Comments on: Reader Question: Canon 50D or Nikon D700?

By: George K

George K — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:59:47 +0000

I was in your same situation. I had a 40D with a 24-70L, a 70-200mmL IS, and a handful of Tamron lenses. The 50D was not worth the upgrade, but I needed the High ISO and better autofocus. The 5DMII is too slow IMO, so I sold everything and bought the D700 and 24-70 equivalent (as well as other things).

It was worth the switch, but the best part is that Canon L lenses will sell close to market value on eBay. Just make sure Canon doesn’t have a rebate program going on.

I think I lost $100 on each L lens.

But the quality of the D700 is more than worth it.

By: Antonis

Antonis — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:49:54 +0000

I have a sizable collection of Canon glass (including top-of-the-line EF-S zooms) and have shot both film and digital Canon bodies for the last 20 years….

Despite it all, I recently got a D700 with only the 35/2 D to try it out. I shoot for B&W and judge results by prints, not by pixel peeping (I do that too for technical purposes, but what finally matters is the look of a 17×22 print).

I am impressed enough to want to buy more Nikon lenses and put the Canon glass aside for when a better body comes along. In looking at bigger prints from the D700, I do miss the resolution of a 25-some megapixel sensor, but I find that the grain pattern and the exposure latitude at high ISO more than makes up for it – for now!

After all these years of Canon, I don’t miss the ergonomics, the Nikon is superb. But in a perfect world, I wish I could choose from the vast array of Canon AF lenses and still use the D700. But maybe I am finding out that manual focus is not such a novel idea after all and some of the old Nikon glass is worth rediscovering. In fact I dug up my ancient 50/1.4 (yeah I was a Nikon shooter back when) and like what I see (though not the bokeh!).

Considering the reviews for the D3x, I’d say it’s Nikon time for the immediate future and worth investing in the system. Also, I see full frame sensors here to stay. I am sure Canon will soon drop the other shoe and we’ll see what they offer for the high end – but for now, I’d say the big decision would be between the 5DMkII and the D700 (the latter trading at around $400 less than the 5DII).

I am sorry, but my conclusion is that one has to keep an investment in more than one system at a time in these digital days. The old film logic for sticking with one brand for the long haul doesn’t quite apply any more. It was true for the EOS system for a long time only because Nikon was so late to bring full frame sensors and high ISO. Now that we have several players (Sony included) — it will be hard not to cherry-pick from among several options across brands.

By: Melomind

Melomind — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:49:22 +0000

@Yuri. Great ending of your comment indeed!!! :))) or it could be expressed as “Compare uncomparable!” =)

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:26:21 +0000

If money is not an issue and time is than switch to D700. If time is not an issue than wait for the 60D/6D it will be coming out the 11/09 – 2/10 and that will make up for the 50D which is not a big difference from the 40D. I’d say just sell or trade the 40D for a 50D and still have your Canon gear. That way you lose only about 2 bills thann sell off all canon gear you lose up to 50% of you total investment.

By: Yuri

Yuri — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:21:38 +0000

You have a very capable camera and two quite nice lenses. There are many detail gaps that you should address in order to get the best advice.

What type of action photography? Need for low light ability – how low?
Children playing indoors with one 60 watt bulb in the corner as your only light – OR – a junior hockey game in a moderately lit rink – OR – what is it you shoot and under what type of conditions. Perhaps it may only be an addition of a lens that is in order? You need to spell out the deficiencies you face in your present equipment, otherwise the answers you get will be all over the place as people speculate as to what it is they think you need – just tell us. Could this also be a case of equipment lust. There is no shame in being an equipment junkie. I love the stuff.

The reviews of the 50D are usually negative in light of how little certain features have improved (or not). I think the big one is noise with regard to high ISO settings (consensus seems to it has not improved over the 40D and maybe worse). Otherwise it is quite a nice camera with marked improvement over the 40D (the ability to fine tune focus for your lenses; higher resolution LCD etc.). The D700 has great low light ability. Although it is a full frame camera, while the 50D is an APS-C sized sensor.

Which is better, the Canon 5D II or the Nikon D300?

By: Melomind

Melomind — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:21:17 +0000

@ Tim. “If it’s speed, I’d suggest the 50D”. 50D is no faster than 40D (0.2 FPS slower, however it’s unnoticeable, I believe).
Upgrade from 40D to 50D is a nonesense. If your main subject is sports, go for D700.

Since my main subject is portraits and landscapes, I’ll go for 5DMKII.

If it’s difficult to decide, I’ve got a suggestion that just works for me when it’s about a complex decision or it just goes difficult (not only for choosing photo-gear :-) ):

1. Just take a spreadsheet of Excel, make a column listing the factors of choice important for you for each camera.

2. In another column just indicate the degree of importance from 0% to 100% judging from your personal preferences and requirements (If it’s 0% you probably don’t need to show that criteria at all). The sum of “importances” of all factors must be equal to 100%.

3. In the next column rate Camera #1 against each criteria using 10 or 100 points scale and multiply the result by the appropriate importance rate (e.g. you have criteria #1 making up 30% of importance for you and you rate it at 9 out of 10 points. Then the resulting point will be 9×0,3 = 2,7). Do the same for another column for camera #2.

4. Sum up the results for each camera and the choice is done – pick-up the camera with the highest points! =)

Take care!

By: Leon

Leon — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:09:43 +0000

I have been a long time Canon user (EOS 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D and 50D) with a bunch of EF-S lenses, flashes and accessories. I just sell all of my Canon stuff and bought a Nikon D700. Is this insane? No. I have very good reasons:
I can´t say Nikon’s optics are better than Canon’s own. Neither is their appearance, and in a way, its construction and ergonomics. But once you have a Nikon D700 in your hands, you put it on the works and see the results, you can’t say anything less than there is no way of comparison between the 50D and this one. From its ultra-precise focusing and metering, to its wide dynamic range, low light behavior, etc. etc. Just watch and compare its results, especially at ISO 1600 and upwards.
When I bought the 50D I was very disappointed comparing its results with the 40D. It seemed to be a backward movement. Then I began to think for at once upgrading to a real better machine, a full format one, for me to have the best photo quality: that’s the main issue; I want to have the best picture taking device in any circumstances of light, contrast, focus, metering, ambient and handling, in order to have the best pictures, and with the utmost possible variable features to get what I need.
I’m not a wealthy man and that’s the reason why I wanted to invest in one machine I won’t need to change every year or so for me to get the quality I need in my photography. I know that the Nikon D700 will last for a good time without getting obsolete, even as they present new and upgraded models. Canon’s commercial mentality is to push you all the way and all the time to buy a new model as soon as possible, plausible for them, not for me.
I have worked with a 5D and was very pleased with its results. It’s an excellent camera. The EOS 5D Mark II? Haven’t touched one with my own hands. I have read lots about it in the web and think it’s an excellent camera. But, I don’t need mural size photos. If some day I need to make one, there are other ways to do it, even with a 12MP camera. Canon’s EF-S lenses won’t even attach to its body (Nikon’s DX lenses will work with the D700, admittedly with some restrictions, but they will). The video feature is not for everybody. Anyway, not for me; I can live without it. 21+ MB each RAW file? Try to download a couple of full 16MB flash cards to your two years old PC!!! Not to mention processing each photo in Photoshop. There is no comparison with Nikon’s D700 sturdiness, weather sealing, handling, operation, featured options, incorporated flash, and the focusing and metering system. The only thing I miss is the “Quick Control Dial”. In order to buy the 5D Mk II, anyway I would have to sell all of my EF-S lenses and buy new ones. So, in this case, the choice of the D700 with new lenses was not a financial pain.
The 50D is a lesser camera than the 40D: you can stay with your 40D and won’t regret it. But if you really want to upgrade, you have two excellent alternatives: the 5D Mark II or the D700. My thinking is that the Nikon is a lot more professional oriented than the Canon. I, for myself have decided to make the change in order to get the best and long lasting equipment I can get for my money.

By: HotAir Specialist

HotAir Specialist — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:49:55 +0000

I don’t believe in telling other people what to do. Rather, like Eric, I think the best thing other people can do is to give you the information and viewpoints that will facilitate your decision-making.

In this case, what appear to me to be the only feasible choices, namely the d700 (which I think might be your best choice even though I shoot Canon gear) and 5D Mk II, both involve selling off some gear and acquiring other gear. If you’re not comfortable doing this, then maybe the best choice is to stick with what you have for a while.

As for selling gear, I can tell you something about the current climate on eBay. Basically, the 17-55 f2.8 IS has dropped from the $800+ range down to $600-$700 due to a raft of rumors concerning this lens’ putative high failure rate after a year or more of use. Also the general market is showing signs of distress due to economic conditions, and I think these conditions are going to worsen significantly over the coming year as the economic crisis expands. So if you are going to sell any gear, you had better do it sooner rather than later.

Also a recent series of comparative reviews on DPreview.com of 70-200 F2.8 lenses suggests that the Canon version is noticeably superior to the current Nikon offering on both cropped and especially full-frame sensors. However, there is speculation that Nikon is on the verge of updating their current offering.

Finally, while the 50D doesn’t strike me as a useful upgrade over the 40D, I would suggest the technology is evolving so rapidly that waiting is a viable strategy. Reportedly the 450D is due for replacement soon, substituting a one-year for an 18 month cycle. If this “500D” eschews megapixels for superior ISO range, then it’s possible that the 50D might also be on a one-year upgrade cycle, and we can all hope that it too will pay more attention to ISO range improvements now that the pixel density of the cropped sensor seems to have reached a kind of plateau.

By: Tom Gartman

Tom Gartman — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:37:54 +0000

I’ve been shooting with the 40d for the last year or so. I shoot primarily weddings and portraits on the beaches of northeastern North Carolina. The sports I shoot are for fun, but I find that good timing and paying attention out-weighs a blistering fast drive and the “spray and pray” method of action photography. Coming from medium format film into digital, I find the 1/250 second flash synch horribly slow for beach portraits, so the 1/200 of the 5d mkII, while only a third of a stop slower, is a third of a stop slower than too slow. I canned my Nikon 35mm equipment and went to Canon two years ago and have not regretted it a bit, even though I am the lone Canon shooter in the flock of Nikon shooters at the studio where I work. That said, the D700 looks wonderful, but if you’re determined to get another camera, look at the 1d mkIII. It’s the same number of pixels as the 40d, but they’re more effective pixels, and if you really need the speed, it has it. I’m profoundly unimpressed, actually, I’m depressed about the 50d. The only people who seem pleased with it so far are those that work for Canon. Having worked for a Nikon dealer and having shot Nikon for many years, I know that Canon’s customer support blows Nikon away, but the 50d just doesn’t pop my cork. I’m sticking with my 40d until the lens falls off, or Canon actually improves on it, or Nikon starts giving away D700′s or D3x’s.

I’m through rambling now. Unless it’s letting you down, stick with the 40d.

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:31:04 +0000

Get a Nikon D300 with the additional vertical grip that holds an extra battery. FPS will go up from 5fps to 8fps. You will have something very similar to the Canon 40D but much faster for sports.