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

[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!"

 

[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 ;D?

 

[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".

 

[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.

 

[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