Mid range DSLR Camera comparison, any thoughts?

89911 · 07-26-2012, 12:45 PM

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,

slakjaw · 07-26-2012, 01:02 PM

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.

kaisen · 07-26-2012, 01:07 PM

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.

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by 89911

I have been using my Nikon D5000 DSLR for a few years now and I want more.

"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)?

Hugh R · 07-26-2012, 01:31 PM

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

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

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

slakjaw · 07-26-2012, 02:10 PM

Yeah plus glass holds its value.

Quote:

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

Rusty Heap · Rusty Heap's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by nostatic

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

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 .

deanp · 07-26-2012, 02:21 PM

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.

89911 · 07-26-2012, 03:06 PM

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.

slodave · slodave's Garage

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")?

slodave · slodave's Garage

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

slakjaw · 07-26-2012, 03:21 PM

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.

slodave · slodave's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by deanp

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.

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.

slakjaw · 07-26-2012, 03:32 PM

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!

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by 89911

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.

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.

slodave · slodave's Garage

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.

89911 · 07-26-2012, 04:15 PM

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.

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by slodave

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.

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...

deanp · 07-26-2012, 05:01 PM

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.