Well the Sales are one or two Pictures a year so i think in around 40 years i will reach the goal for a FX camera .... Basically the D800 is awesome but who really needs 36 Mpix ? i would be happy with a second hand D3 or D3X or a new Canon 5D Mark 3. Which Camera do you use ?
Ya print sales are difficult way to make money but it is very rewarding when someone buys one of your pictures none-the-less. Well to be honest the extra resolution couldn't hurt....it just means you can make larger prints! BAsically, it comes down to what type of photography you do most. Canon line of tilt shift lenses are really great, they have a 17 and 24 which are perfect for shooting buildings and the image quality from what I have read is top notch. Nikon however has the affordable high resolution D800 for bigger prints and just better quality files overall. I have heard nothing but good things about that camera and I know a number of photographers who have jumped ship from Canon to move to Nikon for that reason!
I personally use the 5D mkii which is a great camera still even though it is a few years old. I probably would have gone to Nikon for the D800 if I had the money but that has not been an option. But it's not a bad thing since Nikon does not have any decent tilt shift lenses and that is a requirement for me in the future.
Why would you want get a D3? The camera is so big!
i fully agree, prints aren't made to get rich in fact i made that redbubble site because a friend thought it would be a great idea .. Well the type of photography is mostly architecture what i do .. so a canon 5d mk3 with the 17mm TSE would be a dream to have of course. A friend of me is using the canon 1DX with the 17mm TSE ... unbelievable if you see that equipment inside a rotting abandoned building ... why not a D800.. because of the big sized Mpix. 36Mpix means file sizes of a lot of Megabytes and if you do a hdr , it will break down my computer for sure .. so i would need a faster computer.. I think Nikon has a 24mm TS lens which isn't bad, but i think canon clearly wins with it's 17mm TSE I think i would have to sell a lot of prints to get a 5dmk3 with a 17mm lens .
Why a D3 or D3X, because it has a descent bracketing, it's full frame, and it is nearly unbreakable, and if you use the 14-24mm F/2.8 lens ... you will have some descent result. Sure the canon 16-35mm lens is just awesome, but from what i saw and read the 14-24 nikon is far better than the rest. Clearly a Nikon D800 with the 14-24 would be unbelievable quality images but the D3 is in Second hand very affordable.
Ya, the only thing that scares me about the 17mm TS is not being able to put a protector filter on the front, that combined with a rusty and crusty building is an accident waiting to happen. Also Canon's new TSEs allow you to tilt, shift and rotate all at the same time where Nikon's 24mm does not.
Yes, you are right the files from the D800 are huge and I know my computer would not be able to handle them either.
I personally would never get a full size DSLR because the last thing I need is extra weight in my camera bag....I already carry too much stuff! lol You are right all the reviews claim that the 14-24 is the sharpest lens available but I just cant get past the inability to use filters with that lens.
WEll you have to be more carefull with such a lens , specially in decaying buildings ... As far as i saw there's a system to put filters on the Nikon 14-24, which makes it interesting again. [link] But for TSE lenses ... canon definitely has the best choice of it ... and their 16-35mm is really good too. true the size and weight of a D3X or D3 is unbelievable, but than i usually only carry 2 lenses with me when exploraing something ...
Yes, I have heard of the filter system for this lens but had never actually seen it in action...thanks for the link. It is a very ingenious system and looks to be very well made but it is absolutely huge and very cumbersome. The other problem is the price....it costs about as much as a mid-range lens.
The 16-35mm is a decent lens but like a lot of Canon's lenses it gets kind of soft in the corners. It has about the same resolving power as the 17-40 (which I have) but sunstars are nicer on the 16-35.
Yes true, it's a bit expensive for a filter system, but at least it seems to work . Well for the size and weight of a 14-24 with the filter kit ... no luck A Friend of me is using the 16-35 from canon very often, and his pictures are just fantastic. And the quality is awesome. I never heard about the 17-40 from Canon, didn't know they have one. Me i'm using a D7000 with a cheap-shit Tamron 10-24 lol