Canon 5D Mark iii or Nikon D750?

[kiwi314]

What do you all use to edit your RAW photos from the D750? It appears it Lightroom won't read them?

 

[Vtec44]

I just update LR to the latest version

 

[PaulWog]

The 24-120 cannot utilize even close to 24mp worth of pixels... It's not sharp enough. I thought about it, considered it, and didn't get it when I got my d750. It's a kit lens, so-so, should be better even at $750. It's more of a $400 quality kind of lens..... The only redeeming quality that might make it worth $750-ish is because there aren't many alternatives in the specific class that perform much better...

 

[robbins.photo]

Good to know. Based on Thom Hogan's review it would appear that the kit lense is actually better quality...

Most lenses that cover a wide range of focal lengths have to make a lot of compromises as a function of their design, so normally they end up being mediocre at most focal lengths and not really all that great at any of them. They've gotten better as the tech improves but for the most part they still don't usually match lenses that cover a much shorter range in IQ.

Important thing to remember if your going with the 750 you want to buy FX lenses, Nikons designation for full frame. There are less expensive DX lenses out there but they are designed for crop sensor bodies.

 

[Derrel]

24 million pixels on FX looks very good with any number of lenses made over the last 20 years or a bit more. Most of the telephoto zooms are still pretty good, even older cheapies like the 70-210 f/4, or even the inexpensive f/4~5.6 version. In 50mm lenses, I don't think the 50mm f/1.4 AF-S G is worth the price premium over the 50/1.8 AF-S G model (and many agree). I'm not that sold on the 50/1.8 AF-S G myself, over the earlier 50mm 1.8 AF...I have a pair of those, and the 1.8 G...I prefer the smaller size of the older 1.8 AF models.

At f/8 on 24MP FX, almost any lens is decent, and it seems to me that diffraction takes the edge off of every lens by f/8...so a $45 28-80 f/3.5~5.6 AF-D or the equally cheap 28-80 G-series, when shot at f/8 to f/11 looks about the same as a $2400 24-70 AF-S does when it too is shot at f/8 to f/11, in most situations.

I think lens quality is overblown/overemphasized by most people, for most peoples' uses....professionals may be the sole exception. Most images are going to be sharpened up at the computer and down-sized significantly. On a 1600-pixel wide image on a computer screen, or a 5x7 to 6x9 inch sized print, any lens looks fine.

I see 24 million pixels on FX as being a very sweet spot; it is a lot of information, in a good-sized image, yet it does not utterly demand the ne plus ultra level of lens performance. Any decent lens makes a decent image. YES, the $4,000 to $8,000 exotics look superlative, but they are also huge, heavy lenses and very impractical most of the time.

The wide-angle lenses are where the real money needs to be spent. Almost anything longer 50mm is a GOOD lens if it has been made by Nikon within the last 20 years. The 60mm micro-Nikkors are super-crispy. Tamron 90 macro, Tokina 100 macro, both great. The newish 85mm AF-S G Nikkor is superb in overall performance, and it's also affordable. The new 24-85 AF-S VR-G was sort of designed for the new FX Nikons, and gets pretty good reviews--plus 24,28,35,50,85 gives you ALL of the regular, everyday lens lengths you will want and need for a convenience/utility zoom, plus VR for shooting stopped down to get DOF when not using a tripod.

 

[jsecordphoto]

nevermind Ken Rockwell. I did like the 24-120, I rented it for my trip to Utah and have been kicking myself for not just buying that kit with the d750. The 50mm 1.8g is very sharp, I love that lens. I've tried the 1.4, they're both great but personally the 1.4 wasn't worth the extra money. If you don't need some of the features of the d750, look at the d610 which is still a great body. The differences between the 750/610 matter to me, but may not for you. I shoot at high ISO (6400+) fairly often, but if you don't need the slightly improved low light performance and autofocus, the 610 is a great value

 

[kiwi314]

All of your replies have been super helpful, and I will continue to digest them more. I am currently purchasing the D750 body and a 50mm f/1.8 G AF-S. I do want another, more versatile lens, but I am not sure what to get yet. Looking over your advice will aid in that decision.

 

[Derrel]

Here's a used-only lens you ought to consider. We sent one across the USA here on TPF as a group project in 2012, the lens being shipped from member to member. I got it for a week or so, and was impressed. I shot it on 24MP FX Nikon. It performed pretty well. Nikon 28-105mm

Around $99 to $125 on the used market. The wide-angle end has incredibly low distortion--really,really,really low distortion for a wide angle zoom. It's a very easy to use, easy-to-carry lens as well. it has a very good macro mode, much better than many zooms offer. I made some nice images with it.

 

[dcbear78]

Others beat me to it but yeah, there's your problem

Ken Rockwell says on his website...

I am not sure on your budget but a Sigma Art 24-105mm f4 seems very well received. If I was buying an all-purpose lens that would be it. Don't discount the 3rd party manufactures. They have really upped their game in the last couple years. Many old timers will be stringent and won't ever consider a lens not made by the OEM but they really need to remove their heads from the sand and realise times have changed.... Well for the money they cannot be beaten anyway.

 

[kiwi314]

Derrel, that is super helpful! Sounds like a good deal. Do you like it better than say the 24-85 AF-S VR-G?

 

[kiwi314]

Thanks, dcbear! I will keep that in mind. I've done hardly any looking at other maker's lenses. Haha, i'm wondering why everyone is complaining about him?

 

[dcbear78]

Also don't discount second hand lenses. People tend to be very careful with their camera gear so generally 2nd hand items are in pretty good condition.

 

[Derrel]

Derrel, that is super helpful! Sounds like a good deal. Do you like it better than say the 24-85 AF-S VR-G?

I don't have the 24-85 AF-S VR-G...I still have the prior lens, the 24-85mm f/3.3~4.5 AF-S, which does not have VR. What I liked about the 28-105 is the longer top end. Keep in mind, the 24-85 VR was "kitted" with the D600, and for about two months, Nikon basically gave away a free 24-85 VR in a super-special discounted promotion to get rid of alllll the remaining D600's in dealer inventory, so there are at least some people who have almost no stake in that lens; that is why the used prices show so much variation in the 24-85 VR.

Again...the 28-105 is a hundred dollar lens, to a one hundred twenty-five dollar used lens...that alone puts it into a special class. Honestly, in one way I prefer the screwdriver lenses because I can SEE, FEEL, and HEAR them lock focus.

 

[The_Traveler]

OP,
TBH, you seem to know so little about photography that getting such an expensive dSLR and the lenses that it takes to really use it well seems to me like a real risky bet.
You also seem to know nothing about editing and so you will be using that expensive gear as a learning camera.
And it isn't the camera that takes the picture, it's the person.
It's like wanting to learn to fish and then buying an an Orvis Helios rod, a Sage reel and a vest full of flies before you've ever made a cast.

and
"I also would like to put my upgrade to good use and start doing it professionally (portraits, weddings, etc). After a fair bit of research (DSLR's are new to me), I decided a full frame would probably be best, as I read they take clearer images."

Don't kid yourself that an expensive dSLR is an investment in a future profession.
It isn't.
The photography world is difficult and cut-throat and you are starting with essentially zero knowledge and experience and the are hundreds of thousands of people out there ahead of you.

Think of this as a great, engrossing, stimulating but expensive hobby
Why not start with a much less expensive, much less complicated system just to see if you like it enough to move up?

 

[gossamer88]

Great advice, The_Traveler. I would even go as far as getting something used.

My first DSLR was the Rebel XT (2005?). I learned a lot from my mistakes. First couple of years I was using it...gasp...in Automatic mode!! I then wanted video and upgraded to the T4i. It wasn't until I got the nifty-fifty that my photos started to shine. I've since upgraded to FF, but the journey was fun, educational and most of all enlightening!