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.
Right because canon hasHello.
This is a joke or what?
Canon is not two generations behind Nikon and i will explain why.
Lets start with the main advantage for Canon.
Canon have mostly better and more lens in their EF line than Nikon in their FX line.
Just compare some of them:
16-35/4 IS, 24-70/4 IS, 24-105/4 IS, 70-200 4L,70-200 4L IS, 70-200 2.8L, 70-200 2.8 L IS II
35/2 IS, 35 1.4 ,35/2
50 1.4 USM, 85 1.8 USM, 100 2.0 USM
100 2.8 USM, 100 2.8 L USM IS
i don`t want to speak of IS mk1 and IS mk2 super telephoto lenses. )
Seems here Nikon is still have a lot more work to do to compete with this much of them better, cheaper lenses and all this you can find eazy second hand for good price!
Lets speak for other features and history of lenses.
Canon have their own USM designs of many lens way way before Nikon.
Some of them even are not available for Nikon like 100/2 USM and 135/2 USM.
Canon unveiled STM lenses for video and smoother af. Where is the Nikon here??? They just unveiled their AF-s versions of many lenses before 2-3 years. And much of them are much worse than than canon optics.
Just compare old 24-105/4 L with Nikon 24-120/4 AF-s ...fatal error.
Enough for lenses.
Lets check the cameras.
I will skip the entry levels DSLR`s
We all know that 7d is already better camera than old but good d300s. ( i was owned both)
60d was more balanced than d5100 and 7d was better camera than d7000.
Yes Nikon have now d7100 with 6fps and 6 RAW buffer... one big joke on the field.
Do let finish with the crop sensor cameras because 7d ii is coming. (and 7d is still better from d7100)
I have 70d now because my 7d was dropped in the water.
lets check the FF cameras.
For the entry d610 is somehow better overall than 6d. But in practice ( i have 6d) they are not much different.
But here may be point for Nikon for better value. But they messed up a lot with dust/oil sports with d600.
The major improvement in Nikon is d800/E, d810 cameras. Here canon can not compete like value and performance.
Nikon now will announce d750. Like a answer for 3 years old 5d3.
And the end i will say that d4s was introduced because 1dx was better than d4.
Let`s speak about technology.
Nikon have better Sony sensors than Canon for sure. But better for me usually means better for 100-800 iso and DR department. Nothing really more but still very important for some photographers.
Canon have unique Dual Pixel AF in live view. I own 70d and this working great!
With the STM lens combination is really a unique advantage for may types of photography.
I can use mu 70d almost like mirrorless camera for slow moving subjects, when i`m shooting stock and so one.
Nikon are behind with video capabilities and wi-fi interpretations. Their model usually get the wi-fi one generation behind Canon.
So...with one word. Nikon have d800/d810 but Canon just make everything other usually better and much earlier.
So the main disadvantage for Canon is sensor tech. But still there are not big difference when we are on the field.
Just what I predicted. Canon is better because they have better lenses and the Nikon D600 had spots on the sensor. I predicted this fanboy answer this morning. Nikon has excellent lenses. Sigma & Zeiss have better lenses that either one. The Nikon D810 is better than the Canon 5DIII in every respect. The sensor is 2 generations better. Canon is rolling out their newest offering...at 20MPX a full 4 MPX less that what Nikon offered last year and has inferior low light performance if it is the 70D sensor. Lets look at each companys best sensor offering and the Nikon D810 is years ahead of Canon. But keep telling yourself the lenses are better when any subjective lens test site says otherwise. BTW, I own a 5DIII and am thrilled with it. It's just not as good as the Nikon D10
TLDR;Raw files are like diving boards, pretty flexible and can take being jumped on in post.
A better photographic analogy, already used (i.e. by Jeff Schewe) is to consider RAW as the "digital negative" and the RAW post processing something very alike Adam's Zone System, while shooting JPEGs is mostly like shooting reversal film.
With the former you can make decisions about exposure and development/printing to achieve the desired final result, which is always a combination of the both exposure and "development/printing" (now "post processing").
For example ETTR (Expose-To-The-Right) can be used, but of course needs post processing to achieve the final result.
With the latter, you need to get the image in "one shot", and in some kind of situations sacrifice details in highlights or shadows because of the smaller range.
Of course it's not an invite to be lazy - as someone pointed out - it's an invite to understand the digital medium fully and exploit its capabilities as well.
Maybe, sometimes can be used as a challenge to shot JPEG only - to be forced to concentrate more on exposure and lighting - and thus get used to apply the same experience to RAWs - but for any important work, shooting RAW will lead to better images when everything went right, and save those that for any reason something went wrong.
And like old negatives could be re-printed using newer technologies and achieve results once impossible, RAW can as well be re-processed as soon as new technologies arise that may improve the final image.
Likewise.We're not, we are asking for a demonstration of the actual achievable resolution differences when handheld and when using AF.
As JR said, there's so many variables it can become entirely subjective.
FWIW, I've had handheld AF shots from my 800e with 70-200mm f/4 VR at 200mm that are as crisp at 15th second (yes, low light) as I was getting my my 5d2 and 70-200 f/2.8 L IS 2 in bright sunlight (likely 1/400s @ f8)
Used with good glass and technique, even handheld, the ability to get very high resolution images from the d800 series is not all that difficult. The 810's mirror action is even smoother, which should help a bit more.
Having seen your work, I doubt it.
Who the heck would want a FF lens that only goes to f/5.6 at 105mm?Well MFT cameras have been charging much more for what is basically is that lens. I find it really funny because they laugh all the way to the bank.
For years I've been saying American businesses are under a curse of stupidity. The Japanese might be under the same spell. What a waste of marketing and manufacturing time.
PATHETIC if this rumor proves true.
Ok, now come the slavish apologist RemarkS.
Well, I already bought into the H-system hassys and Pentax lost a potential long time customer due to no LS lenses natively. Oh well...No LS lenses is what killed this system for me.Take a Pentax 67 LS lens (like the SMC Pentax-6x7 165mm F4) and shoot with it via adapter & sync cable. Remember, that shutter speed can be eh, but a faster strobe will make up for it.
That poor focal plane shutter has more distance to cover, plus being a much wider shutter compared to 35mm.
I'm going to get one on rent and do a side by side with my H4D-50 - the only other 50mp chip out there - and do some side by sides. Roger is the worst enabler.
I disagree with you. The total light gathered matters more than sensor size and if you give the same amount of light to different sized sensors, the resulting noise is very similar. Tony Northrup had a great video on that and showed how ISO is skewed because of sensor size.QuoteWe are now WELL into the era of significantly improved DR.
Basically 12+ vs. 13+ stops. The DR meme is driven entirely by BS DxO tests that aren't even physically possible (i.e. claims of >14 stops from a 14-bit ADC).
Actually, it's more like 10.x stops vs. 13.x stops. I agree, DXO's PrintDR numbers are BS. Just use DXO's ScreenDR numbers, which are literal measurements taken directly from RAW, and a far more trustworthy number. Canon IS behind by about two stops. That is a FACTOR OF FOUR TIMES. DXO would have you believe it was closer to three stops, or EIGHT times...I agree, BS, and highly misleading. That doesn't change the fact that two stops is still a meaningful difference...always has been.
once again, wrong wrong wrong, which is so bizarre because then you flip around and say that photosite density doesn't matter for noise and only sensor size does!!!! that is like saying 1+1=2 and no 1+1 does not equal 2 at the same time.
I think I may begin to see part of our disconnect. Maybe a little clarification of what I think of when I say some of these things would help.
So, first off, I do believe that only sensor size really matters from a fundamental IQ standpoint. I believe that "noise" is relative to sensor size. That's a fairly general statement, maybe I've been lax in my specificity in the past. So, to clarify this first point...I believe that photon shot noise is relative to sensor size. Very specifically, I believe that the total amount of photon shot noise, which affects the signal top to bottom, from the highlights to the shadows, which is an intrinsic part of the real image signal itself, is fundamentally relative to total sensor area.
In that respect, I believe larger sensors will always outperform smaller sensors given similar technology, for identical framing. Assuming non-similar technology, I believe that it is possible, for a short period of time, for a sensor of smaller area to outperform a sensor of larger area...but only so long as the larger sensor's technology is inferior. I believe the generational gap between the small and large sensor would need to be fairly large for the smaller sensor to outperform a larger sensor...within a single generation, I honestly do not believe that any smaller sensor would outperform a larger sensor in terms of overall IQ.
I believe this, because if you frame a subject identically in frames of different physical sizes, the larger the frame, the more total light you gather. That's it. I don't really think that needs any further qualification. More light, better IQ. It's better if you don't normalize, it's better if you do normalize. More total light gathered per unit area of subject, better IQ. It's as simple as that.
Alright, second. Read noise. I consider read noise to be a fairly distinct form of noise, different in nature and impact than photon shot noise. I do NOT believe that read noise has anything to do with pixel size or sensor size. I believe read noise has to do with the technology itself. I believe read noise is a complex form of noise, contributed to from multiple sources, some of them electronic (i.e. high frequency ADC unit), some of them material in nature (i.e. sensor bias noise, once you average out the random noise components, is fixed....as it partly results from the physical material nature of the sensor itself, it's physical wiring layout, etc.) I believe read noise affects overall image quality, but in a strait up comparison of two images from two cameras with identical sensor sizes, read noise in an invisible quantity. It doesn't really matter how much you scale your images, whether you scale them up or down, whether you normalize or not. Before any editing is performed, read noise is an invisible deep shadow factor, it cannot usually be seen by human eyes.
In this respect, two landscape photos of the same scene taken with different full frame cameras are all largely going to look the same. Photon shot noise is going to be the same, it may just be more finely delineated by a sensor with smaller pixels. Normalize them all, without any other edits, and you aren't going to notice much of any difference between the images. The most significant differences are likely to be firmware/setting related...a Daylight white balance setting will probably differ between cameras (one may be slightly warm, another slightly cold), small nuances of exposure may differ between cameras (one may slightly overexpose, another may slightly underexpose), there may be nuanced differences in color rendition that cater to different personal preferences.
When it comes to read noise, to me, that is all about editing latitude. Because it's a deep shadow thing, it doesn't manifest until you start making some significant exposure adjustments. You have to lift shadows at very low ISO by several stops before the differences between a camera with more sensor+ADC DR and a camera with less sensor+ADC DR really start to manifest. Those differences only matter at ISO 100 and 200, they are significantly diminished by ISO 400, and above that the differences between cameras are so negligible as to be nearly meaningless...sensor size/photon shot noise totally dominate the IQ factor.
I do believe that normalization is important to keep the frequency of photon shot noise, which is the primary visible source of noise in images that have not been edited, at the same frequency for comparison purposes. I do believe that normalization will and should show differences between larger and smaller sensors. I do not believe, however, that normalization of a non-pulled image is going to have any impact on how deep the blacks appear to an observer. I believe the only thing that can actually measure the differences in the deep shadows, where read noise exists, are software algorithms. I do believe that having lower read noise means you have better editing latitude when editing a RAW image in a RAW editor, and that for the purposes of editing, lower read noise, which leads to increased dynamic range (primarily by restoring what would have otherwise been lost to read noise in the shadows) is a good thing, and something that can and does certainly improve certain types of photography. This is the fundamental crux of my belief that DXO's PrintDR numbers are very misleading, and why I prefer to refer to their ScreenDR numbers...as the increase in DR that you gain from having lower read noise is only really of value WHEN editing a RAW image and lifting shadows. Otherwise, I really don't care about comparing cameras within a "DXO-specific context"...I care about comparing cameras based on what you can actually literally do with them in real life. (I KNOW you disagree with this one, but we should just agree to disagree here, because neither of us is ever going to win this argument. )
That is my stance on these things. I am pretty sure you'll disagree in one way or another, and that's ok. However I do not believe that my assessment of these things is fundamentally wrong. I believe it may be different than your assessment, or DXO's assessment for that matter. But I do not believe I have a wrong stance on this subject. I separate photon shot noise and the impact it has on overall IQ (which is significantly greater) from read noise, and the impact it has on the editing latitude you might experience when adjusting exposure of a RAW image in a RAW editor at an unscaled, native image size.