« on: September 20, 2014, 12:32:16 PM »
Increase minimum shutter speed for Av mode to at least 1/2000 like the 1DX. Preferably just copy the 7D2's Auto ISO behavior.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Oh, and yes: it's unfortunate the A7 seems perform worse than the A7R at high ISO (~1/3 EV worse?). Not sure what happened there. Lower effective QE b/c of on-sensor PDAF? If this weren't the case, the A7 would probably be the better camera b/c it has on-sensor PDAF that helps it track (noticeably better than the A7S/R, which just hunt back and forth while trying to track, potentially leading to completely OOF images in AF-C), and EFC which means you can actually use it with telephoto lenses.
I can't speak specifically to the A7. I haven't edited any of it's files. I guess I assumed the A7 had similar quality to the A7s, which doesn't seem to be that bad. I'm not surprised, though. The A7 was the first of the A7 line, and I think Sony rushed it a bit. Hopefully they will get better with successive models...and hopefully, they will stop compressing the raws with a lossy algorithm.
I also wouldn't say Canon "trounces" anything at high ISO. High ISO is primarily limited by physics. Canon has a marginal benefit at high ISO vs. cameras that are now becoming "last" generation, like the D800. The Nikon D810 closes the gap with the 5D III a bit more, and starts to encroach on 1D X territory at really high ISO (I actually think the D810 offers more DR at ultra high ISO than the 5D III...on a normalized basis, the D810 gets 7.7 stops of DR at ISO 51200 to the 5D III's 5.7 stops).
The only thing out there right now that is really "trouncing" any other camera at high ISO is the A7s. It actually enjoys a two-stop advantage over the 1D X at ISO 51200, bringing nearly 9 stops (8.8 to be exact) of DR at that level. At lower ISO's it actually normalizes out a bit with the 1D X...the A7s' true advantage is at the ultra high ISO settings, and it does a remarkably good job.
If you're going to complain about apples to oranges, at least compare Canon's best against Nikon's best. At pixel level, the D810 has a 1.9EV advantage over the 6D and a 2.2 stop advantage when both are downsampled to 8MP. The 6D has a 1 stop advantage at ISOs over 800 at a pixel level and 2/3 stop advantage when downsampled to 8MP.
OK, that's fair.
The D810 still has higher DR at higher ISOs if you use your camera in a smarter way though, so those DxO higher ISO DR values are meaningless to me.
I find this resistance to improved technology incredibly strange...to the point where I simply don't believe it.But that's actually fairly normal behaviour, culture changes in generational steps. In many areas of society you literally have to wait for the "old guard" to die off before new ideas can be taken seriously.[/b]
Can I ask...in the context of this discussion, how does going from ~12 to ~14 stops of DR, or going from 22 to 36 MP, represent 'new ideas' requiring the 'old guard' to die off before they're adopted? If you're talking about the switch from film to digital, or from vinyl to CDs, that's fine...but those are paradigm shifts in technology. To suggest that the differences between current Canon and SoNikon sensors are a paradigm shift is ludicrous. Rather, those differences are minor, incremental improvements. Real improvements, yes...but minor.
You and I both know the difference is actually 3 stops: 11EV vs 14EV. Add FPN to the Canon and the practical DR is even less.
Why are you down-playing the difference? It actually approaches an order of magnitude, if not more.
And each type of photographer is making the right decision....for them.
What is Nikon's top of the line body? Is it the D4s or is it the 810?
Hint... The D4s is $6500 and the D810 is under $3K.
Nikon's top of line camera, as well as Canon's often have lower MP than their next-in-line - hence 18MP for the 1Dx and 22 MP for the 5D MK III
the 1Ds MK III was 21MP and the 1D MK IV was 16 MP, so Canon has the history in the 1D body of having a more all around and then a Studio / high MP model. The 1Dx was sort of a change.
So sorry, from what the rumor is and what placement makes sense, if this is a high MP studio body then this is competing against the D4s and it would be 1Dx vs D4 and 1Dxs vs D4s
Something tells me Nikon fanboys don't like that comparison.
I have the Sigma 35A, and can't stop singing it's praises. Maybe i was extremely lucky, but my sample hasn't got any problems focusing, with any AF point, on my 6D. Or maybe i'm not as picky as the average CR forums user.
Anyway, i was so positively impressed by the 35A that i was almost certain i would have got the Sigma 50A as well, but i must admit that it's getting a lot more "bad focus" reports from the user, and this scared me. It could be that on a 35mm long lens the DoF is higher, thus the focusing imperfections may pass undetected, contrary to the less forgiving longer focal length of the 50A.
I could see this. Canon has been rumored to have a high MP out in the wild and this would make sense to me to be a Pro body studio / landscape camera. I don't consider this competition to the 810, but rather squashes the D4s... you know... that is supposed to be Nikon's "flagship" camera.
Its interesting that Fred Miranda posted that he trusts the OP more than the Rumor sites. The poster is a long time FM member.
Sony's superteles are white, too. I think when you make your lenses white it means "we're really super serious about photos, guys. Super. Serious." I'm gonna guess $8k intro price.
The whiteish colour is not just for good looks. It prevents the lens from thermic expansion (e.g. from prolonged sunlight exposure), which would lead to misaligments in the barrel (even a few microns can make or break it). At least, that's what the Canon has been proclaiming for years...
Looks like fake. Front element from 14-24 Nikkor and the rest from 17-40.
Canon will never put a red ring on a hood, it will be on a body, even with integrated hood.
I reset the camera, and tried that, and it still did not work. Then, I just hit the AF mode button (the one on the back, which you press first, before pressing M-Fn to actually switch modes), and moved the joystick. That worked. So, in most AF modes, you can just move the joystick, and the selected AF point moves. But in all points mode, you have to first hit mode, then use the joystick to move the AF point? Seems very tedious...
But, it does seem to work...mostly. It does initially lock onto the subject under my selected point...but it jumps a lot. As I track, it doesn't seem to really STICK to the originally selected subject...which is kind of annoying. I am not using my 600mm lens, though, so maybe it will work better on that.