Thinking of switching ... to Nikon

Just sneaking over to the Nikon camp for a few minutes, but don't tell the Canon fanboys or I'll be flamed when I get back.

I just need some Nikon advice here, but I'll give you some background first....

I use a 5D, mostly L series lenses and some primes and have a few speedlites. I shoot mostly weddings plus some portrait work and occasional food, product and architecture.

For most siutations, I'm happy with what I use, but for weddings, which is 70% of my work, my 5D AF doesn't cut it for what I want out of a camera these days. Specifically, if the lighting conditions drop too low, I cannot get reliable AF, even with the centre focus point. I've tried lots of lenses and methods, but I've lost patience now.

The only Canon bodies which would work for me are 1 series, which I find too big and heavy for long wedding shoots. On top of that, the 1D is 1.3 crop so I would need to have two of them around my neck (there's no lens with a zoom range suited to 1.3 crop, like a 24-105 equivalent) or the 1Ds, which I cannot afford.

So, I'm looking at what Nikon has, and there's models with great build quality, good AF, excellent IQ at a fraction of the cost of a 1Ds. I'm thinking D300 or D700.

How do the Nikon wedding photographers here find the accuracy and speed of AF on these bodies?

I don't want to shoot with two cameras around my neck, so my next question is which lenses are working for you? I would love to just get the 2.8 lenses, but I'm also looking at the 16-85 because it's highly rated for what it is, and it has a versatile zoom range. I think the f2.8 standard zooms with their short zoom ranges mean that I would need two cameras around the neck.

If I decide to go for the 2.8 lenses, I will probably get two D300s plus the 17-55/2.8 and 70-200/2.8.

Any thoughts on the Tamron or Sigma 17-50/2.8 lenses. I know that these brands don't AF so well on Canon bodies, but I've heard they AF pretty well on Nikons.
--
fluorite

As a Canon user who used Nikon for a year before switching back, I say go for it! There's nothing like trying "the other side" for yourself rather than listening to a lot of the silliness on these forums. The Nikon D3/D300/D700 are top-notch. Given that you're currently using a 5D, I would say a D700 would be a more natural extension for you than a D300 in terms of framing, depth of field, image quality etc. Not that the D300 is a slouch - I had it for some time and thought it was a very well thought out camera.

Ultimately I opted to switch back to Canon because I felt more at home with their ergonomics and "the little things" that matter to me, but I have no regrets about trying Nikon and seeing both their pluses and minuses.

The best part of Nikon is amazing line of pro lenses - do not waste your $$ on third-party lenses if you can afford it.
--
Art

Fluorite said:

Fluorite wrote:
How do the Nikon wedding photographers here find the accuracy and
speed of AF on these bodies?

Click to expand...

Very good (on the D300), but then I've never really had trouble with my Canon either (40D). For wedding-type work I generally use single focus points anyway (usually center) so not much difference between the D300 and 40D. When using multiple points for tracking (sports-type use), no question - the D300/D700 AF works noticeably better.

Fluorite said:

If I decide to go for the 2.8 lenses, I will probably get two D300s
plus the 17-55/2.8 and 70-200/2.8.

Click to expand...

Can't get much better than those - well, except for the 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 on the D700.

Fluorite said:

Any thoughts on the Tamron or Sigma 17-50/2.8 lenses. I know that
these brands don't AF so well on Canon bodies, but I've heard they AF
pretty well on Nikons.

Click to expand...

I had the Tamron 17-50 on my Nikons and liked it so much I bought the Canon version when I switched. For me, it's worked great on both systems optically and in terms of AF accuracy. However, the AF was a bit quieter and faster on my Nikons (where the camera was driving the lens) than on my Canon.

That said, the AF is still slower and louder than Nikon AF-S lenses (especially the speedy 24-70 or almost-as-speedy 17-55). If you're shelling out cash for a D700 (or two D300's, why skimp on the lens?)

Whatever you decide, enjoy your new gear!

Thanks.

I didn't want to make the first post too long, but there's other issues too.

After three years of hard use, the 5D was still working very well (apart from design limitations) and I thought that before my luck runs out, I will do the right thing and send it to Canon for a checkup and maintenance service.

They said the top plate needed replacement because there was corrosion which might affect internal parts eventually! The other thing was the AA filter needed replacement. I didn't know there was a problem with it. It seemed fine to me. The total of the quote was around $800 AUD.

When I called them to say not to bother with the repairs, I'll just use the 5D until it stops working, they said "actually, we'll do the AA filter for nothing". Go figure. Maybe the technician broke it and thought they would get me to pay for replacement?

That was all okay, but when the camera was returned I did a couple of test shots, which looked okay, then proceeded to shoot a few weddings. It turns out that the camera was backfocussing after that service (it was fine before the service) and the images seem to have a skewed plane of focus.

I assumed the skewed plane of focus (which wasn't there before the service) was a problem with the lens, so I sent both the lens and camera back to Canon to have that looked at.

Now it gets worse, when I sent the camera back after this second service, they have adjusted the backfocussing but said that the lens was "within specifications". I showed Canon clear examples of the problem and I cannot believe that an "L" series lens could have this not inconsiderable problem and be within specification. On top of that, the IS unit has been acting up for about a year and I asked them to fix that in the first service, and they said they couldn't fault it. I have other lenses with IS and none of them "jiggle" like this one.

What I'm hearing from Canon is this: "yes, your equipment has some issues, but we're not prepared to fix it because it's deemed within specification".

I cannot work with equipment which has these problems and I'm hoping that Nikon cameras will prove to be better.

Anybody want to comment on Nikon's reliability and quality control?
--
fluorite

Well I'm not a wedding photog, however I do like to take pics in twilight conditions using off-camera flash... in those cases Nikon AF is excellent and this is on a D90, D300/700 is only going to be better. The only time I have AF problems is if it is really, really dark. Centre AF point only is faster than area-AF and it is spot on almost 100% of the time.

I think the 16-85 could be a bit problematic for weddings due to the f/5.6. The 24-70 f/2.8 is a stunning lens however.

The Nikon CLS flash system is very good since it allows control of off-camera flash direct from the camera body. However it is a line-of-sight system (with leeway indoors where there are walls to reflect light so you don't really need line-of-sight) and consequently it is not as reliable as I would like outdoors.

A few weeks ago I borrowed a D300 with 70-200 2.8 on an indoor kart circuit. Really horrible lighting there, very dark and I was really baffled by the incredible accuracy of the autofocus of this combination
--
Don't wait for the Nikon D-whatever, have fun now!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j_wijnands/

I'm a heavy D300 user (75-100K exposures per year - about 3/4 are weddings) and would like to add the following if you're coming from a FF 5D:

1. The 70-200 is a stunner in quality (and weight, size, and cost...), and you'll only be using the best part (the center) of its coverage, but I find the 50-150 2.8 Sigma (the II version) much more useful, a pound lighter, smaller, and about 40 percent of the price. While not as sharp as the Nikkor (only by a bit) I find the tradeoffs more than worthwhile.

2. As another poster already mentioned the central point focus point on the D300 (the only one where the focus assist light works) is just insanely good and fast so it's focus, half press the shutter button and reframe for me almost exclusively.

3. While the 17 - 55 Nikkor is probably my most used lens (especially for PJ stuff) the newer 24-70 is my most used portrait lens and better than any other zoom I've ever used.... it's a 36 - 105 on the DX format. BTW, I find it so contrasty that I flatten my ratios a bit when I use it instead of the 17-55 and the 50-150.

4. The 85 1.8 is incredible considering it's $ 360 compared to the 1.4 at $ 1025, plus its lighter and smaller and its IQ at f 8 or f 11 holds up better than the 1.4...IMO.

5. The D300 is great up to ISO 1600 and even passable at 2000 in a pinch but I use ISO Lo .3 (ISO 160) a lot. Nikon says the "Lo" ISO settings are less contrasty than the normal ISO range but I find that helps me considering the white bridal gown and the black tuxes I shoot so much.

6. The D300's LCD screen is just head and shoulders over Canon and Nikons older screens for chimping.

Hope this info is helpful...I think you'll love the D300.
Steve Sint

Fluorite said:

So, I'm looking at what Nikon has, and there's models with great
build quality, good AF, excellent IQ at a fraction of the cost of a
1Ds. I'm thinking D300 or D700.

How do the Nikon wedding photographers here find the accuracy and
speed of AF on these bodies?

I don't want to shoot with two cameras around my neck, so my next
question is which lenses are working for you? I would love to just
get the 2.8 lenses, but I'm also looking at the 16-85 because it's
highly rated for what it is, and it has a versatile zoom range. I
think the f2.8 standard zooms with their short zoom ranges mean that
I would need two cameras around the neck.

If I decide to go for the 2.8 lenses, I will probably get two D300s
plus the 17-55/2.8 and 70-200/2.8.

Any thoughts on the Tamron or Sigma 17-50/2.8 lenses. I know that
these brands don't AF so well on Canon bodies, but I've heard they AF
pretty well on Nikons.

Click to expand...

Fluorite said:

Now it gets worse, when I sent the camera back after this second
service, they have adjusted the backfocussing but said that the lens
was "within specifications". I showed Canon clear examples of the
problem and I cannot believe that an "L" series lens could have this
not inconsiderable problem and be within specification. On top of
that, the IS unit has been acting up for about a year and I asked
them to fix that in the first service, and they said they couldn't
fault it. I have other lenses with IS and none of them "jiggle" like
this one.

What I'm hearing from Canon is this: "yes, your equipment has some
issues, but we're not prepared to fix it because it's deemed within
specification".

I cannot work with equipment which has these problems and I'm hoping
that Nikon cameras will prove to be better.

Click to expand...

I think you can on occasion get the "within spec" line from all manufacturers. Over the years here on these forums I have heard great things about Nikon service centers going "above and beyond", and I have heard people complaining about the "within spec" line. My guess would be that it differs between individual service centers (for Nikon, the US service centers seem to be better than the UK ones, based on very limited anecdotal comments) and maybe even which technician happens to look at your gear.

Something else in your post, though, made me wonder. You said the service center claimed the AA filter needed replacement, then they were willing to do that for free, and when it came back you said there was back-focusing and a "tilted focus place" (not sure what exactly that means). That would make me wonder if the sensor itself may somehow have moved? I hope they didn't charge you for the second service, since that sounds from your description clearly that they bungled it the first time...

Again, though, unfortunately these kind of things can happen even with the best (referring to Nikon, of course -- I'm prejudiced).

Eric
--
http://www.lumenssolutions.com/

Hi the nikon d300 is a nice camera good focusing good flash system, but I think you will miss the color sharpness and the ability of the 5d when it comes to portraiture. The 16-85 (have it) is a nice lens but I would not use it to shoot a wedding, I would use my sigmas 18-50 & 50-150 2.8's over it and certainly the nikons you mentioned are stellar choices. The 2 bodies and 2.8 would be the way to go but comming from the 5d I would consider the d700. There is a russian wedding photographer that has posted here her work is IMO one of the better ones if you can find her posts to see what both cameras are capable of that might help.

You also might want to post something on the D3/D700 forum as this is where Sam Stern, a pro wedding photog hangs out. He used D300s and them moved up to D700 and can probably give you a lot of insight into the use of each for weddings.
--
Richard

I have shot weddings with the Nikon D1x, D2x, D200, D300, D3 and the Canon 5D, Mark II, 30D, and 1d Mark III. I shoot often in low light and during the reception could easily compare how fast two different cameras were to lock focus.

D2x = Mark II

D2x & Mark II much better than 5D or D200 - in low light I would put the D200/5D
away for the remainder of the evening

1Ds Mark III is at least 2x as fast to autofocus as the D2x or Mark II

D3/D300 (same AF used in D700) are much slower to AF in low light than the Mark III and often will fail to AF altogether unless IR assist is used from a SB-800 or SU-800. Cross type AF sensors cover only the center 25% of the viewfinder with the D3/D300/D700 cameras so AF in low light is greatly handicapped and actually inferior to that of the D2x or the Mark II.

If low light AF is really important I would suggest sucking it up and getting a 1D Mark III. Works great with the 16-35mm f2.8 with the 1.3 crop and Canon primes including the 24mm f1.4 (for which there is no Nikon equivalent, nor a Nikon 35mm f1.4 either) which are great for low light photography.

Where the Nikon's shine is in consistent flash fill exposures in difficult mixed lighting situations and in the wide picture angle from using the 14-24mm f2.8 with the full frame cameras, and the superior build quality and AF consistency from the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 lens. And all Nikon lenses come with a 5-year warranty and none of the recalibration issues which plague Canon lenses even those straight from the factory.

Low light autofocus is the last reason anyone should consider switching from Canon to Nikon.

Fluorite said:

If I decide to go for the 2.8 lenses, I will probably get two D300s
plus the 17-55/2.8 and 70-200/2.8.

Click to expand...

I think you just about got it right but have a look also at the 12-24DX as well as they are great for weddings as well. There is nothing hugely wrong with 3rd party lenses but you already know that they can suffer when the lighting conditions get tricky, Nikkors are still superior in this respect.

You should try both for the AF angle but I find the Nikons are better markedly better for freedom and less awkwardness in the AF/SPEED/PROCESSING/OUTPUT department.

I switched for all of the reasons you listed plus Canon at the time did not offer a crop camera that was of pro quality (weather sealed). So I dumped a VERY significant investment in L glass and bodies and never looked back. Trust me, you will be glad you did
--
Tiny Malone
jmark media llc
Las Vegas and Texas
Proverbs 3:3-6

As a wedding photo, I wouldn't even bother with the D300, as that's not really it's ballgame.

Weddings = bad light.

D700, 70-200, 16-85 for the group shots.
Done, unless you want to get spendy, then replace the 16-85 with the 24-70.

I have the D300, I like the D300, but not for the HIGH ISO. The D700 blows it away in that regard.

--
JL Smith
http://jl-smith.smugmug.com
Gear listed in profile!

jl_smith said:

D700, 70-200, 16-85 for the group shots.
Done, unless you want to get spendy, then replace the 16-85 with the
24-70.

Click to expand...

Except the D700 is FX and the 16-85 is DX... ;-)

Won't it still work but go to 6 mp image or does it crop and just use the center of the frame and you loose the wide end?

Didn't understand having the D700 & 70-200 and then shooting the 16-85 either...

Bill
--
Bill Wallace
dpreview & pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/papa51

jl_smith said:

As a wedding photo, I wouldn't even bother with the D300, as that's
not really it's ballgame.

Weddings = bad light.

D700, 70-200, 16-85 for the group shots.
Done, unless you want to get spendy, then replace the 16-85 with the
24-70.

I have the D300, I like the D300, but not for the HIGH ISO. The D700
blows it away in that regard.

--
JL Smith
http://jl-smith.smugmug.com
Gear listed in profile!

Click to expand...

--
Have you ever thought of using flash for a wedding?

Weddings = bad light .......@ High ISO = many poor quality images (especially at the reception ).

Bill Wallace said:

Won't it still work but go to 6 mp image or does it crop and just use
the center of the frame and you loose the wide end?

Click to expand...

Not sure - I have a D300 and a 16-85, both of which I'm very happy with. I've not explored the spec's of the D700, as 1) I'm happy with the D300, and 2) I've run out of the will to upgrade (and spend money - at this rate I will go back to my F5 and film).

Even if it does crop, the 16mm is equivalent to 24mm (FX) (and better with 12MP) which in the old days was still regarded as very wide. Anything more than that is going to give a lot of perspective distortion which will look really good with skill, or cheesy!

I think that a D300 with a 16-85 alone is enough to do a wedding (and an SB-800 or two) - I've done enough of them with the F5 and a 24-120 (similar field of view) to know that I don't need to change to another lens often. I also use an 80-200, but it really doesn't get used much in a wedding environment, where if you want bigger pic's you can get closer to the subject.

Also, to be blunt, most customers couldn't tell depth of field from a piece of string - as long as the couple is in focus, they're happy!

Just my opinion.