Hello everyone, I am new to this forum, and I would gladly like to share a bit...Please forgive my English as I am not a native speaker. Here is the story: I started photography 28 years ago, with a good part of professional activity in it (mainly as architecture, decoration, studio photography). I made the switch from Nikon to Canon with the 5DMk2, since my experience with Nikon sensor was not very satisfying, I had a D70 that was OK for a digital beginner, but had very basic features though the pictures were quite good, I then switched to a D200 that had all the features I needed but a crappy sensor..... very disappointing. I then decided to go for the Canon 5D2 (I am no brand addict, I just use what I think is the best for my needs, but once you have a decent amount of glass, the change is not easy), since I needed the TS-E lenses to work, and Nikon Glass had some gaps at this time. Sorry for the long intro, but I think the background has some importance to explain my point of view.
The Mk2 is a good camera, since I shoot with a tripod, focus manually and know how to expose, but the AF is dating from the Jurassic era, the light metering is way behind Nikon as well as the flash exposure. I knew it since a long time, but I needed a sensor, and for this purpose it was the best for the money. I am quite happy with Canon glass as well, mainly the TS-E lenses, and the 24-105 is the perfect all around lens. But let's be honest here, the 5D3 is a disappointment; Canon just catched up with Nikon AF system and improved a bit the light and flash metering system, but Nikon is and was always master in these categories. My point is Nikon made the best cameras with not so good sensors, and Canon made the best sensors in not so good cameras. BUT it it fair to admit that things have changed, Nikon-Sony has beaten Canon on the sensor while Canon has been a bit overconfident. The 5D3 is a big improvement on the 5D2 features, but the sensor is a failure, sorry to say it, it might hurt some, but going to 21 to 22 MPX in 4 years is a shame, and aside from the high ISO, that not everyone is using, it delivers images barely better than it's predecessor. I was expecting some drawbacks from the 36MPX Nikon sensor, but the figures are here, it beats Canon everywhere. The good point with the 5D3 is that we Canon users finally have a camera with an AF system an light meter that works, it was more than time.... Nikon has it since the F801.
My guess is that Canon has seen a commercial opportunity with the video part of the 5D2, that was an unexpected success, and they declared themselves a cinema camera company. They have spend their energy in too many directions, with all the "C" cameras, without any guarantee of success since the market did not wait for them (Arri and Red are here since a long time), and doing so they lost their ability to design the best photo sensors. Nikon is leaving the problem to Sony, who did a very good job here, and can concentrate on improving PHOTO cameras.
About resolution, sorry folks but it matters for a LOT of people, do you think Hasselblad would sell cameras worth the price of a luxury car otherwise ? If people are ready to put this amount of money to get 60+MPX there is a reason. Nikon has been clever in making the D4 a "combat camera" for reporters who need speed and reliability, and the D800 for the people who don't need the speed or built features, but need resolution (landscape, architecture, studio), for the people who don't need either of these features, the D600 is coming... Marketing speaking that sounds quite reasonable, Canon has a competitor to the D4, but none to the D800. The 5D3 is a sub-1D, it worked when Nikon had nothing to compete, but it's not the case any more.
Nikon got it, the D800e is the perfect studio camera for professionals who cannot afford a Hasselblad, who need high resolution for landscape, architecture without being able to buy a digital view camera. The 5D3 is good, but is clearly more oriented for sport and action, and in my sense is more a cheaper alternative to the D4 or 1D. Since we talk money, Canon has always been a slightly cheaper alternative to Nikon that was a bit overpriced, this has changed too; the recent price increase in lenses and the ridiculous pricing of the 5D3 vs the D800 has changed the trend. The Mk3 should cost 500$ LESS than the Nikon. I was shocked as well when they released the new 24 and 28mm f2.8 fixed lenses, they kept these crappy non USM lenses for 25 years and now the new ones are worth 800$, they should cost half that amount!!! If they think they are Leica, they still have a bit of homework to do.
Putting 3.5K in the new Canon won't improve my pictures at 100 ISO, I'll just wait a few more month since I still have hope they will release a better sensor to catch up; if they don't within a year, I'll go to Nikon, the only thing preventing me to do so immediately is the money I will lose on my lenses. For now I've stopped investing in any new glass, let's wait and see.....
I'd love to have the AF, viewfinder and integrated level of the 5D3, but for me it's just not worth the price they ask for it.
Sorry guys if I am hurting you, that is not my intention, I try to be honest, I use Canon now, I used Nikon a lot in the past, my favourite toy is still my Linhof Technika; but I am a bit in trouble now, since I need more resolution and Canon doesn't seem to be able to deliver it. I have the impression they have sacrificed photography for their new cinema passion, and we customers are paying the price for it. Let's just hope they are ready to release an EOS 3DMk1 with a high resolution sensor soon, but my feeling is they have shot themselves in both feet here.
