Canon vs Nikon vs Sony

pjm1

pjm1

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,155
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok, a bit of a hypothetical question here... and I'm donning a flamesuit for all the inevitable inter-brand bickering :)

I currently shoot a Pentax crop K5. As a hobbyist photography with family and other outdoor hobbies, I shoot pictures of my family (studio setting and outdoors), landscapes, product shots for fun (to learn lighting) and use a mix of natural light, hotshoe flash (including off camera) and mains powered heads. My flickr links to my TP52 which is a fair reflection of the type of stuff I shoot - I'm probably not a beginner any more, but I'm firmly in the hobbyist/for-fun category and have no ambitions to leave that comfort zone.

Things I like about my current setup (in order, ish):
  • I'm used to how it works and adapt to its foibles (usually)
  • Its weather sealing is generally very good - my first experience of water ingress (condensation rather than liquid water) was on Ben Nevis this last weekend
  • I have the lenses I use most frequently and in large part I'm happy with their quality (some sharpness issues on a couple, mind)
  • It won't cost me a penny to keep using it :)
Things I don't like about my current setup (more or less in order)
  • AF is simply not reliable - missed focus even at reasonable EV levels and usually default to single point AF and BBF... not ideal for very fast moving scenes such as those involving small children
  • Being a crop sensor, there's a limit to the narrowness of DOF I can achieve if that's what I want (also Pentax-compatible f/1.4s seem to be rarer anyway)
  • I do find high ISO performance is not great - above 800 ISO the noise is hard to deal with IMO
  • TTL flash doesn't seem to work very well on Pentax - not that I use that very often, but I usually have to dial in compensation
  • I don't feel I'm getting the most out of using a crop sensor - my longest lens I regularly attach is a 50-135mm yet I'd prefer to go wider than the 17mm wide-angle I currently have. Yes, I can buy a sigma 10-20 or whatever, but...
Which leads me to think about what I'd upgrade to, if I ever chose to. Pentax does now have a full frame but it's expensive and I'd still need new lenses as mine are all "digital compatible" which I think means crop-only. Not that I "need" full frame, but the DOF and wide angle frustrations do make me think "what if" - as does higher ISO performance. I'd love really good AF performance - although given what I'm coming from, pretty much anything is likely to be better than the Pentax ;) I'd also love slightly wider dynamic range from the sensor, especially with landscape shots.

So, a second hand 5D Mk 3? Or shell out crazier money for an A7ii? Or maybe a D810. I think I even have a Nikon lens or two kicking around from about 10-15 years ago! I don't see why I'd need 40+MP so the 5DS and A7iiR seem complete overkill and also probably £1000 more than I would theoretically need to spend.

I'd quite possibly hang on to my Pentax, especially for outdoor stuff like winter hillwalking & climbing. Losing or damaging a £250 body and a £100 lens is marginally more acceptable.

I have no brand allegiance and would basically be building up a new system from scratch... so are there particular advantages to any one system over another in terms of the models listed above (or others)?

Spending £2k-3k on a new system would have to get sign-off from the war office and there would inevitably be a discussion around spending that money on another holiday or the house... but a £1-1.5k body (2nd hand) and a couple of c. £500 lenses (again, perhaps second hand) would be a reasonable start which I think I could negotiate. And if necessary, I could flog off my Pentax gear (or at least the more expensive lenses) to recoup between £500 and perhaps a grand depending on how much of it I sell.

Thoughts?
 
the a72 is cheaper than the 5d3 ;-) are you talking about the a7r2???
 
I have a canon and a sony so can contribute on that but I have never owned a Nikon my advice would be to go and actually tru them so you can see what your comfortable with all the cameras you are looking at are fab so its down to personal preference..... ;-)
 
Thanks Owen... that makes sense. My only fear with that is having any of these beauties in my hands will just accelerate the purchasing decision to THEN. In that I'll try a few and decide I simply cannot live without that new system, which I have to have there and then. Full on GAS :(

I'll get home and have a lot of explaining to do to Mrs Pjm1...

I think the key things (apart from how it feels in my hands) is AF performance including how "clever" it is on any sort of auto/tracking/face-rec mode and the dynamic range. And the lack of good weather sealing is putting me off the Sony, I think. As for the feel, I reckon I'd adapt to any of them, although the Sony menu issues might get annoying.
 
£2-3,000 is quite a budget. You've not mentioned it but you could buy the Olympus OM-D E-M5 II with a 12-40mm and 40-150mm* lens for (£1,999 from Wex) and have a fair amount for another lens should you want one or other equipment like a tripod, bag, etc.

The Canon 6D is a capable camera, comparing favourably against the more expensive 5DMk3 and Wex (again) does these for just under £1,000.

* Focal range of 25mm to 300mm
 
pjm1 said:
Thanks Owen... that makes sense. My only fear with that is having any of these beauties in my hands will just accelerate the purchasing decision to THEN. In that I'll try a few and decide I simply cannot live without that new system, which I have to have there and then. Full on GAS :(

I'll get home and have a lot of explaining to do to Mrs Pjm1...

I think the key things (apart from how it feels in my hands) is AF performance including how "clever" it is on any sort of auto/tracking/face-rec mode and the dynamic range. And the lack of good weather sealing is putting me off the Sony, I think. As for the feel, I reckon I'd adapt to any of them, although the Sony menu issues might get annoying.
Click to expand...

The canon is a superb performer and a fantastic all around camera I cant knock it one bit I got the a7 series to play with etc the dr is unbelievable as well as the colours.... af wise the canon wins the sony is good but like for like the canon is faster..... the thing I'm picking up is that you don't have glass for either... if it was me ( this is just my opinion) I would go for the canon the sony lenses are very expensive (although very good) .... canon glass is fab and even the non l lenses are well used and well liked.... just my two cents....

the 6d is a great alternative as mentioned above and would leave you with a good budget for glass :-)
 
Good point on the 6D - I'd sort of ignored it as looking at specs on paper (always dangerous!) the relative paucity of AF points seemed crazy. Looking a bit closer, it seems as if the 6D may just be a simpler AF rather than a de facto "worse" AF system?

Budget isn't really a budget per se... more just what I'd expect to spend in order to kit out a new system. I'd like an 85mm f/1.4 (probably Sigma rather than Canon's) and a 24-70 f/2.8 (again, probably Sigma rather than the newest L). By the time I added a wider-angle I'd quickly be up at the £2-3k mark and probably closer to the higher end of that if I wasn't very careful! And that's not looking to replace my macro lens or a longer f/l option.
 
6d is a top camera at high iso also ... I have even shot mild sport with it the af is ok sure its not as good as 5d3 but its still good
 
Sony A7RII, Sony Zeiss 55mm f1.8 or Zeiss Batis 85mm f1.8 to start with.
I'm a hardcore Sony guru who suffers from GAS!! ;)
 
Nikon D750 £1050 new at Panamoz
70-200 f/2.8 VR2 around £1100 used
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art around £375-£450 used
Nikon 85mm F/1.8G around £250 used

few hundred left over for spare batteries and bits and bobs. It's always easy to spend someone else's money. :)
 
f/2.8 said:
Nikon D750 £1050 new at Panamoz
70-200 f/2.8 VR2 around £1100 used
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art around £375-£450 used
Nikon 85mm F/1.8G around £250 used

few hundred left over for spare batteries and bits and bobs. It's always easy to spend someone else's money. :)
Click to expand...

I would be too... apparently what I earn and what Mrs Pjm1 earns is all hers anyway ;)
 
pjm1 said:
I would be too... apparently what I earn and what Mrs Pjm1 earns is all hers anyway ;)
Click to expand...

I'd do as above but drop the Nikon 70-200 and replace with the Tamron 70-200 VC which would leave enough for a wide angle zoom or prime (Nikon 20mm 1.8g?)
 
Just a little point you may want to add to the list of things to think about...

One thing I don't like doing is juggling ND's... on for one shot and off for the next... drives me MAD!!!!! and I'd therefore think carefully about buying a camera with a max shutter speed of 1/4000 sec and pairing it with fast primes as you wont be able to shoot at the widest apertures in good light. You may be limited to f2.8 or even smaller.

Just mentioned this as it's a pet hate of mine and some of the cameras being suggested don't have the ability to shoot faster than 1/4000 sec.

None of this matters if you're an f8 and be there kind of guy.

PS. Years ago I shot Nikon 35mm, then moved to Canon DSLR and now Sony A7 and Panasonic mirrorless. If I was starting today I wouldn't go for a DSLR but if someone put a gun to my head and insisted I'd go Nikon as I think that they have a lead over Canon in image quality. They do seem to have the odd quality issue though so I'd buy from a good reputable dealer.

PPS. What about that new FF Pentax? :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Just a little point you may want to add to the list of things to think about...

One thing I don't like doing is juggling ND's... on for one shot and off for the next... drives me MAD!!!!! and I'd therefore think carefully about buying a camera with a max shutter speed of 1/4000 sec and pairing it with fast primes as you wont be able to shoot at the widest apertures in good light. You may be limited to f2.8 or even smaller.

Just mentioned this as it's a pet hate of mine and some of the cameras being suggested don't have the ability to shoot faster than 1/4000 sec.

None of this matters if you're an f8 and be there kind of guy.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. Although here in the West of Scotland we're lucky to get enough sunlight for this to be an overriding factor 9 times out of 10 :eek:

Forget sunny 16, it's more like the "dreich 2.8" rule here ;)

(all joking aside, it's a valid point as sometimes the light is just there and bright)
 
f/2.8 said:
Nikon D750 £1050 new at Panamoz
70-200 f/2.8 VR2 around £1100 used
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art around £375-£450 used
Nikon 85mm F/1.8G around £250 used

few hundred left over for spare batteries and bits and bobs. It's always easy to spend someone else's money. :)
Click to expand...
This is where my money would go probably different glass for my needs but a great setup for the cash!
 
I'd definitely suggest handling the bodies that you are considering, if possible. I've used Canon DSLRs for some years, and recently bought a Nikon D700, just to try it out with some of the Ai lenses I have. I find the sub-control dial (the one on the front) really counterintuitive, but I'm sure this is basically a throwback to the Canon layout that I'm more familiar with. It's probably not a deal breaker, but something you might want to think about.
 
Go have a play with them all and see which feels best to you and choose that one. They all have the potential to produce stunning images, the tog and lenses will make far more of a difference.

Other things to consider are EVF vs OVF, liveview AF, and tracking AF.

IMO Nikon are making better bodies than Canon at the moment, certainly in terms of dynamic range and noise handling, but I believe Canon have more options with the AF system (not that Nikon doesn't have every option you need ;)) Canon still have the lions share of the market and therefore arguably a larger selection of second hand lenses and accessories. Some of the Canon lenses are nicer than Nikon and vice versa. The Sony lens lineup is far more limited, at least for native lenses.

IMO the Nikon D750 is the best bang for buck new DSLR on the market, outstanding in every department. Dynamic range and shadow recovery is insane, no more bracketing for landscapes needed ;)
 
wakarimasen said:
I'd definitely suggest handling the bodies that you are considering, if possible. I've used Canon DSLRs for some years, and recently bought a Nikon D700, just to try it out with some of the Ai lenses I have. I find the sub-control dial (the one on the front) really counterintuitive, but I'm sure this is basically a throwback to the Canon layout that I'm more familiar with. It's probably not a deal breaker, but something you might want to think about.
Click to expand...

That's a good point well made by a couple of you now. Of course, none of these Canikon jobbies will feel as nice to use as my lovely Pentax ;)

I'm happy to be sold on the D750 although I've also see a 5D MkII (not III) for a real steal. Sure, its AF is not up there with newer bodies but before the Mk IV is released it could be a way of hedging my bets before an eventual upgrade further down the road. I'm assuming Canon and Nikon will continue to flip-flop in terms of who is delivering the better bodies.

As snerkler says, the idiot behind the camera has a far bigger role and the glass is fairly critical too. Oh, and light plays a part somewhere too. Hey, maybe I'm talking myself out of my GAS at this rate!!
 
f/2.8 said:
Nikon D750 £1050 new at Panamoz
70-200 f/2.8 VR2 around £1100 used
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art around £375-£450 used
Nikon 85mm F/1.8G around £250 used

few hundred left over for spare batteries and bits and bobs. It's always easy to spend someone else's money. :)
Click to expand...

a1ex2001 said:
This is where my money would go probably different glass for my needs but a great setup for the cash!
Click to expand...

Yup, I think dropping the VR2 and 35mm and adding in a 24-70 f/2.8 (Sigma) would work nicely for what I shoot. Maybe a cheeky little 100mm macro to top it off in due course?
 
pjm1 said:
Yup, I think dropping the VR2 and 35mm and adding in a 24-70 f/2.8 (Sigma) would work nicely for what I shoot. Maybe a cheeky little 100mm macro to top it off in due course?
Click to expand...

Would avoid the Sigma 24-70 it really isn't very good. The Tamron 90mm macro and Tokina 100mm are both good performers.
 
Thanks for that f2.8... I like my lenses to be sharp (who doesn't) so will have to do more research!

I have the Sigma 70mm 2.8 macro in Pentax fit and it's a beauty and like a razor. My Tamron 17-50 2.8 DX lens on the other hand isn't... all part of the fun!
 
pjm1 said:
Thanks for that f2.8... I like my lenses to be sharp (who doesn't) so will have to do more research!

I have the Sigma 70mm 2.8 macro in Pentax fit and it's a beauty and like a razor. My Tamron 17-50 2.8 DX lens on the other hand isn't... all part of the fun!
Click to expand...

If you feel you absolutely need a mid range zoom the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 is well regarded and it available in a kit with a D750 for very cheap money with Panamoz and the other grey importers.
 
IMHO go get a short list try them out and then review on large screen. Then choose lenses to go with the body
 
um buy a k1?
AF performance depends on the lens too, with the hsm/ssm/usd type being the best, and they do tracking the best too, so it might be worth checking to see what focus tech your lenses use :)

the k1 is a extremely good body, best features :)
 
pingu666 said:
um buy a k1?
AF performance depends on the lens too, with the hsm/ssm/usd type being the best, and they do tracking the best too, so it might be worth checking to see what focus tech your lenses use :)

the k1 is a extremely good body, best features :)
Click to expand...

Hmmm... despite being a Pentax fan and having loved my K5, I'm struggling to justify this. AF performance may (to an extent) depend on the lens but AFAIK there aren't many "new" lenses available for the K1 as almost all of the newer lenses over recent years have been DX only. Also, the K5/K3 AF is, frankly, shocking. I'd hope the K1 is a lot, lot better but still the Pentax "legacy" leaves me wondering whether it's up to Canon or the latest Nikon standards in terms of AF capability.

Oh, and it's 60% more money than a second hand 5Diii or a new D750!

wave01 said:
IMHO go get a short list try them out and then review on large screen. Then choose lenses to go with the body
Click to expand...

Yup - I think that's the plan :)

f/2.8 said:
If you feel you absolutely need a mid range zoom the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 is well regarded and it available in a kit with a D750 for very cheap money with Panamoz and the other grey importers.
Click to expand...

a 24-70 broadly corresponds to my current 17-50 f/2.8. And you make a good point that in terms of DOF, a FF f/4 is probably not far off the equivalent of a DX f/2.8. So maybe that lens is "about right" in terms of a straight swap... and with the bonus of a little extra reach at the long end. Pair that with a couple of fast primes and I could be sorted for well UNDER £2k :)
 
pjm1 said:
That's a good point well made by a couple of you now. Of course, none of these Canikon jobbies will feel as nice to use as my lovely Pentax ;)

I'm happy to be sold on the D750 although I've also see a 5D MkII (not III) for a real steal. Sure, its AF is not up there with newer bodies but before the Mk IV is released it could be a way of hedging my bets before an eventual upgrade further down the road. I'm assuming Canon and Nikon will continue to flip-flop in terms of who is delivering the better bodies.

As snerkler says, the idiot behind the camera has a far bigger role and the glass is fairly critical too. Oh, and light plays a part somewhere too. Hey, maybe I'm talking myself out of my GAS at this rate!!
Click to expand...

I lusted after the 5D mark 3 (I know you mentioned the mak 2 but bear with me ;)) for ages and when I finally decided to change to FF I just assumed I'd get this camera, but just as I was about to pull the trigger the D750 came out and I started to compare the two. Both stunning cameras and you can't go wrong with either. However, coming from Sony APS I had no allegiance and so cold look objectively. On spec the D750 is the better camera (for the things that interested me), but the main thing that swung it was the ergonomics. The grip on the D750 is superb, don't know why Nikon haven't make grips like this before. Plus the D750 is lighter, and has a flip screen which is invaluable for me for landscapes. But I still loved the way the 5D5 rendered images and still almost bought it. However, I saw a video review that showed like for like shots from both cameras but without saying which was which and it asked you to mark down which you preferred. At the end of the section it just so happened that I'd chosen the shots from the D750 every time so I was sold, and very surprised. OK so the latter wasn't the most scientific test but with all the other plus points on the D750 it all fell into place. Of course YMMV.

f/2.8 said:
Would avoid the Sigma 24-70 it really isn't very good. The Tamron 90mm macro and Tokina 100mm are both good performers.
Click to expand...
I agree about the Sigma, the Tamron is the one you want if you can't afford/justify the Nikon. Very nearly as good as the Nikon, IF you get a good copy

f/2.8 said:
If you feel you absolutely need a mid range zoom the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 is well regarded and it available in a kit with a D750 for very cheap money with Panamoz and the other grey importers.
Click to expand...
Agreed, just bought this and very happy with it.
 
Thanks Snerkler. I'm simply going to have to go out and test both of them :)

That f/4 mid zoom looks a cracking lens and allied with a Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 would give me a great starter kit and "only" cost about £1800 including body. Although I'm now also looking at the Sigma 24-105 Art which might be sharper, even if about £150 more expensive.

Hmmm...
 
The difficulty about switching systems now is that the market is rather unstable. Mirrorless technologies and features are starting to threaten the DSLR market. You seem to be a fan of the handy ergonomics of your Pentax, so I suspect you may not like the miniaturisation of the current mirrorless systems which have to sacrifice some features for size. In your position I'd give myself a year to get acquainted with the competition in detail. Join a camera club to get the opportunity to handle the popular brands and chat with their owners. Read all the reviews. Get a feel of which way the market is going. Is Pentax poised to make a comeback in listening to their engineers against their accountants, or have they goofed? Is one of Canon & Nikon going to goof in adapting to the incoming technologies?

If your GAS is itching too much how about making a non-commital purchase to buy you time, such as a second hand bridge camera good enough in some respect to do something interesting more easily than your current Pentax. Or something which you can carry over to a new system, such as a Raynox macro or an LED panel. Switching systems is a big move with long term implications.
 
chris malcolm said:
The difficulty about switching systems now is that the market is rather unstable. Mirrorless technologies and features are starting to threaten the DSLR market. You seem to be a fan of the handy ergonomics of your Pentax, so I suspect you may not like the miniaturisation of the current mirrorless systems which have to sacrifice some features for size. In your position I'd give myself a year to get acquainted with the competition in detail. Join a camera club to get the opportunity to handle the popular brands and chat with their owners. Read all the reviews. Get a feel of which way the market is going. Is Pentax poised to make a comeback in listening to their engineers against their accountants, or have they goofed? Is one of Canon & Nikon going to goof in adapting to the incoming technologies?

If your GAS is itching too much how about making a non-commital purchase to buy you time, such as a second hand bridge camera good enough in some respect to do something interesting more easily than your current Pentax. Or something which you can carry over to a new system, such as a Raynox macro or an LED panel. Switching systems is a big move with long term implications.
Click to expand...
Hi Chris, thanks for taking the time to post that - it's helpful.

Good point re: mirrorless... although you've pretty much hit the nail on the head for me - the small bodies, EVF* and lack of weather sealing are going to be persistent features of that type of camera which I'm not a fan of. The * is to note that EVFs will undoubtedly continue to improve to the point where they are effectively as good as optical VFs and have significant advantages... but IMO they're not quite there yet. As you say, it's a period of instability as things could be significantly different in 1-2 years' time. Not sure my GAS can hold on for that long though ;)

I have to say, I was shocked that Pentax released the K1. Commercially, it feels the wrong thing to do as they're cannibalising higher value sales of the MF (to a degree) and reintroducing an FX lens range thereby undoing so much of what made Pentax appealing (a huge range of equally compatible lenses).

The only reason for looking to upgrade is better AF and shallower DOF, so I don't think a bridge would offer me anything other than being worse at everything than my K5 as well as being lighter (something which hasn't really been an issue so far). Funnily enough, I have a Raynox 250 although I much prefer shooting with my 70mm Sigma macro which is a belter of a lens. If I did upgrade, I'd almost certainly keep that macro and my 18-55 kit weather sealed lens but sell the rest. That includes a DA* 50-135, a Tamron 17-50 2.8, a 50mm f/1.8 and a 35mm f/2.4. I should get about £600-700 for that lot I reckon and I can't remember the last time I put the DA* on my camera, so it's a bit of a waste of a good lens. Alternatively, I could sell the whole shooting match, net over £1k which means my outlay would only be £700-800...

But that's still £700-800 and I'm left with a single body. I reckon keeping the Pentax for winter mountain walks & climbs and perhaps macro would be worthwhile.
 
Not much experience of Sony but ...

I liked the 5DMkIII - handles well, good af, seems well made and produces nice files to work with. The 6D seems a decent option too although the af isn't in the same league as the 5D3 nor is build but it's still decent. Lots of decent Canon glass around too. In Nikon land the D750 is about the best all rounder going when price is taken into account (imo of course ;)). The D610 is decent but the af may let you down, iq won't though. The D810 is stellar imo but the D800/e should not be discounted, iq is nigh on the same between them. Lots of decent Nikon glass around too.

Win/Win from what I see with either Canon or Nikon.
 
Hmmm... ok, slight update as I used a late lunch break to check my Lightroom catalogue to see what I've been shooting since the start of this year. I looked at all photos and then just ones I'd flagged (about 15%). Yes, that ratio probably means I need to pay more attention to what I'm shooting - but bear in mind that includes two indoor kids' parties and a low-light 40th, all of which I was shooting at. My keeper ratio at the kids' parties in particular wasn't great... but I digress:

About 20% are in the DX 17-20mm range (26-30mm FX)
About 30% are in the DX 28-40mm range (FX 50mm with a bit more foot movement)
About 30-40% are at or just short of DX 50mm - possibly because 50mm is the upper limit of my most commonly used DX zoom/walkabout lens - this puts it bang in between 50mm and 85mm on FX (but a cropped in 50mm would obviously work)
About 10-15% are DX 55-70mm with a higher proportion of keepers (often studio setups) and would be perfect on an FX 85mm.

So that's all quite interesting in terms of lens options. I'm actually leaning towards a couple of primes as I've found an old Sigma f/2.8 zoom which is Nikon fit lying around in my house :oops: :$

But... the whole premise of upgrading is for shallower DOF, better high ISO and better autofocus. Well, looking at apertures:
1% shot at < f/2.8 on DX (f/4 on FX)!
10% shot at f/2.8-f/4 on DX (4.2-6 on FX)
34% at f/5.6
40% at f/8 (more studio stuff and group stuff at parties)
16% at f/11

Which kind of puts paid to me being limited by DOF! Although to be fair, my go to lens maxes out at f/2.8 and I only have two primes faster than that (2.4 and 1.8)... But my need for an FX f/1.4 is clearly not that strong ;)

However, over 40% of my keepers and nearly half of my shots in general are at ISO800 or higher... which definitely suggests better mid-ISO performance would be a bonus. I find ISO800 only just useable on the K5 - it needs some hefty NR and then careful resharpening.

So, I'm back to looking at cameras again... now having been sorely tempted by the Panamoz D750 at just over £1k :eek: which seems incredibly good value for such a beast of a camera.
 
In your place I'd think about how my pictures are going to be viewed... printed and if so how big and how they're going to be viewed or are they going to be viewed on screen and how close they'll be looked at in whatever form they end up in.

I've just about given up printing now, I print very rarely and these days I look at pictures on my pc, tablet and phone and share them electronically often at 2000 pixels wide or sometimes less and saved at quality 10 rather than 12 for a file which is 2000 pixels wide (or high) and probably something between 600kb to 1.5mb. Once even a stratospherically high ISO picture is processed for best effect and resized to that sort of size it usually looks lovely.

So, thinking about how you want to produce, view and share pictures might influence the hardware you decide you'll need. I have A3 pictures taken with my old 8mp Canon 20D and a few ISO 25,600 pictures which look perfectly good taken with my MFT Panasonic GX7. I can't remember anyone ever commenting about noise or any other image quality issues but of course sometimes we want to produce pictures to our own standard irrespective of if they're way beyond anything anyone else would notice :D

Depending upon how you want to produce and look at pictures I think you could find that just about any decent modern camera will probably enable you to take lovely pictures at ISO 800+
 
dxo prime software noise reduction will gain you upto a stop better than LR i think ?
 
Hi Alan and Paul - thanks for helping tame my GAS. You're right that there is no absolute NEED for FF or pretty much any upgrade. 95% of the time, I can get the shot I want (at least those within my technical competence) and although there could be ways to improve the capture at the pixel level, that isn't going to turn the image from an ok image to a masterpiece. The remaining 5% I can get a shot close enough to the one I want and better kit is only going to improve that marginally. I'm definitely more limited by my skills and expertise (lack thereof) than my kit.

Which is, I guess going back to my opening comments - for me this is a hobby and I do it because I'm enjoying it and particular enjoy capturing images of the landscape around me and of my family. So it's really just for me that I'm looking for greater DOF or better mid-high ISO handling. You're spot on that nobody has ever said, "wow, that's a lovely moment but why is it so grainy?" although ISO noise is far more apparent if I'm cropping in quite dramatically - as I'll often do with candids of the kids (an outdoor shot at 35mm which just captures the expression for example).

I've also found that I'm pulling shadow detail in so many of my landscape images - I do like high contrast scenes and I should bracket more often and apply Pookeyhead's HDR technique to recombine. But a more modern sensor with significantly greater EV range would allow me to do something equivalent in a single shot. It's not strictly necessary and there are workarounds, but I guess it's about making the image capture process more straightforward. Less time thinking about having to bracket (and then process in post) means more time thinking about composition, positioning and the like. May sound marginal and it is, but it's about getting a bit more enjoyment out of the hobby for me.

I think if I were in the position of not being able to upgrade, I'd be sitting here with a bit long list of reasons why what I'm proposing is stupid, unnecessary and basically a fool's errand. A waste of money. Which it sort of is.. but then hobbies are that: a frivolous waste of time and money in the pursuit of something distracting from the mundane.

And who doesn't like a bit of distraction? :)
 
This has been an interesting read. I can't help but remember a talk I went to at Permajet with Leigh Preston and another chap (Peter) a few years ago when the pixel race showed no signs of slowing down. The other chap, whose name escapes me, was doing a Lightroom talk and he put up a print that was probably at least 15x 10 of a bird that was taken by his youngest on a 5MP compact and looked great. We were all a bit gobsmacked. Anyway, all of the brands that you have mentioned are clearly very good and have outstanding cameras in their ranges.

At the Photo Show last week, I saw Andy Rouse talking about the new Canon beast coming out. On the previous occasion when I saw him (as I passed by the stand) he was talking about the Nikon and the time before that, again as I walked by, he was talking about Canon. So this tells me that Andy Rouse will jump ship for either kit that he perceives to be better or a golden handshake or both and that both brands are excellent or it would have had an impact on his business. I happen to be Canon simply because it was the first camera I really liked many years ago (AE1) and have stayed with them. The 5D3 is my current FF camera. It has a built in HDR with all sorts of effects but I don't use it at the moment as I am obsessed (some might say) with something else. anyway, I know there will come a time when I cannot lug kit around and sell the lot for something lighter and I think, in a couple of years, CSCs will be able to do the job for me that I want is action/ sport and some BIF but not yet. it is also interesting what your own research on your shooting habits brought out. I was convinced I needed a new lens for a particular thing I was doing but then went and studied the focal lengths and found that I didn't need it at all. I also agree that our hobbies are there to distract us, give us a buzz and some of that joy that we need to keep a smile on our faces... For my ten pence worth, I agree with the advice of getting your hands on various cameras and seeing how they are. I was convincing myself last week I needed a Fuji CSC but once I saw it and held it, I rapidly went off the idea. I then thought about the X100 but checked the spec against something I already had and managed to walk away. (I did succumb to a small Canon compact as a gift for my other half which is ALWAYS a good plan) Anyway, good luck with your hunt. O and of course, be on guard against GAS...
 
Thanks @Chipper - that's a very well thought out reply and I appreciate you taking the time (y)

I know full well that my photography skills are behind what my camera is capable of, if used more expertly. The sensible angel on my shoulder is therefore telling me to be more careful and take more time to develop my skills and expertise with what I have. That is definitely the "right" answer. But the bloated GAS demon on my other shoulder is showing me things like the D750, the Canon 5DS (not on my radar btw) and getting my "I want it" gland fully exercised :)

I'll get out and have a play with both. I'm definitely leaning Nikon-wards at the moment simply because of the VFM of the D750 but I need to get out to Jessops later today (or Calumet) and have a proper go...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top