For a Full Frame DSLR... Nikon or Canon????

[hassiman]

I do fine art work, print large...  Landscapes, street photography.
Just wondered what FF shooters here used and liked.

[tandaina]

What system do you currently shoot? If you have a significant investment in glass in one system that'd be the one you want to stick with.

Bodies come and go, your glass remains.

If you have NO glass investment then compare the Sony, Canon, and Nikon bodies. Each has strengths and weaknesses. Each is better at certain things than others. Also, get your HANDS on them. Neither I, nor anyone else can tell you which will work best for you as far as control layout, ergonomics, etc. (I'm a Minolta shooter from WAY back and have stuck with Sony because they've kept the Minolta feel and its in my genes. I've tried shooting Canon and hated every second of it.)

Long story short. Don't invest in something this expensive because someone ELSE thinks its a good idea. Do your research and pick what works for YOU, and YOU are the only one who can determine what that is. Period. We can help give info, but only if you are a good bit more specific...

(I went with the a900 after long consideration. I even considered switching systems to Canon, selling my glass, and buying new stuff. In the end I tried the a900 and 5DmkII next to one another and realized I would never be happy USING the 5DmkII, so I stayed with the system I know and love even if the name is different. My high quality glass investment remains.)

[hassiman]

First... Thank you so much for the considerate reply.  It is very much appreciated.  I know the question is quite broad but I don't haver the financial wherewithal to make bad decisions... I will have to live with the results.
I am now at the age where I just can't carry a 50 piund camera bag around anymore.  I will have to get 1 body and 1 or 2 lenses at most.  I NEVER used zooms.  Always Leitz or Zeiss primes... but now I will need to use zooms although I have heard they are far better opitcally than they were 15 years or so ago...  and as optically quality is highest concern I need advice on which manufacturer makes the highest quality zooms for their camera... as it doesn't matter than much how whiz-bang a sensor you have if the glass doesn't cut it.  The range I have always lived in is from 20mm out to 180mm at most. Which company, Sony, Nikon or Canon has the best FF zooms in the range?

Thanks again...

[tandaina]

OK those are a LOT of assumptions. First and foremost, I'm not sure I'd assume you need zooms.

My theory:
I carry a small cross body bag with ONE body, two lenses, and a portable harddrive (for offloading CF cards) that's it. I do macro and landscape work. Those two lenses are a 90mm prime macro (my precious!) and a 24-135mm zoom. (Will someday upgrade this second to the Carl Zeiss lens, but that's later)

If I were doing street photography I'd ditch the bag and hang the camera around my neck with a good 50mm and stuff cards/batteries in my pockets.

But if I really needed to reduce weight I'd be carrying a 20mm prime (for landscapes) and my 90mm macro and move MYSELF to get the shots I want. Also, all the full frames out there have so many damn pixels that you have a good deal of crop room. So if the 20mm is a little too wide big deal, just crop it out.

My suggestion:
If you haven't found sites like DPReview start googling. They offer in-depth reviews of cameras and lenses, and side by side comparison charts. The forums can also be good sources of information, but remember that every camera camp has its religious adherents and we tend to hang out in forums.

Google reviews of each body you are considering until your eyes cross. Make pro and con lists. Here's the thing, they're all good. And they all have cheap glass, medium quality glass, and "holy crap its HOW MUCH" glass.

Prime will be cheaper than zoom for the quality. If you can learn new ways of shooting (actually OLD ways of shooting from before zooms were so ubiquitous) you can do quite well no matter what you pick. If you are on budget the big thing is to pick ONE system and stick with it. And all those lenses you may have collected from other systems, sell to buy good glass, really good glass.

Sony has CZ zooms which are amazing. Canon has amazing zooms (my husband has some), Nikon I'm dead sure does too (I don't know any Nikon shooters).

[tandaina]

Forgot to add. If you are a CZ fan CZ designs Sony's high end lenses.

[Nacnud]

You didn't say what you were using at the moment.
But if you are coming from a field camera, then have a look at Canon's 24mm TSE II.
In terms of IQ it's a benchmark lens; and it's got tilt / shift which allows creative manipulation of the focal plane. At the moment, there's nothing like it from the other manufacturers.
For landscape photography it rarely leaves my 5DII; the IQ is breathtaking.
If this lens appeals, the tricky decision is whether to wait for the 5DIII which is expected soon.

Ignoring the lenses, I agree with the others that all the current full frame bodies are excellent and close enough in performance that the current 'best' will quickly be leapfrogged by the other manufacturers.

[fotometria gr]

 I had the same dilemma as you nearly 5 years ago..., at the days I was shooting film only, because I wasn't satisfied out of the performance of dslrs in highlight DR, which for me is the most importand aspect in my photography! During 2006, I owed 17 Nikon lenses (many of them I still use), but the only camera that could fulfill (just) my demands (DR & FF) was the Eos 5D. The only thing that was stoping me from purchasing it, was the compatibility issue with my (great) gear! Then Fuji announced the S5pro and after careful thought I decided on early summer 2007 to give it a go, although my FF demand was not satisfied. With the camera, I also bought the Nikkor 12-24mm to solve the WA issue. Only a year later there was the D700 from Nikon and I was able to satisfy my FF demand as well! Now I still own both of the cameras and two more bodies. Conclusion: 1. Patience saves money. 2. You can't trust the camera body to "get married" with a manufacturer, you never know what the other manufacturer's answer will be..., so, decisions should be made on lenses. 3. Proper and thoughtful investment on quality glass saves LOTS OF CASH and helps to built a great system, replacing stuff all the time is an economical disaster!
  My advice then: If you own one of the two (or three) systems, KEEP IT. If you buy lenses from scratch and according to your stated needs, I would go for the Zeiss 21mm, a used 28-70 a fast 100/105 and a Sigma 150macro and make sure you get them for the fit that your hart leeds you to. Cheers Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[meyerweb]

Let me ask a different question:  Do you really NEED full frame?  If cutting weight is an important factor, I think you should consider APS-C bodies. The images from a 7D or 60D with a 17-55 will be virtually indistinguishable from those shot with a 1Ds body and 24-70 except under extreme pixel peeping, and at the highest ISOs in deep shadows.  Do you regularly shoot at ISO 3200 and above?  Do you routinely make 30x40 inch prints?  Do you expect to be shooting in horrible weather conditions that demand the weather sealing of a 1D?

Unless the answers to these questions are yes, I don't think you should ignore the smaller bodies. They've come a long way from where they were even half a dozen years ago.

[Scott O.]

How many times are you going to ask a question which has no answer?  Twice on this topic is probably two too many...