D800 not so great afterall...it has its shortcomings too

[Kernuak]

It's one of the most important rules in any business that manufactures goods for sale. It's pretty pointless designing a product that doesn't have a market. Any businesss has to know its market, regardless of what they are trying to provide, which is why the major companies (including Canon and Nikon) spend so much on market research. How many people complained about the main problems in the 5D MkII being the poor AF and relatively low frame rate, the general issue of Canon cameras having higher noise at high ISO than Nikon over the past 3-4 years? It isn't an accident that Canon has addressed those issues and not increased resolution. Noone was complaining about resolution and dynamic range until the 5D MkII and D800 were released, so equally, Canon didn't address those points. Conversely, the main area where the D700 was considered inferior by some was resolution, which Nikon addressed (with Sony's help), whether they went furhter than necessary or not is down to personal opinion and needs. In many ways, the D700 was the better allrounder relative to the 5D MkII and the 5D MkII was the better studio/landscape camera, now the situation has arguably reversed with the MkIII and D800. However, I'm still to be convinced that Nikon has a significant number of lenses that can cope with that extra resolution, which could be why Canon has been slower to come out with a high resolution sensor; they certainly seem to be announcing/releasing a lot more lenses recently than they have in the past few years.

[traveller]

In the absence of any insider knowledge, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. 

Their meetings, no.. but I have been in many design meetings (and full cycle) for embedded systems for product lines that have multiple price points and use cases.  I am skeptical that Canon and Nikon somehow skip such a common and vital process or are somehow exempt from the pressures that lead to it.

You think that Canon and Nikon have tailored their products to different markets, I believe that differences in specification are more an outcome of decisions that they made to sell more units to the type of people that buy cameras at this price point.  Unless Canon and Nikon actually release the minutes of their design team meetings, I don't think we'll ever know what the exact decision making process was.

The thing is, there is no universal market of 'people who buy cameras at a particular price point' since people use cameras for different things.  Otherwise they would have produced cameras that were much closer in specification since neither team are dummies and they are not going to go 'well, people with X amount of money want Y, so we will make Z instead!'.

That is like saying 'there are people who buy cars at a specific price point' and then comparing a SUV to a sports car simply because they cost about the same amount.

You're right, these camera are in completely differnet markets just like sports cars and SUVs.  Canon evidently decided that they didn't want the business of the landscape/studio photographers that bought the 5D MkII, so they sat down and designed a camera to deliberately exclude them.  Nikon though, "screw all the chumps that bought the D700, what we need to do is to design a camera that they'll hate and try to pursue a completely different segment of the market". 

Either that, or they sat down and thought "what would sell an upgraded camera to current owners best?".  I wonder...

[Dylan777]

Just came across this article.  it's candid and true to the point and not by any company but by a photographer.

http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=11652

Seems like the D800 has its downsides as well..

I'm glad I got my 5D MK3

+1

[awinphoto]

SHHHHHH!  Nikon shooters who patrol this site may hear you guys talking about their camera!  SHHHHHHH!

[Marsu42]

If they are not even designed to handle the same use cases, comparing the price points is meaningless and people are only doing it because they just happened to be released in about the same timeframe.

Imho "completely different usage scenarios" way of describing the 5d3 & d800 has only popped up because Canon people were desperate to save their favorite brand's newest baby's reputation. Both cameras might have different strong points and professionals will try to exploit them to gain an advantage over the competition. But for the rest of us they are certainly both complete dlsrs designed to be able to handle most situations - so any attempt to compare them seems perfectly valid to me.

edit: typo 5d2 -> 5d3

[briansquibb]

If they are not even designed to handle the same use cases, comparing the price points is meaningless and people are only doing it because they just happened to be released in about the same timeframe.

Imho "completely different usage scenarios" way of describing the 5d2 & d800 has only popped up because Canon people were desperate to save their favorite brand's newest baby's reputation. Both cameras might have different strong points and professionals will try to exploit them to gain an advantage over the competition. But for the rest of us they are certainly both complete dlsrs designed to be able to handle most situations - so any attempt to compare them seems perfectly valid to me.

5D2 and the d800 are valid comparisons as you say. Makes Nikon look like a money grabbing company to charge $1000 extra for a few mps and a little DR

[cpsico]

At low iso the d800 has great dynamic range but after 400 there is no more advantage in dynamic range

[V8Beast]

At low iso the d800 has great dynamic range but after 400 there is no more advantage in dynamic range

Haven't you heard that everyone is a low-ISO landscape shooter these days ?

[dilbert]

At low iso the d800 has great dynamic range but after 400 there is no more advantage in dynamic range

Haven't you heard that everyone is a low-ISO landscape shooter these days ?

Damn it, I thought everyone was a low-light sports shooter that needed noise-free high ISO.

[V8Beast]

Damn it, I thought everyone was a low-light sports shooter that needed noise-free high ISO.

Not everyone. Just the Canon fanboys that used to be low-ISO landscape/studio shooters that switched to low-light, noise-free, high-ISO religion. Wait a second, all the Nikon fanboys that used to be low-light, noise-free, high-ISO shooters have now converted to the low-ISO, high-resolution religion. 

[Marsu42]

5D2 and the d800 are valid comparisons as you say. Makes Nikon look like a money grabbing company to charge $1000 extra for a few mps and a little DR

Thanks for pointing out the typo, corrected. Actually you might have been correct if the 5d3 wasn't the 5d2 successor, but named "4d" and the 5d2 was here to stay. But this isn't the case.

Damn it, I thought everyone was a low-light sports shooter that needed noise-free high ISO.

Not everyone. Just the Canon fanboys that used to be low-ISO landscape/studio shooters that switched to low-light, noise-free, high-ISO religion. Wait a second, all the Nikon fanboys that used to be low-light, noise-free, high-ISO shooters have now converted to the low-ISO, high-resolution religion.

+1 :-) ... my observation, too.

At low iso the d800 has great dynamic range but after 400 there is no more advantage in dynamic range

Maybe, but the dr falloff is more bound to affect the 5d3 if you recently converted and are now a "low-light, noise-free, high-ISO shooter".

[dilbert]

If they are not even designed to handle the same use cases, comparing the price points is meaningless and people are only doing it because they just happened to be released in about the same timeframe.

Imho "completely different usage scenarios" way of describing the 5d2 & d800 has only popped up because Canon people were desperate to save their favorite brand's newest baby's reputation. Both cameras might have different strong points and professionals will try to exploit them to gain an advantage over the competition. But for the rest of us they are certainly both complete dlsrs designed to be able to handle most situations - so any attempt to compare them seems perfectly valid to me.

5D2 and the d800 are valid comparisons as you say. Makes Nikon look like a money grabbing company to charge $1000 extra for a few mps and a little DR

D800 has 70% more megapixels than the 5D2.
D800 has 467% more focus points than the 5D2.
So a 36% price increase seems more than justified.

[briansquibb]

If they are not even designed to handle the same use cases, comparing the price points is meaningless and people are only doing it because they just happened to be released in about the same timeframe.

Imho "completely different usage scenarios" way of describing the 5d2 & d800 has only popped up because Canon people were desperate to save their favorite brand's newest baby's reputation. Both cameras might have different strong points and professionals will try to exploit them to gain an advantage over the competition. But for the rest of us they are certainly both complete dlsrs designed to be able to handle most situations - so any attempt to compare them seems perfectly valid to me.

5D2 and the d800 are valid comparisons as you say. Makes Nikon look like a money grabbing company to charge $1000 extra for a few mps and a little DR

D800 has 70% more megapixels than the 5D2.
D800 has 467% more focus points than the 5D2.
So a 36% price increase seems more than justified.

Only if you need them - ask the wedding togs if it is worth the extortionate Nikon price with the 100% increase in memory cards, pp time etc. We know what they will say about the poor low light performance of the D800.

[dilbert]

If they are not even designed to handle the same use cases, comparing the price points is meaningless and people are only doing it because they just happened to be released in about the same timeframe.

Imho "completely different usage scenarios" way of describing the 5d2 & d800 has only popped up because Canon people were desperate to save their favorite brand's newest baby's reputation. Both cameras might have different strong points and professionals will try to exploit them to gain an advantage over the competition. But for the rest of us they are certainly both complete dlsrs designed to be able to handle most situations - so any attempt to compare them seems perfectly valid to me.

5D2 and the d800 are valid comparisons as you say. Makes Nikon look like a money grabbing company to charge $1000 extra for a few mps and a little DR

D800 has 70% more megapixels than the 5D2.
D800 has 467% more focus points than the 5D2.
So a 36% price increase seems more than justified.

Only if you need them - ask the wedding togs if it is worth the extortionate Nikon price with the 100% increase in memory cards, pp time etc. We know what they will say about the poor low light performance of the D800.

Is that like how wedding photographers only need the 12MP of the Nikon D700?

When Canon are no longer selling a full frame camera with less than 30MP, will wedding photographers still be crying for fewer MP?

[briansquibb]

If they are not even designed to handle the same use cases, comparing the price points is meaningless and people are only doing it because they just happened to be released in about the same timeframe.

Imho "completely different usage scenarios" way of describing the 5d2 & d800 has only popped up because Canon people were desperate to save their favorite brand's newest baby's reputation. Both cameras might have different strong points and professionals will try to exploit them to gain an advantage over the competition. But for the rest of us they are certainly both complete dlsrs designed to be able to handle most situations - so any attempt to compare them seems perfectly valid to me.

5D2 and the d800 are valid comparisons as you say. Makes Nikon look like a money grabbing company to charge $1000 extra for a few mps and a little DR

D800 has 70% more megapixels than the 5D2.
D800 has 467% more focus points than the 5D2.
So a 36% price increase seems more than justified.

Only if you need them - ask the wedding togs if it is worth the extortionate Nikon price with the 100% increase in memory cards, pp time etc. We know what they will say about the poor low light performance of the D800.

Is that like how wedding photographers only need the 12MP of the Nikon D700?

When Canon are no longer selling a full frame camera with less than 30MP, will wedding photographers still be crying for fewer MP?

High mps is not the top priority I would suggest - but low light performance is for most. Like everything else enough is suficient - how many wedding togs produce huge prints? - 21mp is ideal for A3 print size.

5D2 is still THE wedding camera rather than the more expensive D700 with its inferior specs