[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1282252379' post='1942']
Thank you very much for your very thoughtful and complete answer. I think this will help me. [/quote]
Thank you for your kind words, Old Wolf (this from the Mad Dutchman) <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
Quote: As far as efficiency is concerned, I should probably go with the 7d, since it has everything except for a FF sensor. In terms of gut feel, I should go for the D700, because I really think it is the best combination of IQ, fast operation when needed and manageable price.
Regarding the 7D: I looked at it, even bought one, but returned it, and got a used 1D Mk III instead. I cannot see the focusing screen of the 7D all in one go, and that is a definite no-no for me, as I want to be able to do my composition while being able to see all the focusing screen without having to move my eyes.
Do note that the 7D requires adjustments to processing - it needs a bit more sharpening and probably a bit more contrast too. However, since this is your first dslr, it shouldn't really matter.
The D700 is likely to be better in the noise and high iso department, because it has less pixels and a much bigger sensor, but then, the 7D isn't a slouch either in this department. I generally find that if you need 6400 iso with fast lenses, it is virtually impossible to see where you are focusing, so the question is also how far you need to go <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
Quote:As far as the lack of video is concerned, when I have become comfortable with the stillphoto shooting again, I can worry about the video, which then will have gotten better, with auto AF, etc. for it, which is doable I think.It is true that I can buy a D90 and almost have the same IQ and it might be a good back up body later, but then..... somehow I don't think I will. Or, I buy a D300S now and buy only FF lenses, which is doable I think. Again down to the same 3 suspects.
I really think you should seriously reconsider. The 5D II that is. Friends of mine with a D300 and D700 like my Raw files better than theirs <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. But then, that may just be pixel or even glass envy, I don't know <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
Quote:Now, assuming I find an answer to my body question, do you think I can find the same lens quality for a more manageable price with the 3 "other" supplier, Sigma, Tokina and Tamron? If yes, which ones? I know Tokina has an excelent 12-24 WA zoom and Sigma has the 24-70 lenses? How good are they? Is there some lens out there to replace the Canon 70-200 F4, IS USM. If not, that lens is almost a reason to buy Canon. Finally, I think your comments about primes is very important, because whatever zooms I buy, I will always have at least 2 primes.Have a good night and I look forward to hopefully getting another answer from you <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
Well, took a bit longer, but for a reasonably well thought out reply I need to take my time, and that is rather hard at work <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
There is no replacement for the Canon 70-200 F/4s, whether with or without IS. So that's an easy one <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
Regarding third party lenses, I have by far the best experiences with Tokina, I have so far never had problems with lenses from them, and neither have my friends. Yes, as some have indicated, they may have some CA, but generally that's easy to fix or to prevent even, and maybe some AF problems (haven't noticed myself). I did not have as much luck with any Sigma I ever tried, and neither with the Tamrons. I would really only recommend their macro lenses, and maybe the Sigma 50 F/1.4, provided you can find one without problems, and procvided you don't have the budget for a 50L in case of Canon. For Nikon I would probably settle for the 50 F/1.2, even if it is MF only.
As to an UWA lens fro APS-C, currently the Tokina 11-16 F/2.8 is the king of the hill, so if you want to go UWA, that is the lens I'd recommend, over even Canon and Nikon variants.
In short, Nikon or Canon only, with few exceptions, and maybe a macro from another manufacturer. BTW, the Tamron 90 Macro is considered to be the best approx. 100 mm macro in existence (with the exception of the Zeiss 100 F/2 I think), although it is slow focusing in AF mode, and doesn't have IF (which in a way is a blessing if you ask me and likely why it is so good). I don't know if the 100L is better or not; personally I wasn't convinced by it.
Other possibilities, for macro anyway, are the Zeiss 50 and 100 mm macro lenses, although those are very expensive and MF only.
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1282309592' post='1961']
I am not necessarily needing a FF sensor for the print size, because I never print that big other than for testing maybe. I mostly limit to A3.
I often shoot in low light conditions where flash is impossible or useless (inside cathedrals or similar conditions and would like the ability to shoot at high ISO
I don't think I absolutely need the FF for the DOF. However, it would be nice
I'd seriously consider either Canon 5d II or Nikon D700 in that case. In their price range their is no better low light camera, and they both have the best DoF possibilities.
Quote:With respect to brands, I think that I can adapt to both with some work. I have had the 7D in my hands and it feels nice, but I have not yet seen a D300S or a D700. However, I am confident that I can adapt to both and I agree with you that High MP count is not a guarantee for high quality images.
On FF it is, IMO <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. I remember getting the original 5D a few years ago, and being amzed at the difference in IQ and general feel of the images. That was quite a revelation to me. It didn't take too long to sell the 40D I had after that. And almost a year after the 5D II was introduced, I did get that. That's when the original 5D stayed home.
Quote:Frankly, I think both make good lenses, but I am interested in seeing whether I can find the same quality for a lesser price.
No, not easily. Specific lenses maybe, but you also have to consider ease of use, build, etc. If you need a 14 mm F/2.8, I guess the Samyang could be a good candidate, and for an 85 mm F/1.4 too. However, MF only, both.
You often pay quite a premium for a little better QA, and guaranteed compatibility. The question is whether this is worth it to you or not, or whether you use a lens to an certain extent (little IOW), that it is not really a problem.
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1282311199' post='1962']
I should maybe add that I come from a Canon background (F1 and A1 back in the 70ties) and my last Canon body is a EOS 650. However it is 20 years old and technology has changed and I want to be open minded to avoid choiced brought on by prejudice of some kind.
What lenses do you still have for that? Don't throw out the primes yet... They may come in handy when you decide to go with Canon <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
As mentioned, what you really need to do is to get a good feel of the cameras you are interested in, maybe even rent one for a week at a time if you can afford to do so, and see what you like best for handling, feel and quality, both from a build POV as from an IQ POV.
Anyway, if you'd go APS-C, obviously the 7D and D300s are the best options. Lenses I would actually get for those myself, considering what you'd want, for the Canon it would be the Tokina 11-16 F/2.8, Canon 17-55 IS or maybe the 24-105L IS, 70-200 F/4L IS or F/4L, 24L (Mk I or Mk II), EF-S 60 Macro, and maybe the 100L Macro, or if that fits within the budget, the 85L (I or II). For Nikon again the Tokina 11-16, the 17-35 F/2.8, 24-70 F/2.8 or 24-120 VR (the new one), 100 VR II or Tamron 60 F/2 Macro, and the 70-200 F/2.8 VR or VR II. With any money left I'd buy either the 35 F/1.8 or the 24 F/1.4.
For FF, I would go with Canon 5D II or Nikon D700. Lenses for the Canon: 17-40L, 24-70L, 70-200 F/4L or F/4L IS, 100 macro (L or non-L), and ideally the 50L, or maybe 85L or L II. For Nikon the 14-24 F/2.8, 24-70 F/2.8, 70-200 F/2.8 VR or VR II, 100 Macro VR and 50 F/1.4, or maybe the F/1.2 version.
That's what I would choose based on what you said earlier. However, if you gave me a free hand, I would likely just go for a bunch of primes. TS-E 17, 24L (I or II), 50L, 85L (I or II), 135L plus extension tubes and extender for Canon FF (and I practice what I preach here <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />); 14-24 F/2.8, 50 F/1.4 or F/1.2, 100 VR Macro, and a longer lens, maybe a Tamron or Sigma 180 Macro or 200 F/2 if budget allows, for Nikon.
Anyway, my 2c again ...
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....