# [Poll] Canon Reign Supreme Again?



## poias (Nov 3, 2012)

Fellow gearheads, now that both Canon and Nikon have shown all of their FF cards, it is time to rate. "True" photographers, please feel free to ignore this thread and head outside to photograph or something.

Question: after EOS 1DX's trashing of D4 and 5D Mark III's victory over D800, will 6D destroy D600 for a complete Canon FF sweep?


----------



## x-vision (Nov 3, 2012)

poias said:


> After EOS 1DX's trashing of D4 and 5D Mark III's victory over D800, will 6D destroy D600 for a complete FF sweep?



Hmm. I had to chuckle when I read this. 

When the _actual_ (not rumored) DxO scores for the 1DX came out, it turned out that the D4 has a better sensor after all.
Both the D800 and D600 have better sensors than the 5DIII as well.

So, not seeing how Canon is trashing Nikon. It's actually the opposite.

Also, the quarterly results for the last quarter show that Nikon's sales are up, while Canon's sales are down.
Again, how is Canon trashing Nikon when Nikon is gaining market share and Canon is losing???

I'm a Canon shooter, who has spent thousands of $$$ on Canon gear.
I find Canon's recent products very disappointing, since they are either underspec'd or overpriced ... or both.

So, at this time I'm actually very glad that Nikon is trashing Canon.
Maybe someone at Canon's headquarters will finally take notice.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 3, 2012)

x-vision said:


> When the _actual_ (not rumored) DxO scores for the 1DX came out, it turned out that the D4 has a better sensor after all.
> Both the D800 and D600 have better sensors than the 5DIII as well.
> 
> So, not seeing how Canon is trashing Nikon. It's actually the opposite.



A camera is more than the sensor. 'Nuff said.


----------



## cocopop05 (Nov 3, 2012)

Have to agree with X-Vision. 

With regards to just the sensor, Nikon is smashing Canon in dynamic range even though they are also offering very high resolutions. Nikon have made far better gains with their sensors compared to Canon. Look at D3200 upgrade over D3100 compared to 650D over 600D. Also D800 over D700 compared to 5D MIII over 5D Mark II. Canon appears to have less effective R&D. 

Having said that, I absolutely love my 5D Mark III. But I am under no illusion that Canon sensors are superior to Nikon's.


----------



## thelebaron (Nov 3, 2012)

i think the 6d will have a lot of traction among those new to dslrs in general, and I doubt the differences regarding sensors will have a whole lot of effect. I dont think either will destroy each other & both will do well.


----------



## pwp (Nov 3, 2012)

Meh...I'm sure my Expobar Brewtus coffee machine makes noticeably better shots than the ECM Giotto, though the ECM maybe looks nicer. 

Which one reigns supreme? Like Canon vs Nikon, it's the user that makes the best shots.

-PW


----------



## jukka (Nov 3, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > When the _actual_ (not rumored) DxO scores for the 1DX came out, it turned out that the D4 has a better sensor after all.
> ...


Even in Finland is this is true but which one is the better one?

Jukka


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 3, 2012)

jukka said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > x-vision said:
> ...



That's easy. The one with which my US$30,000 worth of Canon lenses are compatible.


----------



## jukka (Nov 3, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


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



okey , I have both Canon and Nikon, the best from two worlds
Älä koskaan nukkua saunassa
Jukka


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 3, 2012)

jukka said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > That's easy. The one with which my US$30,000 worth of Canon lenses are compatible.
> ...



How can one mount a lens designed for a 44mm flange focal distance on a body with a 46.5mm flange focal distance, and maintain infinity focus without compromising IQ? You can mount Nikon lenses on Canon bodies, but not the reverse.


----------



## jukka (Nov 3, 2012)

x-vision said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > After EOS 1DX's trashing of D4 and 5D Mark III's victory over D800, will 6D destroy D600 for a complete FF sweep?
> ...



Nikon SLR sales whent up with 24% but they are not big as Canon yet
nuolla ja kylmän teräksen, jos se on miinus 42 astetta
Jukka

﻿


----------



## jukka (Nov 3, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


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



sorry I have to much vodka, and I changed the message as you can se
Se oli looginen ristiriita
terävöittää terät lumimyrsky
Jukka


----------



## ishdakuteb (Nov 4, 2012)

x-vision said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > After EOS 1DX's trashing of D4 and 5D Mark III's victory over D800, will 6D destroy D600 for a complete FF sweep?
> ...



honesty, i would sell off all my canon gear and switch to nikon if i thought like you... just a thought


----------



## PackLight (Nov 4, 2012)

I voted for the last line, not because it is a correct statement. I voted for it because it started with WTF.


----------



## Mooose (Nov 4, 2012)

poias said:


> Question: after EOS 1DX's trashing of D4 and 5D Mark III's victory over D800, will 6D destroy D600 for a complete Canon FF sweep?



This ought to be a very scientific poll.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 4, 2012)

jukka said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > poias said:
> ...


Nikon net income dropped 36.5% in the last quarter. You have indeed had too much Vodka. The figures in parentheses are negative, a reduction!
http://www.nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/result/index.htm


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 4, 2012)

Here I was thinking optical physics and financial notation convention were different in Finland. Vodka explains all...


----------



## V8Beast (Nov 4, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Nikon net income dropped 36.5% in the last quarter. You have indeed had too much Vodka. The figures in parentheses are negative, a reduction!
> http://www.nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/result/index.htm



Why must you people keep bringing up these inconvenient and well-documented facts? Oh well, I have faith that Nikon with ride it's DR advantage all the way to a profitable Q1 in 2013, because the massive hoards of landscape shooters disgruntled with Canon sensors are finally going to come out to the camera stores in droves.


----------



## PackLight (Nov 4, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon net income dropped 36.5% in the last quarter. You have indeed had too much Vodka. The figures in parentheses are negative, a reduction!
> ...



You should bet on Zeiss to because that is where the disgruntled Canon landscapers will have to go to get a decent lens for there new Nikon.


----------



## davidson (Nov 4, 2012)

ok so the OP asked which CAMERAS are better and some people decide to bring up dxo numbers....i think this illustrates the problem that alot of people have with this fanatical adherence to dxo scores, their scores are about sensors only (not talking about whether the scores are accurate or not). they do not score, ergonomics, AF or a plethora of other things that matter. just saying that the post is not about dxo scores or who has the best sensor...its about the best CAMERA, just saying. i dont see why i should need my flame suit, but its slung over my shoulder just in case.


----------



## jocau (Nov 4, 2012)

Sensor-wise Canon is getting crushed by Nikon/Sony/Pentax. No doubt about it. It's about time they bring out new DSLRs with competitive sensors, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 4, 2012)

jocau said:


> Sensor-wise Canon is getting crushed by Nikon/Sony/Pentax. No doubt about it. It's about time they bring out new DSLRs with competitive sensors, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.



The 'market' buys cameras not sensors. Market share-wise Nikon/Sony/Pentax are getting crushed by Canon. 

But...crushed? If we believe DxOMark Scores as gospel (meaning we care about DR and color depth only at ISO 100, and we reduce all of our images to 8 MP), then a 13-14 point difference means less than a 1 stop advantage. That's crushing?


----------



## aznable (Nov 4, 2012)

in 2 full quarters nikon has not been capable of doing the 1/2 of profit that canon did in 1 one bad quarter.

maybe the would release more cameras and increase the DR on sensors ahaha


----------



## jocau (Nov 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> jocau said:
> 
> 
> > Sensor-wise Canon is getting crushed by Nikon/Sony/Pentax. No doubt about it. It's about time they bring out new DSLRs with competitive sensors, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
> ...



The D800 is almost 3 stops better than the 5D3 @ ISO100 (DR). Considering that each stop extra, is the same as "twice as much", I call the difference HUGE. Let's go out and buy a car. Your budget is 30.000 euro and mine is approximately 90.000 euro. Let's see who will have the nicest car... And up to (and including) ISO400 the difference is still at least 1 stop. So yeah I call that "being crushed".

The only part where Canon really kicks ass imo (except for lenses) is their autofocus system. But this is only true for their 2 most expensive cameras i.e. 5D3 and 1Dx (only talking about their current camera lineup). Don't get me wrong. I like Canon a lot (held a D7000 in my hands recently and I didn't like the grip at all), but it makes me sad to see how bad their sensors are compared to the sensors of the competition.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 4, 2012)

jocau said:


> Considering that each stop extra, is the same as "twice as much", I call the difference HUGE. Let's go out and buy a car. Your budget is 30.000 euro and mine is approximately 90.000 euro. Let's see who will have the nicest car...



With 2.7 stops (base-2 exponents), your budget would be closer to 195,000 € compared to my 30,000 €. That means you could pay for a Ferrari...but in this analogy, you'd be getting the Ferrari engine with the transmission and suspension of a Ford. Might make for a bumpy ride.


----------



## MartinvH (Nov 4, 2012)

So typical for this site is that most people here are just looking at 'written' specs and rarely at real world results and comparisons.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Nov 4, 2012)

jocau said:


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



Maybe you're right, Canon cannot compete at low ISO with noise and DR. But Nikon cannot compete at high ISO with Canon, not even close. This aspect is much, much more important to myself, being a sports photographer. Everyone has different needs. Sensor tech lower? Okay, but in real-life I choose not to buy the D4 simply because I get a much higher keeper rate with the 1D X. The argument has to go both ways. I understand that low ISO and DR are much, much more important to others. Why is it okay that Nikon doesn't compete at high ISO but not okay that Canon doesn't compete at low ISO? They both lack one or the other. And please I cannot take another chart. The D4 vs. 1DX issue has already been tested in the field thoroughly in real-life.


----------



## jocau (Nov 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> jocau said:
> 
> 
> > Considering that each stop extra, is the same as "twice as much", I call the difference HUGE. Let's go out and buy a car. Your budget is 30.000 euro and mine is approximately 90.000 euro. Let's see who will have the nicest car...
> ...



Little price miscalculation on my side... Well that would mean an Audi R8 vs a BMW 316i. Still a HUGE difference.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 4, 2012)

jocau said:


> Little price miscalculation on my side... Well that would mean an Audi R8 vs a BMW 316i. Still a HUGE difference.



But still just the engine. Maybe some people base car buying decisions solely on engine horsepower and torque specs. I'm not one of them, which is why DxOMark has little meaning to me.


----------



## rpt (Nov 4, 2012)

jocau said:


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


Just the engine. Not the drive train or suspension or cab or anything else. Perfect to rev up in the garage or on a runway. Lousy on real world roads.


Truth be told, this is just one of those Canon vs. Nikon things... Just that my hammer is better than your hammer


----------



## jocau (Nov 4, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


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



I think that most people would always like to use the lowest possible ISO value. If they could freeze motion at ISO100, they would use that ISO value. People also know that raising ISO means more noise and less DR. Keeping those things in mind, I think that's the reason why people can rather live with bad high ISO performance. It's more logical that the low ISO performance is great than that the high ISO performance is great.


----------



## DB (Nov 4, 2012)

jocau said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > jocau said:
> ...



+1 The older 1D Pro models had an ISO limit of 3200 and yet Professionals managed to get the job done (indoor sporting events etc.) without having the option of ISO 6400 or 10,800 etc. I never really shoot above ISO 1600 and for those fortunate 1DX or 5D3 owners that do shoot at high ISO levels I would just ask what % of their shots are >ISO 3200?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 4, 2012)

jocau said:


> I think that most people would always like to use the lowest possible ISO value. *If they could freeze motion at ISO100, they would use that ISO value.*



If? How does that work, exactly? A scene has a given amount of light. At ISO 100 with the widest aperture usable for the required DoF (or the widest available on the lens), that means a given shutter speed. If that's not fast enough to freeze motion, one can add light (frequently not an option), raise ISO, accept a blurry shot, or give up and go home. Maybe your 195,000 € car budget could be used to buy a magic wand that alters optical physics?



jocau said:


> ... that's the reason why people can rather live with bad high ISO performance. It's more logical that the low ISO performance is great than that the high ISO performance is great.



Which people? You? Not me. I shoot indoors in ambient light a lot. Much of my outdoor shooting is birds/wildlife at dawn and dusk or under overcast skies, often at f/5.6 or f/8 (and please don't suggest a faster lens - I'm using a 600mm f/4L IS II with a 1.4xIII or 2xIII for the necessary reach). So for me, without access to that magic wand, the lowest ISO I can often get away with is 1600, and I'm usually at ISO 3200 - 6400. I can't live with bad ISO performance. 

Your 'logic' seems to have a high level of personal bias...


----------



## molnarcs (Nov 4, 2012)

I don't know where the better high ISO performance argument comes from. Traditionally, Canon had the higher resolution while Nikon had better high ISO capabilities. The 3Ds is still the best performing low-light camera (with the 1Dx just catching up). 

d800 ISO 8063 1/100 F/1.8 50mm. No post-processing (import to Lightroom, export to JPEG), High-ISO NR off. 

EDIT - The above comment is true since the D3 of course.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 4, 2012)

DB said:


> I never really shoot above ISO 1600 and for those fortunate 1DX or 5D3 owners that do shoot at high ISO levels I would just ask what % of their shots are >ISO 3200?



Good for you!

Over 30% of my total 1D X shots are at ISO 4000 or higher, and looking at just my personal favorites, it's about 50% at ISO 4000 and up (mostly ISO 4000 or 6400).


----------



## sach100 (Nov 4, 2012)

molnarcs said:


> The 3Ds is still the best performing low-light camera (with the 1Dx just catching up).



That maybe. but the very fact that 1dx is pitted against at least three other dslrs - D800, D3s(?), D4 in shadow noise, Low light, God-knows-what-other-features in that order, in-fact, speaks a lot about 1dx. Don't you think?


----------



## rpt (Nov 4, 2012)

There should be another option:
I could not care to vote but for some reason I keep commenting on this thread


----------



## molnarcs (Nov 4, 2012)

sach100 said:


> molnarcs said:
> 
> 
> > The 3Ds is still the best performing low-light camera (with the 1Dx just catching up).
> ...



Pitted against the d3s and d4 - at least on DxO - to me this means they are basically in the same league. This is actually good news, but not the kind of "trashing" that the thread starter hints at. Once invested in lenses, there is no reason whatsoever to switch from one brand to the other, at least not for the kind of work these cameras are intended for. 

Landscape/architecture/interiours is a different matter. I made the switch for my own work last year, because the high DR of Nikons does make a significant difference in post-production. That said, we use a number of Canon bodies in our workshops, because much better price/performance ratio, and better availability/service where I live.


----------



## aznable (Nov 4, 2012)

molnarcs said:


> I don't know where the better high ISO performance argument comes from. Traditionally, Canon had the higher resolution while Nikon had better high ISO capabilities. The 3Ds is still the best performing low-light camera (with the 1Dx just catching up).
> 
> d800 ISO 8063 1/100 F/1.8 50mm. No post-processing (import to Lightroom, export to JPEG), High-ISO NR off.
> 
> EDIT - The above comment is true since the D3 of course.



even my 50d is capable of this....lol (fanboysm replied by fanboysm)


----------



## bdunbar79 (Nov 4, 2012)

DB said:


> jocau said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



NO NO NO!

This is not what I'm arguing. And no, they didn't get the job done. There are new shots that you can NOW get that you couldn't previously get with 35mm DSLR's. I'm tired of using this example, but it is one of many. Take for instance my shot of an interception at ISO 25,600, where I still had my shutter at 1/2000s at f/2.8 with a 300 f/2.8L lens. Just 6 months ago I could NOT get that shot. I could have shot at 1/400th, but parts would have been blurry. Did I absolutely NEED to go 1/2000s? No, but the point is, is that I did because I could. In this case, nothing was blury and it was razor sharp. ISO 100 has no value to me at all in this case. I got the shot. The shot got printed at 10 x 14 and put in the football hallway as a wall photo. 

DB though, you are right about asking the % of shots, but that's not my point. My point is that there are a greater number of shots possible today vs. even just 6 months ago, due to high ISO performance. Low ISO performance does not add value to me and I've used my own examples. I'm sure better low ISO performance DOES add value to a great many photographers, to your argument's credit. But I am one of many who are not in the market for low ISO monsters because they are useless to us. Every camera can shoot at low ISO, but not nearly all of them can at high ISO's. That is absolutely all I am trying to say and I'm not doing a this camera is better than that camera deal. I am saying some cameras are better for a suited task than others, and it goes both ways.

Your statement about living with bad high ISO doesn't even remotely apply to me, because I cannot for the type of photography I am trying to accomplish. However, I do understand what you are saying for the majority of photographers.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Nov 4, 2012)

molnarcs said:


> I don't know where the better high ISO performance argument comes from. Traditionally, Canon had the higher resolution while Nikon had better high ISO capabilities. The 3Ds is still the best performing low-light camera (with the 1Dx just catching up).
> 
> d800 ISO 8063 1/100 F/1.8 50mm. No post-processing (import to Lightroom, export to JPEG), High-ISO NR off.
> 
> EDIT - The above comment is true since the D3 of course.



No they don't. The D4 doesn't even have as high of ISO capabilities as the 1DX. I'm tired of charts and scores, this is experience-based. Sorry. If you want to prove me wrong, go out on a poorly lit football field this fall. Shoot each camera at ISO 25,600 and tell me which camera has better high ISO capabilities.


----------



## molnarcs (Nov 4, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> molnarcs said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know where the better high ISO performance argument comes from. Traditionally, Canon had the higher resolution while Nikon had better high ISO capabilities. The 3Ds is still the best performing low-light camera (with the 1Dx just catching up).
> ...



Who can afford to buy a D4 and a 1DX plus lenses? For me, numbers reported by DxO proved to be fairly accurate in practice. For example, I do see the 2EV difference between RAWs from the MK II and the d7000 (well, closer to 1 2/3 stops) when pushing shadows in LR. Similarly, I do see close to a stop advantage to the MK II when it comes to low-light performance. Look, I don't want to convince you - and obviously I can't. You're happy with what you have, and that's fine. Happy shooting


----------



## Robert Welch (Nov 4, 2012)

I think the camera that Canon really jumped over Nikon with was the 5D3, when pitted against the D800 most photographers will find the 5D3 more useable. Sure, the D800 has it's uses, but for a more narrow segment of the photographers out there. The 1Dx vs. D4 is probably a close race over all, feature for feature.

So that leaves the 6D vs. D600, and I'd say the D600 really compares more to the 5D3 feature for feature, and when you factor in the price, may be a better buy. So in the end, over all Nikon may still have a better lineup of full-frame cameras to appeal to the widest group of photographers. Canon has limited the 6D so much that it's opened the door for Nikon to market the D600 to photographers who are looking at choosing between the 6D & 5D3, they can get the D600 and not have to choose, effectively. Sure, the 5D3 is built better and probably performs better over all, but when it comes to marketing to the widest possible number of photographers, the fact that the D600 has most of the key features in common at a much lower price tag means it will have a wider target market.


----------



## Fishnose (Nov 4, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Nikon net income dropped 36.5% in the last quarter. You have indeed had too much Vodka. The figures in parentheses are negative, a reduction!
> http://www.nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/result/index.htm



The figures you quote are for the whole Nikon Corporatioopn. The figures for the Nikon Imaging Division are as follows:

Net sales: 381 billion yen (up 56.5 billion yen from same period previous year)
Operating income: 41.8 billion yen (down 5.6 billion yen from same period previous year)

Nikon sold a total of:
3,450,000 interchangeable cameras (up 720k from same period previous year)
4,770,000 interchangeable lenses (up 840k from same period previous year)
8,260,000 compact cameras (up 400k from same period previous year)

So interchangeable cameras sales are up 26% compared to same period last year and lenses are up 21%.
Which is pretty amazing stuff. Nikon cameras and lenses are absolutely flying out the door. Even their compacts are UP 5% in the face of a general (significant) downturn in that area.

It's difficult to do a direct comparison with Canon, as Canon includes their inkjet printers in the corresponding division (!), but they sure aren't showing the same kind of upward surge. Not even close.

Nikon Imaging's lower operating income in spite of a considerable increase in turnover is most likely a result of increased costs incurred as a result of the Tsunami and the Thai floods.

So he's closer to the truth that you, with or without vodka.


----------



## jocau (Nov 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> jocau said:
> 
> 
> > I think that most people would always like to use the lowest possible ISO value. If they could freeze motion at ISO100, they would use that ISO value.
> ...



Why such an aggressive attitude in your post? I know it's not possible, that's why the sentence is started with the word "if". And no it's not personal bias. Most of my shots are at ISO800-1600. I would rather have them shot at ISO100 but that's not an option. So I like very good performance at high ISO (hence the reason why I'm probably going to buy the 6D), but I also want very good performance at ISO100. And the latter is where Canon is trailing behind...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 4, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> So interchangeable cameras sales are up 26% compared to same period last year and lenses are up 21%.
> Which is pretty amazing stuff.



Amazing, indeed. Out of the past 20 quarters, how many more than this last one has Nikon outsold Canon in the dSLR market segment? More importantly, how many more quarters like this last one are needed for Nikon to overcome their significantly lower dSLR market share, after losing it to Canon repeatedly over the past several years?



jocau said:


> I know it's not possible, that's why the sentence is started with the word "if". And no it's not personal bias.



You're right, that part wasn't biased, though it was a pretty big and fanciful 'if'. But this part:



jocau said:


> It's more logical that the low ISO performance is great than that the high ISO performance is great.



...makes the assumption we can all shoot at low ISO most of the time, as you apparently can (and here I'm assuming that with current FF sensors, ISO 1600 isn't 'high'). For those of us that routinely need to shoot at greater than ISO 3200, your logic doesn't apply. That's the bias to which I was referring. 

Ideally, we'd have great performance at low and high ISO, and everyone would be happy. That's solidly in the fanciful land of 'IF' for now.


----------



## HarryWintergreen (Nov 4, 2012)

x-vision said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > After EOS 1DX's trashing of D4 and 5D Mark III's victory over D800, will 6D destroy D600 for a complete FF sweep?
> ...



+1 definitely! I can't help it but the Canon management is a mystery to me. But on the other hand nothing to write home about. I'm very satisfied with my Canon hear. And when it comes to mirrorless I have to admit other facturers having a lead, to say the least. Competition is a good thing. Let's wait and see...


----------



## jocau (Nov 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> jocau said:
> 
> 
> > It's more logical that the low ISO performance is great than that the high ISO performance is great.
> ...



What I meant with that is that it's more logical from a technical point of view. Not that I or any other person prefers very good performance at low ISO. Everybody knows that raising ISO means more noise and less DR. 

Take a look at these 2 examples:

1) a runner with a heartbeat of 70 bpm (low ISO)
2) a runner with a heartbeat of 180 bpm (high ISO)

Which one most likely has to stop to catch his breath?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 4, 2012)

jocau said:


> What I meant with that is that it's more logical from a technical point of view. Not that I or any other person prefers very good performance at low ISO. Everybody knows that raising ISO means more noise and less DR.



Got it, thanks for clarifying.


----------



## jocau (Nov 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> jocau said:
> 
> 
> > What I meant with that is that it's more logical from a technical point of view. Not that I or any other person prefers very good performance at low ISO. Everybody knows that raising ISO means more noise and less DR.
> ...



You're welcome.


----------



## Fishnose (Nov 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Fishnose said:
> 
> 
> > So interchangeable cameras sales are up 26% compared to same period last year and lenses are up 21%.
> ...



What does that have to do with what I wrote? I have NO idea how many cameras Canon has sold this quarter. My only point was that someone else here seemed to think that Nilkon did badly in camera sales - because they looked at the wrong Nikon figures.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Nov 4, 2012)

jocau said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > jocau said:
> ...



This is totally subjective to what you shoot though. Yeah, I could use my alien bees and both speedlights to light a reception hall so i can shoot at ISO 100, but, if its a nice hall and has interesting ambient light, then I'm stuck losing all that just to shoot at ISO 100. I love that on my mk3 I have the option of using off cam light and lower ISO's to get crisper shots when needed, but, I also LOVE the fact that I can crank it to 6400-12800 depending on the situation and get a solid usable image. Different shooters have different needs and should get the tools best suited for them, both in the long and short term.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Nov 4, 2012)

Robert Welch said:


> I think the camera that Canon really jumped over Nikon with was the 5D3, when pitted against the D800 most photographers will find the 5D3 more useable. Sure, the D800 has it's uses, but for a more narrow segment of the photographers out there. The 1Dx vs. D4 is probably a close race over all, feature for feature.
> 
> So that leaves the 6D vs. D600, and I'd say the D600 really compares more to the 5D3 feature for feature, and when you factor in the price, may be a better buy. So in the end, over all Nikon may still have a better lineup of full-frame cameras to appeal to the widest group of photographers. Canon has limited the 6D so much that it's opened the door for Nikon to market the D600 to photographers who are looking at choosing between the 6D & 5D3, they can get the D600 and not have to choose, effectively. Sure, the 5D3 is built better and probably performs better over all, but when it comes to marketing to the widest possible number of photographers, the fact that the D600 has most of the key features in common at a much lower price tag means it will have a wider target market.



I'm really not sure anyone can make a call with 6d vs d600 at the moment. The 6d is still really unseen and untested. So m,any if's with the 6d, and from what I see with the d600 --- those that are commenting are saying that there is no point in having so many AF points that are crammed into such a small section of the field of view. If the 6d AF is spread more evenly, even with less points it may in fact hold its own. If the ISO in the 6d can come close to what the mk3 can do between 3200-12800, then well the game is really on (d600 native iso is 6400). If's and if's and if's though, until the 6d is out there it's hard to make any call of winner or loser.


----------



## jukka (Nov 5, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Fishnose said:
> 
> 
> > So interchangeable cameras sales are up 26% compared to same period last year and lenses are up 21%.
> ...



What guarantees the number of sold cameras? VW Beatle was the best-selling car for a long time, I've never owned one but I have had many Mercedes, BMW, etc. If this would be a measurement of something then should I buy a Toyota next time ???


kulhon Mitä helvettiä me juominen tai puhu


----------



## bdunbar79 (Nov 5, 2012)

jocau said:


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



That's actually a really poor example. I ran with a 4:00 miler with a MHR of 200 bpm and a resting HR of 60 bpm. I ran 20 seconds slower than he did and my MHR was 180 and resting 47. I ran out of breath way, way before he did. Thus HR has been discounted as a predicter of running performance and now it is velocity at maximum oxygen uptake vs. oxygen usage, or vVO2 max.


----------



## jrh (Nov 5, 2012)

I am not sure where this thread is going comparing cars and heart rates but a good measurement of reality with Canon, Nikon and Sony is their stock values - and Canon and Nikon are within 10% of their 52 week lows. Sony is right at their low and posting negative numbers. Yes, there is a lot more involved with this, but the overall direction of these companies has Canon way ahead IMHO. Nikon's numbers could be read that they are buying their market share at the expense of their margins which is a horrible long term strategy. Yes, I am frustrated with the lack of compelling product releases from Canon but feel much better about their long term position. After all, the most talked about "advancement" from Nikon is a SONY 36mp sensor - without this the D800 would not be where it is today.


----------



## Shooter (Nov 5, 2012)

I currently own two 1D X's, with a third one coming, and two D800's. Nobody is going to reign supreme anytime soon. Both these cameras are wonderful, each is just a different tool. I now shoot almost all my residential and commercial architecture with the 800, most anything that moves, with the X bodies. The X has considerably less noise at iso's from 400 up when compared to the Nikon. The Nikon's dynamic range and megapixel count make it an exceptional tool for certain assignments.

I've solved the fanboy thing by having two rolling LowePro cases, one filled with Canon, one filled with Nikon. These are tools, great tools, but nothing more than that. As they say, "I ain't married to any of it!"


----------



## jukka (Nov 5, 2012)

Then you are looking at noise reduction, no way that d800 has more noise from 400iso and up to 6400iso than 1dx

et näe metsää puilta


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 5, 2012)

Shooter said:


> I currently own two 1D X's, with a third one coming, and two D800's. Nobody is going to reign supreme anytime soon. Both these cameras are wonderful, each is just a different tool. I now shoot almost all my residential and commercial architecture with the 800, most anything that moves, with the X bodies. The X has considerably less noise at iso's from 400 up when compared to the Nikon. The Nikon's dynamic range and megapixel count make it an exceptional tool for certain assignments.
> 
> I've solved the fanboy thing by having two rolling LowePro cases, one filled with Canon, one filled with Nikon. These are tools, great tools, but nothing more than that. As they say, "I ain't married to any of it!"



+1...but couldn't afford both systems. I started with Canon and will stay with Canon for now.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 5, 2012)

jukka said:


> Then you are looking at noise reduction, no way that d800 has more noise from 400iso and up to 6400iso than 1dx
> 
> et näe metsää puilta



Maybe the forest can't be seen for the trees, because you're showing a picture of skyscrapers and not trees? You are posting about high ISO noise, then showing data about dynamic range (calculated as full well minus read noise). Read noise contributes to the DR calculation, but there are more factors that contribute to high ISO noise than just read noise, and Shooter is actually looking at real-world images - something that must carry significant weight in this discussion. Even then, if you look at Claff's read noise vs. ISO plot (which is far more relevant to this discussion), you'll see that between ISO 500 and ISO 4000, the 1D X has lower read noise than the D800. You might also try showing the D800, not the D800E, since the former is the camera under discussion (although the differences are minor, the D800E has a slight advantage in most measurements, which is perhaps why some people choose to show those data instead, to accentuate any differences with other models). I wonder why you opted to show the less relevant DR data to support your point, instead of the more relevant read noise data, which are entirely consistent with Shooter's statements based on real-world observations, but with which you disagree?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Nov 6, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> jukka said:
> 
> 
> > Then you are looking at noise reduction, no way that d800 has more noise from 400iso and up to 6400iso than 1dx
> ...



Finally! Someone came through with some useful data that actually supports what people are seeing in the field (no pun intended).


----------



## jukka (Nov 6, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> jukka said:
> 
> 
> > Then you are looking at noise reduction, no way that d800 has more noise from 400iso and up to 6400iso than 1dx
> ...



Aha
I see no difference from the two cameras and raw files if the images are presented in the same size and higher iso and we have them both in the company

parempi olla hyvä kamera kädessä kuin kaksi kaulassa


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 6, 2012)

jukka said:


> Aha
> I see no difference from the two cameras and raw files if the images are presented in the same size and higher iso and we have them both in the company



Aha, indeed. So, you show William Claff's data to support your argument that there's no difference in high ISO DR between the cameras, and I point out that his data also show there is a read noise advantage for the 1D X at midrange ISO values. You now show DxOMark data that there's no major SNR difference between the 1D X and D800 at those ISO values, refuting Claff's data. But, then...what does DxOMark say about the DR difference at high ISO? They say the 1D X has an advantage in DR at higher ISOs.

How do you say in Finnish, "You can't have your cake and eat it too?"

You are choosing data to support your point, but ignoring data from the same sources that refute other points. I know scientists who do that very same thing, and I don't respect their objectivity or conclusions.


----------



## jrista (Nov 6, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> jocau said:
> 
> 
> > ... that's the reason why people can rather live with bad high ISO performance. It's more logical that the low ISO performance is great than that the high ISO performance is great.
> ...



Couldn't agree more with this (although I don't have a 600mm f/4 yet). I care VERY much about high ISO performance, and generally care not a wit about low ISO performance. I care VERY much whether future cameras have good-quality noise at high ISO, have a higher high-ISO S/N, higher Q.E. (which should generally lead to better noise performance at high ISO), etc. It is not any more OK for high ISO to perform poorly than for low ISO to perform poorly in a "general" sense.


----------



## jrista (Nov 6, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> jukka said:
> 
> 
> > Aha
> ...



+100


----------



## jukka (Nov 6, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> jukka said:
> 
> 
> > Aha
> ...



*I was showing values from Claff and DXO and as you can se that d800 and 5dmk3
are similar at high iso.*
*I-R has raw files from the two , but be sure that you are selecting the right one, Canon 5dmk3 has at 12800iso the same time and f-stop that nikon has at 6400Iso. 1 stop difference and Canons 6400iso has been exposed after 1/790sec . So if you shall compare them you must compare Canon 12800 fejk iso with Nikons 6400iso and there you have the same parameters regarding time and f-stop . d800 to the right
* so be carefully when you are talking about high iso results and the parameters are not the same


----------



## jukka (Nov 6, 2012)

Also the two pro cameras exposed completely different 
Canon 1DX exposed much longer compared to Nikon
We are comparing "Canon" ISO and " Nikon" ISO and the results of the test target


----------



## jukka (Nov 6, 2012)

*So if you will discuss high iso reproduction , noise and resolution with me ,first look after that Canon have been exposed the same time as Nikon, Canon can not have a longer exposure time , and sometimes a whole Stop more and then call it for example 12800iso , when in fact it is 6400iso *

Jukka


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 6, 2012)

jukka said:


> Also the two pro cameras exposed completely different
> Canon 1DX exposed much longer compared to Nikon
> We are comparing "Canon" ISO and " Nikon" ISO and the results of the test target



So...Claff is right wrong, DxOMark is wrong right wrong, and now IR is right, but only if we look at different ISO settings but try to match the other exposure settings, and only if we stop talking about the 1D X and start talking about the 5DIII instead.



jukka said:


> *...first look after that Canon have been exposed the same time as Nikon, Canon can not have a longer exposure time , and sometimes a whole Stop more and then call it for example 12800iso , when in fact it is 6400iso *



You are saying the IR images are differently exposed, but 'we' weren't talking about IR data at all, nor were 'we' talking about the 5DIII - you are the only one doing that. Where are your data showing that DxOMark and William Claff exposed the test images for the 1D X and D800 differently? Or now that you've decided their data no longer support whatever argument it is you're trying to make, we should stop talking about them and start talking about different data on different cameras, is that it? We should also ignore the fact that different lenses set to the same f/stop may very well have different T-stops, which would necessitate different exposure settings. Really hate those inconvenient truths...



jukka said:


> so be carefully when ... the parameters are not the same



Let me get this straight. You show Claff data supporting a point, when shown Claff data refuting that point, you show DxOMark data to refute the Claff data. When shown DxOMark data refuting the earlier Claff data, you bring out IR data _about different cameras than were being previously discussed_. What's next? Roger Clark data comparing the 40D to the D90?



jukka said:


> *So if you will discuss high iso reproduction , noise and resolution with me ,first look after that Canon have been exposed the same time as Nikon, Canon can not have a longer exposure time , and sometimes a whole Stop more and then call it for example 12800iso , when in fact it is 6400iso *



Your arguments are clearly biased and have become tangential. Discussion with someone displaying an obvious bias is ultimately fruitless, so I'm done discussing anything with you. Have a good night.


----------



## jukka (Nov 6, 2012)

*Here is the difference in exposure time, 6400iso and from 5dmk3 and d800, as you all can se Canon are exposed much longer than Nikon, Canon can not hold the iso against the test target and needs longer exposure.*
Not good


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Nov 6, 2012)

said it before and will say it again... i have seen the light! Obviously charts and more charts are the way! I think from now on instead of giving clients images to review, I will just have dxo measure them, translate it to charts, and send my clients the charts and let them choose that way! Cause that's all that matters right? I mean who cares about images, lets just review charts all day!


----------



## poias (Nov 6, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> said it before and will say it again... i have seen the light! Obviously charts and more charts are the way! I think from now on instead of giving clients images to review, I will just have dxo measure them, translate it to charts, and send my clients the charts and let them choose that way! Cause that's all that matters right? I mean who cares about images, lets just review charts all day!



Let's suppose same image taken by same photographer, but using two cameras. One has an off the charts IQ and another does not. Which image would you rather give to your client?


----------



## PeterJ (Nov 6, 2012)

I use auto-ISOs so don't see what the fuss is about. All of Canon's gear is rated for ISO 9001 at least, check the following link:

http://www.canon-europe.com/About_Us/sustainability/business/iso_9001/


----------



## jukka (Nov 6, 2012)

PeterJ said:


> I use auto-ISOs so don't see what the fuss is about. All of Canon's gear is rated for ISO 9001 at least, check the following link:
> 
> http://www.canon-europe.com/About_Us/sustainability/business/iso_9001/



*The fuss is about* when you are comparing high iso ,noise, resolution the parameters must be the same *from d800 and 5dmk3 as one exampl*e , and Canon has a tradition to need longer exposure time even if the ISO and target is the same. If you are shooting sports, flying birds it is easy to understand that 1/1600sec from Nikon gives better results than 1/790sec from Canon.
We have a so to speak one "Canon ISO and a Nikon ISO" and they are not including the same parameters .

You can go through all Canon cameras at I-R and the same test target* and compare the exposure time that Canon must have in comparison to Nikon .*
So before you people are talking about noise in higher iso,* look at the parameters time/f-stop* for that given iso and from the cameras, in this case there is 1 stop difference.
In 1dx and d4 case there are little less. 

Kaksi poroa istuu puussa, ja yksi sanoi, damn mitä olen jäädyttämistä.


----------



## nicku (Nov 6, 2012)

how i see the battle between Canon and Nikon:

Canon 1DX vs Nikon D4 - on pear no clear winner in my opinion.

Canon 5Dmk3 vs Nikon D800 - the D800 have a overall advantage over the Mk3

Canon 7d - still without a direct competitor 

Nikon d300S vs Canon 50D ( the rightful competitor from canon) - clearly Nikon win.

Canon 60D vs Nikon D7000 - Nikon clearly wins in almost all aspects 

Canon 650D vs Nikon D5200 - by faaaaar Nikon win.

Canon D1200 vs Nikon D3200 - Nikon win again.


Overall Nikon have a clear advantage over Canon....


----------



## PeterJ (Nov 6, 2012)

jukka said:


> PeterJ said:
> 
> 
> > I use auto-ISOs so don't see what the fuss is about. All of Canon's gear is rated for ISO 9001 at least, check the following link:
> ...


But Canon is guaranteed to ISO 9001, those shots are only 6400? My Canon goes to 25600, although I've never used that setting in case it's against warranty to exceed the guaranteed amount. Plus for birds and sports you can just wait for nesting / half-time etc, so I still don't see your point.


----------



## JR (Nov 6, 2012)

Wow lots of really interesting and passionate comments on this thread so far. My personal take on the original post question is that neither Canon nor Nikon "reign" supreme. Both company have raised the bar and we should all be happy about this. Yes on paper Nikon does have better sensor, but Canon has better AF system and better lens. Metering is very different with both system and so does color rendition. Shooting with both system myself, tech charts do not take pictures. I think it is Neuro who keeps reminding us of that: a camera is more than chart and more then a sensor. You need to look at the system.

I do find satisfaction is shooting both system depending on the settings. If it was so simple and only about a technical chart, I would have sold one of the two system long ago (based on spec alone). But guess what, some of my best ISO 100 shots portrait are not with my D800 but with my 1DX!!! Why? Well maybe it is because there is not equivalent 85 1.2L or 50 1.2L with Nikon, skin colors also seem more true with the 1DX. Maybe it is because the AF system of the 1DX is so fast that I dont miss the moment...My point is I dont really care because it just works...

I hope Nikon and Canon keeps pushing each other to bring better and better camera system. Yes I do wish Canon sensor would be better, but I still hope the next high MP camera from Canon will address that...crossing my finger...


----------



## jukka (Nov 6, 2012)

PeterJ said:


> jukka said:
> 
> 
> > PeterJ said:
> ...



The point is that you can newer compare to different cameras and not have the sam time / f-stop and that Canon needs more lights in a given situation as you can se from the pictures before and from I-R
AND when the discussion started some people claim that 5dmk3 had better high iso qualities, and I said no, not with the same parameters and the pictures are presented in the same size. After 12800iso the d800 start to loose in comparison to 5dmk3


----------



## PeterJ (Nov 6, 2012)

jukka said:


> PeterJ said:
> 
> 
> > jukka said:
> ...


OK thanks I understand now. Probably the first shot was with a Canon 230EX and the the second with a Nikon SB-900. You should try a 600EX at some stage they are quite bright.


----------



## DanielHoofnagle (Nov 6, 2012)

PeterJ said:


> I use auto-ISOs so don't see what the fuss is about. All of Canon's gear is rated for ISO 9001 at least, check the following link:
> 
> http://www.canon-europe.com/About_Us/sustainability/business/iso_9001/



iso 9001 is a manufacturing standard. It is a book of standards on how to conduct manufacturing. It has nothing to do with camera sensitivity. If you manufacture goods, and want to convince investers you are doing so responsibly, you mention that you manufacture to iso 9001 standards, or you are iso 9001 certified. You could manufacture tires, or bicycles, or clothes to these standards, it doesn't mean certified camera sensitivity.


----------



## jukka (Nov 6, 2012)

*Details, noise 5dmk3 and D800. Nikons "6400 iso" = 1/1600sec f-8*
Both cameras 5dmk3 and d800 with the same exposure= time and f-stop. RAW and latest camera raw.
Details can be seen more clearly in the fabric, letters, face, etc. in the d800 image. 


Parempi riesa kuin nenä


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 6, 2012)

Canon continues to make a series of mistakes on they're product lines. Perhaps a lot like Kodak eh?


----------



## NormanBates (Nov 6, 2012)

The title makes absolutely no sense. Whoever thinks Canon is reigning supreme now, must by all means think this was so all along (since it is now that Nikon is most competitive), therefore "again" makes no sense, and gives away the fact that you're just kidding yourself or trying to fool others.

Now, the comment about the certification for ISO 9001 was real funny, that alone makes me glad I clicked on this thread ;D


----------



## hammy (Nov 6, 2012)

Why do they compare 22 mp Canon to 36 mp Nikon ? is that even a fair assessment?


----------



## NormanBates (Nov 6, 2012)

well, there's all that "but small photosites will make your image noisier" debate, which needed to be disproved with samples such as those posted above


----------



## jukka (Nov 6, 2012)

*This is 1dx and d800 and the same exposure 1/1600 sec F-8 6400iso
*

There are a lot more resolution in d800 compared to 1dx and 6400iso .
The main difference regarding S/N will be after 12800iso (Nikon iso)


eivät suorita ralley vuonna jääkaapissa


----------



## christianronnel (Nov 6, 2012)

DanielHoofnagle said:


> PeterJ said:
> 
> 
> > I use auto-ISOs so don't see what the fuss is about. All of Canon's gear is rated for ISO 9001 at least, check the following link:
> ...



I was about to explain that. I'm glad some people knew what they are talking about.


----------



## Fishnose (Nov 6, 2012)

nicku said:


> how i see the battle between Canon and Nikon:
> 
> Canon 1DX vs Nikon D4 - on pear no clear winner in my opinion.
> 
> ...



Missing:
Canon 6D vs. Nikon D600

About 7D - it does have a direct competitor. The Nikon D90 is roughly the same age (1 yr older), meant for the same kind of customer. Less resolution, but better DR and much else. IQ is on par. Otherwise the D700 is a valid competitor as well.

And yes - it is fair to compare 5D3 to D800. These are the respective manufacuters highest res cameras, similar style bodies, similar prices.


----------



## Ivan Muller (Nov 6, 2012)

Its quite amusing to read the heated discussions on which brands are better...as a Canon fan I accept that Nikon probably has better sensor technology at the moment and its cameras seem to be well priced. As a pro I also realize that most camera's quality far exceed the quality requirements of my clients...

But all this technology is like a yo yo one year canon is up and the next nikon and who knows maybe the year after that it will be sony!

Will that make me change systems? Definitely not, as a pro I need something far more than just image quality, I need a system...which btw it looks like almost all the big brands provide anyway...so we are spoiled for choice at the moment...but all the mudslinging is really more for camera collectors, the ones that worry about the street cred of their 'male jewelery'...the rest of us really don't worry about things like that.

I am much too heavily invested in canon at the moment to ever consider changing...For now I leave the battle of the 100% pixel peepers to the folks that have the time and the patience and strong eyes...me I am investing in lenses that will improve my vision, like the 24TS, the pancake and certainly the new 35mmf2 IS..also maybe a fourth 430ex2 flash to make my location portraits easier and a panhead for video, radio triggers, upgrade to CS6, more software, etc etc the list goes on and on...me I think I will wait for the 5dmk4 or the megapixel canon that is surely to come...and when it does I will have quality glass to match! In the meantime I am glad that nikon/sony is 'better' than canon, there is nothing like a bit of competition to improve matters

To see my work follow this link....http://www.ivanmuller.co.za/node/2080


----------



## Ivan Muller (Nov 6, 2012)

jukka said:


> *This is 1dx and d800 and the same exposure 1/1600 sec F-8 6400iso
> *
> 
> There are a lot more resolution in d800 compared to 1dx and 6400iso .
> ...




...actually what I see here, apart from the obvious is that the 1dx resolution is not that far off from the d800, which just shows you that double the pixels does not quite equate to double resolution...what I also see is amazing quality from both cameras, the D800 is simply suberb, with the 1dx not far behind...we live in exciting times and what all this pixel peeping prove is that you really cant go wrong buying either a canon or a nikon and I am sure the sony is up there too...!(and I am not forgetting Leica)


----------



## jukka (Nov 6, 2012)

If you should have the double resolution then you need 72 Mp
I think there is a big difference in resolution , look at X and the text authentic beers


----------



## rpt (Nov 6, 2012)

My personal opinion - and you can kill me for that - I think there is very little noise in the images. There is more N/S in this thread. The signal is provided by the few who tried to inject humor in here... So am I going to get the silent treatment or are you guys going to lighten up and realize what you have in your hand is just a hammer? (and I am so happy I am doing this on the internet [ and my doors are bolted  ].


----------



## V8Beast (Nov 6, 2012)

Ivan Muller said:


> To see my work follow this link....http://www.ivanmuller.co.za/node/2080



Very nice portraits, with some slick post processing as well. I love how you make the midtones pop. If you care to give me some pointers on how to accomplish that, I'm all ears


----------



## rpt (Nov 6, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> Ivan Muller said:
> 
> 
> > To see my work follow this link....http://www.ivanmuller.co.za/node/2080
> ...



*Ivan*, lovely pictures.


----------



## poias (Nov 6, 2012)

jukka said:


> If you should have the double resolution then you need 72 Mp
> I think there is a big difference in resolution , look at X and the text authentic beers



Look who cares about the labels below the name? Only pixel peepers care about those. Viewers only look at the image for like 2 seconds and move on. What matters is the actual composition and exposure, not silly things like resolution or detail.


----------



## nicku (Nov 6, 2012)

what about a Canon 1DX vs Nikon D4 comparison??? If D800 is on pair with 1Dx that means D4 is way ahead...


----------



## jukka (Nov 6, 2012)

nicku said:


> what about a Canon 1DX vs Nikon D4 comparison??? If D800 is on pair with 1Dx that means D4 is way ahead...


why? it is on par up to 12800iso then the other sensors in d4 , 1dx with larger cells does a better job because of the low read out noise and pixel surface area. http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html


----------



## jukka (Nov 6, 2012)

poias said:


> jukka said:
> 
> 
> > If you should have the double resolution then you need 72 Mp
> ...



It is all about resolution, noise, details, or we can close down this entire discussion regarding high iso etc!!!!!!!!


----------

