What is wrong with you folks?
There is different styles of photography and the photos on aeroks page are excellent for his particular style.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Almost switched to Nikon today... (glad I didn't)
- Thread starter Miltz
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There is different styles of photography and the photos on aeroks page are excellent for his particular style.
I switched to Nikon after various issues with Canon gear, culminated by my 7D autofocus horror story.
And where are your magnificent photos? I assume we'll all be wowed and I'd like to see them.
Because what the world needs is a dslr that produces 50 megpix
I SO agree - I'm wondering when (if!) we will ever get to the "pointless to go further" stage (as with # of colours on monitors, we surpassed the human eye a couple of decades ago).
I suspect further DSLR development is funded by HDD manufacturers
I'm still happy with my 12MP and my most commercially successful shot was taken with a 6MP....
----------
Forum Rules
Because what the world needs is a dslr that produces 50 megpix
And apparently the sensor is a Sony made EXMOR sensor. Interesting...
Really? D200/300 used Sony sensors but I'm not sure of current Nikon technology...?
Another convergence of component supply?
Nikon uses mostly Sony sensors...And interestingly where they use the same sensor in equivalent models they seem to get more out of it as well. Just shows that despite there is component sharing it doesn't make things equal...
My 7D has had no autofocus problems I am aware of, but I imagine that every now and then any camera brand/model has a few lemons. Then there are cases where the focus issues relate to the photographer.
I have heard of autofocus problems with the Nikon D7100 on safari (wildlife) photography, while other photographers don't have the same problems with it.
Last edited:
Because what the world needs is a dslr that produces 50 megpix
50MP does seem like a stretch for FF sensors. I'll have to wait for the production reviews, but I feel that 50MP is best left to medium format.
It's a bit more than just a stretch.
Of course the more the better goes for everything, but how would anyone utilize 50mp?
What lenses would be usable? How do you stabilize this?
It seems that right now the D8xx and a7r have pushed it as far as it is feasible for dslrs.
Just imagine such a large image after running it through a couple of NIK's plugins and saving the image to TIFF format? It's just too much for me, although it leaves the door open for a lot of cropping.
Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax, Fuji
It deosn't really matter at all, especially when you shoot in raw and you take care of the light. It's all about personal preferences mostly and which system fits your working style better, but honestly you can't go wrong with either, because the photo gear is on such a high level already.
Some of my works done with (mostly) Canon, Nikon and Fuji
www.chrispanas.com
All the best!
Some of my works done with (mostly) Canon, Nikon and Fuji
www.chrispanas.com
All the best!
That's about it really.
There's some nice work on there. Good stuff.
I've never really considered Nikon as I've been emotionally biased to Canon since I first thumbed through National Geographic magazines as a kid where Canon was the prominent (only?) advertiser (and dreamed of owning some Canon kit).
However, I've heard these kinds of comments before... Are they true?
- Nikon lenses generally cost more than their Canon counterparts (I personally would find this hard to believe with Canon's recent pricing)
- Nikon's low end lenses are better than Canon's low end lenses
- Nikon doesn't offer as broad a selection of lenses as Canon, particularly when it comes to fast glass (f/1.2) or super telephoto options.
However, I've heard these kinds of comments before... Are they true?
- Nikon lenses generally cost more than their Canon counterparts (I personally would find this hard to believe with Canon's recent pricing)
- Nikon's low end lenses are better than Canon's low end lenses
- Nikon doesn't offer as broad a selection of lenses as Canon, particularly when it comes to fast glass (f/1.2) or super telephoto options.
Last edited:
Some Nikon lenses are more expensive than some Canon lenses, but both cost about the same depending on which lenses you choose.
I don't know if Nikon low end lenses being better than Canon low end lenses, but I do know that some of the Canon low end lenses are quite good. For example, the 100mm Macro USM is an outstanding lens, and quite cheap compared the the same but L lens. The same can be said for even cheaper lenses, including the 50mm f/1.4, and the 85mm lens. The EFS 18-55mm IS kit lens is relatively cheap, and quite good. And so are the 40mm f/2.8 and the 22mm pancake lenses.
Those very fast Canon lenses cost a fortune, and the same can be said for the 200-400 lens with a built-in teleconverter (somewhere around $11K, I believe).
----------
Couldn't agree with you more.
A few of the pro photographer's I work with, were really suprised at how good my kit 18-55 mm lens was when I bought my first Nikon kit.
As for broad selection, you can use Nikon mounted lenses back from the 60's so pretty sure there are more out there than Cannon.
That being said, I'm not being a Nikon fanboy and bashing Cannon. I think they both have good points and bad. Cannon for example is generally considered better for video.
As I have already stated, I had my own reasons for choosing Nikon, but if people are taking good pictures, who cares what they use.