Nikon Version of Canon 5D Mark 3?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doomed forever

. . . Seriously . . . but i couldn't care less which Lens maker is at Olympics, Soccer, or any other kind of sports event...i really don't give a damn about it. . .

---

Seriously: That's the whole point.

"The Thing" is not about you, or me, or any one individual, or any one small group of individuals or "serious" test sites - and etc.

"The Thing" is about the mass perception of The Branding and the Marketing of that Branding.

*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doomed forever

And you know what, Cameras are just Tools

---

Yes I do know that.

And, more importantly, I also know it was a complete no-brainer choice (for me) to have change brands to Canon DSLRs in 2004 when we cut over from our Film SLR's, because one (quite large) reason to move brands was that I had access to borrow a 300/2.8, 400/2.8 and 500/4 at zero or very little cost.

Therein I became one small cog of that very clever and well oiled marketing machine in the infancy of the battle for DSLR turf, which still is present today.

WW

I know....the whole story from the EOS D30 over D60 to the 10D, the 1st real semi-pro payable APS-C DSLR in 2003...i am still on my 30Ds, but also 50D, and i absolutely love my "minimalism" 5D compared to current DSLR (features)....but in contrast, i do use my D90, D7000 much more than any Canon DSLR, 5D seldom for important shots.

Canon spent Millions into clever Ad campaigns, if you ask someone (no clue about Cameras) she/he'd 1st mention "Canon" as brand in short...because that's the way it works...not the best product -technically- always onto the market wins, but marketing, lobbyism...think about Sony Betamax Recorders into the early 80s...VHS from JVC was quite the worse system compared -
but it had won the Video Recorder Battle...

I agree that Snapshot is often screwed up and can lead to bogus assertions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doomed forever

Canon spent Millions into clever Ad campaigns, if you ask someone (no clue about Cameras) she/he'd 1st mention "Canon" as brand in short...because that's the way it works...not the best product -technically

---

Advertising sells and that's why companies do this. Yes, they do have done a lot of work to promote the brand, but unless they have a product people are willing to buy, all the advertising in the world isn't going to help. The commercial photographers and the advanced amateurs are not going to be driven nearly as much by the marketing hype as the people with little to no product knowledge. Knowledgeable buyers look for value.

Canon did a lot of smart things that took them from a camera brand that relatively middle of the road and turned it into a market leader. Clever marketing (the high end light coloured lenses that everyone saw the photographers at sporting events) and well regarded products got them to where they are today. I'm not a Canon owner, so my assessment is definitely not that of a "fan boy".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doomed forever

- always onto the market wins, but marketing, lobbyism...think about Sony Betamax Recorders into the early 80s...VHS from JVC was quite the worse system compared -
but it had won the Video Recorder Battle...

---

The Beta / VHS story is a classical case of a company (Sony) coming up with a product that they felt was superior and demanded a premium price against a product that the consumers preferred. Sony pushed the video quality to the consumers, but the consumers did not see enough of a quality difference to justify the higher prices of the machines or the higher costs and shorter run tines of the tapes. If you wanted Beta, Sony was the only company with that product line; until relatively late in the product life where they finally licensed other companies to produce Beta. Every one else pushed VHS and the market offered the consumers a lot of different brands / features. The consumers went for a product that they felt had more value than Beta, and Sony's strategy did not work out as well as they had hoped.

I agree Marc. I use my trusty old D700. It does the job I use it for. Everybody has a story of why they use the brand camera they use. I started with a Nikon N90s followed by the F100 (a most excellent camera) then the D70 and now the D700. The reason I'm still with Nikon is I started with Nikon lenses and did not want to spend the money even if I wanted to jump ship. If I had started with a Canon SLR I would be using one today. This camera brand conversation is akin to chevy's or fords in the US. Really does not matter. Actually my first SLR was a Minolota SRT-101. Still have it put away.

---

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motordrive

If I had started with a Canon SLR I would be using one today.

---

Not quite, John. My first SLR was the wonderful Canon AE-1 and when (many years later) I decided to go digital it was to discover that all my nice Canon lenses were not compatible with their DSLR bodies. I jumped ship to Nikon as a result, but as has been posted many times in many places, what you use is a poor second to how you use it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motordrive

Actually my first SLR was a Minolota SRT-101. Still have it put away.

---

Similarly, my first SLR was a Minolta SRT-200. It's in my closet to this day, along with a few lenses.

When it came to digital, I started with a Canon point and shoot, liked it enough to buy a Canon 20D without much thought (or investigation) about it at the time. I vaguely remember reading something about Canon glass being better than Nikon glass and believed it well enough to make the first purchase. I've since worked my way up to a Canon 5D Mark III and some prime lenses, all of which I really love. Looking back on it, though, Canon marketing was instrumental to getting me into their product line at the outset and, once there, it was easy enough to continue.

As for the gear vs. ability issue, I have good enough gear now so I have no excuse but the lack of ability...or at least attention to detail...to fault for some of the results I put out. I surely can't blame the gear at this point.

All that being said, in the back of my mind I sometimes have a hankering to get that all-manual Minolta out of the bag and scavenge around for some film someday just to remind myself what the old times were like....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pnodrog

As Bill notes quality (and features) may vary or at least be ranked in different orders according to the photographers requirement.

However a basic specification comparison can be viewed HERE. The link is to a DPreview comparison between the Canon 5DMk111 and the Nikon D750 and D810 cameras.

---

Thank you I will read up on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black Pearl

What is the reasoning behind the question?

---

Looking into buying one of the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beauty Through a Lens

Looking into buying one of the two.

---

What are you shooting with now?
What is your experience?
What do you shoot?
What is your budget for lenses - which are far more important than the body?

Rarely is one body so much better than another that it makes any real world difference. If you are a Nikon shooter with Nikon glass you'll tend to stick with Nikon bodies as the investment is all in those lenses not the camera - same goes for Canon etc. Decide what you want to shoot, look at your overall budget, throw most of it at lenses that will frame your subject best then look at a body to go with them. It might be a Nikon or a Canon or a Sony or a Fuji etc.......

It doesn't just stop there...

A good tripod will have a significant impact for landscape photography - lighting will have a massive impact with portraiture - access to the right areas will have a make or break impact on sporting events etc. Software is vital to get the most from your files as is the hardware to run it on and your experience using it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Humphries

Just be warned; I have (previously) found snapsort to be riddled with specification errors and make some pretty wacky statements*.

* Fine if you know your stuff, but a seriously bad thing for anyone just starting out, or not well versed on the basics.
May also make a mockery of drawing comparison conclusions based on their 'data'.

Of course, there's a chance they have improved by now - but I doubt it, when I tried to alert them to an error, it was never corrected (before I gave up waiting). :(

Of the two sites mentioned above, I'd (personally) trust DPR more.

That said; any such site is liable to make errors when inputting manufacturer's specs in to their 'database' (which may be no more than a spreadsheet in which they copied an existing entry and incompletely updated it when a new model comes out). This applies to store sites as well, of course.

Mind you, even manufacturers have been known to make mistakes.


Take it from someone that's spent time updating similar data sets and although I'm more careful than anyone else I know, I still I find odd errors that I must have made. No-one is infallible, but some don't even bother to check what they put in, or better still; ask someone else to sanity check it. Nor even bother to correct it when advised of an error. :mad:

FWIW, Dave

---

Totally agree with Dave regarding the conclusions arrived at with Snapshot. I have not noticed any glaring specifications errors because I have only used snapshot once or twice and then gave up using or recommending it...