[OT] Photog advice needed: swapping brands?

[throttlemeister]

This is very much off topic, but since there is some really good photogs here that know what they do, I might as well ask here. I also know there is a thread about camera's, but this is a little bigger than asking which compact to get.

As you may know, I am a Canon shooter. I have a 5D with a grip, flash and several L lenses. In all, a significant investment into Canon equipment.

My 5D (the original one) however is getting a bit long in the tooth 7 years after its introduction, so I am thinking about upgrading later this year. Unfortunately, the logical upgrade, the new 5D mk3 is really failing to impress me. It's like too little a little too late. And it is ridiculously expensive at $/€3500 for just the body.

On the other hand, there is the Nikon D800, which really IS impressing me. Great resolution, maybe a little too much, but very low noise even at high ISO and huge dynamic range. Especially that last thing is important to me. The thing manages 14.4 stops of DR, which is a whopping 6 stops more than my 5D. Given my like of contrasty scenes, this is a big, big plus for me.

Switching brands however means losing money and the more you have invested in lenses, the more you loose.

Anyone here have or know the D800 first hand and can tell me it's really that good it's worth switching to Nikon over?

[ckcarr]

This?


Still in extremely short supply. Probably a 6-month backlog of orders. Best you get your name on a list NOW and figure out what to do later.

I'll be selling this one in about a week, I am #1 on a list for the D800E and they expect it this week.

Check the video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omTo7UxbJX8

[throttlemeister]

Yup, that'd be the one.

[throttlemeister]

Thanks for that video btw, very enlighting.

[Snoop]

For some perspective, consider the extra $$ you'll end up spending on Nikon lenses to replace the lenses you already have. For that outlay you could skip the 5 MkIII and go straight to a 1D MkIV or possibly even a second hand 1Ds MkIII if lucky...
Or you could get a price-reduced 5 MkII (now that it's superseded) and look at taking a couple of your f/4 lenses down to f/2.8.
I don't doubt that the D800 is a great bit of kit, but it would want to have more than just better DR to justify swapping over. I've always tended to stick with the body I have until every bit of glass I use is the best of it's kind - only then will I consider changing bodies.
Here's an idea - forget the new body and do something out of left field and buy an 85mm f/1.2 - it's ridiculous and impractical but completely amazing!

[throttlemeister]

Nice lens, but I have absolutely no use for a 85mm. not much to replace the others either. I'm usually outside, so I don't _need_ 2.8, and the 16-35 isn't that much better optically. The 24-70 is a great lens, but it doesn't have IS and it's really too short for what I use it for. Unless I want to go all primes, my lenses cover what I need. And primes are not exactly convenient when I'm traveling by bike.

What I need is full frame (done by both), high dynamic range (Nikon), detail (both, slight nudge to Nikon), and good wide angle lenses. That Nikkor 14-24 is amazing.

[ckcarr]

Well, not that uncommon to make the switch. People go back & forth all the time. Look at it like you've had a motorcycle for 10 years you bought new and now it's worth half. Gear doesn't normally depreciate that bad, but you will lose some and it will take about a year to sell everything. But there is a market for it.

I bought the camera because it's the natural progression up from the D700 and I was going to get a D3x for printing primarily. Better resolution and dynamic range. But this is that and more. And cheaper. I already have all the lenses I'll ever need but it took five years+ to acquire them.

[rm]

Canon / Nikon ..... doesn't make a huge difference. EXCEPT you own some nice Canon L glass already. Personally, if I were in your shoes, I would be hunting down a low mileage, used on Sundays, driven by grandma 5D MK II.

Yes the specs are pretty impressive in different ways both on the Nikon D800 36mp ( better get a bigger hard drive if you shoot RAW ) or the 5D MK III which seems to have incredibly low noise at HIGH ISO. But if you have fast glass ( f/2.8 or better ) and you mostly shoot in daylight, how often will you need the 5D MK III and at what cost.

Here in the US, 5D MK IIs are going for as little as $1600 (used) and boat load of them are at $1800 or less.

I use a 5D MK II and it does have it flaws, and eventually I will get 5D MK III, but I don't think you can beet the price to performance ratio right now on a 5D MK II. Think of how all that extra cash you save can go to shoes for the bike and track days. Then you can lend your camera to your buddies so they can take some smoking 21mp fly-bys

You can see some of my 5D MK II shots here if you want, but there are millions of great examples out there: Motor Sports » Charlotte Wedding Photographer II Chicago Wedding Photograper – Robert Mariani

Good luck with your choice!

[GDM]

CK nice camera, but I would prefer your skills ( I have seen some of your postings).

I haven't embraced digital yet, so this looks a bit more than I could use.

Still loving my F4!

Gerry

[Steve Carlton]

To a large extent, the gear you should get is dictated by the kind of images you're after. In Craig's case, high resolution is a great thing to have in landscape photography if you're going to make large prints. For what I do (or really used to do), a D300 suits me fine, as I get more reach from a 1.5x crop camera vs full frame. (My 300mm lens is effectively a 450mm lens without being twice the price).

I'm not current on the latest Canon vs Nikon pros and cons, but fairly recently the Nikons were know to have a far better flash system and usually better auto focus. Maybe by now Canon has closed that gap or taken the lead, I don't know.

You can always sell your used Canon gear, usually for good money on eBay. You can get better than eBay prices on used Nikon gear on forums like Nikonians and fredmiranda.com. So you don't have to pay the new lens premium if you don't want to, although the 5 year warranty you get on new Nikon lenses is fairly valuable.

If you don't need insanely high resolution, why not consider a new or used D700? There was a recent price reduction, and last I checked the used market was slow to respond to the new lower suggested retail prices on the D700 body. Maybe they're sold out now, I don't know.

[signit98]

Gijs, look at the 5d MK II... I did when I figured that the MK III is not the cat's meow.

Could not be happier with the camera and I could keep all my L Glass.

[throttlemeister]

Rm & Ralf, given the amount of time between upgrades for me, I'd rather have something a little newer. Also, the mk2 uses the same rather crappy af as the mk1, so other than the higher resolution, it's not much of an upgrade. If its not significantly better in all aspects, I might as well keep what I have for a few more years and spend the money elsewhere. Not questioning the mk2 isn't a great camera, but so is the mk1.

[ckcarr]

Maybe you should buy the 14-24mm and get an adapter for it. A lot of Canon users do that.

However, as Thom Hogan likes to say, the camera is just the "tip of the iceberg" as far as gear. I think what he is saying is don't make a decision on the body, but the glass (as the body is a small part of the total cost). In other words, to build a kit of pro glass to go with the D800 you will also be into it for >$10,000 of lenses. Here is another unbiased, excellent video you should watch and listen to what he is saying regarding the D800. Jim Brandenberg, a National Geographic photographer.

A month with the Nikon D800: Exclusive interview with Jim Brandenburg | Video product reviews | What Digital Camera

[signit98]

Originally Posted by throttlemeister

Also, the mk2 uses the same rather crappy af as the mk1, so other than the higher resolution, it's not much of an upgrade.

I beg to differ, Gijs... maybe it's just my perception, but the AF on my MK II is much faster and more precise that it ever has been on my old 5D. When I do surf photography with my 70 - 200 with the doubler... it is SPOT ON!

There are also a ton of other changes that made life easier for me. Now, granted, I may not be looking for as much as you do, in terms of add-ons or upgrades... but for me, it was a significant step up.

[throttlemeister]

Well, there is the difference of things that I need and things that I want. I guess when thinking about spending so much money, the list in the want category is a lot longer than in the need category. But there's nothing wrong with wanting certain things imo.

[ckcarr]

When you really want something the financial analysis goes out the window.
So it's a done deal!

Good thing is get on a list and you can start collecting lenses now. Nikon lenses are not always available either...

[throttlemeister]

Well, technically not many people need an SLR. I've seen what some pros can do with a disposable camera and it makes you want to cry and throw away any gear you have. Unlike Craig, I have no illusion that I create will ever even come near Nat Geo quality. So if common sense would come into play, I should be looking at compacts, not high end SLRs.

[throttlemeister]

Reading back, I notice a bit of weird wording of myself above. I did mean to imply Craig has illusions about Nat Geo - his work is of Nat Geo quality. The illusions part was in reference to my own abilities.

Sorry for those that took it the way it appears to be written instead of how it was meant, especially Craig who's abilities I greatly admire.

[AZ-Twin]

Funny, Craig gets credit for the Nat Geo pics, while Jeff is the one that usually posts boobies.

[PFFOG]

Originally Posted by throttlemeister

..............

Sorry for those that took it the way it appears to be written instead of how it was meant, especially Craig who's abilities I greatly admire.

We all know you are just an old curmudgeon

Yea, if I meet CKC someday, I hope some of his talent sticks to my shutter finger when we shake hands.