Camera Labs

This feels a bit like blasphemy, but I was wondering if more people share my feelings that I will discuss here. I am looking into buying a new body. I have always been a very happy Canon-customer and my current 40D + lenses are great, but now that I want to make the step toward Full Frame (I have decided that it's time to leave APS-C behind) I feel like Canon is way behind on Nikon for action photographers who don't have loads and loads of cash available.

Here is my reasoning: I would love to buy a Full Frame camera that is suited for action, sports and nature photography. Autofocus is the most important aspect for me, and a high burst rate is a nice bonus to have. For shooting landscapes Full Frame is just great, though I am missing a bit on the tele part because there is no crop factor helping me out there. Looking at Canon's offering there are mainly three choices available. The Canon EOS 5D Mark II, the Mark III and the 6D. I really want Full Frame this time around because of the higher image quality and the possibilities it brings for wider landscape shots and awesome bokeh.

Looking at both the Mark II and the 6D I really like the price a lot better than the Mark III. The Mark III costs a fortune and I would be saving up for an incredible amount of time (we are speaking 1,5+ years), which is kinda frustrating since I am trying to start up a small business right now based on photography. The Mark II and the 6D might have a better price, but the autofocus is lacking greatly. There is just no way that I can use these camera's while being able to rely on the autofocus when shooting action shots. The only alternative then becomes the 5D Mark III and like I said: I would need to save up for a horrible long time.

When I look at Nikon though there are multiple alternatives that are nicely priced. There is the older Nikon D700, but most of all there is the new D600. Both these camera's have a good autofocus system, a decent burst rate and have good image quality. When I compare my wishlists for both brands I figured out that even in the long run if I would switch now it would cost me less money, at the cost of losing a little bit of flexibility in terms of lenses that I have available.

I could go for the following options:

Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Canon EF 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM

or sell all my Canon stuff (you can see the list below in my signature) and buy:

Nikon D600 + 24-85 kit
Nikkor 80-400/4.5-5.6 ED D VR
(eventually I will want a macro lens, a 70-200/2.8 and maybe a wider lens, which are precisely the lenses I already have for my Canon)

To get a Full Frame Nikon D600 with a kitlens and an 80-400 would cost me around half (after selling all my Canon stuff) of what it would cost me to buy a 5D Mark III and the Canon 100-400. This really gives me the feeling there is something horribly wrong with Canon's offering. They should never have made a 6D with such crappy AF, and should have opted for the autofocus system from the 7D or something similar.

So, I was wondering what you guys think. Has Canon dropped the ball here or do you think they will make a major comeback in 2013? It seems unlikely to me that they will present a new lower range Full Frame camera very soon since the 6D has been available for just one month, but I don't have a clue what else they could do?

_________________
Cameras: Canon EOS 7D, Canon EOS 40D
Lenses: Canon EF 17-40/4 L USM, Canon EF-S 60/2.8 Macro USM, Canon EF 70-200/2.8 L USM, Canon EF 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM
Want list: Canon EF 24-105/4 L IS USM, Canon EF 100/2.8 Macro L IS USM

If you look carefully at the differences beyond the paper spec, are the apparent advantages of the Nikon still there for you?

The D600 has more AF points, but look at where those points are. They'll all grouped closely in the middle of the viewfinder. Does that still give you a significant advantage? Perhaps not on coverage anyway. The 6D is also claimed to have the most sensitive AF point in low light. I don't know if that's been independently verified, but it was one of its claims.

Also look at the lens reviews of the Nikon 80-400 vs the Canon 100-400.

Of course I'm not saying Canon are perfect, and wish there was "more" for "less". But we have what we have now. If switching is really the best thing to do, then do it. But do look into the detail and make sure you know what you're getting. Or better, try it all first hand. I'd agree there's nothing on the rumours for another affordable full frame next year, only perhaps the 7D2 and/or 70D, and a outside chance of the high MP full frame model. But that isn't likely to be cheap...

And if you do decide to go to Nikon, check out Thom Hogan's site bythom.com. He's a Nikon user, but isn't afraid to call them for their faults too.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

MTK,

Your dilema is exactly mine aswell. I don't think we are unique.

_________________
Canon 40D, EF-S 17-85mm IS USM, EF 70-300 IS USM, EF 50mm f/1.4, Speedlite 430EX II, EF 70-200 f/4L IS USM, EFS 10-22mm.

I'm more than happy with my Nikon gear, even though i `only` have the D700.
I did have the 80-400mm lens which I used on my D7000. I actually really liked it. Decent image quality, good range & fairly light to carry, but I think the Canon equivalent (100-400?) seems a sharper option. So until Nikon update the present 80-400 I wouldn't let that alone sway my decision.

I know you mention the D600 (which is obviously pretty good, but, what about throwing the D800/E into the mix? Seems to me a better reason to switch, if you are considering doing so.

_________________

Nikon D700 & D7100 bodies + Nikkor 300mm F2.8 VR11, 1.7TC, 50mm F1.4G, 16-35mm f/4G VR, 105 F2.8 VR macro, 70-300mm lenses. A couple of filters, Giotto tripod & ballhead. Lowepro Slingshot 302 AW

http://www.flickr.com/photos/oldcarlos/

or just save for a used 1D Mark III or IV

its not full frame but its damn good..

had that problem when I was going to upgrade from 40D to choose between something, but then I ended up saving for a better one ^^


but I suppose that the 5D Mark III is quite much in Holland, then I would recommend buying it from http://www.onestop-digital.com/index.ph ... t_id=34044 based in Hong Kong... no problems with them

_________________
http://www.AnderssonPhoto.com
Cameras: Leica M8, Nikon FE-2, Canon EOS 1D Mark IV, 5D Mark II, 40D
Lenses: Voigtländer Nokton Classic 35mm 1.4, Ultra Wide Heliar 12mm 5.6 ASPH II, Nikkor AI-S 28mm 2.8, Canon 24-70 2.8L, 85mm 1.2L II, 300mm 2.8L IS, TS-E 45mm 2.8, Sigma 105mm 2.8 Macro
Canon 1.4x/2X TC II, Canon 580EX II X2, Gitzo + Manfrotto.
Wishlist: Leica Monochrom, Summilux 50 ASPH, Voigtlander 35mm 1.2 ASPH II

Have spoken with my wife's uncle, who is a Nikon user, and he actually thinks of the D600 as an amateur camera. He would never even consider buying it to replace his D700, and is waiting for a fast, high MP alternative to come.

And about the 1D Mark III or Mark IV: those camera's are very good obviously, but I really want Full Frame and not APS-H. But even if I would go for one of these, the 7D isn't even that much worse. I am kinda hoping that Canon might surprise me with the 7D Mark II. It might fit in with my alternative "two bodies strategy". I could go for the 7D Mark II for action and wildlife, and a 5D Mark II for landscape and stills.

Glad to hear that I am not the only person that has these problems with Canons line-up, and I might have known that Nikon users sometimes have the same problems with Nikon's product offering.

@ Popo: I agree with you that specs aren't everything, but the autofocus of both the 5D Mark II and 6D are just not good enough for action which is kinda a deal breaker for me.

_________________
Cameras: Canon EOS 7D, Canon EOS 40D
Lenses: Canon EF 17-40/4 L USM, Canon EF-S 60/2.8 Macro USM, Canon EF 70-200/2.8 L USM, Canon EF 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM
Want list: Canon EF 24-105/4 L IS USM, Canon EF 100/2.8 Macro L IS USM

Until the 1D X was introduced, wildlife and action photographers with a big budget tended to use the 1.33-crop-factor 1D cameras, and those with smaller budgets, or who wanted a smaller, lighter body, really seemed to like the 7D. These choices still exist, as pre-owned 1D Mark I through Mark IV, and new and pre-owned 7D cameras.

At last year's Houston Marathon, where I worked a traffic control/diversion post, I was unsure, beforehand, whether I would be free to take any photographs, and only decided to take a camera minutes before leaving. My 400mm 5.6L happened to be mounted on my 5D at that moment in time, so that is the combination I brought with me. (Obviously, one of my 7D cameras would have been better for action.) By panning with the 5D, I managed to make some quite decent images, freezing motion quite well. Marathon runners are not sprinting, of course, but I was photographing elite-level runners, who were moving along right quickly. To be clear, I am not recommending a 5D "Classic" for sports and action, just saying no camera is worthless. Keep in mind that not so long ago, photographers were shooting sports and action with manual focus lenses!

At the same marathon, I observed that one professional photographer, wearing a Brightroom.com vest,
was using a Nikon D300. The other Brightroom photographers with DSLRs were too far away for me to
see their cameras clearly, though one seemed to have a Canon 1D-series. A D300 is roughly equivalent to a Canon 7D.

_________________
Canon 7D/5D/40D/1D2N; Nikon F6, FM3A, & Coolpix A; Canon 40mm Pancake, 135L, 50L, 35L, pre-II 50mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8L Macro, 10-22mm EF-S, 28-135 EF, 400mm 5.6L; Nikkor 50mm 1.2 AI-S, 50mm 1.4G, 50mm 1.8D, 16mm 2.8D Fisheye, 180mm 2.8D, 100-300mm 5.6 AI-S; Tokina 17mm & 100mm 2.8 Macro

As for the question posed in the title of the original post, no, I do not think Canon has a problem. I do not see anything in the Nikon line-up, short of the D3x and D4, that is both full-frame and with an ideal AF system for action. Indeed, a recent review I read of the D800 indicated it is not as good for action as the D700. The D4 does under-sell the 1D X here in Texas, at one local camera seller, by about $800 US, but a professional who is heavily invested in lenses may not switch brands so easily.

_________________
Canon 7D/5D/40D/1D2N; Nikon F6, FM3A, & Coolpix A; Canon 40mm Pancake, 135L, 50L, 35L, pre-II 50mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8L Macro, 10-22mm EF-S, 28-135 EF, 400mm 5.6L; Nikkor 50mm 1.2 AI-S, 50mm 1.4G, 50mm 1.8D, 16mm 2.8D Fisheye, 180mm 2.8D, 100-300mm 5.6 AI-S; Tokina 17mm & 100mm 2.8 Macro

I agree. Canon does not have a problem. The customer does.

_________________
Canon 40D, EF-S 17-85mm IS USM, EF 70-300 IS USM, EF 50mm f/1.4, Speedlite 430EX II, EF 70-200 f/4L IS USM, EFS 10-22mm.

If Canon has a problem with its line-up, it would be the perceived void left by the discontinuation of the 1D Mark IV, which is not full-frame. Not all Canonistas perceive this as a void, but some do.

Reading Nikon-oriented blogs and forums indicates some Nikonians think Nikon is having really big problems at this time. Canon-oriented blogs and forums indicate what I perceive as a higher level of satisfaction, overall.

Please note that I enjoy using both Canon and Nikon products; I am happier with Canon than Nikon at this point in time.

_________________
Canon 7D/5D/40D/1D2N; Nikon F6, FM3A, & Coolpix A; Canon 40mm Pancake, 135L, 50L, 35L, pre-II 50mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8L Macro, 10-22mm EF-S, 28-135 EF, 400mm 5.6L; Nikkor 50mm 1.2 AI-S, 50mm 1.4G, 50mm 1.8D, 16mm 2.8D Fisheye, 180mm 2.8D, 100-300mm 5.6 AI-S; Tokina 17mm & 100mm 2.8 Macro