Consolidating with Nikon?

"Many thanks for all of the responses folks. I've had more on here in one afternoon, that I did in the last 36 hours on another forum!"

No surprise there.
RFF has the most knowledgeable and helpful contributors in Photoville.
 
Having first started my photography with Nikons more or less by chance I have stuck with them and never regretted it. My attitude to Canons has been that I am sure they are very sound professional cameras and had I started with them instead of Nikon I feel equally sure I would be more or less equally happy with that system.

So not being a Canon user (other than some Canon rangefinder cameras and lenses and some old FL mount SLR kit neither of which really count) I cannot specifically opine on the merits of one over the other marque. Other than to say this. A decided advantage of Nikon (for my shooting anyway) seems to be that I can (and frequently do) use any and all Nikon SLR lenses on my Nikon DSLR (a D700). I have a collection of very nice old and new glass. Yes, very early non-AI lenses need a minor modification to work with Nikon pro kit. But this is so trivial that even I can do it and so can anyone with even fairly rudimentary skills in metal work (essentially basic measuring, marking out and file use). I understand that Canon kit is not so forgiving in this department. If you have a penchant for old lenses, Nikon may be the way to go. Other than this as I say I cannot really comment other than to confirm that Nikon full frame cameras have very nice senors that capture heaps of detail and have a good dynamic range.
 
wakarimasen said:
Many thanks for all of the responses folks. I've had more on here in one afternoon, that I did in the last 36 hours on another forum!
Click to expand...

Its amazing isn't it. And they're all thoughtful, no "I hate Canikon" rubbish.

On topic, I echo Peter's comments; I'm sure Canon make a very nice system, but I've always used Nikon.

I suppose if you want to use old glass natively (is that a word?) then Nikon is the way to go. I can't imagine that either system would be *far* superior in digital.

Good luck with your choice!

Cheers,
Michael
 
Last edited:
wakarimasen said:
Has anyone any experience in using both the D3 and Canon 1D Mark III, and can comment on:
  • frame rate - I have read that the D3 runs at 9-11 fps, but has a buffer that is small, meaning only 2 or 3 seconds capture is possible. If this is true, then the Canon is better with a 110 jpeg burst at 10fps providing approximately 11 seconds of 'action.' Is this correct?
  • I also read that the frame rate is highly dependant on the camera settings - i.e. higher ISO values slow things down, as does using the Auto ISO function (which I like very much!). Can anyone comment on this?
Click to expand...
I was in the same situation a few years back. I do not shoot sports but I had many similar gear as you have now. 5Dc, 50D, 17-40L, 70-200f4IS, F3, F4, and a few Nikkor primes too. I am now in Nikon camp, starting out with D7000 and now I use D700. Really nice to have everything interchangeable, meaning you can take digital and film bodies to events to give a little bit of variety.

Regarding frame rate, in my experience Nikon bodies are more picky about CF cards. Writing is slower with SanDisk Ultra compared to Extreme to the point of a few images near the end of the burst appear only half frame. It is also affected by Auto Noise Reduction, higher ISO, Auto Vignette Correction, size compression, etc. Basically any in camera processing will hurt the processing time hence the buffer.
I've played with a D3 and it definitely has a buffer more than 3 seconds. More like 10 seconds. A full frame capture allows 9 fps while the 11 fps is for cropped DX capture I believe.

Hope this make sense, thanks! :)
 
I've used Nikkon digital since the D1 and never had card issues. I'm currently shooting a D800 and Df and never lost a frame and I've filled the buffer many times. It might be a bug in your camera.
 
I guess I don't get the problem!
Selling off a kit will give huge losses.
Adding a faster long lens may actually be cheaper..
I prefer cropping to using Extenders..
I am amazed that with those super high ISO, a fabulous rig by any standards (not yours) you are found wanting!
IMHO there is almost no difference between Nikon and Canon.*
Yeah Nikon better flash system(actually easier to do)..
Re-think the problem.
I have used most major makes, as a result of working with Ad agencies, news and documentary.
 
After reading some of the helpful comments, I'm starting to think that (perhaps) I should try a little harder with my Canon gear. I really haven't dipped my toes too far into the AF configuration (shame on me) and that could improve my success rate for the school sports that I shoot.

As is normally the case, the (amateur) photographer makes a case for the gear being the impediment, rather than the other way round. ;)
 
The Camera companies and their advertising folk have brainwashed all of us, into thinking, newer gear will be the magic solution..
Professionals are often worse in matter of gear!:mad:
See Kirk Tuck VSL with newer better gear. Kirk changes whole systems at drop of a hat.I use my gear, almost never selling off.
Till death us do part.

I found on earlier EOS the auto focus in dim light, searched like forever! It has been improved. Maybe manual focus may still be better. Such distances sound like infinity.
.
A parent wants the best shots of one's kids. Re-think what and where. Get closer. Sage words from Robert Capa.
The cost factor of your gear would eliminate me!
I would really simply enjoy watching..A few shots..of the action.
Best of Luck. Cheers jason
 
I"m not sure if anyone mentioned this but even the non-Ai lenses can be converted to Ai very cheaply. Thus making the newest Nikons able to swallow every lens ever made by Nikon. I have 2 50's that were non-Ai and converted that run fine on my 2 digital Nikons.
 
leicapixie said:
See Kirk Tuck VSL with newer better gear. Kirk changes whole systems at drop of a hat.I use my gear, almost never selling off.
Click to expand...

I read the VSL blog. It amazes me how much money he must spend on switching from Canon to Sony to Panasonic to Nikon ......whilst still keeping Olympus gear and some other lenses. I guess that's the difference when you actually earn money from your gear! ;)

I'll be off to Nottingham today. My lad is playing hockey, and I've been asked to get some pics.....
 
wakarimasen said:
I read the VSL blog. It amazes me how much money he must spend on switching from Canon to Sony to Panasonic to Nikon ......whilst still keeping Olympus gear and some other lenses. I guess that's the difference when you actually earn money from your gear! ;)

I'll be off to Nottingham today. My lad is playing hockey, and I've been asked to get some pics.....
Click to expand...

It's way worse than what you read so far on VSL!
Kirk is a successful professional and "can" write off equipment against taxes..
Kirk wrote a wonderful long piece on using the Leica-M. Leica=gone!
Hasselblad 500 c series(His best portrait work) re-bought twice is also gone!
Nikon film to Digital. Digital replaced faster than some folks underwear.
Canon digital replaced Nikon.
Use of Olympus half frame,Rollei,Mamiya medium format,Phase-One, Samsung some of this not bought, but tested.
Another going thru the Marketplace is Ken Rockwell.
I have at this time a whole heap of walking wounded systems.
Folks going to Digital.DSLR so far no donations..RATS!
What I have learned is the Canon A series ,AE-1P etc,
was a better system than my Leica-M.
I love my really old battered M3 but reality..
Minolta,Pentax, Nikon are all great cameras.

So as you said re-think and practice,practice, shoot. Shoot lots!
Good luck with Hockey game. all best jason
 
Last edited:
HI Jason,

I learned a few things today:
  1. it's possible to save camera set-ups (including custom functions etc), in order to switch from one to another simply by loading a file from the CF or SD card. So I can switch from a sports setup (with custom AF settings, TV mode and continuous shooting and focus) to a landscape mode (with AV, single focus and standard focus settings). This is probably not news for other 1D users, but I'm embarassed to say it is for me!
  2. getting photographs at a hocket game is much harder than football or rugby!
  3. it seems that RFF users are more knowledgeable than POTN users. Still no response to the same post there - despite it being a predominantly DSLR environment!

I guess I've just hit the RTFM barrier: read the f$%%$ing manual!
 
wakarimasen said:
For reference, my current gear list:
Canon:
  • 1D Mark III
  • 5D Classic
  • 1V 17-40 F4L
  • 70-200 F4L IS
  • 100-400 F4.5-5.6L
  • 1.4 Extender (Version II)
Nikon:
  • F4
  • F3
  • FE
  • 28, 35, 50 and 105mm mm Ai lenses
Apologies for the long post, but I have been procrastinating about this for a year or two now. Indeed, I've considered the third way of sticking with Canon for digital and Nikon for film, but the thought of buying similar lenses in two different formats is not appealing.

Best regards, RoyM
Click to expand...

Well, as you have said in your post some hours ago, trying to more 'exploit' the possibilities of your digital Canon may be a way to go......

But if you go the Nikon route, looking at film, you may also have a look (in the mid term) at the additional possibilities the Nikon F6 is offering.

The Nikon F6 is the best designed 35mm SLR.
It is a real dream camera.
I can highly recommend it, using mine for years.
And it works excellently with AI, AI-S, P and Zeiss ZF / ZF.2 lenses. Including Color-Matrix metering!!

Some more info about the F6 if you are interested:

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/film.../pdf/f6_4p.pdf

http://www.nikon.de/tmp/DE/241986527...3152926346.pdf

Excellent, detailed test report from the German high-quality film photography magazine "PhotoKlassik":
http://www.aphog.de/wp-content/photo...sik_I.2014.pdf

Detailed test from Tom Hogan:
http://www.filmbodies.com/cameras/ca...f6-review.html

Customer reports at B&H:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...Autofocus.html

The F6 project:
http://www.nikonf6.net/

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Nikon_F6
 
wakarimasen said:
After reading some of the helpful comments, I'm starting to think that (perhaps) I should try a little harder with my Canon gear. I really haven't dipped my toes too far into the AF configuration (shame on me) and that could improve my success rate for the school sports that I shoot.
Click to expand...


As another more-or-less lifelong Nikon user, I'd also be reluctant to advise anyone to switch at great expense, even to Nikon, without being really sure it works for you. Certainly you'd be best served by renting the higher-end Nikon gear to see that it works for you before taking any drastic decisions. Of course, it depends which of those roles / tasks is most critical.

What makes sense for those who have existing large-ish lens collections is different than for those 'starting.'

Plus, some of the difference between platforms is just personal preference. I have _never_ been able to 'get' the handling of Canon cameras, digital or film (FD or EOS). That makes no sense but that's the way it is. You may just not like Nikon digital, whatever the capabilities.

A few additional thoughts:
1) I really, really like being able to use the 'same' lenses on both manual, film autofocus and digital. But the reality is that I don't do it much: generally the simplest and best manual focus stay on the period-appropriate cameras (FE etc), and autofocus on the various autofocus bodies. There are some exceptions (manual lenses that I particularly like will get used on digital or just for fun occasionally), but _for me_ it's not so frequent that I would change a system just to do so.
2) The number of 'special' lenses with no digital equivalent is not so very large - at least for most uses. I find the ones that I do like to use on digital is driven more by my own attachment to a lens (from long personal use) than any real need.
3) Stop-down metering is a very different (and far less painful experience) on a digital camera with auto-ISO and immediate playback than in the film era. I have a few lenses that I have to use this way on Nikon, and I'm surprised at how easy it is. I presume this is same on Canon. While I haven't ever done it, there is an advantage on Canon of being able to use adapted lenses of almost any MF make (if you don't mind the stop-down procedure). Maybe that can satisfy your compulsion to use MF lenses on digital.

That said, there are clear advantages for those with lots of Nikon lenses and bodies. Cameras like the F100 and F4/5/6 bridge the generations exceptionally well, and e.g. the F100 is cheap now. And even though I don't do it much, I love being able to move my AI-adapted 24mm (ancient) from an FM to an FE2 to an F100 and then a d750; that lens has something special (or I think it does, which is the same thing from my perspective). But it would be hard to justify an expensive system switch on the basis of that lens and I few others that I have an attachment to.
 
I may simply buy a D700 just to use for my Ai lenses. This would be a smaller kit bag to take on holiday than all of my EOS zoom lenses. The 1D mostly gets used for my sons' school sports, and that will last for another 4-5 years. Perhaps making a total shift then would be more appropriate.

The good thing is that receiving all of the comments that I have has been really useful, so thanks again to everyone that has replied.

With regards to the other digital DSLR forum: 6 days and not a single comment. Yet another reason to stick with RFF!
 
Hello Folks,

Another question. Does anyone have experience of using a D3 and a 1D Mark III in low light - i.e. indoor stadiums or evening hockey games? Which is the better of the two in terms of focus accuracy and tracking?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom