# Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII



## Maiaibing (Sep 30, 2014)

http://www.rossharvey.com/reviews/nikon-d750-review

Quite an excited review of the Nikon D750. Sample pictures look really great. Especially high iso looks impressive. Says he also worked with the 5DIII and that it does not compare for his work (weddings).

Agree with reviewer that Canon has work cut out for them selves trying to make the 5DIV competitive (either by slashing the price range or jumping the specs). 

All the better for us that Canon is under stiff pressure to deliver this time around. This time there will no excuse that Nikon pulled a rabbit.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 30, 2014)

And the purpose of this thread is what?

Do we really need yet another Canon vs Nikon thread?

To some photographers, the Nikon will be the best for them
To some photographers, the Canon will be best for them.

Why does everything have to be a competion?????


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 30, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> And the purpose of this thread is what?
> (...)
> Why does everything have to be a competion?????



It doesn't. You could just read the title and move on.

As someone who is looking forward to upgrading my aging 5DII's asap its interesting because I want the best my money can buy the day I toss it over the counter and this review suggests that Canon will be under lots of pressure both from the price side (D750) and the spec side (D810) when the 5DIV comes out.

So, if Canon disappoints with the 5DIV there are now two good reasons to go through the painful process of changing brands (something I chose not to do when the D800 was launched - but if its a repeat of the 5DIII "upgrade" I will not even blink this time around). YMMV.

Happy shooting!


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 30, 2014)

Possibly better in every way from a 5D3 but doesn't have an EF mount or the RT system I've come to depend on. Natural light shooters will love this camera. Perhaps if 5d4 is disappointing, releases some proper Nikkor primes that aren't slugs and Nikon revamps their flash lineup, I would consider switching


----------



## jd7 (Sep 30, 2014)

I'd like to see more reviews yet but I have to say the D750 does look like a very good camera, especially at the price. I like my 6D a lot and I'll see what Canon comes out with next, but this is the first time I've seen something which has made me give a moment's serious thought to switching from Canon. A camera body alone is not a system of course, but still ...


----------



## pdirestajr (Sep 30, 2014)

Until I can look through a Nikon viewfinder and change ISO settings with my right index while also adjusting any other setting I need, I'm sticking with Canon. All digital cameras are capable of capturing a quality image. I just like USING Canon cameras better.


----------



## dash2k8 (Sep 30, 2014)

Remember that the 5D3 is already 3 years old. It makes sense that a new camera within its range would have better performance. The 7D2 has better IQ than the 5D3, too.


----------



## Steve (Sep 30, 2014)

dash2k8 said:


> The 7D2 has better IQ than the 5D3, too.



Yeah, I don't think so


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> Until I can look through a Nikon viewfinder and change ISO settings with my right index while also adjusting any other setting I need, I'm sticking with Canon.



Haven't you heard? With a Nikon camera, you don't need to change ISO – just set ISO 100 and you're done. In post you can push it to ISO 3200, with a SoNikon sensor that's easy-peasy and the IQ is still better than Canon. Or so I've read somewhere or other... :


----------



## drjlo (Sep 30, 2014)

dash2k8 said:


> The 7D2 has better IQ than the 5D3, too.



What the? ???


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 30, 2014)

drjlo said:


> dash2k8 said:
> 
> 
> > The 7D2 has better IQ than the 5D3, too.
> ...



Yeah...no. BUT...the 7D2 may have better shadow latitude (i.e. less noise and banding) which is all the rage now days. I honestly hope Canon knocks it out of the park with the 5D4 because I'm sick of the DR debates


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 30, 2014)

I didn't see anything in his review that the 5D3 wouldn't have captured just as well EXCEPT for the +5 stop test he shot of a messy corner in a room.

The actual wedding shots he pushed? I've pushed landscape files harder then that on an old 7D. The confirmation bias among the DR crowd is ridiculous.

The ISO 9000 shot? The D750 does not show an advantage at 12800 over the 5D3 (files are already up at IR) so...yeah...another shot the Canon would have nailed.

The buffer and AF? Sound about the same as the 5D3 with a fast card.

Where the D750 does clobber the 5D3 is on price. I don't know when the 5D4 is coming out, but if it's not before Christmas then I think Canon should drop the price on the 5D3 to hold users over until the 5D4. The 5D3 really is priced too high right now even though build quality / UI would go to the 5D3 over the D750.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Oct 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > Until I can look through a Nikon viewfinder and change ISO settings with my right index while also adjusting any other setting I need, I'm sticking with Canon.
> ...



lol... where is the like button... for example, see below image (from the site that was posted by another member and i am trying to request a raw file from the shooter since i am curious and i need to learn.)


----------



## BozillaNZ (Oct 1, 2014)

The color and noise of above pic is horrible.

Pushing 5 stops means chopping off 5 bits of precision so the 14-bit RAW image becomes essentially 9-bit, and after curve and gamma? Not much levels left in the mid-tone, never mind the shadows.


----------



## IsaacImage (Oct 1, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> Until I can look through a Nikon viewfinder and change ISO settings with my right index while also adjusting any other setting I need, I'm sticking with Canon. All digital cameras are capable of capturing a quality image. I just like USING Canon cameras better.



Actually you can set the "Record" button on D810/D750 as a ISO button and change it very easily 
Very convenient


----------



## Kahuna (Oct 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > Until I can look through a Nikon viewfinder and change ISO settings with my right index while also adjusting any other setting I need, I'm sticking with Canon.
> ...



Thats just messing with a hornets nest... LOL


----------



## dash2k8 (Oct 1, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> drjlo said:
> 
> 
> > dash2k8 said:
> ...



Sorry mate, that's what I meant. My main point is that technology advances very quickly and a 3-year-old camera cannot be expected to compete with something similar. I stand corrected on the IQ for the 7D2, but the shadows CAN certainly be pushed better.

That'll teach me to post online with a bad head cold... Cheers.


----------



## TeT (Oct 1, 2014)

jrista said:


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



When you lift ISO in post, doesn't it chop down the DR?


----------



## TeT (Oct 1, 2014)

The reviewer made note of how the high DR at High ISO is so huge. So did the D750 get a high ISO DR boost over the D3S? 

From what has been tossed around over the past month High DR is a low ISO thing, I have seen many test examples that show DR dropping hard at higher ISO. D3S & D800 included...


----------



## sanj (Oct 1, 2014)

dash2k8 said:


> Remember that the 5D3 is already 3 years old. It makes sense that a new camera within its range would have better performance. The 7D2 has better IQ than the 5D3, too.



No way.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Oct 1, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> http://www.rossharvey.com/reviews/nikon-d750-review
> 
> Quite an excited review of the Nikon D750. Sample pictures look really great. Especially high iso looks impressive. Says he also worked with the 5DIII and that it does not compare for his work (weddings).
> 
> ...



Well that D750 will only be king for about 6 months when the shutter starts getting sloppy and he finds that grease splatter on the sensor has ruined his 2000.00 wedding shoot. Personally I will never touch nikon again. Canon gear has never let me down. This case is closed for me.


----------



## zlatko (Oct 1, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> Quite an excited review of the Nikon D750. Sample pictures look really great. Especially high iso looks impressive. Says he also worked with the 5DIII and that it does not compare for his work (weddings).



If I were a Nikon shooter right now, there is no question I would be using the D750 — it's a great combination of size, weigh and features. However, he only made one photo that could not have been made with a 5D3 and it was that *ridiculous* nearly black 5-stop underexposed shot at ISO 100. The only point that proves is that some photographers are hellbent on making ridiculous nearly black 5-stop underexposed photos in order to convincingly prove that their camera is superior for making ridiculous nearly black 5-stop underexposed photos.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 1, 2014)

jrista said:


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



As opposed to the OP's purpose, which was.....purely to provide a bit of information which members of a Canon-centric forum would find interesting? Ummmm...not quite. :


----------



## weixing (Oct 1, 2014)

Hi,
By the way, I just wonder is using carbon fibre for the front a good idea?? Carbon fibre is strong, but also will shatter under impact... I had seen quite a lot of drop camera and most of them the lens land first (especially with heavier lens) which mean the mount area of the camera will take quite a lot of impact... just wonder is the D750 front strong enough to withstand the force?? Will the carbon fibre front shatter?? I never see the front of any DSLR crack after a camera drop, so just wonder?? :

Have a nice day.


----------



## jdavis37 (Oct 1, 2014)

No issues or complaints with my 5D3.. before I bought it I rented a D800 after getting fired up over how messed up Canon was. I actually bought the on line hype but luckily a friend of mine suggested I at least try the 5D3. I rented both and on first shutter click and focus fell in love with the 5D3. The camera simply worked. Maybe some things were just my ignorance of Nikon but I could not find a way to give me BOTH 1 finger access to changing ISO AND 1 finger access to using exposure compensation. It seemed it was an either or thing.

Anyhow, good news is the competition is good for all of us and hopefully these companies wil continue building tools that we can enjoy. Here is a good article about the D750 written by Thom Hogan:

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/d750-too-little-too-late.html

John


----------



## jrista (Oct 1, 2014)

TeT said:


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



Dynamic range is the space _within_ which you perform the lift. _It changes the contrast_, but the dynamic range is your working space within which you change the contrast of your images. You pretty much have what you have when it comes to DR as far as editing latitude of any given file goes. If you are working with an OOC RAW, then your limited by what the RAW started with. If your working with an HDR, your limited by the results of your HDR blend.


----------



## jrista (Oct 1, 2014)

TeT said:


> The reviewer made note of how the high DR at High ISO is so huge. So did the D750 get a high ISO DR boost over the D3S?
> 
> From what has been tossed around over the past month High DR is a low ISO thing, I have seen many test examples that show DR dropping hard at higher ISO. D3S & D800 included...



Check out the A7s...it has good low ISO DR (over twelve stops), but it also has excellent high ISO DR (it tops the 1D X, meets or beats it at every ISO, with as much as a 2-stop lead at ISO 51200). The D810 also does extremely well at high ISO, getting very close to 5D III performance with smaller pixels. 

I don't know how well the D750 does, but I suspect it will perform similarly.


----------



## jrista (Oct 1, 2014)

jdavis37 said:


> Anyhow, good news is the competition is good for all of us and hopefully these companies wil continue building tools that we can enjoy. Here is a good article about the D750 written by Thom Hogan:
> 
> http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/d750-too-little-too-late.html



I though Hogan's article was good, and pointed out some of the flaws I see in Nikon's product naming and marketing strategy. It's schizophrenic, haphazard...sometimes just weird. But, I think Tom missed one thing: Many D750 buyers will simply be D700 owners looking for an upgrade. He couldn't seem to find a position for the D750...I think a key part of it's position is the logical upgrade for D700 owners.


----------



## Aglet (Oct 1, 2014)

jdavis37 said:


> Maybe some things were just my ignorance of Nikon but I could not find a way to give me BOTH 1 finger access to changing ISO AND 1 finger access to using exposure compensation. It seemed it was an either or thing.



Did you give up before looking at the menus? You can customize the controls to a great extent.

I have my d800s' rear control dial programmed to be direct ISO control and the front dial is for aperture in AV mode.
Press +/- button and rear wheel is EV comp. I think you can flip those functions as well, if you prefer.
And you can define the controls differently for different modes if you like, very flexible but not as intuitive as Canon's more defined default approach.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Oct 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > The reviewer made note of how the high DR at High ISO is so huge. So did the D750 get a high ISO DR boost over the D3S?
> ...



1. i personally DO NOT support a company, SONY, once SILENTLY put SPYWARE and ROOTKITS into customers' systems. I do not hate hackers for doing this kinda things, but as a big company/manufacture, PUTTIN' SPYWARE AND ROOTKITS INTO CONSUMERs' SYSTEMs IS WRONG. See following links:
a. http://www.zdnet.com/antivirus-firms-consider-protection-against-sony-drm-rootkit-3039235702/
b. http://blog.chron.com/techblog/2005/11/list-of-sonybmg-titles-with-rootkits/

note: that might be the reason why government stops using SONY...

2. In term of auto focus and shooting candid, any sony mirrorless is not a match to any DSLRs (canon, nikon, etc...). i am talking about single auto focus point, not all at once.
3. a7s has problems with bright light sources according to what i know from a friend of mine (note: have not used this one, a7s, but did play around with a7 for around 4 hours just for fun and i personally do not like it.)
4. if sony produce good sensors, it would not try to go out and acquire number of sensor manufactures, the recent one is renesas tsuruoka fab.

...JUST A THOUGHT FOR A COMPANY THAT PROVIDES SPYWARE & ROOTKIT


----------



## JohanCruyff (Oct 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> jdavis37 said:
> 
> 
> > Anyhow, good news is the competition is good for all of us and hopefully these companies wil continue building tools that we can enjoy. Here is a good article about the D750 written by Thom Hogan:
> ...


 
As far as I know, many Nikonians don't consider the D750 the _real_ successor of their beloved D700: it's more a kind of "D620".
Which is not necessarily a bad thing, IMO.


----------



## tomscott (Oct 1, 2014)

Ive shot hundreds of weddings with my 5DMKIII and i push the files pretty hard never 5 stops because if you need to do that sort of editing you shouldn't be shooting someones wedding day. I have never had a problem with the files intact it puts a smile on my face at how good it is. SO IMO this camera must be insane and its really exciting to see what Canon will do! 

I can't see myself leaving Canon, the 5DMKIII is still a very impressive camera and has plenty of life left in it.


----------



## janmaxim (Oct 1, 2014)

Is it only me? Or am I the only one prefering the SOOC pictures in the review compared to the post processed ones?


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 1, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Yup. The pricing of the D750 shows just how much price gouging Canon has been involved in with the 5D3.



In fairness there are plenty of complaints from the Nikon crowd that the D750 has a more consumer UI and build. I've never heard anyone say that about the 5D3.

Still, what was a fair price years ago is looking too high against today's competition.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 1, 2014)

JohanCruyff said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > jdavis37 said:
> ...



Possibly jrista was taken in by the _name of the_ D750 as a successor to the D700 (I was, at first). Hogan's view that the D750 isn't a D700 successor is echoed by the Nikon shooters I've spoken with – including several pros using D700 bodies. 

Their complaints included things like the D750's lack of a PC sync port (means needing to buy hotshoe RF flash triggers, bummer Nikon lacks Canon's -RT flash system), the lesser build quality, the 'consumer' remote port (not sure if there's a functional difference, or it's like Canon's -E3 vs -N1 plugs and means currently owned remotes aren't compatible). They weren't really bothered by the drop from 8 to 6.5 fps. The general feel was that the D750 was a consumer camera, not a pro camera. One commented (a little bitterly) that maybe Nikon thought including a Full Auto (green-square) mode made up for dropping the pro features...


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 1, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> Until I can look through a Nikon viewfinder and change ISO settings with my right index while also adjusting any other setting I need, I'm sticking with Canon. All digital cameras are capable of capturing a quality image. I just like USING Canon cameras better.



Just program one of the function buttons you don't use to ISO and there you are. On the D800 the video record button can easily be programmed for ISO for example.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 1, 2014)

D750 really is what D600/D610 should have been from the very start. 
And 5D III is only what the 5D II should have been from the very start.

Both D750 and 5DIII are just iterations of mid-level FF sensored mirrorslappers with finally a halfway decent AF system built in. Plus current day comms (WiFI, GPS) in case of the Nikon D750. 

Severly marketing crippled DSLRs like 6D and D610 should and will soon be available at € 999,- ... more than adeqaute for "digital ff rebels", nothing more.


----------



## zlatko (Oct 1, 2014)

tomscott said:


> Ive shot hundreds of weddings with my 5DMKIII and i push the files pretty hard never 5 stops because if you need to do that sort of editing you shouldn't be shooting someones wedding day. I have never had a problem with the files intact it puts a smile on my face at how good it is.



I agree! One only shoots 5-stops underexposed if one has a point to prove about sensors.


----------



## zlatko (Oct 1, 2014)

janmaxim said:


> Is it only me? Or am I the only one prefering the SOOC pictures in the review compared to the post processed ones?



Me too. The processed ones have that now familiar over-cooked SHADOWS BRIGHT look sometimes evident in the work of Nikon & Sony users who are really determined to make a point about their sensors.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 1, 2014)

zlatko said:


> janmaxim said:
> 
> 
> > Is it only me? Or am I the only one prefering the SOOC pictures in the review compared to the post processed ones?
> ...



*shad·ow*
ˈSHadō/
noun
1. a dark area or shape produced by a body coming between rays of light and a surface.


----------



## scottkinfw (Oct 1, 2014)

All things considered, Canon is coming under a lot of pressure to advance their sensors. This is great for US!

Sek


----------



## jrista (Oct 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> JohanCruyff said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I've read similar things on DPR forums, however it does not seem clearly cut and dry that D700 owners think it's not a viable upgrade. It seems more split than that...with many people saying that some tradeoffs were made, but that they still think it's a good upgrade for their D700.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 1, 2014)

A shadow is not a dichotomous state of light or no light. A more accurate definition of shadow is "a darker area or shape produced by a body coming between rays of light and a surface".

Even if one is inside the penumbra, there is still difuse reflection in the shadow. I personally have never seen a shadow in nature that is devoid of any difuse reflection.


----------



## iMagic (Oct 1, 2014)

janmaxim said:


> Is it only me? Or am I the only one prefering the SOOC pictures in the review compared to the post processed ones?



when I looked at the raw pre and post processed I thought that the processed were pushed too high for my taste. I would have probably pushed a bit more than SOOC but not to the extent of the finished product. I guess I am more on your side of the preference of some shadow than pushed so high.


----------



## Steve (Oct 1, 2014)

janmaxim said:


> Is it only me? Or am I the only one prefering the SOOC pictures in the review compared to the post processed ones?




You may not be alone but you'd still be wrong. The lifted photos look much better than the ones with the murky blue-shadowed backgrounds. Its a wedding, not a funeral - the photos should be bright. 

Its utterly amazing to me that all of you are falling all over yourselves to say how worthless better sensors are when you all know full well you'd be crowing from the rooftops if this was a review of the 5DIV. If that 5 stop pushed photo comparison were flipped and the 5D3 shot looked like the D750 shot and vice versa, none of you would be saying "yeah, well I don't need all that DR, harumph". You'd be laughing at Sony/Nikon and calling them garbage sensors. The amount of denial on this forum is _insane_.

And just to nip the argument in the bud, I understand all of the "You buy the camera not the sensor!!" "Lenseslenseslenses!!!" stuff. I'm not switching from Canon because I understand the tradeoffs for what I do (not least of which is the monumental financial cost of selling and rebuying thousands and thousands of dollars in gear collected over a period of several years, btw) but come on. Those Exmor sensors are _clearly_ better and in a way that would be extremely useful in a variety of shooting situations. 

One last question: for those of you who think that the Sony sensor advantages are completely unnecessary - an opinion I have seen expressed over and over and over - should Canon just cease doing any development on sensor tech? Why or why not? A lot of you feel like you would never use any DR improvements or care about a reduction in shadow noise and you are perfectly happy with the high ISO abilities of the current full frames so why should Canon spend what I assume to be millions of dollars on sensor research? They already make a perfectly fine sensor that pros use to make great images!


----------



## Kahuna (Oct 1, 2014)

jrista said:


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



Jon, I hope you are wrong. Serious, whats left when you have eliminated the science and have dug deeply into the art of photography....Composition?! Not really a concern on these massive megapixel cameras....

As Ron Popeil stated - Set It and Forget It -


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 1, 2014)

http://www.rossharvey.com/reviews/nikon-d750-review

This is hilarious, he absolutely bought the wrong camera.
This guy had to work pretty hard to convince himself that the D810 isn't a wholly superior product.

He actually goes on about buffer size on the D750, which at 15 full quality RAW files is still pretty small, even with files four times bigger the D810 has twice as much buffer as the D750.

http://photographylife.com/nikon-d810-buffer-size
http://photographylife.com/nikon-d750-buffer-capacity

He not once mentions using the 6.5 fps stat that was supposed to be a big selling feature, and then goes on to mention shooting 2-4 fps for the confetti throwing, and running out of buffer.

High ISO will be virtually identical, AF is identical, he purposefully skips over the minimal 1.5 fps increase over the D810 (instead comparing it to the D3s) and the DX mode FPS boost that is not to be found on the D750.

The D750 is a budget pro-am camera for people who don't want to shell out for the D810, which is fine, but don't bother trying to convince anyone that the D750 has any reason to exist other than the price tag.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 1, 2014)

Steve said:


> janmaxim said:
> 
> 
> > Is it only me? Or am I the only one *prefering* the SOOC pictures in the review compared to the post processed ones?
> ...



If I express _my_ preference, you're free to share your preference even if it's the opposite. But if it's my preference, you cannot reasonably state that my preference is *wrong* because it differs from yours. 

Let me put it this way...I prefer to believe you don't have a clue what you're talking about.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 1, 2014)

Steve said:


> Its utterly amazing to me that all of you are falling all over yourselves to say how worthless better sensors are when you all know full well you'd be crowing from the rooftops if this was a review of the 5DIV.



Subtract the messy corner shot and it might as well be a review of the 5D3. That is the only shot in the review that the 5D3 couldn't handle and do just as well.

Again, the confirmation bias lately among Exmor / Nikon / Sony fans is staggering.



> If that 5 stop pushed photo comparison were flipped and the 5D3 shot looked like the D750 shot and vice versa, none of you would be saying "yeah, well I don't need all that DR, harumph". You'd be laughing at Sony/Nikon and calling them garbage sensors. The amount of denial on this forum is _insane_.



I can honestly say that if the situation were reversed and a Nikon fan asked me about it my evaluation would be the same: in the occasional extreme case it is valuable, but otherwise makes no difference and I would not switch brands over such a minor practical difference.



> Those Exmor sensors are _clearly_ better and in a way that would be extremely useful in a variety of shooting situations.



Then how come every comparison where you can see the difference is a contrived test? None of his pushed wedding shots would have been difficult on the 5D3. SOOC they are brighter then many of the pushed shots forum members here have posted in the past, including my 7D landscape comparison.



> One last question: for those of you who think that the Sony sensor advantages are completely unnecessary - an opinion I have seen expressed over and over and over -



I don't think I've seen that exact opinion expressed. I think everyone agrees it can be beneficial. But there's a big difference between "occasionally helps" and "the 5D3 is only good for Facebook."


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 1, 2014)

janmaxim said:


> Is it only me? Or am I the only one prefering the SOOC pictures in the review compared to the post processed ones?



Not just you, that immediately stuck out to me.

The more I look at high profile wedding photographers the more I want to shoot my own wedding (don't ask how).


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 1, 2014)

9VIII said:


> janmaxim said:
> 
> 
> > Is it only me? Or am I the only one prefering the SOOC pictures in the review compared to the post processed ones?
> ...



"Do you, take this woman..."
"Hold on a minute, my CF card is full."

;D


----------



## JorritJ (Oct 1, 2014)

Some great imagery coming out of that camera. Amazing shadow lifting. Yes, I like the Canon glass, and the Canon flash, and the Canon UI/UX, and some more, but imagine having that sensor in the 5DmkIII ... (salivate!)

Maybe all of you are just much more skilled than I am, but the more I can lift the better it is for my PP. Sure, technically, if I need to lift three stops my technique may be shit and I need to hand in my amateur photographer card, but what if it was that one special moment? A better sensor means more of your shots can be PP'd into good prints, and the more shots you can do that with, the higher the chance you caught that special one.

Oh well. In other news, naysayers continue to say nay.


----------



## zlatko (Oct 1, 2014)

Steve said:


> Its utterly amazing to me that all of you are falling all over yourselves to say how worthless better sensors are when you all know full well you'd be crowing from the rooftops if this was a review of the 5DIV. If that 5 stop pushed photo comparison were flipped and the 5D3 shot looked like the D750 shot and vice versa, none of you would be saying "yeah, well I don't need all that DR, harumph". You'd be laughing at Sony/Nikon and calling them garbage sensors. The amount of denial on this forum is _insane_.



If the situation were flipped, I absolutely would not be making HDR-ish photos with the shadows dramatically boosted to create "lightness". Bad technique is still bad technique, even if technological progress allows you to get away with it in order to prove you have a "superior" sensor. Such photos have a crummy aesthetic, period. 

If you're a student of art history, and not just current technology, then you know that shadows are an important part of how artists represent life. The shadow side of an object helps to define the midtones and highlights. Shadows are often essential to giving a photograph a 3-dimensional feel. 

This sensor-based effort to banish shadows "because it's a wedding" or some other reason, flies in the face of good aesthetics and strong image-making. Look at the work of Steve McCurry, Annie Leibovitz, Sebastiao Salgado, etc. and you see some dark or black shadows that in real life had some detail in them. Look at the work of the great painters, such as Rembrandt, and see that shadows have an important purpose. The great painters could have painted with "tone-mapped" detail in every shadow, but they knew that would look ridiculous and in its own way unreal.

If and when the situation is flipped, I will congratulate Canon for the extra DR, but I will still not be doing 5-stop pushes or posting HDR-ish photos just to show it can be done.


----------



## cap7ainclu7ch (Oct 1, 2014)

Wouldn't this sort of sensor be incredibly helpful for sports/action? Being able to bring up my sports pictures in post without degrading the image would be extremely useful for maintaining high shutter speeds and lower ISO's. It seems like the images hold up way better than my 5D3 shooting at a high ISO.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> When you nail all of those other factors. And, it's more than possible to nail every one with any pro- or semipro-grade DSLR from Canon or Nikon (and some even from Sony, and probably Pentax as well). We already have cameras with phenomenal AF systems, with very high frame rates (although the best frame rates do tend to cost), and composition is a simple matter of preference...reframe to taste. When you get all that right, what's left? *Sensor IQ Is the picture interesting? *



I fixed your statement.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> I know Sarangiman would probably disagree.
> 
> --------------
> 
> They only lack in one primary area...fundamental image quality



Does that mean there's won't be a wedding any time soon ?

Fundamental. Do you know what that means ? How can you say that in the face of all the _superb_ quality imagery produced on Canon sensors they have a _fundamental_ problem with image quality ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 1, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > They only lack in one primary area...fundamental image quality
> ...



I believe it was Emperor Mikael who said, "_Strike Canon down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!_"


----------



## Kahuna (Oct 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> Kahuna said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I used to say that technology is killing XX .... in this case photography. I am wrong about that, technology is taking photography in another direction, IMHO the wrong direction. When technology levels the playing field for all afforadably, when all I have to do is turn that dial to the green P, not worry about the photo because post processing will take care of any issues, photography is dead. Composition, lighting, position, weather are just reduced to chance moments that anyone carrying an IPhone has an equal probability of capturing that moment....Probably a higher probability ... 

The younger generation are not looking for technology advances in a DLSR camera, what they do expect is that the technology advances are crammed into their IPhone 6. 

A camera is slowly becoming nothing more than a vehicle to take a selfie and quickly post it online for every to "_LIKE_".


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 2, 2014)

cap7ainclu7ch said:


> Wouldn't this sort of sensor be incredibly helpful for sports/action? Being able to bring up my sports pictures in post without degrading the image would be extremely useful for maintaining high shutter speeds and lower ISO's. It seems like the images hold up way better than my 5D3 shooting at a high ISO.



There's no high ISO difference between the two. Check the IR RAWs which are available.

Underexposing for more shutter speed then pushing in post? I suppose you could argue that the Nikon would give more room here. But the further you push the less tonal separation and the higher contrast you get. I'm not sure how good an athlete's face would look at +4 or +5. I've struggled with this issue at +2 and it is NOT sensor related. It's just the way tonality is encoded.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Oct 2, 2014)

jrista said:


> The stuff Ross Harvy produces? That's art. It may be his job, but it's also his art.



i am not sure that images producing by ross harvy are considered as real art works (since art works take much of time to work on), but at least they are not to me after checking out all of his images (about 7000 images that he posts on his blog. you can ask him to count all of them to see as if i am correct. have you seen all of them? lol...)

i do not deny that all of his images are good, but all of them are still not there, to the point of stand out quality of art prints. all of his posted images are simply documentary/journalism (style that i like).

additional thing is that he does not have his own proprietary styles, instead his style is mixing between cliff mautner, jonas peterson, etc... (but not even there)

for some of fine art work, see annie liebovitz's (someone previously mentioned), a photographer with disney-theme, or jay maisel for color art, erik johansson for creative art, or even jakontil, a canonrumor member. below are some of wedding art work, at least to me:


----------



## Kahuna (Oct 2, 2014)

jrista said:


> Kahuna said:
> 
> 
> > I used to say that technology is killing XX .... in this case photography. I am wrong about that, technology is taking photography in another direction, IMHO the wrong direction. When technology levels the playing field for all afforadably, when all I have to do is turn that dial to the green P, not worry about the photo because post processing will take care of any issues, photography is dead. Composition, lighting, position, weather are just reduced to chance moments that anyone carrying an IPhone has an equal probability of capturing that moment....Probably a higher probability ...
> ...



So I took neutral ground on your position with sensors/cameras. I did make comment on the pitfalls of technology. Yes I was so bold as to say that photography as "art" is in jeopardy. The interest of our younger generation in using photography as a vehicle for art is eroding quickly and being replaced with junk (I use selfies as the example). Your opinion differs, thats fine. No personal attack there yet you call me a fool. Thank you. Thank you for exposing your true colors. 


You cannot deny that technology kills... unless you are the fool.


----------



## AprilForever (Oct 2, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> http://www.rossharvey.com/reviews/nikon-d750-review
> 
> Quite an excited review of the Nikon D750. Sample pictures look really great. Especially high iso looks impressive. Says he also worked with the 5DIII and that it does not compare for his work (weddings).
> 
> ...



1. Of course the D750 is better than the 5D III. But who cares?
2. I know Ross's website says he is the best photographer is the world, but I hate his framing. His style is annoying.
3. The 5D IV will be far better than the D750. So, what matters? This is what happens with model year differences.
4. It is highly improbable that anyone could easily come up with any way in particular in a real world meaningful way how it is better. This is not the D300 vs. the 20D.


----------



## V8Beast (Oct 2, 2014)

I only made it half way through Ross Harvey's portfolio. I take it he's won an award or two in his day ;D? Why doesn't he just include a slide that says "My wife loves my foot-long package"


----------



## jaayres20 (Oct 2, 2014)

Something is not right with his 5D3 example pushed 5 stops. I have a 1DX which is very similar and I did a test that doesn't look near as bad as his example. It isn't good, but it is as good as you could expect with a drastically underexposed image at 1/13 handheld.


----------



## zlatko (Oct 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> jaayres20 said:
> 
> 
> > Something is not right with his 5D3 example pushed 5 stops. I have a 1DX which is very similar and I did a test that doesn't look near as bad as his example.
> ...



This is just gratuitous Canon-bashing. You've really got nothing better to do? I shot two 5D2's for years and have shot a 5D3 for years, and the 5D3 is _significantly_ better at high ISO. Even DxO gives the 5D3 a better low light score (478 points better). Both cameras are excellent for their intended purpose, which is to make photos, not to make or save 5-stop drastically underexposed near-black frames like the piano shot above. They've been used by pros the world over. The 5D series are some of the most commonly used cameras by World Press Photo contest winners each year. A few anonymous self-appointed sensor critics on the internet don't like them, so they hammer these cameras at every opportunity. Meanwhile ratings by buyers are overwhelmingly positive.


----------



## sanj (Oct 2, 2014)

Kahuna said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Kahuna said:
> ...



Must tell you that I think just the opposite. Art can, and is created by an iPhone and such. Normal (selfie) sort of pictures can be created by top end cameras. It all depends upon the user.
Advancement in technology is a great thing to happen in life including photography. Lots of different kinds of pictures can be taken now with advancement in technology. And remember that not all photographers are artists. They take pictures to capture the moment.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Oct 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> No, the 5D3 sample is correct. The sensor in the 5D3 is almost the same as the 5D2 - complete with banding and noise. Canon did nothing to improve the IQ of the sensor between these two cameras.



so, according to dxo, both sony and nikon are both good at IQ when comparing to canon. why don't you take any of them, i do not mind even if you are using D4s which has better focus. i am going to borrow my friend 5d mark ii instead of using my 5d mark iii. let see whose images are better... yours or mine... ;D

with shooting candid images, your choice of:

1. sooc images, or
2. after post processing

pick one... if you wait more, you will not have any more chances since my skills keep going up, not going down even though i am not a photographer...


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 2, 2014)

Kahuna said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Kahuna said:
> ...



This subject is so inherently, subjective, that I can't honestly look at a three year old's finger paintings any differently than the Mona Lisa.
Some stuff tells a story and makes people cry, you could try to define "good art" by the emotional reaction it evokes, but that still doesn't work on everyone.

My stance is still that "good" art is wholly and entirely defined by the person producing it. If it lives up to their expectations, then it's good. Anything beyond that is just people looking for consensus, which ironically is measured just as well in "likes" as it is in dollars.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Oct 2, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> And the purpose of this thread is what?


Trolling.

Do I get a prize?


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Oct 2, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> The actual wedding shots he pushed? I've pushed... files harder then that on an old 7D.



Yep - me too.



> The confirmation bias among the DR crowd is ridiculous



It's _pathetic_ - I actually think there's something clinically wrong with them...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Oct 2, 2014)

jrista said:


> You make fun of it...but it's possible.



And _if if I was utterly incompetent_ I might see the benefit...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Oct 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Their complaints included things like...


1/4000 shutter speed!

That right there kills it stone dead for me.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Oct 2, 2014)

scottkinfw said:


> All things considered, Canon is coming under a lot of pressure to advance their sensors.



No they're not - they're coming under a little bit of pressure _interminably_ from a tiny but unbelievably vocal subset of their customer base who somehow believe their "needs" are more important than anyone else's.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Oct 2, 2014)

cap7ainclu7ch said:


> Wouldn't this sort of sensor be incredibly helpful for sports/action?



Nope - we expose our images properly.


----------



## SoullessPolack (Oct 2, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> cap7ainclu7ch said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't this sort of sensor be incredibly helpful for sports/action?
> ...



Epitome of lack of critical thought here, especially from someone implying they are a sports/action photographer. Sometimes the light is really low, where the only way to get a reasonable shutter speed is to underexpose. Some photographers cannot afford fast lenses, so their only option would be to underexpose to get proper shutter speeds.

So, no other way to put it, but you are flat out undeniably wrong. This sort of sensor _would_ be incredibly helpful for very many sports/action photographers.


----------



## Maiaibing (Oct 2, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> No they're not - they're coming under a little bit of pressure _interminably_ from a tiny but unbelievably vocal subset of their customer base who somehow believe their "needs" are more important than anyone else's.



Sales and market share are the main pressure points. I'm not in Canon's board room - but I have participated in lots of board meetings and my guess is that whoever is trying to explain Canon's double digit sales dive is under _enormous _pressure to stem that tide. Especially since the key competitor seemingly is capturing market share at the same time.

Business is though this way.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 2, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > cap7ainclu7ch said:
> ...



Speaking of a lack of critical thought...when the light is so very low, do you usually find yourself shooting action at ISO 100? At ISO 400? Or have you raised your ISO higher than that...where the differences between Canon and Exmor sensors have evaporated (or the Canon sensor has the advantage)? (BTW, I trust someone so knowledgable as yourself won't bother bringing up the a7S in the context of sports/action).


----------



## jaayres20 (Oct 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


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



The IQ isn't better unless you need a lot of extra DR at low ISO, which is hardly necessary for most photographers. And for that extra DR you are trading for a camera that is still lesser in a lot of areas than the more than two year older Canon. And what about lenses? Also a better flash system. Does this new Nikon have a better AF system than the past, or is it the same 51 point and less than 20 cross type sensors?


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 2, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > cap7ainclu7ch said:
> ...



Pretty sure of yourself there. One question: why are you underexposing instead of just bumping ISO?


----------



## sanj (Oct 2, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > cap7ainclu7ch said:
> ...



Call me a 'text book' guy but I do not believe in over exposing or underexposing. (Unless it is to create a mood). Why? Because I know wrong exposure effects IQ.


----------



## Memdroid (Oct 2, 2014)

jaayres20 said:


> The IQ isn't better unless you need a lot of extra DR at low ISO, which is hardly necessary for most photographers. And for that extra DR you are trading for a camera that is still lesser in a lot of areas than the more than two year older Canon. And what about lenses? Also a better flash system. Does this new Nikon have a better AF system than the past, or is it the same 51 point and less than 20 cross type sensors?



Exactly! I could care less about low-iso DR doing extreme PP slider pulls on failed shots (really!!), seriously who shoots a picture like that and calls him/herself a photographer! Any decent photographer should avoid such a hassle and make big deal out of realisticly a non-issue (or better siad their own technical failure!), what the hell is wrong with people.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> ...reviews wouldn't compare the 5D3 so poorly with cameras released at about the same time or later.



More confirmation bias. Consider this comparison to the D810 (I didn't find it, the OP of this thread claimed it showed the D810 has better AF, although the review doesn't show anything of the sort). In their conclusion, they state, "_*The Canon 5D Mark III remains a hugely desirable camera and is still arguably the better all-rounder.* 




dilbert said:



So you're saying that on the whole, Canon's customers don't need better IQ from the sensor and that improvements to the sensor wouldn't be welcomed by anyone?

Click to expand...


Those are two separate concepts. Yes, generally speaking the majority of Canon's customers don't need better low ISO DR from the sensor, nor do they need the ability to push shadows 5 stops. But of course improvements would be welcome – it's human nature to want more of everything!_


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


For someone who complains a lot about Canon IQ, your attachments (on CR anyway) are really lackluster. Just saying...


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


So your Yosemite photos which you claim is some of your best are throw aways? Whatever, they are still pretty lackluster in comparison to your ramblings.


----------



## Maui5150 (Oct 2, 2014)

I just have to laugh at most in this thread... 

The premise at hand... Comparing a new camera to a camera going on 3 years-old and stating that the new one is improved.

Really. Shocker?

The fact that it has taken x number of years is the real testament... 

But what do we know? 

We do know the 7D MK II is shipping shortly and by all accounts appears again to be the king of the crops. While some may say its low light or DR are not up to snuff it is much improved over the 7D and the AF system, FPS and general features are tops.

We know that the D800 was a POS and a disappointment... So much so that they released the 810 just about a year later. I would be pretty pissed if I picked a camera up a few months after release and it was already outdated/replaced in a year. Talk about taking a HIT on your investment. 

We know Canon looks to have plans for a High MP, 1Dx II and 5D MK IV in the pipeline in the next 3 - 12 months and likely the 1DX MK is announced before end of the year and 5D IV early next year. Looking the the Digic 6 processors and the buffer capability of the 7D MK II both of these couple see marked improvements in FPS, AF and better sensors. 

Keep comparing to the past, all of these comparisons are moot and passing... Lets see how the 750 compared to the 5D MK IV


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 2, 2014)

It is really not necessary to nest quote. We can follow the discussion quite nicely without it.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


So you took the time to visit Yosemite, attempted to take a photo of half dome at possibly a very nice time, (blue hour) and you got all this great equipment which ended up in a shaky photo? Sir, you have bigger issues than DR.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 2, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



One hundred and eighty !! 

Or for anyone that has never played darts;

Bullseye !


----------



## weixing (Oct 2, 2014)

Maui5150 said:


> I just have to laugh at most in this thread...
> 
> The premise at hand... Comparing a new camera to a camera going on 3 years-old and stating that the new one is improved.
> 
> ...


Hi,
I think it might be D799 (Nikon running out of numbers) vs Canon 5D IV  

By the way, I think sales of D750 will not be good... because every Nikon user thinking may be Nikon will be releasing a new model in the next few months...  

Have a nice day.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Even if the cameras are comparable at higher ISOs, having one that performs better at lower ISOs is always a nice thing to have. Think of it as an extra feature added in for free such that you don't just have IQ performance comparable to Canon's but better.



How do you conclude that it's 'free'?? Does that extra low ISO DR come with a handholdable 600/4? Does it come with an AF system having >40 cross-type points? Etc.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Yes – poor technique. 

Roger Cicala referred to that sort of mistake as an ERFLOK.


----------



## Maui5150 (Oct 2, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> So you took the time to visit Yosemite, attempted to take a photo of half dome at possibly a very nice time, (blue hour) and you got all this great equipment which ended up in a shaky photo? Sir, you have bigger issues than DR.



+1 Gazillion Googolplex 

I think what is really at hand is the camera did not compensate for lousy skills


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...


Your showcasing your denial at the moment.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> It wasn't the camera's fault OR my fault - it was the ballhead on the tripod.



IGEL = inadequate grasp of equipment limitations

IEFT = inadequate equipment for task 

Both your fault. Nice try blaming the tools, though.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Come on Dildert, man up ! You've admitted it was your use of that particular head with that camera, lens combo. The head was not faulty, ergo you as the operator were faulty.


----------



## jaayres20 (Oct 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> jaayres20 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Yes "most photographers" expose correctly no matter the ISO. My 1DX or 5D3 ISO 100 images will have the same great IQ (but better colors IMO) as the Nikon because it is exposed correctly and captures all the DR I need. And most photographers do the same. It is a rare case that I need more DR and would not sacrifice any of the other features the Canon excels at for a little extra low ISO DR latitude. That is the only noticeable benefit of the Sony sensor.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


Well I was honest about this. You have almost 3000+ posts and decided to look at the photos you posted and was disappointed. I inquired as to why and discovered that perhaps the gear is not your limitation as much as you believe it is. More than likely you are passionate enough to visit Yosemite but when the time came to get the shot, it wasn't the camera that failed here and no amount of DR would help. I just think it's good to step back and really see what is needed to make a photo better. 99% of the time, it's us, the person behind the camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


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



Is a blurry, throw-away (your words) photo anything other than no photo? Have you posted the good ones somewhere? Last time I was in Yosemite was many years ago, I didn't have a camera. I enjoyed the views of Half Dome from the valley floor, and the views of the valley floor from the top of Half Dome during lunch on our day hike.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


You judged yourself by your own statements, all I did was draw them out. Others can draw their own conclusions.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> On here? Nope. Why would I? Just to get vilified over things that I like? No thanks.



That's a real good point. No matter which photograph you post, someone will find something to complain about it. So why bother?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 2, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > On here? Nope. Why would I? Just to get vilified over things that I like? No thanks.
> ...



Criticism can be hard for some people to handle. Particularly if you post an image taken with a Canon dSLR, since everyone knows they deliver such poor IQ.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Criticism can be hard for some people to handle. Particularly if you post an image taken with a Canon dSLR, since everyone knows they deliver such poor IQ.



It is important to get criticism from people you respect, not necessarly people who post on an Internets Tubes Forum.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 2, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Criticism can be hard for some people to handle. Particularly if you post an image taken with a Canon dSLR, since everyone knows they deliver such poor IQ.
> ...



Indeed. There are people on CR forums whom I respect (although that doesn't include dilbert, it's difficult to respect anyone with such an inadequate grasp of basic facts).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


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



What did I say that is incorrect? There are people on CR forums whom I respect. You aren't among them. You have repeatedly shown a poor grasp of facts, and a refusal to admit your mistakes. 

Something else you've repeatedly shown is that if there's a troll here, it's you, dilbert.


----------



## Maui5150 (Oct 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



They put the camera on the tripod and ballhead. Poor choice of equipment and set-up - the is the USER'S error. 

{EDIT}

And thank you for making my point.

Selecting the WRONG equipment for the job is the PHOTOGRAPHERS issue. not the camera, not the ballhead, not the tripod.

You admitted that the weight was too great in another post. That is not the Ballhead's fault.

{Cough} CHOKE {Ack}


----------



## Maiaibing (Oct 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> the OP of this thread claimed it showed the D810 has better AF, although the review doesn't show anything of the sort



Nice try. However, you forgot what happened. You made the claim that the 5DIII had a better AF system. I never made the other claim. However, I provided 4 quotes supporting that reviews _did not_. You failed to provide any evidence at all for your original claim -and admitted as much (after being challenged repeatedly to give any evidence that 5DIII has a better AF system than the d810.

I'd be happy to produce a full rehash of your original claim and your failure to back it up at any time + you admitting that you could not.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 2, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > the OP of this thread claimed it showed the D810 has better AF, although the review doesn't show anything of the sort
> ...



We can start with your implication that you were providing evidence, the link I reposted was mainly a comparison of the specifications, and they described the advantages of the 5DIII's AF in their conclusion (and the 5DIII _is_ superior on that basis). Another piece of your evidence was Northrup's sales pitch, where he barely achieved a 60% Servo hit rate with the 5DIII on a subject walking sedately toward him, which is either extreme incompetence or reprehensible bias. A third was Ken Rockwell ('nuf said). Your 'evidence' was inconclusive and equivocal, which is almost worse than no evidence at all. 

As I stated, my intention wasn't to document my results. I didn't save images, and you're free to not accept my word. But rehash further if you like...


----------



## ishdakuteb (Oct 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Why don't you explain to me what I went through at that particular point in time of picture taking? I mean since you're going to judge me, why not lend your expertise into explaining how it all eventuated?
> 
> Note that you haven't once stopped to ask what I did or didn't do, etc, rather (like everyone else) just jumped in and attacked me. Actually none of you have. But then that is how bullies behave. Are you all proud of yourselves?



1. "why not lend your expertise into explaining how it all eventuated": if you want, submit 5 of your new images here, i will make sure that your images will be evaluated by a group of people that most members here know. or you want to use your existing images on CR? however, a bonehead person like you will never sit down and learn, instead go around and talk crap.

note: thought that i need to say it again... "do not go out and steal images and claim it yours since i might know..."

2. "jumped in and attacked me": i attack you more than him. why? i simply do not like the way you are talking for years, same topic, same tones with same troll attitude... as simple as that....

3. "Are you all proud of yourselves?": i am not sure about him, but like i have said in the past, i am proud of mine, not over anyone else, but over your images. why? cause you have been using dslr much much longer than i do, but your images are still suck.

note: keep trolling, i reserve for you the whole day today even i am at work... see how nice i am... lol


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Here's what Google returned as the top of page part for a search on troll:
> 
> _Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
> In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or *upsetting people*, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic ..._



You are a person (singular), not people (plural). On the subject of trolls sowing discord, let's look at a couple of topics you've started:

Can Canon deliver a FF sensor that is class leading? (As if you didn't know where that would lead...)

Sony, Samsung Dominating Digital Camera Market while Canon, Nikon Struggle (About a tiny advantage for the first two in one small country.)

Why do we buy Canon? What idiots are we? (A thread which was soon locked.)

Now...who's the troll? :


----------



## zlatko (Oct 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Just more gratuitous Canon-bashing from you. You make this stuff up out of thin air? High ISO was improved significantly — not a "small improvement" — enough that a working photographer easily gained a full stop of high ISO usability. 478 points on DxO's low light score is "small"? "Nothing was done to alleviate banding"? What banding? I've shot over 200k exposures with the 5D3 without any banding. What the heck are you doing to see banding?

Reviews of the 5D3 were very positive. Where do you get that it compared "so poorly" with other cameras? Reviews by actual users are overwhelmingly positive.


----------



## Maui5150 (Oct 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Let me make it simple for you:
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=5d3+banding&oq=5d3+banding
> https://www.google.com/search?q=5d3+banding&source=lnms&tbm=isch



Did you ever READ any of the posts / highlighted / referrenced in your links:

Like:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1157744

Notice that a lot of the "Discussion / Reports" are pre-production i.e. the same sort of "first look" images people are talking about with the 7D MK II and a lot of the issues were "showing" up when they were pushing upwards of 7-stops of under exposure.

Also note from the thread - post #98.

NIKONS have the same issue with the D3S, D700, D7000... If you push your images 7 stops or high iso, you will see aritfacts, banding ect... People just love to hate on the 5D's

http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Zo0M

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=40126428

http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Xtik

http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00ZMgI

http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00TTdv
__________________

OH MY F&*(&*()&*&*() GOD - NIKON HAS BANDING

NIKON HAS BANDING...

Holy CRAP.... *NIKON HAS BANDING*

What will fan boys do???

How can I possibly shoot... I only shoot underexposing and then pushing the highlights... 

https://www.google.com/search?q=Nikon+D800+banding+issue

LOL

There is even a Flickr group for the "HORRIBLE" D800 Color Banding issue:

Flickr: Discussing D800 horrible colour banding issue ...
https://www.flickr.com/groups/[email protected]/.../72157632675750269/
Feb 3, 2013 - This is a group for all things related to the amazing new Nikon D800, ... D800 horrible colour banding issue *Photos and videos included* ...

Again... The more you talk, the more you make our points...


----------



## ishdakuteb (Oct 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Let me make it simple for you:
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=5d3+banding&oq=5d3+banding
> https://www.google.com/search?q=5d3+banding&source=lnms&tbm=isch



i am not interested in that, but this lol:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Dilbert%2C+you+bonehead%22&hl=en&gbv=2&oq=&gs_l=


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 2, 2014)

And to think this all started because Maiaibing posted a link of a review where someone stated their opinion



Maiaibing said:


> http://www.rossharvey.com/reviews/nikon-d750-review
> 
> Quite an excited review of the Nikon D750. Sample pictures look really great. Especially high iso looks impressive. Says he also worked with the 5DIII and that it does not compare for his work (weddings).
> 
> ...



This is why I love CR! ;D

you don't want to read, but somehow you are compelled to.

People arguing about who is a troll

"You are a troll!"
"Oh Yeah, well, you are a troll!!"
"Well, you were a troll first!!!"
"You were more of a troll!!!!!"

Makes me feel like I am back home with my kids. ;D

Mods ain't it time to close this thread? We have gotten so far off topic.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 2, 2014)




----------



## AvTvM (Oct 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Here's an image comparing banding in the D800, 5D2 and 5D3:
> http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6215/7000528839_164d776954_b.jpg



LOL, Dilbert!!! ;D


----------



## turtle (Oct 2, 2014)

It looks like the D750 has hit a sweet spot in performance, size and price for many amateurs and pros. Well done to Nikon, but this does not mean anyone should be unhappy with the 5D III if it does what they need it to.

However, this does depend on what you shoot and how you work. Some of the DR obsessives could not take a good photo to save their lives, but some of the Canon fanboys are no different. As a long-time Canon user and owner of an A7 and A7R, I am weary of people trying to tell me that the only reason why 'people like me' are eager for Canon to improve banding issues and DR can only be because I cannot expose properly. I pity those making such comments for they inhabit a delusional world.

Most of the time the 5D III is all the camera I would ever see myself needing, but when you hit the wall with respect to banding and DR, then it is a pain in the butt. I would not have invested in Nik Dfine for no reason. It is because it allowed me to get numerous prints into portfolios, exhibition and sold. This is fact and no amount of bleating from those twits harping on about how 11.7 stop of DR is all you will ever need changes that. 

If Canon sorts out the banding with the 5D IV and perhaps increases DR to 13+ stops, I think they will have pretty well all the bases covered, but I have a feeling they won't. I'm not sure they are ready.

The 5D III remains great and I have no intention of selling up now, but if the 5D IV does not make significant leaps in DR and banding then I will. Why? Because I want to be able to work in the same way with all my cameras as I can the A7 and A7R. It has been such a pleasure to work on the files. I have a far greater safety net with respect to DR, there is no banding to speak of and don't have to mess around with Dfine with tricky images that pushed the 5D III too far. 

If you shoot city nightscapes in London, for example, the banding and DR of the 5D III will be acutely felt in perhaps 50% of sessions, precise subject depending. This is a fact and it has nothing whatsoever to do with exposure deficiencies. A good friend standing next to me shooting the same scenes had fantastic files to play with from his D600, where mine needed far more expertise and time to work on (exposure blending etc). Some were only fit for the trash. Think moonlit evenings over the Thames, with deep shade, artificial light sources etc. Sure this is testing stuff, but its real and what I need to shoot!

A few months ago, your choice was either a flawed D800 or a D600/610 with either oil on the sensor or crappy AF, build etc. Now, well, Nikon have two very refined products that will tackle extreme brightness range subjects better than a 5D III. Noticeably better. Less stress better. Better print better. And without the flaws of their predecessors. So lets not pretend it is not the case....

Canon's 5D IV will impress, but I am not convinced it will match the Nikons for DR or banding. If it closes the gap half way, that will probably be enough for most of us and I will be darned confident that the 5D IV will be more 'finished', tougher, more reliable and a truly outstanding camera in every other parameter. Canon still leads the way in terms of producing 'sorted cameras' for sure.

The D750 is a great success, assuming it is has no gremlins lurking for the consumers. Knocking it will achieve nothing.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 2, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Here's an image comparing banding in the D800, 5D2 and 5D3:
> ...



Proof that Canon banding is not noise, they just wanted a rendering of a plaid shirt in the shadows of every photo.
You won't know what you're missing until it's gone.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 2, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Here's an image comparing banding in the D800, 5D2 and 5D3:
> ...



Yeah, dilbert...that's good. I literally did L-O-L.  

But just a warning...Sadly, not everyone will appreciate your sense of humor. For example, I posted a humorous depiction of Canon banding and Exmor perfection after a 10-stop push:











...and got this in response:



jrista said:


> More mockery, wonderful.
> <snip>
> Enough with the insulting mockery. Enough with making it personal. *It's just sick.*


----------



## zlatko (Oct 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



A Google search? Are you _kidding_? The DxO score alone disproves your point that Canon did "nothing". Case closed. 

Now you reply with a link to a Google search for words like 5D3 + banding. You realize that you can plug ANY words in any language into Google and Google will respond with some links? And that proves exactly nothing. Of course, the first link I opened led to yet another example of gross pushing of underexposed photos. Predictable. _Yes, user error gives banding. _But that doesn't even pass the threshold for competence in photography.


----------



## turtle (Oct 2, 2014)

I disagree that Canon did nothing with the 5D III sensor. Read my earlier post if you think I have bias (I assure you I do not) but the DxO results do not marry up with my observations as a user of both cameras. IQ is better with the Mk III, from high ISO to reduced banding. Its not huge, but enough to notice pretty easily as an owner of both cameras. The Sony sensors, however, remain in a different league altogether.


----------



## V8Beast (Oct 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> It wasn't the camera's fault OR my fault - it was the ballhead on the tripod.
> 
> Would anyone else like to showcase their ignorance?



Correction: It's always the photographer's fault. Even in instances of gear failure, it's a photographer's fault for:

1) Not having backup gear.
2) Not having the correct gear for the job.
3) Not being able to work around gear failure to capture the shot through alternate means.


----------



## NancyP (Oct 2, 2014)

Exactly why do people NEED to push 5 or more stops?


----------



## V8Beast (Oct 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Yes, guilty as charged! I'm not ever satisfied with the status quo and will question everything and anything.



Does this only apply to photography gear, or does it also apply to photography technique?


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 2, 2014)

NancyP said:


> Exactly why do people NEED to push 5 or more stops?



To demonstrate how Exmor is better than Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 2, 2014)

NancyP said:


> Exactly why do people NEED to push 5 or more stops?



To demonstrate the inferiority of Canon sensors...why else? :


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 2, 2014)

hehehe ... glad to see DR. took some Drone-DRool-inducing pictures of that DReamlike DXO museum! ;D 



neuroanatomist said:


> But just a warning...Sadly, not everyone will appreciate your sense of humor. For example, I posted a humorous depiction of Canon banding and Exmor perfection after a 10-stop push:


----------



## zlatko (Oct 2, 2014)

NancyP said:


> Exactly why do people NEED to push 5 or more stops?



It's like proponents of Car Brand N trying to prove over and over that the bumpers on Car Brand N can withstand crashing into a tree at 7 miles per hour, while the bumpers on Car Brand C can only withstand crashing into a tree at 5 miles per hour. So they keep crashing into a tree at 6 miles per hour. How about just driving the car instead of crashing into tree?


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 2, 2014)

Thanks, great posting! 



turtle said:


> It looks like the D750 has hit a sweet spot in performance, size and price for many amateurs and pros. Well done to Nikon, but this does not mean anyone should be unhappy with the 5D III if it does what they need it to.
> 
> However, this does depend on what you shoot and how you work. Some of the DR obsessives could not take a good photo to save their lives, but some of the Canon fanboys are no different. As a long-time Canon user and owner of an A7 and A7R, I am weary of people trying to tell me that the only reason why 'people like me' are eager for Canon to improve banding issues and DR can only be because I cannot expose properly. I pity those making such comments for they inhabit a delusional world.
> 
> ...


----------



## Maui5150 (Oct 2, 2014)

V8Beast said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > It wasn't the camera's fault OR my fault - it was the ballhead on the tripod.
> ...



+1


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> In what areas is the D750 lesser than the more expensive 5D3?



Consumer build and control layout. That comes straight from the Nikon fans who are complaining about it and desiring a true successor to the D700.



> The IQ is better simply because it doesn't have the banding and read noise of the 5D3. That's without even thinking about DR.



No, it only appears in extreme DR situations where you heavily underexpose and then push in post. Apart from that they have essentially identical IQ.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> But just a warning...Sadly, not everyone will appreciate your sense of humor. For example, I posted a humorous depiction of Canon banding and Exmor perfection after a 10-stop push:



LOL! Your images are probably being used as evidence in another forum ;D


----------



## tolusina (Oct 3, 2014)

dilbert said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...





dilbert said:


> ....it was the ballhead on the tripod.......


What job were you on? Doesn't matter, any job, anywhere, anytime, if it's worth doing, get it done well.

Who's ballhead?
Even if it wasn't yours, maybe rented or borrowed, you selected it, you decided it was adequate to bring along. 
When it failed, that demonstrated failure of your choices and decisions.

Workarounds require cleverness, innovation, the creative ability to improvise on the spot with whatever is at hand.
Um, ballhead failure, tripod has become useless, find rocks, place clothing, backpack or whatever as an alternate support, trip shutter with IR remote that is always always along or the IR remote app on your smartphone.
Still can't get the composition you'd like? Wing it and find another.

Alternately, you can whiney post on CR, blame your gear choice, oh, sorry, that just went back to failure by your choice.


----------



## V8Beast (Oct 3, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Thank you for deciding this.
> 
> Maybe you would like to explain...
> (1) What job I was there for on that day
> ...



You tell me. I have no idea why you were there, although based on the other comments in this thread, it's safe to assume it wasn't a paid gig. 

If the ballhead is unstable, how about holding it still with your hands, setting the camera down on another steady surface (ground, table), or utilizing a shutter speed that allows hand holding? 

Edit: Looks like tolusina beat me to the punch. At any rate, the solutions to such a simple problem seem rather universal


----------



## V8Beast (Oct 3, 2014)

dilbert said:


> So you (and tolusina) have no idea why I was there or where I was, yet you see fit to decide that I could have done something else.



You're right. We don't know why, so why don't you just tell us? 



> Hint: with that level of light, the shutter speed is measured in seconds, not tenths of seconds, and humans are not steady enough and nor does IS work in situations like that.



Which is why myself and others suggested stabilizing the camera through different means. This is a 10-second exposure, and the camera is wobbling around quite a bit off a boom, yet the image is still sharp. Your hands can work quite well as stabilizers in a pinch.


----------



## tolusina (Oct 3, 2014)

dilbert said:


> .....
> 
> So you (and tolusina) have no idea why I was there or where I was, yet you see fit to decide that I could have done something else.
> 
> Hint: with that level of light, the shutter speed is measured in seconds, not tenths of seconds, and humans are not steady enough and nor does IS work in situations like that.


Well dilbert, please, stop with the passive aggressive head game set up and tell us your excuse for your failed preparations for whatever you failed at doing and wherever you were failing at doing your mysterious _whatever_.
You can drop the other shoe, make us look the fool. If you can.

Hint: long exposure, mirror lock up, self timer, IR remote, tethered remote are all options for triggering.
There are endless support possibilities with things on hand, granted, it does take a bit of imagination and creativity to solve. 
One of my best and favorite portraits used a suitcase for support. I've used rocks, trees, trash cans, automotive engine oil drain barrels, anything at hand padded with something else at hand. 
Canon's inexpensive IR remote resides on my camera's strap, it's always available, I've a free IR remote app on my phone as back up. 
I've DSLR Remote for cabled or WiFi tethering on four androids, at least one is always along as is a USB OTG host cable and standard USB cable.

What? Were you using a phone for a camera's job? If so, that's really laughable.

Wild animal or jealous husband chasing you? Fire? Thunderstorm? Bad times to photograph, failed planning.

Bottom line, whatever it was, apparently you failed.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 3, 2014)

V8Beast said:


> Which is why myself and others suggested stabilizing the camera through different means. This is a 10-second exposure, and the camera is wobbling around quite a bit off a boom, yet the image is still sharp. Your hands can work quite well as stabilizers in a pinch.



Nice shot!

But why isn't it pushed +5 stops?


----------



## V8Beast (Oct 3, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Nice shot!
> 
> But why isn't it pushed +5 stops?



There's a rabid midget hiding in the shadows, that's why


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Oct 3, 2014)

If you screw up the exposures, a good sensor might save your bacon. Planning and thinking the shot through will produce a good image on any camera. It's really all about getting a money making shot and a happy client. Nothing more, nothing less. Liken this back to the film days when we argued over which was the best film manufacturer. As soon as and argument was won, a new film would come out that blew away the previous choice.


----------



## sanj (Oct 3, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Even if the cameras are comparable at higher ISOs, having one that performs better at lower ISOs is always a nice thing to have. Think of it as an extra feature added in for free such that you don't just have IQ performance comparable to Canon's but better.
> ...



Dont understand. Just because we have handhold able 600, we should not get better IQ at lower ISO?


----------



## Memdroid (Oct 3, 2014)

sanj said:


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



The point is, a lens that big is generally used for stopping action, which requires faster shutter speeds and higher ISO's. So the Exmor low ISO 'advantage' is totally moot.


----------



## sanj (Oct 3, 2014)

Memdroid said:


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



I do not think that is the point. In decent light at f4 it is easy to get 1/250 and faster at ISO 100. 
What the scientist is trying to say is that unlike Nikon, Canon shooters have a handhold able 600mm. I do not really buy that logic not to have the best sensor.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 3, 2014)

sanj said:


> What the scientist is trying to say is that unlike Nikon, Canon shooters have a handhold able 600mm. I do not really buy that logic not to have the best sensor.



Please provide a logical solution to 'have the best sensor' (as you put it) _and_ 'have a handholdable 600/4...and >40 cross-type points...and a 5x macro lens...etc. 

The point is that the they are mutually exclusive. If you'd like to fantasize, I'll take 30 stops of DR, 200 MP, ISO 1638400 with no visible noise and all 30 stops of DR, and throw in a handholdable 1200mm f/2.8. 

Dilbert's claim that more DR at low ISO than Canon offers is a 'free feature' isn't tenable. Bare silicon sensors don't take pictures. Those sensors are parts of cameras, which are parts of systems. We buy cameras and systems, not sensors. Sure, I _want_ the best...everything. But in the real world, we have to make choices.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 3, 2014)

dilbert said:


> To use the "economics" argument, how many 600/4's are sold compared to kit lenses? Not very many.
> 
> Thus the number of 600/4 owners is a minority when compared to owners of 18-55, etc.
> 
> Which would make owners of 600/4 asking for high ISO a vocal minority, yes?



I'm not asking for high ISO (performance), my 1D X is excellent in that regard. Nor have I seen other Canon 600/4 owners clamoring for better high ISO performance...that's an area where Canon excels. 

I wonder which group is larger – the number of 600/4 owners, or the number of people who need to push their low ISO images 5 stops in post? Honestly, both are very small minority groups (with at least one person on CR being in both)...but only one of those groups is vocal (endlessly so...).


----------



## sanj (Oct 3, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > What the scientist is trying to say is that unlike Nikon, Canon shooters have a handhold able 600mm. I do not really buy that logic not to have the best sensor.
> ...



Yes, you are right - I am being greedy. I wish Canon would give me the best of everything.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 3, 2014)

dilbert said:


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



Did your computer freeze ? You didn't finish your last sentence, so I took the liberty of doing so.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 3, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> http://www.rossharvey.com/reviews/nikon-d750-review
> 
> Quite an excited review of the Nikon D750. Sample pictures look really great. Especially high iso looks impressive. Says he also worked with the 5DIII and that it does not compare for his work (weddings).
> 
> ...



The first line under "important notes" in this "review" put me off...apparently he considers himself unbiased...and yet he's a log term Nikon user with Nikon lenses...yeah right....really unbiased. In the same way, if i pick up a D750...I'd compare it favorably with a 5DIII.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 3, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> The first line under "important notes" in this "review" put me off...apparently he considers himself unbiased...and yet he's a log term Nikon user with Nikon lenses...yeah right....really unbiased.



Are you equally concerned with long time Canon users saying good stuff about Canon?

There is no such thing as an unbiased human. Which is why I don't care about reviewer's opinions or "impressions" but more concerned with measurable data.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 3, 2014)

This whole debate is goofy. 

Nikon released a 5DIII competitor about 2 1/2 years after the 5DIII. Except it's not quite a competitor because it's built more like a 6D than a 5D, so it's sort of a 5.5D competitor. 

The D750 costs $2,300. I bought a special bundle package last year from one of the "big two" paid about about $2,600 net for the body after everything was said and done. So, it costs an extra $300 to go from a 5.5D to a full fledged 5D. 

Now, if I were a Nikon user, I might be excited by this option. But, would I switch systems to save $300 on a body that will replaced in a year or two – no way.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Oct 3, 2014)

dilbert said:


> ...Do you get a 6D plus EF lenses or jump ship to the D610?..



my question is that i am holding 6d plus ef lenses while you are holding d610 or even d750... put black tape on your and my back lcds. who will deliver better images? i bet you that all your images will turn out like CRAPPPP...

want to have a bet?


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 3, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



The histogram is from the exposure push. You have pushed virtually zero data and got FPN as a result. It doesn't matter if it a half stop push or five. I think that nearly everyone accepts that if you want to push zero data you will get less noise from the Exmor. That ship has sailed. Forget it, nobody is interested in this now but the likes of yourself. This whole debate has distilled out to the base nitty gritty: forget overall dynamic range, you have to push zero data to see the result you want. 

You can keep posting images like this but all you are doing is waving a white flag as far as your argument is concerned.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Oct 3, 2014)

While the dead horse continues to be beaten, I'll introduce the subject of reliability and customer service/satisfaction over people bragging about other's sensor quality. 
At the Reno Air Races, *Nikon loans out bodies and lenses for free*- all categories. 
This year the lens failure rate exceeded the usual low noise(complaint) level
and caused quite a bit of discussion. I heard of many lens issues and witnessed 
three shooters next to me have *lens failures*.
A 400 just *all out died* and two have lens that had *focusing issues*,
a few had *VR problems*. One shooter next to me one the buss complained of
getting a lens that wouldn't auto-focus and *went through three* before getting
a good one. Between races, we will do some pixel peeping. One of the shooters started bitching about all the Nikon 400's shots being soft. We had plenty of time to troubleshoot and do testing. I had my 100-400 and shot the same subject, then compared. Yes, it was softer( ! ) and less contrast. We left the test shots on each card for later discussion.
We are stuck out at the pylons for half a day with *no way of returning*. When you have a failure, you go *sit in the bus and wait till it's over*. That didn't go over well- to say the least!
Upon return to the media headquarters, we went to the Nikon room and returned the borrowed 400 and told them it was soft. *Even with test shots from both cameras, they wouldn't believe us*. The Nikon rep just put it back on the shelf.
One of my friends borrowed a Nikon only to find *all his images had a magenta tint*. *He is now a pixel-peeper* after not closely checking his results during the day. I didn't get to look a the body before he returned it, but I guessing the previous user did some night photography the day before or maybe the body was messed up some way. Others had noticed things like ISO settings were set high. I guess *Nikon never checked the returned bodies before loaning them out*.
Yes, there are *happy Nikon & Canon shooters* out there, but *when the crap hits the fan it gets real*.
*All my screwed up shots were my fault, not my Canon gear*. It really pisses me off when there is nobody else to blame!


----------



## V8Beast (Oct 3, 2014)

dilbert said:


> The attached image is evidence of just how bad the banding is. And this is at ISO 100, where IQ is meant to be at its best. How far did I push the image? 1.9 stops.



And what exactly are you shooting that requires pushing the image 1.9 stops? Since when is 1.9 stops a trivial amount?

If you say what you were shooting in that particular image doesn't matter, it's a cop out. Otherwise, you have now way of proving whether it's a legitimate case where more DR would have benefited your particular shooting needs, or if it's a blatantly contrived scenario merely to prove your point. Let me guess, you were trying to shoot a black bear climbing a polar ice cap at high noon. I hate when that happens. 



> Had I of taken this image with an Exmor based camera then that banding and noise in the shadow area that has been lifted simply wouldn't be there.



Why don't you do that then? Can an Exmor sensor also compensate for an overloaded ballhead? Can Exmor cure camera shake due to operator error?


----------



## tolusina (Oct 4, 2014)

V8Beast said:


> .... a blatantly contrived scenario merely to prove your point........


That's what is often considered passive aggressive behavior, dilbert seems to come by it naturally, don't call him on it though, that makes him really jiggy.




dilbert said:


> Had I of taken this image with an Exmor based camera ...


 
Please please dilbert, if you don't yet have an Exmor based camera, sell off all your Canon gear right now and buy one.
Hopefully, you'll lose all interest in things Canon and CR, should you then choose to grace us with your absence, the atmosphere here on CR can then lighten considerably.

I suspect that once you start posting in Sonykon/Exmor forums, those folk will soon tire of your continued rants regarding build quality, lens choices, support issues, lack of conservative market stability, menus, ergonomics, flash systems, etc..


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 4, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Yes, then I'll be able to come back and taunt you all with pictures that your Canon cameras can't match



Of course you will...at least before you take off the lens cap.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Oct 4, 2014)

dilbert said:


> 1. Yes, then I'll be able to come back and taunt you all with pictures that your Canon cameras can't match
> 2. Flash systems? For 99%+ of my shots I don't use a flash.



1. i am here and waiting for that day... and sorry to say this to you... no, yours images can not compete with my images regardless your whatever systems, even with my set of canon 30d and 430ex ii that i use everyday...
2. ah, you cannot shoot available light properly, and you do not know how to use flash... what the heck have you been learning? trying to get camera to do it for you? and lean toward post process? no wonder why all of them are crap images...



dilbert said:


> 1. I just clicked "Auto" in LR and that's what it did.
> 2. As I've said previously, next year's tax refund for 2014 will be spent on Sony equipment and not Canon. I'm sick of this s**t and sick of waiting for Canon to fix their sensors.



1. back to previous one, number 2... ah... what the heck have you been learning in those previous years? clicking on auto? lol
2. thought that you are smart, you understand sensor design in and out and you do not have money to buy camera now, have to wait for tax return? i thought that you were r/d engineer who made lots of money? ;D



dilbert said:


> ...it's the Canon sensor saying "I can't do this, get an Exmor."



go and get it when your money comes and have fun with highlight sources, especially blue. this problem can be fix in software/firmware, but expect to see down side from level of sharpness, noise and dr (your favorite)... this is my prediction...

NOTE: YOU STILL HAVE AN QUESTION TO ANSWER "DOES SENSOR MAKE CAMERA" FROM PREVIOUS POST. THINK MULTIPLE TIMES PRIOR TO ANSWER... 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntLlU6U2-zM, or

http://community.sony.com/t5/Alpha-NEX-Cameras/Sony-a7s-image-sensor-problem-shooting-bright-light-sources/td-p/445268


----------



## tolusina (Oct 4, 2014)

dilbert said:


> ........ Let me clue you in on something: nature isn't built with photographers in mind.......


Um, nature, the world, everything in it, light, shadows, contrast, tonal gradations, compositional elements, all available instantly in infinite combinations, combinations that continually change with time of day, year, weather, viewer's mood and perspective, another combination available with a single step in any direction, words can never even begin to describe a single instant of our visual input to a blind person yet a click of the shutter can record and archive any instant to share with the sighted.
You are so wrong dilbert, nature is indeed symbiotic with photography, you have no cluing me in to do here, none.



dilbert said:


> ......Flash systems? For 99%+ of my shots I don't use a flash.........


Shadows dilbert, your favorite topic and you and your use of your gear's inability to reproduce detail from shadows; shadows are places where light is reduced or blocked partially or entirely. 
I think you could stand to learn some lighting techniques beyond simple, flash is one way shadows can, in a controlled manner, be exposed to light and exposed to your sensor.
You are welcome to wish for exquisite detail in every crag in every distant mountain in a landscape scene, you are welcome to continue to wish.



dilbert said:


> I'm already committing next year's tax return to buying Sony...
> 
> …....Conservative market stability is not something that I desire. My camera and lenses are tools, not investments. A digital camera (like any other technology product) is obsolete the day it is announced........


 
And there's the crux.
You have no budget for the gear you desire, you're waiting on next year's return. 
You have my sympathy, I've been there too.
While there, I learned that I had to accept and work within budget limitations, it served no one, especially myself, to continually protest things I could not change. I longed for a 5DII for so long, the 5DIII was released and longed for, then the 6D arrived along with a budget change, meanwhile I worked a D80.
Perhaps if you'd had a conservative and stable outlook to your purchases, you'd have gotten more enduring satisfaction from those purchases.

In other TLR words, step up (buy your desired Exmor now) or step aside (grace us with your absence).


----------



## tolusina (Oct 4, 2014)

dilbert said:


> .....LOL! That's so funny. I'm going to be nice and not say any more because you've said more than I expect you realize about yourself here.........


I assure you, I'm well aware of what I wrote, every word carefully considered and chosen. I find it odd that you find it laughable and worthy of your disrespect.



dilbert said:


> ......Nah, you'd miss me.....


Not in the least, that's a promise.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Oct 4, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Ah, you make me laugh.



because i am right and you speechless... lol...



dilbert said:


> If I were a smart r/d engineer that made lots of money, I'd have already bought a new Sony system.



negation/complement of smart is stupid (assume smart=1 and stupid=0; thus ¬smart is stupid)... if it was true, so why were you trying to educate us?



dilbert said:


> But photographers that I respect are no longer buying Canon or shooting with Canon. (Some never have but then they've never used Nikon or Sony either.)
> 
> If you're happy with your camera, keep it. The tide is starting to move and I think I'll swim with it, not against it.



might to name some of those who you respect? i am courious  yep... just curious, but not switching since i am able to deliver images with any modern camera... however, NOT SONY - A COMPANY, IN HISTORY, SILENTLY INSTALLED SPYWARES/ROOTKITS INTO THEIR CUSTOMER SYSTEMS...


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 4, 2014)

Ishdakuteb, old pal; he's not worth it


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 4, 2014)

ishdakuteb said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > But photographers that I respect are no longer buying Canon or shooting with Canon.
> ...



I nearly wanted to ask, too, but sporon is correct: don't feed the troll.


----------



## Perio (Oct 4, 2014)

dilbert said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I'm sorry, I haven't paid too much attention to this thread but I'm not quite sure what exactly your point is. If you don't like Canon or you find it's inferior to its competitors (objectively or subjectively), then go ahead and buy Nikon/Sony etc. If you like WRX, that doesn't make S63 that someone likes a bad car, do you get my point? Choose whatever you like and stop arguing, as there is no sense in what you're talking. Don't you have other things to do in your life or people who need your attention or you're glad to waste your time/energy just for the sake of argument? If you have too much energy or too much free time, why don't you go and volunteer at the hospital or hospice? Trust me, many people would appreciate that. 

EDIT: In reality, NOBODY gives a damn about what you (me, anyone else) use/buy/like etc. So, if you think people here would miss you, you're too naive. Get a real life and enjoy what you have. Many people don't have even a fraction of what you do.


----------



## tolusina (Oct 5, 2014)

dilbert said:


> ....
> 
> Here's one.
> 
> ...


A quick search of LL shows that is indeed quite true.
That establishes the LL site as a place for partial and biased journalists which throws doubt on everything they publish.
Really? A photography site with regular gear features that excludes the market leader? 
Thank you so much for bringing it to our attention that LL is so biased and dilbert approved.

You can quit any time before you get farther behind.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Oct 5, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Visit http://www.luminous-landscape.com
> 
> The principal behind that website used to own and review a lot of Canon equipment. Going back as far as the EOS 1V. The 5DII was his last serious Canon camera.
> 
> Now, he not only doesn't own any but Canon products haven't feature on that website in many years now.



ah... i pretty much know this site since back in 2012, those days that i have started to learn using dslr, and registered to be a CR user to learn more from other members. i even know pretty much everyone in those workshop partners, especially jay maisel (famous about using color composition) and john paul caponigro (canon's light explorer leader), etc. the founder of the website is nikon user; i did not know that he really used/chose canon as his system...

ummm... i think i now remember he was talking about mirrorless in a video and as i remember he did flip-flop about mirrorless and not mirrorless. however, i am not a big fan of mirrorless since it is no more fun and challenge.

want to get a sure shot? video it and then extract a frame out of it... but i am calling this as a cheat 

i do not use low iso, even i am shooting at noon. below images were taking at high noon and my iso is not 100, 200, or even 300. jay maisel hits street with iso 400 and up...

not even afraid of grabbing my canon 30d with 50mm f/1.4 for testing sport photography (today), still doable for the job but honestly still miss shots due to frame rate. again, one point auto focus instead of all... 

note: sport photography is not really my interest, but heck... just for fun... why not...


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 5, 2014)

ishdakuteb said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Visit http://www.luminous-landscape.com
> ...



But ishdakuteb, if you are going to take part in this debate you must play fair; comparing the D30 is not playing fair as everyone knows the older Canons were much better than the new ones and Sony / Nikon latest offerings are aimed at being better than Canons latest offerings, not those from 2006. 

Nice pictures by the way !


----------



## ishdakuteb (Oct 5, 2014)

dilbert said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



please think twice before saying, luminous-landscape is NOT owned by seth resnick, but michael reimann is. however, seth resnick is a co-owner of d-65.


----------



## Vgramatikov (Oct 5, 2014)

d750 for sure best the 5d3 in the sensor performance more or less at base iso`s. As we known mostly at DR shadow recovery ability. That`s it...Some tweaks at high iso`s nothing new.
1/4000 max shutter speed, no AF button, equivalent af as d810 like 5d3 equiv as 1dx.

So we all do not need big talking here...

I`m Canon user now i think d750 are late filling the hole of missing the real d700 successor.

Still d750 have market for those who have d800 or old d3s,d700 and looking for weeding or wildlife, sports camera.

All other users already have d610,d800/E/d810 and d4 camera. 

Little confusing here in the Nikon full frame line...and still some tweaks and misunderstandings can be found on cameras as Nikon DF and Nikon d750. Now i think Nikon are just tweaking existed technologies and sensors and make some marketing in order to rise they sells .... 

I think Nikon users need the d750 with more frame rate as 8fps 16mp 4d sensor ..just lighter and cheaper d4 as d700 was the cheaper d3.

Again they will have just different story.

Nikon d810 was the one body who make sense these days and this body really eat the DF and d750 market.

For me is hard to understand...the idea of the 750d side by side d810 and DF.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Oct 6, 2014)

dilbert said:


> What you've said here is that Michael Reimann is owned by Seth Resnick. Is that what you wanted to say?
> 
> I said exactly what I wanted to say. Note the spacing for paragraphs.



ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS: NO, THAT NOT WHAT I SAID... LOL...

luminous-landscape is NOT owned by seth resnick, instead it is owned by michael reimann according to my understanding... but who care...


----------

