# Nikon D850 - sensor no better than D810. EEEK!



## Mikehit (Aug 25, 2017)

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV,Nikon%20D810,Nikon%20D850,Sony%20ILCE-7RM2

Nikon have made no progress in 4 years, is no better than the D810 and worse than the 5D4.
Are Nikon selling their customers short? 
Will we see people flooding from Nikon to Canon?

Am I taking the ****?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 25, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV,Nikon%20D810,Nikon%20D850,Sony%20ILCE-7RM2
> 
> Nikon have made no progress in 4 years, is no better than the D810 and worse than the 5D4.
> Are Nikon selling their customers short?
> ...



Kind of interesting after the 6D - 6D MkII comparisons and results that ended up generating so much 6D MkII negativity. As always that negativity seems to have been widely ignored by many who are churning out superb images with the thing and love the new features....


----------



## OSOK (Aug 25, 2017)

How do you figure it is worse? If it is exactly the same as the D810, while taking on an additional 10MP, that's a big win. It may very well be slightly better than the D810.

We're talking a nearly 5DSR level of resolution, but with sensor performance that is better than the 5D Mark 4. That's a win win.

What does the 5DSR do? It still has an off chip ADC, maxes out at ISO 6400, and has bad shadow noise and dynamic range. Also 5 fps max.

There's no comparison whatsoever for low ISO high dynamic range landscapes between the 5DSR and the D810. The D810 is radically cleaner. This is not subjective.

D850 is have your cake and eat it. It's the do-all camera body. 45 Megapixels with 7fps and optionally 9fps, with DR at the D810 level? With max ISO ratings of 25,600. I'm not sure there's any possible way Canon users can bring this camera down to justify the 5D Mark 4.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 25, 2017)

To be fair, it's a bit different situation. The D810 sensor is already very good, while everybody agrees that the 6D/6D2 low-ISO DR isn't optimal and the fact that really adds insult to injury is that all other newest-gen Canon sensors have better DR. The D750 sensor remains the king of Nikon FF sensors though.


----------



## tr573 (Aug 25, 2017)

OSOK said:


> How do you figure it is worse? If it is exactly the same as the D810, while taking on an additional 10MP, that's a big win. It may very well be slightly better than the D810.
> 
> We're talking a nearly 5DSR level of resolution, but with sensor performance that is better than the 5D Mark 4. That's a win win.
> 
> ...



It's slightly worse (D810/D850) at higher ISO DR than the 5DIV sensor, but by a ludicrously slim margin (about as ludicrously slim as the 1/6th stop x-sync difference everyone loves to beat on the 6d/6d2 over) 

at base ISO (64) , it remains a juggernaut that handily spanks the competition like the D810 before it


----------



## OSOK (Aug 25, 2017)

Sharlin said:


> To be fair, it's a bit different situation. The D810 sensor is already very good, while everybody agrees that the 6D/6D2 low-ISO DR isn't optimal and the fact that really adds insult to injury is that all other newest-gen Canon sensors have better DR. The D750 sensor remains the king of Nikon FF sensors though.




I'm curious by what metric do Canon users determine that Canon sensors have better dynamic range? Every single review site, tester, blogger, vlogger out there concludes Nikon's Sony sensors have more dynamic range. This has been tested extensively, and raw files have been available for individual user comparison for a long time.


----------



## tr573 (Aug 25, 2017)

OSOK said:


> Sharlin said:
> 
> 
> > To be fair, it's a bit different situation. The D810 sensor is already very good, while everybody agrees that the 6D/6D2 low-ISO DR isn't optimal and the fact that really adds insult to injury is that all other newest-gen Canon sensors have better DR. The D750 sensor remains the king of Nikon FF sensors though.
> ...



i think they meant "better than previous canon sensors" , which every other new APS-C & FF release (apart from the 6D2) has had


----------



## OSOK (Aug 25, 2017)

tr573 said:


> It's slightly worse (D810/D850) at higher ISO DR than the 5DIV sensor, but by a ludicrously slim margin (about as ludicrously slim as the 1/6th stop x-sync difference everyone loves to beat on the 6d/6d2 over)
> 
> at base ISO (64) , it remains a juggernaut that handily spanks the competition like the D810 before it



Ah, slightly worse at high ISO, where the maximum dynamic range achievable is already too low to be of any practical use.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 25, 2017)

OSOK said:


> Sharlin said:
> 
> 
> > To be fair, it's a bit different situation. The D810 sensor is already very good, while everybody agrees that the 6D/6D2 low-ISO DR isn't optimal and the fact that really adds insult to injury is that all other newest-gen Canon sensors have better DR. The D750 sensor remains the king of Nikon FF sensors though.
> ...



http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X%20Mark%20II,Nikon%20D5,Sony%20ILCE-9

In the range I use cameras most 100-800 iso I am pretty happy with my system choice.

And again, in the range I most use a camera I'd be happy with a 5D MkIV against the new D850.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV,Nikon%20D850

Indeed the D850 from D800/810 is looking more and more like a 6D - 6D MkII move, the DR is not appreciably different just the body features. Canon were mercilessly crucified for that yet the D850 is super hyped.........


----------



## OSOK (Aug 25, 2017)

My prediction - the D850 will be better on noise than the D810. DR will be the same. However, it will *not* be as ISO invariant.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 25, 2017)

OSOK said:


> I'm curious by what metric do Canon users determine that Canon sensors have better dynamic range? Every single review site, tester, blogger, vlogger out there concludes Nikon's Sony sensors have more dynamic range. This has been tested extensively, and raw files have been available for individual user comparison for a long time.



Better than previous Canon sensors and the 6D2 sensor. I should probably have said "improved".


----------



## littleB (Aug 25, 2017)

Yeah, the 850 sensor is worse than 750, yet several times price difference. Nikon is *******!


----------



## tr573 (Aug 25, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Indeed the D850 from D800/810 is looking more and more like a 6D - 6D MkII move, the DR is not appreciably different just the body features. Canon were mercilessly crucified for that yet the D850 is super hyped.........



I am perfectly happy with my Canon system, but that is disingenuous man. It's not appreciably better this time around on either refresh, but one of those refreshes had a predecessor that was best in industry for that metric, and one of them had a predecessor that was hohum in that metric. Slightly different story. 

Edit: Also, Canon has vastly improved all of their other new sensors in said metric. Nikon has not. If Nikon released a slew of other new bodies (including APS-C ones) that blew the D810 away in DR, then released a D850 that was the same, the situation would be more akin to what people are angry at Canon for with the 6D2.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 25, 2017)

The 850 sensor is no better than the 810 sensor?

NIKON IS *******!
CANON IS *******!

Now everyone will have to shift to Olympus!

WE ARE ALL *******!


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 25, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> The 850 sensor is no better than the 810 sensor?
> 
> NIKON IS *******!
> CANON IS *******!
> ...



But, klearly, Nikon is most *******.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 25, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > The 850 sensor is no better than the 810 sensor?
> ...


Yes, I feel sorry for all those Nikon users who will be forced to get a camera with more features and better specs.......


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 25, 2017)

OSOK said:


> tr573 said:
> 
> 
> > It's slightly worse (D810/D850) at higher ISO DR than the 5DIV sensor, but by a ludicrously slim margin (about as ludicrously slim as the 1/6th stop x-sync difference everyone loves to beat on the 6d/6d2 over)
> ...



Dynamic range at high ISO is generally used as a proxy for shadow SNR which is where the main differences come from in high ISO performance. At low ISO settings, DR is more useful as a measure of how much we can push the deep shadows.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 25, 2017)

The current state of sensor manufacturing is close to the limits of what can be done, at least for a price we can afford. New cameras are going to have additional features, and more MP, but unless there is a big break thru in sensor technology, I do not expect to see major improvements. Increasing the photosite count without losing sensitivity is a gain.

I hope its a good camera and that Nikon does well with it, but I'm not tempted.


----------



## OSOK (Aug 25, 2017)

This whole thread is making a declaration about the D850 sensor performance which has not even been tested yet.

It references a website that clearly states it is merely providing an estimate about the D850 sensor. An estimate. Aka, a guess.


----------



## tr573 (Aug 25, 2017)

OSOK said:


> This whole thread is making a declaration about the D850 sensor performance which has not even been tested yet.
> 
> It references a website that clearly states it is merely providing an estimate about the D850 sensor. An estimate. Aka, a guess.



eh, everyone went nuts over Bill's preliminary 6D2 results too. (And although many here cautioned just as you are, and some dismissed them out of hand, his results were pretty much spot on)


----------



## Fatalv (Aug 25, 2017)

This entire thread is laughable. Did no one even read the notes?

"Notes:
(e) indcates estimated values that are not based on the normal test protocol. For example, the Nikon D850."

This is the same kind of garbage ppl complained about with the 6DMK2 tests, but apparently as long as it's used to blast Nikon it's ok. Seems like the fanboys/trolling on both sides has gotten out of hand recently.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 25, 2017)

Fatalv said:


> This entire thread is laughable. Did no one even read the notes?
> 
> "Notes:
> (e) indcates estimated values that are not based on the normal test protocol. For example, the Nikon D850."
> ...



Yes and how did that garbage turn out? It was truthful. The "estimated" moniker comes from the point that the files are normally from beta cameras without official release. This rarely seems to make any practical difference.

On the other hand I would point out that technical data, like the PDR constantly referred to, doesn't necessarily equate to noticeable differences in real world images. There is more than one 6D MkII owner put there pointing out they are getting 'better' results with their MkII's.


----------



## Fatalv (Aug 25, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Fatalv said:
> 
> 
> > This entire thread is laughable. Did no one even read the notes?
> ...



Sure, in the end there was truth to some of the analysis. For the 6DMK2 there were also sample photos, I see nothing of the sort on this site along with the clearly label note saying 'estimate' and further stating not based on the 'normal test protocols'. I wouldn't have pegged 'estimate' to mean what you note above. If so, it's a poor choice or words.

But regardless if you test every other camera/sensor with the 'normal test protocol' and another body with a different one how can you possibly compare them especially without knowing the differences?

By 'garbage' I was also alluding to the massive uprising and dismissal of the results until the camera was released. I find it funny and hypocritical that the same people defending the 6DMK2 are now using the same tests to dismiss the Nikon D850. 

As always, I'll wait for real world results, just like with the 6DMK2. I welcome the competition from Nikon, since it will hopefully make my next Canon purchase that much better


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 25, 2017)

Fatalv said:


> This entire thread is laughable. Did no one even read the notes?
> 
> "Notes:
> (e) indcates estimated values that are not based on the normal test protocol. For example, the Nikon D850."
> ...



It didn't stop people criticising the 6D2 based on Bill's values though, did it? 
As for 'those who defended the OP are now criticising the D850', I guess you missed the irony in my OP and the comments from those who responded to critics (I hesitate to calling them 'people who defended the 6D2')


----------



## Fatalv (Aug 25, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Fatalv said:
> 
> 
> > This entire thread is laughable. Did no one even read the notes?
> ...



That was my point. Why stoop to the same level of the trolls by bashing a camera before real world tests happen?

I guess I missed the irony and saw more of another "lets bash a camera thread" that has seemingly become the norm around here.


----------



## bholliman (Aug 25, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I hope its a good camera and that Nikon does well with it, but I'm not tempted.


+1


----------



## ritholtz (Aug 25, 2017)

Compared to recent releases, Canon produced very competitive cameras with respect to DR. 1dx2 has better DR than D5. 5D4 seems to be on par with d850. I guess Bill is still chasing for ISO 64 file with d850. 80d, 77d, t7i and sl2 all of them are released with new Sensor which is very close to d7500. Canon actually become competitive in terms of sensor and still maintaining their live view advantage. It used to be very bad.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 25, 2017)

Fatalv said:


> This entire thread is laughable. Did no one even read the notes?
> 
> "Notes:
> (e) indcates estimated values that are not based on the normal test protocol. For example, the Nikon D850."
> ...



I think it's called a JOKE.


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 26, 2017)

Fatalv said:


> This entire thread is laughable. Did no one even read the notes?
> 
> "Notes:
> (e) indcates estimated values that are not based on the normal test protocol. For example, the Nikon D850."
> ...



They're still based on measurements taken from D850 RAW files. Like others have stated it's only estimated because it's not from a production camera and the images weren't taken with the normal protocol, but all that's really needed for a DR measurement is for some of the pixels to hit the saturation point and then to take readings from the masked pixels for the read noise. Historically, the initial estimated values are almost always the same or just very slightly lower than the final results. It's the same as when everyone here was ripping into cgarcia when he posted the first 6D2 measurements over on FredMiranda. People may not like the numbers but both cgarcia and bclaff have a history of being almost dead on with their early measurements.


----------



## Jopa (Aug 26, 2017)

I bet a $1 it will hit a 100 @ DxO sensor score.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 26, 2017)

I bet a $1 on Canon 5D IV street price hit US$2,600.00 by Christmas. Love it 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/322657909819

price : US$2,729.99 /w free economy shipping.



Jopa said:


> I bet a $1 it will hit a 100 @ DxO sensor score.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 26, 2017)

Sharlin said:


> To be fair, it's a bit different situation. The D810 sensor is already very good, while everybody agrees that the 6D/6D2 low-ISO DR isn't optimal and the fact that really adds insult to injury is that all other newest-gen Canon sensors have better DR. The D750 sensor remains the king of Nikon FF sensors though.



"Fair" would be temper tantrums about "buhbuhbuh where's the _innovation!_ after four years!" You know, the way people treat Canon when they improve anything but DR for a few years. But no, "innovation" is defined as "anything Sonikon do and nothing Canon does, no matter what".


----------



## OSOK (Aug 26, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> I bet a $1 on Canon 5D IV street price hit US$2,600.00 by Christmas. Love it
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/322657909819
> 
> ...




The way the D850 is specced out, the 5D4 will need to be $2,400 or $2,500 to be a reasonable value comparison. I'd want around $1,000 discount for the loss of 2fps, 15 megapixels, less AF performance, tilt screen, the AA filter, likely less DR, 4K and more. 

5D4 will cease being an option for new buyers into mid-level semi-Pro FF. New buyers will go Nikon or Sony (mostly Sony). It's really only for heavily invested Canon users. We're talking people with huge arsenals of L glass. 

But rest assured, going forward - there won't be a single 5D4 or 5DSR buyer who doesn't feel a little ripped off as they open their wallet for one of these...that is, if they are being honest.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 26, 2017)

I do not feel it that way. Rather D850 price needs to be $500 more than price at the announcement. 

Can you please also explain why should I be feeling ripped off as I am just About to spend $2850 on 5D IV body?


----------



## Talys (Aug 26, 2017)

OSOK said:


> 5D4 will cease being an option for new buyers into mid-level semi-Pro FF. New buyers will go Nikon or Sony (mostly Sony). It's really only for heavily invested Canon users. We're talking people with huge arsenals of L glass.
> 
> But rest assured, going forward - there won't be a single 5D4 or 5DSR buyer who doesn't feel a little ripped off as they open their wallet for one of these...that is, if they are being honest.



Ahhhh.... thank you for a good laugh as I have my morning coffee.

People who buy Mercedes feel ripped off, because they could buy a Camry for way less and get better fuel economy! People who stay at the Four Seasons feel RIPPED OFF, when they find out the swimming pool at the Holiday Inn is bigger, doubly so when they see the sign for maximum seats at the restaurant is bigger!!

Rrrrrriiippped off, I tell you!


----------



## Talys (Aug 26, 2017)

Sharlin said:


> To be fair, it's a bit different situation. The D810 sensor is already very good, while everybody agrees that the 6D/6D2 low-ISO DR isn't optimal and the fact that really adds insult to injury is that all other newest-gen Canon sensors have better DR. The D750 sensor remains the king of Nikon FF sensors though.



I will admit that I would be impressed if Nikon drops a $2,000 camera with as good or better DR and IQ than their $3000 camera released less than a year prior.

Until then, 5DIV / 6DII equivalences are poor comparisons.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 26, 2017)

Talys said:


> Sharlin said:
> 
> 
> > To be fair, it's a bit different situation. The D810 sensor is already very good, while everybody agrees that the 6D/6D2 low-ISO DR isn't optimal and the fact that really adds insult to injury is that all other newest-gen Canon sensors have better DR. The D750 sensor remains the king of Nikon FF sensors though.
> ...



But what about a 6DII / 800D comparison?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2017)

OSOK said:


> 5D4 will cease being an option for new buyers into mid-level semi-Pro FF. New buyers will go Nikon or Sony (mostly Sony).



LOL. No one at that level cares about trifles like lens selection, reliability, and service availability… But you go on living the fantasy!


----------



## scyrene (Aug 26, 2017)

OSOK said:


> But rest assured, going forward - there won't be a single 5D4 or 5DSR buyer who doesn't feel a little ripped off as they open their wallet for one of these...that is,* if they are being honest.*



This is a logical fallacy along the lines of 'no true Scotsman'. I am a 5Ds owner and I don't feel in the least bit ripped off, but you will no doubt say I'm not being honest, so your statement is irrefutable.

I don't feel ripped off because I bought the 5Ds (about TWO YEARS AGO) in good faith knowing all its abilities and faults, it has served me as well as I'd hoped.


----------



## Talys (Aug 26, 2017)

Sharlin said:


> But what about a 6DII / 800D comparison?



As someone who owns both, trying to compare them is terrible, because they fulfill different niches. You can't really use one to replace the other.

I spent the morning photographing great blue heron at a lake, and took both a 6DII with a 100-400 L II and an 80D with a Sigma 150-600 C, and brought along a 1.4TC, plus a gimbal on a tripod. They both have distinct uses, I got great shots out of both. Frankly, comparing their image quality becomes a game of apples to oranges. If you can't get amazing photos out of either a 6DII or an 80D, you need to read some books and spend time actually taking pictures, because buying a D850 or 5DIV isn't going to help.

At the end of the day, what you have on both other ends of the camera body is far more important than two thirds of an EV in DR or an extra frame a second. But if you really, really care about getting the best specs on that body, by all means, pick up every exciting, "ground-breaking" camera that pops. All the camera manufacturers will be very happy 



scyrene said:


> OSOK said:
> 
> 
> > But rest assured, going forward - there won't be a single 5D4 or 5DSR buyer who doesn't feel a little ripped off as they open their wallet for one of these...that is,* if they are being honest.*
> ...



Just keep in mind that in 1 month from now, your 5Ds will no longer be able to take amazing photos. If you're being honest, you will only be able to take amazing photos if you buy a D850! There's even a chart with green lines and blue lines that says so.


----------



## snoke (Aug 27, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> *The current state of sensor manufacturing is close to the limits of what can be done, at least for a price we can afford*.



This. 100%. All _new_ camera close. Canon 5D Mark IV, Nikon D810, Nikon D850, Sony A7R Mark II, all close on graph. Graph these four, big mess.



> but unless there is a big break thru in sensor technology, I do not expect to see major improvements. Increasing the photosite count without losing sensitivity is a gain.



100% right. No more big change until better new sensor design.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV,Nikon%20D810,Nikon%20D850,Sony%20ILCE-7RM2,Sony%20ILCE-9

At ISO >=640, Sony have some special change.

From 200-500, all very close. Under 200 it strange


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 27, 2017)

OSOK said:


> The way the D850 is specced out, the 5D4 will need to be $2,400 or $2,500 to be a reasonable value comparison. I'd want around $1,000 discount for *the loss of 2fps*, 15 megapixels, less AF performance, tilt screen, the AA filter, likely less DR, 4K and more.



That 2fps costs you almost $1000 extra unless you already own a D5. Besides the battery grip itself, you need to buy a battery and a charger.


----------



## Jopa (Aug 27, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Can you please also explain why should I be feeling ripped off as I am just About to spend $2850 on 5D IV body?



Why? Because he's trolling - that's why  Too many trolls here recently...


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 27, 2017)

Jopa said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > Can you please also explain why should I be feeling ripped off as I am just About to spend $2850 on 5D IV body?
> ...



They do seem to have gotten more numerous once the 6D2 rumors kicked off in earnest.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 27, 2017)

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33166.msg683625#msg683625



LonelyBoy said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > SecureGSM said:
> ...


----------



## JohanCruyff (Aug 27, 2017)

No 16bit RAW? Nikon is *******!


----------



## Yiannis A - Greece (Aug 27, 2017)

Dear friends,

the only (simple and costless) thing, Canon has to do to make D850 lose most of its appeal, is to release the much anticipated but, unfortunately, hoax firmware that was "programmed" to be released just before Easter time this year!
I'm just a little bit afraid that, dear Canon has started a new technique of releasing intentionally crippled products, giving a couple more features every time. It's a realy bad time for demonstrating marketing strategy of this kind, as incomes around the globe go down and cost of living gets skyrocketed!
As a practically zero-day-adopter of 5D Mk4, i hope that we won't get dissapointed again, waiting for the next 5DSr or 5D Mk5, that will have a liiittle bit more features to close a part of the gap the previous one has left behind.
We'll never jump ship (at least me and some of my friends) cause we're fanboys of Canon for it's color science, reliability, repairability, quality, feeling in hands etc but, dear Canon, get our sweet money, give us what we want (we didn't ask for moon and other planets) and don't let us beg/pray like children under Christmas tree every time...

All my best from shiny, summery, magnificent Greece!

Yours
Yiannis A.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 27, 2017)

Yiannis A - Greece said:


> Dear friends,
> 
> the only (simple and costless) thing, Canon has to do to make D850 lose most of its appeal, is to release the much anticipated but, unfortunately, hoax firmware that was "programmed" to be released just before Easter time this year!
> I'm just a little bit afraid that, dear Canon has started a new technique of releasing intentionally crippled products, giving a couple more features every time. It's a realy bad time for demonstrating marketing strategy of this kind, as incomes around the globe go down and cost of living gets skyrocketed!
> ...



If you were disappointed in the 5D4, why did you "practically zero-day adopt" it? For that price you could have gotten the oh-so-ballyhooed D750 and a nice lens or two, then started selling off your Canon gear for more Nikon lenses. Why didn't you do that? That's a serious question, so please do give an answer if you can (I don't think you will).


----------



## bclaff (Aug 27, 2017)

OSOK said:


> This whole thread is making a declaration about the D850 sensor performance which has not even been tested yet.
> 
> It references a website that clearly states it is merely providing an estimate about the D850 sensor. An estimate. Aka, a guess.


In the future I (PhotonsToPhotos.net) should probably say "preliminary" rather than "estimated" since the values are actual measurements from raw files, just not the files I actually use for final PDR values.
Gaps in the data reflect the fact that I don't have NEF files for every ISO setting.
Final values tend to be a bit higher than preliminary, but some of these NEFs were taken with High ISO NR turned on and I test with it off so only time will tell.


----------



## bclaff (Aug 27, 2017)

raptor3x said:


> Fatalv said:
> 
> 
> > This entire thread is laughable. Did no one even read the notes?
> ...


Just a technical clarification, unlike DxOMark (and Garcia) read noise does not enter directly into the measurement of Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR). PDR is measured based on the Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) and that SNR is not at signal equals zero. FWIW, this is the chief reason I think that PDR is a better measure than DxOMark Landscape score.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 27, 2017)

Yiannis A - Greece said:


> Canon has started a new technique of releasing intentionally crippled products


What do you mean intentionally crippled? Considering how long Canon has stayed at the top, and their financial stability, It certainly appears that they make decisions based on good business principles. You can't take a small loss on every unit and "make it up on volume." Like others, I'm slightly disappointed that the 6D2 (apparently) did not have the same sensor tech as the 5D4 and 80D. The number of photographers limited by the low-ISO DR of their camera is very very small, and I'm probably not in that small group.



> we're fanboys of Canon for it's color science, reliability, repairability, quality, feeling in hands etc



Those qualities are expensive to provide. We all want all the features and support at a low price, but that violates everything known about business (and possibly entropy, as well).


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 27, 2017)

He zero day purchased it and then I assume that it's performance was not much better than a 5D III.
I'm happy enough with the 5D IV. I lost my 5DIII to the sea so I had an excuse to buy it. It's just a small and not wow upgrade to the 5DIII. To be honest based on taking thousands of photos I see little real world improvement.
Canon are very successful with their upgrade methods so far of incremental improvements. For me it's the lens sell the brand. The cameras are good , reliable and easy to use. 
That Nikon looks a good camera. Sony have more potential to impact Canon. Once they have a range of top end 2.8's 300, 400, 500, 600 their frame rates on mirrorless and ISO performance are impressive. Not too many people will be able to afford them but if professionals move to them so will amateurs. 




LonelyBoy said:



> Yiannis A - Greece said:
> 
> 
> > Dear friends,
> ...


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 27, 2017)

really? I am surprised to hear that. Haven't you noticed a big difference in High ISO files quality (ISO 5000+, shadows, noise, banding)?
Have you noticed better AF tracking ability of 5D IV over 5D III?
Improved metering? much better low light AF sensitivity (to -3EV, camera does not struggle focusing as much in very low light)? 
Have you noticed that at least some of AF points are now F8 capable?
Better buffer capacity?
there are some improvements that people do not talk about much but they are substantial:

your lenses produce approx. 7-8% sharper images at pixel level. that means that you can print larger and view your images at 1:1 level on very large screens .
just imaging that all your lenses got massive 7-8% sharpness boost for free. that is massive boost.

or even remote shutter release port location.. the feature that seems too small to talk about. well, with L-bracket fitted to your camera, it could be real pain in the neck setting camera on tripod in portrait position with remote shutter release cable attached. it gets in the way. not anymore as with 5D IV the port was relocated to the front of the camera.

5D IV owners love their cameras. it is nearly impossible to get one at decent price slightly used.
People are hesitant to let it go for more that 10-15% discount no matter what.
all slightly used reasonably priced 5D IV bodies being snappppped in Australia in a matter of hours, not days.
there is a single used 5D IV body available on classifieds site nationwide and that one is priced higher than you can buy one brand new 

there is none used 5D IV bodies on eBay Australia for days now. there are like 170 used 5D IV bodies available globally 

Does this sound like people are willing to get rid of their 5D IV cameras? I am not seeing this happening.



Hector1970 said:


> He zero day purchased it and then I assume that it's performance was not much better than a 5D III.
> I'm happy enough with the 5D IV. I lost my 5DIII to the sea so I had an excuse to buy it. It's just a small and not wow upgrade to the 5DIII. *To be honest based on taking thousands of photos I see little real world improvement.*


----------



## scyrene (Aug 27, 2017)

Hector1970 said:


> To be honest based on taking thousands of photos I see little real world improvement.
> Canon are very successful with their upgrade methods so far of incremental improvements.



Do you believe upgrading to any current body from any manufacturer would provide anything but an incremental improvement? Do you believe that any new body will produce photos that show real world improvement in more than a minority of shots?

We're going round in circles. I've said it in past years, but here I feel I must say it again: given the narrative is that Canon's cameras are somehow subpar compared to the competition, how come there isn't a huge body of work using those "better" bodies that is clearly identifiable and superior?

This is a question to all those who are moaning about "crippling" etc (and may I say again to those using it, that is a really gross term, not to mention utterly inaccurate).


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 27, 2017)

Hector1970 said:


> He zero day purchased it and then I assume that it's performance was not much better than a 5D III.
> I'm happy enough with the 5D IV. I lost my 5DIII to the sea so I had an excuse to buy it. It's just a small and not wow upgrade to the 5DIII. To be honest based on taking thousands of photos I see little real world improvement.
> Canon are very successful with their upgrade methods so far of incremental improvements. For me it's the lens sell the brand. The cameras are good , reliable and easy to use.
> That Nikon looks a good camera. Sony have more potential to impact Canon. Once they have a range of top end 2.8's 300, 400, 500, 600 their frame rates on mirrorless and ISO performance are impressive. Not too many people will be able to afford them but if professionals move to them so will amateurs.
> ...



No, if it was barely an upgrade, why didn't you save like half the price of the body and get another 5D3? Why did you buy the 5D4 for thousands more?


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 27, 2017)

That's exactly the point, it's all very well to look at specs but to really see you have to buy and use the camera. I found after doing that there isn't really much real world difference between the 5D III and 5D IV. Maybe because it's because I'm careful about taking photographs that I don't completely under expose. I really see no difference at all in focusing ability. Yes I'd believe a 5D III would have been much better valu for money. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the 5D IV it's just it's a minimal upgrade. The 5DIII was a good upgrade on the 5D II.



LonelyBoy said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > He zero day purchased it and then I assume that it's performance was not much better than a 5D III.
> ...


----------



## Talys (Aug 27, 2017)

Hector1970 said:


> That's exactly the point, it's all very well to look at specs but to really see you have to buy and use the camera. I found after doing that there isn't really much real world difference between the 5D III and 5D IV. Maybe because it's because I'm careful about taking photographs that I don't completely under expose. I really see no difference at all in focusing ability. Yes I'd believe a 5D III would have been much better valu for money. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the 5D IV it's just it's a minimal upgrade. The 5DIII was a good upgrade on the 5D II.



Didn't you purchase your camera from store that allows returns or exchanges within a period of time? I can't say what it's like in your area, of course; in mine, I buy stuff from local retailers, almost all of whom have at least a 7 day full refund policy (most are about 2 weeks for refund or exchange), or Amazon, that has 30 days.

Keep in mind that we're in the age of diminishing returns and incremental iterations for sensors, so until there's some massive change in sensor tech, you're likely to say the same thing for a while.

However, that doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of other improvements possible, and it just comes down to whether any of those are useful or worth the bucks for you.


----------



## Jopa (Aug 27, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33166.msg683625#msg683625
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So true, every single word.


----------



## Yiannis A - Greece (Aug 28, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> Yiannis A - Greece said:
> 
> 
> > Dear friends,
> ...


Dear "lonelyboy"
i'm not disappointed by my 5D Mk4, i'm disappointed by Canon's practique to give us what we want drop-by-drop. I've always been a zero-day-buyer because i can and life is too short to wait. I never buy Nikon products because, i don't like Nikon products. Acting the same way, i never buy German cars, no matter what reviews say about them...etc etc etc!
Why were you so sure i would not give you an answer? I'm a very serious bussinessman and very serious as a person (generally speaking) and i never say something just to troll or make some noise.

Anyway, it's another lovely greek summer night and the sea in front of me looks terrific so, i'll stop writing and concentrate on relaxing.

All my best wishes.

Yours sincerely
Yiannis.


----------



## Yiannis A - Greece (Aug 28, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> Yiannis A - Greece said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has started a new technique of releasing intentionally crippled products
> ...


Dear "Orangutan"
by calling the latest Canon DSLRs "intentionaly crippled" i mean that Canon is not letting the full potential unleashed, they just go "drop-by-drop", i think it's a marketing strategy to make us buy every next model they release! How difficult would be for a giant company, to give everything the public asks for from a camera when some guys named "Magic Lantern Team" do it with practically zero resources and only in their leisure time???
I don't know if Canon takes decisions based on good business principals or they're driven by the momentum they've gathered all these years by making trustworthy, pioneering and quality superb products. The competition becomes very stiff day-by-day and some more flexible and offensive strategies must be taken into consideration!

Responding to your second remark, i'd like to inform you that i never asked for a cheap product or a bargain Ferrari with the price tag of a Fiat. Good things come at a (usually) high price which i'm willing to pay 'cause i can, i like to and i want to. 

Wishing you all the best and a nice evening wherever you are.

Yiannis


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 28, 2017)

Yiannis A - Greece said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Yiannis A - Greece said:
> ...



I was sure because you're the first person to actually answer that question. However, it's unsatisfying because "I don't like Nikon products" isn't a reason, it's the description. What don't you like about Nikon products? My suspicion is, you want the shovelful of features that Nikon and Sony include, with the reliability, ergonomics, and support of Canon. It's really a "want your cake and eat it to" situation. The car equivalent would be wanting the reliability of the Japanese cars with the driving dynamics and toys of the Germans - you don't get both; the companies devote their resources to different places and you pick your priorities.

It's also why I'm so dismissive of people constantly bringing up the D750 or GH5 over and over without buying them - if those bodies were really so great, people would be buying them instead of whining that Canon (supposedly) can't equal them. The fact that people would rather throw tantrums and keep buying Canon tells me they don't really want those other bodies; they want Canon. Which means Canon correctly applied their development resources.


----------



## NancyP (Aug 28, 2017)

talys wins the internet today:
"At the end of the day, what you have on both .. ends of the camera body is far more important than two thirds of an EV in DR or an extra frame a second. "


----------



## Tugela (Sep 5, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV,Nikon%20D810,Nikon%20D850,Sony%20ILCE-7RM2
> 
> Nikon have made no progress in 4 years, is no better than the D810 and worse than the 5D4.
> Are Nikon selling their customers short?
> ...



Modern camera advancements are primarily in the processors used, not the sensors. Sensors are a mature technology, so you are going to see very modest improvements in time in that area. The big changes will come as the processors improve in power and efficiency. More computing power means that the camera will be capable of more performance overall. 

This is why MILCs will eventually replace DSLRs. The camera of the future will be very much a dance between the sensor and the processor, mirrors are just an obstacle to that. Cameras like the D850 are the last gasp of the Jurassic age of cameras. But change is coming.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2017)

Tugela said:


> Cameras like the D850 are the last gasp of the Jurassic age of cameras. But change is coming.



Of course, the dinosaurs lasted 83 million years beyond the last gasp of Jurassic Period. Change is coming. So is the destruction of the earth by the sun as it evolves into a red giant. You have been warned.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 5, 2017)

Tugela said:


> Modern camera advancements are primarily in the processors used, not the sensors. Sensors are a mature technology, so you are going to see very modest improvements in time in that area. The big changes will come as the processors improve in power and efficiency. More computing power means that the camera will be capable of more performance overall.
> 
> This is why MILCs will eventually replace DSLRs. The camera of the future will be very much a dance between the sensor and the processor, mirrors are just an obstacle to that. Cameras like the D850 are the last gasp of the Jurassic age of cameras. But change is coming.



The change is already _here_. It has been for a few years now. Good MILC performers like Fuji, Olympus, Sony and Panasonic have already shown they can compete with midrange DSLRs and the latest ML flagships can, in many ways, exceed DSLR performance by a considerable margin in some metrics like super high fps when you don't have to deal with big flappy mirror assemblies.
Hmmm... I should take _my_ last dinosaur, the Pentax K-1, for a walk.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2017)

Aglet said:


> The change is already _here_. It has been for a few years now. Good MILC performers like Fuji, Olympus, Sony and Panasonic have already shown they can compete with midrange DSLRs and the latest ML flagships can, in many ways, exceed DSLR performance by a considerable margin in some metrics like super high fps when you don't have to deal with big flappy mirror assemblies.



Funny thing is, no one has bothered to tell the camera-buying majority. Well, actually that's not true. The internet has told them, and is still telling them. But buyers don't seem to care all that much.


----------



## Talys (Sep 5, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > The change is already _here_. It has been for a few years now. Good MILC performers like Fuji, Olympus, Sony and Panasonic have already shown they can compete with midrange DSLRs and the latest ML flagships can, in many ways, exceed DSLR performance by a considerable margin in some metrics like super high fps when you don't have to deal with big flappy mirror assemblies.
> ...



Probably because amazing sensors and the coolest acronym soup in the camera bodies is awesome marketing hype that doesn't actually move the needle much in the department of, "this helps me take amazing photographs".

All the megapixels and DR in the world can't manufacture sorrow or joy, excitement or wonder. Nor can it move the sun -- or your feet!


----------



## Aglet (Sep 8, 2017)

Talys said:


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



Ultra fast frame-rate results moved some people to tears when they could see the intense struggle of a sporting event captured in the participants' faces. 
Thank-you Olympus.  I'd never been interested in that kind of photography before but being able to pick from frames only milliseconds apart is a very powerful tool.
And we'll all have that with 8k video... sort of.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 8, 2017)

Aglet said:


> Ultra fast frame-rate results moved some people to tears when they could see the intense struggle of a sporting event captured in the participants' faces.
> Thank-you Olympus.  I'd never been interested in that kind of photography before but being able to pick from frames only milliseconds apart is a very powerful tool.
> And we'll all have that with 8k video... sort of.



Just because an Olympus with ultra-fast frame rates capture it, does not mean another camera could not have done. There comes a point where the only thing having faster frame rates is give you more images to sort through. Ask those same sports photographers if they will have time to go through 50 frames when the editorial desk is screaming to have the images on the internet before their competitors.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Sep 8, 2017)

Aglet said:


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


Well I thought that the very high frame rates on cameras such as the Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II could only be achieved if focus and exposure are both fixed. If the camera refocuses between each shot then the frame rate drops to 18fps. Personally I cannot see the point of shooting fast action sports at 60fps if the shots are not in focus.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 8, 2017)

Aglet said:


> Ultra fast frame-rate results moved some people to tears when they could see the intense struggle of a sporting event captured in the participants' faces.



Yes, but my sport is wilderness canoeing...... super high burst rates are useless for capturing the look of serene bliss in a paddlers face as they glide along a quiet lake..... 

But capturing birds at a feeder..... That's a different story! I have set my P/S up on a tripod in front of the feeder and used WiFi to remotely trigger it. In the 100FPS burst mode you can get some very interesting pictures of songbirds landing or taking off. When the wings move so fast, you really need such a high burst rate!

Like any tool, ultra fast frame rates are great to have if you need it......


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 8, 2017)

Off the present focus of posts, but isn't the D850 AF point spread kind of weird?

Jack


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 8, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> Off the present focus of posts, but isn't the D850 AF point spread kind of weird?



How do you mean? Isn't it the same sensor and thus obviously the same layout as the D5?


----------



## Talys (Sep 9, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> But capturing birds at a feeder..... That's a different story! I have set my P/S up on a tripod in front of the feeder and used WiFi to remotely trigger it. In the 100FPS burst mode you can get some very interesting pictures of songbirds landing or taking off. When the wings move so fast, you really need such a high burst rate!
> 
> Like any tool, ultra fast frame rates are great to have if you need it......



For songbirds, my favorite shots are shortly after they've taken flight from a branch of a nearby tree, rather than at the feeder (the feeder makes the shot look too artificial, IMO)

A trick I've found is to put a big potted vine that's been looped through a trellis near the feeder, on a wheeled trolley, and move it around until it is staged for a nice shot. Most of the birds will take perch there, if only while they wait for other birds to feed. That makes for nice shots on the trellis or vine, and if they fly off, you catch them in flight! Biggest bonus is that you can rotate/move the vine, to catch the sun depending on where you're shooting from.

A way to get a nicely focused songbird in flight is to prefocus the camera where the bird will be (the majority will tend to leave the perch in the same direction; you can force it just by being on one side, too. If you study them, you'll see how they act just before they fly off; click away just before!

Another way to catch an in-focus shot of the front of a songbird is to be on an angle where the distance to a bird on the feeder is the same as one of their approach vectors. Keep the camera focused on the feeder, and you'll catch the bird flying in, in perfect focus.

Also, I find that a gimbal helps a lot if you need to be patient. Yes, I am weak.. my arms get tired, always seemingly just before the best moment LOL.

Anyways, my point is just that if you can't catch a bird in focus at 6fps, you're not going to catch it in focus at 9fps either  If you're a professional, _of course_ you'll take the highest fps option available (especially, sports), all things being equal. But all things aren't usually equal for the people who need high FPS the most, chief amongst them lens options. 600mm f/4 differences come to mind...


----------



## Aglet (Sep 9, 2017)

Talys said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > But capturing birds at a feeder..... That's a different story! I have set my P/S up on a tripod in front of the feeder and used WiFi to remotely trigger it. In the 100FPS burst mode you can get some very interesting pictures of songbirds landing or taking off. When the wings move so fast, you really need such a high burst rate!
> ...



and if you used the EM1v2 with its pre-cap buffer you could catch the perfect take off or landing moment recording before you pressed the button all the way... Great feature for those I-know-it's-about-to-happen moments just like that. 60FPS fixed AF - yippee!
18FPS with AF - hard to beat that either.

TOO MUCH DATA for some of you? HAHA! too bad. 
learn how to deal with it.
Give me the tool that gives me more options, I don't buy handicapped products any more.


----------



## Talys (Sep 9, 2017)

Aglet said:


> and if you used the EM1v2 with its pre-cap buffer you could catch the perfect take off or landing moment recording before you pressed the button all the way... Great feature for those I-know-it's-about-to-happen moments just like that. 60FPS fixed AF - yippee!
> 18FPS with AF - hard to beat that either.
> 
> TOO MUCH DATA for some of you? HAHA! too bad.
> ...



For most shots near a feeder, the perfect shots are neither just before takeoff or just after landing. They're a little after takeoff or some time before landing, hopefully with the feeder at the edge of the frame, where you're going to crop it out  Or, they're when there's more than one bird on/near the feeder, and you capture some interesting interaction.

If I started recording at 18 fps at shutter half-press near a feeder, and waited for a songbird to take off, there would be, like, anywhere from 20 - 1,000 frames to sort through for each time a songbird landed. They can be there for a long time, or gone in a flash. A few of hours with the wife on the patio, I'd have like 50,000 frames to sort through. NO THANKS! 

If you spend time without ever touching a camera just learning the things that make a particular birds take off, then keep one eye on the environment with the other eye on the viewfinder, you'll have a half dozen frames to pick through, with a good chunk in focus. If you want some good shots -- as in, _interesting_ shots -- you'll spend a lot of time there, and dozens of birds will fly in and out, and you'll end up picking through a lot (hundreds!) of perfectly focused photos, just to grab maybe just a couple standouts. And that's just taking a half dozen or so with every fly in/fly out. Multiply by whatever factor you want with more FPS. Buffering before you press the button sounds like a massive battery hog, by the way.

If you like the Olympus -- Great! I don't think the camera really changes anything. The magic, keeping your sanity, or keeping it fun, should not be in this $4,000 setup versus that $4,000 setup. If you take joy in sorting through gigabytes of photos to pick the one perfect wing angle, all the power to you.

This feeder action shot was just one frame in 5, with 3 having both birds in focus. The other 2, the depth of field didn't allow for both the finch and chickadee to be in focus. It was taken on the 6DII and the 100-400LII, but I could have taken almost exactly the same shot nearly any decent DSLR decent lens that went to 200mm.







Title: "It's War!"


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 9, 2017)

Aglet said:


> I don't buy handicapped products any more.



Yes you do. You have already admitted that the E-M1 does not give as high a quality image as a DSLR but you think the compromises are worth it for other functionalities. 

If you don't buy handicapped products why don't you shoot medium format given that you don't do much action. 

I suggest you stop being so smug and self-righteous.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > I don't buy handicapped products any more.
> ...



+∞


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 9, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > I don't buy handicapped products any more.
> ...



I'm generally not a fan of Aglet's not-quite-trollish posts, but I think this may be a misrepresentation of his views. I don't think Aglet (or others) have said there are never legitimate compromises; i.e., smaller sensor will affect IQ, and 60fps will affect AF. I believe what irks them are what they perceive as unnecessary compromises; the current poster-case for this is the sensor of the 6D2. It's known that there was better sensor tech available (5D4 and 80D), and could have been used. I believe the claim is that if Canon can put a feature in a particular body at reasonable cost, it should. Other examples would be pretty much every feature ML implements.

And this is the problem with Aglet's reasoning: he pretty much wants every feature that every other manufacturer implements, and to set the price of those cameras very close to lower-priced competitor. This cuts into profits, and limits the long-term health of the division of the company. I'd certainly love to have a loaded camera like that, but Canon's exec team would be upset with lost profits. I simply acknowledge this as reality.

If Aglet, and others, want Canon to add more features, they should rant at other manufacturers for not creating better competition by challenging Canon in the marketplace.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> I'm generally not a fan of Aglet's not-quite-trollish posts, but I think this may be a misrepresentation of his views.



Aglet's view is that any camera he doesn't personally like or doesn't meet his personal needs is handicapped. That term is more aptly applied to his mental inability to comprehend that his likes and needs are not representative of the majority of ILC system buyers.


----------



## dak723 (Sep 9, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> I believe what irks them are what they perceive as unnecessary compromises; the current poster-case for this is the sensor of the 6D2. It's known that there was better sensor tech available (5D4 and 80D), and could have been used.



Not picking on you personally, but we do NOT know. People have made many assumptions about the sensor, but I don't believe we know anything except that the DR performance is lower. We don't know that they could have used the same sensor tech as the 5D4 without raising the price considerably. We don't know the comparative price of putting the same tech on a APS-C sensor, so comparisons with the 80D are not valid either. 

What we do know based on user's comments is that the noise cleanup on the 6D II is vastly superior to the original 6D. We also have some comments that say the noise cleanup is actually better on the 6D II than the 5D IV. 

Glad you are defending Aglet, but by his own admission, he has been lees than honest and putting a great deal of "spin" (otherwise known as BS) on his comments and interpretations. His anti-Canon bias is obvious to anyone who is objective, thus making all his comments questionable at best.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 9, 2017)

dak723 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > I believe what irks them are what they perceive as unnecessary compromises; the current poster-case for this is the sensor of the 6D2. It's known that there was better sensor tech available (5D4 and 80D), and could have been used.
> ...



Is that true about the noise? I haven't paid very close attention to the 6d2, but I read something about it also performes worse than the original 6d when it comes noise handling.?


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 9, 2017)

dak723 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > I believe what irks them are what they perceive as unnecessary compromises; the current poster-case for this is the sensor of the 6D2. It's known that there was better sensor tech available (5D4 and 80D), and could have been used.
> ...


I agree, we don't know. What's important is that it's the perception of people like Aglet, who believe that every new advance in any feature creates the new minimum level for all future products.



> Glad you are defending Aglet



Not exactly defending him, I usually disagree with him. I just don't like straw-man arguments, even if it's my side using them. There's plenty of legitimate reason to criticize Aglet and his posts, let's not fabricate.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 9, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > I'm generally not a fan of Aglet's not-quite-trollish posts, but I think this may be a misrepresentation of his views.
> ...



Aglet seems to have two themes, one I described in the previous post. The other is that his preferences are representative of the broad market. Both are false, but they are distinct.


----------



## Talys (Sep 9, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> I believe what irks them are what they perceive as unnecessary compromises; the current poster-case for this is the sensor of the 6D2. It's known that there was better sensor tech available (5D4 and 80D), and could have been used.



I don't know if you meant me 

But to be clear, I was speaking specifically to bird feeder BIF shots, something I've spent quite a lot of time on because I hang out on the patio with my wife, where we have, well, you know, feeders. Really, I wasn't pushing the 6DII here. I was saying, Olympus, Nikon, Canon, 4 fps, 6 fps, 10fps, 18fps... It really doesn't really much matter.

My preference, rather than to essentially capture video and then look for a good frame, is to spend some time understanding that, for example, when a chickadee has a peanut in its beak and doesn't bite down, that's a pretty good indication that he's going to take off. They'll look the direction of travel, so while they're facing the feeder, there's no point in clicking away if you want to catch an in-lflight shot. Or, if I keep one eye on the surroundings, and see another songbird on an approach vector, at a certain point, I know that certain birds on the feeder will fly off (while others will be unintimidated and just go to the other side of the feeder). When you shoot it (time of day), and where you position yourself is critical, too. 

They behave a little more differently when they show up for the last meals of the day, as opposed to when they're more social mid-day. There are also favored types of spots where songbirds land before they go to the feeder, or queue up. Get to know them, and you can have a more natural looking shot, and also plan better. 

Take a waterbird, like a groebe, heron, duck, crane, or a bird of prey like an eagle or osprey and it's the same principle. You can either try to randomly catch everything and have memory cards full of content, and maybe still even miss the best shots, or you can learn the behavior of your subjects. Doing so is not a handicap, not an advantage. Of course, there are more tools needed when the subject is 200 feet away instead of twelve.

I'm sure a sports photographer would tell you the same thing. They don't go to an event and just hold down the shutter button wherever the ball is at the camera's max FPS.

Yes, I will happily concede that some technical features may be helpful, and in some cases, will give you more usable shots. I also think that if you rely overly on them, I think the end product will suffer. But that's just my opinion, and if anyone personally needs all one of those in order to enjoy photography... have at it, and don't bother with a Canon... though I think that you'll never be happy anyways, because someone else will come up with something that you've gotta have at some point.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 9, 2017)

Talys said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > I believe what irks them are what they perceive as unnecessary compromises; the current poster-case for this is the sensor of the 6D2. It's known that there was better sensor tech available (5D4 and 80D), and could have been used.
> ...



Nope. I was thinking particularly of Aglet, AvTvM, and a few others I can't recall by "name." 

Cheers,

O


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 11, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> I'm generally not a fan of Aglet's not-quite-trollish posts, but I think this may be a misrepresentation of his views. I don't think Aglet (or others) have said there are never legitimate compromises



Aglet has quite clearly previously said that he prefers the image quality of the E-M1 because it is not handicapped in image quality like any Canon camera bar the 5DIV and 1Dx2. He then posted links to images that everyone but him thought had severe limitations (they were good images, but limited) and when pushed he admitted that for him the compromises were worth it. In other words, he admits they are inferior to the cameras he criticised.Interestingly he then disappeared from the boards for a few days.

I have absolutely no problems with technical comments Aglet makes, nor his critique of the shortfalls of camera design because he seems quite knowledgeable with experience of several brands. But his claims about never buying handicapped cameras comes across as nothing short of pompous self-righteousness.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 13, 2017)

Former Canon FF shooter now Olympus fan.

http://aurelm.com/2017/07/10/olympus-e-m1-mark-2-english-review/

there are a few things about the Oly he wishes were improved.. a few I might agree with.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 13, 2017)

Aglet said:


> Former Canon FF shooter now Olympus fan.
> 
> http://aurelm.com/2017/07/10/olympus-e-m1-mark-2-english-review/
> 
> there are a few things about the Oly he wishes were improved.. a few I might agree with.



Why do you feel the need to repeat this? No-one doubts that the Olympus has its advantages, I know a few who have gone fro DSLR to Olympus (or Panasonic) and I have Olympus and Panasonic myself to complement (yes, complement) my DSLRs. 

I started this thread to highlight the peculiar fascination this forum seems to have with DR/sensor tech and the hypocrisy of many of the critics, and yet you can't stop having a dig can you?

So inline with my OP


> In pixel peeping tests the situation is not so bright but not so dark either. The olympus is about 1 stop, maybe a little more noisy than my 6d.



Shocking! The E-M1 you love so much is handicapped and crippled! I didn't think you bought crippled cameras?


----------



## snoke (Sep 13, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> I started this thread to highlight the peculiar fascination this forum seems to have with DR/sensor tech and the hypocrisy of many of the critics, and yet you can't stop having a dig can you?



You make wrong comparison. Same is good result here. Better compare D850 and Sony A7RII. Ask why Sony better? That right question.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 13, 2017)

snoke said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > I started this thread to highlight the peculiar fascination this forum seems to have with DR/sensor tech and the hypocrisy of many of the critics, and yet you can't stop having a dig can you?
> ...



In the context of the CR bashing of the 6DII for having a sensor no better that the 6D, Mikehit made the *exact right* comparison.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 15, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Fatalv said:
> 
> 
> > This entire thread is laughable. Did no one even read the notes?
> ...


I used the Arri dynamic range test chart on my Canon 6D MKII and it was 1/2 stop better than the figures published by PDR / DXO yet was told to expect very little variance. I didn't buy the statement and still don't because batch testing is the only reliable result just as Lens Rentals conducts and averages the results. We have tested a large number of Sony F55 cameras and at that level see variances you cannot tell me a consumer product mass produced has no variance. 

Does that mean Canon should have not done better with the 6D MKII dynamic range, yes it should when its charging £, 1,999 for a body only I like the Canon system but I'm not blind to Canon lagging when it comes to dynamic range against its peers. The positive of the 6D MKII is it does have better colour and better features especially the flippy screen which has been employed numerous times since my purchase.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 15, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Fatalv said:
> ...



And therein is hidden an important aspect of these multitudes of DR measurements that are bandied about. You used a visual image to make a subjective decision on DR, DxO, DPReview, Bill Cliff etc all all use digital data alone on which they run analyses to determine the theoretical range between arbitrarily numbers.

Which is why almost all camera manufacturers who publish DR data do so using an oscilloscope and zero out when the signal to noise ratio equals zero, not an arbitrary 'noise floor' value that might, or might not, actual contain usable image data. Which means everybody is measuring the same thing but the user experience is different!

Personally I shoot very wide dr subjects all the time and haven't had an issue with dr since moving from film. Most talk about DR and it's 'limitation' is stirred up by second rate websites just for the noise it creates, when they are put on the spot and asked to produce raw files of images they use to 'expose these limitations' they won't, because they know it is mostly irrelevant and they are being, at best, disingenuous.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 15, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


Sorry but your analysis of what I did is WRONG. I did not make a visual analysis with a subjective reading the testing is automated using Aquamat universal software and provides an OECF-Graph (using a reference set of the individual test chart), Saturation, Noise Floor, S/N (dB) as well as other data fields (line average to determine clipping points for instance) all carried out in a specifically set-up room. 
For the record using multiple HD cameras for visual effects were asked to match cameras as close as possible and these images end up on some of the largest screens in the world thus the need for accurate testing.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 15, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > jeffa4444 said:
> ...



I wasn't dismissing your testing, or belittling it, and if I got specifics wrong I apologize. But my point stands, different tests: different results, no surprise. Most of the time these different tests aren't even testing to the same parameters so it is even less surprising. 

If you are testing multiple anything on the same apparatus via the same protocol in the same conditions you are testing sample variation alone, which was clearly the object of your testing. Now if only we could send you 100 of every camera we are interested in buying you could not only do a decent comparison but you could tell us which specific body had the 'best' insides of each model. 

One persons (and cameras) 18dB S/N ratio is unusable noisy to some, others think it is perfectly usable.


----------



## raptor3x (Sep 15, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Fatalv said:
> ...



You used a completely difference testing protocol than what DxO and Bill Claff are doing with different definitions of dynamic range and you're complaining that the absolute values don't match up?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 18, 2017)

raptor3x said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


And your point is what? Have they the perfect testing system? Has anyone? I'm not sure what you mean by different definition of DR the system we use is exactly the same system Arri use and the Fraunhofer Institute and we specifically use it for two reasons a. to determine dynamic range ability b. sample variance to manufacturers claims. 
The point I was making is various people including Bill Claff have stated they don't expect a variance between cameras of the same type. In our sample variance testing we have seen variances on high end cameras vastly more expensive than a 6D MKII so therefor batch testing is the only reliable measurement.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 22, 2017)

Nikon D850 review by Nasim Mansurov of Photography Life.
Quite a few pages to go through if you were interested at all. Highly recommended though, highly...

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-d850


----------



## Jopa (Oct 6, 2017)

Jopa said:


> I bet a $1 it will hit a 100 @ DxO sensor score.



https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-d850-sensor-review-first-dslr-hit-100-points/

I told y'all!!! It was quite predictable knowing DxO love to Nikosony.
If anybody from this forum would pass me their $1 I could probably buy a lens or two.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2017)

Jopa said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > I bet a $1 it will hit a 100 @ DxO sensor score.
> ...



Hopefully you won't be foolish enough to use that money on Canon *L*enses, forcing yourself to handicap them with an inadequate sensor…


----------



## Jopa (Oct 6, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > Jopa said:
> ...



LOL I feel like I'm totally screwed now...


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 7, 2017)

Jopa said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > I bet a $1 it will hit a 100 @ DxO sensor score.
> ...



Wow, well done. 

-A


----------



## Talys (Oct 7, 2017)

Why does the Low Light score suck?

2995 - Canon 5D Mark IV
2956 - Nikon D750
2862 - Canon 6D Mark II
2853 - Nikon D810
2660 - Nikon D850

After ISO 800 D850 has less DR, Tonal Range, and Color Sensitivity than 5DIV on the Screen measurements (it scores better on a bunch of Print measurements). 

If the price of more megapixels is worse low ISO at a range that's practically useful for me, I'll stay with a lower megapixel count than the 40's, thanks.


----------



## psolberg (Oct 7, 2017)

Seems DXO disagrees....EEEK!



> Why does the Low Light score suck?


high MP.



> After ISO 800 D850 has less DR,


nobody really cares about DR at high ISO because it is so limited compared at the base ISO which is THE reason people buy this type of camera. Most people avoid going that high in ISO if they care about DR. The entire reason landcape and studio folks who either have full control of the light (studio) or shoot on tripods (landscape) at near base ISO love the DR is PRECISELY because they don't want to even dare move away from base ISO and slide down the DR scale.

The ability to get those pristine clean images with huge tonal and DR depth at the lower ISOs is why you buy this camera, at least the main reason anyway because it beats everything else from any competitor save medium format completely. Yes you can, use it as a high ISO 9fps machine, but if that is what you do most often as you cannot control your situation to shoot at base, then you're not going to really extract the main benefit. That is not to say you're better off with something else. You still get the full width 4K, modern codec, touch screen with swivel, etc, and the ability to tap those deep low ISOs when you can.

As always, it is up to what you shoot and what your demands are. If you can get away with near base ISO most times, then nothing else comes close. nothing. It is off course the best all-around full frame camera ever made IMO, for my personal needs anyway. YMMV.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 7, 2017)

https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-d810-sensor-review-new-dxomark-leader

According to the DXO Mark score, the D810 is only 3% worse.
They’re practically indistinguishable.

The D500 at even higher pixel density has better high ISO while losing nothing on the low ISO, Nikon skipped “something” when they made the D850.


----------



## Jopa (Oct 7, 2017)

psolberg said:


> The entire reason landcape and studio folks who either have full control of the light (studio) or shoot on tripods (landscape) at near base ISO love the DR is PRECISELY because they don't want to even dare move away from base ISO and slide down the DR scale.



I thought the studio folks control their light and don't really need any significant adjustments? And the landscape folks do gradients and blending multiple exposures?


----------



## Talys (Oct 7, 2017)

psolberg said:


> > Why does the Low Light score suck?
> 
> 
> high MP.



But then, why does the Sony A7RII sensor, which is nearly the same MP, score 1000 points higher? (3400+). More to my point, I think the 25-30% higher ISO score should be worth more than the 7% additional EV of dynamic range for most photographers.

I am not saying that the D850 doesn't have a great sensor -- I just think that from DXO's numbers, the Sony A7RII sensor should score better than it, if you're trying to rank them on the basis of which will likely produce better photos on a variety of subjects. It doesn't make much sense to me. 

Neither is perfect, but the A7RII's makes better compromises.


----------



## Jopa (Oct 7, 2017)

Talys said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > > Why does the Low Light score suck?
> ...



I wouldn't consider this number as a serious _score_.
If you're interested, here you can read how the scores are calculated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom_number_generator


----------



## snoke (Oct 8, 2017)

9VIII said:


> ...
> The D500 at even higher pixel density has better high ISO while losing nothing on the low ISO, Nikon skipped “something” when they made the D850.



Maybe Nikon make choice to maximize performance ISO < 800. Nobody ever know.


----------



## moreorless (Oct 8, 2017)

You look at both the A7R II and the D500 and they seem to point to the same thing, low ISO DR(not just because of the D850's ISO 64 base either) is traded off for improved noise performance. 

You are of course talking relatively minor differences here but honestly Nikon to me seems like they have a better idea of their market than Sony do.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 8, 2017)

https://www.dpreview.com/news/4939144988/nikon-d500-studio-and-dynamic-range-tests-published
The thing is the D500 doesn’t give up any DR, the D5 does and it records just 12-13 stops of DR, but the crop version in the D500 is just as clean as anything else throughout the entire ISO range.
There is something funny going on with that camera in particular.


----------



## moreorless (Oct 8, 2017)

According to DXO the D500 has a similar kind of base ISO DR to the A7R II


----------

