Welcome to the IHoP v.2

[dem beats 1,223]

If you pixel peep, wich is stupid, but if you do, dpireview will also confirm some of the differences. Nikon uses some cool tech to get a higher color score etc etc.

Canon's pro lenses however are second to none. They are nearly Leica and Zeiss level, but affordable and usable. I never heard anyone complain about the 70-200L from Canon but I have heard issues with the Nikor opposition.

[Godsmack 361]

I will keep a lot of specs out as my knowledge is lacking, but I will say this. In the pit at Concerts I have covered 5/8 are Nikon users. Combat photographers carry Nikon 9/10 times. My grandfather who has been photographing for over 60 years is a Nikon man. So for me, it's a no brainer.

J

Then go for it. I am not saying Nikon is a bad choice. Super interesting though.

I know 2 concert photographs, one who tours with a band, another who covers local shows. Both use canon.

When I sold cameras at the shop, I worked with one person who used Nikon professionally and he used it in a studio. The other 2 wedding guys use both Nikon and Canon.

Nikon is cheeper. By 10% or more. In the fast full frames however the 1dx kicks the ass of everything from Nikon. So if it's fast sports or phottojournalism or low light the Canon demolishes the Nikon. By such a huge margin it's a little stupid.

Way more FPS, way more low light capabilities, faster focus with more focus points and a smarter system.

The Nikon is roughly 10% cheeper but the Canon is several stops better ISO, and 40% more FPS and somewhere between 10 and 5 times less shutter lag. The used market is bigger and it had more aftermarket support.

Specs wise is one thing, but it is also easier to use. It's controlls allow for same ergonomic control in landscape or portrait. "That Nikon guy" has a good video talking about how is finds the Canon to basically be a generation ahead of the Nikon.... He is a Nikon fanboy from the get go.

In the 5Diii vs the D800, again 10% price difference but better low light performance by several stops. Much more FPS. More versatile with storage, customized presets at one touch hard buttons for fast access, less menu work, lighter, less noise in higher ISO. Ken Rockwell makes a great discussion about it. Nikon in the studio on the tripod, Canon in the bag.

With the arguments that you are presenting I am starting to get the itch to give one a chance. Maybe in the future if things go according to plan.

J

[ssh 924]

[Tirefryr 1,742]

What the fuck?

[ricksi30 923]

Stefan's latest install.

[ricksi30 923]

Haha I saw that shit on fb too. Subs when a girl gets their hands on them....Cool to see a chick into it though.

[///M5 2,833]

If you pixel peep, wich is stupid, but if you do, dpireview will also confirm some of the differences. Nikon uses some cool tech to get a higher color score etc etc.

Canon's pro lenses however are second to none. They are nearly Leica and Zeiss level, but affordable and usable. I never heard anyone complain about the 70-200L from Canon but I have heard issues with the Nikor opposition.

Hey the last time you were pixel peeping the neighbors called the cops.

[///M5 2,833]

And when I do I realize how bad I am with the camera.

[///M5 2,833]

ALthough my idea of peeping is to look at 100% to see what artifacts and focus issues I have

[dem beats 1,223]

You are doing it to learn, way different.

And after the neighbor saw me, she apologized with mouth hugs.

[dem beats 1,223]

Haha I saw that shit on fb too. Subs when a girl gets their hands on them....Cool to see a chick into it though.

There has to be a menstruation joke in there somewhere....

[dem beats 1,223]

I will keep a lot of specs out as my knowledge is lacking, but I will say this. In the pit at Concerts I have covered 5/8 are Nikon users. Combat photographers carry Nikon 9/10 times. My grandfather who has been photographing for over 60 years is a Nikon man. So for me, it's a no brainer.

J

Then go for it. I am not saying Nikon is a bad choice. Super interesting though.

I know 2 concert photographs, one who tours with a band, another who covers local shows. Both use canon.

When I sold cameras at the shop, I worked with one person who used Nikon professionally and he used it in a studio. The other 2 wedding guys use both Nikon and Canon.

Nikon is cheeper. By 10% or more. In the fast full frames however the 1dx kicks the ass of everything from Nikon. So if it's fast sports or phottojournalism or low light the Canon demolishes the Nikon. By such a huge margin it's a little stupid.

Way more FPS, way more low light capabilities, faster focus with more focus points and a smarter system.

The Nikon is roughly 10% cheeper but the Canon is several stops better ISO, and 40% more FPS and somewhere between 10 and 5 times less shutter lag. The used market is bigger and it had more aftermarket support.

Specs wise is one thing, but it is also easier to use. It's controlls allow for same ergonomic control in landscape or portrait. "That Nikon guy" has a good video talking about how is finds the Canon to basically be a generation ahead of the Nikon.... He is a Nikon fanboy from the get go.

In the 5Diii vs the D800, again 10% price difference but better low light performance by several stops. Much more FPS. More versatile with storage, customized presets at one touch hard buttons for fast access, less menu work, lighter, less noise in higher ISO. Ken Rockwell makes a great discussion about it. Nikon in the studio on the tripod, Canon in the bag.

With the arguments that you are presenting I am starting to get the itch to give one a chance. Maybe in the future if things go according to plan.

J

Maybe you will fall in love, maybe you won't be impressed. Some people feel the need for both. That Nikon d800 is near medium format level pixels. You can blow that up to fill a wall.

But if you need to grab an action shot, having 30% or more frames in one second is huge. Having the button lay out redundant so when you turn the camera you can still control everything could mean everything. Better low light could mean getting the shot vs not.

[///M5 2,833]

Matt you really need the 200-400 f4 IS not the 70-200

[///M5 2,833]

Add a 2x extender and we could have some fun on my lake

[///M5 2,833]

I actually don't understand your desire for the 70-200 2.8 V1 vs just getting the 4.0 with IS.  If you are shooting birds in flight or super fast action ok, but otherwise I think the smaller unit has way too many advantages.

[Aaron Clinton 2,372]

I miss being into photography.  I have both of my Richo rigs still, and all the lenses.  But I just don't have the $$$ to play with fully manual SLR 35mm anymore.

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

[///M5 2,833]

Yeah, I want the 2.8 too but for the dollar I think I'll end up with the 4.0.

[dem beats 1,223]

My arguments also are kind of rooted in the fact that someone doesn't have lens or support structure like family or friends using one brand.

Also, touching on what Stefan mentioned about his dad and Nikon. I have used one of the cheepest lower class rebel EOS cameras for 2 weddings as supplemental, and done just fine with the horrible kit lens and that cheep body. And I am a HORRIBLE photographer, and was worse then. But I was persistent and came out with some super fun shots.

Now I am to the point where I am being limited by equipment. As I didn't have much money I got the t4i, for me, the cheepest camera that would be an upgrade in every way would be the 5Diii. The touch and swivel screen also helped me a lot as a newb. I don't use it so much now, but it did help. It also is amazing for video, which when I purchased it, was one of the main needs. I haven't used it much yet though.

Now I am at the point where I need better low light and a bit more zoom. The 70-200L 2.8 ISii will be such a boon to me. I just learned a lot about portrait and how more zoom helps so while not ideal maybe it will work really really well. And if I move to a FF it will be perfect. With a "cheep" 1.4 extender I can get so much zoom I will be seeing panties from across the county.

My 17-130 STM kit will stick around for video as it has some advanced functions for it, and for wide angle work and inside work.

Maybe I will get a super low 50prime.... But a speed light and 70-200 will get me further and if I ever decide to do this for money and not volunteer my time. When I get a FF monster I will have the best glass and the best body.

[///M5 2,833]

70-200 f4 IS will take better low light pics than the 70-200 2.8 non-IS as long as the subject is somewhat non-moving

[dem beats 1,223]

I actually don't understand your desire for the 70-200 2.8 V1 vs just getting the 4.0 with IS. If you are shooting birds in flight or super fast action ok, but otherwise I think the smaller unit has way too many advantages.

Maybe it is overkill. But I have needed several stops more light than my f5. And if you get the chance to mess with the 70-200 2.8 you will see. 70 on a cropped sounds long for portraits but the 130-180 is one of the most beloved portrait and headshot lenses in the studio. I have lost shots at 2 once in a lifetime events because of poor lighting. And my lens didn't open up enough.

Seeing as the 70-200 is only slightly more money but has way better IS, and build quality and I also do more action shots than portraits it kills 2 birds.

Also be fun when I go shoot my busy racing his bike.

[///M5 2,833]

Can handhold the non-IS to about 1/150th of a second (at the short end, need faster shutter on the long but we are talking about low light portraits).  To capture the same light with the f4 you'd need 1/75th of  a second.  That with IS can be done and even a human subject moving pretty quick won't get too far then.  Obviously you can slow it down even beyond that with the f4.

 

If you were comparing the IS II 2.8 then obviously that kicks ass on the 4, but for my use I think the 4 will be more useful.

[dem beats 1,223]

70-200 f4 IS will take better low light pics than the 70-200 2.8 non-IS as long as the subject is somewhat non-moving

And I am talking 70-200 with IS and 2.8.

My 135 mm has IS and it didn't fix it.

[///M5 2,833]

I actually don't understand your desire for the 70-200 2.8 V1 vs just getting the 4.0 with IS. If you are shooting birds in flight or super fast action ok, but otherwise I think the smaller unit has way too many advantages.

Maybe it is overkill. But I have needed several stops more light than my f5. And if you get the chance to mess with the 70-200 2.8 you will see. 70 on a cropped sounds long for portraits but the 130-180 is one of the most beloved portrait and headshot lenses in the studio. I have lost shots at 2 once in a lifetime events because of poor lighting. And my lens didn't open up enough.

Seeing as the 70-200 is only slightly more money but has way better IS, and build quality and I also do more action shots than portraits it kills 2 birds.

Also be fun when I go shoot my busy racing his bike.

Shit, again I forget that V1 has IS.

[///M5 2,833]

70-200 f4 IS will take better low light pics than the 70-200 2.8 non-IS as long as the subject is somewhat non-moving

And I am talking 70-200 with IS and 2.8.

My 135 mm has IS and it didn't fix it.

I remembered again.  Can't get the fact that there was a 3 stop IS V1 before the 4 stop IS V2.