Worth upgrading Nikon D90 to Canon EOS 5 Mark II?

Hi, I have been shooting with the Nikon D90 for about 4 months now, and I have been only passably satisfied with the quality of my pictures.

I was wondering if it will be worth upgrading to a Canon EOS 5 Mark II, i.e. if the images will have a significant increase in quality?

I would like to hear impressions of people who did a similar upgrade.

you can spend the $$$ to change if you wish but if you can't get very good results from a D90, the problem lies not in the camera but your technique.

I'm interested in seeing some of the images.

It's probably not the D90's fault . That's for sure.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/techoutsider

msbox said:

Hi, I have been shooting with the Nikon D90 for about 4 months now, and I have been only passably satisfied with the quality of my pictures.

I was wondering if it will be worth upgrading to a Canon EOS 5 Mark II, i.e. if the images will have a significant increase in quality?

I would like to hear impressions of people who did a similar upgrade.

Click to expand...

As said earlier, chances are it's you not the camera that is at fault. What is it that is making you "only passably satisfied"? If you can't answer that then I'm sure that buying a Canon 5D Mark II would be a huge waste of money. The other question is, what lenses are you using? If you're using just the kit lenses, you shouldn't expect the same level of quality as from lenses like the 24-70mm f/2.8 or the 70-200mm f/2.8.

--
A Beginning Amateur Photographer

If you really think a full frame Canon will better your images, you might wish to consider the Nikon D700.

But, as everyone has said, that's not the problem here. If you're not satisfied with the D90, you probably won't be with a full frame camera either. Only consider moving up when you have run into limitations with the D90 you can't overcome. IQ is not such a limitation, I don't believe.

How do you use your camera now? Do you shoot in full auto mode. Have you learned how to process your own images yet? Do you know all the full stops for both aperture and shutter? Are you experience with composition? Thowing money at it won't make you a good photographer. The D90 is such a superb camera, if you can't produce stunning images with it, you've not learned how to use it properly yet.

--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile

I have been using the 18-105 lens that came with the kit. When I am comparing my photos with some others on the web that were shot with the Canon, I find them very rich in details and textures.
Could it be that the MP is such a big factor when it comes to that?

msbox said:

I have been using the 18-105 lens that came with the kit. When I am comparing my photos with some others on the web that were shot with the Canon, I find them very rich in details and textures.
Could it be that the MP is such a big factor when it comes to that?

Click to expand...

Have you looked at photos on the web taken with a D90? Are any of them any good? Can you post a "passably good" picture of yours? Maybe your standards are indeed extremely high.

--
Leonard Migliore

No question about it, the 5d Mk II is capable of better image quality. If you have money to burn, go for it; I'm sure Canon can use the money and the rest of us could enjoy another barely used D90 on the market. But if you can't get good images out of the D90, you will have a lot of learning to do.

While I'm a Nikon shooter and think they make some great cameras, I also think that Nikon does a fairly poor job with its default settings. In the recent models, I'd start by turning down the brightness setting in whatever picture control you use, as the default tone curve tends to brighten mid tones so much that the images don't look very good to me. I initially thought my D700 needed negative exposure compensation all the time until I dialed down the default brightness setting. Experiment with your settings and see what you can get out of that camera. There are certainly thousands of marvelous images on line from the D90 to inspire you. If you don't want to take the time to mess with the various settings, then a DSLR might not be the best camera for you, and in particular the higher up the line you go, the more the manufacturer appears to expect you to know how to dial in what you want. There are no "scene modes" on my D700, for example.
--
Good shooting,

GR
North Carolina

First show us some photos and you may get more specific advice.

Without photos I guess the culprit is behind the camera. Improve your technique before wasting more money on a body and lens that will give you good results if you know how to use them. The technique you'll improve will be transferred to any camera.

If your photos are outstanding and you are not satisfied with them then a such investment may be worthwhile.
--
Victor
Bucuresti, Romania
http://s106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/victor_petcu/
http://picasaweb.google.com/teodor.nitica/
http://picasaweb.google.com/vpreallize/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/v_petcu/

msbox said:

Hi, I have been shooting with the Nikon D90 for about 4 months now, and I have been only passably satisfied with the quality of my pictures.

I was wondering if it will be worth upgrading to a Canon EOS 5 Mark II, i.e. if the images will have a significant increase in quality?

Click to expand...

If you can't get good photos out of a D90, updating the camera is not the answer. For most uses the photos from the 5D won't look noticably different or better than the ones from the D90.

I'd would advise you to post the photos you are not satisfied with, so other people can point out to you how to improve them.

--
http://www.kevinschoenmakers.nl

msbox said:

Hi, I have been shooting with the Nikon D90 for about 4 months now, and I have been only passably satisfied with the quality of my pictures.

Click to expand...

Here is a link to the samples page of the D90 review.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page37.asp

The complete review is a good read especially the conclusions page.

msbox said:

I was wondering if it will be worth upgrading to a Canon EOS 5 Mark II, i.e. if the images will have a significant increase in quality?

Click to expand...

A link to the samples page of Canon EOS5 Mark II, review.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5dmarkii/page41.asp

My suggestion would be to spend some time in the Nikon D90 - D40 / D7000 - D3000 Forum.

I am sure you could get some pointers on improving your keeper rate with the D90.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1034&/nikon-d90-d40-d7000-d3000-forum/

Also spend time in the Canon EOS-1D / 1Ds / 5D Forum

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1032&/canon-eos-1d-1ds-5d-forum/

4 months is really a short time. Take a few more months researching then make your decision on which system you want to go with Nikon or Canon.

One quality lens can cost more than the camera body. So glass will become your biggest investment.
--
Norm

Just uploaded a couple of pics:









edit: forgot to mention that I use manual all the time.

baloo_buc said:

First show us some photos and you may get more specific advice.

Without photos I guess the culprit is behind the camera. Improve your technique before wasting more money on a body and lens that will give you good results if you know how to use them. The technique you'll improve will be transferred to any camera.

If your photos are outstanding and you are not satisfied with them then a such investment may be worthwhile.
--
Victor
Bucuresti, Romania
http://s106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/victor_petcu/
http://picasaweb.google.com/teodor.nitica/
http://picasaweb.google.com/vpreallize/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/v_petcu/

Click to expand...

Yes, but they're 900 X 600 pixels with no EXIF information. There's no way you could make a distinction between 2 high-resolution cameras from such images unless they're 100% crops, which I don't think is the case. I could drag out a 3 MP Canon D30 and get more resolution than that.

Also, without EXIF, we can't see what settings you were using.

Is there a reason you're using manual? The D90 has relatively good auto-exposure which should perform well with most cats.





--
Leonard Migliore

Here is a higher resolution with the EXIF info this time. Sorry for the messup.

I just noticed that the pics were shot at 1600 ISO, pretty high I think. The way I have set my camera is ISO 200 but with auto ISO control "on" that goes up to 1600. The pics were taken around 5pm, so the ambient light was still good. No flash.

I am using manual mode for more control over aperture and shutter speed.

Leonard Migliore said:

Yes, but they're 900 X 600 pixels with no EXIF information. There's no way you could make a distinction between 2 high-resolution cameras from such images unless they're 100% crops, which I don't think is the case. I could drag out a 3 MP Canon D30 and get more resolution than that.

Also, without EXIF, we can't see what settings you were using.

Is there a reason you're using manual? The D90 has relatively good auto-exposure which should perform well with most cats.
Leonard Migliore

Click to expand...

And what exactly is it you don't like or wish to aprove about these photos?

--
http://www.kevinschoenmakers.nl

Well I find the colors rather dull and the image not crisp enough...

kevinschoenmakers said:

And what exactly is it you don't like or wish to aprove about these photos?

--
http://www.kevinschoenmakers.nl

Click to expand...

Ok,

First of all, try shooting in Auto mode. For the most part, there should be no reason to shoot in full manual mode. You can shoot in A if you want control over aperture.

As for your sample image, the image seems crisp enough. You should play around with the in-camera settings, especially saturation and contrast.

I'm sure the D90 has shooting modes which have presets in them. Otherwise, you can try bumping up the saturation and contrast. That will result in images which seem 'punchier', with more color and sharpness.

msbox said:

Here is a higher resolution with the EXIF info this time. Sorry for the messup.

I just noticed that the pics were shot at 1600 ISO, pretty high I think. The way I have set my camera is ISO 200 but with auto ISO control "on" that goes up to 1600. The pics were taken around 5pm, so the ambient light was still good. No flash.

I am using manual mode for more control over aperture and shutter speed.

Click to expand...

Well, if you're going to shoot at ISO 1600, you would be better off with a 5D but far better off with a D700. The 5D is a high-resolution camera well-suited for landscapes at ISO 100 but the D700 is the prince of darkness, able to deliver good results at ISO 6400. I think the head-on cat is pretty good. You've got his personality, one of his gorgeous blue eyes is in focus and the high-ISO noise suits the picture. The cat in the fence is borderline; the shot looks too grainy to me.

With a D300 (similar sensor to a D90), I don't like to shoot over ISO 800. If you find that you need to shoot at 1600 on a regular basis, then a different camera may be appropriate. Or maybe just a faster lens. But if you are able to stay near the D90's base ISO, you will get excellent image quality.

--
Leonard Migliore

Thanks for all your answers.
How would you suggest to set the ISO? Fixed or Auto?

msbox said:

Well I find the colors rather dull and the image not crisp enough...

Click to expand...

I think that's lighting. The lighting appears rather flat. You're not going to get bright colors out of flat light. The camera is not going to record what's not there. Also, are you shooting RAW or JPG? You can drag a lot more out of RAW, sometimes even things that aren't there.

As far as crispness, ISO 1600 is not the best place for a D90. Also, if you're taking pictures of furry animals, fill flash is your friend. It really improves the detail a lot.

--
Leonard Migliore