good enough camera. not worth switching platforms over. nikon already missed the boat to keep me as a customer. switched to canon 3.5 years ago.
Seriously though you'd be an idiot to switch system back and forth, just stick with one system and be happy.
Everybody knows it's the best DSLR since a long time. Too late for it to be useful.
I've never understood why people switch back and forth… is that one feature sufficient to take a multi-thousand $ hit? All the while planning to take another hit when you switch again in a few years?
.....
I couldn't agree more. I think this is the part where I start to stand on my soapbox and laugh that people actually do believe there is that one feature that will get them that shot. Those people have day jobs by the way working for a company that probably doesn't have anything to do with photography. Just saying....I've never understood why people switch back and forth is that one feature sufficient to take a multi-thousand $ hit? All the while planning to take another hit when you switch again in a few years?
I guess eventually you'd just have 2 redundant systems, you'd only be skipping generations (as far as the bodies go) on each side.
Or they know they need/want it and knew before some review hit. But the review is nice to see.Exactly. Anyone who needed a D3 would have got it by now.
Many aren't. I do know when the D2 came out there were quite a few people who bought it to take pictures of their kids.If you honestly needed to see the noise graphs before buying the camera, you're probably not a real photographer anyway.
I have a theory about people who have to inventory their gear for others to see......Only gear-heads were waiting for the numbers....and official bragging rights.
I've never understood why people switch back and forth… is that one feature sufficient to take a multi-thousand $ hit? All the while planning to take another hit when you switch again in a few years?
I doubt you'll hear much complaining from the people that were able to buy those folks' one-generation-back gear for much less than the new price.
that's why I'm not complaining (I have yet to benefit, but someday I will), but I AM confused.
I've never understood why people switch back and forth is that one feature sufficient to take a multi-thousand $ hit? All the while planning to take another hit when you switch again in a few years?
I guess eventually you'd just have 2 redundant systems, you'd only be skipping generations (as far as the bodies go) on each side.
While most people switching back and forth simply can't expose properly with any camera (trust me, seen the results on DPR hundreds of times,) some folks actually need a capability.
For the D3, the extra couple of stops, speed and dual slots can make the difference. If you're doing commercial work, the camera body cost is just a business expense that can be ROI'd in almost no time- so losing $2-3k switching really isn't a big deal if you'll be more competitive for 2-3 months even. More than likely though, you'll shoot the new body for a year or two. Let's say you spend $2k on lenses and $4.5k on the body, that's 6.5k, and let's say you lose 1.5k on selling your old system. That means you're out 8k- if you're doing one shoot a week each month for a year, that's $166/month of expense, so if you can get an extra $160/shoot the camera is going to pay for itself in that year- if your old body also paid for itself, then you're not really losing the switch money per se, you're just decreasing your profitability- in which case you're looking at $135/month for a 12-month ROI, and less than $75/month for a 24-month ROI.
In reality, you could pick up the delta in 2-4 jobs in some markets for some types of photography. Obviously, it changes your bottom-line profitability, so there's more to it than just the capital ROI calculation. However, if the one difference gets you an extra 4 assignments a year, it's probably going to be worth it. If it increases referrals, gives you more headroom for marginal circumstances, etc. then it may be worth it anyway.
Emotional brand attachment isn't good in a professional environment- it's a tool, and you use the right tool for the job, balanced with your needs and profits. If you're only going to do 2 brake jobs a year, you borrow a brake spring clip tool, or you work with a screwdriver. If you're going to do two a week, the tool's probably worth having, at two a day, you just get one.
Phil is Nikon biased honestly thats pretty much why I've stopped going to dpreview.com for any decent camera related news. I might check out the forums once in awhile but its pretty evident by the Canon 1D(s) Mk III's being out that he hasn't posted any review whatsoever and the latest I see are lower end Canon lens reviews.
I still find it funny that NOW Nikons finally caught up to Canon in terms of ISO performance when for years and years Canon beat Nikon and for Nikon to finally release a FF camera thats just funny. Megapixels arent everything but for Canon to be holding its own with a higher resolution sensor (ala 1Ds Mark III) is pretty impressive.
I still find it funny that NOW Nikons finally caught up to Canon in terms of ISO performance when for years and years Canon beat Nikon and for Nikon to finally release a FF camera thats just funny.
Nah. I suspect that, on average, a professional photographer would have a better chance of bringing out a stunning image than an amateur based solely on their greater experience in working with light and composition. I say "on average"... I've seen some beautiful work by amateurs, and some not-so-great stuff from professionals.Its an interesting discussion, I'll add my 2 pence
Do you think amateurs are able to stay truer to the 'art' of photography, because they are not limited to the professional constraints of fulfilling a brief? Do you think pros have their creative vision undermined because of market trends dictating what images 'should' look like?
I also feel many amateurs make better images than pros, purely because they have a greater will to create images, as doing can be seen as a welcome diversion from the 'day job'?
Phil is Nikon biased honestly thats pretty much why I've stopped going to dpreview.com for any decent camera related news.
I still find it funny that NOW Nikons finally caught up to Canon in terms of ISO performance when for years and years Canon beat Nikon and for Nikon to finally release a FF camera thats just funny. Megapixels arent everything but for Canon to be holding its own with a higher resolution sensor (ala 1Ds Mark III) is pretty impressive.
The latter statement is true ("for years Canon beat Nikon"); the former ("Nikon has finally caught up to Canon") is not. Even most Canon fans admit that Nikon just blew by them in terms of high-ISO noise performance (technically, we should probably say that Sony just blew by Canon, since they make the sensor). It's not just a matter of "catching up".
I fully expect that Canon won't sit still on this, and we'll all benefit from the competition.