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

fotoworx wrote in post #18472168
What's weird is that I haven't read one issue like that here (well at least I have found any).

That's because all POTN members are Canon apologists and shills. When in fact Canon is doomed.

fotoworx wrote in post #18472168
A stack of owners here for one saying that theirs isn't turning on and the bottom circuit board was fried by a quick battery drain -

https://www.dpreview.c​om/forums/thread/40766​52

What's weird is that I haven't read one issue like that here (well at least I have found any).

Interesting.

Either way, it's not like either company has always released flawless cameras. Nikon has certainly had their share of issues as well. It happens, I don't see enough of a trend on either side for that to alarm me.

Colorblinded wrote in post #18472264
Interesting.

Either way, it's not like either company has always released flawless cameras. Nikon has certainly had their share of issues as well. It happens, I don't see enough of a trend on either side for that to alarm me.

I ended up going retro to be safe, i.e., the 1D IV. I had a 7D2 previous to that. I have decided to avoid being an early adapter. First of all, I can't afford the best gear Canon or Nikon has to offer. I prefer a APS-H to APS-C though I haven't used the very fine 80D. So that leaves me with my 1D IV until the 1D X prices come down..... or a few years from now when the ID X3 is shipping before the next Olympics and I can afford a 1D X2.

raptor3x wrote in post #18471932
The 70-200 IS II was $2499 when it was introduced, which comes out to ~$2850 when accounting for CPI inflation.

There are many CPI categories. For consumer goods within electronics, it’s less then that (by those metrics of $2499 in 2010, the highest retail price would be $2630 now). And besides...my point was that Nikon lenses can be more expensive. If we compare the 70-200mm 2.9L II ($1,949.00) to the previous generation Nikon, VRII it's still cheaper ($2,096.95).

I would be seriously tempted by the D850. In fact I AM seriously tempted.

I honestly can't say which way I'd go,. particularly in the fantasy world where I have zero investment in a system,.. if so, do I have my current knowledge of the systems?

What would hold me back would be the long wildlife lenses. Nikon isn't really lacking, but I do feel Canon has the best bag of tricks in this regard.

In the OP's hypothetical, if I did not know that fact, I would get the D850.

If I am allowed to keep my experiences in the hypothetical, I guess I'd start by renting D850 and 5D4 and doing side by side with both Canon and Nikon 500mm primes and 100-400mm zooms. See which system works best for me. Then decide.

I would have a hard time between the two, I don't really use long glass and am not sure who does the best 50, 24, 35 in order of importance but if overall close then it would be which one feels nicest in the hand. I shoot mostly in an urban area and have not found any issue with modern cameras with DR and both have to me plenty of resolution so it would come down to feel, but if there was say a blinding 50 on Canon and 24 on Nikon it would be tempting to be greedy and have one of each.

If Canon had an identical body that performs just like the D850 I'd be incredibly happy for still photography.

As reality strikes me I'm extremely pleased to be a Canon shooter with my current setup.

Except in this situation, Canon has languished, and Nikon has issued a body the is clearly better or equal for the same money. If you had neither system, the decision is much harder and now comes down to glass and nothing else. (see edit)

EDIT: generally almost nothing else... most everyone can get used to either system in a pretty short amount of time, both corporations have huge market shares and thus a ton of aftermarket goods exist, and both have a mix of reviews about their customer service after the sale. Some folks have different pain points than others so other factors might drive their decision, but a majority of the time, we always get back to the topic of glass in discussions between Nikon and Canon, once we determine the models that seem most interesting at the time to compare. The D850 seems to be very much targeted at the 5D4 and 5DS series.

So factors thus far IF YOU HAD NO SYSTEM AT ALL and had to only consider the two models in the OP.... ranked in order of what most might consider I presume:

1. Camera features/function/IQ (usage/ergos fit here, but many seem to get over the usage differences)
2. Manufacturer glass (or 3rd party availability)
3. Post processing tools/ease of use/cost of tools (DPP vs Nikon??, raw file format and tools, etc)

Then possibly... but hard to really determine what tangible impacts this has to shooting with one or the other... and I doubt that a majority go this deep into deciding which camera to buy. These seem like factors to a segment of POTN members though.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18472363
Except in this situation, Canon has languished, and Nikon has issued a body the is clearly better or equal for the same money.

Interesting that they're the same money in USA (at B&H anyway). In Australia, at Cambuy, one of the cheaper non-grey retailers, the D850 is AU$540 more expensive ($5289 vs $4749).

mystik610 wrote in post #18471827
I think the d850 sensor is what set's it apart. 1+ stop more base ISO DR, neck and neck in terms of high ISO performance despite having close to double the resolution.

Except that in reality the difference in DR is only 3/4 stop at ISO 100 and neck & neck from ISO 200 onwards. And the D850 doesn't have "close to double the resolution", 45.4Mpx vs 30.4 Mpx is less than 50% more and only 23% more in each direction.

Pippan wrote in post #18472385
Except that in reality the difference in DR is only 3/4 stop at ISO 100 and neck & neck from ISO 200 onwards. And the D850 doesn't have "close to double the resolution", 45.4Mpx vs 30.4 Mpx is less than 50% more and only 23% more in each direction.

D850 base iso is 64., Realistically that's what should be compared to. It's another key point.

The 5d4 is virtually useless for 4K, that would irk the hell out of me

Charlie wrote in post #18472390
D850 base iso is 64., Realistically that's what should be compared to. It's another key point.

Ah yes, that extra 0.32 stop of DR makes all the difference.

Pippan wrote in post #18472422
Ah yes, that extra 0.32 stop of DR makes all the difference.

Capturing an acceptable image would be quite impossible without it ... don't you think?

I started out as an active participant in this thread. It seemed quite interesting.

But looking back over it, it's just another illustration of our tendency to obsess uselessly over kit instead of concentrating on the art of photography and the challenge of finding good subjects, composition and light.

It's an unreal situation ... a contrived artificial set of choices ... it puts kit ahead of everything else ... and I feel it's all been rather pointless.

When I meet St. Peter at the Gates and set out to try to justify my precious hours on earth ... following this thread is going to be just one more of those things I will have to list under the heading Things that helped pass the time.

Well i think the problem is .. some have avoided the question and have used this to defend their current kit.
The kind of sucks the fun out these types of silly but fun hypothetical scenarios