I'd do that if it were even remotely possible that something constructive would come out of any of this.Nice cop out, way to go.
Yes, that's it, I'm copping out. It couldn't possibly be that I've chosen to stop responding to certain people who are quicker to retort than to re-evaluate their position. That will come up with any justification so as to not have to change their long held tenets.
Let's take a look at some examples of this illogical, unreasonable sentiment over the years... kind of like a 'Greatest Hits.' This is literally stuff from 2-3 years ago:
- I present clear full-resolution side-by-sides images of a Nikon 14-24 vs. Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II showing just how much better the 14-24 is. Which, actually, has been well known for a while - nothing ground-breaking here. And yet it was claimed it was an invalid comparison b/c the shots were taken minutes apart & the lighting had changed. Yes, b/c the lighting would've totally reversed these results:
The Canon gets better by f/11, but still can't keep up with the Nikon at f/2.8:
But that was just impossible to believe, so any excuse was made to invalidate the claim. Then I even backed it up with data from lenstip that I plotted, showing that they found that the Canon lens' extreme performance can never, at any aperture, catch up to the Nikon's extreme performance wide open:
Hmm... sounds strangely reminiscent of the real-world images I presented. But, hey, I'm still wrong, you know b/c the lighting was a little off. Or something.
Oh, and btw, now it's totally OK to say the new Canon 16-35 f/4L rocks compared to the old f/2.8L. B/c Canon can beat Canon, but Nikon can't. No way.
- Oh, and remember this whole fiasco?
Apparently, that was all wrong, according to jrista, b/c the highlights weren't close enough to clipping in the G/B channels and ACR could've recovered more had I exposed more. That made it worthy of comments like 'DON'T BUY INTO THIS BULL PPL!!'. Yes, b/c giving it a half stop more exposure before the red channel completely blew would've *totally* changed the outcome of this test - which was designed to show that the Nikon still gives you more highlight headroom for scenes with more DR than this one. And believe it or not, the above isn't even a high DR scene. A higher DR scene is when clouds light up 20 minutes *after* sunset, glowing bright (and requiring shorter exposures) from the last light of the sun, while the foreground is dark b/c there's no direct light hitting it. You know, what landscape photographers always like to shoot. But I guess I should waited months, years, until I happened to sample that sunrise/sunset, before I posted my results, right? Because *that* would've made the comparison valid. And this is entirely invalid, and *doesn't* demonstrate that the Nikon gives you significantly more room for brighter highlights and higher DR scenes. No, this doesn't demonstrate that at all. Again, any argument you can find so you can continue to engage in your confirmation bias.
- I'm not even going to get into the vehement back and forth when I pointed out that a Nikon or 1D X with a separate color sensor can stay locked onto subjects in more robust scenarios than a 5D3. Apparently, I was mistaken b/c I didn't RTFM, not b/c an actual separate sensor that can 'see' color/subjects could actually help track subjects better than a system simply working off of a depth map of the AF points.
Silver lining there was that some people did come out & say something to the effect of 'that's really cool, my 5D3 can't do that'. And I'll be glad if even one person learned what I learned there when I first discovered it - a new tool that seriously helped my work and creative spark.
Do you see a pattern here? I don't have an agenda for one brand or the other here. I'm just pointing out the things I discovered about other systems (Nikon and Sony) as I explored them, having been a Canon shooter for decades. You can argue that Canon offers other benefits. I argue that myself, like the wireless flash, the cross-type AF points, lenses, etc. But that's not even what most of you argue. You argue that my entire demonstration or point is invalid, b/c then at least you can rest in comfort knowing that the system you love has not adequately been challenged by this farce of "evidence". You say I should've stopped down my prime to zoom-level apertures, or underexposing images by 4 stops has never been sound practice in the history of photography*. All of which miss my point: better technology opens up creative doors and, yes, challenges the status quo of what's existed for years.
Me? I can accept when my equipment fails in certain respects. I accepted it for years with Canon, until I found both Nikon and Sony work better for me. And now I have to accept the shortcomings for these systems which, fortunately, are less serious than what I dealt with when it came to Canon. Do I not realize the shortcomings of my new systems? Nope. A7R shutter shock & lossy compressions are serious issues, nevermind its focus compared to pro-level DSLRs. Nikon's lack of cross-type points leads to serious hunting at times with off-center points. I suppose if I posted these comments on Sony & Nikon forums, I'd be told to RTFM. But I guess you guys here will just eat it up. B/c as long as it's 'point: Canon', it's A-OK.
You can't say anything against your god (Canon) when it comes to certain people in this crowd. There is no room for debate or conversation with you folks. So I choose to stop.
What's incredibly stupid on my part is expending as much effort as I already have. Perhaps it'll be of some benefit to bystanders reading the thread who are otherwise mislead by people's assertions that:
- Underexposing by 3 stops or more has never been sound in the history of photography, and so never will (Reality: It is now, especially if it's done by only changing the level of ISO amplification. Not only is it sound, it's the only sensible thing to do if you want stops and stops of highlight headroom).
- Did you process your file in DPP? B/c that magically gives you more DR! (Reality: No it doesn't, it just applies more NR, which you could do to Nikon files as well - so the DR differences predicted by DxO really are real...)
- Canon still has the advantage when it comes to ISO performance (Reality: Nope, that would be Sony and medium format now).
- Yeah but the 1D X and 6D still have more high ISO DR than Exmor, so there! (Reality: Nope, not if you know how to use your camera appropriately... Exmor can maintain its low ISO DR at higher ISOs)
Innocent bystanders: don't buy these myths. Try stuff out for yourself. Push technology. Push horizons. Discover. Have fun.
And now, Neuro, go ahead and keep bullying people asking for lens cap shots, even though those are the simplest, quickest way to get an idea of sensor-level read noise for a newly released camera without asking some unknown person to actually set up a controlled test. I know you can't imagine how that might be valuable, so you should continue making fun of people who actually know how to utilize that data to determine early on if a camera is worth pre-ordering. That's totally an acceptable form of behavior, on the internet anyway.
*And yet shooting at ISO 1600 - which deprives the sensor of 4 stops of light compared to ISO 100 in the traditional sense - is OK... hmm perhaps zlatko didn't understand that changing the ISO setting on your camera doesn't actually change the native sensitivity of the sensor. All it does is amplify the data. Well, me raising the exposure +4 stops is 'amplifying the data' - just at a different step of signal processing. Why is one valid and the other not? And that's the point - it *is* valid for Nikon/Exmor, just not for Canon, where you have to amplify early on. So this requires a shift in thinking, and it doesn't change my point: being able to amplify later is advantageous b/c it gives you stops and stops of highlight headroom, essentially giving you the full DR of the sensor at higher ISOs (there are limitations at extremely high ISOs, but I won't go into that here).