Jump to content
pmooney

Canon 5D Full Frame -who's thinking to shift camps

Recommended Posts

Looking at the studio performance of the 5D . Full frame is nice , but is it nice enough.

 

It has become a tough job to remain loyal to TEAM Nikon .

 

Wondering who other than the Watt's. Frinks and the Cheng's are committed to this full-frame world.

 

What will the next big move be ?? Who will make the jump ??? Stay tuned for more from well informed phototypes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why'd you post this in the classifieds forum Peter - is your Nikon gear for sale?

 

Cheers

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was my understanding that Jim Watt shot/shoots a Canon 20D...unless he's upgraded in the last 4 months or so...

 

~Matt Segal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James,

 

I was probably ( read completely ) a little muddled by the all the red wine that was being consumed while I wrestled with this question - my mistake.

 

Feel free to move this to the proper forum.

 

Hazily

 

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know at least one Nikon film shooter who has jumped to the 5D, which is an excellent camera.

 

Without wanting to start a full frame discussion, most Nikon DSLR shooters realise that FF is not necessary for UW shooting (because of lenses like the 12-24mm and 10.5mm).

 

I think the most attractive feature of the 5D is the high ISO noise performance - making this camera probably the best out there for filter photography and deep wreck photography (once deep-rated housings are available).

 

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not me, i am loyal Nikon man. Haven't even thought about it, not that big a deal if you ask me. I love the fact my 105 is now a 160 or thereabouts. WA, as Alex said, the lenses are there so who cares

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice that the switchers have subsided? Nikon has successfully filled the major gaps in its body lineup.

 

I love my Nikkor lineup on my DX body. I shot my F100 for the first time in months the other day, and the viewfinder is considerably dimmer than my D2x, though bigger. I also found myself wanting more reach! When I want FF - I have it on Velvia!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Notice that the switchers have subsided?  Nikon has successfully filled the major gaps in its body lineup.

 

I love my Nikkor lineup on my DX body.  I shot my F100 for the first time in months the other day, and the viewfinder is considerably dimmer than my D2x, though bigger.  I also found myself wanting more reach!  When I want FF - I have it on Velvia!

 

 

I think Kasey is right. I don't see the wholesale migration to Canon once the D2X came out. From my position it was about a year and a half too late, but it is here now and it is a beautiful camera. Likewise, I'm sure the D200 will be awesome. I think anyone shooting a 1DsMKII//5D or D2X/D200 has killer tools, and should be very happy.

 

With the right lenses in DX, the difference between FF and cropped sensor is irrelevant. It is all about the quality of the image imported to the computer.

 

Still, it will be interesting to see what happens this fall. it is a Photokina year after all :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little bird told me that Nikon is definitely planning a full frame camera of some types although I doubt that we will hear anything concrete for quite awhile yet. There is only so much more pixels Nikon can squeeze out of DX size sensor and it seems that the market still see pixel race as the main selling point. I am not sure if I really need to go full frame seeing how good D2X is with DX wide angle lenses and advantage with macro shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking as someone who 'jumped' a couple of years ago I'd say that a real differences in FF and DX are in wide-angles. Canon produce fixed focal, fast wides, Nikon don't. Depending on your style of shooting this may or may not be important to you, and you may like the fact that both 10.5 and 16 fisheye lenses are available for the Nikons.

 

If pushed, I'd say that what I really like about the FF Canon is the 100mm usm macro - a real stunner, and my 24/1.4, I use both, both under and above water, a lot. I would miss both these lenses shifting back to Nikon. (Mind you, I really liked the 60 micro Nikkor and wish Canon produced a FF equivalent which focussed to 1:1). I also intend to buy the 35/1.4 as this was always a favourite focal length on 35mm film. To date, Nikon don't really produce much similar (28/1.4 is the nearest and equates to 42/1.4). The FF Canon respond well to fast lenses and these can exhibit beautiful bokeh at times.

 

All this said, the D2X (and no doubt the D200 too) is an excellent camera. Most shifting seems to have taken place now, to Nikon's detriment. If they'd produced the D2X at the same time as Caono's 1DS it might be a different story.

 

There is much made of the nuances of image quality achievable by 5D, 1D series, D2X and D200 cameras. In my experience, it takes careful scrutiny to distinguish the difference in final printed output if shot at similar settings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It has become a tough job to remain loyal to TEAM Nikon.

 

well, grass is always greener on neighbour’s lawn :rolleyes:

I second what Paul said. It's a very nice thing to have two fisheyes for underwater (somewhat 110° and 180°), 2nd curtain sync with manual strobes and so on.

 

I will probably house the 5D for underwater for some reasons. But the main reason is just that I went for Canon years ago and have too much lenses and bodies already.

If I would start from the beginning choosing a camera brand exclusively for underwater, I would go for Nikon today.

 

I think one simply has to live with some minor advantages and disadvantages of either system to some degree. I bet, if you switch to Canon, Nikon brings out an even better new camera for underwater and you want to go back :)

 

Julian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Alex say

I think the most attractive feature of the 5D is the high ISO noise performance - making this camera probably the best out there for filter photography and deep wreck photography (once deep-rated housings are available).

 

I am still sometimes thinking to "maybe" make the swich

 

Now everybody, including Alex ??!!, tell me that the Nikon d200 will be the best choice for me.. Nikon d200 have some features that make is s great runner

 

As Auto Iso agjustem in combination with shutter speed - easy to use White balance including 5 resaved manual white balance settings - and the famous 10,5 lens

 

On the other side canon 5D have the advance of highiso perfomage and low noice

perfect for available light & filter photography. 13 m pixels is great to for large prints

 

if the price difference was not so high maybe it will be easer to make the swich but now it is really a tuff question

 

On the end we must ask if the bodys that we have are not enough and everything else is just " a guys think to have the latest and best"

 

No question that with new models you will gain in quality , if you are a good photographer.

 

lambis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Lambis,

 

I don't think the famous 10.5 lens on a D200 is any different than a 15mm fisheye on the 5D. So that makes both systems even, it's not a "pro" to either camp.

 

The 5D sensor performance has been proven over the last 4 months. The D200 on the other hand is showing some variability in sensor quality and performance from camera to camera. This has been confirmed by Thom and Bjorn. Some of the sensors are exibiting banding problems.

 

Cheers

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we are in "The Great Debate" again :P

Can someone talk about lenses and autofocus speed and the difference between having the motor in the lense (?Canon) and the motor in the body (?Nikon) ???

 

I went to my local camera shop in hopes of finding the elusive D200. Of course, they have no D200s on the shelf and have no idea when they will get any. So, I tried the Canon 5D with a 100mm lense side by side with a D70 and a 60mm lens. (This was the closest I could get to "apples-to-apples" because the 5D is full format unlike most DSLRs which are 1.5)

 

Anyhow, even standing in the shop, focusing on a quarter or on printing on a box in decent light, there was simply NO comparison. The D70 autofocus time as very noticible - as in mulitple tenths of a second; It seemed as if it set itself at one extreme of focus and methodically turned the lens until it found the focus spot (even when set to limit the range, and without any searching).

 

With the 5D (and later with the 20D with the kit lense) you didn't even have time to think what the camera might be doing - bang the autofocus was set.

 

I ask the shop manager about this, and he says of course Canon will always win in autofocus time because the motor is in the lens. And if you shoot nature or sports photography, there is no reason to go to Nikon if you don't have an investment in lenses. At first I figure "Canon bigot", but I probe a little and he does make sense. But I have never heard this before in 6 months of research, and I don't trust anyone but the real experts here.

 

So, given that many of us shoot a lot in not perfectly still water, with not perfect bouyancy control, with not always immovable subjects, and of course not making contact with the environment, why is this not a highly determining factor in choosing a system?

 

I know autofocus speed is a huge factor for me in wanting to move up from my D5000 to a DSLR. Now I feel that I have to go to a 20D with a smaller display than I'd like or pony up bigger $$ for a 5D. This one simple demonstration has totally changed my thinking.

 

Did I miss this consideration all along or am I still missing other mitigating factors?

 

- Beth (education is a long process)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Beth,

 

Yes, the person at the store didn't explain everything to you properly.

 

Some lenses have the motor in the lens (called USM for Canon and AF-S for Nikon) and some don't. The lenses that don't have a motor in them are driven by a motor in the camera body.

 

Not all Canon lenses have a motor in them, only some of them. The same is true for Nikon lenses.

 

You tried a macro lens, which was a good starting point. All of Nikon's popular macro lenses are driven by the camera body. Canon's 100mm and 60mm (EFS) macro lenses are USM, meaning they have a motor inside them. The Canon 50mm macro lens does not have a motor in it.

 

So the demo that the store salesperson gave you was highly slanted toward Canon, as he was using a faster lens. It doesn't mean the autofocus SYSTEM is better than Nikon though.

 

There are rumors that Nikon is about to release a 105mm AF-S lens, which will help the Nikon macro system to focus faster.

 

Cheers

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not completely apples to apples. The 100mm Macro has an Ultrasonic motor. Lenses with this type of motor is much faster than lenses with other type motor in them. The good for canon shooters is that most canon lenses have the USM.

 

Nikon has a few lenses with fast AF motors in them. nikon calls it silent wave motor and is in lens designated AF-s unfortunately few nikon lenses are af-s and none of them are macro lenses. Also many sigma lens (available in nikon mount) have fast AF motors too. Sigma calls it hyper sonic motor.

 

If you compare apples to apples by puting the same sigma HSM lens on a 5D and D200 I suspect they would be very close in terms of AF speed.

 

As far as 20D vs 5D. Wait another month. By this time next month, the 20D will be discontinuted and replaced by a model that will have the large lcd from the 5d and will be similar in specs to the D200 for $1500.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You Guys are the Bomb!

 

Ok so what about a wide angle AF speed? People seem to like the Nikon AF 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF DX AF-S. Sigma has a 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG HSM Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF. (Sigma is about $250 cheaper.)

 

Would I see a difference with these on a D200 body?

 

And how would this compare to the Sigma 12-24 mounted on a Canon body?

 

Thanks Again,

Beth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James I am a novice about canons sytem and maybe this is something that make me thinking that nikon have always the lead ...

Off cource you have right that a 16mm in a full format sensor is the same as the 10,5 . What about the equvalant to the 16mm nikon??

 

The great debate is more a debate of different needs...

 

I just have read a swedish article in a Foto magasin

 

They speak about full format sends and wide angel photography..

more the magazin try to see if the myth is correct that Full format sensors have problem with sharp corners

 

Anyway i cant wite to hole articel but her some conclusions

 

The have test

Canon 5D with EF 16 -35 on 19mm

Canon 20D with Tokina 12-12 on 12mm

Nikon d2X with DX 12-24 on 12mm

Diafilm with Tokina EF 16 -35 on 19mm

 

On shutter 4 canon 5D have problem with the edges and D2X is the best

On shutter 11 the Canon 5D is way ahead to every other camera and sharp as is goes and very very much details...

 

Conclusion is that with a good canon lens like CANON EF 24/2,8 or CANON EF 28/2,8 the canon 5D is the winner for WA photography

 

Thats from Sweden

 

Lambis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beth,

 

for wide angle, autofocus speed is not important. All wide angle lenses focus sufficiently fast.

 

You picked a bad example with the Sigma 12-24. The Sigma 12-24 is a very different beast than the Nikon 12-24. The Sigma 12-24 is designed for film or fullframe digital cameras makeing it the widest rectalinear SLR lens ever made.

 

The Nikon 12-24 is a 1.5x crop lens only, making it much less extreme. Because of this, on a D200 the Nikon is going to outperform the sigma. Plus the very large size of the Sigma 12-24 means that it is physically too large for most if not all housings...

 

A more interesting comparison would be the Nikon 12-24 vs the Sigma 10-20. In this comparison AF speed would be very similar on both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some lenses have the motor in the lens (called USM for Canon and AF-S for Nikon) and some don't.  The lenses that don't have a motor in them are driven by a motor in the camera body.

 

Not all Canon lenses have a motor in them, only some of them.  The same is true for Nikon lenses.

 

Canon has introduced the EOS system and its EF lenses (dead for the old FD mount) in 1987. Since then, all Canon EF lenses have the AF motor built into the lens (not just USM lenses). There is no EOS body featuring an AF motor in the camera body. Communication between Canon lenses and cameras is purely electrical since 19 years.

Canon has been criticized in the past for switching the mount from FD to EF and Nikon users praised their never changing mount. On the other side, EF has offered the better AF drive system. Each Canon lens has an AF motor specifically designed for one lens which is located next to the element the motor has to drive. Big motors for big tele lenses and smaller ones for smaller lenses and without long mechanical transmissions. Nikon’s AF motor in the camera body has always been the same, no matter if it has to drive a huge tele lens or a small and light lens. It’s obvious which system performed faster by basic design. In addition, Canon offers ultrasonic motors (USM) which are silent and fast. In some cheaper lenses there is a simple version of USM (an ultrasonic micro motor). The “true†USM features a ring type motor and is even faster and allows full time manual override anytime (no switching to MF required), like for example the 100mm macro USM, all those white tele lenses and black L lenses.

 

Julian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking as someone who 'jumped' to the Canon 1DS, and who used Nikon for ~20 years beforehand (underwater and above) I'll add my own personal observations and opinions here.

 

The 60 micro Nikkor is a superb lens: put it on a 1.5x sensor camera and then behind a flat port and it produces a result similar to a 60 x 1.5 x 1.5 = 135mm lens on 35mm film.

 

The Canon 100mm macro lens put behind a flat port produces an effect equivalent to 100 x 1.5 = 150mm on FF.

 

The Canon focusses very fast - due to both internal motor and internal focussing (it has a lightweight optical system which is moved by the motor - the lens does not change its external dimensions as it is focussed), but can be a bit picky and will sometimes hunt - there's been discussion about this before on wetpixel, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is simply too fast for its own good under the low contrast conditions often prevalent underwater. It is optically superb!!!

 

So is the 60mm, and having used one on an S2Pro I know that the focus on this and similar cameras is a lot slower and even pickier than the 100 on the Canon, I found the 60 on the S2 would hunt a fair bit. But I would expect the D2X and D200 to be much better on AF speed than the S2, BUT the lens is limited by its physical, mechanical, focus system which shifts significantly and, due to its optical/mechanical moving section's weight, must be fundamentally limited regardless of the camera its fitted to.

 

My personal opinion is that of the two the 100mm Canon is the lens I would actually use by preference (but I also love its bokeh and use it above water too). I really wish Canon had made their new 60 macro for FF cameras!

 

As regards wide-angles, well I've used the 12~24 on the S2Pro and the 17~40 on the 1DS. I don't particularly like either - both work adequately but remain a compromise and I've reverted to fixed focals. Whatever anyone says, at the moment there are simply more wide-angle lenses available for the Canon FFs as you can use film lenses. I expect this to change, BUT, I've said it before and I'll repeat it, I think that the 10+MPixel digital cameras used with dome ports are limited by the optical characteristics of the dome set-up when using lenses with a field of view of 90 degrees or more. Which bring me to:

 

The exception - fisheyes, and here Nikon have the upper hand as they offer both 10.5 DX format and 16mm FF format both of which are fully usable on their digital cameras and both of which by all accounts work very well. As does the 15 Canon on FF cameras.

 

Debates rage on web fora as to the relative merits of both systems however, although there are differences, in skilled hand either system will produce stunningly good results. At the end of the day the choice depends on your style of photography, what you like using and is finally a matter of personal choice. With the demise of Konica-Minolta, Canon and Nikon now share ~90% of the SLR market and both produce very high qualty products. Shifting camps is an expensive process (believe me I know) and its worth weighing up future possibilities as well as what's on offer now. Canon will almost certainly produce better wide-angle lenses and Nikon may well produce IF internal motor macro lenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul,

 

While I accept your calculations regarding equivalent focal lengths behind ports, I think it is not really relevant to include the port magnification factor as we are all underwater photographers here! I know you shoot great photos on land. But my land photos are rubbish!

 

Alex

 

p.s. I did a couple of serious shooting dives with the Nikon 12-24mm earlier in the month and for the first time I was very pleased with it (for the first time). Using a dioptre I was getting good corner sharpness and detail. Once I get a few moments I'll post some examples and crops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh yes, but Alex, I'd love a 60mm equivalent internal and fast focus lens for full frame. Trouble is, as always, such a beast doesn't exist - which is , in a roundabout sort of a way, what I was getting at!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...