Buying New- Sony A700 or Cannon 50D

[fiveoboy01]

Oh boy another "discussion".... My opinion?

Get a D3, it looks coolest.

:mrgreen:

 

[inTempus]

Yeah really arguing with a blind Canon fan seems to bring nowhere.

You're hopelessly lost if you think I'm a blind Canon fan. That's a baseless insult based on nothing more than your trying to be as insulting as you possibly can. If that's what this conversation as degraded to, your trying to be the biggest ass you can be, then you win.

I've said nothing about Canon being superior to Nikon, I have said they're dead even competitors.

Be sure the OP will more care about a real trip results which ended with Canon's failure than lab results which does not make sense in real world. If your camera isn't robust enough, 21MP will give you nothing.

How many Antarctica trips do you think the OP has planned?

On second thought, don't bother answering. I've had enough of your Nikon fanboy antics for today.

 

[inTempus]

I disagreed with your statistical logic.

I didn't draw any conclusions from the story - none. I made no mention of anything statistical. I stated a FACT, an observation, one which you can't dispute other than to put words in my mouth then argue with yourself.

Repeated:

Fact: There were more 5DMK2's than D700's present on the trip.
Fact: 20 5DMK2's functioned flawlessly, which is more than the total number of D700's on the trip.

No conclusions. No statistical logic. Nothing. A simple observation.

 

[inTempus]

We already know some of the limitations of Nikon's line, lets bring this back on track and help the OP with a critique on Canon's side.

Let's just get Ken Rockwell's perspective while we're at it. Once you read this, you'll never seriously consider Canon.

Nikon vs. Canon

That should have Tayfun doing back flips with excitement.

 

[Tayfun]

You're hopelessly lost if you think I'm a blind Canon fan. That's a baseless insult based on nothing more than your trying to be as insulting as you possibly can. If that's what this conversation as degraded to, your trying to be the biggest ass you can be, then you win.

Wasn't it you giving links to wikipedia to teach me meaning of statistics and scientific method? Check who was trying to insult and who is downgrading the conversation by nonsence Canon fanatic behaviour. Look who brought this conversation to this stage (and still you do so). Don't be so funny :lmao:

How many Antarctica trips do you think the OP has planned?
fanboy antics for today.

Are you serious :lmao: Do you think it only rains or snows in Antartica? :lmao:
Your geographic knowledge seems like the same level by your statistics knowledge

On second thought, don't bother answering. I've had enough of your Nikon fanboy antics for today.

And this shows that you have nothing to write so try to insult but wrong place dude:thumbdown: Guess what, it is funny to hear this from a blind Canon fan. You don't worth to give answer more.

 

[inTempus]

Guess what, it is funny to hear this from a blind Canon fan. You don't worth to give answer more.

Thank God.

 

[fragged3d]

My head hurts after reading all of this.

This is kind of like PS3 v. XBox 360.

I couldn't agree more! I own both in that regard and prefer the 360, in this case it's kinda too expensive to have both!

I am not planning any trips guys, all I'm going to be doing is portraiture shoots for now. Don't get me wrong though, I want something I can expand on if I'm spending that much!

 

[ANDS!]

I couldn't agree more! I own both in that regard and prefer the 360, in this case it's kinda too expensive to have both!

I am not planning any trips guys, all I'm going to be doing is portraiture shoots for now. Don't get me wrong though, I want something I can expand on if I'm spending that much!

D700, spend the rest on a 85MM F/1.4 and studio equipment. I would recommend a used or refurbished body to further factor in the savings. However, realistically - if you are just doing portrait shooting ANY camera is going to work, even an entry level camera. If you don't take it out of the studio, then you don't need the bells and whistles that a pro body offers because you will be in control of a very static environment.

Let's just get Ken Rockwell's perspective while we're at it. Once you read this, you'll never seriously consider Canon.

So essentially you are incapable of rendering an impartial critique of our camera body? Sheesh.

 

[fragged3d]

I have been reading up on portrait and glamour photography and I will say most of them guys use Nikon for whatever reasons. Still, I'm not rushing anything and I have started to buy studio equipment, being carefull in my purchases.

 

[inTempus]

So essentially you are incapable of rendering an impartial critique of our camera body? Sheesh.

I see a dose of snarky comments but I'm still waiting on your critique of Canon. You may not like Ken Rockwell, but his opinion on Canon vs. Nikon is far more comprehensive than anything you've posted in this thread.

How about a little less grudge and a little more substance?

 

[ANDS!]

Why would I critique Canon - I DONT own one. Do you even READ the threads, or just formulate responses based on how you want the conversation to go? I gave my, so far, negative impressions of Nikon bodies because I - wait for it - have only used Nikon bodies.

Man - its like I'm playing chess and you want to jump a pawn with your Knight.

 

[Village Idiot]

I didn't draw any conclusions from the story - none. I made no mention of anything statistical. I stated a FACT, an observation, one which you can't dispute other than to put words in my mouth then argue with yourself.

Repeated:

Fact: There were more 5DMK2's than D700's present on the trip.
Fact: 20 5DMK2's functioned flawlessly, which is more than the total number of D700's on the trip.

No conclusions. No statistical logic. Nothing. A simple observation.

Fact. The new guy cuts his own hair. Fact.

I couldn't agree more! I own both in that regard and prefer the 360, in this case it's kinda too expensive to have both!

I am not planning any trips guys, all I'm going to be doing is portraiture shoots for now. Don't get me wrong though, I want something I can expand on if I'm spending that much!

Boo. The PS3 has been the best Blu Ray player I've ever owned.

I have been reading up on portrait and glamour photography and I will say most of them guys use Nikon for whatever reasons. Still, I'm not rushing anything and I have started to buy studio equipment, being carefull in my purchases.

Doesn't really matter at all in those conditions. The Canon will have the obvious MP advantage and I think that may be the only advantage one has over the other unless you're planning on using speedlights and CLS for that type of shooting.

Basically, you need lights. That's what portraiture and glam/fashion photography is aboot. Quality of light affect the out come more than quality of camera in this case.

 

[mosu84]

What in the world is going on in this thread?

Do any of you even own (or have you extensively used) the cameras you're arguing about?

 

[inTempus]

Why would I critique Canon - I DONT own one. Do you even READ the threads, or just formulate responses based on how you want the conversation to go?

Oh, so NOW it's an issue... LOL It's never stopped you in the past.

Wasn't it you who posted this back on 2/9 regarding the 50D? I think it was.

* High ISO performance worse than 40D
* Reduced dynamic range in the shadow areas compared to EOS 40D
* Per-pixel detail not as good as on good 10 or 12 megapixel cameras
* High-end lenses required to get the most out of the camera
* Poor white balance performance under artificial light
* Flash must be up for AF assist lamp (although AF is good even in low light)
* Live view not as accurate as on 40D (framing very slightly off-center, in contrast detect AF mode not possible to magnify right out to the extreme corners)

What, you can't Google cons for Canon today?

Oh, lookie here. More Canon critiques from the man who doesn't own one and refuses to comment... this time from 1/21.

There are pros and cons to both brands. Generally Nikon will have that extra "oomph" as far as body design is concerned, but you are going to pay a damn sure steep premium for it. Canon on the other hand I think comes in second for "body" but first in bang for your buck. That you can get a full frame 21MP camera for 3G's or less on the camera side of things is. . .staggering. Feature wise, I've always been more prone to what Nikon can cram into their cameras, but then Canon usually has an answer waiting in the wings - and cheaper.

Then we get to lenses, and depending on your budget and what you want will determine the winner here. The biggest pro in Canon's favor it seems is that Canon users don't have to worry about the AF-S bull**** that exists within Nikons entry-level line. If you have a modern Canon lens and a Canon camera, autofocus is GO! But then there is that catch - "modern" lens. If I understand correctly, Canon users are borked on some old school lenses, as Canon changed the design or some sort, so not AI-S equivalent for Canon users; on Nikons side, you have to dig WAY back to find a lens not compatible Nikon's current lineup.

 

[ANDS!]

Those aren't real world, USER BASED critiques. Which I asked for. In this thread. As usual, you play the defensive "Oh hell naw!" poster.

Jesus H Christ. What the hell is wrong with some of you kit kats?

Any OTHER Canon user want to offer some REAL WORLD hands-on experience with their machine, as Tharmsen seems uninterested in actually contributing. The OP is counting on you Canon users!