my gear
cameras | lenses | flashes | accessories | Quantum | video light | Think Tank
.
I use both the Canon and Nikon systems, although at the moment I primarily use Nikon for my professional shoots, based on the D3 and D700 bodies.
Nikon:
Nikon D3 digital camera
Let me be say this up front – the Nikon D3 is the most exhilirating camera I have ever used. The image quality is incredible too.
Nikon D700 digital camera
This camera offers all the sweet image quality of the D3 at a more afforable price, in a camera body only slightly larger than the D300. With a fantastic feature set, and with image quality equal to that of the D3, the D700 will be a camera that many professional photographers will chose as their main camera.
Nikon D300s digital camera
This camera (which improves on the the highly-regarded Nikon D300), is such a great alternative to the top-rated Nikon D3, offering many of the same features at a more afforable price, that it will be a popular camera.
.
.
.
Canon:
.
Canon 1D mkIII digital camera
These cameras are sturdy reliable workhorses with incredible spec. At 10 megapixels with excellent high-iso performance, the image quality is outstanding. And with amazing responsiveness and 10 frames-a-second and a huge buffer, they react when I need them to.
.
Canon 5D digital camera
For my back-up camera, and for times when I need more resolution than the Canon 1D mkIII offers, I use the Canon 5D body.
.
.
I am in the process of purchasing two camera bodies, lenses and flashes.
I would love more insight into the lower res. but higher priced Canon ID Mark III vs. the 5D Mark II. What is the benefit to the lower res. camera? I see that it has dual card slotsand faster fps. Are those the major selling points of the Mark III?
It seems that you are in favor, at this point, of going with a Nikon system, yes?
I don’t really have other equipment that is high quality enough to inform my new equipment purchase. In essence, I’m starting from scratch.
Comment by Lisa R — August 12, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
Comment by Neil — August 29, 2009 @ 2:56 am
Hi!!!
In the beginning I want to say that Your Blog is the great source of learning for me and I admire your work. Thanks for it.
As You have great knowledge of photo gear, You might be able to explain me this strange phenomen:
It is said that full-frame cameras are so much more expensive than cropped-sensor-size cameras, because of the cost of production of FF sensor. This statement i read couple of times in different sources.
Phisycally, FF sensor is about 2x larger than APS-C, what logically can double its price and therefore produce entry-level-body-FF-sensor-camera for only a little more money than cropped-sensor-camera. We can even take away higher cost of miniaturization, certainly involved in packing 12 or so megapixels in a smaller sensor. Where is the catch? Is there any?
Of course, FF cameras are designed for the Pros, so they have excellent specification and build quality, what makes their price. But what stops the producers from making cheap FF cameras? And why anyone at all had the idea of making DSLRs with smaller sensor than film? Is it another conspiracy theory if I say that this was done to divide the market and make the people pay a lot of money for quality that should be available for much less? Any idea how to explain it?
P.S. I hope my English is understandable :) if not, ignore me :)))
Comment by Pawel — December 9, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
Comment by Neil — December 11, 2009 @ 2:10 am
Neil,
Any plans to offer updates here for the 1D MkIV and the D3s? Would love to know whether you’re still a Nikon man with the new Canon now out.
Martin
Comment by Martin Doyle — January 29, 2010 @ 4:40 pm
Comment by Neil — January 29, 2010 @ 6:40 pm
Thanks, Neil.
I hadn’t seen that comment. Makes a lot of sense though.
Martin
Comment by Martin Doyle — January 29, 2010 @ 7:05 pm