July 28, 2014, 06:33:37 AM

Poll

What will be next Canon move in the area of their sensor department?

They don't care and think 5d3 sensor is fine
They will try to get next sensors from Sony as Nikon did
They will try to get sensors from another company than Sony because of some Nikon exclusive agreements
They will work harder to get better results and follow the path they do now
They will run some marketing campaign to defend the results achieved with current 5d3 sensor
They will run some marketing campaign admitting to mistake and offer some solution for future.
They will care a S___ and listen to pros who actually use cameras out in the field.

Author Topic: Next Canon step in the matter of their sensors  (Read 11094 times)

Aglet

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 905
    • View Profile
Re: Next Canon step in the matter of their sensors
« Reply #30 on: April 21, 2012, 07:49:19 PM »
In what real-world situation does the 5DIII have insufficient DR but the D800 does where you wouldn't be doing multiple exposures for HDR in the first place? And let's not forget that the 5DIII can do 6 FPS fire-and-forget several-shot brackets with a just couple button presses.


You sound like you never shoot storms or other action where HDR bracketing is impractical.
HDR bracketing is great for limited DR jpegs, they should not be necessary with a properly exposed raw file.

Real world example is right here.

www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html

Just imagine it as a landscape.

here's another, less extreme:

www.a2bart.com/tech/darknoise.htm

Then again, if you and your customers are happy with snaps out of the camera that you don't care to process to look better that's fine.  Why disparage those whose artistic work is benefited by a camera that can provide a better base file?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Next Canon step in the matter of their sensors
« Reply #30 on: April 21, 2012, 07:49:19 PM »

TrumpetPower!

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: Next Canon step in the matter of their sensors
« Reply #31 on: April 21, 2012, 08:24:40 PM »
You sound like you never shoot storms or other action where HDR bracketing is impractical.


I'll grant you that I haven't shot storms. I am, however, having a hard time imagining even a fast-moving storm that would have sufficient DR that you could use a shutter speed that won't move / blur in a single D800 exposure but that would be a problem with a single pair of 6FPS 5DIII exposures (with nearly twice the resultant DR of the single D800 exposure).

Quote
HDR bracketing is great for limited DR jpegs, they should not be necessary with a properly exposed raw file.


Um...no. Not even close. The attached HDR I did with three 5D (classic) RAW exposures manually composited. And not even the D800, I'm sure, would have had a hope of a chance at doing this with a single exposure. Notice the shadows under the fern in the lower left? That's at the bottom of Muir Woods. And notice the blue sky peeking through the top center? It's still blue.

Quote
Real world example is right here.

www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html

Just imagine it as a landscape.


I'm sure it wouldn't occur to Fred to try to make a print of either with the shadows pushed all the way to the midtones. And, if that's really the vision he had in mind, he'd have taken a second exposure for the shadows and composited it in -- just as I did in the attached shot.

You'll also notice that dynamic range was the only advantage Fred found that the Nikon had, and it had some other very crippling focus-related problems (and, frankly, laughably inferior glass) that kept him from using it for anything real.

In other words, it's the Canon, inferior DR and all, that's putting bread on his table and the Nikon that's good only for those JPEG snapshots you're referring to. And, as I've been pointing out everywhere, there's no visible resolution differences at 24" x 36".

Cheers,

b&

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: Next Canon step in the matter of their sensors
« Reply #32 on: April 22, 2012, 01:28:17 AM »

shooting distant birds (high density sensor puts more pixels per duck)

for making 13x19" or larger prints

shooting scenes with lots of dynamic range (IMO a huge difference here, this is the biggest difference)

I think you will find

- 22mp will be near enough native printing for A3 - 18x11 ish
- a dr of 12 will print the same as a dr of 14

I think you will find that 12mp images were printing very well on 30 x 24 using software to expand the image

If you are not close enough to birds with a large white then it is your field skills that need improving, not the camera. If you are a serious BIF shooter then the 5DIII is the wrong camera for you - and the D800 would be even worse.

TrumpetPower!

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: Next Canon step in the matter of their sensors
« Reply #33 on: April 22, 2012, 01:38:12 AM »
If you are a serious BIF shooter then the 5DIII is the wrong camera for you - and the D800 would be even worse.

Now you've got me wondering...I'd think the 5DIII would be second only to the not-yet-for-sale 1DX for BIF. I'd expect the 5DIII's new AF to trump even the 1DIV's framerate -- and, as you note, with a Big White, cropping shouldn't be a big deal.

On the other hand, I've not done any serious BIF (yet). So what's better than the 5DIII, presumably mounted to a 600 f/4, with or without the 1.4x, and why?

b&

stevenrrmanir

  • Guest
Re: Next Canon step in the matter of their sensors
« Reply #34 on: April 22, 2012, 01:58:07 AM »
Here's something I'd generally be interested in -- but, please, only reply if you have real-world experience, and not if you're only projecting your expectations from interpretations of an unfocused high-ISO macro shot of the inside of soWmebody's lenscap you saw posted on the 'Net.

In what real-world situation does the 5DIII have insufficient image quality for the job but the D800 does have sufficient IQ? That is, when would you put down the 5DIII and pick up the D800 instead of a medium format kit?

I personally can't think of any.

Cheers,

b&

Landscapes...in a heartbeat! The average sunset landscape can have a DR well above 12 stops, even above 14 stops. The more DR the better for landscape shots. Not that you will necessarily use all of it in the final product, but that you can always use the leeway when it comes to landscape shots. Being able to do even a touch of shadow recovery where necessary without encountering the color-blotched noise-infested pattern-ridden shadows that Canon is well-known for would be a godsend. Not to mention the improved sharpness on the D800e.

great pictures can be taken with ANY camera - I know people with cheap cameras that get amazing pictures without blowing thousands of dollars on bodies alone! they actually enjoy photography and don't waste time arguing over the interwebs over their toys!
« Last Edit: April 22, 2012, 02:00:20 AM by stevenrrmanir »

Aglet

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 905
    • View Profile
Re: Next Canon step in the matter of their sensors
« Reply #35 on: April 22, 2012, 02:12:16 AM »
I'll grant you that I haven't shot storms. I am, however, having a hard time imagining even a fast-moving storm that would have sufficient DR that you could use a shutter speed that won't move / blur in a single D800 exposure but that would be a problem with a single pair of 6FPS 5DIII exposures (with nearly twice the resultant DR of the single D800 exposure).

have a closer look at the example from a2bart from the other link.
1/1000s, f/5, ISO100.
that held the cloud hilites and motion in check. A push in post brought up the rest of the landscape and then other localized contrast and toning was used to embellish it.
That is a real-world example of a wide DR scene nicely squeezed into the DR of a print or display. An even wider DR could be accommodated using the same methods but only if the shadow noise level of the camera was low enough to not make a mess of it - as in the Fred Miranda example.  You don't have to bring shadows up to midtones to see the noise from a camera like the 7D, you can leave them 3 stops below mid and there's still obvious banding.

When lively storms have clouds moving 100+ mph, trees thrashing around and all the foliage on the move, no camera's fast enough to capture 2 or more frames without serious movement artifacts to deal with in conventional multi-shot HDR.  I've wasted plenty of time trying to bracket such scenes and put them together in post; results were not acceptable even in slower moving weather conditions.  Not to mention re-curving a multishot HDR to try and get a natural feeling image is a hassle.  IMO, you can get a much nicer result with a simple fill-light or shadows adjustment using Adobe's products.  LR4 does this with minimal artifacting or halos and it takes about 15 seconds to do it.  More complex toning control is available if needed.

No more multi-shot HDR silliness for me unless I need to capture more than 9 or 10 stops of DR and present them all.  Even then, I'll likely get a better result from just one ETTR raw file from one of the quieter new Nikons (or older Canons) where the hilites aren't clipped.

Um...no. Not even close. The attached HDR I did with three 5D (classic) RAW exposures manually composited. And not even the D800, I'm sure, would have had a hope of a chance at doing this with a single exposure. Notice the shadows under the fern in the lower left? That's at the bottom of Muir Woods. And notice the blue sky peeking through the top center? It's still blue.

Yes, not bad if you like that sort of look but again, multishot HDR has a hard time maintaining natural looking color and contrast. The shadow levels of that one could have been left a little lower too.
And I'd love to see what I can do with 1 shot from the D800 against a 3-shot HDR on the same scene.  A nicer job in much less time, I'm thinking. :)  Multishot HDR has its uses, but it's not needed if the camera can handle the scene without it.  And that would be any scene where the camera's noise-free DR is at least one or 2 stops greater than the scene being shot. That means the D800 and D5100 are gonna give me 2 more stops to work with, in ONE shot, than anything from Canon at this time.

You'll also notice that dynamic range was the only advantage Fred found that the Nikon had, and it had some other very crippling focus-related problems (and, frankly, laughably inferior glass) that kept him from using it for anything real.

yes, the nikon was hindered on Fred's shoot by inferior glass and a less then adequate live view mode, pity that latter especially as it's super useful on the Canons.
But to say the the better DR was the ONLY advantage the D800 had is like saying the only advantage one of these 2 motorized vehicles has is wings.  Wings are pretty damn important if you intend to fly.

Glass is one thing causing me some consternation because Canon's latest TSE 17 and 24mm are on my wish list.  Really wish there was something comparable for the D800 so I hope Samyang pulls a supermodel out of a cake with the 24mm F-mount version they're working on.  Or maybe (chuckle) the 1DX will have a much lower noise pattern than the 5Ds...

In other words, it's the Canon, inferior DR and all, that's putting bread on his table and the Nikon that's good only for those JPEG snapshots you're referring to. And, as I've been pointing out everywhere, there's no visible resolution differences at 24" x 36".

I'd be plenty happy with the rez from my 5D2 if I could push it more. The difference in rez is secondary for this purpose. I've printed 24x36" from my 40D that looks just fine with appropriate sharpening in post, and that's at nose-to-paper distances and ~100ppi.  Getting 180+ppi at the same size would only look better at much closer to normal viewing distance. I'll take it if if I got it. :) No complaints about file size either. (NEF compressed raw isn't all that bad for size)

« Last Edit: April 22, 2012, 02:25:57 AM by Aglet »

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: Next Canon step in the matter of their sensors
« Reply #36 on: April 22, 2012, 02:24:18 AM »
If you are a serious BIF shooter then the 5DIII is the wrong camera for you - and the D800 would be even worse.

Now you've got me wondering...I'd think the 5DIII would be second only to the not-yet-for-sale 1DX for BIF. I'd expect the 5DIII's new AF to trump even the 1DIV's framerate -- and, as you note, with a Big White, cropping shouldn't be a big deal.

On the other hand, I've not done any serious BIF (yet). So what's better than the 5DIII, presumably mounted to a 600 f/4, with or without the 1.4x, and why?

b&

The simple answer is the 1D4 - if pushed it can also cope with the 600 + 2x - and of course the 1.3 crop helps too.

The 1D4 rolls along at 10fps -the AF doesn't come into it. The 5DIII strolls along at 6fps (my low continuous speed on the 1d4)

The beauty of the 1D4 (and other series 1) is that wherever the AF point is is the place whee the metering is done, the 5DIII meters at the centre point. So with the 5DIII unless you are using centre point focussing you have to choose between correct metering or AF.

The 1D4 also has the option to manually set the shutter speed and the aperture with auto iso and also be able to set exposure compensation to get further refinements on metering. This isn't possible with the 5DIII

I think that you will find that there is so little in the AF speeds (40ms) that you wont notice the difference - this is one of those headline moments that means nothing in real life "5DIII AF faster than the mighty 1D4". Likewise with the D800 "you dont need long lens because you can get it from cropping" - providing that at 4fps you can capture the moment.

The 1D4 high speed burst is 28 images, the 5DIII is 18 images

I am talking here about the advantages of the 1D4 for sporting/birds/wildlife - not for the traditional 5D strengths of weddings/studio/landscape

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Next Canon step in the matter of their sensors
« Reply #36 on: April 22, 2012, 02:24:18 AM »

marekjoz

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 945
    • View Profile
    • marekjoz @flickr
Re: Next Canon step in the matter of their sensors
« Reply #37 on: April 23, 2012, 05:24:08 AM »
88 people voted - quite a nice feedback. Thank you.

Summarizing results:
1. They will work harder to get better results and follow the path they do now
2. They don't care and think 5d3 sensor is fine
3. They will run some marketing campaign to defend the results achieved with current 5d3 sensor
4. They will care a S___ and listen to pros who actually use cameras out in the field.

So we here rather think, that Canon finds 5d3 a good product and doesn't see a need to buy sensors form third party company but rather work harder.
What I find very important for us is also (no matter what we think about current gear prices) help Canon not to decrease income because of those comparisons. If sales decreases because of public not buying gear scared with tests, numbers and comparisons then we also will notice it in less money spent on R&D. Canon might not care for numbers and tests and listen to pros but the question is whether the public buying equipment will do it as well?
flickr | youtube | 5D2, 50 F/1.4, 24-105 F/4 L IS, 300 F/4 L IS, x1.4 II

TrumpetPower!

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: Next Canon step in the matter of their sensors
« Reply #38 on: April 23, 2012, 12:23:38 PM »
If you are a serious BIF shooter then the 5DIII is the wrong camera for you - and the D800 would be even worse.
(W)hat's better than the 5DIII (for BIF), presumably mounted to a 600 f/4, with or without the 1.4x, and why?
The simple answer is the 1D4 - if pushed it can also cope with the 600 + 2x - and of course the 1.3 crop helps too.

The 1D4 rolls along at 10fps -the AF doesn't come into it. The 5DIII strolls along at 6fps (my low continuous speed on the 1d4)

I can see how a faster framerate would be welcome for flying birds, to get the wings positioned exactly how you envision. But I'd have thought the repetitive motion of the wings alone would mean a sufficient number of shots with a good composition...and that you'd want the better autofocus to make sure that you have more in-focus shots to choose from.

Quote
The beauty of the 1D4 (and other series 1) is that wherever the AF point is is the place whee the metering is done, the 5DIII meters at the centre point. So with the 5DIII unless you are using centre point focussing you have to choose between correct metering or AF.

Really? Autoexposure with BIF? I'd have thought the way to go is with an incident meter. This is outdoors, right? Except for fast-moving partial cloud cover, the light's not changing. I mean, if these birds were in the trees I could understand...but "flying" implies "out in the open," right? You want great metering for weddings where you're shooting in all directions and every subject is in different light. But for shooting in a single direction from a fixed location outdoors? I don't think it'd even occur to me to check what the camera thought the exposure should be. Even if you don't have a meter, that's what your gray card is for.

Quote
The 1D4 high speed burst is 28 images, the 5DIII is 18 images

Yes, but both represent half a minute of continuous shooting. Are you really going to be machine-gunning for thirty seconds straight without letting your finger off the trigger even once? This is still photography we're talking about, not the movies.

Quote
I am talking here about the advantages of the 1D4 for sporting/birds/wildlife - not for the traditional 5D strengths of weddings/studio/landscape

Me, too. And, frankly, the only real advantage I can personally think of for the 1D4 is for its framerate...and that again can go away if the 5DIII gets more frames-in-focus per second even if the 1D4 has some additional frames-not-in-focus thrown in the mix for a higher total frames-per-second. Obviously, I haven't compared the two and I don't recall seeing anybody else doing a side-by-side comparison.

Cheers,

b&

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3741
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Next Canon step in the matter of their sensors
« Reply #39 on: April 23, 2012, 12:57:34 PM »
Quote
I am talking here about the advantages of the 1D4 for sporting/birds/wildlife - not for the traditional 5D strengths of weddings/studio/landscape

Me, too. And, frankly, the only real advantage I can personally think of for the 1D4 is for its framerate...and that again can go away if the 5DIII gets more frames-in-focus per second even if the 1D4 has some additional frames-not-in-focus thrown in the mix for a higher total frames-per-second. Obviously, I haven't compared the two and I don't recall seeing anybody else doing a side-by-side comparison.

Well, there is also the extra reach of the 1D4 with its APS-H sensor. That is something people keep seeming to forget about with all the new FF cameras flying about, but high density cropped sensors really do have something extra to offer that FF can't touch. Reach is everything when it comes to birds/BIF/wildlife, and you get a hell of a lot more bang for your buck with a cropped sensor and a middle-grade lens.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3292
    • View Profile
Re: Next Canon step in the matter of their sensors
« Reply #40 on: April 23, 2012, 04:17:54 PM »

shooting distant birds (high density sensor puts more pixels per duck)

for making 13x19" or larger prints

shooting scenes with lots of dynamic range (IMO a huge difference here, this is the biggest difference)

I think you will find

- 22mp will be near enough native printing for A3 - 18x11 ish
- a dr of 12 will print the same as a dr of 14

I think you will find that 12mp images were printing very well on 30 x 24 using software to expand the image

If you are not close enough to birds with a large white then it is your field skills that need improving, not the camera. If you are a serious BIF shooter then the 5DIII is the wrong camera for you - and the D800 would be even worse.

Why would a D800 be a worse birding camera? 16MP 6fps with higher density beats 22MP 6fps with lower density
And not everyone can afford 800mm or 1200mm lens. And even dragging a 300 2.8+2x TC around is a pain enough. Why do you think so many birders have 7D and/or 1D4???

yes 22MP is fine for 13x19, but you can see the difference between that and 36MP at that size if you use all of the highest print settings, it's not critical, but it does look crazy sharp when go to say 540ppi vs 300 ppi.

The DR difference is a good 3 stops, not 2, and yes it does make a difference.

Also, 4k displays are coming soon.

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3741
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Next Canon step in the matter of their sensors
« Reply #41 on: April 23, 2012, 05:28:48 PM »
yes 22MP is fine for 13x19, but you can see the difference between that and 36MP at that size if you use all of the highest print settings, it's not critical, but it does look crazy sharp when go to say 540ppi vs 300 ppi.

That assumes your 36mp sensor is capturing enough detail to start for a 540ppi print (which would probably be more like a 720ppi, 600ppi, or 360ppi print, depending on the printer, unless you want uneven and potentially unsightly interpolation.) You need the very best glass, at an ideal aperture, with absolutely zero camera shake, and a low enough ISO to capture a photo that will actually fully and perfectly utilize all the spatial resolution the D800 sensor is capable of. Thats a lot of factors, and outside of stable tripod-based landscape photography in zero wind, its going to be a tough thing to achieve most of the time.

Its pretty tough to capture a perfectly sharp, maximum detail image with the 7D's 18mp sensor, which offers slightly more spatial resolution than the D800. When it comes to BIF, its simply expected that your not going to capture that much detail in perfect clarity unless your about 2 feet from the bird or have ungodly reach, and that is kind of the holy grail of BIF. Most of the time, your well outside of ideal conditions. Reach becomes ever more important than resolution at that point, as the more you can fill the frame and utilize more of sensor area available, the better the quality of each pixel will be, offering more for your final output. Far more important than sensor, in that respect, is the glass and the reach of your glass. I would happily lug around a 300/2.8 with a 2x TC, or even a 500/4 or 600/4 with a 1.4x TC, if it will help me fill the frame.

When it comes to printing, the native print size between the 1D IV, 5D III and D800 is enough to print at any common paper size up to A2 with a bit of post-process sharpening for the lower res images, with very little to no visible difference between them all. The linear difference in megapixels translates to a far smaller area difference those megapixels can print at. Dynamic range in print is far lower than it is directly out of the camera, and unless your working with a true 10-bit display, even your monitor is going to be displaying less than 12 stops of DR. The native DR you get out of the camera has to be considerably compressed if your final destination os print. Gamut is a far more important factor for print, and both DR and gamut for print are things primarily based on software, several degrees removed from the camera itself. Your probably printing about 6-7 stops of DR most of the time, and potentially much less than that if you opt for a matte paper over an idealistic high dMax gloss or metallic paper, with a gamut around about as large as AdobeRGB (and a bit larger in either the greens or blues/violets...depending on the printer and inks.)

If we are going to talk about the benefits of any given camera for print, I'd say any of them will do far more than superbly. Printing is so many degrees removed from how good the camera hardware is its rather ridiculous and largely a moot point. Reach, be it via sensor crop factor or, more idealistically, longer glass, is a far more critical factor of capturing and printing BIF shots.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: Next Canon step in the matter of their sensors
« Reply #42 on: April 23, 2012, 07:02:43 PM »


Why would a D800 be a worse birding camera? 16MP 6fps with higher density beats 22MP 6fps with lower density
And not everyone can afford 800mm or 1200mm lens. And even dragging a 300 2.8+2x TC around is a pain enough. Why do you think so many birders have 7D and/or 1D4???

yes 22MP is fine for 13x19, but you can see the difference between that and 36MP at that size if you use all of the highest print settings, it's not critical, but it does look crazy sharp when go to say 540ppi vs 300 ppi.

The DR difference is a good 3 stops, not 2, and yes it does make a difference.

Also, 4k displays are coming soon.

I would guess that the vast majority of BIF shooters have a 7D or a 1D3/4. Go onto a BIF shooter forum and ask.

I would guess the majority of BIF have lens 400mm+ with, I expect, the 500mm being the most common.

I would expect a 7D with 8fps and a 1D4 with 10fps to be significantly better at BIF than the D800. Surprisingly DR is not a critical factor for BIF shooters - key factors are

- AF
- reach
- metering

The issue is not density but filling the frame, issues only start when cropping start. Putting all 16mp/18mp on the subject will always give top IQ

There is no way the D800 can compete with the 1D4 for BIF.
 

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Next Canon step in the matter of their sensors
« Reply #42 on: April 23, 2012, 07:02:43 PM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3741
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Next Canon step in the matter of their sensors
« Reply #43 on: April 23, 2012, 07:13:26 PM »


Why would a D800 be a worse birding camera? 16MP 6fps with higher density beats 22MP 6fps with lower density
And not everyone can afford 800mm or 1200mm lens. And even dragging a 300 2.8+2x TC around is a pain enough. Why do you think so many birders have 7D and/or 1D4???

yes 22MP is fine for 13x19, but you can see the difference between that and 36MP at that size if you use all of the highest print settings, it's not critical, but it does look crazy sharp when go to say 540ppi vs 300 ppi.

The DR difference is a good 3 stops, not 2, and yes it does make a difference.

Also, 4k displays are coming soon.

I would guess that the vast majority of BIF shooters have a 7D or a 1D3/4. Go onto a BIF shooter forum and ask.

I would guess the majority of BIF have lens 400mm+ with, I expect, the 500mm being the most common.

I would expect a 7D with 8fps and a 1D4 with 10fps to be significantly better at BIF than the D800. Surprisingly DR is not a critical factor for BIF shooters - key factors are

- AF
- reach
- metering

The issue is not density but filling the frame, issues only start when cropping start. Putting all 16mp/18mp on the subject will always give top IQ

There is no way the D800 can compete with the 1D4 for BIF.

As a BIF shooter, I pretty much agree with all of that. Particularly the most important camera features: AF, Reach, Metering.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

V8Beast

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 917
    • View Profile
    • Stephen Kim Automotive Photography
Re: Next Canon step in the matter of their sensors
« Reply #44 on: April 23, 2012, 09:54:16 PM »
Landscapes...in a heartbeat! The average sunset landscape can have a DR well above 12 stops, even above 14 stops. The more DR the better for landscape shots. Not that you will necessarily use all of it in the final product, but that you can always use the leeway when it comes to landscape shots. Being able to do even a touch of shadow recovery where necessary without encountering the color-blotched noise-infested pattern-ridden shadows that Canon is well-known for would be a godsend. Not to mention the improved sharpness on the D800e.

That's a fair answer, but based on all the b!tching, you'd think everyone is a landscape photographer all of a sudden. It's either that, or people who may have been in the market for a 5DIII don't like the idea that Nikon makes a better camera for landscapes, even though they don't shoot landscapes. Or maybe landscape photographers are an awfully vocal bunch :)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Next Canon step in the matter of their sensors
« Reply #44 on: April 23, 2012, 09:54:16 PM »