Is anybody, particularly D810 and 14-24 shooters, interested in the Canon 5DSR and 11-24?

privatebydesign

First time poster so please don't think this is a troll, it isn't.

I was just interested if anybody that is currently using the D810/800/800E and 14-24 is going to take a serious look at the new Canon 5DS/5DSR and 11-24 combination when it comes out? Initial reports seem to indicate the 11-24 is a good lens and for those shooting the Nikon lens on Canon bodies it seems a no brainer, but where do the Nikon body users fall? Are 36MP 'enough', will the certain lack of Canon sensor DR overcome the focal length and MP questions? Does the fact that the Nikon lens is an f2.8 and the Canon lens an f4 play in to your considerations? Where do you fall on the spectrum and what do you use your D8!! and 14-24 for?

Many thanks for your time.

WestEndFoto

The camera is a secondary consideration in choosing a system, secondary to the lenses.

And as a D800 shooter with a 14-24 and seven other lenses, the 14-24 is my least used, so I would be unlikely to make a decision based on that focal range.

Finally, neither system is superior enough to the other, regardless of what you are shooting, to switch if you are invested in the system.

Two years ago I was making the upgrade from amateur slr shooter to enthusiast dslr shooter. While I had Nikon my investment was no longer worth much. I looked hard at Canon and Nikon. I looked at Sony but Sony is a joke when it comes to lenses.

I chose Nikon because overall, I think it is slightly better.

funtagraph

If I need tons of Megapixels, I gonna stitch 'em together. I find the Canon lens incredible - in performance as well as in price, but I'm happy for Canon shooters they don't need to adapt our gorgeous lenses on their plasticky thingies anymore

And like PitchBlack said, I won't give up a D810 sensor and pay 40% more for the Canon combination. Although the flare behavior of the Canon is much more to my liking.

Rx4Photo

I'll only take a look if the units land in a local photography store. Even so, it won't likely be a serious look. I really can't fathom switching brands for this. I know a very financially sound physician who's won a landscape contest or two shooting a D90 - but, he's got the $$$ to travel to these amazing places to photograph. Proof that it's not just the camera that gets the job done. I figure some of the the gear heads might feel the itch but I'm totally content with what I've got.

spraynpray

50mp cameras are like buses - you wait for ages then two come along. I reckon the second one isn't too far behind....

sevencrossing

50mp cameras are like buses - you wait for ages then two come along. I reckon the second one isn't too far behind....

well lets hope the Nikon one comes out before September , when my new toy budget is capped

spraynpray

Start stashing money in a safe place :P

funtagraph

May I ask: What can you do with 50 MP what you can't do with 36? Which lenses of Canon or others can hold that level? Nikon had only a couple of recommendations in the beginning. If I need that kind of resolution, I'd look at MF and no longer in the FX range.

Msmoto

@privatebydesign

Welcome to NRF. For many of us to change to a Canon body would be a bit costly. And, unless one is doing enlargements of the 2 x 3 meter size, when properly processed, I suspect there is no discernible difference among the various bodies and I am including DX, FX, hi ISO, hi Pixel count.

As has been shared on many of the threads, the photographer is about 90% of what comes out in the final result.

If the question is about a specific lens, body, etc., this can be discussed. Your initial post has five questions in it.

proudgeek

+1 on PitchBlack's POV on cropping. If Nikon were to release a 50mp camera, my interest would be in the long end. As a sometimes wildlife shooter, I find I can never get as close as I'd like (and my budget currently limits me to a 300 f/2.8 and TC20), so the ability to use part of a 36mp image is a benefit. I can only imagine that 50 would be even more so. That said, I can only imagine what the frame rate would be on something like that.

Edit: I would add that if Nikon decided not to follow suit and release a camera to match the 5DS I'm not switching. Too cost prohibitive.

sevencrossing

I have a battered D800 that will need replacing in the next 2 years
but at the moment, I really am extremely happy with it

If Nikon have a 50mp camera, when the time comes to replace it, I will certainly consider it
Would I jump ship? No I have too much invested in Nikon Glass, cameras and accessories
Do I, as Ms moto suggests, believe there no discernible difference DX and FX?
No the IQ from my D800 is acceptable to me and my clients but I cannot find any evidence that the IQ of my D800 is matched by any DX camera

But I am not like most people. I frequently crop, make large prints and am really fussy about IQ

sevencrossing

"PitchBlack" This is exactly the point. If you chop a 50mp photo into three bits, each of those three bits will have more detail than the entirety of the 16mp file of the D4

not necessarily, you will have more mega whatnots but detail is also dependant on the lens
If you want a lot more detail make a gigapan

Ironheart

The new hotness from canon 11-24 f/4 lens is good optically but has 3 limitations: 1) it's heavier than the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 2) no filters/108mm front element 3) it's f/4
This is a landscape/architecture lens, not fast enough for other uses except in bright light. Then there's the DoF...
The canon folks have been waiting 8 years for this lens though, so be gentle.

funtagraph

1. Heavier? Since when is that a limitation? It's a difference, but doesn't prevent usability.
2. Well, "no filter thread" you can also count the Nikon to. BUT: The canon has a drop in filter holder (and I have no idea if I could handle a polarizer or a gradient filter in it)
3. f/2.8 or f/4 is only relevant indoors or in nightly street photography. Outdoor and landscape I hardly use wide open aperture with my 14-24. The DoF at 11mm/4 is already from 0.62 m to infinity - or do you think the DoF is too large at f/4?
4. A real limitation is the hole in your pocket after you decided to buy it.
5.A linitation of the 14-24 is the flare-magnetism of the lens - here Canon did a better job, if I may judge from the few samples I've seen.

WestEndFoto

@msmoto: and as I've said time and time again, your statement assumes you use the full shot and do not crop. The ability to use a small part of a larger photo as a photo unto itself is extremely powerful. The ability to stand back a little, give yourself some extra space, then create the perfect image in post is a great tool.

Photography "purists" will moan, but all I care about as a professional is what the world sees when it leaves my computer. Everything else is irrelevant.

Agreed and I am in your camp. But for the 98% of the people reading this thread, MSMOTO's point is relavent.

funtagraph

I'm sure at a certain point more megapixels are counterproductive because the relation between noise and resolution makes the sensor useless over ISO 800. That'd be the reason to opt for MF if I want/need so many MP in a single shot.

In a couple of PhaseOne videos the photogs are challenging it up to ISO 6400 and still great results.

WestEndFoto

Yes, I would certainly like more megapixels, trivialities like hard drive space be damned. However, I would not compromise on the D800's dynamic range to get it.

And as megapixels go up, the list of lenses that will benefit will go down. You better be buying the very best glass if you think 50 megapixels is going to improve IQ.

Vipmediastar_JZ

Having that combo mentioned on the title im not sure that I would go wider and especially to canon. I never did like how canon is setup.

Here is a review of that lens

haroldp

Nikon and Canon regularly leap frog each other in several technologies and very few (certainly not me) will change, giving up lenses, lights and other 'stuff' for a minor advantage that will probably last less than a year.

This is not to mention the learning curve of controls and PP which influence getting the shot or missing it while fiddling around, and optimizing workflow and output quality.

Nikon's next FX will almost certainly be 54 mp since that is the 24mp DX topology.

.... H

sevencrossing

People should stop thinking of megapixels in terms of printing,

The reason people get so worked up about mp is they can be easily measured
" my camera has more mps than yours L-) "


The problem about IQ, is that it is subjective

sevencrossing

haroldp .........will change, giving up lenses, lights and other 'stuff' for a minor advantage that will probably last less than a year.....

Yes, Scott Kelby changed to Canon, because he felt Canon had an advantage over Nikon. (Not because Canon they gave him a complete outfit of cameras and lenses and sponsored his road show)

haroldp

haroldp .........will change, giving up lenses, lights and other 'stuff' for a minor advantage that will probably last less than a year.....

Yes, Scott Kelby changed to Canon, because he felt Canon had an advantage over Nikon. (Not because Canon they gave him a complete outfit of cameras and lenses and sponsored his road show)

You Think ??

.. H

WestEndFoto

Nikon and Canon regularly leap frog each other in several technologies and very few (certainly not me) will change, giving up lenses, lights and other 'stuff' for a minor advantage that will probably last less than a year.

This is not to mention the learning curve of controls and PP which influence getting the shot or missing it while fiddling around, and optimizing workflow and output quality.

Nikon's next FX will almost certainly be 54 mp since that is the 24mp DX topology.

.... H

At some point I think Nikon will bring out a D900 oriented to studio work, meaning it will sacrifice dynamic range for megapixels. If Nikon does that I would buy it. My long term strategy would then be D9xx where I can control light and a D8xx where I cannot. The second camera, which one depending on the situation, would be a backup.

WestEndFoto

Yes, there is very little that is subjective about IQ and what is, or at least things I can think of, can be overridden in Lightroom or Photoshop.

However, there are different aspects of IQ. Some, like resolution and noise being a classic, are tradeoffs. Sevencrossing, perhaps you mean it is subjective as to what aspects are most important and what the relative tradeoffs should be?

sevencrossing

If IQ is not subjective. Why do so many people say you don't need FX or 36mp ?
what was this thred about ????

Ironheart

I typically use the terms qualitative and quantitative to describe something like IQ. There are clearly quantitative aspects to IQ, things that can be precisely measured, e.g. Dynamic Range, color gamut, noise, etc... There are clearly qualitative aspects to IQ, things that are can't be measured directly, it is this part that is largely intersubjective, in that we mostly all agree if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...