you could also look at the 5dmk2
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.
Meh, I want to see a comparsion using equivalent focal lengths 210 and 200mm is fine.. but the framing must be exactly the same (subject takes up the same percentage on the sensor). Both images downsampled (never upsampled) to fit here on the site. Any crops (as long as there's no upsampling ) should be fine... ex: 100% on the sx50 and 55% on the 5D mark III (for equivalent sized images.)
other than that it's apples and oranges.
I think cropping the full frame would still look same or better. A 300 f/2.8 on a 1DX beats same lens on 7D. Are you stating that the crop would out resolve it in terms of actually visible image quality? Not just theoretical numbers?
Have you tested this using both cameras? Not being argumentative just wondering how you know this?
It does; they are; they haven't; and they don't.
Not only does the 1DX cropped beat the 7D, but the 5DIII cropped beats the 7D, and the 1DX beats the 5DIII.
Any time anybody starts mouthing megapickle measurebator myths, it's safe to assume they've never actually done any meaningful photography with the gear in question.
If you had exposed optimally for the look you wanted to end up with then either manufacturers camera could have done that, with ease. But you didn't, you underexposed both and one is better at sorting out your mistake than the other, Had you overexposed both then the Canon, in my experience, would have been a better file to give you the result you wanted, Canon RAW files have much better highlight recovery potential than Nikon RAW files do.
Learn how to expose optimally for the image you want and your equipments capabilities and stop relying on being able to post process the crap out of badly underexposed images when taken with a Canon. Ever notice that nobody ever complains about the highlight recovery of Canon? That is not true if you look at Nikon forums, all Nikon users know you must underexpose to get optimal results, start overexposing your Canon and your "issues" will largely evaporate.
Well, I wonder how ISO 51k RAW will look like in APS-C. Or even at 102k. If sometimes my 5D3 gets to its limits @ 25k and 51k. Might a thouroughly new sensor tech make that possible...? With these specs a next update of a 5D could see native ISOs 100-51200 (L 50, H1 102400, 204800) and an 1Dx (H1 204800, H2 409600) !!!
But, let's keep in mind what NL also added:
"Not from a well known source, so I'm still looking for confirmation of different aspects."
BTW, the 5DIII has excellent DR. 14 bit compared to 12 bit on earlier models. For video, wide DR will usually get you into trouble when you start editing your clips and compressing for DVDs. HTP will get you closer to that compressed DR needed for video work.I think 5ds file of any generation would fit nicely into a 12bit file without any loss.
The 5D Mark III has MUCH more highlight headroom and MUCH cleaner shadows than the 5D Mark II. I've extensivly compared both and carefully studied both of these aspects for a review website.
Your camera is deffective or you are mistaken. You also might have the camera set up wrong such as auto lighting optimizer set incorrectly.
I agree... if your dynamic range is worse than the 5D Mark II, something's definitely wrong with either your camera or your processing.
Shooting both system is a mind-opening experience.
I bought a D600 with a 85/1.8G and I couldn't be happier. There are a lot of false prejudices about both systems widespread mostly from people who shoot one of them and happened to play around with the other for 5 min or a couple of days. They mostly derive from the absurd assumption that a Nikon camera has to feel and work the same as a Canon - otherwise it's wrong and weird. And viceversa of course.
Shoot with a Nikon camera and a good lens and you'll see for yourself. As many others have said, if you're into landscapes a D800E is the best thing you can buy.
I've never even cared for DxO marks tbh, and dont get why anyone does, photographys an art, not a game of top trumpsYou are certainly free to treat photography as an art-form only. Why are you then spending time on a forum about gear?
I see photography as a marriage between art and science. You can't have one without the other.
I think of new sensor, touchscreen and WiFi, that's it.direct post to FB button would be nice too
here is my guess: based on number of pre-order numbers of nikon d7100 is not as many as expected, they admits their problems with d600 with a hope of drawing more pre-order on d7100...
I'm not sure how anyone here would have information about pre-orders of the D7100, or the Nikon forecast, but the worldwide economy is not conducive to sales of big ticket items. None of the camera manufacturers are likely to meet their sales forcasts, and they downgrade them every quarter.
Canon has the price advantage with the 60D costing far less than the D7000 / D7100, and, in tough times, that is a huge advantage. Even buyers who can afford more hold back and go for lower priced equipment.
24mp x 10fps would require 1dx's pipeline so its highly unlikely, even 24x8 would be kinda farfetched but it might be forced if the competition steps up. That would drive the whole APS pro category to 2K pricerange across the brands and the signs sofar from both camps point to a more conservative generation, i guess we'll see..Why?? 7D did the same as the 1 series throughput?
Did it make it cost $6000? No. Digics cost dollars.
that 6k must be 2k i suppose? Eitherway keep in mind that msrps were 1.7k for 7d & 5k for 1d4. Its 7k for the
1d51dX, plus consider Canon's pricing trend for the last 2 years
My point was that it is not crazy to expect that sort of throughput from a 7D2 when even the 7D did it and no it did force the 7D to cost anything close to 1 series prices.
Ditto. I don't really see any difference between the 7D's likeness to the 1D IV and the potential for the 7D II's likeness to the 1D X. The use of dual digics and high frame rate will not make the 7D II cost as much as a 1D X. The 7D II may indeed cost around $2100, but that is the price we pay for the continual advancement of technology...newly released products rarely start out at the ending street price of their predecessors.
DSTE batteries are pretty good in quality. In the past 3 years, I ordered over 20 pcs of them for my different dslrs and p&s. One of them for my Canon SX40HS was dead after almost a year's normal use. I emailed them and they sent me 2 pcs replacement without questioning anything. Not all Ebay items are "bad".
24mp x 10fps would require 1dx's pipeline so its highly unlikely, even 24x8 would be kinda farfetched but it might be forced if the competition steps up. That would drive the whole APS pro category to 2K pricerange across the brands and the signs sofar from both camps point to a more conservative generation, i guess we'll see..
Why?? 7D did the same as the 1 series throughput?
Did it make it cost $6000? No. Digics cost dollars.