Nikon D800 EF mount

[bakhtyar kurdi]

Honestly, Canon users, and I am one of them, if Nikon made an D800 version with EF mount, and you are in the market to upgrade your camera, which one will you buy, a 5dIII for $3500, or an EF mount D800 for $3000?

the problem is many of us stacked with Canon glasses and try very hard to prove that 5DIII is as good as D800, but it is not.

 

[Ayrshirephotographer]

Honestly, Canon users, and I am one of them, if Nikon made an D800 version with EF mount, and you are in the market to upgrade your camera, which one will you buy, a 5dIII for $3500, or an EF mount D800 for $3000?

the problem is many of us stacked with Canon glasses and try very hard to prove that 5DIII is as good as D800, but it is not.

I think that's the thing here, if the D800 was a canon and it was 36MP and $3000 vs the 5d3 canon with 22mp and $3000 I wonder which one would sell more...Pretty obviously the former.

--
"I come to this forum because it sucks less than the others."

 

[pahountisg]

actually as a wedding photographer, I would stay away from 36mp per click.
22 MP are way more than needed.
--
http://www.pahountis.gr

 

[webfrasse]

Honestly, Canon users, and I am one of them, if Nikon made an D800 version with EF mount, and you are in the market to upgrade your camera, which one will you buy, a 5dIII for $3500, or an EF mount D800 for $3000?

the problem is many of us stacked with Canon glasses and try very hard to prove that 5DIII is as good as D800, but it is not.

Then just put the glass up on eBay. I've bought and sold glass on eBay for years. Sometimes even made a profit (bought a new lens on Adorama and sold it after two years on eBay with a $200 profit!). Glass usually hold it value well over the years but bodies deprecate a lot.

So the argument that you have a lot of glass and that's holding you back rings a bit hollow to me.

--
Mikael

 

[LMCasey]

Come on. Really? What a major pain. And yes, you will lose money as well.

 

[LMCasey]

If it was possible,and Nikon did this, this body would outsell the 5DIII for sure. I would buy it even though Ive owned nothing but Canon DSLR's up until now.

 

[RvPhotoTraveller]

I would pull the trigger on two preorders instantly.no hesitation - too bad nikon mount is not compatible with canon . I don't think there would be many takers in the nikon camp if canon made a 5D3 in a nikon mount . More people should use stellar nikon lenses like the 14 -24 on their Canon bodies.

 

[KatManDEW]

Honestly, Canon users, and I am one of them, if Nikon made an D800 version with EF mount, and you are in the market to upgrade your camera, which one will you buy, a 5dIII for $3500, or an EF mount D800 for $3000?

the problem is many of us stacked with Canon glasses and try very hard to prove that 5DIII is as good as D800, but it is not.

Hell, I would pay $3500, for a D800 with EF mount, and the door wouldn't hit me in the butt on the way to the dark side ;-)

Nikon could seal Canon's grave with a stunt like that.

 

[Bernard Carns]

So I think I'm gonna sit out the 5d3 product cycle.

BC

 

[dominikov]

actually as a wedding photographer, I would stay away from 36mp per click.
22 MP are way more than needed.

I shoot weddings and when 36mp was announced my initial thought was that it would be overkill for most of a wedding.

After careful consideration I realized the 1.2x crop mode makes it a lot more practical producing 25mp files @ 5fps. I can use a 17-35 and get 20-42mm and if I need to go wider I can switch to full frame.

The 5Dmk3 is of course a more logical choice since it's optimized for 22mp output but I'm just pointing out that the D800 is reasonably flexible with file sizes.

 

[stephenmelvin]

Honestly, Canon users, and I am one of them, if Nikon made an D800 version with EF mount, and you are in the market to upgrade your camera, which one will you buy, a 5dIII for $3500, or an EF mount D800 for $3000?

the problem is many of us stacked with Canon glasses and try very hard to prove that 5DIII is as good as D800, but it is not.

Then just put the glass up on eBay. I've bought and sold glass on eBay for years. Sometimes even made a profit (bought a new lens on Adorama and sold it after two years on eBay with a $200 profit!). Glass usually hold it value well over the years but bodies deprecate a lot.

So the argument that you have a lot of glass and that's holding you back rings a bit hollow to me.

Well here's the thing. When you sell your glass, you have to replace it. And when you replace it, is it an upgrade or a downgrade? Let's look at my lenses:

17-40 f/4L - switching to Nikon would be an upgrade
24-105 f/4L - switching to Nikon would be a downgrade
70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II - switching to Nikon would be a downgrade

24 f/3.5 TS-E - it's the version I, so switching would be an upgrade. But buying the version II Canon would be an upgrade as well. I'd call this a wash.

24 f/1.4L II -- switching to Nikon would be a downgrade.
50mm f/1.4 -- Depends on what Nikkor I bought. Possible upgrade or sidegrade.
85 f/1.8 - switching to Nikon would be a sidegrade

The reality is I wouldn't be able to afford to replace everything. And my favorite lenses are lenses where the Nikkor equivalent just isn't as good. Too much hassle for a camera that's a lot more similar to the 5D III than different.

--
Mikael

--
http://models.stevemelvin.com

 

[oysso]

Honestly, Canon users, and I am one of them, if Nikon made an D800 version with EF mount, and you are in the market to upgrade your camera, which one will you buy, a 5dIII for $3500, or an EF mount D800 for $3000?

the problem is many of us stacked with Canon glasses and try very hard to prove that 5DIII is as good as D800, but it is not.

Hell, I would pay $3500, for a D800 with EF mount, and the door wouldn't hit me in the butt on the way to the dark side ;-)

Nikon could seal Canon's grave with a stunt like that.

You are forgetting that canon do money on lenses......

 

[BadBeta]

Agreed. And what a business stunt that would have been from Nikon!

If the cameras had the same mount I think it is pretty obvious which one would sell the most.

 

[Ayrshirephotographer]

Honestly, Canon users, and I am one of them, if Nikon made an D800 version with EF mount, and you are in the market to upgrade your camera, which one will you buy, a 5dIII for $3500, or an EF mount D800 for $3000?

the problem is many of us stacked with Canon glasses and try very hard to prove that 5DIII is as good as D800, but it is not.

Then just put the glass up on eBay. I've bought and sold glass on eBay for years. Sometimes even made a profit (bought a new lens on Adorama and sold it after two years on eBay with a $200 profit!). Glass usually hold it value well over the years but bodies deprecate a lot.

So the argument that you have a lot of glass and that's holding you back rings a bit hollow to me.

Well here's the thing. When you sell your glass, you have to replace it. And when you replace it, is it an upgrade or a downgrade? Let's look at my lenses:

17-40 f/4L - switching to Nikon would be an upgrade
24-105 f/4L - switching to Nikon would be a downgrade
70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II - switching to Nikon would be a downgrade

24 f/3.5 TS-E - it's the version I, so switching would be an upgrade. But buying the version II Canon would be an upgrade as well. I'd call this a wash.

24 f/1.4L II -- switching to Nikon would be a downgrade.
50mm f/1.4 -- Depends on what Nikkor I bought. Possible upgrade or sidegrade.
85 f/1.8 - switching to Nikon would be a sidegrade

The reality is I wouldn't be able to afford to replace everything. And my favorite lenses are lenses where the Nikkor equivalent just isn't as good. Too much hassle for a camera that's a lot more similar to the 5D III than different.

--
Mikael

--
http://models.stevemelvin.com

Where are you getting this stuff from lol DXO or some test site? The 24mm 1.4G Nikkor is equal to the 24mm canon or better. Same with most you have said. Most are equal. Bare in mind canon make alot of products and Nikon just do one thing, certainly feels like a more focused approach. Also Canon have never really got coatings...
--
"I come to this forum because it sucks less than the others."

 

[DaDane]

Honestly, Canon users, and I am one of them, if Nikon made an D800 version with EF mount, and you are in the market to upgrade your camera, which one will you buy, a 5dIII for $3500, or an EF mount D800 for $3000?

the problem is many of us stacked with Canon glasses and try very hard to prove that 5DIII is as good as D800, but it is not.

Let's assume for a while that Nikon did this. What would happend after that then?

Another Nikon EF? Or should they force the D800EF custommers to choose between shifting brand or selling glass?

But IF that did happend - I would be very happy. Two different high-end brands for bodies and very good glass for Canon as well as Sigma et al and more than likely Nikon too.

That would be true joy - but as said, I don't think Nikon want to be locked into paying royalties to Canon - or loosing custommers.

 

[DaDane]

Honestly, Canon users, and I am one of them, if Nikon made an D800 version with EF mount, and you are in the market to upgrade your camera, which one will you buy, a 5dIII for $3500, or an EF mount D800 for $3000?

the problem is many of us stacked with Canon glasses and try very hard to prove that 5DIII is as good as D800, but it is not.

I really really doubt that Nikon would do this - as I wrote above.

But how about Sony? It's not like they have a huge DSLR business to take care of already - they are still a much smaller player. They have as much to win and much less to loose.

If they could do something like D800 with a little extra such as full frame image sensor shift stabilization (as the alpha-900 have done for 3 years now), GPS (like alpha77), WiFi and as you write EF mount and all for around $3000 I am quite sure we have a winner!

And with, what looks like it's going to be, better DR and resolution of any other camera - I suppose that even for $3500 it would be a winner.

 

[Robert Hoy]

Since when does more pixels = a better camera?! 22 is already an extreme amount of resolution. Even a 6 megapixel digicam photo will look great printed very large when viewed from a proper viewing distance, like all photos have a standard viewing distance. Photography is about more than resolution.
--
http://www.photographybyhoy.com
http://www.facebook.com/Photography.by.Hoy
http://roberthoy.zenfolio.com/

 

[dominikov]

Since when does more pixels = a better camera?! 22 is already an extreme amount of resolution. Even a 6 megapixel digicam photo will look great printed very large when viewed from a proper viewing distance, like all photos have a standard viewing distance. Photography is about more than resolution.

Completely agree with the point in bold, however there is a window of opportunity to exploit more resolution when a particular range of factors are optimal.

The best glass, the sharpest apertures, low ISO, optimal lighting, and solid technique.

And of course the whole point is to produce a detailed large print. If you're not printing big all you're doing is filling up cards and hard drives with large files.

 

[stephenmelvin]

stephenmelvin wrote:

Where are you getting this stuff from lol DXO or some test site? The 24mm 1.4G Nikkor is equal to the 24mm canon or better. Same with most you have said. Most are equal. Bare in mind canon make alot of products and Nikon just do one thing, certainly feels like a more focused approach. Also Canon have never really got coatings...

That 24mm Nikkor is a POS. Do you know who Lloyd Chambers is? Here's what he had to say about it:

"I am more impressed with optical quality of the 24mm f/1.4G than ever, especially at f/1.4, but the autofocus is best described as useless, at least with my sample, because it cannot be relied upon to deliver the performance of which the optics are capable."

Here's what he said about the 35G:

"In terms of autofocus, the 35/1.4G is surely the biggest piece of crap I’ve ever used of any brand, at least on my Nikon D3x and D3s (that’s $13K worth of pro camera bodies, folks). How can Nikon ship this garbage? Bad lens? Well, the other 35/1.4G sample I shot two days ago showed similar issues under field conditions, and could not focus properly on an eye for a portrait."

The ISO 12233 sample pics for the 24G on TDP site show a lens with pretty strong chromatic aberrations, too. The "L" is clearly superior.

As for "Canon have never really got coatings..." what on earth are you talking about? They're using the most sophisticated coatings in the world.

--
"I come to this forum because it sucks less than the others."

--
http://13photo.tumblr.com

 

[Great Bustard]

Honestly, Canon users, and I am one of them, if Nikon made an D800 version with EF mount, and you are in the market to upgrade your camera, which one will you buy, a 5dIII for $3500, or an EF mount D800 for $3000?

the problem is many of us stacked with Canon glasses and try very hard to prove that 5DIII is as good as D800, but it is not.

That would be awesome.