This is NOT a Canon vs. Nikon thread.

[Neil S.]

But that doesn't mean that is the most widely used. Its nearly 3 times the cost of a 5D that is more than capable of taking professional grade photos ( besides speed, if you need to shoot low light sports ) so there is a point where better becomes irrelivant. The point I am trying to make ( regardless of brand ) is that cameras become popular due to how much they are used and touted by professionals. Plain and simple, thats how the consumer guages a cameras worth. So to answer the OPs question, I think the caveat missing is the price vs quality vs practical needs of a professional argument. There is always going to be something faster or higher res, or whatever, but what do YOUUUUU need to do the job the cheapest and most efficient way possible. I think THAT answers the question as to why people tout those cameras as being great cameras. I think they are the cheapest price point that really encompasses most of what a professional needs.

You do make a very good point that value is something to factor into the decision to buy a camera.

You are also correct that the D3x is not the best camera for action/sports shooting. Something tells me that if you can afford a D3x though, you can also afford to buy another one to be your go-to sports body.

I tend to throw things like value out the window when determining best. I realize that not everyone looks at it this way.

By best I meant overall. Out of the possible things you can do with a camera, action/sports shooting would be 20-30% of the total at the very most.

I also realize that to some pros action/sports shooting is really all they care about.

One things for sure. Nikon and Canon both make some damn fine cameras...

 

[Taylor510ce]

One things for sure. Nikon and Canon both make some damn fine cameras...

I completely agree. I went in the "Value for the money and professional use" direction because if not it just becomes a Canon vs Nikon thread. I wanted to mainly show that while Yes those cameras may NOT in fact be the best, there is a reason people choose them quite often.

I mean if we were going for strictly image quality, you could argue that we should all be shooting with Phase1 cameras that cost 50K and are 60+ megapixels. And both Canon and Nikon SUCKS in comparison:mrgreen:

 

[Neil S.]

One things for sure. Nikon and Canon both make some damn fine cameras...

I completely agree. I went in the "Value for the money and professional use" direction because if not it just becomes a Canon vs Nikon thread. I wanted to mainly show that while Yes those cameras may NOT in fact be the best, there is a reason people choose them quite often.

I mean if we were going for strictly image quality, you could argue that we should all be shooting with Phase1 cameras that cost 50K and are 60+ megapixels. And both Canon and Nikon SUCKS in comparison:mrgreen:

Me and you think alike. :thumbup:

Lets gang up on the diehard Canon and Nikon guys next time theres a big smackdown thread, and shut them down yo!

 

[Polyphony]

Thanks for the responses and for keeping this thread Canon vs. Nikon free....so far.

 

[Village Idiot]

Plus apparent noise can be reduced by downsizing an image. Take a noisy 21mp image and downsize it to something like 800x533 for web and now you have no noise.
Take a slightly noisier 6400 ISO photo at 21mp and downsize it to 12mp. Compare the two then.
I shoot between 3200-6400 ISO all the time doing low light concert photography with a Canon 5D MKII. You wouldn’t be able to tell that it was at that ISO unless you’re using an exif viewer or I told you.

 

[KmH]

The noise is still there, but it's not as apparent because of the downsizing.

Every digital photograph has noise, the only variables are the kind of noise and the amount.

 

[Village Idiot]

The noise is still there, but it's not as apparent because of the downsizing.

Every digital photograph has noise, the only variables are the kind of noise and the amount.

Plus apparent noise can be reduced by downsizing an image. Take a noisy 21mp image and downsize it to something like 800x533 for web and now you have no noise.
Take a slightly noisier 6400 ISO photo at 21mp and downsize it to 12mp. Compare the two then.
I shoot between 3200-6400 ISO all the time doing low light concert photography with a Canon 5D MKII. You wouldn’t be able to tell that it was at that ISO unless you’re using an exif viewer or I told you.

Bolded the important words in my post.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I'd agree that the 5DII is in fact the better landscape camera in regards to sheer resolution when you compare it to any of the nikon's that aren't the D3x.

When you make a print from say, the D700, and the 5DII, at 16x24, you'd actually be hard pressed to see a huge difference, you'd have to look for it.

If the 5D was shot with a garbage lens, and the Nikon with one of their new-fangled lenses, the Nikon would look better because of the better optics. The difference between 12 and 21MP is only about 25%.

The biggest difference between the two is that the D700 file would be able to be pushed further in post-production, the 5DII has visible shadow noise at ISO 100, so when you do some dodging in the darker areas, you'll see a little fine grain, but generally it's nothing objectionable.

I'm not exactly sure on the 5DII, but the thing about the D700 that I find remarkable in regards to landscape shooting is the latitude in the files. You can overexpose a photograph by almost 2 stops and recover it completely on the D3/700.

Than there's Sony, with the A850/900 at 24MP. Some of the Zeiss lenses are great, and the cameras are almost there in the IQ department, but visible noise reduction at almost all ISO's kill alot of the high-frequency detail.

 

[SwiCago]

It's a trade-off, since Nikon makes some of the best lenses ever created. For example, there is no manufacturer, Canon or otherwise, that can come anywhere close to Nikon's 14-24.

Pick your poison. Do you want the best landscape body, or the best landscape lens?

There are trade-offs such as this between the two companies in all aspects.

Edit after seeing Derrel's post: I didn't think Canon had the best body, but I didn't want to disagree and start a Canon vs Nikon fight.

Even though Josh and I don't see eye to eye on some things, I will have to agree with him on the above post.
The FX 14-24mm 2.8G is by far one of the most amazing landscape lenses I have ever used. The possibilities are endless and the results are stunning.
What other wide angle lens can double up as a portrait lens like this one can?