|
Well guys, more offtopic than it was it could not get, but lets be fair. The D800 is quite a better camera for the same money, or even cheaper, than the 5D III. Canon seems to be going for those who use DSLRs for movies (which I can understand as for the 5D II has been used quite a lot for that matter). I think, this is not the same as the 60D-D7000, when the Nikon only seemed to be better on paper, but not in real life (what I do not completely agree). Also, Canon's 6D launch was a joke, I mean, the Nikon's much better featured. Even the 5D II, which could be cheaper, is a lot better (okay, to be fair: it seems to me. If I had to choose, 6D, 5D II, it would be the 5D II).
The reason why I love Nikon is, that they really stay focused on the photographer's needs, not his ''needs'' like more pixels, higher resolution screen, flip-out screen etc. They get the D7000 an 100% viewfinder with alignment grid instead of the 60D's screen and video capabilities. Yes, Canon was king with the 300-500D, because of the very low noise levels, great new updates and low price tags. Canon seems to be going for the ''shop-buyers'' without knowledge instead, Nikon cameras still have better build quality etc.
Why I have Canon, is because when I started with astrophotography years ago, I needed a low noise level camera with a good lens. Canon's 350D, which is almost free used, coupled with an 70-200 L, was quite payable for me. The best update, years after, would be the 7D (which was just new), but I didnt have the money. The 550D or 50D were the most expensive I could afford, but I'd rather trade in a bit of the overall high ISO IQ (a bit, the difference's arent that big) than I would lose the 50D's viewfinder, controls.... The D90 wouldve been the overall best camera I think.
_________________ Ruben
Panasonic DMC-FZ18, Panasonic DMC-FZ28, Canon G5, Canon 350D, Canon 50D + BG-E2N Tamron 17-50 2.8, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM, Canon 18-55 II plus lots of Minolta MD/M42 lenses and bodies
|