Big choice: Nikon vs Canon

[PleasantPeasant]

Hey guys, never posted on this forum before and would appreciate your input.

I'm a very keen photographer with too much money burning a hole in my pocket.
I'm lightly invested in Nikon equipment (D7100 and some primes) and am looking to make the jump to full frame.

I yearn to own a pro grade FX body and a couple of pro lenses.... Here are my choices - which path would you choose?

Path one:
Nikon D800 + 24-70 f/2.8 + 70-200 f/2.8
£4307

Path two:
Canon 5DMkIII + 24+70 II f/2.8 + 70-200 IS USM II f/2.8
£4927

[2slo]

I can't compare with Nikon but I use Canon equipt so my opinion based on ownership of the 5D3 is yes, highly recommended, brilliant AF system (same as the 1Dx) no downside really, except the price.
One less expensive alternative camera you might consider is the 6D, depending on what you want to shoot. The ISO range of the 6D is at least as good as the 5D3, the downside (hence the lower price) is the 6D AF system isn't as capable as the 5D3 so, if you want a portrait and landscape camera, the 6D will be ideal, if you want to shoot moving subjects, the 5D3 will be a better choice.
Lenses, the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II is terrific, I own one and use it all the time. Sharp wide open at 2.8. One of my best lenses. Not so keen on the 24-70mm f/2.8 though. I've tried one and it didn't match the 70-200mm for sharpness plus it lacks IS. My advice would be to get the kit 5D3 + 24-105mm f/4 IS lens (I own that and it's excellent as a walk around/ travel lens) plus the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II. That will be cheaper and give you a similar range of FLs.

[itsnotarace]

You aren't going to go wrong with either. Find a shop and play with both, buy the one with the menu/button layout that feels most natural to use

[Mr Will]

Can I tick the "Neither" box?

Unless I was shooting sports, I'd pick up a 6D + 24-105mm f4 L IS kit plus a fast prime for low light (35mm/50mm/85mm according to taste) and then stick the rest of the cash in the bank until I'd found a specific need for it.

The 70-200mm 2.8L is a beautiful lens but somewhat compromised for amateur use. It's not really long enough for a lot of sports or wildlife, yet is very large and heavy which can make it a burden to use for anything else. I'd be asking myself very carefully if I actually had a use for it before putting the money down.

What do you normally shoot?

[Shaoxter]

I went for path 1 so of course I'm going to be biased and say go for that

The 36MP on the D800 might sound like a gimmick at first but the detail is just incredible and the image will look pin sharp if you blow it up.

What are you shooting that requires the 70-200 lens?

[PleasantPeasant]

I want to get this camera for events. I'm managing to get some paid work now and I'm finding my existing gear (with the APS-C sensor) just isn't cutting it anymore.
So things like concerts / dinners / events etc. I do like the look of the 6D (or D610 for that matter) but I really want something with amazing ISO performance and super fast AF.

I've borrowed my mates 70-200 f/4 Nikon lens and it's bloody excellent, seems perfect for my needs. I would consider an f/4 lens to go with it, but in these low light situations (>75% no flash allowed) I need that f/2.8.

[IanMorewood]

As you already have experience with a lesser Nikon then stick with it, I know using my dad's Canon just doesn't feel right after shooting with a Nikon for eight years.

[PleasantPeasant]

I am leaning towards the D800, however the white balance issues with it have put me off slightly - and then there's the horrible fear that a replacement model will be announced a week after I buy one.

[Mr Will]

PleasantPeasant said:

I want to get this camera for events. I'm managing to get some paid work now and I'm finding my existing gear (with the APS-C sensor) just isn't cutting it anymore.
So things like concerts / dinners / events etc. I do like the look of the 6D (or D610 for that matter) but I really want something with amazing ISO performance and super fast AF.

I've borrowed my mates 70-200 f/4 Nikon lens and it's bloody excellent, seems perfect for my needs. I would consider an f/4 lens to go with it, but in these low light situations (>75% no flash allowed) I need that f/2.8.

Sounds like a pretty good excuse for the f2.8 then! Just be aware it's twice the weight of the f4, perhaps worth a rental before you commit...

Can't really speak for the Nikons, but as for the 6D it actually has better low-light autofocus than the 5D if you use it's centre point. The 5D's strength is the greater number and accuracy of the off-centre points.

[Shaoxter]

What white balance issues? You can always change the WB afterwards if you shoot in RAW.

Don't worry about a newer model coming along, just enjoy what you have. There's plenty of pro photographers out there using older gear!

[2slo]

Mr Will said:

The 70-200mm 2.8L is a beautiful lens but somewhat compromised for amateur use. It's not really long enough for a lot of sports or wildlife, yet is very large and heavy which can make it a burden to use for anything else

It's not compromised at all! It pairs really well with both Canon TCs making it a 98-280mm f/4 (with the 1.4x) or a 140-400mm f/5.6 (with the 2x). If I was only going to carry one lens for wildlife it would be the 70-200mm with the TCs. As for the weight, I'd describe it as well balanced and comfortable to hand hold rather than a burden.

[rottie102]

2slo said:

It's not compromised at all! It pairs really well with both Canon TCs making it a 98-280mm f/4 (with the 1.4x) or a 140-400mm f/5.6 (with the 2x). If I was only going to carry one lens for wildlife it would be the 70-200mm with the TCs. As for the weight, I'd describe it as well balanced and comfortable to hand hold rather than a burden.

IQ from 70-200 is absolutely amazing and if you have the money, definitely go for it, you won't regret it!

[Simpo Two]

Mr Will said:

The 70-200mm 2.8L is a beautiful lens but somewhat compromised for amateur use. It's not really long enough for a lot of sports or wildlife, yet is very large and heavy which can make it a burden to use for anything else

It's perfect for events. If you can't lift it, you're not a proper tog

Shaoxter said:

What white balance issues? You can always change the WB afterwards if you shoot in RAW.

Ditto. If you're being paid to take photos you should be using RAW anyway.

[Mr Will]

2slo said:

Mr Will said:

The 70-200mm 2.8L is a beautiful lens but somewhat compromised for amateur use. It's not really long enough for a lot of sports or wildlife, yet is very large and heavy which can make it a burden to use for anything else

It's not compromised at all! It pairs really well with both Canon TCs making it a 98-280mm f/4 (with the 1.4x) or a 140-400mm f/5.6 (with the 2x). If I was only going to carry one lens for wildlife it would be the 70-200mm with the TCs. As for the weight, I'd describe it as well balanced and comfortable to hand hold rather than a burden.

How does that combo compare to the 100-400mm L? Would that not be a better choice for a dedicated wildlife setup? (not a wildlife shooter, so please educate me here!)

[PleasantPeasant]

Thanks guys.

Yeah to clarify, the white balance issues is just a recurring post on some other forums I've seen.
I always shoot RAW and have done for years.
Apparently the auto white balance on the D800 almost always adds a rather nasty greenish tinge to any photos which aren't naturally lit and thus requires more effort in post processing. However I don't think it will be a problem for me.

The 70-200 f/4 wasn't exactly light, so yeah I agree hiring a f/2.8 is a good idea. Maybe I'll spend my spare change on a set of dumbbells

[2slo]

Mr Will said:

2slo said:

Mr Will said:

The 70-200mm 2.8L is a beautiful lens but somewhat compromised for amateur use. It's not really long enough for a lot of sports or wildlife, yet is very large and heavy which can make it a burden to use for anything else

It's not compromised at all! It pairs really well with both Canon TCs making it a 98-280mm f/4 (with the 1.4x) or a 140-400mm f/5.6 (with the 2x). If I was only going to carry one lens for wildlife it would be the 70-200mm with the TCs. As for the weight, I'd describe it as well balanced and comfortable to hand hold rather than a burden.

How does that combo compare to the 100-400mm L? Would that not be a better choice for a dedicated wildlife setup? (not a wildlife shooter, so please educate me here!)

If weight is an issue, the 100-400mm would be a lighter option. IQ wise, the bare 70-200 wins easily. IMHO it would still win with the 1.4x TC fitted (and still be faster at a constant f/4, remember the 100-400mm is variable aperture, f/4.5 at the wide end and f/5.6 at the long end)with the 2x TC fitted (version III) there would be little in it, maybe just in favour of the 100-400, I wouldn't like to call that one though without a side by side test. I use my 2xTC all the time on my long L lenses, the 2xTCs are a lot better than some might suggest. For additional uses, the 70-200mm is great for people shots and general distance work so covers lots of bases.

[itsnotarace]

Simpo Two said:

If you're being paid to take photos you should be using RAW anyway.

Sigh. RAW is a tool. Just like many other tools at the photographers disposal, it should be used when appropriate not as a blanket approach

Learn2loveyourhistogramsfolks

[Mr Will]

Simpo Two said:

Mr Will said:

The 70-200mm 2.8L is a beautiful lens but somewhat compromised for amateur use. It's not really long enough for a lot of sports or wildlife, yet is very large and heavy which can make it a burden to use for anything else

It's perfect for events. If you can't lift it, you're not a proper tog

For a professional being paid to cover an event I agree, it's perfect. For amateur use, I still think I'd take the f4 version. "Can't" and "Don't want to" are very separate things!

Edited by Mr Will on Wednesday 18th December 17:28

[Simpo Two]

PleasantPeasant said:

Apparently the auto white balance on the D800 almost always adds a rather nasty greenish tinge to any photos which aren't naturally lit and thus requires more effort in post processing.

I hadn't heard that, but then I haven't read all the reviews. Don't forget your RAW processing software will also have an Auto WB setting which is worth trying (the one in C1 Pro is often very good), or of course as long as there's something white or neutral grey in shot you can click on that to set WB.

itsnotarace said:

Sigh. RAW is a tool. Just like many other tools at the photographers disposal, it should be used when appropriate not as a blanket approach

Learn2loveyourhistogramsfolks

Sure, when I'm taking snaps of my cat I use JPG because it's not important. When I'm charging a four figure sum to shoot a wedding it is important. There is far more to RAW than exposure.

[Mr Will]

Simpo Two said:

itsnotarace said:

Sigh. RAW is a tool. Just like many other tools at the photographers disposal, it should be used when appropriate not as a blanket approach

Learn2loveyourhistogramsfolks

Sure, when I'm taking snaps of my cat I use JPG because it's not important. When I'm charging a four figure sum to shoot a wedding it is important. There is far more to RAW than exposure.

Equally when you are shoot portraits at an event and doing prints on the night, you simply don't have time to process each shot from RAW. Throughput matters more than the last X% of image quality.