# DPReview reviews the D810... two years after release



## ahsanford (May 12, 2016)

I could imagine DPReview were playing some slow jams while they wrote this:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/7058035710/benchmark-performance-nikon-d810-in-depth-review

That album might have been called _Exmor: Mi Amor_. 

Choice bits:

"Dynamic range at ISO 64 competes with medium format"

Spot-metering linked to AF point is listed as a 'Pro' when to my knowledge that feature is available across the entire Nikon SLR line. (That's just DPR thumbing their nose at 5DS/5D3 owners, IMHO.)
*
"You can underexpose your images to protect your highlights as much as you'd like. Leave your graduated ND filters at home or, better yet, sell them while they're still worth something." *

Really? 

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> "You can underexpose your images to protect your highlights as much as you'd like. Leave your graduated ND filters at home or, better yet, sell them while they're still worth something." [/b]
> 
> Really?



If you're happy with poor tonality in shadows, sure why not?


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > "You can underexpose your images to protect your highlights as much as you'd like. Leave your graduated ND filters at home or, better yet, sell them while they're still worth something." [/b]
> ...



My beef is that the notion that 1-2 stops more DR magically eliminates the need to manage harsh skies is comical. It's hyperbole, not reality.

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Well the quote said "as much as you'd like," which could be a whole lot more than 2 stops. The cost is tonality. Sure, you can raise shadows significantly without noise becoming atrocious, but there's little signal because they're vastly underexposed (even for shadows), hence the tonality sucks. 

[disclaimer]I'm basing my opinions from my use of camera bodies with similar sensors (Sony A7R = different packaging of the same electronics, Nikon D7000 = same family, Sony A7R ii = newer generation of the same family); I've not used the D810.[/disclaimer]


----------



## coreyhkh (May 12, 2016)

Its funny but from my observation the last few years, our poor Canon sensors actually force users to understand exposure and thus Canon users tend to be much better photographers then most Nikon users I have met. 

Too many of my Nikon friends do not know how to take a properly exposed pictures and simply just correct it in post.


----------



## NorbR (May 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Spot-metering linked to AF point is listed as a 'Pro' when to my knowledge that feature is available across the entire Nikon SLR line. (That's just DPR thumbing their nose at 5DS/5D3 owners, IMHO.)



And why wouldn't they?

Nikon does well to offer that across their entire line, and that's a pro for every SLR on that line. If it has to be repeated for every Nikon SLR out there, so be it. Maybe eventually Canon will take notice (I doubt it). 

Otherwise I agree with the rest of your post. That comment on GNDs is asinine.


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2016)

NorbR said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Spot-metering linked to AF point is listed as a 'Pro' when to my knowledge that feature is available across the entire Nikon SLR line. (That's just DPR thumbing their nose at 5DS/5D3 owners, IMHO.)
> ...



Believe me, I agree. I've been asking for this for years. 

<rant>

The D5500 has this feature and the 5D3 does not. Most _cell phone cameras_ have this feature and the 5D3 does not.

I'm very Canon-positive in general, but this one has always eluded me. You could lump this in with 4K perhaps as a feature Canon is determined to keep exclusive to its best rigs (1D, Cinema, etc.) when much of the rest of the world is giving such features away at fractional price points on lesser rigs in comparison.

</rant>

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 13, 2016)

NorbR said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Spot-metering linked to AF point is listed as a 'Pro' when to my knowledge that feature is available across the entire Nikon SLR line. (That's just DPR thumbing their nose at 5DS/5D3 owners, IMHO.)
> ...



Of course it makes sense. After all, most people interested in spending thousands of dollars on a dSLR are first-time buyers with no prior brand investment or familiarity. I mean, it's not like most people buying a very expensive FF body are upgrading from an APS-C camera or anything like that. For those very few Nikon APS-C shooters considering a FF upgrade, AF point-linked spot metering is just a given, but for that huge majority of first-timers at this level, it's definitely a 'pro'. Because, you know, it's not like DPR is biased or anything.


----------



## ahsanford (May 13, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Of course it makes sense. After all, most people interested in spending thousands of dollars on a dSLR are first-time buyers with no prior brand investment or familiarity. I mean, it's not like most people buying a very expensive FF body are upgrading from an APS-C camera or anything like that. For those very few Nikon APS-C shooters considering a FF upgrade, AF point-linked spot metering is just a given, but for that huge majority of first-timers at this level, it's definitely a 'pro'. Because, you know, it's not like DPR is biased or anything.



#DPR #fairandbalanced #dxowithsassywriters


----------



## NorbR (May 13, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Of course it makes sense. After all, most people interested in spending thousands of dollars on a dSLR are first-time buyers with no prior brand investment or familiarity. I mean, it's not like most people buying a very expensive FF body are upgrading from an APS-C camera or anything like that. For those very few Nikon APS-C shooters considering a FF upgrade, AF point-linked spot metering is just a given, but for that huge majority of first-timers at this level, it's definitely a 'pro'. Because, you know, it's not like DPR is biased or anything.



Oh, come on, now. I already thought that the whole DPR bias "debate" was ridiculous, but now you're calling bias because they list as a 'Pro' something that everyone agrees _is_ indeed a 'Pro'? 

And for the record, I for one am glad that they don't omit that kind of stuff just because it should be a given for some made-up target audience for their reviews. I have zero intention of buying a D810, yet I read the review. I even enjoyed reading it, silly me. And that does not mean that I agree with everything in it, as I've stated above already.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (May 14, 2016)

NorbR said:


> but now you're calling bias because they list as a 'Pro' something that everyone agrees _is_ indeed a 'Pro'?



But "everyone" _doesn't_ agree.

I was a Nikon user for some years before I made the move to Canon: I had and used AF point-linked metering all the time, because it was there.

It (like an awful lot of "features" Nikon has that Canon doesn't) didn't make _the slightest bit of Real World difference_ to end results. Absolutely *none*.

Go ahead - you've got the internet in front of you: find some proof that it's a "must-have" feature. I've got plenty of time, show me the pictures...

Because DPR rates it as a "pro" _simply because Nikon has it and Canon (for the most part) doesn't_, it _is_ further evidence of DPR's glaring anti-Canon bias.

It's barely any distance from this, to them calling the Nikon logo on the body a "pro"...

*Interestingly, the 7D had a close analogue - it had metering "biased" (Canon's phrase) to the AF point in use - and nobody even noticed...*


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 14, 2016)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Because DPR rates it as a "pro" _simply because Nikon has it and Canon (for the most part) doesn't_, it _is_ further evidence of DPR's glaring anti-Canon bias.



Oh come on. Sure, that would be all the evidence needed to demonstrate such a bias, but you're just making stuff up.

I could as easily say "That all Russians secretly bow to queen Elizabeth is evidence of a persistent vast British empire."

It's a silly meaningless term. The only feature which would be "pro" is the one which converts a photographers time to payments. But regardless, if you can point to something substantiating the claim that DPR rates it as a pro feature "simply because Nikon has it," screenshot the proof and I'll champion posting it far and wide.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (May 14, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Oh come on. Sure, that would be all the evidence needed to demonstrate such a bias, but you're just making stuff up.


You clearly don't understand the point I'm making.

Nikon does a lot of this: including features across the board that _sound_ like something you'd want, but which in fact provide no material advantage _whatsoever_.

Given this fact (and no, I'm not "making things up" - but I know that speaking from actual first-hand experience tends to confuse people on this forum) how is the addition of _this_ feature a "pro"?

*There is no justification for calling something that makes no practical difference a "pro". That DPR does it anyway tells whose of us who have hands-on experience that they're doing it for a reason other than that it makes for a better camera... *

It's not rocket science: DPR's motivation for calling something _that does not improve the performance of the camera in any real sense_ must, logically, come from another place. And the only place left to look for that motivation is that "it's something the Nikon camera has that Canon doesn't".

There's nowhere else to look!

Do you understand now?

(Anyone who tells you that metering linked to AF point is an essential _is_ making things up...)


----------



## NorbR (May 14, 2016)

Keith_Reeder said:


> But "everyone" _doesn't_ agree.



Fair enough, I should know better than to write statements like this ... Point taken.

Otherwise, you're twisting my words quite a bit. I never used words like "must-have" or "essential". 
If it's there, if you can enable it if you want to use it and disable it if you don't, then for me it's a Pro. Simple as that. 

It doesn't make any difference for you? Good to know. It probably does for someone else out there. First-hand as it is, your experience is your experience, not that of everyone else (see, I already learned my lesson since the first line).


----------



## TeT (May 14, 2016)

Its a great option to have on a camera when you need it, especially if it is simple to manipulate the controls. I think it a little ridiculous that DPReview states that it will replace all your tools (ND filters) and make you a better human and a world leader for having it... and make all your cat pictures into art. Ok, I am being ridiculous now...


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 14, 2016)

Keith_Reeder said:


> It's not rocket science: DPR's motivation for calling something _that does not improve the performance of the camera in any real sense_ must, logically, come from another place.



agreed.



Keith_Reeder said:


> And the only place left to look for that motivation is that "it's something the Nikon camera has that Canon doesn't".



Nonsense. 

Maybe DPReview calls things "pro features" which are typically only found on high-end (read: expensive) cameras; price point is probably the most common differentiator people use to characterize photo gear as "pro," after all.


----------



## raptor3x (May 14, 2016)

Keith_Reeder said:


> *Interestingly, the 7D had a close analogue - it had metering "biased" (Canon's phrase) to the AF point in use - and nobody even noticed...*



Pretty much all Canon bodies bias the metering toward the AF point. The only difference between spot metering linked to AF point and Canon's current matrix metering system is the degree to which it is biased towards the current AF point.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 14, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Maybe DPReview calls things "pro features" which are typically only found on high-end (read: expensive) cameras; price point is probably the most common differentiator people use to characterize photo gear as "pro," after all.



To be clear, the context of the statement on DPR is "pro" in a list of "pro vs. con" not some sort of "professional vs. convict" cage match...


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 14, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe DPReview calls things "pro features" which are typically only found on high-end (read: expensive) cameras; price point is probably the most common differentiator people use to characterize photo gear as "pro," after all.
> ...



D'oh


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 15, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> The morale of the story is, good camera, yes, but why publish a review on something 2 years old? Weird.



It had to be done before the 5DIV comes out, so they have a full review of the D810 and can pepper the 5DIV preview/review with statements about the D810's superiority.


----------



## TeT (May 15, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> thetechhimself said:
> 
> 
> > The morale of the story is, good camera, yes, but why publish a review on something 2 years old? Weird.
> ...



Not that we are paranoid or anything... 8)


----------



## unfocused (May 15, 2016)

TeT said:


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



No kidding! Perhaps removing the tinfoil hats would help. It's logical that since the D810 was widely viewed as an interim refresh of the previously reviewed D800, they did not feel any urgency to review it. And, since there was a lull between the announcements of the 1DX II, the D500 and the D5 and their actual release dates, they decided to take the time to go back and review the D810.

It takes some rather interesting (and indeed paranoid) logic to conclude that ignoring a camera for nearly two years is somehow part of a conspiracy to promote the camera over an upcoming competitor.


----------



## ritholtz (May 15, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> thetechhimself said:
> 
> 
> > The morale of the story is, good camera, yes, but why publish a review on something 2 years old? Weird.
> ...


Why do they need D810 for that. Do we really need their actual review to know their conclusions. 5D4 is going to lag behind class leader a7r2 DR and going to lag behind benchmarker D5 high ISO. But their tests will help us to see differences between 5d4 and 1dx2.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 15, 2016)

*sigh* I always forget how many CR members lack a sense of humor. For some, maybe wearing a tinfoil hat would help!


----------



## Don Haines (May 15, 2016)

dilbert said:


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


Yes,

This is one of the things that I have wished that DPR would do... instead of only doing the standard tests, to add in some specific tests to look at the unique features of a particular camera. OK, the basic functionality and specs are so similar to the D800 that no review was needed on those grounds, but doing the "retest" allowed them to cover the features that differentiate this camera from it's predecessor (and other makes/models) and in my opinion, was a worthy review, even though late.....

People buying high end cameras want to know about the special reasons to look at a particular model....


----------



## unfocused (May 15, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> *sigh* I always forget how many CR members lack a sense of humor. For some, maybe wearing a tinfoil hat would help!



Sarcasm is not synonymous with humor. Unrelenting sarcasm eventually becomes simply mean and tiresome and ultimately reflects poorly on the source. A bit of humility and self-deprecation is a good antidote.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 15, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Sarcasm is not synonymous with humor.



True, but perhaps unsurprisingly certain individuals have difficulty recognizing either.


----------



## Maiaibing (May 15, 2016)

My take 2 years after: If Canon sent this camera on the market I would queue to buy it. :'(

Hope the 5DIV turns the table. Canon's new motor mirror box seems to be a winner. If Canon could only put an equally impressive sensor inside their box and get someone to develop their AF software the sky would be the limit...

(Interesting dpreview calls this an "everything" camera and the 5DS/R a "niche" camera - oh well...)


----------



## Maiaibing (May 15, 2016)

coreyhkh said:


> Too many of my Nikon friends do not know how to take a properly exposed pictures and simply just correct it in post.



You need some new friends... 

(Reminds me how Canon and Nikon claimed AutoFocus would never have any interest for "pro" photographers)


----------



## AvTvM (May 16, 2016)

*Re: DPR proves again how irrelevant they have become*

5 years ago i visited dpr on a daily basis. Toady ... not even once a month. Totally irrelevant. Braindead amazon sales promotion outlet. 

They will go out of business within the next 2 years.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 16, 2016)

*Re: DPR proves again how irrelevant they have become*



AvTvM said:


> 5 years ago i visited dpr on a daily basis. Toady ... not even once a month. Totally irrelevant. Braindead amazon sales promotion outlet.
> 
> They will go out of business within the next 2 years.



I can't argue with any of that.


----------



## Bennymiata (May 16, 2016)

I shot a wedding a few weeks ago, and one of my assistants was using an D810.
As I did all the post production for the 3 cameramen, I noticed that the colours on the 810 photos looked very poor compared to the 5d3's photos.
Just for fun, I pushed the 810's photos just for fun.
You can push them further than 5d3 images, but the colours and contrast are still awefull.

I'm definitely sticking with Canon.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 16, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> *sigh* I always forget how many CR members lack a sense of humor. For some, maybe wearing a tinfoil hat would help!



Yes, but to keep dumb comments out, or to keep them in


----------



## Woody (May 16, 2016)

Regardless of what DPReview thinks of the Nikon D810, or for that matter, any 'class leading' camera from Nikon, the company is now in dire straits.

"Nikon didn’t just report weaker Imaging business sales for the year yesterday, their entire report could only be characterized as “grim.”...

Indeed, every quarter was down year-to-year, but the last quarter shows Nikon sliding significantly down: their ILC market share is now down to just below 31% (note that Canon claimed to have shipped the same number of ILCs in that quarter as last year, probably gaining market share). Last year Nikon was just below 34% market share, so they’ve lost a solid 3%, or about a tenth, of their second place position to others."

- from http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/grim-nikon-financials.html

(Note the quarter referred to by Thom Hogan is Jan-Mar 2016.)

Sony has tried for years to gain market share, but is heading nowhere.

It thus appears the company that is 'lagging behind the competition in sensor quality and 3D AF tracking' is growing from strength to strength in terms of ILC market shares. How ironic. : ;D


----------



## AvTvM (May 16, 2016)

*Re: mirrorslappers will not save nikon, nor canon*

nikon just gets served the bill for not offering mirrorless systems with APS-C and FF sensors a bit earlier than canon. ragnarol just around the corner for nikon and canon. they will just hit the wall. slap, slap, bang, crash. 

and i will just laugh!


----------



## Woody (May 16, 2016)

*Re: mirrorslappers will not save nikon, nor canon*



AvTvM said:


> nikon just gets served the bill for not offering mirrorless systems with APS-C and FF sensors a bit earlier than canon. ragnarol just around the corner for nikon and canon. they will just hit the wall. slap, slap, bang, crash.
> 
> and i will just laugh!



While Nikon made a major blunder by introducing the CX system, Canon did the right move with their EOS-M.

By the end of the year, we shall see if you or Canon has the last laugh.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 16, 2016)

*Re: mirrorslappers will not save nikon, nor canon*



Woody said:


> By the end of the year, we shall see if you or Canon has the last laugh.



Oh, we don't need to wait that long... ;D


----------



## AvTvM (May 16, 2016)

I don't believe a fully competitive Canon EOS-M body is anywhere close to launch. Not to mention an FF-sensor ILC system fully competitive with Sony A7/R/S II.

I believe Sony A9 will come first and might just have everything it takes to hammer the final nail into Canon's mirrorslapper coffin ... at least as far as I am concerned ... and another couple million photographers around the world. Hasta la vista, Canon slapper.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 16, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> I believe Sony A9 will come first and might just have everything it takes to hammer the final nail into Canon's mirrorslapper coffin...



Oh, you mean the Sony that had a railroad spike driven into their coffin last year when they lost the #1 spot to Olympus in Japan, one of the biggest MILC markets? Meanwhile Canon gained MILC market share and edged above Panasonic for #3. 










AvTvM said:


> ... at least as far as I am concerned ...



Oh, well then...no one else but you cares. And those 'couple million photographers around the world' are mostly figments of your overactive, mirrorslap-addled imagination.


----------



## ahsanford (May 16, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> I don't believe a fully competitive Canon EOS-M body is anywhere close to launch. Not to mention an FF-sensor ILC system fully competitive with Sony A7/R/S II.
> 
> I believe Sony A9 will come first and might just have everything it takes to hammer the final nail into Canon's mirrorslapper coffin ... at least as far as I am concerned ... and another couple million photographers around the world. Hasta la vista, Canon slapper.



Yes, because _another FF mirrorless body_ is the *last* piece in Sony's puzzle. :

Sony needs another FF body like Canon needs another 18-55 EF-S kit lens. The notion that a great sensor -- no matter how great it is -- will see photographers walk away from the AF / responsiveness / ergonomics / controls / handling / lenses / flashes / accessories is simply insane.

Mirrorless will take over, I have no doubt. But it's going to be many years before that happens, and long before it does, Canon will toggle from resisting FF mirrorless to embracing it. 

- A


----------



## d (May 16, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> The notion that a great sensor -- no matter how great it is -- will see photographers walk away from the AF / responsiveness / ergonomics / controls / handling / lenses / flashes / accessories is simply insane.



+1


----------



## Larsskv (May 16, 2016)

d said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > The notion that a great sensor -- no matter how great it is -- will see photographers walk away from the AF / responsiveness / ergonomics / controls / handling / lenses / flashes / accessories is simply insane.
> ...



+2


----------



## AvTvM (May 16, 2016)

Well, who say Sony A9 is just about the sensor. Actually i expect only minor progress on that end ... not needed for Sony, since A7R II is already more than good enough to fend off the next 2 generations from Canon. 

What is needed an will hoefulle be delivered on is 
* AF-system matching or even besting any mirrorslapper (incl. 1D-X) in performance, frame coverage (90% ?) and accuracy - including tracking moving subjects. - albeit limited to maybe 7 fps ... which is fine with me 8) 
* a real 14+ Whrs battery for 500+ shots, not a toy - yes it will fit into handgrip of an A7 II sized camera 

Bigger issue is Sony glass. If they want people like me to switch, they need FF glass equivalent to Canon EF-M lenses: small, optically decent (not Otus stuff) and dirt-cheap.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 16, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> If they want people like me to switch...



Sad that you can't wrap your mirrorslapped brain around the fact that no one – not Canon, Sony, or even last-place-in-the-market Fuji – care what you or the infinitesimally small minority of 'people like you' do... 




AvTvM said:


> ...FF glass equivalent to Canon EF-M lenses: small, optically decent (not Otus stuff) and dirt-cheap.



Yes, dirt cheap FF lenses for expensive FF bodies, that's what they need. I'm worried that all your mirrorslapping is doing some serious damage, you might want to get an MRI and a neuropsych workup, just to check. :


----------



## Don Haines (May 16, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> d said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


+3


----------



## Mikehit (May 16, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> What is needed an will hoefulle be delivered on is
> * AF-system matching or even besting any mirrorslapper (incl. 1D-X) in performance, frame coverage (90% ?) and accuracy - including tracking moving subjects. - albeit limited to maybe 7 fps ... which is fine with me 8)



Yes, that is what is needed. Is there ANYTHING that would suggest they have cracked it? 



> * a real 14+ Whrs battery for 500+ shots, not a toy - yes it will fit into handgrip of an A7 II sized camera


Another 'yes that is what is needed'. But given part of the remit for Sony mirrorless is smaller body, that means smaller batteries and smaller batteries mean lower power reserves and shorter life especially considering the requirement to power EVF. So unless they overcome the next major obstacle in battery design (or the laws of physics) it just ain't gonna happen anytime soon. And even the 1-Dx sees the need for a battery specifically for the AF system.
So both of your commetns fall definitely into the 'whishlist' category

So that leads me to conclude that by the time both of those have happened, Canon has moved fullbore into the mirrorless market and driven the Sony to the margins. 

Add to that Sony's quite frankly appalling record on post-market follow up and support and any self-respecting professional (which feeds the kudos on which the mass market thrives) will not give them the profile they need.


----------



## ahsanford (May 16, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > ...FF glass equivalent to Canon EF-M lenses: small, optically decent (not Otus stuff) and dirt-cheap.
> ...



Yep. But I'll say it more nicely than Neuro will : 

Mirrorless --> smaller volumes out of the gate --> higher price for the same quality as FF SLR lenses. 

And do you really think that someone who just dropped $3K on an Battery Sucker 6000 because it has 72 megapickels and can push shadows 14 stops is _cool with a mirrorless-specific version of the 40mm f/2.8 STM for (say) $250?_ I think a7R II and a9 owners will slap f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms on that rig *all day* until Sony offers the same. Why buy a Ferrari for a 35 mph cruise down a country road?

And once you are using that big glass, the wheels come off the bus and the 'small and light' value proposition of FF mirrorless implodes: at that point, _you are trying to out-mirrorslapper a mirrorslapper_ and beat a pro SLR at its own game, and that. will. take. Sony. years. to do.

I want mirrorless to take off, I do, but to imply Sony is 1-2 pieces away from setting the world alight is nonsense. They are years of targeted investments and continuous improvement away from that.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 16, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> So that leads me to conclude that by the time both of those have happened, Canon has moved fullbore into the mirrorless market and driven the Sony to the margins.



+1. Spot on.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (May 16, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Add to that Sony's quite frankly appalling record on post-market follow up and support and any self-respecting professional (which feeds the kudos on which the mass market thrives) will not give them the profile they need.


Yes, their service model seems to be "bugger off and buy a new one".....


----------



## AvTvM (May 17, 2016)

we had the battery topic already, so just the most important facts:
* a FF MILC with overall size and handgrip like Sony A7 II could hold a "regular DSLR"-battery [e.g. Canon LP-E6N)
* these batteries store 12-14 Whrs of charge, which is at least 50% more than the toy batteries currently used in MILCs
* charge would be sufficient to power an FF MILC for 500+ shots for most user's real-life practical use

This applies for current gen, widely available batteries without anything "innovative" at all. And laws of physics do apply. But no such law states, that MILCs must only be outfitted with tiny, weak toy batteries, when there is room for a beefier power source.


----------



## Woody (May 17, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> we had the battery topic already, so just the most important facts:
> * a FF MILC with overall size and handgrip like Sony A7 II could hold a "regular DSLR"-battery [e.g. Canon LP-E6N)
> * these batteries store 12-14 Whrs of charge, which is at least 50% more than the toy batteries currently used in MILCs



It's more complex than that.

"For power, the Canon 80D uses an upgraded LP-E6N rechargeable lithium ion battery pack like the 7D Mark II...
According to CIPA ratings, the 80D should last a healthy 960 shots on a full charge with the optical viewfinder...
According to Canon's specs, the 80D should last around 1390 shots on a full charge when not using flash. With Live View shooting, as expected, battery life decreases noticeably, but the camera is still CIPA-rated for around 300 shots, up from 210."
- http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-80d/canon-80dA.HTM

Compare
- A6300 NP-FW50 battery (7.2V, 1020 mAh, 400 shots)
- E-M1/E-M5 BLN-1 battery (7.6V, 1220 mAh, 350 shots)
- X-T1 NP-W126 battery (7.4V, 1250 mAh, 350 shots)
- EOS-M3 LP-E17 battery (7.4V, 1040 mAh, 250 shots) 
- 80D LP-E6N battery (7.4V, 2000 mAh, 300 shots in LV)


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 17, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Well, who say Sony A9 is just about the sensor. Actually i expect only minor progress on that end ... not needed for Sony, since A7R II is already more than good enough to fend off the next 2 generations from Canon.



That's pretty cool that you're privy to the architecture of the next two generations of canon sensors. One would think only the engineering teams and upper management would have that information. ???


----------



## d (May 17, 2016)

dilbert said:


> The 5DIII battery is not as strong as the A7RII battery when operating in comparable modes (live view =~ LCD) yet the A7RII battery is smaller than the 5DIII battery. If Canon used the battery design from the A7RII for the 5DIII then the 5DIII would get ~1530 (340/200*900.) i.e. Nikon do not publish CIPA numbers for live view only but would appear to fall somewhere between Canon and Sony.



What does the 900 figure correspond to?


----------



## d (May 17, 2016)

dilbert said:


> d said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Isn't it 950 in your table of CIPA data?


----------



## Woody (May 17, 2016)

dilbert said:


> D750 (v/f only)1230D750 LV onlyunknown



I tried to look for battery usage per charge in live view mode for Nikon DSLRs, and I too found NOTHING.

Almost looks like Nikon is trying to shun the live view mode. ;D


----------



## ritholtz (May 17, 2016)

d said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > The notion that a great sensor -- no matter how great it is -- will see photographers walk away from the AF / responsiveness / ergonomics / controls / handling / lenses / flashes / accessories is simply insane.
> ...


I am pleasantly surprised with AF of 85mm 1.8 lens with 70d. It is like fish to water. Then I have latest sigma 30mm art lens. I am yet to understand which side it is (back/front) consistently focusing. May be that is why they have huge customer base.


----------



## Woody (May 17, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> Then I have latest sigma 30mm art lens. I am yet to understand which side it is (back/front) consistently focusing. May be that is why they have huge customer base.



I own the Sigma 30 f/1.4 DC Art lens.

I too am hoping Canon will release an equivalent EF-S 30 mm f/1.4 lens.


----------



## ritholtz (May 17, 2016)

Woody said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > Then I have latest sigma 30mm art lens. I am yet to understand which side it is (back/front) consistently focusing. May be that is why they have huge customer base.
> ...


How is AF on your Sigma 30mm f1.4 art lens? I got used copy. I did some crude focus tests. It is just front focussing even with +20 MFA. Tried reaching seller. No response.
Looks like Canon is focusing on making crop EF-M lens. Not sure if they are going to make any EF-S lens. I am hoping for cheaper STM versions for 17-55 and 15-80? Sigma is dumping 17-50mm lens for less than $300.


----------



## Woody (May 17, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> How is AF on your Sigma 30mm f1.4 art lens? I got used copy. I did some crude focus tests. It is just front focussing even with +20 MFA. Tried reaching seller. No response.
> Looks like Canon is focusing on making crop EF-M lens. Not sure if they are going to make any EF-S lens. I am hoping for cheaper STM versions for 17-55 and 15-80? Sigma is dumping 17-50mm lens for less than $300.



My copy requires +10 MFA on the camera. So far, it's OK. But needs more testing.

If your Art copy needs more than +20 MFA, you can either use the Sigma USB Dock to apply the necessary change or get the Sigma service centre to service the lens.

I am using the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC lens. AF is OK but noisy. Optically, it's as good as Canon 17-55 f/2.8 but the non-VC Tamron lens is much lighter.


----------



## AvTvM (May 17, 2016)

@woody: yes, current cameras are typically not very energy efficient. i am convinced, a well-designed, new Mirrorless camera (milc) not larger/heavier than a Sony A7 series II could hold a current technology battery and get 500+ shots in a regular usage scenario, and also 500+ CIPA shots.
better firmware/software could already do the trick, with existing battery packs. no new battery technology or "bending laws of physics" needed.

with "modestly innovative technology" and next gen battery packs, 1000+ shots on a charge should be no major technical obstacle. camera makers dont even have to invent anything themselves, they could license/buy it from smartphone and drone companies and their suppliers.


----------



## Mikehit (May 17, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Here's some data.
> 
> 
> CameraCIPA shot count5DIII (v/f only)9505DIII LV only2005DS LV only200D750 (v/f only)1230D750 LV onlyunknownA7RII (LCD)340A7RII (EVF)290
> ...



You can't conclude anything of the sort. You are assuming that the LVF in Canon and the LCD in Sony have the same power requirements so is it the battery not as strong or the LV taking more juice? You even acknowledge thi in your comment in the same post.
And given that people using the 5DIII will use the OF most of the time (much the same way a a&R user will use the EVF most of the time, comparing LCD/LV usage is at best grossly misleading.


----------



## Mikehit (May 17, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> @woody: yes, current cameras are typically not very energy efficient. i am convinced, a well-designed, new Mirrorless camera (milc) not larger/heavier than a Sony A7 series II could hold a current technology battery and get 500+ shots in a regular usage scenario, and also 500+ CIPA shots.
> better firmware/software could already do the trick, with existing battery packs. no new battery technology or "bending laws of physics" needed.



Which begs the question 'why don't they do it already' given that Sony are touted as the leaders in MILC, breaking new ground etc?


----------



## Woody (May 17, 2016)

Just out of curiosity, added more cameras to the list below:

- A6300 NP-FW50 battery (7.2V, 1020 mAh, 400 shots with LCD)
- A7R Mark II NP-FW50 battery (7.2V, 1020 mAh, 340 shots with LCD)
- A7S Mark II NP-FW50 battery (7.2V, 1020 mAh, 370 shots with LCD)

- E-M1 BLN-1 battery (7.6V, 1220 mAh, 350 shots)
- E-M5 Mark II BLN-1 battery (7.6V, 1220 mAh, 310 shots)

- X-T1 NP-W126 battery (7.4V, 1250 mAh, 350 shots)
- EOS-M3 LP-E17 battery (7.4V, 1040 mAh, 250 shots) 
- 80D LP-E6N battery (7.4V, 2000 mAh, 300 shots in LV)


----------



## Woody (May 17, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Which begs the question 'why don't they do it already' given that Sony are touted as the leaders in MILC, breaking new ground etc?



;D

Based on the data collected so far, I suppose Sony is already up there. But trying to achieve DSLR capability of > 700 shots per battery charge is proving to be more difficult than thought.


----------



## Mikehit (May 17, 2016)

Woody said:


> ;D
> 
> Based on the data collected so far, I suppose Sony is already up there. But trying to achieve DSLR capability of > 700 shots per battery charge is proving to be more difficult than thought.



And that is the main issue.
Of course, Sony not being battery manufacturers, if they do get battery technology and camera architecture right to give 700 shots per charge, it will be an open secret such that CaNikon will be using the same methods and getting 1,200 per charge. Or staying at 700 per charge and making an even better more powerful AF, or combined OF/EVF, or some other such gimmicks to leave Sony behind again. 
Nowadays I really can't see one manufacturer making significant advances that gives a real advantage for more than a generation.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 17, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> @woody: yes, current cameras are typically not very energy efficient. *i am convinced*, a well-designed, new Mirrorless camera (milc) not larger/heavier than a Sony A7 series II could hold a current technology battery and get 500+ shots in a regular usage scenario, and also 500+ CIPA shots.
> better firmware/software could already do the trick, with existing battery packs. no new battery technology or "bending laws of physics" needed.



You're also *convinced* that MILCs mean imminent doom for dSLRs, that the very next Sony FF MILC will be the death of Canon's dSLRs, and so many other ridiculous fantasies that you being convinced of something makes it _less_ likely to be true.


----------



## Don Haines (May 17, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> @woody: yes, current cameras are typically not very energy efficient. i am convinced, a well-designed, new Mirrorless camera (milc) not larger/heavier than a Sony A7 series II could hold a current technology battery and get 500+ shots in a regular usage scenario, and also 500+ CIPA shots.
> better firmware/software could already do the trick, with existing battery packs. no new battery technology or "bending laws of physics" needed.
> 
> with "modestly innovative technology" and next gen battery packs, 1000+ shots on a charge should be no major technical obstacle. camera makers dont even have to invent anything themselves, they could license/buy it from smartphone and drone companies and their suppliers.


One of the design constraints of modern cameras is heat, particularly when running video.... As a result, it is a sure bet that all camera makers are trying to be as energy efficient as possible in order to minimize the problem, and that means improved battery technology (or bigger physical size) are going to be the only realistic way of significantly increasing the number of shots.


----------



## quod (May 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> *
> "You can underexpose your images to protect your highlights as much as you'd like. Leave your graduated ND filters at home or, better yet, sell them while they're still worth something." *
> 
> Really?


I have an A7RII. After 10K+ photos, I have overexposed once. Yes, really.


----------



## Mikehit (May 17, 2016)

dilbert said:


> And that's the entire point. When operating in a comparative way (using the LCD on the back of the camera), the Sony A7RII does better than the Canon. Whether it is better battery or just a better system overall you might argue is up for grabs.



So you drew a conclusion that you admit is irrelevant. Odd. 




> What you should be pointing out is that the Sony A7RII battery is only rated to 1020mAh - about 55% of the Canon battery.


I wasn't aware I should be pointing out anything. I was countering a claim you made about battery capacities




> Maybe the difference is simply this: the Sony A7RII makes more efficient use of the battery than does the Canon 5D Mark III.


Maybe. 'Efficiency' is not comparison you can make until you know what the camera is using the battery power for and it is not just recording pictures. 

The only conclusion you can reliably draw is that Sony has a system that if your preferred method is using the LV/LCD may be preferable to Canon, but if you prefer using OF/EVF the Canon has advantages.


----------



## d (May 17, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Maybe the difference is simply this: the Sony A7RII makes more efficient use of the battery than does the Canon 5D Mark III. Given that you might rightly claim it is unfair to compare the two.



I wonder what percentage of the energy used per shot on a 5DIII is spent on the movement of the mirror, as opposed to metering/focusing/shutter movement/processing? Or to put it another way, if the 5DIII was mirrorless, would the number of shots it could achieve in LV mode per battery charge increase significantly?

d.


----------



## J.R. (May 17, 2016)

d said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe the difference is simply this: the Sony A7RII makes more efficient use of the battery than does the Canon 5D Mark III. Given that you might rightly claim it is unfair to compare the two.
> ...



The mirror does not move while shooting in LV, it's locked-up in the process. AF takes up a lot of battery power and contrast detect AF, more so. Not sure what findings can we arrive at if we compare AF using a DSLR and a mirrorless with the same Canon lens. 

That being said, the 1DX Mark II has a way bigger battery and in LV shooting, it's rated to only 260 shots max. You wouldn't say that the LP-E19 is inferior to what Sony puts in the A7R II.

Now I'm no engineer but even I can infer that Canon would have thought this out in the architecture of the camera - DSLRs are not supposed to be used _exclusively _for LV shooting so I'd guess there would be structural issues which would take up more power when LV is engaged. For a compromise, to me, the number of shots is decent enough.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 17, 2016)

J.R. said:


> That being said, the 1DX Mark II has a way bigger battery and in LV shooting, it's rated to only 260 shots max. You wouldn't say that the LP-E19 is inferior to what Sony puts in the A7R II.



Would you say that what LP-E19 is superior to what Sony puts in the A7R2?

Either way, how do you know?


----------



## d (May 17, 2016)

J.R. said:


> d said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



The mirror has to be raised prior to locking - that takes power. Is it drawing power while locked-up as well? And even when shooting in LV, I don't leave the mirror permanently raised on LV on - only for composition and capture. So there's a regular up/down mirror cycle I'm going through. Would I get many more shots if there was no mirror?

d.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 17, 2016)

d said:


> Is it drawing power while locked-up as well?



Yes, I believe that the mirror is held up by the actuation motor (turn on lockup and turn off your camera - what happens?).


----------



## unfocused (May 17, 2016)

Wow! This thread really went off the rails.


----------



## ahsanford (May 17, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Wow! This thread really went off the rails.



Somehow a thread I started about DPR declaring a two year old camera being the finest thing on the planet, capable of rendering faces of people backlit by the sun, obsoleting all contrast management tools, etc. 

It then turned into a referendum on mirrorslapping, the imminent doom of Canon and a fine survey of battery life in the industry.
_
CR: pursuing a higher state of entropy since 2010_

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> CR: pursuing a higher state of enDRropy since 2010[/i]



Fixed that for ya.


----------



## Don Haines (May 17, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Wow! This thread really went off the rails.


and quite ironic that someone called Unfocused is the one to see this clearly


----------



## quod (May 17, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > CR: pursuing a higher state of enDRropy since 2010[/i]
> ...


I will fix it for you, Neuro, with facts. With the A7RII, you get 2 stops of highlight recovery above what the camera identifies as the clipping point. You can lift the shadows about 5+ stops or so with a minor increase in luminance noise, very little chroma noise, and little loss in detail. You should stop the snarky comments about the DR until you've shot with these cameras and worked with the files. The IQ is appreciably better than what I have gotten with my Canon cameras in the detail of the images and yes, the DR of the files. This is not to say that the files are perfect. For that, I think the Pentax K-1 is a more relevant camera, but that's an entirely different issue, albeit with an Exmor at its core.


----------



## 9VIII (May 17, 2016)

quod said:


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



And to state that you don't need or want images with that level of DR is equally valid. HDR photography is usually a separate category for a reason, it's a significant stylistic choice, and some people don't even like the way it looks. Part of my standard processing ever since I got into this hobby is to crush the shadows, and it still is, and still would be if I used Exmor.
Highlight protection sounds great, but it's still not a deal breaker.



Don Haines said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > d said:
> ...


+4


----------



## unfocused (May 17, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Wow! This thread really went off the rails.
> ...



I have my moments, but they are fleeting. Especially when someone shouts "squirrel."

On the other hand, after reading the last couple of posts, maybe the battery discussion was better!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 17, 2016)

quod said:


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



Thank you for so effectively supporting my point. Well done!


----------



## bwud (May 18, 2016)

quod said:


> With the A7RII, you get 2 stops of highlight recovery above what the camera identifies as the clipping point.



Don't most cameras, Canons and the A7R II included, identify clipping based on jpeg histograms? And isn't that where the recovery you're discussing comes from? Certainly if expose to the right in RAW, and then add two stops, I can not recover it, even with A7R II.



quod said:


> You can lift the shadows about 5+ stops or so with a minor increase in luminance noise, very little chroma noise, and little loss in detail.



Is there a tool to directly push by stops? I can't do it in cameraraw (as far as I know, exposure sliders operate on curves which are weighted to the specific file). Are there freeware RAW editors which do so?


----------



## J.R. (May 18, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > That being said, the 1DX Mark II has a way bigger battery and in LV shooting, it's rated to only 260 shots max. You wouldn't say that the LP-E19 is inferior to what Sony puts in the A7R II.
> ...



The LP-E19 is 10.8 V @ 2750 mAH while the NP-FW50 is 7.4 V @ 1020 mAH - you can make your own conclusions whether the LP-E19 is inferior or superior to the NP-FW50.

My point here is that even though a battery is bigger, has higher output and higher storage capacity, would it be wise to draw conclusions solely on the basis of what it can or cannot do in LV shooting?


----------



## J.R. (May 18, 2016)

dilbert said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Canon DSLRs are unlikely to have optimized battery performance keeping in mind the fact that they are not primarily designed for exclusive LV shooting. Unless we get a comparable FF mirrorless from Canon ... who knows.


----------



## AvTvM (May 18, 2016)

my point us: in a really small APS-C mirrorless camera sized like EOS M/M2/M10 ... small battery is ok, there is not more space. improvements to be achieved by better batteries and better energy management (hardware + firmware/software).

as soon as cam / handgrip reaches EOS M3 size or sony A6300 dimensions or even Sony A7 series II, i want to have the best "regular size" (currently canon LP-E6N) inside. there is space for it, maybe handgrip needs to be a tiny bit beefier. given the power needs, it is *stupid* to use little 7-8 Whr "toy" batteries, when we could have 12-14 Whrs.

*as stupid* as sony's decision not to put a touchscreen onto A6300 and canon for not offering an EOS model with built-in EVF or sony's failure to come up with APS-C E-mount lenses as small, good and dirtcheap as Canon's EF-M ...

and no, those corporations do not know better than I, what i want as my next camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 18, 2016)

J.R. said:


> Canon DSLRs are unlikely to have optimized battery performance keeping in mind the fact that they are not primarily designed for exclusive LV shooting. Unless we get a comparable FF mirrorless from Canon ... who knows.



Canon EOS M10 and SL1/100D use the same battery, the M10 gets 255 shots while the SL1 in LV gets 150.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 18, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> *stupid*
> 
> *as stupid*
> 
> and no, those corporations do not know better than I, what i want as my next camera.



No, but nor do those corporations give a damn what you want as your next camera, or care what you think in any way.


----------



## J.R. (May 18, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Canon DSLRs are unlikely to have optimized battery performance keeping in mind the fact that they are not primarily designed for exclusive LV shooting. Unless we get a comparable FF mirrorless from Canon ... who knows.
> ...



Thank you for this. It just emphasizes my point that unless we get a comparable FF mirrorless from Canon that uses a battery like the LP-E6, the criticism of the low shot count using LV in a Canon DSLR is pointless.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 18, 2016)

J.R. said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



My bad, I thought we were referring to the technology used, not merely the capacity and potential differences.


----------



## bwud (May 18, 2016)

dilbert said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > quod said:
> ...



Nothing isn't working, I'm just not sure how correlate the sliders to stops. I don't believe, for example, if I set the exposure slider to +4, that I'm getting a 2^4 increase in luminance across the board; the adjustment isn't linear. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

see: http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/59541/understanding-lightroom-acr-exposure-non-linearity

Let me rephrase my question. It was stated "[A7R II] can lift the shadows about 5+ stops or so with a minor increase in luminance noise, very little chroma noise, and little loss in detail."

How do I do that? What combination of exposure and shadows sliders nets me a 5 stop lift in the shadows? If I take a high contrast dark image and set the shadows slider and exposure sliders all the way to the right, I'll see a ton of noise (both varieties), not a minor increase or very little. I did just that while reading this thread last night, but wasn't sure how many stops I'd actually lifted by. Was it 5? 6? 8?


----------



## J.R. (May 18, 2016)

dilbert said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Of course, one can argue anything.


----------



## J.R. (May 18, 2016)

dilbert said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



What it also means is that a DSLR that has a LV option has different power requirements from a pure mirrorless camera. I'm no engineer but Canon surely has designed the cameras in a way to eek out the max performance from the battery. 

One can, of course argue that it is all a big a conspiracy and Canon has intentionally crippled cameras. Believe what you want but unless a direct comparison can be done between 2 mirrorless cameras, one can form any opinion that he feels is right.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 18, 2016)

dilbert said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



That wooshing sound – I know, you hear it a lot – was the sound of the point sailing over your head.


----------



## AvTvM (May 18, 2016)

M10 / SL-1 LV difference on same battery just proves that Canon mirrorslappers suck a lot of power, even when that mirror is not slapping ...  
Maybe the AF system and its incessant swings between "front-focused and back-focused"? 

In reality, difference between DSLR in LV and mirrorless cam battery charge is irrelevant. Just a smoke grenade thrown into the discussion. All i want is the smallest possible mirrorless camera with a good EVF built-in and the strongest battery stuck into it ... to give me 500+ shots on a charge *in real life* ... not interested in CIPA-numbers eithers.


----------



## pierlux (May 18, 2016)

Wow! The farther this thread moves away from the original D810 subject, the more entertaining it gets! ;D


----------



## Don Haines (May 18, 2016)

On battery technology....

Point 1) There is far better battery technology in labs than Canon, Nikon, or Sony is using in their cameras.....

Point 2) Until these new technologies can be produced reliably and cheaply, they will not be mass-marketed.... nobody is going to buy a $10,000 battery for their $1000 camera.....

Point 3) Once one of these newer and superior battery technologies reaches the point where they can be economically and reliably used in cameras, EVERYONE will start using them, so the relative battery life between brands will remain unchanged.

On comparing battery life between mirrorless and mirrored cameras.....

Point A) What are the power requirements between each for focusing camera lenses and how does it compare?

Point B) Same question, only for IS systems......

Point C) When using a mirrored camera in "live view", the mirror is energized and that is a major power drain...

Point D) The rear LCD panel on a mirrored camera and a mirrorless camera SHOULD consume the same amount of power.

Point E) Since mirrored cameras do not have an EVF, that is another power drain that mirrorless have that mirrored do not have, although this is partly mitigated by the info display on viewfinders and shoulder displays on the mirrored cameras.

Point F) A comparison where one is using an EVF and the other is using an LCD panel display plus holding a mirror up is not an even comparison.

Point G) In general, mirrorless cameras have more battery life than their mirrored cousins when working in live view mode.

Point H) In general, mirrored cameras have more battery life than their mirrorless cousins when the mirrored camera is NOT in live view mode.

Point I) The advantage seen in point G is roughly proportional to the larger size of battery found in the mirrored cameras.

In general, the level of technology in mirrored and mirrorless camera is about the same..... the big difference is the mechanical mirror. It seems that it takes a lot of energy to hold that mirror open. Let's say Canon took the 7D2, added in an EVF, and took out the mirror..... Since it appears that mirrorrs take a lot more energy to hold open than it takes to run an EVF, it would be a safe assumption that a mirrorless 7D2 would get a lot better battery life than a mirrored 7D2 in Live-view....

How would it compare to a Sony mirrorless for images per watt of battery power? Probably worse as it has a lot more computing power.... but a mirrorless rebel would probably be about the same. Ultimately, nobody knows as there are far to many variables that none of us know about to make any kind of prediction, but regardless if the number is 300 or if it is 3000, most of us will carry around a spare battery (or more) so in the end, does it really matter?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 18, 2016)

Don, you sound pretty amped up about this very current issue. Thanks for the powerful summary!


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 18, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don, you sound pretty amped up about this very current issue. Thanks for the powerful summary!



We all get a charge out of it. I can't resist these threads, they have too much potential.



Don Haines said:


> In general, the level of technology in mirrored and mirrorless camera is about the same..... the big difference is the mechanical shutter. It seems that it takes a lot of energy to hold that shutter open.



You mean the big difference is the mirror, and that it takes energy to hold the mirror up. It takes no energy to hold a shutter open or closed, only to move it.

I wonder how a fully electronic shutter compares to a mechanical shutter (not that either is necessary exclusive to either variety of camera).


In any case, in the grand scheme of things (i.e. power requirements of mirrorless vs mirrored cameras), the big difference from a power perspective is indeed due to the mirror, but not because of the power required to hold it up. Rather, the differentiator is power *not *required while it is *down*. CIPA data is all well and good, but they only tell you how many exposures you can rattle off if you don't care about composing between shots. With a mirrorless camera, the display *must* be on while composing.


----------



## d (May 18, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Don, you sound pretty amped up about this very current issue. Thanks for the powerful summary!
> ...



Wattever you think of Canon, I'm sure they're working hard to ion out any excess power consumption...

(Sorry!)


----------



## AvTvM (May 18, 2016)

Don: yes it does matter. With 500+ on a single charge, I get by for a typical day of mountaineering or city travel or a planned shooting. I may stilll carry along one (1) spare battery. But that's it. 250 shots is ... pathetic. 

Looking forward to my preferred camera species: 100% solid state. No mirror slapping. No shutter cocking. No aperture iris twitching. No separate Phase AF. No video capture. Even less so "4k". But very very energy efficient stills shooting machine. For me. And 1 or 2 ... or 1 million or 20 million other buyers. 8)


----------



## Don Haines (May 18, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > In general, the level of technology in mirrored and mirrorless camera is about the same..... the big difference is the mechanical shutter. It seems that it takes a lot of energy to hold that shutter open.
> ...


You are right! I meant to say mirror..... I went back and edited my post..... thanks for pointing it out...


----------



## Don Haines (May 18, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Don: yes it does matter. With 500+ on a single charge, I get by for a typical day of mountaineering or city travel or a planned shooting. I may stilll carry along one (1) spare battery. But that's it. 250 shots is ... pathetic.
> 
> Looking forward to my preferred camera species: 100% solid state. No mirror slapping. No shutter cocking. No aperture iris twitching. No separate Phase AF. No video capture. Even less so "4k". But very very energy efficient stills shooting machine. For me. And 1 or 2 ... or 1 million or 20 million other buyers. 8)


I agree that 250 shots is pathetic..... at that rate I would be carrying about a dozen spare batteries for a one week canoe trip 

My ideal next camera from canon would be a FF mirrorless camera, about the same physical size and toughness of build as the 7D2...... By getting rid of the mechanical mirror and using an EVF instead of the rear display panel I would expect considerably better battery life than the 5D3 or 7D2 when in liveview... probably is the 500 shot range or better...

I would like to see video at 60fps.... not so much as for the sake of video, but if you can read the sensor 60 times per second and you have a decent sized buffer, all of a sudden you are not talking about 7, 8,or 10FPS burst modes but 60.....(obviously they would allow you to select intermediate speeds as well)

Ergonomically, there is a lot to be said for the 5D3 sized camera body, for the way it fits the hands, and the physical space to lay out controls. I think that the futures of interchangeable lens cameras is mirrorless with a "real camera" form factor. Cameras like the Sonys, though technically excellent, loose a lot with that tiny body and once paired with a decent lens just don't feel right to use (at least to me).... In my opinion, Canon has the best ergonomics out there and I doubt they will throw it away in an effort to shrink mirrorless cameras... I think they will stay large.


----------



## pierlux (May 18, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Looking forward to my preferred camera species: 100% solid state. No mirror slapping. No shutter cocking. No aperture iris twitching. No separate Phase AF. No video capture. Even less so "4k". But very very energy efficient stills shooting machine. For me. And 1 or 2 ... or 1 million or 20 million other buyers. 8)



... and DPReview still hasn't reviewed the camera obscura since the 4th century B.C.!!!


----------



## Don Haines (May 18, 2016)

pierlux said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Looking forward to my preferred camera species: 100% solid state. No mirror slapping. No shutter cocking. No aperture iris twitching. No separate Phase AF. No video capture. Even less so "4k". But very very energy efficient stills shooting machine. For me. And 1 or 2 ... or 1 million or 20 million other buyers. 8)
> ...


It's probably a bit too obscure for them to have noticed it....


----------



## pierlux (May 19, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Looking forward to my preferred camera species: 100% solid state. No mirror slapping. No shutter cocking. *No aperture iris twitching*. No separate Phase AF. No video capture. Even less so "4k". But very very energy efficient stills shooting machine. For me. And 1 or 2 ... or 1 million or 20 million other buyers. 8)



I'm not familiar with mirrorless, but... I suppose a twitching iris should be there in any case, shouldn't it?

Whatever, count me in those 2... or 20 million buyers. 3 years ago I was about to get the Fujifilm X-100s, but used that money to finance the purchase of the TS-E 24mm instead, because I thought Canon would have released a FF mirrorless shortly after, damn rumors! Anyway, I have no regrets, though today I think I'd rather have bought the 17mm. One day I'll have both the 24 and the 17... one day... after the supertele... after the 5D4/6D2... one day :-\. That day will probably come before a Canon FF mirrorless.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 19, 2016)

pierlux said:


> I'm not familiar with mirrorless, but... I suppose a twitching iris should be there in any case, shouldn't it?



As I recall, he wants something akin to a liquid crystal which electronically blacks out part of the iris rather than mechanical blades


----------



## pierlux (May 19, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> pierlux said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not familiar with mirrorless, but... I suppose a twitching iris should be there in any case, shouldn't it?
> ...



Ah, ok. But such a thing would greatly deteriorate IQ, unless alien technology is employed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 19, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> pierlux said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Not at all, they reviewed it a couple of years ago. They concluded that the camera obscura's AF and shadow lifting latitude were somewhat better that most if not all Canon cameras, but fell substantially behind the class-leading Nikon dSLRs.


----------



## Mikehit (May 19, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not at all, they reviewed it a couple of years ago. They concluded that the camera obscura's AF and shadow lifting latitude were somewhat better that most if not all Canon cameras, but fell substantially behind the class-leading Nikon dSLRs.



I wonder what their proposed upgrades would be?


----------



## AvTvM (May 19, 2016)

pierlux said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > pierlux said:
> ...



Hopefully no. It will still take some time until we get it in our cameras, but the technology is there already. There will be a light loss due to the material not being 100% transparent in the "open" state, but hopefully we will eventually get it with very high transparency, no color cast and no distortions - optically as neutral as good glass today.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 19, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Hopefully no. It will still take some time until we get it in our cameras, but the technology is there already. There will be a light loss due to the material not being 100% transparent in the "open" state, but hopefully we will eventually get it with very high transparency, no color cast and no distortions - optically as neutral as good glass today.



I have to ask the question, though. If you want all solid state, no moving parts, are you going to be happy with fixed focal length lenses which don't focus? Or are you hoping for light field perhaps, or liquid lenses? Something else?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 19, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Hopefully no. It will still take some time until we get it in our cameras, but the technology is there already. There will be a light loss due to the material not being 100% transparent in the "open" state, but hopefully we will eventually get it with very high transparency, no color cast and no distortions - optically as neutral as good glass today.
> ...



So, you think AvTvM actually wants to _take pictures_ with this imaginary fantasy-camera he's dreamed up?!?


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 19, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> So, you think AvTvM actually wants to _take pictures_ with this imaginary fantasy-camera he's dreamed up?!?



No fewer than 500 per charge!


----------



## Don Haines (May 19, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> pierlux said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...


I also remember being told that digital cameras will never be as good as film...... and that nobody is going to use their phone to take pictures.....


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 19, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > pierlux said:
> ...



http://www.smarttint.com/

I imagine that with a little work, something like that could be made optics-level quality, or at least be close enough that signal amplification can overcome whatever loss the glass induces. Color cast is easily treated with calibrated workflow.

If it could be made truly opaque (which would actually be a larger concern to me than its transparency), perhaps diffraction would become a non-issue (since there wouldn't be a physical opening the light is passing through, but rather a transparent portion of an otherwise opaque lens).


----------



## AvTvM (May 20, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > So, you think AvTvM actually wants to _take pictures_ with this imaginary fantasy-camera he's dreamed up?!?
> ...



yep, exactly! ;D 8)


----------



## AvTvM (May 20, 2016)

re. solid state electronic aperture, no moving parts whatsoever, transparent and opaque, variable size circle, perfectly round. Cannot tell whether transition is soft or hard [edge] ... so diffraction may still apply. But certainly no "light stars" around point light sources. 

Posted it already some time ago: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=28439.msg562253#msg562253

------
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6924547&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6924547

------
"This work proposes an innovative solid-state variable micro aperture with no moving component. The aperture size can be varied by the change of applied voltage. PDLC (polymer dispersed liquid crystal) plays an important role in tunability of this device. By combing a micro dome structure and the PDLC, the tum-on threshold voltage at a farther radial position to the aperture center can be made higher than that at a closer position. This way, the aperture can open gradually as increasing the voltage."


----------



## bwud (May 20, 2016)

Cool stuff. What about focusing a lens with no moving parts? Just rely on plenoptics and interpolate in post?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 20, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> But certainly no "light stars" around point light sources.



Yeah, nobody wants those. :




bwud said:


> What about focusing a lens with no moving parts? Just rely on plenoptics and interpolate in post?



Well, you know...AvTvM and reality have a long history of not seeing eye to eye.


----------



## Don Haines (May 21, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...


I also don't think that the problem to be overcome is how much light it lets through...... after all, our camera sensors only convert 70% or so of the photons to electrons so next to that 30% of signal lost, one or two percent lost here is peanuts.....

The question is how much light can it block?


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 21, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> > If it could be made truly opaque (which would actually be a larger concern to me than its transparency), perhaps diffraction would become a non-issue (since there wouldn't be a physical opening the light is passing through, but rather a transparent portion of an otherwise opaque lens).
> 
> 
> I don't think that the problem to be overcome is how much light it lets through...... after all, our camera sensors only convert 70% or so of the photons to electrons so next to that 30% of signal lost, one or two percent lost here is peanuts.....
> ...



Then we agree


----------



## AvTvM (May 21, 2016)

bwud said:


> Cool stuff. What about focusing a lens with no moving parts? Just rely on plenoptics and interpolate in post?



in 10 years: yes, plenoptics/light field. 

Until then ... well, I prefer linear/steppers motors over those old helicoids. Actually I want "AF-only" lenses without focus rings on them. Hardly ever used manual focus since i got my first AF camera back in 1987. 

Zooming I would not mind either by wire ... with control on camera body, no ring on lens ... but only if implemented "really right". Has not been done properly on any camera so far.


----------



## AvTvM (May 21, 2016)

completely blocking light should be easier than transmitting (almost) all of it.


----------



## Don Haines (May 21, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > > If it could be made truly opaque (which would actually be a larger concern to me than its transparency), perhaps diffraction would become a non-issue (since there wouldn't be a physical opening the light is passing through, but rather a transparent portion of an otherwise opaque lens).
> ...


Sorry, I typed my response on a phone and didn't realize that I missed a word.... I edited my post...

Yes, I ALSO ...........

Complete agreement with you.....

A saw a demo of electronic light blocking for windows.... It seemed quite transparent in the pass mode but the block mode was certainly not 100 percent. But then again, the technology is in it's infancy and the purpose was to dim the lighting in the room. Who knows what could be done if properly designed towards a goal of 100 percent blockage.....


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 21, 2016)

I don't think I'd want a plenoptic camera as my main rig; I'd prefer all the sensor contribute to the entirety of the image, rather than breaking up a single sensor into a fine grid (like the lytro implementation) or having multiple small sensors (like the Light implementation, although it having them brings about unique exposure options). 




Don Haines said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Yah, using them for optics would involve different priorities for sure.

It doesn't seem entirely unlikely we'll see electronically darkened glass in lenses. At the very least you could have significantly rounder apertures, or even custom shapes for those who like that kind of thing.


----------



## AvTvM (May 21, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> ...
> It doesn't seem entirely unlikely we'll see electronically darkened glass in lenses. At the very least you could have significantly rounder apertures, or even custom shapes for those who like that kind of thing.



OMG! I sense Canon's first implementation might be a pink, totally dumbed-down EOS M with a selection of heart * star * diamond * cat * dog ... shaped aperture .. "the future of photography"!  ;D


----------



## dcm (May 21, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



A part of my R&D job is screening customer suggestions sent to our company. We did receive a serious request for custom shaped/colored monitors (many more than your list) that they were sure would open up new markets for our products. Black rectangle frames are just too boring.


----------



## AvTvM (May 21, 2016)

dcm said:


> A part of my R&D job is screening customer suggestions sent to our company. We did receive a serious request for custom shaped/colored monitors (many more than your list) that they were sure would open up new markets for our products. Black rectangle frames are just too boring.


lol. 
That would be a job for me ... I'd have great fun! ;D


----------



## K (May 30, 2016)

OK,

When shooting ISO 64 or 100 - for landscapes or high contrast scenes, the D810 is the king of all DSLR. I give it to them. The DR is truly massive and impressive. Shadow lifting is exceptionally super clean compared to the competition.

However, the tones suck and are flat. For such scenes, when possible (which is most of the time), I achieve much superior results using HDR. Nothing beats feeding the sensor the light it needs to give those great tones, colors and sharpness. The premise here is that I reject the notion of even having to do all this shadow lifting.

The 5DS with its higher resolution, sharper Canon glass, better color and HDR technique produce superior results. The D810 is the winner for capturing high contrast scenes with moving subjects where HDR is not possible. There, shadow and highlight recovery makes for a better image, even if those areas are flatter than one would hope for. It's a forced compromise. For static shots, that flatness just isn't optimal. There's greater image potential and the high DR shadow lifts and highlight recovery of the D810 doesn't cut it. It's ok for common folk who don't know the difference, but for those who scrutinize image quality - not appealing.

DPReview goes a little too far with the whole Nikon under exposure metering. To say that to go ahead and underexpose everything to preserve highlights, and lift all the darkness in post. That the metering system enables this kind of practice. 


Uhhgg...


First of all, this might be fine for some tech geek who shoots a handful of shots here and there. But that to me is not professional in the slightest. Having to exposure correct hundreds of photos (perhaps thousands if a wedding) in post is NOT my idea of good process. That is a serious time killer, and time is money. It would have some merit IF the results were great and could lead to a return. But they don't. It is more efficient and the results are superior to have quality lighting. I've seen these bozo wedding "pros" show up at events with their Nikons, fast primes ready to do their "natural light photography" ...every time, at least to my eyes and tastes, the results look like vomit. The best work I've seen is done by those with quality portable lighting systems. It is so cliche. It's the same formula, Nikon + fast primes and no lighting - ready for "natural light" photojournalistic wedding style. AKA, crapola. My advice to couples is to not hire Nikon shooters who don't bring lighting gear and carry lots of primes.


Going +2 to +3 on most photos? Terrible practice and workflow. I spend enough time, with an already better color reproducing Canon system, doing advanced, yet subtle, color corrections in post - that to add in all these crazy exposure adjustments, shadow boosts and other nonsense. Because to help make these flat shadow and highlight areas come back to life a little bit more, requires even more work in post to enhance the color, saturation and contrast in the most realistic way possible and to do so selectively in those regions. Too much work, too much time. All in an futile effort.

Like I said, no problem for the hobbyist. He has all week or more to sit down in post to tweak a few images. Those trying to make money at this are not having that. Just not possible.

To make a great photo, regardless of sensor - you must have a good exposure. No getting around that. Sure, the newer technologies do offer up more latitude. But that doesn't mean you have to use ALL of it. Just because it can bring 5 stops into the correct exposure doesn't mean you have to. What it means to me is, if it can cleanly move over 3-5 stops, then a reasonable adjustment of 0.5 to 1 stop will be that much better than previous generation sensors. Does that make sense? They're so good now, that you don't pay any noticeable penalty for a reasonable exposure correction or shadow/highlight recovery. 3-5 stops has a penalty, even at ISO 64 with the almighty Exmor with nearly 14 stops of DR. The strength of that sensor is you can do small adjustments with zero detectable penalty. Key word, small. Not work the sliders to create bizarre looking images with flat areas void of quality tonality.

All of the DR advantage is gone by ISO 800. ISO 800 these days is NOT a high ISO by far. For events, there's no DR advantage, but you do take a noise penalty vs. other cameras. This to me, means the D810 is not the all-around camera some claim it to be. Also, at least for me, low-light AF accuracy and speed is critical. I've shot in low light situations where I had to put down the 5D3 and go to the 6D to lock focus faster. D810 not cutting it at all in this area. Making it useless for entire segments of semi-pro DSLR users. There's also the gigantic file sizes. 


It doesn't make sense to me...the D810 is a great landscape machine, but when you're doing landscape - you're already committed to a lot of post processing, why bother with all the exposure tweaking and just move to HDR and get better results? At which point, I'd rather have Canon color and tones, and the better Canon glass selection. I've created noise-free images using HDR techniques that have amazing IQ. There's no Exmor, high DR shadow lift in the universe that can yield better results.

For events, it is not a good camera. Especially with the lack of custom modes. Canon's C1,2,3 modes are almost priceless. Being able to make a 1 click adjustment and have the entire camera state, all settings change is extremely useful. Especially for events. Nothing is faster for transitioning the camera to take optimal pictures for changes in scenario, whether it be outdoor vs. indoor, or stills vs action. Good luck fiddling with all the dials on the Nikon to pull off the best results in diverse event. Not happening. Instead, you'll end up with some marginal shots that will need a lot of POST processing.

Hence, the "go to black and white" crutch. AKA, the shot is needed, but was botched - so make it B&W. Client might consider it artistic license and style. Problem solved LOL.


Nikon glass also has some heinous lateral fringing of the purple kind. Not all their glass but a lot of key glass does. The kind of key glass one uses for headshots or portraits where enlarged prints could be scrutinized. The 85mm comes to mind. Sure, there are corrections for this. But why have to? Corrections come at an IQ penalty. Canon isn't perfect, but they ensure that the needs of real pros are met. Pros often value things quite differently than tech-geeks. 

I'm not a pro, but I've shot some events and worked with many pros. Some who are great, others who are charlatans. 

More DR is always welcome, but there's just too many pros on the Canon side that outweigh it. The D810 is a good camera. It's just not an all around camera, nor is it a serious pro camera. It's a great hobbyist camera.


----------



## K (May 30, 2016)

And what's up with Nikon's pricing. These guys never give the kind of rebates and sales that Canon does. This camera is 2 years old, and still priced at $2,800? No wonder Nikon sales are down. That's a lot of money for what the D810 is.

If this camera was priced at $2K even or maybe $2,200, it would be a good value. Nearly $3k given it's shortcomings...uh no.

The D750 is a far better camera in many regards. It too isn't perfect, but very capable and priced right.


----------



## ahsanford (May 30, 2016)

K said:


> And what's up with Nikon's pricing. These guys never give the kind of rebates and sales that Canon does. This camera is 2 years old, and still priced at $2,800? No wonder Nikon sales are down. That's a lot of money for what the D810 is.
> 
> If this camera was priced at $2K even or maybe $2,200, it would be a good value. Nearly $3k given it's shortcomings...uh no.
> 
> The D750 is a far better camera in many regards. It too isn't perfect, but very capable and priced right.



In 2014, Nikon released quite possibly the finest sensor ever offered in an SLR. It had high resolution, did very well in low light, and had the dynamic range and ISO <100 the landscape crowd craved.

The D810 _camera_ (on aggregate) was far from perfect, but the sensor was effectively unassailable. Canon could offer something with higher resolution, but they couldn't get the high ISO noise levels in the same neighborhood. Canon could offer a better low light sensor, but not at that 36 MP resolution. That D810 sensor was simply a marvel.

Guess what? _It still is._ Other than the A7R II, which makes the D810's issues seems tiny in comparison, the sensor hasn't been outdone yet, some two years after deployment. *That* is why the price has remained so high.

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 30, 2016)

K said:


> My advice to couples is to not hire Nikon shooters who don't bring lighting gear and carry lots of primes.



You really advise couples about which wedding photographer to hire based on brand?


----------



## Mikehit (May 30, 2016)

K said:


> OK,
> 
> When shooting ISO 64 or 100 - for landscapes or high contrast scenes, the D810 is the king of all DSLR. I give it to them. The DR is truly massive and impressive. Shadow lifting is exceptionally super clean compared to the competition.
> 
> However, the tones suck and are flat. For such scenes, when possible (which is most of the time), I achieve much superior results using HDR.



Is that the camera or the equipment?

Camera sensors may be getting ever wider DR but computer screens and printer paper have not moved much from what I can tell . if the images are flat is that the camera or the user who has not processed the images to best effect? My guess is the latter.
Have you actually used Nikon D810? Your post reads like you haven't and are gong by other peoples' output. 



> Nikon + fast primes and no lighting - ready for "natural light" photojournalistic wedding style. AKA, crapola.


To be honest, that sounds like 'crapola' to me. You can screw up the output from a high-DR camera just like you can screw up HDR (and I have seen some atrocious HDR). 




> the D810 is a great landscape machine, _but when you're doing landscape - you're already committed to a lot of post processing_,


That sounds like bull. Are you saying you would shoot weddings/events with little to no post-processing? 




> nor is it a serious pro camera. It's a great hobbyist camera.


Hmmm.


----------



## K (May 30, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> K said:
> 
> 
> > My advice to couples is to not hire Nikon shooters who don't bring lighting gear and carry lots of primes.
> ...



If that's how you want to misread it, then sure.


I advise friends and couples to be married to avoid the "natural light" wedding photographers. Of which, are comprised by about 99% Nikon shooters in my experience. Entry level "pros" ..the types that like to use the term photojournalistic too much, and who deliver too many B&W photos to clients because of the bad color and tone of botched exposures...I have yet to come across a natural light Canon equipped wedding photographer. It isn't the lack of primes, after all, Canon has the 1.2's ...and a very nice 35mm 1.4 II. Maybe it is the lack of an Exmor? Or better yet, they tend to not be the lowest budget entrepreneurs avoiding having to buy lighting or, worse *gasp* ...LEARN to use lighting. I don't see any novices running Canon with a nifty fifty and no lighting trying to shoot weddings. Can't say the same about Nikon...


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 30, 2016)

K said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > K said:
> ...



that's not how I want to read it, it's how you wrote it. Strike the word Nikon and you have a less strange piece of advise.

I guess it is all well and good to suggest people not hire a photographer who doesn't come equipped, but to me the only piece of advise worthwhile is to look at the totality of a photographer's work and see whether you like their style. How they achieve it is immaterial.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> K said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



I don't think I'll ever hire a wedding photographer who shoots Nikon. Or Canon. Missed the chance for my own wedding, back then a digital SLR was Kodak sticking sensors in Nikon film SLRs, and our wedding was shot on a pair of Mamiya 645s. 

By the time my kids get married, Nikon and Canon will have long gone bankrupt and only Sony MILCs will exist...at least according to some on CR. :


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 30, 2016)

Haha, YAPODFC&N


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...
> By the time my kids get married, Nikon and Canon will have long gone bankrupt ...



unless they have moved to making hi-rez hi-ISO surveillance cameras which will be so ubiquitous, that you don't need to hire any image makers any longer to get a wedding fully covered on stills and moving images from every possible angle.  ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 1, 2016)

AvTvM said:


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



Might be true now, only us civilians can't access the footage.


----------



## jrista (Jun 1, 2016)

K said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > K said:
> ...



This is the biggest load of crap I've ever read. And talk about wild stereotyping here. If there was racism for photographers, this is it. Gearism. WOW. 

I know several Nikon wedding photographers who do mostly natural light, but are certainly not afraid to use a flash and bounce or even some setup lighting if necessary or if asked. Some people prefer natural lighting to artificial lighting, and I know a wedding photographer who still uses an old 5DC for both natural light and flash in her work.

Anyone who blames the use of black and white conversion on poor color quality of Nikon cameras hasn't used enough Nikon cameras. Their color quality is excellent, and certainly holds up far deeper into the shadows than any Canon camera I've ever used.

This is the kind of wacko illogical fanatical hyper brand-loyalist crap that keeps me off this site.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 1, 2016)

K said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > K said:
> ...



Hmm.

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/ambassadors/jeff_ascough/blogs/blog19.do


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


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



Sure we can, just gotta sneak a USB stick into the Secretary of State's house.


----------

