Options
The anti-7dMkII thread
OK, the jury is still out on the 7DMkII, so while I wait to see good images, I am contemplating going in a different direction: Nikon full frame.
The new Nikon 750 looks simply amazing. It seems to combine the pricing and image quality of the Canon 6D with the focus and shutter of the 5DMkIII (or better). Add to that the Sony sensor low light capability, and I am just amazed with every review I read. Why didnt Canon make this camera or make the 6D like this?
Of course, it doesn't have the Gatling gun shutter of the 7DMk2, but frankly I don't need that, having never noticed if I missed a shot with my Canon 40D, which boasts a similar 6 fps. For focus there are a nice spread of 51 focus pts from the 810, rather than the embarrassing 19 pts in the 6D, or the tiny cluster of 39 in the Nikon 610.
So what am I missing? What is the catch? Why is this not a great replacement for someone lusting after an unaffordable 5DMk3, that wants more than a super fast fps found in the 7D? To me this seems to be just the right camera that I wish Canon had made.
Now, if I didn't have all those lenses and flashes...
The new Nikon 750 looks simply amazing. It seems to combine the pricing and image quality of the Canon 6D with the focus and shutter of the 5DMkIII (or better). Add to that the Sony sensor low light capability, and I am just amazed with every review I read. Why didnt Canon make this camera or make the 6D like this?
Of course, it doesn't have the Gatling gun shutter of the 7DMk2, but frankly I don't need that, having never noticed if I missed a shot with my Canon 40D, which boasts a similar 6 fps. For focus there are a nice spread of 51 focus pts from the 810, rather than the embarrassing 19 pts in the 6D, or the tiny cluster of 39 in the Nikon 610.
So what am I missing? What is the catch? Why is this not a great replacement for someone lusting after an unaffordable 5DMk3, that wants more than a super fast fps found in the 7D? To me this seems to be just the right camera that I wish Canon had made.
Now, if I didn't have all those lenses and flashes...
0
Comments
Actually, if you are lusting for a 5D3, check the Canon Loyalty Program. B&H shows the Nikon 750 and 24-120mm lens (you'll need glass, right) for $3,600. I got a 5D3 and 24-105mm IS for $3,300 (with tax & shipping) earlier this year through the CLP.
http://www.moose135photography.com
As it turns out, if I go to full frame even on Canon, I only get to keep half of my lenses, as the other half are EF-S only. I do like the Canon layout better. How does one qualify? I thought this was for angry customers with a broken camera. My 40D is still ticking.
http://www.moose135photography.com
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
What are you talking about? The D750 is merely a 5D3 with a Sony sensor, Nikon mount, and Nikon controls (spits on ground).
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Nikon 750 = $2,296 (BH)
High praise for the Nikon, given its over $1,000 cheaper. (body only prices)
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
In all seriousness, I do firmly believe that the D750 is going to prove to be one of the best cameras ever made. Like the D700 was to the Canon 5D and 5D mk2, maybe.
Then again, if Canon takes what they're doing with the 7D mk2 and applies it to the 6D / 5D mk3, that'll be quite a winner as well in every respect except the few that (in my opinion at least) make Nikon a better system in the first place- better image quality, superior control layout, (for those who master it and customize it right) ...and more features in general.
By the way, with Nikon you get to keep your crop-sensor lenses, and I use mine quite often on my D800e when I don't care to be doodling around with 36 MP files all the time. My Tokina 11-16 and Sigma 50-150 2.8 get a fair amount of use, even though I also own a fair compliment of FX lenses.
Just some food for thought. By the way, Chip, what do you mainly shoot? I poke fun at Canon often, but there are of course still plenty of reasons to stick with Canon. The 7D mk2 looks to be a truly killer telephoto sports camera, especially that new AF system...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
This would make the 1DX as we know it obsolete.
100% subjective opinion.
This seems antithetical to the reasons for moving to FF in the first place.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I used to say that too, until recently. As someone who frequently uses both systems, extensively for thousands of images per week / month, I feel like the differences are becoming less subjective and more cut-and-dry.
I'm talking on a mainstream scale, too. It used to be that I preferred Nikon for a bunch of obscure, quirky reasons regarding control customization and personal preference, and for most shooters Canon was actually a much better choice. Now, especially with the Nikon 800-series cameras, I truly feel that anything else is a quantifiable compromise.
By the way this has almost nothing to do with where the buttons are, or what direction lenses turn etc... I can get used to all that in just a few hundred clicks. I'm talking about actual features that are simply absent from other cameras, and probably will be for quite a while.
But, you don't have to take my word for it! It took me 10+ years and at least a million clicks from the various systems out there, to reach this conclusion, and my #1 advice on the internet is, well, never trust what us crazy fanboys say on the internet. ;-)
Not nearly as much as you'd think, when you have 36megapixels at your disposal and insane image quality. ~16 megapixels is more than enough for telephoto candid shots at a wedding ceremony or reception, and the size, weight and $$$ savings is amazing. Put the Tokina 11-16 2.8 DX next to the 16-28 2.8 FX or 14-24 2.8 FX, and you'll see what I mean. Not only that, but FX lenses gain a crop-factor advantage when shooting on 36 MP as well. My 24-70 is a 24-105mm f/2.8 now, and my 70-200mm goes to 300mm.
Like I said, of course I only ever do this in situations where DOF and resolution aren't critical. However in my experience, this is the case much more frequently than you'd think, for anyone who does general candid photography. Landscape etc. shooters for example can largely disregard this, mainly, although I do still use my DX lenses for timelapses when running multi-camera setups for certain shots...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum