First Time FF User - 5DM3 or D600?

Before freaking out on me Canon forum users, please understand that I am hoping to get opinions from both sides before spending a small fortune on a body and lenses.

To start, i only talk about the D600 cause I am not looking for 36MP. Its just way too much for me to handle and I am not the best at using photoshop.

I mostly shoot people and landscapes. Lenses I would buy are the 24-70mm and the 50mm. Will pick up an 85mm around the holidays.

Any first-hand opinions would be most appreciated. Thank you!

Are you currently using a camera system? If not this is a tossup. I think the 5DIII has a superior autofocus, but it is more expensive than the D600. Nikon lenses are a bit more expensive, and Canon has a better lens portfolio in MHO. I would go to a camera store and play around with each camera before deciding.
--
Colin Smith

I think that the 5D III fits better in the hands and the controls and menu are a little easier to use. IMHO Also think about the new Tamron 24-70 f2.8 lens. Very nice balance with the 5D III.
--
Jim

No equipment by either manufacturer at the moment. I would be buying from scratch.

There is a few things to consider first.

Budget? and how much camera do you need? have you heavily invested into any systems?

D600 is probably one of the more sensible choices, might even get cheaper when the 6D comes out. It's a good camera, offers good value and performance when you compare it to how much a D800 and a mk3 would cost. I think for the price it has it offers 99% of what most people need. I think it has switchable viewfinder screens or maybe the projected ones, could come in handy to line up the landscape or horizon.

Mk3 might be a bit overkill but if you see yourself switching a lot between landscape and shooting people the programmable c-modes make it a beast because you don't waste time switching setting around as much, move dial and the personality of the camera changes. Do you think you will end up shooting sports or fast action then this is the camera to go with. It's fast, it's sexy and it comes at a price. Recently could find deals on this camera on ebay from reputable companies with usa warranty.

Probably will come out too late for you but I'll throw in the 6D. There's talk about how it might handle better in lower light since the focus spots are larger, seems they took a mk2, replace the a/f to a newer one maybe a rebel-like one and stuffed it in a package smaller than a 7d. Not too many people happy that they feel they took a mk3 and started taking things away till they felt like they could get away selling it for. They could have gone cheaper, gut the gps, should have been a mk3 with lower fps, smaller mp sensor, 1/3 less a/f points technically a baby mk3.

You don't need the mp the D800 has to offer but while I am here I will say the camera gets a worse rep then it has to because most people shoot it as if it was a ff camera whereas it's closer to a medium format handling and it is a lot less forgiving. Noise is not as bad as they make it out to be considering how ridiculous the mp is, some manufacturer defective cameras made it out and has made it a bit more of a gamble to get a perfect one.

If you are not heavily invested in any system either is fine.

Canon and Nikon camera are more similar than what they used to be.

If money is a issue you might be happier with a D600 with better glass than a MK3 with 1 lens and progressively building up a collection due to the higher entry cost.

I recommend you go to the store and hold one if you can, maybe you might like the ergonomics of one a bit better. Back in the day I almost got a canon rebel, once I tried the 30D I was hooked on the bigger body, a lot more comfortable.

I have a 30D I am tempted to upgrade in the future, If I was buying a new camera I would have a tough time deciding on these wonderful cameras. I would probably lean towards the D600 mainly due to price and having good specs, I would negate the glass because I have the 17-55 2.8 IS and that won't work on a FF sensor. With the ebay sale the mk3 is looking a lot better. If price was no objection between those two I would go MK3, if you would like to use the saving towards equipment I can easily recommend the D600.

I highly recommend you go and try out each for ergonomics and feel. Also check out the silent shutter as this has been a huge plus for some. You might even see if you can put a card in and capture the images and then go home and check em out.
The D600 will obviously leave you more money for glass.

Lens lines are going to be very similar with only a few differences. Check out the entire line of each and make a list of all lenses you would buy over time. If any lens is only from one manufacturer, this could make the decision for you, but I doubt it would.

Good luck with your decision. I know which I'd pick, but my priorities may be different from yours, so sorry, I'm leaving it up to you.

But I have to question why you would start off with a 24-70mm and a 50mm. They cover the same focal range. I'd pick one or the other and then get a 16-35mm canon or 14-24mm nikon or the 85mm you want as my second, but that's just me.

KidRacer said:

Before freaking out on me Canon forum users, please understand that I am hoping to get opinions from both sides before spending a small fortune on a body and lenses.

To start, i only talk about the D600 cause I am not looking for 36MP. Its just way too much for me to handle and I am not the best at using photoshop.

I mostly shoot people and landscapes. Lenses I would buy are the 24-70mm and the 50mm. Will pick up an 85mm around the holidays.

Any first-hand opinions would be most appreciated. Thank you!

Click to expand...

The 24-70 is a great all around lens and as you said, covers the 50mm mark, but the 50mm lens is really nice when i want to walk around town with a lighter setup. And for only $200, its worth having.

On a diff note, what is everyones take on the 24-105mm kit lens that comes with the 5D? If i go with that camera, should i stick with that lens, or go body only?

KidRacer said:

The 24-70 is a great all around lens and as you said, covers the 50mm mark, but the 50mm lens is really nice when i want to walk around town with a lighter setup. And for only $200, its worth having.

Click to expand...

For $200, you may also want to check out the the latest EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Pancake Lens for the ultimate light weight setup. The IQ and AF is improved over the 50, I know it is 10mm less, but, you can always move closer.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/870179-REG/Canon_40mm_f_2_8_EF_Pancake.html

Colin Smith1 wrote:

Nikon lenses are a bit more expensive, and Canon has a better lens portfolio in MHO.

Colin Smith1 said:

--
Colin Smith

Click to expand...

I beg to differ with that comment.

Canon lenses are much more expensive, period

The real matter isn' t the model , 5d3 or d600 : is , in my view the fact that you' ll select a whole system .
I have 5d3 , and 5d2 , 40d , 400d ( still have this one ) before it .
Before commit you should try both , Canon and Nikon layouts ,
get the same shoots and look at the native resulting files .

This ' cause in my view is more about personal feel for a tool or the other .

Then , if you , like me , live/operate in a area less covered by after sale service : check how far you are from help , if needed , with both the brands .

My best wishes .

The main reason one buys a full-frame sensor camera is for the higher dynamic range and lower signal-to-noise ratio over that of a smaller sensor. Recent DxO Labs sensor scores rate the Canon 5D Mark III inferior (a score of 81) to the new Nikon D600 (a score of 94). I totally disagree, based on other tests I have observed and reported in my blog comparing the high ISO noise levels of the Canon EOS 5D Mark III and the Nikon D600:

http://intothenightphoto.blogspot.com/2012/09/new-entry-level-full-frame-cameras.html

Mind you, this blog post is for those involved in low light night photography, not studio, sports or wedding photography. However, I've used my Mark III in all of these areas and the performance is amazing --much better than my older Mark II.

Honestly, if you're starting out now without any DSLR, and want the best bang for your buck, I don't see how you go wrong with the D600. The D600 is a better camera than the D800, in my opinion. It is the ultimate enthusiast's camera. Great dynamic range, noise control, ergonomics (I used a D7000 a while back and it was the best Nikon available in that regard, and the D600 has a similar design), burst rate. The 5D Mark III is awesome, too - I own one and love it - but it's a lot more expensive for essentially the same features, and again, the dynamic range of the D600 is better. Also, Nikon has a range of excellent lenses, as does Canon. In the long haul, you can't go wrong buying into either Canon or Nikon - both are excellent systems and both have a great series of lenses. Also, they have both been and will be around for a long time. But if you're going to buy a full frame camera in the year 2012, as opposed to 2008, and you're not currently invested in lenses from either company, Nikon is the place to be right now. In five years it could be Canon, but your D600 will still be excellent, and in 2020 the pendulum could swing back to Nikon.

Enjoy the camera. It's fantastic (I tried one out this past weekend).

If Nikon skin tones look fine to you and you don't need a pro AF, then buy D600 for better DR.

Personally, if I were buying a landscape camera, it would be D800e, but a portrait camera, 5D3. Both? Tough... Color calibrate D800e for skin tones or live with the 5D3 resolution and DR or wait for Canon to make a better sensor.

D600 is a valid choice as the Nikon 24-70 has always been a winner. It is one heavy long and intimidating lense and I honestly prefer a 40 mm pancake for walkaround. Canons 40mm pancake is cheap, unique, and has great IQ IMO. Canons 85mm 1.8 is cheaper with an AF that is almost 2x as fast at the expense of being 20 yrs old in design and probably not as sharp wide open. I do find that some samples I have seen of the Nikon over does the green bokeh fringing making for green profiles/edges of ones face as you aim for in focus eyes and might have oof cheeks, etc. Here is a shot of my cheap 85mm...far less LoCA imo and plenty sharp with spot on AF.





Also I like Canons AutoWB and skin tones without needing a lot of tweaks...that or Nikon shots I have seen just include way more pale pasty looking demographics than I am used to.

I would like to see more Nikon shots with their 85mm 1.8g as I keep seeing lots of green fringing even without pixel peeping. If i switched I would personally miss the 40mm pancake...the 35mm 1.4 are on another level of price and weight and neither 35mm f2s are as good IMO. I also don't AF tune any lenses including the lense I share with my Rebel.

Canon is also really impressing with AF on recent body lenses to be CDAF like in performance.

Still if you are dead set on lugging around a 24-70 2.8 the Nikon is a great choice.

KidRacer said:

Before freaking out on me Canon forum users, please understand that I am hoping to get opinions from both sides before spending a small fortune on a body and lenses.

To start, i only talk about the D600 cause I am not looking for 36MP. Its just way too much for me to handle and I am not the best at using photoshop.

I mostly shoot people and landscapes. Lenses I would buy are the 24-70mm and the 50mm. Will pick up an 85mm around the holidays.

Any first-hand opinions would be most appreciated. Thank you!

Click to expand...

As far as lenses go, I'd actually give a slight edge to Nikon for your specific needs. Canon's new 24-70 II might be quite a bit better than NIkon's 24-70, but the former isn't exactly poor either, and a bit cheaper. On the other hand Nikon's 50s are brand new and their optical performance is better than Canon's 50s. As far as 85s go, I believe it's a toss-up.

As far as cameras go, I personally think the 5DIII is worth the extra in general terms, but it doesn't mean it's worth it for your specific desires. The main difference, to me, is in handling / ergonomics, where the Canon is just better and allows for faster settings change (useful for shooting events / reportage / street photography - in fact it's the first DSLR I like using for street), thanks to a few key useful features (example : the functions associated with the depth of field preview button, are, IMHO, better thought through than on the Nikon, or the 5DIII's dials click positively into place, while the D600's are a little mushy feeling). It's also got a few extra functions that might be really useful for you or not (ex : silent mode, which, from direct comparison, subjectively seems still a bit quieter than the D600's improved shutter noise), or a few "details" that might just get your preference (joystick over pad, etc.).

The D600 retaliates with a better sensor at lower ISOs, which may be just what you need for landscapes, and of course, it's cheaper. It's again in the details where you may find a few extras over the Canon. For instance I felt it was easier to see the entire frame in the VF with my glasses on than on the Canon's (but then, both fitted with a 50 f1.4 I thought the Canon's VF was brighter.)

To sum it up, for landscapes I'd take the D600, for people the 5DIII. I cannot emphasize enough though, how important it is for you to try them both in your hands before making a decision, if you can.

Royce - Into the Night Photography said:

The main reason one buys a full-frame sensor camera is for the higher dynamic range and lower signal-to-noise ratio over that of a smaller sensor. Recent DxO Labs sensor scores rate the Canon 5D Mark III inferior (a score of 81) to the new Nikon D600 (a score of 94). I totally disagree, based on other tests I have observed and reported in my blog comparing the high ISO noise levels of the Canon EOS 5D Mark III and the Nikon D600:

http://intothenightphoto.blogspot.com/2012/09/new-entry-level-full-frame-cameras.html

Click to expand...

You disagree with DxOmark's assessment of the raw output of these cameras based on DPR's default out-of-camera JPEG comparisons. Right.

--
Bob

KidRacer said:

Before freaking out on me Canon forum users, please understand that I am hoping to get opinions from both sides before spending a small fortune on a body and lenses.

To start, i only talk about the D600 cause I am not looking for 36MP. Its just way too much for me to handle and I am not the best at using photoshop.

I mostly shoot people and landscapes. Lenses I would buy are the 24-70mm and the 50mm. Will pick up an 85mm around the holidays.

Any first-hand opinions would be most appreciated. Thank you!

Click to expand...

No point asking other people which camera is right for you. All that matters in the end is wether you feel good with your purchase, and no-one else can tell you that. For the vast majority of purposes, there is no difference between these cameras, both exceed the capabilities of most photographers by a big margin, both will give excellent photographs. So read about them, in you can try them, work out which one you personally want more and buy it.
--
Bob

Forgot to add this, if you shoot a lot of j-pegs the Canon processing is a little bit more aggressive and yields good results. I had occasions where I wasn't doing something important and didn't want to post process and just shot j-peg.

You say:
"I mostly shoot people and landscapes."

Then, the Nikon D600 is the right choice for you because of its dynamic range that is the same than for the Nikon D800. And dynamic range matters especially for landscapes and even for when you shoot people.

Now, the Canon 5D Mark III is an excellent camera. But the specification of the Nikon D600 is equivalent to the specification of the Canon 5D Mark III but the Nikon D600 costs $1,400 less than the Canon 5D Mark III! You can use the difference to buy lenses.

More, the sensor on the Nikon D600 is currently of the same quality than the sensor used in the Nikon D800 with very high dynamic range. On the other hand, the sensor used in the Canon 5D Mark III is the same old technology used on the Canon 5D Mark II and it is much inferior to the sensor used in the Nikon D600. That makes a lot of difference when you shoot landscapes and people.

The only advantage that the Canon 5D Mark III has over the Nikon D600 is that its build quality is stronger but it was a design choice for the Nikon D600 to build it the way it is so that it is lighter and smaller than a normal full frame camera. But both are fully sealed for moist and dust at the same level.

So, you have an honest assessment of the situation. But either camera is excellent in many ways but there are differences that I have highlighted.

I doubt anybody on this forum can give you an answer. Since you are planning to spend some serious money and possibly be tied to one system or the other for next few years, why don't you start by spending little money and rent both with let's say 50mm lenses, or 24-70 if you like zooms. You will get the feeling of each, where are all the buttons, how to adjust basic settings on each model and so on. Take many pictures with them, make sure you shoot in RAW and compare, see which colors look better to you. Both systems has their advantage, Nikon has better sensors, Canon has more lenses to choose from, some fanatics will try to persuade you that other camera are useless junk, but by the end of the day, only you must be happy with the choice, so you better rely on the most important opinion - yours. Both company are making great cameras and if you are good at it, you will be taking wonderful pictures regardless of the camera you will be using.