Wednesday September 17
14:40
Canon EOS 5D Mark II or Nikon D700?
The Canon EOS 5D Mark II has just been announced. Slightly cheaper than the D700 but with 21MP and HD movies – and I’ve heard the D700 kit lens (24-120 F3.5-5.6) isn’t that hot. The Canon kit lens has a shorter zoom at 24-105 but is F4 all the way.
If this camera is as good as it looks on paper – and it uses an enhanced version of the EOS-1D MarkIII sensor so could well be – then it might be my next purchase. The only caution I have is banding at high ISO. The ISO 6400 image from the 50D shows banding at 6400, and I saw the same when I tested the old Kiss/Rebel. If the 5D Mark II has the same, I’ll be ruling it out.
|
Nikon D700
|
Nikon D90
|
Panasonic DMC-G1
|
Panasonic DMC-GH1/G1HD (check availability)
I see you’re going to get a more expensive pen ;-) Do you really need a full-frame and that many pixels? Might also be worth while checking the D300 which is a semi-pro body.
I tried the D300 when I was originally looking for a DSLR but I found the high ISO of the D40x to be better. I remember retesting several times trying to convince myself that the D300 was better because I thought it perverse to buy a body cheaper than the lens I intended pairing it with, but in the end I accepted that the D40x was simply better at high ISO.
The D90 might be a decent “feature” upgrade, but it wouldnt give the ISO quality that I want. Still, I really would like the virtual horizon feature of the D90..
You probably seen this before?
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/iso-comparisons/2007-11/index.htm
I’m taking a slightly different route, my next investment will be in a fast lens or two. I like the versatility of a 18-200 but it’s too slow. I tend to almost always shoot at aperture priority at the widest aperture and f/5.6 is just dismal. Unfortunately there’s a trade-off, shorter zoom, larger heavier lenses and more expensive. But the impact on the photos themselves is significant enough for me.
Yes I’ve seen that. It’s pretty much comparing Nikon’s in the same class though (cropped sensors) and doesn’t include the D40x. It’s only when you compare the D40x or D300 with the D700 that you can see the difference between the D40x and D300 is peanuts compared to the leap that you get from the D700. Check out this page and you’ll see what I mean:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d700/iso-3200-comparison.htm
As for the aperture – I agree the 18-200 appears slow at first. I had the same thoughts as you when buying the camera, which is why I bought an F1.4 lens also.
However sticking to the widest aperture is limiting. Most obviously it limits your DOF – far more than on a P&S camera. Less obviously, lenses are usually not sharp at their widest aperture. Lenses typically become sharper between F4 and F8, so if you always shoot wide open, that’s going to impact your photos.
If your concern is having wide aperture to reduce camera shake, the VR reduces most of that.
If your concern is using a wide aperture to get DOF effects, you should be aware that DOF also varies with focal length. Try shooting the same thing at 18mm and 100mm, keeping the aperture and object size the same for both shots – you’ll see the DOF is different. Hence saying that f5.6 is dismal for DOF purposes doesn’t really hold weight, since at 200mm, it can create fantastic DOF effects since the DOF on a close object is exaggerated. If I’m shooting someone’s face, for example, I’ll routinely step back and zoom in rather than just shoot close and wide.
That said, the 18-200 has a lot of compromises. It’s a lens for convenience rather than perfect optical quality – but when you’re out in the desert (not to be confused with dessert) as I was last week, you do not want to be switching lenses.
At F5.6 your background has to be quite far from your subject if you want a decently shallow DOF. Sometimes that’s ok but not always. It’s true lenses aren’t as sharp at the widest, but that’s comparing full 1 to 1 size on the screen, doesn’t apply to normal photo viewing, or printing reasonable sized prints. It all really depends on where and what you shoot and how you use your photos.
Well it’s not just aperture which makes a difference but focal length also – so at 200mm, the background can be relatively close but still have shallow DOF.
I’m curious about one thing though – you say that sharpness isn’t important because it only applies at 1 to 1 viewing on screen (which I don’t actually think is true), but then you discount the 18-200 because “the impact on the photos themselves is significant enough for me”. What “impact” is it you’re referring to?
The impact is not just the sharpness which I find is something ppl devote a little too much attention to. In most cases it’s impossible to tell between zooms and primes, or nikon vs. sigma vs. tamron unless you go to 1×1 screen viewing.
The slowness means higher ISO + limitations on DOF + needing a flash. With a f/2.8 you get more flexibility rather than being limited to specific situations and extra gear. If you want to take a portrait at 200mm (effectively 300m on small sensor) then you need to be very far from your subject. That’s not a problem for street photography or specialized model shoots but not suitable in other situations.
Interesting perspective, though you’re comparing F5.6 at 200mm whereas the Tokina f2.8 you are looking at is only 16-50mm.
The 18-200 is f3.5 at 18mm. That’s only half a stop difference. The difference between ISO100 and ISO200 is one stop – easily compensated for.
At 50mm the Nikon is f4.6 I believe. That’s a stop in a half slower – more than compensated by moving from ISO100 to ISO400. Since you don’t think sharpness is an issue, you’re not likely to notice that ISO jump – and if you switch on the VR, you probably don’t even need to adjust the ISO.
Personally I would find 16-50mm far too restricting. I’d rather have 18-200 for flexibility and a fast prime for when I want DOF effects or low light (though I have found low light shots are better with a good flash rather than trying to use a faster aperture).
In fact I don’t think you’d gain much moving from the kit lens you have since it’s similar zoom range to the Tokina. The kit VR can compensate for the aperture difference in most cases. You’re only losing out on DOF, and you’d get better leverage with a prime.
I’m looking at 2 lenses, the Tokina 16-50 and Sigma 50-150. The latter would come first since I tend to take a lot of portraits and as you said I already have the 18-55 covered. The Tokina would probably come much later and besides fast fixed aperture would give me a wider angle, you can see a difference between 16 and 18 considering the crop factor.
Lens sharpness and ISO sharpness are two very different things..
Good flash is indispensable but again, different type of shots. A fast lens also helps with flash photography since it makes it easier to AF and allows for more flexibility in shutter dragging.
At 50mm the Nikon kit is f5.6. The DOF is the main thing I need :-) Otherwise I would have just gone with the 18-200, or better yet the new Tamron 18-270mm with VC (their version of VR). For general walkabout they’re great but less so for creative work.
I still think you’d be better with a prime if DOF and quality is important to you. You’ll have far more flexibility than with the 16-50 because your aperture can go down to f2 or f1.4 (depending on the lens) which gives you much greater DOF control.
Also, I think that with a 16-50 and 50-150 you would end up doing more lens swapping or just not even taking out the 50-150 because of the weight and swapping. A prime plus a zoom like the Tamron would give you two lenses with much more distinct usages.
There’s nothing more of a pain than zooming back from 150 or 200 to find that you get stuck at 50 and have to switch lenses. It can be enough of a delay to “miss the shot”. For a range of shots, you’re probably going to do some at close range and some at long zoom, which means a lot of lens switching.
With a prime and a zoom, the uses are more distinct. When you want to take portraits you’ll switch to the prime. For the rest of the time you will use your zoom. Much more defined roles with less switching in a set of shots.
Just my humble opinion..
By the way, you’re right that ISO sharpness and lens sharpness are different – but between ISO100 and 400 there’s little difference in ISO quality. Lens sharpness affects everything though – it really does make a difference because you can’t get rid of it without changing lenses. For flexibility I like the Nikon 18-200, but there are points where it just isn’t sharp. The Tamrom might be a better choice.
Fair points. I did consider a prime for portraiture together with a all-in-one type of zoom. The only prime that I could find which was sub 2.8 was the nikkor 85mm which won’t AF on my camera. A 50mm won’t be a suitable length, from my experience with the 55mm.
At any rate, I’m still considering the options and haven’t locked in on an approach yet so I might change my mind in the future. There’s no perfect solution that I can see, it’s more like which drawbacks do I *think* I can better live with..
Did you consider the 30mm F1.4 Sigma? If you’re not in a rush and you have time, I can let you play with mine (ooer) when I come to BKK in Dec. 50mm (35mm equiv) is popular for portraits, and the 30mm Sigma is close to that.
DOF is VERY shallow at F1.4 though. AF points on cameras are quite large, so autofocus can be a bit hit and miss depending on which point in the focus square the camera chooses to focus on. You often have to resort to manual focus anyway, doing a kind of “focus bracket”, so I wouldn’t think it a big deal to lose AF (although at the time I bought my lens I thought it would be a big deal to not have AF).
If you want to know how much of a pain it is swapping lenses, go into a camera store and try using the 50-150mm and then switch between shooting things far away and shooting things close. That simulates what you would do in a natural situation, eg on holiday, and will illustrate how much you might want to swap lenses. Once go at that was enough to convince me that I don’t want to be swapping lenses like that. Everyone I know who has bought 2 lenses to cover the zoom range has always said to me they regretted it.
Thanks. I’ll check them out when you\’re here as well as the new D700 I bet ;-) Nadim will be bringing his gear too I’m sure, he just got the D90.
35mm and even 55m isn’t sufficient for me, I need something close to 85 or 105mm.
I use the middle AF point only, old habit and a personal preference.
I carried 3 lenses with my SLR on trips to Phlippines, Nepal and India so I’m pretty familiar with the pains. I would of course want to avoid switching and have a say, 12-300mm f1.4 but that hasn’t been invented yet :-) For a long trip like that an 18-200 is a huge advantage, which is why I’ll probably end up with quite a few lenses eventually for different needs.
Yes, I’m the same – I always use center AF. The issue is that the center AF point is actually quite large, and it isn’t exactly in the middle of the box. It can sometimes “grab” to the left of the box or the middle or the right (similar for up/down) which makes a difference at F1.4.
Also at F1.4 you can’t really center focus and then reframe unless you are very careful – because the distance will be slightly different and so the focus will appear off.
It is because of those two reasons that many people complain about front or back focus with F1.4 lenses – because they don’t understand the inaccuracy of the AF points and the difference in distance when reframing.
Anyway I’m sure your lovely new wife will be more than happy to stop every five minutes during your honeymoon while you change lens to get the perfect shot ;)