Dave_EP
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.3 #4 · Will Canon answer the D800e? | |
I'll start this with the caveat that I'm more interested in the low light video capabilities today than I am photos, but I currently have both D800 + 5D3 bodies and mixed glass from both sides. I'll be selling one of them. I'll let you decide which 
I posted a D800 vs 5D3 high ISO low light comparison video to YouTube. It's video, not photo, but it's also not pixel peeping. See what you think. Don't get bored at ISO1600, wait until 4000+. It's kinda eye opening! (play full screen!!!!) " target="_blank" rel="nofollow">D800 vs 5D3 Low Ligh High ISO Video
In terms of sharpness, the D800 is a perceptibly sharper than the 5D3, both video and photo. Accept it, get used it and move on, because there are more things to life than sharpness alone. Both cameras produce awesome shots and I've printed to A1 from both equally well. They take different kinds of post processing, and that alone can make as much difference as anything that comes out of the camera.
I found the focusing on the D800 to be excellent in low light, provided you are using the center points (5D2 anyone?), and the outer points worked well in landscape mode, but, change to portrait mode and they can't focus in low light, and sometimes not even in good light. Why? They aren't cross points. The focusing unit on the 5D3 is better 'most of the time', but I've done the tests and the Nikon has a slight edge for centre point in lowest light. Even so, the 5D3 is plenty good enough, so it's really a non issue, and the outer points win by a long way!
I have a personal preference for the two dials (front and rear) for aperture (always front) and shutter speed (always rear) on the Nikon, where canon can't make it's mind up and changes the dial from back to front when changing modes, e.g. in manual mode the top dial is shutter, but in Av it's the aperture. Nikon is more consistent in this respect, and I find it far too easy to catch the rear dial on the Canon to introduce exposure comp unintentionally. Annoying, but I guess it's something I just have to keep an eye on.
To counter that, I have a huge preference for where Canon put the ISO button and how it operates (press then dial with one finger, where Nikon required two hands!).
There are lots of little things like this, back and forth between the two brands, but the one thing that always frustrated me about the Nikon was the joystick. It just takes too long to change focus point with the joystick when you are in a hurry, whereas Canon you can roll the wheel much faster than push push push push push push on the Nikon joystick. Arrggh!
The D800 14 bit raw files have an amazing ability to capture things you can't even see when you first open the files and have it pull back nicely in Lightroom. I've even screwed up a couple of times when under real pressure and been able to pull back 5 stops under exposed and several stops over exposed and get a usable shot. I can't do that with any Canon body I've ever had, without major noise issues in the shadows and blown highlights that are gone forever.
The fact is that they both have positives and negatives. There is no absolute winner in my mind and I sincerely hope there never will be. Competition is good.
Lets not feed the trolls but at the same time, let's not be childish members of a gang that sees only black and white when the world is more infinite shades of grey.
To the OP I'd ask why does each company have to answer and respond to everything the other one does anyway? Each company needs to go it's own way instead of having to have identical products. There are things that Canon does than Nikon doesn't do, so just because one of Nikon's models does something you may want today, when you get to the other side of the fence you realise that Canon equally has things that Nikon doesn't do. It's all too easy to look at one or two aspects of a product you don't own and suddenly all you can think about is needing to have that feature. How often does it actually make all that much difference in the end?
People talk about Canon glass all the time, and there is some merit to the arguments, but it's not al one sided by any means. The 14-24 was better than any of the 16-35 or 17-40 copies I've had (and I've had a few). But there are other simple things like interval timers than Nikon have had forever than are simply not present on any Canon bodies. How hard could this be?
If they were all identical we'd be moaning that we want something new and different. Well, now we have it and we're still complaining
Canon will have it's own ultra high resolution body in time, but it's not too long ago that people were complaining that Canon were pushing things too far and we'd rather have more dynamic range instead of more resolution, more FPS instead of more resolution, lower noise instead of more resolution. Now a competitor has more resolution (and in some case more DR too ) the tables have turned again.
Be happy with what we have. You can't have it all unless you are so rich that the cost means nothing, in which case you'd be shooting medium format anyway.
|
: 
