Is Canon catching up to Nikon with the Tim Camera (aka Canon 5d MkII) ?

[Paul]

Seems like Nikon has been the better of the two especially for high ISO/low light performance. Just wondering what folks thought about this latest Canon full-frame.

I would love a full frame camera and I'm sort of at the point where I need to decide if I'm going to stick with Canon or look into Nikon. I'm getting tired of just one lens and want to start buying some different ones. First on the list is a 70-200mm f2.8 which I rented a couple of weeks back and loved it. I have yet to purchase a strobe either.

 

[mSummers]

If you are considering making a switch from one brand to another, I would encourage you to go to your local camera store and try the camera bodies you are interested in. See how they feel in your hand. Take a flash card along and shoot with both bodies with lenses of equal quality. Try the entire range of ISO settings and bring the flash card home and look at them on your computer and see how they look.

 

[Roger]

Paul, you're in a situation where it isn't a huge expense to switch brands. With that being said, you have to remember the size of the files from the 5DMk2 and if that is okay. Also, if the limitations that Canon put on it compared to the Nikon....

I'm biased, and that's because Canon's top of the line model was a true problem child that has been recalled now...twice. But it seems that it has been a constant jockeying for position that is good for all camera users.

Nikon was the best during the film era, and Canon took over early in the digital age. Now most people believe Nikon has taken the lead again.

Canon has faster primes, while Nikon has the better pro zooms (excluding the 70-200 for FF).

I'm still glad I switched.

 

[Paul]

Thanks guys, good points. I never thought to bring my own flash card to a camera shop and take some pictures. I'll have to give that a shot.

 

[Roger]

Paul, something else came to me tonight: Another issue that has been brought up with the super 20 MP camera range is that the lens flaws are brought out even more than the 12mp full frames.

To quote Roger Cicala: "Run along little variable-aperture superzoom, you’ll just embarrass yourself on this camera. Mongo like f2.8 Nikon zoom. Mongo like Zeiss prime. Mongo not go outside with 70-300 Sigma, other cameras laugh at Mongo for that."

(Let's say that Sony already has a leg up on the competition since they offer Zeiss Autofocus lenses)

There is a reason why Zeiss now has an EF mount for their manual focus lenses. And why the 5D (I and II) only include an L lens as part of any kit. And why Nikon redid their 14-24/2.8 and to some extent the 24-70. Canon's been doing the updates as well, beginning with the 16-35/2.8 and the 14/2.8 (not to mention the new tilt shifts, which is a result of Nikon's competition, since the tilt-shifts hadn't changed in at least 15 years before now)

 

[Paul]

Thanks Roger for the input. I guess I will continue my research on this never ending quest for better gear.

 

[mPower]

Re: Is Canon catching up to Nikon with the Tim Cam

Paul,

Your last comment struck me: 'never ending quest for better gear'. I think you're on the right track, which ever brand you choose, by investing your money into pro level lenses.

As Roger said, the newer cameras are showing some issues with older (and newer in some cases) lenses, but most are ones you have to go in search of. Buying the pro level lenses will help you avoid some of the issues.

At the end of the day, decide for yourself what you want to do with your images and make your choices based on that. i.e. if you want to pixel peep, buy a 4x5 or larger film camera, scan and enjoy. If you want to print your images in the 8x10 range and enjoy them on your wall or desk, just about any DSLR out there will work JUST fine.

Cheers!

Mark

 

[Paul]

I guess I shouldn't say never ending since I have been very happy with my Canon 40D and still am, but I always wonder if a could have gotten a better shot with a "better" camera. Mostly I have been wanting a little better performance in low light. I have to decide if the added cost of a full frame is really worth it. I'm starting to lean towards no right now.

 

[gary]

my 0.02 worth, the 40d is a very capable camera, my nephew just decided he needed a dslr, went on down to the px and walked on out with a 50d about a month ago, so you could try to find the perfect body, but that trail never ends, and you could miss good shots in the meantime
my advice at this point would be to spend your next couple of years doing 2 things
acquire a nice collection of L glass, remember, good glass never goes bad, and properly cared for L glass holds it's value real well for a real long time
master the body you have and can use with that glass, we are dinks, double incomes, no kids, i can afford the 5d mark 2, but for only the second time since i jumped from film to digital i'm standing firm on my current body, i skipped the d60>10d because i did not feel the features were enough of an upgrade , 20d was
i'm a long ways from realizing the full potential of my 5d, when i get there, then i'll do the deal, by that time, the full frame body offering will have 3x the useable iso and probably cost no more or maybe less than the 5d was
if you really feel full frame is in your future then just do not put any more $ into ef-s mount glass, go right to the L crack
you won't be giving up anything outside of real wide angle, and you could go 3rd party tamron/sigma if you really had too
i expect you'll be showing up to pixelmania this year sporting some sort of useable tripod and a cable release, you bring those along and that 40d will have you right in the nighttime park weenie game, and don't forget who you'll be hanging with, tim and i will be hauling around some serious L glass, i'm fully expecting to be packing the 135mm f2 at that point, one of the sharpest canon has ever made, so some L glass will there for the using

 

[Craig]

but I always wonder if a could have gotten a better shot with a "better" camera.

As someone who has recently "upgraded" from a nikon d80 (which is similiar to your 40d) to a nikon d300, I would say that my images have not improved because the body is better.
Use the hell out of your current body until you feel it is getting in the way of your pictures. I like the d300 controls much better than the d80, but that doesnt improve picture quality.

Mostly I have been wanting a little better performance in low light.

Only, if you are talking about hand holding or dark rides or indoor sports. On a tripod with a cable your camera is "equal" to Tim's!

The only reason I would consider switching brands at this point is if do not like the way the canon feels or you want a specific Nikon lens. That being said, if you have only one body and one lens you are in the best position to switch coming from a $ standpoint.

 

[Paul]

Thanks Gary and Craig. I'm glad I posted my thoughts on this because all of the comments are helping me plan what I want to do.