Messages

46

EOS Bodies / Re: Examples of DR photos and why this is important to landscape shooters

« on: June 10, 2012, 02:36:21 AM »

Check out this guy's work:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmtoh/

He shoots with the 5D Mark III and Mark II previously. When people say these cameras have poor dynamic range just point them to this guy's work 

Nobody is saying 5D Mark II has low dynamic range. Its DR was fine, similar to its competition 4 YEARS AGO!

Now, the new 5D Mark III has much lower DR than its competition. Good photographers can somewhat compensate using HDR techniques, but the facts don't change that 5D Mark III has much lower DR than the competition.

If you are a landscape shooter and are not married to Canon, then you will get much, much more bang for the buck if you use D800/E. OF course, the ultimate for landscape shooters is the MF backs, but that is beyond the scope of the DSLRs.

Too bad there aren't any good Nikon lenses that will utilize the full DR potential of the 800/E.

No FF lens can utilize a 36mpx sensor to its "full DR potential". But that does not mean they come close... coming close to the full potential yields far greater IQ than whatever inferior sensor Canon is stuck on, at least for landscape photography. I guess my point is that D800/E IQ will exceed Canon's in landscape photography, so a landscape shooter(like the OP) would definitely benefit right away.

47

EOS Bodies / Re: Will there be a 7d2 at all?

« on: June 09, 2012, 03:36:56 PM »

With the release of the updated 7d firmware, the writing's on the wall - it's hardly probably that a 7d2 is just around the corner if the year-old model gets a free facelift. So what's your take on Canon's strategy for the mid-price range?

Until Canon improves its sensors, why even bother. 7D has awesome AF and does insane FPS. Now with the buffer upgrade, it is just top of the line Canon Crop.

So, there is nothing to upgrade.

48

EOS Bodies / Re: Examples of DR photos and why this is important to landscape shooters

« on: June 09, 2012, 03:20:52 PM »

Check out this guy's work:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmtoh/

He shoots with the 5D Mark III and Mark II previously. When people say these cameras have poor dynamic range just point them to this guy's work 

Nobody is saying 5D Mark II has low dynamic range. Its DR was fine, similar to its competition 4 YEARS AGO!

Now, the new 5D Mark III has much lower DR than its competition. Good photographers can somewhat compensate using HDR techniques, but the facts don't change that 5D Mark III has much lower DR than the competition.

If you are a landscape shooter and are not married to Canon, then you will get much, much more bang for the buck if you use D800/E. OF course, the ultimate for landscape shooters is the MF backs, but that is beyond the scope of the DSLRs.

49

EOS Bodies / Different tools for different trades

« on: June 07, 2012, 01:00:16 AM »

Let's all take a deep breath and accept that some camera manufacturers have great sensors, while some manufacturers have great JPG engines. Let's all also accept that some camera manufacturers show progress by having high megapixel and high ISO cameras in one body, while some manufacturers have great JPG engines.

It is just a matter of taste and style. Some manufacturers introduce a new high megapixel body with 50% more resolution with price cut by 3-times from its previous high megapixel body, while some manufacturers have great JPG engines.

Different tools for different trades. What matters is how we use the tool.

50

EOS Bodies / Re: Please explain this (5D III's so called high ISO performance)

« on: May 17, 2012, 10:14:18 AM »

To be honest, it's been known for months that a lot of the high ISO improvement was in JPEG. Canon hinted at this with the 1dx back in October.

The jpg looks like a mush, no detail at all. I wouldn't call that an improvement.

51

EOS Bodies / Re: Please explain this (5D III's so called high ISO performance)

« on: May 17, 2012, 10:08:46 AM »

You're comparing the 5D3 at 12800 ISO to a Pentax 645D? How high does the 645D's ISO go? Do you know? I do as I have the camera. 1600 is the highest the 645d will go. So you're comparing apples and oranges.

Not only that, you are comparing much lower ISO on a camera with a much bigger sensor. These theoretical discussions bore me. If you expose correctly you'll have little noise where it matters. I shoot sometimes at higher ISO than I'd like but don't always use noise reduction in post

Talk about missing the point. The pentax image was there to show what detail is present. 5D3 high iso jpg has absolutely no detail, which was my point. That is why I don't get so called improved high iso performance of 5D3.

52

EOS Bodies / Please explain this (5D III's so called high ISO performance)

« on: May 16, 2012, 08:02:03 PM »

DxoMarks shows 5D mkIII's high iso is pretty low, much lower than its Nikon counterparts. And that is backed up by DPReview comparison tool. Have a look at this:



Absolutely no detail in 5DIII's high-iso JPG. It looks like the so-called high ISO improvement is in JPG, and only at the expense of the image quality and detail. So, please explain what is so amazing about 5DIII's high iso performance? Its RAW is same as D800's, albeit lower detail. JPG is just embarrassing.

I have Pentax has the reference. It shows what-should-have-been ideal.

53

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: I'm confused about Nikon...

« on: May 09, 2012, 12:03:05 PM »

Does anyone know their formula?

Yes, the formula that always works is.... drum roll.... the price! The higher the price, the higher the model is in the totem pole.

54

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Billipixels ? Coming to your Canon 20 yrs from now

« on: May 06, 2012, 03:48:22 PM »

Caught this on a IT site...  Things to come, if you don't mind a 3 tonne camera ;-)

Billipixel Camera

Meh, my 27mpx 5D viii is enough. Don't be such gigapixel whores. Besides, I don't want to upgrade my computer to handle that much unnecessary data. Let Sony/Nikon/Samsung/Panasonic/JVC/LG/everybody pursue the ridiculous pixels.

55

EOS Bodies / Re: Up the game

« on: May 06, 2012, 12:51:22 PM »

Still talking about the sensor......

There is much improved in the 5D Mark III to give us the shot we want...
And that's what counts.

That is the point of my threat. Clearly people do not care about the sensor, hence 5D3 being such a success so far.

56

EOS Bodies / Up the game

« on: May 06, 2012, 12:18:22 PM »

It is interesting that 5D3's comparison base is 5D2. D800 is being compared to Leica S2 and PhaseOne IQ180.

"5D3 is far better than 5D2, especially in handling, JPGs, and AF."

versus

"D800 comes close to MF like S2 and IQ180 in other aspects, but clearly fails in midtones."

57

EOS Bodies / Re: Idea for Canon?

« on: May 04, 2012, 12:48:23 AM »

And MF sensors are decade old technology. Imagine if they have similar tech to modern FF CMOS sensors. They would have 18 stop DR and usable 1million ISO.

58

EOS Bodies / Re: Idea for Canon?

« on: May 04, 2012, 12:43:47 AM »

Canon, like other sensor makes, are constantly trying to improve. Trying and achieving are two different things, though. And achieving and marketing are two separate things on top of that. Canon might have the most bad-ass DR sensor that costs tens of thousands of dollars. Or, they don't give a damn about DR, because people buy their cameras anyway. Or, they just can't achieve the DR, despite several tries. Who knows? The only way they will deliver  is when its customers demand it. Most Canon customers don't give a damn about DR.

59

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon did everything it could in 5D3

« on: April 30, 2012, 04:43:53 PM »

I'm sorry, I don't buy this theory for a nanosecond.

I think the most likely reason that the 5D3 has the specification it has is that it is designed for wedding and event photographers. If you look at this market, the price, image quality and framerate is pretty well perfect, from what I understand.

Later in the year, likely a studio camera will come out with high MP, lower frame rate, perhaps worse autofocus.

For those with less cash (enthusiasts and amateurs), there is the 5D mk 2.

Nikon is a smaller company who don't have the resources of Canon, which is why they have to buy in sensors. Canon have already proven in the 7D sensor that they can make high density excellent sensors, and even allowing for lower yield of the larger die (dye?) it is still feasible to produce circa 50MP sensors.

Canon produce cameras for markets, in order to make money.

Is this annoying to some? Sure, but don't mistake it for incompetence. Head over to bythom.com to read about how Nikon create great cameras, and then cannot make anywhere near enough lenses OR bodies to satisfy demand - now THAT my friend is incompetence...

"I've noted many times, supply is not meeting demand for many items, and that's a dangerous proposition as you always leak sales to competitors when that happens." - Tom Hogan...

So you don't believe that Canon is severely lagging behind (or incompetent, to use your terminology) in sensor technology? Even "excellent" 7D's IQ is horrible. Basically, Canon is lacking in sensor, be it incompetence or indifference.

But I agree that Nikon cannot keep up with the demand, so it could be due to a horrible supply chain (incompetence) and/or unexpected demand (circumstantial). We are living proof of that -- 3 D4 shipped, but 5 D800/D800e no clue at all.

60

EOS Bodies / Canon did everything it could in 5D3

« on: April 30, 2012, 02:38:10 PM »

I sincerely believe that Canon did everything it could to 5D3. Its AF is dramatically improved, its body is improved, and its shooting is improved. There is no question that if Canon had improved sensor, they would have made it part of 5D3. So, if/when Canon has a modern sensor, it will make it part of 5D4 or 5D5.

Canon just does not have a modern sensor or technology for the price point, thus 5D3 had to be content with 5D2 sensor.

That above was our conclusion and the factor in not completely switching to Nikon. We will hang on to our Canon gears (lenses and flashes mostly) for a year or two.