Canon 5D3 or Nikon D800(E)

Digifrog said:
This is going to be a crucial factor with me. I haven't seen the 5D3's internal structuring yet but the D800 looks almoost airtight.

I'm still stuck between the D800(E)+24-70mm f/2.8 & the 5D3+24-105mm, which pricewise is on a par. I am swayed towards the Nikon body/lens partnership atm, but the 16-35mm f/4 is niggling away at the back of my mind too.

The Zeiss 21mm 2.8 is likely for whichever camera I opt for.

I'm still none the clearer really. Like I said, it's seeing images taken by normal people and analysing EXIF'S that will probably make my mind up.

But £2999? Are they having a laugh?
Click to expand...


When the 5D2 first appeared, I believe it was RRP'd at £2500. Save for the big boys, you could pick one up in the region of £1700 within a year and it's £1500 now. I would expect the price of the 5D3 to settle at around £1800-£2000 in around a year's time.

I really don't know why Canon is pushing the envelope on pricing. It's likely to be a case of what the market can bear. If the uptake is slow, the price will surely fall. The economics of electronics equipment tend to work out that way and Canon won't want slow-moving stocks of two new high end bodies. Waiting a year is going to be a pain since by then I will be a year older too :eek:

Hope you're enjoying your D80. When I entered the world of DSLR my intended body was the D80 but when I tried it out it didn't suit me as much as the EOS 40D. Back on topic, you seem to be at a crossroads. From my own experience, after acquiring the 40D, I hankered after a D700. The grass looked greener on the other side. However when I changed career, I went the Canon route. Either would probably have suited but I'm glad I stayed the course. Canon gives me all I need or think I need ;)
 
Last edited:
Flashman said:
Last time I looked Nikon had three lenses that both tilt AND shift... :thinking:
Click to expand...

Having used the 24 PC-E I can confirm that it does indeed have both a tilt and shift function.

As to the original question can't say that either one appeals, at the mo I'm waiting to see what Nikon offer with a D300s replacement.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Short answer is yes.
Click to expand...

Yep, for the amateur you'd need to be on crack (or seriously wealthy), £3k for a body come on Canon. Of course it looks lovely, but for £3k it bloody should do. The future is not in DSLR's IMHO, csc's are catching up all the time. Anyway I'm probably talking crap (had a bad day)
 
well their 70-200 is not particularly good on full frame models

nikons 17-55 is £300 more than the efs version and lacks IS
their 18-200 lenses are £200 more

nikon lack cheaper end lenses for the prosumer user. not everyone wants to spend £580 on a peice of pants 18-200 lens. That is not a budget lens ;)

I never had a problem with my EF-s 10-22, 17-85 or 17-55 f2.8 IS lenses in terms of build quality, IQ or any other value you care to attach.



Phil Young said:
Surely you're having a laugh? What are Nikon missing? Canon efs lenses are ******...serious peices of junk...I think Nikon leaves them for dust in the budget lens department. Then lets compare both manufactorer 24-70 canons version is shocking! Oh... Perhaps that's why they brought out the "mk2".
Click to expand...
 
Houston1863 said:
When the 5D2 first appeared, I believe it was RRP'd at £2500. Save for the big boys, you could pick one up in the region of £1700 within a year and it's £1500 now. I would expect the price of the 5D3 to settle at around £1800-£2000 in around a year's time.
Click to expand...

I can't wait that long. Four months max I'd say and that is if I stop myself from stepping into the local camera shop.

Houston1863 said:
...you seem to be at a crossroads.
Click to expand...

You could say that, it's more a spaghetti junction really. First I need to decide Canon or Nikon, if I decide Nikon will it be the regular or E D800 and then what lens config to go for. To be honest it's doing my flippin' head in :bonk::LOL:
 
Last edited:
Purely based on specs if I were starting from zero, as a landscape shooter, I'd go with d800e. There is nothing wrong with 5dIII specs, but the resolution of d800e looks very attractive (again based on specs only).

as a general use camera though, 5dIII is much more balanced. It has everything you would need - great mpx, af, iso, video...

But, IQ of both cameras is still unknown. Until the proper user reviews come out, we won't know what each camera is capable of.

Both cameras look pretty expensive for amateur use as well to be honest. I questioned myself when buying 5d for £1600 last year, so I can't imagine paying twice as much for a body that will last 3-4 years at most.
 
Last edited:
I was just on Talk Carpentry. And as hard as I looked I couldn't find a single thread based on "my saw's better than yours". I then went on Talk Mechanics. And as hard as I looked I couldn't fine a single thread based on "my monkey wrench is better than yours".

So what is it about cameras that make their owners act as pathetically as some of the people who have commented in this (and many similar) threads.

Sigh :shake:
 
Because its a technical product so we compare the technical specs?

Pretty much every technical subject forum has hot debate on which is best, sometimes teinted by ownership bias, but certainly it goes on.... you just aren't geek enough :D
 
Digifrog said:
This is going to be a crucial factor with me. I haven't seen the 5D3's internal structuring yet but the D800 looks almoost airtight.

I'm still stuck between the D800(E)+24-70mm f/2.8 & the 5D3+24-105mm, which pricewise is on a par. I am swayed towards the Nikon body/lens partnership atm, but the 16-35mm f/4 is niggling away at the back of my mind too.

The Zeiss 21mm 2.8 is likely for whichever camera I opt for.

I'm still none the clearer really. Like I said, it's seeing images taken by normal people and analysing EXIF'S that will probably make my mind up.

But £2999? Are they having a laugh?
Click to expand...

Nikon 24-70 is definitely better than 24-105, sharper, 9 aperture blades, and so on. That Zeiss lens is slowly becoming my next target, I don't think there is anything better at that FL.

The price is more or less the early adopter's tax - it should go down in half a year. Just wait or pick up a stop gap 1DsII in the meantime if you want to go Canon.
 
ryanyboy said:
I was just on Talk Carpentry. And as hard as I looked I couldn't find a single thread based on "my saw's better than yours". I then went on Talk Mechanics. And as hard as I looked I couldn't fine a single thread based on "my monkey wrench is better than yours".

So what is it about cameras that make their owners act as pathetically as some of the people who have commented in this (and many similar) threads.

Sigh :shake:
Click to expand...

I think if you go on some car sites and start saying your set of Draper spanners are as good as the next guy's Snap-On ones you'd get exactly the same sort of argument...
 
daugirdas said:
The price is more or less the early adopter's tax - it should go down in half a year.
Click to expand...

Trouble is, as the price of the new camera comes down the 2nd hand value of the model it replaces goes down too... so waiting to trade up doesn't save quite as much as it initially appears.
 
ryanyboy said:
I was just on Talk Carpentry. And as hard as I looked I couldn't find a single thread based on "my saw's better than yours". I then went on Talk Mechanics. And as hard as I looked I couldn't fine a single thread based on "my monkey wrench is better than yours".

So what is it about cameras that make their owners act as pathetically as some of the people who have commented in this (and many similar) threads.

Sigh :shake:
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point.

This thread is about making a careful thoughtful decision between two contemporary and comparable cameras/systems, not a debate based on immaturity.
 
daugirdas said:
Nikon 24-70 is definitely better than 24-105, sharper, 9 aperture blades, and so on. That Zeiss lens is slowly becoming my next target, I don't think there is anything better at that FL.

The price is more or less the early adopter's tax - it should go down in half a year. Just wait or pick up a stop gap 1DsII in the meantime if you want to go Canon.
Click to expand...

Aye, I know the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 ED N is a superb lens. The extra reach though will only take 20% of my shots, while the other 80% will be at the wide end (Zeiss 21mm/Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR).

(Incidentally, why the hell is the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II £2299.00?? I believe the Nikon 24-70 is somewhere in the region of £1450-ish)

I'm not waiting another year Tomas, I'll give it til early June (my birthday) then treat myself
 
Flash In The Pan said:
I think if you go on some car sites and start saying your set of Draper spanners are as good as the next guy's Snap-On ones you'd get exactly the same sort of argument...
Click to expand...

Im a blue-point man myself!

I have read somewhere that there is a difference with the ir filter on the 800 and the 800e? Can't remember which one has it or doesn't have it but one suffers from moire and fringing quite badly
 
Simon photo said:
Im a blue-point man myself!

I have read somewhere that there is a difference with the ir filter on the 800 and the 800e? Can't remember which one has it or doesn't have it but one suffers from moire and fringing quite badly
Click to expand...

Let's wait and see when the real-life reviews and images appear.....
 
ryanyboy said:
I was just on Talk Carpentry. And as hard as I looked I couldn't find a single thread based on "my saw's better than yours". I then went on Talk Mechanics. And as hard as I looked I couldn't fine a single thread based on "my monkey wrench is better than yours".

So what is it about cameras that make their owners act as pathetically as some of the people who have commented in this (and many similar) threads.

Sigh :shake:
Click to expand...

You don't hear people arguing about pinhole cameras here either, and that's about the level of comparison you're making.

Ask an engineer or architect about the software they use to design things and see what response you get.
 
Simon photo said:
Im a blue-point man myself!

I have read somewhere that there is a difference with the ir filter on the 800 and the 800e? Can't remember which one has it or doesn't have it but one suffers from moire and fringing quite badly
Click to expand...

Not exactly.... It's the anti-aliasing filter (removed from the E) and the trade off for extra sharpness is the possibility of moire under some conditions.
 
i don't think nikon is lacking any lens selction, it really depend what you need.

Both canon and Nikon have a good selection of lens and only certain ones that canon have where as nikon don't and vice visa as well.

I think the best is stick with what ever you feel comfortable with rather then looking at the spec sheet and just compare ........
 
Flash In The Pan said:
I think they are, and I'm a Nikon shooter.......
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that. They're only missing a 16/17 PC-E, 24, 45 and 85 PC-Es with independent tilt/shift, 24mm f/1.8, an updated 35 f/2, updated 105 and 135 f/2s, 70-200 f/4, a 300 f4 with IS, 400 f4, 400 f/5.6, 800 f/5.6...

I can't see how "Nikon aren't missing any lenses" can be said with a straight face :LOL:.

The same can be said for Canon.
 
Last edited:
badboy1984 said:
i don't think nikon is lacking any lens selction, it really depend what you need.

.
Click to expand...

|From my point of view,and I shoot Nikon, a 400 F5.6 or F4 is missing for what I do, as is an AFS zoom, circa100-400.

But such is life, I have spent too much on one system to swap for another. Nikon certainly does not hold me back, I think my lack of talent does that admirably......:bonk:

All those saying which is best or thinking of swapping, do you really believe it is your equipment that is at fault at times, or would you be honest enough to say not?
 
Digifrog said:
Aye, I know the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 ED N is a superb lens. The extra reach though will only take 20% of my shots, while the other 80% will be at the wide end (Zeiss 21mm/Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR).

(Incidentally, why the hell is the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II £2299.00?? I believe the Nikon 24-70 is somewhere in the region of £1450-ish)

I'm not waiting another year Tomas, I'll give it til early June (my birthday) then treat myself
Click to expand...

Fair enough - I'd get the Nikon in your case though - higher res for landscapes, and a bit cheaper as well. Don't underestimate 24-70 range though - it is more than useful for landscapes, where sometimes 21mm can just far too wide! In fact, I can see a big appeal for 400mm+ (and not only for birds).

Simon photo said:
Im a blue-point man myself!

I have read somewhere that there is a difference with the ir filter on the 800 and the 800e? Can't remember which one has it or doesn't have it but one suffers from moire and fringing quite badly
Click to expand...

You only need to look at Nikon samples to see some examples. With 36mp on board the lack of AA is largely irrelevant for resolution unless printing billboards at 300 dpi, but I am more than happy to be proven wrong.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Do you know why most professional uses Canon? You know the side of the football pitch, the red carpets paparazzi, the majority of them have a white lens/red ring.

Just go take a look. Then ask yourself why.

It's not beacuse of the bodies.
Click to expand...

Is this bit actually true? I don't want to pour fuel on the fire or anything (this argument could go on until the internet explodes) but I have never actually noticed this trend. I did dig out this picture of the gantry at last year's royal wedding but the split looks pretty even to me.

5675295541_2d27e57c40.jpg
 
gad-westy said:
Is this bit actually true? I don't want to pour fuel on the fire or anything (this argument could go on until the internet explodes) but I have never actually noticed this trend. I did dig out this picture of the gantry at last year's royal wedding but the split looks pretty even to me.

5675295541_2d27e57c40.jpg
Click to expand...

Reuter's 100 best photos of the 2011. Go count how many are Canon and how many are Nikon. I'll give you a hint, it'll be easier counting Nikon, you probably have enough fingers ! :LOL:

http://blogs.reuters.com/fullfocus/2011/11/21/best-photos-of-the-year-2011/#a=1
 
however on pornactors.com there is a thread "my penis is bigger than yours" :|

ryanyboy said:
I was just on Talk Carpentry. And as hard as I looked I couldn't find a single thread based on "my saw's better than yours". I then went on Talk Mechanics. And as hard as I looked I couldn't fine a single thread based on "my monkey wrench is better than yours".

So what is it about cameras that make their owners act as pathetically as some of the people who have commented in this (and many similar) threads.

Sigh :shake:
Click to expand...
 
gad-westy said:
I was asking a genuine question. I don't think I deserved a patronising response but thanks for your answer all the same.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't mean to be patronising, the lol was a mere acknowledgement that I thought everybody knew Canon is used more amongst the press. It is not fanboyism, it is merely a fact. Nikon fans can deny all they like but as you can see the Reuters link above, they would be wrong, by a long shot.
 
ryanyboy said:
I was just on Talk Carpentry. And as hard as I looked I couldn't find a single thread based on "my saw's better than yours". I then went on Talk Mechanics. And as hard as I looked I couldn't fine a single thread based on "my monkey wrench is better than yours".

So what is it about cameras that make their owners act as pathetically as some of the people who have commented in this (and many similar) threads.

Sigh :shake:
Click to expand...

I reckon it's a form of cost justification. After spending a good few grand on gear would you admit it sucked? No, me neither but some like to reinforce it out loud ;)


As for the op's question. - they both look like bloody good cameras to me and would both probably do you fine, me I'm sticking with canon as I have a shed load of gear but I can't say I didnt fancy a d700 when they came out :)
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
Sorry, I didn't mean to be patronising, the lol was a mere acknowledgement that I thought everybody knew Canon is used more amongst the press. It is not fanboyism, it is merely a fact. Nikon fans can deny all they like but as you can see the Reuters link above, they would be wrong, by a long shot.
Click to expand...

Thought it was only me who was patronising Ray :LOL:
 
Canon just doesn't impress me. I find the menu system annoying, the ergonomics silly and their efs lenses are worse than rubbish (IMO of course) I can't get over the fact that a canon 18-200mm is £500 and it's soft as a pillow...the nikon version however ;)

I tested my brothers 24-70mm and would be dissapointed if that was my £1000 lens. Yes, the professional range is great...nothing bad to say there.

I just find canon a bit expensove for what they offer. Yes they have a great RANGE of lenses, but for me it would come down to how many lenses each company produces that would actually be acceptable of producing results you could sell to anyone...I know nikons kit 18-55mm lens is worthy...

The argument for me is in both companies bottom and mid range lenses, the pro range should be what you expect and is.
 
Phil Young said:
their efs lenses are worse than rubbish (IMO of course)
Click to expand...


Exactly which EF-s lenses do you consider worse than rubbish, and for what reasons? The 18-55 IS, 55-250, 60mm macro, 15-85, 17-55, and 10-22 are all considered very decent lenses by most people who use them, and that's most of the EF-s range right there.
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
Is that a cop out? Lol

If we've moved onto lenses then all lenses and all that are affected should be considered.
Click to expand...

What you say is probably not wrong, but EF-S/DX lenses are pretty much a non concern for the type of person is consider the D800 or 5d3

Nikon DX lenses (inc most kit lenses) are pretty much awesome, but that doesn't really matter when you need them to cover full frame.
 
Phil Young said:
Canon just doesn't impress me. I find the menu system annoying, the ergonomics silly and their efs lenses are worse than rubbish (IMO of course) I can't get over the fact that a canon 18-200mm is £500 and it's soft as a pillow...the nikon version however ;)

I tested my brothers 24-70mm and would be dissapointed if that was my £1000 lens. Yes, the professional range is great...nothing bad to say there.

I just find canon a bit expensove for what they offer. Yes they have a great RANGE of lenses, but for me it would come down to how many lenses each company produces that would actually be acceptable of producing results you could sell to anyone...I know nikons kit 18-55mm lens is worthy...

The argument for me is in both companies bottom and mid range lenses, the pro range should be what you expect and is.
Click to expand...

So basically you are saying if you want to buy a budget camera and budget lenses as a hobby for example then you should choose Nikon. But if you are a serious photographer and serious about your equipment then canon is better, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top