D800 v. 5D3 threads: What should Canon's takeaway be?

[V8Beast]

Fundamentally... new gear is only important when it's holding your vision back but also new equipment brings about new opportunities. Spotting and taking advantage of those opportunities can give you a business boost. Or it can give you nothing.

Very well said The gear vs. technique debate is a touchy subject indeed. The "it's not about equipment, it's all about technique" remark is thrown around so often that it's become cliche. I dislike blanket statements and generalizations, but while there's some truth to that old cliche, I don't agree with it entirely.

IMHO, at the beginner level, it's 99% technique and 1% equipment. An experienced pro with a point-and-shoot will easily produce better images than the typical soccer mom with a Rebel. At the pro level, it's still mostly about technique, but I'd say that equipment becomes more important, since those that lack basic photography skills have already been weeded out. It's tough to put a number on it. For pros, perhaps its 90% technique and 10% equipment, or 80% technique and 20% equipment, but any working photog with any dignity will strive to push the envelope and eventually hit the limits of their equipment. These days, the limits of equipment are extremely high, but it doesn't mean they don't exist.

I'm not much of a NBA fan, but I've noticed photogs are now rigging cameras up behind the backboard, and triggering them remotely to create a unique perspective as players battle up near the rim. How on earth would this be possible without today's technology? Now sports shooters can cover a game from multiple angles simultaneously without cloning themselves

Likewise, for portraits, the combination of ETTL technology, radio triggers, and high-speed sync flash guns has opened the door to creative effects that were once difficult, if not impossible to pull off. Furthermore, back in the day before autofocus was invented, motorsports photographers would zone focus at one particular part of the track, fire off a bunch of frames as a car approached, and hope that the timing of one of the frames happened to coincide with when a car crossed the focal plane. Every now and then you'd get a good shot, but most of them were soft piles of junk. Those are just a few examples that come to mind, and this post is already running long.

Just because you can get a shot with lesser gear doesn't mean it's always practical, especially when there's the all-important time invested vs. revenue earned metric that everyone running a business must deal with. Soooo, while the "gear doesn't matter, it's all about technique" cliche is true most of the time, to say that equipment never matters isn't entirely accurate.

 

[Razor2012]

Exactly. We can just just be thrilled with our new toys and have fun taking pics...or we can head over to the other camp and complain about all the shortcomings they have? Not.

Oh, boy. I'm not *just* complaining about its shortcomings. IQ is the area I need most. I do low light photography, print design, and publishing. The color noise and lack of details in the shadows which cannon are so good at hits me badly. The ink printing techniques are very prone to burning the highlights and darkening the shadows. This is exactly where canon's DR puts a bar in my wheels as compared to Nikon. If I open the shadows to compensate, I get color noise and bad IQ. Similar thing for the highlights, esp in strong light. Trust me, I've worked with professional scanners for quite some time now. The DR has been the main issue and a limiting factor there. I am amazed to see the advance Nikon has made in the area. I am not sure I can keep up clinging to canon anymore.

I agree with you totally. If the 800 is going to serve your needs better than the MKIII then your choice is clear. All I'm saying is that it doesn't matter, make a choice and carry on. I'm sure not going to go over to the Nikon camp and start trolling about all the stuff the 800 is lacking in (comparitively speaking).

 

[awinphoto]

As for D800, its image quality is not a bit better. It is WAY better. This is what counts FIRST. The differences in the areas where 5DIII has the edge are small to negligible. I am almost sure you'd like to have the D800's DR and shadow detail in your 5DIII, would you not? And then, aren't you asking yourself whether it's fair that you'd pay $500 more for a camera which lags quite a bit behind the competition in a specific area?

It's better from ISO 50 until about ISO 800 (with every ISO getting closer and closer until the canon beats nikon around 800)... To be honest, the specs on paper is impressive and looks promising, but looking at the sample images, the extra DR makes the images look flattttttttttttttttttt.... I love photoshop as much as the next guy, but if I have to do adjustments JUST to get the same pop as the canon file as a prerequisite to getting good files, that's a bit of a stretch for me. One wedding photog on CR mentioned how they shot the 5d3, shot the ceremony with the camera writing to both cards... then during the reception he loaded the SD on his laptop or TV or whatever and had the photos looping while he went on shooting the reception... Now imagine a D800 shooter doing the same thing... images flat... and then explaining to the crowd "it's not flat looking, it's just the 14 stops of DR"... no one will care, they will have a bad impression of the photog.

Do i feel ripped off? to be honest around the 50D era i actually did start feeling ripped off... I hated that camera with a passion.. noisy, underspec'd, 9 pt af, same crappy body, at that point, I was very displeased with Canon... But then the 7D came out, got it the first month it came out and rekindled my love for that camera and the brand as it met all my expectations as a working pro. Likewise that is why I hated the 5d2 but love the 5d3... It meets my expectations... as for DR and IQ... i never had issue with the 5d2's DR and IQ... during it's hayday, it was one of the best on the market. But everything else about the camera sucked donkey... The 5d3 gives me everything from the 7D is loved (minus the wireless controller) and the IQ of the 5d2 and even better low ISO... What's not to love? Plus, nikon cameras cant take canon lenses so screw it. =)

If nikon or sony or whatever produces a better camera for you, go for it. I'm not trying to convince you one way or another... all I can speak from is my point of view and where i came from to where I am now.

 

[traveller]

What should Canon take away from all this? It's far too early to say, in terms of sales (which is the only real measurement of success) we won't know until the end of the year. Neither Nikon nor Canon seem to be able to meet demand for these cameras at the moment. However, in the narrow terms of internet brand image, where Canon has really lost out is in perception.

I think that the overall problem is that Nikon has changed the goalposts in terms of the marketing strategy for their full frame cameras. The D4 is the speed demon and the D800 is the resolution monster, whereas for Canon the 1DX is the top of the line professional body and the 5D MkIII is for those that can’t afford the 1DX? OK, you can argue that the 5D MkIII is smaller, lighter and a better casual camera but this isn’t the way that it is marketed (if it were to be that, Canon should have made it smaller and lighter than the 5D MkII). Whilst the 5D MkIII is a very well rounded camera, Canon can’t give a simple marketing message that “this is the camera that is the best at…” That’s why there’s so much chatter on the internet forums and why they are having difficulty justifying the price tag.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

and in which ways is the D800 CLEARLY the better camera? AF? nope. high ISO? nope. DR? slightly. HDR? Silent Shooting? Movie? Ergonomics? Battery? DR Past ISO 800? nope nope nope nope nope nope... This is the overraction that proves ones ignorance to the facts... But in the end, what do I care what you buy? Enjoy your D800 and maybe one day we can have a proper shoot off to fully determine which is king.

I honestly hope you're right about the overreaction part. For quite some time now however I've been piling up this feeling that i am not making the right choice and that I am being extorted. It was the usual insecure suspicion in the beginning but it kept on growing. I clearly feel taken advantage of now. Canon know well that they have a strong side with their lens lineup, clear EF compatibility, etc. However, their marketing department seems to carefully take care to extort their customers penny by penny for this. I don't like to be extorted. I am not sure anyone does.

As for D800, its image quality is not a bit better. It is WAY better. IQ (to me) is what counts FIRST. The differences in the areas where 5DIII has the edge are small to negligible. I am almost sure you'd like to have the D800's DR and shadow detail in your 5DIII, would you not? And then, aren't you asking yourself whether it's fair that you'd pay $500 more for a camera which lags quite a bit behind the competition in a specific area?

Did you watch the videos? I know they're 20 minutes long each so they take a bit of time, but from what I saw there and what the producers themselves saw is that both cameras are extremely good tools - and in those areas that one edges out the other and vice versa the 'edge' they have is really so narrow that there's no reason to fuss, to worry, or to switch systems.

and as to the extortion ---what about nikon holding the fps hostage on the d800? Gotta buy that grip to get fps, and if fps is a concern to you then that edge that canon has is a big one. There is also the AA filter issue, and I hear a lot of people forgetting that they have to get the e model which is $300 more. If you feel extorted and don't want to buy canon, then I hate to break it to you but every company on this here planet will do that ---why --- because they need to stay in business, and that means creating and selling things. theres alwasy gonna be this trade off or that trade off, or this item that you have to add on to make it better, etc etc etc....If switching to nikon is what you feel you need to do, its not like anyone on this forum is going to find you and have an intervention...just do it, go for it...No one is stopping you from that...

Just realize that the d800 is not the holy grail of camera's. Its a great camera. So is the mk3.

 

[Tcapp]

and in which ways is the D800 CLEARLY the better camera? AF? nope. high ISO? nope. DR? slightly. HDR? Silent Shooting? Movie? Ergonomics? Battery? DR Past ISO 800? nope nope nope nope nope nope... This is the overraction that proves ones ignorance to the facts... But in the end, what do I care what you buy? Enjoy your D800 and maybe one day we can have a proper shoot off to fully determine which is king.

Just realize that the d800 is not the holy grail of camera's. Its a great camera. So is the mk3.

The 1Dx is the holy grail. ;D

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

The funnier thing is that when I was getting my start, only just 2 years ago, the local pros I spoke with told me its not about the gear, its about the eye and the heart of the tog behind the gear. At that point I was using a rebel xsi with max ISO of 1600 (usable ISO of 400, things got real murky above 400). Does gear play a part? Yeah, but when you get to the level of d800 vs mk3, which cam has the real edge gets real blurry, and very specific. Thats the source of the sarcasm. The vast majority of clients want an image that speaks to them, an image that captures a moment - there is an intangible there that no amount of stops of DR can change.

This is both true and untrue. Pros tend to say "gear doesn't matter" when in actual fact what they mean is to deliver the images I need to deliver to keep my business going, this gear is what I need. At a very basic level, that may be an image that captures a moment or that speaks to a customer, but achieving that is only a 5 on the 1-10 scale of wedding photography. It's something that a competent photographer can achieve in a couple of years.

However, if you want to deliver something different and unique and your gear won't do that, it becomes a problem.

I'd point you to http://jonaspeterson.com/. He's made himself one of the top wedding photographers in the world through his style - but part of that style is gear and part of it is post processing. He decided on a different, quirky vision for his work and went out and sold it. He pushes DR pretty hard as far as I can tell - very bright brights and dark darks, so ask him if his gear matters and he'd say yes!.

However, did the gear do this for him? No, it came from his heart. He needed the tools to deliver that vision though - low DOF & TS lenses and a vintage PP effect.

Now maybe someone will take a d800 and shoot it on -1EV aperture priority all day (when ISO <800) and pull highlights and push shadows as much as possible to produce a kind of HDR effect. Maybe people will want to buy it. Maybe they won't. The point is though that, if that was your vision, you can only do that successfully with the d800.

Fundamentally... new gear is only important when it's holding your vision back but also new equipment brings about new opportunities. Spotting and taking advantage of those opportunities can give you a business boost. Or it can give you nothing.

Photographers need to follow the career path they want. Do you want to be producing 5/10's or do you want to set the world alight? Both answer are right - there is no wrong - it's just what you want. Most produce 5/10's. A few go on to set the world alight.

(and while we're talking, marketing is incredibly important too of course)

I agree. when you reach the limits of what your equipment can achieve you need to add more/new equipment or fall into possible stagnation. I brought that up because I know many of those same pros that told me its not the gear ---- well, they complain about their gear! LOL...that's just part of humanity there - its actually one of the reasons the human race still exists - we're never satisfied, while that does lead to lots of complaining it also leads to evolution.

To break it down from a very subjective perspective. For me, I do feel that I am pushing the limits/capabilities of my current setup. My 7d rocks, and for the most parts does really well for me. But the crop factor does get into my way. And high ISO noise is a big issue for me. I shoot portraits, events, art, and weddings. And I break it down like this ---

For art, hell yeah I'd love both the resolution and the DR of the d800.
For portraits, I would really just like to have the flexibility on the wide side of an FF camera. From that sense either body would fit my needs
events - major bonus to the mkiii
for weddings - this gets split up, the d800 would most likely be the better camera for outdoor weddings, or well lit venues, but the mkiii wins the battle on the scales due to the high ISO performance.

Final conclusions. The d800 just doesn't offer enough for me over the mk3 to make the switch. If I were to double or triple my sales in art then either switching or adding a nikon to my bag would be on the table, but by that point in my career the whole medium of photography may have gone and flipped on us. So in the interim, pinch and save to upgrade, while also upgrading other tools in my kit. if i were to land a job for an ad agency and I truly needed the DR and res of the D800, well, that's when I can choose to rent (hell, if it was a big enough job though, I'd probably rent a MF unit!).

until then, I haven't seen any real world evidence that tells me that an mkiii would not be a significant upgrade from a 7D...everyones different though. this is what makes sense for me. I don't expect either canon or nikon to make a body that suits all of my current and future needs, that's just unrealistic. I'm just picking what I feel the best tools are for me.

 

[seekn]

Exactly. We can just just be thrilled with our new toys and have fun taking pics...or we can head over to the other camp and complain about all the shortcomings they have? Not.

Oh, boy. I'm not *just* complaining about its shortcomings. IQ is the area I need most. I do low light photography, print design, and publishing. The color noise and lack of detail in the shadows, which cannon are so good at, hits me badly. The ink printing techniques are very prone to burning the highlights and darkening the shadows. This is exactly where canon's DR puts a bar in my wheels as compared to Nikon. If I open the shadows to compensate, I get color noise and bad IQ. Similar thing for the highlights, esp in strong light. Trust me, I've worked with professional scanners for quite some time now. The DR has been the main issue and a limiting factor there as well. I am amazed to see the advance Nikon has made in the area. I am not sure I can keep up clinging to canon anymore unless they dee up quickly.

Look at what you wrote. This is what YOU need for your low light photos and prints. Just because you need that doesn't mean others do for their work. Others may appreciate the extra FPS, silent shooting, quick AF, nice skin tones etc etc... Don't bash it just because it's not your cup of tea. Also, I find it funny when people say that they make more money with a new camera with more DR. Does that mean you charged less before the 800 came out? Is your bottom line all of a sudden going to soar and all the clients come running because they can see a little more detail in the shadow? Honestly most pictures are sold through composition, not an extra 2-3 stops of DR - but if you need it then your answer is clear. Just get what you want or need - but no need to put something else down just because you may not understand why it's a godsend to others. One thing I think that Canon can take home is that you cant make everyone happy. No camera will ever be perfect. People are never content - they always want more (even if they dont really need it).

 

[Tcapp]

Exactly. We can just just be thrilled with our new toys and have fun taking pics...or we can head over to the other camp and complain about all the shortcomings they have? Not.

Oh, boy. I'm not *just* complaining about its shortcomings. IQ is the area I need most. I do low light photography, print design, and publishing. The color noise and lack of detail in the shadows, which cannon are so good at, hits me badly. The ink printing techniques are very prone to burning the highlights and darkening the shadows. This is exactly where canon's DR puts a bar in my wheels as compared to Nikon. If I open the shadows to compensate, I get color noise and bad IQ. Similar thing for the highlights, esp in strong light. Trust me, I've worked with professional scanners for quite some time now. The DR has been the main issue and a limiting factor there as well. I am amazed to see the advance Nikon has made in the area. I am not sure I can keep up clinging to canon anymore unless they dee up quickly.

Look at what you wrote. This is what YOU need for your low light photos and prints. Just because you need that doesn't mean others do for their work. Others may appreciate the extra FPS, silent shooting, quick AF, nice skin tones etc etc... Don't bash it just because it's not your cup of tea. Also, I find it funny when people say that they make more money with a new camera with more DR. Does that mean you charged less before the 800 came out? Is your bottom line all of a sudden going to soar and all the clients come running because they can see a little more detail in the shadow? Honestly most pictures are sold through composition, not an extra 2-3 stops of DR - but if you need it then your answer is clear. Just get what you want or need - but no need to put something else down just because you may not understand why it's a godsend to others. One thing I think that Canon can take home is that you cant make everyone happy. No camera will ever be perfect. People are never content - they always want more (even if they dont really need it).

I think people saying that a particular camera or feature will make them more money is just a rationalization to let them buy a new toy.

I do it. I'll admit it. So I totally agree with you that its the composition not the tech that sells. But new toys are fun, and we have to make it sound like a good investment to our wives.

 

[ybrankov]

Look at what you wrote. This is what YOU need for your low light photos and prints. Just because you need that doesn't mean others do for their work. Others may appreciate the extra FPS, silent shooting, quick AF, nice skin tones etc etc... Don't bash it just because it's not your cup of tea. Also, I find it funny when people say that they make more money with a new camera with more DR. Does that mean you charged less before the 800 came out? Is your bottom line all of a sudden going to soar and all the clients come running because they can see a little more detail in the shadow? Honestly most pictures are sold through composition, not an extra 2-3 stops of DR - but if you need it then your answer is clear. Just get what you want or need - but no need to put something else down just because you may not understand why it's a godsend to others. One thing I think that Canon can take home is that you cant make everyone happy. No camera will ever be perfect. People are never content - they always want more (even if they dont really need it).

Well, I have my point of view and unfortunately it is my only one. I haven't found a way to have two at a time. This gives me only one point of looking at facts and judging them. So this is my opinion and of course it's about me and my needs, who else.

I am not going to charge more or less. Better DR will simply help me improve some pictures I cannot re-take, will make my work easier, and will give me more possibilities. Speaking about Canon, I feel the company has been over-milking their user base. True, Apple does the same but this doesn't mean it's not happening. I like both companies but what they do is not very dignified. That is what reminded me of the example with Nokia who were left in the dust.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

When the competition are THREE usable stops better, yeah it does need some fixing.

Except that's not true, of course - those three stops can be significantly equalised if you know how (and it isn't hard).

Whatever tricks you do to the canon image to 'equalize' it you should also be applying to the D800 image and then you are back to the three stops again.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I suspect your dates are a wee bit off... Canon used nikon as a whipping board up until about the 40D, which was when nikon started edging nikon digitally... This was in sensors, DR, and such... remember for the longest time nikon kept using CCD's instead of CMOS sensor and nikon suffered for it. As for the 9pt AF... it was in play since at least the D60... i cant recall if the D30 had it or the old 7 pt system.. Before that in the film era you either had a pro 35 with the 3's and the 5's and the 1's, or you had the elans and rebels, each having anywhere from 3 to 7 points... It was bad that they used the 9pt as it's bread and butter for so long, but at least they have learned from there ways, or so it seems...

He overdid the dates a bit. Canon had been whipping Nikon sensors every which way for a while there.

and in which ways is the D800 CLEARLY the better camera? AF? nope. high ISO? nope. DR? slightly. HDR? Silent Shooting? Movie? Ergonomics? Battery? DR Past ISO 800? nope nope nope nope nope nope...

If you call three stops better slightly then you can't say Canon sensors EVER were noticeable better than Nikon. You can't have it both ways.

D800 DR is slightly better a stop or two beyond ISO800.

It clearly can capture more total detail for equally framed objects and pull in more detail when reach limited.

It most likely has better metering, has built in flash and built-in intervalometer.

But the nikon video has lots of color moire and it can't do 6fps in FF mode (the fact it can do 6fps in DX and 5fps in 1.2x crop save it though and still allow it to be a bit of an all around camera, if they hadn't put in those modes, then thre would be a huge difference there with the 5D3 being vastly better for action). Of course once the D800 does 6fps it no longer costs less than the 5D3.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Fundamentally... new gear is only important when it's holding your vision back but also new equipment brings about new opportunities. Spotting and taking advantage of those opportunities can give you a business boost. Or it can give you nothing.

Very well said The gear vs. technique debate is a touchy subject indeed. The "it's not about equipment, it's all about technique" remark is thrown around so often that it's become cliche. I dislike blanket statements and generalizations, but while there's some truth to that old cliche, I don't agree with it entirely.

IMHO, at the beginner level, it's 99% technique and 1% equipment. An experienced pro with a point-and-shoot will easily produce better images than the typical soccer mom with a Rebel. At the pro level, it's still mostly about technique, but I'd say that equipment becomes more important, since those that lack basic photography skills have already been weeded out. It's tough to put a number on it. For pros, perhaps its 90% technique and 10% equipment, or 80% technique and 20% equipment, but any working photog with any dignity will strive to push the envelope and eventually hit the limits of their equipment. These days, the limits of equipment are extremely high, but it doesn't mean they don't exist.

I'm not much of a NBA fan, but I've noticed photogs are now rigging cameras up behind the backboard, and triggering them remotely to create a unique perspective as players battle up near the rim. How on earth would this be possible without today's technology? Now sports shooters can cover a game from multiple angles simultaneously without cloning themselves

Likewise, for portraits, the combination of ETTL technology, radio triggers, and high-speed sync flash guns has opened the door to creative effects that were once difficult, if not impossible to pull off. Furthermore, back in the day before autofocus was invented, motorsports photographers would zone focus at one particular part of the track, fire off a bunch of frames as a car approached, and hope that the timing of one of the frames happened to coincide with when a car crossed the focal plane. Every now and then you'd get a good shot, but most of them were soft piles of junk. Those are just a few examples that come to mind, and this post is already running long.

Just because you can get a shot with lesser gear doesn't mean it's always practical, especially when there's the all-important time invested vs. revenue earned metric that everyone running a business must deal with. Soooo, while the "gear doesn't matter, it's all about technique" cliche is true most of the time, to say that equipment never matters isn't entirely accurate.

Once on the sidelines a few people swapped equipment. There were two each of beginning amateurs, experienced amateurs and pros. It was xxD vs 1 series bodies. They were all paired with super-tele L lenses.

The pros when stuck with the xxD still easily out shot the beginning amateurs even when they were paired with 1 series bodies.

BUT the pros (both had only used 1 series) and the one experience amateur who had been using one series for a while all said they instantly had worse results and worse take when they switched to the xxD bodies.

And the beginners and advanced amateurs all said they instantly had a much better take when they used the 1 series bodies.

In the end it was clear that natural talent mattered a real lot, experience mattered a lot to a real lot and equipment matter a fair amount.

Poor talent and very little experience were the most detrimental but equipment was not something to laugh off. Shooters, at ALL levels, instantly became better or worse depending upon which body they shot with. The difference was quite clear. And the ones going to the better camera were instantly better despite not even having time to settle into how to even use it the best.

Contrary to many claims there was no such thing as the equipment being 'too good' for a shooter. Even the least talented and least experienced instantly had a better take with the better equipment. All the talk about needing to improve yourself before you improve your equipment is just nonsense. That said improving yourself certainly IS very important and it does make the greater difference overall in many cases.

Both of the pros had hoped to get away with getting an xxD body but after the trial swap they were all like umm yeah.... no way in heck, my take rate instantly went down, equipment matters, definitely matters. And all those who hadn't used 1 series before were suddenly lusting after better equipment and complaining about how no small bodies from Canon had decent AF.

 

[V8Beast]

Contrary to many claims there was no such thing as the equipment being 'too good' for a shooter. Even the least talented and least experienced instantly had a better take with the better equipment. All the talk about needing to improve yourself before you improve your equipment is just nonsense. That said improving yourself certainly IS very important and it does make the greater difference overall in many cases.

Both of the pros had hoped to get away with getting an xxD body but after the trial swap they were all like umm yeah.... no way in heck, my take rate instantly went down, equipment matters, definitely matters. And all those who hadn't used 1 series before were suddenly lusting after better equipment and complaining about how no small bodies from Canon had decent AF.

It really depends what you shoot. For the sports photography scenario you reference, gear is obviously very important. Events happen quickly, in real time and only once, so there are no do-overs. If you miss a shot, but all the photographers you're competing with get the shot, then you're going to look pretty dumb Do this enough, and you'll be out of business.

For forms of photography where there's lots of time to stage and set up shots, you can often get a lot more out of lesser gear. IMHO, these are the types of scenarios where the advantage of better gear is more questionable. "Hit rate" doesn't really matter, because you only need a few keepers, and as long as time permits, you can stage another shot and take another crack at it.

Besides all that, the convenience factor of updated equipment can't be overlooked. With the 5D, I used to manually focus in just about every situation where it was practical. This isn't exactly fun at night or in cave-like lighting conditions. It took several shoots for me to fully trust the 5DIII's AF system, because "trust" and "AF" aren't two things that go together well when it comes to the 5D and 5DII ;D After learning to trust the 5DIII's AF, my eyes don't hurt anymore after a shoot, and my contacts aren't dried out. On the drive home, I don't have to worry about all the shots where my manual focusing skills might have failed me, either. You can't really put a price on that sort of thing. Plus, the LCD screen is badass and the shutter sounds sweet The sliding window at my house has a nicer screen than the 5DC

 

[Tcapp]

Contrary to many claims there was no such thing as the equipment being 'too good' for a shooter. Even the least talented and least experienced instantly had a better take with the better equipment. All the talk about needing to improve yourself before you improve your equipment is just nonsense. That said improving yourself certainly IS very important and it does make the greater difference overall in many cases.

Both of the pros had hoped to get away with getting an xxD body but after the trial swap they were all like umm yeah.... no way in heck, my take rate instantly went down, equipment matters, definitely matters. And all those who hadn't used 1 series before were suddenly lusting after better equipment and complaining about how no small bodies from Canon had decent AF.

It really depends what you shoot. For the sports photography scenario you reference, gear is obviously very important. Events happen quickly, in real time and only once, so there are no do-overs. If you miss a shot, but all the photographers you're competing with get the shot, then you're going to look pretty dumb Do this enough, and you'll be out of business.

For forms of photography where there's lots of time to stage and set up shots, you can often get a lot more out of lesser gear. IMHO, these are the types of scenarios where the advantage of better gear is more questionable. "Hit rate" doesn't really matter, because you only need a few keepers, and as long as time permits, you can stage another shot and take another crack at it.

Besides all that, the convenience factor of updated equipment can't be overlooked. With the 5D, I used to manually focus in just about every situation where it was practical. This isn't exactly fun at night or in cave-like lighting conditions. It took several shoots for me to fully trust the 5DIII's AF system, because "trust" and "AF" aren't two things that go together well when it comes to the 5D and 5DII ;D After learning to trust the 5DIII's AF, my eyes don't hurt anymore after a shoot, and my contacts aren't dried out. On the drive home, I don't have to worry about all the shots where my manual focusing skills might have failed me, either. You can't really put a price on that sort of thing. Plus, the LCD screen is badass and the shutter sounds sweet The sliding window at my house has a nicer screen than the 5DC

Hahaha. +1 for the laugh, +2 for the excellent points.

For slow, controlled environments, its hard to beat a 5d2 (cost vs performance). For demanding situations I totally agree, 5d3 or 1dwhatever. Or 7d I guess.

 

[caruser]

I honestly hope you're right about the overreaction part. For quite some time now however I've been piling up this feeling that i am not making the right choice and that I am being extorted. It was the usual insecure suspicion in the beginning but it kept on growing. I clearly feel taken advantage of now. Canon know well that they have a strong side with their lens lineup, clear EF compatibility, etc. However, their marketing department seems to carefully take care to extort their customers penny by penny for this. I don't like to be extorted. I am not sure anyone does.

Everyone does, it's called capitalism, and people seem to like it, for some reason or other, otherwise a majority would stand up and change it.

Edit: How about all DSLR users stood up and said they wouldn't buy another camera before all makers agreed on one compatible mount? ;-)

 

[briansquibb]

For slow, controlled environments, its hard to beat a 5d2 (cost vs performance). For demanding situations I totally agree, 5d3 or 1dwhatever. Or 7d I guess.

Me and my 5DII had 3 years of fun together.

As a talentless amateur I had to develop techniques to compensate like anticipation for the AF to get enough time to react. Moving to the series 1 meant that the fast AF allowed me to do less anticipation and more grab shooting. The IQ of my pictures didn't go up - just that the camera function allowed me to treat it like a 5DII P&S (actually my keepers went down until I realised the 1DS3 wasnt THAT fast).

My world is very different from that of a professional - time is not an issue as I have plenty of that and it doesn't cost, I can pick and choose jobs I do as I dont charge and my 'clients' are happy for me to plug away until I get the job done. Yesterday I was doing a favour for a startup business and they started treating me like dirt on the bottom of a sewage workers shoes - I left them to do it themselves much to their astonishment - they gave me a lot of abuse about how unprofessional I was - which made me laugh

As long as Canon (or any of the manufacturers) keep improving the functionality I will be happy - as this allows me to concentrate on the composition rather than the technologies and workarounds. I am a affectionado of flash so the move to eTTL has been a godsend to me, especially with the advent of radio triggers. Whereas in the pre-AF days the shooter would prefocus on a corner - I now scatter flash guns and take pictures as the subjects pass them - this is a fun technique for street work as they look around for someone with a flash - and I am up the road with a 400

 

[Tcapp]

For slow, controlled environments, its hard to beat a 5d2 (cost vs performance). For demanding situations I totally agree, 5d3 or 1dwhatever. Or 7d I guess.

Me and my 5DII had 3 years of fun together.

As a talentless amateur I had to develop techniques to compensate like anticipation for the AF to get enough time to react. Moving to the series 1 meant that the fast AF allowed me to do less anticipation and more grab shooting. The IQ of my pictures didn't go up - just that the camera function allowed me to treat it like a 5DII P&S (actually my keepers went down until I realised the 1DS3 wasnt THAT fast).

My world is very different from that of a professional - time is not an issue as I have plenty of that and it doesn't cost, I can pick and choose jobs I do as I dont charge and my 'clients' are happy for me to plug away until I get the job done. Yesterday I was doing a favour for a startup business and they started treating me like dirt on the bottom of a sewage workers shoes - I left them to do it themselves much to their astonishment - they gave me a lot of abuse about how unprofessional I was - which made me laugh

As long as Canon (or any of the manufacturers) keep improving the functionality I will be happy - as this allows me to concentrate on the composition rather than the technologies and workarounds. I am a affectionado of flash so the move to eTTL has been a godsend to me, especially with the advent of radio triggers. Whereas in the pre-AF days the shooter would prefocus on a corner - I now scatter flash guns and take pictures as the subjects pass them - this is a fun technique for street work as they look around for someone with a flash - and I am up the road with a 400

briansquibb- Why do you not do this professionally? You certainly have the gear for it, heck, you have a lot more gear than I do and I do do this professionally! It sounds like you know your stuff, have great techniques, and although I haven't seen your photos, im sure they are pretty damn good.

 

[briansquibb]

briansquibb- Why do you not do this professionally? You certainly have the gear for it, heck, you have a lot more gear than I do and I do do this professionally! It sounds like you know your stuff, have great techniques, and although I haven't seen your photos, im sure they are pretty damn good.

I am retired now and just do it as a hobby. I really enjoy photography and shoot about 4 days a week on things I want to do - I get to see a lot of very interesting places and people which is fun.

 

[Tcapp]

briansquibb- Why do you not do this professionally? You certainly have the gear for it, heck, you have a lot more gear than I do and I do do this professionally! It sounds like you know your stuff, have great techniques, and although I haven't seen your photos, im sure they are pretty damn good.

I am retired now and just do it as a hobby. I really enjoy photography and shoot about 4 days a week on things I want to do - I get to see a lot of very interesting places and people which is fun.

Ah! Your retired. It all makes sense now. I have a good 45 years to go before I can think about retiring. I wonder how many total photos I'll take from now till then... 5 million? 7 million? exciting to think about all the great photos that are yet to happen. Can't wait to see what happens!