5D mk III announced

Not very often....I usually put it on for sunrise and sunset shots. While hiking around I rarely ever feel the need for it....unless I'm in a slot canyon or something.
 
how happy are you all with mkII cameras?

I have a decisive decision to make and need some input. Since my Nikon D90 got error messages and problems on a regular base, I need a new camera. With less than 4 weeks left until my next trip I can't wait for the Nikon D800. The waiting list right now is between weeks and months!!! :eek:
And with my old camera I will not go on a backpacking trip or longer hike and discover that it's not working again. :mad:

So I'll maybe switch to Canon and the mkII.
Is there a really good lens available similar to the wonderful Nikon 14-24 f2.8 which I originally wanted to buy with my D800?
So far I just need a wide angle lens, it would satisfy my needs for the next trip.
 
Miss Buffalo said:
how happy are you all with mkII cameras?

I have a decisive decision to make and need some input. Since my Nikon D90 got error messages and problems on a regular base, I need a new camera. With less than 4 weeks left until my next trip I can't wait for the Nikon D800. The waiting list right now is between weeks and months!!! :eek:
And with my old camera I will not go on a backpacking trip or longer hike and discover that it's not working again. :mad:

So I'll maybe switch to Canon and the mkII.
Is there a really good lens available similar to the wonderful Nikon 14-24 f2.8 which I originally wanted to buy with my D800?
So far I just need a wide angle lens, it would satisfy my needs for the next trip.
Click to expand...

I returned my 5d II and went back to the Canon 60D. I just didn't see the benefits, the difference in image quality is barely noticeable to me and the 60D does killer night shots. And the flip out screen... don't know how I could live without it now.
 
I love my 5dmkII, but if you are invested in Nikkor glass, I don't think it would be worth it to switch to Canon?

The Canon 16-35mm f2.8 is a great wide lens....but it's not as good as the Nikkor 14-24mm. Many Canon shooters use an adapter so they can use the 14-24mm on their mkII. It's a thought that had crossed my mind, but I'm not ready to go there, yet.
 
ibenick said:
I returned my 5d II and went back to the Canon 60D. I just didn't see the benefits, the difference in image quality is barely noticeable to me and the 60D does killer night shots. And the flip out screen... don't know how I could live without it now.
Click to expand...


you did? Wow...
So all your last shots were taken again with the 60D? They are amazing and tack sharp

My problem is I need something that's definitely an upgrade to my D90, is available and satisfies my needs.
Primary needs are waterfalls, night shots and some trail reports.
And Nikon really has that great 14-24mm prime lens.
Not sure if a mkII will just be overkill for my specific needs.

Another option could be the Nikon D700...
 
IntrepidXJ said:
I love my 5dmkII, but if you are invested in Nikkor glass, I don't think it would be worth it to switch to Canon?

The Canon 16-35mm f2.8 is a great wide lens....but it's not as good as the Nikkor 14-24mm. Many Canon shooters use an adapter so they can use the 14-24mm on their mkII. It's a thought that had crossed my mind, but I'm not ready to go there, yet.
Click to expand...


because I always had a Nikon camera, I had all the Nikkor lenses. And I would really love to upgrade to that 14-24mm. I could test it last year in a store, but couldn't afford it then. And that lens really is amazing.

Even if I buy a mkII, will I be able to learn the most important features of it in the short time? The Canon system is totally different compared to Nikon.
Difficult decision, especially in that situation where I need something as soon as possible. :rolleyes:
 
I second what IntrepidXJ said. If you already know the Nikon system and already have the lenses, I'd stick with Nikon. I prefer to carry my T2i over my 5D when in the backcoutry. The body is a lot lighter and the T2i does great night shots, waterfall shots and just about everything else. The difference in full frame and 1.3x crop can usually only be seen in enlarged prints. On a computer monitor you will be hard pressed to see the difference unless you are pixel peeping.In my opinion, lenses make a far bigger difference in the quality of the picture than the camera body does.
 
Miss Buffalo said:
you did? Wow...
So all your last shots were taken again with the 60D? They are amazing and tack sharp

My problem is I need something that's definitely an upgrade to my D90, is available and satisfies my needs.
Primary needs are waterfalls, night shots and some trail reports.
And Nikon really has that great 14-24mm prime lens.
Not sure if a mkII will just be overkill for my specific needs.

Another option could be the Nikon D700...
Click to expand...

Yep. Everything I've taken on the last two trips, Little Death Hollow and the Maidenwater-Trachyte-Swett trip were on my 60D. I don't think the 5d II is worth it but I can't comment on the Nikon stuff because I have no clue. I did buy a new lens though. It's the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. It's crazy sharp and makes me truly realize that 95% of picture quality really is the glass you're using. On the ultrawide, I'm convinced the Canon 10-22 is the best for Canon crop sensors. The only one I haven't tried is the Sigma but I have now thoroughly test the Sigma 11-16 (I currently have a rental of one) and the Canon 10-22 (mine is off getting repaired) and I really love the 10-22. If you're concerned about night stuff, keep in mind that almost every frame of my 'A Year Under The Stars' video was shot with my 60D and Canon 10-22.

As for learning a new system, it will definitely suck at first, but I'm sure you'd get the hang of it. Something to do on the airplane!
 
Have you looked at that D7000?
 
I think y'all are up in the night. :frantic: I see a HUGE difference in image quality between my 7D and 5D... HUGE! The full frame sensor is far superior for night shorts, dynamic range, and overall sharpness. The only thing I've been using my 7d for is video, high FPS sequence shots, and anything that requires my fish that doesn't work on the full frame. I'm pretty confident that i will be selling my 7D within the next year to help pay for the 5dMkIII.

There are a few pitfalls with the 5d... battery life sucks, shitty menu interface, crappy LCD, lack of 2sec timer, no live view or video, and its a fracking dust magnet compared to my 7d :facepalm:

But the image quality is so worth packing it around.
 
Miss Buffalo said:
you did? Wow...
So all your last shots were taken again with the 60D? They are amazing and tack sharp

My problem is I need something that's definitely an upgrade to my D90, is available and satisfies my needs.
Primary needs are waterfalls, night shots and some trail reports.
And Nikon really has that great 14-24mm prime lens.
Not sure if a mkII will just be overkill for my specific needs.

Another option could be the Nikon D700...
Click to expand...

You can find good used D700's with the amazing D800 just out. I'm hoping to have my D800 in the next month or so..........
 
Summit said:
I think y'all are up in the night. :frantic: I see a HUGE difference in image quality between my 7D and 5D... HUGE! The full frame sensor is far superior for night shorts, dynamic range, and overall sharpness. The only thing I've been using my 7d for is video, high FPS sequence shots, and anything that requires my fish that doesn't work on the full frame. I'm pretty confident that i will be selling my 7D within the next year to help pay for the 5dMkIII.

There are a few pitfalls with the 5d... battery life sucks, shitty menu interface, crappy LCD, lack of 2sec timer, no live view or video, and its a fracking dust magnet compared to my 7d :facepalm:

But the image quality is so worth packing it around.
Click to expand...

I think maybe I was misunderstood. In my post I said that I prefer to carry my T2i over my 5D when in the backcountry. When I'm shooting a wedding or portrait session I don't even think twice about grabbing the 5D. When I shoot portrait photography I rarely shoot with a smaller aperture than f5.6. Everything is f1.8-5.6. Portrait photography is about isolating the subject from the background and bringing the focus to them. When I'm in the backcountry I rarely shoot with a large aperture(night shots are about the only time I do). IMO, Images shot with a large aperture on the 5D look better than on the T2i and that has to do with the larger sensor which produces a more pleasing bokeh. So, in short, yes the images from the 5D are better, but when viewed online or in a photo frame or prints up to 8x10 I think you would be hard pressed to find a big difference, which is why I carry my T2i in the backcountry. On the other hand, I would never think of taking my T2i to do a portrait shoot over the 5D. Just personal preference.

Summit, I haven't noticed a huge difference in your pictures online from when you used you 7D and now using your 5D. They looked great before and they look great now. But I think I know what you are talking about. When viewing/editing the RAW files, the files from the 5D look cleaner/better. To each their own I guess.
 
Deadeye008 said:
Summit, I haven't noticed a huge difference in your pictures online from when you used you 7D and now using your 5D. They looked great before and they look great now. But I think I know what you are talking about. When viewing/editing the RAW files, the files from the 5D look cleaner/better. To each their own I guess.
Click to expand...

I get what your saying but I also haven't been posting any shots online that credit my caparison but when browsing images in LR is quite obvious.

again.. bad comparison but here are the 3 most recent star trails I've processed.
What one was shot with the 7d?


Cottonwood Campsite by Summit42, on Flickr


Big Agnes Trails by Summit42, on Flickr


Juniper on Fire by Summit42, on Flickr
 
Summit said:
I get what your saying but I also haven't been posting any shots online that credit my caparison but when browsing images in LR is quite obvious.

again.. bad comparison but here are the 3 most recent star trails I've processed.
What one was shot with the 7d?


Cottonwood Campsite by Summit42, on Flickr


Big Agnes Trails by Summit42, on Flickr


Juniper on Fire by Summit42, on Flickr
Click to expand...

I would say that the middle picture was shot with the 7D because it looks darker and less contrasty but it could have been that the lighting conditions were better for the other two shots or that the images were processed differently. Maybe I'll have to set up both cameras and do a controlled test and post the results. Yes, like I mentioned above, in LR or PS you can tell a difference when looking at the original files. Harder to tell the difference when viewing the files online.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top