[woodsyi]

I own Canon lenses.  So I am kind of stuck on Canon cameras.


Be that as it may, it appears to me like Canon 5D mkII is clearly better in the "prosumer" market than Nikon D700 or Sony A900.  Am I losing objectivity here?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos5dmkii%2Cnikon_d700%2Csony_dslra900&show=all

[JohnR]

Just don't be trying to load any of those 21 Mpixel images up to the AudioCircle server, now

[brj]

Part of it is timing.

The 5D Mk II is new.  Until it came out, I'm sure some wondered the same thing in reverse when comparing the D700 (which I assume you mentioned in an effort to find a similar price-point in the Nikon line) against Canon's offerings prior to this recent update.  They flip-flop each other all the time, just like Intel and AMD, or many other examples in the electronics industry.  I'd guess that when the D700x comes out, things will reverse again... until Canon comes out with the 5D Mk III!

As for "better" - that always comes down to what an individual person needs and wants (much like audio).  Personally, I'd happily trade megapixals for a better user interface, bigger sensor, smaller size and lower weight, better light gathering capability, etc..  And, of course, I'd happily take a better lens over the digital camera body one step further up the manufacturer's lineup, especially as camera bodies can't seem to stay near the state of the art for more than 6 months any more.

(I'm really leaning more and more toward picking up a good used film camera - one a bit more flexible than the 20 year old model I put in the closet after getting my digital SLR.  Perhaps the combination of a good tripod rig and the right software, such as Bibble Pro or similar, will improve the number of keepers I get from my digital setup, but bright-sky-dark-earth exposure control of landscapes on my digital rig is a royal pain compared to what I did with my relatively inexpensive film rig almost unconsciously.)

[thunderbrick]

I own Canon lenses.  So I am kind of stuck on Canon cameras.


Be that as it may, it appears to me like Canon 5D mkII is clearly better in the "prosumer" market than Nikon D700 or Sony A900.  Am I losing objectivity here?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos5dmkii%2Cnikon_d700%2Csony_dslra900&show=all

Yup!   

[lazydays]

might be better till the dreaded "error 99" pays a visit
gary

[denjo]

I've been with Nikon since day one! Starting with the Nikon F2, FM2, F4 and now D90. The good thing about Nikon is the fact that you can use the older lenses, albeit with some limitations, even with their latest models.

[thunderbrick]

I've been with Nikon since day one! Starting with the Nikon F2, FM2, F4 and now D90. The good thing about Nikon is the fact that you can use the older lenses, albeit with some limitations, even with their latest models.

I use some lenses from the early 60's on my D300 and D200.  Tough combination to beat, especially because a good, AF long lens 600mm+ will set you back the price of a good used car.  Been there, done that.  REALLY elevates the WAF!

[WerTicus]

I'm pretty happy with my Pentax k20d  - yet to see a camera that is better value for money out there.  I'm not too heavily invested in lenses yet, So I might well end up with nikon or canon later.  I certainly don't have a brand loyalty complex that a lot of people seem to have, will happily ditch one brand for another.

Actually the camera is not working properly as of two days ago, so how they handle the warranty process is going to factor in.  (i also want a full frame sensor too, but that woulnt stop me from investing in pentax lenses now as they are sure to release a more high end body one day)

[tanchiro58]

I own Canon lenses.  So I am kind of stuck on Canon cameras.


Be that as it may, it appears to me like Canon 5D mkII is clearly better in the "prosumer" market than Nikon D700 or Sony A900.  Am I losing objectivity here?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos5dmkii%2Cnikon_d700%2Csony_dslra900&show=all

Not true. It depends on what category are shooting. In sport photography or fast actions, I would choose D700 rather than 5D MKII.

[JohnR]

brj makes a good point about the rapid obsolescence that digital bodies go through. It's still happening, seemingly at an accelerated rate, which is interesting. But on the other hand, older/used/"low end" bodies are quite OK now, the upsell is on features, more megapixels, faster frame rates, full frame sensors, lower noise at high ISO... none of which most of us really *have* to have.

brj - see if you can get your hands on a Fuji S5 to play with - you might find it interesting. Film is good too, but scanning is a hassle...

As for a brand loyalty complex, my loyalty to Nikon is actually not complex at all: I have a bunch of lenses and bodies in F-mount, and I'm not about to change!! Call it brand lock-in instead, Mr Werticus

[woodsyi]

Brand lock-in is right.  I have too much locked in Canon L lenses to switch now.  One new feature that I like about the new 5D MK2 is that I can take videos and shoot stills at the same time.  Granted, it's not what a photo purist or pros would do but it solves a lot of pain for me.  There are many times, I have to choose either a video or photo to shoot for events (mostly involving my 6 year daughter).  I can't wield both at the same time and stills taken with digicams just suck.  Now 5D MK2 will not only capture full 1080P for 30 minutes, it will allow me to shoot stills.  This is a perfect solution for this consumer.  Now I just have to save money and wait for a deal.  I am hoping for a economy induced deal -- timing, IMHO, couldn't have been worse for Canon to introduce this "expensive" toy.

[geowak]

I have a Canon DSLR and a Leica V-Lux 1.

The Leica is not a DSLR but is a 10MP camera and the sensor area is smaller than the one on the Canon.

I have shot with "L" lenses on the Canon as opposed to the built in zoom on the Leica. Most of the time the Leica shots are better. More neutral color with sharper images.

Now I find out that Zeiss has made two or three lenses for the Canon EOS cameras. I bet they are as sharp or sharper than the canon lenses.

If I could afford the newest Leica DSLR, (it has something like 32MP), I would get it ASAP.

[brj]

brj - see if you can get your hands on a Fuji S5 to play with - you might find it interesting. Film is good too, but scanning is a hassle...

I've heard several people praise the S5 on this board, although I haven't yet met anyone that owns one.  I'll keep my eyes open and see if I can borrow one - thanks for the suggestion!  I expect it to be a while before I have discretionary funds that I can use for camera gear, but I confess a used F4 or F5 might be fun to play with, even if the scanning is a hassle.

(I figure I'd just use remote labs and have them scan it.  For the amount of film I'd shoot, it would take a *huge* number of rolls of film for this to be more expensive than buying a good negative scanner, and a lab's scanning resolution will be higher in most cases anyway.)

Call it brand lock-in instead, Mr Werticus

Excellent description!

(i also want a full frame sensor too, but that woulnt stop me from investing in pentax lenses now as they are sure to release a more high end body one day)

You may realize this already, but keep in mind that this means that you have to buy lenses that can handle a full frame sensor/film.  A quick look at the Pentax website shows a fairly limited number of lenses in this category, compared to those usable only on the reduced frame sensor in most DSLR cameras.

(In the Nikon lineup, this FX lenses are those that can be used with film, full frame or reduced frame cameras.  DX are those that can only be used with reduced frame DSLRs.  I don't remember the nomenclature for other brands off-hand.)

[WerTicus]

the new lecia dslr is 37mp!  Though really its not all about mega pixels imo... for example id prefer a d3 over a d3x any day.

http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/s_system/

[tanchiro58]

the new lecia dslr is 37mp!  Though really its not all about mega pixels imo... for example id prefer a d3 over a d3x any day.

http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/s_system/

It depends on your application. For example if you shoot portrait or landscape and expose to a big pictures then you need 24-37 mega pixels but you can not shoot sport or actions since it requires how fast you are shooting (I mean frames per second).

I own a Nikon D700 for my kids martial arts so it has only 12MP but it can shoot up to 8 fps.

[WerTicus]

Yeah i could use more pixels rather than speed for what i use a camera for... however a decent lens goes a long way more than the pixels in the end.

[tanchiro58]

Yeah i could use more pixels rather than speed for what i use a camera for... however a decent lens goes a long way more than the pixels in the end.

Yes that is true. You got a decent lens like I got the Nikkor 24-70 2.8 paired with D700 which is an excellent combination. For portrait 85/1.4 is a way to go.  Since then I have never looked back or updated to a pro body.

[WerTicus]

i just got the pentax fa 50mm 1.4 prime lens  - my first good lens and its amazing   Now i know what the camera can really do.

More lenses to come   Just reading lots and lots of reviews to make sure i choose the best option.  Surprisingly from what i've been reading tamron and sigma have some really good ones out, even better than the 1st parties offerings.