kanuck said:
Interesting to know, thanks itsnotmeyouknow for sharing and welcome to the forum. You didn't waste much time and quickly built up an impressive list of gear! The 35mm ZF .2 F2 is fantastic isn't it? I heard the 21 and 25 lenses are outstanding especially on the D800. I had a 25mm ZF original version for my F100 a while back but had to trade it in for a zoom lens. I think it was part of the 24-70mm lens that I picked up back in 2010..

Thanks for the welcome! Yes the Zeiss is excellent on both cameras. The focus grip is as smooth as silk. It's also very sharp. I had a brief look at the 25 and the 21 and decided to stick with the 35 as that is a good FL to have stuck to the camera for a walkabout. I'm amazed that since I bought my D800 in September I have taken almost 16,000 shots! I do tend to be quite snap happy! I do love the detail of the D800, it's USP for me is the dynamic range. Maybe Canon will catch up. But resolution isn't everything they will need to catch up on the DR or handle the noise better at low ISO when you are forced to push the shadows.

bleephotography said:
Thanks all for the input. If my third copy of the Canon 24-70 II arrives subpar, I will be switching over to Nikon indefinitely. Although Canon has its advantages, I feel like the current feature set of Nikon might be more suitable for my intended progression.

If this ends up being the case, what do you think of the following setup for a Nikon noob:
D800E
14-24 f/2.8
24-70 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8 VR II
35 f/1.4

and one SB-910.

With this setup my approach is minimalist and versatility, with the intention of covering my bases for anything from weddings to landscapes, and even to sports...

Your story is almost exactly like my story. I just got to feel that I (and everyone else) was not getting any younger and at my stage in life, I was no longer willing to just wait for Canon to enter the high MP game. I do landscapes and seascapes and every time I go out and shoot I can choose to pick up a Nikon bag or a Canon bag. I've been a Canon shooter for about 9 years and a Nikon shooter for less than a year. But in my own testing using one of my actual landscape locations I've compared all the lenses of both Canon and Nikon. I miss my 17 tse Canon lens and the dual axis 24 tse Canon lens. The Nikon 24 tse is ok but I really enjoy using the Nikon 14-24 which is very versatile. The extra resolution and much higher dynamic range of my Nikon is much better than my Canon work. I have both the D800 and D800e and I prefer the "E" model, although I keep it for special occasions (like really good weather).

Right now I'm having a focusing problem with the D800 and the 24-70 (needs -20 af adjust at 70), but I'll send it into Nikon. My D800e doesn't have the problem. By the way, if you can afford to, you CAN keep your Canon equipment and just choose to shoot Nikon. I really feel that Canon will come around sometime in the next 2-4 years and deliver (actually deliver - not just announce) a high MP camera (over 40mp). Then I will once again enjoy all my great Canon lenses plus my Nikon lenses (because Nikon lenses CAN fit - with Noveflex adapters - Canon bodies). I hope you enjoy your Nikon experience.

There has been great advice already posted here. As someone who a couple of months ago went through exactly the dilemma you are now, here's my $0.02.

- I ended up sticking with Canon, and buying a 5dMkIII. After 2 months, I am increasingly happy with my decision. For what it's worth, Popular Photography just awarded the 5DMkIII its Camera of the Year for 2012, and their reasoning is pretty sound. If I had made the switch - which would've hurt financially - I'm sure I would now be regretting the move.

- That said, I enjoyed my time playing with Nikons. Teething issues notwithstanding, there's a lot for Nikkor owners to feel excited about.

- Unless you are a professional photographer who has a very very specific need for something the D800 or 5D does better, and this is going to make you more money, switching systems is pretty dumb.

Interesting to know, thanks itsnotmeyouknow for sharing and welcome to the forum. You didn't waste much time and quickly built up an impressive list of gear! The 35mm ZF .2 F2 is fantastic isn't it? I heard the 21 and 25 lenses are outstanding especially on the D800. I had a 25mm ZF original version for my F100 a while back but had to trade it in for a zoom lens. I think it was part of the 24-70mm lens that I picked up back in 2010..

I still have the 5D mk III but have sold some of my L glass and Zeiss 35 f/2 to get good 2nd hand glass for my D800. The reason I changed is because of the noise banding on the mk III made many shots unuseable without softening the shot with Noise Reduction. I concur with those that say the quiet mode is far superior on the Canon. It is massively superior.

Dynamic range they are worlds apart with the D800 winning by some distance. My set up is as follows:

Nikkor 14 - 24
24 - 70
80 - 200 AF-S
200 macro f/4
AFS 300 f/4 plus 1.7 extender
AFS 50 1.8 G
AFS 60 2.8 G macro
AFD 85 1.8
Tamron 100 macro
Carl Zeiss 35 f/2 ZF2

When my wife said I could. I tell her that she can get almost all her money back when im gone. I show her some of the threads like i bought this 85mm lens and a year later sold it for more than I paid for it(we need more of this). She just smiles at me and says ok. Thanks for the help everyone. Not sure if I like that kind of a smile though.

n0msky said:
I am wondering, as you guys have mentioned above about FX being able to produce more shallow DOF and better bokeh and to shoot at high ISO , is it worth enough to spend more than $3,000 just to get those advantages, especially for those who just doing photography as hobby?

YES!

spraynpray said:
Thanks Seven, I'l tell the wife I'm OK to buy one then....

No! You have permission to buy two.......one for you and one for your old mucker Skinty!!! :-)

Geoff_K said:
Wait until I start to add lenses to go with it. THAT will tell how much she loves me.

I wouldn't want to take that chance..... ;-)

After 3 years of shooting HS football and basketball with my D90 I decided it was time to move to FF. Luckily I have a very understanding wife as this is just a hobby for me.

Wait until I start to add lenses to go with it. THAT will tell how much she loves me.

PB PM said:
If you have the disposable income, and love photography, why not? .

+1

other wise no, enjoy what you have

n0msky said:
I am wondering, as you guys have mentioned above about FX being able to produce more shallow DOF and better bokeh and to shoot at high ISO , is it worth enough to spend more than $3,000 just to get those advantages, especially for those who just doing photography as hobby?

To answer your question, no. When you buy a DX camera such as the D7000 you get about the same complexity as the D600 at (currently) less than half the cost. Buy the D7000, use it, learn the difference in the way it affects you in your fields (i.e. macro, sports, portraits, landscapes cityscapes, nightime etc. then make the decision. If you buy an FX lens to go on that DX body, you can take it with you if you go to an FX body.

As said before, DX is a positive advantage in many fields of photography, not a disadvantage across the board. View the PAD thread to see what cameras people are using and you will see that the difference in quality of the images is more to do with talent and lens than body or sensor size.

Be logical - it is when you lose control of your mind that the cost of this hobby gets way out of hand ;-/

If you have the disposable income, and love photography, why not? It also depends on what you want to do with your images.

Although I primarily shoot as a hobby, I also provide images for charities websites and a few clients. Having the ability to shoot high quality images in low light can be very helpful, given those uses. Unless you get caught up in the, I must upgrade every time a new camera comes out, mindset you can keep using that body for years to come.

I am wondering, as you guys have mentioned above about FX being able to produce more shallow DOF and better bokeh and to shoot at high ISO , is it worth enough to spend more than $3,000 just to get those advantages, especially for those who just doing photography as hobby?

spraynpray said:
Thanks Seven, I'l tell the wife I'm OK to buy one then....

Now come on guys...

YOU don't buy one, you have her buy one for you as a Christmas present.

Did Nikon add an option to switch off the DoF preview in LV in any recent firmware update or is it still always engaged?

Thank you! Amazing.

The LENR may kick in at 8sec and map that pixel out for you. Check your owners manual, as there is a cutoff to what is considered Long Exposure vs. not.

Edit: I just checked the manual for you pg 167:

LENR on: Photographs taken at shutter speeds slower than 8 s
are processed to reduce noise.

So just keep the exposure above 8s and everything is dandy :-)

bjrichus said:
I know a photographer who uses two D3 bodies for EVERYTHING. He has more FX glass in his gear boxes than most stores keep!

We spoke about the D4 a few months ago and while he likes the results, he thinks that for his work, he cannot justify the upgrade. Yes, over time they would pay for themselves, if he swapped out the 3's for 4's but he doesn't HAVE to, so no NEED to.

I can't argue with him ...

Same thing here. I looked at the D600 and accept for video, could not see the benefit over an older FX body.

With a grip, the D600 was close to $2500.

I picked up a D3 with less than 7500 clicks on it for $2000. I already have a D7000 for video. No brainer.

It may very well be dead pixels or due to higher ISOs. I just did a little analysis of which images had them and which didn't. Oddly, everything with an exposure UNDER 8.0s had them while everything OVER 8.0s didn't. Seems counterintuitive to me. I would think that a longer exposure would lead to MORE noise artifacts (or would be more likely to show dead pixels), not less.
For the record ISO was 400 and aperture was f/7.1.

Thanks Seven, I'l tell the wife I'm OK to buy one then....

spraynpray

As you know, we love spending other peoples money

you have our permission to buy a D800

There are of course pros and cons for both formats but with a D800 I could shoot crop mode, but there is no button on my D7000 for switching to 36Mp FX mode.....

My D90 does the same thing. I find it becomes more prevalent the higher the ISO I shoot. Lightroom 4 seems to remove them for me at time of import.

TaoTeJared said:
Dead/stuck pixel probably. Every sensor has them. I think the D90 has the dust mapping feature, if you use that it will usually catch them.

That looks VERY much like a dead pixel to me.

Do as Ms.Moto says.

Have a nice day and don't stress over it.