It looks like the D750 has hit a sweet spot in performance, size and price for many amateurs and pros. Well done to Nikon, but this does not mean anyone should be unhappy with the 5D III if it does what they need it to.
However, this does depend on what you shoot and how you work. Some of the DR obsessives could not take a good photo to save their lives, but some of the Canon fanboys are no different. As a long-time Canon user and owner of an A7 and A7R, I am weary of people trying to tell me that the only reason why 'people like me' are eager for Canon to improve banding issues and DR can only be because I cannot expose properly. I pity those making such comments for they inhabit a delusional world.
Most of the time the 5D III is all the camera I would ever see myself needing, but when you hit the wall with respect to banding and DR, then it is a pain in the butt. I would not have invested in Nik Dfine for no reason. It is because it allowed me to get numerous prints into portfolios, exhibition and sold. This is fact and no amount of bleating from those twits harping on about how 11.7 stop of DR is all you will ever need changes that.
If Canon sorts out the banding with the 5D IV and perhaps increases DR to 13+ stops, I think they will have pretty well all the bases covered, but I have a feeling they won't. I'm not sure they are ready.
The 5D III remains great and I have no intention of selling up now, but if the 5D IV does not make significant leaps in DR and banding then I will. Why? Because I want to be able to work in the same way with all my cameras as I can the A7 and A7R. It has been such a pleasure to work on the files. I have a far greater safety net with respect to DR, there is no banding to speak of and don't have to mess around with Dfine with tricky images that pushed the 5D III too far.
If you shoot city nightscapes in London, for example, the banding and DR of the 5D III will be acutely felt in perhaps 50% of sessions, precise subject depending. This is a fact and it has nothing whatsoever to do with exposure deficiencies. A good friend standing next to me shooting the same scenes had fantastic files to play with from his D600, where mine needed far more expertise and time to work on (exposure blending etc). Some were only fit for the trash. Think moonlit evenings over the Thames, with deep shade, artificial light sources etc. Sure this is testing stuff, but its real and what I need to shoot!
A few months ago, your choice was either a flawed D800 or a D600/610 with either oil on the sensor or crappy AF, build etc. Now, well, Nikon have two very refined products that will tackle extreme brightness range subjects better than a 5D III. Noticeably better. Less stress better. Better print better. And without the flaws of their predecessors. So lets not pretend it is not the case....
Canon's 5D IV will impress, but I am not convinced it will match the Nikons for DR or banding. If it closes the gap half way, that will probably be enough for most of us and I will be darned confident that the 5D IV will be more 'finished', tougher, more reliable and a truly outstanding camera in every other parameter. Canon still leads the way in terms of producing 'sorted cameras' for sure.
The D750 is a great success, assuming it is has no gremlins lurking for the consumers. Knocking it will achieve nothing.
