# D800 not so great afterall...it has its shortcomings too



## revup67 (Jun 7, 2012)

Just came across this article. it's candid and true to the point and not by any company but by a photographer.

http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=11652

Seems like the D800 has its downsides as well..

I'm glad I got my 5D MK3


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 7, 2012)

Having had both, I pretty much agree with the video, it seems pretty fair and I see the same things.

What he doesn't mention is that Nikon does not have a 135mm f/2, or a 100-400mm lens that are in the same ballpark as the Canon lenses. For landscape with the D800 and the 14-24mmG, a landscape shooter will be very happy. However, my D800 was very noisy as ISO got up to 1600, but it took NR very well. However, a low light shooter might not be very happy with it.

The DR at lower iso's in the D800 is simply amazing. Difficult bright sun and shadows just are no problem, while my 5D MK III struggled just as my other Canon bodies struggle. I've learned to live with it, but it was really nice to not have to worry about high contrast scenes.


----------



## Tammy (Jun 7, 2012)

I'm sure you'll be ecstatic if/when Canon releases that newer 100-400L II..


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 7, 2012)

Tammy said:


> I'm sure you'll be ecstatic if/when Canon releases that newer 100-400L II..



problem is we will all be so old it'll be to heavy to use by the time that actually comes out...


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 7, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Granted the 5D3 has its own with the move of the zoom button ...



That is quite a serious flaw, makes you wonder why the pros didn't pick it up during testing


----------



## EvilTed (Jun 7, 2012)

LOL, I guessed all this when I read the Technical manual for the D800 and saw the specs of the 5D MK3 the night it was released.

5 minutes later I'd cancelled my D800 pre-order and ordered a 5D MK3 instead.
I have never regretted the move.

I also have a X-Pro 1 + 35mm F/1.4 and it's really amazing (and in a lot of ways more fun to shoot than a DSLR)
Judging by all the forum entries I've been reading there is a mixed bag of people selling D700s and 5D MK2s and moving to Fuji.

ET


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 7, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Granted the 5D3 has its own with the move of the zoom button ...
> ...



getting used to the change is actually easy the problem comes when you swap back an forth between other models with the old zoom function and this new setup, thats were it becomes a PITA 

maybe that was their cunning plan to make everyone buy 2!


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 7, 2012)

dilbert said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > Tammy said:
> ...



I don't see them releasing an update to the 100-400L at all because this zoom range is packed with the "budget" 70-200/2.8+tc & 70-300L - if you ask Canon, they'll tell you to get a 2.8 tele prime or a better paying job or both :-o


----------



## YellowJersey (Jun 7, 2012)

Am I the only person whose native language is English and is having trouble understanding this guy's accent?


----------



## Viggo (Jun 7, 2012)

I guess they could give us the option to choose , because I see the point of those who liked the old way, and personally I love the new way a lot... I set my SET button to zoom...


----------



## moreorless (Jun 7, 2012)

Doesnt really seem that supprizing to me what both cameras are better at what they set out to achieve, looking to paint one as superior to the other in almost all areas is really just a case of people confusing there own needs with everyones needs.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 7, 2012)

moreorless said:


> Doesnt really seem that supprizing to me what both cameras are better at what they set out to achieve, looking to paint one as superior to the other in almost all areas is really just a case of people confusing there own needs with everyones needs.



That's one way of rationalizing it - doesn't explain why Canon made the 5d3 significantly more expensive than the d800 though, which seems to be the main grief about the "5d2 update that users wanted". Of course, $500 is little difference to people paying this amount of money for their gear, but it's a marketing statement anyhow.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 7, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> That's one way of rationalizing it - doesn't explain why Canon made the 5d3 significantly more expensive than the d800 though, which seems to be the main grief about the "5d2 update that users wanted". Of course, $500 is little difference to people paying this amount of money for their gear, but it's a marketing statement anyhow.



In the UK, the retailers are still selling 5DIII's for RRP with is a lot more than the RRP in the US. If one takes the UK RRP and performs a £ to $ conversion, they are selling here for around $4500....which is a lot more than the $3500 that you are being charged for them. I have found a few on line retailers who are selling for £2700ish, which is a lot more reasonable. 
I think it's fair for Canon to charge a little more for the 5DIII. It's not really an upgrade to the 5DII, it's a completely different camera and every area is revolutionised. Even the card door is superior. The old 5DII's CF door was a creaky thing that after a year or so of use, it lost it's texture and went all shiny. The new door is spring loaded, doesn't creek and has a rubberised pad on it....way better than any non 1D series camera to date.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 7, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> What he doesn't mention is that Nikon does not have a 135mm f/2, or a 100-400mm lens that are in the same ballpark as the Canon lenses. For landscape with the D800 and the 14-24mmG, a landscape shooter will be very happy. However, my D800 was very noisy as ISO got up to 1600, but it took NR very well. However, a low light shooter might not be very happy with it.



Looking at the manual for the new 600 EX RT, the wide angle adaptor now pushes the range to 14mm at the wide end. It's another indicator that reinforces my assumption that a Canon 14-24mm lens is in developement. But I get the feeling that Canon are taking their time with their lenses and want to get things right and not rush to market a half baked product. In the mean time....there's the new Sigma 12-24II, which looks pretty amazing and is a lot wider than the Nikkor. The Current TS-E 17mm is pretty amazing optically and with a bit of shift, it can equal around 12.5mm...although it's a bit of a faf.
On the Nikon front, the lack of a Nikon equivalent 100-400L may seem an issue...but Sigma make a very good 80-400 OS which is pretty close to the Canon in IQ and performance. 
I'm waiting for a 100-400IIL to arrive too....sure it's going to be at least another year before we see anything on the shelves, but if it's in the same league as the 70-200mm 2.8 L IS II, then it will be worth the wait. 
The recent 70-300L has had it's critics, but the one I tried a few months ago was stunning in every area. It's build was fantastic, it's AF was very very good and it's IQ was top tier. It's expensive but worth everry penny IMHO.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 7, 2012)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I think it's fair for Canon to charge a little more for the 5DIII. It's not really an upgrade to the 5DII, it's a completely different camera and every area is revolutionised. Even the card door is superior.



This has been gone thought again and again of course, but my opinion still is that technological evolution and competition usually results in revised & updated products with the same or even lower price - or your $1000 pc of the year 2000 would cost $10000 now.

The price of the 5d3 has nothing to do with "fair", but rather the limited competition and brand loyalty in the dslr market. It's still just a dlsr, and if "worth it" or the superiority is due to your battery door not getting all squeaky and shiny is debatable


----------



## psolberg (Jun 7, 2012)

revup67 said:


> Just came across this article. it's candid and true to the point and not by any company but by a photographer.
> 
> http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=11652
> 
> ...



they all have downsides and different reviewers have different opinions. We've all seen plenty of links by now to know the D800's strenghts are its unrivaled image quality and dynamic range whereas the 5DIII offers slightly more low light appeal and speed (although certainly not on par with a D4/1DX which is what I'd shoot if I needed to meet such demands from my photography). I switched to the D800 after years with canon and could not be happier. Anybody shooting landscape with 35mm format cameras should read http://diglloyd.com/ extensive D800 reviews to really undertand the D800's audience and purpose. Definitively not for the spray and pray sport shooter.

ultimately both cameras are so different that if you're happy with what you got, clearly the other camera wasn't meant for you. I'd never buy a 5DmkIII period. It just doesn't really have anything that appeals to me in such degree that would make me give up the gains I've obtrained from the D800 in both video and stills.



> What he doesn't mention is that Nikon does not have a 135mm f/2, or a 100-400mm lens that are in the same ballpark as the Canon lenses. For landscape with the D800 and the 14-24mmG, a landscape shooter will be very happy. However, my D800 was very noisy as ISO got up to 1600, but it took NR very well. However, a low light shooter might not be very happy with it.



the 135 f/2 from both nikon and canon are terribly outdated. both lacking IS which is unnaceptable for this FL. The nikon offers defocus control which is neat for some video tricks and off course an aperture ring. Image quality wise, both are ok for their age but easily bested by Zeiss glass and the even more impressive 135 f1.8 from sony. not THAT is a lens I'd like to have. The 100-400 canon push pull is a terrible design for dust reasons and badly in need of an update. The nikon version is sluggish AF wise but great otherwise. So I don't see how either lens really needs to be brought into a review of bodies since neither is particularly great. I'll take a 70-200 over a 135 any day.



> Doesnt really seem that supprizing to me what both cameras are better at what they set out to achieve, looking to paint one as superior to the other in almost all areas is really just a case of people confusing there own needs with everyones needs.



exactly. it is such a silly and pointless thing to compare the weak point of one body to the strong poitn of the other since both cameras compromised to achieve a certain specialization. It is like comparion a wrench and a hammer. Both are good at one thing but not the other. The need to generalize which camera is "superior" is not only childish, but completely misses the point of both cameras' specialization. Neither really set out to be the best at everything so it is no surprising neither is.


----------



## jebrady03 (Jun 7, 2012)

psolberg said:


> exactly. it is such a silly and pointless thing to compare the weak point of one body to the strong poitn of the other since both cameras compromised to achieve a certain specialization. It is like comparion a wrench and a hammer. Both are good at one thing but not the other. The need to generalize which camera is "superior" is not only childish, but completely misses the point of both cameras' specialization. Neither really set out to be the best at everything so it is no surprising neither is.



HEY! Making complete sense and being rational isn't allowed on public forums. Cut that out now!


----------



## moreorless (Jun 7, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > Doesnt really seem that supprizing to me what both cameras are better at what they set out to achieve, looking to paint one as superior to the other in almost all areas is really just a case of people confusing there own needs with everyones needs.
> ...



Again I'd say thats partly tied into the cameras potential users, the 5D3 to me seems to be design more to appeal to a larger professional market, event photographers, jurnos and the like who want good but not massive resolution, top of the line AF, decent FPS and high quality HD video that doesnt need a lighting rig etc.


----------



## Neeneko (Jun 7, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> That's one way of rationalizing it - doesn't explain why Canon made the 5d3 significantly more expensive than the d800 though, which seems to be the main grief about the "5d2 update that users wanted". Of course, $500 is little difference to people paying this amount of money for their gear, but it's a marketing statement anyhow.



If they are not even designed to handle the same use cases, comparing the price points is meaningless and people are only doing it because they just happened to be released in about the same timeframe.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 7, 2012)

Tammy said:


> I'm sure you'll be ecstatic if/when Canon releases that newer 100-400L II..


 
I'km quite happy with the one I have, people have been predicting a new model for several years, but with no one else in the industry competiting at that price level, they are not under any pressure.

If only Nikon had something close to even the old Canon design, I would be much happier to keep the D800. Nikon seems very good at shorter focal lengths while Canon has a good selection at longer focal lengths. The D800 has a lot of features I really like. I'm still considering trying a D800E.

Both have really good super telephotos.


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 7, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Granted the 5D3 has its own with the move of the zoom button ...
> ...



I hated the move at first, but i configured the set button to zoom, and now it's almost second nature... The only times I have problems is when I revert back to an older button and the zoom isn't on the set button any more. It's one of those things where it's more intuitive than expected, but until you get used to the change and dont switch back and forth between older bodies, it's easier to adapt to.


----------



## traveller (Jun 7, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > That's one way of rationalizing it - doesn't explain why Canon made the 5d3 significantly more expensive than the d800 though, which seems to be the main grief about the "5d2 update that users wanted". Of course, $500 is little difference to people paying this amount of money for their gear, but it's a marketing statement anyhow.
> ...



Sorry, but I thing that people are comparing the two because they fill the same segment of the market in their manufacturers' respective product lines. 

I wish people would stop trying to find fault with the D800, it's a little childish and it doesn't make the 5D MkIII any better. 

I am also getting a little bit tired of all the variations on the "I'm switching to Nikon" theme. If you feel that now is the time to change systems, fine -it's your gear, your money and your decision. Why people feel the need to come on this forum to justify their choice to the world is beyond me. With perhaps the exception of a small number of people who have actually bought and used _both_ the D800 _and_ the 5D MkIII, no one here can give you any practical advice beyond what they've read on the internet (not that this would stop them )


----------



## Neeneko (Jun 7, 2012)

traveller said:


> Sorry, but I thing that people are comparing the two because they fill the same segment of the market in their manufacturers' respective product lines.



Not.. really. Similar price points but not the same market segments. The 5D3 is geared for video, wedding, and sports. The D800 is geared towards studio and landscape. Like any high end DSLR they can be cross purposed and fill each other's roles pretty well, but they are really not optimized for the same segments, which is why the comparisons keep getting so flamey.


----------



## traveller (Jun 7, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but I thing that people are comparing the two because they fill the same segment of the market in their manufacturers' respective product lines.
> ...



Seriously, this is all bulls**t made up on internet forums such as this by fans that are seeking to justify 'their' manufacturer's decisions. In reality, both Canon and Nikon have produced cameras in this price bracket that address what they feel will make owners of previous or lower models upgrade. I doubt that the design teams deliberately sat down and said to themselves "let's make a camera especially for xxxxx photographers"; Canon heard the message "21MP is enough, but I want a camera that can handle moving subjects" and Nikon heard "I want a D700 with more megapixels".


----------



## Neeneko (Jun 7, 2012)

traveller said:


> I doubt that the design teams deliberately sat down and said to themselves "let's make a camera especially for xxxxx photographers";



While probably not worded that way, yes, they likely did. Design, while not quite a zero sum process, does involve deciding which groups you are going to focus on appealing to and which are not a priority. There was already some split between the D700 users and 5D2 users and in looking at what the users of those bodies wanted out of a new one they implicitly focused on specific segments. 

You can not design a product that will have universal appeal in a domain like this, not at any sane price point (and not even then since allocation of design resources would still be asymmetric).... so yes you do sit down and decide which ones you are going to focus on and design a body prioritized to their use cases.


----------



## traveller (Jun 7, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt that the design teams deliberately sat down and said to themselves "let's make a camera especially for xxxxx photographers";
> ...



In the absence of any insider knowledge, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. 

You think that Canon and Nikon have tailored their products to different markets, I believe that differences in specification are more an outcome of decisions that they made to sell more units to the type of people that buy cameras at this price point. Unless Canon and Nikon actually release the minutes of their design team meetings, I don't think we'll ever know what the exact decision making process was.


----------



## Neeneko (Jun 7, 2012)

traveller said:


> In the absence of any insider knowledge, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this.



Their meetings, no.. but I have been in many design meetings (and full cycle) for embedded systems for product lines that have multiple price points and use cases. I am skeptical that Canon and Nikon somehow skip such a common and vital process or are somehow exempt from the pressures that lead to it.



> You think that Canon and Nikon have tailored their products to different markets, I believe that differences in specification are more an outcome of decisions that they made to sell more units to the type of people that buy cameras at this price point. Unless Canon and Nikon actually release the minutes of their design team meetings, I don't think we'll ever know what the exact decision making process was.



The thing is, there is no universal market of 'people who buy cameras at a particular price point' since people use cameras for different things. Otherwise they would have produced cameras that were much closer in specification since neither team are dummies and they are not going to go 'well, people with X amount of money want Y, so we will make Z instead!'.

That is like saying 'there are people who buy cars at a specific price point' and then comparing a SUV to a sports car simply because they cost about the same amount.


----------



## ScottyP (Jun 7, 2012)

dilbert said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > Tammy said:
> ...



And they will price it 3 times what the current version costs, which they will attribute to the dollar-yen exchange rate which seems to affect camera stuff overnight whenever a Mk2 or Mk3 of something is released. 
And fanboys will defend that passionately with the typical cry of "love it or leave it", or "go buy a Nikon then", or "Canon really does love me; it just treats me badly sometimes, but it always regrets it deep-down!"


----------



## Kernuak (Jun 7, 2012)

It's one of the most important rules in any business that manufactures goods for sale. It's pretty pointless designing a product that doesn't have a market. Any businesss has to know its market, regardless of what they are trying to provide, which is why the major companies (including Canon and Nikon) spend so much on market research. How many people complained about the main problems in the 5D MkII being the poor AF and relatively low frame rate, the general issue of Canon cameras having higher noise at high ISO than Nikon over the past 3-4 years? It isn't an accident that Canon has addressed those issues and not increased resolution. Noone was complaining about resolution and dynamic range until the 5D MkII and D800 were released, so equally, Canon didn't address those points. Conversely, the main area where the D700 was considered inferior by some was resolution, which Nikon addressed (with Sony's help), whether they went furhter than necessary or not is down to personal opinion and needs. In many ways, the D700 was the better allrounder relative to the 5D MkII and the 5D MkII was the better studio/landscape camera, now the situation has arguably reversed with the MkIII and D800. However, I'm still to be convinced that Nikon has a significant number of lenses that can cope with that extra resolution, which could be why Canon has been slower to come out with a high resolution sensor; they certainly seem to be announcing/releasing a lot more lenses recently than they have in the past few years.


----------



## traveller (Jun 7, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > In the absence of any insider knowledge, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
> ...



You're right, these camera are in completely differnet markets just like sports cars and SUVs. Canon evidently decided that they didn't want the business of the landscape/studio photographers that bought the 5D MkII, so they sat down and designed a camera to deliberately exclude them. Nikon though, "screw all the chumps that bought the D700, what we need to do is to design a camera that they'll hate and try to pursue a completely different segment of the market". 

Either that, or they sat down and thought "what would sell an upgraded camera to current owners best?". I wonder...


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 7, 2012)

revup67 said:


> Just came across this article. it's candid and true to the point and not by any company but by a photographer.
> 
> http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=11652
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 7, 2012)

SHHHHHH! Nikon shooters who patrol this site may hear you guys talking about their camera! SHHHHHHH!


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 7, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> If they are not even designed to handle the same use cases, comparing the price points is meaningless and people are only doing it because they just happened to be released in about the same timeframe.



Imho "completely different usage scenarios" way of describing the 5d3 & d800 has only popped up because Canon people were desperate to save their favorite brand's newest baby's reputation. Both cameras might have different strong points and professionals will try to exploit them to gain an advantage over the competition. But for the rest of us they are certainly both complete dlsrs designed to be able to handle most situations - so any attempt to compare them seems perfectly valid to me.

edit: typo 5d2 -> 5d3


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 7, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Neeneko said:
> 
> 
> > If they are not even designed to handle the same use cases, comparing the price points is meaningless and people are only doing it because they just happened to be released in about the same timeframe.
> ...



5D2 and the d800 are valid comparisons as you say. Makes Nikon look like a money grabbing company to charge $1000 extra for a few mps and a little DR


----------



## cpsico (Jun 8, 2012)

At low iso the d800 has great dynamic range but after 400 there is no more advantage in dynamic range


----------



## V8Beast (Jun 8, 2012)

cpsico said:


> At low iso the d800 has great dynamic range but after 400 there is no more advantage in dynamic range



Haven't you heard that everyone is a low-ISO landscape shooter these days ;D?


----------



## V8Beast (Jun 8, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Damn it, I thought everyone was a low-light sports shooter that needed noise-free high ISO.



Not everyone. Just the Canon fanboys that used to be low-ISO landscape/studio shooters that switched to low-light, noise-free, high-ISO religion. Wait a second, all the Nikon fanboys that used to be low-light, noise-free, high-ISO shooters have now converted to the low-ISO, high-resolution religion.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 8, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> 5D2 and the d800 are valid comparisons as you say. Makes Nikon look like a money grabbing company to charge $1000 extra for a few mps and a little DR



Thanks for pointing out the typo, corrected. Actually you might have been correct if the 5d3 wasn't the 5d2 successor, but named "4d" and the 5d2 was here to stay. But this isn't the case.



V8Beast said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Damn it, I thought everyone was a low-light sports shooter that needed noise-free high ISO.
> ...



+1  ... my observation, too.



cpsico said:


> At low iso the d800 has great dynamic range but after 400 there is no more advantage in dynamic range



Maybe, but the dr falloff is more bound to affect the 5d3 if you recently converted and are now a "low-light, noise-free, high-ISO shooter".


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 8, 2012)

dilbert said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



Only if you need them - ask the wedding togs if it is worth the extortionate Nikon price with the 100% increase in memory cards, pp time etc. We know what they will say about the poor low light performance of the D800.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 8, 2012)

dilbert said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



High mps is not the top priority I would suggest - but low light performance is for most. Like everything else enough is suficient - how many wedding togs produce huge prints? - 21mp is ideal for A3 print size.

5D2 is still THE wedding camera rather than the more expensive D700 with its inferior specs


----------



## Neeneko (Jun 8, 2012)

traveller said:


> You're right, these camera are in completely differnet markets just like sports cars and SUVs. Canon evidently decided that they didn't want the business of the landscape/studio photographers that bought the 5D MkII, so they sat down and designed a camera to deliberately exclude them. Nikon though, "screw all the chumps that bought the D700, what we need to do is to design a camera that they'll hate and try to pursue a completely different segment of the market".



Why must you take such an extreme, black and white view of it?

Design is a process of compromise. You don't go in saying 'let us screw these people, they do not matter', but you do prioritize based off which groups your marketing department feels are the best ones to target. And yes, that means if you are building an upgrade you look at the current user base of the existing model which, if it is popular among certain groups you put more weight on the needs of those groups, even if there are other groups that also buy cameras in the same price range.



> Either that, or they sat down and thought "what would sell an upgraded camera to current owners best?". I wonder...



*headdesk* it is the same expletive thing. See, there you go.... there are current users, they make up certain subgroups of the entire market segment. There are other users that are interested in cameras in the same price range but do not use the current version. It is your assertion about all users in the same price bracket being the same group that I have been arguing.

Which is why I originally was pointing out that comparing them is not productive because they were designed for different users, and the main reason people have been comparing them is that they came out about the same time at about the same price point.... and you came in saying that because they were around the same price they were for the same market segment.


----------



## psolberg (Jun 8, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > You're right, these camera are in completely differnet markets just like sports cars and SUVs. Canon evidently decided that they didn't want the business of the landscape/studio photographers that bought the 5D MkII, so they sat down and designed a camera to deliberately exclude them. Nikon though, "screw all the chumps that bought the D700, what we need to do is to design a camera that they'll hate and try to pursue a completely different segment of the market".
> ...



you're totally right. comparing these two bodies is downright pointless. Unlike the majority of the folks here who get their opinions from rumor sites and buddies of buddies, I've actually shot the D800. It is a different tool to the 5DMkIII and if you're the audience for the D800, then there is nothing else that even comes close for that price. If I shot sports and actions, I'd never pick a D800. Heck I'd likely even skip the 5DmkIII and head to the 1DX (assuming it ever ships ;D)

You guys all need to relax and laugh a little. Watch part II of the D800 vs 5DmkIII and watch a D800 get shot (literally)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=j2_RyKKk_Xc#


----------



## sleepnever (Jun 8, 2012)

Hahahah that was hilarious. One of the better review videos I've ever seen.


----------



## Neeneko (Jun 8, 2012)

Heh, that was a pretty good review.

Though it makes me wonder what the UV and IR performance of the two bodies are now. If I recall correctly the 5D2 is considered the king of IR right now, while the NEX-5 has the best UV performance... but so few people shoot with the later getting comparative reviews is difficult (they rarely test Canon at all).


----------

