Started Nov 14, 2012 | Discussions thread
trueview Regular Member • Posts: 180
Re: Nikon shooter myself

D700man wrote:

My username is a dead give away. I've been haunted by canon ever since I decided to go the Nikon route with the D5000. Numerous portrait sessions and weddings later, I'm still haunted by Canon. You have the D600, small compact cheaper body but excellent image quality and just the right amount of rez. Then you have the D800, better built semi pro body but with a very high rez mp count without the option of sRAW (only crop modes). I need something in between the two but it doesn't exist in Nikon camp.

Enter the most excellent Canon 5D MKIII. Excellent feel, ergonomics, great build quality and just the right amount of rez but I don't own any Canon lenses and not sure I want to re-commit to another brand........so torn!!

Now I've found myself checking on ebay for a Nikon D3X. Very professional pro body, ergo is ridiculously good and the perfect amount of rez BUT the ISO isn't that great but maybe somewhat on par to a D700 (not sure on that) and they cost used as much as these new cameras that are now out.

So I sit and do nothing and just keep shooting my D700 and I might just say screw it all to hell and start using that "camera" money on the holy trinity of prime lenses

-- hide signature --



I'm a canon shooter, and for several years, shooting the 5D1, I drooled over the D700. It was hard for me to justifiy the cost of switching, so I stayed with the 5D1, and skipped the 5DII. Enters the 5DIII, which had everything I feel was missing from the previous versions, so for the first time in my life, I was an early adopter.

Bottom line ? If I were in your shoes, I would keep the D700 : it was one hell of a good camera when it was issued, and it still is. And I would use that money for prime lenses. This may yield more benefit than a camera change or a costly switch.

I was able to compare recently the brand new canon 24-70/2.8II with my 24/1.4 (version 1) & 35/1.4. Admittedly, the zoom was a bit better in the corners than the 24 prime, but it terms of micro contrast and subjective feeling of transparency, the two primes were ahead in spite of their age. The difference was subtle but quite visible, and in my opinion quite difficult to compensate for in post processing.

One reason I went for canon was their stable of prime lenses, which at the time didn't exist in the Nikon line up. But Nikon has caught up now. Their 1.4 primes are impressive. I would definitely put my money into that.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow