# Crazy... go Nikon?



## charlesa (Mar 16, 2013)

Call me mad... but cameras are a tool and the eye is all important.

I make the most photographically via my landscape and fine art prints, and I also cover events and photojournalism.

Up till recently I used a 1Ds III and a 24 mm TS-E II for the first and a 1DX with a 70-200 mm and a 400 mm f/2.8 I IS L for the second. Although quite happy with the TS-E II and the 1DX, I am feeling quite a bit let down by the 1Ds III. Files simply are not up to scratch compared to a 1DX.

Now a crazy thought entered my mind... how about going dark, and selling part of the gear to reinvest in a D800E (!!) and the fabled 14-24 mm, since I do most of my work on the landscape side?

The 400 mm f/2.8 has already been sold, at a profit. The fisheye, 135 f/2, 100 mm macro, 50 mm 1.2 might consider selling, keeping the 70-200 mm and the tilt shift.

Does playing both systems make sense? Canon have no higher resolution sensor, and the Nikkor ultrawide is a renowned lens. Now Canon might be considering a higher MP body at some point, but it is still total vaporware.


----------



## bycostello (Mar 16, 2013)

charlesa said:


> Call me mad... but cameras are a tool and the eye is all important.



+1


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 16, 2013)

charlesa said:


> Call me mad... but cameras are a tool and the eye is all important.
> 
> I make the most photographically via my landscape and fine art prints, and I also cover events and photojournalism.
> 
> ...



I can't think of any reason you couldn't shoot both. Use one system for one set of purposes, and the other system for the other set. Like you said, they are just tools.


----------



## goodplanet (Mar 16, 2013)

Nobody would call you crazy whoever did the same. I was Canon for 6 years. Liked it. Still like many things about it. But after D800 experience and different picture feel from sensor, I gave up. My eyes and mind was kind of tired of Canon's redish look and beautiful decorations out of their sensor. I found something new with Nikon and experiencing it in a real good way. If Magic Latern was on Nikon camera's (I also do video) I'd hardly look at C again. However I like new crisp look of D800 video as well. To have both systems is a good way to learn both worlds.


----------



## sandymandy (Mar 16, 2013)

Nikon D800E is made for landscape shooters, isnt it? If you need the high MP why not? nothing crazy.


----------



## Rogerone (Mar 16, 2013)

I've already switched part of my kit to Nikon - the Nikon D800E. And I may consider switching entirely from Canon to Nikon if they bring out a high spec pro model based on the 36mp sensor. I'm beginning to lose faith in Canon's ability to produce cameras that I want to use, even though I've been a Canon user for the past decade. 

Despite the hype, the Canon EOS1 Dx is clearly a sports camera. I suspect that Canon has had a much higher pixel count camera in development, which for some reason, has failed to materialise. The decision to hype the 1Dx as the new flagship body has clearly been a desperate ploy designed to buy time to find a replacement. 

In past I would have stuck with Canon though thick and thin, but also because I had invested so much money in Canon glass. However, new high MP cameras are showing up the flaws in old lens designs, so we'll have to replace our lenses with new one anyway if we want to up grade. Therefore, being tied in to a lens range no longer applies. 

I do hope Canon get their act together soon. The EOS 1DS Mk III was and still is a superb professional camera body. However, if Nikon bring out the rumoured Dx4 in the Autumn, with fast processors linked to the 36mp sensor, Canon are dead in the water. Everyone will jump ship. And once they have invested in Nikon glass, they're not going to change back again for quite some time, regardless of what Canon does later.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 16, 2013)

Rogerone said:


> I've already switched part of my kit to Nikon - the Nikon D800E. And I may consider switching entirely from Canon to Nikon if they bring out a high spec pro model based on the 36mp sensor. I'm beginning to lose faith in Canon's ability to produce cameras that I want to use, even though I've been a Canon user for the past decade.
> 
> Despite the hype, the Canon EOS1 Dx is clearly a sports camera. I suspect that Canon has had a much higher pixel count camera in development, which for some reason, has failed to materialise. The decision to hype the 1Dx as the new flagship body has clearly been a desperate ploy designed to buy time to find a replacement.
> 
> ...



_Everyone_ will jump ship? Wow!


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 16, 2013)

goodplanet said:


> My eyes and mind was kind of tired of Canon's redish look and beautiful decorations out of their sensor. I found something new with Nikon and experiencing it in a real good way. If Magic Latern was on Nikon camera's (I also do video) I'd hardly look at C again.



Does this mean we can look forward to you not lurking here in the awful Canon land? Please, can you do that for us poor blighted Canon folk? :


----------



## Canon-F1 (Mar 16, 2013)

charlesa said:


> Call me mad... but cameras are a tool and the eye is all important.
> 
> I make the most photographically via my landscape and fine art prints, and I also cover events and photojournalism.
> 
> ...



reading your first sentence and then the rest of your stuff.... it crossed my mind if you are a bit schizophrenic?


----------



## Canon-F1 (Mar 16, 2013)

can a mod please check the IP´s of all these one-post-posters poping up here lately?

it kind of struck me that there are so many new users here who have nothing to tell beside how great nikon is. :

i smell a troll....


----------



## pknight (Mar 16, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> _Everyone_ will jump ship? Wow!



I count three people here who have switched or gone with dual systems. I think Canon has sold at least 6 cameras, so no more than 50% have switched.


----------



## goodplanet (Mar 16, 2013)

what exactly can I try to do for you mister? 8)



RS2021 said:


> Does this mean we can look forward to you not lurking here in the awful Canon land? Please, can you do that for us poor blighted Canon folk? :


----------



## heptagon (Mar 16, 2013)

Canon-F1 said:


> can a mod please check the IP´s of all these one-post-posters poping up here lately?
> 
> it kind of struck me that there are so many new users here who have nothing to tell beside how great nikon is. :
> 
> i smell a troll....



It's just how awesome Nikon cameras are. Face it: There are situations (Landscape, Studio) where Canon can't compete anymore and Nikon has taken the lead. If only the lenses would be compatible or Nikon would produce a camera with EF mount...


----------



## goodplanet (Mar 16, 2013)

Now that's where I see the problem with many folks on canon or nikon side. If someone says something good about Nikon on Canon forum, then, suddenly "trolls are starting to appear from the woods" and smell of sarcasm follows. don't let bias rule you. be simple. CR is posting new Nikon releases too - does this mean there's something fishy here?




Canon-F1 said:


> can a mod please check the IP´s of all these one-post-posters poping up here lately?
> 
> it kind of struck me that there are so many new users here who have nothing to tell beside how great nikon is. :
> 
> i smell a troll....


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 16, 2013)

If you make the most from landscape photography I say WOW indeed. That must be the hardest area in photography to actually make money. 

Many of our most (financially ) successful pictures at B-P are taken on an old 13mp camera. Just to think what we'd have made if they'd been shot on a 36mp :'(


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 16, 2013)

No camera maker is constantly the best..... The newest technology usually wins....

For example, look at APS-C..... When the current sensor came out, it was the best thing out there.... Four years have passed and now it is inferior to the Nikon, Sony, and even the latest 4/3 sensors beat it...when they release a new sensor, it will probably be the best one out there.... Until the next time someone releases a new sensor.

All of these sensors are good and the differences are not night and day, it's a bit better at this and a bit worse at that. A quality lens or two will probably make more difference to most people.


----------



## sanj (Mar 16, 2013)

You could rent the Nikon gear. Shoot tests where you properly expose both cameras. If you like Nikon result you could use both or switch entirely. 
I personally know people who have done the switch.

I will stick to Canon as using the 1dx makes me miss fewer shots (fast focus and 12fps). And that alone is important. 

I would love to see a proper comparison between the two cameras done at 100 iso while properly exposing landscapes... 

Btw, you NOT crazy or anything like that. Anyone who feels you are, needs to examine themselves.

If you ever make a comparison test, please inbox me. I want to see!!


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 16, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> If you make the most from landscape photography I say WOW indeed. That must be the hardest area in photography to actually make money.
> 
> Many of our most (financially ) successful pictures at B-P are taken on an old 13mp camera. Just to think what we'd have made if they'd been shot on a 36mp :'(



The best landscape picture I have ever taken was with a 2.1 megapixel Olympus point and shoot. Time, place, light, and season trumps gear!


----------



## MrFotoFool (Mar 16, 2013)

If your specialty is landscape and you want high MP, it seems to me that medium format would be the most logical choice. The Leica S2 looks particularly appealing (based solely on form of body - I have not used it or any other medium format myself).

Keeping both (Canon and Nikon) I do not think makes sense - go with one or the other. For one thing, Nikon lenses mount and focus in the opposite direction of Canon (and all other brands). Would confuse me (but perhaps not you) to have to switch back and forth.


----------



## distant.star (Mar 16, 2013)

.
Your logic appears sound. Damn shame people in business have to face such perplexing choices. As good as camera/lens makers are you'd think they'd see this and create specialty equipment to hold their customers.

I think you're looking at a business decision. If you go with Nikon for one part of your business, will it generate more revenue? It seems like it may be more personally satisfying for you, but if it doesn't add more to the bottom line, why are you really doing it?

Either way I'm sure you'll do fine -- and have fun and satisfying photographic experiences.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 16, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > If you make the most from landscape photography I say WOW indeed. That must be the hardest area in photography to actually make money.
> ...




+1


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Mar 16, 2013)

Depends with which gear you feel comfortable.
I like the Colani- design of the bodys since the old T90.
And the "better" sensor: panta rei.


----------



## Click (Mar 16, 2013)

alexanderferdinand said:


> Depends with which gear you feel comfortable.



+1


----------



## Canon-F1 (Mar 16, 2013)

goodplanet said:


> Now that's where I see the problem with many folks on canon or nikon side. If someone says something good about Nikon on Canon forum, then, suddenly "trolls are starting to appear from the woods" and smell of sarcasm follows. don't let bias rule you. be simple. CR is posting new Nikon releases too - does this mean there's something fishy here?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i have said my part of bad things about canon. your barking at the wrong tree.

it´s the number of "one post poster" lately that make me suspicious.
seems like many new users (or maybe just on or two under different names) just register on a canon forum to praise nikon. :


----------



## sanj (Mar 16, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > If you make the most from landscape photography I say WOW indeed. That must be the hardest area in photography to actually make money.
> ...



And so you are saying exactly what?


----------



## Canon-F1 (Mar 16, 2013)

sanj said:


> > The best landscape picture I have ever taken was with a 2.1 megapixel Olympus point and shoot. Time, place, light, and season trumps gear!
> 
> 
> 
> And so you are saying exactly what?




*Time, place, light, and season trumps gear!*


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 16, 2013)

I am not against Nikon per se...but I question these posts which are clearly meant to provoke a response in a clearly Canon-centered forum...sort of like Ann Coulter..."provocateur".

I question the intent....not the substance.


----------



## sanj (Mar 16, 2013)

Canon-F1 said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > > The best landscape picture I have ever taken was with a 2.1 megapixel Olympus point and shoot. Time, place, light, and season trumps gear!
> ...



Agree. BUT I would rather shoot the same thing with a lens/body combination way better than the 2.1 mp Olympus. BUT that is just me...


----------



## Bruce Photography (Mar 16, 2013)

charlesa said:


> Does playing both systems make sense? Canon have no higher resolution sensor, and the Nikkor ultrawide is a renowned lens. Now Canon might be considering a higher MP body at some point, but it is still total vaporware.



For me it is working. I now have both a D800 and the D800E and I do prefer the D800E. I'm mostly a seascape and landscape photographer and you are right about the Nikon 14-24. It is a really great lens.

Now for the bad news. Perhaps I have a bad copy but I'm preparing to send my 24 tilt-shift lens for modification and repair (Nikon does not allow for tilting and shifting in the same axis unless you send it back for repair). The repair part is that I have an area on the left side of the frame (about 10-15) that is not as sharp as the right side and it never gets focused. I really miss my 17 and 24 Canon TSE lenses because of their ability to rotate tilt and shift into the same axis. Just great lenses but with the 14-24 and the 36 MP of the Nikon D800E just trumps it. And yes I have done the landscape test with both cameras on a bar shooting at the same time. The extra detail on the Nikon is a kick!

I'm keeping my Canon gear for now but I'm not using it very often. I'm waiting for Canon to pay attention once again to still landscape photography. I'm taking delivery on my 24mp D7100 crop camera for birding rather than waiting for the firmware to hopefully help my poor 7D 18mp crop camera. Where is Canon? They promised firmware for this camera last fall. It is now spring and they can't even get firmware to us.

For me the bottom line is this. You have to shoot with whatever best tech is available at the time. I have decided to go with both realizing that I will never be able to predict which camp will have the best products at the time that I need them. I can only tell you that using Nikon for the first time has opened my eyes to some better ways (like CLS lighting) that I was not even aware of before. What a treat! 

Why am I also on this forum? This is Canon Rumors. I want to hear some Good Rumors of NEW Canon cameras. Nikon Rumors is too full of actual new Nikon Cameras and lenses being announced and then delivered. Even the manuals were available for the D7100 the day after the D7100 started shipping as well as the Camera Raw version for the new camera. What a treat!

I hope that Canon Rumors will once again be talking about announcements for a large MP Canon camera, actual delivery dates (maybe a month or two later), and new lenses that are affordable (like under 10k for a supertele like the 500mm mk2).


----------



## Wilmark (Mar 16, 2013)

I am having similar thoughts. Thinking about a d800 for landscapes and long exposures. I think I need a second body to expand the functionality and to offer duplication for backup. I find it cumbersome when i am spending hours at a great landscape site and I have to wait on average between 5-10 mins between exposures and I dont have a second walk around body. I think the 5D3 is superior to the d800 in practical terms although the d800 is superior on paper and could have been a better camera had it not been for some quirks, bugs and quality issues. To have both canon and nikon gear I would have to have some duplication like maybe a few gp zooms and higher quality lenses in areas where the nikon shines - like with the wide zoom etc.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Mar 16, 2013)

Wilmark said:


> I am having similar thoughts. Thinking about a d800 for landscapes and long exposures. I think I need a second body to expand the functionality and to offer duplication for backup. I find it cumbersome when i am spending hours at a great landscape site and I have to wait on average between 5-10 mins between exposures and I dont have a second walk around body. I think the 5D3 is superior to the d800 in practical terms although the d800 is superior on paper and could have been a better camera had it not been for some quirks, bugs and quality issues. To have both canon and nikon gear I would have to have some duplication like maybe a few gp zooms and higher quality lenses in areas where the nikon shines - like with the wide zoom etc.



I would suggest looking at the E model. The extra resolution is there if you are interested. I have both cameras and I have not experienced any "quirks, bugs and quality issues." What I have seen is that some lenses seem to need more AF tuning than I would like to see. Other than that I am not aware of any quirks or bugs.

My working guess is that once you increase your resolution, the sharpness in looking at depth of field becomes very noticeable where before it was all somewhat a nice "blur" but just not as noticeable. I notice depth of field now on grass where at wide open I can really see where the camera is focused.


----------



## risc32 (Mar 16, 2013)

I have a few different brands of cameras, but only one brand of DSLR, canon. For what i do, with flashes, and quickly swapping between cameras, i would never consider using two differing brands. to much confusion. Ideally i would have two of the same body, but i just couldn't justify it. But if thats not the way you work, i really don't see any reason not to run two cameras if that would better fit your needs. 

honestly though, these jumping ship things because of a 36mp sensor. i mean, so nikon currently offers up a camera with a 50% higher mp count than canon. how did nikon users feel all those years when canon shooters routinely had 2x more megapickles?


----------



## Bruce Photography (Mar 16, 2013)

risc32 said:


> how did nikon users feel all those years when canon shooters routinely had 2x more megapickles?


Probably much like some Canon shooters do today. This comment is not meant for fast shooters like action and sports. Maybe Canon wins there -- I'm not in that type of photography so I don't know.


----------



## Wilmark (Mar 16, 2013)

risc32 said:


> i really don't see any reason not to run two cameras if that would better fit your needs.
> 
> honestly though, these jumping ship things because of a 36mp sensor.



The OP is not talking about jumping ship but to take the forbidden route - be in both markets. And i can see the justification. For wide angle and landscape nikon is clearly ahead both the body and the glass. Personally I much prefer to chose a second body that would give me BOTH duplication AND expanded capability. The down side - at least half of you r glass wont work on one of your bodies - so you will have to have some duplication. I don't see the problem. Duplication is really a minor issue - cameras are very reliable and you will hardly ever need duplication. As no ONE camera will be best for every type of photography. Buying two identical bodies defeats this. Now there are photogs that don't care to fiddle nor learn about the gear - but clearly these are in the minority especially at a site like this. Personally I don't see a problem with learning to use the layouts and ergonomics of either. I have met old school photogs that insist that they wont bother to learn lightroom and they are great photogs, but I think they are mistaken - I enjoy learning new stuff.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 16, 2013)

charlesa said:


> Call me mad... but cameras are a tool and the eye is all important.
> 
> I make the most photographically via my landscape and fine art prints, and I also cover events and photojournalism.
> 
> ...


My main gear of choice is 5D MK III & a few L lenses (as listed below) ... but the camera I carry everyday/everywhere is Nikon D7000 & 18-300 VR (this purely for convenience sake). For me "playing both systems" does make sense, it gives me flexibility and a great deal of convenience. Sometime within the next 10 months or so I plan on getting the Nikkor 14-24mm lens and am saving money towards it ... if along the way I see a good deal on a refurbished D800 I would most likely get it. Meanwhile, I plan on selling the D7000, before July 2013, and get the D7100. For overall features I prefer the Canon "ecosystem" but I like the Nikon DSLR's for their awesome features but am not a fan of Nikkor lenses (with the exception of 14-24 & 18-300).


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 16, 2013)

The D800E is very tempting right now. For one thing I like competition, and it'll be nice to try both systems, and the D800E does what I want.
Nikon glass does seem to be the downside, it seems like they don't pay much attention to CA, or corner sharpness (or sharpness wide open... Ok I just think they make terrible lenses, but that's just me), so I'm only interested in a couple of their lenses.
On the other hand, I don't have a lot of faith in Canon to deliver a high MP sensor at a reasonable price in reasonable time frame (not that I blame them, after years of people screaming to stop the megapixel race we're lucky the 5D3 isn't still 12MP). If someone could guarantee that come march 2014 I could pick up a 40+ MP canon for $3K, I would wait, but given the way Canon seems to market things I have doubts about that happening.


----------



## Aglet (Mar 16, 2013)

DO IT, no regrets! 
I LUV my D800/E!

Sold off most of my under-performing Canon gear while still worth something and shoot mainly Nikon and Pentax now.
Still keeping a good pile of Canon glass and older bodies for now, hoping a 7D2 will be worth the wait and still considering a 6D when the price drops more.
Also, with a decent adapter, all those Nikon lenses can be mounted on a Canon and used manually, not a problem when shooting landscape or still life.


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 16, 2013)

Great! This thread has now become, as expected, a venue for Nikon fanboys to ...well so as not to be censored, I will choose my words gently...a venue for nikon fanboys to ...er... "pleasure themselves". 

Canon is the industry leader in lenses, period...when one considers the entire spectrum of Canon lenses across a wide range of focal lengths they hold an enviable market position. 

One or two lenses by the competition that out performs Canon will not sway me or most sane folk. 

Get a room and go enjoy your ultra wide zoom... better yet, build a shrine with the nikon 14-24...that should make up for all the rest of the lenses Canon excels at.


----------



## Wilmark (Mar 16, 2013)

RS2021 said:


> Great! This thread has now become, as expected, a venue for Nikon fanboys to ...well so as not to be censored, I will choose my words gently...a venue for nikon fanboys to ...er... "pleasure themselves".
> 
> Canon is the industry leader in lenses, period...when one considers the entire spectrum of Canon lenses across a wide range of focal lengths they hold an enviable market position.
> 
> ...



So what about the Canon Fanboys who jump on this thread and choose to misinterpret the OP's idea to enjoy the best of both to mean jumping ship?


----------



## ragmanjin (Mar 16, 2013)

charlesa said:


> Call me mad... but cameras are a tool and the eye is all important.
> 
> I make the most photographically via my landscape and fine art prints, and I also cover events and photojournalism.
> 
> ...



Whether you're mostly looking to landscapes or otherwise, I'm personally very disappointed with Nikon glass. Even with the D800E, it's too much resolution for a little sensor in the first place so it's noisy as all hell at anything above ISO 200, and the sub-par Nikon lenses rob much of the details. If you're looking for pixel-level quality for upscale-ability, wide dynamic range out of camera and a massive selection of the best glass in the history of photography, I would highly recommend looking into the Phase One/Mamiya medium format cameras. They've been working with 40MP sensors since 2005 or 2006; their newest backs range from 60-80MP. All of the sensors are upgradeable independent of the body and lenses, every Mamiya lens since the beginning of their 645 mount works perfectly with the digital system and the Phase One digital backs don't only "cancel out" the low-pass filter as in the D800E, they omit it altogether. Since I picked up the P45+ back and a handful of Schneider lenses to go with my old film/digital 645AFD body and Mamiya lenses, I've got the whole range covered from super-wide to telephoto. We tested my assistant's D800 (36mp) against the P45+ (39mp, flagship model from 2007) and the difference in the level of detail, smooth gradation and lack of noise is brutally in favour of the Phase system. Plus it does hour-long exposures with zero noise, as does their newest 60MP back.
Chances are you can find a used Mamiya 645 body on eBay for less than $1000, and if you can't find a used Mamiya/Leaf/Phase back at a decent price, most — if not all — medium format dealers (Vistek here in Canada, B&H/Adorama/etc. in the U.S.) allow leasing of new or used backs and lenses at pretty reasonable prices.
I think I should probably mention that I started my photography business with a Canon Rebel. I still come back to Canon Rumors almost every day, waiting for the day they announce something actually new — be it a higher-res FF or a AA-filter-less APS-C to actually get the most out of those tired, red 18mp sensors. But I ended up selling off all my digital Canon gear last year and now shoot Phase and Pentax almost exclusively (though one of my main 35mm film cameras is still a Canon). Here's hoping they've taken note of what Pentax, Fuji, Nikon and the others are doing and make a move to finally up their own game once again.
Best of luck, Charlesa.
-Raj


----------



## Atonegro (Mar 16, 2013)

If you are shooting low-iso and want less noise and more dynamic range, buy a Nikon D800 or D800E. You will not be disappointed. 
I now have a Nikon and having only two lenses with it, I almost always use it.
Remember, some of the lenses from Nikon are not as good as the Canon alternatives.
That is why I don't sell my Canon gear yet. I am still hoping Canon delivers a nice camera sometime soon.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Mar 17, 2013)

It makes sens if you think it will improve your output, but using two different systems might get confusing and could prove to be expensive if you have to get overlapping lenses.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Mar 17, 2013)

Why not, if you want it, can afford it, and can use it, go for it. I have a sports car and and SUV - different tools for different purposes. I don't have to re-learn how to drive when I switch vehicles, 
switching between camera brands seems pretty basic. All this bull caca about differences can be
summed up by personal preferences, prejudices and experiences but realistically there isn't a 
huge difference between them. A little like catholics and die-hard protestants arguing over who's 
god is best.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Mar 17, 2013)

Atonegro said:


> If you are shooting low-iso and want less noise and more dynamic range, buy a Nikon D800 or D800E. You will not be disappointed.
> I now have a Nikon and having only two lenses with it, I almost always use it.
> Remember, some of the lenses from Nikon are not as good as the Canon alternatives.
> That is why I don't sell my Canon gear yet. I am still hoping Canon delivers a nice camera sometime soon.



+1 on that. While I wasn't happy with the 24 PCE Nikon lens compared to my Canon equivalent, I have been much happier with the Nikon 14-24, 24-70 (a real surprise after the poor mark 1 performance of my Canon), and the new 70-200 F4. I am also extremely impressed with Nikon's old 300mm. While it doesn't have VR, I put it on a tripod and can easily do 2' x 3' extremely detailed landscape prints with it. I have found the 50mm 1.4 very good and as good as the Canon. I now prefer the 24-120 VR Nikon lens over the 24-105. The problem I have with Nikon is that there are some holes. Missing is the 400mm 5.6 of Canon's and the lighter weight of the new supertels that Canon has. However since the new ones are all over $10,000 and Nikon's are mostly under $10,000 I'm wondering if they will lighten them up and if they do what the new prices will be.

I sure wish Novoflex made a Canon lens to Nikon F Mount converter. I think I understand the physics of the mounts and why this can't be done but...
How about an adapter that converts Canon glass to a Nikon D800E with a 1.1 or 1.2 crop factor that would work just like a teleconverter. Think of a 1.4 converter that is very, very, very short. Just keep the rear element from the sensor just enough and handle all the conversion of electronics from flat contacts (on the canon lens side) to the pointed pins on the Nikon mount side. How many could someone sell of those? I bet alot and I would like to be their beta tester.


----------



## SiliconVoid (Mar 17, 2013)

(OP) If you are not making large prints, like posters, you aren't gaining anything with the D800..
I have seen/made gallery prints taken with everything from 5D, D700 to 5DmkII and D800, and unless you are talking about the finest detail that can't quite be reproduced by upscaling a 21/24mp image for poster prints you aren't going to be able to tell any significant difference in the output other than the difference created through post-processing.
If you just want to have that marginal detail whether you print big or not, like just in case you have/want to print big, then pick up something with higher mp...
I mean at the upper end of landscape photography, MF bodies, its not like everyone who shoots MF no longer owns or uses a DSLR. No capable mechanic only owns/uses one wrench...


Also remember that it is the accurate capture and reproduction of light and color that resolves detail, not mp.. but mp do give you a digitally larger image file.

(Note to Nikon trolls - your teenage Penthouse forum fantasy tales are boring.)


----------



## Aglet (Mar 17, 2013)

SiliconVoid said:


> (OP) If you are not making large prints, like posters, you aren't gaining anything with the D800..
> I have seen/made gallery prints taken with everything from 5D, D700 to 5DmkII and D800, and unless you are talking about the finest detail that can't quite be reproduced by upscaling a 21/24mp image for poster prints you aren't going to be able to tell any significant difference in the output other than the difference created through post-processing.
> If you just want to have that marginal detail whether you print big or not, like just in case you have/want to print big, then pick up something with higher mp...
> I mean at the upper end of landscape photography, MF bodies, its not like everyone who shoots MF no longer owns or uses a DSLR. No capable mechanic only owns/uses one wrench...
> ...



it's the post work, in some cases, that benefits from the reduced pattern noise afflicting some Canon bodies
..and it's more like _missionaries_


----------



## Sycotek (Mar 17, 2013)

I used to be like 90% of you guys - thought nikon glass sucked and their bodies confusing.

Now i live on the otherside - traded 1Dx and 5d3 for a D4 and D800 couldn't pay me to come back to canon.

Try the new G primes (the 1.8 lenses are beyond words) - personally not a fan of the 14-24 but the lens doesn't suit me (i dont usually shoot under 24mm) i actually prefer the 17-35 - although most d800 shooters go for the 16-35 f4 vr for the resolving power.

the d800 needs a good technique to get the most out of it (obvious for landscape - mup, exp delay, tripod etc) - if you expect to run and gun stay with a 5d 2/3 really wont make much difference. But when you finally get your technique down packed the rewards are eye popping.

fair warning - my d800 left side af module was out from factory but i have a local repair shop in my city so it was a day to fix and back to shooting the following morning.

honestly rent one out for a weekend - and try and leave any bias at home - it took me a while to suck it up and treat the nikon gear as just another camera - my bias held me back until i viewed the first couple of shoots where i finally got to see what the hell all the fuss was about IQ/DR on the Nikon side.


----------



## webphoto (Mar 17, 2013)

It seems that Nikon fanboys are now switching to Canon Rumors.

I bought a D600 and I had to return it due to dust/oil on the sensor. I am not sure why you keep singing the praise of Nikon when the company has so many quality control issues. Just go to Nikon Rumors website and see how many people are not happy with Nikon.

I bought a 6D and it is amazing. I sold all my Nikon lens and switched to Canon. I am very impressed with the IQ and lenses.

The D800 left focus issue is very well documented, just do a search on Google. It doesn't seem that Nikon has a solution for this problem.

The biggest drawbacks of the D800 I've read about is their enormous RAW file size - around 75MB. It is a hassle.

If you like Nikon I am happy for you. But also be honest and acknowledge how many issues the company is having with their products right now.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 17, 2013)

Wilmark said:


> RS2021 said:
> 
> 
> > Great! This thread has now become, as expected, a venue for Nikon fanboys to ...well so as not to be censored, I will choose my words gently...a venue for nikon fanboys to ...er... "pleasure themselves".
> ...


+1 ... Well said. Several people here have clearly misinterpreted the OP and I don't think they have actually read the OP or just saying stuff for the sake of saying something ... or maybe they are just using this venue to "pleasure themselves" ;D


----------



## Jay H (Mar 17, 2013)

Sorry..I am another new poster.

I never switched to digital until the full frame 5D came out. Couldn't buy into the 1.6 crop factor. Shot over 100k frames with no problems. Same with the 5D II. Bought a 7D to get the 1.6 crop.

I also have 14 Canon lenses, mostly L's. I hope this verifies me as a "Canon shooter".

Personally, I couldn't justify the 5D III since in my opinion it is evolutionary, not revolutionary like the 5D II.

Bought the Nikon D800 instead of the 5D III and am finding it easier to master than I thought. Hate the reverse focus AND reverse zoom. Also bought 3 Nikon lenses to cover most of my requirements.

I have no intention of selling off my Canon gear. When Canon comes out with a high MP camera I will buy it.

I do not quite understand all of this Nikon vs Canon controversy. To me there is more interesting, creative variation in lenses than in bodies.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 17, 2013)

D800e? Sure why not. add a 14-24 and your set for landscapes at ridiculous print sizes.


----------



## charlesa (Mar 17, 2013)

It is an expensive endeavour, since it involves buying the D800E body, the 14-24 and a filter system for the lens... it all depends on selling the 1Ds Mark III in the end.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 18, 2013)

Wait, I thought gear didn't matter.


----------



## pdirestajr (Mar 18, 2013)

I thought the megapixel race was over. And what happens when Canon inevitably releases a body with a higher megapixel sensor? Will all the switchers switch back? That's a lot of money to just throw around for such a minimal difference every time a brand leap-frogs the competition in one spec. I wish I had that much moolah.

I've thought about getting a digital Nikon a few times (love my F3), and then every time I pick one up I remember why I never bought one- I just don't like the feeling in my hand. They feel squishy and there are buttons and dials on top of other buttons and dials, and the menu systems... I can adjust every Canon setting I need to without taking the camera away from my eye.

Canon, more than a sensor.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 18, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> Wait, I thought gear didn't matter.



It doesn't.


----------



## sanj (Mar 18, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Wait, I thought gear didn't matter.
> ...



Delusion. 
I think it just sounds cool to say equipment does not matter...
Of course it does!! One needs the right equipment for the specific job.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 18, 2013)

sanj said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



Sighhhhhhh. One thing you people on here lack is humor, or recognition of humor.

I know it does. To say that it doesn't is insane. Maybe not in the film era, but I'm getting shots now that there is no way possible in the past. Some of them the ONLY reason I get them is because of my camera. Nothing else. No amount of technique or creativity or whatever would get me some of the shots I'm getting. So to say gear doesn't matter is objectively wrong.

Which brings me to my point. Nikon makes a lens that takes advantage of the full resolution of a D800/E and now you have something. Until then, you don't.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 18, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Everything is possible, it's just a matter of convienece.


----------



## Jeremy (Mar 18, 2013)

Maybe I'm naive, but I just can't imagine there's much you can do with a d800 that you can't with a 5d3. If there's a red tinge in Canon sensors, can't that be fixed easily in LR or Bridge? And I own the 16-35l and, again, I cant imagine a lens could be much better. I make my living from photography (mostly people) and there's very little the 5d3 won't do. As for MPs, 21 is 10 too many for most of what I shoot. I often shoot in RAW medium (or whatever its called) so I don't have to juggle and store massive files.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 18, 2013)

You're right, I suppose I could run out onto the football field with my f/1.4 lens .


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 18, 2013)

pdirestajr said:


> I thought the megapixel race was over. And what happens when Canon inevitably releases a body with a higher megapixel sensor? Will all the switchers switch back? That's a lot of money to just throw around for such a minimal difference every time a brand leap-frogs the competition in one spec. I wish I had that much moolah.
> 
> I've thought about getting a digital Nikon a few times (love my F3), and then every time I pick one up I remember why I never bought one- I just don't like the feeling in my hand. They feel squishy and there are buttons and dials on top of other buttons and dials, and the menu systems... I can adjust every Canon setting I need to without taking the camera away from my eye.
> 
> Canon, more than a sensor.



The megapixel race was over, and then someone made a higher megapixel camera and it didn't explode on contact or spray graffiti on every picture you take.
I have to wonder if all the terrible things people say about small pixels was actually true five or six years ago, and we just had to wait for technology to improve enough to make them decent.
I also assume that it was/is file size holding things back as much as anything. A 100 megapixel picture will take up a lot of space. Your 32Gig memory card would only hold about 128 shots and the processor would need to be 3-5 times more powerful than anything on the market today. A camera like that basically couldn't have existed more than a few years ago, and even today it would be asking a lot. The sensor is only one part of a big system, it's the rest of the system that needs to catch up, and I think we're only a few years away from that happening (flash prices are plummeting, mobile processors are advancing by leaps and bounds, 5x larger hard drives should be coming down the pipe).

Given the way the Bayor filter works, I actually wouldn't mind seeing cameras output 4x lower resolution than they currently do and actually call individual colour elements "sub pixels" the way everything else in the electronics industry does.


----------



## TexasBadger (Mar 18, 2013)

Personally, I prefer that Nikon keeps improving their system and lenses. This forces Canon to continue to improve their products. A few years ago, Canon was kicking Nikon's backside because they had a better autofocus lens system (EOS). After that, they came out with the full frame 5D which Nikon had no answer for. Now Nikon has raised the bar with the D800/E and the 14-24 f/2.8. Canon is a much bigger company than Nikon and you had better believe that they have reverse engineered the Sony Exmor sensor and are developing their own alternative. As far as the 14-24 f/2.8 goes, not only will they have to develop one. They will have to make it as good or better than the Nikon. Otherwise Canon shooters will just buy the Nikon and use an adapter. Thank you Nikon, in the long run, you will only make Canon better!


----------



## sanj (Mar 18, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Ah. Did not realize there was humor here.


----------



## sanj (Mar 18, 2013)

TexasBadger said:


> Personally, I prefer that Nikon keeps improving their system and lenses. This forces Canon to continue to improve their products. A few years ago, Canon was kicking Nikon's backside because they had a better autofocus lens system (EOS). After that, they came out with the full frame 5D which Nikon had no answer for. Now Nikon has raised the bar with the D800/E and the 14-24 f/2.8. Canon is a much bigger company than Nikon and you had better believe that they have reverse engineered the Sony Exmor sensor and are developing their own alternative. As far as the 14-24 f/2.8 goes, not only will they have to develop one. They will have to make it as good or better than the Nikon. Otherwise Canon shooters will just buy the Nikon and use an adapter. Thank you Nikon, in the long run, you will only make Canon better!



Yep.


----------



## nicku (Mar 18, 2013)

heptagon said:


> Canon-F1 said:
> 
> 
> > can a mod please check the IP´s of all these one-post-posters poping up here lately?
> ...



+1


----------



## M.ST (Mar 18, 2013)

After waiting for a long time to see a real 1Ds Mark III replacement I now add a new Nikon camera and a few lenses to my equipment. 

I don´t change completely, but I want the best from both sides.


----------



## J.R. (Mar 18, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> You're right, I suppose I could run out onto the football field with my f/1.4 lens .



Oh wait ... you could maybe use a D800 + a 14-24 

Edit: I don't think this needs the /sarcasm /humor tag to it but just in case


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 18, 2013)

sanj said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...


But there is, read once again.


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 18, 2013)

Shooting both system is a mind-opening experience.

I bought a D600 with a 85/1.8G and I couldn't be happier. There are a lot of false prejudices about both systems widespread mostly from people who shoot one of them and happened to play around with the other for 5 min or a couple of days. They mostly derive from the absurd assumption that a Nikon camera has to feel and work the same as a Canon - otherwise it's wrong and weird. And viceversa of course.

Shoot with a Nikon camera and a good lens and you'll see for yourself. As many others have said, if you're into landscapes a D800E is the best thing you can buy.


----------



## expatinasia (Mar 18, 2013)

I think it is silly to shoot with two systems as that means you need two sets of lenses, two menus and controls to get to grips with, and critically, mix up at the wrong moment etc.

Personally, I chose Canon and have been very happy with the results their cameras have helped me to deliver over the years.

I rarely look over the fence at what Nikon is doing, in fact I seem to have more time for Sony rumours than I do with regards to Nikon.


----------



## meli (Mar 18, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> Shooting both system is a mind-opening experience.
> 
> I bought a D600 with a 85/1.8G and I couldn't be happier. There are a lot of false prejudices about both systems widespread mostly from people who shoot one of them and happened to play around with the other for 5 min or a couple of days. They mostly derive from the absurd assumption that a Nikon camera has to feel and work the same as a Canon - otherwise it's wrong and weird. And viceversa of course.
> 
> Shoot with a Nikon camera and a good lens and you'll see for yourself. As many others have said, if you're into landscapes a D800E is the best thing you can buy.



Couldn't agree more. I'm a dual user since last year and couldn't be happier. Plus you dont really care what Canon or Nikon put on the market; one way or the other, one of them will present something that fits you. It feels good not to be tied in with one platform.


----------



## psolberg (Mar 18, 2013)

get what works for you and screw brand loyalty. they are just tools.

I switched after the 5DmkIII failed to live up to expectations of a landscape/portrait/studio dream camera that is predecessor was. In my case the D800 was an easy choice although having owned it for a year now, makes me wish they would scale up their 24MP APS-C sensor into a 50+MP full framer. As the benefits of oversampling will become a key factor for buyers in DSLRs of the future. Nikon could have had an even bigger home run.

The Nikon lens system has also improved very fast to the point where even the 800mm and 100-400 lenses from Nikon make their canon equivalents look out of date. this isn't Nikon from the last decade any more. Therefore, lens wise I'm perfectly happy with Nikon, and they seem to have the right patents in the pipeline to fill even more gaps, namely a 17mm TS. But anyway, back the point, Nikon has the ball for now. that may change, and I may re-evaluate cameras in 3 years when the 5Dmk4 and D900 are out. But for now, and for my purposes, I'm all set. Canon is seem set on chasing the high ISO game of the late 2000's. That's fine for some, but I shoot light, not darkness, which is the lack of light.

And lets be honest, I spend a lot of money getting to location, hauling gear, waiting for the light to be just right and then snapping the shot. Why on earth would I settle for 22MP canon sensors? If anything, I wish somebody would start bringing the medium format digital market down in price to have 80MP+. Every moment in landscape and wildlife photography happens only once. I want to capture it with the best sensor I can afford, and for now that is the D800.

For compact, I've ditched Nikon/canon and I've gone m4/3. the EOS-M is a non event and all the good action is happening with m4/3 outside of the canon/Nikon duopoly.

I'm loving what sony is doing. they are very distruptive and heck they should buy Nikon for all their glass. The point being, stop being the victims of Stockholm syndrome guys. shoot with what works for you. The world has changed. we got options other than canon and thank god for that! nothing sucked more in the last decade than being hostage to one company.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 18, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> You're right, I suppose I could run out onto the football field with my f/1.4 lens .



That's the spirit.


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 18, 2013)

meli said:


> Couldn't agree more. I'm a dual user since last year and couldn't be happier. Plus you dont really care what Canon or Nikon put on the market; one way or the other, one of them will present something that fits you. It feels good not to be tied in with one platform.



Exactly. Photography is an expensive hobby, one that is possible to plan on the long term. 

For many people - including me - it makes more sense to have 1 Canon body and 3 lenses + 1 Nikon body and 3 lenses instead of 2 Canon bodies and 6 lenses.


----------



## Aglet (Mar 18, 2013)

I’m glad to see more people speaking up in a positive way about using systems other than Canon.
Golly, the way some Canon die-hards react to this idea is comparable to the voiciferous objections one might expect when publicly inviting a highly pious individual to partake in an orgy of debauchery. Sure is a lot of denial and nay-saying but I bet if the denier got the chance to have their way with one of “the others” for a week, in private of course, and actually discover its values and merits, opinions would likely change in a more accepting direction.
Canon certainly does not have ALL of the best photographic solutions and if you don’t mind learning a bit more by using other mfr’s equipment you may acheive something closer to photographic equipment nirvana.
Of course this may not work for everyone, there’s gonna be some who will stubbornly maintain their faith in _monocamy_ while others of us have no hesitation of belonging to a _bicamy_ or even a _polycamist_ group. 
(Aint that right my darlings Pentaxia, Nikonia, Olympia, Sony-Sue and Pana-Lee? You can all get along with my first, Canonella, just fine.)


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 18, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > You're right, I suppose I could run out onto the football field with my f/1.4 lens .
> ...



Actually Nikon D800 plus the 14-24 can be the second coming... that is all there really is...nothing like it since sliced bread... Canon's telephotos...superteles... f/1.2 portrait lenses...they don't matter...screw all that...but the 14-24...now you are talking... it does it all. Sharp all the way from this deluded corner to the other greener pasture.


----------



## charlesa (Mar 18, 2013)

RS2021 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



Actually there is a heaven on both sides.. a D800E with a 14-24... and a 1DX with a 400 mm f/2.8 II on the other side...


----------



## ksagomonyants (Mar 18, 2013)

I'm far from being a pro photographer and I definitely lack a lot of photography knowledge. But I'm quite surprised that many of you guys are ready to switch to Nikon just because of the 14-24 lens. I mean, it's a remarkable lens but it has its own flaws, such as very strong lateral chromatic aberration and strong rearward focus shift, as well as great difficulty finding a filter for it. Why wouldn't you use Zeiss, Canon's TS or Schneider PC-TS prime lenses instead of a remarkable but still a zoom lens? These days you can quite easily make panoramic images if these lenses aren't as wide.


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 18, 2013)

ksagomonyants said:


> I'm far from being a pro photographer and I definitely lack a lot of photography knowledge. But I'm quite surprised that many of you guys are ready to switch to Nikon just because of the 14-24 lens. I mean, it's a remarkable lens but it has its own flaws, such as very strong lateral chromatic aberration and strong rearward focus shift, as well as great difficulty finding a filter for it. Why wouldn't you use Zeiss, Canon's TS or Schneider PC-TS prime lenses instead of a remarkable but still a zoom lens? These days you can quite easily make panoramic images if these lenses aren't as wide.



You seem pretty knowledgeable to me. 

I would _not_ say "many" are willing to switch...there is a bit of swarming by the same fanboys on topics like this. Some of the most adamant can't probably sustain two camera platforms but will still spout it as a certainity... others are well meaning and are stating a point of view.

Most sensible Canon and Nikon users that hold on to, and invest heavily in, their primary platform may not wish to dirty themselves by participating in a thread like this. While these good folk are classy, they also abandon the field to the more rabid and the committed (oh what a pun!  ) to give the impression that there are a lot of dual users out there who may eventually leave their camp in disgust, be it Canon or Nikon. 

I am sure dual users exit, but it is a fair guess that they are a small minority. 

The sane recognize Nikon and Canon leap-frog eachother constantly and one will go broke if one switched everytime Nikon or Canon came up with something nice. So I wouldn't draw broad conclusions based on what one sees on this single thread.

Having said that, I will point to the fact that the title ironically, and aptly, includes the word "crazy"


----------



## birdman (Mar 18, 2013)

I switched completely over to Nikon because of shadow noise and both the 16-35VR and 14-24mm. I own the 16-35 but have used the 14-24 several times. 14mm is WIDE, and not needed much. The 16-35 is much, much better than the 17-40L that i formerly owned. 

You can't go wrong with Canon or Nikon. It all depends on your needs. I know the AF of the D800 (I have it) is astounding. Can't comment on the 5d3, but I'm sure it's equal or better. To me it's all about which lenses you need. If I shot a lot of telephoto, it'd be Canon for price/performance/availability. As such, with wide angles it's mostly Nikon with the advantage. And forget manual focus primes for all but the most static of situations. AF zooms are much more useful, even if they're "NOT QUITE" as sharp.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 18, 2013)

birdman said:


> I switched completely over to Nikon because of shadow noise and both the 16-35VR and 14-24mm. I own the 16-35 but have used the 14-24 several times. 14mm is WIDE, and not needed much. The 16-35 is much, much better than the 17-40L that i formerly owned.
> 
> You can't go wrong with Canon or Nikon. It all depends on your needs. I know the AF of the D800 (I have it) is astounding. Can't comment on the 5d3, but I'm sure it's equal or better. To me it's all about which lenses you need. If I shot a lot of telephoto, it'd be Canon for price/performance/availability. As such, with wide angles it's mostly Nikon with the advantage. And forget manual focus primes for all but the most static of situations. AF zooms are much more useful, even if they're "NOT QUITE" as sharp.



From previous experience with a D700, the 61-Point AF destroys the 51-point Nikon system. It's in a whole league of its own.


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 18, 2013)

RS2021 said:


> ksagomonyants said:
> 
> 
> > I'm far from being a pro photographer and I definitely lack a lot of photography knowledge. But I'm quite surprised that many of you guys are ready to switch to Nikon just because of the 14-24 lens. I mean, it's a remarkable lens but it has its own flaws, such as very strong lateral chromatic aberration and strong rearward focus shift, as well as great difficulty finding a filter for it. Why wouldn't you use Zeiss, Canon's TS or Schneider PC-TS prime lenses instead of a remarkable but still a zoom lens? These days you can quite easily make panoramic images if these lenses aren't as wide.
> ...



In all of your so fine sarcasm about shooting 2 systems being blaspheme and pussy-like, you gave yourself the answer. In the end it makes more sense to buy good products from the competition instead of products you don't like from your main brand just because they're all that's available. You know, some people like to spend their money wisely and buy the best product they can afford - and that's not always nor necessarily a canon product. But you're not one of them apparently.


----------



## charlesa (Mar 18, 2013)

I did not mean to start a flame war, I just meant that although I am a dedicated Canon user well invested in L glass and make money out of my prints, I cannot keep begging Canon to fulfil my need for a high resolution body for one line of my work. I will grant you, the 1DX coupled with the 70-200 and 400 mm blows others out of the water for events, sports and wildlife, but when it comes to higher resolution and UWA lenses, I am not too happy with what Canon can offer me. So, although it might seem crazy to invest in another system, it makes sense rather than waiting for a vaporware high resolution body to MAYBE (may be never really!) appear just to sustain the one system I am used to.


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 18, 2013)

charlesa said:


> So, although it might seem crazy to invest in another system, it makes sense rather than waiting for a vaporware high resolution body to MAYBE (may be never really!) appear just to sustain the one system I am used to.



I will give you this though: Canon is clearly having fundamental trouble with their UWA lineup (barring their TSE lenses which are some of the best)... this is beside weather I think this is adquate reason for me to switch or even dabble across state lines (I don't)...but there has been now a long standing problem with the UWA range at Canon. 

They do release competent, usable UWA's....just not stellar ones. 

Most their lenses in the ultrawide range lag well behind their teles performance even factoring in the inherent difficulties that UWA designs present. As I said earlier, I just don't think this is unwillingness on the part of Canon, rather it looks more like inability to pull it off for one reason or the other. I am guessing that sacking designers may not always be a choice for them. 

Proof of this is the short 6 year refresh from the original 16-35L and still managing to come up with a version II that is only marginally better than the original. Mind boggling! 14LII was upgraded after nearly 16 years, granted version II is sigificantly better than the original, but only because the original was dismal to start with by today's standards. The 14L II is actually a very good UWA if one is fair.

All said, yes Canon's UWA range is a bit weak... is it enough to frustrate me to buy a Nikon body, or to moonlight? No. 

This is a fair discussion, I didn't take offense to the other poster's comments... its all good.


----------



## Atonegro (Mar 18, 2013)

charlesa said:


> I did not mean to start a flame war, I just meant that although I am a dedicated Canon user well invested in L glass and make money out of my prints, I cannot keep begging Canon to fulfil my need for a high resolution body for one line of my work. I will grant you, the 1DX coupled with the 70-200 and 400 mm blows others out of the water for events, sports and wildlife, but when it comes to higher resolution and UWA lenses, I am not too happy with what Canon can offer me. So, although it might seem crazy to invest in another system, it makes sense rather than waiting for a vaporware high resolution body to MAYBE (may be never really!) appear just to sustain the one system I am used to.



I totaly agree with that, that's exactly why I bought a D800e for high-contrast and ultra-wide foto's.
And it is not a very big extra investment too, if you use the Canon for the sport- and wildlife foto's, and the Nikon for the landscape- and studiofoto's, you use different sort of lenses anyway.

Different ergonomics ?
Well, I have three computers, a Big-Mac for my foto's, a Linux for my office and so, and I am typing this on my old Windowscomputer. And I can use all of them.
I have two cars, a (somewat) recent model and one from 1952, speaking off different ergonomics....but I can drive both off them.
So, let nobody tell you that using Canon and Nikon don't work.


----------



## Atonegro (Mar 18, 2013)

RS2021 said:


> charlesa said:
> 
> 
> > So, although it might seem crazy to invest in another system, it makes sense rather than waiting for a vaporware high resolution body to MAYBE (may be never really!) appear just to sustain the one system I am used to.
> ...



If you don't need the autofocus, you can try the Samyang 14mm. Great lens !
And the TS-E 24 is the lens I realy mis on my D800, the Nikon tilt-shift is not half as good.
So I hope the new Samyang tilt-shift 24mm is as good as the 14mm they make.
But I have not been able to try one, or read any reviews of it....


----------



## Dantana (Mar 18, 2013)

For the OP, who is a pro and can justify spending money on 2 systems for 2 purposes, I would say this is not crazy, especially if the lenses for the two different uses don't overlap too much. Or, if the cost of the overlapping lenses is not an issue to the OP, then, well, it isn't an issue.

I'd also echo what at least one other poster said about the possibility of medium format digital as a solution. If you are going to stay with Canon for one side of your business, you have the freedom to choose something even more use specific than Nikon, if it's something that you like to use. If I had the business, and the means, I'd rent a digital MF rig and a D800E and see which I liked better as far as usability and results.

For me though, an amateur shooter that can't afford to dabble in two systems worth of glass, splitting systems does seem crazy. I would have to choose one or the other. Not that I wouldn't want to have both. I just couldn't justify it.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Mar 18, 2013)

meli said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > Shooting both system is a mind-opening experience.
> ...



+1. Before my Nikon D800/E experience, I thought Canon had been the revolutionary when they took the full frame 5D and made the 5DMK 2 and it was Nikon that didn't come up with an equivalent 5DMK2 version. Then the D800 and the D800E (I perfer the E) came and Nikon became the revolutionary. Then Canon got into pro Video which had a much higher profit percentage and the Canon revolution became a step-wise refinement company as far as still photography ( I do really like their tilt-shift lenses and the 70-300L is great). Working with both camps may be expensive, but I know that I'm using the best available technology at the time. This has not only been fun but a great learning experience that I wouldn't miss.


----------



## ksagomonyants (Mar 18, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> RS2021 said:
> 
> 
> > ksagomonyants said:
> ...



I think you're missing the point. Nobody really cares how you or someone else spends his own money. At the end, it's your money, and you know better how to spend it. The point I'm trying to make is that why would someone invest into another system if Canon or third-party manufacturers have products at least as good as Nikon's or even better? Have you directly compared Nikon's 14-24 to let's say Schneider PC-TS lenses? Which exact Nikon's lens is that much better than Canon's one to justify investing into it? How much more details would D800 capture over 5diii, especially under dim light? I may be wrong but I'd think very few people make money by selling their landscape work, so only one can decide if he can justify investing into a different system.


----------



## expatinasia (Mar 19, 2013)

One very important reason why it would be very silly (being polite) for a pro to use both systems, is that if one of his/her cameras breaks down, s/he cannot use the glass of one brand on the other camera which is of another brand.

Do not forget NPS and CPS work very differently from one country to another - very different regulations, set up and benefits. They might offer a replacement while they fix the broken one, and that replacement might be free, or it might not. But regardless, by the time you get it to Canon you have missed the shot(s) you were trying to get.

For landscape photographers that may not be a problem (I do not know as I rarely shoot landscapes), but if you are at a sports event and your long camera dies leaving you with only a wide angle camera, you are going to have problems, very big problems. If, in this scenario, you have the same brand of camera you can swap and change your lenses to your hearts content if one dies. Might not be ideal to only use the backup but at least you do not miss the shots and potentially your job or rep.

Now, there may be some very rich pro that can buy every lens for every brand to cover such an eventuality, but most can't. And even if they could who is going to carry that much stuff to an event!!

I do not care if you use Nikon, Canon, Sony or a paint and brush, but using both is just asking for trouble. It makes no sense.


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 19, 2013)

ksagomonyants said:


> I think you're missing the point. Nobody really cares how you or someone else spends his own money. At the end, it's your money, and you know better how to spend it. The point I'm trying to make is that why would someone invest into another system if Canon or third-party manufacturers have products at least as good as Nikon's or even better? Have you directly compared Nikon's 14-24 to let's say Schneider PC-TS lenses? Which exact Nikon's lens is that much better than Canon's one to justify investing into it? How much more details would D800 capture over 5diii, especially under dim light? I may be wrong but I'd think very few people make money by selling their landscape work, so only one can decide if he can justify investing into a different system.



You are missing the point that it's never the lens itself, but the lens/camera combination. I agree that if Canon had a competitive 14-24 many people would be happy with that, but still those who can would buy it along with a D800. Why? Because it's just better, and that's all that matters. A D800E captures more fine details than a 5D3 when you put a good lens in front of it. That's because of more MP, no AA filter, wider DR, less low-ISO noise, etc etc.

With lens prices going up, people want to get the max out of their investments. It's not out of stupidity that even people heavily invested in Canon glass buy a Nikon body and a few lenses too. They do so because it's more convenient. Many people with a 5D2 did so because they felt it was the best way to broaden their possibilities, since the 5D3 offers more or less the same in terms of IQ.




expatinasia said:


> One very important reason why it would be very silly (being polite) for a pro to use both systems, is that if one of his/her cameras breaks down, s/he cannot use the glass of one brand on the other camera which is of another brand.
> 
> Do not forget NPS and CPS work very differently from one country to another - very different regulations, set up and benefits. They might offer a replacement while they fix the broken one, and that replacement might be free, or it might not. But regardless, by the time you get it to Canon you have missed the shot(s) you were trying to get.
> 
> ...



You must be incredibly cool to call all who shoot both systems silly.

You have made clear that you wouldn't manage to handle any camera with a different control layout, but you're making the mistake to think that it's the same for everybody. I have an iPad and an Android smartphone, and so far I didn't go crazy using both.

You're also making the mistake to think that one must have the same set of lenses on both systems, but no one said that. I have a Canon crop and Nikon FF (D600). I can assure you that I replaced the Canon 85/1.8 with the Nikon G version without any regrets - optically another world. 

On top of that it costs less to buy a D600 + Nikkor 85mm than a 6D + Canon 85mm. For crop upgraders keeping their Canon crop AND adding a Nikon FF is a win-win situation. 

I think I will keep shooting Canon for the long teles and I'm very interested in the upcoming crop line, but for all the rest Nikon and/or 3rd parties provide better stuff or at least a much more attractive value for money and as someone said, I'm not into feeling a hostage of a company or another.


----------



## expatinasia (Mar 19, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> You must be incredibly cool to call all who shoot both systems silly.
> 
> You have made clear that you wouldn't manage to handle any camera with a different control layout, but you're making the mistake to think that it's the same for everybody. I have an iPad and an Android smartphone, and so far I didn't go crazy using both.
> 
> ...



I do not know many pros that shoot both systems for the reasons I listed, which you did not seem to understand. If you are shooting sports, then it helps to have 2 cameras, one with long reach and one with wide or shorter reach. If you are using a Canon/Nikon for long and the other brand for short and one of them fails you won't be able to use the lenses from the failed camera on the one that is still working. Which could give you an enormous problem if you are being paid or selling certain shots.

I also did not say I could not handle using two systems. I would never put myself in such a situation as it does not help me for the reason I stated above. But could using two systems (not talking your ipad or smart phone) cause problems, of course it could, especially in sports where you have to move and react quickly. Why give yourself that headache.

Just to expand that. Let's say you have to shoot a friend's wedding at the weekend, but your wide angle breaks on Thursday. You won't be able to get it repaired in time and as your wide angle Nikon lenses won't work on your Canon, then you have a problem. If you had had the same camera system, that entire scenario would have been avoided.

I do not feel I am hostage of anything. Canon gives me what I want, I rarely look at what Nikon is doing as, unlike some people here, I am very happy with the set up I have. I made a choice and I live with that.

As for calling me "incredibly cool" hahaha - yawn..... :


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 19, 2013)

It wasn't supposed to be funny, it was supposed to make you understand that you hardly have the right to call silly anyone who makes different choices from yours. But you failed in grasping this concept.

People - pro or not - buy what they find better suited to their needs, which might be different from yours. Apparently you can't get out of your viewpoint and understand that what works for you and satisfies you not necessarily will do the same for others, and that this doesn't make them silly as much as it doesn't make you smart.

But never mind, be happy in your little bubble.


----------



## expatinasia (Mar 19, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> It wasn't supposed to be funny, it was supposed to make you understand that you hardly have the right to call silly anyone who makes different choices from yours. But you failed in grasping this concept.
> 
> People - pro or not - buy what they find better suited to their needs, which might be different from yours. Apparently you can't get out of your viewpoint and understand that what works for you and satisfies you not necessarily will do the same for others, and that this doesn't make them silly as much as it doesn't make you smart.
> 
> But never mind, be happy in your little bubble.



And what will you do when one of your two cameras breaks or malfunctions or gets misplaced at an important time - such as when you're on holiday for example? Half your lenses suddenly become dead weight until you repair that broken camera.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Mar 20, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> It wasn't supposed to be funny, it was supposed to make you understand that you hardly have the right to call silly anyone who makes different choices from yours. But you failed in grasping this concept.
> 
> People - pro or not - buy what they find better suited to their needs, which might be different from yours. Apparently you can't get out of your viewpoint and understand that what works for you and satisfies you not necessarily will do the same for others, and that this doesn't make them silly as much as it doesn't make you smart.
> 
> But never mind, be happy in your little bubble.


What's your point? (except over and over again state how much you love D800)


----------



## J.R. (Mar 20, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > It wasn't supposed to be funny, it was supposed to make you understand that you hardly have the right to call silly anyone who makes different choices from yours. But you failed in grasping this concept.
> ...



Why do you expect there will be a "point" in a Canon Vs. Nikon argument? The arguments are so biased on both sides that it is next to impossible ;D


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Mar 20, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Hobby Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Albi86 said:
> ...


I'll grant you that ;D
BUT, I will also give you a serious answer. I am very happy to log on here to read and learn, sometimes I even answer to people's questions when my skills are adequate. 

Many threads with for example interesting information about new releases from Canon or even other brands often start out well but soon enough are flooded with pointless arguments about (for the subject) irrelevant information clearly aimed to provoke people who are interested in discussing the actual subject.

I do hope the serious posters will stay with the forum and continue to discuss and share their knowledge anyway.

That's how I see it.

J


----------



## Aglet (Mar 20, 2013)

expatinasia said:


> One very important reason why it would be very silly (being polite) for a pro to use both systems, is that if one of his/her cameras breaks down, s/he cannot use the glass of one brand on the other camera which is of another brand.
> 
> Do not forget NPS and CPS work very differently from one country to another - very different regulations, set up and benefits. They might offer a replacement while they fix the broken one, and that replacement might be free, or it might not. But regardless, by the time you get it to Canon you have missed the shot(s) you were trying to get.
> 
> ...


Really?... Serious sports shooting pros only have 2 cameras?..
how impoverished
i shot weddings with 4 different bodies hangin' off my neck with enough overlap that if a battery happened to go dead (they never did) then i could still cover the event
Same goes for back when we had to change film.

sarcasm aside (geez that's hard to do) how often do you break your gear that this would be a problem?
even if you HAD 2 of the same brand, swapping lenses is gonna cost you time and you're still gonna miss shots a bit like if you had 2 different systems.

I fail to see you making a valid point against using 2 different systems but as long as you convinced yourself into such a corner...


----------



## expatinasia (Mar 20, 2013)

Aglet said:


> Really?... Serious sports shooting pros only have 2 cameras?..
> how impoverished
> i shot weddings with 4 different bodies hangin' off my neck with enough overlap that if a battery happened to go dead (they never did) then i could still cover the event
> Same goes for back when we had to change film.
> ...



Corner, bubble.... :

There are guys with numerous cameras at most sporting events. If I could afford it, I would probably have three as an ideal number, as it is I have to make do with two. Some major newspapers have or use photographers that only have one camera.

You have 4 bodies. Good for you. Well done. Big cheer. 

Are they all DSLRs? Are they all one brand? What are they?



> sarcasm aside (geez that's hard to do) how often do you break your gear that this would be a problem?
> even if you HAD 2 of the same brand, swapping lenses is gonna cost you time and you're still gonna miss shots a bit like if you had 2 different systems.



Interesting question. I wonder why Canon sticks two memory cards in it systems. One reason is that you can double your memory capacity, another is so if you want you can write to both cards at the same time, just in case....

And your point about swapping lenses taking time in the case of a camera failure is really rather moot (not the word I want to use) considering that if you had two different systems you would not be able to swap lenses at all.... :

1) What is your point? Apart from the tired sarcasm, and just saying my opinion is totally invalid?

You have a camera shop strung around your neck while you shoot weddings, that's your choice, I see nothing wrong with that. But I would never shoot sports with more than one camera system and I do not know anyone that does. But when I am next at an international event I will check and report back to you.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 20, 2013)

expatinasia said:


> I think it is silly to shoot with two systems as that means you need two sets of lenses, two menus and controls to get to grips with, and critically, mix up at the wrong moment etc.
> 
> Personally, I chose Canon and have been very happy with the results their cameras have helped me to deliver over the years.
> 
> I rarely look over the fence at what Nikon is doing, in fact I seem to have more time for Sony rumours than I do with regards to Nikon.


It does not become silly just because you "think" ... there are some people like me (although in the minority) do play with dual systems ... but once again that does not make it "silly", it only means that you "think" it is silly i.e. it is all in your head and is not real. ;D 
You chose Canon for a reason, I respect that but calling others silly bcoz they don't do what you do is actually silly. Just like you "have more time for Sony rumours", some of us have the time and interest to play with dual systems.
(BTW, I did read your rebuttal in a later post but whatever your reasons are, just bcoz you "think" it is silly does not make it silly ... a small secret, we all "think" many things but some of them are not real ;D)


----------



## expatinasia (Mar 20, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> It does not become silly just because you "think" ... there are some people like me (although in the minority) do play with dual systems ... but once again that does not make it "silly", it only means that you "think" it is silly i.e. it is all in your head and is not real. ;D
> You chose Canon for a reason, I respect that but calling others silly bcoz they don't do what you do is actually silly. Just like you "have more time for Sony rumours", some of us have the time and interest to play with dual systems.
> (BTW, I did read your rebuttal in a later post but whatever your reasons are, just bcoz you "think" it is silly does not make it silly ... a small secret, we all "think" many things but some of them are not real ;D)



Are you mainly shooting international sporting events or landscapes/weddings etc?

As my first post was really pointed at the sports pro. If landscapes then of course it does not matter as much.

Perhaps I chose a wrong word, when I used the word "silly". But I still do not think it benefits the photographer (especially pro sports photographer) to have two DSLR systems each with their own lenses.

That is my opinion, and that is what forums are for. But you are right just cos I think one thing, does not make it right, or wrong. I am pleased you admitted you are in the minority - and there is a reason for that.

Added: and the reason I mentioned Sony, is I could imagine having a small camera like the RX1 in my bag with me, which would mean I too would be then using a dual system. But what it does not mean, is I would be investing in glass for that system, because I would still only use Canon for that - unless I decide to change and go to Nikon or another brand in the future. I would not invest in two different DSLR systems that require lens investments.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 20, 2013)

expatinasia said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > It does not become silly just because you "think" ... there are some people like me (although in the minority) do play with dual systems ... but once again that does not make it "silly", it only means that you "think" it is silly i.e. it is all in your head and is not real. ;D
> ...


I do not disagree with what you are saying ... the only objection was for the "silly" comment, glad you acknowledge that it was a wrong choice of word, I suppose we are all guilty of that ... unfortunately those kind of words tend to get picked up and we receive brick bats. 
Although I jumped camp from Nikon to Canon a few years ago, I currently do not have any "serious" glass invested in Nikon, I only have 1 lens (18-300 VR) for my D7000 which is mainly used for everyday general purpose and vacations for its sheer convenience ... for all "serious" shoots I use the 5D MKIII and a few L lenses ... Of course I am saving up for the Nikkor 14-24 and a D800 for landscape photography (which is about a year away from happening). I like being able to play with both systems and I have a plan to teach photography when I'm 60 and retire from my current job in the oil and gas industry (which is also well over a decade away from happening :-[ ) so being able to understand and use both systems from the "big boys" is kind of important to me.


----------



## expatinasia (Mar 20, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> I do not disagree with what you are saying ... the only objection was for the "silly" comment, glad you acknowledge that it was a wrong choice of word, I suppose we are all guilty of that ... unfortunately those kind of words tend to get picked up and we receive brick bats.
> Although I jumped camp from Nikon to Canon a few years ago, I currently do not have any "serious" glass invested in Nikon, I only have 1 lens (18-300 VR) for my D7000 which is mainly used for everyday general purpose and vacations for its sheer convenience ... for all "serious" shoots I use the 5D MKIII and a few L lenses ... Of course I am saving up for the Nikkor 14-24 and a D800 for landscape photography (which is about a year away from happening). I like being able to play with both systems and I have a plan to teach photography when I'm 60 and retire from my current job in the oil and gas industry (which is also well over a decade away from happening :-[ ) so being able to understand and use both systems from the "big boys" is kind of important to me.



Sounds like a good plan. You say you are in the oil and gas industry, are you on a rig? Have known a few people that work on rigs, and it is a tough life, though I believe the pay is quite good. 

I did look briefly at the Nikon D800E when it came out, and it looks like a very nice camera. Some friends have the D4 and they absolutely love it too.

It will be very interesting to see whether Nikon do bring out the D4X or whatever it is rumoured to be called, and what exactly Canon puts in the 7D Mark II. 

Whichever brand, the future of photography is very bright indeed. Thanks.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 20, 2013)

expatinasia said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > I do not disagree with what you are saying ... the only objection was for the "silly" comment, glad you acknowledge that it was a wrong choice of word, I suppose we are all guilty of that ... unfortunately those kind of words tend to get picked up and we receive brick bats.
> ...


I am office based but do go to the rigs thrice a week.
I certainly agree that the future of photography is very bright, especially with all the competition these days.


----------



## sanj (Mar 20, 2013)

dilbert said:


> I'm waiting for a Sigma or Tamron to come up with a lens that is bought in two parts: (1) is the glass assembly, outer casing, zoom/focus, etc and (2) is the interface between the lens and the camera.
> 
> Then I will be able to buy a bunch of Sigma/Tamron lenses and depending on which manufacturer's camera I have or want to use, I attach the relevant electronics and mounting plate.
> 
> So maybe a $1000 Sigma lens becomes $950 plus a $50 thing to attach it to Canon/Nikon. Then there is no need to change lenses



You should copyright your such brilliant ideas...!!


----------



## ksagomonyants (Mar 20, 2013)

I think that next time when someone starts a new thread how inadequate Canon is for his needs, he should also post an image where he will point what exactly he finds inadequate. Otherwise, how can one be convinced that 22 megapixels isn't enough for someone's but 36 megapixels is? So, I'd suggest do the following:
1. Start a new thread and post an image you took with your Canon gear. 
2. Indicate what exactly you don't like in it. Is it the lack of your photographic skills which doesn't let you get great images, or it's a camera/lens inability to produce what you'd like to see? 
3. Answer your own question, does a possible negligible difference in IQ justify investing into a new system?

A while ago, I myself was considering buying a Sony FF DSLR in addition to my Canon, just because of the Zeiss 135 1.8. But every time I had these thoughts, I was always thinking that Canon's 135 2.0, 85 1.2ii, 70-200 2.8, 50 1.2, Zeiss 100 2.0 makro and my favorite 200 2.0 are at least as good as 135 1.8. 

Guys, I really think we should stop this thread. As I've said before, it's a personal decision to invest his own money into something or not, same as with cars, computers, smartphones, girls  Some of us can see the logic in it, some cannot. If having an additional system makes you happy, go for it and enjoy your photographs! Although sometimes we're getting upset with Canon, I'm sure we'll be proud of its new products soon (but probably not this week)


----------



## J.R. (Mar 20, 2013)

ksagomonyants said:


> I think that next time when someone starts a new thread how inadequate Canon is for his needs, he should also post an image where he will point what exactly he finds inadequate. Otherwise, how can one be convinced that 22 megapixels isn't enough for someone's but 36 megapixels is? So, I'd suggest do the following:
> 1. Start a new thread and post an image you took with your Canon gear.
> 2. Indicate what exactly you don't like in it. Is it the lack of your photographic skills which doesn't let you get great images, or it's a camera/lens inability to produce what you'd like to see?
> 3. Answer your own question, does a possible negligible difference in IQ justify investing into a new system?
> ...



I've seen other posters (esp. RLPhoto and PBD) who've been asking for much of the same - example of a shot where the Canon system screwed up as compared to Nikon ... the result ... none, nada. 

Yes DR is important and I'd take 14 stops any day ... but to say it greatly limits shooting is just plain wrong.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 20, 2013)

If I had the money, I'd probably own nikon, canon, Olympus, Sony, and possibly a phase one. Owning two brands is irrelevant, but is it good business? That is the question.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 20, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> If I had the money, I'd probably own nikon, canon, Olympus, Sony, and possibly a phase one. Owning two brands is irrelevant, but is it good business? That is the question.


If one had enough money to own that many cameras and lenses, I suppose the question of "business" would be not even arise coz it would just be for pleasure  ... but if its a camera store than the question of "is it good business" would be relevant.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 20, 2013)

dilbert said:


> I'm waiting for a Sigma or Tamron to come up with a lens that is bought in two parts: (1) is the glass assembly, outer casing, zoom/focus, etc and (2) is the interface between the lens and the camera.
> 
> Then I will be able to buy a bunch of Sigma/Tamron lenses and depending on which manufacturer's camera I have or want to use, I attach the relevant electronics and mounting plate.
> 
> So maybe a $1000 Sigma lens becomes $950 plus a $50 thing to attach it to Canon/Nikon. Then there is no need to change lenses


The Tamron Adaptall mount was fantastic.... I still have my 90mm macro that I bought for my Olympus OM-1... change the adaptor from OM to EOS and now it works with my Canon. I would love to see that again.....


----------



## J.R. (Mar 20, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > ksagomonyants said:
> ...



Yawn!

If you choose to not read what I wrote, read again. 

BTW, if sensor performance is all you really care about ... Go Nikon!


----------



## Aglet (Mar 20, 2013)

expatinasia said:


> There are guys with numerous cameras at most sporting events. If I could afford it, I would probably have three as an ideal number, as it is I have to make do with two. Some major newspapers have or use photographers that only have one camera.
> 
> You have 4 bodies. Good for you. Well done. Big cheer.
> 
> ...



Well, weddings are a lot slower than sports so 3 Rebels and a 40D were used on my last wedding shoot about 4 yrs ago. 
1006 shots taken; 1002 delivered, 2 held back for legal reasons, 1 shot of my foot, 1 focus miss.
10-22mm, 17-55mm, 18-250mm, 70-200/2.8 for the formals (outside)
3x 580EX2s and 420EX for occasional fill
So, plenty of cams and lenses BUT THE BODIES WERE CHEAP, LIGHT, AND ADEQUATE for that kind of work. 
Even tho I used gear that shared a lot of common accessories, it would not have mattered if if one cam was another brand with that kind of lens coverage.

Frankly, at the speed weddings typically move at, I could have shot them with a G-series PowerShot using wide and tele adapters, 2 flashes, and one SLR with a couple lenses.

Funny, never had a memory card failure either. May be cuz i only use premium ones that I’ve tested beforehand and I don’t pop them out of the camera every time I DL images like some like to do.

missed-shot’s a missed shot, no matter what the excuse

HIgh end competitive sports is a different shooting environment, I’d likely select gear similar to your requirements if I did such gigs. 
More importantly, I’d need something to keep me awake cuz, to me, there’s nothing so boring as what passes for commercial spectator sports. (gag) Weddings are a close second, FWIW, and I don’t care to do either of those, or other events, any more.
Trying to have FUN with my gear now, shooting whatever I like.

So, I’m saying your point is only valid in a very limited situation, in many others situations, it’s not at all critical.


----------



## charlesa (Mar 20, 2013)

Enough with the flame wars already  

As the OP I never meant to be a Canon vs Nikon rant, just to assess the veracity of owning the best of both worlds and whether it made sense business wise.

All I got was that people stick to their system even if it shot them in the foot... repeatedly. Brand loyalty does not make sense.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Mar 20, 2013)

My take ---

If it makes sense to use both systems, use them! If it doesn't, then don't. Yeah, that's very simplistic, but that's what it boils down too. I shoot weddings, events, portraits, and some fine art. I don't feel that for me using a dual system makes sense financially. If the fine art were the prime focus of what I'm doing then yeah for sure I would be adding the d800 to my kit (or even a 1ds3).


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 20, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > ksagomonyants said:
> ...



Read carefully this. Nikon has better DR than canon, Everyone here knows that. Anyone who argues otherwise is out of their minds. 

The real point is this, in actual shooting could you, not DXO, not camera labs or anyone else show in your photos that a canon cameras DR has failed you. If so, then make your point to switch immediately to nikon because canon is limiting your creativity. If you can't show so, don't complain here. We're talking real, solid photos not induced under-exposed crap but real photos.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Mar 27, 2013)

First a Toyota, then a Honda, then a Mercedes, then a BMW - brand loyalty sucks, performance rules.
Do whatever the hell you want.


----------



## bycostello (Mar 27, 2013)

f8 and be there i think someone once said.... didn't mention what to turn up with though!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 27, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



As usual, no response yet.


----------



## Aglet (Mar 28, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> As usual, no response yet.



you saw this on the other thread, no?...
www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13773.150



art_d said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Please do, I have been dying to see some optimally exposed shots where the DR of a Canon has substantially ruined a shot yet a Nikon capture would have been perfect.
> ...


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 28, 2013)

@aglet. 

Please view this thread to grasp how real photographers use timing, placement, and effort to get what they want. No amount of DR will ever change that. 
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=295.0

I still haven't seen any photos posted from yourself on this topic BTW.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 28, 2013)

charlesa said:


> Enough with the flame wars already
> 
> As the OP I never meant to be a Canon vs Nikon rant, just to assess the veracity of owning the best of both worlds and whether it made sense business wise.
> 
> All I got was that people stick to their system even if it shot them in the foot... repeatedly. Brand loyalty does not make sense.


Well you chose the words "go Nikon" in your subject title on a Canon forum, what did you think would happen? ;D its like going to the Republican convention and raising a question, about being a Democrat for a little while ;D ... I guess free speech allows them to sing songs of praise and worship about Nikon, Sony or whatever sensor but it'd be more appropriate if they sang their glorious tunes in one of the Nikon, Sony forums that way they'll get people who will appreciate their songs of worship and praise ;D


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 28, 2013)

Aglet said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > As usual, no response yet.
> ...



Yes unfortunately I did. An again, as usual, no response.


----------



## kubelik (Mar 28, 2013)

empirical test-wise, I don't think anyone is going to argue that Canon is slightly behind Sony/Nikon in terms of dynamic range recorded by their sensors.

the argument is whether or not it's a deal-breaker. I think if the photographer is uneducated, lazy, or lacking key tools, then yes, it could be construed as a deal-breaker. but if you're really taking your work (paid work or personal artistic work) seriously, it should not present itself as any sort of impedance. people took amazing photos on slide film back in the day. I won't claim to be someone who took amazing slide film photographs, but I did use it for architectural work and I devised ways of working within its narrow dynamic range, the though process of which greatly improved the quality of my photos.


----------



## Aglet (Mar 29, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> @aglet.
> 
> Please view this thread to grasp how real photographers use timing, placement, and effort to get what they want. No amount of DR will ever change that.
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=295.0
> ...


@RLPhoto
Not sure what you're really trying to poke at there
you can see a few potential landscape sorts posted elsewhere, peruse attachments for yourself.
www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;sa=attach;u=31446
This is not a forum where I care to post my best work. Neither is my web site.
But I'll let you look at my portfolio if you're visiting my part of the planet.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 29, 2013)

Aglet said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > @aglet.
> ...



Most of your photos are charts and the best shots are from P&S cameras. Interesting but only adds to my previous point.


----------



## ChilledXpress (Mar 29, 2013)

Aglet said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > @aglet.
> ...



Right !!! Aglet's best work is saved for posting on Canon Rumors... where ALL great photographers discuss how DR will greatly improve their posting skills.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 29, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Read carefully this. Nikon has better DR than canon, Everyone here knows that. Anyone who argues otherwise is out of their minds.



Fortunately for Canon, the decisive iso advantage is only at low iso...



RLPhoto said:


> The real point is this, in actual shooting could you, not DXO, not camera labs or anyone else show in your photos that a canon cameras DR has failed you. If so, then make your point to switch immediately to nikon because canon is limiting your creativity. If you can't show so, don't complain here. We're talking real, solid photos not induced under-exposed crap but real photos.



I don't think it's hard to come up with real life scenes: I shot wildlife in the snow for the last days, and at noon I had a 600rt fill flash at manual/full power *plus* -100 highlight recovery *plus* +66 fill lights (everything above looks really bad) *plus* sometimes even tonal curve adjustments to squeeze a properly exposed scene out of the Canon raws.

Another typical scene type of are tripod night-time shots - I do bracketing anyway, but more dr = less bracketing necessary. 

Yes, it all works after figuring out how to, but sometimes just barely - and problem with highlight recovery is that LR's autotone doesn't work and the shots get compressed in a non-linear way. For snow this is exactly what you want, for other highlights it often looks strange/dull and needs further post-processing wizardry.

So all in all: Yes, for my shots I would like more dr, actually as much as lower iso noise.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 29, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Read carefully this. Nikon has better DR than canon, Everyone here knows that. Anyone who argues otherwise is out of their minds.
> ...


Neat, my question is why shoot mid-day? I dont know what situation you were in but afternoon light is less harsh. A d800 shot at noon will look blown out and uglier than a P&S shot done at the proper time. I've seen some stunning snow shots done on film! That's because they wait for the proper time. 

Not against DR, but I come from velvia 50 slide film and that had terrible DR.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 29, 2013)

Now don't make fun of me, but I had to shoot an easter egg hunt event near 11am-noon last weekend, outside, and it was harsh. I shot with a 1Dx and 24-70L II and the RAW files cleaned up very nicely. And to think I didn't have as many stops of DR as the D800. Man what my photos could have been...


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 29, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Neat, my question is why shoot mid-day? I dont know what situation you were in but afternoon light is less harsh. A d800 shot at noon will look blown out and uglier than a P&S shot done at the proper time.



I was shooting from noon till dawn, and by now I know where it gets tricky - in high contrast I need a fill flash (fill light in LR just isn't the same), and action shots (i.e. high shutter = high iso = less dr) are out of the question or it looks like a p&s. 

But good :-> to hear the d800 also doesn't do it, I cannot say how big the real world advantage is at low iso - I just have one guy in mind that posted beach volleyball shots here and said the d800 really made the difference.



bdunbar79 said:


> And to think I didn't have as many stops of DR as the D800. Man what my photos could have been...



Please do take not I'm not saying you cannot do good high contrast shots with Canon - it just takes more thought, equipment, knowledge & postprocessing and some limited scenes simply are dr-limited.

One notorious example are shots with the sun in the frame - the corona is more or less pronounced according to dr range (unless you do hdr bracketing) and/or the front shadows have more definition. Since I really like backlit nature scenes maybe I stumble across it more often than others.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 29, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Neat, my question is why shoot mid-day? I dont know what situation you were in but afternoon light is less harsh. A d800 shot at noon will look blown out and uglier than a P&S shot done at the proper time.
> ...



:|


----------



## archiea (Mar 29, 2013)

ragmanjin said:


> "... tired, red 18mp sensors."



I gotta admit, that gave me a good 'ole chuckle!!!

Thanks for the perspective of a medium format user. Very informative. 

Me, personally, I think technology is my b*tch to be use as I see fit. If I could afford it I'd dabble across brands... The concept of using digital backs on standard bodies makes sense and allows an upgrade and scalability path. I wish I had the time/money to play with such amazing tech.

I used to kinda scoff at $9K leica users until I sued one and saw the image off of an M9 from a film lens that was like 20 years old. Really something. 

However, I have to say, the images we are getting today off ANY system is surpassing anything we had just a decade ago. THATS kinda where I chose to lose myself in... between the fidelity of the image, the capture ability between the fast lenses and AF systems, and the convenience and range of the post processing ability... heck you want to talk softness.. I throw lensbabies on a 22 MP camera! I think its really the impact of what you are shooting. And you always hear people asking what did you use to shoot something with, or what software you used, as if THATS the reason why the image looks so good, not because of your eye and talent. 

Now as far as MAC and PC.. we ALL know which one is better!! ;D


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 29, 2013)

You also asked, "Why shoot mid day?"

Well, should I call the athletic director at AU and tell him the sun won't be in the proper position to photograph the soccer match?

Just kidding. Sometimes though, you have to shoot mid day, outside, and you don't have a choice. I've had to and have never had any problems with RAW files from a 1D4, 5D3, or 1DX. You just understand how to maximize the DR that your camera is capable of doing, and do it. 14 stops vs. 11 stops will never matter if you can do that.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 29, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> You also asked, "Why shoot mid day?"
> 
> Well, should I call the athletic director at AU and tell him the sun won't be in the proper position to photograph the soccer match?
> 
> Just kidding. Sometimes though, you have to shoot mid day, outside, and you don't have a choice. I've had to and have never had any problems with RAW files from a 1D4, 5D3, or 1DX. You just understand how to maximize the DR that your camera is capable of doing, and do it. 14 stops vs. 11 stops will never matter if you can do that.



Sports is one thing, wildlife is another. Either of them mid-day won't be too pretty.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 29, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > You also asked, "Why shoot mid day?"
> ...



My worst work is from those games, so you got that right.


----------



## Aglet (Mar 29, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...


blown and clipped on both ends is lovely if you're going for that sort of look
I prefer mine
www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9299.msg172776#msg172776
append - those are pretty much straight out of camera, BTW


----------



## Aglet (Mar 29, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> I don't understand how somebody can claim to not post their best work on their retail website? I fully understand not posting your work in forums, I only post test shots and snaps that illustrate a particular point, but to claim you are better than your retail website sounds a bit of a stretch.


cuz, I have a job, a family, and a life.
I don't have time to push my web site or market myself harder right now
nor spend hours/day here


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 29, 2013)

Aglet said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand how somebody can claim to not post their best work on their retail website? I fully understand not posting your work in forums, I only post test shots and snaps that illustrate a particular point, but to claim you are better than your retail website sounds a bit of a stretch.
> ...



Really? But you do have time to argue stupid and meaningless, and unfounded points on a rumors website? Oh the irony.

Fortunately I don't need 14 stops of DR because for the most part, I know what I'm doing. Not always, but for the most part. And to stupidly assign blown/clipped highlights to Canon cameras. You have time for that too. If you have trouble with highlights and shadows, they offer photography courses. I suppose though, those with Nikon cameras don't need photography courses because the sensor allows them to do everything exactly correctly, whereas with Canon you don't have this luxury. With your busy life though, you probably wouldn't have time for any of that either.

Good job.


----------



## kubelik (Mar 29, 2013)

looks like someone hasn't met a GND filter yet


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 29, 2013)

Aglet said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



Ahem, my samples have subject matter which you obviously discount. Which none of your sample's have.


----------



## Aglet (Mar 30, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



What can I tell you , I feel compelled to teach and recalcitrant students are so challenging.


----------



## Aglet (Mar 30, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Ahem, my samples have subject matter which you obviously discount. Which none of your sample's have.


I'm not seein' any such merit over mine in these examples, and not that it matters.
The interesting point is they were shot with Canon bodies. I exposed mine to render the incredible sunset color gradient that evening and yours...
Well, they just sit there. Artistically boring, but they might make good stock images where that doesn't matter.
Do you think you could have exposed and processed any of them differently to make a more compelling image?
I do, despite the Canon limitations on the sunset shot.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 30, 2013)

Aglet said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Ahem, my samples have subject matter which you obviously discount. Which none of your sample's have.
> ...





:


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 30, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> I don't understand how somebody can claim to not post their best work on their retail website? I fully understand not posting your work in forums, I only post test shots and snaps that illustrate a particular point, but to claim you are better than your retail website sounds a bit of a stretch.




Just out of curiosity; why not ? As long as the files are very small.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 30, 2013)

Aglet said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Ahem, my samples have subject matter which you obviously discount. Which none of your sample's have.
> ...



This is not the place where I put my best work and yes, these shots are just stock photos. My best work is reserved for my website and my portfolio albums. 

Any 8 year old can underexpose a sunset but what I meant by subject matter is I have to expose for a foreground element and the bright sky background element at the same time. Which is relevant to you saying how terrible the DR is on canon cameras, which I'm replying with photos that say your over blowing the topic. IE: a backlit situation, where your photos only have to expose for the sunset, I have to expose for both.


----------



## J.R. (Mar 30, 2013)

At the very outset I offer my apologies for wading into this rather heated discussion. This is a shot I took with the 6D. Please let me know how a Nikon camera would have helped with this.

I'm just a hobbyist and humble student of photography ... HELP!


----------



## Lodimup (Mar 30, 2013)

J.R. said:


> At the very outset I offer my apologies for wading into this rather heated discussion. This is a shot I took with the 6D. Please let me know how a Nikon camera would have helped with this.
> 
> I'm just a hobbyist and humble student of photography ... HELP!



You would have details on the trees.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 30, 2013)

J.R. said:


> At the very outset I offer my apologies for wading into this rather heated discussion. This is a shot I took with the 6D. Please let me know how a Nikon camera would have helped with this.
> 
> I'm just a hobbyist and humble student of photography ... HELP!




You haven't played fair: you're supposed to underexposed by at least four stops, then pull your shadows up to equal the highlights, then post a 200% view and complain about the noise. ;D


P.S, you may know how to expose but you're horizon's off, a Nikon would have corrected this. 
Exposing correctly b*****ks the whole thing up and takes the fun out of it.


----------



## Ewinter (Mar 30, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Help?
> Help is when you have compared 2 systems as here, and you can se the pattern noise in Canons sensors compared to Sonys sensors in Nikon with out any pattern noise= 14 stops DR compared to 11 with pattern noise
> In others words, it depends how you are developing the pictures and what you want to show from the shadows up to high lights


or you could pop a flash for fill, which with the 600EX RT would have fired, but the Nikon SB910 with CLS wouldn't due to the sunlight. 
Sensors : Nikon 1
Canon 0

Flash:
Canon 1 
Nikon 0.

It's more than a sensor


----------



## Ewinter (Mar 31, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> In manual flash and manual camera both systems could produce superb casual looking publishable images. But you need a shitload of skill and experience to pull that stuff off well.


no argument from me. IMHO people need to stop whining and get learning.
No camera is perfect.
Deal with it, improve your skills to get around any limitations and let nothing hold you back.
I doubt all the greats spent all their time dissing on their cameras, I bet they spent their time improving themselves


----------



## J.R. (Mar 31, 2013)

Thanks for the replies - 

@ankorwatt - Thanks ... I see your point with the FPN and it is just plain bad. BTW, how many stops were you trying to raise the shadows?

@ Ewinter - Thanks and I wholeheartedly agree ... but it is good to know the limits of what your camera can or cannot do so that one can think of a workaround to the limitations

@ pbd - Thanks. I usually try exposing optimally for the shadow areas and bring down the highlights in post - which is what I did here. and you are right - I really didn't want a low contrast image. I wonder though why Canon's highlight recovery isn't considered in these DR discussions.

BTW, I feel nothing beats the good old GND filters for landscapes.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 1, 2013)

J.R. said:


> At the very outset I offer my apologies for wading into this rather heated discussion. This is a shot I took with the 6D. Please let me know how a Nikon camera would have helped with this.
> 
> I'm just a hobbyist and humble student of photography ... HELP!


I like your shot and glad you got a 6D instead of going the cheap route with a 5d2.
the 6d has improved significantly in areas where some of us cursed the 5d2 as PoS.
the shot, even if it was level in reality (likely not?) would likely appear a little better with some rotation applied to provide a more natural symmetry and sense of vertical balance. 
tho many of us are horizonally-challenged despite the best efforts of built in artificial horizons. I need Pentax's built in auto-level sensor rotation.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 1, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > At the very outset I offer my apologies for wading into this rather heated discussion. This is a shot I took with the 6D. Please let me know how a Nikon camera would have helped with this.
> ...


Or you could have exposed them differently to start with. If you take a picture into the setting sun, are you sure you are after the details in the ladies' backs? Personally, I would see that more as a silhouette shot.


----------



## J.R. (Apr 1, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



+1 ... however, IMHO a GND filter would have gone a long way in improving the shot


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 1, 2013)

J.R. said:


> At the very outset I offer my apologies for wading into this rather heated discussion. This is a shot I took with the 6D. Please let me know how a Nikon camera would have helped with this.
> 
> I'm just a hobbyist and humble student of photography ... HELP!



A nikon devotee will tell you otherwise and a photographer will say it looks fine.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 1, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



How about some real photos to prove me otherwise?


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 1, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> there are many, look and you will find, if you still denial the difference between 14 stops of DR and 11 with pattern noise, it is time for you to use a d800, d7000 and do you own comparison.



Viewing your attachment's all you've ever posted is just test charts. Quite disappointing, how can I ever take your "Photography" advise seriously?


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 1, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



It seems your in denial. You seem to believe your a photographer, and I cannot ascertain that from information I've been given.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 1, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



My humor can only go so far.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 1, 2013)

It only has 11 stops of DR.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 1, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> My humor can only go so far.





bdunbar79 said:


> It only has 11 stops of DR.



+1 If you use a D800, your humor will be able to capture the full emotional range of the conversation, from the deepest greenish blacks of jealousy to the brightest, most ebullient highlights of joy. Sadly, your pathetic 11 stops doesn't allow you to push the blocked up shadows of trollish frustration without the repeated pattern of noisy 'Canon sucks' whining.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 1, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> 14 stop in a raw histogram?
> the motive was enough, from the sun and down to the shadows , deep enogue to show pattern noise from the canon.



Dude, you're the only one on this forum that's ever used the word "motive" so everyone one's pretty sure they now know who it is.
image, scene, shot, picture, composition are words that would have helped keep you under cover. 
Welcome back, BTW.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 1, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > My humor can only go so far.
> ...



If I didn't nail my punchline with 11 stops, I doubt that 14 stops would make it less of an awkward pause.


----------



## J.R. (Apr 1, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Yeah right ... Gear doesn't matter!


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 1, 2013)

J.R. said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



+1


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 1, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Unless it is a 135 f2................



The day a EF 135mm F/1.8L IS USM is released is the day I will change that but I doubt either will happen.


----------



## meli (Apr 1, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> If you had exposed optimally for the look you wanted to end up with then either manufacturers camera could have done that, with ease. But you didn't, you underexposed both and one is better at sorting out your mistake than the other, Had you overexposed both then the Canon, in my experience, would have been a better file to give you the result you wanted, Canon RAW files have much better highlight recovery potential than Nikon RAW files do.
> 
> Learn how to expose optimally for the image you want and your equipments capabilities and stop relying on being able to post process the crap out of badly underexposed images when taken with a Canon. Ever notice that nobody ever complains about the highlight recovery of Canon? That is not true if you look at Nikon forums, all Nikon users know you must underexpose to get optimal results, start overexposing your Canon and your "issues" will largely evaporate.



I keep hearing of this ever since canon sensors were surpassed by every other player out there. 
That unquantifiable, ethereal, hidden in the edges of overexposure, DR. Tell you what, there is no such thing. There're no hidden dr stops there. Canon is nailed to <12 DR stops for half a decade now and that includes the whole spectrum. No hidden highlight dr anywhere. No mystical 11.5dr + 2stops hidden in the highlights kind of thing.
And as someone who shoots nikon alongside canon i cant really see where you're getting that: "Canon RAW files have much better highlight recovery potential than Nikon RAW files do". Could you post an example?


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 1, 2013)

:|


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 2, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> It only has 11 stops of DR.


That sucks


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 2, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Hobby Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...


Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here. Maybe it's my shortcomings as a photographer since I am only a hobbyist, but taking a picture into the setting sun, I would see it more as an art picture capturing the beautiful silhouettes than details of the ladies' shirts.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 2, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Kind of like Aglet wanting a camera to automatically level for him!



check out a Pentax K5 




privatebydesign said:


> Learn how to expose optimally for the image you want and your equipments capabilities and stop relying on being able to post process the crap out of badly underexposed images when taken with a Canon. Ever notice that nobody ever complains about the highlight recovery of Canon? That is not true if you look at Nikon forums, all Nikon users know you must underexpose to get optimal results, start overexposing your Canon and your "issues" will largely evaporate.



that means, in some cases, ETTR but exposing to not clip highlites and then recurving the rest in post
a technique that works better with most other mfr's cameras that don't begin with "C"


----------



## Aglet (Apr 2, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Now show me a Nikon file that could do this.



HAHA!
That's a lot like, "show me a Canon file that can do this?"
you just moved the sliders the other way.

And SINCE PATTERN NOISE IS NOT AN ISSUE AT THE HIGHLIGHT END, exposing to retain as much hilite detail as possible and BRINGING UP CLEAN SHADOWS is, more often, the _desirable_ approach.
Unless, that is, you're shooting with some bandy PoS camera whose noisy raw files won't allow you to do that w-o required a whole lot of extra time in Photoshop.
(_Are you an Adobe sales rep_?  )


----------



## ragmanjin (Apr 2, 2013)

Aglet said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Now show me a Nikon file that could do this.
> ...



So....he showed you a Canon file that could do this. Sure, he carried out his argument-supporting shot with expert exposure and handling, but you're still arguing rather than showing much in the way of proof to support your own side. Care to share your Nikon wizardry? I can't be the only one who's curious.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 2, 2013)

@privatebydesign; interesting point about using ETTR with Canon. This may be why I find many Canon users feel they get better results from ISO 50 (L), as that is essentially exposing to the right.

@ankortwat; a really good example of post processors having a desire to lift shadow detail to a totally unrealistic level. If you did this with your Sony sensor file it would undoubtably have less noise, but the result would look just as crap


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 2, 2013)

Nikon has better DR, but Canon DR is not limiting if you expose properly. We already knew this. 

The photos are the end all. Does the comments of the members align with the photography they've displayed? If you appreciate photography, you will quickly find a lacking from certain proponents of overly strong opinions on this thread. 

It was getting old, like a year ago.


----------



## Pi (Apr 2, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> As *always* this "example" is not OPTIMALLY exposed, look at the histogram.
> 
> Rule 101 for getting OPTIMAL results from a Canon, *ETTR.*
> 
> The majority of the information is below center, a typically 18% metered exposure, learn to use your camera, or just set the EV compensation to +2/3 and forget about it.



Could not agree more. I do believe that pattern noise is a problem in some situations with scenes of extreme DR but in this case, the scene could have been exposed to the right. The histogram reflects a converted image, and there is plenty of highlight room on the right, not to mention that part of it could be blown without a problem.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 2, 2013)

The vast majority of us DO know how to get the most from our gear, even with challenging exposures.
But, as in Ankorwatt’s dappled sunlit image, lifting some dark areas of even a reasonably exposed image will often show FPN.
It comes down to a matter of individual tastes. I prefer the lightened look of the shadow lifted crop he’s shown. I prefer slightly less lifted, actually, but even so, that would still be enough to show FPN.

Seems like many others are saying, “NO! You shouldn’t do that! It doesn’t look natural.”
To which I reply, “Like HEL_ it doesn’t.” You need to actually LOOK at the scene you’re shooting, what can you see? Are you going to represent the final image like you saw it or are you going to capture it within the limitations and compromises of your equipment and technique?

When you shift your gaze around a real-life scene, your eyes are very much a center-weighted-averaging-metered device. (more like between CWA and “partial” in Canon parlance) If you were standing where he took the shot and were to look at that lady sitting in the shade, your eyes would adjust to provide your brain with a view more like the shadow-lifted example than the silhouetted version.

When I create an image like that, I want someone viewing that image to be able to look around it and see the kind of details they would see if they had been there, not the overly contrasted rendition provided by many cameras/software and seemingly preferred by many voiciferous shooters. This is especially applicable to large prints, where you’re actually moving your gaze around from one area to another. It’s not unreasonable to want or expect to see some detail in the darker areas as in Ankorwatt’s example.
Yes, this is a matter of TASTE. If you like clipped shadows, go ahead and produce them.
I don’t like them, my customers compliment me on what they see when I process and print an image the way _I_ like it. That’s what matters, the end result. 
As means to that end, i dumped my 5d2 and replaced it with a D800. Works MUCH better for what I need from it.

So advising on matters of post-processing “taste” is a style argument and does not really address technical shortcomings of the actual hardware. That’s best left to Canon engineers, we need to spur THEM to do better.

The argument still remains, however, that some cameras do not allow us to produce images that meet some of our tastes in some conditions whereas other cameras ARE capable of doing just that without difficulty or extra work. This will remain the case until Canon can remedy their read noise problems. If you shoot Canon and want to lift shadows then you are stuck with optimizing the compromises or other work-arounds.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 2, 2013)

I was pleasantly surprised by the improved sensor performance from Nikon’s modern crop bodies as well.
I’ve been too often disappointed by my early version 5d2 (which I’m now convinced was a lemon and got rid of) and my also early-production 7D, which I’ve also sold.
I should have returned BOTH of those turkeys to Canon as soon as I discovered the problems. On top of that, my 5d2 did often like to meter rather conservatively, usually under-exposing more than my other Canon bodies, but not consistently. I hated that thing! The only time I got consistent and decent results with it was shooting fully manual where lighting wasn’t changing faster than I could keep up to it. In variable and mixed lighting (incl flash fill) i often got inconsistent and under-exposed results from it. A major frustration when I could easily get reliable and consistent results from my other Canon bodies in similar conditions.

Since nobody here’s ever offered their 5d2 raw files or shot test samples to compare FPN, all I’ve had to work with were files DL’d from I-R. Their raw file could be pushed a LOT more than mine could and not show significant FPN. My 5d2 files would show FPN from shades as high as 3EV below metered zero if those shades were pushed as little as +1EV. This is totally unacceptable from a FF body of that cost.
I don’t think I’m the only one who’s experienced this either. There seems to be a fair bit of variability in FPN performance within samples of the same model. One CR poster even commented recently he sent his 1Dx back because of poor FPN performance so even pricey new models are not immune. (not sure if that was low ISO or not tho)

I still prefer the handling, color rendition and WB performance of Canon over the other mfrs. I still have a handful of Canon crop bodies, newest now being the 60D. Of the bunch, the 60D is the worst offender for low ISO FPN, but it is much better than my 7D was, but not as good as my late production 40D or even my old Rebels.
I’m still hoping Canon will produce a body with a sensor system that doesn’t have the high read noise problems that afflicts so many of their recent cameras. The 6D is the best I’ve tried so far but still has some vertical banding visible around 400 iso on the sample I tested. If the price drops enough, I’ll likely still buy one to try it. Same with the 7d2 or 70d where I also need the better AF system.
I’m keeping my Best EF glass for another year or so. If Canon does not produce a camera I can afford, that can provide low ISO with clean shadow areas like the competitors can, i will have held my breath long enough.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 2, 2013)

Aglet, how about you provide us a beautiful RAW file that you spend time, effort, and possibly money to get first? Please do show us the very best d800 RAW file of you very *best work* and then I promise I will do the same.

It must be your best, no less.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 2, 2013)

@privatebydesign; I've just followed the link you've added to your last post. 

I'd really drop the matter, the sheep have proved to be cardboard cutouts. 

No shepherd required. ;D


----------



## psolberg (Apr 3, 2013)

wow you guys are still talking about this? last year we settled this matter and I'm surprise some are still in denial.


http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/Canon_EOS_5D_MkIII_vs_Nikon_D800_dynamic_range.html

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html
see page 2

http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120906_6-Canon5DM3-noise-vs-NikonD800E.html
(paid link but guess who wins based on preview below... :)



> Nikon rules the roost, even ignoring the extra 14 megapixels the D800 offers over the 5D Mark III.


 -Lloyd Chambers
Amen brother!

besides, having shot both, there is no contest. the 5DmkIII is a noise machine in the shadows. you can argue about proper exposure, etc. But the fact remains, when you're pushing exposure, for whatever the reason, the canon 5DmkIII shadows will punish you, which is partially why I no longer shoot with it (the other being low resolution) 8)


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 3, 2013)

psolberg said:


> wow you guys are still talking about this? last year we settled this matter and I'm surprise some are still in denial.
> 
> 
> http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/Canon_EOS_5D_MkIII_vs_Nikon_D800_dynamic_range.html
> ...


Low resolution, compared to what? The D4?


----------



## Pi (Apr 3, 2013)

I think that this issue is exaggerated by both sides. 

It is true that the Canon sensors have significantly higher read noise than the Sony ones *even* when you expose to the right; actually, the DXO measurements are taken "with ETTR". Here are some computations based on DXO data: http://www.sensorgen.info/. This has been demonstrated over and over again. I have seen it in my images many times but still in a tiny percentage of them. When you need that extra DR, Nikon wins. It is frustrating that Canon is the only major manufacturer with such noisy sensors. 

It is also true that most users will never notice it, and that even experienced and demanding users will rarely see it, unless they do some specialized type of photography. It is also true that many users do not know how to expose well not only to reduce the read noise but also to reduce the overall one, even at ISO 100, for images which would undergo extreme pp. 

To jump the ship just for that seems unwise to me. There are many other factors.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 3, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Aglet, how about you provide us a beautiful RAW file that you spend time, effort, and possibly money to get first? Please do show us the very best d800 RAW file of you very *best work* and then I promise I will do the same.
> 
> It must be your best, no less.



how about something easier, you show us some 100 iso test shots from your 5d2.... if you still have it.
Blank sheet of white paper, exposed at 1 EV values from +4 to -10, no Lum or Chroma NR, black level crusher set to ZERO, pushed in ACR or LR, until visible banding appears at 100%
Show us what EV levels you no longer get FPN.
Do and post that, then I'll do the same with a $400 Nikon.
OK, you go'head and do yours. We're waiting.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 3, 2013)

Aglet said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet, how about you provide us a beautiful RAW file that you spend time, effort, and possibly money to get first? Please do show us the very best d800 RAW file of you very *best work* and then I promise I will do the same.
> ...



Just like your avatar, you spoke first and loudly. How can you expect of others w/o you doing the same first? Give us your best work out of the d800 and Ill try to match one of equal caliber out of my canon camera.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 3, 2013)

Pi said:


> To jump the ship just for that seems unwise to me. There are many other factors.


There certainly are many factors.
But, for some of us, clean raw files that provide maximum malleability in post are worth the effort and cost to ADD the gear, not necessarily SWITCH to it.
My 5d2 was a PoS so I sold it and got a FF Nikon that kicks butt for clean files. Extra DR and MP are a bonus. 20 to 25MP were enough for what I needed in resolution, but I really needed NO pattern noise. Certainly miss the 5d2's superior live-view, D800's LV is terrible in low light.

I still use Canon crop bodies, along with a few Nikon and Pentax too. I use whatever tool I LIKE or is best for the shot.
I still like using Canons better than Nikons, but Pentax is very nice too if you don't mind lack of glass options.
If Canon makes a FF body as good as the Nikon for clean low ISO raw files, I'll likely buy it, especially if it arrives this year and doesn't cost more than $3-4k.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 3, 2013)

Know how I know that Mikael Residal is gone? This DR pissing contest happens about once every two weeks, instead of about once every two days. That, and no more pics of barbecues. Honestly, even the barbecues were more interesting than this constant repetitive crap. 

Agree to disagree, or I have a hunch that more people will start disappearing - both 11-stoppers and 14-stoppers. 

</rant>


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 3, 2013)

Aglet said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet, how about you provide us a beautiful RAW file that you spend time, effort, and possibly money to get first? Please do show us the very best d800 RAW file of you very *best work* and then I promise I will do the same.
> ...



versus real-life, actual photos of things...


----------



## Aglet (Apr 3, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Know how I know that Mikael Residal is gone? This DR pissing contest happens about once every two weeks, instead of about once every two days. That, and no more pics of barbecues. Honestly, even the barbecues were more interesting than this constant repetitive crap.
> 
> Agree to disagree, or I have a hunch that more people will start disappearing - both 11-stoppers and 14-stoppers.
> 
> </rant>


I can certainly agree with you on this.

OK, let's take this, er..., discussion outside. ;D


----------



## Pi (Apr 3, 2013)

Aglet said:


> But, for some of us, clean raw files that provide maximum malleability in post are worth the effort and cost to ADD the gear, not necessarily SWITCH to it.



For some of us, accurate AF and specialized lenses not available for Nikon, just to name a few, are good enough reasons to stay with Canon (only).


----------



## J.R. (Apr 3, 2013)

Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Know how I know that Mikael Residal is gone? This DR pissing contest happens about once every two weeks, instead of about once every two days. That, and no more pics of barbecues. Honestly, even the barbecues were more interesting than this constant repetitive crap.
> ...



No No ... it's dark outside, you won't be able to recover 5 stops with a Canon camera


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 3, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Know how I know that Mikael Residal is gone? This DR pissing contest happens about once every two weeks, instead of about once every two days. That, and no more pics of barbecues. Honestly, even the barbecues were more interesting than this constant repetitive crap.
> 
> Agree to disagree, or I have a hunch that more people will start disappearing - both 11-stoppers and 14-stoppers.
> 
> </rant>


I hope people will stay. I learn a lot even from the pointless discussions 8)


----------



## psolberg (Apr 3, 2013)

Stockholm syndrome kicks in hard :

I've switched to Nikon, and mirror-less and with Olympus now after being with Sony. Canon isn't the only game in town any more and that's a good thing for competition benefits us all. When the successor to the D800 and 5DmkIII arrives I will yet again re-evaluate the gear and switch if I see a compelling reason. 

Why some of you are so stuck in a camera system is beyond me specially when long are the days where they were the only real choice. As of today, I'm so pleased with the D800 because nothing else in the 35mm realm even approaches it for what I do, specially from canon. The only other time I felt this way was when the 5DmkII came out sporting super detailed images when some others were going bananas about shooting in dark closets with the lights off. Definitively not my boat. Today the D800 is my ideal 5DsmkIII, just made by somebody else  I couldn't care less what logo it has on the strap.



> Low resolution, compared to what? The D4?


compared to everything full frame from EVERYBODY ;p 

I'm pretty much used to 36MP at this point such that anything else seems like a toy in comparison. The benefits of oversampling are well documented in Lloyd Chambers many articles on the matter and I'm sold on the concept of 50+MP bodies which I can hardly wait for.
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20130223_3-lenses-for-high-res-digital.html
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20130307_3-oversampling-RX100.html

Trust me, canon will inevitably release a 30+MP sensor, personally I'm hoping for a 50+ and everybody here crying about how it doesn't matter to have more MP will then go buy it and make a shrine to it. 

If anything, both Nikon/Canon should move up the food chain and start looking at MF sensors and even higher resolutions.


----------



## Pi (Apr 3, 2013)

psolberg said:


> Why some of you are so stuck in a camera system is beyond me specially when long are the days where they were the only real choice.


Maybe because we are stuck to a _lens_ system and consider the camera an accessory?


----------



## kubelik (Apr 3, 2013)

I finally got a great deal on trade-in gear and made the switch from 5DII to 5D Mark III ... and I gotta say, if the D800 is any better, then it must be an insanely good camera. did some shooting at 1-stop underexposed at ISO 6400 last night with the new 35mm f/2 IS and yes, while the blacks are a bit crushed (I feel this also has something to do with the lens, the 35 f/2 IS is ridiculously contrasty, maybe almost a little too much so), there is excellent detail in the areas where it matters and the files from the 5D Mark III clean up far nicer than the ones from the II in terms of noise reduction. back when I was comparison shopping, it looked like the 5D Mark III had a 2/3-stop advantage over the 5D Mark II in terms of sensor performance based on web charts (dpreview and the like), but I'm finding in real-world usage, it's functionally a 1, maybe 1-1/3 stop advantage in terms of true usability.

I haven't done enough architectural/landscape work with it yet to tell if the dynamic range is improved over the 5D II, but from the bit of work I have done so far, it looks pretty good. I've shot far more restrictive film formats before so dynamic range, limited or not, doesn't bother me. I do think more is always better, but for those folks on here clamoring that the dynamic range limitations of the Canon are a deal-breaker are definitely exaggerating. please look at the work of Galen Rowell to see how dynamic range is controlled at the point of capture. and if you claim that it's too cumbersome, remember that half the time he was photographing in locations that he either had to ski to get to, hike to get to, or be roped in to get to.


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 4, 2013)

Pi said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > Why some of you are so stuck in a camera system is beyond me specially when long are the days where they were the only real choice.
> ...



That's hypocrisy. If cameras were accessories, we would all be still shooting with our back-in-the-day-amazing 350D.

The truth is that you need a camera, a lens and a photographer to take a picture - and as a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, the same is true for the IQ. Moreover, with post-processing being now a more and more fundamental step of a photographic workflow, sensors and the malleability of their RAW output are becoming a more and more crucial factor in determining the final result. The days when the comparisons were between cameras' JPG outputs are long gone. The days when Canon cameras and lenses were the absolute best are long gone too. Now the competition is very even - Canon leads in certain areas but lags in others. IQ is an area where Canon right now lags pretty badly - then of course it's up to each individual person to decide how relevant this fact is. But it's still a fact.


----------



## NorthDallas40 (Apr 4, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> IQ is an area where Canon right now lags pretty badly - then of course it's up to each individual person to decide how relevant this fact is. But it's still a fact.



To say its a fact that Canon lags badly in IQ means your statement can be backed up with facts and data. What do you base your statement on (not including the Nikon-biased DXO ratings).


----------



## Pi (Apr 5, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > psolberg said:
> ...



IQ depends on having good sensor, no major dust problems, no major vibration problems at 1/30, a body that AF's well, just to name a few, and ... well, good lenses and a large variety of them. I can see Canon lagging in sensors but Nikon has its own problems with all the rest.


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 5, 2013)

I agree that no system is perfect, but I disagree on your definition of IQ. In my view, IQ depends on sensor and lenses only. 

Focusing is of course a primary element too, but do you think anything from Canon below the 5D3 has impressive AF compared to the competition? I don't think so - quite the opposite actually.

When you evaluate a piece of hardware/software you look at what it can do; what you actually do with it depends on you alone and on your personal taste/scopes. We buy gear to expand our possibilities, so a product offering me more possibilities is more attractive to me.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 13, 2013)

Pi said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...



funny that hasn't been my experience shooting both systems : canon lacks some glass Nikon has, and vice versa. In this day and age, both systems are so well stocked, you're really just buying your camera choice 8)



> To jump the ship just for that seems unwise to me. There are many other factors.


I've done it. no big deal. It is actually quite trivial specially because both sides are so comparable. you give up some, you gain some. When the D900 vs 5Dmk4 game starts 3-4 years from now, I'll revaluate my choice.

I have no loyalty to a brand that has no loyalty for me. and don't suffer from gear divorce regrets. I'll use what I consider superior. That doesn't mean I'll switch every month, but once I need to upgrade, all brands are fair game. The canon monopoly was broken long ago. Heck I shoot a m4/3 Olympus when I don't use my big DSLRs. couldn't care less that it doesn't have Nikon/canon logos on it 8)



> When you evaluate a piece of hardware/software you look at what it can do; what you actually do with it depends on you alone and on your personal taste/scopes. We buy gear to expand our possibilities, so a product offering me more possibilities is more attractive to me.



totally agreed. when I decided to switch to the D800, it was not because of what it can't do. I did it because of what it could do which I couldn't (and still can't) find on the canon system. For me, the D800 was what I hoped the 5DmkIII was and given how awesome the 5DII was, the choice was simple for me since I was upgrading anyway. The D800 upgraded everything I loved about the 5DII when I had the original 5D. 5DII & D800 will remain legendary in my book. I just don't understand why people just don't get over the fact not everybody is after the same qualities in a camera. I certainly understand why 1Dx shooters won't touch anything else even if such camera is utterly meaningless for some of us.


----------



## Pi (Apr 13, 2013)

psolberg said:


> > To jump the ship just for that seems unwise to me. There are many other factors.
> 
> 
> I've done it. no big deal. It is actually quite trivial specially because both sides are so comparable. you give up some, you gain some. When the D900 vs 5Dmk4 game starts 3-4 years from now, I'll revaluate my choice.



Trivial? How many lenses do you own? I have five L's and one non-L. All those carefully researched. I have to sell all of them, deal with unknown people on ebay with all the risks involved, spend a lot of time to research the new system, spend more money to get new lenses (and Nikon lenses are more expensive, even though Canon is trying hard to get a lead); just to discover that my new Nikon body cannot focus as well as, say, my old Canon - for example. And just when I do all this, Canon comes up with a new body, and I start selling lenses again.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 13, 2013)

psolberg said:


> canon lacks some glass Nikon has, and vice versa. In this day and age, both systems are so well stocked, you're really just buying your camera choice



If you're shooting weddings or 'generalist' stuff, maybe. But those gaps in the lineup are significant, and I think Canon has the lead there. The MP-E 65mm for macro shooters and the TS-E 17mm for architecture/interiors are unmatched. For landscape shooters, the Nikon 14-24mm is nice, but Canon has a 14mm prime and a zoom starting at 16mm. For wildlife, Nikon's real and purchasable 200-400/4 is nice, but I'll take my handholdable 600/4 over that any day.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 18, 2013)

Pi said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > > To jump the ship just for that seems unwise to me. There are many other factors.
> ...



I sold over 10 high end canon lenses and two bodies. private sales are best. specially if you find a Nikon shooter who wants to go the other direction. I will not say it is no effort, but considering how much I use the gear, the fact I need to post a classified and deal with paypal is actually a minor issue. I don't do it every month and if the release cycles are any indication, the D900/5Dmk4 won't be around for a LONG time meaning the hassle is a twice in a decade occurrence, at best.

Newer lenses tend to be more expensive. the 70-200 and 24-70 canon revisions are more expensive than just about anything. Yet I fully expect the Nikon refreshes of that to come in about 5 years to reach even higher. Is this not expected? off course it is. It's called inflation, dollar devaluation, and simple feature creep. 

I will never marry my gear. 8)



> If you're shooting weddings or 'generalist' stuff, maybe. But those gaps in the lineup are significant, and I think Canon has the lead there. The MP-E 65mm for macro shooters and the TS-E 17mm for architecture/interiors are unmatched. For landscape shooters, the Nikon 14-24mm is nice, but Canon has a 14mm prime and a zoom starting at 16mm. For wildlife, Nikon's real and purchasable 200-400/4 is nice, but I'll take my handholdable 600/4 over that any day.



You can do more than *weddings* on a Nikon system. 17mm TS as well as the MP-E65mm are nice yes. And those very specialized shooters will likely not move. In my case I find the 24mm TS to be more suited to me on both systems. But I'll count them as loss for the sake of argument. Landscape wise, the 14mm canon prime which I owned is no match for the 14-24 zoom, in fact no even close. So I count that as a gain. The 1mm difference on the 17-35vs16-35 wide zoom is not holding anybody back. When I switched, I found that Nikon has a 16-35 *IS * f/4 zoom that goes down to 16mm vs the *non IS * 17-40 Canon that is also quite old so that was a gain. I'm much happier with the wide landscape offerings than I ever was before, but I can see how both camps can get hung up on justifications for either side as long as they can makeup some shooting situation. Overall for me, it was a net gain on landscapes even neglecting the sensor advantage. The rest of my switch was more of a flush trade. Nikon has a modern 80-400 which canon absolutely lacks so I gained that and so far have been extremely impressed with it. And as you said the 200-400 which *someday* will ship on the canon side at likely greater cost (not that such zooms remotely peeks my interest for now). My other stuff transitioned easily all the way to 400mm.

600f/4 hand-holdable? I'll take your word for it. You're stronger than me and steadier than me for an 8 1/2 lb lens is not something I'd use without good support but it will save your donkey, I'll give you that 

Ultimately, there is not much point justifying our own choices. Going to any system, you gain some, you loose some, which is my point. I certainly see plenty of the same tales in Nikon land. In most cases however it is just the usual nonsensical loyalty photographers have for mere tools which is both hilarious and sad at the same time.

I know that there are people on both sides of the fence stuck on some lens or camera and erect a shrine to it and overblow its significance based on some anecdotal evidence or personal experience. I'm just glad, long gone are the days were it was canon or nothing and we should all celebrate it and hope it only gets to better. The trend certainly indicates the future is very heterogeneous and there will be plenty of choice. AWESOME.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 20, 2013)

psolberg said:


> Ultimately, there is not much point justifying our own choices. Going to any system, you gain some, you loose some, which is my point. I certainly see plenty of the same tales in Nikon land. In most cases however it is just the usual nonsensical loyalty photographers have for mere tools which is both hilarious and sad at the same time.
> 
> I know that there are people on both sides of the fence stuck on some lens or camera and erect a shrine to it and overblow its significance based on some anecdotal evidence or personal experience. I'm just glad, long gone are the days were it was canon or nothing and we should all celebrate it and hope it only gets to better. The trend certainly indicates the future is very heterogeneous and there will be plenty of choice. AWESOME.



+1

I still don't understand the either-or mentality of some people, especially gearheads like myself.
Some of us have so much invested that it really doesn't matter much what brand it is, as long as it does the job it was purchased for.

E.G. Telling yourself you need to stay with brand X because you have all the flashes and strobes that match is not a very compelling argument when what you need is a better wide angle lens and higher DR body to do landscapes. Get the better landscape gear, use your other brand with your strobes.

Not all my wrenches and shop tools come from Sears or Snap-On. I see no compelling reason not to think the same way when spending on photo equipment. Get what's best suited for the task or whatever you prefer to use for a certain task.

Dare I say, having multiple camera brands on hand, for their different strengths, is NOT tantamount to puritanical views on polygamy. Yet some people seem to be wedded to their one brand of gear, for better or worse.
I prefer polycamy far more since I've experienced it. ;D


----------

