--
Well-known
A few comments based on all your feedback
A few comments based on all your feedback
Just a few thoughts on the many good inputs received:
1)Being just an amateur there is no need for me to justify the investment but the D3 would be next and not this year due to costs and I am not totally convinced any camera (to me that is) is worth 5000$ (or to be more exact 6600$ where I live – I prefer to buy the body locally). Of course an alternative could be to wait for the D300x or whatever its name or the 5DmkII
2)The full frame camera (either 5D or D3) would become my new “medium format” camera and so a lot of the D3 speed and possibly superior handling would be a slight overkill - I am sure it would be used though
– although the live view might come in handy
3)Other issues would be more important like viewfinder size and eye relief and living where I do weather sealing is of some importance
4)Size is important too (the smaller the better) – but since I would have to add at least one additional lens that is somewhat levelled out
5)I am not oblivious to the fact that post processing determines a lot – on the other hand I am not convinced it can totally make up for the combination of pixel size, and the hardware and software inside the camera
6)Naïve may be the word but I cannot quite fathom why people should not be objective on their own buys – I have definitely made some glaring mistakes :bang: one of which is buying the D200 – had I known the Nikon D80 would be out so soon after I would have opted for a D80 + used D2H combo instead
7)And finally to the “film like” statement by me. I am not a great believer in persuasion by numbers but ever since the 5D came out I have sampled the output and to my eyes (online as well as in magazines and the limited amounts of prints I have seen) it just looks better than anything else up until the D3 – I am not saying I am right (my eyes are definitely the worst lenses I have), but given that the add on of a Canon would be rather cumbersome in many ways I consider myself close to neutral :angel:
Thanks again
Karspoul
A few comments based on all your feedback
Just a few thoughts on the many good inputs received:
1)Being just an amateur there is no need for me to justify the investment but the D3 would be next and not this year due to costs and I am not totally convinced any camera (to me that is) is worth 5000$ (or to be more exact 6600$ where I live – I prefer to buy the body locally). Of course an alternative could be to wait for the D300x or whatever its name or the 5DmkII
2)The full frame camera (either 5D or D3) would become my new “medium format” camera and so a lot of the D3 speed and possibly superior handling would be a slight overkill - I am sure it would be used though
– although the live view might come in handy3)Other issues would be more important like viewfinder size and eye relief and living where I do weather sealing is of some importance
4)Size is important too (the smaller the better) – but since I would have to add at least one additional lens that is somewhat levelled out
5)I am not oblivious to the fact that post processing determines a lot – on the other hand I am not convinced it can totally make up for the combination of pixel size, and the hardware and software inside the camera
6)Naïve may be the word but I cannot quite fathom why people should not be objective on their own buys – I have definitely made some glaring mistakes :bang: one of which is buying the D200 – had I known the Nikon D80 would be out so soon after I would have opted for a D80 + used D2H combo instead
7)And finally to the “film like” statement by me. I am not a great believer in persuasion by numbers but ever since the 5D came out I have sampled the output and to my eyes (online as well as in magazines and the limited amounts of prints I have seen) it just looks better than anything else up until the D3 – I am not saying I am right (my eyes are definitely the worst lenses I have
), but given that the add on of a Canon would be rather cumbersome in many ways I consider myself close to neutral :angel:Thanks again
Karspoul
Turtle
Veteran
I do not go in for the Canon 'L' lenses are by far the best argument, but what you say is equally untrue. As previously stated, some Ls are out of date and need updating, but others are truly spectacular. They do generally perform better than non-L lenses, are usually faster and yes, weather sealing is very important to many pros (and some amateurs). Build is also better generally.
There are not many $10 Thrift store lenses that shoot rings arounf L lenses. Sure some primes will beat the L zooms in some respects...but then again we are comparing apples and oranges. many primes WONT beat L zooms.
L lenses are not for anyone but to dismiss it as marketing tripe suggests considerable ignorance. I am sure Nikkor pro lenses are very good and in some cases may be better or worse than their Canon counterparts. I only use Canon in 35mm SLR, as well as many other brands in other formats or 35mm RF such as Leica, Bronica, Mamiya, Schneider, Rodenstick, Nikkor (LF), Zeiss. My Canon 135 f2 L and 70-200f4 L lenses whip the non-L Canon lenses that I own resoundingly. The 135 f2L is not bettered by anything I have ever owned. End of story. I agree that the best optical qulatiy is not always needed and this is why i use my 28-135 IS when shooting the kids and walking about doing more casual stuff. The IS has been VERY handy on many occassions and when it is needed, there is no alternative.
Sorry for the diversion, but this discussion was really very silly. With L lenses you DO get what you pay for and whilst you might not need the features, others do.
Oh, and I do want the 5D mk2 to have a pro feel to it otherwise one has no choice but to lay $7K for a 1DsMk3 if you want the same robustness. I want FF and the feel of my Eos 3s/1nHS for considerably less than that!
Rico
Well-known
I don't have the 5D or D3, but do have a parallel pair: Canon 1Ds and Nikon D300. I also shoot a lot of 135 film. The 1Ds has a quality evocative of film that is nothing like the 5D. Based on many web samples, I consider the 5D color rendition more cartoon-like. The D300 is also quite vivid in color rendition by default. Of course, color rendition can be rejiggered extensively in PP. The more persistent quality is the appearance of noise. When pushed, the 5D smooths noise quite aggressively, the 1Ds exhibits a lot of chroma noise, the D3/D300 limit noise to the luminance channel.
Frankly, all these cameras take a good picture. Your choice is better determined by other factors: price, weight, controls, AF, interesting lenses, components like flash, battery system, etc. I use both systems according to my needs of the day.
Riaz Mesbah
Advocate Photographer
I have shot both extensively even though I am a Nikon shooter for the most part, so take this for what it is worth.
Both cameras are great tools but they are tools for very different jobs.
The D3 Was design from the ground up by a group of pro photogs hand in hand with the techs and engineers. The thing about this is that those pro where almost all pro photojournalists working nationally and internationally, some of the best sport photogs around, two or Three National Geo wildlife guys, and a couple of wedding guys. The camera is focused at those niches although it is perfectly capable of other kinds of work (like landscapes) it was purposed for those jobs, it is rugged as hell, over built, big, fast, fast, and oh yeah fast.
The 5D is a slow poke by comparison. but that trade off in speed nets a gain in unobtrusiveness, weight, af speed, and is overall one of the quietest SLRs ever made. It was designed to budget whereas the D3 was built to be a flagship model. It is very good at street work and as a fashion and portraiture camera. It is however next to useless for sports.
now for the subjective, is there stuff that i would give my left nut to have on the Nikon... you bet your mama there are. the 24mm 35mm 50mm and 135mm L's for starters. while we are at it the usm motors for focusing, and the af computer but not the points in the finder (I like Nikon's system better). are there things I would never give up... of course. You can have my SB-800s when you pry them from my cold dead hands. And the WB system on the new Nikons are nothing short of astonishing (sodium and mercury vapor stadium lights have individual WB presets now). Also I am not a fan for the Canon ergonomics, not a bash they just don't fit my hand well.
Mostly however, the best camera is the one that you can use the best, with the most ease, the least amount of having to think about what your doing to the camera because you should be thinking about what you are doing WITH the camera.
Both cameras are great tools but they are tools for very different jobs.
The D3 Was design from the ground up by a group of pro photogs hand in hand with the techs and engineers. The thing about this is that those pro where almost all pro photojournalists working nationally and internationally, some of the best sport photogs around, two or Three National Geo wildlife guys, and a couple of wedding guys. The camera is focused at those niches although it is perfectly capable of other kinds of work (like landscapes) it was purposed for those jobs, it is rugged as hell, over built, big, fast, fast, and oh yeah fast.
The 5D is a slow poke by comparison. but that trade off in speed nets a gain in unobtrusiveness, weight, af speed, and is overall one of the quietest SLRs ever made. It was designed to budget whereas the D3 was built to be a flagship model. It is very good at street work and as a fashion and portraiture camera. It is however next to useless for sports.
now for the subjective, is there stuff that i would give my left nut to have on the Nikon... you bet your mama there are. the 24mm 35mm 50mm and 135mm L's for starters. while we are at it the usm motors for focusing, and the af computer but not the points in the finder (I like Nikon's system better). are there things I would never give up... of course. You can have my SB-800s when you pry them from my cold dead hands. And the WB system on the new Nikons are nothing short of astonishing (sodium and mercury vapor stadium lights have individual WB presets now). Also I am not a fan for the Canon ergonomics, not a bash they just don't fit my hand well.
Mostly however, the best camera is the one that you can use the best, with the most ease, the least amount of having to think about what your doing to the camera because you should be thinking about what you are doing WITH the camera.
Last edited:
--
Well-known
Sensor and sensorbility
Sensor and sensorbility
Well, it was almost like an Austen story. After courting these two cameras, taking them for a dance and pondering for a fairly long time about their yearly income I ended up with a third for the following reasons:
1. The combination of a D3 and me did not exactly result in stellar AF performance – I do not blame the former – it just did not impress me (single AF, middle) and the AF sensor layout was not that nice (although the screen is addictive)
2. I did not want to make another D280 scenario (i.e. buying a D3 to see a half price version within a year or so) – Nikon has already made me buy things, I should not have (DX flashes for instance)
3. Albeit reluctantly I recognised I am married, until the courts annul it, to Nikon and adding a whole new line would be stupid – mainly due to weight constraints when travelling – so there went the Canon (I still like its output the most, though)
4. Finally I picked up another set of pictures (print, not even trannies) from my medium format film camera – absolutely wonderful so I am sticking with that for the moment :angel:
I ended up with quite another beast a brand new D2Hs with 2 years warranty at 37% of the cost of a D3 from a very reputed dealer. Much more pleased with AF speed and layout and the large pixels translate really well after, admittedly, quite a bit of post processing.
Thanks again for your thoughts.
Sensor and sensorbility
Well, it was almost like an Austen story. After courting these two cameras, taking them for a dance and pondering for a fairly long time about their yearly income I ended up with a third for the following reasons:
1. The combination of a D3 and me did not exactly result in stellar AF performance – I do not blame the former – it just did not impress me (single AF, middle) and the AF sensor layout was not that nice (although the screen is addictive)
2. I did not want to make another D280 scenario (i.e. buying a D3 to see a half price version within a year or so) – Nikon has already made me buy things, I should not have (DX flashes for instance)
3. Albeit reluctantly I recognised I am married, until the courts annul it, to Nikon and adding a whole new line would be stupid – mainly due to weight constraints when travelling – so there went the Canon (I still like its output the most, though)
4. Finally I picked up another set of pictures (print, not even trannies) from my medium format film camera – absolutely wonderful so I am sticking with that for the moment :angel:
I ended up with quite another beast a brand new D2Hs with 2 years warranty at 37% of the cost of a D3 from a very reputed dealer. Much more pleased with AF speed and layout and the large pixels translate really well after, admittedly, quite a bit of post processing.
Thanks again for your thoughts.