Making my mind between Nikon or Canon

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Yuki, Aug 17, 2007.

  1. Yuki

    Yuki Guest

    Hi,

    I had decided to go digital, as my existing system is a very complete Canon FD I
    have no incentive to go to any of the current systems over another.

    As my requisites are high image quality, good wide angle, available light
    photography and macro I had shortlisted the bodies to Canon 5D or Nikon D200.

    If Canon the the lenses will be 16-35 2.8 L II, 24-70 2.8 L, some macro 90-100mm
    lens from Canon or other manufacturer, MP-E65 sounds interesting. Maybe adding a
    135 2 L for portraiture and a 70-300 DO IS or 70-200 2.8 L IS as longer lenses.

    If Nikon I had been reading too many comparatives and reviews about the options
    in ultrawide and normal-short tele ranges. Seems that some of the alternative
    brands are serious competitors to Nikon lenses.

    Any comments about the options here? Specifically about the Nikon 17-55 2.8 or
    Tamron 17-50 2.8 in comparation con the 18-70/135/200 from Nikon.

    For portraiture an 85 1.4 should do and a 70-200 2.8 VR for longer focals.

    For both systems I'll get two or three of their top of the range flashes.

    Can you please comment about the merits of one setup over the other and the lens
    selections?

    Thanks in advance
     
    Yuki, Aug 17, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Yuki

    G.T. Guest

    Ha, nice troll.

    You know there are websites dedicated to comparisons like this?

    Greg
     
    G.T., Aug 17, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. If you are serious about the available light requirement, you can remove the
    D200 from your list. It's about two f stops less sensitive than the 5D. Its
    dynamic range/noise performance is superb at ISO 100, but it goes down
    quickly. The 5D provides that same performance out to ISO 400.
    Those are expensive and heavy lenses.

    The 16-35 2.8 L II is probably worth considering. You'll still need to stop
    way down for landscape work, but it is supposed to be sharper than the other
    Canon wide zooms.

    But it's a big, heavy lens. I'll be sticking with the 17-40, which produces
    lovely images at f/11 to f/16. Which is where I'd be shooting for DOF
    anyway.

    The 24-70 2.8 L is heavy and expensive. For a walk around, the Tamron
    28-75/2.8 is much lighter and a tiny fraction of the price. Crummy "build
    quality" and funky AF, but a good copy is as sharp as the Canon. Lots of
    people really like the 24-105/4.0 IS, but it's funky at 24mm and somewhat
    heavy.

    Or just use the 50/1.4 when you are not using the 16-35 or 70-200.

    The pricey 70-300 DO IS is no better than the slightly more recent and much
    cheaper 70-300 IS (non-DO), and the much more recent 70-200/4.0 is a lot
    better than either (use a 1.4x TC to get out to 280mm). The 70-200 2.8 L IS
    is seriously heavy and expensive.

    For a portait lens, the 135/2.0 is a gem, but the 135/2.8 is said to be
    excellent also (with the soft focus function turned off). Find one used, and
    it's practically free.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 17, 2007
    #3
  4. Yuki

    tomm42 Guest


    I went from leica and Canon FD to a Nikon D200, nice camera, feels
    smooth like my F1AE.
    If you are looking at the Canon 16-35, the Nikon 17-35 f2.8 eats it
    alive, far superior, also slightly better than the 17-55 Nikon the
    Nikon 28-70 f2.8 is also a top rated lens. The 85 f1.4 is excellent as
    is the Canon 85 f1.2. Nikon also has excellent 105 f2 and 135 f2
    lenses (as does Canon). The Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR is excellent (as is
    Canon's). The D200 is better built than the 5D but the 5D has the edge
    in IQ especially at higher ISOs. Nikon has the edge is flashes, though
    I still prefer my 45CT1 Thyristor Metz. The Nikon macro lenses have a
    slight edge over Canons, kind of Nikons being a 9 the Canons being an
    8 out of 10, I have used both.
    The edge Nikon has is the 17-35 f2.8 lens, the flash system, camera
    build (D200 v. 5D), and a very minor edge in micro/macro lenses. Canon
    has the edge in the 5D IQ. Everything else is about the same, of
    course all this can be argued.

    Tom
     
    tomm42, Aug 17, 2007
    #4
  5. Yuki

    babaloo Guest

    As a starter:
    Canon 5d and Nikon 200 are different beasts.
    Canon: full frame sensor.
    Nikon 200: ubiquitous Sony 10mp APS c sensor.
    Several years now into the photographic digital revolution it is not clear
    if sensor sizein dSLRs is a religious or a technical issue as it is usually
    debated by individuals who are unable to create aesthetically pleasing
    images regardless of hardware.
    Therefore you must first take a position on the sensor controversy.
    Are you a Sunni or a Sheite?
    If you like the Nikon 200 there is little rational reason not to include
    Canons with APS c sized sensors along with the Nikon 200.
    And there is little advantage of the more expensive Nikon D200 over the D80
    if you are not planning to use manual focus Nikon lenses.
    And if you are willing to consider, horrors as it is not a camera branded
    lens, a Tamron then there is a practical benefit to also considering the
    Pentax 10d or Sony alpha as they have the same sensor as the Nikon 200 along
    with image stabilization and sensor dust removal. A Tamron is a Tamron
    regardless of lens mount.
    And if you are only going to shoot jpegs why waste your money on a dSLR?
    Although it is heresy in some quarters absolute measures of lens quality are
    just not as significant in the digital world as they were and are in the
    film world.
    An original film transparency is what it is; raw data coming off a digital
    sensor is a mutable thing.
     
    babaloo, Aug 17, 2007
    #5
  6. It is alleged that Yuki claimed:
    If your current lenses will work with a new Canon DSLR and you like
    them, then stay with Canon.

    --
    Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
    The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol

    "Of course we're after Saddam Hussein -- I mean bin Laden." - George W.
    Bush, presidential debate, Sep 30, 2004
     
    Jeffrey Kaplan, Aug 17, 2007
    #6
  7. Of course, you could look at some actual data.

    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary

    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Aug 17, 2007
    #7
  8. They won't.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 17, 2007
    #8
  9. Yuki

    Yuki Guest

    Thanks for your comments

    As I had already assumed the cost, price is not my main concern, inside some
    limits of course, although factors like weight are.

    I'm still very tempted by the 16-35, aside from the price difference, there is
    no big advantage in practical terms of size or weight for the 17-40.

    After you mentioned it I had been researching about the Tamron, seems to be a
    lot of variation between samples (usual explanation are bad tolerances and
    quality control) and several times is recommended to test a few of them to get a
    good one. In the place where I live this is out of my possibilities because I
    depend of mail order.

    Next week I'm flying to New York but I don't know how you convince a shop owner
    to unpack a half dozen of new lenses for me to test and choose one.

    Is it an usual request to the shop salesmen?

    What worries me is that buying in a place that allows this practice almost
    guarantees me getting one of the duff lenses left aside by other customer.

    In the case of the longer lenses I considered the DO because its compactness, in
    fact I think the 70-200 2.8 is a perfect stay-at-home lens due to heftiness.

    What do you think of 100-400 4.5-5.6L?

    Still is expensive and heavy but probably more useful in the cases that it gets
    carried for a particular purpose.

    For portraiture I own, and love, the FD 135 2 and find myself using it a lot
    wide open, probably will miss the extra stop.

    Kindest regards
     
    Yuki, Aug 17, 2007
    #9
  10. Yuki

    Yuki Guest

    Aren't you the pot calling the kettle black?
     
    Yuki, Aug 17, 2007
    #10
  11. Yuki

    Yuki Guest

    Sadly, I add
     
    Yuki, Aug 17, 2007
    #11
  12. Yuki

    Paul Furman Guest

    Yes, very different. The crop factor on a D200 makes their comparable
    70-200 zoom into a 100-300 and you will want a 12-24 wideangle.

    There are other reasons but yes, for available light, you can take
    advantage of exceptional old MF primes instead of expensive bulky f/2.8
    zooms. The 5D lets you use wide zooms as they were designed to be used
    and the high ISO performance will mean you don't need faster than 2.8
    plus the DOF increased with the crop factor so really it's going to be a
    whole different approach to these two options.

    The D200 has a very sturdy metal body with excellent manual controls at
    your fingertips for any adjustment you might want but still is a
    reasonable size. No fumbling around in the menus. You won't find it
    lacking pro features. I use it for nature shooting banging around in the
    dust & the mud where the weather seals & metal body are real benefits
    and I like being able to flip the AF mode with my finger while framing,
    quick access to ISO, flash modes, whatever you want.

    Canon's MP-E macro is very specialized, for 1:1 through 1:5 like a
    microscope almost. On a D200, a 105 macro is a 160mm macro. For portrait
    lenses on the D200 the 50mm/1.4 becomes a 75mm & the excellent 85/1.4
    replaces the 135 at 128mm.
     
    Paul Furman, Aug 17, 2007
    #12
  13. Really?
    That surprises me because I very well remember a recent discussion where
    some people were bashing Nikon for not completely supporting(*) some quite
    old Nikkor lenses on their lower-end dSLRs.

    Mabye Canon did an even worse job than Nikon?

    jue

    (*): Autofocus on D40[x] for non-AF-S and exposure metering on D40[x]/D80
    for lenses without CPU, manual mode still works across the board
     
    Jürgen Exner, Aug 17, 2007
    #13
  14. Yuki

    Yuki Guest

    I'm aware of the high reputation of Nikon 17-35. The problem is that in a
    cropped sensor it do not fills the ultrawide role. For a D200 I need to decide
    among the 10-12mm offers from Nikor and others. Currently I use three fixed
    focal length lenses in 17, 20 and 24mm.

    For the flash system I don't really know how much better is Nikon's but it's a
    bad signal that many people suggest to use Canon's in manual mode.
    With my current T90/300TL I can get away with automatic flash overexposing
    negatives a bit. Slides with flash belong to the category of "forget it".

    Thanks
     
    Yuki, Aug 17, 2007
    #14
  15. I have one. Its images are soft. It also pumps air into the
    camera body(= dust). I replaced it with a 300 f/4 L IS. And if you
    think the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS is large, the 100-400 is larger.

    I also have the 70-200 f/4 L IS, very sharp and small.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Aug 17, 2007
    #15
  16. Canon redesigned their lens mount (to the EOS system) almost
    20 years ago. Canon took a lot of flak for it, especially
    from Nikonians and others. Nikon put off their change
    and is now having to take the flak.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Aug 17, 2007
    #16
  17. I wouldn't say that, and I've used a lot of canon's flashes,
    ranging from D60, 10D, 20D, 30D on camera, film Elan series
    on and off camera, 1D Mark II on and off camera (and even off camera
    with super telephotos and lens concentrators). I usually
    work in auto with +/- compensation as needed.

    Roger
    http://www.clarkvision.com
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Aug 17, 2007
    #17
  18. Clarification: I generally work in aperture priority, and when
    using a flash, I generally use auto mode with flash compensation
    as needed.
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Aug 17, 2007
    #18
  19. Yuki

    Paul Furman Guest

    The Nikon 12-24/2.8 DX has some good things going for it, a lot of
    people choose the Tokina 12-24 f/4 for value. For something wider, Sigma
    10-20 or Tamron 11-18. The Nikon 10.5/2.8 DX fisheye is nice. Nikon Wide
    primes in that range are the 14/2.8 (21mm eq.) and 18/2.8 (27mm eq.)
    both quite expensive. To explore old lenses, here's some concise reviews:
    http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html
    -click lenses on the left menu & scroll to the bottom...
     
    Paul Furman, Aug 17, 2007
    #19
  20. Yuki

    Rebecca Ore Guest

    Canon made the FD mount obsolete when it came out with the EOS line,
    well before digitals. They won't fit at all. Some folks say it was a
    mercy killing.

    Hasselblad made a V to H adaptor so people with 50 year old Zeiss glass
    can put them on the latest 39 MP bodies, of course, if anyone can afford
    the new 39 MP bodies.

    The Leica digital rangefinder accepts both M and screwmount lenses and
    some folks are shooting Summitars and Elmars with the digital M, using
    the screwmount to M bayonet adapter. Leica's reflex digital has
    replaceable backs, so if they can fit a full frame in their in the
    future, the Leica DSLR people won't have to toss the rest of the camera
    to get the improvement.

    As far as I know, that's the only small format DSLR where the chip can
    be upgraded without replacing the whole camera body, though the digital
    medium format cameras can be upgraded when better backs are released,
    but they're as expensive as a medium range sedan.
     
    Rebecca Ore, Aug 17, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.