[TOUGEFC]

Ever since the D800 was announced Ive been looking around to see what Canon are going to come up with.
I may wait and see what Canon does before I jump.

RUMORED SPECS

5D X
45MP (With a pixel size similar to the power shot G1X)
61 points AF (Similar to the 1DX but simpler)
3.4 fps, 100-6400 (50-12800)
1 Digic 5+ Digic 4

5D mk III
22MP
61 points AF (Similar to the 1DX but but simpler)
6.9 fps, ISO 100-25600(50-51200)
1 Digic 5+ Digic 4
Best HD video quality of any EOS camera
Both over $3k

Canon EOS 5Dmk3 DSLR

[jsherman999]

Ever since the D800 was announced Ive been looking around to see what Canon are going to come up with.
I may wait and see what Canon does before I jump.

RUMORED SPECS


Canon EOS 5Dmk3 DSLR

You'd be able to mount all your remaining K-mount lenses with an adapter, something the D800 can't offer!

[TOUGEFC]

You'd be able to mount all your remaining K-mount lenses with an adapter, something the D800 can't offer!

That doesnt really matter, because they would need to be sold to fund a move:ugh:

[bossa]

14mpx difference between the 5DIII and D800. That's quite a jump. Anyone who says it's not should remove the sensor from their K-7 and see what kind of pictures it takes

[stanleyk]

I sure wish Nikon was doing something along like the 5D MK III. I pre-ordered the D800 then thought about it and cancelled it. I just do not need a 36 megapixel camera. It's a bit of a quandary for me since I have invested in Nikon lenses. After testing both I preferred the D700 over the 5D MkII. But now there isn't an upgrade path for me that includes a reasonable sized sensor. 16-18 megapixels would be fine. Maybe Nikon will do a smaller sensor D800? Probably not.

I maybe be selling the Nikon gear soon to if they can't come up with something more reasonable. $3000 is fine but I don't want to have to buy a new computer too.

[nickthetasmaniac]

Interesting. The 5D I & II never really interested me because they were two slow, but by splitting the lines it looks like the 5D III (not X) could be a killer body

Oh well, I'm not getting one anyway so it's fun to speculate

[TOUGEFC]

I sure wish Nikon was doing something along like the 5D MK III. I pre-ordered the D800 then thought about it and cancelled it. I just do not need a 36 megapixel camera. It's a bit of a quandary for me since I have invested in Nikon lenses. After testing both I preferred the D700 over the 5D MkII. But now there isn't an upgrade path for me that includes a reasonable sized sensor. 16-18 megapixels would be fine. Maybe Nikon will do a smaller sensor D800? Probably not.

I maybe be selling the Nikon gear soon to if they can't come up with something more reasonable. $3000 is fine but I don't want to have to buy a new computer too.

I too was looking at the D800, and it would be nice to play with but at the end of the I dont need 36MPs.
I like the D700 but would like more res and video.
And I like the 5D but would like a decent AF system.

So the rumored 5DIII specs look more for me. Hoping its even cheaper than the D800 too!

---

Last edited by TOUGEFC; 02-11-2012 at 08:53 PM.

[stanleyk]

I too was looking at the D800, and it would be nice to play with but at the end of the I dont need 36MPs.
I like the D700 but would like more res.
And I like the 5D but would like a decent AF system.

So the rumored 5DIII specs look more for me. Hoping its even cheaper than the D800 too!

I'm not the happiest Nikon camper right now. I don't want the D4 because of that huge grip thing on the bottom. So I'm not sure what to do. I don't use the D700 all that much but I occasionally will do something for $. I have a dog portrait thing next weekend. The Nikon is good for that kind of thing. For fun I prefer the Fuji and GXR. Chalk up yet another regret in life... If I had known this was coming when I got the D700 I would have waited and gone with Canon. I don't even want 22 megapixels just 16-18. I could care less about the video. Wow....bummer deal DUDE!!!!!

Who knows on the cost. I think the 5D was always cheaper than the D700 so you may be in luck. The lenses are the more or less the same price for each company. They offer about the same thing so that's probably a wash either way. Good luck. I'd go with the Canon.

[Urkeldaedalus]

I too was looking at the D800, and it would be nice to play with but at the end of the I dont need 36MPs.
I like the D700 but would like more res and video.
And I like the 5D but would like a decent AF system.

So the rumored 5DIII specs look more for me. Hoping its even cheaper than the D800 too!

I'm in a similar boat to both of you, although I'm keeping my Pentax stuff. Nikon D800 looks like a great camera but it is totally overkill for what I need it for.
If Canon 5D Mark III comes out in the 22 mp range with improved autofocus I might look to pick one up. Plus, as an added bonus, Canon's prices are a little more reasonable on the lenses I'm wanting to add to the lineup. For example:

Canon 24 f/1.4 II $1,600
Nikon 24 f/1.4 $2,400

[stanleyk]

I'm in a similar boat to both of you, although I'm keeping my Pentax stuff. Nikon D800 looks like a great camera but it is totally overkill for what I need it for.
If Canon 5D Mark III comes out in the 22 mp range with improved autofocus I might look to pick one up. Plus, as an added bonus, Canon's prices are a little more reasonable on the lenses I'm wanting to add to the lineup. For example:

Canon 24 f/1.4 II $1,600
Nikon 24 f/1.4 $2,400

The Nikon is more but not $800 more. It's usually $2000. However Canon has a rebate on their 24mm right now though.

I'd still recommend the Canon camera. The Nikon is really only for full time professional photographers. No offense intended but if you do occasional portrait or wedding work the Nikon is overkill X 2. The camera body itself is not overpriced for what you are getting though. Either camera is great, but for most people here I would guess the smaller megapixel Canon would more than suffice.

I guess I'll just have to wait and see what Nikon does. If by the end of 2012 they don't have something smaller in the works then I'll think about switching yet again. I love the D700 but it's a bit long in the tooth. To be honest the Fuji X100 produces just as good a files, if not better, once you learn how to use the camera and the X Pro is probably going to be better than it or the 5 D Mk II. Now it won't be better than these two new cameras but it costs less and is much smaller.

I'm still thinking about the D800 but I really need to determine if my computer can handle the files. It's a 1 1/2 year old Imac. I'm not to sharp with computers so I'm just not sure.

If you haven't invested in the lenses the Canon seems like the much better buy.

[jogiba]

You'd be able to mount all your remaining K-mount lenses with an adapter, something the D800 can't offer!

So the K-mount lenses aperture pin hits the 5D MKII mirror but not the 5D MKIII !?

[Urkeldaedalus]

The Nikon is more but not $800 more. It's usually $2000. However Canon has a rebate on their 24mm right now though.

I'd still recommend the Canon camera. The Nikon is really only for full time professional photographers. No offense intended but if you do occasional portrait or wedding work the Nikon is overkill X 2. The camera body itself is not overpriced for what you are getting though. Either camera is great, but for most people here I would guess the smaller megapixel Canon would more than suffice.

I guess I'll just have to wait and see what Nikon does. If by the end of 2012 they don't have something smaller in the works then I'll think about switching yet again. I love the D700 but it's a bit long in the tooth. To be honest the Fuji X100 produces just as good a files, if not better, once you learn how to use the camera and the X Pro is probably going to be better than it or the 5 D Mk II. Now it won't be better than these two new cameras but it costs less and is much smaller.

I'm still thinking about the D800 but I really need to determine if my computer can handle the files. It's a 1 1/2 year old Imac. I'm not to sharp with computers so I'm just not sure.

If you haven't invested in the lenses the Canon seems like the much better buy.

Well I do working photojournalism, but all of my images appear online. To say that 36 mp would be wasted on web size images is an understatement.

Also, I was referring to Amazon prices for the Nikon 24 mm. Maybe I got one of those funky out of stock Amazon prices. With the Canon you can also go with the 24 mm f/1.4 version I for about $1,100. I've used that before, it's not too shabby.