# Canon 5D Mark iii or Nikon D750?



## kiwi314 (Aug 13, 2015)

Hello! A bit about me: I am a hobbyist photographer currently using a hybrid/bridge camera (_Panasonic Lumix FZ60_). I am starting to outgrow its capabilities and am looking to upgrade to a DSLR. Note that video is not important to me.

I also would like to put my upgrade to good use and start doing it professionally (portraits, weddings, etc). After a fair bit of research (DSLR's are new to me), I decided a full frame would probably be best, as I read they take clearer images.

I am torn between Canon's _5D Mark iii_ and Nikon's _D750_. I have nothing invested in either brand, so this decision also is between _Canon_ and_ Nikon_.

The built-in flash on the _Nikon D750_ is pulling me in that direction, as I don't have a separate flash yet, and would prefer not to have to carry one around everywhere. Also, I read that it is supposed to have less noise at higher ISO? But it seems like a lot of people are in love with the _Mark iii_, and the color of Canon cameras_. _It seems that the auto focus on the Canon might be superior, as well. I am not sure what to do.

I also wonder if I am being silly spending this much on a DSLR when I haven't owned one previously? But I don't want to have to buy a cheaper one only to upgrade later. Your thoughts are so appreciated as I make this big decision!


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 13, 2015)

Well if you plan to shoot professionally I wouldn't consider using the built in pop-up flash, you'll want a good external flash at a minimum,and probably at some point other lighting as well.

But being a Nikon guy I'd go with the D750 myself for other reasons.  The Nikon's have a better dynamic range than there Canon counterparts, and the 750's tilt screen can come in real handy for lining up difficult shots. 

But really there isn't a huge major monster difference between the two, they are both very capable cameras and very good systems.  Image quality is going to be determined a lot more by your skills as a photographer than it is by whether or not you get a Nikon or a Canon.


----------



## kiwi314 (Aug 13, 2015)

Thank you! If/when I started taking photos professionally, I would for sure invest in an external flash. I meant more for every-day/travel use, it would be nice to carry minimal gear.


----------



## gossamer88 (Aug 13, 2015)

I have the 6D (which I'm selling) and upgraded to the 5D Mark III. The focusing system on the 5D III is amazing. The other difference that I know of is that the 5D has two memory slots (CF/SD). 

As far as flash goes, the low-light capability of both and high ISO can really make a flash superfluous at times.


----------



## kiwi314 (Aug 13, 2015)

I am sure you are right. With my current (lower-quality) camera however, I found I have been using it as a fill more often. I assume you would still need a fill in situations where you have a brighter background or face in shadow.


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 13, 2015)

IMHO,  the D750 is a lot more forgiving in difficult lighting conditions due to much better dynamic range.  The high ISO noise is slightly better than the 5DM3.  Autofocus at night is also better.  It's a few hundred dollars cheaper.

The 5DM3 can do 1/8000 shutter speed, full metal body, and more focus points.

I shoot the 5Dm3 once in a while but can't never get use to the control layout, so I personally prefer the D750 because I'm more familiar with the buttons and menu layout.  At 12800 ISO, the noise is clean with no banding on the D750.  That's something that Canon hasn't fixed when you have to push the shadows.  Also, dual slots on the 5DM3 is limited to the slower speed if you use both CF and SD because of the older design.  However, either camera will serve you well.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 13, 2015)

The Nikon D750 is almost three years newer than the 5D-III, and is similarly featured, but has a better sensor than any Canon has yet been able to invent. I honestly think the Nikon D750 was designed to be a "5D-III killer", meaning a camera designed to do the same things a 5D-III can do, plus MORE, like built-in flash, built-in multi-speedlight controller system; and in general, the same basic thing: a moderate-weight, half-height body with an available dual-battery grip option, a pro-level AF system, and the right pixel count for high resolution PLUS file size economy. Wedding and people shooters do not really "need" 36MP or 50MP file size...that just means more memory cards filled up, drives filled faster, slower downloads, and more archiving and more editing hassles. 22 to 24 million pixels on full-frame is a very,very sweet spot in the sensors made by Sony and used in the Nikon FX d-slrs.

The Nikon is priced pretty fairly. AGain, I think Nikon designed the D750 to compete head to head with the 5D-III at this current stage of the market's evolution, with the D750 coming in about a thousand dollars lower than the Canon offering.

Is this too much to spend, $1996 for a D750? I dunno. Maybe. Maybe not. It should last you for a decade if all you do is use it as a regular-user's camera. If you are unsure about dropping 2k, then DON'T, get something wayyyyy less expensive. Buy something used maybe, from a camera store, a real camera store, see what you thnk.


----------



## goodguy (Aug 13, 2015)

As Derrell said the D750 is much newer then the 5D III and that shows in all the reviews that I read or saw which favored the D750 over the 5D III
Better low light performance
Much better dynamic range
Slightly better AF system (that's debatable as I saw conflicting reviews but overall they are very close)
Flip screen which you might find helpful or not but in any case its a bonus.
Popup flash is not design for pro work but its nice to have and when outside and need a fill in flash it is very helpful

Overall both excellent cameras but the 5D III is older and it shows.
I am bias toward Nikon, I own the D750 and love it, never disappointed me and feels like an overall excellent camera.


----------



## kiwi314 (Aug 13, 2015)

Thank you all for your replies! I guess now I just have to decide if I like the color/tint of Canon or Nikon better.


----------



## kiwi314 (Aug 14, 2015)

I think i'm going to go with the D750, because of it's superior dynamic range. I can't decide whether I like the color or Nikon or Canon better, so I think i'm just going to go for it.


----------



## dcbear78 (Aug 14, 2015)

Remember to factor in at least the price of the camera again for lenses. You don't buy a DSLR to just have one lens.


----------



## kiwi314 (Aug 14, 2015)

Which lens should I start with?


----------



## jaomul (Aug 14, 2015)

I suggest you initially buy it as a kit. The 24-120f4 that can be bought with it is imo excellent, but a cheaper option that many like is the 24-85mm vr


----------



## goodguy (Aug 14, 2015)

Which lens for the D750 ?
Depends of your pocket, good fast lenses is always the best choice, I got with my D750 the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G but you can also get the Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 VC
Nikon 24-85mm f3.5-f4.5 VR is a good lens and is very reasonably priced and its relatively small so its another option


----------



## kiwi314 (Aug 14, 2015)

So I just happened upon some more info in my research... Perhaps you could clarify for me, as i'm new to RAW. It appears the Nikon D750 shoots in compressed RAW. Wouldn't that give the Canon D M3 an advantage?


----------



## jsecordphoto (Aug 14, 2015)

750. Every time I shoot with this thing, I fall in love all over again. I switched from Canon btw


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 14, 2015)

kiwi314 said:


> So I just happened upon some more info in my research... Perhaps you could clarify for me, as i'm new to RAW. It appears the Nikon D750 shoots in compressed RAW. Wouldn't that give the Canon D M3 an advantage?


I think it's optional
You can use 14 bit lossless RAW
or 12-bit compressed RAW
Nikon D750 Buffer Capacity


----------



## JohnnyWrench (Aug 14, 2015)

Does anyone have a good guess at when we can expect a price drop on the 750?  I'm very seriously considering one also.


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 14, 2015)

kiwi314 said:


> So I just happened upon some more info in my research... Perhaps you could clarify for me, as i'm new to RAW. It appears the Nikon D750 shoots in compressed RAW. Wouldn't that give the Canon D M3 an advantage?



It's optional on most Nikon professional DSLR's.  You can turn it on or off.  I have it on for all of my DSLR.  I can barely tell the difference in quality, but the reduction in file size is HUGE.  For my D800, it went from 80mb to about 40mb with unnoticeable quality loss.


----------



## kiwi314 (Aug 14, 2015)

Okay, thank you. Another question... Will the ISO range be limiting/not high enough? What about the shutter speed - is it going to be fast enough?


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 14, 2015)

kiwi314 said:


> Okay, thank you. Another question... Will the ISO range be limiting/not high enough? What about the shutter speed - is it going to be fast enough?



That's more or less depend on the lighting condition at the time and your style of photography.  I rarely use anything above 6400ISO or  1/8000 shutter speed.  It doesn't mean that the next photographer shoots the same way that I do.


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 14, 2015)

kiwi314 said:


> Okay, thank you. Another question... Will the ISO range be limiting/not high enough? What about the shutter speed - is it going to be fast enough?



You don't run into too many situations where you need 1/8000 shutter speed.

In fact, I've never been in one myself.

Low light performance will be a bit better on the Nikon but again skill and experience in choosing your Iso, shutter speed and aperture will ultimately influence the final results far more than the hardware differences

Sent from my 306SH using Tapatalk


----------



## kiwi314 (Aug 14, 2015)

You guys are the greatest. I won't worry about that either, then. 
I am looking in to lenses and it seems like a 50mm lense f/1.8 is a nice lens, and I love that it has a shallow depth of field. It is also affordable. I am thinking about going that route, but I would also like another lens that has a bit more depth so you could take group photos and landscape. Which is better for that? I assume they might be more expensive, so maybe I should just get the kit?
The lens: Nikon 50mm f 1.8 D Review


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 14, 2015)

Go for the 50 f1.4G and never look back.  I have the 50 f1.8D, 50 f1.4D, and 50 f1.4G


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 14, 2015)

kiwi314 said:


> You guys are the greatest. I won't worry about that either, then.
> I am looking in to lenses and it seems like a 50mm lense f/1.8 is a nice lens, and I love that it has a shallow depth of field. It is also affordable. I am thinking about going that route, but I would also like another lens that has a bit more depth so you could take group photos and landscape. Which is better for that? I assume they might be more expensive, so maybe I should just get the kit?
> The lens: Nikon 50mm f 1.8 D Review



The 50 mm 1.8 G is a fantastic lens, I love mine.  It's incredibly sharp, lightweight, just a fantastic little lens to have in the bag.  I haven't tried the 1.4 myself, so not sure how big of an advantage it might have over the 1.8.

There are tons and tons of lenses available that go from 18mm - whatever or 24mm to whatever that would all be fine for landscapes or group shots, really just depends on what you think you might need.  Normally I advise people to just get an 18-55mm kit lens and start with that, and figure out what more you  might need from there.  After shooting with it for a while then you'll have a better idea, do I need something wider, something faster, etc.


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 14, 2015)

robbins.photo said:


> Normally I advise people to just get an 18-55mm kit lens and start with that, and figure out what more you  might need from there.  After shooting with it for a while then you'll have a better idea, do I need something wider, something faster, etc.


18-55 is a DX lens .. not for a d750
you'll have to look for a 18-35 FX lens, or the 24-85 VR lens is considered a WideAngle on FF and is a good starting point.  Or I think they sell the 24-120/4 kit lens which would be a great starting lens on FullFrame like the d750.


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 14, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Normally I advise people to just get an 18-55mm kit lens and start with that, and figure out what more you  might need from there.  After shooting with it for a while then you'll have a better idea, do I need something wider, something faster, etc.
> ...



Whoops.  Yup.. right.  Forgot we were in the nosebleed section here.


----------



## kiwi314 (Aug 14, 2015)

Okay, so i'm kind of deciding now between the kit lens 24-120mm f/4 VR and the 28-300 VR. Ken Rockwell says on his website that he likes the latter better and that it is cheaper. But I might be able to find the former cheaper if it is in a kit. Which is better?


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 14, 2015)

kiwi314 said:


> Okay, so i'm kind of deciding now between the kit lens 24-120mm f/4 VR and the 28-300 VR. Ken Rockwell says on his website that he likes the latter better and that it is cheaper. But I might be able to find the former cheaper if it is in a kit. Which is better?



Best thing you can do is remove Ken Rockwell's website from your bookmarks.  It isn't really the best source of information out there.

Nikon 24-120mm AF-S VR Nikkor review by Thom Hogan

Short Nikon Lens Reviews


----------



## kiwi314 (Aug 14, 2015)

Good to know. Based on Thom Hogan's review it would appear that the kit lense is actually better quality...


----------



## kiwi314 (Aug 14, 2015)

What do you all use to edit your RAW photos from the D750? It appears it Lightroom won't read them?


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 14, 2015)

I just update LR to the latest version


----------



## PaulWog (Aug 14, 2015)

The 24-120 cannot utilize even close to 24mp worth of pixels... It's not sharp enough. I thought about it, considered it, and didn't get it when I got my d750. It's a kit lens, so-so, should be better even at $750. It's more of a $400 quality kind of lens..... The only redeeming quality that might make it worth $750-ish is because there aren't many alternatives in the specific class that perform much better...


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 14, 2015)

kiwi314 said:


> Good to know. Based on Thom Hogan's review it would appear that the kit lense is actually better quality...



Most lenses that cover a wide range of focal lengths have to make a lot of compromises as a function of their design, so normally they end up being mediocre at most focal lengths and not really all that great at any of them.   They've gotten better as the tech improves but for the most part they still don't usually match lenses that cover a much shorter range in IQ.

Important thing to remember if your going with the 750 you want to buy FX lenses, Nikons designation for full frame.  There are less expensive DX lenses out there but they are designed for crop sensor bodies.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 14, 2015)

24 million pixels on FX looks very good with any number of lenses made over the last 20 years or a bit more. Most of the telephoto zooms are still pretty good, even older cheapies like the 70-210 f/4, or even the inexpensive f/4~5.6 version. In 50mm lenses, I don't think the 50mm f/1.4 AF-S G is worth the price premium over the 50/1.8 AF-S G model (and many agree). I'm not that sold on the 50/1.8 AF-S G myself, over the earlier 50mm 1.8 AF...I have a pair of those, and the 1.8 G...I prefer the smaller size of the older 1.8 AF models.

At f/8 on 24MP FX, almost any lens is decent, and it seems to me that diffraction takes the edge off of every lens by f/8...so a $45 28-80 f/3.5~5.6 AF-D or the equally cheap 28-80 G-series, when shot at f/8 to f/11 looks about the same as a $2400 24-70 AF-S does when it too is shot at f/8 to f/11, in most situations.

I think lens quality is overblown/overemphasized by most people, for most peoples' uses....professionals may be the sole exception. Most images are going to be sharpened up at the computer and down-sized significantly. On a 1600-pixel wide image on a computer screen, or a 5x7 to 6x9 inch sized print, any lens looks fine.

I see 24 million pixels on FX as being a very sweet spot; it is a lot of information, in a good-sized image, yet it does not utterly demand the *ne plus ultra* level of lens performance. Any decent lens makes a decent image. YES, the $4,000 to $8,000 exotics look superlative, but they are also huge, heavy lenses and very impractical most of the time.

The wide-angle lenses are where the real money needs to be spent. Almost anything longer 50mm is a GOOD lens if it has been made by Nikon within the last 20 years. The 60mm micro-Nikkors are super-crispy. Tamron 90 macro, Tokina 100 macro, both great. The newish 85mm AF-S G Nikkor is *superb in overall performance*, and it's also affordable. The new 24-85 AF-S VR-G was sort of designed for the new FX Nikons, and gets pretty good reviews--plus 24,28,35,50,85 gives you ALL of the regular, everyday lens lengths you will want and need for a convenience/utility zoom, plus VR for shooting stopped down to get DOF when not using a tripod.


----------



## jsecordphoto (Aug 14, 2015)

nevermind Ken Rockwell. I did like the 24-120, I rented it for my trip to Utah and have been kicking myself for not just buying that kit with the d750. The 50mm 1.8g is very sharp, I love that lens. I've tried the 1.4, they're both great but personally the 1.4 wasn't worth the extra money. If you don't need some of the features of the d750, look at the d610 which is still a great body. The differences between the 750/610 matter to me, but may not for you. I shoot at high ISO (6400+) fairly often, but if you don't need the slightly improved low light performance and autofocus, the 610 is a great value


----------



## kiwi314 (Aug 14, 2015)

All of your replies have been super helpful, and I will continue to digest them more. I am currently purchasing the D750 body and a 50mm f/1.8 G AF-S. I do want another, more versatile lens, but I am not sure what to get yet. Looking over your advice will aid in that decision.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 14, 2015)

Here's a used-only lens you ought to consider. We sent one across the USA here on TPF as a group project in 2012, the lens being shipped from member to member. I got it for a week or so, and was impressed. I shot it on 24MP FX Nikon. It performed pretty well.  Nikon 28-105mm

Around $99 to $125 on the used market. The wide-angle end has incredibly low distortion--really,really,really low distortion for a wide angle zoom. It's a very easy to use, easy-to-carry lens as well. it has a very good macro mode, much better than many zooms offer. I made some nice images with it.


----------



## dcbear78 (Aug 14, 2015)

Others beat me to it but yeah, there's your problem


kiwi314 said:


> Ken Rockwell says on his website...



I am not sure on your budget but a Sigma Art 24-105mm f4 seems very well received. If I was buying an all-purpose lens that would be it. Don't discount the 3rd party manufactures. They have really upped their game in the last couple years. Many old timers will be stringent and won't ever consider a lens not made by the OEM but they really need to remove their heads from the sand and realise times have changed.... Well for the money they cannot be beaten anyway.


----------



## kiwi314 (Aug 14, 2015)

Derrel, that is super helpful! Sounds like a good deal. Do you like it better than say the 24-85 AF-S VR-G?


----------



## kiwi314 (Aug 14, 2015)

Thanks, dcbear! I will keep that in mind. I've done hardly any looking at other maker's lenses. Haha, i'm wondering why everyone is complaining about him?


----------



## dcbear78 (Aug 14, 2015)

Also don't discount second hand lenses. People tend to be very careful with their camera gear so generally 2nd hand items are in pretty good condition.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 14, 2015)

kiwi314 said:


> Derrel, that is super helpful! Sounds like a good deal. Do you like it better than say the 24-85 AF-S VR-G?



I don't have the 24-85 AF-S VR-G...I still have the prior lens, the 24-85mm f/3.3~4.5 AF-S, which does not have VR. What I liked about the 28-105 is the longer top end.  Keep in mind, the 24-85 VR was "kitted" with the D600, and for about two months, Nikon basically gave away a free 24-85 VR in a super-special discounted promotion to get rid of alllll the remaining D600's in dealer inventory, so there are at least some people who have almost no stake in that lens; that is why the used prices show so much variation in the 24-85 VR.

Again...the 28-105 is a hundred dollar lens, to a one hundred twenty-five dollar used lens...that alone puts it into a special class. Honestly, in one way I prefer the screwdriver lenses because I can SEE, FEEL, and HEAR them lock focus.


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 15, 2015)

OP,
TBH, you seem to know so little about photography that getting such an expensive dSLR and the lenses that it takes to really use it well seems to me like a real risky bet.
You also seem to know nothing about editing and so you will be using that expensive gear as a learning camera.
And it isn't the camera that takes the picture, it's the person.
It's like wanting to learn to fish and then buying an an Orvis Helios rod, a Sage reel and a vest full of flies before you've ever made a cast.

and
*"I also would like to put my upgrade to good use and start doing it professionally (portraits, weddings, etc). After a fair bit of research (DSLR's are new to me), I decided a full frame would probably be best, as I read they take clearer images."*

Don't kid yourself that an expensive dSLR is an investment in a future profession.
It isn't.
The photography world is difficult and cut-throat and you are starting with essentially zero knowledge and experience and the are hundreds of thousands of people out there ahead of you.

Think of this as a great, engrossing, stimulating but expensive hobby
Why not start with a much less expensive, much less complicated system just to see if you like it enough to move up?


----------



## gossamer88 (Aug 15, 2015)

Great advice, The_Traveler. I would even go as far as getting something used.

My first DSLR was the Rebel XT (2005?). I learned a lot from my mistakes. First couple of years I was using it...gasp...in Automatic mode!! I then wanted video and upgraded to the T4i. It wasn't until I got the nifty-fifty that my photos started to shine. I've since upgraded to FF, but the journey was fun, educational and most of all enlightening!


----------



## kiwi314 (Aug 16, 2015)

Traveler, I don't really expect to make a full-time profession out of this. But it would be nice to make some money back from it every once in a while.
I have been taking photos since I was young, and even though I haven't owned a DSLR, I still play around quite a bit with exposure settings and in manual. I haven't bought Lightroom, because I have only had JPEGS to work with and didn't think it would be worth editing with something other than what I currently use which has served me fine.
I considered getting a cheaper DSLR to start out with. But that would most likely have been a DX, and I want to experience the FF. Also, I didn't want to invest in DX lenses only to have to sell and re-buy others later for FF. I completely understand it is the person that takes the photos, but I wanted a camera that wouldn't hold me back and that I could grow in to.


----------



## astroNikon (Aug 16, 2015)

kiwi314 said:


> Also, I didn't want to invest in DX lenses only to have to sell and re-buy others later for FF.



FYI,
If you buy DX there is nothing that REQUIRES you to buy DX lenses.
When I bought my d7000 DX camera, other than the kit lens, I ONLY bought FX lenses.
So when I bought a d600, I had to do nothing about changing lenses.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 16, 2015)

The D750 just happens to be Nikon's high-end enthusiast's camera, the camera many professionals will use as either a primary body or a secondary body. Nikon has long done this: made a camera aimed at the very enthusiastic, serious, committed amateur photographer AND the working professional photographer. They did this with the Nikkormat series when the F was king; they did this with the FE when the F2 was king; they did this with the FE-2 and FA in the F3's era, and continued this tradition with other high-end enthusiast bodies like the 8008, N90, and F100 over a twenty year span when the F4 and F5 were super-expensive cameras. But really--just how expensive ARE these cameras, in relation to real-world expenses?

In relation to the cost of monthly apartment rent or leasing (west-coast, in my general area), a serious enthusiast camera body from Nikon has consistently been priced new,at retail, at about the cost of from one to two months' rent, from the late 1970's to the current day. Is that "super-expensive"? For light duty use, I think every single Nikon made in this category will last 20 years, barring saltwater damage or gross negligence or accidental destruction. A D750 will allow a person to shoot 100,000 to 300,000 photos, with zero film cost and zero film processing costs. I think it's a bargain.


----------



## kiwi314 (Aug 16, 2015)

I use my camera ALL the time, I love photography. The main reason I want a DSLR is for high quality images. I can play around a lot with my current camera, but I am getting frustrated with the quality. That is the main reason I am going for the D750. I want great photos. I outgrew my current camera in about two years, and don't want to trade in a DX camera for FF in another two. I would rather grow with one for a longer time.
I realize I could use the FX on the crop sensor cameras, but again, I am looking for high quality and cleanliness in images. If I don't end up liking the D750 for whatever reason, or think its much more than I need, I have a month to return it and will consider again crop sensor cameras. But if I think i'll grow to the ability of unlocking its capabilities, I would keep it and grow with it.


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 16, 2015)

kiwi314 said:


> I use my camera ALL the time, I love photography. The main reason I want a DSLR is for high quality images. I can play around a lot with my current camera, but I am getting frustrated with the quality. That is the main reason I am going for the D750. I want great photos. I outgrew my current camera in about two years, and don't want to trade in a DX camera for FF in another two. I would rather grow with one for a longer time.
> I realize I could use the FX on the crop sensor cameras, but again, I am looking for high quality and cleanliness in images. If I don't end up liking the D750 for whatever reason, or think its much more than I need, I have a month to return it and will consider again crop sensor cameras. But if I think i'll grow to the ability of unlocking its capabilities, I would keep it and grow with it.



If the D750 fits your budget then by all means, buy one.  You won't be disappointed.  I think Traveller's point was if your thinking that your going to make money with it and are counting on that in your budgeting process then that is probably not a wise choice.

However from what you've said it doesn't seem to me that is your thought process here, but rather that your comfortable with spending the money on the 750 regardless.


----------



## PaulWog (Aug 16, 2015)

kiwi314 said:


> Traveler, I don't really expect to make a full-time profession out of this. But it would be nice to make some money back from it every once in a while.
> I have been taking photos since I was young, and even though I haven't owned a DSLR, I still play around quite a bit with exposure settings and in manual. I haven't bought Lightroom, because I have only had JPEGS to work with and didn't think it would be worth editing with something other than what I currently use which has served me fine.
> I considered getting a cheaper DSLR to start out with. But that would most likely have been a DX, and I want to experience the FF. Also, I didn't want to invest in DX lenses only to have to sell and re-buy others later for FF. I completely understand it is the person that takes the photos, but I wanted a camera that wouldn't hold me back and that I could grow in to.



Just get it if you can afford it and want it. If buyer's remorse is a big issue with you, and you want an expensive new toy, it's going to do you well. So long as you don't hold down the shutter button for hours on end, drop it, or spit on the mirror, then resell value will remain quite good as well.

As far as making money goes: Don't kid yourself about making money if you're trying to justify the big purchase. If you're willing to put in the time and effort, and build up a portfolio and experience properly, and acquire the skills and client-base & etc/etc/etc... then sure, go for it.


----------



## wanderer86 (Aug 17, 2015)

I was a Nikon shooter when I shot digital and I loved it. I had a cropped sensor camera (now shooting medium format film, I can't even imagine going back to that haha) I think that in order to really get the feel for a camera you need to just get it and try it out. It sucks that there aren't that many professional camera stores around like the one I used to work for where you could go FEEL and play with the camera. It's like buying a car, it's great to test it out  have you considered maybe renting them both and seeing which you like more? There are plenty of great rental sites like Rent professional cameras or camera lenses for Canon Nikon Sony Olympus Leica and Pentax or LensRentals.com - Rent Lenses and Cameras from Canon Nikon Olympus Sony Leica and more Then you will have a better idea how you like either one. I love Nikons and Canon's both for different reasons. Canon has lovely skin tones, but you can use your own actions in PS after wards to create your own unique look with skin tones. Also, have you considered a used one? KEH has great deals on used gear and you can get warranties to go with it as well if you are uncomfortable with buying it used. Just my two cents  Best of luck! I also HIGHLY agree with getting an external flash. The SB800 is an AWESOME flash and they are so easy to use when you start using them you'll wonder why you never did! Bounce flash when you're at a wedding at a reception is such a huge help, and there are tons of lighting tutorials on Youtube that show you different techniques with just one external flash mounted on the hotshoe.


----------



## kiwi314 (Aug 18, 2015)

Thanks all for the input! I can hardly wait for my package from Adorama.


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 18, 2015)

Nothing more exciting than playing with your package.


----------

