D700X will be the answer

NEFs deliver appreciably more detail, especially converted with Capture One. I expect the Nikon will not be quite a sharp as Canon's 70-200/2.8IS at its best, but have lower levels of CA and be sharper wide open.

Taikonaut said:

Kabe Luna said:

as nice as the bodies are, you really have to be committed to zooms with Nikon (and big heavy ones at that) to enjoy AF-S and full time manual focusing, modern optical formulations...a great many things Canon users take for granted with Canon lenses. There simply are too few modern, fast AF primes. And Nikon doesn't seem in a hurry to provide them, either. Lenses (quantity and variety, not quality) are the single biggest disappointment with the system.

--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.garlandcary.com

Click to expand...

I did wonder about how good Nikon's latest and best telephoto lens compared to Canon. latest Nikon 70-200mm f2.8G ED VRII reviewed on a blog, the owner got pretty excited about the sharpness improvement over the previous model (which he also raved about). This is shot wide open at f2.9 but to me this is not sharp



pretty sure my EF 70-200 f2.8 IS is sharper.

Click to expand...

--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.garlandcary.com

Anastigmat said:

The D3X is 5 fps, and so will the D700X. The 5DMKII is 3.9 fps. The difference is insignificant to say the least.

The D700X does have Nikon's best AF unit, but it is probably not going to make a difference unless you are into sports. If you are into sports, you would probably wand more than 5 fps. So, the D700X is NOT the answer.

Click to expand...

You don't need to be photographing sports to take advantage of a pro AF system. Some 5Dmk2 owners are just trying to convince themselves of it to make themselves feel better. The reality is the 5Dmk2's ancient AF system is only being used to protect 1D sales.

Put the 7D's AF in the 5Dmk2 and bump it up to 5fps (which is where it should be) and you've got a winner. But Canon won't do it for obvious reasons and even if they did, it obviously won't be at the current price.

Taikonaut said:

Taikonaut said:

I did wonder about how good Nikon's latest and best telephoto lens compared to Canon. latest Nikon 70-200mm f2.8G ED VRII reviewed on a blog, the owner got pretty excited about the sharpness improvement over the previous model (which he also raved about). This is shot wide open at f2.9 but to me this is not sharp

Click to expand...

pretty sure my EF 70-200 f2.8 IS is sharper.

Click to expand...

Not the best example from Cliff but easily sharp enough for a wedding album.

The old 70-200 VR is very sharp so I'd expect the new one to be even better.

Here's a 100% crop taken with a D700 and old 70-200 VR @ 120mm and wide open. Enough detail for me.

Well...it's your money and your choice. You'll have to sell your 70-200/f4 becuase that's not going to fit on any new Nikon system. The other thing to consider is that Nikon don't have many f4 lenses available. in fact their lens list is a lot smaller than Canon's current line up. Nikon don't have a 70-200/f4 variant.

If you like the Nikon D700...then go and get one. But don't be fooled my Nikon's marketing that the camera body is everything. Sure a good sensor helps but it's about the lenses and your eyes.

I also don't belive a lot of the AF smear tactics that Nikon are using. I use a 5D, 40D and 5DII professonally and using a centre point and recompose method...I get great pictures with a perfect focus...even with f1.2 glass. This is a method that I've been using for the last 10 years...and it works fine. All I need is one good AF point...all the rest are just view finder candy.
--
http://www.GMCPhotographics.com (weddings)
http://www.pbase.com/gazzajagman (other stuff)

'Science is what we dream of, technology is what we are stuck with' Douglas Adams

Yes but any 70-200 is sharp at 120mm. It's the centre of the zoom range.

The question is what's it like at 200mm wide open near MFD? That's the real acid test and to date no manufacturer has nailed it convincingly.

The best 200mm f2.8 that is currently available is the Canon prime, It's IQ is head and shoulders above the zoom variants.

Just a note Taikonault...some of these pictures are from professional photographer's blog...they are probably copyrighted...obtain the user's permission before you post his pictures. I would be annoyed if you stole one of my blog pictures to justify your point of view.

Kind regards,
Gareth Cooper
--
http://www.GMCPhotographics.com (weddings)
http://www.pbase.com/gazzajagman (other stuff)

'Science is what we dream of, technology is what we are stuck with' Douglas Adams

I will switch to Nikon if this camera come out...

GazzaJagman said:

Yes but any 70-200 is sharp at 120mm. It's the centre of the zoom range.

The question is what's it like at 200mm wide open near MFD? That's the real acid test and to date no manufacturer has nailed it convincingly.

The best 200mm f2.8 that is currently available is the Canon prime, It's IQ is head and shoulders above the zoom variants.

Click to expand...

I agree, but the idea that the Nikon 70-200 is not sharp compared to the Canon equivalent was ridiculous. The only complaint has been the corners on full frame, which is not an issue for those of us using it to photograph people rather than landscapes. And by all accounts this has been corrected with the new design.

Canon have a clear edge in their range of primes, where Nikon seems to be concentrating on zooms. 14-24 is currently unanswered by Canon and the 24-70 to my eye is slightly better than Canon's, especially wide open. Canon also has the 70-200 f/4 which Nikon has no answer to. Otherwise they're pretty even. As for 200mm primes, the Canons are incredibly good, but then so is the Nikon f/2.

RedFox88 said:

From what I've heard, the 5D2 outsells both the a900 and d700 combined.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's an argument for the 5DII - McDonalds sells more hamburgers than anybody else, doesn't mean they're good. Microsoft sells more copies of Windows Vista than Apple does of OSX, doesn't mean it's better.

The better argument is that there is currently no "d700x", so if you want to compare high-resolution FF outside Canon you're forced to look at either a d3x (far too expensive unless you have the income to justify it, and overkill for many) or an a900 (great at low ISO, but less flexibility as a system, and high-ISO compromises).

...the fact that the 5DII sells better doesn't sway me in the slightest.

--

I haven't yet tried any 70-200 lens (Canon/Nikon or Sony) that's been thrilling at 200mm, wide open. Not compared to a 200mm prime that is.

I haven't had the pleasure of trying the Nikkor 200/2. It's not a very comon lens...what's it's AF like?

I belive this picture from the Nikkor 70-200/2.8 lens that was attached to the earlier thread was from a pre-production Nikkor 70-200 that was quietly lent to a wedding photographer...who in tern put it on his blog. Who in tern announced it on DWF...which then found it's way here.

Canon does have an answer to the Nikkor 14-24, it's in the prime area. 14IIL and a 24IIL, the latter being 2 stops brighter. No, they haven't made a zoom that covers this range yet but the primes are available. But i'm sure that a Canon variant is in the works....I'm also quite sure that a Nikkor 24mm is probably in the process too. I own a copy of the 24IIL and it's a stunning optic, I have used the 14IIL on several occasions and it's also a remarkable optic.

Both my copy of the Canon 24-70L and my 2nd photographer's copy seem to be prime sharp wide open. It's not fair to compare the picture output from a 12mp camera from one brand and compare it to a 21mp picture from another and assume that the results are in any way representative of the lens. There's just too much going on here to judge comparitively. All I can say is that I get great results from my copy....it's prime sharp with out question. Especially at the 24mm end, at the 70mm end then it's just slightly softer....but I'm really splitting very minute hairs here. I'm also talking un-sharpened RAW images. As to the Nikkor 24-70, yes it seems to be a fine optic too. It's a fair bit heavier and larger than the Canon variant. The copy that I tried on a D700 looked a little wider at 24mm than my Canon but it seemed to be a little shorter at the 70mm end. It was a very nice lens but i could see no defining reason to swap other than...oooo it's newer and it's a Nikon. The pictures looked remarkably simular.

Also consider this....the Canon variant was the first 24-70/2.8 and that was over 10 years ago. It was pre-digital (certainly pre-mass-digital) and all of the other brands have had a long time to catch up. It also shows how much Canon got right with their lens first time around.

Kind regards,

Gareth Cooper

dominikov said:

GazzaJagman said:

Yes but any 70-200 is sharp at 120mm. It's the centre of the zoom range.

The question is what's it like at 200mm wide open near MFD? That's the real acid test and to date no manufacturer has nailed it convincingly.

The best 200mm f2.8 that is currently available is the Canon prime, It's IQ is head and shoulders above the zoom variants.

Click to expand...

I agree, but the idea that the Nikon 70-200 is not sharp compared to the Canon equivalent was ridiculous. The only complaint has been the corners on full frame, which is not an issue for those of us using it to photograph people rather than landscapes. And by all accounts this has been corrected with the new design.

Canon have a clear edge in their range of primes, where Nikon seems to be concentrating on zooms. 14-24 is currently unanswered by Canon and the 24-70 to my eye is slightly better than Canon's, especially wide open. Canon also has the 70-200 f/4 which Nikon has no answer to. Otherwise they're pretty even. As for 200mm primes, the Canons are incredibly good, but then so is the Nikon f/2.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.GMCPhotographics.com (weddings)
http://www.pbase.com/gazzajagman (other stuff)

'Science is what we dream of, technology is what we are stuck with' Douglas Adams

GazzaJagman said:

I haven't yet tried any 70-200 lens (Canon/Nikon or Sony) that's been thrilling at 200mm, wide open. Not compared to a 200mm prime that is.

I haven't had the pleasure of trying the Nikkor 200/2. It's not a very comon lens...what's it's AF like?

I belive this picture from the Nikkor 70-200/2.8 lens that was attached to the earlier thread was from a pre-production Nikkor 70-200 that was quietly lent to a wedding photographer...who in tern put it on his blog. Who in tern announced it on DWF...which then found it's way here.

Canon does have an answer to the Nikkor 14-24, it's in the prime area. 14IIL and a 24IIL, the latter being 2 stops brighter. No, they haven't made a zoom that covers this range yet but the primes are available. But i'm sure that a Canon variant is in the works....I'm also quite sure that a Nikkor 24mm is probably in the process too. I own a copy of the 24IIL and it's a stunning optic, I have used the 14IIL on several occasions and it's also a remarkable optic.

Both my copy of the Canon 24-70L and my 2nd photographer's copy seem to be prime sharp wide open. It's not fair to compare the picture output from a 12mp camera from one brand and compare it to a 21mp picture from another and assume that the results are in any way representative of the lens. There's just too much going on here to judge comparitively. All I can say is that I get great results from my copy....it's prime sharp with out question. Especially at the 24mm end, at the 70mm end then it's just slightly softer....but I'm really splitting very minute hairs here. I'm also talking un-sharpened RAW images. As to the Nikkor 24-70, yes it seems to be a fine optic too. It's a fair bit heavier and larger than the Canon variant. The copy that I tried on a D700 looked a little wider at 24mm than my Canon but it seemed to be a little shorter at the 70mm end. It was a very nice lens but i could see no defining reason to swap other than...oooo it's newer and it's a Nikon. The pictures looked remarkably simular.

Also consider this....the Canon variant was the first 24-70/2.8 and that was over 10 years ago. It was pre-digital (certainly pre-mass-digital) and all of the other brands have had a long time to catch up. It also shows how much Canon got right with their lens first time around.

Kind regards,

Gareth Cooper

Click to expand...

My thoughts:

The Nikon 24-70 is better at the 70mm end, especially wide open (see below). I think Canon's 24-70 was released back in 2002 so you're right that Nikon had plenty of time to catch up. The old 28-70 was still a pretty good zoom.

The Nikon 200mm f/2 is the equal of the Canon in every way. Incredible lens that belongs on a D3x.

Canon has fantastic primes in the 14-24 range but still no zoom. Most people who own a 14-24 will tell you they don't miss their wide angle primes.

At the end of the day with any Canon vs. Nikon argument, the reality is if one was clearly better the other would have probably gone out of business a long time ago.

Right now both of them have gaping holes in their range: Nikon has no D700x and Canon has no affordable full frame with pro AF that shoots more than 3.9fps like the D700 (which is what the 7D could have been if they released it with a FF sensor).

Ferrari_Alex said:

5D MKII doesn't have the AF I need and doesn't give the FPS I need. It is not an easy choice, because I like the lens line up - it is better than Nikon.

Click to expand...

Not all the lenses: the Nikon 24-70 can't be compared to Canon counterpart (take a look at full size pics at pixelpeeper or photozone). And the 14-24 can't also be compared. These both Nikon lenses by themselves justify to have a Nikon body instead of a Canon one. They seem to have been made by aliens instead of humans: the awesome Canon 24mm F1.4 mkII is no longer needed for high quality pics (only if one really wants something faster than F2.8 or avoiding distortion correction).

However, for me it would be interesting to upgrade the 10-22 by a FF camera and the 17 TS-E, but Nikon nor nobody else has anything equivalent; thus D700X would not be all that perfect option, but it is indeed tempting.

Both Nikon and Canon have pretty good lenses, and the best it would be to own cameras from both (we hope that FF bodies will not cost soon as much money as an high grade lens). At this moment the 5D mkII is overpriced for the features and build quality (in spanish forums I have seen more than one person having lost their camera for a lot of weeks while being repared the live view). Canon should improve the manufacturing quality.

I'll likely wait for the next Canon and Nikon movements, but this is going interesting. Canon may well release a improved 24-70. Nikon may be about to release updated versions of wide angle lenses. Sony seems to have developed a new sensor with 6 dB better sensitivity (just one stop) and there are also rumors of Nikon launching cameras claming in the features just one stop better performance at high ISO... these are very good news for Canon users (despite some of us becoming or not Nikon users in the future). The next months will be very exciting.

--



My shots:
http://www.breitling65.smugmug.com

5Dmk3 coming out just the same time the D700X is the better choise.
3D even more so, but that costs $100 more than the D700X.

Now just wait all the three ghost camera are reviewed and compared properly

Ferrari_Alex said:

I am currently thinking about FF switch and I read a lot about D700 vs 5D MKII. Never ever in my life I have been thinking about switching to Nikon, but with D700 I started thinking about it.

5D MKII doesn't have the AF I need and doesn't give the FPS I need. It is not an easy choice, because I like the lens line up - it is better than Nikon.

I think that many people are where I am now, but the D700x or D800 is going to confirm where Nikon is going. They already have everything you might dream of and if they will give 20+ megapixels and will improve couple of areas....

I am in trouble....

Click to expand...

just do some testing after you're done

When we will see a D700x with 20+ Mpix and ISO performance to mach 5dII?

NEVER

Simply because Nikon doesn't make sensors,it buys them from Sony.So,if/when Sony makes such a sensor(their current 24Mpix on A900/A850/D3x is a NOISE MACHINE)they will first put in in their camera,then give it to Nikon.

But judging from the noise levels of their current 24Mpix.........this will be in about 400 years.
--
Let there be light

dominikov said:

Tacksharp said:

Odds are, the D700x will cost $4000. While you're considering something that expensive, you may as well go with something that will likely be better, such as the Canon 1D Mark IV and save the money you'd have to spend on lenses switching to Nikon. Look for an announcement Tuesday... (fingers crossed).

Click to expand...

I'd expect the 1D mkIV to be pretty special, but then so will the Nikon D4.

Use whatever tool will get the job done today .

Click to expand...

Tuesday is a lot closer to "today" than whenever the D4 comes out. Actually, the body probably won't be available for weeks after it is announced. But, the D4 probably won't bow for another year.
--
Tacksharp

colinmack said:

RedFox88 said:

From what I've heard, the 5D2 outsells both the a900 and d700 combined.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's an argument for the 5DII - McDonalds sells more hamburgers than anybody else, doesn't mean they're good. Microsoft sells more copies of Windows Vista than Apple does of OSX, doesn't mean it's better.

Click to expand...

Burgers can be as cheap at 99 cents, operating systems are $200, but dSLRs are $2000+. People usually don't pay a lot of money for something that they don't think is the best value for the money. And customers are really doing something that is out of the ordinary: buying more of the most expensive model.

The is the most expensive of the 3 affordable FF dSLRs: 5D2, d700, and a850 (a900 essentially morphed into the a850 but sony wants to call it a different model - go figure) is the 5D2 and that is the model that is the best seller of affordable FF dSLRs. Usual logic would say the lowest price would get the most sales, but all the d700 has over the 5D2 is better autofocus and better weathersealing. 5D2 has a higher resolution sensor and video.

Exactly! Canon could have and should have put a better AF system and faster fps in 5DII but it didn't. One reason is of course it does not want to jeopardize 1D sales. The other being there are so many full frame worshipers like the poster above that made Canon to believe it can put a full frame sensor in a mediocre body and still sell a lot of them. Canon did get away with that for a while but not when the competitors finally figured out how to play the game.

dominikov said:

Anastigmat said:

The D3X is 5 fps, and so will the D700X. The 5DMKII is 3.9 fps. The difference is insignificant to say the least.

The D700X does have Nikon's best AF unit, but it is probably not going to make a difference unless you are into sports. If you are into sports, you would probably wand more than 5 fps. So, the D700X is NOT the answer.

Click to expand...

You don't need to be photographing sports to take advantage of a pro AF system. Some 5Dmk2 owners are just trying to convince themselves of it to make themselves feel better. The reality is the 5Dmk2's ancient AF system is only being used to protect 1D sales.

Put the 7D's AF in the 5Dmk2 and bump it up to 5fps (which is where it should be) and you've got a winner. But Canon won't do it for obvious reasons and even if they did, it obviously won't be at the current price.

Click to expand...

GazzaJagman said:

I use a 5D, 40D and 5DII professonally and using a centre point and recompose method...I get great pictures with a perfect focus...even with f1.2 glass. This is a method that I've been using for the last 10 years...and it works fine. All I need is one good AF point...all the rest are just view finder candy.

Click to expand...

Can you share your techniques for focus and recompose?

Thanks,

-rich

--
Careful photographers run their own tests.

Really?

I think after the tradedy of the 1DIII, i think Canon were relying on the one AF system that didn't have any reported issues. The 5D's af system, although old and antequated in the post D3 / D700 D300 era, it's a proven and reliable system.

I think the 7D has the new AF system because it's only just been developed and tested. Canon now feel confident that it's ready...I'm sure if it was priority on the 5DII it would have delayed it's launch until now...which would have been a marketing disaster.

These systems take years to develop and test throughly. Look how long it took Canon to fix the 1DIII.

Regards,

Gareth Cooper
--
http://www.GMCPhotographics.com (weddings)
http://www.pbase.com/gazzajagman (other stuff)

'Science is what we dream of, technology is what we are stuck with' Douglas Adams