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.
What I meant with that is that it's more logical from a technical point of view. Not that I or any other person prefers very good performance at low ISO. Everybody knows that raising ISO means more noise and less DR.
Got it, thanks for clarifying.
It's more logical that the low ISO performance is great than that the high ISO performance is great.
...makes the assumption we can all shoot at low ISO most of the time, as you apparently can (and here I'm assuming that with current FF sensors, ISO 1600 isn't 'high'). For those of us that routinely need to shoot at greater than ISO 3200, your logic doesn't apply. That's the bias to which I was referring.
Ideally, we'd have great performance at low and high ISO, and everyone would be happy. That's solidly in the fanciful land of 'IF' for now.
I think that most people would always like to use the lowest possible ISO value. If they could freeze motion at ISO100, they would use that ISO value.
If? How does that work, exactly? A scene has a given amount of light. At ISO 100 with the widest aperture usable for the required DoF (or the widest available on the lens), that means a given shutter speed. If that's not fast enough to freeze motion, one can add light (frequently not an option), raise ISO, accept a blurry shot, or give up and go home. Maybe your 195,000 € car budget could be used to buy a magic wand that alters optical physics?... that's the reason why people can rather live with bad high ISO performance. It's more logical that the low ISO performance is great than that the high ISO performance is great.
Which people? You? Not me. I shoot indoors in ambient light a lot. Much of my outdoor shooting is birds/wildlife at dawn and dusk or under overcast skies, often at f/5.6 or f/8 (and please don't suggest a faster lens - I'm using a 600mm f/4L IS II with a 1.4xIII or 2xIII for the necessary reach). So for me, without access to that magic wand, the lowest ISO I can often get away with is 1600, and I'm usually at ISO 3200 - 6400. I can't live with bad ISO performance.
Your 'logic' seems to have a high level of personal bias...
Sensor-wise Canon is getting crushed by Nikon/Sony/Pentax. No doubt about it. It's about time they bring out new DSLRs with competitive sensors, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
The 'market' buys cameras not sensors. Market share-wise Nikon/Sony/Pentax are getting crushed by Canon.
But...crushed? If we believe DxOMark Scores as gospel (meaning we care about DR and color depth only at ISO 100, and we reduce all of our images to 8 MP), then a 13-14 point difference means less than a 1 stop advantage. That's crushing?
The D800 is almost 3 stops better than the 5D3 @ ISO100 (DR). Considering that each stop extra, is the same as "twice as much", I call the difference HUGE. Let's go out and buy a car. Your budget is 30.000 euro and mine is approximately 90.000 euro. Let's see who will have the nicest car... And up to (and including) ISO400 the difference is still at least 1 stop. So yeah I call that "being crushed".
The only part where Canon really kicks ass imo (except for lenses) is their autofocus system. But this is only true for their 2 most expensive cameras i.e. 5D3 and 1Dx (only talking about their current camera lineup). Don't get me wrong. I like Canon a lot (held a D7000 in my hands recently and I didn't like the grip at all), but it makes me sad to see how bad their sensors are compared to the sensors of the competition.
Maybe you're right, Canon cannot compete at low ISO with noise and DR. But Nikon cannot compete at high ISO with Canon, not even close. This aspect is much, much more important to myself, being a sports photographer. Everyone has different needs. Sensor tech lower? Okay, but in real-life I choose not to buy the D4 simply because I get a much higher keeper rate with the 1D X. The argument has to go both ways. I understand that low ISO and DR are much, much more important to others. Why is it okay that Nikon doesn't compete at high ISO but not okay that Canon doesn't compete at low ISO? They both lack one or the other. And please I cannot take another chart. The D4 vs. 1DX issue has already been tested in the field thoroughly in real-life.
Considering that each stop extra, is the same as "twice as much", I call the difference HUGE. Let's go out and buy a car. Your budget is 30.000 euro and mine is approximately 90.000 euro. Let's see who will have the nicest car...
With 2.7 stops (base-2 exponents), your budget would be closer to 195,000 € compared to my 30,000 €. That means you could pay for a Ferrari...but in this analogy, you'd be getting the Ferrari engine with the transmission and suspension of a Ford. Might make for a bumpy ride.
Sensor-wise Canon is getting crushed by Nikon/Sony/Pentax. No doubt about it. It's about time they bring out new DSLRs with competitive sensors, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
The 'market' buys cameras not sensors. Market share-wise Nikon/Sony/Pentax are getting crushed by Canon.
But...crushed? If we believe DxOMark Scores as gospel (meaning we care about DR and color depth only at ISO 100, and we reduce all of our images to 8 MP), then a 13-14 point difference means less than a 1 stop advantage. That's crushing?
I had a chance to try a 6D last weekend. Although I was not able to use my own card, but I could attach my almost parafocal 24-70 L. After testing the AF points, I can tell, that although the center point is quite good (AF on 24mm, then zooming to 70 and the result is track sharp as far as my eyes can tell), the side points are just crap. The are mediocre when the sun shines, and quiet useless in low light (where the center point still performs outstanding.)
I buy rather a cheap 5D mkII...
@jocau: will try that. Good tip.
Why woudl you want to do that NOW?
Canon's 24-70 II and 70-200 II L DESTROYED Nikon's counterparts, at least based on 5 professional reviews.
5d3 beats D800 and 1DX beats D4, based on 3 professional reviews!
Not a good idea now. Maybe next year.
Finally, even Nikon fascist Ken Rockwell has finally swtiched to Canon after 28 years of using it!
To be honest, I've tought about switching to Nikon too. It almost drives me insane that it seems like Canon isn't doing anything about their (heavily) inferior sensors. With every release of a new DSLR you see Canon getting beated to death by Nikon and Sony when it comes down to DR....
DR is one of about 30 important attributes of a good camera, and even that one is not important in many shooting situations, and its usefulness in ANY situation is highly debated -- in this very forum on other threads. (Show me a print with more than 7 stops of DR).
Settle down. There is no need to go insane over a minor detail. 'HEAVILY inferior'?? Sorry mate, it seems you've bought the hype.
