January 27, 2015, 01:57:58 PM

Show Posts

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.

Messages - dtaylor

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 57
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 08:26:44 AM »
Jon, for what it's worth, here's the first quick and dirty test I did when my D800 arrived, alongside my Mk3.

Thank you for providing these. They won't settle any arguments about HDR landscapes, but it's something.

Clearly the D800 has less shadow and red channel noise. But once again I'm stuck wondering why there's so much angst over this. Play with the NR sliders in ACR and/or add some NR in post and they're not that different. Though I will say in this case that the shadow gradation is better on Nikon and would probably appear so in print side by side after NR.

I will also make the point that the dynamic range is essentially the same between the two (as I would expect), though the D800 has more shadow latitude thanks to the lack of noise and smoother gradation (i.e. no banding).

Do I wish Canon would improve to this level? Of course. Do I think it's worth switching brands? No, though I wouldn't give anyone grief on FB for doing so.

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 01:24:08 AM »
I've seen these pushed at me numerous times on CR, and at others as a Canon defence, so you can't have seen the many I've seen.

Neuro has pushed both extensively for example.

Allow me to rephrase...I have never seen a half dozen threads about Canon T/S lenses on a Nikon site at one time.

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 12:41:18 AM »
There are many similar comments that can be made for 12800 ISO, TS17mm and other areas where Canon excel and where Canon users preach constantly.

I have never, on any forum, seen Canon users push Canon's advantages this hard. Ever.

Maybe Canon users are just happier people  ;D

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 12:39:47 AM »
Indeed.  The 7D was a top seller for years, leading to a long upgrade cycle.  The 100-400L remains popular, and despite unfortunately frequent false rumors, it's likely that Canon feels little pressure to replace it.

It's still competitive. At the short end Nikon's 80-400 AF-S is sharper, but at the long end the Canon is sharper. The worst thing about the Canon is the push/pull zoom.

In a sense Nikon "just caught up" to the Canon version in 2013. Are Nikon lenses as a whole two generations behind Canon?  ;)

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 12:32:57 AM »
To be fair, I think jrista posted two reasonable examples: one was the room interior with bright window, and the other was a stream with bright sky.

No one has posted a reasonable example. That would require both sensors shot so that all other factors are equal, and RAW files provided for everyone to evaluate. Since we do not have a 5D3 shot of the room nor a D800 shot of the stream we have no idea what the difference would actually be.

You, me, neuro, jrista, Keith...everyone here...none of us can accurately evaluate the luminance range of a scene by sight alone, nor the dynamic range of a RAW file, and compute in our brains how it might have looked on another camera. Not even close.

Absent that you get confirmation bias. Every Canon shot with a white sky or black shadow is due to 'Canon's crummy sensor.' Every Nikon shot with a good range from shadow to highlight is 'thanks to those amazing Exmor sensors.' Even if you could have swapped cameras and gotten the same results they are interpreted that way. Heck, in another thread we had jrista cruising 500px thinking obvious HDR images were single frame Exmor shots. Outside of this debate and the psychological biases it has introduced...one's frame of mind if you will...he would have never assumed some of those shots were anything but multiple frame HDRs.

We have plenty of words but no real examples save Fred Miranda's, and the difference there is simply not worth all these words.

I would love to put this to rest once and for all, but I either have to borrow a friend's D800 (which he's always using professionally) or buy a Sony A7 (which I'm planning but haven't done yet). But a half dozen threads on the same topic is pointless absent a series of "all other things equal" test shots. Real world test shots. Not black paper in a coal mine "I pushed this >5 stops and turned off all NR on the Canon and look at how much better Nikon is at 300%" nonsense.

Despite my clashes with jrista I would trust him to do this. His sunflower scene would have been a great test if he had only had a D800 to test. I suspect the noise would have been much better on the darkest frame, but the shadows would have been mud that deep. I could be wrong.

if you happen to be at one of these locations at that time of day, those two shots would benefit from the D8xx sensor.

jrista doesn't actually know this. Neither do you or I. You have to actually test both at the same scene. (Side note: based on what experience I do have processing/printing D800 RAW files I would guess there would be some benefit. I'm not convinced it would be visual, but simply less work in post. I can imagine in some cases that it would be visual, but I don't think it would ever be massive, i.e. you are still going to need and use GND filters and HDR.)

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 12:12:46 AM »
blah blah blah

and yeah great just you GO Keith! Keep up the good fight to help insure Canon lens lovers get stuck with inferior sensors for low ISO, you go!!!!

Do you have a controlled, side by side test that illustrates this inferiority in a real world scene viewed at normal sizes (i.e. 24" wide)?

Let us know when you're ready to post it.

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 12:09:08 AM »
How would you feel if Canon announced three new FF cams at Photokina, and announced that they were stopping CMOS development and using those funds for other camera technologies?

You're assuming this would save them money. In fact it would probably cost them. Sony wants a profit on the sensors they sell.

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 11:12:36 AM »
are you royal or why do you use the word "we"?

The royal we...man.

"fact" is also.. that if canon "had" the better sensors the fanboys here would be all over it.

They might bring it up. But they wouldn't be on Nikon Rumors starting post after post about it.

it's somewhere between disingenuous and downright dishonest to suggest that all people who want better DR saying that it´s all that matters.

No, but they've built it up in their minds into something it is not and talk about little else. That's why I tell people to actually do the tests, rent the equipment, try it out. The first time you push shadows from an Exmor RAW it is impressive. Then you get some some images under your belt and you realize that it's better and occasionally useful, but in less extreme cases it's not as different in print as you imagined. And in more extreme cases you're not fighting noise, but mud, and you need to HDR to get the detail you really want any way.

DxO and the various reviewers who think turning all NR off...sometimes only on the Canon file!...is clever are doing a real disservice to the photographic community at large.

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 11:03:39 AM »
i like the idea but i would like to see a resize to A4 at 360PPI (4209x2976 pixels).

Just go for 16x20. You would be lucky to see a difference in 1% of cases. Seriously. The paper you choose to print on will have more of an impact.

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 08:27:57 AM »
As for DR/exposure latitude, for all the debate on this forum there has been exactly ONE test sample shot under identical conditions, the one from Fred Miranda.

Once a test is done, it doesn't need to be repeated.

Apparently it does because the test does not support the whining about DR that appears on this forum. Not even close.

Everyone with a 5D2 or 5D3 knows how bad the noise and shadows are.

So bad you might notice in a 24" print. If the Nikon print is sitting next to it. And you have a magnifying glass  ;D

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 12:05:42 AM »

I have owned both and I very strongly disagree.

Make a case, not bland sweeping statements.

I realize this was directed at jrista and neuro, but...5D3 v D800 I would say the 5D3 is the better overall camera by a small margin. 5D3 v D810 is a wash.

If you have Canon lenses obviously the 5D3 is the superior camera. If you have Nikon lenses the 810 is superior. There is nothing in either that would make me jump brands.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: EOS M w/22mm f/2 STM $249
« on: August 29, 2014, 10:28:08 PM »
In Brazil, this kit costs $700 U.S. dollars at the official Canon store. >:( I believe there are millions of units EOS-M not sold in USA, to sell them for the price of old stale bread. :-[

That these deals keep coming up means Canon still hasn't moved all the inventory. At this price the M+22 is an absolute steal and blows out anything else near the same price. But people have mentally written off the M so it still doesn't move like it should  :(

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 29, 2014, 08:50:09 PM »
The annoyances with the D800 were not a problem for what I mostly shoot, but IQ was my main concern and the D800 had it.

I can work around almost anything except problematic IQ.

There isn't a modern ILC with "problematic IQ." There are some that are slightly better for different tasks, but that's about it. We live in a golden age of photographic technology. We argue over tiny differences that don't matter most of the time, and barely matter even when they do.

That's the cold, hard truth.

I practically went blind studying sample files from the 5D3, A7, and A7R recently. With RAW files enlarged to 36 MP I could barely see any difference while pixel peeping. In print? No. Nor will anyone else unless you label the prints and tell them which has "more" so that their basic psychology comes into play just like in wine tasting. (The jump from 24 to 36 MP sounds like a lot, but is <25% on each axis. You need a jump of 50% or more on each axis to be noticeable. And at the resolutions we're talking about, even then this only happens with extremely fine detail on very large prints.)

As for DR/exposure latitude, for all the debate on this forum there has been exactly ONE test sample shot under identical conditions, the one from Fred Miranda. And if you actually do something crazy like, you know, use the NR sliders in ACR then you end up with slightly better shadows on the Nikon. It's barely evident at 24" and invisible at smaller sizes.

IQ is a wash within a format and even between formats (m43, APS-C, FF) at low ISO unless you pick from the ends of the resolution spectrum (12 vs 36). And even then the lower resolution sensor is still very good, just not able to print as large.

Heck, even the 1" sensors from Sony and Samsung are excellent at low ISO!

You will not be missing shots on a D810 that you would get on a Mk3, Rather the other way round.

You're not going to miss shots on either unless the 5D3 happens to catch the one frame you want at 6 fps vs. 5 fps, or the D810 at 7 fps in crop mode with the grip. And that's doubtful either way. A 1DX might nail shots you want that these two miss, but 1 extra fps is...1.

And this 'Canon lenses are better than Nikons' fairytale that is spoken like it's fact round here?

Pretty much every lens manufacturer has excellent, good, and crummy glass. I will say that Canon has the most capacity in terms of design and manufacturing, and they are getting wicked good at producing glass that has excellent IQ and is dirt cheap. But basically you can accomplish anything you could want in Canon or Nikon, and 99% of anything you could want in the other mounts.

85mm? Nikon 1.4 and 1.8 are more modern and better than the Canon equivalents which were released sometime during the 2nd word war it seems.

 ::) The 85 f/1.8 is a modern design, fast focusing, with excellent IQ and bokeh. The Nikons seem sharper but have horrendous CA wide open. Meh. There are so many 85mm options now from 3rd parties that it's silly to even debate these.

I doubt it on here when 2-3 stops of DR is not desired by anyone it seems.

From the ONE test shot sample we've seen so far in...a half dozen?...threads on the topic that shall not die, DR is nearly identical with an edge to the D810 on exposure latitude. Oh my, better sell all my Canon gear   ::)

DxO scoring is used dog food. That and "comparisons" where the tester turns off all NR on the Canon file are what's driving this nonsense.

Same with the 50mm range, except who'd get either a Nikon or a Canon when the Sigma 50m Art is so amazing?

The Art is sharp, sharp, sharp...but the bokeh can be...odd. I actually like the previous Sigma 50 better and I'm sticking with it. The bokeh is stunning on that one.

Nikon 14-24 F2.8? Stunning lens that Canon has no answer for.

16-35 f/4 IS. (It took them long enough.) Now let's see an answer for Canon's T/S lenses.

My point is that this assumption that Canon lenses are superior is uninformed at best and delusional logo fandom at worst.

Kind of like assuming and arguing over and over again that Exmor has 2-3 stops more DR  ::)

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 29, 2014, 11:11:11 AM »

Crap, what do I do about the new Sony???  I need to shoot black cats in unlit coal mines and the Nikon is inferior to the Sony.  I guess the Nikon is junk and I need to get the Sony.  I'm so confused.

Please advise on which I should choose - the Nikon D810 or Sony A7S.

I found that the Apple iPad works best for taking pictures of black cats in unlit coal mines... see the attached example and notice how black the black is and how there is no noise or banding....
I can't believe you stole my Instagram shot!  You'll pay for that ;).  If you had access to the RAW file that I shot with my Sony A8S prototype (oops, just blew my NDA), you would be able to lift those shadows to see the black cats, crows, and even Neuro's unicorn.  I was actually over at Stephen Hawking's place last night showing him how I captured the inside of some black holes with the prototype.  He said, "Yeah right," so I showed him the camera sensor and he was convinced.  Look for our joint article in the next issue of Nature :P

Big deal. The A9S will let you push shadows to the point of resolving separate quantum realities. If you photograph Schrödinger's cat your RAW converter will let you see him both dead and alive!

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 29, 2014, 11:07:41 AM »
You are a sad person - is Canon paying you?

Nope. That's why I'm sad. I can only get Pentax to pay me.

Say...have you seen their new SLR with all the LED lights?  ;D

I've seen their video. Makes me want LED lights.

You can hang out with the cool young people by the pool and campfire if you have LED lights.

I wonder where you have to hang out if you have an old noisy Canon sensor?  :P  ;D

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 57