Full Frame - which to pick?

[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.

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.

Well thats odd because he was happy with his D700. We went out shooting the other day and was ragging on me about the 1DIV......until he tried it. LOL

 

[Iron Flatline]

Thanks Mr Logic for posting my quotes, I just got back but would have re-posted that.

I like the AF on my 5D, but I focus old-school style... one center point, re-compose.

The 1Ds has HSS which works wonderfully with the PocketWizards, the 5D doesn't. I prefer shooting ultra-shallow with my 85mm 1.2 at high speed, my 5D chokes up on that. It's really that simple. I don't mean to knock the 5D, I like it, but I prefer my 1Ds for Studio work.

 

[inTempus]

Makes sense Iron, I would use a 1Ds if I had one too. I've often told myself I'm going to buy the 1Ds4 when it hits, but then I think the 5D3 will be a fine solution. So I'll probably wait for the 5D3 and hope it has many of the features of the 7D plus a few extras.

 

[inTempus]

Well thats odd because he was happy with his D700. We went out shooting the other day and was ragging on me about the 1DIV......until he tried it. LOL

I've read somewhere that the AF algorithms were changed in the D3s, but I honestly don't recall where I read it or know if it's even true. Perhaps that's why the D700 didn't have the issue and the D3s did.

 

[Montana]

Have you tried manual focus in live view (magnified of coarse)? Just curious. I personally usually focus and re-compose myself but was wondering your thoughts....

THis was directed towards Iron Flat line. Tim types too fast. LOL

 

[itznfb]

Well thats odd because he was happy with his D700. We went out shooting the other day and was ragging on me about the 1DIV......until he tried it. LOL

I've read somewhere that the AF algorithms were changed in the D3s, but I honestly don't recall where I read it or know if it's even true. Perhaps that's why the D700 didn't have the issue and the D3s did.

I'd have to look it up but the D700 and D3 share the same mechanics, sensor, and software in their AF systems. The D3s is upgraded. I'm not sure what was upgraded though.

I like that switch mentioned "balanced" when referring to the D700. I think the D700 might be the most well balanced body on the market today. (under $4000 market).

 

[djacobox372]

dont undervalue the lens capatibility of the d700; its nice to have the option to use older lenses when the new variations are out of your price range. i have a 50mm f1.2 and a 600mm f4 ais lenses that i couldnt ever afford on a canon or sony system.

 

[Derrel]

dont undervalue the lens capatibility of the d700; its nice to have the option to use older lenses when the new variations are out of your price range. i have a 50mm f1.2 and a 600mm f4 ais lenses that i couldnt ever afford on a canon or sony system.

Yeah...the D700 works only with all the F-mount lenses made since 1977 and newer, so there's only 42 years' worth of lens production that will mount, meter, and stop down automatically with the D700 body. In those 42 years, there were a lot of really good manual focusing lenses made by Nikon,as well as AF lenses made from 1987 to 2010.

Some of the Nikon lenses to look for would be the 105mm f/2.5, the 135 f/2.8, the 70-150 f/3.5 Series E (an incredible zoom!), the 80-200 f/4 AiS, the 180mm 2.8 ED, and a real sleeper, the 200mm f/4 in Ai or Ai-S. The 300mm f/4.5 ED-IF is a neat lens, and the various 105mm Micro-Nikkors are also excellent. The 600 f/4 ED in Ai-S is a neat lens too--I am STILL kicking myself for bypassing one for $1995 back in 2005.

 

[skieur]

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...

Yes, the Sony A750 full frame coming out shortly at $1,500 with a burst speed of 10 frames per second, and several features brought in from their other models will be an interesting camera, to say the least.

skieur

 

[lamar328]

Yes, the Sony A750 full frame coming out shortly at $1,500 with a burst speed of 10 frames per second, and several features brought in from their other models will be an interesting camera, to say the least.

skieur

It's crazy how a brand name can make people pay twice as much for a camera with similar features! If Sony had the lens range for it's full-frame cameras that Nikon and Canon do, then I would be more enclined to grab the A750 or A900

 

[Derrel]

Yes, the Sony A750 full frame coming out shortly at $1,500 with a burst speed of 10 frames per second, and several features brought in from their other models will be an interesting camera, to say the least.

skieur

It's crazy how a brand name can make people pay twice as much for a camera with similar features! If Sony had the lens range for it's full-frame cameras that Nikon and Canon do, then I would be more enclined to grab the A750 or A900

Well, because it says SONY on the cameras, they have to cut the price by around $1,000 to get people interested in their full frame bodies. When compared to the 5D Mark II, the Sony a850 seems to be a higher class of camera body--better build, more solid feel, more advanced control system, and a really impressive camera. With a pretty impressive view through the viewfinder, and the price--it is now $700-ish less than the Canon 5D-II, AND the SOny has a class-leading has 24 megapixels. DOUBLE the MP count that the Nikon D3 and D700 have! And yet, the Sony FF bodies are not selling very well. The people who have bought them give pretty good reviews to them, and they do have some really superb lenses in the lineup, but the buying public for full frame d-slr bodies is for the most part, selecting Canon and Nikon cameras and lenses. Even though the Sony FF cameras are really outstanding in terms of value.

It's almost like the Coca~Cola, Pepsi~Cola situation: those two are virtual giants, and people will pay more, much more, than they will for which is perceived as a third-tier product, no matter how close that product is to the bigger names' product. Unseating the Big Two is like butting heads with Coke and Pepsi--the new brand in the game has a tough time.

I suspect Sony thinks $1,500 and 10 frames per second will be enough to make value conscious shoppers finally take the bait and bite on a Sony. I am not convinced--I think most camera buyers look at the catalogue and the price list,and immediately look to Canon for its lower-cost lenses. The Zeiss-branded lenses Sony sells cost a lot more money, and induce sticker shock.
Their huge body price discounts of $1,000 or so over a Nikon FF D700 and similar $700-ish price discount over the 5D Mark II still cannot overcome the price tags on their 24-70 or 135 f/1.8 and so on. Serious photography really does have a lot to do with the lens investment,and the brand commitment.

Sometimes I wonder if they had priced their FF camera *higher*, if they might not have gotten more total revenue from rich enthusiasts who would also be drawn to Zeiss-branded lenses, with the Sony FF camera serving as a nice bling-camera that connoted status and the ability to pay MORe for a camera than the value-conscious Nikon and Canon buyers.

 

[lamar328]

Sometimes I wonder if they had priced their FF camera *higher*, if they might not have gotten more total revenue from rich enthusiasts who would also be drawn to Zeiss-branded lenses, with the Sony FF camera serving as a nice bling-camera that connoted status and the ability to pay MORe for a camera than the value-conscious Nikon and Canon buyers.

If Sony had made their price a bit higher it would for sure have affected the enthusiast and hobbiest market a lot more. It's awesome how that works!

Funny story. My father bought 300 boxes of candy canes because he got an amazing deal on them. He started selling them at $5/box and then slowly dropped the price to try and get rid of them before winter ended. Once he hit the $0.50/box he couldn't sell a single one.


You mentioned the Sony lenses being more expensive then their competition generally.
On that note while I'm looking into either a Nikon or a Canon as an upgrade, would you justify purchasing a Canon based on the fact that generally their lenses are cheaper then Nikon's?
I was basically set on a Nikon because I am familiar with them, but since you buy one body and build up your collection of lenses around that, the price does make a major impact on the descision of which body to buy.

 

[Iron Flatline]

Have you tried manual focus in live view (magnified of coarse)? Just curious. I personally usually focus and re-compose myself but was wondering your thoughts....

I use the LiveView only when shooting landscapes, which is pretty rarely. Then I have a tripod with me, etc, and am shooting somewhere around f/8 - f/16 (pending on the lens) but will still pull focus using the AF sensors. Then I turn off AF on the lens. I only use LiveView to finalize the frame composition, but the focus is usually already determined at that point.

Hmmm... a briefer answer would have been "No, I don't MF in LV" :er:

The fact that I do some of these things the clumsy way is not declared with sophmoric pride in working "old school"... I really believe that my cameras have features that would make me better at photography if I had a good handle on them, and some relevant experience. I don't take the time to learn these features, so I don't use them, which means I have no experience with them, and so on back around in a circle. I really need to learn how to use multiple AF points on the fly, AE or AF lock (I just switch to manual, which often means I've lost the shot) or things like LiveView. I use some Leica R lenses on my Canon bodies that are Manual Focus, but will still mash my face against the Viewfinder even though on a tripod I could be using LiveView. Stupid.

 

[skieur]

Have you tried manual focus in live view (magnified of coarse)? Just curious. I personally usually focus and re-compose myself but was wondering your thoughts....

I use the LiveView only when shooting landscapes, which is pretty rarely. Then I have a tripod with me, etc, and am shooting somewhere around f/8 - f/16 (pending on the lens) but will still pull focus using the AF sensors. Then I turn off AF on the lens. I only use LiveView to finalize the frame composition, but the focus is usually already determined at that point.

Hmmm... a briefer answer would have been "No, I don't MF in LV"
.

What is nice about the Sony live view is that you still have their highspeed autofocus along with it and they ae moving to different chip and non-reflective LCD screen. They are also going to be integrating HD video into the liveview with stereo sound. The tiltable screen means that you do not have to hold the camera out in the weird position of point and shoot type photographers.

Of course, working with a DSLR you need to remind yourself that the feature is there but along with a tiltable screen, it is great for studio work, street shooting, very low and very high camera angles, and people shooting without raising your eye to the viewfinder.

skieur