New Camera

Fender5388 · Jul 21, 2012

Oh no not another new camera thread!
so i want to update my point and shoo......

just kidding serious questions now,

Currently my go to setup is a nikon d90 with a 50mm and three strobes.
I shoot Freestyle bmx (as well as skateboarding and other action sports.) brycerandol.com if you wanna see examples.
Im hoping to start shooting professionally in the future.
I'm looking to switch to canon gear, it seems like thats what others in the industry shoot and i personally just want a change.
im torn between the 7d, 5d mkii, and a 1d mkiii.
I would like to have video but its not a must,
I'm concerned the 7d isn't as big of a jump up as id like to make, the 5d mkii auto focus concerns me and its poor FPS. I saw the 1dmkiii on key priced around 1500, which isn't bad. I know its and older camera, but it seems to have better auto focus and i like the 10FPS. but i don't like the 10MP although i would have no reason to make huge prints really, most of the stuff i shoot stays on the web. how is the 1D's low light performance.
What would be a good upgrade to my nikon d90. not looking to spend more the 2000 on a body really at this point.

also lens suggestions? i shoot mostly 50mm on a crop sensor, so i was thinking an 85mm for a FF or stick with a 50mm crop. also need a fisheye.

thanks for reading all this, sorry if it came across as word vomit.

TheKenTurner · Jul 22, 2012

7d with the 24-70 2.8. Not the 5d for many reasons. And newer is (almost always) better.

-Ken Turner

TheBiles · Jul 23, 2012

TheKenTurner said:
7d with the 24-70 2.8. Not the 5d for many reasons. And newer is (almost always) better.

-Ken Turner

Name 'em. The 7D has better autofocus and better burst rate. Insignificant if you're not shooting fast action. The 5D2 blows the 7D away in image quality and has been an absolute workhorse for pretty much everything except sports.

Second, you don't want a 24-xx lens on a crop body because up lose the wide end and all benefit of being a standard zoom. Get a 17-xx for crop standard zooms, but I'd highly recommend the 24-70 with a 5D. You said you like 50mm on a crop, so I'd also suggest the fantastic 85mm 1.8 for only about $350.

Sent from my Galaxy S III

jaomul · Jul 23, 2012

Would the Nikon d300S be an option as your already a Nikon guy, or alternatively a d700 with the grip giving 7fps I think and a well respected af system

sovietdoc · Jul 23, 2012

10 fps is pretty useless to be honest. Most people look at fps as some sort of epeen not realizing that it has very limited use in the real world. 7D has more than enough fps for sports.

The decision is very simple:

If you shoot fast moving action or you need the reach for wildlife and birds, get 7D
If you shoot static objects like flowers, portraits, or in the low light, 5D II is your man.

Oh and if you shoot fast moving sports AND landscapes/portraits then you better start savin' that 3 grand for the 5D III.

Fender5388 · Jul 23, 2012

I would use the the high frame rate to create sequences, i shoot a sport where the thrice is over in less then a second, but with my shooting style i rely on good timing, just thought the ability to shoot sequences at a higher FPS would be nice.

I'd like a good all round camera, but if anything geared more towards sports, also a 1/250 sync speed would be nice.

TCampbell · Jul 23, 2012

I'm confused by "it seems like thats what others in the industry shoot" and not sure why "i personally just want a change".

I'm a Canon shooter -- so I'm not bashing Canon. But Nikon makes gear the competes quite well. It's not like Nikon is a bad camera and Canon is good. I chose Canon MANY years ago for the rational reason that my dad (long since deceased) shot Canon and if I owned compatible gear we could share lenses and accessories. But that was well over 30 years ago and I've just stuck with it ever since.

If you've got a heavy investment in it, I might upgrade the body but I'm not sure I'd be willing to dump the lenses and start over. I'm hoping you don't have many lenses (lets just say I am invested in my Canon gear heavily enough that, financially, it would be _very_ painful for me to switch.)

My pecking order of what makes a difference in photography is:

1) YOU - your skill and experience. You're creativity and awareness of perspective, lines (e.g. how to exploit leading lines to draw attention to your subject or display interesting patterns), composition, etc.

2) LIGHT - and you're ability to exploit the available light or control it. Your ability to create your own light and knowledge that you can't create good light without creating good shadows.

3) LENSES - although this starts to leave the realm of art and enter the realm of the gear head. I love gear, don't get me wrong, but gear doesn't make art.

4) Camera BODY - and this is at the end of my list. For good reason. The body is basically a sensor with a large hole in front onto which you can mount a lens. Your ability to be familiar with the controls and operate it quickly and adeptly without pulling your eye away from the viewfinder to inspect the controls is important (but now we're getting back to point #1). If the camera has a better continuous burst rate for action shots (which applies to you) then it'll contribute to the shots. A better focusing system might also contribute to the shots (assuming your'e adept at using it.) Apart from that... the sensor needs to be reasonable but most "currently marketed" bodies have fantastic sensors these days so that's not the distinguishing factor it once used to be.

Notice how the camera body is in last place and the lenses are in 2nd to last place?

I'm not trying to talk you OUT of switching to Canon... I just want to make you think through your decision. Switching because "it seems like thats what others in the industry shoot" is only an observation and not a compelling reason to switch. Canon probably nudges out Nikon on market share, but lets face it... there are a LOT of pro shooters with Nikon cameras who are wildly successful with them. Switching to Canon won't improve your photography anymore than buying a new set of pots & pans will improve your cooking.

If you're set on switching to Canon anyway... a few things you should know.

The style of your photography will probably benefit from a camera with a good focus system and fast performance. On the "low" end, the Canon 7D (19 AF points... of which are "cross type") and dual DIGIC IV processors with CF (not SD) cards for faster I/O to the storage is a good camera. On the high-end it's the 1D X. A 1D X is lower resolution than a 5D II or III... but that's not the point. Nikon sports shooters have been stuck at 12MP for years and it hasn't exactly hurt them. The more "data" the camera has to process, the longer it takes to process. Unless you're really printing big and have the glass to back the pixels, more megapixels won't help. So sports/action-optimzed DSLRs like the 7D or 1D mk IV (and NOT the 1Ds mk III) are helpful. The Canon 5D mk II (and this is what I personally own and shoot) is not a sports/action camera. It's a fantastic camera for landscapes, portraiture, weddings, ... even photojournalism and street photography. But I wouldn't use it for sports/action. It's got a 9 point AF system where only the center point is cross-type. It's continuous burst rate isn't exactly through the roof. It's quality is top rate but it's not optimized for those shooting action in a hurry. If you told me you were doing weddings, portraiture, landscapes, architecture, etc. then I'd heartily recommend it... but not for BMX action shots. It's not an "action" optimized camera.

The 5D III has theAF system from the 1D X -- the resolution is higher than the 1D X but the burst rate is lower and the metering system is less (but still better than everything *except* the 1D X.) Basically the 5D III wasn't exactly made for sports/action shots, but it turns out it's no slouch in that darea if that's how you want to use it... in every way except the continuous burst frame rate (6 frames per sec. vs the 7D's 8 frames per sec or the 1D X 12 frames per sec with reflex mirror operating and 14 if it's allowed to remain up.) A 1D mk IV can do 10 frames per sec. A 1Ds mk III can only do 5 fps (NOT optimized to be a sports/action camera body)

That means your Canon choices are probably:

7D (This *might* get upgraded yet this year. 8 fps in burst mode.)
5D III (6 fps in burst mode. The slowest of the lot, but 6 fps isn't exactly slow. Has a fabulous AF system.)
1D IV (Still available but no longer actively marketed by Canon.)
1D X (Canon's flagship camera which is optimized for sports/action photography. Best AF & metering system. 12-14fps in burst mode. Basically if money were no object, this would be the Canon body to own.)

Rumor is that one more Canon pro body might be announced this year. That could be a follow-on to the 7D (e.g. maybe a 7D II) or it could be a new full-frame flagship body to replace the 1Ds (because the 1D X, currently marketed as the flagship camera, is really optimized for sports & action.)

Not sure what gear you have in the way of strobes, but you'll NEED good lighting. You'll also need good/fast glass. The expense of replacing all this stuff is why I don't usually recommend people make the Nikon -> Canon switch -OR- the Canon -> Nikon switch unless there's a really good reason for it.

Fender5388 · Jul 23, 2012

TCampbell said:
I'm confused by "it seems like thats what others in the industry shoot" and not sure why "i personally just want a change".

I'm a Canon shooter -- so I'm not bashing Canon. But Nikon makes gear the competes quite well. It's not like Nikon is a bad camera and Canon is good. I chose Canon MANY years ago for the rational reason that my dad (long since deceased) shot Canon and if I owned compatible gear we could share lenses and accessories. But that was well over 30 years ago and I've just stuck with it ever since.

If you've got a heavy investment in it, I might upgrade the body but I'm not sure I'd be willing to dump the lenses and start over. I'm hoping you don't have many lenses (lets just say I am invested in my Canon gear heavily enough that, financially, it would be _very_ painful for me to switch.)

My pecking order of what makes a difference in photography is:

1) YOU - your skill and experience. You're creativity and awareness of perspective, lines (e.g. how to exploit leading lines to draw attention to your subject or display interesting patterns), composition, etc.

2) LIGHT - and you're ability to exploit the available light or control it. Your ability to create your own light and knowledge that you can't create good light without creating good shadows.

3) LENSES - although this starts to leave the realm of art and enter the realm of the gear head. I love gear, don't get me wrong, but gear doesn't make art.

4) Camera BODY - and this is at the end of my list. For good reason. The body is basically a sensor with a large hole in front onto which you can mount a lens. Your ability to be familiar with the controls and operate it quickly and adeptly without pulling your eye away from the viewfinder to inspect the controls is important (but now we're getting back to point #1). If the camera has a better continuous burst rate for action shots (which applies to you) then it'll contribute to the shots. A better focusing system might also contribute to the shots (assuming your'e adept at using it.) Apart from that... the sensor needs to be reasonable but most "currently marketed" bodies have fantastic sensors these days so that's not the distinguishing factor it once used to be.

Notice how the camera body is in last place and the lenses are in 2nd to last place?

I'm not trying to talk you OUT of switching to Canon... I just want to make you think through your decision. Switching because "it seems like thats what others in the industry shoot" is only an observation and not a compelling reason to switch. Canon probably nudges out Nikon on market share, but lets face it... there are a LOT of pro shooters with Nikon cameras who are wildly successful with them. Switching to Canon won't improve your photography anymore than buying a new set of pots & pans will improve your cooking.

If you're set on switching to Canon anyway... a few things you should know.

The style of your photography will probably benefit from a camera with a good focus system and fast performance. On the "low" end, the Canon 7D (19 AF points... of which are "cross type") and dual DIGIC IV processors with CF (not SD) cards for faster I/O to the storage is a good camera. On the high-end it's the 1D X. A 1D X is lower resolution than a 5D II or III... but that's not the point. Nikon sports shooters have been stuck at 12MP for years and it hasn't exactly hurt them. The more "data" the camera has to process, the longer it takes to process. Unless you're really printing big and have the glass to back the pixels, more megapixels won't help. So sports/action-optimzed DSLRs like the 7D or 1D mk IV (and NOT the 1Ds mk III) are helpful. The Canon 5D mk II (and this is what I personally own and shoot) is not a sports/action camera. It's a fantastic camera for landscapes, portraiture, weddings, ... even photojournalism and street photography. But I wouldn't use it for sports/action. It's got a 9 point AF system where only the center point is cross-type. It's continuous burst rate isn't exactly through the roof. It's quality is top rate but it's not optimized for those shooting action in a hurry. If you told me you were doing weddings, portraiture, landscapes, architecture, etc. then I'd heartily recommend it... but not for BMX action shots. It's not an "action" optimized camera.

The 5D III has theAF system from the 1D X -- the resolution is higher than the 1D X but the burst rate is lower and the metering system is less (but still better than everything *except* the 1D X.) Basically the 5D III wasn't exactly made for sports/action shots, but it turns out it's no slouch in that darea if that's how you want to use it... in every way except the continuous burst frame rate (6 frames per sec. vs the 7D's 8 frames per sec or the 1D X 12 frames per sec with reflex mirror operating and 14 if it's allowed to remain up.) A 1D mk IV can do 10 frames per sec. A 1Ds mk III can only do 5 fps (NOT optimized to be a sports/action camera body)

That means your Canon choices are probably:

7D (This *might* get upgraded yet this year. 8 fps in burst mode.)
5D III (6 fps in burst mode. The slowest of the lot, but 6 fps isn't exactly slow. Has a fabulous AF system.)
1D IV (Still available but no longer actively marketed by Canon.)
1D X (Canon's flagship camera which is optimized for sports/action photography. Best AF & metering system. 12-14fps in burst mode. Basically if money were no object, this would be the Canon body to own.)

Rumor is that one more Canon pro body might be announced this year. That could be a follow-on to the 7D (e.g. maybe a 7D II) or it could be a new full-frame flagship body to replace the 1Ds (because the 1D X, currently marketed as the flagship camera, is really optimized for sports & action.)

Not sure what gear you have in the way of strobes, but you'll NEED good lighting. You'll also need good/fast glass. The expense of replacing all this stuff is why I don't usually recommend people make the Nikon -> Canon switch -OR- the Canon -> Nikon switch unless there's a really good reason for it.

thank you very much for the response!!
I am well aware the camera does not make the photographer and have been preaching that to beginners for awhile now. I pride myself on keeping a fairly cheap, light, set up. I shoot with three strobes, a sun pack 120j, and 2 vivitars, that have never let me down while out and about, I simply have been considering switching to canon because i want to know what they are like.
I'm not a gear head (don't have the budget to be) but i'm like to know the advantages and dis advantages of both brands first hand. I shoot nikon for the same reason you shoot canon! and i might find that a canon feels better to me.
Thanks again! It's giving me something stuff to think about!!