The (un)official I'm switching to Nikon thread

[ScottyP]

I figured I'd save everybody some time and valuable internet space by going ahead and opening up this thread.

Beginning tomorrow night all those who are disappointed because Canon did not create a 5DIII to their personal specifications and offer it at $1,500 can lodge their complaints here, on one handy thread, instead of having to start their own personal complaint thread.

By opening this thread now, it will also allow persons to begin the whining before the Mark III is officially announced.

On Saturday, this can be followed by the "Should I buy the Mark III or Wait for the Mark IV?" thread.

Well they did completely ignore my suggestion that it include a cup holder.

[SeanL]

If the 5D3 ends up having a 36MP sensor then there will be far too much noise for a FF sensor, but if it's announced that it has a 22MP sensor then the D800 is the way to go because it will offer higher resolution.

There, good thing I preordered my camera..

Wait a minute...

[takoman46]

If the 5D3 ends up having a 36MP sensor then there will be far too much noise for a FF sensor, but if it's announced that it has a 22MP sensor then the D800 is the way to go because it will offer higher resolution.

There, good thing I preordered my camera..

Wait a minute...

I don't understand your point about 36mp being to noisy for a FF sensor. Isn't the D800 FF too?

[EchoLocation]

I am not a professional and have been wanting to upgrade from a 5DC to a 5DIII for a couple of years now. The 5DII never interested me too much because of the poor AF and it's specialization being weddings/portrait work(where I want a better camera for travel/all around.) I travel a lot and would like something semi quick, with great low light capabilities and not too expensive. 2000 dollars is a lot of money for me, but I finally decided i'd upgrade to the 5DIII if it was around 2500 dollars. Today, I am really disappointed as 3500 dollars is just wayyy too much to feel comfortable spending on a "hobby," especially when I've been wanting the 24-70 2.8 and the price has just nearly doubled. Unfortunately now, for my needs/wants, I think the D700 is the best choice for an upgrade. I can save some money on the body to put towards glass and I know the AF and low light is top notch.
Canon attracted a lot of buyers by having reasonably priced bodies and glass(compared to Nikon,) but that now seems to be changing. I just don't see how the 5DIII is worth 15% more than the D800. I don't care, and in fact, don't want 36mp, but to me, these cameras seem rather equal in different ways and i'm just not understanding the 500 dollar premium by Canon.
I know the 5DIII will be a huge seller and wildly popular, but from my perspective the 5DIII sounds like it fixed the shortcomings of the 5DII, and didn't wildly exceed the previous camera. I don't see why there should be a 700-1000 dollar price increase on this camera.
I think a lot of people who aren't pros will have to think really really hard before spending over 3000 dollars on a camera. I think Canon really missed the boat by not offering this camera at a price closer to the 2500 dollar range. While the extra money is not huge for people making money off this camera, I think that extra money on the price will prohibit a huge number of people from mindlessly clicking "buy" and upgrading(which I would have done at $2500)

[BornNearDaBayou]

I am not a professional and have been wanting to upgrade from a 5DC to a 5DIII for a couple of years now. The 5DII never interested me too much because of the poor AF and it's specialization being weddings/portrait work(where I want a better camera for travel/all around.) I travel a lot and would like something semi quick, with great low light capabilities and not too expensive. 2000 dollars is a lot of money for me, but I finally decided i'd upgrade to the 5DIII if it was around 2500 dollars. Today, I am really disappointed as 3500 dollars is just wayyy too much to feel comfortable spending on a "hobby," especially when I've been wanting the 24-70 2.8 and the price has just nearly doubled. Unfortunately now, for my needs/wants, I think the D700 is the best choice for an upgrade. I can save some money on the body to put towards glass and I know the AF and low light is top notch.
Canon attracted a lot of buyers by having reasonably priced bodies and glass(compared to Nikon,) but that now seems to be changing. I just don't see how the 5DIII is worth 15% more than the D800. I don't care, and in fact, don't want 36mp, but to me, these cameras seem rather equal in different ways and i'm just not understanding the 500 dollar premium by Canon.
I know the 5DIII will be a huge seller and wildly popular, but from my perspective the 5DIII sounds like it fixed the shortcomings of the 5DII, and didn't wildly exceed the previous camera. I don't see why there should be a 700-1000 dollar price increase on this camera.
I think a lot of people who aren't pros will have to think really really hard before spending over 3000 dollars on a camera. I think Canon really missed the boat by not offering this camera at a price closer to the 2500 dollar range. While the extra money is not huge for people making money off this camera, I think that extra money on the price will prohibit a huge number of people from mindlessly clicking "buy" and upgrading(which I would have done at $2500)

It's simple: Canon knows a lot of loyal customers invested in their bodies and glass AROUND THE FREAKING PLANET would not jump ship because of an inferior camera. There, I said it. They figure, hey, "these guys wanted 1d AF, half of 1D speed, AND good noise performance under $6,000. Okay, we'll make it. But you will pay almost exactly greater than 1/2 for it, because our flagship is $6,800 right now." It's called good old Japanese greed. The same principle applies to Nikon's flagship 3DX of yesteryear for an astonishing $8,000.

Good old Japanese greed. You gotta love it. For examples, see Toyota Sequioua (spelling??), Honda Passport, or Nissan Armada. Then try to relate it to your next camera purchase.  Grossly overpriced. And grossly profit machines. The 1DX....is.....somewhat understandable.....with its new AF and metering......and lower MP......

The 5d3......not so much. i hope its a 26-28MP surprise. They can have $4,000 of my dollars if its 28MP and delivers astonishing ISO performance. I'll even send them sushi and saki so they can smack their ridiculously greedy lips after pigging out on their gawdy sales prices. Good Old Japanese greed. You gotta love it!!

[ssrdd]

We have already pre-ordered 2 D4s and 2 D800 and 1 D800E for our 3Q assignments. And have decided to keep the Lenses for 1 year to see if Canon comes with something competitive.

It truly blows my mind that people make the "jumping ship" decision BEFORE CANON RELEASE ANY OFFICIAL SPECS!! WOW PEOPLE!!

Do we ever live in hyperreactionary times...driven by RUMORS no less!! 

well they did now. and it suck.

[ssrdd]

I figured I'd save everybody some time and valuable internet space by going ahead and opening up this thread.

Beginning tomorrow night all those who are disappointed because Canon did not create a 5DIII to their personal specifications and offer it at $1,500 can lodge their complaints here, on one handy thread, instead of having to start their own personal complaint thread.

By opening this thread now, it will also allow persons to begin the whining before the Mark III is officially announced.

On Saturday, this can be followed by the "Should I buy the Mark III or Wait for the Mark IV?" thread.

i think canon rumors guys will delete post soon.

[Angryoak]

I figured I'd save everybody some time and valuable internet space by going ahead and opening up this thread.

Beginning tomorrow night all those who are disappointed because Canon did not create a 5DIII to their personal specifications and offer it at $1,500 can lodge their complaints here, on one handy thread, instead of having to start their own personal complaint thread.

By opening this thread now, it will also allow persons to begin the whining before the Mark III is officially announced.

On Saturday, this can be followed by the "Should I buy the Mark III or Wait for the Mark IV?" thread.

Wow, forgive me but if I were you, I wouldn't visit rumour sites anymore. You're like someone who moves in next to an airport, and then complains about the noise :/

[RedEye]

I just checked out the sample photos... they are quite good guys ... YEAH!

[D_Rochat]

I am not a professional and have been wanting to upgrade from a 5DC to a 5DIII for a couple of years now. The 5DII never interested me too much because of the poor AF and it's specialization being weddings/portrait work(where I want a better camera for travel/all around.) I travel a lot and would like something semi quick, with great low light capabilities and not too expensive. 2000 dollars is a lot of money for me, but I finally decided i'd upgrade to the 5DIII if it was around 2500 dollars. Today, I am really disappointed as 3500 dollars is just wayyy too much to feel comfortable spending on a "hobby," especially when I've been wanting the 24-70 2.8 and the price has just nearly doubled. Unfortunately now, for my needs/wants, I think the D700 is the best choice for an upgrade. I can save some money on the body to put towards glass and I know the AF and low light is top notch.
Canon attracted a lot of buyers by having reasonably priced bodies and glass(compared to Nikon,) but that now seems to be changing. I just don't see how the 5DIII is worth 15% more than the D800. I don't care, and in fact, don't want 36mp, but to me, these cameras seem rather equal in different ways and i'm just not understanding the 500 dollar premium by Canon.
I know the 5DIII will be a huge seller and wildly popular, but from my perspective the 5DIII sounds like it fixed the shortcomings of the 5DII, and didn't wildly exceed the previous camera. I don't see why there should be a 700-1000 dollar price increase on this camera.
I think a lot of people who aren't pros will have to think really really hard before spending over 3000 dollars on a camera. I think Canon really missed the boat by not offering this camera at a price closer to the 2500 dollar range. While the extra money is not huge for people making money off this camera, I think that extra money on the price will prohibit a huge number of people from mindlessly clicking "buy" and upgrading(which I would have done at $2500)

It's simple: Canon knows a lot of loyal customers invested in their bodies and glass AROUND THE FREAKING PLANET would not jump ship because of an inferior camera. There, I said it. They figure, hey, "these guys wanted 1d AF, half of 1D speed, AND good noise performance under $6,000. Okay, we'll make it. But you will pay almost exactly greater than 1/2 for it, because our flagship is $6,800 right now." It's called good old Japanese greed. The same principle applies to Nikon's flagship 3DX of yesteryear for an astonishing $8,000.

Good old Japanese greed. You gotta love it. For examples, see Toyota Sequioua (spelling??), Honda Passport, or Nissan Armada. Then try to relate it to your next camera purchase.  Grossly overpriced. And grossly profit machines. The 1DX....is.....somewhat understandable.....with its new AF and metering......and lower MP......

The 5d3......not so much. i hope its a 26-28MP surprise. They can have $4,000 of my dollars if its 28MP and delivers astonishing ISO performance. I'll even send them sushi and saki so they can smack their ridiculously greedy lips after pigging out on their gawdy sales prices. Good Old Japanese greed. You gotta love it!!

How many posts are you going to make about how you wanted the best of everything for $3000? Go buy a Nikon if all you care about is megapixels. Really. Go. Please.

[SiliconVoid]

Canon attracted a lot of buyers by having reasonably priced bodies and glass(compared to Nikon,) but that now seems to be changing.

I know the 5DIII will be a huge seller and wildly popular, but from my perspective the 5DIII sounds like it fixed the shortcomings of the 5DII, and didn't wildly exceed the previous camera. I don't see why there should be a 700-1000 dollar price increase on this camera.

As with any product, the early adopters will pay a premium to get what ever it is before everyone else. As someone who says they own a 5D I would think you have been around the industry long enough to know one of the common differences between Nikon and Canon in their pricing is that Canon will lower its price through the lifespan of the product - typically within the first year. The D800 will be around $3000 until the day they announce its successor.

Canon continues to have a more diverse range of lenses for a more diverse range of financial needs, far greater than Nikon unless you are interested in old manual focus glass.

As for the usage of the camera... you should rent a 5DmkII and test it for yourself. There is NOTHING keeping the mkII from satisfying every photographic need you have - and it does video too.. 

Your last point of attempting to validate the price in the context of the mkIII failing to represent the same level of upgrade the D800 provided over the D700 - no offense but that is idiotic. The D700 is a great photography camera (I have one) but that is all it did. Therefore if the D800 offered nothing more than video over the D700 it would have been a groundbreaking upgrade for Nikon.
On the other hand: The 5DmkII offers a level of performance in its tier that no camera by any other manufacturer offered... That creates higher product demand, which creates higher margin. Based on your 'all round' needs what more did you want them to upgrade that the mkIII didn't upgrade?? (Please don't say mp, that just indicates your 'needs' are determined by other peoples opinions. The image quality of the 5dmkII is superb and the 5DmkIII should be even better.) I mean something that you feel you have to now change brands/systems because of...

[Chuck Alaimo]

I am not a professional and have been wanting to upgrade from a 5DC to a 5DIII for a couple of years now. The 5DII never interested me too much because of the poor AF and it's specialization being weddings/portrait work(where I want a better camera for travel/all around.) I travel a lot and would like something semi quick, with great low light capabilities and not too expensive. 2000 dollars is a lot of money for me, but I finally decided i'd upgrade to the 5DIII if it was around 2500 dollars. Today, I am really disappointed as 3500 dollars is just wayyy too much to feel comfortable spending on a "hobby," especially when I've been wanting the 24-70 2.8 and the price has just nearly doubled. Unfortunately now, for my needs/wants, I think the D700 is the best choice for an upgrade. I can save some money on the body to put towards glass and I know the AF and low light is top notch.
Canon attracted a lot of buyers by having reasonably priced bodies and glass(compared to Nikon,) but that now seems to be changing. I just don't see how the 5DIII is worth 15% more than the D800. I don't care, and in fact, don't want 36mp, but to me, these cameras seem rather equal in different ways and i'm just not understanding the 500 dollar premium by Canon.
I know the 5DIII will be a huge seller and wildly popular, but from my perspective the 5DIII sounds like it fixed the shortcomings of the 5DII, and didn't wildly exceed the previous camera. I don't see why there should be a 700-1000 dollar price increase on this camera.
I think a lot of people who aren't pros will have to think really really hard before spending over 3000 dollars on a camera. I think Canon really missed the boat by not offering this camera at a price closer to the 2500 dollar range. While the extra money is not huge for people making money off this camera, I think that extra money on the price will prohibit a huge number of people from mindlessly clicking "buy" and upgrading(which I would have done at $2500)

You know what?  Anyone who spends large amounts of money on any equipment must think long and hard on it before buying, unless your extremely rich of course.  Pros' will think long and hard too, especially because there are pros across all income spectrum's.   The established pros, with lots of business and enough in saved earning for equipment will think about it just as much as an emerging pro with limited budget.  About the only difference between pros and no pros is the questions we ask as we decide.  For me its a measure of need vs ROI (return on investment) vs available funds vs yes, wants!  Currently I create and sell art, as well as shooting events, portraits and weddings.  I love the creation side of art, but its not as financial profitable as portraits, weddings and events.  So to me, the best purchase for the ROI would be the mkiii.  Hell, it may even be better for me to grab a mkii when the price drops, because even the mkii would be a step up in low light and image IQ.  Of course, the artist in me would love to have those MP's, but there's so many other associated costs to the art side of photography that going for MP would not be the most profitable.   That may change in the future, sand when that point comes, MP's would shift from a want to a need.

For you, its all about the wants!  And what are you willing to spend on your wants?  you start out by saying $2000 is a lot to you for this, then bump it up to being willing to spend $2500.  why not consider something on the 7D level?  I have been working solely on a 7D now for over a year and a half.  It's a great camera... and it can put out pro level results if you use it right. 

[crackjack]

I definitely go to Nikon...
d800 is not a substitute of d700, d700 is still produced and updated yet to come
sorry canon, hope i ever come back

[idimoe]

I'm waiting to pick up my first DSLR. Apparently there will be a refresh of entry-mid level DSLR's from both Nikon and Canon this year (still waiting guys..) Anywho, since I have no $ invested in a system, my $ and loyalty will go to the superior, comparable product.

[crackjack]

I definitely go to Nikon...
d800 is not a substitute of d700, d700 is still produced and updated yet to come
sorry canon, hope i ever come back