celluloidprop
Well-known
I know I'm a couple of years behind the curve in this dilemma, but I went through a period where I shot very little (couldn't get used to wearing glasses, much less wearing glasses with my RF/SLRs - now I've had LASIK). Need to get back in the swing of shooting regularly and digital is preferable to developing and scanning right now.
The Canon's big drawbacks are plastic body, dust issues and cost. I don't work in a desert or rain forest, so the body/sealing isn't a big sticking point. I'll basically live with two lenses (Lensbaby and a 50/1.4 I already own) on it, so dust isn't so bad. Cost is a pain, but doable. Love the full-frame, like being able to shoot at 800 and 1600 with excellent quality.
Nikon D200/300 - better body, D300 has a dust shaker thing I think, costs less (particularly the D200 when the D300s hit the street). But the high ISO performance isn't as strong, and I'd have to buy a Sigma 30/1.4 to mimic my preferred 45-50mm focal length. Would get to use AI-S lenses if I chose.
I guess I really need to just jump into the water and not look back, but I'm terrible at making decisions with this kind of expense attached.
The Canon's big drawbacks are plastic body, dust issues and cost. I don't work in a desert or rain forest, so the body/sealing isn't a big sticking point. I'll basically live with two lenses (Lensbaby and a 50/1.4 I already own) on it, so dust isn't so bad. Cost is a pain, but doable. Love the full-frame, like being able to shoot at 800 and 1600 with excellent quality.
Nikon D200/300 - better body, D300 has a dust shaker thing I think, costs less (particularly the D200 when the D300s hit the street). But the high ISO performance isn't as strong, and I'd have to buy a Sigma 30/1.4 to mimic my preferred 45-50mm focal length. Would get to use AI-S lenses if I chose.
I guess I really need to just jump into the water and not look back, but I'm terrible at making decisions with this kind of expense attached.
jmi
Established
celluloidprop said:
Me too, so take what I say with a few grains of salt...
First, have you handled them side-by-side at a camera store or similar? If not I'd strongly recommend doing so - it's the only decent way to get a feel on the ergonomics. I find both much too big and heavy for my preferences. The build on the 5D is actually pretty good, and I believe it has the magnesium alloy shell construction.
Given you seem to own Canon stuff already I'd probably go with the 5D. One thought that may apply - I like my wide angles so the APS-C cameras have the drawback of needing a big, heavy, slow zoom lens, whereas on the 5D one can use nice optics like a fast 28/1.8 or 28/2, one of my favourites, for which I believe an equivalent field-of-view f/2 lens is not available for the D200.
peterm1
Veteran
I do not know how to answer this. When I own Nikon I crave Canon. When I own canon I crave Nikon. I have stuck with Nikon for the moment mainly because I love the build quality and do not mind the weight.
willie_901
Veteran
I handled a 5D and D200 in a cooperative camera store. For me, the D200 felt much better in my hands and the menu system/control philosophy made more sense. The D200 finder was smaller (crop sensor), but a bit brighter than the 5D's.
For non-Raw image files, the D200 does require a bit of studying to get all the parameters that affect image quality set the way you like them. This seems to frustrate a significant fraction of new D200 users. I think the 5D non-Raw images have less in-camera options. There's less to change, so it is easy to get nice JPEGs right off the bat. If you shoot RAW, then none of this matters.
The 5D is significantly more expensive than the D200 (but the D300 is closer in price). Also, the 5D has is not well sealed while the D200/300 are very well sealed. There seems to be lots of whining about dirty finders that are hard to clean among 5D users.
The 5D requires no re-programming of your mind since it is a full-frame sensor. There are lots of discussions regarding distortion at extreme image edges with the 5D. I don't think this is an issue for lenses with great optics. The 5D has better noise quality than the D200 at ISOs of 800 and greater. This is the most significant difference.
The 5D is very flexible in that it is easy to find high quality adapters that let you mount a diverse range of non-EOS mount lenses. There seems to be a whole subculture of 5D users who research, procure, test and use non-Canon lenses. The D200 only mounts Nikon F mount lenses (AI or newer). It provides spot, center and matrix (non-3D) metering. In my experience the AI/AIS lenses produce lovely results. AI/AIS lenses are not rare, and there's a great variety of older AF Nikkors out there as well. But, there's no doubt the lens choices are much greater for the 5D.
The D300 will not be out until November. Who knows what problems (if any?) it may have, and quantities could be limited until 2008. D200s are out of production and may be difficult to find. The 5D could be near the end of it's product run (who knows?) but at least they are readily available.
For non-Raw image files, the D200 does require a bit of studying to get all the parameters that affect image quality set the way you like them. This seems to frustrate a significant fraction of new D200 users. I think the 5D non-Raw images have less in-camera options. There's less to change, so it is easy to get nice JPEGs right off the bat. If you shoot RAW, then none of this matters.
The 5D is significantly more expensive than the D200 (but the D300 is closer in price). Also, the 5D has is not well sealed while the D200/300 are very well sealed. There seems to be lots of whining about dirty finders that are hard to clean among 5D users.
The 5D requires no re-programming of your mind since it is a full-frame sensor. There are lots of discussions regarding distortion at extreme image edges with the 5D. I don't think this is an issue for lenses with great optics. The 5D has better noise quality than the D200 at ISOs of 800 and greater. This is the most significant difference.
The 5D is very flexible in that it is easy to find high quality adapters that let you mount a diverse range of non-EOS mount lenses. There seems to be a whole subculture of 5D users who research, procure, test and use non-Canon lenses. The D200 only mounts Nikon F mount lenses (AI or newer). It provides spot, center and matrix (non-3D) metering. In my experience the AI/AIS lenses produce lovely results. AI/AIS lenses are not rare, and there's a great variety of older AF Nikkors out there as well. But, there's no doubt the lens choices are much greater for the 5D.
The D300 will not be out until November. Who knows what problems (if any?) it may have, and quantities could be limited until 2008. D200s are out of production and may be difficult to find. The 5D could be near the end of it's product run (who knows?) but at least they are readily available.
JeremyLangford
I'd really Leica Leica
The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is a f/2 on a crop factor camera compared to the 50mm f/1.4 on full-frame.
Stick with full-frame. A 5d is my dream camera.
I'm like you, I love, love, love my 50mm f/1.4. And thats why if I go digital, I have to get a full-frame. Because the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is the only option I've seen for crop bodies. A 30mm f/0.8 is the only way to get the same 50mm f/1.4 you are used to on a crop body
Stick with full-frame. A 5d is my dream camera.
I'm like you, I love, love, love my 50mm f/1.4. And thats why if I go digital, I have to get a full-frame. Because the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is the only option I've seen for crop bodies. A 30mm f/0.8 is the only way to get the same 50mm f/1.4 you are used to on a crop body
photogdave
Shops local
There is no exposure difference when calculating "crop factors". F1.4 will always be 1.4.JeremyLangford said:
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
While Canon makes great L zooms and L primes in general IMHO I believe Nikkors are overall better with wide angles especially the primes and they are not priced like the L. On the other hand you can use many R lenses on the EOS but then again you can use Zeiss ZF lenses on the Nikon.
sienarot
Well-known
photogdave said:
Perhaps he's referring to depth of field differences on a crop vs full frame?
gavinlg
Veteran
I'm having the same dilema right now - should I go for a 5d now while they're cheap (and wether or not a new model comes out soon, the original 5d is still a great camera holding its own against everything else, and there is nothing like it yet)
or should I wait, sell my girlfriend on the slave market and buy a nikon d3 when they come out....
I only want full frame sensor - I've been using a 30d for the last few years and the viewfinder is like looking through a straw. I also have heaps of OM lenses I can chuck on it that would make good wides on a full frame sensor.
The 5d is well built, the nikon d3 will be better built, because it's a pro camera compared the the "pro-sumer" 5d. The 5d is still magnesium alloy though, same construction as the 30d and my 30d has taken a hammering and never had 1 problem.
The 5d is infinitly more portable than the d3, but the d3s noise characteristics look to better the canon offerings at the moment.
The 5d can take leica, olympus, pentax, russian, contax - just about any lens you throw at it INCLUDING the new zeiss primes designed for nikon. It will work almost exactly the same.
As far as canon vs nikkor lenses go, the canon 24 1.4L, 35 1.4L, 50 1.2L, 85 1.2L have no competition from nikon, and are some of the nicest primes you will find. Both brands zooms are excellent and you wouldn't go wrong with either. Nikon has the 18-200 VR which is a great lens, however canon have heaps of high quality telephotos if thats your thing...
Nikon flash system is meant to be better than the canons, but canons is still very good.
or should I wait, sell my girlfriend on the slave market and buy a nikon d3 when they come out....
I only want full frame sensor - I've been using a 30d for the last few years and the viewfinder is like looking through a straw. I also have heaps of OM lenses I can chuck on it that would make good wides on a full frame sensor.
The 5d is well built, the nikon d3 will be better built, because it's a pro camera compared the the "pro-sumer" 5d. The 5d is still magnesium alloy though, same construction as the 30d and my 30d has taken a hammering and never had 1 problem.
The 5d is infinitly more portable than the d3, but the d3s noise characteristics look to better the canon offerings at the moment.
The 5d can take leica, olympus, pentax, russian, contax - just about any lens you throw at it INCLUDING the new zeiss primes designed for nikon. It will work almost exactly the same.
As far as canon vs nikkor lenses go, the canon 24 1.4L, 35 1.4L, 50 1.2L, 85 1.2L have no competition from nikon, and are some of the nicest primes you will find. Both brands zooms are excellent and you wouldn't go wrong with either. Nikon has the 18-200 VR which is a great lens, however canon have heaps of high quality telephotos if thats your thing...
Nikon flash system is meant to be better than the canons, but canons is still very good.
photogdave
Shops local
Perhaps you're right! While there is less DOF with smaller sensors, it is difficult to quantify with exact numbers.sienarot said:
I've shot the Sigma 30 1.4 on the Fuji S5 and it still seems to give me that 1.4 look, whatever that means!
gavinlg
Veteran
I had problems with my sigma 30 1.4 on the 30d. Doing a focus test with a ruler showed it was not front or back focussing, was pretty much spot on @ 1.4. However, when it came to actually using it in real life situations @ 1.4, it was a hit or miss thing and probably only 65% of shots were well in focus. This wasn't due to user error either. I sold it and bought a 50 1.8 for $80 - the 50 is sharper, has better color (sigmas was very warm), MUCH better bokeh (sigmas was harsh and weird in it's transistion from in focus to out of focus) and the 50 1.8 is much more accurate with focussing.
Just saying you gotta know its a 3rd party manufacturer lens, and it's not as good as the canon or nikon stuff IMO
Just saying you gotta know its a 3rd party manufacturer lens, and it's not as good as the canon or nikon stuff IMO
peterm1
Veteran
The comment above about availability of lens adapters for Canon is true and is something I had not given much thought to when I answered before. It is true to say I have thought about it in other contexts however and one regret I have with using Nikon is that due to its register distance, almost nothing but Nikon lenses fit and focus correctly at infinity - practically limiting you to Nikons. I have a lot of old lenses - M42 Takumars and the like that I regard as having lovely optical characteristics which I would adore using on a digital camera. I would prefer the Canon to the Pentax for this purpose as their cameras are more professional. At the moment I do use an M42-FL mount adapter to put Takumar lenses on my old TL Canon film camera body. It works fine and gives good results. But as far as changing digital makers, for me it is too late. My wife would kill me if I decided to go Canon and sell my modern Nikon gear. There would be an exchange cost that I could probably afford but never justify to myself, let alone to her. (Love her all the same.)
JeremyLangford
I'd really Leica Leica
photogdave said:Perhaps you're right! While there is less DOF with smaller sensors, it is difficult to quantify with exact numbers.
I've shot the Sigma 30 1.4 on the Fuji S5 and it still seems to give me that 1.4 look, whatever that means!
Yes, I was referring to DOF. And by the 50 f/1.4 "look" I was referring to the shallow DOF.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
DOF on a 50/1.4 on a full-frame sensor at 4m subject distance is about 53 cm, assuming a 0.03mm acceptable circle of confusion. A 35/1,2 would do the job on a crop 1.5 camera, because with a smaller sensor the acceptable circle of confusion is smaller, too. Unfortunately there is no 35/1.2 for Nikon, but if shallow DOF is all you want an R-D1 with a CV 35/1.2 will get you there and you get rangefinder focusing as a freebie.
However, in the look of the final image, the OOF characteristics of the lens matter as much as the maximum aperture. The DOF argument towards sensor size is overblown due to Internet hearsay IMHO. A lot of good photography has been done with crop sensors by now. Full frame sensor GAS is similar to Noctilux GAS: you get it from reading stuff online and from looking at downscaled flickr shots, but it usually isn't really all too related to the way the reader does photograpy himself.
However, in the look of the final image, the OOF characteristics of the lens matter as much as the maximum aperture. The DOF argument towards sensor size is overblown due to Internet hearsay IMHO. A lot of good photography has been done with crop sensors by now. Full frame sensor GAS is similar to Noctilux GAS: you get it from reading stuff online and from looking at downscaled flickr shots, but it usually isn't really all too related to the way the reader does photograpy himself.
Abbazz
6x9 and be there!
celluloidprop said:
So you want full frame, weather sealing and good price? Buy a second hand EOS 1Ds MkI. I just got one from Keh for less than an EOS 5d new. Build quality is really top notch, like all EOS 1 cameras, and clearly better than the 5d. Weather sealing is nice to have, even if you don't live in the desert or, like me, in the rainforest. The price has never been so attractive, thanks to the announced 1Ds MkIII. IMHO image quality is very film like and better than the 5d except above 400 ISO.
The drawbacks? This is a 5 years old camera, so its age begins to show: it's heavy as a brick (good point: it's more steady and I don't need to go to the gym), the battery life is less than stellar (around 250 pictures, OK for me), the LCD screen is tiny at 1.8 in. (what? don't tell me you actually use the LCD to review your pictures!!!), the shooting rate is rather limited with 10 frames at 3 fps (I don't care, I don't shoot sports) and images above 400 ISO are quite noisy (I convert them to B&W).
Cheers!
Abbazz