[Brightcolours]

Thanks guys.

Joju Mumbai is dusty and super humid. Fungus is a reality here.

BC, I sold my D800, wasn't happy with it. Have a 6D with these 2 lenses and can't be happier. Life is simple right now.

Wow, unexpected step from you (I remember some DR discussion in the past, when you were considering an FF DSLR).

I rather like the "small" 6D too.  AF with no fuss, compact and sturdy body. I put a screen protect film on the LCD, as the LCD plastic is prone to scratching and the protective film is easier to clean from smudges.

For now I do not have the 35mm f2 IS, since I already have the smaller old 35mm f2. I don't have the 135mm f2 either (eyeing a 2nd hand 135mm f2.8 SF, for its light weight yet still good IQ, although it can't reach the L quality especially wide open. Till then I am using 2 old 135mm Nikkors).

[nandadevieast]

FWIW: This is what Canon says in their PR for the new 16-35 f4 L.

When paired with an optional Protect filter, this lens also exhibits a dust- and water-resistant construction to enable its use in inclement conditions.


BC: True, 6D is a no fuss camera. It doesn't come in the way.

DR: For artists these things never matter. You kind of get sucked into these things...which are hardly important.

I wonder how many people bought D800 purely because of the high mp count, and later discovered that they have to fight with the camera to get their shots.

I will def. get a LCD screen thing...didn't cross my mind at all. Thanks.

[JJ_SO]

FWIW: This is what Canon says in their PR for the new 16-35 f4 L.

When paired with an optional Protect filter, this lens also exhibits a dust- and water-resistant construction to enable its use in inclement conditions.


BC: True, 6D is a no fuss camera. It doesn't come in the way.

 

The best camera always will be the one you're happy with it and can do the things you want to do. Some of the 6D features I'd love to see Nikon implementing them and throwing out the highly complex menu for a simpler one with better structure and quicker access.

 

About those "dust and water resitant construction": I don't doubt it's helpful, but it's a very general statement and reminds me on insurances which cover all costs of a break-in into a car, as long as the car was properly parked in a closed garage with some dogs around and a battalion of guards...


 

DR: For artists these things never matter. You kind of get sucked into these things...which are hardly important.

I'm no artist but I do feel that kind of opinion far too generalizing. Maybe not all artists will agree on that, but first we need to know your definition of "artist". B)

 

You're right, it's easy to get sucked into less important things if there are only enough numbers to compare and suddenly it makes a big difference if one camera has a DR of 14.2 f-stops and another "only" 13.8. I don't think anyone will notice a difference. But for sure I do benefit of a huge DR if it comes to difficult light situations. On the other side, if I can control light situation in a studio DR maybe is not much of a problem.

 

I wonder how many people bought D800 purely because of the high mp count, and later discovered that they have to fight with the camera to get their shots.

I just put my D800 in a "To sell" advert of a small website not many people read - opposite of eBay, I'd say. After one day I got a request. It was a Canon shooter, who was sort of disappointed not to have those MP count available. He makes a living by offering private photo classes and working as photographer. I do know other Canon shooters switching their system and being (mostly) happy now. He didn't want to buy second hand because of saving a lot of money at first place. He went for 2nd hand, because he wanted a trouble free D800: correct focuspoints on both sides was very important to him. Now, what can I wish more than a camera which is easy to sell? Easy answer: One which is so close to my desires that I don't wish to sell it.

 

I didn't replace the D800 against the D800E although I'm totally curious if it's such a massive improvement resolutionwise. On Nikonrumors I read about DxO tables showing the differences of various lenses and it was more than the 10% I had in mind until that day. On the other side: AF-adjustment for all lenses again? Worth the effort? Sure, but also worth the amount of money I have to out into the exchange? While the new D800s or whatever the version will be called goes a step beyond and has no AA-filter at all?

 

It's not about MP or resolution "numbers" - I really enjoy discovering small things in photographs I haven't seen when I was taking it. It's fascinating what a Sigma 50/1.4 Art can show.


Another owner of 3 D800 went for D7100. His reason were the D800 focuspoints being not close enough to the outside and getting even more MP than he gets with D800, limited to the field of focuspoints - meaning, cropping nearly all images.

So, everybody has good reasons and as well priorities for camera choice. Out of interest: Was it a Nikon or Canon owner you sold your D800 to?

 

I will def. get a LCD screen thing...didn't cross my mind at all. Thanks.

[nandadevieast]

I read it somewhere yesterday...looks ugly, but it maybe a solution...

Have broken a filter glass...so that just the ring is there. So i mounted that ring on the lens, and the filter on that ring.

 

Joju, well said. Best one is the one you like. 

I am not the one to be brand loyal or fanatic guy. 

Any brand, any camera. I should like it. 



Canon does have rocking lenses...exactly a match for what i was looking for...

[JJ_SO]

well, a lot of manufacturers also have rocking lenses but sometimes not in the focal range I want to have one. Great, we can choose. And as Canon owner, you' ll get the first edition of a new Zeiss / Sigma / Tamron / Tokina before it gets available for Nikon or Sony. Plus, you can adapt Nikon lenses as some Canon owners did when they were longing for a 14-24. But the new 16-35 should do as well.

 

We live in quite happy times. If money is no issue, we have a real choice of great or super lenses.

 

Given the high level of quality, it's really the best, if one touches the camera and gets a feeling of liking or not. Sometimes this gut feeling is underrated and the numbers are ruling.

[Brightcolours]

well, a lot of manufacturers also have rocking lenses but sometimes not in the focal range I want to have one. Great, we can choose. And as Canon owner, you' ll get the first edition of a new Zeiss / Sigma / Tamron / Tokina before it gets available for Nikon or Sony. Plus, you can adapt Nikon lenses as some Canon owners did when they were longing for a 14-24. But the new 16-35 should do as well.

 

We live in quite happy times. If money is no issue, we have a real choice of great or super lenses.

 

Given the high level of quality, it's really the best, if one touches the camera and gets a feeling of liking or not. Sometimes this gut feeling is underrated and the numbers are ruling.

Zeiss usually puts out the ZF version first, though. And Voigtlander does not offer its quite lovely 90mm and 58mm f1.4 for Canon. Tokina offers their 70-200mm f4 only with Nikon mount .

[JJ_SO]

 Ok, corrected. Is Tokina 70-200/4 an attractive lens for Canon? I thought, Canon is really strong in their tele-department.

[Brightcolours]

The Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f4 VR is almost a copy of the Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L IS USM. The Tokina is just as unattractive for Canon mount as it is for Nikon mount, really.

[JJ_SO]

"Almost a copy" - if it would be a proper one, the tripod-collar of the Nikon version might work better 

 

Anyway, how many 70-200 variations of different manufacturers with almost the same optical formula are existing in this world?

[Brightcolours]

"Almost a copy" - if it would be a proper one, the tripod-collar of the Nikon version might work better 

 

Anyway, how many 70-200 variations of different manufacturers with almost the same optical formula are existing in this world?

I meant almost a copy in the optical design.

Before the 70-200mm f4 VR, Nikon tele zoom designs were not similar at all to this Nikkor.

 

Compare it to the design of the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 VR or the Nikkoe 70-200mm f2.8 VR II for instance.

 

I do not mind the least that they have based the design on the successful Canon 70-200mm f4 L IS USM. I just mentioned it because, since they are so similar, what goes for the Canon also goes for the Nikon. So, if the Tokina is unattractive as alternative for the Canon, it is also unattractive for the Nikkor as alternative.