I think I need to have my head examined. Unless Canon can seriously kick out the jams on the 5D successor, I'm feeling compelled to augment my 5D with a Nikon D700, as my main photography occurs in very dark places where flash is verboten and tripods are useless. I'm taking studio (not photo studio, recording studio) candids mostly so I need the best ISO performance I can afford. If Canon can sort the ISO thing out, I still have the issues of the 5D interface (all Canons but 1D-series) being slow to adjust when I need to be quick. I hate sharing buttons and having to take my eye off the VF to look at the top LCD. And having to manually fiddle the ISO. After a couple years with Canon DSLRs, I still get tripped up by this. On a tripod, fine. In action... not so much.

Obviously, it's a big loss to have to buy into 2 systems, but if I relegate the Nikon for certain work (a normal or wide f/1.4 plus maybe a f/2.8 24-70) that won't require much telephoto and certainly no flash gear, maybe it's justifiable. The 5D would be my outdoor and strobe camera, and since I have 5 lenses for it, plus flashes, it would do the duties it excels at (landscapes, holidays, studio, tripod work) and I wouldn't have to send the boy to do a man's job at places like soccer games (The 5D, I truly believe, will go down as a classic camera, but it's NOT a sports camera!).

See what I just did? I just shot myself in the foot. The D700 with grip would do 8fps and have excellent AF tracking, which means it SHOULD see some telephoto action (OK I realize an APS-C sensor would be better). Now I'm in for big money. Somebody talk me off the ledge or tell me how you justify the duality yourself. How can anything that feels so right be wrong?

Don't forget about the Canon 1D MKIII. It is still favored by many sports photographers as is the 1D MKIIN. Actually, the 1D MKIIN is still a very sought after camera by those in the know.

The Nikon D3 and D700 are wonderful cameras to be sure, but I don't think they are necessarily the best choice if you are entrenched in Canon lenses.

An then, you haven't seen the specs for the latest Canon sports and landscape cameras ...

just buy a canon body that suits you...heck by the time you get nikon body and lenses whats the diff?

I can't imagine using two different systems side by side. The different layouts would drive me crazy.

Pick one and go with it. If the 5D isn't cutting it for you and you are tired of waiting for an upgrade, sell the canon gear and buy the glass you need for your new D700. You won't be disappointed in that camera.

Originally Posted by ziggy53 Don't forget about the Canon 1D MKIII. It is still favored by many sports photographers as is the 1D MKIIN. Actually, the 1D MKIIN is still a very sought after camera by those in the know.

Certainly, but I'm not attracted to an integrated-grip camera, partly because I feel they attract too much attention. Nice as the 1D and Ds III are, they don't have the ISO specs for what I want to do. In every other way, sure, they handle like proper pro cameras. Like I said, I need the best tool for the job, and the best tool needs to have a really respectable 3200, 6400 and higher.

Originally Posted by ziggy53 The Nikon D3 and D700 are wonderful cameras to be sure, but I don't think they are necessarily the best choice if you are entrenched in Canon lenses.

True. I also hate the thought of getting out of a Canon system. the 35mm f/1.4L and 135 f/2 make life worth living. There are other benefits outside of Canon. I think the Nikon flash system is a better system. I own 2x 580EX II and an ST-E2 and they are good quality but poorly laid out and I find I have a lot of finger trouble given how many shared buttons and menu items Canon has seen fit to foist on us. The gear works, I'm just having a moment of realization of ergonomics and how much of a difference it makes. It wasn't until I toyed with the D700 in a shop for 20 minutes did this dawn on me.

Originally Posted by ziggy53 An then, you haven't seen the specs for the latest Canon sports and landscape cameras ...

Agreed. I'm really hoping, given the hype, that they can give me what I want to stay in the system. In order of importance:

1. High ISO performance equalling or surpassing that of the D3/D700.

2. More 1D-like ergonomics. Sorry but I don't want to have to take my eye off the viewfinder as much.
As the very least, give me the ability to see my drive modes, AF modes, and WB in the VF. Having these lumped in the same neighbourhood causes me finger trouble.

3. Canon's AF updates have been glacial on the pro- and con-sumer cameras and under attack for being broken on the 1D cameras. i hope they've done some soul searching on this.

4. serious auto-ISO capability.

5. I'm almost assured an AF ON button with this update so no worries. I use * now but would love to get that back.

6. Give me more than 2 stops of metering/compensation range. 3 would be fine.

Originally Posted by Mitchell I can't imagine using two different systems side by side. The different layouts would drive me crazy.

I don't half agree. It would be a nightmare. I think I have to pick who's gestalt I prefer and love my decision. About the only upside I can see is you'd never feel the grass was greener. The downsides are tremendous.

Originally Posted by Pindy Agreed. I'm really hoping, given the hype, that they can give me what I want to stay in the system. In order of importance: 1. High ISO performance equalling or surpassing that of the D3/D700. .

Never say never, but...best of luck with that.

Originally Posted by BVardy Never say never, but...best of luck with that.

You don't sound confident!

I currently have Canon 5D and I have been a Canon user exclusively ever since I went with digital SLR in 2003. Then, this past August, I was researching a new technology for one of the projects here at work and I came across a tech-blog post with some pictures taken at a conference someplace in SF bay area. The pictures were just snapshots but the color, wide-angle and level of detail just blew me away. I checked EXIF info -- they were taken with Nikon D3 / 14-24mm f/2.8G at ISO 6400!

I could not believe how clean, colorful and crisp the pictures were. I started researching just what the heck Nikon D3 was all about and the more I read the more amazed I became. Pared with 14-24mm D3 is simply unbeatable -- Canon will not come close anytime soon, if ever.

Long story short I just bought Nikon D3 along with 14-24mm and I am blown away! Everything I read so far is true. I think I will be able to switch to shooting JPEG with this camera -- it's that good. In fact, and I am not the only one that thinks this, the JPEGs coming out of Nikon D3 are better than what you'd get by shooting RAW, unless you were using Nikon's Capture NX-2 software to convert from RAW to JPEG. Apparently Nikon's EXPEED in-camera processing module is very, very good.

Now, I have a dilemma -- do I sell my Canon gear? All of it? Keep some key lenses like the Canon EF 135mm f/2L + 24-70? These are the questions I am pondering now ... One thing is for sure I didn't want to wait for Canon to better D3/14-24mm combo -- I don't think they can do this any time soon -- just look at the latest wide angle prime they came up with -- it's no match to Nikon 14-24mm which is a ZOOM lens!

Originally Posted by cabinetbuff ... Long story short I just bought Nikon D3 along with 14-24mm and I am blown away! Everything I read so far is true. I think I will be able to switch to shooting JPEG with this camera -- it's that good. In fact, and I am not the only one that thinks this, the JPEGs coming out of Nikon D3 are better than what you'd get by shooting RAW, unless you were using Nikon's Capture NX-2 software to convert from RAW to JPEG. Apparently Nikon's EXPEED in-camera processing module is very, very good. ...

So let's see some samples, comparisons, crops and links to full res images. It's hard to match your enthusiasm without seeing what you see.

Originally Posted by ziggy53 So let's see some samples, comparisons, crops and links to full res images. It's hard to match your enthusiasm without seeing what you see.

ziggy53, I am busy walking around the house in the full darkness taking pictures of subjects I didn't find interesting before ... No time for comparison, crops, etc.. -- D3 is the ultimate point and shoot machine! I just can't stop! Every picture looks like it needs to be framed on the wall!

Here, instead I'll provide some links which I reviewed when I made my decision to go D3:

http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/NikonD3/index.html
Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III vs Nikon D3
Only two lenses for D3 - which ones?
Nikon D3 and D300
Image Quality of the D3
Nikon D3 Review (by Ken Rockwell)
The D3, D700 and Canon (by James Duncan Davidson)
D3 vs mk3: A Single Fast Comparison (by James Duncan Davidson)
Photographer Discusses His Decision To Make 'The Switch'

Great review on the Nikon Lenses:
http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/cameragear.html
[DO NOT GET 70-200! it has issues with the D3]
MORE here: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...00_2p8_vr_n15/

Another remarkable observation is the high quality of in-camera generated jpgs.
http://www.naturfotograf.com/D3/D3_rev03.html#top_page

HTH

Originally Posted by cabinetbuff I think I will be able to switch to shooting JPEG with this camera -- it's that good. In fact, and I am not the only one that thinks this, the JPEGs coming out of Nikon D3 are better than what you'd get by shooting RAW, unless you were using Nikon's Capture NX-2 software to convert from RAW to JPEG. Apparently Nikon's EXPEED in-camera processing module is very, very good.

Great to hear your story. Exactly the kind of thing I was hoping was happening to other people.

I have to say, though, JPEGs are like sending your film to the lab and RAW is developing and printing in your own darkroom. Both are valid for different reasons, but good in-camera processing isn't going to supersede RAW processing for many the fine art photographer, portraitist or anyone else who has a need to improve on the "negative". Still, that would be praise indeed for the D3's ability. Thanks for your comments. What're ya gonna do?

Originally Posted by Pindy Great to hear your story. Exactly the kind of thing I was hoping was happening to other people.

Glad to help

Originally Posted by Pindy I have to say, though, JPEGs are like sending your film to the lab and RAW is developing and printing in your own darkroom. Both are valid for different reasons, but good in-camera processing isn't going to supersede RAW processing for many the fine art photographer, portraitist or anyone else who has a need to improve on the "negative". Still, that would be praise indeed for the D3's ability. Thanks for your comments. What're ya gonna do?

After my visit to Alaska this past summer, I've come to a realization that life's just too short and there are so many places I'd rather see instead of sitting in front of my monitor doing PP. I already spent way too much time in front of computer at my job and photography is my gateway from all the dilbert crap we deal with on the daily bases. My priority now, is to find a camera that delivers 99% of what I need right out of the box so that all I have to do is upload it to my site and go on to enjoy my next destination -- I think D3 might have a shoot at it.

Originally Posted by cabinetbuff Glad to help After my visit to Alaska this past summer, I've come to a realization that life's just too short and there are so many places I'd rather see instead of sitting in front of my monitor doing PP. I already spent way too much time in front of computer at my job and photography is my gateway from all the dilbert crap we deal with on the daily bases. My priority now, is to find a camera that delivers 99% of what I need right out of the box so that all I have to do is upload it to my site and go on to enjoy my next destination -- I think D3 might have a shoot at it.

I have the d700 and I agree. There's better things to do than spend time in front of the computer when the camera can make the conversions itself.

I won't try and talk you off the ledge. I'd tell you to get the Nikon.

I shot both a D3 and 1DSmkIII on the recent Extreme Sierras trip. The Nikon was a godsend at sundown and the hour or so afterward. The 1DS makes pretty pictures too. I guess the answer is you can have both if you so desire. And it wouldn't be a bad thing either.