Messages

1

EOS Bodies / Re: Bye Canon?

« on: April 30, 2013, 01:32:59 AM »

I switched to Nikon about 8 months ago and I'm still loving it.  I left for the image quality... and I haven't been disappointed by my D600.

One thing that I didn't expect to love?  The lenses.  I had always heard about the legendary Canon lenses... and I really thought that I would miss them (especially my 70-200 f/4 IS L)... but that's not what happened.

I bought the D600 with the 50mm f/1.8... that is a SPECTACULAR lens.  So sharp.  So fast and accurate to focus.  Just beautiful bokeh - and CHEAP!

From there I sprang for my workhorse lens: 24-70 f/2.8G... sharp from corner to corner... unbelievably fast to focus... and incredible color rendition.

Lately - I just picked up a refurbished 70-300 for $350.  I can't believe how great that lens is (especially for the price!).  I wasn't expecting the AF to be up to tracking subjects... but actually it does just as well (sometimes better) as my 70-200 f/4 did with my 7D!  Sure, it's not as sharp as my 70-200, but the IQ of the D600 more than makes up for it.

So?  What do I miss about Canon?  CANONRUMORS! ;-)

Seriously - I've just not been able to find another community that is as good as CanonRumors.  NikonRumors is ok for rumors (although it doesn't get updated often enough) but the community is not great... quite a lot more amateurs and certainly not the great technical exchange that happens here on CR.

So if you're thinking of jumping ship... do it for the IQ and don't look back (other than back to CR ;-)

I'm in same boat, and actually went to Nikon for D800's DR and IQ, and for their UWA lenses -- of which I own the 16-35VR. Coming from the 5d2, 17-40L, 35L, and a few others (100mm Macro non-IS) I knew that all those would be covered. But seriously, I've never heard Canon had BETTER lens offerings...simply just more of a choice. That's drastically changed over the past 4-5 years with all of the new 1.8AF primes and 4.0VR zooms. I love both companies, and I have lots of nostalgic memories with my 40d, Rebel XS, and 5d2. Also, my 35L was a stunner. I loved that glass...wow, the colors and character. Even the build was beautiful. Each company has its own flavor and I agree -- CanonRumors is the best un-official corporate company website. Lots more bickering and negativity at times -- which can be blamed on 2-3X the number of members as other boards.

Don't trash Nikon, Sony, Leica, etc... they all have great offerings. Peace out. And BTW, the 70-300VR is a wonderful lens!! I have the 50 & 85/1.8G as well and they are phenoms. The 35L is still better than the 35/1.4G

2

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Crazy... go Nikon?

« on: March 18, 2013, 04:18:02 PM »

I switched completely over to Nikon because of shadow noise and both the 16-35VR and 14-24mm. I own the 16-35 but have used the 14-24 several times. 14mm is WIDE, and not needed much. The 16-35 is much, much better than the 17-40L that i formerly owned.

You can't go wrong with Canon or Nikon. It all depends on your needs. I know the AF of the D800 (I have it) is astounding. Can't comment on the 5d3, but I'm sure it's equal or better. To me it's all about which lenses you need. If I shot a lot of telephoto, it'd be Canon for price/performance/availability. As such, with wide angles it's mostly Nikon with the advantage. And forget manual focus primes for all but the most static of situations. AF zooms are much more useful, even if they're "NOT QUITE" as sharp.

3

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: I just finished comparing my old 1Ds MkII (mark two!) and the new 5D MkIII

« on: February 05, 2013, 09:55:43 PM »

I haven't been on here in a while, and honestly I went to the "other" brand. But I'm still a big fan of Canon.

Anyway, I'll say that for one, your test is not very scientific. I would use more lenses and scenarios to compare. If you compare a 5d classic RAW file to a 5d3 RAW at base ISO, it's likely the resolving power will be negligible at best. The major innovations in sensor technology happened years ago -- CMOS sensor.

What we see now are different algorithms in processing, as well as some *slight* changes in sensor design that allow for lower temperatures and other variables to achieve less noise. We're splitting hairs these days. What you do get in newer DSLRs are faster FPS, better ISO performance, better weather sealing, better LCD screens, etc. Don't expect too much -- except large drops in value as the newest model is released. Which is the reason I dumped my 5d2. the Mark 3 had nearly the same IQ, according to reviews. I didn't need FPS, AF points, etc. as a landscape guy.

 I'll even go on the record as saying my D800 does not significantly out-resolve my former 5d2.  The shadows are much cleaner, however, and RAW files are probably better...uhh....programmed? Outta my league there!! But the 14-24 (I don't own one) and 16-35VR (I do own one) are the reasons I switched from the 5d2 and 17-40L (which I used to own). And all of the newer, highly economical F/1.8 primes they have released. 

4

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG HSM First Impressions

« on: November 22, 2012, 03:54:59 PM »

I had the 35L. simply amazing lens!! If price was near equal, why buy Sigma? I'm not put off by 3rd party glass, a I love Tokina and some Tammys I've owned. I would try to get a used copy for about 700 or so once plenty are in the market....assuming the lens is as good as advertised.

5

EOS Bodies / Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!

« on: October 25, 2012, 01:35:29 PM »

Have a look at some actual Adams prints.

First, of course, they're marvelous -- absolutely fantastic works of art.

But, second...you can get at least comparable and often better sharpness and image quality with today's high-end DSLRs.

Heresy, I know -- to suggest that puny 135 format might be better than Ansel Adams's legendary 8x10 view camera. But today's lenses are far superior to the ones he had access to, and digital sensors are far superior to his film emulsions.

So, yeah. When I can make prints with my 22 megapickle 5DIII that are technically (though not, to be certain, artistically) superior to what Adams did, I've got plenty of resolution.

More would be absolutely loverly, of course -- especially since I do some fine art giclée reproduction work. Hell, I'd drool over an 8x10 camera with the pixel density of a digicam, the dynamic range of a Nikon, and the rendering quality of a Canon.

But that doesn't mean that what I have isn't already enough.

Cheers,

b&

Not quite sure about that. I know that more MP always enables final product to have higher resolution. The old fallacy about lens outresolving sensors, or vice versa is just plain lame. Ansel Adams used small apertures, and quite frankly I've ALWAYS HEARD that medium/large format lenses are much more superior to 35mm. Even if they are 70-80 years old in technology, large format film has a TON of detail.

This being said, 22MP should be enough. Depends on your printing needs. I have the D800 and am nowhere near maxing out its potential. 36MP vs. 22MP is mostly noticeable on print sizes 24 X 36" as well as in cropping. Comparing my former 5d2 images to the D800 does not yield much, if any, differences in visible resolution.

6

Canon General / Re: How do you sell your gear?

« on: October 08, 2012, 12:29:55 PM »

Amazon is an excellent choice for dumping gear at higher prices .... but be prepared to be bent over and violated with their commission structure (9%). Fred Miranda is a very liquid market IF you have some feedback. Otherwise, the guys on the forums tend to not trust anyone. i can't blame them with all the scams going on

7

Canon General / Re: How come Canon never responds to anything?

« on: October 08, 2012, 12:27:27 PM »

Easy -- it would infuriate the 5d3 adopters. Plain and simple. I wasn't aware the d600 had the same sensor as the d4/d800/d3x. Even at 24Mp, it's well known that the d600 sensor is a newer (and better) sensor than the d3x.

Those of you who need all that the 5d2 or 5d3 offers will buy it. Besides, the 5d2 should ultimately still prove to be the better overall dslr than the 6d. I'm Nikon shooter now (having owned the 5d2) but miss much of Canon's system -- like the 35L, 100mm macro, etc. Canon will convince me to buy into their system again as well....it just may be years down the road. I know this is pointless -- but I wanted to state that their TELEPHOTO lens selection is simply unparalleled. This is why they OWN the sports photography market. As far as landscapes....they are still very good. It's a tough time for Canon right now, but i DO HOPE they pull out of this "slump", if you will.

8

EOS Bodies / Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon

« on: September 22, 2012, 03:14:34 PM »

It was never my intention to tell people to "shut up". I enjoy honest, objective reviews as well. What swayed me towards Canon to begin with?? Well, their prime lens lineup that NIKON did NOT HAVE! Specifically, i bought the 35L and 5d2 ($4,000 investment) as my first FF offering. My first digital camera was a powershot S30 from 2002. In fact, it's the only digital camera I haven't sold. I love it, and even at 10 yrs old and with 3MP it puts out beautiful images!! These are all the DSLRs I've owned: 40d, Rebel XS, D70, D80, 7d, D700, 5d2, and currently D800. Whew! I always liked Canon's colors straight out of the camera; in fact, they still have best colors in the world IMHO.

I had the 28-135 IS from my 40d days. It was my first IS lens, and an excellent value as long as you use it under 100mm. I've had the 100/2.8 (non-L), 35L, 70-300IS (non-L), 17-40L, Tokina 12-24/4.0 (1st version and awesome glass!!), 35-70/3.5-4.5(great value!!), 28-105, 10-22mm, 18-55 IS (sleeper kit lens), and 50/1.8 Mk 1 (still own and haven't sold yet if anyone is interested PM me!). I feel qualified to state an opinion. I love both systems, and in an ideal world would still OWN BOTH SYSTEMS. I miss my 40D which I learned primarily with. I miss me 35L, and my 5d2 has given me some jaw-dropping images! Nikon has stepped up their prime lens selection as I've said. These are the FF lenses that Nikon has put out in the last 4 years: 28/1.8, 85/1.8, 35/1.4, 24/1.4, 85/1.4, 50/1.4, 50/1.8. Seven (7) very good - excellent prime lens offerings in the same amount of time Canon has really only introduced one: the excellent 40/2.8. Not a new 50mm. Not a new affordable 85mm. Not a new 28mm. I'll let them slide on an improved 35L because the current one is a DIAMOND!!!

When Nikon announced the 16-35VR, 24-120VR, 24/1.4, and 35/1.4 there were less reasons to stay with Canon. For my style, I use mostly landscape lenses and kept waiting on Canon to announce something newer, something better. I don't need 36MP, and frankly I may "downgrade" to the D600 and pocket the difference. But I'm eagerly awaiting my 16-35VR!! In the future, I'll probably pick up a used 7d and a 70-300L or 300/4.0 IS. Nobody needs to be so brand-loyal that they make compromises. I love both systems, and pick what is best for your style of shooting. If you like shorter primes or UWA, I seriously think Nikon is the better option. If you like telephoto zooms or telephoto primes (135L, 200/2.8L, 300/4.0) Canon rules the roost -- no questions asked.

If you want higher, cleaner ISO and faster buffer/frame rates, then Canon is better. If you shoot landscapes (me, me, me) and need cleaner, artifact-free images Nikon CURRENTLY is the better option. For portraits/wedding, either is as good as the other. I like the fact that Canon has so many more used lens options on Ebay. Happy shooting and sorry if i offended anyone.

9

EOS Bodies / Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon

« on: September 22, 2012, 01:51:18 AM »

I'm a former 5d2 owner, and these comments/arguments crack me the hell up. I love this site, but there are TOO MANY FOLKS on here compared to NikonRumors. You know why? Canon loyalists are too frustrated fighting amongst themselves.

For the record, I own the D800 and have none of the left AF/greenish-LCD problems that are overblown. It's FAR from perfect, as well, and frankly I really miss the sheer simplicity of the 5d2. That said, Nikon's UWA lenses are far better and that was my reason for switching. I tried out the D600 at Best Buy today for a long, long time. It's a extremely good DSLR. I wish I'd waited on it and saved myself about $850. Is it 90% of 5d3? I don't even know what in the holy hell that means. It is PHENOMENAL for $2,099!!!! That, my friends, is a fact.

Now let's move on to lenses: We can say the new 24-70/2.8 II is $400-500 more expensive than Nikon's equivalent. But it's also a better lens. So people, to be honest we have to play fair. The 24-120/4.0 VR is every but as good as the 24-105, only...well....it's a better, newer lens. That's why it's higher. Because it covers more range and screw Ken Rockwell. I know that's where most of you people get your info. The reason the following lens from Nikon are MORE EXPENSIVE is because they are NEWER AND BETTER GLASS than Canon's equivalent:

Nikon 50/1.4g or 50/1.8g (VERY GOOD BTW)
85/1.8g (very good BTW)
28/1.8g (very good BTW)
24/1.4g (amazing BTW)
16-35/4.0vr (amazing BTW)

--Nikon will make a 70-200/4.0VR eventually, just like Canon will make a very good UWA eventually. I had the 17-40L, and while good....it was soft in the corners and had other issues. It's funny how no one mentions the very solid Nikon 28-300VR that sells for about $800-900 used. What does Canon's cost???

Be real and enjoy what you own. Don't let these childish squabbles get in the way of enjoying your camera.

10

EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixels Coming Soon? [CR1]

« on: August 06, 2012, 11:12:31 AM »

Guys, I own the D800 and am a FORMER OWNER of the 5d2. What the extra MPs has meant for me:

1) Better IQ
2) Better technique required b/c of hand-holding issues
3) Better ability to crop
4) Better DR and really, better high ISO performance (vs. the 5d2)
5) Ridiculously large files
6) Average FPS but with Nikon's awesome AF it's a wash
7) Slower write times when shooting burst of images

--I love the D800, just as I loved the 5d2. IF the 5d3 had been cheaper AND fixed the banding-- it would've been choice #1 by a slim margin. I wasn't married to Canon, but getting rid of my 35/1.4L felt like a painful divorce. BTW, I will not be replacing it with the 35/1.4 af-s. I may opt for the 28/1.8 ($1,000 cheaper and painfully sharp)

I only wanted D800 for landscape shooting--which is my forte, and honestly Nikon has the UWA lens advantages for now. Canon really disappointed me with the 5d3 specs, as I felt certain that they could have done better with price and banding issues. MP count of 22 would've been alright, also.

Canon needs to improve its sensor design to accommodate increased read noise from more resolution. I know I will eventually buy into the Canon system again because, as a whole, it is more robust (and arguably better) than nikon. I'll always be a Canon fan, but Nikon made the DSLR I wanted this generation. Happy shooting to all

11

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Next Full Frame Camera [CR2]

« on: July 17, 2012, 02:54:32 PM »

Hey, enough with all the damned name-calling on here. Can't we all get along 

I think the Canon rumored budget FF will be around $2,000 - 2,500. Lotta wiggle room there. The 5d3 can be had for just over $3,000 all over Ebay. Still, I don't feel like it should retail for even $3,000 given that the 5d2 was $2699, right? I feel like replacement models should hold basically the same price point. Look at cars for example. A 2000 model Honda Accord is essentially the same price as a 2012 model. Perhaps $1,500-2,500 more, but that's only about 10% inflation in 12 years!!

12

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?

« on: July 17, 2012, 02:49:20 PM »

What to do? What to do? Recently sold my  5d2 and waiting on next announcement from Nikon or Canon. Have a D800 set to arrive in the next week. Beautiful DSLR. going with the Nikon 16-35vR or Tokina 16-28 if I keep that camera.

I needed high MP like poster who uploaded Castle or whatever that amazing building was. Still, I am almost intent on sending back the D800 once it arrives. Too late to cancel right now. Anyway, only the higher useable ISO of the 5d3 are of interest to me over the D800. Well, and build quality supposedly on par with Nikon's offering.

I would hope the low iso files of the 5d3 are noticeably cleaner than 5d2. The JPEG engine on Canons are generally superior to Nikon (I should know -- I've owned the Nikon D70, D80, D700, and D7k,  Canon 40d  Rebel XS, and 5d2). Canons also meter better. Yes, with its more simplistic metering my Canons produce scary good exposure results. And finally, Canons are generally more user friendly. The final statement I want to make is this: why did Canon only allow 5d3 users to choose between highlight tone priority OR shadow optimizer? Weird choice to force you to choose one or the other.....to me it is, at least.

13

EOS Bodies / Re: Would you buy a new full frame camera for $1999 with the 5D Mark III sensor?

« on: July 17, 2012, 03:46:53 AM »

I probably would if I decide to stick with Canon. sold my 5d2 for $1825, so feel like i got a great return on investment. Paid $700 to use it for two years.

I am sitting and waiting, but not so much on this new canon full-frame that we all damn well know WILL NOT be released this year. Absurd of anyone to think differently. No, I'm more waiting to see what the D600 offers and how this may further drive Canon's market share (and price of 5d3) down even more. I really want to stay Canon, having only sold my 5d2 (but I'm without camera for the time being). My lenses are sitting around doing zilch, but my Nikon glass hasn't been used in nearly a year either. I wish the 5d3 would drop further to $2,799. It'd be here sleeping in the bed beside me for that much. I did buy a D800 and resold immediately for nice little profit.

Even though I didn't take any pictures, I took it out and held it. Amazing camera, nice nice quality. My 5d2 felt like a cheap date comparatively speaking. Two worlds apart. If the 5d3 is more d800 and less 5d2, it may be the one for me. Yes, the low ISO file "banding" inherent in Canon sensors bothers the hell out of me. But I love their system, ease of use, and consistent metering. Also, the 24-105 & 70-200 4.0 IS are reasons by themselves to stay. See attached for IQ of 5d2 + 70-200 IS

14

EOS Bodies / Re: 2023: a look into Canon's flagship body

« on: July 17, 2012, 03:25:39 AM »

I actually think glass will make leaps and bounds in improvements in 10 years. As tech improves, glass has gotten better anti-reflective, anti-CA, etc. There will actually be zoom lenses with ZERO (less than 0.01%) distortion and extremely high (or mathematically perfect) sharpness wide open, corner-to-corner. As in, optimal sharpness wide open. Only depth of field changes as you stop down. 

Video past 4k will be standard, memory will be cheap as chips, and FPS on both video and stills shooting will be absurd. The 3D/4D realm will be utilized to create holographic images, but only in the flagship models. It's hard for me to believe the SLR as we know it will be largely unchanged. Of course, EVFs will be standard. But, will there still be a mirror? Will the shutter become replaced (or start getting fazed out) in lieu of a different technology.

Finally, AF will be more concentrated on eye movement as opposed to what the camera WANTS to focus on. The Canon flagship model, whatever the name or technology, will sell for $10-15k. You'll always have budget lines, of course. Resolution will be around 60-65 MP, but the sensor technology will be completely different. They are working on the successor to CMOS as we speak. It will be tested in a few years, implemented in commercial products, and flow down to us. Some cameras will be multimedia devices as tablets are now. the future brings much promise, but also holds many uncertainties...you are now entering the TWILIGHT ZONE. Nun na nun na nun na

15

Lenses / Re: Why is the 24-70 MK1 price so high.

« on: July 08, 2012, 01:49:48 PM »

Surprising how high that lens has always been. Had two copies at two different times. Overrated. Great contrast and delicious colors, but sharpness not near level of say, 70-200/4 IS