gasman..... "this camera has a real chance of demonstrating just what a crap photographer I really am, unless I lift my game!"

Yes, these new cameras can really demo how much I have to learn. And, my guess is, I will never be able to do justice to the camera.

As to the idea what the other guy has must be better...yes, I am always looking at the great photos and using that as my excuse....The D4 has made this a bit more difficult, however... :-)

Flying Tiger said:

Hmmmm. I think we have a natural, human tendency to think what the other guy has must be BETTER. That's why we constantly come to forums like this to reassure ourselves that our money and loyalty have in fact been well directed.

I have spent a LOT of time over the past two months playing with the best of what both brands have to offer. They are not identical, but at the full frame SLR level they are both very, very good. I would defy anyone to truly be unable to happily function with the "other" system.

Flying Tiger said:
As a confirmed Nikonite, I have to say that I think that Canon have recently taken the lead in this race. The latest Nikon releases seem to have been rushed out somewhat, when they previously took their time and brought us best of breed, that focussed well and took great pictures. I know that I am harping on about the same old thing, but if Nikon want to make a bit of money and restore some faith in the brand, give us our D400 (DX Format please) and a replacement 80-400mm lens.

Stop mucking about and release the things that would make lots of Nikon fans happy and make you lots of money!

Kind regards

msmoto said:
What both manufacturers have done is to supply us with phenomenal tools, which we must learn to use with expertise and care.

Never a truer word was spoken! I've had my 5DMkIII for a week now, and my immediate impression is that this camera has a real chance of demonstrating just what a crap photographer I really am, unless I lift my game!

I'm aware that this is not the place to wax lyrical about what I like about my new camera. But having spent a very enjoyable try-out day with the D600, there are two things I miss about Nikon that I never hear mentioned on forums such as this.

1. The round eyepiece. It just kind of fits. You can immediately see right out to the corners of the field of view. With all my Canons, I feel like I have to move my eye around a bit in order to see everything in the frame.
2. Nikon lens caps. These are engineering marvels. Made me realise that when I remove or replace my Canon lens caps, I actually have a mini panic-attack because they're so fiddly.

Cheers! :)

Canon vs. Nikon...VR? Is there any data which says one is better than the other?

As far as its use... kinda like having ISO 50,000.... can be very helpful. But, I am constantly aware of the "lazy" aspect of shooting photos in the actual mechanics. However, with the folks I photograph...candid, not model shots, I find the "lazy" tools can be helpful in grabbing focus on the eye, especially in low light.

But, I have hand held a 300mm f/4.5 Nikkor mounted on my "F" body and doing this at 1/15th sec, pressed against a tree. We only had ISO 800 or 1200 if really pressed, but it looked like shooting the D4 at ISO 210,000, then recovering shadows...

The issue I have with VR is a false sense of security, unfortunately on the street, the folks do not listen and are still moving at 1/15th sec or whatever.

What both manufacturers have done is to supply us with phenomenal tools, which we must learn to use with expertise and care.

golf007sd said:
Roger that :)

I like VR as much as the next person, but it's funny how quickly it's being seen as a mandatory feature for any lens over 70mm. Wasn't that long ago that we were hand-holding 300mm lenses at 1/250 sec because we were too scared to use film faster than ISO400, and we were still getting sharp results. It's surely only a matter of time before all dSLRs come with a "no photographic skill whatsoever, but still want award winning images" button.

captainelmo said:
I didnt say the 300/4 AF-S was a bad lens just that I envy the addition of VR in the canon variant....

Roger that :)

I didnt say the 300/4 AF-S was a bad lens just that I envy the addition of VR in the canon variant. Not that its a deal breaker for me. Generally for this class of lens I will be with a monopod. I wish there were more airshows in Singapore lol.

@captainelmo Nikon's 300 F4 is an outstanding lens. Just ask tcole1983...he is still in cloud 9 with this lens.

I going to start a new post about my resent adventure this weekend while attending the Miramar Air Show as it relates to long focal length prime lenses. Should turn out to an interesting conversation on our forum...hope you join in on the fun. :D

golf007sd said:
Canon's 50 1.2 is Amazing. When an friend of mine came over and let me play with it, I was in heaven. He was very quick in say: may I please play with your 14-24 2.8?" I hand it over and we where both foaming from our mouths and high-fiving each other like to kids and a candy store. Ooooh what a feeling!

Truth be told...my profile pic was taken with that lens :D

I know its amazing. I have also had the good luck to try the 85/1.2L as well and while the IQ is spectacular and bokeh is so creamy, everything else about is not as nice like the electronic manual focus ring and such a heavy lens in something so small(relative) makes it quite front heavy with something like a 60D. I havent tried the 14-24 but the shots on PAD show what the photographer can make the lens do. I do envy their 300/4 which has VR though.

captainelmo said:
Probably the only lenses we dont have are the F1.2 primes.

Canon's 50 1.2 is Amazing. When an friend of mine came over and let me play with it, I was in heaven. He was very quick in say: may I please play with your 14-24 2.8?" I hand it over and we where both foaming from our mouths and high-fiving each other like to kids and a candy store. Ooooh what a feeling!

Truth be told...my profile pic was taken with that lens :D

Honestly at this point in time, you could pick up both brands and still end up with a picture you will cherish and enjoy. Its the photographers skill which determines the quality of the photograph. Even now the perennial canon fallback is invalid. Nikon has equivalent and in some cases better lenses and vice versa. Probably the only lenses we dont have are the F1.2 primes.

gasman
Although what the 6D produces remains to be seen, I still maintain there's really nothing to separate all these newly released full frame cameras in terms of practical optical performance.

As golf007sd +1, +1

gasman said:
....I still maintain there's really nothing to separate all these newly released full frame cameras in terms of practical optical performance....

+1

golf007sd said:
Good luck with 5DMkIII. Canon did a great job on it except one area: focusing in a very dark setting, Please have look at this video and you will see what I mean. Beside that, it body will serve you very very well. Happy shooting....cheer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omTo7UxbJX8

Forward to the 7:23 min. timeline.

Cheers! Actually, I think the one area the D800 nails the 5DMkIII is in noise-free dark shadow detail. Funny how we're all different though - for me, the D800 was never a "threat" to me making a 5DMkIII purchase, but the lower spec'd D600, with its excellent value for money and faster frame rate, most definitely was. In fact the D600 seemed to have been released with me personally in mind - except for the fact my lenses don't fit. :)

Although what the 6D produces remains to be seen, I still maintain there's really nothing to separate all these newly released full frame cameras in terms of practical optical performance. Or if you believe there is, and it's important to you, maybe you should be looking at medium format.

Good luck with 5DMkIII. Canon did a great job on it except one area: focusing in a very dark setting, Please have look at this video and you will see what I mean. Beside that, it body will serve you very very well. Happy shooting....cheer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omTo7UxbJX8

Forward to the 7:23 min. timeline.

msmoto said:
I guess I am confused about comparing a $2100 body with a $3500 body.....

Yes, I did acknowledge it wasn't a "fair" head to head comparison.... but the 5DMkIII and the D600 are the bodies that would suit me. EOS 6D too entry level, D800 has more pixels than I can use, and too slow a frame rate.

I guess I am confused about comparing a $2100 body with a $3500 body.....

But, if I had a lot of Canon glass, like the dozen or so Nikkor lenses I currently have, I would not be about switching....each line has its benefits...

So, nearly a month after my original post. I have managed to give a D600 a good test run on two separate occasions with the 24-120 f4 lens. I've been comparing it with the Canon 5DMkIII - which perhaps is not a "fair" comparison; but for my purposes, they're two bodies I'm looking at.

The D600 is an awesome camera - and that's before you even begin to consider how well it's priced. I've read criticisms of its build quality, but I felt it was as solid as anything I've used outside an EOS1 or D4. Ergonomically excellent. Appropriately weighted. Aesthetically pleasing. Menu structure a bit confusing for me but I presume that's purely because I'm unfamiliar with Nikon. Optically, I felt the 5DIII was better overall - but I had to go really looking for the differences. They are both optically outstanding. (As an aside, I did try the D600 with the new "kit" 24-85 - and this lens doesn't do the camera justice. The 24-120 was light years ahead.) The autofocus system on the 5DMkIII was superior too, but given the price differential, so it ought to be.

Much as I liked the D600, I have all but decided to stick with the 5DMkIII. It's an excellent camera too, and what benefits the D600 would offer me don't seem quite enough to justify the financial hit I'd have to take in changing all my lenses. And I must admit to loving my Canon lenses anyway. But if I was coming to this market without "baggage" - it'd still be a tight contest, but the D600 plus a 24-120 f4 would win.

NSXType-R said:
A bit of a side note- what was Canon thinking when they put 1 SD card slot on the 6D?

Seriously?

They are a greedy corporation. i hate to name-call, but at least its not a person I'm referring to. : ) I am SO GLAD I dumped my 5d2, 17-40L, and glass in favor if the D800 and 16-35Vr. Nikon has been on a roll in the last few years to address customer's complaints by introducing these lenses: 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 85/1.4 & 1.8, 24-120/4.0, 16-35, 28/1.8, 24-85VR, and 50/1.8g. Amazing. Add in the D800 for $3k and D600. Whew!

A bit of a side note- what was Canon thinking when they put 1 SD card slot on the 6D?

Seriously?

With all the nice testing on the optical benches, one can say that a certain lens performed a specific way. Period. But, in the field, the performance of the equipment is influenced so much by the photographer, the lens data is far less important. Almost, with the high resolution of the pro lenses today, so as to be meaningless. I see a lot of crap from some big shot photographers who are shooting fancy cameras and lenses. And a lot of these are published in magazines. But some of these photographers simply do not know how to handle the overall management of the photo. So, the equipment may not be the ultimate link in the chain.

As a slightly co-incidental update to this thread, I was chatting to a work colleague yesterday (who I had no idea was into photography - specifically diving photography). He converted from Canon to Nikon about ten years ago, for no better reason than it was what all his diving buddies were using. Although he's intermittently second-guessed the decision, specifically missing Canon's lenses, he's just bought a D800 which he's thrilled with. Also a diving housing which cost literally twice as much as the camera itself.

Not that I'm really qualified to interject, but I will. : )
I've owned the following: D70, D700, D7k, Rebel XS, 5d mk2, Canon 40d, and now D800

Nikon has much better wide angle lenses, and a better prime lineup, IMHO. For telephoto, Canon all the way. More choices, and arguably better glass.

Nikon (actually Sony) makes better sensors -- hands down. It's not close, either. This is why I dumped my aging 5d2 for the D800. Canon's ergonomics were easier for me to adapt to. That being said, I love my D800 and am acclimating myself quite well.

Lens Rentals just recently published the resolution test results for the new Canon 24-70 II. The test pitted the new lens against some very heavy contenders like the 24 TS-E (@24mm), 70-200 f/2.8 IS II (@70mm) and both the old Canon 24-70 and Tamron's 24-70. The unexpected result was when the new 24-70 completely beat all other lenses by a good margin.

Now here is what Roger Cicala, founder of Lens Rentals, had to say about the D800 and Nikon lenses in answer to one of the comments on the article:

"Exact comparisons are hopeless at the exact level, but there’s no question 36 Mpix ups resolution. When we get our true optical bench up we could do an exact lens-to-lens comparison, but Imatest can only compare a lens-camera combination. All of the Nikons tested on D800s are going to have higher resolution because of the camera.

"It was a bit more reasonable to compare the D3x to the 5DII since camera resolution was comparable. Even, then the Nikon 24-70 was very good, resolving 890 / 735 at 24mm and 830 / 720 at 70mm. So the Nikon was clearly better than the original 24-70 Canon, probably not as good as the new one. Speaking strictly resolution shot at short to mid distances. But mount the Nikon 24-70 to a D800 and resolution increases to 1000 / 840 at f/2.8.

"Imatest is testing the camera lens combination, so change the camera and you change all the numbers. But I’d be comfortable saying a good shot on a D800 with a Nikon 24-70 outresolves the Canon II on a 5D III. Then again, put the Nikon lens on a D700 and it’s not close to the Canon."

Btw, the new Canon 24-70 II resolved at 954/831 @ 24mm and 950/809 @ 70mm. The old one resolved at 730/605 @ 24mm and 705/570 @ 70mm. This is on a 5D II body.