canon vs nikon bodies

chauncey wrote in post #11487157
There is however a difference in cost of lenses with Canon glass being cheaper than Nikon.

Not the latest releases of Canon glass.

cloudswimmer wrote in post #11488156
Up till almost 2 years ago when Nikon came up with the D3X that is

Sony, too.

In fact, despite not actually having the highest megapixel camera on the market, they're in 3rd place in fact, Canon still seems like they are the only ones actively fighting the megapixel war. (Canon seems to find value dominating all the other strata of camera classes where pixel count in concerned. They just have yet to take back the crown in the flagship class.)

Indecent Exposure wrote in post #11488299
Sony, too.

In fact, despite not actually having the highest megapixel camera on the market, they're in 3rd place in fact, Canon still seems like they are the only ones actively fighting the megapixel war. (Canon seems to find value dominating all the other strata of camera classes where pixel count in concerned. They just have yet to take back the crown in the flagship class.)

True, and the Sony is helluva lot cheaper too.Myself if I need the resolution, 2 shots and a stitch and I got 30mp for lots less money than that D3X (though the shadows can't be pushed as far) Plus I can use my old Non-AI Nikkors on my Canon, as far as I know thats not possible on Nikons own D3X.

Im a bit bored with the MP war and im far more concerned with ISO...Canons been doing pretty well at keeping usable iso with most models right at 6400(besides the 1dmk4).
Nikon is 1 stop ahead when it comes to iso overall... and 3 MP ahead in the war.

Nikon has pretty much perfected the 12mp sensor. Im sure that they could do a usable ISO102,000 if they wanted to come out with a 12mp d3ss

Now they are going to go the 16MP and perfect it as well...

Combatmedic870 wrote in post #11488410
Im a bit bored with the MP war and im far more concerned with ISO...

Yeah same here, especially low iso shadow noise, thats my main gripe with my Canon.Mega pixels are cool, but really how many of us are printing 30x40 and larger on a consistent basis.Hell even my old Canon A640 can do 200+ mega pixels with relatively little work, this ones 221.8 to be exact, but I'm ultimately after that smooth creamy shadow detail I get with my 8x10 film on a digital sensor.

http://farm6.static.fl​ickr.com …69434188_a673e5​0011_o.jpg

Hogloff wrote in post #11488254
How can you say this when there is a Nikon D3x with 24mpix?

Because only the one $7000 Nikon has lots of megapixels.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #11486944
It's not differences in the bodies, it's differences in how you shoot...

The so-called "Full Frame" bodies are targeted a bit more toward studio and landscape photographers where split-second, rapid-fire shooting isn't as big of an issue for say, sports photographers or photojournalists who may need to rattle off several frame bursts to capture the peak of action. The "crop bodies" can generate higher frames per second rates to facilitate that.

This is not to say however that a crop body can't take a nice portrait or capture a stunning landscape and there are many photographers working in both sports and as PJs who prefer the full-frame bodies.

Yes, in the Canon world, this holds true.

Not so with Nikon where a D3 can do 9fps and the D700 can do 8fps with the grip, both "Full Frame" cameras.

chauncey wrote in post #11487157
There is however a difference in cost of lenses with Canon glass being cheaper than Nikon.

Depends on the lens and of course with the latest prices increases, this advantage will end for new generation lenses. Canon still has the edge in previous generation lenses, especially with the short primes.

cloudswimmer wrote in post #11488475
Yeah same here, especially low iso shadow noise, thats my main gripe with my Canon.Mega pixels are cool, but really how many of us are printing 30x40 and larger on a consistent basis.Hell even my old Canon A640 can do 200+ mega pixels with relatively little work, this ones 221.8 to be exact, but I'm ultimately after that smooth creamy shadow detail I get with my 8x10 film on a digital sensor.

Dont forget about the banding issues! The largest i print is A3

tkbslc wrote in post #11488479
Because only the one $7000 Nikon has lots of megapixels.

Yeah, I was just going to mention that. It takes more than one body few people will use to claim victory.

^^^ Not that I really think it is a huge advantage to have insane file sizes, but some might.

nicksan wrote in post #11488494
Yes, in the Canon world, this holds true.

Not so with Nikon where a D3 can do 9fps and the D700 can do 8fps with the grip, both "Full Frame" cameras.

Doesn't Nikon also have a 1.25x crop mode to replicate APS-H?

Hogloff wrote in post #11488254
How can you say this when there is a Nikon D3x with 24mpix?

...and that's the only offering Nikon has at the professional level and for most, the cost is prohibitive.

All you have to do is look at the 5DMKII to realize that in terms of MP, Canon is way ahead of the game. Not to mention the 1DsMKII (a little dated, but still 16MP) 1DsMKIII, 1DMKIV, and even the 7D.

Nikon's got nothing that matches the 5DMKII. Canon's got nothing that matches the D700.

Pick your poison!

illrooster132 wrote in post #11487300
it would it had been easier for me a few weeks ago to say which was better.. but since i got a D3 as gift to me. i can tell you that i respect what nikon does, i only have a basic 50 1.8 but i cant put the camera down.
im seriously thinking of getting all my canon stuff sold.

Good luck!

nicksan wrote in post #11488536
Pick your poison!

I'll just have a Coke, please....

I like nikon bodies, they feel better. Still getting use to the dials. I'm probably, well at least hoping, to move to 100% film so. Still for 35mm, I will use a f5 and it is pretty much the same ergonomics as the new bodies.