Full Frame - which to pick?

[lamar328]

Hey,
I was looking into grabbing a new lens, but then after a reply to my previous post it was brought upon me that I should be considering which camera body I will be purchasing in the future to determine the lens I buy now.

I'm a Nikon user, although Canon has some great stuff!

I want to get a body with a full frame sensor and has a great reputation for having a low noise:ISO ratio.

I know that there are various models including Nikon's D700 and Canon's 5D (these are in my price range).

Well two questions. First: Is there any major disadvantage to getting a full-frame camera?

Second: Which company will offer the greatest range of lenses at a reasonable price along with quality? This also applies to adapted lenses such as Sigma or Tamron.

Based on this I'll hopefully have some more lens related topics to discuss!

thanks

 

[Iron Flatline]

No real disadvantage, both brands have a great line of lenses. Go with the system for which you already own lenses or with which you are already familiar. If you are really willing to evaluate new systems don't ignore Sony. They may have fewer new lenses, but the ones they have are quite good, and you can use Konica Minolta lenses as well.

 

[lamar328]

ya I really shouldn't ignore Sony. I guess since they still seem reasonably new in the dlsr market I've opted to stick with Nikon or Canon. Only reason really being that they've been around for a while doing this and I know they won't have any chance of flopping.

I know that in the end I really have to test the camera's to be sure.

 

[FrankLamont]

I'd ignore Sony.

They run cheaply, but really, Canon or Nikon offers so much more in the full frame department. Not models, but features and so forth.

 

[itznfb]

Hey,
I was looking into grabbing a new lens, but then after a reply to my previous post it was brought upon me that I should be considering which camera body I will be purchasing in the future to determine the lens I buy now.

I'm a Nikon user, although Canon has some great stuff!

I want to get a body with a full frame sensor and has a great reputation for having a low noise:ISO ratio.

I know that there are various models including Nikon's D700 and Canon's 5D (these are in my price range).

Well two questions. First: Is there any major disadvantage to getting a full-frame camera?

Second: Which company will offer the greatest range of lenses at a reasonable price along with quality? This also applies to adapted lenses such as Sigma or Tamron.

Based on this I'll hopefully have some more lens related topics to discuss!

thanks

The current generation full frame cameras in that price range really don't compete against each other. The D700 is more of an all around shooter and the 5D is more of a studio camera. Obviously you're not limited to these uses but that is where their focus lies. Might help in your decision.

Also Canon's lenses seem to be a little cheaper and some are more readily available.

 

[lamar328]

[/quote]

The current generation full frame cameras in that price range really don't compete against each other. The D700 is more of an all around shooter and the 5D is more of a studio camera. Obviously you're not limited to these uses but that is where their focus lies. Might help in your decision.

Also Canon's lenses seem to be a little cheaper and some are more readily available.[/QUOTE]


haha looks like i'm back to square one again. I'm a Nikon user so I can figure my way around the Nikon cameras fairly quickly, but Canon does seem to provide a few cheaper lens options.

The only reason why I may go for a Nikon is because I'm using one now while traveling and I wouldn't mind getting a new lens while on the move.

 

[itznfb]

haha looks like i'm back to square one again. I'm a Nikon user so I can figure my way around the Nikon cameras fairly quickly, but Canon does seem to provide a few cheaper lens options.

The only reason why I may go for a Nikon is because I'm using one now while traveling and I wouldn't mind getting a new lens while on the move.

I probably wouldn't make lens price/availability as a deciding factor unless there really was nothing else pushing you one way or the other. Since you're already a Nikon user I'd probably go that route unless something about your current Nikon makes you want to switch.

 

[Iron Flatline]

Hmm... the 5D is a lot of things, but it is NOT a good studio camera. I shoot Canons in studios, believe me, my 5D is fun around town but not impressive on set.

Again, Sony is not to be ignored. They are "cheap" because they can choose to gain marketshare through good pricing, their pockets are deep enough. They made most of the sensors for Nikon, by the way... and every pro/sumer market they've ever entered, they've become a dominant player in. Also, Sony is "new" only in brand... it is the continuation of 50+ years of Konica Minolta... I have no vested interested (I would actually suggest you stay with Nikon if you already like the UI) but to dismiss Sony as new or cheap disregards the reality. Sony will spend a lot of money to be one of the big two - enough for R&D, marketing, and pricing aggressiveness. I still think this article is pretty interesting...

 

[inTempus]

Hmm... the 5D is a lot of things, but it is NOT a good studio camera. I shoot Canons in studios, believe me, my 5D is fun around town but not impressive on set.

I would like to hear your rationale behind this statement, especially given the 5D2 is probably one of the most popular 35mm format studio bodies on the market.

 

[MrLogic]

Hmm... the 5D is a lot of things, but it is NOT a good studio camera. I shoot Canons in studios, believe me, my 5D is fun around town but not impressive on set.

I would like to hear your rationale behind this statement, especially given the 5D2 is probably one of the most popular 35mm format studio bodies on the market.

Here it is:

I have the 5D Mk II and the 1Ds Mk III. I can't comment on the AF issue because I shoot a little clumsily, in that I just use the center AF point and then recompose.

But I still have to say that I'm not in love with the 5D. I like the high ISO performance, so fi you're just shooting with available light you might enjoy the lighter weight of the 5D after a few hours of wedding action. However I'm doing a lot of flash and studio shooting right now, and I find the sync speed of 1/200 to be way too low, and think it's closer to 1/160th on top of that. You didn't say if you needed to flash, but be aware that I find it extremely limiting on the 5D.

 

[itznfb]

That's your reasoning? Seriously? The 1Ds is only 1/250. So by your standards Canon makes no viable studio options. Interesting.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I would probably say the D700 is the best balance between resolution/high IS/speed/Durability.

The D700 may not have the most resolution, but it's built the best, it's the fastest (in the $2-3k area), and definitely has the best AF system. Not to mention wireless flash which to me is huge, because I use it very often.

 

[Derrel]

Hmm... the 5D is a lot of things, but it is NOT a good studio camera. I shoot Canons in studios, believe me, my 5D is fun around town but not impressive on set.

Canon 5D Mark II focusing
Read Ron's article entitled " 5D2 AF in dim light: :-( "

Canon 5D2: so long - a fashion shooter

As professional fashion shooter and Canon trendsetter Ron Purdy points out, a 5D + grip + two batteries weighs about the same as a 1D series body, but the focusing system is nowhere nowhere near as capable, nor nearly as reliable.
Recently, he wrote that he used a borrowed a 5D-II on a paying shoot and he said that, "the focus is still pants," but the images are nice.

We need to remember--the 5D is built basically upon the Elan series' mechanical underpinnings,and MOST of the money went into the "digital side" of the camera,and not the "mechanical" side.

 

[Montana]

I am glad I got a good 5DII then. I find mine to one of the most accurate focusing bodies I have ever used. Not the fastest, but in terms of accuracy, its the bees knees. I never worry shooting at an aperture of 1.2 even. Mine is nuts on. Would I like a faster autofocus, you bet. But I am plum content with the accuracy. The 1D series is by far faster, but a 1DsIV will not be justifiable to me personally.

I am assuming the D700 has a different focusing system than the D3s which finally got a firmware update to improve its autofocus; something my cousin has been complaining about since he got his.

 

[inTempus]

I am glad I got a good 5DII then. I find mine to one of the most accurate focusing bodies I have ever used. Not the fastest, but in terms of accuracy, its the bees knees. I never worry shooting at an aperture of 1.2 even. Mine is nuts on. Would I like a faster autofocus, you bet. But I am plum content with the accuracy. The 1D series is by far faster, but a 1DsIV will not be justifiable to me personally.

Yup, that's been my experience as well. My 5D2 nails the heck out of the focus even when shooting at f/1.2, it's as accurate as a laser. I reach for my 5D2 for the studio and I reach for it at events like weddings. It is a rock solid performer, one that handily out sells the D700. I doubt the masses that buy the 5D's and love them are too stupid to know better... but I guess I could be wrong.

I mean, check out all these 5D2 pics... not a decent in focus shot among them.

I am assuming the D700 has a different focusing system than the D3s which finally got a firmware update to improve its autofocus; something my cousin has been complaining about since he got his.

Nope, it's the exact same Multi-CAM 3500 system. Nikon uses it in the D300, D3700, D3 and D3X.