Posted by NERKSA_NAYR52 on February 3, 2008 at 3:46 PM
How many megapixels do you need to make professional grade prints? I'm thinking about switching from Nikon systems to Canon and am debating what camera body to buy. What Canon body do you like the best? What are you're opinions on the Canon 5D and 40D? Iim mostly switching for the prices of the IS lenses.
We're using Nikon D2X's in our studio, for commercial shoots, and for nature shooting and print sales. No penalty. Prior to that we used Fuji S2's with only 6 mp's. Usually we didn't take portraits above 24x32 using the Fuji, but since a bit of softness is often desireable in portraits, we did take a few as high as 30x40. No probs at all going that big with the 12mp D2X, and in fact we sometimes have to soften them a bit.
I'm not quite sure what you'll gain from a switch to Canon, unless they have some lenses that you really covet. You don't say which Nikon gear you are using, but you'll have to go to Canon's biggest and most expensive bodies to top what is available in the Nikon line. We tried Canon pretty thoroughly a few years back, and for our uses it just didn't work out. Good as their lenses were, their strobes STUNK compared to Nkon's. Since we use strobes a lot, that was a big difference for us.
Contemporary printing/editing technology and procedures are so good that good editing and printing can have as much or more impact than an increase in megapixels.
I don't have any particular loyalty to Nikon, but I am concerned that you will spend a whole lot of money in transitioning both yor body and your lenses to Canon, but really not make a significant improvement in your prints unless there is a corresponding upgrade in your editing and printing. I bet that by the time you change your whole line over and take the hits for selling used gear, you would have been money ahead simply to keep your Nikon lenses and buy a new body.
In any case, I'd take a real hard look at your printing and editing if there really is a problem.
Posted by Greg Barteluk on February 3, 2008 at 4:11 PM
There's no comparison between the 5D and 40D when it comes making bigger prints. The 5D's full-frame sensor is almost 3MP larger (30 percent), so you can make larger prints while retaining a higher density of native pixels. There are lots of rumours flying about a 16MP 5D coming this summer so if you can wait . . .
Posted by NERKSA_NAYR52 on February 3, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Sorry, I think I threw in a little too much and didn't explain enough. Megapixels has nothing to do with my switch, just what Canon to get. I am switching because I take almost entirely bird, predominately waterfowl, photography and need a good vibration reduction or image stabilization lens. I am switching to Canon because their bigger lenses are cheaper and their teleconverters function with AF on a lot more lenses. I am shooting entirely in sunlight so don't use flash much at all.
Currently I am shooting a Nikon D80 with a sigma 170-500mm and a nikon SB-600 flash. I am not very satisfied with the lens, especially in low light, and have not had any satisfactory photos with the sigma teleconverter.
I'm thinking I am going to look for a Canon 5D and a 500mm IS USM lens with 1.4X and 2.0X teleconverters as well as a 200-400 IS lens for flight photography. Any input? Thank you.
Posted by NERKSA_NAYR52 on February 3, 2008 at 4:42 PM
You can make "professional-grade" 4x6" prints from even simple point-and-shoot cameras. If your question is how large you can print, well that's not as easy as the number of megapixels (though obviously good resolution is important). The physical size of the sensor plays a big role in getting clean files, and newer technology keeps improving things so megapixel today is not the same as a megapixel 3-4 years ago. Then there's characteristics of the image itself that determine how well it will enlarge.
The 5D is a superb camera and with the right images can make excellent 16x24 prints. With some images even larger. This is of course an entirely subjective estimate for my own work.
The 5D will not autofocus with the 2x converter and an f/4 lens so this may be a consideration for you. The 1D MkII or MkIII will probably work much better for what you have in mind.
I've printed 20x30 from my 5D, without doing anything other than Bicubic resampling in CS2. In-camera sharpening turned off, and no other sharpening applied. The results blow you away.
It's not just the megapixels, but all else being constant, the size of the pixels is also an issue. In certain cases, the 5D is supposed to give much better quality and sharper prints than the new 1Ds Mark-III.
Posted by NERKSA_NAYR52 on February 3, 2008 at 5:57 PM
Thanks Guy and Ashutosh. Guy, will the 2X teleconverter autofocus with the 400mm f/2.8? Thank you.
Posted by Keith Bauer on February 3, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Yes, the 5D or 40D will autofocus with the 2X converter on a 400mm f/2.8 since the effective aperture will be f/5.6. You lose autofocus when you go to a smaller aperture than 5.6 unless you are using a 1D series body with Canon Digital.
What Keith said. 1-series cameras can autofocus with an effective aperture of f/8. Other Canon models are limited to f/5.6.
Guy
Posted by Bill Pelzmann on February 3, 2008 at 7:22 PM
Since birds are your emphasis, the ability to autofocus quickly with a teleconverter on the Canon superteles should be a primary consideration in your choice of camera bodies, i.e. 1 series would be my choice over the current 5D. Maybe the next release would allow f/8 autofocus, but I wouldn't count on it.
Taping the pins on teleconvertors to allow autofocus is another option - but be sure that meets your needs for accuracy and speed.
I agree with the others on the megapixel issue. The quality of print depends entirely on the capture. I've printed 13x19 from files from my Digital Rebel and framed them, hung them on the wall, and been pleased to brag about them. It was a rare image but it can be done from a 6.2 MP camera. Printing a 13x19 from a capture on my 40D is easier with more options available in PP. I would not hesitate to recommend a 40D to you. I would tell you to rethink your lenses because of the crop factor. A lens I'm looking really seriously at is the 100-400 L IS. I have seen great results, by others, from this lens on a crop body. Another thing you might take into consideration with the lenses you are talking about, is unless you are hand holding them, Canon is quite adamant about turning off IS when using the lens on a tripod or other support.
Posted by Don George on February 3, 2008 at 8:43 PM
Maybe I don't understand your question. If I was shooting birds I would go with the 40d over the 5d due to the crop factor. The 5d is great for scenic shooting. I use my 30D for wildlife shooting with my 1.4x and 500f4 IS lens . I blow up 16x20 without a problem. For the most part I take the 1.4x off as it places me to close to my subject for large game species. For birds I use the 1.4x most of the time. If you select the 5d keep your eye open for price as its coming down. With scenics I have no problem selling 20x30 prints with no complaints.
I will soon be buying the 40d and using my 30d as a wildlife backup body.
Posted by Nate Chappell on February 3, 2008 at 9:09 PM
A big issue for you to consider if you are doing mostly bird photography is that the 40D will give you a 1.6 multiplier on your focal length, whereas I believe a 5D doesn't have a multiplier effect. This makes a huge difference for a bird photographer. I now use the MarkIII but previously I used the 20D which was the predecessor of the 30D and 40D. The 20D was a fine bird photography body and I imagine the 40D is quite a bit better. The only way I would consider a 5D is if you are going to be doing a fair amount of landscapes as well. If you have a bigger budget, I would consider the MarkIII, because you can shoot at higher iso's with no noise and your 2.0 converter will autofocus with a 500mm lens.
Posted by NERKSA_NAYR52 on February 3, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Hey,
Thanks for all the input everyone. I'm thinking I am liking the 40D right now. I don't do very much scenic photography and I really like the 1.6X multiplier effect. So, would I be able to put a 1.4X teleconverter and still keep the built in 1.6X effect? Thank you.
Posted by David Bostedo on February 3, 2008 at 11:31 PM
Ryan - The 1.6 isn't so much an "effect", as it is a physical property of having a small sensor. The lens projects the same image into the camera body for both full frame and smaller sensors. The smaller sensor simply captures a smaller portion of the image the lens produces. There's no way to change that, since it's caused by the physical size of the sensor.
The 1.4X teleconverter changes the image that the lens produces, so it's altered completely regardless of the sensor.
Based on all your questions, I think some reading of the tutorials on Cambridge In Colour could be a real help. Luminous Landscape is another great site, but a little more disorganized as far as finding things...
Sorry to see you leave Nikon although really all you are leaving behind is the D80. I most heartily recommend purchasing the same company's lenses as the camera you buy. Generally, you get what you pay for. Non-company brand buyers, please do not flame me - that was simply my own opinion, good or bad!
Save $$ for the lenses you really need instead of getting something to make do. I have never said I was sorry I bought a better lens and wished I had gone for the cheaper one!
Another consideration I have not seen written here is number of frames you can take per second and predictive focus. Seems like this would be pretty important in your considerations if you are trying to catch birds on the fly! You should really look into these specs on both Canon and Nikon. You just might get a surprise!
Don't believe that IS is going to solve all your issues. If you read around the net notes by professionals, you will find that IS does NOT always get you that sharp print. IS gives you a better percentage, but not every image taken is going to be perfect. Hand holding and panning techniques are still VERY important when using IS, also. And too much wrong movement will not be overcome by any company's system. Some folks will take IS and stretch it beyond its limits trying to capture images at slower shutter speeds and get disappointing results.
For low light, you are going to need fast lenses - not the sigma you have. And when you add a teleconverter, your effective f-stop just got slower. The wrong combination of slow lenses combined with teleconverters will many times not allow for auto focusing. Be sure you read up on the specs of the lenses you want to see exactly which teleconverter is recommended for that particular lens and whether you lose auto focus.
You may also find that using a proper heavy tripod along with a GOOD ballhead or Wimberly head will solve the problems you are trying to solve with IS!
Anyway, at least you still want to continue in photography and thats the best thing!
Troup
Posted by Gene Lugo on February 4, 2008 at 6:53 AM
Ryan,
It seems that you are not in need of a new camera system, but just some fine tuning of your expectations, technique and perhaps an amazing tripod and head. For a price is no object you would do well with a Nikor 600mm F4 and Full Wimberley gimbal head on a 5 series Gitzo tripod. Even with this setup, you will need to use good long lens technique, including mirror lock up or delay, beanbag on lens etc. The Wimberley is not the stiffest system, however, it is unsurpassed for catching anything that moves. The 600 focuses quickly and is super-sharp wide open. If you get up close to your subjects, which requires lots of patience, you can get away with a 1.4x TC in most cases.
For a budget system you might consider the Manfrotto 393 gimbal head on a series 3 Gitzo, or the new Feisol 3372/3472 tripod. Not having seen the new Feisol, but after corresponding with their factory, it appears that it slightly surpasses the Gitzo series 3. Its a beefy tripod with a 37mm top tube, and it should be plenty stiff for your needs.
If you are not getting a 600mm, you might want to consider one more option, which would pair a good ball head like a Markins M20 or an Arca-Swiss Z1 with a Wimberley Sidekick. This setup would not work with a 600 due to physical limitations.
This way, it almost doesn't matter what you have at the camera end - certainly a D80 at the low end would give you excellent results, with an improvement as you go up the line. The new CMOS sensor based cameras (D3 and D300) have some nice IQ and some automation features that might improve focus and exposure accuracy, based on how you shoot.
The Sigma you are using is just not a very good lens, quite soft at 500, and slow to focus, so it comes as no surprise that you are not happy with it.
What's difficult to understand about the "crop" factor of a camera body, it in no way changes anything but magnification of the lens. The magnification factor comes from the fact the lens mount is actually a different distance from the image sensor than it is in a "Full Frame" camera. The internal focus of the camera and lens combination is different on a crop body. The coverage of the lens is full frame and it does not take a piece of the projected image, it uses the full frame. Canon uses 1.6 as a magnification factor, I believe that Nikon uses a 1.5 factor. It is different with every manufacturer. With Canon optics, any lens I place on my 40D nets me a 1.6 mag. whether it's a EF or EF-S (crop body only) lens. With a 40D what I see in the viewfinder is what the lens is covering the sensor with, not a part out of the middle of it. Side by side if I shot Full Frame against Crop, the full frame at 300 mm would be the same image in a Crop Body at 187 mm.
Posted by NERKSA_NAYR52 on February 4, 2008 at 9:34 AM
Thanks for recommending the site David. It has helped a lot. I am shooting with a Davis $ Stanford Magnum tripod. Once again just about the only reason I am switching is because the Canon 500mm IS is considerably cheaper than the Nikon VR's. I did make the mistake of buying a non-nikon lens which I regret. Unfortunately, money is a bit of an object but not too much that I can't afford a Canon body with a 500mm IS lens with teleconverters. I also like the IS compared to a basic telephoto because I do take a lot of pictures free-hand when I don't have time to position a tripod or can't get it repositioned in time to catch a bird in flight. Thank you for everyones input.
Posted by David Bostedo on February 4, 2008 at 9:51 AM
Are you sure about that, Bruce? Because it's somewhat counter to what I've read. Usually, when reading about crop factor, one of the supposed advantages is that the camera only uses the center of the lens (where the optics are usually best). Is this not correct? If it's not, then why is vignetting never a problem, like it can be on a "full frame" body? And why would there be a difference between an EF lens and an EF-S lens? Wouldn't the EF-S lens have to project a smaller image circle to make it unable to work on a full frame? Thanks...
Posted by Bill Pelzmann on February 4, 2008 at 12:51 PM
What's difficult to understand about the "crop" factor of a camera body, it in no way changes anything but magnification of the lens. The magnification factor comes from the fact the lens mount is actually a different distance from the image sensor than it is in a "Full Frame" camera. The internal focus of the camera and lens combination is different on a crop body. The coverage of the lens is full frame and it does not take a piece of the projected image, it uses the full frame.
Sorry, Bruce. This is simply wrong!
Posted by Doug Andrews on February 4, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Bruce, sensor crop does not equal lens magnification. They are two different things. A teleconvertor does magnify the image produced by a lens. A smaller sensor mimics the narrower angle of view of a longer lens but does not add magnification. Thus the Nikon 1.5x crop factor means a 200mm lens has the equivalent angle of view of a 300mm lens, but not its additional magnification.
Posted by NERKSA_NAYR52 on February 4, 2008 at 4:33 PM
OK, first question, why does Canon recommend you turn image stabilization off while using a tripod? Second, let me get this straight, a 40D will make a subject appear closer in the photo than a 5D, so a photo from a 500mm lens should look like one from a 800mm lens? How much quality is sacrificed? Thanks.
Posted by NERKSA_NAYR52 on February 4, 2008 at 4:39 PM
What else can I do to get good sharp photos short of buying new equipment? I'm shooting with a sturdy tripod and remote already.
Posted by Doug Andrews on February 4, 2008 at 5:09 PM
Second, let me get this straight, a 40D will make a subject appear closer in the photo than a 5D, so a photo from a 500mm lens should look like one from a 800mm lens?
If by closer you mean more magnified then no. The smaller sensors only "sees" a smaller cropped size of the image circle that is formed by the lens. This smaller area is analogous to the narrower angle of view achieved using a longer focal length lens, but not its magnification. A 500mm lens is 500mm regardless of what camera or sensor size it is mounted too. So using a 500mm lens on a 40D will allow you to achieve a tighter cropped image of your subject than if it was mounted on a 5D. However, the subject will not appear as big as if you were using an 800mm lens on a 5D.
Posted by NERKSA_NAYR52 on February 4, 2008 at 5:15 PM
Ok, I understand how it works now. So what is the quality like?
Posted by Basil Greber on February 4, 2008 at 5:16 PM
I don't quite get it. You have a D80 (mid-range body) and a Sigma 170-500/6.3 lens (probably lowest quality you can get in that segment) and want to switch to Canon due to apparent lack of better options, when in fact you have a D300 with an amazing AF module and lenses like the 200-400/4 AF-S VR on the Nikon side (that furthermore works perfectly well with their TC-14E)? Since you don't have much gear at the moment (apparently) it's not such a big loss, but still surprising.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no gear snob, and think that your gear is capable of perfectly fine images. But if you say that Nikon's line up is way too limiting, it's a bit bizzarre to see that you use a cheap Sigma...
Anyway, good luck chosing, and good luck shooting.
Basil
Posted by David Bostedo on February 4, 2008 at 5:19 PM
Ryan - Regarding crop sensors :
1) Yes, the 1.6 crop of the 40D means that the 500mm lens will give the same angle of view as an 800mm lens on a full frame sensor.
2) With any "crop" body you aren't necessarily sacrificing quality to get the extra reach. The quality you might be sacrificing by using a crop sensor would be because you either have less pixels capturing the image, or noisier pixels because they are smaller. Either way, these are pretty minor for most people who need the reach. If you need 800mm, you might get better images from a 40D, than using the 500mm on the 5D and cropping.
3) The 40D sensor is newer than the 5D and noise performance is continually getting better. So the noise/image quality difference between them may not be as great as you might think just looking at the sensor and pixel sizes.
As far as how to get sharp photos - I don't have any experience with the "big guns", the really long lenses. But I've heard technique is important - here's an article that might help.
I believe you already have a Nikon body with a 1.5x crop, right? So a Nikon long lens would give you a lot of reach. IS or not, it is possible to get sharp images - although IS certainly helps. I believe some of the newer IS versions can be used on a tripod (the old ones would try to filter their own vibrations on a tripod, which would cause more vibration, etc. - I think). Hopefully someone else can chime in, but I don't know that your problem is just equipment related.
Posted by Greg Barteluk on February 4, 2008 at 5:21 PM
A small point. Canon doesn't recommend turning off IS with all lenses when tripod mounted. The newer IS can detect being on a tripod, while older versions tend to hunt a bit actually causing vibration.
Posted by Basil Greber on February 4, 2008 at 5:24 PM
What's difficult to understand about the "crop" factor of a camera body, it in no way changes anything but magnification of the lens. The magnification factor comes from the fact the lens mount is actually a different distance from the image sensor than it is in a "Full Frame" camera. The internal focus of the camera and lens combination is different on a crop body. The coverage of the lens is full frame and it does not take a piece of the projected image, it uses the full frame. Canon uses 1.6 as a magnification factor, I believe that Nikon uses a 1.5 factor. It is different with every manufacturer. With Canon optics, any lens I place on my 40D nets me a 1.6 mag. whether it's a EF or EF-S (crop body only) lens. With a 40D what I see in the viewfinder is what the lens is covering the sensor with, not a part out of the middle of it.
I think you got confused here. The APS-C sensor is smaller than a 35 mm format film slide, but the mount is at the same distance from the imaging plane. So the small sensor displays only a correspondingly sized part of the image, however large the projected image may be.
I guess what got you confused is the EF-S stuff Canon is using. Their APS-C crop cameras (correct me if I'm wrong) use smaller mirrors, so they can build the EF-S lenses with more protruding rear elements (EF-S stands for short back focus) - and as a consequence, you can't mount them on FF cameras (unlike with Nikon where the D3 then just use a crop mode on the sensor). In the case of EF-S lenses, of course what you see is the whole image they project (almost), since they're designed to do just that.
However, when you mount a full frame lens (any EF lens that's not EF-S), the lens will sit at the same distance to the sensor as on a FF body, but only the center part of the image is being used. If the distance were different, the lens would have a hard time focusing either at infinity (if distance were bigger - would be like using an extension tube), or to minimum focusing distance (if distance were smaller).
Basil
Posted by NERKSA_NAYR52 on February 4, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Correct me if I am wrong but I don't believe the camera I'm shooting now, a D80, has any crop factor. Again correct me if I am wrong, but Basil, using a 200-400mm F4 with a 1.4X teleconverter would allow me to achieve a focal length of 500mm, now, for about that same price I could buy a 500mm IS and a Canon 1.4X teleconverter to reach a 800mm focal length for only slightly more. Is this correct? also I think I would like the crop factor of the 40D instead of the no crop factor of my D80.
Posted by NERKSA_NAYR52 on February 4, 2008 at 5:53 PM
One more thing that has gotten me interested in Canon is the fact most of the waterfowler photographers that I have seen use Canon systems and some have even switched from Nikon.
Posted by NERKSA_NAYR52 on February 4, 2008 at 5:53 PM
One more thing that has gotten me interested in Canon is the fact most of the waterfowler photographers that I have seen use Canon systems and some have even switched from Nikon.
Posted by David Bostedo on February 4, 2008 at 6:01 PM
Ryan - All Nikons except for the new D3 have a crop factor. The D80 is 1.5X. So when you're shooting your 500mm, it appears to be an 800mm already. And with the problems with the 1DMkIII, and the new D300 and D3, quite a few photographers are switching back to Nikon. I would try to evaluate what I need with what I want before making a big switch. As others have mentioned, Nikon is well regarded, and catching Canon fast - noise reduced long lenses are coming out now for instance.
Posted by NERKSA_NAYR52 on February 4, 2008 at 6:27 PM
Wow. I'm glad I posted this or might be making a $7,000 mistake. Thank you much David. Now, another change, I am thinking that a 400mm f2.8 would be my most desireable lens. AF still finctions with a 1.7X teleconverter, right? Also, is there any noticeable difference between an imported lens and a US lens? Thank you.
Posted by NERKSA_NAYR52 on February 4, 2008 at 6:37 PM
Wow. I'm glad I posted this or might be making a $7,000 mistake. Thank you much David. Now, another change, I am thinking that a 400mm f2.8 would be my most desireable lens. AF still finctions with a 1.7X teleconverter, right? Also, is there any noticeable difference between an imported lens and a US lens? Thank you.
Posted by NERKSA_NAYR52 on February 4, 2008 at 6:54 PM
Wow. I'm glad I posted this or might be making a $7,000 mistake. Thank you much David. Now, another change, I am thinking that a 400mm f2.8 would be my most desireable lens. AF still finctions with a 1.7X teleconverter, right? Also, is there any noticeable difference between an imported lens and a US lens? Thank you.
Posted by Bruce Painter on February 4, 2008 at 6:58 PM
Ryan, while David was correct in that the D80 has a 1.5 crop factor his math was a little off. With the 500mm lens you will get the view angle of a 750mm with the D80. The 800mm view angle would be for a 1.6 crop factor (ie, Canon). I reality you won't notice that much difference in the two though.
Bruce
Posted by John Mumaw on February 4, 2008 at 7:21 PM
I am not very satisfied with the lens (Sigma 170-500), especially in low light, and have not had any satisfactory photos with the sigma teleconverter.
This is a mediocre lens at best, and adding a TC only compounds that fact as you're well aware by now.
An imported (gray market) lens lacks a US warranty, but quality is exactly the same.
Posted by David Bostedo on February 4, 2008 at 7:37 PM
One other little mistake - I meant that Nikon is now bringing out VR long lenses (for some reason I typed "noise reduced" ).
Posted by Les Barstow on February 5, 2008 at 1:46 AM
Regarding IS and VR - some image-stabilized lenses produce feedback jitter if they're locked into a tripod, reducing image quality instead of improving it. On newer IS systems, this feedback is eliminated either via a switch or a detection system. I believe all of Canon's and Nikon's big glass is immune to this problem.
Regarding crop factor plus tele-converter - yes, they multiply. A 400mm f/2.8 lens on your D80 has a crop equivalent to a 600mm lens; adding a 2x teleconverter gives you an effective 1200mm f/5.6 lens. The depth of field is unaffected by the smaller sensor size, so you get a greater DOF from the smaller sensors. (Normally this is not so great, but at higher magnifications the extra DOF can be helpful.) You will not see many wildlife photographers shooting full-frame bodies like the 5D because the DX / APS-C sized sensors offer so many benefits.
Posted by Les Barstow on February 5, 2008 at 1:59 AM
The Nikon will still AF with a 2x teleconverter on your 400mm f/2.8 lens - the 1.7x is no problem. Like Canon, Nikons will auto-focus so long as the f-stop number is 5.6 or lower.
If you've got the cash, you might consider the Nikon 200-400 f/2.8 VR-II instead of a straight 400mm lens; the flexibility of the zoom will certainly help if you've got a teleconverter bolted on and there's nothing worse than being unable to take a picture of a too-cooperative duck when you've got too much lens power in front of you.
The Canon systems are certainly capable, and Canon was first to market with IS on their big glass - hence the large number of wildlife photographers using Canon. Nikon's VR-II is a bit better than the Canon systems, and now that they've fitted their top lenses with it, they compete quite nicely in that market. Choose your system based on how the camera feels in your hands and in operation; quality lenses are available on both systems once you shop around.
Posted by Basil Greber on February 5, 2008 at 2:12 AM
One small correction to Les Barstow's post: Nikon "guarantees" working AF up to f/5.6, but their cameras don't disable AF like some Canons do with slower combinations (so, for example, even a 300/4 AF-S with a TC-17E II will AF if the light is sufficient for the AF sensors to "see"; performance in low light will be compromised, though).
I was correct and INCORRECT. I did a bit mare research and basically everything that has been said is correct to a point. Yes a lens does project a cone of the image onto the sensor and because of this effect you get the magnification factor. But if you compare apples to apples as per my example, 300 to 187, you have the exact same amount of the image hitting either sensor. Also because an APS sensor is smaller in size with basically the same amount of MP in a smaller size you get slightly better detail on objects that are small in the frame. A full frame does offer better resolution. I pass on apologies to Ryan and other posters for not having complete information.
Posted by Ryan Askren on February 5, 2008 at 8:55 AM
Hey Les,
I can't seem to find anything on the VR 200-400 f/2.8. Do you have a link or did you mean the f/4?
Posted by David Bostedo on February 5, 2008 at 9:39 AM
Yes a lens does project a cone of the image onto the sensor and because of this effect you get the magnification factor.
Just to be clear, the reason you get a crop factor is because the smaller sensor is capturing only the center part of the full frame image that a full frame lens produces. (In effect, "cropping" out the center of the image formed in the camera.) With, for instance, an EF-S lens, Canon has simply produced a lens of the same focal length, that produces a smaller image in the camera - one that just covers the smaller sensor. So there is no "cropping" going on, but the focal length is still multiplied by the crop factor, because you still have the narrower field of view from the smaller sensor.
Posted by Doug Andrews on February 5, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Ryan, he meant the f4 as Nikon doesn't make a 200-400mm f2.8.
Posted by Basil Greber on February 5, 2008 at 10:55 AM
But if you compare apples to apples as per my example, 300 to 187, you have the exact same amount of the image hitting either sensor.
Not quite. The 300 mm image on the FF sensor is larger. They will show the same "stuff" in the photo, but the physical size is different. Also, if you compare apples to apples, as you say it (i.e. cameras fitted with lenses that give them the same field of view), the FF sensor will deliver the same amount of detail as the APS-C sensor does, not less.
Not to be overly harsh, but this:
The magnification factor comes from the fact the lens mount is actually a different distance from the image sensor than it is in a "Full Frame" camera. The internal focus of the camera and lens combination is different on a crop body. The coverage of the lens is full frame and it does not take a piece of the projected image, it uses the full frame.
doesn't go too well with this:
I did a bit mare research and basically everything that has been said is correct to a point.
One more big consideration. You have a Nikon D80. If you buy another Nikon, probably the D300 would be best for you unless you can really afford the D3, then you will have TWO Nikon bodies that will work with whatever Nikon lens you purchase. And then, you can also buy some VERY older Nikon lenses on the cheap that will STILL work with both your bodies (ok, there may be a few that won't work- do research). So, you have an almost completely backwards and forwards compatible camera system. You will not find this to be the Canon case. Also, you could have a long lens and body on a tripod and a short lens on the other body for hand held quick shots. Hard to lose! The upside is you have a backup camera if anything happened to that new body. And you might just look at the D200 and save a few dollars for that big lens. The D200 is no dog! I have one; but, if I was buying now, I would get the D300.
You asked the difference between USA and Gray Market lenses. Well, you can get either of those in a body, too. AS stated earlier, they are the same exact equipment. However, if you are in the USA and you try to get a gray market piece of equipment fixed, you are going to run into big trouble from licensed USA repair facilities. On the other hand, the gray market stuff is cheaper. It's your call on whether you want that risk factor - factor ummm, would that be a 1.5 or 1.6?!!!
Enjoy shooting and the best of luck on your decisions,
Troup
Posted by Les Barstow on February 5, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Oops, yes. I was afraid the 200-400 was an f/4, but somehow got it in my mind that it was a 2.8 - which isn't guaranteed to work with the 2x TC.
Posted by Ryan Askren on February 5, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Thanks guys. How well does Nikon hold up to there warranties? What do there warranties cover?
Posted by Les Barstow on February 5, 2008 at 6:20 PM
I've never had to use a Nikon warranty; they're good about either fixing or replacing the lens if the manufacture is defective, but don't expect them to cover drop-kicking it - that service is definitely extra.
Posted by Kent Mearig on February 5, 2008 at 8:11 PM
You asked a little while ago about gray-market lenses. I just wanted to let you know that Nikon USA will not provide services, warranty or not, on any gray-market products. Even if you are willing to pay for a repair, you will not be able to have it done by a Nikon service center. There are other repair centers, but they are less reliable. I've worked with two. One wasn't able to help at all, and the other worked very hard to complete the repair, but it took over four months.
Posted by Kent Staubus on February 6, 2008 at 11:23 PM
One more thing that has gotten me interested in Canon is the fact most of the waterfowler photographers that I have seen use Canon systems and some have even switched from Nikon.
When Canon first came out with IS, Nikon ignored it. Exotic lenses such as 400mm f2.8, 500mm f4, 600mm f4 have low sales volumes and were not a priority with Nikon. So, those wanting electronic stabilized lenses had no choice but Canon. Things have now definitely swung towards Nikon the past couple of years. The D300 is widely regarded as having a decided edge over the 40D. The Canon user groups I've seen are filled with frustration at the erratic performance of the $4,000 Canon Mark III, and it's questionable if Canon has a fix for the problem yet according to owners I know. The latest Nikon lenses have AFS, often have VR, and new nano coatings to further reduce the flare/ghosting problems sometimes seen in digital capture. Five years ago Canon clearly had the momentum, now Nikon clearly does. Keep in mind what you were unhappy about was a Sigma lens, not a Nikon product. It's now Nikon that is showing innovative lenses, such as the 200-400mm f4 VR, 14-24mm f2.8, 105mm VR macro etc., that Canon does not have.
I decided long ago to not get caught up in switching camera systems again. I did it three times, and was never happy with the switch. Each switch just traded new problems for old ones. I'm not switching now because for once, it is Nikon that is on a roll and coming out with the exciting innovative products.
Kent in SD
Posted by Kent Staubus on February 6, 2008 at 11:41 PM
One thing that has not been mentioned so far (and what seems to be at least one factor here) is a beginner (as we ALL once were!) is now getting "length lust." This is what the 1.5x crop factor, 2x teleconverter etc. discussion is really all about. Here's the deal. Sure, you can take a 500mm lens, stick a 2x on it and it becomes a 1,000mm lens, and on a 1.5x DSLR it's the -equivalent- of a 1500mm lens. "Hubba Hubba!", you might be thinking. On paper, this sounds like a good idea. In practice the obstacles are very daunting. What sort of tripod & head would be needed to completely dampen the tiny vibrations always present and would be magnified 1500 times, killing image quality? What sort of perfect technique would be needed? And there's something else that is missed when doing all this math sitting at a desk rather than out in the field. As you put distance between you and the subject, there's atmospheric "stuff" that gets in the way. Such as heat shimmer, fog droplets, wind (which vibrates a big lens like a leaf,) and on and on. The reality is, the closer you can learn how to get to your subject, the better your image quality will be. Yesterday I took some nice shots of a sparrow hawk that had just kicked the daylights out of a pigeon and was ripping its heart out. All this was shot from about 40 feet from the window of my car on the side of the road, using my "pathetic" D80 and a 70-200mm f2.8 VR lens. Best bird photos I've had in a year, and they were due partly to luck, and partly to my being on the look out for opportunity. Don't lose sight of that. I believe all of us went through the stage where we thought, "If I just spent another $5,000, my photos would look a whole lot better!" The reality is that simply getting more stuff generally doesn't make up for our own deficits as photographers. (Yes, I am still learning this as I go along too.) Sure, decent equipment helps, but it's NO substitute for just being out there and knowing what to do when "it" happens.
Posted by Gene Lugo on February 11, 2008 at 2:11 PM
As far as US domestic vs Imported is concerned, Nikon is ridiculously protective of its US market. Not only will they not fix a broken item, they will forbid their authorized service agents from doing so. In addition they seem to hold back on certain key parts, service bulletin updates and other items as a disincentive for third party service facilities to get involved with imported repairs. Your only safe alternative would be to use an internation repair facility ie., in another country to get something fixed when it breaks.
I wonder when Nikon got so picky? I had two "gray market" lenses repaired back before the turn of the century with no comment or problem. Well, except for the money flowing from me to them problem....
Pete D.
Posted by Scott Buckel on February 13, 2008 at 6:18 AM
For me I did catch the long lens lust many years ago.
I own and only occasionally use my 600 mm f4 Nikom lens. The lens is very good, but is very heavy and difficult to use and whn used well the images are great. But that is true of all long lenses made by Nikon or Canon. I purchased the 200-400 f4 and find I use it for 98% of my long lens work. In fact I am thinking about selling the 600 since it gets so little use. The 600 mm does have advantages for small birds.
These days with the US dollar not doing very well, the grey market does not look appealing to me.
Discussion
58 repliesI'm not quite sure what you'll gain from a switch to Canon, unless they have some lenses that you really covet. You don't say which Nikon gear you are using, but you'll have to go to Canon's biggest and most expensive bodies to top what is available in the Nikon line. We tried Canon pretty thoroughly a few years back, and for our uses it just didn't work out. Good as their lenses were, their strobes STUNK compared to Nkon's. Since we use strobes a lot, that was a big difference for us.
Contemporary printing/editing technology and procedures are so good that good editing and printing can have as much or more impact than an increase in megapixels.
I don't have any particular loyalty to Nikon, but I am concerned that you will spend a whole lot of money in transitioning both yor body and your lenses to Canon, but really not make a significant improvement in your prints unless there is a corresponding upgrade in your editing and printing. I bet that by the time you change your whole line over and take the hits for selling used gear, you would have been money ahead simply to keep your Nikon lenses and buy a new body.
In any case, I'd take a real hard look at your printing and editing if there really is a problem.
Currently I am shooting a Nikon D80 with a sigma 170-500mm and a nikon SB-600 flash. I am not very satisfied with the lens, especially in low light, and have not had any satisfactory photos with the sigma teleconverter.
I'm thinking I am going to look for a Canon 5D and a 500mm IS USM lens with 1.4X and 2.0X teleconverters as well as a 200-400 IS lens for flight photography. Any input? Thank you.
The 5D is a superb camera and with the right images can make excellent 16x24 prints. With some images even larger. This is of course an entirely subjective estimate for my own work.
The 5D will not autofocus with the 2x converter and an f/4 lens so this may be a consideration for you. The 1D MkII or MkIII will probably work much better for what you have in mind.
Guy
It's not just the megapixels, but all else being constant, the size of the pixels is also an issue. In certain cases, the 5D is supposed to give much better quality and sharper prints than the new 1Ds Mark-III.
Guy
Taping the pins on teleconvertors to allow autofocus is another option - but be sure that meets your needs for accuracy and speed.
I will soon be buying the 40d and using my 30d as a wildlife backup body.
Thanks for all the input everyone. I'm thinking I am liking the 40D right now. I don't do very much scenic photography and I really like the 1.6X multiplier effect. So, would I be able to put a 1.4X teleconverter and still keep the built in 1.6X effect? Thank you.
The 1.4X teleconverter changes the image that the lens produces, so it's altered completely regardless of the sensor.
Based on all your questions, I think some reading of the tutorials on Cambridge In Colour could be a real help. Luminous Landscape is another great site, but a little more disorganized as far as finding things...
Save $$ for the lenses you really need instead of getting something to make do. I have never said I was sorry I bought a better lens and wished I had gone for the cheaper one!
Another consideration I have not seen written here is number of frames you can take per second and predictive focus. Seems like this would be pretty important in your considerations if you are trying to catch birds on the fly! You should really look into these specs on both Canon and Nikon. You just might get a surprise!
Don't believe that IS is going to solve all your issues. If you read around the net notes by professionals, you will find that IS does NOT always get you that sharp print. IS gives you a better percentage, but not every image taken is going to be perfect. Hand holding and panning techniques are still VERY important when using IS, also. And too much wrong movement will not be overcome by any company's system. Some folks will take IS and stretch it beyond its limits trying to capture images at slower shutter speeds and get disappointing results.
For low light, you are going to need fast lenses - not the sigma you have. And when you add a teleconverter, your effective f-stop just got slower. The wrong combination of slow lenses combined with teleconverters will many times not allow for auto focusing. Be sure you read up on the specs of the lenses you want to see exactly which teleconverter is recommended for that particular lens and whether you lose auto focus.
You may also find that using a proper heavy tripod along with a GOOD ballhead or Wimberly head will solve the problems you are trying to solve with IS!
Anyway, at least you still want to continue in photography and thats the best thing!
Troup
It seems that you are not in need of a new camera system, but just some fine tuning of your expectations, technique and perhaps an amazing tripod and head. For a price is no object you would do well with a Nikor 600mm F4 and Full Wimberley gimbal head on a 5 series Gitzo tripod. Even with this setup, you will need to use good long lens technique, including mirror lock up or delay, beanbag on lens etc. The Wimberley is not the stiffest system, however, it is unsurpassed for catching anything that moves. The 600 focuses quickly and is super-sharp wide open. If you get up close to your subjects, which requires lots of patience, you can get away with a 1.4x TC in most cases.
For a budget system you might consider the Manfrotto 393 gimbal head on a series 3 Gitzo, or the new Feisol 3372/3472 tripod. Not having seen the new Feisol, but after corresponding with their factory, it appears that it slightly surpasses the Gitzo series 3. Its a beefy tripod with a 37mm top tube, and it should be plenty stiff for your needs.
If you are not getting a 600mm, you might want to consider one more option, which would pair a good ball head like a Markins M20 or an Arca-Swiss Z1 with a Wimberley Sidekick. This setup would not work with a 600 due to physical limitations.
This way, it almost doesn't matter what you have at the camera end - certainly a D80 at the low end would give you excellent results, with an improvement as you go up the line. The new CMOS sensor based cameras (D3 and D300) have some nice IQ and some automation features that might improve focus and exposure accuracy, based on how you shoot.
The Sigma you are using is just not a very good lens, quite soft at 500, and slow to focus, so it comes as no surprise that you are not happy with it.
Sorry, Bruce. This is simply wrong!
If by closer you mean more magnified then no. The smaller sensors only "sees" a smaller cropped size of the image circle that is formed by the lens. This smaller area is analogous to the narrower angle of view achieved using a longer focal length lens, but not its magnification. A 500mm lens is 500mm regardless of what camera or sensor size it is mounted too. So using a 500mm lens on a 40D will allow you to achieve a tighter cropped image of your subject than if it was mounted on a 5D. However, the subject will not appear as big as if you were using an 800mm lens on a 5D.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no gear snob, and think that your gear is capable of perfectly fine images. But if you say that Nikon's line up is way too limiting, it's a bit bizzarre to see that you use a cheap Sigma...
Anyway, good luck chosing, and good luck shooting.
Basil
1) Yes, the 1.6 crop of the 40D means that the 500mm lens will give the same angle of view as an 800mm lens on a full frame sensor.
2) With any "crop" body you aren't necessarily sacrificing quality to get the extra reach. The quality you might be sacrificing by using a crop sensor would be because you either have less pixels capturing the image, or noisier pixels because they are smaller. Either way, these are pretty minor for most people who need the reach. If you need 800mm, you might get better images from a 40D, than using the 500mm on the 5D and cropping.
3) The 40D sensor is newer than the 5D and noise performance is continually getting better. So the noise/image quality difference between them may not be as great as you might think just looking at the sensor and pixel sizes.
As far as how to get sharp photos - I don't have any experience with the "big guns", the really long lenses. But I've heard technique is important - here's an article that might help.
I believe you already have a Nikon body with a 1.5x crop, right? So a Nikon long lens would give you a lot of reach. IS or not, it is possible to get sharp images - although IS certainly helps. I believe some of the newer IS versions can be used on a tripod (the old ones would try to filter their own vibrations on a tripod, which would cause more vibration, etc. - I think). Hopefully someone else can chime in, but I don't know that your problem is just equipment related.
I think you got confused here. The APS-C sensor is smaller than a 35 mm format film slide, but the mount is at the same distance from the imaging plane. So the small sensor displays only a correspondingly sized part of the image, however large the projected image may be.
I guess what got you confused is the EF-S stuff Canon is using. Their APS-C crop cameras (correct me if I'm wrong) use smaller mirrors, so they can build the EF-S lenses with more protruding rear elements (EF-S stands for short back focus) - and as a consequence, you can't mount them on FF cameras (unlike with Nikon where the D3 then just use a crop mode on the sensor). In the case of EF-S lenses, of course what you see is the whole image they project (almost), since they're designed to do just that.
However, when you mount a full frame lens (any EF lens that's not EF-S), the lens will sit at the same distance to the sensor as on a FF body, but only the center part of the image is being used. If the distance were different, the lens would have a hard time focusing either at infinity (if distance were bigger - would be like using an extension tube), or to minimum focusing distance (if distance were smaller).
Basil
Bruce
This is a mediocre lens at best, and adding a TC only compounds that fact as you're well aware by now.
An imported (gray market) lens lacks a US warranty, but quality is exactly the same.
Regarding crop factor plus tele-converter - yes, they multiply. A 400mm f/2.8 lens on your D80 has a crop equivalent to a 600mm lens; adding a 2x teleconverter gives you an effective 1200mm f/5.6 lens. The depth of field is unaffected by the smaller sensor size, so you get a greater DOF from the smaller sensors. (Normally this is not so great, but at higher magnifications the extra DOF can be helpful.) You will not see many wildlife photographers shooting full-frame bodies like the 5D because the DX / APS-C sized sensors offer so many benefits.
If you've got the cash, you might consider the Nikon 200-400 f/2.8 VR-II instead of a straight 400mm lens; the flexibility of the zoom will certainly help if you've got a teleconverter bolted on and there's nothing worse than being unable to take a picture of a too-cooperative duck when you've got too much lens power in front of you.
The Canon systems are certainly capable, and Canon was first to market with IS on their big glass - hence the large number of wildlife photographers using Canon. Nikon's VR-II is a bit better than the Canon systems, and now that they've fitted their top lenses with it, they compete quite nicely in that market. Choose your system based on how the camera feels in your hands and in operation; quality lenses are available on both systems once you shop around.
Basil
I can't seem to find anything on the VR 200-400 f/2.8. Do you have a link or did you mean the f/4?
Just to be clear, the reason you get a crop factor is because the smaller sensor is capturing only the center part of the full frame image that a full frame lens produces. (In effect, "cropping" out the center of the image formed in the camera.) With, for instance, an EF-S lens, Canon has simply produced a lens of the same focal length, that produces a smaller image in the camera - one that just covers the smaller sensor. So there is no "cropping" going on, but the focal length is still multiplied by the crop factor, because you still have the narrower field of view from the smaller sensor.
Not quite. The 300 mm image on the FF sensor is larger. They will show the same "stuff" in the photo, but the physical size is different. Also, if you compare apples to apples, as you say it (i.e. cameras fitted with lenses that give them the same field of view), the FF sensor will deliver the same amount of detail as the APS-C sensor does, not less.
Not to be overly harsh, but this:
doesn't go too well with this:
Basil
You asked the difference between USA and Gray Market lenses. Well, you can get either of those in a body, too. AS stated earlier, they are the same exact equipment. However, if you are in the USA and you try to get a gray market piece of equipment fixed, you are going to run into big trouble from licensed USA repair facilities. On the other hand, the gray market stuff is cheaper. It's your call on whether you want that risk factor - factor ummm, would that be a 1.5 or 1.6?!!!
Enjoy shooting and the best of luck on your decisions,
Troup
When Canon first came out with IS, Nikon ignored it. Exotic lenses such as 400mm f2.8, 500mm f4, 600mm f4 have low sales volumes and were not a priority with Nikon. So, those wanting electronic stabilized lenses had no choice but Canon. Things have now definitely swung towards Nikon the past couple of years. The D300 is widely regarded as having a decided edge over the 40D. The Canon user groups I've seen are filled with frustration at the erratic performance of the $4,000 Canon Mark III, and it's questionable if Canon has a fix for the problem yet according to owners I know. The latest Nikon lenses have AFS, often have VR, and new nano coatings to further reduce the flare/ghosting problems sometimes seen in digital capture. Five years ago Canon clearly had the momentum, now Nikon clearly does. Keep in mind what you were unhappy about was a Sigma lens, not a Nikon product. It's now Nikon that is showing innovative lenses, such as the 200-400mm f4 VR, 14-24mm f2.8, 105mm VR macro etc., that Canon does not have.
I decided long ago to not get caught up in switching camera systems again. I did it three times, and was never happy with the switch. Each switch just traded new problems for old ones. I'm not switching now because for once, it is Nikon that is on a roll and coming out with the exciting innovative products.
Kent in SD
Kent in SD
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s5/duckgrabber/Hawk2.jpg
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s5/duckgrabber/Hawk3.jpg
Pete D.
I own and only occasionally use my 600 mm f4 Nikom lens. The lens is very good, but is very heavy and difficult to use and whn used well the images are great. But that is true of all long lenses made by Nikon or Canon. I purchased the 200-400 f4 and find I use it for 98% of my long lens work. In fact I am thinking about selling the 600 since it gets so little use. The 600 mm does have advantages for small birds.
These days with the US dollar not doing very well, the grey market does not look appealing to me.
Scott