Reading mode: Light Dark

5D3 owner considering D750. GAS, or smart decision?

Go to last post
M

mrswitters

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
374
Reaction score
92
I've been shooting with a 5D3 + 24-70 II, 70-200 IS and Sigma 35A for the past two years. I recently picked up a Fujifilm x100T because I wanted a compact camera I could use for travel. In using it, I found that it has several features that I now realize I am missing on the 5D3:
  • Built-in flash. Yes, off-camera flash is better but I've found the built-in flash to be really helpful for some natural-looking fill light in certain situations.
  • Face detection. I always thought this was a consumer camera gimmick, but 90% of my photography now is shooting my 3.5 year-old daughter, and face detection makes it easy to keep her in focus without manually moving the focus point and/or recomposing.
  • Ability to spot meter with outer focus points. This is one feature lacking in the 5D3 that I've been aware of; having it in the X100T made a big difference.
By chance I happened to come across a review of the D750. And I soon realized that it has all of the above, as well as 3D focus tracking. I was particularly impressed with this video , and could see how that would be really helpful in keeping my daughter's eyes in focus as she moves and/or as I change the composition. I also love the highlight-weighted metering mode that Nikon introduced with the D750.

Granted, these are relatively minor omissions in the 5D3 when looked at individually, but when added together—especially with my style of shooting and subject matter—they are significant. Both cameras we're talking about are very high quality, so the decision of one over the other can't be easily made on that basis alone.

I guess my remaining question is regarding lens selection. The lenses that I want in either system are:
  • 3 fast primes: 35/50/85
  • 24-70 and 70-200
I don't have a dog in this fight, not a fanboy of any system. But from what I've read, it seems that the Canon 24-70 and 70-200 are better regarded than the Nikon equivalents. As for the primes, Nikon now has the excellent 35/1.8G, 50/1.8G, 85/1.8G—which have excellent IQ, and are still relatively light/affordable. I'm very interested in these. I've had the 50L and 85L in the past, but they're just too big and heavy. I want my primes to be relatively compact compared to the big zooms. I know Canon has the 35 IS, which is well regarded, but their 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 need updating.

The question, of course, is whether the features of the D750 I mentioned above warrant selling my Canon gear. On this note, I'd be particularly interested in hearing from any former Canon 5D3 owners that now own the D750. But any thoughts are appreciated.
 
I haven't had a 5d3, but switching systems seems like a lot of hassle. Face detection / following like you describe is really more of a "Live view" feature than something you'll get from the OVF on the D750 and most (myself included) consider Nikon's live view painfully slow to focus in general. The 3d tracking could work for it (haven't used it much on mine). I think if I were you I'd wait to see what Canon comes up with next since I'd think the 5d4 should be around the corner. Don't get me wrong, the D750 is a great camera and I love mine, but I'm not sure it'd be worth switching systems from a 5d3 to.
 
mrswitters said:
I've been shooting with a 5D3 + 24-70 II, 70-200 IS and Sigma 35A for the past two years. I recently picked up a Fujifilm x100T because I wanted a compact camera I could use for travel. In using it, I found that it has several features that I now realize I am missing on the 5D3:
  • Built-in flash. Yes, off-camera flash is better but I've found the built-in flash to be really helpful for some natural-looking fill light in certain situations.
  • Face detection. I always thought this was a consumer camera gimmick, but 90% of my photography now is shooting my 3.5 year-old daughter, and face detection makes it easy to keep her in focus without manually moving the focus point and/or recomposing.
  • Ability to spot meter with outer focus points. This is one feature lacking in the 5D3 that I've been aware of; having it in the X100T made a big difference.
By chance I happened to come across a review of the D750. And I soon realized that it has all of the above, as well as 3D focus tracking. I was particularly impressed with this video , and could see how that would be really helpful in keeping my daughter's eyes in focus as she moves and/or as I change the composition. I also love the highlight-weighted metering mode that Nikon introduced with the D750.

Granted, these are relatively minor omissions in the 5D3 when looked at individually, but when added together—especially with my style of shooting and subject matter—they are significant. Both cameras we're talking about are very high quality, so the decision of one over the other can't be easily made on that basis alone.

I guess my remaining question is regarding lens selection. The lenses that I want in either system are:
  • 3 fast primes: 35/50/85
  • 24-70 and 70-200
I don't have a dog in this fight, not a fanboy of any system. But from what I've read, it seems that the Canon 24-70 and 70-200 are better regarded than the Nikon equivalents. As for the primes, Nikon now has the excellent 35/1.8G, 50/1.8G, 85/1.8G—which have excellent IQ, and are still relatively light/affordable. I'm very interested in these. I've had the 50L and 85L in the past, but they're just too big and heavy. I want my primes to be relatively compact compared to the big zooms. I know Canon has the 35 IS, which is well regarded, but their 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 need updating.

The question, of course, is whether the features of the D750 I mentioned above warrant selling my Canon gear. On this note, I'd be particularly interested in hearing from any former Canon 5D3 owners that now own the D750. But any thoughts are appreciated.
Click to expand...
I shot with 5D3 for over two years and now I shoot with D810, Df and D750. I can't even imagine switching system for the three things you listed above. I have never used built in flash. I honestly don't even remember that I have them. Again I don't even know how to activate face detection on any of my cameras and ability to spot meter with outer focusing points is something I have not tried. I'm sure a lot of people use it but not for me.

I guess my shooting style is quite different from yours. Those three things you listed are useless to me and not a good reason to switch but YMMV. I switched because I feel like with Nikon you get more for your buck but customer service sucks. So pick your headache.
 
IMHO Nikon does have superior (Sony) sensors, but lots of other factors come into play before switching systems. Review the posts on this forum and do you due diligence. I was going to upgrade my Nikon D300 to the D750, but decided to hold off until the perceived "flare-banding" issue becomes a non-issue.
 
I would go with the D750 and the fast primes. I just bought the Sigma 35 A and then decided on the D750 over 610 and I am absolutely loving the combo. Next up for me is probably the 85 1.8g.
 
If you're interested in those noob-grade features then yeah I don't know why you bought a pro-grade 5D3 in the first place.
 
For the three reasons you stated I think it's better for you to wait until Canon has an update for the 5D or 6D. This way you won't have to switch brand at all and keep the great lenses you already have. If you do insist on moving to Nikon then the D750 with the 35/50/58 1.8 make an outstanding kit.
 
mrswitters said:
I've been shooting with a 5D3 + 24-70 II, 70-200 IS and Sigma 35A for the past two years. I recently picked up a Fujifilm x100T because I wanted a compact camera I could use for travel. In using it, I found that it has several features that I now realize I am missing on the 5D3:
  • Built-in flash. Yes, off-camera flash is better but I've found the built-in flash to be really helpful for some natural-looking fill light in certain situations.
  • Face detection. I always thought this was a consumer camera gimmick, but 90% of my photography now is shooting my 3.5 year-old daughter, and face detection makes it easy to keep her in focus without manually moving the focus point and/or recomposing.
  • Ability to spot meter with outer focus points. This is one feature lacking in the 5D3 that I've been aware of; having it in the X100T made a big difference.
Click to expand...
Out of those 3 things i only use Spot metering with outer points. I find it useful.

I know face detection works with AF-A mode in viewfinder but i never used it.

About 3D tracking - i have used couple of times but i still prefer AF-C(servo) single point in 95% of time. And i have little toddlers too.

Built in flash? hmm maybe useful for commander mode to trigger out camera flashes sometimes. For fill light with bright background, might be useful too.

Still for those reasons and with really nice glass you have i would not recommend switching.

Valid reason to switch imho, if you like to play around with RAW files, would be dynamic range you get out of D750 files compared to 5D3. In times where you need multiple exposures with Canon you can just push sliders in LR with D750 file.
 
Tharaphita said:
mrswitters said:
I've been shooting with a 5D3 + 24-70 II, 70-200 IS and Sigma 35A for the past two years. I recently picked up a Fujifilm x100T because I wanted a compact camera I could use for travel. In using it, I found that it has several features that I now realize I am missing on the 5D3:
  • Built-in flash. Yes, off-camera flash is better but I've found the built-in flash to be really helpful for some natural-looking fill light in certain situations.
  • Face detection. I always thought this was a consumer camera gimmick, but 90% of my photography now is shooting my 3.5 year-old daughter, and face detection makes it easy to keep her in focus without manually moving the focus point and/or recomposing.
  • Ability to spot meter with outer focus points. This is one feature lacking in the 5D3 that I've been aware of; having it in the X100T made a big difference.
Click to expand...
Out of those 3 things i only use Spot metering with outer points. I find it useful.

Valid reason to switch imho, if you like to play around with RAW files, would be dynamic range you get out of D750 files compared to 5D3. In times where you need multiple exposures with Canon you can just push sliders in LR with D750 file.
Click to expand...
I forgot to mention that while the DR of the D750 wasn't on my initial list, once I started to read reviews of the camera I was pretty blown away by it, and could see how useful it would be, especially with the highlight-weighted metering mode.

Spot-metering with outer points is extremely useful for my style of shooting and I've been really frustrated that Canon will only offer it on their 1D series. Those kinds of marketing decisions bug me; the 5D3 was $3k when it came out. Would it really kill them to put that feature in?
 
Of the things you mention the DR is the thing that will show a real difference.

However truly the cost won't be repaid by a fairly modest difference. Canon will be rolling out new bodies which will cost less, will be easier to handle etc.

Wait. Pass the time by popping out and taking photos.
 
a_c_skinner said:
Of the things you mention the DR is the thing that will show a real difference.

However truly the cost won't be repaid by a fairly modest difference. Canon will be rolling out new bodies which will cost less, will be easier to handle etc.

Wait. Pass the time by popping out and taking photos.
Click to expand...
 
I came from a 5D and 7D and sold all my Canon lenses and gear and switched to Nikon when the D800 came out. My frustration with Canon is they are not keeping up with the marketplace and are not releasing meaningful upgrades to their camera line in a timely fashion.

Nikon on the other hand, is taking huge risks with their releases; 36mp, Full Frame with tilt screen, etc, etc.

Nikon is releasing camera bodies at a breakneck pace.

Where they are lacking is in some of their Glass. fortunately, 3rd party lens makers have perceived this and are now bridging the gap and coming out with some outstanding choices for Nikon shooters.

When I switched systems, I did have to spend more for the Nikon glass, but I did not lose much $$ when I sold my Camera gear.

I use 3D tracking from time to time, but for the most part, Nikon gives you other tools to use for focusing and tracking. I personally love the D810 feature set. Probably the best camera I've ever owned.

Best of luck with your decision. If Canon comes out with a 56mp with 5 way Image stabilization, and 4d tracking, I'd probably take a look.
 
Al Giordano said:
I came from a 5D and 7D and sold all my Canon lenses and gear and switched to Nikon when the D800 came out. My frustration with Canon is they are not keeping up with the marketplace and are not releasing meaningful upgrades to their camera line in a timely fashion.

Nikon on the other hand, is taking huge risks with their releases; 36mp, Full Frame with tilt screen, etc, etc.

Nikon is releasing camera bodies at a breakneck pace.

Where they are lacking is in some of their Glass. fortunately, 3rd party lens makers have perceived this and are now bridging the gap and coming out with some outstanding choices for Nikon shooters.

When I switched systems, I did have to spend more for the Nikon glass, but I did not lose much $$ when I sold my Camera gear.

I use 3D tracking from time to time, but for the most part, Nikon gives you other tools to use for focusing and tracking. I personally love the D810 feature set. Probably the best camera I've ever owned.

Best of luck with your decision. If Canon comes out with a 56mp with 5 way Image stabilization, and 4d tracking, I'd probably take a look.
Click to expand...
That's one thing that concerns me. I have no interest in a 56mp camera (files too large, take too long to process), and the rumors suggest that's what's next for a 5D3. Even 36mp seems excessive for how I shoot and process photos (never print larger than 11x14).

I have been blown away by the quality of the Sigma 35A, and am planning to buy the 50A (and probably the 85A when it comes out). Of course those are all available in Nikon mount.

So that really leaves the 24-70 and 70-200. These are the only two other lenses I need, given my subject matter. From what I've read, the Nikon choices aren't as good. In fact, I've seen a lot of folks recommend the Tamron alternatives because they are apparently almost as good as the Nikons, but a lot cheaper.

This may not be a big deal for most people, but I will say that I'd much prefer having a black 70–200 to the "great white shark" Canon, which sticks out like a sore thumb. Of course I wouldn't want to sacrifice much in the way of IQ.
 
"So that really leaves the 24-70 and 70-200. ... From what I've read, the Nikon choices aren't as good."

No, they are first rate. Having said that stick with Canon. Selling old gear and buying new won't improve your photography and nowadays won't improve your photos much either.

--


Andrew Skinner
 
If those features are important, then switch. You'll end up with less missed shots. You'll also find a new world of dynamic range to play with.

As for the lenses, don't worry. The 24-70 and 70-200 are extremely good lenses. I have both.

As for the primes, you have choices there, but I think you only have to beware of one Nikon among them - the 50F1.4g, which has a lot of CA wide open.

You have excellent Nikon options in the F1.8 range, and the 85 is particularly good.

The F1.4 choices are where you have to consider 3rd-party options. The Nikon 35F1.4 is good, but in a different (and more expensive) way than the Sigma 35F1.4 ART. I have the Sigma, and it's amazingly good wide open. I hear the Nikon has better bokeh and may be better shooting subjects at a distance. Seems like splitting hairs, but there is certainly a significant difference in price.

The Sigma 50F1.4 ART is likely better than the Nikon, but I haven't seen comparison shots yet. I'm happy with the Nikon 50F1.4g when stopped down, but I didn't buy an F1.4 lens to avoid shooting at F1.4-F2.2 (which is where I find fault with the Nikon).

Both Nikon 85's are excellent. (I have both). The F1.4 gives you additional depth of field options; the F1.8 gives you incredibly good performance at a nice price.
 
I have the 24-70 and it's an amazingly sharp lens. For 70-200, I purchased the F/4 version as it has less focus breathing and is as sharp or sharper than the F/2.8 version. It is also sharper than the Canon version according to DxOmark:

Loading…

www.dxomark.com

Check it out.
 
PHXAZCRAIG said:
If those features are important, then switch. You'll end up with less missed shots. You'll also find a new world of dynamic range to play with.

As for the lenses, don't worry. The 24-70 and 70-200 are extremely good lenses. I have both.

As for the primes, you have choices there, but I think you only have to beware of one Nikon among them - the 50F1.4g, which has a lot of CA wide open.

You have excellent Nikon options in the F1.8 range, and the 85 is particularly good.

The F1.4 choices are where you have to consider 3rd-party options. The Nikon 35F1.4 is good, but in a different (and more expensive) way than the Sigma 35F1.4 ART. I have the Sigma, and it's amazingly good wide open. I hear the Nikon has better bokeh and may be better shooting subjects at a distance. Seems like splitting hairs, but there is certainly a significant difference in price.

The Sigma 50F1.4 ART is likely better than the Nikon, but I haven't seen comparison shots yet. I'm happy with the Nikon 50F1.4g when stopped down, but I didn't buy an F1.4 lens to avoid shooting at F1.4-F2.2 (which is where I find fault with the Nikon).

Both Nikon 85's are excellent. (I have both). The F1.4 gives you additional depth of field options; the F1.8 gives you incredibly good performance at a nice price.
Click to expand...
 
In general, switching out entire systems just because of a few features is not a good idea. I'm not saying switching systems isn't good in the case where there is something definitive and lacking in a very real way (not just an emotional response or jealousy) that PREVENTS you from doing a core bit of what you do photographically with your current system, but in reality, these days, that's a lot more rare than it used to be.

Consider first the financial hit you take, and then think BEYOND just the new shiny feature you're getting. You have to take the time to learn the new camera and learn it's user interface. This is important because the user interface is quite different between Canon and Nikon, and personally I think the ability of a photographer to know their gear intuitively so they can *react* to a changing situation quickly and "get the shot" is more important than most think. I have nothing against Canon as a company and given time I could produce similar quality work if you forced me to switch, but it would take a while before I would be as instinctive and as fast at reacting, so for an initial period, my work would actually suffer. However, for some things this isn't important - I'm a studio shooter who shots movement and have to have good timing in sense of catching a models expression. I also shoot landscape, and there the interaction with the camera is far less important.

The other big 'gotcha' is that the two brands have vastly different default settings and "looks" in terms of how the image looks, and vastly different software workflows in order to get the results you want. I think this, more than anything else, would negatively impact you - considerably so actually - if you were, say, used to Canon skin tones and so forth. This doesn't mean that the other brand can't do the deal but more that it would take time to not only learn the user interface but also time to learn how to get what you want out of the new system, and coupled with the financial hit you take, in most cases it is not worth the switch. One is better off spending the money in better/more glass, taking a class or seminar in an area they could improve in, or traveling to new locations as opposed to switching brands just because of gear envy.

Now, on the other side of the coin, if there is something that isn't working out with your current gear and it really, truly, honestly is preventing you from getting shots, then it's a consideration. A wedding photographer unhappy with the way Adobe converts Nikon raw files but likes the way Adobe converts Canon raw files and this workflow logjam is hurting their ability to put out jobs might be better off with Canon. A landscape photographer who has excellent lenses (Sigma art, Zeiss, etc) might be better off with a D810 from Nikon because of the slightly better resolution capability coupled with distinctly better dynamic range. But these are real cases where one system is better than the other - not a single feature. (And if you think the off center AF points are dead on reliable in any brand, you're being fooled - that's the last thing I'd change brands for)

Another thought also is this: Why not have a foot in both camps? Musicians I know don't only own ONE brand of guitar - they'll have a Fender for this, a Gibson for that, a PRS for another thing, and maybe a Martin and Guild acoustic too. Photographers seem to have this brand-affiliation thing that I never got - these are just tools - pick the right tool for the job leaving emotion and envy out of the situation and you just might find you're better off with your current situation or by perhaps adding a D750 and a small prime lens trio as just having another tool in the tool kit so to speak.

-m
 
I have used the 5D3 for years in the studio and on location. I also own Nikon stuff.

Here are the reasons I think Nikon is better, and why I shoot the Nikons whenever I have a choice:

1. The D.R. is so great that it's hard to wreck the shot due to exposure. Strobes don't slip in the specular highlights. Shooting outdoors is a breeze - shoot for the highlights, and bring up shadows in post as much as you like.

On the other hand, the 5D3 has such trouble with shadow noise/banding/etc. when you try to edit dark areas. It always stresses me out when shooting the Canons. Very little leeway in post.

This alone makes Nikon (or Sony) the better system for me - because it alleviates the main cause for stress when shooting digital: burning out highlights or blocking up the shadows.

2. The AF on the D750 will blow your mind. More accurate than the 5D3 in my experience. And faster.

So now my lenses can be shot wide open without worry about missing focus! (and yes the cheap Nikkor 1.8 G lenses can look great shot wide open.)

Other then these two (BIG!) issues, I think each system has it's advantages. But because the above are so important to me. Nikon wins.

I shoot Canon in the studio only because they Canons are provided for free...and the studio has standardized on them.

Best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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