Once Again, Why Jump Ship?

The previous thread was too full to post so I have to assert my stance here. Assuming you purchase the holy trinity from each brand plus their flag-ship mid-range FF DSLR, you would pay exactly $500 more for Canon assuming the 5D3 does come out at that price. Here is the breakdown without rebates...

Nikon 24-70 vs Canon 24-70II
Price: 1900 vs 2400

-No tests have been done on the new Canon 24-70 so we cannot compare image quality. However, the Canon is lighter and smaller though that still does not justify the 400 price increase IMO. If the Canon performs significantly better in image quality, the winner would be Canon.
Winner: Nikon

Nikon 70-200 vs Canon 70-200II
Price: 2400 vs 2400
-Canon is sharper hands down and performs better especially on FF bodies.
Winner: Canon

Nikon 14-24 vs Canon 16-35II
Price: 2000 vs 1600

-Nikon is sharper and has less distortion. The best wide angle zoom. Worth $500 more IMO.
Winner: Nikon

Nikon D800 vs Canon 5DII
Price: 3000 vs 3500 (assumed)

-No valid full proof data exists for the 5DIII including the price or features. No accurate data exists for the D800 performance though price and features are firm.
Winner: N/A

So, combined, you would end up paying 500 more for the WHOLE system for Canon and not enough evidence exists to conclusively decide which is the victor. Whether you are with Nikon or Canon I just do not see why people are making the fuss to jump ship. I did not include flashes or primes since peoples preferences tend to change drastically when it comes to lighting and specialty lenses. However, the holy trinity is world renown as the bread and butter of professionals around the world. I'm no pro, but I have been to several weddings and all pros that I have seen including the one at my wedding have the holy trinity.

Was to discourage me from upgrading and maybe from photography.

The 1DX announcement and a lot of forum comments say the mpix race is over. Since I have always wanted to print large, I was at first disappointed. But the Nikon D800 started an inquiry along the lines of how it effects what I actually do and am capable of doing. The next Canon 5D-mk3 at 22 mpixels is to me a 5D-mk2.1 and of zero interest. It will need to be far different from anything I have seen to create any buying pressure on me to upgrade my 1DS-mk3.

I have my prime lens line up now and it is better than anything Nikon offers so no interest in switching.

1. The cameras I have are overkill for web my Nikon 990 was probably good enough for web posting.

2. I have sufficient pixels for 235 ppi at 16x24 prints. 35 mpixles only adds more PPI to a 16x24 or allows the same PPI at 20x30. Do I really need it when I only have space for 7 or 8 prints and maybe less at the larger size?

3. I had already realized that bird photography was going to be more difficult in my new state, leaving only landscape. I wont need stuff like speed, high iso, or af. And more pixels are only required for large prints.

4. I am running out of outlets for what I do because I am my only customer. Maybe it’s time to quit.

5. Today may see the peak of resale value of my gear which adds quit pressure.

6. I could switch to an Nex 7 or similar and still have a hobby and would even print good enough for the stuff I do. ISO 100 stopped down tripod work. Available focal length would be the main challenge.

7. Or I could just freeze at the current level and consider the gear as sunken cost.

--

What I need most is to improve the content of my images. But I like my content and have not been able to figure out what people would prefer.

http://ben-egbert.smugmug.com/

Ben

Depends on the body that Canon offers. Will it be a substantially lower end body compared to Nikon D800 which is top of the line. Who wants to pay more for a lower end body. Since we have no real idea what Canon is going to offer or at what price no one in there right mind can decide yet. But if the rumor about basically a FF 7D at 22 meg and 4.3 fps all for 3500 that would be a real crazy move on Canons part. I want to get a FF but iam not paying more for less. Why stay with Canon IF that's what they offer. It will be another 2 to 3 years before they upgrade from what ever does come out. Iam not waiting and why should anyone?

Now this assumes the rumor is correct which we don't really know at this point.

--
http://www.pbase.com/dc9mm

It actually disheartens me to hear someone lose interest in what they a hobby they used to love (which I can tell you must have enjoyed it since your gear is amazing). I don't think you should give up on your hobby and I hope someone does something to help you get back in the game.

The lens line up has really discouraged me from Nikon. Even in the cases where there are equivalent lenses I'm getting less from the Nikon lens. Nikon has my favorite lens, the 135mm f2, but it's the same price as the Canon and it doesn't even have a focus motor. I know if I buy one, Nikon will release one with an ultrasonic focus motor within a few months.

Canon's 70-200mm f2.8 Mark II (and apparently the new 24-70mm f2.8) show that Canon is making great (although expensive) improvements with their lenses and the 200-400mm f4 (whenever it shows up) shows that Canon is at least paying attention to Nikon's successes.

Ben_Egbert said:

Was to discourage me from upgrading and maybe from photography.

Click to expand...

So the lack of a 40+mp Canon body would be enough to discourage you from doing photography as a hobby? That's a gearhead's viewpoint if I've ever heard one!
--
Check out the new site:
http://www.gipperich-photography.com
Or the portrait gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/portraits

That is the problem though. 2-3 years is not that long when you consider the lenses. Look at the 24-70 f2.8 mark I? I have owned both the Nikon and Canon 24-70 f2.8 and the image quality difference was unnoticeable even at pixel level. I could have had a bad copy of the Nikon lens but even on a crop body (which is supposed to be sharper due to using only the sweet spot of the lens) it was approximately the same image quality. Yet the Nikon was heavier, larger, and more expensive compared to the dated mark 1 which is approaching nearly a decade of shelf life. 2-3 years is no big deal when you have an established set of lenses and accessories. I dint jump ship when I bought the 50D, well, I did; but I kept my Canon glass and accessories which paid off when I moved from the D7000 w/ 24-70 Nikon back to Canon with the 5D MKII.

I followed similar logic: a landscape photographer, doing some studio work on the side. I have absolutely no use for high ISO, or for a dual slot, and most of my work does not require super-fast AF.

I have sold the 5Dmk2, and kept my canon lenses. I have bought a Nex-7, with the following lenses: 18-200, 18-55 and 16, and also these legacy manual focus lenses: Contax G 28-45-90, and Rokkor MD 50/1.4+135/2.8+200/4

I was waiting to see what the 5Dmk3 or whatevertheycallit would be. With those specs, I am sticking with the Nex and very likely selling my Canon lenses, strobes, and other accessories.

Who is Canon to decide that the resolution race is over? The 5Dmk2 did not exceed the specs of my lenses yet, why would they stop there, unless if they don't know how to manufacture cost-effectively a higher resolution sensor.

In which case, Sony did, and Nikon has introduced their D800. Canon's only survival strategy should be a dramatic price reduction and praying they don't lose more customers like me.

In fact, Canon could learn a great lesson from Nokia and Rim. Who needs large touch screens and apps on their phones, or who needs an email client on a tablet ? Similarly, who want more megapixels in a lightweight body ? Well , I do, and Canon is missing this opportunity by dropping the ball.

Ben_Egbert said:

Was to discourage me from upgrading and maybe from photography.

The 1DX announcement and a lot of forum comments say the mpix race is over. Since I have always wanted to print large, I was at first disappointed. But the Nikon D800 started an inquiry along the lines of how it effects what I actually do and am capable of doing. The next Canon 5D-mk3 at 22 mpixels is to me a 5D-mk2.1 and of zero interest. It will need to be far different from anything I have seen to create any buying pressure on me to upgrade my 1DS-mk3.

I have my prime lens line up now and it is better than anything Nikon offers so no interest in switching.

1. The cameras I have are overkill for web my Nikon 990 was probably good enough for web posting.

2. I have sufficient pixels for 235 ppi at 16x24 prints. 35 mpixles only adds more PPI to a 16x24 or allows the same PPI at 20x30. Do I really need it when I only have space for 7 or 8 prints and maybe less at the larger size?

3. I had already realized that bird photography was going to be more difficult in my new state, leaving only landscape. I wont need stuff like speed, high iso, or af. And more pixels are only required for large prints.

4. I am running out of outlets for what I do because I am my only customer. Maybe it’s time to quit.

5. Today may see the peak of resale value of my gear which adds quit pressure.

6. I could switch to an Nex 7 or similar and still have a hobby and would even print good enough for the stuff I do. ISO 100 stopped down tripod work. Available focal length would be the main challenge.

7. Or I could just freeze at the current level and consider the gear as sunken cost.

--

What I need most is to improve the content of my images. But I like my content and have not been able to figure out what people would prefer.

http://ben-egbert.smugmug.com/

Ben

Click to expand...

Canon for longer focal lengths

Nikon for shorter focal lengths

If you have Canon Glass that is

Or maybe even if you have Nikon Glass

Tine will tell

NeilSDPR said:

Canon for longer focal lengths

Nikon for shorter focal lengths

If you have Canon Glass that is

Or maybe even if you have Nikon Glass

Tine will tell

Click to expand...

I have used both systems for 5-years. There are situations in which I prefer Canon and vice versa. I have ordered the D800 and sold my D700 last fall. I don't see anything in the rumored 5D3 that excites me and will keep my 5D2. I trust Nikon's AF and metering. I like my Canon lenses, but AF (especially in low contrast settings) and metering have been a PITA.

--
Canon and Nikon Equipment
I never met a camera I didn't like.

no text

nicolas guilbert said:

no text

Click to expand...

I second that !
--
http://www.pahountis.gr

GMussio said:

It actually disheartens me to hear someone lose interest in what they a hobby they used to love (which I can tell you must have enjoyed it since your gear is amazing). I don't think you should give up on your hobby and I hope someone does something to help you get back in the game.

Click to expand...

I am retired and this is all I do, so yes, it will be a big deal to quit, and for that reason alone I probably won't.

In one way, I am relieved, my 1DS-mk3 is still plenty of camera compared to the new offerings. Up to 16x24 I doubt the new stuff will make much difference.

--

What I need most is to improve the content of my images. But I like my content and have not been able to figure out what people would prefer.

http://ben-egbert.smugmug.com/

Ben

gipper51 said:

Ben_Egbert said:

Was to discourage me from upgrading and maybe from photography.

Click to expand...

So the lack of a 40+mp Canon body would be enough to discourage you from doing photography as a hobby? That's a gearhead's viewpoint if I've ever heard one!
--

Click to expand...

No, its the ability to print 20x30 at 300ppi. Without that jumo there is no point I can see to switch. That's just math. Remember, I already have good AF and no banding and a decent burst rate. I am not motivated by some of the 5D-mk2 issues.

Owning a 1DS-mk3 gives me a bit of wiggle room. I may be able to sell it for near the price of the next 5D. But it would need to be compelling. A $3k camera with enough pixels to do 20x30 and a detachable 7 inch live view with peaking would tempt me.

If you are not printing, I think 16mp is plenty. If you already have 21, 35 is not the magic number for a jump. 22 has zero value to a 1DS-mk3 owner.

gipper51 said:

Check out the new site:
http://www.gipperich-photography.com
Or the portrait gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/portraits

Click to expand...

--

What I need most is to improve the content of my images. But I like my content and have not been able to figure out what people would prefer.

http://ben-egbert.smugmug.com/

Ben

CBuff said:

I have sold the 5Dmk2, and kept my canon lenses. I have bought a Nex-7, with the following lenses: 18-200, 18-55 and 16, and also these legacy manual focus lenses: Contax G 28-45-90, and Rokkor MD 50/1.4+135/2.8+200/4

Click to expand...

I was looking at the Nex-7 and wondering how good it would be at landscapes. I would miss my 17 and 24TSE. Whats the widest they have?

Ben_Egbert said:

gipper51 said:

Ben_Egbert said:

Was to discourage me from upgrading and maybe from photography.

Click to expand...

So the lack of a 40+mp Canon body would be enough to discourage you from doing photography as a hobby? That's a gearhead's viewpoint if I've ever heard one!
--

Click to expand...

No, its the ability to print 20x30 at 300ppi. Without that jumo there is no point I can see to switch. That's just math. Remember, I already have good AF and no banding and a decent burst rate. I am not motivated by some of the 5D-mk2 issues.

Owning a 1DS-mk3 gives me a bit of wiggle room. I may be able to sell it for near the price of the next 5D. But it would need to be compelling. A $3k camera with enough pixels to do 20x30 and a detachable 7 inch live view with peaking would tempt me.

Click to expand...

I must have misunderstood you. It sounded like you were comtemplating quiting photography just because you are 'stuck' at 21mp. It sounded silly to me.

Ben_Egbert said:

If you are not printing, I think 16mp is plenty. If you already have 21, 35 is not the magic number for a jump. 22 has zero value to a 1DS-mk3 owner.

Click to expand...

Depends on what you're viewing. Some like using a large monitor as a "digital loupe" and zooming to 100% to marvel at all the details. I'm guilty (though not obsessed) of doing this often. I've never printed an image from an IQ80, but panning around a detailed shot from this MF back is amazing.

Ben_Egbert said:

Ben_Egbert said:

I have sold the 5Dmk2, and kept my canon lenses. I have bought a Nex-7, with the following lenses: 18-200, 18-55 and 16, and also these legacy manual focus lenses: Contax G 28-45-90, and Rokkor MD 50/1.4+135/2.8+200/4

Click to expand...

I was looking at the Nex-7 and wondering how good it would be at landscapes. I would miss my 17 and 24TSE. Whats the widest they have?

Click to expand...

The widest I have now is 16, equivalent to 24. However, Michael reichman tried a sigma 8-16 (equivalent 12-24) with an adapter and he was happy with the results.

gipper51 said:

I must have misunderstood you. It sounded like you were comtemplating quiting photography just because you are 'stuck' at 21mp. It sounded silly to me.

Click to expand...

Its more complex than that. 3 years ago I got the 1DS-mk3 and started collecting landscape lenses. That did not work out too well. The recent activity made me think deep enough to realize its not the gear, its probably not even the post processing, its the choices of scenes and compositions I make when I take a photograph.

But I make these choices because I like them. And I have no idea why others don't. So like I said, I am my only customer which is hard to justify.

So the recent announcements just caused me to re-evaluate things and figure all this out. I was looking for MF quality, but the true missing quality is my artistic taste.

But to the question. I have nothing better to do and if I can keep on doing what I do without spending lots of money or if I could swap the 1ds-mk3 for a 40+mpix landscape oriented camera, I might.

If I had other things to do, quitting would still make sense.

gipper51 said:

gipper51 said:

If you are not printing, I think 16mp is plenty. If you already have 21, 35 is not the magic number for a jump. 22 has zero value to a 1DS-mk3 owner.

Click to expand...

Depends on what you're viewing. Some like using a large monitor as a "digital loupe" and zooming to 100% to marvel at all the details. I'm guilty (though not obsessed) of doing this often. I've never printed an image from an IQ80, but panning around a detailed shot from this MF back is amazing.

Click to expand...

I keep hearing about 4K monitors. I doubt the price gets to my budget before I am too old to care.

--

What I need most is to improve the content of my images. But I like my content and have not been able to figure out what people would prefer.

http://ben-egbert.smugmug.com/

Ben

CBuff said:

Ben_Egbert said:

CBuff said:

I have sold the 5Dmk2, and kept my canon lenses. I have bought a Nex-7, with the following lenses: 18-200, 18-55 and 16, and also these legacy manual focus lenses: Contax G 28-45-90, and Rokkor MD 50/1.4+135/2.8+200/4

Click to expand...

I was looking at the Nex-7 and wondering how good it would be at landscapes. I would miss my 17 and 24TSE. Whats the widest they have?

Click to expand...

The widest I have now is 16, equivalent to 24. However, Michael reichman tried a sigma 8-16 (equivalent 12-24) with an adapter and he was happy with the results.

Click to expand...

Good to hear but in reality I am probably just going to use my current gear for the rest of my photo life.

--

What I need most is to improve the content of my images. But I like my content and have not been able to figure out what people would prefer.

http://ben-egbert.smugmug.com/

Ben

Ben Said

Ben_Egbert said:

No, its the ability to print 20x30 at 300ppi. Without that jumo there is no point I can see to switch. That's just math. Remember, I already have good AF and no banding and a decent burst rate. I am not motivated by some of the 5D-mk2 issues.

Click to expand...

Ben I understand all that you have said. Photography, in a way, is an exact science, however, it is very multi-dimensional or interconnected via a very complex digital system that delivers images from a sensor to a digital print and I certainly am not a professional, but after 20 years as an engineer, you just can't jump conclusions, you have to discover them. I think there are going to be a number of 36mp buyers who might wonder why they need a 36mp file, when they can't discern a print from a 12mp or 36mp sensor. All I can say is camera companies are businesses, and if people want MP, I guess camera companies will sell them MP's if it makes them a profit!

In my opinion you have all the MP's and fine art glass you need with your IDs MkIII. In fact in my office I have hanging several large 24 by 30" Canvas prints on stretcher bars that I took with my 5D MkI which has considerably less pixels (12.8MP) than your camera or my 5D MKII. When people comment on my gallery of photos, they seem to always indicate that the prints from the original 5D are the cleanest and sharpest and I think this has everything to do with Pixel size!

I guess there is a lot I don't understand about how all the interfacing dymamics at play between camera, software and printer, all I can comment on is what I see. So I am inclined to sit on my hands, and wait for reviews and TAKE MY TIME deciding what I may want or not want to do. So in this regard, I am going to let the facts be my guide.

I am NOT sold on MP's even if the devil on my shoulders say I am, I am sold on the print. I mean what is the use having 36mp -46mp if when compared to a 12.8MP file, people like the prints created by the 12.8MP file?

BTW I own an iPF-8300 44" Canon Printer. It does everything!!! 12 Colors really make the prints pop. I've owned it almost 2 years, and have only changed out 2 330ml print cartridges.

Sure I THINK I want 36mp for the same reason you do (better resolution?), but not if the pixel IQ is so marginalized that my prints lack vibrance or worse if I have to take photos with perfect high dollar glass set at optimal f/ stops in perfect lighting conditions just to please the ever narrowing requirements of shrinking pixels. I mean at some point even Canon "II" glass will not be resolve incoming light sufficiently enought to deliver tack sharp images if pixels continue to shrink....

...but time will tell!