Bye Canon?

[ecka]

Nikon? Really? They can't even figure out how to change the aperture in Movie mode.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but only Sony SLT can offer fast video AF + you can use the viewfinder (EVF) for filming.
Bye, bye ... go get your SLT-A77.


P.S.: IMHO, for video, you can't beat a proper Manual Focus lens.

[CarlTN]

Ok first off, no one promised you a 70D today, so your negative feelings have nothing to do with Canon and everything to do with your expectations.

if you want to shoot video on a large-sensor camera, you have to learn how to focus manually.  The motion picture industry has been doing it this way since it's inception and continues to do so.  We are very far away from having AF for video on a DSLR, with as many lenses as there are it would be extremely difficult to make them all work perfectly.  I mean do you really want to trust a camera to pull focus for you at the right time and to the right place?  Instead of complaining about technology that probably isn't available just make do with what you have. 

Everyone else making videos with DSLR's and any other cinema camera do it this way, why can't you?  If you think the lack of this feature is what's holding you back from making great videos then you should go ahead and find a different gig.

And about switching to Nikon, I don't think switching is going to make the slightest bit of difference.  It seems like you want to blame the gear, a feature (or missing feature), and that could go on forever.  So like I said, try and make do with what you have, plenty of other people have made great stuff with the same gear.

Well said...

[pdirestajr]

The less I spend on bodies and upgrading every time a new model comes out, or switching brands every time the competition leapfrogs the other, the more money I can put in my pocket. When I need something, I buy it.

I'll take the money over the minor updates any day.
 

[rpt]

Oh Wow I thought you meant BUY Canon.. Been There Done That !!

To each their own...

Initially sarcasm loses to brand rhetoric.

Later brand rhetoric loses to sarcasm. (or the other way around - but I said that before didn't I?...)

Eventually, a hammer is a hammer...

No smileys, no sarcasm tags. Just life experience - but then it is just my opinion - one in some over seven billion. And I am just being a speciest - counting humans - not the rest who have lived before or have not been my "tribe"...

[nicku]

you are so funny..... really,really.... the things that are important to me:

1. DR ( and yes those 3 extra stops make the difference)
2. Resolution. In what i do (commercial,product) size matters ( like in other cases  )

let me put it this way.... why the top Pro photographers shoot only with Hassyes and MF cameras  

Emphasis on your words 'IN WHAT I DO'. That doesn't encompass everbody. I don't see many pros using MF and Hasselblad at sports events. Correct tools for the job etc.

I completely agree, I asked what kind of work he or she is doing, but no response. Art photography? Well I don't know man. Is it really those extra stops of DR that make him lose customers?

The answer is in the first post ... and here marked with blue 

In what i do ( commercial,product and fashion, NOT Weddings and sports) the best camera is a MF camera ( but at the moment i don't afford to spend over 20k on such gear). The reason i thinking to switch on Nikon is that the D800 is way better than 5D3 ( in photography area mentioned above). I don't need fast fps , high ISO performance ( and yes, 5D is Better than D800 over ISO 6400, but i very rarely go above ISO 400).

PS.Hobby Shooter.....  try to be little more informed before making a statement, and definitely more civilized in your posts.

[nicku]

They use MF because they destroy anything 35mm can offer for what they do. Period.

Sync speeds, leaf shutters, massive sensor size, exceptional glass, and a sense of seriousness for client PR.

I find it amusing when some compared high MP 35mm to MF, its no comparison at all.

+1

[dirtcastle]

There are 1,000x more "pro" photographers than medium format cameras ever made. Very very very few photographers need more than a 22MP image. Plus, at that size, I assume Perfect Resize works brilliantly for upscaled prints. Does Canon even make an MF camera? And we're on the Canon Rumors website, right? Just checking. ;-)

[jrista]

They use MF because they destroy anything 35mm can offer for what they do. Period.

Sync speeds, leaf shutters, massive sensor size, exceptional glass, and a sense of seriousness for client PR.

I find it amusing when some compared high MP 35mm to MF, its no comparison at all.

I don't think I really agree with all of that. I think that statement was entirely true five maybe six years ago. There is still a gap, for sure, but the gap is closing. The D800 has demonstrated that from a sensor standpoint, 35mm can approach the pixel counts of MFD. The D800 has also demonstrated that 35mm can far surpass the dynamic range of MFD. Medium Format glass is great, but so is the more expensive 35mm glass, particularly from Canon. The two are at least on par...and I would offer that Canon's latest Mark II superteles have higher resolving power with higher contrast than MF lenses (keep in mind, it is more difficult to correct lens defects and aberrations in lenses for larger formats than for smaller formats).

I can't disagree about leaf shutters, they definitely have some advantages, particularly sync speed. If you are a heavy flash user, which is particularly common in a studio setting, a leaf shutter can be a godsend. There is also no question that MFD cameras have higher pixel counts. Pixel count is frequently the most important factor of IQ...the more pixels on subject you get, the lower the relative noise, the higher the overall detail. In that respect, the need for lenses with similar resolving power to Canon's is somewhat unnecessary, MFD lenses resolve enough detail to support the pixel densities found in medium format sensors, and at the closer distances MFD is usually used for, such as studio photography, there is little contest at the current time (pixel counts currently trump lens resolving power).

That said, pixel counts in 35mm are increasing. It seems Canon is testing 40-50mp FF sensors in their next studio and landscape camera. In the next four to five years, we could see 60mp FF sensors, if not more. There are a few decided advantages to FF that MFD cannot touch: High ISO performance; Advanced high-speed AF systems; frame rate. With hyper-parallel readout technology, it will be possible to read out very high pixel count sensors at high frame rates. (Canon already demonstrated a 120mp sensor with a 9.5fps readout rate!) When you NEED those things, then the leaf shutters and massive megapixel counts of MFD don't solve your problems. There is no comparing an MFD to a FF DSLR...the DSLR wins hands down every time in the high ISO/high frame rate/AF tracking scenario.

So...I would say it isn't as easy to matter-of-factly state these days that MF is the vastly superior camera, no comparisons. There ARE comparisons, and in many comparisons, 35mm comes out on top. That clearly indicates that MF, while it still certainly enjoys a for-the-moment-untouchable prestige in the studio photography arena, and in many cases the landscape arena, its powerful edge is dulling. In the landscape arena, where MF once reigned supreme, the D800 has REALLY closed the gap. It still lacks in terms of pixel count...one could photograph landscapes at 80mp if they wanted, or even 200mp with hassy's multi-shot mode. The vaunted D800 still can't quite touch that. The dynamic range of the D800 seriously brings into question the benefit of MF for the average landscape photographer, however. The studio prestige you acquire with your customers when you haul out the MFD doesn't exist for landscape photography...people care about the scene, not the equipment used.

To my knowledge, all medium format sensors still have a lot of read noise...similar to Canon's at low ISO.  It will be interesting to see if medium format cameras move up from 11-12 stops to 14, or even 16 in the few cases where medium format offers 16-bit conversion (I believe Leaf has a couple 16-bit backs), with new advancements in sensor technology. Their key edge was pixel counts...with greater sensor area, they can pack more in, at similar pixel densities as smaller formats. There doesn't seem to have been much innovation on other fronts for MF sensor tech. If they do solve read noise problems and move up to ~15-16 stops of DR, MFD might survive the onslaught of DSLR innovation for another generation or two, assuming the DSLR market doesn't also move to 16-bit as well.

MFD is not the unassailable ivory tower it once was. There ARE comparisons, and the gaps ARE closing. Competition for the studio space will heat up in the coming years, and the MFD market won't be able to solely rely on "prestige" forever.

[RLPhoto]

They use MF because they destroy anything 35mm can offer for what they do. Period.

Sync speeds, leaf shutters, massive sensor size, exceptional glass, and a sense of seriousness for client PR.

I find it amusing when some compared high MP 35mm to MF, its no comparison at all.

I don't think I really agree with all of that. I think that statement was entirely true five maybe six years ago. There is still a gap, for sure, but the gap is closing. The D800 has demonstrated that from a sensor standpoint, 35mm can approach the pixel counts of MFD. The D800 has also demonstrated that 35mm can far surpass the dynamic range of MFD. Medium Format glass is great, but so is the more expensive 35mm glass, particularly from Canon. The two are at least on par...and I would offer that Canon's latest Mark II superteles have higher resolving power with higher contrast than MF lenses (keep in mind, it is more difficult to correct lens defects and aberrations in lenses for larger formats than for smaller formats).

I can't disagree about leaf shutters, they definitely have some advantages, particularly sync speed. If you are a heavy flash user, which is particularly common in a studio setting, a leaf shutter can be a godsend. There is also no question that MFD cameras have higher pixel counts. Pixel count is frequently the most important factor of IQ...the more pixels on subject you get, the lower the relative noise, the higher the overall detail. In that respect, the need for lenses with similar resolving power to Canon's is somewhat unnecessary, MFD lenses resolve enough detail to support the pixel densities found in medium format sensors, and at the closer distances MFD is usually used for, such as studio photography, there is little contest at the current time (pixel counts currently trump lens resolving power).

That said, pixel counts in 35mm are increasing. It seems Canon is testing 40-50mp FF sensors in their next studio and landscape camera. In the next four to five years, we could see 60mp FF sensors, if not more. There are a few decided advantages to FF that MFD cannot touch: High ISO performance; Advanced high-speed AF systems; frame rate. With hyper-parallel readout technology, it will be possible to read out very high pixel count sensors at high frame rates. (Canon already demonstrated a 120mp sensor with a 9.5fps readout rate!) When you NEED those things, then the leaf shutters and massive megapixel counts of MFD don't solve your problems. There is no comparing an MFD to a FF DSLR...the DSLR wins hands down every time in the high ISO/high frame rate/AF tracking scenario.

So...I would say it isn't as easy to matter-of-factly state these days that MF is the vastly superior camera, no comparisons. There ARE comparisons, and in many comparisons, 35mm comes out on top. That clearly indicates that MF, while it still certainly enjoys a for-the-moment-untouchable prestige in the studio photography arena, and in many cases the landscape arena, its powerful edge is dulling. In the landscape arena, where MF once reigned supreme, the D800 has REALLY closed the gap. It still lacks in terms of pixel count...one could photograph landscapes at 80mp if they wanted, or even 200mp with hassy's multi-shot mode. The vaunted D800 still can't quite touch that. The dynamic range of the D800 seriously brings into question the benefit of MF for the average landscape photographer, however. The studio prestige you acquire with your customers when you haul out the MFD doesn't exist for landscape photography...people care about the scene, not the equipment used.

To my knowledge, all medium format sensors still have a lot of read noise...similar to Canon's at low ISO.  It will be interesting to see if medium format cameras move up from 11-12 stops to 14, or even 16 in the few cases where medium format offers 16-bit conversion (I believe Leaf has a couple 16-bit backs), with new advancements in sensor technology. Their key edge was pixel counts...with greater sensor area, they can pack more in, at similar pixel densities as smaller formats. There doesn't seem to have been much innovation on other fronts for MF sensor tech. If they do solve read noise problems and move up to ~15-16 stops of DR, MFD might survive the onslaught of DSLR innovation for another generation or two, assuming the DSLR market doesn't also move to 16-bit as well.

MFD is not the unassailable ivory tower it once was. There ARE comparisons, and the gaps ARE closing. Competition for the studio space will heat up in the coming years, and the MFD market won't be able to solely rely on "prestige" forever.

What ever 35mm can do for studio, fashion or landscape, MF or LF will always do better. The best 35mm can offer is d800, the best MF can offer is IQ180 from phase one. Not even close and it will always be that way.

Don't forget that MF will innovate to keep ahead of 35mm as well. The next batch of MF cams could be 18 stop monsters with 120+ MP! Where is that measly 35mm camera now?

[jrista]

They use MF because they destroy anything 35mm can offer for what they do. Period.

Sync speeds, leaf shutters, massive sensor size, exceptional glass, and a sense of seriousness for client PR.

I find it amusing when some compared high MP 35mm to MF, its no comparison at all.

I don't think I really agree with all of that. I think that statement was entirely true five maybe six years ago. There is still a gap, for sure, but the gap is closing. The D800 has demonstrated that from a sensor standpoint, 35mm can approach the pixel counts of MFD. The D800 has also demonstrated that 35mm can far surpass the dynamic range of MFD. Medium Format glass is great, but so is the more expensive 35mm glass, particularly from Canon. The two are at least on par...and I would offer that Canon's latest Mark II superteles have higher resolving power with higher contrast than MF lenses (keep in mind, it is more difficult to correct lens defects and aberrations in lenses for larger formats than for smaller formats).

I can't disagree about leaf shutters, they definitely have some advantages, particularly sync speed. If you are a heavy flash user, which is particularly common in a studio setting, a leaf shutter can be a godsend. There is also no question that MFD cameras have higher pixel counts. Pixel count is frequently the most important factor of IQ...the more pixels on subject you get, the lower the relative noise, the higher the overall detail. In that respect, the need for lenses with similar resolving power to Canon's is somewhat unnecessary, MFD lenses resolve enough detail to support the pixel densities found in medium format sensors, and at the closer distances MFD is usually used for, such as studio photography, there is little contest at the current time (pixel counts currently trump lens resolving power).

That said, pixel counts in 35mm are increasing. It seems Canon is testing 40-50mp FF sensors in their next studio and landscape camera. In the next four to five years, we could see 60mp FF sensors, if not more. There are a few decided advantages to FF that MFD cannot touch: High ISO performance; Advanced high-speed AF systems; frame rate. With hyper-parallel readout technology, it will be possible to read out very high pixel count sensors at high frame rates. (Canon already demonstrated a 120mp sensor with a 9.5fps readout rate!) When you NEED those things, then the leaf shutters and massive megapixel counts of MFD don't solve your problems. There is no comparing an MFD to a FF DSLR...the DSLR wins hands down every time in the high ISO/high frame rate/AF tracking scenario.

So...I would say it isn't as easy to matter-of-factly state these days that MF is the vastly superior camera, no comparisons. There ARE comparisons, and in many comparisons, 35mm comes out on top. That clearly indicates that MF, while it still certainly enjoys a for-the-moment-untouchable prestige in the studio photography arena, and in many cases the landscape arena, its powerful edge is dulling. In the landscape arena, where MF once reigned supreme, the D800 has REALLY closed the gap. It still lacks in terms of pixel count...one could photograph landscapes at 80mp if they wanted, or even 200mp with hassy's multi-shot mode. The vaunted D800 still can't quite touch that. The dynamic range of the D800 seriously brings into question the benefit of MF for the average landscape photographer, however. The studio prestige you acquire with your customers when you haul out the MFD doesn't exist for landscape photography...people care about the scene, not the equipment used.

To my knowledge, all medium format sensors still have a lot of read noise...similar to Canon's at low ISO.  It will be interesting to see if medium format cameras move up from 11-12 stops to 14, or even 16 in the few cases where medium format offers 16-bit conversion (I believe Leaf has a couple 16-bit backs), with new advancements in sensor technology. Their key edge was pixel counts...with greater sensor area, they can pack more in, at similar pixel densities as smaller formats. There doesn't seem to have been much innovation on other fronts for MF sensor tech. If they do solve read noise problems and move up to ~15-16 stops of DR, MFD might survive the onslaught of DSLR innovation for another generation or two, assuming the DSLR market doesn't also move to 16-bit as well.

MFD is not the unassailable ivory tower it once was. There ARE comparisons, and the gaps ARE closing. Competition for the studio space will heat up in the coming years, and the MFD market won't be able to solely rely on "prestige" forever.

What ever 35mm can do for studio, fashion or landscape, MF or LF will always do better. The best 35mm can offer is d800, the best MF can offer is IQ180 from phase one. Not even close and it will always be that way.

Don't forget that MF will innovate to keep ahead of 35mm as well. The next batch of MF cams could be 18 stop monsters with 120+ MP! Where is that measly 35mm camera now?

You are just speculating. Speculation isn't fact. I'm trying to stick with the facts, and the fact is, the D800 made HUGE strides against MF. You can be an MF fan all you want, but just simply stating "MF and LF will always do better" is simply an anecdote...it doesn't prove anything. Where has the innovation really been with MF? The technology they use isn't particularly advanced...it just has LOTS of pixels. Lots of pixels gives you a lot of leeway, you can capture a lot of detail...when your close. But those pixels aren't really all that much better than Canon pixels...there is still a lot of read noise in them. The key benefit of MF, even in the case of the IQ180, is pixel count. In EVERY review I've read that compared the D800 to the IQ180, or the D800 to other MFD cameras, the phrase that cropped up a lot was "subtle differences". SUBTLE DIFFERENCES! You can print an IQ180 picture larger, and the detail in that print will be higher, for sure. But in general the differences are SUBTLE. When it comes to dynamic range, which can mean either shadow performance or highlight performance (because you can simply underexpose the D800 by a stop and recover to preserve those highlights), even the IQ180 doesn't stand a chance...it has quite a bit of shadow noise...not blotchy like a Canon sensor, but reddish and with a touch of pattern.

I'm not necessarily saying the D800 is "better". There is no question that 80mp gives the IS180 a significant lead, particularly for studio photography. My point is, the gap is closing...and the ONLY innovation we've seen so far in the MF camp is megapixel count increases. Even the 16-bit backs still don't achieve the same DR as the D800...noise just consumes more bits. I don't know if the MF market can really crank up the competition or not...it would be EXTREMELY surprising to see a sudden move to 18-bit. That doesn't gain anyone anything if read noise isn't reduced...same deal Canon has...they need to improve the readout technology and greatly reduce read noise to actually benefit from those extra bits.

Even assuming we suddenly do see MF cameras move to 18-bit ADC, that still doesn't speak to the other factors where 35mm DSLRs have a considerable edge against MF...high ISO, frame rate, AF system, sheer resolving power. Again...not saying 35mm is "better" yet. My point is...the GAP BETWEEN 35mm and MF IS CLOSING. It's not like we can flat out state that there is no competition between the two...there IS competition between the two. The D800 is the start of that competition. If we see a 40-50mp camera from Canon...that will be MORE competition. Competition means comparison, and the comparisons are being made...the differences: subtle!

[Chuck Alaimo]

WOw...how the heck did this post end getting 6 pages...

Don't feed the trolls...but hey, let's feed them...and it goes from fun to yet another...Nikon has more DR tirade....wow...I am sueing you all for lost minutes of time!!!!...LOL

[RLPhoto]

Ok let's examine history to determine who's correct.

35mm film vs MF film. - MF wins.

Canon 1ds vs kodak DCS MF back - MF wins. (Available on Luminous landscape)

Canon 5D2 vs Hasselblad MF backs 40MP variety - MF wins.

D800 vs IQ180 - MF wins.

D900 56MP camera vs next gen MF 120+ MP - MF will win.

This is because MF is bigger than 35mm. MF has a specific use for low ISOs and slow subjects. There is no replacement for displacement. The bigger sensor/film will always serve better in those situations.

I can only imagine what will be possible when MF will move to full CMOS tech, then you will have the pixel density of a d800 + all the advantages of MF. It's just a better tool for what it does.

[dirtcastle]

Ok let's examine history to determine who's correct.

35mm film vs MF film. - MF wins.

Canon 1ds vs kodak DCS MF back - MF wins. (Available on Luminous landscape)

Canon 5D2 vs Hasselblad MF backs 40MP variety - MF wins.

D800 vs IQ180 - MF wins.

D900 56MP camera vs next gen MF 120+ MP - MF will win.

This is because MF is bigger than 35mm. MF has a specific use for low ISOs and slow subjects. There is no replacement for displacement. The bigger sensor/film will always serve better in those situations.

I can only imagine what will be possible when MF will move to full CMOS tech, then you will have the pixel density of a d800 + all the advantages of MF. It's just a better tool for what it does.

Not to disagree, but this comparison is sort of like driving 160m/h on the freeway and saying the people driving only 100m/h are going slowly. It's all relative and in degrees.

[jrista]

Ok let's examine history to determine who's correct.

35mm film vs MF film. - MF wins.

Canon 1ds vs kodak DCS MF back - MF wins. (Available on Luminous landscape)

Canon 5D2 vs Hasselblad MF backs 40MP variety - MF wins.

D800 vs IQ180 - MF wins.

D900 56MP camera vs next gen MF 120+ MP - MF will win.

This is because MF is bigger than 35mm. MF has a specific use for low ISOs and slow subjects. There is no replacement for displacement. The bigger sensor/film will always serve better in those situations.

I can only imagine what will be possible when MF will move to full CMOS tech, then you will have the pixel density of a d800 + all the advantages of MF. It's just a better tool for what it does.

Your still missing the point. I'm not saying 35mm "wins". You said there was no comparison, no contest. My argument is that there ARE comparisons, and that there IS a contest. Sure, MF currently wins...in a niche. Will that always be the case? Who knows...the point is, the GAP IS CLOSING...for that same niche. My point is, in general, FF DSLR is a better tool overall, particularly when sheer pixel count is not the most significant factor. I can foresee a point in time when FF DSLRs have AS MANY pixels as MF...with better IQ on a per-pixel basis, and with better performance on a per-pixel basis (faster readout, better AF and metering, etc.) Will that day, where MF  and DSLR perform roughly the same, ever come? Who knows. Is there still "no contest" or "no comparison" between MF and DSLR? Hell no...absolutely there is a contest, and the comparisons are showing a shrinking margin for MF.

Well, that's the last time I'll try to make my point. If you still don't get it, eh...

[RLPhoto]

Ok let's examine history to determine who's correct.

35mm film vs MF film. - MF wins.

Canon 1ds vs kodak DCS MF back - MF wins. (Available on Luminous landscape)

Canon 5D2 vs Hasselblad MF backs 40MP variety - MF wins.

D800 vs IQ180 - MF wins.

D900 56MP camera vs next gen MF 120+ MP - MF will win.

This is because MF is bigger than 35mm. MF has a specific use for low ISOs and slow subjects. There is no replacement for displacement. The bigger sensor/film will always serve better in those situations.

I can only imagine what will be possible when MF will move to full CMOS tech, then you will have the pixel density of a d800 + all the advantages of MF. It's just a better tool for what it does.

Your still missing the point. I'm not saying 35mm "wins". You said there was no comparison, no contest. My argument is that there ARE comparisons, and that there IS a contest. Sure, MF currently wins...in a niche. Will that always be the case? Who knows...the point is, the GAP IS CLOSING...for that same niche. My point is, in general, FF DSLR is a better tool overall, particularly when sheer pixel count is not the most significant factor. I can foresee a point in time when FF DSLRs have AS MANY pixels as MF...with better IQ on a per-pixel basis, and with better performance on a per-pixel basis (faster readout, better AF and metering, etc.) Will that day, where MF  and DSLR perform roughly the same, ever come? Who knows. Is there still "no contest" or "no comparison" between MF and DSLR? Hell no...absolutely there is a contest, and the comparisons are showing a shrinking margin for MF.

Well, that's the last time I'll try to make my point. If you still don't get it, eh...

It's funny how you read but do not get understanding. MF is a niche, and in its niche there is no comparison to what it gives the photographer. A MF pixels will be bigger than a 35mm cameras which means sharper images. Give me a 12mp 35mm cam or a 12MP MF cam, and I'll use the MF cam everytime for what it's built for.

There is no contest in the market MF made, because its the cutting edge, its the best tech has to offer and someone will always want to have that.

35mm is like a child swinging its arms at the MF market for decades, and MF simply put its hand on the swinging child's head and heald it in its place.