December 07, 2016, 09:40:18 AM

Author Topic: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...  (Read 35682 times)

thepancakeman

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 474
  • If at first you don't succeed, don't try skydiving
Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #45 on: January 02, 2013, 05:52:20 PM »
You know... threads like this, to me, as a professional photographer, are humerous... all cameras mentioned in this thread from the 6D to 5d2/5d3 and D600 and D800... these are all professional cameras used every day by professional photographers...  Why on earth do professional photographers charge a small fortune for their services... overhead is a big reason as well as our time...  In the film era very few amateurs had SLR's unless you were really dedicated...  and even fewer had what would be considered a professional SLR...  I'm shocked how popular photography has become since the digital revolution where amateurs afford and buy top tier cameras and then gripe about the price...  It's a tool... a high priced tool...  It would be like me complaining that Profoto strobes are 3-4 times the price if not more of alien bee strobes when essentially they do the same function and size and such... Or tripods... Or monopods... or imagine a carpenter bitching that a table saw costs $250 and another one from another brand is $1200... I can go on and on and on...  Prices aren't fair and by all means, these tools are designed, created, and aimed for their professional market... not pixel peeping amateurs...  yes my latest lens cost nearly $900, but I can make that back in a shoot or two...  That may not be the point, but that is Canon's point... it's a professional tool geared for professionals...  If you want a great tool for your money, buy a rebel.

Shopping for low end table saws?   ??? 

You are exactly correct--I have done some professional woodworking and easily got my money back from a $100 Starrett combination square, yet it appears nearly identical to a $12 one from Home Depot.  If you're not a pro and are happy with $12 one, go for it, but don't complain about the $100 one being too expensive.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #45 on: January 02, 2013, 05:52:20 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 20025
Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #46 on: January 02, 2013, 06:09:46 PM »
and there are enough tests that show that nikkors are often better then the equivalent canon.

Which ones?  24-70?  Canon wins (with the MkII, that is).  24-105?  Canon wins.  70-200/2.8?  Canon wins.  TS-E/PC-E 24mm?  Canon wins.  Pretty much the entire supertele lineup?  Canon wins.  UWA zoom?  Nikon wins.  Macro lenses?  Toss-up on quality, Canon wins on variety.  Fast primes?  About an even split.

So, where's the list of 'often better' Nikkors?

if i had so much time at hand as you seem to have i would copy a few reviews from magazines where nikkors where placed on no.1 and canon are behind them.

but the the claim that all nikon lenses are inferior is so wrong... im not wasting my time on such a stupid discussion.

I did not make such a claim, but I feel the same way about your claim that most Nikon lenses are better than the Canon equivalent.  Especially when that claim is completely unsubstantiated. 

"What I say is true."

"Can you back that up with some evidence?"

"I could if I wanted to, but I don't have time."


Thanks for that cogent and very convincing argument. I bet you were a real asset to your secondary school's debating team...   ::)
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

awinphoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2064
    • AW Photography
Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #47 on: January 02, 2013, 06:11:26 PM »
You know... threads like this, to me, as a professional photographer, are humerous... all cameras mentioned in this thread from the 6D to 5d2/5d3 and D600 and D800... these are all professional cameras used every day by professional photographers...  Why on earth do professional photographers charge a small fortune for their services... overhead is a big reason as well as our time...  In the film era very few amateurs had SLR's unless you were really dedicated...  and even fewer had what would be considered a professional SLR...  I'm shocked how popular photography has become since the digital revolution where amateurs afford and buy top tier cameras and then gripe about the price...  It's a tool... a high priced tool...  It would be like me complaining that Profoto strobes are 3-4 times the price if not more of alien bee strobes when essentially they do the same function and size and such... Or tripods... Or monopods... or imagine a carpenter bitching that a table saw costs $250 and another one from another brand is $1200... I can go on and on and on...  Prices aren't fair and by all means, these tools are designed, created, and aimed for their professional market... not pixel peeping amateurs...  yes my latest lens cost nearly $900, but I can make that back in a shoot or two...  That may not be the point, but that is Canon's point... it's a professional tool geared for professionals...  If you want a great tool for your money, buy a rebel.

many professionals use the cheaper nikon bodys... so what does that mean for your statement?

It makes my point nicely.. I know some pro's that shoot weddings with rebels...  For them, for their needs/budget/etc it isn't worth it for them to get bigger bodies... One of my local competitors still shoots 20D's...  Different tools for different folks...  It also proves pro's make more informed decisions on bodies than knee jerk amateurs who splurge and get 5d's and 1d's...  Just saying...  For how i've positioned my business and my market, i utilize my gear for what I do...  This time last year I shot 7d's and this time 4 years ago i was shooting 30D's...  I've worked my way up as finances allowed and as I demanded such out of my gear... anymore questions?
Canon 5d III, Canon 24-105L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 F4L IS, Canon 100L 2.8, Canon 85 1.8, 2 430EX 2's and a partridge in a pear tree.

awinphoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2064
    • AW Photography
Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #48 on: January 02, 2013, 06:17:44 PM »
the thing that some of you "price ignorant canon supporters"  ;) seem to miss is... that people complain about the pricing compared to the competition from nikon.

and yes many of them are amateurs..... learn to live with it.
canon would not be happy to loose them.. amateurs or not... that´s for sure.

amateurs or not, they are professional bodies... deal with it.  In the film days nikons were the premier bodies and cost more... people still shot canon...Doesn't mean Canon was better at that time, they were not really.  Ford F350's are more powerful and cost more overall than F150's or even the ford rangers when they made them... But they were made for two separate clients...  Of course any schlub can buy the 350 if they have the financial resources, but then dont complain that a dodge ram is cheaper...  I was well aware of the D800's benifits over the 5d3 when I bought the 5d3... I walked in with eyes wide open, paid full price, and my camera has since more than paid for itself over and over again... It is what it is.   
Canon 5d III, Canon 24-105L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 F4L IS, Canon 100L 2.8, Canon 85 1.8, 2 430EX 2's and a partridge in a pear tree.

zim

  • 5DSR
  • *******
  • Posts: 1462
Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #49 on: January 02, 2013, 06:21:32 PM »
I myself moved from the Terrible to the Just OK class after I returned my camera for an exchange.  At this price range however, I wish there wasn't even a discussion about 5D3 low light AF performance except to question how it can be so good all the time for everyone without question.

So at the moment I am enjoying better low light AF with the 6D but I hope the 5D3 low light AF performance somehow magically improves after the next firmware update. 


Hi Rusty,
Are you talking about the AF flash assist issue or low light focusing in general? For me the two are very different. Thought the 5D3 was pretty hot in the available light focusing department, no?

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 20025
Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #50 on: January 02, 2013, 06:29:53 PM »
I did not make such a claim


well ... but i answerd such a claim....  ::) 

Quote from: Sony
Nikon lenses arent as good as Canon's.

Fair enough - yes, that was an absurd claim. Sorry!

But I'd still say that Canon lenses are better than the Nikon counterpart more often than the reverse.  :P
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 20025
Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #51 on: January 02, 2013, 06:41:44 PM »
Unless you have full-frame Canon lenses (non EF-S), it makes no sense to buy the 6D.

I'm guessing there are a lot of senseless people out there, then.  Plus maybe a few sensible enough to know that the lens is the primary determinant of IQ, and that 24-105 kit lens is better than the 24-85 kit lens.
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #51 on: January 02, 2013, 06:41:44 PM »

RS2021

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 718
Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #52 on: January 02, 2013, 06:59:11 PM »
Are you considering the whole package, including the price and quality of the lens(es) you'd use on the D800?  The Canon 24-105L is an excellent kit lens...neither the Nikkor 24-85 nor 24-120 are as good (unless you like CA and mushy corners on your FF images).  If you're going to get a 14-24/2.8 and shoot mostly landscapes, the D800 makes a lot of sense.  For general use, IMO, Canon offers better choices.

Wow, your 24-105L must be a lot different to mine 'cause while the center is good on the 24-105, the corners are rubbish at 24mm. Same with the 16-35 and 17-40.

Actually not just his...my 24-105L is a gem and I can second the assertion it is an excellent lens.
“Sharpness is a bourgeois concept” - Henri Cartier-Bresson

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 20025
Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #53 on: January 02, 2013, 07:41:39 PM »
Unless you have full-frame Canon lenses (non EF-S), it makes no sense to buy the 6D.

I'm guessing there are a lot of senseless people out there, then.

In the context of this thread, do you pay $2300 for a 36MP D800 that has second-to-none IQ or a $2100 6D that has by comparison rather average IQ?

That depends. I can get a high quality lens (24-105) with the 6D for an extra $600, $2700 total.  How much more than that do I need to spend to buy a high enough quality Nikkor FX lens so I don't handicap that high-resolution second-to-none IQ sensor?

Are you considering the whole package, including the price and quality of the lens(es) you'd use on the D800?  The Canon 24-105L is an excellent kit lens...neither the Nikkor 24-85 nor 24-120 are as good (unless you like CA and mushy corners on your FF images).  If you're going to get a 14-24/2.8 and shoot mostly landscapes, the D800 makes a lot of sense.  For general use, IMO, Canon offers better choices.

Wow, your 24-105L must be a lot different to mine 'cause while the center is good on the 24-105, the corners are rubbish at 24mm. Same with the 16-35 and 17-40.

It does sound like you may have a bad copy.  My 24-105L's (I've had two) have both been sharp in the corners, and even sharper in the center.  Not as sharp as my 70-200 II, of course, but plenty sharp.
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

lucuias

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 55
    • Ronnie Chan's Photography
Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #54 on: January 02, 2013, 08:38:49 PM »
My friend and I got an assignment to shoot in a club for their opening ceremony,He use Nikon D800 while I use Canon 5dMark III.I am the one will be processing his and my image once done the shooting.In such situation,I find no benefit D800 towards 5Dmark III.

1st,At high ISO above ISO800 of D800 do not give dynamic range advantage towards 5Dmark III.
2nd,The big megapixel of D800 is a drawn back in rough noise at high ISO.5dmark III(6D as well I belief) i can comfortable to shoot at ISO 12800.
3rd,The big file size is pain in post processing(Extra money to be spend upgrading my PC)

In my opinion,that is depends you shoot.If you are a landscape and studio photographer,D800 is the best choice.If you always have to bump high ISO above iso800 such as event & wedding,5dmark III or 6D is the best choice for the price(1dx if you are that rich).

Aglet

  • 5DSR
  • *******
  • Posts: 1371
Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #55 on: January 02, 2013, 09:19:26 PM »
I have a canon 550d rebel and was considering the "jump" to FF.
The Canon 6d is in my budget. However the Nikon D800 is available (refurb) for $2,300.
I ask myself - why spend almost the same on the inferior 6d ? Why does canon seem to give less and charge more ?

Because they can charge more and get away with it.  They're in the market lead, know it, and act accordingly, much like Apple's been known to.  They've managed to create a loyal fan base of repeat customers, originally by making the best hardware experience, again, sort of like Apple.

But unlike the computer biz, there are plenty more challengers in the camera biz.  Nikon's certainly learned a few things over the years and 2012 has been a banner year for them putting out some wow products at wow price points.  Unlike Canon's yawn products at OW price points lately.

Nikon's trying to offer more for less because they have to try harder; they're still in 2nd place.

But to try answer your implied ?, which FF system you choose will depend on a lot of factors.
If you want to shoot low light, hi ISO, event sort of work, Canon's likely the better choice unless you step up to pro level bodies where either brand is near as good as the other.
If you prefer to shoot creative and landscape images at lower ISO, Nikon's raw files are more malleable in post without seeing the stripes of pattern noise most Canon cameras exhibit when raw files are pushed hard.  Especially with pro-sumer and consumer level bodies.

Those refurb prices lately are a wicked deal!
I like my D800s more the more I use them but I'm still thinking of a 6d to replace my 5d2 for those few instances where I want to use my Canon glass instead of Nikon.

And, FWIW, I generally prefer Canon's lenses but there's no shortage of fine Nikon and 3rd party lenses that are up to the abilities of the D800's hi-rez sensor and they don't all cost as much as Canon's L-class either.
My kit's stuffed with great (used and new) F-mount lenses that cost me way less than my Canon gear and they perform well enough to please a technocrat like myself.  My customers are far less particular.

File size complaints re the D800's raw files?...  pointless.  If you spend the $ on gear you have to realize you need a modern computer to keep up also.

Aglet

  • 5DSR
  • *******
  • Posts: 1371
Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #56 on: January 02, 2013, 09:24:17 PM »
Can you name a revolutionary move or two, by Canon or others, just for comparison?  I think the last 'revolutionary' releases were the Contax N Digital and the 1Ds, the very first full frame CCD and CMOS dSLRs.  Pretty much everything since then has been 'just plain ordinary' and 'market driven' incremental improvements.  A few more MP.  More AF points.  More cross-type AF points.  A couple more fps.  More metering zones.  Etc.

Uhmm .. D800.
a truckload more MP and DR to match, lots of AF ability, raw video, plenty of features, etc.


..  If you want a great tool for your money, buy a rebel.

darn right!
or one of Nikon's IQ-superior offerings like the D5100

you can not beat the performance per cost of such low cost gear that can provide IQ as well as stuff 20x the price at base and low ISO!

Any of the cheap consumer bodies is capable of large art-quality print files if you use them properly.

Aglet

  • 5DSR
  • *******
  • Posts: 1371
Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #57 on: January 02, 2013, 09:55:42 PM »
File size complaints re the D800's raw files?...  pointless.  If you spend the $ on gear you have to realize you need a modern computer to keep up also.

No it isn't pointless, it is a significant cost factor involved in the decision making process that is too regularly dismissed with the casual "HDD's are cheap" meme, add in a $2,000-4,000 computer and your D800 is not so cheap! Sure if you are a pro and can write this stuff off against income, but many are not and when all is said and done it is the bulk market of amateurs that keeps the pro gear R&D going, sure Canon and Nikon might make money off pro gear but that isn't where the bulk of their income or profits comes from.

I guess I meant to say, "it's pointless complaining about it."
You know the larger file sizes will slow down post-processing so it's not coming as a surprise.
Stepping up to higher res is a 2 step process, the camera+glass, then the post-processing ability.

I have a 2010 iMac with an i7 and 12GB of RAM and it's just fine for my PP needs, even for large stiched panaramas.
If I had to process 100s of shots per day, then I'd want more speed but IF I WERE DOING THAT I'd have a faster computer or stay with a lower rez camera.
If you're doing that, hopefully you're making money at it and justify the cost of a faster computer.

if a hobbyist is upset about this, well... new computer's next on your wish list, I guess.
I don't worry about storage costs, storage IS cheap these days, when compared to all the other tech items.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #57 on: January 02, 2013, 09:55:42 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 20025
Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #58 on: January 02, 2013, 10:00:24 PM »
Can you name a revolutionary move or two, by Canon or others, just for comparison?  I think the last 'revolutionary' releases were the Contax N Digital and the 1Ds, the very first full frame CCD and CMOS dSLRs.  Pretty much everything since then has been 'just plain ordinary' and 'market driven' incremental improvements.  A few more MP.  More AF points.  More cross-type AF points.  A couple more fps.  More metering zones.  Etc.

Uhmm .. D800.
a truckload more MP and DR to match, lots of AF ability, raw video, plenty of features, etc.

Yes, those are the exact sort of incremental improvements I was talking about.  Or, if you prefer, the 5D Mark II was just as revolutionary, or at least, as revolutionary as 20D with a FF sensor can be.  ::)
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Radiating

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 334
Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #59 on: January 02, 2013, 10:24:08 PM »
I have a canon 550d rebel and was considering the "jump" to FF.

The Canon 6d is in my budget. However the Nikon D800 is available (refurb) for $2,300.

I ask myself - why spend almost the same on the inferior 6d ? Why does canon seem to give less and charge more ?

The 6D and D800 are in different classes. You need to compare apples to apples:

D800 refurb $2300 + $450 grip = $2750

5D Mark III Big Value Inc Brand New (limited quantities) = $2499 + $275 grip = $2775

You need the Nikon grip to do 6 FPS fyi, otherwise you get a meager 4, which isn't a lot in the real world.

The 5D Mark III has a half a stop ISO advantage over the D800, a reviewers comparing raw files find that the raw files have equal amounts of base noise, but the D800's ISO is calibrated 27% higher than the D800's (meaning iso 1000 on the 5D III is equal to iso 1270 on the D800), the 5D III was also designed to repond better to noise reduction by having a more gausian distribution of the noise, so that adds another quarter stop of noise, after NR.

The 5D Mark III then has slightly better AF in many back to back tests (depending who you ask they are even though, as both are good), and tests have also shown that no zoom lens can max out the 5D Mark III over more than around 90% of the image area, meaning with zooms there will be no real world resolution difference, and with primes only a select few (EXcluding most Zeiss lenses and Leica lenses and only including exceptionally exceptional lenses) can outresolve 28 megapixels, and only between f/8.0 to f/4.0, so the nikon resolution advantage is slim or none due to the limits of most lenses.

The major real world advantage to the D800 is of course dynamic range for shadow recovery, and those megapixels for landscape shooters that use ideal setups and need to eek every last drop from the camera (but it's a smaller advantage than the marketing would lead you to beleive). There are of course other minor differences, but for the most part the 5D3 is a better journalist or portrait camera and the D800 a better landscape and studio camera.

For most work they cost the same and offer similar features.

The core Nikon lenes are generally more expensive too, if you ignore Canon's insane early adopter "tax", the 24-70mm II is said to go down the $1600, which is the same as Nikon's with higher quality and other than that the core lenes on Nikon are slightly more expensive for Apples to Apples lenses.

Hope that helps.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2013, 10:29:28 PM by Radiating »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
« Reply #59 on: January 02, 2013, 10:24:08 PM »