I cannot recommend that people make plans based on a rumor site's specifications. Let's just wait and see what gets announced first.

As far as Canon and Nikon "competitor" cameras, if you're already committed to one brand or the other it's extremely expensive to switch systems, so specifications and performance for cameras in "your" brand are the primary consideration for a purchase.

Originally Posted by Andy Canon is pissing me off

Listen up, Apple!

Get your next-gen MacPro sorted and to market, or it won't be just Canon that has a key strategic customer relationship at risk!

Originally Posted by W.W. Webster Listen up, Apple! Get your next-gen MacPro sorted and to market, or it won't be just Canon that has a key strategic customer relationship at risk!

Have you been reading Mac Rumors? Never plan your next system based on a rumor site. Best to wait and see what is or isn't officially announced first.

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville If you were a Nikon shooter, you'd realize just how satisfied 99% of us are with the D700 already. Many of us are just flat-out buying a 2nd / new D700 now, we're *thrilled*! ;-)

Haha. Yes the D700 is great, but I do a significant amount of printing at sizes larger than 12x18". 16x24" is only 177dpi, assuming no cropping. And I like to crop. 12mp is sooo 4 years ago. 200dpi is the limit for fine detail, imo.

Originally Posted by David_S85 Have you been reading Mac Rumors?

No. But something must be in the works for users whose needs are beyond the iMac, surely?

Originally Posted by DeVerm Okay, so I have a 7D and a 5D2... what exactly do I need a 5D3 for? To replace both camera's I have?

That's what I plan to do.

I'm just gonna enjoy the two camera's I have and invest in some extra glass

Sure, that's a fine approach. But on the other hand you'll probably have to run those cameras into the ground because they won't have much resale value for long. So then when you do buy a new body you'll be paying mostly out of pocket.

I'm just tired of the two body thing. The sheer fact that my 7D is APS-C makes me not want to use it for anything but sports. Great camera, but my lenses don't make much sense on it. To me anyway.

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville But then the 5 D mk3 is a "tweener" again. Is it a D800 competitor? Is it a D700 competitor?

This is classic Canikon collusion. Making staggered bodies that don't directly compete.

In 2008 21mp was outrageous resolution. 22mp will hold its own just fine. I certainly don't want to shoot 36mp raws all day and deal with the mountain of data afterwards.

All I know is that there are very few features on the 5D mk3 that I don't already have on the D700. Flagship AF and more FPS might be exciting for 5D mk2 users, but it's old news to me. ;-)

Har har. What news is older than 12mp? I couldn't go back there after working with 21mp files. It's nice. If only you had an upgrade path to 16mp with pro AF and more FPS that didn't cost $6000. But you don't.

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft But on the other hand you'll probably have to run those cameras into the ground because they won't have much resale value for long. So then when you do buy a new body you'll be paying mostly out of pocket.

I see a lot of 7D's being offered lately... I do not see the benefit of that. If you need to sell your 7D to buy a 5D3 then maybe it's better to keep the 7D and not spend the money.

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft Haha. Yes the D700 is great, but I do a significant amount of printing at sizes larger than 12x18". 16x24" is only 177dpi, assuming no cropping. And I like to crop. 12mp is sooo 4 years ago. 200dpi is the limit for fine detail, imo.

...So then for you the 5D mk3 compares not with the D700, but with the D800 / D800E. And might lose, in some respects... ;-)

(/dead horse)

=Matt=

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft This is classic Canikon collusion. Making staggered bodies that don't directly compete. In 2008 21mp was outrageous resolution. 22mp will hold its own just fine. I certainly don't want to shoot 36mp raws all day and deal with the mountain of data afterwards. Har har. What news is older than 12mp? I couldn't go back there after working with 21mp files. It's nice. If only you had an upgrade path to 16mp with pro AF and more FPS that didn't cost $6000. But you don't.

12 MP is wonderful for anyone who doesn't need / want megapixels. I am eternally grateful that Nikon made the tough decision to stick with 12 MP. And thanks to RAW compression and the option of 12-bits instead of 14-bits, our 12 MP files are even smaller than the 5D mk2 in sRAW1 at 9.9 megapixels. In fact they're almost as small as the largest quality JPG's. I wouldn't trade my D700 for a 5D 2 or a 5D3, for what I do.

BTW when you talk about 36 megapixel RAW files being huge- As I mentioned, Nikon offers full RAW compression (Canon's only option is lossless) and both 12-bit vs 14-bit, so I bet the 36 megapixel files are just about the same file size as a 22 MP Canon file. ;-)

But as I was originally trying to say, it's not that the D700 or the D800 are superior, or which competes directly with which. I was just saying that for most Nikon shooters, there's a good chance they're not jealous of what the 5D mk2 / 5D mk3 can offer. Yeah, there's plenty of us who wish we could get a D800 with a D4 sensor, but again I've already said this is a "gap" period for Nikon- In that mid-range, Canon wins for a year or two...

=Matt=

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville But then the 5 D mk3 is a "tweener" again. Is it a D800 competitor? Is it a D700 competitor? All I know is that there are very few features on the 5D mk3 that I don't already have on the D700. Flagship AF and more FPS might be exciting for 5D mk2 users, but it's old news to me. ;-) (/poke dead horse) =Matt=

I have to agree with you there Matt.

I think Canon had there heads up there a$$' when they didn't put IS on the new 24-70mm f/2.8L II.

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville Canon wins for a year or two... =Matt=

Quote of the week!

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville ...So then for you the 5D mk3 compares not with the D700, but with the D800 / D800E. And might lose, in some respects... ;-)

I shoot more low light than landscape, so for me the 5DIII will be "just right".

Also I'm not impressed with this: http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr...1/img_05_l.jpg

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville 12 MP is wonderful for anyone who doesn't need / want megapixels.

Kinda sounds like sour grapes here. Sure 12mp is a lot for a monitor or an 8x10". But once you start cropping and/or printing larger than 12x18", it gets pretty small.

BTW when you talk about 36 megapixel RAW files being huge- As I mentioned, Nikon offers full RAW compression (Canon's only option is lossless)

Good, I don't want my camera discarding data. A lossy compressed RAW is no longer RAW.

But as I was originally trying to say, it's not that the D700 or the D800 are superior, or which competes directly with which. I was just saying that for most Nikon shooters, there's a good chance they're not jealous of what the 5D mk2 / 5D mk3 can offer.

Maybe. I wouldn't be surprised if most Nikon shooters are pining for more than 12mp.

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft I shoot more low light than landscape, so for me the 5DIII will be "just right". Also I'm not impressed with this: http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr...1/img_05_l.jpg Kinda sounds like sour grapes here. Sure 12mp is a lot for a monitor or an 8x10". But once you start cropping and/or printing larger than 12x18", it gets pretty small. Good, I don't want my camera discarding data. A lossy compressed RAW is no longer RAW. Maybe. I wouldn't be surprised if most Nikon shooters are pining for more than 12mp.

Sounds like you're happy then, and I assure you I'm happy. Yeah, it's kind of frustrating that Nikon won't be slapping the D4 sensor in a D800 body just yet, but sooner or later they will do something affordable and less than 36 megapixels, and when they do I'm positive that it'll be a much better camera FOR ME than anything Canon is offering.

My point was in response to you saying that if you were a Nikon shooter you'd be really pissed. I'm just saying that most of us couldn't care less. Aside from those who really do need / want resolution and video, the 5D mk3 is old news in the eyes of a D700 user. Sure it's better on paper, but my point was, I'm just not "pissed" about the gap... Heck this is my chance to pick up a SECOND D700!

*shrug*

=Matt=

My point is, I'd be surprised if you can really speak for most Nikon users like that.

I think anyone who is happy with 12mp has probably never shot with more for any extended period of time - you don't know what you're missing. Sure, before I got my 5DII, I thought my 10mp 40D had enough resolution.

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft My point is, I'd be surprised if you can really speak for most Nikon users like that. I think anyone who is happy with 12mp has probably never shot with more for any extended period of time - you don't know what you're missing. Sure, before I got my 5DII, I thought my 10mp 40D had enough resolution.

Totally agree, having made the exact same transition. Having 21MP to play with makes for much more freedom to crop creatively and is also an advantage when 'air brushing'. One other thing i found was that straightening a photo doesn't incur nearly as much softening as with a 10 or 12 MP file.

Of course, the D800 has plenty of resolution, but it seems to me it is really aimed at well off enthusiasts (people for whom more MP is always a good thing) rather than pros, the files are just too big from a workflow perspective.

I think ~20MP is around right so I'm really happy that Canon has recognised this. Funny thing is Matt obviously thinks the same thing too. But he's set himself up as a Nikon apologist, so now he's pretending to be really happy that the D800 is so crappy that he will have to wait another 3 years to see if the D900 is any better

Originally Posted by Stuart-M Totally agree, having made the exact same transition. Having 21MP to play with makes for much more freedom to crop creatively and is also an advantage when 'air brushing'. One other thing i found was that straightening a photo doesn't incur nearly as much softening as with a 10 or 12 MP file. Of course, the D800 has plenty of resolution, but it seems to me it is really aimed at well off enthusiasts (people for whom more MP is always a good thing) rather than pros, the files are just too big from a workflow perspective.

So, having more MP is a great thing, as you recognized when you moved up to 21. But having 36 is too many, because the files are too big. I'm going to guess that you thought 5dII files were going to be too big before you made that leap. Maybe if you moved up to 36, you'd find that to be just right?

I have two 12MP Nikons (D90 and D300) and am thrilled with them. In 3 yrs or however long it's been that I've had them, I've never yet printed anything larger than probably 5x7. I just don't print. That doesn't mean I won't, in fact there are several photos I have that I'd like to print large and hang, maybe someday. Anyway, at 200 dpi, I could get up to 14x20, and given I don't print now, I can hardly imagine needing significantly more than that.

What I do want is better low noise performance, and moving to a D700 would give me that, but I'd need to upgrade my lenses as well, so the jump becomes much more expensive. I'd like to upgrade my lenses anyway, but for now I am reasonably happy with what I have (albeit I'm lacking any ultra wide option). And that's good because I can't afford the glass that I'd want anyway. But looking at what is out there in the Nikon universe right now, there's really nothing that I am desperate for. A D700 would be an upgrade, but I'd be salivating over it if it had the D3s (or D4) sensor.

So maybe it makes me an apologist, but while the D800 looks pretty darn nice, it's not something I'm interested in, and I'd be much happier with a low noise sensor in the 16-18MP range (D700s w/D3s, or D800s w/D4 sensor). Or, let them design a new 12MP DX sensor, I can keep my lenses, and instead of making MP increases with similar ISO performance, how about stay the course with 12MP and increase ISO by 2 stops? That would make me happy. As long as I don't know what I'm missing with FX, I won't miss it, right? So I won't try to speak for all or most Nikon users, but I am definitely in Matt's camp on this issue and am more than happy with 12MP.

Originally Posted by cab.in.boston So, having more MP is a great thing, as you recognized when you moved up to 21. But having 36 is too many, because the files are too big. I'm going to guess that you thought 5dII files were going to be too big before you made that leap. Maybe if you moved up to 36, you'd find that to be just right?

5DII files are too big sometimes. Processing them on my 10 month old 3.6 GHz iMac is just tolerable. I can't fathom 36mp. I was hoping the 5DIII would be 18mp, but I guess 22 is fine.

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft 5DII files are too big sometimes.

At what times are they too big, but at other times OK?