June 18, 2018, 04:58:53 PM

Author Topic: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.  (Read 41948 times)

altenae

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 186
  • Enjoy Wildlife
    • Wildlife-photos
Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #75 on: February 09, 2012, 11:18:31 AM »
Very nice the  noise in the Nikon D800....
I will switch to Canon !!!! (funny me)



I would say Canon or Nikon...both have superb DSLR's
Go outside and take pictures instead of telling us that you are going to switch.

Who cares !!!!!
« Last Edit: February 09, 2012, 11:59:25 AM by altenae »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #75 on: February 09, 2012, 11:18:31 AM »

xROELOFx

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 155
    • Fotograaf Alkmaar
Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #76 on: February 09, 2012, 11:58:03 AM »
Very nice the  noise in the Nikon D800....
I will switched to Canon !!!! (funny me)

I would say Canon or Nikon...both have superb DSLR's
Go outside and take pictures instead of telling us that you are going to switch.

Who cares !!!!!
agreed!

stop crying and start taking pictures!
1DX | 1D4 | EF 24-70mm f/2.8L | EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II | EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro | EF 500mm f/4L IS | Extender EF 1.4x III | Extender EF 2.0x III | Speedlite 580EX II | Speedlite 430EX II | Macro Twin Lite MT-24 EX

mjp

  • Guest
Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #77 on: February 09, 2012, 01:10:50 PM »
My first post in these forums will be in the form of a rant. Apologies ahead of time :)

This "I'm going to switch because so and so created a better camera..." line frustrates me every time I read it. Do you really have a need for a 36 megapixel camera, or is that just for bragging rights? I think the majority of people who say things like this have invested very little into photography, lenses and learning their current system. My 5DII & 7D have more than enough megapixels, excellent low light capabilities,are easy to use cameras that help me get the photos I want. Hell, I still use a 6 megapixel Pentax K110D which produces great results. And get this, I often shoot with a 50 year old Voigtlander which also does a great job. And complaining that there is no IS on the 24-70 is ridiculous. Why do you need it at a relatively short zoom range? It is not needed in my opinion. I've also read from so many that Canon should put IS on all primes! That is laughable.

I'm certainly anticipating and am very interested to see what Canon comes up with next, but I'm not going to rush out the door and buy one until it is absolutely necessary...which might not be for many years. It is very easy to fall down the hole of collecting camera gear just for the sake of having the 'next best thing'. Switch if you must, but if Canon comes up with a 45 megapixel camera, are you going to switch back again? Hope you have unlimited funds! Why not then just buy a Hasselblad H4D and be done with it. Cheers.

thepancakeman

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 476
  • If at first you don't succeed, don't try skydiving
Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #78 on: February 09, 2012, 01:25:21 PM »
My first post in these forums will be in the form of a rant. Apologies ahead of time :)

This "I'm going to switch because so and so created a better camera..." line frustrates me every time I read it. Do you really have a need for a 36 megapixel camera, or is that just for bragging rights? I think the majority of people who say things like this have invested very little into photography, lenses and learning their current system. My 5DII & 7D have more than enough megapixels, excellent low light capabilities,are easy to use cameras that help me get the photos I want. Hell, I still use a 6 megapixel Pentax K110D which produces great results. And get this, I often shoot with a 50 year old Voigtlander which also does a great job. And complaining that there is no IS on the 24-70 is ridiculous. Why do you need it at a relatively short zoom range? It is not needed in my opinion. I've also read from so many that Canon should put IS on all primes! That is laughable.

Granted, there are plenty of people with knee jerk reactions and too much $ to spend.  However, I get really frustrated by people who use the logic of "my camera works great for me, so why should you need anything different?"

I was reading up on the D800 this morning and have to admit I'm tempted.  I think it would show a concrete improvement to my (albiet limited) photography income.  But this is due to my style, my subjects, and my clients.  I don't expect everyone (or anyone, for that matter) to have the same needs as me, so if other bodies or lenses are what they need, great, I'm not going to put them down or question their intellect.

Of course switching to "the dark side" would mean I no longer have use of my wife's $10k lens collection, so I'm going to have to consider pretty carefully!   >:(

kubelik

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 824
Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #79 on: February 09, 2012, 01:55:24 PM »
Very nice the  noise in the Nikon D800....
I will switch to Canon !!!! (funny me)

in all seriousness, I agree with the noise comments.  I'm very surprised at the amount of grain present even in ISO 100 JPGs shown on Nikon's own site.  the interior architectural shots at f/8 are even worse; the diffraction is clearly evident in preventing additional detail from being rendered.

I've always been a fan of having more MP in order to crop with / print larger with, but I'm starting to think you just can't beat physics with even a FF sensor.  you can only do so much with so many photons.  I know Canon's been eyeing the MF market for a little while now; I think they could do awesome things if they came out with an S2-sized sensor.

for an FF sensor it looks like the sweet spot is somewhere in the mid-to-high 20 MP range; I do still hope the future 5DX or 5D Mark III doesn't drop down to 18 MP (22-ish as mentioned in rumors would be nice, but maybe 24MP or 28MP to give a slight step up without entirely compromising the diffraction limit (28 MP FF is about 11 MP on APS-C, near the 40D) and having all that sensor noise appear at low ISOs.

again, color me shocked that 36 MP appears to be too much for a FF sensor to handle, especially given Nikon's recent improvements in its APS-C sensors.  here's hoping for a 24MP 5DX!

torger

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 236
Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #80 on: February 09, 2012, 02:32:06 PM »
the interior architectural shots at f/8 are even worse; the diffraction is clearly evident in preventing additional detail from being rendered.

Diffraction issue does not have anything with the format to do, if your goal is to have a large DOF. With larger format you need longer focal lengths for the same FOV, and then need smaller aperture to compensate the DOF and - voilĂ  - no difference. That is medium format and large format struggles with diffraction in the same way. Still people seem to use those formats, at even higher pixel counts... hmm...

What makes diffraction a challenge is the resolving power, 36 megapixel on FF is just as "bad" as 36 megapixel on medium format.

With a high resolution back you can't expect the sensor to be the most limiting factor for all your shots. Instead you are pleased that you have a sensor that max out the expensive lenses you have (probably more money in those than in the camera body) and get the most of your technique. If you think your pixels are not jagged enough for a particular shot, you can always downsize. However, fairly soft pixels both enlarge and sharpen well, so since I do prints I'm not a big fan of low rez jagged pixels a la Sigma (having no AA filter on sub 30 megapixel cameras is a bad idea (tm)).

At some point the pixel count will be "excessive", which would be when center sharpness at ideal apertures (~f/4) does not get much gain. I think that limit is around 45-50 megapixels.

altenae

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 186
  • Enjoy Wildlife
    • Wildlife-photos
Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #81 on: February 09, 2012, 02:42:08 PM »
@torger

Quote
Diffraction issue does not have anything with the format to do

I have to disagree.
Pixel density matters !


Quote
DLA (Diffraction Limited Aperture) is the result of a mathematical formula that approximates the aperture where diffraction begins to visibly affect image sharpness at the pixel level. Diffraction at the DLA is only barely visible when viewed at full-size (100%, 1 pixel = 1 pixel) on a display or output to a very large print. As sensor pixel density increases, the narrowest aperture we can use to get perfectly pixel sharp images gets wider.

If I read this , I would say 18MP on a 1.6 has a lower DLA aperture then 18MP on a full frame.
The pixel density is higher with the 18mp on a 1.6 ??
The smaller the pixel size the lower the DLA Aperture


Quote
What makes diffraction a challenge is the resolving power, 36 megapixel on FF is just as "bad" as 36 megapixel on medium format.

The 1.6 crop is using less of the lenses glass (resolve power) then the same lens on a FF.
So I would say the FF 36 MP will resolve more detail then 36MP on a 1.6
« Last Edit: February 09, 2012, 02:51:46 PM by altenae »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #81 on: February 09, 2012, 02:42:08 PM »

torger

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 236
Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #82 on: February 09, 2012, 02:55:46 PM »
Quote
DLA (Diffraction Limited Aperture) is the result of a mathematical formula that approximates the aperture where diffraction begins to visibly affect image sharpness at the pixel level. Diffraction at the DLA is only barely visible when viewed at full-size (100%, 1 pixel = 1 pixel) on a display or output to a very large print. As sensor pixel density increases, the narrowest aperture we can use to get perfectly pixel sharp images gets wider.

If I read this , I would say 18MP on a 1.6 has a lower DLA aperture then 18MP on a full frame.
The pixel density is higher with the 18mp on a 1.6 ??

Or am I wrong ?

Quote
What makes diffraction a challenge is the resolving power, 36 megapixel on FF is just as "bad" as 36 megapixel on medium format.

The 1.6 crop is using less of the lenses glass (resolve power) then the same lens on a FF.
So I would say the FF 36 MP will resolve more detail then 36MP on a 1.6

Diffraction is not the only limiting factor. There's also resolving power of the lens. Smaller formats generally have sharper lenses, but not to fully compensate for the smaller format, so at some point lenses start to limit. There's also a limit to how large you can open up the aperture and still have good resolving power from the lens. You may in some formats hit those limits.

36 MP on 1.6 crop then resolving power of the lens is very limiting.

Another thing - a mildly diffraction-softened image responds well to deconvolution sharpening, so one should not be too afraid of it.

altenae

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 186
  • Enjoy Wildlife
    • Wildlife-photos
Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #83 on: February 09, 2012, 02:58:57 PM »
Quote
Another thing - a mildly diffraction-softened image responds well to deconvolution sharpening, so one should not be too afraid of it.

True.

One thing is certain the amount op resolving power of lenses will end somewhere. (not sure when  ;))

lensla

  • Guest
Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #84 on: February 09, 2012, 03:29:33 PM »
I've been lurking these forums for months.  But I registered just now to tell the OP that he sounds ridiculous.
Seriously.  I'm a former Nikon shooter (that still prefers a number of things about Nikons) and you
sound like an impatient, petulant child.

First of all, there isn't a professional on this planet that actually thinks the 24-70 needs IS. In fact,
it's easy to sort out the professionals from amateurs based solely on how they feel about there being
no IS on the 24-70.  It's a simple test actually.  Do you think that the new lens is overpriced because
it has no IS?  Congratulations, you're an amateur/hobbyist photographer.  Nothing wrong with that, let's
just not confuse terms here.     

If you want a barely useful (let alone necessary) gimmick like IS on wide focal lengths, then go buy the
24-105 for less than half the price.  A 24-70 focal range lens, especially on a full frame where most
pros will use it, renders IS almost completely useless.  Just about every situation (very few)  in which IS would
be useful can be covered using proper technique and/or a 100 dollar monopod.  Longer focal lengths, sure, IS
makes sense, and is quite useful. But you cannot look at the MTF chart of the newest 24-70, which looks like it
might even blow away some primes in its focal range, and go "oh that's overpriced".  It shows your ignorance.
It's a professional lens. A professional tool.  The added durability and sealing alone make it worth it for a pro,
they make it back with one or two photo shoots.   

And come on.  Complaining about Canon not having an answer for the D800? It's been out for like
72 hours.  Really?  I mean, really?  Now you're going to whine like the kid who's upset that the
neighbor boy got a new hot wheels toy and you have to wait 'til Christmas?  Come on.  Ridiculous. 
Settle down.  Obviously Canon is releasing something soon.  Wait to see what the specs are.
And stop worrying about unimportant things like IS on a wide angle, and huge megapixels on a 35mm. 

cps_user

  • Guest
Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #85 on: February 09, 2012, 04:00:25 PM »
Well, newbie, let me tell you - I'm a professional and I..uhm...actually agree with you.

D_Rochat

  • Guest
Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #86 on: February 09, 2012, 04:01:06 PM »
I've been lurking these forums for months.  But I registered just now to tell the OP that he sounds ridiculous.
Seriously.  I'm a former Nikon shooter (that still prefers a number of things about Nikons) and you
sound like an impatient, petulant child.

First of all, there isn't a professional on this planet that actually thinks the 24-70 needs IS. In fact,
it's easy to sort out the professionals from amateurs based solely on how they feel about there being
no IS on the 24-70.  It's a simple test actually.  Do you think that the new lens is overpriced because
it has no IS?  Congratulations, you're an amateur/hobbyist photographer.  Nothing wrong with that, let's
just not confuse terms here.     

If you want a barely useful (let alone necessary) gimmick like IS on wide focal lengths, then go buy the
24-105 for less than half the price.  A 24-70 focal range lens, especially on a full frame where most
pros will use it, renders IS almost completely useless.  Just about every situation (very few)  in which IS would
be useful can be covered using proper technique and/or a 100 dollar monopod.  Longer focal lengths, sure, IS
makes sense, and is quite useful. But you cannot look at the MTF chart of the newest 24-70, which looks like it
might even blow away some primes in its focal range, and go "oh that's overpriced".  It shows your ignorance.
It's a professional lens. A professional tool.  The added durability and sealing alone make it worth it for a pro,
they make it back with one or two photo shoots.   

And come on.  Complaining about Canon not having an answer for the D800? It's been out for like
72 hours.  Really?  I mean, really?  Now you're going to whine like the kid who's upset that the
neighbor boy got a new hot wheels toy and you have to wait 'til Christmas?  Come on.  Ridiculous. 
Settle down.  Obviously Canon is releasing something soon.  Wait to see what the specs are.
And stop worrying about unimportant things like IS on a wide angle, and huge megapixels on a 35mm.

I agree with you for the most part, BUTGoing from the current MSRP of the version I & II, there is a 64% increase in price  :o

If you compare the MSRPs of the 70-200 version I & II (IS) from 2010, there was only a (reasonable) 25% increase.

There was a 67% increase from the version I non IS to the version II IS.

I think it's pretty reasonable to expect IS in the new 24-70 (needed or not) for that that type of increase in price.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2012, 04:05:36 PM by D_Rochat »

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #87 on: February 09, 2012, 04:30:34 PM »

If you want a barely useful (let alone necessary) gimmick like IS on wide focal lengths, then go buy the
24-105 for less than half the price. .

I am a known non IS person in that I prefer to keep the shutter speed up with iso increases.

However I dont think that it is a gimmic on the 24-105. I find that 1/60 is about the minimum for non motion blur for slow moving humans. Without IS this leads to a problem when at the 100 end of the lens and 1/60 is all I am going to get without impacting IQ.

I would perhaps agree if you said about no need for IS on lens 50mm or over - but on the 24-105 IS is not a gimic

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #87 on: February 09, 2012, 04:30:34 PM »

awinphoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2090
    • AW Photography
Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #88 on: February 09, 2012, 04:55:03 PM »

If you want a barely useful (let alone necessary) gimmick like IS on wide focal lengths, then go buy the
24-105 for less than half the price. .

I am a known non IS person in that I prefer to keep the shutter speed up with iso increases.

However I dont think that it is a gimmic on the 24-105. I find that 1/60 is about the minimum for non motion blur for slow moving humans. Without IS this leads to a problem when at the 100 end of the lens and 1/60 is all I am going to get without impacting IQ.

I would perhaps agree if you said about no need for IS on lens 50mm or over - but on the 24-105 IS is not a gimic

I agree... there are times IS works, other times it wont... I can buy you a few stops hand holding but wont stop motion blur, and others, like shooting on an airplane or helicopter, no amount of IS will help and shutter speeds need to take over. 
Canon 5d III, Canon 24-105L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 F4L IS, Canon 100L 2.8, Canon 85 1.8, 2 430EX 2's and a partridge in a pear tree.

jaduffy007

  • Guest
Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #89 on: February 09, 2012, 04:59:45 PM »
Very nice the  noise in the Nikon D800....
I will switch to Canon !!!! (funny me)

in all seriousness, I agree with the noise comments.  I'm very surprised at the amount of grain present even in ISO 100 JPGs shown on Nikon's own site.  the interior architectural shots at f/8 are even worse; the diffraction is clearly evident in preventing additional detail from being rendered.


Are you guys seriously ragging on the stellar images of the library interior from the D800?  wow.   I think the images I've seen from the D800 are outstanding.  Wait for it....nope, the world didn't end.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #89 on: February 09, 2012, 04:59:45 PM »