PIX BY DAN wrote: Also any opinions on the D600. I currently have the D700 and I've narrowed my search to either the D600, D800 or going Canon with the 5D Mark III
What Nikkor glass do you have? The D800 is a demanding camera.
They're about equally good, overall. MkIII has better video, lower file overhead, greater FPS but not by a huge margin. D800 has greater dynamic range, higher resolution. Handling is a subjective thing but I give props to Nikon.
The bottom line is you'd have a hard time making bad photos with either if you put in the effort.
However, I can tell you that my D800 is freaking amazing. What brand/camera system are you currently with ? I'd stay in whatever it is that you're in now- each has advantages/disadvantages.
I don't mind the huge files (in fact, I love them!) however, the camera taking longer to write to the cards right when a model hits her rhythm, drives me nuts!
I have the Mk III, and I'm really happy with it - especially the low-light performance.
Except for one thing: Canon gave us great low-light performance and then crippled the low-light shooting experience by not illuminating the metering/focus point. There is just a flash of red which is way too brief to be functional. And from what I can tell, it's not on the list for a software fix.
i handled a nikon D800, a nikon D600 and a canon 6D at the store today. in terms of handling the 6D seemed kind of cut down from my 5D MK II whereas i thought the D600 held up well against the D800 (and both seemed solid). the D800 is about $800 more with rebate than the D600 but i think i could be happy with either one handling-wise. of the three i think i was most impressed by the D600 (considering the price point).
i have a big investment in canon lenses so i need to check out the 5D MK III next. i'd like to be able to shoot quality files at ISO 6400 in dark churches.
Saw that, they obviously didn't really test the AF points in various lighting conditions. If they had, they would realize it kinda sucks balls in back lighting.
As a Canon shooter I would have to say a D600. The samples of the D800 high ISO just don't look as good as the 600.
As for the MkIII, it's way too overpriced for what it is. It's what the MkII should have been, a evolution at best. Regardless none interest me enough to replace my 7D, hell it may as well be the 7DMkII with that last firmware upgrade. It's by far one of the best all around cameras out, and if you shoot action/sports/movement it's the best choice under $4k IMHO
K E S L E R
Posts: 11,443
Los Angeles, California, US
AJScalzitti wrote: As a Canon shooter I would have to say a D600. The samples of the D800 high ISO just don't look as good as the 600.
As for the MkIII, it's way too overpriced for what it is. It's what the MkII should have been, a evolution at best. Regardless none interest me enough to replace my 7D, hell it may as well be the 7DMkII with that last firmware upgrade. It's by far one of the best all around cameras out, and if you shoot action/sports/movement it's the best choice under $4k IMHO
You can find good deals on new 5D3 for like 2500-2700$ new.
What Nikkor glass do you have? The D800 is a demanding camera.
Kesler was using the d800 with a 35 1.8 (yes the dx lens). I use the 35 1.8 on my d4, the cameras are not particularly sensitive to lenses, you just have to know the limitation of the lens you are using. Any camera is going to take horrible pictures if you try and abuse the reasonable usage of the lens.
Saw that, they obviously didn't really test the AF points in various lighting conditions. If they had, they would realize it kinda sucks balls in back lighting.
What is it about the Sony that you prefer over the 5D3?
K E S L E R
Posts: 11,443
Los Angeles, California, US
shawn is boring wrote:
Kesler was using the d800 with a 35 1.8 (yes the dx lens). I use the 35 1.8 on my d4, the cameras are not particularly sensitive to lenses, you just have to know the limitation of the lens you are using. Any camera is going to take horrible pictures if you try and abuse the reasonable usage of the lens.
I used that and the 24-70 as well. Love the 35 1.8
AJScalzitti wrote: As a Canon shooter I would have to say a D600. The samples of the D800 high ISO just don't look as good as the 600.
As for the MkIII, it's way too overpriced for what it is. It's what the MkII should have been, a evolution at best. Regardless none interest me enough to replace my 7D, hell it may as well be the 7DMkII with that last firmware upgrade. It's by far one of the best all around cameras out, and if you shoot action/sports/movement it's the best choice under $4k IMHO
+1 for 7D . I used 7D for most of my jobs. Im going to buy the mkIII as my xmas gift!
If you are mainly interested in still photography I think Nikon is a much better place to be right now. Canon has been busy building HDSLRs and chasing RED. It's almost like Nikon and Canon are no longer competing.
The 5DIII was a pretty modest update of the 5DII. It's the camera the 5DII should have been. The D800 is a landscape & studio camera. If you keep the D800 below ISO 100 it simply cannot be touched by anything under $10k. If you want a versatile camera that can be used on the run, grab the D600.
Phil Drinkwater
Posts: 4,233
Manchester, England, United Kingdom
Robb Mann wrote: The 5DIII was a pretty modest update of the 5DII. It's the camera the 5DII should have been.
I can guarantee you that this is not the case lol! It's certainly a camera that doesn't shine that much in the fanboy specs, but use one for a few months and it's a whole different affair
London Fog
Posts: 5,003
London, England, United Kingdom
AJScalzitti wrote: As a Canon shooter I would have to say a D600. The samples of the D800 high ISO just don't look as good as the 600.
As for the MkIII, it's way too overpriced for what it is. It's what the MkII should have been, a evolution at best. Regardless none interest me enough to replace my 7D, hell it may as well be the 7DMkII with that last firmware upgrade. It's by far one of the best all around cameras out, and if you shoot action/sports/movement it's the best choice under $4k IMHO
Agree 100%, the 7D is amazing, absolutely in love with it!
London Fog
Posts: 5,003
London, England, United Kingdom
Phil Drinkwater wrote:
I can guarantee you that this is not the case lol! It's certainly a camera that doesn't shine that much in the fanboy specs, but use one for a few months and it's a whole different affair
And Oh... those Canon primes...
It does look and feel very good, way better than the 5DII, but at over £2K, c'mon!
I honestly believe that this is the sole reason why many C users have switched to N, specifically the D800, and even more so now as it's hundreds less than the 5DIII!
Phil Drinkwater
Posts: 4,233
Manchester, England, United Kingdom
London Fog wrote: It does look and feel very good, way better than the 5DII, but at over £2K, c'mon!
I honestly believe that this is the sole reason why many C users have switched to N, specifically the D800, and even more so now as it's hundreds less than the 5DIII!
£2ishK for a mini 1DX? That's bad value? It's an extremely well put together camera with very few significant issues - really just the viewfinder, unless you want to push low ISO shadows or need to have a bit more resolution.
Personally I think it's Canons finest hour, at least for my wedding work.
It and the d800 are constantly and IMO incorrectly compared. They aren't similar really. The d4 and 1dx are, but the 5d3 and d800 are different cameras for different markets. Their specs are different. They're good at different things.
That level of AF ability is something I'm honestly surprised was introduced into the camera.
It's original price was too much, which I said at the time. Right now it's great value.
I can't comment that much about the d800 past specs etc... I've not used it. But I have used the 5d3 for 9 months
Pair the D800 with the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4G Classic Portrait Lens and you are ready to rock the studio! Image quality with this pairing is flat out mindblowing! colors... brokeh... DOF @ low light... the D800 demands extreme quality lenses & Nikon has the primes to fit the bill. You will not be disappointed!
Only caveat... the huge file sizes take longer to process in PS even with 16gb memory. but oh so worth it when you supply the final product to your clients!
when you think about it, $3000 for such a quality tool is incredibly cheap!
For me it is the Nikon D800, already have the D200 & D700 & just bought the
D800. Truth is Cannon makes great cameras and they both do the job well.
The key is in the lens and that is where most of my money goes. Having said that I also believe that with the right lighting, subject, background set and a
lot of attention to detail. One slice of film, a shoe box with a hole at the far end
will make a fantastic photo. As good as our cameras get they are still only
tools and lack the ability to generate concepts. But then we have Photo Shop
for that...
London Fog
Posts: 5,003
London, England, United Kingdom
Was testing and playing around with a The 5DIII earlier today, it's very, very nice and as Phil mentioned really well put together, super fast and feels fantastic with an L lens, the 24-105 in this case (love this lens!), all awesome!
But, I guess my point is why would anyone pay 2100.00 for this when the D800 can be had for 1900.00, unless you've already invested in some serious L glass.
Phil Drinkwater
Posts: 4,233
Manchester, England, United Kingdom
London Fog wrote: But, I guess my point is why would anyone pay 2100.00 for this when the D800 can be had for 1900.00, unless you've already invested in some serious L glass.
Because it's undoubtedly better at some things
You pick the tool that most closely matches your needs. £200, when you're making money from photography, is pretty much irrelevant. If you're not, that's more difficult of a decision.
Robert Jewett
Posts: 2,257
al-MarsÄ, Tunis, Tunisia
Phil Drinkwater wrote: I can guarantee you that this is not the case lol! It's certainly a camera that doesn't shine that much in the fanboy specs, but use one for a few months and it's a whole different affair
And Oh... those Canon primes...
QFT.
I have a Mark III and it is absolutely unbelievable. I just shot at the 'dyer's market' in Marrakech, and I got images in what looked like to me to be pitch black. With smoke. And movement. Here is one for you.
(Manual exposure, 1/125 sec, f/2.8, ISO 25600).
Some (but not a lot) of processing, color noise reduction of a couple points in ACR. My client never ever expected to get this image.
K E S L E R
Posts: 11,443
Los Angeles, California, US
Robb Mann wrote: The 5DIII was a pretty modest update of the 5DII. It's the camera the 5DII should have been. The D800 is a landscape & studio camera. If you keep the D800 below ISO 100 it simply cannot be touched by anything under $10k. If you want a versatile camera that can be used on the run, grab the D600.
Modest in terms of megapixels for the sensor. The 5D2 for most people is the perfect camera, its only short comings was the AF. Which of course is now the 5D3.
D800 would have killed it, if Nikon got the AF right.
I have a Mark III and it is absolutely unbelievable. I just shot at the 'dyer's market' in Marrakech, and I got images in what looked like to me to be pitch black. With smoke. And movement. Here is one for you.
(Manual exposure, 1/125 sec, f/2.8, ISO 25600).
Some (but not a lot) of processing, color noise reduction of a couple points in ACR. My client never ever expected to get this image.
I checked out the D800. In terms of sensor it is so nice for making those big prints.
Yet knowing Canon so well and having the lenses that are perfect for me Nikon just didn't do it.
As much as I despise Canon for raising the price for what is a modest update, they just made the 5DIII what I wanted in the II.
I have shot a few times and I'll say it does everything right , now. The D800 was hunting for focus, something that I don't see the 5DIII doing, unless it is really low contrast light or target.
Canon has the lenses I need, Nikon has the sensor.
Since the majority of the frames are already good the Canon then is the right camera for me. That is until gallery work becomes my goal then I should buy the Nikon after all.
Neil Snape wrote: That is until gallery work becomes my goal then I should buy the Nikon after all.
If that happens, depending on your subject matter of course, I would spend some time with a MFDB first.
Just grabbed a 22 for a few months to see if I liked the workflow before shelling out for a higher rez back, and I am simply blown away buy the enlargements I can make from this (very old and cheap) bit of kit. I'm using RZ glass, which is incredibly sharp and using proper technique to get the sharpest image I can and the results are fabulous.
I've regularly printed 20x25 with a 12mp D2x and the prints look fantastic and sharp at reasonable viewing distances up to say 8 inches away (obviously good technique has a lot to do with it - i.e., tripod, mirror lock up, cable release, best glass available, etc.). With the Aptus 22 I have no doubt I could double that with MUCH better tonality (16bit). I can't wait to see how the newer, higher resolution back handles.
Now, having said all of that, unless required for the subject matter, for all gallery work I still shoot film, which is generally what my gallery and the other galleries I speak with, prefer. This is not true for all galleries by any stretch, most will take both, but it has been my experience. Also, except for a few names that are exceptions, a film based fine art workflow will net you higher asking prices, at least in my market. Hybrid workflows are also valued (i.e., shoot on 4x5, scan, composite with other negatives, create a digital neg, make a platinum print).
| 
| 
| edu