You know, it just occurred to me...

Started Mar 7, 2012 | Discussions thread
oysso Regular Member • Posts: 472
Re: Simple but wrong...

bobn2 wrote:

Randplaty wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

...that when Nikon came out with their 200-400 / 4 VR, lots of Canon shooters started asking where Canon's was, and no one told them that the 100-400L was "good enough".

When Nikon came out with their 14-24 / 2.8G, lots of Canon shooters asked why Canon couldn't produce a UWA as good, and no one said that the 16-35 / 2.8L II was "good enough".

Yet when Nikon comes out with their D800 that has a better sensor than the 5D3 by any measure, and is every bit as good, if not better, in terms of overall operation, and at $500 less, there's a huge outcry that IQ doesn't matter and people are unphased by paying more for less.

That's because the d800 is not better than the 5D3 by any measure. ahhah pretty simple answer.

D800 is better by most significant measures. It is worse by two, so far as I can see. FPS and AF cross points. On the latter, we don't know the significance until the dynamic operation of the AF systems is known, and the Canon is a completely unknown quantity.

The 5D III is better for me than D800

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow