Canon 5d mklll vs. Nikon d800e vs. Sony a7r revisited
Jan 3, 2014 19:35:57 #
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!
Jan 3, 2014 19:42:22 #
NYjoe wrote:
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 ??
Jan 3, 2014 19:51:28 #
NYjoe wrote:
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?).
Here- http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/canon-24-70-f2-8-ii-resolution-tests - is the reason you want the 24-70 II and here - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/a-24-70mm-system-comparison - is some more info on the "best" system.......
Jan 3, 2014 20:08:36 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
Reddog wrote:
How about Popular Photography's Camera of the year over both Nikon and Sony!
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. :-)
Jan 5, 2014 23:31:07 #
NYjoe
Loc: US/UK
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?
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?
Jan 7, 2014 11:20:50 #
NYjoe wrote:
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.
Jan 7, 2014 11:41:38 #
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.
Jan 7, 2014 12:37:27 #
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.
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.
Jan 7, 2014 12:47:37 #
Smartdoc wrote:
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) !
Jan 7, 2014 12:50:26 #
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.
Jan 7, 2014 15:56:23 #
NYjoe
Loc: US/UK
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.
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.
Jan 7, 2014 16:04:59 #
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.
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. :) :)
Jan 7, 2014 16:26:05 #
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.
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.
Jan 7, 2014 20:02:04 #
Smartdoc wrote:
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.
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.
Spot on for me!
Jan 7, 2014 20:09:57 #
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.