Neil Snape wrote: Since the majority of the frames are already good the Canon then is the right camera for me.
This is where I'm at with a lot of my gear because it's just getting so good (finally).
I love the D800 but I'm not salivating over it because the D700 I own does it all really well already. 36mp is fantastic but requires an entire workflow overhaul I'm not committed to just yet - all of my clients are concerned about fast turn-around and the work is going to web and, when printed, magazine layout where 12mp is already plenty.
When I've had clients rent out the D800, it performs like a champ - even better AF than the D700 and for my purposes, even better high ISO performance.
I just hope when I do end up buying one, support for it is around for at least 7-10 years because there will be no need to replace it. If I had Canon glass I'd be looking at the MkIII and calling it done for a long while.
PIX BY DAN wrote: What's everyone's opinion on the two cameras.
The camera is just one of the photography tools. Both cameras you mentioned are capable enough. But there are many other tools you need to get a decent photo.
What counts most is the knowledge. This makes you unique in the crowd of average camera users. It doesn’t help you to have the best camera on the world when someone else can make a better photo even with a phone. So if I were you I would invest in some of the good tutorials. But sure. There are tons of them but not many are good.
I own a D800, planning on getting the D600 as backup body and impatiently waiting for the D4X or sumthin' to get my killer 35mm pro-body. I use 105mm-micro f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 and often use TC 2x on 105 and 70-200. Planning to get the 14-24 and 300 f/2.8.
It's a matter of tastes I guess.... It's like asking if Michael Jordan was a better basketball player because he had good shoes... I wonder if he would have been as good sponsored by Converse ? you know ? that kind of pointless...
Greenock, Scotland, United Kingdom
I just upgraded from the MkII to III. I doidn't do this because I thought it was better or worse than any Nikon, or any other make. I upgraded because I use Canon. I don't like the way Nikon's feel in my hand. I'm not exactly a fan of how they do things either, and that was the major reason for moving away from Nikon Film Cameras a number of years ago.
I have been using the Mk II for a couple of years and, in mostly, I like the way it fits my hands, and does what it does. The focus in low light is atrocious, the damned thing should never hit the shelves with a focus engine like it has.
I have just had my first shoot with the MkIII. I'm sure I had a grin through the whole shoot. I really like the way this camera works, I love the way it fits my hand, I love the way it works, from the positive on switch, through the soft but positive shutter release, to the really rather nice, (but nowhere near as nice as my old Contax's) viewfinder, to the very slick and fast focus.....need I go on?
I upgraded for several reasons. I didn't upgrade to a different make of camera. I upgraded because I recognised the shortcomings in the old camera, and confirm that they had all been improved in the new model.
I have a growing pile of Canon lenses, so there was no point in changing makes, it would have cost me an arm and a leg to change all the lenses, plus, knowing your lenses is very definitely a good reason for sticking with the same make.
Oh, and yes, I still don't like the way Nikons feel, they are just not comfortable in my hands, a VERY important consideration in my view. a dislike that extends to other names, not just Nikon. I don't like how they work either, so, no-brainer.
If you are just starting out, go find a store which has both, and handle the darned things, a sensible move even if you are not just starting out. Just because I like one brand doesn't necessarily mean that you will feel the same. Mind you, I doubt if you are just starting out, neither of these cameras should be considered suitable for a beginner.
I suppose my answer is, the Canon suits me, it does what I want the way I want it. You, you can ask as many people as you like, in the end, it's up to yo.
£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
I've been using a 5D3 since the day they became available and it's really nothing close to a mini 1DX other than similarities in the AF system.
London Fog wrote: There is no known issue, not with Nikon in the USA or Europe, perhaps it's the people using the camera, it is after all a highly complex piece of equipment as you so aptly pointed out!
Until the time Nikon actually acknowledge the issue, it simply doesn't exist! I have two of them, not a single trace of this nonsense or the so called 'green tint' LCD.
Better luck next time!
"Falk Lume met with Nikon representatives at Photiokina and discussed the D800 left focusing issue. Portion of his recap is included, read the rest here:
Nikon has acknowledged, found and understood the root cause of the issue. It has been eliminated in the current production (however, I guess we'll never know when and from which serial numbers on).
The root cause is a misalignment of the AF module when mounted, outside of Nikon's own production tolerances. But be asserted we are still talking micro meters here ...
The issue for affected D800 can be solved in selected Nikon service centers; such as Düsseldorf, Germany.
The procedure is currently rolled out to more Nikon service centers.
The fixing procedure for Nikon is a tedious one. It includes writing individual calibration values into the firmware. For larger deviations, the AF module will first mechanically be re-aligned. This may actually include the AF auxiliary mirror in some cases.
This method is believed to deliver an autofocus precision which is at least as good as of cameras from a fresh batch. I could not clarify if there is a chance for both methods being non-equivalent in some way. However, Nikon Germany does not think so. They rather wholeheartedly believe that the in-service calibration procedure resolves the issue as good as current production does, if not better.
Nikon does actually not know how many D800 of the early batches have been affected. Despite all oddities, the so-called service-rate of the D800 is unremarkable and only "sligthly increased" (compared to other camera models)."
You're using your two as evidence? Compared with everyone else?
K E S L E R wrote: 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.
For me the D800 is the greatest digital camera I've ever used. Kessler..sorry you got a lemon. I've now used 4 different D800 bodies (own one borrowed 3 others for tests) with zero AF issues. And AF is the main reason I shoot Nikon over Canon. Love the 5DM2 (used it several times for the video and of course I had to shoot some stills as well) but, to use your terminology, the AF sucked balls. My eyesight is not what it used to be and I now have very large prints of my work in demand so there is no room for mis focus problems. If I could focus it I'd buy the Zeiss 25mm. But I can't. So I lean heavily on AF. And yes I did consider the Canon 5DM3 when shopping since it was obvious most of my Nikkor FF glass was not up to snuff on the D800. But when I tested the Video on the D800 and found it to be fantastic I figured there was nothing Canon could offer me.
London, England, United Kingdom
If there is/has been an issue, Nikon should really come clean, investigate it and publish the affected serial no's or at the very least advise us that a Firmware upgrade or fix is available, other than the current fix, which sounds like a complete pain and very inconvenient.
When I checked with Nikon UK some 2 months ago, they firmly denied having any knowledge of such an issue, I also asked Grays of Westminster (The UK's premier Nikon dealer), LCE and others here in London, none have reported any such issues!
Sorry to those guys who have experienced this, but the majority of us are just not seeing this or any others problems. It is quite simply the most incredible DSLR I have ever used, almost too good to be true!
There is simply nothing that comes close to it, when all factors are taken into account!
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...
I completely agree and I own both the MK II and MK III and it is more of a significant upgrade than people are giving it credit for. No they didn't go over 30mp's but it is a great camera. I used to think like that too, until I bought it.
Karlsruhe, Baden-Württemberg, Germany
K E S L E R wrote:
Possibly! and also has 10 times the amounts of returns and cameras in for repairs
How true! My D800E and D4 went to Nikon to replace the AF module plus finetuning. I was on a waiting list, because there were many others first. But at least it was made under warranty. Both cameras came back from Nikon after 4 weeks.