Is canon going to come back?

[neuroanatomist]

I can understand that you guys dont get my view on lenses. If i go the nikon way i´ll get the 20-35, 35-70 or 28-70 and the 70-200ed (the first "normal" non pull push) which all are lenses that arent the best but also far from worst.

Maybe i didnt express right in this point. I love good glass but i just think you always need the newest and very best.

This will likely fall on deaf eyes, but honestly, if you're considering jumping to Nikon for the sensor advantages, but you're going to use old lenses on the new Nikon body, why bother?  The point I think we're making is that you will probably see no meaningful differences in your IQ with the Nikon setup you propose acquiring, compared to the Canon setup you propose abandoning.   You'd be better off spending the money on better Canon lenses.

it's like debating which motorcycle jacket is better protection, and then refusing to wear a helmet.  what's the point?

Well, if you're comparing the red stripe vs. the yellow stripe...

 

I know which one I think looks better...   

[leolol]

Yeah i actually like old glass and prefer it to some of the new ones. not because of price just because of build quality.

[PackLight]

Yeah i actually like old glass and prefer it to some of the new ones. not because of price just because of build quality.

I hear you.
I have a collection of 78's that are ancient now and still playable.
But they really don't work very well when I try and play them on a CD player.

[leolol]

The only one of the three which sint that great is the 20-35. The other ones handle well on high MP bodies, at least the internet says that.

[Dylan777]

I can understand that you guys dont get my view on lenses. If i go the nikon way i´ll get the 20-35, 35-70 or 28-70 and the 70-200ed (the first "normal" non pull push) which all are lenses that arent the best but also far from worst.

Maybe i didnt express right in this point. I love good glass but i just think you always need the newest and very best.

This will likely fall on deaf eyes, but honestly, if you're considering jumping to Nikon for the sensor advantages, but you're going to use old lenses on the new Nikon body, why bother?  The point I think we're making is that you will probably see no meaningful differences in your IQ with the Nikon setup you propose acquiring, compared to the Canon setup you propose abandoning.   You'd be better off spending the money on better Canon lenses.

it's like debating which motorcycle jacket is better protection, and then refusing to wear a helmet.  what's the point?

Well, if you're comparing the red stripe vs. the yellow stripe...



I know which one I think looks better...   

I'll take the "RED"

[leolol]

Nope, 20-35 2.8 from nikon more like that  http://www.bythom.com/2035lens.htm

and thanks for deleting your post.

[kubelik]

Well, if you're comparing the red stripe vs. the yellow stripe...

both will look equally ugly after a high side which of course I wish upon nobody

but yes, I'd much rather take red jacket with me on the rear seatpad.  actually, I don't think yellow jacket would get the invite, ever.

[Rob Wiebe]

LAst years data but ....



 

from Petapixel

[RLPhoto]

The 5D3 is a better overall package because of these things.

1. AF superiority
2. Better video functions and controls
3. Better ergonomics. The d800 is a step back from the d700.
4. Silent shutter is whisper quiet.
5. In-camera RAW processing which is great for photo booths.
6. Small, medium and full RAW settings
7. 6 frames per second shooting
8. Simplified menu system
9. Double exposure. (Not sure if the d800 has this)
10. Shares all the battery's from the semi-pro lineup.

These are practical things that make the 5D3 a better overall camera body.

[Jay Khaos]

The 5D3 is a better overall package because of these things.

1. AF superiority
2. Better video functions and controls
3. Better ergonomics. The d800 is a step back from the d700.
4. Silent shutter is whisper quiet.
5. In-camera RAW processing which is great for photo booths.
6. Small, medium and full RAW settings
7. 6 frames per second shooting
8. Simplified menu system
9. Double exposure. (Not sure if the d800 has this)
10. Shares all the battery's from the semi-pro lineup.

These are practical things that make the 5D3 a better overall camera body.

11. Canon

[dtaylor]

it sure is the better general use camera but: i am doing stock, portrait, landscape stuff and the occasional low light event. And most of those are parts where the d800 shines and honestly destroys the 5d3. and it´s nearly the same price as a 6D.

I see one part where the D800 is clearly better, if you regularly produce large (i.e. >30") prints, and that's landscape.

I'm one of the people who complained when these cameras came out, and I still complain. The 5D3 should be priced lower, and there should already be a high MP body from Canon. That said, you have to keep this in perspective. For 95% of photographer / subject / print size combinations, the D800's sensor advantages simply do not show up. If you are a careful (i.e. tripod mounted, pro glass, perfect technique) landscape photographer who prints really big, then the D800 advantage is significant. If not, then it's a non issue.

and they even have the d600, which is cheaper and better then 5d2 and 6d and on the level with the 5d3 (besides the build quality). But obviously this one is out until they fix the sensor dust thing.

It's not as good as a 5D3. But it does clobber the 5D2 and (likely...it's not out yet) the 6D.

Yeah they are the market leader but look at their products: A 5d3 which is no real IQ improvment over the 5d2 - ok af, a bit high iso and video.

OK AF??? No, sorry, excellent AF, which is one of the things that distinguish it from the D600. The high ISO is also quite good and the JPEG engine when shooting high ISO is phenomenal.

6D - a camera nobody knows who it is for... not rugged enough for landscape, no pc sync for studio, too much MP for awesome high iso.

MP is not related to high ISO in the manner you believe. We don't know much about the 6D yet. It's supposed to be an entry level FF, but I think Canon needs to slash the price for it to fulfill that roll.

[leolol]

6D: ok it´s not out yet but i would have loved it with 14mp i can tell you that now. But with 20 its only 1 too low for a bigger size on istock so it´s out.

Yeah 11 Canon

1. Ok
2. But they again didnt want us to have clean out. thanks to magic lantern!
3. Used them both? Better ergonomics for us, worse for nikon guys.
4. Ok, but d800 has that too (dont know how noisy)
5. Who would use that? I dont.
6. If you get a high MP body dont you wanna shoot at high res?
7. Totally, but i dont shoot fast sports or wildlife. And 6FPS arent really enough for action
8. Simplified from what? yes the 5d2, but i actually dont really know th nikon one so i cant give you a +for the canon here.
9. Why would you use it and not just do that in post?
10. Nikon can use the d4 battery...

[dtaylor]

I can understand that you guys dont get my view on lenses. If i go the nikon way i´ll get the 20-35, 35-70 or 28-70 and the 70-200ed (the first "normal" non pull push) which all are lenses that arent the best but also far from worst.

Maybe i didnt express right in this point. I love good glass but i just think you always need the newest and very best.

This will likely fall on deaf eyes, but honestly, if you're considering jumping to Nikon for the sensor advantages, but you're going to use old lenses on the new Nikon body, why bother?  The point I think we're making is that you will probably see no meaningful differences in your IQ with the Nikon setup you propose acquiring, compared to the Canon setup you propose abandoning.   You'd be better off spending the money on better Canon lenses.

This 10x.

[dtaylor]

6D: ok it´s not out yet but i would have loved it with 14mp i can tell you that now. But with 20 its only 1 too low for a bigger size on istock so it´s out.

Why would you have loved it with 14 MP? This would not make a significant difference in high ISO performance, though it would have increased DR slightly.

I suppose iStock has some arbitrary MP classes because of the volume they deal with, but this is stupid. Depending on lens / technique a lower MP camera can mop the floor with a higher MP camera. Depending on subject MP may not even be that important. (Example: you can scale a good 12 MP portrait all day long and make door sized prints.) If I had a 20 MP camera and an agency demanded 21 MP, I would scale the shot and fake the EXIF. Seriously. I bet I could pass 12 MP images as 21 MP images to stock agencies all day long and they wouldn't notice.

7. Totally, but i dont shoot fast sports or wildlife. And 6FPS arent really enough for action

It's not ideal for action, but it is certainly fast enough for action.

[RLPhoto]

6D: ok it´s not out yet but i would have loved it with 14mp i can tell you that now. But with 20 its only 1 too low for a bigger size on istock so it´s out.

Yeah 11 Canon

1. Ok
2. But they again didnt want us to have clean out. thanks to magic lantern!
3. Used them both? Better ergonomics for us, worse for nikon guys.
4. Ok, but d800 has that too (dont know how noisy)
5. Who would use that? I dont.
6. If you get a high MP body dont you wanna shoot at high res?
7. Totally, but i dont shoot fast sports or wildlife. And 6FPS arent really enough for action
8. Simplified from what? yes the 5d2, but i actually dont really know th nikon one so i cant give you a +for the canon here.
9. Why would you use it and not just do that in post?
10. Nikon can use the d4 battery...

I'm not going to debate further because those things are stuff that the d800 doesn't offer. Which you may not use, but I use regularly, and thus couldn't do the things with a d800.

As for video, you still lack the controls the canon has, have moire, and that magic lantern still ports to canons first. So no, the canon is a better overall camera.