Canon 5d mklll vs. Nikon d800e vs. Sony a7r revisited
amehta wrote:
These shots don't really convince me that the 5DMkIII is great, just that you know how to shoot portraits and get pretty women to pose for you, and those are much more important. ;-)
How about Popular Photography's Camera of the year over both Nikon and Sony!
NYjoe wrote:
Ok Sharpshooter....I'm already old and I don't have grandchildren. As to what I like to shoot...you can view my portfolio at
www.josephsheedy.com. I want gear to suit as many kinds of photographs as I can. My smallest shots print out to 5x7 and my largest to 17x22. I want the ability to go big when I need to.....24x36 at least...and I want the option to do 50% crops if the need arises. I want my tools to serve my vision and I want my vision wide open to all creative possibilities. If I could afford a nice German medium format digital setup I would have it...but that's not likely so here I am trying to get a handle on what tools match my resources. To this end, I'm happy for the opportunity to have these discussions with helpful knowledgeable guys like yourself. If more megapixels help me achieve my goal...I want a them. If L series canon lenses help me achieve my goal...I want them too. (Just bought the 24-105 and will probably add the 50mm after a few more gallery sales.)
Ok Sharpshooter....I'm already old and I don't hav... (
show quote)
If you want the best - why are you fooling around with the 24-105 instead of the 24-70 II ??
Reddog wrote:
amehta wrote:
These shots don't really convince me that the 5DMkIII is great, just that you know how to shoot portraits and get pretty women to pose for you, and those are much more important. ;-)
How about Popular Photography's Camera of the year over both Nikon and Sony!
I didn't say the 5DMkIII
isn't a great camera, I know it is. My point was that his two portrait shots didn't sell the camera as much as they sold his skill. :-)
Lukan,
After your 24-70 suggestion, spent some time comparing my newly purchased 24-105 with my old Canon 28-135. I shot test images with the same 5d camera and settings. Then loaded the images into Photoshop and compared shots generally and enlarged up to visible pixels. The difference? Well, the 24-105 shots were slightly brighter than 28-135...but nothing a tap or two on photoshop's exposure adjustment couldn't equalize. Sharpness of edges was equal as was the point of pixelation. Colors and grey tones were also close in comparison. So....I'm toying with the idea of sending the 24-125 back, then...if there are no new high megapixel Canon announcements at the annual Japan Canon show....buying the 5d mkiii bundled with the latest 24-70 iteration. Sound like a good plan?
NYjoe wrote:
Lukan,
After your 24-70 suggestion, spent some time comparing my newly purchased 24-105 with my old Canon 28-135. I shot test images with the same 5d camera and settings. Then loaded the images into Photoshop and compared shots generally and enlarged up to visible pixels. The difference? Well, the 24-105 shots were slightly brighter than 28-135...but nothing a tap or two on photoshop's exposure adjustment couldn't equalize. Sharpness of edges was equal as was the point of pixelation. Colors and grey tones were also close in comparison. So....I'm toying with the idea of sending the 24-125 back, then...if there are no new high megapixel Canon announcements at the annual Japan Canon show....buying the 5d mkiii bundled with the latest 24-70 iteration. Sound like a good plan?
Lukan, br br After your 24-70 suggestion, spent s... (
show quote)
Which 24-70 the F2.8 or F4? About $500 difference if bought solo. I only bought the body and then added the lens that I wanted.
Why not look into a Chamonix 4x5 and the amazing Fujinon SWD 90mm or a 150mm Rodenstock Sironar-S since you claim you want to make 36x44 prints. If you are looking for absolute amazing must have IQ, you wont get that when comparing a 5DIII to a 4x5 negative.
It turns out that I have all three cameras the Canon EOS 5 mark III, the Nikon D800 and the Sony a7R.
The best photographs are from the Canon as far as pleasant to the eye, color and detail. I use the 16-35 f2.8, the IS 100 2.8 macro as a portrait lens and a 60-200 IS 2.8 Mark II. I also have a 1.4 converter and a few other lenses.
For the Sony, I have only one lens the 35mm f4 and it takes excellent pictures and now I wait for the next lenses in the full frame line from Zeiss. It is a great travel camera but I need to use the battery grip on it for a good fit.
For the Nikon, I essentially have all their lenses. My issue with Nikon is the slight blue shift of their standard settings. The glass is generally not as good as the Canon L and the EOS 5 body with battery pack feels better in my hand with all lenses although the D800 looks better, but that is of no use to me.
Smartdoc wrote:
It turns out that I have all three cameras the Canon EOS 5 mark III, the Nikon D800 and the Sony a7R.
The best photographs are from the Canon as far as pleasant to the eye, color and detail. I use the 16-35 f2.8, the IS 100 2.8 macro as a portrait lens and a 60-200 IS 2.8 Mark II. I also have a 1.4 converter and a few other lenses.
For the Sony, I have only one lens the 35mm f4 and it takes excellent pictures and now I wait for the next lenses in the full frame line from Zeiss. It is a great travel camera but I need to use the battery grip on it for a good fit.
For the Nikon, I essentially have all their lenses. My issue with Nikon is the slight blue shift of their standard settings. The glass is generally not as good as the Canon L and the EOS 5 body with battery pack feels better in my hand with all lenses although the D800 looks better, but that is of no use to me.
It turns out that I have all three cameras the Can... (
show quote)
Finally, a reasonably objective evaluation by someone who owns all of them ( besides Ken Rockwell) !
Musket wrote:
Why not look into a Chamonix 4x5 and the amazing Fujinon SWD 90mm or a 150mm Rodenstock Sironar-S since you claim you want to make 36x44 prints. If you are looking for absolute amazing must have IQ, you wont get that when comparing a 5DIII to a 4x5 negative.
Good advice ! - But, actually, you would only have to go to 6X9 cm Velvia with one of the Fuji rangefinders or Mamiya 7.
Lukan,
As usual, my I am usually dazzled by the most expensive...the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II. It seems to get the best reviews despite its price.
NYjoe wrote:
Lukan,
As usual, my I am usually dazzled by the most expensive...the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II. It seems to get the best reviews despite its price.
I awed by the psychology of your choice. Sorry couldn't resist. :) :)
The 24-105 F4 IS is a much more useful zoom range and the picture quality is good. Traveling? Well this is the one lens to take along.
However, if you buy the 24-70 2.8 you have no IS and you will need to take a light telephoto >100 mm with you if you travel and this is a pain. JMO
I was able to shoot close up pictures of individual flying seagulls with the 24-105 at 105 mm and IS and they came out wonderfully.
pithydoug wrote:
Spot on for me!
This is called a compromise for convenience .....
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.