# Anyone own both Canon and Nikon



## RGF (Jul 7, 2014)

In particular I am considering the new D810 with 14-24 and 24-70 for landscapes. 

The Canon 16-35 F4 is good but the 14-24 is great!

The 5DM3 is a nice camera but lacks the DR of the D810.

Hate to spend the extra $ for another body and duplicate lenses.

Does anyone shoot both Canon and Nikon - Canon for long lens and Nikon for wide angles? Experience? Thoughts?

I am not trolling nor trying to start a flame war, but look for well thought out positions based upon experience.

Thanks

Rich


----------



## eml58 (Jul 7, 2014)

I've owned a few Nikons over the Years, the best by far being the D3x, I sold that & bough the D800, not so successful.

In terms of producing Images either works fine, without getting into the DR BS, the D800 has only two major flaws in my view, 4fps, of course not an issue for Landscape, and the 2nd flaw is the Menu system, compared to Canons it's like it was designed by a Gibbon on crack cocaine.

Both the D3x & D800 in my situation have been used for Underwater Photography, with the occasional foray into Above water Imaging, for this I bought the 14-24f/2.8, in my view still the best Medium Wide Zoom available today.

Perhaps the single biggest issue of two system ownership is simply that, two systems, two different Lens packages, two different Menu systems, if you can get around this issue, I don't believe the other minor issues around Canon/Nikon are really that big a hurdle.

I had a poor experience with the D800, I had ALL the early issues with this Camera and finally sold it, the D3x is still in my Bag & get's pulled out only to shoot the 14-24f/2.8, if Canon eventually bring out an equivalent I'll sell both no problem.

I did go to the Sony a7r a few months back, like the size, Menu system better than Nikons, great Sensor (similar to the D800), but the whole package let down by Sony poor after sales, not enough Lenses to make the system anything like a replacement for with the D800 or the 5DMK III.

My thoughts for what they're worth.


----------



## expatinasia (Jul 7, 2014)

eml58 said:


> designed by a Gibbon on crack cocaine



Haha, good one!


----------



## drummstikk (Jul 7, 2014)

This is different from your use case, but I recently became "bi-cameral" myself. Been switch-hitting for about 8 months. 

I own a 1980's vintage Tamron Adaptall 300mm f/2.8 lens. For those unfamiliar, the Adaptall series of lenses were sold "mountless" and were purchased with whatever auxiliary mount was needed for your system (Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Olympus, whatever). I tried a couple of their lenses in the 80's and found them optically quite good, but the deal breaker was that they focused "backwards." At the time, I was a Nikon shooter. Since I am now a Canon shooter, it's no longer backwards to me, and when I saw a mint condition copy of this lens for about 700 bucks, I waffled for a few weeks, but finally bit on it. 

Of course, it's a manual focus lens. But I'm old, so I can do that. 

To make a long story slightly shorter, the so-so quality of the "fourth-party" lens adapter (Tamron never made one for EOS), plus the need to stop-down meter due to the Tamron's lack of electronic aperture, made the user experience a bit dicey. So finally, I broke down and bought a Nikon D7000 and Tamron Nikon AI Adaptall mount. Since even a relatively new Nikon "understood" the old non-electronic AI mount, stop-down metering is avoided, and there were none of the little electronic glitches I got with the no-name Canon adapter. 

So, I effectively have a 450mm 2.8 and one body that never separate from each other. The unit has become quite a workhorse for me for basketball (a little tight, but got some good stuff), indoor track, golf and softball/baseball. Looking forward to soccer this fall. 

Since I had a Nikon in my hands for the first time in over 20 years, I made myself take a good look at switching systems. Manual focus direction is a pretty big deal breaker, but even if I surmounted that somehow, I would second the motion that the menu system previously mentioned is torture to use. Since this d7000 is basically a single-use camera for me, I don't need to dig into the menus much, but when I do, well…I can't say it any better than "Gibbon on crack," so why try?

I won't brag on Canon's menus either, since they look like MS-DOS compared to present-day iOS or Android app menus, but Canon's mostly logical layout and the quick control dial at least make it usable. 

A lot of people can reach a point when dipping into the "other" system is the best way to solve a problem. Obviously, RGF is an avid landscape shooter. I'm an avid sports shooter, as well as cheapskate, recycler, and old equipment nostalgist. If your personal passion leads you to consider "crossing the line," don't let brand loyalty stand in the way. I guarantee the brand isn't loyal to you.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 7, 2014)

Rent a D800 and try before committing to the purchase and all the problems of investing / operating two different systems. 

I think you will find that the constant sermons preached by the Exmor missionaries over state the 'landscape' advantages of the D800. 36 mp is not as much more resolution as you might at first think compared with 23, and the "2 stop" dynamic range seems to be extreme shadow rather than highlights. 

Also putting to one side that fact that the Nikkor has a one stop advantage, I thought the new 16-35 was similar performance. 

I tried one; I didn't find enough difference to make me want to change. I do think it is an easier camera to get results in difficult lighting conditions, but the Canon can match it with more skill / understanding of exposure etc. Also I have absolutely no need to dodge shadows by four stops or shoot with the lens cap on.


----------



## Niki (Jul 7, 2014)

i have a nikon film camera…and canon 5dm3...


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 7, 2014)

drummstikk said:


> This is different from your use case, but I recently became "bi-cameral" myself. Been switch-hitting for about 8 months.
> 
> I own a 1980's vintage Tamron Adaptall 300mm f/2.8 lens. For those unfamiliar, the Adaptall series of lenses were sold "mountless" and were purchased with whatever auxiliary mount was needed for your system (Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Olympus, whatever). I tried a couple of their lenses in the 80's and found them optically quite good, but the deal breaker was that they focused "backwards." At the time, I was a Nikon shooter. Since I am now a Canon shooter, it's no longer backwards to me, and when I saw a mint condition copy of this lens for about 700 bucks, I waffled for a few weeks, but finally bit on it.
> 
> ...


Are you sure Tamron never made an EOS adaptor? I have one......


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jul 7, 2014)

I shoot both Canon and recently, Nikon. I like Nikon and I like Canon. Each camera system has its advantages and disadvantages.

However, if you are an established Canon shooter with a good glass kit, I would recommend only switching to Nikon if you are convinced that Canon can't provide you what you need. 

The 5dmIII is an excellent camera and Canon makes really good glass. My advice (free and well worth it) is to really investigate what Nikon *will* provide you... Not what you think or have read Nikon will provide you.

And then really investigate Canon and what they offer you. I think you will find that the differences between Nikon and Canon don't justify the need to switch systems and buy new glass. 

Now, if your Canon glass kit is cruddy, like mine was, it makes switching systems a litter easier. But if you already have a 5dmIII and good Canon glass, I would look real hard at what Nikon will do for you and see if, in your case, switching is worth it. 

Good luck with it. There are a lot of shooters out there who go both ways. I am not convinced that is approprate for all types of shooters. Being "bi" does raise logistic concerns.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 7, 2014)

I bought a Nikon D600, along with 24-70 2.8G, 200-400mm f/4, 80-200 f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8, and I already had a few older lenses.

The D800 was a good body, but the lenses were not up to the quality of Canon lenses, the 24-70 had horrible CA, even Lightroom could not correct it all.
Nikon is slowly upgrading lenses, but if they need cleaning, they are glued closed, so they can only be cleaned by Nikon, and their service is S_L_O_W.
The saving grace is that Sigma makes some good lenses for Nikon, I do not know how they AF, but they are often better and cheaper than Nikon.
I sold my D800 as did a couple of other photographers I know. One tried to trade his D800E for my Canon 5D MK III. There is a reason why the D800's were priced around $2100, few wanted one.

The bottom line is that resolution for a average photographer is not much higher. The high resolution ratings you see in lab reviews are the result of very tedious efforts with heavy tripods bolted to the floor, and even then, many attempts may be made to get the best images. You don't have a chance of getting that resolution hand holding one. 
Even so, it will be better if you understand that the smaller pixels are more sensitive to vibration, just as 7D owners have learned. A high shutter speed makes a big difference, but using a high shutter speed in low light is difficult.
Post processing is another gotcha, you need a powerful computer to run NR on the noisy high ISO images, they can open to 150MB, and take a long time to process. Every time you move the NR slider, it can take a long time.


----------



## drummstikk (Jul 7, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Are you sure Tamron never made an EOS adaptor? I have one......



Hmmm…

All I'm sure of is I've never seen one on eBay.

Are there any electronic contacts on the other side, or is it just a "cold" adapter? The one good thing about my no-name adapter is that it enables focus confirmation (when it works). The lens does focus on infinity, by the way, even though the adapter I have is quite a bit thicker than yours appears to be.


----------



## eml58 (Jul 7, 2014)

RGF, couple more comments.

Like Mt Spokane I also purchased the Nikkon 24-70f/2.8 Lens, along with the 14-24f/2.8, 14f/1.4 & 24f/1.4

The 24-70f/2.8 was, for the price, heavy & results were disappointing, having owned & used the Canon Mk 1 24-70f/2.8, now the Mk II 24-70f/2.8, the Nikkon is far from an equal to either of these two Canon Lenses.

The 14-24f/2.8 though is sublime, but is that one Lens worth taking on a second system ??

If your wanting more resolution to work with, try buying a RRS Panorama Kit, take 4 to 8 Images of the Landscape (they generally don't move too much), put the Images together with some good Stitching Software, and you've got yourself an Image with way more resolution than anything short of an IQ180.

If Landscape is the thing you want a 2nd system for in particular, and your looking to try a few systems before buying, look at the Pentax 645z, new CMOS Sensor @ 51MP, some excellent Glass in the Range your looking for, yes it's more expensive, but not Phase One expensive, this is where I'm currently sitting, waiting to get my hands on the 645z and try it out, see how it compares to a 5DMK III and 6 stitched Images.


----------



## Atonegro (Jul 8, 2014)

I have both Canon 1DS3 and a Nikon D800E.
I bought a Nikon set because I am tired waiting for a decent landscape and studio camera.

And here is my few cents...

If you now have Canon and only want more resolution, buy the 17mm tiltshift, shift, and stitch the pics.
You will get realy great pictures.
It has its flaws though... clouds, water and leafs will move and make stitching difficult.

I only have a few Nikon lenses, but the 14-24 is realy a great lens.

Don't mind the extra pixels, 21mp and 36mp is NOT a big difference.
What you get with a Nikon is a lot more dynamic range, and that is very important for landscape (and studio)
Post-production of high-contrast foto's is so much better ! 

Hmm... Some Canon fundamentalists will be foaming at the mouth about this....

If you want the best digital landscapes, consider a mid-range camera.
The Pentax 645, EML58 mentioned, is a very good camera.

For my realy big landscapes I use my Cambo Wide and scan the negatives 3600 dpi for an almost 260 megapixel result.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 8, 2014)

Usually this query garners fervent rhetoric from those faithfully wedded to Canon. 

I actually divorced my 5d2 and hooked up with some D800s and plenty of other Nikon gear specifically for landscape purposes, tho not the 24-70mm.

I had a very early production 5d2 and it was very noisy, complete with perceptible vertical banding in midtones like clear blue sky and it got worse as you went into the shadows. Metering was randomly off, but it behaved consistently in full manual. That camera was certainly not up to spec for serious landscape work and was a very disappointing experience for me after all the positive ones I had with my earlier Canon bodies.

Nikons with Sony sensors eliminated banding noise problems completely from my workflow, what a pleasure!

As some state, the DR difference between canon and d8x0 is not that big a deal, and for the most part that's true, altho I'll take all the DR I can get.

What's related to DR, however, but not yet mentioned in this thread, is the Fixed Pattern Noise issues (vertical stripes) that Canon is only recently making incremental improvements on. The 5d3 is not significantly better than the 5d2 in this regard. The 70D is probably the best crop body from Canon in this regard but still no match for the cleaner files you'll get from any Sony Exmor equipped body (nikon, pentax, Fuji?)
Now I likely had a lemon of a 5d2 but the early production 5d3 I tested still wasn't much better. If you need the best low ISO performance, get an ABC camera (anybody but canon).

Summary; if you currently shoot Canon for landscape, and you are satisfied with the results, then a D810 is not likely to impress you all that much more. If you need to heavily process your raw files, the D8x0 will provide considerably more leeway to do so, especially in the shadows. The extra MP of the D800 may be useful if you're printing larger than 36" wide but you do need good glass and technique to get the best results from it.

As for Nikon's 14-24mm lens, I use it. It's very nice, but it's far from perfect. It's fun to use, provides fantastic ultrawide images but can have significant CA in the corners. But, so far there's really nothing else like it.

An effective alternative is Samyang's 14mm prime + Canon's new 16-35 f/4L combo.

Edit: condition altered on leading statement.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 8, 2014)

Aglet said:


> As usual, this query garners fervent rhetoric from those faithfully wedded to Canon.



I just re-read the entire thread and didn't see any "fervent rhetoric;" would you mind pointing it out? What I see are measured, thoughtful responses about different offerings.


----------



## horshack (Jul 8, 2014)

If you're not in a rush I would wait for Photokina and see if Canon comes out with a body that tickles your fancy.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 8, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > As usual, this query garners fervent rhetoric from those faithfully wedded to Canon.
> ...


yup, missed that on my proof-read
should be
_Usually this query garners fervent rhetoric..._
tho it's still early and the original version could turn out correct after a while.


----------



## RGF (Jul 8, 2014)

horshack said:


> If you're not in a rush I would wait for Photokina and see if Canon comes out with a body that tickles your fancy.



Thanks everyone for their thoughtful comments. No, I will wait until Photokina.

If Canon introduces dual pixel (as expected) with improved DR and a strong competitor to the Nikon 14-28, I will be very happy. 7D M2 (or what ever it is called) will be the beginning of a new sensor series. I would like to see the 5D M4 soon with dual sensor but that is a dream right now.


----------



## Lawliet (Jul 8, 2014)

RGF said:


> Does anyone shoot both Canon and Nikon - Canon for long lens and Nikon for wide angles? Experience? Thoughts?



With the D800 I can get better image quality , but there are a few caveats: minor vibrations are a problem (that in my case doesn't occur that often because of flash useage. Which highlights something important to me: I only need about 60% of the flash power compared to the 5D3) and you need lenses that make actually use of the resolution. The 24-70/2.8s and 70-200/2.8s of both brands get me about equal detail, with the tilt/shift lenses its 3:1 for Canon. That and the RT system make the D800 a special purpose tool, unless you're hitting hard limits that cut into revenue with the 5D3 I'd see what we get for a 5D4 - either its the long term economical choise or the D810 has settled to a market determinated price instead of MSRP.


----------



## sdsr (Jul 8, 2014)

Like others, I tried a Nikon D800e and was driven nuts by the ergonomics/menu system. Of course, one can get used to that, but I might be inclined to suggest a rather different solution if you don't need AF: get a Sony A7r instead. Aside from costing much less than the D810, it can be used with all your Canon lenses as well as the Nikon 14-24 (does anyone suggest that the Nikon 24-70 is as good as, let alone better than, the Canon 24-70II?). Some who have used both the Sony A7r and the D800e report that the Sony has even better image quality, though of course there's no way of knowing yet how it compares with the D810. Either way, I think those who warn about how difficult it is to obtain very high image quality with these 36mp sensors overstate their case - you can get great results hand-held, and while the very best lenses may be necessary for ultimate performance, you can get impressive results with other lenses too (I recently took a series of photos with an old Pentax Super-Takumar 50mm 1.4 lens on my A7r - very pleasing results).


----------



## NancyP (Jul 8, 2014)

I am bicameral, tri-lens: Canon DSLRs, Sigma DPMerrill fixed-lens compacts, and a mix of Canon lenses and old manual M42 and AI/AI-S Nikkor lenses on adapters. Note that you can't root around in the back of the closet for old non-Nikkor lenses to put on Nikon DSLR bodies. Canon flange to sensor distance is 44.5 mm, Nikon F2S distance is 42mm, so there is a space for a Nikkor F or G to EOS adapter but not vice versa. So far, my inherited Nikkors getting most use are the 105mm f/2.5 and 50mm f/1.2. They fill a gap between my native Canon full frame lenses 35mm and 180mm. Are they "better" than Canon offerings? Who knows? They ARE cheaper, being free.

I am thrilled with the 6D and for the time being I am not feeling pixel-deprived. I have heard that Canon does live view better than Nikon, and I use live view a lot (essentially for all landscape and most macro).


----------



## SiliconVoid (Jul 16, 2014)

This is late (I do not get to sit down at a computer as often) but if you are simply after resolution and hate shadows in your images, I would suggest as some others have done - which is something like the A7R. Purely as a 'digital back' for whatever lenses you wish to use.

As for lenses, I would strongly suggest a couple of Canon's TS lenses before the Nikon's, simply because many of Nikon's lenses of recent years rely a good deal on in-camera corrections, which has allowed Nikon to slack on physical IQ in the lenses. This means that when not used on a Nikon body the lenses do not perform as well. Canon on the other hand, which only recently included/support lens correction in-camera on the very latest bodies, have had to maintain a little higher physical IQ in the lenses.

Sure, most pp software provides lens correction, but not on off-brand combinations.. so you will not get the proper corrections on something like the 14-24mm when used on the Sony body as you would on a Nikon body, and the same goes for the 17mm or 24mm TS on the Sony body, but the Canon's would need less correction to begin with.

Rental of your proposed setup will provide the best information regardless..

To give you an idea on what benefit in-camera corrections can make, DxO has the opportunity to test lenses on an independent body - a real measure of how a lens is designed, built, and performs - by testing on something like the A7R (as it has the same resolution that DxO says makes all the difference in the world) but stated that most people purchasing something like a Nikon lens would be using it on a Nikon body, and therefore any compensated benefits to be had in that combination are relevant to the lenses performance scores.
(Even though in-camera corrections mask the lenses physical design and performance)


----------



## Skulker (Jul 16, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > As usual, this query garners fervent rhetoric from those faithfully wedded to Canon.
> ...



Hi orangutan, just look at the post from Aglet. You will soon see plentiful amounts of fervour. 
but I'm so glad he has pointed out all that banding in my images. Just imaging all this time all these photos and I've never noticed it. I must be a rubbish photographer. I must rush out and become a fervently passionate Nikon owner.


----------



## quod (Jul 16, 2014)

RGF said:


> Does anyone shoot both Canon and Nikon - Canon for long lens and Nikon for wide angles? Experience? Thoughts?


I owned the 14-24mm, which I only shot on my 5D3 (I sold it recently). The lens is really big and heavy, and takes a LOT of space in the bag. I found it to be about as sharp as my TS-E 17mm, and the sharpness is edge-to-edge, with little distortion. Since I was shooting manually via an adapter, I suspect that it would be sharper on a Nikon body. It has a fair amount of chromatic aberration. It has little coma. It can flair, but it did not flair as much as I thought it would. I use filters quite a bit and missed them when using this lens. There are kits that you can buy, but they are expensive and take up a lot of space in the bag. The lens renders beautifully. More than any lens in my kit, images from this lens had a painterly look to them and a subtle 3D pop; a little like HDR, but without the HDR.

My general impression is that it is a great lens, but the price you pay is an exposed front element, massive size, and chromatic aberration. Since I use it exclusively for landscape, I found that I did not need the f/2.8 aperture, and as a result, the 16-35 f/4 makes a lot more sense for my type of shooting since I rarely venture from f/5.6 to f/11 or so. Hope this helps.


----------



## RGF (Jul 16, 2014)

SiliconVoid said:


> This is late (I do not get to sit down at a computer as often) but if you are simply after resolution and hate shadows in your images, I would suggest as some others have done - which is something like the A7R. Purely as a 'digital back' for whatever lenses you wish to use.
> 
> As for lenses, I would strongly suggest a couple of Canon's TS lenses before the Nikon's, simply because many of Nikon's lenses of recent years rely a good deal on in-camera corrections, which has allowed Nikon to slack on physical IQ in the lenses. This means that when not used on a Nikon body the lenses do not perform as well. Canon on the other hand, which only recently included/support lens correction in-camera on the very latest bodies, have had to maintain a little higher physical IQ in the lenses.
> 
> ...



Interesting comments about Nikon lens and in camera corrections. I had not heard that but I know little of Nikon. That is one of the reasons I started this thread.

I go back and forth on the A7R. Great camera but wonder if I could use a camera without an optical viewfinder.

Now only Canon would introduce a 5D M4 with dual pixels to dramatically increase DR


----------



## Aglet (Jul 17, 2014)

Skulker said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



banding's for birds 
ease off on the unsharp mask too, halos are for angels. ;D /dig
actually, I like some of the shots you've posted.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 17, 2014)

Before the 5D3, I was strongly Considering selling all my canon kit at the time to jump for the d700 for the AF and nikons superb flash system. Then that all changed when with the 5D3 + 600RT combo.

I tried the d800 for a weekend and it felt like nikon lost what made the d700 so good. It felt clunkier, less comfortable in the hand, the left AF focusing issue did consistently show it's face, and to top it all off, the AF was slower with primes than my canon.

The files had some more detail and the shadows recovered nicely but who cares? It hurt my hand, and frustrated me when I had to return to using pocketwizards for flash. The d700 was a general purpose camera that could do most anything well and the d800 is a special purpose camera that does one thing exceptionally at the cost of everything else. Maybe they fixed the issues with later models but it doesn't change the bad ergos and the now inferior flash system. 

Perhaps not buying a d700 was the best decision I could have made because I'd be stuck with nikon at this time.


----------



## sdsr (Jul 17, 2014)

SiliconVoid said:


> Sure, most pp software provides lens correction, but not on off-brand combinations.. so you will not get the proper corrections on something like the 14-24mm when used on the Sony body as you would on a Nikon body, and the same goes for the 17mm or 24mm TS on the Sony body, but the Canon's would need less correction to begin with.



I don't think you're right about off-brand combinations. In LR, I can use a profile for any lens I attach to my Sony A7r & a6000 (provided they have one for that lens in the first place, of course); with my Canon lenses, the corrections seem to work exactly the same way regardless of whether they're on my Sony or Canon bodies. The only difference is that with off-brand lenses you have to take an additional step and manually select the lens - you can't just check a box and have the corrections applied automatically.

As for Nikon, do their dslr in-camera corrections apply to RAW files as well to jpegs? That seems to be the case with m43 cameras (at least when using LR), but is it true of Nikon dslrs too?


----------



## Aglet (Jul 22, 2014)

@RLP

OTOH, my D800s I find very comfortable to hold and carry for long periods, never use any kind of strap, they balance nicely with mid-weight zooms and AF (landscape) with great precision at every point even in very low light and low contrast subjects.
I never used a D700 but do hear plenty of raves about it. FWIW, out of over 80 DSLR camera bodies (some duplicates of course) I've used in my database, I find the d800 to be the most enjoyable with the d5100/5300 being my preferred consumer crop bodies. 7D, 40-50-60D, 5D2 and 5D3 I also like the fit and feel of but I sometimes need to really stretch the limits of a raw file and the Nik's help me out there better than the Canon goods can.

I also regularly use various Pentax bodies and enjoy the fit and feel of them but they have a few minor ergonomic issues and poor placement of some controls that get in the way at times.

The only bad feel, hurt my hands cameras I've ever grabbed are the D7x00 and D6x0 series Nikons; I find them just plain aweful. Bought a second d800 because the d600 was such an uncomfortable thing to use as a 2nd body.


----------



## Dave Williams (Jul 22, 2014)

I was all Nikon.. I had a D200,D300s plus 500mmf4,70-200f2.8,300mmf2.8, all three TC's, and an 18-70.
For wildlife photography reach is usually a priority so when someone offered me a Canon 1DMk11 plus a 600mmf4 IS L at an incredible price I had to take it. I soon traded the 1D11 for a 1D1V and suddenly my best body and lens were both Canon. For a while I continued with both but you soon realise it's not practical. Lenses might last for a long time but keeping up with technological changes in bodies would be ridiculously expensive if you updated both systems on a regular basis because bodies loose value far too quickly.
I'm now firmly in Canon's camp having replaced everything I had on an almost like for like basis.
I think there is little to separate the two for most of the time. Canon probably have a bigger market for their telephoto lenses so there are more rapid innovations, and more second hand availability than for Nikon's gear.
I did think perhaps that Nikon had the edge on bodies for a while but I'm delighted with my 5D111 and 1DX. 
I think too many sing the praises of their kit without knowledge of how other brands compare as they haven't used them. Things like feel and layout are fairly irrelevant as you soon get the hang of each brand after using for a while and lets face it there are changes between bodies within the brands too.


----------



## dshipley (Jul 22, 2014)

I've owned/shot both system professionally. Either system is plenty capable and really the biggest factor for landscapes between the two really comes down to Nikon having the 14-24 f/2.8 and the Exmor 36mp sensor while Canon has more TS-E lens options.

Now, if you're only shooting landscapes the 14-24 f/2.8 isn't a huge deal as Canon bodies can use the lens with a lens adapter (I did this many times back when I owned a 5D2 and the 14-24 f/2.8). 

So ask yourself the following...

1. How much does the difference between the two sensors matter to you?
2. Do you plan to/would you like to use TS-E lenses? (If so Canon might be the better choice)
3. Do you have any family, close friends, etc that are already invested into one system? (It's always nice have the option to be able to borrow/try out gear if they'll let you).
4. Will you only be shooting landscapes? (If not the 5D3 is, in my opinion, a more well-rounded camera body than the D800/810)


----------



## MLfan3 (Jul 22, 2014)

RGF said:


> In particular I am considering the new D810 with 14-24 and 24-70 for landscapes.
> 
> The Canon 16-35 F4 is good but the 14-24 is great!
> 
> ...


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 22, 2014)

Aglet said:


> @RLP
> 
> OTOH, my D800s I find very comfortable to hold and carry for long periods, never use any kind of strap, they balance nicely with mid-weight zooms and AF (landscape) with great precision at every point even in very low light and low contrast subjects.
> I never used a D700 but do hear plenty of raves about it. FWIW, out of over 80 DSLR camera bodies (some duplicates of course) I've used in my database, I find the d800 to be the most enjoyable with the d5100/5300 being my preferred consumer crop bodies. 7D, 40-50-60D, 5D2 and 5D3 I also like the fit and feel of but I sometimes need to really stretch the limits of a raw file and the Nik's help me out there better than the Canon goods can.
> ...



No doubt the D810 did address the bad ergos on the d800. The D800 has the superior IQ to any 35mm camera for landscapes and arguably older MF systems. It's just it wasn't really a D700 replacement as the 5D3 was and the 600RT was just too good to pass up.


----------



## MLfan3 (Jul 22, 2014)

I think my previous reply to the OP was very confusing.
So try to rewrite it here:

1 N 14-24 vs C 16-35. I think they are about identical in resolving power and the 16-35f4 IS has a bit lower CA and distortion. So they are optically of similar quality.

So I think the N 14-24 is the most overrated lens ever and it is already a bit too long in the tooth.
The 16-35f4 IS is a very sharp zoom and it is very versatile with the super effective IS(works on the A7R too) and very strong FL coating.
The 16-35mm f4IS seldom flares , the 14-24 N is extremely prone to flare in comparison.

2 A7R vs D810.
the D810 is indeed a bit better with a bit lower color noise throughout their ISO range , but in print it is invisible or at least indistinguishable, so if you want to save a lot of money(and weight) and want reuse your Canon lenses get the A7R. I often use my 16-35f4IS, 35mm f1.4 Sigma, 135mm f2 and 200mm f2 on my A7R and A7s.

You can not use your Canon lenses or Sony lenses on the Nikon, so unless you absolutely want to go dual mount with many specialized Zeiss and Nikon primes, you do not want to get the D810.
3 if your only reason to get or want to try a Nikon 36mp sensor is the sensor itself , then go for the D800E and save some big money, or even better the A7R.
The D810 is indeed a better more refined body but the RAW IQ is the same as the D800E, or at least very identical that no one can see the difference in print.

I have the D810 but I got it for better AF, better LV with EFC and better ergonomics not for the newer 36mp sensor, and I've already got many many Nikon and Zeiss lenses for it.

And going dual mount or more mount system is nothing wrong, and in fact it is the only realistic solution for people shooting both video and stills or more than one type of app. 

The 5D3 is useless , the sensor is really bad , I never thought it was actually as bad as some Nikon die-hard fanboys say about it at DPR or many fora ,but unfortunately, it is as bad as the mk2 was or even worse.
I confirmed it by testing it against my 6D , 5D2, A7R, A7 and D810.
So do not get the 5D3 unless you absolutely need the 61 AF with 41 cross type sensors.
For me it did not work regardless of the super AF or super high quality body, and I am sure the upcoming 5D4 will get at least as good sensor as the one in the 6D with more pixels.

So I am looking forward to visiting Germany in this Sept for the Photokina.
If Canon cannot get out a great 5D3 replacement , I think they will seriously have hard time competing against Nikon in the high resolution high end 35mm D-SLR market(especially old guys with a set of Leica R or Zeiss Otus kind love it).

The D810 is a great camera and if you only want to own one camera, then it is the camera for you(at least for now). But in your case , I think the A7R is a bit more rational choice since you can re-use your Canon EF lenses on that body.

I personally do not think D-SLRs of any kind is exciting , even as good as the D810 is kind of boring compared to Sony A7 or Pana GH4. The mirrorless is the future and I think Nikon is investing wrong kind of money on wrong kind of market. I hope Canon will make 5D3 replacement camera without mirror (with EVF), it will need 4k , clean LV and great EVF at least to be even competitive to the next gen Sony A7 series or Panasonic GH4.

Nikon is too timid to go there, and like all other old tech makers in this industry, it will eventually be forced to go out of this market just like Minolta. And their shareholders know it so Nikon stocks devalued and their trust status degraded by 32 percent in the last 13 days.
So while Nikon seems to have been doing everything so well in this particular market , it has been like Minolta in its last few years of its life it has been investing too much money into wrong old dying technology, e.g , the D-SLR(OVF tech), therefore it's stock hit hard and the company is *******.

BTW, Nikon lost about 13 percent of market share in last year and now it is the no3 in this game.
I think it will be Sony vs Canon , not Nikon vs Canon any more.
I guess what I have been trying to say is to invest too much money on the dying system is too risky, and unless you already have expensive Nikon glass or Zeiss or Leica R glass for it , it is not worth going for it.
Just keep what you've got and get a Sony A7R or a A7 in addition to your current camera.
In many ways the Sony A7R is not as refined as the D810 is , but it is a lot less risky and also much cheaper to get.

And if you do shoot only landscapes or studio set up work , then there is no difference between the D810 and the A7R.


----------



## RGF (Jul 23, 2014)

MLfan3 said:


> I think my previous reply to the OP was very confusing.
> So try to rewrite it here:
> 
> IIn many ways the Sony A7R is not as refined as the D810 is , but it is a lot less risky and also much cheaper to get.
> ...



MLFan3 

Thanks for the great reply. I primarily shoot wildlife with a bit of landscapes (would like to do more) and some macro.

For wildlife I will stick, without a single thought of changing, with Canon.

Until the new 16-35 F4 came out, I was very disappointed with Canon WA zoom. The 16-35 F4 is a real winner. If Canon came up with a 5D M4 (or ...) that had significant improvement in DR I would be a happy camper. 36 MP would be nice but also will increase workflow (larger files, more disk space, longer processing times, ...)

The Sony A7R looks like a great alternative and need to try it soon. 

Thanks again for the thoughts


----------



## Atonegro (Jul 24, 2014)

RGF said:


> MLfan3 said:
> 
> 
> > I think my previous reply to the OP was very confusing.
> ...



Don't worry about that, it is not true.
My first digital camera was a 1.3 megapixel one (a Canon/Kodak DCS 3C).
Now I have a 36 megapixel one, and imageprocessing is about a 1000 times faster.

The rate that computers are becoming faster, (and the harddisks are becoming bigger) is _much_ greater than the rate the camera's get more pixels.


----------



## RGF (Aug 12, 2014)

Atonegro said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > MLfan3 said:
> ...



computers are faster, disks and cards are much cheaper. Today I can buy a solid, but not the best, SanDisk or Lexar card for the 5DM3 for less than $3 / 36 exposure (the equivalent of a roll film which use to cost $10-15 with processing).


----------



## FEBS (Aug 12, 2014)

RGF said:


> computers are faster, disks and cards are much cheaper. Today I can buy a solid, but not the best, SanDisk or Lexar card for the 5DM3 for less than $3 / 36 exposure (the equivalent of a roll film which use to cost $10-15 with processing).



My profession is developing and implementing business software. So, the IT branche its what I'am living in.

Computers don"t get faster in the same rate during the last few years compared to the "90's. The speed increase did stop. They combine more cores in one CPU. That's great for computing power. However your images do need to swap from internal memory to drives and vice versa. The data exchange speed between internal memory and harddrives did not increase that much as purely computer power. This means that the harddrives are becoming the real bottleneck in the system. That's one of the reasons they build stripes with harddrives to increase the overall speed. I know that SSD might increase this, and you will notice this if you do exchange your traditional harddrive with a Solid State drive. However, the interface to exchange data with internal memory is still the same SATA. If you then want to improve your photo by photoshoplayers (10, 20 , 30 ??), you will notice the difference in speed between a 18 or 36 Mb picture, even with current hardware. I mostly use LR, do a lot of sports and wildlife, but when I get back with 1000 photo's it takes quite a long time to upload my raws, to modify but also to export even that I have a very performant PC (quad core i7, 16Gb, 2 SSD drives, high end graphic card)


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 13, 2014)

FEBS, that's right on and if folks give it some thought they'll realize. A crook took me for a fool on a "brand new 486 with a huge 100 Meg HD for $3000". By the time I got him to court a year later there were pentiums for half the price that blew that one away and the speeds took off. As frequencies get too high every conductor becomes and antenna and signals get lost so ..... Those were the days!

It is a pain waiting for RAW photos to fully load from my 6D compared to the 40D for example, so I'm with you on this one.

Jack


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 13, 2014)

I thought about buying a mirror less Nikon for around a hundred bucks... but then I didn't think I would ever use it so I didn't bother.


----------

