An Update on the 75+mp Camera in the Wild
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
ankorwatt said:
When you ask us to be a little more critical of what we see, and not believe everything we read, does that go for what you say as well? From a completely neutral standpoint, it's hard to believe you are being objective about many of the things you say given what appears to be a continual anti Canon stance from yourself.
Upvote
0
insanitybeard said:
Of course he is not objective, but then no human can be perfectly objective about anything.
The question is, from a sensor performance and resolution standpoint, for the money...the D800 is probably still going to be the camera that delivers the most resolution, around its price point. The future high MP Canon body is very likely going to be a 1 series. So people with a 5D3 budget, will still be using a 5D3. A future 5D4, probably will still be lower in pixel count than the D800. The overall performance gap, however, will likely be closed.
But high pixel count and performance at "gain settings" under ISO 1000, is mainly only useful for landscape shooters on tripods, or who are shooting in mid day. For those of us who shoot wildlife, or people in available light, Canon is still the clear choice. As for fashion shooters using strobes, a high MP sensor is really more for bragging rights than for practical usage, in my opinion. Who needs a 24x36 inch print of someone's eyelashes? Magazines are roughly 8.5 x 11 inches...
Upvote
0
ankorwatt said:
LOL. I'll be however I please, thank you. And as it stands, I am quite critical...if you haven't learned it by now, you should know I like things to be backed up by concrete fact whenever possible...especially from you.
You are telling me not to believe everything I read, and yet, you expect me to simply believe that YOU, of all people, "looked at the raw files and can tell, just from that, that the lens is suffering from centering defects"??? Seriously? How about standing by your own demands, and provide some concrete evidence, procedures, test software, etc. that actually explains HOW you know the lens had centering defects?
I plain and simply don't believe you CAN determine that from an image. So sorry, but if you want me to believe what I read from you, your going to have to do better than simply make a random claim.
Upvote
0
ankorwatt said:
You are looking at the wrong area of the photo. You must not have read the posts related (here and on DPR) to those photos. The point being made is that the CORNERS of the D800, despite its higher spatial resolution than the 5D III, suffer from more distortion. The point being made was that even a higher resolution sensor is not quite enough to compensate for the kind of warping and stretching you get from poorly handled corner performance in a lens.
Upvote
0
ankorwatt said:
If I were reviewing a lens and I got a crap copy, I'd review the crap copy and give it a harsh negative review. The fact of the matter is that a glowing of a review where three out of four copies are junk does not accurately reflect what a person is going to get when they buy one, statistically speaking. If these manufacturers want to get good reviews, they should have better quality control. This isn't rocket science. They could trivially attach every lens to a test rig, measure it, and verify that it is within spec like pretty much every other professional hardware manufacturer does. The fact that they obviously do not do this speaks volumes about their product quality, and I firmly believe that the reviews should reflect that lack of concern.
Upvote
0
Mark D5 TEAM II
Proud N0ink 0wnz0r / crApple iFruitcake H4t3r
Apparently some people are so busy pixel-peeping at 800% they forgot to read this notice highlighted in blue at the top of PZ's reviews:
Upvote
0
I wish you guys would stop arguing. It is obvious that the Nikon sensor that we don't use is far superior to a rumored Canon sensor that nobody has tested or even seen....lens tests on a different body confirm this.
Upvote
0
Dear fellow Canonistas!
I´ve been shooting with Canon since the 1970´s. I have invested enough in expensive glass, to keep me in the Canon loop. My only hope for every new post on Canonrumours is to read about the next jaw dropping Canon product, that can take my photography to the next level. But reading some of the posts on this forum makes me wonder what the motivation amongst some you may be. We can assume that Canon is reading what we are writing. So all the unconditional praise for what they deliver, regardless of what the competition is doing, is a confirmation that what they provide is sufficient. Well, is it??
I am in no way a potential ship jumper. I have obscene amounts of money invested in glass and bodies, that will keep me with Canon for a loooong time. But reading about the Dynamic Range figures, ISO performance and higher MP ++ from the likes of Nikon makes me sometimes wonder what Canon is doing. The 1DX and 5DIII gave me AF beyond what Nikon can deliver and I am very happy with it. But for the next pro body, Canon better provide something we can swipe the Nikon floor with. The comparisons with best selling cars compared to to the actually best cars etc. are at best entertaining.
In this forum I get the feeling that any non-pro Canon statement is similar to treason and worthy of a painful execution. In my view, a critical (when it makes sense) argument against Canon is something they should listen to. So to me, every intelligent and critical statement is welcome!
I have paid serious bucks for all my L-lenses, including 24 TS-E 3.5L II, 16-35 f2.8L II, 24-70 f2.8L II, 70-200 f2.8L IS II, 85 f1.2L II, 400 f2.8L IS II, 600 f4L IS II and a few others. I believe they are the best lenses money can buy. I am also happy with my 5DIII and 1DX, given what they represent in upgrades from my previous 5DII and 1DsIII, but I sincerely hope that with the next pro body, Canon will kick Nikon ass beyond the horizon!
Have a great weekend!
(written after a great Sancerre and an even greater Brunello!)
I´ve been shooting with Canon since the 1970´s. I have invested enough in expensive glass, to keep me in the Canon loop. My only hope for every new post on Canonrumours is to read about the next jaw dropping Canon product, that can take my photography to the next level. But reading some of the posts on this forum makes me wonder what the motivation amongst some you may be. We can assume that Canon is reading what we are writing. So all the unconditional praise for what they deliver, regardless of what the competition is doing, is a confirmation that what they provide is sufficient. Well, is it??
I am in no way a potential ship jumper. I have obscene amounts of money invested in glass and bodies, that will keep me with Canon for a loooong time. But reading about the Dynamic Range figures, ISO performance and higher MP ++ from the likes of Nikon makes me sometimes wonder what Canon is doing. The 1DX and 5DIII gave me AF beyond what Nikon can deliver and I am very happy with it. But for the next pro body, Canon better provide something we can swipe the Nikon floor with. The comparisons with best selling cars compared to to the actually best cars etc. are at best entertaining.
In this forum I get the feeling that any non-pro Canon statement is similar to treason and worthy of a painful execution. In my view, a critical (when it makes sense) argument against Canon is something they should listen to. So to me, every intelligent and critical statement is welcome!
I have paid serious bucks for all my L-lenses, including 24 TS-E 3.5L II, 16-35 f2.8L II, 24-70 f2.8L II, 70-200 f2.8L IS II, 85 f1.2L II, 400 f2.8L IS II, 600 f4L IS II and a few others. I believe they are the best lenses money can buy. I am also happy with my 5DIII and 1DX, given what they represent in upgrades from my previous 5DII and 1DsIII, but I sincerely hope that with the next pro body, Canon will kick Nikon ass beyond the horizon!
Have a great weekend!
(written after a great Sancerre and an even greater Brunello!)
Upvote
0
Eldar said:
I think you may be missing the root of where these debates come from. For the most part, they are usually originated by one particular individual: ankorwatt. I debate him not because his arguments say Nikon DR in a couple of their cameras is better. I debate him because he makes assertions that Canon does not compete because hey cannot compete, that they will never be able to compete, and Canon does not make good cameras solely because their sensors are not as good as the D800's, etc.
Those are all fundamentally flawed and false statements. On several occasions in the past, people have clearly LITERALLY jumped ship as a result of some of the things ankorwatt (and a few others, on occasion) have stated, only to find out that they did not really like the Nikon side of things. Some jumped back. All to the tune of many thousands of dollars. Someone has to debunk the often ridiculous and obviously biased statements ankorwatt makes, which are hard line anti-canon. Just as hard line as you probably see the pro-canon stuff in response to his posts.
I do want Canon to produce better products and compete on every front...not just AF, not just high ISO, not just one thing or another. There are many discussions on this forum that follow exactly the direction you indicated...that we should be asking Canon what we want...until that one particular person posts something...then it's all down hill from there. For the most part, no one denies that Canon has worse low-ISO DR than some Nikon cameras with Sony sensors (there are a few who refuse to believe the facts, though.) But it does need to be made clear that the situations where the D800 and D600 meaningfully outpace any Canon camera is in a very specific few circumstances: ISO 100, ISO 200, and by a very slim margin ISO 400. Honestly, how many Canon shooters do you think use ISO settings ABOVE 400 vs. those who use ISO settings BELOW 400 the majority of the time?
I think far more often than not, a greater percentage of Canon shooters use ISO settings above 400....so many types of photography demand critically good high ISO performance, where as there are a select few that demand critically good ISO 100 performance. Landscapes, studio, maybe street. Beyond ISO 400 physical limitations kick in, and outside of some significant innovations like color splitting microlenses that reduce light loss reaching the sensor or multi-layered photodiodes that increase the charge holding capacity of each photodiode...there isn't much that can be done about those physical limitations. Bigger pixels are all that matter at high ISO, and currently, Canon offers some unparalleled performance in that arena.
You also have to take into account who the squeaky wheels were in a given time frame. Before the D800, the LOUDEST (by far) vocal Canon group were the "fewer megapixels, better high ISO" group. I was one of them, most of the people I knew who shot Canon were asking for fewer megapixels and higher ISO. Second to that, as the rumors about the 5D III started to fly in good quantity, the biggest complaint I remember hearing was about the 5D II AF system. As far as I can tell, Canon has delivered pretty well exactly what their customers were asking for before the new generation actually hit the streets: Fewer megapixels, better high ISO.
Its now another lull between major DSLR releases. By far, the most vocal Canon group is now the "more megapixels, better DR" group. The people who want as many megapixels as they can get their hands on, while concurrently offering more dynamic range. I did not hear much from that group before the D800 hit the streets and DXO posted their review...but now that its out, and people who do things like landscape and studio photography where detail and DR reign supreme, well, of course its the thing everyone wants. Canon delivered exactly what their customers were asking for before. I honestly don't see any reason they won't deliver, or at least try to deliver (I happily admit Exmor is some damn good technology), what their customers are asking for now.
I do think we should be vocal about it. I primarily shoot action, birds and wildlife, so high ISO is usually where I live. I also do landscapes, and I really want a high megapixel, high DR FF sensor for that. I've held off buying a new camera to see what Canon does and where they are headed, because I believe they will deliver something in line with what their customers are asking for. It's just a matter of when...and since we are in the middle of a major cycle, I don't suspect it will be for another year or so. Sadly, any time we get to pondering our wants and desires...ankorwatt usually shows up and marks his territory. :'( Everyone here knows the D800 has better DR. They are sick and tired of being reminded of it. Further, everyone is sick and tired of being told everything that was, is, or will be Nikon always has, is and will forever be better than Canon. Its annoying, its tiresom, its a LOAD OF CRAP, and yet...people believe that crap. So...just about every thread degrades into the same old debate..."Yes, the D800 is wonderful. No, Canon is not incapable of competing. Yes, Canon does many things better than the competition. No, Canon doesn't do everything better than Nikon, Sony, Aptina, or whichever manufacturer is part of the topic of the day. Yes, please shut up ankorwatt, were tired of your DRoning about DRivel..." Problem is...no one can just let ankorwatts comments be...they are usually just too antagonistic, and people are people.
If one single individual was removed from the picture...things would change...radically......I don't think that is going to happen, however.
Upvote
0
jrista said:
The bottom line is this....both companies make great products, with each having their own strengths and weaknesses....the difference between the 1dx and d4(the best that each can make) is so fractionally small that anyone arguing about one being better than the the other is just bored and/or argumentative by nature....same goes for the d800 vs 5d3.
My best photog buddy has a d800...it's better than my 5d3 in some ways, and worse in others.
It's like arguing that a sunrise is prettier than a sunset
Upvote
0
Eldar said:
We really don't know what the labs at Canon are working on....or what state various developments are in..., but we can guess.
My guess is to look at the 70D and this split-pixel focus development. The fact that it is going into production says that it is a viable technology.... A FF size sensor with the dual-pixels the same size as the 70D gives about 52 megapixels... so a 50+ megapixel FF body is quite reasonable, 75 is certainly possible.
If you can split the pixels in one direction, you can split them in another.... it is possible to have alternating vertical and horizontal splits and then get phase detection in two axis.... and even better autofocus ability.
After you have achieved focus, you could either combine the halves into a single pixel, use them as separate pixels, or change the ISO on one side of each pixel pair and combine them as a 16 stop DR pixel, possibly up to 20 stops...
We really don't know what Canon is doing or what they will announce, but I am hopeful for the future. I think we are on the verge of a major step forward.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:Northstar said:
I won't argue about which is prettier, but I appreciate sunsets a lot more because I don't have to get up early to shoot them...
amen to that
Upvote
0
Northstar said:
Heh...you missed my point entirely. The debates that spring up everywhere really aren't about the equipment, which is better, which isn't. They are just a response to the antagonism...which is what everyone gets in almost every thread now. Stop the antagonism, stop the debates...regardless of what the equipment is.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
