Canon are you listening...?? NIKON D600

[briansquibb]

I have had another great days shooting using my out of fashion 1DS3 and 24-105 - why would I spend money to change it?

[D_Rochat]

I have had another great days shooting using my out of fashion 1DS3 and 24-105 - why would I spend money to change it?

That's pretty good for ONLY 21mp  . Nice to see a sunny day in GB!

[ScottyP]

I have had another great days shooting using my out of fashion 1DS3 and 24-105 - why would I spend money to change it?

That's pretty good for ONLY 21mp  . Nice to see a sunny day in GB!

Ah, but there's a sheep down there that is kind of grainy and pixelated.  Look right there, approximately 2.6 miles out, at about 2 o'clock.

[V8Beast]

I have had another great days shooting using my out of fashion 1DS3 and 24-105 - why would I spend money to change it?

Nice shot, but I don't know why you insist on shooting with that cheap kit lens. Get yourself a fast prime, and that ancient 1Ds3 will be sharper than you could ever imagine

[joemod]

Just to add to that. I bought yesterday my first L lens (24-105 f4, YAY!) and the man at the store (one of Athens' most popular) was very much puzzled on Canon's marketing policy. He even told me, that he most probably won't stock any of new Canon L lenses because they are pretty much more expensive than the older models or Nikon's counterparts. I admit though that Greece is not Canon's primary target so that won't matter much to Canon.

It's might be not Greece, but the kind of shop - many retailers have not the kind of customers who buy L lenses at $1500+ and thus are well-advised to stock aps-c, kits or 3rd party gear. But still - I'm interested to see how many shops in Berlin will have Canon's 24-70ii on display and in stock.

Off topic, and if for the reason alone this might actually be helpful: You know the 24-105L is the one L lens that is to be found rather cheap used because it's a kit lens and many people dump it for this reason? If you want to save some money, I guess you can still return it and look on ebay, craiglist or whatever else you've got down there.

This retailer is targetted to serious amateurs /pros. Casual photographers usually buy from Saturn/similar stores.


For the off topic I tried to answer you via pm, but it was rejected. In short I bought the bulk version which is 300 euros cheaper than the retail

[briansquibb]

Nice shot, but I don't know why you insist on shooting with that cheap kit lens. Get yourself a fast prime, and that ancient 1Ds3 will be sharper than you could ever imagine

This was a good example of an amatuer assignment - I took pictures for this gliding club for their website etc (for nothing) and I got a 3/4 hour flight (for nothing)

The only primes I had were large white ones and the pilot seemed relectant to let me take the 600 in the plane - it was a bit snug in there The window was just big enough for the 24-105 to poke through.


This was taken with - gasp - a APS-H sensored camera and a mk1 lens. If I believed the rumours this should have been a terrible mess of a picture      With only 16mp I didn't crop else the IQ would have dropped. PS I put a 1.4 on this combo and took candids of the club members

Health warning - dont try this shot with a 24-70 

1d4, 600mm, 1/1600, f/4, iso100

[Marsu42]

For the off topic I tried to answer you via pm, but it was rejected. In short I bought the bulk version which is 300 euros cheaper than the retail

I had pm disabled, changed it, but this might be interesting for other people, too: *300* € less than retail? How much did you pay? Is this your current economy that makes prices drop so much? In Germany, the regular 24-105 is ~975€, and the bulk version only about ~100€ less! On ebay, it sells for 600€-700€ used.

[elflord]

i dont know where you buy.. but here i can get a nikon 24-70mm f2.8 for 1499 euro.
and a nikon Nikon 70-200mm 2.8G AF-S VR II ED would cost me 1799 euro.

if i buy the latest canon models i have to pay 700+300 euro more (the same reseller).

I'm looking at current prices on bhphotovideo.com. For the two brand L lenses that I have, the 135mm f/2 and the 35mm f/1.4, I would pay about $300- more per lens for the Nikon counterparts (10xx vs 13xx for the 135mm, ~13xx vs ~16xx for the 35mm). My 85mm it should be a wash because I have the Sigma.

But this debate is really beside the point anyway. The point is that an incremental technology difference in the body will make much less difference to your pictures than your glass. If you're choosing based on who has the best technology, go with Sony, but if you're shopping for a system, then technology is only a small part of the picture.

[Albi86]

I guess people still mistake who those cameras are meant for.

5D3 + new 24-70 f/2.8 + 70-200 f/2.8 IS2 = best low-light shooting equipment available. No conicidences that Canon has also updated its speedlites and there is talk about new 35, 50 and 85mm L-primes. All is meant for wedding/concerts/events pros. Apparently Canon is giving priority to this segment, hard to say if it is exactly what they wanted or just the best they can do with what they have.

D800 is much more an all-rounder camera with better specs but yet cheaper, which is why it feels so "better", or at least surely a much better bargain. That said, it is also right to consider that D800's pumped-up specs leave room for a very decent entry level FF camera, while you can't downgrade the 5D3 that much and still make it look attractive.

I don't think there's anything new here. Nikon keeps doing better cameras, Canon keeps doing better lenses. Probably I'm over-simplifying, but in the end it comes down to this. I prefer a worse camera and a better lens, so I stick with Canon. To someone who can't afford L-grade lenses, though, I would advise Nikon with no second thought. Anyway I have the feeling that the D600 will be such a bargain to make me (and many more) seriously consider a swap.

[AvTvM]

... Nikon keeps doing better cameras, Canon keeps doing better lenses. ...

up to 5 years ago I would have agreed. But since then a lot has changed. Nikon has been making big time gains with lenses that I am interested in:

24-70 ... Nikon is better than Canon Mk. I and it remains to be seen how much better Canon Mk. II will be
14-24 ... Nikon is absolutely unmatched, Canon 16-35 II is a total loser by comparison 
85/1.8 ... new Nikon rules supreme at very affordable price
24-120 ... Nikon has now basically matched Canon 24-105

I do not need and will not buy super-teles. For occasional rentals the Nikons would do just as well as Canon. f/1.2 lenses ...  I consider them "nice", but not offering enough advantage over 1.4 Nikon lenses (e.g. 85/1.2 vs. 85/1.4) and the 50/1.2 is a dud. Fisheye ... I would not need or want a zoom, 8-15 ... unnecessary for me. Canon does have a major advantage with TS-E 17/4 and 24 II. I guess, Nikon will update their PCE T/S lenses soon and will probably match Canon in that area as well.

I have been waiting for years for a newly designed Canon 100-400/4-5.6 with latest generation IS and somewhat better optical qualities while retaining an affordable price tag ... but Canon is just not listening there. And while they refuse to update the aged 100-400, which would be a mega-seller with 10.000s of units a year sold, they pour resourcesinto such lenses as the new and utterly unnecessary 24/2.8 IS and 28/2.8 IS and in a 24-70 without IS, but a huge price tag.


 

[KeithR]

D800 is much more an all-rounder camera

That's simply not remotely true by any measure - the D800 is pretty much the epitome of the one trick pony.

With the sole exception of low ISO DR landscape stuff - where the D800 has a small (not nearly as enormous as some of the whiners on here would have us believe) advantage - the 5D Mk III does pretty much everything else better: sport, wildlife, journalism, event photography (especially low light work), reportage-style wedding photography, and they'll be a wash for studio-based work.

[Albi86]

... Nikon keeps doing better cameras, Canon keeps doing better lenses. ...

up to 5 years ago I would have agreed. But since then a lot has changed. Nikon has been making big time gains with lenses that I am interested in:

24-70 ... Nikon is better than Canon Mk. I and it remains to be seen how much better Canon Mk. II will be
14-24 ... Nikon is absolutely unmatched, Canon 16-35 II is a total loser by comparison 
85/1.8 ... new Nikon rules supreme at very affordable price
24-120 ... Nikon has now basically matched Canon 24-105

I do not need and will not buy super-teles. For occasional rentals the Nikons would do just as well as Canon. f/1.2 lenses ...  I consider them "nice", but not offering enough advantage over 1.4 Nikon lenses (e.g. 85/1.2 vs. 85/1.4) and the 50/1.2 is a dud. Fisheye ... I would not need or want a zoom, 8-15 ... unnecessary for me. Canon does have a major advantage with TS-E 17/4 and 24 II. I guess, Nikon will update their PCE T/S lenses soon and will probably match Canon in that area as well.

I have been waiting for years for a newly designed Canon 100-400/4-5.6 with latest generation IS and somewhat better optical qualities while retaining an affordable price tag ... but Canon is just not listening there. And while they refuse to update the aged 100-400, which would be a mega-seller with 10.000s of units a year sold, they pour resourcesinto such lenses as the new and utterly unnecessary 24/2.8 IS and 28/2.8 IS and in a 24-70 without IS, but a huge price tag.

If we talk about 85mm primes, then I'd go Sigma
Sorry but I do not agree about the 24-120. I do not see any field in which it matches Canon's 24-105, let alone beating it. It's not even cheaper. To be honest, 24-105 is one of the big reasons why I am reluctant to switch to Nikon.
Many people would want a new 100-400L, but to be honest I think the chances of seeing it in a short time are quite thin. There is a 70-300L and a new, extremely expensive 200-400L. A new, improved 100-400L would just blow them both away in seconds. Not cool, marketing-wise.

That's simply not remotely true by any measure - the D800 is pretty much the epitome of the one trick pony.

Eeerr.... no?

[awinphoto]

D800 is much more an all-rounder camera

That's simply not remotely true by any measure - the D800 is pretty much the epitome of the one trick pony.

With the sole exception of low ISO DR landscape stuff - where the D800 has a small (not nearly as enormous as some of the whiners on here would have us believe) advantage - the 5D Mk III does pretty much everything else better: sport, wildlife, journalism, event photography (especially low light work), reportage-style wedding photography, and they'll be a wash for studio-based work.

I would generally agree with you there, although I'm sure I'll be flamed by some here...  It all boils down to usage, needs, wants and expectations...  Some such as mt spokane found the d800 to be more of his liking for how he shoots, others have found and loved the 5d3 for what it offers their photography...  I think if you objectively look at all the features side by side, for every canon advantage, given how big or slim it may be, nikon has an equal advantage.  It all goes to the wash anyways. 

[briansquibb]

I would generally agree with you there, although I'm sure I'll be flamed by some here...  It all boils down to usage, needs, wants and expectations...  Some such as mt spokane found the d800 to be more of his liking for how he shoots, others have found and loved the 5d3 for what it offers their photography...  I think if you objectively look at all the features side by side, for every canon advantage, given how big or slim it may be, nikon has an equal advantage.  It all goes to the wash anyways.

Personally I believe that my prints from either manufacturer would be pretty much the same. A lot of the IQ difference on the best lens is really quite acedemic and wouldn't show significantly on a print.

We all shoot differently so our opinions will differ greatly - as they are opinions they are subjective so no one is right nor wrong.

I wouldn't buy a D800 because of the 4fps - that is to slow for what I need. My friend and I go shooting together and we have totally different styles - he has a 5DIII and thinks it is the dog's b's - over the weekend he wasnt trying to get the moment when a glider was just lifting off when being towed - which was when the full 10fps was needed. Horses for courses.

[lola]

I wouldn't buy a D800 because of the 4fps - that is to slow for what I need. My friend and I go shooting together and we have totally different styles - he has a 5DIII and thinks it is the dog's b's - over the weekend he wasnt trying to get the moment when a glider was just lifting off when being towed - which was when the full 10fps was needed. Horses for courses.

Why not consider D800 a 5fps camera? Yes, with a grip and DX crop but that's still cheaper than the 5D3 with more pixels!

What's really amazing is that somehow some people rate 1fps difference more precious than 36MP and 14.5 stops of dynamic range... Wow...