Yes my brother says that you get back focusing at times especially in trickier light, and it is slow. He's interested in the new 5D which is supposed to come out before the D700 refresh. I still think the 5D Mark II is an amazing camera though and my brother's work speaks for itself he's very good.

By the way, "Mike your full of all kinds of wisedome" I'll definately second that!

Thanks Kanuck. I only ask because I too have read lots about focus issues with the Canons. I'm sure his past experience also plays a big role in his improved proficiency.

Mike, you're full of all kinds of wisdom!

Rx

Mine's hung up somewhere in Philly..darn you bad weather ;(

Hi,

@otherguy - We'll be glad to see the pictures!

@soshigee - I'm not sure I caught what you have now, and I guess I would suggest that is that you work with what you have, even if it is just a one lens (no zoom) camera.

Digital is terrifically cool in that you can shoot 200-500 or whatever pictures in day (I shot 200 yesterday - actually far more - but that's a different story) with different lighting to get 'the picture'.

I don't hear 'pre-visualize' anymore, and I suppose that is a loss in the digital world. I still do it and I think that's really important. Partly, and only partly, because of the limited resources of film, you 'pre-created' your shot, previewed in your eye before you ever lifted the camera to your eye. Part of that process also extends to the darkroom, in this case the digital darkroom, for post processing. In my case, and what I recommend, I shoot RAW, and frequently use heavy post processing. For that reason, I'm a Photoshop CS5 user for it has the tools not found in Lightroom or Elements.

Certainly that doesn't just mean B&W, but the full richness of color, too.

You can do the same by using what you have and exploring your subjects and how light and shadow fall on them and then how you can manipulate that in post processing.

Finally, remember, it's supposed to be fun.

My best,

Mike

RX4photo sorry about the slow response, but with regards to my brother saying his photography has improved it is in regards to his landscapes landing him a job. He says the auto focus on Canon's are the pits but it doens't matter for landscapes generally anyways right? He is also using some pretty nice glass namely a 35mm ZE Zeiss beauty..

Hmm... unless it's a building that catches my eye, I don't tend to take any buildings. Maybe more of a set of buildings in a scene. I don't see much landscape since I'm a student and I live in or near the city at all times. There's just my view on the 31st floor of my apartment and that's probably it. But I would like to have something wide for the occasional vacation (places like the rockies, grand canyon, etc)

I mean shooting someone with something significant behind them, beside them, or things like ... a tree, or a street stretching into infinity, my friend riding a bicycle beside the ocean, or a random fail-moment. Maybe a cup of coffee and a doughnut with a bite mark in it on a table... Things like that..

spraynpray said:
On FX it is wider than 18 on DX and goes up to long enough for portraits so I would have said 'yes' - unless you only look at buildings and landscapes when you walk around, then 'no'. I guess 'walkaround' needs clarification or buy a 10-500 zoom....

So 14-24 is a no, correct?

If only I had the resources to get the three like OP, my life would be so much easier ~_~

soshigee said:
I wonder if the 24-70 is "wide enough," and I emphasize 'enough,' on a dx for walk-around, paired with a 70-200 + 35 1.8 o_O
or if the 14-24 is as useful on a dx in its own way as opposed to having it on an fx

On FX it is wider than 18 on DX and goes up to long enough for portraits so I would have said 'yes' - unless you only look at buildings and landscapes when you walk around, then 'no'. I guess 'walkaround' needs clarification or buy a 10-500 zoom....

I wonder if the 24-70 is "wide enough," and I emphasize 'enough,' on a dx for shooting walk-around and casual chilling-with-friends, paired with a 70-200 + 35 1.8 o_O
or if the 14-24 is as useful on a dx in its own way as opposed to having it on an fx

I just picked everything up at UPS earlier this afternoon! AMAZING!!! Unfortunately, I had classes and a performance review immediately following that so I didn't get to go out today and take her for a spin! I have a model lined up this Saturday for a couple assignments I'm shooting. I'll post pics when I get them Mike. It feels good to be holding a camera I've lusted after for so long!!!

BTW, didn't mean to cause a ruckus with the Canon negativity. It's just tough when it burns you. Hallmark is hard enough without the added pressure of an unreliable camera!

Hey Other Guy,

Post some pictures!

My best,

Mike

turned into a Nikon Canon war

the discussion was going good until the silly war started.

I say: Ferrari is better than Lambo and Corvette

Sigh........at least I can buy the camera equipment

You're missing the macro trinity too.

60mm 105mm and 200mm.

Happy purchasing!

I beg to differ on the body statement. except for video i think nikon is the clear winner with bodies. as for lenses, well canon seems to have one for every occasion. many of the requested nikon lenses are available in canon, and are cheaper. many say nikon is better or canon is, whatever. i think a canon 200 2 vs a nikon 200 2 will be barely distinguishable.

i bought into nikon after years with canon because i thought their slrs are superior. how many complaints have you heard about the d700 and the d300s? i haven:t heard many. the 7d and the 5d? many.

Canon seems like a good body company, and whenever the idea pops into my head of being interested in switching... i think of the lenses. All of nikon's lenses that i want have been updated in 2007-2010 vs several older models of Canons that have yet to be updated. Yes, i could switch and get more of the 1.4 lenses i would want but at the same time nikon has the same lineup (almost exactly or better) that have been updated. My goal is to build my Lens lineup before college ends and i wont be having to update my lenses right out of college. I suspect my 2.8 zooms wont be updated till at least 2015 and not even till 2020 maybe for the 1.4's thats on my list to get this next 2 years

Also people have been saying the problems with the 5Dm2. Nikon is just so familiar and user friendly for me. Nikon is perfect

At the risk of turnig this into a Nikon vs. Canon thread I'd like to ask a question - I will incorporate the subject of lenses to keep it in line.
First, consider me a curious noobie so anything is good information to me.
Kanuck, your brother claims that the 5D Mark II has changed his photography but in terms of what - if you don't mind my asking? Skills, IQ, user friendly menu...? I have recently attached the battery grip to my D7000 and I've already noticed improved IQ due to my being able to better support the camera with the palm of my left hand than before I put the grip on. I'm getting sharper images, period. So could the ergonomics of the 5D Mark II be at least a part of the answer?

Also, If he's using Canon's highest quality lenses on that camera could that be another major factor in his improved skills? If so, could using Nikon's highest quality lenses (the best f/1.4s, f/1.8s and f/2.8s) improve ones perceived skills even on a D90 or D7000 or D700?

Thanks for everyones thoughts.

I see, ok I have read about the focus issues on the internet. I thought it was just maybe some internet fluff that you hear about from time to time because my brother's 5 D Mark II has changed his photography for the better after 20 years of Nikon shooting. I personally prefer Nikon and the D700, and I think you will love yours now as well.

That's exactly what I'm saying. I can't tell you how many times I've been burned by the 5D's antiquated AF. I've spoken to instructors (which include Gregory Heisler and David Turner, just to name drop!) about it multiple times, one of which actually admitted to me that he was aware of soft-focus with the 5D MKii. I was told to micro-adjust the camera every time I change lenses. Coming from using a much less expensive hobbyist camera that NEVER gave me focus issues, that's unacceptable. Do a Google search on the subject. I'm not the only person who's experienced it. My D90 is a lot more reliable as far as AF, that's not to say the files are as nice. The 5D actually does take wonderful photos, about 70% of the time! As far as the 5D being a better camera than the D700? It may be if you want to shoot manually-focused short video clips or blurry still images. I'll try my luck with the D700!

As far as glass goes, our equipment room is stocked with every L lens Canon makes. I usually only shoot with the 24-70 f/2.8 (our school issued lens), or 70-200 f/2.8 (the newest version). I've taken the 135 f/2 and 50 f/1.2 lenses out as well and the issue is the same. I've seen enough. Thank you, Canon...

Whoa hold on a second, are you guys saying that your school issued 5D Mark II gave soft images, and therefore it is a an inferior camera? I think in most ways the 5D Mark II is a better camera. My brother has one and it has changed his photography. I shoot with the D700 and feel the 5D Mark II is better even. The 5D Mark II compared to shooting with the D90 shouldn't even be close. Perhaps you were using lower quality lenses on the Mark II? My brother has said that the Mark II needs the highest quality lenses you can buy like the Zeiss ZE lenses or L lenses like the 14mm prime.

Even lab test results from popular photographer regarding the new D7000 show that the new Canon 60D is superior although slightly in ISO and color rendition. Canon is cranking out some serious bodies for photographers its just that Nikkor lenses kill Canon I think.

Segura said:
I hate to break it to you, but the Holy Trinity used to be the 14-24mm, 24-70mm, and the 70-200mm . . .

Now the Holy Trinity is the 24mm, 35mm, and the 85mm f/1.4

:)

So what is it when you have all 6 lenses?

"The Joy of Six" !

Segura said:
I hate to break it to you, but the Holy Trinity used to be the 14-24mm, 24-70mm, and the 70-200mm . . .

Now the Holy Trinity is the 24mm, 35mm, and the 85mm f/1.4

:)

So what is it when you have all 6 lenses?

The crucified sextuplet?

I too would have suggest one of the primes instead of one of the zooms, and that wouls probably be the 14-24, 35 1.4G and 70-200. The 85 is great, but you would be limited for reach.

From what I know, the 5DMkII is a great camera, but the build is not up to the D700, which is like a tank.

I use Sandisk Extreme CF cards (60mbps ones)and am very happy with them. I use 8 NiMH (Eneloop) in my MB-D10 and am very happy with them.

I hate to break it to you, but the Holy Trinity used to be the 14-24mm, 24-70mm, and the 70-200mm . . .

Now the Holy Trinity is the 24mm, 35mm, and the 85mm f/1.4

:)

So what is it when you have all 6 lenses?

Congratulations from my side as well. I just got me a D700 recently and it is one fine piece of hardware. Can't say much about the lenses (I still use my AI-S primes), but I heard they are very good. The 14-24 sounds very tempting to me as well - only the price doesn't.

Hi,

@Other_Guy, congrats - all three? Ouch!

Well, you'll have to make a lot of pretty pictures.

My best.

Mike

Wow, you bought all 3 2.8 lenses? That's quite the purchase, but there's no doubt those are extremely good lenses, and you'll enjoy it with your camera (don't let all the D800 attention distract you- the D700 is a very good camera).