Beni wrote:
Yeah the UK pricing seems weird. Do you think they didn't realise what the D800 was retailing at?
BTW at for the 1/4000 shutter speed thing.
D700, base iso 200, 1/8000
D600, base iso 100, 1/4000
Same thing.
Good point, I shall query why it's such an issue then.
Edit: he's worried about highlight recovery being similar to the D7000, he won't gain any benefit from the base ISO 100 then. Which is a feature he wants but not at the expense of losing other abilities...
Once the D600 price drops it'll be a more viable option to the D800. That is if they don't take this opportunity to actually increase the D800 price instead in order to make the price differentiation...!
PhilDrinkwater wrote:
No it isn't. It's a sign that people disagree because people have different priorities. For my work, the 5d3 is the best camera out there full stop. It's that simple. That includes the 1dx, which I tested. That's not to say it's perfect and the focus confirmation viewfinder issues were a huge error and I've said that time and time again. I've also said that they low ISO quality of shadows isn't fantastic and they should have worked on it. That doesn't stop it being the best out there *for me* though.
What you've just effectively said is that people who disagree *with you* that Nikon are at the top of their game are disagreeing because they want to win an undefendable argument and they're defending because no one could have a different opinion to you. (I know you didn't say this is these words, but I think that's what you're effectively saying)
People are disagreeing ... because they disagree. It's not defence - it's a different opinion. If you're welcome to share your opinions, people are welcome to share theirs and point out whatever they believe
Totally agree that Nikon and Canon users both win for increased competition.
P.S You shouldn't bring the 50 1.4 into the discussion - it's a terrible lens If you manage to get a good 50 1.2, it's night and day.
Anyway... I'm work avoiding now. Got to get on ...Show more →
That isn't what I said. However saying that Canon lenses are much better than Nikons or that their are serious issues with the D800 is hyperbole, defensive and shouldn't be necessary, especially when it isn't true.
BTW the Canon 50mm 1.4 is not a bad lens. It's got an oldish focus system but from f1.8 is very sharp, very accurate and has nice bokeh. I shoot about 50% of every wedding with it. The focus is faster than any of my L zooms were. It's 6 years old, has shot 100's of weddings and is a serious workhorse of a lens. This is from a wedding this week at f1.8...
I find competition at different price points compelling and wonderful.
A few simple reasons for this are, people will buy it and either grow or not. They will upgrade or not. It's very simple. If they upgrade and continue in their hobby it's more money in an economy...ok well new York or California's economy lol(just a joke folks).
That said it gives manufacturers a swift kick in the pants to get their duff in order and either ignore or respond to the competition.
Regarding which system is better, I think it's rightly a silly debate. There's a few canon lenses that are sharper than the nikons, there's a few nikons that are sharper than the canons. I know this is silly, but I'd enjoy the Nikon 85 1.4 as opposed to the canon. Rather than buy the 1.2 or switch for then1.4, I bought the 1.8 The cost savings allowed me to purchase a 16-35ii (soo much better than mki).
The debacle I had with the canon 24 1.4 (two bad copies in a row), seriously had me considering switching since canon qc can't get anything right...once my anger subsided I realized I was just thinking nonsense. I've read the Nikon qc is the same. I mean seriously if you read the reports, a functioning piece of camera equipment from either manufacturer is like the white whale and I'm ahab.
With the release of a new 24-70 with an mtf that is better, it all worked out.
The one thing it does appear, unequivocally is that nikons flash system is excellent and canons is not. I don't know a good analogy but I'd say that nikons is the gold standard and canon is second by default of the competition, but if there was another manufacturer worth a damn, they may put canon to 3rd.
The d600 looks like a tool for the hobbyist who doesn't want to buy a d7/800. It doesn't look like a professional item.
There is not one thing in the specification of a D800 or D600 that makes me wish I had one of those instead of a 5Dmk3. Although I sucked it up and paid £3k for my camera I dont feel it's worth that money. It is a cracking camera though and I'm happy for me
Yeah! This camera looks still like my dream body. It is already available at around 3k here in germany now.
I am looking forward, how pricing develops in the next 3 month.
I agree with the earlier comment that a D800/E with an EOS EF mount would be a terrific combination, along the lines of the old Kodak digital with Nikon and Canon mounts.
My 2nd shooter on Tuesday had a D800, crazy just how much I can crop those files and still have more megapixels than my 5Dc That said, the lenses weren't correctly calibrated so the detail suffered badly, with that and handholding at lower speeds I'd say there was only about 8 megapixels of detail in those huge files. That's a camera that demands the most perfect technique and calibration.
Beni wrote:
That isn't what I said. However saying that Canon lenses are much better than Nikons or that their are serious issues with the D800 is hyperbole, defensive and shouldn't be necessary, especially when it isn't true.
BTW the Canon 50mm 1.4 is not a bad lens. It's got an oldish focus system but from f1.8 is very sharp, very accurate and has nice bokeh. I shoot about 50% of every wedding with it. The focus is faster than any of my L zooms were. It's 6 years old, has shot 100's of weddings and is a serious workhorse of a lens. This is from a wedding this week at f1.8... ...Show more →
So let's define a few things so we know what we're talking about:
hyperbole: obvious and intentional exaggeration; an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as to wait an eternity.
defensive: excessively concerned with guarding against the real or imagined threat of criticism, injury to one's ego, or exposure of one's shortcomings.
Canon DOES have better lenses in all but a few categories, certainly at the pro end. One of those missing ones was the 24-70, the new one of which appears to be about to take the crown. That's not "bragging" or hyperbole, but reality. It's a significant positive of the Canon camera system and a counter to those photographers who believe the sensor makes an image, when in fact it just captures it. Even my Nikon friends agree with this.
The D800 DOES have serious issues. "Terrible" screen (a pro photographer has left Nikon because of the same D4 screen). No mRAW leaving wedding/event photographers with huge files. Left focus point(s) errors (one reviewer has just changed his review from "recommended" to "not recommended" due to this issue).
These things are *real* and as real as the viewfinder issues that Canon has and the lack of low ISO shadow quality and auto ISO which was left alone before it was finished.
Is it OK to say Nikon is the at the top of their game but not OK to counter that? If I counter it does it make me defensive, or pointing out a different view, and the errors of your statement? Why is it OK for you to say what you want to say but then accuse others of defensiveness when expressing a different opinion, based on fact? I've not made any of these things up.
Now going back to the definitions.
Hyperbole: What have I said that is exaggeration or extravagant? Possibly that pro wedding photographers won't go to the d600, but that was based on feedback from Nikon wedding friends and my view of the camera. However, you've said Nikon are at the top of their game. Isn't that hyperbole but on the other side? It's certainly not provable.
Defensive: I don't believe you can be defensive if you are pointing out the praise points and errors on *both* sides.
What I want is fairness and reality on both sides. It's not unreasonable to say that Canon has the best wedding camera out at the moment, and Nikon had it last generation. It's also not unreasonable to say Nikon has the best studio/landscape camera now. It's also not unreasonable to say that pro wedding photographers will not flock to the D600 for a number of reasons, although that is clearly opinion. However, generally these things are not just my opinion, just like many share your view.
Right now it seems that it's OK to beat on Canon and praise Nikon, but the opposite somehow is unreasonable, as is pointing out the pros and cons on *both* sides. "If you're not pro Nikon, you're defensive" is not a position I can agree with. Sorry...
I continue to be impressed and disappointed by elements of both camera systems. And I will continue to point out the pros and cons of both.
My 50 1.4 focus broke after 3 weddings. You are very lucky... but we'll also have to disagree that it's a great lens. I didn't love 50mm until I tried the 1.2. That's my opinion. It's different to yours. It's my right to have and express that view
It's amazing to me how far this discussion has gone on - especially in the Canon forum.
One observation:
The Nikon D600 seems like the equivalent of the 5D when it came out several years ago.
I know there's more competition now, I know it's a much more capable camera.
But look at the comparison:
D600/D800 vs 5D/1Ds2
D600 is "affordable", smaller, has the lesser AF, less MP, less durable, less feature set.
As they did with the 5D, I'm sure users will wax poetic about the gorgeous IQ of the D600.
Seems like the perfect fit for many, but lacking "pro" features for some, just as the 5D was 7 years ago.
Beni wrote:
That said, the lenses weren't correctly calibrated so the detail suffered badly, with that and handholding at lower speeds I'd say there was only about 8 megapixels of detail in those huge files. That's a camera that demands the most perfect technique and calibration.
Calibration of lenses is one thing but that sounds more like that body suffers from the AF issues widely reported among D800 users.
(Added after reading Phil's post ) BTW, I am not against Nikon either. I had a Nikon system before and I seriously considered a D800e to my lineup again but the AF issues and Nikon's customer service or the shortage of it proved to be too much hassle for me.
AGeoJO wrote:
(Added after reading Phil's post ) BTW, I am not against Nikon either. I had a Nikon system before and I seriously considered a D800e to my lineup again but the AF issues and Nikon's customer service or the shortage of it proved to be too much hassle for me.
I nearly went Nikon when I heard about the 5d3 / 1dx viewfinder issues, but I realised that what was important to me was the lenses (50mm 1.2 especially) and the colours and white balance choice, both of which *I* consider to be in advance of what I get out of a Nikon (my assistant uses a D3s & D4 so I know them well).
These are things which Dxo etc... can't measure, but they are more important to me than the Dxo measurements and a quarter stop of this here and there. I know this is a somewhat unpopular view, but I don't really care
(Fortunately the 5d3 focus system is SO good that I've found I don't need confirmation all the time. If it wasn't for that I may have had to switch. Still I hope it's something they fix with the next camera.)
artsupreme wrote:
Pros won't buy the D600? I guess that means pros won't buy/use a 7D either, it's only a $1600 consumer body.
If pros are still using the 5D/5DII then surely they could use a D600 with a better sensor, fps, focus, etc.
I should've added to my comment,
I'm not saying pros won't use it (though at your statement about 7d, I have not had my 7d on but two times since I bought my markivs). I should say pros weren't the target market.
If you manage to get a good 50 1.2, it's night and day.
That said, the lenses weren't correctly calibrated so the detail suffered badly, with that and handholding at lower speeds I'd say there was only about 8 megapixels of detail in those huge files. That's a camera that demands the most perfect technique and calibration.