Mid range DSLR Camera comparison, any thoughts?
 

I have been using my Nikon D5000 DSLR for a few years now and I want more. The next wave of midpriced DSLR cameras are out there and these two seem to be at the price point and capability I am looking at.

Canon EOS 5D Mark III vs. Nikon D800: Battle of the Full Frame D-SLRs | News & Opinion | PCMag.com

Any opinion, thoughts about either? Neither?

Thanks,http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1343331937.jpg

Ok, I have shot the D800 and it's both good and bad. I thought the body was small. Might be a plus for you. It has 36 freekin megapixels. That is a crapton of resolution. RAW file size was around 75MB. Autofocus was excellent image quality was excellent and it was fun to shoot...

The 5D3 and the D800 are both awesome and both will give you excellent image quality.

What lenses do you have?

If you have nikkor lenses, stay with Nikon.

I'm waiting for the prices of the D3s to come down a little and that will be my next camera body.

It seems like 9 of 10 people will tell you it all comes down to which brand you prefer and which glass you already own.

It's like Ford vs Chevy, McDonald's vs Burger King, Mayonnaise vs Miracle Whip, Yamaha vs Suzuki, etc.

"more" what? Frankly full frame is way overkill for most people's needs. I sold my 5D2, sold my APS-C, and now use a u4/3 for most everything (Olympus E5M).

What are you not getting with an APS-C camera that you would get with full-frame (other than huge file sizes)?

I think Kaisen nailed it. See what lenses you have and what you can borrow from friends.

Good glass is almost always a better "investment" to "get more" than a new body.

Yeah plus glass holds its value.

Hammer
Nail
Head.

perfect shot.

Other than the bigger sensor for lower noise, the only reason for mo' giggle-pixels is if you want to crop out 85% of an image and still have a workable pixel count left over........or print out your own bill-board or new wallpaper for the kitchen?

Heck with an 8 year old 8 megapixel point and shoot in RAW, I can print out VERY high quality 16x20" posters at Costco for $5.99 each.


while my heart is getting tugged hard by the 4/3rd Sony NEX 7 (that comes with a wonker -oversized detector for a 4/3rds body), there just isn't the glass/optics out there for it "yet", and the $1200-1300 with a kit lens is still a stretch.

Of course, then I could post better quality pictures on Pelicans "what's for dinner" thread............all glorious 25 giggle pixels worth . :rolleyes:

Be aware of the D800 focus issues that exist (that don't seem to be fully solved even when sent in for warranty work), and the fact that there are still supply issues. If you don't want or need 36mp images, you may be better served waiting to see what the D300(s) replacement is.

Thanks guys. I appreciate the advice, but the images from my $600 Costco Nikon just aren't what I am after. I've got about 3 books that I have read through, went through almost every manual settings, and puchased a AF-s Nikkor 18-200mm lens last year that cost more then the entire camera and its 2 lens. I easily have at least 5000 pics of my kids and family. I think the Nikon is a great camera for the money. The lens I have will work with the D800 but because it is a digial lens, renders the image to less the half the MP capbilities. Kind of silly when you have all that in you hands. These two camera's have nearly identical specs, just was wondering if any had any experience with either. Personally, I have always liked Nikons.

Not that one will necessarily have a problem, but be aware that Nikon and Canon label things differently. There's a little bit of a learning curve to switch between cameras.

What are you looking to get out of a DSLR (wanting "more")?

BTW, the Nikkor 18-200 is a good walk around lens. I have it as well.

Things get blown out of proportion on the Internet. The focus issue with the D800 is as much of a non issue as the light leak on the 5D3.

The D800 is the replacement for the D300.

My dad has the D800e, the focusing issue is only when you use the focus boxes on the far left. We did confirm the issue exists as well.

Dude, unless you are making salable images or photography is a serious hobby for you, those cameras are overkill. But if you must have a full frame body, they are both very very nice!

The 18-200mm is good for what it is. But it isn't what I'd consider "good glass" (ymmv). Buy a fast 50 (for not a lot of money) and you'll get better results imho - *if* you want to work at 75mm effective.

If you want to go full frame ("FX" in Nikon terminology, eg the D800) then you need really good glass to go along with that. It is a complete waste of money to use that body with a DX lens or even the 18-200 (again imho). You are better off getting a D5100 or D7000 if you have to have a new body.

I disagree with you , Todd. As far as the lens, the 18-200 is a good walk around lens. We've tested it against all sorts of Nikon lenses and it is sharp. I'm looking at a number of my dads large prints as I type this. If you are on vacation, you don't want to be limited to 50mm. You want something that covers a whole range.

Thanks, D5100 is basically the same camera. D7000 is better with more features, but same sensor size and MP. Point being, I would probably stay put unless I wanted to go to the next mid-price point which these two fall under. And yes, I do realize they are quite a jump in price then what was previously mentioned. If this makes any difference, I do use these for my business and can expense out the purchase as a business write off.;)

It is fine as a walkaround lens. But it will not push the limits of a decent 16MP sensor - the lens will be the limiting factor wrt resolution. It will not be as good as a fast 50 or other prime lens. It also will not be as good as a fast (and expensive) 24-70/2.8. Again, it is good for what it is but long range zooms are always a compromise.

When I was back in TN I took three lenses with the Oly - 12-50 kit (24-100 equivalent), 25/1.4 and 45/1.8 primes (50 and 90mm equivalent). I shot the zoom during the day when I had good light, the small primes at night. It was perfect. A broad zoom would have been a compromise that would have resulted in half my shots being crappy.

I'm still back to the question of what is lacking with the current setup. For most current cameras, it is *not* the sensor. You do not need 24mp or 36mp to make great photos. There are a bunch of amazing 16mp sensors (the Sony one in particular - Sony and Pentax use it as does Oly) that are incredible and you are limited only by the lens, not the body.

If it is AF performance, then that is one issue. If it is resolution and sharpness, that is another. But in general primes will always outperform zooms, so if resolution and sharpness are the problem then some good primes can be an answer. If someone has a relatively recent body, a newer one often is the answer to a question that doesn't need to be asked...

The D800 replaced the D700. A D400 or D600 are both rumored as the next replacement for the D300S.
It's all in what the OP wants but there are folks still creating beautiful images with older bodies. The focus issue on the D800 may not be a big deal to some, but if I drop $3000 on a new body it shouldn't have issues like that.

Todd, on my phone and can't quote properly, but while I don't disagree that a prime lens will offer the best quality/sharpness - because it has fewer actuasl pieces of glass inside. I still disagree with some of your second paragraph. A broad zoom will only compromise in certain lighting conditions at night (or indoors). My dad is a very, very serious hobbiest, goes on many workshops with professional photographers. He does know his stuff. Not to mention he spends hours doing tests at home. The DX 18-200 is not super high end, but it performs very well in all sorts of conditions and produces excellent large prints.

We can continue to disagree though. :)

My old kit lens (18-135) actually blew one of his good lenses out of the water. So much so, that he retired that lens and replaced it.

The D800 focus issue should be resolved with a firmware update.

Half my shots in that trip were taken at night and/or indoors - exactly where you indicate the zoom would be a compromise :D

I know a lot of people like the 18-200 and it is a good lens. But at any given length it will be out-performed by an equivalent length prime. Zooms are always a compromise. One issue though is that Nikon bodies do not have any shake reduction, so that is one place where the 18-200 does pull ahead over the Nikon primes - it has VR. I look at that as a shortcoming of the body frankly, but that is another argument. I much prefer in-body stabilization so that every lens get the benefit rather than the lens-based approach of Canikon/Panasonic. One reason I currently have Oly and Sony cameras in the house and previously shot Pentax.

I end up shooting a lot of low light situations, so a fast lens will always win - and that means a prime unless I'm willing to spend a ton of money. And putting a DX lens on an FX camera just seems crazy to me.

One other thing that somewhat confounds me...why buy a camera with an interchangeable lens if you're going to stick one zoom lens on it all of the time? The whole point is to have flexibility. I've never found a super zoom lens that I liked (and yes, I shot the 18-200 some years back). I do have zooms, but the ones I've liked have always been faster (constant 2.8 or the amazing Canon 70-200/4L) and shorter range (for FF, 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, for crop 16-50/2.8 and 50-135/2.8).

But it depends on what you want to shoot and how you shoot. Like I said, I spent a week shooting about 1600 photos and took the OMD with 12-50/3.5-5.6, 25/1.4 and 45/1.8. The setup is small and light and swapping lenses was trivial. I frankly could not have gotten as good results with a super zoom under the conditions.

f1.4, 1/60, iso 1000

http://nostatic.com/photos/BNC-2012-...icture-196.jpg

Depends on the situation (and age ;) ). My dad focus is birds and landscapes. Obviously, birds is a different arena, better suited to a partial frame sensor and on those outings, he uses different and way bigger lenses. He has a 200-400mm for birds and that thing is huge and heavy. We joke that he needs a dedicated Sherpa to lug it around. For his landscape outings he is out in the field and carries as little as he can. We're talking up at 0430, out for a few hours, then back at it in the late afternoon evening. He's got to walk around with a tripod and few other things. Bringing a ton of lenses will only weigh him down. Same goes for walking around a European town all day. He doesn't want to carry multiple lenses - I don't blame him. He can't really do any birding with a walk around lens, short of some birds that get close, but it allows for a wide range of pix to be taken. It does work well at night for street scenes, not indoor intimate dinners. :D

Zooms are a compromise. Kinda. My 14-24 is sharper than any 14mm prime I have ever seen. The newest pro zooms are freekin sharp. That's for sure.

This. If you already have quality lenses, that's the way to go. Canon or Nikon. Pick your poison and stick with it. Camera bodies and features will always be updating. Lenses not as much. If you are serious you will have way more invested in glass than the camera body. Get your hands on each body see how the controls work. If the controls don't become intuitive to you you'll get frustrated and not get the most from the camera.

My wife is a serious amateur photographer. She chose Canon years ago and that's what she still uses. Currently she is using a 7D. My father-in-law's second wife has undertaken a second career as a professional photographer. She chose Nikon. Both are happy with their choice. Both take excelent photos. When they are together they sit around and talk cameras like guys talk cars or guns. When they are done they go back to taking excellent photos with their respective brands.

J

I agree about glass before camera. I have an XTi and a 5d. Both old. Some B+ to A level Canon lenses - L and primes. Both take great pics. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

The fun is in learning what you need.

Good luck.

Larry

You could always rent before you buy. That's what I do. Check out Rent professional cameras or camera lenses for Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Leica and Pentax

Good to see another OM-D user here! I love mine. I had a old Nikon D-50, and even a Leica M8(!), and flipped them to get the OM-D. Short of being a pro, I can't see why a person would not go this direction.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1343400634.jpg

My micro 4/3 body :)