amehta Loc: Boston

HallowedHill, since you are new here, you don't know about the levels of bias for the regular posters here. And nobody's bias level is higher than SharpShooter's when the Canon/Nikon question comes up.

For context of what I am going to write, I use the D800, and think the 5D Mark III is an excellent camera (I mentioned it in the very first response). Of course I am biased, we all are, but I am most biased against people suggesting significant differences when they are not there.

(1) The idea that the Canon 5D Mark III is more versatile than the D800 is just not true. The 5D Mark III has a higher frames per second, but is 6fps going to catch any shots which 4fps does not? I don't really think so. Get to 10-12fps (Canon 1DX/Nikon D4S), and things change. But in the 6-4fps range, there is no significant difference. Similarly, is 36mp significantly different than 22mp? It's only about a 25% increase in linear resolution, basically the difference between a 20x30" print and a 24x36" print. For fps, slight advantage 5D3; for resolution, slight advantage D800; overall, a wash, neither is more versatile.

(2) I agree that you could easily shoot the 5D Mark III for 5-7 years. I also think you could easily shoot the D800 for 5-7 years (and certainly the D810). And I would be very impressed if anyone came up with reasons to disagree with that.

(3) The Canon and Nikon systems are so similar, that it's absurd to claim that one is more versatile than the other. If you ask, SS will tell you about the 50mm f/1.2, 85mm f/1.2, and 200mm f/1.8 lenses, and the 20% lighter exotic telephotos. The 50mm and 85mm lenses are special, the 200mm less so as Canon doesn't even make it any more, with a 200mm f/2 instead, matched by Nikon. Meanwhile, there will be no mention of Nikon lenses which Canon does not match. Again, a wash. There may be mention of the Canon 600EX-RT flash, which is quite impressive with its built-in radio wireless control. But the Nikon flash system has been producing excellent results for years (creative lighting system), and offers infrared wireless control using the D800's built-in flash. There will also be no mention of the Nikon exposure system, which includes 3D color matrix metering. Each system has some advantages, neither is more versatile than the other.

(4) Again, the bias: tout the review which supports the point, discount those which do not. Not particularly useful or accurate. The PopPhoto 2012 Camera of the Year article is quite interesting, but most important here is the statement, "the decision by our panel of editors was one of the toughest in recent memory." The cameras that they had it narrowed down to are all amazing, and they had to figure out which categories were most important to them, much more than whether one camera was better than another.

One pet-peeve is complaining of the "humongous file sizes" of the D800. Any characterization is irrelevant without considering the computer one is using. And with so many cameras with 20mp and larger, all file sizes are big compared to cameras from a few years ago. If you take 1 TB of images with the 5D Mark III, that would be about 1.6TB of images with the D800. Today, getting a 2TB drive instead of a 1TB drive costs an extra $50-75, which is absurd to call "pricey" when talking about $3k cameras and $5-10k systems.


Basically, the Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800-series cameras are both excellent. The question for you, HallowedHill, will come down to what your priorities are. There is one thing which almost everyone will agree with: for large prints, the D800's are hard to beat.

Happy shopping. :-)

RKL349 Loc: Connecticut

Thanks for sharing your viewpoint and knowledge. The beauty of this forum is to be able to read responses from those who are much better versed in photography that I am, admittedly a novice. I do not have the benefit of having learned the technical details but am growing in my knowledge. Thanks again, Amehta, I always enjoy your posts.

Picshooter

The issue with the files of the D800/800E are not so much the storage but handling them and post processing in RAW them which takes a lot of RAM.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

For a two week vacation in May I bought a nice laptop for $450, with 8GB of RAM and a 750G hard disk, specifically to deal with output from a D800. Processing D800 RAW files on it is easy.

The fact is that RAM and disk space are both relatively dirt cheap these days. They are not an impediment to using a D800.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

That's with everybody not just Ken Rockwell. The next thing usually is the best thing ever till it is conquered by the next best thing.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

That's a pretty long winded OPINION! :lol:
That should convince everybody!
I counted about 50 opinions in all of that. Including a bunch of computer barging that will NEVER even affect a shot!

I didn't GIVE an opinion. Oh wait, I did say HH could use the 5lll for 5-7 years. Yes, that was purely my opinion. My opinion is he could use an 800/e/10 for the same years.

More "ALL AROUND" was NOT my opinion. It was a statement made by the Editers of Pop Foto!

So where in anything I said did I give an opinion that could have been biased or misleading?!

I learned quickly that I NEVER give my opinion, unless asked for it specifically.

But most of what I have read so far has been purely opinion.

Pop Photo(PP) took into account the 36mp and did NOT pick it. They are NOT KR!
PP has been a respected leading magazine for as long as I can remember.
I'll be the first to say, if you shoot ONLY landscape, get the 800. But HH is also shooting sports in dingy gyms. HH will also have the opportunity to shoot dingy gyms with faster lenses. Where the lenses are not faster, they are up to 20% lighter in weight. In handheld sports that can only help.
It is my opinion that the combination of speed and lightness would ABSOLUTELY help ME get more keepers. of course you're style may vary.

These are a few of the reasons that pros, in the last ten years, have gone quietly about the business of making a living using Canon gear.

Unfortunately, the average amature can't get past the sensor. But that won't make even one of MY photos worse. :lol:

Fortunately, the proof is always in the pudding! Care to dish up a little of YOUR pudding?! :lol:

Happy shopping and shooting. ;-)
SS

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

No, thank you. This topic will bring out the best/worst of the "brand" shooters, and rightly so, IMHO. Brand loyalty is a major factor in retail sales in this country. There are many reasons for that, but one factor is undebatable: nobody changes their mind! With that in mind you actually have an easy decision to make. All you have to do is decide what sensor you want. Now, you have the star of your production. You already have the lenses, they will bring the show to the sensor. The only thing you have to decide is how much "extra stuff" you want to attach to your sensor. How important is AF? What about low-lite? Speed? Will it work under water? WiFi? Crop? Now, you are ready to call ...and order your new, improved, never to be beaten, can out-fly everyone camera. By that time, it will be either obsolete, or out of production. However, you will have tremendous joy making all these decisions, and even more when you begin shooting with whatever you pickup next. GL, and let us see your new shots.

Picshooter

I am not that familiar with Canon lenses (seriously). What materials do they use to make their lenses 20% lighter. I hope it is not plastic for the barrels, filter threads and switches.
I'd rather have a more sturdy lens for all the traveling I do.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Picshooter, what an excellent question!!
For example, in one of those big white lenses, I'm not aware that there is ANY plastic. The hoods ARE made of carbon fiber to keep down both heat and weight, but carbon also absorbs small vibrations.
Maybe some of the engineers here can explain this much better than I, but I have many times here, heard people say that the Canon lenses are really big and fat just to look impressive and sell more lenses. The truth is that to make the non ferrous materials more rigid, and keep them lightweight, the tubes are designed bigger around and thinner walled. That keeps then from being flexy, which would interfere with the IQ of a lens.
The barrels are make of magnesium, not aluminum. Magnesium is not lighter than aluminum, but it is much stronger, thus being able to be made thinner still, thus ultimately lighter than traditional aluminum alloys. The largest elements are made of flourite crystal, which is lighter in weight than many other types of glass and also has exceptional low light dispersion and clarity.
The newest generation of focus motors are smaller than the old motors reducing more weight. And its well known that Big Canon lenses focus very fast. Though I don't know which parts, titanium is also used to further reduce weight. As an example I'll use the MOST popular birding/sports lens made, the 500mm f4. From their respective website, the Nikon lens weighs 8.55 pounds. The Canon 500 weighs 7.03 pounds. In those lenses it's the difference between being able to hand shoot a lens for short periods and having to use a tripod all the time.
Picshooter, many want you to believe that these are just my biased opinions. Those are pure hard facts that can't be disputed.
They are also the reason that you see so many big white lenses in use. It's not because they are prettier, or white, or bigger around. 1 1/2 pounds is NOT a marketing gimmick. It's pure R&D, plain and simple.
For a working pro, that 1 1/2 pounds will mitigate any sensor, no matter how good.
Judging by the Hog, not everybody needs performance beyond the camera body!
Also, I believe all those Nat Geo Photogs do a bit of traveling and are probably pretty hard on their gear as well!! :lol:
I hope this info helped you a bit.
Picshooter, I too wanted to get a Nikon when I went digi, but when I started digging this stuff up, as disappointed as I was, it became pretty clear to me where I needed to go. ;-)
SS

Edit: the big lenses don't have filter threads. They'd use drop-ins, as the filter would need to be 150mm. That would one expensive cpl! :lol:

HallowedHill Loc: Chattanooga, TN

Thanks for all the input. I learned much from the responses and had confirmed some of what I was already thinking. The thought on upgrading the lens first and then buying the camera made a lot of sense, as I believe the key is the photographer's skill, then the lens and last the camera. Still I want to look at the Canon as I know the weight does make a difference: I was an Olympus OM-1 guy back in the day! And the comment on the printer was helpful as well. I'll likely go with the FF as I tend to crop a lot (probably could use with composing better!) Thanks for all the responses.

amehta Loc: Boston

Yes, most of what I wrote is my opinion, and that's not the problem. The problem is that you don't think that most of what you write is also an opinion, whether it is your opinion or a reference to someone else's. You keep pretending you are only stating facts, but usually there is an interpretation or opinion attached to it.

amehta Loc: Boston

I think it used to be "the photographer's skill, then the lens and last the camera," but today it is much more balanced between the three, mainly because the cameras are so much more capable that they can do a lot of what required "photographer's skill" 40 years ago.

Also, in the film days, there were four components: photographer, camera, film, and lens. Now the camera and film are combined as the camera, increasing its role in the mix.