After shooting 1.6 for so long, it still feels weird.

[raymond350]

When Nikon introduced their full frame D700, it uses the same sensor and AF system as their then top of the line D3.

A few months later, Canon released the 21MP 5D mk II, with its ~2yr old AF system. High ISO capability, but would it be negated if you can't lock focus at times in low light?

Canon 7D incorporates many of the features of D300, but was a year and a half late.

So for canon users, it seems that they are deprived of the high-end tech unless they willing to spend about 10K for the 1Ds body, but then again, with that amount they could probably get the D700 with a few pro grade Nikkor lens to complement the superior IQ and AF system.

My 2 cents.

 

[paisatge]

If what you really use is just the 24-70 and 70-200, I would suggest you to sell off your Canon stuff and pick up a Nikon D700. Nikon's flash system is better in addition.

At least that is what I would do. I'm staying with Canon because of the 17-40 and fast primes.

 

[Kenneth83]

If what you really use is just the 24-70 and 70-200, I would suggest you to sell off your Canon stuff and pick up a Nikon D700. Nikon's flash system is better in addition.

At least that is what I would do. I'm staying with Canon because of the 17-40 and fast primes.

haha now u are putting thoughts into my mind cos i was thinking of selling off my 7D + 17-55 f/2.8 once the 5DmkIII comes out since i already got the 70200mkII and pray for a new 24-70 or pick up a 2nd hand one from BnS...

But will still wait for photokina and all the announcements to come out first before deciding. In the meantime its back to more practice and less pixel peeping for me. Somehow makes me contented with my gear at the moment

 

[sensornoise]

Wai, appreciate your insight. Canon has done very distinct positioning on their bodies that somehow the 7D seems to be still not as capable as the old 1D bodies in terms of AF. Sidetrack a little: hope to hear your opinion on how the older 1D bodies trump the 7D in terms of AF (especially tracking). If too unrelevant to this thread, we could PM. Thx.

I felt that the 7D in terms of price and features (minus the FOV) is attractive. With the older 1D bodies I would feel a little crippled with the lcd (I know I'm spoilt). Not to mention how the dark side has a nice body to offer brand new. 7D has good IQ that even the 1dmIIn can't beat (imo/subjective). VF sizes are similar, very impressive for APS-C. I like how I could easily switch AF point (19-cross types ALL around) for better composition (seriously loving the multi-controller). Sadly, I would love to use the 24L II and the 70-200L II on a FF or at least 1.3 crop.

So for canon users, it seems that they are deprived of the high-end tech unless they willing to spend about 10K for the 1Ds body, but then again, with that amount they could probably get the D700 with a few pro grade Nikkor lens to complement the superior IQ and AF system.

My 2 cents.

raymond350, stop tempting me with that awesome fact. Haha. Canon's marketing...makes me sigh.

 

[clubgrit]

Thx guys for the comments.

I'm not going to the dark side yet. But I will consider. I'm sure Canon system suits most people here but too bad alot of people realize that maybe the dark side suits them better. There is no good or bad, it's a matter of needs.

I wonder who shoots 7D here and make do with the 1.6 crop FOV and enjoy the AF system (1D/(s) out of budget etc) or use the 5DMII for the IQ and FOV, and shoot sports while trying to make do with lower keeper rates.

That is right, no good or bad, especially to those who know what they need and are not confused. I have a lot of full frames, and I understand why some covet full frame, especially if they never tried full frame before. I also have 1.6x, 2x, 1.3x crop cameras, all have their own special place. Easy for me to say, but it is a dilemma for those who can only have 1 camera. I would suggest 5D MK1, good prices used.

On your question on 7d with 1.6x crop, I love it and think AF is fast enough. I explained why I like it in my post here, smaller lens for longer distance :
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=729469


.

 

[surrephoto]

I had a similar dilemma...

I was on a 1Ds II which had, fantastic AF even for current times. I often used 85 f1.2L and could nail wedding march-in in hotel setting at f1.2 with it's AI servo.

As months past, it's ISO performance was becoming obviously weaker to newer beast such as the D700 and 5D2.

Pondering a "jump" to 5D2 was simply unbearable, not only did i lose every single operational similiarity, I also would lose the fantastic realiable servo AF. Having to spend 3k+ more on a 1DsIII seemed like a joke, no offence, because the max iso was a H 3200.

I gave in a threw out my L primes and jumped to Nikon D700. I admit i miss some things with canon, but performance has never been better and the D700 with grip is certainly a direct match against the 1DsII in terms of AF speed and reliability.

 

[raymond350]

raymond350, stop tempting me with that awesome fact. Haha. Canon's marketing...makes me sigh.

I'm tempted also, I would probably lose my f/4 zooms and some primes if I switch. (Nikon lenses are expensive)

That is right, no good or bad, especially to those who know what they need and are not confused. I have a lot of full frames, and I understand why some covet full frame, especially if they never tried full frame before. I also have 1.6x, 2x, 1.3x crop cameras, all have their own special place. Easy for me to say, but it is a dilemma for those who can only have 1 camera. I would suggest 5D MK1, good prices used.
.

Yup, am a 5D mk 1 user myself. I enjoyed IQ and bokeh from full frame, and am not the least tempted to upgrade to 5D mkII (but you do see more and more of it on the street nowadays)

I had a similar dilemma...

Pondering a "jump" to 5D2 was simply unbearable, not only did i lose every single operational similiarity, I also would lose the fantastic realiable servo AF. Having to spend 3k+ more on a 1DsIII seemed like a joke, no offence, because the max iso was a H 3200.

I gave in a threw out my L primes and jumped to Nikon D700. I admit i miss some things with canon, but performance has never been better and the D700 with grip is certainly a direct match against the 1DsII in terms of AF speed and reliability.

Wonder if many more feel the same dilemma as you, after all, AF and high ISO performance are the 2 most important in-camera functions. Anyway, the difference between 1Ds III and 5D II only 3k+??

 

[krishna91]

I went over to d700 from 5d mark ii and now im back to 5d mark ii. the 5d has faster AF, even though d700's continuous AF mode is better, if thats what you need. The 5d, if you ask me, is a better camera apart from the Servo mode. The d700 is only more rugged, a little less noise at ISO's above 1600, and better AF tracking.

 

[clubgrit]

I'm tempted also, I would probably lose my f/4 zooms and some primes if I switch. (Nikon lenses are expensive)

Well, I switched from Nikon to Canon. Both are good really and have their own strengths. My switch is just to have something different, I can live with either brand.

Yup, am a 5D mk 1 user myself. I enjoyed IQ and bokeh from full frame, and am not the least tempted to upgrade to 5D mkII (but you do see more and more of it on the street nowadays)

Its current price is near the price of mid-level Nikon dslrs long time ago which many had, so I guess more people can afford the 5d mk2 now. As for 5D MK1, still good, can buy about $1700 from the 2nd hand section.


.

 

[sensornoise]

I've been looking around and I realized a significant number of people actually jumped to the dark side.

So I carefully analysed the D700. The cross-type AF points are the same as the D3 series:

15 cross-type AF sensors clumped together in the center out of the 51 AF sensors?!?!


:nono: I'll rather use a 7D with 19 cross-type sensors all over the frame (well its easier for the points to fill up a crop camera) as the cross-type sensors cover the rule of thirds. Of course, a 1D IV with 39 cross-type sensors spread all over would be neat.:lovegrin:

In fact, I could probably make do with 5D II's AF system and just use the center point with assist points. It's just slightly worse than the d700.

On top of everything, I also enjoy weaker AA-filters and less cooked RAW files.

 

[zarray]

I've been looking around and I realized a significant number of people actually jumped to the dark side.

So I carefully analysed the D700. The cross-type AF points are the same as the D3 series:

15 cross-type AF sensors clumped together in the center out of the 51 AF sensors?!?!


:nono: I'll rather use a 7D with 19 cross-type sensors all over the frame (well its easier for the points to fill up a crop camera) as the cross-type sensors cover the rule of thirds. Of course, a 1D IV with 39 cross-type sensors spread all over would be neat.:lovegrin:

In fact, I could probably make do with 5D II's AF system and just use the center point with assist points. It's just slightly worse than the d700.

On top of everything, I also enjoy weaker AA-filters and less cooked RAW files.

I older 1D2/1D2n bodies clump their cross-type sensors in the same arrangement as well.

What im guessing is that when using the auto AF point selection mode, the central cross-type sensors are used to get the initial lock and from there onwards should the subject move out of the central area, the other non cross-type sensors can take over without any issue given the superb AF algorithm of the 1series bodies. Just my hunch only...no facts to back it up.

 

[LukaviZ]

Well, i'm currently STILL sitting on the 5dmk1, and yes, it's an old camera that tops out at iso H3200, but for the price, I don't think there's much room left for complaints.

Ever were times when I seriously contemplated heading to 5d2, but looking at the 21mp squeezed onto the sensor just didn't seem necessary for me. I was content with 12-ish megapixels.

After working with it for awhile, I got used to focusing with centre af point only, though it would be nice if canon could give a system with higher iso limits ( at a decent mp range; 20-30mp at iso 12800 would be pointless, unless they manage to revolutionize something to keep noise down...)

nonetheless, i think this entire discussion is seriously out of topic...? lol..



I do agree that shooting at 1.6x crop factor really screws up the focal lengths... having to get 'specialized' crop lenses (such as a 30 1.4 to replace a standard 50, 10-22 to replace 16-35) would make it a pain to move to FF in the future, and it may even deter you from moving to FF..

 

[Kenneth83]

wondering if anyone took quite a while to get used to FF coming from 1.6 crop?

Planning to go FF soon or rather waiting to see what the 5DmkIII will be like as I find myself shooting more things where higher iso performance is more important then sports AF like church stuff where you cant use a flash and the lighting is not really good...

of cos hopefully canon will leave it at the 21ish mega pixel and improve the higher iso performance and also the AF...