Switch to the dark side?
Those of you who follow my work have probably heard that I have been selling the bulk of my Canon gear recently; I plan to substitute it with Nikon gear, namely the D5 and the Nikon 600mm FL. I have received many questions, I wanted to answer some of these questions. First, obviously the news of my switching to Nikon is true.
Q: Why are you switching to Nikon now?
A. In the past 13 years, I have been exclusively shooting with Canon gear, I briefly tried Nikon gear, that is the D3s and the Nikon 500VR for a few months in 2010 and it didn’t meet my expectations. After Nikon’s latest release, the picture has changed. Nikon has gained the upper hand in the AF department for such subject as birds in flight.
Q: Is the AF the only reason? Is it that much better?
A. Yes, that’s the only reason. The Canon AF system is and has been great, it has produced many exceptional and dynamic images for me, however it does have some shortcomings. At this point, more than before, I find myself after that top 5% action frames where AF makes or breaks my day, and for this particular subject the difference is clear and measurable.
Q. When did you decide to switch?
It was mid summer last year when I tried a Nikon D5 and 600 FL briefly in SoCal when I saw the potential. I reckon that recently a number of well respected bird photographers also made the same move, but my decision followed only my own observation.
Q. Do you believe that Canon gear is inferior to Nikon?
A. Not at all, Canon continues to be a strong performer with excellent lenses such as 600mm II that is equally great with the extender 2X III and the superb 400 DO II (missing from the equivalent Nikon kit). In my opinion for general bird photography, Canon still has the upper hand with their excellent selection of lenses and extenders. Nikon excels when capturing complex action frames due to their excellent AF system.
Q. In what ways is the Nikon AF better? Is it faster?
A. It is not faster, to the contrary, I feel the servo drive in Nikon lenses is slower than that of Canon. The Nikon 600 FL far focus limit is 10m-infinity compared to 16m-infinity for the Canon EF 600m IS II, perhaps the greater travel distance is the reason why Nikon feels slower. What pushes Nikon ahead is the overall stability of the AF system and consistency in tracking the subject once the initial lock has been achieved. Canon system in contrast is is a bit unstable or “nervous” when tracking a complex subject against a varied background. For over a decade and in the course of working with many different Canon bodies, I have, rather successfully, developed a number of techniques such as late acquisition and AF bumping as well a matrix of AI-servo settings to overcome this issue (as outlined in detail in my BIF guide). However even with the perfect technique, there are still a number of shots that are going to be soft. I want to emphasize, this is not an issue for an average photographer, those who shoot perched birds or even those who have repeat opportunities at setup action. But as I mentioned, for capturing that top 5% of the shots in the wild, and when one and only one chance exists, it becomes an issue.
Q. Have you ever talked to Canon about these issues?
A. Yes, I have sent very detailed feedback to Rudy Winston at Canon, and I hope to see changes in future Canon cameras.
Q. Will there be a comparison between Nikon D5 and the Canon EOS-1DX Mark II at some point?
A. Yes, I have thought about it and I will write it up once I get to put the Nikon gear through its pace.
Q. So are you leaving Canon for good? What happens to DPP4 and the Canon BIF guides?
A. No, I am keeping one of my Canon super-telephoto lenses to try out future Canon bodies so I can keep the BIF guide up to date. I have tens of thousands of CR2 files on my computer so I will be using and updating Canon DPP as long as Canon come up with updates. Both Arthur Morris and I remain fully committed to updating and improving these guides with a new edition every year.
Q. Will there finally be guides for Nikon users too?
A. Absolutely. As I develop my in-flight and post processing techniques I will share it in my guides and here on my blog as I did with Canon. So be sure to bookmark and come back!
Hi Arash,
I whish you all the best on this important ans expensive decision.
I appreciate your work and the quality offre your shots.
Have a nice day.
Laurent
Belgium.
Hi Laurent,
Canon gear holds its value well, so by switching you don’t lose that much, at least here in the USA. One great advantage of the Canon system.
Hi Ari,
Thanks for the informative rationale here.
Can I ask if your experience so far with the Nikon system is based solely on the D5 ? Or does it also consider the AF in the D850 ?
Hi Alfred, I haven’t tested D5 against D850 to see how their AF systems differ in practice, just like Canon’s 1DX series and the 5D series, D5 and D850 share some AF hardware but that doesn’t mean the programing and the speed is the same
hi Arash,
I’m fairly new to bird photography, and like you say, BIF photography is elusive. So far, I’m invested in Canon and find everything that you and Artie say to ring true.
I’m wondering if you have any sense of when Nikon put out their new and faster AF system, and how long it was in the works. That would give me an idea how long I can expect it to take Canon to respond, or how long I have to hope they do. The alternative, is daunting, as you know. Do you sense it was evolutionary or revolutionary when they did?
Certainly I hope its a great move for you, and I look forward to great photos shortly down the line.
Hi Paul,
I think Canon AF system is fundamentally very fast and accurate it just needs to add more stability.
Nikon or Canon, it’s the last foot behind the camera body that counts. Enough said!
Good luck with the new gear. I’ve been shooting D500/200-500 alongside my Canon gear for the past 1.5 years and I agree with the AF observations you have made.
My biggest concern about a full switch to Nikon is the uncertainty of how well the 2xTC works on the f/4 primes. Every Nikon shooter I have asked is not all that happy with it on f/4 lenses, only f/2.8 ones. I use Canons 2xTC a lot on both 400DOII and 600II. I will be very interested in your findings with the Nikon 600 FL and 2xTC if you plan to use that combo. The 400DOII is also a very hard lens to give up going full on Nikon.
Looking forward to read future blog posts about your Nikon experience.
Hi Geoff, I can tell you readily that the Nikon 2X is pretty much a joke compared to the Canon 2X III and that is a serious limitation. The Nikon system tops out at 840mm for me, while the Canon can easily produce tack sharp files at 1200mm. I am not purchasing the Nikon 2X (unless someone wants to send me one for review), it’s waste of money IMO. Even the 1.7X did not seem sharp enough for me.
I have admired your work for years. Best wishes with the switch. I am a Nikon shooter who tried the 7d2 and switched back to Nikon. The D500 is the solution to the poor performance of the 2.0 tele. I have the D5, D500 and the D850. When I need the reach I use the D500 with the new 1.4 on the 600 FLE when light permits which gives me 1275MM 5.6. I can get sharp images with the D500 up to 1600 ISO considering the quality of the noise(very fine grain). For BIF I have a hard time choosing the 850 over the D5. For action the D5/D500 is great! If you would like to see a few BIF samples…drop me an email.
Thanks Ricky. Crop factor does not increase focal length however, if you crop your D850 files you get the same results as your D500. Here I explain this issue in detail http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blog/undrestanding-crop-factor/
So in short Nikon does not have a 1200mm solution. When I put a 2X on my 600 with my 5D4 it given an equivalent of 120 mega pixels compared to a Nikon D850, 600 and 1.4X that will be 91 Mega pixels, so the 5D4 combination sill has the maximum reach.
Thanks for the link Ari.Really good explanation of the “crop factor”. In my real world experience there is a point where focus aquisition becomes an issue with cropping a full frame. When I have “more” bird in the frame the camera has a better target to lock focus and therefore give me a better image. Of course others mileage may vary. Best wishes with your Nikons.
Hi Ricky that’s true about the AF coverage. But at the same time you are less likely to clip the wings with the full frame 🙂
Hi Ari,
I have all five of your guides and have found them to be very useful. Since you are moving away from Canon, what RAW converter will you be using going forward? I assume Neat Image/Photoshop will remain the same.
Wayne
Hi Wayne, I will continue to use DPP 4 for my Canon files which I have thousands of and most likely Capture One for my Nikon. I am experimenting with different software to figure out which one works best for Nikon NEF files
This is what you stated on the FM forum last August.
“I did not find the combination of the Nikon D5 with the 600FL to give more keepers than the Canon 1DXII and 600II. It is important to realize that with any camera, Nikon or Canon, if you let the camera decide and choose one of the entire AF array the AF will latch to the BG when photographing challenging BIF against any kind of varied BG, so the “3D tracking” in Nikon is just as useless as “iTR” in Canon and I don’t expect any such system to work for the type of photos I like to take. The most productive method for photographing BIF is to use the center AF expansion for either camera so that it is forced to focus where you want it to focus.
Initially the D5 seemed to hold focus better when the bird was changing direction but upon close inspection on my computer, many of those shots were not what I’d call tack sharp compared to my Canon files, they were slightly soft which makes it unacceptable to me. I also found that the Nikon couldn’t quite keep up with the bird coming at you at high speed where as the 1DXII would often nail at least a couple of those shots (e.g. below).
The Nilkon system falls apart quickly when you throw in a TC, whereas the Canon system does not care if a TC is attached, many if not most of my photographs are taken with a TC. So as a bird photographer, if I were to start today, I would again choose Canon without thinking twice but I will always keep my options open, if Nikon get’s the job done better I have no problem buying an entire Nikon system, but they are still far from there IMO”.
Have you changed your mind?
Hi Anthony,
Thanks for your post.
When I tried the D5 breifly it was not set to the right settings, as a result I didn’t realize how well it performs in group AF mode. Coming from Canon I just assumed the same rules apply. I was wrong, it turns out Nikon have figured out how to hold focus and track challenging BIF against varied BG’s in group AF that is equivalent to Canon’s zone mode. The Nikon AF gives consistently better results in this case. So I stand corrected
As for the TC’s and lenses, the statements above are true. Both Nikon 1.7X and 2X TC’s are lacking. A light-weighth high performance lens such as the Canon EF 400mm F/4 DO IS II is also lacking from Nikon’s portfolio. But at the end of the day a superior AF weighs more than all of that for my application.
Hope this helps
I still defend Canon as a great CHEAP entry into hand held BIF. Any used APS-C body in the last 6 years (eg, 60D, center-point AF-servo only), and the used and very lightweight EF 400 f/5.6L no-image stabilization lens, can get someone into hand held BIF at about $1,000.00 total today (fleaBay estimate prices).
That’s fond nostalgia speaking, there. IRL it was hard going for a while, getting the hang of BIF with the above kit. But if the cash-strapped beginner wants a taste of BIF and has patience, a lot can be learned from a primitive combo like this – including whether one wants to sink more money into the effort.
Hi Nancy,
thanks for your comments
I actually think Nikon is the best choice for BIF at a budget right now, for under $3000 you can purchase a D500 and a 200-500 and come up with some respectful results. I cannot think of a Canon combination at that price that can match the Nikon.
Please keep in mind that when I talk about bird in flight photography, I am not talking about hovering seagulls, a great blue heron flying at a steep angle agains a sky background, a duck flying away from me or an underbelly shot of an eagle flying on top of my head. This stuff you can get with any camera, even a good point and shoot with a mega zoom will do well these days. If you look at my portfolio you will see what kind of images I am talking about. I also like my images to be tack sharp and clean when I view them at 100% on my 4K screen.
It is possible but unlikely to make a photograph that meets this criteria with the Canon combination you mention, maybe one frame in a thousand…
It is hard to beat that D500 and 200-500 combo but you know that Canon see’s that challenge and must succeed or else yield that part of the market to Nikon. That combination is right for a great number of bird photographers looking to improve upon their BIF keepers. The 100-400 second generation Canon zoom is waiting for a camera, such as Nikon’s D500, to fulfill its potential. And they can do a lot of it with their current technology even before improving their camera’s tracking and focusing. They could start by removing the aliasing filter and bumping up the frame rate to 12-14 /sec, even while keeping their megapixel size around 21 on their APS bodies, as long as they add some noise reduction; such a camera will hold the line and stop the bloodletting. And it will probably significantly add to sales. In fact, much of that camera already exists in their full frame 1DXII just as much of the D500 exists in the current D5.
When it comes to the spectacular images of falcons that were achieved with the 1DXII, and the Canon prime 600 coupled with the 2X III, Canon may still have an advantage because, although the Nikon D5 and their prime 600 appear to have the tracking and focusing advantage, the weak link, for maximum reach, will be their 2X teleconverter. I don’t think those peregrines are going to come any closer to fill the frame and you don’t want to crop a 20-megapixel shot and expect it to stand up against the competition. Anyway, I’m sure we will soon see because Ari will surely try and make the case.
I agree the lack of 2X is a problem but about 10-15% of my shots with the 600II are made with with 2X (1200mm). In fact none of my peregrine shots was made with a 600 and the 2X (the birds were pretty close). I mainly used my 2XIII with 400 DOII but Nikon don’t have such lens, and thus no TC to use it with 🙂 Nikon really need to up their game and offer a pro light lens and an acceptable 2X TC (I’d even take a 1.7)
Hi Ari, i have made teh same step last year in summer and it was the same reasons.. its the constance of the af, the 5 to 10 %.
I habe also the D850 and the D5, but not the 600/4FL i own the 500/4FL and the 200-500VR.. Yo are right, the initial af from nikon ist a little bit slower than canon, nearly everytime. But that doesn`t matter, because of the things you habe allready said. The AF is very constant.. even with the (really slow 200-500VR).
And i agree with yoe in other things/thoughts:
I miss my 400/4 DO II also very much ( i own the 300/4PF VR try it, it is VERY VERY similar, but only 300mm) and in my opinion the Teleconverters from canon are better.
The 2.0 is MUCH better, the 1.4 only slightly better, but overall, Canon is here still in the lead (in my opinion). I really look forward to your experiences with the “new) nikon system and i am glad to here that you will stay tuned with your af-guide than later also for NIKON ! Greetinmgs from Germany
Eric
I really think that Canon has a good AF system. What I find strange is that so many photographers dont seem to use the cases available for diffrent circumstances. The fact that you can program Your AF to suit the situations you are in. Also i like the zone that are in 1DX2 and ecpecially in 7D2 (bigger zone)
When Im shooting With Nikon photographers I usualy get more Sharp ones than Nikon?
Hi Bjorn, using the right settings does make a difference. FYI case is just a preset permeation of the three key settings: AI-servo tracking sensitivity acceleration and AF pt switching. I talk about these in detail in my BIF guide. A skilled Canon shooter will have many more sharp frames than someone who is shooting with Nikon but without these skills. Also as I mentioned the older Nikon stuff is no good when it comes to AF.
Dear Arash. I hope that you will have much success with your new Nikon kit. Do you think, or have you heard, that there may be improvements in Canon’s sensors and AF technology in the next year or two that will make the performance of Canon’s cameras equal to or superior to that of Nikon?
Best Regards, Roma
Hi Roma,
Canon image sensors is great IMO. Many folks struggle to get to best out of their Canon camera because they use sub-par and lackluster Adobe software to convert their CR2 files. I recommend DPP4 to get the best of your canon, and I believe there is not much difference between the IQ of the 1DX MKII and the D5. Now Canon don’t have a high resolution body that can shoot at 9fps similar to the D850 but they do have the 5DSR if you want higher resolution. So I don’t think Canon need to do anything in the sensor department to win pros like myself.
As for AF, I have no idea what Canon has in the oven for future, anyone with such information will not share it on the internet. the rest is just rumor, speculation and fake news!
best
I’m still struggling with exactly how the switch to a Nikon System will better provide you with tack sharp images when you also state the 10-15% of your shots were taken using the Canon 600 and their 2X converter? You realize that the Nikon 600, coupled with their 2X converter, is not up to your standards? If you are concerned about the 5-10% that the Canon systems fail to acquire, for you, what about the 10-15% of the shots that Nikon will be unable to reproduce as well as Canon? The loss of those shots represents a greater number than what Nikon has to offer unless, of course, you use both systems and use the Nikon D5 and their 600 and alternatively switch to the 1DX2 and Canon’s 600 plus the 2X when a reach of 1200 becomes a necessity. And, as a side note, you lose the availability of the 400 DO. Canon may overcome their tracking and focusing issues faster than Nikon overcomes their teleconverter issues. One thing is for certain, in a free competitive market, solutions are often just around the corner and often associated with a plethora of choices. Thanks, for your valuable and useful analysis.
Hi Anthony,
I never said Canon AF instability is only limited to the 2X TC. Also, I am not talking about acquiring focus, I am talking about the stability of the AF once inital lock has been achieved. The instability issue is there for every Canon camera and lens combintaion, even for f/4 bare lens. In fact, Canon have struggled with delivering a stable AF for BIF for many years now. With hard work, talent, experience and some luck you can overcome some of the shortcomings as I explained, but there is no doubt in my mind the Nikon AF in D5 is superior in every measurable way. I photograph in present not in future so at any given time I would rather use the best tool for the job. No one knows whether future Canon cameras will solve this issue or not.
Hi Ari. Welcome to the dark side! I thought I might mention the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF ED VF, and my experience with this lens and BIF photography. I had serious doubts about this lens when I purchased it months ago. 1.65 lbs seemed a bit too good to be true for a 300mm(420mm f\5.6 with the 1.4x) and there had to be a catch. I usually shoot a D850 or a D810 with the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4E FL ED VR , often hand held, and nothing less than tack sharp will do. Expected a hit on IQ with the 300 f4/ PF. Didn’t see it. The AF is quick and tracked extremely well (AFC D9). Near perfect BIF lens, so light I can shoot BIFs all day without breaking a sweat, except 420 mm would seem to be a bit short in the focal length department. And it would be, except I’m shooting a D850. Those extra megapixels are making a big difference. 420mm is turning out to be far more useful than I expected.
Ari, I know you are great at math, and optics, and I do have a question for you.
Lets compare images of the same scene from two full frame cameras; the Nikon D5 with 20 MP and the Nikon D850 with 46 MP, both using the Nikkor 300 PF with the 1.4 X TC (420 mm). To make the math easier, for me at least, I’m going to say the D5 has 20 MP and the D850 40 MP. The D850 image has twice the megapixels of the D5. Now the question: If the D850 is cropped to 20 MP, wouldn’t the result be the same as if you had shot the D5 at 800 mm? Of course the subject would be half the size in the D850’s viewfinder, and that may be problematic. Nonetheless, is there a problem with my math? Is there something I’m missing? regards~William Maroldo
Hi William, the math is right, if you crop the D850 file to 20 mega pixels it will have the same field of view of a 840mm lens but the resulting image isn’t going to be the same as a 800mm f/5.6 lens on a D5. the Latter has a much larger aperture, collecting much more light and giving you a higher image quality and much shallower DOF or subject isolation from the background. There is really no way of making up for the $12000 worth of optics with the short $2000 lens.
should be 840 mm (2 x 420), not 800 mm.
Thanks for the reply Ari. What got me thinking about the dynamics of focal length and sensor megapixels was the fact that you and Arti were no longer being able to use 2X TCs with the switch to Nikon. I was wondering if this could be mitigated by using the 46 MP D850 (as opposed to the 20 MP D5) and then cropping to make up for the lost focal length. As you pointed out there are reasons that make this an unacceptable solution. Oh well, I tried! Have a good day~William
Hi William, this case is quite different.
We are not comparing comparing a short vs. a long lens. i.e. it is not the same as comparing 300 f/4 on D850 compared to 600 f/4 on D5. What you are comparing is D850 + 600 f/4 + 1.4X TC vs. Canon 1DXII + 600 f/4 + 2X TC. The physical aperture is exactly the same size and DOF is exactly the same too (840mm f/5.6 vs. 1200mm f/8). To get the same FOV you need to crop the D850 image by 2X or 1.4X in each direction. Which will contains ~ 23 mega pixels. This area of the sensors collects exactly the same amount of light as the entire 1DXII sensor with the mentioned lens + RC combination. Therefore, the images a re practically similar. The larger pixels of the 1DXII sensor have better DR and deliver an overall higher IQ at higher ISO’s but the differences are muted compared to your first example. These differences will be minute compared to the benefit of an overall better AF system.
Hope this helps
Ari Thanks so much for the thorough explanation! Since I have already topped out at 840 mm (D850,600 f/4, 1.4x TX), I was more interested in whether you were going to stick with the D5 or add a D850 to your arsenal. As far as I can tell the D5 has an edge in AF.
Besides Canon and Nikon, have you considered the new Sony ar III? AF is awesome in that camera and you’d be able to use all your canon lenses. If you have already used the camera, it would be great to get your opinion on it.
Thanks.
Hi Jess, Yes I have, the AF of the Sony is a joke IMO when it comes to type of BIF photography that I specialize in. Not to mention lack of native super telephoto lenses. The AF with any kind of adaptor is very slow and not up to my standards. But I am not a causal shooter I push everything to its limit and take only the best.
best
I have been using the D500 and the 200-500 while my friend, an experienced Canon user, used his 5D IV and my 500 f4 II with the 2X III converter and he appears to acquire more EXCEPTIONAL (BIF) keepers than I do. Although I have not yet used either the 500 or 600 Nikon with either the D850 or D5 I’m getting this feeling that when it comes to super-telephoto lenses and couplers Canon may have an advantage. I think it relates to the converters. Such combinations are infrequently used by the majority of birders but it would be nice to see the 1DXII coupled with a 500 or 600 and 2X converter pitted against a D5 or D850 and a similar combination for BIF. As you know Canon still has some lenses that are not duplicated on the Nikon side. The 400 f4 DO is one of them.
I’m moving towards Nikon but I plan to keep the 500 f4 along with my 5D IV and may acquire a 1DX II as well. When it comes to super-telephoto shooting I’m hoping someone, besides me, can make the comparisons before I make the additional purchases. Mark Morris already gave up his Canon bodies and super-telephoto combinations. It sure would have been nice if he kept them for a while and compared them with the Nikon’s he currently owns. I have no plans to purchase a 600 f4 because of the size and weight which overwhelms any disadvantages the loss of 100 mm associated with the 500 f4 commits to but I will purchase the D850 and will only get the Nikon 500 f4 when I’m certain it will hold focus and track better than the Canon when the reach is needed.
One other thing. I have the DDP 4.4 Guide. I take it that Nikon software is not on a par with Canon’s because you seem to be leaning towards Capture One.
Thanks for any comments regarding these concerns.
Hi Anthony, A) you cannot cross-compare BIF results among different photographers because the skill of the photographer behind the camera is the deciding factor in that case. B) I have the Nikon 200-500 as well, it’s a good lens for the asking price but it is a cheap lens and as expected it doesn’t hold a candle against a super telephoto lens. It’s almost comical to compare this Chinese made $1300 lens against a $12000 super telephoto lenses such as the Canon or Nikon 600 prime. The 200-500 will not get you far if you are interested in exceptional BIF photos.
BTW, the difference between a 600mm and 500mm lens is quite significant, magnification being proportional to the focal length square i.e. the 600 gives you 45% larger image than the 500. It’s huge
Best
Good luck
I appreciate your quick reply.
Yes, the magnification increase is 44% (11/25) but the weight and size along with my age and the hiking I need to get to places others don’t travel to is pushing me towards the 400 DO with extenders using the 1DXII. Since there is no equivalent lens in the Nikon world what is the point of getting the D5, even if I don’t get the ultimate in focus tracking when I have to suffer to get to where I want to be and also lack the tripod when I get there? I’m not Ansel Adams. One thing you emphasize is that choices are made based on what you wish to achieve along with what you can achieve. I’ll wait on the D5 until Nikon has a telephoto as light and as sharp as 400 DO with extenders that match. Also, 12-14 frames/sec. gives me quite a lot of choices when it comes to keepers.
I agree Nikon currently do not have a lens like the excellent 400 DO if size and weight are a major concern and being out there taking photos is much better than having the best gear sitting in the closet!
cheers
Ari,
This website has some great articles. I have read many of them several times regarding Canon equipment and how you use it. However, if you did not mention switching to the dark side I would never have known about it since there are yet no similar articles regarding any Nikon equipment and use. Can you prognosticate a little as to when we may experience your insight?
Hi Anthony, Nikon articles are coming soon after I get a chance to put the new gear through its pace in the field
If Canon releases the 600mm DO F4, it may help to close the AF gap with Nikon. Keeper rate is greatly affected by the manageability of a lens and the EF 600mm F4 IS II is pushing my limits.
Three years ago, I handled a prototype of the 600mm DO. The fact that Canon has filed several DO patents lately indicates a continuing commitment to the technology.
Nikon’s announced 600mm F5.6 may be a super lense.
Hi Doug, unfortunately that will not change the picture regarding AF, the Canon 400 DO II is readily a super light lens making it very easy to keep the subject perfectly centered, the instability is in the AF hardware itself.
Point taken Ari.
Nikon’s keeper rate benefits from a more stable AF. Canon’s keeper rate could benefit from a more precise handling camera/lens combination (assuming a 600mm DO is ever produced). Wouldn’t most photographers be more successful maintaining focus points on a BIF while hand-holding a 400 DO vs a 400 F2.8?
Hi Doug, the issue with Canon AF is that even when the focus point is on the subject the instability in the AF can cause soft images and inconsistent results for those who shoot the most challenging subjects, this is true even if the lens weighed nothing and the bird was dead center.
Got it. Thanks for the explanation, Ari.
ARi,
I look at your slides and I look at your guides. So far nothing written or displayed for Nikons other than the fact that you prefer them for BIF. I’m still buying Canon gear, such as the my recently purchased 400 f4 DO, because the setup for the 5D Mark 4 and the 1 D Mark 2 gives enough great photos for BIF plus provides ergonomic advantages and shows no disadvantages for birds not in flight. Canon may catch up with their cameras before you get to give us some detailed Nikon camera input and guides for rendering raw files.
I don’t mean to be aggressively impatient but if I did not respect your work and intelligence what would be the point of writing this? My objective is to move forward with Nikon purchases based upon the input of people whose opinions and work I admire and respect.
For the record I unloaded my 5DRS. Great camera but not for birds. The keeper rate is poor and when you get what is acceptable, for practical purposes, the megapixel advantage is not so appreciated as to warrant the ISO constraints, slow speed and small buffer.
Hi Anthony,
I am working on it 🙂
stay tuned
Your guide on photograping BIF was great. I read it all in one shot and got a lot out of it. Since it referenced specific Canon camera settings it is very useful. That is if you are a Canon user. If it wasn’t so good, in this regard, I would be more inclined to be patient regarding your switching to the Nikon format. I suspect you are going to make a great case forNikon. That’s ok but it sure makes me wonder if it is worth the intellectual effort to continue to learn what is essentially Canon oriented. Consequently, the sooner your Nikon thoughts arrive in printed form the easier it will be to make the choice to switch over from Canon to Nikon or not to.
Thanks
Your guide on photographing BIF was great. I read it all in one shot and got a lot out of it. Since it referenced specific Canon camera settings it is very useful. That is if you are a Canon user. If it wasn’t so good, in this regard, I would be more inclined to be patient regarding your switching to the Nikon format. I suspect you are going to make a great case for Nikon. That’s ok but it sure makes me wonder if it is worth the intellectual effort to continue to learn what is essentially Canon oriented. Consequently, the sooner your Nikon thoughts arrive in printed form the easier it will be to make the choice to switch over from Canon to Nikon or not to.
Thanks
Hi Ari,
Just seeing if you were still working on this? Like lots of others, interested to see your perspective/written review.
Thanks!
Mike
yes work in progress!
Thanks for writing a guide for C1P for Nikon users. I just purchased the guide from BAA. One question I have…in the guide do you go through the process of how to import images into C1P that were previously imported to the computer through another software? I have not found that information. Thanks for your help. The guide is a welcome addition to my use of Capture One Pro.
Hi Judy, thanks for your comments. In C1P click on the import button, then click browse and point to the folder where the images are to import them to the current catalog. if you just want to edit these files just use the file browser to go to the folder and directly edit them without importing. hope this helps
Thank you for a quick reply! If I only want to edit in C1P, do I need to start a session? Or just do as you say and begin editing? This information will at least help me go further in your guide.
no need to start a new session, just browse to the folder where your files are