« on: Today at 03:18:10 PM »
50 MP, 16 stops of DR. Canon must respond to that!!
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.
Maybe I should just stick to Kirk then and get the BH-1 if both ballheads are close in performance.
Put another way, it took Nikon two generations to come up with a camera that approaches the 5DIII in overall utility...and I bet the 5DIII outsells the D810 just as it did the D800/E.Errrrrrr I don't think we are talking sales figures here but camera technology. Precisely where does the D810 not exceed a Canon 5DIII? Nikon D810 exceeds the 5DIII in any reasonable comparison. In quality of the sensor it absolutely trounces the Canon. lets not distract the conversation with lens line or spots on the D600 sensor and stick to the comparison between the 5DIII and the D810 bodies. The 5DIII "approaches" the D810 in some respects...but exceeds it in none. BTW I own and love the 5DIII but it is outclassed by the newer D810. Yes, Canon is 2 generations behind, at least on sensors and it doesn't look like that is going to change anytime soon
Same thing one step up – it took Nikon until the D4s to approach the 1D X.
810 doesn't just approach the 5d3, in tech, it pulls out and passes it and flips the bird at it on the way by.AF system...5DIII > D810.
Everything I have read from people who have tested says the opposite - what do you build this claim on?
810 doesn't just approach the 5d3, in tech, it pulls out and passes it and flips the bird at it on the way by.
I'm not sure what caused the Hoya to get stuck so badly. Was it the filter's aluminum frame?
The thin B+W polarizing filters are expensive, but I may end up getting a 77mm since it is the size I use most.
Interesting that you shot the 100-400 mostly from a tripod, except for BIF (if you don't have a gimbal head for your 600 II, get one!). I think the fraction of 100-400L shooters who shoot birds/wildlife with a tripod is very small.
Most of the people that I know who have gotten into shooting birds, got there through bird watching. Among serious birders, you see an awful lot of tripods holding the binoculars. It is a small step to go from binoculars on a tripod to cameras on a tripod.... so you see a lot of bird photographers (around here anyway) shooting from tripods.
As to wildlife photographers.... I haven't a clue...
Were debating reach-limited situations, where a tripod is highly likely, and if you know what your doing, with the ability to use an optimal ISO for either camera....
Shooting birds/wildlife/(sports) is arguably one of the most common, if not the most common, 'reach-limited' scenario. When you were shooting birds and wildlife before getting a 600/4L IS II and 5DIII, IIRC you primarily used a 7D + 100-400L. That's an eminently hand-holdable combo (I know, because it's what I used for birds/wildlife before getting a 1D X and 600 II). What percentage of your reach limited 7D + 100-400L bird/wildlife shots were from a tripod? (Note: if you cropped the image more than a small reframing in post, you were reach limited.)
The 'optimal ISO' for any camera is as low as possible. What percentage of your 7D + 100-400L bird/wildlife shots were at ISO 100?
You seem to be suggesting that most 'reach limited' shooters are using a tripod and base ISO, and I seriously doubt that's the case. You're also implying that anyone not using a tripod and shooting at base ISO when reach limited doesn't know what they're doing, meaning you might not like the obvious implication if you can't honestly answer the above two questions as 100%.
The vast majority of my bird photos were shot from a tripod, 100-400 and 600 alike. I've hand-held both, and for BIF I hand-hold, but for the most part, my bird photography is from a tripod. I'd say the majority of my wildlife is from a tripod as well, although I hand-hold for that more often. I've cropped to as little as 10% of the frame before, however as my skill improved, crops were usually 50% or so of the frame, which is still definitely reach limited.
I also NEVER said base ISO. I don't know why I have to keep saying this, but please don't put words in my mouth. I explicitly said ISO 400 and 800, as in decent light or better, that's usually where I am (and ISO 1600)...and decent light or better is what you want! It is only in post-sunset light that I've shot at ISO 3200 and up, however the 7D has done very well at ISO 3200 in the past...but again, from a tripod. I very rarely shoot anything at base ISO, but that isn't the point here. The point is that the primary target group for the 7D II is the same target group for the 7D...bird and wildlife shooters.
Hand-holding throws a massive amount of uncertainty into the mix. It doesn't matter if you are hand-holding a crop camera or a full frame camera...hand-holding completely removes any consistency, even for the same photographer. You could just as easily have someone with very steady hands and excellent skill with a 7D and someone with unsteady hands with a 5D III or 1D X. We want a fair comparison between the resolution of a crop camera and a full frame camera. Hand-holdability eliminates any possibility of a reasonable comparison. As Don said, this whole hand-holdability vs. tripod argument is a red herring. It UNNECESSARILY complicates things, for absolutely no gain whatsoever.
We can compare the sensors of crop and FF cameras. We HAVE compared them, on many occasions. PBD himself has often shared his own comparison, which says the same thing as everyone elses, that crop cameras (even the 7D, with it's stronger AA filter) is still resolving more detail than a FF sensor. I disagree with the assertion that the resolution difference is completely and blatantly obvious between say the 7D and 5D III, however it is a visible difference. The difference between a 1D X and 7D is larger. The difference between a 5D III or 1D X and 70D is even larger. Throw in a Nikon 24mp APS-C camera, and the difference is even larger.
This isn't rocket science, and we don't need to convolute the whole issue to favor one side of the argument or another. Smaller pixels == better. I don't think anyone would argue that the D800 has more resolution than the 5D III...the D800's pixels are 4.9µm, where as the 7D's pixels are 4.3µm, the 70D's are 4.15µm, and the D5300 has 3.9µm pixels. If no one denies that the D800 has more resolving power than a 5D III, then why are we debating whether a 7D, 70D, 7D II, D5300, or any other sensor with SMALLER pixels has more resolving power than a 5D III?
In a fight between physics and fantasy, my money is on physics.
Which ignores the fact that newer crop sensors are waaay better in the high ISO noise stakes than old FF cameras.
There's more to this than "just" physics...
even DxO gets this: