Canon 5D MKIII or Nikon D800

olv · 2 Jan 2014 at 00:00

Raymond Lin said:
I ordered the Black one.

If it doesn't look like it will then i will cancel and get the X-Pro 1.

Done the same. I really fancy the X-E2 so will go that way if this doesn't work out.

Raymond Lin · 2 Jan 2014 at 00:57

The X-E2 actually is not as much as I thought (still a bit much for a toy), and no offer on for that at the moment.

If it had a free 35mm lens offer like the X-Pro I would've gone for that instead.

An Exception · 2 Jan 2014 at 01:44

What's the saying RL, buy right buy once?
I can see how people end up switching without intending to, like David Hobby.

D.P. · 2 Jan 2014 at 02:50

Raymond Lin said:
Ah, bummer.

I am not paying that much...it's £800!

It's supposed to be a toy for gods sake lol

And that is why Fuji's sales have failed to penetrate the market. It may not matter, like Leica, but then prices might creep higher and higher as Fuji gear becomes more and more specialized and high end.

One thing Fuji is really doing nicely is making dedicated APS-C primes. Nikon and canon are really bad at doing this, we get endless kit zooms but few high end DX/EFS primes. Even Pentax makes canon and Nikon look shamefully inadequate.

Ksanti · 2 Jan 2014 at 03:12

D.P. said:
One thing Fuji is really doing nicely is making dedicated APS-C primes. Nikon and canon are really bad at doing this, we get endless kit zooms but few high end DX/EFS primes. Even Pentax makes canon and Nikon look shamefully inadequate.

Given we already have the venerable prime lineups that Canikon have available, why would building a high-end prime lineup for APS-C make any sense whatsoever? People who shoot primes typically are doing so for either IQ, low light performance, or depth of field control (which I know you hate oh so much). APS-C only primes would go against all these advantages by limiting their usage on larger sensors which gain those three advantages in and of themselves, while also putting them in the weird position that lenses like the Nikon 17-55 2.8 is in as an incredibly expensive lens that actively discourages the use of the brand's top equipment.

If you want a 35 1.4 for APS-C you can just shoot a 35 1.4. 50's in particular I see absolutely no reason to develop an APS-C model let alone a high end one. There's not enough of a size or cost advantage to justify the money spent on research and development into a new line of lenses, high end lenses even less so, when these lenses exist. In certain scenarios are the wide end, perhaps dedicated APS-C is reasonable, but I'm fairly sure where the reasons are there, the lenses exist e.g. the various 8mm style lenses.

I understand Fuji's obvious incentive to develop these lineups but the same just isn't true in the Canikon systems where the same ends are met by moving to a larger sensor, yes with a size/weight disadvantage but not one that would outweigh the level of investment you seem to expect.

An Exception · 2 Jan 2014 at 03:13

personally I think there is a tipping point. That tipping point is when mirrorless can go toe to toe with a traditional DSLR from a performance perspective. Once performance is equal or better, Pros will begin to flock to them. Such small/cool looking camera's have the inherent advantage of not intimidating people/subjects. That alone is a big deal. It's also a camera you can take anywhere and not look a tool. Again another big inherent advantage. Average Joe will follow the pro's, but right now they are behind the curve. So far neither Nikon or Canon have shown much sign of producing anything remotely interesting. By the time they do Fuji or Sony will already have a mature system.

If I was only shooting mid range DSLRs, i would have already switched. It's only because I'm being a little unreasonable and expecting a mirrorless solution to pretty much match my D800's before I switch that I haven't done so.
The X-E2 alone is very close, and Sony 'may' be in with a shout by the time the a8 etc. is released.

D.P. · 2 Jan 2014 at 03:33

Ksanti said:
Given we already have the venerable prime lineups that Canikon have available, why would building a high-end prime lineup for APS-C make any sense whatsoever? People who shoot primes typically are doing so for either IQ, low light performance, or depth of field control (which I know you hate oh so much). APS-C only primes would go against all these advantages by limiting their usage on larger sensors which gain those three advantages in and of themselves, while also putting them in the weird position that lenses like the Nikon 17-55 2.8 is in as an incredibly expensive lens that actively discourages the use of the brand's top equipment.

If you want a 35 1.4 for APS-C you can just shoot a 35 1.4. 50's in particular I see absolutely no reason to develop an APS-C model let alone a high end one. There's not enough of a size or cost advantage to justify the money spent on research and development into a new line of lenses, high end lenses even less so, when these lenses exist. In certain scenarios are the wide end, perhaps dedicated APS-C is reasonable, but I'm fairly sure where the reasons are there, the lenses exist e.g. the various 8mm style lenses.

I understand Fuji's obvious incentive to develop these lineups but the same just isn't true in the Canikon systems where the same ends are met by moving to a larger sensor, yes with a size/weight disadvantage but not one that would outweigh the level of investment you seem to expect.

There are plenty of missing APS-c primes that would be a greatlY welcomed, 16mm f1.8, 12mm f2.0/2.8 etc.

The importance of the pies for APS-C are exactly what you day, better IQ, better low light and shallow DoF without having to go for a FF camera and have the larger more expensive lenses. The Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX is a great example of an excellent crop lens and highlights exactly why they are needed and desired. Great performance at a fraction of the price of the FF equivalent.

D.P. · 2 Jan 2014 at 03:42

An Exception said:
personally I think there is a tipping point. That tipping point is when mirrorless can go toe to toe with a traditional DSLR from a performance perspective. Once performance is equal or better, Pros will begin to flock to them. Such small/cool looking camera's have the inherent advantage of not intimidating people/subjects. That alone is a big deal. It's also a camera you can take anywhere and not look a tool. Again another big inherent advantage. Average Joe will follow the pro's, but right now they are behind the curve. So far neither Nikon or Canon have shown much sign of producing anything remotely interesting. By the time they do Fuji or Sony will already have a mature system.

If I was only shooting mid range DSLRs, i would have already switched. It's only because I'm being a little unreasonable and expecting a mirrorless solution to pretty much match my D800's before I switch that I haven't done so.
The X-E2 alone is very close, and Sony 'may' be in with a shout by the time the a8 etc. is released.

The thing is once that tipping point is reached is when CaNikon will have updated their DSLR lineup to be mirrorless.

Everyone expects canon and Nikon to drop the mirror eventually, it just makes so much more sense long term. Reduced mechanical complexity, simpler cameras, no mirror slap, faster FPS, No viewfinder blackout, smaller, lighter, cheaper, quieter.

The Nikon 1 shows clearly that Nikon's intent is to mirrorless.they put huge amounts of R&D into making a series of cameras that behave like DSLRS. The small sensor was to allow small lenses for those people that want a smaller system. Nikon still seemingly have the best PDAf on-sensor AF, they could convert their whole DSLR line up very quickly when the time is right.

The thing is that tipping point is way further out than you imagine or want. Mirrorless sales have dropped while DSLRs have increased.

The mirrors will go, don't worry. You just have to be patient.

Raymond Lin · 2 Jan 2014 at 07:11

An Exception said:
What's the saying RL, buy right buy once?
I can see how people end up switching without intending to, like David Hobby.

jonneymendoza · 2 Jan 2014 at 10:02

An Exception said:
personally I think there is a tipping point. That tipping point is when mirrorless can go toe to toe with a traditional DSLR from a performance perspective. Once performance is equal or better, Pros will begin to flock to them. Such small/cool looking camera's have the inherent advantage of not intimidating people/subjects. That alone is a big deal. It's also a camera you can take anywhere and not look a tool. Again another big inherent advantage. Average Joe will follow the pro's, but right now they are behind the curve. So far neither Nikon or Canon have shown much sign of producing anything remotely interesting. By the time they do Fuji or Sony will already have a mature system.

If I was only shooting mid range DSLRs, i would have already switched. It's only because I'm being a little unreasonable and expecting a mirrorless solution to pretty much match my D800's before I switch that I haven't done so.
The X-E2 alone is very close, and Sony 'may' be in with a shout by the time the a8 etc. is released.

i dont mind making the jump to mirrorless camera's but i think they are still a good 4-5 years till they are as good as a traditional DSLR

Raymond Lin · 3 Jan 2014 at 15:38

Change of heart, cancelled it because if I don't use the Olympus then £550 on the Fuji would be a waste of money really, plus deep down I would rather have something with a viewfinder really (X-Pro 1 or X-E2)…so going to wait until those are cheaper or newer models out.

So going to get another L instead…watch this space

jonneymendoza · 3 Jan 2014 at 15:43

Raymond Lin said:
Change of heart, cancelled it because if I don't use the Olympus then £550 on the Fuji would be a waste of money really, plus deep down I would rather have something with a viewfinder really (X-Pro 1 or X-E2)…so going to wait until those are cheaper or newer models out.

So going to get another L instead…watch this space

canceled another 5d3 or a d800? if neither then this thread has definitely ran its course lol

An Exception · 3 Jan 2014 at 15:43

^^^
Good decision I think.
I also think getting something like a X-E2 might be a little dangerous, you might unwittingly become converted with such a camera.

ElDude · 3 Jan 2014 at 18:35

I just thought I'd have a nose about regarding the X-E2. What the hell has happened to Dpreview? It seems rather sucky now with loads of low end stuff being reviewed and only previews of the better items.

D.P. · 3 Jan 2014 at 19:01

ElDude said:
I just thought I'd have a nose about regarding the X-E2. What the hell has happened to Dpreview? It seems rather sucky now with loads of low end stuff being reviewed and only previews of the better items.

DPreview have sucked for a long time. Every product basically has to get a score between 77% and 87% and it is mostly completely random.

TBH, there are really very few good review sites out there. You can get the numbers from DXmark/photozone/slrgear to get an idea of what to expect performance wise and then you really just need to try the camera/lens for yourself.

Really, most other aspects of a camera end up really subjective and most people give biased opiunion oin their purchase so it tends to be meaningless when one person says the control suck on Camera X, or camera y had focus problems.

The only exception i really trust is Thom Hogan's in depth reviews, but he doesn't review Canon DSLRs. His mirror-less reviews on sans mirror are great at understanding how a pro photographer using mirror-less gear perceives each camera.

Rojin · 3 Jan 2014 at 19:05

Raymond Lin said:
Change of heart, cancelled it because if I don't use the Olympus then £550 on the Fuji would be a waste of money really, plus deep down I would rather have something with a viewfinder really (X-Pro 1 or X-E2)…so going to wait until those are cheaper or newer models out.

So going to get another L instead…watch this space

I was on the verge of ordering an X-Pro1 or X-E2... but ordered something else instead, no L lens for me though

jonneymendoza · 3 Jan 2014 at 22:01

An Exception said:
^^^
Good decision I think.
I also think getting something like a X-E2 might be a little dangerous, you might unwittingly become converted with such a camera.

cool

ElDude · 3 Jan 2014 at 22:07

D.P. said:
DPreview have sucked for a long time. Every product basically has to get a score between 77% and 87% and it is mostly completely random.

TBH, there are really very few good review sites out there. You can get the numbers from DXmark/photozone/slrgear to get an idea of what to expect performance wise and then you really just need to try the camera/lens for yourself.

Really, most other aspects of a camera end up really subjective and most people give biased opiunion oin their purchase so it tends to be meaningless when one person says the control suck on Camera X, or camera y had focus problems.

The only exception i really trust is Thom Hogan's in depth reviews, but he doesn't review Canon DSLRs. His mirror-less reviews on sans mirror are great at understanding how a pro photographer using mirror-less gear perceives each camera.

I shall go have a nose, ta

Raymond Lin · 3 Jan 2014 at 22:08

I think at the end of the day, I would use a L glass more than the Fuji.

Plus, the residual value of an L is much better than a mirrorless body and a kit lens.

Mp4 · 4 Jan 2014 at 20:12

Janesy B said:
Why do you regret it?

Play with both, buy the system that gives you the lenses you want and the layout you feel comfortable with. After all these are just tools for taking pictures, you're still responsible for the end output. I don't regret stick with Canon on crop even though Nikon trounces Canon crop cameras for IQ, because it was a faster operating camera with a better buffer and AF and that was more important for me. I feel comfortable using it too so that will contribute to the overall quality of whatever I do. It's easy to argue till the end of the world but neither are bad cameras, just get the one that does the job for you.

Coming from a 400D to a 5D3 I was expecting a wow factor with portraits/landscapes.

I Just can't seem to get tac sharp focus and at 1/60th sec on a 24-70 is just silly soft.

And using a D3S for a day a few months back and it was stupid sharp.