his Nikon lenses on it.

 

[mr tommo]

Just to throw a spanner into the works but I was asked to (my girlfriend friend knows I do a bit of photography, funny how this happens) come take additional photographs but heres the kicker, she wanted me to take film photos, for that retro feel. So lent my exs fathers Pentax 67 (man I want this but need to do a lot more weight lifting, heavy is a understatement). used it to take posed pictures outside and used the DSLR inside due to flexible ISO and faster shutters speeds.
She Loved the retro feel of the images and so did her friends.

Not saying you should invest solely in film but I would if I was setting up have it as a option as a lot of brides want a vintage feel to their wedding.

As has been said already, we will be sticking to our style as it's what we are comfortable with. I'd never be able to compete with somebody who uses film regularly.

I've never used film, but saying that I really want to have a play with film at weddings. My dads got a Canon EOS 3 at the studio that I've been meaning to order some film for. It wouldn't be for the clients but I'd like to just have a mess around with.

Out of interest what would be a decent but cheap second hand Nikon film camera to be on the lookout for?

 

[At The Gates]

You can pickup an F80 for £30. F5 for a few hundred.