Canon 5D3 or Nikon D800(E)

If there is someting that would pull me over back to Canon to 5d3, then it would be continous silent shooting mode...brilliant for classical concerts(that I do from time to time)
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
I agree. Canon has the greater selection and has some exotics like f/1.2 50mm but its all down to what you require. If you require a 24-70 then its not a big deal. If you need a 400mm f/5.6 then you would be at a disadvantage with Nikon but there are ways round it....
Click to expand...

There is a Nikon 50mm f1.2, and the 300 f4 + 1.4TC is equal to or better.
 
Martyn... said:
There is a Nikon 50mm f1.2, and the 300 f4 + 1.4TC is equal to or better.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, my mistake. Isn't that MF though? :)

Like I said, there are ways round the 400mm issue :)
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
Oh yeah, my mistake. Isn't that MF though? :)
Click to expand...

Yes Pat and still available brand new, you would be surprised how many Canon shooters buy up the Nikon MF lenses to use with converters, there are some superb optics available, and using MF again is a refreshing experience.
 
Martyn... said:
Yes Pat and still available brand new, you would be surprised how many Canon shooters buy up the Nikon MF lenses to use with converters, there are some superb optics available, and using MF again is a refreshing experience.
Click to expand...

I need to get a new pair specs before I go back MF lenses :lol:
 
redddraggon said:
Hmm, on the whole I'd (and many other people I know) consider the F/4 zooms WGAF lenses.

The Nikon 24-120 F/4 is pretty good though, sharp, albeit with a little distortion, and a 70-200mm F/4 is rumoured.
Click to expand...

Well given that the D800E seems specifically targetted to landscape users I'd say that sharp f/4 zooms are likely to be very much in demand.

Most of what I'v heard about the 24-120 has been negative.
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
Surely you're having a laugh? What are Nikon missing? Canon efs lenses are ******...serious peices of junk...I think Nikon leaves them for dust in the budget lens department. Then lets compare both manufactorer 24-70 canons version is shocking! Oh... Perhaps that's why they brought out the "mk2".
Click to expand...

This is OFF my head, and I could no doubt find more if i try. but up until last year, nikon was missing:-

35/1.4 (and the Nikon offering is still not as nice even admitted by Nikon users that I know)
24/1.4

Nikon is still missing

50/1.2
85/1.2

100-400

Tile Shift lenses, Nikon's only tilt but not shift, or the other way round.

The 70-200 variants, from the F/4 offering to the F/4 with IS. (More choices and flexibility depending on budget and need, not everyone want a 2.8 NR)

You can of course argue Sigma fills the gap but that argument isn't here or there is it unless Sigma is own by Nikon.

You can also say Nikon's old MF lenses works but then that argument is either here or there. They are not made anymore nor anyone in the right mind would buy them now.

Take off your fanboy hat and look at the lens choices, just count them.

Canon has more. Period.
 
Last edited:
Moreorless said:
Well given that the D800E seems specifically targetted to landscape users I'd say that sharp f/4 zooms are likely to be very much in demand.

Most of what I'v heard about the 24-120 has been negative.
Click to expand...

You may have heard that about the varying aperture version.
 
Phil Young said:
Surely you're having a laugh? What are Nikon missing? Canon efs lenses are ******...serious peices of junk...I think Nikon leaves them for dust in the budget lens department. Then lets compare both manufactorer 24-70 canons version is shocking! Oh... Perhaps that's why they brought out the "mk2".
Click to expand...

Btw, in what world you live in that a 24-70 is a budget lens.

I could show you photos from my 24-70 mk1 that can cut diamonds.

What experiences have you with Canon L glass and Nikon's pro glass?

You posts screams faboyism and there is no arguing with you because you are blinded by the brand.

Do you know why most professional uses Canon? You know the side of the football pitch, the red carpets paparazzi, the majority of them have a white lens/red ring.

Just go take a look. Then ask yourself why.

It's not beacuse of the bodies.
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
In other words it was good enough not to remake, still sells for £800+ and looks fine to me!
Click to expand...

Phil Young said:
Lol but the fact remains...today and always it is a great lens optically.
Click to expand...

is it a different lens to the one in this example then?


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

EDIT- i thinkI have inferred that you are talking about a manual focus 135, so comparing autofocus models that 135 looks pretty horrible would you agree?
 
Last edited:
How did this suddenly turn into a lens thread?
 
gman said:
How did this suddenly turn into a lens thread?
Click to expand...

well the question is about which one to buy and a body is no use without lenses so when deciding whether to buy a canon or nikon body - you have to factor in the lenses available to make your choice
 
Buying a camera is less of buying a body but a system. You gotto think about your upgrade path, the accessories and even try to guess where your chosen brand is going because once you start it can be expensive to switch.

There is a reason why Minolta failed, they made the first digital SLR I believe. Their old Dynax 7 was a great film camera. It is also why Sony will continue to play catch up. Even though Sony pack a lot of tech in their oldies, built in IS for example, their choice of lenses is limited and bwcause they sell less it will always more expensive to buy.

When I bought my first SLR, the choice I made back then is the same as it is today. But more pronounced then and obvious. Back in 2000 Nikon had no tilt shift and still don't and I was studying architecture so I went to canon, simple as that. I didn't pick it for the body. You can wait years for a manufacturer to make a new lens but they refresh bodies every year (lower end), max is a few years for pro bodies. The 35L canon make today is almost 15 years old!

Bodies comes and goes, lenses are here to stay.
 
Houston1863 said:
Canon's ticked just about every box on the 5D3 and 22MP is more than enough. Presumably the weather-sealing is improved too.
Click to expand...

This is going to be a crucial factor with me. I haven't seen the 5D3's internal structuring yet but the D800 looks almoost airtight.

I'm still stuck between the D800(E)+24-70mm f/2.8 & the 5D3+24-105mm, which pricewise is on a par. I am swayed towards the Nikon body/lens partnership atm, but the 16-35mm f/4 is niggling away at the back of my mind too.

The Zeiss 21mm 2.8 is likely for whichever camera I opt for.

I'm still none the clearer really. Like I said, it's seeing images taken by normal people and analysing EXIF'S that will probably make my mind up.

But £2999? Are they having a laugh?
 
I think its hard to call at the moment, but 20% more expensive for the Canon?? Really?

It does seem to be rather a lot of money for something thats still not designed to be a rugged pro tool and equally a hell of a lot of money for an amateur to spunk on technology that will be out of date in less than 3 years.

I know the prices will come down, but this is what, 3000 quid as opposed to 2000 quid for the MkII at release? In 18 months we'd expect this to drop 25% perhaps, so maybe "only" about 2300 quid in the end?

Undoubtably it is exactly what MkII owners wanted, but has it come at a price that now they aren't prepared to pay?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top