pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

I toyed with the 24-70 vs 24-105 and opted for 105 because I didn't really need the speed and wanted a little more reach. I also have the 17-40 L F4 when I want to go wide with both hanging off 5DIII and I get very crisp photos. At least for now, I'm not looking for billboards size so the pixels are just fine.

Back to the pixels, just how often will there be the need to do a 36x44 such that stitching is not a viable solution. Now if every potential shot you take will be a candidate for that size, seems like the Nikon would be a better choice.

Good luck in your decision.

Rickyb

The pixel number is not as important as the size of the sensor, full frame, and the quality of sensor to capture the true color and wave lengths of the subject. The Mark III does this very well and even the aps sensors on the lesser models is indicative of the picture quality. That's why you see so many Cannon 60D etc. floating around the necks of amateurs.

NYjoe Loc: US/UK

Understood, Lukan...but I just got the 24-105 L so will have to keep the 24-70 on the horizon. Sharing similar focal lengths and being made by the same company...why is the latter so much better? Re: the big 5dmklll decision, I've decided to wait until after the annual Canon show in Japan. Then I will stop second guessing myself and damn the torpedo's (omg..is that a WWll metaphor?).

aaronwolf

I have a very unusual suggestion for you to consider. I have extremely high demands with regard to image quality and currently shoot with only prime lenses. I shoot with a Sony A99 and Sony A77. When I decide on a focal length that I need I do an exhaustive search of lens reviews (usually dpreview.com or dxomark.com). In some instances I have purchased two lenses of the same focal length made by different manufacturers, bench tested them myself and sold the inferior lens. Using these criteria I own and shoot the following (not all of them listed here): the Sigma 35mm f1.4 lens, the Sigma 50mm f1.4 lens and the Sony 70-400mm f4.5-5.6 lens. Regarding that last lens I tested it against my Sony 300mm f2.8 and then decided to sell the latter lens and keep the zoom. Each of the major manufacturers has certain lenses that truly excel when compared to the same focal length lens in the other manufacturers (including Sigma). For example the Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art series lens when reviewed by dpreview clearly was superior to either Canon, Nikon or Sony. The Canon version was regarded the worst. The new Sigma 35mm F1.4 tested as well as or better than either the Canon, Nikon or the Sony G version as well as the Carl Zeiss and sells for about $600 less than the others. Incredibly I also own a plastic lens, a Sony 85mm f2.8 lens which I bought for $240 used after reading over and over by owners of the lens that it is the best value lens they had ever purchased. I tested it against a Sigma 85mm f1.4 which I purchased brand new. The Sony was sharper and I then sold the Sigma. Nikon and Canon also have specific lenses where they hit the bullseye and you can do the research to find that out. So here is the alternative suggestion regarding what body to purchase. If you really want 36mp then I suggest you purchase the Sony a7R and buy some of the lenses I mentioned made by Sigma and Sony as well as lenses made by the others if the reviews say they are the best. Purchase all of your Sigmas lenses with a Canon mount on them, buy the Canon 24-105mm if it tests out the best (Sigma is coming out with a new 24-105mm f4 in the new Art line of lenses which are their best lenses) and purchase an adapter for Canon lenses to the Sony E mount. When you find a Nikon lens that tests out the best for a focal length that you want then you can buy an adapter to fit it to the Sony E mount. Then you can patiently await the release of the Canon Mark 4 and will have lenses ready to be used on that body. I just want to point out that I do have high demands and don't shy away from costly lenses. I also own 3 Carl Zeiss lenses, the 24mm f2, the 50mm f1.4 and the spectactular 135mm f1.8. Those lenses are all Sony lenses.

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

Better is relative. The 14-70 is f2.8 which opens, pun intended, more doors. The 105 is F4. It's always bigger chunk of change for 1.8. If you need the speed and ability for very shallow DOF is an outstanding lens. As another example look at the canon 70-200 F2.8 vs the F4. be prepared to sell on of the kids. :)

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

Joe, my camera guy mercilessly told me how much sharper, better colors, etc. the 24-70f2.8L II was over the 24-105 f4L. He chastized me for considering the latter if I was to buy the 5DMk3, and said he spent half a day one day doing nothing but comparing those two lenses. He then went on to say that the new 70-200f2.8L II is the best zoom Canon makes, and I would be an idiot to have a 5D3 without one. He did say the 5D3 is his favorite FF body, bar none, all things considered.
I like his input, but also that of aaronwolf, above.

FramerMCB Loc: Northern, ID (formerly Portland, OR area)

I'm a Canon guy myself. They are coming out early this year with a new version of the 7D but that's an APS-C sensor. I would seriously look at the Sony A7 model you mentioned. It has gotten terrific reviews and was DSLR of the year for a few of the photo magazines.

aaronwolf

I would not be surprised that the new Canon 24-70 f2.8 is the best version currently available and I am aware that it is very expensive as is the Nikon version and the Sony/Carl Zeiss f2.8 which I owned in the past. However, regarding the need for f2.8 vs f4 in the age of digital sensors which now have superb image quality at ISO's of 1600 and higher it becomes much less necessary to have the extra f-stop except for three specific situations: 1.)Shooting a lot indoors without flash and 2.) The need for less depth of field such as in portraiture 3.)The need for the best bokeh.
With regard to getting the best bokeh zoom lenses generally are inferior to fixed focal length lenses. Its important to point out that the 24-70mm f4 lenses are much lighter than the f2.8 lenses and of course much cheaper. With regard to shooting indoors (I have a vast portfolio of live performances indoors without flash) I use my Sigma 35mm or my Sigma 50mm both of which are f1.4 and both of which are two stops faster than a 24-70mm f2.8. For street photography a zoom lens is the best way to go as you will find that if you shoot only prime lenses you will be constantly changing lenses and risking getting dust onto the sensor. For sports photography such as soccer or basketball a zoom lens is indispensably however you don't need an f2.8.If you shoot a soccer game outdoors and set your ISO at 400 and the aperture at f4 you will end up with a shutter speed approximately of 1/6000th of a second, fast enough to stop a hummingbirds wings in flight. Where do I come up with these numbers. In the field I use the age old f16 rule. The f16 rule states that in bright sunlight you can set your fstop to f16 and shutter speed at the inverse of the ASA (same as ISO) of the film you use. The rule applies to digital as well as film photography. So if you use an ISO of 800 in broad daylight you can expect to be able to shoot at 1/800th second at f16 or at f8 at 1/3000th of a second which is way faster than needed for sports. On a very cloudy day you can expect 3EV less light than in bright sunlight and could expect that shooting with the above settings the shutter speed would be about 1/350th. Open up the lens to f5.6 and you have 1/750th second on the cloudy day. So its apparent that for sports one doesn't need a fast lens in the digital age. In the film days a high ASA color film was ASA 200 and back then an f2.8 lens for sports was important on a cloudy day or inside Madison Square Gardens where I have shot with medium format film cameras decades ago. Another very important point regarding the advantage of the faster lenses when shooting in low light is that you can focus more accurately with the faster lens. However I use cameras with electronic viewfinders and the image I see through the viewfinder is corrected for the low light and there is no problem seeing and focusing in dim light with an electronic viewfinder (I am referring to manual focusing).

Kingmapix Loc: Mesa, Arizona

Don't confuse me with the facts. I already made my purchase.
BTW, pixel count does not factor in with good photography.

aaronwolf

I totally agree that high pixel count does not mean better photography. My perspective is only that it allows greater sized prints if that is what one is going after. All digital cameras currently available including point and shoots in the $300 range are capable with good editing software of taking pictures of a quality which could be displayed in the great galleries of the world. It the photographer has a good sense of composition, technique and knows his subject intimately the results can be spectacular. I study the masters of photography and have done so for the last 45 years and if you look at the most iconic images of the greatest name photographers such as Robert Frank, W. Eugene Smith or Sebastiao Salgado you will find image quality which cant hold up against any current digital SLR or mirrorless camera. Yet their images sell for thousands of dollars and enrich the viewers experience immeasurably.

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

A high MP FF camera gives you greater crop-ability and higher resolution. It does not make for an inherently better photograph, nor do cameras make better photographers. Having said that, I always think I'm a better photographer if my equipment is really good, and preferably new (even if used, it's new to me!).

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

I disagree that f/2.8 lenses are becoming less necessary due to a more light sensitive sensor technology.

According to many lens reviews (specifically http://www.photozone.de/) shooting your lens at either extreme does not provide the best results. Therefore, it's better to use f/4.0 or f/5.6 with a f/2.8 lens. Moreover, the lens does not close to the set aperture unless you manually close it down using the DOF preview, or press the shutter release; therefore, a faster lens provides more light for your camera to calculate the exposure and focus you desire. Regarding bokeh--- it is the quality of the out-of-focus area, not the ability to have an out-of-focus area. A fast lens can produce a shallow DOF, but this has nothing to do with good bokeh.

amehta Loc: Boston

4) The need for fast autofocus.

AF sensors do better with more light, and Canon has made the explicit decision to include dual-cross-type AF sensor points which need f/2.8 lenses in the 5DMkIII and 1DX.
http://www.canon.com/technology/canon_tech/explanation/35mm.html

aaronwolf

Both the Sony A99 and the a7R have both phase detection and contrast based autofocus, a dual system. I believe it was Sony who was the first to use the phase detection AF and it was designed specifically with the video shooter in mind as it allows continuous AF while shooting video which the contrast based AF doesn't. I should also point out that the Sony a7R which costs $600 more than the a7 doesn't have contrast based AF. Whether that makes a difference in the real world I don't know. I agree with ametha that a faster lens focuses more quickly and more successfully in very dim light. In bright sunlight or a cloudy day however the difference in focusing speed between an f2.8 and an f4 can be measured in 1/100ths of a second which is for all practical purposes not much of an advantage. Both of my f1.4 lenses focus at blazing speed but if I am shooting indoors I would venture to bet that the f2.8 lens is no more than 1/10 or 2/10th second slower than the f1.4 lens.
In very dim light or subjects with low contrast faster lenses are less likely to "hunt" for focus and sometimes the slower lenses will necessitate manual focusing.

aaronwolf

I made a mistake on the first sentence of the above message. It should have read that both the Sony A99 and the Sony a7 have dual autofocus. The a7R has only phase detection AF.