PTFPhoto wrote:
This is interesting.  I do not shoot weddings, but have many friends who do.  All seemed to say DR was important, particularly when trying to balance the bride's white dress with the grooms customary dark suit, and especially outside in sunlight.  But as you say, perhaps your needs are different.  The 5D3 is certainly a wonderful offering.  I think the primes from both companies are quite nice, and for posed work, or basic candid work, I've found that nearly anything over 3-4 fps is plenty.  I don't know who told you the D800 doesn't handle well, but I think it's pretty fantastic.  And frankly given the market response to the camera, I'd have to say MANY other people find it so as well.

I shoot raw and never have a lack of dr. Don't forget that wedding photographers are shooting at iso800+ as much as 400-, and there the d800 and 5d3 have equal dr (in fact I believe the 5d3 has the edge at high iso). You can see plenty of examples on my site: http://www.phildweddingphotography.co.uk/

The only time I've needed more dr is when I've been trying to equalise someone in the shadows with someone in the sunshine. If your friends are saying even the 5d2 can't handle the dr requirements of weddings - even without flash - they're doing something very strange   Maybe they shoot jpeg?

I can push the shadows of my 5d3 1-2 stops, no problem. Keeping a white dress even with a rim light and a dark suit properly toned is easy. Would I like more dr? Sure - in about 2 or 3 cases a year I could do with more so when it comes I'll be happy but I'd never upgrade for sensor performance at low iso - what I have does all I need now.

It's funny, but when I'm saying that people are pretty much not believing me, but it's true. It's like someone in Africa saying to someone in Greenland "this aircon in my car is amazing - you need it!!". "ummm I live in Greenland so I kinda don't need aircon...". "no, you don't understand, you do need it"

The general handling of the d800 and d4, and the screens, are the two most common complaints I hear about the two.

ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:
I see currently Nikon is better than Canon as it offer more for less money.

And I think there is the problem that people are pointing out. It offers *you* more for less, but for me it offers *less* for less. Why should I covet *less* when I can have *more*, even if it costs *more*? If I need a hammer, offering me an amazing saw just wont cut it (see what I did there )

The "offering more for less money" is not absolute - it's just your perception.

Your definition of less and more are completely and fundamentally different to mine. Yours is all about the sensor. Mine isn't. That doesn't make either of us right or wrong, just different.

PTFPhoto wrote:
I'd give social to Canon, but not so sure about sports.  Until I see the new cameras do what the D3s and D4 are doing, I'll reserve judgement.

There's not much out there, but a little..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YnhJk4hoq8 (I love these lol! So funny!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyNFOPrIKmQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNGlMen4R18 (he was wrong about the EC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuLSADtJ6n8

No idea whether people will switch and it really doesn't matter, but pretty much everyone I've seen gives a nod to the 1dx. They put a lot into this camera.

Time will tell..

ei Total Productions wrote:
How did this turn into a Canon - vs- Nikon thread?

It became a n vs c thread with the reply on the first page. As soon as someone started trashing canon

However mostly the recent comments have been quite nice

Anyway it seems to have wandered so I'll certainly duck out, with apologies.

Phil Drinkwater wrote:
I think it's also important to realise that your view is only *your view* of the world.

My current work is mainly weddings (I love them) and high DR is simply not an issue, nor is MP. The 5d3 feature set - when you take price, lens availability etc.. and all features into account - is better than any other camera for weddings full stop IMHO. I have the incredible primes. I have silent shutter. I have 6fps and plenty of resolution. I have fantastic handling (which I hear is not do great in a d800). I don't use flash much so the fact that the Nikon flash system is reportedly better is irrelevant.

In fact, one of my Nikon friends is currently selling all of his gear since he loves my Canon stuff so much. He's raved about his new 1dx and is disappointed in equal measure with the d4. I told him not to, but he is doing. He's not the only one to do this.

There is a mass of photography that happens outside of this relatively small part of the industry. Maybe Canon is prioritising them? Modelling work and landscape work is definitely Nikons territory this time, as it was Canons last time. But fundamentally it's not that Canon has lost ground to Nikon **it's that Canon and Nikon have switched places**. Nikon is now modelling and landscapes and Canon is now sports and social.

You seem to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is a Canon fanboy. Maybe they just have a different view and different needs and, actually, the difficulty here is that you just can't see that?

I'm not being nasty, but honestly it is starting to seem that way

+1

The 5D III is perfect for me (almost.. 1DX would be better)... If Canon came out with a 46MP camera I wouldn't even consider it for a nanosecond. There is no way I want, much less need, a camera with that many megapixels.  To me, unless one needs to crop to 1/4 the original size or they print fine art prints over 6 feet on the shortest side, I can't understand why one would need or want a camera with so many megapixels. To me, it is a marketing ploy that many have been sucked into and I for one am extremely happy Canon has not focused on MP's.

I do not consider myself a fanboy, but have never even thought of going to Nikon. I am invested in Canon equipment and am perfectly happy with the images/performance/price of Canon equipment so therefore do not have the slightest inclination to switch brands.

Edit.. I do think the 5DIII, 24-70 II and 70-200 2.8 II were all overpriced initially. Prices have come down to more reasonable numbers.

I have the 5D MkIII and still think the trio is over priced sorry. I have the 70-200 Is 1 and that will do me until it dies.

Kevin Connery wrote:

Some people believe it is their duty to attack a brand, concept, or philosophy. Others believe it's their duty to defend a brand, concept, or philosophy. Even when it's not the subject under discussion.

Neither belong here unless they can overcome that misguided belief.

And I apologise...

Phil Drinkwater wrote:

And I think there is the problem that people are pointing out. It offers *you* more for less, but for me it offers *less* for less. Why should I covet *less* when I can have *more*, even if it costs *more*? If I need a hammer, offering me an amazing saw just wont cut it (see what I did there )

The "offering more for less money" is not absolute - it's just your perception.

Your definition of less and more are completely and fundamentally different to mine. Yours is all about the sensor. Mine isn't. That doesn't make either of us right or wrong, just different.

This is true.  There is a lot more to a camera than just the sensor.  I was thinking the same thing.

moving pictures wrote:

I guess so - compared to you.  Care to share your wisdom.

the  sensor  size  on  the Hasseblad  cameras  is  larger!

the  quality  on the  Hasseblad  lenses  is  higher

do  most photogs  need  all this extra resolving power?  probably not!