# Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?



## ramonjsantiago (Aug 29, 2014)

D800 -> D810

The 5dm3 is looking really old.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2014)

Put another way, it took Nikon two generations to come up with a camera that approaches the 5DIII in overall utility...and I bet the 5DIII outsells the D810 just as it did the D800/E.

Same thing one step up – it took Nikon until the D4s to approach the 1D X.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 29, 2014)

ramonjsantiago said:


> D800 -> D810
> 
> The 5dm3 is looking really old.



Not as old as that whine.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Aug 29, 2014)

For what it's worth, I bought a Powershot S95 a number of years ago. At the time, I intended to buy a new DSLR. I looked almost exclusively at Nikon products at that time. I came close to buying the d7000, but held off because I really wanted to go full frame and the rumors for the d800 (at the time it was rumored to replace the d700, which I've heard since is debatable).

So, that's why I bought the Powershot S95. It was solely intended to keep me occupied until the d800 came out.... and believe me, I waited years for that camera to come out. 

I fell in love with that Powershot. It put my father's DSLR to shame (which was admittedly dated). I was able to take fantastic looking photos with that camera alone. I even bought studio lighting for it which came in handy. It was just some cheap hotlight and tripods.

Anyways..... When the d800 finally came out, and I read more and more about it, I got concerns. I had no intention of printing billboard sized prints, and the smaller pixels worried me when it came to astrophotography which is an interest of mine. In fact it concerned me in general for low-light photography. I wasn't sure what to make of the color balance being somewhat cold either. These were just a couple of what grew to be a mountain of concerns. I had the money saved up and ready to go. I was going to get the d800 + the Nikkor/Nikon AF-S 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VRII.

Months and months passed. Do I recall that there was a light leak issue at some point too, or was that something else I'm remembering? It doesn't matter ultimately.

So, then one day a law school friend of mine told me he'd bought the Canon 5D3. I felt stupid not looking at Canon given how much I loved the S95. I did my research on the 5D3, and after a few weeks, maybe a month, I ordered it.

I've been very happy since and don't regret my purchase.

So to answer your question, do I feel it's dated compared to the d810? Not in the slightest. Do I have a problem with you preferring a d810 (assuming you do?)? Nope. Have fun. I'll be enjoying my camera in the meantime though.

(Also, I'm not trying to slam the d800 or d810 - I'm just saying they're very different cameras from the 5D3, and each appeal to different people). My concerns might not be of any concerns to most or all Nikon users... which is great, I hope they enjoy their camera as much as I enjoy mine.

Unfortunately, I'm realizing right now that you seem to be extremely opinionated about this so I may be wasting my breath.

ie: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20761.msg392670#msg392670


----------



## Aglet (Aug 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Put another way, it took Nikon two generations to come up with a camera that approaches the 5DIII in overall utility...and I bet the 5DIII outsells the D810 just as it did the D800/E.
> 
> Same thing one step up – it took Nikon until the D4s to approach the 1D X.



810 doesn't just approach the 5d3, in tech, it pulls out and passes it and flips the bird at it on the way by. 

I wonder if Canon has the 'nads to play leap-frog now.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2014)

Aglet said:


> 810 doesn't just approach the 5d3, in tech, it pulls out and passes it and flips the bird at it on the way by.



Yes, we all know you think "camera" = "sensor". Frame rate...5DIII > D810. AF system...5DIII > D810.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Aug 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > 810 doesn't just approach the 5d3, in tech, it pulls out and passes it and flips the bird at it on the way by.
> ...



Wouldn't that logic mean that the Sigma Merrill is the best camera unless you count Medium Format cameras too?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 29, 2014)

I bought a D800 after reading the hype. It was a waste of money, I sold it and bought a 5D MK III. The D800 appeals to armchair spec readers, but few that actually use one are happy. It is very good for landscape at ISO 100, but as a all-around camera, the 5D MK III is better.

Hopefully, the D810 is going to work out, but I'm not about to get one after my experience with the D800 and the high CA's in Nikon lenses. Nikon has improved some of their lenses since the D800, but their 24-70 f/2.8 is way behind the Canon version. Since you have to put a lens on a camera, a poor lens wipes out any advantage the body might have.


----------



## FEBS (Aug 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > 810 doesn't just approach the 5d3, in tech, it pulls out and passes it and flips the bird at it on the way by.
> ...



I fully agree with Neuro. A camera is much more then a sensor. I see and compare regular photos of a d800 with my 5d3 on our local photo club. They are really great, and indeed at lower ISO, they are better then the 5d3 when you zoom in. However the 5d3 is a much more versatile camera then the d800. I can do landscape, portrait, sports, wildlife, studio,... This can't being said from the d800and even not from the d810. That's what Neuro mentioned by a camera is much more then the sensor only. So in my opinion the current d810 of Nikon is still behind on Canon, but that's of course how you look at the camera. If you use it only for landscape and portrait then the D800/810 is a challenger, but for sure not the most versatile. So, I can agree that the sensor of nikon surpasses canon, but in the other areas they are still behind !


----------



## daniela (Aug 29, 2014)

Yes Sir, the D810 is has an better image quality and dynamic range than the 5DIII. But, as you can read in many postings on this forum, an optical system is more than just the picture sensor. The whole system has to work perfectly together to help you to get an - technically seen - good picture.

In my family, you can find the D810, D800 (both my husband), 5DIII (my son), 6D &7 D (myself), and A7r (my daughter). 
And each camera has its benefits. My daughter needs a light camera with an good image quality (like my husband does - but he owns several Nikon lenses). My son and I prefer to shoot birds, planes and animals, so we stayed with Canon).
The 5DIII is an all-in-one package. The image quality is not as good as the Sony´s and Nikon´s, but its autofocus system is superior. The D810 has an superior image quality, bit the autofocus system lacks of speed, if you shoot moving objects.

I think, each camera has its own field of application. Sometime you can not directly compare them betweeen. 

I it true, that Canon should get better in resolution and dynamic range, but Nikon should hurry up to get an fast autofocus system. (This is my opinion).

By the way: My husband, who stayed at the soccer WM told me, that there were several modified cameras "in the field". With bulky housings, others with an odd combination of cameras and lenses or leneses that were not printed with their specifications). So you can be sure Canon is working on succesors of the 1Dx and 5DIII.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > 810 doesn't just approach the 5d3, in tech, it pulls out and passes it and flips the bird at it on the way by.
> ...



Everything I have read from people who have tested says the opposite - what do you build this claim on?


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 29, 2014)

ramonjsantiago said:


> D800 -> D810
> 
> The 5dm3 is looking really old.



D70 looked very bad against a 350D! After 5 sample shoots (in 2005) with each camera I decided to go with Canon. Colors of the Nikon were greenish and unnatural. Sharpness of the Nikon was good but "texture fidelity" was bad: Nothing looked like the real objects surfaces/textures - a very subtle difference but very annoying. Both were equipped with its kit lenses: Nikons lens hat vast distortions and mustache style while the Canon had strong distortions but was much better in comparison.
I gone with the 20D and the EF 2.8 60 which showed a vast improvement in image quality just against the 350D and its kit lens.
In 2005 Nikon was 2 generations behind Canon. In 2010 I think both have been on a similar level. Now Nikon is ahead in sheer IQ at low ISOs but I think that will change in the next 2 or 3 years.

Now I have some pain to decide where to go but I am shure I just cannot exploit the potential of my 40D or 600D or EOS M ... so I will work with these "simple" but very reliable tools until I decide for a new body.


----------



## FEBS (Aug 29, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



From practical experience in our photo club. The D810 has mainly added a group compared to the D800. The group consists of 5 points. That group is called on Canon Point expansion with 4 points. Canon has more AF modes and most important the possibility to easily place 6 different working modes on top of that. Canon prepared 6 templates which you can easily adapt as a user to get the required behavior and the possibility to switch easily between those templates. The accuracy of the 5D3 is really top of the AF system. Ai-servo is really great on that camera. The 1Dx is even marginal better. The Nikon D810 does not reach that level.

This all is NOT from reading but from practice !!!


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 29, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I bought a D800 after reading the hype. It was a waste of money, I sold it and bought a 5D MK III. The D800 appeals to armchair spec readers, but few that actually use one are happy. It is very good for landscape at ISO 100, but as a all-around camera, the 5D MK III is better.



I agree. Two years ago my wife tested a D800 for her Nikon gear thoroughly against my 5D3 and was quite disappointed, in particular with the D800's out-of-camera colors. She's a true photographer and only interested in a camera's real life output. The 5D3 proofed to deliver in practice (!!) just with auto settings much more natural colors with different ambient light sources. The D800's greenish LCD screen made shooting experience even more weird because one couldn't check its color rendition right after the shot, whereas the 5D3's screen really shows you what you got. Plus, the D800 AF response was much less snappy than the 5D3's. So overall the 5D3 proved to be a much better allround package than the D800. 

But the D810 obviously has changed this game. I appreciate this as customer (no fanboy of any brand but I like my Canon glass), because I love to see Nikon and Sony kicking Canon to improve its camera technology. I am pretty sure that Canon will come up with an answer to the D810 next year, if not yet this year at Photokina.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 29, 2014)

daniela said:


> Yes Sir, the D810 is has an better image quality and dynamic range than the 5DIII.


Nope.

It has better dynamic range (if you don't know how to maximise DR in Canon files), but that _does not_ equate to "better image quality", and the 5D Mk III lacks for nothing in terms of overall IQ compared to the Nikon _at the image level_.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 29, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> Everything I have read from people who have tested says the opposite - what do you build this claim on?



That's because you're a Canon-basher with particular skills in selective reading.

Let's see all of these examples _you_ cite.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 29, 2014)

daniela said:


> Yes Sir, the D810 is has an better image quality and dynamic range than the 5DIII. But, as you can read in many postings on this forum, an optical system is more than just the picture sensor. The whole system has to work perfectly together to help you to get an - technically seen - good picture.
> 
> In my family, you can find the D810, D800 (both my husband), 5DIII (my son), 6D &7 D (myself), and A7r (my daughter).
> And each camera has its benefits. My daughter needs a light camera with an good image quality (like my husband does - but he owns several Nikon lenses). My son and I prefer to shoot birds, planes and animals, so we stayed with Canon).
> ...



From my experience of handling Nikon and the newer Canon lenses...is that Canon's lenses are several generations ahead of Nikon. Nikon may make the finest resolving SLR on the planet, but their lenses are not able to match or exceed their sensor tech. Where as with Canon, their lenses are far out resolving their sensors.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 29, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> It has better dynamic range (if you don't know how to maximise DR in Canon files), but that _does not_ equate to "better image quality", and the 5D Mk III lacks for nothing in terms of overall IQ compared to the Nikon _at the image level_.



Agreed. 

How many of these "Is Nikon better?" threads does this forum have to endure? I mean really...is Nikon paying people for this?


----------



## Drum (Aug 29, 2014)

I thought that Sony produced the sensor for the d800/e and d810. So does that mean the op really thinks that SONY is 2 generations ahead of Canon? Nikon's actual contribution to the camera is in no way 2 generations ahead.


----------



## Roo (Aug 29, 2014)

I got back from 2 weeks holiday in the snow last weekend and in that time I shot landscape, night landscape, astrophotography, low light/natural light portraits, product shots, macro, in camera HDR, sports, birds, changed from shooting night skiing to fireworks at the flick of a switch... but the 5D3 is crap and I really wish I had the new generation Nikon :


----------



## Faaier (Aug 29, 2014)

I have a Canon... but popularity doesn't say a lot about the quality. Certainly not in this range of products. For many people having a 5DIII or 810, the weak point is standing behind the camera. We all have to work around the weak points to get the best shot. 

Nikon or Canon are very similar to a religion. You believe it or you don't. Too many equations to compare and to have a well defined result. Every now and then, one will find "the proof that they had been right all along"

We all read the spec which is best for our view and try to reduce the advantage of another spec... If not the AF, it is the handling or the lenses or some off brand firmware ;-) or ... wait and see for the soon to be announced next best thing... to see if you become a better photographer? :

Both cameras are super and certainly not outdated. Even my goood old 50D will not be outdated for some... but to be fair... an upgrade is coming! Talking about two generations...


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 29, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> ramonjsantiago said:
> 
> 
> > D800 -> D810
> ...



must be a damn good vintage...

but i bet its corked :-[


----------



## quod (Aug 29, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > It has better dynamic range (if you don't know how to maximise DR in Canon files), but that _does not_ equate to "better image quality", and the 5D Mk III lacks for nothing in terms of overall IQ compared to the Nikon _at the image level_.
> ...


How much is Canon paying _you_ to suffer and defend the brand? If the threads bug you, don't read them. Better yet, go out and take some shots. As far as I can tell, the D810 is a Nikon-version of the 5D3, but with a _substantially_ better sensor. It's natural that people want more oomph out of their cameras and its natural for them to look at competing brands for validation of their choices. Seriously, go out and take shots.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 29, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> How many of these "Is Nikon better?" threads does this forum have to endure? I mean really...is Nikon paying people for this?



As many as it takes for certain people to convince us that their specific needs/desires represent a large, commercially important segment of the market, and that Canon should cater to their needs.

So far, jrista has made the only reasonable arguments in favor of the D8xx cameras, and even he admits that only some of his photography would clearly benefit from it (high DR landscape).


----------



## SwampYankee (Aug 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Put another way, it took Nikon two generations to come up with a camera that approaches the 5DIII in overall utility...and I bet the 5DIII outsells the D810 just as it did the D800/E.
> 
> Same thing one step up – it took Nikon until the D4s to approach the 1D X.


Errrrrrr I don't think we are talking sales figures here but camera technology. Precisely where does the D810 not exceed a Canon 5DIII? Nikon D810 exceeds the 5DIII in any reasonable comparison. In quality of the sensor it absolutely trounces the Canon. lets not distract the conversation with lens line or spots on the D600 sensor and stick to the comparison between the 5DIII and the D810 bodies. The 5DIII "approaches" the D810 in some respects...but exceeds it in none. BTW I own and love the 5DIII but it is outclassed by the newer D810. Yes, Canon is 2 generations behind, at least on sensors and it doesn't look like that is going to change anytime soon


----------



## sega62 (Aug 29, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> For what it's worth, I bought a Powershot S95 a number of years ago.
> 
> So, that's why I bought the Powershot S95. It was solely intended to keep me occupied until the d800 came out.... and believe me, I waited years for that camera to come out.
> 
> ...





I know how you feel, i also had a powershot the S60
It was a great camera, and pics looks amazing, less pixels on a sensor is always good

Now i own the 6d but would love to get a camera with more focus points, to shoot birds at occasions .

I love Nikon, Fuji, pentax, but Canon has everything in one camera.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 29, 2014)

Eh, not really. Nikons lens selection has been behind canon since the original d30 in its variety, especially in the primes. There are some one off lenses in Nikons land but canon has so many more options. 

Camera bodies are of little importance compared to lenses. Eventually they all go out of date and one company leapfrogs another in tech.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



I base it on a thorough understanding of the specifications of both AF systems. Oh, and actually trying out both cameras one right after the other. Have you done that? Or are you building your counter claim based solely on reading stuff and watching YouTube videos on the Internet?

Perhaps you believe everything on the Internet is authoritative? Take Tony Northrup's YouTube "review"…in his "sports" test, which consisted of a subject walking sedately toward him, he reported a keeper percentage in the low 60s from the 5DIII. What a joke, but I suspect you believed every word.


----------



## Sunnystate (Aug 29, 2014)

Blah, Blah, Blah... so empty just wonder how many times people are changing the personality and start posting again same bs as somebody else... Most interesting thing is that there is nothing really left in those fanboy statements just figure speeches, demagogy and sleek sarcasm! Start posting photographs, videos and charts to show that amazing performance of Canon LOL. Good luck silly people, looks like you have to do the same pathetic defensive propaganda dance for another year or two because its obvious that nothing will change anytime soon.


----------



## Plainsman (Aug 29, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > It has better dynamic range (if you don't know how to maximise DR in Canon files), but that _does not_ equate to "better image quality", and the 5D Mk III lacks for nothing in terms of overall IQ compared to the Nikon _at the image level_.
> ...




You are a sad person - is Canon paying you?


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 29, 2014)

ramonjsantiago said:


> D800 -> D810
> 
> The 5dm3 is looking really old.



Have you ever been to professional sports events? :


----------



## rcarca (Aug 29, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> ramonjsantiago said:
> 
> 
> > D800 -> D810
> ...



+1


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 29, 2014)

ramonjsantiago said:


> D800 -> D810
> 
> The 5dm3 is looking really old.



Although they're in the same general price range, one could argue that the D800/E and 5D3 weren't really competitors. 5D3 is a jack-of-all-trades camera. D800/E are more specialized. D810 and 5D3 on the other hand are competitors, in so far as the D810 is more of a jack-of-all-trades.

But let's assume that, because of the price point, the D800/E and 5D3 were competitors. They both came out in March of 2012; so they're the same generation. Chronologically, canon is one generation behind. However, in that market, I don't believe their goal is to churn out new bodies with high frequency (as opposed to the entry level market where they do). Rather, their goal in the pro/prosumer market is to release bodies which remain viable as long as they're designed to.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 29, 2014)

ramonjsantiago said:


> D800 -> D810
> 
> The 5dm3 is looking really old.


Dear Troll, 

You are correct and your post is a revelation. Apparently the small inferior sensor in my 5DIII is holding me back, not just with photos, but with the ladies as well. I will have to put all of my Canon gear on eBay this afternoon and replace it with the bigger, sexier, and younger D810. I can't believe I ever thought that little sensor in the 5DIII would ever take decent photos. 

Obviously the lenses I'm using, my technique and vision are all meaningless if I'm carrying around anything Canon. How could I possibly capture any good photos with an AA filter and without the vastly superior DR and massive megapixels of the Nikon?

From now on, I promise only to use the Nikon D810 with Nikon's best lenses set to their optimum aperture on a solid tripod with cable release.

Crap, what do I do about the new Sony??? I need to shoot black cats in unlit coal mines and the Nikon is inferior to the Sony. I guess the Nikon is junk and I need to get the Sony. I'm so confused.

Please advise on which I should choose - the Nikon D810 or Sony A7S.

Sincerely,
The Gnome


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Put another way, it took Nikon two generations to come up with a camera that approaches the 5DIII in overall utility...and I bet the 5DIII outsells the D810 just as it did the D800/E.
> ...



I see you also believe that the only important part of the camera is the sensor. 

Ooooh, look at that amazing bird-in-flight shot from the D810...incredible resolution, really wide dynamic range. Sure, it's a bit blurry because the AF couldn't track the subject well enough...and just a little off optimal wing position where maybe a 20% faster frame rate would have helped...but just look at the DR and all those MP. : Camera ≠ sensor. 

As stated earlier, the 5DIII has a faster frame rate and a better AF system, to name two camera technologies where it is superior to the D810. The D810 has better low ISO DR, great if you need it. It has more MP, although with many lenses that doesn't translate to better resolution (and when it does, the difference is much less than the MP differential would suggest). You may view lenses as a 'distraction', but unless you drill a pinhole in your body cap, lenses are necessary.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 29, 2014)

Who gives a rat's hindquarters?


----------



## gbchriste (Aug 29, 2014)

The capabilities of any modern, advanced DSLR, whether Canon or Nikon, usually far outstrip the capabilities of the person using it.


----------



## msm (Aug 29, 2014)

Does the D810 represent a new generation camera? ???


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 29, 2014)

quod said:


> How much is Canon paying _you_ to suffer and defend the brand?



Nothing. But I'll take a 1DX and that new 400 DO ;D



> If the threads bug you, don't read them.



At first they were mildly interesting. But there are...what...a half dozen threads that either started on this topic or were hijacked to this topic? My post was sarcastic, but the more I think about it...



> As far as I can tell, the D810 is a Nikon-version of the 5D3, but with a _substantially_ better sensor.



So much better you might even be able to tell the difference while pixel peeping :


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 29, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> You are a sad person - is Canon paying you?



Nope. That's why I'm sad. I can only get Pentax to pay me.

Say...have you seen their new SLR with all the LED lights? ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 29, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Crap, what do I do about the new Sony??? I need to shoot black cats in unlit coal mines and the Nikon is inferior to the Sony. I guess the Nikon is junk and I need to get the Sony. I'm so confused.
> 
> Please advise on which I should choose - the Nikon D810 or Sony A7S.


I found that the Apple iPad works best for taking pictures of black cats in unlit coal mines... see the attached example and notice how black the black is and how there is no noise or banding....


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 29, 2014)

It is hard to take any of this seriously...

Want to know what I tell people when they ask me what camera to buy? I tell them to figure out how they are going to use it, and then look for the lenses that suit their needs.... and then to worry about the body. I tell them that the lenses are a long term investment that they will be shooting with for decades, and that the camera is an expendable item that will be obsolete in a few years....


----------



## unfocused (Aug 29, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > You are a sad person - is Canon paying you?
> ...



I've seen their video. Makes me want LED lights. 
http://youtu.be/zva6-s8jza8


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 29, 2014)

The sensor in the Nikon D810 is an improved version of the one used in the D800/800E all of which are made by Sony (same sensor as the Sony A7R etc range). Canon make their own sensors and has rightly been said its the "system" thats important not just the camera / sensor. 

The most popular movie camera currently is the Arri Alexa its NOT a 4K camera (its about 2.8K) whereas Red has an Epic 5K & Dragon 6K and Canon, Sony etc make 4K cameras. Not heard anyone complaining at the cinema about films shot with an Alexa.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 29, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Crap, what do I do about the new Sony??? I need to shoot black cats in unlit coal mines and the Nikon is inferior to the Sony. I guess the Nikon is junk and I need to get the Sony. I'm so confused.
> ...


I can't believe you stole my Instagram shot! You'll pay for that . If you had access to the RAW file that I shot with my Sony A8S prototype (oops, just blew my NDA), you would be able to lift those shadows to see the black cats, crows, and even Neuro's unicorn. I was actually over at Stephen Hawking's place last night showing him how I captured the inside of some black holes with the prototype. He said, "Yeah right," so I showed him the camera sensor and he was convinced. Look for our joint article in the next issue of _Nature _


----------



## sanj (Aug 29, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Keith_Reeder said:
> ...


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 29, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Crap, what do I do about the new Sony??? I need to shoot black cats in unlit coal mines and the Nikon is inferior to the Sony. I guess the Nikon is junk and I need to get the Sony. I'm so confused.
> ...



I'm so sad because I photographed a black cat in an unlit coal mine with my Canon, pushed the shadows 9,001 stops, and this was the result. Darn you Canon! Darn you!!!


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 29, 2014)

unfocused said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman said:
> ...



You can hang out with the cool young people by the pool and campfire if you have LED lights.

I wonder where you have to hang out if you have an old noisy Canon sensor?  ;D


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 29, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Crap, what do I do about the new Sony??? I need to shoot black cats in unlit coal mines and the Nikon is inferior to the Sony. I guess the Nikon is junk and I need to get the Sony. I'm so confused.
> ...



Think I just peed myself reading that one....

It's funny, Matt Granger (That Nikon Guy) has been out the last two weeks doing shoots on his new D810.... and a Ziess Otis 55. Why? Cuz Nikon glass ain't all that spectacular. It's great that they can buy Sony sensors and put them in Nikon boxes with inferior to Canon AF systems. At least they make their own glass well... Nevermind, you have to go buy Sigma or Ziess glass to make that sensor work right. Dang it. 

Canon's glass is ahead of it's bodies, which is precisely what you want. Nikon is the other way around, which ain't so hot. People upgrade bodies more often than glass I suspect. In that regard I think Canon is much more future proof, however I am a new Sigma glass fan, and that crew is really sitting in the catbird seat right now with lenses.


----------



## sanj (Aug 29, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > ramonjsantiago said:
> ...



I have no experience with the D series but "but I bet it is corked" made me smile! Good one...


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 29, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Big deal. The A9S will let you push shadows to the point of resolving separate quantum realities. If you photograph Schrödinger's cat your RAW converter will let you see him both dead and alive!


----------



## David Hull (Aug 29, 2014)

What si with this rash of troll posts all of the sudden?


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 29, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


Dammit Sony told me I had the latest prototype, but I guess that was 2 days ago. At the pace they release new bodies, and ahem, new lens systems, it's no surprise.

P.S. Nice one!


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 29, 2014)

David Hull said:


> What si with this rash of troll posts all of the sudden?


Canon Envy from finding out that their new D810 & A7S cameras _ain't all that_


----------



## Straightshooter (Aug 29, 2014)

*Gearheads are cool!!!* 8)


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I see you also believe that the only important part of the camera is the sensor.
> 
> Ooooh, look at that amazing bird-in-flight shot from the D810...incredible resolution, really wide dynamic range. Sure, it's a bit blurry because the AF couldn't track the subject well enough...and just a little off optimal wing position where maybe a 20% faster frame rate would have helped...but just look at the DR and all those MP. : Camera ≠ sensor.
> 
> As stated earlier, the 5DIII has a faster frame rate and a better AF system, to name two camera technologies where it is superior to the D810. The D810 has better low ISO DR, great if you need it. It has more MP, although with many lenses that doesn't translate to better resolution (and when it does, the difference is much less than the MP differential would suggest). You may view lenses as a 'distraction', but unless you drill a pinhole in your body cap, lenses are necessary.



I see John, you're doing that thing again, where you state the complete lack of experience you have as facts.

Let's deal in some actual facts then shall we, or at least observed experience with said kit.

You know who I am despite the name change. I've owned the Mk1, Mk2, Mk3, the D800, and for the last month, the D810.

The Mk3 had a minor AF advantage over the D800. If I was shooting sports or birds, I'd have given the Mk3 the edge for sure.

I don't, so I went with the D800 for the last 2 years and sold the Mk3. The annoyances with the D800 were not a problem for what I mostly shoot, but IQ was my main concern and the D800 had it.

I can work around almost anything except problematic IQ.

So, to the D810, which has the D4s focus system.

Are you seriously telling me you've tried it John? You seem so confident in what you say, and that famous sarcasm is carping back in.

Did I not beat that out of you and try to bring you're more intelligent side to the fore more often? Do I need to try again?

The D810 has everything the D800 had, and everything the Mk3 has and a bit more.

You will not be missing shots on a D810 that you would get on a Mk3, Rather the other way round.

Maybe the Mk4 will trounce the D810. Great if it does, because i need Nikon to be pushed to make the D820 better, and they haven't really been pushed very hard since the D4 and D800 were released it has to be said.

And this 'Canon lenses are better than Nikons' fairytale that is spoken like it's fact round here?

What the hell is that about?

85mm? Nikon 1.4 and 1.8 are more modern and better than the Canon equivalents which were released sometime during the 2nd word war it seems.

The 851.2 L is great, but heavy and unless you really really need 1.2, it only exists for wank value, something anyone with more money than brains will laud over everyone else.

Yes, I've used one extensively. Shame phase focus can't really nail the accuracy that F1.2 desperately needs very much, making it a slow job to actually use it and get it in focus, and if you're not at 1.2 the F1.4 is sharper anyway through 1.8-4. 

F1.2 is great if you use manual focus or live view though, but does make it kinda specialist. Who needs just one eyelash in focus really? 

I'm sure knife edge DOF is someone's passion but it's not most peoples. Is it really better than the 1.4? A third of a stop?

I doubt it on here when 2-3 stops of DR is not desired by anyone it seems.

Same with the 50mm range, except who'd get either a Nikon or a Canon when the Sigma 50m Art is so amazing?

The 50mm game is over now. Sigma has it by a country mile. The first lens ever I just don't want to take off.

Only someone with a logo fetish would not go that way. Yes, I know Sigmas are a problem with autofocus on Canons, but on Nikons, they are as accurate as any of my many Nikons are.

The 35mm Art wasn't perfect with autofocus, but then those nice Sigma people upgraded it's firmware, and now it's perfect. Awesome.

Nikon 14-24 F2.8? Stunning lens that Canon has no answer for. Maybe Sigma will soon and level the playing field?

24-70 F2.8? Nikon's isn't great it has to be said, in fact, I won't use it, and it sits in my bag wasting space.

it's about as good as the Canon V1, maybe a tad softer at the edges, but Canon's V2 is far better and I'd like that on my D810. 

The Tamron is better than all except the Canon V2 anyway, so for a grand, that's the one I'd go for if I wasn't a fan of primes.

70-200 F2.8? About the same, although I do think imho, that Canon's IS is superior. I guess by a stop or maybe even 2.

Wide Primes? I'm not a big user so won't offer an opinion. My 14-24 fulfils all my wide needs, so I look no further.

That lens is so good it makes me wish I shot more wide shots but I don't so it gets used less than it deserves.

My point is that this assumption that Canon lenses are superior is uninformed at best and delusional logo fandom at worst.

It's actually complicated, and depends on where your usage is. 

For me, my 14-24, 35mm Sigma Art, 50mm Sigma Art, 85 F1.8G, 70-200 F2.8VR2, 60mm 2.8G Macro covers MY needs, Canon don't make better lenses in those ranges. 

They may in some cases equal them, but not better them.

How hard is it to get balance on this forum? It's like a kindergarten most of the time, with total rubbish thrown around as absolute fact.

And that's for both sides of the fence, but being a Canon site, the fawning over that Canon logo is quite sad at times., but then so is the Nikon fanboys.

Facts people. Or at least informed opinion.

Canon have so many old lenses, and no one talks about that. All their 50mm are ancient, their 85mm's are getting long in the tooth, and many of their L lenses are not nearly worthy of the L, when cheaper Tamrons and Sigmas match or exceed their performance.

The 17-40 F4? I hated that lens and all it's issues for the 5 years I had it, and that was on 21 meg, let alone what it would look like on 36 meg with no OLPF.

How old is that L lens exactly? 8 years? 10? I got mine in 2007, and it wasn't a new lens even then.

Ditto the 24-105. Distortion, CA, soft at the edges, it has the lot, although it's IS is pretty great.

Well, I'm sure it's time for you all to tear me a new arse as you are duty bound to do, but before you do, how many have used all these lenses and cameras for paying work?

I imagine it's not many, but I am one of them.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Aug 29, 2014)

ramonjsantiago said:


> D800 -> D810
> 
> The 5dm3 is looking really old.



What????? ok, I know you're not supposed to feed the trolls but... the d810 is barely an upgrade, it's meant to fix bugs in the d800 and d800e. The d900 isn't out and about. While I have heard that many nikonians are very pleased with the d810, it is forcing lots of d800 users to sell and upgrade (at a premium mind you - $3300!). With that said...it's the same generation of body as the 5d3, 1dx and the 6d. 

2 generations behind???? Only if you have a serious case of DRenvy


----------



## unfocused (Aug 29, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> Well, I'm sure it's time for you all to tear me a new arse as you are duty bound to do, but before you do, how many have used all these lenses and cameras for paying work?



Let me be the first.

Actually, not really. First, I give extra points to anyone who actually has to earn a living in photography who participates on this forum. I'm not sure why they bother, but I appreciate that.

As for me, I never have and never will criticize Nikon. It is a great system and I frankly don't see a lot of point in dwelling on the small differences. Some people prefer Nikon, some people prefer Canon. Everyone has their reasons and that's fine with me. 

Sony is also fine, but I do believe that people take a bigger risk investing in Sony lenses. I am willing to bet thousands of dollars that Canon will be around for the rest of my life. (In fact, that is what I have done by buying a lot of their lenses). I'd be willing to take that same bet with Nikon. But, I'm old enough to have seen most of the other camera manufacturers come and go to not feel comfortable investing in Sony lenses. That's just me.

I like Canon. That's why I buy Canon. I don't understand people who would buy equipment they don't like. Yet this forum (not you, whomever you are) is filled with people who have bought Canon equipment (or so they claim) and seem so caught up in having the newest technology that they are incapable of enjoying what they have out of fear that the next release by some competitor might be marginally superior in some way.

I think anyone with half a brain and a bit of honesty must admit that for 99% of photographers under 99% of shooting conditions, the cheapest Nikon or Canon DSLR will product results indistinguishable from the flagship full frame model of either manufacturer. Perhaps you are in the 1% and shoot in the 1% of conditions where that is not true. Congratulations to you. 

I won't speak for Neuro. But, I think a lot of the people on this forum grow frustrated with commentary that dwells on insignificant differences. In the past several days we've had pages and pages of commentary about how terrible Canon is because you can't shoot straight into a setting sun and have leaves that are in shadow come out properly exposed. Well...boo...hoo. 

This particular topic was clearly started with the sole intent of generating anger and frustration from forum participants. And, unfortunately the original poster has gotten exactly what he wanted. 

The ongoing commentary on this forum has become particularly ridiculous of late and for me that was underscored because I happened to attend a Scott Kelby seminar earlier in the week. I am sure there will be those who rush to criticize Kelby, but the fact is, the guy is a damn good photographer.

A sizable portion of his commentary was spent on making the point time and time again that equipment is the least important part of photography. He not only says that, but demonstrates it time and time again. He showed incredible images shot with lenses that no one on this forum would dare admit to using out of fear of being massacred because "that lens is a piece of crap."

So, from my perspective, if you find Nikon better for your purposes, that is great. I honestly don't care.


----------



## daniela (Aug 29, 2014)

Hey, Guys!

Come on, please!
Please do not bash each other! There is no need of to do this.
Objective arguments are better than bashing each other for his opinion. 

There are many different opinions, many "truth". Read 5 photomagazines and you read 5 different test results.
(Example: In a lot of German magazines the D800/D810 is superior in IQ than the 5D3). If someone writes an personal message to me, I can copy the test results.)

But please be tolerant to other opinions. Fanatism has many different faces. There is to much - fatal - intolerance in the world. 

Thank you


----------



## Diko (Aug 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Put another way, it took Nikon two generations to come up with a camera that approaches the 5DIII in overall utility...and I bet the 5DIII outsells the D810 just as it did the D800/E.
> 
> Same thing one step up – it took Nikon until the D4s to approach the 1D X.



That said I really hope that we will see the next generation sensors or similiar. Although I have to admit that the Dual AF is quite a tech already.



daniela said:


> ....In my family, you can find the D810, D800 (both my husband), 5DIII (my son), 6D &7 D (myself), and A7r (my daughter).


 Quite the family you know ;-)



Faaier said:


> .....Nikon or Canon are very similar to a religion. You believe it or you don't. ....




My religion is called *Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 APO-Distagon*


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 29, 2014)

Well if you want a real world comparison, as part of our digital imaging company we've just been working with company who has had its products shot by a guy using a D4s, and I can assure you that the files from the humble 6D are _substantially_ better. No doubt some on here will question why a D8xx wasn't being used, but that's the reality of - well, reality.

Funny how we never hear of the D600/ 610 isn't it.


----------



## daniela (Aug 29, 2014)

Diko said:


> ee the next generation sensors or similiar. Although I have to admit that the Dual AF is quite a tech already.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Please explain, my English is not very good.
My husband is an Nikon fetishist, my daughter´s boyfriend works for Sony.... And MY father bought Canon. I took my first shot with an F-1, back in 1973 at an age of 9. My father gave me all his lenses and cameras, so I stayed with Canon.


----------



## daniela (Aug 29, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Well if you want a real world comparison, as part of our digital imaging company we've just been working with company who has had its products shot by a guy using a D4s, and I can assure you that the files from the humble 6D are _substantially_ better. No doubt some on here will question why a D8xx wasn't being used, but that's the reality of - well, reality.
> 
> Funny how we never hear of the D600/ 610 isn't it.


The 600 was an excellent camera. My husband took a lot of shots with it, but then the stain problem appeared and he switched to the D800 as an special offer from our local camera store as Nikon did not know what to do in the frist few weeks.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Aug 29, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> 85mm? Nikon 1.4 and 1.8 are more modern and better than the Canon equivalents which were released sometime during the 2nd word war it seems.
> 
> The 851.2 L is great, but heavy and unless you really really need 1.2, it only exists for wank value, something anyone with more money than brains will laud over everyone else.
> 
> Yes, I've used one extensively. Shame phase focus can't really nail the accuracy that F1.2 desperately needs very much, making it a slow job to actually use it and get it in focus, and if you're not at 1.2 the F1.4 is sharper anyway through 1.8-4.




You've not really used one, have you? I mean, seriously used one. Because I've been amazed at how dead-on accurate the focus is. Even on the first generation 5D, it was pretty good. But with the Mk III, the hit rate is excellent. You just have to know what you're doing to get the most out of it. And it's quite sharp wide open.

I'd be happy if Canon offered one at f/1.4, but with the f/1.2, they offer a lens that nobody else does. That's kind of Canon's thing, offering more options than the competition. 

I'd have sold mine were it not a reliable AF lens. As it is, it's going nowhere. It's a key lens in my ultra-low light kit.



jakeymate said:


> 70-200 F2.8? About the same, although I do think imho, that Canon's IS is superior. I guess by a stop or maybe even 2.



Did you forget about that lens' infamous focus breathing, where at minimum focus distance, it has the same FOV as a 135mm lens? The Canon doesn't suffer from this. Canon is known for its teles, and this one is still king of the hill.



jakeymate said:


> Wide Primes? I'm not a big user so won't offer an opinion. My 14-24 fulfils all my wide needs, so I look no further.



The Canon 24mm f/1.4 is another cornerstone in my ultra-low light kit. Like the 85, it nails focus, and looks great even wide open. 




jakeymate said:


> My point is that this assumption that Canon lenses are superior is uninformed at best and delusional logo fandom at worst.
> 
> It's actually complicated, and depends on where your usage is.



There's truth to this, but Canon seems to be catching up on its weaknesses much faster than Nikon is. The 16-35 (I think?) f/4 IS STM is getting superb reviews, for example. It's about time Canon addressed the ultrawide zoom weaknesses, and it seems they are.

They also offer more specialty lenses, such as the 17mm TS-E.



jakeymate said:


> For me, my 14-24, 35mm Sigma Art, 50mm Sigma Art, 85 F1.8G, 70-200 F2.8VR2, 60mm 2.8G Macro covers MY needs, Canon don't make better lenses in those ranges.



The Canon 70-200 really is better. 



jakeymate said:


> Canon have so many old lenses, and no one talks about that. All their 50mm are ancient, their 85mm's are getting long in the tooth, and many of their L lenses are not nearly worthy of the L, when cheaper Tamrons and Sigmas match or exceed their performance.



The 50mm f/1.2 is ancient? 



jakeymate said:


> The 17-40 F4? I hated that lens and all it's issues for the 5 years I had it, and that was on 21 meg, let alone what it would look like on 36 meg with no OLPF.



It's the "bargain L," and it's on its way out. It was really designed for the 10D, with its sharpness high on the APS area of the image circle, but not so much in the corners. But it's lightweight and a good performer for the price. Not the best in its class, but the newer lenses are getting there.



jakeymate said:


> Ditto the 24-105. Distortion, CA, soft at the edges, it has the lot, although it's IS is pretty great.



That's the most-used lens in my bag. Distortion is my only complaint about it; it's pretty heavy. But it's quite a sharp lens, and it has an extremely useful range. I could just about shoot a wedding with just this lens. And it's superb on my IR-converted Mk II, as is my 17-40. Those two make a great two-lens kit. 



jakeymate said:


> Well, I'm sure it's time for you all to tear me a new arse as you are duty bound to do, but before you do, how many have used all these lenses and cameras for paying work?
> 
> I imagine it's not many, but I am one of them.



All of them? No. Most of them? Yes. I think the original point was about the breadth of the available high quality lenses, as well as the performance.


----------



## xps (Aug 29, 2014)

unfocused said:


> jakeymate said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I'm sure it's time for you all to tear me a new arse as you are duty bound to do, but before you do, how many have used all these lenses and cameras for paying work?
> ...



+1

It is not always the technique that helps to shoot an good picture. The lesser your knowledge is, the more you need the technology to help you. If you are experienced, you can go to its limits. In other situations the technology allows to shoot things that you will not be able to do without the cams features.

My wishes for the future of CR forum will be:
- A collumn, where YOU experienced photographers can tell us how you shot an good picture. Not only the Camera settings, but all of the things you needed to get this shot and where you placed it.... And your intention why 
- A column where we all can post favourite menue-presets for each camera and situation. THAT would be an great help for newbies. Or good lens/Cam combinatiuons. Or good presets you use when you shoot in an special situation.


p.s.: Many of us are a unsatisfied, because we want to see an marvellous camera (an goldenegglayingwollmilksaw) for an moderate price. And an fast upgrade time like the rebels have. 
But: This brand is not like the computertechnology or telephone brand , where each 2 years the performance doubles.


----------



## xps (Aug 29, 2014)

Diko said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Put another way, it took Nikon two generations to come up with a camera that approaches the 5DIII in overall utility...and I bet the 5DIII outsells the D810 just as it did the D800/E.
> ...



Mine my new Apo SonnarT ZE 135mm 2.0 )))

Edit: But if this lens will make my shots better, I don´t know


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 29, 2014)

daniela said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Well if you want a real world comparison, as part of our digital imaging company we've just been working with company who has had its products shot by a guy using a D4s, and I can assure you that the files from the humble 6D are _substantially_ better. No doubt some on here will question why a D8xx wasn't being used, but that's the reality of - well, reality.
> ...



Good to have another person on CR who has real world experience of the front runners in the race


----------



## daniela (Aug 29, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> daniela said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



My husband liked the D600. This Camera was really great. I took a lot of great pics of my children and landscapes with it too. 
The early handling of the stain issue was not one of Nikons greatest moments. My husband was very angry about the blaming letters he received from Nikons service center. So he was glad to get an offer to exchange the D600 for a few hundred Euros to an D800


----------



## Diko (Aug 29, 2014)

daniela said:


> Diko said:
> 
> 
> > ee the next generation sensors or similiar. Although I have to admit that the Dual AF is quite a tech already.
> ...



_*Deine Familie ist etwas ungewoenlich. Das gefealt mir.*_  

You all are photographers? 

Because forums like this one need people like you that have a quite close experience with different DSLR brands. 

You from all users here have a broader look on different systems with different people. Especially if they are family members.

It's one thing to have a NIKON friend that you see 3-4 times a month and quite the opposite to have SONY, NIKON, CANON _under the same roof_.... literally.


----------



## daniela (Aug 29, 2014)

Diko said:


> daniela said:
> 
> 
> > Diko said:
> ...



I understand ))))
Not only in photography, we differ a little bit ;-). I met my husband when I nearly bashed his new Nikon F20 (I think this was the name of it) back in 1985 at an party . 
My husband is using Apple computers for almost as long as I know him. I prefer an PC. 
My son likes Linux as he studies infromatics and physics....


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 29, 2014)

I'm still waiting for the *Nikon D400*  The Canon 70D is *at least two generations better* than the Nikon D300s


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Aug 29, 2014)

*Is this going anywhere?*

This is pretty ridiculous. Who even really cares about which camera has the current technological edge. I'll wager money that I can give my father's old (a decade old or so) Konica Minolta 5D with the kit lens to a top notch photographer and he'll wipe the floor with some hobbyist with either a 5D3 or d810 who spends more time worrying about whether his camera is the technological best (has the best sensor, or the most dynamic range, etc.) than time getting out there taking photographs.


----------



## David Hull (Aug 29, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> It is hard to take any of this seriously...
> 
> Want to know what I tell people when they ask me what camera to buy? I tell them to figure out how they are going to use it, and then look for the lenses that suit their needs.... and then to worry about the body. I tell them that the lenses are a long term investment that they will be shooting with for decades, and that the camera is an expendable item that will be obsolete in a few years....


Don't try to bring logic where it clearly doesn't belong.


----------



## Vgramatikov (Aug 29, 2014)

Hello.
www.500px.com/Vgramatikov

This is a joke or what?
Canon is not two generations behind Nikon and i will explain why.

Lets start with the main advantage for Canon.
- Lenses 
Canon have mostly better and more lens in their EF line than Nikon in their FX line.
Just compare some of them:
16-35/4 IS, 24-70/4 IS, 24-105/4 IS, 70-200 4L,70-200 4L IS, 70-200 2.8L, 70-200 2.8 L IS II
35/2 IS, 35 1.4 ,35/2
50 1.4 USM, 85 1.8 USM, 100 2.0 USM
135/2 USM
100 2.8 USM, 100 2.8 L USM IS

i don`t want to speak of IS mk1 and IS mk2 super telephoto lenses. ))

Seems here Nikon is still have a lot more work to do to compete with this much of them better, cheaper lenses and all this you can find eazy second hand for good price!

Lets speak for other features and history of lenses.
Canon have their own USM designs of many lens way way before Nikon.
Some of them even are not available for Nikon like 100/2 USM and 135/2 USM.

Canon unveiled STM lenses for video and smoother af. Where is the Nikon here??? They just unveiled their AF-s versions of many lenses before 2-3 years. And much of them are much worse than than canon optics.
Just compare old 24-105/4 L with Nikon 24-120/4 AF-s ...fatal error.

Enough for lenses.

Lets check the cameras.

I will skip the entry levels DSLR`s
We all know that 7d is already better camera than old but good d300s. ( i was owned both)
60d was more balanced than d5100 and 7d was better camera than d7000.
Yes Nikon have now d7100 with 6fps and 6 RAW buffer... one big joke on the field.
Do let finish with the crop sensor cameras because 7d ii is coming. (and 7d is still better from d7100)
I have 70d now because my 7d was dropped in the water.

lets check the FF cameras.
For the entry d610 is somehow better overall than 6d. But in practice ( i have 6d) they are not much different.
But here may be point for Nikon for better value. But they messed up a lot with dust/oil sports with d600.

The major improvement in Nikon is d800/E, d810 cameras. Here canon can not compete like value and performance.

Nikon now will announce d750. Like a answer for 3 years old 5d3.

And the end i will say that d4s was introduced because 1dx was better than d4.

Let`s speak about technology.
Nikon have better Sony sensors than Canon for sure. But better for me usually means better for 100-800 iso and DR department. Nothing really more but still very important for some photographers.

Canon have unique Dual Pixel AF in live view. I own 70d and this working great!
With the STM lens combination is really a unique advantage for may types of photography.
I can use mu 70d almost like mirrorless camera for slow moving subjects, when i`m shooting stock and so one.

Nikon are behind with video capabilities and wi-fi interpretations. Their model usually get the wi-fi one generation behind Canon.

So...with one word. Nikon have d800/d810 but Canon just make everything other usually better and much earlier. 

So the main disadvantage for Canon is sensor tech. But still there are not big difference when we are on the field.


----------



## dank (Aug 29, 2014)

David Hull said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > It is hard to take any of this seriously...
> ...



Though for new SLR shooters, I emphasize the question of ergonomics and weight.


----------



## SwampYankee (Aug 29, 2014)

Vgramatikov said:


> Hello.
> www.500px.com/Vgramatikov
> 
> This is a joke or what?
> ...



Just what I predicted. Canon is better because they have better lenses and the Nikon D600 had spots on the sensor. I predicted this fanboy answer this morning. Nikon has excellent lenses. Sigma & Zeiss have better lenses that either one. The Nikon D810 is better than the Canon 5DIII in every respect. The sensor is 2 generations better. Canon is rolling out their newest offering...at 20MPX a full 4 MPX less that what Nikon offered last year and has inferior low light performance if it is the 70D sensor. Lets look at each companys best sensor offering and the Nikon D810 is years ahead of Canon. But keep telling yourself the lenses are better when any subjective lens test site says otherwise. BTW, I own a 5DIII and am thrilled with it. It's just not as good as the Nikon D10


----------



## Daniel 78d (Aug 29, 2014)

ramonjsantiago said:


> D800 -> D810
> 
> The 5dm3 is looking really old.



You have officially made it to the wrong site


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 29, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> Vgramatikov said:
> 
> 
> > Hello.
> ...


Right because canon has

Better T&S lenses
Better standard zooms
Better macros
Better super teles
Better wide aperture primes.
Better integration with its eos system, non screw drive body issues.
Better Flash system.
Better AF system.
Better resale value.
Canons can mount nikkors but not vice verse.
Canons can mount just about any lens due to its large design.

third party's don't count, they make lenses for both systems.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> The Nikon D810 is better than the Canon 5DIII in every respect.



That's the second time you've made that ridiculous claim. Let's start with some really, really simple questions. 


How is the D810's 5 frames per second better than the 5DIII's 6 frames per second?
How are the D810's 15 cross-type AF points better than the 5DIII's 41 cross-type AF points?
How are the D810's zero f/2.8-sensitive AF points better than the 5DIII's five f/2.8-sensitive AF points?

I look forward to your explanations...you _can_ back up your claim, right??


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Aug 30, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> SwampYankee said:
> 
> 
> > Vgramatikov said:
> ...



I didn't know about the Canon being able to take Nikon but not the other way around until after I bought my 5D3. It just tickled me even more at a time when I was already so happy with my camera. Both companies make excellent lenses, and each company has an advantage over the other in some regard. For example, the Nikon 14-24 UWA/WA zoom and the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II USM zoom. Being able to use them both is great.


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> SwampYankee said:
> 
> 
> > The Nikon D810 is better than the Canon 5DIII in every respect.
> ...



I was going to post something similar but I'll just add that if you need AF tracking in portrait orientation then the 5D3 is significantly superior as no Nikon camera has any cross-type points away from the center of the frame. I haven't had a chance to test a D810, but I know this is still true for the D4s so it's probably true for the D810 as well. That said, the new D4s/D810 AF is a pretty noticeable improvement and has definitely narrowed the gap as long as you can keep the subject in the center of the frame.


----------



## jrista (Aug 30, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> The Nikon D810 is better than the Canon 5DIII in every respect. The sensor is 2 generations better.



You have that backwards. The D810 is better than the Canon in ONE KEY respect. The sensor IS 2 generations better. The D810 might have a better meter as well, however for what that better sensor is most often used for, I wouldn't say the meter maters much.

However, in every other respect, the 5D III is still the superior camera, with a better AF system, higher frame rate, quieter shutter and mirror slap, etc. It is also accompanied by a better ecosystem, including all the various kinds of lenses, some very unique lenses (i.e. MP-E 65mm 1-5x Zoom Macro, 17mm TS-E, 200-400 w/ integrated TC, etc.), and a whole host of top of the line accessories, including the phenomenal RT flash system. 

The D810 *closed the gap* that existed between the 5D III and the D800, and it does have the superior sensor...but that is a different thing than the D810 somehow being superior in every respect. The D810 still suffers from Nikon's manufacturing issues...even it has a problem with sensor spots (only this time they are white spots, instead of black oil and dust spots.)

I'm all for more DR, but the sensor alone still doesn't make the camera, or the ecosystem, better.


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 30, 2014)

jrista said:


> However, in every other respect, the 5D III is still the superior camera, with a better AF system, higher frame rate, *quieter shutter and mirror slap*, etc. It is also accompanied by a better ecosystem, including all the various kinds of lenses, some very unique lenses (i.e. MP-E 65mm 1-5x Zoom Macro, 17mm TS-E, 200-400 w/ integrated TC, etc.), and a whole host of top of the line accessories, including the phenomenal RT flash system.



I can swear I read somewhere that the D810 silent shutter mode is actually a couple dB better than the 5D3 version.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> [...the new D4s/D810 AF is a preetty noticeable improvement and has definitely narrowed the gap as long as you can keep the subject in the center of the frame.



Well, as I stated, I wanted to start simple. 

But...you make a good point. As we all know, putting the subject in the center of the frame always makes for the strongest, most compelling images.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 30, 2014)

*Re: Is this going anywhere?*



Mitch.Conner said:


> This is pretty ridiculous. Who even really cares about which camera has the current technological edge. I'll wager money that I can give my father's old (a decade old or so) Konica Minolta 5D with the kit lens to a top notch photographer and he'll wipe the floor with some hobbyist with either a 5D3 or d810 who spends more time worrying about whether his camera is the technological best (has the best sensor, or the most dynamic range, etc.) than time getting out there taking photographs.



*The Phoblographer* agrees with you. *No One is Making a Bad Camera, You’re Just a Bad Photographer* http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/08/09/one-making-bad-camera-youre-just-bad-photographer/

*"... if you don’t have the vision, creativity, and the know-how when it comes to working with a scene and creating something then there is a strong chance that you’re going to be creating useless garbage."*


----------



## NancyP (Aug 30, 2014)

What C.D. said ;D


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, as I stated, I wanted to start simple.
> 
> But...you make a good point. As we all know, putting the subject in the center of the frame always makes for the strongest, most compelling images.



Ah, the sarcasm is still there ;D

Have you used one John? Tell you what, go actually use one.

Just to dispel a coupe of inaccuracies I've seen so far.

The D810's shutter is quieter than the Mk3. The D800's clunker shutter wasn't of course, but the D810's is. It's very quiet.

The frame rate that John keep banging on about?

Well, Nikon's 36 megapixel, non OLPF 64 ISO studio camera can 'only do 5fps', in 36 meg mode and the 22 meg Mk3 can do 6FPS. That is true, but not the whole story if FPS is what you need.

Anyone who wants real machine gun FPS would clearly go for the D4s, but the D810 has a pipeline limitation with it's 36 meg.

It looks like the rumoured D750 will fill that gap, and deliver a higher FPS 24 meg FF.

That means Nikon will have the D610, the D750, the D810 and the D4s.

The real Mk3 equivalent is not the D810, and it was never meant to be, which can be seen from no OLPF, 36 meg, high low base DR and a base of 64.

The D750 will be that camera.

The D810 just happens to hold it's own with the Mk3, a camera that it wasn't designed to match. It's philosophy is complete different.

Canon on the other hand don't even have a killer high MP, wide low ISO DR studio/landscape camera.

No one mentions that the D810, really the best studio DSLR you can buy, can also double up as a sports cam and does 6fps in DX mode, delivering a very respectable 16 MP image.

Add the battery grip and that's 7FPS.

So when comparing like for like, let's actually do that shall we? Accuracy, not sarcastic cherry picking would be the better approach if comparisons are going to be made, and it seems they are.

You want a couple of things the Mk3 had that the D810 still doesn't?

Saved settings on the dial. I loved that on my Mk3, and my Gh4, and miss it on my D800/810.

The rate button. Tiny little addition that crept in on the Mk3 but I loved that. Being able to star images while a client was changing for the next setup up was so cool.

2 years later, Nikon still haven't added that, and I'd doubt it's on the D750 either.

Compare like for like, it makes everyone look less like fanboys and more like intelligent adults with no axe to grind.


----------



## 100 (Aug 30, 2014)

Is there a point to this thread other than trying to irritate some Canon lovers? 

Canon is a commercial company so they care about money above all else. Sales and profit. They outsell their competitors and have done so for the last 11 years. Ever since the Nikon D3 came out Canon is behind in the eyes of some gearheads, wanna-be technicians and self-proclaimed scientists. By now Canon should be broke or at least have dropped out of the top 5 camera companies. Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Pentax, Olympus… they all have way better sensor technology. And still Canon is no. 1….

Are all these Canon buying customers stupid? Are they nitwits that were indoctrinated by Canon’s marketing department? Or does Canon provide products that appeal to the wishes of large numbers of customers? 
Just browse through sites like 500px or flickr select 50 recent photo’s you really like and look at the camera’s used to take those photo’s. You can’t take good photo’s with bad sensors, so there shouldn’t be any shots taken with Canon cameras…


----------



## jrista (Aug 30, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > However, in every other respect, the 5D III is still the superior camera, with a better AF system, higher frame rate, *quieter shutter and mirror slap*, etc. It is also accompanied by a better ecosystem, including all the various kinds of lenses, some very unique lenses (i.e. MP-E 65mm 1-5x Zoom Macro, 17mm TS-E, 200-400 w/ integrated TC, etc.), and a whole host of top of the line accessories, including the phenomenal RT flash system.
> ...



That still isn't going to tip the scales. Assuming we can actually discern the difference of a decibel or two at the frequency with which a mirror slaps in a DSLR (human auditory discernment ranges from 0.7dB to 3dB...but it depends on the frequency of the sound as to which end of that range we can actually discern a difference), the 5D III is still a superior CAMERA. It has an inferior sensor...but it's still a superior camera overall.

That could change, for sure. The D820 may finally tip the scales...but I don't think it's happened yet.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 30, 2014)

*munching popcorn* 

Just ordered a EOS M for $250. Got a FD mount converter for 13 bucks too. Bet I can shoot better pics with my 40 year old 50mm 1.4 FD and that EOS M than a Nikon crop sensor... *mmm popcorn*


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 30, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Well, as I stated, I wanted to start simple.
> ...



+1

well said

(I will add one more 5D3 body plus though, video, WITH Magic Lantern, 5D3 ML RAW video utterly blows away D810 video.)


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 30, 2014)

jrista said:


> That still isn't going to tip the scales. Assuming we can actually discern the difference of a decibel or two at the frequency with which a mirror slaps in a DSLR (human auditory discernment ranges from 0.7dB to 3dB...but it depends on the frequency of the sound as to which end of that range we can actually discern a difference), the 5D III is still a superior CAMERA. It has an inferior sensor...but it's still a superior camera overall.
> 
> That could change, for sure. The D820 may finally tip the scales...but I don't think it's happened yet.



I agree, and doubt it really matters given how good the silent shutter on the 5D3 is already. My brother-in-law got married recently and the photographer was using a 5D3 and 6D. I was surprised by how quiet the shutter is when your face isn't pressed to the viewfinder as I'd never been on the business end of a 5D3 before.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 30, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> The annoyances with the D800 were not a problem for what I mostly shoot, but IQ was my main concern and the D800 had it.
> 
> I can work around almost anything except problematic IQ.



There isn't a modern ILC with "problematic IQ." There are some that are slightly better for different tasks, but that's about it. We live in a golden age of photographic technology. We argue over tiny differences that don't matter most of the time, and barely matter even when they do.

That's the cold, hard truth.

I practically went blind studying sample files from the 5D3, A7, and A7R recently. With RAW files enlarged to 36 MP I could barely see any difference while pixel peeping. In print? No. Nor will anyone else unless you label the prints and tell them which has "more" so that their basic psychology comes into play just like in wine tasting. (The jump from 24 to 36 MP sounds like a lot, but is <25% on each axis. You need a jump of 50% or more on each axis to be noticeable. And at the resolutions we're talking about, even then this only happens with extremely fine detail on very large prints.)

As for DR/exposure latitude, for all the debate on this forum there has been exactly ONE test sample shot under identical conditions, the one from Fred Miranda. And if you actually do something crazy like, you know, use the NR sliders in ACR then you end up with slightly better shadows on the Nikon. It's barely evident at 24" and invisible at smaller sizes.

IQ is a wash within a format and even between formats (m43, APS-C, FF) at low ISO unless you pick from the ends of the resolution spectrum (12 vs 36). And even then the lower resolution sensor is still very good, just not able to print as large.

Heck, even the 1" sensors from Sony and Samsung are excellent at low ISO!



> You will not be missing shots on a D810 that you would get on a Mk3, Rather the other way round.



You're not going to miss shots on either unless the 5D3 happens to catch the one frame you want at 6 fps vs. 5 fps, or the D810 at 7 fps in crop mode with the grip. And that's doubtful either way. A 1DX might nail shots you want that these two miss, but 1 extra fps is...1.



> And this 'Canon lenses are better than Nikons' fairytale that is spoken like it's fact round here?



Pretty much every lens manufacturer has excellent, good, and crummy glass. I will say that Canon has the most capacity in terms of design and manufacturing, and they are getting wicked good at producing glass that has excellent IQ and is dirt cheap. But basically you can accomplish anything you could want in Canon or Nikon, and 99% of anything you could want in the other mounts.



> 85mm? Nikon 1.4 and 1.8 are more modern and better than the Canon equivalents which were released sometime during the 2nd word war it seems.



: The 85 f/1.8 is a modern design, fast focusing, with excellent IQ and bokeh. The Nikons seem sharper but have horrendous CA wide open. Meh. There are so many 85mm options now from 3rd parties that it's silly to even debate these.



> I doubt it on here when 2-3 stops of DR is not desired by anyone it seems.



From the ONE test shot sample we've seen so far in...a half dozen?...threads on the topic that shall not die, DR is nearly identical with an edge to the D810 on exposure latitude. Oh my, better sell all my Canon gear :

DxO scoring is used dog food. That and "comparisons" where the tester turns off all NR on the Canon file are what's driving this nonsense.



> Same with the 50mm range, except who'd get either a Nikon or a Canon when the Sigma 50m Art is so amazing?



The Art is sharp, sharp, sharp...but the bokeh can be...odd. I actually like the previous Sigma 50 better and I'm sticking with it. The bokeh is stunning on that one.



> Nikon 14-24 F2.8? Stunning lens that Canon has no answer for.



16-35 f/4 IS. (It took them long enough.) Now let's see an answer for Canon's T/S lenses.



> My point is that this assumption that Canon lenses are superior is uninformed at best and delusional logo fandom at worst.



Kind of like assuming and arguing over and over again that Exmor has 2-3 stops more DR :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> SwampYankee said:
> 
> 
> > The Nikon D810 is better than the Canon 5DIII in every respect.
> ...



Oh, and I hope your answer to that first point won't foolishly invoke the higher frame rate in DX mode, unless you're prepared to also explain how using only 43% of the sensor area is better than using the whole thing.


----------



## Shootitalready (Aug 30, 2014)

Straightshooter said:


> *Gearheads are cool!!!* 8)




That's a bit harsh maybe, but I have to say, many people here are acting like a bunch of ten year olds though.......


----------



## Straightshooter (Aug 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > SwampYankee said:
> ...





*'Neuro'. Please let me know a postal address where I can have flowers delivered when you break the magical 14.000 posts barrier! All your pearls of wisdom have kept me entertained over the years.....* 



PS: hope you are self-employed, cause judging from the hours you usually post, you sure are using up a lot of 'company time' ;D


----------



## jrista (Aug 30, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > That still isn't going to tip the scales. Assuming we can actually discern the difference of a decibel or two at the frequency with which a mirror slaps in a DSLR (human auditory discernment ranges from 0.7dB to 3dB...but it depends on the frequency of the sound as to which end of that range we can actually discern a difference), the 5D III is still a superior CAMERA. It has an inferior sensor...but it's still a superior camera overall.
> ...



Yeah, the shutter/mirror slap on the 5D III is pretty amazing. Even close up, it isn't really loud. It's actually got a somewhat complex sound, a mix of a slap, a thud, and a "clink"...maybe the sounds together help cancel each other out and that's what minimizes noise. Either way, it's MUCH more pleasant than the 7D slap.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 30, 2014)

jrista said:


> Yeah, the shutter/mirror slap on the 5D III is pretty amazing. Even close up, it isn't really loud. It's actually got a somewhat complex sound, a mix of a slap, a thud, and a "clink"...maybe the sounds together help cancel each other out and that's what minimizes noise. Either way, it's MUCH more pleasant than the 7D slap.



.. and far better than the barn-door-in-a-gale whack of the 5d2.


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Oh, and I hope your answer to that first point won't foolishly invoke the higher frame rate in DX mode, unless you're prepared to also explain how using only 43% of the sensor area is better than using the whole thing.



Stating FACTS about the D810 FPS is foolish is it? 

Resolution of Mk3? 5760 × 3840. Resolution of 1DX? 5184 × 3456.

D810 in DX mode? 4800x3200. 

Why isn't DX mode a valid mode John? When you have 36 meg to start with, DX mode is still great when needed.

Th D810 has a way to match the FPS of the Mk3 (you may not find it useful, but it's there to be used for those that do), but no Canon can match the resolution of a D810.

For high FPS applications, a 1.5 reach is usually a good thing (not always), but often.

Now if there was a quality penalty for using DX mode, that would be an issue, but there isn't. In DX mode the D810 still has better image quality than any APC/DX camera.

Try starting a comment with this method.

'What is the neutral perspective here, rather than the Canon fanboy perspective.'


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 30, 2014)

jrista said:


> the 5D III is still a superior CAMERA. It has an inferior sensor...but it's still a superior camera overall.



Why?

I have owned both and I very strongly disagree.

Make a case, not bland sweeping statements.


----------



## jrista (Aug 30, 2014)

Aglet said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, the shutter/mirror slap on the 5D III is pretty amazing. Even close up, it isn't really loud. It's actually got a somewhat complex sound, a mix of a slap, a thud, and a "clink"...maybe the sounds together help cancel each other out and that's what minimizes noise. Either way, it's MUCH more pleasant than the 7D slap.
> ...



LOL, indeed!  

I do kind of like the machine-gun stutter of the 1D X, though. It's loud, scary, and makes people turn heads. ;P


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 30, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> Why?
> 
> I have owned both and I very strongly disagree.
> 
> Make a case, not bland sweeping statements.



I realize this was directed at jrista and neuro, but...5D3 v D800 I would say the 5D3 is the better overall camera by a small margin. 5D3 v D810 is a wash. 

If you have Canon lenses obviously the 5D3 is the superior camera. If you have Nikon lenses the 810 is superior. There is nothing in either that would make me jump brands.


----------



## jrista (Aug 30, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > the 5D III is still a superior CAMERA. It has an inferior sensor...but it's still a superior camera overall.
> ...



LOL, I've written so many deeply detailed statements that make my case that it's beyond ridiculous. I believe I've earned the right not to have to explain it all again. How about providing more yourself, beyond simply:



> "I have owned both and I very strongly disagree."



You strongly disagree....WHY? BESIDES sensor IQ....what makes the D800 or D810 a superior camera overall than the 5D III? What makes the Nikon ECOSYSTEM better than the Canon ecosystem?


----------



## V8Beast (Aug 30, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> From my experience of handling Nikon and the newer Canon lenses...is that Canon's lenses are several generations ahead of Nikon.



Canon's user interface is 20 generations ahead of Nikon ;D

If Nikon built a true successor to the D700, I might have bought it. Interestingly, Canon built the true successor to the D700 in the 5D3, so I bought it instead ;D


----------



## Roo (Aug 30, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> If was a suspicious person I'd say jakeymate was closely related to zigzagzoe, didn't he get banned, twice?



Yeah you're right and he sounds like my brother when he became a born again christian - 'I have found god and I need to preach the good word to you sinners'. ;D 

At the end of it all he's just another fanboy selectively choosing arguments (a rumored D750, add a battery grip to increase frame rate, ignoring AF specifics) to justify his purchase to anyone that wants to listen . And so far not one thing he's said proves the OPs original premise - that the 5Diii is 2 generations behind the D810.


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 30, 2014)

jrista said:


> You strongly disagree....WHY? BESIDES sensor IQ....what makes the D800 or D810 a superior camera overall than the 5D III?



Besides sensor IQ? 

I never said the D810 was superior overall (excluding sensor IQ). I said the Mk3 ISN'T superior overall.

There's a difference.

I'd say the D810 matches the Mk3 in all areas (bar rate button, memories on the dial), but adds the IQ of course, crop modes (when a client needs 5:4 images, crop modes are great), better autofocus on third party lenses (someone did explain to me why focus issues exist on Canon more than Nikon, but I can't remember why).

I've nothing against Canon digitals, I did after all use them for a decade, but these sweeping statements are just sad.

The Mk3 is a better 'overall' camera than the D810?

No, it's not.

What MAY be accurate is saying the Mk3 is a better 'all round' camera than the D800, while not being particularly the best at any one thing.

Best hi ISO? Nope. Best resolution? Nope. Best autofocus? Nope. Best dynamic range? Nope. Best video quality? Nope.

What one thing does the Mk3 do better than any other camera?

Nothing, but it can do everything very well. And that was it's advantage over the D800 for 2 years.

A wedding photographer would have been better off with a Mk3 than a D800 imho. 

A studio based photographer, or a landscape photographer would have been better off with a D800.

Now the D800 has it's minor D810 upgrade, it's finally a great 'all round' camera too, while still holding the DR crown the resolution crown, the crop modes, etc.

I'm making the assumption you've spent time with the D810 to be so sure the Mk3 is still the better overall camera?


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 30, 2014)

Roo said:


> At the end of it all he's just another fanboy selectively choosing arguments (a rumored D750, add a battery grip to increase frame rate, ignoring AF specifics) to justify his purchase to anyone that wants to listen . And so far not one thing he's said proves the OPs original premise - that the 5Diii is 2 generations behind the D810.



Those are just spec facts. I never said ever that the mk3 was two generations behind as the OP postulated, so please don't put words in my mouth.

I simply corrected some very inaccurate statements regarding the cameras in question.

If you want my view, the Mk3 and D810 (minus IQ) are the same gen, now that the D810 has caught the Mk3.

IQ wise the D800 was a gen in front, but the D810 isn't really any different IQ wise (a hair sharper, and 64ISO is a bonus), so I'd ay IQ wise, the Mk3 is still just one gen behind, and could catch up, or pass, with the Mk4 if it arrives in the next 6-12 months, as any successor to the D810 won't be around till 2016.

Is that a fanboy statement or just the general view?


----------



## Richard8971 (Aug 30, 2014)

Both Nikon and Canon are leading edge companies that produce world-class cameras and have their loyal followers.

I shoot Canon and my wife shoots Nikon. It gives me the advantage of getting to play around with her equipment without fear of spending money and regretting it later. She shoots with the D7XXX (D7000/D7100) series and they are amazing cameras that produce outstanding images.

I shoot with the 7D and while the 7D out guns the D7XXX series in many ways, the image quality alone from the Nikons is a very compelling reason to switch. 2 of the biggest reasons why I have not switched are 1) I already have years or use and thousands invested in my equipment, $$$ I will never get back if I try and sell my camera gear and 2) I personally cannot stand the ergonomics of the Nikon bodies that I have tried so far. (I have not used ALL of the Nikon offerings so my thoughts could change if I used say the D810....) I have larger hands and the D7XXX bodies are uncomfortable for me to hold and operate. The Canon prosumer class offerings feel much more comfortable in my hands and feel more solidly built.

Truth be told, they both make outstanding cameras and it's the photographer that makes the shot, not his or her equipment.

D


----------



## justawriter (Aug 30, 2014)

gbchriste said:


> The capabilities of any modern, advanced DSLR, whether Canon or Nikon, usually far outstrip the capabilities of the person using it.


That's true. Often, perhaps even predominantly, the key to best photo isn't IQ, DR, AF, MP, or all the other mechanical variables but is ABV.*

*Asshole Behind Viewfinder


----------



## David Hull (Aug 30, 2014)

dilbert said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


Particularly when they are as stupid and meaningless as they usually end up being.


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 30, 2014)

Hey mackguyver

You caused me to have the same epiphany about my own photographic deficiencies. 

Let me know what you finally decide on, I'll send you a "T" shirt advertising your camera choice. Can't guarantee better pics, but maybe you will do better with the ladies?

(a little levity to lighten the malignant tone of this well worn thread)

sek



mackguyver said:


> ramonjsantiago said:
> 
> 
> > D800 -> D810
> ...


----------



## jrista (Aug 30, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> So little innovation coming out of either company.



I'm not sure I would say that. Canon has been in the top five most innovative companies of decades now. They file some 3000-4000 patents a year these days:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e02480ae93e9

Keep in mind, Canon is a company with a massive presence in "imaging" in general, from general photography and printing to video and cinematography to medical imaging to CMOS fabrication. Canon has been winning awards for being one of the worlds most innovative companies for years. The difference between Canon and Sony's sensor division is that Canon has such a broadly sweeping focus in imaging...where as Sony went so deeply into debt to build their 20 billion dollar plus CIS monstrosity that their bond status is now junk. Sony is apparently betting a significant portion of the company on their sensor play...so it's not surprising that they are innovating in CIS specifically more than Canon is.

I personally wish Canon would funnel more of their R&D budget into improving still photography IQ...but they seem to have a different focus right now.


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 30, 2014)

jrista said:


> Keep in mind, Canon is a company with a massive presence in "imaging" in general, from general photography and printing to video and cinematography to medical imaging to CMOS fabrication.



That's exactly how they've stayed so far ahead of Nikon, who don't have that diversity. It's nothing to do with the quality of the cameras of the last 2-3 years, it's massive brand recognition.

Canon are still synonymous with quality cameras in many people's eyes.

Why did I buy my first Canon SLR when I joined a design company after my visual communication degree in 1992?

Nigel Mansell had Canon on his car and the fact that the best colour copiers were Canon. I used them a lot in design with the Fiery Postscript RIPs.

I actually didn't know much about their cameras then (I'd had Pentax till that point as everyone in college did) but Canon's reputation in imaging was unparalleled so I bought one of their cameras.

That reputation is still seeing them through. How long will that last?

Brand loyalty ain't what it used to be, and todays hot company is tomorrows museum piece. The landscape is changing, and it could change against both Nikon and Canon in the next decade if they don't keep pace with companies like Sony.

Canon may file a lot of patents, but in the last 3 years, the advancements in camera tech have not really come from Canon or Nikon imho.

Sigma, Sony, Toshiba, Red, Arri, Panasonic, Olympus etc have added far more new tech to this industry than Canon or Nikon have.

Canon owned DSLR video and a friend of mine bought a GH4 after seeing mine, and this week bought his 2nd one, as he shoots weddings.

He says he can't look at his 70D and 6D video footage after using the GH4 for a month or so, so he's switching.

This is from his Facebook page this week:

"August 26 near Gold Coast
Sooo I have decided to sell ALL of my Canon Photography gear as I am mainly shooting video I am going to panasonic!! 

I have 6D,70D, 580 flash Canon 17-40 f4,50 f1.8 ,85 f1.8 ,70-200 f4,18-55kit, Sigma 18-35 f1.8, 50-500,1.4x, 12 batteries and LOTS more if your interested please let me know "

This would never have happened in 2009, but now it's getting commonplace. Eventually, that loss of Canon business will add up.

The 5D Mk3 could have been 4K in 2012, and then Canon would have owned DSLR video for years to come but they just let it go with a lacklustre DSLR video range and moving focus to expensive pro vid cameras.

Just my view, no flame war start intended


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 30, 2014)

This thread has made my brain swell with dumb minutiae.

jakeymate, please, don't wait to get banned from the site. Just leave and don't come back. You are a troll, plain and simple. Sorry to be honest here, but that sums it up. You enjoy stirring the pot with stupid stuff just for the attention, and with only ~15 posts to your current avatar, you add nothing but frustration. 

Obviously you favor Nikon, a great system. Canon, also is a great system. Go to Nikonrumors.com and enjoy their company, and don't look back.

If you choose to stay, I promise that if I see your name, I won't read anything you write, as it offends me.

Regards.

sek


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 30, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> scottkinfw said:
> 
> 
> > This thread has made my brain swell with dumb minutiae.
> ...



Jakey, since our last conversations here on CR I've dug out my old Pentax 67 system, blown the dust off it and have been shooting Portra 160. Honestly mate, your repeated posts arguing the minutiae between the Canon and Nikon sensors is trivial compared with a high quality scan of a well exposed 6x7 negative. The facts are you are still confined to the piddley little 2.4 x 3.6 image. If you want to see real tonal graduation, real improvement in DR, go get a 6x7 medium format system and shot some decent format sized film. You won't be arguing about the difference between Nikon and Canon digital FF anymore. 

Looking at the stuff you shoot it could give your work a real 'here's something different' look to the common-or-garden digital images we're all used to seeing now.


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 30, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Jakey, since our last conversations here on CR I've dug out my old Pentax 67 system, blown the dust off it and have been shooting Portra 160. Honestly mate, your repeated posts arguing the minutiae between the Canon and Nikon sensors is trivial compared with a high quality scan of a well exposed 6x7 negative. The facts are you are still confined to the piddley little 2.4 x 3.6 image. If you want to see real tonal graduation, real improvement in DR, go get a 6x7 medium format system and shot some decent format sized film. You won't be arguing about the difference between Nikon and Canon digital FF anymore.
> 
> Looking at the stuff you shoot it could give your work a real 'here's something different' look to the common-or-garden digital images we're all used to seeing now.



I agree entirely. I do have a trade background in reprographics and spent the 90's working on scans for MF and LF film.

Ever scanned an A4 neg to 500meg on a drum scanner?

That makes digital look like a toy.

But practicality is a major issue, as you know. Try doing a portrait session, with 30 final images, from a choice of 200 for the client, when you're shooting MF film, scanning it and all that.

It's just not commercially viable.

And I'm not arguing the minutiae. That happens every minute of every day on here.

I'm correcting all the inaccuracies and sweeping statements about it, which are frustrating to read day after day.

It's as if someone told some of those people, if you say if often enough, it will become true.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 30, 2014)

quod said:


> How much is Canon paying _you_ to suffer and defend the brand? If the threads bug you, don't read them. Better yet, go out and take some shots. As far as I can tell, the D810 is a Nikon-version of the 5D3, but with a _substantially_ better sensor. It's natural that people want more oomph out of their cameras and its natural for them to look at competing brands for validation of their choices. Seriously, go out and take shots.



How about you don't wade in, _missing the point by a country mile_ with worn-out, rote, flamebait clichés?

The folk here who "defend" (which, incidentally, is an immature, immotive characterisation of what's _really_ going on here) Canon, do so:

Because they don't appreciate lies, half-truths and irrelevances presented as "facts" - _much less_ as show-stopping, catastrophic failures by Canon. 

Because they know, from their own use of Canon equipment, that it can achieve anything they need a camera to do - which is, _images_ (not _pixels_) of the most sublime image quality anyone might possibly wish for.

Because the whining about Canon's "sub-standard" sensors says more about the whiners (and their own failings) than it does about the sensors.

Simply put, they "defend" because _that's the proper reaction to the bullsh*t_. Other people who (God help them) might choose to visit Canonrumors to get some useful information about the capabilities of Canon cameras deserve a balanced view that pushes back against the interminable DR crap. 

And it'll continue to happen for as long as the DR whiners continue to push their DR agenda, and as long as that agenda continues to mean sweet FA for the vast majoiity of photographers out there in the Real World.


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 30, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Jakey, since our last conversations here on CR I've dug out my old Pentax 67 system, blown the dust off it and have been shooting Portra 160.



Don't forget also, when you shoot natural light portraiture as part of most sessions, 160 just isn't going to cut it.

Today I shot from 64 ISO to 1600 ISO.

Sure, as you say a well exposed MF neg is amazing, but being stuck with 160 film is a world I'd never want to go back to, unless I was doing a single perfect portrait.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 30, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> What????? ok, I know you're not supposed to feed the trolls but... the d810 is barely an upgrade



To be fair Chuck, the D810 looks like a nice camera: hell, only _three and a half years after the release of the 5D Mk III_, it almost catches up with the capabilities of the Canon!

8)

Funny how the trolls always seem to miss little points like that, isn't it? It's taken Nikon _a lifetime_ in DSLR terms just to get close to the all-round versatility and ability of the 5D Mk III, but that fact is entirely ignored by them (and let's be honest, that's piss-poor of Nikon) and instead of railing at Nikon for the dismal pace of their response, they spin it with the good old "_oooh! But it's got a newer sensor..!_" BS.

(And they call _us_ defensive! )

Well yes, it _does_ have a newer sensor - it's a much newer camera. So, y'know - _duuuuhhhh..._ 

It'll be interesting to see whether the same trolls come back in another three and a half years when the 5D Mk V has been out for a while with a much newer, better sensor than the D810's, to b*tch about the "old" Nikon...


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 30, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Funny how the trolls always seem to miss little points like that, isn't it? It's taken Nikon _a lifetime_ in DSLR terms just to get close to the all-round versatility and ability of the 5D Mk III.



I don't want an argument with such aggressive troll calling contributors, and this cam is before my Nikon time, but wasn't the D3s a pretty stunning all round camera that the Mk3 only just matched in 2012, 3 years after the D3s was released?

I'm just suggesting some balance and accuracy here, rather than sweeping statements.

When I had my 5D Mk2, I was always impressed by the D3s my fellow photographers used.

Not enough to switch from my Mk2, which I loved due to it's resolution and ergonomics, but the D3s was beautiful camera, and still is.

51 point focus, 12800 ISO, full frame of course, clean shadows etc. It could do anything really.

It's only flaw was the resolution, but I knew a lot of togs that would print great 20x3 inch inch wall arts for their clients from 12 meg.

There was little it couldn't do, if you exclude video of course.

Just because you call someone a troll, doesn't automatically make what they say wrong.

The way to do that is with polite balanced debate, using citations, first hand experience and facts where available.

It's so intellectually weak to just shout 'troll' when someone says something you don't agree with.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 30, 2014)

_Groan..._

You're making my point for me! The two brands leap-frog each other. Always have, and always will.

I started with Nikon myself, but the D200 was a POS that drove me to Cnaon, where I've been ever since. 

The _big_ difference - and I really want you and the rest of the trolls to take this to heart (because yes, you're a troll, and it sits just fine with me to characterise you as one, and I love the way that trolls like you so often try to play the "badly done-to, misunderstood victim" card) - *we're not crawling all over Nikon Rumors bitching and whining about all the things which Canon (actually or supposedly) does better than Nikon, purely for the sake of disrupting that forum: which is exactly what some of the contributors to this thread, and to the wider forum, are doing*.

(They can't honestly be so obtuse as to think that b*tching on here will influence Canon, can they? And given this, what purpose can it possibly be serving except disruption? _Trolling_?)

And back to my point about the D200: I wasn't happy about it (irony of ironies, it was its poxy sensor I hated), _I jumped ship_. 

There's a pretty strong clue there about what the DR whiners and trolls can do about the "terrible" sensors in their Canons...


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > Everything I have read from people who have tested says the opposite - what do you build this claim on?
> ...



Having bought Canon equipment for ten of thousands of USD and having posted many positive Canon reviews I am not sure I qualify as a Canon-basher. But let me use the opportunity to quote myself on the fact that my camera make is not my religion. 

"...at a Canon gear forum such as this, some people will dislike the video because saying Canon is not the best is sacrilege and eagerly find whatever reasons to ditch it as irrelevant. I guess that's human nature. However:
As an occasional reviewer I sympathize with those who spend hours and hours trying to help people take better informed gear decisions - mostly for free. As a heavy gear buyer I value all the info that I can get. And as a Canon owner I believe having good tests that demonstrate that Canon should catch up is actually beneficial to all of us visiting here." Nuf' said.

Now since you - interestingly - refuse to provide any evidence at all for your claims that the 5DIII AF is superior (always wonder how often people on-line just babble in stead of providing proof) I can offer the following:
1.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR7Kjeq2aH4 with links to samples and additional info /main points. more accurate and flexible
2.) http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2014/07/02/nikon-d810-vs-canon-5d-mark-iii-comparison-full-frame-dslrs/3/ /main point advantage for wildlife photography (just one of many such remarks around)
3.) http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d810.htm#comp /main point much better autofocus for portraits (also lots of these around)

Eagerly waiting your links.
__

EDIT: Left this one out because it was in French, but google translate does enough of a good job to read it; main point Nikon 810 AF vastly better than 5DIII AF
4.) http://www.shots.fr/2014/07/03/comparatif-canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-vs-nikon-d810-lheure-des-comptes/


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 30, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> Now since you - interestingly - refuse to provide any evidence at all for your claims that the 5DIII AF is superior



I didn't make the claim. Take it up with Neuro.

Oh, and that you've spent a hill of money on Canon gives your opinions _no_ innate credibility. A phrase I first came across during my mountain biking days may well appiy: 

*All the gear and no idea*..?


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 30, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> _Groan..._
> 
> You're making my point for me! The two brands leap-frog each other. Always have, and always will.
> 
> ...



You started with Nikon, back when Canon were top of the tree. Early 2006 you started with Canon. I started with Canon digital in 2002 (D60) and Canon film in 1992. I've had many Canons in that time culminating in the Mk3 in 2012.

So this 'troll' has more history and experience of YOUR system than you do.

Yes, you keep saying that troll word as if it means something, while you add no facts, no information and no insight into the subject at hand, except inflammatory language and aggressive name calling.

Now THAT's a troll Keith. Play nice.

As for making your point for you, your point was this.

Nikon took years to match the 5D Mk3. 

I didn't make THAT point for you as it's not true. 

I stated that the Nikon D3s was a fantastic camera, equal to the 5D Mk3, in many ways, and better in some (it's still seen as the low light king of Canon/Nikon cameras), and it was 3 years before the Mk3.

The reality would be the opposite of your point. It took Canon 3 years to NOT MATCH the D3s with the Mk3.

The D3s was the first Nikon that caught my eye as it was spectacular, but I stayed with Canon through the Mk2 and then the Mk3,before the D800 won me over.

My point and your point were different so how could I possibly make your point for you?

If you want calm logical and friendly discussion on a subject, it is available, but not the way you're going about it.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Perhaps you believe everything on the Internet is authoritative? Take Tony Northrup's YouTube "review"…in his "sports" test, which consisted of a subject walking sedately toward him, he reported a keeper percentage in the low 60s from the 5DIII. What a joke, but I suspect you believed every word.



No. I carefully compare all the info I can get and try to draw an informed decision based on the broadest possible basis. You can see a - short - list of comparison reviews I have posted above on the AF question. I have in fact not seen a single comparison test out there that makes the claim that the 5DIII AF is better than the 810 AF. Please post as I would like to read them too if they in fact exist.

I take note of your experience. But it would be more believable if you did not feel compelled to ridicule those who have carefully documented their results and presented them for us all to evaluate. Having made many reviews myself I know how painstakingly long time it takes and how much effort goes into trying to make them as error-free as possible. 

The only reason you can insult Tony Northrup is because his test was easy to follow and absolutely transparent - far above the level of what most others offer. Your counter claim here is just that - an unsubstantiated claim to be taken at face value. Hardly the best basis for such harsh words.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 30, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> I didn't make the claim. Take it up with Neuro.



My mistake...


----------



## jrista (Aug 30, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> quod said:
> 
> 
> > How much is Canon paying _you_ to suffer and defend the brand? If the threads bug you, don't read them. Better yet, go out and take some shots. As far as I can tell, the D810 is a Nikon-version of the 5D3, but with a _substantially_ better sensor. It's natural that people want more oomph out of their cameras and its natural for them to look at competing brands for validation of their choices. Seriously, go out and take shots.
> ...



The notion that it's all pointless is a fallacy, though. The 5D III was indeed a much better general purpose camera than the D800. To deny that the D810 closes the gap significantly, however, is just as much a lie or half-truth as anything your claiming the other camp is doing. 

The D810 HAS significantly closed the gap on the 5D III. It DOES have a good AF unit, and it DOES have a higher frame rate (it's only 1fps slower than the 5D III now). It's the D4 AF system, which has a much tighter point spread clustered in the center of the frame. The 5D III inherited the 1D X AF system, which has the largest AF point spread of any DSLR AF system to date, which gives it a strong edge for tracking subjects across the majority of the frame. The 5D III has full expansion mode f/8 AF, allowing up to five AF points to be used around the center. The D810 has that same capability now, though. The D810 has the ability to shoot 7fps in crop mode...and with pixels under the 5µm limit, only 0.6µm larger than the 7D pixels, it offers the option of enhanced reach and action shooting all in a single camera body...that's something the 5D III does NOT have any counterpart for. 

It's one thing to be sick and tired of DRivel. However, the D810 brings a hell of a lot more to the table than just more DR than the 5D III. To deny that is to stick your head in the sand and sing a little song about how nothing has changed. The 5D III is an excellent camera, it's phenomenal for high ISO work, where it's still superior to the D810, it handles like a dream, and it's compatible with the best telephoto lenses available for DSLRs. The D810, however, even if you completely ignore it's sensor IQ advantage, has closed the gap between the two cameras CONSIDERABLY.

And that happened in LESS than two and a half years since the original release of the 5D III...not more than three and a half years, as you mistakenly state in a later post.

There is a very strong defense of Canon here on CR. Ironically, that defense is so consistent and ignorant of the real competition that Canon is facing, not just on the sensor IQ front but on every aspect of their DSLRs, that you guys are just giving Canon more reason NOT to improve their products by constantly saying things like you have in your post above. You want the people coming here to CR to get a balanced view of the state of Canon's DSLR market? Stop sticking your heads in the sand, stop ignoring the fact that Canon clearly seems hell-bent on pushing video features in their DSLRs at the expense of many other capabilities, and acknowledge that Canon technology, not just the sensor but other technologies as well, is or has fallen behind the competition. There ARE better options out there for some types of photography, and the number of options is increasing...for more reasons than simply getting more DR.


----------



## Jan van Holten (Aug 30, 2014)

ramonjsantiago said:


> D800 -> D810
> 
> The 5dm3 is looking really old.



So you are a bit clumsy and damage the thing???


----------



## PicaPica (Aug 30, 2014)

there is no question that today sonys sensor technology is better than canons.
only fanatic canon fanboys will disagree.

even when its only in extrem cases when you have to push the shadows... it still makes the sensor better. there is no use in denying it and saying that it doesn´t matter. it´s just childish behavior.

the important point is that the sensor is only part of the equation.

even with the better sensors nikon does not make the overall better cameras today.

if(!) samsung will have the best APS-C sensor in it´s upcoming NX1 camera (as rumored) i bet it will not be the best APS-C camera overall.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2014)

dilbert said:


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



There's no problem with cropping. Throw away 99% of your image area, if it makes you happy. But we're not discussing cropping an image, we're discussing frame rates. 

It is foolish is to suggest that the D810's higher frame rate in DX mode somehow makes the D810 superior to the 5DIII in terms of frame rate, since that higher frame rate comes at the cost of throwing away ~60% of the incoming light. 

Similarly, the fps for the 1D X is appropriately stated as 12 fps. Technically, it can shoot 14 fps, but only writing JPGs with the mirror locked up. So it's reasonable to say the 1D X shoots at a 9% higher frame rate (12 vs. 11) than the D4s, but it's not reasonable to state the 1D X shoots 27% (14 vs. 11), even though with certain constraints it can (and arguably those constraints are less impactful than cropping by ~60%).

The 5DIII has a 20% higher frame rate than the D810...I'd still like to hear how the D810 slower frame rate is part of 'better in every respect'.


----------



## Memnon (Aug 30, 2014)

Hi,

First post, be gentle 

Since nine pages of words don't seem to have settled this issue, why not use the cameras for their purpose?

How about someone with both a 5D3 and a D810 (and no axe to grind) post 10 images from each camera? Resize the images so say 1920x1080, strip them of EXIF data and lets see if anyone will be able to tell the difference? 

I bet not a single person (with the exception of the poster) will be able to 100% identify which camera took which image.

Regards,

Memnon


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 30, 2014)

dilbert said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Apparently it does because the test does not support the whining about DR that appears on this forum. Not even close.



> Everyone with a 5D2 or 5D3 knows how bad the noise and shadows are.



So bad you might notice in a 24" print. If the Nikon print is sitting next to it. And you have a magnifying glass ;D


----------



## PicaPica (Aug 30, 2014)

Memnon said:


> Hi,
> 
> First post, be gentle
> 
> ...




i like the idea but i would like to see a resize to A4 at 360PPI (4209x2976 pixels).

the majority of people i know never print bigger.

i have a epson R2880 myself but 90% of my prints are A4 or smaller.
i just have no unlimited space to hang all the A3 prints.

that said... one thing where per pixel image quality matters is MICROSTOCK photography.

im only 17 but i do microstock photography with an account made on my fathers name.
i had way more images refused for noise issues with my 550D then i have with my 6D.


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 30, 2014)

Memnon said:


> Hi,
> 
> First post, be gentle
> 
> ...



It's like a discussion about music without listening to the music. Or better:
A discussion about the sound of instruments without playing them.


----------



## Memnon (Aug 30, 2014)

mb66energy said:


> Memnon said:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> ...



Excellent analogy


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 30, 2014)

PicaPica said:


> even when its only in extrem cases when you have to push the shadows... it still makes the sensor better. there is no use in denying it and saying that it doesn't matter.



_Nobody's_ denying that the Sony sensors _test_ better in "edge case" circumstances - and it's somewhere between disingenuous and downright dishonest to suggest that we're saying anything to the contrary. 

(*Even though you'll notice the striking lack of Real World examples out there of images that only a Nikon/Sony camera - and definitely not a Canon camera - could produce. That's significant, don't you think?*) 

But the fact is that - for the most part - it _doesn't_ matter. It literally, actually, definitively, demonstrably _*does not matter*_. 

It doesn't matter to those of us who never get down to 100 ISO (never below 400 ISO myself); it doesn't matter to those of us who don't need to push shadows five stops (and for the record, I don't believe anyone _needs_ to do that as a matter of routine unless they're incapable of exposing an image properly in the first place); it doesn't matter to those of us who are more interest in _highlight_ latitude - where Canon sensors do very well, incidentally; and it doesn't matter to those hundreds of thousands (probably _millions_) of photographers who simply want cameras that do what needs to be done with a minimum of fuss, and who don't have any interest in the DR obsession. 



> it´s just childish behavior.



What's childish is the infantile insistence of some that low ISO DR is _all_ that matters, and that because it (supposedly) matters so much to them, it's all that should matter to _anyone and everyone_.

This is pretty much the definition of petulant, spoiled-brat "I'll scream and scream until I make myself sick!" behaviour.

_That's_ what we rail against.

Please have the decency accurately to characterise the nature of our position, instead of dumbing it down into something it's not.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 30, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> I simply corrected some very inaccurate statements regarding the cameras in question.



jakey, I'll give you some advice I gave another guy who was very ardent about his ideas. Most of the people on this board are intelligent, reasonable people, who are willing to have their minds changed. This includes several on this thread whose histories I recognize. You haven't done a good job persuading them. That doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means that your arguments and style of presentation have not been persuasive, so maybe you should try presenting in a different way.

Bear in mind that there are a lot of different kinds of "pros" on this forum, including photographers with decades of experience, working artists, engineers, academic scientists, etc.


----------



## PicaPica (Aug 30, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> PicaPica said:
> 
> 
> > even when its only in extrem cases when you have to push the shadows... it still makes the sensor better. there is no use in denying it and saying that it doesn't matter.
> ...



are you royal or why do you use the word "we"?

i have a life that´s why i don´t waste my time searching and quoting such comments i was refering too.




> But the fact is that - for the most part - it doesn't matter. It literally, actually, definitively, demonstrably does not matter.



"fact" is also.. that if canon "had" the better sensors the fanboys here would be all over it.




> What's childish is the infantile insistence of some that low ISO DR is all that matter



it's somewhere between disingenuous and downright dishonest to suggest that all people who want better DR saying that it´s all that matters.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 30, 2014)

jrista said:


> The notion that it's all pointless is a fallacy, though. The 5D III was indeed a much better general purpose camera than the D800. To deny that the D810 closes the gap significantly, however, is just as much a lie or half-truth as anything your claiming the other camp is doing.



Where do you get "pointless" from? I'm saying - have always said - that _for the vast majority,_ low DR is just not an issue, and nobody's done a damn' thing so far to disabuse me of the essential rightness of that position. 

Neuro has pointed out, more times than tongue can tell, that Canon's sales figures tell this story more eloquently and definitively than anything we choose to write here. 

I accept unreservedly that's it's probably not "pointless" to some - although I'll bet pounds to pennies that it _is_ an irrelevance to many of the whiners on here that are buying into the "Canon sensors bad" meme - probably because they lack the knowledge, talent and ability to get the best out of their Canons. 

I will also agree with any argument that Nikon cameras/Sony sensors make it easier for _bad_ photographers to end up with decent results. I'll happily allow that...

And as to the D810 itself, here's my Real World take: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22422.msg430807#msg430807


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 30, 2014)

PicaPica said:


> are you royal or why do you use the word "we"?
> 
> i have a life that´s why i don´t waste my time searching and quoting such comments i was refering to.



_Speaking of "childish"..._

The use of "we" in my post was completely correct - I'm part of the group that's challenging the DR whiners, and part of the group you called "childish".


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 30, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> _Nobody's_ denying that the Sony sensors _test_ better in "edge case" circumstances - and it's somewhere between disingenuous and downright dishonest to suggest that we're saying anything to the contrary.
> 
> (*Even though you'll notice the striking lack of Real World examples out there of images that only a Nikon/Sony camera - and definitely not a Canon camera - could produce. That's significant, don't you think?*)



To be fair, I think jrista posted two reasonable examples: one was the room interior with bright window, and the other was a stream with bright sky. I've had trouble with both of those kinds of shots and, while there are ways to adapt to the situations, such as choosing time of day for minimal DR, his point is still valid: if you happen to be at one of these locations at that time of day, those two shots would benefit from the D8xx sensor.

This harkens back to discussions on auto-focus and frame rate. We can focus manually, and we can time the shot correctly the first time to get excellent results; however, good AF and high frame rate will increase the range of circumstances where the chance of success is good. I definitely want better low ISO DR to find its way into Canon's cameras, but it's not enough to make me sell my gear and buy Nikon.


----------



## PicaPica (Aug 30, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> PicaPica said:
> 
> 
> > are you royal or why do you use the word "we"?
> ...



i did not talked about you.
i did not even talked about the discussion in this thread.
i spoke about the CR forum in general.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> I can offer the following:
> 1.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR7Kjeq2aH4 with links to samples and additional info /main points. more accurate and flexible
> 2.) http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2014/07/02/nikon-d810-vs-canon-5d-mark-iii-comparison-full-frame-dslrs/3/ /main point advantage for wildlife photography (just one of many such remarks around)
> 3.) http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d810.htm#comp /main point much better autofocus for portraits (also lots of these around)




1) Northrup's "sports test" was a joke. Heck, even his wife (? I assume she is) called it a 'moving portrait'. As I stated, a ~60% hit rate in that scenario is ridiculously low – something I'd expect even an entry-level dSLR to beat in that 'test'. It's already been pointed out that he had a setting enabled which Canon warns against using with moving subject. 

2) I don't see where DCW _tests_ AF, they just list specs. I think you're over interpreting their statement about wildlife, which applies specifically to f/8 TC combos. They also incompletely describe the 5DIII's f/8 AF, which is the center point with 4 surrounding assist points. Still, the 11 f/8 AF points are a nice advantage for an f/4 supertele with a 2x TC or an f/5.6 lens with a 1.4x TC (that advantage would be even better for bird/wildlife shooters if Nikon had a 400/5.6 like Canon!). By the way, did you notice their conclusion? In it, they state, "_*The Canon 5D Mark III remains a hugely desirable camera and is still arguably the better all-rounder.* It offers slightly faster continuous shooting, albeit with smaller resolution files, *more cross-type AF sensors* and class-leading video quality._" Interesting that a review you link to support the contention that the D810 has better AF mentions a 5DIII AF advantage in concluding that the 5DIII is a better all-around camera. Given that, it seems you have not only read a review that suggests the 5DIII has better AF, you provided the link yourself. 

3) You're citing KR to support your assertion? Really?? KR's goal is to make money from web traffic. He makes outrageous claims to further that goal, then later makes equally outrageous but diametrically opposed statements to further it further. I've read enough of KR to know better than to rely on his information, particularly as far as technical matters are concerned.


----------



## Maui5150 (Aug 30, 2014)

Most importantly... Lets keep comparing an 2 year old camera to one that was just released. The fact that it is in the ballpark in most area and better in other... Shesh... 

Northrup is a clown... While he bashes the 5D MK III as being an amateur camera only and that Pros like him should be using Nikon, he proves he does not use the Canon as evident by his settings. 

The 810 is a decent camera, so is the 5D MK III. Is the 810 better? In some areas maybe, I would expect that for a camera that is two years newer... and while the D5MKIV may be 6 months or even a year out, I wonder is when this leap frogs the 810 if the Nikon folks will be stammering that it is a newer camera so of course it will be better.

If I was a new buyer maybe I would look at the two and choose the 810 over the 5DMKIII. Don't know. There is not enough of a difference to make me want to switch. 

But what remains constant... wait another year to 18 months and both sides will have better cameras... In the end, that cannot be a bad thing... Expensive to swap bodies again and again, but that has always been the case


----------



## Plainsman (Aug 30, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> quod said:
> 
> 
> > How much is Canon paying _you_ to suffer and defend the brand? If the threads bug you, don't read them. Better yet, go out and take some shots. As far as I can tell, the D810 is a Nikon-version of the 5D3, but with a _substantially_ better sensor. It's natural that people want more oomph out of their cameras and its natural for them to look at competing brands for validation of their choices. Seriously, go out and take shots.
> ...




"...bullsh*t"

"...sweet FA..."

Your words.....just about describe your rather aggressive over the top rant apparently in "defence" of Canon!
I bet Canon have never heard of you. 
Just try and be a bit more open minded and less fanatical in your next post.


----------



## reczey (Aug 30, 2014)

Canon wins with its lenses, and AF system. Nikon may have bodies (at the moment) with higher resolution, but they do not have the lenses to resolve. Canon has developed extremely great zooms in the meanwhile to get ready for a higher resolution AFTER they have completed the development of appropriate lenses.

Wise strategy.

Facts speak for themselves, all these people can't be wrong!

http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/07/canon-most-widely-used-camera-system-at-the-latest-world-cup/


----------



## mmenno (Aug 30, 2014)

This is all a terribly fun read  

Brand x vs brand y always brings out the best in people 

My humble 2 cents:
It is an objective fact that nikon/sony sensors offer better DR, and anyone that has shot even a few frames on both brand's recent models and pushed the files in post knows. This CAN be a problem in some cases, which don't depend on the photographer's skill at all. Simply put, If I had the choice between two sensors, one with reasonably clean shadows at low iso and one with severe banding, I'd know which one I would pick.
However, DR is just one point on a very long list of pros and cons a camera can have, and is in no way the end all be all of image quality. Let alone the shooting experience and the overal system one would buy into. If nikon truly made the better camera/system overall for the last few years, then canon couldn't have been as complacent as they have been in their upgrades, sensor-wise.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 30, 2014)

PicaPica said:


> i like the idea but i would like to see a resize to A4 at 360PPI (4209x2976 pixels).



Just go for 16x20. You would be lucky to see a difference in 1% of cases. Seriously. The paper you choose to print on will have more of an impact.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 30, 2014)

PicaPica said:


> are you royal or why do you use the word "we"?



The royal we...man.



> "fact" is also.. that if canon "had" the better sensors the fanboys here would be all over it.



They might bring it up. But they wouldn't be on Nikon Rumors starting post after post about it.



> it's somewhere between disingenuous and downright dishonest to suggest that all people who want better DR saying that it´s all that matters.



No, but they've built it up in their minds into something it is not and talk about little else. That's why I tell people to actually do the tests, rent the equipment, try it out. The first time you push shadows from an Exmor RAW it is impressive. Then you get some some images under your belt and you realize that it's better and occasionally useful, but in less extreme cases it's not as different in print as you imagined. And in more extreme cases you're not fighting noise, but mud, and you need to HDR to get the detail you really want any way.

DxO and the various reviewers who think turning all NR off...sometimes only on the Canon file!...is clever are doing a real disservice to the photographic community at large.


----------



## Kahuna (Aug 30, 2014)

For the most part, this is a wonderful site with some extremely talented photographers that are willing to share their knowledge of the art. Then there are threads like this one, initiated for the sole purpose to agitate. 

Pitiful waste of time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> The only reason you can insult Tony Northrup is because his test was easy to follow and absolutely transparent - far above the level of what most others offer. Your counter claim here is just that - an unsubstantiated claim to be taken at face value. Hardly the best basis for such harsh words.



I called _his test _ a joke, do you construe that as insulting him? But...




Maui5150 said:


> Northrup is a clown... While he bashes the 5D MK III as being an amateur camera only and that Pros like him should be using Nikon, he proves he does not use the Canon as evident by his settings.



Perhaps not a clown, but his motivation is the same as KR's – driving Internet traffic to his site for profit. He's not doing reviews for the benefit of the photography community, he's doing them for personal gain. Making intentionally inflammatory statements (even knowing they're false) is part of their game, thus Northrup's takeaways on the 5DIII vs D810: the D810 is vastly superior, but: "_If you have a Mark III and you're not a pro, it's probably not worth switching_," and, "_If you're putting photos on Facebook...it probably won't make much difference._" 

The 5DIII isn't good enough for pros, but it's probably ok for posting to Facebook. Yeah, that sounds like a fair and balanced review. But you can go right on believing it as 'evidence'. :


----------



## David Hull (Aug 30, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps you believe everything on the Internet is authoritative? Take Tony Northrup's YouTube "review"…in his "sports" test, which consisted of a subject walking sedately toward him, he reported a keeper percentage in the low 60s from the 5DIII. What a joke, but I suspect you believed every word.
> ...


The Northrup review is pretty biased, IMO, a bit like his mind was made up and he was out to prove a point. That is the trouble with most of these so-called reviews. I can't speak too much for his AF evaluation except to say that the camera works for me and I have no issues with it. However, his commentary on the noise performance of the camera was complete hype and just about as bogus as the best of them. Which calls into question the rest of it for me. 

Of particular interest was his wife's comment to me in a DPR thread that she felt that she "needed" the D800 because she did night photography. I have been doing night photography with Canon gear since the 20D and really never found it's sensor performance to be a serious limitation (as have many others -- you can find examples everywhere you want to look). To me this looks like pure hype and is very misleading when you take a scene and say "you may have trouble seeing this so I'll zoom in to 100% and lift the exposure slider several stops so you can see it clearly". You will notice that they didn't bother to show you what the resulting image (the full image) looked like from both pieces of equipment after that trick was pulled. That review is pure bologna, designed to make a point and nothing more. If you want objective reviews stick to imaging resource or DPR, good solid actionable information, devoid of the hype and bologna.


----------



## Maui5150 (Aug 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Perhaps not a clown, but his motivation is the same as KR's – driving Internet traffic to his site for profit.



I will take that one step further.

Either Tony Northrup is:

1) Incompetent as a photographer

2) Deceitful

Either one is bad in my book.

If he wants to do a review of two cameras, know how to set them up to get the most out of them, if he can't, then he is incompetent, should do more research on the cameras he is reviewing, and perhaps even learn a bit about photography. To demonstrate a glaring lack of knowledge of the Canon system and then make comments related to pro-usage either shows him to be a sham or an idiot.

Or

He can be a down right disingenuous pr&*k who intentionally took bad photos to tilt a review.

I have my ideas and others can form their own opinion.

And while KR is a tool, it is really not nice to throw him in the likes of Tony Northrup. TN aspires to one day be as suave and savvy as KR


----------



## Aglet (Aug 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > 810 doesn't just approach the 5d3, in tech, it pulls out and passes it and flips the bird at it on the way by.
> ...



frame rate is not that big a deal for many uses
if you think 1 extra fps is significant on a general purpose FF, that's fine. 5fps is enough for me, even 4 fps is adequate. 
I'm not trying to photograph a hummingbird's armpits.

as for the AF system, perhaps you didn't learn to make good use of Nikon's 3D tracking (with subject color?) where the high resolution metering sensor is providing focus tracking guidance to the PDAF system. With the 810's group AF feature added this should provide a very good hit rate for erratically moving targets, or poor motion tracking skills.

I can only visualize your testing of a D810 by handling it much like I'd handle my grandson's loaded diaper.


----------



## KacperP (Aug 30, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> 1.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR7Kjeq2aH4 with links to samples and additional info /main points. more accurate and flexible


What was that? Why did he waited with that comparison so long?
Why didn't he warned us about this Nikon being better back in 2012?
.... oh.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2014)

Aglet said:


> as for the AF system, perhaps you didn't learn to make good use of Nikon's 3D tracking (with subject color?) where the high resolution metering sensor is providing focus tracking guidance to the PDAF system. With the 810's group AF feature added this should provide a very good hit rate for erratically moving targets, or poor motion tracking skills.
> 
> I can only visualize your testing of a D810 by handling it much like I'd handle my grandson's loaded diaper.



You are free to visualize it however you want. Your comment may very well smell worse than the aforementioned diaper. 

In fact, along with me when I tested the D810 was a friend who shoots with a D4s, mainly equestrian sports, I assume he could configure the D810's AF appropriately. He was thinking of getting a 5DIII because he hates having so much DR (I kid, of course). 

My overall impression was that the D810 was a very capable camera. Pity there are no Nikon counterparts to my MP-E 65, handholdable 600/4, or the TS-E 17mm that's next on my to-buy list.


----------



## KacperP (Aug 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> 1) Northrup's "sports test" was a joke. Heck, even his wife (? I assume she is) called it a 'moving portrait'. As I stated, a ~60% hit rate in that scenario is ridiculously low – something I'd expect even an entry-level dSLR to beat in that 'test'. It's already been pointed out that he had a setting enabled which Canon warns against using with moving subject.


That guy shamelessly admits inability to use proper settings on Canon, and sells it as a Canon fault.
If some of you are unaware, he also uses psychological salesman tricks. Entire video is made in a manner of shopping channel, like it's all scripted.
Guy has a role as knowlegeable expert.
Girl has a role of an observer waiting for answer, someone with whom viewer should identify. She gets convinced, that's that.
"How can you not agree with her you weirdo?"


----------



## Aglet (Aug 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Pity there are no Nikon counterparts to my MP-E 65, handholdable 600/4, or the TS-E 17mm that's next on my to-buy list.



True, I would also like the extreme macro and TS lenses...
so, if I want them enough, I'll buy them and use them on a Canon body, or adapted to a Sony or other short-register mirrorless. FPN and DR rarely are issues with macro, tho I'd want that TS lens on an Exmor-based body for landscapin' cuz my pictures let the sun shine in (frame)
face it with a ;D
open up your aperture and LET THE SUN SHINE IN!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2014)

Aglet said:


> tho I'd want that TS lens on an Exmor-based body for landscapin' cuz my pictures let the sun shine in (frame)



For me, I'd want an AA filter as my main use of the TS-E lens(es) is architecture, lots of potential for moiré.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2014)

dilbert said:


> 5DIII can do 132MP/sec
> D810 can do 180MP/sec



D4s can do 176 MP/sec
1D X can do 252 MP/sec

Did you have a point?


----------



## Daniel 78d (Aug 30, 2014)

Daniel 78d said:


> ramonjsantiago said:
> 
> 
> > D800 -> D810
> ...



Ok this topic has (officially) went the wrong way. I am very sorry for writing my above post, I thought I was just chiming in but it just added fuel to an already too big fire. I forgive the guy who started this topic to begin with and not to sound like Reginald Denny but let's all get back to the thing we all love, (photography)


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > 5DIII can do 132MP/sec
> ...



Even KR got that one right (complained about the D800, D600, and D4 all having the same processing power).

IMO this thread could have just as easily been named "did Nikon finally catch up?"

The D810 is a very attractive camera, there was never any doubt of that, and that's probably all that needs to be said.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Aug 30, 2014)

Daniel 78d said:


> Ok this topic has (officially) went the wrong way. I am very sorry for writing my above post, I thought I was just chiming in but it just added fuel to an already too big fire. I forgive the guy who started this topic to begin with and not to sound like Reginald Denny but let's all get back to the thing we all love, (photography)



+1


----------



## msm (Aug 30, 2014)

So to sum up this thread: my camera > your camera.


----------



## ooF Fighters (Aug 30, 2014)

I'd like to share a conversation that I recently had with a Nikon shooter.

The exchange took place on an airport shuttle bus so it was very brief. As I took an unoccupied seat across from a man and settled in with my Canon backpack on my lap, he took notice and said "Canon man huh?" 
I explained that it wasn't out of a particular loyalty but that I had gone from an X700 to a digital rebel and had never changed brands since. 
He then said that he was a Nikon shooter and was thinking of switching to Canon. I assumed he must be a sports photographer because from what I have read on this forum it seems that that is where Canons strengths are. But when I asked, he said that he was in fact a professional wedding photographer.
I mentioned the glowing reviews of the new 810 with the shadow detail and skin colors etc. and asked him of his reason for considering the jump to Canon. 
His reply... "Canon shooters just seem happier".


----------



## mkabi (Aug 30, 2014)

ooF Fighters said:


> I'd like to share a conversation that I recently had with a Nikon shooter.
> 
> The exchange took place on an airport shuttle bus so it was very brief. As I took an unoccupied seat across from a man and settled in with my Canon backpack on my lap, he took notice and said "Canon man huh?"
> I explained that it wasn't out of a particular loyalty but that I had gone from an X700 to a digital rebel and had never changed brands since.
> ...



lol... you must be a sour apple if you're going from Canon Forum to Canon Forum, boasting about Nikon products


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 30, 2014)

ooF Fighters said:


> I'd like to share a conversation that I recently had with a Nikon shooter.
> 
> The exchange took place on an airport shuttle bus so it was very brief. As I took an unoccupied seat across from a man and settled in with my Canon backpack on my lap, he took notice and said "Canon man huh?"
> I explained that it wasn't out of a particular loyalty but that I had gone from an X700 to a digital rebel and had never changed brands since.
> ...



;D ;D

Don't tell dilbert


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2014)

mkabi said:


> lol... you must be a sour apple if you're going from Canon Forum to Canon Forum, boasting about Nikon products



Indeed...it says a lot about someone's personality to engage in that sort of behavior, especially if they bring their belligerent attitude with them. If you ignore them, sometimes they go away...and sometimes they seem to obsess, following you from thread to thread and/or sending you profane, insulting private messages. Just sad.


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 31, 2014)

ooF Fighters said:


> "Canon shooters just seem happier".



So do Christians but that won't make an atheist suddenly believe in an invisible friend will it 

This post is my effort to try and take this in a more positive direction of what Canon users would like to see, rather than the us vs them mentally which helps no one.

Maybe a better topic question would be this.

How would you feel if Canon announced three new FF cams at Photokina, and announced that they were stopping CMOS development and using those funds for other camera technologies?

Why spend so much money digging coal out of the ground when someone else can do it cheaper? Use their coal and spend your time doing something else, not duplicating technologies.

Let's call them the 5Dx, 4Dx and 2Dx with the following specs (all alloy DSLR mk3 style bodies, with the mirror less been a bit smaller for video (Gh4 size to make life easier for gimbals and mounting on cars etc)


5Dx - 12 meg Sony Exmor (from the A7s) 4k video to pro res and h264, mirror less with all the low light advantages of that sensor.

4Dx - 24 meg Exmor sensor from the D600, all current features of the Mk3, but with an all cross point focus system, with 8fps in FF.

Can't have a 3Dx, that just sounds silly 

2Dx - 36 meg Exmor sensor (D810), all current features of the Mk3, but with an all cross point focus system, 5fps in FF, crop modes including 1.2, APC, 5:4.

And then the new 1DX gets 14fps in RAW, an Exmor sensor, and all cross point focus.

Would, you be happy with that announcement or not?

I'd be ecstatic personally.

Would you prefer Canon to stay with their own sensors?


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 31, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Indeed...it says a lot about someone's personality to engage in that sort of behavior, especially if they bring their belligerent attitude with them. If you ignore them, sometimes they go away...and sometimes they seem to obsess, following you from thread to thread and/or sending you profane, insulting private messages. Just sad.



It says a lot about you John, that after I left, you mentioned me multiple times, using sarcastic references each time.

If you hadn't, I wouldn't have returned to take you to task over it. I was more than happy to let things lie after our first encounter, so why you felt it necessary to mock me in my absence, I do not know.

Don't try and take the high road after you did that.


----------



## DominoDude (Aug 31, 2014)

*comes in with a shovel and cleans up the mess that once was a horse*


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> *comes in with a shovel and cleans up the mess that once was a horse*



Yes, it seems a shovel is needed in most threads where the DRones come to beat their deceased equine to a pulp. Looked like the mods mucked out this particular stall earlier today, hopefully it won't become necessary again.


----------



## OneTrueKing (Aug 31, 2014)

I'm not a brand loyalist but Nikon has had some serious issues with all of the models that have be bumped (600, 800, D4) in some way or another. Each of these required a fix so instead of fixing them they updated them. 

I know Nikon shooters who have changed to either Sony, Canon, or even Fuji because of various issues.

This says a lot of Canon cameras in not feeling the need to follow Nikon with bumps, which are what those all were. Also even if the bumped Nikons were better, well, I kind of expect them to be; considering they're newer in some way.

Nikon unfortunately or fortunately depending on your views, didn't include QXD in any of the newer bodies (610/810) nor did they do a dual slot QXD for the D4s which is telling. Also you know it's crazy when people are getting hyped for the D750, again which I expect to be better on paper than 5D3.

Lastly, the 5D3 is still selling good so there's no reason to rush any upgrade. I look forward to seeing what Canon really brings to the table when it's time to upgrade the 5D3.

Competition is a good thing!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 31, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> quod said:
> 
> 
> > How much is Canon paying _you_ to suffer and defend the brand? If the threads bug you, don't read them. Better yet, go out and take some shots. As far as I can tell, the D810 is a Nikon-version of the 5D3, but with a _substantially_ better sensor. It's natural that people want more oomph out of their cameras and its natural for them to look at competing brands for validation of their choices. Seriously, go out and take shots.
> ...



blah blah blah

and yeah great just you GO Keith! Keep up the good fight to help insure Canon lens lovers get stuck with inferior sensors for low ISO, you go!!!!


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Aug 31, 2014)

msm said:


> So to sum up this thread: my camera > your camera.



You forgot the "but my camera goes to 11" part. Otherwise, you nailed it.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 31, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> PicaPica said:
> 
> 
> > even when its only in extrem cases when you have to push the shadows... it still makes the sensor better. there is no use in denying it and saying that it doesn't matter.
> ...



yeah sure Keith


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 31, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> PicaPica said:
> 
> 
> > are you royal or why do you use the word "we"?
> ...



Yeah because calling them DR whiners and DRoners and lab geeks and fools who take a picture or who don't know to use a camera is sooo....


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 31, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > _Nobody's_ denying that the Sony sensors _test_ better in "edge case" circumstances - and it's somewhere between disingenuous and downright dishonest to suggest that we're saying anything to the contrary.
> ...



Or forest scenes, it's sooo easy with sunbeams entering forests to reach high DR scenarios and filters are useless since things are so complicated, you surely can't light the scene, and often branches are constantly swaying so multi-exposure isn't always in the mix. Or say post storms like where you have areas in shadows and others with the sun blasting out rays and the mists are swirling all over, pretty amazing, but very hard to manage without a ton of DR.

etc. etc.

Sure you can shoot an infinite number of amazing shots with the older sensors. But all the same why fight so hard to not get the chance to be able to better shoot a ton more types of scenes that you need to skip or struggle with? Some people like shooting that kind of stuff and run across it often enough. And even for simple exposure mistakes, who hasn't had some out of the blue shoot come up and you have a one shot chance and no time to adjust settings, etc. why fight to not get a sensor that always you to deal with that? The only people that does any good are a few big Canon stock holders and the pockets of some major players at Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2014)

OneTrueKing said:


> Lastly, the 5D3 is still selling good so there's no reason to rush any upgrade. I look forward to seeing what Canon really brings to the table when it's time to upgrade the 5D3.
> 
> Competition is a good thing!



Indeed. The 7D was a top seller for years, leading to a long upgrade cycle. The 100-400L remains popular, and despite unfortunately frequent false rumors, it's likely that Canon feels little pressure to replace it. 

Competition is certainly good for us consumers, and in the D810 it appears Nikon might have something that approaches being competitive with the 5DIII. It's still not really a replacement for the D700, maybe the rumored D750 which Nikon fans seem to be latching onto will fit that need. I wonder how the DRones will feel if it doesn't use a Sony sensor...

Regardless, the 5DIII continues to be a strong seller, and as mentioned earlier at least some reviews (the unbiased ones, at any rate) still view the 5DIII as the better all-around camera. Coupled with Canon's excellent lens lineup, that means an uphill battle for Nikon (and Mt. Everest for Sony), as the market share situation shows.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> ...a sensor that *always* <allows> you to deal with that



That's soooo right. Exmor is clearly a miracle sensor designed by some clever deity for His or Her own use. Especially clever of that deity to decree an 11th Commandment...

_The World and the Sun which I made to lighteth it shall have No More than 14 stops of Dynamical Ranges, so that Mine Own Mighty Exmor Shall Forever and Always deal with that._


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 31, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Keith_Reeder said:
> ...



Yes, but still need to be a bit careful: first, the DR advantage is only at low ISO. Second, many forest/sunbeam/post-storm scenes have significantly more DR than a D8x0 can handle, too. More DR is always better, but more of anything has a cost.



> Sure you can shoot an infinite number of amazing shots with the older sensors. But all the same why fight so hard to not get the chance to be able to better shoot a ton more types of scenes that you need to skip or struggle with? Some people like shooting that kind of stuff and run across it often enough. And even for simple exposure mistakes, who hasn't had some out of the blue shoot come up and you have a one shot chance and no time to adjust settings, etc. why fight to not get a sensor that always you to deal with that? The only people that does any good are a few big Canon stock holders and the pockets of some major players at Canon.



I don't think anyone disagrees with this. What frustrates me with the DR advocates is that low-ISO DR is often presented as the single, overriding factor in determining the worth of a DSLR body. As you say, there may be times you don't have a chance to adjust settings; if the subject is a moving animal then AF is more important than DR. The key is to buy the gear that most closely matches your needs and your budget.


----------



## Lawliet (Aug 31, 2014)

Just get out and take some pictures, the kind that reliably make money, everything else the same one camera gives you:
resolution diff. limited to f/11, constant light motion blur of 1/320, flash motion blur of 1/1000s, 1fps
the other
resolution diff. limited to f/16, constant light motion blur of 1/160-1/200, flash motion blur of 1/400s, 0,5fps

With (some) the Canon crop cams having no black bars at 1/320 things get a little paradox in terms practical utility.  8)


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 31, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> That's soooo right. Exmor is clearly a miracle sensor designed by some clever deity for His or Her own use. Especially clever of that deity to decree an 11th Commandment...
> 
> _The World and the Sun which I made to lighteth it shall have No More than 14 stops of Dynamical Ranges, so that Mine Own Mighty Exmor Shall Forever and Always deal with that._



So much for sarcasm being the lowest form of wit. Doesn't stop the dripping sarcasm just building layer on layer does it?

There are many similar comments that can be made for 12800 ISO, TS17mm and other areas where Canon excel and where Canon users preach constantly.

But that would be churlish, and who'd want that?


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 31, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> I don't think anyone disagrees with this. What frustrates me with the DR advocates is that low-ISO DR is often presented as the single, overriding factor in determining the worth of a DSLR body.



It's not but it is useful for many.

The other factor that gets forgotten is that DR is helped by a far cleaner read from the sensor and that increases the quality of shadows at any ISO.

On my D800/810, I don't just lift 64ISO images to use shadow detail, I do it at 1600 as well and it's still clean and free from banding and read noise patterns.

Yes, it's not the be all and end all, but I can guarantee when Canon match the Exmors, the tone in here will change as people start to see the benefits across the ISO range, not just at low ISO.

There is an assumption I shoot at ISO 100 all the time, but that's rubbish.

I shoot at 1600 regularly and with the D800/810, when I shoot window backlit portraits, I can expose for the highlights, and let the face fall in exposure and lift it later with no read noise.

That's useful to me.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 31, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > That's soooo right. Exmor is clearly a miracle sensor designed by some clever deity for His or Her own use. Especially clever of that deity to decree an 11th Commandment...
> ...



Dude, what was I saying just yesterday? Two wrongs make a right? Lowering the standard is the reason to be here? 

Just tell us your opinion of the gear, and better yet back it up with examples or illustrations, we like pictures, and leave the counter antagonism in Aus. Your opinions of another poster are what got you in trouble last time, nobody cares about your opinions of other posters, we do care about well reasoned and illustrated points about gear.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 31, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think anyone disagrees with this. What frustrates me with the DR advocates is that low-ISO DR is often presented as the single, overriding factor in determining the worth of a DSLR body.
> ...



Maybe someone with more technical knowledge can chime in, but my understanding is that the effects of read noise diminish as ISOs go up. I've read (can't recall where) that lifting shadows becomes roughly equal between D8x0 and 5D3 somewhere between ISO800 and ISO1600.

Again, this is not my personal experience, and I can't cite you a source. If you have access to both cameras maybe you could post side-by-side samples at ISO1600.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 31, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> How would you feel if Canon announced three new FF cams at Photokina, and announced that they were stopping CMOS development and using those funds for other camera technologies?



You're assuming this would save them money. In fact it would probably cost them. Sony wants a profit on the sensors they sell.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 31, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> blah blah blah
> 
> and yeah great just you GO Keith! Keep up the good fight to help insure Canon lens lovers get stuck with inferior sensors for low ISO, you go!!!!



Do you have a controlled, side by side test that illustrates this inferiority in a real world scene viewed at normal sizes (i.e. 24" wide)?

Let us know when you're ready to post it.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 31, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Maybe someone with more technical knowledge can chime in, but my understanding is that the effects of read noise diminish as ISOs go up.



Read noise is not ISO dependent, but it's not the only source of noise.


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 31, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> jakeymate said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



http://www.sensorgen.info/

Maybe this is what you're referring to?
The 6D has better dynamic range than the D810 at ISO 800, and at ISO 400 it's only 0.5 stops worse.
Dynamic range is in part determined by read noise.

I don't know about the commonly complained of banding noise, but this is the closest thing I could think of.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 31, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> To be fair, I think jrista posted two reasonable examples: one was the room interior with bright window, and the other was a stream with bright sky.



No one has posted a reasonable example. That would require both sensors shot so that all other factors are equal, and RAW files provided for everyone to evaluate. Since we do not have a 5D3 shot of the room nor a D800 shot of the stream we have no idea what the difference would actually be.

You, me, neuro, jrista, Keith...everyone here...none of us can accurately evaluate the luminance range of a scene by sight alone, nor the dynamic range of a RAW file, and compute in our brains how it might have looked on another camera. Not even close.

Absent that you get confirmation bias. Every Canon shot with a white sky or black shadow is due to 'Canon's crummy sensor.' Every Nikon shot with a good range from shadow to highlight is 'thanks to those amazing Exmor sensors.' Even if you could have swapped cameras and gotten the same results they are interpreted that way. Heck, in another thread we had jrista cruising 500px thinking obvious HDR images were single frame Exmor shots. Outside of this debate and the psychological biases it has introduced...one's frame of mind if you will...he would have never assumed some of those shots were anything but multiple frame HDRs.

We have plenty of words but no real examples save Fred Miranda's, and the difference there is simply not worth all these words.

I would love to put this to rest once and for all, but I either have to borrow a friend's D800 (which he's always using professionally) or buy a Sony A7 (which I'm planning but haven't done yet). But a half dozen threads on the same topic is pointless absent a series of "all other things equal" test shots. Real world test shots. Not black paper in a coal mine "I pushed this >5 stops and turned off all NR on the Canon and look at how much better Nikon is at 300%" nonsense.

Despite my clashes with jrista I would trust him to do this. His sunflower scene would have been a great test if he had only had a D800 to test. I suspect the noise would have been much better on the darkest frame, but the shadows would have been mud that deep. I could be wrong.



> if you happen to be at one of these locations at that time of day, those two shots would benefit from the D8xx sensor.



jrista doesn't actually know this. Neither do you or I. You have to actually test both at the same scene. (Side note: based on what experience I do have processing/printing D800 RAW files I would guess there would be some benefit. I'm not convinced it would be visual, but simply less work in post. I can imagine in some cases that it would be visual, but I don't think it would ever be massive, i.e. you are still going to need and use GND filters and HDR.)


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 31, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Indeed. The 7D was a top seller for years, leading to a long upgrade cycle. The 100-400L remains popular, and despite unfortunately frequent false rumors, it's likely that Canon feels little pressure to replace it.



It's still competitive. At the short end Nikon's 80-400 AF-S is sharper, but at the long end the Canon is sharper. The worst thing about the Canon is the push/pull zoom.

In a sense Nikon "just caught up" to the Canon version in 2013. Are Nikon lenses as a whole two generations behind Canon?


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 31, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> There are many similar comments that can be made for 12800 ISO, TS17mm and other areas where Canon excel and where Canon users preach constantly.



I have never, on any forum, seen Canon users push Canon's advantages this hard. Ever.

Maybe Canon users are just happier people ;D


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 31, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > To be fair, I think jrista posted two reasonable examples: one was the room interior with bright window, and the other was a stream with bright sky.
> ...



I'll grant that it hasn't met scientific standards, and I'd like to see the side-by-side you describe. My opinion that jrista's examples were reasonable was based on two criteria: my personal experience with my 60D (I'm aware it's not Canon's best) and jrista's history of being careful about his assertions. I.e., he's earned the benefit of my initial trust (as if he cares), though I would be pleased to see scientifically valid tests to support the assertion.


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 31, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Dude, what was I saying just yesterday? Two wrongs make a right? Lowering the standard is the reason to be here?
> 
> Just tell us your opinion of the gear, and better yet back it up with examples or illustrations, we like pictures, and leave the counter antagonism in Aus. Your opinions of another poster are what got you in trouble last time, nobody cares about your opinions of other posters, we do care about well reasoned and illustrated points about gear.



Pointing out that constant sarcasm is tiresome is an issue, but the ridiculous sarcasm itself isn't?

Ok.


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 31, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> jakeymate said:
> 
> 
> > There are many similar comments that can be made for 12800 ISO, TS17mm and other areas where Canon excel and where Canon users preach constantly.
> ...



I've seen these pushed at me numerous times on CR, and at others as a Canon defence, so you can't have seen the many I've seen.

Neuro has pushed both extensively for example.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 31, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Dude, what was I saying just yesterday? Two wrongs make a right? Lowering the standard is the reason to be here?
> ...



Neuro is a contradiction. I don't know how long you you've been lurking at CR before you started posting, but you can see quite a bit of dynamic range from him. I've seen him be extremely generous with his time and experience, patiently explaining concepts and gear to newbs and Luddites. And I've seen him misunderstand a post and set off a snark bomb. He's probably a nice guy in-person.


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 31, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Neuro is a contradiction. I don't know how long you you've been lurking at CR before you started posting, but you can see quite a bit of dynamic range from him. I've seen him be extremely generous with his time and experience, patiently explaining concepts and gear to newbs and Luddites. And I've seen him misunderstand a post and set off a snark bomb. He's probably a nice guy in-person.



I'd lurked for years, but first noticed him maybe 3 years or so ago.

When I first joined, I suggested, politely I hope, that he plays to his strengths as you've listed here, and not his weaknesses.

I guess it's a feature of forums that half of everything posted is inaccurate, sarcastic and biased, but as I find this one of the most useful photography forums, I hoped that could be reduced to less.

When Neuro takes the chip off his shoulder, he is a fantastic contributor, maybe 2nd to none actually.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 31, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> I've seen these pushed at me numerous times on CR, and at others as a Canon defence, so you can't have seen the many I've seen.
> 
> Neuro has pushed both extensively for example.



Allow me to rephrase...I have never seen a half dozen threads about Canon T/S lenses on a Nikon site at one time.


----------



## David Hull (Aug 31, 2014)

ooF Fighters said:


> I'd like to share a conversation that I recently had with a Nikon shooter.
> 
> The exchange took place on an airport shuttle bus so it was very brief. As I took an unoccupied seat across from a man and settled in with my Canon backpack on my lap, he took notice and said "Canon man huh?"
> I explained that it wasn't out of a particular loyalty but that I had gone from an X700 to a digital rebel and had never changed brands since.
> ...


Wow! I thought it was my drinking that was making me happy. Now I can finally stop and spend that money for lenses.


----------



## jrista (Aug 31, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



Thanks for the vote of confidence. 

I would honestly post direct comparisons if I had the ability to. I think I'm going to rent a D800 next chance I get (I'm just coming off a week vacation, and I hadn't planned on renting a D800 or D810 before hand...next vacation I will.) There ARE D800 raw files available on the net that demonstrate the differences fairly well. I don't think I've really encountered all that many that truly show of the true shadow lifting power of having two additional stops of dynamic range well enough...and even if I did manage to find some NEFs that did, they would of course be suspect.

The only way the issue can reasonably be settled is if I do as you say...take some comparison images myself in identical scenarios, be open about how I did my testing, and freely provide my RAW files (which I have done on several occasions, including recently with the sunflower RAW.) I have never expected miracles, but in my experience with D800 NEFs, you don't "just" have more editing latitude...the data is very clean, the tonality and color fidelity, is better than in any Canon CR2 file that deep into the shadows, and even if you don't like the lower contrast that heavy shadow lifting often results in, you still get better, cleaner, softer, smoother falloff into the shadows than you do with a Canon file.

I'd really love to have that kind of deep shadow image quality in my Canon RAWs...


----------



## V8Beast (Aug 31, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> Yes, it's not the be all and end all, but I can guarantee when Canon match the Exmors, the tone in here will change as people start to see the benefits across the ISO range, not just at low ISO.



That always happens, but that's the case in both camps. Canon fanboys subscribed to the resolution/IQ school of thought during the 5D2/1Ds3 era, then converted to ISO/FPS school of thought during the 5D3/1DX era. Nikon fanboys subscribed to the ISO/FPS school of thought during the D700/D3 era, then converted to the resolution/IQ school of thought during the D800/D4 era. Both camps are equally guilty of fanboyism


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 31, 2014)

jrista said:


> I'd really love to have that kind of deep shadow image quality in my Canon RAWs...



Jon, for what it's worth, here's the first quick and dirty test I did when my D800 arrived, alongside my Mk3.

27th June 2012. I'd read about the D800, but was a Canon fan, but thought it worth buying one to test out after all 
I'd read, even back then when it was new.

I got the only D800 available in Aus at the time as they were in very short supply, so I figured I'd just Ebay it and the 24-70 F2.8 it came with after I'd tested it, and go back to my Mk3.

In all honesty, I never ever expected to leave Canon, but in around 20 mins of taking shots on both, my mind was made up and I decided to become one those people that switched and forever got crap for it 

I had one FB photographer friend (a pro from WA) tear me a new arse on Facebook and de friend me when I posted these images one night!

Over two years later, I still am getting torn a new arse.

This wasn't my intended test anyway. I just grabbed a Diet Coke carton and put it on a smooth grey background and took two test snaps to match exposure between the two.

That was all this was for, to make sure they both were exposed the same before I started doing tests, so I came upstairs loaded the RAWs and noticed the difference straight away.

Mk3 pushed 3 stops in ACR







D800 pushed 3 stops in ACR






Mk3 pushed 3 stops in ACR 100% crop






D800 pushed 3 stops in ACR 100 crop






My thoughts then, as now, were the smoothness of the bg gradation on the D800, the lack of read noise, the rendition of colour pulled from deep shadows, and the detail retained in the rosette print pattern on the box.

The raws are here if you want them. 

http://www.deanagar.com.au/raws.zip

Please don't link these anywhere but here, I don't want my website bandwidth using up in 24 hours


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 31, 2014)

To offset the 'why do you have to push exposure 3 stops, only bad photographers get exposure wrong' posts, here is the red channel of both, NOT pushed, just at 0 adjustment.

That noise is in your channels, even you don't push them at all.

Do I even need to label these?

Mk3 red channel






D800 red channel


----------



## jrista (Aug 31, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> To offset the 'why do you have to push exposure 3 stops, only bad photographers get exposure wrong' posts, here is the red channel of both, NOT pushed, just at 0 adjustment.
> 
> That noise is in your channels, even you don't push them at all.
> 
> ...



Yeah, that's pretty much my experience with D800 NEFs. That shadow tonality is just phenomenal. THAT is what I want. It doesn't matter if you lift by stops...it's just...beautiful. NO BANDING!  I really, really, cannot wait until Canon figures out how to get rid of their banding noise...because it's just the most hideous thing I've ever seen.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 31, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Maybe someone with more technical knowledge can chime in, but my understanding is that the effects of read noise diminish as ISOs go up. I've read (can't recall where) that lifting shadows becomes roughly equal between D8x0 and 5D3 somewhere between ISO800 and ISO1600.
> 
> Again, this is not my personal experience, and I can't cite you a source. If you have access to both cameras maybe you could post side-by-side samples at ISO1600.



you can see how the d800's shadows are much cleaner than the 5d3's up to iso 800. The d800's read noise takes a sudden jump at 1600 so it's similar to the 5d3. All are pushed 4 stops so you can easily visualize the noise patterns.

http://a2bart.com/tech/allcamdknz.htm

Neuro, if you think you have a better, faster way to demonstrate read noise, spit it out.
Constantly trolling with snark about lens cap on shots for this purpose is just dumb and frankly, makes you look bad if you can't top the technique.


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 31, 2014)

jrista said:


> Yeah, that's pretty much my experience with D800 NEFs. That shadow tonality is just phenomenal. THAT is what I want. It doesn't matter if you lift by stops...it's just...beautiful. NO BANDING!  I really, really, cannot wait until Canon figures out how to get rid of their banding noise...because it's just the most hideous thing I've ever seen.



When you actually look at it technically Jon, the Canon's give up (if you look at the RGB channels) nowhere near the shadow areas.

When you put 80% of RGB on top go each other, you hide a lot of sins in what appear to be shadows.

In my experience, the Canon sensors starting giving up detail to read noise at around 65%.

If you load up the Mk3 channel in PS and look at the point where read noise appears and becomes problematic in that BG gradation, it's starts at 64%.

That's another 36% of tonality that's essentially useless.

I had a big talk today with another photographer who came in for a session, and I was explaining to them how my style changed after going to Nikon.

I used to crush blacks in my work and expose accordingly when shooting, automatically knowing where my read noise cut off point would be.

I used to do very high contrast images, which certainly looked cool, but I did that to crush out poor shadows. 

My style was defined by my kit in truth.

My work has become less and less contrasty in the past 2 years and now I favour a more matt look, because I can do that, and not worry that the lower 36% of my RGB channels are polluted and need to be hidden somehow.

The issue is, so many Canon photographers think that 64% RGB is almost black, and don't worry about it.

It's not. There's 36% more usable info in those channels on Exmor. That's not insignificant.

When the 2-3 stop advantage is touted and then dismissed by Canon users, it makes me laugh.

I've displayed an image where the Canon gives up resolving smooth detail at 64% RGB.

I'm no mathematician, but isn't that 36% more usable information?


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 31, 2014)

Aglet said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe someone with more technical knowledge can chime in, but my understanding is that the effects of read noise diminish as ISOs go up. I've read (can't recall where) that lifting shadows becomes roughly equal between D8x0 and 5D3 somewhere between ISO800 and ISO1600.
> ...



That is a great chart, thank you for posting.

As a D800/D810 user, I would have happily said the Mk3 was cleaner at 3200 (really just to stop the crap I get from Canon guys and throw them a bone) but that chart is very interesting.

The D800 is right there with the Mk3 up to 6400, and I'll admit, I never shoot over 1600, so I'd accepted the CR forum wisdom that the Mk3 surpassed the D800 over 3200.

Apparently not.


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 31, 2014)

@jakeymate:
Thanx for the shoots which make both cameras IQ a little bet more comparable. I think a better comparability which excludes the different MP counts of the sensors without resizing the final image files might produce the following procedure: Two shots where the object has the same size in the FINAL NON-SCALED image. This might exclude some aliasing artifacts between object and sensor structure.

For me it shows that Sony sensors are better in smoothness (thanks to the absence of disturbing read noise) compared to Canon sensors. Every bit of (1) coming closer to the real scene and (2) enlarged editing latitude is welcome.

But your images prove to ME that both cameras are tools to get absolutely stunning photos ... if, yes if the subject matters, the photographer has a vision of light and good technical abilities to put that vision into a jpg or a print, finally.

So I will stay with my so inferior 40D, 600D and EOS M and some great lenses for a while, taking photos and enjoying the race between camera brands ... and the audiences reactions!


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 31, 2014)

mb66energy said:


> @jakeymate:
> Thanx for the shoots which make both cameras IQ a little bet more comparable. I think a better comparability which excludes the different MP counts of the sensors without resizing the final image files might produce the following procedure: Two shots where the object has the same size in the FINAL NON-SCALED image. This might exclude some aliasing artifacts between object and sensor structure.
> 
> For me it shows that Sony sensors are better in smoothness (thanks to the absence of disturbing read noise) compared to Canon sensors. Every bit of (1) coming closer to the real scene and (2) enlarged editing latitude is welcome.
> ...



Why exclude the megapixel count?

The D800 manages to trounce the the Mk3 sensor in that lower 36% of tone, DESPITE it having 14 more megapixels.

The raws are there if you want to look at NON SCALED images, although the 1:1 crops are non scaled. 

The fact that the Mk3 still looks so poor even taken down to 1920 wide is even more telling. If you can see it at 1920, a third of it's actual resolution, then all you get on the full res is more detailed read noise.

The lack of detail in the print pattern is nothing to do with resolution and everything to do with the Canon sensor simply not seeing the detail at all.

If it did, the lower resolution would simply mean the detail was smaller, not not there at all.

To compare res for res, take the 100% Nikon crop and take it down by 77% and technically, it should look like the Mk3.

It doesn't.


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 31, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > @jakeymate:
> ...



You argued with resolution of fine structures so I presented my idea to get that comparable.

I assumed 100% crops because that is what i usually expect for comparisons like that - my fault.


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 31, 2014)

mb66energy said:


> You argued with resolution of fine structures so I presented my idea to get that comparable.
> 
> I assumed 100% crops because that is what i usually expect for comparisons like that - my fault.



Sorry, if that's how I came across, and I can see the issue there.

The fine structure present is not due the resolution, it's the sensor resolving the shadow detail.

The Canon sensor doesn't even begin to resolve that detail as it's in shadow and it actually can't even see it.

Sure the D800 would see a bit more of it due to it's higher resolution, but it's not even visible at all in the read noise on the Canon.


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 31, 2014)

Aglet said:


> Neuro, if you think you have a better, faster way to demonstrate read noise, spit it out.
> Constantly trolling with snark about lens cap on shots for this purpose is just dumb and frankly, makes you look bad if you can't top the technique.



Is there a better way to isolate the read noise and see just the read noise?

I'm not too techy but shooting zero light would do that perfectly wouldn't it?


----------



## mmenno (Aug 31, 2014)

The reasoning of downplaying the importance of DR to the point of 'We don't need a better DR sensor because canon doesn't have one' eludes me. 
Back when canon's sensors were better at higher iso's it was all you ever heard, and now when nikon's are better at low iso's it's suddenly of no importance whatsoever..


----------



## Lawliet (Aug 31, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> Is there a better way to isolate the read noise and see just the read noise?



If you want clean data & isolated variables - no, nothing that could be done at home.
If you want to stick the fingers into your ears and hum really loud...well, you want a test that does just the opposite.


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 31, 2014)

mmenno said:


> The reasoning of downplaying the importance of DR to the point of 'We don't need a better DR sensor because canon doesn't have one' eludes me.
> Back when canon's sensors were better at higher iso's it was all you ever heard, and now when nikon's are better at low iso's it's suddenly of no importance whatsoever..



The thing that puzzles me, is that Canon's aren't the best at hi ISO either.

Right now, the A7s, the D4s, and even the 2009 D3s are pretty much the best hi ISO cameras out there.

I know quoting DXO is a crucifiable offence round here, but their first Canon in the hi ISO chart is the 1DX at number 10.

The top 9 are all Sony's Exmor sensors, except the D3s which has some mystery around who made it apparently.

So all the talk about Exmors being the best low ISO sensors as if somehow they suck at high ISO's does not seem to be borne out in the real world.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2014)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



So, what is the relevance of MP/sec? Besides demonstrating your ability to use a calculator, that is...

5DIII can take *6* full frame pictures per second
D810 can take *5* full frame pictures per second

Try and stay with specifications relevant to photography next time.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 31, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> To be fair, I think jrista posted two reasonable examples: one was the room interior with bright window, and the other was a stream with bright sky.



Yep - but with all due respect to him, he's not the final arbiter of what can and cannot be achieved with a Canon file - I've been a number of examples from Jon which immediately made me think "_Hmmm... That's not a very good job_", because, like a lot on here, he seems wedded to a single converter. Some of the stuff on his own website has made me scratch my head about the image quality he's achieving with his bird photography, too.

The simple fact (and I use the word advisedly) is this: DPP (for example) can pull clean detail out of the shadows of Canon low ISO files in a way which - blind tested (been there, done that) - isn't _that_ far from similarly "cranked" Sonikon sensor files. 

_There's more than one way to skin the low ISO DR cat..._

*But even the examples we're discussing are - in the great scheme of things - unlikely to represent the kind of photograph which most of us are taking on a regular basis, and it's actually good design and good business for a manufacturer not to expend time, money and effort building in capability which - realistically, whether the DR whiners like it or not - is only going to be of "niche" value*.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 31, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> Your words.....just about describe your rather aggressive over the top rant apparently in "defence" of Canon!



Good God - basic reading comprehension really does seem to be at a premium in this thread. Nothing I wrote "defends" Canon! It criticises the bashers, and explains _why_ some people (to use your word, not mine), "defend" Canon, but _not a single word of that post can be characterised as me "defending" Canon_. 



> I bet Canon have never heard of you.



I can _guarantee_ they haven't - what's your point?



> Just try and be a bit more open minded and less fanatical in your next post.



You still don't get it, do you? It''s _other people's lack of open mindedness, and their fanatical obsession with DR_, that's the problem here.

_Do try to keep up..._


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 31, 2014)

mmenno said:


> The reasoning of downplaying the importance of DR to the point of 'We don't need a better DR sensor because canon doesn't have one' eludes me.



The reasoning doubtless eludes you _because nobody's actually doing that_.

More disingenuous "spinning" to push an agenda and score cheap points...


----------



## crashpc (Aug 31, 2014)

Guys, guys, what should I do? Tried to make some product photography, but I accidentally underexposed that shot by 5 stops with my EOS M, so it ended up like this: 



This is really crap and I shouldn´t of buy this cam for $320 back then...


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 31, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> You still don't get it, do you? It''s _other people's lack of open mindedness, and their fanatical obsession with DR_, that's the problem here.
> 
> _Do try to keep up..._



No Keith, YOU don't get it. Discussion about facts concerning cameras is not a fanatical obsession with DR.

Some have contributed useful information.

All you've done is rant at those who have. Not overly useful.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 31, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> Jon, for what it's worth, here's the first quick and dirty test I did when my D800 arrived, alongside my Mk3.



Thank you for providing these. They won't settle any arguments about HDR landscapes, but it's something.

Clearly the D800 has less shadow and red channel noise. But once again I'm stuck wondering why there's so much angst over this. Play with the NR sliders in ACR and/or add some NR in post and they're not that different. Though I will say in this case that the shadow gradation is better on Nikon and would probably appear so in print side by side after NR.

I will also make the point that the dynamic range is essentially the same between the two (as I would expect), though the D800 has more shadow latitude thanks to the lack of noise and smoother gradation (i.e. no banding).

Do I wish Canon would improve to this level? Of course. Do I think it's worth switching brands? No, though I wouldn't give anyone grief on FB for doing so.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 31, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> The thing that puzzles me, is that Canon's aren't the best at hi ISO either.
> 
> Right now, the A7s, the D4s, and even the 2009 D3s are pretty much the best hi ISO cameras out there.



The D3s is more then a stop behind the 5D3, and that's before scaling the 5D3 image down to match. 1DX and D4s are a wash at high ISO. The A7s is a solid stop ahead of other current FF sensors, Canon or Nikon.



> I know quoting DXO is a crucifiable offence round here, but their first Canon in the hi ISO chart is the 1DX at number 10.



Once again, DxO is at odds with observable reality. Not just in terms of where the 1DX ranks, but on the Nikon rankings as well. The D4s is without question ahead of the D3s.

Sad that they get all these great cameras to test and never actually photograph the real world. If they did they might fix their tests ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 31, 2014)

no.


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 31, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> jakeymate said:
> 
> 
> > Jon, for what it's worth, here's the first quick and dirty test I did when my D800 arrived, alongside my Mk3.
> ...



I just posted the red channel. The blue and the green are the same. Actually, the green is better of course as it has two photo sites.

The angst is that while noise removal is ok, that doesn't bring back your detail that the sensor never saw in the first place.

Basically, below 36%, the Canon's are losing detail, and not much further down it's all gone.

The issue is, a lot of people don't really know, they don't know what to look for, and they don't see it when their images aren't flat grey, and are busy, but it appears in real life images all the time.

Architectural and automobile photographs, with smooth surfaces to shoot for example.

My issue was how Canon renders skin as it falls into shadow. It struggles with shadowed skin so much, and you don't want green blotches in skin.

The solution I used when I was a Canon user was to crush it to a point where it wasn't a factor.

I di that for ages and considered it normal. I don't do that anymore.

Another area where the issue shows itself even more is in black and white.

The strongest channel quality is the green channel of course, but skin tones aren't green so when you make a black and white properly of a portrait, and colour mix, you're pushing the red channel, and yellows, and they do not respond very well.

Here's a shot I did on the Mk2, and this is edited, and I've crushed the noise in the shadows, so the shot is fine.







But this is the red channel AFTER I've crushed out the noise. Still a terrible gradation round that arm. Less than the original after crushing it, but still there.






That's one of the many reasons the IQ of the Nikon won me over.


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 31, 2014)

Here is a highly shadowed shot from the D800 of skin.






Here's a 1:1 crop of the red channel.






Those are not from the raws, but from the full res JPEGs I use for my folio, so there is a bit of posterisation at 1:1 as it's been jpeged (is that a word) twice.

You'll need click them to look at them. Not sure why they are squashed in the post itself.


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 31, 2014)

Here's a 1:1 crop on the guitar shot.

Again, bear in mind, this has been processed and the shadows crushed and that noise on her arm is still very apparent.

I'd get the raw out, but it's 2-3 years old and on a disk somewhere and will take me ages to find it.


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 31, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> jakeymate said:
> 
> 
> > The thing that puzzles me, is that Canon's aren't the best at hi ISO either.
> ...



I won't argue with you, as I'm not a D3s, D4s user.

I do know wedding togs that will get that D3s out when the lights go down though, even when they've got a D4 or a D800.

As for the D3s been a stop behind the Mk3, that does not fit with my experience of a Mk3.

The mk3 was a stop, maybe two if you're charitable, better than the Mk2, and the D3s killed the Mk2 at hi ISO's. Killed it stone dead imho.

I know that much as I was pretty jealous of my D3s using mates around 2009-2012, on the occasions I shot shows and light limited things. Their images were streets ahead of mine, even when they were up at 6400, and I was at 1600.

In the few weeks I had the Mk3, I shot one concert and I didn't see the low light performance of the D3s when I did, let alone a stop better.


----------



## mmenno (Aug 31, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> mmenno said:
> 
> 
> > The reasoning of downplaying the importance of DR to the point of 'We don't need a better DR sensor because canon doesn't have one' eludes me.
> ...



Don't paint me as a troll, I don't have any agenda to push, nor points to score. For what it's worth, I only shoot canon myself and have never really liked any nikon body I shot with. 

The point I was making is that in a discussion like this one people seem to want to defend the fact that their brand is worse at some characteristic than a competing brand by dismissing the importance of that characteristic, like claiming that people who run into canon's shadow banding are bad photographers, or no one should ever need more DR.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 31, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Then do as I do and stop buying new Canon cameras until they fix it.
> 
> And also stop recommending Canon cameras to others too.



Should Nikon and Sony owners stop buying new editions of those brands until they fix their auto-focus? An out-of-focus shot is useless, regardless of IQ.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 31, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> Jon, for what it's worth, here's the first quick and dirty test I did when my D800 arrived, alongside my Mk3.



I'm not a big fan of this test. Since each camera might handle differently, I'd want to identical framing and optimal exposure for some bright element of each, then we'd look at the shadows. My question is not how each looks at the same exposure, but which scenes can/can't be captured with reasonable use of each. If one handles highlights better, why is it wrong to increase exposure to make use of that? Setting equal exposure doesn't seem like a valid test to me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2014)

mmenno said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > mmenno said:
> ...



Conversely, some people (not referring to you) take a single factor of *camera system* performance, promote the idea that better performance in that factor is of such paramount importance that no other aspect of *camera system* performance has relevance, and then proceed as if that one factor which is important to them is critical for everyone, so much so that lesser performance in that metric spells 'doom' for a particular brand. 

Those same people sometimes obsess over trying to prove their point, and post their views rampantly, even in threads which have nothing to do with that issue. 

Ultimately, people vote with their wallets. Sales figures and market share for the past few years are ample proof that while low ISO DR is of paramount importance to a small minority, a difference of a couple of stops on that one single metric doesn't have any meaningful impact on the buying decisions of the majority of photographers.


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 31, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> I'm not a big fan of this test. Since each camera might handle differently, I'd want to identical framing and optimal exposure for some bright element of each, then we'd look at the shadows. My question is not how each looks at the same exposure, but which scenes can/can't be captured with reasonable use of each. If one handles highlights better, why is it wrong to increase exposure to make use of that? Setting equal exposure doesn't seem like a valid test to me.



You don't think how they look at the same exposure is a valid test? Wow.

What exactly would you do to avoid read noise in the lower 36% of the image exactly? How would you expose to not have that problem?

Expose to the right, with less dynamic range to start with? Why should you even have to?

After 2 years with a Mk1, 3 years with a Mk2, and a month with a Mk3, over two years with a D800, and a month with a D810, I know there is no exposure that the Nikon won't outshine the Mk2/3 etc on.

Canon's do not handle highlights better. 

From my experience, there is more headroom in D800/D810 than the Mk2 or Mk3, and with the dynamic range advantage, you can mess up a D800 exposure and still be ok.

I spent a long time trying to expose around Canon's limitations. I wasn't selling my work when I had the Mk1, but from the Mk2 I was, and that's 3 years of dealing with those issues, that are plain to see in my examples.

When a Camera is not able to differentiate noise from detail in the lower 3rd of the tonal range, then no test is going to make it shine.


----------



## mmenno (Aug 31, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ultimately, people vote with their wallets. Sales figures and market share for the past few years are ample proof that while low ISO DR is of paramount importance to a small minority, a difference of a couple of stops on that one single metric doesn't have any meaningful impact on the buying decisions of the majority of photographers.



True, and exactly the reason why I shoot canon, even though I really wouldn't mind having a bit more DR sometimes


----------



## crashpc (Aug 31, 2014)

"When a Camera is not able to differentiate noise from detail in the lower 3rd of the tonal range, then no test is going to make it shine."

This is very wide claim that can be viewed from different angles of view. From what I´ve seen, there is SOME noise in this part, but also it is clearly able (or my eye if I look at the output) to differentiate noise and detail. There is lots of detail there.


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 31, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Conversely, some people (not referring to you) take a single factor of *camera system* performance, promote the idea that better performance in that factor is of such paramount importance that no other aspect of *camera system* performance has relevance, and then proceed as if that one factor which is important to them is critical for everyone, so much so that lesser performance in that metric spells 'doom' for a particular brand.
> 
> Those same people sometimes obsess over trying to prove their point, and post their views rampantly, even in threads which have nothing to do with that issue.
> 
> Ultimately, people vote with their wallets. Sales figures and market share for the past few years are ample proof that while low ISO DR is of paramount importance to a small minority, a difference of a couple of stops on that one single metric doesn't have any meaningful impact on the buying decisions of the majority of photographers.



Ah, yet another attack. How many is that now exactly?

And were back to the same drum beat. Canons sales are great, so no one wants Nikons or Sony's superior IQ.

Well, with people like you preaching inaccurate information, I guess Canon has its blind followers doing it's marketing work for them.

I've discussed the pros and cons of both systems, from my own experience, and there are pros and cons to both. 

I've shown examples of the problems I found with the time I spent with Canon and how the D800 solved those issues for me.

I've not preached Nikon, I've shown facts, and examples, so people can work out for themselves if those advantages are for them or not.

All I've wanted to do is get some actual real info out there, instead of the blind evangelising you seem to do, day in, day out.

All I've seen you do, is post a lot of times about the Mk3 having 6fps.

Is that what it's come down to Neuro? A wedding camera having 1fps more than a studio camera is your new mantra?

Fine, it does have 1fps more in full frame. 

It has nothing else meaningful that the D810 doesn't, and in fact it a lot less.

But I encourage people to do their research, take time with more than one camera, to see for themselves if the advantages of one outweigh th other.

I photographed a 26 year old client today who is a photographer.

She loved the images as we did our selections and then she asked me about her Mk3 and my D810.

I showed her the examples I showed here, and a lot more as she was sat next to me.

She said she thought she might have gone down the wrong path. I asked her how she ended up with a Mk3.

I quote "Canon people always say Canons are the best so I never even looked at Nikon." 

But she wasn't convinced of that after seeing my work on my 30" screen and 30" and 50" prints around the place.

But, I asked her what kind of work she was into and what she wanted to do in the future and then I advised her the best camera she should buy.

A 5D mk3. Which was great as she already had one 

Because my mission on this earth is not to sell Nikons to make myself feel good about my choice of camera system.

I know why I use Nikon, and I'll pass that info on, so that there is some balance for anyone that actually wants to know that stuff.

If they don't see an advantage for their work, then great, they'll stay happy Canon campers, but they'll at least have seen something real about the alternatives, and not your agenda driven propaganda.

When was the last time you gave a BALANCED view of the pros and cons of the two cameras in question?

I've never seen you do that once.

What's your mission here Neuro? 

Balance? Sensible debate about the many camera option available, or are you here for the glory of the Canon religion?

Because that's getting really, really boring.

And the attacks at every opportunity? Really, really tiresome.

Is it really that bad for you that Nikon have a 36 meg studio camera out now that can do what the Mk3 can do, besides 6FPS in FF of course?

Jeez, how upset are you going to be when the D750 comes out?

You might need some counselling given how you've been about dissing anything and everything you can about Nikon.


----------



## Khalai (Aug 31, 2014)

Seventeen pages of bashing and arguing like old hags on the marketplace 

C'mon, bury this thread and go out shooting, it will be much more productive than measurebating, comparing and beating with "impenetrable" facts...


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 31, 2014)

crashpc said:


> This is very wide claim that can be viewed from different angles of view. From what I´ve seen, there is SOME noise in this part, but also it is clearly able (or my eye if I look at the output) to differentiate noise and detail. There is lots of detail there.



Well it's a claim supported by a grey gradation of the red channel that starts to fall apart at 36%.

Personally, I think the Canon red channel is horrible frankly. Losing detail that early in the tonal range is not acceptable to me.

If you're ok with that then that's fine. I've put the info up there, and that's all I can do.


----------



## crashpc (Aug 31, 2014)

jakey, we already know this. Canon people not only here know about worse shadow noise of their cams, but they are somehow locked to Canon systems, the same as I am. But you should realize that
1) It is not only shadow noise what should drive one to buy some cam
2) that not everybody can gain from this
3) there are other aspects, body ergonomics, but also things you cannot solve. Lets say I can borrow few L lenses for free. Do you believe some Sony sensor can overpower this advantage? 
4) The rest of the system is usually more expensive outside Nikon and Canon
5) It might be some time, but wait for new Canon releases, as it really is about LAST company waiting for important releases. If it does well, there is not anything wrong, they do good, and you must realize there really isn´t any reason for 99% of population to jump on new sensor with higher DR every two or three years.

That way not only I would be very, VERY happy to have Canon sensors with APS-C 36Mpx and 15 stops of DR. Would jump on it immediately, but it doesn´t happen, and Sony sensors doesn´t save me from great pain with Sony cameras.

So what is it? What do you want to hear from us? I don´t understand....

//Now about your quote: It seems I´m fine to some degree, but I´d also be happy to have it better of course. Falling apart is very vague term. If I shoot something which appears to be in one third of the histogram, it still has about "great" detail in there, so I don´t follow what you actually mean. Would be nice from you to explain further....


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 31, 2014)

Khalai said:


> Seventeen pages of bashing and arguing like old hags on the marketplace
> 
> C'mon, bury this thread and go out shooting, it will be much more productive than measurebating, comparing and beating with "impenetrable" facts...



If only there was a way that you didn't have to read it.

I'm sorry I took some time and posted some information that is very lacking in these parts for those that may have wanted to see it.

I'll go now and think about the terrible thing I've done :-[


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 31, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> What exactly would you do to avoid read noise in the lower 36% of the image exactly? How would you expose to not have that problem?



I know people are probably getting sick of me harping on this but DualISO prettty much eliminates Exmor's dynamic range advantage. Below is a Vanilla 5D3 shot vs a DualISO 5D3 image with both pushed 6 stops.


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 31, 2014)

crashpc said:


> jakey, we already know this. Canon people not only here know about worse shadow noise of their cams, but they are somehow locked to Canon systems, the same as I am. But you should realize that
> 1) It is not only shadow noise what should drive one to buy some cam
> 2) that not everybody can gain from this
> 3) there are other aspects, body ergonomics, but also things you cannot solve. Lets say I can borrow few L lenses for free. Do you believe some Sony sensor can overpower this advantage?
> ...



I've acknowledged all of that.

What I've observed is people making claims that aren't true, most people not being fully aware of the facts, and thinking that Nikon can't do this, or can't do that.

Jon wanted examples and I posted some.

I don't want to hear anything from you. If it's useful information, use it, if it's not, ignore it.

The one thing that is frustrating is the talk of DR.

A clean sensor is far more than just DR. It's clean RGB channels from 0-100%, rather than 0-64% as I've shown on the Mk3.

I'll wager some didn't realise that read noise issue was so prevalent, so fast.

Take the info or leave it. Isn't it better 'out there' than not?

If not, and many think that way I'll happily leave for you.


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 31, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> I know people are probably getting sick of me harping on this but DualISO prettty much eliminates Exmor's dynamic range advantage. Below is a Vanilla 5D3 shot vs a DualISO 5D3 image with both pushed 6 stops.



That is a big improvement.

Shame it's needed in the first place to correct a problem that shouldn't exist.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 31, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not a big fan of this test. Since each camera might handle differently, I'd want to identical framing and optimal exposure for some bright element of each, then we'd look at the shadows. My question is not how each looks at the same exposure, but which scenes can/can't be captured with reasonable use of each. If one handles highlights better, why is it wrong to increase exposure to make use of that? Setting equal exposure doesn't seem like a valid test to me.
> ...


Perhaps we have different definitions or understandings of ETTR. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETTR

My understanding is that ETTR is the ideal exposure, which maximizes gathered information and DR of the desirable parts of the scene. 



> After 2 years with a Mk1, 3 years with a Mk2, and a month with a Mk3, over two years with a D800, and a month with a D810, I know there is no exposure that the Nikon won't outshine the Mk2/3 etc on.


Perhaps there are other photographers of equal or greater skill who have different experiences. The way to remove the personal experience variable from the equation is to do objective tests.



> Canon's do not handle highlights better.


I've heard it both ways. Testing will answer the question.

My first cut at a test would be something like this:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Construct a test environment. It helps if there's a single brightest element.
[*]Determine which scene element is the brightest that must remain unclipped.
[*]Use LiveView to adjust the histogram to ETTR that element. Possibly use a dodging tool to verify that you have the correct element ETTR.
[*]Starting at that exposure, take a series of maybe 10 shots, increasing exposure by 1/3 or 1/2 stop each time. (Note: this is because many on-camera histograms are derived from the JPEG-rendered image rather than the RAW data.)
[*]In post-processing, choose the frame with maximum exposure that represents the scene without clipping the important bright element, and work with that one to best render shadow detail. That's your test frame.
[/list]

Then repeat the process for the other camera and compare your best images.


----------



## crashpc (Aug 31, 2014)

Damn CR forum! My very long post is lost....

jakey: I take it, I agree, but it won´t help anything. If you have faster car, good! I´ll be looking forward to it for my self also. But it needs to be pointed out just once. If you ask again next week, I´ll say "GTFO of my lawn". It is the war still going on all forums around. And most funny thing is, that it can turn back and forth again and again. If canon releases some megapixel beast with greater DR and better shadow noise, expect the same thing. And from what Canon users encountered in the last year, expect great payback. It will be more like "hard f**k" many Sony and Nikon people deserve. And I ask why all this? 

When I had my new SL1 back then, I was really happier man (as somebody posted funny story about this), and as I know more about this particular aspect, I wish Canon would be better and I´m less happy with it indeed. It was sweet time and now it´s gone. Will it make me do better images? Propably not...

Now that thing about 36% of noise - I really see it differently, that´s why I asked for further explanation. If I shoot finer text in a way that the shot has histogram data at 1/3 of its range, I might see some noise, but I see some good detail, and with slight denoise It looks great. Only when one realy pushes things, here it comes. This can be valid need and sometimes I need it also. I´d be very happy to be able to do this (noiseless) with Canon cams also, but it doesn´t ruin pretty anything. Wedding photographer with iPhone does..


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2014)

mmenno said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Ultimately, people vote with their wallets. Sales figures and market share for the past few years are ample proof that while low ISO DR is of paramount importance to a small minority, a difference of a couple of stops on that one single metric doesn't have any meaningful impact on the buying decisions of the majority of photographers.
> ...



I don't think anyone would say no to more DR. As I've said previously, there are occasions I've found DR limiting...but in the vast majority of those, two more stops would not have been enough. 

But as I've also stated, there's more to a sensor than just low ISO DR, and there's _more_ to a camera than just the sensor, and there's *much more* to a photographic system than just the camera. 

Some people don't see it that way, which is fine for them. Barbecues, awnings, diet coke boxes, it's just more banging away on the same monotone DRum.


----------



## David Hull (Aug 31, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> crashpc said:
> 
> 
> > This is very wide claim that can be viewed from different angles of view. From what I´ve seen, there is SOME noise in this part, but also it is clearly able (or my eye if I look at the output) to differentiate noise and detail. There is lots of detail there.
> ...


Thanks for the info, I'll keep that in mind next time I submit a print of the "red channel" for a galleries show. I suspect galleries will start hanging "red channel" shots right after they begin accepting DxO curve prints.

Seriously, all of your Guitar shots look pretty nice and all seem to be acceptable -- I understand the nit picking and the relentless drive toward perfection but you have to admit that thousands of commercial photographers shoot this sort of thing day-in and day-out and somehow make nice images. This whole discussion seems a bit silly IMO.


----------



## David Hull (Aug 31, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> crashpc said:
> 
> 
> > jakey, we already know this. Canon people not only here know about worse shadow noise of their cams, but they are somehow locked to Canon systems, the same as I am. But you should realize that
> ...


This sort of hype holds court on both sides of the issue. We have all seen the nonsense (as in the Northrup video) where the shot is zoomed in to 100% and pushed several stops "so we can see the problem better". Yet the resulting image would be a total mess for both cameras (if they bothered to show it). IMO, this fits quite nicely into a paraphrased version of your statement "What I've observed is people making claims that aren't true, most people not being fully aware of the facts. being told that *Canon* can't do this, or can't do that, when it clearly can when used properly".

All equipment has limitations. Some people have figured out how to work around them, for others these limitations are unimportant. Canon seems to have a limitation in this area, Nikon has limitations in other areas. This is mealy a feature of the Sony/Nikon architecture. If it is important to you, go buy the equipment. However, for many it apparently does not bring enough value to justify the cost of switching, is is just not that germane to what they do. So the problem is basically boils down to this: 

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 31, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> The angst is that while noise removal is ok, that doesn't bring back your detail that the sensor never saw in the first place.



The pattern you see in the box is inconsequential...when it survives at all...at anything less then pixel peeping. I also question whether it has anything at all to do with noise or is simply a result of 36 v 22 MP. When pixel peeping you will see tiny pattern and texture differences between the two. It's just never worth thinking about at <100%.



> My issue was how Canon renders skin as it falls into shadow. It struggles with shadowed skin so much, and you don't want green blotches in skin.



I don't think I've ever seen green blotches in skin, even when lifting shadow detail 2-3 stops. But if I did, I would give the scene more exposure the next time around.

When I review work online or in print, I see a difference between old DSLRs (i.e. 10D / 20D) and modern DSLRs. I see a difference between cheap glass and really good glass. I see a difference between P&S sensors and m43 or larger sensors. I see a difference between people who know how to use HDR and GND filters, and those that don't use them at all.

I don't see a difference between D800 and 5D3 shots, or Sonikon/Canon in general.

If the differences ever become so great that they're apparent in real life photographs made for art and not pixel peeping, then I'll be one of the people arguing that Canon should catch up or buy Sony sensors. Until then...


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 31, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> I do know wedding togs that will get that D3s out when the lights go down though, even when they've got a D4 or a D800.



I know one who gave his D3s away after the D4 came out.



> As for the D3s been a stop behind the Mk3, that does not fit with my experience of a Mk3.



Professional tests that control for all variables show otherwise.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 31, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not a big fan of this test. Since each camera might handle differently, I'd want to identical framing and optimal exposure for some bright element of each, then we'd look at the shadows. My question is not how each looks at the same exposure, but which scenes can/can't be captured with reasonable use of each. If one handles highlights better, why is it wrong to increase exposure to make use of that? Setting equal exposure doesn't seem like a valid test to me.
> ...



If one has more highlight range then a "best possible" test would exploit that. That said, I'm not sure to what degree this is the case if at all. Just pointing out that it is something to consider.



> Expose to the right, with less dynamic range to start with? Why should you even have to?



The dynamic range in your test is nearly identical. The exposure latitude is what's different. And ETTR is for every sensor, Exmor included. Having less read noise and therefore better shadows doesn't eliminate the fact that the last few bits have almost no tonal separation if you push them hard enough, an inherent fact of linear ADCs. With digital you want your exposure to the right without clipping highlights if you are going to maximize DR and latitude in post. (If you're not then none of this matters.)



> When a Camera is not able to differentiate noise from detail in the lower 3rd of the tonal range, then no test is going to make it shine.



This is not an accurate evaluation or statement. If the noise were that bad you wouldn't have been able to push the Canon RAW 3 stops at all.


----------



## jrista (Aug 31, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don't think anyone would say no to more DR. As I've said previously, there are occasions I've found DR limiting...but in the vast majority of those, two more stops would not have been enough.



This is really another red herring. It doesn't matter if two more stops of DR isn't enough...it's still significant, and it simplifies whatever else you have to do to deal with any excess DR. In my recent landscape scenes, I was using five to six stops of GND filtration. That's a lot of filters to stack, and stacking that many filters affects IQ across the board (resin GND filters, even the really high end optical grade ones, affect resolving power and diminish IQ at every tonal level). With two more stops or so of DR, I could drop at least one filter. I might even be able to get away with a single three or four stop GND, eliminate the stacking all together. 

In the cases where I could not use GND filtration (such as photographing a river within the trees, with only a V-shaped blown sky at the end), most of the time, I was about two, maybe two and a half stops short of being able to expose for the sky. Having two more stops of DR would have solved the very vast majority of that problem, more than enough to get away with the contrast I wanted with nice clean falloff into the shadows, while still preserving the sky. The 5D III, even though I wanted a contrasty image, does not have that clean falloff into the shadows...and the sky is STILL blown. 

So, the whole notion that "it's still not enough" is a fallacy. It doesn't matter if it's not enough...it's still a LOT more dynamic range, and it results in cleaner data from the highlights right down into the deep, deep shadows. Canon data gets scratchier and muddier starting in the lower midtones, and gets ever more nasty the deeper you go. I like contrasty landscapes, and when downsampled to ~8x10 size or smaller for viewing on the web they look perfectly fine. But printed? The shadows are muddy, red-blotchy mush, even despite the contrast.


----------



## JohanCruyff (Aug 31, 2014)

Yawn.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 31, 2014)

jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think anyone would say no to more DR. As I've said previously, there are occasions I've found DR limiting...but in the vast majority of those, two more stops would not have been enough.
> ...



So tell me Jon, how do I get away using Canon gear ? Nearly all my pictures are shot either across or into the sun. 

The only bit of kit I really need is a body and a 24-70 standard zoom. I could easily switch to Nikon in the blink of an eye, but there is no need, because there is not enough advantage to make it worthwhile. 

12 stops is one hell of a range, and a two stop dodge or burn is a hell of a difference in exposure. When you move outside 12 stops Neuro is right, you need much more to make a significant difference to optimum processing techniques.


----------



## KacperP (Aug 31, 2014)

Perhaps this "new technology" in 7D mk2 sensor can also mean different layout in sensor circuitry? Hopefully that would lead to lower noise.
I read somewhere that Canon sensor itself is not inferior to Sony offerings in sensitivity, but reading signals from sensor introduces significant noise, and that explained slightly higher noise in 7D compared to 60D with same sensor.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2014)

jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think anyone would say no to more DR. As I've said previously, there are occasions I've found DR limiting...but in the vast majority of those, two more stops would not have been enough.
> ...



Going from a single shot to >1 shot has a significant impact on workflow and processing time. Two, three, or six shots result in only marginal differences. 




jrista said:


> In my recent landscape scenes, I was using five to six stops of GND filtration. That's a lot of filters to stack, and stacking that many filters ... I might even be able to get away with a single three or four stop GND,



Speaking of stinky fish, you can use just one filter for 4 stops GND, but getting to 5-6 stops GND requires "a lot of filters" and "stacking that many filters" is a problem? Since when is *two* 'a lot of filters'? (EDIT: I'm sure you mean _you_ had to stack several filters based on what you had available, but several filters aren't _required_ to achieve 5-6 stops GND, if you've shopped appropriately.)




 jrista said:


> So, the whole notion that "it's still not enough" is a fallacy. It doesn't matter if it's not enough...it's still a LOT more dynamic range, and it results in cleaner data from the highlights right down into the deep, deep shadows. Canon data gets scratchier and muddier starting in the lower midtones, and gets ever more nasty the deeper you go. I like contrasty landscapes, and when downsampled to ~8x10 size or smaller for viewing on the web they look perfectly fine. But printed? The shadows are muddy, red-blotchy mush, even despite the contrast.



Sorry, Jon...but...really? Can you honestly tell me you think high scene-DR landscapes (or other genres) captured with Canon sensors can't look good printed larger than 8x10"? Because that's what you said. I hope you realize what a bullshit statement you made. I also hope you think about how such a statement sounds, and what it does for your credibility.


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 31, 2014)

jrista said:


> The 5D III, even though I wanted a contrasty image, does not have that clean falloff into the shadows...and the sky is STILL blown.



Have you tried DualISO yet?


----------



## jrista (Aug 31, 2014)

Sporgon said:


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



I never said Canon cameras were not useful. That's what all the other DRones say. What I am saying is that the arguments put forth in defense of Canon are frequently fallacies or other tactics that mislead. Sure, you can get away with using Canon equipment. I do myself. 

That does not change the FACT that Canon IQ in the lower eschelon of ISO settings (and maybe even at higher ISO settings...I need to rent a D800 myself and shoot stuff at high ISO) is a LOT worse than the competition. I never noticed it as much on the 7D...for as much as that camera is maligned by so many people, it actually has BETTER low ISO IQ than the 5D III. Now that I own the 5D III and have been shooting landscapes with it...I understand more completely now what all the DRones have been talking about. 

We could completely ignore the whole shadow lifting aspect of things here. The the tonal grade falls off, the D800 is VASTLY superior to the 5D III. I could leave my images untouched, and the grade into the natural shadows as-shot is STILL worse. That, in my opinion, is not a good thing. That is exactly how the 5D II behaved back in 2008...were some six years on now, and the 5D III, while it has a little less banding, still has that nasty noisy, grungy, gritty falloff into the shadows. 

I understand Canon focused on different things with the 1D X, 5D III, and 6D during the last major DSLR release cycle. They greatly improved high ISO performance, which is what people asked for. They have DIGIC 6 technology which can help they continue to compete at high ISO against the likes of the A7s, and I suspect the successor to the 1D X will trounce the A7s at high ISO. However...Canon has shown no clear initiative to improve their low ISO capabilities. Not everyone on the face of the planet shoots at high ISO. When you read articles like this:

http://www.mattk.com/2012/11/13/why-so-many-people-love-landscape-photography/

It makes you wonder if there really are millions of people who do landscape photography, if so many line up along a single ridge like that to photograph the same thing a hundred thousand people before them photographed. More red herrings? Not that many people shoot landscapes? I think there is actually a simpler question to ask, with a fairly simple means if determining a statistically relevant sampling of roughly what ISO setting is most commonly used by photographers who produce quality work that people like. I picked all the photos on the first two pages of 500px, and sorted them by those that use "low ISO" (below 400), vs. those that use "high ISO" (400 and above, which could be considered a VERY liberal use of the term "high ISO"...but, let's balance things in favor of Canon cameras as much as possible here, so I'm not seen as overly biased otherwise):

LOW ISO:
http://500px.com/photo/81524379/stegosaurus-peaks-by-martin-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81539443/blaze-away-by-timothy-poulton?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81528587/mirror-lake-by-george-papapostolou?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81523347/the-god's-anger-by-marko-koro%C5%A1ec?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81545155/looking-back-by-toby-harriman?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81549609/lake-moraine-by-andrea-auf-dem-brinke?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81531677/lighthouse-by-joseba-herrero?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81586119/last-light-by-alfon-no?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81548417/shy-by-vendenis-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81526325/blue-hour-of-glowe-by-andy-donath?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81524885/bovbjerg-lighthouse-by-ulli-b-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81586875/eiffel-tower-by-mohammed-abdo?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81572659/in-a-a-different-world-by-darko-gere%C5%A1?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81569725/three-of-a-kind-by-ram%C3%B3n-men%C3%A9ndez-covelo?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81568979/podere-belvedere-by-b%C3%A9la-t%C3%B6r%C3%B6k?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81542507/summer-evening-on-the-chowan-(of-)-by-ed-sanford?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81521763/anna-by-sergey-fedotov?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81569307/schwalbenschwanz-swallowtail-(papilio-machaon)-by-bernd-flicker?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81565399/national-falls-by-donald-goldney?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81557671/sky-horses-mongolia-by-gan-ulzii-gonchig?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81524347/little-buddha-by-philip-hens?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81574625/crossing-by-guy-cohen?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81571421/surfeit-of-sunshine-by-ravi-s-r?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81529361/er-by-ahmad-al-msood?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81525829/heather-landscape-by-birgit-pittelkow?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81528575/-magic-mushrooms-by-martin-pfister?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81523129/blue-hawaii-by-grant-taylor?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81553163/lotus-flower-%EF%BD%9E%E8%8D%B7%E8%8A%B1-%EF%BD%9E-by-fuyi-chen?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81522507/the-bridge-to-the-unknown-by-likehe_zen?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81545347/the-lollipopper-(part-2)[email protected]?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81544711/le-minou-by-geoffroy-pasquier?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81532851/nature-takes-it-back-by-rolf-nachbar?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81526601/dubai-cloudscape-by-daniel-cheong?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81600117/smile-by-luis-valadares?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81566599/route-66-by-phil-buckle?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81529361/er-by-ahmad-al-msood?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81525829/heather-landscape-by-birgit-pittelkow?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81580993/to-the-beach-by-nico-zwanenburg?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81578537/in-this-silence-let-me-dwell-by-daniel-herr?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81577593/sunset-freedom-by-stefano-faraoni?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81556963/blooms-in-black-and-white-by-thomas-duffy?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81544955/the-cosiness-is-ready-by-jose-moreira?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81540951/heart-rock-slow-by-karl-nakasone?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81533445/poor-grazing-by-darko-ger%C5%A1ak?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81596915/adriatic-sea-(20)-sunset-by-vlado-ferencic?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81591361/flower-by-haru-digital-phot?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81582859/early-silence-by-daniel-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81561589/sunrise-by-reiniel-pasquin?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81530763/-laguna-sunset-by-bryce-keen?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81530751/seaview-by-magic-med?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81530023/julia-coldfront-by-martin-k%C3%BChn?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81528189/sun-rays-over-medieval-castle-by-bozhidar-baychev?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81597477/illumination-v-by-roland-shainidze?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81595991/near-the-lake-by-id-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81578007/summer-afternoon-by-tam%C3%A1s-hauk?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81573761/singapore-supertrees-by-tom-anderson?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81575849/riera-de-santa-fe-(catalonia)-by-marc-garrido?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81572535/a-little-driver-by-julia-lezgovko?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81571537/the-bridges-are-golden-by-holger-glaab?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81545623/a-trot-on-the-beach-by-jem-salmon?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81531373/city-sunset-by-sara-stahley?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81523223/rocca-la-meja-sunset-high-valley-maira-ita-by-luca-ulivi?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81520873/colors-of-the-sun-by-justin-majeczky?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81597245/dragon!-by-chad-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81580841/addiction-by-eric-%22kala%22-forey?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81574603/nagy-fakop%C3%A1ncs-by-k%C3%A1roly-danyi?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81562585/bird-on-a-branch-by-laurie-rubin?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81557955/green-tree-python-by-henrik-vind?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81547989/energy-by-leopold-bloom?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81538369/new-york-sunset-by-kirit-prajapati?from=popular&only=

HIGH ISO:
http://500px.com/photo/81567071/the-dark-hedges-by-michael-kight?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81563645/mishroom-wishes-by-geert-weggen?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81557065/young-monk-by-hamni-juni?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81581499/bridge-to-fall-by-lars-van-de-goor?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81592769/divided-by-mikko-lagerstedt?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81519615/forbidden-camp-by-davide-arizzi?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81559089/jungle-boy-by-budi-'ccline'?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81565619/good-morning-washington-mt-rainier-national-park-by-aaron-reed?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81534341/camping-under-the-stars-by-essam-monem?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81519171/snowy-owl-by-jose-albero?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81557593/red-feathers-by-don-a-nguyen?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81606775/selling-the-drama-by-christian-lim?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81531329/shadows-land-by-pietro-bevilacqua?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81586877/driftwood-by-frank-jensen?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81558493/international-whale-shark-day-by-ellen-cuylaerts?from=popular&only=

UNKNOWN:
http://500px.com/photo/81523047/little-pavarotti-by-pedro-garcia?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81534181/green-moravian-carpet-by-janek-sedlar?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81603821/-blue-phase-by-manita-goh?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81533137/the-golden-hour-by-nick-brundle-photography-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81579947/ev%C3%B8lve-by-silver-paul?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81567541/jane-by-anna-s-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81567915/early-morning-by-parag-thapa?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81557701/infinity-by-greg-gibbs?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81551393/dalmatian-pelican-by-mary-koutzarov?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81530869/crayfish-party-by-sari-tarvonen?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81606151/aroundthecurve-by-coolor-foto?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81580691/tom-rider-corso-bikes-campaign-by-aisii-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81553751/sunset-at-lake-o'hara-by-shuchun-du?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81544539/rolleiflex-by-raymond-mottl?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81520883/surfing-by-parisa-salehi?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81523951/brutally-awesome-by-bsam-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81561157/kings-canyon-by-luc-busquin?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81519413/should-i-let-it-grow-by-frank-r%C3%B8nsholt?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81595897/say-h!-by-bug-eye-)?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81522201/the-morning-ridge-by-ed-rhodes?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81529073/paignton-pier-sunrise-by-george-johnson?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81574935/cloudy-yosemite-valley-by-dirk-seifert?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81535655/a-summer-in-the-countryside-by-arnaud-bratkovic?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81535387/beatrice-by-eivinas?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81530201/splashing-purple-by-johannes-klapwijk?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81529525/motion-by-sam-portraitsbysam?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81592659/shark-point-by-goff-kitsawad?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81574667/snowy-owl-by-linda-martin?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81572037/rocky-way-by-ilias-varelas?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81618535/a-man-by-silvia-s-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81594937/hasat-by-vildan-b%C3%9Cy%C3%9Ckkaya?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81577901/end-of-summer-by-sebastian-luczywo?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81575401/the-defender-by-les-forrester?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81572561/saxifraga-by-eva-lechner?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81566505/%D0%9E%D1%85-%D0%B8-%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BC-by-svetlana-melik-nubarova?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81538981/timeless-by-luminous-impressions?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81600153/golden-sun-by-manuel-roger?from=popular&only=


----------



## jrista (Aug 31, 2014)

Of the unknown, here is my best educated, honest guess as to which are low and which are high, which seem like HDR (and probably low ISO for the frames), and which are something else:

LOW ISO:
http://500px.com/photo/81533137/the-golden-hour-by-nick-brundle-photography-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81603821/-blue-phase-by-manita-goh?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81534181/green-moravian-carpet-by-janek-sedlar?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81567541/jane-by-anna-s-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81567915/early-morning-by-parag-thapa?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81530869/crayfish-party-by-sari-tarvonen?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81580691/tom-rider-corso-bikes-campaign-by-aisii-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81595897/say-h!-by-bug-eye-)?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81522201/the-morning-ridge-by-ed-rhodes?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81529073/paignton-pier-sunrise-by-george-johnson?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81535655/a-summer-in-the-countryside-by-arnaud-bratkovic?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81592659/shark-point-by-goff-kitsawad?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81594937/hasat-by-vildan-b%C3%9Cy%C3%9Ckkaya?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81577901/end-of-summer-by-sebastian-luczywo?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81575401/the-defender-by-les-forrester?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81538981/timeless-by-luminous-impressions?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81600153/golden-sun-by-manuel-roger?from=popular&only=

HIGH ISO:
http://500px.com/photo/81523047/little-pavarotti-by-pedro-garcia?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81579947/ev%C3%B8lve-by-silver-paul?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81557701/infinity-by-greg-gibbs?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81551393/dalmatian-pelican-by-mary-koutzarov?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81520883/surfing-by-parisa-salehi?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81519413/should-i-let-it-grow-by-frank-r%C3%B8nsholt?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81530201/splashing-purple-by-johannes-klapwijk?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81529525/motion-by-sam-portraitsbysam?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81574667/snowy-owl-by-linda-martin?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81572037/rocky-way-by-ilias-varelas?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81572561/saxifraga-by-eva-lechner?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81566505/%D0%9E%D1%85-%D0%B8-%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BC-by-svetlana-melik-nubarova?from=popular&only=

COULD GO EITHER WAY:
http://500px.com/photo/81561157/kings-canyon-by-luc-busquin?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81523951/brutally-awesome-by-bsam-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81535387/beatrice-by-eivinas?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81618535/a-man-by-silvia-s-?from=popular&only=

HDR/TONEMAPPED (probably lower ISO, but not guaranteed)?:
http://500px.com/photo/81574935/cloudy-yosemite-valley-by-dirk-seifert?from=popular&only=

FILM?:
http://500px.com/photo/81544539/rolleiflex-by-raymond-mottl?from=popular&only=

Alright, that's a decent amount of photos. Even weighting the scales to favor high ISO, despite that, the vast majority of photos with known ISO are taken at low ISO. For those that are unknown, being as fair as I can in making educated guesses about which ISO they were shot at (and some may be wrong, I'm sure some will be disputed, but in the end, I don't think the number in dispute will change anything), the majority are STILL low ISO. Assuming that HDR/Tonemapped images tend to be shot at lower ISO than higher ISO, that brings the tally to:

*88* known or likely *LOW*
*27* known or likely *HIGH*
5 unknown

This puts the ratios at over 73% of popular photography uses low ISO, while less than 23% of popular photography uses "high" ISO. This is a fairly small sample set...however, I could do this all day, and if I went through another five, 10, 50 pages of 500px, or Flickr, or 1x, or pick any other photography site...and I truly do not think the ratio will change much. Maybe in the end we end up with around 65-70% of photography favors low ISO, and 30-35% favors high ISO. 

That is all assuming "high ISO" starts at ISO 400! The Exmor cameras still has a lead at ISO 400, and the difference really narrows to general meaninglessness by ISO 800. If we rebalance the scales, use a more realistic cutoff point for "high ISO" at 800...then I believe the scales tip even more most "popular" photography being shot at lower ISO. You could pick any specific category...landscapes, architecture, portraiture, street, studio, macro, wildlife, birds, sports, etc. The trends will differ in each of those categories. Sports, wildlife, birds are likely going to be weighted towards more being shot at ISO over 800. Landscapes, architecture, macro are likely to be shot at lower ISO. Potraiture, studio and street could go either way...although, of all the popular portraiture I found, most of it was or seemed to be shot at lower ISO (and a quick run through the first page of popular People, the first page of popular Wedding and the first page of popular Celebrity on 500px strongly corroborates that fact...the majority of shots are ISO 400 and under, a handful are shot at ISO 640 and up.)

So...how many major *assumptions *are we making here about what matters and what does not, or who shoots at what ISO most often? If the statistics from 500px's discover categories are any indication..."popular" photography...or, as it could be termed, "good" photography done with good exposure, with a keen eye towards quality in every respect of the word (exposure, lighting, composition, processing)...photography that reflects the photographers know what they are doing...seem to use LOW ISO on a significant majority basis. If that's the case...then there IS value in having better low ISO IQ. I'm using a specific term here..."low ISO IQ". I honestly don't think it matters if you lift the shadows or not...the IQ from cameras that use Exmor sensors is superior period, thanks to the very clean, smooth way tonality falls off into the shadows, without any unsightly, patterned, scratchy electronic noise. 

I do not believe it is wrong, or stupid, or idiotic, or just DRoning on, to want and expect Canon to deliver better IQ across the board with their next camera releases. To fight so vehemently AGAINST such a request is just plain strange, if you ask me. Who really, honestly, does not want better IQ, more editing latitude, or more versatility? Canon excels in most every other area...the key areas they lack in are really just sensor and probably metering. Do you guys really NOT want Canon to improve in the few areas where they have PLENTY of room to improve in? 

Someone asked why I don't just jump ship. I don't want to jump ship...I like Canon gear, their lenses, their high frame rates and their technical support. I just don't like their noise. It's the one thing that, the more I look into it, UTTERLY SUCKS on Canon cameras. Is it such a crime to ask that Canon fix the areas where they are weak?


----------



## jrista (Aug 31, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The 5D III, even though I wanted a contrasty image, does not have that clean falloff into the shadows...and the sky is STILL blown.
> ...



No. As I've said, last time you or whoever it was asked that...I'm not sure I want to put ML on a brand new camera yet. Also, from what I understand about Dual ISO, it costs you vertical resolution because of the way it works...and I bought the 5D III in part because of it's higher resolution.


----------



## Skulker (Aug 31, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> mmenno said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...




If you listen to the monotonous droning you would think no one could take a decent photograph with a Canon, the only trouble for the drones is that plenty of people prove them wrong and misguided.


----------



## jonina561 (Aug 31, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > How many of these "Is Nikon better?" threads does this forum have to endure? I mean really...is Nikon paying people for this?
> ...



Just coming from Canon to Nikon, I can verify a few things,, Canon better form factor for smaller hands, Nikon is better for larger hands, Both have great AF systems. Nikon reverses all the dials and displays. That doesnt make sense but can be changed with custom functions. The D810 is great for landscapes, especially in combination with the 14-24. The 2 second timer is terrible on the Nikon. I love the ability to close the viewfinder instead of using that stupid little rubber piece that gets lost. The Nikon is more forgiving with dynamic range. The nikon is a little bigger and heavier. I dont like the custom bank system on the Nikon..its easier to customize shooting modes in the MK III. With all the negatives for the Nikon, I still know it will give me better images when printing larger. Which I have a need for!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2014)

Skulker said:


> If you listen to the monotonous droning you would think no one could take a decent photograph with a Canon, the only trouble for the drones is that plenty of people prove them wrong and misguided.



Exactly. It's a totally ridiculous and untenable assertion that the low ISO differences between SoNikon and Canon sensors mean that the former can deliver excellent images whereas the latter deliver subpar or unusable images. 

I've come to expect such DRivel from the usual sources (old and new), but I must admit it's rather disappointing when otherwise apparently logical people start spouting the same sort of crap.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 31, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > If you listen to the monotonous droning you would think no one could take a decent photograph with a Canon, the only trouble for the drones is that plenty of people prove them wrong and misguided.
> ...


I suspect that much of this debate/argument is saying the same thing from different directions and different words.

I think we all can agree on 3 basic things:

1) You can take great pictures on any camera
2) Whatever make/model the camera is, and however great it us, we wish it was even better
3) No camera is the best at absolutely everyting


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 31, 2014)

David Hull said:


> Thanks for the info, I'll keep that in mind next time I submit a print of the "red channel" for a galleries show. I suspect galleries will start hanging "red channel" shots right after they begin accepting DxO curve prints.
> 
> Seriously, all of your Guitar shots look pretty nice and all seem to be acceptable -- I understand the nit picking and the relentless drive toward perfection but you have to admit that thousands of commercial photographers shoot this sort of thing day-in and day-out and somehow make nice images. This whole discussion seems a bit silly IMO.



I just posted the RED channel David. It's in all the channels. I posted the RGB image too, so if you have the requisite skill, you can open that in PS and look at the channels for yourself.

And if you're printing black and white prints for galleries of artistic shots of people you're going to be pushing that red channel to the max, given the colour make up of skin is primarily red and yellow when you're making black and white prints.


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 31, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> The dynamic range in your test is nearly identical. The exposure latitude is what's different. And ETTR is for every sensor, Exmor included. Having less read noise and therefore better shadows doesn't eliminate the fact that the last few bits have almost no tonal separation if you push them hard enough, an inherent fact of linear ADCs. With digital you want your exposure to the right without clipping highlights if you are going to maximize DR and latitude in post. (If you're not then none of this matters.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I give up trying to apply logic in the face of such statements.

The DR of the SCENE is minimal, a point and shoot would see it all, given the there is no black OR white in the whole photo.

It's NOT A DR TEST! DR and IQ aren't the same thing, despite the rantings of the doctor.

And I'm note sure if you're confused but the Red channel I posted ISN'T pushed. It's the regular exposure, and at 36% it starts falling apart.

That's not good. As I've said before many times, if you're ok with that, go for it.


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 31, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Exactly. It's a totally ridiculous and untenable assertion that the low ISO differences between SoNikon and Canon sensors mean that the former can deliver excellent images whereas the latter deliver subpar or unusable images.
> 
> I've come to expect such DRivel from the usual sources (old and new), but I must admit it's rather disappointing when otherwise apparently logical people start spouting the same sort of crap.



It's funny how you never commented on the channels turning to mush at 36%. Not 5%, or 15% but at 36%, 2/3rds into the tonal range.

That's a 36% advantage the Exmor has, and yet you keep banging on about 2 stops being no big deal.

Forget the stops, the lower 36% of a Canon sensor is read noise. You don't see read noise in the Exmor even as it goes black.

And you keep banging about low ISO.

The Exmors of different flavours beat the hi ISO of the Canons, the low ISO IQ, they have better IQ across the range, due to that read noise advantage, the Exmor have higher resolution, and they have...

I'd love to see how much you'd love that 1DX of yours if it had an Exmor in it.

When Canon do finally get there and match them (and I hope they will, because I know the dissenting voices are actually very few, but they are very vocal, defensive and sarcastic), Canon users are going to be very happy.

As I have many Canon using friends, I want them to be happy.

I've said it before, but if Canon R&D saw this forum, they'd conclude that their work is done and go retire.

Great message to send 

A lot of Canon users are annoyed and disappointed with the lack of progress. I know, because I know some of the top photographers in Australia. 

Those 'disappointed' conversations are getting more and more. I know one who is looking at the Pentax 645D becasue of it's DR and he's a famous architectural photographer who's fed up with the lack of IQ progress in his Canons.

A wedding videography friend left Canon only last week for the GH4.

He has some kit to sell if you are looking for any. PM me for details.

How many country category award winners do you know exactly Neuro?

It will be interesting to see you'll adding read noise into your images and increasing the contrast to get rid of that tonal advantage when Canon finally have it.

Because if you didn't, your year after year of of saying only a small percentage of people need an Exmor is going to sound a little hollow when you all have it, and love it.

If I'm in the small percentage that want one to do the high quality work I do for my clients, and I'm more discerning than you, then I guess I'll take that as a compliment.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 31, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > The dynamic range in your test is nearly identical. The exposure latitude is what's different. And ETTR is for every sensor, Exmor included. Having less read noise and therefore better shadows doesn't eliminate the fact that the last few bits have almost no tonal separation if you push them hard enough, an inherent fact of linear ADCs. With digital you want your exposure to the right without clipping highlights if you are going to maximize DR and latitude in post. (If you're not then none of this matters.)
> ...



But if you had used ETTR then you would have gotten much better results, and you freely admit there are no whites in the scene and it is not a test of DR and you had 100% control over the lighting. 

Look, ETTR is not a new thing, we have had to expose to our recording mediums vagaries since photography was invented, look at the meticulous care Ansel Adams went to to accomplish the amazing DR ranges he did with less capabilities than we have now, from initial exposure to development of the film, to printing and development of that print, all in his mind even before he set up his tripod.

You do have a valid point that the Exmor is capable of superior shadow lifting, *everybody here agrees with that*, but you are being silly if you honestly believe that Canon sensors are as bad as you are saying. 

No system currently available is close to perfect, they all have positive points and negative points, every single one of them. I shoot a lot of live view with the 17TS-E with massive DR (I demonstrated that before but certainly didn't throw it down your throat or go to a Nikon forum to raise hell there) For my personal professional stills work Canon offer me the best solution, the Exmor cannot do what I need in one shot, Nikon Live View is a joke and they don't have a 17TS-E. Now my specific photography needs might be unusual, but if I was shooting the images you have shown with a Canon I know with optimal technique I could get superb results, your reply to that has been "why should I have to?", *because we are photographers*, if everybody could get our results you wouldn't have your $250,000 a year studio.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 31, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jakeymate said:
> 
> 
> > It'S NOT A DR TEST! DR and IQ aren't the same thing, despite the rantings of the doctor.
> ...



[quote author=jakeymate]
[/quote]

Dean, do try ETTR, you will get better results with either system. After all, you've told us several times that your primary impetus to switch to Nikon was to produce better results for your paying customers. Whether you do so with gear or technique or both is immaterial -- I think it's worth you while at least to give it a try. I'll be interested to hear if you find any improvement on either sensor.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I think we all can agree on 3 basic things:
> 
> 1) You can take great pictures on any camera



I'd have thought we could agree on that, at least. Well, most of us...exceptions like people who'll say whatever to make a buck notwithstanding. For example:



Tony Northrup]
The D810 is vastly superior said:


> Canon data gets scratchier and muddier starting in the lower midtones, and gets ever more nasty the deeper you go. I like contrasty landscapes, and when downsampled to ~8x10 size or smaller for viewing on the web they look perfectly fine. But printed? The shadows are muddy, red-blotchy mush, even despite the contrast.



Apparently, some of us feel Canon bodies are suitable for amateurs who want to post pictures on Facebook, the web, or print no larger than 8x10".


----------



## jrista (Sep 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Canon data gets scratchier and muddier starting in the lower midtones, and gets ever more nasty the deeper you go. I like contrasty landscapes, and when downsampled to ~8x10 size or smaller for viewing on the web they look perfectly fine. But printed? The shadows are muddy, red-blotchy mush, even despite the contrast.
> ...



You know, why do you have to TWIST things like that? Where the hell did I EVER say that a Canon camera was only suitable for amateurs? That is some twisted notion you are implying, and your implications are flat out wrong. If the day ever comes that I actually believe Canon cameras are only suitable for amateurs, you better believe that I WILL SAY SO. STRAIT UP. FLAT OUT. I've_ never _been one to hide my opinions.

I'm not one to beat around the bush, obfuscate, twist the facts, or anything like that. I've been on these forums for years, and I am speaking MY *honest opinion *about what I see as the state of Canon equipment based on my own first-hand experiences. 

I would have thought I'd get at least a little bit more respect and just a bit of the benefit of the doubt due to my history here. I'd have thought I'd earned the right for my words to be taken at face value, instead of chopped up and reassembled with a completely different meaning...I'd have thought I'd have earned the right to be listened to for _what *I* say_, and not have everyone assume I'm saying something else, or have anyone listen to someone like Neuro's twisted interpretation of my words and assume that's what I mean. I SAY what I mean, you don't have to interpret any kind of hidden meaning into it. 

However, it seems that all you need to do around here to become "just another idiot drone who needs to be run out of town", just another guy out to lie to the world and twist facts and hide evidence to prove an invalid point, is claim that Canon needs to do something about their sensor IQ. Is that really the case? Is that all it takes around here for you guys to start twisting the words of an otherwise honest guy who STILL PREFERS CANON, and just wants them to solve their noise problems?


----------



## jrista (Sep 1, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> But if you had used ETTR then you would have gotten much better results, and you freely admit there are no whites in the scene and it is not a test of DR and you had 100% control over the lighting.
> 
> Look, ETTR is not a new thing, we have had to expose to our recording mediums vagaries since photography was invented, look at the meticulous care Ansel Adams went to to accomplish the amazing DR ranges he did with less capabilities than we have now, from initial exposure to development of the film, to printing and development of that print, all in his mind even before he set up his tripod.



This is completely beside the point. ETTR isn't a factor here, and is just another misdirection. You could just as easily assume that the scene DID have nearly clipped whites at that exposure. In that case, the exposure is DEAD ON, and the shadow performance of the 5D III is still the same...banded, blotchy, grainy. The point of the example images is they show what happens as midtones fall off into shadow (regardless of where the white point is)...and Canon's banding starts right in the midtones! That's terrible!


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 1, 2014)

jrista said:


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


Would someone explain to me what is wrong with pointing out the weaknesses of your brand and hoping that future models improve on those weaknesses? Is there a single person out there, with any camera from any manufacturer, who does not want improvements in the next model?

What is wrong with you people? Step back from the brink! Relax, go outside and don't come back till your memory card is full or your battery is drained!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 1, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Would someone explain to me what is wrong with pointing out the weaknesses of your brand and hoping that future models improve on those weaknesses?



Not a damned thing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2014)

jrista said:


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



Admittedly, I conflated your comments with those of Tony Northrup, and for that I apologize. I had assumed it would be clear from context, since I included quotes from both of you (even though you did not, in quoting me, which confuses the issue). I expected the deconvolution to be easy...evidently it was not easy enough. Sorry. 

However, in your words:



jrista said:


> Canon data gets scratchier and muddier starting in the lower midtones, and gets ever more nasty the deeper you go. I like contrasty landscapes, and when downsampled to ~8x10 size or smaller for viewing on the web they look perfectly fine. But printed? The shadows are muddy, red-blotchy mush, even despite the contrast.



Is it truly your *honest opinion* and do you stand by your statement that Canon images are suitable only for web display or prints no larger than 8x10"?

As I stated before, that's completely ridiculous...it's a statement that's proven false by many images, including high-contrast landscapes, taken with Canon cameras hanging as large prints in prestigious galleries around the world. 

As for your reputation and history here, you're probably familiar with the saying about reputations – it takes years to build them, but only seconds to destroy them.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Would someone explain to me what is wrong with pointing out the weaknesses of your brand and hoping that future models improve on those weaknesses?
> ...



+1

Honestly and fairly pointing out weaknesses is something consumers should do, assuming their products matter to them. 

Many people, myself included, discussed the lack of a sharp-to-the-corners UWA from Canon. Now, we have the 16-35/4L IS. 

I bitched loud and long about the 5DII's AF system, which was pretty similar to that in the 20D...which was the same system used in the entry level xxxD bodies at the time. Now, we have 1-series AF in the 5DIII. 

For those two examples, a sizable portion of Canon's customer base felt there was an issue to be addressed. I think the difference in this case is that there is only a very small minority complaining about Canon's lesser low ISO DR. The other difference is the way in which some members of that small minority seem to exaggerate the issue out of all reasonable proportion.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 1, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > To be fair, I think jrista posted two reasonable examples: one was the room interior with bright window, and the other was a stream with bright sky.
> ...



And on DPR it was shown that DPP was smearing things out and maybe you had a bit less noise and fixed pattern banding, but you had no details or smooth changes either and DPP also didn't let one pull up as much and it is worse at saving highlights, etc. etc.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 1, 2014)

mmenno said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > mmenno said:
> ...



+1

And the whole reason many of the 'DRoners' keep going on endlessly about it because the defenders of the scared honor of Canon constantly


----------



## justawriter (Sep 1, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> I'll happily leave for you.


Promise? 8)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> mmenno said:
> 
> 
> > Keith_Reeder said:
> ...



More often there is a thread specifically about sensors or DR or banding and the same set of Canon defenders always comes in and jumps all over and starts going on about how none of the stuff really ever matters, or it's only apparent to lab geeks, or learn how to expose moron, etc. and then if that fails a good bit of but don't you know that there is more to a camera than one aspect, yeah of course we knows, but this thread was about the sensor! We don't fill up threads going on about how amazing the 24 T&S II or 100L or 24-70 II are and say yeah but who cares since the DR is behind.

Back when Canon sensors were basically the best at everything I played them up as the best at everything. And when they had a bit lower spec bodies then I wasn't afraid to admit it. When Canon had poor wide angle lenses I wasn't afraid to bring that up and now that they have many great FF standard and wide lenses I am not afraid to sing their praises. When the 5D3 had good fps and AF I didn't hide it. When the 24-70 II came out I praised it like crazy and I didn't even blanch at Canon's pricing of it, I was like hey this ZOOM basically matches my 24 1.4 II prime (aside from distortion) and it is nearly true APO. I sold my 7D to fund my 5D3, but I don't make up garbage to defend my 5D3 and say that the 7D never gave me anything that my 5D3 can't and that I didn't ever get a reach advantage from it. My 5D3 is good at some things and frustratingly behind in others. When it arrived I wasn't afraid to knock it for having blurry video and extremely low detail in shadows or low contrast areas. When ML RAW came out for it I wasn't afraid to then say that the RAW video out of it wasn't truly stunning and far better than anything you could get out of a Nikon.

I don't try to defend my purchases. I just try to call it as I see it. If it does things much better I say it, if it does things much worse I say it.

But an entire brigade goes around and hassles anyone who ever dares bring up that something isn't the best and hounds them and calls them incompetent moron photographers or lab geeks or clueless and tell them to go out and shoot (if they even know how) and toss subtle insults all over and mocks them and they try to downplay and hide and minimize any findings and yeah maybe DxO overall ratings are curious shall we say but then they also toss out and trash all the generally valid individual plot info. And many good posters have been driven from the forums and some are still around and maybe we've become to annoying and testy at this point but maybe many of us got pushed to it although maybe we should better let the nonsense just brush off.

And maybe some bits get overblow and this or that, but come on.

If we didn't know that Canon has a nice UI and lenses and, with ML only, some really good video (although they may fall way behind on 4k soon it sounds like) we maybe wouldn't care to even bother posting in Canon forums. But at the end of the day, going to the nth degree to defend any last aspect whatever brand is behind on, helps nobody and if some aspect even were overblown, it could only help the users of that product in the end anyway.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> I never said Canon cameras were not useful. That's what all the other DRones say.



Actually it is not what the 'DROnes' say. It's what neuro and Keith and friends say (attributing it to the other side, but nobody ever actually says such words, with maybe the most extreme rarest exception, other than the defends of Canon's sacred honor crowd).



> What I am saying is that the arguments put forth in defense of Canon are frequently fallacies or other tactics that mislead. Sure, you can get away with using Canon equipment. I do myself.



exactly





> However...Canon has shown no clear initiative to improve their low ISO capabilities. Not everyone on the face of the planet shoots at high ISO.



Exactly, so even if some were to go off the deep end about it, how would that a bad thing? Isn't giving the company that a makes a cam which you otherwise like a push something good when it seems like said company sure needs the push? If the company whose products you use gets egged on into improving is that supposed to be bad?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 1, 2014)

Skulker said:


> If you listen to the monotonous droning you would think no one could take a decent photograph with a Canon, the only trouble for the drones is that plenty of people prove them wrong and misguided.



And yet IN REALITY, from waht I see most of us can be quoted from this thread as having said that you can find an infinite number of subejcts where ytou could take great shots with Canon.

But it seems the other side tries to make it sound like there are zero times having more DR could ever help to any degree taht would matter.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Exactly. It's a totally ridiculous and untenable assertion that the low ISO differences between SoNikon and Canon sensors mean that the former can deliver excellent images whereas the latter deliver subpar or unusable images.
> 
> I've come to expect such DRivel from the usual sources (old and new), but I must admit it's rather disappointing when otherwise apparently logical people start spouting the same sort of crap.



And yet such words have ONLY be typed here by Skulker, Keith, dtaylor, yourself and the like.


----------



## jrista (Sep 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Admittedly, I conflated your comments with those of Tony Northrup, and for that I apologize. I had assumed it would be clear from context, since I included quotes from both of you (even though you did not, in quoting me, which confuses the issue). I expected the deconvolution to be easy...evidently it was not easy enough. Sorry.



Alright, apology accepted. 



neuroanatomist said:


> However, in your words:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, it may not stop dead at 8x10 size, and that was actually 8x10 size "on screen"...which is considerably lower pixel density than an actual print. 

I usually print 13x19" at home, and I usually do spend quite a lot of time working the shadows to get them to print nicely. I'll often print one copy, to see how things look, then muck around with the shadows again. I've been doing that ever since my 450D. Back then...that was simply what you did...where was no Exmor. 

However, now that I have the 5D III, and I am STILL doing that. Not only that, now that I see the 5D III is actually WORSE in the shadows than my 450D, and even a bit worse than the 7D...yes, I really am rather flabbergasted at how far Canon's technology, from a fundamental standpoint, has NOT come in all the years since they released the 450D. That was even before the 5D II, I believe. It is the single most surprising thing to me in regards to my purchase of the 5D III. There is no question that high ISO is improved, however unless you go with the 1D X or 6D with ML's DR extender for high ISO...the 5D III enjoys a marginal lead over the competition. A touch of color noise reduction on a D800 NEF pretty much eliminates any advantage the 5D III has...and the shadows still don't fall off as well until your above ISO 3200.

So...when it comes to large size images...either something like a 1920x1200 size published online (which I've done a few times for 1x.com...they have a very large format presentation), or larger prints (not sure where the cutoff is, I usually print 13x19), then yes. I HONESTLY do believe that the 5D III suffers from it's shadow noise. It's a lot of work. I am realizing more and more how much I have to WORK my images to clean them up, but not so much that I lose an unacceptable amount of detail, and see-saw back and forth between those extremes for a while before I find some kind of happy medium that I'm generally satisfied with...but which still leaves a nasty taste in my mouth because of how the shadows fall off (usually rather harshly, rather than softly, because the only really SOLID way to deal with Canon shadows is to block them up with high contrast).

This isn't just some ploy or tactic here to get people to listen. This is my honest, down to earth, experiential opinion. I haven't done much landscapes. I never liked the FoV with the 16-35 on the 7D...just never quite got the expansive range from close up, detailed foreground element out wide to the depths of some incredible mountainous landscape. The shadows aren't great on the 7D either, although with only 8e- RN, it's better than the 5D III. ISO up through 400 always has banding. Topaz does a pretty good job cleaning that up, yet even after some careful tweaking of DeNoise 5's settings, I've NEVER achieved the kind of shadow falloff I see in D800 files (without any processing whatsoever, I might add...THAT is the truly appealing thing about having that kind of IQ!!) So, I haven't really done landscapes in years. I get some more tightly frames river or creek photos every so often, but, when it comes to the expansive landscapes I love...I haven't even really tried until recently. 

Now that I have the 5D III...I'm out trying to do landscapes again. The biggest single issue with landscapes is being at the right place at the right time, ready to go, waiting for that amazing light to occur. That takes a lot of time that I usually don't have, so it's largely luck of the draw for me. When I do manage to capture something interesting...I get home and....banding....blotchy red color noise...really, REALLY grainy shadows. I still use ISO 100 because everything above the lower midtones ends up looking better at ISO 100 than ISO 200 and up...but the shadows just...suck. They suck as bad as they did with the 450D...and that really bugs me. It's a *three thousand dollar* camera, for christ sake!  It's been years...and things haven't really changed. The grain is a slightly more pleasing random flavor...but it is still just as ugly, muddy, lacking in color fidelity, blotchy, and displeasing as it's always been.

I clearly had an inflated opinion of the 5D III before I bought it. I thought it's shadows were a lot cleaner than that, even if they still had roughly the same noise floor. I am now admitting I WAS WRONG in my opinion of the 5D III's low ISO performance. This is a general purpose camera. I got it because it really does very well at high ISO for birds, but I also got it because it's a full frame, with lots of megapixels, and I really to like landscapes. Given that I've never really had major problems with the 7D for birds since getting the 600/4 II, I am really thinking now that I should have spent my three grand on a D810, and a little bit more on a 14-24mm...because it would have served needs that Canon isn't serving far, far better.

That's my honest opinion. No spin, no hype, I am not being paid by anyone for sure (I spent my own hard-earned money on the 5D III, and it will serve me well for birds and wildlife, I have no question). I'm not telling everyone to jump ship even. All I'm saying is...I think we, collectively, are shooting ourselves in our collective feet if we don't at least admit that Canon should do something about their sensor technology. 

There are a LOT of technological breakthroughs being made in the sensor industry. Most of those breakthroughs are being patented by other technology companies, which, in my opinion, if Canon doesn't start innovating along those fronts themselves, will eventually lock Canon out of some of the most incredible advancements. I think Canon could not only enhance their low ISO considerably (not really by improving the sensor so much as eliminating the sources of noise in their system, which would simply allow them to use their already good sensor technology more effectively), but there are probably some innovations out there that could RADICALLY improve their high ISO performance. Deep photodiodes, electron hole density increases, multibucketing, etc. can all greatly enhance the dynamic range of sensors at high ISO. This technology, and the patents for them, are being snatched up by Canon's competitors. They innovate a ton...but it primarily seems to be in different areas. 

I honestly do think that at some point, Canon is just going to be stuck behind the competition because their innovative focus is currently off in some entirely different area (video is my perception...but they are a big company, and the majority of their innovations could be in an area entirely unrelated to photography.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> More often there is a thread specifically about sensors or DR or banding and the same set of Canon defenders always comes in and jumps all over



Sorry, but no. More often it's a thread about _anything but_ DR and one of the DRones comes in and _makes_ it about DR, and others chime in to counter that. Mikael/ankorwatt hijacked countless threads. Earlier today jakeymate posted his diet coke box noise images (from this thread) in a thread started by someone wondering about changing the color profile of their Canon on-board LCD. Nothing to do with sensors or DR, at all...until Dean the DRone showed up, that is. :


----------



## risc32 (Sep 1, 2014)

when i got my 5dmk3 i was expecting it to behave better than my 5dmk1 in terms of DR. i thought that with the time that had past since the mk1 and then when they didn't really change the megapickle count from the mk2 i thought, hey, maybe they did alot of work in other areas like DR. but then i saw that it reacts pretty much the same. i really like my mk3. it's the best camera i have. but if i could shoehorn a 20-25mp sony sensor in it, i would. 
on the other hand i'd rather canon stick around and make good business choices. maybe not investing in sensors is better. maybe all that sony has spent isn't getting them market share. maybe canon should just start purchasing sensors.


----------



## weixing (Sep 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


Hi,
+1

Have a nice day.


----------



## weixing (Sep 1, 2014)

Hi,


neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > More often there is a thread specifically about sensors or DR or banding and the same set of Canon defenders always comes in and jumps all over
> ...


 +1

Recently, when I read a thread not about the DR, I always had the feeling that the thread will end up about DR.... ha ha ha 

Have a nice day.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> That's my honest opinion. ... I think we, collectively, are shooting ourselves in our collective feet if we don't at least admit that Canon should do something about their sensor technology



Fair enough. 

I do think there's near-universal agreement that some aspects of Sony/Nikon sensor performance are ahead of Canon. 

I also think we, collectively (meaning CR forum members) could shoot ourselves in the foot, and Canon wouldn't even offer us a bandaid to cover the bullet hole. Sad, but true.


----------



## jarrieta (Sep 1, 2014)

weixing said:


> +1
> 
> Recently, when I read a thread not about the DR, I always had the feeling that the thread will end up about DR.... ha ha ha
> 
> Have a nice day.



Couldn't agree with you more. I don't post much but "try" to read. Sometimes I don't get the technical stuff but do appreciate and admire people that post a lot and share their knowledge. BTW, has the original poster chimed in on the 20 pages this thread has generated?


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 1, 2014)

When the 70D came out the Canon world was shocked with DPAF. That was July 2013.... DSLR launches since then - zero. 

Something is coming..... and not "more of the same"....

If all the 7D2 is, is a 70D with slightly better specs, the same sensor, and a better autofocus system, it would have been out by now. Something is coming that required changing the underlying technology....

I think DPAF was the tip of the iceberg and we are in for a surprise.


----------



## jrista (Sep 1, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> When the 70D came out the Canon world was shocked with DPAF. That was July 2013.... DSLR launches since then - zero.
> 
> Something is coming..... and not "more of the same"....
> 
> ...



I really hope you are right.


----------



## jarrieta (Sep 1, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> When the 70D came out the Canon world was shocked with DPAF. That was July 2013.... DSLR launches since then - zero.
> 
> Something is coming..... and not "more of the same"....
> 
> ...



You may be right there and hope so too. I do recall an interview wherein a Canon exec (IIRC) implied the 7D2 would be a revolutionary step up.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 1, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> When the 70D came out the Canon world was shocked with DPAF. That was July 2013.... DSLR launches since then - zero.
> 
> Something is coming..... and not "more of the same"....
> 
> ...



But didn't you hear? It's the year of the lens. Er... about that


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > When the 70D came out the Canon world was shocked with DPAF. That was July 2013.... DSLR launches since then - zero.
> ...



Fabrication lines do not last forever. The Canon 500nM line will eventually have to be replaced with a new line or the production moved to another existing line. Either way, we are looking at a redesign on the underlying technology of the camera. DPAF is almost certainly a shift to another line... When other sensors move over, will it just be DPAF added, or will Canon have figured out something else by then?

I find it hard to believe that anyone at Canon would still be designing for the 500nM process. I can see tweaks to an old design, but not a whole new design.. Remember that 200Mpixel APS-H sensor from the Canon Labs? That's pixels 1650nM square..... you do not design that for 500nM fabrication.

For example, the 7D2.... the sensor design for the pixels may well be the same design as the 70D, but if this rendition of the chip has the A/D moved over too, we could see a significant performance increase...

Only time will tell and Photokina is getting quite close...


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Sep 1, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> If all the 7D2 is, is a 70D with slightly better specs, the same sensor, and a better autofocus system, it would have been out by now. Something is coming that required changing the underlying technology....
> 
> I think DPAF was the tip of the iceberg and we are in for a surprise.



I certainly hope this is the case but I'll be waiting to see what exactly rolls out at Photokina


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 1, 2014)

Don Haines, I'm with you. I'd much rather spend my hours having positive thoughts. 

It's great being a lowly beginner cause I'm still thrilled with my most used combo the 6D 300 X2. I love it even with the terrible AF and the action shots I miss. I'm very happy with my 24-70 F4, another item that was cursed by many. I love it when a bird fills my 24" computer screen with details I've never noticed before. If the 7DII doesn't strike me as desirable second camera then I'll wait for the next one all the while loving what I'm doing with my present Canon gear.

People can be very fickle. Now I hear complaints that a Canon camera may not have WiFi. When I was researching, everyone was cursing the 6D because it had this *useless* WiFi and GPS and the on-off switch was over on the left. 

So, what more can I say. 

Jack


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Sep 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> I personally wish Canon would funnel more of their R&D budget into improving still photography IQ...but they seem to have a different focus right now.



^^^This.....I think I can count on one hand the number of times I've recorded video on my 5D3. I'd love it if they worked on improving the ability of modern cameras for manual focus (ie. My Zeiss ZE glass.) -- either focus confirmation dot accuracy or offering better precision focusing screens.


----------



## jrista (Sep 1, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> Don Haines, I'm with you. I'd much rather spend my hours having positive thoughts.
> 
> It's great being a lowly beginner cause I'm still thrilled with my most used combo the 6D 300 X2. I love it even with the terrible AF and the action shots I miss. I'm very happy with my 24-70 F4, another item that was cursed by many. I love it when a bird fills my 24" computer screen with details I've never noticed before. If the 7DII doesn't strike me as desirable second camera then I'll wait for the next one all the while loving what I'm doing with my present Canon gear.
> 
> ...



I agree that people find dumb little things to complain about with every camera. Not just here on CR, but everywhere. 

For me, I've literally been waiting for Canon to really improve their IQ since I first got into photography. I'd researched and new all the technical tidbits before I got the 450D. I wanted the 5D II for landscapes, but I waited as I knew it's noise was pretty bad...hoping that Canon would jack the megapixel count on the 5D III up to 28, and improve sensor IQ. Well, the 5D III hit...better high ISO sensor IQ, but it was trounced in the low ISO game by the D800. I waited again. I've been waiting ever since, watching camera after camera come out from Canon, and camera after camera come out from everyone else. On the IQ front, Canon hasn't changed in over two years...everyone else has, multiple times in some cases. Things originally changed with the Pentax K-5, then the D7000, both of which came out before the 5D III, and that was when I really started hoping Canon would have competitive DR in the 5D III...it never happened. 

I'm sorry if I'm venting frustrations, but I'm frustrated. I've been waiting for Canon to fix their noise problems for YEARS. Since, what, 2008? It's topped six and a half years now. How long does a guy have to wait, and keep his mouth shut? I don't have a lot of confidence in Canon to actually do anything about it. I don't know why they don't...they just don't. The only real consistent, model-after-model thread of innovation that I see in Canon's DSLRs after all that time is video. Maybe AF unit as well, if the 7D II really does get a 65pt all-cross-type. Everything else has just been minimal evolutions, throwing in an extra cheap feature or other (cheap in terms of cost...like WiFi and GPS) every so often. Their old technology isn't bad...it just hasn't improved in pace with the competition. 

Being a guy with a pure Canon kit that probably tops $25,000 in total personal cost...that's very frustrating. Now, instead of just being able to pick up a new Canon body with ergonomics and functionality I already know how to use without even thinking about it, I have to expand my kit. That involves even more cost, a new set of lenses that largely duplicate what I have, learning a whole new camera system, etc. I like simplicity...one brand, one set of lenses, one type of button placement and menu system. It just sucks.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> Being a guy with a pure Canon kit that probably tops $25,000 in total personal cost...that's very frustrating. Now, instead of just being able to pick up a new Canon body with ergonomics and functionality I already know how to use without even thinking about it, I have to expand my kit. That involves even more cost, a new set of lenses that largely duplicate what I have, learning a whole new camera system, etc. I like simplicity...one brand, one set of lenses, one type of button placement and menu system. It just sucks.



The alternative though is there being no difference between the brands, ergo no competition. If you could grab a Canon 5Dxyz that equals a Nikon Dzxy, why would there be a Canon and a Nikon?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 1, 2014)

Jon, I think it is pointless to allow yourself to get caught up in that degree of dissatisfaction considering the great gear that you've got. It seems to me there is a little of "the grass is greener on the other side of the fence" syndrome here. You can have or already do have killer photos with the gear you presently own and so my advice is to just shift away from the technical to the artistic for now, have fun.

When you worry your face will frown and that will bring everybody down - don't worry, be happy. 

Jack


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 1, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> When the 70D came out the Canon world was shocked with DPAF. That was July 2013.... DSLR launches since then - zero.
> 
> Something is coming..... and not "more of the same"....
> 
> ...



I think it might be more along the lines of a super-souped up DPAF that assists phase AF and allows for nearly 100% in focus rates more than improved image quality (aside from the in focus aspect), but who knows. I fit is 20.2 MP that seems to hit more towards this, but maybe the specs are wrong, so far they have all been wrong.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Sep 1, 2014)

The *REAL QUESTION* is how many generation is Canon behind Sony, Olympus and Panasonic ???

The photographic world is rapidly changing. Now Video is a BFD with many photographers (and has been for several years). And ALL professional video cameras use EVFs. Even Canon has EVFs on the C100, C300 and C500. So why *no EVF* on the 7D2 ??? 

You may want to view this video *The Mirrorless Revolution* and learn why Michael Reichman has sold all his DSLRs http://luminous-landscape.com/whatsnew/#1129


----------



## D. (Sep 1, 2014)

Don Haines, I hope you are right, if only to put the seemingly endless DR discussions to rest. I don’t post much; however, I appreciate CR as a source of valuable photographic information on technique, filters, camera bags, lens, etc. As the (low ISO) DR topic is one that has been covered hundreds (thousands) of times on internet forums since the release of the 5DIII and D800, there is really nothing left unsaid on the matter. Whenever a new DR discussion comes up, the same comments are rehashed over and over. Therefore, with regard to new CR members who only want to discuss DR, I can only conclude that such posters only real motivation is to generate discontent. I don’t pretend to understand what motivates people to engage in such behavior – I feel sorry for them. 

No system is perfect. I am happy with my 5DIII despite what others may say regarding its DR. I don’t sweat the small stuff. That’s my view but I am not going to go on endlessly about it. In fact, this is all I have to say on the subject.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 1, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> > > When a Camera is not able to differentiate noise from detail in the lower 3rd of the tonal range, then no test is going to make it shine.
> >
> >
> >
> ...



You're not applying logic. Your understanding of this is simply not correct therefore your attempt to "convert" what you see on the screen into a "percentage of lost tones" is nonsense.



> The DR of the SCENE is minimal, a point and shoot would see it all, given the there is no black OR white in the whole photo.



You have no clue what the DR of the scene was because you didn't include a step wedge nor document a series of spot meter readings. Which is why your statement above is nonsense.


----------



## x-vision (Sep 1, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> If all the 7D2 is, is a 70D with slightly better specs, the same sensor, and a better autofocus system, it would have been out by now. Something is coming that required changing the underlying technology....



I hope you are right.



Don Haines said:


> For example, the 7D2.... the sensor design for the pixels may well be the same design as the 70D, but if this rendition of the chip has the A/D moved over too, we could see a significant performance increase...



That's exactly what I'm hoping for. 

If Canon moves A/D on the sensor, we can expect 1-2 stops better DR and maybe half a stop better ISO vs the 70D. 
With these improvements, the 7DII image quality will be the same/better as on the 1DIV.
That would be pretty solid (and arguably the best they can achieve with a 1.6x crop sensor today). 

Let's see if Canon will do it.
Because they might as well just reuse the 70D sensor, which will not be out of character for them ... unfortunately.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> I usually print 13x19" at home, and I usually do spend quite a lot of time working the shadows to get them to print nicely.



Trimming most of your post because...how on Earth do you even find time to write that much? And that's coming from someone who writes too much on forums! 

All I can say is that I only rarely encounter the issues you are complaining about. And I'm usually not using GND filters or a large number of HDR shots, but manually blending *two* frames.

For a scene requiring HDR I'm guessing that your shadow exposures are not bright enough. I'm also guessing that you are trying to shoot some scenes in one shot when you should have at least two. Your river shot with the blown out sky...I would shoot that as two frames on Canon or Nikon.

I can only guess because I've never been out shooting with you to observe what you're doing. But you talk as if every landscape you do has horrendous shadow noise. If that's happening then you need to adjust your shooting and processing.

You've built up in your mind how much better an Exmor sensor would be, how it would revolutionize your workflow. It's better, but it's not going to revolutionize your workflow or eliminate HDR/GND. That doesn't mean you shouldn't buy a D810 or a Sony A7 series if you want one. Just don't build up Exmor so high in your mind that you buy one and end up complaining on their boards.



> So...when it comes to large size images...either something like a 1920x1200 size published online (which I've done a few times for 1x.com...they have a very large format presentation), or larger prints (not sure where the cutoff is, I usually print 13x19), then yes. I HONESTLY do believe that the 5D III suffers from it's shadow noise.



I print a lot at 16x20/24. My albums that I show to family and friends have sleeves for Epson 17x22 sheets so I don't have to cut rolls or trim while filling those. I don't struggle at those sizes...or even larger when I have occasion to print larger. I can literally think of two shots where I did not have a frame with sufficient shadow exposure and was bummed about the noise/tonality/detail in the deep shadows. Of the two, other people have only noticed one.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 1, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> So why *no EVF* on the 7D2 ???



Because EVF still sucks for action and sports.


----------



## weixing (Sep 1, 2014)

Hi,


c.d.embrey said:


> The *REAL QUESTION* is how many generation is Canon behind Sony, Olympus and Panasonic ???
> 
> The photographic world is rapidly changing. Now Video is a BFD with many photographers (and has been for several years). And ALL professional video cameras use EVFs. Even Canon has EVFs on the C100, C300 and C500. So why *no EVF* on the 7D2 ???
> 
> You may want to view this video *The Mirrorless Revolution* and learn why Michael Reichman has sold all his DSLRs http://luminous-landscape.com/whatsnew/#1129


 Err... I thought all video cameras are mirrorless not just professional ones... didn't see any consumer video camera come with a mirror... ha ha ha 

Anyway, 7D2 is supposed to be a sport/wildlife DSLR which IMHO, is not suitable to use a mirrorless design basically due to the power consumption. Not sure about sport photographer, but wildlife photographer use the viewfinder a lot even not shooting as the super telephoto lens can be use as a scope to search for your subjects. If it use an EVF, power will use up very fast and sensor will become very hot after long use... image quality will not be good when sensor become hot.

Have a nice day.


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 1, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > So why *no EVF* on the 7D2 ???
> ...



Might be, but not for action and sports MOVIES ...

I think we have to open our minds in terms of viewfinder type too: There is not always and
"Alternative One" OR "Alternative Two" but an AND between them.

I expect(ed) the 7D tsuccessor to be a very flexible camera which satisfies a broad range of needs. I just think about photojournalists who need two bodies for two lenses and both, still shooting and movie shooting in moderately compact packages without external "gadgets".

Think about a combined OVF - EVF constructions (wasn't there a patent? SEARCH: http://www.photographybay.com/2010/01/25/canon-dslr-dual-image-viewfinder/) or a configurable automatic switch between OVF while shooting and EVF during movie mode ...


----------



## Skulker (Sep 1, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> Don Haines, I'm with you. I'd much rather spend my hours having positive thoughts. .......People can be very fickle. Now I hear complaints that a Canon camera may not have WiFi. When I was researching, everyone was cursing the 6D because it had this useless WiFi and GPS and the on-off switch was over on the left. So, what more can I say.  Jack





I agree with Jack and Don. But some people do appear to want to be fickle. And here comes jrista ;D 




jrista said:


> I agree that people find dumb little things to complain about with every camera. [got to agree with you on that J -  8) ] ....... For me, I've literally been waiting for Canon to really improve their IQ since I first got into photography. I'd researched and new all the technical tidbits before I got the 450D. [glad to hear you knew it all J, I was beginning to think perhaps you didn't know half as much as you think you know  :-[ ]......... and that was when I really started hoping Canon would have competitive DR in the 5D III...it never happened.[How do you think other people manage to take stunning images with the 5D iii? Do you think they don't know as much as you? Do you think they are satisfied with sub standard images and you just have MUCH higher standards? Do you think maybe they are just better at using the camera than you?  : ]
> 
> I'm sorry if I'm venting frustrations, but I'm frustrated. I've been waiting for Canon to fix their noise problems for YEARS. Since, what, 2008? It's topped six and a half years now. How long does a guy have to wait, and keep his mouth shut? [when are you going to try keeping your mouth shut?     ] ....... Being a guy with a pure Canon kit that probably tops $25,000 in total personal cost...that's very frustrating. ............. It just sucks.





I tell you what really sucks J. Someone who knew it all years ago spending $25,000 on kit that he is not happy with. I know one thing J, if I had been unhappy with a camera system for over 6 years firstly I would NOT have spent $25,000 on it secondly I would have have changed system a long time ago.


The reality of it is that Canon and Nikon both make superb cameras and lenses. Each has their strong points each has their weaknesses. And many people will have different opinions, criteria and priorities. At the point of buying you make a choice.


J - for someone who seems to like to think they know "all the technical tidbits" your posts are rather emotional rather than logical.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Sep 1, 2014)

No


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> Being a guy with a pure Canon kit that probably tops $25,000 in total personal cost...that's very frustrating. Now, instead of just being able to pick up a new Canon body with ergonomics and functionality I already know how to use without even thinking about it, I have to expand my kit. That involves even more cost, a new set of lenses that largely duplicate what I have, learning a whole new camera system, etc. I like simplicity...one brand, one set of lenses, one type of button placement and menu system. It just sucks.



I really do understand what you feel. I have upgraded from 20D to 40D because the release button of the 20D stopped working properly. I haven't seen a large improvement of IQ between both. 600D bought to shoot movies - primarily to produce material for teaching physics and mathematics. I wanted to use macro and stronger tele capabilies and the flexibility of manual exposure. Again: Only minor improvements of photographic IQ. So I am still waiting to invest in a high end camera like 7Ds(uccessor) or 6D which are in reach financially.

Just wait (if you can) another round and Canon will come closer to Nikon ...

Another thing I never tried because my bodies aren't capable but your 5Diii seems to be capable of: Multiexposure. I found a hint that it reduces noise (what it has to do in theory) under the following link:
http://diglloyd.com/articles/LensAndCameraIssues/NoiseAndMultipleExposures.html
If you do landscape with a tripod it might be a solution for non-moving stuff ... ?

Best - Michael


----------



## FEBS (Sep 1, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > So why *no EVF* on the 7D2 ???
> ...



+1

It will always be to late in the action.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 1, 2014)

FEBS said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > c.d.embrey said:
> ...



Even (if and) when EVF becomes fast enough, wouldn't it be sort of mutually exclusive with a single lens reflex system?


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 1, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> FEBS said:
> 
> 
> > dtaylor said:
> ...



IMO it depends on the resolution and the color accuracy of an EVF to replace "real" view finders. As stated above I would like to have both options user selectable in ONE camera.

Some forget that 7Ds(uccessor) might adress the market for photo&video journalists who need (again IMO) ONE versatile tool without fiddeling around with external view finders or other accessories.


----------



## Ivar (Sep 1, 2014)

Well the thing is *he didn't know* the direction of Canon developments. 

How would that even had been possible to know?

After all, it is for sure at some point "even" Canon extends DR - and that is not because of "whiners" but because it is part of sensor IQ. Would be utterly absurd to think Canon itself don't know this - they optimize the way they think it is most profitable for shareholders and they haven't been wrong this far.



Skulker said:


> I tell you what really sucks J. Someone who knew it all years ago spending $25,000 on kit that he is not happy with. I know one thing J, if I had been unhappy with a camera system for over 6 years firstly I would NOT have spent $25,000 on it secondly I would have have changed system a long time ago.
> 
> The reality of it is that Canon and Nikon both make superb cameras and lenses. Each has their strong points each has their weaknesses. And many people will have different opinions, criteria and priorities. At the point of buying you make a choice.
> 
> J - for someone who seems to like to think they know "all the technical tidbits" your posts are rather emotional rather than logical. [/font]


----------



## Steve (Sep 1, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Because EVF still sucks for action and sports.



Have you tried an X-T1, A77II or a6000? Modern EVF's are completely capable of keeping up with action, no problem.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 1, 2014)

Steve said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Because EVF still sucks for action and sports.
> ...



I don't think any of them are as good for action. And believe me, I want to see EVFs take over because they are far better for judging exposure and white balance and they're better for MF lenses (unless you have a custom focusing screen). But I just don't think they're there yet, and I imagine at least the next generation of sports cams (7D2; 1DX mkII) will need OVFs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2014)

Ivar said:


> Well the thing is he didn't know the direction of Canon developments.
> 
> How would that even had been possible to know?
> 
> After all, it is for sure at some point "even" Canon extends DR - and that is not because of "whiners" but because it is part of sensor IQ. Would be utterly absurd to think Canon itself don't know this - they optimize the way they think it is most *profitable for shareholders and they haven't been wrong this far*.



You're correct. Thus far, Canon has chosen _not_ to substantially increased low ISO DR. Their market share has seemingly _not_ suffered for it. Nikon did choose to increase DR, and their market share has not increased. What does that say about the importance of DR to the majority of buyers?

As for jrista spending $25K on his kit not knowing the direction of Canon's developments, consider that he spent half of that total amount less than a year ago, buying a 600 II. After 4-5 years of Canon not increasing low ISO DR, it would be somewhat foolish to assume they would do the opposite the next year...and Jon isn't foolish. In fact, since the 5DIII had been out for a long time, the assumption was easily testable in the case of that camera before committing to a purchase.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 1, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Steve said:
> 
> 
> > dtaylor said:
> ...


I tend to agree with you. Some of the EVF's that I have seen on mirrorless cameras are getting close, but as you say, they're not there yet.... I wonder what's under development? It can't be too long before they hit the market at a reasonable cost.

I know it's not going to happen, but wouldn't the pundits be shocked if the 7D2 was the 7DM  A mirrorless high end Canon with EF mount and an EVF! If you think the debates now get rancorous, imagine the hornets nest that would stir up....


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 1, 2014)

Skulker said:


> I agree with Jack and Don. But some people do appear to want to be fickle. And here comes jrista ;D





> I tell you what really sucks J. Someone who knew it all years ago spending $25,000 on kit that he is not happy with. I know one thing J, if I had been unhappy with a camera system for over 6 years firstly I would NOT have spent $25,000 on it secondly I would have have changed system a long time ago.



The flame war just dies out, and someone has to make new sparks. I doubt many people are perfectly happy with their entire kit. If I remember correctly, jrista is a computer guy, so he's probably accustomed to the rapid improvements with silicon electronic processes. It would have been a reasonable choice years ago to select the brand with lenses and accessories you like, while assuming that the silicon part would advance quickly. I believe he's not complaining about sensors back then, but the lack of progress.

I'm also unhappy with the lack of progress, but I haven't yet taken my skill to the point where the camera is my limitation. And from the business side, as I've said before, Canon will upgrade their sensors when the market requires it. This forum will not significantly affect that market.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ivar said:
> 
> 
> > Well the thing is he didn't know the direction of Canon developments.
> ...



Isn't the 600 II a bird lens, rather than a landscape lens? Considering the quality of the lens, there might be people who own all Nikon kit except the 600 II and one body for it.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 1, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Steve said:
> ...


Sounds good to me if the cost and other features were reasonable.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ivar said:
> 
> 
> > Well the thing is he didn't know the direction of Canon developments.
> ...


Plus, many of stick to a system in the long run, knowing full well that technology runs in cycles. For the last several years Canon has put a lot more effort into AF than IQ... now they have industry leading AF and industry trailing IQ..... where do you think the research effort will now be directed? It is logical to expect that at some time soon we will see a Canon with better IQ. I think that's why there is so much interest in the 7D2... many hope that this will be the point where new tech emerges...

Who knows... maybe five years down the road we will be bragging about Canon's IQ and lamenting the poor AF... nobody knows what the future will bring, but there is one sure bet... no camera or manufacturer will ever produce a model that is the best at everything.


----------



## raptor3x (Sep 1, 2014)

Steve said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Because EVF still sucks for action and sports.
> ...



I own both an X-T1 and an A7 and I can tell you that they are pretty bad for tracking moving targets unless the subject moves in an extremely predictable manner.


----------



## raptor3x (Sep 1, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I tend to agree with you. Some of the EVF's that I have seen on mirrorless cameras are getting close, but as you say, they're not there yet.... I wonder what's under development? It can't be too long before they hit the market at a reasonable cost.
> 
> I know it's not going to happen, but wouldn't the pundits be shocked if the 7D2 was the 7DM  A mirrorless high end Canon with EF mount and an EVF! If you think the debates now get rancorous, imagine the hornets nest that would stir up....



I think it would be really cool to see Canon add to option for add-on EVFs to their next gen DSLRs sort of the way it work on the G1X II. I think we're still at least 3 generations away from EVFs being able to replace OVFs, but it would be nice to add an EVF when the situation calls for it.


----------



## crashpc (Sep 1, 2014)

This horse seems to be unbeatable.


----------



## Steve (Sep 1, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> I own both an X-T1 and an A7 and I can tell you that they are pretty bad for tracking moving targets unless the subject moves in an extremely predictable manner.



The EVF or the autofocus? I tried out an X-T1 for a while and the EVF could handle whip pans and never blurred out or dropped frames like the EVF on my X-E1 does when I move it around quickly. I would have liked a touch more resolution, but it was totally usable for action. The AF system certainly isn't up to high end DSLR standards, though, that's for sure.


----------



## jrista (Sep 1, 2014)

Skulker said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines, I'm with you. I'd much rather spend my hours having positive thoughts. .......People can be very fickle. Now I hear complaints that a Canon camera may not have WiFi. When I was researching, everyone was cursing the 6D because it had this useless WiFi and GPS and the on-off switch was over on the left. So, what more can I say.  Jack
> ...



I never said I'm unsatisfied with my kit. I am only unsatisfied with the 5D III. My expensive kit is fine for all my action photography, I have no problem with it for all of that. I certainly do not regret it. I DID, however, buy the 5D III in part to get back into landscapes, and it hasn't improved one little IOTA as far as landscape IQ goes. 

I'm only complaining about a $3000 piece of equipment that is hyped up a bit more than it should be, IMO. That's it. 

The other thing your misunderstanding is that it is not impossible to take stunning photos with the 5D III. It's that it's a hell of a lot more WORK to create stunning images with the 5D III. I already spend a ton of time on astrophotography. It's absolutely necessary there, astrophotography is really more about the processing than all the time spent gathering the data in the first place. Having to spend umpteen additional hours processing landscape photos, because Canon's sensor technology really hasn't changed at all in six years, is what really sucks.

Get your facts strait before you go off an insult someone. : Back when I first bought into Canon, I DID know what I needed to know. They were making the best cameras available. What I did not know was that Canon would just...stop progressing on the sensor IQ front. If I put hours into processing, I can extract the most out of my 5D III. I don't want to spend hours processing. These days, I honestly don't think I should HAVE to spend hours processing. These days, I do expect that Canon should be just around the corner from releasing something that leapfrogs them into the modern world of significantly improved low ISO IQ. 

My truly honest opinion is Canon is NOT going to be doing that with the 7D II...and I have my very strong doubts about them doing it with the next 5D or 1D model.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 1, 2014)

I don't get it jrista. Just go a buy a d810+14-24mm and be done with it. Why continue with the long posts?


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...





RLPhoto said:


> I don't get it jrista. Just go a buy a d810+14-24mm and be done with it. Why continue with the long posts?



Ditto with RLP - or just go get an A7r with adaptor (keep your canon glass). 

But, I keep readfing your posts and can't help but think ---what did you expect???? the 5d3 is primarily an event/low light camera - that's what it was designed for and it does excel at that. You want to do more landscapes, great, go do it - and don't be so scared to just get what you need. What's on the market is on the market as it were. Canon has what it has, Nikon has what it has, Sony has what it has. Screaming at canon will not make the product your demanding appear. Money will talk though. If sales of A7's leap, and research finds it's owners of lots of canon glass that's buying them, that will make canon take notice. Writing books on a forum that isn't even part of Canon is just blowing steam.


----------



## jrista (Sep 1, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I usually print 13x19" at home, and I usually do spend quite a lot of time working the shadows to get them to print nicely.
> ...



It doesn't take lot of time when you've been typing since the age of six, programming since the age of eight, and have been programming for a living for some twenty years with a WPM count over 100.  I can type nearly as fast as I think.



dtaylor said:


> All I can say is that I only rarely encounter the issues you are complaining about. And I'm usually not using GND filters or a large number of HDR shots, but manually blending *two* frames.
> 
> For a scene requiring HDR I'm guessing that your shadow exposures are not bright enough. I'm also guessing that you are trying to shoot some scenes in one shot when you should have at least two. Your river shot with the blown out sky...I would shoot that as two frames on Canon or Nikon.
> 
> ...



This has absolutely nothing to do with technique. My technique is not the problem. Neither is it an exposure problem. If you've actually read anything I've posted on the subject of my recent landscape photos, you would already know that I bracket all my landscape photos. Three or five frames usually. I always bracket. Always have, always will. You never really know if you want it for a landscape, so it's just my standard MO.

I've already blended HDRs for all of my photos, but also as I mentioned before...HDR blends are not perfect either, and they have their fair share of artifacts. 

The reason I see noise in the shadows is when you expose to preserve the highlights, you push the rest of the exposure down. This is the opposite of ETTR. This is basically what highlight tone priority does. It's ETTL...you shift the histogram to the left, to pull the highlights back from the right-hand edge of the histogram. The goal, to make sure you have the necessary highlight fidelity, is for your saturation level in the image to top out at around 245 on average (8-bit, it scales to 16-bit). You WANT some headroom above that...you don't want to expose right to 255. That's where you end up clipping one or two color channels, which mucks with your ability to recover highlights with accurate color. To do that, you drop the shadows...you bury more detail in the READ NOISE.

This is where your Photographic DR is unhelpful. Your Photographic DR tells you nothing about the literal, physical capabilities of the hardware. Engineering DR, on the other hand, tells you where that read noise floor is, and how it differs from camera to camera. The 5D III has 33.1e- worth of read noise. The 5D II had 27.8e- RN, the 7D has 8.6e- RN. The D800 has 3e- RN. The difference between the 5D III and 5D II is significant...it's 5.3e-. That is more than the TOTAL read noise of the D800!  I'd happily take 5.3e- RN in Canon's next DSLR. The only reason the 5D III is better than the 5D II in general, and particularly at high ISO, is they bumped Q.E. up from 33% to 49%...THAT is significant, however they castrated themselves at ISO 100 with the huge increase in read noise. 

If Canon could release a camera with 5e- RN at ISO 100, and the same FWC as the 5D III, it would have 82.6dB of dynamic range. That comes out to over 13.7 stops of dynamic range. That would solve a LOT of their low ISO IQ problems. However, given Canon's trend...I fully expect RN at low ISO to INCREASE. The 7D had 8.6e-. The 70D has 13.5e- (and with smaller pixels to boot!) The 5D II had 27.8e-, the 5D III has 33.1e-. The 1D IV had 16.6e-, the 1D X has a whopping 38.2e- RN!!!!! (That is a two-fold increase in read noise over the 1D IV...if they had kept the 16.6e- RN with the 1D X, they could have had 12.5 stops of DR.) Canon's current trend demonstrates increases in read noise in each new camera model from the previous generation. I honestly don't know how or why they do that...but, it's the current trend. Maybe the 7D II will change that...but I expect it to end up with something like 15e- RN... ???

My problem with Canon's sensors is a hardware one. I'm forced to make tradeoffs in my exposures, and sometimes I cannot counteract those tradeoffs with things like GND filters. I know how to expose. Of course I do. I know how to bracket and do HDR. IMO, HDR, sky replacement, tonemapping, manual blending, etc. shouldn't be necessary unless you have a truly extreme situation. I don't want to lift shadows to the point where they are midtones. I do, however, want the ability to tweak shadows in a minute or two, and not worry about revealing banding or blotchy color noise or having to increase contrast too much and block up shadows or worse, resort to much more time-costly solutions, so solve the shadow falloff and banding problem. Shadows should remain shadows...but they shouldn't look ugly.



dtaylor said:


> > So...when it comes to large size images...either something like a 1920x1200 size published online (which I've done a few times for 1x.com...they have a very large format presentation), or larger prints (not sure where the cutoff is, I usually print 13x19), then yes. I HONESTLY do believe that the 5D III suffers from it's shadow noise.
> 
> 
> 
> I print a lot at 16x20/24. My albums that I show to family and friends have sleeves for Epson 17x22 sheets so I don't have to cut rolls or trim while filling those. I don't struggle at those sizes...or even larger when I have occasion to print larger. I can literally think of two shots where I did not have a frame with sufficient shadow exposure and was bummed about the noise/tonality/detail in the deep shadows. Of the two, other people have only noticed one.



It's entirely possible I like to shoot scenes with more dynamic range. It's also entirely possible my standards are higher than yours (that's not an insult, people have different standards). Regardless, the shadow noise on Canon cameras requires extra work to eliminate banding, color blotchiness, etc. I'm tired of having to spend extra time fixing things that aren't there on competitor's products. With astrophotography, my time to spend processing is greatly diminished as it is...I have no option but to spend time processing astro images, and the more skilled I get at it, the more advanced my imaging (soon here I'll be moving to a mono camera with color filters, in which case my workload will triple or quadruple, and if I go with both LRGB and NB imaging simultaneously, my workload could compound eight fold...the final results should be FAR superior to what I can do now with a DSLR, but it will require all my time.) 

At this point, all I can say is I REALLY hope the 7D II has something Canon's been hiding, like Don says...otherwise I think my loss of confidence in Canon to do anything about their sensor IQ is going to be rather permanent. And, as I said before...that sucks. I don't want to have to buy two different brands, replicate lenses across brands, etc. It's far more cost effective to have a single brand, one set of lenses, and be able to reuse those lenses across bodies. That's why people pick a brand and stick with it in the first place.


----------



## msm (Sep 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> It's that it's a hell of a lot more WORK to create stunning images with the 5D III.



I wonder if that is really true. Looking at pictures on sites like 500px most got a very artificial look which I think is the result of heavy post processing with multiple layers and layer masks. Mixing multiple different exposures is done quickly and for all I know it may actually produce a better end result than just fiddling with one raw file with big DR.


----------



## jrista (Sep 1, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> I don't get it jrista. Just go a buy a d810+14-24mm and be done with it. Why continue with the long posts?



Eh, I dunno. I don't have infinite money. I can either buy a QSI683 CCD camera, which is about four grand. Or, I could buy a D810+14-24mm, which is about $5300. I also need to pick up a larger telescope, which is going to be about a grand. The D810+14-24 would eat into the budget for that as well. 



Chuck Alaimo said:


> Ditto with RLP - or just go get an A7r with adaptor (keep your canon glass).



I'll never buy a Sony camera so long as they use a lossy compressed file format. Maybe that's just more of the high standards crap...I dunno. But, there it is.



Chuck Alaimo said:


> But, I keep readfing your posts and can't help but think ---what did you expect???? the 5d3 is primarily an event/low light camera - that's what it was designed for and it does excel at that. You want to do more landscapes, great, go do it - and don't be so scared to just get what you need. What's on the market is on the market as it were. Canon has what it has, Nikon has what it has, Sony has what it has. Screaming at canon will not make the product your demanding appear. Money will talk though. If sales of A7's leap, and research finds it's owners of lots of canon glass that's buying them, that will make canon take notice. Writing books on a forum that isn't even part of Canon is just blowing steam.



I guess I disagree that the 5D III was only intended as an event/low light camera. The 5D II was the most popular landscape DSLR on the planet until the D800 came along. It's one of only two cameras in Canon's current lineup that really offers what's needed for landscapes anyway...large frame, high megapixel count...well, certainly lacking in the DR area. The 6D is the other option...but it lacks in the areas for all my other kinds of photography. Ironically, the 6D has 26.8e- RN, and does even better at high ISO than the 5D III...really confused as to why Canon did not put the 6D image sensor and readout pipeline into the 5D III...the latter did not come out much later after the 5D III...


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> The 5D II was the most popular landscape DSLR on the planet until the D800 came along.



Just read what you've written again Jon, I think you're having a complete brain fade.

Those 5DII images were only ever printed at 10x8 - right ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> The 5D II was the most popular landscape DSLR on the planet until the D800 came along.



That simply cannot be possible. After all, you positively assured us that the noise was so bad, you considered it unacceptable as a landscape camera. 



jrista said:


> I wanted the 5D II for landscapes, but I waited as I knew it's noise was pretty bad


----------



## Northstar (Sep 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Jon...Neuro has a sizable lead in the CR rumors geek "posting" category, but you've got everybody including Neuro beat in the "total words written" category here on CR!!  ;D

a sign of passion...


----------



## jrista (Sep 1, 2014)

Northstar said:


> Jon...Neuro has a sizable lead in the CR rumors geek "posting" category, but you've got everybody including Neuro beat in the "total words written" category here on CR!!  ;D
> 
> a sign of passion...



Heh, thanks.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> It doesn't take lot of time when you've been typing since the age of six, programming since the age of eight, and have been programming for a living for some twenty years with a WPM count over 100.  I can type nearly as fast as I think.



My brother grew up on Battle.net, and gets over 100WPM one handed. Some people...

I sit around 60WPM most of the time. My only quirk is I created a custom layout just for me (after having RMI in my wrists for quite a while, QWERTY just wasn't good enough).
I took a bunch of my posts and threw them in a typing analysis program to assign letter priority, It's mostly just Dvorak with a few letters switched around (the most important change being "L" goes above "E" and "apostrophe" goes above "S", that was kind of a glaring omission in the original Dvorak since "L" consistently turned out to be a high traffic letter, and it pairs naturally with "E". Then I made two little tweaks in swapping "R" with "C" and "I" with "U").


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2014)

Northstar said:


> Jon...Neuro has a sizable lead in the CR rumors geek "posting" category, but you've got everybody including Neuro beat in the "total words written" category here on CR!!  ;D
> 
> a sign of passion...



Also a sign of deep knowledge and a willingness to share it!


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 1, 2014)

I just happened on this picture whilst browsing through 500px.

Surely this is a mistake, it must have been shot on a Canon ?

http://500px.com/photo/81720131/sunset-at-shirley's-bay-by-eyekonik-images?from=popular&only=


----------



## Skulker (Sep 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> ...................
> 
> For me, I've literally been waiting for Canon to really improve their IQ since I first got into photography.
> 
> ...





jrista said:


> I never said I'm unsatisfied with my kit. I am only unsatisfied with the 5D III.




OK I misunderstood, when you said you had been waiting for years and were frustrated I didn't realise that only applied to your new camera.


----------



## jrista (Sep 1, 2014)

Skulker said:


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



My frustration is just with the fact that Canon, which actually seems to have done a better job with the 6D sensor only months later (which means it was already in production and ready to go), put such a noisy sensor in the 5D III. If they had made such significant improvements to the 6D, both at low ISO and high, why did the 5D III get one of their noisiest sensors to date? It's just frustrating. 

And it may just be a matter of aesthetic appeal. I go through and like a lot of photography on sites like 500px, 1x, and sometimes Flickr. There is this specific trait that I only see in D800 photos in the way light falls off into shadow that I've never seen from any Canon camera. The images have the right amount of contrast...but there are no harsh or sudden transitions into shadow...things just...smoothly, softly, cleanly fade into deep shadow. I LOVE that. I've admired that for years now. I saw it in landscapes taken with the D7000 before even the D800. I put some extra money (not a lot, I got really good deals on both) into Nik and Topaz filter collections, in an attempt to try and replicate that look.

I just don't think that look is possible so long as Canon's read noise remains as it is. So, I guess I'm just resolved to focus in my bird/wildlife and astrophotography, and maybe play around with 50mm f/1.4 landscapes (I never used that lens for landscapes before, but I actually really, REALLY like it):









Crisp detail, but soft transitions, smooth falloff into shadow without obliterating detail in noise, etc. I love that. I get a some of that with the 50mm lens...so maybe I'll stick with that for a while until something changes. Maybe Canon will figure out their noise problems and release a 5D IV with more DR and more pixels. Maybe I'll find the funds for both the QSI CCD and a D800+14-24 (doubtful...and I'd rather get the QSI.) Anyway. It's an aesthetic thing...one I simply cannot seem to replicate with Canon cameras. One I've never really seen achieved with any Canon camera by anyone, with maybe a couple exceptions like Marc Adamus (although, I think he may have moved to a D800 as well...and his work tends to be a bit overly saturated for my tastes.)


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I don't get it jrista. Just go a buy a d810+14-24mm and be done with it. Why continue with the long posts?
> ...


I'd sell the 7D and the 16-35mm to fund the new system or just buy an a7r. I'm mean if the noise is that bad.


----------



## eml58 (Sep 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> Marc Adamus (although, I think he may have moved to a D800 as well...and his work tends to be a bit overly saturated for my tastes.)



jrista check this, your half on the money.

http://fstopgear.com/staffpro/marc-adamus
Also agree this guys work is amazing.

Finally found a Post on this thread I felt I could respond to, Thanks.


----------



## jrista (Sep 1, 2014)

eml58 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Marc Adamus (although, I think he may have moved to a D800 as well...and his work tends to be a bit overly saturated for my tastes.)
> ...



Welcome. 

If you are referring to this:



> *What was your first camera? And what is your current?: *
> A Canon AE-1, and currently I use both a Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 on my Nikon setup. I prefer the D800 for most landscape projects currently but I’m not giving up on Canon either!



I know he has the 5D III, however if you look at the stuff he has posted recently on 500px, it all seems to be D800 (and it's REALLY FREAKING GOOD stuff, too: http://500px.com/photo/36687326/heaven-on-earth-by-marc-adamus).


----------



## jrista (Sep 1, 2014)

dilbert said:


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



I know that HTP only affects JPEGs, however it bumps the ISO, exposes the highlights such as to avoid clipping, then pulls the ISO back down one stop (hence the reason the minimum ISO when using HTP is 200). That is, effectively, shifting the histogram to the LEFT. 

As for ETTR...if a scene meters such that the highlights clip, you can't ETTR. Your already past the point where shifting the histogram right will improve anything. Clipping highlights is far more destructive to information than pushing them down into the shadows. So, you shift the histogram LEFT again, until the highlights are not clipped. If the scene has a ton of DR...then you bury a lot of detail in the read noise floor. It's the only alternative to clipping highlights...and in Canon cameras, it's almost as bad.

Also, as far as having a gap at the end, you want a very small one (on a REAL histogram anyway...in-camera JPEG-based histograms are generally useless, and you have to muck around to figure out what the offset between a JPEG clipped highlight and a RAW clipped highlight might be, or use UniWB.) You don't want the RAW-based histogram to ride up the wall, or to even touch it. If it's touching, then at least one color channel is getting clipped. A one-pixel gap is enough of a cap to ensure that you haven't lost any highlight detail, or if your scene contains only small specular highlights, then a small bump at the right edge is usually ok.


----------



## jrista (Sep 1, 2014)

dilbert said:


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



Ah, yeah, there was the natural disasters. Well, still, rather disappointing noise levels from the 5D III. It should never have been worse read noise than the 5D II.


----------



## barton springs (Sep 1, 2014)

If you are not satisfied with Canon buy Nikon and shut up, really.

Nikon/Canon... It's almost the same thing but the level of skill of photographers
has a pretty wide delta. When you master your camera it'll make
a difference to talk about splitting hairs.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 1, 2014)

dilbert said:


> If more people start "spouting the same sort of crap" then maybe it isn't "crap."


Depends on the hard evidence used to support the argument. Personal experiences and anecdotes don't count as hard evidence.



> Simply put, the Exmor sensor can deliver raw files that can be used in ways that Canon's can't.


I'm willing to believe this is true in some cases; the question is whether it's true in a way that makes me want to give up the advantages of my Canon kit. Part of that, of course, includes the cost. There needs to be enough of an advantage. If you shoot studio or landscape, and your style involves the kinds of compositions that demonstrate the difference, the maybe it's worthwhile to you. To me, so far, it's not.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


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



Piece of advice, dilbert...on technical matters, don't argue with jrista most others on CR forums anyone. You'll just end up looking (even more) foolish.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> No, highlight tone priority changes the way JPEGs are rendered in the camera.



No.



> Highlight Tone Priority (HTP)
> All cameras have a fixed dynamic range, from shadow to highlight, that they can capture. HTP shifts some of the available dynamic range from the mid-tones to the highlights to produce smoother tones, with more detail in bright areas. This helps prevent JPEG images with overexposed highlights that can’t be recovered. *HTP is also useful to RAW shooters who process their images with Canon’s DPP software. Most third-party RAW processing software will not recognize Highlight Tone Priority.*
> When the camera is set to HTP, the lowest available ISO will be 200. The HTP setting will be indicated by a D+ symbol in the LCD display. Avoid using HTP in low light or when shooting subjects with heavy shadows because it may cause more noise to appear in those areas.



http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/app/pdfs/quickguides/CDLC_EOS_Cfn_QuickGuide.pdf


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> If more people start "spouting the same sort of crap" then maybe it isn't "crap."



You or anyone else stating that Canon sensors produce unusable images, images suitable only for Facebook, images suitable for printing at only up to 8x10" or 13x19", etc., is spouting crap. Period. 




dilbert said:


> Simply put, the Exmor sensor can deliver raw files that can be used in ways that Canon's can't. Whether you want to call it "DRoning" (because of the difference in DR) or something else doesn't change the fact that the raw files from the 5DIII are left wanting when compared to the D8x0 (except for high - 3200+ - ISO.)



In every scene? 10 stops of scene DR, proper exposure, not trying to push shadows 5 stops. Exmor benefit? Not much. 

Exmor sensors offer definite benefits in certain situations. The same can be said of Canon's lenses (and Nikon's), Canon's -RT flash system, etc. 

Simply put, if Exmor sensors were 'all that', Canon's market share would be suffering by now. It's not.


----------



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

dtaylor said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > So why *no EVF* on the 7D2 ???
> ...



If you watch the Super Bowl, World Cup, etc on Television, tell me how bad it was ??? 'cuz they use cameras with EVFs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 2, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > c.d.embrey said:
> ...



Oh, here I thought TV camera operators were just shooting video, I didn't know they had to carefully time a shutter release based on the action they were viewing. Thanks for the insight!


----------



## jrista (Sep 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > If more people start "spouting the same sort of crap" then maybe it isn't "crap."
> ...



Where are you getting that from? Have you actually read anything I've written? My primary concerns are about aesthetics and the amount of time required to work a photo to achieve that aesthetic goal. I also said that WITHOUT a lot of work, large prints have mushy shadow detail...not that the images are ONLY suitable for printing at 8x10 or 13x19.

Your still twisting my words, Neuro. That is absolutely NO better than what your twisted words are trying to imply I am saying.


----------



## jrista (Sep 2, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > c.d.embrey said:
> ...



Realize that the EVFs used in high end cinematography equipment are VASTLY superior to the kinds of EVFs currently found in ML cameras. VASTLY superior. Also vastly more expensive. Just one of the EVFs used in a RED Dragon camera costs more than most of the DSLRs we buy today.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > dtaylor said:
> ...



Yet somehow, they manage to track fast moving action.......


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 2, 2014)

jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Others have pointed out that the work required doesn't seem to be as extensive as you suggest. I've printed (well, had professionally printed, not at home) images at much larger than 13x19", without 'mushy red blotchy shadows' (although they weren't from a 5DIII).

To be honest, I've read much – but not all – of what you've writing. I'm not a fan of 'the wall of words'. 

Seriously, if you think Exmor is your salvation, visit lensrentals.com and try out a D810 for a few days. Let us know how it turns out.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 2, 2014)

jrista said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > dtaylor said:
> ...


the monitor (7 or 8 inches) on top of those cameras goes for about $10,000......


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 2, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > c.d.embrey said:
> ...


In part that's due to the limited production runs. Of course, that's just the monitor: there's probably video processing gear as well. All that takes CPU and electrical power. These are just engineering issues to be worked-out, and pro-quality EVF will replace reflex at some point, though I'm becoming less confident about when.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 2, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> These are just engineering issues to be worked-out, and pro-quality EVF will replace reflex at some point, though I'm becoming less confident about when.



No doubt. We're pretty far from that point, though, for many reasons. From a dSLR standpoint, it's not just the mirror directing light up to the OVF, it's also the submirror directing light down to the dedicated AF sensor. Canon's DPAF is a step in the right direction, but image sensor-based AF isn't yet ready to replace dedicated PDAF for tracking fast action.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 2, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > No, highlight tone priority changes the way JPEGs are rendered in the camera.
> ...



No, all it does is underexpose 1 stop secretly and then shift the mid-tone point and roll off highlights differently for in-cam jps and it sets a flag to tell RAW converters to do the same. You can get the exact same thing out of underexposing 1 stop and then using an altered tone curve.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I've printed (well, had professionally printed, not at home) images at much larger than 13x19", without 'mushy red blotchy shadows' (although they weren't from a 5DIII).



The largest prints I happen to have on hand right now are 16 x 24 from a 7D. I had some from a 5DIII, but they are no longer in my possession. Shadows look good from a viewing distance of about 6 inches (which of course is closer than anyone will ever look at a printed picture of that size). My eyes won't focus much closer than that. Maybe people should try MPix. That's where I print.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 2, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


That's basically what I copied/pasted from Canon's material. Were you saying "no" to me or to Dilbert?


----------



## luckydude (Sep 2, 2014)

Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Put another way, it took Nikon two generations to come up with a camera that approaches the 5DIII in overall utility...and I bet the 5DIII outsells the D810 just as it did the D800/E.
> ...



I'll play. I agree that nikon has a pretty nice sensor, the DR is very nice. But other than the 14-24, is there any other nikon lens that is better than what you can get from Canon? I'm biased, I've got a lot of money in canon glass but I'm also pretty crazy happy with that glass. 

On the other hand I might be stupid, cf the 400mm DO II thread, I have the 400mm DO and I love that lens. Yeah, it has some issues, but it's awesome in how light it is and how sharp it is. If I want the crazy good bokeh then I get out the 200mm f2, if I want reach and light? 400mm DO and the 1.4x. I own the 600mm II and I can tell you that I've taken easily 100x more shots with the 400mm. The 400mm DO is a walk around lens, it is that light and that is a game changer. 600mm is tripod and gimbel. And it does what it does really well (and takes both the 1.4x and 2x TC well). But you aren't going to walk around and hand hold it very long.

Did I miss the point? Is it about the sensor? Not for me. It's about the glass. Nikon might have the best sensor now but they do not have the best glass. Sensors come and go. Who amongst us has more money in bodies than glass?

All that said, I am hoping that the 7D II has a kick ass sensor and I'd like to see some improvements in the 5D and 1DX sensors. I'm grumpy that Nikon (cough, sony) has better sensors in some ways.

Stepping back a bit, sometimes I think that I'm just a greedy pig and Canon has made me that way by producing better and better glass and bodies. Did you ever stop to think how awesome it is to have what we have? The tech is amazing. Personally, if time stopped and the 5DIII was the last body I ever got to use, yeah, I'd have issues, but holy crap is that a good body. It just works and works really well. I've played with nikon bodies and while they have places where they are better than canon, as an all around body, the 5D is pretty darn good.

We are a long way from where I grew up. Pentax K1000 in high school (their equipment). Canon AE-1. All the point and shoots (which are quite good, I've got an Olympus TG1 that I love for camping/fishing). Maybe this will put things into perspective. I've got a son who has gotten the photo bug. He went through my 40D, 7D, T4i, I knew he got it when he came to me and said "Dad, the 40D really sucks. The 7D is good but the T4i has a better sensor for landscape". He's 12. Now 13, his birthday present (he picked it out) was the Samsung NX300 with the kit lens and the 18-200mm lense.

He played with that stuff, loved it, but we shoot hockey a lot. He tried that camera and then came back to me and asked "hey dad, can I use the 5D and the 200?" (5DIII and 200mm f2). Here he is at Junior Olympics:

http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/2013-07-hockey-huntington/July-17-people/6.html

There ya go. It's all about what you use and we can talk all we want here but when a kid wants to use the good stuff, I think he's a better judge than anyone.


----------



## jrista (Sep 2, 2014)

To be clear, I have never said I want to jump ship. On the contrary, I really WANT to stay with Canon. For the same reasons as LuckyDude...I have a lot of money in Canon class, and aside from the 16-35 (very poor in the corners), I love it all. The 600 f/4 II is unsurpassed. 

What I really want is Nikon-level sensor quality *in a Canon DSLR body.* I don't want to have to buy multiple kits, especially when I have a gazillion accessories for Canon. It might start with the D810 and a 14-24...then, you find a reason to get another lens, then a flash, then a cable release, then...on and on. IMO, my personal opinion, it would suck having a kit with two brands. You end up replicating cost, just do you can have something for a more niche purpose.

There is also the Nikon customer support issue. I've heard 10x as many nightmare stories about Nikon CS compared to Canon CS. I've had EXCELLENT support from Canon CS when I needed it, with fast turnaround. That's another reason I'd rather NOT add Nikon to my kit, and another reason I'd prefer Canon fix their noise problems and deliver a camera that meets the modern needs of modern landscape photographers. (There is more to this end of the argument as well...Nikon manufacturing quality, with spots on lenses, spotty AF behavior, unwillingness to acknowledge such defects half the time, etc.)

It would be most ideal to have Exmor-level IQ in a Canon body. Then you can have the best of everything all in a single brand. That is what I personally want. That's what I'm asking for. I hope, but frankly don't believe, Canon will deliver it. I expect that it MIGHT arrive in some camera a couple generations from now...however by that time, it'll be way beyond too late. :


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 2, 2014)

jrista said:


> What I really want is Nikon-level sensor quality *in a Canon DSLR body.*



You have the budget for a $12k lens but you haven't ordered one of the Sony A7's yet? 

If you can afford a lens that's the price of a small car...if HDR landscapes are that important to you...if you really believe Exmor will revolutionize how you shoot HDR landscapes...then order the A7 or A7R and an EF adapter. 

You don't even have to switch. You don't have to give up your Canon lenses, or your DSLRs in situations where you need fast AF and shooting. (And please don't tell me you *always* need to push shadows 5 stops so the Sony doesn't solve anything. Most scenes don't have that great of a luminance range.)

Shooting sports, action, any scene that doesn't require shadows pushed 9,001 stops? Grab the 5D3.

Shooting landscapes or interiors from a tripod? Grab the Sony. That should hold you over until Canon changes their ADC architecture.

Problem solved.


----------



## jrista (Sep 2, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > What I really want is Nikon-level sensor quality *in a Canon DSLR body.*
> ...



I HAD the budget for a $12k lens. That budget came out of some preferred company stock I sold. I have also explained on many occasions why I have no interest in Sony bodies. You can scan back in this thread to find that.

I also have an endless list of photography needs and wants. Four grand for a QSI 683WSG-8 CCD camera. Another grand or few for an 8-10" telescope. Longer term I want to get 16-20" telescope, which necessitates another $20k investment in a high end equatorial mount on top of the $7k-$10k investment in the telescope.

On top of that, I have a bunch of other Canon lenses I have been putting off for years. The TS-E 17mm and 24mm. The MP-E 65mm. (Either that, or one of those really nice bellows: Novoflex Castbal T/S) The 85L. I'd like to pick up a few more flashes, from Canon's RT system, and start doing Hummingbird flash photography (the last couple years I've been bulking up my yard with flowers that attract them in the first place. )

I'm not made of money. Have to pick and choose.

Now, if Canon DOES release a nice high DR FF camera early next year...I can just sell the 5D III and buy the new and improved model. The overall cost then would be minimal. Hell of a lot less than adding a D810 and lens to my kit, and not really offsetting to any of my other goals.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 2, 2014)

jrista said:


> This has absolutely nothing to do with technique. My technique is not the problem. Neither is it an exposure problem.



No, it's a problem of what you have built up in your mind. You imagine that with Exmor you could just ditch bracketing, HDR, GND. You can't. The cases were Exmor lets you get away with a single exposure are relatively rare. They come up. They are not the majority.

If your blend/HDR/GND shot is correct then you should NOT have to push shadows or deal with shadow noise. In my blends my shadows are typically brighter then I want them to be, and one of my final steps is pulling them back *down.* I have never struggled with shadow noise in a blend where I had a properly exposed frame for the shadows.



> This is where your Photographic DR is unhelpful. Your Photographic DR tells you nothing about the literal, physical capabilities of the hardware.



Except, of course, for the system's DR :



> However, given Canon's trend...I fully expect RN at low ISO to INCREASE. The 7D had 8.6e-. The 70D has 13.5e- (and with smaller pixels to boot!)



Yet the 70D has...*observably*...2 more stops of total DR. Once again trying to convert sensel SNR ('engineering DR') to actual system photographic DR fails :



> IMO, HDR, sky replacement, tonemapping, manual blending, etc. shouldn't be necessary unless you have a truly extreme situation.



Landscapes involving bright skies and shadowed foregrounds have more then 13 stops of luminance range and require management (HDR; blending; GND) with ANY modern camera. Interior shots with windows also often require this.

Outside of this most scenes have less luminance range.



> It's entirely possible I like to shoot scenes with more dynamic range. It's also entirely possible my standards are higher than yours (that's not an insult, people have different standards).



It's entirely possible your beliefs about the difference Exmor would make are based on little more then imagination, and it's time for you to buy/rent a Nikon or Sony and find out


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 2, 2014)

jrista said:


> I'll never buy a Sony camera so long as they use a lossy compressed file format. Maybe that's just more of the high standards crap...I dunno. But, there it is.



You'll never buy a camera that's relatively cheap ($1,300 for the A7), can use your lenses, and solves the problem which you have spent countless hours making...hundreds?...thousands?...of posts about because of a file format that maybe, on rare occasion, might result in an artifact, even though otherwise the camera completely eliminates the noise and artifacts you're so upset about???

I'm done...I'm out...no more SoNikonSuperMegaDR threads. I can't help these people. They need therapists, not sensors.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 2, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I'll never buy a Sony camera so long as they use a lossy compressed file format. Maybe that's just more of the high standards crap...I dunno. But, there it is.
> ...



Better still get a used D800, they now have the depreciation curve of a falling brick. You can now get a used D800 in the UK for half the price of a D810, yet a used 5DIII is like rocking horse shit, unlike the bull shit that jrista has spouted on this thread. I'm sure Alan at Dale Photographic would be quite happy to send this one out to him:

http://www.dalephotographic.co.uk/mall/departmentpage.cfm/DalePhotographicOnline/_142512/1/Used%2520Digital%2520Cameras


----------



## jrista (Sep 2, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I'll never buy a Sony camera so long as they use a lossy compressed file format. Maybe that's just more of the high standards crap...I dunno. But, there it is.
> ...



I don't even believe there are yet 100 posts on the subject. If I've written 50 posts on the subject, it would be surprising. You guys are just as crazy with your wild exaggerations and twisting of words...anything to preserve your pristine view of Canon. Which is fine...you can keep seeing your gear and the company that makes them however you like.

BTW, I never asked for, nor needed, your "help". You don't even seem to understand the fundamental underlying concepts if you really, honestly think that the 70D has more DR than any other Canon camera on the market. I don't think anyone else here agrees with you on that point, and certainly no one anywhere else on the net, reviewers or forum goers, would agree with you either. I think you've twisted Photographic DR into something that handily "proves" (in your own mind) that Canon is right up there with their competitors, when that is the farthest thing from the truth. 

However, I'm not really here to prove anything to anyone. I'm just...ticked off and frustrated. Canon's core technology hasn't changed in years. It's been fundamentally the same since I first got into photography, I've been longing for them to deliver a powerhouse landscape camera since before the 5D III was even announced (basically, since I first learned about the K-5's then-magical DR, and not long after that the D7000's DR, which got all the limelight, but in actuality was never as good as the K-5's I don't think.) We have two weeks until Photokina. I guess we'll see the REAL state of Canon technology then. I hope for a 1-2 stop improvement in DR somewhere. I hope for a fundamental shift in sensor technology, how it's fabricated, how it's designed. I expect...well, nothing significant anywhere...really. I *truly *HOPE I'm wrong...

I don't get much chance to go out and photograph landscapes anyway. When I do, I rarely get the kind of lighting and weather I want. Good landscapes are always a couple hours drive away at least. Figure I'll just focus on what I can do in the limited time I have...and what my current gear doesn't drive me up a wall fiddling with NR for: Birds, Wildlife, Macro, *Astrophotography*.


----------



## jrista (Sep 2, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



$2800 bucks...in the UK. Throw in currency conversion fees (3%), import tarifs (3-6% or so), and shipping costs...and it tops $3100. For a used body? Hmm... Stills smells a bit expensive.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 2, 2014)

Again jrista, I don't see it. You've have no reason at this point not to adopt the a7r, it's a fantastic camera with basically identical IQ that doesn't require a full adoption. I like end results and the a7r gives a better end result than 5d3 for your landscapes. 

Call it in, and hang up the phone on the DR posts. I mean you probably could have wrote war & peace with a stop wedge by now.


----------



## Ruined (Sep 2, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Again jrista, I don't see it. You've have no reason at this point not to adopt the a7r, it's a fantastic camera with basically identical IQ that doesn't require a full adoption. I like end results and the a7r gives a better end result than 5d3 for your landscapes.
> 
> Call it in, and hang up the phone on the DR posts. I mean you probably could have wrote war & peace with a stop wedge by now.



I think all jrista wants is the DR of the Sony sensors in Canon bodies, because the Sony bodies have a wealth of disadvantages that far outweigh the sensor (IMO at least). You can't take a picture with just a sensor, and Sony is inferior with nearly all of those other aspects of the camera/lens. If Canon incorporates an improved sensor in a future EOS camera, it would be the best of both worlds.


----------



## tss68nl (Sep 2, 2014)

Ruined said:


> I think all jrista wants is the DR of the Sony sensors in Canon bodies, because the Sony bodies have a wealth of disadvantages that far outweigh the sensor (IMO at least). You can't take a picture with just a sensor, and Sony is inferior with nearly all of those other aspects of the camera/lens. If Canon incorporates an improved sensor in a future EOS camera, it would be the best of both worlds.



So now we're bashing one company or the other, for not incorporating the tech of the other company?

You know what? I like McDonalds fries better, but the burgers I find tastier at Burger King. Should I now go whine online about how they do not adopt eachothers formulas? Can I now say that McDonalds is now two generations behind because the McChicken isn't up to par with the Grilled Chicken Barbeque, which is the second generation of superior Chicken sandwiches after the Grilled Chicken Classic?

Make a choice, and be happy with it.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 2, 2014)

jrista said:


> You don't even seem to understand the fundamental underlying concepts if you really, honestly think that the 70D has more DR than any other Canon camera on the market.



I never said that. I said it had more then the 7D.



> I don't think anyone else here agrees with you on that point, and certainly no one anywhere else on the net, reviewers or forum goers, would agree with you either.



Imaging Resource Imatest results for 70D in ACR: 13 stops total DR
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-70d/canon-70dA5.HTM

Imaging Resource Imatest results for 7D in ACR: 11.5 stops total DR
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E7D/E7DIMATEST.HTM

:



> I think you've twisted Photographic DR into something that handily "proves" (in your own mind) that Canon is right up there with their competitors, when that is the farthest thing from the truth.



I think I've said...repeatedly...that Exmor sensors have a bit more DR and noticeably more shadow *latitude* and that this sometimes matters. Just not all the time, and not to the degree you believe.

I think I've also...repeatedly...documented that I'm using the standard definition that's in every work on the subject dating back to Adam's formulation of the zone system.



> I'm just...ticked off and frustrated.



But not enough to buy something to solve it :



> Canon's core technology hasn't changed in years.



Then write letters to Canon USA and Canon Japan. Print and mail them. I'm of the opinion...perhaps false...that printed letters in these situations get more attention then emails and web forms.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 2, 2014)

Ruined said:


> I think all jrista wants is the DR of the Sony sensors in Canon bodies, because the Sony bodies have a wealth of disadvantages that far outweigh the sensor (IMO at least). You can't take a picture with just a sensor, and Sony is inferior with nearly all of those other aspects of the camera/lens. If Canon incorporates an improved sensor in a future EOS camera, it would be the best of both worlds.



For tripod landscapes I can't see any disadvantage to an A7 or A7R. AF speed doesn't matter. EVF lets you judge exposure/histogram before shooting. Tilt screen is useful if your tripod is down low. What's the problem? Durability? The Sony's are weather sealed, though I would trust a 7D or 5D3 to take more abuse and keep going. Battery life sucks but those are fairly easy to carry.

I don't see a "wealth of disadvantages" either. A7 is smaller/lighter for street. EVF with peaking is great for MF lenses. It's *not* a sports/action camera. No question you would grab a DSLR for that. Despite mirrorless vendors claiming every other week that they have the "fastest AF ever" they are not up to DSLR standards. Not the 7D, 5D3, or any where near the 1DX / D4.

I could pick up and shoot either comfortably for most situations. Obviously Canon wins on AF. But if DR was driving me as nuts on landscapes as it seems to be driving jrista, I would order an A7R in a heart beat.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 2, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > You don't even seem to understand the fundamental underlying concepts if you really, honestly think that the 70D has more DR than any other Canon camera on the market.
> ...



So you're saying he TWISTED your words?


----------



## raptor3x (Sep 2, 2014)

Nm, I'm not sure about his now.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 2, 2014)

Twenty-seven pages and still going. When the original post could have been answered in one word: "No."


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 2, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I bought a D800 after reading the hype. It was a waste of money, I sold it and bought a 5D MK III. The D800 appeals to armchair spec readers, but few that actually use one are happy.



Really?

And you interviewed how many D800 owners to come up with this conclusion???

If you prefer Canon over Nikon, great. Lots of people do. But to make a generalization like that is a bit much. 

Is it really so hard to admit that some people like their Nikons just like some people like their Canons?


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 2, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Twenty-seven pages and still going. When the original post could have been answered in one word: "No."


see reply #232


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 2, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I bought a D800 after reading the hype. It was a waste of money, I sold it and bought a 5D MK III. The D800 appeals to armchair spec readers, but few that actually use one are happy.
> ...



different tools for different things man. In the wedding industry here, the d800 took a while to catch on. Most nikon guys I knew were opting for a d3s or a d4 or a used d700. The few that did snag a d800 did like it for the posed formal shots, but stayed away from making that the primary camera ---not because of IQ or capabilities but because of file size. More of that crowd is snagging d810's now, because it is a better camera than the original model, and because it's a few years later - the d4s is pricey and their d700's are reaching the end of their cycles....so they are buying the d810 now because they don't have much choice.


----------



## jrista (Sep 2, 2014)

Ruined said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Again jrista, I don't see it. You've have no reason at this point not to adopt the a7r, it's a fantastic camera with basically identical IQ that doesn't require a full adoption. I like end results and the a7r gives a better end result than 5d3 for your landscapes.
> ...



Best of both worlds is what I'm after. In the long run, if Canon doesn't drop a new sensor into their models next year, then an A7r might just be the solution. I agree that Sony bodies have a wealth of disadvantages...but, ultimately, I only really need it for landscapes...so the majority of those disadvantages (except the crappy RAW format) would really be a problem.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 2, 2014)

jrista said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I don't get it jrista. Just go a buy a d810+14-24mm and be done with it. Why continue with the long posts?
> ...



seems odd to me that you so love what the exmor can do but won't buy a sony. Why not rent it and see if you like it? I mean, lets put it like this ---do you value your time? Looking at all your rather lengthy posts, lets put it on a dollar scale ---if you value your time at lets say at least $25-50 an hour, just what you've posted in this topic alone covers the rental cost. Then you can see if the lossy RAW is worse than the Canon Raw in the shadows. Many seem to like the A7r for landscape work, and if you are right and canon sensors are so horrible then for printing big then even a lossy exmor should be better then right? Regadless, why not rent it and see, then rent a d810 and see....if the difference for your work is that big then buy one.


----------



## jrista (Sep 2, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



It's been a couple years now as well, and computing power has progressed as well. It's possible to pick up a high powered ultrabook with eight gigs of ram for under $1500 now. I picked up the Dell XPS 15 with 16gig of ram for under $2000. My desktop computer used to struggle a bit with a D800 NEF, however after my upgrade near the beginning of the year, it has no problems with them now. (I also moved to Lightroom 5, not sure if Adobe included any performance improvements for handling large RAW files.)

I don't think the file size issue is really as much of an issue before, and if it still is, it won't be for long. 

I know two portrait/wedding/event photographers who both own D4s and D800s (one is picking up a D810). They have raved about them since they got them. I asked about the file size issue a couple years ago as well, and for one it was a small issue but not enough to prevent him from using the camera. For the other, it was never an issue. They both pick the camera for the scene...D4 for the higher ISO shots, D800 for the lower ISO shots.

They are well-invested in Nikon glass, no reason for them to ever switch, but they aren't unhappy with the performance of their tools for their job either.


----------



## jrista (Sep 2, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> seems odd to me that you so love what the exmor can do but won't buy a sony. Why not rent it and see if you like it? I mean, lets put it like this ---do you value your time? Looking at all your rather lengthy posts, lets put it on a dollar scale ---if you value your time at lets say at least $25-50 an hour, just what you've posted in this topic alone covers the rental cost. Then you can see if the lossy RAW is worse than the Canon Raw in the shadows. Many seem to like the A7r for landscape work, and if you are right and canon sensors are so horrible then for printing big then even a lossy exmor should be better then right? Regadless, why not rent it and see, then rent a d810 and see....if the difference for your work is that big then buy one.



Well, for one, it doesn't take me long to write a post. I type nearly at the speed of thought..so... I could probably write a WOT in the time it takes most people to write one smaller post. 

We'll see. Next time I get a chance to spend a week in the mountains, I'll rent both.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 2, 2014)

jrista said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



That's WHY the a7r is an awesome option - it gives you a chance to get your feet wet with more res and DR without committing to a full system swtich, or more expensive, adding the nikon to your kit. As you said,AF is pretty much useless for landscape work, so using the adapter shouldn't be an issue


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 2, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



In the D810 Nikon also added a small RAW option. I really cannot understand Nikon's thinking in not offering a smaller raw in the D800, especially when those upgrading would be moving from 12 to 36 mp.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 2, 2014)

jrista said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > seems odd to me that you so love what the exmor can do but won't buy a sony. Why not rent it and see if you like it? I mean, lets put it like this ---do you value your time? Looking at all your rather lengthy posts, lets put it on a dollar scale ---if you value your time at lets say at least $25-50 an hour, just what you've posted in this topic alone covers the rental cost. Then you can see if the lossy RAW is worse than the Canon Raw in the shadows. Many seem to like the A7r for landscape work, and if you are right and canon sensors are so horrible then for printing big then even a lossy exmor should be better then right? Regadless, why not rent it and see, then rent a d810 and see....if the difference for your work is that big then buy one.
> ...



WOw...speed of thought....if you can type that fast I am sure you could get paid quite well just to type!....lol...Either way, I think folks here are lot less against the nikon tech than you think, we just aren't seeing the need for it as much as you because we aren't shooting as many landscapes. I do shoot landscapes from time to time, and waterscapes, I do dig throwing a big ND filter on and turning day into night...but that isn't my bread and butter - so I buy what I need for my work. Would I like and extra stop of DR for that stuff...sure, but, for my professional work, I actually embrace the shadow. More than not, I will darken the shadows to enhance the mood. For what I do, good control over off camera light is way more important to me than having more DR...


----------



## mkabi (Sep 2, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> In the D810 Nikon also added a small RAW option. I really cannot understand Nikon's thinking in not offering a smaller raw in the D800, especially when those upgrading would be moving from 12 to 36 mp.



Does it do medium RAW? Its only logical if it did... have it output medium at 24MP....


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Nah...he photographed that particular post with a 5D3, underexposed it for a DR test, and when he pushed the shadows the noise obscured part of what I wrote ;D

DARN YOU CANON! DARN YOU AND YOUR SHADOW NOISE!!!


----------



## jrista (Sep 2, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Alaimo said:
> ...



LOL. Well, I pretty much do. I program.  Been doing that since I was eight...it pays pretty well. 



Chuck Alaimo said:


> ....lol...Either way, I think folks here are lot less against the nikon tech than you think, we just aren't seeing the need for it as much as you because we aren't shooting as many landscapes. I do shoot landscapes from time to time, and waterscapes, I do dig throwing a big ND filter on and turning day into night...but that isn't my bread and butter - so I buy what I need for my work. Would I like and extra stop of DR for that stuff...sure, but, for my professional work, I actually embrace the shadow. More than not, I will darken the shadows to enhance the mood. For what I do, good control over off camera light is way more important to me than having more DR...



I really love landscapes, always have. Probably some of my favorite photography. Getting really good landscapes is actually a lot of work. You have to nail the day and time, the weather, the light, everything perfectly, to get one of those phenomenal, expansive landscapes with colorful clouds, just the right angle on the landscape to bring out it's features, etc. I've never succeeded in getting what I consider a really good landscape photo. Not once. I'm generally not even impressed with what I do get 90% of the time. So, when I do head out on the few occasions I have to try, I want my equipment to DE-LIVER. The 5D III is a good camera...but it doesn't really deliver on the landscape front nearly as much as I thought it would...primarily because it has some of the worst read noise I've seen in a Canon DSLR. I don't really think it's changed all that much from the 5D II, which had pretty nasty read noise as well.

The 7D never gave me the FoV, pixel count, or DR that I wanted (I could have gotten the 10-22 EF-S, but I wrote off EF-S lenses a long time ago), and although it's noise is better than the 5D IIIs, it still had banding (however, Topaz cleans that up really well, much better than the 5D III it seems.) I just find it sad, that in so much time, Canon's read noise quality has basically gone...nowhere. I've got my fingers on all kinds of new and different tech now that I'm doing astrophotography...and that only increases my perception of how big the differential is between Canon sensor technology and "*everyone* elses". The gap is huge, and becoming massive. Canon used to be considered the top sensor manufacturer. These days, they seem to be at the absolute bottom, for stills, for video, for everything. Even the MFD manufacturers have moved to Sony Exmor sensors. Having bought the 5D III in good part for landscapes...it was and is just frustrating to see that fact stare me in the face every time I open one of my landscape photos, and see banding. I don't even really need to push or pull the shadows around...once you get into the lower midtones...it's right there. Shadow falloff is hideous. Very, very sad. Frustrating. Well, frustrating to me, anyway.


----------



## Skulker (Sep 2, 2014)

jrista said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...




You keep being very negative about the 5D3. While you may be expressing a sincerely held opinion you are going to struggle to convince many that your opinion is well founded. There are so many excellent photographs taken with the 5D3. I have seen images taken with Nikons, some of them outstanding, and I have seen and taken images with Canon. What I have never seen is anything that convinces me that either has a fatal fault or weakness.


Don't get me wrong. Some of the excellent images I have seen were yours. (I think your astro photography is excellent) But your logic is not too hot. To say you have been frustrated by Canon for over 6 years but its only the 5D3 just isn't logical. I know that you can say you only said you were dissatisfied with the 5D3 and frustrated for years. But hey we both know that's just wriggling. 


Its a shame you have been subjected to quite so much agro. But I think you have rather asked for it by the way you have expressed yourself so strongly without taking much notice of many valid points that have been raised.


----------



## jrista (Sep 2, 2014)

Skulker said:


> You keep being very negative about the 5D3. While you may be expressing a sincerely held opinion you are going to struggle to convince many that your opinion is well founded. There are so many excellent photographs taken with the 5D3. I have seen images taken with Nikons, some of them outstanding, and I have seen and taken images with Canon. What I have never seen is anything that convinces me that either has a fatal fault or weakness.



I wouldn't call it a fatal fault. It's just an excessively annoying fault. My 450D had it. I skipped the 5D II because of it. The 7D has it, although not as bad. The 5D III has it, about as bad as the 5D II (despite the decent number of years difference between them.) So, no, not a "fatal" fault. An ugly, nasty, frustratingly annoying fault, yes.



Skulker said:


> Don't get me wrong. Some of the excellent images I have seen were yours. (I think your astro photography is excellent) But your logic is not too hot. To say you have been frustrated by Canon for over 6 years but its only the 5D3 just isn't logical. I know that you can say you only said you were dissatisfied with the 5D3 and frustrated for years. But hey we both know that's just wriggling.
> 
> 
> Its a shame you have been subjected to quite so much agro. But I think you have rather asked for it by the way you have expressed yourself so strongly without taking much notice of many valid points that have been raised.



Eh, I knew what this community was like when I voiced my opinion. To be frank, I never really expected anything else. We crucify anything DR related, PARTICULARLY DXO (although, I still think DXO is asking for it...they need to stop being so obscure about their methodologies and weighting, and stop posting ludicrous lens test comparisons.) Anyway, people are what they are...and here they like to crush any mention of DR differences between Canon and the competition. 

As for the rest...I was frustrated with the 450D read noise, that was my first DSLR. I did not like the 7D noise either, and was frustrated with it for over a year until I got the whole Topaz filter collection for about $130. DeNoise 5's debanding works extremely well on the 7D, since it has a very regular 8-column repetition. I can just set the band width to 8, and DeNoise 5 completely eliminates it. The low read noise then means the remaining random noise cleans up well. So, I was frustrated with the 7D until DeNoise came along. 

Part of my frustration with the 5D III is it seems to have largely random banding. Some bands are very thin, some are quite fat. DeNoise 5 cleans up some bands, and not others. I can run multiple passes, but then I'm eating away at detail. So, the tools I used to use to deal with banding don't work nearly as well or at all with the 5D III. The color noise is also quite bad...however last night I found a new "smoothness" slider in LR 5's color NR that seems to deal with the larger-scale blotchiness...so that may help with the issue. (Crosses fingers.)

Anyway, I had frustrations with Canon read noise a long time ago. I skipped the 5D II because of it's read noise (at the time, the rumors here were that the 5D III would hit around 28mp and have improved DR...so I waited.) I'm harping on the 5D III because it's one of Canon's newest high resolution full frame sensors. It's their current technology. The 6D performs remarkably better at high ISO...and statistically given it's read noise levels, it should perform similarly at low ISO (I don't know if there are any low ISO comparisons between those two cameras...everyone focuses on the high ISO differences.) So, my reasoning is logical. I've been WAITING a long time for Canon to fix their banding issues...and the camera I have in hand right now is the 5D III.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 2, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Imaging Resource Imatest results for 70D in ACR
> :



It's interesting that you keep going to IR as being the gods of testing and yet always fail to quote this part of the final remark: "Like all recent Canon SLRs, the higher quality scores are somewhat below average for a modern sensor. For example, the Nikon D7100 managed 10.1 f-stops at the highest quality level, almost 2 stops better. "  

And as for IR being sooo much more reliable and well defined than DxO and how can IR get so many stops more DR and the others are obviously wrong, etc. you always fail to quote : "As always, it's worth noting here is that ACR's default noise reduction settings reduced overall noise somewhat " I.E. they do a potentially randomly manipulated by ACR test that involves all sorts of NR.




> I think I've said...repeatedly...that Exmor sensors have a bit more DR and noticeably more shadow *latitude* and that this sometimes matters. Just not all the time, and not to the degree you believe.



You always use extravagant talk about minor high ISO gains, but then use the most radically minimizing talk about low ISO differences.




> Then write letters to Canon USA and Canon Japan. Print and mail them. I'm of the opinion...perhaps false...that printed letters in these situations get more attention then emails and web forms.



perhaps


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 2, 2014)

jrista said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Same here, I'll wait for the 5D4, but if that doesn't deliver I'll have to just nab an A7R and live with the dual-brand body mess for now and think about an ultimate shift to Nikon.


----------



## Skulker (Sep 2, 2014)

jrista said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > You keep being very negative about the 5D3. While you may be expressing a sincerely held opinion you are going to struggle to convince many that your opinion is well founded. There are so many excellent photographs taken with the 5D3. I have seen images taken with Nikons, some of them outstanding, and I have seen and taken images with Canon. What I have never seen is anything that convinces me that either has a fatal fault or weakness.
> ...




J - I don't think you are listening. You're posts about the 5D3 just seem so un-balanced its a shame.


Have you ever heard the saying "when you're in a hole stop digging"


----------



## jrista (Sep 2, 2014)

Skulker said:


> J - I don't think you are listening. You're posts about the 5D3 just seem so un-balanced its a shame.
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard the saying "when you're in a hole stop digging"



Aside from the fact that I'm saying the 5D III's low ISO is hideous and unacceptable to me, just as unacceptable as every Canon sensor that came before it (I understand people disagree with the notion that is an issue)...what is unbalanced about my posts?

I can like the camera at high ISO, and not like it at low ISO. That isn't unbalanced, given the read noise levels within those two ranges of ISO are considerably different (<6e-, and generally <3e- at high ISO, as much as 33e- at low ISO...up to a 1000% difference between the two).


----------



## psolberg (Sep 3, 2014)

ramonjsantiago said:


> D800 -> D810
> 
> The 5dm3 is looking really old.



I can't say the 5DIII looks old. From my perspective there was never an proper upgrade to the MKII which targeted studio and landscape photographers with state of the art resolution and not mind about fps or AF that much. That's why I've shoot D800/e now and for a number of years to great results. No regrets. What was a wining formula for canon is what Nikon followed. Nikon just had the common sense of designating it as a different product, unlike canon. So the 5DMKIII is really just AHEAD of its time but has a weird name. Maybe it should have been called 3D?  feel better now? What's really old is the 5DmkII which to date has no true follow up following the tradition of leader/leading in detail and image quality over FPS and AF. That's the rumored 3D, but whatever. 

The only area where I agree the 5DMKIII is severely lacking is video. With basically everybody going crazy over 4K, a 1080p camera is just lacking. Then again, nobody really considers 5D's to be the state of the art in video with many manufacturers offering much more powerful options aimed at the videographer instead of the photographer wanna-be-video guy. That's the right approach IMHO. so who really cares that the 5D isn't going to be the video guy's sweetie. It's a photo tool first and foremost.


----------



## jrista (Sep 3, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Best of both worlds is what I'm after. In the long run, if Canon doesn't drop a new sensor into their models next year, then an A7r might just be the solution. I agree that Sony bodies have a wealth of disadvantages...but, ultimately, I only really need it for landscapes...so the majority of those disadvantages (except the crappy RAW format) would really be a problem.
> ...



Personally, I don't contemplate any kind of shift to Nikon. There are many reasons not to...manufacturing issues, customer support issues, Canon lenses in large part (particularly longer lenses) being better, many unique lens options for Canon.

My sole complaint is with Canon's low ISO performance. I guess I could live with an A7r until Canon gets that sorted out. Not ideal, and an extra cost...but it's at least a viable interim option. But moving to Nikon overall? That's never been in my playbook. Canon cameras still perform excellently at higher ISO, once their data is all above the read noise floor, and Canon's RN floor at high ISO tends to be lower than Nikon & Sony's RN floor at high ISO, so you have more high ISO DR.

I just hope Canon DOES sort it out...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 3, 2014)

jrista said:


> Getting really good landscapes is actually a lot of work. You have to nail the day and time...



Indeed. I suspect that if you do eventually pick up a D8xx or canon reduces shadow noise to roughly equivalent levels, you'll find it merely marginally better since you are an afternoon landscape guy. I know I did.


----------



## psolberg (Sep 3, 2014)

jrista said:


> I guess I could live with an A7r until Canon gets that sorted out



why? that camera's raw files are severely crippled as shown by Lloyd chambers and others. basically you're shooting 11 bit crap. All your reasoning (lenses and options) applies to sony. Don't be foolish. I've made the switch and have used both the 800 and A7r. no real equivalence. It's just gear, not a religion. And if you already took the sony, you may as well really get true 14 bit raws. Plus if you only need the high MP for some situations you're using the A7r, just get the matching Nikon set and sell it later if you have to. It's not like you're cheating on a wife or something lol.



3kramd5 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Getting really good landscapes is actually a lot of work. You have to nail the day and time...
> ...



having switched I can tell you the difference will be there and it is quite obvious specially after you're used to a huge latitude in the RAW with LR and its excellent algorithms. This is no longer up for debate after two years. The question is that unless you have a burning desire, you can still take nice images with the 5DMKII. that didn't go away and realistically you're unlikely to say "oh crap, if only my gear was better!". The detail is amazing and IMHO, 50+MP can't come soon enough to oversample some of the issues around the bayer pattern and color graduations which still plague low MP bodies. But ultimately you have to balance it. Yes more detail is nice. Yes super deep shadow and highlight range is nice. But are you crippled otherwise? nah. I only switched because it is trivial to do so for me as both systems are basically the same in my lens selection and cost is similar. 

I'm following closely the medium format scene. Looks like it will heat up as manufactures respond to the D810 price to performance ratio. This means cheaper or more capable medium format gear to justify the cost. And maybe now it will start to make sense to jump to it.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 3, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> It's interesting that you keep going to IR as being the gods of testing and yet always fail to quote this part of the final remark: "Like all recent Canon SLRs, the higher quality scores are somewhat below average for a modern sensor. For example, the Nikon D7100 managed 10.1 f-stops at the highest quality level, almost 2 stops better. "



It's interesting that you still don't understand the difference between *total dynamic range* and dynamic range to arbitrarily selected noise thresholds.



> And as for IR being sooo much more reliable and well defined than DxO and how can IR get so many stops more DR and the others are obviously wrong, etc. you always fail to quote : "As always, it's worth noting here is that ACR's default noise reduction settings reduced overall noise somewhat " I.E. they do a potentially randomly manipulated by ACR test that involves all sorts of NR.



It's also interesting that you choose to lie and misrepresent to try and make your case.

A) NR does *not* affect total DR, though it does impact latitude. Likewise it would impact DR measurements which used an arbitrarily high noise threshold or "quality."

B) ACR's default NR settings are mild and fixed. They are not random nor "all sorts of."

C) *ALL* tested cameras have default ACR settings.

D) DxO is not testing system DR, but sensel SNR. There is no simple or direct conversion of sensel SNR to system DR. If DxO measured film "sensels" or grain they would report a DR of <1 stop. Yet a piece of Portra film held 12-13 stops and with proper development some B&W films can hit 16-18.



> You always use extravagant talk about minor high ISO gains, but then use the most radically minimizing talk about low ISO differences.



No idea what you're even talking about.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 3, 2014)

dilbert said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



A large lens will typically have its own tripod ring and foot. The EF adapters I've looked at also have a tripod foot so that the adapter bears the lens weight (for lenses too small to warrant a tripod ring).

How could you not know this? Hmmm..._This is hilarious and reads like someone who has never actually taken a photograph. Do you actually go out and take any landscape photographs or are you just an Internet arm chair expert?_ :


----------



## psolberg (Sep 3, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> In the D810 Nikon also added a small RAW option. I really cannot understand Nikon's thinking in not offering a smaller raw in the D800, especially when those upgrading would be moving from 12 to 36 mp.



because there is no benefit to this. read this:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/accessories/software-for-nikon-dslrs/software-news/the-sraw-myth.html

basically there is no such thing as sraw, not even canon's as interpolation is used therefore technically not raw. In fact, if you see a D810 guy using sraw, please smack him in the head as he's being an idiot.


----------



## jrista (Sep 3, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > It's interesting that you keep going to IR as being the gods of testing and yet always fail to quote this part of the final remark: "Like all recent Canon SLRs, the higher quality scores are somewhat below average for a modern sensor. For example, the Nikon D7100 managed 10.1 f-stops at the highest quality level, almost 2 stops better. "
> ...



You keep saying "arbitrarily" selected noise thresholds. It isn't arbitrary. It's very specific. It is the RMS of read noise, a figure that can usually be taken right out of a manufacturers specs for the sensor, and which is often tested for by reviewers, and which can be derived using tools like Imatest. 

The noise threshold that is used to determine dynamic range is the farthest thing from arbitrary...it is very specific. The actual RMS value often changes from sensor to sensor...but that is exactly why it is used. Because not every sensor has the same DR. The DR is the range from the RMS of read noise, through the maximum signal strength. At base ISO, the maximum signal strength is the FWC. At ISOs higher than base, the maximum signal strength is the white point (before the signal is amplified.)

Very much not arbitrary.

On the other hand...using ACR/LR to perform conversions, when the underlying algorithms used in that product have changed, often considerably, over the years and countless minor version releases, not to mention the fact that the algorithms are black box, leads to highly suspect, and _highly arbitrary_, results.

The means of NR from one brand to the next may not even be the same. Adobe does not publish any of that information, so who knows if the way they NR a NEF is the same way they NR a CR2. It is also actually well known that the default camera calibration profiles applied by ACR are quite different than the manufacturer's default curves, and they differ from camera to camera. 

That all increases the chance that IR results are entirely arbitrary, and inconsistent even within the same brand over time. 



dtaylor said:


> > And as for IR being sooo much more reliable and well defined than DxO and how can IR get so many stops more DR and the others are obviously wrong, etc. you always fail to quote : "As always, it's worth noting here is that ACR's default noise reduction settings reduced overall noise somewhat " I.E. they do a potentially randomly manipulated by ACR test that involves all sorts of NR.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



DxO tests the same RAW output as anyone else. I'm not a fan of most DXO results, however I do believe their Screen DR measures are accurate. How is a DXO Screen DR measure any different than a "system" measurement done by IR? Or, for that matter, anyone elses DR tests also performed on RAW file data? Aren't they all doing "system" DR tests?


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 3, 2014)

jrista said:


> You keep saying "arbitrarily" selected noise thresholds. It isn't arbitrary. It's very specific.



The Imatest "quality" DR measurements (low/med/medhigh/high) have arbitrarily selected noise floors that someone thought represented "quality" points. That's why there are 4 reported values in addition to total measured DR. 



> It is the RMS of read noise,



Not what we're talking about. (And for the millionth time, cannot be simply converted into system DR.)



> On the other hand...using ACR/LR to perform conversions, when the underlying algorithms used in that product have changed, often considerably, over the years and countless minor version releases, not to mention the fact that the algorithms are black box, leads to highly suspect, and _highly arbitrary_, results.



Have you shot a step wedge and tried to use NR to make black and white steps gray yet?

No?

*Please go try* ;D



> How is a DXO Screen DR measure any different than a "system" measurement done by IR?



http://www.stouffer.net/TransPage.htm

T4110

Buy. Shoot. Learn.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 3, 2014)

psolberg said:


> having switched I can tell you the difference will be there and it is quite obvious specially after you're used to a huge latitude in the RAW with LR and its excellent algorithms.



Of course the difference is there, I just find it to be marginal. Perhaps it has to do with what, or how I shoot as opposed to you. I don't bracket nor merge, I dodge, burn, mask, etc. I don't push shadows up to the point that they're obviously ugly. If you DO generally do that, you will find some more latitude in the exmor than the canon, however scenes wherein it's strictly necessary to stack exposures with the latter will likely still need it with the former.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 3, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> A large lens will typically have its own tripod ring and foot. The EF adapters I've looked at also have a tripod foot so that the adapter bears the lens weight (for lenses too small to warrant a tripod ring).



It's problematic with the A7 due to camera shake from the shutter. It lacks an electronic first curtain, and long focal lengths exacerbate the problem for obvious reasons.


----------



## deleteme (Sep 3, 2014)

29 pages now...

Any body actually making prints that can demonstrate the "obsolescence" of Canon?
I can agree that on screen various bodies will show some differences but I have not seen prints from anyone where I could say "Ahhh, clearly this fellow used a (insert favorite hot camera here).


----------



## jrista (Sep 3, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> > It is the RMS of read noise,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wouldn't consider that valid. Applying noise reduction means your injecting an arbitrary SOFTWARE factor into the process. If you measure after NR, then your not measuring the camera. Your measuring the camera plus what the software does to the camera's output.

There are countless noise reduction algorithms out there. Shooting a step wedge and denoising it only tells you how the "system", which includes the camera and whatever denoising algorithm you are using, performs as a whole. But it's specific to that denoising algorithm. And, therefor...arbitrary. 



dtaylor said:


> > How is a DXO Screen DR measure any different than a "system" measurement done by IR?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You mind sharing one of your unmodified RAW 41-step wedge shots? I'd like to experiment with it before I buy one, see what I come up with.


----------



## jrista (Sep 3, 2014)

From this page: http://www.imatest.com/docs/q13/#dynamic

The following is stated:



> The total range. Stepchart is extremely sensitive at detecting a camera’s total dynamic range, even when dark areas are extremely noisy or boundaries between chart zones become indistinct. This number is usually *not *a good measure of camera performance.



To repeat: _This number (total dynamic range) is usually *NOT *a good measure of CAMERA performance._ This page then goes on to state the following:



> A range of tones over which the scene-referenced RMS noise, measured in f-stops (the inverse of the signal-to-noise ratio, SNR), remains under a specified maximum value. The lower this value (the higher the minimum SNR), the better the image quality but the smaller the dynamic range. SNR tends to be worst in the darkest regions. Imatest calculates the dynamic range for several maximum RMS noise levels, from 0.1 f-stop (high image quality; SNR = 10) to 1 f-stop (low quality; SNR = 1).
> The dynamic range corresponding SNR = 1 (1 f-stop of noise) corresponds to the intent of the definition of ISO Dynamic range in section 6.3 of the ISO noise measurement standard: ISO 15739: Photography — Electronic still-picture imaging — Noise measurements. The Imatest measurement differs in several details from ISO 15739; hence the results cannot be expected to be identical. Imatest may well produce more accurate results because it measures DR directly from a transmission chart, rather than extrapolating results for a reflective chart with maximum density = 2.0.



This second definition, dynamic range measured from the RMS of read noise, or the point where SNR = 1, to the saturation point (in the case of Imatest, the saturation point as defined by ISO standards), is the definition that, as far as I know, everyone uses to define the dynamic range performance of CAMERAS. 

We aren't talking about systems here. Systems can be...anything, arbitrarily complex, and this arbitrary period. We are only talking about CAMERAS, an when it comes to describing camera DR, "total dynamic range", according to Imatest themselves, is NOT a good measure of camera DR. 



From this page: http://www.imatest.com/docs/q13/

The following is stated:



> The detected patches have a density range of 11.2 f-stops (this should not be interpreted as the camera’s Dynamic Range).



To repeat and emphasize: *(this should not be interpreted as the camera’s Dynamic Range)*



I'm sure this doesn't settle the issue, but with this, explicit information strait from the source, I'm done debating "photographic DR" vs. dynamic range as it is commonly understood and used in the sensor and camera industry.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 3, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> It's interesting that you still don't understand the difference between *total dynamic range* and dynamic range to arbitrarily selected noise thresholds.



I do. How does that change when they directly said that the Canon was a good 2 stops behind and not up to the standards of other current sensors?



> It's also interesting that you choose to lie and misrepresent to try and make your case.
> A) NR does *not* affect total DR, though it does impact latitude. Likewise it would impact DR measurements which used an arbitrarily high noise threshold or "quality."
> 
> B) ACR's default NR settings are mild and fixed. They are not random nor "all sorts of."
> ...



And of course ACR hasn't changed from release to release or how it treats camera to camera, nope, nobody ahs ever noticed any changes there....



> D) DxO is not testing system DR, but sensel SNR. There is no simple or direct conversion of sensel SNR to system DR. If DxO measured film "sensels" or grain they would report a DR of <1 stop. Yet a piece of Portra film held 12-13 stops and with proper development some B&W films can hit 16-18.



Umm, no, they are measuring system DR, they don't measure the best the photosites can do and de-couple the sensor from the camera's downstream ADC and such, the Canon sensor sensor itself has plenty fine DR, but the downstream messes it up.

IR is measuring Camera PLUS RAW converter while DxO measures Camera.


----------



## Hillsilly (Sep 3, 2014)

Normalnorm said:


> 29 pages now...



My hobby is speaker building and on some audio websites, it's not unusual for threads to be 1000+ pages long. And there we're often debating sound quality characteristics differences that are highly subjective, can't be measured, and most people don't even believe exist. At least sensor performance can be measured.


----------



## jrista (Sep 3, 2014)

Hillsilly said:


> Normalnorm said:
> 
> 
> > 29 pages now...
> ...



Hmm...anyone wanna aim for 1000 pages in this thread?  ;D


----------



## David Hull (Sep 3, 2014)

Hillsilly said:


> Normalnorm said:
> 
> 
> > 29 pages now...
> ...


Yes but the measurements mean about the same as they do with speakers. Most people don't measure them, they listen to them.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 3, 2014)

jrista said:


> ..The 6D performs remarkably better at high ISO...and statistically given it's read noise levels, it should perform similarly at low ISO (I don't know if there are any low ISO comparisons between those two cameras...everyone focuses on the high ISO differences.) So, my reasoning is logical. I've been WAITING a long time for Canon to fix their banding issues...and the camera I have in hand right now is the 5D III.



I did my little dark noise test on the 6D... but did not buy one. So that'll give you a clue. 
Altho slightly better, with reduced low iso banding, it still has vertical banding a'la 5d2/3.
It's much better than (my) 5d2, somewhat better than 5d3, but still not good enough for me to consider dropping a wad on it just to back Canon tilt-shift lenses at this time.

I don't think I published the test, other than a text description of it on here, somewhere, shortly after the 6D became available. If I remember correctly, 100 and 200 iso were slightly less FPN, 400 was not much difference, don't remember how it fared after that but I did pronounce it as being the best IQ contemporary, FF, Canon body.


----------



## PicaPica (Sep 3, 2014)

canon vs. nikon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jva08HY6uLE

T. Northrup wants to switch to nikon but can’t fully.

ps: i did not watch it i just read some of the comments.
but i though some here are maybe interested. 

and it sure will keep the fire warm for a while.




Robert Brody said:


> I am a professional still shooter, so I go with what works best. Canon sensors are so far behind the D810 now that a few lenses at certain price points do not make for the winning system. Nikon is also being more aggressive as of late in sealing holes in the lens lineups over Canon. Also missing is the serious fact that Nikon's flash system is a lot nicer. At lower budgets picking what feels better is more important than anything else, but if you're serious about shooting Canon has a lot of sensor work to do before they can be taken seriously against the D810/D4s combo or D810/Df combo.





Tony Northrup said:


> I raved about the Nikon image quality and recommended it for everything in the medium focal range. The D810 slaughtered the 5D Mark III in our review. We totally agree about all of this.


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Sep 3, 2014)

Why am I left with the feeling that people use these kinds of "discussions" as a cover for not having to produce amazing images? OK. So maybe I'm old and cranky. 

Still. 

Don't you think that if one company was clearly better than another, don't you think that walking up to a print or turning a page in a magazine where you'd be able to _clearly_ tell the difference between one imaging system and another, that we'd ALL be piling on?


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 3, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> It's problematic with the A7 due to camera shake from the shutter. It lacks an electronic first curtain, and long focal lengths exacerbate the problem for obvious reasons.



The A7 does have EFC, and shutter shake issues with the A7R are greatly exaggerated.

Besides, are we now shooting HDR landscapes with a 600mm in the narrow shutter speed range that might cause a problem? :


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 3, 2014)

Normalnorm said:


> 29 pages now...
> 
> Any body actually making prints that can demonstrate the "obsolescence" of Canon?
> I can agree that on screen various bodies will show some differences but I have not seen prints from anyone where I could say "Ahhh, clearly this fellow used a (insert favorite hot camera here).



;D

Nope. 29 pages and not one single example of a real world photo under real world exposure conditions where the difference would matter in a large print.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 3, 2014)

jrista said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Have you shot a step wedge and tried to use NR to make black and white steps gray yet?
> ...



LOL! JRISTA! The whole POINT is that no amount of NR will change the total DR! NR before Imatest will impact the "quality" measurements, just like it affects exposure latitude. But not total.

You are right that sensor+NR is not a sensor test but a system or "best possible" test. Though in practical terms I think this is just as important because we do not process with zero NR. When Fred Miranda or...worse...infomercial captain Tony Northrup...compare the two with no NR, but fail to show the example with some NR, it is very misleading as to what one's real world results will be. But if you want to know what sensor shadow noise is like, you can't apply NR before hand.

But total DR...which includes tones you can distinguish even though they might have noise...tones which are likely OK if you do not push shadows...is not going to be affected by NR.



> You mind sharing one of your unmodified RAW 41-step wedge shots? I'd like to experiment with it before I buy one, see what I come up with.



Actually I do. At this point I seriously want you to buy one and play with it. Not to be a jerk, but I think you will enjoy and learn. (I don't have a 5D3 shot any way. Though in the near future I might go ahead and shoot every relevant camera I can get my hands on and post all of them.)

It won't change your opinion on Exmor vs Canon in the real world, you'll have to rent a D800 or A7 for that. To be clear, they are better. There are times when you can get away with one Exmor frame where you would want two Canon frames. Or for those who manually blend, leave one frame off the blend (i.e. 2 for Exmor vs. 3 for Canon). It does happen. But ultimately you are usually doing the same things on Exmor as on Canon to manage wide luminance scenes, the end result being some minor shadow differences no one will notice in print.

I wouldn't blame you for wanting that advantage and buying an Exmor body. I don't blame you for wanting Canon to change their ADC architecture. I just don't think the difference is nearly as great as you believe.

Hand me a Canon, or a Nikon, or a Sony, and tell me I need to photograph a sunset landscape or an interior with windows showing the outside world. *I will accomplish it and produce a high quality print regardless of the camera.*


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 3, 2014)

PicaPica said:


> Robert Brody said:
> 
> 
> > Also missing is the serious fact that Nikon's flash system is a lot nicer.



Yep, there's an unbiased guy who really knows what he's talking about. To be fair, the 600EX-RT has only been out for a couple years, so maybe he's just not keeping up.


----------



## PicaPica (Sep 3, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Hand me a Canon, or a Nikon, or a Sony, and tell me I need to photograph a sunset landscape or an interior with windows showing the outside world. *I will accomplish it and produce a high quality print regardless of the camera.*



bravo!!


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 3, 2014)

jrista said:


> > The total range. Stepchart is extremely sensitive at detecting a camera’s total dynamic range, even when dark areas are extremely noisy or boundaries between chart zones become indistinct. This number is usually *not *a good measure of camera performance.



I appreciate that IR has a large database of Imatest step wedge tests to reference, but that does not imply agreement with everything they might say or every subjective evaluation they might make.

"Camera performance" is subjective. Total DR is not. What is "unacceptable shadow noise" while pixel peeping at 200% on a bright monitor (or analyzing with software) may be "minor and inconsequential" in a 36" print and "invisible" in a 24" one. What is "high quality" DR under one set of processing and viewing conditions might be "invisible difference" under another. You look at the FM example with NR applied and see a large difference where I see something that no one could detect in a 24" print.

And...I will add...*every single attempt at a real world side by side test we have seen supports my use of "photographic DR."* Both Fred Miranda's example and the Coke box example show nearly the same DR for both cameras. The difference is in the shadow noise which only becomes apparent when you push the shadows 3+ stops. The tones are there, you just can't lift them up as far with the Canon due to the noise. The difference is therefore in exposure latitude, not dynamic range. (Although, again, Exmor usually does have a bit more DR as well.)

You are running to subjective, interpretive definitions to cling to your point rather then observing actual evidence. That's why we keep butting heads. You talk and read and talk and read...and talk and talk and talk...but never *observe.* You're in the mode of defending a position rather then questioning and expanding it.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 3, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > It's interesting that you still don't understand the difference between *total dynamic range* and dynamic range to arbitrarily selected noise thresholds.
> ...



Obviously you do not. Read my last post to jrista to find the answer to your question.



> And of course ACR hasn't changed from release to release or how it treats camera to camera, nope, nobody ahs ever noticed any changes there....



Once again: NR does not change total DR. You want an objective measurement? It's total DR. You want a subjective "quality" assessment? Might as well shoot it yourself because this changes from scene to scene, view size to view size, and person to person.



> Umm, no, they are measuring system DR, they don't measure the best the photosites can do and de-couple the sensor from the camera's downstream ADC and such,



They are looking at sensel SNR (which naturally involves the entire chain to the RAW file being written) and "predicting" DR from that. Don't know how else to tell you the sky is blue.


----------



## PicaPica (Sep 3, 2014)

> Don't you think that if one company was clearly better than another, don't you think that walking up to a print or turning a page in a magazine where you'd be able to _clearly_ tell the difference between one imaging system and another, that we'd ALL be piling on?



the most interesting and stunning photos i have seen the last two weeks are from 2 woman who don´t care about sensor technology, DR and co. 

all this novels about DR... think what you could achieve in that time.


----------



## tss68nl (Sep 3, 2014)

PicaPica said:


> the most interesting and stunning photos i have seen the last two weeks are from 2 woman who don´t care about sensor technology, DR and co.
> 
> all this novels about DR... think what you could achieve in that time.



I really can't believe people are still debating this, but yet today I checked the front page and sure enough this topic was on it again. ???

Maybe it's time to start a "Pointless discussions about Nikon vs Canon" subforum, with maybe a "Pointless discussions about DR" spinoff category and some more. If a discussion about Canon vs Nikon then gets out of control and ends in a DR discussion, maybe we could have a comittee of nitpickers that will debate in "Pointless discussions about thread content", wether the specific thread should be moved, split or blocked altogether.

It's probably best to have these forums packed together in one category that is filtered from the front-page so innocent readers are not tempted ;D


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 3, 2014)

Why has this made it to page 30?


----------



## unfocused (Sep 3, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> Why has this made it to page 30?



Because there is an extremely high correlation between Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and frequency of internet postings.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 3, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > Why has this made it to page 30?
> ...



Take some OCD, coupled with a matter of life and death, plus a lack of humour.... throw in some raging testosterone and keep the whole mixture simmering over a troll baited flame.... Add DR for seasoning.... and you get enough posts to choke the server.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 3, 2014)

PicaPica said:


> canon vs. nikon.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jva08HY6uLE
> 
> ...



This guy is so nauseating that I'm actually real glad he's knocking the Canon. He'd be a real Jonah on the Canon team. 
I too haven't the patience to watch this one, and that's despite his attractive wife / partner or whatever she is. 
I would just add in case she happens to read CR, if she wants to be shown how to use a canon properly I'm happy to oblige.


----------



## Famateur (Sep 3, 2014)

PicaPica said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...




And of those 3,084 posts, 3,083 have been cheerful, humorous, positive, constructive and/or peace-making. I'd say 3,084 were that way, but hey -- nobody's perfect.


----------



## jrista (Sep 3, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > dtaylor said:
> ...



Which, IMO, effectively makes the whole "total DR" measurement pointless. It doesn't tell you anything about the noise characteristics of the CAMERA. Subjective test results, those with NR applied, still don't tell you anything, because they only apply to the circumstances within which the test case was run...they don't actually apply to Joe Schmoe over here editing his photos in Program A, nor to Betty Photographer over there editing her photos in Program B.

The only objective test of CAMERA DYNAMIC RANGE is one which measures from the RMS RN floor to the saturation point. It's the only consistent, easily measurable, and ultimately comparable measurement of dynamic range. It's what the entire industry that manufactures sensors uses, it's what most reviewers use. 

Anyway...there isn't any further point to this debate. I'm out.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 3, 2014)

Famateur said:


> PicaPica said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



I was going to ask Mitch if he is experiencing Deja Moo... (The feeling that you have seen this bull before)


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Sep 3, 2014)

Pretty sure Nikon will have released at least 18 more bodies at the rate they're going before Canon releases an update to their lines. So they are much more than just 2 generations behind ;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 3, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> They are looking at sensel SNR (which naturally involves the entire chain to the RAW file being written) and "predicting" DR from that. Don't know how else to tell you the sky is blue.



Well, at least you believe that the sky looks blue on a normal, cloudless day during the daytime in summer.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 3, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > PicaPica said:
> ...



Unfocused: 2044 Posts. The only reason for posting this is to start one of those quote within a quote within a quote sequences that can look pretty cool when they get to about 20-30 quotes. Time to have some fun, demonstrate the absurdity of this thread and maybe break the Internet!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 3, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Famateur said:
> ...



Neuroanatomist: just a few posts, really.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 3, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> PicaPica said:
> 
> 
> > Robert Brody said:
> ...



Besides, just dodge and burn in post. Make use of that sony DR rather than mucking around with off camera lighting.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 3, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > It's problematic with the A7 due to camera shake from the shutter. It lacks an electronic first curtain, and long focal lengths exacerbate the problem for obvious reasons.
> ...



It does? Weird. I got the A7R for resolution plain and simple; I figured the non-R was much the same, but it wasn't on my radar.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 3, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > PicaPica said:
> ...



sorry, but dodging and burning just won't give you the same effect as well positioned lighting


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 3, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Sarcasm...


----------



## unfocused (Sep 3, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



What? No one else wants to play?


----------



## sdsr (Sep 4, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> Why has this made it to page 30?


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 4, 2014)

unfocused said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



I spy something with my little eye...


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 4, 2014)

9VIII said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I can't, I am on a self imposed exile for a week or so. But, intriguingly enough, I have a friend coming to stay who has a D800 (shame it isn't an 810 or E though) and a 24-70 so I am hoping to do some comparison images for my own piece of mind.


----------



## tss68nl (Sep 4, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



What better to make of such a thread than a kaleidoscope....


----------



## BozillaNZ (Sep 4, 2014)

tss68nl said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



Good read to pass time... I wonder if the forum will eventually put a limit on how many levels you can quote, or run out of memory and crash...

Or we should just keep doing this until Canon comes with a sensor that has at least 16 stops of DR... oops I said it again.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 4, 2014)

tss68nl said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...


how many nests before the text becomes unreadable?


----------



## dgatwood (Sep 4, 2014)

BozillaNZ said:


> tss68nl said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Probably not—that's all just handled with CSS in your browser—but eventually it will probably get to the point where the innermost quoted message is only one character wide.


----------



## jrista (Sep 4, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> tss68nl said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


Let's keep nesting and see. 8)


----------



## rpt (Sep 4, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> BozillaNZ said:
> 
> 
> > tss68nl said:
> ...


That would be fun!


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 4, 2014)

I think this box within a box text formatting is going to give me an aneurysm.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 4, 2014)

rpt said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > BozillaNZ said:
> ...



Not a Kaleidoscope, and not an Aneurysm, it's a Squirrel!


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 4, 2014)

9VIII said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > dgatwood said:
> ...


Really?


----------



## agierke (Sep 4, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > rpt said:
> ...



thank god...this will surely get this thread closed. please, please, please, please.....>.<


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 4, 2014)

agierke said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



How many generations is this ?


----------



## tss68nl (Sep 4, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> agierke said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...


It does get to the point that someone will grab his camera and snap a picture of this extensive semi-natural phenomenon that best resembles the great piramids of Egypt in 2D representation (or not so sexy airial photography).


----------



## tss68nl (Sep 4, 2014)

tss68nl said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > agierke said:
> ...


By the way... that is one fine squirrel!


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 4, 2014)

tss68nl said:


> tss68nl said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...


It's funny how squirrels appear once there are enough nuts loose....


----------



## Gantz (Sep 4, 2014)

Unfortunately yes. Canon is two generations behind.

And everyone outside Fanboy cirlces admitting that.

The Cameras are still good.
But the competition has closed the gap or even bettered Canon.

Thought Canon has two big benefits.

1) a big USERBASE

2) a good BRAND name


Both are not enough to impress me.
To impress me it needs innovativ and great products, not meh stuff.


----------



## tss68nl (Sep 4, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> tss68nl said:
> 
> 
> > tss68nl said:
> ...


Did someone really just try to revive the topic on the pointless discussion it was about for 30 pages?  This is kind of fight fire with fire.... stop the bullshit with....  I kinda prefer piramids and kaleidoscopes. However, my ultimate goal would be to actually make it look like a squirrel ;D


----------



## BozillaNZ (Sep 4, 2014)

tss68nl said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > tss68nl said:
> ...


Let's not off topic too much otherwise the admin might lock it up. We are totally discussing on the topic. Canon two generations behind? Nah, wait till you see the dual pixel + dual sensitivity sensor is out. The patent regards to this is very interesting. This is the next gen. dual pixel sensor. They've managed to make the two half pixels having different FWC and sensitivity so it gives you high and low sensitivity at the same time without losing resolution. Just like human eye, rods and cones anyone? : I am personally looking forward to this solution and how it compares with Sony's exmor.


----------



## Gantz (Sep 4, 2014)

BozillaNZ said:


> Let's not off topic too much otherwise the admin might lock it up. We are totally discussing on the topic



That is exactly what those people want.
The Fanboys here don´t want to hear this and that´s why the try to destroy such threads.

If someone don´t care fine! 
Nobody forces anyone to read the threads. 
But you can be sure when others behaved that way they received a warning already.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2014)

BozillaNZ said:


> tss68nl said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Canon two generations behind? No. Two generations ago, Canon was two generations ahead. It took Nikon that long to catch up.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2014)

Gantz said:


> But you can be sure when others behaved that way they received a warning already.



So, which previously warned/banned member are you? 

If I had to guess, I'd say you were PicaPica... I believe you posted a snippet from a moderator warning yesterday, a post that was up for just a few minutes before the mods deleted it. You titled the post "goodbye." Yet here you are, back again... 

Welcome back. :


----------



## Gantz (Sep 4, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Gantz said:
> 
> 
> > But you can be sure when others behaved that way they received a warning already.
> ...



No other arguments so you have to resort to this?

Yes i was a member here before.
I delete my account myself 4 month ago. So what? 

Does it make my comment less true?

I just re-registered because of the imminent 7D MK2 announcement.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 4, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> BozillaNZ said:
> 
> 
> > tss68nl said:
> ...


Let's stay focused here people (says "unfocused") We are starting to annoy the trolls. Yes!


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 4, 2014)

Gantz said:


> I just re-registered because of the imminent 7D MK2 announcement.



Oh no 

Troll B Gone at the ready........


----------



## Gantz (Sep 4, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Gantz said:
> 
> 
> > I just re-registered because of the imminent 7D MK2 announcement.
> ...



Seems like the fanboys here want the forum all for themself.
And that´s why i deleted my former account. Nothing changed as it looks.
Still afraid of critizism. 

Would be funny when the mass posters are not actually comming around a bit sad.

But as we can see in this thread as long as they are loyal canon Fanboys they can spam and do whatever they want. :


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 4, 2014)

Gantz said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Gantz said:
> ...



You are completely overlooking the fact that many of us here on CR are fully conversant with not only the hallowed D800 but also far superior formats such as the S2 and 'real' MF film. Indeed until very recently one of my companies has been the UK agent for one of the best known large format cameras, with digital backs to match that probably cost more than you earn in a year. 

So be careful who you call 'fanboys' lest you end up sounding like a t**t.


----------



## Gantz (Sep 4, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Gantz said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Im not a pro Photographer, i probably earn more in a year than you think. ;D

But it´s good to see that you think there is room for improvement.
Some sound like Canon cameras are so good they could just stop developing and enhancing their sensors.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 4, 2014)

The cogent question is: Is there a reason for the moderators to keep this thread open?

How many pages ago did we last have any useful information instead of personal attacks and nonsense nested quotes?

Lets put this thread out of its misery.


----------



## lintoni (Sep 4, 2014)

Thank you to everybody that has contributed to this thread! If it wasn't a crap thread to start off with, it certainly is now. A great steaming turd of a thread...

A big round of applause guys! I would have contributed myself, but I was busy reading some useful stuff on the Magic Lantern forums and endeavouring to make use of what I'd read to take photos and improve my photography. And to think, I could have occupied my time here - instead, I'm wasting my life...


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 4, 2014)

unfocused said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > BozillaNZ said:
> ...


perhaps we need nested squirrels to kill this thread...


----------



## Gantz (Sep 4, 2014)

lintoni said:


> instead, I'm wasting my life...



Like most of the poster here. 

Really don´t know why i re-registered.. must be because i have the cold. :


----------



## rs (Sep 4, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Aren't there some rules about squirrels on this forum, regardless of whether they have a nest or not?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2014)

Gantz said:


> I just re-registered because of the imminent 7D MK2 announcement.



Well, at least you learned the proper definition of "ultrawide angle", so I guess it wasn't a total waste of time. 

No one here or at Canon will be bothered if you don't buy the new 7D. Canon will sell millions of them regardless.


----------



## Gantz (Sep 4, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Gantz said:
> 
> 
> > I just re-registered because of the imminent 7D MK2 announcement.
> ...




Why don´t you put that in your signature? 
Seems to be you favorite reply to people who dare to critizise Canon. 

Not that it has any meaning for the customers here who talk about Canon products. But when it makes you happy that Canon sells millions of boring Cameras, to each his own. 

The VW Golf sells well too... i would never buy one.


----------



## jrista (Sep 4, 2014)

rs said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Just Checking to see if this post makes the original one drop to 1-pixel wide.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 4, 2014)

jrista said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


Yeah! Even Jon is showing a sense of humor. There is still hope.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 4, 2014)

unfocused said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > rs said:
> ...



RLPhoto, were you upset that I put a Squirrel in your Kaleidoscope? Or that I didn't play by the standard rules of I Spy? (giving a hint before revealing the subject)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2014)

9VIII said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2014)

Oh, and speaking of squirrels, Canon's last quarterly report states that they lost 18% (y/y) on sales of dSLRs and lenses, which are quite useful for taking pictures of squirrels. Nikon – you know, that company that's two generations ahead of Canon and has much better cameras sensors low ISO DR – reported a loss of 29% (y/y). 

It's a bad market for everyone. But as you can see, Nikon is well ahead of Canon in one key area: losing money on dSLR sales.


----------



## jrista (Sep 4, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Oh, and speaking of squirrels, Canon's last quarterly report states that they lost 18% (y/y) on sales of dSLRs and lenses, which are quite useful for taking pictures of squirrels. Nikon – you know, that company that's two generations ahead of Canon and has much better cameras sensors low ISO DR – reported a loss of 29% (y/y).
> 
> It's a bad market for everyone. But as you can see, Nikon is well ahead of Canon in one key area: losing money on dSLR sales.



That's just a statistic, tough. The real question is...why? Is it because of their camera technology...or, might it be that Nikon doesn't manage their company as well as Canon does. Could it be that Nikon, being a smaller company, is struggling to fight against the superior financial position that Canon is in, which combined with their somewhat schizophrenic management approach...they aren't fully succeeding? 

I don't think the problem with Nikon's market share has anything to do with their cameras. I think it has to do with the company. I'm not saying that Nikon's cameras are better in every respect, but neither are they so inferior that just the technology alone could ever account for the difference in the companies market share and losses. 

I think if Nikon stopped wasting time and money on things like the Df, and did a better job dealing with things like oil spots and hot pixels BEFORE they released their products, if they better managed their product lines and product naming, etc. Then I think they would be more effective in the market place. The problem is not Nikon's technology. They have very good cameras. Some Nikon features are better than Canon's, some Canon features are better than Nikon's. But ultimately, I think that is irrelevant as far as marketshare goes. I just don't think Nikon is big enough to play the rather wide and fast game they are playing with all their camera models and frequent updates to product lines. In the long run, I think Nikon could be more successful by whittling down their product count, and by avoiding frivolous products like the Df (or a gold plated, lizard-skin gripped superniche trophy camera.) I think focusing a little more on their lens lineup could help as well...as it seems their lenses are definitely falling behind Canon, Zeiss, and in some cases even Sigma these days.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2014)

jrista said:


> I'm not saying that Nikon's cameras are better in every respect...



No, you're not. But it seems quite a few people trolls on this forum are saying exactly that.


----------



## jrista (Sep 4, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not saying that Nikon's cameras are better in every respect...
> ...



Well...yeah, I don't agree with the trolls then.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 4, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not saying that Nikon's cameras are better in every respect...
> ...



I agree, it's pretty much only you and your gang who have ever typed the words "Nikon's cameras [and entire system] are [is] better in every respect", so yeah it is just the trolls, for the most part, typing stuff like that out.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I agree, it's pretty much only you and your gang who have ever typed the words "Nikon's cameras [and entire system] are [is] better in every respect", so yeah it is just the trolls, for the most part, typing stuff like that out.



Believe what you want.



SwampYankee said:


> The Nikon D810 is better than the Canon 5DIII in every respect.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 4, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...


Still going? Even the squirrels are shaking their fists!


----------



## tayassu (Sep 4, 2014)

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Can't make enough of those!!! Made my day! Thanks, Don! One staying on the ground, not bothering with the ridiculousness of brand-fanatism! Thanks!


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 4, 2014)

tayassu said:


> ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
> Can't make enough of those!!! Made my day! Thanks, Don! One staying on the ground, not bothering with the ridiculousness of brand-fanatism! Thanks!


The reality is that if any company made a camera system that was better than everyone else at everything, they would have the entire market. Everything has plusses and minuses, strengths and weaknesses... and different people have different preferences and priorities. Go buy the camera (system) that is right for you, and ignore the fanatics with blinders on..... and when someone with different needs buys something else, don't criticise them, just rejoice that now they can take squirrel pictures too.....


----------



## jrista (Sep 4, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



I think we may have completely swallowed the original post now.  I don't even see it at all...


----------



## rs (Sep 4, 2014)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I think this thread has gone nuts


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 4, 2014)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Wow...lol


----------



## Canonicon (Sep 4, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



What post?


----------



## Phenix205 (Sep 4, 2014)

rs said:


> I think this thread has gone nuts



Every time in the last few days when I opened up CR's homepage I saw this thread in the headline. Never clicked in until today after finishing all reports, replying all emails, and returning all phone calls .... the darn thing was still hanging there. So I clicked in. Wow, 35 pages long. And this photo is just hilarious. It took some big balls to get these nuts on.


----------



## DominoDude (Sep 4, 2014)

Indeedy, very nuts.
If anyone haven't seen it yet, here's the ultimate combination of videocamera, squirrels and nuts...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Awp7v1YIgps

(as seen on PetaPixel)

From the video it's obvious that neither Nikon, or Canon are the preferred choice if you are a squirrel. They want to go nuts over a GoPro.


----------



## Click (Sep 4, 2014)

;D ;D ;D


----------



## jrista (Sep 4, 2014)

dilbert said:


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



Well, I don't think they researched well enough. A proper market survey would ask real photographers not only whether they wanted a still-only, retro-styled body, but HOW the body was designed. The true disaster of the Df is it's hideous control system. There are certainly people out there who want a retro-styled body...but Nikon botched that by making it difficult to function. A body can look retro, and still be easy to use. 

That's what I mean about Nikon management...I just don't think they are thorough and meticulous and forward-thinking enough to handle the creation of a product like the Df that might actually appeal to the masses that would, say, really love a Leica retro style camera but simply cannot afford one. It can't just look a certain way...it needs to be built a certain way, it needs to be usable such that it doesn't frustrate the user, etc. 

I've never honestly gotten the feeling that Nikon thinks that deeply about their products. I've never gotten the feeling that they test their prototype products (which the Df should have been at some point) to make sure they are functional, to figure out the flaws in the design, to revisit the drawing board when necessary and make the required changes. Canon definitely does that. I think that's part of the reason it can take so long for a new Canon camera to come out...Canon does their due diligence BEFORE releasing their products. Nikon...I've always gotten the feeling that they rush their products out...and, based on the market statistics, I think that is to their detriment. They have less market share, and it's falling faster than Canon's. Is that because their cameras suck? Clearly not. I think it's because Nikon is not managed as well.



dilbert said:


> If Nikon made a variant of the D8x0 with an EF mount for lenses, I wonder how many *that* would sell?



I bet it would sell a ton.  I'd buy one.


----------



## Lawliet (Sep 4, 2014)

jrista said:


> I bet it would sell a ton.  I'd buy one.



Considering the number of A7r+Metabones-"kits" our local dealers sell, resp. the related preorder lists - quite plausible.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 5, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> The reality is that if any company made a camera system that was better than everyone else at everything, they would have the entire market...



I doubt it. There'd still be a pile of people claiming how their old brand X was still better than the superior brand Y in some unmeasureable metric, or it would cost to much to switch, or... something.


----------



## wickidwombat (Sep 5, 2014)

wow death by over quoting. 

Nice work guys :


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Sep 5, 2014)

I can hear it now. The argument painters from the late 19th century must've had over which was the better brush and over who could mix their paints better than anyone else. Fights break out. Flame wars rage. Paintings remain un-started. Models stand there completely nude and catching a cold. Scorched earth. Shock and awe. Over tools of the trade.

Or not.

I agree with Don, with a slight modification: If working photographers, editors, and clients could see a clear difference between imaging systems, don't you think people would make a move? After-all, their livelihood (ie: food on the table, big fancy car, and roof over their heads) would depend on the most successful outcome, right? The differences would be obvious, right?

*Here's a challenge to anyone who feel they know their stuff:* 
Meet me at a local brasserie. I'll bring the stack of prints. You bring your deep knowledge of "how things really are." As I share my prints you tell me which camera and which lens made which image. Your reward is I buy you a beer for each correct answer. If you're as good as you think you are, you're going to get very very drunk indeed. If you guess wrong I won't burden you with the horrors of seeing me pissed to the tits.

Anyone who knows me knows that I've been running this challenge for years and _not one single person_ has taken me up on the offer. So step right up. Be brave. Be the first. Come on. Be a strong person. You can do it.

After reading so many comments about how one system is suddenly so brilliant and another is falling so far behind a person might come to think that all those Wise Guys would really know what they're talking about.




Aglet said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > The reality is that if any company made a camera system that was better than everyone else at everything, they would have the entire market...
> ...


----------



## Khalai (Sep 5, 2014)

ChristopherMarkPerez said:


> I can hear it now. The argument painters from the late 19th century must've had over which was the better brush and over who could mix their paints better than anyone else. Fights break out. Flame wars rage. Paintings remain un-started. Models stand there completely nude and catching a cold. Scorched earth. Shock and awe. Over tools of the trade.
> 
> Or not.
> 
> ...



<really bad joke> Every print with a greenish tint is automatically a Nikon shot? </really bad joke>

Sorry, couldn't resist


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Sep 5, 2014)

LOL! I love it. ;D

Reminds me of the assumptions people used to make about the color cast lens coatings imparted back in the Old Film Days.



Khalai said:


> <really bad joke> Every print with a greenish tint is automatically a Nikon shot? </really bad joke>
> 
> Sorry, couldn't resist


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Sep 5, 2014)

Well played, sir. Very well played, indeed.   



pbr9 said:


> ChristopherMarkPerez said:
> 
> 
> > I can hear it now. The argument painters from the late 19th century must've had over which was the better brush and over who could mix their paints better than anyone else. Fights break out. Flame wars rage.
> ...


----------



## Old Sarge (Sep 5, 2014)

ChristopherMarkPerez said:


> LOL! I love it. ;D
> 
> Reminds me of the assumptions people used to make about the color cast lens coatings imparted back in the Old Film Days.
> 
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2014)

ChristopherMarkPerez said:


> *Here's a challenge to anyone who feel they know their stuff:*
> Meet me at a local brasserie. I'll bring the stack of prints. You bring your deep knowledge of "how things really are." As I share my prints you tell me which camera and which lens made which image.



_"All right. Where is the Exmor? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both mount and frame, and find out who is right... and who is dead."

"But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the Exmor into his own print or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the Exmor into his own print, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the print in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the print in front of me." 

"You've made your decision then?"

"Not remotely. Because Exmor comes from Sony, as everyone knows, and Sony is entirely peopled with marketeers, and marketeers are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the print in front of you."

"Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."_


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> ChristopherMarkPerez said:
> 
> 
> > *Here's a challenge to anyone who feel they know their stuff:*
> ...



;D. ;D

And when your opponent lies vanquished on the floor, you Neuro will be accused have having used Exmor in both your prints...........


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> ChristopherMarkPerez said:
> 
> 
> > *Here's a challenge to anyone who feel they know their stuff:*
> ...



I haven't checked this thread since my last post. Decided to go ahead and see what was on the last page. Thank you Neuro, I needed the laughs ;D

_"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is "Never get involved in a lens debate in Asia." But only slightly less well known is this: "Never go in against a Sony when shadows are on the line! Ahahahaha, ahahahaha, ahahaha" -- thud

"Who are you?"

"I am no photographer to be trifled with, that is all you ever need know."

"To think -- all that time it was your print that was Exmor."

"They were both Canon. I spent the last few years building up an exposure technique immune to shadow noise."_ ;D


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 5, 2014)

Doesn't quoting the Princess Bride invoke Godwin's Law?


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 5, 2014)

ChristopherMarkPerez said:


> LOL! I love it. ;D
> 
> Reminds me of the assumptions people used to make about the color cast lens coatings imparted back in the Old Film Days.
> 
> ...


I find it funny this challenge come from someone preaching about how a 50mp sensor will somehow resolve more detail with crap lenses when no one will tell the difference in print. Hilarious! XD


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 5, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Doesn't quoting the Princess Bride invoke Godwin's Law?



They were Nazis, Dude?

_Oh, come on, they were threatening an underexposure test! Are we gonna split hairs here? Am I wrong? _ ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 5, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ChristopherMarkPerez said:
> ...


Inconceivable!


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Sep 5, 2014)

So when you guys re-quote each other a dozen times, this is what happens on an iPad to the thread:

Between this and the Dread Pirate Neuro, it keeps it amusing.


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 8, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Everything I have read from people who have tested says the opposite - what do you build this claim on?


Having provided 4 links to articles etc. to back my claim - as you asked for - I continue to eagerly await support for your claim the the 5DIII AF has better than the D810 AF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> Having provided 4 links to articles etc. to back my claim



Admittedly, I visited only the first three links you provided, and found no _credible evidence_ to support your claim (and therefore saw no point clicking the 4th link).

Perhaps you missed my reply, posted over a week ago?




neuroanatomist said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > I can offer the following:
> ...


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 8, 2014)

GmwDarkroom said:


> So when you guys re-quote each other a dozen times, this is what happens on an iPad to the thread:
> 
> Between this and the Dread Pirate Neuro, it keeps it amusing.


Your screen needs more latitude. Sony is apparently coming out with one that's 2-stops wider....


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Perhaps you missed my reply, posted over a week ago?



I did not miss anything. 

_You_ claimed 5dIII AF was better than D810 AF. I asked you to share why you thought so - however instead of providing any evidence you asked me to provide evidence that the D810 AF was better (I claim I actually did not make - only saying that I had seen evidence that if anything pointed to the opposite).

Now, please provide the evidence for your claim. Or I will conclude that you - once again - prefer babbling rants to any fact based discussion.


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 9, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> Now, please provide the evidence for your claim. Or I will conclude that you - once again - prefer babbling rants to any fact based discussion.



Normaly now the Squirrle posting or other attempts to ruin a thread start.

And of course the Moderators will do nothing against it, as long as the attempts are made by know Canon fanboys with a 1000+ postcount (as we can see in this thread already).


----------



## BozillaNZ (Sep 9, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps you missed my reply, posted over a week ago?
> ...



Woot? The same old same old Multicam 3500 FX now wants to challenge canon's new 61 pt AF? Have you ever tried to use a D810, or a D4/s for that matter, to focus on a telephone pole and found that you can't lock on focus in any of the periphery points? EPIC FAIL LOL!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> Now, please provide the evidence for your claim. Or I will conclude that you - once again - prefer babbling rants to any fact based discussion.



To be honest, I haven't seen any reliable comparisons online that are conclusive, one way or the other. As I stated before, I tested them head to head, personally (in part because there was nothing conclusive online). I didn't write up my results as a white paper or a blog, and have no intention of doing so. You may conclude whatever you wish. 

Fact-based discussion? The facts are (as one of your links pointed out) that the 5DIII AF is better spec'd, with the exception of number of AF points available with an f/8 TC combo. The 5DIII has more AF points, more cross-type points, cross-type points spread across the frame instead of clustered in the center, and central points with a wider baseline (f/2.8, five dual-cross points) for increased accuracy.


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > Now, please provide the evidence for your claim. Or I will conclude that you - once again - prefer babbling rants to any fact based discussion.
> ...



Aha so it´s subjective. 
But you always make it sound like it´s a fact written in stone. 

Now the sensor performance is well documented and there are dozend of tests and reviews that show Sonys sensors are better.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2014)

ULFULFSEN said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing said:
> ...



Scroll up one post above yours where I list the better specs of the 5DIII. Scroll back a few pages to where I say I tested them head to head personally.


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> ULFULFSEN said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



subjective and no facts to present.

i mean... what would you say if someone else posted such opinions?
based on tests he has done in his backyard with nobody to verify them.

and about specs alone...
as you wrote yourself, that the samsung NX1 probably will have twice as much cross AF points proves nothing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2014)

ULFULFSEN said:


> and about specs alone...
> as you wrote yourself, that the samsung NX1 probably will have twice as much cross AF points proves nothing.



Cross AF points on a dedicated PDAF sensor?


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Cross AF points on a dedicated PDAF sensor?



that´s what they call it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poY8QAZbtEI#t=48#

i am glad that´s all you have to retort.
so i guess we agree that your tests are not meant to settle this dispute about which AF is better.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2014)

ULFULFSEN said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Cross AF points on a dedicated PDAF sensor?
> ...



No mirror = no dedicated phase AF sensor. 

My tests were meant to settle the issue for me, which they did.


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> ULFULFSEN said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



i thought you are going about "cross points".




> My tests were meant to settle the issue for me, which they did.



and that´s fine. 

thought for me it looked as if you have hard facts.
so it´s still a question who you want to believe.

i still tend to think the 5D MK3 AF is better but i have read the opposit too.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2014)

ULFULFSEN said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ULFULFSEN said:
> ...



Imaging Resource indicates that only 3 of the 105 phase detect points on the image sensor are cross type. Regardless, the dedicated PDAF sensor is a key difference. The NX30 uses 'hybrid AF' – the phase AF points get focus in the ballpark, then contrast detect is used to refurb the focus. That multistep process takes longer than the dedicated PDAF sensor AF points, which measure the phase difference with sufficient accuracy (assuming proper AFMA) and precision that contrast detect refinement isn't needed. 

105 phase detect AF points sounds impressive. 105 AF points who's function is just to assist with contrast detect AF is much less impressive, but that's the reality. 





ULFULFSEN said:


> > My tests were meant to settle the issue for me, which they did.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



AF performance testing is always going to be subjective. However, the few comparisons that I've seen haven't been performed properly (e.g., Northrup's use of a setting which Canon recommends against).


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Imaging Resource indicates that only 3 of the 105 phase detect points on the image sensor are cross type.



for the NX30, yes.

what the samsung NX1 will bring is in the stars. 
rumors say 150+ cross type points and a "revolutionary" PD system.

anyway what i thought you mean is, that the on sensor AF points are called cross type.
but they are not the same as cross type sensors on a dedicated AF sensor.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2014)

ULFULFSEN said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Imaging Resource indicates that only 3 of the 105 phase detect points on the image sensor are cross type.
> ...



It will be 'revolutionary' if it uses *only* the phase sensors to achieve focus. If it's still handing off from phase to contrast, it's still hybrid AF and not really revolutionary.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 12, 2014)

Maybe soon in video too (for now they are ahead with the 5D3+ML being easily the best).

From a Canon employee (although not one from DSLR division or even from Japan):"....or those expecting 4K video in a DLSR will be very disappointed. Canon sees no reason for this in a consumer camera yet. They told my boss only about 10% of people buy a 5D III for it's video capabilities. They are focusing on cinema market and want you to pay big dollars for the C300/500 or 1DC if you must have a DSLR with 4K. 5D IV will not get it IMO and at best we will see 1080p @ 60fps."

Great so they want to go from a lot buying the 5D2 for video to 10% for the 5D3 to 0.1% for the 5D4. Brilliant.

If this is true and no Exmor-low ISO.... maybe Canon really and truly has lost the plot.
We'll see next year.

I still findit hard to believe they'd be that THAT foolish to leave 4k out of even the 5D4 though. I still think it will ahve it.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 12, 2014)

In my experience, I'll agree the 5DIII worked better for wide aperture and fast action than the Multicam3500 at the exterior points. Having the better spread out points is definitely something you have to try out for yourself in the real world, Maiaibing. It helps tremendously with compelling composition.



neuroanatomist said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > Now, please provide the evidence for your claim. Or I will conclude that you - once again - prefer babbling rants to any fact based discussion.
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> From *a Canon employee* (although not one from DSLR division or even from Japan):"....or those expecting 4K video in a DLSR will be very disappointed. Canon sees no reason for this in a consumer camera yet. They told my boss only about 10% of people buy a 5D III for it's video capabilities. They are focusing on cinema market and want you to pay big dollars for the C300/500 or 1DC if you must have a DSLR with 4K. 5D IV will not get it IMO and at best we will see 1080p @ 60fps."
> 
> Great so they want to go from a lot buying the 5D2 for video to 10% for the 5D3 to 0.1% for the 5D4. Brilliant.
> 
> ...



'A Canon employee', well that's specific. There are close to 200,000 of them, and the vast majority know nothing about the details of future corporate strategy. Anyone placed highly enough in the organization to actually know would also know better than to divulge. I'd give your quote about the same level of reliability if I heard it from a gas station attendant or supermarket cashier.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> In my experience, I'll agree the 5DIII worked better for wide aperture and fast action than the Multicam3500 at the exterior points. Having the better spread out points is definitely something you have to try out for yourself in the real world, Maiaibing. It helps tremendously with compelling composition.



Some people prefer to read about comparisons on the Internet...especially if those comparisons are biased in favor of the reader's predetermined conclusions.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > From *a Canon employee* (although not one from DSLR division or even from Japan):"....or those expecting 4K video in a DLSR will be very disappointed. Canon sees no reason for this in a consumer camera yet. They told my boss only about 10% of people buy a 5D III for it's video capabilities. They are focusing on cinema market and want you to pay big dollars for the C300/500 or 1DC if you must have a DSLR with 4K. 5D IV will not get it IMO and at best we will see 1080p @ 60fps."
> ...


Perhaps it's the photocopier repairman..... photocopier repairmen are instrumental in charting the future of Canon's imaging division.... and they can make copies of squirrel pictures....


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 12, 2014)

joejohnbear said:


> Having the better spread out points is definitely something you have to try out for yourself in the real world, Maiaibing. It helps tremendously with compelling composition.



Having wide spread AF points is certainly a big advantage. And its something I could use a lot for my specific shooting style. When I first took the 5Diii for a week long test ride the one thing I found was a significant user improvement over the 5Dii (apart from the dial lock) was the ability to "store" a specific AF point that I could switch to immediately when going from portrait to landscape format.


----------



## jrista (Sep 12, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > Having the better spread out points is definitely something you have to try out for yourself in the real world, Maiaibing. It helps tremendously with compelling composition.
> ...



If Canon does start to trickle down the iTR metering from the 1D X, that advanced meter-linked subject tracking, combined with Canon's significantly higher cross-type AF point count, should mean very good things for Canon action shooters. Maybe pushing down iTR will also mean we get AF-point linked metering in lesser models than the 1D X. That's certainly something Canon users have been clamoring for for years.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> Maybe pushing down iTR will also mean we get AF-point linked metering in lesser models than the 1D X. That's certainly something Canon users have been clamoring for for years.



That would be nice...but I would highly recommend *not* expecting that feature in the 7DII.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe pushing down iTR will also mean we get AF-point linked metering in lesser models than the 1D X. That's certainly something Canon users have been clamoring for for years.
> ...


I agree and personally haven't found iTR to do a whole lot for tracking. For face recognition, even at f/1.2, it's pretty awesome, but tracking isn't much better than the iTR-less 5DIII.

As for the AF-point linked metering, I'm sure that will remain a 1 series exclusive, but then again, the f/8 AF used to be as well. If the 7DII really has f/8 AF (they say it does), its pretty amazing that Canon has brought that feature down two levels so quickly.


----------



## cosmopotter (Sep 12, 2014)

*FF Canons are falling behind.*

The 6D is a nice camera but the AF in it is ancient (11,1+type) compared to the D610 (39,9+type). Now Nikon has a D750 and D810 to beat on the 5D, a new D4s to go against the 1D, and the Df with no Canon competitor. Canon does better with crop sensors in that the 70D is a winner, the new 7D should be a hit for wildlife guys, and the Rebels I think are better than Nikon's offerings particularly when it comes to lenses. Canon needs to get moving on the 5D4 and 6D2 IMO.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2014)

*Re: FF Canons are falling behind.*



cosmopotter said:


> Now Nikon has a D750 and D810 to beat on the 5D, a new D4s to go against the 1D, and the Df with no Canon competitor.



The D800 didn't 'beat on the 5DIII' with respect to sales, we don't know if the D810 will either, and the D750 is late to the party. Nikon had to release the D4s to go against the 1D X because the D4 wasn't cutting it. 

The Df with no Canon competitor? Why should Canon bother competing with a camera that isn't selling? :


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 12, 2014)

*Re: FF Canons are falling behind.*



neuroanatomist said:


> The Df with no Canon competitor? Why should Canon bother competing with a camera that isn't selling? :


Sort of the same as Nikon not competing with the EOS M ;D. It's a massively underrated camera IMHO, but a poor seller nonetheless.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2014)

*Re: FF Canons are falling behind.*



mackguyver said:


> Sort of the same as Nikon not competing with the EOS M ;D. It's a massively underrated camera IMHO, but a poor seller nonetheless.



Not popular _here_, but the EOS M was the #2 best-selling MILC in Japan last year, beating out Panasonic and Olympus and only <2% behind the Sony cam in the top spot.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 12, 2014)

*Re: FF Canons are falling behind.*



neuroanatomist said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Sort of the same as Nikon not competing with the EOS M ;D. It's a massively underrated camera IMHO, but a poor seller nonetheless.
> ...


Really? I knew EVILs/MILCs were big over there but didn't realize that it had sold so well in Japan. That's interesting and thanks for the info.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 12, 2014)

*Re: FF Canons are falling behind.*



cosmopotter said:


> and the Df with no Canon competitor.



Yep, it's unique.

The irony is if someone really wanted the 'retro' film slr experience a 6D with 's' screen and some nice Zeiss manual focus primes would fit the bill much better.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2014)

*Re: FF Canons are falling behind.*



Sporgon said:


> The irony is if someone really wanted the 'retro' film slr experience a 6D with 's' screen and some nice Zeiss manual focus primes *would fit the bill much better.*



Not really, at least not if someone wanted to be seen looking ubercoolretrohip while taking pictures.


----------



## cosmopotter (Sep 12, 2014)

*Re: FF Canons are falling behind.*

I understand that, I'm just saying that Nikon is working hard at it. Not 1, but 3 competitors to the 5D3 all with different benefits. Believe me, I'm a Canon guy but I want them to move a bit faster. I also work for a Japanese company and know the frustrating difficulty that is often involved in getting the Japanese to change without a 2 year study first. My point is that Nikon DID make the necessary changes, so will Canon respond in a timely fashion. I truly hope that the earlier CR rumor about the new sensor technology in the 7DII trickling down into other products is true AND that it happens quickly.



neuroanatomist said:


> cosmopotter said:
> 
> 
> > Now Nikon has a D750 and D810 to beat on the 5D, a new D4s to go against the 1D, and the Df with no Canon competitor.
> ...


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 12, 2014)

*Re: FF Canons are falling behind.*



neuroanatomist said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > The irony is if someone really wanted the 'retro' film slr experience a 6D with 's' screen and some nice Zeiss manual focus primes *would fit the bill much better.*
> ...



I've only got to pick a camera up to give it the retro look


----------



## Aglet (Sep 13, 2014)

*Re: FF Canons are falling behind.*



neuroanatomist said:


> The Df with no Canon competitor? Why should Canon bother competing with a camera that isn't selling? :



HEHE. Canon's _retro look_ is hidden behind every one of their AA filters.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 14, 2014)

*Re: FF Canons are falling behind.*



neuroanatomist said:


> The Df with no Canon competitor? Why should Canon bother competing with a camera that isn't selling? :



Is the Df not selling well? That's a shame. Honestly, I think it's a neat little camera. I like the forced manual operation (if I understand its design correctly). It's a great deterrent to laziness and improving your skills I bet.

I don't intend to switch from Canon to Nikon (I'm investing in Canon flashes and lenses for a reason), but I'd have to say that if Canon came out with a Df competitor, like a full frame 20+ MP digital version of the A-1 or something, I'd be inclined to own it instead of my Powershot s95 for a second camera.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 14, 2014)

*Re: FF Canons are falling behind.*



Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The Df with no Canon competitor? Why should Canon bother competing with a camera that isn't selling? :
> ...



Are you implying that the days of AA filters are over? I think Nikon is taking a bold step by forcing the AA/no-AA filter choice on the D810 as opposed to it being up to the purchaser with the D800. I wouldn't feel comfortable not having that as a choice. If I was a D800 user (not a D800E user), I might be hesitant to upgrade.


----------



## Khalai (Sep 14, 2014)

*Re: FF Canons are falling behind.*



Mitch.Conner said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The Df with no Canon competitor? Why should Canon bother competing with a camera that isn't selling? :
> ...



The problem lies, according to various posts on forums and such in Nikon going halfway with the retro styling, just front/top plate, the back of the camera is as recent as D6xx or D8xx. This also lead to some ergonomic quirks. Honestly, I like how the Df looks especially paired with that 50/1.8G in silver, but once you turn the camera around, the backside is quite frankly ugly and not very well designed.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 14, 2014)

*Re: FF Canons are falling behind.*



Khalai said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I've seen a photo of the back. I didn't realize that would be deemed a problem.


----------



## Khalai (Sep 14, 2014)

*Re: FF Canons are falling behind.*



Mitch.Conner said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > The problem lies, according to various posts on forums and such in Nikon going halfway with the retro styling, just front/top plate, the back of the camera is as recent as D6xx or D8xx. This also lead to some ergonomic quirks. Honestly, I like how the Df looks especially paired with that 50/1.8G in silver, but once you turn the camera around, the backside is quite frankly ugly and not very well designed.
> ...



According to DPreview, here are the cons of the Df:

*Disappointing AF performance drops off in moderate light
Small coverage area of AF array (same as the D6x0)*
Locking exposure comp dial is inconvenient (especially with large lenses)
*Inconsistent use of materials detracts from sense of quality*
1/4000th sec maximum shutter speed
No exposure scale or histogram in live view
Viewfinder focusing screen not best suited for manual focusing
Single SD card slot
*Battery door prone to falling off some cameras
Combined SD/battery door under the camera awkward for tripod work*
Front command dial not terribly comfortable to use
Body is rather large and heavy, considering small grip
Slow AF in live view
No two-button card format option
No percentage battery life/info available
*No 'live' aperture control in live view mode presents inconsistencies between lens types*
No time-lapse option (available on D610)
No infrared remote trigger option

I guess, it's just a modified D600 body with another sensor (D4 I guess). They could've polished it a bit more. I like the appearance in general, seems like a nice camera (played with it for a measly 20 minutes in a showroom).


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Sep 15, 2014)

The trolling OP, based on his few posts and newly-made account, obviously just made this thread to rile up the fanb0is, notice he never bothered to post here again, and is probably laughing his N0inky a$$ out at the number of posters and replies his thread manged to ensnare. Mods should have closed this thread early on since it's obviously troll-bait and the discussion has been covered in numerous other threads before and since.

If I wanted to read threads like this I would have just gonr to the DPR forums, where the Nikon guys have more posts in the Canon subforum than in their own subforum. Isn't that right bobn2?


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 15, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> ULFULFSEN said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Neuro, there is so much SH!T and pointless requoting going on in this thread that I'm struggling to find your informal head-to-head test. Can you please help with a string of text to help my search (or quote your post) as I'm really interested to see real experience of an AF comparison. So far no one has shared anything that is remotely conclusive in favor of the D810 AF system even though many say it now on-par-with or better than the 5D-III. I don't find the Tony Northrup "AF Test" useful at all.


----------



## 123Photog (Sep 15, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ULFULFSEN said:
> ...



He has none.
Only a test done by himself without any data.


----------



## Ivan Muller (Sep 15, 2014)

Perhaps the question should be, is the 7d2 now two generations behind the Samsung NX1??


----------



## 123Photog (Sep 15, 2014)

Ivan Muller said:


> Perhaps the question should be, is the 7d2 now two generations behind the Samsung NX1??



canon can be so happy that they have build an excellent lens collection over the years. :

im sure the 7D MK2 feels more pro and is a very polished product.
but overall i think canon could have done more.

the 7D MK2 is nothing that makes you jump out of joy.
but it´s a reliable product.

it just... for me it feels a bit outdated already (except the AF).


----------



## Ivan Muller (Sep 15, 2014)

I am sure the 7d2 will be as good as it can possibly be...everything will work well & smoothly with more refinement & accuracy etc etc just like my 6d and also the 5d3 just feels so much better than my old5d2. But it seems that it will no longer have the best image qualitya t any iso (yes/no?) nor frames per second, nor features, nor almost anything one can think off...what it has going for it is a bunch of mostly very good lenses. But from all I have read Samsung also makes good lenses. It is going to be a while before they will become mainstream, but it sure looks like they left the starting blocks with a bang! It remains to be seen if Canon will pick up the challenge or just continue in their, so far very good, ways, but just not cutting edge anymore like in the days of the 5d and 5d2.....


----------



## Woody (Sep 15, 2014)

Looking at the recent releases and announcements from all the companies, I must confess I can find something technically interesting in every product... except maybe Canon... Fujifilm XT-1, Olympus EM-1, Nikon D810, Sony A7S/A7R, Samsung NX1 etc etc

Canon has the power to deliver in the camera front... but is holding back... sigh...


----------



## Woody (Sep 15, 2014)

Ivan Muller said:


> I am sure the 7d2 will be as good as it can possibly be...everything will work well & smoothly with more refinement & accuracy etc etc just like my 6d and also the 5d3 just feels so much better than my old5d2. But it seems that it will no longer have the best image qualitya t any iso (yes/no?) nor frames per second, nor features, nor almost anything one can think off...what it has going for it is a bunch of mostly very good lenses. But from all I have read Samsung also makes good lenses. It is going to be a while before they will become mainstream, but it sure looks like they left the starting blocks with a bang! It remains to be seen if Canon will pick up the challenge or just continue in their, so far very good, ways, but just not cutting edge anymore like in the days of the 5d and 5d2.....



+1000


----------



## sanj (Sep 15, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > From *a Canon employee* (although not one from DSLR division or even from Japan):"....or those expecting 4K video in a DLSR will be very disappointed. Canon sees no reason for this in a consumer camera yet. They told my boss only about 10% of people buy a 5D III for it's video capabilities. They are focusing on cinema market and want you to pay big dollars for the C300/500 or 1DC if you must have a DSLR with 4K. 5D IV will not get it IMO and at best we will see 1080p @ 60fps."
> ...



Hahahaha. True.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 15, 2014)

123Photog said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Correct. I didn't set out to document my results or to demonstrate anything to anyone other than myself.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 15, 2014)

*Re: FF Canons are falling behind.*



Mitch.Conner said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



No, he's talking about what's literally behind the AA filter: the sensor. 

In other words: canon sensors are only good enough to produce a "retro look."


----------



## Ivar (Sep 24, 2014)

As Canon manufacturers the SLR sensors solely for its own cameras the economies of scale are at play, compared to Sony who is catering a bigger market thus with more R&D opportunities. The next rumoured breakthrough in the Sony land is the global shutter ( http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr2-new-sony-12-megapixel-fulll-frame-global-shutter-sensor-specs ). I've got impression that Canon users are generally happy with their systems. I do wonder though about the next generation Canon sensor technology, will it improve in every front (apparently not much rumours) or will it cater "majority" via concentrating on specific features, more feasible to implement (ROI)?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 24, 2014)

The new interview with Canon at DPR hints that improvement for low ISO DR may be a looooooong time coming from Canon. So for those who care, it might not even be worth waiting for 5D4. IF the 5D4 sales tank, then maybe by the 5D6 time, they will have both realized they have to respond and had time to do so. I don't think any DxO score embarrassment or any forum talk will influence them to go to a new sensor fab. It just costs a lot of money and the business guys won't go for it until after they have sales totally tank. They don't seem to want to prevent the chance for sales to tank, but are just gonna ride the current sensor types out until sales totally go away, if ever. (personally I suspect a 5D4 that has no 4k, no improved DR and does nothing over a 5D3 other than increase MP count a lot, will have sales a lot worse than the 5D2 or 5D3 did, so some degree of tanking might come sooner then they think, or not)

So if you are one who cares, it's probably time to give up for now and it might be time to just nab SONY+adapter and start thinking about potential swaps to Nikon in a year or so. Either keep what you have now from Canon and add a Sony for landscape DR and/or video or maybe sell your current Canon stuff, get a 7D2 to cover action/reach/speed and add Sony for the video and landscape work. If that mess is too much of pain for the long run, start plotting a swap to Nikon. 

Ah well, at least it's just cameras, minor things in the grand scheme, plus there are other options anyway that even let you use Canon lenses still.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 25, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I don't think any DxO score embarrassment or any forum talk will influence them to go to a new sensor fab.



Really? Who'da thunk?




LetTheRightLensIn said:


> They don't seem to want to prevent the chance for sales to tank, but are just gonna ride the current sensor types out until sales totally go away, if ever.



Thanks for including 'if ever'. It's possible – one might almost even call it likely – that Canon knows more about their market and what is important to their customers than DxO or a few people on the Internet.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think any DxO score embarrassment or any forum talk will influence them to go to a new sensor fab.
> ...



Well you could have hoped they'd get scared enough about the farther future to act before they have to see sales eventually tank to act and realize that the time might not still be a few generations out but by this or the next generation at the latest, but maybe the numbers are so big it makes more sense to alienate a lot of the userbase and even tank sales for a generation or two, fabs are $$$. Of course they could buy Sony sensors without nearly so much $$ lost. And way back when, they could easily have come out with a high performance fps FF body and so on and really, reallly built market share over Nikon and nearly left them in the dust. I guess it is just as well they did not though, since it means we still have options left to turn to away from Canon.

Maybe it will be the best financially overall for them, what they have done, then again lots of companies are less than perfectly run and make all sorts of decisions that end up not having worked out so well. I mean they were actually utterly clueless to the thought that anyone would want manual control over exposure in video! So they are pretty clearly not always getting it. Same for taking more than 10 years to dribble out a working AutoISO. What did that gain them? Did that really sell any extra 1 series or did it just annoy the userbase and make them less loyal? Was it smart to let their low/mid end DSLR video quality domination not charge forward?

They have reacted to most other whinefests, but sensor would be the most costly thing to react to, so I guess it's different.



> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > They don't seem to want to prevent the chance for sales to tank, but are just gonna ride the current sensor types out until sales totally go away, if ever.
> ...



First of all it's not about what is important to their customers as in striving to best meet their needs, it would be more in we know how much we can manage to get away with NOT delivering to them. Not really a positive for the end user.

As for sales, we will see. I think the 7D2 can definitely get away with not having Exmor low ISO DR and should be fine. I still think that if the 5D4 lands with nothing more than more MP over the 5D3 (no exmor DR and color and no 4k either) that it will sell a lot less than the prior 5 series models did though, maybe 25-30% less and if the 6D2 and 5D5 are the same I think that those might be down to 75% less maybe even 80%-90% less. I mean would the 5D5 have to offer? Many will probably be satisfied enough at 40MP to not go crazy over say 60-90MP if the quality of the photosites is still same old. But who knows, maybe the lenses and UI are enough to keep dragging along with the old sensor and sales for decades.

I do know it sure stinks for any Canon user who does want more DR.

And it's certainly nothing to celebrate, not as an end user. That they feel they have enough users locked in that they can just go along stuck in 2007 while Nikon/Sony will pull sensors farther and farther ahead. And it's not the Canon that used to be, the one known as the driving force.

So I don't it's some holy thing where Canon knows and is striving for the best for their customers. It's more of a knowing what they can get away with thing, at best. Which as the end user is hardly something jump up and down about.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 25, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> So I don't it's some holy thing where Canon knows and is striving for the best for their customers. It's more of a knowing what they can get away with thing, at best. Which as the end user is hardly something jump up and down about.



I didn't mean to imply that Canon _knowing_ their customers' needs means they will/must _meet_ those needs. The only people they really care about jumping for joy are their shareholders. Still, if they know a particular area if development is critical to a majority of their market and do nothing about it, their shareholders will eventually be unhappy about the loss of revenue. So the fact that they've apparently done very little to improve low ISO DR for many years suggests that (a) they know it's a critical need and don't mind pissing off their shareholders, (b) they know it's a critical need and are doing something about it in R&D and will bring it to market when deemed necessary, or (c) they know it's not a critical need for the majority of their market. I think (a) is pretty unlikely, (b) is possible...but you apparently doubt it, which leaves us with (c).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > So I don't it's some holy thing where Canon knows and is striving for the best for their customers. It's more of a knowing what they can get away with thing, at best. Which as the end user is hardly something jump up and down about.
> ...



I still think they will get bitten by this with the 5D4 a bit and a lot more if they try to push it another generation beyond.

We'll see. I could be wrong. Maybe the UI and lenses and everything still but for low ISO DR will enough for them to keep chugging along for years with good sales.

But don't forget these guys miscalculate all the time too. 

Example 1:
They had no clue that anyone would want manual exposure for 5D2 video, even though it seemed self-evident and the second it was released everyone went nuts at the lack of manual control. Apparently they got a few PJs for a focus group and they wanted autoexposure for run and gun and somehow not one person at Canon thought to think that that focus group hardly had everything covered. It kind of boggles the mind.

And witness, maybe more on line with what we are talking about here Example 2:
Many have been asking in the forums why Canon isn't making something like the recently released RX100. After speaking with Mr. Maeda in early 2013 DPR noted that he responded:

"However, he ruled out the idea of a larger sensor camera along the lines of the Sony RX100 to offer more of an image quality distinction between smartphones and compact cameras. 'I think the market does exist but it wouldn't be very large. We think we have a good balancing point in terms of price, image quality and size. Lots of other combinations are possible, but, once you go below APS-C the next logical size is 1/2.3 inch', he says." "We see no need or market desire for a Sony RX100 type camera."


And now almost two years later, after RX100s of all marks fly off the shelves and it being one the great sellers for Sony:
Canon is proud to announce the G7X with the RX100 sensor. The market clearly demands a small pocketable camera with a large, top quality sensor.
;D




On the plus, if they get totally burned, it does show they try to correct quickly. So maybe if the 5D4 with old sensor burns them they'll be back quickly with a 5D5 even if they have to go to Sony for help.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 25, 2014)

*Re: FF Canons are falling behind.*



Sporgon said:


> I've only got to pick a camera up to give it the retro look



That made me laugh. I might steal that line. ;D


----------



## tron (Sep 25, 2014)

ramonjsantiago said:


> D800 -> D810
> 
> The 5dm3 is looking really old.


One more reason to respect my 5DMkIII cameras ;D


----------



## tron (Sep 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > 810 doesn't just approach the 5d3, in tech, it pulls out and passes it and flips the bird at it on the way by.
> ...


Hmmm, plus:

Canon Lenses > Nikon Lenses, ML at Canon > ML at Nikon .... ohhhhh wait


----------



## tron (Sep 25, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> daniela said:
> 
> 
> > Yes Sir, the D810 is has an better image quality and dynamic range than the 5DIII.
> ...


+1, plus, the increased DR exists only in Low ISO...


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 25, 2014)

tron said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



Why do you say that out of curiosity? Don't get me wrong, I'm somebody who almost went the Nikon route but ultimately went with Cannon, however I keep running across assessments that Nikon and Cannon both have excellent and nearly equivalent quality (overall) lens offerings.

There are a few things that Cannon offers that Nikon doesn't (ie: I get the impression that Cannon is better when it comes to macro offerings) and visa versa (Nikon has traditionally had more to offer with Wide Angle lenses... particularly UWA zooms).


----------



## Khalai (Sep 25, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



+1, I really envy that 28/1.8G, 50/1.8G and 85/1.8G set of primes, they have there. I'd love to see some update in Canon 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 counterparts. Of course, Nikkor 14-24 is a living legend (almost perfect, just prone to flare and difficult to mount filters), then there are 105 DC and 135 DC lenses, while old, still stellar. But Nikon users also envy some Canon glass, especially TS-E 17 and TS-E 24 primes, 24-70/2.8 II and 70-200/2.8 II are also superior (especially the former), then there is a gem 85/1.2L II (AF speed is a bugger, but optically masterpiece lens).

But all-in-all, while there are some weak spots on both sides, no lineup can be considered incomplete or incompetent. And for ordinary user, also irrelevant (both have good consumer lenses, now with EF-S 10-18 and EF-S 24, there may be an advantage for Canon, albeit marginal).


----------



## mkabi (Sep 26, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I think this would explain it best:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jva08HY6uLE

Remember, not many people like Tony Northrup here, I can care less for him and his videos... but this is really good!! I know it is annoying, but be patient, wait till after 7:45 seconds.

He uses DXOmark too.


----------



## tron (Sep 26, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Maybe for reasons like this:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=621&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0



http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=621&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0



http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=618&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=618&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0


----------



## Sella174 (Sep 26, 2014)

Who's Nikon?


----------



## Aglet (Sep 27, 2014)

tron said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


Bryan's good at buying 4 of 5 iterations of a Canon lens and keeping the best one. I doubt he does that with his Nikon kit.
I had said Canon lens and mine had far more CA in the FF corners than this demo
I have the 70-200/4vr Nikon lens and it renders vast amounts of detail to a d800e without any significant CA.
The point is, almost all the lenses these days are damn good and there can be more variation within items of the same model than between mfrs at times.
I don't have any Nik lenses I can complain about, I chose wisely.


----------



## rpt (Sep 27, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Who's Nikon?


Nick the Con!


----------



## connellimages (Oct 6, 2014)

Ican't speak to D800 because I have never used one, but my take on the great 5dM3 is this . . . when you make something that takes that IQ and feels so good in your hand . . . why would you want to change it.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 7, 2014)

connellimages said:


> Ican't speak to D800 because I have never used one, but my take on the great 5dM3 is this . . . when you make something that takes that IQ and feels so good in your hand . . . why would you want to change it.



+1. I won't.


----------



## tron (Oct 7, 2014)

unfocused said:


> connellimages said:
> 
> 
> > Ican't speak to D800 because I have never used one, but my take on the great 5dM3 is this . . . when you make something that takes that IQ and feels so good in your hand . . . why would you want to change it.
> ...


I agree. I had a 5DMk3 which was feeling lonely so I got a second 5DMk3 to keep it company ;D


----------



## Roo (Oct 7, 2014)

tron said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > connellimages said:
> ...



If it's a breeding pair, can I have one of the offspring? ;D


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 7, 2014)

Roo said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...


Word on the street says it's offspring are quite rebellious. XD


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 7, 2014)

Nikon vs Canon, Canon vs Nikon its just man being tribal both systems produce great photographs in the right hands they are tools that in themselves enable creativity but dont make it.


----------



## Khalai (Oct 7, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


I see what you did there


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Oct 7, 2014)

Aglet said:


> Bryan's good at buying 4 of 5 iterations of a Canon lens and keeping the best one. _I doubt he does that with his Nikon kit._



What an asinine bloody statement. 

Nikon's supposed superiority _at everything_ (let's ignore oil splatter, one-side-broken AF, security-risk wi-fi...), isn't translating to a financially healthy company:

http://nikonrumors.com/2014/10/06/nikon-corporations-stock-now-traded-on-nasdaq-ninoy-downgraded-by-goldman-sachs-to-sell.aspx/

Even Thom Hogan thinks they're circling the drain.


----------



## NWPhil (Oct 7, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Who's Nikon?



Nik is Can's distante relative - they share same last name - ON


----------



## Steve (Oct 7, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Even Thom Hogan thinks they're circling the drain.



Man, I remember all those times Nikon went out of business in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2009. That profitable company is _definitely_ going out of business any day now.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 8, 2014)

I would say the Canon nay Sayers are about two generation behind, judging by some of their comments.


----------

