I hear you about the "system" offering but I am not sure if understood you about the lenses. Are you saying that the Canon EF system is lacking in the wide-angle department? I cannot quite agree with that. Granted, Nikon's 14-24mm is a fabulous lens .... but so is the Canon 14/2.8L II, the new 24/1.4L and the 35/1.4L. And what about the Zeiss ZE 18/3.5 and 21/2.8 lenses?
shirozina wrote:
Well it took Nikon nearly 3 years to get a competative product out to the 5D and it certainly is isn't a leapfrog.Canon's response was to push up the MP limit by quite a significant degree that few people were expecting. I'm not totaly convinced that Nikon is going to respond with a rival full frame sensor body anytime soon let alone 'leapfrog' it. The problem with 5DII vs D700( or whatever) is that you cannot take the body on it's own merits and it has to be concidered as part of a system and that's the point of myy post. No Matter how good the 5D body is it's no use unless it has the lenses that I use to exploit it and being an architectural and interiors photographer ( mainly) it simply does not....Show more →
bobbytan wrote:
I hear you about the "system" offering but I am not sure if understood you about the lenses. Are you saying that the Canon EF system is lacking in the wide-angle department? I cannot quite agree with that. Granted, Nikon's 14-24mm is a fabulous lens .... but so is the Canon 14/2.8L II, the new 24/1.4L and the 35/1.4L. And what about the Zeiss ZE 18/3.5 and 21/2.8 lenses?
The 16-35IIL is not that good and the 24 TS-E is mediocre - these are 2 essential lenses for my job. If I add up a set of primes from Canon and Zeiss to cover what Nikon delivers in it's 14-24 it's a huge price differential plus Nikon has the equaly good 24mm shift and there is nothing like this from Canon or anyone for that matter.
Point taken. But I think Canon is closing the gap on the wide-angle lenses. I think it's just a matter of time before Canon upgrade their T/S lenses, and we are all waiting for them to release a 14-24 lens that will be at least as good as the Nikon. They are probably dissecting the Nikon lens as we speak!
shirozina wrote:
The 16-35IIL is not that good and the 24 TS-E is mediocre - these are 2 essential lenses for my job. If I add up a set of primes from Canon and Zeiss to cover what Nikon delivers in it's 14-24 it's a huge price differential plus Nikon has the equaly good 24mm shift and there is nothing like this from Canon or anyone for that matter.
bobbytan wrote:
Point taken. But I think Canon is closing the gap on the wide-angle lenses. I think it's just a matter of time before Canon upgrade their T/S lenses, and we are all waiting for them to release a 14-24 lens that will be at least as good as the Nikon. They are probably dissecting the Nikon lens as we speak!
shirozina wrote:
The 16-35IIL is not that good and the 24 TS-E is mediocre - these are 2 essential lenses for my job. If I add up a set of primes from Canon and Zeiss to cover what Nikon delivers in it's 14-24 it's a huge price differential plus Nikon has the equaly good 24mm shift and there is nothing like this from Canon or anyone for that matter.
I'll agree with that.
If you just want a complete system and can be happy with the 12MP the D700 or the D3 have to offer, Nikon as a system is hard to beat.
If you have to stick with Canon, there are other options available...... for a premium.
You have the option of finding an Olympus OM 24mm f3.5 TS-E. This lens is begging for a high performance sensor to unleash it's full potential.
On the 5D, the Olympus OM 24mm f3.5 Shift is hard to beat. Even the Nikon 24mm TS lens may not match the performance of the Olympus lens..... but I have not seen anyone perform a direct comparison.
As for the wide angle, try out the converted Contax N-mount 17-35mm f2.8. I will take the Contax N with it's autofocus and auto aperture capability any day over the Nikon which is just as bulky (maybe bigger), has no capability for screw in filters, and has an exposed front element just waiting for a scratch.
To all those who think their 12mp 5D is plenty good, think again. It's been said that the D3 does not do justice to the high-res Nikon 14-24mm lens, and that this lens on the 1Ds Mk III is a match made in Heaven. Check out these images for a sampling of what you can get on a high-megapixel body:
If you just want a complete system and can be happy with the 12MP the D700 or the D3 have to offer, Nikon as a system is hard to beat.
If you have to stick with Canon, there are other options available...... for a premium.
You have the option of finding an Olympus OM 24mm f3.5 TS-E. This lens is begging for a high performance sensor to unleash it's full potential.
On the 5D, the Olympus OM 24mm f3.5 Shift is hard to beat. Even the Nikon 24mm TS lens may not match the performance of the Olympus lens..... but I have not seen anyone perform a direct comparison.
As for the wide angle, try out the converted Contax N-mount 17-35mm f2.8. I will take the Contax N with it's autofocus and auto aperture capability any day over the Nikon which is just as bulky (maybe bigger), has no capability for screw in filters, and has an exposed front element just waiting for a scratch....Show more → I'm not convinced from the samples I've seen that the OL 24 shift it is as good as the hype would have us believe and it's not something I can pick up off the shelf anytime I want - a very rare lens. 14-24 would be a much more usfull focal length than 17-35 AND the quality is proven. Filter acceptability and the exposed front element is not a deal breaker for me. Above 24mm there are plenty of good options already in 28mm and 35mm so I'm not worried about a zoom covering these.
bobbytan wrote:
To all those who think their 12mp 5D is plenty good, think again. It's been said that the D3 does not do justice to the high-res Nikon 14-24mm lens, and that this lens on the 1Ds Mk III is a match made in Heaven. Check out these images for a sampling of what you can get on a high-megapixel body:
I am confident that the Zeiss ZE 21/2.8 Distagon on the 5D II will match or even exceed these images in sheer detail.
For most of my commercial work 12mp 'plenty good' - images shot on the 5D with lenses like my 35mm OL shift and 50mm CZ 1.7 are full of excellent detail from center to corner that respond very well to uprezzing on the occasions when it is needed. Infact I'd stick my neck out and say that a 12mp (shifted) image from nikon camer on a Nikon 24mm shift upressed to a 21mp would still be superior to an image shot on a 5DII/1DsIII with the Canon TS-E. The same for the 16-35LII vs 14-24.
shirozina wrote:
For most of my commercial work 12mp 'plenty good' - images shot on the 5D with lenses like my 35mm OL shift and 50mm CZ 1.7 are full of excellent detail from center to corner that respond very well to uprezzing on the occasions when it is needed. Infact I'd stick my neck out and say that a 12mp (shifted) image from nikon camer on a Nikon 24mm shift upressed to a 21mp would still be superior to an image shot on a 5DII/1DsIII with the Canon TS-E. The same for the 16-35LII vs 14-24.
You are forgetting that the Nikkor 14-24 is a perfectly viable part of a Canon system too, via G adaptor, and it really shines on a 1Ds3, and by inference, a 5D2. The D700 is great, but compared even to a 5D the files seem to lack a little bit of bite and 3D effect. The 1Ds3 toasts it for image quality, not surprisingly. I find the extra bite of the 1Ds3 is visible in A3 prints. If I were an interior photographer today I would be using 14-24 on 1Ds3. Tilt shift is trickier, but with 21 megapixels and a superb 14mm lens, I'm pretty sure that most shift needs are catered for with a horizontal shot and crop. The Canon 14mm mk2 has its detractors, but it is beautifully rectilinear. With old and new Zeiss, Oly, and Nikon 18's, 21's and so on, Canon actually has the widest range of options for interiors and architecture. It's just the 24 shift that is problematic.
I'm disappointed that the 5D2 has several high end features that I don't really want to pay so much for. I don't need pro level video or 21 megapixels. I am surprised Canon haven't released a more affordable, more modestly specified full frame body for amateurs.
Looking at today's dire economic news, the 5D2 looks very, very expensive.
David Baldwin wrote:
I'm disappointed that the 5D2 has several high end features that I don't really want to pay so much for. I don't need pro level video or 21 megapixels. I am surprised Canon haven't released a more affordable, more modestly specified full frame body for amateurs.
Looking at today's dire economic news, the 5D2 looks very, very expensive. Just buy a 5D then. IMO the pricing of the 5DII is very, very reasonable for what it offers and it offers a lot.
I think that we're actually paying less for the 5dII because of the video feature. It will sell in much higher volume because of it (to a whole new audience), and the per unit production costs will most likely decrease substantially.
The original 5D was far and away the most affordable full frame body available for several years.
The 5DII is still the least expensive full frame body available (except for the 5D I, which is still available in many stores).
David Baldwin wrote:
I'm disappointed that the 5D2 has several high end features that I don't really want to pay so much for. I don't need pro level video or 21 megapixels. I am surprised Canon haven't released a more affordable, more modestly specified full frame body for amateurs.
The 5D II is definitely not overpriced. Remember that A LOT of people paid $3,200 for the 5D. I was one of them - with no regrets. I would happily pay $3,000 without the HD video, as the 5D II is LOADED with features compared to the 5D. I counted close to 40 improvements and changes, but it's not just the 40 or so upgrades that is important to me, nor the movie mode, but things like the new 21mp sensor with Digic IV, 14-bit converter, super high-definition 3" screen, live view, self-cleaning sensor, ISO now appearing on the top plate, 2 extra custom modes, 2 silent modes, partial weather sealing, and expanded ISO range with approx 2-stop noise advantage. These to me are MAJOR additions, and the fact that the MSRP is below the D700 price makes it exceptional value. But as always YMMV. No matter where they price it there will be pundits who will say it's overpriced .... unless it's priced below $1,000. I think what you are looking for is the watered-down 7D .... and it may come next February .... and I would be shocked if people don't start whining about how crippled and overpriced the 7D is compared to the 5D Mk II which would probably settle down at around $2,200 come February!
UK 5D2 price £2300 -- or US$4094 at current exchange rates
UK D700 price £1700 -- or US$3026 at current exchange rates
Japan 5D2 price 268,200 yen -- or US$2843 at current exchange rates
Japan D700 price 277,830 yen -- or US$2945 at current exchange rates
US 5D2 price US$2699
US D700 price US$2999
What does this say about Canon UK's pricing policies? (and given that the UK prices include VAT, what does it also say about Nikon UK's pricing policies?)
Lotusm50 wrote:
What does this say about Canon UK's pricing policies? (and given that the UK prices include VAT, what does it also say about Nikon UK's pricing policies?)
And given that the UK prices include VAT, what does it say about Nikon's U.S. pricing policies?
. IMO the pricing of the 5DII is very, very reasonable for what it offers and it offers a lot.