D3 vs (5d MKII & 7d)
Discussion
Sorry if I waffle a bit, or if it's been covered before (I searched) but there is a point to all this
Like a lot of you I'm a Canon shooter, and have been wrestling with the need to move to Nikon for many months. The obvious draw back with the move is glass, both existing and new. I like my primes (100mm L, Mmm) and IMHO the Canon range of glass is more accessible both in value and performance (a debate for another thread)
Initially I wanted to move for strobist reasons, but with the advent to the mini/flexTTL from pocket wizard, and the fact I mostly strobe in manual, CLS wouldn't be as much benefit any more (Canons ETTL really isn't that bad if you can get your head around ratios and don't mind the lack of rear curtain sync.)
Then I got the d3 lust. I think we've all been through it. I mostly like to shoot portraits, so I wanted to move to a full frame sensor, but as I sometimes shoot motor events and wildlife I didn't want to "limit" myself with the 5d MKII's auto focus (yet another debate entirely).
I've been close to buying a used 1d MKIII a couple of times, but I really don't know how I'll get on with the 1.3crop in portrait work which has led me to this...
For the cost of switching to a half decent Nikon setup (d700+grip or used d3) I could almost get a 5d MKII AND a 7d and not have to go through the chore, and money losses of switching lenses and flashes to Nikon (I don't think my dropped 430exII's will have held their value well!)
Now, I've been almost willing myself to go for a D3 recently but I can't think of many situations where a single D3, even with all it's awesomeness would outperform owning both a 5d MKII and a 7d.
Portrait work for sheer IQ and DR the d3 would have the edge, but the 5d MKII has a lot of MP in it's favour so for the level I'm shooting at (not pro) it's not a deciding factor.
Switch to a sports event / wildlife and the d3 would kill the 5d MKII, but the 7d could probably put up a good fight with it's "extra reach", more pixels and fancy new AF.
There's only 2 scenarios I think the d3 would be a clear winner. One would involve low light sports / wildlife shooting as the d3 has much better high iso performance (hell, the d3s has night vision), and the other would be in if a card failed in the field (the d3 can write to dual cards)
My belated question is, am I missing anything?
Like a lot of you I'm a Canon shooter, and have been wrestling with the need to move to Nikon for many months. The obvious draw back with the move is glass, both existing and new. I like my primes (100mm L, Mmm) and IMHO the Canon range of glass is more accessible both in value and performance (a debate for another thread)
Initially I wanted to move for strobist reasons, but with the advent to the mini/flexTTL from pocket wizard, and the fact I mostly strobe in manual, CLS wouldn't be as much benefit any more (Canons ETTL really isn't that bad if you can get your head around ratios and don't mind the lack of rear curtain sync.)
Then I got the d3 lust. I think we've all been through it. I mostly like to shoot portraits, so I wanted to move to a full frame sensor, but as I sometimes shoot motor events and wildlife I didn't want to "limit" myself with the 5d MKII's auto focus (yet another debate entirely).
I've been close to buying a used 1d MKIII a couple of times, but I really don't know how I'll get on with the 1.3crop in portrait work which has led me to this...
For the cost of switching to a half decent Nikon setup (d700+grip or used d3) I could almost get a 5d MKII AND a 7d and not have to go through the chore, and money losses of switching lenses and flashes to Nikon (I don't think my dropped 430exII's will have held their value well!)
Now, I've been almost willing myself to go for a D3 recently but I can't think of many situations where a single D3, even with all it's awesomeness would outperform owning both a 5d MKII and a 7d.
Portrait work for sheer IQ and DR the d3 would have the edge, but the 5d MKII has a lot of MP in it's favour so for the level I'm shooting at (not pro) it's not a deciding factor.
Switch to a sports event / wildlife and the d3 would kill the 5d MKII, but the 7d could probably put up a good fight with it's "extra reach", more pixels and fancy new AF.
There's only 2 scenarios I think the d3 would be a clear winner. One would involve low light sports / wildlife shooting as the d3 has much better high iso performance (hell, the d3s has night vision), and the other would be in if a card failed in the field (the d3 can write to dual cards)
My belated question is, am I missing anything?
jon- said:
My belated question is, am I missing anything?
Only the fact that Canon will soon have kit that trounces the D3 in all scenarios and you will be wishing you hadn't switched.You will make a loss on the kit change, and the D3 will need very good glass (it doesn't like cheaper stuff - including cheaper Nikon glass).
Unless you honestly believe that the D3 will offer you something overwhelming in terms of the quality of images it will produce, then stick with Canon and see what the future holds.
Ledaig said:
jon- said:
My belated question is, am I missing anything?
Only the fact that Canon will soon have kit that trounces the D3 in all scenarios and you will be wishing you hadn't switched.You will make a loss on the kit change, and the D3 will need very good glass (it doesn't like cheaper stuff - including cheaper Nikon glass).
Unless you honestly believe that the D3 will offer you something overwhelming in terms of the quality of images it will produce, then stick with Canon and see what the future holds.
jon- said:
After months of wanting Nikon I've finally come round to the "stick with what you've got" thought hence this post. Just wanted to be sure I wasn't missing anything.
You've already answered your question in your first post by stating that most of the reasons for changing to Nikon are no longer valid. Couple this with the belief that Canon glass suits you better and you really don't seem to have a valid reason for change.Name me one thing where a D3 will make a significant difference, then go hire one for a weekend and see if the actual difference you'd hoped for is there.
When a motor sports and airshows through the years, many (most) around me had Canons where as I had Nikon. There was nothing in my images which said I had made a mistake so I stuck with them.
I currently run a D200 and D3 which makes a nice combination, and a Canon SX200is due to Nikon compacts being crap!
jon- said:
Ledaig said:
Name me one thing where a D3 will make a significant difference, then go hire one for a weekend and see if the actual difference you'd hoped for is there.
Low light action, though it's something I can't see myself ever shooting.Ok, name me one thing where a D3 will make a significant difference to your photography.
jon- somewhere else said:
and it looks much cooler.
nick_bbb said:
I think the fact is you don't NEED any of this stuff, you just WANT it, so logic often doesn't come into play 
True! I read Jeff Ascoughs blog the other day and he shoots weddings with a 5DMKII so obviously, I WANT a 5DMKII (or two).But then I read another article of his where he tested a 1DMKIV and apparently ordered two of them as soon as he saw the quality of pics! (Also the AWB, AF and ISO).
Hmmm...
Ledaig said:
jon- said:
Ledaig said:
Name me one thing where a D3 will make a significant difference, then go hire one for a weekend and see if the actual difference you'd hoped for is there.
Low light action, though it's something I can't see myself ever shooting.Ok, name me one thing where a D3 will make a significant difference to your photography.
Why do you want to buy a new camera? What is it that your current one doesn't do well enough?
It sounds to me like you're obsessing over equipment a bit too much. If you're not a professional who stands to earn more money by having a better camera than your competitors, then I'd question what you're trying to achieve. If you're into flash photography, then why not spend the money on some lighting equipment?
On the other hand, if you want a new camera simply for the pleasure of having something posher/better, then get whichever is the best camera, regardless of price or what lenses it uses.
It sounds to me like you're obsessing over equipment a bit too much. If you're not a professional who stands to earn more money by having a better camera than your competitors, then I'd question what you're trying to achieve. If you're into flash photography, then why not spend the money on some lighting equipment?
On the other hand, if you want a new camera simply for the pleasure of having something posher/better, then get whichever is the best camera, regardless of price or what lenses it uses.
Your kidding yourself if you think the D3 is that far ahead of the 5D2 for high ISO, it just isnt.
Yes it is at 100% view/pixel level, which is totaly unfair, but at a print level there very very close check dxomark. 5D2 more than makes up for that with a huge amount more detail and pixels. At the moment pure number of pixels is fairly decoupled for ISO sensitivity.
The 5d2 tho does have more shutter lag and a poorer AF.
Just got a 7D tho cant realy coment on its quality as yet - considered a D700 but the cost of good glass for it was huge, no decent f4 range so 14-24 (or 17-35), 24-70 and 70-200 were all prohibitavly expensive.
7D's af is supposed to be close to the 1DIII's, slower to lock sometimes, faster to track, and the spot AF seems to be great, not sure how it measures up to the D3's af.
D3x may be a whole new game though....
Yes it is at 100% view/pixel level, which is totaly unfair, but at a print level there very very close check dxomark. 5D2 more than makes up for that with a huge amount more detail and pixels. At the moment pure number of pixels is fairly decoupled for ISO sensitivity.
The 5d2 tho does have more shutter lag and a poorer AF.
Just got a 7D tho cant realy coment on its quality as yet - considered a D700 but the cost of good glass for it was huge, no decent f4 range so 14-24 (or 17-35), 24-70 and 70-200 were all prohibitavly expensive.
7D's af is supposed to be close to the 1DIII's, slower to lock sometimes, faster to track, and the spot AF seems to be great, not sure how it measures up to the D3's af.
D3x may be a whole new game though....
Good points Rob. My point regarding a situation where the d3 would beat the 5d mkII / 7d combo was low light action - you couldn't use the 5d MKII for high iso because the AF is naff, and the 7d doesn't quite seem to have the same noise control.
It will be interesting to hear your thoughts on the 7d, i presume from what you've written you currently shoot with a 5d mkII? In the video world you can put Canon glass on Sony bodies etc - why can't we do that in the photography world!
It will be interesting to hear your thoughts on the 7d, i presume from what you've written you currently shoot with a 5d mkII? In the video world you can put Canon glass on Sony bodies etc - why can't we do that in the photography world!
Not much to add really other than ive just been into Jacobs and had a play with the 7D and WOW its good...
AF point meterings something else super quick lock on and tracking. Went into the street and panned some cars coming down the road.
I'm sold although it may have been also down to the 135mm F2 L I had bolted to the front.
All I need to do know is find the £2200 to buy the body and 135mm L.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff