Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...

[thepancakeman]

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.

[neuroanatomist]

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...   

[awinphoto]

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?

[awinphoto]

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.   

[zim]

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]

I did not make such a claim

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

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. 

[dilbert]

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 ?

Unless you have full-frame Canon lenses (non EF-S), it makes no sense to buy the 6D.

[neuroanatomist]

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.

[dilbert]

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...

As someone that had a double-digit Canon SLR for many years before digital, I suppose I fit into that bracket The single digit SLR cameras were quite clearly not for me but with digital, unless I buy single-digit, I'm stuck with APS-C. When there's a FF xxD, I doubt I'll buy another xD.

But then I've had a Manfrotto tripod long enough now that I have to buy spare parts that are compatible when something breaks.

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...

The digital camera revolution has been timed very well with the Internet revolution where everyone can upload and share their daily experiences with the world at large. twitter, facebook, tumblr, flickr, etc. There can be no doubt that this has helped pull digital camera sales.

Digital cameras have also become status symbols...

[dilbert]

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?

[dilbert]

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.

[dilbert]

I wish that someone who has actual experience using multiple Canon cameras (including the 6D) would explain what ...

'The 6D is a repackaged 5D2, which is a repackaged 20D w/ a FF sensor.'

... even means.  It sounds like an assertion that Canon cameras haven't changed in 10+ years.  And many seem to agree.  What am I missing?

Pixel pitch of 5D Mark II: 6.4 microns
Pixel pitch of 20D: 6.4 microns

[RS2021]

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.

[neuroanatomist]

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.

[lucuias]

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).