# D800 v. 5D3 threads: What should Canon's takeaway be?



## t.linn (May 1, 2012)

For those of us who remain a little envious of the D800's sensor (and I already know there are those who could care less), is it the superior _dynamic range _of the D800 sensor, the superior _resolution _of the D800 sensor, or both?

I ask because, for me, it is strictly the dynamic range that I covet. Being able to pull clean shadow detail out of total darkness is a big deal for me. As for the extra megapixels, I would rather have better low light sensitivity if I had to choose. It would be disappointing if Canon looked at the many D800 v. 5D3 discussions and concluded that any dissatisfaction on the part of Canon users is due to the disparity in resolution. That's not it. Not for me. But I wonder to what extent that is true for everyone else. Thoughts?


----------



## Tcapp (May 1, 2012)

t.linn said:


> For those of us who remain a little envious of the D800's sensor (and I already know there are those who could care less), is it the superior _dynamic range _of the D800 sensor, the superior _resolution _of the D800 sensor, or both?
> 
> I ask because, for me, it is strictly the dynamic range that I covet. Being able to pull clean shadow detail out of total darkness is a big deal for me. As for the extra megapixels, I would rather have better low light sensitivity if I had to choose. It would be disappointing if Canon looked at the many D800 v. 5D3 discussions and concluded that any dissatisfaction on the part of Canon users is due to the disparity in resolution. That's not it. Not for me. But I wonder to what extent that is true for everyone else. Thoughts?



I agree that greater dynamic range would be best. More DR has no downside, with more MP you have to deal with bigger files. I would love more DR at all iso's not just low. But yea, that d800 shadow recovery is AMAZING.


----------



## drjlo (May 1, 2012)

Canon will "take away" nothing, nada, zilch, UNLESS their sales numbers suffer on a significant scale, period.


----------



## jordanbstead (May 1, 2012)

DR should almost always take the cake. To be honest, IMO, 12 MP is perfect as far as resolution goes. The original 5D, D3, D3s... they all had it right. Hell, I shoot my Mk II on sRAW (10 MP) constantly. I've never once had a lust for more resolution and my images run in print every day.

Thank God the Mk III didn't up the resolution - at least for the work I do.


----------



## V8Beast (May 1, 2012)

drjlo said:


> Canon will "take away" nothing, nada, zilch, UNLESS their sales numbers suffer on a significant scale, period.



Exactly. Sales figures speak much louder than tech geeks complaining online. Most people threatening to switch systems won't do it. Those that do jump ship to Nikon for DR purposes will be offset of Nikon D700 users jumping ship to Canon since they were expecting a baby D4, but instead got a camera with triple the resolution and a slower burst rate. 

The D800 is a mighty fine camera, so if DR is such an important factor that it warrants switching systems, just do it and call it a day. That seems to make more sense than living in denial and/or complaining incessantly


----------



## takoman46 (May 1, 2012)

I definitely do not need the 36mp and agree that the dynamic range comparison between the D800 and Hasselblad H4D in shadow recovery was quite impressive. But I still wouldn't trade my 5D3 for a D800. The low light advantage and AF system is solid gold in value to me. If the 5D3 had the same or better dynamic range than the D800, then the D800 would be nothing more than a 36mp door stopper in my opinion.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 1, 2012)

t.linn said:


> For those of us who remain a little envious of the D800's sensor (and I already know there are those who could care less), is it the superior _dynamic range _of the D800 sensor, the superior _resolution _of the D800 sensor, or both?
> 
> I ask because, for me, it is strictly the dynamic range that I covet. Being able to pull clean shadow detail out of total darkness is a big deal for me. As for the extra megapixels, I would rather have better low light sensitivity if I had to choose. It would be disappointing if Canon looked at the many D800 v. 5D3 discussions and concluded that any dissatisfaction on the part of Canon users is due to the disparity in resolution. That's not it. Not for me. But I wonder to what extent that is true for everyone else. Thoughts?



both but more the dynamic range (especially since more MP would cripple the FF frame rate a bit and since Canon won't do, for whatever reason, APS-C and APS-H crops at higher speed, that would be a huge knock for a high MP Canon, although it shouldn't be since nothing stops them from making faster crop modes, of course maintaing it at FF is even nicer)

so both, definitely want more MP and more DR, but at this point I'm not willing to give up 6fps for more MP and I'll take the more MP as soon as they can be delivered at 6fps.

rather a shame the 5D3 didnt get to D4 levels of DR, that would've been some camera


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (May 1, 2012)

If we look back at the past couple of years, it is clear that overall Canon has improved on most of the top complaints about the 5D2. More FPS, better AF, better low light capability and better sealing. DR was also mentioned, but overall it was drowned by other issues. Perhaps it was taken for granted that they will improve it upon the 5D2 or it can be argued that the AF for instance should have been better to begin with but in the end it does seem that the most vocal requests were answered.


----------



## mb66energy (May 1, 2012)

For me: DR, DR and DR are the most important aspects of a camera.

I like to shoot contra light (macro, landscape) and I would like to have clean 16 bit DR to avoid HDR fiddeling.

If I look at 12 x 16 inch prints from 10MP images (40D) there is absolutely enough resulution just in 10MP. Light, lens and exposure have much more to do with visual sharpness of images than MP on the sensor!


----------



## sharka23 (May 1, 2012)

both is nice to have... - but more important for me is definately the resolution!!
my wishlist:
the excellent 5dIII body with:
32-42 MP(i think that´s the absolut MAX you get out of the best L-lenses), +DR, low ISO performance!, 1/400 flash sync.

please soon


----------



## sharka23 (May 1, 2012)

and not to forget: 16bit raw output.
to get even closer to MF.


----------



## Canon-F1 (May 1, 2012)

work an the analog digital converter.

reduce the read noise to get better dynamic range.
reducing read noise will be good for pushing shadows too.


----------



## te4o (May 1, 2012)

Canon has to be future proof: if the Mark III had the DR of the Sony Exmor what would they sell you in four years? A wise parent always reserves part of the presents for the next occasion...


----------



## birtembuk (May 1, 2012)

drjlo said:


> Canon will "take away" nothing, nada, zilch, UNLESS their sales numbers suffer on a significant scale, period.



Yep, nichts, rien, niente.


----------



## docsmith (May 1, 2012)

Wow...I think I am in agreement with just about every post.... ;D

I doubt Canon will take away much. Unless it begins to affect their sales or the select photographers that they listen too begin to say something.

What I would like Canon to take away is to reduce the read noise to give shadows as clean as the D800 and expand DR. Hopefully that is as simple as improving the analog/digital converter.


----------



## meli (May 1, 2012)

te4o said:


> Canon has to be future proof: if the Mark III had the DR of the Sony Exmor what would they sell you in four years? A wise parent always reserves part of the presents for the next occasion...



well to a lot of canon people around here including me, they probably sell nothing at all for the next 4 years, how's that working for Canon? You can't really pick parents but sure as hell you can pick companies..

i wont be selling my Canon equipment anytime soon and I'm still shooting happily with my 5d2 but i will invest in D800 plus a couple of lenses.


----------



## Canon-F1 (May 1, 2012)

meli said:


> well to a lot of canon people around here including me, they probably sell nothing at all for the next 4 years, how's that working for Canon? .



lets wait and see... not all hope is lost.


----------



## smirkypants (May 1, 2012)

There's nothing revolutionary in the 5D3. It's a very safe, very conservative camera. Having owned one for a couple of weeks, it really does feel almost exactly like owning a 7D with better IQ. There's nothing revolutionary about it. Canon needs to learn to push the envelope and to exceed expectations.


----------



## pdirestajr (May 1, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> There's nothing revolutionary in the 5D3. It's a very safe, very conservative camera. Having owned one for a couple of weeks, it really does feel almost exactly like owning a 7D with better IQ. There's nothing revolutionary about it. Canon needs to learn to push the envelope and to exceed expectations.



But since it is just an "update" of the 5D series (with LOTS of updates) why does it have to be revolutionary? Why can't it be what it is, a 5D refresh. And wouldn't incorporating the top of the line focusing system into a consumer camera count as a big deal?

The 5D is an incredibly successful sub-brand for Canon, it was & always will be revolutionary. Perhaps they will release a new brand to be revolutionary in a new way.


----------



## !Xabbu (May 1, 2012)

te4o said:


> Canon has to be future proof: if the Mark III had the DR of the Sony Exmor what would they sell you in four years? A wise parent always reserves part of the presents for the next occasion...



So, you think Sony won't improve their Exmor over the next four years? I'm pretty sure they will (unless they go bankrupt). From a pure technical standpoint it seems like Canon is about one generation behind in sensor technology and it will be damn hard to catch up. Just my 2 cents...


----------



## smirkypants (May 1, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> But since it is just an "update" of the 5D series (with LOTS of updates) why does it have to be revolutionary? Why can't it be what it is, a 5D refresh. And wouldn't incorporating the top of the line focusing system into a consumer camera count as a big deal?


Because it's $500 more than a machine that IS revolutionary and kicks its ass in almost every way.


----------



## psolberg (May 1, 2012)

The takeaway should be that the low light race started back 2007 with the D3 and ended in 2009 with the D3s. It is a little too late to get into that saturated segment. Everybody has a low light camera (or more) these days. For 2012, the game is different.

The new race for the next generation of sensors is detail and dynamic range, color depth, possibly starting to step in to challenge medium format dominated 16 bit territory over the next few years. The D800 is Nikon's first step away from focusing on big ISO as a single metric of performance. Yet Canon is too busy playing with video and trying to wedge itself against Red and Sony so they were totally caught with their pants down.

Obviously Canon will follow Nikon's path away from higher than 102K ISO in time just as they followed Nikon in the low light game until that segment was saturated. 

I think it is only a matter of time before Nikon jumps into Medium format. There were rumors of the Nikon's MX system flying around before the global recession even some leaked presentation. I wouldn't be surprised if they are dusting off those plans at this very moment. I suspect canon may consider medium format but I see them ore interested in turning all it's photographers into videographers somehow. so who knows.


----------



## awinphoto (May 1, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > But since it is just an "update" of the 5D series (with LOTS of updates) why does it have to be revolutionary? Why can't it be what it is, a 5D refresh. And wouldn't incorporating the top of the line focusing system into a consumer camera count as a big deal?
> ...



Um... i'll bite... are you insinuating that the 5d2 kicks the 5d3's ass in almost every way? and if so, how? If you are saying the 5d3 kicks the 5d2's ass, for a $500 premium, well duh..


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> smirkypants said:
> 
> 
> > Because it's $500 more than a machine that IS revolutionary and kicks its ass in almost every way.
> ...


Seems pretty clear he was talking about the D800.


----------



## smirkypants (May 1, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Um... i'll bite... are you insinuating that the 5d2 kicks the 5d3's ass in almost every way? and if so, how? If you are saying the 5d3 kicks the 5d2's ass, for a $500 premium, well duh..


This thread is about what Canon should learn from the D800... err... situation. The D800 is better in almost every way and costs $500 less.

Canon could have built a 5D3 two years ago by combining elements of the 7D and the 5D2 and getting about 80% there. That machine that it could have built two years ago, if it existed, would create a situation where the vast majority of Canon users would find the current 5D3 completely not compelling as an upgrade. Indeed, many whose sole interest is image quality already find the 5D3 not particularly compelling.

Canon is charging "wow" prices for a machine that is only a "nice upgrade." As I've said before, far fewer people would be cranky had Canon chosen to price this machine at $2799. Honestly, that's all I think it's worth. I currently have both a D800 and a 5D3. I'm a long-long time Canon shooter. I'm disappointed with the 5D3 and constantly being amazed by what the D800 can do.

But... If you're happy paying a lot of money for a nice upgrade, that's cool.


----------



## awinphoto (May 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > smirkypants said:
> ...



Thanks for clearing that up... guess I need more coffee to wake up over here... As for the D800/5d3, the only was the d800 kicks the 5d3's ass is DR and MP... the rest are a wash or slight advantage canon... But that's another debate for another thread so anywho...


----------



## awinphoto (May 1, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Um... i'll bite... are you insinuating that the 5d2 kicks the 5d3's ass in almost every way? and if so, how? If you are saying the 5d3 kicks the 5d2's ass, for a $500 premium, well duh..
> ...



Depends on your POV... for me, AF on the prior 5d's was atrocious... the 7d's wasn't perfect but kicked the 5d's AF every day of the week. The high ISO, the AF, the weathersealing, everything as a whole package, for me, (also considering I make my living by my photography), the 5d3 is worth it and then some... Price is higher than before but everything from consumables, gas, food, energy, cars, etc is rising over the last half decade, inflation is soaring, why would I not expect camera gear to rise as well? The d800 is a fine camera, a very fine camera, i wont dismiss that or pretend to have my head in the sand, but Canon doesn't offer a D800, they offer the 5d3, which satisfies my needs, works with my lenses/flashes/etc, and is what i'm going to buy. I dont need to have the D800 to feel like i'm a better photographer or produce better pictures, the 5d3 meets my needs as a photographer. For me, personally and professionally, cased closed, next topic.


----------



## smirkypants (May 1, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Depends on your POV... for me, AF on the prior 5d's was atrocious... the 7d's wasn't perfect but kicked the 5d's AF every day of the week. The high ISO, the AF, the weathersealing, everything as a whole package, for me, (also considering I make my living by my photography), the 5d3 is worth it and then some... Price is higher than before but everything from consumables, gas, food, energy, cars, etc is rising over the last half decade, inflation is soaring, why would I not expect camera gear to rise as well? .... For me, personally and professionally, cased closed, next topic.


I really hope this doesn't sound rude, but this is exactly what Canon wants, right? You are invested heavily in Canon to the extent that switching becomes a non-option. You are also willing to spend big dollars to overcome the previous model's defects.

As for the prices... Cameras are basically computers anymore, and the Consumer Price Index for computers and similar electronics is something that tends to run in reverse. I'm glad you feel pleased with your decision to get a 5D3. Being pleased is a good thing. Me? No.


----------



## unfocused (May 1, 2012)

Getting back to the original post and some of the reactions. 

The single most important thing any company has to pay attention to is sales figures. People act like that's a bad thing. But, it's not.

That's the way it should be because only sales figures are reliable. I know from decades of dealing with focus groups and polling that all the information that is gathered is useful, but it is only people's opinion. People lie. They say they want something, but they really don't. What matters is people's behavior. What are you *really* spending your money on. Not what you *say* you will spend your money on. 

In a political campaign, the behavior is encapsulated in the ballot the voter casts. In the consumer world, it is encapsulated in buying decisions. All the pontificating, ranting, whining and speculating that occurs on forums is meaningless unless it has some connection to buying decisions. And, I strongly suspect that the vast majority of the multiple discussions here about the 5DIII have little or no connection to buying decisions.

Understand too, that almost no one on this forum is a "persuadable" consumer. Almost everyone here has already made up their minds about their brand preferences. The cost of getting a canonrumors forum reader to change behavior is too high and the population is too small. 

If you think the 5DIII is a good value, buy it. If you don't, then don't buy it. Cast your ballot with your wallet. Because all the chatter on this forum is not going to turn the 5DIII into something it is not.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> Canon is charging "wow" prices for a machine that is only a "nice upgrade."



Have to disagree, but I suppose it depends on one's PoV. Canon's deceptive claims ("2-stop improvement") aside, IQ wasn't broke on the 5DII, and it didn't need fixing. AF was pretty sad, and combining the 5DII's IQ with the 1-series AF system is more than merely 'nice' IMO.



smirkypants said:


> I really hope this doesn't sound rude, but this is exactly what Canon wants, right?



What Canon 'wants' is to make a profit. If you don't feel that the 5DIII is a worthwhile upgrade, then don't buy one. But bear in mind that Canon has to answer to one group and one group only - not consumers, not photographers, not CR forum members - they must answer to shareholders. They obviously feel that the 5DIII is part of that answer...time (and stock prices, meaning market capitalization) will tell if they're right or wrong.



unfocused said:


> I know from decades of dealing with focus groups and polling that all the information that is gathered is useful, but it is only people's opinion. People lie. They say they want something, but they really don't. What matters is people's behavior. What are you *really* spending your money on. Not what you *say* you will spend your money on.



+1. 'Joe' has a Rebel T1i. Joe says he's disappointed with the price of the 5DIII, look at the D800 it's $500 cheaper, he'd buy a 5DIII if it were priced at $2799 instead of $3499. But will he, really? Probably not. Meaning Canon doesn't - and _shouldn't_ - care what Joe says. 

Keep in mind that Canon has a wealth of data at their fingertips, not only from sales figures but also from warranty registrations. Why do you think they ask all those questions when you go online to register your new purchase? For any given segment, they know who their customer base is, what their average income is, what other products they own, and how frequently they purchase/upgrade.


----------



## expo01 (May 1, 2012)

100% the DR. The D800s resolution doesn't catch me. I thought 12MP was too low. I'm shooting 21MP since 2007 on DSLRs and I'm very happy with that amount.

If Nikon had brought a D800 with 22MP and even more improved noise performance (their current sensor technology just seems to outshine current Canons), they might have made me switch over. 

My 5 year old 1Ds3 is still my favorite Camera when it comes down to image quality. The 1D4 (which was praised high in the air) just cannot compete (and I own one...).

Please Canon, get your gear back in order. At this moment I even fear that the 1DX will be no step forward for me (in terms of pure image quality). Their 18MP sensor needs to seriously kick the 5D3s behind to make me upgrade.

On a sarcastic note: Maybe Canon should buy the sensors from Nikon :


----------



## awinphoto (May 1, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Depends on your POV... for me, AF on the prior 5d's was atrocious... the 7d's wasn't perfect but kicked the 5d's AF every day of the week. The high ISO, the AF, the weathersealing, everything as a whole package, for me, (also considering I make my living by my photography), the 5d3 is worth it and then some... Price is higher than before but everything from consumables, gas, food, energy, cars, etc is rising over the last half decade, inflation is soaring, why would I not expect camera gear to rise as well? .... For me, personally and professionally, cased closed, next topic.
> ...



Please dont confuse me with complacent or "trapped"... it's just one of those things... If I knew that by buying the D800 and switching all my gear and relearning a whole new system, if i knew by doing such would make me a better photographer and would be cost effective, then I would do it. But simply, the D800, other than adding more hard drive space, more MP, more time to process and develop the 14 stops of DR, and a very pissed off wife, it wouldn't make me any better of a photographer or give me any better of a product for my clients than what I can get with the 5d3. It's just one of those things, the D800 is nice and shiney and on paper looks quite impressive and something for nikon to be proud of, and they should. Is it enough for me to lose sleep over buying a 5d3? Nope. Is it enough for me to want to switch systems? heck no. Is it enough to make me personally demand a refund, demand canon to get their act together and give us an even better product? No way... The D800 is a very good camera, but that doesn't diminish the 5d3 in any way shape or form. Case in point, if the D800 wasn't so over spec'd... heck if canon intro'd the 5d3 BEFORE the D800, if they came out with the 5d3 and had no D800 to compare it to, every canon shooter would be singing canon's praises, but since it was second out of the gate and the sensor and only the sensor seemed slightly underspec'd and at a higher price point than the D800, that is why all the overraction is taking place. It's silly... Choose a system, shoot that system, be happy and take pictures... It isn't the end of the world.


----------



## pdirestajr (May 1, 2012)

Camera bodies come and go. I like to buy bodies that work with my lenses, not the other way around.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (May 1, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> You are invested heavily in Canon to the extent that switching becomes a non-option.


You, and many others that raise this claim don't take into account that many people actually prefer Canon's lineup of lenses. Personally, like I stated before, the benefits that the D800 offers over the 5D3 are far from enough for me to abandon my 50L, 85L and MP-E 65. The big whites are another example of better Canon glass. The TS-E lineup is also more complete (Nikon did a file a patent recently for a 17mm one). On the other hand, Nikon do have the 12-24 which is nothing short of amazing. Basically, what I am saying that the issue is not black and white and for some people, taking the system into account, the 5D3 is actually both the better product and better value.



> You are also willing to spend big dollars to overcome the previous model's defects.


Isn't that what everyone does when they upgrade pretty much any product?


----------



## Abraxx (May 1, 2012)

So from my perspective these are the things I would like to see on a next generation 5D, without changing form factor or remove functions of the current 5D3:

- get the DR up for low ISO, minimum 1 stop in RAW, for better details in shadows
- f/8 AF capable (to make use of extenders for wildlife)
- make EF-S lenses usable on FF
- include GPS, build in
- include Wifi, build in, or at least USB3, I would prefer LightPeak...
- include an AF assist light, build in
- include flash, for highlighting


my 2 cents


----------



## Kernuak (May 1, 2012)

For me, the art of photography is about getting the most out of the equipment you have. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it and there wouldn't be any reason for professionals to exist and there certainly wouldn't be any profit in it. Of course, as a business, the likes of Canon, Nikon, Sony and the rest wouldn't worry about that, as they'd potentially sell more cameras. I'm not really convinced by the dynamic range argument either. Yes, there are situations where more dynamic range would be nice, however, the reality is, without processing, images tend to look flat, so would need more processing time. Also, I feel that most of the DR would be wasted anyway in terms of professional use. Currently, the main markets for selling images are as fine art prints (either as true fine art portraits/landscapes etc or as wedding/event prints) and the various forms of stock. Most professional printers and paper has less dynamic range than can be produced by DSLRs, so having more dynamic range would be pointless in my view. Likewise, most stock photographic licences are purchased for printing, either in a magazine/newspaper etc. or on a billboard, again, the DR is wasted. There are more images being licenced for web use, but again, viewing on most browsers gives limited DR.
The challenge for me is the ability to capture the dynamic range and the scene as a whole in such a way that I can capture it without endless hours in Photoshop (I simply don't have the time) in a way that no-one else can. If I'm shooting landscapes, then I'll use grad filters to compress the DR to a usable range, it doesn't always work, but for most scenes it gives me enough to work with. I think this gives a much better look and I feel that smooth tonal gradations and nice contrast are far more important than a large DR. Lenses then become equally important, if not more so. Larger sensors are usually better in this regard than smaller ones, hence why full frame sensors have a certain "look" and why landscapes shot with larger format sensors tend to look better. Often it is an indefinable quality that gives a certain "look" and it is certainly down to more than just DR. Others have mentioned that they prefer the look of Canon cameras to Nikon and it is the overall sensor design that achieves this. When it comes to Wildlife DR is often more of a problem than landscapes, particularly birds with significant areas of black and white, but sometimes CPLs can be handy and most wildlife photographers are looking for soft lighting anyway, where there is less DR required. In fact for me, good lighting is far more important than improved DR, unfortunately, camera manufacturers haven't yet found a way of getting nice soft lighting throughout the day.
For hobbyists who are probably more inclined to look at their images digitally, perhaps on a high DR monitor, then I can see where they might want more DR, but for most professionals or anyone who is trying to sell their work, then print is still the major medium, so more DR is less important, as they will use technique to achieve the results they want. Very few pros are interested in the detailed specifications of cameras, they just want to know if they can get the images they want, for most it is simply a tool and they will get the best toolkit for the job. The photographic toolkit is a combination of body, lenses, filters and other accessories. Similarly, while there are some uses for large format printing, the vast majority of prints are easily achievable with 22 MP. CPS class the 5D series as a professional camera, so that is obviously Canon's prime target market, it's just that the original 5D and the MkII were also popular amongst hobbyists and semi-pros.
Personally, if I have to push images or part images more than a stop or so, then I made an error and it is discarded. Often on a shoot, even if I know I can process it to get it looking good, I will still reshoot with the correct exposure, even if it is only half a stop out. I also know that I can usually work better with highlights than shadows on my 5D MKII, so I will expose slightly to the right to compensate, as long as I don't go too far. My style though, does rely on shadows, detail isn't always necessary in smaller areas and it can add to the feel of an image. Using the whole dynamic range is important to me and I will often make use of shadows, despite criticism, as it is an artistic statement for me. I feel that increasing the available DR too much would lessen the impact of many of my images. In short, how an image looks is more important than what the specs say. Art isn't a science and data doesn't tell the whole story. I'm always reminded of the saying "Lies, lies and statistics" and I often think that specification lists and camera tests fall into the same category as statistics.


----------



## awinphoto (May 1, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> For me, the art of photography is about getting the most out of the equipment you have. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it and there wouldn't be any reason for professionals to exist and there certainly wouldn't be any profit in it. Of course, as a business, the likes of Canon, Nikon, Sony and the rest wouldn't worry about that, as they'd potentially sell more cameras. I'm not really convinced by the dynamic range argument either. Yes, there are situations where more dynamic range would be nice, however, the reality is, without processing, images tend to look flat, so would need more processing time. Also, I feel that most of the DR would be wasted anyway in terms of professional use. Currently, the main markets for selling images are as fine art prints (either as true fine art portraits/landscapes etc or as wedding/event prints) and the various forms of stock. Most professional printers and paper has less dynamic range than can be produced by DSLRs, so having more dynamic range would be pointless in my view. Likewise, most stock photographic licences are purchased for printing, either in a magazine/newspaper etc. or on a billboard, again, the DR is wasted. There are more images being licenced for web use, but again, viewing on most browsers gives limited DR.
> The challenge for me is the ability to capture the dynamic range and the scene as a whole in such a way that I can capture it without endless hours in Photoshop (I simply don't have the time) in a way that no-one else can. If I'm shooting landscapes, then I'll use grad filters to compress the DR to a usable range, it doesn't always work, but for most scenes it gives me enough to work with. I think this gives a much better look and I feel that smooth tonal gradations and nice contrast are far more important than a large DR. Lenses then become equally important, if not more so. Larger sensors are usually better in this regard than smaller ones, hence why full frame sensors have a certain "look" and why landscapes shot with larger format sensors tend to look better. Often it is an indefinable quality that gives a certain "look" and it is certainly down to more than just DR. Others have mentioned that they prefer the look of Canon cameras to Nikon and it is the overall sensor design that achieves this. When it comes to Wildlife DR is often more of a problem than landscapes, particularly birds with significant areas of black and white, but sometimes CPLs can be handy and most wildlife photographers are looking for soft lighting anyway, where there is less DR required. In fact for me, good lighting is far more important than improved DR, unfortunately, camera manufacturers haven't yet found a way of getting nice soft lighting throughout the day.
> For hobbyists who are probably more inclined to look at their images digitally, perhaps on a high DR monitor, then I can see where they might want more DR, but for most professionals or anyone who is trying to sell their work, then print is still the major medium, so more DR is less important, as they will use technique to achieve the results they want. Very few pros are interested in the detailed specifications of cameras, they just want to know if they can get the images they want, for most it is simply a tool and they will get the best toolkit for the job. The photographic toolkit is a combination of body, lenses, filters and other accessories. Similarly, while there are some uses for large format printing, the vast majority of prints are easily achievable with 22 MP. CPS class the 5D series as a professional camera, so that is obviously Canon's prime target market, it's just that the original 5D and the MkII were also popular amongst hobbyists and semi-pros.
> Personally, if I have to push images or part images more than a stop or so, then I made an error and it is discarded. Often on a shoot, even if I know I can process it to get it looking good, I will still reshoot with the correct exposure, even if it is only half a stop out. I also know that I can usually work better with highlights than shadows on my 5D MKII, so I will expose slightly to the right to compensate, as long as I don't go too far. My style though, does rely on shadows, detail isn't always necessary in smaller areas and it can add to the feel of an image. Using the whole dynamic range is important to me and I will often make use of shadows, despite criticism, as it is an artistic statement for me. I feel that increasing the available DR too much would lessen the impact of many of my images. In short, how an image looks is more important than what the specs say. Art isn't a science and data doesn't tell the whole story. I'm always reminded of the saying "Lies, lies and statistics" and I often think that specification lists and camera tests fall into the same category as statistics.



A very fair, well thought out and reasonable response to all this madness +100


----------



## Aglet (May 1, 2012)

This Canon complacency argument reminds me of Microsoft vs. Apple.
The former has huge marketshare and does enough to keep their customers coming back. The latter actually innovates. (within relevant time spans of course)

I see different philosophies between these 2 big camera companies. One is market share and profit driven and doles out technology in measured doses to accompish that. The other expends more effort to engineer better photographic tools; even to the detriment of their own sales volume it seems.

Unless you're a one-camera-body shop, what's the big deal in ADDING a competitive mfr's camera system to your inventory? You likely have a backup camera body and some glass you usually use with it. Can you sell it and fund a D800 and use it with a lens or 2 for the applications where it would excel over your Canon gear? Canon pro gear holds its value very well so not a big loss.

That's what I'm doing and I don't even make my living from photography at this time. 
I can sell my 5D2 and the 70-200 I recently bought and that covers a new D800 and then some. I can sell my 7D and the 100-400 and that would cover a nice new 70-200 Nikkor. I'll have fewer pieces of gear but the D800 will kill the 5D2 in IQ for landscape and in crop mode will perform adequately compared to the 7D for the occasional birding I used it for.

If Canon ever brings out a hi-DR and hi MP body in the future then I'll have a good excuse to pair it with one of their tilt-shift lenses if it'll outperform the D800 in landscapes.


You have a 5D3 and 5D2 as backup?.. sell the latter and the lens(es) you use with it and buy a D800 and some glass and learn how to use it.

Pros really ought to be using the best tools for the job, brand loyalty be damned. If your work doesn't required the few benefits the D800 can provide then no worry. If you can use it, GET it. This is the kind of voting with your wallet that may spur Canon to provide us with a little more tech than they're otherwise planning to sell us for the next iteration.
As much as I prefer USING Canon gear, I'm also tired of being frustrated by a few serious shortcomings with it at times. That's enough to spur me to learn some of Nikon's user interface ideosyncracies to get better results when I need them. I think I'd rather complain about their quirky firmware and get some great shots with their gear than have a slick, easy-to-use system that can't provide the shot I want.

Having both to choose from gives me more creative options.


----------



## awinphoto (May 1, 2012)

Abraxx said:


> - get the DR up for low ISO, minimum 1 stop in RAW, for better details in shadows
> - f/8 AF capable (to make use of extenders for wildlife)



As far as the 5d4 or 5dx or whatever the hell they decide to call it, i dont see why they couldn't add these features... i'm not an extender person myself, but seems kinda wishy-washy that they would sell an item just for it to be incompatible in AF... 



Abraxx said:


> - make EF-S lenses usable on FF
> - include GPS, build in
> - include Wifi, build in, or at least USB3, I would prefer LightPeak...
> - include an AF assist light, build in
> - include flash, for highlighting



The rest I really dont know if they could or if they could, if they would add them in... EF-S is a mirror problem and so they would have to redesign the mirror, again, or go mirror-less, which is another ball of wax, but they have 3-4 years to tinker with it, so who knows... GPS and Wifi has been widely clamored for, but I think if that was something quick and easy to add in, the 1d series would see them first... I wouldn't mind wifi personally but it would have to be secure and hack proof... From a laymans perspective seems more worry than benefit for event shooters. AF assist and flash... AF assist I want and dont see why they didn't include it... flash, the old foggies have always seen oncamera flash was an amateur thing, no professional in their right minds would use it, off camera yada yada yada... With the inclusion of wireless triggering, i see more benefit, but how it can meet resistance, especially older shooters, since this is geared as a prosumer camera. I wouldn't mind it but could do without if they integrate another wireless triggering without it in camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2012)

Abraxx said:


> ...things I would like to see on a next generation 5D, without changing form factor or remove functions of the current 5D3:
> 
> - include flash, for highlighting



Please, no! I understand the occasional utility of a popup flash for fill, etc. But in fact, the popup flash does change the form factor - that protruding bulge makes it very challenging to make adjustments on TS-E lenses. 

Here's a YouTube video where at ~0:55 s you can see the shift knob on their 24mm PC-E lens hitting the protrusion of the popup flash, preventing the lens from being rotated into the desired position:

Nikon D800 and Nikon PC-E 24mm.mov


----------



## V8Beast (May 1, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> There's nothing revolutionary in the 5D3. It's a very safe, very conservative camera. Having owned one for a couple of weeks, it really does feel almost exactly like owning a 7D with better IQ. There's nothing revolutionary about it. Canon needs to learn to push the envelope and to exceed expectations.



I agree that the 5DIII isn't revolutionary, but the 5DII wasn't either. All it offered over the 5DC was an extra stop of DR and ISO, and 9 more megapixels. Other than the resolution, those are incremental upgrades at best. The 5DII looked good on paper because of the resolution jump, but if you had a 5DC and were happy with the resolution, it wasn't much of an upgrade at all. The 5DC's greatest flaws were its pathetic AF system, burst rate, weather sealing and build quality, and Canon didn't address any of them with the MKII. IMHO, the MKII was a less revolutionary jump over the 5DC than the MKIII compared to the MKII. The MKII's video seemed more like a happy accident, and since we're talking about stills, I don't find it that relevant to this discussion. 

I'm sure there are lots of happy 5DII users who won't find the 5DIII a compelling enough of an upgrade. However, that will be offset by all the 5DC users who didn't think the 5DII was worth the money, and will now be upgrading to the 5DIII. 

One of the publishing companies I work for uses 5DC's as the standard issue body for their staff photogs, and never upgraded to the 5DII for the reasons outlined above. Once they upgrade to the MKIII, they will be ordering up a $h!t ton of bodies in one fell swoop. Canon cares more about that than online geeks whose knowledge of sensors technology far exceed their talent 

It's really quite simple. If a new camera doesn't have the feature set to justify its cost, either wait until the next generation or buy a camera from a competing manufacturer that makes what you need. That's not directed at you personally, since you've already purchased the best tool for your needs, the D800.


----------



## t.linn (May 1, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> I feel that most of the DR would be wasted anyway in terms of professional use. Currently, the main markets for selling images are as fine art prints (either as true fine art portraits/landscapes etc or as wedding/event prints) and the various forms of stock. Most professional printers and paper has less dynamic range than can be produced by DSLRs, so having more dynamic range would be pointless in my view. Likewise, most stock photographic licences are purchased for printing, either in a magazine/newspaper etc. or on a billboard, again, the DR is wasted. There are more images being licenced for web use, but again, viewing on most browsers gives limited DR.



I appreciate your thoughts on this. (Not just the quoted section but all of it.) Having said that, I have to disagree with you when you talk about wasted dynamic range and its limited value with certain media. I can understand that for someone who doesn't like to post process images, having more post-processing flexibility is not that exciting. But for me, that increased dynamic range is a hugely useful tool regardless of the final medium—monitor or print. 

Having the ability to pull clean detail out of shadows doesn't mean you have to use it. But having the option is extraordinarily useful. We already adjust the appearance of our images with levels and curves to match (i.e., tone map) the dynamic range of the image to whatever medium it will be displayed on. Greater DR just provides more flexibility to do so. And having greater DR capabilities on a sensor doesn't necessarily mean the image has to look any different coming out of the camera.

You mentioned bird photography. I would use this as an example. I was out in the desert photographing sage-grouse a couple weekends ago. http://blog.tlinn.com/2012/04/sage-grouse/ I wanted it bright and sunny at sunrise to capture the tail feathers glowing with light. But I also wanted to be able to pull out details from the shadows so that the tail feathers didn't look like they were attached to a black blob. There is no question that the ability to do this will benefit my images on screen and in print.


----------



## UrbanVoyeur (May 1, 2012)

I think Canon got caught flat footed by Nikon. The Nikon D800, 3200 and now 600 are all vast improvements over their predecessors for the same or lower price. I think many people will pass on the Mk3 because it is such a modest improvement over the Mk2.

The 5Mk3 changes in no way justify a price hike. It's been over 3 years since the Mk2, more than enough time for Canon to figure out how to squeezes a couple more ev's of DR without a price premium.

The rest of the new features? Modest software changes. A slightly updated processing chip, which should cost less to make. A few more AF points - technology which Canon perfected 15 years ago and can be added to any camera at essentially zero cost. In other words, a non upgrade.

I compare the 5MkII/III to the old Canon EOS 3 in terms of build quality and non-digital features. Rugged, a step below the top line, spot metering and lots of AF points. That camera sold for about $800 new. Drop the analog guts - film transport, etc - and you're left with say $500 worth of camera. 

The digital guts are sensor, chip and software. Of those, the only significant expense is the sensor. Canon is telling this sensor, whose only advantage is expanded EV, is worth a $3000, a $500 premium over the last gen, when Nikon can produce a better than medium format performance sensor with 40% more pixels for $2500, $500 less than the last gen.

The 5mk3 is a bad deal and a pointless upgrade.

I don't think anyone who has a significant investment in L glass will be walking away from Canon anytime soon. I won't. But I will skip the MkIII and wait to see what they do next. Now if Canon blows it again in 2013 and 2014, then I'll switch.


----------



## t.linn (May 1, 2012)

Thanks for all the replies. I have to agree with folks who say that it is market pressures that will primarily motivate Canon to make changes and move forward. Yet it would be hard to argue that forums like this one don't make a difference. For example, Canon sold huge quantities of the 5D and 5D2 yet they did respond to customers feedback on the poor AF in those bodies. They did respond to customers who complained about the original 30fps video in the 5D2. So I'm only 99% cynical. ;D

The reason I posed my question is because Canon officials have said on several occasions that they will be watching the market response to higher megapixel DSLRs before deciding how to respond. It would be unfortunate if they interpreted the positive response to the D800 as a positive response to resolution rather than image quality—and DR in particular.


----------



## Tcapp (May 1, 2012)

UrbanVoyeur said:


> I think Canon got caught flat footed by Nikon. The Nikon D800, 3200 and now 600 are all vast improvements over their predecessors for the same or lower price. I think many people will pass on the Mk3 because it is such a modest improvement over the Mk2.
> 
> The 5Mk3 changes in no way justify a price hike. It's been over 3 years since the Mk2, more than enough time for Canon to figure out how to squeezes a couple more ev's of DR without a price premium.
> 
> ...



I find it crazy that everyone hates the 5d3 just because it is priced $500 too high. As a pro photographer, I don't really care about a $500 difference in price. I'll pay what i have to in order to have the best tools. I'll make up the difference in one day of shooting. 

Yes, the DR argument is valid, but leave out the price issue. Price is not a performance spec. Price does not reflect in the final photo output. 

Just my feeling.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2012)

UrbanVoyeur said:


> The 5Mk3 changes in no way justify a price hike. It's been over 3 years since the Mk2, more than enough time for Canon to figure out how to squeezes a couple more ev's of DR without a price premium.



But somehow, it's ok for Nikon to raise the price $900 for just more MP (compared to Canon, who reduced the price of the 5DII compared to the 5D)?

Ok, no double standard there, at all.



UrbanVoyeur said:


> The digital guts are sensor, chip and software. Of those, the only significant expense is the sensor. Canon is telling this sensor, whose only advantage is expanded EV, is worth a $3000, a $500 premium over the last gen, when Nikon can produce a better than medium format performance sensor with 40% more pixels for $2500, $500 less than the last gen



Since when is the D800 only $2500? Also, why does everyone insist on thinking that the cost of materials in a product means bugger all in terms of the retail pricing?!? The D800E is the D800 with something (part of the AA filter) taken away, why is it $300 more? The 1D C is the 1D X with some minor additional hardware for better cooling and a different firmware - why is it twice the price? *Production costs are not the main determinant in product price.* The price is set based primarily on what the market will bear, adjusted for the estimated sales volume and taking into account recovery of amortized R&D costs.


----------



## Abraxx (May 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Abraxx said:
> 
> 
> > ...things I would like to see on a next generation 5D, without changing form factor or remove functions of the current 5D3:
> ...



Without changing form factor, I meant specifically that too. I don't see a reason, why it shouldn't be possible to add a poppy uppy flash and still use a TS, like now. But then I could trigger flashes and highlight quickly too... 

But I agree, using a TS is a nice advantage, more important than a flash, even if I unfortunately do not own a TS... :-\


----------



## UrbanVoyeur (May 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> UrbanVoyeur said:
> 
> 
> > The digital guts are sensor, chip and software. Of those, the only significant expense is the sensor. Canon is telling this sensor, whose only advantage is expanded EV, is worth a $3000, a $500 premium over the last gen, when Nikon can produce a better than medium format performance sensor with 40% more pixels for $2500, $500 less than the last gen
> ...



I think that I was not clear. I was referring to the retail price of the "digital guts". Based on a Canon film body of similar build quality, I estimated the retail price for the non-digital parts to be $500. Thus, if the camera retails for $3500, then the sensor digital contribution to the price is $3000. And since software and chip speed improvements are essentially zero cost upgrades (Moore's Law), this $3000 is all sensor.

True, the retail cost somewhat independent of manufacturing cost, but we can use past pricing trends to estimate how much of a digital premium Canon is charging for a camera a particular build quality. In this case, $3000. 

No, that's not what it costs Canon, but it is what Canon is charging us for the technology. I don't think it is worth it, given that it is insignificant improvement over the previous generation.

Nikon, on the other hand, is packing a lot more value into its digital premium ($3000-$500=$2500).


----------



## awinphoto (May 1, 2012)

UrbanVoyeur said:


> I think Canon got caught flat footed by Nikon. The Nikon D800, 3200 and now 600 are all vast improvements over their predecessors for the same or lower price. I think many people will pass on the Mk3 because it is such a modest improvement over the Mk2.
> 
> The 5Mk3 changes in no way justify a price hike. It's been over 3 years since the Mk2, more than enough time for Canon to figure out how to squeezes a couple more ev's of DR without a price premium.
> 
> ...



61 AF points vs 9... yep, modest upgrade... much better weathersealing, body, and ergonomics, modest, mmkay... 100% VF, modest, sure why not... The 5d3 bests the 5d2 in almost every situation, every spec, every thing... guys... other than the sensor, what did the nikon D800 IMPROVE over the D700... not much. same body, same AF, lower burst, same ISO, etc... The D800 is a fine camera but lets not get over ourselves here... The D800 isn't going to make you a better photographer over owning a 5d3 and surely the $500 difference will get eaten up in lost production learning the new camera, extra cost in lenses, etc... When the 5d2 came out, photographers on forums bashed it compared to the D700... "all canon is doing is pushing MP, we dont need MP", the D700 AF this, the D700 AF that, burst rate, etc... canon gave us everything we asked for and then some, people still are griping... Some people will never appreciate what they have, what a sad reality we live in. 

Aglet, regarding your multi brand system you are referring to... you got to understand by being professional, it's a business, it's a career, it's our livelihood. There are some pro's who switching systems is as easy as making a few phone calls, and sending an assistant or runner to pick up your new gear... others a big switch like that gone bad could be enough to crush their business. As far as having 2 or more brands, your talking about 2 lots of cameras, 2 lots of lenses, flashes, cords, styles, etc... Some can do it, some cant. I'm a pro and make 100% of my income on my photography and still a $3500 purchase is still a big deal for someone like me, let alone the thought of adding a $3000 D800, dont forget wide, normal, tele, you can easily get into $7000 easy with those base setup, and unless that $7000 can pay for itself in 1 month, it's just not that worth it... That's a lot of capital to undertake just to have multiple brands. Dont forget extra insurance, extra maintenance, extra book keeping, training, cases, etc... That's a lot of freaking money. In the end it's got to A) pay for itself in a matter of weeks and B) do something my current gear cannot... and sorry, the D800 nor canon can claim to do either at this juncture, for me. Financially it doesn't make sense. Maybe in a few years when my pics get published on Times magazine or such and i'm rolling in the dough, maybe i'll feel different then, but i doubt it.


----------



## UrbanVoyeur (May 1, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> I find it crazy that everyone hates the 5d3 just because it is priced $500 too high. As a pro photographer, I don't really care about a $500 difference in price. I'll pay what i have to in order to have the best tools. I'll make up the difference in one day of shooting.
> 
> Yes, the DR argument is valid, but leave out the price issue. Price is not a performance spec. Price does not reflect in the final photo output.



True. But there's no business sense in spending the $500 more if it offers no improvement. I can a MkII, or postpone replacement. Now if it offered all the perks of the D800 (if the reviews are to be believed, I'd almost never need to rent medium format gear) then yes, it would make good business sense to run out and buy it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2012)

UrbanVoyeur said:


> I think that I was not clear. I was referring to the retail price of the "digital guts". Based on a Canon film body of similar build quality, I estimated the retail price for the non-digital parts to be $500. Thus, if the camera retails for $3500, then the sensor digital contribution to the price is $3000. And since software and chip speed improvements are essentially zero cost upgrades (Moore's Law), this $3000 is all sensor.
> 
> True, the retail cost somewhat independent of manufacturing cost, but we can use past pricing trends to estimate how much of a digital premium Canon is charging for a camera a particular build quality. In this case, $3000.
> 
> ...



Wow, there are just so many misassumptions there that I'm not even sure where to begin. You don't, by any chance, do cost analyses for the US government, do you?


----------



## V8Beast (May 1, 2012)

t.linn said:


> Thanks for all the replies. I have to agree with folks who say that it is market pressures that will primarily motivate Canon to make changes and move forward. Yet it would be hard to argue that forums like this one don't make a difference. For example, Canon sold huge quantities of the 5D and 5D2 yet they did respond to customers feedback on the poor AF in those bodies. They did respond to customers who complained about the original 30fps video in the 5D2. So I'm only 99% cynical. ;D



So is the assumption that since Canon addressed the 5DII's poor AF, it was based on feedback from message boards? I'm not saying opinions voiced on message boards don't matter, but Canon has far more sophisticated methods of conducting market research. The online crowd, whether it's quilting forum or a photography forum, tends to be quite fanatical and dramatic, and has a knack of blowing things out of proportion


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> The 5d3 bests the 5d2 in almost every situation, every spec, every thing... guys... other than the sensor, what did the nikon D800 IMPROVE over the D700... not much. same body, same AF, lower burst, same ISO, etc... The D800 is a fine camera but lets not get over ourselves here...



+1. The D700 → D800 update is very analogous to the 5D → 5DII update - more MP and not much else. The 5DII → 5DIII update is a much broader, more significant update to the line - about the only thing that didn't change was the MP count.



V8Beast said:


> The online crowd...tends to be quite fanatical and dramatic, and has a knack of blowing things out of proportion



WTF?!? Fanatical? GTFO! Dramatic?!? You don't know what the f___ you're talking about. Get off these boards if you can't approach things in a civil, calm, and non-sarcastic manner. 

</sarcasm>, just in case that wasn't clear to someone...


----------



## UrbanVoyeur (May 1, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> 61 AF points vs 9... yep, modest upgrade... much better weather sealing, body, and ergonomics, modest, mmkay... 100% VF, modest, sure why not...


That's all 15 year old Canon technology. Even my EOS 3 had 45 AF points, weather sealing and 97% VF.

At this point in manufacturing, those upgrades cost nothing. 

From Wikipedia:
"The EOS-3 introduced the 45-point autofocus system later used in the EOS-1v, EOS-1D and subsequent Canon professional SLRs. It was the last camera outside the 1-series, either film or digital, to receive Canon's top-of-the-line AF system until the March 2012 announcement of the EOS 5D Mark III.[2]"


----------



## awinphoto (May 1, 2012)

UrbanVoyeur said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > I find it crazy that everyone hates the 5d3 just because it is priced $500 too high. As a pro photographer, I don't really care about a $500 difference in price. I'll pay what i have to in order to have the best tools. I'll make up the difference in one day of shooting.
> ...



Over the 5d2, the 5d3 is a huge improvement in almost every category, it's not even close. Compared to the D800, it's really too close to call for anything but the DR, which by ISO 800 is an edge Canon. Anywho, for my business I cant afford not to get this camera over the 5d2, which as a body as a whole, was horrid.


----------



## awinphoto (May 1, 2012)

UrbanVoyeur said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > 61 AF points vs 9... yep, modest upgrade... much better weather sealing, body, and ergonomics, modest, mmkay... 100% VF, modest, sure why not...
> ...



The 5d3 is a huge imrpovement over the 5d2 compared to the D800 over the D700... If i was a D700 i'd be more furious about the D800 lack of improvements than a 5d2 user with the 5d3... but it's simple... dont like it, dont buy it... why on earth do i even bother with CR at times?


----------



## Tcapp (May 1, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> UrbanVoyeur said:
> 
> 
> > Tcapp said:
> ...



+1 exactly


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> smirkypants said:
> 
> 
> > Canon is charging "wow" prices for a machine that is only a "nice upgrade."
> ...



When the competition are THREE usable stops better, yeah it does need some fixing.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 1, 2012)

t.linn said:


> Thanks for all the replies. I have to agree with folks who say that it is market pressures that will primarily motivate Canon to make changes and move forward. Yet it would be hard to argue that forums like this one don't make a difference. For example, Canon sold huge quantities of the 5D and 5D2 yet they did respond to customers feedback on the poor AF in those bodies. They did respond to customers who complained about the original 30fps video in the 5D2. So I'm only 99% cynical. ;D
> 
> The reason I posed my question is because Canon officials have said on several occasions that they will be watching the market response to higher megapixel DSLRs before deciding how to respond. It would be unfortunate if they interpreted the positive response to the D800 as a positive response to resolution rather than image quality—and DR in particular.



A it worrisome is the guy who has some in with Canon seemed to give the impression that all they see is MP and they don't get the dynamic range bit at all.  And that they could drop a 45MP camera with the same poor DR and 2-3fps and no crop modes like the D800 for speed and think it would be the most awesome thing ever just because it has 9 more MP than the D800 even though it would get creamed for dynamic range and fps.

As far back as maybe 2006 or 2007 supposedly an external division of Canon sent over some dynamic range improvement tech to see if the Japanese DSLR unit wanted to patent it and use it for cameras and apparently Canon marketing/production heads got it and were like what the heck is this? why do we want this? get lost and that was that. Supposedly they never even showed it to the Canon DSLR engineers!

I also recall some Canon guy a trade show telling the press that Canon had no plans for a faster FF since they had no need to do anything at all, they were years ahead of Nikon and could sit and rest on their laurels and that Nikon would be lucky to introduce any FF sensor, nevermind a good one for years if not more than a decade. As soon as I heard talk like that I got really worried about Canon. They sounded way too high on their own early DSLR success and too complacent and all the talk about no need to do anything, just sit still and milk products, etc. it sounded like a company ready for a fall. Not that they are falling but it is kinda ironic that Nikon came out with FF I believe less than a year later and that now like only half a decade later they have a much better FF sensor than anything Canon has ever produced.

All that said, other than the sensor's performance for some criteria, the 5D3 does sound pretty awesome (of course the sensor is a pretty important bit and the zero improvement for low iso stuff I do think took many a Canon shooter by shock).


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


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



PoV again. A 2012 Ferrari FF has a top speed of 208 mph. My car has a top speed of 116 mph. I will probably never drive faster than 85 mph. So...does my car need 'fixing'?

Usable? So what if you have no use for them. DR isn't the be-all-end-all for everyone, although it clearly seems to be your hobby-horse. Ride on...


----------



## V8Beast (May 1, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Anywho, for my business I cant afford not to get this camera over the 5d2, which as a body as a whole, was horrid.



I'm thinking your opinion has to do with the fact that you're a working pro who uses his gear in the field as a means of feeding his kids ? Both the 5DC and 5DII were cameras in which you loved the IQ, but were terrible in almost every other regard. Yeah, you could limp your way through a shoot despite their pathetic AF, viewfinders, burst rate, weather sealing, and shutter lag - and you were willing to do this because the IQ was so nice - but overall they handled like $hit. 

On the other hand, 5DIII isn't a camera that's meant to impress on paper. It's meant to impress out in the field. The very features that online tech geeks overlook and disregard as either modest or useless improvements are the same ones that make the 5DIII so enjoyable to use in the field. I loved my 5DC's IQ, but that's about it. In every other regard, it's a pile of junk


----------



## awinphoto (May 1, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


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



dude, you've been all over this camera since it was released, we get it, you dont like it, DONT GET IT... I hate to break it to ya, but canon isn't going to recall the camera just to add dr... So unless they come out with a big MP big DR camera sometime in the near future, you got a good 3 years to wait, and 2 years from now i hope you're still not on CR still griping about the 5d3... It's released, it's done, lets get over it or if you want to send canon a message, dont buy it... or even better jump to nikon so we can take a break from your negativity...


----------



## V8Beast (May 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> WTF?!? Fanatical? GTFO! Dramatic?!? You don't know what the f___ you're talking about. Get off these boards if you can't approach things in a civil, calm, and non-sarcastic manner.



By internet standards, this is actually a rather level-headed rant


----------



## awinphoto (May 1, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Anywho, for my business I cant afford not to get this camera over the 5d2, which as a body as a whole, was horrid.
> ...



Yep... I never had issue with IQ, if the camera could keep up with what I needed it to do in the field and gave me enough keepers to sell to my clients, I would be thrilled, but especially owning a 7d, using the AF, the features, the body, everything, then moving to the 5d2, as a body, felt like a step backwards. The IQ wasn't enough to make up for an OOF shot. The 5d3 is everything I could have asked for... Plus it's a workhorse I hopefully could use to carry me for the next few years...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 1, 2012)

awinphoto said:


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



Dude the topic of this thread is freaking asking what aspect of the sensor you most want Canon to fix and what message do you want Canon to take away from the 5D3 vs D800!

And I didn't say I hated the camera in general. I don't at all. I've said many times the improved speed and handling and AF a great and very important upgrades. They are fantastic upgrades. (And interestingly, almost exactly match many of the rants in the forums.) They nailed all those specs this time. Great stuff.

But yeah the low ISO sensor performance is a pretty big let down, not one bit better than half a decade ago, and that was kind of a shock that I don't think many expected. On that particular aspect it is quite a shame, especially since so much of everything else was gotten right this time.

The sensor is not all lost though since they did bump it almost 2/3rds stops better SNR which is pretty solid.

It's a good cam just way too bad about the low ISO dynamic range.


----------



## t.linn (May 1, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> So is the assumption that since Canon addressed the 5DII's poor AF, it was based on feedback from message boards? I'm not saying opinions voiced on message boards don't matter, but Canon has far more sophisticated methods of conducting market research. The online crowd, whether it's quilting forum or a photography forum, tends to be quite fanatical and dramatic, and has a knack of blowing things out of proportion



I think customer feedback can make a difference whether it is in forums or reviews or blog posts or where ever, V8Beast. I can give you another example. I think of Syl Arena's blog post several years back on Canon's Speedlite system. It resonated with people and Canon let him know they had read the post and was monitoring the responses. Several years later a vastly improved new flash system update is introduced that closely conforms to Syl's original wishlist. I'm not saying that Syl spec'd the new system but Syl's post and the big response helped crystallize and confirm what users were looking for.

I understand that it's not the individual rant that matters. But I do think that a vocal consensus among users matters. (If folks aren't vocal then it would be safe to assume that no one cares about a particular issue. And if there's not a general consensus then all the noise may not provide much useful guidance.) I was personally interested in whether or not there was a consensus in favor of DR or resolution and I'm pleased to see that there seems to be more consensus in favor of DR then I had expected.


----------



## unfocused (May 1, 2012)

> The reason I posed my question is because Canon officials have said on several occasions that they will be watching the market response to higher megapixel DSLRs before deciding how to respond. It would be unfortunate if they interpreted the positive response to the D800 as a positive response to resolution rather than image quality—and DR in particular.



It would only be unfortunate if the positive response to the D800 is due to dynamic range. But, what inside market research has anyone on this forum done to know that it *isn't* due to resolution? Just because we might want it to be something, doesn't make it so.

Canon is going to do market research on the 5DIII and the D800 (and dozens of other cameras). Rather than rely on a small, vocal, non-representative sample of individuals on internet forums, they will be talking to real customers. 



> I hate to break it to ya, but Canon isn't going to recall the camera just to add DR.



Exactly. The 5DIII and the D800 have now been released. Take your pick or take a pass. But people need to quit obsessing over what their dream camera might have been. Sorry, this model does not come delivered by a fairy princess riding a unicorn. Maybe next time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2012)

Canon's takeaway, such as it is, from the D800 vs. 5DIII debate will come 99.5% from relative sales figures/estimates, and 0.5% from everything else. 



t.linn said:


> I was personally interested in whether or not there was a consensus in favor of DR or resolution and I'm pleased to see that there seems to be more consensus in favor of DR then I had expected.



Except that there's sampling bias in your straw poll, like a poll about an upcoming US presidential election where you call only Democrats and surprise, surprise, the Democratic candidate comes out on top. Lots of people in this thread are lamenting the fact that there has been no improvement in the DR of Canon's CMOS sensors for several years and for all of those years, Canon has lagged well behind Nikon in sensor DR. Canon's sales of CMOS-contaning cameras has steadily *increased* over that same period, at the expense of Nikon's market share. Canon's camera division exists to sell cameras, period. Conclusion = DR is irrelevant to camera sales, and thus DR is irrelevant to Canon. True story.


----------



## Tcapp (May 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon's takeaway, such as it is, from the D800 vs. 5DIII debate will come 99.5% from relative sales figures/estimates, and 0.5% from everything else.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



unfortunate but true.


----------



## t.linn (May 1, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> A it worrisome is the guy who has some in with Canon seemed to give the impression that all they see is MP and they don't get the dynamic range bit at all.



To be fair, both quotes were in response to questions specifically about Canon's decisions concerning resolution. The first was made in response to a question about the rumored high megapixel Nikon body and how this would affect development of the 5D3. Neither camera had been introduced yet. The second response was made after both cameras had been introduced and the answer was basically the same: If we find that users really respond to the higher megapixel bodies we can produce one in short order. (My paraphrase.)



> And that they could drop a 45MP camera with the same poor DR and 2-3fps and no crop modes like the D800 for speed and think it would be the most awesome thing ever just because it has 9 more MP than the D800 even though it would get creamed for dynamic range and fps.



Exactly. It would be unfortunate if the response to the success of the D800 body is that Canon gives users more megapixels in the form of a sensor with worse noise and potentially worse DR. (Don't read this as a complaint about the 5D3's noise. My point is that we would be going backward.)


----------



## V8Beast (May 1, 2012)

t.linn said:


> I think customer feedback can make a difference whether it is in forums or reviews or blog posts or where ever, V8Beast. I can give you another example. I think of Syl Arena's blog post several years back on Canon's Speedlite system. It resonated with people and Canon let him know they had read the post and was monitoring the responses. Several years later a vastly improved new flash system update is introduced that closely conforms to Syl's original wishlist. I'm not saying that Syl spec'd the new system but Syl's post and the big response helped crystallize and confirm what users were looking for.



I agree that listening to all feedback is important, but like all companies Canon has to weed out the fanatics from the serious users. Translation: all feedback is welcome, but feedback from people who are willing to spend the money and contribute to a company's quarterly earnings are much more important. On the internet, you get people that talk a lot of trash, but don't put their money where there mouths are 

As for Syl Arena's blog post, I can assure that he was one of MANY professional photographers urging Canon to offer flashes that don't require adding on third-party gear to maximize their potential. Pros didn't suddenly recognize this void only after reading Syl's blog  I'm sure Syl's post helped Canon realize the shortcomings of their flash system, but he was just one of many pros that expressed a similar opinion to Canon, and I doubt he was the first to bring this to Canon's attention.


----------



## t.linn (May 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon's takeaway, such as it is, from the D800 vs. 5DIII debate will come 99.5% from relative sales figures/estimates, and 0.5% from everything else.



Yes and no. You have to interpret those sales figures. That gets to the heart of my question. If sales figures trend in a particular direction, Canon has to draw a conclusion as to why in order to respond.

I completely agree that the responses to my question don't constitute a _statistically _valid anything; but it does interest me that among this group of Canon loyalists who have now been exposed to a camera that offers a significant resolution bump and a significant DR improvement that DR improvement remains the priority.


----------



## V8Beast (May 1, 2012)

t.linn said:


> It would be unfortunate if the response to the success of the D800 body is that Canon gives users more megapixels in the form of a sensor with worse noise and potentially worse DR. (Don't read this as a complaint about the 5D3's noise. My point is that we would be going backward.)



A photographers, that would be unfortunate, but such a camera would probably sell like crack for Canon. Since the 10D back in 2003 to the 7D of today, the overall IQ of Canon's APS-C sensors haven't improved much at all. ISO is up a wee bit, and DR has improved less than a stop. However, the megapixels have tripled and as neuro pointed out, Canon's market share has increased. 

So if you're a Canon exec, why would you think DR is nearly as important as all the internet fanatics think it is? I'll take all the DR I can get, but it's just one out of dozens of different variables that go into capturing an image.


----------



## t.linn (May 1, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> I agree that listening to all feedback is important, but like all companies Canon has to weed out the fanatics from the serious users. Translation: all feedback is welcome, but feedback from people who are willing to spend the money and contribute to a company's quarterly earnings are much more important. On the internet, you get people that talk a lot of trash, but don't put their money where there mouths are



Absolutely.



> As for Syl Arena's blog post, I can assure that he was one of MANY professional photographers urging Canon to offer flashes that don't require adding on third-party gear to maximize their potential. Pros didn't suddenly recognize this void only after reading Syl's blog  I'm sure Syl's post helped Canon realize the shortcomings of their flash system, but he was just one of many pros that expressed a similar opinion to Canon, and I doubt he was the first to bring this to Canon's attention.



I don't disagree at all with this. I was merely trying to use Syl as a concrete instance where feedback helped influence Canon's decision making process—by Canon's own admission.


----------



## t.linn (May 1, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> t.linn said:
> 
> 
> > It would be unfortunate if the response to the success of the D800 body is that Canon gives users more megapixels in the form of a sensor with worse noise and potentially worse DR. (Don't read this as a complaint about the 5D3's noise. My point is that we would be going backward.)
> ...



God help us. 



> So if you're a Canon exec, why would you think DR is nearly as important as all the internet fanatics think it is?



This is what I've been trying to get at. If Canon looks at the 5D3 sales and says, "Wow. Sales are even better than we had hoped," then there's no reason to think anything will change. However, if the D800 is affecting sales, I'm _hoping _that Canon correctly interprets this. If they look at the overwhelmingly positive response to the D800, I'm hoping they _don't _say, "More megapixels is what we need."



> I'll take all the DR I can get, but it's just one out of dozens of different variables that go into capturing an image.



Agreed. But I'm specifically talking about DR because I think it's the one area where Canon is demonstrably falling behind in their sensor tech. Others may disagree.


----------



## UrbanVoyeur (May 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Wow, there are just so many misassumptions there that I'm not even sure where to begin. You don't, by any chance, do cost analyses for the US government, do you?



No I don't . But I have been buying and using the Canon EOS system for over 20 years. I still own several EOS film cameras, and I can match them just about feature for feature with their their digital counterparts. Build quality, lens mount quality, sealing, shutter MTF, % VF, auto-focus points, metering, etc. 

I've come to know how much of a price increase there was when Canon "improved weather sealing", "added metering modes", "increased VF %" or "increased the number or AF points" between one model year and the next. Answer: essentially $0.

I also know what each of the film cameras cost new, and in many cases, what it cost to have all or parts of the film transport replaced or repaired. I've been pretty hard on some of these cameras.

So when I look at a Canon digital camera, I also look at it's nearest film sibling. The difference in price between the two, minus the retail parts cost of replacing the film transport, is the "digital premium" Canon is charging me for that camera. I am not talking about what it *costs* Canon to make the camera. I don't know and I don't care. I am only concerned with what Canon is *charging* me for the digital features.

So if the Canon EOS 3 ($800 new) and the 5MkIII ($3500 new) are nearly identical in build and features. And I was charged $275 in parts for replacing a destroyed film transport, then retail price of the non-digital parts of and EOS 3 type body I can assume is $500. NOT what it cost Canon, but what they are charging me for it.

Likewise, if an EOS 3 body is like a 5MkIII body, then the *digital premium* - what Canon is charging me for the sensors, chips and software - on the 5 MkIII is $3000. ($3500-$500)

Do the same analysis for the Nikon D800. It has a film sibling that sold for around 800-900. Assume the film transport price is the same. The Nikon digital premium is $2500, for 36 MP and near medium format performance.

So the question for me becomes, is that $3000 Canon digital premium worth it. My answer, in this case, is no, not when compared to the MkII and not when compared to the value offered by Nikon.

The analysis would be just as valid if I took off nothing for the film transport. The digital premium would still be there, and Canon would still be offering less value than Nikon, and an insignificant improvement over the MkII


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon's takeaway, such as it is, from the D800 vs. 5DIII debate will come 99.5% from relative sales figures/estimates, and 0.5% from everything else.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's wayyy too simplified of a conclusion there.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 1, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> t.linn said:
> 
> 
> > I think customer feedback can make a difference whether it is in forums or reviews or blog posts or where ever, V8Beast. I can give you another example. I think of Syl Arena's blog post several years back on Canon's Speedlite system. It resonated with people and Canon let him know they had read the post and was monitoring the responses. Several years later a vastly improved new flash system update is introduced that closely conforms to Syl's original wishlist. I'm not saying that Syl spec'd the new system but Syl's post and the big response helped crystallize and confirm what users were looking for.
> ...



Actually forum posters seem to have more high end stuff, more money put into it, than the average user from what I see. You see a lot more talk of people owning super-tele, T&S, fast L primes, etc. on forums.


----------



## pdirestajr (May 1, 2012)

A solution for increased dynamic range on the sensor is to learn how to light properly.

A solution to increased performance in low light is to add a bit of light.

A fix for the light leak controversy of 2012 is to take pictures with the lens cap off.

I see a trend here, web-forum-complaining-photographers need to invest more time in lighting, and finding the light.

After all, photography is actually about making exposures WITH LIGHT.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 1, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> A solution for increased dynamic range on the sensor is to learn how to light properly.
> 
> A solution to increased performance in low light is to add a bit of light.



yeah whatever you say


----------



## Kernuak (May 1, 2012)

t.linn said:


> Kernuak said:
> 
> 
> > I feel that most of the DR would be wasted anyway in terms of professional use. Currently, the main markets for selling images are as fine art prints (either as true fine art portraits/landscapes etc or as wedding/event prints) and the various forms of stock. Most professional printers and paper has less dynamic range than can be produced by DSLRs, so having more dynamic range would be pointless in my view. Likewise, most stock photographic licences are purchased for printing, either in a magazine/newspaper etc. or on a billboard, again, the DR is wasted. There are more images being licenced for web use, but again, viewing on most browsers gives limited DR.
> ...


My comments about DR and processing weren't entirely about what can be pulled out. I think you may have missed my main point, in that a large number of professionals aren't that interested in DR compared to other factors, which they would consider more important (e.g. improved AF/frame rate among other things). Probably much of the design is driven towards their target market.
Whether or not you make use of the DR, I still feel that more DR can result in a flatter unprocessed image, while it is a relatively simple processing step, it is something that many professionals would prefer not to do if they can get away with it. Many wildlife pros in particular, have very little knowledge of advanced Photoshop, as a large number of them come from the film days and expect more natural looking images, so it is an alien concept to them.

Theses images had a similar concept to tours, in that I wanted to capture the woodpeckers in directional light at dawn, the difference is, I had the sun at a different angle, and wasn't looking for any rim lighting. I would have liked a little more detail in the white feathers, but I feel it's a small compromise, considering the image overall.




Male Great Spotted Woodpecker Feeding. by Kernuak, on Flickr



Male Great Spotted Woodpecker at Nest. by Kernuak, on Flickr

In constrast, this backlit image was taken in late evening and I didn't have any real problems with lack of shadow detail, although admittedly, I didn't have the problem of black feathers.

http://ps.avalonlightphotoart.co.uk/image/I0000VuB2wc_ccGg


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2012)

t.linn said:


> If they look at the overwhelmingly positive response to the D800, I'm hoping they _don't _say, "More megapixels is what we need."



Unfortunately for you, I don't think there is any possible way Canon would interpret such a situation in any other way than, "More megapixels is what we need." If the D800 outsells the 5DIII by a wide margin, what differentiates it? For the recent past, Canon has been out front in the 'megapixel war', and behind in DR. The D800 represents a reversal in the megapixel situation with Nikon surpassing Canon, and no change in the DR situation, with Nikon still out front. How else _could_ Canon interpret that? Canon will assume the problem is MP, revert to their former more-is-better strategy, and we'll see a high MP body with no greater (or perhaps even less) DR.



UrbanVoyeur said:


> I am not talking about what it *costs* Canon to make the camera. I don't know and I don't care. I am only concerned with what Canon is *charging* me for the digital features



I see a lot of dollar values in your analyses. Did you account for the fact that Canon doesn't count dollars to determine profit, but that they count yen instead? That means exchange rates are a huge factor in pricing (the strong yen accounts for much of the recent price hikes, for both Canon and Nikon), and also the ever-shifting landscape of trade tariffs, luxury goods import duties, etc., play a major role (which is why Canon gear appears to cost more in the EU, on a dollar for euro comparison).

But sure, we can reduce it to a 'digital premium' and agree that Canon is screwing us all by charging for the air inside digital cameras, or something. It's irrelevent. If you want the camera, you pay the cost. If the cost is too high, you don't buy the camera. I guess on a personal level, it's pretty simple after all.


----------



## UrbanVoyeur (May 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> The D800 represents a reversal in the megapixel situation with Nikon surpassing Canon, and no change in the DR situation, with Nikon still out front. How else _could_ Canon interpret that? Canon will assume the problem is MP, revert to their former more-is-better strategy, and we'll see a high MP body with no greater (or perhaps even less) DR.


I wish that Canon would take up the challenge and push past Nikon in MP count, DR and noise, but I agree with you - Canon will probabley stick to the MP count. It's easier.



neuroanatomist said:


> Did you account for the fact that Canon doesn't count dollars to determine profit, but that they count yen instead? That means exchange rates are a huge factor in pricing (the strong yen accounts for much of the recent price hikes, for both Canon and Nikon), and also the ever-shifting landscape of trade tariffs, luxury goods import duties, etc., play a major role (which is why Canon gear appears to cost more in the EU, on a dollar for euro comparison).


Nope, didn't consider it at all, as it is irrelevant. I don't care what the camera costs to produce or how much profit Canon makes. I only know what Canon chooses to charge me in dollars and how that stacks up to the previous version and the competition. 

The absolute price isn't an issue for me in this case. At issue is whether the Mk3 offers enough features to justify the price of the upgrade compared to what is possible (Nikon) and what Canon has offered in the past (Mk2). It does not. 

If the Mk3 offered the same MP, DR, and low noise as the current tech leader, Nikon, the Mk3 would be worth the upgrade. I'll wait until what Canon is offering @$3500 is more in line with what is possible, the D800 @ $3000.



neuroanatomist said:


> If you want the camera, you pay the cost. If the cost is too high, you don't buy the camera. I guess on a personal level, it's pretty simple after all.


That about sums it up.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 1, 2012)

Regarding dr, take a look here http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=6235.0


----------



## pdirestajr (May 2, 2012)

I really just don't get it. Photography is a form of art and creative expression- from a pro photographer to a parent photographing their kids. It has also always been about creative problem solving, that's what makes it so intriguing. You will always find yourself in a unique lighting scenario with a lens that has limits and a film or sensor with limits. If you had Iso 100 Velvia loaded into your camera and only one lens, you'd have to make situational adjustments to make the best possible exposure, and so on.

I see a lot of pissy people that just sit around reading spec sheets and lab reports and complain that their thousands of dollars worth of gear can't accomplish a simple task.


----------



## V8Beast (May 2, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > t.linn said:
> ...



I've said it before and I'll say it again. Many hobbyists I see online have nicer gear than a lot of pros I work with. This makes sense, as photography is rarely a lucrative profession  You can get by and make a decent living, but I don't know many wealthy pro photographers, and that has nothing to do with talent. 

That said, these forum posters that you speak of with all this money, how much of the market do you think they represent? I'd venture to say it's quite small. Likewise, what do you figure the ratio is of whiners vs. people that actually went out a purchased the gear they debated about online? Me thinks the ratio favors the whiners by a substantial margin, because if people put their money where their mouths and bought new gear, they'd be out shooting with it instead of perpetuating the online whine fest. 

Out of curiosity, do the words "14 stops of DR, bey-otch!" or "DxO rating of 95, recognize mofos!" appear anywhere on Nikon's marketing literature for the D800? You'd think that if it was such a big deal and such a great marketing tool, Nikon would be taking advantage of it.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 2, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > V8Beast said:
> ...



Yes and the collapse of newspapers and magazines has made the PJ job fortunes meeker than ever. Some salary figures I've seen recently have been really scary (so scary they kinda scared me back into my original game plan for a living). The sort where a grad student might look like Donald Trump in comparison.  :'(



> That said, these forum posters that you speak of with all this money, how much of the market do you think they represent? I'd venture to say it's quite small.



Probably not a lot compared to all of the rebel and some of the xxD users.



> Likewise, what do you figure the ratio is of whiners vs. people that actually went out a purchased the gear they debated about online? Me thinks the ratio favors the whiners by a substantial margin, because if people put their money where their mouths and bought new gear, they'd be out shooting with it instead of perpetuating the online whine fest.



I don't think so. The whiners seem to have a lot of equipment on average, although I have hardly done a careful tally. I can say that I myself have a super-tele, some L zooms and medium and short primes, two bodies, TCs, etc. etc. 

And some of the AF whiners have insane equipment sets with super-tele galore. (the 5D3 and 1DX may quiet this group right up, the 1D4 already did to some decent extent and even the 1D3 after the fixes to a lesser and hardly universal extent and the 7D to some extent among the more amateur and more forgiving of that set, Canon may have finally answered the loud cries of this set)



> Out of curiosity, do the words "14 stops of DR, bey-otch!" or "DxO rating of 95, recognize mofos!" appear anywhere on Nikon's marketing literature for the D800? You'd think that if it was such a big deal and such a great marketing tool, Nikon would be taking advantage of it.



They do appear in some of Sony's.  They definitely brag on the Exmor DR.

Nikon may have been wary to play up DR too much in press since their flagship D3s and D4 have less DR than some of their consumer APS-C and their D800 and the heavily Sony-aided sensors outdo the ones they made without much Sony help.

And anyway DxO and all do it for them.

To be honest I don't know what they drum up since I haven't looked at Nikon marketing too much (other than all of the Ashton commercials on TV for point and shoots which can't be avoided).

Anyway most of the 5D3 they did get right. 

The low ISO stuff is a bit lame after 5 years and all the bragging they did about how they are so far ahead they don't even need to try. I just hope they take DR seriously for the 5D4 round.

The grass isn't entire green on Nikon's side so I will stick around for the 5D3 it does fix a lot of body performance stuff I had been hoping would get fixed for years with the 5D series.

That said if the sensor is way behind again 5D4/D900 round I'd sadly have to decide to switch to Nikon after years and years of Canon shooting.

I seriously thought about for the first time this time, but it doesn't quite make sense to switch yet, taking ALL about the 5D3 and other factors such as $ and lenses and UI and video into account, but if the are left in the dust for dynamic range and such next time, I'm afraid it will be a switch (and with canon lenses becoming more expensive and my super-tele getting old, etc. it might not be that much of a $ factor to switch by then either).

And you have to admit Canon has become the king of silly little crippling's of their bodies, more than any of the other makers at this point in time. Although they finally stopped crippling AF in a big way this time at least. That was awesome.

I do know so more purely landscape guys who are switching to Nikon now and might not have had the 5D3 simply had even just D4-levels of dynamic range, MP left at 22 as is. (Of course I do know a few Nikon landscape guys who couldn't afford the superior D3x and nabbed a 5D2 the last round)


----------



## V8Beast (May 2, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I do know so more purely landscape guys who are switching to Nikon now and might not have had the 5D3 simply had even just D4-levels of dynamic range, MP left at 22 as is. (Of course I do know a few Nikon landscape guys who couldn't afford the superior D3x and nabbed a 5D2 the last round)



Welp, landscapes is one of those disciplines where Nikon's superior DR is a huge advantage. Canon shooters should admit this rather than living in denial. That said, everyone seems to be a landscape shooter these days ;D


----------



## the-ninth (May 2, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> A solution for increased dynamic range on the sensor is to learn how to light properly.
> [...]
> After all, photography is actually about making exposures WITH LIGHT.



I have to agree here. Owned a 30D before, now have a 5D3. I don't see how the increase in dynamic range between the two has improved my photography and neither believe any further increase would do so.

If your subject is well-lit, the DR of any recent DSLR should suffice. If light gets too harsh outdoors, then it is time to stop anyway, because you'll have other quality issues than DR. And even in those cases where light is good but uneven, e. g. indoors with sun-beams falling in, I never thought a few burned spots hurt a photo that is good otherwise. Here is an example: http://www.the-ninth.com/index.php?mode=display&area=gallery&aid=27&page=2&pid=593.

Cheers, Robert


----------



## torger (May 2, 2012)

The advantage of digital medium format has traditionally been higher dynamic range and higher resolution, the disadvantage - an astronomic cost, still many professionals pay what it costs to gain that little extra quality. Now the D800 provides medium-format-like DR (perhaps even better DR) and resolution at an attractive price. A 35mm camera that crosses over into medium format territory, I think it is truly fantastic. The D800 sets a new standard of what can be achieved with a 35mm digital system. Great for fine art, landscape and studio photographers. Wouldn't it be great if Canon had a similar offer?

In medium format circles the D800 is now discussed as a serious alternative/complement to expensive MF cameras. Canon 5D mark III isn't even discussed at all. It should be said that the MF community is quite small though, so for total market sales it is not too important. But if Nikon gets known as the 35mm digital that can do it all, and Canon is mainly for journalism, sports and wildlife, many more beginning photographers that don't know for sure what they will do will rather invest in Nikon.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 2, 2012)

the-ninth said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > A solution for increased dynamic range on the sensor is to learn how to light properly.
> ...



It isn't that this is something to be agreed with - it's just that your style of photography doesn't benefit from capturing a single frame with a high dynamic range.

"If your subject is well-lit, the DR of any recent DSLR should suffice. If light gets too harsh outdoors, then it is time to stop anyway, because you'll have other quality issues than DR"

These are big ifs. Just because this is when you put down your camera, doesn't mean it's when I put down my camera. 

You don't stretch your camera - fair enough - but that doesn't make you correct. It just means you don't stretch your camera. That's your choice, just like others' choice is their choice.

Next we'll be saying that people who need continuous autofocus are "wrong" because if your subject is stationary it isn't needed and if your subject isn't stationary you shouldn't be taking the shot :


----------



## the-ninth (May 2, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> It isn't that this is something to be agreed with - it's just that your style of photography doesn't benefit from capturing a single frame with a high dynamic range.
> [...]
> These are big ifs. Just because this is when you put down your camera, doesn't mean it's when I put down my camera.



You are right, this is about my preferences and I did not intent to generalize.

But I'd be interesting to know: what are the practical situations where you'd crave for more DR? I personally never encountered a situation where I thought "uh, if I just had more DR, this crappy picture would have been great". 

Cheers, Robert


----------



## AvTvM (May 2, 2012)

Canon's takeaway should be:
1. quickly reduce price of 5D3 below price of competitors' superior product
2. quickly get a grip on dark noise and resulting DR-performance of home-made CMOS sensors or start sourcing from Sony


----------



## awinphoto (May 2, 2012)

It is what it is... If you set up a portrait, if you meter your lights and you get a 1:4 lighting ratio on your subject, if your camera has 10 stops of DR or 14, you should still get a 1:4 lighting ratio... you set up a 1:8, you should still get a 1:8.... I read a lot of people who want to shoot in these extreme situations and have detail in the farther most regions of the DR spectrum, that's fine and dandy, but I think people forget that the expanded DR comes in the extreme points... It's not however going to make a back-lit portrait which would normally give you either a flat or a silhouette depending on how much light if any is illuminating the subject, it's not going to give you all of a sudden a "usable" picture unless you still light it... You will have a very dark subject with subtleties of detail in the extreme shadows. Having more DR isn't going to change properties of light nor will it make your photos from being good to being exceptional. It isn't the holy grail. It's a tool that if you are willing to spend the time to fix every image, like old school film, you can get great results, but if you do not and expect great shots OOC, forget it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 2, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> Canon's takeaway should be:
> 1. quickly reduce price of 5D3 below price of competitors' superior product



It sounds like you think the D800 is superior to the 5DIII. Do you believe that Canon thinks the D800 is superior to the 5DIII? Is the D800's frame rate superior? Is the D800's AF system better? Does the D800 have higher available ISO settings (both base and expanded)? I trust you are aware that there is more to a camera than the sensor, and more to the sensor than it's DR and dark noise... Unless the D800 substantially outsells the 5DIII, Canon's takeaway will be...."Yay, we won, go Canon..."


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 2, 2012)

the-ninth said:


> PhilDrinkwater said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't that this is something to be agreed with - it's just that your style of photography doesn't benefit from capturing a single frame with a high dynamic range.
> ...



This shot:






Can turn into this shot:





But even with a fair amount of local NR there's still noise and I realistically have to turn colour NR up a bunch more:





For this shot what I was looking for was getting the castle in the background and the party in the foreground in softer light, but to lift this afterwards. I could have used a flash but I don't think it gives the same look...

I've got a bunch of similar examples - usually where I'm trying to get detail back into a cloudy sky or pull detail back from the shadows on a sunny day  Weddings just don't allow me to be perfect 'cos they happen too quick.

Anyway  That's what I'd use it for. I know the landscape guys would like to be able to push the shadows a lot to create single frame HDR and I can see the attraction for that, especially where there's movement in the scene.

I think it's like high ISO - everyone years ago said "you don't need it" but when people had it they started to use it and now they wouldn't want to go back.


----------



## Razor2012 (May 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Canon's takeaway should be:
> ...



Agree with you here. Not to take anything away from Nikon, but the whole arguement is about the 'superior' sensor. Like you said what about the 5DIII's frame rate, AF & high ISO? It's like saying my race car is superior to yours because I have 1200HP compared to your 900HP, not taking into consideration the rest of the mechanics or the driver.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 2, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


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



Indeed. Some tracks require pure HP (drag strip?) whereas for some cornering ability is more important. Taking a car with pure HP round a track where cornering ability is important will mean you lose.

"Tools for the job".


----------



## pdirestajr (May 2, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> the-ninth said:
> 
> 
> > PhilDrinkwater said:
> ...



I agree more DR would always be nice, as would better high ISO performance, etc. BUT there will always be limitations, even with improvements. In any system when the ceiling is hit, creativity will take you beyond.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 2, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> I agree more DR would always be nice, as would better high ISO performance, etc. BUT there will always be limitations, even with improvements. In any system when the ceiling is hit, creativity will take you beyond.



Indeed. In the end I take masses of photos. More DR would be useful in about 1% of them. I've even learned to produce very sharp photos in low light with the 5d2 - and if I can do that I can do anything 

I'm still getting a 5d3 btw. And I think it's an amazing camera! (viewfinder I'm less pleased with... in fact DR is the lesser of my issues with it)


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 2, 2012)

ugggggg... Said it before and will say it again. My response to all this is to stop sending my clients a proof gallery, and instead, send my shots to a lab where they will analyze it and send me a 500 page detailed report on the image, with histogram graphs and 3lots of science and tech info ---then i will pass this 500 page report to my clients and they can choose their prints from that...

Yes, thats really sarcastic, but from what I see and hear here it sounds like thats what your clients want, or you want. Who cares about the actual image in question... theres a lot of math in photography, and in music and in art --- but are most artists mathematicians? Does an artist bust out a graphing calculator before they envision the image they wish to create? 

There is another segment of market research here to consider ---and this i think will drive what happens in the professional market more than forum posts ---where are the images going, what are people doing with them. If more national geographic pictures have canon gear attached to them than nikon, then why would canon spend a boat load of r&d money on improving DR? If more acclaimed artists are selling more printed works off of canon gear, then again why spend r&d $$$? And then theres the wedding photography market ---which is really what the mk3 is geared too ---for that yeah nikon may have more wow results from the day time part of the ceremony, but even nikon pros who have used the mk3 praise its low light abilities and admit that canon has the edge there. That's what will drive the pro market...

But with all that said, the rebel line and the nikon equivalent, that's whats really making both canon and nikon cash. And in that race, hate to say it, MP's will win over anything else, because most people buying a rebel don't even know what DR is, or why it matters. MP's though, we know thats important because it says it on the box!!! 

Sad to say it, but in terms of profit, its the low end that wins. For the higher end pro/emerging pro market, its more about prestige - look at this wow shot by so and so taken on a such and such...

Lastly, I should remind all of you of these 2 videos - 

Canon 5D MK III vs Nikon D800 with Nathan Elson

Canon 5D Mark III vs. Nikon D800 Part 2 with Mike Drew

Bottom line of both of these videos is ----if you are already on canon, there really isn't any need to switch, and, if your already on nikon, there is no need to switch ----overall consensus, most people would be more than happy with either camera. 

Anyway you hack it though, it brings me back to the very sarcastic beginning ---if your meeting with a client, arethey going to look at your images and feel you out as a person? Or are they going to ask you about DR, or ask to see a DxO report on your camera, or an MFT chart on your lenses? I don't think I'm too far off in saying that for most people in most fields of photography a client chooses them based on the images in the portfolio, the personality of the tog, and the cost for the session/disk/prints.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 2, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Anyway you hack it though, it brings me back to the very sarcastic beginning ---if your meeting with a client, arethey going to look at your images and feel you out as a person? Or are they going to ask you about DR, or ask to see a DxO report on your camera, or an MFT chart on your lenses? I don't think I'm too far off in saying that for most people in most fields of photography a client chooses them based on the images in the portfolio, the personality of the tog, and the cost for the session/disk/prints.



Is this directed at me? If so, I don't sell on tech. Ever. That doesn't mean *I* don't care about it though. I push my gear in order to stay at the forefront of photography. There's nothing special about not being interested in all elements of photography - tech, content (expressions, background etc), lighting, composition etc. I'll never stop pushing. That's who I am. 

My clients hire me because I have a fantastic portfolio (to their tastes) and a personality they want on their wedding day. They often stretch their budgets for me. 

If it wasn't directed at me, the points still stand


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 2, 2012)

the-ninth said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > A solution for increased dynamic range on the sensor is to learn how to light properly.
> ...



Some of the more beautiful sights I've witnessed have had extremes in dynamic range. With more dynamic range you don't need to just pack up the camera and forget it.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 2, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Anyway you hack it though, it brings me back to the very sarcastic beginning ---if your meeting with a client, arethey going to look at your images and feel you out as a person? Or are they going to ask you about DR, or ask to see a DxO report on your camera, or an MFT chart on your lenses? I don't think I'm too far off in saying that for most people in most fields of photography a client chooses them based on the images in the portfolio, the personality of the tog, and the cost for the session/disk/prints.



You assuming that all photography is simply commercial/portrait based client model....


----------



## stevenrrmanir (May 2, 2012)

lower sales will be expected and they will change the way they release the bodies... right now they are milking this dead animal... once the $$$ stop coming in as budgeted, they will get a nice wake up call... until then, you the customer are losing out!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 3, 2012)

stevenrrmanir said:


> lower sales will be expected and they will change the way they release the bodies...once the $$$ stop coming in as budgeted, they will get a nice wake up call...



With foreknowledge like that, you must be filthy rich from the stock market and/or lottery. So, why do you care about any of this, rich dude?


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 3, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway you hack it though, it brings me back to the very sarcastic beginning ---if your meeting with a client, arethey going to look at your images and feel you out as a person? Or are they going to ask you about DR, or ask to see a DxO report on your camera, or an MFT chart on your lenses? I don't think I'm too far off in saying that for most people in most fields of photography a client chooses them based on the images in the portfolio, the personality of the tog, and the cost for the session/disk/prints.
> ...



Wasn't directed towards any single person, more to the its all about tech and thats that vibe I've been seeing on many threads here, not just this one - and when its really becoming apparent in mk3 vs d800 debate. the general opinion from pros that I have seen strikes me as being at odds with what us general folk are saying on the forums, hence why i relinked those 2 videos where it does show that both are fantastic cameras. 

Not trying to tell anyone to get either camera, just that all this reliance on tech data over what the image says to the end client gets real silly...hence the extreme sarcasm with sending lab reports instead of images....

The funnier thing is that when I was getting my start, only just 2 years ago, the local pros I spoke with told me its not about the gear, its about the eye and the heart of the tog behind the gear. At that point I was using a rebel xsi with max ISO of 1600 (usable ISO of 400, things got real murky above 400). Does gear play a part? Yeah, but when you get to the level of d800 vs mk3, which cam has the real edge gets real blurry, and very specific. Thats the source of the sarcasm. The vast majority of clients want an image that speaks to them, an image that captures a moment - there is an intangible there that no amount of stops of DR can change.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 3, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway you hack it though, it brings me back to the very sarcastic beginning ---if your meeting with a client, arethey going to look at your images and feel you out as a person? Or are they going to ask you about DR, or ask to see a DxO report on your camera, or an MFT chart on your lenses? I don't think I'm too far off in saying that for most people in most fields of photography a client chooses them based on the images in the portfolio, the personality of the tog, and the cost for the session/disk/prints.
> ...



No, I also shoot art as well. And with art more is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not saying more DR isn't a good thing. 

Either way, even if your a hobbyist, if you take a shot do you send it off to a lab and have it tests for its technical correctness? Or do you slap it on your computer, PP it and enjoy it, or hate it? 

These are two different cameras. the mk3 is a low light monster that also handles most other forms of photography from landscape to sports to studio very well. The d800 is a landscape monster that can hold its own in low light and does well in the studio. If you lean towards the landscapes, then you have a choice to make. One thing is certain, the d800 is the d800 and the mk3 is the mk3...that ain't changing, do you buy either, well thats entirely up to you.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 3, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> The funnier thing is that when I was getting my start, only just 2 years ago, the local pros I spoke with told me its not about the gear, its about the eye and the heart of the tog behind the gear. At that point I was using a rebel xsi with max ISO of 1600 (usable ISO of 400, things got real murky above 400). Does gear play a part? Yeah, but when you get to the level of d800 vs mk3, which cam has the real edge gets real blurry, and very specific. Thats the source of the sarcasm. The vast majority of clients want an image that speaks to them, an image that captures a moment - there is an intangible there that no amount of stops of DR can change.



This is both true and untrue. Pros tend to say "gear doesn't matter" when in actual fact what they mean is to deliver the images I need to deliver to keep my business going, this gear is what I need. At a very basic level, that may be an image that captures a moment or that speaks to a customer, but achieving that is only a 5 on the 1-10 scale of wedding photography. It's something that a competent photographer can achieve in a couple of years.

However, if you want to deliver something different and unique and your gear won't do that, it becomes a problem.

I'd point you to http://jonaspeterson.com/. He's made himself one of the top wedding photographers in the world through his style - but part of that style is gear and part of it is post processing. He decided on a different, quirky vision for his work and went out and sold it. He pushes DR pretty hard as far as I can tell - very bright brights and dark darks, so ask him if his gear matters and he'd say yes!.

However, did the gear do this for him? No, it came from his heart. He needed the tools to deliver that vision though - low DOF & TS lenses and a vintage PP effect.

Now maybe someone will take a d800 and shoot it on -1EV aperture priority all day (when ISO <800) and pull highlights and push shadows as much as possible to produce a kind of HDR effect. Maybe people will want to buy it. Maybe they won't. The point is though that, if that was your vision, you can only do that successfully with the d800.

Fundamentally... *new gear is only important when it's holding your vision back* but also *new equipment brings about new opportunities*. Spotting and taking advantage of those opportunities can give you a business boost. Or it can give you nothing.

Photographers need to follow the career path they want. Do you want to be producing 5/10's or do you want to set the world alight? Both answer are right - there is no wrong - it's just what you want. Most produce 5/10's. A few go on to set the world alight.

_(and while we're talking, marketing is incredibly important too of course)_


----------



## awinphoto (May 3, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> Now maybe someone will take a d800 and shoot it on -1EV aperture priority all day (when ISO <800) and pull highlights and push shadows as much as possible to produce a kind of HDR effect. Maybe people will want to buy it. Maybe they won't. The point is though that, if that was your vision, you can only do that successfully with the d800.
> 
> Fundamentally... *new gear is only important when it's holding your vision back* but also *new equipment brings about new opportunities*. Spotting and taking advantage of those opportunities can give you a business boost. Or it can give you nothing.
> 
> ...



Equipment is important to help you when your current gear is holding you back. With that being said, pro's have for years gotten excellent photos with pin hole cameras. Of course it takes great skill by doing so, and great gear makes it that much easier, but by buying a D800 or a 5d3 for that matter isn't going to make a bad photographer a good photographer. In that essence it is about the photographer, his skill and his vision, and not so much the gear. 

Also, good gear can also help you and hurt you if you let it get you complacent (such as machine gun firing a moment rather than waiting for the right moment to fire)... I think the real world differences between the cameras are so minor it's not worth really fretting over, such as in chucks video, they said an ever slight advantage canon for AF, ever slight advantage for nikon for DR... Also depending on which medium you output to will also determine whether any of the extra benifit of the DR will show, especially after you tweek the D800 file to give it "pop" instead of a flat image. Also with filters such as topaz adjust, adding DR cleanly is so easy and quick, it's nice to add when and only when I want it, rather than being spoon-fed it every time I shoot... 

Of course it's going to come down to personal taste, personal expectation and vision... some will choose the nikon 800 because they are shooting nikon and only will shoot nikon and visa versa for canon. There will be nikon shooters shooting canon because of file size, high iso, and other factors and then there will be canon shooter shooting nikon because of the desire for the most DR possible and dont have a budget for medium format. No one choice is any more right or wrong than others, but in the end lab numbers and specs may seem large on paper, but in real life, it's really more closer than most people are giving either camera credit for.


----------



## ybrankov (May 3, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> I really hope this doesn't sound rude, but this is exactly what Canon wants, right? You are invested heavily in Canon to the extent that switching becomes a non-option. You are also willing to spend big dollars to overcome the previous model's defects. ...



I was thinking about switching. IMO, the option to switch is always there regardless of how heavily invested you are. Fortunately, the glass doesn't depreciate much. You can sell it and buy the other camp's gear with no big financial penalty.

Also if one is very heavily invested in one of the camps, one's got enough money to afford to use gear from both camps.


----------



## KeithR (May 3, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> and kicks its ass in almost every way.



Correction - in just about (or _actually_, depending on personal needs) _no_ way.

Those of us who shoot with the 7D have seen all of this - *all of it* - already. 

When the D7000/Pentax K-5/Sony A580(?) came out with the Sony sensor, _exactly_ the same noises were made by vociferous, 7D-using malcontents as are being made now about the 5D Mk III compared to the D800: "we can't shoot without the [D7000/D800 - delete as necessary] low ISO DR"; "Canon can't make sensors"; "They're *******"/"I'm jumping ship"/"Canon need to wise up..." - on and on. 

_Ad nauseam_.

It's like Groundhog Day without the jokes. 

Well guess what? I still see ten 7Ds in use to every one of the D7000/K-5/A580 triumvirate I see in the field; I've yet to see a _single_ image from the Nikon, the Pentax or the Sony that I couldn't recreate; I've still seen _thousands_ of 7D images that have taken my breath away; and I've yet to lose a single shot from my 7D that I would have made if only I'd had the Sony sensor.

So the take-away message for Canon is this: some people - a tiny, insignificant, but very vocal subset of the customerbase - are only happy when they're bitching about something, and Canon will still sell truckloads of cameras despite what that subset has to say about it, because _the rest of us_ will simply get on with figuring out how to equalise these - in truth, pretty piddling and easy to address - Sony sensor "superiorities". 

It happened over the 7D, and it'll happen with the 5D Mk III.


----------



## ybrankov (May 3, 2012)

Personally, I am getting more and more disappointed with Canon's strategy of trickling feature upgrades out to market:
1. it took canon 4-5 years after Nikon to release a -2EV focusing sensor;
2. the old 9 point focus sensor has been used for probably more than 10 years before it was finally upgraded (starting 7D);
3. Canon's dynamic range has been lagging as compared to Nikon for about 10 years now and Canon do not look like they're getting a clue;
4. D800 clearly looks like the better camera of the two, yet 5D III is $500 more expensive. What are canon thinking?

Whether this is all a result of lagging engineering or marketing strategy it does not matter. The fact is, my patience is wearing thin. 
I really like the jag wheel in the back of their cameras and their lens lineup, but the way things are going I will be buying my D800 soon and most likely gradually switch camps.


----------



## KeithR (May 3, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> When the competition are THREE usable stops better, yeah it does need some fixing.



Except that's not true, of course - those three stops can be _significantly_ equalised if you know how (and it isn't hard).


----------



## ybrankov (May 3, 2012)

KeithR said:


> Correction - in just about (or _actually_, depending on personal needs) _no_ way.
> 
> Those of us who shoot with the 7D have seen all of this - *all of it* - already.
> 
> When the D7000/Pentax K-5/Sony A580(?) came out with the Sony sensor, _exactly_ the same noises were made by vociferous, 7D-using malcontents as are being made now about the 5D Mk III compared to the D800: "we can't shoot without the [D7000/D800 - delete as necessary] low ISO DR"; "Canon can't make sensors"; "They're *******"/"I'm jumping ship"/"Canon need to wise up..." - on and on.



It depends on how you interpret the facts. This noise was created once and Cannon did not seem to address it. It goes on now too and Canon will most likely ignore it again. The question becomes how many times Canon will have the credit to ignore it until its sales seriously dip?

Do you remember a company called Nokia? Some people already forgot about it. Nokia was the number 1 cell phone manufacturer until about 4-5 years ago. It was too proud to listen to market demand and trends and here was when Apple and Google did it right. Proud Nokia is nowhere near the top now after pure outsiders like Apple and Google entered the segment and reshaped it to an unrecognizable degree. They kicked Nokia's asses so badly that not only Nokia lost the race but it's highly questionable whether Nokia will even survive it.

At the end, I don't care much. I suspect that I will be a proud owner of a D800 in conjunction with my 5DII and all current gear. I will use both camps. And, there is no way I am buying 5DIII given its current performance, let alone the price. If you believe in Canon, you may choose to support them and pay more for an inferior product.


----------



## awinphoto (May 3, 2012)

ybrankov said:


> Personally, I am getting more and more disappointed with Canon's strategy of trickling feature upgrades out to market:
> 1. it took canon 4-5 years after Nikon to release a -2EV focusing sensor;
> 2. the old 9 point focus sensor has been used for probably more than 10 years before it was finally upgraded (starting 7D);
> 3. Canon's dynamic range has been lagging as compared to Nikon for about 10 years now and Canon do not look like they're getting a clue;
> ...



I suspect your dates are a wee bit off... Canon used nikon as a whipping board up until about the 40D, which was when nikon started edging nikon digitally... This was in sensors, DR, and such... remember for the longest time nikon kept using CCD's instead of CMOS sensor and nikon suffered for it. As for the 9pt AF... it was in play since at least the D60... i cant recall if the D30 had it or the old 7 pt system.. Before that in the film era you either had a pro 35 with the 3's and the 5's and the 1's, or you had the elans and rebels, each having anywhere from 3 to 7 points... It was bad that they used the 9pt as it's bread and butter for so long, but at least they have learned from there ways, or so it seems... 

and in which ways is the D800 CLEARLY the better camera? AF? nope. high ISO? nope. DR? slightly. HDR? Silent Shooting? Movie? Ergonomics? Battery? DR Past ISO 800? nope nope nope nope nope nope... This is the overraction that proves ones ignorance to the facts... But in the end, what do I care what you buy? Enjoy your D800 and maybe one day we can have a proper shoot off to fully determine which is king.


----------



## awinphoto (May 3, 2012)

ybrankov said:


> KeithR said:
> 
> 
> > Correction - in just about (or _actually_, depending on personal needs) _no_ way.
> ...



And one last point to mention... you are saying nokia didn't listen the market and trends.... Canon, however, both the the 1dx, 5d3, and 7D, has listened to their customers and given a product they have been dreaming about... the 7d, fast AF (compared to the 9pt), FPS, 100% VF, weathersealing, commander, etc, the 5d3, reasonable MP, much improved AF, better low ISO, better sealing, 2 cards, 100% VF, etc, 1dx, TBD... Just because it isn't your dream camera doesn't mean it's not the camera they determined to be the target audience to be and satisfies 90-95% of those projected audiences...


----------



## Razor2012 (May 3, 2012)

Exactly. We can just just be thrilled with our new toys and have fun taking pics...or we can head over to the other camp and complain about all the shortcomings they have? Not.


----------



## ybrankov (May 3, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> and in which ways is the D800 CLEARLY the better camera? AF? nope. high ISO? nope. DR? slightly. HDR? Silent Shooting? Movie? Ergonomics? Battery? DR Past ISO 800? nope nope nope nope nope nope... This is the overraction that proves ones ignorance to the facts... But in the end, what do I care what you buy? Enjoy your D800 and maybe one day we can have a proper shoot off to fully determine which is king.



I honestly hope you're right about the overreaction part. For quite some time now however I've been piling up this feeling that i am not making the right choice and that I am being extorted. It was the usual insecure suspicion in the beginning but it kept on growing. I clearly feel taken advantage of now. Canon know well that they have a strong side with their lens lineup, clear EF compatibility, etc. However, their marketing department seems to carefully take care to extort their customers penny by penny for this. I don't like to be extorted. I am not sure anyone does.

As for D800, its image quality is not a bit better. It is WAY better. IQ (to me) is what counts FIRST. The differences in the areas where 5DIII has the edge are small to negligible. I am almost sure you'd like to have the D800's DR and shadow detail in your 5DIII, would you not? And then, aren't you asking yourself whether it's fair that you'd pay $500 more for a camera which lags quite a bit behind the competition in a specific area?


----------



## ybrankov (May 3, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> Exactly. We can just just be thrilled with our new toys and have fun taking pics...or we can head over to the other camp and complain about all the shortcomings they have? Not.



Oh, boy. I'm not *just* complaining about its shortcomings. IQ is the area I need most. I do low light photography, print design, and publishing. The color noise and lack of detail in the shadows, which cannon are so good at, hits me badly. The ink printing techniques are very prone to burning the highlights and darkening the shadows. This is exactly where canon's DR puts a bar in my wheels as compared to Nikon. If I open the shadows to compensate, I get color noise and bad IQ. Similar thing for the highlights, esp in strong light. Trust me, I've worked with professional scanners for quite some time now. The DR has been the main issue and a limiting factor there as well. I am amazed to see the advance Nikon has made in the area. I am not sure I can keep up clinging to canon anymore unless they dee up quickly.


----------



## V8Beast (May 3, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> Fundamentally... *new gear is only important when it's holding your vision back* but also *new equipment brings about new opportunities*. Spotting and taking advantage of those opportunities can give you a business boost. Or it can give you nothing.



Very well said  The gear vs. technique debate is a touchy subject indeed. The "it's not about equipment, it's all about technique" remark is thrown around so often that it's become cliche. I dislike blanket statements and generalizations, but while there's some truth to that old cliche, I don't agree with it entirely. 

IMHO, at the beginner level, it's 99% technique and 1% equipment. An experienced pro with a point-and-shoot will easily produce better images than the typical soccer mom with a Rebel. At the pro level, it's still mostly about technique, but I'd say that equipment becomes more important, since those that lack basic photography skills have already been weeded out. It's tough to put a number on it. For pros, perhaps its 90% technique and 10% equipment, or 80% technique and 20% equipment, but any working photog with any dignity will strive to push the envelope and eventually hit the limits of their equipment. These days, the limits of equipment are extremely high, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. 

I'm not much of a NBA fan, but I've noticed photogs are now rigging cameras up behind the backboard, and triggering them remotely to create a unique perspective as players battle up near the rim. How on earth would this be possible without today's technology? Now sports shooters can cover a game from multiple angles simultaneously without cloning themselves 

Likewise, for portraits, the combination of ETTL technology, radio triggers, and high-speed sync flash guns has opened the door to creative effects that were once difficult, if not impossible to pull off. Furthermore, back in the day before autofocus was invented, motorsports photographers would zone focus at one particular part of the track, fire off a bunch of frames as a car approached, and hope that the timing of one of the frames happened to coincide with when a car crossed the focal plane. Every now and then you'd get a good shot, but most of them were soft piles of junk. Those are just a few examples that come to mind, and this post is already running long. 

Just because you can get a shot with lesser gear doesn't mean it's always practical, especially when there's the all-important time invested vs. revenue earned metric that everyone running a business must deal with. Soooo, while the "gear doesn't matter, it's all about technique" cliche is true most of the time, to say that equipment never matters isn't entirely accurate.


----------



## Razor2012 (May 3, 2012)

ybrankov said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. We can just just be thrilled with our new toys and have fun taking pics...or we can head over to the other camp and complain about all the shortcomings they have? Not.
> ...



I agree with you totally. If the 800 is going to serve your needs better than the MKIII then your choice is clear. All I'm saying is that it doesn't matter, make a choice and carry on. I'm sure not going to go over to the Nikon camp and start trolling about all the stuff the 800 is lacking in (comparitively speaking).


----------



## awinphoto (May 3, 2012)

ybrankov said:


> As for D800, its image quality is not a bit better. It is WAY better. This is what counts FIRST. The differences in the areas where 5DIII has the edge are small to negligible. I am almost sure you'd like to have the D800's DR and shadow detail in your 5DIII, would you not? And then, aren't you asking yourself whether it's fair that you'd pay $500 more for a camera which lags quite a bit behind the competition in a specific area?



It's better from ISO 50 until about ISO 800 (with every ISO getting closer and closer until the canon beats nikon around 800)... To be honest, the specs on paper is impressive and looks promising, but looking at the sample images, the extra DR makes the images look flattttttttttttttttttt.... I love photoshop as much as the next guy, but if I have to do adjustments JUST to get the same pop as the canon file as a prerequisite to getting good files, that's a bit of a stretch for me. One wedding photog on CR mentioned how they shot the 5d3, shot the ceremony with the camera writing to both cards... then during the reception he loaded the SD on his laptop or TV or whatever and had the photos looping while he went on shooting the reception... Now imagine a D800 shooter doing the same thing... images flat... and then explaining to the crowd "it's not flat looking, it's just the 14 stops of DR"... no one will care, they will have a bad impression of the photog. 

Do i feel ripped off? to be honest around the 50D era i actually did start feeling ripped off... I hated that camera with a passion.. noisy, underspec'd, 9 pt af, same crappy body, at that point, I was very displeased with Canon... But then the 7D came out, got it the first month it came out and rekindled my love for that camera and the brand as it met all my expectations as a working pro. Likewise that is why I hated the 5d2 but love the 5d3... It meets my expectations... as for DR and IQ... i never had issue with the 5d2's DR and IQ... during it's hayday, it was one of the best on the market. But everything else about the camera sucked donkey... The 5d3 gives me everything from the 7D is loved (minus the wireless controller) and the IQ of the 5d2 and even better low ISO... What's not to love? Plus, nikon cameras cant take canon lenses so screw it. =)

If nikon or sony or whatever produces a better camera for you, go for it. I'm not trying to convince you one way or another... all I can speak from is my point of view and where i came from to where I am now.


----------



## traveller (May 3, 2012)

What should Canon take away from all this? It's far too early to say, in terms of sales (which is the only real measurement of success) we won't know until the end of the year. Neither Nikon nor Canon seem to be able to meet demand for these cameras at the moment. However, in the narrow terms of internet brand image, where Canon has really lost out is in perception. 

I think that the overall problem is that Nikon has changed the goalposts in terms of the marketing strategy for their full frame cameras. The D4 is the speed demon and the D800 is the resolution monster, whereas for Canon the 1DX is the top of the line professional body and the 5D MkIII is for those that can’t afford the 1DX? OK, you can argue that the 5D MkIII is smaller, lighter and a better casual camera but this isn’t the way that it is marketed (if it were to be that, Canon should have made it smaller and lighter than the 5D MkII). Whilst the 5D MkIII is a very well rounded camera, Canon can’t give a simple marketing message that “this is the camera that is the best at…” That’s why there’s so much chatter on the internet forums and why they are having difficulty justifying the price tag.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 3, 2012)

ybrankov said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > and in which ways is the D800 CLEARLY the better camera? AF? nope. high ISO? nope. DR? slightly. HDR? Silent Shooting? Movie? Ergonomics? Battery? DR Past ISO 800? nope nope nope nope nope nope... This is the overraction that proves ones ignorance to the facts... But in the end, what do I care what you buy? Enjoy your D800 and maybe one day we can have a proper shoot off to fully determine which is king.
> ...



Did you watch the videos? I know they're 20 minutes long each so they take a bit of time, but from what I saw there and what the producers themselves saw is that both cameras are extremely good tools - and in those areas that one edges out the other and vice versa the 'edge' they have is really so narrow that there's no reason to fuss, to worry, or to switch systems. 

and as to the extortion ---what about nikon holding the fps hostage on the d800? Gotta buy that grip to get fps, and if fps is a concern to you then that edge that canon has is a big one. There is also the AA filter issue, and I hear a lot of people forgetting that they have to get the e model which is $300 more. If you feel extorted and don't want to buy canon, then I hate to break it to you but every company on this here planet will do that ---why --- because they need to stay in business, and that means creating and selling things. theres alwasy gonna be this trade off or that trade off, or this item that you have to add on to make it better, etc etc etc....If switching to nikon is what you feel you need to do, its not like anyone on this forum is going to find you and have an intervention...just do it, go for it...No one is stopping you from that...

Just realize that the d800 is not the holy grail of camera's. Its a great camera. So is the mk3.


----------



## Tcapp (May 3, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> ybrankov said:
> 
> 
> > awinphoto said:
> ...


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 3, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > The funnier thing is that when I was getting my start, only just 2 years ago, the local pros I spoke with told me its not about the gear, its about the eye and the heart of the tog behind the gear. At that point I was using a rebel xsi with max ISO of 1600 (usable ISO of 400, things got real murky above 400). Does gear play a part? Yeah, but when you get to the level of d800 vs mk3, which cam has the real edge gets real blurry, and very specific. Thats the source of the sarcasm. The vast majority of clients want an image that speaks to them, an image that captures a moment - there is an intangible there that no amount of stops of DR can change.
> ...



I agree. when you reach the limits of what your equipment can achieve you need to add more/new equipment or fall into possible stagnation. I brought that up because I know many of those same pros that told me its not the gear ---- well, they complain about their gear! LOL...that's just part of humanity there - its actually one of the reasons the human race still exists - we're never satisfied, while that does lead to lots of complaining it also leads to evolution. 

To break it down from a very subjective perspective. For me, I do feel that I am pushing the limits/capabilities of my current setup. My 7d rocks, and for the most parts does really well for me. But the crop factor does get into my way. And high ISO noise is a big issue for me. I shoot portraits, events, art, and weddings. And I break it down like this ---

For art, hell yeah I'd love both the resolution and the DR of the d800.
For portraits, I would really just like to have the flexibility on the wide side of an FF camera. From that sense either body would fit my needs
events - major bonus to the mkiii
for weddings - this gets split up, the d800 would most likely be the better camera for outdoor weddings, or well lit venues, but the mkiii wins the battle on the scales due to the high ISO performance.

Final conclusions. The d800 just doesn't offer enough for me over the mk3 to make the switch. If I were to double or triple my sales in art then either switching or adding a nikon to my bag would be on the table, but by that point in my career the whole medium of photography may have gone and flipped on us. So in the interim, pinch and save to upgrade, while also upgrading other tools in my kit. if i were to land a job for an ad agency and I truly needed the DR and res of the D800, well, that's when I can choose to rent (hell, if it was a big enough job though, I'd probably rent a MF unit!).

until then, I haven't seen any real world evidence that tells me that an mkiii would not be a significant upgrade from a 7D...everyones different though. this is what makes sense for me. I don't expect either canon or nikon to make a body that suits all of my current and future needs, that's just unrealistic. I'm just picking what I feel the best tools are for me.


----------



## seekn (May 4, 2012)

ybrankov said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. We can just just be thrilled with our new toys and have fun taking pics...or we can head over to the other camp and complain about all the shortcomings they have? Not.
> ...


Look at what you wrote. This is what YOU need for your low light photos and prints. Just because you need that doesn't mean others do for their work. Others may appreciate the extra FPS, silent shooting, quick AF, nice skin tones etc etc... Don't bash it just because it's not your cup of tea. Also, I find it funny when people say that they make more money with a new camera with more DR. Does that mean you charged less before the 800 came out? Is your bottom line all of a sudden going to soar and all the clients come running because they can see a little more detail in the shadow? Honestly most pictures are sold through composition, not an extra 2-3 stops of DR - but if you need it then your answer is clear. Just get what you want or need - but no need to put something else down just because you may not understand why it's a godsend to others. One thing I think that Canon can take home is that you cant make everyone happy. No camera will ever be perfect. People are never content - they always want more (even if they dont really need it).


----------



## Tcapp (May 4, 2012)

seekn said:


> ybrankov said:
> 
> 
> > Razor2012 said:
> ...



I think people saying that a particular camera or feature will make them more money is just a rationalization to let them buy a new toy. 

I do it. I'll admit it. So I totally agree with you that its the composition not the tech that sells. But new toys are fun, and we have to make it sound like a good investment to our wives.


----------



## ybrankov (May 4, 2012)

seekn said:


> Look at what you wrote. This is what YOU need for your low light photos and prints. Just because you need that doesn't mean others do for their work. Others may appreciate the extra FPS, silent shooting, quick AF, nice skin tones etc etc... Don't bash it just because it's not your cup of tea. Also, I find it funny when people say that they make more money with a new camera with more DR. Does that mean you charged less before the 800 came out? Is your bottom line all of a sudden going to soar and all the clients come running because they can see a little more detail in the shadow? Honestly most pictures are sold through composition, not an extra 2-3 stops of DR - but if you need it then your answer is clear. Just get what you want or need - but no need to put something else down just because you may not understand why it's a godsend to others. One thing I think that Canon can take home is that you cant make everyone happy. No camera will ever be perfect. People are never content - they always want more (even if they dont really need it).



Well, I have my point of view and unfortunately it is my only one. I haven't found a way to have two at a time. This gives me only one point of looking at facts and judging them. So this is my opinion and of course it's about me and my needs, who else.

I am not going to charge more or less. Better DR will simply help me improve some pictures I cannot re-take, will make my work easier, and will give me more possibilities. Speaking about Canon, I feel the company has been over-milking their user base. True, Apple does the same but this doesn't mean it's not happening. I like both companies but what they do is not very dignified. That is what reminded me of the example with Nokia who were left in the dust.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 4, 2012)

KeithR said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > When the competition are THREE usable stops better, yeah it does need some fixing.
> ...



Whatever tricks you do to the canon image to 'equalize' it you should also be applying to the D800 image and then you are back to the three stops again.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 4, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> I suspect your dates are a wee bit off... Canon used nikon as a whipping board up until about the 40D, which was when nikon started edging nikon digitally... This was in sensors, DR, and such... remember for the longest time nikon kept using CCD's instead of CMOS sensor and nikon suffered for it. As for the 9pt AF... it was in play since at least the D60... i cant recall if the D30 had it or the old 7 pt system.. Before that in the film era you either had a pro 35 with the 3's and the 5's and the 1's, or you had the elans and rebels, each having anywhere from 3 to 7 points... It was bad that they used the 9pt as it's bread and butter for so long, but at least they have learned from there ways, or so it seems...



He overdid the dates a bit. Canon had been whipping Nikon sensors every which way for a while there.



> and in which ways is the D800 CLEARLY the better camera? AF? nope. high ISO? nope. DR? slightly. HDR? Silent Shooting? Movie? Ergonomics? Battery? DR Past ISO 800? nope nope nope nope nope nope...



If you call three stops better slightly then you can't say Canon sensors EVER were noticeable better than Nikon. You can't have it both ways.

D800 DR is slightly better a stop or two beyond ISO800.

It clearly can capture more total detail for equally framed objects and pull in more detail when reach limited.

It most likely has better metering, has built in flash and built-in intervalometer.

But the nikon video has lots of color moire and it can't do 6fps in FF mode (the fact it can do 6fps in DX and 5fps in 1.2x crop save it though and still allow it to be a bit of an all around camera, if they hadn't put in those modes, then thre would be a huge difference there with the 5D3 being vastly better for action). Of course once the D800 does 6fps it no longer costs less than the 5D3.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 4, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> PhilDrinkwater said:
> 
> 
> > Fundamentally... *new gear is only important when it's holding your vision back* but also *new equipment brings about new opportunities*. Spotting and taking advantage of those opportunities can give you a business boost. Or it can give you nothing.
> ...



Once on the sidelines a few people swapped equipment. There were two each of beginning amateurs, experienced amateurs and pros. It was xxD vs 1 series bodies. They were all paired with super-tele L lenses. 

The pros when stuck with the xxD still easily out shot the beginning amateurs even when they were paired with 1 series bodies.

BUT the pros (both had only used 1 series) and the one experience amateur who had been using one series for a while all said they instantly had worse results and worse take when they switched to the xxD bodies.

And the beginners and advanced amateurs all said they instantly had a much better take when they used the 1 series bodies.

In the end it was clear that natural talent mattered a real lot, experience mattered a lot to a real lot and equipment matter a fair amount. 

Poor talent and very little experience were the most detrimental but equipment was not something to laugh off. Shooters, at ALL levels, instantly became better or worse depending upon which body they shot with. The difference was quite clear. And the ones going to the better camera were instantly better despite not even having time to settle into how to even use it the best.

Contrary to many claims there was no such thing as the equipment being 'too good' for a shooter. Even the least talented and least experienced instantly had a better take with the better equipment. All the talk about needing to improve yourself before you improve your equipment is just nonsense. That said improving yourself certainly IS very important and it does make the greater difference overall in many cases.

Both of the pros had hoped to get away with getting an xxD body but after the trial swap they were all like umm yeah.... no way in heck, my take rate instantly went down, equipment matters, definitely matters. And all those who hadn't used 1 series before were suddenly lusting after better equipment and complaining about how no small bodies from Canon had decent AF.


----------



## V8Beast (May 4, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Contrary to many claims there was no such thing as the equipment being 'too good' for a shooter. Even the least talented and least experienced instantly had a better take with the better equipment. All the talk about needing to improve yourself before you improve your equipment is just nonsense. That said improving yourself certainly IS very important and it does make the greater difference overall in many cases.
> 
> Both of the pros had hoped to get away with getting an xxD body but after the trial swap they were all like umm yeah.... no way in heck, my take rate instantly went down, equipment matters, definitely matters. And all those who hadn't used 1 series before were suddenly lusting after better equipment and complaining about how no small bodies from Canon had decent AF.



It really depends what you shoot. For the sports photography scenario you reference, gear is obviously very important. Events happen quickly, in real time and only once, so there are no do-overs. If you miss a shot, but all the photographers you're competing with get the shot, then you're going to look pretty dumb  Do this enough, and you'll be out of business. 

For forms of photography where there's lots of time to stage and set up shots, you can often get a lot more out of lesser gear. IMHO, these are the types of scenarios where the advantage of better gear is more questionable. "Hit rate" doesn't really matter, because you only need a few keepers, and as long as time permits, you can stage another shot and take another crack at it. 

Besides all that, the convenience factor of updated equipment can't be overlooked. With the 5D, I used to manually focus in just about every situation where it was practical. This isn't exactly fun at night or in cave-like lighting conditions. It took several shoots for me to fully trust the 5DIII's AF system, because "trust" and "AF" aren't two things that go together well when it comes to the 5D and 5DII ;D After learning to trust the 5DIII's AF, my eyes don't hurt anymore after a shoot, and my contacts aren't dried out.  On the drive home, I don't have to worry about all the shots where my manual focusing skills might have failed me, either. You can't really put a price on that sort of thing. Plus, the LCD screen is badass and the shutter sounds sweet  The sliding window at my house has a nicer screen than the 5DC


----------



## Tcapp (May 4, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Contrary to many claims there was no such thing as the equipment being 'too good' for a shooter. Even the least talented and least experienced instantly had a better take with the better equipment. All the talk about needing to improve yourself before you improve your equipment is just nonsense. That said improving yourself certainly IS very important and it does make the greater difference overall in many cases.
> ...



Hahaha. +1 for the laugh, +2 for the excellent points. 

For slow, controlled environments, its hard to beat a 5d2 (cost vs performance). For demanding situations I totally agree, 5d3 or 1dwhatever. Or 7d I guess.


----------



## caruser (May 4, 2012)

ybrankov said:


> I honestly hope you're right about the overreaction part. For quite some time now however I've been piling up this feeling that i am not making the right choice and that I am being extorted. It was the usual insecure suspicion in the beginning but it kept on growing. I clearly feel taken advantage of now. Canon know well that they have a strong side with their lens lineup, clear EF compatibility, etc. However, their marketing department seems to carefully take care to extort their customers penny by penny for this. I don't like to be extorted. I am not sure anyone does.



Everyone does, it's called capitalism, and people seem to like it, for some reason or other, otherwise a majority would stand up and change it.

Edit: How about all DSLR users stood up and said they wouldn't buy another camera before all makers agreed on one compatible mount? ;-)


----------



## briansquibb (May 4, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> For slow, controlled environments, its hard to beat a 5d2 (cost vs performance). For demanding situations I totally agree, 5d3 or 1dwhatever. Or 7d I guess.



Me and my 5DII had 3 years of fun together.

As a talentless amateur I had to develop techniques to compensate like anticipation for the AF to get enough time to react. Moving to the series 1 meant that the fast AF allowed me to do less anticipation and more grab shooting. The IQ of my pictures didn't go up - just that the camera function allowed me to treat it like a 5DII P&S (actually my keepers went down until I realised the 1DS3 wasnt THAT fast).

My world is very different from that of a professional - time is not an issue as I have plenty of that and it doesn't cost, I can pick and choose jobs I do as I dont charge and my 'clients' are happy for me to plug away until I get the job done. Yesterday I was doing a favour for a startup business and they started treating me like dirt on the bottom of a sewage workers shoes - I left them to do it themselves much to their astonishment - they gave me a lot of abuse about how unprofessional I was - which made me laugh 

As long as Canon (or any of the manufacturers) keep improving the functionality I will be happy - as this allows me to concentrate on the composition rather than the technologies and workarounds. I am a affectionado of flash so the move to eTTL has been a godsend to me, especially with the advent of radio triggers. Whereas in the pre-AF days the shooter would prefocus on a corner - I now scatter flash guns and take pictures as the subjects pass them - this is a fun technique for street work as they look around for someone with a flash - and I am up the road with a 400


----------



## Tcapp (May 4, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > For slow, controlled environments, its hard to beat a 5d2 (cost vs performance). For demanding situations I totally agree, 5d3 or 1dwhatever. Or 7d I guess.
> ...



briansquibb- Why do you not do this professionally? You certainly have the gear for it, heck, you have a lot more gear than I do and I _do _do this professionally! It sounds like you know your stuff, have great techniques, and although I haven't seen your photos, im sure they are pretty damn good.


----------



## briansquibb (May 4, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> briansquibb- Why do you not do this professionally? You certainly have the gear for it, heck, you have a lot more gear than I do and I _do _do this professionally! It sounds like you know your stuff, have great techniques, and although I haven't seen your photos, im sure they are pretty damn good.



I am retired now and just do it as a hobby. I really enjoy photography and shoot about 4 days a week on things I want to do - I get to see a lot of very interesting places and people which is fun.


----------



## Tcapp (May 4, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb- Why do you not do this professionally? You certainly have the gear for it, heck, you have a lot more gear than I do and I _do _do this professionally! It sounds like you know your stuff, have great techniques, and although I haven't seen your photos, im sure they are pretty damn good.
> ...



Ah! Your retired. It all makes sense now. I have a good 45 years to go before I can think about retiring. I wonder how many total photos I'll take from now till then... 5 million? 7 million? exciting to think about all the great photos that are yet to happen. Can't wait to see what happens!


----------



## seekn (May 4, 2012)

seekn said:


> "In the end it was clear that natural talent mattered a real lot, experience mattered a lot to a real lot and equipment matter a fair amount.
> 
> Poor talent and very little experience were the most detrimental but equipment was not something to laugh off. Shooters, at ALL levels, instantly became better or worse depending upon which body they shot with. The difference was quite clear. And the ones going to the better camera were instantly better despite not even having time to settle into how to even use it the best.
> 
> ...


Two points here. I disagree with you about recommending to people that you dont need to improve yourself before you improve your equipment. Yes, having good gear is important and may make your sessions easier and more fruitful, however there is a definite learning curve in photography. Having a beginner grab a 600 ex flash over a 430ex or something to me is more gear than they need. Yes having the 600 with more power may give them more shots, but 90% of the features will go unused. It is basically a waste of money. Just like if all these photo enthusiasts run to the 800 and only upload pics to flickr and frame home photos. Its overkill for MANY (not all).
Also, you mention how the AF was so important to even the beginners and that is true. But that also shows you how it is not all about one specific detail. Yes, the 800 has more resolution, better IQ, more DR, but is that what will help people just breaking into the FF dslr market? Or is it high ISO, better AF, creative mode shooting (or whatever they call it) etc? 
I totally agree- buy what you can afford, plan for the future, but you also need to be realistic. People are always wanting the best, the 36 mp, the carbon fiber, the fastest write speed, ... only you can really answer if you REALLY need it.
I saw someone post a pic of their work on these forums and showed how the extra DR helped him sell prints and he said that the DR put money in his pocket? Really? I truly think he sold those shots because they were well composed, well lit, well processed and the subject liked the way they looked in it. Did it matter that you could see more reflections in his or her glasses ? I highly doubt it, although the tog has convinced himself that it was the selling point. 
I am guilty of this too - I buy everything under the sun lol - i loove gadgets. But honestly, do I need every little thing haha - probably not, but I convince my wife I do. 
[/quote]


----------



## Longvision (May 4, 2012)

OK, I have only read part of this long thread, but here's my take :

I still own a 5Dc, passed the 5DII upgrade, since I didn't feel a need for extra resolution and was mostly interested in better AF, which did not happen on the 5DII.

So, as you might expect, I believe Canon should improve the DR of its sensors, not the resolution.

That being said, the 5DIII is everything I would have liked to see in the 5DII. So this time I will upgrade.

Sure, low iso DR matters and Canon deserve all the flak it is getting for not improving it. However, as I don't shoot much at 100iso and do a lot at 800 and above, I guess I am less affected by it than many. Certainly it would be good to have higher DR at high iso (much more important in my eyes than higher resolution).

One thing that gets surprisingly little attention is the silent mode in the 5DIII. For me, this is a huge improvement in a dslr. Mechanical noise has ruined more shots in my experience than lack of DR, simply because I had to stop shooting. It's distressing how little DR there is in a picture you do NOT take !!!

In an ideal world, I would like the DR of the D800, the silent mode, frame rate and AF of the 5DIII. I would also like the nikon 12-24mm in ef mount, along with my beloved 135/2.0L. 

But as this is not an ideal world, as I have quite a bit of an investment in canon L glass, as photography is not my profession, as there is no way I can justify spending the amount to own two systems, I'll have to settle for the lesser alternative : just one lowly 5DIII.

Strangely enough, this is not making me particularly unhappy 

Still, canon should be working on DR, and not just at low iso.


----------



## awinphoto (May 4, 2012)

seekn said:


> seekn said:
> 
> 
> > "In the end it was clear that natural talent mattered a real lot, experience mattered a lot to a real lot and equipment matter a fair amount.
> ...


[/quote]

I kinda have to agree.. when I first started as a student going pro i started with 1 camera, the 10D, a crappy 29-80mm, 75-300 non IS POC, and a 50mm macro, yes, all budget lenses... at the time I could have splurged and went for the first gen 1d for $4000 at the time, the lovely 4MP camera, but then i would be lense-less and what's the point in that? Of course the pixel density and the camera made those crappy lenses seem formidable, and now i've upgrade into the arsenal that i have today. Working with the lower gear, building my chops, and outgrowing each of the camera/lenses has led me to appreciate my next gear and my next evolution in photography, I think even more than people who jump in the game with huge cash flow and buy the best right off the bat... They never had to struggle, they never had to overcome their gear, they never had to rise above and I find they tend to go on CR and gripe about gear more than others... Hence the 5d3 comes out and all of a sudden, to some, it's not enough. I'm fully aware of those issues but in the grand scheme of things, it really, to me, isn't a big deal. Of course I see Nuero's equipment list, brianquibbs gear, etc and i'm envious of what they have, but in the end, I know I can do what I want to do with what I have and I will keep making money doing what I love. There will always be that hotter/sexier girlfriend out there, but as long as your current girl satisfies you, whats the point in fretting?


----------



## briansquibb (May 4, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Of course I see Nuero's equipment list, brianquibbs gear, etc and i'm envious of what they have,



I am very carefull to choose the right gear and am not on the leading edge of technology. 

My photography doesn't earn me any money so I buy kit specifically for my requirements rather than to generate income. At this point in time I have no plans for a 1DX or a 5DIII as I feel that they will suit me less than the 1D4 and the 1DS3 which are my main bodies.

The 7D is just for taking street photos and as a spare.

I chose these cameras as they have the features that make my life simple and they work well for me. The 1DS3 is my best ever general purpose camera - I shoot a lot of close ups and the IQ is stunning, far better than its predecessor, the 5DII - mostly in skin tones (of course the pro AF and AF point linked metering helps a LOT)

I set myself a target for kit and have been working towards it for 2 years now - dont be envious of me - just decide what you really need and work towards it without compromise.


----------



## skitron (May 4, 2012)

seekn said:


> I disagree with you about recommending to people that you dont need to improve yourself before you improve your equipment. Yes, having good gear is important and may make your sessions easier and more fruitful, however there is a definite learning curve...



I used to have this same discussion in audio circles about audio gear. The bottom line is I've heard some really good records made with really cheap gear and massive engineering talent. I've also heard some really bad records made with uber-gear and little engineering talent. It's really no different in photgraphy. Not to say uber-gear and massive talent isn't the best combination...just that talent dominates the equation is all.


----------



## Tcapp (May 4, 2012)

skitron said:


> seekn said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree with you about recommending to people that you dont need to improve yourself before you improve your equipment. Yes, having good gear is important and may make your sessions easier and more fruitful, however there is a definite learning curve...
> ...



Very very true. 

But in some circumstances, better equipment is better than talent. I don't care how good you are, try to get a good candle light portrait handheld with a slow zoom on a rebel and you will fail, but a 5d3 with a 50 1.2 or a good tripod, and even an amateur can put it on green mode and get a decent shot. 

But yea, im most cases, talent trumps gear 9/10 times.


----------



## Michael7 (May 4, 2012)

A someone who has, and continues to shoot strictly Canon, there are two things I come away with here:

1. Canon is damaging its reputation with $3500 cameras that can't auto focus with F8 lenses. This is an incredibly petulant feature-lock meant to make people purchase far more expensive lenses to obtain desired reach. It falls in line with their bitterly-cheap refusal to include lens hoods with non-L lenses. Also, their lens warranties fall far short of their competitor's.

2. Better sensor. Canon's images seem a hair off the last few years. There's a "waxy" look in all the bodies post-5D II.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (May 5, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> But in some circumstances, better equipment is better than talent. I don't care how good you are, try to get a good candle light portrait handheld with a slow zoom on a rebel and you will fail, but a 5d3 with a 50 1.2 or a good tripod, and even an amateur can put it on green mode and get a decent shot.
> 
> But yea, im most cases, talent trumps gear 9/10 times.



A good photographer that knows the limits of whatever equipment he is using would probably find a way to make an interesting photo even if it will be blurred or not exposed "correctly". On the other hand, an amateur that knows nothing but green mode will at best get a technically correct snapshot. Exposed correctly (overexposed for the scene), sharp and boring.


----------



## FunkyCamera (May 5, 2012)

Their takeaway should be "keep being AWESOME, keep totally spanking Nikon".


----------

