August 23, 2014, 01:23:25 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 - jrista

Pages: 1 ... 99 100 [101] 102 103 ... 265
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: January 11, 2014, 01:56:50 AM »

I levy the question many of your shots are at ISO 100, and more importantly, of those ISO 100 shots, in how many did you desperately NEED to push shadows more than two or three stops?

You keep falling into the logical fallacy trap. The logic you are using can be applied to every argument ever made against improving imaging technology.

An improvement in technology is an improvement, regardless of how many use the improvement.

You've posted large blocks of text concerning how many photographers use Canon (one might even say heavy cheer-leading), but again that's a red herring when applied to the context of technological improvements. Again, an improvement is an improvement, regardless of usage or popularity.

Sorry, but you are still misunderstanding. I am not arguing against improving technology. I am trying to make the point that more DR is not as important as a great number of photographers these days think it is, the same great number of photographers who regularly bitch about Canon not having a mere two stops of additional DR (DR they probably wouldn't use most of the time.) I've never once said Canon shouldn't improve DR...your reading into something that simply isn't there (I actually have stated I have great confidence that Canon WILL improve DR.)

If someone has a critical need for more DR RIGHT THIS VERY MINUTE, they could have more DR. Just buy a D800, or a D600. I mean, that's the only option right now. I'm not arguing against DR...if you really need it, you really need it.

It just isn't nearly as common to need that much dynamic range, and it isn't so critical to image quality in general that it is the sole thing that would improve most photographer's work. For anyone who shoots ISO 400 and higher most of the time, I would actually offer that Canon currently offers the best gear which offers the best overall image quality for the greatest number of situations: Better AF, better high ISO, faster maximum frame rates, deeper frame buffers, more consistent and continuous frame rates after the frame buffer is full, and still good DR (even though it isn't "the best") that serves the majority of photographers needs most of the time.

My posts so far are making the point that for the majority of photographers who bitch and moan and complain about Canon's low ISO DR, even if they had it, they wouldn't actually need it most of the time. I've never made the point that we shouldn't try to progress technologically on all fronts (of course we should.)

The same general argument I'm trying to make could be applied to cameras that have no AA filter on the sensor. That seems to be as much a fad right now as more DR. I am always surprised by how many photographers blather on about how they want Canon to remove the AA filter from the next camera they want, "just like Nikon did." There are SOME cases where not having an AA filter can be useful, but it is far from a particularly desirable thing. Photographers just want it because its the new thing, and its "that thing the other guy has that I want." The lack of an AA filter, unlike DR, can actually result in a detrimental impact on IQ in a lot of circumstances. AA filters are actually useful and necessary most of the time, to avoid overly sharp and "nonsense" detail that can actually detract from overall IQ. I would really like to know how many photographers that want the AA filter to be removed would actually truly benefit from that...vs. how many would actually suffer from it. I think landscape photographers are really the key group who might benefit from no AA filter...but as others have argued, landscape photographers are a rather small segment of photographers at large. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: January 11, 2014, 01:24:09 AM »
I'm quite content with the DR of my 5D3 ;D

Lovely shot. But is it only me who feels that a bit more detail in the burnt out sun area would be nicer? A grad filter or change in lighting. Just wondering... I know the hot spot is interesting but JUST A BIT MORE DETAIL perhaps?

Personally, I like it how it is. I might actually increase the glare just a bit. Not every region of a photo needs more detail, sometimes lower detail and less contrast is exactly what you want.

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: January 11, 2014, 12:06:19 AM »
I've always loved your cars! Great stuff!

Thanks. I've learned a ton from your technical ramblings, and find it very informative. I haven't posted the "EOS Bodies" forum in quite some time, but I see everyone's still whining about the same thing :)

Oh, the DR debate has actually died down a lot as of late. It's actually kind of surprising...this is the first time since he-who-shall-not-be-named was everbanned that it became a major issue again.

I am still interested in an answer to my question...I really wonder how often people actually need to lift low ISO shadows more than a couple stops. I am entirely willing to admit I'm wrong if something like a hundred people said they always need to lift four or five would really blow my mind...but I'd still happily admit I was wrong. (I don't suspect I'll have to admit anything, though...if people really need to lift that much that frequently, they should probably head back to Photography Basics 101...)

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: January 11, 2014, 12:03:22 AM »

Of those low ISO images, for how many did you have to blow highlights or block shadows to preserve the other end AND you had a difference of not more than 2-stops such that the greater low ISO DR of the Sony/Nikon sensor would have solved the problem AND of that subset, how many of those shots were rendered unusable by the lost detail in the shadows or highlights? 

You could apply this logic to every facet of image taking when arguing against technological improvements:

"Of all your high ISO shots, how many were so truly noisy that you simply couldn't use the image?"

"Of all those shots of grizzly bears, how many were truly ruined by using only a 2-stop IS system?"

The point is that Canon addressed those issues. We no longer rely on 2-stop IS systems, we have 4- to 5-stop IS systems. We no longer have to worry about noise at ISO 3200 or even ISO 6400, with the 1D X, 5D III, and 6D, they are amazingly clean.

Canon addressed the most vocal demands of their customers. Solving the problems you listed above were at the top of the customer demand list. Does no one remember what all the pros were literally demanding from Canon before the D800 hit the streets? Fewer megapixels! Better high ISO! An AF system that doesn't suck like the 1D III's did! Canon delivered what their customers asked no, we no longer have to deal with the issues you listed.

I also believe Canon will deliver on the DR front. Why? Because its what the largest and most vocal group of Canon users are screaming for now. Canon users weren't calling for more dynamic range before the D800...they were all largely satisfied with what they had. It's only SINCE the D800 that the customer demand has changed...which indicates it is more a result of "Hey, that other guy over there has more DR than I do! I want more DR, too!" syndrome (all while concurrently ignoring that they already have better AF, faster frame rate, better frame buffer handling, better glass options, better...), than the all-encompassing, singularly important, most absolutely critical factor for IQ that photographers thing it is. I one complained about it when 11-12 stops was "all" ANY camera offered, including $60,000 MFD systems (which, ironically, is what they are STILL limited yet no one complains!)...

Anyway...this is the same old thing that always crops up. Yeah, more DR == good. DR != Single Most Important IQ Factor (SMIIQF...pronounced like a "squeaky chick fart"). I'm out! Peace out!  8)

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: January 10, 2014, 11:52:04 PM »
I'm quite content with the DR of my 5D3 ;D

I've always loved your cars! Great stuff!

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: January 10, 2014, 11:42:06 PM »

Statistically, higher ISO settings are used more frequently these days than lower ISO it really baffles me that this is such a broad and ubiquitous issue. I am not saying that better low ISO DR is a bad thing, of course it's good...but it is still only one IQ factor out of many. Given how well the D800 has sold, I wouldn't go so far as to say Canon is now playing "catchup" in the low ISO DR arena yet.

Which statistic?  Can you point to the result of a scientific study?

And what exactly do you mean by “higher ISO settings”? Higher than 100, 400, 800, 1600…?

I buy into a camera system and the sensor is just one part of the system, but I would love to have the low iso DR of the D800 in my 5DIII.
It’s the one area Canon is really outperformed by just about all other manufacturers. I think they should address that for the next generation and they probably will.
All manufacturers are playing catchup in some way, because none of them are the best at everything.

High ISO...I'd call that ISO 800 or above. ISO 100, 200, and 400 I consider low ISO, although ISO 400 is kind of in the middle there, and others might have a different opinion.

I don't have a specific study. It's a simple observation, however on that I have been making over the last four years or so. (FYI, I've moderated since 2010, and have encountered and chatted with quite a number of photographers over the last four years from a wide range of photographic endeavors.) How many white Canon lenses do you see at pretty much every sporting event around the globe? Hundreds to thousands at each and every event. Canon dominates sports, hands down, no question. They really dominate action, not just sports. I spend a lot of time out in nature, and meet a fair number of nature photographers. The very vast majority of the people I've met out in the wilderness, including both wildlife and bird photographers as well as landscape photographers, overwhelmingly have Canon equipment. Canon 1D IV, Canon 5D III, and Canon 1D X are becoming almost ubiquitous in the wildlife and bird world. Canon great white lenses, 300s, 500s, and 600s, are extremely common (particularly the 500 Mark Is...lot of wildlifers and birders use that lens, guess it's at a sweet spot of weight and cost). I've met a few who have Nikon equipment, two of whom use D800's for bird photography. I know of one (now a good friend) who uses Pentax and Nikon. I also know and have encountered/chatted with a decent number of wedding & portrait photographers. Most use the Canon 5D II. A few still use the 5DC (they don't seem to care about resolution). Some use the 5D III (and all of the 5D line wedding photographers had one consistent complaint before the 5D III: Sucky AF.) I know of several wedding photographers who use Nikon and other brands (some have gone to mirrorless as of late, with a variety of brands.) I know two wedding and portrait photographers who use Nikon exclusively. One uses a D800 and D3, the other uses a D7000, with a D800 planned for very soon. I would say that Nikon seems to have a growing following in the strait portraiture arena...not so much for DR, but for the sheer amount of detail the D800 or D600 bring to the table...seems that ridiculous, razor-sharp detail that brings out every single pore is really "in" right now, and there is no question that the D800 offers that in spades.

So, sorry, I don't have an official study for you, but it really isn't a difficult observation to make. Just look around.  It's a very well-educated guess. The number of cameras and lenses that you can spot in the world that say "Canon" on them vastly outnumber  any other brand. Of those, the biggest group that uses the most cohesive set of camera features are the action shooters. Sports/Olympics, Wildlife, Birds...and you can throw in car racing, air shows (know a few guys who do this, damn good at it too), kayaking, boat racing, pretty much anything you could remotely call a sport, or has moving subjects...the camera is going to be at a higher ISO setting, and is probably a 5D III or a 1D X. The next two biggest groups would be Wedding & Portrait, and Landscapes. Not sure which is bigger...seems pretty evenly split here in Colorado, but if you hit larger metropolitan areas, I would make the educated guess that Wedding and Portrait photographers would end up significantly out-pacing the Landscape photographers (and I mean real landscape photographers...I know more people than I can count who use entry level cameras, Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, everything...and call themselves landscape photographers, but their work wouldn't land on anyones walls (no offense to anyone like this, but)...blown clouds, random people in the frame, lack of interesting composition, effectively point-and-shoot mountain peaks and a few scattered rocks or stubby evergreen trees here and there, never any post processing, thrown up on Imgur, PhotoBucket, or Facebook.)

I honestly don't have all that much knowledge about studio photographers. I can't really say how big a customer segment studio photographers might be for Canon...but I guess big enough for them to create the 1Ds line in the past. What I DO know about studio photography, it seems to lean medium format (or maybe Leica S-system) a lot more than it leans Canon, Nikon or Sony. Phase One also seems to be the brand I hear about most from the studio photogs I do know or have crossed paths with.

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: January 10, 2014, 11:17:07 PM »
This is interesting. I've never tested it in pictures, but I know in video that ISO noise is non-linear. So technically 160 is better than 100, and 320 is better than 200 or 250, so on and so forth. Wouldn't it be the same in terms of pictures?

This is a Canon quirk. It's actually one of the very few things I hate about my Canon cameras. Canon doesn't have native third-stop ISO settings. Unlike Nikon and Sony (and probably others) who use electronic gain to boost the signal on-sensor for all ISO settings (up to a certain point, like ISO 1600 or 3200, after which more complex means are usually employed to boost the signal), Canon uses a downstream secondary amplifier to additionally adjust for third-stop ISO settings.

This is also where the "ISO 160 base ISO" MYTH for Canon cameras comes from. Canon's native base ISO is literally ISO 100, no question. Canon employs a full stop gain for ISO 200. For ISO 160, Canon does a downstream third-stop "push" for ISO 125, which actually COSTS you a third of a stop of dynamic range (clipping highlights). Since it is a post-read push, it also amplifies read noise by a third of a stop (not much, but if you do end up having to push shadows around a LOT, you notice it.) For ISO 160, Canon does a downstream third-stop "pull", which again costs you a third of a stop dynamic range (crushing blacks). Since it is a post-read push, it reduces read noise by a third of a stop (hence, the notion that ISO 160 is "cleaner" than ISO is, by a minuscule amount.)

The push pattern is used for all third-stop settings just above full stops (125, 250, 500, etc.) The pull pattern is used for all third-stop settings just below full stops (160, 320, 640, etc.) Depending on the camera, this pattern is abandoned at higher ISO. It used to be that all Canon cameras employed this push/pull third-stop pattern up through ISO 1600, after which a different and more complicated approach was used. With the 5D III and 6D, I believe the pattern is employed up through ISO 6400, beyond which their more complicated approach is used. The 1D X does not seem to exhibit the same differences in noise and DR for third stops as all the rest of Canon's cameras. I am not sure why, but for whatever reason, the 1D X third stops are much better and more linear overall, and therefor much more usable (with no loss of DR.)

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: January 10, 2014, 11:08:12 PM »
When approaching the conversation with intellectual honesty, one cannot dispute that low ISO IQ is an important aspect of photography....especially for nature photographers.

AN important aspect of photography. Not THE important aspect of photography. You made my point for me.

Yes, it is important, I said as much. It is no where near as important as a growing number of photographers seem to think. It is AN important factor of IQ, but by no means the singular most important one. You are also missing part of my point. Canon has dynamic range, quite a lot of it in the grand scheme of things. The argument I was debating was that Canon so utterly and desperately needed more low ISO DR.

I levy the question many of your shots are at ISO 100, and more importantly, of those ISO 100 shots, in how many did you desperately NEED to push shadows more than two or three stops?

Privatebydesign offered part of the answer:

That is an interesting question that illustrates why there are so many diverse opinions about th same piece of equipment, we all use them differently.

As for me I took a look, of my last 19,500 images, 9,000 were at 100iso, 7,500 at 200iso, 2,000 at 400 iso and 1,500 at 800 and other random intermediate iso stops.

I'd like higher low iso image quality. But I am not going to spit my dummy out waiting for it.

We know how many he takes at low ISO. He takes a lot, but that doesn't address my actual question, and the question that actually pertains to having more than 12 stops of DR at ISO 100: How many of those 9000 ISO 100 images needed to be pushed by four, five, or six stops? I would guess VERY FEW. Practically none, unless PBD shoots exceptionally difficult scenes with massive dynamic range on a regular basis/for a living. If that is the case, then hell, I highly recommend a D800 for him. In the grand scheme of things, though, I doubt most photographers even think about pushing shadows that much (or could even find a legitimate reason to.)

Personally, I've taken about 55,000 photos at ISO 800 - 3200. I've taken about 15,000 at ISO 400, and less than 10,000 at ISO 100 and 200. Of the ISO 100 photos, I have needed more dynamic range than my 7D offers in about 2000 shots, however I am usually short by maybe one stop (and that is more because of the 7D pixel size...if I had a 5D III, I would have what I need for pretty much everything I've shot before.) In the cases where slight vertical banding noise did show up in the shadows (maybe a couple hundred at most)...I used Topaz DeNoise 5, and was not only able to remove the banding, but I also gained more dynamic range (that's what happens when you reduce noise gain DR, but Topaz has a feature that attempts to further recover DR that was lost to shadow noise due to a loss of tonal fidelity, which gains me even more.)

I use GND filtration for my landscape photography, so dynamic range is actually something I have a lot of control over in the field. I would actually greatly appreciate more native sensor DR, as it would reduce my need to use GND filters. It would also help me avoid that unsightly GND artifact where mountaintops end up dark or even black when you need to use more than two to three stops of filtration. That is the single situation where I think having more dynamic range would actually be the most important factor for IQ...ONE situation. I also suspect that tonemapping 14 stops into 8-10 stops without ending up with quirky shifts in contrast and color fidelity would still be very challenging, and I highly doubt I would stop using GND filters even if I had a D800. I still doubt I would push shadows around more than 2-3 stops....but it would be 2-3 stops along with fewer GND filters, which still makes the job easier in the end.

Again, I am not saying more DR is bad. Certainly not. I would just like to know, given how many people have started complaining about it since the release of the D800, how many of them actually have a real-world USE for more DR. Of PBD's 9000 ISO 100 how many did he actually push shadows around more than 2 stops? That's the real indicator of how much dynamic range we NEED, vs. how much more dynamic range we just WANT because, well, you know...the other guy has it.

Personally, I know the use cases I would love to have more DR for. It's a small fraction of my work. I also know that the kind of photography I do most is in line with the majority of DSLR users...action. Action photographers are what make the Canon Photography world go round. There are far more action shooters than any other kind of shooter, when you factor in sports, air shows, car races, bike races, watersports, wildlive, birds, and all those little children running around dimly lit houses. I want more DR, but I also know it isn't the singular most important IQ factor that so many forum talkers seem to think it is. If more people would honestly answer the question: "How often do you NEED to lift ISO 100 shadows more than 2-3 stops?" I think people might get a clearer picture of how important more dynamic range actually is to their work.

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: January 10, 2014, 06:33:20 PM »

Canon is not the one playing catch up here.

In terms of low ISO IQ they most certainly are.

Low ISO IQ is a tiny factor out of hundreds that affect image quality. I find it so incredibly ironic that low ISO IQ is apparently the single most important thing for so many "photographers". How many of you who complain about low ISO IQ actually use low ISO all that often? And for those of you who do use low ISO, how often is it that you actually need to lift your shadows more than a few stops? Canon's current crop of cameras is quite capable of being lifted 2-3 stops without issues at low is only when you get into the realm of lifting 4-6 stops (or, if you are a true psycho, 8-10 stops by using Lightroom's exposure brush!!)...but lifting any photo's shadows by that much inevitably results in other issues...funky contrast transitions as you move from bright midtones to shadows, strange noise and color fidelity gradients, etc. I would honestly be extremely surprised if as many people who complain about low ISO performance actually lift shadows 4+ stops on a consistent basis.

Statistically, higher ISO settings are used more frequently these days than lower ISO it really baffles me that this is such a broad and ubiquitous issue. I am not saying that better low ISO DR is a bad thing, of course it's good...but it is still only one IQ factor out of many. Given how well the D800 has sold, I wouldn't go so far as to say Canon is now playing "catchup" in the low ISO DR arena yet.

EOS Bodies / Re: Where are Canons innovation?
« on: January 10, 2014, 06:28:26 PM »

I think Nikon could probably fabricate their own sensors. They used to in years past. Their management thought it would be more profitable to stop investing money in their own fabrication, and buy their sensors and the like third party. I don't think that decision really changed the fundamentals for Nikon.

I think they could too, but it takes time to ramp up to speed, plus, who actually owns the design for the sensor???

What happens if a Chinese company decides to get into DSLR's and gets their financial hands on Sony? Poof! They now have sensors and a fabrication facility... and with this, away goes the Nikon supply.

A lot of camera components are fairly easy to manufacture and there are numerous facilities around the world that you can contract out to fairly easily, but the two killers are large sensors (lots of competition for p/s fabrication) and large optical elements. That's probably why Canon keeps it's fluorite lens facility "close to home"

And back to the topic about where are Canon's innovations... you have to look at lenses... fluorite glass, nano-coatings, lightweight materials, focusing motors and algorithms, diffractive optics, and slip-in teleconverters. You can't tell the difference between a series one and a series two "big white" by looking at them from the outside, but pick them up and use them.... lighter, faster and better focusing, stellar image quality... it had to come from somewhere.

And going back to camera bodies, look at the Digic chips.... go back to the not so distant past and pick up a 5D2 with it's Digic4 processor. Then we went to dual Digic4 (2X faster), the Digic5 (6X faster), then Digic5+ (17X faster), and the 1DX with dual Digic5+ (34X faster). With 34 times the computing power of a 5D2, you can bet that there has been a lot of work and innovation on the processing algorithms, and what is to come? Digic 6 is out in p/s cameras and I would not be surprised to see dual Digic6 in the rumoured 7D2... will it have the computing power to track and focus on that bird in flight, recognizing which part of the image is the bird and which part to ignore?

All good points, and I agree with all of them.

I actually find it a bit sad that Nikon is the company they are. I actually kind of wish they were a bit more conservative, and able to put up more of a fight against Canon and Sony. Over the long term, I actually wonder if Nikon will still be here in ten years as the second major photography company, or whether Sony will have taken over. All things being equal, I still consider Nikon equipment to be superior to Sony, and losing them as a major competitor would actually be a huge negative for Canon would eliminate a key competitor, and that would only mean Canon's conservative nature (which is currently their strength) would assert itself with a vengeance (which would still be good for Canon, but might actually end up being bad for the consumer and professional in the long run.)

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: January 10, 2014, 06:22:43 PM »
I rented  a d800 and two  good  lenses .  My test  shoots with  my own  5dmk3 and D800 shows that Canon are far behind in digital imaging , resolution , color depth and dynamic range.
Sony 36Mp together with my Canon lenses  will be next  rental try fom my  side
A Swedish Winnie the Poo (Nalle Puh)... Post 1, love anything but Canon, concerned with DR ... Give us a break  ::)

Swedish Winnie the Poo also ignores the empirical facts. Even DXO, the organization much loathed by Canon users, demonstrates that a 5D III with most L-series lenses (usually on the longer end) is actually BETTER than the D800 with Nikon's best glass from a resolution standpoint. All those extra megapixels on the D800 are only enough to bring it up to par with the 5D III on longer glass. Canon still suffers on the wide angle end of things, but hopefully 2014 will be the year that changes that.

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: January 10, 2014, 05:05:34 PM »
One more Duck near Hopetoun Falls, Otway Ranges, Cumberland River, Victoria, Australia

Boy, he's a beauty!

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: January 10, 2014, 05:05:07 PM »
Canon hasn't answered the D800/E yet.

Why is that an issue? Why is it necessary for Canon to "answer" ANYTHING from the competition? I feel like I just answered this in another thread...Canon has never directly competed model for model with their competition. Instead, Canon produces what their customers ask for, and so far, given their track record, they WILL release compelling products that Canon customers want in the years to come.

EOS Bodies / Re: Where are Canons innovation?
« on: January 10, 2014, 05:03:21 PM »
Nikon doesn't make a fraction of the revenue Canon does on their photography division. That doesn't bode well for future Nikon innovation. As it stands, the bulk of the innovation in Nikon's most recent camera bodies came from other companies, like Sony. That is a precarious position to be in...relying on other companies so much. If any one of them faltered or failed, Nikon could be dragged right down with them.
This is a point so important that it is staggering! There are not a lot of companies out there producing large quantities of imaging sensors that could go into DSLR's... What happens if Sony fails, or at the least, gets rid of the portion of it's business that makes the sensors for Nikon? Hopefully, someone will buy that division and the production will continue, but if it doesn't, Nikon will be out of business until someone else can set up a production line and get up to speed... a process that will take years....

I think Nikon could probably fabricate their own sensors. They used to in years past. Their management thought it would be more profitable to stop investing money in their own fabrication, and buy their sensors and the like third party. I don't think that decision really changed the fundamentals for Nikon.

I don't think sensor IQ has been nearly as much of a boon for Nikon as it should have been...and I think the reason why is Nikon doesn't have nearly the production pipeline consistency and quality that Canon does. I never noticed it when I was first in the market for a camera...I was only looking at the low end, comparing Canon and Nikon entry level bodies. But in recent years, I've been completely baffled by Nikon's model naming scheme. It doesn't make any sense, which to me indicates some more fundamental underlying issue at Nikon that is giving rise to the naming issue.

Additionally, Nikon seems to expend a lot of effort on things that really aren't going to change their status quo. The Df is one of those things. I understand the mentality behind it...Nikon management probably feels the need to set themselves apart on a product by product basis, and the Df is an intriguing release in that it is supposedly "stills only focused". But the Df still demonstrates the same underlying attention-deficit that Nikon's naming scheme was rushed onto the market, and clearly demonstrates a major debacle on the control front.

We can't forget all the misshaps with recent camera releases as well. Poor ergonomics and bad choices for button placements. The yellow-green LCD issue with the D800. The AF point issues with the D800. The oil spots issue with the D600. The choice to RENAME the "bugfix" for the D600 issue by calling the camera the D6100. Not to mention the customer support nightmare that it was for Nikon users who actually encountered these issues, and ended up getting the runaround for a couple months before Nikon support SLOWLY started to SPORADICALLY acknowledge the issue actually did exist, and finally start fixing it (which still often took multiple round trips, on the customers dime for shipping cost).

Alliances or no, Nikon has some other kind of fundamental issue internally that is the core of their problem. They demonstrate a kind of corporate schizophrenia, like different parts of the company have different voices telling them to do odd things...

EOS Bodies / Re: Where are Canons innovation?
« on: January 10, 2014, 04:15:14 PM »
Dont get me wrong, I do like my canon dslr, and as several people has pointed out, they are very very good at lenses. My 70-200 F4L IS is absolutely fantastic!!! In a couple of years, when I´m gonna change camera, I probably will stick with canon. My only reason to jump to Sony is to be able to share accessories/lenses with my wifes nex.

Well, have fun with Sony. Sony makes a lot of products...but since the late 1980's when I first started using Sony products, I have to say, I've never been as impressed with Sony anything as I have been with other brands. Some aspects of Sony technologies intrigue me, but their final end products always seem lacking and lackluster. The A7r, for example, while an intriguing product with a great sensor (an aspect of the technology) just doesn't seem to impress "overall". I seriously considered getting one myself, but the whole package just isn't there...not on the same level as a Canon. I would honestly rather get an EOS-M, and have a well thought out full package, than get the A7r..."just for it's sensor". I'd be frustrated with all the rest...all the time.

Pages: 1 ... 99 100 [101] 102 103 ... 265