Stu_bert said:
dilbert said:
jrista said:
....
This has NOTHING to do with DXO here, BTW. Just to be very clear. This has everything to do with WHAT PHOTOGRAPHERS ARE ACHIEVING IN REAL LIFEa with the D800. I posted actual real world, artistic photographic examples, not some lab test of a step wedge or a bunch of numbers on paper (things you guys are often ragging on me about) and you guys are STILL denying it. Well...I guess what they say is true. Denial is the most predictable of human behaviors...
I've been harping on about this for ages except that I use DxO as the measuring stick and you're using photos posted by people online. In both cases they amount to the same thing: Canon's sensor is a major issue.
And why are people still denying it? Because you and neuro have been long arguing that DxO's measurements are bad and so any discrepancy between the Nikon and Canon cameras is also flawed. But now you've stumbled across more pictures from real life photographers that show that whilst DxO numbers may leave something to desire, the difference they describe between the two brands is accurate.
You've made your bed in arguing that I (and anyone else) is an idiot for not thinking Canon's sensors are good enough. Use HDR, use better technique, real world doesn't need that many stops because of screen/print issues. Blah blah blah. On and on the two of you have argued about how Nikon's advantage isn't real.
And now you've woken up and discovered that the song you sang has put all of those around you to sleep and they don't want to wake up. Why should anyone feel sorry for you about facing denial from others posting here?
Maybe you'd like to print those words out on paper - or write them down - and post a video of you eating that paper :-D
I'm not sure everyone is denying it. I think it needs to be put in perspective that it is not necessarily a major issue, it does not mean Canon is a dinosaur ready for extinction, and that those people who use Canon are not 2nd class citizens.
I do not dispute that Nikon bodies have more DR and edit latitude. I completely understand Jon's frustration and agree with those that state post processing is more effort inside when you should be outside. I, like many others have experienced the read noise issue, and as I said above you try to work around it. But, I personally take a lot of landscapes in the so called blue hour or twilight. I prefer the look. I also have sunset / sunrise shots but not every shot I take I want to show the complete tonal range. Sometimes I want to direct the viewer to a specific part. DR is a tool that I use in my shots. I often darken areas in a shot with less DR than a Canon sensor can handle exactly because I don't want the full range.
As I said, we need to keep it in perspective.... No dispute Nikon / Sony has the lead. No issue that there are people here who have either both, or have jumped completely to Nikon (curious as to why they are still here, but hey it's free
). People are free to chose, free to move, free to discuss. If we could leave the hyperbole's behind no matter which camp you are in
First, I've never once said Canon users are second class citizens. ;P Guys like DILBERT and friends HAVE said that in the past, but I'm still a Canon user. Canon still kicks ass at high ISO, not just their cameras but the whole entire ecosystem.
Here is the thing. I've been blindsided by how bad the 5D III low ISO performance is. My 7D was better, it simply lacked the frame size for good landscapes (which I hated, I was never able to get the compositions I wanted). The 7D had vertical banding, but other than that, it's noise was actually quite cooperative. The 6D also has FAR less color noise, and hardly any banding as far as I can tell (although I think, given my experience with the 5D III, I would need to use it first hand more to know for sure). The 5D III? It has banding (random crosshatch basically) AND the nastiest color noise I've seen since the 5D II. It's a lot of work to clean it up, so much so that I'm finding it is not worth the effort. The alternative is to use HDR for everything, however HDR has it's limitations as well. You have to deal with ghosting, and sometimes the inverse...you cannot remove ghosts as it causes posterization, so your stuck with one or the other. The solution to that it to take a hell of a lot more frames, but with clouds and/or water, that causes more problems with ghosting. It's a conundrum.
Now, if the rumored 7D II specs indicated Canon was releasing it with a 24mp APS-C sensor with improved DR...even by one stop? I'd have never said anything. I'd have kept defending Canon against the DXO hordes (well, I still will, no reason to stop combating bad science!
), and I'd have waited for the 5D IV. Because Canon would have been demonstrating they are making progress. However...the best rumors at the moment indicate Canon, once again, has not done a damnable thing about their low ISO DR. Not only that, it looks like they aren't even going to introduce a new sensor in a very hotly anticipated camera, one which many (I know it's not just myself) were hoping would get a competitive 24mp sensor, they are instead repurposing the sensor from the 70D. That just crushed my confidence in Canon as a company that is interested in photographic IQ, across the board. The fact that DPAF is the only sensor technology they seem to be messing with on a commercial stale reinforces my opinion that they are currently overly infatuated with video. That could change, but who the heck knows when. Without any confidence, I can't sit around and wait. We've all known for years now that Exmor has more DR. I've gone into extensive essay-style posts on WHY Exmor has better DR, how it's specific design, use of CP-ADC, digital CDS, and remotely located clock/PLL are the fundamental reason why it has better DR, it's not like I did not know. I'm just now at the point where I'm no longer going to wait for Canon to catch up (or, as I suspect is the case, they have already caught up, but have not actually employed the technology they have invented that would solve their IQ problems), and the only real alternative out there with good lenses (and the 14-24, as we all know, is excellent) is the D800/D810/D600.
So, why the heck should I keep waiting, when a D810 is right there, it already has everything I need, and is for sale on the market today? I don't like Nikon ergonomics, but I could solve my landscape photography problem today if I wanted to. I'd prefer to have a high DR Canon camera, but one simply does not exist, and no one has the first bleeding clue as to when it might potentially exist. So, I'm done waiting. I think everyone else who has been waiting and really wants more DR should stop waiting as well.
