|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
From Jeff Ascough
Jeff had a chance to take the new 1D Mark IV on location to a wedding to test the lowlight AF and higher ISO quality. I can't think of too many people more qualified to do so. He doesn't use a flash 99% of the time when shooting a wedding.
Check his thoughts and samples: http://jeffascough.typepad.com/….
cr
Finally, a competent photographer is able to show some 1D MK IV images. Jeff is one of Canon’s makers of light as I recall, so the report cannot be totally considered as unbiased, however, I read his early testing of the 5d MK II while mine was on order, and it was right-on
saw this on an FM thread and flipped through it. the ISO at 12800 is sick.
Yet ISO 12800 on the 1D Mark IV isn’t as good as the D3s so it really makes one wonder. I am still simply in awe the fact that Canon and Nikon are finally making cameras like this which we’ve needed for so long.
Side note, Nikon is releasing the D700s very soon. Baby version of the Nikon D3s?
I’m fairly certain this means the rumors regarding a Canon 3D Mark I camera have to be accurate. Canon would want to make a camera that would compete with it you would think at a similar price point. My guess is the 3D would have similar specs to the 1D Mark IV but just being a smaller version, not as fast, ISO not as great but still amazing, etc.
I saw a Mark IV at a football game on Saturday. Photog had just picked it up and didn’t know anything about it.
Where is the latest 3D rumor?
Next time help that brother out. He may even let you hold it. Now wouldn’t that be a treat?
I’m waiting until Imaging Resources tests both this and the D3s. I want to see the still life from both cameras at ISO12800 through 100K, side by side and normalized for the same image (not pixel) size.
Jeff’s good words about the focusing is encouraging, since, among other things, I shoot sports in poor light.
Just imagine how much better it would have been at FF. (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
A minor detail, the only thing that seperates this camera from me is… 5k$
Regarding the D700s, what I’ve heard is that it will be called the D800 and have a Nikon (not Sony) sensor with about 18MP.
“I have been shooting full frame cameras for the past three years and I was initially a little concerned that I wouldn’t like the cropped sensor. As it turned out I didn’t notice it shooting alongside the 5DMKII – it simply didn’t even cross my mind when taking pictures”
Raise your hand who really believes this.
How can it be that an experienced wedding photographer does not note by taking photos inside that not everything doesn’t fit in the frame?
There have been a lot of different posts online already comparing the various ISO levels and it clearly shows the D3s is better the higher the ISO gets. Granted you also get a few more megapixels out of the 1D Mark IV but in reality I don’t think that’s such a huge difference.
The camera will not be a D800 since it doesn’t have a new sensor, it’s using the D3s sensor and hence is the D700s just like the D300s, etc. This is why there was some rumors going around that there would be a Canon 3D camera released. I don’t think the D700 and 5D M2 were ever really a good side by side comparison as they were designed for two different purposes.
I’m not saying the 1D Mark IV isn’t a fabulous camera because it is. Nikon did steal their thunder though. They were claiming this camera as the evolution of photography then bam 5 days prior to the release the D3s is released.
The D4 is scheduled for next year as well so things are going to become very interesting.
He’d be full of crap I would say. You would notice just by looking through the camera. I mean when you look through a FF camera it takes up just about everything. When I look through a 1.6x crop now it hurts!!!
Honestly I don’t see any special in his pictures…any 1-year shooter can do that. His review doesn’t answer my questions at all.
If true, that would be interesting. It would be Nikon is comfortable with their own sensors, though it could be for either performance or economics reasons. I’m a bit dubious that they’re going to do that though.
In his defense that wasn’t a review. More like first impressions.
To be fair, he did say he shot the bulk of it with the 5DII. I’ts possible he wasn’t doing any critical work with the 1d, just messing around with it to test capabilities, etc.
> Jeff’s good words about the focusing is encouraging, since, among other things, I shoot sports in poor light.
Yep, and those wedding guests were moving like a bastard.
Not only that, but he’s gonna notice a difference in the DOF for his more intimate shots.
He may be a great photog, but yep I’m with you on the ‘full of crap’ call when it comes to an honest appraisal of this camera in the FF/crop stakes.
Snicker
Look, if you like Canon’s cameras go with the 1D, if you like Nikon’s better, go with the 3Ds or wait for the 4D. Both take excellent pictures, and most likely no one but the most anal pixel peppers will be able to tell the difference. In the end it’s all about the photographer, and not the gear.
I think its not just possible, but it is the fact, none of the professionals like him tests something brand new or preproduction stuff on assignment. And even these samples are “surprising” because of the privacy (you have to get their agreement etc…).
I agree. His assessment of the 7D was spot-on as well. As such I trust his statements regarding low-light performance (AF and low light).
“anal pixel peepers”….My oh my! What has the world come to?
1DMKIV is a 1.3 crop not the 1.6 crop like the 7D.
Sorry it’s not just about the photographer. While it’s true many professionals could make splendid photographs with a lesser camera it would be silly for a professional to use a camera with fewer features just to make their life more difficult if they do this for a living.
I really hate when I hear so-called professionals trying to tell me their 10-22mm lens is just as good as the 16-35 F2.8L.
>> so-called professionals trying to
>> tell me their 10-22mm lens is just
>> as good as the 16-35 F2.8L.
it indeed could be that the 10-22 is EVEN WORSE than the 16-35, but seen a number of good reviews and comments I doubt. 16-35 is so f***ng soft at the corners and edges that it’s just awful. unfortunately I do not have a body to try 10-22 with :(
That’s the kind of stuff I hear all the time though. They’ll always compare really cheap lenses to professional grade lenses and then they wonder why a professional prefer using something better. It’s like going out for a nice dinner. Sure you can go to Mcdonald’s but wouldn’t you really prefer a 5 star restaurant.
For some reason we don’t see many members of the press running around with Canon 30D cameras lol. Heck even the paparazzi use good cameras lol.
I really did not notice the difference between my 1D MK II and my 5D MK II. The telephoto lenses have a bit more reach, and wide is not as wide, but there was nothing that really jumped out.
Since I use telephoto more than I use wide, my 17-40mm will be plenty wide on a 1.3 crop for me.
Certainly a 10-22 is more than enough to get professional grade images, professional photographers were happy with 3MP cameras when that was all there was, and made great images.
The 16-35mm lens is a great lens on a FF camera, but put it on a 7D and its not very wide.
Award winning shots, professional grade images doesn’t have to be taken with an L glass. I seriously believe you’d fail a double or triple blind test of side by side images taken using different cameras and lenses. :)
I agree. I don’t understand why people are commenting on his blog about how amazing the composition is. The camera is definitely great though.
HI!
After seeing these pictures at ISO 6400/12800 I just wonder what Canon is doing. I’m shooting sports and Canon’s focusingproblems seems to be solved, but Nikon is far better at hight ISO.
I’ve been “a Canon-man” since the EOS 1n/1v/Kodak DCS/Eos1D/DS/MKII/MKIIN/DSMKII/MKIII/DSMKIII/5MKII.
I really hope that Canon’s productionmodel will be much better than shown in these high-ISO photographs. If not I think more Canon photographers will choose Nikon 3s as their new “working horse”.
I want I real and honest answer, so any of you think you would be able to tell the difference between the MkIV and the D3s, at their higher ISO settings, with 8×12 prints? 16×24? How about 20×30? I don’t think you can or would. Who cares about which manufacturer squeaks ahead in high ISO performance when you will never be making prints large enough to tell the difference, plus if you’re shooting professionally I hope you are putting the images through at least a little post production, which, with the right software or plug-ins, can get rid of most, if not all of the noise in an image. “Oooo, Nikon has better performance at high ISOs.” “Oh, the Canon has a crisper ‘film-like’ appearance to it’s noise pattern.” What ever, buy what you know, what is comfortable to you, because in terms of image quality, you will never be able to tell the difference, never, and nor will anyone you ask or any of your clients. Unless you are making billboards, and then you might want to think about stepping up to a medium format digital. This whole higher ISO performance and better image quality discussion is mundane and pointless. Am I the only one who feels this way?
We need to base tests more on color accuracy, dynamic range, the processors, the lens (oh god, please more emphasis on this, it is so important with these densely packed sensors). There has to be a different way is all I’m saying…and maybe a little more.
Mmm.. let me depress your shutter.
Carey then ask yourself why does Canon try to push megapixels above any other point in their cameras? I make 20×30 prints all the time for my clients.
It’s really the first thing canon looks at when making the camera is just how many megapixels they can cram into a tiny sensor.
Also try using that 10-22mm lens at a wedding in a cathedral with dim light when flash isn’t allowed and you’ll see just how useful that lens becomes. In any event the ability to shoot beautiful shots in near darkness in my opinion is greatly valuable.
Whether it is Canon or Nikon I couldn’t care. The fact is these two companies push each other to keep making more and more improvements. They compliment each other and without each other I don’t think we’d see these type of quality improvements year after year.
He meant that the 1.3 crop hadn’t influenced his workflow at all!
You reply with the reply button.
Megapixels are pushed because in the digital beginning they did play a role in image quality. Not so much any more, now they’re used more for marketing more than anything. Companies saw that people, consumers and professionals alike, used the megapixel count as sort of like horse power is with cars. Soon, without and deep innovation in sensor and lens technologies, we’ll see more negative returns tan positive, for higher pixel counts. And innovative steps is exactly what is needed to be taken to improve and surpass existing technologies. The Foveon sensor that Sigma uses is amazing, but it’s really not 14MP, it’s only a little over 4MP, and it’s not full frame, but they idea of using three sensors to record true color at every pixel site is indeed very amazing. Imagine a true 12MP or 14MP, FF Foveon sensor. Or Fuji’s Super CCD technology. Lets do something new to not only allow for decently high megapixel counts, but also superior quality through a wider dynamic range, or wider color gamut.
We also need lenses that can fully compliment and resolve at what these denser sensors are capable of, especially on APS-C sized sensor, because they’re not keeping up. People forget that lenses have a resolving power that’s measurable just like that of a digital sensor. The sensor of any camera is only as good as the lens on it, in terms of sharpness.
I agree with you totally.
I totally agree with you.
He is one of Canon ambassador. he is very respected in the field especially in pure photojournalism wedding photography.
5D mark IV AF is a bit outdated because it is slower than 40D-50D. 1d mark IV is two class better. 7D is in the middle.
But Jeff never get advantage of the tracking system nor continuous shooting. He use center point to focus and single shot.
Anyway, the noise control in high ISO is great.
Couldn’t agree more
It’s not the improvements themselves that are the problem. Constant innovation is great. It’s just that by now the image quality of either camera maker has reached such a high level that no one but a really trained eye can tell the difference, which is why this “I’m switching to Nikon if it’s 1/2 stop better than Canon”-rant seems so lame. (not that you were ranting Kevin… just a general observation in here).
“Pardon me, my camera seems to be actong weird, could I bother you to get you to take a photo with my camera to get your opinion on what’s
causing it to rxhuhfuh….
oh, I’ll hold your camera for you… ”
:-D~
Exactly, I think Canon was close with the 5D,
everything since then has been hurt by trading image quality for more pixles.
i think it has had NR done despite what he said. It defies the laws of current physics for it to have zero chroma noise. The 5D2 has chroma noise even at ISO 100
I’d imagine the first desired zoom for weddings is a normal zoom plus a prime with another camera. Now, with the 1.3x crop there seems to be the need to use the 17-40, then something which covers the long end, plus a prime again. I got three lenses/cameras instead of two because of crop.
You can play with this to see the difference (and imagine you are in tight indoors):
http://lens-reviews.com/Technical-Talk/Technical-Talk/Lens-Field-of-View-Visualisation-Tool.html
I would agree the Canon 5D Mark I was a great camera, I still love it more than the Mark II. I mean in reality 95% of people really don’t need such a huge megapixel count yet this is all Canon is focusing on for the most part.
I ended up switching to Nikon after I had 3, yes 3, Canon 1Ds Mark III cameras fail on me in just under 1 year. So at first for me the switch from Canon to Nikon was simply a reliability issue but after going to Nikon I was able to appreciate just how good some of their gear is.
What I find sad is when I hear people at local camera stores saying they switched to shoot Canon because they think the 7D is just so amazing and that it has 5 whole megapixels more than the D300s. Yet the D300s still has a better IQ.
I really find people switch systems for the wrong reasons when in reality the cost for a professional to switch from one brand to the next is rather significant.
Right now ther are morons on the Nikon side of things really hoping to see a 24mp sensor in the D4 when it comes out. If something like this were to happen it would truly be the first super DSLR ever released by any camera maker.
Seeing as how Canon has crammed 18mp in a crop sensor I wouldn’t be shocked to see the 1Ds come out in the 32-36mp form at which point its arguable that DSLRs are competing with medium format.
“Unless you are making billboards…”
Billboards don’t require medium format photography. I wish people would quit referring to this – unless you say “enlarge your print to the size of a billboard”.
wait, so your gripe with the 10-22mm is to define the parameters so narrowly as to a wedding photographer in a chapel with dim light and no flash? What wedding photographer says they use a 10-22? Since you are discussing the 10-22mm vs. the 16-35 on a crop, Might I ask you to try your 16-35mm at f/2.8 but at 15mm? Or 14mm? Or 13mm? Or 12, or 11, or 10. Go ahead, try it. I bet the 10-22mm wins.
Get over to Planet5D for combat training and jumping out of planes on a real mission with this camera. Awesome. F-ck knows about the camera these guys are amazing.
http://blog.planet5d.com/2009/11/canon-eos-1d-mkiv-captures-first-night-combat-equipment-airborne-jump/
Well, perhaps these professionals know what their target is, and know that the 10-22 is good enough for their needs.
Maybe they know its not all about “OMG I must have the newest of the new and the most expensive of the expensive to be professional”.
Mate, you got the point where you complained about narrowly defining the use of the lens. After all, wide lens are also used for (gasp!) landscape photography- where there’s a lot of stopping down and the 16-35’s large aperture is no advantage.
That said, you missed it bad when it comes to comparing the focal lengths. 10-22 and 16-35 are compared against each other when the 10-22 is on a 1.6er, while the 16-35 is on a FF- since they give similar focal lengths on that combination. Its not about mounting them both on a 1.6er.
Ok, no offense guys but canon’s pro cameras are WAY behind nikons right now. Canon keeps cramming more pixels and making pixel size smaller and this is screwing them over. This is not the only thing that makes nikon way better.
Let’s compare just the D3S and the 1D mark iv. There is no comparison, even if the 1d mk iv was 4000 I would still take the D3s because it is so far ahead of the 1d mark iv. I can’t imagine why people would pick the 1d mark iv unless they are heavily invested in canon also. I am a wedding photographer who shoots canon, so do not think this is biased. This is all objective. I wish I could have nikon, but I am stuck with canon because of my investment in lenses. Here is why the D3S is way better…Keep in mind i’ll mostly be speaking from a wedding photographer’s perspective.
1) high iso performance will be much better in D3S
2) battery life is 4000…what was canon thinking with their 1500 shot battery life?? when D3S comes with 4000 standard, this is important to pros
3) D3S has a FF sensor, which allows shallower dof in the same field of view. FF also have more dynamic range.
4) Ergonomics and layout, the dedicated buttons on the nikon and ease of use make this better than the 1d mk iv. The fit and finish is also in my opinion better on the D3s
5) Viewfinder, Canon left out the features it put in the 7D for the viewfinder. The D3S will have a much better viewfinder, and closing the curtain on the viewfinder on the 1d mk iv is still a pain. You have to remove the rubber cover and then close it, unlike the D3s.
6) AF, ok so canon has a new AF. Nikon’s is tried and trusted, but perhaps this will be a tie.
7)D3s offers a 1.2 x crop mode, and a 1.5 x crop mode. 1d mk iv is just stuck at 1.3x.
8) overall better IQ in D3s because of larger pixels
9) Canon has great primes, but they do not have zooms to match nikon. 70-200 2.8 and 24-70 2.8 from nikon are much much better than canon’s equivalent version.
The ONLY thing the 1d mk iv excels at is video compared to the D3S, and that is not even an issue for most people who are getting these cameras to use for stills. Video is just a bonus in my opinion, but I understand some people are doing more with it. I’m speaking for the people who are getting this as a stills camera.
I think it’s ridiculous that the 1d mk iv is only 200 less than the D3s, to be honest if it was 4k I’d consider it maybe but would most likely still rather pay 5k for the D3s. And I have this feeling when the D4 is released, it will be another huge step which will leave canon oh so far behind….
Why is canon making me envious of nikon users and wishing I was a nikon user?? I do understand that cameras have little to do with your photos, but speaking from experience the nikon pro bodies make it easier to get the shots you need to!! Specially in low light, and furthermore their zoom lenses give you far better IQ than canon’s zooms.
He actually did. I brought it up, he denied it asking how I knew (gaffers tape hid the usual) but I’m too much of a gear head to let that slide.
We talked about it for a few minutes and he offered to let me shoot with it but only got to for about 3.74 second. Oh, and it was attached to a 400mm f2.8L IS. I was too nervous to really get any decent shots. haha.
Yeah, I too shot with a 1.3x Mark II and a FF 5D and I barely notice the difference. Really, the differences on how the camera handles and shoots far out weights the slight sensor size difference. Now, between those two and my 7D, yeah, I WAY notice the 1.6x crop.
And when your working and in the heat of an event, most times the sensor size never crosses my mind, until I try to frame with the wide end of my 24-105L and realize I’ve lost something. Just picked up a 16-35L, so all is well now :D
He says in the comments that he had to step back.
So you’re saying that because the 5D2 has noise that it’s impossible for any camera to have files that appear noise free???
Canon has been balancing noise and resolution for a while now,
the 5D was the last body(imo) that Canon got right, I think they missed the mark with the 50D, 5D2, 7D.
sure they can resolve more information, but they do that
at the cost of more noise.
as long as you keep in mind that the mk4 is pre-production.
looks like he took a few pics with it while grabbing a bite to eat.
sure the 10-22 can take good pictures, but will you trust it in a dust storm or monsoon?
“9) Canon has great primes, but they do not have zooms to match nikon. 70-200 2.8 and 24-70 2.8 from nikon are much much better than canon’s equivalent version.”
If you don’t like Canon’s 70-200 2.8 and 24-70 2.8,
there will soon be: 70-200 2.8L IS mkII and 24-70 2.8L IS.
Or you just have a FF as the second camera, as any wedding photographer will do anyway. Problem solved for the wide side, and your 24-70 suddenly reaches into proper portrait zone on a 1.3x crop (91mm), which is nice.
In checking out samples of both the D3s and the MkIV, I see no severe difference in IQ. So small that it really doesn’t matter. The depth of field on an APS-H sized sensor and that of a FF is near insignificant. Mike, if Nikon feels and works better for you, sell your equipment, you’ll be a happier shooter. I agree about Canon’s battery, though I like Canon ergonomics more. But know who has better IQ than either the Canon or the Nikon? From what I’ve seen, the SD14 and the S5 Pro tend to edge out a little further in certain categories. Why don’t you use either of those if top notch, better-than-anything-else image quality is such a severe issue? I don’t get this fight over who’s got the better IQ, especially when it comes to Canon Vs. Nikon. Did it matter so much when it came to film? No. You bought the camera that made sense to you, that offer you the options and amount of control you wanted, that felt comfortable in your hands and had great glass. It’s no different now. Can’t we just stop bickering about IQ and look at other different criteria to judge a camera system by?
No, pro photographers were NOT happy with 3mp when they first hit the scene. They were an oddity, sometimes a marketing tool the photog used to differentiate himself, but at that point MOST people continued to shoot with film.
Buddy, you’re on so much crack I’m sure you’ve sold all your gear to by the drugs.
1) High ISO will be way better in the D3s? What are you basing that on? The only images we’ve seen with the 1D Mark IV look pretty frickin good to me when compared to those from the D3s. And I should remind you we’ve only seen a few images from one photog, so it’s a little early to make any definitive statements.
2) Dude, my 1Ds Mark II can slam out 1500 images per charge (using a lot of IS and autofocus) and the Ds Mark III lasts even longer. Are you shooting 4000 images at a wedding? If so I’d have to guess you’re a lousy photog who relies on burst shooting the day away versus having an ‘eye’. Regardless, the battery life on the canons is fine for most assignments and a dumb thing to switch systems over.
3) FF would be better. Canon should have gone with dynamic crop.
4) Ergonomics are a personal thing and the most idiotic critique I tend to hear of one camera over another. Nikon puts its vertical grip shutter button further up the side of the camera than does canon. I have big hands. The palm of my hand lies on the D3 button so I have to disable it. The canon buttons fit my hands perfectly. I have no problems access anything on my canons. I like canon. Some people like Nikon. Personal choice, dumb overall critique.
5) Why the hell are you closing the viewfinder curtain when shooting a wedding? Too afraid to see your lousy compositions? In the 1Ds bodies we’ve got a simply lever to pull down – no messing around with anything.
6) Again, we don’t know the AF story.
7)You already covered this one.
8) This is not always the case. The 1D Mark II has better image quality than the 1Ds at ISO 100. There is more at stake in image quality than just the pixel size (though it obviously plays a part). So, again, wait and see the real images.
9) Here’s where you must have taken another drag on the crack pipe. NO ONE thinks the Nikon 70-200 is anywhere near as good as the canon. And the Nikon 24-70 is, what, 8000 lbs heavier and 2 miles longer than the Canon equivalent (which I think it shaper anyway).
well I hate to start arguments, but some people just need to realize the facts
1) high ISO WILL be better on the D3S. What is that based on? First and foremost the laws of physics, bigger pixels means better performance at high iso, and not only are the pixels bigger the sensor is bigger allowing more color depth and dynamic range. If physics isn’t enough, you can check the many posted photos of the D3S and compare to the 1d mk iv posted photos, also nikon didn’t take down their high iso photos like canon did.
2) batter life is not something to switch systems over I agree, and no you do not need 4k shots at a wedding. However, when going on trips it’s nice to not have to charge your battery daily. I like the charge it once and forget it for a while approach, as would any other photographer.
3) Yep, looks like you agreed with me on the FF part.
4) Ergonomics is a personal preference, which is why i stated in my opinion the nikons are better. Not that they are definitively better.
5) true the new 1d mk iv does have that curtain on the viewfinder, so good thing canon finally did that…finally.
6) yep, not sure about AF but not concerned here…i’m sure canon did a find job on the new AF system, they would be screwed over if they didn’t.
Regarding the f2.8 zooms, sorry to tell you this everyone knows the nikon’s are better. Even canon users are aware of this…that is why they are desperately awaiting their updates. I have extensively tried both the nikon 70-200 and canon 70-200, and the canon’s is much softer at f2.8. I suggest you try doing the tests and real world situation tests as well with those two zooms, and then judge.
I hope so, I am waiting for those upgrades and hoping they are as good as the nikons or even better!
*”1) high ISO WILL be better on the D3S. What is that based on? First and foremost the laws of physics, bigger pixels means better performance at high iso, and not only are the pixels bigger the sensor is bigger allowing more color depth and dynamic range.”
*”bigger pixels means better performance at high iso”
No it does not, this myth has been “busted” long time ago – http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Insights/More-pixels-offsets-noise!
*”the sensor is bigger allowing more color depth and dynamic range.”
Sensor size, irrespective of the pixel size, has NOTHING to do with color depth or dynamic range.
*”Regarding the f2.8 zooms, sorry to tell you this everyone knows the nikon’s are better”
Care to show us some proof of that or do we just take your word for it?
Hum, OK pixel size is not directly the issue but :
A bigger sensor receives more light for the same aperture/shutter speed.
This is physics (actually just geometry), and causes bigger sensors to be better at high iso, all other technological tricks being equal.
Now, cameras are bags of technical tricks…
Also, dynamic range is the same issue as noise at base iso. So yes, larger sensors have better dynamic range (all other tricks being equal :-)
“Also, dynamic range is the same issue as noise at base iso. So yes, larger sensors have better dynamic range (all other tricks being equal :-)”
Simply not true. A quick gedankenexperiment – if you have two sensors of different size but with the same pixel size (so the only difference is pixel count) and everything else being equal – do you think that noise/dynamic range will be different? Quick answer – no. Sensor size (area) is relevant only in respect to crop factor (if any) not to IQ.
I have to agree with Denni. I have a Nikon film scanner from that era that gives me 11MP files from 35mm negatives and slides.
Now doesn’t that sound pretty silly. Why not just have one camera that does it all? Nikon seems to have no problem making this….
even the 2500 iso shot does not looks any better than my 5D2 ,
exposed (for the shadows)like those pics, even 7D can deliver a shot with that much shadow noise.no big deal i must say.
http://jeffascough.typepad.com/.a/6a01156f7d083a970c0120a6ced32c970b-popup
In checking out samples of both the D3s and the MkIV, I see no severe difference in IQ. So small that it really doesn’t matter. The depth of field on an APS-C sized sensor, an APS-H sized sensor and that of a FF is near insignificant, about one f-stop worth. Mike, if Nikon feels and works better for you, sell your equipment, and switch. You’ll be a happier shooter, and I’ll be happier from not listening to this all day. I do not agree about Canon’s battery, and I like Canon ergonomics more. But those are personal, subjective opinions, not something to objectively judge a camera system. And know who has better IQ than either the Canon or the Nikon? From what I’ve seen, the SD14 and the S5 Pro tend to edge out a little further in certain categories. Why don’t you use either of those if top notch, better-than-anything-else image quality is such a severe issue? I don’t get this fight over who’s got the better IQ, especially when it comes to Canon Vs. Nikon. Did it matter so much when it came to film? No. You bought the camera that made sense to you, that offered you the options and amount of control you wanted, that felt comfortable in your hands and had great glass. It’s no different now. Can’t we just stop bickering about IQ and look at other objective criteria to judge a camera system by?
And Micheal is right. People really need to separate pixel size and sensor size. It’s a semantic difference, but a large one. And there is a lot that goes into allowing for higher density sensors with the same surface area, but without drastically reducing pixel size, or without noticeable degradation to IQ by allowing smaller pixels to be as efficient. The 7D has a 20% increase in pixel count, but roughly the same size pixel site as the 50D, by reducing the amount of circuitry between pixels. And the 5D MkII has a more than 50% increase is pixel count, but does just as well as the 5D MkI at high ISO’s, because of a better processor and gapless microlens in front of the sensor, it even out shines the 1Ds MkIII very slightly, even though they roughly have the same sensor. Pixel size isn’t everything. But with denser sensors, especially the smaller, high density sensors, lens power, more often than not, becomes the deciding factor in terms of the image quality the camera is truly capable of, and Canon is better than Nikon in this arena. There are only a few Nikon/Nikkor lenses that can come close to the Canon equivalents. And Canon has lenses that Nikon doesn’t. The only other lens manufacturer that comes close is Tokina.
Why did I do that?
Hi,
In your example, the bigger sensor has less noise for the same print size (same per pixel noise, more pixels).
And with less noise you get more dynamic range (if you need it in the lights, you can easier underexpose thanks to the lower noise).
In one point you are wrong. From 50D White Paper, p.23:
” Several optical and electronic technology advancements debut in the EOS 50D’s CMOS sensor. For starters, a new micro manufacturing process was used in the CMOS semiconductor production phase to increase the light-sensitive photodiode area. Above the photodiode, gapless microlenses improve the light-gathering efficiency of the smaller 4.7μm pixels and help achieve high ISO speeds (standard range from ISO 100 to 3200, with expanded 6400 or 12,800 ISO settings possible) plus lower noise images than on the EOS 40D.”
I don’t see how I am wrong. So they did that with the 50D, and in honesty, the 40D still held out. But perfecting an idea such as this requires implementation. The science behind the idea has had a chance to evolve, and so it works better in the 7D, where images are very comparable, if not better than the 50D. As the science ages, it will evolve will lend to better products, like a 30MP full frame with the same pixel size as a 21MP full frame sensor, or an 18MP APS-C sized sensor with the same pixel size as a 21MP full frame. I know I may be exaggerating, but that’s how it goes. But that doesn’t matter to me, the amount of pixels really doesn’t matter to me. I want a higher dynamic range, better color, more innovation in terms of sensor technology besides cramming more pixels on a sensor. And I know I could move to other manufacturers, but I like Canon’s camera ergonomics, and I like their glass, but I do want sharper lenses, especially in terms of zooms. Better and more innovative menu systems. I want built in wireless, truly wireless flash control of my speed lites without the need for line-of-site or special transmitter. Maybe a slot to stick a pocket wizard card into my speed lites, because sometimes, when doing a location shoot, I would rather bring those than lug around a couple of studio flashes and power rigs, but then I would need to buy the pocket wizard transceiver. I want a 7D, and then I want a FF 7D. That’s all, is that to much to ask. I really care not about resolution, a 5D MkI sensor with 7D auto focus, frame rate, dual processors, weather sealing, view finder and iFCL metering; that would be tits!
Only this part of your opinion is untrue:
“The 7D has a 20% increase in pixel count, but roughly the same size pixel site as the 50D, by reducing the amount of circuitry between pixels.”
Both 50D and 7D sensors are of gapless technology so the pixels on 7D’s sensor are smaller (4.3µm). Also DLA (Diffraction Limited Aperture) for 7D is smaller (f/6.8 vs. f/7.6 for 50D).
Except this I agree with your point of view. No matter what are the technical reasons, too big pixel density kills the DR and it sucks.
24-70? one´s got to be very lucky to get a good copy to be used at the wide end – wide open,at f4 it gets better but still not a match for the other f4 L zooms, what´s the point then lugging around the extra weight?
i´ll take a 17-40 or the 24-105 anytime rather than the heavy softie 24-70. let the press people use it to whom image quality comes second:-).
The problem is that everybody’s looking
for the perfect picture from a camera and that will never happen. It is just not possible for a camera with just one exposure to see what the
human eye can see.
That’s why u have Photoshop. If u know what u are
doing, u can really have that perfect shot. No
matter if it came from a canon or nikon or a taken with a cheap lens or having bad white balance or overexposure…
U can fix almost anything in PS.
Actually, some of us really do need, and can easily see an advantage of high iso performance. Being a music tog who does a great deal of live concert work, I’m shooting in the dark, with very dire lighting at times, with fast moving subjects. When I’m shooting at iso3200, f/1.2, 1/125, and still underexposed, having another stop or more with clean(er) files makes a huge difference, and can lead to many more publications/sales. I’m hoping to add the markIV to my markIII kits soon. I would the D3 files but bring so invested in canon glass & markIII’s, it’s not feasible to move to nikon.