# Which grass is considered greener (do nikonians complain as much as canonians)?



## JohanCruyff (Sep 1, 2014)

After 76,643,917,265 topics and 54,781,245,232,107,412 posts (and counting) in this forum about the better performance of SoNikon's sensor at base ISO, I was wondering if even SoNikonians sometimes complain, for example,
- about their Lenses price / range
- because they don't have STM lenses or Dual Pixel Autofocus
- etc.

and, in general, if SoNikonians spend more time taking pictures or complaining about their brands.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 1, 2014)

Very broadly speaking Canon users seem to be secure and content with their purchase decision, whereas Nikon users are insecure. This is probably because Nikon users are worried that they wake up in the morning to find that their new purchase has just been replaced by an undated model.


----------



## moreorless (Sep 1, 2014)

As a Nikon shooter the main complaints I see are...

1.Lack of replacement for action bodies besides the D4(no D400 or D700 mk2).

2.Issues with camera quality control.

3.Lack of new ASPC lenses.


----------



## PicaPica (Sep 1, 2014)

well actually it´s not much canon users complain about.

i mean.. ~85% would stop complaing when canon releases a 30MP FF sensor with the DR and noise characteristics of the latest sony sensors (maybe make the performance bit more constant at high ISO too).

that´s not an impossible task i think. i mean.. sony can do it.

the majority of canon users are very happy with the 5D MK3 autofocus and the cameras build quality. lenses are fine too. i don´t hear many complains about the ergonomics either.

canon is numero uno.







so as canon user it can be expected to have the best sensors, not only the best overall cameras.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2014)

A related question: how many non-Nikon shooters go to Nikon forums to complain about Nikon?

From what I've seen, many of the most vocal complainers on CR don't use Canon gear. Some of them used to shoot Canon. So why are they here?

Have they 'found religion' and are here to 'convert' the great unwashed masses?

Do they have inner doubts about their choices, and coming here to complain about Canon helps them continue to justify their decisions?

Do they think they're being altruistic, devoting their time and energy to show us poor, deluded fools how bad we have it, and how good it could be if only we make the same choices they made?

Do they honestly want Canon to deliver products that would meet their own needs, however niche those needs are, and somehow believe that complaining _here_ will help accomplish that?

Or...do they merely want to sow discord?

Frankly, the vast majority of CR forum members are here to request and provide information, share techniques and images, etc. CR is a great community resource, and like nearly all successful Internet forums, it attracts a few incessant complainers. Look on the bright side – they provide some entertainment on slow rumor days...


----------



## DominoDude (Sep 1, 2014)

Just earlier today I overheard a discussion from a few photographers who complained about how hard it was to sell their Sony stuff once it was used. They had to drop their prices substantially to even get people to consider buying. They expressed the uncertainty of how long a mount will survive as a reason why people were hesitant. Buying new cameras was of no fear to them, but trading in the old made them lose much more money. There were also mentions of how it was harder to find and get service and repairs on items that weren't brand new.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Sep 1, 2014)

I recall someone fairly bright explaining the "photo envelope" was similar to the flight envelope" of a plane. Different models have different boundaries.

I certainly have posted implications that that I would like to see Canon with a larger "product envelope" i.e. a MF4/3 or highly functional "M" body similar to the function of the latest Oly/Pano offering.

I see most of the noise at the extremes of the envelope. Ultimate pixel count ( I have to admit I haven't enlarged anything (uh that is an old film term) larger than 16x20. Unless one does a multi frame exposure all the lenses (excepting the OTUS) are having difficult w/ "corner to corner" sharpness - so what is the point of uber megapixels?

My closing thought is an homage to my 1st SLR Body. A Canon Tx. Glass has gotten better, film no longer exits, but my favorite pic of all time was from this body and "kit" lens.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Frankly, the vast majority of CR forum members are here to request and provide information, share techniques and images, etc. CR is a great community resource, and like nearly all successful Internet forums, it attracts a few incessant complainers. Look on the bright side – they provide some entertainment on slow rumor days...


agree.

And I think there is no greener grass on either side. 
It's just a choice every fotographer has to take, witch system will serve him best. 
And if there is still money to spend this is no choice that can't be reconsidered.

The only way to convince companies to overthink their strategies is by voting with your purchase.


----------



## Hannes (Sep 1, 2014)

Busted Knuckles said:


> Glass has gotten better, film no longer exits.



Speak for yourself, I ran a roll of Kodak through my Pentax MX last week  It is excellent DSLR detox


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 1, 2014)

Hannes said:


> Busted Knuckles said:
> 
> 
> > Glass has gotten better, film no longer exits.
> ...



The wonderful Pentax MX, one of the finest mechanical manual film cameras IMO; a real jewel.


----------



## moreorless (Sep 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> A related question: how many non-Nikon shooters go to Nikon forums to complain about Nikon?
> 
> From what I've seen, many of the most vocal complainers on CR don't use Canon gear. Some of them used to shoot Canon. So why are they here?
> 
> ...



I wouldn't call myself a Canon complainer as I tend to find myself on the pro Canon side of most arguments that happen here dispite shooting Nikon but a big issue is that this is one of if not the best forums I'v found on the net for the technical side of things, far superior to say Nikon rumours.

A big issue I'd say is that Canon(and to a slightly lesser degree Nikon) is considered "the mainstream". On one hand that means If you had a legit reason for buying a something made by other companies your likely to explain why you didn't buy one of the more mainstream products. On the other though it means if your a gadget buyer/fanboy looking to define yourself by your purchases or net praise/criticism the mainstream is the obvious target.

That's really where a lot of the negativity around Canon and Nikon comes from with net media coverage as well. Users of Canon and Nikon products are generally after balanced opinion on them, users of other companies products are more often after gushing praise of those products and criticism of Canon and Nikon. Whats more as fanboys/gadget buyers spend a lot of time surfing output that gives them what they want gets good traffic.

When was the last time you saw review video with an attempt at comedy bashing a Sony, Fuji, Oly, etc product? I can't remember seeing one because those who might make them know it wouldn't get attension.


----------



## David Hull (Sep 1, 2014)

moreorless said:


> As a Nikon shooter the main complaints I see are...
> 
> 1.Lack of replacement for action bodies besides the D4(no D400 or D700 mk2).
> 
> ...


also Lack of an answer to the 600EX-RT flash system


----------



## surapon (Sep 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> A related question: how many non-Nikon shooters go to Nikon forums to complain about Nikon?
> 
> From what I've seen, many of the most vocal complainers on CR don't use Canon gear. Some of them used to shoot Canon. So why are they here?
> 
> ...



Total agree with you, Sir, Dear Teacher Mr. neuroanatomist
Yes " Frankly, the vast majority of CR forum members are here to request and provide information, share techniques and images, etc. CR is a great community resource, and like nearly all successful Internet forums "
THANKS for great infor, to both of our friends and Special =You , Sir.
Surapon


----------



## nonac (Sep 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> A related question: how many non-Nikon shooters go to Nikon forums to complain about Nikon?
> 
> From what I've seen, many of the most vocal complainers on CR don't use Canon gear. Some of them used to shoot Canon. So why are they here?
> 
> ...



I've never figured this out. It happens with almost any product. I'll see an article about a new iphone and most of the posts are from people criticizing it. If I see an article, post, forum, etc. related to a product I don't want, use, or have an interest in, I don't read it, let alone leave negative comments. What's up with these people?


----------



## scottkinfw (Sep 1, 2014)

My thoughts exactly.

Although your questions are rhetorical, my take is that many are trolls seeking to sew the seeds of discontent. Perhaps to justify their own decision to switch (please drive a stake through the heart of the "Is Canon two generations behind Nikon" thread).

To be fair, some Nikonians have been positive here, thank you.

sek



neuroanatomist said:


> A related question: how many non-Nikon shooters go to Nikon forums to complain about Nikon?
> 
> From what I've seen, many of the most vocal complainers on CR don't use Canon gear. Some of them used to shoot Canon. So why are they here?
> 
> ...


----------



## Canon1 (Sep 1, 2014)

I spend a lot of time in the field with Canon and Nikon photographers. We all have pro level cameras and you know the funny thing is... no one complains about their "brand." All the complaining I hear about camera brand is by internet personalities. Just got an idea for a new thread....


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 1, 2014)

I have a friend who is a D800E user who wanted to trade me for my 5D MK III. I told him that he had fine equipment, he needed to spend more time using it.

I feel at home with virtually any camera after learning to use it. Obviously, I like some more than others, but in the end, its just a tool, and different cameras have their strong and their weak points.

Photo forums sometimes degenerate into fanboys arguing about equipment when they could be helping each other with photography.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 1, 2014)

nonac said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > A related question: how many non-Nikon shooters go to Nikon forums to complain about Nikon?
> ...



Some people just don't understand the gear they're using. Quite often gear is unjustly being criticized for what is essentially user error. For example - "my lens is soft at 300mm" well ok but then that's to expect with a shutterspeed of only 1/20s


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 1, 2014)

Hannes said:


> Busted Knuckles said:
> 
> 
> > Glass has gotten better, film no longer exits.
> ...



Yes...but...what was the shadow noise of the film like, and could it compare to Exmor? ;D


----------



## Lawliet (Sep 1, 2014)

JohanCruyff said:


> I was wondering if even SoNikonians sometimes complain, for example,
> Any thoughts?



ATM mostly about availability at rental houses. First come, first serve vs. changes in demand.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 1, 2014)

nonac said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > A related question: how many non-Nikon shooters go to Nikon forums to complain about Nikon?...
> ...



Agree...But, a fair number of the complainers seem to also be Canon users who are disgruntled for any number of reasons. 

What's striking to me is why anyone would buy a product (and in another thread one of the most vocal complainers said he spent $25,000 on Canon gear) they don't like. And, if they bought something they didn't like, why would they choose to take their dissatisfaction to a forum, which is about the most ineffective way imaginable to complain. Just return the product, or sell it and chalk up any loss to experience. 

I once knew a very wealthy land developer. He said that whatever he bought became more valuable once he bought it. It might not have been totally true, but it was a mindset. "If I own this, it's because it is valuable to me."

That's always seemed to me to be a very good way to approach buying things. If I buy something, it's usually because I want it. And, once I've bought it, I don't beat myself up over alternatives. I wanted it. I bought it. Now I get to enjoy it. 

Call me a fan boy, I really don't care. I'd much rather be happy with my purchases than complaining because I think somewhere, somehow, someplace, someone else might own something better. You know what? There will always be someone who owns something better. 

Finally, let's for once all be honest about something. There isn't a nickel's worth of difference between Nikon and Canon anyway.


----------



## Lawliet (Sep 1, 2014)

unfocused said:


> What's striking to me is why anyone would buy a product (and in another thread one of the most vocal complainers said he spent $25,000 on Canon gear) they don't like. And, if they bought something they didn't like, why would they choose to take their dissatisfaction to a forum, which is about the most ineffective way imaginable to complain. Just return the product, or sell it and chalk up any loss to experience.



That's called vendor lock in.
For a company it has the advantage of making the cost of changing prohibitive...until the wheel turns and you have to fight an uphill battle.


----------



## x-vision (Sep 1, 2014)

JohanCruyff said:


> Any thoughts?



Before 2007, Nikon didn't have FF cameras. 
Even their top of the line pro model, the D2X, had a DX format sensor (1.5x crop). 

So, at that time, Nikon apologists were claiming that the DX format was in fact better than FF.
One of their arguments, for example, was that FF suffers from soft corners and vignetting - and hence DX was better.

But while the apologists were arguing, pros were switching en masse to Canon. 
Nikon, of course, took notice and started offering FF cameras.

Today, we have Canon apologists arguing that you don't need more DR (and resolution) than what Canon is already offering. 
The situation is definitely not as bad as the DX vs FF scenario of the past but bears many similarities.

And while the Canon apologists are argueing that you don't need more DR and resolution, 
my bet is that Canon is hard at work addressing these - as it will cost them dearly if they are not.

Also bear in mind that the DR debate didn't actually start whith the D800.
When the 5DII was introduced, it was very well liked and received.
Very soon, however, users started complaining about shadow noise and banding.

Thus, the so called DR debate didn't have anything to do with Nikon initially. 
Instead, it was about the shadow noise and banding of the 5DII.
The D800 only added insult to injury with its high-resolution/high-DR sensor - at a time when Canon decided to reuse the same sensor, basically, in the 5DIII. 

So, go ahead and brush this off as a case of 'the grass is greener on the other side' - if that suits you better.
But it's a safe bet that DR/resolution will be addressed by Canon.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 1, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > What's striking to me is why anyone would buy a product (and in another thread one of the most vocal complainers said he spent $25,000 on Canon gear) they don't like. And, if they bought something they didn't like, why would they choose to take their dissatisfaction to a forum, which is about the most ineffective way imaginable to complain. Just return the product, or sell it and chalk up any loss to experience.
> ...



Nobody put a gun to anybody's head and forced them to buy a particular brand. How about people take responsibility for their own decisions for a change?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2014)

x-vision said:


> ...while the apologists were arguing, pros were switching en masse to Canon.
> Nikon, of course, took notice and started offering FF cameras.
> 
> Today, we have Canon apologists arguing that you don't need more DR (and resolution) than what Canon is already offering.
> The situation is definitely not as bad as the DX vs FF scenario of the past but bears many similarities.



The difference – which completely obviates any similarities – is that neither pros nor consumers are switching en masse to Nikon.


----------



## Lawliet (Sep 1, 2014)

unfocused said:


> How about people take responsibility for their own decisions for a change?



In the context of system decisions that would be a a valid suggestion if, and only if, there are binding roadmaps - otherwise making informed decisions is impossible.
Have you seen one?


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 1, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Lawliet said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Have you spent much time around enterprise information systems? Vendor lock-in is a real problem, and isn't just a matter of taking responsibility. When you put out an RFP (request for proposal) for a large system you may get a number of responses. Rarely does any of them meet all your needs, but you try to discern which is growing in the direction you want. Because of the huge time and money investment to adopt, these systems are expected to last 10 years or more, so the current set of features is not as important as the direction of growth. Do we have a choice? Yes, but in some ways it's like the choice of how many times to shake the dice before you throw them on the craps table. Canon did grow in many of the ways I (and many others wanted): they improved auto-focus, expanded lens and accessory lines, etc. There are some areas in which they have not grown as some had hoped. However, it has not been bait-and-switch: Canon never promised specific sensor characteristics.


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 1, 2014)

I always increase the green saturation when I'm using lightroom... so I don't find it to be a problem .


----------



## x-vision (Sep 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The difference – which completely obviates any similarities – is that neither pros nor consumers are switching en masse to Nikon.



At the consumer level, DR is hardly a factor when choosing one brand over the other.
It does matter at the high end, though.
Also, high DR is not the entire story, mind you. 

You keep claiming that Canon's market share is unaffected by the DR advantage of Sony/Nikon.
And so far this appears to be the case indeed. 

The real test for Canon, though, will be the 5DIII successor.

More than high DR, Canon users actually expect to see better sensor technology from Canon. 
The 5DIV (or whatever it is called) needs demonstrate real, tangible sensor improvements.
Otherwise, Canon's market share will start eroding - at least at the high end. 

It's shortsighted to argue that the better DR of competing brands has not caused Canon to lose market,
implying that users don't care much. 
As I said, this is not just about DR; it's about better sensor technology in general.

Many will wait it off for one generation. 
But nobody is going to wait for 10 years for Canon to come up with better sensors. 
If the 5DIV doesn't have a high-resolution/high-DR sensor, you can be sure that many will buy Sony/Nikon and be done with it.


----------



## Dantana (Sep 1, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I always increase the green saturation when I'm using lightroom... so I don't find it to be a problem .



Thanks for that. I was beginning to get mad at myself for reading this thread.


----------



## David Hull (Sep 1, 2014)

x-vision said:


> JohanCruyff said:
> 
> 
> > Any thoughts?
> ...



That is pretty much where I sit on the issue as well. Canon has always been known as a camera and optics company (despite the fact that originally their optics were made for them by Nikon). It is this brand recognition that sells their other products (copiers etc.). If one believes that Canon remains serious about the camera end of the business then you almost have to believe that they won't want to be behind the "8 ball" on performance for too long. They are selling 12 bit cameras against Sony's 14 bit cameras -- to steal the words from an old Procol Harum song, "the news is leaking out". I can't say when (cause I don't know) but, as you say, they *will* address this, of that, I am quite sure.


----------



## wsmith96 (Sep 1, 2014)

To the OP,
I have no idea if Nikon shooters complain as much. I'm sure there are some out there that do. The trick is to determine quickly if a post is poisoned, then don't even engage it. Same as the DR debates, FF vs. APS-C debates, dogs vs. cats vs. squirrels. Blah blah blah. Afterwards you end up wondering why you wasted so much time reading the garbage rather than pursuing your passion.

Cheers


----------



## eml58 (Sep 1, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Finally, let's for once all be honest about something. There isn't a nickel's worth of difference between Nikon and Canon anyway.



Completely agree, perhaps a large part of the issue re comments on the worth/worthlessness of Nikon/Canon/Sony/Phase One etc etc on these forums, and this one in particular, is envy, boredom, vicious mindset, the list is long.

Enjoy what you have while you can, stop looking over the fence.


----------



## Skulker (Sep 1, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Nobody put a gun to anybody's head and forced them to buy a particular brand. How about people take responsibility for their own decisions for a change?




These days it seems everyone needs someone else to blame if they are not happy. Or so it seems to this grumpy old man. And that's not restricted to photographers let alone Canon or Nikon users.


----------



## helpful (Sep 1, 2014)

As it currently stands, in my humble opinion, the Canon world is far better than Nikon.

Although I own a lot of Nikon gear, like the D810 with the new Sigma 50mm ART, 400mm II, etc., Nikon is to me a niche market within my photography needs. Nikon has terrible customer service, a very incomplete and outdated lens lineup, etc. Canon's products are much more reliable, and although I hate to use a word which has no clear definition, Canon's products are also much more "professional."

Here are just a few of my personal experiences with Nikon:

* Nikon returned a wobbly lens purchased from B&H without being repaired because it was gray market (which is in some sense understandable, but wait for the rest of the sentence) after unscrewing and severely damaging the internal surfaces of several lens elements, then shipping the lens back to me loosely packed resulting in the lens elements shaking around freely inside the lens. In my mind, they had a customer service obligation to accept my offer to pay any price to do the repair, and they had a MORAL obligation to at least screw the lens together before shipping it back.

* Nikon broke the aperture mechanism on a $6000 lens I just sent back this summer, in the process of performing a $600 repair (replacing the AF-S motor on a supertelephoto).

* Nikon has twice sent me defective refurbished lenses (essentially worn-out junk), whereas the many refurbished lenses I have purchased from Canon have all been equivalent to new stock. Some well-regarded photographers actually consider Canon's refurbished lenses to be better than their new stock, because they are only like-new stock with an extra step of doubly careful calibration and replacement of any parts that would be the most likely to break.

* Nikon's autofocus has not caught up to the 1D X yet.

Long term, I am banking on Canon. I believe that Canon's sensor technology is going to surpass Nikon's and Sony's within a few years, in the same way that Intel's years of careful research finally paid off and began to beat the AMD processors that used to be wreaking havoc with Intel's marketshare back in 2003.

Even if the Nikon vs. Canon sensor war remains as it is, with Nikon "better" in some (but definitely not all) aspects, the Canon "grass" is still much greener with Canon's superior selection of lenses and bodies.

And even if their far better customer service was the ONLY thing going for Canon, they would still be the winner to me. Customer service is the most important thing to a customer, and that is what we are as photographers.


----------



## Quackator (Sep 1, 2014)

Who cares about grass? I'm carnivore.


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 1, 2014)

Quackator said:


> Who cares about grass? I'm carnivore.



Pot heads...


----------



## 300D (Sep 1, 2014)

Historically I believe; J peg files from Canon cameras have a slightly warm (red) presentation. Whereas Nikon cameras present a slightly cool, (green) cast. On that basis I suggest that it is the Nikon glass grass that is greener. 

This does not stop me being very happy with the performance of my 7D and Canon lenses, despite my camera supposedly having a sensor noisier than a Vulcan bomber.

I am a hobbyist and made my decision at a point in time.  I chose a Canon 300D to replace my broken Olympus OM2. Several lenses and a 7D followed locking me in to Canon. I have bought into a system that provides me with a great deal of enjoyment and more options than I currently use, it also provides me with a variety of excellent upgrade paths when my wallet and skills justify the outlay.

In the mean time I am happy honing my skills with my current gear and if I need to change the colour of the grass I’ll do that in Lightroom too. If my sense of humour seems a little odd forgive me I’m English, and it’s my friend who has the problem.


----------



## V8Beast (Sep 2, 2014)

As a Canon users, I feel no need to go on Nikon forums and bash Nikon. If I ever switch to Nikon, I'll feel no need to go on Canon forums and bash Canon. Seriously, what's the point? 

To some users on here, DR is the most important aspect of their photographic needs. If that's the case, just switch to Nikon and call it a day. IMHO, choosing to live in a perpetual state of DR discontent with excuses like "it's too much of a hassle to switch systems" or "I'd lose too much money by switching systems" ultimately means that DR is not that important to you. 

My advise: Switch systems, be happy, and STFU ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 2, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Quackator said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares about grass? I'm carnivore.
> ...



Isn't jrista from Colorado?

Sorry, no offense meant, just couldn't resist. 8)


----------



## dgatwood (Sep 2, 2014)

300D said:


> Historically I believe; J peg files from Canon cameras have a slightly warm (red) presentation. Whereas Nikon cameras present a slightly cool, (green) cast. On that basis I suggest that it is the Nikon glass grass that is greener.



Exactly. The Nikon grass is greener... just like the people.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 2, 2014)

V8Beast said:


> As a Canon users, I feel no need to go on Nikon forums and bash Nikon. If I ever switch to Nikon, I'll feel no need to go on Canon forums and bash Canon. Seriously, what's the point?
> 
> To some users on here, DR is the most important aspect of their photographic needs. If that's the case, just switch to Nikon and call it a day. IMHO, choosing to live in a perpetual state of DR discontent with excuses like "it's too much of a hassle to switch systems" or "I'd lose too much money by switching systems" ultimately means that DR is not that important to you.
> 
> My advise: Switch systems, be happy, and STFU ;D



Yes. Especially when there are three Sony FF bodies that you can adapt Canon lenses to and still have aperture control, AF, and IS! You don't even have to switch, just add. AF is dog slow, but who cares for a high DR landscape?

If you're posting in thread after thread on a Canon forum complaining about DR but you haven't switched or added a Sony A7 body, then DR isn't actually the issue.


----------



## jrista (Sep 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Quackator said:
> ...



I am, and the pot smoke tends to just waft around here. Aside from third-party exposure, I've never partaken myself.  (And never intend to...although I actually know some of the top growers here...crazy biz, weed iz!)

I came from the D.A.R.E. generation, and was brought up in a home where none of that was tolerated (and, it was never an issue, I think my first drink was at 19, and that was just a couple glasses of wine, not some debacherous night at the local school boy's big ass pool party bash).


----------



## jrista (Sep 2, 2014)

V8Beast said:


> As a Canon users, I feel no need to go on Nikon forums and bash Nikon. If I ever switch to Nikon, I'll feel no need to go on Canon forums and bash Canon. Seriously, what's the point?
> 
> To some users on here, DR is the most important aspect of their photographic needs. If that's the case, just switch to Nikon and call it a day. IMHO, choosing to live in a perpetual state of DR discontent with excuses like "it's too much of a hassle to switch systems" or "I'd lose too much money by switching systems" ultimately means that DR is not that important to you.
> 
> My advise: Switch systems, be happy, and STFU ;D



D810: $3300
14-24mm: $2000

'Just switching' to Nikon with a single body and lens is no cheap endeavor. Especially if the primary purpose is just for one type of photography. Throw in various necessary accessories, the price gets up to nearly $6000. 

It is also possible that Canon meets the vast majority of your needs for everything but that one or two types of photography.

You CAN be discontent and still stuck with a system that isn't delivering what you need, want, and are unwilling to dump money into an alternative/additional brand for.


----------



## CanNotYet (Sep 2, 2014)

nonac said:


> I've never figured this out. It happens with almost any product. I'll see an article about a new iphone and most of the posts are from people criticizing it. If I see an article, post, forum, etc. related to a product I don't want, use, or have an interest in, I don't read it, let alone leave negative comments. What's up with these people?


I usually battle this with a special strategy of mine, which I pompously now name "valid complaint pattern".

I also use it on Amazon to see if a product is actually good or not.

The process goes like this: 
1. Ignore all praise or 4-5 star reviews (those people are generally happy with their product and purchase, and rarely give good feedback on said product's flaws and faults)
2. Start reading reviews from the most negative.
3. Find out what those reviews actually complain about (sometimes it is the product, sometimes something else like shipment time or cost or whatever)
4. Find the pattern. (Are more than 50% of the negative reviews about a specific product flaw? 40%? 20%?)

If you find a pattern and a "valid" flaw, then comes step 5:

5. Does the flaw affect your usage? Will it ever?

After going through this, you can buy a product with confidence. If any flaws the product has never will affect you (well, almost never), it is a safe bet you will be happy with it.

This is also my main reason why I choose Canon. It is a bit like Volkswagen, not very sexy, but no glaring faults. A very high "lowest-level-of-play".


----------



## 300D (Sep 2, 2014)

Could someone devise a depth of opinion calculator, to minimize the circles of confusion.


----------



## Khalai (Sep 2, 2014)

CanNotYet said:


> The process goes like this:
> 1. Ignore all praise or 4-5 star reviews (those people are generally happy with their product and purchase, and rarely give good feedback on said product's flaws and faults)
> 2. Start reading reviews from the most negative.
> 3. Find out what those reviews actually complain about (sometimes it is the product, sometimes something else like shipment time or cost or whatever)
> ...



Could this be carved in marble and displayed publicly please?


----------



## docsmith (Sep 2, 2014)

First off...glass half empty people have been around...forever. They always see what they don't have rather than what they do have. 



x-vision said:


> The real test for Canon, though, will be the 5DIII successor.



Yep. And...to a very large extent, the "competition" for the 5DIV isn't Nikon, but Canon's real challenge is to try to get people to upgrade from the very capable 5DIII. I can easily see myself skipping a generation if they do not come out with something remarkable. Granted, upgrades is only part of the market of potential buyers, but I have to think it is a significant part of the market.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Sep 2, 2014)

Nikon users complain more, usually with good reason. Lack of DX primes. No Pro/Semi Pro Nikon 1, Nikon software* really & truly* sucks big time. Nikon recently has had *REAL* Quality Control problems, that Nikon has tried to ignore.

Read Nikon Guru Thom Hogan's blog, www.bythom.com to get an idea of Nikon's current *real* problems.

They also complain about things that are not problems. Things like my Nikon D800 files are too big. They bought 36Mp 'cuz it was a BIG number (BIG is good, right?), when in truth 12Mp was more than they needed. Typical BS you see on all forums.

I currently own cameras from Canon, Nikon, Sony, GoPro and will probably buy an M4/3 soon. All of them have good and bad points. I also still shoot film


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 2, 2014)

300D said:


> Could someone devise a depth of opinion calculator, to minimize the circles of confusion.



And that's only your third post? Please keep 'm coming like that - I enjoy these types of statement


----------



## V8Beast (Sep 2, 2014)

jrista said:


> D810: $3300
> 14-24mm: $2000
> 
> 'Just switching' to Nikon with a single body and lens is no cheap endeavor. Especially if the primary purpose is just for one type of photography. Throw in various necessary accessories, the price gets up to nearly $6000.
> ...



Wouldn't selling that 5D3 and 16-35 help offset the cost of a D810 and 14-24 quite a bit ? The D810 has substantially closed up the all-around versatility gap between the D800 and 5D3, so that seems like a viable option. There's also the Sony A7 option that dtaylor mentioned. Being able to use Canon glass on a Sonikon sensor/body seems like a winner to me if you need better DR for landscapes. Then if Canon ever makes a sensor with DR suitable for your needs, you can just sell the A7 which will have brought you years of DR superiority without ever having to change systems.


----------



## V8Beast (Sep 2, 2014)

jrista said:


> (People here seem to have missed the fact that I'm only complaining about the 5D III's low ISO performance and noise characteristics. The amount of misrepresentation of my position on this whole subject is staggering, but I guess that's how people react when someone tries to reveal any amount of truth about the REAL quality of Canon sensors at low ISO. Instead of acceptance, denial. Instead of discussion, it's outright hostility or a bunch of crude jokes. Canon sensors suck balls at low ISO, compared to the norm today...it's just the simple truth of the matter. It may not affect everyone's work, but it doesn't change the facts.)
> 
> I agree that the D810 has closed the gap...but Nikon does not have anything that compares to the 600 f/4 L II, which is my single largest photography investment for birds/wildlife. The A7r would be the best option. That's still $2300...but a better deal than the D810. If I do buy something....that'll probably be it. I just can't put $5300+ into a D810 and 14-24...not with all my astrophotography needs.



When brand loyalty runs deep, facts are never enough to sway people's opinions 

SoNikon sensors are better than Canon's current offerings at low ISO. Period. End of story. I see no need to be in denial over it. If I were in your situation, the Sony A7 or A7R would be intriguing options to consider. Does it suck that you'd have to buy another body outside the Canon system to fulfill all your shooting needs? Of course, but it is what it is, and trying to convince people that don't want to be convinced is a losing proposition. 

If I had more product photography gigs, where I could benefit from the finer tonal gradations that Exmor sensors offer, I'd buy an A7 in a heartbeat. However, I just don't have enough of those types of gigs to warrant the expense, so I'll make do with and be happy with my 5D3


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 2, 2014)

jrista said:


> (People here seem to have missed the fact that I'm only complaining about the 5D III's low ISO performance and noise characteristics. The amount of misrepresentation of my position on this whole subject is staggering, but I guess that's how people react when someone tries to reveal any amount of truth about the REAL quality of Canon sensors at low ISO. Instead of acceptance, denial. Instead of discussion, it's outright hostility or a bunch of crude jokes. Canon sensors suck balls at low ISO, compared to the norm today...it's just the simple truth of the matter. It may not affect everyone's work, but it doesn't change the facts.)



You'd better e mail this guy and tell him how misguided he is then:

http://www.colinprior.co.uk/home/

Or better still ask for a little advice:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01yswqj


----------



## unfocused (Sep 2, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > (...Canon sensors suck balls at low ISO, compared to the norm today...it's just the simple truth of the matter. It may not affect everyone's work, but it doesn't change the facts.)
> ...



Actually, I was going to suggest this guy: http://www.buildingpanoramics.com/ He seems to manage pretty well. 

On the other hand, that interview reminded me of the quote about "nations divided by a common language." But then, I had to turn on subtitles when I watched "The Guard."


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 2, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> I also still shoot film



Film...???

Was that something they used before Exmor? ;D


----------



## sdsr (Sep 2, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > My advise: Switch systems, be happy, and STFU ;D
> ...



You have a point. Depending on what you like to photograph and can afford, the "grass is greener" effect can largely be averted by mixing brands; and mirrorless bodies make that rather easy if you don't mind fiddling with adapters, manual focus, etc. (I've been enjoying the process of taking photos more, not less, since taking on this somewhat less convenient approach.) 

But if anyone thinks the whining etc. here is predictable and tedious, try m43 rumors, where there seems to be none of the depth of discussion/knowledge found here, and where every topic, no matter what, gets invaded by fools whining about the fact that because 43 sensors are smaller than aps-c & ff the cameras are crap and not worth anyone's attention, and seems dominated by cheerleading fanboys.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 2, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > I also still shoot film
> ...


No, but you can replace your sensor each time you replace your memory card (err, roll) and full frame is pretty much standard. The capacity is a bit limited and without an LCD on the back, it's a bit harder to use. Also, the photos have to taken to a special person for post processing and they give you strange things printed on paper or in little white holders in exchange. PhotoCDs are available from some places. The cool part is that you don't have to worry about post or printing stuff yourself - unless you like smelly chemicals and dark rooms with red lighting...

As for the topic itself, the biggest complaint I hear from my Nikon pals is about the lenses. They don't feel like Nikon's lens selection is as varied or up-to-date as Canon and they don't like the pricing, especially for the 800mm.


----------



## Hannes (Sep 2, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Hannes said:
> 
> 
> > Busted Knuckles said:
> ...



It was amazing, I pushed the shadows a full five stops and no banding what so ever was visible! I'm so switching to film!









Yes, the colours come out like that


----------



## Rams_eos (Sep 2, 2014)

Well, first Nikon owners are not very proud of Nikon behaviour during the D600 dustgate .

Second, I observed more frequently Nikon camera for sale second hand than Canon (subjective as I have not counted them). I concluded that Canon owners were happier so keeping their camera longer.


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 2, 2014)

*Do nikonians complain as much as canonians? No! ... at least not now ...*

Forums are used a lot for complaining about this and that. No matter the brand.

Currently the Nikon forum crowd is clearly happier than the Canon forum crowd - browse the dp review forums and take a look yourself. You quickly get an impression of the general trend. You will also see quite a lot more people writing that they are (considering) going from Nikon to Canon than the other way around.

It used to be the opposite. Like when the original 5D came out as the first affordable full frame camera - and Nikon failed to respond for years. Adding to insult when the 5DII came out the Nikon forum crowd was mortified.

D800 finally turned the tables. However, it came with some quirks that cooled initial enthusiasm. Still, with the D810 that now seems all forgotten.


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 2, 2014)

Rams_eos said:


> Well, first Nikon owners are not very proud of Nikon behaviour during the D600 dustgate .
> 
> Second, I observed more frequently Nikon camera for sale second hand than Canon (subjective as I have not counted them). I concluded that Canon owners were happier so keeping their camera longer.



Not to be a contrarian... but I do see a good deal of people selling their t3's and t3i's... and sometimes I buy them and then sell them making a profit... sometimes their demand price is practically what they paid... so they are delusional...

But all in all... I think there is a mix of both nikon and canon... but there is a resale market for both... for pentax and sony... I think you have to get really lucky to find someone who WANTS either.


----------



## llmogen (Sep 2, 2014)

I keep reading a whole bunch of reasons why Canon "should" switch to a Sony sensor for more DR, but I have yet to read one response that needs to be brought up:

*In-house engineering expertise*.

Canon is substantially bigger than Nikon, and as such, has much deeper pockets for Engineering R&D. If you consider the sensor a key-component of your camera (and it is), why would you outsource it to a competitor? (Apple & Samsung parallel with this issue) Canon most definitely is working on a sensor with On-chip ADC- we just don't know about it. If Sony has a patent on it, Canon is doing their best to work around it (if possible). 

What happens the day that the contract between Sony & Nikon ends, and Sony triples the price of their sensor? My guess would be that Nikon says NO, and then Nikon needs to then restart their stalled sensor R&D department, which by then has a years long handicap. Canon plays the long game. The 5D Mark III may not be the best camera in all situations, but then neither is Nikon 800 (now 810). In my experience, glass is limited by physics, and bodies limited by electronics- which is why some old lenses are still made (135 f/2 was released in 1996). What photographer wants a Canon body released in 1996? I fully expect to replace my bodies every few years, but I don't plan to replace lenses often, even if a newer revision appears.

Besides, most people would say that Canon has a much better lens lineup than Nikon, nevermind CPS vs NPS customer service (heck, it's hard to enroll in NPS!)

The more people keep talking up Sony sensors in Nikon cameras, the more people start thinking that the sensor is the one part that's keeping them from becoming the next Ansel Adams. The fact that we Canon-ites can entertain the idea of getting an A7 solidifes this fact. There's a reason Nikon doesn't advertise using Sony sensors- they know that it diminishes the apparent value of the rest of the camera.

Yes, dynamic range is important. More important is the photographer's skills, and it's quite easy to fall into the trap of 'better gear = better photographs". 

Just my 2 cents!


----------



## psolberg (Sep 2, 2014)

ha ha. photographers in general are quite stuck on their equipment rather than skills, so yes.


----------



## Hannes (Sep 3, 2014)

it is much easier improving equipment than skill though so that is why most are so focussed on it.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 3, 2014)

llmogen said:


> The more people keep talking up Sony sensors in Nikon cameras, the more people start thinking that the sensor is the one part that's keeping them from becoming the next Ansel Adams. The fact that we Canon-ites can entertain the idea of getting an A7 solidifes this fact.



Very well put, quote of the week !


----------



## Lawliet (Sep 3, 2014)

jrista said:


> I'll give an A7r rental a try. I'm wary of the compression, but as you say...it can't be worse than the shadow noise on the 5D III.



Lets put it that way: In the last weeks I had both file sets from sessions shot with 5D3 vs. D810&A7r, the latter took the retoucher on average a good deal less time to get ready for delivery. Actually that costs saved paid for the D810.

Well, that pragmatic approach beats any theoretical discussion in my book... 8)


----------



## unfocused (Sep 3, 2014)

llmogen said:


> I keep reading a whole bunch of reasons why Canon "should" switch to a Sony sensor for more DR, but I have yet to read one response that needs to be brought up:
> 
> *In-house engineering expertise*.



This is something I've thought about. As a manager myself, I wonder to what extent Canon management is concerned about the morale of their engineering and manufacturing divisions is they started buying sensors from a competitor, as many on this forum have suggested.

First of all, let's say for the sake of argument that Sony sensors really are better at this point in time (a judgment that is highly subjective and very suspect, since it hinges on tiny, tiny differences in just one subset of a sensor's overall performance, but that horse has been so thoroughly beaten, let's dispense with it for now)

What would it say to Canon's employees if the management team said, "sorry guys, you've done a good job but we decided to buy sensors from Sony because they are slightly better in one category that hasn't affected our sales in the slightest but it's caused a handful of people to go crazy on the internet." 

It seems like the first impact would be a rush to the door by the most talented persons. They've spent countless hours perfecting products and now the management is saying, "sorry your best isn't good enough."

Who knows what would happen next? Maybe quality control would drop and Canon would ship out a bunch of cameras with sensors that have a serious oil leak on them and be forced to replace the model early and offer customers a free replacement at substantial loss to the company. 

I don't know. Could such a thing happen?

Perhaps Canon, being a conservative company, figures: "well, these small differences are not affecting our sales. It's more a case of bragging rights. No one knows better than our own engineering team where we have to improve. They've done a great job innovating for us in recent years, let's hang in there with them for awhile and see what they come up with because we know they are pushing themselves harder than we ever could."


----------



## psolberg (Sep 5, 2014)

Rams_eos said:


> Well, first Nikon owners are not very proud of Nikon behaviour during the D600 dustgate .
> 
> Second, I observed more frequently Nikon camera for sale second hand than Canon (subjective as I have not counted them). I concluded that Canon owners were happier so keeping their camera longer.



well, canon isn't proud of 1DsMKIII oil gate. listen, stop playing the fanboy card. every OEM messes up. canon will, so don't tempt karma 

I never understood why photographers get so worked up over stupidity such as who is happier based on anecdotal evidence. who cares.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2014)

psolberg said:


> I never understood why photographers get so worked up over stupidity such as who is happier based on anecdotal evidence. who cares.



Yeah, what matters isn't what people think or say, what matters is what they do. People can babble on about this test shows more DR, or that test shows better shadow latitude, this other test shows higher resolution with those lenses, and that other test shows better AF performance. But at the end of the day, it's all talk. Actions – on which products people choose to spend their money – that's actual, quantifiable evidence with a true real-world basis and practical implications. 

So...who sells more dSLRs? :


----------



## Canon1 (Sep 6, 2014)

Uh oh... Broken record alert...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2014)

jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > So...who sells more dSLRs? :
> ...



Some good examples where the new product or service offered *clear advantages* that were *evident and beneficial* to *the majority of consumers*. Sorry, but Exmor sensors satisfy at best one of those criteria, and MILCs in general don't satisfy any. 

Technology advances, paradigm shifts occur. But Exmor isn't a paradigm shifting technology, and MILCs aren't showing strong signs of fitting that bill either. Camera phones _were_ paradigm shifting, having a dramatic and ongoing effect on P&S sales, and impacting dSLR sales as well. 

It's very likely a future paradigm shift will affect dSLRs in general and Canon specifically. However, your implication (in the other thread) that Sony MILCs will constitute that paradigm shift is improbable to the point of absurdity.


----------



## Lawliet (Sep 6, 2014)

jrista said:


> I'm not calling MILCs the paradigm shift. The paradigm shift is the significant gains being made in sensor IQ.



Maybe closer to a paradigm split.
Lets keep in mind that there are two groups of buyers - kit only vs. more serious.
For the first group MILCs can be made cheaper, allowing for profit even without selling additional lenses.
The second otoh values quality and is willing to pay for it. Those buy high margin items.
Mixing those groups together would be misleading, one could infere that sales to the first group are a good indicator for the second population being stable.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2014)

jrista said:


> *Sensor technology is the paradigm shift.* Sensor technology is progressing at an extremely rapid pace, and it IS disrupting markets.



Your example of disruption in the astro CCD market is not very relevant, it's too niche. I could expound on some technological paradigm shifts in biological science, relevant only to a similarly small audience. 

Sensor technology as a paradigm shift for cameras? The vast...VAST...majority of images taken with dSLRs are shot as JPGs and shared electronically with minimal (e.g. Instagram) or no editing. If they're printed at all, it's as 4x6" prints for photo albums or 4x8" photo greeting cards, or maybe on a t-shirt for grandma. Improved sensor technology leading to improved image quality just doesn't have meaningful impact on those use cases. 

Once again, you're assuming your personal uses, needs, and motivations are mirrored by the majority. I'm quite sure that improved sensor technology would be of clear and evident benefit to most camera users who own thousands of dollars worth of lenses. That's not exactly a significant fraction of camera buyers, though, is it?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2014)

jrista said:


> The companies that don't survive...well...they either didn't see it coming, or kept thinking "Well, hah, who is still selling more <pick-your-poison>?"
> 
> I don't want to see it happen to Canon...but Canon is like a slug in a centipede race these days...





jrista said:


> Three to five (around one total generational cycle for Canon, probably several generational cycles for their competitors) years from now, I think the dominant camera manufacturer landscape *could* look quite different. The slower pace gives Canon plenty of time to adapt. The big question is...will they?



Let's see... You used the phrase "dSLR market" several times. You're talking about the dominant camera manufacturer landscape looking quite different if Canon fails to adapt. You're talking about *companies not surviving*, clearly and plainly implying doom for Canon the slug. 

But now...



jrista said:


> I'm not really talking about the giant Rebel/D5000 kind of "DSLR" market. I'm talking about the professional DSLR market.
> 
> So let's just ignore the Rebel market for the time being.



Really?? I mean...I've seen people try moving the goalposts, but you win the booby prize for trying to claim you weren't really talking about goalposts, you were talking about croquet hoops all along. What's next? "Well, I wasn't really talking about _all_ high end cameras, just the ones with 14 buttons that people buy on a Tuesday, but _that_ dSLR sub-sub-sub-market will surely be affected by the sensor technology paradigm shift...someday, maybe in a few years." Sheesh.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 6, 2014)

The grass is greener on ALL sides of the fence, it all depends where the backlighting is.

From the Nikon side, I miss the simplicity of using Canon cameras with their intuitive interfaces.
They have a catalog of lenses that covers ALMOST anything I'd want. I sure covet those TS-E lenses!
I have a lot of this stuff. (I HAD a lot more)

from the Canon side, I really wish the low ISO performance was better, I'm tired of dealing with so much pattern (& random) noise when i'm trying to maul a raw file. But I sure like how quickly I can make good use of any body I pick up and shoot with.

from the Pentax side, WTH is with the metering! It's nowhere as predictable as CaNikon's. But it does deliver the goods otherwise and this IBIS is better than I thought it would be.

From the Olympus side, who designed this menu system?!? They really ought to look at how Canon does this. But these lenses are amazing. Wow I can do a lot of funky stuff with this camera! I sure like shooting with a decent EVF, the overlaid live histogram is fantastic.

From the Fuji side, Did the Olypus team design this user interface too?!? Gheez this gear is pricey, doesn't work too well for action either, and I wish there were more native lens options. But holy cow, did you see the shots I pulled off with this thing? Even the camera jpgs look gorgeous. Low ISO, hi ISO, this thing creates the images I see in my mind. Noise reduction?... what's that? Wow, I sure like shooting with a good EVF, the overlaid live data is fantastic.

With that, I don't feel like I'm fenced into some tiny area, confined to one manufacturer's products. I can (thankfully) afford to have a variety of tools available, each well suited to different types of shooting conditions or just my mood for the moment. I complement each mfr's bodies with the lenses and accessories best suited to how I'm going to exploit each of their advantages:
- more fast glass for the Fuji and Olympus, 
- nothing more from Pentax for now unless they release a FF, 
- some 3rd party goodies for Nikon to expand options here to more areas.
- nothing for the Canon group either, will keep what I have that works well, maybe grab an updated 7d2 if it works really well, possibly a long prime or zoom if I can justify how little I'll use it.

When my Canon gear showed that its limitations were making some kinds of shooting difficult for me, I spent little time working on work-arounds and, instead, researched better alternatives.

Dammit Canon! Your FPN issues caused me to learn a lot more and spend a lot more $ than I had ever thought I would!


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 6, 2014)

Aglet: all good points. I liked Canon ergonomics too, but I'm faring just fine with Nikon too, once I switched those dials and indicators. The more sensitive D-pad on the D810 is actually a pleasure to use now. I hear this argument about Canon ergonomics being better all the time and, in the end, I really don't get it. Both systems are perfectly usable and don't get in the way of my photography as much as, say, Canon's limited DR or the 5DIII's complete inability to track subjects across the frame. My point being: there are things you can easily work around, and other things that prove much more difficult to work around. So Canon ergonomics is a tenuous reason to stick with Canon.

Plus, it's easy to find something to pick on from either company. For example, Nikon has the best implementation of programmable auto ISO, with easy access to exposure compensation in M mode with auto ISO. Canon finally put EC in M mode into the 1DX, but did so in one of the most unusable ways imaginable: either via the Q menu (requiring you to take your eye away from the OVF), or via the Set button (which we all like to assign to magnified playback view). Meanwhile, there's a dedicated EC button on the 1DX at the top of the camera... but, no, why assign EC to that?

So much for 'intuitive interfaces'...


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Let's see... You used the phrase "dSLR market" several times. You're talking about the dominant camera manufacturer landscape looking quite different if Canon fails to adapt. You're talking about *companies not surviving*, clearly and plainly implying doom for Canon the slug.



When we only look at the DSLR Camera part of Canons business, don´t we see a decline already?
I thought i read that somewhere.

Canon has way more products, so they could still make a profit while the DSLR Camera market suffers.

When Canon offers me no strong reason to upgrade i will stick to my 5D II a long time. The amateur market will break away at some point, if there is nothing noticable better.
Even the China market will not save Canon forever. 
My guess is that China plays a big part that DSLR sales look not much worse.

As this is a hobby for me i need a reason to upgrade. 

Im sure other people have a reason, better AF or more FPS in the newer models.
But it´s time Canon does something for the Landscape and Portrait shooter too.


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Sep 6, 2014)

I feel the Pros can use just about anything that's handed to them and still do their jobs well. Yes, some tools are tailored one way or another (for instance, sports vs studio vs video). In general I've seen that good working pros can sort out the technologies while retaining concentration on their final images. 

A prime example of this to me is Annie Leibovitz. She doesn't concern herself with the technologies and which system might be slightly better or different than another. No, she has other things on her mind. I'm not sure how she's doing these days, but there was a time when she'd take anything free that was handed to her (Canon, Nikon, Hassleblad, etc). She turned out salable images no matter which manufacture wanted her name associated with their brand.

The questioning and complaints, I feel, come from people who are, for the most part, intelligent and interested in the technologies and see what they believe to be big differences in Banner Specs. An example of this to me is the recent back and forth on these forums about Sony's 36 and (rumored) 50mpixel sensors. The Banner Specs look impressive. In the details, well, it depends on who you are as to whether a system is really better than what you own or not. If Sony's A7 series is any example, who here would put up with a 1.2FPS? Who would tolerate terrible AF performance in lower (not even low) light conditions? Who here would be happy with the current Sony E-mount lens situation?

The folks who are publicly upset (in on-line forums where anonymity can be easy cover) may have other things going on in their lives that lead them to spout off in perhaps inappropriate, ill-informed, ways (see an article on Mary Beard in a recent New Yorker Magazine for how she deals with trolls for an glimpse of what I'm trying to say here).

That's my take on it. YMWV.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 6, 2014)

jrista: I wouldn't bother. You're not going to convince someone that sensor performance matters if that person - no matter how smart he is - appears to not have a single photograph taken in challenging light (in his shared collection anyway).

Those who care are those who've struggled out in the field, time and again, and are tired of fighting their equipment at the cost of the art. Especially when there are much better alternatives out there... that have existed for years, no less.

I think confirmation bias really runs rampant in some of these threads. My favorite was a previous comment by someone that basically tried to say that since Canon is still leading the market, DxO's _image science_ must be wrong. Yes, let's correlate two entirely uncorrelated things.


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 6, 2014)

ChristopherMarkPerez said:


> A prime example of this to me is Annie Leibovitz. She doesn't concern herself with the technologies and which system might be slightly better or different than another. No, she has other things on her mind. I'm not sure how she's doing these days, but there was a time when she'd take anything free that was handed to her (Canon, Nikon, Hassleblad, etc). She turned out salable images no matter which manufacture wanted her name associated with their brand.



You can drive to work with a 10 year old car.
In most cases you will not even arrive faster with a new car.

Professional Drivers (Taxi Drivers) do exactly that, they often drive older cars.
Do you see them talk on Sportcar forums? 

Still people *want and buy* new Cars.
They talk for hours on car forums about 5 or 10 PS more and 0-100km/h acceleration.

While what you say is right, it doesn´t matter for most customers (majority being Rebel and xxD buyer).

People are that way and you will not change it!


As enthusiastic hobbists you want BETTER for your money, not good enough.
So as a Canon user it´s normal i think when you want Canon to match or beat Sony and Nikon at anything (sales are the least concern for the normal customers)
And when you are a Nikon or Sony owner it´s the other way around.

People want the BEST for their money.
They are maybe satisfied with a 5D MK3 overall but they still wish they had a better sensor.

Canon is in the good position to have a wide userbase already. Build over decades.
If all companys would start at ZERO userbase (no human on earth owns a Camera or Lens) but with their current technology and products. Then Canon would not be able to achive the position again it is in right now.

Canon sales today are in great parts build on past achievments.
Todays sales numbers are not such a big indication that people are 100% happy with Canon cameras. 

The uneducated customers buys a Rebel simply because of the brand name.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 6, 2014)

unfocused said:


> let's say for the sake of argument that Sony sensors really are better at this point in time (a judgment that is highly subjective and very suspect, since it hinges on tiny, tiny differences in just one subset of a sensor's overall performance



There's nothing 'highly subjective' here at all. It's a quantifiable, demonstrable fact. And it's not a tiny difference in just one aspect of overall performance. Low downstream read noise not only increases base ISO dynamic range, but can allow you to maintain high dynamic range at all ISOs if you know how to take advantage of 'ISO-less' sensors.

Furthermore, to think that Canon shouldn't be interested in dynamic range performance of their sensors is pretty short-sighted. Canon's trying to make a dent in the motion picture industry, and what's arguably the one thing expert cinematographers constantly go on about? 

DR, DR, and more DR. Straight from the horse's mouth (Emmanuel Lubezki, DP on 'Gravity', 'The Tree of Life', etc.).


----------



## docsmith (Sep 6, 2014)

What? No more? I just made a fresh batch of popcorn....  ;D

I can't say I see the low light/dark area sensors as being that disruptive to the "high end" dSLR market. Simply put, what Canon is providing is already truly excellent for the vast majority of uses. Will Canon lose specific niches, sure. As an example, I shoot a little of everything. The only time I see the issues being discuss is in my nightscapes. Which is <1% of what I shoot. I see the dSLR market at a point of diminishing returns. For years there was rapid improvements from one generation to the next. I expect that to slow now.

That said, I don't think Canon's problem is Sony/Nikon/etc. Their problem is their top 2 dSLRs are approaching 3 yrs old that will need updating if for no other reason than people like new releases (think car models), Canon needs to update the 5D and 1D series in 2015 or 2016. A good part of the market for the 5DIV is going to come from those that want to upgrade from the 5DIII. I think a big part of that will be the improved sensor tech. Granted, they'll need to frame it to sell to the masses (I can also see a few more MP, DPAF or better, and a few more FPS). In other words, it is Canon's problem to make us want to buy more gear. I expect them to figure something out.

BTW...lytro or some more advanced take...that could become a disruptive technology.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2014)

jrista said:


> To me, the DSLR market *that matters*, when discussing the topic of image quality, is the market that caters to the group of buyers (a "market") that CARES about image quality. I KNOW that you already know 90% of the people who buy a Rebel don't really give a crap about IQ. The majority of them will never use any lens other than the 18-55mm kit lens. Why would I bother debating about IQ in the context of all DSLR purchasers everywhere, which is probably over 90% of the DSLR market in total (for all manufacturers)? I figure the context is *implied*,
> 
> Context, man. Sheesh.



The context *you* established was that of corporate failure due to lack of willingness/ability to change in the face of paradigm-shifting technology. You cited examples of companies that have fallen victim to that effect. You used examples like mobile phones, tablets, DVD rentals, and cable television...all of which are mass-market products intended for a wide audience of consumers, not a narrow specialized market within a much larger market. 

Now, you're suggesting I should have understood that you *weren't* talking about the portion of the market that makes up 'probably over 90% of the DSLR market' when implying corporate failure for Canon? You stated that in 3-5 years, "_I think the dominant camera manufacturer landscape could look quite different_." 

But...you were only talking about professional dSLRs. So, you talked of corporate failure and dominant camera makers changing, and your 'paradigm-shifting technology' is the sensor used in professional dSLRs. In other words, you implied that if Canon releases a 7DII, 5DIV, and 1D X II with similar noise and DR characteristics to the current versions, Canon will go the way of Nokia's mobile phone division (sold off) or Blockbuster (bankruptcy). 

I know, you'd prefer I believe you were talking about high end gear because that's what you usually talk about. If I believe that, then the corollary is when you implied corporate failure for Canon because of sensor technology, you were making what can only be viewed as an argument so fallacious it's silly. 

Alternatively, when you spoke of corporate failure, you really were talking about the whole dSLR market, and when called on the unlikelihood of 'sensor IQ' as a fundamental driver for that broad market, you backpedaled. 

Either way, you initially framed the context of the debate at the corporate/industry/market level, and you lost that debate through a fallacious argument or dramatically altering the context after the fact...take your pick. 

As for your _replacement_ context (sensor technology being paradigm shifting for the much smaller 'professional' dSLR market), I believe you're wrong there, too. The sensor is one part of the camera – an important part to be sure, but just one part of the whole. The camera is just one part of the whole system, arguably not the most important part (and generally not the one kept the longest). 

The antenna is an important part of a mobile phone, it determines signal strength, call clarity, data transmission throughput. Would improved antenna sensitivity be paradigm shifting for the mobile phone industry? No. Particularly when the majority of customers live in urban areas with a high density of transmission towers...the antenna in its current form provides ample sensitivity for that majority. Likewise, Canon sensors provide image quality that meets the needs of the majority of the professional dSLR market. Sensor technology is a part of a part of the whole. When considered as part of that larger ecosystem, and when it's already capable of delivering excellent images with the current level of Canon technology, sensor technology is not going to be shifting paradigms any time soon.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 6, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> jrista: I wouldn't bother. You're not going to convince someone that sensor performance matters if that person - no matter how smart he is - appears to not have a single photograph taken in challenging light (in his shared collection anyway).


That, right there, is a lot of nonsense.

Speaking for myself I shoot in "challenging" light about 80-90% of the time (I live on the North East of England - a place about which the phrase "like living inside of a Tupperware box" could have been coined), and I also shot gigs, when I'm not shooting birds, wildlife and sport in routinely Godawful light.

And I have _have problem whatsoever_ getting excellent quality results from my Canon files.

I've said it before: knowing what to do with the files _once they're off the camera_ is at least as important as what happens in the camera, and Jon is far from being an examplar of the part of the process that starts _after_ the images have left the camera.


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Sep 6, 2014)

I think you're right. But I can't help but feel that the topic of photography gets a lot of tongues wagging in ways you seldom see in the other arts. Not that folks in the other arts can't be just as passionate about what they do. It sometimes seems odd to me that in photography so many folks concentrate on the equipment and technologies when they could be out making great images and expressing themselves through their art.

Now, having said that, yes, I grew up during the years of the Muscle Car Wars out of Detroit. I remember quite well how people would argue over this and that and the other thing. I was young and stupid and bought a '64 Jag E-Type FHC. It had less than 190bmp in the real world, but it STOMPED most of the Big Iron.

A friend says that talking about cameras is just like talking Hot Rods. So I think you're on to something there.

Having been an engineer with software, electrical, and optical fields of science required to do the job, it's amazing what some people on these kinds of forums feel is important and what they miss.

As for changing how folks behave, even if someone died tomorrow and left me in charge I'd never think of it. It can be so entertaining at times. 



ULFULFSEN said:


> ChristopherMarkPerez said:
> 
> 
> > A prime example of this to me is Annie Leibovitz. She doesn't concern herself with the technologies and which system might be slightly better or different than another. No, she has other things on her mind. I'm not sure how she's doing these days, but there was a time when she'd take anything free that was handed to her (Canon, Nikon, Hassleblad, etc). She turned out salable images no matter which manufacture wanted her name associated with their brand.
> ...


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 6, 2014)

ChristopherMarkPerez said:


> It sometimes seems odd to me that in photography so many folks concentrate on the equipment and technologies when they could be out making great images and expressing themselves through their art.



I get your point, but people are actually taking far more pictures with their DSLRs than ever before.

When I shot film I maxed out at around 5.000 pic/year. This year I'm averaging 100 pic/day - and I'm sure many others are clocking even higher numbers. 

Meanwhile, the internet allows us to use our spare moments to express our wishes and hopes for the next big thing...


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Sep 6, 2014)

Good point. I like it. 



Maiaibing said:


> ... Meanwhile, the internet allows us to use our spare moments to express our wishes and hopes for the next big thing...


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 6, 2014)

jrista said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > I've said it before: knowing what to do with the files _once they're off the camera_ is at least as important as what happens in the camera, and Jon is far from being an examplar of the part of the process that starts _after_ the images have left the camera.
> ...



Well that's not quite true. You showed your individual frames that you then merged into an 'HDR' which demonstrated basic mistakes. I think Keith's remark is relevant. 

No one is denying that there are not more _technically_ advanced sensors than the ones Canon are using. The argument is in how far this 'older tech' really effects the final image, given all the processing options that are available.


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 6, 2014)

docsmith said:


> That said, I don't think Canon's problem is Sony/Nikon/etc. Their problem is their top 2 dSLRs are approaching 3 yrs old that will need updating if for no other reason than people like new releases (think car models), Canon needs to update the 5D and 1D series in 2015 or 2016. A good part of the market for the 5DIV is going to come from those that want to upgrade from the 5DIII. I think a big part of that will be the improved sensor tech. Granted, they'll need to frame it to sell to the masses (I can also see a few more MP, DPAF or better, and a few more FPS). In other words, it is Canon's problem to make us want to buy more gear. I expect them to figure something out.
> 
> BTW...lytro or some more advanced take...that could become a disruptive technology.



Nope. The mkiii is a thing of beauty. The mkii had auto focus issues up the wazoo... but the mkiii has few critics... so those who want full frame but don't want to buy right before the next gen come out are the bulk of buyers for the mkiv. 

I could be wrong, but I still love my mkiii and I think many agree.


----------



## Lawliet (Sep 6, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> The argument is in how far this 'older tech' really effects the final image, given all the processing options that are available.



Even with the processing available: it takes time, and time is money(or at least not spent with something more delectable). Thats if the NR artefacts areaccaptable.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> I think confirmation bias really runs rampant in some of these threads. My favorite was a previous comment by someone that basically tried to say that since Canon is still leading the market, DxO's _image science_ must be wrong. Yes, let's correlate two entirely uncorrelated things.



Well, I hope you aren't referring to me. If you are, your memory is faulty and you've conflated two separate concepts. So, just in case, I'll repeat my earlier comments along those lines, which are just as valid as when I first made them. 

DxO has scored Canon sensors lower than their competitors for several years, during which time Canon did not lose, but rather gained market share. Therefore, as far as influencing the aggregate buying decisions of consumers, DxO's Scores are *meaningless*.

As for DxO's 'image science', hallmarks of good science include transparency about methods with disclosure sufficient for someone skilled in the field to fully reproduce the experiment/test, and attempting to avoid bias. DxO does not disclose their formulae or weightings for determining their Scores, and what they do disclose of their methods shows that their scores have intentional bias. That's *bad science*. Note that their Measurements are generally well done and useful, although they've made some whopping errors on lens tests (and displayed more bad science with the Canon 70-200 II, first defending their erroneous conclusions, then later surreptitiously modifying the original data without ever acknowledging their mistake). 

So, if you were referring to me, it's you who conflated two independent concepts which I discussed. 




jrista said:


> Heh, yeah. Neuro is in full "attach the messenger" mode, there probably isn't any getting through to him.



I'm sorry that having your arguments logically refuted and being called on backpedaling makes you feel like you're on the defensive.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 7, 2014)

jrista said:


> We clearly differ on what we believe is possible, might as well just agree to disagree.



Oh, almost anything is _possible_, so it's certainly _possible_ that Canon will be affected negatively by not having the best sensors. It's just not very likely, IMO. They've been 'behind' for years with no deleterious effects. Sure, it's easier to lift shadows with Exmor. That's great...if lifting shadows by several stops is part if your routine workflow. I think you're dramatically overestimating the number of photographers for whom that's true, falling into the classic trap of assuming your needs are those of the majority. As a working pro stated earlier, shadows are important for the art...and shadows are supposed to be dark. 

If those using professional dSLRs were so dissatisfied, they'd have switched. I know I'd have switched if Canon wasn't meeting my needs, in general, and another brand would meet them. 

In the minority market segment you've chosen to focus on, the 5DII and 5DIII are immensely popular, more so than their Nikon counterparts, and Sony can't even come close. Those Canon bodies, along with an excellent full system, are getting the job done for a significant number of consumers. It's unfortunate that you are disappointed with your 5DIII, but then you stated you were disappointed with (what you read about) the 5DII as well, and that was quite likely the most popular professional dSLR ever (to date). 

Paradigm shifts can result from technological advancement, but what drives them is meeting an unmet consumer need. Convenient and immediate access to the Internet...anywhere. Not having to go to the video store – twice! – to rent a movie. In the case of sensor technology, I think you're really overestimating the impact of advancements on the day-to-day of a majority of professional dSLR users...and without that widespread impact, there's no paradigm shift. 

As you say...we can agree to disagree. Check back in a few years to see who's right.


----------



## LostBoyNZ (Sep 7, 2014)

I'm thinking of shifting the Sony A7r myself, from the 5D Mark II. As for other brand owners complaining less or not, in my experience they all complain equally. Sony forums have lots of complaints about lenses being too over priced, lack of f2.8 zooms on E mount, that they feel Sony has abandoned A mount and even debated how good the A7s actually is in terms of ISO noise. 

I'm not sure what Nikon people complain about, but I'm sure it's something. 

I'm quite happy with my 5D Mark II for landscape, although I'd love more dynamic range and less pattern noise. But it still does the job well. The A7r gives me more dynamic range and nicely handled noise. But there's drawbacks too. No camera is perfect, so I think we'll always wish for more and complain about things, but in the end the 'best' brand for certain things always changes anyways. For ISO it was Canon, then Nikon, now Sony. Give it another couple of years and it'll be someone again or someone else.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 7, 2014)

jrista said:


> Just to be clear, I am only disappointed with the 5D III for landscapes and low ISO work.



Here's a link to a guy who's a hot topic on 500px at the moment, that CR members may enjoy seeing. Does he shoot D800 ? Does he shoot high ISO ? 

http://500px.com/JakeOlsonStudios

The only noise comes from people complimenting his work.


----------



## V8Beast (Sep 7, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Just to be clear, I am only disappointed with the 5D III for landscapes and low ISO work.
> ...




When I see images like that, I think "Wow, that's one talented MFer." 

"I wonder what gear he shoots with" is the last thing on my mind. I suppose that makes me a freak


----------



## sdsr (Sep 8, 2014)

LostBoyNZ said:


> I'm thinking of shifting the Sony A7r myself, from the 5D Mark II.
> 
> ...
> 
> I'm quite happy with my 5D Mark II for landscape, although I'd love more dynamic range and less pattern noise. But it still does the job well. The A7r gives me more dynamic range and nicely handled noise. But there's drawbacks too. No camera is perfect, so I think we'll always wish for more and complain about things, but in the end the 'best' brand for certain things always changes anyways. For ISO it was Canon, then Nikon, now Sony. Give it another couple of years and it'll be someone again or someone else.



At least, unlike switching to Nikon, switching to or adding an A7r will allow you to use all your Canon lenses (unless you insist on/want/prefer fast AF) which, in my experience, seem to make images that look at least as good as they do on Canon bodies. For me, that's part of the appeal of good mirrorless bodies - leaving aside (fast) AF, you can use just about any lens you want.

That said, out of curiosity - how often do you find yourself wanting more DR and/or better low ISO noise performance?


----------



## sdsr (Sep 8, 2014)

ChristopherMarkPerez said:


> The questioning and complaints, I feel, come from people who are, for the most part, intelligent and interested in the technologies and see what they believe to be big differences in Banner Specs. An example of this to me is the recent back and forth on these forums about Sony's 36 and (rumored) 50mpixel sensors. The Banner Specs look impressive. In the details, well, it depends on who you are as to whether a system is really better than what you own or not. If Sony's A7 series is any example, who here would put up with a 1.2FPS? Who would tolerate terrible AF performance in lower (not even low) light conditions? Who here would be happy with the current Sony E-mount lens situation?
> 
> The folks who are publicly upset (in on-line forums where anonymity can be easy cover) may have other things going on in their lives that lead them to spout off in perhaps inappropriate, ill-informed, ways (see an article on Mary Beard in a recent New Yorker Magazine for how she deals with trolls for an glimpse of what I'm trying to say here).



That sounds about right. As for the Sony A7 line, it may have some interest for a few here (I happily concede that this is almost certainly a tiny niche) to the extent that it can provide an engaging/useful supplement to Canon bodies. Some of us (I doubt I'm the only one, at any rate) only use single shot and thus don't care about fps, and the limited range of FE lenses (the two primes, esp. the 55mm, are marvelous) doesn't matter, unless (fast) AF does, since you can easily use your Canon lenses as well as just about any other lens that takes your fancy (MF is easy on these bodies).

As for the various Canon Must Do X To Its Sensors To Survive discussions/assertions, does anyone out there have actual knowledge of the relevant market shift(s), if any? We all know that Canon outsells everyone else overall, that dslr sales are down, that mirrorless remains a minority segment, that cellphones are a significant threat to the point-and-shoot market, etc., but do we know - say - how many high-end users have switched from Canon to Nikon or Sony (or vice versa) on account of their sensors (or for any other reason, for that matter)? Do we know how many people care enough about details of sensor performance to contemplate switching? I suspect we don't, in which case....


----------



## sdsr (Sep 8, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > let's say for the sake of argument that Sony sensors really are better at this point in time (a judgment that is highly subjective and very suspect, since it hinges on tiny, tiny differences in just one subset of a sensor's overall performance
> ...



It may be demonstrably true that Sony sensors (plus whosever are in Nikon's APS-C cameras?) are measurably superior in various ways, but it's not demonstrably true that the differences aren't "tiny" - that's where the "subjective" part that unfocused was (presumably) referring to comes in. Depending on what you shoot, in what sort of conditions, how you process the image files, how you view/present the results, and the standards you/the viewer apply/ies throughout all of this, the differences may be imperceptible, or noticeable but irrelevant, or significant, etc. So it could well be that the differences among cameras are all at the margins, margins so small that there aren't enough users out there to significantly affect the market. For everyone else, there's no "better" in any way that matters.


----------



## EchoLocation (Sep 9, 2014)

i think one reason why lots of people hang out here who don't actively shoot nikon gear is that this is the best rumor forum on the internet. 
I open Nikonrumors and Sonyalpharumors just as often as I open Canonrumors, but on those sites I usually just read some comments and don't get involved. 
Canonrumors has the best forum for discussion regarding rumors that I have found.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> So, if you were referring to me, it's you who conflated two independent concepts which I discussed.


I wasn't referring to you. The particular comment I was referring to was as follows:



> Besides, DxO mark isn't relevant. Despite them scoring Nikon/Sony higher and higher against Canon product head to head, Canon still went from a 4% market share lead 4 years ago to a now 20% market share lead. Nobody cares or nobody believes because of just that: The garbage "science" they are doing.



Now _that's_ garbage. This person clearly correlated the two, saying that nobody believes DxO's 'garbage science' _because_ despite DxO's measurements, Canon's lead strengthened. DxO's raw measurements are perfectly fine, but they have - as you yourself say - little to no bearing on aggregate purchasing decisions (nor vice versa), and so correlating the two is utter nonsense. 



neuroanatomist said:


> DxO has scored Canon sensors lower than their competitors for several years, during which time Canon did not lose, but rather gained market share. Therefore, as far as influencing the aggregate buying decisions of consumers, DxO's Scores are *meaningless*.


I don't disagree, as long as you have your qualifier in there. Anyway, who here was trying to suggest DxO scores influence the aggregate buying decisions of consumers? What their sensor *measurements* do do, OTOH, is inform a savvy consumer which camera will perform well in terms of image quality for landscapes (DR and SNR data), or light-limited applications (SNR data). Years ago it certainly turned me towards which cameras I could turn to for my landscape work, and I appreciate that they provide that data. Their data also allows one to look for interesting trends in technologies (which sensorgen also helps to distill, from DxO data). While we're on the subject -- what they're trying to do with P-MPix is quite clever, I think - currently it's so daunting to figure out what you can expect from different lenses across different systems of different sensor sizes, etc. That said, lens data will only be rigorously valuable once many copies are tested (so as to not run into issues like the 70-200 fiasco that keeps being brought up over and over again to beat DxO over the head with).



neuroanatomist said:


> As for DxO's 'image science', hallmarks of good science include transparency about methods with disclosure sufficient for someone skilled in the field to fully reproduce the experiment/test, and attempting to avoid bias. DxO does not disclose their formulae or weightings for determining their Scores, and what they do disclose of their methods shows that their scores have intentional bias.



I don't disagree with the bit about disclosing methods, being a scientist myself. You saying they have 'intentional bias' requires more proof than your simple claim, though. Bias towards what? Any formula has inherent bias, as any weighting system must. It's when people imply that there's a brand-specific bias that I take issue. I'm not saying that's what you're implying, but there are certainly those who imply it.

You could argue that they weight base ISO DR too much, and if you don't care about base ISO DR, then I can see how that'd bother you. OTOH, I think it's perfectly fine to weight base ISO DR far more heavily than high ISO DR b/c: (1) not doing so runs the risk of rating all similar size sensors roughly the same, and how does that help a consumer actually understand the *differences* between sensors?; and (2) if you shoot in an 'ISO-less' manner (even partially), you can - for a sensor with high base ISO DR - retain far more DR at high ISOs than the actual measured DR for any given higher ISO. Which - for me - makes the higher ISO DR numbers meaningless, and _only_ the base ISO DR number relevant.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> As a working pro stated earlier, shadows are important for the art...and shadows are supposed to be dark.



This is a loaded topic. You could argue that *because* today's monitors/output devices have pretty small DR (10 stops for the better monitors today), that you shouldn't try to pack more than 10 stops worth of DR into an image. This presupposes you want to maintain a linear relationship between tones - the same relationship you would've had in the real world. So is that what you want to do, or do you want to maintain the global DR your eye-brain experienced in the real-world for a particular scene? Or something in between?

It all depends on what you want to emphasize. If you want to emphasize light vs. shadow, you might even decrease the DR of what you captured by darkening darks and brightening brights past the relationship they had in the real-world. Or you might do that for some scene elements while retaining more global DR.

The point is that when your sensor introduces little to no noise over your image data, you have the freedom to do whatever you want. You even have the option of - in the future - one day going back to your high DR Raw files so you can reprocess them for that new HDR display that actually displays 18 EV of DR (the motion picture industry is very interested in HDR displays, e.g.). And a HDR display that doesn't _just_ give you blacker blacks, but actually gives you brighter whites as well. Ever wonder why Velvia looked so beautiful on a lightbox? B/c it had 11-13 EV of output DR (though only ~5-6 EV scene DR), with a white point on your typical lightbox 5-6x brighter than your digital LCD monitor with its brightness maxed out. It actually expanded contrast - possibly getting closer to maintaining absolute brightness differences between objects in the real-world in the process... but I digress.

So when you say that shadows are supposed to be dark... that can really open up a whole can of worms. For example, if you shoot a sunset where you've shot to preserve the orange/red tones in the sky, the cityscape buildings in the shot might be completely black when you view it on your monitor - but they were perfectly visible when your eyes saw the sunset. These 'shadows' weren't exactly 'shadows' in the real-world, yet they're 'shadows' now on your monitor b/c your entire monitor's brightness scale is much smaller than, and on the lower end of, the brightness range we experience in the real world. So are they really shadows, or are they just shadows b/c of your exposure decision & your imaging hardware? You might decide they're not 'shadows' at all; that they should be darker midtones, say. Low read noise will enable you to pull those 'shadows' up to darker midtones, then assign some other even darker tones to 'shadows' so that your final image does have good output DR/contrast.

Look at Ryan Dyar's or Marc Adamus' landscapes for gorgeous examples of capturing a ton of global DR while still having shadows/dark tones in the image that give the impression of high contrast with low global contrast (high DR). That sounds counterintuitive, but they pull it off beautifully. And they effectively have to 'tone-map' for our LDR output devices & prints. I can only imagine how much more stunning they'd be on higher DR monitors - and of course that'd likely require entire re-processing from the Raw(b/c the tone-mapping would have to be different). Or not - maybe our eye-brain system does enough 'filling in the gaps' that we'd only really appreciate HDR display of such content in a side-by-side next to a LDR monitor.

Anyway, my point here is that how you define 'shadows' itself is flexible. I can tell you one thing shadows *aren't* supposed to have: FPN & read noise.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 9, 2014)

V8Beast said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I'm actually with you there, V8Beast 

And everyone else makes fair points here. 

sdsr - yup, how much it matters will totally vary based on some of the things you mentioned. And good point about adapting Canon lenses on the Sony bodies. Much easier to do than adapting Nikon lenses, which still have that mechanical aperture. Canon lenses are much easier to use on the A7 cameras. Definitely holding on to my Canon 1-5X 65mm lens. That thing's a beauty!

LostBoyzNZ - A7r is nice, for sure, but sometimes adapting wide-angles gives me a lot of trouble in terms of edge-to-edge and corner performance. Not surprising once you consider the effects of adapter mount variations, and the variations in the thicknesses of cover glass on the sensor (http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/the-glass-in-the-path-sensor-stacks-and-adapted-lenses)

Also, A7r shutter shock is a real problem for longer focal lengths. Electronic first curtain on the D810 is incredibly welcome.


----------



## barracuda (Sep 9, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Just to be clear, I am only disappointed with the 5D III for landscapes and low ISO work.
> ...



Thanks for posting this link. At least now I can say that it hasn't been a complete waste of time reading this thread.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 9, 2014)

EchoLocation said:


> i think one reason why lots of people hang out here who don't actively shoot nikon gear is that this is the best rumor forum on the internet.
> I open Nikonrumors and Sonyalpharumors just as often as I open Canonrumors, but on those sites I usually just read some comments and don't get involved.
> Canonrumors has the best forum for discussion regarding rumors that I have found.



I would agree. I haunt both Canon and Nikon sites. The Nikonrumors site, while informative, is not as exciting (in a reality TV sort of way) as Canonrumors. On the Nikonrumors site, people ask questions and they get answer. Educational, but hardly entertaining.

On Canonrumors there is always a thread (or ten) where it is just fun to watch.

I think that Canonrumors is still one of the most enjoyable photography forums to read on the Internets Tubes.


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 9, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Does he shoot D800 ? Does he shoot high ISO ?
> 
> http://500px.com/JakeOlsonStudios


No.And no.

He shoots almost exclusively iso 100 w/flash (or other light additional source)... 

Nice shots. However, not my style.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > As for DxO's 'image science', hallmarks of good science include transparency about methods with disclosure sufficient for someone skilled in the field to fully reproduce the experiment/test, and attempting to avoid bias. DxO does not disclose their formulae or weightings for determining their Scores, and what they do disclose of their methods shows that their scores have intentional bias.
> ...



The low ISO bias is one example, yes. It's not just their DR measurement, their 'color depth' score is also taken at base ISO for calculation of the overall Score. Color depth is basically a measure of chroma noise, something essentially not visible in practice at low ISO, yet it figures prominently in the overall score (where two of the three Subscores are at base ISO).

Their Lens Scores are another example of their intentional bias. Does it make sense that the Canon 50mm f/1.8 II receives a higher Score than the Canon 600mm f/4L IS II? Is the nifty fifty a better lens? Well, if you intentionally bias your scores based on 'performance in 150 lux illumination' (light level of a dim warehouse), I suppose it does. Similarly, comparing a Canon and Nikon lens pair (e.g. a supertele) where the lens measurements show the Canon to be sharper, have less distortion, less CA, and equal transmission, the Nikon lens receives the same (or sometimes a higher) lens Score. Why? Because the sensor score of the bodies on which the lenses are mounted affects the lens Scores (and ironically, a sensor score biased toward low ISO performance then artificially inflates a lens score based on a dim light, i.e. high ISO, use case). Bias on top of bias...*bad science*.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2014)

jrista said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Why would you pay someone to learn their techniques when he is obviously foolish enough to continue using a camera system that imposes a huge, burdensome requirement to...



jrista said:


> ...spend a lot of time and use a lot of special techniques and extra tools that add to your total cost to make the photo look good...


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 9, 2014)

jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



And 'squat' is how much flash and / or reflectors have done here - 'cos that's not how he has achieved this look.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



You keep quoting the overall score as why DxO is bad science, never mentioning the value of the individual metrics, which they publish. Very few of us ever quote DxO scores - we quote the individual numbers. The score is very one-dimensional, as it must be b/c it's a single number. Perhaps you'd like them to create fancy 3-D plots with various things - like illumination, focal length, and aperture - changing along X different axes in X-dimensional space. Because that'd be more easily digestible.

The simple fact that they average the performance across the focal length range & aperture range already makes it useless for me. But that doesn't make their data useless. And calling the entire site biased b/c they try to distill everything down to one score based on what they think is most important (and they try & tell you what they consider 'important' for their score) really requires some perverse logic. _You may as well call every site that ranks anything based on one score completely biased and therefore utterly meaningless._



neuroanatomist said:


> Because the sensor score of the bodies on which the lenses are mounted affects the lens Scores (and ironically, a sensor score biased toward low ISO performance then artificially inflates a lens score based on a dim light, i.e. high ISO, use case)



OK, that's probably fair criticism. And yet another reason I never even look at the lens overall score. 

But OTOH, yes, attaching a similar resolving power lens to a higher resolution body does, lo and behold, lead to a higher P-MPix score.



neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing said:
> ...



Neuro - you always wake up on the wrong side of the bed? jrista himself still shoots Canon; he just points out one of the things about the system that he finds limiting, and you suddenly find it necessary to mock him for wanting to take classes from someone else who shoots Canon? 

Logical much? 

IIRC, Marc Adamus makes his images with both Nikon and Canon cameras. Those of us who find Canon sensors limiting are - most of the time - not oblivious to the fact that you *can* make fantastic photos with almost any system. People made fantastic photos with the limited DR of slide film, for crying out loud. Your snarky comments add nothing to the conversation.

And as an aside - I can't believe I'm here defending someone who himself called my work 'bull' when I tried to point out that the 'ISO-less' nature of the D800 opened up opportunities for shooting the 5D3 didn't allow years ago. These forums are really something!


----------



## sdsr (Sep 9, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > As a working pro stated earlier, shadows are important for the art...and shadows are supposed to be dark.
> ...



Exactly right (including, of course, all the snipped bits) - even if for most people, most of the time, it doesn't matter enough to affect the overall market.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> You keep quoting the overall score as why DxO is bad science, never mentioning the value of the individual metrics, which they publish. Very few of us ever quote DxO scores - we quote the individual numbers. The score is very one-dimensional, as it must be b/c it's a single number. Perhaps you'd like them to create fancy 3-D plots with various things - like illumination, focal length, and aperture - changing along X different axes in X-dimensional space. Because that'd be more easily digestible.
> 
> The simple fact that they average the performance across the focal length range & aperture range already makes it useless for me. But that doesn't make their data useless. And calling the entire site biased b/c they try to distill everything down to one score based on what they think is most important (and they try & tell you what they consider 'important' for their score) really requires some perverse logic. _You may as well call every site that ranks anything based on one score completely biased and therefore utterly meaningless._



As I've stated *many* times (probably >100 by now), I find DxO's _Measurements_ to be useful and generally well done (except when they screw up, as in the infamous now-corrected 70-200 II, or the still 'live' acutance data showing the mush-in-the-corners 17-40/4L being superior to the 16-35/2.8L II across the frame). It's their Scores which are biased, thus my reference to them being BS (which conveniently is an abbreviation for both Biased Scores and Bovine Scat). I don't believe I've ever 'called the entire site biased' as you imply that I've done. FWIW, I use DxO Optics Pro as my RAW converter, and since their DxOMark data are generated in the course of their sensor and lens profiling for the Optics Pro correction modules, that is 'putting my money where my mouth is' as far as my feelings on the utility of their Measurements. Nevertheless, generating biased summary metrics from generally good measurements is still bias. 

A related issue is that others besides DxO pick out the Scores and report them out of context – SnapSort, DPR, etc. – propagating the bias. 




sarangiman said:


> Those of us who find Canon sensors limiting are - most of the time - not oblivious to the fact that you *can* make fantastic photos with almost any system.



Judging from some other posters on CR forums, it seems many people _are_ oblivious to that simple fact, or choose to ignore it. 




sarangiman said:


> Your snarky comments add nothing to the conversation.



But DRones who turn any thread to the discussion of DR, or trolls who start new topics to do the same...those are what, public service announcements? :


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > Your snarky comments add nothing to the conversation.
> ...



No, but expect a certain amount of counter-argument when Canon apologists start touting broad generalizations like 'DR doesn't matter b/c Canon's doing just fine' and uncontrolled unscientific comparisons/claims like 'oh look at this shadow recovery example I did therefore Canon's just fine' or blanket statements like 'the 5D3 AF system is superior to Nikon', etc. Extending sometimes to as broad a generalization as: "Canon 5D3 is a more capable camera overall'. Or myths like 'Canon high ISO is better' or 'use DPP for more DR' (and on that latter note: those differences are simply down to the type & extent of NR).

These myths often persist b/c of erroneous information constantly propagated on forums such as these. 

I'd say the reason that some feel the need to step in & make people aware of some of this stuff is b/c perhaps, many years ago, they were mislead by the same myths that keep recycling.

On the _specific _topic of DR: at least now, on these forums, there's a general awareness & acceptance of the DR differences (albeit usually accompanied with a bitter 'let's not talk about it anymore' sentiment). I remember when years ago people had to fight just to get their clear, controlled comparisons showing the vast DR differences - and implications - accepted. Over and over again, persistently, just to convince people of what would be clear if you just did a proper side-by-side. 

And now you complain it's brought up too often... anytime anyone mentions it.

Talk about a Catch 22...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> On the _specific _topic of DR: at least now, on these forums, there's a general awareness & acceptance of the DR differences (albeit usually accompanied with a bitter 'let's not talk about it anymore' sentiment). I remember when years ago people had to fight just to get their clear, controlled comparisons showing the vast DR differences - and implications - accepted. Over and over again, persistently, just to convince people of what would be clear if you just did a proper side-by-side.
> 
> And now you complain it's brought up too often... anytime anyone mentions it.



Personally, I've always believed DxO's data on the better low ISO DR of Nikon vs. Canon sensors. What I questioned – and continue to question – is the overall _relevance_ of that difference. IMO, it falls into the 'nice to have' category.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2014)

jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I've always believed DxO's data on the better low ISO DR of Nikon vs. Canon sensors. What I questioned – and continue to question – is the overall _relevance_ of that difference. IMO, it falls into the 'nice to have' category.
> ...



What makes you tihnk I haven't considered it? Let's take your desctiption of the utility of more DR: _less work, more flexibility, usually doesn't change the outcome_. That's a quintessential example of 'nice to have', which is exactly how I described it. 




jrista said:


> The DR debate, as I understand it now, has never been about what you can ultimately achieve...the DR debate has always been about *how *you achieve it, and the amount of effort required to achieve it.



That's a bit of revisionist history. The DR debate on these forums has been all about Canon sensors are old, outdated tech, Sony/Nikon sensors are modern and better and can do things you just can't do with Canon sensors. Note that I'm talking about the debate as it has existed for years on these forums, not about your current viewpoint on the issue.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> At the moment the big differences are just at low ISO. Low ISO is generally the realm of different kinds of photography, photography where it's difficult to impossible to actually control the lighting, and where dynamic range can easily surpass 11-12 stops...and the differences really are significant. Maybe it's just the number "two" stops of DR. Two is a small number, it doesn't seem all that meaningful. It is a factor of four difference in the range of usable tonal levels. Four is still a "small" number...so when you get right down to it, it's basically the difference between having 12-bit or a 14-bit data...now THAT number is big. That number is 12,288...which is a really big number. That number is a better indication of the differences between a Canon sensor and an Exmor. If we regularly talked about differences in dynamic range with big numbers like that, maybe the real benefit of having "two more doublings" would be more obvious.



Try 3 stops of difference between the 5D3 and the D810. More if you account for FPN.



jrista said:


> If you need DR, then I would offer that DR is more than just a nice to have. If you NEED DR, then having more DR is essential. I don't need DR in all my photography...when I do need more DR, I already have some tools that help me resolve the issues with having less...GND filters for example. HDR is another option, albeit one that is imperfect and adds work. More DR is more DR...having two more stops is huge...it's very meaningful, and much more than just a nice to have. It reduces the amount of time I have to spend figuring out which GND filters to use, how many to stack, how to blend across the contrast divide, etc. Instead of three filters, maybe I can get away with just one. With two more stops of DR, I could get away with a heavier shadow lift instead of having to apply an LR/ACR gradient filter in post. More in-camera DR, work. Less work with literal filters, less work in post.



Don't forget that GND filters are *still* useful for Exmor, to combat shot noise. You may or may not care if somewhat noisier shadows (b/c of noise in the sampling of light itself) don't bother you - since they're generally less visible.

The other way to do this for a scene that does fit within the DR of your sensor is to shoot a number of frames where you've exposed for the highlights, and then average them. This decreases shot noise (importantly: in your shadows), and allows you to then process the single averaged image. And image averaging is much easier than HDR merging - I can't stand the results most automated HDR software produce. Hence I do it all by hand. Which can be quite painful.

What I just explained above is a significantly better way to shoot HDR scenes than what I typically had to do with Canon. And the best part is - if you don't care about some shot noise in your shadows (a +3 EV push of ISO 64 shadows on the D810 is pretty much like ISO 500 FF levels of noise, which might be perfectly acceptable), then you just use your single frame. 

And btw, I have a feeling the A7s has a slightly different architecture from most other Exmor sensors - giving it slightly more downstream read noise (so a bit of a base ISO DR cost, though nowhere near a Canon DSLR) and very low upstream read noise at higher ISOs (which gives it higher ISO DR). So, in a sense, it's a nice compromise btwn low ISO DR and high ISO performance. Slightly better ISO performance at ISO 25.6k doesn't matter to me, and neither does high ISO DR (since I shoot using ISO-less techniques, which actually gives the A7r more DR at higher, lower - above base ISO - DR, if that makes sense), so I prefer the A7r.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 10, 2014)

jrista: I think you continually refuse to accept the increase in SNR for downsampling, hence have issues with DxO's print DR. Don't know what else to say at this point. You do realize that as you average images, SNR goes up by the sqrt of the # of images averaged, yes? From this you should be able to easily mathematically prove that normalization for DR figures works.

I'm not saying that print DR are the end-all be-all, since you can chose different resolutions or just downsample using different algos & measure the normalized DR yourself. But I _am_ saying that screen DR in no way tells the full story. It puts higher resolution sensors at an unfair disadvantage. A significant one, IMHO.

And there's some talk that the A7s uses some form of dual conversion gain circuitry to further decrease read noise at higher ISOs. There's some conjecture that it's something about this circuitry that leads to lower base ISO DR. So there are differences.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> I think you, and other people such as myself, sarangiman, LTRLI, etc. don't see it the same way. Is this a case of you assuming that your personal opinions reflect the opinions of everyone else?  This is a gray area, obviously. For some, it's a *meaningless* nice-to-have.



Maybe it's as simple as the highlighted word above. 'Nice to have' isn't meaningless...it means (to me, that is) something I value, perhaps value highly, but is not absolutely critical. For much of what I shoot, excellent AF is critical. Excellent telephoto lenses are critical. 12 fps is nice to have. AF on my macro lens is nice to have. ISO 51200 is nice to have, ISO 204800 is dispensable. Fisheye lenses, green square mode, ALO and Picture Styles are dispensable.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> I fully understand. I know how averaging affects SNR...it's why the stacking technique is better than HDR. It's why stacking 100 astro subs together reduces noise by a factor of 10x. I'm saying it's irrelevant as far as *editing* goes. You don't edit downsampled RAW images...you CAN'T downsample RAW images. You have to edit them at native size. I agree that, in the end, once you done with all your edits, you can then downsample for smaller prints or display online. However, that's after all the editing has been done. I would also offer that it's less likely that your going to downsample to 8x12 than to something smaller than that. Downsample to something smaller, say 1920x1200 or even 900x700, theoretically you gain even more DR...but, you can't really do anything with it. Your at the end of your journey...you've done all the processing your going to do. All the increase in DR means is less visible noise. Not that that's a bad thing, it's a very good thing...it's just...irrelevant as far editing latitude.



No, it's not irrelevant. Edit 'zoomed out' such that image fits on your monitor screen. There, you're editing a downsampled image. 

Unless you always adjust shadows to taste at the 100% pixel level. Kind of silly with a 36MP image... unless you have a retina display.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> I don't think downsampling tells you anything more. It doesn't tell you how much editing latitude you'll have with an actual RAW in an actual editor where your doing all the actual processing of your images.



Again, that's only true if you're editing at 1:1 pixel view. Which most people don't.

Everything else we're in agreement on. But I think you underestimate the importance of normalized comparisons. 

When you're evaluating if shadows are too noisy or not - do you do that at the pixel level, or when the image zoomed to fit on your screen? Or a print? If the latter two, then it's the downsampled figures that matter (albeit, not necessarily downsampled to 8MP equivalent...)


----------



## lo lite (Sep 12, 2014)

JohanCruyff said:


> After 76,643,917,265 topics and 54,781,245,232,107,412 posts (and counting) in this forum about the better performance of SoNikon's sensor at base ISO, I was wondering if even SoNikonians sometimes complain, for example,
> - about their Lenses price / range
> - because they don't have STM lenses or Dual Pixel Autofocus
> - etc.
> ...



They do, read the comments here: http://nikonrumors.com/2014/09/12/nikon-d750-full-frame-dslr-camera-announced.aspx/#more-80280

Different brand, same story.


----------

