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

[GMCPhotographics]

What he doesn't mention is that Nikon does not have a 135mm f/2, or a 100-400mm lens that are in the same ballpark as the Canon lenses.  For landscape with the D800 and the 14-24mmG, a landscape shooter will be very happy.  However, my D800 was very noisy as ISO got up to 1600, but it took NR very well.  However, a low light shooter might not be very happy with it.

Looking at the manual for the new 600 EX RT, the wide angle adaptor now pushes the range to 14mm at the wide end. It's another indicator that reinforces my assumption that a Canon 14-24mm lens is in developement. But I get the feeling that Canon are taking their time with their lenses and want to get things right and not rush to market a half baked product. In the mean time....there's the new Sigma 12-24II, which looks pretty amazing and is a lot wider than the Nikkor. The Current TS-E 17mm is pretty amazing optically and with a bit of shift, it can equal around 12.5mm...although it's a bit of a faf.
On the Nikon front, the lack of a Nikon equivalent 100-400L may seem an issue...but Sigma make a very good 80-400 OS which is pretty close to the Canon in IQ and performance. 
I'm waiting for a 100-400IIL to arrive too....sure it's going to be at least another year before we see anything on the shelves, but if it's in the same league as the 70-200mm 2.8 L IS II, then it will be worth the wait.
The recent 70-300L has had it's critics, but the one I tried a few months ago was stunning in every area. It's build was fantastic, it's AF was very very good and it's IQ was top tier. It's expensive but worth everry penny IMHO. 

[Marsu42]

I think it's fair for Canon to charge a little more for the 5DIII. It's not really an upgrade to the 5DII, it's a completely different camera and every area is revolutionised. Even the card door is superior.

This has been gone thought again and again of course, but my opinion still is that technological evolution and competition usually results in revised & updated products with the same or even lower price - or your $1000 pc of the year 2000 would cost $10000 now.

The price of the 5d3 has nothing to do with "fair", but rather the limited competition and brand loyalty in the dslr market. It's still just a dlsr, and if "worth it" or the superiority is due to your battery door not getting all squeaky and shiny is debatable :-p

[psolberg]

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

they all have downsides and different reviewers have different opinions. We've all seen plenty of links by now to know the D800's strenghts are its unrivaled image quality and dynamic range whereas the 5DIII offers slightly more low light appeal and speed (although certainly not on par with a D4/1DX which is what I'd shoot if I needed to meet such demands from my photography). I switched to the D800 after years with canon and could not be happier. Anybody shooting landscape with 35mm format cameras should read http://diglloyd.com/ extensive D800 reviews to really undertand the D800's audience and purpose. Definitively not for the spray and pray sport shooter.

ultimately both cameras are so different that if you're happy with what you got, clearly the other camera wasn't meant for you. I'd never buy a 5DmkIII period. It just doesn't really have anything that appeals to me in such degree that would make me give up the gains I've obtrained from the D800 in both video and stills.

What he doesn't mention is that Nikon does not have a 135mm f/2, or a 100-400mm lens that are in the same ballpark as the Canon lenses.  For landscape with the D800 and the 14-24mmG, a landscape shooter will be very happy.  However, my D800 was very noisy as ISO got up to 1600, but it took NR very well.  However, a low light shooter might not be very happy with it.

the 135 f/2 from both nikon and canon are terribly outdated. both lacking IS which is unnaceptable for this FL. The nikon offers defocus control which is neat for some video tricks and off course an aperture ring. Image quality wise, both are ok for their age but easily bested by Zeiss glass and the even more impressive 135 f1.8 from sony. not THAT  is a lens I'd like to have. The 100-400 canon push pull is a terrible design for dust reasons and badly in need of an update. The nikon version is sluggish AF wise but great otherwise. So I don't see how either lens really needs to be brought into a review of bodies since neither is particularly great. I'll take a 70-200 over a 135 any day.

Doesnt really seem that supprizing to me what both cameras are better at what they set out to achieve, looking to paint one as superior to the other in almost all areas is really just a case of people confusing there own needs with everyones needs.

exactly. it is such a silly and pointless thing to compare the weak point of one body to the strong poitn of the other since both cameras compromised to achieve a certain specialization. It is like comparion a wrench and a hammer. Both are good at one thing but not the other. The need to generalize which camera is "superior" is not only childish, but completely misses the point of both cameras' specialization. Neither really set out to be the best at everything so it is no surprising neither is.

[jebrady03]

exactly. it is such a silly and pointless thing to compare the weak point of one body to the strong poitn of the other since both cameras compromised to achieve a certain specialization. It is like comparion a wrench and a hammer. Both are good at one thing but not the other. The need to generalize which camera is "superior" is not only childish, but completely misses the point of both cameras' specialization. Neither really set out to be the best at everything so it is no surprising neither is.

HEY!  Making complete sense and being rational isn't allowed on public forums.  Cut that out now!

[moreorless]

Doesnt really seem that supprizing to me what both cameras are better at what they set out to achieve, looking to paint one as superior to the other in almost all areas is really just a case of people confusing there own needs with everyones needs.

That's one way of rationalizing it - doesn't explain why Canon made the 5d3 significantly more expensive than the d800 though, which seems to be the main grief about the "5d2 update that users wanted". Of course, $500 is little difference to people paying this amount of money for their gear, but it's a marketing statement anyhow.

Again I'd say thats partly tied into the cameras potential users, the 5D3 to me seems to be design more to appeal to a larger professional market, event photographers, jurnos and the like who want good but not massive resolution, top of the line AF, decent FPS and high quality HD video that doesnt need a lighting rig etc.

[Neeneko]

That's one way of rationalizing it - doesn't explain why Canon made the 5d3 significantly more expensive than the d800 though, which seems to be the main grief about the "5d2 update that users wanted". Of course, $500 is little difference to people paying this amount of money for their gear, but it's a marketing statement anyhow.

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.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'm sure you'll be ecstatic if/when Canon releases that newer 100-400L II..

I'km quite happy with the one I have, people have been predicting a new model for several years, but with no one else in the industry competiting at that price level, they are not under any pressure.
 
If only Nikon had something close to even the old Canon design, I would be much happier to keep the D800.  Nikon seems very good at shorter focal lengths while Canon has a good selection at longer focal lengths.  The D800 has a lot of features I really like.  I'm still considering trying a D800E.
 
Both have really good super telephotos. 

[awinphoto]

Granted the 5D3 has its own with the move of the zoom button ...

That is quite a serious flaw, makes you wonder why the pros didn't pick it up during testing 

I hated the move at first, but i configured the set button to zoom, and now it's almost second nature... The only times I have problems is when I revert back to an older button and the zoom isn't on the set button any more.  It's one of those things where it's more intuitive than expected, but until you get used to the change and dont switch back and forth between older bodies, it's easier to adapt to. 

[traveller]

That's one way of rationalizing it - doesn't explain why Canon made the 5d3 significantly more expensive than the d800 though, which seems to be the main grief about the "5d2 update that users wanted". Of course, $500 is little difference to people paying this amount of money for their gear, but it's a marketing statement anyhow.

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.

Sorry, but I thing that people are comparing the two because they fill the same segment of the market in their manufacturers' respective product lines. 

I wish people would stop trying to find fault with the D800, it's a little childish and it doesn't make the 5D MkIII any better. 

I am also getting a little bit tired of all the variations on the "I'm switching to Nikon" theme.  If you feel that now is the time to change systems, fine -it's your gear, your money and your decision.  Why people feel the need to come on this forum to justify their choice to the world is beyond me.  With perhaps the exception of a small number of people who have actually bought and used both the D800 and the 5D MkIII, no one here can give you any practical advice beyond what they've read on the internet (not that this would stop them )

[Neeneko]

Sorry, but I thing that people are comparing the two because they fill the same segment of the market in their manufacturers' respective product lines. 

Not.. really.  Similar price points but not the same market segments.   The 5D3 is geared for video, wedding, and sports.  The D800 is geared towards studio and landscape.  Like any high end DSLR they can be cross purposed and fill each other's roles pretty well, but they are really not optimized for the same segments, which is why the comparisons keep getting so flamey.

[traveller]

Sorry, but I thing that people are comparing the two because they fill the same segment of the market in their manufacturers' respective product lines. 

Not.. really.  Similar price points but not the same market segments.   The 5D3 is geared for video, wedding, and sports.  The D800 is geared towards studio and landscape.  Like any high end DSLR they can be cross purposed and fill each other's roles pretty well, but they are really not optimized for the same segments, which is why the comparisons keep getting so flamey.

Seriously, this is all bulls**t made up on internet forums such as this by fans that are seeking to justify 'their' manufacturer's decisions.  In reality, both Canon and Nikon have produced cameras in this price bracket that address what they feel will make owners of previous or lower models upgrade.  I doubt that the design teams deliberately sat down and said to themselves "let's make a camera especially for xxxxx photographers"; Canon heard the message "21MP is enough, but I want a camera that can handle moving subjects" and Nikon heard "I want a D700 with more megapixels". 

[Neeneko]

I doubt that the design teams deliberately sat down and said to themselves "let's make a camera especially for xxxxx photographers";

While probably not worded that way, yes, they likely did.  Design, while not quite a zero sum process, does involve deciding which groups you are going to focus on appealing to and which are not a priority.  There was already some split between the D700 users and 5D2 users and in looking at what the users of those bodies wanted out of a new one they implicitly focused on specific segments. 

You can not design a product that will have universal appeal in a domain like this, not at any sane price point (and not even then since allocation of design resources would still be asymmetric).... so yes you do sit down and decide which ones you are going to focus on and design a body prioritized to their use cases.

[traveller]

I doubt that the design teams deliberately sat down and said to themselves "let's make a camera especially for xxxxx photographers";

While probably not worded that way, yes, they likely did.  Design, while not quite a zero sum process, does involve deciding which groups you are going to focus on appealing to and which are not a priority.  There was already some split between the D700 users and 5D2 users and in looking at what the users of those bodies wanted out of a new one they implicitly focused on specific segments. 

You can not design a product that will have universal appeal in a domain like this, not at any sane price point (and not even then since allocation of design resources would still be asymmetric).... so yes you do sit down and decide which ones you are going to focus on and design a body prioritized to their use cases.

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

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. 

[Neeneko]

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.

[ScottyP]

I'm sure you'll be ecstatic if/when Canon releases that newer 100-400L II..

problem is we will all be so old it'll be to heavy to use by the time that actually comes out...

And by the time it reaches the shelves of a store, we'll all be dead and buried!

And they will price it 3 times what the current  version costs, which they will attribute to the dollar-yen exchange rate which seems to affect camera stuff overnight whenever a Mk2 or Mk3 of something is released. 
And fanboys will defend that passionately with the typical cry of "love it or leave it", or "go buy a Nikon then", or "Canon really does love me; it just treats me badly sometimes, but it always regrets it deep-down!"