- Status
briansquibb said:
How is it even possible not to want more DR?!?!? It's not a preference or personal taste, it's the very essence of image capture! This is no different than saying, for example: I don't want a camera capturing the color red, it's no big deal since I have all the other colors... That's amazingly and unbelievably... well... I don't want to pick a word for here...
Upvote
0
B
briansquibb
Guest
lola said:
Have you checked what DR you are currently using then?
Here is a picture from the weekend - 7DR taken with a 11DR camera.
So what possible benefit would the (so called) 14DR give me? 10fps is far important for me.
You have to remember that the 14DR is not a straight from the camera 14DR, it is a pp'd image to get it (it is a DxO fabricated number). Out of the camera the D800 doesn't manage 12DR so in reality the D800 buys very little extra DR. Sorry that reality doesn't match your Nikon fuelled dreams
Attachments
Upvote
0
gmrza said:
Surely.
As I said some pages back, Canon has better lenses and they alone force many people (including me) to stick with Canon. I accept to pay a bit more to have a slightly inferior camera for the sake of coupling it with a top lens.
But there is of course a limit to it, provided by mere common sense. If Nikon's D600 proves itself to be such a bargain and if Canon doesn't lower prices considerably within 1 year (let's say the old 5D2's price point, at 2900€ for the kit), then it becomes quite inconvenient.
Very good MF primes from Samyang and Voigtländer are chipped in their Nikon versions but not in Canon's. Nikon's 24-70 f/2.8 and 14-24 are very good lenses. Telezooms can be provided by Sigma and Tamron.
My point is... if I can get a very good FF camera for less than 2000€, then I can make it work also without L-grade lenses, and it would be unlikely for me to pay a 1500€ premium for a similarly specced camera.
Upvote
0
briansquibb said:
Eeeerrrr.... when did I insult anyone?
I am clearly talking about price/quality ratios, which is for me the most important feature. There are also people who won't care about it and buy the cheapest or the most high-end product. I'm not saying it's stupid, as long as they don't say it is the best solution on the market.
Upvote
0
lola said:
Imho it's self-evident that everybody would take more dr for free and w/o other tradeoffs, so obviously it's about "what do I want next?". And indeed, personally even on my 60d I very seldom have a problem with dr if I overexpose and recover highlights from raw. The one problem is very low resolution in shadows, but it doesn't concern that many shots.
So for my current shooting style & if'd be asked, I'd want less iso noise over more dr - the latter might be more convenient if shooting events and the like with flash where you often get the exposure wrong and cannot do bracketing.
Upvote
0
I believe you're missing the conception of DR... Please read this article for starters.briansquibb said:
Since when 5D3 shoots at 10fps.?briansquibb said:
Since DxO measures sensor performance, of course they work on post-processed RAW images, what's wrong with that? Don't tell me you're hanging on to JPEG dynamic range in D800-5D3 debate...briansquibb said:
If by saying "out of the camera" you mean shooting JPEG, that's even worse because if you're leaving how your photos will look to a software engineer, you shouldn't even be discussing dynamic range...briansquibb said:
There's no need to dream of cameras, they are simply tools; just like phones, mp3 players, cigarette lighters, etc... I just go and buy whatever fits my needs... Canon now, Nikon tomorrow, something else the other day... Don't get too attached...briansquibb said:
Upvote
0
briansquibb said:
the choice here is: if a "truly excellent" Mercedes cost USD/€ 2.900 and a "quite good" Ford cost USD/€ 3.300 ... why would anyone in their right mind get the Ford?
It really all comes down to Canon's pricing of the 5D3. It is at least 500 too high, no matter which way one looks at it. And even though there are a ton of people who don't care and will buy anyway, that pricing decision is going to bite Canon in the back, as soon as initial market demand is satisfied.
And the pain will be even greater, if/when Nikon comes out with a FF D600 at around 1500.
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:briansquibb said:
the choice here is: if a "truly excellent" Mercedes cost USD/€ 2.900 and a "quite good" Ford cost USD/€ 3.300 ... why would anyone in their right mind get the Ford?
It really all comes down to Canon's pricing of the 5D3. It is at least 500 too high, no matter which way one looks at it. And even though there are a ton of people who don't care and will buy anyway, that pricing decision is going to bite Canon in the back, as soon as initial market demand is satisfied.
And the pain will be even greater, if/when Nikon comes out with a FF D600 at around 1500.
I totally agree... If 5D3 was priced somewhere around $2700, there wouldn't even be a D800-5D3 debate... People would simply see them cameras of different segments... Now, along with the expensive new lenses, people who have invested deeply in Canon feel insulted somehow, thinking that Canon, backed up with the market share, is milking them!
Upvote
0
lola said:
Not necessarily, since they are free to lower the price once early adopters have gotten it. And for them, Canon could have priced the 5d3 @$4000 because they've got the "it it worth it" debate anyway and it's still less money than the 1dx that might be even too much for well-off amateurs.
And if they lower the price, people will still have the "anchor price" $3500 in mind, resulting in two thoughts: "This must be a great camera" and "It's a bargain, since now it's only $2700".
Upvote
0
J
Jotho
Guest
Dylan777 said:TAR said:
Most people wouldn't post their kid pics (playing sport) on the internet, where high FPS would be used. I'm one of them
I completely agree there. Also I shoot a lot of golf with my friends and I am really really sure that no one else than us wants to see those pics where we are trying to understand our swings etc.
Upvote
0
Marsu42 said:
This is true, but not only. There also is a problem of market saturation.
Now the 5D3 is quite a hot seller because everyone who had the need, the firm will and the possibility of buying it is doing so. This includes pros who needed to replace their 5D2 asap, and amateurs... "Canon enthusiats".
Soon enough all these people will have their camera and sales will go down, then there will be warehouse issues and the price will go down to clear the production surplus. If Nikon's D600 is similarly specced and costs a half, then probably this is going to happen even sooner. If Canon is also planning to produce a high-MP camera, I would not be surprised to see the 5D3 priced between D600 and D800, with the new camera above the D800. It would be quite a regular pattern.
As I said, when this camera will cost 2200-2300€ body only, I'll be happy to buy it.
Upvote
0
K
KeithR
Guest
lola said:
Oh, is that right, now?
Firstly: any problems with the DR in these images, from my "lowly" 7D?
This to this.
And
this to this.
I'll answer for you. No, there isn't.
The fact is, DR isn't nearly the unattainable Holy Grail that the whiny, incompetent, malcontent trolls on here would have you believe - and the 5D Mk III is a damn' sight better than the 7D.
Secondly: the base ISO DR advantage of the Noink is just that - the base ISO DR advantage. As soon as you're north of 100 ISO, things are more or less even, and eventually actually become a 5D Mk III advantage as ISO increases.
I never, ever shoot at base ISO, because - for me - shutter speed is always infinitely more important than some notional DR advantage at ISOs I never use: and besides, the images above prove that there's all the DR any reasonable person could reasonably want in any Real World situation - you've just got to know how to get to it, and many don't.
More to the point, I've yet to see the image from any of the whiners that "only" the D800 could produce - and that's because it doesn't exist.
Frames Per Second matters: the wing position of this Short eared owl is "perfect" - not because of any Ninja-like reflexes on my part that allowed me to react to the millisecond to capture the perfect wing position, but because my 7D had the FPS to get just the right moment: I would literally have had only half the likelihood of getting this image if I'd been shooting the D800, and in my experience of bird and sport photography, 6 fps is the lowest frame rate that I would happily work with.
Getting the point yet? The D800 is a nice enough camera, but a complete and utter irrelevance in my world, delivering precisely no useful performance improvements whatsoever for my photography.
The only thing I like about the D800 over the 5D Mk III is the pixel density - but that doesn't get close to outweighing its practical shortfalls in every other context that matters to me.
But you're doing what so many on here do: you assume that what you shoot is what everyone else shoots, that what you want from a camera is all anyone could want from a camera, and that this is therefore all that matters when evaluating one body against another.
Well, you're wrong. Completely, utterly, and unequivocally wrong.
Upvote
0
B
briansquibb
Guest
lola said:
Thank you - yes I do understand DR, and yes DPP gives you the DR of your photo. I shoot RAW and DPP gives the DR of the raw image.
Shame you didn't read my equipment line - else you would have spotted that I dont have a 5DIII
Dont worry just buy yourself a D800 and imagine you are getting 14DR even though there is no need for 14DR in the majority of images.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
