Who said Canon cameras suck?!?

[Nishi Drew]

The only complaint I've come across for the 5Dmk3 is relative to it's steep price, while complaints from owners? I don't recall anything specific, just maybe "oh man I wanted a 1Dx but could only afford this so my life stinks"

D800 complaints? Sure, plenty regarding the large MPs slowing things down, it's just unnecessary resolution for most. And of course the AF not being as stellar, and noise at high ISOs. I've seen one used Mk3 out of tons of electronic shops I've been checking out, and oh look there's a couple D800 s, and a D800E.

But, I find myself leaning toward Nikon for starting to beat Canon with video, but even if I would spend that much more for external recording drives for the uncompressed hdmi feed I'd rather wait and see what Canon will do in the near future.

[meli]

@jrista im afraid your post is choke full of wild assumptions and misinformation. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.
Rent a D800 and test it. Rent a D600 and test it. Recovery is better in both sides of the spectrum.

As for the thread's title, my opinion is yes, Canon sucks. A lot.
I'm not saying this in relation to what other brands put in the market. I'm saying this based on the potential of Canon as the top tier manufacturer of dslrs.
After 4 years what we see is basically a resolved AF. Thats great, but given the resources of Canon for R&D, it's just laughable how they advanced sensor-wise. Basically they didnt.
I'm sorry but the difference with previous generation is just a measly update. As for the whole video-oriented designed sensor that also was a joke, what other can it be when that thing is capable of delivering something like 600lines in 1080p? Or was it the slight better behaviour in moire?(not even going to refer to DR etc)

[Canon-F1]

a canon 5D MK3 with a 28 MP sony sensor... that would be a nice camera. 

[tron]

a canon 5D MK3 with a 28 MP sony sensor... that would be a nice camera.

Or a Nikon with a Canon body and controls, Canon electronics and Canon sensor, oh wait 

[bbasiaga]

I don't know...I hear a lot about how Canon hasn't improved but I just jumped from to a 5DMKIII and all I can say is I'm EXTREMELY impressed.  The images are higher resolution AND higher quality than the cameras that came before, and ISO is as clean at 12800 as it was at 1600 just a few years back.  To me, that is not stagnation. I know Sony made a breakthrough with the low end DR in their current sensors, but you know what?  That happens.  Technology is a race.  You don't lead every lap. 

There are some real world advantages to the current Sony tech, but I just can't get how all the people on these forums are ready to burn down Canon headquarters for not matching it instantly.  I guess in a world where your cell phone and iPad are only cool for a year, there is no patience for anything but what the 'in' crowd has. 


-Brian

[Canon-F1]

I don't know...I hear a lot about how Canon hasn't improved but I just jumped from to a 5DMKIII and all I can say is I'm EXTREMELY impressed.  The images are higher resolution AND higher quality than the cameras that came before

i think you would standing there quite puzzled when i ask you to tell me what image comes from a 5D MK2 or 5D MK3 at ISO under 800.

it´s correct that high ISO is better... but not all are focused on high iso.
there is s lot of folks who focus on maximum IQ at lower ISO settings.

and in fact some 5D MK3 owner say the 5D MK2 is better (sharpness wise) at low ISO.

Technology is a race.  You don't lead every lap.

of course .. but when you are second place you normaly don´t have the most expensive products... 

[tron]

I don't know...I hear a lot about how Canon hasn't improved but I just jumped from to a 5DMKIII and all I can say is I'm EXTREMELY impressed.  The images are higher resolution AND higher quality than the cameras that came before

i think you would standing there quite puzzled when i ask you to tell me what image comes from a 5D MK2 or 5D MK3 at ISO under 800.

it´s correct that high ISO is better... but not all are focused on high iso.
there is s lot of folks who focus on maximum IQ at lower ISO settings.

Technology is a race.  You don't lead every lap.

of course .. but when you are second place you normaly don´t have the most expensive products... 

That is a correct statement! I wonder it Nikon sells cheaper to get Canon users (at the expense of profits from D800). However, we have to take into account the lenses too.

[neuroanatomist]

Now imagine having all 14.4 stops of D800 DR...

You're right, it does have 14.4 stops of DR, despite a 14-bit ADC.  It's also powered by an internal perpetual motion machine, floats in the air when released, and basically defies many other laws of physics and thermodynamics.

 

[mystic_theory]

I said so, because I think it's true (at least compared to Nikon/Sony)!

Of course after such a scientifically rigorous test as yours I might change my mind... not! ;-)

[Canon-F1]

You're right, it does have 14.4 stops of DR, despite a 14-bit ADC.  It's also powered by an internal perpetual motion machine, floats in the air when released, and basically defies many other laws of physics and thermodynamics.

 

at the pixel level, the D800 DR at ISO 100 is 13.23EV.
the 14.4 is because of the normalizing in the DXO print mark.

[neuroanatomist]

You're right, it does have 14.4 stops of DR, despite a 14-bit ADC.  It's also powered by an internal perpetual motion machine, floats in the air when released, and basically defies many other laws of physics and thermodynamics.
 

at the pixel level, the D800 DR at ISO 100 is 13.23EV.
the 14.4 is because of the normalizing in the DXO print mark.

Yes, I know. 

If a data analysis method includes a normalization step which forces data to fall outside of the range that's physically possible for the measurement, that data analysis method is flawed, and by extension, any conclusions based on that method are also flawed.  If a hospital reported to parents that their newborn infant had a population-normalized length of -4", you'd say WTF, a negative height is impossible, right? 

Same thing with a 14.4 DR from a 14-bit ADC.  WTF, that's impossible.  Change the method, becasue the method is flawed.  If the analysis method is flawed, the resulting conclusions (i.e. DxOMark's Scores) are also flawed.  Note that I think (and I've repeatedly stated) that their Measurements are valid and useful - it's the Scores, which are based on the flawed normalization step (and have other problems, like undisclosed 'black box' weighting of sub-components) that are meaningless.

[RLPhoto]

D800. Its the name of the camera on everyones mouths these days. In all the blogs. In all the reviews. Its the thing raving Nikon fans rave about. Canon's taken a solid back seat to Nikon these days, particularly to the D800. I've said many times that Canon cameras have some pretty amazing highlight recovery, as Canon tends to tune their sensors response to favor highlights (either intentfully or simply as a byproduct of their manufacturing process, I can't say...although I'm inclined to think its intentional given Canon popularity among wedding photographers.)

I regularly repeat that anecdote in many of my posts...but I just came across a couple accidental overexposures of some of my own photos that I think clearly demonstrate the point. While out photographing birds with a rental Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II IS and Canon EF 2x TC III, I kept coming across dragonflys. A telephoto lens with a TC is a great way to photograph some frame-filling insect "macros" (more like pseudomacro) without scaring the subject off. I accidentally set my exposure wrong and totally blew the first few shots:

The exposure should have been around 1/1000s @ f/8 ISO 100 (which I proved with some subsequent shots, which ended up being 1/1000s @ f/7.1 ISO 160)...so my exposure above was almost four stops overexposed. Thanks to the power of Lightroom 4.1 and its amazing highlight recovery, the above image, with -4 EV exposure correction and 60% highlight recovery, turned into this:

I'd experienced Canon's amazing highlight headroom when photographing the moon. I REALLY push my moon exposures...to the point where once exposed the moon looks like a nearly uniform almost-white disc in the in-camera preview. Once imported, its clear that there are actually few parts of the moon that are actually white. I'd never actually overexposed something so much that on import it really DID look almost entirely white. The histogram of the dragonfly was all bunched up in two peaks near the very far right...with a small gap between the second peak and the actual right edge...a gap maybe 1 or 2 pixels wide. With 100% highlight recovery in LR 4.1, even the specular highlights on the wings still retain a lot of detail:

Since this image started out way overexposed, there is zero color or pattern noise in the shadows. There is also minimal random (photon shot) noise in the shadows as well...they look as clean as a D800 at ISO 100! ;-)

So, the next time someone tells you Canon sensors suck...send em here. While Canon sensors may not be able to achieve 13.2 stops of DR or allow noiseless shadow recovery like the D800 can, they really do know how to pack in the highlights, and maintain full color fidelity while recovering. The next time you need low noise shadows...expose to the right....then, try exposing farther to the right. 

Your right, I don't understand how anyone took photos before the D800. 

I still use my D30 for some web stuff, and it's taken some great photos that some would deem impossible with its ancient sensor.

[tron]

Your right, I don't understand how anyone took photos before the D800. 

I still use my D30 for some web stuff, and it's taken some great photos that some would deem impossible with its ancient sensor.

[MARKOE PHOTOE]

You're right, it does have 14.4 stops of DR, despite a 14-bit ADC.  It's also powered by an internal perpetual motion machine, floats in the air when released, and basically defies many other laws of physics and thermodynamics.
 

at the pixel level, the D800 DR at ISO 100 is 13.23EV.
the 14.4 is because of the normalizing in the DXO print mark.

Yes, I know. 

If a data analysis method includes a normalization step which forces data to fall outside of the range that's physically possible for the measurement, that data analysis method is flawed, and by extension, any conclusions based on that method are also flawed.  If a hospital reported to parents that their newborn infant had a population-normalized length of -4", you'd say WTF, a negative height is impossible, right? 

Same thing with a 14.4 DR from a 14-bit ADC.  WTF, that's impossible.  Change the method, becasue the method is flawed.  If the analysis method is flawed, the resulting conclusions (i.e. DxOMark's Scores) are also flawed.  Note that I think (and I've repeatedly stated) that their Measurements are valid and useful - it's the Scores, which are based on the flawed normalization step (and have other problems, like undisclosed 'black box' weighting of sub-components) that are meaningless.

IMHO, this is so true.  The mass majority doesn't fully understand the testing procedures but only look at the 'numbers' in order to position the worthiness of the product.  The real test is using your own combination of body and lens in your own environment with your own light and producing a final print that satisfies your own level of professional expectation.

[nightbreath]

The mass majority doesn't fully understand the testing procedures but only look at the 'numbers' in order to position the worthiness of the product.  The real test is using your own combination of body and lens in your own environment with your own light and producing a final print that satisfies your own level of professional expectation.

I feel so sorry for people complaining about all this stuff. What did they expect Canon will do with their sensors after several years of complaining about 5D AF?

People just need to stop blaming camera manufacturers for their inability to make the photos they imagine. There's nothing special in the DR or exposure latitude or whatever, it's all about the image that you capture (and maybe some post production to enhance the shot  )