# Bye Canon?



## pictaker (Apr 23, 2013)

Hey folks,
I'been waiting so long fot the 70d.... now it's again some more weeks away-at least. :-(

Looks like I'm finally going to switch to Nikon after 8 YEARS Canon... and now i'm wondering who else?
Anyone else out there who takes the consequences of the missing features or am i the only one?



Just wondering....


----------



## Click (Apr 23, 2013)

Hello pictaker,

Welcome to cr.

I'm satisfied with Canon so far, I don't think switching to Nikon will give me a better choice.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 23, 2013)

H&G = hello and goodbye.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 23, 2013)

8 YEARS ? 

Na, that's nothing. I was with Nikon for 25 

What a strange first post :


----------



## pictaker (Apr 23, 2013)

I'm just frustated and i want canon to know!
I mean i love the 60d, but no real video af. I want a seald dslr
with a big viewfinder -and a good video af. Maybe even a gps since i do make most of my photos outdoor on many different locations...again, frustrated.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 23, 2013)

pictaker said:


> I'm just frustated and i want canon to know!
> I mean i love the 60d, but no real video af. I want a seald dslr
> with a big viewfinder -and a good video af. Maybe even a gps since i do make most of my photos outdoor on many different locations...again, frustrated.



I think that if you are hoping for genuine 'video camera' type AF from a 70D you are likely to be disappointed. The video AF capability of the 650D is barely any better than what preceded it.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 23, 2013)

I love Nikon, I'm going to get one... someday... but for now I'm happy with my Canon exclusive lenses and features.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 23, 2013)

pictaker said:


> I'm just frustated and i want canon to know!



'We' are not Canon... They have a forum now, staffed by Canon moderators, maybe try there...


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 23, 2013)

1. Better Prime Selection
2. Better Flash.
3. Better ergos and a common sense Menu system
4. Better AF
5. Its Red.


----------



## pictaker (Apr 23, 2013)

I know you're not canon. I just thought i could start here a wave causing canon to speed up the 70d release. I know they care about my post... 

Sporgon- i would expect the 70 to be at least competitive with the 650/700 but with better viewfinder/pentaprism and weatherproofed for my outdoor activities. Maybe i was also monitoring cr to close, waiting several times minute by minute for 'my' new dslr. Now the next trip is close and i do not have my new toy :-(


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 23, 2013)

pictaker said:


> I know you're not canon. I just thought i could start here a wave causing canon to speed up the 70d release.



LOL. Here's a small bucket - go drain the ocean. :


----------



## pictaker (Apr 23, 2013)

Yeah, sorry - forgot the ironie tag. Anyway - getting late here. Another no 70d day is over, gd n8 everyone and thanks for reading my frust-post.


----------



## kdsand (Apr 23, 2013)

pictaker said:


> I'm just frustated and i want canon to know!
> I mean i love the 60d, but no real video af. I want a seald dslr
> with a big viewfinder -and a good video af. Maybe even a gps since i do make most of my photos outdoor on many different locations...again, frustrated.



OK yes having a well sealed body is important to me and yes canon ticks me off not sealing expensive equipment as well as they could. GPS would be nice.... Sadly I bet only reason its left out is so they can sell us a GPS module. Bigger brighter view is always better!

Video AF?  I'll sacrifice video to get any or all of the above!!

That being said all in all Canon fits my needs better than anybody else.


----------



## beckstoy (Apr 23, 2013)

pictaker said:


> I'm just frustated and i want canon to know!
> I mean i love the 60d, but no real video af. I want a seald dslr
> with a big viewfinder -and a good video af. Maybe even a gps since i do make most of my photos outdoor on many different locations...again, frustrated.



It sounds more like you should be looking at the 7D rather than the 70D! I'm a 5DM3 guy, but I'd rather have a 7D for video over a (still projected/rumored/ficticious) 70D any day!


----------



## Videoshooter (Apr 23, 2013)

Pictaker, perhaps you could tell us exactly which Nikon camera you plan on switching to that will give you weather sealing and good video AF? There's not one that I can think of, especially not in the same price range as the 60D/7D. The closest would be the D7100 which still does not offer proper video AF. 

You might want to take a look and the Panasonic GH3 though.


----------



## aznable (Apr 23, 2013)

pictaker said:


> Hey folks,
> 
> ...
> 
> Just wondering....



interesting...this one would win the post of the month


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 23, 2013)

Ok first off, no one promised you a 70D today, so your negative feelings have nothing to do with Canon and everything to do with your expectations. 

if you want to shoot video on a large-sensor camera, you have to learn how to focus manually. The motion picture industry has been doing it this way since it's inception and continues to do so. We are very far away from having AF for video on a DSLR, with as many lenses as there are it would be extremely difficult to make them all work perfectly. I mean do you really want to trust a camera to pull focus for you at the right time and to the right place? Instead of complaining about technology that probably isn't available just make do with what you have. 

Everyone else making videos with DSLR's and any other cinema camera do it this way, why can't you? If you think the lack of this feature is what's holding you back from making great videos then you should go ahead and find a different gig.

And about switching to Nikon, I don't think switching is going to make the slightest bit of difference. It seems like you want to blame the gear, a feature (or missing feature), and that could go on forever. So like I said, try and make do with what you have, plenty of other people have made great stuff with the same gear.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Apr 23, 2013)

pictaker said:


> I'm just frustated and i want canon to know!



lol.. are you really that naive?
send them a letter maybe they are out of toilet paper and will use it.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 23, 2013)

It's funny, nobody gives up drinking because their scotch is too old? What is it with cameras?


----------



## And-Rew (Apr 23, 2013)

Is this another troll? ???

Really - you sign up to to post that you are saying goodbye? 

Think you need to get a life or a perspective - oh and good luck with the Nikon crowd. I followed that forum for a while out of interest - damn they're savage, if their lenses were as sharp as some of the comments i've read on that forum - well, Canon would be out of business ;D

And just to revise your thoughts on shooting video - a media college in the UK uses 60D's to teach students with, because they're considerably less expensive than 'pro' gear but still functional for teaching how to shoot video correctly.


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 23, 2013)

Waiting 8 years, bailing for a couple of weeks? Sounds a bit impulsive to me. What else is behind this.

sek



pictaker said:


> Hey folks,
> I'been waiting so long fot the 70d.... now it's again some more weeks away-at least. :-(
> 
> Looks like I'm finally going to switch to Nikon after 8 YEARS Canon... and now i'm wondering who else?
> ...


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 23, 2013)

@ Op - what special about 70d?


----------



## dunkers (Apr 23, 2013)

Have fun stopping your video/live view to change aperture!


----------



## Renegade Runner (Apr 24, 2013)

Not *bye* Canon but *buy* Canon. ;D


----------



## Krob78 (Apr 24, 2013)

pictaker said:


> I'm just frustated and i want canon to know!
> I mean i love the 60d, but no real video af. I want a seald dslr
> with a big viewfinder -and a good video af. Maybe even a gps since i do make most of my photos outdoor on many different locations...again, frustrated.


Yes, that'll show them! After being ten years in the #1 spot globally, you saying goodbye to Canon is surely going to rock their boat!

So, are you selling all your old gear and lenses? Someone here may be interested...


----------



## ishdakuteb (Apr 24, 2013)

pictaker said:


> ...I'been waiting so long fot the 70d.... Looks like I'm finally going to switch to Nikon after 8 YEARS Canon...



umm... you predict what will be changed in canon 70d in the last 8 years? smart though... and much more smarter when switching to nikon 8)

meh... i am okae with what i am having now and will not switch to nikon. anyways, i bet that if you want to sell your canon gears, put them on here... people are willing to buy it back from you as long as called prices make sense to them... that would help me getting more budget to acquire new nikon gear...


----------



## m (Apr 24, 2013)

pictaker said:


> I'm just frustated and i want canon to know!



You have to make them _feel_, by selling your now useless gear for really really cheap for example. 
If that ain't the most awesome way to tell them the truth then I don't know what would be...

...well, maybe you could send your lenses to Canon to get them refurbished just before selling them for really really cheap. That'd be totally "in your face".


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 24, 2013)

On one hand, I actually agree that "making waves" on the internet can change the course of big business in some cases. If the whole world universally asks for one thing, sometimes the message can get through and encourage businesses to do something that they would not have otherwise done.

The problem here is that the message is something that Canon already knows, and is undoubtedly already planning on fulfilling. The prevailing issue is one of time, "right now" vs. "later". No amount of begging can make Canon move it's release schedule up, that's like asking a Chef to hurry up and serve you a meal before it's cooked, they won't do it. No matter how much you say you want a soggy mess the Chef is not going to sell you an incomplete product just so you can taste it and then turn around and complain that the meal isn't finished.


----------



## expatinasia (Apr 24, 2013)

So funny, someone takes the time to join a Canon forum to say he is going to buy a Nikon. I wonder which rumoured Nikon he wants to buy, because of course none of the existing line up will be good enough! 

Yawn.....


----------



## eml58 (Apr 24, 2013)

expatinasia said:


> So funny, someone takes the time to join a Canon forum to say he is going to buy a Nikon. I wonder which rumoured Nikon he wants to buy, because of course none of the existing line up will be good enough!
> 
> Yawn.....



Yea, Yawn, I think the Op hit the hay 5 minutes after his 4th ?? CR Post, might be a Plant... Just saying.

I'm getting ready for Bed myself, Just need to polish my 1Dx & 5DMK III one more time.


----------



## eml58 (Apr 24, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> pictaker said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just frustated and i want canon to know!
> ...



Hi Neuro, Canon have a Forum ?? wasn't aware, like the H&G, need to remember that for the future.


----------



## shutterwideshut (Apr 24, 2013)

eml58 said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > So funny, someone takes the time to join a Canon forum to say he is going to buy a Nikon. I wonder which rumoured Nikon he wants to buy, because of course none of the existing line up will be good enough!
> ...



;D ;D ;D


----------



## NickM43 (Apr 24, 2013)

Ummm... who cares?


----------



## photo212 (Apr 24, 2013)

pictaker said:


> I know you're not canon. I just thought i could start here a wave causing canon to speed up the 70d release. I know they care about my post...
> 
> Sporgon- i would expect the 70 to be at least competitive with the 650/700 but with better viewfinder/pentaprism and weatherproofed for my outdoor activities. Maybe i was also monitoring cr to close, waiting several times minute by minute for 'my' new dslr. Now the next trip is close and i do not have my new toy :-(


I want Canon to slow down. Get it right. Once everything is ready to roll down the production, start the line. Until then, I say let the little kiddies complain that Christmas is not coming fast enough (when it is the same date every year).

You are asking for your consumer line camera to have professional qualities. You want everything, but refuse to pay for it. buck up and pay for the features you want, or wait until Canon releases those novelty items in the Rebel line-up.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 24, 2013)

photo212 said:


> pictaker said:
> 
> 
> > I know you're not canon. I just thought i could start here a wave causing canon to speed up the 70d release. I know they care about my post...
> ...


This makes sense, I just posted in another thread about my concerns that they seem to be a bit slow nowadays, but it could be that I have lost perspective reading this forum too much.


----------



## pwp (Apr 24, 2013)

pictaker said:


> Hey folks,
> I've been waiting so long for the 70d.... now it's again some more weeks away-at least. :-(
> Looks like I'm finally going to switch to Nikon after 8 YEARS Canon... and now I'm wondering who else?
> Anyone else out there who takes the consequences of the missing features or am i the only one?
> Just wondering....



OMG pictaker...your post will send shivers down the spine of the Canon marketing department. 
The 70 D will be announced by the end of the week for sure and in stores by Monday.

-PW


----------



## ksagomonyants (Apr 24, 2013)

If you need some features that current Canon cameras you can afford don't have, go ahead and switch. It's your money and you have absolutely no obligation not to do that. But you can also think about it in a different way. For example, Canon may be adding some new features which they did not plan to include previously. In this case, you may wait a little bit but get a camera with more advanced features 

P.S. In any case, you don't have to be frustrated with Canon. This is a rumor site and Canon hasn't promised to announce anything today.


----------



## jrista (Apr 25, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> pictaker said:
> 
> 
> > I know you're not canon. I just thought i could start here a wave causing canon to speed up the 70d release.
> ...



 +1


----------



## jrista (Apr 25, 2013)

pictaker said:


> Hey folks,
> I'been waiting so long fot the 70d.... now it's again some more weeks away-at least. :-(
> 
> Looks like I'm finally going to switch to Nikon after 8 YEARS Canon... and now i'm wondering who else?
> ...



And, Canon lacking the exact camera you want to buy right now...what exactly does Nikon offer that's better? What Nikon DSLR are you going to buy that gives you what you want that Canon doesn't or won't in a couple weeks?

The 70D isn't all that far off. If your so wound up waiting for it...that might be an indication you need to get out a little more and photograph...anything...for a while. I waited for the 5D III for years, saved up some money expecting it to hit the streets at $2700. I'm still waiting. I've been waiting for the 7D II for about a year. I'm still waiting. While I wait? I take great photos with my current, old, but still EXCELLENT 7D: See here

Waste the time doing what matters...your photography. The camera you want will come around when it comes around, but at least you'll have a bunch of awesome photos to show for all that time you invested in "waiting"! ;D


----------



## Louis (Apr 25, 2013)

Axilrod said:


> Ok first off, no one promised you a 70D today, so your negative feelings have nothing to do with Canon and everything to do with your expectations.
> 
> if you want to shoot video on a large-sensor camera, you have to learn how to focus manually. The motion picture industry has been doing it this way since it's inception and continues to do so. We are very far away from having AF for video on a DSLR, with as many lenses as there are it would be extremely difficult to make them all work perfectly. I mean do you really want to trust a camera to pull focus for you at the right time and to the right place? Instead of complaining about technology that probably isn't available just make do with what you have.
> 
> ...



Really well said


----------



## Nishi Drew (Apr 26, 2013)

If you want video AF why are even looking at a DSLR? What's the point of doing video for you?
If you're going for everyday stuff then stop down your lens and set your focus at hyper focal, if you're shooting cinematic shallow dof or whatever then no one uses AF anyways, video will likely be dominantly MF driven for the creative uses of such, and the general unreliability of AF in most video cameras.

With that said, Canon DSLR video has gone absolutely nowhere in comparison to many others, upsetting because it's Canon that started the whole HDLSR trend, so I'll be getting a Panasonic GH3, which has amazing video (and I think good video AF capabilities as well, but I doubt I'll use it). But that will be purely for video, and a backup/second camera for photography. If you came to Canon for video, I did too, and I feel for ya, but go ahead and switch systems, in the end you'll lose out in getting rid of your gear, then maybe even realizing what you switched for wasn't the answer anyways, then you think of switching back... and oh dear... no matter what side, switching should always be a last resort


----------



## aj1575 (Apr 26, 2013)

pictaker said:


> Hey folks,
> I'been waiting so long fot the 70d.... now it's again some more weeks away-at least. :-(
> 
> Looks like I'm finally going to switch to Nikon after 8 YEARS Canon... and now i'm wondering who else?
> ...



I'm with Canon for some time now; 7 years of them with the my 350D. I'm also waiting for the 70D. An alternative would be the 6D, but it would cost quite some money to upgrade to FF, and I'm not sure if it is worth the investment.
Switching to Nikon is not an option. Not that Nikon is bad, or that I love Canon; it's just a question expense and revenues. It takes quite some time, effort and money to switch a whole system. but I don't see the real return of doing so. Of course, a better camera is nice, but waiting half a year or even a year makes no big difference for me as an amateurphotographer.

I suggest you go out with the eqiupment you have, and take some pictures, try out some new technique, and just wait until the 70D finaly arrives. But if you feel the need to spend some money, or just need a new toy, then buy something Nikon, Canon 6D, or whatever.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 26, 2013)

pictaker said:


> Hey folks,
> I'been waiting so long fot the 70d.... now it's again some more weeks away-at least. :-(
> Looks like I'm finally going to switch to Nikon after 8 YEARS Canon... and now i'm wondering who else?
> Anyone else out there who takes the consequences of the missing features or am i the only one?
> Just wondering....


When someone's very first post is cribbing about a Canon camera that has not yet been released, it raises a lot of doubts in everyone's mind about your intention ... it sounds ludicrous when you claim you have been with Canon for "8 years" but now you are "going to switch to Nikon" because the 70D is "_some weeks away_" : ... and then in your subsequent post you claim "I just thought i could start here a wave causing canon to speed up the 70d release" the only "wave" you've manged "_cause_" is ill will. If you really feel Nikon has a camera that can meet your needs, go buy it ... my primary photography gear is Canon but I also use a Nikon D7000 (which I will be selling and upgrading to D7100 soon), but it'd be naive and ridiculous if I start posting comments in a Canon forum expecting it to cause a "_wave_" to get other people to support me so that Canon will expedite their camera production ... judging by the reactions to your post, almost everyone thinks you are just trolling.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 26, 2013)

Maybe English isn't the OP's first language. 

Maybe he meant Bye Buy Canon ? ;D

After all, no credible person's first post is going to be 'Bye Canon' on CR.


----------



## shutterwideshut (Apr 26, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Maybe English isn't the OP's first language.
> 
> Maybe he meant Bye Buy Canon ? ;D
> 
> After all, no credible person's first post is going to be 'Bye Canon' on CR.



;D ;D ;D LMAO!!!!


----------



## sandymandy (Apr 26, 2013)

Then whats the difference if u got the 70d? Suddenly shooting world class photos? Dont be blinded by technical facts, after 2 weeks (or sooner) u will be so used to ur camera its just normal for u.


----------



## Sella174 (Apr 26, 2013)

In a way I am also frustrated with the direction Canon is heading with their DSLR cameras, but when I see the size my bank account has grown due to this frustration I can only smile.

What I mean is that since "going digital" with the EOS 30D, Canon hasn't brought out any camera (or lens) that I truly desire ... apart from the 7D, which I couldn't afford when it was released, but now that I can, it is four years old and so I'm holding out for the 7D2 ... and the 100D, but since it doesn't have Kelvin WB I won't be buying it.

And none of this affects Canon's #1 position ...


----------



## bycostello (Apr 26, 2013)

happy with the camera i have.. dosn't really matter if it is canon or whatever else...


----------



## pictaker (Apr 28, 2013)

Well.. first of all, no, I'm neither a Troll nor did i ever believed to have any impact on canon . But yes, there was a reason to start this post. Reading so many specs an rumored specs i was up for a more emotinal debate and i got it. Thanks to everyone, i think there have been some really good thoughts in here. And finally believe it or not, it helped me to get closer to a decision- eg my priority about video af changed and my patience.

Now i will focus more on weather capabilities and viewfinder... seems to be more important. And no, it won't be nikon.. but maybe pentax... again thanks for sharing your thoughs.


----------



## rpt (Apr 28, 2013)

pictaker said:


> Well.. first of all, no, I'm neither a Troll nor did i ever believed to have any impact on canon . But yes, there was a reason to start this post. Reading so many specs an rumored specs i was up for a more emotinal debate and i got it. Thanks to everyone, i think there have been some really good thoughts in here. And finally believe it or not, it helped me to get closer to a decision- eg my priority about video af changed and my patience.
> 
> Now i will focus more on _*weather *_capabilities and viewfinder... seems to be more important. And no, it won't be nikon.. but maybe pentax... again thanks for sharing your thoughs.


That should have been whether.

weather: The state of the atmosphere at a particular place and time as regards heat, cloudiness, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc.
whether: Expressing a doubt or choice between alternatives

http://oxforddictionaries.com/


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 28, 2013)

Maybe the new camera will have weather capabilities


----------



## rpt (Apr 28, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Maybe the new camera will have weather capabilities


Whether it will have weather capabilities needs to be seen about the scene.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 28, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Maybe the new camera will have weather capabilities


Of course it will have weather capabilities..... At the least it will be able to handle sunny or cloudy


----------



## FunkyCamera (Apr 29, 2013)

LOL why buy a nikon camera? They are about 8 years behind Canon. Buy an 8 year old Canon for cheaper and get the same image quality as a new nikon.

I don't know why those jokers are still in the industry they make the worst cameras ever. Even my iphone beats a Nikon.


----------



## dick ranez (Apr 30, 2013)

Does the term "leapfrog" mean anything to you. Camera offerings are like the weather in Oklahoma, if you don't like it, wait twenty minutes and it will be different. If you can't wait, buy the Nikon, invest in new lenses and
shoot 'til your fingers hurt.


----------



## friedmud (Apr 30, 2013)

I switched to Nikon about 8 months ago and I'm still loving it. I left for the image quality... and I haven't been disappointed by my D600.

One thing that I didn't expect to love? The lenses. I had always heard about the legendary Canon lenses... and I really thought that I would miss them (especially my 70-200 f/4 IS L)... but that's not what happened.

I bought the D600 with the 50mm f/1.8... that is a SPECTACULAR lens. So sharp. So fast and accurate to focus. Just beautiful bokeh - and CHEAP!

From there I sprang for my workhorse lens: 24-70 f/2.8G... sharp from corner to corner... unbelievably fast to focus... and incredible color rendition.

Lately - I just picked up a refurbished 70-300 for $350. I can't believe how great that lens is (especially for the price!). I wasn't expecting the AF to be up to tracking subjects... but actually it does just as well (sometimes better) as my 70-200 f/4 did with my 7D! Sure, it's not as sharp as my 70-200, but the IQ of the D600 more than makes up for it.

So? What do I miss about Canon? CANONRUMORS! ;-)

Seriously - I've just not been able to find another community that is as good as CanonRumors. NikonRumors is ok for rumors (although it doesn't get updated often enough) but the community is not great... quite a lot more amateurs and certainly not the great technical exchange that happens here on CR.

So if you're thinking of jumping ship... do it for the IQ and don't look back (other than back to CR ;-)


----------



## birdman (Apr 30, 2013)

friedmud said:


> I switched to Nikon about 8 months ago and I'm still loving it. I left for the image quality... and I haven't been disappointed by my D600.
> 
> One thing that I didn't expect to love? The lenses. I had always heard about the legendary Canon lenses... and I really thought that I would miss them (especially my 70-200 f/4 IS L)... but that's not what happened.
> 
> ...



I'm in same boat, and actually went to Nikon for D800's DR and IQ, and for their UWA lenses -- of which I own the 16-35VR. Coming from the 5d2, 17-40L, 35L, and a few others (100mm Macro non-IS) I knew that all those would be covered. But seriously, I've never heard Canon had BETTER lens offerings...simply just more of a choice. That's drastically changed over the past 4-5 years with all of the new 1.8AF primes and 4.0VR zooms. I love both companies, and I have lots of nostalgic memories with my 40d, Rebel XS, and 5d2. Also, my 35L was a stunner. I loved that glass...wow, the colors and character. Even the build was beautiful. Each company has its own flavor and I agree -- CanonRumors is the best un-official corporate company website. Lots more bickering and negativity at times -- which can be blamed on 2-3X the number of members as other boards. 

Don't trash Nikon, Sony, Leica, etc... they all have great offerings. Peace out. And BTW, the 70-300VR is a wonderful lens!! I have the 50 & 85/1.8G as well and they are phenoms. The 35L is still better than the 35/1.4G


----------



## KevinB (Apr 30, 2013)

Oh Wow I thought you meant BUY Canon.. Been There Done That !! 

To each their own...


----------



## rambler (Apr 30, 2013)

I switched from Nikon to Canon due to image quality. I have used Nikons since the D50 and the last was the D7000. looking to upgrade I decided on the D800. This was my move to Full frame so took a mem card and took some shots using the D800 and 24-70 lens. This was supposed to be a great combo. found that the images were very flat and lacked dynamism. Same with the D600. 

A friend lent me his 5Dmk2 and with the first shot I knew this was what I was looking for. The image looked so natural and there was depth and detail which the D800 could not match. Bought the 5Dm3 and never looked back.


----------



## dirtcastle (Apr 30, 2013)

I agree that CR is an amazing photo community. But as with all spec-centric forums, people tend to overemphasize the importance of the latest/greatest gear. All the latest Canon and Nikon DSLRs are amazing. People fretting over "Canon vs. Nikon" are splitting hairs. Both brands are amazing. It's great to hear about the relative strengths and weaknesses, but those marginal differences rarely hold back good photographers.


----------



## nicku (Apr 30, 2013)

pictaker said:


> Hey folks,
> I'been waiting so long fot the 70d.... now it's again some more weeks away-at least. :-(
> 
> Looks like I'm finally going to switch to Nikon after 8 YEARS Canon... and now i'm wondering who else?
> ...



I agree with you.... i am with Canon for 12 YEARS . with the exception of 1DX Nikon is better (overall). i will wait to see the new 7D2.... after that i will make the final decision: stay with Canon or switch to Nikon.
65% of my total income is made out of photography... I can not afford to think sentimental when is my future involved.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 30, 2013)

nicku said:


> pictaker said:
> 
> 
> > Hey folks,
> ...


Really? I mean really really? Check out dritcastle's quote below and take a moment to think about it.

I am only an amateur, but with you being the experienced pro, I really wonder what kind of pictures you take. There are often golf analogies on this forum, good for me as I am a golfer myself. The gear is one thing, technique is the most important thing whatever it comes to. Tiger Woods is the best golfer who has ever lived on the planet and I can assure you he would still be winning tournaments with just about any clubs in the bag.

On this forum we have experienced pros like PWP and some other guys that still shoot Canon even though they apparently suck. Please tell me you compare yourself to them and that your skills are so much greater than theirs and that your results depend so much on that extra little DR (or whatever) you can get out of the gear. If not, then take some time to sit down and think about what you're trying to accomplish and why you (apparently) are not.



dirtcastle said:


> I agree that CR is an amazing photo community. But as with all spec-centric forums, people tend to overemphasize the importance of the latest/greatest gear. All the latest Canon and Nikon DSLRs are amazing. People fretting over "Canon vs. Nikon" are splitting hairs. Both brands are amazing. It's great to hear about the relative strengths and weaknesses, but those marginal differences rarely hold back good photographers.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 30, 2013)

pictaker said:


> Hey folks,
> I'been waiting so long fot the 70d.... now it's again some more weeks away-at least. :-(
> 
> Looks like I'm finally going to switch to Nikon after 8 YEARS Canon... and now i'm wondering who else?
> ...



The ease of the transition depends to an ever decreasing degree on what your photography is. The majority of people will lose or gain little, unless off course you're looking for something specific in the competitor's system. Your skill as a dealer will also impact your final numbers as well as your initial inventory. With lenses as outrageously priced on the canon side recently, as well as some bodies, it is no longer always true that the Nikon side is more expensive. Again, it all depends on your current gear.

I did the switch last year after being with canon for over a decade. It was quite painless and I consider it a net gain as Nikon has essentially fixed all the major gaps they had just a decade ago which would have prevented me from switching. Both systems still have big holes, but that is irrelevant if those holes do not affect you.

I encourage you to think of this without considering too much the opinions of people that suffer from Stockholm syndrome. unfortunately photographers identify with their OEM brand far more than most professionals and therefore try too hard to make people like you change their minds (or if they are on the other side, convince you). 99% of the people that question my switch boiled down their arguments to irrelevant factoids about the lack of some particular lens model, or body feature, which I didn't care for, or some glass ball prediction.

I'd recommend that if you do the switch, do it because you want to. Don't hold gear because of some loyalty. That is stupid. I shoot Nikon today but 8 years from now, I'd shoot Sony if that is what worked for me, or canon again. I don't advise switching every month off course, but it is good to re-evaluate choices, specially in times of great change. In 2002, I could write Nikon off. But in 2012, I could not longer find a single reason to stay with canon. What a difference a decade makes. Screw loyalty. This is about YOU.



> I agree that CR is an amazing photo community. But as with all spec-centric forums, people tend to overemphasize the importance of the latest/greatest gear. All the latest Canon and Nikon DSLRs are amazing. People fretting over "Canon vs. Nikon" are splitting hairs. Both brands are amazing. It's great to hear about the relative strengths and weaknesses, but those marginal differences rarely hold back good photographers.



exactly right. I would in fact advise OP to avoid this board for this kind of decision. find a neutral board with shooters of all systems. there is off course going to be a huge bias to canon on a rumors board for people are pre-disposed to canon gear's latest and greatest or they wouldn't be here. Nikonrumors board would be just as bad a place to be fair. 

When I switched, I asked in some Nikon boards for opinions but was quick to rule out the fanboys. I did get some useful honest info, in particular because many Nikon guys were canon guys not long ago, and they could offer far more valuable advise than the typical forum person pushing the only brand they've ever known.


----------



## nicku (Apr 30, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> nicku said:
> 
> 
> > pictaker said:
> ...



) you are so funny..... really,really.... the things that are important to me:

1. DR ( and yes those 3 extra stops make the difference)
2. Resolution. In what i do (commercial,product) size matters ( like in other cases  )

let me put it this way.... why the top Pro photographers shoot only with Hassyes and MF cameras ??? 8) 8)


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 30, 2013)

nicku said:


> Hobby Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > nicku said:
> ...


Top photographers? By what definition? And if you're not, then do you consider yourself to be one? Are you skilled enough?

Not sure the best sports photographers would pick a Hasselblad.

Does the lack of those three stops make you lose customers? If so, due to gear or skill?


----------



## insanitybeard (Apr 30, 2013)

nicku said:


> ) you are so funny..... really,really.... the things that are important to me:
> 
> 1. DR ( and yes those 3 extra stops make the difference)
> 2. Resolution. In what i do (commercial,product) size matters ( like in other cases  )
> ...



Emphasis on your words 'IN WHAT I DO'. That doesn't encompass everbody. I don't see many pros using MF and Hasselblad at sports events. Correct tools for the job etc.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 30, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> nicku said:
> 
> 
> > ) you are so funny..... really,really.... the things that are important to me:
> ...


I completely agree, I asked what kind of work he or she is doing, but no response. Art photography? Well I don't know man. Is it really those extra stops of DR that make him lose customers?


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 30, 2013)

They use MF because they destroy anything 35mm can offer for what they do. Period. 

Sync speeds, leaf shutters, massive sensor size, exceptional glass, and a sense of seriousness for client PR.

I find it amusing when some compared high MP 35mm to MF, its no comparison at all.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 30, 2013)

> nicku said:
> 
> 
> > let me put it this way.... why the top Pro photographers shoot only with Hassyes and MF cameras ??? 8) 8)




On what planet ?

Or maybe a better question would be: what _have_ you been smoking ?


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 30, 2013)

> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I find it amusing when some compared high MP 35mm to MF, its no comparison at all.



Quite true, 35mm format is 35mm format never mind how many mp you shoe horn in.

The trouble with MF though, now as before, is the equipment is considerably more expensive, and considerably less versatile.


----------



## Sella174 (Apr 30, 2013)

I always find it pathetic when people base their choice of brand/gear on what some or other "pro" uses.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 30, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> They use MF because they destroy anything 35mm can offer for what they do. Period.
> 
> Sync speeds, leaf shutters, massive sensor size, exceptional glass, and a sense of seriousness for client PR.
> 
> I find it amusing when some compared high MP 35mm to MF, its no comparison at all.


You're the pro Ramon. If this guy 'needs' MF then why is he talking about switching to Nikon?


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 30, 2013)

nicku said:


> let me put it this way.... why the top Pro photographers shoot only with Hassyes and MF cameras ??? 8) 8)



I couldn't agree more. That's why all wedding photographers shoot MF...... And wildlife photographers shoot MF because it is so easy to buy and carry MF cameras and lenses with the same reach as the " big whites ". And that's why all sports photographers use MF, you never see Canons and Nikons at the big games.

P.S. What is the appropriate tag for HUGE SARCASM


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 30, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> nicku said:
> 
> 
> > let me put it this way.... why the top Pro photographers shoot only with Hassyes and MF cameras ??? 8) 8)
> ...


----------



## rpt (Apr 30, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > nicku said:
> ...


Safer To write it in English. My tongue in cheek comment confused someone today...


----------



## ecka (Apr 30, 2013)

Nikon? Really? ;D They can't even figure out how to change the aperture in Movie mode. 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but only Sony SLT can offer fast video AF + you can use the viewfinder (EVF) for filming.
Bye, bye ... go get your SLT-A77.


P.S.: IMHO, for video, you can't beat a proper Manual Focus lens.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 30, 2013)

Axilrod said:


> Ok first off, no one promised you a 70D today, so your negative feelings have nothing to do with Canon and everything to do with your expectations.
> 
> if you want to shoot video on a large-sensor camera, you have to learn how to focus manually. The motion picture industry has been doing it this way since it's inception and continues to do so. We are very far away from having AF for video on a DSLR, with as many lenses as there are it would be extremely difficult to make them all work perfectly. I mean do you really want to trust a camera to pull focus for you at the right time and to the right place? Instead of complaining about technology that probably isn't available just make do with what you have.
> 
> ...



Well said...


----------



## pdirestajr (Apr 30, 2013)

The less I spend on bodies and upgrading every time a new model comes out, or switching brands every time the competition leapfrogs the other, the more money I can put in my pocket. When I need something, I buy it.

I'll take the money over the minor updates any day.


----------



## rpt (Apr 30, 2013)

KevinB said:


> Oh Wow I thought you meant BUY Canon.. Been There Done That !!
> 
> To each their own...


Initially sarcasm loses to brand rhetoric. 

Later brand rhetoric loses to sarcasm. (or the other way around - but I said that before didn't I?...)

Eventually, a hammer is a hammer...

No smileys, no sarcasm tags. Just life experience - but then it is just my opinion - one in some over seven billion. And I am just being a speciest - counting humans - not the rest who have lived before or have not been my "tribe"...


----------



## nicku (Apr 30, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> insanitybeard said:
> 
> 
> > nicku said:
> ...



The answer is in the first post ... and here marked with blue 

In what i do ( commercial,product and fashion, NOT Weddings and sports) the best camera is a MF camera ( but at the moment i don't afford to spend over 20k on such gear). The reason i thinking to switch on Nikon is that the D800 is way better than 5D3 ( in photography area mentioned above). I don't need fast fps , high ISO performance ( and yes, 5D is Better than D800 over ISO 6400, but i very rarely go above ISO 400).

PS.Hobby Shooter..... try to be little more informed before making a statement, and definitely more civilized in your posts.


----------



## nicku (Apr 30, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> They use MF because they destroy anything 35mm can offer for what they do. Period.
> 
> Sync speeds, leaf shutters, massive sensor size, exceptional glass, and a sense of seriousness for client PR.
> 
> I find it amusing when some compared high MP 35mm to MF, its no comparison at all.



+1


----------



## dirtcastle (Apr 30, 2013)

There are 1,000x more "pro" photographers than medium format cameras ever made. Very very very few photographers need more than a 22MP image. Plus, at that size, I assume Perfect Resize works brilliantly for upscaled prints. Does Canon even make an MF camera? And we're on the Canon Rumors website, right? Just checking. ;-)


----------



## jrista (Apr 30, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> They use MF because they destroy anything 35mm can offer for what they do. Period.
> 
> Sync speeds, leaf shutters, massive sensor size, exceptional glass, and a sense of seriousness for client PR.
> 
> I find it amusing when some compared high MP 35mm to MF, its no comparison at all.



I don't think I really agree with all of that. I think that statement was entirely true five maybe six years ago. There is still a gap, for sure, but the gap is closing. The D800 has demonstrated that from a sensor standpoint, 35mm can approach the pixel counts of MFD. The D800 has also demonstrated that 35mm can far surpass the dynamic range of MFD. Medium Format glass is great, but so is the more expensive 35mm glass, particularly from Canon. The two are at least on par...and I would offer that Canon's latest Mark II superteles have higher resolving power with higher contrast than MF lenses (keep in mind, it is more difficult to correct lens defects and aberrations in lenses for larger formats than for smaller formats).

I can't disagree about leaf shutters, they definitely have some advantages, particularly sync speed. If you are a heavy flash user, which is particularly common in a studio setting, a leaf shutter can be a godsend. There is also no question that MFD cameras have higher pixel counts. Pixel count is frequently the most important factor of IQ...the more pixels on subject you get, the lower the relative noise, the higher the overall detail. In that respect, the need for lenses with similar resolving power to Canon's is somewhat unnecessary, MFD lenses resolve enough detail to support the pixel densities found in medium format sensors, and at the closer distances MFD is usually used for, such as studio photography, there is little contest at the current time (pixel counts currently trump lens resolving power).

That said, pixel counts in 35mm are increasing. It seems Canon is testing 40-50mp FF sensors in their next studio and landscape camera. In the next four to five years, we could see 60mp FF sensors, if not more. There are a few decided advantages to FF that MFD cannot touch: High ISO performance; Advanced high-speed AF systems; frame rate. With hyper-parallel readout technology, it will be possible to read out very high pixel count sensors at high frame rates. (Canon already demonstrated a 120mp sensor with a 9.5fps readout rate!) When you NEED those things, then the leaf shutters and massive megapixel counts of MFD don't solve your problems. There is no comparing an MFD to a FF DSLR...the DSLR wins hands down every time in the high ISO/high frame rate/AF tracking scenario. 

So...I would say it isn't as easy to _matter-of-factly _state these days that MF is the vastly superior camera, no comparisons. There ARE comparisons, and in many comparisons, 35mm comes out on top. That clearly indicates that MF, while it still certainly enjoys a for-the-moment-untouchable _prestige _in the studio photography arena, and in many cases the landscape arena, its powerful edge is dulling. In the landscape arena, where MF once reigned supreme, the D800 has REALLY closed the gap. It still lacks in terms of pixel count...one could photograph landscapes at 80mp if they wanted, or even 200mp with hassy's multi-shot mode. The vaunted D800 still can't quite touch that. The dynamic range of the D800 seriously brings into question the benefit of MF for the average landscape photographer, however. The studio _prestige _you acquire with your customers when you haul out the MFD doesn't exist for landscape photography...people care about the scene, not the equipment used.

To my knowledge, all medium format sensors still have a lot of read noise...similar to Canon's at low ISO. It will be interesting to see if medium format cameras move up from 11-12 stops to 14, or even 16 in the few cases where medium format offers 16-bit conversion (I believe Leaf has a couple 16-bit backs), with new advancements in sensor technology. Their key edge was pixel counts...with greater sensor area, they can pack more in, at similar pixel densities as smaller formats. There doesn't seem to have been much innovation on other fronts for MF sensor tech. If they do solve read noise problems and move up to ~15-16 stops of DR, MFD might survive the onslaught of DSLR innovation for another generation or two, assuming the DSLR market doesn't also move to 16-bit as well.

MFD is not the _unassailable ivory tower _it once was. There ARE comparisons, and the gaps ARE closing. Competition for the studio space will heat up in the coming years, and the MFD market won't be able to solely rely on "prestige" forever.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 30, 2013)

jrista said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > They use MF because they destroy anything 35mm can offer for what they do. Period.
> ...



What ever 35mm can do for studio, fashion or landscape, MF or LF will always do better. The best 35mm can offer is d800, the best MF can offer is IQ180 from phase one. Not even close and it will always be that way. 

Don't forget that MF will innovate to keep ahead of 35mm as well. The next batch of MF cams could be 18 stop monsters with 120+ MP! Where is that measly 35mm camera now?


----------



## jrista (May 1, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


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



You are just speculating. Speculation isn't fact. I'm trying to stick with the facts, and the fact is, the D800 made HUGE strides against MF. You can be an MF fan all you want, but just simply stating "MF and LF will always do better" is simply an anecdote...it doesn't prove anything. Where has the innovation really been with MF? The technology they use isn't particularly advanced...it just has LOTS of pixels. Lots of pixels gives you a lot of leeway, you can capture a lot of detail...when your close. But those pixels aren't really all that much better than Canon pixels...there is still a lot of read noise in them. The key benefit of MF, even in the case of the IQ180, is pixel count. In EVERY review I've read that compared the D800 to the IQ180, or the D800 to other MFD cameras, the phrase that cropped up a lot was "subtle differences". SUBTLE DIFFERENCES! You can print an IQ180 picture larger, and the detail in that print will be higher, for sure. But in general the differences are SUBTLE. When it comes to dynamic range, which can mean either shadow performance or highlight performance (because you can simply underexpose the D800 by a stop and recover to preserve those highlights), even the IQ180 doesn't stand a chance...it has quite a bit of shadow noise...not blotchy like a Canon sensor, but reddish and with a touch of pattern.

I'm not necessarily saying the D800 is "better". There is no question that 80mp gives the IS180 a significant lead, particularly for studio photography. My point is, the gap is closing...and the ONLY innovation we've seen so far in the MF camp is megapixel count increases. Even the 16-bit backs still don't achieve the same DR as the D800...noise just consumes more bits. I don't know if the MF market can really crank up the competition or not...it would be EXTREMELY surprising to see a sudden move to 18-bit. That doesn't gain anyone anything if read noise isn't reduced...same deal Canon has...they need to improve the readout technology and greatly reduce read noise to actually benefit from those extra bits.

Even assuming we suddenly do see MF cameras move to 18-bit ADC, that still doesn't speak to the other factors where 35mm DSLRs have a considerable edge against MF...high ISO, frame rate, AF system, sheer resolving power. Again...not saying 35mm is "better" _yet_. *My point is...the GAP BETWEEN 35mm and MF IS CLOSING.* It's not like we can flat out state that there is no competition between the two...there IS competition between the two. The D800 is the start of that competition. If we see a 40-50mp camera from Canon...that will be MORE competition. _Competition means comparison, and the comparisons are being made...the differences: *subtle!*_


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 1, 2013)

WOw...how the heck did this post end getting 6 pages...

Don't feed the trolls...but hey, let's feed them...and it goes from fun to yet another...Nikon has more DR tirade....wow...I am sueing you all for lost minutes of time!!!!...LOL


----------



## RLPhoto (May 1, 2013)

Ok let's examine history to determine who's correct. 

35mm film vs MF film. - MF wins. 

Canon 1ds vs kodak DCS MF back - MF wins. (Available on Luminous landscape)

Canon 5D2 vs Hasselblad MF backs 40MP variety - MF wins. 

D800 vs IQ180 - MF wins. 

D900 56MP camera vs next gen MF 120+ MP - MF will win. 

This is because MF is bigger than 35mm. MF has a specific use for low ISOs and slow subjects. There is no replacement for displacement. The bigger sensor/film will always serve better in those situations. 

I can only imagine what will be possible when MF will move to full CMOS tech, then you will have the pixel density of a d800 + all the advantages of MF. It's just a better tool for what it does.


----------



## dirtcastle (May 1, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Ok let's examine history to determine who's correct.
> 
> 35mm film vs MF film. - MF wins.
> 
> ...



Not to disagree, but this comparison is sort of like driving 160m/h on the freeway and saying the people driving only 100m/h are going slowly. It's all relative and in degrees.


----------



## jrista (May 1, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Ok let's examine history to determine who's correct.
> 
> 35mm film vs MF film. - MF wins.
> 
> ...



Your still missing the point. I'm not saying 35mm "wins". You said there was no comparison, no contest. My argument is that there ARE comparisons, and that there IS a contest. Sure, MF currently wins...in a niche. Will that always be the case? Who knows...the point is, the GAP IS CLOSING...for that same niche. My point is, in general, FF DSLR is a better tool overall, particularly when sheer pixel count is not the most significant factor. I can foresee a point in time when FF DSLRs have AS MANY pixels as MF...with better IQ on a per-pixel basis, and with better performance on a per-pixel basis (faster readout, better AF and metering, etc.) Will that day, where MF and DSLR perform roughly the same, ever come? Who knows. Is there still "no contest" or "no comparison" between MF and DSLR? Hell no...absolutely there is a contest, and the comparisons are showing a shrinking margin for MF.

Well, that's the last time I'll try to make my point. If you still don't get it, eh...


----------



## RLPhoto (May 1, 2013)

jrista said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Ok let's examine history to determine who's correct.
> ...



It's funny how you read but do not get understanding. MF is a niche, and in its niche there is no comparison to what it gives the photographer. A MF pixels will be bigger than a 35mm cameras which means sharper images. Give me a 12mp 35mm cam or a 12MP MF cam, and I'll use the MF cam everytime for what it's built for. 

There is no contest in the market MF made, because its the cutting edge, its the best tech has to offer and someone will always want to have that. 

35mm is like a child swinging its arms at the MF market for decades, and MF simply put its hand on the swinging child's head and heald it in its place.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (May 1, 2013)

nicku said:


> Hobby Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > insanitybeard said:
> ...


Sorry, I think I am both informed and civilized. I guess myself and a number of other here on the forum are getting tired of people ranting about Canon and talking about changing brands. Please just go do it already. It's better for all and your business will pick up. I just wonder you have waited this long, the D800 haave been out for quite some time now.


----------



## jrista (May 1, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


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



Sorry, very strongly dispute the notion that MF is the best tech available. It is certainly the most prestigious tech, no question there. But as I said, prestige won't hold the MFD market forever. It has some advantages, but it is not untouchable. What the D800 can do now is only the beginning. We'll see what Canon comes up with in a year, however if they pop out a 47mp part with all the features of a 1D-series camera with better low-ISO DR, then the war on MFD will have begun in earnest. We won't be talking about worthlessly flailing arms then...we'll be talking about a full-on war, and the question I'm presenting is...will the MF market REALLY be able to compete? They can throw out all the megapixels they want...they are already within the same pixel-pitch sizes of 35mm...they can push that envelope farther, enter the 2µm pixel range and again surpass FF DSLR...but without further process technology improvements, those 2µm pixels would likely be significantly inferior to 35mm format...more noise overall, higher read noise, etc.

BTW, factually, MF pixels *are *in the same ballpark as FF DSLR pixels. Using the IQ180 as an example, it has 5.2µm pixels. (The math: 53.7mm / 10328 pixels = 0.005199mm/pixel; multiply by 1000 to convert mm to µm.)

From a pixel size standpoint, that is quite average, and in the eyes of Roger Clark, quite ideal (he believes ~5µm pixels offer the ideal balance of all factors for overall IQ.) In comparison...the D800? 4.9µm pixels...hmm, once again, IDEAL! The Canon 1D IV? 5.7µm pixels. The 1D X? 6.95µm pixels! The 7D? 4.3µm pixels. The D3200? 3.85µm pixels. Medium format cameras are and have been in line with DSLR sensor pixel pitches for some time now. They do not have any particular advantage in pixel size overall until you get into the lower megapixel counts...30-40mp. However at those pixel counts, there is no pixel count advantage whatsoever, and something like the D800, that has arguably better per-pixel IQ, surpasses them. SNR matters a lot more at higher ISO, but since MFD cameras are low-ISO tools, the thing that really matters from an IQ standpoint is DR.

So...given the IQ advantage the D800 clearly demonstrates against say the Hasselblad 30mp or 40mp backs...would you really still pick the Hassy? I'd certainly take an IQ180 today if I had the option. I'd take a D800 in a heartbeat if my only other option was a Hasselblad H4D-31 or H5D-40 (which, btw, have 6.8µm and 5.9µm pixels, respectively...still SMALLER than the 1D X.) 

Video review, Hasselblad H4D-40 and D800: D800 vs Medium Format with Roth and Ramberg

The argument near the end was the D800 did better in the shadows, and the H4D-40 did better in the highlights. Simple fact of the matter is, the D800 can do a full TWO STOPS better in the shadows (far more than he pushed in the video)...meaning it is a simple matter of under-exposing a bit more on the D800, and you have better highlights as well. Oh, and in terms of skin tones? That's all just math...tone curves. You can produce whatever results you want, including exceptional skin tones, with any digital camera. There are powerful tools that help you create color profiles or camera profiles for any brand of camera to meet whatever goals you want, even normalize the output of one camera to another (cross device calibration.) So, in the niche that is supposedly untouchable for FF DSLR (35mm format)? The D800 has most definitely encroached on that territory, and has more than touched it. It can compete head to head with a 40mp Hassy (something that is still commonly used in the studio photography world.) 

I fully understand your arguments. It is not a problem of not understanding. It is a simple matter of disagreeing.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 1, 2013)

It's funny you said the d800 is changing things. It's not.

That's what they said about 35mm film 

That's what they said about the 1Ds

That's what they said about the 5D2

That's what your saying now with the d800

Quite frankly, MF is here to stay and will always be ahead of 35mm. The more pixels you add to 35mm, the harder and harder it gets to make lenses that will suffice, while MF will stay at a lower magnification thus making it simpler to keep more pixels sharp. I love how you bring out the ludicrous DR debate when it's not even relevant. LoL, current MF shooters will always shoot MF because of its mechanical advantages over 35mm + the superior IQ of MF. 

You said the d800 is already optimized at 36MP but the IQ180 is at 80mp! LoL, no comparison. 

Edit: oh, yes I would still choose the Hasselblad over the d800 for syncing at 1/800th and the ability to use schnider Lenses and tilt-swing bellows.


----------



## jrista (May 1, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> It's funny you said the d800 is changing things. It's not.
> 
> That's what they said about 35mm film
> 
> ...



Well, you haven't given me anything but anecdotes and personal feelings. No _facts_. 

I just proved that 35mm sensors and MF sensors have similar pixel densities. A 120mp PhaseOne would be in the range of the 7D. A 150mp PhaseOne would be in the range of the D3200. No real benefit there...its all in the same ballpark, pixel-size wise.

I'd be willing to bet big bucks that Canon's latest lenses are better than MF lenses. It is a difficult task to optimize a lens as the image circle gets larger. Optical aberrations become an increasing problem. That actually gives the edge on lens IQ to 35mm, not MF. I know Hasselblad farms out their lens design and manufacture to Zeiss. Zeiss makes great lenses, and have started using fluorite in Hassy telephoto lenses, similar to Canon (although I believe Zeiss still only uses a single fluorite element, where as Canon is using as many as necessary to optimize IQ.) Canon has a solid edge against Zeiss when it comes to their optics, though: nanocoatings. Microcontrast and flare control are far superior on Canon lenses with SWC. Zeiss T* is still a multicoating, and multicoatings are relative to nanocoating as a singlecoating is to a multicoating...HUGE difference.

Finally, to my original point...there is more to IQ than mere pixel count. As per-pixel IQ improves with 35mm sensors, the edge offered by having more pixels will shrink. One of the key benefits with MF is the ability to downscale, normalize noise, and improve sharpness. Printing magazine covers doesn't require 80mp...the pixel densities of prepress are around half (at most) that of inkjet printing (600-2500dpi). However, reduction in size does not normalize noise enough to overcome the benefits of having naively better IQ at higher spatial resolutions (thus negating the need to downsample in the first place.) The link below shows comparisons between the D800 and the IQ180. In each example, the D800 image is first (scaled down 2x), the IQ180 image is second. (scaled down 3x). IQ wise, the noise present in the IQ180 is very clear, even scaled THREE FOLD:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/36838-someone-had-do.html

Additionally, in every single comparison, the D800 image appears to be clearer, sharper, with fewer lens issues (some of the images from the IQ180 clearly show distortion.) And that is WITH considerable downscaling! Sorry, but you can't say that DR or the overall IQ improvements that have been made in modern APS-C and FF CMOS sensor technology is a non-issue. I'm a strong Canon fan myself, but there is no denying that noise is the Canon killer. With higher noise, IQ suffers in general at low ISO. The story is no different with a monster like the IQ180...noise kills.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 1, 2013)

Yawn. Says it wasn't scientific enough to be solid evidence anyway. I base my statements here on evidence found from real world use and from other users. Check photogy and see how Alex koloskov praises the d800 but really doesn't provide what he needs compared to his Hasselblad. It's IQ in those tests still wasnt up to par and that wasnt even the IQ180. I won't post the link because I'll let you waste more time to go find the article. 

Have you ever shot MF before? I loved my 501CM and now I wish I kept to to adapt a MF back to it. If you ever shot MF, you wouldn't be having this conversation.


----------



## Don Haines (May 1, 2013)

So let me get this straight..... MF is better because it has a bigger sensor and more pixels....

So I pay $43,000 for a Hasselbad H50-200MS..... now I need a lens.
Another $5,200 gets me a 300MM F4.5 lens... the longest one they make...
with the crop factor, thats like a 150mm lens on a FF camera.....

I compare this to a 5D3 and an 800mm lens, the longest in the Canon lineup...

I shoot a bird and get 1,000000 pixels on the bird portion of the image..... that's compared to the 72,900 pixels on the bird that the Hasselbad would give me... or the 921,600 on the bird that a $400 SX-50 would give me. That's right... a $400 p/s puts 12.6 times as many pixels on target as $48,200 worth of MF gear.

Tell me again how MF is always better.... 

and by the way.... I have shot 8x10..... MF is just a tiny toy in comparison


----------



## RLPhoto (May 1, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> So let me get this straight..... MF is better because it has a bigger sensor and more pixels....
> 
> So I pay $43,000 for a Hasselbad H50-200MS..... now I need a lens.
> Another $5,200 gets me a 300MM F4.5 lens... the longest one they make...
> ...



Studio

Fashion

Landscapes


----------



## Don Haines (May 1, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > So let me get this straight..... MF is better because it has a bigger sensor and more pixels....
> ...



Better on some things, not on all.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 1, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



It's king in its niche. 

Btw, I've put a few frames of 4x5 velvia 50 thru a friend view camera. Stunning.


----------



## jrista (May 1, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Yawn. Says it wasn't scientific enough to be solid evidence anyway. I base my statements here on evidence found from real world use and from other users. Check photogy and see how Alex koloskov praises the d800 but really doesn't provide what he needs compared to his Hasselblad. It's IQ in those tests still wasnt up to par and that wasnt even the IQ180. I won't post the link because I'll let you waste more time to go find the article.
> 
> Have you ever shot MF before? I loved my 501CM and now I wish I kept to to adapt a MF back to it. If you ever shot MF, you wouldn't be having this conversation.



Well, I keep trying to make well-founded arguments, and the only thing I get in return is anecdotes. I've commandeered this thread long enough, so I'm done. 

BTW, yes, I have a friend who does studio photography. I've shot Hasselblads, 31, 40, and 60mp backs (H4D). Oh, he also has a D800 for his studio work...LOVES IT. His assessment of the differences? "Subtle. D800 kicks ass on DR. They blow up just as well."


----------



## RLPhoto (May 1, 2013)

jrista said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Yawn. Says it wasn't scientific enough to be solid evidence anyway. I base my statements here on evidence found from real world use and from other users. Check photogy and see how Alex koloskov praises the d800 but really doesn't provide what he needs compared to his Hasselblad. It's IQ in those tests still wasnt up to par and that wasnt even the IQ180. I won't post the link because I'll let you waste more time to go find the article.
> ...



Good for him, now if this friend is real ask him why he still keeps his MF gear. If you shot these backs, did you come to appreciate the superior sync speeds, quality of DOF with faster lenses, the use of LF optics along with bellows for full tint swing movements and also the quality of the optics? I seriously doubt that.


----------



## jrista (May 1, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


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



Faster lenses? http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/lenses-and-accessories/h-system-lenses.aspx (Nothing faster than f/2.2 in the whole lot...FF DSLR lenses are as fast as f/1.2...)

(OK! Sorry, sorry! I'm really DONE now...just couldn't resist disproving one more non-factual response! )


----------



## RLPhoto (May 1, 2013)

jrista said:


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



Great. More like proved your ignorance that you've never shot MF before. F/2.2 on MF is a razor thin DOF. 

That statement proves you have no idea what your talking about. I rest my case.


----------



## ecka (May 1, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> So let me get this straight..... MF is better because it has a bigger sensor and more pixels....
> 
> So I pay $43,000 for a Hasselbad H50-200MS..... now I need a lens.
> Another $5,200 gets me a 300MM F4.5 lens... the longest one they make...
> with the *crop factor*, thats like a 150mm lens on a FF camera.....



You mean *stitch factor*?


----------



## jrista (May 1, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


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



Sure...but no more razor-thin than an f/1.2 lens on FF, either (however with the added benefit of over a stop more light with the FF lens over the f/2.2 MF lens...another win to FF DSLR!) Anyway, lets let the thread get back on track. We can take this discussion to another thread if you really want to continue it.


----------



## learncanon (May 1, 2013)

pictaker said:


> Hey folks,
> I'been waiting so long fot the 70d.... now it's again some more weeks away-at least. :-(
> 
> Looks like I'm finally going to switch to Nikon after 8 YEARS Canon... and now i'm wondering who else?
> ...



People rant and rave about canon releasing rebels annually. 
Now people rant and rave about xxD refresh cycle is too long.

what do you want?


----------



## Simba (May 1, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



There is no question that MF has physical advantage. However, if you look back and see how fast Canon or Nikon improve their dSLR cameras in just a decade, it certainly shows the huge advantage of economic of scale by big companies. I am sure the R&D budgets of Canon and Nikon are much higher than that of a niche company such as Hasselblad, but they can recoup the cost by selling millions of copies. For the previous generation of 35mm cameras such 5D II or D700, comparing 35mm to MF does not even exist. But at least there are many reviews comparing the new 35mm camera such as D800 to the low-end MF, and I am expecting more reviews when Canon high MP camera comes to the market. Think about how the market will react when the quality gap is getting closer with wide price gap a few more years down the road.
My 2 cents.


----------



## Sporgon (May 1, 2013)

So..........

If you use a longer focal length on FF, and shoot your scene in FF size sections, and then stitch these together so that the total stitched 'sensor' area is equal to, or greater than a MF sensor, will you achieve _exactly_ the same result as MF ?


----------



## ecka (May 1, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> So..........
> 
> If you use a longer focal length on FF, and shoot your scene in FF size sections, and then stitch these together so that the total stitched 'sensor' area is equal to, or greater than a MF sensor, will you achieve _exactly_ the same result as MF ?



Not exactly the same result, obviously. You can't get exactly the same result with 2 different MF cameras...
Same DoF? - Yes.

EDIT: That is when shooting from the same distance, using the same FL and aperture.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 1, 2013)

Simba said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



History has already shown MF will not be replaced by 35mm. Bigger sensor's will always have an advantage in those areas listed and their will always be that market its DESIGNED for. Don't compare the best 35mm vs a last gen MF... Compare the best to the best IE: The best 35mm cam D800 vs the Best MF cam the IQ180.


----------



## Simba (May 1, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


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



No questions about this generation. I am saying the quality gap will be getting closer and price does matter. History was mostly for film, which physical size dominates the quality. Welcome to the digital world, where technologies are much easier to be improved.


----------



## CarlTN (May 8, 2013)

The whole MF vs. 35mm format argument in this thread, went on too long. I did not read it all, but however much I read...was more than enough...too much. Why? Because both sides got redundant. Camera format first and foremost, is just a personal choice of the photographer. People are different. Yet fanboys in forums are very much alike...talk about children flailing their arms around!

I challenge each of you, from now on, to make your point with fewer words, and stop being redundant. It looks very silly. If you put as much effort into your photography as you do in typing about your opinions about hardware, you might not care so much about typing the same things over and over.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 8, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> The whole MF vs. 35mm format argument in this thread, went on too long. I did not read it all, but however much I read...was more than enough...too much. Why? Because both sides got redundant. Camera format first and foremost, is just a personal choice of the photographer. People are different. Yet fanboys in forums are very much alike...talk about children flailing their arms around!
> 
> I challenge each of you, from now on, to make your point with fewer words, and stop being redundant. It looks very silly. If you put as much effort into your photography as you do in typing about your opinions about hardware, you might not care so much about typing the same things over and over.



Hmm. I never made my responses overly lengthy, just the ones who don't know what their talking about.


----------



## Sporgon (May 8, 2013)

Perhaps the most salient point is this:

With film, MF quality was most often noticeably higher than 35mm, and the price difference was 'x'.

With the latest digital technology the quality difference is much closer, but the price difference is 'x' times 10.

As far as FF is concerned, a good reason to bye 'Buy Canon'


----------



## CarlTN (May 9, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Perhaps the most salient point is this:
> 
> With film, MF quality was most often noticeably higher than 35mm, and the price difference was 'x'.
> 
> ...



Well said!


----------



## Simba (May 9, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Perhaps the most salient point is this:
> 
> With film, MF quality was most often noticeably higher than 35mm, and the price difference was 'x'.
> 
> ...



+1. That's my point.


----------



## Krob78 (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > The whole MF vs. 35mm format argument in this thread, went on too long. I did not read it all, but however much I read...was more than enough...too much. Why? Because both sides got redundant. Camera format first and foremost, is just a personal choice of the photographer. People are different. Yet fanboys in forums are very much alike...talk about children flailing their arms around!
> ...





> I challenge each of you, from now on, to make your point with fewer words, and stop being redundant.


Well just because it is an argument or heated discussion, the nature of such is going to be redundancy from either or both sides, no? Making one's point over and over again, employing different words or strategies to try to entice the other to come over from the dark side or at least to get to a point where there is a clear winner, even if it's only in one's own mind? That being said, a myriad of examples presented in different forms can somewhat quell the redundancy, yet only on the surface...


----------



## jrista (May 10, 2013)

Krob78 said:


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



The problem is that people often debate different points. Person A will make a point. Person B will squirrel around the point made by Person A, making an argument that sounds related, but it isn't (because the debate isn't about the original argument...its about winning the argument period.) Then both parties continue to argue "their" point, and there is no way to reconcile the debate...its two people arguing apples and oranges.

RL seems to think (or acts like he thinks) the point that was made was that FF will be "better" than MF. That was never the point. The point was that FF is "closing the gap" on MF...a true and factual statement. But that isn't the point RL wants to debate...so, the argument spins around the never-ending merry-go-round...he wins the argument for his point...a point no one else is really debating, but refuses to acknowledge the original point made. People try to approach the debate for the original points from different angles (thus the redundancy, the reiteration of the same arguments in different light over and over)...but when someone refuses to even acknowledge your point...well, no amount of reiteration is really going to matter. 

Medium Format vs. Full Frame...Better Gear vs. Lesser Gear...the subject is irrelevant...when the other party ignores your original points and fabricates their own....never ending merry-go-round with perpetual redundancy.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 10, 2013)

jrista said:


> Krob78 said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



My previous point made exactly.


----------



## RGF (May 10, 2013)

pictaker said:


> Hey folks,
> I'been waiting so long fot the 70d.... now it's again some more weeks away-at least. :-(
> 
> Looks like I'm finally going to switch to Nikon after 8 YEARS Canon... and now i'm wondering who else?
> ...



Not me

I did a careful look at my type of shooting (wildlife, high FPS, long glass, ...) and decided that Nikon offers a lower cost, lower quality solution. So even though I really wanted to stick it Canon the facts told me to stay. I might re evaluate if the 200-400 is either a dog of a lens or never appears

My $0.02


----------



## jrista (May 10, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Krob78 said:
> ...



You do realize that twice now, you have fulfilled the role of Person B, no?


----------



## RLPhoto (May 10, 2013)

jrista said:


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



You do know that have fulfilled my previous point to the Letter?


----------



## jrista (May 10, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


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



*sigh*

Alright, I admit defeat. In the context of who can debate nothing, ignore your counterparty, and beat around the bush for the longest...you win! There isn't any point in waiting for you to actually acknowledge the points and arguments made and debate *the same thing*, so _Adiós_!


----------



## RLPhoto (May 10, 2013)

jrista said:


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



I never did such things but hey, thanks for not elaborating more on your ramblings.


----------



## CarlTN (May 10, 2013)

Again, tiresome, redundant, unnecessary...BOTH OF YOU. 

To attempt to be fair...(and I'm not going to waste minutes of my life looking back over this trivial nonsense...)...I had thought that RL had indeed said something to the effect of, but not in these exact words: "35mm digital does not compare to medium format". Maybe he did not say this, but I thought I saw it. 

If he _did _ say that at one point, but somehow that is not really the point he is trying to make...then Jrista might have a point, himself. Because Jrista is saying...35mm digital DOES compare to medium format digital, now in 2013...but he acknowledges the advantages of medium format over "full frame" digital.

However, having some brief history of my own with Jrista (whoever he is)...I can only say my opinion of him from my perspective. He is here to argue. "Debate" is too high minded and evolved for what you usually intend to do in this forum, Jrista. Not that you are necessarily a "bad" debater...but clearly...it's obvious to me, that you BOTH...are here to argue in this thread...like school children on a playground. You are not here to share knowledge or enlighten anyone...at least not in this exchange.

Neither of you will convince the other that he is wrong, so if you want to behave like adults, you should let it go. If you want to behave like teenage "meangirls", then by all means, continue. You're just embarrassing yourselves.

I'm not here to win popularity contests, myself. It seems to me, that if I have an opinion, and share it, I will immediately lose brownie points to whoever doesn't like what I said. Well, too bad.

I'm here to share and discuss photography and equipment, sometimes to debate, sometimes I sink to someone's personal level and I argue or insult...I've gotten 1 10-day ban so far. Not looking to get banned again, but frankly, if it happens, so be it. Not proud of it, but also not remotely ashamed of it either. Like every blowhard you've ever heard in your life..."I have no regrets".


----------



## RLPhoto (May 10, 2013)

Best MF vs Best 35mm

IQ180 vs D800.

IQ 180 wins without a shadow of doubt. (for what it is)

I've condensed those several pages to that.


----------



## CarlTN (May 10, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Best MF vs Best 35mm
> 
> IQ180 vs D800.
> 
> ...



That's fine, and so you are disagreeing with the almighty DXOMark rating? haha...(regarding the sensor performance only, of course...which I guess is not really the full nature of both of your arguments.)


----------



## jrista (May 11, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Best MF vs Best 35mm
> 
> IQ180 vs D800.
> 
> ...



Just to demonstrate that that statement is not actually true, here are some photos (taken from this link: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/36838-someone-had-do.html) that compare the D800 to the IQ180. The D800 images have been downscaled 2x, the IQ180 images have been downscaled 3x. If what RL is saying is correct, the IQ180 photos should be winning hands down, no questions asked, stomping ALL OVER the D800. The extra downscaling factor should be giving it a FURTHER edge. 

Now, for the facts. First image is D800, second image is IQ180 (As they are in the linked article). These are lifted a MERE 1.5 STOPS (EVERY camera on Earth can currently handle a 1.5 stop lift...so we aren't even remotely close to the realm of "only Exmor can do that" territory! ) 


MIDWAY BETWEEN CENTER & EDGE:

v--- sharp, clear, NOISELESS!! D800









^-- mostly sharp, noisy in the shadows! IQ180

CORNER:

v-- sharp, clear, NOISELESS!! D800








^-- not sharp, NOISY!!!!!!!!!! IQ180


Hmm...well, hell has obviously frozen over, the planets have stopped their rotation around the sun, the galaxy has certainly stopped spinning....because, the D800 appears to be...winning....HMM!


----------



## RLPhoto (May 11, 2013)

^
http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format/

And that's not even full Frame MF, That's a past Gen MF. An IQ180 would utterly destroy d800.

Those tests you showed the OP said not to take them seriously and I don't.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (May 11, 2013)

Get a room guys.


----------



## eml58 (May 11, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> Get a room guys.



Yep, Agree, take a break guys and move your lives on, you'll both feel better for it.


----------



## jrista (May 11, 2013)

;D

Anyway, I thought I'd give it one more try to convince the guy. Even the article he linked proves my point (which is that the gap between FF and MF is shrinking): 



> There is difference, Hasselblad produced *slightly* more details and color was more balanced to a girl skin tone. On a first sight the difference in image details seems to be so minimal that it will be hard to notice it.





> _However, I have never seen such a great details and resolution in $3200 35mm DSLR before!_ Will it be any visible difference between large prints from both cameras? May be, if we’ll look at those prints with the loupe. *But how many idiots use loupe to enjoy large prints?*





> Both cameras did a great job recovering very dark areas of the image, with *slight* advantage on Hasselblad’s side:





> There is a difference in IQ and very low difference in shadow recovery between both cameras, which was a surprise for me. *Knowing the difference in sensor technology I expected to see more advantage of Hasselblad over the Nikon.* And if we consider the price difference, the *Nikon become a true hero*: $3200 (body) and $1000 (lens) against $16900 (body+DB) and $ 5900 (lens) is a huge…





> The _*only*_ thing which stops me from getting Nikon instead of Hasselblad is a freedom to use Medium Format back in technical view cameras like my Cambo Ultima.



I rest my case on that article!

It is apparently impossible to convince RL, so I'm done for good now.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 11, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Ok let's examine history to determine who's correct.
> 
> 35mm film vs MF film. - MF wins.
> 
> ...



Doesn't matter.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 11, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Ok let's examine history to determine who's correct.
> ...



Exactly.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 11, 2013)

Alright, I'll stop ;D.


----------



## Krob78 (May 11, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...


Okay, that was funny! ;D


----------



## AprilForever (May 11, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



The 7D MK II will trump them all!!! "One camera to rule them all, one camera to find them; one camera to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them!!!"


----------



## CarlTN (May 16, 2013)

AprilForever said:


> The 7D MK II will trump them all!!! "One camera to rule them all, one camera to find them; one camera to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them!!!"



Laughing deeply...thank you!


----------

