April 19, 2014, 08:56:03 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.

Topics - Radiating

Pages: 1 [2]
EOS Bodies / 5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?
« on: March 13, 2012, 08:03:44 PM »
It recently occured to me after Nikon announced that with a grip the D800 shoots 6 FPS that I can't find a single advantage to the 5D3 over the D800. Here's what I know so far:

5D3 vs D800/E by catagory:

Dynamic Range: Inferior
Color Fidelity: Inferior
Noise: Equal
FPS: Equal (with a grip)
Video: Inferior
Autofocus: Equal (both are pro level)/Inferior (no f/8.0)/Superior (better with fast lenses due to special f/2.8 sensors)
White Balance: Inferior
Auto Exposure: Inferior
In Camera Lens Correction: Inferior
Pop up Flash: Inferior
Price: Inferior
Resolution: Inferior
AA filter: Inferior

I realize that the 5D3 has a better menu system, so that's one thing it can possibly do better.

Also please don't smite me. I'm not trying to bash the 5D3, as I'm actually a Canon fan and will be getting the 5D3, but can anyone think of one major feature that the 5D3 does better than the D800? If so feel free to post, I'm just trying to get informed here.

Thanks. :)

As an engineer I realize that there are several positive side effects to having more megapixels. However, I think the main reason people are buying the D800 would be for the resolution.

I've spent the better part of the day researching the resolving power of Nikon's entire lens lineup and I've come to an interesting conclusion.

Asside from the super telephoto primes, Nikon only has one lens in it's lineup that can actually resolve 36 megapixels, including their primes etc... the Nikkor AF-S 85mm f/1.4 G.

So in effect the actual resolution of the D800 is a useless figure. The biggest benefit will probably be the side effect of having enough resolution to remove the AA filter.

It will be interesting to see if the 5D3 with super sharp lenses like the new 24-70mm f/2.8 II or the D800E without an AA filter and less sharp lenses will actually be able to deliver the higher resolution. It seems to be anybody's race.

Just trying to to prompt some interesting discussion. Feel free to comment.

I keep seeing people posting about how they are dissatisfied with the 5D III price. Lets just look at the numbers:

Canon 5D Mark II intro price: 300,000 Yen
Canon 5D Mark III intro price: 270,000 Yen

Canon has always been a very rigid company with it's introductory pricing and has always priced successive products at the exact same price as previous generations, adjusted for inflation for the last 20 years. Their pricing has been so extremely consistent it deviates from the inflation rate in Japan less than a fraction of a percent. Their pricing is very similar to what Apple does in this way. The 5D Mark III marks the first time in history that Canon has ever priced a new generation of a product lower than the last generation.

If you have issues with the dollar amount complain about the devaluing of the US dollar, not about Canon.

I think the 5D III is a monumental upgrade, and the fact it's being offered for less than the last version was at introduction is all the more amazing.

Hope that helps clear up the pricing issue. If history is any indication the price will be cut in half over the next few years too :)

EOS Bodies / Stunned and impressed by the 5DIII.
« on: March 02, 2012, 04:07:27 AM »
- No more pattern noise
- Improved DR by 1 stop
- Improved jpg by 2 stops
- Improved raw by 1 stop
- Massivly improved AF
- 50% improvement in FPS
- Slightly more resolution
- Dual Card Slots
- 1 series build quality

Simply put Canon has surpassed all expecations. We're talking a 22 megapixel camera that can do the task of the best low light cameras and the best action cameras, with very decent FPS.

I'm more than impressed and can't wait to get my hands on one.

What does everyone else think of the new camera?

EOS Bodies / My body and lens roadmap
« on: February 11, 2012, 07:43:20 PM »
In the spirit of the recent Canon roadmap that was posted I thought I would also post my own roadmap for upgrades.

I'm probably one of the most obsessive photographers about image quality. The reason being that I do photoshop retouching for many of the top photographers in the world. When it comes to editing an image, having the most sharpness, the lowest noise and the highest resolution is absolutaly critical. You can do a lot more with extremely high image quality than you can with low image quality.

For my own purposes I've found that I need at least a minimum of 16 megapixels for cropping, and the lowest noise possible. I also need all 16 of those megapixels to be tack sharp.

With that said here is my roadmap:

Body: I expect Canon to release something with 5D body size with at least 18 MP and much better noise handling than the current 5D II. My number one complaint with the 5D II is the banding noise, and the low dynamic range due to low iso noise, which impacts my style of shooting. It seems likely that Canon will do a 18 MP (1DX sensor)-22 MP body with amazing noise and dynamic range performance (and amazing video) and a 36-45 MP body for the landscape guys.

I will be going for the lower noise body. Noise to me is a significantly more pressing issue than megapixels so I prioritize that as long as I have enough room to crop. I love high MP medium format files but you have to prioritize.


Wide Angle Zoom:

(current) Canon 16-35mm F/2.8 II L - It's the best that's offered with autofocus. I tried an adapted 14-24mm Nikon F/2.8 AF-S and did not like the lack of autofocus. It's nearly as good, though not as wide.

Normal Zoom:

Canon 24-70mm F/2.8 II L - I was dissapointed that this lens lacked a lot of features, it had no IS was not a reverse zoom design like the I version and that it extended when it zoomed. However the image quality that's being reported is nothing short of stunning. So that won me over.

Tamron 24-70mm F/2.8 VC - I'm going to use this lens for low light situations, in effect replacing my 24-105mm with two lenses instead of one. It was An amazing suprise from an unlikley source. This lens means that photographers can get a full stop more light when shooting hand held. It's the equivalent of a F/0.7 lens. Sharpness will be a concern but this is less of a priority in low light.

Telephoto Zooms:

(current) Canon 70-200mm F/4.0 IS L - I chose this lens because while the 70-200mm F/2.8 II IS L is fantastic, I found that the DOF is not usable at those focal lengths and I was always shooting at F/4.0. F/2.8 is better suited to a wider angle lens, so the advantage was in weight.


(current) Leica 100mm APO Macro - Self Explanitory, it's an incredible lens.


(current) Canon 24mm F/1.4 L II - Amazingly Sharp Lens

(current) Canon 85mm F/1.2 L II - Amazingly Sharp Lens

(current) Canon 50mm F/1.4 - My impression of the Canon 50mm F/1.2 L was that it was too soft so I went with this. I really think Canon needs to release several new 50mm lenses. There have been rumors circulating about this for several years.

Canon 50mm F/1.8 IS - If they release this lens, it will be the king of low light, and hopefully tack sharp. If so that will be my 50mm prime.

I look forwards to reading any reactions you guys may have to my roadmap. I've thought this through very carefully so I'm looking forward to any comments or criticisms.


Canon seems overly focused on cameras with longer focal lengths. Their lenses above 70mm are nothing but perfection. So are their bodies oriented towards action photography.

I feel like they simply are mediocre and lacking for the majority of pro photographers though. Sure they are better than the competition, but nowhere near where they could be.

Their offerings for non-action photographers are mediocre by industry standards, Leica has way better lenses and the Nikon has way better bodies with the upcoming D800e And D3S being perfection in their respective roles.

What gives? Its like Canon is content with incremental improvements for the masses.

I've decide to further explain this, here's my post from page 2:

I'm not sure where attitudes like this come from. Canon doesn't 'hate' anybody or group of photographers, nor do they 'like' any. What they like is making money, and their product development plans are guided by what they believe will garner them the most profit.

I feel like that's Canon's core problem. They seem much more interested in making minor tweaks to maximize profit, yet they forget about the big picture and overall market share. If they made a truely epic core system, they'd see a much larger market share and greater overall profits not to mention satisfying more people.

(abbridged) I think its rather unfair to say that Canon isn't paying attention to non-action photographers. Their newest versions of non-telephoto lenses strongly indicate otherwise, especially for lenses released in the last couple years.

I would disagree. The 24mm f/1.4 L II and 85mm f/1.2 L II are stellar, but having owned both the 14mm f/2.8 II and the 50mm f/1.2L , the 50mm is dissapointing, and should be much sharper with much less CA and the 14mm f/2.8 L just isn't good enough. The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 is not only much better, but it zooms AND it's cheaper. Canon's ultra wide lenses are dinosaurs.

Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II is stellar yes, it's also an action photographers lens. Simply put Canon non action bodies are way behind the curve, and so are their bread and butter lenses (normal primes and zooms), save a few exceptions. That's why I feel like their offerings below 70mm are really done as an afterthought to make profit.

The 5D MK II is not a sports or wildlife camera, its aimed directly at landscape and studio photographers.  They are not going to go away from that, they sell more 5D MK II's than all their competition to this camera combined.

However, understand that Canon is not in the small market speciality camera business.  They long ago established themselves as a high volume manufacturer that produced excellent quality products for the price.  They are a large company and know how to do high volume production, and do it well.  They make a profit when everyone else is losing money, so from that standpoint, they are doing something right.

The upcoming D800/D800e from Nikon obliterates the 5D II. 36 mp and optionally no AA filter. Canon's response is the reported 22mp 5D II successor. If Nikon gets their primes and zooms from 24mm to 70mm up to par it's game over. Either way anyone shooting from 14mm to 24mm just found their definitive camera.

Between the D3s and the D800e Nikon will have the best bodies, their lenses are lacking but Nikon is in the perfect position to dominate if they fix that.

Canon really needs to come up with an answer to the D800 and all the fantastic low light high dynamic range cameras from Nikon. Something with the 1Dx sensor in a compact body and a D800 clone in other words. I feel like Canon could possibly challenge Nikon if the 22mp 5D sensor is as good as the 1Dx sensor, it's resolution is designed so it is great at video (it works out to exactaly 4 pixels per pixel on a 1080p video) but that's no reason it can't have 1Dx low light and dynamic range performance, that would be ideal, considering the autofocus system is rumored to be exceptional.

Canon's lenses above 70mm are superb and so are their 24mm prime lenses. Everything else is pretty mediocre however. Canon needs to simply clone the: Nikon 14-24mm, Leica 35–70mm f/2.8 Vario-Elmarit-R ASPH (yes I realize this was a $7000 lens made at a loss, but it's the best normal zoom ever made at any aperture, and I'm sure it would be profitable if made in high volume at half the price, and including IS would really be ideal). Then all they need is to come up with a sharp CA free 50mm L prime.

That's 2 bodies and 3 lenses that would corner the market for the pro wedding, studio and landscape guys. (one body which they might even be already making)

EOS Bodies / Speculation on new Canon lineup.
« on: October 21, 2011, 01:12:27 AM »
I was just speculating on how the new Canon lineup might work and here's what I would love to see.

1DX $6800  -  18 MP, 14 FPS, advanced autofocus, excelent low light performance

3D - $3500  -  18 MP, 4 FPS, excelent low light performance, - good autofocus

5D III - $3500  - 32 MP, 4 FPS, last gen low light performance - good or average autofocus

Wouldn't this satisfy everyone?

I just thought I'd post an interesting piece of info for everyone that's bothered by the reduction in megapixels for the 1DX.

Mathematically speaking the noise in an image actually contributes to a reduction of resolition of an image. You can't make out individual specs of sand on a picture of a beach when there are grains of noise for example. In less technical terms if you look at the MTF50 of a high noise image versus a low noise image of an identical test chart, the resolution is lower for the high noise image. Noise reduction suppresses the distraction of noise, but cannot improve the physical signal to noise ratio. This is why high noise images lack fine detail.

So while technically the 1Dx has a maximum resolution of 18 megapixels, if the reduction in noise on the 1Dx compared to the 1Ds is a bit over one stop the 1Dx would practically and technically speaking have superior or equal resolution at anything above 400 iso.

This is just something to consider for those that think it's a downgrade in resolution. The reality might be that it's identical or superior in practical terms, although anything above a 1 stop increase in noise handling is very unlikely.

I don't know about anyone else, but I've been waiting for 2 years for Canon just to release these two products. In my mind it's an absolute no brainer for Canon.

5D Mark III

- 32 Megapixels
- no more low iso noise problems
- 7D Autofocus
- Improved Dynamic Range
- Lower noise (signal to noise ratio not just noise reduction)

24-70mm F/2.8 IS

- Capable of resolving around 32 megapixels wide open or nearly wide open.

Seriously. They would sell these things faster than they could produce them.

Pages: 1 [2]