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.
Has anyone figured out if this is a new sensor with better noise characteristics? DXOMark says the T5i has identical performance to the T4i...not that I believe DXOMark testing fairly represents image quality in absolute terms... I would just expect them to show different results with a new sensor. Is the SL1 using the same sensor as the T5i?
over reacting much?
No I don't think I'm over reacting. I got the lower price and my lens is in transit. I find it offensive that a new "better deal" is being hyped, that is not a better deal, and when I point this out, my post is blocked. Do you understand that logic?
To me, this makes more sense as it is closer to what I am used to seeing in comparisons I have made -- not that I spend a lot of time on such endeavors but I am curious like everyone else. I look at the two cameras from the images provided by the review sites, from the perspective of the measurement data on DxO, B. Claff, Sensorgen etc. and once you get the gain up so the low ISO read noise s out of the picture (pun intended, I guess), the images are comparable (IMO). Most of the time (in practice) I would never run it at 12800 anyway and as you dial it down closer to the reality of where I would run it, moves even closer, which was my real point. I am not surprised that the Nikon is that good, IMO, the measurement data says it should be.So David, please dont tell me that there are any differences between the two sensor, and now at 12800iso, we all know the difference at base iso and DR.
If you will look at the rawfiles I can send them to you
Just out of curiosity, I set up a similar comparison on the DPR site and there is very little difference between the images. IMO, none of the three cameras (D800, 5DII and 5DIII) produces a decent image at 12800. All your test shows is that you can take two perfectly good cameras and make bad images with them and argue about which is worst. I would rather make two optimal images and compare that -- no rules; you can do whatever you want. That is, after all, how the equipment is actually used in real life.
this is 5dmk3 and d800 at 25000iso
the resolution is higher from the nikon
as I have been writing earlier, Im surprised about the d800 high iso capability
Taxes are lower.
Photographer is a nebulous term. There is no standard definition... there is no certification or levels.... there is no governing body and there is no rating system of specialties. For example, I could be the world's greatest bird photographer and the worst imaginable wedding photographer... I know people so good that they can effortlessly snap off a shot that I would have to take time to prepare for.... and that "snapshooter" would get a better picture than me. I also know "experts" whose photographs are "somewhat less than stellar".
In the absence of standards, like it or not, anyone who uses a camera is a photographer and the question of if they are good or bad comes down to opinion.
Well, I have no problem with calling a photographer whoever is pretending to be one, but it doesn't make their photographs any better. The problem rises when they start asking money for it, just like that monkey
One of the problems is that it isn't even clear which is the best photograph..... Hypothetical situation.... a cougar is sighted "down by the stream". Neuro, my Neice, and I head off to get a picture.... Neuro with a 1Dx and a 600F4, me with a 60D and a 70-200, and my neice with an iPod. Neuro finds a nice vantage spot and shoots of a couple hundred perfect pictures..... I work my way downstream and get a couple hundred pictures of the cougar nicely framed in front of a waterfall, but because of the distance my pictures are heavily cropped. My neice got bored and waited in the car. When we get back to town and process the pictures the great debate starts.... which is the better picture? Neuro's are definitly sharper and more pixels on target, but mine are more artisticly framed....and while we argue my neice sells the 30 iPod pictures of bigfoot, that she took while waiting in the car, to a tabloid.
So which is better? Technical, artistic, or commercial sucess?
That depends on a buyer, I guess.
P.S. So, who was pretending to be a bigfoot, you or Neuro?
And more importantly, why does sasquatches only live in US?
So David, please dont tell me that there are any differences between the two sensor, and now at 12800iso, we all know the difference at base iso and DR.
If you will look at the rawfiles I can send them to you
So David, please dont tell me that there are any differences between the two sensor, and now at 12800iso, we all know the difference at base iso and DR.
If you will look at the rawfiles I can send them to you
David, I have compared 5dmk2 with 5dmk3 (and so have others) and what do you think about the high iso reproduction.
I took this pictures few minutes ago, and it is 5dmk2 12800iso and d800
what has impressed me is the d800 high iso reproduction
When the 5dmk3 came out I did a lot of comparison and did not se any big advantage regarding high iso compared to 5dmk2 , what I saw was something who looks like pre cocked 5dmk3 raw files compared to 5dmk2 with less visual noise but not more details .
here is 12800 iso and both cameras metering system gave the same value time and f-stop and they are exposed the same= 1/640sec F1,4 and handled in CR the same= high lights information and shadows details, the d800 file are downsized to 5dmk2
No, not grasping at straws, just simply considering all of the lenses that are available for a camera. If you want to limit yourself to only those lenses that the camera vendor makes, fine, but don't impose those restrictions on others.
There are many fine lenses that are made for use on Canon/Nikon that are not made by Canon/Nikon.
The grasping at straws part was more about the fact that considering the Sigma 35/1.4 gets you barely a marginal improvement, as I said - throwing away 13 MP instead of 14 MP.If I was going to have a grudge, it would be because of something it them taking 4 tries to Canon's lens repair service to fix the IS in a 70-300 IS USM (non-L).
"Yeah we fixed it", "No you haven't, try again." "Fixed it this time.", "Put on a camera and it didn't work, try again." la la la
And with Nikon, that might be <wait 4 weeks> "Yeah we fixed it", "No you haven't, try again."<wait 4 weeks> "Fixed it this time.", "Put on a camera and it didn't work, try again."<wait 4 weeks> la la laNo, the point of me saying this is because lots of people are arguing that "Canon cameras sell well, so obviously 18MP is enough" or "... so obviously the DR isn't important." In a sense they're right, but it appears that it isn't the IQ that is selling the camera - it is the bells and whistles.
In a sense? No need for a qualifier there. As I've stated before, people buy cameras not sensors. Their reasons for choosing one camera over another are as varied as the people themselves. Canon recognizes that people buy cameras, not naked sensors, and they design their cameras accordingly. The fact that they continue to outsell Nikon across the lineup quite clearly indicates that they know what they're doing in terms of camera design (including the sensor).
Saying 'it isn't the IQ that is selling the camera' is an unrealistic over-generalization. The problem is that some people seem to suggest that simply because the sensor in a Nikon camera offers a couple of extra stops of DR, that means the IQ of the sensor in a Canon camera is unacceptably poor. It's that sort of attitude that raises hackles around here, and for good reason - it's complete crap. If you want to peddle that line of BS, try a Nikon forum...I'm sure you'd be welcomed with open arms.
You're not listening (and/or perhaps you didn't properly comprehend what I wrote.)
All that mattered was that one camera had a touch screen and the other didn't. MP be damned.
Ok, I hold my hands up. I didn't properly comprehend what you wrote. However, your anti Canon stance on this forum frankly has become a tad tedious, and I don't think I speak solely for myself when I say that. I am not for a moment saying that we shouldn't complain or raise issue with things that we dislike about Canon cameras. But the manner of some of your postings suggests you have some grudge against Canon. Or am I again misunderstanding you?
If I was going to have a grudge, it would be because of something it them taking 4 tries to Canon's lens repair service to fix the IS in a 70-300 IS USM (non-L).
"Yeah we fixed it", "No you haven't, try again." "Fixed it this time.", "Put on a camera and it didn't work, try again." la la la
No, the point of me saying this is because lots of people are arguing that "Canon cameras sell well, so obviously 18MP is enough" or "... so obviously the DR isn't important." In a sense they're right, but it appears that it isn't the IQ that is selling the camera - it is the bells and whistles. When the reason for choosing a 650D over something else is the touch screen, then as long as the camera has enough pixels for facebook and WiFi to upload, well who cares about PASM, etc?
Overheard today:
"My wife wants to buy Canon because it has touch screen."
i.e. for her that is the killer feature of the Canon 650 and it is things like this that let Canon get away with not improving IQ.
Canon are adding bells and whistles to their camera rather than improving its abilities to take better photos.
Do you really want to see what happens when you go from a 20 or 22 megapixel sensor to a 46 megapixel sensor? Do you want to see how the lens affects sensor sharpness? Take your lens, mount it on your FF camera, take a photo that shows off sharpness. Then take that lens, mount it on a Rebel, and do the same. You will find that only lenses of superior sharpness will give you a sharp image on your Rebel...... and that is what will happen when you go full frame high megapixel....
Unless you have a camera bag full of the finest L-glass, you can rant on and on about which sensor and which camera outresolves who..... but out in the real world most people have bought into a SYSTEM.... and by far the most important part and the most expensive part of that system is the glass....
You can take the crappiest Nikon DSLR, put a high end lens on it, and it will outresolve the finest Canon camera with a kit lens. Likewise, take the crappiest Canon, put on some high end L-glass, and it will outresolve the finest Nikon with a kit lens.
You want to know the order of things?
#1 - photographer
#2 - glass
#3 - camera
..... and the glass is an investment while the camera can be best thought of as expendable.
Sorry for the rant, but this thread has degenerated into another DXO/SENSOR/NIKON/CANON arguefest, most of which has nothing to do with the topic at hand..
Could someone please provide a list of sites or publications that have done side-by-side comparisons of Canon's 18mp sensor to the sensors being used in Nikon's new generation of crop-frame cameras.
There seem to be a lot of drama queens here who pontificate on how much better the new generation of Nkons are, but when I've looked at sample images, I either see no discernible difference or, at higher ISOs, a little bit better performance from Canon.
A handful of individuals on this site keep trashing the performance of the 18mp sensor and others are repeating it as fact. Since this is a site adored by gearheads, how about some objective third-party comparisons?
I would love to see Canon improve their performance in this area and I am sure that they will, but I have no interest in improvement for improvement's sake which is how I read many of these comments.
As I said, I have yet to see anything put up as an example of what you can do with Sony/Nikon that I couldn't replicate with Canon gear. I don't see any game-changing impact on the state of current "ART" as a result of it. I see excellent photographers doing inspiring work with both systems. This technology has been around for a while and I have yet to see anything come out of it that makes me say… “OMG, I need to put all my Canon stuff up on e-bay and convert to Nikon so I can do this work”.
So, yes from a technology perspective, improve it please, but from a photographic perspective, for me at least, it is sort of a “non-starter”.
OK, a perfectly rational sentiment.
I'm similarly hoping Canon will improve in this one area tho. I still use my older Canon bodies for lots of shots, but I pull out the exmors when I know I'll be pushing the dark areas, cuz there are times I do need that unbanded performance. It's not all about DR, it's about the quality of that DR. And the ballyhoo over the 5d2 was, in my case, all for naught, as it was a very poor performer for my uses, left a bad after-taste. Improvements are inching along tho, 5d3's better and 6d looks pretty good so far. Might even buy one.
yup, that under-acheiver, don't fix it cuz it's not all broke, set-the-bar-low attitude's gonna get you some spankin' new sensor system R&D fo' sho!'Guys, I'll probably ask a very naive and somewhat a silly question... What exactly is the difference between different generations of Canon sensors? I mean, let's say Canon 5d ii and iii share the same sensor (correct?) however 5d iii overall has a better signal/noise ratio. That means that the improvements in the image quality do not necessarily require a new sensor technology? So, why do we all want Canon to have a new generation of sensors in their DSLR? Just curios
It is nothing but a bunch of gearhead whiners crying because "theirs" ain't the biggest this week. Ask yourself this: have you ever been able to walk through a gallery and point out which camera shot which photo? If the stuff was as bad as some of these idiots claim, nobody would use it.
Something else you might want to ask yourself: If this Sony technology is such a "game changer" why hasn't the game changed? Where are the stunning examples of what can be done? Why do we continue to see shots of the back of lens caps, mediocre landscape shots with shadows lifted 5 stops just to prove a point? Where are the game changing photographs from this so-called game changing technology?
If this represents such a huge advance in the state of the art of making art, where the heck is the art? Galeries won't hang your DxO curves.
seriously, whatsamaddawitchyoo?
why you no want improvements?
