Looking at getting our third DSLR, and considering switching to Canon... Anyone have a MKII/L-lense combo that they want to sell?

dont do it

He's not going to
Its a big conspiracy.

It's actually funny you mention this, DJ and I have a mentor at Westmont who has been a Nikon user for probably the last 25 years or so. He had an HUGE amount of equipment invested in Nikon (maybe 5 film bodies, 3 digital bodies, 9 or 10 lenses) and he recently switched over to Canon. He switched to the 20D (not the MarkII) and he's been really really happy with his choice. I was just talking to him yesterday for a while about it. He said he thought there were ups and downs to both systems, but overal he thinks Canon is probably a better system and it was worth the switch for him.

Let me see if I can get him to post up something....

Anyways, if I were you I wouldn't switch to the Mrk II. For several reasons.....

1. Save your money, get a 20D and put some of that cash towards L lenses. You could probably get 2 with the money you saved, and the 20D and Mrk II are so similar you won't be missing much.

2. I'm guessing in the next few months the Mrk III will be getting announced, and then you'll be in the same spot of having to upgrade again.

Let me see if I can get Brad to post up a few of his thoughts.

What spurred this thought anyways Nathan?

Thanks Chris!! Anyone else? I can't help but think that having a heavy-duty MkII with the vertical shutter release would be a better choice... The sensor on the MkII is at least a little better isn't it?

Nope. it's actually the same 8.2 mp sensor. For an extra $200 or so you can get a vertical grip for the 20D which REALLY helps "beef up" the camera a bit more and make it more "pro" looking.

Interesting! Tempting.... Anyone else know of any equipment for sale or have an opnion on the two cameras?

Not that we're buying...




Love you honey:)

He's just investigating his options Amber!

Just out of curiosity.....

what will your names change to if you do switch????

Canon Stud and Studette?

NOOOOOOooooooo! Resist the dark side!


But seriously, hang in there -- Nikon will step up. And if you're salivating for a better sensor, get by with an S3 for a while.


...and if you do switch, I'll understand. I'll just be a little lonelier...

If you feel lonely you could switch too Peter.

The dark side aint so bad.

To the land of the white lenses!!??!! (they're more of a cream, right?) NEVER!!! MMMmmmuhHHaaaAAA!

Just kidding! I don't really have any brand loyalty or an opinion one way or another. I just want more Nikon people here so I can get rid our unused equipment!

Nathan,
I made the switch from Nikon to Canon about 12 years ago and haven't looked back. I agree with Chris about getting the 20D with a vertical grip and some good L series glass. The Mark II is definitely more solid and has more bells & whistles, including a slightly larger image sensor size (though it's still the same 8.2 megapixel as the 20D, but with a 1.3 magnification instead of 1.6x). I've watched and considered each new pro model body from Canon and decided that the Mark III (or whatever they decide to call it) will most likely be the beast I'll invest in. But for now, it's tough to beat the 20D.
Christopher
p.s. The S3 appears to have greater dynamic range, but it's slow.

STOP THE MADNESS!!!!!!

Hi Nathan,

Let me first say that I have not shot with the Canon Mark II's or the Nikon D1x (which I believe you use). So don't put too much weight on my experience.

Have you tried the Nikon D2X? I have been shooting with the D100 and I just got the D2X last week. Compared to the D100 (which may not be saying a lot), the D2X is quite a nice little camera.

One of the features that I was looking for is a faster continuous focusing speed. When I got my D2X, I had my girlfriend drive me up and down the street at about 40mph (she actually is a much faster driver than that, but we were near a school and the speed limit was only 25 mph) and I just pointed my camera at different signs/kids alone the road and see if the continuous focusing would be able to keep up as we close the distance on different objects. I took lots of shots during this experiment and I am very happy with the results.

I am not saying don't switch. But maybe give Nikon a chance by seeing if the best they have to offer can satisfy your needs.

Nikonians unite!

preach it regis

Regis, thanks for the feedback on the D2X...

I've got two problems with Nikon - awful noise levels at high iso's in comparison to Canon (not to mention that ISO 1600 is only accesible through a custom menu), as well as their seeming lack of effort in dealing with this issue and create a camera that actually caters to photojournalists.

There newest and "best" camera, the D2X, seems to have followed in it's predecessor's footsteps and possibly gotten even worse with it's noise levels. You'd think that Nikon would realize that a big portion of its market is or would be wedding photographers who have Canon to compare to, and would work on a solution... and yet they just came out with a 5000.00 camera that only seems to be able to do well up to ISO 400 and maybe 800.

My wife has helped me realize that financially, a move to Canon right now is not a great idea, particularly as we just invested in a bunch of Nikon glass, but I have to admit that Nikon is not really giving me anything to look forward to when we do have the money to spend....

Do you have any sample images taken at 1600 ISO in low light to show? What has been your experience with the D2X and high ISO's?

Nathan: The last wedding I did, we had an assistant with us, shooting on a 20D I think. She mentioned the Cannon-noise superiority issue to me as well. However, after going through all of the shots she took at 1600, I didn't see any difference between images I have produced at 1600.

By the way, we shoot D70's, which, if you do the math, are 1/5th the cost of the D2x. However, the sensor they have is virtually identical in quality to the D2X (in terms of color fidelity, noise, etc. -- obviously there is a bit of a difference in millions of pixels). The camera has a 1/500th synch, 200-1600 ISO range (no weird menu to get to the 1600 setting) and produces awesome results for us. And, we bought four of them (2 each) so we never have to switch lenses. We've printed a few 24x30" prints (which were captured as JPEG before we knew how awesome RAW was!) and they look phenomenal.

My one gripe is the robustness of the auto focus. Beyond that, they are awesome cameras, and ROI-wise, we made our money back on all four bodies 3/4 of the way through our first wedding.

If you want to see a wedding we shot with the D70's, here is an unreleased wedding:

Scratch all of that -- I realized that it wouldn't really help for you to see any of that as the jpeg compression as well as the image size doesn't really give you any idea what a 100% file looks like.

Here are some 200 ISO and 1600 ISO (shot in RAW and processed the same for each set) shots side by side (click on the image to see a detailed portion of the print -- the detail files are saved as max quality jpegs):

ISO 200 Shot 1:


ISO 1600 Shot 1:


ISO 200 Shot 2:


ISO 1600 Shot 2:


If you want my 100% honest recommendation, I would suggest trying out the D70 (I think there is a D70s now). I am sure there are photographers that won't touch a pro-sumer camera, but I would not buy the D2x, unless it was the same price as the D70. I don't think there is much of a quality gain at all, and the D70 produces above and beyond the quality we require. In fact, it is a fairly large step up from the D100 in quality as well as the D1x, so if you are using either, you shouldn't have any qualms about the D70.

Think of it as a Yashica in a Hasselblad world. Well, not quite. Think of it as an F100 in an F5 world. If you need an F5 to do weddings, get the D2x (or S3, or the MarkII). If you can deal with an F100, look into the D70. (The F100, consequently, is built a lot better than the D70 -- oh well...)

I know nikon was wise to jump on board with the cmos technology and bail on their proprietary lbcast sensor and ccd's for their pro dslr's.

I don't think you can go wrong with either.
search sportsshooter.com threads for tons of tech info, very knowledgable people there and they put their equipment thru the paces.

i recently switched from nik to canon. I'm runnin a mkii and its great. 1.3 crop factor is a very good thing compared to a 1.6 or 1.5. not as sharp out of the camera as my d1x's, but the color rendering is light years ahead. ok, maybe just a generation or two. but consider this. nikon will remain a step behind canon. I can't even imagine how many times larger Canon is than Nikon (copy machines, printers, etc). they will always have the R&D budget that Nikon will never have.

tho nothing feels as good in my hand as a nikon!

Peter, you've got some great stuff from that wedding you let me look at! I still have apprehensions about using a prosumer camera, one of which would be going to a wedding where I'm charging thousands of dollars and not looking like a professional. I would also be running the risk of running into other people there at the wedding with the same camera (they're being sold at our local Best Buy, along with the 20D!). Having shot the D70 before, I also had a real hard time with how small the viewfinder is!!! I'm really glad that it's worked for you, though, and like I said, you've got some great stuff to show for it!

Garrett, I had heard/read about how Nikon's ergonomics are better than Canon's, but when I picked up a fellow photographer's MkII the other day, I've got to say that it felt incredible!!! It was solid, and the shutter release buttons were set really well!

Awww.... the neverending saga of Canon and Nikon!

Nathan: I had actually forgotten how small the viewfinder is -- that would be my second gripe! I must have become used to it by now because I don't notice at all! Also, based on what you said above, I hate to say it, but I think the S3 or MarkII are the only cameras I would recommend for you, and the S3 only because it will fit Nikon glass. Obviously, the 20D isn't an option, and I think there is almost no reasonable advantage of the D2X over the D70 or D70s (aside from a simple resolution gain). And paying $5000 for a camera just because it looks "beefer" (the only advantage, aside from resolution, I feel it has over the D70's) from a distance, does not a smart purchase make!

As far as professionalism goes, I think demeanor, dress, conduct and a whole host of other factors trump what camera you have around your neck. Quite frankly, I'd shoot with an Elph if it was the best tool, and due to the way we carry ourselves, the quality of product we deliver, and the service we provide, most people wouldn't think twice. I think they'd be surprised, but I feel we exude more than enough professionalism to compensate.

...oddly enough, I do notice quite a few wedding guests at each event toting around $3000+ cameras ...

Also, I'm glad you got a chance to look at that wedding even though I realized it probably didn't help you evaluate the ISO question you initially had!

Healthy debate! This is good!

A few differences right off the bat between the D2X and D70... Built-in vertical shutter release, alloy body, higher tested shutter cycles, and more custom functions - all in favor of the D2X...

Good point about how your professionalism (demeanor, etc.). I guess ultimately, it's the final product that matters too!

Good thoughts....

Ahhh yes! More good points. I personally don't put any value on those items as they don't give me anything extra, so I totally ignored them. Man, it is humbling realizing how focused one's reality can be! I guess all that I really care about is the quality of the sensor, that the body will last at least a year, and that I can put good glass on the camera. Silly narrow-minded Peter!

Nathan: 3
Peter: 0

I've been out of the loop on this thread for a little while, but just caught back up. And if I can be allowed, would love to throw my 2 cents back in....

I can totally understand the hesitation to make the switch. You've got a lot invested in Nikon. However, as Mike Colon says, think LONG TERM. You think you're invested now, think 10 years down the road. You'll likely be even more invested. And what was said above is true. Nikon will ALWAYS be behind Canon. It's just a fact. They don't have the resources to stay up to speed with Canon. It's just the way it is. As hard as you think a switch now would be, it'll be only harder down the road. Obviously, I'm biased, but I think that Canon gear right now, is a better investment that Nikon gear.

2nd...Don't throw out the possibility of the 20D! That is a GREAT camera. And I'm frankly suprised about what Peter said regarding the 20D noise ratio. I'm not sure what that assistant was doing, but the 20D noise ratio espessially at ISO 800 is better than the D2H for sure. Look at the graphs that compare them. I was honestly amazed last year when I was shooting a soccor tournament with my Nikon friend. He was shooting the D2H. The noise ratio between those two cameras was pretty similar, perhaps the 10D was a little better. And the 10D is a prosumer camera! And I can tell you after shooting thousands of images with the 10D and the 20D, the 20D is DRASTICALLY better than the 10D noise wise. DJ, and Dane, can attest to that as well with their 20Ds and because the Mrk II is the same sensor as the 20D.

Also I struggle with the fact that I usually find at least 1 guest at a wedding who has a 20D as well. However, the vertical grip which you can add to the 20D really does make a big difference.

I just don't think the Mrk II is a very good buy for hardly anyone at this point in time because the Mrk III (or whatever follows the Mrk II) cannont be that far off in time. I heard a rumor that the Mrk III would be announced late summer or early fall. I'm saving my cash for that!

Just a few thoughts. Hope it helps!

Definitely don't follow what I said if you are looking into Cannon details! I am not even sure it was a 20D that she was using. I just remember having the noise conversation with her and then being surprised to see noise in a bunch of shots. That said, I think the majority of the shots that she took at 1600 were pretty underexposed, so who knows what the files would look like had they been shot correctly. (And, for the record, I know very little about the D2H -- I was comparing the 20D to a D70, which, incidentally, has a larger and, from what I understand, better sensor than the D2H. However, I think I have shown how well I know camera details... )

Hi Nathan,

I haven't tried a lot of shots at the high ISO settings yet. I'll do some low ISO vs high ISO shoots and I'll keep you posted. However, I don't know how usefull the information will be because I am not able to use the same constant to compare the D2x vs. the Mark II (dont' have a Mark II handy).

I have been waiting for www.dpreview.com or www.steves-digicams.com to come out with their reivew of the D2x, but they are not available yet. The ones I was able to find on the net all suggest that there is a big improvement of the D2x over its predecessor, and that it is very competitive with it's competitor. I was able to find a review that is quite detailed at:

www.bythom.com/d2xreview.htm

Also, it is not necessary to go to the Custom Menu to change the ISO to 1600 (Nikon calls ISO 1600 Hi1). The same ISO buttom that is at the back of the camera is used to change the ISO from 100 to 3200 (Nikon calls the 3200 Hi2).

Another thing I noticed with the D2x (I am still reading the manual and playing with the different features) is its battery life. I shot with the Image Review on (each image shows up on the LCD after each shot) and I was able to get over 1000 shots before the low battery warning. My friend with his D2x shot an entire wedding (over 2000 shots with the Image Review Off) without having to change his battery. Just FYI.

I agree with Garrett. I don't think you can go wrong with either one.

Although Nikon (by itself) may not have as much capital as Canon right now (and probably may never will). The synergy between the partnership of Nikon and giant Sony may not be all bad (time will tell). The way I figure is that if it's good enough for Mike Colon, it's way, way, way good enough for me (granted he gets his for free from Nikon). **I hope Nikon is reading this and will score me a discount the next time I make a purchase.

Good luck with your search.

As a side note, isn't it odd how companies always give things away to the people who could easily afford them, and not to the people who struggle to make the money to afford them??

Just thought I would point that out.....

Chris, with your excellent work, Canon should be calling you before you know it to ask you to use their new Mark III.

What I am baffled at is why Canon hasn't already called our main man DJ yet. Canon must have misplaced his number. Maybe I should get Nikon to give him a call before Canon snatch him up

I dunno....I think DJ has more integrity than that ....he'll stick to Canon irregardless if Nikon bribes him with new toys!. just kiddin'

I've shot Nikon for the last 8 years and just switched to Canon. The bulk of my shooting, working full-time for the University of Texas Athletic Dept., has been sports. The reason I started shooting Nikon was because that's what the Universitry went with for the last 20 + years. I had no problem with the Nikon F5 film camera and it's flash systems. But I've used the terrible quality D1, the better D1X, D1H, and D2H, all extensively, shooting sports, in studio settings, journalism, etc. since the Nikon D1 was released.

Because I am embarking on a freelance career and needed to invest in my own gear I had to choose a system. I didn't have to weigh into my decision what gear I currently owned because I didn't own anything but an old Canon A1 and AE1.

Being at sporting events around the country, working alongside the leaders in the sports shooting field I've witnessed the majority shooting Canon.

I missed so many shots that because of Nikon's relatively poor autofucusing system. Not to say I didn't get a lot of shots in focus (or that I'm not to blame on some) but not enough. I rented Canon 1D Mark ll a few times and was sold.

You will not see anyone who shoots for Sports Illustrated shooting Nikon. Canon blows the Nikon autofocusing away. It is much more responsive, accurate and quiet. I bought my gear 2 months ago and still have access to my Nikon gear. I won't touch it. I'm using my personal gear for my work assignments now.

Our local Austin newspaper photo staff is following the trend of so many other organizations and individuals and in the process of switching to Canon.

My experience has been that image color quality is better. More detail in the Canon files. The shutter is much more responsive.

I chose the Canon 1D Mark ll because I will continue to shoot sports and it has an 8.5 fps rate so I can't talk about the 20 D as I've never tried it.

The ttl flash system with the Canon 580 EX flash is great, quite accurate. I always had to adjust my Nikon flash units to get a correct exposure. Not to mention that the infrared autofocusing of the Canon works better too.

I have been working with a local printer on getting samples of some select images printed at up to 44" for a show. The prints made from Canon files are better than the Nikon files.

This doesn't mean that Nikon will not catch up but I want what works best now. I can't afford to blow the focus on shots whether I'm shooting a wedding or sports or my neighbor's poodle. This isn't to say I will focus on poodles or that Canon is perfect with it's autofocusing and other things but it's better.

Mark ll negative: flash synch speed 250th sec

Just my opinion. Not a tried and true wedding photographer, yet.

I no longer have Canon envy.

Chris

Hey Nathan,

Both steves-digicams.com and dpreview.com came out with their review of the D2x today.

The one that is particularly interesting is the one from dpreview.com. It has several sections that compared the D2x to the Mark II 1Ds head to head on various features and shooting conditions. Some of the results may please many Nikon shooters. If you get a chance, take a look.

Ok, my excitement may not be very objective because I am a Nikon shooter. But most of you knew that

Regis... Glad you saw that new review... Looked at it tonight, and the MkII 1Ds does have some competition!!! It seems that the only thing that Nikon is lacking in is.... oh, surprise, high ISO performance. I'm still really curious to see some samples from you! Any chance you could just shoot a couple of indoor, natural light shots shot at ISO 1600? Thanks!!

Regis... Glad you saw that new review... Looked at it tonight, and the MkII 1Ds does have some competition!!! It seems that the only thing that Nikon is lacking in is.... oh, surprise, high ISO performance. I'm still really curious to see some samples from you! Any chance you could just shoot a couple of indoor, natural light shots shot at ISO 1600? Thanks!!

I was hoping Chris H would reply to this...but of course anyone is welcome to chime in....


i have a 20D--got it from Charles Bordner who I 2nd shoot w/ occasionally here in SC.

Anyway, it has been my workhorse...but to continue to do weddings I really need a backup camera. I want the MarkII because I think the image quality is better more of the time with that camera than w/ the 20D...but I can't afford it now...and after reading Chris H's posts I'm not so sure it's the best move.

So would you say I should go for a used 20/30 D or is the new 40D worth the jump...or should I just try to rent a backup camera body for now and save up for the 5D/MkIII?
hmmm i have a lot of questions...

Oh my goodness... I first saw this blog post and was like "oh... my... goodness..." I had to go about half way through the thread before I saw the date on it... '05!?

But to think if the Holritz's did switch to Canon back then... then Amber would have gotten a 16-35mm or two... and I'd be able to borrow it.

Well, it was nice to dream.

Wow! It was about half way through these posts that I realized that they were 3 years old. I was thinking, wow, someone still shoots with a d100? Also, I was like, of course Nathan has used a d2x, he has one! LOL! Too funny.

oops...my newbie(ness) has become quite obvious and I am now CAPTAIN OBVIOUS

however, i did get an email from chris about this... essentially, he advised me to stick w/ the 20D for my purposes...and consider saving up for the 5D / MIII.

Thanks again, Chris!

haha i was so confused.. actually i still am

I did the SAME THING! I read the complaints about high ISO noise, and was thinking, what about the D300, and D3??? Then I noticed that there was talk of the Mark II and the D100.......................... and that the posts were 2 years old

WHEW, I was beginning to get nervous that one of my Nikon die hard heroes was looking to go to the dark side. Glad to see that was old news and they made the right choice.

Oh to think that if I had made the mistake of switching to Canon... I would have missed out on the D3, or spent too much money switching back..

Or .... your pictures would have been more awesome because of canon and you would have booked 2x the weddings at 2x the price and made 4x the money so wouldn't have even considered switching back.

I'm with Jim on this. Nathan, have your ever shot Canon??? Doesn't J Claire shoot Canon...and she's the one who shot your avatar photo right?

But yeah, that D3 is sweeet...

I have a friend who was a die hard Nikon user who switched to Canon for the 5D/low noise/L lenses... and now the new Nikon is the King of low noise. I would guess it's just a matter of time before Canon comes out with a new camera that everyone drools over. There are rumors of a replacement for the 5D but I haven't seen anything that confirms it yet.

I was scratching my head about the 20D until I saw the date, too. LOL