You've got no gear at all - Would you get a 5DMKIV or D850

Yea, comments from a guy that never seems to use a camera. or at least from the videos that I have watched.

Mark0159 wrote in post #18485219
Yea, comments from a guy that never seems to use a camera. or at least from the videos that I have watched.

Does not make him less right or change the outcome of the buffer test he does.

Scoobert wrote in post #18485307
Does not make him less right or change the outcome of the buffer test he does.

I watched that vid, and another one or two where he actually mentions the numbers from his own experience - which are still less than Nikon has quoted but much closer (ISO dependent was a big factor). In the Nikon world, the D500 still seems like an excellent choice given the quality of the sensor and the amazing buffer - especially if new D850 owners start dumping that camera.

On a similar but different note, I'm thinking I might buy 20 or so used A7Riis at very distressed prices and flip them in 6 months because there are now 1 million for sale and the price is dropping by the minute for a camera with the same sensor as the A7Riii - and I only ever shoot in single shot anyways.

I went and demoed the D850 - very nice camera but video AF is brutal - the hunt o matic focus system.

My thinking about a D850 with a Tamron 24-70 G2 has ended - most likely an A7Rii is in my future after the insane panic buying period passes - or maybe even an A9 because the used prices have already fallen over $1k.

Charlie wrote in post #18471798
I like canon more than Nikon, but no gear, D850 EASILY. Waiting X amount of years for a Canon to come around, I'de literally turn old. I played the waiting game with Canon for a decade before leaving them.

Flashback...

• Back in the 60's and 70's, Canon played second fiddle to Nikon, and photographers were provided with Nikon gear to use on the job.
  
  
• Then with the launch of the EOS line, Canon suddenly surged to the front, and it seemed most pros shot Canon, judging by the prevalence of white lenses at sporting events.
  
  
• I recall when the loyal Nikon owners were loadly bemoaning the inability of Nikon to come up with digital sensor cameras with the high ISO low noise capabilities of Canon, and others were bemoaning the incredibly long time that Nikon lacked any digital FF capability.
  
  
• Now we are hearing the Canon owners bemoaning how long it is taking Canon to catch up to Nikon!
  

Wilt wrote in post #18485521
Flashback...

• Back in the 60's and 70's, Canon played second fiddle to Nikon, and photographers were provided with Nikon gear to use on the job.
  
  
• Then with the launch of the EOS line, Canon suddenly surged to the front, and it seemed most pros shot Canon, judging by the prevalence of white lenses at sporting events.
  
  
• I recall when the loyal Nikon owners were loadly bemoaning the inability of Nikon to come up with digital sensor cameras with the high ISO low noise capabilities of Canon, and others were bemoaning the incredibly long time that Nikon lacked any digital FF capability.
  
  
• Now we are hearing the Canon owners bemoaning how long it is taking Canon to catch up to Nikon!
  

Doesn't the above point out that technical advantages and perceived marketplace advantages are cyclic, and you can drive yourself to the poor house FASTER by changing brands over and over and over?!

As if there werent other brands that didnt die along the way. They stopped being competitive, so they died.

are you saying that the cycle cant be broken?

as for costs, this hobby is relatively inexpensive for many folks.

Looking at the OP's original question I would have to say the 5D Mk4.

I have absolutely no idea if it is better or worse than the Nikon D850 - I have yet to even pick up a D850!

However I use long lenses and the Canon 500/600/800 mm lenses give me the AF performance that I need. I have tried the Nikon equivalents (though not on a D850) and was disappointed with their AF performance on D800/D810/D4S and D5 bodies.

So, for me, it has to be Canon whether I like them or not! The best IQ in the world is of little use if the auto focus missed.

Depending on what I shoot and budget I would seriously look at Sony. Personally I don't like their cameras as much as Fuji but Sony is putting out much better tech than anyone else. Eye detect, wow. And it is Sony sensors what made lot of Canon folks jump ship to Nikon and Sony. Sony glass is not cheap though.

I just sold all of my Canon gear, from my 1DxII to my L glass and flashes.

Why? First allow me to state the obvious. It’s not the gun, it’s the trigger puller.

There, now that I got that out of the way, I still like nice gear. And after lugging the above gear out west in August, up and down Zion, around Arches, in and out of Bryce, Moab and all manner of parks and trails in Boulder, the weight just got to me.

So I say, why narrow your choice to Canon and Nikon, both of which systems I’ve owned and really like?

I am seriously considering the Sony A9 or the soon to be out A7R3. Neither cheap, but Sony is just killing them all.

My answer to the original question ... using rough amounts thrown around here (between $8k and $10k) I would get myself a (probably) second-hand Leica M of some description and a 35mm Summicron. I think that comes in about on budget.

I know I haven't technically answered the question which was between the Canon and Nikon offerings but that would be my first choice - and I don't currently shoot Leica, I have a foot in both Canon and Fuji camps but if I were starting again with a bit of cash, I would try and get a Leica. I even think about draining my rainy day fund and doing it now, but I still need to wait for longer spells of settled weather.

So, if I had to choose between the two ... the Nikon is probably better on paper, and the lenses I would be getting (standard focal length primes) can't be too much different. I would want to play around with both though. I've shot Canon for a long time, and that doesn't go away in the fire/theft/magical disappearance, and I chose my first EOS camera years ago because they layout felt right. They're both excellent cameras, more than enough for a serious hobbyist/non-professional like myself so I wouldn't be worried too worried about spec and more about which camera was going to be most comfortable to shoot with. I find Nikon bodies a bit overwhelming with all the buttons. Canon do seem to add more over time but I still think they're a bit cleaner.

Neither matches a Leica for simplicity and getting out of the way and letting you shoot though. I spend most of my time walking around with one camera and one lens shooting whatever catches my eye. The settings I use on my cameras are generally the exposure triangle settings and not a lot else. I know this isn't for everyone, but it's what I would do.

I would get the Fuji GFX.

By only reading the specs I would definitely buy a Nikon. I shoot mostly people. As far as lenses go there's sigma art. Yes canon makes stunning lenses and priced pretty good. So glass is not really a good excuse now that sigma art has caught up & surpassed SOME of the canon L glass primes!

Between the two I would be more inclined to go for the mk3 over the A9 but I don't need very fast frame rates, that I think is part of the choice frame rate or resolution. If you don't need 2 card slots then the mk2 is I think a good choice and with upgraders it could be got for quite reasonable prices soon leaving more money for lenses.

My decision was 100% based on emotion. I have always gone with Canon for one reason, my grandfathers Canon AE-1 with that western neck strap. Everything from my busted XS in high school, to my first digital camera A320 to my 5DMKIV is based off that logo when I was a kid.

I think I'd go for the Canon. Whenever I've picked up a Nikon camera in a store, it never felt comfortable. The Canon bodies just seem to be perfect for my hands.

I use to say "Canon & Nikon are like Ford & Chevy" when asked what system someone should buy. Many pros I know, and I mean guys & gals shooting professional sports, use Nikon gear. However, I have noticed a few things in the last 6 years working for the paper. 1) Most pros I know that shoot Nikon shoot for an organization that provides the gear for them (that must suck!!). Most pros that buy their own gear shoot Canon. I suggest this must speak to the "maintenance program" that Canon & Nikon both offer. A basic flat rate (probably different levels) that ensures quick turn around on repairs, loaner of equipment, and routine cleanings etc..... Nikon's is either cheaper, better, or both. 2) The majority video cameras I see are Sony, Fuji, & JVC. Almost all are using a Canon cine lens, some use Fuji glass, never seen a Nikon lens.