October 24, 2014, 09:57:09 AM

Author Topic: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?  (Read 59317 times)

dtaylor

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 791
    • View Profile
Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« Reply #405 on: September 02, 2014, 12:36:02 PM »
You don't even seem to understand the fundamental underlying concepts if you really, honestly think that the 70D has more DR than any other Canon camera on the market.

I never said that. I said it had more then the 7D.

So you're saying he TWISTED your words?   :o

Nah...he photographed that particular post with a 5D3, underexposed it for a DR test, and when he pushed the shadows the noise obscured part of what I wrote  ;D

DARN YOU CANON! DARN YOU AND YOUR SHADOW NOISE!!!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« Reply #405 on: September 02, 2014, 12:36:02 PM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4481
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« Reply #406 on: September 02, 2014, 01:02:18 PM »
seems odd to me that you so love what the exmor can do but won't buy a sony.  Why not rent it and see if you like it?  I mean, lets put it like this ---do you value your time?  Looking at all your rather lengthy posts, lets put it on a dollar scale ---if you value your time at lets say at least $25-50 an hour, just what you've posted in this topic alone covers the rental cost.  Then you can see if the lossy RAW is worse than the Canon Raw in the shadows.  Many seem to like the A7r for landscape work, and if you are right and canon sensors are so horrible then for printing big then even a lossy exmor should be better then right?  Regadless, why not rent it and see, then rent a d810 and see....if the difference for your work is that big then buy one.

Well, for one, it doesn't take me long to write a post. I type nearly at the speed of thought..so... I could probably write a WOT in the time it takes most people to write one smaller post. :P

We'll see. Next time I get a chance to spend a week in the mountains, I'll rent both.

WOw...speed of thought....if you can type that fast I am sure you could get paid quite well just to type!

LOL. Well, I pretty much do. I program. :P Been doing that since I was eight...it pays pretty well. :D

....lol...Either way, I think folks here are lot less against the nikon tech than you think, we just aren't seeing the need for it as much as you because we aren't shooting as many landscapes.  I do shoot landscapes from time to time, and waterscapes, I do dig throwing a big ND filter on and turning day into night...but that isn't my bread and butter - so I buy what I need for my work.  Would I like and extra stop of DR for that stuff...sure, but, for my professional work, I actually embrace the shadow.  More than not, I will darken the shadows to enhance the mood.  For what I do, good control over off camera light is way more important to me than having more DR...

I really love landscapes, always have. Probably some of my favorite photography. Getting really good landscapes is actually a lot of work. You have to nail the day and time, the weather, the light, everything perfectly, to get one of those phenomenal, expansive landscapes with colorful clouds, just the right angle on the landscape to bring out it's features, etc. I've never succeeded in getting what I consider a really good landscape photo. Not once. I'm generally not even impressed with what I do get 90% of the time. So, when I do head out on the few occasions I have to try, I want my equipment to DE-LIVER. The 5D III is a good camera...but it doesn't really deliver on the landscape front nearly as much as I thought it would...primarily because it has some of the worst read noise I've seen in a Canon DSLR. I don't really think it's changed all that much from the 5D II, which had pretty nasty read noise as well.

The 7D never gave me the FoV, pixel count, or DR that I wanted  (I could have gotten the 10-22 EF-S, but I wrote off EF-S lenses a long time ago), and although it's noise is better than the 5D IIIs, it still had banding (however, Topaz cleans that up really well, much better than the 5D III it seems.) I just find it sad, that in so much time, Canon's read noise quality has basically gone...nowhere. I've got my fingers on all kinds of new and different tech now that I'm doing astrophotography...and that only increases my perception of how big the differential is between Canon sensor technology and "everyone elses". The gap is huge, and becoming massive. Canon used to be considered the top sensor manufacturer. These days, they seem to be at the absolute bottom, for stills, for video, for everything. Even the MFD manufacturers have moved to Sony Exmor sensors. Having bought the 5D III in good part for landscapes...it was and is just frustrating to see that fact stare me in the face every time I open one of my landscape photos, and see banding. I don't even really need to push or pull the shadows around...once you get into the lower midtones...it's right there. Shadow falloff is hideous. Very, very sad. Frustrating. Well, frustrating to me, anyway.

Skulker

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 394
  • PP is no vice and as shot is no virtue
    • View Profile
Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« Reply #407 on: September 02, 2014, 04:47:48 PM »

...................


 For me, I've literally been waiting for Canon to really improve their IQ since I first got into photography.

....................


I'm sorry if I'm venting frustrations, but I'm frustrated. I've been waiting for Canon to fix their noise problems for YEARS.


I never said I'm unsatisfied with my kit. I am only unsatisfied with the 5D III.


OK I misunderstood, when you said you had been waiting for years and were frustrated I didn't realise that only applied to your new camera.

My frustration is just with the fact that Canon, which actually seems to have done a better job with the 6D sensor only months later (which means it was already in production and ready to go), put such a noisy sensor in the 5D III. If they had made such significant improvements to the 6D, both at low ISO and high, why did the 5D III get one of their noisiest sensors to date? It's just frustrating.

......


You keep being very negative about the 5D3. While you may be expressing a sincerely held opinion you are going to struggle to convince many that your opinion is well founded. There are so many excellent photographs taken with the 5D3. I have seen images taken with Nikons, some of them outstanding, and I have seen and taken images with Canon. What I have never seen is anything that convinces me that either has a fatal fault or weakness.


Don't get me wrong. Some of the excellent images I have seen were yours. (I think your astro photography is excellent)  But your logic is not too hot. To say you have been frustrated by Canon for over 6 years but its only the 5D3 just isn't logical. I know that you can say you only said you were dissatisfied with the 5D3 and frustrated for years. But hey we both know that's just wriggling.


Its a shame you have been subjected to quite so much agro. But I think you have rather asked for it by the way you have expressed yourself so strongly without taking much notice of many valid points that have been raised.
If you debate with a fool onlookers can find it VERY difficult to tell the difference.

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3093
    • View Profile
Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« Reply #408 on: September 02, 2014, 05:00:12 PM »
As an example of the problem with Canon's senors, I've uploaded some 100% crops.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22502.msg432269

I've only pushed this image up one stop, not 4 or 5, and the shadows are already showing they will be a problem.

Whilst this was done with the 5D2, the 5D3's sensor is pretty much the same when it comes to noise.

Update: above image thread deleted for reasons unknown.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 12:23:45 AM by dilbert »

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3093
    • View Profile
Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« Reply #409 on: September 02, 2014, 05:13:44 PM »
...
For tripod landscapes I can't see any disadvantage to an A7 or A7R. AF speed doesn't matter. EVF lets you judge exposure/histogram before shooting. Tilt screen is useful if your tripod is down low. What's the problem?
...

Hanging a big zoom lens on the front whilst tripod mounted is what the problem is.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4481
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« Reply #410 on: September 02, 2014, 05:35:58 PM »
You keep being very negative about the 5D3. While you may be expressing a sincerely held opinion you are going to struggle to convince many that your opinion is well founded. There are so many excellent photographs taken with the 5D3. I have seen images taken with Nikons, some of them outstanding, and I have seen and taken images with Canon. What I have never seen is anything that convinces me that either has a fatal fault or weakness.

I wouldn't call it a fatal fault. It's just an excessively annoying fault. My 450D had it. I skipped the 5D II because of it. The 7D has it, although not as bad. The 5D III has it, about as bad as the 5D II (despite the decent number of years difference between them.) So, no, not a "fatal" fault. An ugly, nasty, frustratingly annoying fault, yes.

Don't get me wrong. Some of the excellent images I have seen were yours. (I think your astro photography is excellent)  But your logic is not too hot. To say you have been frustrated by Canon for over 6 years but its only the 5D3 just isn't logical. I know that you can say you only said you were dissatisfied with the 5D3 and frustrated for years. But hey we both know that's just wriggling.


Its a shame you have been subjected to quite so much agro. But I think you have rather asked for it by the way you have expressed yourself so strongly without taking much notice of many valid points that have been raised.

Eh, I knew what this community was like when I voiced my opinion. To be frank, I never really expected anything else. We crucify anything DR related, PARTICULARLY DXO (although, I still think DXO is asking for it...they need to stop being so obscure about their methodologies and weighting, and stop posting ludicrous lens test comparisons.) Anyway, people are what they are...and here they like to crush any mention of DR differences between Canon and the competition.

As for the rest...I was frustrated with the 450D read noise, that was my first DSLR. I did not like the 7D noise either, and was frustrated with it for over a year until I got the whole Topaz filter collection for about $130. DeNoise 5's debanding works extremely well on the 7D, since it has a very regular 8-column repetition. I can just set the band width to 8, and DeNoise 5 completely eliminates it. The low read noise then means the remaining random noise cleans up well. So, I was frustrated with the 7D until DeNoise came along.

Part of my frustration with the 5D III is it seems to have largely random banding. Some bands are very thin, some are quite fat. DeNoise 5 cleans up some bands, and not others. I can run multiple passes, but then I'm eating away at detail. So, the tools I used to use to deal with banding don't work nearly as well or at all with the 5D III. The color noise is also quite bad...however last night I found a new "smoothness" slider in LR 5's color NR that seems to deal with the larger-scale blotchiness...so that may help with the issue. (Crosses fingers.)

Anyway, I had frustrations with Canon read noise a long time ago. I skipped the 5D II because of it's read noise (at the time, the rumors here were that the 5D III would hit around 28mp and have improved DR...so I waited.) I'm harping on the 5D III because it's one of Canon's newest high resolution full frame sensors. It's their current technology. The 6D performs remarkably better at high ISO...and statistically given it's read noise levels, it should perform similarly at low ISO (I don't know if there are any low ISO comparisons between those two cameras...everyone focuses on the high ISO differences.) So, my reasoning is logical. I've been WAITING a long time for Canon to fix their banding issues...and the camera I have in hand right now is the 5D III.

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3934
    • View Profile
Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« Reply #411 on: September 02, 2014, 06:28:10 PM »
Imaging Resource Imatest results for 70D in ACR
 ::)

It's interesting that you keep going to IR as being the gods of testing and yet always fail to quote this part of the final remark: "Like all recent Canon SLRs, the higher quality scores are somewhat below average for a modern sensor. For example, the Nikon D7100 managed 10.1 f-stops at the highest quality level, almost 2 stops better. "  ;)

And as for IR being sooo much more reliable and well defined than DxO and how can IR get so many stops more DR and the others are obviously wrong, etc. you always fail to quote : "As always, it's worth noting here is that ACR's default noise reduction settings reduced overall noise somewhat "  I.E. they do a potentially randomly manipulated by ACR test that involves all sorts of NR.


Quote
I think I've said...repeatedly...that Exmor sensors have a bit more DR and noticeably more shadow latitude and that this sometimes matters. Just not all the time, and not to the degree you believe.

You always use extravagant talk about minor high ISO gains, but then use the most radically minimizing talk about low ISO differences.

 
Quote
Then write letters to Canon USA and Canon Japan. Print and mail them. I'm of the opinion...perhaps false...that printed letters in these situations get more attention then emails and web forms.

perhaps

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« Reply #411 on: September 02, 2014, 06:28:10 PM »

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3934
    • View Profile
Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« Reply #412 on: September 02, 2014, 06:30:24 PM »
Again jrista, I don't see it. You've have no reason at this point not to adopt the a7r, it's a fantastic camera with basically identical IQ that doesn't require a full adoption. I like end results and the a7r gives a better end result than 5d3 for your landscapes.

Call it in, and hang up the phone on the DR posts. I mean you probably could have wrote war & peace with a stop wedge by now.

I think all jrista wants is the DR of the Sony sensors in Canon bodies, because the Sony bodies have a wealth of disadvantages that far outweigh the sensor (IMO at least).  You can't take a picture with just a sensor, and Sony is inferior with nearly all of those other aspects of the camera/lens.  If Canon incorporates an improved sensor in a future EOS camera, it would be the best of both worlds.

Best of both worlds is what I'm after. In the long run, if Canon doesn't drop a new sensor into their models next year, then an A7r might just be the solution. I agree that Sony bodies have a wealth of disadvantages...but, ultimately, I only really need it for landscapes...so the majority of those disadvantages (except the crappy RAW format) would really be a problem.

Same here, I'll wait for the 5D4, but if that doesn't deliver I'll have to just nab an A7R and live with the dual-brand body mess for now and think about an ultimate shift to Nikon.

Skulker

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 394
  • PP is no vice and as shot is no virtue
    • View Profile
Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« Reply #413 on: September 02, 2014, 06:31:15 PM »
You keep being very negative about the 5D3. While you may be expressing a sincerely held opinion you are going to struggle to convince many that your opinion is well founded. There are so many excellent photographs taken with the 5D3. I have seen images taken with Nikons, some of them outstanding, and I have seen and taken images with Canon. What I have never seen is anything that convinces me that either has a fatal fault or weakness.

I wouldn't call it a fatal fault. It's just an excessively annoying fault. My 450D had it. I skipped the 5D II because of it. The 7D has it, although not as bad. The 5D III has it, about as bad as the 5D II (despite the decent number of years difference between them.) So, no, not a "fatal" fault. An ugly, nasty, frustratingly annoying fault, yes.

Don't get me wrong. Some of the excellent images I have seen were yours. (I think your astro photography is excellent)  But your logic is not too hot. To say you have been frustrated by Canon for over 6 years but its only the 5D3 just isn't logical. I know that you can say you only said you were dissatisfied with the 5D3 and frustrated for years. But hey we both know that's just wriggling.


Its a shame you have been subjected to quite so much agro. But I think you have rather asked for it by the way you have expressed yourself so strongly without taking much notice of many valid points that have been raised.

Eh, I knew what this community was like when I voiced my opinion. To be frank, I never really expected anything else. We crucify anything DR related, PARTICULARLY DXO (although, I still think DXO is asking for it...they need to stop being so obscure about their methodologies and weighting, and stop posting ludicrous lens test comparisons.) Anyway, people are what they are...and here they like to crush any mention of DR differences between Canon and the competition.

As for the rest...I was frustrated with the 450D read noise, that was my first DSLR. I did not like the 7D noise either, and was frustrated with it for over a year until I got the whole Topaz filter collection for about $130. DeNoise 5's debanding works extremely well on the 7D, since it has a very regular 8-column repetition. I can just set the band width to 8, and DeNoise 5 completely eliminates it. The low read noise then means the remaining random noise cleans up well. So, I was frustrated with the 7D until DeNoise came along.

Part of my frustration with the 5D III is it seems to have largely random banding. Some bands are very thin, some are quite fat. DeNoise 5 cleans up some bands, and not others. I can run multiple passes, but then I'm eating away at detail. So, the tools I used to use to deal with banding don't work nearly as well or at all with the 5D III. The color noise is also quite bad...however last night I found a new "smoothness" slider in LR 5's color NR that seems to deal with the larger-scale blotchiness...so that may help with the issue. (Crosses fingers.)

Anyway, I had frustrations with Canon read noise a long time ago. I skipped the 5D II because of it's read noise (at the time, the rumors here were that the 5D III would hit around 28mp and have improved DR...so I waited.) I'm harping on the 5D III because it's one of Canon's newest high resolution full frame sensors. It's their current technology. The 6D performs remarkably better at high ISO...and statistically given it's read noise levels, it should perform similarly at low ISO (I don't know if there are any low ISO comparisons between those two cameras...everyone focuses on the high ISO differences.) So, my reasoning is logical. I've been WAITING a long time for Canon to fix their banding issues...and the camera I have in hand right now is the 5D III.


J - I don't think you are listening. You're posts about the 5D3 just seem so un-balanced its a shame.


Have you ever heard the saying "when you're in a hole stop digging"


If you debate with a fool onlookers can find it VERY difficult to tell the difference.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4481
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« Reply #414 on: September 02, 2014, 06:53:38 PM »
J - I don't think you are listening. You're posts about the 5D3 just seem so un-balanced its a shame.


Have you ever heard the saying "when you're in a hole stop digging"

Aside from the fact that I'm saying the 5D III's low ISO is hideous and unacceptable to me, just as unacceptable as every Canon sensor that came before it (I understand people disagree with the notion that is an issue)...what is unbalanced about my posts?

I can like the camera at high ISO, and not like it at low ISO. That isn't unbalanced, given the read noise levels within those two ranges of ISO are considerably different (<6e-, and generally <3e- at high ISO, as much as 33e- at low ISO...up to a 1000% difference between the two).

psolberg

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 483
    • View Profile
Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« Reply #415 on: September 02, 2014, 07:13:50 PM »
D800 -> D810

The 5dm3 is looking really old.

I can't say the 5DIII looks old. From my perspective there was never an proper upgrade to the MKII which targeted studio and landscape photographers with state of the art resolution and not mind about fps or AF that much. That's why I've shoot D800/e now and for a number of years to great results. No regrets. What was a wining formula for canon is what Nikon followed. Nikon just had the common sense of designating it as a different product, unlike canon. So the 5DMKIII is really just AHEAD of its time but has a weird name. Maybe it should have been called 3D? :) feel better now? What's really old is the 5DmkII which to date has no true follow up following the tradition of leader/leading in detail and image quality over FPS and AF. That's the rumored 3D, but whatever.

The only area where I agree the 5DMKIII is severely lacking is video. With basically everybody going crazy over 4K, a 1080p camera is just lacking. Then again, nobody really considers 5D's to be the state of the art in video with many manufacturers offering much more powerful options aimed at the videographer instead of the photographer wanna-be-video guy. That's the right approach IMHO. so who really cares that the 5D isn't going to be the video guy's sweetie. It's a photo tool first and foremost.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4481
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« Reply #416 on: September 02, 2014, 07:22:24 PM »
Best of both worlds is what I'm after. In the long run, if Canon doesn't drop a new sensor into their models next year, then an A7r might just be the solution. I agree that Sony bodies have a wealth of disadvantages...but, ultimately, I only really need it for landscapes...so the majority of those disadvantages (except the crappy RAW format) would really be a problem.

Same here, I'll wait for the 5D4, but if that doesn't deliver I'll have to just nab an A7R and live with the dual-brand body mess for now and think about an ultimate shift to Nikon.

Personally, I don't contemplate any kind of shift to Nikon. There are many reasons not to...manufacturing issues, customer support issues, Canon lenses in large part (particularly longer lenses) being better, many unique lens options for Canon.

My sole complaint is with Canon's low ISO performance. I guess I could live with an A7r until Canon gets that sorted out. Not ideal, and an extra cost...but it's at least a viable interim option. But moving to Nikon overall? That's never been in my playbook. Canon cameras still perform excellently at higher ISO, once their data is all above the read noise floor, and Canon's RN floor at high ISO tends to be lower than Nikon & Sony's RN floor at high ISO, so you have more high ISO DR.

I just hope Canon DOES sort it out...

3kramd5

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 449
    • View Profile
Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« Reply #417 on: September 02, 2014, 07:25:46 PM »
Getting really good landscapes is actually a lot of work. You have to nail the day and time...

Indeed. I suspect that if you do eventually pick up a D8xx or canon reduces shadow noise to roughly equivalent levels, you'll find it merely marginally better since you are an afternoon landscape guy. I know I did.
5D3, 5D2, 40D; Various lenses

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« Reply #417 on: September 02, 2014, 07:25:46 PM »

psolberg

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 483
    • View Profile
Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« Reply #418 on: September 02, 2014, 07:29:09 PM »
I guess I could live with an A7r until Canon gets that sorted out

why? that camera's raw files are severely crippled as shown by Lloyd chambers and others. basically you're shooting 11 bit crap. All your reasoning (lenses and options) applies to sony. Don't be foolish. I've made the switch and have used both the 800 and A7r. no real equivalence. It's just gear, not a religion. And if you already took the sony, you may as well really get true 14 bit raws. Plus if you only need the high MP for some situations you're using the A7r, just get the matching Nikon set and sell it later if you have to. It's not like you're cheating on a wife or something lol.

Getting really good landscapes is actually a lot of work. You have to nail the day and time...

Indeed. I suspect that if you do eventually pick up a D8xx or canon reduces shadow noise to roughly equivalent levels, you'll find it merely marginally better since you are an afternoon landscape guy. I know I did.

having switched I can tell you the difference will be there and it is quite obvious specially after you're used to a huge latitude in the RAW with LR and its excellent algorithms. This is no longer up for debate after two years. The question is that unless you have a burning desire, you can still take nice images with the 5DMKII. that didn't go away and realistically you're unlikely to say "oh crap, if only my gear was better!". The detail is amazing and IMHO, 50+MP can't come soon enough to oversample some of the issues around the bayer pattern and color graduations which still plague low MP bodies. But ultimately you have to balance it. Yes more detail is nice. Yes super deep shadow and highlight range is nice. But are you crippled otherwise? nah. I only switched because it is trivial to do so for me as both systems are basically the same in my lens selection and cost is similar.

I'm following closely the medium format scene. Looks like it will heat up as manufactures respond to the D810 price to performance ratio. This means cheaper or more capable medium format gear to justify the cost. And maybe now it will start to make sense to jump to it.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2014, 07:40:22 PM by psolberg »

dtaylor

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 791
    • View Profile
Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« Reply #419 on: September 02, 2014, 07:39:37 PM »
It's interesting that you keep going to IR as being the gods of testing and yet always fail to quote this part of the final remark: "Like all recent Canon SLRs, the higher quality scores are somewhat below average for a modern sensor. For example, the Nikon D7100 managed 10.1 f-stops at the highest quality level, almost 2 stops better. "  ;)

It's interesting that you still don't understand the difference between total dynamic range and dynamic range to arbitrarily selected noise thresholds.

Quote
And as for IR being sooo much more reliable and well defined than DxO and how can IR get so many stops more DR and the others are obviously wrong, etc. you always fail to quote : "As always, it's worth noting here is that ACR's default noise reduction settings reduced overall noise somewhat "  I.E. they do a potentially randomly manipulated by ACR test that involves all sorts of NR.

It's also interesting that you choose to lie and misrepresent to try and make your case.

A) NR does not affect total DR, though it does impact latitude. Likewise it would impact DR measurements which used an arbitrarily high noise threshold or "quality."

B) ACR's default NR settings are mild and fixed. They are not random nor "all sorts of."

C) ALL tested cameras have default ACR settings.

D) DxO is not testing system DR, but sensel SNR. There is no simple or direct conversion of sensel SNR to system DR. If DxO measured film "sensels" or grain they would report a DR of <1 stop. Yet a piece of Portra film held 12-13 stops and with proper development some B&W films can hit 16-18.

Quote
You always use extravagant talk about minor high ISO gains, but then use the most radically minimizing talk about low ISO differences.

No idea what you're even talking about.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« Reply #419 on: September 02, 2014, 07:39:37 PM »