Neilyb wrote in post #14297246
The 5DIII is a losing battle. It has lost DR over the mkII and bearly upped the resolution and is 1/4 of a stop better on noise(RAW)....the mkII is 4 YEARS OLD....Nikon are so far ahead it is embarassing. Now when we talk at work (with a Nikon shooter) I simply tell him I am selling my gear and going Nikon because at the end of the day it is about IQ not touch sensitive scroll wheels and crap like that. Did I mention the double price for a mkIII over a mkII? Ouch.
i think it's somewhat amusing the sheer amount of hyperbole that gets thrown around here. people like speaking words of wisdom about putting an emphasis on the artistic merits and development of our craft, yet turn around every 3-4 years and run through the streets decrying the fall of this brand or that because of insignificant little differences between model lines.
in the case of the 5D3 and D800, we've reached an age where IQ will be phenomenal with either body and good glass.. however, you're still seeing people declare that the sky is falling, that canon is doomed, they should be embarrassed, that amazon sales charts illustrate how canon will be bankrupt soon because of this.
once again, i'd like to challenge any of the doomsayers to be honest with themselves. can you really reliably discern which bodies created which images when you create your digital albums and prints for your clients? better yet, if it's so hard for us as nitpicky photographers to tell, how many of your clients will?
i bring all of this up because i'm still not sold on the 5D3 although i'm really considering it. four years ago, i remember telling people "if my 5D2 had a decent autofocus system, it'd be near-perfect." now with better weather resistance, 100% VF, dual card slots, faster frame rate, and an effective silent shutter mode, i'm at a loss to find major faults in it. however, it seems like to many people it's unfit as a photographic tool.
as i mention relatively frequently, i shoot very often with a partner that uses nikon equipment (D4/D700) and aside from stylistic differences in the way we see things, our clients receive one product. they receive all of our photos together in one package, and even our most discerning clients cannot tell who took what photo. i feel as though when we do eventually upgrade our cameras, the same will hold true. nobody will be able to tell the difference at the end of the day. you say that IQ is the ultimate goal, i disagree. i think the photo is the ultimate goal.
having handled both systems extensively, i believe it really is down to personal preference. back when I used 40D's and he used D200's, my equipment clearly had an edge technologically speaking. however, he stuck with his cameras because he was comfortable with nikon's handling and he created a lot of amazing work with it. fast forward to today, and i can acknowledge that on paper, the D800 seems to have the edge. however, i don't understand the calls for a mass exodus or extreme hyperbole. i'm still going to be a more effective photographer with a canon camera in my hand, because the control scheme and general feel is second nature to me now. i don't have to think when i shoot with my cameras, i just.. do.
if you want to switch your whole system every 3-4 years whenever a brand will inevitably gain an advantage, by all means do so. however, be honest about it. you're satisfying that part of you that wants the very best technology has to offer at any given time. it has little to do with photos, and much more to do with image quality. these two things are not synonymous.
People wanted better AF in a 5D, we got it. People also wanted better noise control (not JPG but the real picture we get from the sensor) and overall IQ by staying with less MPs. Well, they stayed with less MPs at least.
