« on: March 15, 2012, 04:34:09 AM »
But it's funny, because when my jaw drops at an amazing image in the galleries on fredmiranda.com, I don't start drilling down to the pixel level to figure out why. I think, "Amazing light, great composition, outstanding quality." I don't think, "Oh, that must have been taken by Nikon or Canon" but instead, "Why is that photographer so much better than I am?"
Precisely. I just don't see either of these bodies giving their handlers a big enough edge over the other where the tech specs would be what separates a mediocre image from a great image.
For all the "switchers" out there (or pretend switchers), I can't fathom that you would dump your glass and familiarity with a UI to make a change from Canon to Nikon (or vice-versa), when both tools look to by quite exceptional.
I'm guilty of this myself, as I pre-ordered a D800 when the rumor mill was swirling with some very underwhelming 5DIII specs. Then Canon shocked me by putting a near-1Dx caliber AF system and a 6 FPS burst rate in the 5DIII, addressing my two biggest gripes with the 5DII. The dual card slots, weather sealing, and improved ISO are just icing on the cake. Before the 5DIII was announced, I thought the D800 would blow it out of the weeds. However, after seeing some real sample pics between the two, the difference in IQ between them is so insignificant for my shooting needs that I'm reconsidering my plans to test both bodies out side by side, and may just cancel my D800 order outright. My 5DIII pre-order is probably going to show up on my doorstep first anyway
For this round of the mid-range DSLR war, I'll concede that Nikon appears to have delivered the overall winner. Even so, the D800's advantages aren't that substantial for my style of shooting and Nikon hasn't distanced itself enough from Canon to put up with the hassle of switching systems,