Reading mode: Light Dark

Think of switching to D810 from Canon 5d II

Go to last post
A

axmans

Member
Messages
23
Reaction score
6
I am considering switching back to Nikon after 14 years. I always shot Nikon until the digital age, and Canon was light years ahead of Nikon back at the turn of the century. I shoot landscape mainly, and the full frame offered by Canon at the time was far better than what Nikon had on offer. Now with the rollout of the D810 @36mp I am considering dumping Canon and getting back on the Nikon bandwagon. I will probably keep my 6D, so as not to be all in....but I wanted opinions from folks that have shot both platforms; 5D and D810....... Question 1. Is the dynamic range difference strikingly better in the d810 v 5DII? 2. Has the focusing gotten better (my first nikon digital was god awful) 3. There seem to be so many zoom lens choices, what would be the two sharpest lenses you would carry?
 
Solution
L
I would wait for the possible mid September announcements for Photokina. I would then try to rent the camera I'm after to see if suits me. But at this time, in my opinion Canon 6d is excellent value for money (and its central AF point sensitive down to -3EV is awesome). If you keep your 6d, we cannot speak of a switch but of a complement. Get rid of 5d mk2. It's not worth using it. Buy a D810 (incredible AF, excellent ergonomics, reduced vibration due to the electronic first-curtain shutter and redesigned mirror mechanism, classy shutter sound, amazing DR and awesome 36 MP sharpness and clarity), 2-3 primes (Nikon 28mm f1.8G and Nikon 85mm f1,8G and maybe Nikon 50mm f1.8G if you think a normal lens is a must have for your shooting...
axmans said:
LMCasey said:
I bought a D800 shortly after they were released, having owned Canon DSLR's for years. I still have a 5D (original), and many Canon lenses, hoping they will release that killer model (still waiting BTW). I don't regret buying the 800 one bit; it's the only body I've used since I purchased it. At the same time I bought the 800, I bought a 14-24. The 14-24 is a really fine lens; one that Canon doesn't have an answer for.

Yes, the DR is very nice to have, and is quite a noticeable improvement over Canon. The difference between 24mp and 36mp is not as important or noticeable as you might think though, so I would not make that a prime consideration in your decision.

I usually leave the D800 in auto ISO mode, and shoot all the way to 6400 and get great results. No, you probably don't want to shoot landscapes at 6400, but overall, the noise performance is excellent.

Nikon lenses do seem to be a bit more expensive than Canon, though Canon seems to be trying to catch up.

Good luck in your decision.
Click to expand...
Thanks for all the great info here. I think it would be prudent for me to wait until Photokina is midway through to see if maybe even Nikon is going to best themselves.

I am having a hard time picking a super wide angle zoom from Nikon. There seems to be no less than 5 choices by Nikkor in the 14-35mm ranges. The 14-24, 17-35, 16-35 X2 , 18-35.....which one, in your opinion, is the best for 100% outside shooting. I have been quite happy with my Canon 16-35 2.8

DXO Mark rates the nikkor 14-24 very highly, perhaps a bit wider than i want and no option for filters.

Any input in this area would be appreciated.

I am pretty sure I am done with Canon after so many years fighting the autofocus, and them not caring. I am sure that some people can complain the same about Nikon. The problem with Digital is that we are so much more reliant on the technology of the Camera than we ever needed for film. I was happy in full manual with my F3's and sharp as hell glass...it is nice to not have to wait for the mailman to bring me my Kodachromes a week later, but I do miss the simplicity of the old ways.

All the best,

Axel
Click to expand...
You'll probably want the 16-35/4. It's even sharper than what you're used to with Canon, and the VR is invaluable for times it's impossible or inconvenient to carry a tripod. It's very reasonably priced, weather sealed, super sharp, and takes 77mm screw on filters with no noticable vignetting. This thread will help:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1304754/0

Unless you need wider than 16mm, F2.8, or don't care about large, expensive filter systems, the 16-35 is generally the way to go. The 14-24 cannot be beat from about 14-18mm though. The 16-35 shines from around 18-24mm, and of course you get bonus range out to 35mm. The VR works amazingly well.

Not the greatest photo but here is a quick handheld shot at 1/4 second with a D600 and 16-35VR. It would have been simply impossible without VR and I wasn't able to use a tripod where I was standing. My only point is I have dozens of images thanks to VR that I simply would not have with the 14-24 or 18-35 - at least not the way I would want them (blurred water, etc.)

DSC_2333-XL.jpg
 
Last edited:
I would wait for the possible mid September announcements for Photokina. I would then try to rent the camera I'm after to see if suits me. But at this time, in my opinion Canon 6d is excellent value for money (and its central AF point sensitive down to -3EV is awesome). If you keep your 6d, we cannot speak of a switch but of a complement. Get rid of 5d mk2. It's not worth using it. Buy a D810 (incredible AF, excellent ergonomics, reduced vibration due to the electronic first-curtain shutter and redesigned mirror mechanism, classy shutter sound, amazing DR and awesome 36 MP sharpness and clarity), 2-3 primes (Nikon 28mm f1.8G and Nikon 85mm f1,8G and maybe Nikon 50mm f1.8G if you think a normal lens is a must have for your shooting style) and be prepared to be amazed! Oh... just to add that even a zoom like Nikon 24-120mm f4 paired with the D810 will give you images far better than you would think. Any decent lens used in combination with the D810 will produce better photos than the photos taken with the same lenses but mounted on any other FF camera.
 
Solution
If you have the budget, then go for the Nikon 14-24. There are a couple of specialized filter holders being made commercially for this lens. Check out http://www.amazon.com/WonderPana-145-Essentials-Kit-14-24mm/dp/B00AUK93FI .

Otherwise, if you are on a budget, then the 16-35/4VR is a good second. It uses the standard 77mm filters but it is a stop slower and loses 2mm at the widest end. It also has some distortion but is corrected easily in software. I chose this lens over the 14-24 because of it is more portable and uses standard filters. It is all about making compromises.

Good luck.

axmans said:
LMCasey said:
I bought a D800 shortly after they were released, having owned Canon DSLR's for years. I still have a 5D (original), and many Canon lenses, hoping they will release that killer model (still waiting BTW). I don't regret buying the 800 one bit; it's the only body I've used since I purchased it. At the same time I bought the 800, I bought a 14-24. The 14-24 is a really fine lens; one that Canon doesn't have an answer for.

Yes, the DR is very nice to have, and is quite a noticeable improvement over Canon. The difference between 24mp and 36mp is not as important or noticeable as you might think though, so I would not make that a prime consideration in your decision.

I usually leave the D800 in auto ISO mode, and shoot all the way to 6400 and get great results. No, you probably don't want to shoot landscapes at 6400, but overall, the noise performance is excellent.

Nikon lenses do seem to be a bit more expensive than Canon, though Canon seems to be trying to catch up.

Good luck in your decision.
Click to expand...
Thanks for all the great info here. I think it would be prudent for me to wait until Photokina is midway through to see if maybe even Nikon is going to best themselves.

I am having a hard time picking a super wide angle zoom from Nikon. There seems to be no less than 5 choices by Nikkor in the 14-35mm ranges. The 14-24, 17-35, 16-35 X2 , 18-35.....which one, in your opinion, is the best for 100% outside shooting. I have been quite happy with my Canon 16-35 2.8

DXO Mark rates the nikkor 14-24 very highly, perhaps a bit wider than i want and no option for filters.

Any input in this area would be appreciated.

I am pretty sure I am done with Canon after so many years fighting the autofocus, and them not caring. I am sure that some people can complain the same about Nikon. The problem with Digital is that we are so much more reliant on the technology of the Camera than we ever needed for film. I was happy in full manual with my F3's and sharp as hell glass...it is nice to not have to wait for the mailman to bring me my Kodachromes a week later, but I do miss the simplicity of the old ways.

All the best,

Axel
Click to expand...
 
AllOtherNamesTaken said:
Frank C. said:
Canon will be forced to use Sony sensors sooner or later, don't do it
Click to expand...
Some people are tired of waiting more than 7 years for a competitive sensor, I was one of them.

I can't tell if you're joking or not...
Click to expand...
I can remember back before the D3 the common request on the Canon forums was a Nikon body with a Canon sensor.
 
brianric said:
AllOtherNamesTaken said:
Frank C. said:
Canon will be forced to use Sony sensors sooner or later, don't do it
Click to expand...
Some people are tired of waiting more than 7 years for a competitive sensor, I was one of them.

I can't tell if you're joking or not...
Click to expand...
I can remember back before the D3 the common request on the Canon forums was a Nikon body with a Canon sensor.
Click to expand...
Yeah Canon definitely had the edge pre-2007 in sensors, especially with the full frame offerings. Nikon has always seemed to have the build quality and ergonomic edge, even though that is somewhat subjective.

Now, we've been waiting again almost as long as DSLRs have been relatively affordable for the general public (2003-2004ish with the D70 and 10D) for Canon to get their act back together. They sure are a patient bunch, I'll give them that :).
 
Last edited:
axmans said:
LMCasey said:
I bought a D800 shortly after they were released, having owned Canon DSLR's for years. I still have a 5D (original), and many Canon lenses, hoping they will release that killer model (still waiting BTW). I don't regret buying the 800 one bit; it's the only body I've used since I purchased it. At the same time I bought the 800, I bought a 14-24. The 14-24 is a really fine lens; one that Canon doesn't have an answer for.

Yes, the DR is very nice to have, and is quite a noticeable improvement over Canon. The difference between 24mp and 36mp is not as important or noticeable as you might think though, so I would not make that a prime consideration in your decision.

I usually leave the D800 in auto ISO mode, and shoot all the way to 6400 and get great results. No, you probably don't want to shoot landscapes at 6400, but overall, the noise performance is excellent.

Nikon lenses do seem to be a bit more expensive than Canon, though Canon seems to be trying to catch up.

Good luck in your decision.
Click to expand...
Thanks for all the great info here. I think it would be prudent for me to wait until Photokina is midway through to see if maybe even Nikon is going to best themselves.

I am having a hard time picking a super wide angle zoom from Nikon. There seems to be no less than 5 choices by Nikkor in the 14-35mm ranges. The 14-24, 17-35, 16-35 X2 , 18-35.....which one, in your opinion, is the best for 100% outside shooting. I have been quite happy with my Canon 16-35 2.8
Click to expand...
I also had Canon 16-35mm F2.8 and it was great. Nikon 16-35mm F4 on the other hand is even better because it is the only one that has VR. It allows me to hand hold to 1/2 seconds.



aac9d9d3c98c4112a96429849a817b2d.jpg
 
AllOtherNamesTaken said:
Now, we've been waiting again almost as long as DSLRs have been relatively affordable for the general public (2003-2004ish with the D70 and 10D) for Canon to get their act back together. They sure are a patient bunch, I'll give them that :).
Click to expand...
Not all Canon owners. It was the 5D2 with the same crappy focusing system as the 5D that caused me to come to Nikon and dump my Canon gear.
 
brianric said:
AllOtherNamesTaken said:
Now, we've been waiting again almost as long as DSLRs have been relatively affordable for the general public (2003-2004ish with the D70 and 10D) for Canon to get their act back together. They sure are a patient bunch, I'll give them that :).
Click to expand...
Not all Canon owners. It was the 5D2 with the same crappy focusing system as the 5D that caused me to come to Nikon and dump my Canon gear.
Click to expand...
Certainly not all, you're right.

Their AF systems have sent many people to the dark side over the years, especially with the 5D I & II and 1DM3 disaster. Lots of pour souls still have $4500 paperweights. I am so glad I never got in on that one.
 
Sharper than the 16-35 4. Does not have VR or the extra 2mm but way lighter and smaller. Sold the 14-24 and picked this up as well as the Zeiss 15 (also accepts filters 95mm). If you son't require filters then the 14-24 is great. I don't count the lee filter system as a viable option.
 
..."excellent ergonomics" ;)

for my taste grip need to be bolder and body need to offer more space between grip and lens.

Regards
 
result42 said:
Sharper than the 16-35 4. Does not have VR or the extra 2mm but way lighter and smaller. Sold the 14-24 and picked this up as well as the Zeiss 15 (also accepts filters 95mm). If you son't require filters then the 14-24 is great. I don't count the lee filter system as a viable option.

--
http://vinsingh.com
Click to expand...
It's not sharper than the 16-35/4, especially not around 18-22mm where the 16-35 matches or outperforms even the 14-24.

Great lens still, no argument there, but there is no reason not to get the 16-35 over the 18-35 aside from cost and size/weight limitations.
 
Last edited:
DuxX said:
..."excellent ergonomics" ;)
for my taste grip need to be bolder and body need to offer more space between grip and lens.

Regards

--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Dusko Jovic / DuxX /
http://www.duxx-photography.com
Click to expand...
I agree with you on that, I had one in my hands this afternoon.

regards,Axel
 
Dynamic range can be achieved in landscape shots by taking multiple shots / stiching them together for a HDR shot. Maybe 2 shots will cut it for most non-contrasty scenes? I think dynamic range is not a reason alone to switch system, nothing is. Both have very nice lenses, and there are some lenses in canon system not available in nikon system (1-5x macro lens that can be handheld by some experienced macro shooters for insect shots, and 400 5.6 which is lightweight and will AF better than any alternative in nikon world, provided price and weight are the same.. 80-400 afs is overpriced for many).

Imo just wait for the 7D2 specs, and buy that if it happens to be very good !
 
Last edited:
btw, isn't there rumors that sigma is going to come up with a 14-24 of some sorts? That would mean canon users will get that same range. Isn't Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM good alternative for nikon's 16-35?
 
Last edited:
Lassoni said:
btw, isn't there rumors that sigma is going to come up with a 14-24 of some sorts? That would mean canon users will get that same range. Isn't Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM good alternative for nikon's 16-35?
Click to expand...
I love my 16-35 canon lens...very reliable and sharp.....it is the camera body that I no longer love
 
Wait for 7d2 specs before switching?
 
Lassoni said:
Dynamic range can be achieved in landscape shots by taking multiple shots / stiching them together for a HDR shot. Maybe 2 shots will cut it for most non-contrasty scenes? I think dynamic range is not a reason alone to switch system, nothing is. Both have very nice lenses, and there are some lenses in canon system not available in nikon system (1-5x macro lens that can be handheld by some experienced macro shooters for insect shots, and 400 5.6 which is lightweight and will AF better than any alternative in nikon world, provided price and weight are the same.. 80-400 afs is overpriced for many).

Imo just wait for the 7D2 specs, and buy that if it happens to be very good !
Click to expand...
The multiple shot HDR thing is hard to pull off with moving clouds...I have seen some very good HDR photographs, but I am not a master at making them work, nor do I want to be. I would rather have the range built into 1 image...

and I am increasingly unhappy with the lack of progress from Canon, even with firmware updates...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

V
  • Question Question
Fuji Colors a question for those who came from other brands .
2 3
Replies
40
Views
13K
BeatX
BeatX
C
  • Question Question
Canon 5D Mk1 - Camera to Compliment?
Replies
13
Views
667
boldcolors
B
K
Back into photography, moving to Nikon from Canon, first zoom?
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
931
biff56
biff56
G
Upgrading from Canon 5D Mark II to 5D Mark IV – Worth It or Go Mirrorless?
2
Replies
27
Views
7K
Sittatunga
S
G
Need advice on 3 good full frame alternatives from Canon, Nikon and Sony
Replies
19
Views
5K
Ruedon
R

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top