No 7d iii in 2019!
- Thread starter Cryve
- Start date
Could be, i am not completly sure.
At some point we are photon limited anyway, i dont know at what point though. maybe we are already and it only comes down to sensor architecture changes to increase the pixel size and light amount gathered (with bsi for example). Does anyone know?
Upvote
0
So that would mean a 7D MkIII with a stop of DR improvement and no AA filter would be a 'big deal' for some users. And that's fair enough, I was, and said, I was just playing devils advocate for the fun of it.
Upvote
0
But nobody else makes an APS-C with appreciably higher DR over 400 iso or high ISO performance.
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 7D Mark II,Canon EOS 80D,Nikon D500,Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II,Pentax K-5 IIs,Sony ILCE-6500
What makes you think Canon will?
Upvote
0
The nikon d500 is about 1 stop better. Could be because it has a bigger sensor, but if not i would appreciate it from canon aswell.
Only the d500 and 7dii are specialy made for high iso, maybe thats why the other cameras dont offer appreciable higher dr at higher isos.
Upvote
0
No, aove 400iso the D500 is never close to 1 stop of DR better than the 7D MkII.
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 7D Mark II,Nikon D500
From 800 up there is a fag paper between them.
Upvote
0
you are right. now i see it. The tiny difference is most likely because of sensor size.
Upvote
0
The D500 has two pluses over the 7DII that I would like to see the 7DIII catch up with. Firstly, is the IQ. But, secondly, the more important is the AF - it is much better because of Nikon's algorithms that detect movement. I was in a bird hide last weekend next to a guy with a D500 and 300mm f/2.8 and 1.4xTC. He was able to get sharp shots of a kingfisher zipping across against a background. There is no way I could even attempt to capture that.
Upvote
0
Aussie shooter
https://brettguyphotography.picfair.com/
Are you serious? He was actually tracking a kingfisher against a background. I have been able to get some sharp shots of kingfishers flying in front of a distracting background but it involves prefocusing where I think they will fly and just letting rip when they take off.
Upvote
0
Yes. He showed them to me on the screen. I have some in flight where I have been lucky because I have prefocussed on them perching and they have flown off sideways. His shot was of one coming towards us diagonally.
Upvote
0
You are in a photon limited region when the DR or S/N decreases with decreasing light. If they don’t, then the circuitry is much noisier than than the shot noise from the photons. The sensor is clearly photon limited when DR or S/N increases linearly with decreasing iso. As light levels increase and you approach base iso you can clearly see how the poorer sensors have DR level off while the best sensors are still in the linear region.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Aussie shooter
https://brettguyphotography.picfair.com/
That's crazy. But i would like to see the whole series to see if it really was tracking it against a distracting background or if there were just one or two lucky shots. I have my doubts any camera could accurately track a target like that. Even with a superior af system. But i would love to be proven wrong.
Upvote
0
I'd love to know what you're doing for that to be true: I routinely use my 7D Mk II in 4000-8000 ISO light (and worse), and get noise-free (that's not hyperbole - it's literally the case) conversions straight out of the Raw converter. < 4000 ISO light is "a sunny day" for me...
In fact, below about 8000 ISO the images are essentially indistinguishable from < 1000 ISO tiles. I used to be a pretty solid advocate of selective NR using Topaz DeNoise (which is excellent) but I haven't used it in something like three years. I simply don't need it. I have no qualms about using the 7D Mk II in poor light.
This is not a particularly good image - it's just a bank vole that lives under a feeding station at RSPB Loch Garten, Scotland, good practice for shooting handheld at 1,000mm - but it's at 10,000 ISO, with no additional "PP" NR after conversion, only some selective sharpening of the little critter.
By way of IQ comparison, same subject at 1250 ISO.
No meaningful difference in noise terms...
Pixel density is an irrelevance when discussing noise, too - sensor size size yes (which is why the only reason the 5DsR improves on crop bodies); pixel density, no.
Stupid-sharp images too - the idea that a 7D Mk III might not get an AA filter is actually a worry, as I get more moire in fine feather detail now, than I'd like...
Is this not sharp enough? 1000mm handheld, too...
Of how about this?
How much sharper could this even be?
I laugh when I see people complaining about the 7D Mk II not being "sharp enough" - it's sharp enough for my buddy Nigel Blake, one of the best pro wildlife/fast jet 'togs in the UK... He uses FF cameras too, but has no problem at all with reaching for his 7D Mk II when he needs the reach.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
It is down to luck - and, to be fair, the skill of the photographer.
Nikon AF does seem to deliver on "tends to focus on the nearest subject" slightly better than Canon, but it's as true to say that it simply isn't as reactive as Canon AF, so it will sometimes hold onto a subject against a cluttered background (or not...) when (depending on the AF mode/settings in use) a Canon's AF might start looking elsewhere.
But it's pretty marginal, and it's not a given that a Nikon will deliver when a Canon won't. I realise that sometimes any advantage is worth having, but Nikon's "superiority" in this use-case is wildly oversold by Nikon users.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I saw them, believe me please. Here is a link to an earlier post where I gave a link to the album of a guy arbitrage who now shoots with Nikons and A9 to get such shots routinely https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...anon-has-a-hard-time.35824/page-2#post-744081
https://www.flickr.com/people/100907765@N08/
You took part in that thread. Rather than admit that he could take such shots, there was the usual flak sent up and the conversation turned to the noise in one of the shots.
If you don't want to believe what I saw and that Nikon and Sony can outperform Canon in difficult tracking situations, so be it - it doesn't make a damn of difference to me.
Upvote
0
Aussie shooter
https://brettguyphotography.picfair.com/
Don't misunderstand me. I am not questioning your integrity. I have no doubt you saw the shots and i have no doubt they were sharp. I was just asking if the whole series was sharp or if it was just one or a few out of a pile that was. And i said i would love to be proven wrong. I also don't doubt that sony and nokon do better at tracking. I know they do. And i know canon have work to do in that.
Ps. That album is stunning
Upvote
0
Thanks for that. He had a series of sharp shots. He was a serious guy, camouflaged from head to toe, with his camouflaged gear suspended from hooked webbing. I like my Canon gear, but I want Canon to keep up and overtake the others.
Upvote
0
Aussie shooter
https://brettguyphotography.picfair.com/
Do you know what focusing 'case' he was using. When it comes to quick birds darting around I tend to use single point but keeping that on a little kingfisher or swallow is basically impossible. Can he actually track a little bird against a background with a zone focus case?
Upvote
0
Sorry, I don't know for sure but it was probably a zone focus. (When I track birds in flight, I use the centre 9 points, which is great against a clear background. You have to be very precise if you stick to the centre point.) Where the Nikon scores is that the AF recognises movement and so can pick up a moving object against a static background. I have been using a Sony RX10 IV as all-purpose travel camera and am very taken with its AF. It recognises objects and remains glued to them, be they flying or on the ground. Point the camera at a bird on the ground and its shape gets surrounded by little green dots in the viewfinder and it gets locked on as it hops around. The same is true for a flying bird. Canon should start using these more sophisticated algorithms.
Upvote
0
While we have all seen great shots from Alan and we can trust that he saw what he saw, there is a counter to that. You could stand two people next to each other with the same camera and lens, Canon or Nikon, and they would get different results, on another day the results could be reversed.
I don't see any difference in the single anecdotal account than that, the guy had his gear dialed in and was on his game.
I don't see any difference in the single anecdotal account than that, the guy had his gear dialed in and was on his game.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 2 staff post(s)
- Contains 2 staff post(s)
