6D pattern noise compared to 5D2, the info you won't get from DxO

[CarlTN]

I thought you were referring to the longer posts on the earlier pages, I missed the last one on the previous page.  Ok, well looks like you might be as much a writer as a photographer.  And your photography looks to be primarily medium and wider angle, low light landscape...so generally manual focus materal.  The 6D would be more than fine for that, as you know, hence you have one (or at least I think you do).  Do you mind if I ask if you make much money from selling prints?  (I ask because I myself, want to get into doing that.)  Or further, percentage-wise, what part of your income is related to doing photo work?  Not at all trying to get personal here, if you would rather not say in public, you could private message, or keep it to yourself...no big deal.  For myself, I do work from photography, but I don't make a lot of income from it in total.  I've certainly made nothing from my landscapes (at least not from the ones for "beauty") and wildlife, but would like to.  I feel some of it is worthy of being brought to the marketplace, at some point.  It's not the "best" out there by far, but so what?  A lot of it is unique locations in my area, where most landscape photography seems to be done in the US national parks, the desert southwest, the british coast, the scenic cities of europe, exotic locales in africa and elsewhere, etc.

[Brock]

Canon can not be equal with theirs old  sensor lay out and and  and signal  path way.
Thera are no indications that Canon has gone from the   old 180nm  tech to Sonys, Panasonic Aptina, Toshiba tech which are down at 65nm

http://www.chipworks.com/blog/technologyblog/2012/10/24/full-frame-dslr-cameras-canon-stays-the-course/

Canon is at 500nm.

Nikon 350nm & 250nm

Sony at 250nm & 180nm (though technically the 180 is in the Nikon D800)

Where are you getting 65nm from?

then read again

I said Sony and others are down at 65nm, the Sony  APS etc are made at 90nm, canon are still at 180nm

90nm is still not 65nm.

Also you can't always equate fabrication process to image quality.  It's not like a CPU where it gets incrementally better.  Sensors have to deal w/ the physical properties of light being 400-700nm, CPUs don't.  i.e. Moore's law doesn't apply to image sensors.
__________________________________________________________________

Canon can not be equal with theirs old  sensor lay out and and  and signal  path way.
Thera are no indications that Canon has gone from the   old 180nm  tech to Sonys, Panasonic Aptina, Toshiba tech which are down at 65nm

http://www.chipworks.com/blog/technologyblog/2012/10/24/full-frame-dslr-cameras-canon-stays-the-course/

Canon is at 500nm.

Nikon 350nm & 250nm

Sony at 250nm & 180nm (though technically the 180 is in the Nikon D800)

Where are you getting 65nm from?

then read again

I said Sony and others are down at 65nm, the Sony  APS etc are made at 90nm, canon are still at 180nm

Read what again?  Do you have a reference for the numbers you gave?

Also, this.

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I thought you were referring to the longer posts on the earlier pages, I missed the last one on the previous page.  Ok, well looks like you might be as much a writer as a photographer.  And your photography looks to be primarily medium and wider angle, low light landscape...so generally manual focus materal.  The 6D would be more than fine for that, as you know, hence you have one (or at least I think you do).  Do you mind if I ask if you make much money from selling prints?  (I ask because I myself, want to get into doing that.)  Or further, percentage-wise, what part of your income is related to doing photo work?  Not at all trying to get personal here, if you would rather not say in public, you could private message, or keep it to yourself...no big deal.  For myself, I do work from photography, but I don't make a lot of income from it in total.  I've certainly made nothing from my landscapes (at least not from the ones for "beauty") and wildlife, but would like to.  I feel some of it is worthy of being brought to the marketplace, at some point.  It's not the "best" out there by far, but so what?  A lot of it is unique locations in my area, where most landscape photography seems to be done in the US national parks, the desert southwest, the british coast, the scenic cities of europe, exotic locales in africa and elsewhere, etc.

Not a problem.  The majority of my photography income comes from shooting events (weddings, business events, church events, even funerals) or portraits, not fine art sales.  I would say that photography accounts for about 15% of my income, but demand for my services is increasing.  Because of the demands on my time already, however, there is a practical limit to how much I can commit to.  I have made some money through fine art sales both directly and through sites like Fine Art America.  I use part of my church office as a gallery of framed work and/or canvases and have sold some that way.  I've gotten paid for the use of some my landscapes in magazines, although I have made less than a thousand dollars that way.  My work is licensed through Getty and iStock, but that has not generated big sales (particularly not iStock).  I have made as much directly licensing some of my work.  Fine art/stock image sales are probably only 10% of what I make in photography income, but I proportionately spend far more time on that...because I enjoy it, and photography is primarily for me a joy, not a job.

The number of people making a living from landscape photography is very, very low.  It can be done...but isn't being done by me.  I'm afraid that landscape shooting is very fulfilling, and I love sharing that kind of work, but it doesn't earn much of a paycheck.

[CarlTN]

Brock, good point.  Certainly it's not the smaller size of the photo sites that yields higher DR and lower "read noise".

Much of the best photography out there, landscape or otherwise, is done with Canon cameras, more often than Nikon.  Mikael, explain that?  Why does the marketplace keep choosing Canon over Nikon?  Is it because photographers are stupid and wrong-minded?  Is it because, in your mind, they aren't "true artists"? 

Or could it be that a high DR at low ISO is academic, and not indicative of the end-quality of the photographs taken?  Could it be that Nikon base their grip and ergonomic design, around a 7 foot tall female who weighs 100 pounds...or perhaps from an alien species?  Are the design engineers at Nikon, even from this planet?  I submit that they are the wrong-minded ones.

[CarlTN]

Dustin, much grattitude for your detailed and quick response!  My goal is certainly not to make a living from landscape and wildlife...more like to try to eek out a similar percentage that you are doing.

Are you familiar with Marc Adamus?  One of his shots got me re-inspired for photography.  Not sure how big of a deal he is now. 

Indeed, landscape is very fulfilling.  In my younger days, I fancied myself an artist and wanted to design cars.  I sent my idea to its intended target, a manufacturer in Germany.  Three months later, they returned it with some legal forms which I never signed.  The copy of my design had been folded up and worked over a lot.  Alas, it was not a realstic goal for me.  Not enough people get to do it.  I also, always felt drained after drawing or painting something.  I never feel that way when shooting photographs that I love...or even of editing them (after a few hours at a time it gets old, of course.)  If it's photo work that I don't love, then I definitely dislike spending time with it, but sometimes that has to be done.

But it was strange back in art school, that all of my classmates felt doing their work was therapeutic.  It never was for me.

I also like to write, but too many people seem to be doing that these days, too.  Every form of creativity is highly subjective, did you know that?